Congested Crossing Pedestrian Traffic Flow : Dispersion vs. Transport in Crowded Areas

Ghadir Jradi; Mariam Al Khatib; Noureddine Igbida; Said Gounane

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 36 references

Congested Crossing Pedestrian Traffic Flow : Dispersion vs. Transport in Crowded Areas

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper proves that a two-population crossing flow, where one crowd moves and the other rearranges like a sandpile, has a weak solution as long as total mass stays below capacity.

desk verdict A genuinely novel two-population coupling—transport for one crowd, W1-sandpile decongestion for the other—but the main existence proof leans on an unverified compactness step that needs repair before the theorem is taken as established. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.16275 v1 pith:B7NJXYRE submitted 2025-01-27 math.AP

Mariam Al Khatib , Said Gounane , Noureddine Igbida , Ghadir Jradi This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.AP MSC 22E4653C3557S20

keywords crowdmotioncongestiontransportequation1-WassersteindistanceW1-gradientflowminimum-flowproblemprimal-dualnumericaloptimizationpedestrian

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper proposes a macroscopic model for a space where one population ($\rho_1$) must cross territory occupied by another ($\rho_2$), treating the first as a passive tracer carried by a given velocity field and the second as a granular medium that re-arranges so that the combined density never exceeds the maximum value $1$. The central theoretical result, Theorem 3.2, states that the coupled system has a weak solution whenever the initial data satisfy $0 \le \rho_1^0 + \rho_2^0 \le 1$ and the total mass $M(t) = \int_\Omega(\rho_1+\rho_2)\,dx$ remains strictly below $|\Omega|$ on the time interval. The proof rewrites the dynamics for the aggregate density $\rho=\rho_1+\rho_2$ as a $1$-Wasserstein gradient flow with a forcing term coming from the transport of $\rho_1$, and passes to the limit in an implicit Euler scheme. If the result is correct, it provides a mathematically grounded way to simulate evacuation and crossing flows under a hard congestion ceiling, and the numerical method shows that different movement strategies of the traversing crowd cause qualitatively different responses in the accommodating crowd.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the subdifferential of the indicator function of $\mathrm{Lip}_1$, the set of $1$-Lipschitz functions on $\Omega$, defined through Kantorovich potentials: a distribution $h$ belongs to $\partial I_{\mathrm{Lip}_1}(p)$ exactly when $p\in\mathrm{Lip}_1$ and $p$ maximizes $\langle h,\cdot\rangle$ over $\mathrm{Lip}_1$. Through the $1$-Wasserstein distance $W_1$ and its dual formulation as a minimum-flow problem, each time step of the implicit Euler scheme becomes a projection of the predicted density onto the admissible set $\{0\le u\le 1\}$, and the pressure $p$ emerges as the dual variable. This duality is what carries both halves of the paper: it supplies the estimates that produce the weak solution in Theorem 3.2, and it is the exact optimization problem solved numerically in the correction step of the algorithm.

What would settle it

Test the compactness step directly: for a smooth test case, compute the discrete pressure $p^\tau$ and density $\tilde{\rho}^\tau$ produced by the scheme, and check numerically whether $p^\tau\tilde{\rho}^\tau \to p\rho$ in $L^\infty(Q)$ weak-* and whether the stated uniform bounds on $\partial_t\tilde{\rho}^\tau$ in $L^1(0,T;(\mathrm{Lip}',W_1))$ hold as $\tau\to 0$; a failure of either provides a concrete counterexample to the proof's Lemma 3.3.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that congested crossing traffic can be modeled by coupling a linear transport equation for the traversing population, $\partial_t\rho_1 + \nabla\cdot(\rho_1 V)=0$, with a sandpile-like evolution for the accommodating population, $\frac{d\rho_2}{dt} + \partial I_{\mathrm{Lip}_1}(p) \ni 0$, where the pressure $p$ is the Lagrange multiplier enforcing $0\le \rho_1+\rho_2\le 1$ and the complementarity relation $p(1-\rho_1-\rho_2)=0$. Working with the total density $\rho = \rho_1+\rho_2$, the authors reduce the system to the inclusion $\partial_t\rho + \partial I_{\mathrm{Lip}_1}(p) \ni -\nabla\cdot(\rho_1 V)$, in which $p$ is a Kantorovich potential for the $1$-Wasserstein projection of the discrete dynamics. Under the strict sub-saturation condition $\sup_{t\in[0,T)} M(t) < |\Omega|$, they prove the existence of a weak solution by an implicit Euler scheme in the $W_1$ metric, using duality and compensated compactness to obtain the complementarity condition in the limit. The same variational structure yields a prediction-correction numerical algorithm: transport $\rho_1$ with an upwind finite-volume step, then project $\rho_2$ onto the admissible set by solving a minimum-flow problem with a primal-dual method. Simulations with eikonal, Gaussian-convolution, and diffusion-based velocity fields illustrate the predicted behaviors, including cases where the traversing population exits the domain and cases where reflective boundaries keep congestion inside.

Load-bearing premise

The proof relies on the assumption that the approximate pressure and density produced by the scheme have enough compactness for their product to converge correctly in the limit; if that fails, the congestion constraint may not be preserved and the proof breaks.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If Theorem 3.2 is right, then the model gives a rigorous macroscopic description of crossing flows with a hard density constraint, so evacuation and contraflow scenarios can be simulated with provable existence behind the numerics.
The prediction-correction scheme yields an implementable algorithm: transport the moving crowd, then solve a minimum-flow problem for the accommodating crowd, with the same duality structure in theory and code.
The strict mass condition $M(t)<|\Omega|$ implies that contact with the maximum density acts as a barrier: solutions are guaranteed only while there remains free space, tying the theory to the geometry of the domain and the outflow through the boundary.
Spatially varying ceilings $\kappa(x)=1-\rho_1$ in the correction step mean the same algorithm can handle obstacles, walls, and zones of different carrying capacity without changing the method.
Different choices of the velocity field $V$ (eikonal, Gaussian, diffusion) change only the prediction step, so the framework covers directed, dispersive, and density-responding traversal strategies within one model.

Reading between the lines

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

The paper does not treat the limiting case $M(t)=|\Omega|$; one could test whether allowing full saturation requires a measure-valued pressure or a different compactness argument, extending the theorem to the touching case.
The same $W_1$-projection structure suggests a direct link to discrete optimal transport solvers: comparing the primal-dual projections with entropic-regularization solvers might indicate whether the hard ceiling is best enforced by projection or by a soft penalty in practice.
Since $\rho_1$ is assumed oblivious to congestion, a likely next test is to let $V$ depend on $\rho_2$; the current existence theory would not automatically cover such feedback, and simulations might reveal oscillations near the boundary.
The numerical examples for reflecting boundaries suggest persistent congestion can arise purely from boundary conditions; a quantitative study of how long the congested phase lasts as a function of the reflection rule would be a concrete follow-up.

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

Colleague — the thing worth knowing about this paper is that the model is new in a concrete way: population 1 solves a linear transport equation with prescribed velocity, population 2 evolves by the W1-sandpile gradient-flow decongestion, and they are tied by the shared constraint rho1 + rho2 <= 1 with complementarity. Earlier papers by the same group treat one population or trivial rho1; here the nonzero rho1 genuinely changes the variational structure. That is a real step forward for macroscopic crowd and evacuation modeling.

The transport part is routine and handled correctly. The numerical section shows the expected qualitative behavior: directed, dispersive, and diffusive strategies for rho1 all trigger rho2 rearrangement only where the sum hits capacity. The prediction-correction algorithm is a sensible adaptation of their prior minimum-flow approach, and the discrete proximal operators are explicit. That is honest, usable work.

The soft spot is in the proof of Theorem 3.2. Lemma 3.3 asserts p_n rho_tilde_n -> p rho in L∞ weak-* by "weak compensated compactness," citing [5,35], but the hypotheses of those nonlinear compactness results are not checked. The estimates in the paper give weak-* convergence of rho_n and tilde_rho_n, weak convergence of p_n in L^q(W^{1,q}), and a time-derivative bound in the dual of Lip—no spatial compactness for tilde_rho_n, no BV-type control, no L^1 compactness of the product. The product convergence is what yields p(1-rho)=0, so the complementarity condition, the heart of the correction mechanism, is not rigorously established as written. This is a genuine gap, not a nitpick, but I do not think it sinks the paper: the scheme is natural, the discrete complementarity holds exactly, and the missing piece looks repairable with Aubin-Lions-type arguments or a different compactness route. The strict slack condition (3.15), M(t) < |Omega|, is acknowledged by the authors and is a real modeling restriction: fully saturated crossing is not covered. Minor issues: the numerics are not reproducible from the manuscript—no code, no explicit mesh or time-step values in the text, no convergence checks—and the primal-dual notation has inconsistencies. The citation pattern leans on their own prior work, but that is building on an existing formalism, not circularity; the main theorem is not a restatement.

Who this is for: people working on crowd motion, W1 gradient flows, or constrained transport. It deserves a serious referee. I would send it out and ask for a repaired Lemma 3.3 and a reproducible numerical section. If the compactness step gets fixed, this is a solid paper. Reading group yes.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a two-population model of congested pedestrian traffic in a bounded domain: population 1 moves by a prescribed linear transport equation, while population 2 obeys a sandpile-type granular diffusion driven by a 1-Wasserstein gradient flow, with the total density constrained by 0 ≤ ρ1 + ρ2 ≤ 1 through a pressure-type Lagrange multiplier p satisfying p(1−ρ1−ρ2)=0. The main theoretical result, Theorem 3.2, asserts existence of weak solutions to the coupled problem under the strict mass condition (3.15), sup M(t) < |Ω|, using an implicit Euler scheme in the 1-Wasserstein metric and passing to the limit. The paper also proposes a prediction-correction numerical algorithm combining finite-volume transport, minimum-flow projection, and a Chambolle-Pock primal-dual solver, and presents nine numerical experiments illustrating directed, nonlocal, and diffusion-based motion of population 1.

Significance. If the existence theorem is correct, this is a useful extension of single-population W1-sandpile methods to coupled crossing flows: the transport population acts as a nonlocal source, and the second population implements a decongestion mechanism while preserving the hard constraint ρ1+ρ2≤1. The distinction between transport and dispersive congestion dynamics, together with the proposed numerical scheme, is well motivated and the examples cover qualitatively different regimes. The paper is also transparent in stating the strict mass condition (3.15) as a hypothesis rather than hiding it. However, the proof of the central theorem contains an unverified compactness step that is load-bearing for the complementarity condition, so the theoretical claim is not established as written.

major comments (3)

[Lemma 3.3, Eq. (3.29)] The assertion that p_n ρ̃_n → p ρ in L∞(Q) weak-* follows from 'weak compensated compactness' (cited [5,35]) is not supported by the estimates established in the paper. From (3.24)-(3.26) one has only weak-* L∞ convergence of ρ_n and ρ̃_n and weak convergence of p_n in Lq(0,T;W1,q(Ω)); the only time-compactness estimate, (3.28), controls ∂t ρ̃_n in L1(0,T;Lip′), which is the dual of W1,∞ and does not provide the type of strong/compact embedding needed in the Aubin-Lions-type lemmas of [5,35]. The hypotheses of those lemmas are not verified. Since p(1−ρ)=0 is subsequently obtained from this product limit in (3.29) and is part of Definition 3.1, the proof of Theorem 3.2 is incomplete at a load-bearing point.
[Proof of Theorem 3.2, Eq. (3.30)] Passing to the limit in the discrete variational inequality (3.30) to obtain (3.10) requires a convergence statement for the piecewise-constant source f_n and for the products ⟨f_n(t), p_n(t)−ξ⟩. The paper only records L∞ bounds on W1(widehat f) and ⟨f⟩ after (3.13), and p_n converges weakly in W1,q without a strong compactness result. In particular, the boundary trace term in the definition of f in (3.7) is not shown to pass to the limit. This is a second unverified limiting step in the existence proof.
[Theorem 3.2 and Section 4 numerical experiments] The existence result is restricted to the strict inequality (3.15), sup M(t) < |Ω|, yet several numerical examples explicitly operate at saturation, for example Figure 1 where the text states that movement of population 2 is triggered when ρ1+ρ2=1. The paper does not discuss whether the simulations satisfy (3.15), nor does it analyze the saturation time Ta introduced in Remark 5. This leaves the relation between the proven theorem and the computed dynamics unclear and should be addressed explicitly.

minor comments (5)

[Keywords and abstract] The keyword list contains 'Crowed motion' instead of 'Crowded motion'; the abstract uses 'affects' where 'affect' is intended.
[Section 1, model description] There are typos in the introduction, e.g., 'Lagrange multiplayer associtae' should read 'Lagrange multiplier associated'.
[Theorem 2.1 and surrounding text] The theorem statement and proof refer to equation numbers (2.1) and (2.2) interchangeably, which makes it difficult to tell which boundary-value problem is being addressed; please renumber consistently.
[Lemma 3.2] The proof of the bound on the mean of pτ uses a chain of inequalities whose direction is not fully explained; adding the variational inequality (3.20) with ψ=0 explicitly would improve readability.
[Algorithm 2] The parameters α, β, θ are introduced without stating the convergence condition; the condition αβ∥Λh∥2<1 appears only in Algorithm 3 and should be stated once in Algorithm 2.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: Theorem 3.2 is proved from an explicit W1 discretization and stated hypotheses, not from the model's own conclusions.

full rationale

The central claim, Theorem 3.2, is an existence result for the coupled transport/sandpile system, and its proof is built from the discrete scheme in Lemma 3.1, the pressure bound in Lemma 3.2, and the limiting argument in Lemma 3.3. Condition (3.15), the strict mass bound M < |Omega|, is a stated hypothesis used in Lemma 3.2; it is not fitted from data and it is not a renamed version of the conclusion. The numerical sections contain forward simulations of the proposed model, not predictions obtained by fitting parameters to the simulated outputs, so no fitted-input-called-prediction pattern is present. Prior work by the same authors supplies the W1/sandpile formalism and the prediction-correction methodology, but those citations are supporting tools: the paper explicitly notes that the nonzero rho1 makes the earlier approach from [1,31] ineffective, and it derives the new coupled formulation and existence proof rather than importing them. The only substantive caveat is not circularity: Lemma 3.3 invokes weak compensated compactness from [5,35] to justify the product limit pn rho_tilde_n -> p rho without displaying the full compactness hypotheses, which is a potential rigor gap in the existence proof. This is a correctness or completeness concern, not an identity between input and output that makes the derivation circular. The self-citations to Proposition 4.5 of [21] and to the prediction-correction algorithm are methodological and not load-bearing in the sense of forcing the theorem by definition.

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

The central theorem rests on the standard W1-gradient-flow machinery (Lip1 subdifferential, Kantorovich potentials, minimum-flow duality) taken from prior work, plus the explicit unsaturated-mass condition (3.15). No constant is fitted to data; rho_max=1 is a normalization. The numerical examples add example-specific parameters (sigma=5, lambda=0.1, Gaussian centers) that are not fitted to external data.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Velocity field assumptions (T1), (T2), div V >= 0 and V.nu >= 0 on the boundary
Used to guarantee that the transport solution rho1 stays in [0,1] and that the source term f = -div(rho1 V) is well defined in Lip'; see Section 2.1 and (3.7).
domain assumption Unsaturated total mass condition M(t) < |Omega| on [0,T) (3.15)
Provides the lower bound |Omega|-M > 0 used in Lemma 3.2 to control the mean of the Kantorovich potential; the theorem does not cover fully saturated crowds.
standard math Equivalence between the subdifferential of the Lip1 indicator and the sandpile PDE (3.3), and the Kantorovich-potential characterization (3.11) from [1,20,29,30]
Imported from prior literature without proof; this is the modeling backbone of population 2.
standard math Weak compensated compactness results of [5,35] apply to the numerical sequences
Used in the proof of Lemma 3.3 to pass to the limit in products pn rho_tilde_n; the paper states the application without checking hypotheses.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Congested Crossing Pedestrian Traffic Flow : Dispersion vs. Transport in Crowded Areas." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/B7NJXYRE

@misc{pith2026250116275,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Congested Crossing Pedestrian Traffic Flow : Dispersion vs. Transport in Crowded Areas},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/B7NJXYRE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.16275}
}

abstract

This study investigates the complex dynamic interactions between two typed populations coexisting within a shared space. We propose both theoretical and numerical study to analyze scenarios where one population (population $1$) must traverse a territory occupied by another (population $2$), necessitating strategies to mitigate overcrowding caused by spatial limitations. To capture these interactions, we model population $1$ using a linear transport equation, while population $2$ is described by a granular diffusion model a la sandpile to represent its internal dynamics and tendency to decongest. Through numerical simulations, we explore how different movement strategies of the traversing population (population $1$) - including directed motion towards a specific destination, internal dispersion to minimize crowding, and uniform dispersal across the space - affects the behavior of population $2$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.16275 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Snapshots of ρ2 (left) moving along the red-patterned field, interacting with ρ1 (moving along the white field, center). The right image visualizes the combined density ρ1 + ρ2. The red movement of population ρ2 is only triggered when it encounters population ρ1 and ρ1 + ρ2 = 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_1.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** The absence of ρ2 flux (red arrows) in the bottom block can be attributed to the enforcement of the maximum density constraint throughout the dynamical evolution [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Snapshots of ρ2 (left) totating along the red-patterned field, interacting with ρ1 (moving along the white field, center) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (6 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Snapshots of ρ2 (left) moving along the red-patterned field, interacting with ρ1 (moving along the white field, center). The right image visualizes the combined density ρ1 +ρ2. Population 2’s red-indicated movement is triggered only when it encounters population ρ1 a…

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: In contrast to the earlier scenario in Example 4, the reflective nature of the boundary conditions serves to preserve congestion within the domain upon population rho1 reaching the boundary. 4.3.6. Example 6: A scenario similar to Example 4 with three initial Gaussian …

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: As in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p034_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Unlike the previous case, the boundary conditions lead to a persistent congestion near the boundary due to the inward reflection of the population [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p035_7.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: We observe a similar behavior to the Dirichlet case with a nonlocal potential: an undergo phase of congestion followed by stabilization into a non-congested dynamic. 4.3.9. Example 9: A scenario similar to Example 5, but employing different initial data distributions …

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Similar outcomes were obtained when applying the method to different datasets, consistent with the findings in Example 8. Acknowledgments NI was partially supported by the CNRST of Morocco under the FINCOM program. He is also grateful to the EST of Essaouira for its ho…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

[1]

Agueh, G

M. Agueh, G. Carlier, and N. Igbida, On the minimizing movement with the 1-Wasserstein distance. ESAIM Control Optim. Calc. Var., 24(4)(2018) 1415-1427. 38 M. AL KHATIB, S. GOUNANE, N. IGBIDA, AND G. JRADI

work page 2018
[2]

Ambrosio, Transport equation and Cauchy problem for BV vector fields.Invent

L. Ambrosio, Transport equation and Cauchy problem for BV vector fields.Invent. Math., 158(2) (2004) 227-260

work page 2004
[3]

Ambrosio and G

L. Ambrosio and G. Crippa, Existence, uniqueness, stability and differentiability properties of the flow associated to weakly differentiable vector fields,In Transport equations and multi-D hyperbolic conservation laws, Volume 5 of Lect. Notes Unione Mat. Ital.(2008) Springer, Berlin 3–57

work page 2008
[4]

Ambrosio, G

L. Ambrosio, G. Crippa and S. Maniglia, Traces and fine properties of a BD class of vector fields and applications, Ann. Fac. Sci. Toulouse Math.,(6), 14(4) (2005) 527-561

work page 2005
[5]

Andreianov and C

B. Andreianov and C. Cances and A. Moussa. A nonlinear time compactness result and appli- cations to discretization of degenerate parabolic–elliptic PDEs. J. Func. Anal., 2017, Vo 273(12), 3633-3670

work page 2017
[6]

Bellomo, L

N. Bellomo, L. Gibelli, A. Quaini and A. Reali, Towards a mathematical theory of behavioral human crowds,Mathematical Models and Methods in Applied Sciences. 32 (2022) No. 02, 321-358. Open Access https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/epdf/10.1142/S0218202522500087

work page doi:10.1142/s0218202522500087 2022
[7]

Bertsch, ME

M. Bertsch, ME. Gurtin and D. Hilhorst, On interacting populations that disperse to avoid crowding: the case of equal dispersal velocities,Nonlinear Analysis: Theory, Methods & Applications, 11(4) (1987) 493–499

work page 1987
[8]

Bouchitte, G

G. Bouchitte, G. Buttazzo, and P. Seppecher, Energies with respect to a measure and applications to low dimensional structures,Calculus of Variations and Partial Differential EquationsVo. 5, pages 37–54, (1997)

work page 1997

Show all 36 references

[9]

Bord, Highway capacity manual,204 TRB

T. Bord, Highway capacity manual,204 TRB
[10]

J. M. Borwein and D. Zhuang, On Fan’s minimax theorem,Math. Programming, 34 (1986), No 2, 232-234

1986
[11]

Boyer, Trace theorems and spatial continuity properties for the solutions of the transport equa- tion.Differential Integral Equations,18(8) (2005) 891-934

F. Boyer, Trace theorems and spatial continuity properties for the solutions of the transport equa- tion.Differential Integral Equations,18(8) (2005) 891-934

2005
[12]

Craig and Y

J.A Carrillo, K. Craig and Y. Yao, Aggregation-Diffusion Equations: Dynamics, Asymptotics, and Singular Limits,In: Bellomo, N., Degond, P., Tadmor, E. (eds) Active Particles,Volume 2. Modeling and Simulation in Science, Engineering and Technology. (2019)

2019
[13]

Carrillo, S

J.A. Carrillo, S. Fagioli, F. Santambrogio and M. Schmidtchen, Splitting schemes and segregation inreaction cross-diffusion systems,SIAM J. Math. Anal.50(5)(2018) 5695–5718

2018
[14]

Chambolle, An algorithm for total variation minimization and applications,J

A. Chambolle, An algorithm for total variation minimization and applications,J. Math. Imaging Vis. 20(1-2) (2004) 89-97

2004
[15]

Chambolle and T

A. Chambolle and T. Pock. A first-order primal-dual algorithm for convex problems with applications to imaging. J. Math. Imaging Vis., 40(1):120-145, 2011

2011
[16]

J. G. Charney, R. Fjortoft and J. Von Neuman, Numerical Integration of the Barotropic Vorticity Equation, Tellus. 2(4) (1980) 237-254

1980
[17]

Crippa C

G. Crippa C. Donadello and L. Spinolo, Initial–boundary value problems for continuity equations with BV coefficients,Journal Math. Pure Appl.,(102)1 (2014) 79-98

2014
[18]

Crank and P

J. Crank and P. Nicolson, A practical method for numerical evaluation of solutions of partial differen- tial equations of the heat-conduction type,Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 43(1) (1947) 50-67

1947
[19]

Crippa C

G. Crippa C. Donadello and L. Spinolo, A note on the initial–boundary value problem for continuity equations with rough coefficients,Proceedings of HYP2012,(2012)

2012
[20]

De Pascale and C

L. De Pascale and C. Jimenez, Duality theory and optimal transport for sand piles growing in a silos, Adv. Differential Equations.20(9/10) (September/October 2015) 859-886

2015
[21]

Ennaji, N

H. Ennaji, N. Igbida and G. Jradi, Prediction-correction pedestrian flow by means of minimum flow problem, Math. Models Methods Appl. Sci.34 (03) (2024) 385-416

2024
[22]

Ennaji, N

H. Ennaji, N. Igbida and V. T. Nguyen, Augmented Lagrangian methods for degenerate Hamilton- Jacobi equations,Calc. Var. Partial Differential Equations, 60(6) (2021) 0944-2669

2021
[23]

L. C. Evans and F. Rezakhanlou, A stochastic model for growing sandpiles and its continuum limit, Comm. Math. Phys., 197(2) (1998) 325-345. CONGESTED CROSSING PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC FLOW : DISPERSION VS. TRANSPORT IN CROWDED AREAS 39

1998
[24]

Gurtin and AC

ME. Gurtin and AC. Pipkin, A note on interacting populations that disperse to avoid crowding, Quarterly of Applied Mathematics(1984) 87-94

1984
[25]

Helbing, A mathematical model for the behavior of pedestrians,Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 36 (1991) 298-310

D. Helbing, A mathematical model for the behavior of pedestrians,Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 36 (1991) 298-310

1991
[26]

Helbing, P

D. Helbing, P. Molnar, and F. Schweitzer, Computer simulations of pedestrian dynamics and trail formation, 01 (1994)

1994
[27]

R. L. Hughes, The flow of human crowds,Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics.35 (2003) 169-182

2003
[28]

Igbida, Cross-Diffusion Theory for Overcrowding Dispersal in Interacting Species System,Preprint https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.06464

N. Igbida, Cross-Diffusion Theory for Overcrowding Dispersal in Interacting Species System,Preprint https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.06464

arXiv
[29]

Igbida, Equivalent Formulations for Monge-Kantorovich Equation,Nonlinear Analysis TMA

N. Igbida, Equivalent Formulations for Monge-Kantorovich Equation,Nonlinear Analysis TMA. 71 (2009), 3805-3813

2009
[30]

Igbida, Evolution Monge-Kantorovich Equation,J

N. Igbida, Evolution Monge-Kantorovich Equation,J. Differential Equations. 255 (7) (2013) 1383- 1407

2013
[31]

Igbida and M

N. Igbida and M. Urbano, A granular model for crowd motion and pedestrian flow, Preprint. https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.17361

arXiv
[32]

Jordan, D

R. Jordan, D. Kinderlehrer and F. Otto, The variational formulation of the Fokker-Planck equation, SIAM J. Math. Anal.29 (1998) 1–17

1998
[33]

Maury, A

B. Maury, A. Roudneff-Chupin and F. Santambrogio, A macroscopic crowd motion model of gradient flow type,Math. Models and Meth. in Appl. Sci., 20 (2010), No. 10, 1787-1821

2010
[34]

Mischler, On the trace problem for solutions of the Vlasov equation,Comm

S. Mischler, On the trace problem for solutions of the Vlasov equation,Comm. Partial Differential Equations. 25(7-8) (2000) 1415–1443

2000
[35]

Moussa, Some variants of the classical Aubin–Lions Lemma,J

A. Moussa, Some variants of the classical Aubin–Lions Lemma,J. of Evolution Equations. 16 (2016) 65–93

2016
[36]

Santambrogio, Optimal Transport for Applied Mathematicians, Progress in Nonlinear Differential Equations and Their Applications

F. Santambrogio, Optimal Transport for Applied Mathematicians, Progress in Nonlinear Differential Equations and Their Applications. 87 (2015), Birkhauser Basel

2015

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Agueh, G

M. Agueh, G. Carlier, and N. Igbida, On the minimizing movement with the 1-Wasserstein distance. ESAIM Control Optim. Calc. Var., 24(4)(2018) 1415-1427. 38 M. AL KHATIB, S. GOUNANE, N. IGBIDA, AND G. JRADI

work page 2018

[2] [2]

Ambrosio, Transport equation and Cauchy problem for BV vector fields.Invent

L. Ambrosio, Transport equation and Cauchy problem for BV vector fields.Invent. Math., 158(2) (2004) 227-260

work page 2004

[3] [3]

Ambrosio and G

L. Ambrosio and G. Crippa, Existence, uniqueness, stability and differentiability properties of the flow associated to weakly differentiable vector fields,In Transport equations and multi-D hyperbolic conservation laws, Volume 5 of Lect. Notes Unione Mat. Ital.(2008) Springer, Berlin 3–57

work page 2008

[4] [4]

Ambrosio, G

L. Ambrosio, G. Crippa and S. Maniglia, Traces and fine properties of a BD class of vector fields and applications, Ann. Fac. Sci. Toulouse Math.,(6), 14(4) (2005) 527-561

work page 2005

[5] [5]

Andreianov and C

B. Andreianov and C. Cances and A. Moussa. A nonlinear time compactness result and appli- cations to discretization of degenerate parabolic–elliptic PDEs. J. Func. Anal., 2017, Vo 273(12), 3633-3670

work page 2017

[6] [6]

Bellomo, L

N. Bellomo, L. Gibelli, A. Quaini and A. Reali, Towards a mathematical theory of behavioral human crowds,Mathematical Models and Methods in Applied Sciences. 32 (2022) No. 02, 321-358. Open Access https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/epdf/10.1142/S0218202522500087

work page doi:10.1142/s0218202522500087 2022

[7] [7]

Bertsch, ME

M. Bertsch, ME. Gurtin and D. Hilhorst, On interacting populations that disperse to avoid crowding: the case of equal dispersal velocities,Nonlinear Analysis: Theory, Methods & Applications, 11(4) (1987) 493–499

work page 1987

[8] [8]

Bouchitte, G

G. Bouchitte, G. Buttazzo, and P. Seppecher, Energies with respect to a measure and applications to low dimensional structures,Calculus of Variations and Partial Differential EquationsVo. 5, pages 37–54, (1997)

work page 1997