Non-equilibrium large deviations and parabolic-hyperbolic PDE with irregular drift

Extracted source text · arXiv 1910.11860

\documentclass[11pt]{amsart}
\usepackage{mathtools, amssymb,amsfonts,amsthm,amscd,amsmath,amsgen,upref,enumerate,nicefrac}

%\usepackage{setspace}
%\doublespacing

%% Spacing

\usepackage[margin=1in]{geometry}

%% Theorems

\theoremstyle{plain}
\newtheorem{cor}{Corollary}
\newtheorem{lem}[cor]{Lemma}
\newtheorem{prop}[cor]{Proposition}
\newtheorem{con}[cor]{Control}
\newtheorem{thm}[cor]{Theorem}
\newtheorem*{thm*}{Theorem}
\theoremstyle{definition}
\newtheorem{definition}[cor]{Definition}
\newtheorem{remark}[cor]{Remark}
\newtheorem{example}[cor]{Example}
\newtheorem{assumption}[cor]{Assumption}
%% Numbering

\numberwithin{cor}{section}
\numberwithin{equation}{section}

%% Math operators

\DeclareMathOperator{\tr}{tr}
\DeclareMathOperator{\diam}{diam}
\DeclareMathOperator{\dist}{dist}
\DeclareMathOperator*{\osc}{osc}
\DeclareMathOperator*{\supt}{supp}
\DeclareMathOperator*{\argmin}{argmin}
\DeclareMathOperator*{\essinf}{ess\,inf}
\DeclareMathOperator{\C}{C}
\DeclareMathOperator{\USC}{USC}
\DeclareMathOperator{\LSC}{LSC}
\DeclareMathOperator{\BUC}{BUC}
\DeclareMathOperator{\BV}{BV}
\DeclareMathOperator{\Var}{Var}
\DeclareMathOperator{\divg}{div}
\DeclareMathOperator{\Int}{Int}
\DeclareMathOperator{\Supp}{Supp}
\DeclareMathOperator{\err}{Err}
\DeclareMathOperator{\deter}{det.}
\DeclareMathOperator{\ibp}{i.b.p.}
\DeclareMathOperator{\rp}{r.p.}

%% Macros

\newcommand{\8}{\infty}
\newcommand{\df}{\mathcal{E}}
\newcommand{\dom}{\mathcal{D}}
\newcommand{\E}{\mathbb{E}}
\newcommand*{\pairing}[3]{\sideset{_{#1}^{}}{_{#3}^{}}{\mathop{\bracket{{#2}}}}}

\newcommand{\lexp}[2]{{\vphantom{#2}}^{#1}{#2}}
\newcommand{\lsub}[2]{{\vphantom{#2}}_{#1}{#2}}
\newcommand{\dualdel}[3]{\sideset{_{#1^\ast}}{_{#1}}{\mathop{\left\langle{#2},{#3}\right\rangle}}}

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
% Renew
\newcommand{\esssup}{\text{ess sup}}
\let\To\Rightarrow 
\newcommand{\td}{\tilde}
\renewcommand{\d}{\delta}
\newcommand{\z}{\zeta}
\renewcommand{\and}{\quad\textrm{ and }\quad}
\renewcommand{\S}{\mathcal{S}}
\renewcommand{\P}{\mathbb{P}}
\renewcommand{\a}{\alpha}
\renewcommand{\b}{\beta}
\renewcommand{\k}{\kappa}
\renewcommand{\L}{\Lambda}
\renewcommand{\l}{\lambda}
\renewcommand{\o}{\omega}
\renewcommand{\O}{\Omega}
\renewcommand{\t}{\theta}
%\newcommand{\T}{\mcT}
\renewcommand{\AA}{\overset{\circ}{A}}
\renewcommand{\Re}{K\mathfrak{e}\,}
\renewcommand{\Im}{\mathfrak{I}\mathfrak{m}\,}
% \renewcommand{\mit}{\quad\mbox{ mit }\quad}
\renewcommand{\div}{\text{div}}
\newcommand{\Div}{\text{Div}}
\newcommand{\sgn}{\text{sgn}}
\newcommand{\Lip}{\text{Lip}}
\newcommand{\Ent}{\text{Ent}}
\renewcommand{\Cup}{\bigcup\limits}
\renewcommand{\Cap}{\bigcap\limits}



%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

\newcommand{\obda}{\text{o.B.d.A. }}
\newcommand{\Obda}{\text{O.B.d.A. }}
\newcommand{\ohne}[1]{\setminus\{#1\}}


%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
% Abbreviations:

% \newcommand{\for}{\quad\mbox{ for }\quad}
\newcommand{\wrt}{\;\textrm{wrt}\;}
\newcommand{\supp}{\;\textrm{supp}\;}
\newcommand{\singsupp}{\;\textrm{sing supp}\;}
\newcommand{\rimpl}{\glqq$\To$\grqq: }
\newcommand{\limpl}{\glqq$\Leftarrow$\grqq: }
\newcommand{\seq}{\stackrel{\sim}{=}}
\newcommand{\ov}{\overline}
\newcommand{\ub}{\underbrace}
\newcommand{\ol}{\overline}
\newcommand{\inter}{\circ}


\DeclareMathOperator{\grad}{grad}
\DeclareMathOperator{\var}{var}

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%Script char:
\newcommand{\mcA}{\mathcal{A}}
\newcommand{\mcT}{\mathcal{T}}
\newcommand{\A}{\mathcal{A}}
\newcommand{\mcJ}{\mathcal{J}}
\newcommand{\mcG}{\mathcal{G}}
\newcommand{\mcL}{\mathcal{L}}
\newcommand{\mcO}{\mathcal{O}}
\newcommand{\mcV}{\mathcal{V}}
\newcommand{\mcF}{\mathcal{F}}
\newcommand{\mcK}{\mathcal{K}}
\newcommand{\mcI}{\mathcal{I}}
\newcommand{\mcP}{\mathcal{P}}
\newcommand{\mcE}{\mathcal{E}}
\newcommand{\mcN}{\mathcal{N}}
\newcommand{\mcM}{\mathcal{M}}
\newcommand{\F}{\mathcal F}
\newcommand{\mcD}{\mathcal D}
\newcommand{\mcC}{\mathcal C}
\newcommand{\mcH}{\mathcal H}
\newcommand{\mcS}{\mathcal{S}}
\newcommand{\mcU}{\mathcal{U}}
\newcommand{\mcR}{\mathcal{R}}


\newcommand{\mfK}{K}
\newcommand{\mfc}{\mathfrak{c}}
\newcommand{\ind}{\mathbb{I}}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
% misc:
\newcommand{\p}{\partial}
\newcommand{\R}{\mathbb{R}}
\newcommand{\TT}{\mathbb{T}}
\newcommand{\Co}{\mathbb{C}}
\newcommand{\N}{\mathbb{N}}
\newcommand{\Z}{\mathbb{Z}}
\newcommand{\Q}{\mathbb{Q}}
\newcommand{\M}{\mathbb{M}}
\newcommand{\K}{\mathbb{K}}

\newcommand{\<}{\langle}
\renewcommand{\>}{\rangle}
\newcommand{\Vbk}[1]{\ _{V^*}\langle #1\rangle_V}
\newcommand{\bracket}[1]{\langle #1\rangle}
\newcommand{\bk}[1]{\langle #1\rangle}
\newcommand{\bra}[1]{\langle #1 |}
\newcommand{\ket}[1]{|#1 \rangle}
\newcommand{\norm}[1]{\left\| #1 \right\|}
\newcommand{\vecc}[2]{\left(\begin{array}{c}#1\\#2\end{array}\right)}
\newcommand{\veccc}[3]{\left(\begin{array}{c}#1\\#2\\#3\end{array}\right)}
\newcommand{\kdots}{,\ldots,}
\newcommand{\es}{\emptyset}

% Greek char:
\newcommand{\D}{\Delta}
\newcommand{\g}{\gamma}
% \newcommand{\G}{\Gamma}
\newcommand{\s}{\sigma}
\newcommand{\vp}{\varphi}
\newcommand{\vP}{\varPhi}
\newcommand{\vr}{\kappa}
\newcommand{\ve}{\varepsilon}
\newcommand{\vt}{\vartheta}

% Arrows:
\newcommand{\too}{\longrightarrow}
\newcommand{\lr}{\leftrightarrow}
\newcommand{\LR}{\Leftrightarrow}
\newcommand{\inkl}{\hookrightarrow}

% own tags:
\newcommand{\stag}{\tag{$\star$}}
\newcommand{\sstag}{\tag{$\star\star$}}
\newcommand{\ssstag}{\tag{$\star\star\star$}}

% more:
\newcommand{\limn}{\lim \limits_{n \to \infty}}
\newcommand{\sumn}{\sum \limits_{n=1}^{\infty}}
\newcommand{\sumnn}{\sum \limits_{n=0}^{\infty}}
\newcommand{\sms}{\setminus}
\newcommand{\lin}{\textrm{lin}}

\newcommand{\und}{\quad\mbox{ und }\quad}
\newcommand{\fur}{\quad\mbox{ f"ur }\quad}

\newcommand{\abl}[2]{\frac{\partial #1}{\partial #2}}
\newcommand{\tabl}[2]{\frac{d #1}{d #2}}

%\renewcommand{\qed}{\hfill\textit{q.e.d.}}

%\renewcommand{\note}[1]{\qquad \textrm{(#1)}}
\newcommand{\m}[1]{\quad \textrm{#1}}

% boxes:
\newcommand{\cbox}[1]{\begin{center}\fbox{\;#1\;}\end{center}}
\newcommand{\cmbox}[1]{\begin{center}\fbox{$\displaystyle\;#1\;$}\end{center}}

% contradition arrow:
\newcommand{\WS}{\hfill{\large \Lightning}\par}

% Limits above/below:
\newcommand{\I}{\int\limits}
\newcommand{\Sum}{\sum\limits}
\newcommand{\Prod}{\prod\limits}
\newcommand{\Min}{\min\limits}
\newcommand{\Max}{\max\limits}
\newcommand{\Lim}{\lim\limits}
\newcommand{\Inf}{\inf\limits}
\newcommand{\Sup}{\sup\limits}
\newcommand{\Liminf}{\liminf\limits}
\newcommand{\Limsup}{\limsup\limits}
\newcommand{\Otimes}{\bigotimes\limits}
\newcommand{\Oplus}{\bigoplus\limits}



\newcommand{\abs}[1]{\left|#1\right|}
\providecommand{\ud}[1]{\, \mathrm{d} #1}
\providecommand{\dx}{\ud{x}}
\providecommand{\dy}{\ud{y}}
\providecommand{\dxi}{\ud \xi}
\providecommand{\deta}{\ud{\eta}}
\providecommand{\dr}{\ud{r}}
\providecommand{\drp}{\ud{r'}}
\providecommand{\dxp}{\ud{x'}}
\providecommand{\dxip}{\ud{\xi'}}
\providecommand{\dyp}{\ud{y'}}
\providecommand{\ds}{\ud{s}}
\providecommand{\dt}{\ud{t}}
\providecommand{\dz}{\ud{z}}
\providecommand{\dd}{\ud}

\def\Xint#1{\mathchoice
{\XXint\displaystyle\textstyle{#1}}%
{\XXint\textstyle\scriptstyle{#1}}%
{\XXint\scriptstyle\scriptscriptstyle{#1}}%
{\XXint\scriptscriptstyle\scriptscriptstyle{#1}}%
\!\int}
\def\XXint#1#2#3{{\setbox0=\hbox{$#1{#2#3}{\int}$ }
\vcenter{\hbox{$#2#3$ }}\kern-.6\wd0}}
\def\ddashint{\Xint=}
\def\dashint{\Xint-}

\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage{color}
\newcommand{\TODO}[1]{{\color{red}(TODO #1)} }


%Show labels in left margin
%\usepackage[notref,notcite]{showkeys}

\title{Large deviations of nonlinear diffusion equations with nonlinear, conservative white noise}


\author{Benjamin Fehrman, Benjamin Gess}

\date{\today}

\makeatother

\providecommand{\theoremname}{Theorem}

\begin{document}
\title{Large Deviations for conservative stochastic PDE and non-equilibrium fluctuations}
\begin{abstract}
The large deviations rate function for nonlinear diffusion equations with conservative, nonlinear white noise is identified by proving the $\Gamma$-convergence of rate functions to approximating stochastic PDE. In addition, a corresponding uniform large deviations principle for the joint small noise, ultra-violet cutoff limit for the approximating SPDE is obtained. The limiting rate function is shown to coincide with the rate function describing the large deviations of the zero range process from its hydrodynamic limit. The proof relies on a detailed analysis of the associated skeleton equation---a degenerate parabolic-hyperbolic PDE with irregular drift. The well-posedness and stability of this class of PDE in energy-critical spaces is the second main result of this work.
\end{abstract}

\maketitle

\markright{LARGE DEVIATIONS FOR CONSERVATIVE SPDE}

\section{Introduction}

Macroscopic fluctuation theory (MFT) introduces a general framework for non-equilibrium diffusive systems (see, for example, Bertini, De Sole, Gabrielli, Jona Lasinio, and Landim \cite{BDSGJLL15}, Derrida \cite{D07}), thus extending Onsager like near to equilibrium theories for non-equilibrium thermodynamics.

 MFT, which is based on a constitutive formula for large fluctuations around thermodynamic variables, like density and current, can be justified by fluctuating hydrodynamics (see, for example, Hohenberg, and Halperin \cite{HH77}, Landau, and Lifshitz \cite{LL87}, Spohn \cite{S91}). The latter postulates a conservative, singular stochastic PDE describing fluctuations in systems out of equilibrium. The fundamental ansatz of MFT can then be obtained, informally, from fluctuating hydrodynamics as the zero noise large deviations principle for this stochastic PDE. In addition to this conceptual relevance, the relation between zero noise large deviations for conservative stochastic PDE and MFT may serve as the basis for the development of important sampling techniques to numerically simulate rare events in systems far from equilibrium (see, for example, E, Ren, and Vanden-Eijnden \cite{ERVE07}, Grafke and Vanden-Eijnden \cite{GVE18}, Vanden-Eijnden and Weare \cite{VEW12}).

Taking this as motivation, in this work we provide a rigorous link between zero-noise large deviations to conservative stochastic PDE and rate functions appearing in interacting particle systems, the latter being an example for MFT. The rigorous analysis relies on the well-posedness and stability of the associated skeleton equation, a parabolic-hyperbolic PDE, of the type
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}\partial_t\rho & =\D\Phi(\rho)-\nabla\cdot(\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho)g) &  & \textrm{in}\;\;\mathbb{T}^d\times(0,T),\end{aligned}
\label{eq:intro-skeleton}
\end{equation}
with irregular coefficients $g\in L^2(\TT^d\times (0,T);\R^d)$, the $d$-dimensional torus $\TT^d$, and a monotone nonlinearity $\Phi$. This is the technical core of this work. The results obtained here extend to the nonlinear setting the concepts of renormalized solutions, introduced by DiPerna and Lions \cite{DPL89}, Ambrosio \cite{A04-1}, Le Bris and Lions \cite{LBL08}, and combine these with the concept of kinetic solutions introduced by Lions, Perthame, and Tadmor \cite{LPT94} and Chen and Perthame \cite{CP03}.

We next describe in more detail the main results, concentrating on the large deviations in the zero range process. In this context, the connection between the far from equilibrium behaviour and large deviations in conservative stochastic PDE has been suggested, for example, by Dirr, Stamatakis, and Zimmer in \cite{DSZ16}.  The hydrodynamic limit of the empirical density field $\mu^n$ of the zero range process on the torus $\mathbb{T}^d$ is given as the solution to a nonlinear diffusion equation
\begin{equation}
\partial_{t}\rho=\Delta\Phi(\rho)\quad\textrm{in}\;\;\mathbb{T}^d\times(0,\infty),\label{eq:introPDE}
\end{equation}
where $\Phi$ is the mean local jump rate of the particle process (see, for example, Ferrari, Presutti, and Vares \cite{FPV83}, Kipnis and Landim \cite{KL99}). 

Having understood the mean behavior, one is interested in fluctuations away from the hydrodynamic limit. Large fluctuations, although infrequent, can have catastrophic effects, for example earthquakes, mechanical failure (see, for example \cite{ERVE07,GVE18,VEW12}). It is thus important both to understand and to simulate them. Large fluctuations around the hydrodynamic limit \eqref{eq:introPDE} are described in terms of a large deviations principle with rate function $I$.  The rate function estimates the ``im-''probability of an event $\mcC$ on an exponential scale, in the sense that,
% for the empirical densities $\{\mu^n\}_{n\in\N}$ that converge as $n\rightarrow\infty$ to the solution of \eqref{eq:introPDE}, as $n\rightarrow\infty$,
\begin{align*}
\log\P[\mu^n\in\mcC] & \approx e^{-n\inf_{\mu\in\mcC}I(\mu)}.
\end{align*}
In \cite{BKL95}, Benois, Kipnis, and Landim identified the rate function for the dynamic fluctuations of the zero range process in one-dimension around its hydrodynamic limit \eqref{eq:introPDE} as
\begin{equation}
I_{0}(\mu)=\frac{1}{2}\inf\left\{\norm{g}^2_{L^2(\TT^d\times[0,T];\R^d)}\colon \partial_{t}\rho=\Delta\Phi(\rho)-\nabla\cdot (\Phi^{\frac{1}{2}}(\rho)g)\right\},\label{eq:intro-rate-function}
\end{equation}
where $\mu$ is a measure that is absolutely continuous with respect to the Lebesgue measure, where $\rho$ is the density of $\mu$, and where $I_0(\mu)=+\infty$ if $\mu$ is singular with respect to the Lebesgue measure.

In \cite{DSZ16}, it was also observed informally that the $\ve\rightarrow 0$ fluctuations of the solutions to the stochastic PDE, for $\xi$ an $\R^d$-valued space-time white noise,
\begin{equation}
\partial_{t}\rho=\Delta\Phi(\rho)-\sqrt{\ve}\nabla\cdot(\Phi^{\frac{1}{2}}(\rho)\xi)\quad\textrm{in}\;\;\TT^d\times(0,\infty),\label{eq:intro-SPDE}
\end{equation}
about the solution of \eqref{eq:introPDE} should also satisfy a large deviations principle with the rate function $I_0$ in \eqref{eq:intro-rate-function}.  

In particular, this links the case of independent particles, which corresponds to the mean local jump rate $\Phi(\rho)=\rho$, to the Dean-Kawasaki stochastic PDE 
\begin{equation}
\partial_{t}\rho=\Delta\rho-\sqrt{\ve}\nabla\cdot (\rho^{\frac{1}{2}}\xi)\quad\textrm{in}\;\;\TT^d\times(0,\infty),\label{eq:introDK}
\end{equation}
which has been considered, for example, by Dean \cite{D96}, Donev, Fai, and Vanden-Eijnden \cite{DFVE14}, Donev, and Vanden-Eijnden \cite{DVE14}, Konarovskyi and von Renesse \cite{KR15,KR17}, and Lehmann, Konarovskyi, and von Renesse \cite{LKR19}.  

This relationship, however, had to remain informal, since \eqref{eq:intro-SPDE} is not known to be well-posed. For a discussion of this issue and the appearance of ultra-violet divergences in fluctuating hydrodynamics see \cite[p.\ 595]{BDSGJLL15}. Indeed, in the language of singular stochastic PDE and regularity structures (see, for example, Hairer \cite{H13-3}, Gubinelli, Imkeller, and Perkowski \cite{GIP12}), \eqref{eq:intro-SPDE} and \eqref{eq:introDK} are supercritical and, therefore, fall outside the scope of the theory.  Furthermore, it has been observed in \cite{LKR19} that a renormalization is necessary in order to obtain function-valued solutions of \eqref{eq:introDK}.  These renormalization terms destroy the relationship between the stochastic PDE and the zero range process, since they appear in the rate function for \eqref{eq:introDK} and thereby lead to incorrect predictions of rare events for the particle process. We refer to Hairer and Weber \cite{HW15} for a discussion of related aspects in the context of (singular) stochastic Allen-Cahn equations.

The purpose of this paper is to make rigorous the informal relation between small noise large deviations for conservative stochastic PDE and non-equilibrium fluctuations in zero range processes outlined above.  To address the issue of renormalization we consider joint limits in the scale $\ve<<\frac{1}{K}$ for a class of stochastic PDE of the form 
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}\partial_t\rho & =\D\Phi(\rho)-\sqrt{\ve}\nabla\cdot(\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho)\xi^K) &  & \textrm{in}\;\;\mathbb{T}^d\times(0,\infty),\end{aligned}
\label{intro_eq-1}
\end{equation}
where $\xi^K$ denotes a spectral approximation of $\R^d$-valued space-time white noise $\xi$, $\Phi\in W^{1,1}_{\textrm{loc}}([0,\infty))$ is a strictly increasing nonlinearity. In view of the scale $\ve<<\frac{1}{K}$, possible renormalization constants vanish in the limit, leading to the correct rate function \eqref{eq:intro-rate-function}.  

Since \eqref{intro:spde} is not known to be well-posed, because of the potential singularity of $\Phi^\frac{1}{2}$, we consider a sequence of smooth approximations $\{\Phi^{\eta}\}_{\eta\in(0,1)}$ of $\Phi$ and the corresponding stochastic PDE
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}\partial_{t}\rho & =\D\Phi(\rho)-\sqrt{\ve}\nabla\cdot\left(\Phi^{\frac{1}{2},\eta}(\rho)\xi^K\right) &  & \textrm{in}\;\;\TT^d\times(0,\infty),\end{aligned}
\label{intro:spde}
\end{equation}
which recently has been shown by the authors to be well-posed in \cite{FG17}. The rough paths approach developed in \cite{FG17}, together with the contraction principle of large deviations theory, imply a zero noise large deviations principle for \eqref{intro:spde}, with rate function $J^{\eta,K}\colon L^{1}([0,T];L^{1}(\TT^{d}))\rightarrow[0,\infty],$
%
given by
\begin{equation}
J^{\eta,K}(\rho)=\frac{1}{2}\inf\left\{\norm{g}^2_{L^2(\TT^d\times[0,T];\R^d)}\colon \partial_{t}\rho=\Delta\Phi(\rho)-\nabla\cdot(\Phi^{\frac{1}{2},\eta}(\rho)P^Kg)\right\},\label{finite_rate_function-1-1}
\end{equation}
%
where $P^Kg$ denotes the $K$-dimensional Fourier projection of $g$.

The first main result addresses the joint limit $K\rightarrow\infty$, $\eta \rightarrow 0$.  We observe that, while the assumptions presented below are more general, every result in this paper applies to the particular case of $\Phi(\xi)=\xi^m$ for some $m\in[1,\infty)$.  That is, the results apply to the particular cases of pure diffusion and porous media nonlinearities.
\begin{thm*}
[cf.\ Theorem~\ref{thm:gamma-convergence} below] Let  $T\in(0,\infty)$, $\Phi\in W^{1,1}_{\textrm{loc}}([0,\infty))$ satisfy Assumptions~\ref{as_unique}, \ref{as_equiv}, \ref{as_pre}, \ref{ass_log}, and \ref{ass_interpolate} below, and consider $J\colon L^{1}([0,T];L^{1}(\TT^d))\rightarrow[0,\infty]$ defined by
\begin{equation}
J(\rho)=\frac{1}{2}\inf\left\{\norm{g}^2_{L^2(\TT^d\times[0,T];\R^d)}\colon \partial_{t}\rho=\Delta\Phi(\rho)-\nabla\cdot(\Phi^{\frac{1}{2}}(\rho)g)\right\}.\label{intro_rate_function}
\end{equation}
 Then, there exists a sequence of smooth approximations  $\{\Phi^{\eta}\colon\R\rightarrow\R\}_{\eta\in(0,1)}$ of $\Phi$ (cf.\ Lemma~\ref{ass_phi_reg} below), such that the rate function defined in \eqref{finite_rate_function-1-1} satisfies, as $K\rightarrow\infty$ and $\eta\rightarrow0$, 
\[
J^{\eta,K}\overset{\Gamma}{\longrightarrow}J,
\]
in the sense of $\Gamma$-convergence.
\end{thm*}

The second main result identifies a joint scaling limit $\{(K(\ve),\eta(\ve))\}_{\ve\in(0,1)}$ satisfying $K(\ve)\rightarrow\infty$ and $\eta(\ve)\rightarrow 0$ as $\ve\rightarrow 0$ such that the solutions $\{\rho^\ve\}_{\ve\in(0,1)}$ satisfying
%
\begin{equation}\label{weak_ldp_eq_intro}\partial_t\rho^\ve=\Delta\Phi(\rho^\ve)-\sqrt{\ve}\nabla\cdot\left(\Phi^{\frac{1}{2},\eta(\ve)}(\rho^\ve)\xi^{K(\ve)}\right)\;\;\textrm{in}\;\;\TT^d\times(0,\infty),\end{equation}
%
satisfy a uniform large deviations principle with rate function given by the rate function of the particle process \eqref{eq:intro-rate-function}.  That is, we identify a scaling regime for which renormalization constants do not enter the large deviations rate function, and thereby find a scaling regime that preserves the relationship between the large deviations of the SPDE and particle process. 
%In fact, following the weak approach to large deviations of Budhiraja, Dupuis, and Maroulas \cite{BudDupMar2008}, we prove not only that the solutions of \eqref{weak_ldp_eq_intro} along this scaling limit satisfy a large deviations principle with rate function \eqref{eq:intro-rate-function} (cf.\ Definition~\ref{def_ldp} below), but also that the solutions of \eqref{weak_ldp_eq_intro} satisfy a large deviations principle uniformly with respect to compact subsets of the initial data (cf.\ Definition~\ref{def_uniform_Laplace} below).  

The proofs of these results crucially rely on the well-posedness and the weak-strong stability with respect to the control $g$ of the skeleton equation \eqref{eq:intro-skeleton}. 

\begin{thm*}[cf.\ Theorem~\ref{prop_collapse_3} below]  Let $T\in(0,\infty)$ and let $\Phi\in W^{1,1}_{\textrm{loc}}([0,\infty))$ satisfy Assumptions~\ref{as_unique},  \ref{as_equiv}, \ref{ass_log}, \ref{ass_interpolate}, \ref{as_weak_ldp_1}, and %\ref{as_weak_ldp_2},  
\ref{as_weak_ldp_22} below.  Then, there exists a sequence of smooth approximations  $\{\Phi^{\eta}\colon\R\rightarrow\R\}_{\eta\in(0,1)}$ of $\Phi$ (cf.\ Lemma~\ref{ass_phi_reg} below) such that in the scaling regime %$\Phi$ satisfies \eqref{as_weak_ldp_22} below and $\{(\ve,\eta(\ve),K(\ve))\}_{\ve\in(0,1)}$ satisfy, as $\ve\rightarrow 0$,
%
$$\ve K(\ve)^3\rightarrow 0\;\;\textrm{and}\;\;(\eta(\ve),K(\ve))\rightarrow (0,\infty),$$
%
%or if $\Phi$ satisfies \eqref{as_weak_ldp_21} below and $\{(\ve,\eta(\ve),K(\ve))\}_{\ve\in(0,1)}$ satisfy, as $\ve\rightarrow 0$,
%%
%$$\left(K(\ve)^3\ve+K(\ve)^2\ve\norm{\left(\Phi^{\frac{1}{2},\eta(\ve)}\right)'}_{L^\infty([0,\infty))}\right)\rightarrow 0\;\;\textrm{and}\;\;(\eta(\ve),K(\ve))\rightarrow(0,\infty),$$
%
the solutions $\{\rho^\ve\}_{\ve\in(0,1)}$ of \eqref{weak_ldp_eq_intro} satisfy a uniform large deviations principle with rate function given in \eqref{eq:intro-rate-function}. % uniformly with respect to compact subsets of the initial data (cf.\ Definition~\ref{def_uniform_Laplace}  below). 
\end{thm*}

To illustrate some of the difficulties we now consider the model case of the porous media equation ($\Phi(\rho)=\rho^m$, for some $m\in[1,\infty)$), that is, 
\begin{equation}
\partial_{t}\rho=\D\rho^m-\nabla\cdot\left(\rho^\frac{m}{2}g\right)\quad\textrm{in}\;\;\mathbb{T}^d\times(0,\infty).\label{eq:intro-skeleton-2}
\end{equation}
%
Scaling arguments (see Section~\ref{energy_critical} below) demonstrate that \eqref{eq:intro-skeleton-2} is critical for controls $g\in L^q([0,T];L^p(\TT^d;\R^d))$ for $q=p=2$ and initial condition in $L^1(\TT^d)$, and is supercritical for initial condition in $L^r(\TT^d)$, for every $r\in(1,\infty)$.  Hence, even in the case of independent particles $\ensuremath{\Phi(\rho)=\rho}$, the skeleton equation \eqref{eq:intro-skeleton} with $g\in L^2(\TT^d\times[0,T];\R^d)$ is not of semilinear nature, since also on small scales the diffusive operator does not dominate the convective term. Consequently, the well-posedness and stability of solutions to \eqref{eq:intro-skeleton} are challenging problems.

In this paper we obtain a new a-priori estimate, which leads to the existence of weak solutions (see Definition~\ref{classical_weak} below) to \eqref{eq:intro-skeleton} and optimal regularity estimates. In contrast to linear Fokker-Planck equations (see, for example, Le Bris and Lions \cite{LBL04,LBL08}), the super-criticality of \eqref{eq:intro-skeleton} in $L^r(\TT^d)$ for $r\in(1,\infty)$ makes it impossible to exploit $L^r(\TT^d)$-based estimates. Our new a-priori estimates are based on entropy-entropy dissipation, which require the nonnegativity of the initial data and yield that, for some $c\in(0,\infty)$,
%
\begin{equation}\label{intro:apriori} \left.\int_{\TT^d}\Psi_\Phi(\rho)\dx\right|_{t=0}^{t=T}+\int_0^T\int_{\TT^d}\abs{\nabla  \Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho)}^2\dx\dt
%
 \leq c\int_0^T\int_{\TT^d}\abs{g(x,t)}^2\dx\dt,
%
\end{equation}
with $
\Psi_\Phi(\xi)=\int_0^\xi\log(\Phi(\xi'))\dxip.
$
%
We therefore define the energy space for the initial data to be
%
\begin{equation}\label{intro_energy_space}\Ent_\Phi(\TT^d)=\left\{\rho_0\in L^1(\TT^d)\colon \rho_0\geq 0\;\;\textrm{and}\;\;\int_{\TT^d}\Psi_\Phi(\rho_0(x))\dx<\infty\right\}.\end{equation}
%

The proof of uniqueness becomes significantly more complicated because of the lower integrability of the solution provided by \eqref{intro:apriori}. For this reason previous techniques such as Otto \cite{O96} do not apply.  Indeed, the arguments of \cite{O96} were based on $L^r(\TT^d)$ estimates, for $r\in(1,\infty)$. 

Here, we introduce the concept of a renormalized kinetic solution to \eqref{eq:intro-skeleton} (see Definition~\ref{skel_sol_def} below) to recover the uniqueness. In fact, it is necessary to deal with two new difficulties, namely,
\begin{enumerate}
\item It is not obvious that weak solutions are renormalized kinetic solutions, a difficulty that should be expected from the linear case (see, for example, DiPerna and Lions \cite{DPL89}, Ambrosio \cite{A04-1}).  In fact, in comparison to the linear case, additional commutator errors appear due to commuting convolutions and nonlinearities in \eqref{eq:intro-skeleton}, and commutator estimates have to be based on the regularity $\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho)$ implied by \eqref{intro:apriori} rather than on regularity of $\rho$ itself. \\
As a consequence, the proof of the fact that weak solutions are renormalized solutions relies on delicate commutator estimates, crucially exploiting the new and optimal regularity estimates for solutions to \eqref{eq:intro-skeleton} developed in this work. 
\item Even on the renormalized level, standard techniques for uniqueness (see, for example \cite{ChenPerthame}) do not apply, since the estimate \eqref{intro:apriori} does not imply the decay of entropy defect measures at infinity.
\end{enumerate}  
%Precisely, the $\Gamma$-convergence will require that a weakly convergent sequence of controls induces a strongly convergent sequence of solutions. 
 
The well-posedness of the skeleton equation and the weak-strong continuity are summarized by the next theorem.

\begin{thm*}[c.f.\ Theorem \ref{thm_unique}, Theorem \ref{equiv}, Proposition \ref{gen_exist}, Proposition \ref{weak_strong} below] Fix $T\in(0,\infty)$ and $\Phi\in W^{1,1}_{\textrm{loc}}([0,\infty))$ satisfying Assumptions~\ref{as_unique},  \ref{as_equiv}, \ref{as_pre}, \ref{ass_log}, and \ref{ass_interpolate} below. Then:
\begin{enumerate}
\item For $g\in L^{2}(\TT^d\times [0,T];\R^d)$, and $\rho_{0} \in\Ent_\Phi(\mathbb{T}^d)$, there is a unique weak solution to \eqref{eq:intro-skeleton}. Moreover, if $\rho^{1},\rho^{2}\in L^{\infty}([0,T];L^{1}(\mathbb{T}^d))$ are weak solutions of \eqref{eq:intro-skeleton} with initial data $\rho_{0}^{1},\rho_{0}^{2}$ and the same control $g$, then
\[
\norm{\rho^{1}-\rho^{2}}_{L^{\infty}([0,T];L^{1}(\mathbb{T}^{d}))}\leq\norm{\rho_{0}^{1}-\rho_{0}^{2}}_{L^{1}(\mathbb{T}^{d})}.
\]
\item Fix $\rho_0\in\Ent_\Phi(\TT^d)$ and a sequence $\{g_{n}\}_{n\in\N}\subseteq L^{2}([0,T];L^2(\TT^{d};\R^d))$ with $
g_{n} \rightharpoonup g$ in $L^{2}([0,T];L^2(\TT^d;\R^d)),$
and let $\rho_{n},\rho \in L^{1}([0,T];L^{1}(\TT^{d}))$ solve \eqref{eq:intro-skeleton} with controls $g_{n},g$ and initial datum $\rho_0$ respectively. Then, 
\[
\rho_{n}\to\rho\;\;\textrm{strongly in}\;\;L^{1}([0,T];L^{1}(\TT^d)).
\]
\end{enumerate}
\end{thm*}

\subsection{Comments on the literature}

Stochastic PDE with conservative noise have been considered in the framework of stochastic scalar conservation laws by Lions, Perthame, and Souganidis \cite{LPS13-2,LPS13,LPS14}, Friz and Gess \cite{FG16}, Gess and Souganidis \cite{GS14,GS17}. These works were later extended to parabolic-hyperbolic stochastic PDE with conservative noise by Gess and Souganidis \cite{GS16-2}, Fehrman and Gess \cite{FG17} and Dareiotis and Gess \cite{DG18}. Approaches to their numerical treatment have been developed by Gess, Perthame, and Souganidis \cite{GPS16}, and Hoel, Karlsen, Risebro, and Storrosten \cite{HKRS17,HKRS18}. Related results on the level of stochastic Hamilton-Jacobi equations, based on entirely different methods, have been developed by Lions and Souganidis \cite{LS98-2,LS98,LS00,LS00-2} (see Souganidis \cite{S18} for a recent account on the theory), with extensions by Friz, Gassiat, Lions, and Souganidis \cite{FGLS16} and Seeger \cite{S18-2}. A detailed analysis of fine properties of solutions has been given by Gassiat and Gess \cite{GG19}, Gassiat, Gess, Lions, and Souganidis \cite{GGLS18}, and Lions and Souganidis \cite{LS19}.

Large deviation estimates for singular stochastic PDE have been derived by Faris and Jona-Lasinio \cite{FJL82}, Jona-Lasinio and Mitter \cite{JLM90}, Cerrai and Freidlin \cite{CF11}, and Hairer and Weber \cite{HW15} in the context of stochastic Allen-Cahn equations. In particular, we emphasize that in \cite{HW15} it is observed that renormalization constants may enter the rate function in the setting of singular stochastic PDE. The results treated in these works are quite different from the present paper, since, due to the additive noise structure of the stochastic Allen-Cahn equation, the treatment of the corresponding skeleton equation does not pose a major difficulty. The authors are not aware of any previous results on large deviations principles for stochastic PDE with conservative noise.

The weak convergence approach to large deviation principles for stochastic PDE goes back to Budhiraja, Dupuis and Maroulas \cite{BudDupMar2008}, and has been used to derive large deviation estimates for singular stochastic PDE by Cerrai, and Debussche \cite{CD19}. Further applications to stochastic PDE with multiplicative noise, depending only on the values of the solution, have been given by Brze\'zniak, Goldys, Jegaraj \cite{BGJ17} and Dong, Wu, Zhang, and Zhang \cite{DWZZ20}.

For literature on the Dean-Kawasaki equation, we refer to  Dean \cite{D96}, Kawasaki \cite{K94}, Donev, Fai, and Vanden-Eijnden \cite{DFVE14}, Donev and Vanden-Eijnden \cite{DVE14}, Konarovskyi and von Renesse \cite{KR15,KR17}, Lehmann, Konarovskyi, and von Renesse \cite{LKR19} and the references therein. The general macroscopic fluctuation theory (MFT) has received considerable attention, with a comprehensive overview given by Bertini, De Sole, Gabrielli, Jona-Lasinio, and Landim in \cite{BDSGJLL15}.

Fluctuations around the limit in the context of the zero range process have been analyzed, for example, by Benois, Kipnis, and Landim in \cite{BKL95}. We also refer to Kipnis and Landim \cite{KL99} and the references therein for a detailed account of the theory.

The well-posedness and stability of solutions to linear Fokker-Planck equations with irregular coefficients has received considerable attention. We refer to Bogachev, Krylov, R\"ockner, and Shaposhnikov \cite{BKRS15} for a detailed account of the literature and to Le Bris, and Lions \cite{LBL04,LBL08}, Ambrosio \cite{A04-1}, Boccardo, Orsina, and Porretta \cite{BOP03}, and Porretta \cite{P15} for approaches relying on renormalization.

\subsection{Overview}  The paper is structured as follows.  At the beginning of each section, we will introduce the necessary assumptions on the nonlinearity $\Phi$.  We prove in Appendix~\ref{sec_pme} that every assumption is satisfied by the model example $\Phi(\xi)=\xi^m$, for any $m\in[1,\infty)$, and therefore that every result in this paper applies to the case of the Laplacian and to every porous media nonlinearity.

In Section~\ref{skeleton}, we present an informal analysis of the skeleton equation broken down as follows.  In Section~\ref{energy_critical}, we argue by scaling that the skeleton equation \eqref{eq:intro-skeleton-2} is energy critical for $L^1(\TT^d)$ and is energy supercritical for $L^p(\TT^d)$, if $p\in(1,\infty)$.  We obtain formal a-priori estimates for the solution of \eqref{eq:intro-skeleton} in Section~\ref{sec_a_priori} and thereby identify the correct energy space \eqref{intro_energy_space} for the initial data.  Based on these estimates, in Section~\ref{renormalized_sol} we define a \emph{renormalized kinetic solution} (see Definition~\ref{skel_sol_def}).

In Section~\ref{sec_unique}, we prove the uniqueness of renormalized kinetic solutions (see Theorem~\ref{thm_unique}).  In Section~\ref{sec_equiv}, we prove in Theorem~\ref{equiv} the equivalence of renormalized kinetic solutions and weak solutions (see Definition~\ref{classical_weak}) to the skeleton equation.  In Section~\ref{sec_existence}, we prove the existence of renormalized kinetic solutions (see Proposition~\ref{gen_exist}), and obtain in Proposition~\ref{weak_strong} the strong continuity of the solutions with respect to weak convergence of the controls.

In Section~\ref{sec_gamma}, we prove in Theorem~\ref{thm:gamma-convergence} that the large deviations rate functions \eqref{finite_rate_function-1-1} $\Gamma$-convergence, as $K\rightarrow\infty$ and $\eta\rightarrow 0$, to the rate function \eqref{intro_rate_function}.  In Section~\ref{sec_uniform_ldp}, we prove the uniform large deviations principle along the joint limit $K\rightarrow\infty$, $\eta,\ve\rightarrow 0$.  The large deviations principle for the regularized equation \eqref{intro:spde} driven by finite-dimensional noise requires Schilder's theorem for Brownian motion enhanced by its Stratonovich integrals, which we recall along with some aspects of rough path theory in Appendix~\ref{sec_rough_path}, and the continuity of the solution with respect to the noise.  The continuity was obtained using a rough path approach to the well-posedness of \eqref{intro:spde} developed by the authors in \cite{FG17}, which we recall in Appendix~\ref{pathwise_kinetic}.


\section{The skeleton equation}\label{skeleton}


The equation defining the large deviations rate function of the zero range process \eqref{eq:intro-rate-function} is the so-called \emph{skeleton equation}.  In Sections~\ref{sec_unique}, \ref{sec_equiv}, and \ref{sec_existence} we will prove the existence and uniqueness of renormalized kinetic solutions (cf.\ Definition~\ref{skel_sol_def} below), for $\rho_0\in\Ent_\Phi(\TT^d)$ and for $g\in L^2(\TT^d\times[0,T];\R^d)$, to the equation
%
\begin{equation}\label{skel_eq}\left\{\begin{aligned}
%
& \partial_t \rho = \Delta\Phi(\rho)-\nabla\cdot\left(\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho)g\right) && \textrm{in}\;\;\TT^d\times(0,T),
%
\\ & \rho=\rho_0 && \textrm{on}\;\;\TT^d\times\{0\}.
%
\end{aligned}\right.
%
\end{equation}
%
We first argue formally in Section~\ref{energy_critical} below that equation \eqref{skel_eq} is energy critical for $L^1(\TT^d)$ and energy supercritical for $L^p(\TT^d)$, if $p\in(1,\infty)$.   This argument suggests that no standard $L^p$-theory can be applied, and indeed in Section~\ref{sec_a_priori} below we derive an energy estimate for solutions with initial data in $\Ent_\Phi(\TT^d)$ defined in \eqref{intro_energy_space}.  This estimate will be the basis for Definition~\ref{skel_sol_def} below, where we present the definition of a renormalized kinetic solution.

We observe in particular that the formal estimates obtained in Section~\ref{sec_a_priori} are significantly weaker than are required to apply standard techniques based on the entropy or kinetic formulation of the equation (cf.\ \cite{ChenPerthame}).  This can be seen on the level of the parabolic defect measure (cf.\ \eqref{parabolic_defect_measure} below), which is neither globally integrable nor decaying at infinity.  The proof of uniqueness therefore requires new techniques to control errors at infinity, and the proof of existence is based on a compactness argument that requires optimal estimates for the solution.

\subsection{Energy criticality}\label{energy_critical}  In this section, we will argue formally that the skeleton equation \eqref{skel_eq} is energy critical for initial data $\rho_0\in L^1(\TT^d)$ and controls $g\in L^2(\TT^d\times[0,T];\R^d)$.  We will consider the case of the porous media equation $\Phi(\xi)=\xi^m$, for some $m\in[1,\infty)$, set on the whole space $\R^d\times[0,\infty)$.  Precisely, for $m,p,q\in[1,\infty)$, $T\in(0,\infty)$, $g\in L^{p}([0,T];L^{q}(\R^d;\R^d))$, and a nonnegative $\rho_0$, suppose that $\rho$ solves
%
$$\left\{\begin{aligned}
%
& \partial_t \rho = \Delta\left(\rho^m\right)-\nabla\cdot\left(\rho^\frac{m}{2}g\right) && \textrm{in}\;\;\R^d\times(0,T],
%
\\ & \rho=\rho_0 && \textrm{on}\;\;\R^d\times\{0\}.
%
\end{aligned}\right.$$
%
We will ``zoom in'' in the sense that, for positive real numbers $\lambda,\eta,\tau\rightarrow 0$ we consider the rescaling
%
$$\tilde{\rho}(x,t)=\lambda \rho(\eta x,\tau t).$$
%
It follows that $\tilde{\rho}$ solves the equation
%
$$\left\{\begin{aligned}
%
\partial_t \tilde{\rho} & = \left(\frac{\tau}{\eta^2\lambda^{m-1}}\right)\Delta\left(\tilde{\rho}^m\right)-\nabla\cdot\left(\tilde{\rho}^\frac{m}{2}\tilde{g}\right) && \textrm{in}\;\;\R^d\times(0,T),
%
\\ \rho & =\lambda \rho_0(\eta\cdot) && \textrm{on}\;\;\R^d\times\{0\},
%
\end{aligned}\right.$$
%
for $\tilde{g}$ defined by
%
\begin{equation}\label{critical_1}\tilde{g}(x,t)=\left(\frac{\tau}{\eta\lambda^{\frac{m}{2}-1}}\right)g(\eta x, \tau t).\end{equation}
%
We are interested in understanding the effect of this scaling on the balance between the parabolic and hyperbolic terms.  We preserve the diffusion by fixing
%
\begin{equation}\label{critical_2}\left(\frac{\tau}{\eta^2\lambda^{m-1}}\right)=1,\end{equation}
%
and for $r\in[1,\infty)$ we preserve the $L^r(\R^d)$-norm of the initial data by fixing
%
\begin{equation}\label{critical_3}\lambda=\eta^\frac{d}{r}.\end{equation}
%
It follows from \eqref{critical_1}, \eqref{critical_2}, and \eqref{critical_3} that
%
$$\begin{aligned}
%
\norm{\tilde{g}}_{L^p([0,T];L^q(\R^d;\R^d))} & =\left(\frac{\tau}{\eta\lambda^{\frac{m}{2}-1}}\right)\left(\int_0^T\left(\int_{\R^d}\abs{g(\eta x, \tau t)}^q\dx\right)^\frac{p}{q}\dt\right)^\frac{1}{p}
%
\\ & = \eta^{1-\frac{d}{p}+\frac{2}{q}+\frac{d}{r}\left(\frac{m}{2}-\frac{m}{q}+\frac{1}{q}\right)}\norm{g}_{L^p([0,T];L^q(\R^d;\R^d))}.
%
\end{aligned} $$
%
To ensure that this norm does not diverge as $\eta\rightarrow 0$, we require that
%
$$1+\frac{d}{r}\left(\frac{m}{2}+\frac{1}{q}\right)\geq \frac{2}{q}+\frac{d}{p}+\frac{dm}{rq}.$$
%
If $p=q=2$, we conclude that $\nicefrac{d}{2r}\geq\nicefrac{d}{2}$ and therefore that $r=1$.  Conversely, since the lefthand side of this equality is largest for $r=1$, and since the case $r=1$ yields the inequality
%
$$1+d\left(\frac{m}{2}+\frac{1}{q}\right)\geq\frac{2}{q}+d\left(\frac{1}{p}+\frac{m}{q}\right),$$
%
we conclude that $p=q=2$ is critical for $L^1(\TT^d)$ and supercritical for $L^r(\R^d)$, for every $r\in(1,\infty)$.

\subsection{A-priori estimates}\label{sec_a_priori}  In this section, we will motivate the definition of a renormalized kinetic solution of the skeleton equation (cf.\ Definition~\ref{skel_sol_def} below).  This definition is the foundation of the existence and uniqueness theory to follow.  We will first derive a formal energy estimate for the solution, and thereby identify the correct energy space for the initial data.

We will restrict attention to nonnegative initial data, which is a necessary assumption for the following estimates to be true (cf.\ Remark~\ref{rem_nonnegative} below).  Let $T\in(0,\infty)$, let $\rho_0\colon\TT^d\rightarrow[0,\infty)$ be nonnegative, let $g\in L^2(\TT^d\times[0,T];\R^d)$, and let $\rho$ denote the solution
%
$$\left\{\begin{aligned}
%
& \partial_t \rho = \Delta\Phi(\rho)-\nabla\cdot\left(\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho)g\right) && \textrm{in}\;\;\TT^d\times(0,T),
%
\\ & \rho=\rho_0 && \textrm{on}\;\;\TT^d\times\{0\}.
%
\end{aligned}\right.$$
%
Let $\psi\colon [0,\infty)\rightarrow\R$, and define $\Psi\colon[0,\infty)\rightarrow\R$ to be the antiderivative
%
$$\Psi(\xi)=\int_0^\xi\psi(\xi')\dxp.$$
%
We test the equation with the composition $\psi(\rho)$ to obtain
%
$$\partial_t\int_{\TT^d}\Psi(\rho)\dx+\int_{\TT^d}\Phi'(\rho)\psi'(\rho)\abs{\nabla  \rho}^2\dx=-\int_{\TT^d}\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho)\psi'(\rho)g(x,t)\cdot\nabla \rho\dx.$$
%
The nonnegativity of $\rho$, H\"older's inequality, and Young's inequality imply that
%
$$\begin{aligned} & \left.\int_{\TT^d}\Psi(\rho)\dx\right|_{t=0}^{t=T}+\int_0^T\int_{\TT^d}\Phi'(\rho)\psi'(\rho)\abs{\nabla  \rho}^2\dx\dt
%
 \\ & \leq \frac{1}{2}\int_0^T\int_{\TT^d}\abs{g(x,t)}^2\dx\dt+\frac{1}{2}\int_0^T\int_{\TT^d}\Phi(\rho)\psi'(\rho)^2\abs{\nabla  \rho}^2\dx\dt.
 %
 \end{aligned}$$
%
To close the estimate we require that
%
$$\Phi(\xi)\psi'(\xi)^2\leq \Phi'(\xi)\psi'(\xi)\;\;\textrm{and hence that}\;\;\psi'(\xi)\leq \frac{\Phi'(\xi)}{\Phi(\xi)}.$$
%
We therefore fix $\psi_\Phi(\xi)=\log(\Phi(\xi))$ and define
%
$$\Psi_\Phi(\xi)=\int_0^\xi\log(\Phi(\xi'))\dxp,$$
%
to conclude that
%
\begin{equation}\label{formal_est}\begin{aligned}
%
& \left.\int_{\TT^d}\Psi_\Phi(\rho)\dx\right|_{t=0}^{t=T}+\frac{1}{2}\int_0^T\int_{\TT^d}\frac{\Phi'(\rho)^2}{\Phi(\rho)}\abs{\nabla  \rho}^2\dx\dt
%
\\ & =   \left.\int_{\TT^d}\Psi_\Phi(\rho)\dx\right|_{t=0}^{t=T}+2\int_0^T\int_{\TT^d}\abs{\nabla  \Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho)}^2\dx\dt
%
\\ & \leq \frac{1}{2}\int_0^T\int_{\TT^d}\abs{g(x,t)}^2\dx\dt,
%
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
%
where, in the penultimate step, we have used the identity
%
$$2\left(\nabla  \Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho)\right)=\frac{\Phi'(\rho)}{\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho)}\nabla  \rho.$$
%

\begin{remark}\label{rem_nonnegative}  Estimate \eqref{formal_est} is in general false for signed initial data, which can be seen for the heat equation.  For $(x,t)\in \R\times[0,\infty)$, the solution $\rho$ to the equation
%
$$\left\{\begin{aligned} \partial_t \rho & = \Delta \rho && \textrm{in}\;\;\R\times(0,\infty), \\ \rho_0 & =x && \textrm{on}\;\;\R\times\{0\},\end{aligned}\right.$$
%
is given by $\rho(x,t)=x$.  It is clear that
%
$$\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(x,t))=\rho^\frac{1}{2}(x,t)=x^\frac{1}{2}\notin L^2([0,T];H^1_{\textrm{loc}}(\R)),$$
%
since, for every $\ve\in(0,1)$ and $t\in(0,\infty)$,
%
$$\int_0^t\int_{-\ve}^\ve\abs{\partial_x x^\frac{1}{2}}^2\dx\ds=\frac{t}{4}\int_{-\ve}^\ve x^{-1}\dx=\infty.$$
%
After localizing this argument to the torus, it follows that estimate \eqref{formal_est} cannot be true for signed initial data, since \eqref{formal_est} implies in particular the local $L^2$-integrability of the gradient in time.\end{remark}


\begin{remark}  We observe that estimate \eqref{formal_est} is based on the physical entropy of the initial data in the case that $\Phi(\xi)=\xi^m$, for some $m\in(0,\infty)$.  In this case,
%
\begin{equation}\label{formal_est_2}\Psi_\Phi(\xi)=m\int_0^\xi\log(\xi')\dxp=m\left(\xi\log(\xi)-\xi\right).\end{equation}
%
It follows from \eqref{formal_est} and \eqref{formal_est_2} that, for almost every $t\in[0,T]$,
%
$$\int_{\TT^d}\rho(x,t)\log(\rho(x,t))\dx -\int_{\TT^d}\rho(x,t)\dx \leq \int_{\TT^d}\rho_0(x)\log(\rho_0(x))\dx-\int_{\TT^d}\rho_0(x)\dx.$$
%
We will prove in Proposition~\ref{gen_exist} below that, for almost every $t\in[0,T]$,
%
$$\int_{\TT^d}\rho(x,t)\dx=\int_{\TT^d}\rho_0(x)\dx.$$
%
Therefore, for almost every $t\in[0,T]$,
%
$$\left(-\int_{\TT^d}\rho_0(x)\log(\rho_0(x))\dx\right)\leq \left(-\int_{\TT^d}\rho(x,t)\log(\rho(x,t))\dx\right),$$
%
which is to say that the physical entropy is a nondecreasing function of time.  \end{remark}





\subsection{Renormalized kinetic solutions}\label{renormalized_sol}  In this section, we will define renormalized kinetic solutions of the skeleton equation \eqref{skel_eq}.  Based on estimate \eqref{formal_est}, we first rewrite the equation in the form
%
\begin{equation}\label{re_skel_eq}\left\{\begin{aligned}
%
\partial_t \rho & = 2\nabla\cdot \left(\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho)\nabla\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho)\right)-\nabla\cdot\left(\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho)g\right) && \textrm{in}\;\;\TT^d\times(0,T),
%
\\ \rho & =\rho_0 && \textrm{on}\;\;\TT^d\times\{0\}.
%
\end{aligned}\right.
%
\end{equation}
%
On this level, the criticality of the equation can be seen by analyzing the integrability of the products
%
\begin{equation}\label{rks_1}\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho)\nabla\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho)\;\;\textrm{and}\;\;\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho)g,\end{equation}
%
which are at best $L^1(\TT^d\times[0,T]);\R^d)$.  Indeed, even in one dimension, embedding theorems do not readily yield an improvement because they do not improve the integrability in time.

The borderline integrability of the products \eqref{rks_1} and the lack of regularity for the solution make classical techniques untenable and suggest the necessity of a generalized solution theory.  We therefore pass to the equation's kinetic formulation.  Let the kinetic function $\overline{\chi}\colon\R^2\rightarrow\R$ be defined by
%
$$\overline{\chi}(s,\xi)=\mathbf{1}_{\{0<\xi<s\}}-\mathbf{1}_{\{s<\xi<0\}}.$$
%
Proceeding formally, suppose that $\rho$ is a solution of \eqref{re_skel_eq}.  The kinetic function $\chi$ of $\rho$ is defined for every $(x,\xi,t)\in\TT^d\times\R\times[0,T]$ by
%
$$\chi(x,\xi,t)=\overline{\chi}(\rho(x,t),\xi)=\mathbf{1}_{\{0<\xi<\rho(x,t)\}}-\mathbf{1}_{\{\rho(x,t)<\xi<0\}}.$$
%
The identities
%
$$\nabla_x\chi(x,\xi,t)=\delta_0(\xi-\rho(x,t))\nabla \rho(x,t)\;\;\textrm{and}\;\;\partial_\xi\chi(x,\xi,t)=\delta_0(\xi)-\delta_0(\xi-\rho(x,t)),$$
%
show formally that the kinetic function $\chi$ of $\rho$ satisfies the equation
%
\begin{equation}\label{skel_kin_00}\left\{\begin{aligned} \partial_t \chi & =\Phi'(\xi)\Delta_x\chi -\left(\partial_\xi \Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\xi)\right)g(x,t)\nabla_x\chi+ \left(\nabla_xg(x,t)\right)\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\xi)\partial_\xi \chi+\partial_\xi p && \textrm{in}\;\;\TT^d\times\mathbb{R}\times(0,T),
%
\\ \chi & = \overline{\chi}(\rho_0) && \textrm{on}\;\;\TT^d\times\mathbb{R}\times\{0\},
%
\end{aligned}\right.\end{equation}
%
for the parabolic defect measure $p$ on $\TT^d\times\mathbb{R}\times(0,T)$ defined by
%
\begin{equation}\label{parabolic_defect_measure}p=\delta_0(\xi-\rho) \frac{4\abs{\Phi(\xi)}}{\Phi'(\xi)}\abs{\nabla \Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho)}^2.\end{equation}
%
We rewrite \eqref{skel_kin_00} in the conservative form
%
\begin{equation}\label{skel_kin}\left\{\begin{aligned}
%
\partial_t \chi & =\Phi'(\xi)\Delta_x\chi -\partial_\xi\left(g(x,t)\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\xi)\nabla_x\chi\right)+\nabla_x\cdot\left(g(x,t)\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\xi)\partial_\xi \chi\right)+\partial_\xi p && \textrm{in}\;\;\TT^d\times\mathbb{R}\times(0,T),
%
\\ \chi & = \overline{\chi}(\rho_0) && \textrm{on}\;\;\TT^d\times\mathbb{R}\times\{0\}.
%
\end{aligned}\right.\end{equation}
%
Based on the estimates leading to \eqref{formal_est}, we will obtain the well-posedness of \eqref{skel_eq} for initial data in the following space.
%
\begin{definition}\label{def_initial}  Let $\Phi\in W^{1,1}_{\textrm{loc}}([0,\infty))$ be nonnegative.  Let $\Psi_\Phi\colon[0,\infty)\rightarrow[0,\infty)$ be defined by
%
$$\Psi_\Phi(\xi)=\int_0^\xi\log(\Phi(\xi'))\dxp.$$
%
We define
%
$$\Ent_\Phi(\TT^d)=\left\{\rho_0\in L^1(\TT^d)\colon \rho_0\geq 0\;\;\textrm{a.e.}\;\;\textrm{and}\;\;\int_{\TT^d}\Psi_\Phi(\rho_0(x))\dx<\infty\right\}.$$
%
\end{definition}
%
The following definition of a renormalized kinetic solution is based on the kinetic equation \eqref{skel_kin}, Definition~\ref{def_initial}, and the formal estimates obtained in Section~\ref{sec_a_priori}.

\begin{definition}\label{skel_sol_def}  Let $T\in(0,\infty)$, let $\Phi\in W^{1,1}_{\textrm{loc}}([0,\infty))$ be nonnegative, and let $\rho_0\in \Ent_\Phi(\TT^d)$.  A function $\rho\in L^\infty([0,T],L^1(\mathbb{T}^d))$ is a renormalized kinetic solution of \eqref{skel_kin} with initial data $\rho_0$ if $\rho$ satisfies the following two properties.

\begin{enumerate}[(a)]

\item We have that
%
\begin{equation}\label{optimal_regularity_sol}\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho)\in L^2([0,T];H^1(\TT^d)).\end{equation}
%
\item There exists a subset $\mathcal{N}\subseteq(0,T]$ of Lebesgue measure zero such that for every $t\in[0,T]\setminus \mathcal{N}$, for every $\psi\in \C^\infty_c(\TT^d\times\mathbb{R})$, the kinetic function $\chi$ of $\rho$ satisfies that
%
\begin{equation}\label{skel_sol_def_1}\begin{aligned}
%
\int_{\TT^d}\int_\mathbb{R} \chi(x,\xi,t)\psi(x,\xi)\dx\dxi = & \int_0^t\int_\R\int_{\TT^d} \Phi'(\xi)\chi \Delta_x\psi \dx\dxi\dr - \int_0^t\int_\R\int_{\TT^d}p\partial_\xi \psi \dx\dxi\dr
%
\\ & + 2\int_0^t\int_{\TT^d} \frac{\Phi(\rho)}{\Phi'(\rho)}\nabla_x\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho)\cdot g(x,t)(\partial_\xi\psi)(x,\rho)\dx\dr
%
\\ & + \int_0^t\int_{\TT^d} \Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho)g(x,t)\cdot (\nabla_x\psi)(x,\rho) \dx\dr
%
\\ & + \int_\R\int_{\TT^d}\overline{\chi}(\rho_0(x),\xi)\psi(x,\xi)\dx\dxi.
%
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
%
\end{enumerate}
%
\end{definition}

\begin{remark}  We observe that the equality in equation \eqref{skel_sol_def_1} is satisfied due to the optimal regularity \eqref{optimal_regularity_sol}, which requires the nonnegativity of the initial data (cf.\ Remark~\ref{rem_nonnegative}).  In general, we would only expect to obtain an inequality due to the presence of a nonnegative entropy defect measure (cf.\ \cite{ChenPerthame}).


\end{remark}
The following lemma proves that pathwise kinetic solutions in the sense of Definition~\ref{skel_sol_def} satisfy an integration by parts formula on the level of their kinetic functions.


\begin{lem}\label{ibp}  Let $\Phi\in W^{1,1}_{\textrm{loc}}([0,\infty))$ be nondecreasing, let $\rho\colon\TT^d\rightarrow \R$ be a measurable function, and let $\chi=\overline{\chi}(\rho)\colon\TT^d\times\R\rightarrow\R$.  Assume that
%
$$\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho)\in H^1(\mathbb{T}^d).$$
%
Then, for every $\psi\in\C^\infty_c(\mathbb{T}^d\times\mathbb{R})$,
%
$$ \frac{1}{2}\int_\R\int_{\TT^d}\frac{\Phi'(\xi)}{\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\xi)}\nabla_x\psi(x,\xi)\chi(x,\xi,r)\dx\dxi  =-\int_{\TT^d}\psi(x,\rho(x))\nabla_x\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(x))\dx. $$
%
\end{lem}


\begin{proof}  The change of variables formula proves that
%
\begin{equation}\label{ibp_1}\begin{aligned} & \frac{1}{2}\int_\R\int_{\TT^d}\frac{\Phi'(\xi)}{\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\xi)}\nabla_x\psi(x,\xi)\chi(x,\xi,r)\dx\dxi
%
\\ & =\int_\R\int_{\TT^d}\nabla_x\psi\left(x,(\Phi^\frac{1}{2})^{-1}(\xi)\right)\chi\left(x,(\Phi^\frac{1}{2})^{-1}(\xi)\right)\dx\dxi.\end{aligned}
%
\end{equation}
%
The definition of the kinetic function proves, for every $(x,\xi)\in\TT^d\times\R$,
%
\begin{equation}\label{ibp_2}\chi\left(x,(\Phi^\frac{1}{2})^{-1}(\xi)\right)=\tilde{\chi}(x,\xi),\end{equation}
%
and since $\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho)\in H^1(\mathbb{T}^d)$ it follows by smooth approximation that, as distributions,
%
\begin{equation}\label{ibp_3}\nabla\tilde{\chi}(x,\xi)=\delta_0\left(\xi-\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho)\right)\nabla\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho).\end{equation}
%
It then follows from \eqref{ibp_1}, \eqref{ibp_2}, and \eqref{ibp_3} that
%
$$\begin{aligned}\frac{1}{2}\int_\R\int_{\TT^d}\frac{\Phi'(\xi)}{\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\xi)}\nabla_x\psi(x,\xi)\chi(x,\xi,r)\dx\dxi & =  \int_\mathbb{R}\int_{\mathbb{T}^d}\nabla\psi\left(x,(\Phi^\frac{1}{2})^{-1}(\xi)\right)\tilde{\chi}(x,\xi)\dx\dxi
%
\\ & =  -\int_{\mathbb{T}^d}\nabla \Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho)\psi(x,\rho(x))\dx,
%
\end{aligned}$$
%
which completes the proof. \end{proof}


\section{Uniqueness of renormalized kinetic solutions}\label{sec_unique}

In this section, we will prove the uniqueness of renormalized kinetic solutions in the sense of Definition~\ref{skel_sol_def}.  We will assume that the nonlinearity $\Phi$ satisfies the following assumption, which we prove in Proposition~\ref{pme} of the Appendix is satisfied by $\Phi(\xi)=\xi^m$ for every $m\in(0,\infty)$.  That is, the assumption is satisfied by the fast diffusion, heat, and porous media equations.

\begin{assumption}\label{as_unique}  Let $\Phi\in W^{1,1}_{\textrm{loc}}([0,\infty))$ be a strictly increasing function that satisfies the following five properties.
%
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]

\item We have
%
\begin{equation}\label{skel_continuity_4}\Phi(0)=0.\end{equation}
%
\item  For every $M\in(1,\infty)$ there exists $c\in(0,\infty)$ such that, for every $\delta\in(0,1)$,
%
\begin{equation}\label{skel_continuity} \esssup_{\substack {\abs{\xi-\xi'}<\delta  \\ \frac{1}{M}\leq \xi,\xi'\leq M }}\abs{\frac{\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\xi)}{\Phi'(\xi)}\left(\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\xi)-\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\xi')\right)}\leq c\delta.\end{equation}
%
\item For every $M\in(1,\infty)$ there exists $c\in(0,\infty)$ such that, for every $\delta\in(0,1)$,
%
\begin{equation}\label{skel_continuity_1} \esssup_{\substack {\abs{\xi-\xi'}<\delta  \\ \frac{1}{M}\leq \xi,\xi'\leq M }}\abs{\frac{\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\xi)\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\xi')}{\Phi'(\xi)\Phi'(\xi')}\left(\Phi'(\xi)^\frac{1}{2}-\Phi'(\xi')^\frac{1}{2}\right)^2}\leq c\delta.\end{equation}
%
\item There exists $c\in(0,\infty)$ such that, for every $M\in(1,\infty)$ and $\delta\in(0,\nicefrac{1}{M})$,
%
\begin{equation}\label{skel_continuity_2}\esssup_{\substack {\abs{\xi-\xi'}<\delta  \\ \frac{1}{M}\leq \xi,\xi'\leq M}}\abs{\frac{\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\xi)\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\xi')}{\Phi'(\xi)}}\leq cM.\end{equation}
%
\item There exists $c\in(0,\infty)$ such that, for every $M\in(0,\infty)$,
%
\begin{equation}\label{skel_continuity_3}\esssup_{0\leq \xi\leq M}\abs{\frac{\Phi(\xi)}{\Phi'(\xi)}}\leq cM.\end{equation}
%
\end{enumerate}

\end{assumption}
%

The proof of uniqueness is significantly complicated by the fact that the parabolic defect measure
%
$$p=\delta_0(\xi-\rho)\frac{4\Phi(\xi)}{\Phi'(\xi)}\abs{\nabla\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho)}^2,$$
%
is neither globally integrable nor decaying at infinity with respect to the velocity variable $\xi\in\R$.   It is for this reason that we introduce a cutoff in velocity.  We will first prove a lemma that is used to control the error terms that arise when removing this cutoff function.  The proof of uniqueness is follows immediately after the lemma.

\begin{lem}\label{lem_partition}  Let $(X,\mathcal{S},\mu)$ be a measure space, let $K\in\mathbb{N}$, let $\{f_k\colon X\rightarrow\R\}_{k\in\{1,2,\ldots,K\}}\subseteq L^1(X)$, and for every $k\in\{1,2,\ldots,K\}$ let $\{B_{n,k}\subseteq X\}_{n\in\mathbb{N}}\subseteq \mathcal{S}$ be disjoint subsets.  Then,
%
$$\liminf_{n\rightarrow\infty}\left(n\sum_{k=1}^K\int_{B_{n,k}}\abs{f_k}\dd\mu\right)=0.$$
%
\end{lem}


\begin{proof}   Proceeding by contradiction, suppose that there exists $\ve\in(0,1)$ such that
%
$$\liminf_{n\rightarrow\infty}\left(n\sum_{k=1}^K\int_{B_{n,k}}\abs{f_k}\dd\mu\right)\geq\ve.$$
%
Then, there exists $N\in\mathbb{N}$ such that, for every $n\geq N$,
%
$$n\sum_{k=1}^K\int_{B_{n,k}}\abs{f_k}\dd\mu\geq \frac{\ve}{2}.$$
%
For every $k\in\{1,2,\ldots,K\}$ let $\mathcal{I}_{N,k}\subseteq[N,N+1,\ldots)$ be defined by
%
$$\mathcal{I}_{N,k}=\left\{n\in[N,N+1,\ldots)\colon \int_{B_{n,k}}\abs{f_k}\dd\mu\geq \frac{\ve}{2Kn}\right\}.$$
%
Since by definition
%
$$[N,N+1,\ldots)=\cup_{k=1}^K\mathcal{I}_{N,k},$$
%
and since
%
$$\sum_{n=N}^\infty\frac{1}{n}=\infty,$$
%
there exists $k_0\in\{1,2,\ldots,K\}$ such that
%
$$\sum_{n\in \mathcal{I}_{N,k_0}}\frac{1}{n}=\infty.$$
%
This contradicts the assumption that $f_{k_0}\in L^1(X)$, since the assumption that the $\{B_{n,k_0}\}_{n\in\mathbb{N}}$ are disjoint and the definition of $\mathcal{I}_{n,k_0}$ imply that
%
$$\infty=\sum_{n\in\mathcal{I}_{N,k_0}}\frac{1}{n}\leq \frac{2K}{\ve}\sum_{n\in\mathcal{I}_{N,k_0}}\int_{B_{n,k_0}}\abs{f_{k_0}}\dd\mu\leq \frac{2K}{\ve}\int_X \abs{f_{k_0}}<\infty.$$
%
We therefore conclude that
%
$$\liminf_{n\rightarrow\infty}\left(n\sum_{k=1}^K\int_{B_{n,k}}\abs{f_k}\dd\mu\right)=0,$$
%
which completes the proof.  \end{proof}

\begin{thm}\label{thm_unique} Let $T\in(0,\infty)$, let $\Phi\in W^{1,1}_{\textrm{loc}}([0,\infty))$ satisfy Assumption~\ref{as_unique}, let $g\in L^2(\TT^d\times [0,T];\R^d)$, and let $\rho_0^1,\rho_0^2\in \Ent_\Phi(\mathbb{T}^d)$.  Let $\rho^1,\rho^2\in L^\infty([0,T];L^1(\TT^d))$ be renormalized kinetic solutions (cf.\ Definition~\ref{skel_sol_def}) of equation \eqref{skel_eq} with control $g$ and with initial data $\rho_0^1,\rho_0^2$.  Then,
%
$$\norm{\rho^1-\rho^2}_{L^\infty([0,T];L^1(\mathbb{T}^d))}\leq \norm{\rho^1_0-\rho^2_0}_{L^1(\mathbb{T}^d)}.$$
%
\end{thm}




\begin{proof}  We will write $\chi^1,\chi^2\in L^\infty([0,T];L^1(\TT^d\times\mathbb{R}))$ for the corresponding kinetic functions, and we will write $p^1,p^2$ for the corresponding parabolic defect measures.  Finally, we will write $\mathcal{N}^1,\mathcal{N}^2\subseteq (0,T)$ for the zero sets appearing in Definition~\ref{skel_sol_def}, and we define $\mathcal{N}=\mathcal{N}^1\cup\mathcal{N}^2$.  To simplify the notation we define, for every $(x,\xi,t)\in\TT^d\times\mathbb{R}\times[0,T]$ and $i\in\{1,2\}$,
%
$$\chi^i_t(x,\xi)=\chi(x,\xi,t),$$
%
and we will make similar conventions for $p^i_t$ and all other time-dependent functions or measures appearing in the proof.

Let $\kappa^s\colon\TT^d\rightarrow[0,\infty)$ be a standard convolution kernel satisfying that,  as distributions $\TT^d$,
%
$$\int_{\TT^d}\kappa^s \dx=1\;\;\textrm{and}\;\;\lim_{\varepsilon\rightarrow 0}\varepsilon^{-1}\kappa^s(\nicefrac{\cdot}{\varepsilon})=\delta_0.$$
%
Let $\kappa^v\colon\mathbb{R}\rightarrow[0,\infty)$ be a standard convolution kernel satisfying that, as distributions on $\mathbb{R}$,
%
$$\int_\mathbb{R}\kappa^v\dx=1\;\;\textrm{and}\;\;\lim_{\varepsilon\rightarrow 0}\varepsilon^{-1}\kappa^v(\nicefrac{\cdot}{\varepsilon})\rightarrow\delta_0.$$
%
For every $\varepsilon,\delta\in(0,1)$, let $\kappa^{\ve,\d}\colon(\TT^d)^2\times\mathbb{R}^2\rightarrow[0,\infty)$ be defined by
%
$$\kappa^{\ve,\d}(x,y,\xi,\eta)=\left(\varepsilon^{-1}\kappa^s(\nicefrac{x-y}{\varepsilon})\right)\left(\delta^{-1}\kappa^v(\nicefrac{\xi-\eta}{\delta})\right).$$
%
Finally, for every $M\in(0,\infty)$, let $\zeta^M:\mathbb{R}\rightarrow[0,1]$ be defined by
%
$$\zeta^M(\xi)=\left\{\begin{aligned} & 0 && \textrm{if}\;\;\abs{\xi}\leq\frac{1}{M} \\ & M\left(\abs{\xi}-\frac{1}{M}\right) && \textrm{if}\;\;\frac{1}{M}\leq\abs{\xi}\leq \frac{2}{M} \\ & 1 && \textrm{if}\;\;\frac{2}{M}\leq\abs{\xi}\leq M \\ & M+1-\abs{\xi} && \textrm{if}\;\;M\leq \abs{\xi}\leq M+1, \\ & 0 && \textrm{if}\;\;\abs{\xi}\geq M+1.\end{aligned}\right.$$
%
The convolution kernel $\kappa^{\ve,\d}$ will play the role of the test function in Definition~\ref{skel_sol_def}.  The cutoff $\zeta^M$ is necessary owing to the fact that the parabolic defect measure is not globally integrable in the velocity variable $\xi\in\R$.



For every $i\in\{1,2\}$ and $\varepsilon,\delta\in(0,1)$, let $\chi^{i,\varepsilon,\delta}\colon\TT^d\times\mathbb{R}\times[0,T]\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ be defined by
%
$$\chi^{i,\varepsilon,\delta}_t(y,\eta)=\int_\mathbb{R}\int_{\TT^d}\chi^i_t(x,\xi)\kappa^{\ve,\d}(x,y,\xi,\eta)\dx\dxi.$$
%
For every $\delta\in(0,1)$, let $\sgn^\delta\colon\mathbb{R}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ be defined for every $\eta\in\mathbb{R}$, $y\in \TT^d$, and $\ve\in(0,1)$ by
%
$$\sgn^\delta(\eta)=\int_\mathbb{R}\sgn(\xi)\left(\delta^{-1}\kappa^v\left(\frac{\xi-\eta}{\delta}\right)\right)\dxi=\int_\mathbb{R}\int_{\TT^d}\sgn(\xi)\kappa^{\ve,\d}(x,y,\xi,\eta)\dx\dxi.$$
%
Let $t\in(0,T]\setminus \mathcal{N}$ and $M\in(0,\infty)$.  Properties of the kinetic function prove that
%
\begin{equation}\label{su_0}\begin{aligned}
%
& \int_\mathbb{R}\int_{\TT^d}\abs{\chi^1_t-\chi^2_t}^2\zeta^M(\eta)\dy\deta \\ & =\lim_{\varepsilon,\delta\rightarrow 0}\int_\mathbb{R}\int_{\TT^d}\abs{\chi^{1,\varepsilon,\delta}_t-\chi^{2,\varepsilon,\delta}_t}^2\zeta^M(\eta)\dy\deta
%
\\ & = \lim_{\varepsilon,\delta\rightarrow 0}\int_\mathbb{R}\int_{\TT^d}\left(\chi^{1,\ve,\delta}_t\sgn^\delta(\eta)+\chi^{2,\varepsilon,\delta}_t\sgn^\delta(\eta)-2\chi^{1,\ve,\delta}_t\chi^{2,\ve,\delta}_t\right)\zeta^M(\eta)\dy\deta.
%
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
%
Let $\varepsilon,\delta\in(0,1)$.  Definition~\ref{skel_sol_def} implies for every $i\in\{1,2\}$ that, as distributions on $\TT^d\times\R\times(0,T)$,
%
\begin{equation}\label{su_1}\begin{aligned}
%
\partial_t\chi^{i,\ve,\delta}_t(y,\eta) = & \int_\R\int_{\TT^d}\Phi'(\xi)\chi^i_t\Delta_x\kappa^{\ve,\d}(x,y,\xi,\eta)\dx\dxi \\ & -\int_\R\int_{\TT^d}p^i_t\partial_\xi\kappa^{\ve,\d}(x,y,\xi,\eta)\dx\dxi
%
\\ & +2 \int_{\TT^d}\frac{\Phi(\rho^i)}{\Phi'(\rho^i)}g(x,t)\cdot \nabla_x\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho^i)(\partial_\xi \kappa^{\ve,\d})(x,y,\rho^i,\eta)\dx
%
\\ & + \int_{\TT^d}\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho^i)g(x,t)\cdot(\nabla_x\kappa^{\ve,\d})(x,y,\rho^i,\eta)\dx.
%
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
%
Lemma~\ref{ibp} and the definition of the convolution kernel imply that
%
\begin{equation}\label{su_2}\int_\R\int_{\TT^d}\Phi'(\xi)\chi^i_t\Delta_x\kappa^{\ve,\d}(x,y,\xi,\eta)\dx\dxi=\nabla_y\cdot \left(2\int_{\TT^d}\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho^i)\nabla_x \Phi^\frac{1}{2}(u_i)\kappa^{\ve,\d}(x,y,\rho^i,\eta)\dx\right).\end{equation}
%
The definition of the convolution kernel implies that
%
\begin{equation}\label{su_3}\int_\R\int_{\TT^d}p^i_t(\partial_\xi\kappa^{\ve,\d})(x,y,\xi,\eta)\dx\dxi=-\partial_\eta\int_\R\int_{\TT^d}p^i_t\kappa^{\ve,\d}(x,y,\xi,\eta)\dx\dxi,\end{equation}
%
that
%
\begin{equation}\label{su_5}\begin{aligned} & \int_{\TT^d}g(x,t)\frac{\Phi(\rho^i)}{\Phi'(\rho^i)}\cdot \left(\nabla_x\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho^i)((\partial_\xi \kappa^{\ve,\d})(x,y,\rho^i,\eta))\right)\dx \\ & =-\partial_\eta\int_\R\int_{\TT^d}g(x,t)\frac{\Phi(\rho^i)}{\Phi'(\rho^i)}\cdot \nabla_x\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho^i)\kappa^{\ve,\d}(x,y,\rho^i,\eta)\dx,\end{aligned}\end{equation}
%
and that
%
\begin{equation}\label{su_6}\int_{\TT^d}g(x,t)\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho^i)\cdot (\nabla_x\kappa^{\ve,\d})(x,y,\rho^i,\eta)\dx = -\nabla_y\cdot \int_{\TT^d}g(x,t)\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho^i)\kappa^{\ve,\d}(x,y,\rho^i,\eta)\dx.\end{equation}
%



For every $i\in\{1,2\}$, let $\overline{\kappa}^{\ve,\d}_i:(\TT^d)^2\times\mathbb{R}\times[0,T]\rightarrow[0,\infty)$ be defined by
%
$$\overline{\kappa}^{\ve,\d}_{i,t}(x,y,\eta)=\kappa^{\ve,\d}(x,y,\rho^i(x,t),\eta).$$
%
It follows from \eqref{su_1}, \eqref{su_2}, \eqref{su_3}, \eqref{su_5}, and \eqref{su_6} that, as distributions on $\TT^d\times\R\times(0,T)$,
%
\begin{equation}\label{su_7} \begin{aligned}
%
\partial_t\chi_t^{i,\ve,\delta}(y,\eta)= & \nabla_y\cdot \left(2\int_{\TT^d}\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho^i)\nabla_x \Phi^\frac{1}{2}(u_i)\overline{\kappa}^{\ve,\d}_{i,t}\dx\right) + \partial_\eta\int_\R\int_{\TT^d}p^i_t\kappa^{\ve,\d}\dx\dxi
%
\\ & -\partial_\eta\left(2\int_\R\int_{\TT^d}g(x,t)\frac{\Phi(\rho^i)}{\Phi'(\rho^i)}\cdot \nabla_x\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho^i)\overline{\kappa}^{\ve,\d}_{i,t}\dx\right)- \nabla_y\cdot  \int_{\TT^d}g(x,t)\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho^i)\overline{\kappa}^{\ve,\d}_{i,t}\dx.
%
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
%
We define
%
\begin{equation}\label{su_0007}\mathbb{I}^{\ve,\d,M}_t=\int_\mathbb{R}\int_{\TT^d}\left(\chi^{1,\ve,\delta}_t\sgn^\delta(\eta)+\chi^{2,\varepsilon,\delta}_t\sgn^\delta(\eta)-2\chi^{1,\ve,\delta}_t\chi^{2,\ve,\delta}_t\right)\zeta^M(\eta)\dy\deta.\end{equation}
%
We will analyze the terms involving the $\sgn$ function and the mixed term separately.  For every $i\in\{1,2\}$, let
%
\begin{equation}\label{su_07}\mathbb{I}^{\ve,\d,M}_{t,i,\sgn}=\int_\mathbb{R}\int_{\TT^d}\chi^{i,\ve,\delta}_t\sgn^\delta(\eta)\zeta^M(\eta)\dy\deta,\end{equation}
%
and let
%
\begin{equation}\label{su_007}\mathbb{I}^{\ve,\d,M}_{t,\textrm{mix}}=\int_\R\int_{\TT^d}\chi^{1,\ve,\delta}_t\chi^{2,\ve,\delta}_t\zeta^M(\eta)\dy\deta.\end{equation}
%



\textbf{The sign terms.}  We will first analyze the $\sgn $ terms \eqref{su_07}, and we will first consider the case $i=1$.  We will write $(x,y,\xi,\eta)$ for the variables defining the convolution of $\chi^{1,\ve,\d}_t$, and we will write $(x',y,\xi',\eta)$ for the variables defining the convolution of $\sgn$.  Let $\kappa^{\ve,\d}_1:(\TT^d)^2\times\mathbb{R}^2\rightarrow[0,\8)$ satisfy for every $(x,y,\xi,\eta)\in (\TT^d)^2\times\mathbb{R}^2$ that
%
$$\kappa^{\ve,\d}_1(x,y,\xi,\eta)=\kappa^{\ve,\d}(x,y,\xi,\eta).$$
%
Similarly, let $\kappa^{\ve,\d}_2:(\TT^d)^2\times\mathbb{R}^2\rightarrow[0,\infty)$ satisfy for every $(x',y,\xi',\eta)\in (\TT^d)^2\times\R^2$ that
%
$$\kappa^{\ve,\d}_2(x',y,\xi',\eta)=\kappa^{\ve,\d}(x',y,\xi',\eta).$$
%
It follows from \eqref{su_7} that, as distributions on $(0,T)$, for every $t\in(0,T)$,
%
\begin{equation}\label{su_8}\begin{aligned}
%
\partial_t \mathbb{I}^{\ve,\d,M}_{t,1,\sgn}=& -\int_{\R^2}\int_{(\TT^d)^2}p^1_t\kappa^{\ve,\d}_1\partial_\eta\left(\sgn^\d(\eta)\zeta^{M}(\eta)\right)\dx\dxi\dy\deta
%
\\ &  + 2\int_{\R}\int_{(\TT^d)^2}g(x,t)\frac{\Phi(\rho^1)}{\Phi'(\rho^1)}\cdot \nabla_x\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho^1)\overline{\kappa}^{\ve,\d}_{1,t}\partial_\eta\left(\sgn^\d(\eta)\zeta^M(\eta)\right)\dx\dy\deta.
%
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
%
For the first term on the righthand side of \eqref{su_8}, properties of the convolution kernel and the distributional equality $\partial_\xi\sgn=2\delta_0$ imply that, omitting the integration variables,
%
\begin{equation}\label{su_9}\begin{aligned}
%
\int_{\R^2}\int_{(\TT^d)^2}p^1_t\kappa^{\ve,\d}_1\partial_\eta\left(\sgn^\d(\eta)\zeta^{M}(\eta)\right)= & -\int_{\R^3}\int_{(\TT^d)^3}p^1_t\kappa^{\ve,\d}_1\sgn(\xi')(\partial_{\xi'} \kappa^{\ve,\d}_2)\zeta^M
%
\\  & + \int_{\R^2}\int_{(\TT^d)^2}p^1_t\kappa^{\ve,\d}_1\sgn^\delta(\eta)\partial_\eta\zeta^M
%
\\ = & 2\int_{\R^2}\int_{(\TT^d)^3}p^1_t\kappa^{\ve,\d}_1\kappa^{\ve,\d}(x',y,0,\eta)\zeta^M
%
\\ & + \int_{\R^2}\int_{(\TT^d)^2}p^1_t\kappa^{\ve,\d}_1\sgn^\delta(\eta)\partial_\eta\zeta^M.
%
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
%
Similarly, the second term on the righthand side of \eqref{su_8} satisfies that
%
\begin{equation}\label{su_10} \begin{aligned}
%
& \int_{\R}\int_{(\TT^d)^2}g(x,t)\frac{\Phi(\rho^1)}{\Phi'(\rho^1)}\cdot \nabla_x\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho^1)\overline{\kappa}^{\ve,\d}_{i,t}\partial_\eta\left(\sgn^\d(\eta)\zeta^M(\eta)\right)
%
\\ & = 2\int_\R\int_{(\TT^d)^3} g(x,t)\frac{\Phi(\rho^1)}{\Phi'(\rho^1)}\cdot \nabla_x\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho^1)\overline{\kappa}^{\ve,\d}_{1,t}\kappa^{\ve,\d}(x',y,0,\eta)\zeta^M
%
\\ & \quad +\int_\R\int_{(\TT^d)^2}g(x,t)\frac{\Phi(\rho^1)}{\Phi'(\rho^1)}\cdot \nabla_x\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho^1)\overline{\kappa}^{\ve,\d}_{1,t}\sgn^\d(\eta)\partial_\eta\zeta^M.
%
\end{aligned} \end{equation}
%
Returning to \eqref{su_8}, it follows from \eqref{su_9} and \eqref{su_10} that
%
\begin{equation}\label{su_11}\begin{aligned}
%
\partial_t \mathbb{I}^{\ve,\d,M}_{t,1,\sgn}=& -2\int_{\R^2}\int_{(\TT^d)^3}p^1_t\kappa^{\ve,\d}_1\kappa^{\ve,\d}(x',y,0,\eta)\zeta^M - \int_{\R^2}\int_{(\TT^d)^2}p^1_t\kappa^{\ve,\d}_1\sgn^\delta(\eta)\partial_\eta\zeta^M
%
\\ & +4\int_\R\int_{(\TT^d)^3} g(x,t)\frac{\Phi(\rho^1)}{\Phi'(\rho^1)}\cdot \nabla_x\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho^1)\overline{\kappa}^{\ve,\d}_{1,t}\kappa^{\ve,\d}(x',y,0,\eta)\zeta^M
%
\\ & + 2\int_\R\int_{(\TT^d)^2}g(x,t)\frac{\Phi(\rho^1)}{\Phi'(\rho^1)}\cdot \nabla_x\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho^1)\overline{\kappa}^{\ve,\d}_{1,t}\sgn^\d(\eta)\partial_\eta\zeta^M.
%
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
%
The case $i=2$ is identical, but to clarify some important cancellations below we will use the variables $(x',y,\xi',\eta)\in(\TT^d)^2\times\R^2$ for the convolution defining $\chi^{2,\ve,\d}$ and the variables $(x,y,\xi,\eta)\in(\TT^d)^2\times\R^2$ for the variables defining $\sgn^\d$.  Then,
%
\begin{equation}\label{su_0011}\begin{aligned}
%
\partial_t \mathbb{I}^{\ve,\d,M}_{t,2,\sgn}=& -2\int_{\R^2}\int_{(\TT^d)^3}p^2_t\kappa^{\ve,\d}_2\kappa^{\ve,\d}(x,y,0,\eta)\zeta^M - \int_{\R^2}\int_{(\TT^d)^2}p^2_t\kappa^{\ve,\d}_2\sgn^\delta(\eta)\partial_\eta\zeta^M
%
\\ & +4\int_\R\int_{(\TT^d)^3} g(x',t)\frac{\Phi(\rho^2)}{\Phi'(\rho^2)}\cdot \nabla_x\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho^2)\overline{\kappa}^{\ve,\d}_{2,t}\kappa^{\ve,\d}(x,y,0,\eta)\zeta^M
%
\\ & +2\int_\R\int_{(\TT^d)^2}g(x',t)\frac{\Phi(\rho^2)}{\Phi'(\rho^2)}\cdot \nabla_x\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho^2)\overline{\kappa}^{\ve,\d}_{2,t}\sgn^\d(\eta)\partial_\eta\zeta^M,
%
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
%
which completes the initial analysis of the $\sgn$ terms.



\textbf{The mixed term.}  We will now analyze the mixed term \eqref{su_007}.  We write $(x,y,\xi,\eta)$ for the variables defining $\chi^{1,\ve,\d}_t$, and we write $(x',y,\xi',\eta)$ for the variables defining $\chi^{2,\ve,\d}_t$.  Let $\kappa^{\ve,\d}_1:(\TT^d)^2\times\mathbb{R}^2\rightarrow[0,\8)$ satisfy for every $(x,y,\xi,\eta)\in (\TT^d)^2\times\mathbb{R}^2$ that
%
$$\kappa^{\ve,\d}_1(x,y,\xi,\eta)=\kappa^{\ve,\d}(x,y,\xi,\eta).$$
%
Similarly, let $\kappa^{\ve,\d}_2:(\TT^d)^2\times\mathbb{R}^2\rightarrow[0,\infty)$ satisfy for every $(x',y,\xi',\eta)\in (\TT^d)^2\times\R^2$ that
%
$$\kappa^{\ve,\d}_2(x',y,\xi',\eta)=\kappa^{\ve,\d}(x',y,\xi',\eta).$$
%
As distributions on $(0,T]$,
%
\begin{equation}\label{su_011}\begin{aligned}
%
\partial_t\mathbb{I}^{\ve,\d,M}_{t,\textrm{mix}} = & \int_\R\int_{\TT^d}\partial_t\chi^{1,\ve,\d}_t\chi^{2,\ve,\d}_t\zeta^M(\eta)\dy\deta+\int_\R\int_{\TT^d}\chi^{1,\ve,\d}_t\partial_t\chi^{2,\ve,\d}_t\zeta^M(\eta)\dy\deta
%
\\ = & \partial_t\mathbb{I}^{\ve,\d,M}_{t,1,\textrm{mix}}+\partial_t\mathbb{I}^{\ve,\d,M}_{t,2,\textrm{mix}}.
%
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
%
It follows from \eqref{su_7} that
%
$$\begin{aligned}
%
\partial_t\mathbb{I}^{\ve,\d,M}_{t,1,\textrm{mix}} = &  -2\int_\R\int_{(\TT^d)^2}\Phi^{\frac{1}{2}}(\rho^1)\nabla_x\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho^1)\overline{\kappa}^{\ve,\d}_{1,t}\cdot \nabla_y\chi^{2,\ve,\d}_t\zeta^M\dx\dy\deta
%
\\ & -\int_{\R^2}\int_{(\TT^d)^2}p^1_t\kappa^{\ve,\d}_1\partial_\eta(\chi^{2,\ve,\d}_t\zeta^M)\dx\dxi\dy\deta
%
\\ & +2\int_\R\int_{(\TT^d)^2}g(x,t)\frac{\Phi(\rho^1)}{\Phi'(\rho^1)}\cdot \nabla_x\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho^1)\overline{\kappa}^{\ve,\d}_{1,t}\partial_\eta(\chi^{2,\ve,\d}_t\zeta^M)\dx\dy\deta
%
\\ & +\int_\R\int_{(\TT^d)^2}g(x,t)\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho^1)\overline{\kappa}^{\ve,\d}_{1,t}\cdot \nabla_y\chi^{2,\ve,\d}_t\zeta^M\dx \dy\deta.
%
\end{aligned}$$
%
The definition of the convolution kernel implies that, omitting the integration variables,
%
\begin{equation}\label{su_12}\begin{aligned}
%
\partial_t\mathbb{I}^{\ve,\d,M}_{t,1,\textrm{mix}} = &  2\int_{\R^2}\int_{(\TT^d)^3}\Phi^{\frac{1}{2}}(\rho^1)\nabla_x\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho^1)\overline{\kappa}^{\ve,\d}_{1,t}\chi^2_t\cdot \big(\nabla_{x'}\kappa^{\ve,\d}_2\big)\zeta^M
%
\\ & +\int_{\R^3}\int_{(\TT^d)^3}p^1_t\kappa^{\ve,\d}_1\chi^2\big(\partial_{\xi'}\kappa^{\ve,\d}_2\big)\zeta^M-\int_{\R^2}\int_{(\TT^d)^2}p^1_t\kappa^{\ve,\d}_1\chi^{2,\ve,\d}_t\partial_\eta\zeta^M
%
\\ & -2\int_{\R^2}\int_{(\TT^d)^3}g(x,t)\frac{\Phi(\rho^1)}{\Phi'(\rho^1)}\cdot \nabla_x\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho^1)\overline{\kappa}^{\ve,\d}_{1,t}\chi^2_t\big(\partial_{\xi'}\kappa^{\ve,\d}_2\big)\zeta^M
%
\\ & +2\int_{\R}\int_{(\TT^d)^2}g(x,t)\frac{\Phi(\rho^1)}{\Phi'(\rho^1)}\cdot \nabla_x\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho^1)\overline{\kappa}^{\ve,\d}_{1,t}\chi^{2,\ve,\d}_t\partial_\eta\zeta^M
%
\\ & - \int_{\R^2}\int_{(\TT^d)^3}g(x,t)\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho^1)\overline{\kappa}^{\ve,\d}_{1,t}\chi^2_t\cdot \big(\nabla_{x'}\kappa^{\ve,\d}_2\big)\zeta^M.
%
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
%
The distributional equality
%
$$\partial_{\xi'}\chi^2=\delta_0(\xi')-\delta_0(\xi'-\rho^2),$$
%
implies the second term on the righthand side of \eqref{su_12} satisfies
%
\begin{equation}\label{su_14}
%
\int_{\R^3}\int_{(\TT^d)^3}p^1_t\kappa^{\ve,\d}_1\chi^2\big(\partial_{\xi'}\kappa^{\ve,\d}_2\big)\zeta^M =  \int_{\R^2}\int_{(\TT^d)^3}p^1_t\kappa^{\ve,\d}_1\left(\overline{\kappa}^{\ve,\d}_{2,t}-\kappa^{\ve,\d}(x',y,0,\eta)\right)\zeta^M,
%
\end{equation}
%
and for the fourth term on the righthand side of \eqref{su_12} that
%
\begin{equation}\label{su_15}\begin{aligned}
%
& \int_{\R^2}\int_{(\TT^d)^3}g(x,t)\frac{\Phi(\rho^1)}{\Phi'(\rho^1)}\cdot \nabla_x\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho^1)\overline{\kappa}^{\ve,\d}_{1,t}\chi^2_t\big(\partial_{\xi'}\kappa^{\ve,\d}_2\big)\zeta^M
%
\\ & =  \int_{\R}\int_{(\TT^d)^3}g(x,t)\frac{\Phi(\rho^1)}{\Phi'(\rho^1)}\cdot \nabla_x\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho^1)\overline{\kappa}^{\ve,\d}_{1,t}\left(\overline{\kappa}^{\ve,\d}_{2,t}-\kappa^{\ve,\d}(x',y,0,\eta)\right)\zeta^M.
%
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
%
Lemma~\ref{ibp} implies for the first term on the righthand side of \eqref{su_12} that
%
\begin{equation}\label{su_16}\begin{aligned}
%
& \int_{\R^2}\int_{(\TT^d)^3}\Phi^{\frac{1}{2}}(\rho^1)\nabla_x\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho^1)\overline{\kappa}^{\ve,\d}_{1,t}\chi^2_t\cdot \big(\nabla_{x'}\kappa^{\ve,\d}_2\big)\zeta^M
%
\\ & =-2\int_{\R}\int_{(\TT^d)^3}\frac{\Phi^{\frac{1}{2}}(\rho^1)\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho^2)}{\Phi'(\rho^2)}\nabla_x\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho^1)\cdot \nabla_{x'}\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho^2)\overline{\kappa}^{\ve,\d}_{1,t}\overline{\kappa}^{\ve,\d}_{2,t}\zeta^M,
%
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
%
and for the final term on the righthand side of \eqref{su_12} that
%
\begin{equation}\label{su_17}\begin{aligned}
%
& \int_{\R^2}\int_{(\TT^d)^3}g(x,t)\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho^1)\overline{\kappa}^{\ve,\d}_{1,t}\chi^2_t\cdot \big(\nabla_{x'}\kappa^{\ve,\d}_2\big)\zeta^M 
%
\\ & = -2\int_{\R}\int_{(\TT^d)^3}g(x,t)\frac{\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho^1)\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho^2)}{\Phi'(\rho^2)}\cdot \nabla_{x'}\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho^2)\overline{\kappa}^{\ve,\d}_{1,t}\overline{\kappa}^{\ve,\d}_{2,t}\zeta^M.
%
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
%
Returning to \eqref{su_12}, it follows from \eqref{su_14}, \eqref{su_15}, \eqref{su_16}, and \eqref{su_17} that
%
\begin{equation}\label{su_18}\begin{aligned}
%
\partial_t\mathbb{I}^{\ve,\d,M}_{t,1,\textrm{mix}} = &  -4\int_{\R}\int_{(\TT^d)^3}\frac{\Phi^{\frac{1}{2}}(\rho^1)\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho^2)}{\Phi'(\rho^2)}\nabla_x\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho^1)\cdot \nabla_{x'}\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho^2)\overline{\kappa}^{\ve,\d}_{1,t}\overline{\kappa}^{\ve,\d}_{2,t}\zeta^M
%
\\ &  +\int_{\R^2}\int_{(\TT^d)^3}p^1_t\kappa^{\ve,\d}_1\left(\overline{\kappa}^{\ve,\d}_{2,t}-\kappa^{\ve,\d}(x',y,0,\eta)\right)\zeta^M
%
\\ & -2\int_{\R}\int_{(\TT^d)^3}g(x,t)\frac{\Phi(\rho^1)}{\Phi'(\rho^1)}\cdot \nabla_x\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho^1)\overline{\kappa}^{\ve,\d}_{1,t}\left(\overline{\kappa}^{\ve,\d}_{2,t}-\kappa^{\ve,\d}(x',y,0,\eta)\right)\zeta^M
%
\\ & +2\int_{\R}\int_{(\TT^d)^3}g(x,t)\frac{\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho^1)\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho^2)}{\Phi'(\rho^2)}\cdot \nabla_{x'}\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho^2)\overline{\kappa}^{\ve,\d}_{1,t}\overline{\kappa}^{\ve,\d}_{2,t}\zeta^M
%
\\ & +2\int_{\R}\int_{(\TT^d)^2}g(x,t)\frac{\Phi(\rho^1)}{\Phi'(\rho^1)}\cdot \nabla_x\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho^1)\overline{\kappa}^{\ve,\d}_{1,t}\chi^{2,\ve,\d}_t\partial_\eta\zeta^M-\int_{\R^2}\int_{(\TT^d)^2}p^1_t\kappa^{\ve,\d}_1\chi^{2,\ve,\d}_t\partial_\eta\zeta^M.
%
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
%
Since we have the same formula for $\mathbb{I}^{\ve,\d,M}_{t,2,\textrm{mix}}$, after swapping the roles of $i\in\{1,2\}$, $x,x'\in\TT^d$, and $\xi,\xi'\in\R$, it follows from \eqref{su_011} and \eqref{su_18} that
%
\begin{equation}\label{su_19}\begin{aligned}
%
\partial_t\mathbb{I}^{\ve,\d,M}_{t,\textrm{mix}} = &  -4\int_{\R}\int_{(\TT^d)^3}\Phi^{\frac{1}{2}}(\rho^1)\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho^2)\left(\frac{1}{\Phi'(\rho^1)}+\frac{1}{\Phi'(\rho^2)}\right)\nabla_x\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho^1)\cdot \nabla_{x'}\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho^2)\overline{\kappa}^{\ve,\d}_{1,t}\overline{\kappa}^{\ve,\d}_{2,t}\zeta^M
%
\\ &  +\int_{\R^2}\int_{(\TT^d)^3}p^1_t\kappa^{\ve,\d}_1\left(\overline{\kappa}^{\ve,\d}_{2,t}-\kappa^{\ve,\d}(x',y,0,\eta)\right)\zeta^M
%
\\  &  +\int_{\R^2}\int_{(\TT^d)^3}p^2_t\kappa^{\ve,\d}_2\left(\overline{\kappa}^{\ve,\d}_{1,t}-\kappa^{\ve,\d}(x,y,0,\eta)\right)\zeta^M
%
\\ & -2\int_{\R}\int_{(\TT^d)^3}g(x,t)\frac{\Phi(\rho^1)}{\Phi'(\rho^1)}\cdot \nabla_x\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho^1)\overline{\kappa}^{\ve,\d}_{1,t}\left(\overline{\kappa}^{\ve,\d}_{2,t}-\kappa^{\ve,\d}(x',y,0,\eta)\right)\zeta^M
%
\\ & -2\int_{\R}\int_{(\TT^d)^3}g(x',t)\frac{\Phi(\rho^2)}{\Phi'(\rho^2)}\cdot \nabla_{x'}\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho^2)\overline{\kappa}^{\ve,\d}_{2,t}\left(\overline{\kappa}^{\ve,\d}_{1,t}-\kappa^{\ve,\d}(x,y,0,\eta)\right)\zeta^M
%
\\ & +2\int_{\R}\int_{(\TT^d)^3}g(x,t)\frac{\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho^1)\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho^2)}{\Phi'(\rho^2)}\cdot \nabla_{x'}\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho^2)\overline{\kappa}^{\ve,\d}_{1,t}\overline{\kappa}^{\ve,\d}_{2,t}\zeta^M
%
\\ & +2\int_{\R}\int_{(\TT^d)^3}g(x',t)\frac{\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho^1)\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho^2)}{\Phi'(\rho^1)}\cdot \nabla_x\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho^1)\overline{\kappa}^{\ve,\d}_{1,t}\overline{\kappa}^{\ve,\d}_{2,t}\zeta^M
%
\\ & +2\int_{\R}\int_{(\TT^d)^2}g(x,t)\frac{\Phi(\rho^1)}{\Phi'(\rho^1)}\cdot \nabla_x\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho^1)\overline{\kappa}^{\ve,\d}_{1,t}\chi^{2,\ve,\d}_t\partial_\eta\zeta^M-\int_{\R^2}\int_{(\TT^d)^2}p^1_t\kappa^{\ve,\d}_1\chi^{2,\ve,\d}_t\partial_\eta\zeta^M
%
\\ & +2\int_{\R}\int_{(\TT^d)^2}g(x',t)\frac{\Phi(\rho^2)}{\Phi'(\rho^2)}\cdot \nabla_{x'}\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho^2)\overline{\kappa}^{\ve,\d}_{2,t}\chi^{1,\ve,\d}_t\partial_\eta\zeta^M-\int_{\R^2}\int_{(\TT^d)^2}p^2_t\kappa^{\ve,\d}_2\chi^{1,\ve,\d}_t\partial_\eta\zeta^M,
%
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
%
which completes the initial analysis of the mixed term.


\textbf{The full derivative.}  We will decompose the full derivative of \eqref{su_0007} defined by \eqref{su_07}, \eqref{su_007}, \eqref{su_11}, \eqref{su_0011}, and \eqref{su_19} into the following four terms.  We define the parabolic term
%
\begin{equation}\label{su_21}\begin{aligned}
%
\partial_t\mathbb{I}^{\ve,\d,M}_{t,\textrm{par}} & =  8\int_{\R}\int_{(\TT^d)^3}\Phi^{\frac{1}{2}}(\rho^1)\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho^2)\left(\frac{1}{\Phi'(\rho^1)}+\frac{1}{\Phi'(\rho^2)}\right)\nabla_x\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho^1)\cdot \nabla_{x'}\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho^2)\overline{\kappa}^{\ve,\d}_{1,t}\overline{\kappa}^{\ve,\d}_{2,t}\zeta^M
%
\\ &\quad  -2\int_{\R^2}\int_{(\TT^d)^3}\left(p^1_t\kappa^{\ve,\d}_1\overline{\kappa}^{\ve,\d}_{2,t}+p^2_t\kappa^{\ve,\d}_2\overline{\kappa}^{\ve,\d}_{1,t}\right)\zeta^M,
%
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
%
the hyperbolic term
%
\begin{equation}\label{su_22}\begin{aligned}
%
\partial_t\mathbb{I}^{\ve,\d,M}_{t,\textrm{hyp}} & =  4\int_\R\int_{(\TT^d)^3}g(x,t)\frac{\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho^1)}{\Phi'(\rho^1)}\left(\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho^1)-\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho^2)\right)\cdot \nabla_x\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho^1)\overline{\kappa}^{\ve,\d}_{1,t}\overline{\kappa}^{\ve,\d}_{2,t}\zeta^M
%
\\ & \quad +4\int_\R\int_{(\TT^d)^3}g(x',t)\frac{\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho^2)}{\Phi'(\rho^2)}\left(\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho^2)-\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho^1)\right)\cdot \nabla_{x'}\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho^2)\overline{\kappa}^{\ve,\d}_{1,t}\overline{\kappa}^{\ve,\d}_{2,t}\zeta^M,
%
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
%
the term involving the control
%
\begin{equation}\label{su_022}\begin{aligned}
%
\partial_t\mathbb{I}^{\ve,\d,M}_{t,\textrm{con}} & =  4\int_{\R}\int_{(\TT^d)^3}\left(g(x,t)-g(x',t)\right)\frac{\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho^1)\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho^2)}{\Phi'(\rho^1)}\cdot \nabla_x\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho^1)\overline{\kappa}^{\ve,\d}_{1,t}\overline{\kappa}^{\ve,\d}_{2,t}\zeta^M
%
\\ & \quad +4\int_{\R}\int_{(\TT^d)^3}\left(g(x',t)-g(x,t)\right)\frac{\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho^1)\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho^2)}{\Phi'(\rho^2)}\cdot \nabla_{x'}\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho^2)\overline{\kappa}^{\ve,\d}_{1,t}\overline{\kappa}^{\ve,\d}_{2,t}\zeta^M,
%
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
%
and the term defined by the cutoff
%
\begin{equation}\label{su_23} \begin{aligned}
%
\partial_t\mathbb{I}^{\ve,\d,M}_{t,\textrm{vel}} & =  2\int_{\R}\int_{(\TT^d)^2}g(x,t)\frac{\Phi(\rho^1)}{\Phi'(\rho^1)}\cdot \nabla_x\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho^1)\overline{\kappa}^{\ve,\d}_{1,t}\left(\sgn^\delta-2\chi^{2,\ve,\d}_t\right)\partial_\eta\zeta^M
%
\\ & \quad + 2\int_{\R}\int_{(\TT^d)^2}g(x',t)\frac{\Phi(\rho^2)}{\Phi'(\rho^2)}\cdot \nabla_{x'}\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho^2)\overline{\kappa}^{\ve,\d}_{2,t}\left(\sgn^\delta-2\chi^{1,\ve,\d}_t\right)\partial_\eta\zeta^M
%
\\ & \quad + \int_{\R^2}\int_{(\TT^d)^2}p^1_t\kappa^{\ve,\d}_1\left(2\chi^{2,\ve,\d}_t-\sgn^\delta\right)\partial_\eta\zeta^M
%
\\ & \quad + \int_{\R^2}\int_{(\TT^d)^2}p^2_t\kappa^{\ve,\d}_2\left(2\chi^{1,\ve,\d}_t-\sgn^\delta\right)\partial_\eta\zeta^M.
%
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
%
It follows from \eqref{su_0007}, \eqref{su_07}, \eqref{su_007}, \eqref{su_11}, and \eqref{su_19} that, as distributions on $(0,T)$,
%
\begin{equation}\label{su_24}\partial_t\mathbb{I}^{\ve,\d,M}_t = \partial_t\mathbb{I}^{\ve,\d,M}_{t,\textrm{par}}+\partial_t\mathbb{I}^{\ve,\d,M}_{t,\textrm{hyp}}+ \partial_t\mathbb{I}^{\ve,\d,M}_{t,\textrm{con}}+\partial_t\mathbb{I}^{\ve,\d,M}_{t,\textrm{vel}}.\end{equation}
%
The four terms on the righthand side of \eqref{su_24} will be handled separately.



\textbf{The parabolic terms.}  After adding and subtracting $2(\Phi'(\rho^1)\Phi'(\rho^2))^{-\nicefrac{1}{2}}$ and using the identity
%
$$\frac{1}{\Phi'(\rho^1)}+\frac{1}{\Phi'(\rho^2)}-\frac{2}{\Phi'(\rho^1)^\frac{1}{2}\Phi'(\rho^2)^\frac{1}{2}}=\frac{\left(\Phi'(\rho^1)^\frac{1}{2}-\Phi'(\rho^2)^\frac{1}{2}\right)^2}{\Phi'(\rho^1)\Phi'(\rho^2)},$$
%
the parabolic term defined in \eqref{su_21} satisfies
%
\begin{equation}\label{su_25}\begin{aligned}
%
\partial_t\mathbb{I}^{\ve,\d,M}_{t,\textrm{par}} & = 8\int_{\R}\int_{(\TT^d)^3}\frac{\Phi^{\frac{1}{2}}(\rho^1)\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho^2)}{\Phi'(\rho^1)\Phi'(\rho^2)}\left(\Phi'(\rho^1)^\frac{1}{2}-\Phi'(\rho^2)^\frac{1}{2}\right)^2\nabla_x\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho^1)\cdot \nabla_{x'}\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho^2)\overline{\kappa}^{\ve,\d}_{1,t}\overline{\kappa}^{\ve,\d}_{2,t}\zeta^M
%
\\ & \quad + 16\int_\R\int_{(\TT^d)^3}\frac{\Phi^{\frac{1}{2}}(\rho^1)\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho^2)}{\Phi'(\rho^1)^\frac{1}{2}\Phi'(\rho^2)^\frac{1}{2}}\nabla_x\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho^1)\cdot \nabla_{x'}\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho^2)\overline{\kappa}^{\ve,\d}_{1,t}\overline{\kappa}^{\ve,\d}_{2,t}\zeta^M
%
\\ & \quad -2\int_{\R^2}\int_{(\TT^d)^3}\left(p^1_t\kappa^{\ve,\d}_1\overline{\kappa}^{\ve,\d}_{2,t}+p^2_t\kappa^{\ve,\d}_2\overline{\kappa}^{\ve,\d}_{1,t}\right)\zeta^M.
%
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
%
The definition of the parabolic defect measures $\{p^i\}_{i\in\{1,2\}}$, H\"older's inequality, and Young's inequality prove that
%
\begin{equation}\label{su_26}\begin{aligned}
%
& 16\int_\R\int_{(\TT^d)^3}\frac{\Phi^{\frac{1}{2}}(\rho^1)\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho^2)}{\Phi'(\rho^1)^\frac{1}{2}\Phi'(\rho^2)^\frac{1}{2}}\nabla_x\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho^1)\cdot \nabla_{x'}\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho^2)\overline{\kappa}^{\ve,\d}_{1,t}\overline{\kappa}^{\ve,\d}_{2,t}\zeta^M
%
\\ & \leq 2\int_{\R^2}\int_{(\TT^d)^3}\left(p^1_t\kappa^{\ve,\d}_1\overline{\kappa}^{\ve,\d}_{2,t}+p^2_t\kappa^{\ve,\d}_2\overline{\kappa}^{\ve,\d}_{1,t}\right)\zeta^M.
%
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
%
It follows from the definition of the convolution kernels, \eqref{skel_continuity_1}, \eqref{su_25}, and \eqref{su_26} that there exist $c\in(0,\infty)$ depending on $M\in(0,\infty)$ but independent of $\ve,\delta\in(0,1)$ such that
%
$$\partial_t\mathbb{I}^{\ve,\d,M}_{t,\textrm{par}}\leq c\delta \int_\R\int_{(\TT^d)^3}\mathbf{1}_{\{0<\abs{\rho^1(x,t)-\rho^2(x',t)}\leq c\delta\}}\abs{\nabla_x\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho^1)}\abs{\nabla_x\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho^2)}\overline{\kappa}^{\ve,\d}_{1,t}\overline{\kappa}^{\ve,\d}_{2,t}\zeta^M.$$
%
The definition of the convolution kernels, the definition of $\zeta^M$, H\"older's inequality, and Young's inequality prove that there exists $c\in(0,\infty)$ depending on $M\in(0,\infty)$ which satisfies for every $\delta\in(0,1)$ that
%
$$\limsup_{\ve\rightarrow 0}\left(\partial_t\mathbb{I}^{\ve,\d,M}_{t,\textrm{par}}\right)\leq c\int_{\left\{\substack{0<\abs{\rho^1-\rho^2}\leq c\delta\\ \abs{\rho_1},\abs{\rho_2}\leq M+1+\delta}\right\}}\abs{\nabla_x\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho^1)}^2+\abs{\nabla_x\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho^2)}^2\dx.$$
%
The fact that for each $i\in\{1,2\}$ we have $\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho^i)\in L^2([0,T];H^1(\TT^d))$ and the dominated convergence theorem then imply for almost every $t\in(0,T]$ that
%
\begin{equation}\label{su_27}\limsup_{\d\rightarrow 0}\left(\limsup_{\ve\rightarrow 0}\left(\partial_t\mathbb{I}^{\ve,\d,M}_{t,\textrm{par}}\right)\right)\leq 0,\end{equation}
%
which completes the analysis of the parabolic terms.


\textbf{The hyperbolic terms.}  The definition of the hyperbolic terms \eqref{su_22}, the definition of the convolution kernels, and \eqref{skel_continuity} prove that there exists $c\in(0,\infty)$ depending on $M\in(0,\infty)$ but independent of $\ve,\d\in(0,1)$ so that
%
$$\begin{aligned}
%
& \partial_t\mathbb{I}^{\ve,\d,M}_{t,\textrm{hyp}}
%
\\ & \leq c\delta\int_\R\int_{(\TT^d)^3}\mathbf{1}_{\{0<\abs{\rho^1(x,t)-\rho^2(x',t)}\leq c\delta\}}\left(\abs{g(x,t)}\abs{\nabla_x\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho^1)}+\abs{g(x',t)}\abs{\nabla_{x'}\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho^2)}\right)\overline{\kappa}^{\ve,\d}_{1,t}\overline{\kappa}^{\ve,\d}_{2,t}\zeta^M.
%
\end{aligned}$$
%
The definition of the convolution kernels, the definition of $\zeta^M$, H\"older's inequality, and Young's inequality prove that there exists $c\in(0,\infty)$ depending on $M\in(0,\infty)$ such that, for every $\delta\in(0,1)$,
%
$$\limsup_{\ve\rightarrow 0}\left(\partial_t\mathbb{I}^{\ve,\d,M}_{t,\textrm{hyp}}\right)\leq c\int_{\{0<\abs{\rho^1-\rho^2}\leq c\delta\}}\abs{g(x,t)}^2+\abs{\nabla_x\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho^1)}^2+\abs{\nabla_x\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho^2)}^2\dx.$$
%
Since $g\in L^2(\TT^d\times[0,T];\R^d)$ and since for each $i\in\{1,2\}$ we have that $\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho^i)\in L^2([0,T];H^1(\TT^d))$, the dominated convergence theorem proves that, for almost every $t\in(0,T]$,
%
\begin{equation}\label{su_28}\limsup_{\delta\rightarrow 0}\left(\limsup_{\ve\rightarrow 0}\left(\partial_t\mathbb{I}^{\ve,\d,M}_{t,\textrm{hyp}}\right)\right)\leq 0,\end{equation}
%
which completes the analysis of the hyperbolic terms.


\textbf{The control terms.}  The definition of the convolution kernel, the definition of $\zeta^M$ and \eqref{skel_continuity_2} prove that there exists $c\in(0,\infty)$ depending on $M\in(0,\infty)$ but independent of $\ve,\d\in(0,1)$ such that \eqref{su_022} satisfies
%
$$\partial_t\mathbb{I}^{\ve,\d,M}_{t,\textrm{con}} \leq c\int_{\R}\int_{(\TT^d)^3}\abs{g(x',t)-g(x,t)}\left(\abs{\nabla_x\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho^1)}+\abs{\nabla_{x'}\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho^2)}\right)\overline{\kappa}^{\ve,\d}_{1,t}\overline{\kappa}^{\ve,\d}_{2,t}\zeta^M. $$
%
Since $g\in L^2(\TT^d\times[0,T];\R^d)$ and since for each $i\in\{1,2\}$ we have that $\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho^i)\in L^2([0,T];H^1(\TT^d))$, for almost every $t\in(0,T)$, for every $M\in(0,\infty)$ and $\delta\in(0,1)$,
%
$$\limsup_{\ve\rightarrow 0}\left( \partial_t\mathbb{I}^{\ve,\d,M}_{t,\textrm{con}} \right)\leq 0,$$
%
and, therefore, for almost every $t\in(0,T)$, for every $M\in(0,\infty)$ and $\delta\in(0,1)$,
%
\begin{equation}\label{su_29}\limsup_{\d\rightarrow 0}\left(\limsup_{\ve\rightarrow 0}\left( \partial_t\mathbb{I}^{\ve,\d,M}_{t,\textrm{con}}\right) \right)\leq 0,\end{equation}
%
which completes the analysis of the control terms.


\textbf{The cutoff in velocity.}  For every $\delta\in(0,1)$ let $\kappa^{v,\d}\colon\R\rightarrow\R$ be defined by
%
$$\kappa^{v,\d}(\xi)=\delta^{-1}\kappa^v\left(\frac{\xi}{\delta}\right).$$
%
The definition of the cutoff in velocity \eqref{su_23}, the definition of the convolution kernels, the inequality
%
$$\abs{2\chi^{i,\ve,\d}-\sgn^\delta}\leq 1,$$
%
and the definition of $\zeta^M$ prove that, for every $M\in(0,\infty)$,
%
$$\begin{aligned}
%
\limsup_{\ve \rightarrow 0}\left(\partial_t\mathbb{I}^{\ve,\d,M}_{t,\textrm{vel}}\right) & \leq 2\int_{\R}\int_{\TT^d}\abs{g(y,t)}\frac{\Phi(\rho^1)}{\Phi'(\rho^1)}\abs{\nabla_x\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho^1)}\kappa^{v,\d}(\rho^1-\eta)\abs{\partial_\eta\zeta^M} 
%
\\ & \quad  + 2\int_{\R}\int_{\TT^d}\abs{g(y,t)}\frac{\Phi(\rho^2)}{\Phi'(\rho^2)}\abs{\nabla_{x'}\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho^2)}\kappa^{v,\d}(\rho^2-\eta)\abs{\partial_\eta\zeta^M}
%
\\ & \quad + \int_{\R^2}\int_{\TT^d}p^1_t\kappa^{v,\d}(\rho^1-\eta)\abs{\partial_\eta\zeta^M} + \int_{\R^2}\int_{\TT^d}p^2_t\kappa^{v,\d}(\rho^2-\eta)\abs{\partial_\eta\zeta^M}.
%
\end{aligned} $$
%
The definition of the convolution kernel, the definition of $\zeta^M$, \eqref{skel_continuity_4}, and \eqref{skel_continuity_3} imply that there exists $c\in(0,\infty)$ such that, for every $M\in(0,\infty)$,
%
\begin{equation}\label{su_30}\begin{aligned}
%
& \limsup_{\d\rightarrow 0}\left(\limsup_{\ve\rightarrow 0}\left(\mathbb{I}^{\ve,\d,M}_{t,\textrm{vel}}\right)\right) 
%
\\ & \leq c(M+1)\int_{\{M\leq \rho^1\leq M+1\}}\abs{g(y,t)}\abs{\nabla_x\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho^1)}+c\int_{\{0<\rho^1\leq\frac{2}{M}\}}\abs{g(y,t)}\abs{\nabla_x\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho^1)}
%
\\ & \quad + c(M+1)\int_{\{M\leq \rho^2\leq M+1\}}\abs{g(y,t)}\abs{\nabla_x\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho^2)}+c\int_{\{0<\rho^2\leq\frac{2}{M}\}}\abs{g(y,t)}\abs{\nabla_x\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho^2)}
%
\\ & \quad + \int_\R\int_{\{M\leq \rho^1\leq M+1\}}p^1_t\dy\deta + \int_\R\int_{\{M\leq \rho^2\leq M+1\}}p^2_t\dy\deta
%
\\ & \quad + M\int_\R\int_{\{0< \rho^1\leq \frac{2}{M}\}}p^1_t\dy\deta + M\int_\R\int_{\{0< \rho^2\leq \frac{2}{M}\}}p^2_t\dy\deta.
%
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
%
The definition of the parabolic defect measures, \eqref{skel_continuity_4}, and \eqref{skel_continuity_3} prove that there exists $c\in(0,\infty)$ satisfying for every $i\in\{1,2\}$ that
%
\begin{equation}\label{su_030} \begin{aligned} & \int_\R\int_{\{M\leq \rho^i\leq M+1\}}p^i_t\dy\deta + M\int_\R\int_{\{0< \rho^i\leq \frac{2}{M}\}}p^i_t\dy\deta \\ &  \leq  c(M+1)\int_\R\int_{\{M\leq \rho^i\leq M+1\}}\abs{\nabla\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho^i)}^2+c\int_{\{0<\rho^i<\frac{2}{M}\}}\abs{\nabla\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho^i)}^2. \end{aligned}\end{equation}
%
Therefore, it follows from H\"older's inequality, Young's inequality, \eqref{su_30}, and \eqref{su_030} that there exists $c\in(0,\infty)$ such that, for every $M\in(0,\infty)$,
%
\begin{equation}\label{su_0300}\begin{aligned}
%
& \limsup_{\d\rightarrow 0}\left(\limsup_{\ve\rightarrow 0}\left(\mathbb{I}^{\ve,\d,M}_{t,\textrm{vel}}\right)\right) 
%
\\ & \leq c\sum_{i=1}^2\left((M+1)\int_{\{M\leq \rho^i\leq M+1\}}\abs{g(y,t)}^2+\int_{\{0<\rho^i\leq\frac{2}{M}\}}\abs{g(y,t)}^2\right)
%
\\ & \quad + c\sum_{i=1}^2\left((M+1)\int_{\{M\leq \rho^i\leq M+1\}}\abs{\nabla_x\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho^i)}^2+\int_{\{0<\rho^i\leq\frac{2}{M}\}}\abs{\nabla_x\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho^i)}^2\right),
%
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
%
which completes the analysis of the cutoff in velocity.

\textbf{The conclusion.}  Returning to \eqref{su_0}, it follows from \eqref{su_27}, \eqref{su_28}, \eqref{su_29}, and \eqref{su_0300} that there exists $c\in(0,\infty)$ which satisfies for every $M\in(0,\infty)$ that
%
$$\begin{aligned}
%
& \norm{\abs{\chi^1-\chi^2}^2\zeta^M}_{L^\infty([0,T];L^1(\TT^d\times\R))}
%
\\ & \leq \norm{\abs{\overline{\chi}(\rho^1_0)-\overline{\chi}(\rho^2_0)}\zeta^M}_{L^1(\TT^d\times\R)}
%
\\ & \quad +c\sum_{i=1}^2\left((M+1)\int_0^T\int_{\{M\leq \rho^i\leq M+1\}}\abs{g(y,t)}^2+\int_0^T\int_{\{0<\rho^i\leq\frac{2}{M}\}}\abs{g(y,t)}^2\right)
%
\\ & \quad + c\sum_{i=1}^2\left((M+1)\int_0^T\int_{\{M\leq \rho^i\leq M+1\}}\abs{\nabla_x\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho^i)}^2+\int_0^T\int_{\{0<\rho^i\leq\frac{2}{M}\}}\abs{\nabla_x\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho^i)}^2\right).
%
\end{aligned}$$
%
The monotone convergence theorem, the dominated convergence theorem, and properties of the kinetic function prove that
%
\begin{equation}\label{su_31}\begin{aligned}
%
& \norm{\rho^1-\rho^2}_{L^\infty([0,T];L^1(\TT^d))}
%
\\ & \leq   \norm{\rho^1_0-\rho^2_0}_{L^1(\TT^d)}
%
\\ & \quad + \liminf_{M\rightarrow\infty}\left(c\sum_{i=1}^2\left((M+1)\int_0^T\int_{\{M\leq \rho^i\leq M+1\}}\abs{g(y,t)}^2+\abs{\nabla_x\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho^i)}^2\dy\dt\right)\right).
%
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
%
After defining $\{f_i\}_{i\in\{1,2\}}\subseteq L^1([0,T];L^1(\TT^d\times[0,T]))$ by
%
$$\begin{aligned}
%
f_1 & =\abs{g(y,t)}^2+\abs{\nabla_x\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho^1)}^2,
%
\\ f_2 & =\abs{g(y,t)}^2+\abs{\nabla_x\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho^2)}^2,
%
\end{aligned}$$
%
and after defining the measurable subsets $\{A_{n,i}\}_{i\in\{1,2,3,4\},n\in\mathbb{N}\cup\{0\}}\subseteq\mathcal{B}(\TT^d\times(0,T))$ for every $n\in\mathbb{N}$ by
%
$$\begin{aligned}
%
A_{n,1} & =\{(x,t)\in\TT^d\times(0,T)\colon 2n\leq \rho^1(x,t)\leq 2n+1\},
%
\\ A_{n,2} & =\{(x,t)\in\TT^d\times(0,T)\colon 2n+1\leq \rho^1(x,t)\leq 2n+2\},
%
\\ A_{n,3} & =\{(x,t)\in\TT^d\times(0,T)\colon 2n\leq \rho^2(x,t)\leq 2n+1\},
%
\\ A_{n,2} & =\{(x,t)\in\TT^d\times(0,T)\colon 2n+1\leq \rho^2(x,t)\leq 2n+2\},
%
\end{aligned}$$
%
it follows from Lemma~\ref{lem_partition} that
%
\begin{equation}\label{su_0000031} \liminf_{M\rightarrow\infty}\left(c\sum_{i=1}^2\left((M+1)\int_0^T\int_{\{M\leq \rho^i\leq M+1\}}\abs{g(y,t)}^2+\abs{\nabla_x\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho^i)}^2\dy\dt\right)\right)= 0.\end{equation}
%
Returning to \eqref{su_31}, we conclude from \eqref{su_0000031} that
%
$$\norm{\rho^1-\rho^2}_{L^\infty([0,T];L^1(\TT^d))}\leq  \norm{\rho^1_0-\rho^2_0}_{L^1(\TT^d)},$$
%
which completes the proof.  \end{proof}



\section{Equivalence of renormalized kinetic solutions and weak solutions}\label{sec_equiv}  In this section, we will prove that renormalized kinetic solutions (cf.\ Definition~\ref{skel_sol_def}) are equivalent to classical weak solutions (cf.\ Definition~\ref{classical_weak} below) of the skeleton equation.   The reason is that while the kinetic formulation was used essentially in the proof of uniqueness, this formulation cannot readily be used to show that a weakly convergent sequence of controls induces a strongly convergent sequence of solutions.  The problem appears in the second term on the righthand side of \eqref{skel_sol_def_1}, which in this setting would contain the product of a weakly converging control and a weakly converging gradient.  In addition to Assumption~\ref{as_unique} above, the following assumption will be used to prove the equivalence. We prove in Proposition~\ref{assumption_prop} of the Appendix that this assumption is satisfied by $\Phi(\xi)=\xi^m$ for every $m\in[1,\infty)$.  The definition of weak solutions and the proof of the equivalence follow immediately after the assumption.


\begin{assumption}\label{as_equiv} Let $\Phi\in W^{1,1}_{\textrm{loc}}(\R)$ satisfy Assumption~\ref{as_unique}.  Assume either that
%
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
%
\item We have that $\Phi^\frac{1}{2}\colon[0,\infty)\rightarrow[0,\infty)$ is concave, and there exists $c\in(0,\infty)$ and $p\in[2,\infty)$ such that, for every $\xi\in[0,\infty)$,
%
\begin{equation}\label{skel_continuity_5} \left(\frac{\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\xi)}{\Phi'(\xi)}\right)^p\leq c\left(\xi+1\right),\end{equation}
%
\end{enumerate}
%
or that
%
\begin{enumerate}[(ii)]
%
\item We have that $\Phi^\frac{1}{2}\colon[0,\infty)\rightarrow[0,\infty)$ is convex, there exists $c\in(0,\infty)$ such that
%
\begin{equation}\label{skel_continuity_6} \esssup_{\{\xi\geq 1\}}\abs{\frac{\Phi(\xi+1)}{\Phi(\xi)}}\leq c,\end{equation}
%
and for every $M\in(0,1)$ there exists $c\in(0,\infty)$ such that
%
\begin{equation}\label{skel_continuity_7} \esssup_{\{\xi\geq M\}}\abs{\frac{\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\xi)}{\Phi'(\xi)}}\leq c.\end{equation}
%
\end{enumerate}
%
\end{assumption}


\begin{definition}\label{classical_weak}  Let $T\in(0,\infty)$, let $\Phi\in W^{1,1}_{\textrm{loc}}([0,\infty))$ be nonnegative, let $g\in L^2(\TT^d\times[0,T];\R^d)$, and let $\rho_0\in\Ent_\Phi(\TT^d)$.  A function $\rho\in L^\infty([0,T];L^1(\TT^d))$ is a \emph{weak solution} of \eqref{skel_eq} with initial data $\rho_0$ if $\rho$ satisfies the following two properties.
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
%
\item We have
%
\begin{equation}\label{equiv_1}\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho)\in L^2([0,T];H^1(\TT^d)).\end{equation}
%
\item There exists a subset $\mathcal{N}\subseteq(0,T]$ of Lebesgue measure zero such that, for every $t\in[0,T]\setminus\mathcal{N}$, for every $\psi\in \C^\infty(\TT^d)$,
%
\begin{equation}\begin{aligned}\label{equiv_2}\int_{\TT^d}\rho(x,t)\psi(x)\dx & =-\int_0^t\int_{\TT^d}2\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho)\nabla\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho)\cdot\nabla \psi \dx\dt+\int_0^t\int_{\TT^d}g\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho)\cdot \nabla \psi \dx\dt  \\ & \quad +\int_{\TT^d}\rho_0(x)\psi(x)\dx.\end{aligned}\end{equation}
%
\end{enumerate}
%
\end{definition}



\begin{thm}\label{equiv}  Let $T\in(0,\infty)$, let $\Phi\in W^{1,1}_{\textrm{loc}}([0,\infty))$ satisfy Assumptions~\ref{as_unique} and \ref{as_equiv}, let $g\in L^2(\TT^d\times[0,T];\R^d)$, let $\rho_0\in \Ent_\Phi(\TT^d)$, and let $\rho\in L^\infty([0,T];L^1(\TT^d))$.  Then, $\rho$ is a renormalized kinetic solution (cf.\ Definition~\ref{skel_sol_def}) with control $g$ and initial data $\rho_0$ if and only if $\rho$ is a weak solution (cf.\ Definition~\ref{classical_weak}) with control $g$ and initial data $\rho_0$.
%
\end{thm}


\begin{proof}  We will first prove that Definition~\ref{skel_sol_def} implies Definition~\ref{classical_weak}.  Assume that $\rho$ is a renormalized kinetic solution of \eqref{skel_eq}.  Let $\chi\colon\TT^d\times\R\times[0,T]\rightarrow\R$ denote the kinetic function of $\rho$, and let $p$ denote the parabolic defect measure
%
$$p=\delta_0(\xi-\rho(x,t))\frac{4\Phi(\xi)}{\Phi'(\xi)}\abs{\nabla\left(\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(x,t))\right)}^2.$$
%
By definition of a renormalized kinetic solution,
%
$$\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho)\in L^2([0,T];H^1(\TT^d)).$$
%
It follows from \eqref{skel_sol_def_1} that there exists a subset $\mathcal{N}\subseteq(0,T]$ of Lebesgue measure zero such that, for every $t\in[0,T]\setminus\mathcal{N}$, for every $\psi\in\C^\infty(\TT^d)$,
%
$$\begin{aligned} \int_\R\int_{\TT^d}\chi(x,\xi,t)\psi(x)\dx\dxi & =\int_0^t\int_\R\int_{\TT^d}\Phi'(\xi)\chi \Delta_x\psi\dx\dt+\int_0^t\int_{\TT^d}g\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho)\cdot \nabla_x\psi\dx\dxi\dt \\ & \quad +\int_\R\int_{\TT^d}\overline{\chi}(\xi,\rho_0(x))\psi\dx\dxi.\end{aligned}$$
%
Lemma~\ref{ibp} and properties of the kinetic function then prove that
%
$$\begin{aligned} \int_{\TT^d}\rho(x,t)\psi(x)\dx & =-\int_0^t\int_{\TT^d}2\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho)\nabla\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho)\cdot \nabla \psi\dx\dt+\int_0^t\int_{\TT^d}g\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho)\cdot \nabla_x\psi\dx\dt \\ & \quad +\int_0^t\int_{\TT^d}\rho_0\psi\dx.\end{aligned}$$
%
This completes the proof that renormalized kinetic solutions are weak solutions.

We will now prove that Definition~\ref{classical_weak} implies Definition~\ref{skel_sol_def}.  Assume that $\rho$ is a weak solution.  Let $\mathcal{N}\subset(0,T]$ denote the set of Lebesgue measure zero from \eqref{equiv_2}.  Let $\chi\colon\TT^d\times\R\times[0,T]\rightarrow\R$ denote the kinetic function of $\rho$ and let $p$ denote the parabolic defect measure.  For every $\ve\in(0,1)$ let $\kappa^\ve\colon\TT^d\rightarrow\R$ be a standard symmetric convolution kernel of scale $\ve\in(0,1)$ and let $\rho^\ve\colon\TT^d\times[0,T]\rightarrow\R$ be defined by $\rho^\ve=(\rho * \kappa ^\ve)$.
%
It follows from \eqref{equiv_2} and the definition of the convolution kernel that, as distributions on $\TT^d\times(0,T)$, for every $\ve\in(0,1)$,
%
$$\partial_t\rho^\ve=\int_{\TT^d}2\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(y,t))\nabla\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(y,t))\cdot \nabla_x\kappa^\ve(y-x)\dy+\int_{\TT^d}g(y,t)\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(y,t))\cdot \nabla_x\kappa^\ve(y-x)\dy.$$
%
Let $\psi\in\C^\infty_c(\TT^d\times\R)$ and let $\Psi\colon\TT^d\times\R\rightarrow\R$ be defined by $\Psi(x,\xi)=\int_0^\xi\psi(x,\xi')\dxip$.  Then, for every $t\in[0,T]\setminus\mathcal{N}$,
%
\begin{equation}\label{equiv_04}\begin{aligned} & \left.\int_{\TT^d}\Psi(x,\rho^\ve(x,r))\dx\right|_{r=0}^{t}
%
\\ & = \int_0^t\int_{\TT^d}\partial_t\rho^\ve\psi(x,\rho^\ve)\dx\dr
%
\\ & = \int_0^t\int_{(\TT^d)^2}2\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(y,t))\nabla\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(y,t))\cdot \nabla_x\kappa^\ve(y-x)\psi(x,\rho^\ve(x,t))\dy\dx\dt
%
\\ & \quad - \int_0^t\int_{(\TT^d)^2}g(y,t)\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(y,t))\cdot \nabla_x\kappa^\ve(y-x)\psi(x,\rho^\ve(x,t))\dy\dx\dt.
%
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
%
The final two terms on the righthand side of \eqref{equiv_04} are treated identically.  Focusing on the final term of \eqref{equiv_04}, after integrating by parts in the $x$-variable,
%
\begin{equation}\label{equ_1}\begin{aligned}
%
& \int_0^t\int_{(\TT^d)^2}g(y,t)\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(y,t))\cdot \nabla_x\kappa^\ve(y-x)\psi(x,\rho^\ve(x,t))\dy\dx\dt
%
\\ & = -\int_0^t\int_{(\TT^d)^2}g(y,t)\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(y,t))\kappa^\ve(y-x)\cdot (\nabla_x\psi)(x,\rho^\ve(x,t))\dy\dx\dt
%
\\ & \quad -\int_0^t\int_{(\TT^d)^2}g(y,t)\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(y,t))\kappa^\ve(y-x)(\partial_\xi \psi)(x,\rho^\ve(x,t))\cdot \nabla_x \rho^\ve(x,t)\dy\dx\dt.
%
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
%
Since
%
$$\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(x,t))\in L^2([0,T];H^1(\TT^d))\;\;\textrm{and}\;\;g(x,t)\in L^2(\TT^d\times[0,T];\R^d),$$
%
it follows from H\"older's inequality that
%
$$g(x,t)\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(x,t))\in L^1(\TT^d\times[0,T];\R^d).$$
%
Therefore, as $\ve\rightarrow 0$,
%
\begin{equation}\label{equ_2}\int_{\TT^d}g(y,t)\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(y,t))\kappa^\ve(y-x)\dy\rightarrow \Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(x,t))g(x,t)\;\;\textrm{strongly in}\;\;L^1(\TT^d\times[0,T];\R^d).\end{equation}
%
It follows from \eqref{equ_2}, $\psi\in\C^\infty_c(\TT^d\times\R)$, the triangle inequality, and the dominated convergence theorem that
%
$$\begin{aligned}
%
& \lim_{\ve\rightarrow 0}\left(\int_0^t\int_{(\TT^d)^2}g(y,t)\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(y,t))\kappa^\ve(y-x)\cdot (\nabla_x\psi)(x,\rho^\ve(x,t))\dy\dx\dt\right)
%
\\ & =\int_0^t\int_{\TT^d}g(x,t)\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(x,t))\cdot (\nabla_x\psi)(x,\rho(x,t))\dx\dt.
%
\end{aligned}$$
%
The convergence of the final term on the righthand side of \eqref{equ_1} is more difficult.  For this, we will effectively upgrade the $L^1$-convergence in \eqref{equ_2} to an $L^2$-convergence by bounding the solution $\rho$.  Precisely, since $\psi\in\C^\infty_c(\TT^d\times\R)$ there exists $M\in(0,\infty)$ such that $\Supp(\psi)\subseteq \TT^d\times[-M,M]$, which implies that, for every $\ve\in(0,1)$, $0\leq \rho^\ve\leq M$ on $\Supp[\psi(\cdot,\rho^\ve(\cdot,\cdot))]$.  We will effectively transfer this bound for the convolution to a bound for the solution itself.  That is, for subsets $A_0,A_1\subseteq \TT^d\times[0,T]$ defined by
%
\begin{equation}\label{equ_005}A_1=\{(y,t)\in\TT^d\times[0,T]\colon \rho(y,t)\geq M+1\}\;\;\textrm{and}\;\;A_0=(\TT^d\times[0,T])\setminus A_1,\end{equation}
%
we will prove that, returning to the final term of \eqref{equiv_04},
%
\begin{equation}\label{equ_05}\limsup_{\ve\rightarrow 0}\abs{\int_0^t\int_{(\TT^d)^2}g(y,t)\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(y,t))\cdot \nabla_x\kappa^\ve(y-x)\psi(x,\rho^\ve(x,t))\mathbf{1}_{A_1}(y,t)\dy\dx\dt}=0.\end{equation}
%
It will then remain to characterize the limit, after integrating by parts in the $x$-variable,
%
\begin{equation}\label{equ_5}\begin{aligned}
%
& \lim_{\ve\rightarrow 0}\left(\int_0^t\int_{(\TT^d)^2}g(y,t)\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(y,t))\cdot \nabla_x\kappa^\ve(y-x)\psi(x,\rho^\ve(x,t))\mathbf{1}_{A_0}(y,t)\dy\dx\dt\right)
%
\\ &  =\lim_{\ve\rightarrow 0}\left(-\int_0^t\int_{(\TT^d)^2}g(y,t)\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(y,t))\kappa^\ve(y-x)\cdot (\nabla_x\psi)(x,\rho^\ve(x,t))\mathbf{1}_{A_0}(y,t)\dy\dx\dt\right.
%
\\ & \quad \quad \quad \quad \left.-\int_0^t\int_{(\TT^d)^2}g(y,t)\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(y,t))\kappa^\ve(y-x)(\partial_\xi \psi)(x,\rho^\ve(x,t))\cdot \nabla_x \rho^\ve(x,t)\mathbf{1}_{A_0}(y,t)\dy\dx\dt\right).
%
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
%
The point is that, on $A_0$ we have $0\leq \rho(y,t)\leq M+1$ and therefore, as $\ve\rightarrow 0$, strongly in $L^2(\TT^d\times[0,T];\R^d)$,
%
$$\left(\int_{\TT^d}g(y,t)\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(y,t))\mathbf{1}_{A_0}(y,t)\kappa^\ve(y-x)\dy\right)\rightarrow g(x,t)\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(x,t))\mathbf{1}_{A_0}(x,t).$$
%
The $L^2$-convergence improves the $L^1$-convergence from \eqref{equ_2}, and it is for this reason that we introduce the cutoff on the set $A_0$.  The proof of \eqref{equ_05} and the characterization of the limit \eqref{equ_5} will be separated into the case that $\Phi^\frac{1}{2}$ satisfies \eqref{skel_continuity_5} and the case that $\Phi^\frac{1}{2}$ satisfies \eqref{skel_continuity_6} and \eqref{skel_continuity_7}.

\textbf{The case that $\Phi^\frac{1}{2}$ satisfies \eqref{skel_continuity_5}.}  Since $\psi\in\C^\infty_c(\TT^d\times\R)$ there exists $M\in(0,\infty)$ such that
%
\begin{equation}\label{equiv_47} \Supp(\psi)\subseteq \TT^d\times[-M,M].\end{equation}
%
In analogy with \eqref{equ_005}, for every $k\in\N$ let $A_k\subseteq(\TT^d\times[0,T])$ be defined by
%
\begin{equation}\label{equiv_49} A_k=\{(y,t)\in\TT^d\times[0,T]\colon \Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(y,t))\geq \Phi^\frac{1}{2}(M)+k\},\end{equation}
%
and let $A_0=(\TT^d\times[0,T])\setminus A_1$.  Returning to \eqref{equiv_04}, we form the decomposition
%
\begin{equation}\label{equiv_004}\begin{aligned} & \left.\int_{\TT^d}\Psi(x,\rho^\ve(x,r))\dx\right|_{r=0}^{t}
%
\\ & = \int_0^t\int_{(\TT^d)^2}2\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(y,t))\nabla\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(y,t))\cdot \nabla_x\kappa^\ve(y-x)\psi(x,\rho^\ve(x,t))\mathbf{1}_{A_1}(y,t)\dy\dx\dt
%
\\ & \quad - \int_0^t\int_{(\TT^d)^2}g(y,t)\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(y,t))\cdot \nabla_x\kappa^\ve(y-x)\psi(x,\rho^\ve(x,t))\mathbf{1}_{A_1}(y,t)\dy\dx\dt.
%
\\ & \quad + \int_0^t\int_{(\TT^d)^2}2\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(y,t))\nabla\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(y,t))\cdot \nabla_x\kappa^\ve(y-x)\psi(x,\rho^\ve(x,t))\mathbf{1}_{A_0}(y,t)\dy\dx\dt
%
\\ & \quad - \int_0^t\int_{(\TT^d)^2}g(y,t)\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(y,t))\cdot \nabla_x\kappa^\ve(y-x)\psi(x,\rho^\ve(x,t))\mathbf{1}_{A_0}(y,t)\dy\dx\dt.
%
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
%
We will first prove that the first two terms on the righthand side of \eqref{equiv_004} vanish as $\ve\rightarrow 0$.  Precisely, it follows by choosing $F=g$ and $F=\nabla \Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho)$ in Lemma~\ref{aux_lemma_1} below that
%
\begin{equation}\label{equiv_000004}\begin{aligned}
%
& \limsup_{\ve\rightarrow 0}\left(\abs{\int_0^t\int_{(\TT^d)^2}2\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(y,t))\nabla\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(y,t))\cdot \nabla_x\kappa^\ve(y-x)\psi(x,\rho^\ve(x,t))\mathbf{1}_{A_1}(y,t)\dy\dx\dt}\right.
%
\\ & \quad \quad \quad \quad\quad\quad  \left.+ \abs{\int_0^t\int_{(\TT^d)^2}g(y,t)\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(y,t))\cdot \nabla_x\kappa^\ve(y-x)\psi(x,\rho^\ve(x,t))\mathbf{1}_{A_1}(y,t)\dy\dx\dt}\right)=0.
%
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
%
It will remain to treat the final terms on the righthand side of \eqref{equiv_004}.


\begin{lem}\label{aux_lemma_1} Let $\Phi\in W^{1,1}_{\textrm{loc}}([0,\infty))$ satisfy Assumption~\ref{as_unique} and \eqref{skel_continuity_5}.  Then, for every $F\in L^2(\TT^d\times[0,T];\R^d)$ and $\psi\in\C^\infty_c(\TT^d\times\R)$,
%
\begin{equation}\label{equiv_48} \limsup_{\ve\rightarrow 0}\abs{\int_0^t\int_{(\TT^d)^2}F(y,t)\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(y,t))\cdot \nabla_x\kappa^\ve(y-x)\psi(x,\rho^\ve(x,t))\mathbf{1}_{A_1}(y,t)\dy\dx\dt}=0.\end{equation}
%
\end{lem}
%
\begin{proof}  Let $\ve\in(0,1)$.  It follows from H\"older's inequality and \eqref{equiv_49} that
%
\begin{equation}\label{equiv_50}\begin{aligned}
%
& \abs{\int_0^t\int_{(\TT^d)^2}F(y,t)\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(y,t))\cdot \nabla_x\kappa^\ve(y-x)\psi(x,\rho^\ve(x,t))\mathbf{1}_{A_1}(y,t)\dy\dx\dt}
%
\\ & \leq \ve^{-1}\left(\int_0^t\int_{(\TT^d)^2}\abs{F}^2(y,t)\abs{\ve\nabla_x\kappa^\ve(y-x)}\abs{\psi(x,\rho^\ve(x,t))}\mathbf{1}_{A_1}(y,t)\dy\dx\dt\right)^\frac{1}{2}
%
\\ & \quad \cdot \left(\int_0^t\int_{(\TT^d)^2}\Phi(\rho(y,t))\abs{\ve\nabla_x\kappa^\ve(y-x)}\abs{\psi(x,\rho^\ve(x,t))}\mathbf{1}_{A_1}(y,t)\dy\dx\dt\right)^\frac{1}{2}.
%
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
%
We will first analyze the final term on the righthand side of \eqref{equiv_50}.


For every $k\in\N$ let $\mathbf{1}_{k,k+1}\colon\TT^d\times[0,T]\rightarrow\{0,1\}$ denote the indicator function of $A_k\setminus A_{k+1}$.  It follows from the change of variables formula, the fact that $\Phi$ is increasing, and the definition of the $\{A_k\}_{k\in\N}$ that
%
\begin{equation}\label{equiv_51}\begin{aligned}
%
& \int_0^t\int_{(\TT^d)^2}\Phi(\rho(y,t))\abs{\ve\nabla_x\kappa^\ve(y-x)}\abs{\psi(x,\rho^\ve(x,t))}\mathbf{1}_{A_1}(y,t)\dy\dx\dt
%
\\ & = \int_0^t\int_{(\TT^d)^2}\Phi(\rho(y,t))\abs{\ve\nabla_x\kappa^\ve(x)}\abs{\psi(y+x,\rho^\ve(y+x,t))}\mathbf{1}_{A_1}(y,t)\dy\dx\dt
%
\\ & = \sum_{k=1}^\infty \int_0^t\int_{(\TT^d)^2}\Phi(\rho(y,t))\abs{\ve\nabla_x\kappa^\ve(x)}\abs{\psi(y+x,\rho^\ve(y+x,t))}\mathbf{1}_{k,k+1}(y,t)\dy\dx\dt
%
\\ & \leq  \sum_{k=1}^\infty \int_0^t\int_{(\TT^d)^2}\left(\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(M)+k+1\right)^2\abs{\ve\nabla_x\kappa^\ve(x)}\abs{\psi(y+x,\rho^\ve(y+x,t))}\mathbf{1}_{k,k+1}(y,t)\dy\dx\dt.
%
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
%
For every $x\in\TT^d$ and $k\in\N$ let $B^\ve_{k,x}\subseteq\left(\TT^d\times[0,T]\right)$ be defined by
%
\begin{equation}\label{equiv_052}B^\ve_{k,x}=\left\{(y,t)\in\TT^d\times[0,T]\colon \abs{\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(y,t))-\left(\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho)\right)^\ve(y+x,t)}\mathbf{1}_{k,k+1}(y,t)\geq k\right\},\end{equation}
%
where, for each $(y,t)\in\TT^d\times[0,T]$,
%
$$\left(\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho)\right)^\ve(y,t)=\int_{\TT^d}\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(y',t))\kappa^\ve(y-y')\dyp.$$
%
Let $x\in\TT^d$ and $k\in\N$.  Since $\Phi^\frac{1}{2}$ is concave, Jensen's inequality proves that
%
$$\left(\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho)\right)^\ve(y+x,t)\leq \Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho^\ve(y+x,t)).$$
%
Therefore, for every $(y,t)\in \left(\left(A_k\setminus A_{k+1}\right)\cap \Supp[\psi(\cdot+x,\rho^\ve(\cdot+x,\cdot))]\right)$,
%
\begin{equation}\label{equiv_53}\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(y,t))-\left(\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho)\right)^\ve(y+x,t)\geq \Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(y,t))-\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho^\ve(y+x,t))\geq k.\end{equation}
%
It follows from \eqref{equiv_052} and \eqref{equiv_53} that
%
\begin{equation}\label{equiv_54}\left(\left(A_k\setminus A_{k+1}\right)\cap \Supp[\psi(\cdot+x,\rho^\ve(\cdot+x,\cdot))]\right)\subseteq B^\ve_{k,x}.\end{equation}
%
Returning to \eqref{equiv_51}, it follows from $\psi\in\C^\infty_c(\TT^d\times\R)$ and \eqref{equiv_54} that there exists $c\in(0,\infty)$ such that
%
\begin{equation}\label{equiv_55}\begin{aligned}
%
& \int_0^t\int_{\TT^d}\int_{A_1}\Phi(\rho(y,t))\abs{\ve\nabla_x\kappa^\ve(y-x)}\abs{\psi(x,\rho^\ve(x,t))}\dy\dx\dt
%
\\ & \leq c\int_{\TT^d}\left(\sum_{k=1}^\infty\left(\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(M)+k+1\right)^2\abs{B^\ve_{k,x}}\right)\abs{\ve\nabla\kappa^\ve(x)}\dx.
%
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
%
It remains to estimate the measure of the sets $\{B^\ve_{k,x}\}_{k\in\N,x\in\TT^d}$.


Let $x\in\TT^d$ and $k\in\N$.  It follows from Chebyshev's inequality, Jensen's inequality, and the fundamental theorem of calculus that, omitting the integration variables,
%
\begin{equation}\label{equiv_56}\begin{aligned}
%
& \abs{B^\ve_{k,x}}
%
\\ & \leq \frac{1}{k^2}\int_0^t\int_{\TT^d}\abs{\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(y,t))-\left(\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho)\right)^\ve(y+x,t)}^2\mathbf{1}_{k,k+1}(y,t)
%
\\ & \leq  \frac{1}{k^2}\int_0^t\int_{(\TT^d)^2}\abs{\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(y,t))-\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(y',t))}^2\kappa^\ve(y+x-y')\mathbf{1}_{k,k+1}(y,t)
%
\\ & \leq \frac{1}{k^2}\int_0^t\int_{(\TT^d)^2}\left(\int_0^1\abs{\nabla(\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho))(sy+(1-s)y',t)}^2\ds\right)\abs{y-y'}^2\kappa^\ve(y+x-y')\mathbf{1}_{k,k+1}(y,t).
%
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
%
On the support of the convolution kernel, the triangle inequality proves that
%
\begin{equation}\label{equiv_57}\abs{y-y'}\leq \abs{x}+\ve.\end{equation}
%
It follows from \eqref{equiv_56} and \eqref{equiv_57} that there exists $c\in(0,\infty)$ such that
%
\begin{equation}\label{equiv_58}\begin{aligned}
%
& \abs{B^\ve_{k,x}} \leq
%
\\ & \frac{c(\ve^2+\abs{x}^2)}{k^2}\int_0^t\int_{(\TT^d)^2}\left(\int_0^1\abs{\nabla(\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho))(sy+(1-s)y',t)}^2\ds\right)\kappa^\ve(y+x-y')\mathbf{1}_{k,k+1}(y,t)\dyp\dy\dt.
%
\end{aligned} \end{equation}
%
Returning to \eqref{equiv_55}, it follows from \eqref{equiv_58} that there exists $c\in(0,\infty)$ depending on $M\in(0,\infty)$ such that
%
\begin{equation}\label{equiv_59}\begin{aligned}
%
& \sum_{k=1}^\infty \left(\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(M)+k+1\right)^2\abs{B^\ve_{k,x}}
%
\\ & \leq \sum_{k=1}^\infty\left(\frac{c(\ve^2+\abs{x}^2)(\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(M)+k+1)^2}{k^2}\right.
%
\\ & \quad \cdot \left.\int_0^t\int_{(\TT^d)^2}\left(\int_0^1\abs{\nabla(\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho))(sy+(1-s)y',t)}^2\ds\right)\kappa^\ve(y+x-y')\mathbf{1}_{k,k+1}(y,t)\dyp\dy\dt\right)
%
\\ & \leq c\left(\ve^2+\abs{x}^2\right)\int_0^t\int_{(\TT^d)^2}\left(\int_0^1\abs{\nabla(\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho))(sy+(1-s)y',t)}^2\ds\right)\kappa^\ve(y+x-y')\mathbf{1}_{A_1}(y,t)\dyp\dy\dt
%
\\ & \leq c\left(\ve^2+\abs{x}^2\right)\norm{\nabla\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho)}^2_{L^2(\TT^d\times[0,T])}.
%
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
%
Returning to \eqref{equiv_55}, it follows from the definition of the convolution kernel and \eqref{equiv_59} that, for $c\in(0,\infty)$,
%
\begin{equation}\label{equiv_60}\begin{aligned}
%
& \int_0^t\int_{\TT^d}\int_{A_1}\Phi(\rho(y,t))\abs{\ve\nabla_x\kappa^\ve(y-x)}\abs{\psi(x,\rho^\ve(x,t))}\dy\dx\dt
%
\\ & \leq \int_{\TT^d}c(\ve^2+\abs{x}^2)\norm{\nabla\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho)}^2_{L^2(\TT^d\times[0,T])}\abs{\ve\nabla\kappa^\ve(x)}\dx.
%
\\ & \leq c\ve^2\norm{\nabla\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho)}^2_{L^2(\TT^d\times[0,T])}.
%
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
%
Returning to \eqref{equiv_50}, it follows from \eqref{equiv_60} that there exists $c\in(0,\infty)$ such that
%
\begin{equation}\label{equiv_61}\begin{aligned}
%
& \abs{\int_0^t\int_{(\TT^d)^2}F(y,t)\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(y,t))\cdot \nabla_x\kappa^\ve(y-x)\psi(x,\rho^\ve(x,t))\mathbf{1}_{A_1}(y,t)\dy\dx\dt}
%
\\ & \leq c\norm{\nabla\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho)}_{L^2(\TT^d\times[0,T])}\left(\int_0^t\int_{(\TT^d)^2}\abs{F}^2(y,t)\abs{\ve\nabla_x\kappa^\ve(y-x)}\abs{\psi(x,\rho^\ve(x,t))}\mathbf{1}_{A_1}(y,t)\dy\dx\dt\right)^\frac{1}{2}.
%
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
%
Let $c_0\in(0,\infty)$ satisfy, for every $\ve\in(0,1)$,
%
$$c_0=\int_{\TT^d}\abs{\ve\nabla\kappa^\ve(x)}\dx=\int_{\TT^d}\abs{\nabla\kappa(x)}\dx.$$
%
Since the sequence $\{c_0^{-1}\abs{\ve\nabla\kappa^\ve}\}_{\ve\in(0,1)}$ is a Dirac sequence on $\TT^d$, as $\ve\rightarrow 0$,
%
\begin{equation}\label{equiv_0062}\int_{\TT^d}\abs{F}^2(y,t)\abs{\ve\nabla\kappa^\ve(y-x)}\mathbf{1}_{A_1}(y,t)\dy\rightarrow c_0\abs{F}^2(x,t)\mathbf{1}_{A_1}(x,t)\;\;\textrm{strongly in}\;\;L^1(\TT^d\times[0,T]).\end{equation}
%
Therefore, since $\psi\in\C^\infty_c(\TT^d\times\R)$, there exists $c\in(0,\infty)$ such that, for every $\ve\in(0,1)$,
%
\begin{equation}\label{equiv_062}\begin{aligned}
%
& \abs{\int_0^t\int_{(\TT^d)^2}\abs{F}^2(y,t)\abs{\ve\nabla_x\kappa^\ve(y-x)}\abs{\psi(x,\rho^\ve(x,t))}\mathbf{1}_{A_1}(y,t)\dy\dx\dt}
%
\\ & \leq c\int_0^t\int_{\TT^d}\abs{\int_{\TT^d}\abs{F}^2(y,t)\abs{\ve\nabla\kappa^\ve(y-x)}\mathbf{1}_{A_1}(y,t)\dy-\abs{F}^2(x,t)\mathbf{1}_{A_1}(x,t)}\dx\dt
%
\\ & \quad + c\int_0^t\int_{\TT^d}\abs{F}^2(x,t)\mathbf{1}_{A_1}(x,t)\abs{\psi(x,\rho^\ve(x,t))}\dx\dt.
%
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
%
It follows from \eqref{equiv_0062}, \eqref{equiv_062}, $\psi\in\C^\infty_c(\TT^d\times\R)$, the definition of $A_1$, and the dominated convergence theorem that
%
\begin{equation}\label{equiv_00062} \limsup_{\ve\rightarrow 0}\left(\int_0^t\int_{(\TT^d)^2}\abs{F}^2(y,t)\abs{\ve\nabla_x\kappa^\ve(y-x)}\abs{\psi(x,\rho^\ve(x,t))}\mathbf{1}_{A_1}(y,t)\dy\dx\dt\right)=0.\end{equation}
%
Returning to \eqref{equiv_61}, it follows from \eqref{equiv_00062} that
%
$$\limsup_{\ve\rightarrow 0}\abs{\int_0^t\int_{(\TT^d)^2}F(y,t)\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(y,t))\cdot \nabla_x\kappa^\ve(y-x)\psi(x,\rho^\ve(x,t))\mathbf{1}_{A_1}(y,t)\dy\dx\dt}=0,$$
%
which completes the proof of \eqref{equiv_48}. \end{proof}


We will now analyze the final two terms on the righthand side of \eqref{equiv_004}.  Let $\ve\in(0,1)$.  Since the chain rule implies that
%
$$\nabla\left(\psi(x,\rho^\ve)\right)=(\nabla\psi)(x,\rho^\ve)+(\partial_\xi\psi)(x,\rho^\ve)\nabla \rho^\ve,$$
%
we have, after integrating by parts in the $x$-variable,
%
\begin{equation}\label{equiv_4}\begin{aligned}
%
 & \int_0^t\int_{(\TT^d)^2}2\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(y,t))\nabla\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(y,t))\cdot \nabla_x\kappa^\ve(y-x)\psi(x,\rho^\ve(x,t))\mathbf{1}_{A_0}(y,t)\dy\dx\dt
%
\\ & \quad - \int_0^t\int_{(\TT^d)^2}g(y,t)\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(y,t))\cdot \nabla_x\kappa^\ve(y-x)\psi(x,\rho^\ve(x,t))\mathbf{1}_{A_0}(y,t)\dy\dx\dt
%
\\ & =  -\int_0^t\int_{(\TT^d)^2}2\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(y,t))\nabla\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(y,t))\kappa^\ve(y-x)\cdot \left(\nabla_x\psi\right)(x,\rho^\ve(x,t))\mathbf{1}_{A_0}(y,t)\dy\dx\dt
%
\\ & \quad -\int_0^t\int_{(\TT^d)^2}2\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(y,t))\nabla\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(y,t))\kappa^\ve(y-x)\left(\partial_\xi\psi\right)(x,\rho^\ve(x,t))\cdot \nabla_x\rho^\ve(x,t)\mathbf{1}_{A_0}(y,t)\dy\dx\dt
%
\\ & \quad +\int_0^t\int_{(\TT^d)^2}g(y,t)\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(y,t))\kappa^\ve(y-x)\cdot \left(\nabla_x\psi\right)(x,\rho^\ve(x,t))\mathbf{1}_{A_0}(y,t)\dy\dx\dt
%
\\ & \quad +\int_0^t\int_{(\TT^d)^2}g(y,t)\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(y,t))\kappa^\ve(y-x)\left(\partial_\xi\psi\right)(x,\rho^\ve(x,t))\cdot \nabla_x\rho^\ve(x,t)\mathbf{1}_{A_0}(y,t)\dy\dx\dt.
%
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
%
For the first and third terms appearing on the righthand side of \eqref{equiv_4}, since it follows from the definition of $A_0$ and $\psi\in\C^\infty_c(\TT^d\times\R)$ that, for every $F\in L^2(\TT^d\times[0,T];\R^d)$, as $\ve\rightarrow 0$, strongly in $L^2(\TT^d\times[0,T];\R^d)$,
%
$$\int_{\TT^d}F(y,t)\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(y,t))\kappa^\ve(y-x)\mathbf{1}_{A_0}(y,t)\dy\rightarrow F(x,t)\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(x,t))\mathbf{1}_{A_0}(x,t),$$
%
it follows from the triangle inequality, H\"older's inequality, the dominated convergence theorem, and the definition of $A_0$ that
%
\begin{equation}\label{equiv_75}\begin{aligned}
%
& \lim_{\ve\rightarrow 0}\left(\int_0^t\int_{(\TT^d)^2}2\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(y,t))\nabla\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(y,t))\kappa^\ve(y-x)\cdot \left(\nabla_x\psi\right)(x,\rho^\ve(x,t))\mathbf{1}_{A_0}(y,t)\dy\dx\dt\right)
%
\\ & = \int_0^t\int_{\TT^d}2\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(x,t))\nabla\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(x,t))\cdot \left(\nabla_x\psi\right)(x,\rho(x,t))\dx\dt,
%
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
%
and that
%
\begin{equation}\label{equiv_76}\begin{aligned}
%
& \lim_{\ve\rightarrow 0}\left(\int_0^t\int_{(\TT^d)^2}g(y,t)\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(y,t))\kappa^\ve(y-x)\cdot \left(\nabla_x\psi\right)(x,\rho^\ve(x,t))\mathbf{1}_{A_0}(y,t)\dy\dx\dt\right)
%
\\ & = \int_0^t\int_{\TT^d}g(y,t)\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(x,t))\cdot \left(\nabla_x\psi\right)(x,\rho(x,t))\dx\dt.
%
\end{aligned}\end{equation}




We will now handle the second and fourth terms appearing on the righthand side of \eqref{equiv_4}.  Precisely, by choosing $F=g$ and $F=\nabla\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho)$ in Lemma~\ref{aux_lemma_3} below, it follows that
%
\begin{equation}\label{equiv_74} \begin{aligned}
%
& \lim_{\ve\rightarrow 0}\left(\int_0^t\int_{(\TT^d)^2}g(y,t)\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(y,t))\kappa^\ve(y-x)\left(\partial_\xi\psi\right)(x,\rho^\ve(x,t))\cdot \nabla_x\rho^\ve(x,t)\mathbf{1}_{A_0}(y,t)\dy\dx\dt\right)
%
\\ & = \int_0^t\int_{\TT^d}g(y,t)\frac{2\Phi(\rho(y,t))}{\Phi'(\rho(y,t))}\left(\partial_\xi\psi\right)(y,\rho(y,t))\cdot \nabla\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(y,t))\dy\dt,
%
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
%
and that
%
\begin{equation}\label{equiv_075} \begin{aligned}
%
& \lim_{\ve\rightarrow 0}\left(2\int_0^t\int_{(\TT^d)^2}\nabla\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(y,t))\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(y,t))\kappa^\ve(y-x)\left(\partial_\xi\psi\right)(x,\rho^\ve(x,t))\cdot \nabla_x\rho^\ve(x,t)\mathbf{1}_{A_0}(y,t)\dy\dx\dt\right)
%
\\ & = \int_0^t\int_{\TT^d}\abs{\nabla\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(y,t))}^2\frac{4\Phi(\rho(y,t))}{\Phi'(\rho(y,t))}\left(\partial_\xi\psi\right)(y,\rho(y,t))\dy\dt.
%
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
%


\begin{lem}\label{aux_lemma_3} Let $\Phi\in W^{1,1}_{\textrm{loc}}([0,\infty))$ satisfy Assumption~\ref{as_unique} and \eqref{skel_continuity_5}.  Then, for every $F\in L^2(\TT^d\times[0,T];\R^d)$ and $\psi\in\C^\infty_c(\TT^d\times\R)$,
%
\begin{equation}\label{al_1}\begin{aligned}
%
& \lim_{\ve\rightarrow 0}\left(\int_0^t\int_{(\TT^d)^2}F(y,t)\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(y,t))\kappa^\ve(y-x)\left(\partial_\xi\psi\right)(x,\rho^\ve(x,t))\cdot \nabla_x\rho^\ve(x,t)\mathbf{1}_{A_0}(y,t)\dy\dx\dt\right)
%
\\ & = \int_0^t\int_{\TT^d}F(y,t)\frac{2\Phi(\rho(y,t))}{\Phi'(\rho(y,t))}\left(\partial_\xi\psi\right)(y,\rho(y,t))\cdot \nabla\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(y,t))\dy\dt.
%
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
%
\end{lem}

\begin{proof}  Since $\Phi$ is strictly increasing, let $(\Phi^\frac{1}{2})^{-1}$ denote the function inverse to $\Phi^\frac{1}{2}$.  It follows from \eqref{skel_continuity_5} that $(\Phi^\frac{1}{2})^{-1}$ is locally Lipschitz continuous since, for every $\xi\in[0,\infty)$,
%
\begin{equation}\label{equiv_6}\frac{\dd}{\dxi}\left[\left(\Phi^\frac{1}{2}\right)^{-1}\right]\left(\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\xi)\right)=\frac{1}{\left(\Phi^\frac{1}{2}\right)'(\xi)}=\frac{2\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\xi)}{\Phi'(\xi)}.\end{equation}
%
The chain rule, the fact that $\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho)\in L^2([0,T];H^1(\TT^d))$, and \eqref{equiv_6} prove that
%
\begin{equation}\label{equiv_3}\begin{aligned}
%
\nabla \rho^\ve(x,t)  & = \int_{\TT^d}\rho(z,t)\nabla_x \kappa^\ve(z-x)\dz
%
\\ & =-\int_{\TT^d}\left(\Phi^\frac{1}{2}\right)^{-1}\left(\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(z,t))\right)\nabla_z\kappa^\ve(z-x)\dz
%
\\ & = \int_{\TT^d}\frac{2\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(z,t))}{\Phi'(\rho(z,t))}\nabla\left(\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(z,t))\right)\kappa^\ve(z-x)\dz.
%
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
%
It follows from  H\"older's inequality and the nonnegativity of $\rho$ that there exists $c\in(0,\infty)$ such that, for $p\in[2,\infty)$ as in \eqref{skel_continuity_5}, for every $(x,t)\in\TT^d\times[0,T]$, 
%
\begin{equation}\label{equiv_63}\begin{aligned}
%
& \abs{\int_{\TT^d}\frac{2\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(z,t))}{\Phi'(\rho(z,t))}\nabla\left(\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(z,t))\right)\kappa^\ve(z-x)\dz}
%
\\  & \leq 2\left(\int_{\TT^d}\left(\frac{\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(z,t))}{\Phi'(\rho(z,t))}\right)^p\kappa^\ve(z-x)\dz\right)^\frac{1}{p}\left(\int_{\TT^d}\abs{\nabla\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(z,t))}^2\kappa^\ve(z-x)\dz\right)^\frac{1}{2}
%
\\ & \leq c\left(\int_{\TT^d}\left(\rho(z,t)+1\right)\kappa^\ve(z-x)\dz\right)^\frac{1}{p}\left(\int_{\TT^d}\abs{\nabla\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(z,t))}^2\kappa^\ve(z-x)\dz\right)^\frac{1}{2}
%
\\ & = c \left(\rho^\ve(x,t)+1\right)^\frac{1}{p}\left(\int_{\TT^d}\abs{\nabla\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(z,t))}^2\kappa^\ve(z-x)\dz\right)^\frac{1}{2}.
%
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
%
We will now prove the statement.  Let $\ve\in(0,1)$.  It follows from \eqref{equiv_3} that
%
\begin{equation}\label{equiv_065}\begin{aligned}
%
& \int_0^t\int_{(\TT^d)^2}F(y,t)\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(y,t))\kappa^\ve(y-x)\left(\partial_\xi\psi\right)(x,\rho^\ve(x,t))\cdot \nabla_x\rho^\ve(x,t)\mathbf{1}_{A_0}(y,t)\dy\dx\dt
%
\\ &=\int_0^t\int_{(\TT^d)^2}F(y,t)\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(y,t))\kappa^\ve(y-x)\left(\partial_\xi\psi\right)(x,\rho^\ve(x,t))
%
\\ &\quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \cdot \Big(\int_{\TT^d}\frac{2\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(z,t))}{\Phi'(\rho(z,t))}\nabla\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(z,t))\kappa^\ve(z-x)\dz\Big)\mathbf{1}_{A_0}(y,t)\dy\dx\dt.
%
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
%
The integral with respect to the $z$-variable will be decomposed in terms of $A_0$ and $A_1$.  We will first prove that
%
\begin{equation}\label{equiv_68}\begin{aligned}
%
\limsup_{\ve\rightarrow 0}\left(\left|\int_0^t\int_{(\TT^d)^2}F(y,t) \right.\right. & \left. \Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(y,t))\kappa^\ve(y-x)\left(\partial_\xi\psi\right)(x,\rho^\ve(x,t))\mathbf{1}_{A_0}(y,t)\right.
%
\\ & \cdot \left.\left.\Big(\int_{\TT^d}\frac{2\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(z,t))}{\Phi'(\rho(z,t))}\nabla\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(z,t))\kappa^\ve(z-x)\mathbf{1}_{A_1}(z,t)\dz\Big)\dy\dx\dt\right|\right)=0.
%
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
%
Let $\ve\in(0,1)$.  After repeating the derivation leading to \eqref{equiv_63}, for $p\in[2,\infty)$ satisfying \eqref{skel_continuity_5}, there exists $c\in(0,\infty)$ such that
%
$$\begin{aligned}
%
&  \left|\int_0^t\int_{(\TT^d)^2}\Big(F(y,t)\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(y,t))\kappa^\ve(y-x)\left(\partial_\xi\psi\right)(x,\rho^\ve(x,t))\mathbf{1}_{A_0}(y,t)\right.
%
\\ & \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \cdot \left.\int_{\TT^d}\frac{2\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(z,t))}{\Phi'(\rho(z,t))}\nabla\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(z,t))\kappa^\ve(z-x)\mathbf{1}_{A_1}(z,t)\dz\Big)\dy\dx\dt\right|
%
\\ &\leq  c\int_0^t\int_{(\TT^d)^2}\Big(\abs{F(y,t)}\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(y,t))\kappa^\ve(y-x)\abs{\left(\partial_\xi\psi\right)(x,\rho^\ve(x,t))}(\rho^\ve(x,t)+1)^\frac{1}{p}\mathbf{1}_{A_0}(y,t)
%
\\ & \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \cdot \Big(\int_{\TT^d}\abs{\nabla\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(z,t))}^2\kappa^\ve(z-x)\mathbf{1}_{A_1}(z,t)\dz\Big)^\frac{1}{2}\Big)\dy\dx\dt.
%
\end{aligned}$$
%
Then, since $\psi\in\C^\infty_c(\TT^d\times\R)$ implies that $\rho^\ve(x,t)$ is bounded on the support of $\psi(x,\rho^\ve(x,t))$, it follows from H\"older's inequality and the definition of $A_0$ that, for some $c\in(0,\infty)$,
%
\begin{equation}\label{equiv_69}\begin{aligned}
%
&  \left|\int_0^t\int_{(\TT^d)^2}\Big(F(y,t)\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(y,t))\kappa^\ve(y-x)\left(\partial_\xi\psi\right)(x,\rho^\ve(x,t))\mathbf{1}_{A_0}(y,t)\right.
%
\\ & \quad \quad  \quad \quad \cdot \left.\int_{\TT^d}\frac{2\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(z,t))}{\Phi'(\rho(z,t))}\nabla\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(z,t))\kappa^\ve(z-x)\mathbf{1}_{A_1}(z,t)\dz\Big)\dy\dx\dt\right|
%
\\ & \leq c\left(\int_0^t\int_{(\TT^d)^2}\abs{F}^2(y,t)\abs{\left(\partial_\xi\psi\right)(x,\rho^\ve(x,t))}\kappa^\ve(y-x)\mathbf{1}_{A_0}(y,t)\dy\dx\dt\right)^\frac{1}{2}
%
\\ & \cdot \left(\int_0^t\int_{(\TT^d)^3}\abs{\nabla\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(z,t))}^2\abs{\left(\partial_\xi\psi\right)(x,\rho^\ve(x,t))}\kappa^\ve(z-x)\kappa^\ve(y-x)\mathbf{1}_{A_0}(y,t)\mathbf{1}_{A_1}(z,t)\dx\dy\dz\dt\right)^\frac{1}{2}
%
\\ & \leq c\norm{F}_{L^2(\TT^d\times[0,T])}\left(\int_0^t\int_{(\TT^d)^2}\abs{\nabla\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(z,t))}^2\abs{\left(\partial_\xi\psi\right)(x,\rho^\ve(x,t))}\kappa^\ve(z-x)\mathbf{1}_{A_0}(y,t)\dx\dz\dt\right)^\frac{1}{2}.
%
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
%
Since, as $\ve\rightarrow 0$,
%
$$\int_{\TT^d}\abs{\nabla\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(z,t))}^2\kappa^\ve(z-x)\mathbf{1}_{A_1}(z,t)\dz\rightarrow \abs{\nabla\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(x,t))}^2\mathbf{1}_{A_1}(x,t)\;\;\textrm{strongly in}\;\;L^1(\TT^d\times[0,T]),$$
%
the definition of $A_1$ and $\psi\in\C^\infty_c(\TT^d\times\R)$ prove that
%
\begin{equation}\label{equiv_70}\begin{aligned}
%
& \lim_{\ve\rightarrow 0}\left(\int_0^t\int_{(\TT^d)^2}\abs{\nabla\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(z,t))}^2\abs{\left(\partial_\xi\psi\right)(x,\rho^\ve(x,t))}\kappa^\ve(z-x)\mathbf{1}_{A_1}(z,t)\dx\dz\dt\right)
%
\\ & = \int_0^t\int_{\TT^d}\abs{\nabla\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(z,t))}^2\abs{\left(\partial_\xi\psi\right)(z,\rho(z,t))}\mathbf{1}_{A_1}(z,t)\dz\dt = 0.
%
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
%
In combination \eqref{equiv_69} and \eqref{equiv_70} complete the proof of \eqref{equiv_68}.


We will now prove that
%
\begin{equation}\label{equiv_71}\begin{aligned}
%
& \lim_{\ve\rightarrow 0}\left(\int_0^t\int_{(\TT^d)^2}F(y,t) \Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(y,t))\kappa^\ve(y-x)\left(\partial_\xi\psi\right)(x,\rho^\ve(x,t))\mathbf{1}_{A_0}(y,t)\right.
%
\\ &\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad \cdot \left.\Big(\int_{\TT^d}\frac{2\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(z,t))}{\Phi'(\rho(z,t))}\cdot \nabla\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(z,t))\kappa^\ve(z-x)\mathbf{1}_{A_0}(z,t)\dz\Big)\dy\dx\dt\right)
%
\\ & = 2\int_0^t\int_{\TT^d}F(x,t)\frac{2\Phi(\rho(x,t))}{\Phi'(\rho(x,t))}\cdot \nabla\Phi(\rho(x,t))(\partial_\xi\psi)(x,\rho(x,t))\dx\dt.
%
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
%
Since the definition of $A_0$ and \eqref{skel_continuity_5} prove that
%
$$\frac{2\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho)}{\Phi'(\rho)}\mathbf{1}_{A_0}\in L^\infty(\TT^d\times[0,T]),$$
%
it follows from $\psi\in\C^\infty_c(\TT^d\times[0,T])$, the triangle inequality, H\"older's inequality, and the dominated convergence theorem that
%
\begin{equation}\label{equiv_072}\begin{aligned}
%
& \lim_{\ve\rightarrow 0}\left(\left(\partial_\xi\psi\right)(x,\rho^\ve(x,t))\Big(\int_{\TT^d}\frac{2\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(z,t))}{\Phi'(\rho(z,t))}\nabla\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(z,t))\kappa^\ve(z-x)\mathbf{1}_{A_0}(z,t)\dz\Big)\right)
%
\\ &  =(\partial_\xi\psi)(x,\rho(x,t))\frac{2\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(x,t))}{\Phi'(\rho(x,t))}\nabla\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(x,t))\;\;\textrm{strongly in}\;\;L^2(\TT^d\times[0,T];\R^d).
%
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
%
Similarly, the definition of $A_0$ and $F\in L^2(\TT^d\times[0,T];\R^d)$ prove that, strongly in $L^2(\TT^d\times[0,T];\R^d)$,
%
\begin{equation}\label{equiv_73}
%
\lim_{\ve\rightarrow 0}\left(\int_{\TT^d}F(y,t)\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(y,t))\mathbf{1}_{A_0}(y,t)\kappa^\ve(y-x)\dy\right)= F(x,t)\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(x,t))\mathbf{1}_{A_0}(x,t).
%
\end{equation}
%
In combination, \eqref{equiv_072}, \eqref{equiv_73}, the triangle inequality, H\"older's inequality, and the definition of $A_0$ prove that
%
$$\begin{aligned}
%
& \lim_{\ve\rightarrow 0}\left(\int_0^t\int_{(\TT^d)^2}F(y,t) \Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(y,t))\kappa^\ve(y-x)\left(\partial_\xi\psi\right)(x,\rho^\ve(x,t))\mathbf{1}_{A_0}(y,t)\right.
%
\\ &\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad \cdot \left.\Big(\int_{\TT^d}\frac{2\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(z,t))}{\Phi'(\rho(z,t))}\nabla\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(z,t))\kappa^\ve(z-x)\mathbf{1}_{A_0}(z,t)\dz\Big)\dy\dx\dt\right)
%
\\ & = 2\int_0^t\int_{\TT^d}F(x,t)\frac{2\Phi(\rho(x,t))}{\Phi'(\rho(x,t))}\cdot \nabla\Phi(\rho(x,t))(\partial_\xi\psi)(x,\rho(x,t))\dx\dt,
%
\end{aligned}$$
%
which completes the proof of \eqref{equiv_71}.  It then follows from \eqref{equiv_065}, \eqref{equiv_68}, \eqref{equiv_71}, and $\TT^d\times[0,T]=A_0\cup A_1$ that
%
$$\begin{aligned}
%
& \lim_{\ve\rightarrow 0}\left(\int_0^t\int_{\TT^d}\int_{A_0}F(y,t)\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(y,t))\kappa^\ve(y-x)\left(\partial_\xi\psi\right)(x,\rho^\ve(x,t))\cdot \nabla_x\rho^\ve(x,t)\dy\dx\dt\right)
%
\\ & = \int_0^t\int_{\TT^d}F(y,t)\frac{2\Phi(\rho(y,t))}{\Phi'(\rho(y,t))}\left(\partial_\xi\psi\right)(y,\rho^\ve(y,t))\cdot \nabla\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(y,t))\dy\dt,
%
\end{aligned}$$
%
which completes the proof of \eqref{al_1}.  \end{proof}







Returning to \eqref{equiv_4}, it follows from $\TT^d\times[0,T]=A_0\cup A_1$, \eqref{equiv_004}, \eqref{equiv_000004}, \eqref{equiv_4}, \eqref{equiv_74}, \eqref{equiv_075}, \eqref{equiv_75}, and \eqref{equiv_76} that
%
\begin{equation}\label{equiv_7}\begin{aligned}
%
\left.\int_{\TT^d}\Psi(x,\rho(x,r))\dx\right|_{r=0}^{t} & = \lim_{\ve\rightarrow 0} \left.\int_{\TT^d}\Psi(x,\rho^\ve(x,r))\dx\right|_{r=0}^{t}
%
\\ & =  -\int_0^t\int_{\TT^d}2\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(x,t))\nabla\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(x,t))\cdot\left(\nabla_x\psi\right)(x,\rho(x,t))\dx\dt
%
\\ & \quad -\int_0^t\int_{\TT^d}\frac{4\Phi(\rho(x,t))}{\Phi'(\rho(x,t))}\abs{\nabla\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(x,t))}^2\left(\partial_\xi\psi\right)(x,\rho(x,t))\dx\dt
%
\\ & \quad +\int_0^t\int_{\TT^d}g(x,t)\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(x,t))\cdot \left(\nabla_x\psi\right)(x,\rho(x,t))\dx\dt
%
\\ & \quad +\int_0^t\int_{\TT^d}g(x,t)\frac{2\Phi(\rho(x,t))}{\Phi'(\rho(x,t))}\left(\partial_\xi\psi\right)(x,\rho(x,t))\cdot \nabla\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(x,t))\dx\dt.
%
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
%
The definition of the kinetic function proves for every $t\in[0,T]\setminus\mathcal{N}$ that
%
\begin{equation}\label{equiv_8}\int_{\TT^d}\Psi(x,\rho(x,r))\dx=\int_\R\int_{\TT^d}\psi(x,\xi)\chi(x,\xi,t)\dx\dxi,\end{equation}
%
Lemma~\ref{ibp} proves for every $t\in[0,T]\setminus\mathcal{N}$ that
%
\begin{equation}\label{equiv_9}\begin{aligned} &  \int_0^t\int_{\TT^d}2\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(x,r))\nabla\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(x,r))\cdot \left(\nabla_x\psi\right)(x,\rho(x,r))\dx\dr \\ & =-\int_0^t\int_\R\int_{\TT^d}\Phi'(\xi)\chi(x,\xi,r)\Delta_x\psi(x,\xi)\dx\dxi\dr,\end{aligned}\end{equation}
%
and the definition of the parabolic defect measure proves for every $t\in[0,T]\setminus\mathcal{N}$ that
%
\begin{equation}\label{equiv_10}\begin{aligned} & \int_0^t\int_{(\TT^d)^2}\frac{4\Phi(\rho(x,t))}{\Phi'(\rho(x,t))}\abs{\nabla\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(x,r))}^2\left(\partial_\xi\psi\right)(x,\rho(x,t))\dx\dr \\ & =\int_0^t\int_\R\int_{\TT^d}p(x,\xi,r)(\partial_\xi\psi)(x,\xi,r)\dx\dxi\dr.\end{aligned}\end{equation}
%
In combination \eqref{equiv_1}, \eqref{equiv_7}, \eqref{equiv_8}, \eqref{equiv_9}, and \eqref{equiv_10} prove that $\rho$ is a renormalized kinetic solution of \eqref{skel_eq} in the sense of Definition~\ref{skel_sol_def}.  This completes the proof in the case that $\Phi$ satisfies \eqref{skel_continuity_5}.




\textbf{The case that $\Phi^\frac{1}{2}$ satisfies \eqref{skel_continuity_6} and \eqref{skel_continuity_7}.}  In this case, we form a slightly different decomposition.  Let $M\in(0,\infty)$ be defined in \eqref{equiv_47}.   For every $k\in\N$ let $A_k\subseteq\left(\TT^d\times[0,T]\right)$ be defined by
%
$$ A_k=\{(y,t)\in\TT^d\times[0,T]\colon \rho(y,t)\geq M+k\},$$
%
and let $A_0=(\TT^d\times[0,T])\setminus A_1$.  The proof now follows identically to the previous case, provided we can prove the analogues of Lemmas~\ref{aux_lemma_1} and \ref{aux_lemma_3}.  We prove these statements in Lemmas~\ref{aux_lemma_2} and \ref{aux_lemma_4} below, which completes the proof. \end{proof}

\begin{lem}\label{aux_lemma_2} Let $\Phi\in W^{1,1}_{\textrm{loc}}([0,\infty))$ satisfy Assumption~\ref{as_unique}, \eqref{skel_continuity_6}, and \eqref{skel_continuity_7}.  Then, for every $F\in L^2(\TT^d\times[0,T];\R^d)$ and $\psi\in\C^\infty_c(\TT^d\times\R)$,
%
\begin{equation}\label{equiv_30} \limsup_{\ve\rightarrow 0}\abs{\int_0^t\int_{(\TT^d)^2}F(y,t)\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(y,t))\cdot \nabla_x\kappa^\ve(y-x)\psi(x,\rho^\ve(x,t))\mathbf{1}_{A_1}(y,t)\dy\dx\dt}=0.\end{equation}
%
\end{lem}

\begin{proof} Let $\ve\in(0,1)$.  H\"older's inequality proves that
%
\begin{equation}\label{equiv_32}\begin{aligned}
%
& \abs{\int_0^t\int_{(\TT^d)^2}F(y,t)\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(y,t))\cdot \nabla_x\kappa^\ve(y-x)\psi(x,\rho^\ve(x,t))\mathbf{1}_{A_1}(y,t)\dy\dx\dt}
%
\\ & \leq \ve^{-1}\left(\int_0^t\int_{(\TT^d)^2}\abs{F}^2(y,t)\abs{\ve\nabla_x\kappa^\ve(y-x)}\abs{\psi(x,\rho^\ve(x,t))}\mathbf{1}_{A_1}(y,t)\dy\dx\dt\right)^\frac{1}{2}
%
\\ & \quad \cdot \left(\int_0^t\int_{(\TT^d)^2}\Phi(\rho(y,t))\abs{\ve\nabla_x\kappa^\ve(y-x)}\abs{\psi(x,\rho^\ve(x,t))}\mathbf{1}_{A_1}(y,t)\dy\dx\dt\right)^\frac{1}{2}.
%
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
%
We will analyze the final term on the righthand side of \eqref{equiv_32}.


For every $k\in\N$, let $\mathbf{1}_{k,k+1}\colon\TT^d\times[0,T]\rightarrow\{0,1\}$ denote the indicator function of the set $A_{k}\setminus A_{k+1}$.  The change of variables formula, the definition of the $\{A_k\}_{k\in\N}$, and the fact that $\Phi$ is increasing prove that
%
$$\begin{aligned}
%
& \int_0^t\int_{(\TT^d)^2}\Phi(\rho(y,t))\abs{\ve\nabla_x\kappa^\ve(y-x)}\abs{\psi(x,\rho^\ve(x,t))}\mathbf{1}_{A_1}(y,t)\dy\dx\dt
%
\\ & = \int_0^t\int_{(\TT^d)^2}\Phi(\rho(y,t))\abs{\ve\nabla_x\kappa^\ve(x)}\abs{\psi(y+x,\rho^\ve(y+x,t))}\mathbf{1}_{A_1}(y,t)\dy\dx\dt
%
\\ & = \sum_{k=1}^\infty \int_0^t\int_{(\TT^d)^2}\Phi(\rho(y,t))\abs{\ve\nabla_x\kappa^\ve(x)}\abs{\psi(y+x,\rho^\ve(y+x,t))}\mathbf{1}_{k,k+1}(y,t)\dy\dx\dt.
%
\\ & \leq \sum_{k=1}^\infty \int_0^t\int_{(\TT^d)^2}\Phi(M+k+1)\abs{\ve\nabla_x\kappa^\ve(x)}\abs{\psi(y+x,\rho^\ve(y+x,t))}\mathbf{1}_{k,k+1}(y,t)\dy\dx\dt.
\end{aligned}$$
%
For every $x\in \TT^d$ and $k\in\N$ let $B^\ve_{k,x}\subseteq\left(\TT^d\times[0,T]\right)$ be defined by
%
$$B^\ve_{k,x}=\left\{(y,t)\in \TT^d\times[0,T]\colon \abs{\rho(y,t)-\rho^\ve(y+x,t)}\mathbf{1}_{k,k+1}(y,t)\geq k\right\}.$$
%
The definition of the $\{B^\ve_{k,x}\}_{k\in\N,x\in\TT^d}$ and the definition of $M\in(0,\infty)$ prove for every $k\in\N$ and $x\in\TT^d$ that
%
\begin{equation}\label{equiv_34}\left((A_k\setminus A_{k+1})\cap\Supp[\psi(\cdot+x,\rho^\ve(\cdot+x,\cdot))]\right)\subseteq B^\ve_{k,x}.\end{equation}
%
Since $\psi\in\C^\infty_c(\TT^d\times\R)$ it follows from \eqref{equiv_34} that there exists $c\in(0,\infty)$ such that
%
\begin{equation}\label{equiv_35}\begin{aligned}
%
& \int_0^t\int_{(\TT^d)^2}\Phi(\rho(y,t))\abs{\ve\nabla_x\kappa^\ve(y-x)}\abs{\psi(x,\rho^\ve(x,t))}\mathbf{1}_{A_1}(y,t)\dy\dx\dt
%
\\ & \leq c\int_{\TT^d}\left(\sum_{k=1}^\infty\Phi(M+k+1)\abs{B^\ve_{k,x}}\right)\abs{\ve\nabla_x\kappa^\ve(x)}\dx.
%
\end{aligned} \end{equation}
%
It remains to estimate the measure of the $\{B^\ve_{k,x}\}_{k\in\N,x\in\TT^d}$.


Let $k\in\N$ and $x\in\TT^d$.  Chebyshev's inequality and Jensen's inequality prove that
%
\begin{equation}\label{equiv_36}\begin{aligned}
%
\abs{B^\ve_{k,x}} & \leq \frac{1}{k^2}\int_0^t\int_{\TT^d} \abs{\rho(y,t)-\rho^\ve(y+x,t)}^2\mathbf{1}_{k,k+1}(y,t)\dy\dt
%
\\ & \leq \frac{1}{k^2}\int_0^t\int_{(\TT^d)^2}\abs{\rho(y,t)-\rho(y',t)}^2\kappa^\ve(y+x-y')\mathbf{1}_{k,k+1}(y,t)\dyp\dy\dt.
%
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
%
Since the convexity proves that the derivative of the inverse of $\Phi^\frac{1}{2}$ is non-increasing, it follows from the nonnegativity of $\rho$ that, for every $y,y'\in\TT^d$ and $t\in[0,T]$,
%
\begin{equation}\label{equiv_37}\begin{aligned}
%
\abs{\rho(y,t)-\rho(y',t)} & =\abs{\left(\Phi^\frac{1}{2}\right)^{-1}\left(\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(y,t))\right)-\left(\Phi^\frac{1}{2}\right)^{-1}\left(\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(y',t))\right)}
%
\\ & = \abs{\int_0^1\left(\left(\Phi^\frac{1}{2}\right)^{-1}\right)'\left(s\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(y,t))+(1-s)\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(y',t))\right)\ds}
%
\\ & \quad \cdot \abs{\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(y,t))-\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(y',t))}
%
\\ & \leq \abs{\int_0^1\left(\left(\Phi^\frac{1}{2}\right)^{-1}\right)'\left(s\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(y,t))\right)\ds}\cdot \abs{\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(y,t))-\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(y',t))}.
%
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
%
The fundamental theorem of calculus, the nonnegativity of $\rho$, the fact that $(\Phi^\frac{1}{2})^{-1}(0)=0$, and \eqref{equiv_37} prove that, for every $y,y'\in\TT^d$ and $t\in[0,T]$,
%
\begin{equation}\label{equiv_38}
%
\abs{\rho(y,t)-\rho(y',t)} \leq \abs{\frac{\rho(y,t)}{\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(y,t))}}\abs{\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(y,t))-\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(y',t))}.
%
\end{equation}
%
Returning to \eqref{equiv_36}, it follows from the definition of the $\{A_k\}_{k\in\N}$, the fact that $\Phi$ is increasing, and \eqref{equiv_38} that
%
\begin{equation}\label{equiv_39}\begin{aligned}
%
\abs{B^\ve_{k,x}} & \leq \frac{1}{k^2}\int_0^t\int_{(\TT^d)^2}\abs{\frac{\rho(y,t)}{\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(y,t))}}^2\abs{\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(y,t))-\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(y',t))}^2\kappa^\ve(y+x-y')\mathbf{1}_{k,k+1}(y,t)\dyp\dy\dt
%
\\ & \leq \frac{(M+k+1)^2}{k^2\Phi(M+k)}\int_0^t\int_{(\TT^d)^2}\abs{\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(y,t))-\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(y',t))}^2\kappa^\ve(y+x-y')\mathbf{1}_{k,k+1}(y,t)\dyp\dy\dt.
%
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
%
It follows from Jensen's inequality and the fundamental theorem of calculus that
%
\begin{equation}\label{equiv_40}\begin{aligned}
%
& \int_0^t\int_{(\TT^d)^2}\abs{\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(y,t))-\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(y',t))}^2\kappa^\ve(y+x-y')\mathbf{1}_{k,k+1}(y,t)\dyp\dy\dt
%
\\ & \leq \int_0^t\int_{(\TT^d)^2}\left(\int_0^1\abs{\nabla\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(sy+(1-s)y',t))}^2\ds\right)\abs{y-y'}^2\kappa^\ve(y+x-y')\mathbf{1}_{k,k+1}(y,t)\dyp\dy\dt.
%
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
%
On the support of the convolution kernel, the triangle inequality proves that
%
\begin{equation}\label{equiv_41} \abs{y-y'}\leq \abs{x}+\ve,\end{equation}
%
from which it follows from \eqref{equiv_39}, \eqref{equiv_40}, and \eqref{equiv_41} that there exists $c\in(0,\infty)$ such that
%
\begin{equation}\label{equiv_42} \begin{aligned}
%
 \abs{B^\ve_{k,x}} & \leq \frac{c\left(\ve^2+\abs{x}^2\right)(M+k+1)^2}{k^2\Phi(M+k)}
%
\\ & \quad \cdot\int_0^t\int_{(\TT^d)^2}\left(\int_0^1\abs{\nabla\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(sy+(1-s)y',t))}^2\ds\right)\kappa^\ve(y+x-y')\mathbf{1}_{k,k+1}(y,t)\dyp\dy\dt.
%
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
%
Therefore, returning to \eqref{equiv_35}, it follows from the definition of $M\in(0,\infty)$, \eqref{skel_continuity_6}, and \eqref{equiv_42} that, for $c\in(0,\infty)$ depending on $M\in(0,\infty)$, for every $x\in\TT^d$,
%
\begin{equation}\label{equiv_43}\begin{aligned}
%
& \sum_{k=1}^\infty\Phi(M+k+1)\abs{B^\ve_{k,x}}
%
\\ & \leq \sum_{k=1}^\infty \left(\frac{c\left(\ve^2+\abs{x}^2\right)(M+k+1)^2\Phi(M+k+1)}{k^2\Phi(M+k)}\right.
%
\\ & \quad  \left.\cdot\int_0^t\int_{(\TT^d)^2}\left(\int_0^1\abs{\nabla\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(sy+(1-s)y',t))}^2\ds\right)\kappa^\ve(y+x-y')\mathbf{1}_{k,k+1}(y,t)\dyp\dy\dt\right)
%
\\ & \leq c\left(\ve^2+\abs{x}^2\right)\int_0^t\int_{(\TT^d)^2}\left(\int_0^1\abs{\nabla\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(sy+(1-s)y',t))}^2\ds\right)\kappa^\ve(y+x-y')\mathbf{1}_{A_1}(y,t)\dyp\dy\dt
%
\\ & \leq c\left(\ve^2+\abs{x}^2\right)\norm{\nabla\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho)}_{L^2(\TT^d\times[0,T])}^2.
%
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
%
Returning to \eqref{equiv_35}, it follows from the definition of the convolution kernel and \eqref{equiv_43} that, for $c\in(0,\infty)$, for every $\ve\in(0,1)$,
%
\begin{equation}\label{equiv_44}\begin{aligned}
%
& \int_0^t\int_{(\TT^d)^2}\Phi(\rho(y,t))\abs{\ve\nabla_x\kappa^\ve(y-x)}\abs{\psi(x,\rho^\ve(x,t))}\mathbf{1}_{A_1}(y,t)\dy\dx\dt
%
\\ & \leq c\int_{\TT^d}\left(\ve^2+\abs{x}^2\right)\norm{\nabla\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho)}_{L^2(\TT^d\times[0,T])}^2\abs{\ve\nabla_x\kappa^\ve(x)}\dx
%
\\ & \leq c\ve^2\norm{\nabla\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho)}^2_{L^2(\TT^d\times[0,T])}.
%
\end{aligned} \end{equation}
%
Then, returning to \eqref{equiv_32}, it follows from \eqref{equiv_44} that, for $c\in(0,\infty)$, for every $\ve\in(0,1)$,
%
$$\begin{aligned}
%
& \abs{\int_0^t\int_{(\TT^d)^2}F(y,t)\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(y,t))\cdot\nabla_x\kappa^\ve(y-x)\psi(x,\rho^\ve(x,t))\mathbf{1}_{A_1}(y,t)\dy\dx\dt}
%
\\ & \leq c\norm{\nabla\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho)}_{L^2(\TT^d\times[0,T])}\left(\int_0^t\int_{(\TT^d)^2}\abs{F}^2(y,t)\abs{\ve\nabla_x\kappa^\ve(y-x)}\abs{\psi(x,\rho^\ve(x,t))}\mathbf{1}_{A_1}(y,t)\dy\dx\dt\right)^\frac{1}{2}.
%
\end{aligned}$$
%
Let $c_0\in(0,\infty)$ satisfy, for every $\ve\in(0,1)$,
%
$$c_0=\int_{\TT^d}\abs{\ve\nabla\kappa^\ve(x)}\dx=\int_{\TT^d}\abs{\nabla\kappa(x)}\dx.$$
%
Since the sequence $\{c_0^{-1}\abs{\ve\nabla\kappa^\ve}\}_{\ve\in(0,1)}$ is a Dirac sequence on $\TT^d$, as $\ve\rightarrow 0$,
%
$$\int_{\TT^d}\abs{F}^2(y,t)\abs{\ve\nabla_x\kappa^\ve(y-x)}\mathbf{1}_{A_1}(y,t)\dy\rightarrow c_0\abs{F}^2(x,t)\mathbf{1}_{A_1}(x,t)\;\;\textrm{strongly in}\;\;L^1(\TT^d\times[0,T]).$$
%
The triangle inequality, the definition of $A_1$, and $\psi\in\C^\infty_c(\TT^d\times\R)$ then prove that
%
$$\limsup_{\ve\rightarrow 0}\abs{\int_0^t\int_{(\TT^d)^2}F(y,t)\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(y,t))\cdot\nabla_x\kappa^\ve(y-x)\psi(x,\rho^\ve(x,t))\mathbf{1}_{A_1}(y,t)\dy\dx\dt}=0,$$
%
which completes the proof of \eqref{equiv_30}.  \end{proof}



\begin{lem}\label{aux_lemma_4}  Let $\Phi\in W^{1,1}_{\textrm{loc}}([0,\infty))$ satisfy Assumption~\ref{as_unique}, \eqref{skel_continuity_6}, and \eqref{skel_continuity_7}.  Then, for every $F\in L^2(\TT^d\times[0,T];\R^d)$ and $\psi\in\C^\infty_c(\TT^d\times\R)$,
%
\begin{equation}\label{al_2}\begin{aligned}
%
& \lim_{\ve\rightarrow 0}\left(\int_0^t\int_{(\TT^d)^2}F(y,t)\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(y,t))\kappa^\ve(y-x)\left(\partial_\xi\psi\right)(x,\rho^\ve(x,t))\cdot\nabla_x\rho^\ve(x,t)\mathbf{1}_{A_0}(y,t)\dy\dx\dt\right)
%
\\ & = \int_0^t\int_{\TT^d}F(x,t)\frac{2\Phi(\rho(x,t))}{\Phi'(\rho(x,t))}\cdot\nabla\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(x,t))(\partial_\xi\psi)(x,\rho(x,t))\dx\dt.
%
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
% 
\end{lem}


\begin{proof}  We will first define a cutoff function that will be used to treat the degeneracy of the diffusion.  Let $\phi\colon\R\rightarrow[0,1]$ be defined by
%
$$\phi (\xi)=\left\{\begin{aligned} & 1 && \textrm{if}\;\;\abs{\xi}\leq 1,
%
\\ & 1-\abs{\xi} && \textrm{if}\;\; 1 \leq \abs{\xi}\leq 2,
%
\\ & 0  && \textrm{if}\;\;\abs{\xi}>2,\end{aligned}\right.$$
%
and for every $\eta\in(0,1)$ let $\phi^\eta\colon\R\rightarrow\R$ be defined by $\phi^\eta(\xi)=\phi(\nicefrac{\xi}{\eta})$.

Let $\ve,\eta\in(0,1)$.  The definition of the kinetic function proves that
%
\begin{equation}\label{equiv_11} \begin{aligned} \nabla \rho^\ve(x,t) & = \int_{\TT^d}\rho(z,t)\nabla_x \kappa^\ve(z-x)\dz
%
\\ & = \int_\R\int_{\TT^d}\chi(z,\xi,t)\nabla_x \kappa^\ve(z-x)\dz\dxi
%
\\& = \int_\R\int_{\TT^d}\chi(z,\xi,t)\nabla_x \kappa^\ve(z-x)\phi^\eta(\xi)\dz\dxi +\int_\R\int_{\TT^d}\chi(z,\xi,t)\nabla_x \kappa^\ve(z-x)(1-\phi^\eta(\xi))\dz\dxi.
%
\end{aligned} \end{equation}
%
It follows from Lemma~\ref{ibp} and the definition of $\phi^\eta$ that the final term of \eqref{equiv_11} satisfies
%
\begin{equation}\label{equiv_12}\begin{aligned} & \int_\R\int_{\TT^d}\chi(z,\xi,t)\nabla_x \kappa^\ve(z-x)(1-\phi^\eta(\xi))\dz\dxi
%
\\ & = -\int_\R\int_{\TT^d}\frac{\Phi'(\xi)}{2\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\xi)}\chi(z,\xi,t)\nabla_z\left( \kappa^\ve(z-x)\frac{2\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\xi)}{\Phi'(\xi)}(1-\phi^\eta(\xi))\right)\dz\dxi
%
\\ & = \int_{\TT^d}\nabla_z\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(z,t))\kappa^\ve(z-x)\frac{2\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(z,t))}{\Phi'(\rho(z,t))}(1-\phi^\eta(\rho(z,t)))\dz.
%
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
%
It follows from \eqref{equiv_11} and \eqref{equiv_12} that
%
\begin{equation}\label{equiv_012}\begin{aligned}
%
& \int_0^t\int_{(\TT^d)^2}F(y,t)\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(y,t))\kappa^\ve(y-x)\left(\partial_\xi\psi\right)(x,\rho^\ve(x,t))\cdot\nabla_x\rho^\ve(x,t)\mathbf{1}_{A_0}(y,t)\dy\dx\dt
%
\\ & = \int_0^t\int_{(\TT^d)^3}F(y,t)\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(y,t))\kappa^\ve(y-x)\left(\partial_\xi\psi\right)(x,\rho^\ve(x,t))\mathbf{1}_{A_0}(y,t)
%
\\ & \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \cdot \nabla_z\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(z,t))\kappa^\ve(z-x)\frac{2\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(z,t))}{\Phi'(\rho(z,t))}(1-\phi^\eta(\rho(z,t)))\dz\dy\dx\dt
%
\\ & \quad + \int_0^t\int_{(\TT^d)^3}\int_\R F(y,t)\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(y,t))\kappa^\ve(y-x)\left(\partial_\xi\psi\right)(x,\rho^\ve(x,t))\mathbf{1}_{A_0}(y,t)
%
\\ &  \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \cdot \chi(z,\xi,t)\nabla_x \kappa^\ve(z-x)\phi^\eta(\xi)\Big)\dxi\dz\dy\dx\dt.
%
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
%
The two terms of on the righthand side of \eqref{equiv_012} will be treated separately.  For the first term on the righthand side of \eqref{equiv_012}, the definition of $\phi^\eta$ and \eqref{skel_continuity_7} prove that
%
\begin{equation}\label{equiv_80} \frac{2\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho)}{\Phi'(\rho)}(1-\phi^\eta(\rho))\in L^\infty(\TT^d\times[0,T]).\end{equation}
%
It then follows as in \eqref{equiv_072} using \eqref{equiv_80} that, for every $\eta\in(0,1)$,
%
\begin{equation}\label{equiv_81}\begin{aligned}
%
& \lim_{\ve\rightarrow 0}\left((\partial_\xi\psi)(x,\rho^\ve(x,t))\int_{\TT^d}\nabla\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(z,t))\kappa^\ve(z-x)\frac{2\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(z,t))}{\Phi'(\rho(z,t))}(1-\phi^\eta(\rho(z,t)))\dz\right)
%
\\ & = (\partial_\xi\psi)(x,\rho(x,t))\nabla\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(x,t))\frac{2\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(x,t))}{\Phi'(\rho(x,t))}(1-\phi^\eta(\rho(x,t)))\;\;\textrm{strongly in}\;\;L^2(\TT^d\times[0,T];\R^d).
%
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
%
Similarly, as in \eqref{equiv_072}, it follows using the definition of $A_0$ to bound $\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(y,t))$ that, strongly in $L^2(\TT^d\times[0,T];\R^d)$,
%
\begin{equation}\label{equiv_82}
%
\lim_{\ve\rightarrow 0}\left(\int_{\TT^d}F(y,t)\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(y,t)\textbf{1}_{A_0}(y,t)\kappa^\ve(y-x)\dy\right) = F(x,t)\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(x,t))\textbf{1}_{A_0}(x,t).
%
\end{equation}
%
The triangle inequality, H\"older's inequality, the definition of $A_0$, \eqref{equiv_81}, and \eqref{equiv_82} then prove that
%
\begin{equation}\label{equiv_84}\begin{aligned}
%
& \lim_{\ve\rightarrow 0}\left(\int_0^t\int_{(\TT^d)^3}F(y,t)\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(y,t))\kappa^\ve(y-x)\left(\partial_\xi\psi\right)(x,\rho^\ve(x,t))\mathbf{1}_{A_0}(y,t)\right.
%
\\ & \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \cdot \left.\nabla_z\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(z,t))\kappa^\ve(z-x)\frac{2\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(z,t))}{\Phi'(\rho(z,t))}(1-\phi^\eta(\rho(z,t)))\dz\dy\dx\dt\right)
%
\\ & = \int_0^t\int_{\TT^d}F(x,t)\frac{2\Phi(\rho(x,t))}{\Phi'(\rho(x,t))}\cdot \nabla\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(x,t))(\partial_\xi\psi)(x,\rho(x,t))(1-\phi^\eta(\rho(x,t)))\dx\dt.
%
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
%
Since \eqref{skel_continuity_3} implies that $\lim_{\xi\rightarrow 0^+}\left(\nicefrac{\Phi(\xi)}{\Phi'(\xi)}\right)=0,$ it follows by the dominated convergence theorem, $\psi\in\C^\infty_c(\TT^d\times\R)$, the definition of $\{\phi^\eta\}_{\eta\in(0,1)}$, \eqref{skel_continuity_3}, and \eqref{equiv_84} that
%
\begin{equation}\label{equiv_084}\begin{aligned}
%
& \lim_{\eta\rightarrow 0}\Big(\lim_{\ve\rightarrow 0}\Big(\int_0^t\int_{(\TT^d)^3}F(y,t)\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(y,t))\kappa^\ve(y-x)\left(\partial_\xi\psi\right)(x,\rho^\ve(x,t))\mathbf{1}_{A_0}(y,t)
%
\\ & \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \cdot \nabla_z\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(z,t))\kappa^\ve(z-x)\frac{2\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(z,t))}{\Phi'(\rho(z,t))}(1-\phi^\eta(\rho(z,t)))\dz\dy\dx\dt\Big)\Big)
%
\\ & = \int_0^t\int_{\TT^d}F(x,t)\frac{2\Phi(\rho(x,t))}{\Phi'(\rho(x,t))}\cdot\nabla\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(x,t))(\partial_\xi\psi)(x,\rho(x,t))\dx\dt.
%
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
%
It remains to treat the second term on the righthand side of \eqref{equiv_012}.




We have, for every $\ve,\eta\in(0,1)$,
%
\begin{equation}\label{equiv_15}\begin{aligned}
%
& \int_0^t\int_{(\TT^d)^3}\int_\R F(y,t)\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(y,t))\kappa^\ve(y-x)\mathbf{1}_{A_0}(y,t)
%
\\ & \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \cdot (\partial_\xi\psi)(x,\rho^\ve(x,t))\chi(z,\xi,t)\nabla_x \kappa^\ve(z-x)\phi^\eta(\xi)\dxi\dz\dy\dx\dt
%
\\ & = \int_0^t\int_{(\TT^d)^3}\int_\R\Big(F(y,t)\left(\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(y,t))-\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(x,t))\right)\kappa^\ve(y-x)\mathbf{1}_{A_0}(y,t)
%
\\ & \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \cdot (\partial_\xi\psi)(x,\rho^\ve(x,t))\chi(z,\xi,t)\nabla_x \kappa^\ve(z-x)\phi^\eta(\xi)\Big)\dxi\dz\dy\dx\dt
%
\\ &  \quad + \int_0^t\int_{(\TT^d)^3}\int_\R \Big(F(y,t)\left(\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(x,t))-\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(z,t))\right)\kappa^\ve(y-x)\mathbf{1}_{A_0}(y,t)
%
\\ & \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \cdot (\partial_\xi\psi)(x,\rho^\ve(x,t))\chi(z,\xi,t)\nabla_x \kappa^\ve(z-x)\phi^\eta(\xi)\Big)\dxi\dz\dy\dx\dt
%
\\ & \quad + \int_0^t\int_{(\TT^d)^3}\int_\R F(y,t)\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(z,t))\kappa^\ve(y-x)
%
\\ & \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \cdot (\partial_\xi\psi)(x,\rho^\ve(x,t))\chi(z,\xi,t)\nabla_x \kappa^\ve(z-x)\phi^\eta(\xi)\dxi\dz\dy\dx\dt.
%
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
%
For the first term on the righthand side of \eqref{equiv_15}, the definition of the convolution kernel, the fundamental theorem of calculus, and $\psi\in\C^\infty_c(\TT^d\times\R)$ prove that, for $c\in(0,\infty)$,
%
\begin{equation}\label{equiv_16}\begin{aligned}
%
& \Big| \int_0^t\int_{(\TT^d)^3}\int_\R \Big(F(y,t)\left(\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(y,t))-\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(x,t))\right)\kappa^\ve(y-x)\mathbf{1}_{A_0}(y,t)
%
\\ & \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \cdot (\partial_\xi\psi)(x,\rho^\ve(x,t))\chi(z,\xi,t)\nabla_x \kappa^\ve(z-x)\phi^\eta(\xi)\Big)\dxi\dz\dy\dx\dt\Big|
%
\\ & = \Big| \int_0^t\int_{(\TT^d)^3}\int_\R \Big(F(y,t)\left(\int_0^1\nabla(\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho))(x+s(y-x),t)\cdot(y-x)\ds\right)\kappa^\ve(y-x)\mathbf{1}_{A_0}(y,t)
%
\\ & \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \cdot (\partial_\xi\psi)(x,\rho^\ve(x,t))\chi(z,\xi,t)\nabla_x \kappa^\ve(z-x)\phi^\eta(\xi)\Big)\dxi\dz\dy\dx\dt\Big|
%
\\ & \leq c   \int_0^t\int_{(\TT^d)^3}\int_\R\int_0^1 \Big(\abs{F(y,t)}\abs{\nabla(\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho))(x+s(y-x),t)}\kappa^\ve(y-x)\mathbf{1}_{A_0}(y,t)
%
\\ & \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \cdot  \chi(z,\xi,t)\abs{\ve \nabla_x \kappa^\ve(z-x)}\phi^\eta(\xi)\ds\dxi\dz\dy\dx\dt\Big).
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
%
The definition of $\{\phi^\eta\}_{\eta\in(0,1)}$ proves that, for every $\eta\in(0,1)$,
%
\begin{equation}\label{equiv_016} \int_\R\phi^\eta(\xi)\chi(z,\xi,t)\dxi\leq 2\eta.\end{equation}
%
It follows from \eqref{equiv_16}, \eqref{equiv_016}, H\"older's inequality, and the definition of the convolution kernels $\{\kappa^\ve\}_{\ve\in(0,1)}$ that there exists $c\in(0,\infty)$ independent of $\eta\in(0,1)$ such that
%
\begin{equation}\label{equiv_17}\begin{aligned}
%
& \limsup_{\ve\rightarrow 0}\left(\Big|\int_0^t\int_{(\TT^d)^3}\int_\R \Big(F(y,t)\left(\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(y,t))-\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(x,t))\right)\kappa^\ve(y-x)\mathbf{1}_{A_0}(y,t)\right.
%
\\ & \left.\quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \cdot (\partial_\xi\psi)(x,\rho^\ve(x,t))\chi(z,\xi,t)\nabla_x \kappa^\ve(z-x)\phi^\eta(\xi)\dxi\dz\dy\dx\dt\Big)\Big|\right)
%
\\ & \leq c\eta\limsup_{\ve\rightarrow 0}\left(\int_0^t\int_0^1\int_{(\TT^d)^2}\abs{F(y,t)}\abs{\nabla(\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho))(x+s(y-x),t)}\kappa^\ve(y-x)\dx\dy\ds\dt\right)
%
\\ &\leq  c\eta \norm{F}_{L^2(\TT^d\times[0,T])}\norm{\nabla\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho)}_{L^2(\TT^d\times[0,T])}.
%
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
%
For the second term on the righthand side of \eqref{equiv_15}, an identical analysis proves that there exists $c\in(0,\infty)$ independent of $\eta\in(0,1)$ such that
%
\begin{equation}\label{equiv_017}\begin{aligned}
%
& \limsup_{\ve\rightarrow 0}\Big(\Big|\int_0^t\int_{(\TT^d)^3}\int_\R \Big(F(y,t)\left(\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(x,t))-\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(z,t))\right)\kappa^\ve(y-x)\mathbf{1}_{A_0}(y,t)
%
\\ & \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \cdot (\partial_\xi\psi)(x,\rho^\ve(x,t))\chi(z,\xi,t)\nabla_x \kappa^\ve(z-x)\phi^\eta(\xi)\Big)\dxi\dz\dy\dx\dt\Big|\Big)
%
\\ & \leq c \eta\norm{F}_{L^2(\TT^d\times[0,T])}\norm{\nabla\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho)}_{L^2(\TT^d\times[0,T])}.
%
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
%
For the third term on the righthand side of \eqref{equiv_15}, for every $\eta\in(0,1)$ let $\overline{\phi}^\eta\colon\R\rightarrow\R$ be defined by
%
$$\overline{\phi}^\eta(\xi)=\int_\R\phi^\eta(\xi)\dxi.$$
%
The definitions of the kinetic function and of $\{\overline{\phi}^\eta\}_{\eta\in(0,1)}$ prove that
%
\begin{equation}\label{equiv_18}\begin{aligned}
%
&   \int_0^t\int_{(\TT^d)^3}\int_\R F(y,t)\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(z,t))\kappa^\ve(y-x)\mathbf{1}_{A_0}(y,t)
%
\\ & \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \cdot (\partial_\xi\psi)(x,\rho^\ve(x,t))\chi(z,\xi,t)\nabla_x \kappa^\ve(z-x)\phi^\eta(\xi)\dxi\dz\dy\dx\dt.
%
\\ & =-\int_0^t\int_{(\TT^d)^3}F(y,t)\kappa^\ve(y-x)\mathbf{1}_{A_0}(y,t)
%
\\ & \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad\cdot (\partial_\xi\psi)(x,\rho^\ve(x,t))\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(z,t))\overline{\phi}^\eta(\rho(z,t))\nabla_z \kappa^\ve(z-x)\dz\dy\dx\dt.
%
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
%
Since 
%
$$\overline{\phi}^\eta(\rho(z,t))=\overline{\phi}^\eta\left(\left(\left(\Phi^\frac{1}{2}\right)^{-1}\right)\left(\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(z,t))\right)\right),$$
%
the $L^2([0,T];H^1(\TT^d))$ regularity of $\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho)$, \eqref{equiv_6}, the definition of $\{\phi^\eta\}_{\eta\in(0,1)}$, the definition of $\{\overline{\phi}^\eta\}_{\eta\in(0,1)}$, and \eqref{equiv_18} prove that, after integrating by parts in $z\in\TT^d$, omitting the integration variables
%
\begin{equation}\label{equiv_19}\begin{aligned}
%
&  -\int_0^t\int_{(\TT^d)^3}F(y,t)\kappa^\ve(y-x)\mathbf{1}_{A_0}(y,t)(\partial_\xi\psi)(x,\rho^\ve(x,t))\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(z,t))\overline{\phi}^\eta(\rho(z,t))\cdot \nabla_z \kappa^\ve(z-x)
%
\\ & = \int_0^t\int_{(\TT^d)^3}F(y,t)\kappa^\ve(y-x)\mathbf{1}_{A_0}(y,t)(\partial_\xi\psi)(x,\rho^\ve(x,t))\cdot \nabla_z\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(z,t))\overline{\phi}^\eta(\rho(z,t))\kappa^\ve(z-x)
%
\\ & \quad+ \int_0^t\int_{(\TT^d)^3}F(y,t)\kappa^\ve(y-x)\mathbf{1}_{A_0}(y,t)(\partial_\xi\psi)(x,\rho^\ve(x,t))
%
\\ & \quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad \cdot \frac{2\Phi(\rho(z,t))}{\Phi'(\rho(z,t)}\nabla\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(z,t))\phi^\eta(\rho(z,t))\kappa^\ve(z-x)
%
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
%
The definition of $\{\phi^\eta\}_{\eta\in(0,1)}$ proves that, for every $\eta\in(0,1)$, for every $\xi\in\R$,
%
\begin{equation}\label{equiv_020}\overline{\phi}^\eta(\xi)\leq 2\eta,\end{equation}
%
and since \eqref{skel_continuity_3} and the definition of $\{\phi^\eta\}_{\eta\in(0,1)}$ prove that there exists $c\in(0,\infty)$ independent of $\eta\in(0,1)$ such that, for every $(x,t)\in\TT^d\times[0,T]$,
%
\begin{equation}\label{equiv_0020}\frac{2\Phi(\rho(x,t))}{\Phi'(\rho(x,t))}\phi^\eta(\rho(x,t))\leq c\eta,\end{equation}
%
it follows from \eqref{equiv_19}, \eqref{equiv_020}, \eqref{equiv_0020}, $\psi\in\C^\infty_c(\TT^d\times\R)$, and H\"older's inequality that there exists $c\in(0,\infty)$ independent of $\eta\in(0,1)$ such that, for every $\ve,\eta\in(0,1)$, omitting the integration variables,
%
\begin{equation}\label{equiv_00020}\begin{aligned}
%
& \Big|\int_0^t\int_{(\TT^d)^3}F(y,t)\kappa^\ve(y-x)\mathbf{1}_{A_0}(y,t)(\partial_\xi\psi)(x,\rho^\ve(x,t))\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(z,t))\overline{\phi}^\eta(\rho(z,t))\cdot \nabla_z \kappa^\ve(z-x)\Big|
%
\\ & \leq c\eta\int_0^t\int_{(\TT^d)^3}\abs{F(y,t)}\kappa^\ve(y-x)\mathbf{1}_{A_0}(y,t)\abs{\nabla\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(z,t))}\kappa^\ve(x-z)
%
\\ & \leq c\eta\norm{F}_{L^2(\TT^d\times[0,T])}\norm{\nabla\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho)}_{L^2(\TT^d\times[0,T])}.
%
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
%
In combination \eqref{equiv_15}, \eqref{equiv_17}, \eqref{equiv_017}, and \eqref{equiv_00020} prove that there exists $c\in(0,\infty)$ such that, for every $\eta\in(0,1)$,
%
$$\begin{aligned}
%
 & \limsup_{\ve\rightarrow 0}\Big(\Big|\int_0^t\int_{(\TT^d)^3}\int_\R F(y,t)\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(y,t))\kappa^\ve(y-x)\mathbf{1}_{A_0}(y,t)
%
\\ & \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \cdot (\partial_\xi\psi)(x,\rho^\ve(x,t))\chi(z,\xi,t)\nabla_x \kappa^\ve(z-x)\phi^\eta(\xi)\dxi\dz\dy\dx\dt\Big|\Big)
 %
\\ &  \leq c\eta\norm{F}_{L^2(\TT^d\times[0,T])}\norm{\nabla\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho)}_{L^2(\TT^d\times[0,T])}.
 %
\end{aligned}$$
%
Therefore,
%
\begin{equation}\label{equiv_000020}
\begin{aligned}
%
 & \limsup_{\eta\rightarrow 0}\Big(\limsup_{\ve\rightarrow 0}\Big(\Big|\int_0^t\int_{(\TT^d)^3}\int_\R F(y,t)\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(y,t))\kappa^\ve(y-x)\mathbf{1}_{A_0}(y,t)
%
\\ & \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \cdot (\partial_\xi\psi)(x,\rho^\ve(x,t))\chi(z,\xi,t)\nabla_x \kappa^\ve(z-x)\phi^\eta(\xi)\dxi\dz\dy\dx\dt\Big|\Big)\Big)=0.
 %
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
%
Returning to \eqref{equiv_012}, it follows from \eqref{equiv_084} and \eqref{equiv_000020} that
%
$$\begin{aligned}
%
& \lim_{\ve\rightarrow 0}\left(\int_0^t\int_{(\TT^d)^2}F(y,t)\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(y,t))\kappa^\ve(y-x)\mathbf{1}_{A_0}(y,t)\left(\partial_\xi\psi\right)(x,\rho^\ve(x,t))\cdot \nabla_x\rho^\ve(x,t)\dy\dx\dt\right)
%
\\ & = \int_0^t\int_{\TT^d}F(x,t)\frac{2\Phi(\rho(x,t))}{\Phi'(\rho(x,t))}\cdot \nabla\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(x,t))(\partial_\xi\psi)(x,\rho(x,t))\dx\dt,
%
\end{aligned}$$
%
which completes the proof of \eqref{al_2}.  \end{proof}



\section{Existence of weak solutions}\label{sec_existence}

In this section, we will prove that there exists a weak solution to the skeleton equation
%
$$\partial_t\rho = \Delta \Phi(\rho)-\nabla\cdot(\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho)g),$$
%
for each for $T\in(0,\infty)$, control $g\in L^2(\TT^d\times[0,T];\R^d)$ and initial datum $\rho_0\in\Ent_\Phi(\TT^d)$ in the sense of Definition~\ref{classical_weak}.  The existence of renormalized kinetic solutions (cf.\ Definition~\ref{skel_sol_def}) is then a consequence of Theorem~\ref{equiv}.  The proof will rely on the following three assumptions, which we prove in Propositions~\ref{prex} and \ref{assumption_exist_prop}  of the Appendix are satisfied by $\Phi(\xi)=\xi^m$ for every $m\in[1,\infty)$.  It will additionally be necessary to introduce a smooth approximation of the nonlinearity, the details of which are presented in Lemma~\ref{ass_phi_reg} below.

\begin{assumption}\label{as_pre}  Let $\Phi\in W^{1,1}_{\textrm{loc}}([0,\infty))$ be strictly increasing with $\Phi(0)=0$ and let $T\in(0,\infty)$.  Assume that $\{\rho_n\}_{n\in\mathbb{N}}\subseteq L^\infty([0,T];L^1(\TT^d))$ satisfy for $c\in(0,\infty)$ and $s\geq \nicefrac{d}{2}+1$ independent of $n\in\N$, for every $n\in\N$,
%
$$\norm{\rho_n}_{L^\infty([0,T];L^1(\TT^d))}+\norm{\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho_n)}_{L^2([0,T];H^1(\TT^d))}+\norm{\partial_t \rho_n}_{L^1([0,T];H^{-s}(\TT^d))}\leq c.$$
%
Then,
%
$$\{\rho_n\}_{n\in\mathbb{N}}\;\;\textrm{is relatively pre-compact in}\;\;L^1([0,T];L^1(\TT^d)),$$
%
and
%
$$\{\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho_n)\}_{n\in\N}\;\;\textrm{is relatively pre-compact in}\;\;L^2([0,T];L^2(\TT^2)).$$
\end{assumption}



\begin{assumption}\label{ass_log}  Let $\Phi\in W^{1,1}_\textrm{loc}([0,\infty))$ be nonnegative.  Assume that there exists $c\in(0,\infty)$ such that
%
$$\inf_{\xi\in[0,\infty)}\left[\int_0^\xi \log(\Phi(\xi))\dxi\right]\geq -c.$$
%
\end{assumption}

\begin{assumption}\label{ass_interpolate}  Let $\Phi\in W^{1,1}_\textrm{loc}([0,\infty))$ be nonnegative.  Assume that there exist $c_1,c_2\in(0,\infty)$ such that, for every $\rho\in L^1(\TT^d)$ satisfying
%
$$\nabla\Phi(\rho)\in L^2(\TT^d;\R^d),$$
%
we have that
%
$$\norm{\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho)}_{L^2(\TT^d)}\leq c_1\left(\norm{\nabla\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho)}_{L^2(\TT^d)}+\norm{\rho}^{c_2}_{L^1(\TT^d)}\right).$$
%
\end{assumption}

\begin{lem}\label{ass_phi_reg}  Let $\Phi\in W^{1,1}_\textrm{loc}([0,\infty))$ be strictly increasing with $\Phi(0)=0$.  Then, there exist nondecreasing functions
%
$$\{\Phi^{\frac{1}{2},\eta}\colon[0,\infty)\rightarrow[0,\infty)\}_{\eta\in(0,1)}\subseteq\C^\infty([0,\infty)),$$
%
which satisfy the following four properties.
%
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
%
\item For every $\eta\in(0,1)$,
%
\begin{equation}\label{fd_00}\Phi^{\frac{1}{2},\eta}(0)=0.\end{equation}
%
\item There exists $c\in(0,\infty)$ such that, for every $\eta\in(0,1)$ and $\xi\in[0,\infty)$,
%
\begin{equation}\label{fd_0} 0\leq \Phi^{\frac{1}{2},\eta}(\xi)\leq c\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\xi)\;\;\textrm{and}\;\;0\leq \left(\Phi^{\frac{1}{2},\eta}\right)'(\xi)\leq c\left(\Phi^\frac{1}{2}\right)'(\xi).\end{equation}
%
\item For every $\eta\in(0,1)$ there exists $c\in(0,\infty)$ depending on $\eta$ such that
%
\begin{equation}\label{fd_1}\norm{\Phi^{\frac{1}{2},\eta}}_{L^\infty([0,\infty))}+\norm{(\Phi^{\frac{1}{2},\eta})'}_{L^\infty([0,\infty))}\leq c.\end{equation}
%
\item  For every compact set $A\subseteq[0,\infty)$,
%
\begin{equation}\label{fd_2}\lim_{\eta\rightarrow 0}\norm{\Phi^{\frac{1}{2},\eta}-\Phi^\frac{1}{2}}_{L^\infty(A)}=0.\end{equation}
%
\end{enumerate}
%
\end{lem}


\begin{proof}  Extend $\Phi\in W^{1,1}_{\textrm{loc}}([0,\infty))$ to $\R$ by defining $\Phi(\xi)=0$ for every $\xi\in(-\infty,0)$.  For every $\ve\in(0,1)$ let $\kappa^\ve\in\C^\infty_c(\R)$ be a standard one-dimensional convolution kernel of scale $\ve\in(0,1)$ that is supported on $(-\ve,0)$.  For every $\eta,\ve\in(0,1)$ define
%
$$\Phi^{\frac{1}{2},\eta,\ve}(\xi)=\left(\left((\Phi^\frac{1}{2}\wedge \Phi\left(\nicefrac{1}{\eta}\right)\right)*\kappa^{\ve}\right)(\xi)=\int_\R\left(\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\xi')\wedge \Phi\left(\nicefrac{1}{\eta}\right)\right)\kappa^{\ve}(\xi'-\xi)\dxip.$$
%
It follows by definition that, for every $\eta\in(0,1)$ there exists $\ve_\eta\in(0,1)$ such that
%
\begin{equation}\label{fd_3}\Phi^{\frac{1}{2},\eta,\ve_\eta}(0)=0\;\;\textrm{and}\;\;0\leq \Phi^{\frac{1}{2},\eta,\ve_\eta}(\xi)\leq 2\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\xi)\;\;\textrm{and}\;\;0\leq \left(\Phi^{\frac{1}{2},\eta}\right)'(\xi)\leq 2\left(\Phi^\frac{1}{2}\right)'(\xi).\end{equation}
%
For every $\eta\in(0,1)$ let $\Phi^{\frac{1}{2},\eta}=\Phi^{\frac{1}{2},\eta,\ve_\eta}$.  It follows from \eqref{fd_3}, properties of the convolution, and the continuity of $\Phi$ that the $\{\Phi^{\frac{1}{2},\eta}\}_{\eta\in(0,1)}$ satisfy \eqref{fd_00}, \eqref{fd_0}, \eqref{fd_1}, and \eqref{fd_2}.  This completes the proof.  \end{proof}



In the following proposition, using the approximation from Lemma~\ref{ass_phi_reg}, we will first prove that there exists a weak solution to the regularized equation, for $\eta_1,\eta_2,\eta_3\in(0,1)$,
%
$$\partial_t\rho=\Delta\Phi^{\eta_1}(\rho)+\eta_2\Delta\rho-\nabla\cdot (\Phi^{\frac{1}{2},\eta_3}(\rho)g),$$
%
where $\Phi^{\eta_1}=(\Phi^{\frac{1}{2},\eta_1})^2$.  In Proposition~\ref{smooth_exist}, we pass to the limit $\eta_1\rightarrow 0$.  In Proposition~\ref{gen_exist} below, based on the estimates of Proposition~\ref{frac_est} below, we then pass to the limit $\eta_2\rightarrow 0$ and finally to the limit $\eta_3\rightarrow 0$.


\begin{prop}\label{smooth_exist} Let $T\in(0,\infty)$, let $\Phi\in W^{1,1}_\textrm{loc}([0,\infty))$ satisfy Assumptions~\ref{ass_log} and ~\ref{ass_interpolate}, and let $\{\Phi^{\frac{1}{2},\eta}\}_{\eta\in(0,1)}$ be defined in Lemma~\ref{ass_phi_reg}.  Define $\overline{\Phi}\colon[0,\infty)\rightarrow[0,\infty)$ to be the anti-derivative
%
$$\overline{\Phi}(\xi)=\int_0^\xi\Phi(\xi')\dxip.$$
%
Then, for every nonnegative $\rho_0\in L^\infty(\TT^d)$, $g\in L^2(\TT^d\times[0,T];\R^d)$, and $\eta_2,\eta_3\in(0,1)$ there exists a nonnegative weak solution $\rho\in L^2([0,T];H^1(\TT^d))$ of the equation
%
\begin{equation}\label{se_1} \left\{\begin{aligned}
%
\partial_t\rho & = \Delta\Phi(\rho)+\eta_2\Delta\rho-\nabla\cdot (\Phi^{\frac{1}{2},\eta_3}(\rho)g) && \textrm{in}\;\;\TT^d\times(0,T),
%
\\ \rho & = \rho_0 && \textrm{on}\;\;\TT^d\times\{0\},
%
\end{aligned}\right.\end{equation}
%
which satisfies that, for almost every $t\in[0,T]$,
%
\begin{equation}\label{se_00002}\norm{\rho(\cdot,t)}_{L^1(\TT^d)}=\norm{\rho_0}_{L^1(\TT^d)},\end{equation}
%
that for some $c\in(0,\infty)$ independent of $\eta_2,\eta_3\in(0,1)$,
%
\begin{equation}\label{se_2}\begin{aligned}
%
& \norm{\rho}^2_{L^\infty([0,T];L^2(\TT^d))}+\eta_2 \norm{\nabla\rho}^2_{L^2([0,T];L^2(\TT^d;\R^d))}
%
\\ & \leq c\left(\norm{\rho_0}^2_{L^2(\TT^d)}+\frac{1}{\eta_2}\norm{\Phi^{\frac{1}{2},\eta_3}}_{L^\infty([0,\infty))}^2\norm{g}^2_{L^2(\TT^d\times[0,T];\R^d)}\right),
%
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
%
and that for some $c\in(0,\infty)$ independent of $\eta_2,\eta_3\in(0,1)$,
%
\begin{equation}\label{se_0002}\begin{aligned}
%
& \norm{\overline{\Phi}(\rho)}_{L^\infty([0,T];L^1(\TT^d))}+\norm{\nabla\Phi(\rho)}^2_{L^2([0,T];L^2(\TT^d;\R^d))}
%
\\ & \leq c\left(\norm{\overline{\Phi}(\rho_0)}_{L^1(\TT^d)}+\norm{\Phi^{\frac{1}{2},\eta_3}}^2_{L^\infty([0,\infty))}\norm{g}^2_{L^2(\TT^d\times[0,T];\R^d)}\right).
%
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
%
\end{prop}




\begin{proof}  Let $\eta_2,\eta_3\in(0,1)$.  We first consider the equation, for every $\eta_1\in(0,1)$,
%
\begin{equation}\label{se_000} \left\{\begin{aligned}
%
\partial_t\rho^{\eta_1} & = \Delta\Phi^{\eta_1}(\rho^{\eta_1})+\eta_2\Delta\rho^{\eta_1}-\nabla\cdot (\Phi^{\frac{1}{2},\eta_3}(\rho^{\eta_1})g) && \textrm{in}\;\;\TT^d\times(0,T),
%
\\ \rho^{\eta_1} & = \rho_0 && \textrm{on}\;\;\TT^d\times\{0\},
%
\end{aligned}\right.\end{equation}
%
for $\Phi^{\eta_1}=(\Phi^{\frac{1}{2},\eta_1})^2$.  For fixed $\eta_1,\eta_2,\eta_3\in(0,1)$ let
%
$$S\colon L^2([0,T];L^2(\TT^d))\rightarrow L^2([0,T];H^1(\TT^d))\subseteq L^2([0,T];L^2(\TT^d)),$$
%
be defined for every $v\in L^2([0,T];L^2(\TT^d))$ as the unique weak solution of the equation
%
$$\left\{\begin{aligned}
%
\partial_t S(v) & =\nabla\cdot\left((\Phi^{\eta_1})'(v)\nabla S(v)+\eta_2\nabla S(v)\right)-\nabla\cdot\left(\Phi^{\frac{1}{2},\eta_3}(v)g\right) && \textrm{on}\;\;\TT^d\times(0,T),
%
\\ S(v) & =\rho_0 && \textrm{on}\;\;\TT^d\times\{0\},
%
\end{aligned}\right.$$
%
where estimates of the type \eqref{se_3} below prove that $S$ is well-defined in the sense that, for every $v\in L^2([0,T];L^2(\TT^d))$, for some $c\in(0,\infty)$,
%
\begin{equation}\label{se_00003}\begin{aligned}
%
& \norm{S(v)}^2_{L^\infty([0,T];L^2(\TT^d))}+\eta_2\norm{\nabla S(v)}^2_{L^2([0,T];L^2(\TT^d;\R^d))}
%
\\ & \leq c\left(\norm{\rho_0}^2_{L^2(\TT^d)}+\frac{1}{\eta_2}\norm{\Phi^{\frac{1}{2},\eta_3}}^2_{L^\infty([0,\infty))}\norm{g}^2_{L^2(\TT^d\times[0,T];\R^d)}\right),
%
\end{aligned} \end{equation}
%
and estimate of the type \eqref{se_5} prove that, for every $v\in L^2([0,T];L^2(\TT^d))$,
%
\begin{equation}\label{se_000003}\begin{aligned}
%
& \norm{\partial_t S(v)}_{L^2([0,T]:H^{-1}(\TT^d))}
%
\\ & \leq \left(\eta_2^\frac{1}{2}+\norm{(\Phi^{\eta_1})'}_{L^\infty([0,\infty))}\right)\norm{\eta_2^\frac{1}{2}\nabla S(v)}_{L^2([0,T];L^2(\TT^d;\R^d))}+\norm{\Phi^{\frac{1}{2},\eta_3}}_{L^\infty([0,\infty))}\norm{g}_{L^2([0,T];L^2(\TT^d;\R^d))}.
%
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
%
The Aubin-Lions-Simons lemma \cite{Aubin,pLions,Simon}, \eqref{se_00003}, and \eqref{se_000003} prove that the image of $S$ lies in a compact subset of $L^2([0,T];L^2(\TT^d))$.  The Schauder fixed point theorem therefore implies that $S$ has a fixed point, which proves the existence of a weak solution to \eqref{se_000}.

Let $\rho^{\eta_1}\in L^2([0,T];H^1(\TT^d))$ denote a weak solution of \eqref{se_000}.  Estimate \eqref{se_00002} follows from the nonnegativity of $\rho^{\eta_1}$ by testing \eqref{se_1} with the constant function $1$.  By testing \eqref{se_1} with $\rho^{\eta_1}$, it follows from H\"older's inequality, Young's inequality, and the fact that $\Phi^{\frac{1}{2},\eta_1}$ is non-decreasing that, for some $c\in(0,\infty)$ independent of $\eta_1,\eta_2,\eta_3\in(0,1)$,
%
\begin{equation}\label{se_3}\begin{aligned}
%
& \norm{\rho^{\eta_1}}^2_{L^\infty([0,T];L^2(\TT^d))}+\eta_2\norm{\nabla \rho^{\eta_1}}^2_{L^2([0,T];L^2(\TT^d;\R^d))}
%
\\ & \leq c\left(\norm{\rho_0}^2_{L^2(\TT^d)}+\frac{1}{\eta_2}\norm{\Phi^{\frac{1}{2},\eta_3}}^2_{L^\infty([0,\infty))}\norm{g}^2_{L^2(\TT^d\times[0,T];\R^d)}\right).
%
\end{aligned} \end{equation}
%
Let $\overline{\Phi}^{\eta_1}\colon[0,\infty)\rightarrow[0,\infty)$ denote the anti-derivative
%
$$\overline{\Phi}^{\eta_1}(\xi)=\int_0^\xi\Phi^{\eta_1}(\xi')\dxp.$$
%
After testing \eqref{se_1} with the composition $\Phi^{\eta_1}(\rho^{\eta_1})$, which is justified by $\rho^{\eta_1}\in L^2([0,T];H^1(\TT^d))$ and \eqref{fd_1}, it follows from H\"older's inequality, Young's inequality, the fact that $\Phi^{\frac{1}{2},\eta_1}$ is non-decreasing, and \eqref{fd_0} that, for some $c\in(0,\infty)$ independent of $\eta_1,\eta_2,\eta_3\in(0,1)$,
%
\begin{equation}\begin{aligned}\label{se_4}
%
& \norm{\overline{\Phi}^{\eta_1}(\rho^{\eta_1})}_{L^\infty([0,T];L^1(\TT^d))}+\norm{\nabla\Phi^{\eta_1}(\rho^{\eta_1})}^2_{L^2([0,T];L^2(\TT^d;\R^d))}
%
\\ & \leq c\left(\norm{\overline{\Phi}^{\eta_1}(\rho_0)}_{L^1(\TT^d)}+\norm{\Phi^{\frac{1}{2},\eta_3}}^2_{L^\infty([0,\infty))}\norm{g}^2_{L^2(\TT^d\times[0,T];\R^d)}\right)
%
\\  & \leq c\left(\norm{\overline{\Phi}(\rho_0)}_{L^1(\TT^d)}+\norm{\Phi^{\frac{1}{2},\eta_3}}^2_{L^\infty([0,\infty))}\norm{g}^2_{L^2(\TT^d\times[0,T];\R^d)}\right).
%
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
%
It follows from the equation that, for some $c\in(0,\infty)$ independent of $\eta_1,\eta_2,\eta_3\in(0,1)$,
%
\begin{equation}\label{se_5}\begin{aligned}
%
& \norm{\partial_t\rho^{\eta_1}}_{L^2([0,T];H^{-1}(\TT^d))}
%
\\ & \leq \norm{\nabla\Phi^{\eta_1}(\rho^{\eta_1})}_{L^2([0,T];L^2(\TT^d))}+\eta_2\norm{\nabla\rho^{\eta_1}}_{L^2([0,T];L^2(\TT^d))}+\norm{\Phi^{\frac{1}{2},\eta_3}}_{L^\infty([0,\infty))}\norm{g}_{L^2([0,T];L^2(\TT^d))}.
%
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
%
It follows from \eqref{fd_2}, \eqref{se_3}, \eqref{se_4}, \eqref{se_5}, and the Aubin-Lions-Simon lemma \cite{Aubin,pLions,Simon} that there exists $\rho\in L^2([0,T];H^1(\TT^d))$ such that, after passing to a subsequence $\{\eta_1^k\rightarrow 0\}_{k\in\N}$, as $k\rightarrow\infty$,
%
\begin{equation}\label{se_6}\rho^{\eta_1^k}\rightarrow \rho\;\;\textrm{strongly in}\;\;L^2([0,T];L^2(\TT^d)),\end{equation}
%
that
%
\begin{equation}\label{se_7}\rho^{\eta_1^k}\rightharpoonup \rho\;\;\textrm{weakly in}\;\;L^2([0,T];H^1(\TT^d)),\end{equation}
%
and that
%
\begin{equation}\label{se_8}\nabla\Phi^{\eta^k_1}(\rho^{\eta^k_1})\rightharpoonup\nabla\Phi(\rho)\;\;\textrm{weakly in}\;\;L^2([0,T];L^2(\TT^d;\R^d)).\end{equation}
%
In combination \eqref{se_6}, \eqref{se_7}, and \eqref{se_8} prove that $\rho\in L^2([0,T];H^1(\TT^d))$ is a nonnegative weak solution of \eqref{se_1}.  Estimate \eqref{se_2} follows from \eqref{se_3} and the weak lower-semicontinuity of the Sobolev norm.  Estimate \eqref{se_0002} follows from \eqref{fd_2}, \eqref{se_4}, \eqref{se_8}, and the weak lower-semicontinuity of the Sobolev norm.  This completes the proof.  \end{proof}





It remains to pass to the limit $\eta_2,\eta_3\rightarrow 0$ in \eqref{se_1}.  For this we will use the following estimate, which relies crucially on the nonnegativity of the initial data.  The estimate is based on testing the equation with $\log(\Phi(\rho))$, as already explained in Section~\ref{sec_a_priori}.  We recall, for every $\Phi\in W^{1,1}_{\textrm{loc}}([0,\infty))$,
%
$$\Psi_\Phi(\xi)=\int_0^\xi\log(\Phi(\xi'))\dxip,$$
%
and we recall the space
%
$$\Ent_\Phi(\TT^d)=\left\{\rho_0\in L^1(\TT^d)\colon \rho_0\geq 0\;\;\textrm{a.e.}\;\;\textrm{and}\;\;\int_{\TT^d}\Psi_\Phi(\rho_0(x))\dx<\infty\right\}.$$
%
The general existence result follows immediately after the next proposition.

\begin{prop}\label{frac_est}  Let $T\in(0,\infty)$, let $\Phi\in W^{1,1}_\textrm{loc}([0,\infty))$ satisfy Assumptions~\ref{ass_log} and ~\ref{ass_interpolate}, and let $\{\Phi^{\frac{1}{2},\eta}\}_{\eta\in(0,1)}$ be as in Lemma~\ref{ass_phi_reg}.  Then, there exists $c\in(0,\infty)$ such that, for every nonnegative $\rho_0\in L^\infty(\TT^d)$ and $g\in L^2(\TT^d\times[0,T];\R^d)$, for every $\eta_2,\eta_3\in(0,1)$, the solution $\rho\in L^2([0,T];H^1(\TT^d))$ from Proposition~\ref{smooth_exist} satisfies, for almost every $t\in[0,T]$,
%
\begin{equation}\label{fe_1}
%
\int_{\TT^d}\Psi_\Phi(\rho(x,t))\dx+\int_0^t\int_{\TT^d}\abs{\nabla\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(x,s))}^2\dx\ds \leq c\left(\int_{\TT^d}\Psi_\Phi(\rho_0(x))\dx+\norm{g}^2_{L^2(\TT^d\times[0,T];\R^d)}\right).
%
\end{equation}
%
\end{prop}


\begin{proof}   For every $M\in \N$, let $\log^M\in\C(\R)$ be defined by
%
$$\log^M(\xi)=\left\{\begin{aligned}
%
& (-M\vee \log(\xi))\wedge M && \textrm{if}\;\;\xi>0,
%
\\  & -M && \textrm{if}\;\;\xi<0,
%
\end{aligned}\right. $$
%
and for every $M\in\N$ and $\ve\in(0,1)$, for a standard convolution kernel $\kappa^\ve\in \C^\infty(\R)$ of scale $\ve\in(0,1)$, let $\log^{M,\ve}\in\C^\infty(\R)$ be defined by
%
$$\log^{M,\ve}(\xi)=(\log^M*\kappa^\ve)(\xi).$$
%
For every $M\in\N$ and $\ve\in(0,1)$, let
%
$$\Psi^M_\Phi(\xi)=\int_0^\xi\log^M(\Phi(\xi'))\dxip\;\;\textrm{and}\;\;\Psi^{M,\ve}_\Phi(\xi)=\int_0^\xi\log^{M,\ve}(\Phi(\xi'))\dxip.$$
%
Estimate \eqref{se_0002} implies for every $M\in\N$ and $\ve\in(0,1)$ that $\log^{M,\ve}(\Phi(\rho))$ is an admissible test function for \eqref{se_1}.  It follows from H\"older's inequality, Young's inequality, and the fact that $\log^{M,\ve}$ is nondecreasing that, for every $\d\in(0,1)$, for almost every $t\in[0,T]$,
%
$$\begin{aligned}
%
& \left.\int_{\TT^d}\Psi^{M,\ve}_\Phi(\rho(x,s))\dx\right|_{s=0}^{s=t}+\int_0^t\int_{\TT^d}\left(\log^{M,\ve}\right)'(\Phi(\rho))\abs{\nabla\Phi(\rho)}^2\dx\ds
%
\\ & \leq \frac{1}{2\d}\norm{g}^2_{L^2(\TT^d\times[0,T];\R^d)}+\frac{\d}{2}\int_0^t\int_{\TT^d}\abs{\left(\log^{M,\ve}\right)'(\Phi(\rho))}^2\Phi^{\eta_3}(\rho)\abs{\nabla\Phi(\rho)}^2\dx\dt.
%
\end{aligned}$$
%
The dominated convergence theorem proves that, after passing to the limit $\ve\rightarrow 0$, for every $\d\in(0,1)$, for almost every $t\in[0,T]$,
%
$$\begin{aligned}
%
& \left.\int_{\TT^d}\Psi^{M}_\Phi(\rho(x,s))\dx\right|_{s=0}^{s=t}+\int_0^t\int_{\TT^d}\left(\log^M\right)'(\Phi(\rho))\abs{\nabla\Phi(\rho)}^2\dx\ds
%
\\ & \leq \frac{1}{2\d}\norm{g}^2_{L^2(\TT^d\times[0,T];\R^d)}+\frac{\d}{2}\int_0^t\int_{\TT^d}\abs{\left(\log^M\right)'(\Phi(\rho))}^2\Phi^{\eta_3}(\rho)\abs{\nabla\Phi(\rho)}^2\dx\ds.
%
\end{aligned}$$
%
The monotone convergence theorem proves that, after passing to the limit $M\rightarrow\infty$, for every $\d\in(0,1)$, for almost every $t\in[0,T]$,
%
\begin{equation}\label{fe_2}\begin{aligned}
%
& \left.\int_{\TT^d}\Psi_\Phi(\rho(x,s))\dx\right|_{s=0}^{s=t}+\int_0^t\int_{\TT^d}\frac{1}{\Phi(\rho)}\abs{\nabla\Phi(\rho)}^2\dx\ds
%
\\ & \leq \frac{1}{2\d}\norm{g}^2_{L^2(\TT^d\times[0,T];\R^d)}+\frac{\d}{2}\int_0^t\int_{\TT^d}\frac{\Phi^{\eta_3}(\rho)}{\Phi(\rho)^2}\abs{\nabla\Phi(\rho)}^2\dx\ds.
%
\end{aligned} \end{equation}
%
We now use \eqref{fd_0} to fix $c_1\in(0,\infty)$ independent of $\eta_3\in(0,1)$ such that
%
$$0\leq\Phi^{\eta_3}\leq c_1\Phi,$$
%
and choose $\delta_1=\frac{1}{c_1}$ to conclude from \eqref{fe_2} that, for almost every $t\in[0,T]$,
%
\begin{equation}\label{fe_3}
%
\int_{\TT^d}\Psi_\Phi(\rho(x,t))\dx+\frac{1}{2}\int_0^t\int_{\TT^d}\frac{1}{\Phi(\rho)}\abs{\nabla\Phi(\rho)}^2\dx\ds \leq \int_{\TT^d}\Psi_\Phi(\rho_0(x))\dx+\frac{c_1}{2}\norm{g}^2_{L^2(\TT^d\times[0,T];\R^d)}.
%
\end{equation}
%
Estimate \eqref{fe_1} will follow from \eqref{fe_3} after we prove the distributional inequality
%
\begin{equation}\label{fe_4}\nabla\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho)=\frac{1}{2\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho)}\nabla\Phi(\rho).\end{equation}
%
To prove \eqref{fe_4}, let $\psi\in\C^\infty(\TT^d\times[0,T])$ and observe that the estimate \eqref{se_0002} implies the equality, for every $\delta\in(0,1)$,
%
$$\int_0^T\int_{\TT^d}\left(\Phi(\rho)+\delta\right)^\frac{1}{2}\nabla\psi\dx\dt=-\frac{1}{2}\int_0^T\int_{\TT^d}\left(\Phi(\rho)+\delta\right)^{-\frac{1}{2}}\nabla\Phi(\rho)\psi\dx\dt.$$
%
Estimate \eqref{fe_3} and the dominated convergence theorem prove that, after taking the limit $\delta\rightarrow 0$,
%
$$\int_0^T\int_{\TT^d}\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho)\nabla\psi\dx\dt=-\int_0^T\int_{\TT^d}\frac{1}{2\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho)}\nabla\Phi(\rho)\psi\dx\dt,$$
%
which completes the proof of \eqref{fe_4}, and therefore the proof. \end{proof}

\begin{prop}\label{gen_exist}  Let $T\in(0,\infty)$ and let $\Phi\in W^{1,1}_\textrm{loc}([0,\infty))$ satisfy Assumptions~\ref{as_unique}, ~\ref{as_pre}, ~\ref{ass_log}, and ~\ref{ass_interpolate}.  Then, for every $\rho_0\in \Ent_\Phi(\TT^d)$ and $g\in L^2(\TT^d\times[0,T];\R^d)$ there exists a nonnegative weak solution $\rho\in L^\infty([0,T];L^1(\TT^d))$ to the equation
%
\begin{equation}\label{ge_1}\left\{\begin{aligned}
%
\partial_t\rho & = \Delta\Phi(\rho)-\nabla\cdot(\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho)g) && \textrm{in}\;\;\TT^d\times(0,T),
%
\\  \rho & = \rho_0 && \textrm{on}\;\;\TT^d\times\{0\},
%
\end{aligned}\right.\end{equation}
%
which satisfies, for almost every $t\in[0,T]$,
%
\begin{equation}\label{ge_02}\norm{\rho(\cdot,t)}_{L^1(\TT^d)}=\norm{\rho_0}_{L^1(\TT^d)},\end{equation}
%
and which satisfies, for some $c\in(0,\infty)$, for almost every $t\in[0,T]$,
%
\begin{equation}\label{ge_2}
%
\int_{\TT^d}\Psi_\Phi(\rho(x,t))\dx+\int_0^t\int_{\TT^d}\abs{\nabla\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho(x,s))}^2\dx\ds \leq c\left(\int_{\TT^d}\Psi_\Phi(\rho_0(x))\dx+\norm{g}^2_{L^2(\TT^d\times[0,T];\R^d)}\right).
%
\end{equation}
%
\end{prop}



\begin{proof}  We will first prove the existence of a weak solution for initial data $\rho_0\in L^\infty(\TT^d)$.  For every $\eta_2,\eta_3\in(0,1)$ let $\rho^{\eta_2,\eta_3}\in L^2([0,T];H^1(\TT^d))$ denote a nonnegative solution of \eqref{se_1} constructed in Proposition~\ref{smooth_exist} with initial data $\rho_0$ and control $g$.  It follows from \eqref{se_00002} that
%
\begin{equation}\label{ge_3}\norm{\rho^{\eta_2,\eta_3}}_{L^\infty([0,T];L^1(\TT^d))}=\norm{\rho_0}_{L^1(\TT^d)}.\end{equation}
%
It follows from Assumption~\ref{ass_log}, Assumption~\ref{ass_interpolate}, Proposition~\ref{frac_est}, and \eqref{ge_3}  that there exists $c_1,c_2,c_3\in(0,\infty)$ such that, for every $\eta_2,\eta_3\in(0,1)$,
%
\begin{equation}\label{ge_4}\begin{aligned}
%
\norm{\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho^{\eta_2,\eta_3})}^2_{L^2([0,T];H^1(\TT^d))} & \leq c_1\left(\norm{\nabla\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho^{\eta_2,\eta_3})}^2_{L^2([0,T];L^2(\TT^d;\R^d))}+\norm{\rho_0}^{c_2}_{L^1(\TT^d)}\right)
%
\\ & \leq c_3\left(1+\int_{\TT^d}\Psi_\Phi(\rho_0)\dx+\norm{g}^2_{L^2(\TT^d\times[0,T];\R^d)}+\norm{\rho_0}^{c_2}_{L^1(\TT^d)}\right),
%
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
%
where Assumption~\ref{ass_log}, the definition of $\Psi_\Phi$, and $\rho_0\in L^\infty(\TT^d)$ imply that
%
$$\abs{\int_{\TT^d}\Psi_\Phi(\rho_0)\dx}<\infty.$$
%
Estimate \eqref{se_3} proves that there exists $c\in(0,\infty)$ independent of $\eta_2,\eta_3\in(0,1)$ such that
%
\begin{equation}\label{ge_5}\begin{aligned}
%
& \norm{\rho^{\eta_2,\eta_3}}^2_{L^\infty([0,T];L^2(\TT^d))}+\eta_2\int_0^T\int_{\TT^d}\abs{\nabla \rho^{\eta_2,\eta_3}}^2\dx\dt
%
\\ & \leq c\left(\norm{\rho_0}^2_{L^2(\TT^d)}+\frac{1}{\eta_2}\norm{g}^2_{L^2(\TT^d\times[0,T];\R^d)}\norm{\Phi^{\frac{1}{2},\eta_3}}^2_{L^\infty([0,\infty))}\right)
%
\\ & \leq c\left(\norm{\rho_0}^2_{L^2(\TT^d)}+\frac{1}{\eta_2}\norm{g}^2_{L^2(\TT^d\times[0,T];\R^d)}\norm{\Phi^{\frac{1}{2},\eta_3}}^2_{L^\infty([0,\infty))}\right),
%
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
%
which implies in particular that, for some $c\in(0,\infty)$ independent of $\eta_2,\eta_3\in(0,1)$,
%
\begin{equation}\label{ge_6}\begin{aligned}
%
& \eta_2^\frac{1}{2}\norm{\rho^{\eta_2,\eta_3}}_{L^\infty([0,T];L^2(\TT^d))}+\eta_2\norm{\nabla \rho^{\eta_2,\eta_3}}_{L^2([0,T];L^2(\TT^d;\R^d))}
%
\\ & \leq c\left(\eta_2^\frac{1}{2}\norm{\rho_0}_{L^2(\TT^d)}+\norm{g}_{L^2(\TT^d\times[0,T])}\norm{\Phi^{\frac{1}{2},\eta_3}}_{L^\infty([0,\infty))}\right).
%
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
%
It follow from estimate \eqref{fd_0}, equation \eqref{se_1}, H\"older's inequality and the Sobolev embedding theorem that there exists $c\in(0,\infty)$ such that, for every $\eta_2,\eta_3\in(0,1)$, for every $\psi\in\C^\infty(\TT^d\times[0,T])$, omitting the domains of the respective Sobolev spaces,
%
$$\begin{aligned}
%
& \abs{\int_{\TT^d}\partial_t\rho^{\eta_2,\eta_3}(x,t)\psi(x)\dx\dt}
%
\\ & \leq \left(2\norm{\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho^{\eta_2,\eta_3})\nabla\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho^{\eta_2,\eta_3})}_{L^1}+\eta_2\norm{\nabla \rho^{\eta_2,\eta_3}}_{L^1}+\norm{g\Phi^{\frac{1}{2},\eta_3}(\rho^{\eta_2,\eta_3})}_{L^1}\right)\norm{\nabla\psi}_{L^\infty}
%
\\ & \leq c\left(2\norm{\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho^{\eta_2,\eta_3})\nabla\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho^{\eta_2,\eta_3})}_{L^1}+\eta_2\norm{\nabla \rho^{\eta_2,\eta_3}}_{L^2}+\norm{g\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho^{\eta_2,\eta_3})}_{L^1}\right)\norm{\nabla\psi}_{H^{(\nicefrac{d}{2}+2)}}.
%
\end{aligned}$$
%
Therefore, H\"older's inequality and Young's inequality prove that, for $c\in(0,\infty)$ independent of $\eta_2,\eta_3\in(0,1)$,
%
\begin{equation}\label{ge_8}\begin{aligned}
%
& \norm{\partial_t\rho^{\eta_2,\eta_3}}_{L^1([0,T];H^{-(\nicefrac{d}{2}+2)}(\TT^d))}
%
\\ & \leq c\left(\norm{\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho^{\eta_2,\eta_3})}^2_{L^2([0,T];H^1(\TT^d))}+\eta_2\norm{\nabla \rho^{\eta_2,\eta_3}}_{L^2([0,T];L^2(\TT^d))}+\norm{g}^2_{L^2([0,T];L^2(\TT^d))}\right).
%
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
%
Observe that \eqref{ge_4} and \eqref{ge_5} prove that for every $\eta_3\in(0,1)$ the righthand side of \eqref{ge_8} is uniformly bounded in $\eta_2\in(0,1)$.


In combination \eqref{ge_3}, \eqref{ge_4}, \eqref{ge_6}, \eqref{ge_8}, and Assumption~\ref{as_pre} prove that for every $\eta_3\in(0,1)$ there exists $\rho^{\eta_3}\in L^1([0,T];L^1(\TT^d))$ such that, after passing to a subsequence $\{\eta^k_2\rightarrow 0\}_{k\in\N}$, as $k\rightarrow\infty$,
%
\begin{equation}\label{ge_9}\rho^{\eta^k_2,\eta_3}\rightarrow \rho^{\eta_3}\;\;\textrm{almost everywhere and strongly in}\;\;L^1([0,T];L^1(\TT^d)).\end{equation}
%
It then follows from \eqref{ge_4} and \eqref{ge_9} that, as $k\rightarrow\infty$,
%
\begin{equation}\label{ge_10} \Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho^{\eta^k_2,\eta_3})\rightharpoonup\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho^{\eta_3})\;\;\textrm{weakly in}\;\;L^2([0,T];H^1(\TT^d)),\end{equation}
%
and it follows from Assumption~\ref{as_pre}, \eqref{fd_0}, \eqref{fd_2}, \eqref{ge_4}, \eqref{ge_8}, and \eqref{ge_9} and the dominated convergence theorem that
%
\begin{equation}\label{ge_11} \lim_{k\rightarrow\infty}\Phi^{\frac{1}{2},\eta_k}(\rho^{\eta_k})=\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho)\;\;\textrm{strongly in}\;\;L^2([0,T];L^2(\TT^d)).\end{equation}
%
In combination \eqref{ge_9}, \eqref{ge_10}, and \eqref{ge_11} will prove that $\rho^{\eta_3}$ is a nonnegative weak solution of the equation
%
\begin{equation}\label{ge_012}\left\{\begin{aligned}
%
\partial_t\rho^{\eta_3}  & = \Delta\Phi(\rho^{\eta_3})-\nabla\cdot\left(\Phi^{\frac{1}{2},\eta_3}(\rho^{\eta_3})g\right) && \textrm{in}\;\;\TT^d\times(0,T),
%
\\ \rho^{\eta_3} & = \rho_0 && \textrm{on}\;\;\TT^d\times\{0\},
%
\end{aligned}\right.\end{equation}
%
if we can prove that, for every $\eta_3\in(0,1)$ and $\psi\in\C^\infty(\TT^d\times[0,T])$,
%
\begin{equation}\label{ge_12}\limsup_{\eta_2 \rightarrow \infty}\abs{\int_0^T\int_{\TT^d}\eta_2\nabla \rho^{\eta_2,\eta_3}\nabla\psi\dx\dt}=0.\end{equation}
%
To prove \eqref{ge_12}, observe that \eqref{ge_6} implies that, for every $\eta_3\in(0,1)$, as $\eta_2\rightarrow 0$, 
%
\begin{equation}\label{ge_120}\eta_2 \rho^{\eta_2,\eta_3}\rightarrow 0\;\;\textrm{strongly in}\;\;L^\infty([0,T];L^2(\TT^d)).\end{equation}
%
Therefore, after integrating by parts, it follows from \eqref{ge_12}, \eqref{ge_120}, and $\psi\in\C^\infty_c(\TT^d\times[0,T])$ that, for every $\eta_3\in(0,1)$,
%
\begin{equation}\label{ge_14}\limsup_{\eta_2 \rightarrow \infty}\abs{\int_0^T\int_{\TT^d}\eta_2\nabla \rho^{\eta_2,\eta_3}\nabla\psi\dx\dt}=\limsup_{\eta_2 \rightarrow \infty}\abs{\int_0^T\int_{\TT^d}\eta_2 \rho^{\eta_2,\eta_3}\Delta\psi\dx\dt}=0.\end{equation}
%
In combination, \eqref{ge_9}, \eqref{ge_10}, \eqref{ge_11}, and \eqref{ge_14} prove that $\rho^{\eta_3}$ is a weak solution of \eqref{ge_012}.


It follows from \eqref{ge_10}, \eqref{ge_11}, and the weak lower-semicontinuity of the Sobolev norm that there exists $c_1,c_2\in(0,\infty)$ such that, for every $\eta_3\in(0,1)$,
%
$$
%
\norm{\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho^{\eta_3})}^2_{L^2([0,T];H^1(\TT^d))} \leq c_1\left(1+\int_{\TT^d}\Psi_\Phi(\rho_0)\dx+\norm{g}^2_{L^2(\TT^d\times[0,T];\R^d)}+\norm{\rho_0}^{c_2}_{L^1(\TT^d)}\right),
%
$$
%
and that there exists $c\in(0,\infty)$ such that, for every $\eta_3\in(0,1)$,
%
\begin{equation}\label{ge_21}
%
\norm{\partial_t\rho^{\eta_3}}_{L^1([0,T];H^{-(\nicefrac{d}{2}+2)}(\TT^d))} \leq c\left(\norm{\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho^{\eta_2,\eta_3})}^2_{L^2([0,T];H^1(\TT^d))}+\norm{g}^2_{L^2([0,T];L^2(\TT^d))}\right).
%
\end{equation}
%
And since \eqref{ge_3} and \eqref{ge_9} prove that, for every $\eta_3\in(0,1)$,
%
$$\norm{\rho^{\eta_3}}_{L^\infty([0,T];L^1(\TT^d))}=\norm{\rho_0}_{L^1(\TT^d)},$$
%
a repetition of the arguments leading from \eqref{ge_9} to \eqref{ge_012} prove that there exists a solution $\rho\in L^\infty([0,T];L^1(\TT^d))$ to \eqref{ge_1} which satisfies \eqref{ge_02} and \eqref{ge_2}.  This completes the proof for initial data $\rho_0\in L^\infty(\TT^d)$.


To complete the proof, let $\rho_0\in \Ent_\Phi(\TT^d)$ and let $\{\rho_0^n\}_{n\in\N}\subseteq L^\infty(\TT^d)$ be such that, as $n\rightarrow\infty$,
%
$$\rho_0^n\rightarrow \rho_0\;\;\textrm{strongly in}\;\;L^1(\TT^d).$$
%
For every $n\in\N$ let $\rho^n\in L^\infty([0,T];L^1(\TT^d))$ denote a solution of \eqref{ge_1} that satisfies \eqref{ge_02} and \eqref{ge_2}.  By Theorem~\ref{thm_unique} and Theorem~\ref{equiv}, the solutions $\rho^n$ are unique and form a Cauchy sequence in $L^\infty([0,T];L^1(\TT^d))$.  Therefore, there exists $\rho\in L^\infty([0,T];L^1(\TT^d))$ such that, as $n\rightarrow\infty$,
%
$$\rho^n\rightarrow\rho\;\;\textrm{strongly in}\;\;L^\infty([0,T];L^1(\TT^d)).$$
%
A repetition of the arguments leading from \eqref{ge_9} to \eqref{ge_11} prove that $\rho$ is a weak solution of \eqref{ge_1} with initial data $\rho_0$ that satisfies \eqref{ge_02} and \eqref{ge_2}.  This completes the proof.  \end{proof}


We conclude this section with the proof of weak-strong continuity.  Precisely, we will prove that a weakly convergent sequence of controls induces a strongly convergent sequence of solutions.


\begin{prop}\label{weak_strong}  Let $T\in(0,\infty)$, let $\Phi\in W^{1,1}_{\textrm{loc}}([0,\infty))$ satisfy Assumptions~\ref{as_unique}, ~\ref{as_equiv}, \ref{as_pre}, ~\ref{ass_log}, and \ref{ass_interpolate}, and let $\rho\in \Ent_\Phi(\TT^d)$.  Assume that $\{g_n\}_{n\in\N}\subseteq L^2(\TT^d\times[0,T];\R^d)$ and $g\in L^2(\TT^d\times[0,T];\R^d)$ satisfy, as $n\rightarrow\infty$,
%
$$g_n\rightharpoonup g\;\;\textrm{weakly in}\;\;L^2([0,T]\times \TT^d;\R^d).$$
%
Then, the renormalized kinetic solutions $\{\rho_n\}_{n\in\N}$ and $\rho$ with controls $\{g_n\}_{n\in\N}$ and $g$, and with initial data $\rho_0$ satisfy that, as $n\rightarrow\infty$,
%
$$\rho_n\rightarrow \rho\;\;\textrm{strongly in}\;\;L^1([0,T];L^1(\TT^d)).$$
%
\end{prop}



\begin{proof} For every $n\in\N$ let $\rho_n\in L^\infty([0,T];L^1(\TT^d))$ denote the weak solution in the sense of Definition~\ref{classical_weak} constructed in Proposition~\ref{gen_exist} with control $g_n$ and initial data $\rho_0$, and let $\rho\in L^\infty([0,T];L^1(\TT^d))$ denote the weak solution with control $g$ and initial data $\rho_0$.  Theorem~\ref{equiv} proves that the $\{\rho_n\}_{n\in\N}$ and $\rho$ are renormalized kinetic solutions in the sense of Definition~\ref{skel_sol_def}, and Theorem~\ref{thm_unique} proves that they are the unique renormalized kinetic solutions.  A repetition of the argument leading to the proof of Proposition~\ref{gen_exist}, based on estimates \eqref{ge_02}, \eqref{ge_2}, and \eqref{ge_21} proves that, as $n\rightarrow\infty$, $\rho_n\rightarrow\rho$ strongly in $L^1([0,T];L^1(\TT^d))$.
%
This completes the proof. \end{proof}


\section{$\Gamma$-convergence}\label{sec_gamma}


In this section, we will first establish a large deviations principle for a regularized equation driven by a finite-dimensional Fourier projection of white noise \eqref{intro_eq-1}.  We then prove that the corresponding large deviations rate functions $\Gamma$-converge to the rate function \eqref{eq:intro-rate-function}.  Henceforth, let
%
$$\{e_k\}_{k\in\N}\subseteq \C^\infty(\TT^d;\R^d)\;\;\textrm{be an orthonormal basis of}\;\; L^2(\TT^d;\R^d).$$
%
Let $\{B^k\colon\Omega\times[0,\infty)\rightarrow\mathbb{R}\}_{k\in\mathbb{N}}$ be independent one-dimensional Brownian motions defined on a probability space $(\O,\F,\P)$.  For every $K\in\N$ let $z^K\colon\O\times[0,\infty)\rightarrow\R^n$ denote the $K$-dimensional Fourier projection of $d$-dimensional white noise with respect to $\{e_k\}_{k\in\N}$ defined by
%
$$\dd z^K_t(x)=\sum_{k=1}^Ke_k(x)\dd B^k_t.$$
%
Let $\{\Phi^{\frac{1}{2},\eta}\}_{\eta\in(0,1)}\subseteq\C^\infty([0,\infty))$ be as defined in Lemma~\ref{ass_phi_reg}.  In the following proposition, for every $K\in \N, \eta\in(0,1)$, and $\rho_0\in \Ent_\Phi(\TT^d)$, we will establish a large deviations principle, as $\ve\rightarrow 0$, for the solutions of the equation
%
\begin{equation}\label{fd_eq}\left\{\begin{aligned}
%
\partial_t\rho^\ve & = \Delta\Phi(\rho^\ve)-\sqrt{\ve}\nabla\cdot\left(\Phi^{\frac{1}{2},\eta}(\rho^\ve)\circ\dd z^K_t\right) && \textrm{in}\;\;\TT^d\times(0,\infty),
%
\\ \rho^\ve & = \rho_0 && \textrm{on}\;\;\TT^d\times\{0\}.
%
\end{aligned}\right.\end{equation}
%
The proof is a consequence of the contraction principle, Schilder's theorem for enhanced Brownian motion (cf.\ Section~\ref{sec_rough_path} below), and the continuous dependence of the solution \eqref{fd_eq} with respect to the noise (cf.\ Section~\ref{pathwise_kinetic} below).  The following proposition is therefore related to the large deviations of a $K$-dimensional Brownian motion on $[0,T]$, for each $K\in\N$ and $T\in(0,\infty)$, which are characterized by the Cameron-Martin space $\mathcal{H}_T(K)$ defined by
%
$$\mathcal{H}_T(K)=W^{1,2}_0([0,T];\R^K)=\left\{[0,T]\ni t\mapsto \int_0^t \dot{g}(s)\ds\in\R^K \colon \dot{g}\in L^2([0,T];\R^K)\right\},$$
%
and equipped with the inner product, for $f,g\in\mathcal{H}_T(K)$,
%
$$\langle f,g\rangle_{\mathcal{H}_T(K)}=\int_0^T\langle \dot{f}(s),\dot{g}(s) \rangle \ds.$$
%

\begin{definition}  Let $Y$ be a Polish space (a complete separable metric space).   A good rate function on $Y$ is a lower-semicontinuous function $I\colon Y\rightarrow[0,\infty]$ with compact level sets in the sense that, for every $M\in(0,\infty)$,
%
$$\{y\in Y\colon I(y)\leq M\}\subseteq Y\;\;\textrm{is compact.}$$
%
\end{definition}

\begin{definition}  Let $(\O,\F,\P)$ be a probability space, let $Y$ be Polish space, let $\{X^\ve\colon\O\rightarrow Y\}_{\ve\in(0,1)}$ be random variables, and let $I\colon Y\rightarrow[0,\infty]$ be a good rate function.  The sequence $\{X^\ve\colon\O\rightarrow Y\}_{\ve\in(0,1)}$ satisfies a \emph{large deviations principle} with rate function $I$ if, for every measurable $A\subseteq Y$,
%
$$-\left(\inf_{y\in \overline{A}}I(y)\right)\leq \liminf_{\ve\rightarrow0}\left[\ve\log(\P(X^\ve\in A))\right]\leq \limsup_{\ve\rightarrow 0} \left[\ve\log(\P(X^\ve\in A))\right]\leq -\left(\inf_{y\in A^0}I(y)\right),$$
%
where $\overline{A}$ denotes the closure of $A$, and $A^0$ denotes the interior of $A$.
\end{definition}

\begin{prop}\label{reg_ldp}  Let $K\in\N$, $\eta\in(0,1)$, $T\in(0,\infty)$, let $\Phi\in W^{1,1}_{\textrm{loc}}([0,\infty))$ satisfy Assumptions~\ref{as_unique}, ~\ref{as_equiv}, \ref{as_pre}, ~\ref{ass_log}, and \ref{ass_interpolate}, and let $\rho_0\in \Ent_\Phi(\TT^d)$.  For every $\ve\in(0,1)$ let $\rho^{\ve,\eta,K}\colon\O\rightarrow L^1([0,T];L^1(\TT^d))$ denote the solution map defined by Theorem~\ref{them_pk_wp} below of the equation
%
\begin{equation}\label{fd_eq_5}\left\{\begin{aligned} \partial_t\rho^{\ve,\eta,K}& = \Delta\Phi(\rho^{\ve,\eta,K})-\nabla\cdot\left(\Phi^{\frac{1}{2},\eta}(\rho^{\ve,\eta,K})\left(\sum_{k=1}^Ke_k(x)\circ\dd \mathbf{B}^{\ve,k}_t\right)\right) && \textrm{in}\;\;\TT^d\times(0,T), \\ \rho^{\ve,\eta,K}& = \rho_0 && \textrm{on}\;\;\TT^d\times\{0\},\end{aligned}\right.\end{equation}
%
and for every $\ve\in(0,1]$ let $P^{\ve,\eta,K}$ be defined by
%
$$P^{\ve,\eta,K}=(\rho^{\ve,\eta,K})_*\mathbb{P}.$$
%
Then, the measures $\{P^{\ve,\eta,K}\}_{\ve\in(0,1]}$ satisfy a large deviations principle with good rate function
%
$$J^{\eta,K}\colon L^1([0,T];L^1(\TT^d))\rightarrow[0,\infty],$$
%
defined for every $\rho\in L^1([0,T];L^1(\TT^d))$ by
%
\begin{equation}\label{finite_rate_function}J^{\eta,K}(\rho)=\inf_{\left\{g\in \mathcal{H}_T(K)\colon \rho(\cdot,0)=\rho_0\;\;\textrm{and}\;\;\partial_t\rho=\Delta\Phi(\rho)-\nabla\cdot\left(\Phi^{\frac{1}{2},\eta}(\rho)\left(\sum_{k=1}^Ke_k \dot{g}_k\right)\right)\right\}}\frac{1}{2}\langle \dot{g},\dot{g}\rangle_{\mathcal{H}_T(K)},\end{equation}
%
in the sense that, for every measurable set $A\subseteq L^1([0,T];L^1(\TT^d))$,
%
$$-\left[\inf_{\rho\in A^0}J^{\eta,K}(\rho)\right]\leq \liminf_{\ve\rightarrow 0}\left[\ve\log\left(P^{\ve,\eta,K}(A)\right)\right]\leq \limsup_{\ve\rightarrow 0}\left[\ve\log\left(P^{\ve,\eta,K}(A)\right)\right]\leq -\left[\inf_{\rho\in \overline{A}}J^{\eta,K}(\rho)\right].$$
%
\end{prop}


\begin{proof}  We observe that the equation defining the rate function \eqref{finite_rate_function} can be interpreted in the sense of Definition~\ref{skel_sol_def}, Definition~\ref{classical_weak}, or in the pathwise kinetic sense of Section~\ref{pathwise_kinetic} below.  It follows from Theorem~\ref{equiv} and Proposition~\ref{lem_equiv_path_weak} that these notions are equivalent.  The proof is then an immediate consequence of the pathwise well-posedness of \eqref{fd_eq_5} \cite[Theorems~1.1, 1.2]{FG17}, the continuity of the solution with respect to the noise \cite[Theorem~1.3]{FG17}, Theorem~\ref{ldp_ebm}, and the contraction principle \cite[Theorem~4.2.1]{DemboZeitouni}. \end{proof}


We will now prove that the rate functions $\{J^{\eta,K}\}_{K\in\N, \eta\in(0,1)}$ defined in Proposition~\ref{reg_ldp} $\Gamma$-converge, as $K\rightarrow\infty$ and $\eta\rightarrow 0$, to the good rate function $J\colon L^1([0,T];L^1(\TT^d))\rightarrow [0,\infty]$ defined for every $\rho\in L^1([0,T];L^1(\TT^d))$ by
%
\begin{equation}\label{rate_function}J(\rho)=\inf_{\left\{g\in L^2(\TT^d\times[0,T];\R^d)\colon \rho(\cdot,0)=\rho_0\;\;\textrm{and}\;\; \partial_t\rho=\Delta\Phi(\rho)-\nabla\cdot\left(\Phi^{\frac{1}{2}}(\rho)g\right)\right\}}\frac{1}{2}\norm{g}_{L^2(\TT^d\times[0,T];\R^d)}^2,\end{equation}
%
where by Theorem~\ref{equiv} the equation appearing in the definition of the rate function is understood either in the sense of Definition~\ref{skel_sol_def} or Definition~\ref{classical_weak}.  The following lemma, which is a consequence of Proposition~\ref{weak_strong}, proves that the infimum appearing in \eqref{finite_rate_function} is in fact a minimum.
%
\begin{lem}\label{rf_min}  Let $T\in(0,\infty)$, let $\Phi\in W^{1,1}_{\textrm{loc}}([0,\infty))$ satisfy Assumptions~\ref{as_unique}, ~\ref{as_equiv}, \ref{as_pre}, ~\ref{ass_log}, and \ref{ass_interpolate}, let $\rho_0\in\Ent_\Phi(\TT^d)$, let $\{\Phi^{\frac{1}{2},\eta}\colon\R\rightarrow\R\}_{\eta\in(0,1)}$ be as in Lemma~\ref{ass_phi_reg}, let $\{J^{\eta,K}\}_{K\in\N,\eta\in(0,1)}$ be defined in \eqref{finite_rate_function}, and let $J$ be defined in \eqref{rate_function}.  Then, for every $K\in\N$ and $\eta\in(0,1)$,
%
$$J^{\eta,K}(\rho)=\min_{\left\{g\in \mathcal{H}_T(K)\colon \rho(\cdot,0)=\rho_0\;\;\textrm{and}\;\;\partial_t\rho=\Delta\Phi(\rho)-\nabla\cdot\left(\Phi^{\frac{1}{2},\eta}(\rho)\left(\sum_{k=1}^Ke_k \dot{g}_k\right)\right)\right\}}\frac{1}{2}\langle g,g\rangle_{\mathcal{H}_T(K)},$$
%
and
%
$$J(\rho)=\min_{\left\{g\in L^2(\TT^d\times[0,T];\R^d)\colon \rho(\cdot,0)=\rho_0\;\;\textrm{and}\;\;\partial_t\rho=\Delta\Phi(\rho)-\nabla\cdot\left(\Phi^{\frac{1}{2}}(\rho)g\right)\right\}}\frac{1}{2}\norm{g}^2_{L^2(\TT^d\times[0,T];\R^d)}.$$
%
\end{lem}


\begin{proof} The proof is an immediate consequence of Theorem~\ref{equiv} and Proposition~\ref{lem_equiv_path_weak}, since Definition~\ref{classical_weak} is stable with respect to weak convergence of the control.  \end{proof}



\begin{thm}\label{thm:gamma-convergence}  Let $T\in(0,\infty)$, let $\Phi\in W^{1,1}_{\textrm{loc}}([0,\infty))$ satisfy Assumptions~\ref{as_unique}, ~\ref{as_equiv}, \ref{as_pre}, ~\ref{ass_log}, and \ref{ass_interpolate}, let $\rho_0\in\Ent_\Phi(\TT^d)$, let $\{\Phi^{\frac{1}{2},\eta}\colon\R\rightarrow\R\}_{\eta\in(0,1)}$ be as in Lemma~\ref{ass_phi_reg}, let $\{J^{\eta,K}\}_{K\in\N,\eta\in(0,1)}$ be defined in \eqref{finite_rate_function}, and let $J$ be defined in \eqref{rate_function}.  Then, as $K\rightarrow\infty$ and $\eta\rightarrow 0$,
%
$$J^{\eta,K}\overset{\Gamma}{\longrightarrow}J.$$
%
\end{thm}


\begin{proof}  Let $\rho\in L^1([0,T];L^1(\TT^d))$.  In order to establish the $\Gamma$-convergence, it is necessary to prove the following two properties.
%
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
%
\item  For every sequence $\{\rho_{K_n,\eta_n}\}_{n\in\N}\subseteq L^1([0,T];L^1(\TT^d))$ satisfying as $n\rightarrow\infty$ that $K_n\rightarrow \infty$, $\eta_n\rightarrow 0$, and
%
$$\rho_{K_n,\eta_n}\rightarrow \rho\;\;\textrm{strongly in}\;\;L^1([0,T];L^1(\TT^d)),$$
%
we have that
%
\begin{equation}\label{gc_1}\liminf_{n\rightarrow\infty}J^{K_n,\eta_n}(\rho_{K_n,\eta_n})\geq J(\rho).\end{equation}
%
\item  There exists a sequence $\{\rho_{K_n,\eta_n}\}_{n\in N}\subseteq L^1([0,T];L^1(\TT^d))$ satisfying as $n\rightarrow \infty$ that $K_n\rightarrow \infty$, $\eta_n\rightarrow 0$, and
%
$$\rho_{K_n,\eta_n}\rightarrow \rho\;\;\textrm{strongly in}\;\;L^1([0,T];L^1(\TT^d)),$$
%
such that
%
\begin{equation}\label{gc_2}\limsup_{n\rightarrow\infty}J^{K_n,\eta_n}(\rho_{K_n,\eta_n})\leq J(\rho).\end{equation}
%
\end{enumerate}
%


\emph{Proof of \eqref{gc_1}.}  Let $\rho\in L^1([0,T];L^1(\TT^d))$ and suppose that $\{\rho_{K_n,\eta_n}\}_{n\in N}\subseteq L^1([0,T];L^1(\TT^d))$ satisfies as $n\rightarrow\infty$ that $K_n\rightarrow \infty$, $\eta_n\rightarrow 0$, and
%
$$\rho_{K_n,\eta_n}\rightarrow \rho\;\;\textrm{strongly in}\;\;L^1([0,T];L^1(\TT^d)).$$
%
If
%
$$\liminf_{n\rightarrow\infty}J^{K_n,\eta_n}(\rho_{K_n,\eta_n})=\infty,$$
%
then \eqref{gc_1} is satisfied.  If not, fix a subsequence $\{(K_m,\eta_m)\}_{m\in\N}\subseteq \{(K_n,\eta_n)\}_{n\in\N}$ which satisfies for every $m\in\N$ that
%
\begin{equation}\label{gc_04}J^{K_m,\eta_m}(\rho_{K_m,\eta_m})<\infty,\end{equation}
%
and that
%
\begin{equation}\label{gc_4}\lim_{m\rightarrow\infty} J^{K_m,\eta_m}(\rho_{K_m,\eta_m})=\liminf_{n\rightarrow\infty}J^{K_n,\eta_n}(\rho_{K_n,\eta_n}).\end{equation}
%
By Lemma~\ref{rf_min}, the orthonormality of the $\{e_k\}_{k\in\N}$, and \eqref{gc_04}, for every $m\in\N$ fix a possibly nonunique $g_m=(g^1_m,\ldots,g^{K_m}_m)\in\mathcal{H}_T(K_m)$ satisfying
%
\begin{equation}\label{gc_5} \frac{1}{2}\norm{\sum_{k=1}^{K_m} e_k\dot{g}^k_m}^2_{L^2(\TT^d\times[0,T];\R^d)}=\frac{1}{2}\langle\dot{g}_m,\dot{g}_m\rangle_{\mathcal{H}_T(K_m)}=J^{K_m,\eta_m}(\rho_{K_m,\eta_m}).\end{equation}
%
It follows from \eqref{gc_4} and \eqref{gc_5} that there exists $g\in L^2(\TT^d\times[0,T];\R^d)$ such that, after passing to a further subsequence $\{(K_{m'},\eta_{m'})\}_{m'\in\N}\subseteq \{(K_m,\eta_m)\}_{m\in\N}$, as $m'\rightarrow\infty$,
%
$$\left(\sum_{k=1}^{K_{m'}} e_k\dot{g}^k_{m'}\right)\rightharpoonup g\;\;\textrm{weakly in}\;\;L^2(\TT^d\times[0,T];\R^d).$$
%
Since by assumption, as $m'\rightarrow\infty$,
%
$$\rho_{K_{m'},\eta_{m'}}\rightarrow \rho\;\;\textrm{strongly in}\;\;L^1([0,T];L^1(\TT^d)),$$
%
it follows from Theorem~\ref{equiv}, Theorem~\ref{gen_exist}, and Proposition~\ref{weak_strong} that $\rho$ is a renormalized kinetic solution of the equation
%
$$\left\{\begin{aligned}
%
\partial_t \rho & = \Delta\Phi(\rho)-\nabla\cdot\left(\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho) g\right) && \textrm{in}\;\;\TT^d\times(0,T),
%
\\ \rho & = \rho_0 && \textrm{on}\;\;\TT^d\times\{0\},
%
\end{aligned}\right.$$
%
in the sense of Definition~\ref{skel_sol_def}.  The weak lower-semicontinuity of the $L^2$-norm, the definition of $J$, and \eqref{gc_4} prove that
%
$$\liminf_{n\rightarrow\infty}J^{K_n,\eta_n}(\rho_{K_n,\eta_n})\geq \frac{1}{2}\norm{g}_{L^2(\TT^d\times[0,T];\R^d)}^2\geq J(\rho),$$
%
which completes the proof of \eqref{gc_1}.



\emph{The proof of \eqref{gc_2}.}  Let $\rho\in L^1([0,T];L^1(\TT^d))$.  If
%
$$J(\rho)=\infty,$$
%
then \eqref{gc_2} is satisfied.  If not, Lemma~\ref{rf_min} implies that there exists a possibly nonunique $g\in L^2(\TT^d\times[0,T];\R^d)$ such that
%
\begin{equation}\label{gc_12} \frac{1}{2}\norm{g}^2_{L^2(\TT^d\times[0,T];\R^d)}=J(\rho).\end{equation}
%
For every $k\in\N$ let $\dot{g}_k\in L^2([0,T])$ be defined for every $t\in[0,T]$ by
%
$$\dot{g}_k(t)=\int_{\TT^d}e_k(x)\cdot g(x,t)\dx.$$
%
For every $K\in\N$ let $\rho_K\in L^1([0,T];L^1(\TT^d))$ denote the unique solution of the equation
%
$$\left\{\begin{aligned} \partial_t \rho_K & = \Delta\Phi(\rho_K)-\nabla\cdot\left(\Phi^{\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{K}}(\rho_K)\left(\sum_{k=1}^K e_k\dot{g}_k\right)\right) && \textrm{in}\;\;\TT^d\times(0,T), \\ \rho_K & =\rho_0 && \textrm{on}\;\;\TT^d\times\{0\}.\end{aligned}\right.$$
%
Since, as $K\rightarrow 0$,
%
\begin{equation}\label{gc_14} \left(\sum_{k=1}^K e_k\dot{g}_k\right)\rightarrow g\;\;\textrm{strongly in}\;\;L^2([0,T]\times\TT^d;\R^d),\end{equation}
%
Proposition~\ref{weak_strong} proves that there exists $\tilde{\rho}\in L^1([0,T];L^1(\TT^d))$ such that, as $K\rightarrow\infty$,
%
\begin{equation}\label{gc_015}\rho_K\rightarrow\tilde{\rho}\;\;\textrm{strongly in}\;\;L^1([0,T];L^1(\TT^d)),\end{equation}
%
and such that, in the sense of Definition~\ref{skel_sol_def},
%
$$\left\{\begin{aligned}
%
\partial_t \tilde{\rho} & = \Delta\Phi(\tilde{\rho})-\nabla\cdot\left(\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\tilde{\rho}) g\right) && \textrm{in}\;\;\TT^d\times(0,T),
%
\\ \tilde{\rho} & = \rho_0 && \textrm{on}\;\;\TT^d\times\{0\}.
%
\end{aligned}\right.$$
%
Since Theorem~\ref{thm_unique} proves that the solution is unique,
%
\begin{equation}\label{gc_15} \tilde{\rho}=\rho\;\;\textrm{in}\;\;L^1([0,T];L^1(\TT^d)).\end{equation}
%
Therefore, it follows from \eqref{gc_015} and \eqref{gc_15} that, as $K\rightarrow\infty$,
%
\begin{equation}\label{gc_16} \rho_K\rightarrow \rho\;\;\textrm{strongly in}\;\;L^1([0,T];L^1(\TT^d)),\end{equation}
%
and the definition of the $\{J^{K,\frac{1}{K}}\}_{K\in\N}$, \eqref{gc_12}, and \eqref{gc_14} prove that
%
\begin{equation}\label{gc_17}\limsup_{K\rightarrow\infty}J^{K,\frac{1}{K}}(\rho_K)\leq\limsup_{K\rightarrow\infty}\frac{1}{2}\norm{\left(\sum_{k=1}^K e_k\dot{g}_k\right)}^2_{L^2(\TT^d\times[0,T];\R^d)}=\frac{1}{2}\norm{g}^2_{L^2(\TT^d\times[0,T];\R^d)}=J(\rho).\end{equation}
%
In combination \eqref{gc_16} and \eqref{gc_17} complete the proof of \eqref{gc_2}.  This completes the proof.  \end{proof}




\section{The uniform large deviations principle}\label{sec_uniform_ldp}


In this section, we will establish a large deviations principle for the solutions of \eqref{fd_eq} along a joint limit for the noise intensity $\ve\rightarrow 0$, the ultra-violet cut-off $K\rightarrow\infty$, and regularization $\eta\rightarrow 0$.  The proof will rely on the following two assumptions, which we prove in Proposition~\ref{assumption_weak_ldp} of the Appendix are satisfied for $\Phi(\xi)=\xi^m$ for every $m\in[1,\infty)$.

\begin{assumption}\label{as_weak_ldp_1} Let $\Phi\in \C^1([0,\infty)$ be a strictly increasing function which satisfies, for some $c\in(0,\infty)$,
%
$$\sqrt{\Phi'(0)}\leq c,$$
%
and, for some $p\in(1,\infty)$,
%
$$c\sqrt{\Phi'(\xi)}\geq \mathbf{1}_{\{\xi\geq 1\}}\;\;\textrm{and}\;\;c\abs{\Theta_{\sqrt{\Phi'}}(\xi)-\Theta_{\sqrt{\Phi'}}(\xi')}\geq\left\{\begin{aligned} & \abs{\xi-\xi'} && \textrm{if}\;\;\abs{\xi}\vee\abs{\xi'}\geq 1, \\ & \abs{\xi-\xi'}^\frac{p+1}{2} && \textrm{if}\;\;\abs{\xi}\vee\abs{\xi'}<1,\end{aligned}\right.$$
%
for $\Theta_{\sqrt{\Phi'}}\colon[0,\infty)\rightarrow[0,\infty)$ defined by $\Theta_{\sqrt{\Phi'}}(0)=0$ and $\Theta_{\sqrt{\Phi'}}'(\xi)=\sqrt{\Phi'(\xi)}$.
%
\end{assumption}


\begin{assumption}\label{as_weak_ldp_2}  Let $\Phi\in W^{1,1}_{\textrm{loc}}([0,\infty))$ be a nondecreasing function and let $\Theta_{\Phi_n}\colon[0,\infty)\rightarrow[0,\infty)$ be defined by $\Theta_{\Phi_n}(0)=0$ and $\Theta_{\Phi_n}'(\xi)=\frac{(\Phi'(\xi))^2}{\Phi(\xi)}$.  Then, either there exists $c\in(0,\infty)$ such that, for every $\xi\in\R$,
%
\begin{equation}\label{as_weak_ldp_21}\Phi'(\xi)\leq c,\end{equation}
%
or there exists $c\in(0,\infty)$ and $\theta\in(0,1)$ such that, for every measurable function $\rho\colon\TT^d\rightarrow\R$,
%
\begin{equation}\label{as_weak_ldp_22}\int_{\TT^d}\left(\Phi'(\rho)+\Theta_{\Phi_n}(\rho)\right)\dx\ds  \leq c\left(\int_{\TT^d}\Phi(\rho)\dx\right)^\theta.\end{equation}
%
\end{assumption}
Henceforth, let $T\in(0,\infty)$, let $\{B^k\}_{k\in\N}$ be independent one-dimensional Brownian motions defined on some probability space $(\O,\F,\P)$, let $B=(B^k)_{k\in\N}$ take values in the space
%
$$\R^\infty=\{(x_i)_{i\in\N}\colon x_i\in \R,\;\forall\;i\in\N\}$$
%
equipped with the metric topology of coordinate-wise convergence, let $\{e_k\}_{k\in\N}\subseteq\C^\infty(\TT^d;\R^d)$ be a smooth orthonormal basis of $L^2(\TT^d;\R^d)$, and let $\{\Phi^{\frac{1}{2},\eta}\}_{\eta\in(0,1)}$ be as in Lemma~\ref{ass_phi_reg}.  Let $\Ent_\Phi(\TT^d)$ be defined in Definition~\ref{def_initial} and be equipped with the $L^1(\TT^d)$-topology.


We consider the following Stratonovich SPDE on the domain $\TT^d\times[0,T]$, defined for each $\ve\in(0,1)$, $\eta\in(0,1)$, and $K\in\N$,
%
$$
%
\partial_t\rho =\Delta\Phi(\rho)-\nabla\cdot\sqrt{\ve}\left(\Phi^{\frac{1}{2},\eta}(\rho)\sum_{k=1}^Ke_k\circ\dd B^k_t\right),$$
%
to be understood in its It\^o formulation
%
\begin{equation}\label{entropy_eq}
%
\partial_t\rho =\Delta\Phi(\rho)-\sum_{k=1}^K\left(\nabla\cdot\sqrt{\ve}\left(\Phi^{\frac{1}{2},\eta}(\rho)e_k\dd B^k_t\right)+\frac{\ve}{2}\nabla\cdot\left(\left(\Phi^{\frac{1}{2},\eta}\right)'(\rho)e_k\nabla\cdot \left(\Phi^{\frac{1}{2},\eta}(\rho) e_k\right)\right)\right).
%
\end{equation}
%




It follows from Assumptions~\ref{as_unique},  \ref{as_equiv}, \ref{as_weak_ldp_1} for some $p\in(1,\infty)$, and \ref{as_weak_ldp_2}, Lemma~\ref{ass_phi_reg}, and \cite[Theorem~2.6]{DG18} that \eqref{entropy_eq} is well-posed in the sense of entropy solutions.  Since we will not require the use of entropy solutions in their full generality, we point the interested reader to \cite[Definition~2.5]{DG18}.  The methods of \cite[Theorem~2.6]{DG18} furthermore yield the existence of probabilistically strong solutions, since the solutions constructed there are measurable with respect to the sigma algebra generated by the initial data, which can be taken to be random, and the Brownian motion.


\begin{thm}\label{thm_entropy} Let $T\in(0,\infty)$, $\ve,\eta\in(0,1)$, $K\in\N$, let $\Phi\in W^{1,1}_{\textrm{loc}}([0,\infty))$ satisfy Assumptions~\ref{as_unique},  \ref{as_equiv}, \ref{as_weak_ldp_1} for some $p\in(1,\infty)$, and \ref{as_weak_ldp_2}, and let $\rho_0\in L^{p+1}(\TT^d)\cap\Ent_\Phi(\TT^d)$.  Then, there exists a unique entropy solution $\rho^{\ve,\eta,K}\in L^{p+1}(\Omega\times[0,T];L^{p+1}(\TT^d))$ of \eqref{entropy_eq} with initial condition $\rho_0$.  For two solutions $\rho_1,\rho_2$ of \eqref{entropy_eq} with initial data $\rho_0^1,\rho_0^2$,
%
\begin{equation}\label{thm_entropy_contraction}\E\left[\norm{\rho^1-\rho^2}_{L^\infty([0,T];L^1(\TT^d))}\right]\leq\norm{\rho_0^1-\rho_0^2}_{L^1(\TT^d)}.\end{equation}
%
And there exists a measurable map
%
$$S_{\ve,\eta,K}\colon \Ent_\Phi(\TT^d)\times \C([0,T];\R^\infty)\rightarrow L^\infty([0,T];L^1(\TT^d))$$
%
such that, for every $\rho_0\in L^{p+1}(\TT^d)\cap \Ent_\Phi(\TT^d)$,
%
$$S_{\ve,\eta,K}(\rho_0,\sqrt{\ve}B_\cdot)=\rho^{\ve,\eta,K}\;\;\P\textrm{-a.s.,}$$
%
where $\rho^{\ve,\eta,K}$ is the unique entropy solution of \eqref{entropy_eq} with initial data $\rho_0$.
%
\end{thm}


\begin{proof}  The existence of a probabilistically strong solution for initial data $\rho_0\in (L^{p+1}(\TT^d)\cap \Ent_\Phi(\TT^d))$ is a consequence of \cite[Theorem~2.6]{DG18}.  This implies the existence of a measurable solution map
%
$$\tilde{S}_{\ve,\eta,K}\colon (L^{p+1}(\TT^d)\cap\Ent_\Phi(\TT^d))\times \C([0,T];\R^\infty)\rightarrow L^\infty([0,T];L^1(\TT^d)),$$
%
such that, for every $\rho_0\in L^{p+1}(\TT^d)\cap \Ent_\Phi(\TT^d)$,
%
$$\tilde{S}_{\ve,\eta,K}(\rho_0,\sqrt{\ve}B_\cdot)=\rho^{\ve,\eta,K}\;\;\P\textrm{-a.s.,}$$
%
where $\rho^{\ve,\eta,K}$ is the unique entropy solution of \eqref{entropy_eq} with initial data $\rho_0$.  The $L^1$-contraction \eqref{thm_entropy_contraction} then implies that there exists a unique continuous extension
%
$$S_{\ve,\eta,K}\colon \Ent_\Phi(\TT^d)\times \C([0,T];\R^\infty)\rightarrow L^\infty([0,T];L^1(\TT^d))$$
%
in the sense that, for every $\rho_0\in L^{p+1}(\TT^d)\cap \Ent_\Phi(\TT^d)$,
%
$$S_{\ve,\eta,K}(\rho_0,\cdot)=\tilde{S}_{\ve,\eta,K}(\rho_0,\cdot)\;\;\textrm{almost surely in}\;\;L^1([0,T];L^1(\TT^d)),$$
%
and that whenever $\{\rho_0^n\}_{n\in\N}\subseteq L^{p+1}(\TT^d)\cap \Ent_\Phi(\TT^d)$ is a Cauchy sequence in $L^1(\TT^d)$ that satisfies, for some $\rho_0\in\Ent_\Phi(\TT^d)$, as $n\rightarrow\infty$,
%
$$\rho_0^n\rightarrow \rho_0\;\;\textrm{strongly in}\;\;L^1(\TT^d),$$
%
we have that, as $n\rightarrow\infty$,
%
$$\E\left[\norm{\tilde{S}_{\ve,\eta,K}(\rho_0^n,\cdot)-S(\rho_0,\cdot)}_{L^\infty([0,T];L^1(\TT^d))}\right]=0.$$
%
This completes the proof.  \end{proof}

We next prove the well-posedness of the following SPDE
%
\begin{equation}\label{entropy_con_eq}
%
\partial_t\rho^{\ve,\eta,K} =\Delta\Phi(\rho^{\ve,\eta,K})-\nabla\cdot\sqrt{\ve}\left(\Phi^{\frac{1}{2},\eta}(\rho^{\ve,\eta,K})\sum_{k=1}^Ke_k\circ \dd B^k_t\right)-\nabla\cdot(\Phi^{\frac{1}{2},\eta}(\rho^{\ve,\eta,K})P_Kg),
%
\end{equation}
%
where for a predictable process $g\in L^2(\O\times [0,T];L^2(\TT^d;\R^d))$ the process $P_Kg$ is the Fourier projection onto the span of $\{e_1,\ldots,e_K\}$ defined by
%
$$P_Kg(\omega,t,x)=\sum_{k=1}^K\left(e_k(x)\int_{\TT^d}g(\omega,y,t)\cdot e_k(y)\dy\right)=\sum_{k=1}^Ke_k(x)g_k(\o,t).$$
%
The proof is an immediate consequence of Theorem~\ref{thm_entropy} and Girsanov's theorem (cf.\ e.g.\ \cite[Theorem~10]{BudDupMar2008}).

\begin{prop}\label{prop_prob_con_strong}  Let $T\in(0,\infty)$ and let $\Phi\in W^{1,1}_{\textrm{loc}}([0,\infty))$ satisfy Assumptions~\ref{as_unique},  \ref{as_equiv}, \ref{as_weak_ldp_1} for some $p\in(1,\infty)$, and \ref{as_weak_ldp_2}.  For every $\ve,\eta\in(0,1)$ and $K\in\N$ let
%
$$S_{\ve,\eta,K}\colon \Ent_\Phi(\TT^d)\times \C([0,T];\R^\infty)\rightarrow L^\infty([0,T];L^1(\TT^d))$$
%
be defined in Theorem~\ref{thm_entropy}.  Then, for every predictable process $g\in L^2(\O\times[0,T];L^2(\TT^d;\R^d))$ and $\rho_0\in L^{p+1}(\TT^d)\cap \Ent_\Phi(\TT^d)$,
%
$$\rho^{\ve,\eta,K}=S_{\ve,\eta,K}\left(\rho_0,\sqrt{\ve}B_\cdot+\left(\int_0^\cdot g_k(\o,s)\ds\right)_{k\in\N}\right),$$
%
is the unique entropy solution of \eqref{entropy_con_eq} with initial data $\rho_0$ in the sense of Theorem~\ref{thm_entropy}.\end{prop}

We will now obtain an a-priori estimate for solutions of \eqref{entropy_con_eq}.  The estimate is analogous to the estimates of Proposition~\ref{frac_est} and \cite[Proposition~4.7]{FG17}.  We handle the case that $\Phi$ satisfies Assumption~\ref{as_weak_ldp_2} in the sense of \eqref{as_weak_ldp_22} in Proposition~\ref{weak_est} below, and we handle the case that $\Phi$ satisfies \eqref{as_weak_ldp_21} in Proposition~\ref{weak_est_1} below.

In the argument, we will first approximate the nonlinearity $\Phi$ in order to obtain $L^2$-valued solutions in the sense of Definition~\ref{def_L2} below.  On this approximate level, it is possible to apply It\^o's formula (cf.\ e.g.\  Krylov \cite[Theorem~3.1]{Kry2013}) to the composition $\Psi_\Phi(\rho)$ for $\Psi_\Phi\colon[0,\infty)\rightarrow[0,\infty)$ defined by
%
\begin{equation}\label{psi_phi}\Psi_\Phi(0)=0\;\;\textrm{and}\;\;\Psi_\Phi'(\xi)=\log(\Phi(\xi)).\end{equation}
%
Testing the entropy formulation of the equation with $\Psi_\Phi(\rho)$ is formally equivalent to testing the kinetic formulation with $\Psi_\Phi'(\xi)$, as was done in both Proposition~\ref{frac_est} and \cite[Proposition~4.7]{FG17}.  We then pass to the limit with respect to the regularization using properties of the approximation, Assumption~\ref{as_pre}, and Lemma~\ref{ass_phi_reg}.  The existence and uniqueness of $L^2$-solutions (cf.\ Definition~\ref{def_L2} below) was proven in \cite[Proposition~5.4]{DG18} for nondegenerate nonlinearities $\Phi$ (cf.\ Theorem~\ref{thm_L2_sol} below).


\begin{definition}\label{def_L2}  Let $T\in(0,\infty)$, $\ve,\eta\in(0,1)$, $K\in\N$, and $\rho_0\in L^{p+1}(\TT^d)\cap\Ent_\Phi(\TT^d)$.  An $L^2$-solution of \eqref{entropy_eq} is a continuous process $\rho$ with values in $L^2(\TT^d)$ which satisfies $\rho\in L^2(\Omega\times[0,T],H^1(\TT^d))$, $\nabla\Phi(\rho)\in L^2(\O\times[0,T];L^2(\TT^d))$, and $\P$-a.s.\ for every $\psi\in \C^\infty(\TT^d)$ and $t\in[0,T]$,
%
$$\begin{aligned}
%
\int_{\TT^d}\rho(x,t)\psi(x) & =\int_{\TT^d}\rho_0\psi\dx-\int_0^t\int_{\TT^d}\nabla\Phi(\rho)\cdot \nabla\psi\dx\ds
%
\\ & \quad +\sqrt{\ve}\sum_{k=1}^K\int_0^t\int_{\TT^d}\Phi^{\frac{1}{2},\eta}(\rho)e_k\cdot \nabla\psi\dx\dd B^k_s
%
\\ & \quad -\frac{\ve}{2}\sum_{k=1}^K\int_0^t\int_{\TT^d}\left(\left(\Phi^{\frac{1}{2},\eta}\right)'(\rho)e_k\nabla\cdot \left(\Phi^{\frac{1}{2},\eta}(\rho)e_k\right)\right)\cdot \nabla\psi\dx\ds.
%
\end{aligned}$$
%
\end{definition}

\begin{thm}\label{thm_L2_sol}  Let $T\in(0,\infty)$, $\ve,\eta\in(0,1)$, $K\in\N$, let $\Phi\in W^{1,1}_{\textrm{loc}}([0,\infty))$ satisfy Assumptions~\ref{as_unique},  \ref{as_equiv}, \ref{as_weak_ldp_1} for some $p\in(1,\infty)$, and \ref{as_weak_ldp_2}, and let $\rho_0\in L^{p+1}(\TT^d)\cap\Ent_\Phi(\TT^d)$.  Furthermore, assume that $\Phi\in C^{1}([0,\infty))$ with bounded derivative and that $\Phi'(\xi)\ge\ve$ for some $\ve\in(0,\infty)$. Then, equation \eqref{entropy_eq} has a unique $L^2$-solution in the sense of Definition~\ref{def_L2}.\end{thm}



\begin{prop}\label{weak_est}  Let $T\in(0,\infty)$, $\ve,\eta\in(0,1)$, $K\in\N$, let $\Phi\in W^ {1,1}_{\textrm{loc}}([0,\infty))$ satisfy Assumptions~\ref{as_unique},  \ref{as_equiv}, \ref{ass_log}, \ref{ass_interpolate}, \ref{as_weak_ldp_1} for some $p\in(1,\infty)$, and \ref{as_weak_ldp_2} in the sense of \eqref{as_weak_ldp_22}, let $\Psi_\Phi$ be as in \eqref{psi_phi}, let $g\in L^2(\O\times[0,T];L^2(\TT^d;\R^d))$ be a predictable process, and let $\rho_0\in L^{p+1}(\TT^d)\cap \Ent_\Phi(\TT^d)$.  Assume that $\ve\in(0,1)$ and $K\in\N$ satisfy $\ve K^3\leq 1$, and let $\rho\in L^{p+1}(\Omega\times[0,T];L^{p+1}(\TT^d))$ be the unique entropy solution of \eqref{entropy_con_eq} in the sense of Proposition~\ref{prop_prob_con_strong}.  Then, there exist $c_1,c_2\in(0,\infty)$ such that, for every $t\in[0,T]$,
%
\begin{equation}\label{we_000}\begin{aligned}
%
& \E\left[\int_{\TT^d}\Psi_\Phi(\rho(x,t))\dx\right]+\E\left[\int_0^t\int_{\TT^d}\abs{\nabla\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho)}^2\dx\ds\right]
%
\\ & \leq c_1\left(\E\left[\int_{\TT^d}\Psi_\Phi(\rho_0(x))\dx\right]+\E\left[\int_0^t\int_{\TT^d}\abs{P_Kg}^2\dx\ds\right]+\ve K^3+T\E\left[\left(\int_{\TT^d}\rho_0\dx\right)^{c_2}\right]\right).
%
\end{aligned}\end{equation}


\end{prop}


\begin{proof}
%
For every $n\in\N$ let $\Phi_n\colon[0,\infty)\rightarrow[0,\infty)$ be defined by
%
\begin{equation}\label{we_00} \Phi_n(\xi)=\Phi(\xi\wedge n)+\Phi'(n)(\xi-n)_+.\end{equation}
%
Assumption~\ref{as_weak_ldp_1}, \eqref{we_00}, and Theorem~\ref{thm_L2_sol} prove that, for every $n\in\N$, there exists a unique $L^2$-solution $\rho_n$ of the equation
%
\begin{equation}\label{we_000000}
%
\partial_t\rho_n =\Delta\Phi_n(\rho_n)+\frac{1}{n}\Delta\rho_n-\nabla\cdot\sqrt{\ve}\left(\Phi^{\frac{1}{2},\eta}(\rho_n)\sum_{k=1}^Ke_k\circ\dd B^k_t\right)- \nabla\cdot\left(\Phi^{\frac{1}{2},\eta}(\rho_n)P_Kg\right),
%
\end{equation}
%
with initial data $\rho_0$ in the sense of Definition~\ref{def_L2}.  Fix $n\in\N$ and let $\rho_n$ denote the unique solution of \eqref{we_000000}.  We will apply It\^o's formula \cite[Theorem~3.1]{Kry2013} to the process $\Psi_{\Phi_{n}}(\rho_n)$, where the approximation argument of Proposition~\ref{frac_est} and Assumption~\ref{ass_log} prove that $\Psi_{\Phi_{n}}$ is an admissible test function.

Since Lemma~\ref{ibp} and Definition~\ref{def_L2} prove that, as distributions,
%
\begin{equation}\label{we_1}\frac{\Phi_n'(\rho_n)}{2\Phi_n^\frac{1}{2}(\rho_n)}\nabla\rho_n=\nabla\Phi_n^\frac{1}{2}(\rho_n),\end{equation} 
%
and because the solution is a continuous $L^2$-valued process, it follows from It\^o's formula \cite[Theorem~3.1]{Kry2013} and \eqref{we_00} that, $\P$-a.s.\ for every $t\in[0,\infty)$,
%
\begin{equation}\label{we_2}\begin{aligned}
%
& \int_{\TT^d}\Psi_{\Phi_n}(\rho_n(x,t))\dx
%
\\ & = \int_{\TT^d}\Psi_{\Phi_n}(\rho_0(x))\dx-4\int_0^t\int_{\TT^d}\abs{\nabla\Phi_n^\frac{1}{2}(\rho_n)}^2\dx\ds-\frac{1}{n}\int_0^t\int_{\TT^d}\frac{\Phi_n'(\rho_n)}{\Phi_n(\rho_n)}\abs{\nabla\rho_n}^2\dx\ds
%
\\ & \quad +2\sqrt{\ve}\sum_{k=1}^K\int_0^t\int_{\TT^d}\frac{\Phi^{\frac{1}{2},\eta}(\rho_n)\Phi^\frac{1}{2}_n(\rho_n)}{\Phi_n(\rho_n)}\nabla\Phi_n^\frac{1}{2}(\rho_n) \cdot e_k\dx\dd B^k_s
%
\\ & \quad +2\int_0^t\int_{\TT^d}\frac{\Phi^{\frac{1}{2},\eta}(\rho_n)\Phi_n^\frac{1}{2}(\rho_n)}{\Phi_n(\rho_n)}\nabla\Phi_n^\frac{1}{2}(\rho_n) \cdot P_Kg\dx\ds
%
\\ & \quad -\frac{\ve}{2}\sum_{k=1}^K\int_0^t\int_{\TT^d}\left(\left(\Phi^{\frac{1}{2},\eta}\right)'(\rho_n)e_k\nabla\cdot\left(\Phi^{\frac{1}{2},\eta}(\rho_n)e_k\right)\right)\frac{\Phi_n'(\rho_n)}{\Phi_n(\rho_n)}\nabla\rho_n\dx\ds
%
\\ & \quad +\frac{\ve}{2}\sum_{k=1}^K\int_0^t\int_{\TT^d}\left(\nabla\cdot\left(\Phi^{\frac{1}{2},\eta}(\rho_n)e_k\right)\right)^2\frac{\Phi_n'(\rho_n)}{\Phi_n(\rho_n)}\dx\ds.
%
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
%
The identity, for each $k\in\N$,
%
$$\begin{aligned}
%
& \left(\left(\Phi^{\frac{1}{2},\eta}\right)'(\rho_n)e_k\nabla\cdot \left(\Phi^{\frac{1}{2},\eta}(\rho_n)e_k\right)\right)\nabla\rho_n
%
\\ & =\left(\nabla\cdot\left(\Phi^{\frac{1}{2},\eta}(\rho_n)e_k\right)\right)^2-\left(\Phi^{\frac{1}{2},\eta}(\rho_n)(\nabla\cdot e_k)\nabla\cdot\left(\Phi^{\frac{1}{2},\eta}(\rho_n)e_k\right)\right)
%
\end{aligned}$$
%
proves that
%
\begin{equation}\label{we_4}\begin{aligned}
%
& \frac{\ve}{2}\sum_{k=1}^K\int_0^t\int_{\TT^d}\left(\Phi^{\frac{1}{2},\eta}(\rho_n)(\nabla\cdot e_k)\nabla\cdot\left(\Phi^{\frac{1}{2},\eta}(\rho_n)e_k\right)\right)\frac{\Phi_n'(\rho_n)}{\Phi_n(\rho_n)}\dx\ds
%
\\ & = -\frac{\ve}{2}\sum_{k=1}^K\int_0^t\int_{\TT^d}\left(\left(\Phi^{\frac{1}{2},\eta}\right)'(\rho_n)e_k\nabla\cdot\left(\Phi^{\frac{1}{2},\eta}(\rho_n)e_k\right)\right)\frac{\Phi_n'(\rho_n)}{\Phi_n(\rho_n)}\dot \nabla\rho_n\dx\ds
%
\\ & \quad +\frac{\ve}{2}\sum_{k=1}^K\int_0^t\int_{\TT^d}\left(\nabla\cdot\left(\Phi^{\frac{1}{2},\eta}(\rho_n)e_k\right)\right)^2\frac{\Phi_n'(\rho_n)}{\Phi_n(\rho_n)}\dx\ds.
%
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
%
It follows from the facts that $\rho_0\in\Ent_\Phi(\TT^d)$, that Lemma~\ref{ass_phi_reg} and the definition of $\Phi_n$ prove that there exists $c\in(0,\infty)$ such that, for every $n\in\N$ sufficiently large,
%
\begin{equation}\label{we_04}\Phi^{\frac{1}{2},\eta} \leq c\Phi_n^\frac{1}{2},\end{equation}
%
and that, for each $t\in[0,T]$,
%
$$\E\left[\sum_{k=1}^K\int_0^t\int_{\TT^d}\frac{\Phi^{\frac{1}{2},\eta}(\rho_n)\Phi_n^\frac{1}{2}(\rho_n)}{\Phi_n(\rho_n)}\nabla\Phi_n^\frac{1}{2}(\rho_n) \cdot e_k\dx \dd B^k_s\right]=0,$$
%
that there exists $c\in(0,\infty)$ such that after returning to \eqref{we_2}, applying \eqref{we_4}, and taking the expectation,
%
\begin{equation}\label{we_5}\begin{aligned}
%
& \E\left[\int_{\TT^d}\Psi_{\Phi_n}(\rho_n(x,t))\dx\right]+4\E\left[\int_0^t\int_{\TT^d}\abs{\nabla\Phi_n^\frac{1}{2}(\rho_n)}^2\dx\ds\right]
%
\\ & \leq \E\left[\int_{\TT^d}\Psi_{\Phi_n}(\rho_0(x))\dx\right]+c\E\left[\int_0^t\int_{\TT^d}\abs{\nabla\Phi_n^\frac{1}{2}(\rho_n)}\abs{P_Kg}\dx\ds\right]
%
\\ & \quad +\frac{\ve}{2}\E\left[\sum_{k=1}^K\int_0^t\int_{\TT^d}\left(\Phi^{\frac{1}{2},\eta}(\rho_n)(\nabla \cdot e_k)\nabla\cdot \left(\Phi^{\frac{1}{2},\eta}(\rho_n)e_k\right)\right)\frac{\Phi_n'(\rho_n)}{\Phi_n(\rho_n)}\dx\ds\right].
%
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
%
Definition~\ref{def_L2} and \eqref{we_1} prove that, for each $k\in\N$,
%
\begin{equation}\label{we_05}\begin{aligned}
%
& \left(\Phi^{\frac{1}{2},\eta}(\rho_n)(\nabla\cdot e_k)\nabla\cdot\left(\Phi^{\frac{1}{2},\eta}(\rho_n)e_k\right)\right)\frac{\Phi_n'(\rho_n)}{\Phi_n(\rho_n)}
%
\\ & = \abs{\nabla \cdot e_k}^2\frac{\Phi'(\rho_n)\left(\Phi^{\frac{1}{2},\eta}(\rho_n)\right)^2}{\Phi(\rho_n)}+2(\nabla \cdot e_k)\left(\Phi^{\frac{1}{2},\eta}\right)'(\rho_n)\Phi^{\frac{1}{2},\eta}(\rho_n)\frac{\Phi_n'(\rho_n)}{\Phi_n(\rho_n)}\left(e_k\cdot \nabla\rho_n\right),
%
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
%
and therefore, after integrating by parts in the final integral,
%
\begin{equation}\label{we_0006}\begin{aligned}
%
& \E\left[\sum_{k=1}^K\int_0^t\int_{\TT^d}\left(\Phi^{\frac{1}{2},\eta}(\rho_n)(\nabla\cdot e_k)\nabla\cdot\left(\Phi^{\frac{1}{2},\eta}(\rho_n)e_k\right)\right)\frac{\Phi_n'(\rho_n)}{\Phi_n(\rho_n)}\dx\ds\right]
%
\\ & =  \E\left[\sum_{k=1}^K\int_0^t\int_{\TT^d}\abs{\nabla\cdot e_k}^2\frac{\Phi_n'(\rho_n)\left(\Phi^{\frac{1}{2},\eta}(\rho_n)\right)^2}{\Phi_n(\rho_n)}\dx\ds\right]
%
\\ & \quad -2\E\left[\sum_{k=1}^K\int_0^t\int_{\TT^d}\nabla\cdot\left(e_k\left(\nabla\cdot e_k\right)\right)\Theta_{\Phi_n,\eta}(\rho_n)\dx\ds\right],
%
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
%
for $\Theta_{\Phi_n,\eta}\colon[0,\infty)\rightarrow[0,\infty)$ defined by
%
$$\Theta_{\Phi_n,\eta}'(\xi)=\left(\Phi^{\frac{1}{2},\eta}\right)'(\xi)\Phi^{\frac{1}{2},\eta}(\xi)\frac{\Phi_n'(\xi)}{\Phi_n(\xi)}\;\;\textrm{and}\;\;\Theta_{\Phi_n,\eta}(0)=0.$$
%
It follows from \eqref{we_04} that there exists $c\in(0,\infty)$ such that, for all $n\in\N$ sufficiently large, for $\Theta_{\Phi_n}\colon[0,\infty)\rightarrow[0,\infty)$ defined by
%
\begin{equation}\label{we_06}\Theta_{\Phi_n}'(\xi)=\frac{(\Phi_n'(\xi))^2}{\Phi_n(\xi)}\;\;\textrm{and}\;\;\Theta_{\Phi_n}(0)=0\;\;\textrm{we have that}\;\;\Theta_{\Phi_n,\eta}\leq c\Theta_{\Phi_n}.\end{equation}
%
Therefore, returning to \eqref{we_0006}, it follows from \eqref{we_04} and \eqref{we_06} that there exists $c\in(0,\infty)$ such that, for every $n\in\N$ sufficiently large,
%
\begin{equation}\label{we_6}\begin{aligned}
%
& \E\left[\sum_{k=1}^K\int_0^t\int_{\TT^d}\left(\Phi^{\frac{1}{2},\eta}(\rho_n)\left(\nabla\cdot e_k\right)\nabla\cdot\left(\Phi^{\frac{1}{2},\eta}(\rho_n)e_k\right)\right)\frac{\Phi_n'(\rho_n)}{\Phi_n(\rho_n)}\dx\ds\right]
%
\\ & \leq  c\left(\sum_{k=1}^K\norm{\nabla\cdot e_k}_{L^\infty(\TT^d)}^2\right)\E\left[\int_0^t\int_{\TT^d}\Phi_n'(\rho_n)\dx\ds\right]
%
\\ & \quad +c\left(\sum_{k=1}^K\norm{\nabla\cdot\left(e_k\left(\nabla\cdot e_k\right)\right)}_{L^\infty(\TT^d)}\right)\E\left[\int_0^t\int_{\TT^d}\Theta_{\Phi_n}(\rho_n)\dx\ds\right].
%
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
%
Since for each $k\in\N$ there exists $c\in(0,\infty)$ depending on $d\in\N$ such that
%
\begin{equation}\label{we_07}\norm{e_k}_{L^\infty(\TT^d)}\leq c\;\;\textrm{and}\;\;\norm{\nabla\cdot e_k}_{L^\infty(\TT^d)}\leq ck\;\;\textrm{and}\;\;\norm{\nabla \cdot \left(e_k\left(\nabla\cdot e_k\right)\right)}_{L^\infty(\TT^d)}\leq ck^2,\end{equation}
%
after returning to \eqref{we_5} it follows from \eqref{we_6} and \eqref{we_07} that, for every $n\in\N$ sufficiently large,
%
\begin{equation}\label{we_7}\begin{aligned}
%
& \E\left[\int_{\TT^d}\Psi_{\Phi_n}(\rho_n(x,t))\dx\dt\right]+\E\left[\int_0^t\int_{\TT^d}\abs{\nabla\Phi_n^\frac{1}{2}(\rho_n)}^2\dx\ds\right]
%
\\ & \leq c\left(\E\left[\int_{\TT^d}\Psi_{\Phi_n}(\rho_0(x))\dx\right]+\E\left[\int_0^t\int_{\TT^d}\abs{P_Kg}^2\dx\ds\right]\right)
%
\\ & \quad +c\ve K^3\E\left[\int_0^t\int_{\TT^d}\left(\Phi_n'(\rho_n)+\Theta_{\Phi_n}(\rho_n)\right)\dx\ds\right].
%
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
%
It follows from Assumption~\ref{ass_interpolate}, Assumption~\ref{as_weak_ldp_2} in the sense of \eqref{as_weak_ldp_22}, and \eqref{we_00} that there exists $\theta\in(0,1)$ and $c_1,c_2\in(0,\infty)$ independent of $n\in\N$ such that
%
\begin{equation}\label{we_8} \int_0^t\int_{\TT^d}\left(\Phi_n'(\rho_n)+\Theta_{\Phi_n}(\rho_n)\right)\dx\ds  \leq c_1\left(\int_0^t\int_{\TT^d}\abs{\nabla\Phi_n^\frac{1}{2}(\rho_n)}^2\dx\ds+\int_0^t\left(\int_{\TT^d}\rho_n\dx\right)^{c_2}\ds\right)^\theta.\end{equation}
%
It then follows from \eqref{we_7}, \eqref{we_8}, $\theta\in(0,1)$, $\ve K^3\leq 1$, H\"older's inequality, Young's inequality, and the $\P$-a.s.\ equality, which follows by choosing $\psi=1$ in Definition~\ref{def_L2},
%
$$\int_{\TT^d}\rho_n(x,t)\dx=\int_{\TT^d}\rho_0(x)\dx\;\;\textrm{for every}\;\;t\in[0,T],$$
%
that there exists $c_1,c_2\in(0,\infty)$ such that, for every $t\in[0,T]$,
%
\begin{equation}\label{we_9}\begin{aligned}
%
& \E\left[\int_{\TT^d}\Psi_{\Phi_n}(\rho_n(x,t))\dx\right]+\E\left[\int_0^t\int_{\TT^d}\abs{\nabla\Phi_n^\frac{1}{2}(\rho_n)}^2\dx\ds\right]
%
\\ & \leq c_1\left(\E\left[\int_{\TT^d}\Psi_{\Phi_n}(\rho_0(x))\dx\right]+\E\left[\int_0^t\int_{\TT^d}\abs{P_Kg}^2\dx\ds\right]+\ve K^3+T\E\left[\left(\int_{\TT^d}\rho_0\dx\right)^{c_2}\right]\right).
%
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
%


We will now pass to the limit $n\rightarrow\infty$.  It follows from \cite[Theorem~2.6]{DG18} that the solutions $\{\tilde{\rho}_n\}_{n\in\N}$ of the equation
%
$$\partial_t\tilde{\rho}_n=\Delta\Phi_n(\tilde{\rho}_n)+\frac{1}{n}\Delta\tilde{\rho}_n-\nabla\cdot\sqrt{\ve}\left(\Phi^{\frac{1}{2},\eta}(\tilde{\rho}_n)\sum_{k=1}^Ke_k\circ\dd B^k_t\right),$$
%
with initial data $\rho_0$ converge $\P$-a.s.\ and strongly in $L^1([0,T];L^1(\TT^d))$ as $n\rightarrow\infty$ to the solution $\tilde{\rho}$ of the equation
%
$$\partial_t\tilde{\rho}=\Delta\Phi(\tilde{\rho})-\nabla\cdot\sqrt{\ve}\left(\Phi^{\frac{1}{2},\eta}(\tilde{\rho})\sum_{k=1}^Ke_k\circ\dd B^k_t\right),$$
%
with initial data $\rho_0$.  Girsanov's theorem, Proposition~\ref{prop_prob_con_strong}, definition \eqref{we_00}, and estimate \eqref{we_9} then prove that $\P$-a.s.\ as $n\rightarrow\infty$, we have that $\rho_n\rightarrow\rho$ strongly in $L^1([0,T];L^1(\TT^d))$ and that $\Phi^\frac{1}{2}_n(\rho_n)\rightharpoonup \Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho)$ weakly in $L^2([0,T];H^1(\TT^d))$, for $\rho$ the unique solution of \eqref{entropy_eq} with initial data $\rho_0$.  The weak lower semicontinuity of the Sobolev norm proves that $\rho$ satisfies \eqref{we_000}, which completes the proof.  \end{proof}

\begin{prop}\label{weak_est_1}  Let $T\in(0,\infty)$, $\ve,\eta\in(0,1)$, $K\in\N$, let $\Phi\in W^{1,1}_{\textrm{loc}}([0,\infty))$ satisfy Assumptions~\ref{as_unique},  \ref{as_equiv}, \ref{ass_log}, \ref{ass_interpolate}, \ref{as_weak_ldp_1} for some $p\in(1,\infty)$, and \ref{as_weak_ldp_2} in the sense of \eqref{as_weak_ldp_21}, let $\Psi_\Phi$ be as in \eqref{psi_phi}, let $g\in L^2(\O\times[0,T];L^2(\TT^d;\R^d))$ be a predictable process, and let $\rho_0\in L^{p+1}(\TT^d)\cap \Ent_\Phi(\TT^d)$.  Assume that $\ve,\eta\in(0,1)$ and $K\in\N$ satisfy
%
\begin{equation}\label{we_1_1}\ve K^3\leq 1\;\;\textrm{and}\;\;\ve K^2\norm{\left(\Phi^{\frac{1}{2},\eta}\right)'}_{L^\infty([0,\infty))}\leq 1,\end{equation}
%
and let $\rho\in L^{p+1}(\Omega\times[0,T];L^{p+1}(\TT^d))$ be the unique entropy solution of \eqref{entropy_con_eq} in the sense of Proposition~\ref{prop_prob_con_strong}.  Then, there exist $c_1,c_2\in(0,\infty)$ such that, for every $t\in[0,T]$,
%
$$\begin{aligned}
%
& \E\left[\int_{\TT^d}\Psi_\Phi(\rho(x,t))\dx\right]+\E\left[\int_0^t\int_{\TT^d}\abs{\nabla\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho)}^2\dx\ds\right]
%
\\ & \leq c\left(\E\left[\int_{\TT^d}\Psi_\Phi(\rho_0(x))\dx\right]+\E\left[\int_0^t\int_{\TT^d}\abs{P_Kg}^2\dx\ds\right]+c\ve K^3 T+\ve K^2\norm{\left(\Phi^{\frac{1}{2},\eta}\right)'}_{L^\infty([0,\infty))}\right).
%
\end{aligned}$$
%
\end{prop}

\begin{proof}  The proof is identical to the case of Proposition~\ref{weak_est}, with the exception of estimating the term \eqref{we_05}.  In this case, Assumption~\ref{as_weak_ldp_2} in the sense of \eqref{as_weak_ldp_21}, Lemma~\ref{ass_phi_reg}, \eqref{we_00} and \eqref{we_1} prove that there exists $c\in(0,\infty)$ such that, for each $n\in\N$,
%
$$\begin{aligned}
%
& \abs{\left(\Phi^{\frac{1}{2},\eta}(\rho)(\nabla\cdot e_k)\nabla\cdot\left(\Phi^{\frac{1}{2},\eta}(\rho)e_k\right)\right)\frac{\Phi_n'(\rho)}{\Phi_n(\rho)}}
%
\\ & \leq c\left(\norm{\nabla\cdot e_k}_{L^\infty(\TT^d)}^2+ \norm{e_k\left(\nabla\cdot e_k\right)}_{L^\infty(\TT^d;\R^d)}\norm{\left(\Phi^{\frac{1}{2},\eta}\right)'}_{L^\infty([0,\infty))}\abs{\nabla\Phi_n^\frac{1}{2}(\rho)}\right).
%
\end{aligned}$$
%
Therefore, in analogy with argument leading from \eqref{we_6} to \eqref{we_7}, there exists $c\in(0,\infty)$ such that, for every $n\in\N$ sufficiently large and $t\in[0,T]$,
%
$$\begin{aligned}
%
& \E\left[\int_{\TT^d}\Psi_{\Phi_n}(\rho(x,t))\dx\right]+\E\left[\int_0^t\int_{\TT^d}\abs{\nabla\Phi_n^\frac{1}{2}(\rho)}^2\dx\ds\right]
%
\\ & \leq c\left(\E\left[\int_{\TT^d}\Psi_{\Phi_n}(\rho_0(x))\dx\right]+\E\left[\int_0^t\int_{\TT^d}\abs{P_Kg}^2\dx\ds\right]\right)
%
\\ & \quad +c\left(\ve K^3 T+\ve K^2\norm{\left(\Phi^{\frac{1}{2},\eta}\right)'}_{L^\infty([0,\infty))}\E\left[\int_0^t\int_{\TT^d}\abs{\nabla\Phi_n^\frac{1}{2}(\rho)}\dx\dx\right]\right).
%
\end{aligned}$$
%
H\"older's inequality, Young's inequality, and \eqref{we_1_1} then prove that there exists $c\in(0,\infty)$ such that, for every $n\in\N$ sufficiently large and $t\in[0,T]$,
%
$$\begin{aligned}
%
& \E\left[\int_{\TT^d}\Psi_{\Phi_n}(\rho(x,t))\dx\right]+\E\left[\int_0^t\int_{\TT^d}\abs{\nabla\Phi_n^\frac{1}{2}(\rho)}^2\dx\ds\right]
%
\\ & \leq c\left(\E\left[\int_{\TT^d}\Psi_{\Phi_n}(\rho_0(x))\dx\right]+\E\left[\int_0^t\int_{\TT^d}\abs{P_Kg}^2\dx\ds\right]+c\ve K^3 T+\ve K^2\norm{\left(\Phi^{\frac{1}{2},\eta}\right)'}_{L^\infty([0,\infty))}\right).
%
\end{aligned}$$
%
The remainder of the argument is then identical to the conclusion of Proposition~\ref{weak_est}, which completes the proof.\end{proof}
 
 
In the next theorem, using the estimates of Propositions~\ref{weak_est} and \ref{weak_est_1}, we prove the convergence of the solutions to \eqref{entropy_con_eq} to a solution of the skeleton equation
%
\begin{equation}\label{weak_ldp_skel_eq}
%
\partial_t\rho =\Delta\Phi(\rho)-\nabla\cdot\left(\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho)g\right),
%
\end{equation}
%
in the sense of Definition~\ref{classical_weak}.  If $\Phi$ satisfies Assumption~\ref{as_weak_ldp_2} in the sense of \eqref{as_weak_ldp_22} the scaling of $K\in\N$ and $\ve\in(0,1)$ is independent $\eta\in(0,1)$, while if $\Phi$ satisfies Assumption~\ref{as_weak_ldp_2} in the sense of \eqref{as_weak_ldp_21} the regularizations defined in Lemma~\ref{ass_phi_reg} come to effect the scaling of $K\in\N$ and $\ve\in(0,1)$.  That is, the regularization parameter $\eta\in(0,1)$ must tend to zero sufficiently slowly with respect to $\ve\in(0,1)$ as determined by the choice of regularization in Lemma~\ref{ass_phi_reg}.
%
\begin{thm}\label{weak_thm_con}  Let $T\in(0,\infty)$, let $\Phi\in W^{1,1}_{\textrm{loc}}([0,\infty))$ satisfy Assumptions~\ref{as_unique},  \ref{as_equiv}, \ref{ass_log}, \ref{ass_interpolate}, \ref{as_weak_ldp_1} for some $p\in(1,\infty)$, and \ref{as_weak_ldp_2}, let $g\in L^2(\O\times[0,T];L^2(\TT^d;\R^d))$ be a predictable process, let $\{\rho^\ve_0\}_{\ve\in(0,1)}\subseteq L^{p+1}(\TT^d)\cap\Ent_\Phi(\TT^d)$, and let $\rho_0\in\Ent_\Phi(\TT^d)$.  Assume that, as $\ve\rightarrow 0$,
%
\begin{equation}\label{wtc_000}\rho^\ve_0\rightarrow\rho_0\;\;\textrm{strongly in}\;\;L^1(\TT^d)\;\;\textrm{and that}\;\;\sup_{\ve\in(0,1)}\left[\int_{\TT^d}\Psi_\Phi(\rho^\ve_0)\dx\right]<\infty,\end{equation}
%
if $\Phi$ satisfies \eqref{as_weak_ldp_22} assume that $\{(\ve,\eta(\ve),K(\ve))\}_{\ve\in(0,1)}$ satisfy, as $\ve\rightarrow 0$,
%
$$\ve K(\ve)^3\rightarrow 0\;\;\textrm{and}\;\;(\eta(\ve),K(\ve))\rightarrow (0,\infty),$$
%
and if $\Phi$ satisfies \eqref{as_weak_ldp_21} assume that $\{(\ve,\eta(\ve),K(\ve))\}_{\ve\in(0,1)}$ satisfy, as $\ve\rightarrow 0$,
%
$$\left(K(\ve)^3\ve+K(\ve)^2\ve\norm{\left(\Phi^{\frac{1}{2},\eta(\ve)}\right)'}_{L^\infty([0,\infty))}\right)\rightarrow 0\;\;\textrm{and}\;\;(\eta(\ve),K(\ve))\rightarrow(0,\infty).$$
%
For each $\ve\in(0,1)$ let $\rho^\ve\in L^{p+1}(\Omega\times[0,T];L^{p+1}(\TT^d))$ be the unique entropy solution of
%
$$
%
\partial_t\rho^\ve =\Delta\Phi(\rho^\ve)-\nabla\cdot\sqrt{\ve}\left(\Phi^{\frac{1}{2},\eta(\ve)}(\rho^\ve)\sum_{k=1}^{K(\ve)}e_k\circ \dd B^k_t\right) - \nabla\cdot\left(\Phi^{\frac{1}{2},\eta(\ve)}(\rho^\ve)P_{K(\ve)}g\right),
%
$$
%
with initial data $\rho^\ve_0$ in the sense of Proposition~\ref{prop_prob_con_strong}.  Then, for the unique solution $\rho$ of \eqref{weak_ldp_skel_eq} with initial data $\rho_0$ in the sense of Definition~\ref{classical_weak}, $\P$-a.s.\ as $\ve\rightarrow 0$,
%
$$\rho^\ve\rightarrow \rho\;\;\textrm{strongly in}\;\;L^1([0,T];L^1(\TT^d)).$$ 
%
\end{thm}

\begin{proof}  We will write the argument for the case that $\Phi$ satisfies \eqref{as_weak_ldp_22}, since the details are identical for the case that $\Phi$ satisfies \eqref{as_weak_ldp_21} after replacing the application of Proposition~\ref{weak_est} with Proposition~\ref{weak_est_1}.  For each $\ve\in(0,1)$, it follows from the integration-by-parts formula of Lemma~\ref{ibp}, Proposition~\ref{prop_prob_con_strong}, and Proposition~\ref{weak_est} that, almost surely as distributions on $\TT^d\times[0,T]$,
%
\begin{equation}\label{wtc_1}\begin{aligned}
%
\rho^\ve & = \rho^\ve_0+2\int_0^t\nabla\cdot\left(\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho^\ve)\nabla\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho^\ve)\right)\ds-\sqrt{\ve}\int_0^t\nabla\cdot\left(\Phi^{\frac{1}{2},\eta(\ve)}(\rho^\ve)\sum_{k=1}^{K(\ve)}e_k\dd B^k_s\right)
%
\\ & +\frac{\ve}{2}\int_0^t\nabla\cdot\left(\sum_{k=1}^{K(\ve)}\left(\left(\Phi^{\frac{1}{2},\eta(\ve)}\right)'(\rho^\ve)e_k\nabla\cdot\left(\Phi^{\frac{1}{2},\eta(\ve)}(\rho^\ve) e_k\right)\right)\right)\ds - \int_0^t\nabla\cdot\left(\Phi^{\frac{1}{2},\eta(\ve)}(\rho^\ve)P_{K(\ve)}g\right)\ds.
%
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
%
We will analyze each of the terms on the righthand side of \eqref{wtc_1} separately.  It follows from \eqref{wtc_000} and $\rho_0\in L^1(\TT^d)$ that here exists $c\in(0,\infty)$ such that
%
\begin{equation}\label{wtc_02} \sup_{\ve\in(0,1)}\norm{\rho^\ve_0}_{L^1(\TT^d)}+\sup_{\ve\in(0,1)}\left[\int_{\TT^d}\Psi_\Phi(\rho^\ve_0)\dx\right]\leq c,\end{equation}
%
Assumption~\ref{ass_interpolate}, Lemma~\ref{ass_phi_reg}, Propositions~\ref{weak_est}, H\"older's inequality, Young's inequality, and the fact that, $\P$-a.s.\ for each $\ve\in(0,1)$,
%
$$\norm{P_{K(\ve)}g}_{L^2(\TT^d\times[0,T];\R^d)}\leq\norm{g}_{L^2(\TT^d\times[0,T];\R^d)},$$
%
prove that the second and final terms on the righthand side of \eqref{wtc_1} satisfy, for $c_1,c_2\in(0,\infty)$,
%
\begin{equation}\label{wtc_2}\begin{aligned}
%
& \E\left[\norm{\int_0^t\nabla\cdot\left(\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho^\ve)\nabla\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho^\ve)\right)\ds}_{W^{1,1}([0,T];W^{-1,1}(\TT^d))}\right]
%
\\ & \leq c_1\left(\E\left[\int_{\TT^d}\Psi_\Phi(\rho_0(x))\dx\right]+\E\left[\int_0^T\int_{\TT^d}\abs{g}^2\dx\ds\right]+\ve K(\ve)^3+T\E\left[\left(\int_{\TT^d}\rho_0\dx\right)^{c_2}\right]\right),
%
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
%
and, similarly, for $c_1,c_2\in(0,\infty)$,
%
\begin{equation}\label{wtc_03}\begin{aligned}
%
& \E\left[\norm{\int_0^t\nabla\cdot\left(\Phi^{\frac{1}{2},\eta(\ve)}(\rho^\ve)P_{K(\ve)}g\right)\ds}_{W^{1,1}([0,T];W^{-1,1}(\TT^d))}\right]
%
\\ & \leq c_1\left(\E\left[\int_{\TT^d}\Psi_\Phi(\rho_0(x))\dx\right]+\E\left[\int_0^T\int_{\TT^d}\abs{g}^2\dx\ds\right]+\ve K(\ve)^3+T\E\left[\left(\int_{\TT^d}\rho_0\dx\right)^{c_2}\right]\right).
%
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
%
For the fourth term on the righthand side of \eqref{wtc_1},  Lemma~\ref{ass_phi_reg}, H\"older's inequality, and Young's inequality prove that, for $c\in(0,\infty)$ independent of $k\in\N$,
%
\begin{equation}\label{wtc_3}\begin{aligned}
%
\abs{\left(\Phi^{\frac{1}{2},\eta(\ve)}\right)'(\rho^\ve)e_k\nabla\cdot\left(\Phi^{\frac{1}{2},\eta(\ve)}(\rho^\ve) e_k\right)} & \leq c\left(\abs{e_k\nabla\cdot e_k}\Phi'(\rho^\ve)+\abs{e_k^2}\abs{\left(\Phi^\frac{1}{2}\right)'(\rho^\ve)}\abs{\nabla\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho^\ve)}\right)
%
\\ & \leq ck\left(\Phi'(\rho^\ve)+\abs{\nabla\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho^\ve)}^2\right).
%
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
%
Therefore, a repetition of the argument leading to \eqref{we_8} and \eqref{we_9} proves that there exist $c_1,c_2\in(0,\infty)$ such that
%
\begin{equation}\label{wtc_4}\begin{aligned}
%
& \E\left[\norm{\int_0^t\nabla\cdot\left(\sum_{k=1}^{K(\ve)}\left(\left(\Phi^{\frac{1}{2},\eta(\ve)}\right)'(\rho^\ve)e_k\nabla\cdot\left(\Phi^{\frac{1}{2},\eta(\ve)}(\rho^\ve) e_k\right)\right)\right)\ds}_{W^{1,1}([0,T];W^{-1,1}(\TT^d))}  \right]
%
\\ & \leq c_1K(\ve)^2\left(\E\left[\int_{\TT^d}\Psi_\Phi(\rho_0(x))\dx\right]+\E\left[\int_0^T\int_{\TT^d}\abs{g}^2\dx\ds\right]+\ve K(\ve)^3+T\E\left[\left(\int_{\TT^d}\rho_0\dx\right)^{c_2}\right]\right).
%
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
%
Finally, for the third term on the rigthand side of \eqref{wtc_1}, it follows from Assumption~\ref{ass_interpolate}, Lemma~\ref{ass_phi_reg}, Proposition~\ref{weak_est}, and \cite[Lemma~2.1]{FlaGat1995} that, for every $\delta\in(0,1)$ there exists $c_1,c_2\in(0,\infty)$ such that
%
\begin{equation}\label{wtc_5}\begin{aligned}
%
& \E\left[\norm{\int_0^t\nabla\cdot\left(\Phi^{\frac{1}{2},\eta(\ve)}(\rho^\ve)\sum_{k=1}^{K(\ve)}e_k\right)\dd B^k_s}_{W^{\frac{1}{2}-\delta,2}([0,T];W^{-1,2}(\TT^d))}\right]
%
\\ & \leq c\sum_{k=1}^{K(\ve)}\int_0^t\E\left[\norm{\nabla\cdot\left(e_k\Phi^{\frac{1}{2},\eta(\ve)}(\rho^\ve)\right)\ds}^2_{W^{-1,2}(\TT^d)}\right]\ds
%
\\ & \leq c\sum_{k=1}^{K(\ve)}\norm{e_k}^2_{L^\infty(\TT^d)}\int_0^t\E\left[ \norm{\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho^\ve)}^2_{L^2(\TT^d)}\right]\ds
%
\\ & \leq c_1 K(\ve)\left(\E\left[\int_{\TT^d}\Psi_\Phi(\rho_0(x))\dx\right]+\E\left[\int_0^T\int_{\TT^d}\abs{g}^2\dx\ds\right]+\ve K(\ve)^3+T\E\left[\left(\int_{\TT^d}\rho_0\dx\right)^{c_2}\right]\right).
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
%
Since for every $s\geq\nicefrac{d}{2}+1$ the Sobolev embedding theorem implies that
%
$$W^{-1,1}(\TT^d)\subseteq H^{-s}(\TT^d)\;\;\textrm{and}\;\;W^{-1,2}(\TT^d)\subseteq H^{-s}(\TT^d),$$
%
it follows from \eqref{wtc_1}, \eqref{wtc_02}, \eqref{wtc_2}, \eqref{wtc_03}, \eqref{wtc_4}, \eqref{wtc_5}, H\"older's inequality, and the assumption that $\ve K(\ve)^3\rightarrow 0$ as $\ve\rightarrow 0$ that for each $\delta\in(0,1)$ and $s\geq\nicefrac{d}{2}+1$ there exists $c_1,c_2\in(0,\infty)$ such that
%
\begin{equation}\label{wtc_6}\begin{aligned}
%
& \E\left[\norm{\rho^\ve}_{W^{\frac{1}{2}-\delta,1}([0,T];H^{-s}(\TT^d))}\right]
%
\\ & \leq \norm{\rho_0}_{L^1(\TT^d)}
%
\\ & \quad +c_1\left(\E\left[\int_{\TT^d}\Psi_\Phi(\rho_0(x))\dx\right]+\E\left[\int_0^T\int_{\TT^d}\abs{g}^2\dx\ds\right]+\ve K(\ve)^3+T\E\left[\left(\int_{\TT^d}\rho_0\dx\right)^{c_2}\right]\right).
%
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
%


Assumption~\ref{as_pre} , Propositions~\ref{weak_est} and \ref{weak_est_1}, and estimate \eqref{wtc_6} allow to pass to the limit $\ve\rightarrow 0$.   Since the Aubin-Lions-Simons lemma \cite{Aubin,pLions,Simon} (also, \cite[Theorems~2.1, ~2.2]{FlaGat1995}) and Assumption~\ref{as_pre} prove that the embedding of the space
%
$$\begin{aligned}
%
& \left(L^\infty([0,T];L^1(\TT^d))\cap W^{\frac{1}{2}-\delta,1}([0,T];H^{-s}(\TT^d))\right)
%
\\& \quad \cap \left(\{\rho\in L^1([0,T];L^1(\TT^d))\colon \Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho)\in L^2([0,T];H^1(\TT^d))\}\right)
%
\end{aligned}$$
%
into $L^1([0,T];L^1(\TT^d))$ is compact and since by assumption we have
%
\begin{equation}\label{wtc_7}\lim_{\ve\rightarrow 0}\ve K(\ve)^3=0\;\;\textrm{and}\;\;\lim_{\ve\rightarrow 0}\eta(\ve)=0,\end{equation}
%
it follows from Proposition~\ref{weak_est} and \eqref{wtc_6} that the laws of $\{\rho^\ve\}_{\ve\in(0,1)}$ are tight on $L^1([0,T];L^1(\TT^d))$.  Therefore, by Prokhorov's theorem and the Skorohod representation theorem, after passing to a subsequence, there exists a stochastic basis $(\tilde{\O},\tilde{\F},(\tilde{\F}_t)_{t\in[0,\infty)},\tilde{\P})$, a $\tilde{\F}_t$-Brownian motion $(\tilde{B}_t)_{t\in[0,\infty)}$, and random variables $\{\tilde{\rho}^{\ve}\}_{\ve\in(0,1)},\tilde{\rho}\colon\O\rightarrow L^1([0,T];L^1(\TT^d))$ such that, for each $\ve\in(0,1)$,
%
$$(\tilde{\rho}^{\ve}, \tilde{B}_\cdot)\;\;\textrm{and}\;\;(\rho^\ve,B_\cdot)\;\;\textrm{have the same law on}\;\;L^1([0,T];L^1(\TT^d))\times\C([0,\infty);\R^\infty),$$
%
such that $\P$-a.s. as $\ve\rightarrow0$,
%
\begin{equation}\label{wtc_08}\tilde{\rho}^{\ve}\rightarrow \tilde{\rho}\;\;\textrm{in}\;\;L^1([0,T];L^1(\TT^d)),\end{equation}
%
and such that $\P$-a.s.\ for each $\ve\in(0,1)$, $t\in[0,T]$, and $\phi\in \C^\infty(\TT^d)$,
%
\begin{equation}\label{wtc_8}\begin{aligned}
%
\int_{\TT^d}\tilde{\rho}^{\ve}(x,t)\phi(x)\dx & =\int_{\TT^d}\rho^\ve_0(x)\phi(x)\dx-2\int_0^t\int_{\TT^d}\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\tilde{\rho}^{\ve})\nabla\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\tilde{\rho}^{\ve})\cdot \nabla\phi\dx\ds
%
\\ & \quad +\sqrt{\ve}\sum_{k=1}^{K(\ve)}\int_0^t\int_{\TT^d}\Phi^{\frac{1}{2},\eta(\ve)}(\tilde{\rho}^{\ve})e_k\cdot \nabla\phi\dx\dd \tilde{B}^k_s
%
\\ & \quad -\frac{\ve}{2}\sum_{k=1}^{K(\ve)}\int_0^t\int_{\TT^d}\left(\Phi^{\frac{1}{2},\eta(\ve)}\right)'(\tilde{\rho}^{\ve})e_k\nabla\cdot\left(\Phi^{\frac{1}{2},\eta(\ve)}(\tilde{\rho}^{\ve}) e_k\right)\cdot \nabla\phi\dx\ds
%
\\ & \quad +\int_0^t\int_{\TT^d}\Phi^{\frac{1}{2},\eta(\ve)}(\tilde{\rho}^{\ve})g\cdot \nabla\phi\dx\ds.
%
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
%
In analogy with \eqref{wtc_5}, the Burkholder-Davis-Gundy inequality, Lemma~\ref{ass_phi_reg}, and $\phi\in\C^\infty(\TT^d)$ prove that there exists $c\in(0,\infty)$ such that, for each $\ve\in(0,1)$,
%
\begin{equation}\label{wtc_009}\begin{aligned}
%
& \E\left[\sup_{t\in[0,T]}\abs{\sqrt{\ve}\sum_{k=1}^{K(\ve)}\int_0^t\int_{\TT^d}\Phi^{\frac{1}{2},\eta(\ve)}(\tilde{\rho}^{\ve})e_k\cdot \nabla\phi\dx\dd \tilde{B}^k_s}^2\right]
%
\\ & \leq c\ve\E\left[\abs{\int_0^T\sum_{k=1}^{K(\ve)}\int_{\TT^d}\Phi^{\frac{1}{2},\eta(\ve)}(\tilde{\rho}^{\ve})e_k\cdot \nabla\phi\dx\dd \tilde{B}^k_s}^2\right]
%
\\ & \leq c\ve\sum_{k=1}^{K(\ve)}\int_0^T \E\left[\int_{\TT^d}\abs{\Phi^{\frac{1}{2},\eta}(\tilde{\rho}^\ve)}^2\abs{e_k}^2\dx\right]\ds
%
\\ & \leq c\ve K(\ve)\int_0^T \E\left[\int_{\TT^d}\Phi(\tilde{\rho}^{\ve})\dx\right]\ds.
%
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
%
Therefore, by \eqref{wtc_7} and \eqref{wtc_009}, after passing to a further subsequence, $\P$-a.s.\ as $\ve\rightarrow 0$,
%
\begin{equation}\label{wtc_09}\sup_{t\in[0,T]}\abs{\sqrt{\ve}\sum_{k=1}^{K(\ve)}\int_0^t\int_{\TT^d}\Phi^{\frac{1}{2},\eta(\ve)}(\tilde{\rho}^{\ve})e_k\cdot \nabla\phi\dx\dd \tilde{B}^k_s} \rightarrow 0.\end{equation}
%
Similarly, in analogy with \eqref{wtc_3}, there exists $c\in(0,\infty)$ such that, for each $\ve\in(0,1)$,
%
\begin{equation}\label{wtc_9}\begin{aligned}
%
& \E\left[\sup_{t\in[0,T]}\abs{\frac{\ve}{2}\sum_{k=1}^{K(\ve)}\int_0^t\int_{\TT^d}\left(\Phi^{\frac{1}{2},\eta(\ve)}\right)'(\tilde{\rho}^{\ve})e_k\nabla\cdot\left(\Phi^{\frac{1}{2},\eta(\ve )}(\tilde{\rho}^{\ve }) e_k\right)\cdot \nabla\phi\dx\ds}\right]
%
\\ & \leq c\ve K(\ve )^2\left(\int_0^T\E\left[\int_{\TT^d}\Phi'  (\tilde{\rho}^{\ve })+\abs{\nabla\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\tilde{\rho}^{\ve })}^2\dx\right]\ds\right).
%
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
%
Proposition~\ref{weak_est}, \eqref{wtc_7}, and \eqref{wtc_9} then prove that, after passing to a final subsequence, $\P$-a.s. as $\ve\rightarrow 0$,
%
\begin{equation}\label{wtc_10}\sup_{t\in[0,T]}\abs{\frac{\ve }{2}\sum_{k=1}^{K(\ve )}\int_0^t\int_{\TT^d}\left(\Phi^{\frac{1}{2},\eta(\ve )}\right)'(\tilde{\rho}^{\ve })e_k\nabla\cdot\left(\Phi^{\frac{1}{2},\eta(\ve )}(\tilde{\rho}^{\ve }) e_k\right)\cdot \nabla\phi\dx\ds}\rightarrow 0.\end{equation}
%
Finally, the weak lower-semicontinuity of the Sobolev norm, Proposition~\ref{weak_est}, \eqref{wtc_000}, \eqref{wtc_7}, \eqref{wtc_08}, \eqref{wtc_8}, \eqref{wtc_09}, \eqref{wtc_10}, and the fact that, as $\ve\rightarrow 0$,
%
$$P_{K(\ve)}g\rightarrow g\;\;\textrm{strongly in}\;\;L^2(\O\times[0,T];L^2(\TT^d;\R^d)),$$
%
prove that, for $c_1,c_2\in(0,\infty)$,
%
\begin{equation}\label{wtc_11}\begin{aligned}
%
& \E\left[\int_0^T\norm{\nabla\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\tilde{\rho})}_{L^2(\TT^d)}^2\right]
%
\\ & \leq c_1\left(\E\left[\int_{\TT^d}\Psi_\Phi(\rho_0(x))\dx\right]+\E\left[\int_0^t\int_{\TT^d}\abs{g}^2\dx\ds\right]+T\E\left[\left(\int_{\TT^d}\rho_0\dx\right)^{c_2}\right]\right),
%
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
%
and $\P$-a.s.\ for each $t\in[0,T]$ and $\phi\in\C^\infty(\TT^d)$,
%
\begin{equation}\label{wtc_12}\begin{aligned}
%
\int_{\TT^d}\tilde{\rho}(x,t)\phi(x)\dx & =\int_{\TT^d}\rho_0(x)\phi(x)\dx-2\int_0^t\int_{\TT^d}\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\tilde{\rho})\nabla\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\tilde{\rho})\cdot \nabla\phi\dx\ds
%
\\ & \quad +\int_0^t\int_{\TT^d}\Phi^{\frac{1}{2}}(\tilde{\rho})g\cdot \nabla\phi\dx\ds.
%
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
%
It follows from \eqref{wtc_11} and \eqref{wtc_12} that $\tilde{\rho}$ is $\P$-a.s.\ the unique solution of the skeleton equation in the sense of Definition~\ref{classical_weak} and Theorem~\ref{equiv}.

It remains to prove that the full sequence $\{\tilde{\rho}^\ve\}_{\ve\in(0,1)}$ converges almost surely as $\ve\rightarrow 0$ to $\tilde{\rho}$.  By contradiction, if not, after passing to a subsequence
%
\begin{equation}\label{wtc_20}\liminf_{\ve\rightarrow 0}\norm{\tilde{\rho}^{\ve}-\tilde{\rho}}_{L^1(\O;L^1(\TT^d\times[0,T]))}>0.\end{equation}
%
By a repetition of the above argument, there exists a further subsequence such that
%
$$\limsup_{\ve\rightarrow 0}\norm{\tilde{\rho}^{\ve}-\tilde{\rho}}_{L^1(\O;L^1(\TT^d\times[0,T]))}=0,$$
%
which contradicts \eqref{wtc_20}.  We therefore conclude that, $\tilde{\P}$-a.s. as $\ve\rightarrow 0$,
%
$$\tilde{\rho}^\ve\rightarrow\tilde{\rho}\;\;\textrm{strongly in}\;\;L^1([0,T];L^1(\TT^d)).$$
%
Returning to the original solutions $\{\rho^\ve\}_{\ve\in(0,1)}$, suppose by contradiction that
%
$$\limsup_{\ve\rightarrow 0}\norm{\rho^\ve-\tilde{\rho}}_{L^1(\O;L^1(\TT^d\times[0,T]))}>0.$$
%
Then, after passing to a subsequence we have that
%
\begin{equation}\label{wtc_21}\liminf_{\ve\rightarrow 0}\norm{\rho^{\ve_k}-\tilde{\rho}}_{L^1(\O;L^1(\TT^d\times[0,T]))}>0.\end{equation}
%
Since the laws of $\{\tilde{\rho}^\ve\}_{\ve\in(0,1)}$ and $\{\rho^\ve\}_{\ve\in(0,1)}$ coincide, it follows that
%
$$\lim_{\ve\rightarrow 0}\rho^\ve=\tilde{\rho}\;\;\textrm{in probability,}$$
%
which implies the existence of a further subsequence such that, $\P$-a.s.\ as $\ve\rightarrow 0$,
%
$$\rho^\ve\rightarrow\tilde{\rho}\;\;\textrm{strongly in}\;\;L^1([0,T];L^1(\TT^d)).$$
%
Hence, by the dominated convergence theorem,
%
$$\liminf_{\ve\rightarrow 0}\norm{\rho^\ve-\tilde{\rho}}_{L^1(\O;L^1(\TT^d\times[0,T]))}=0,$$
%
which contradicts \eqref{wtc_21}.  We therefore have that, $\P$-a.s.\ as $\ve\rightarrow 0$,
%
$$\lim_{\ve\rightarrow 0}\norm{\rho^\ve-\tilde{\rho}}_{L^1([0,T];L^1(\TT^d)}=0,$$
%
which completes the proof.  \end{proof}


We now use well-posedness results of Theorem~\ref{thm_entropy} and Proposition~\ref{prop_prob_con_strong}, the estimates of Propositions~\ref{weak_est} and \ref{weak_est_1}, and the convergence of Theorem~\ref{weak_thm_con} to establish a large deviations principle for the solutions of the equation
%
$$
%
\partial_t\rho^\ve =\Delta\Phi(\rho^\ve)-\nabla\cdot\sqrt{\ve}\left(\Phi^{\frac{1}{2},\eta(\ve)}(\rho^\ve)\sum_{k=1}^{K(\ve)}e_k\circ \dd B^k_t\right),
%
$$
%
about the solution to the limiting equation
%
$$ \partial_t\rho =\Delta\Phi(\rho),$$
%
along the joint sequence $(\ve,\eta(\ve),K(\ve))\rightarrow(0,0,\infty)$ indentified in Theorem~\ref{weak_thm_con}.  The large deviations principle is a consequence of the weak approach to large deviations established in \cite{BudDupMar2008}, as well as Dupuis and Ellis \cite{DupEll1997} and Budhiraja and Dupuis \cite{BudDup2019}.


Let $\ell_2$ denote the space of real square summable sequences
%
$$\ell_2=\left\{x=(x_i)_{i\in\N}\colon \norm{x}_{\ell_2}^2=\sum_{i=1}^\infty x_i^2<\infty\right\}.$$
%
Following the notation of \cite{BudDupMar2008}, we define for each $M\in(0,\infty)$ the space
%
$$S^M(\ell_2)=\left\{g\in L^2([0,T];\ell_2)\colon \int_0^T\norm{g(s)}^2_{\ell_2}\ds\leq M\right\},$$
%
and the space of random controls which are almost surely $\ell_2$-bounded
%
$$P^M(\ell_2)=\left\{g\in L^2(\O\times [0,T];\ell_2)\colon g\;\;\textrm{is predicable with}\;\;g(\omega,\cdot)\in S^M_2\;\;\P\textrm{-a.s.}\right\}.$$
%
The following proposition is then an immediate consequence of Assumption~\ref{as_pre} and Proposition~\ref{frac_est}.

\begin{prop}\label{prop_collapse}  Let $T\in(0,\infty)$ and let $\Phi\in W^{1,1}_{\textrm{loc}}([0,\infty))$ satisfy Assumptions~\ref{as_unique},  \ref{as_equiv}, \ref{ass_log}, \ref{ass_interpolate}, \ref{as_weak_ldp_1} for some $p\in(1,\infty)$, and \ref{as_weak_ldp_2}.  Let $S_0\colon \Ent_\Phi(\TT^d)\times \C([0,T];\R^\infty)\rightarrow L^1([0,T];L^1(\TT^d))$ be the solution map defined by
$$S_{\ve,\eta,K}(\rho_0,u)=
\begin{cases}
  \rho&\textrm{if}\;\;u(\cdot)=\int_0^\cdot g(s)\ds\;\;\textrm{for some}\;\;g=(g_k)_{k\in\N}\in L^2([0,T];\ell_2)\\
  0&\textrm{otherwise},
\end{cases}
$$
where $\rho$ the unique solution of
%
$$
%
\partial_t\rho =\Delta\Phi(\rho)-\nabla\cdot\left(\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho)\left(\sum_{k=1}^\infty e_kg_k\right)\right)\;\; \textrm{in}\;\;\TT^d\times(0,\infty),
%
$$
%
with initial data $\rho_0$ in the sense of Definition~\ref{classical_weak}.  Then, for every compact set $K\subseteq \Ent_\Phi(\TT^d)$ and $M\in(0,\infty)$,
%
$$\left\{S_0\left(\rho_0, \int_0^\cdot g(s)\ds\right)\colon \rho_0\in K\;\;\textrm{and}\;\;u\in S^M(\ell_2)\right\}\;\;\textrm{is a compact subset of}\;\;L^1([0,T];L^1(\TT^d)).$$
%
\end{prop}


In the following proposition, for random controls taking values in $P^M(\ell_2)$, we prove the collapse of the controlled equation to the skeleton equation.   The proof is essentially a consequence of Theorem~\ref{weak_thm_con}.

\begin{prop}\label{prop_collapse_1}  Let $T\in(0,\infty)$ and let $\Phi\in W^{1,1}_{\textrm{loc}}([0,\infty))$ satisfy Assumptions~\ref{as_unique},  \ref{as_equiv}, \ref{ass_log}, \ref{ass_interpolate}, \ref{as_weak_ldp_1} for some $p\in(1,\infty)$, and \ref{as_weak_ldp_2}.  For each $\ve,\eta\in(0,1)$ and $K\in\N$ let $S_{\ve,\eta,K}\colon \Ent_\Phi(\TT^d)\times\C([0,T];\R^\infty)\rightarrow L^1([0,T];L^1(\TT^d))$ be the solution map defined by
%
$$S_{\ve,\eta,K}(\rho_0,u)=
\begin{cases}
  \rho&\textrm{if}\;\;u(\cdot)=\int_0^\cdot g(s)\ds\;\;\textrm{for some}\;\;g=(g_k)_{k\in\N}\in L^2([0,T];\ell_2)\\
  0&\textrm{otherwise},
\end{cases}
$$
where $\rho$ the unique solution (cf.\ Proposition~\ref{prop_prob_con_strong}) of
%
$$
%
\partial_t\rho  =\Delta\Phi(\rho) -\nabla\cdot\sqrt{\ve}\left(\Phi^{\frac{1}{2},\eta}(\rho)\sum_{k=1}^Ke_k\circ\dd B^k_t\right) -\nabla\cdot\left(\Phi^{\frac{1}{2},\eta}(\rho)\left(\sum_{k=1}^K e_kg_k\right)\right)\;\;\textrm{in}\;\;\TT^d\times(0,T),    
%
$$
%
with initial data $\rho_0$.  If $\Phi$ satisfies \eqref{as_weak_ldp_22} assume that $\{(\ve,\eta(\ve),K(\ve))\}_{\ve\in(0,1)}$ satisfy, as $\ve\rightarrow 0$,
%
$$\ve K(\ve)^3\rightarrow 0\;\;\textrm{and}\;\;(\eta(\ve),K(\ve))\rightarrow (0,\infty),$$
%
and if $\Phi$ satisfies \eqref{as_weak_ldp_21} assume that $\{(\ve,\eta(\ve),K(\ve))\}_{\ve\in(0,1)}$ satisfy, as $\ve\rightarrow 0$,
%
$$\left(K(\ve)^3\ve+K(\ve)^2\ve\norm{\left(\Phi^{\frac{1}{2},\eta(\ve)}\right)'}_{L^\infty([0,\infty))}\right)\rightarrow 0\;\;\textrm{and}\;\;(\eta(\ve),K(\ve))\rightarrow(0,\infty).$$
%
Then, for every $M\in(0,\infty)$ and for every sequence $\{u^\ve\}_{\ve\in(0,1)}\subseteq P^M(\ell_2)$ and $u\in P^M(\ell_2)$ which satisfy  $u^\ve\rightarrow u$ in distribution as $\ve\rightarrow 0$, and for every sequence $\{\rho^\ve_0\}_{\ve\in(0,1)}\subseteq \Ent_\Phi(\TT^d)$ and $\rho_0\in \Ent_\Phi(\TT^d)$ that satisfies, as $\ve\rightarrow 0$,
%
$$\rho^\ve_0\rightarrow \rho_0\;\;\textrm{strongly in}\;\;L^1(\TT^d)\;\;\textrm{and}\;\;\sup_{\ve\in(0,1)}\left[\int_{\TT^d}\Psi_\Phi(\rho^\ve_0)\dx\right]<\infty,$$
%
we have that
%
$$S_{\ve,\eta(\ve),K(\ve)}(\rho^\ve_0,u^\ve)\rightarrow S_0(\rho_0,u)\;\;\textrm{in distribution on}\;\;L^1([0,T];L^1(\TT^d)).$$
%
\end{prop}


\begin{proof}  Let $M\in(0,\infty)$ and let $\{u^\ve\}_{\ve\in(0,1)}\subseteq P^M(\ell_2)$ and $u\in P^M(\ell_2)$ be such that  $u^\ve\rightarrow u$ in distribution as $\ve\rightarrow 0$.  Following the argument presented at the conclusion of the proof of Proposition~\ref{weak_thm_con}, the Skorokhod representation theorem proves that there exists a probability space $(\tilde{\O}, \tilde{\P}, \tilde{\mathcal{F}})$ and random variables $\{\tilde{u}^\ve\}_{\ve\in(0,1)}$ and $\tilde{u}$ with distributions equal to $\{u^\ve\}_{\ve\in(0,1)}$ and $u$ respectively such that, $\tilde{\P}$-a.s.\ as $\ve\rightarrow 0$,
%
$$\tilde{u}^\ve\rightarrow\tilde{u}\;\;\textrm{in}\;\;L^2([0,T];\ell_2).$$
%
If $\{\rho^\ve_0\}_{\ve\in(0,1)}\subseteq L^{p+1}(\TT^d)\cap \Ent_\Phi(\TT^d)$ and $\rho_0\in\Ent_\Phi(\TT^d)$ have bounded entropy and satisfy $\rho^\ve_0\rightarrow \rho_0$ in $L^1(\TT^d)$, Theorem~\ref{weak_thm_con} and the assumptions prove that, $\tilde{\P}$-a.s.\ as $\ve\rightarrow 0$,
%
$$S_{\ve,\eta(\ve),K(\ve)}(\rho_0^\ve,\tilde{u}^\ve)\rightarrow S_0(\rho_0,\tilde{u})\;\;\textrm{strongly in}\;\;L^1([0,T];L^1(\TT^d)),$$
%
and therefore that, as $\ve\rightarrow 0$,
%
$$S_{\ve,\eta(\ve),K(\ve)}(\rho^\ve_0,u^\ve)\rightarrow S_0(\rho_0,u)\;\;\textrm{in distribution on}\;\;L^1([0,T];L^1(\TT^d)).$$
%
It remains to extend the result to general initial data in $\Ent_\Phi(\TT^d)$.  Suppose that $\{\rho^\ve_0\}_{\ve\in(0,1)}\subseteq \Ent_\Phi(\TT^d)$ and $\rho_0\in \Ent_\Phi(\TT^d)$ have bounded entropy and satisfy $\rho^\ve_0\rightarrow \rho_0$ as $\ve\rightarrow 0$ in $L^1(\TT^d)$.  Since it follows from the proof of Proposition~\ref{prop_ent_r} below that bounded functions with bounded entropy are dense in $\Ent_\Phi(\TT^d)$, for each $\ve\in(0,1)$ let $\tilde{\rho}^\ve_0\in L^{p+1}(\TT^d)\cap\Ent_\Phi(\TT^d)$ satisfy $\norm{\tilde{\rho}^\ve_0-\rho^\ve_0}_{L^1(\TT^d)}\leq \ve$.  Indeed, following Proposition~\ref{prop_ent_r} below, it suffices to choose $\tilde{\rho}^\ve_0=\rho^\ve_0\wedge n_\ve$ for $n_\ve\in\N$ sufficiently large.

Since the triangle inequality proves that $\tilde{\rho}^\ve_0\rightarrow\rho_0$ strongly in $L^1(\TT^d)$, it follows from the above that, as $\ve\rightarrow 0$,
%
$$S_{\ve,\eta(\ve),K(\ve)}(\tilde{\rho}^\ve_0,u^\ve)\rightarrow S_0(\rho_0,u)\;\;\textrm{in distribution on}\;\;L^1([0,T];L^1(\TT^d)),$$
%
and from Theorem~\ref{thm_entropy} that
%
$$\lim_{\ve\rightarrow 0}\E\left[\norm{S_{\ve,\eta(\ve),K(\ve)}(\rho^\ve_0,u^\ve)-S_{\ve,\eta(\ve),K(\ve)}(\tilde{\rho}^\ve_0,u^\ve)}_{L^\infty([0,T];L^1(\TT^d))}\right]=0.$$
%
Therefore, as $\ve\rightarrow 0$,
%
$$S_{\ve,\eta(\ve),K(\ve)}(\rho^\ve_0,u^\ve)\rightarrow S_0(\rho_0,u)\;\;\textrm{in distribution on}\;\;L^1([0,T];L^1(\TT^d)),$$
%
which completes the proof.  \end{proof}


We now consider, for a sequence $\{(\ve,\eta(\ve),K(\ve)\}_{\ve\in(0,1)}$ satisfying the conditions of Proposition~\ref{prop_collapse_1}, the solutions $\{\rho^\ve(\rho_0)\}_{\ve\in(0,1)}\subseteq L^1(\O\times[0,T];L^1(\TT^d))$ of the equation
%
\begin{equation}\label{collapse_eq}
%
\partial_t\rho^\ve =\Delta\Phi(\rho^\ve)-\nabla\cdot\sqrt{\ve}\left(\Phi^{\frac{1}{2},\eta(\ve)}(\rho^\ve)\sum_{k=1}^{K(\ve)}e_k\circ \dd B^k_t\right)\;\;\textrm{with}\;\;\rho^\ve(\cdot,0)=\rho_0,
%
\end{equation}
%
and we will show that the solutions satisfy a large deviations principle with rate function  \\ $I_{\rho_0}\colon L^1([0,T];L^1(\TT^d))\rightarrow[0,\infty]$ defined by
%
\begin{equation}\label{collapse_ldp_rate}I_{\rho_0}(\rho)=\frac{1}{2}\inf\left\{\norm{g}^2_{L^2([0,T];L^2(\TT^d))}\colon \partial_t\rho=\Delta\Phi(\rho)-\nabla\cdot \left(\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho)g\right)\;\;\textrm{and}\;\;\rho(\cdot,0)=\rho_0\right\}.\end{equation}
%
The solutions appearing in the definition of the rate function are understood in the sense of Definition~\ref{classical_weak}.  The methods of \cite[Theorem~6]{BudDupMar2008} and Budhiraja, Dupuis, Salins \cite[Theorem~4.3]{BudDupSal} in fact prove the stronger statement that the solutions of \eqref{collapse_eq} satisfy a large deviations principle uniformly with respect to compact subsets of the initial data with bounded entropy (cf.\ \eqref{def_ent_r} and Definition~\ref{def_uniform_Laplace} below).  Let $R\in(0,\infty)$ and let $\Ent_{\Phi,R}(\TT^d)\subseteq\Ent_\Phi(\TT^d)$ be defined by
%
\begin{equation}\label{def_ent_r}\Ent_{\Phi,R}(\TT^d)=\left\{\rho\in L^1(\TT^d)\colon \rho\geq 0\;\;\textrm{a.e.\ and}\;\;\int_{\TT^d}\Psi_\Phi(\rho)\dx\leq R\right\}.\end{equation}
%
We now prove that the space $\Ent_{\Phi,R}(\TT^d)$ equipped with the induced $L^1(\TT^d)$-topology is a complete separable metric space.

\begin{prop}\label{prop_ent_r}  Let $\Phi\in W^{1,1}_{\textrm{loc}}([0,\infty))$ be a nondecreasing function that satisfies Assumptions~\ref{as_unique},  \ref{as_equiv}, \ref{ass_log}, \ref{ass_interpolate}, \ref{as_weak_ldp_1} for some $p\in(1,\infty)$, and \ref{as_weak_ldp_2}, let $R\in(0,\infty)$, and let $\Ent_{\Phi,R}(\TT^d)$ be defined by \eqref{def_ent_r}.  Then, $\Ent_{\Phi,R}(\TT^d)$ equipped with the $L^1(\TT^d)$-topology is a complete separable metric space.  \end{prop}

\begin{proof}  We will first prove completeness.  Suppose that $\{\rho_n\}_{n\in\N}\subseteq \Ent_{\Phi,R}(\TT^d)$ is a Cauchy sequence with respect to the $L^1(\TT^d)$-topology.  The completeness of $L^1(\TT^d)$ implies that there exists $\rho\in L^1(\TT^d)$ such, as $n\rightarrow\infty$,
%
$$\rho_n\rightarrow \rho\;\;\textrm{strongly in}\;\;L^1(\TT^d).$$
%
Assumption~\ref{ass_log} and Fatou's lemma then prove that
%
$$\int_{\TT^d}\Psi_\Phi(\rho)\dx\leq\liminf_{n\rightarrow\infty}\int_{\TT^d}\Psi_\Phi(\rho_n)\dx\leq R,$$
%
which proves that $\rho\in \Ent_{\Phi,R}(\TT^d)$.  It remains to prove the separability.  The convexity of $\Psi_\Phi$, which follows from the fact that, for every $\xi\in(0,\infty)$,
%
$$\Psi_\Phi''(\xi)=\frac{\Phi'(\xi)}{\Phi(\xi)}>0,$$
%
and Assumption~\ref{ass_log} prove either that $\Psi_\Phi$ is nonpositive or that $\xi\in[0,\infty)\mapsto \Psi_\Phi(\xi)$ is strictly increasing for sufficiently large values $\xi\in[0,\infty)$.   Therefore, for every $\rho\in\Ent_{\Phi,R}(\TT^d)$ and $n\in\N$ sufficiently large, either
%
$$\int_{\TT^d}\Psi_\Phi(\rho\wedge n)\dx \leq 0<R\;\;\textrm{or}\;\;\int_{\TT^d}\Psi_\Phi(\rho\wedge n)\dx\leq \int_{\TT^d}\Psi_\Phi(\rho)\dx\leq R.$$
%
Therefore, we conclude that $L^\infty(\TT^d)\cap\Ent_{\Phi,R}(\TT^d)$ is dense in $\Ent_{\Phi,R}(\TT^d)$, and hence $L^2(\TT^d)\cap\Ent_{\Phi,R}(\TT^d)$ is dense in $\Ent_{\Phi,R}(\TT^d)$.  Finally, the above argument and the convexity of $\Psi_\Phi$ prove that $L^2(\TT^d)\cap\Ent_{\Phi,R}(\TT^d)$ is a closed convex subset of the separable, reflexive, strictly convex Banach space $L^2(\TT^d)$.  Therefore, $L^2(\TT^d)\cap\Ent_{\Phi,R}(\TT^d)$ is separable with respect to the $L^2(\TT^d)$-topology, from which it follows from H\"older's equality and the above that $\Ent_{\Phi,R}(\TT^d)$ is separable with respect to the $L^1(\TT^d)$-topology.  This completes the proof.\end{proof}




We now prove that the solutions of \eqref{collapse_eq} satisfy a uniform large deviations principle with respect to compact subsets of $\Ent_{\Phi,R}(\TT^d)$, for any $R\in(0,\infty)$.  The proof is an immediate consequence of Propositions~\ref{prop_collapse} and \ref{prop_collapse_1}, the weak approach to large deviations \cite[Theorem~6]{BudDupMar2008}, and the equivalence of uniform Laplace and large deviations principles with respect to compact subsets of the initial data \cite[Theorem~4.3]{BudDupSal}.


\begin{definition}\label{def_uniform_Laplace} Let $(\O,\F,\P)$ be a probability space, let $Y_0$ and $Y$ be a Polish spaces, let $\dd_Y\colon Y^2\rightarrow[0,\infty)$ be the metric on $Y$, let $\{X^\ve_{y_0}\colon\O\rightarrow Y\}_{\ve\in(0,1),y_0\in Y_0}$ be random variables, and let $\{I_{y_0}\colon Y\rightarrow [0,\infty]\}_{y_0\in Y}$ be good rate functions with compact level sets on compact sets in the sense that, for every compact set $K\subseteq Y_0$ and $M\in(0,\infty)$,
%
$$\left(\cup_{y_0\in K}\{y\in Y\colon I_{y_0}(y)\leq M\}\right)\subseteq Y\;\;\textrm{is compact.}$$
%
We say that the random variables $\{X^\ve_{y_0}\colon\O\rightarrow Y\}_{\ve\in(0,1),y_0\in Y_0}$ satisfy a uniform large deviations principle with respect to compact subsets of $Y_0$, with good rate functions $\{I_{y_0}\}_{y_0\in Y}$ with compact level sets on compact sets, if the following two conditions are satisfied.
%
\begin{enumerate}
%
\item Lower bound:  for every compact set $K\subseteq Y_0$ and $\delta,M\in(0,\infty)$,
%
$$\liminf_{\ve\rightarrow 0}\left(\inf_{y_0\in K}\left[\inf_{y\in\{x\in Y\colon I_{y_0}(x)\leq M\}}\left(\ve\log(\P\left[\dd_Y(X^\ve_{y_0},y)<\delta\right] +I_{y_0}(y) \right)\right]\right)\geq 0.$$
%
\item Upper bound:  for every compact set $K\subseteq Y_0$ and $\delta,M\in(0,\infty)$,
%
$$\limsup_{\ve\rightarrow 0}\left(\sup_{y_0\in K}\left[\sup_{M'\leq M}\left(\ve\log\left(\P\left[\inf_{y\in\{x\in Y\colon I_{y_0}(x)\leq M'\}} d_Y(X^\ve,y)\geq \delta\right]\right) +M' \right)\right]\right)\leq 0.$$
%
\end{enumerate}
\end{definition}


\begin{thm}\label{prop_collapse_3}  Let $T\in(0,\infty)$ and let $\Phi\in W^{1,1}_{\textrm{loc}}([0,\infty))$ satisfy Assumptions~\ref{as_unique},  \ref{as_equiv}, \ref{ass_log}, \ref{ass_interpolate}, \ref{as_weak_ldp_1} for some $p\in(1,\infty)$, and \ref{as_weak_ldp_2}.  If $\Phi$ satisfies \eqref{as_weak_ldp_22} assume that $\{(\ve,\eta(\ve),K(\ve))\}_{\ve\in(0,1)}$ satisfy, as $\ve\rightarrow 0$,
%
$$\ve K(\ve)^3\rightarrow 0\;\;\textrm{and}\;\;(\eta(\ve),K(\ve))\rightarrow (0,\infty),$$
%
and if $\Phi$ satisfies \eqref{as_weak_ldp_21} assume that $\{(\ve,\eta(\ve),K(\ve))\}_{\ve\in(0,1)}$ satisfy, as $\ve\rightarrow 0$,
%
$$\left(K(\ve)^3\ve+K(\ve)^2\ve\norm{\left(\Phi^{\frac{1}{2},\eta(\ve)}\right)'}_{L^\infty([0,\infty))}\right)\rightarrow 0\;\;\textrm{and}\;\;(\eta(\ve),K(\ve))\rightarrow(0,\infty).$$
%
Then, the rate functions $\{I_{\rho_0}\}_{\rho_0\in\Ent_\Phi(\TT^d)}$  defined in \eqref{collapse_ldp_rate} are good rate functions with compact level sets on compact sets.  For every $\rho_0\in\Ent_\Phi(\TT^d)$ the solutions $\{\rho^\ve(\rho_0)\}_{\ve\in(0,1)}$ of \eqref{collapse_eq} satisfy a large deviations principle with rate function $I_{\rho_0}$ on $L^1([0,T];L^1(\TT^d))$.  Furthermore, the solutions satisfy a uniform large deviations principle with respect to compact subsets of $\Ent_{\Phi,R}(\TT^d)$ on $L^1([0,T];L^1(\TT^d))$, for every $R\in(0,\infty)$.  
\end{thm}


\appendix

\section{The porous media equation}\label{sec_pme}

In this section, we show that Assumptions~\ref{as_unique}, \ref{as_equiv}, \ref{as_pre}, \ref{ass_log}, and \ref{ass_interpolate} are satisfied by $\Phi(\xi)=\xi^m$ for every $m\in[1,\infty)$.  In particular, they apply to the case of porous media and pure diffusion.  Some assumptions apply additionally to the case of fast diffusion, where $\Phi(\xi)=\xi^m$ for $m\in(0,1)$.

\begin{prop}\label{pme}  Let $m\in(0,\infty)$ and let $\Phi\colon[0,\infty)\rightarrow[0,\infty)$ be defined by
%
$$\Phi(\xi)=\xi^m.$$
%
Then, $\Phi$ satisfies Assumption~\ref{as_unique}.\end{prop}

\begin{proof}  Let $m\in(0,\infty)$.  Let $\Phi(\xi)=\xi^m$ for every $\xi\in[0,\infty)$.  It follows by definition that $\Phi\in W^{1,1}_{\textrm{loc}}([0,\infty))$ and that $\Phi$ is strictly increasing.  Assumptions \eqref{skel_continuity_4} and \eqref{skel_continuity_3} are immediate from the definitions.  It remains to prove assumptions \eqref{skel_continuity}, \eqref{skel_continuity_1}, and \eqref{skel_continuity_2}.

\emph{Assumption \eqref{skel_continuity}.}  Let $M\in(1,\infty)$ and $\delta\in(0,1)$.  We will prove that there exists $c\in(0,\infty)$ such that
%
\begin{equation}\label{pme_1}\sup_{\substack {\abs{\xi-\xi'}<\delta  \\ \frac{1}{M}\leq \xi,\xi'\leq M }}\frac{1}{m}\abs{\xi^{1-\frac{m}{2}}\left(\xi^\frac{m}{2}-(\xi')^\frac{m}{2}\right)}\leq c\delta.\end{equation}
%
We will first consider the case $m\in(0,2]$, and we will consider the sub-cases that $\abs{\xi}\leq 2\delta$ and $\abs{\xi}>2\delta$.  In the first case, suppose that $\abs{\xi}\leq 2\delta$ and that $\xi'\in[0,\infty)$ satisfies $\abs{\xi-\xi'}\leq \delta$.  Then, since $m\in(0,2]$,
%
\begin{equation}\label{pme_2}\abs{\xi^{1-\frac{m}{2}}\left(\xi^\frac{m}{2}-(\xi')^\frac{m}{2}\right)}\leq \xi^{1-\frac{m}{2}}\abs{\xi-\xi'}^\frac{m}{2}\leq 2\d.\end{equation}
%
In the second case, suppose that $\abs{\xi}>2\delta$ and that $\xi'\in[0,\infty)$ satisfies $\abs{\xi-\xi'}<\delta$.  Since in this case $\xi'>\frac{1}{2}\xi$, the mean value theorem and $m\in(0,2]$ prove that
%
\begin{equation}\label{pme_3}\begin{aligned} \abs{\xi^{1-\frac{m}{2}}\left(\xi^\frac{m}{2}-(\xi')^\frac{m}{2}\right)} \leq &  \frac{m}{2}\xi^{1-\frac{m}{2}}\max\left\{\xi^{\frac{m}{2}-1},(\xi')^{\frac{m}{2}-1}\right\}\abs{\xi-\xi'} \\ \leq & \frac{m\delta}{2^{\frac{m}{2}}}.\end{aligned} \end{equation} 
%
In combination \eqref{pme_2} and \eqref{pme_3} prove \eqref{pme_1}, which establishes \eqref{skel_continuity} in the case $m\in(0,2]$.

We now consider the case $m\in(2,\infty)$.  Since the map $\xi\in\R\mapsto\xi^{\frac{m}{2}}$ is locally Lipschitz on $[0,\infty)$, there exists $c\in(0,\infty)$ depending on $M\in(0,\infty)$ such that, for every pair $\xi,\xi'\in\R$ satisfying $\abs{\xi-\xi'}<\delta$ and $\nicefrac{1}{M}\leq \xi,\xi'\leq M$,
%
$$\abs{\xi^{1-\frac{m}{2}}(\xi^\frac{m}{2}-(\xi')^\frac{m}{2})}\leq cM^{1-\frac{m}{2}}\delta\leq c\delta,$$
%
which completes the proof of \eqref{pme_1} and therefore \eqref{skel_continuity} in the case $m\in(2,\infty)$.


\emph{Assumption \eqref{skel_continuity_1}.}  Let $M\in(1,\infty)$ and $\delta\in(0,1)$.  We will prove that there exists $c\in(0,\infty)$ such that
%
\begin{equation}\label{pme_4} \sup_{\substack {\abs{\xi-\xi'}<\delta  \\ \frac{1}{M}\leq \xi,\xi'\leq M }}\frac{1}{m}\abs{\xi^{1-\frac{m}{2}}(\xi')^{1-\frac{m}{2}}\left(\xi^{\frac{m-1}{2}}-(\xi')^{\frac{m-1}{2}}\right)^2}\leq c\delta. \end{equation}
%
We will first consider the case $m\in(0,2]$, and we will consider the two sub-cases $\abs{\xi}\leq 2\delta$ and $\abs{\xi}>2\delta$.  In the first case, suppose that $\abs{\xi}\leq 2\delta$ and that $\xi'\in[0,\infty)$ satisfies $\abs{\xi-\xi'}\leq \delta$.  Since $m\in(0,2]$,
%
$$\xi'\leq 3\delta\;\;\textrm{and}\;\;(\xi')^{1-\frac{m}{2}}\leq \xi^{1-\frac{m}{2}}+\delta^{1-\frac{m}{2}}.$$
%
Therefore, since $\left(\nicefrac{m-1}{2}\right)\in(0,1)$,
%
\begin{equation}\label{pme_5}\begin{aligned} \abs{\xi^{1-\frac{m}{2}}(\xi')^{1-\frac{m}{2}}\left(\xi^{\frac{m-1}{2}}-(\xi')^{\frac{m-1}{2}}\right)^2}\leq & \xi^{1-\frac{m}{2}}(\xi')^{1-\frac{m}{2}}\left(\xi^{m-1}+(\xi')^{m-1}\right) \\ \leq & \xi^\frac{m}{2}(\xi')^{1-\frac{m}{2}}+\xi^{1-\frac{m}{2}}(\xi')^\frac{m}{2} \\ \leq & \xi+\xi^\frac{m}{2}\delta^{1-\frac{m}{2}}+3^\frac{m}{2}\xi^{1-\frac{m}{2}} \delta^\frac{m}{2} \\ \leq & \left(2+ 2^\frac{m}{2}+ 2^{1-\frac{m}{2}}3^\frac{m}{2}\right)\delta. \end{aligned} \end{equation}
%
In the second case, suppose that $\abs{\xi}> 2\delta$ and that $\xi'\in[0,\infty)$ satisfies $\abs{\xi-\xi'}\leq \delta$.  Since in this case $\frac{1}{2}\xi\leq \xi'\leq 2\xi$, the mean value theorem and $m\in(0,2]$ prove that
%
\begin{equation}\label{pme_6}\begin{aligned} \abs{\xi^{1-\frac{m}{2}}(\xi')^{1-\frac{m}{2}}\left(\xi^{\frac{m-1}{2}}-(\xi')^{\frac{m-1}{2}}\right)^2}\leq  & \abs{\frac{m-1}{2}}^2\xi^{1-\frac{m}{2}}(\xi')^{1-\frac{m}{2}}\max\left\{\xi^{m-3}, (\xi')^{m-3}\right\}\abs{\xi-\xi'}^2 \\ \leq &  \abs{\frac{m-1}{2}}^2 2^{\left(4-\frac{3m}{2}\right)}\xi^{-1}\delta^2 \\ \leq &  \abs{\frac{m-1}{2}}^2 2^{\left(4-\frac{3m}{2}\right)}\delta.\end{aligned}\end{equation}
%
In combination \eqref{pme_5} and \eqref{pme_6} prove \eqref{pme_4}, which establishes \eqref{skel_continuity_1} in the case $m\in(0,2]$.


We will now consider the case $m\in(2,\infty)$.  Since the map $\xi\in\R\mapsto\xi^\frac{m-1}{2}$ is locally H\"older or locally Lipschitz continuous, there exists $c\in(0,\infty)$ depending on $M\in(1,\infty)$ and $m\in(2,\infty)$ such that, for every $\xi,\xi'\in\R$ satisfying $\abs{\xi-\xi'}<\delta$ and $\nicefrac{1}{M}\leq \xi,\xi'\leq M$,
%
$$\abs{\xi^{1-\frac{m}{2}}(\xi')^{1-\frac{m}{2}}\left(\xi^{\frac{m-1}{2}}-(\xi')^{\frac{m-1}{2}}\right)^2}\leq cM^{m-2}\delta^{\left((m-1)\wedge 1\right)}\leq c\delta,$$
%
which completes the proof \eqref{pme_4} and therefore \eqref{skel_continuity_1} in the case $m\in(2,\infty)$.


\emph{Assumption \eqref{skel_continuity_2}.}  Let $M\in(1,\infty)$ and $\delta\in(0,\nicefrac{1}{M})$.  It suffices to prove that there exists $c\in(0,\infty)$ such that
%
\begin{equation}\label{pme_7}\sup_{\substack {\abs{\xi-\xi'}<\delta  \\ \frac{1}{M}\leq \xi,\xi'\leq M}}\frac{1}{m}\xi^{1-\frac{m}{2}}(\xi')^\frac{m}{2}\leq cM.\end{equation}
%
We will first consider the case $m\in(0,2]$.  For every $\xi,\xi'\in[0,\infty)$ satisfying $\xi,\xi'\leq M$,
%
$$\xi^{1-\frac{m}{2}}(\xi')^\frac{m}{2}\leq M^{1-\frac{m}{2}+\frac{m}{2}}\leq M,$$
%
which proves a stronger statement than \eqref{pme_7} and establishes Assumption~\ref{skel_continuity_2} the case $m\in(0,2]$.


We now consider the case $m\in(2,\infty)$.  For every $\xi,\xi'\in\R$ with $\nicefrac{1}{M}\leq \xi,\xi'\leq M$ and $\abs{\xi-\xi'}<\delta\leq\nicefrac{1}{M}$,
%
$$\xi^{1-\frac{m}{2}}(\xi')^\frac{m}{2}\leq \xi^{1-\frac{m}{2}}\left(\xi+\frac{1}{M}\right)^\frac{m}{2}=\left(\xi^\frac{2}{m}+\frac{1}{2M}\xi^{\frac{2}{m}-1}\right)^\frac{m}{2}.$$
%
Since
%
$$\xi^\frac{2}{m}\leq M^\frac{2}{m}\;\;\textrm{and}\;\;\frac{1}{M}\xi^{\frac{2}{m}-1}\leq M^{-1}M^{1-\frac{2}{m}}\leq M^{-\frac{2}{m}},$$
%
there exists $c\in(0,\infty)$ such that
%
$$\xi^{1-\frac{m}{2}}(\xi')^\frac{m}{2}\leq cM.$$
%
This completes the proof of \eqref{pme_7} and establishes \eqref{skel_continuity_2} in the case $m\in(2,\infty)$.\end{proof}

\begin{prop}\label{assumption_prop}  Let $m\in[1,\infty)$ and let $\Phi\in W^{1,1}_{\textrm{loc}}([0,\infty))$ be defined by
%
$$\Phi(\xi)=\xi^m.$$
%
Then, $\Phi$ satisfies Assumption~\ref{as_equiv}.
%
\end{prop}


\begin{proof}  We will prove that $\Phi$ satisfies \eqref{skel_continuity_5} if $m\in[1,2]$ and that $\Phi$ satisfies \eqref{skel_continuity_6} and \eqref{skel_continuity_7} if $m\in[2,\infty)$.  In the case $m\in[1,2]$, it follows by definition that $\Phi^\frac{1}{2}$ is concave and that, for every $\xi\in[0,\infty)$,
%
$$\left(\frac{\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\xi)}{\Phi'(\xi)}\right)^\frac{2}{2-m}=m^{-\left(\frac{2}{2-m}\right)}\left(\xi^{1-\frac{m}{2}}\right)^\frac{2}{2-m}=m^{-\left(\frac{2}{2-m}\right)}\xi.$$
%
Since we have that $\frac{2}{2-m}\in[2,\infty)$ if $m\in[1,2]$,  this completes the proof of \eqref{skel_continuity_5} for $m\in[1,2]$.

In the case $m\in[2,\infty)$, it follows by definition that $\Phi^\frac{1}{2}$ is convex, that
%
$$\sup_{\xi\geq 1}\frac{\Phi(\xi+1)}{\Phi(\xi)}=\sup_{\xi\geq 1}\frac{(\xi+1)^m}{\xi^m}=\sup_{\xi\geq 1}\left(1+\frac{1}{\xi}\right)^m\leq 2^m,$$
%
and that, for every $M\in(0,1)$,
%
$$\sup_{\xi\geq M}\frac{\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\xi)}{\Phi'(\xi)}=\sup_{\xi\geq M}\frac{1}{m}\xi^{1-\frac{m}{2}}\leq \frac{M^{1-\frac{m}{2}}}{m}.$$
This completes the proof \eqref{skel_continuity_6} and \eqref{skel_continuity_7} for $m\in[2,\infty)$.\end{proof}

\begin{prop}\label{prex}  Let $m\in[1,\infty)$ and let $\Phi:[0,\infty)\rightarrow[0,\infty)$ be defined by
%
$$\Phi(\xi)=\xi^m.$$
%
Then, $\Phi$ satisfies Assumption~\ref{as_pre}.
%
\end{prop}


\begin{proof}  Let $\{\rho_n\}_{n\in\mathbb{N}}\subseteq L^1([0,T];L^1(\TT^d))$ be nonnegative, and assume that there exists $c\in(0,\infty)$ such that
%
\begin{equation}\label{prex_1}\norm{\rho_n}_{L^\infty([0,T];L^1(\TT^d))}+\norm{(\rho_n)^{\nicefrac{m}{2}}}_{L^1([0,T];H^1(\TT^d))}+\norm{\partial_t \rho_n}_{L^1([0,T];H^{-(\nicefrac{d}{2}+2)}(\TT^d))}\leq c.\end{equation}
%
We will first consider the case $m\in[1,2]$.  For every nonnegative $\psi\in\C^\infty_c(\TT^d)$, the equality
%
$$\nabla\psi=\psi^{1-\frac{m}{2}}\psi^{\frac{m}{2}-1}\nabla\psi=\frac{2}{m}\left(\psi^{1-\frac{m}{2}}\nabla(\psi^\frac{m}{2})\right),$$
%
H\"older's inequality, $m\in[1,2]$, and the boundedness of $\TT^d$ prove that, for $c\in(0,\infty)$,
%
\begin{equation}\label{prex_2}\begin{aligned} \norm{\nabla \psi}_{L^1([0,T];L^1(\TT^d;\R^d))} & \leq c\norm{\nabla(\psi^\frac{m}{2})}_{L^2([0,T];L^2(\TT^d;\R^d))}\left(\int_0^T\int_{\TT^d}\psi^{2-m}\dx\dx\right)^\frac{1}{2} \\ & \leq c\norm{\nabla(\psi^\frac{m}{2})}_{L^2([0,T];L^2(\TT^d;\R^d))}\norm{\psi}_{L^1([0,T];L^1(\TT^d))}^{1-\frac{m}{2}}.\end{aligned}\end{equation}
%
In combination \eqref{prex_1} and \eqref{prex_2} prove that, for $c\in(0,\infty)$, for every $n\in\mathbb{N}$ and $s\geq \nicefrac{d}{2}+1$,
%
\begin{equation}\label{prex_3}\norm{\rho_n}_{L^1([0,T];L^1(\TT^d))}+\norm{\rho_n}_{L^1([0,T];W^{1,1}(\TT^d))}+\norm{\partial_t \rho_n}_{L^1([0,T];H^{-(\nicefrac{d}{2}+2)}(\TT^d))}\leq c.\end{equation}
%
Since the inclusion $W^{1,1}(\TT^d)\hookrightarrow L^1(\TT^d)$ is compact, and since the Sobolev embedding theorem implies that the inclusion $L^1(\TT^d)\hookrightarrow H^{-(\nicefrac{d}{2}+2)}(\TT^d)$ is continuous, the Aubin-Lions-Simon lemma \cite{Aubin,pLions,Simon} and \eqref{prex_3} prove that 
%
\begin{equation}\label{prex_6}\{\rho_n\}_{n\in\mathbb{N}}\;\;\textrm{is relatively pre-compact in}\;\;L^1([0,T];L^1(\TT^d)).\end{equation}
%
We now consider the case $m\in(2,\infty)$.  It was shown in \cite[Proposition~C.3]{FG17} that for every $s\in(0,\frac{2}{m})$ there exists $c\in(0,\infty)$ such that
%
\begin{equation}\label{prex_4}\norm{\psi}_{W^{s,m}(\TT^d)}^{m}\leq c\left(\norm{\psi}_{L^1(\TT^d)}^{m}+\norm{\nabla\left(\psi^{\frac{m}{2}}\right)}^2_{L^2([0,T];L^2(\TT^d;\R^d))}\right).\end{equation}
%
Since H\"older's inequality and the boundedness of $\TT^d$ prove that there exists  $c\in(0,\infty)$ such that, for every $s\in(0,\frac{2}{m})$,
%
$$\norm{\psi}_{W^{s,1}(\TT^d)}\leq c\norm{\psi}_{W^{s,m}(\TT^d)},$$
%
in combination \eqref{prex_1} and \eqref{prex_4} prove that there exists $c\in(0,\infty)$ such that, for every $s\in(0,\frac{2}{m})$,
%
\begin{equation}\label{prex_5}\norm{\rho_n}_{L^1([0,T];L^1(\TT^d))}+\norm{\rho_n}_{L^1([0,T];W^{s,1}(\TT^d))}+\norm{\partial_t \rho_n}_{L^1([0,T];H^{-(\nicefrac{d}{2}+2)}(\TT^d))}\leq c.\end{equation}
%
Since for every $s\in(0,\frac{2}{m})$ the inclusion $W^{s,1}(\TT^d)\hookrightarrow L^1(\TT^d)$ is compact, and since the Sobolev embedding theorem implies that the inclusion $L^1(\TT^d)\hookrightarrow H^{-(\nicefrac{d}{2}+2)}(\TT^d)$ is continuous, the Aubin-Lions-Simon lemma \cite{Aubin,pLions,Simon} and \eqref{prex_5} prove that 
%
\begin{equation}\label{prex_7}\{\rho_n\}_{n\in\mathbb{N}}\;\;\textrm{is relatively pre-compact in}\;\;L^1([0,T];L^1(\TT^d)).\end{equation}
%
It remains to prove that $\{\rho_n^\frac{m}{2}\}_{n\in\N}$ is relatively pre-compact in $L^2([0,T];L^2(\TT^d))$.  Since $\{\rho_n^\frac{m}{2}\}_{n\in\N}$ are uniformly bounded in $L^2([0,T];H^1(\TT^d))$, the Sobolev embedding theorem proves that there exists $\ve_1\in(0,\infty)$ depending on the dimension $d$ and $c\in(0,\infty)$ such that, for every $n\in\N$,
%
$$\norm{\rho_n}_{L^\infty([0,T];L^1(\TT^d))}+\norm{\rho_n}_{L^m([0,T];L^{m+\ve}(\TT^d))}\leq c.$$
%
Therefore, by interpolation there exist $\ve_2\in(0,\infty)$, $\ve_3\in(0,\ve_1)$, and $c\in(0,\infty)$ such that, for every $n\in\N$,
%
$$\norm{\rho_n}_{L^{m+\ve_2}([0,T];L^{m+\ve_3}(\TT^d))}\leq c,$$
%
from which it follows that there exist $\ve_4,\ve_5\in(0,\infty)$ and $c\in(0,\infty)$ such that, for every $n\in\N$,
%
$$\norm{\rho_n^\frac{m}{2}}_{L^{2+\ve_4}([0,T];L^{2+\ve_5}(\TT^d))}\leq c.$$
%
Therefore, the collection $\{\rho_n^m\}_{n\in\N}$ is uniformly integrable, and hence it follows from \eqref{prex_7} and the uniform integrability of the squared power that $\{\rho_n^\frac{m}{2}\}_{n\in\N}$ is relatively pre-compact subset of $L^2([0,T];L^2(\TT^d))$.  \end{proof}


\begin{prop}\label{assumption_exist_prop}  Let $m\in(0,\infty)$ and let $\Phi\in W^{1,1}_{\textrm{loc}}([0,\infty))$ be defined by
%
$$\Phi(\xi)=\xi^m.$$
%
Then, $\Phi$ satisfies Assumptions~\ref{ass_log} and \ref{ass_interpolate}.
%
\end{prop}

\begin{proof}  Let $m\in(0,\infty)$ and let $\Phi\in W^{1,1}_{\textrm{loc}}([0,\infty))$ be defined by $\Phi(\xi)=\xi^m$.  It follows that
%
$$\inf_{\xi\in[0,\infty)}\left[\int_0^\xi\log(\Phi(\xi'))\dxip\right]=\inf_{\xi\in[0,\infty)}\left[m(\xi\log(\xi)-\xi)\right]\geq -m, $$
%
which completes the proof of Assumption~\ref{ass_log}.

The proof of Assumption~\ref{ass_interpolate} is motivated by \cite[Lemma~4.5]{FG17}.  Let $\rho\in L^1(\TT^d)$ be nonnegative and be such that
%
$$\nabla\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho)\in L^2(\TT^d;\R^d).$$
%
We will separately consider the cases $m\in(0,1]$ and $m\in(1,\infty)$.  If $m\in(0,1]$, it follows from H\"older's inequality that
%
$$\norm{\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho)}_{L^2(\TT^d)}=\norm{\rho^m}^\frac{1}{2}_{L^1(\TT^d)}= \norm{\rho}^\frac{m}{2}_{L^1(\TT^d)}.$$
%
It remains to consider the case $m\in(1,\infty)$.  We will write the argument for $d\geq 3$, since the cases $d=1$ and $d=2$ are similar.  The log-convexity of the Sobolev norm proves that, for the Sobolev exponent $\frac{1}{2^*}=\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{d}$ and for $\theta\in(0,1)$ defined by
%
$$\frac{1}{m}=(1-\theta)+\frac{2\theta}{2^*m},$$
%
we have that
%
\begin{equation}\label{interpolation_1}\norm{\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho)}_{L^2(\TT^d)} =\norm{\rho^\frac{m}{2}}_{L^2(\TT^d)} = \norm{\rho}^\frac{m}{2}_{L^m(\mathbb{T}^d)}\leq  \norm{\rho}^{\frac{(1-\theta)m}{2}}_{L^1(\mathbb{T}^d)}\norm{\rho}_{L^{\frac{2^*m}{2}}(\mathbb{T}^d)}^{\frac{\theta m}{2}}=  \norm{\rho}^{\frac{(1-\theta)m}{2}}_{L^1(\mathbb{T}^d)}\norm{\rho^\frac{m}{2}}_{L^{2^*}(\mathbb{T}^d)}^{\theta}.\end{equation}
%
It follows from the equality
%
%
$$\norm{\int_{\mathbb{T}^d}\rho^{\frac{m}{2}}\dx}_{L^{2^*}(\mathbb{T}^d)}^\theta=\abs{\int_{\mathbb{T}^d}\rho^{\frac{m}{2}}\dx}^\theta=\norm{\rho^{\frac{m}{2}}}^\theta_{L^1(\mathbb{T}^d)},$$
%
the triangle inequality, the Gagliardo-Nirenberg-Sobolev inequality, H\"older's inequality, and $\theta\in(0,1)$ that, for $c\in(0,\infty)$,
%
\begin{equation}\label{interpolation_2}\begin{aligned}
%
\norm{\rho^\frac{m}{2}}_{L^{2^*}(\mathbb{T}^d)}^{\theta} & \leq \norm{\rho^\frac{m}{2}-\int_{\TT^d}\rho^\frac{m}{2}\dx}^\theta_{L^{2^*}(\TT^d)}+\norm{\rho^\frac{m}{2}}^\theta_{L^1(\TT^d)}
%
\\ & \leq c\left(\norm{\nabla \rho^\frac{m}{2}}^\theta_{L^2(\TT^d;\R^d)}+\norm{\rho^\frac{m}{2}}^\theta_{L^2(\TT^d)}\right).
%
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
%
In combination \eqref{interpolation_1}, \eqref{interpolation_2}, and the definition of $\Phi$ prove that, for $c\in(0,\infty)$,
%
$$\norm{\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho)}_{L^2(\TT^d)} \leq  c\left(\norm{\rho}^{\frac{(1-\theta)m}{2}}_{L^1(\mathbb{T}^d)}\norm{\nabla\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho)}^\theta_{L^2(\TT^d;\R^d)}+\norm{\rho}^\frac{(1-\theta)m}{2}_{L^1(\TT^d)}\norm{\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho)}^\theta_{L^2(\TT^d)}\right).$$
%
It then follows from Young's inequality and $\theta\in(0,1)$ that there exists $c\in(0,\infty)$ such that
%
$$\norm{\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho)}_{L^2(\TT^d)} \leq c\left(\norm{\nabla\Phi^\frac{1}{2}(\rho)}_{L^2(\TT^d;\R^d)}+\norm{\rho}^\frac{m}{2}_{L^1(\TT^d)}\right).$$
%
This completes proof of Assumption~\ref{ass_interpolate} for $m\in(1,\infty)$, and therefore the proof.\end{proof}



\begin{prop}\label{assumption_weak_ldp}  Let $m\in[1,\infty)$ and let $\Phi\in W^{1,1}_{\textrm{loc}}([0,\infty))$ be defined by
%
$$\Phi(\xi)=\xi^m.$$
%
Then, $\Phi$ satisfies Assumptions~\ref{as_weak_ldp_1} and \ref{as_weak_ldp_2}
%
\end{prop}

\begin{proof}  In this case,
%
$$\sqrt{\Phi'(\xi)}=\sqrt{m}\xi^\frac{m-1}{2}\;\;\textrm{and}\;\;\theta_{\sqrt{\Phi'}}(\xi)=\frac{2\sqrt{m}}{m+1}\xi^\frac{m+1}{2}.$$
%
Assumption~\ref{as_weak_ldp_1} then follows from the fact that $m\in[1,\infty)$.  For Assumption~\ref{as_weak_ldp_2}, if $m=1$ we have $\Phi'=1$ and \eqref{as_weak_ldp_22} is satisfies.  If $m\in(1,\infty)$, since it follows by definition that
%
$$\Theta_{\Phi_n}(\xi)=\frac{m^2}{m-1}\xi^{m-1},$$
%
it follows by definition and H\"older's inequality that there exists $c\in(0,\infty)$ such that, for every measurable $\rho\colon\TT^d\rightarrow\R$,
%
$$\int_{\TT^d}\left(\Phi'(\rho)+\Theta_{\Phi_n}(\rho)\right)\dx=\int_{\TT^d}\left(m+\frac{m^1}{m-1}\right)\xi^{m-1}\dx\leq c\left(\int_{\TT^d}\xi^m\right)^\frac{m-1}{m},$$
%
which completes the proof.  \end{proof}

\section{Schilder's Theorem for enhanced Brownian motion}\label{sec_rough_path}

In this section, we will recall the large deviations principle for Brownian motion lifted to a $2$-step geometric rough path enhanced by its Stratonovich integrals.  The theory of rough paths was first introduced by Lyons \cite{Lyons}, and overviews of the theory can be found in Friz-Hairer \cite{FrizHairer} or in Friz-Victoir \cite{FrizVictoir}.  We briefly sketch some main details here.


Let $K,M\in \N$ and $T\in(0,\infty)$.  Let $x\in\C^{1-\textrm{var}}\left([0,T];\mathbb{R}^K\right)$ be a path with bounded $1$-variation.  The $M$-step signature $S_M(x)_{0,T}$ takes values in the truncated tensor algebra
%
$$S_M(x)_{0,T}\in T^M(\R^K)=\mathbb{R}\oplus \R^K\oplus \left(\R^K\right)^{\otimes 2}\oplus\ldots\oplus\left(\R^K\right)^{\otimes M},$$
%
and is defined by
%
$$S_M(x)_{0,T}=\left(1,\int_0^T\dd x_s,\int_{0<s_0<s_1<T}\dd x_{s_1}\otimes \dd x_{s_2},\ldots,\int_{0<s_1<\ldots<s_M<T} \dd x_{s_1}\otimes\ldots\otimes \dd x_{s_M}\right).$$
%
After reparametrizing the path $x$ from $[0,T]$ to $[0,1]$, it follows that $S^M(x)_{0,T}$ lies in the smaller space $G^M(\R^K)\subset T^M(\R^K)$ defined by
%
$$G^M(\R^K)=\left\{\;S^M(x)_{0,1}\colon x\in\C^{1-\textrm{var}}\left([0,1];\R^K\right)\;\right\}.$$
%
The space $G^M(\R^K)$ is equipped with the Carnot-Caratheodory norm $\norm{\cdot}_{CC}$, which is defined for every $\sigma\in G^M(\R^K)$ by
%
$$\norm{\sigma}_{CC}=\inf\left\{\;\int_0^1\abs{\dot{\gamma}}\ds\colon\gamma\in\C^{1-\textrm{var}}\left([0,1];\R^K\right)\;\;\textrm{and}\;\;S^M(\gamma)_{0,1}=\sigma\;\right\}.$$
%
Following \cite[Definition~7.41]{FrizVictoir}, the Carnot-Caratheodory norm induces the Carnot-Cartheodory metric $d_{CC}$ on $G^M(\R^K)$ which is defined for every $\sigma_1,\sigma_2\in G^M(\R^K)$ by
%
$$d_{CC}(\sigma_1,\sigma_2)=\norm{\sigma_1^{-1}\otimes\sigma_2}_{CC},$$
%
where $\sigma^{-1}_1$ is the inverse of $\sigma_1$ in $T^M(\R^K)$.  The Carnot-Caratheodory metric gives rise to a homogenous metric on the space of rough paths in the following way.

For every $\sigma\in G^M(\R^K)$, for every $s,t\in[0,1]$, let $\sigma_{t,s}\in \R^K$ denote the increment
%
$$\sigma_{t,s}=\sigma_t-\sigma_s.$$
%
Let $\beta\in(0,1)$ and let $\lfloor\nicefrac{1}{\beta}\rfloor\in \N$ be defined by
%
$$\lfloor\nicefrac{1}{\beta}\rfloor=\inf\{n\in\N\cup\{0\}\colon n\leq\nicefrac{1}{\beta}\}.$$
%
The homogenous $\beta$-H\"older metric $d_\beta$ on $G^M(\R^K)$ is defined for every $\sigma^1,\sigma^2\in G^M(\R^K)$ by
%
$$d_\beta(\sigma^1,\sigma^2)=\sup_{0\leq s< t\leq 1}\frac{d_{CC}(\sigma^1_{t,s},\sigma^2_{t,s})}{\abs{t-s}^\beta}.$$
%
The definition below defines a geometric $\beta$-H\"older continuous rough path, which is a path $\sigma$ taking values in the completion of $G^{\lfloor\nicefrac{1}{\beta}\rfloor}(\R^K)\subseteq T_{\lfloor \nicefrac{1}{\beta}\rfloor}(\R^K)$ with resect to the homogenous $\beta$-H\"older metric.


\begin{definition}
%
Let $T\in(0,\infty)$ and $K\in \N$.  A path $\sigma:[0,T]\rightarrow T^{\left\lfloor\nicefrac{1}{\beta}\right\rfloor}(\R^K)$ is a \emph{$K$-dimensional $\beta$-H\"older continuous geometric rough path} if there exists a sequence of smooth paths $\{\sigma^n:[0,T]\rightarrow\R^K\}$ such that
%
$$\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}d_\beta\left(\sigma, S_{\left\lfloor\nicefrac{1}{\beta}\right\rfloor}(\sigma^n)\right)\rightarrow 0.$$
%
The space $\C^{0,\beta}([0,T];\overline{G}^{\left\lfloor\nicefrac{1}{\beta}\right\rfloor}(\R^K))$ denotes the space of $K$-dimensional $\beta$-H\"older continuous geometric rough paths starting at zero.
\end{definition}
%


The following proposition, which is a consequence of \cite[Proposition~3.5]{FrizHairer}, proves that Brownian motion enhanced by its Stratonovich integrals is almost surely a $\beta$-H\"older continuous geometric rough path for every $\beta\in(\nicefrac{1}{3},\nicefrac{1}{2})$.


\begin{prop}\label{BM_rp} Let $K\in \N$, $\beta\in(\nicefrac{1}{3},\nicefrac{1}{2})$, and $T\in(0,\infty)$.  Let $(\O,\mathcal{F},\P)$ be a probability space, let $B\colon[0,\infty)\times\O\rightarrow\R^K$ be a $K$-dimensional Brownian motion, and let $\mathbf{B}\colon[0,\infty)\times\O\rightarrow T^2(\R^K)$ be defined for every $t\in[0,T]$ and almost every $\omega\in\O$ by
%
$$\mathbf{B}_t(\omega)=\left(1,B_{t}(\omega),\int_0^tB_s(\omega)\circ \dd B_s(\omega)\right).$$
%
Then, there exists a subset $\O'\subset\O$ of full probability such that, for every $\omega\in\O'$,
%
$$B(\omega)\in \C^{0,\beta}([0,T];\overline{G}^{2}(\R^K)).$$
%
\end{prop}


We will now explain the large deviations principle for enhanced Brownian motion.  Let $K\in\N$, $\beta\in(\nicefrac{1}{3},\nicefrac{1}{2})$, and $T\in(0,\infty)$.  Let $B$ be a $K$-dimensional Brownian motion on a probability space $(\O,\F,\P)$ and let $\mathbf{B}$ denote the Brownian motion enhanced by its Stratonovich integrals.  For every $\ve\in(0,1]$ let $\mathbf{B}^\ve$ be defined for every $t\in[0,\infty)$ and $\omega\in\O$ by
%
$$\mathbf{B}^\ve_t(\omega)=\left(1,B_{\ve t}, \int_0^tB_{\ve s}\circ \dd B_{\ve s}\right).$$
%
Proposition~\ref{BM_rp} proves for every $\ve\in(0,1]$ that there exists a measurable map
%
$$\mathbf{B}^\ve_{\beta,T}\colon\Omega\rightarrow \C^{0,\beta}([0,T];\overline{G}^{2}(\R^K)),$$
%
defined for almost every $\omega\in\Omega$ by
%
$$\mathbf{B}^\ve_{\beta,T}(\omega)=\left(\mathbf{B}^\ve(\omega)\colon[0,T]\rightarrow \overline{G}^{2}(\R^K)\right).$$
%
Let $\{P^\ve_{\beta,T}\}_{\ve\in(0,1]}$ be the push-forward measured defined for every $\ve\in(0,1]$ by
%
$$P^\ve_{\beta,T}=\left(\mathbf{B}^\ve_{\beta,T}\right)_*\mathbb{P}.$$
%


The large deviations principle for the measures $\{P^\ve_{\beta,T}\}_{\ve\in(0,1]}$ is similar to Schilder's theorem for Brownian motion.  For this we recall the Cameron-Martin space $\mathcal{H}_T(K)$ for $K$-dimensional Brownian motion on $[0,T]$ defined by
%
$$\mathcal{H}_T(K)=W^{1,2}_0([0,T];\R^K)=\left\{[0,T]\ni t\mapsto \int_0^t \dot{g}(s)\ds\in\R^K \colon \dot{g}\in L^2([0,T];\R^K)\right\},$$
%
which is equipped with the inner product, for $f,g\in\mathcal{H}_T(K)$,
%
$$\langle f,g\rangle_{\mathcal{H}_T(K)}=\int_0^T\langle \dot{f}(s),\dot{g}(s) \rangle \ds.$$
%
The following large deviations principle is a consequence of \cite[Theorem~13.42]{FrizVictoir}.


\begin{thm}\label{ldp_ebm}  Let $K\in\N$, $\beta\in(\nicefrac{1}{3},\nicefrac{1}{2})$, and $T\in(0,\infty)$.  Then, the push-forward measures $\{P^\ve_{\beta,T}\}_{\ve\in(0,1]}$ satisfy a large deviations principle with good rate function
%
$$I\colon\C^{0,\beta}([0,T];\overline{G}^{2}(\R^K))\rightarrow[0,\infty],$$
%
defined for every $\sigma=(1,\sigma_1,\sigma_2)$ by
%
$$I(\sigma)=\left\{\begin{aligned}
%
& \frac{1}{2}\langle \sigma_1,\sigma_1\rangle_{\mathcal{H}_T(K)} && \textrm{if}\;\;\sigma_1\in\mathcal{H}_T(K)\;\;\textrm{and}\;\;\sigma_2=\int_0^\cdot\left(\sigma_1(s)\otimes\dot{\sigma_1}(s)\right)\ds,
%
\\ & +\infty && \textrm{if else},
%
\end{aligned} \right.$$
%
in the sense that, for every measurable subset $A\subseteq\C^{0,\beta}([0,T];\overline{G}^{2}(\R^K))$,
%
$$-\inf_{\sigma\in A^0}I(\sigma)\leq \liminf_{\ve\rightarrow 0}\left[\ve\log\left(P^\ve_{\beta,T}(A)\right)\right]\leq \limsup_{\ve\rightarrow 0} \left[\ve \log\left(P^\ve_{\beta,T}(A)\right)\right]\leq-\inf_{\sigma\in \overline{A}}I(\sigma).$$
%
\end{thm}

\section{Pathwise kinetic solutions}\label{pathwise_kinetic}

Let $N\in \N$, let $(\Omega,\mathcal{F},\P)$ be a probability space, let $B$ be a standard $N$-dimensional Brownian motion, and let $\mathcal{M}^{d\times N}$ be the space of $d\times N$ matrices with real coefficients.  For every six times continuously differentiable function $A\colon\TT^d\times\R\rightarrow \mathcal{M}^{d\times N}$, with bounded derivatives from first to sixth order, for every $m\in(0,\infty)$, and for every nonnegative $\rho_0\in L^2(\TT^d)$, it was shown in \cite[Theorems~1.1, 1.2, 1.3]{FG17} that the equation
%
\begin{equation}\label{pk_eq}\left\{\begin{aligned}
%
 \partial_t\rho & = \Delta\left(\rho\abs{\rho}^{m-1}\right)-\nabla\cdot\left(A(x,\rho)\circ\dd B_t\right) && \textrm{in}\;\;\TT^d\times(0,\infty),
 %
 \\ \rho & = \rho_0 && \textrm{on}\;\;\TT^d\times\{0\},
 %
 \end{aligned}\right.\end{equation}
%
is well-posed in the class of \emph{pathwise kinetic solutions} (cf.\ \cite[Definition~3.4]{FG17}).  This solution theory is based on the equation's kinetic formulation, like in Definition~\ref{skel_sol_def}, where on the kinetic level the noise enters as a linear transport and can be inverted using the theory of rough paths to obtain a well-defined notion of solution.  Because we will not use any specific aspects of the pathwise kinetic solution theory in this paper, we point the reader to \cite{FG17} for the complete details.  In the following theorem, we state the pathwise well-posedness of equations like \eqref{pk_eq} for more general nonlinearities $\Phi$.


\begin{thm}\label{them_pk_wp}  Let $T\in(0,\infty)$, let $N\in\N$, let $\Phi\in W^{1,1}_{\textrm{loc}}([0,\infty))$ satisfy Assumptions~\ref{as_unique}, ~\ref{as_equiv}, \ref{as_pre}, ~\ref{ass_log}, \ref{ass_interpolate}, and let $A\colon\TT^d\times\R\rightarrow\mathcal{M}^{d\times N}$ six-times continuously differentiable with bounded derivatives from first to sixth order.  Then, there exists a subset of full probability $\Omega'\subseteq\Omega$ such that, for every $\omega\in\Omega'$, for every $\rho_0\in\Ent_\Phi(\TT^d)$, there exists a unique nonnegative pathwise kinetic solution $\rho\in L^\infty([0,T];L^1(\TT^d))$ to the equation
%
\begin{equation}\label{thm_pk_1}\left\{\begin{aligned}
%
 \partial_t\rho & = \Delta\Phi(\rho)-\nabla\cdot\left(A(x,\rho)\circ\dd B_t\right) && \textrm{in}\;\;\TT^d\times(0,\infty),
 %
 \\ \rho & = \rho_0 && \textrm{on}\;\;\TT^d\times\{0\},
 %
 \end{aligned}\right.\end{equation}
%
that satisfies
%
$$\norm{\rho}_{L^\infty([0,T];L^1(\TT^d))}=\norm{\rho_0}_{L^1(\TT^d)}.$$
%
Furthermore, the solution depends continuously in $L^1([0,T];L^1(\TT^d))$ on the driving noise with respect to the rough path metric (cf.\ Section~\ref{sec_rough_path}).
\end{thm}


\begin{proof}  We point the reader to \cite[Definition~3.4]{FG17} for the definition of a pathwise kinetic solution.  It follows from \cite[Theorem~4.2, Theorem~5.6]{FG17} that there there exists a unique solution of \eqref{thm_pk_1} for $\Phi(\xi)=\xi^m$, for every $m\in(0,\infty)$, and for a nonnegative initial data $\rho_0\in L^2(\TT^d)$.  The fact that the solution theory can be extended to nonlinearities $\Phi\in W^{1,1}_{\textrm{loc}}([0,\infty))$ satisfying Assumptions~\ref{as_unique}, ~\ref{as_equiv}, \ref{as_pre}, ~\ref{ass_log}, and \ref{ass_interpolate} follows from a straightforward but technical combination of Theorem~\ref{thm_unique} above and \cite[Theorem~4.2, Theorem~5.6]{FG17}.  Indeed, these assumptions summarize exactly the properties of $\Phi(\xi)=\xi^m$ that were used to prove \cite[Theorem~4.2, Theorem~5.6]{FG17}.  The fact that the existence and uniqueness can be extended to initial data $\rho_0\in \Ent_\Phi(\TT^d)\subseteq L^1(\TT^d)$, at the cost of significant technicalities, is explained in \cite[Remark~1.7]{FG17}.  The continuity is proven in \cite[Theorem~5.7]{FG17}.\end{proof}


In the final proposition of this section we will prove that, for smooth noise, the notions of renormalized kinetic solutions (cf.\ Definition~\ref{skel_sol_def}) and pathwise kinetic solutions (cf.\ \cite[Definition~3.4]{FG17}) are equivalent.

\begin{prop}\label{lem_equiv_path_weak}  Let $T\in(0,\infty)$ and $K\in\N$.  Let $\Phi\in W^{1,1}_{\textrm{loc}}([0,\infty))$ satisfy Assumptions~\ref{as_unique}, ~\ref{as_equiv}, \ref{as_pre}, ~\ref{ass_log}, and \ref{ass_interpolate}.  Let $\{e_k\}_{k\in\N}$ be a smooth orthonormal basis of $L^2(\TT^d;\R^d)$.  Let $\{\Phi^{\frac{1}{2},\eta}\}_{\eta\in(0,1)}$ be defined in Lemma~\ref{ass_phi_reg}.  Let $g=(g^1,\ldots,g^K)\in L^2([0,T];\R^K)$ and let $G\in H^1([0,T];\R^K)$ be defined by
%
$$G_t=(G^1_t,\ldots,G^K_t)=\left(\int_0^tg^1_s\ds,\ldots,\int_0^tg^K_s\ds\right).$$
%
Then, for every $\eta\in(0,1)$, for every $\rho_0\in \Ent_\Phi(\TT^d)$, a function $\rho\in L^\infty([0,T];L^1(\TT^d))$ is a renormalized kinetic solution (cf.\ Definition~\ref{skel_sol_def}) of the equation
%
\begin{equation}\label{fd_eq_2}\left\{\begin{aligned}
%
\partial_t\rho & = \Delta\Phi(\rho)-\nabla\cdot\left(\Phi^{\frac{1}{2},\eta}(\rho)\left(\sum_{k=1}^Ke_k(x) g^k_t\right)\right) && \textrm{in}\;\;\TT^d\times(0,T),
%
\\ \rho & = \rho_0 && \textrm{on}\;\;\TT^d\times\{0\},
%
\end{aligned}\right.\end{equation}
%
if and only if $\rho$ is a pathwise kinetic solution (cf.\ \cite[Definition~3.4]{FG17}) of the equation
%
\begin{equation}\label{fd_eq_3}\left\{\begin{aligned}
%
\partial_t\rho & = \Delta\Phi(\rho)-\nabla\cdot\left(\Phi^{\frac{1}{2},\eta}(\rho)\circ\sum_{k=1}^Ke_k(x) \dd G^k_t\right) && \textrm{in}\;\;\TT^d\times(0,T),
%
\\ \rho & = \rho_0 && \textrm{on}\;\;\TT^d\times\{0\}.
%
\end{aligned}\right.\end{equation}
%
\end{prop}




\begin{proof}  We will first prove the statement for $\rho_0\in L^2(\TT^d)$.  Since it follows that
%
$$\sum_{k=1}^Ke_kg^k\in L^2(\TT^d\times[0,T];\R^d),$$
%
for every $\eta_1\in(0,1)$ let $\rho^{\eta_1}\in L^\infty([0,T];L^1(\TT^d))$ denote the solution constructed in Proposition~\ref{smooth_exist} of the equation
%
\begin{equation}\label{lepw_1}\left\{\begin{aligned}
%
\partial_t\rho^{\eta_1} & = \Delta\Phi^{\eta_1}(\rho^{\eta_1})-\nabla\cdot\left(\Phi^{\frac{1}{2},\eta}(\rho^{\eta_1})\left(\sum_{k=1}^Ke_k(x) g^k_t\right)\right) && \textrm{in}\;\;\TT^d\times(0,T),
%
\\ \rho^{\eta_1} & = \rho_0 && \textrm{on}\;\;\TT^d\times\{0\}.
%
\end{aligned}\right.\end{equation}
%
It follows from \cite[Proposition~A.1, Proposition~A.2]{FG17} and Theorem~\ref{equiv} that $\rho^{\eta_1}$ is a weak solution of \eqref{lepw_1} if and only if $\rho^{\eta_1}$ is a pathwise kinetic solution of \eqref{lepw_1}.  After passing to the limit $\eta_1\rightarrow 0$, as in Proposition~\ref{smooth_exist}, it follows from Theorem~\ref{thm_unique} and Theorem~\ref{them_pk_wp} that there exists a unique $\rho\in L^\infty([0,T];L^1(\TT^d))$ that is simultaneously a weak and pathwise kinetic solution of \eqref{fd_eq_2} and \eqref{fd_eq_3} and that satisfies estimate \eqref{fe_1}.  Finally, the statement is extended to initial data $\rho_0\in \Ent_\Phi(\TT^d)$ exactly as in the conclusion of Proposition~\ref{gen_exist}. \end{proof}

\section*{Acknowledgements}

The second author acknowledges financial support by the DFG through the CRC 1283 ``Taming uncertainty and profiting from randomness and low regularity in analysis, stochastics and their applications.''

\bibliography{WhiteNoise}
\bibliographystyle{plain}


\end{document}



\begin{thebibliography}{10}

\bibitem{A04-1}
L.~Ambrosio.
\newblock Transport equation and {{Cauchy}} problem for {{BV}} vector fields.
\newblock {\em Invent. Math.}, 158(2):227--260, 2004.

\bibitem{Aubin}
J.-P. Aubin.
\newblock Un th\'eor\`eme de compacit\'e.
\newblock {\em C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris}, 256:5042--5044, 1963.

\bibitem{BKL95}
O.~Benois, C.~Kipnis, and C.~Landim.
\newblock Large deviations from the hydrodynamical limit of mean zero
  asymmetric zero range processes.
\newblock {\em Stochastic Processes and their Applications}, 55(1):65--89,
  January 1995.

\bibitem{BDSGJLL15}
L.~Bertini, A.~De~Sole, D.~Gabrielli, G.~Jona-Lasinio, and C.~Landim.
\newblock Macroscopic fluctuation theory.
\newblock {\em Reviews of Modern Physics}, 87(2):593, 2015.

\bibitem{BOP03}
L.~Boccardo, L.~Orsina, and A.~Porretta.
\newblock Some noncoercive parabolic equations with lower order termsin
  divergence form.
\newblock {\em Journal of Evolution Equations}, 3(3):407--418, August 2003.

\bibitem{BKRS15}
V.~I. Bogachev, N.~V. Krylov, M.~R{\"o}ckner, and S.~V. Shaposhnikov.
\newblock {\em Fokker-{{Planck}}-{{Kolmogorov}} Equations}, volume 207 of {\em
  Mathematical {{Surveys}} and {{Monographs}}}.
\newblock {American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI}, 2015.

\bibitem{BGJ17}
Z.~Brze\'{z}niak, B.~Goldys, and T.~Jegaraj.
\newblock Large deviations and transitions between equilibria for stochastic
  {L}andau-{L}ifshitz-{G}ilbert equation.
\newblock {\em Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal.}, 226(2):497--558, 2017.

\bibitem{BudDup2019}
A.~Budhiraja and P.~Dupuis.
\newblock {\em Analysis and approximation of rare events}, volume~94 of {\em
  Probability Theory and Stochastic Modelling}.
\newblock Springer, New York, 2019.
\newblock Representations and weak convergence methods.

\bibitem{BudDupMar2008}
A.~Budhiraja, P.~Dupuis, and V.~Maroulas.
\newblock Large deviations for infinite dimensional stochastic dynamical
  systems.
\newblock {\em Ann. Probab.}, 36(4):1390--1420, 2008.

\bibitem{BudDupSal}
A.~Budhiraja, P.~Dupuis, and M.~Salins.
\newblock Uniform large deviation principles for banach space valued stochastic
  differential equations.
\newblock {\em arXiv:1803.00648}, 2018.

\bibitem{CD19}
S.~Cerrai and A.~Debussche.
\newblock Large deviations for the dynamic {$\Phi^{2n}_d$} model.
\newblock {\em Appl. Math. Optim.}, 80(1):81--102, 2019.

\bibitem{CF11}
S.~Cerrai and M.~Freidlin.
\newblock Approximation of quasi-potentials and exit problems for
  multidimensional {{RDE}}'s with noise.
\newblock {\em Transactions of the American Mathematical Society},
  363(7):3853--3892, 2011.

\bibitem{CP03}
G.-Q. Chen and B.~Perthame.
\newblock Well-posedness for non-isotropic degenerate parabolic-hyperbolic
  equations.
\newblock {\em Annales de l'Institut Henri Poincar{\'e}. Analyse Non
  Lin{\'e}aire}, 20(4):645--668, 2003.

\bibitem{ChenPerthame}
G.-Q. Chen and B.~Perthame.
\newblock Well-posedness for non-isotropic degenerate parabolic-hyperbolic
  equations.
\newblock {\em Ann. Inst. H. Poincar\'e Anal. Non Lin\'eaire}, 20(4):645--668,
  2003.

\bibitem{DG18}
K.~Dareiotis and B.~Gess.
\newblock Nonlinear diffusion equations with nonlinear gradient noise.
\newblock {\em arXiv:1811.08356}, November 2018.

\bibitem{D96}
D.~Dean.
\newblock Langevin equation for the density of a system of interacting
  {{Langevin}} processes.
\newblock {\em Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General}, 29(24):L613,
  1996.

\bibitem{DemboZeitouni}
A.~Dembo and Z.~Ofer.
\newblock {\em Large deviations techniques and applications}, volume~38 of {\em
  Stochastic Modelling and Applied Probability}.
\newblock Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2010.
\newblock Corrected reprint of the second (1998) edition.

\bibitem{D07}
B.~Derrida.
\newblock Non-equilibrium steady states: Fluctuations and large deviations of
  the density and of the current.
\newblock {\em Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment},
  2007(07):P07023--P07023, July 2007.

\bibitem{DPL89}
R.~J. DiPerna and P.-L. Lions.
\newblock Ordinary differential equations, transport theory and {{Sobolev}}
  spaces.
\newblock {\em Invent. Math.}, 98(3):511--547, 1989.

\bibitem{DSZ16}
N.~Dirr, M.~Stamatakis, and J.~Zimmer.
\newblock Entropic and gradient flow formulations for nonlinear diffusion.
\newblock {\em J. Math. Phys.}, 57(8):081505, 13, 2016.

\bibitem{DFVE14}
A.~Donev, T.~G. Fai, and E.~{Vanden-Eijnden}.
\newblock A reversible mesoscopic model of diffusion in liquids: From giant
  fluctuations to {{Fick}}'s law.
\newblock {\em Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment},
  2014(4):P04004, April 2014.

\bibitem{DVE14}
A.~Donev and E.~{Vanden-Eijnden}.
\newblock Dynamic density functional theory with hydrodynamic interactions and
  fluctuations.
\newblock {\em The Journal of Chemical Physics}, 140(23):234115, June 2014.

\bibitem{DWZZ20}
Z.~Dong, J.-L. Wu, R.~Zhang, and T.~Zhang.
\newblock Large deviation principles for first-order scalar conservation laws
  with stochastic forcing.
\newblock {\em The Annals of Applied Probability}, 30(1):324--367, February
  2020.

\bibitem{DupEll1997}
P.~Dupuis and R.. Ellis.
\newblock {\em A weak convergence approach to the theory of large deviations}.
\newblock Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics: Probability and
  Statistics. John Wiley \& Sons, Inc., New York, 1997.
\newblock A Wiley-Interscience Publication.

\bibitem{ERVE07}
W.~E, W.~Ren, and E.~{Vanden-Eijnden}.
\newblock Simplified and improved string method for computing the minimum
  energy paths in barrier-crossing events.
\newblock {\em The Journal of Chemical Physics}, 126(16):164103, April 2007.

\bibitem{FJL82}
W.~G. Faris and G~{Jona-Lasinio}.
\newblock Large fluctuations for a nonlinear heat equation with noise.
\newblock {\em Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General},
  15(10):3025--3055, October 1982.

\bibitem{FG17}
B.~Fehrman and B.~Gess.
\newblock Well-posedness of stochastic porous media equations with nonlinear,
  conservative noise.
\newblock {\em arXiv:1712.05775, to appear in ARMA}, 2019+.

\bibitem{FPV83}
P.~A. Ferrari, E.~Presutti, and M.~E. Vares.
\newblock Local equilibrium for a one dimensional zero range process.
\newblock {\em Stochastic Processes and their Applications}, 26:31--45, January
  1987.

\bibitem{FlaGat1995}
F.~Flandoli and D.~Gatarek.
\newblock M.gale and stationary solutions for stochastic navier-stokes
  equations.
\newblock {\em Probability Theory and Related Fields}, 102(3):367 -- 391, 1995.

\bibitem{FGLS16}
P.~K. Friz, P.~Gassiat, P.-L. Lions, and P.~E. Souganidis.
\newblock Eikonal equations and pathwise solutions to fully non-linear
  {{SPDEs}}.
\newblock {\em arXiv:1602.04746}, 2016.

\bibitem{FG16}
P.~K. Friz and B.~Gess.
\newblock Stochastic scalar conservation laws driven by rough paths.
\newblock {\em Ann. Inst. H. Poincar{\'e} Anal. Non Lin{\'e}aire},
  33(4):933--963, 2016.

\bibitem{FrizHairer}
P.~K. Friz and M.~Hairer.
\newblock {\em A course on rough paths}.
\newblock Universitext. Springer, Cham, 2014.
\newblock With an introduction to regularity structures.

\bibitem{FrizVictoir}
P.~K. Friz and N.~B. Victoir.
\newblock {\em Multidimensional stochastic processes as rough paths}, volume
  120 of {\em Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics}.
\newblock Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2010.
\newblock Theory and applications.

\bibitem{GG19}
P.~Gassiat and B.~Gess.
\newblock Regularization by noise for stochastic
  {{Hamilton}}\textendash{{Jacobi}} equations.
\newblock {\em Probability Theory and Related Fields}, 173(3-4):1063--1098,
  2019.

\bibitem{GPS16}
B.~Gess, B.~Perthame, and P.~E. Souganidis.
\newblock Semi-discretization for stochastic scalar conservation laws with
  multiple rough fluxes.
\newblock {\em SIAM J. Numer. Anal.}, 54(4):2187--2209, 2016.

\bibitem{GS14}
B.~Gess and P.~E. Souganidis.
\newblock Scalar conservation laws with multiple rough fluxes.
\newblock {\em Commun. Math. Sci.}, 13(6):1569--1597, 2015.

\bibitem{GS17}
B.~Gess and P.~E. Souganidis.
\newblock Long-time behaviour, invariant measures and regularizing effects for
  stochastic scalar conservation laws - revised version.
\newblock {\em preprint}, 2017.

\bibitem{GS16-2}
B.~Gess and P.~E. Souganidis.
\newblock Stochastic non-isotropic degenerate parabolic--hyperbolic equations.
\newblock {\em Stochastic Process. Appl.}, 127(9):2961--3004, 2017.

\bibitem{GVE18}
T.~Grafke and E.~{Vanden-Eijnden}.
\newblock Numerical computation of rare events via large deviation theory.
\newblock {\em arXiv:1812.00681 [cond-mat]}, December 2018.

\bibitem{GIP12}
M.~Gubinelli, P.~Imkeller, and N.~Perkowski.
\newblock Paraproducts, rough paths and controlled distributions.
\newblock {\em arXiv:1210.2684}, pages 1--30, 2012.

\bibitem{H13-3}
M.~Hairer.
\newblock A theory of regularity structures.
\newblock {\em Invent. Math.}, 198(2):269--504, 2014.

\bibitem{HW15}
M.~Hairer and H.~Weber.
\newblock Large deviations for white-noise driven, nonlinear stochastic
  {{PDEs}} in two and three dimensions.
\newblock {\em Annales de la Facult{\'e} des Sciences de Toulouse.
  Math{\'e}matiques. S{\'e}rie 6}, 24(1):55--92, 2015.

\bibitem{HKRS17}
H.~Hoel, K.~H. Karlsen, N.~H. Risebro, and E.~B. Storrosten.
\newblock Path-dependent convex conservation laws.
\newblock {\em arXiv:1711.01841}, November 2017.

\bibitem{HKRS18}
H.~Hoel, K.~H. Karlsen, N.~H. Risebro, and E.~B. Storrosten.
\newblock Numerical methods for conservation laws with rough flux.
\newblock {\em arXiv:1802.00708}, February 2018.

\bibitem{HH77}
P.~C. Hohenberg and B.~I. Halperin.
\newblock Theory of dynamic critical phenomena.
\newblock {\em Reviews of Modern Physics}, 49(3):435--479, July 1977.

\bibitem{JLM90}
G.~{Jona-Lasinio} and P.~K. Mitter.
\newblock Large deviation estimates in the stochastic quantization of
  \$\textbackslash{}phi\^4\_2\$.
\newblock {\em Communications in Mathematical Physics}, 130(1):111--121, 1990.

\bibitem{K94}
K.~Kawasaki.
\newblock Stochastic model of slow dynamics in supercooled liquids and dense
  colloidal suspensions.
\newblock {\em Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications},
  208(1):35--64, July 1994.

\bibitem{KL99}
C.~Kipnis and C.~Landim.
\newblock {\em Scaling Limits of Interacting Particle Systems}.
\newblock {Springer}, {New York}, 1999.

\bibitem{KR15}
V.~Konarovskyi and M.~{von Renesse}.
\newblock Modified {{Massive Arratia}} flow and {{Wasserstein}} diffusion.
\newblock {\em arXiv:1504.00559}, April 2015.

\bibitem{KR17}
V.~Konarovskyi and M.~{von Renesse}.
\newblock Reversible {{Coalescing}}-{{Fragmentating Wasserstein Dynamics}} on
  the {{Real Line}}.
\newblock {\em arXiv:1709.02839}, September 2017.

\bibitem{Kry2013}
N.~V. Krylov.
\newblock A relatively short proof of {I}t\^{o}'s formula for {SPDE}s and its
  applications.
\newblock {\em Stoch. Partial Differ. Equ. Anal. Comput.}, 1(1):152--174, 2013.

\bibitem{LL87}
L.~D. Landau and E.~M. Lifshitz.
\newblock {\em Theoretical {{Physics}}, Vol. 6, {{Fluid Mechanics}}}.
\newblock {Pergamon, London}, 1987.

\bibitem{LBL04}
C.~Le~Bris and P.-L. Lions.
\newblock Renormalized solutions of some transport equations with partially
  {{W}} 1,1 velocities and applications.
\newblock {\em Annali di Matematica Pura ed Applicata}, 183(1):97--130, March
  2004.

\bibitem{LBL08}
C.~Le~Bris and P.-L. Lions.
\newblock Existence and {{Uniqueness}} of {{Solutions}} to
  {{Fokker}}\textendash{{Planck Type Equations}} with {{Irregular
  Coefficients}}.
\newblock {\em Communications in Partial Differential Equations},
  33(7):1272--1317, July 2008.

\bibitem{LKR19}
T.~Lehmann, V.~Konarovskyi, and M.~{von Renesse}.
\newblock Dean-{{Kawasaki Dynamics}}: {{Ill}}-posedness vs. {{Triviality}}.
\newblock {\em arXiv:1806.05018}, June 2018.

\bibitem{pLions}
J.-L. Lions.
\newblock {\em Quelques m\'ethodes de r\'esolution des probl\`emes aux limites
  non lin\'eaires}.
\newblock Dunod; Gauthier-Villars, Paris, 1969.

\bibitem{LPS13-2}
P.-L. Lions, B.~Perthame, and P.~Souganidis.
\newblock Stochastic averaging lemmas for kinetic equations.
\newblock {\em S{\'e}minaire Laurent Schwartz \textemdash{} EDP et
  applications}, pages 1--17, 2011.

\bibitem{LPS13}
P.-L. Lions, B.~Perthame, and P.~E. Souganidis.
\newblock Scalar conservation laws with rough (stochastic) fluxes.
\newblock {\em Stoch. Partial Differ. Equ. Anal. Comput.}, 1(4):664--686, 2013.

\bibitem{LPS14}
P.-L. Lions, B.~Perthame, and P.~E. Souganidis.
\newblock Scalar conservation laws with rough (stochastic) fluxes: The
  spatially dependent case.
\newblock {\em Stoch. Partial Differ. Equ. Anal. Comput.}, 2(4):517--538, 2014.

\bibitem{LPT94}
P.-L. Lions, B.~Perthame, and E.~Tadmor.
\newblock A kinetic formulation of multidimensional scalar conservation laws
  and related equations.
\newblock {\em J. Amer. Math. Soc.}, 7(1):169--191, 1994.

\bibitem{LS98-2}
P.-L. Lions and P.~E. Souganidis.
\newblock Fully nonlinear stochastic partial differential equations.
\newblock {\em C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris S{\'e}r. I Math.}, 326(9):1085--1092,
  1998.

\bibitem{LS98}
P.-L. Lions and P.~E. Souganidis.
\newblock Fully nonlinear stochastic partial differential equations: Non-smooth
  equations and applications.
\newblock {\em C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris S{\'e}r. I Math.}, 327(8):735--741, 1998.

\bibitem{LS00}
P.-L. Lions and P.~E. Souganidis.
\newblock Fully nonlinear stochastic {{PDE}} with semilinear stochastic
  dependence.
\newblock {\em C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris S{\'e}r. I Math.}, 331(8):617--624, 2000.

\bibitem{LS00-2}
P.-L. Lions and P.~E. Souganidis.
\newblock Uniqueness of weak solutions of fully nonlinear stochastic partial
  differential equations.
\newblock {\em C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris S{\'e}r. I Math.}, 331(10):783--790,
  2000.

\bibitem{LS19}
P.-L. Lions and P.~E. Souganidis.
\newblock New regularity results and long time behavior of pathwise
  (stochastic) {{Hamilton}}-{{Jacobi}} equations.
\newblock {\em arXiv:1909.05672}, September 2019.

\bibitem{Lyons}
T.~J. Lyons.
\newblock Differential equations driven by rough signals.
\newblock {\em Rev. Mat. IberoamE.ana}, 14(2):215--310, 1998.

\bibitem{O96}
F.~Otto.
\newblock L1-{{Contraction}} and {{Uniqueness}} for {{Quasilinear
  Elliptic}}\textendash{{Parabolic Equations}}.
\newblock {\em Journal of Differential Equations}, 131(1):20--38, October 1996.

\bibitem{GGLS18}
{P. Gassiat, B. Gess, P.-L. Lions, P. E. Souganidis}.
\newblock Speed of propagation for {{Hamilton}}-{{Jacobi}} equations with
  multiplicative rough time dependence and convex {{Hamiltonians}}.
\newblock {\em arXiv:1805.08477}, 2018.

\bibitem{P15}
A.~Porretta.
\newblock Weak {{Solutions}} to {{Fokker}}\textendash{{Planck Equations}} and
  {{Mean Field Games}}.
\newblock {\em Archive for Rational Mechanics and Analysis}, 216(1):1--62,
  April 2015.

\bibitem{S18-2}
B.~Seeger.
\newblock Perron's method for pathwise viscosity solutions.
\newblock {\em Communications in Partial Differential Equations},
  43(6):998--1018, 2018.

\bibitem{Simon}
J.~Simon.
\newblock Compact sets in the space {$L^p(0,T;B)$}.
\newblock {\em Ann. Mat. Pura Appl. (4)}, 146:65--96, 1987.

\bibitem{S18}
P.~E. Souganidis.
\newblock Pathwise solutions for fully nonlinear first- and second-order
  partial differential equations with multiplicative rough time dependence.
\newblock {\em arXiv:1809.01748}, September 2018.

\bibitem{S91}
H.~Spohn.
\newblock {\em Large Scale Dynamics of Interacting Particles}.
\newblock {Springer Science \& Business Media}, 2012.

\bibitem{VEW12}
E.~{Vanden-Eijnden} and J.~Weare.
\newblock Rare {{Event Simulation}} of {{Small Noise Diffusions}}.
\newblock {\em Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics},
  65(12):1770--1803, December 2012.

\end{thebibliography}