The periodic KdV with control on space-time measurable sets

Jingrui Niu; Ming Wang; Shengquan Xiang

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

The periodic KdV with control on space-time measurable sets

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper proves local exact controllability of the periodic KdV equation with controls on arbitrary positive-measure space-time sets.

desk verdict The general observability theorem is a genuine advance, but the mass-conserved KdV proof has a false multiplicity bound that leaves the main result unproved as written. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.13740 v1 pith:GP45E7KK submitted 2025-07-18 math.AP math.OC

Jingrui Niu , Ming Wang , Shengquan Xiang This is my paper

classification math.APmath.OC MSC 35Q5342A9976B1593C20

keywords KdVequationexactcontrollabilityobservabilityinequalityspace-timemeasurablesetsmassconservationBourgainspacesaugmenteddispersiveequationsontorus

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 sets out to prove that the periodic KdV equation can be steered exactly, near any constant state with fixed total mass, by a control supported on an arbitrary measurable set of positive measure in both space and time. Previous controllability results for KdV required the spatial control region to be open and the time actuation to cover the full interval; here both may be rough. The proof establishes a new observability inequality for free dispersive evolutions from positive-measure space-time sets, using a high-frequency/low-frequency iteration rather than the moment method or the compactness-uniqueness method. A controlled linear system is obtained through the Hilbert uniqueness method, and a Bourgain-space fixed-point argument extends the result to the nonlinear KdV equation.

What carries the argument

The core object is the augmented observability inequality: once a set of Fourier modes Λ is observable from the positive-measure set G under small translations—meaning from G∩(G−h) for all small |h|—a single extra frequency can be added, and Λ∪{λ} becomes observable from G itself. Iterating this finitely many times upgrades a high-frequency estimate over {|k|>N} into an observability inequality over the whole spectrum. The iteration rests on two estimates: a high-frequency bound whose off-diagonal error is controlled by the decay of the Fourier coefficients of the measurable set, and an L⁴ Strichartz bound showing that the high-frequency sum has small L²-mass on the thin difference set G\(G−h). In the mass-conserved KdV case the scheme runs on the doubled lattice {(k³,l)}; the mass-removing operator L is represented by matrix coefficients L(k,l)=ĝ(l−k)−2πĝ(−k)ĝ(l), and the coercivity ∥L($e^{{ikx}}$)∥²_{L²}>δ for k≠0 supplies the lower bound at each step.

What would settle it

For α=217, the four integer pairs (m,k)=(9,8), (−8,−9), (6,−1), and (1,−6) all satisfy m³−k³=217, which contradicts the uniform bound Θ≤2 that Proposition 3.5 uses to dominate the off-diagonal part of the high-frequency estimate; a corrected proof would need a different bound on representations of integers as differences of cubes.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Theorem 1.1: for every time horizon T>0 and every mean M, there is a δ>0 such that any two states with mean M whose deviations from that mean are L²-small can be joined by a solution of ∂tu+∂x³u+u∂xu = L(h)1_{E_T×F}, with h∈L²([0,T]×T) and E_T,F arbitrary positive-measure measurable sets. Mass is conserved by the special form of the control operator, which subtracts the mean of the forcing on F. The proof proceeds in three layers: a general observability theorem for dispersive evolutions on the torus, a linear observability inequality for the mass-conserved KdV of the form ∥φ∥²_{L²} ≲ ∫∫_{E_T×F}|L(S(t)φ)|² dxdt, and a contraction argument in Bourgain spaces for the nonlinearity. In the author's own framing, the novelty is a finite iterative scheme that adds low frequencies one at a time while keeping the high-frequency estimate stable under small translations of the observed set.

Load-bearing premise

The mass-conserved KdV observability proof assumes as a load-bearing premise that any integer can be written as a difference of two integer cubes in at most two ways; that premise is false, since 217 is both 9³−8³ and 6³−(−1)³ and actually has four such representations, and the high-frequency estimate that controls off-diagonal terms depends on it.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Near any constant state with fixed mean, any two sufficiently small L² perturbations can be joined exactly in time T by a solution whose control is supported on E_T×F, with both sets merely measurable of positive measure.
The general observability theorem applies to every monic polynomial dispersion on the torus, not only to KdV, so the same iteration should produce local controllability for a broad class of constant-coefficient dispersive equations.
The method replaces the two classical tools—the moment method's biorthogonal family and the compactness-uniqueness method's uniqueness continuation—by translation-stable high-frequency estimates and finite low-frequency insertion.
For damped dispersive equations whose damping is positive on a positive-measure set in each time block and whose blocks form a precompact family, the same observability gives uniform exponential decay of the L² norm.
The nonlinear step is a contraction in Bourgain spaces, so the local controllability statement comes with a concrete bound on the control cost in terms of the data size.

Reading between the lines

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

The counterexample to the Θ≤2 bound for m³−k³=α concerns only the mass-conserved KdV section; the general observability theorem for monic degree-d polynomials uses the true bound Θ≤d−1, so the general measurable-set scheme is not affected.
A repair of the mass-conserved argument could replace the false uniform bound by a divisor-counting estimate for m³−k³=(m−k)(m²+mk+k²), whose number of representations grows sub-polynomially in α.
The translation-stability idea suggests that controllability costs should depend on a density or thickness of the measurable set rather than on openness, which could be probed numerically on Galerkin truncations with fractal or sparse observation sets.
The exponential-stabilization theorem indicates that damping on a translate of a fixed positive-measure set in every time block, with phases changing arbitrarily from block to block, should still yield uniform decay rates.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The genuinely new thing here is the observability framework in Section 2: proving space-time measurable observability for polynomial dispersive equations by a Miheev-style augmented induction. That part reads as essentially correct - the Theta <= d-1 bound for full vector differences holds, and the high/low frequency iteration is a real improvement over the moment method for rough control sets. This deserves serious attention from the control and dispersive PDE community.

The KdV mass-conserved application, however, has a load-bearing gap. Proposition 3.5 needs a uniform bound on the number of integer solutions to l^3 - k^3 = alpha to control the off-diagonal terms. The paper claims Theta <= 2, apparently transferring the reasoning from Lemma 2.2. That reasoning does not transfer: Lemma 2.2 fixes the full two-dimensional difference (k-l, p(k)-p(l)), which leaves at most d-1 solutions by the fundamental theorem of algebra. Here only the time frequency m^3 - k^3 is fixed; the spatial frequency difference is free, and the scalar cubic difference problem is much richer. The stress-test note is correct: alpha = 217 already has four representations, and cabtaxi numbers give more. As a result, the displayed estimate (3.12) does not follow, and with it the high-frequency estimate, its uniform translation version, and the HUM construction all lose their support.

Is this fatal to the program? Not necessarily. The general observability theorem in Section 2 stands on its own and is likely correct. The KdV result may also be repairable - for instance, using the explicit kernel B(k,m) to get Schur-type decay instead of a uniform multiplicity bound - but such an argument is not in the manuscript. As written, the main theorem is not established.

Credit where it is due: the paper is self-contained, the nonlinear step is a clean contraction argument, and there is no sign of retrofitted constants or circular reasoning. The mistake is specific, localizable, and honestly identifiable. The bibliography is appropriate.

I would send this to a serious referee. The flaw is subtle, the methodology is valuable, and the general theorem alone justifies referee time. The referee should check Proposition 3.5 carefully and ask the authors to supply the repair if it exists. If they close the gap, this becomes a substantial paper. Recommended: engage with it, but do not accept as is.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper studies the periodic KdV equation on the torus with a control supported on the product of a measurable time set E_T⊂[0,T] and a measurable space set F⊂T, both of positive measure. The main result, Theorem 1.1, asserts local exact mass-conserved controllability around constant states: for any T>0 and any mean M, sufficiently nearby L² states of mean M can be joined by a trajectory of the forced equation with a control of the form L(h)1_{E_T×F}. The proof has three parts: (i) an observability inequality for general dispersive operators e^{itP(D)} from arbitrary space-time measurable sets (Section 2); (ii) a 'twisted' observability inequality for the linear KdV adjoint with the mass-conservation operator L (Section 3.1), followed by a Hilbert uniqueness method construction of the control operator; and (iii) a Bourgain-space fixed-point argument for the nonlinearity (Section 3.2). Section 4 applies the Section 2 observability to exponential stabilization with time-periodic or time-block-precompact damping. The Section 2 argument is self-contained and uses a high-frequency estimate together with a finite low-frequency induction rather than the moment method.

Significance. If correct, Theorem 1.1 would be a substantial extension of the classical Russell–Zhang and Laurent–Rosier–Zhang controllability results for the periodic KdV equation, since both the spatial and temporal control regions are merely measurable rather than open. The Section 2 observability for arbitrary positive-measure sets with polynomial phases is itself a clean contribution, and it is proved by an explicit high/low-frequency iteration with no fitted constants or ad hoc assumptions; the Bourgain-space contraction is standard and reasonably complete. The paper also contains a uniform resolvent estimate and an exponential stabilization result. The main reservation is that the KdV-specific high-frequency estimate in Proposition 3.5 rests on a false multiplicity bound; because this estimate feeds into Proposition 3.4 and the HUM controllability argument, the central claim is not fully established as written, although a repair appears possible.

major comments (3)

[§3.1.2, Proposition 3.5, Eqs. (3.11)–(3.12)] The proof of Proposition 3.5 relies on the uniform multiplicity bound Θ≤2 for the number of integer pairs (k,l) with l³−k³=α. This bound is false: for α=217 the equation has four ordered pairs, (−9,−8), (−6,1), (−1,6), and (8,9), and there is no uniform bound of this type for scalar cubic differences. The Cauchy–Schwarz estimate in (3.12) needs a bound on the number of representations of m³−k³ in order to pass from a double sum over (k,m) to ∑|φ̂(k)|²; fixing only the time frequency does not fix the spatial frequency difference, so the vector-difference argument in Lemma 2.2, which fixes both coordinates, does not apply. Consequently (3.12), Proposition 3.5, and the observability (3.9) and HUM construction built on it are not proved as written. A repair using the explicit kernel in (3.5), for instance a Schur-type estimate for B(k,m), should be supplied.
[§3.1, reduction to mean-zero states] With the definition ⟨φ⟩_T = (1/|T|)∫_T φ dx and |T|=2π, the state u0 − 2M/π does not have mean zero when ⟨u0⟩_T=M; the correct shift is u0−M, and the linearized drift coefficient is M, not 2M/π. Unless a different normalization for the mean is explicitly adopted, the reduction of Theorem 1.1 to the M=0 case in Section 3.1 is inconsistent. This is easily repaired, but it must be fixed for the statement for arbitrary M to follow.
[§3.2, Lemma B.2 and arbitrary T] Lemma B.2 is stated only for T∈(0,1), but Theorem 1.1 claims controllability for every T>0. The contraction argument for Ψ in Section 3.2 invokes Lemma B.2 without any reduction or a version valid on arbitrary time intervals. Please add the standard rescaling or partition argument, or replace Lemma B.2 by a statement covering all T>0 with a constant depending on T.

minor comments (5)

[§2.2.2] The proof header in this subsection says 'Proof of Theorem 1.5'; it should refer to Proposition 1.5, which is the statement proved there.
[References, [Bur25]] The reference [Bur25] is listed as 'Privite discussion, 2025', while the text credits 'Burq and Zhu' with a recent observability result; please provide a proper citation of the actual preprint or paper, or clearly mark it as a personal communication.
[Theorem 4.1] The inequality in Theorem 4.1 should read ∥u(t,·)∥_{L²(T)} ≤ Ce^{−γt}∥u0∥_{L²(T)}, not Ce^{−γt}∥u0∥²_{L²(T)}, since the proof iterates the square of the L² norm.
[§3.1.1, Lemma 3.1] The formula 'Lψ(t)1_F(x) = ψ(t)1_F(x)L' is not meaningful as written; please clarify the intended action of the operator on the product ψ(t)1_F.
[§3.1.2, proof of Proposition 3.5] In the sentence beginning 'Since |l³−k³|...', the variable l is used in the displayed estimate and m in the following sentence; use a single pair (k,m) throughout to avoid confusion.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the derivation is self-contained and does not reduce to its inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is self-contained. The observability inequality for the mass-conserved KdV model is proved directly from Fourier analysis and a high/low frequency iteration, not imported from prior work by the same authors. The HUM operator is constructed from that observability via duality and Lax-Milgram, and the nonlinear control result is obtained by a standard fixed-point argument in Bourgain spaces using the constructed linear control operator. No fitted parameters are renamed as predictions, and the cited prior results are contextual rather than load-bearing. The skeptical concern about the uniform multiplicity bound Θ≤2 in Proposition 3.5 is a potential mathematical gap in the proof as written, but it is a correctness issue, not a circular reduction: the claimed estimate does not reduce to the theorem's conclusion by definition or by a self-citation chain. Therefore the circularity score is 0.

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

The central claim rests on standard harmonic analysis and the polynomial structure of the dispersion. No free parameters are fitted and no new physical entities are introduced. The main unstated mathematical risk is the multiplicity bound for cubic differences in the high-frequency estimate.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption p is a monic polynomial with integer coefficients of degree d≥2.
Theorem 1.3 assumes this to ensure integer frequencies and polynomial gap estimates; for KdV p(k)=k³.
standard math Standard harmonic analysis tools: Parseval, Plancherel, Hölder, Cauchy-Schwarz, Riemann-Lebesgue, fundamental theorem of algebra.
Used throughout Sections 2 and 3 for Fourier estimates and counting lattice points.
standard math Lax-Milgram theorem for the HUM operator.
Used in Proposition 3.9 to show that the HUM operator is an isomorphism on L2_0(T).
standard math Bourgain space bilinear estimate for KdV, ∥∂x(uv)∥_{Z_{0,-1/2,T}} ≤ C T^θ ∥u∥_{X_{0,1/2,T}}∥v∥_{X_{0,1/2,T}}.
Cited from [Bou93] and [CKS+03] and used in the fixed-point argument; not proved in this paper.
domain assumption Well-posedness of the linearized KdV equation with L2 forcing in C([0,T];L2).
Used implicitly when defining the reachable set and the HUM control operator.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The periodic KdV with control on space-time measurable sets." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GP45E7KK

@misc{pith2026250713740,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The periodic KdV with control on space-time measurable sets},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GP45E7KK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.13740}
}

read the original abstract

In this paper, we establish the local exact controllability of the KdV equation on torus around equilibrium states, where both the spatial control region and the temporal control region are sets of positive measure. The proof is based on a novel strategy for proving observability inequalities on space-time measurable sets. This approach is applicable to a broad class of dispersive equations on torus.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.13740 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** The frequency analysis for KdV control. In the classical linear KdV equation, only the frequencies {(k 3 , k) : k ∈ Z} play a role (see the black points). However, for the KdV equation with the mass conservation constraint, we need to analyze the frequencies {(k 3 , l) : k, l ∈ Z}. As illustrated in the figure, infinitely many new frequencies come into play for each fixed k (see the red points). Compared to the gene… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** In previous references, the damping is posed on (t, x) ∈ G = [0, ∞)× E, where E ⊂ T is open or measurable with positive measure, see the dark part of the figure. A particular interesting case is that a(t, x) = a01G for some a0 > 0 and G is a subset set of [0, ∞) × T. In other words, the damping mechanism is posed on the set G. In Theorem 4.1 we can take G = [ n≥0 Gn, Gn ⊂ [nT,(n + 1)T) × T given by 1Gn (t, x) = 1G0 … view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** In our work, the damping region G is allowed to be the dark part of the figure, where the horizontal direction representing the time axis and the vertical direction representing the spatial axis. Clearly, G does not contains a subset of product structure as that in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_3.png] view at source ↗

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.

Hausdorff type Time-Trace Observability for Airy Equations on the Line and Point Observability on the Torus
math.AP 2026-07 accept novelty 8.0 of 10

Time-trace observations from Hausdorff-thick zero-measure sets determine Airy solutions on the real line for every observation time, and finite point observability on the torus is characterized by a Kalman rank condition.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

Apraiz, L

J. Apraiz, L. Escauriaza, G. Wang, and C. Zhang. Observability inequalities and measurable sets. J. Eur. Math. Soc. (JEMS) , 16(11):2433--2475, 2014

2014
[2]

Alphonse and N

P. Alphonse and N. Tzvetkov. A smoothing effect for the fractional S chr\"odinger equations on the circle and observability. Int. Math. Res. Not. IMRN , (8):Paper No. rnaf100, 20, 2025

work page 2025
[3]

Bonami and B

A. Bonami and B. Demange. A survey on uncertainty principles related to quadratic forms. Collect. Math. , pages 1--36, 2006

work page 2006
[4]

Beauchard, P

K. Beauchard, P. Jaming, and K. Pravda-Starov. Spectral estimates for finite combinations of Hermite functions and null-controllability of hypoelliptic quadratic equations. Stud. Math. , 260(1):1--43, 2021

work page 2021
[5]

Beauchard and C

K. Beauchard and C. Laurent. Local controllability of 1 D linear and nonlinear S chr\"odinger equations with bilinear control. J. Math. Pures Appl. (9) , 94(5):520--554, 2010

work page 2010
[6]

Burq and I

N. Burq and I. Moyano. Propagation of smallness and control for heat equations. J. Eur. Math. Soc. (JEMS) , 25(4):1349--1377, 2023

work page 2023
[7]

Bourgain

J. Bourgain. Fourier transform restriction phenomena for certain lattice subsets and applications to nonlinear evolution equations. II . T he K d V -equation. Geom. Funct. Anal. , 3(3):209--262, 1993

work page 1993
[8]

J. L. Bona and R. Smith. The initial-value problem for the K orteweg-de V ries equation. Philos. Trans. Roy. Soc. London Ser. A , 278(1287):555--601, 1975

work page 1975

Show all 49 references

[9]

N. Burq. Privite discussion, 2025

2025
[10]

Burq and M

N. Burq and M. Zworski. Rough controls for Schr \"o dinger operators on 2-tori. Ann. Henri Lebesgue , 2:331--347, 2019

2019
[11]

Coron and E

J.-M. Coron and E. Cr\' e peau. Exact boundary controllability of a nonlinear K d V equation with critical lengths. J. Eur. Math. Soc. (JEMS) , 6(3):367--398, 2004

2004
[12]

Cerpa and E

E. Cerpa and E. Cr\' e peau. Boundary controllability for the nonlinear K orteweg-de V ries equation on any critical domain. Ann. Inst. H. Poincar\' e Anal. Non Lin\' e aire , 26(2):457--475, 2009

2009
[13]

E. Cerpa. Exact controllability of a nonlinear K orteweg-de V ries equation on a critical spatial domain. SIAM J. Control Optim. , 46(3):877--899, 2007

2007
[14]

E. Cerpa. Control of a K orteweg-de V ries equation: a tutorial. Math. Control Relat. Fields , 4(1):45--99, 2014

2014
[15]

Coron, A.d Koenig, and H.-M

J.-M. Coron, A.d Koenig, and H.-M. Nguyen. On the small-time local controllability of a K d V system for critical lengths. J. Eur. Math. Soc. (JEMS) , 26(4):1193--1253, 2024

2024
[16]

Colliander, M

J. Colliander, M. Keel, G. Staffilani, H. Takaoka, and T. Tao. Sharp global well-posedness for K d V and modified K d V on R and T . J. Amer. Math. Soc. , 16(3):705--749, 2003

2003
[17]

Dicke, A

A. Dicke, A. Seelmann, and I. Veseli \'c . Uncertainty principle for Hermite functions and null-controllability with sensor sets of decaying density. J. Fourier Anal. Appl. , 29(1):19, 2023. Id/No 11

2023
[18]

Dicke, A

A. Dicke, A. Seelmann, and I. Veseli \'c . Spectral inequality with sensor sets of decaying density for Schr \"o dinger operators with power growth potentials. SN Partial Differ. Equ. Appl. , 5(2):18, 2024. Id/No 7

2024
[19]

Egidi and I

M. Egidi and I. Veseli \'c . Sharp geometric condition for null-controllability of the heat equation on ^d and consistent estimates on the control cost. Arch. Math. , 111(1):85--99, 2018

2018
[20]

H. O. Fattorini and D. L. Russell. Exact controllability theorems for linear parabolic equations in one space dimension. Arch. Rational Mech. Anal. , 43:272--292, 1971

1971
[21]

A. W. Green, K. Le Balc'h, J. Martin, and M.-A. Orsoni. On the dimension of observable sets for the heat equation, 2024

2024
[22]

Glass and S

O. Glass and S. Guerrero. Some exact controllability results for the linear K d V equation and uniform controllability in the zero-dispersion limit. Asymptot. Anal. , 60(1-2):61--100, 2008

2008
[23]

Havin and B

V. Havin and B. J\"oricke. The uncertainty principle in harmonic analysis , volume 28 of Ergebnisse der Mathematik und ihrer Grenzgebiete (3) . Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1994

1994
[24]

Huang, G

S. Huang, G. Wang, and M. Wang. Observability inequality, log-type Hausdorff content and heat equations. Preprint, arXiv :2411.11573 [math. AP ] (2024), 2024

2024 arXiv
[25]

Huang, G

S. Huang, G. Wang, and M. Wang. Quantitative observability for the Schr \"o dinger equation with an anharmonic oscillator. Preprint, arXiv :2501.01258 [math. AP ] (2025), 2025

2025 arXiv
[26]

C. E. Kenig, G. Ponce, and L. Vega. A bilinear estimate with applications to the K d V equation. J. Amer. Math. Soc. , 9(2):573--603, 1996

1996
[27]

Killip and M

R. Killip and M. Vi s an. Kd V is well-posed in H^ -1 . Ann. of Math. (2) , 190(1):249--305, 2019

2019
[28]

Krieger and S

J. Krieger and S. Xiang. Cost for a controlled linear K d V equation. ESAIM Control Optim. Calc. Var. , 27:Paper No. S21, 41, 2021

2021
[29]

Le Balc'h and J

K. Le Balc'h and J. Martin. Observability estimates for the Schr \"o dinger equation in the plane with periodic bounded potentials from measurable sets . Annales de l'institut Fourier, To appear, September 2024

2024
[30]

P. Lissy. Explicit lower bounds for the cost of fast controls for some 1- D parabolic or dispersive equations, and a new lower bound concerning the uniform controllability of the 1- D transport-diffusion equation. J. Differential Equations , 259(10):5331--5352, 2015

2015
[31]

Laurent, L

C. Laurent, L. Rosier, and B.-Y. Zhang. Control and stabilization of the K orteweg-de V ries equation on a periodic domain. Comm. Partial Differential Equations , 35(4):707--744, 2010

2010
[32]

H.-M. Nguyen. Local controllability of the korteweg-de vries equation with the right dirichlet control, 2023

2023
[33]

Niu and S

J. Niu and S. Xiang. Small-time local controllability of a kdv system for all critical lengths. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.13640 , 2025

2025
[34]

Perla Menzala, C

G. Perla Menzala, C. F. Vasconcellos, and E. Zuazua. Stabilization of the Korteweg -de Vries equation with localized damping. Q. Appl. Math. , 60(1):111--129, 2002

2002
[35]

L. Rosier. Exact boundary controllability for the K orteweg-de V ries equation on a bounded domain. ESAIM Control Optim. Calc. Var. , 2:33--55, 1997

1997
[36]

Rivas and C

I. Rivas and C. Sun. Internal controllability of nonlocalized solution for the K adomtsev- P etviashvili II equation. SIAM J. Control Optim. , 58(3):1715--1734, 2020

2020
[37]

W. Rudin. Trigonometric series with gaps. J. Math. Mech. , 9:203--227, 1960

1960
[38]

D. L. Russell. Nonharmonic F ourier series in the control theory of distributed parameter systems. J. Math. Anal. Appl. , 18:542--560, 1967

1967
[39]

D. L. Russell and B.-Y. Zhang. Exact controllability and stabilizability of the K orteweg-de V ries equation. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. , 348(9):3643--3672, 1996

1996
[40]

Rosier and B.-Y

L. Rosier and B.-Y. Zhang. Control and stabilization of the K orteweg-de V ries equation: recent progresses. J. Syst. Sci. Complex. , 22(4):647--682, 2009

2009
[41]

P. Su, C. Sun, and X. Yuan. Quantitative observability for one-dimensional Schr \"o dinger equations with potentials. J. Funct. Anal. , 288(2):39, 2025. Id/No 110695

2025
[42]

C. Sun. Exact controllability of linear kp-i equation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1802.10491 , 2018

2018 arXiv
[43]

T. Tao. Nonlinear dispersive equations , volume 106 of CBMS Regional Conference Series in Mathematics . Conference Board of the Mathematical Sciences, Washington, DC; by the American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2006. Local and global analysis

2006
[44]

Tenenbaum and M

G. Tenenbaum and M. Tucsnak. New blow-up rates for fast controls of S chr\"odinger and heat equations. J. Differential Equations , 243(1):70--100, 2007

2007
[45]

Y. Wang. Quantitative 2d propagation of smallness and control for 1d heat equations with power growth potentials. ESAIM, Control Optim. Calc. Var. , 31:47, 2025. Id/No 24

2025
[46]

G. Wang, M. Wang, C. Zhang, and Y. Zhang. Observable set, observability, interpolation inequality and spectral inequality for the heat equation in R ^n . J. Math. Pures Appl. (9) , 126:144--194, 2019

2019
[47]

Wang and C

M. Wang and C. Zhang. Analyticity and observability for fractional order parabolic equations in the whole space. ESAIM, Control Optim. Calc. Var. , 29:22, 2023. Id/No 63

2023
[48]

S. Xiang. Null controllability of a linearized K orteweg--de V ries equation by backstepping approach. SIAM J. Control Optim. , 57(2):1493--1515, 2019

2019
[49]

A. Zygmund. A C antor- L ebesgue theorem for double trigonometric series. Studia Math. , 43:173--178, 1972

1972

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Apraiz, L

J. Apraiz, L. Escauriaza, G. Wang, and C. Zhang. Observability inequalities and measurable sets. J. Eur. Math. Soc. (JEMS) , 16(11):2433--2475, 2014

2014

[2] [2]

Alphonse and N

P. Alphonse and N. Tzvetkov. A smoothing effect for the fractional S chr\"odinger equations on the circle and observability. Int. Math. Res. Not. IMRN , (8):Paper No. rnaf100, 20, 2025

work page 2025

[3] [3]

Bonami and B

A. Bonami and B. Demange. A survey on uncertainty principles related to quadratic forms. Collect. Math. , pages 1--36, 2006

work page 2006

[4] [4]

Beauchard, P

K. Beauchard, P. Jaming, and K. Pravda-Starov. Spectral estimates for finite combinations of Hermite functions and null-controllability of hypoelliptic quadratic equations. Stud. Math. , 260(1):1--43, 2021

work page 2021

[5] [5]

Beauchard and C

K. Beauchard and C. Laurent. Local controllability of 1 D linear and nonlinear S chr\"odinger equations with bilinear control. J. Math. Pures Appl. (9) , 94(5):520--554, 2010

work page 2010

[6] [6]

Burq and I

N. Burq and I. Moyano. Propagation of smallness and control for heat equations. J. Eur. Math. Soc. (JEMS) , 25(4):1349--1377, 2023

work page 2023

[7] [7]

Bourgain

J. Bourgain. Fourier transform restriction phenomena for certain lattice subsets and applications to nonlinear evolution equations. II . T he K d V -equation. Geom. Funct. Anal. , 3(3):209--262, 1993

work page 1993

[8] [8]

J. L. Bona and R. Smith. The initial-value problem for the K orteweg-de V ries equation. Philos. Trans. Roy. Soc. London Ser. A , 278(1287):555--601, 1975

work page 1975