Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 minor 1 cited by

Optimal control of the Poisson equation with transport regularization: Properties of optimal transport plans and transport map

T0 review · 0 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Transport-regularized PDE control: adjoint state carries the geometry

desk verdict Solid, honest structural analysis of measure-valued optimal control with transport regularization; the main theorems are conditional on adjoint-regularity hypotheses the authors flag clearly. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.02808 v1 pith:3RAYLEQX submitted 2025-06-03 math.OC

Christian Meyer , Gerd Wachsmuth This is my paper
classification math.OC MSC 49K2049N6049J2035J08
keywords optimalcontrolofPDEsmeasure-valuedtransportregularizationWassersteindistanceKantorovichdualityfirst-ordernecessaryoptimalityconditionsmapsparsitycontrols
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 studies an optimal control problem in which the control is a Borel measure and the Tikhonov penalty is not the usual total variation but the transportation distance to a given prior measure. It establishes existence of optimal controls and a first-order optimality system in which the adjoint state of the Poisson equation acts as a Kantorovich potential for the optimal transport plan. From that system the authors derive structural facts: under smooth quadratic costs the optimal control has no interior atoms; for strongly convex costs transport is realized by a Hölder or Lipschitz map; for power-type costs an absolutely continuous prior with a regular adjoint state forces an absolutely continuous optimal control; for metric (Wasserstein-1) costs the control is absolutely continuous with respect to the $(d-1)$-dimensional Hausdorff measure, with an example showing Lebesgue absolute continuity can fail. The upshot is that transport regularization imposes geometric restrictions on optimal controls that the Radon-norm regularizer does not.

What carries the argument

The central object is the generalized transportation distance $D^c_{u_0}(u)$, defined by the Kantorovich problem with marginals $u_0$ and $u$, used as the Tikhonov term. The load-bearing identity is the subdifferential characterization from Appendix A: a continuous function $\psi$ lies in $\partial D^c_{u_0}(u)$ exactly when $(\psi^c, \psi)$ solves the dual Kantorovich problem; inserting $\psi = -p/\alpha$ turns the adjoint equation into a Kantorovich potential condition. The supporting mechanism is Lemma 4.4's support inclusion, which confines $\operatorname{supp}(\bar\pi)$ to the set where $c(x,\xi) + p(\xi)/\alpha$ is minimized in $\xi$; all subsequent results on non-atomicity, transport maps, and absolute continuity are consequences of analyzing these minimizers with elliptic regularity of $p$.

What would settle it

Compute the optimal control for a radial, spherically symmetric instance with $d=3$, smooth quadratic transport cost, a tracking-type objective with smooth desired state, and a prior with an $L^\infty$ density whose support avoids the boundary. Corollary 5.6 predicts no atom at the center; a computed optimal control with a positive Dirac there would refute it, while an atom-free control supports the claim. The same experiment with metric costs and an absolutely continuous prior should instead produce a control with nonzero $H^2$-singular part, as Example 8.4 illustrates.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the adjoint state, which classical adjoint calculus would treat as a Lagrange multiplier, doubles as the c-conjugate potential in Kantorovich duality. Consequently the optimality condition $0 \in p + \alpha\, \partial D^c_{u_0}(u)$ is equivalent to $(-p/\alpha|_{\omega_1})^c$ and $-p/\alpha|_{\omega_1}$ solving the dual Kantorovich problem, and every optimal transport plan has support confined to pairs $(x,\xi)$ where $\xi$ minimizes $c(x,\cdot) + p(\cdot)/\alpha$. This single mechanism carries the structural results: elliptic regularity of $p$, obtained through Green functions, maximum principles, and interior estimates, is converted into restrictions on where mass can travel and therefore on where the optimal control can live. The paper proves existence, gives sufficiency under convexity, and instantiates the mechanism for tracking-type objectives, strongly convex costs, power-type costs, and metric costs, including a sharp example where the optimal control is not Lebesgue absolutely continuous although the prior is.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the adjoint state coming out of the first-order system is regular enough (continuously differentiable, or in $W^{2,r}_{\mathrm{loc}}$ with $r>d$) for the Kantorovich potential to be analyzed pointwise; the optimality system itself does not guarantee this regularity, and the paper verifies it only in special settings.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the optimality system of Theorem 4.2 is valid, every locally optimal control comes with an adjoint state solving the dual Kantorovich problem, so numerical first-order methods can be checked against Kantorovich duality gaps.
  • In the tracking-type case with $C^2$ costs, optimal controls have no atoms in the interior of the control domain; Dirac masses can only sit on the boundary, and with metric costs an interior atom can appear only if the prior has an atom at the same point.
  • Under strong convexity plus the curvature condition (6.2), the optimal plan is unique and induced by a Hölder-$1/2$ map $T$ with $T_\# u_0 = u$, so the support and Hausdorff dimension of the control are bounded by those of the prior.
  • With power-type costs and an essentially bounded prior density, a $W^{2,r}_{\mathrm{loc}}$ adjoint with $r>d$ gives absolute continuity of the optimal control in the interior with local density in $L^{r/d}$; under additional boundary regularity the density is bounded.
  • For metric costs, the optimal control is absolutely continuous with respect to $H^{d-1}$ in the interior, and Example 8.4 shows this cannot be improved to Lebesgue absolute continuity.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The adjoint-as-potential mechanism suggests a transfer principle: any PDE whose Green function has a known singularity should yield analogous optimal-transport regularity statements, with the singularity of the Green function setting the threshold for atom suppression.
  • The smoothness dichotomy (C^2 costs suppress interior atoms, metric costs allow them) points to a cost-regularity phase transition; a testable conjecture is that the critical threshold is the degree of differentiability of $c$ in its second argument.
  • In inverse-problem practice, choosing a Wasserstein-1 regularizer should concentrate optimal controls on lower-dimensional sets even from absolutely continuous priors, whereas a Wasserstein-2 regularizer should spread mass with a density; this difference is directly testable on the same Poisson inverse problem.
  • The condition (6.2) and the bound (6.10) are checkable a priori, so one could design benchmarks below the threshold and test whether the computed optimal plan ceases to be induced by a continuous map.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

0 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper studies an optimal control problem for the Poisson equation in which the control is a Borel measure on a compact set ω1 and the Tikhonov regularization is the generalized transportation distance D^c_{u0}(u) to a fixed prior. Existence of optimal controls is proved by the direct method, and a first-order optimality system is derived via Fenchel conjugation and Kantorovich duality: Theorem 4.2 gives an adjoint state p satisfying the adjoint Poisson equation and the inclusion 0 ∈ p + α∂D^c_{u0}(ū), with the subdifferential characterized by a dual Kantorovich problem. The associated support inclusion for optimal transport plans is then used to derive structural properties of optimal controls. The main results are: non-atomicity of optimal controls in the interior of ω1 for smooth tracking-type costs (Section 5); existence and regularity of an optimal transport map under strong convexity of the cost and a curvature condition on the adjoint state (Section 6); absolute continuity of the optimal control for power-type costs when the prior is absolutely continuous and the adjoint has additional W^{2,r} regularity (Section 7); and, for metric costs, non-atomicity or absolute continuity with respect to H^{d-1} under different regularity assumptions on the adjoint state (Section 8). Two worked examples are provided to show sharpness.

Significance. If the results are correct, the paper gives a systematic and largely self-contained PDE-constrained framework for extracting structural information—non-atomicity, existence of transport maps, absolute continuity—from optimality conditions when the control space is a space of measures with transport regularization. The proofs are detailed, the constants in the estimates are explicit, and the conditional structural theorems are phrased with clearly stated hypotheses on the adjoint state. A particular strength is that the paper does not overclaim: the extra adjoint regularity needed in Theorems 6.3, 7.2, 8.1, and 8.3 is stated explicitly, and the paper itself verifies those hypotheses in several special settings (Corollary 6.7, Proposition 7.5). The companion numerical paper [5] is used only as confirmation, not as an ingredient in the proofs. The examples in Section 8 demonstrate that the results are close to sharp.

minor comments (3)
  1. [Sections 5 and 7] The paper repeatedly writes 'ω1 = Ω' (for instance in Theorem 5.9, Theorem 7.4, and Proposition 7.5), although Assumption 2.1 fixes ω1 to be compact and Ω to be an open bounded Lipschitz domain. Please state explicitly that these statements are to be read with ω1 = \overline{Ω}, or introduce a closure convention at the beginning of the paper.
  2. [Theorem 5.9] The proof uses [33, Lemma 5.8] and asserts that the smoothness assumption on the boundary is only needed to check unique solvability of the Poisson equation, so that the lemma extends to Lipschitz domains via Lemma 3.1. Since this step is load-bearing for the H^1_0-regularity and capacity conclusions, please expand the argument into a short proof or provide a precise reference for the Lipschitz-domain version.
  3. [Remark 4.3] The sentence 'the optimal objective value of the dual Kantorovich problem a does not change' contains a stray 'a'; please correct this typo.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the optimality system is derived from external convex-analysis and Kantorovich-duality results, and the structural theorems are conditional on explicitly stated regularity assumptions.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained and does not reduce to its own inputs. Existence (Theorem 3.2) uses the direct method together with weak-* lower semicontinuity of the transport cost, which follows from the Fenchel-conjugate representation in Appendix A. The optimality system in Theorem 4.2 is obtained by adjoint calculus and the subdifferential characterization in Proposition A.3, whose proof is included and relies on standard Kantorovich duality from external references, not on the authors' prior work. Lemma 4.4 derives the support inclusion directly from the complementarity condition of Kantorovich duality; it is not a fitted input. The structural results in Sections 5, 6, 7, and 8 are explicitly conditional on hypotheses such as the curvature condition (6.2), the regularity p in W^{2,r}_loc(int(omega1)) in Theorem 7.2, or Lipschitz continuity of the gradient of p in Theorem 8.3. These are stated assumptions, and where they are verified, as in Corollary 6.7 and Proposition 7.5, the verification uses independent elliptic regularity and the previously proved boundedness of the optimal state. No parameter is fitted to data and then renamed as a prediction. The only self-citation is reference [5] by Borchard and Wachsmuth, which appears in Remark 7.6 solely as numerical confirmation of the regularity results and is not used in any proof, so it is not load-bearing. Example 8.4 constructs a desired state yd = ybar + Delta p so that the adjoint equation holds; this is a legitimate consistency example exhibiting a solution of the optimality system, not a circular derivation of the system itself. Overall, the mathematical content is derived from first principles and external standard results, with no circular step that equates an output with an input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 10 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new entities or fitted parameters. It relies on standard mathematical theories (optimal transport, potential theory, PDE regularity) and on several strong regularity hypotheses on the adjoint state that are the true cost of the structural conclusions.

assumptions (10)
  • domain assumption Omega is a bounded Lipschitz domain; omega0 and omega1 are compact; c is continuous; u0 is a nonnegative measure.
    Standing Assumption 2.1, used throughout.
  • domain assumption The exponent q satisfies q' in (d1, pOmega) with pOmega > d1 from Jerison-Kenig, so the Poisson equation is uniquely solvable in W^{1,q}_0.
    Assumption 2.1; ensures weak Laplacian invertibility and Sobolev embedding into C(Omega).
  • domain assumption J is continuous and Gateaux differentiable, and alpha > 0.
    Assumption 2.1; needed for the optimality system.
  • standard math Kantorovich duality: the transportation distance equals the supremum of the dual problem over c-conjugate potentials.
    Used in Appendix A to characterize the subdifferential of D^c_{u0} (Theorem 4.2).
  • standard math Green's function exists for bounded Lipschitz domains and solves the Poisson equation with Dirac data; the Green potential is a W^{1,q}_0 representative.
    Lemmas 5.2 and 5.3, relying on [1] and [22].
  • standard math Maria-Frostman domination principle for Green potentials.
    Theorem 5.8 from [21], used to extend pointwise bounds on supp(u) to Omega.
  • standard math Brenier's theorem: for strictly convex costs and absolutely continuous u0, there is an optimal transport map.
    Background for Section 7; the paper develops a converse direction.
  • standard math Coarea inequality and change-of-variables formulas for Lipschitz and W^{1,n} maps.
    Used in Theorem 7.2 and Theorem 8.3; cited as [17, 28, 29].
  • ad hoc to paper Strong convexity of h on bounded sets with modulus beta, and curvature condition (6.2) on the adjoint: the Hessian of p is bounded below by -kappa.
    Assumption 6.1 and inequality (6.2) in Theorem 6.3; a strong sufficient condition for the transport map to exist.
  • ad hoc to paper Adjoint state regularity: p in W^{2,r}_{loc}(int omega1) with r > d (Theorem 7.2), or p continuously differentiable with Lipschitz gradient (Theorem 8.3).
    Additional hypotheses not guaranteed by the optimality system; verified in special cases (Proposition 7.5, Corollary 6.7).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Optimal control of the Poisson equation with transport regularization: Properties of optimal transport plans and transport map." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3RAYLEQX

@misc{pith2026250602808,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Optimal control of the Poisson equation with transport regularization: Properties of optimal transport plans and transport map},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3RAYLEQX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.02808}
}
read the original abstract

An optimal control problem in the space of Borel measures governed by the Poisson equation is investigated. The characteristic feature of the problem under consideration is the Tikhonov regularization term in form of the transportation distance of the control to a given prior. Existence of optimal solutions is shown and first-order necessary optimality conditions are derived. The latter are used to deduce structural a priori information about the optimal control and its support based on properties of the associated optimal transport plan.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. No-gap second-order conditions for optimization problems involving transport distances

    math.OC 2026-07 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    No-gap second-order conditions for transport-regularized measure optimization are equivalent to quadratic growth once the Kantorovich potential satisfies a quadratic-growth regularity assumption.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [5]

    Numerical solution of optimal control problems using quadratic transport regularization

    Nicolas Borchard and Gerd Wachsmuth. Numerical solution of optimal control problems using quadratic transport regularization . 2025. arXiv: 2503.07105

    work page arXiv 2025

  2. [1]

    Armitage and Stephen J

    David H. Armitage and Stephen J. Gardiner. Classical Potential Theory . Springer London, 2001. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4471-0233-5

    doi:10.1007/978-1-4471-0233-5 2001

  3. [2]

    Birkh¨ auser Boston, 2009

    Jean-Pierre Aubin and H´ el` ene Frankowska.Set-Valued Analysis. Birkh¨ auser Boston, 2009. doi: 10.1007/978-0-8176-4848-0

    doi:10.1007/978-0-8176-4848-0 2009

  4. [3]

    Fr´ ed´ eric Bonnans and Alexander Shapiro.Perturbation Analysis of Opti- mization Problems

    J. Fr´ ed´ eric Bonnans and Alexander Shapiro.Perturbation Analysis of Opti- mization Problems. Berlin: Springer, 2000. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4612-1394- 9

    work page doi:10.1007/978-1-4612-1394- 2000

  5. [4]

    Necessary optimality conditions for optimal control problems in Wasserstein spaces

    Beno ˆ ıt Bonnet and H´ el` ene Frankowska. “Necessary optimality conditions for optimal control problems in Wasserstein spaces”. In: Appl. Math. Optim. 84 (2021), S1281–S1330. doi: 10.1007/s00245-021-09772-w

    work page doi:10.1007/s00245-021-09772-w 2021

  6. [6]

    An optimal transport approach for solv- ing dynamic inverse problems in spaces of measures

    Kristian Bredies and Silvio Fanzon. “An optimal transport approach for solv- ing dynamic inverse problems in spaces of measures”. In: ESAIM Math. Model. Numer. Anal. 54.6 (2020), pp. 2351–2382. doi: 10 . 1051 / m2an / 2020056

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    Inverse problems in spaces of measures

    Kristian Bredies and Hanna Katriina Pikkarainen. “Inverse problems in spaces of measures”. In: ESAIM Control Optim. Calc. Var. 19.1 (2013), pp. 190–218. doi: 10.1051/cocv/2011205

    arXiv 2013

  8. [8]

    Extremal Points and Sparse Optimization for Generalized Kantorovich–Rubinstein Norms

    Marcello Carioni, Jos´ e A. Iglesias, and Daniel Walter. “Extremal Points and Sparse Optimization for Generalized Kantorovich–Rubinstein Norms”. In: Foundations of Computational Mathematics (2023). doi: 10.1007/s10208- 023-09634-7

    doi:10.1007/s10208- 2023

Show all 43 references
  1. [9]

    Parabolic control prob- lems in measure spaces with sparse solutions

    Eduardo Casas, Christian Clason, and Karl Kunisch. “Parabolic control prob- lems in measure spaces with sparse solutions”. In: SIAM J. Control Optim. 51.1 (2013), pp. 28–63. doi: 10.1137/120872395

    2013 doi

  2. [10]

    Optimal control of semilinear elliptic equations in measure spaces

    Eduardo Casas and Karl Kunisch. “Optimal control of semilinear elliptic equations in measure spaces”. In:SIAM J. Control Optim. 52.1 (2014), pp. 339–

    2014

  3. [11]

    Optimal control of the two-dimensional stationary Navier-Stokes equations with measure valued controls

    Eduardo Casas and Karl Kunisch. “Optimal control of the two-dimensional stationary Navier-Stokes equations with measure valued controls”. In: SIAM J. Control Optim. 57.2 (2019), pp. 1328–1354. doi: 10.1137/18M1185582

    2019 doi

  4. [12]

    Parabolic control problems in space-time measure spaces

    Eduardo Casas and Karl Kunisch. “Parabolic control problems in space-time measure spaces”. In: ESAIM Control Optim. Calc. Var. 22.2 (2016), pp. 355–

    2016

  5. [13]

    Using sparse control methods to identify sources in linear diffusion-convection equations

    Eduardo Casas and Karl Kunisch. “Using sparse control methods to identify sources in linear diffusion-convection equations”. In: Inverse Problems 35.11 (2019), pp. 114002, 17. doi: 10.1088/1361-6420/ab331c

    2019 doi

  6. [14]

    Sparse initial data iden- tification for parabolic PDE and its finite element approximations

    Eduardo Casas, Boris Vexler, and Enrique Zuazua. “Sparse initial data iden- tification for parabolic PDE and its finite element approximations”. In: Math. Control Relat. Fields 5.3 (2015), pp. 377–399. doi: 10.3934/mcrf.2015.5. 377

    2015 doi

  7. [15]

    Spike controls for elliptic and parabolic PDEs

    Eduardo Casas and Enrique Zuazua. “Spike controls for elliptic and parabolic PDEs”. In: Systems Control Lett. 62.4 (2013), pp. 311–318. doi: 10.1016/j. sysconle.2013.01.001

    2013 doi

  8. [16]

    A duality-based approach to elliptic control problems in non-reflexive Banach spaces

    Christian Clason and Karl Kunisch. “A duality-based approach to elliptic control problems in non-reflexive Banach spaces”. In: ESAIM Control Optim. Calc. Var. 17.1 (2011), pp. 243–266. doi: 10.1051/cocv/2010003

    2011

  9. [17]

    The coarea inequality

    Behnam Esmayli and Piotr Haj lasz. “The coarea inequality”. In: Annales Fennici Mathematici 46.2 (2021), pp. 965–991. doi: 10.5186/aasfm.2021. 4654

    2021 doi

  10. [18]

    Curvature measures

    Herbert Federer. “Curvature measures”. In: Transactions of the American Mathematical Society 93.3 (1959), pp. 418–491. doi: 10.1090/s0002-9947- 1959-0110078-1

    1959 doi

  11. [19]

    Trudinger

    David Gilbarg and Neil S. Trudinger. Elliptic Partial Differential Equations of Second Order . Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2001. doi: 10.1007/978- 3- 642-61798-0

    2001 doi

  12. [20]

    Elliptic Problems in Nonsmooth Domains

    Pierre Grisvard. Elliptic Problems in Nonsmooth Domains . Boston: Pitman,

  13. [21]

    Lester L. Helms. Potential Theory . Springer London, 2014. doi: 10.1007/ 978-1-4471-6422-7

    2014

  14. [22]

    The inhomogeneous Dirichlet problem in Lipschitz domains

    David Jerison and Carlos E. Kenig. “The inhomogeneous Dirichlet problem in Lipschitz domains”. In: J. Funct. Anal. 130.1 (1995), pp. 161–219. doi: 10.1006/jfan.1995.1067

    1995

  15. [23]

    A Course in Functional Analysis and Measure Theory

    Vladimir Kadets. A Course in Functional Analysis and Measure Theory . Springer International Publishing, 2018. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-92004-7

    2018 doi

  16. [24]

    Measure valued direc- tional sparsity for parabolic optimal control problems

    Karl Kunisch, Konstantin Pieper, and Boris Vexler. “Measure valued direc- tional sparsity for parabolic optimal control problems”. In: SIAM J. Control Optim. 52.5 (2014), pp. 3078–3108. doi: 10.1137/140959055

    2014 doi

  17. [25]

    Optimal control of the undamped linear wave equation with measure valued controls

    Karl Kunisch, Philip Trautmann, and Boris Vexler. “Optimal control of the undamped linear wave equation with measure valued controls”. In: SIAM J. Control Optim. 54.3 (2016), pp. 1212–1244. doi: 10.1137/141001366

    2016 doi

  18. [26]

    Numerical analy- sis of sparse initial data identification for parabolic problems

    Dmitriy Leykekhman, Boris Vexler, and Daniel Walter. “Numerical analy- sis of sparse initial data identification for parabolic problems”. In: ESAIM Math. Model. Numer. Anal. 54.4 (2020), pp. 1139–1180. doi: 10.1051/m2an/ 2019083. REFERENCES 37

    2020 doi

  19. [27]

    Sets of finite perimeter and geometric variational problems: an introduction to Geometric Measure Theory

    Francesco Maggi. Sets of finite perimeter and geometric variational problems: an introduction to Geometric Measure Theory . 135. Cambridge University Press, 2012. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139108133

    2012 doi

  20. [28]

    The area formula forW 1,n-mappings

    Jan Mal´ y. “The area formula forW 1,n-mappings”. In: Commentationes Math- ematicae Universitatis Carolinae 35.2 (1994), pp. 291–298. url: https:// eudml.org/doc/22019

    1994

  21. [29]

    Complete characterization of functions which act, via superposition, on Sobolev spaces

    Moshe Marcus and Victor J. Mizel. “Complete characterization of functions which act, via superposition, on Sobolev spaces”. In: Transactions of the American Mathematical Society 251.0 (1979), pp. 187–218. doi: 10.1090/ s0002-9947-1979-0531975-1

    1979

  22. [30]

    A Bayesian model for dynamic mass reconstruction from PET listmode data

    Marco Mauritz, Bernhard Schmitzer, and Benedikt Wirth. “A Bayesian model for dynamic mass reconstruction from PET listmode data”. In: SIAM Journal on Mathematical Analysis 56.5 (2024), pp. 5840–5880

    2024

  23. [31]

    A Priori Error Analysis for Discretiza- tion of Sparse Elliptic Optimal Control Problems in Measure Space

    Konstantin Pieper and Boris Vexler. “A Priori Error Analysis for Discretiza- tion of Sparse Elliptic Optimal Control Problems in Measure Space”. In: SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization 51.4 (2013), pp. 2788–2808. doi: 10.1137/120889137

    2013 doi

  24. [32]

    Linear convergence of accelerated conditional gradient algorithms in spaces of measures

    Konstantin Pieper and Daniel Walter. “Linear convergence of accelerated conditional gradient algorithms in spaces of measures”. In: ESAIM Control Optim. Calc. Var. 27 (2021), Paper No. 38, 37. doi: 10.1051/cocv/2021042

    2021

  25. [33]

    Augusto C. Ponce. Elliptic PDEs, Measures and Capacities . Vol. 23. EMS Tracts Math. Z¨ urich: European Mathematical Society (EMS), 2016.doi: 10. 4171/140

    2016

  26. [34]

    Real and Complex Analysis

    Walter Rudin. Real and Complex Analysis . 3rd ed. McGraw–Hill, New York, 1987

    1987

  27. [35]

    Optimal Transport for Applied Mathematicians: Cal- culus of Variations, PDEs, and Modeling

    Filippo Santambrogio. Optimal Transport for Applied Mathematicians: Cal- culus of Variations, PDEs, and Modeling . Springer International Publishing,

  28. [36]

    Elliptic optimal control problems with L1-control cost and applications for the placement of control devices

    Georg Stadler. “Elliptic optimal control problems with L1-control cost and applications for the placement of control devices”. In: Comput. Optim. Appl. 44.2 (2009), pp. 159–181. doi: 10.1007/s10589-007-9150-9

    2009 doi

  29. [37]

    Elliptic differential equations and obstacle prob- lems

    Giovanni Maria Troianiello. Elliptic differential equations and obstacle prob- lems. The University Series in Mathematics. New York: Plenum Press, 1987, pp. xiv+353

    1987

  30. [38]

    On a finite element method for measure-valued optimal control problems governed by the 1D generalized wave equation

    Boris Vexler, Alexander Zlotnik, and Philip Trautmann. “On a finite element method for measure-valued optimal control problems governed by the 1D generalized wave equation”. In: C. R. Math. Acad. Sci. Paris 356.5 (2018), pp. 523–531. doi: 10.1016/j.crma.2018.02.011

    2018 doi

  31. [39]

    Optimal Transport

    C´ edric Villani. Optimal Transport. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2009. doi: 10. 1007/978-3-540-71050-9 . Technische Universit¨at Dortmund, F akult¨at f¨ur Mathematik, Lehrstuhl LSX, Vo- gelpothsweg 87, 44227 Dortmund, Germany Email address : christian2.meyer@tu-dortmund.de BTU...

    2009

  32. [364]

    36 REFERENCES

    doi: 10.1137/13092188X. 36 REFERENCES

    doi

  33. [370]

    doi: 10.1051/cocv/2015008

  34. [1985]

    doi: 10.1137/1.9781611972030

    doi

  35. [2015]

    doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-20828-2

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.