Stability Results for the Continuity Equation

Iasson Karafyllis; Miroslav Krstic

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 29 references

Stability Results for the Continuity Equation

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The 1-D continuity equation admits explicit stability bounds in every Lp norm, with p>1 and the sup norm.

desk verdict Solid, useful ISS-type estimates for the 1-D continuity equation; the main theorem has a small but real regularity gap in its proof that is easy to fix. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.05995 v1 pith:D5XSBEYL submitted 2019-08-16 math.OC cs.SYeess.SYmath.AP

Iasson Karafyllis , Miroslav Krstic This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.OCcs.SYeess.SYmath.AP MSC 35L6093D2593D05

keywords continuityequationtransportPDEinput-to-statestabilityboundarydisturbancelogarithmicnormfinite-timeLpnormsmanufacturingsystems

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper claims that the stability of the 1-D continuity equation, with velocity viewed as an input and with a boundary disturbance, can be quantified by explicit estimates in all $L^p$ norms for $p>1$ and in the sup norm. The state appears through its logarithmic deviation from a constant equilibrium, and the bounds involve only the initial deviation plus the largest values of the velocity gradient and boundary disturbance over a finite, velocity-dependent time window in the past. This matters because the continuity equation is the conservation-law core of fluid, traffic, and manufacturing models, and the estimates give explicit input-to-state-type stability bounds for the bilinear equation with time-varying velocity and boundary disturbance. The paper also shows how the estimates apply directly to the feedback stabilization of a non-local manufacturing model.

What carries the argument

The argument runs through the change of variable $w=\ln(\rho/\rho_s)$, which turns the bilinear continuity equation into the linear transport equation (2.7) with coefficient $a=-v_x$. The solution is then split into three components by superposition: the initial profile carried along characteristics, the boundary input $b$, and the distributed source. The first two components are bounded using exact characteristic formulas; the third component is bounded with an exponentially weighted Lyapunov functional whose differential inequality is closed by a comparison lemma. This yields the finite-memory estimates (2.10) and (2.11), and Theorem 2.1 follows by substituting $a=-v_x$ and $f=0$. For the manufacturing model, the proof uses a contraction-mapping fixed-point argument to supply the a priori bounds needed before Theorem 2.1 is applied.

What would settle it

Take a positive $C^1$ velocity and boundary disturbance, such as $v(t,x)=2+\sin(t)\,x$ with $b(t)=0.1\,\sin(t)$, and compute the exact solution of (2.1)-(2.2) along the characteristic curves by quadrature. Then evaluate both sides of (2.4) for $p=2$ and several values of $\mu$; a single time at which the inequality fails would disprove Theorem 2.1, while a sweep over many randomly chosen positive velocities and disturbances would provide numerical confirmation that the bounds hold.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Theorem 2.1: for a positive $C^1$ velocity $v(t,x)$ and a boundary disturbance $b(t)$ at the inflow boundary $x=0$, the logarithmic deviation $w=\ln(\rho/\rho_s)$ obeys the quantitative estimates (2.4) and (2.5). For any $p>1$ and a suitable positive parameter $\mu$, the $L^p$ norm and the sup norm of $w(t,\cdot)$ are bounded by the corresponding norm of the initial deviation plus a term involving the sup of $|v_x|$ over the look-back interval and a term involving the sup of $|b|$ over the same interval, both weighted by $\exp(-\mu(t-s))$. The coefficients, or gains, depend on the velocity and its minimum, so the estimates are not classical ISS estimates; they express a finite-memory, relative-error type of stability in the logarithmic norm. In the undisturbed constant-velocity case, both estimates give finite-time stability. Theorem 3.1 transfers these bounds to a non-local nonlinear manufacturing model under the feedback law $u(t)=\lambda(W(t))\,\rho_s\exp(b(t))$, yielding estimates (3.6) and (3.7).

Load-bearing premise

The argument collapses if the velocity is allowed to vanish or change sign: Theorem 2.1 assumes $v(t,x)$ is $C^1$ and strictly positive on $[0,1]$ for all times, which makes $x=0$ the only inflow boundary and keeps the finite-memory interval $[\max(0,t-1/v_{\min}(t)),\,t]$ well defined.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the estimates are correct, a conservation-law subsystem of a larger model can be treated as a block with known input-to-state behavior, opening the way to small-gain stability proofs for networks of transport and conservation laws.
For constant velocity and no disturbance, the estimates imply that the logarithmic deviation reaches zero after the travel time across the domain, recovering finite-time stability in the log norm.
Only the velocity and boundary history over the interval $[\max(0,t-1/v_{\min}(t)),\,t]$ can influence the state at time $t$; any older input has no effect on the bound.
Velocities that increase with $x$ produce a strictly larger bias in the density profile than velocities that decrease with $x$, as quantified by the velocity-gradient term in the estimates.
For the non-local manufacturing model, the feedback law is robust to bounded boundary uncertainty $b$, and finite-time stability holds when $b=0$, although the settling time can become large for large disturbances or large initial densities.

Reading between the lines

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

The characteristic-plus-Lyapunov decomposition in Theorem 2.3 should generalize to systems of one-dimensional balance laws with several transport speeds, since the boundary and source estimates are per-characteristic; deriving the analogue of (2.10) for such systems would be a natural test of the method.
The finite-memory window suggests that in interconnected networks the continuity equation can be treated, for stability purposes, as a delay system whose delay is the instantaneous traversal time $1/v_{\min}(t)$, which could simplify feedback designs for transportation and production networks.
Because the estimates control the logarithmic norm, they measure relative error of the density; a positivity-preserving numerical scheme could use these bounds to certify that a computed solution stays within a prescribed relative accuracy.
The same method may apply to non-local traffic models, where the velocity depends on the density integrated over space, since the manufacturing application already demonstrates how to handle a spatially constant but time-varying velocity of that form.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

This paper does something genuinely useful: it gives explicit stability estimates for the 1-D continuity equation in every Lp norm and the sup norm, with boundary disturbances, and it does so via characteristics and a Lyapunov functional. The estimates have finite-time memory and velocity-dependent gains, which is the right kind of statement for a bilinear transport PDE. The manufacturing application is a legitimate bonus and shows the estimates are not a dead end. I agree with the reader that the core results are new and correctly derived. The work deserves a serious referee.

The soft spot that matters is real but small. Theorem 2.1 states v is only C^1, but the proof applies Theorem 2.3 with a = -v_x. Theorem 2.3 requires a to be C^1, and v_x is merely continuous under the stated assumption. So as typeset, the proof of Theorem 2.1 does not formally close. The stress-test note has it right. That said, I checked the proof of Theorem 2.3: the estimates only use A(t) = max |a| over a rectangle and never differentiate a. The same argument works for continuous a. So the gap is a hypothesis mismatch, not a substantive error. The authors could either weaken Theorem 2.3 to a ∈ C^0 or strengthen Theorem 2.1 to v ∈ C^2. Neither change affects the statements' meaning. This is exactly the kind of thing a referee should insist be cleaned up, not a reason to reject.

Other limitations are stated honestly and are not red flags. The positivity of the state and strict positivity of v are used heavily and are acknowledged. The claim that these are ISS-like but not exactly ISS because gains depend on the input is handled openly. The self-citation to Lemma 2.12 in the authors' own book is fine; it is a standard comparison lemma and the dependency is visible. I could not fully verify every OCR-corrupted inequality line, but the structure of the characteristic formulas and the Lyapunov derivation is clear enough that I found no hidden circularity or invented entities.

The right readership is people working on control of transport PDEs, age-structured models, and nonlocal conservation laws. For that audience this is a reference-grade set of estimates. I would send this to peer review with a request to fix the regularity mismatch in the proof of Theorem 2.1, and I would cite it in my own work.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies ISS-type stability estimates for the one-dimensional continuity equation ρ_t + (vρ)_x = 0 on [0,1], with positive time-varying velocity v as a distributed input and an exponential boundary disturbance b. The main result, Theorem 2.1, bounds the Lp norm (p>1) and the sup norm of the logarithmic deviation ln(ρ/ρ_s) by the initial deviation plus explicit terms involving the maximum of |v_x| and the boundary disturbance over a finite look-back interval. The proof is based on a linear transport lemma, Theorem 2.3, proved by characteristics, superposition, and a Lyapunov functional. Section 3 applies these estimates to a nonlocal manufacturing model under feedback control, yielding Theorem 3.1 via a contraction argument for the nonlocal velocity. The paper also discusses sharpness and the dependence of gains on the velocity.

Significance. If the stated estimates are valid, the paper provides explicit finite-time-memory stability estimates for a bilinear transport equation with time-varying velocity, which are not standard ISS estimates but are potentially useful in small-gain analysis of larger physical models. The application to nonlocal manufacturing models is nontrivial and the fixed-point proof in Proposition 4.1 is a genuine contribution. The paper is honest about the non-ISS features and includes a valuable discussion of sharpness in Remark 2.2. However, two technical points in the proof of the main results need to be fixed before the claims can be accepted as stated.

major comments (2)

[Proof of Theorem 2.1 / Theorem 2.3] Theorem 2.1 assumes v ∈ C^1 and applies Theorem 2.3 with a = -v_x and f = 0. However, Theorem 2.3 is stated for a ∈ C^1, whereas -v_x is only continuous under the hypothesis v ∈ C^1. This is not a purely cosmetic mismatch: the regularity conclusion of Theorem 2.3 (that w, and hence ρ, is C^1) relies on differentiating the characteristic formula, which requires some differentiability of a in x. With only v_x continuous, the solution ρ of the conservative continuity equation need not be C^1; for example, v(x)=x^{4/3} on [0,1] is C^1 but produces characteristics whose solution has non-continuous first derivative at x=0. Thus the stated theorem cannot be formally closed from Theorem 2.3 as written. The estimates may still hold for a suitable weaker solution class or under v ∈ C^2, but the manuscript must either strengthen the hypothesis of Theorem 2.1, weaken the regularity claim, or extend Theorem 2.3 to continuous coefficients with a complete proof of the required regularity and estimates.
[Proof of Theorem 2.3, derivation of (2.11)] The sup-norm estimate (2.11) is claimed to follow by letting p → ∞ in (2.10). This is not justified as written: the constants in (2.10), and in particular the factor exp((p v_max(t)+A(t))/v_min(t)) appearing in the estimates derived from (4.25) and (4.13), grow with p and do not converge to finite limits. Consequently, taking p → ∞ does not produce a finite, p-independent right-hand side. A separate argument for the sup norm, e.g., a direct characteristic estimate for ||w(t)||_∞, is needed. This issue affects the sup-norm claims in Theorems 2.1 and 3.1 as well.

minor comments (4)

[Throughout, displayed estimates] Equations (2.4), (2.5), (2.10), (2.11), (3.6) and (3.7) are extremely difficult to read because of compressed notation and missing grouping symbols; please reformat them so that exponents, maxima, and arguments of h are unambiguous.
[Theorem 2.3 statement] The function spaces for a, f, and v are stated with garbled notation; please state explicitly, for example, a ∈ C^1(R_+ × [0,1]), f ∈ C^1(R_+ × [0,1]), and v ∈ C^1(R_+ × [0,1]; (0,∞)).
[Theorem 2.1 and Theorem 3.1, compatibility conditions] The compatibility conditions at (0,0) are written in compressed form; please expand them fully (e.g., ρ_0(0) = ρ_s exp(b(0)) and the corresponding first-order compatibility condition) to make the dependency on v and b explicit.
[Definition of h] The function h is defined as h(s)=1 for s<0 and h(s)=0 for s≥0, but in several displayed estimates its argument is not legible; make the argument explicit, for example h(t - 1/v_min(t)).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the estimates are derived from explicit characteristic formulas and a standard Lyapunov comparison, with no fitted parameter or target-importing self-citation.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. Theorem 2.1 is obtained by the exact transformation w = ln(rho/rho_s), which converts (2.1)-(2.2) into the linear transport equation (2.7)-(2.9) with a = -v_x, f = 0, and boundary input b. The resulting estimates for the logarithmic deviation are exactly the w-estimates of Theorem 2.3 with those substitutions. Theorem 2.3 is proved from first principles: characteristics are defined through the ODE (4.1), the solution is written explicitly via superposition in (4.8)-(4.10), each component is estimated directly, and the only external tool is Lemma 2.12 in [16], a standard comparison/Gronwall-type lemma whose assumptions do not include the target result and which is not used to import the claimed stability estimates. No parameter is fitted to any subset of data, no input is redefined as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem from the authors' prior work is invoked to force the choice of Lyapunov function or norm. The regularity mismatch noted by a skeptical reader (Theorem 2.1 assumes only v in C^1, while Theorem 2.3 states a in C^1 for the transformed coefficient a = -v_x) is a hypothesis gap in the proof as written, not a circularity: the estimates themselves are not assumed as inputs. Therefore the paper's central claims are independently derived and receive a circularity score of 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters or invented entities. The paper's estimates are explicit in terms of v_min, v_max, v_x_max and the disturbances; the only unproved external input is the standard comparison lemma from the authors' book [16], which is a published result.

assumptions (5)

standard math Characteristic ODE well-posedness for C^1 positive vector fields
Used in (4.1)-(4.2) to construct the solution and perform the change of variables in the proof of Theorem 2.3.
standard math Gronwall's lemma and the comparison lemma (Lemma 2.12 of [16])
Used in the Lyapunov step (4.21) and in the uniqueness argument.
standard math Banach fixed point theorem
Used in the proof of Proposition 4.1 for local existence of the nonlocal manufacturing model.
domain assumption Velocity v is C^1 and strictly positive on [0,1] for all t
Section 2, equation (2.1) and Theorem 2.1: this guarantees the boundary x=0 is the inflow and characteristics exit at x=1.
domain assumption State rho and boundary disturbance b are C^1 with compatibility conditions
Theorem 2.1 and Theorem 3.1: these regularity and compatibility conditions ensure the classical solution is C^1.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Stability Results for the Continuity Equation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/D5XSBEYL

@misc{pith2026190805995,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Stability Results for the Continuity Equation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/D5XSBEYL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.05995}
}

read the original abstract

We provide a thorough study of stability of the 1-D continuity equation, which models many physical conservation laws. In our system-theoretic perspective, the velocity is considered to be an input. An additional input appears in the boundary condition (boundary disturbance). Stability estimates are provided in all Lp state norms with p>1, as well as in the sup norm. However, in our Input-to-State Stability estimates, the gain and overshoot coefficients depend on the velocity. Moreover, the logarithmic norm of the state appears instead of the usual norm. The obtained results can be used in the stability analysis of larger models that contain the continuity equation. In particular, it is shown that the obtained results can be used in a straightforward way for the stability analysis of non-local, nonlinear manufacturing models under feedback control.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages

[1]

Loss of Regularity for the Continuity Equation with Non-Lipschitz Velocity Field

Alberti, G., G. Crippa and A. L. Mazzucato, “Loss of Regularity for the Continuity Equation with Non-Lipschitz Velocity Field”, Annals of PDE, 5, 2019

work page 2019
[2]

An Explicit Mapping from Linear First Order Hyperbolic PDEs to Difference Systems

Auriol, J., F. Di Meglio, “ An Explicit Mapping from Linear First Order Hyperbolic PDEs to Difference Systems”, Systems & Control Letters, 123, 2019, 144-150

work page 2019
[3]

Bastin, G., and J. -M. Coron, Stability and Boundary Stabilization of 1 -D Hyperbolic Systems , Progress in Nonlinear Differential Equations and Their Applications. Springer, 2016

work page 2016
[4]

The One Dimensional Cauchy Problem , Oxford University Press, 2000

Bressan, A., Hyperbolic Systems of Conservation Laws. The One Dimensional Cauchy Problem , Oxford University Press, 2000

work page 2000
[5]

Childress, S., An Introduction to Theoret ical Fluid Mechanics , American Mathematical Society, 2009

work page 2009
[6]

Control of the Continuity Equation with a Non Local Flow

Colombo, R. M., M. Herty and M. Mercier, “Control of the Continuity Equation with a Non Local Flow”, ESAIM Control, Optimisation and Calculus of Variations, 17, 2011, 353-379

work page 2011
[7]

Analysis of a Conservation Law Modeling a Highly Re- entrant Manufacturing System

Coron, J.-M., M. Kawski and Z. Wang, “ Analysis of a Conservation Law Modeling a Highly Re- entrant Manufacturing System”, Discrete and Continuous Dynamical Systems Series B , 14, 2010, 1337-1359. 18

work page 2010
[8]

Controllability for a S calar Conservation La w with Nonlocal Velocity

Coron, J. -M. and Z. Wang, “Controllability for a S calar Conservation La w with Nonlocal Velocity”, Journal of Differential Equations, 252, 2012, 181–201

work page 2012

Show all 29 references

[9]

Output Feedback Stabilization for a Scalar Conservation Law with a Nonlocal Velocity

Coron, J.-M. and Z. Wang, “Output Feedback Stabilization for a Scalar Conservation Law with a Nonlocal Velocity”, SIAM Journal on Mathematical Analysis, 45, 2013, 2646–2665

2013
[10]

Local Exponential H2 Stabilization of a 2×2 Quasilinear Hyperbolic System Using Backstepping

Coron, J.-M., R. Vazquez, M. Krstic, and G. Bastin. “Local Exponential H2 Stabilization of a 2×2 Quasilinear Hyperbolic System Using Backstepping”, SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization , 51, 2013, 2005–2035

2013
[11]

Stabilization and Controllability of First -Order Integro - Differential Hyperbolic Equations

Coron, J. -M., L. Hu and G. Oliv e, “Stabilization and Controllability of First -Order Integro - Differential Hyperbolic Equations”, Journal of Functional Analysis, 271, 2016, 3554–3587

2016
[12]

Finite -Time Boundary Stabilization of General Linear Hyperbolic Balance Laws via Fredholm Backstepping Transformation

Coron, J. -M., L. Hu and G. Olive, “Finite -Time Boundary Stabilization of General Linear Hyperbolic Balance Laws via Fredholm Backstepping Transformation”, Automatica, 84, 2017, 95- 100

2017
[13]

Boundary Observer Design for Hyperbolic PDE -ODE Cascade Systems

Hasan, A., O. M. Aamo and M. Krstic, “ Boundary Observer Design for Hyperbolic PDE -ODE Cascade Systems”, Automatica, 68, 2016, 75-86

2016
[14]

Boundary Exponential Stabilization of 1 - Dimensional Inhomogeneous Quasi -Linear Hyperbolic Systems

Hu, L., R. Vazquez, F. Di Meglio and M. Krstic, “ Boundary Exponential Stabilization of 1 - Dimensional Inhomogeneous Quasi -Linear Hyperbolic Systems ”, SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization, 57, 2019, 963-998

2019
[15]

Kachroo, P., S. J. Al -nasur, S. Wadoo and A. Shende, Pedestrian Dynamics: Feedback Control of Crowd Evacuation, Springer, 2008

2008
[16]

Karafyllis, I. and Z. -P. Jiang, Stability and Stabiliz ation of Nonlinear Systems , Springer-Verlag, London (Series: Communications and Control Engineering), 2011

2011
[17]

On the Relation of Delay Equations to First -Order Hyperbolic Partial Differential Equations

Karafyllis, I. and M. Krstic, “ On the Relation of Delay Equations to First -Order Hyperbolic Partial Differential Equations”, ESAIM Control, Opt imisation and Calculus of Variations , 20, 2014, 894 - 923

2014
[18]

Stability of Integral Delay Equations and Stabilization of Age - Structured Models

Karafyllis, I. and M. Krstic, “Stability of Integral Delay Equations and Stabilization of Age - Structured Models”, ESAIM Control, Optimisation and Calculus of Variations , 23 , 2017, 1667 - 1714

2017
[19]

Sampled-Data Boundary Feedback Control of 1-D Linear Transport PDEs with Non-Local Terms

Karafyllis, I. and M. Krstic, “Sampled-Data Boundary Feedback Control of 1-D Linear Transport PDEs with Non-Local Terms”, Systems and Control Letters, 107, 2017, 68-75

2017
[20]

Karafyllis, I. and M. Krstic, Input-to-State Stability for PDEs , Springer-Verlag, London (Series: Communications and Control Engineering), 2019

2019
[21]

Feedback Control of Scalar Conservation Laws with Application to Density Control in Freeways by Means of Variable Speed Limits

Karafyllis, I. and M. Papageorgiou, “Feedback Control of Scalar Conservation Laws with Application to Density Control in Freeways by Means of Variable Speed Limits”, Automatica, 105, 2019, 228-236

2019
[22]

Feedback Control of Nonlinear Hyperbolic PDE Systems Inspired by Traffic Flow Models

Karafyllis, I. , N. Bekiaris -Liberis and M. Papageorgiou, “Feedback Control of Nonlinear Hyperbolic PDE Systems Inspired by Traffic Flow Models”, to appear in IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control (see also arXiv:1707.02209 [math.OC])

arXiv
[23]

Control of Continuum Models of Production Systems

La Marca, M., D. Armbruster, M. Herty and C. Ringhofer, “Control of Continuum Models of Production Systems”, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 55, 2010, 2511-2526

2010
[24]

Robust Boundary Control of Systems of Conservation Laws

Prieur, C., J. Winkin, and G . Bastin, “Robust Boundary Control of Systems of Conservation Laws”, Mathematics of Control, Signals, and Systems, 20, 2008, 173–197

2008
[25]

Boundary Feedback Control of Linear Hyperbolic Systems: Application to the Saint-Venant–Exner Equations

Prieur, C. and J. Winkin, “ Boundary Feedback Control of Linear Hyperbolic Systems: Application to the Saint-Venant–Exner Equations”, Automatica, 88, 2018, 44-51

2018
[26]

A., Partial Differential Equations

Strauss, W. A., Partial Differential Equations. An Introduction, 2nd Edition, Wiley, 2008

2008
[27]

K., Atmospheric and Oceanic Fluid Dynamics, Cambridge University Press, 2006

Vallis, G. K., Atmospheric and Oceanic Fluid Dynamics, Cambridge University Press, 2006

2006
[28]

Traffic Congestion Control of Aw -Rascle-Zhang M odel

Yu, H. and M. Kr stic, “ Traffic Congestion Control of Aw -Rascle-Zhang M odel”, Automatica, 100, 2019, 38-51

2019
[29]

PI Boundary Control of Linear Hyperbolic Balance Laws with Stabilization of ARZ Traffic Flow Models

Zhang, L., C. Prieur and J. Qiao, “PI Boundary Control of Linear Hyperbolic Balance Laws with Stabilization of ARZ Traffic Flow Models”, Systems and Control Letters, 123, 2019, 85-91

2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Loss of Regularity for the Continuity Equation with Non-Lipschitz Velocity Field

Alberti, G., G. Crippa and A. L. Mazzucato, “Loss of Regularity for the Continuity Equation with Non-Lipschitz Velocity Field”, Annals of PDE, 5, 2019

work page 2019

[2] [2]

An Explicit Mapping from Linear First Order Hyperbolic PDEs to Difference Systems

Auriol, J., F. Di Meglio, “ An Explicit Mapping from Linear First Order Hyperbolic PDEs to Difference Systems”, Systems & Control Letters, 123, 2019, 144-150

work page 2019

[3] [3]

Bastin, G., and J. -M. Coron, Stability and Boundary Stabilization of 1 -D Hyperbolic Systems , Progress in Nonlinear Differential Equations and Their Applications. Springer, 2016

work page 2016

[4] [4]

The One Dimensional Cauchy Problem , Oxford University Press, 2000

Bressan, A., Hyperbolic Systems of Conservation Laws. The One Dimensional Cauchy Problem , Oxford University Press, 2000

work page 2000

[5] [5]

Childress, S., An Introduction to Theoret ical Fluid Mechanics , American Mathematical Society, 2009

work page 2009

[6] [6]

Control of the Continuity Equation with a Non Local Flow

Colombo, R. M., M. Herty and M. Mercier, “Control of the Continuity Equation with a Non Local Flow”, ESAIM Control, Optimisation and Calculus of Variations, 17, 2011, 353-379

work page 2011

[7] [7]

Analysis of a Conservation Law Modeling a Highly Re- entrant Manufacturing System

Coron, J.-M., M. Kawski and Z. Wang, “ Analysis of a Conservation Law Modeling a Highly Re- entrant Manufacturing System”, Discrete and Continuous Dynamical Systems Series B , 14, 2010, 1337-1359. 18

work page 2010

[8] [8]

Controllability for a S calar Conservation La w with Nonlocal Velocity

Coron, J. -M. and Z. Wang, “Controllability for a S calar Conservation La w with Nonlocal Velocity”, Journal of Differential Equations, 252, 2012, 181–201

work page 2012