Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 minor 107 references

The negative of the isoperimetric Pontryagin multiplier is the sensitivity of the constrained value function to the constraint level.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-14 14:24 UTC pith:7OKVYJMX

load-bearing objection Clean, carefully separated duality argument that turns isoperimetric multipliers into genuine shadow prices under transparent hypotheses.

arxiv 2607.09944 v1 pith:7OKVYJMX submitted 2026-07-10 math.AP

Multiplier Sensitivity in Isoperimetric Optimal Control

Ye Liang This is my paper
classification math.AP MSC 46N1049K1549J1549N1090C2590C46
keywords function-space dualityweak-star compactnessFenchel–Moreau dualityPontryagin multipliersvalue-function sensitivityisoperimetric constraintslinear-quadratic controlRiccati synthesis
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper asks when the constant multiplier that appears in the Pontryagin maximum principle for a control problem with an integral (isoperimetric) constraint can be read as a genuine shadow price: the rate at which the best attainable payoff changes when the prescribed integral level is relaxed. The answer is not automatic from the maximum principle alone. Under linear dynamics, concave payoff, and an affine constraint functional, the constrained value function is concave on an interval domain and admits a Fenchel–Moreau dual representation; the dual-optimal multipliers then sit in the negative superdifferential of the value function. A two-sided attainability condition further identifies those dual multipliers with the normal Pontryagin multipliers of the augmented system. For linear-quadratic problems with a single quadratic equality constraint the same envelope identity survives, even when the modified control-weight operator becomes singular and Riccati feedback ceases to be well-defined. The practical upshot is a clean separation between value-function sensitivity and feedback synthesis, together with a shooting algorithm that computes the multiplier and checks the envelope law numerically.

Core claim

Under the structured concave-affine hypotheses and a two-sided attainability condition, the superdifferential of the constrained value function equals the negative of the set of normal Pontryagin isoperimetric multipliers. At every differentiability point the multiplier is therefore unique and the derivative of the value with respect to the constraint level equals the negative of that multiplier. The same envelope identity continues to hold for linear-quadratic problems with a quadratic equality constraint even when the modified control weight is singular.

What carries the argument

The Fenchel–Moreau dual representation of the constrained value function, V(B) = inf_µ {ℓ(µ) − µB}, which yields the superdifferential identity ∂^{+}V(B) = −D(B); a two-sided attainability (Slater-type) constraint qualification then identifies the dual multipliers D(B) with the normal Pontryagin multipliers M(B).

Load-bearing premise

The prescribed constraint level must be strictly interior to the set of levels that can actually be attained by admissible controls; without that two-sided attainability the dual multipliers need not coincide with normal Pontryagin multipliers.

What would settle it

Compute both the isoperimetric multiplier µ and a central finite-difference slope of the constrained value function at an interior level B; if the two quantities fail to satisfy V′(B) = −µ (or the corresponding superdifferential inclusion) to machine precision on a problem that meets the paper’s structural hypotheses, the central claim is false.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

0 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies finite-horizon optimal control with a scalar isoperimetric constraint from a function-space duality viewpoint. Controls live in weak-* compact subsets of L^∞, and the state equation induces a control-to-state map into W^{1,∞}. For linear dynamics, concave payoff and an affine isoperimetric integrand (Assumption 3.3), the constrained value function V is shown to have interval domain and to be concave and usc; under the two-sided attainability CQ (Assumption 3.6), Fenchel–Moreau duality yields V(B)=inf_µ{ℓ(µ)-µB} and the superdifferential identity ∂^{+}V(B)=-D(B). A further normality argument (Propositions 3.12–3.14) identifies dual multipliers with normal Pontryagin multipliers of the augmented system, giving Theorem 3.16: ∂^{+}V(B)=-M(B)=-D(B) and V'(B)=-µ at differentiability points. For LQ problems with one quadratic equality constraint the problem is reduced to Hilbert-space quadratic forms; strong duality and the envelope V'_LQ(β)=-µ*(β) are obtained via a secular-function construction (Theorem 4.4), while Riccati synthesis is shown to require the strictly stronger condition R+2µ*D≻0 (Proposition 4.7). Closed-form scalar benchmarks and a shooting algorithm with Newton residual tables confirm the envelope identity.

Significance. The central contribution is a clean separation of three layers that are often conflated: (i) concavity and Fenchel–Moreau representation of V from weak-* compactness and affinity, (ii) the superdifferential identity as pure conjugate duality, and (iii) the identification of dual multipliers with normal Pontryagin multipliers under an explicit Slater-type CQ. The LQ analysis further separates envelope validity from Riccati invertibility, with an explicit hard-case example where R+2µ*D=0 yet V'_LQ=-µ* remains correct. The closed-form benchmarks (Appendix A, Tables 1–4) and the shooting residual tables make the claims falsifiable and machine-checkable. If the results hold as stated, the paper supplies a precise function-space foundation for the shadow-price interpretation of isoperimetric multipliers and a useful warning about when Riccati synthesis fails while sensitivity persists.

minor comments (5)
  1. Several references in the bibliography (e.g. [8], [16], [20], [26], [34], [42], [49], [61], [68], [72], [74]–[87], [89]–[92], [95], [99]–[101], [104], [106]–[107]) are arXiv preprints by overlapping authors on topics only loosely related to isoperimetric control. Trimming or relocating these would improve focus without affecting the technical claims.
  2. In §3.2 the reduced kernel γ(s) is introduced after a lengthy double-integral rearrangement; a short remark that γ is simply the L^{2}-representation of the Fréchet derivative of C would make the subsequent affine-attainability argument easier to scan.
  3. Figure 1 caption and Table 2 report agreement to ∼10^{-6}; stating the finite-difference step Δ=10^{-4} already in the caption (as done in the table header) would make the numerical claim self-contained.
  4. Typographical consistency: the manuscript mixes eH, ĒH and H̃ for the augmented Hamiltonian; a single notation throughout would help the reader.
  5. Assumption 2.2 is stated for the general nonlinear case but is automatic under Assumption 3.3; a forward pointer in Remark 2.3 already exists, yet a one-line reminder at the start of §3 would avoid any residual ambiguity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: envelope identities follow from standard Fenchel–Moreau duality plus an explicit Slater-type CQ, not from definitional tautology or load-bearing self-citation.

full rationale

The central claims (Theorem 3.16: ∂⁺V(B)=−M(B)=−D(B) and V′(B)=−µ; Theorem 4.4 / Proposition 4.7: V′_LQ(β)=−µ* even when R+2µ*D is singular) are derived by a transparent chain: (i) under Assumption 3.3 the control-to-state map and C are affine and J is concave, so dom V is an interval and V is concave (Theorem 3.5); (ii) Fenchel–Moreau applied to W=−V yields the dual representation V(B)=inf_µ{ℓ(µ)−µB} (Theorem 3.7); (iii) conjugate duality gives ∂⁺V(B)=−D(B) (Theorem 3.9); (iv) two-sided attainability (Assumption 3.6) excludes abnormality and identifies D(B) with the normal Pontryagin set M(B) (Propositions 3.12–3.14). None of these steps defines the target identity into existence: V is the constrained value function, D is the dual argmin, M is the PMP multiplier set, and the equalities are proved, not assumed. The LQ analysis likewise constructs the secular function ψ(µ)=C(u_µ) and obtains strong duality by the classical trust-region / Polyak argument; the envelope is the Legendre-transform subdifferential identity, cleanly separated from the invertibility needed for Riccati feedback. Self-citations appear in the bibliography (related arXiv preprints by overlapping authors on other models) but are not invoked as uniqueness theorems or load-bearing premises for the envelope results; the load-bearing citations are classical (Rockafellar, Zowe–Kurcyusz, Polyak, Moré–Sorensen, Pontryagin). There is no fitted parameter renamed as prediction, no self-definitional loop, and no ansatz smuggled via self-citation. Score 0 is therefore appropriate.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard functional-analytic and convex-analytic tools plus a short list of structural hypotheses that define the ‘structured class’ and the LQ setting. No free parameters are fitted; no new physical entities are postulated. The only non-standard ingredient is the explicit two-sided attainability condition used as a constraint qualification.

axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Controls belong to a nonempty, compact, convex set U ⊂ ℝᵐ and the feasible trajectory set is sequentially weak-* closed (Assumption 2.2).
    Needed for existence of maximizers and for weak-* upper semicontinuity of the payoff; automatic in the linear-concave structured class.
  • domain assumption Dynamics are linear, payoff is concave and weak-* upper semicontinuous, isoperimetric integrand is affine (Assumption 3.3).
    Makes the control-to-state map affine and the constraint functional affine, so that dom V is an interval and V is concave.
  • domain assumption Two-sided attainability: the target budget B lies in the interior of the attainable set C(U) (Assumption 3.6).
    The sole constraint qualification that excludes abnormal multipliers and identifies dual multipliers with normal Pontryagin multipliers.
  • standard math Fenchel–Moreau theorem for proper convex lower-semicontinuous functions on ℝ.
    Used to obtain the exact dual representation V(B) = inf_µ {ℓ(µ) − µB}.
  • standard math Dines–Polyak convexity of the joint range of two quadratic forms (or the equivalent secular-function analysis of the trust-region hard case).
    Supplies hidden convexity for the LQ equality-constrained problem.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 35762 in / 2744 out tokens · 29406 ms · 2026-07-14T14:24:09.452548+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We study finite-horizon optimal control problems with scalar isoperimetric constraints from a function-space duality perspective. Controls are treated as elements of weakly compact subsets of \(L^\infty(0,T;\mathbb R^m)\), while the state equation induces a control-to-state map into \(W^{1,\infty}(0,T;\mathbb R^n)\). For linear dynamics, concave payoff, and an affine isoperimetric functional, we prove that the constrained value function has an interval domain, is concave, and admits a Fenchel--Moreau dual representation. This yields a superdifferential formula identifying the negative of the dual multiplier with the sensitivity of the value function with respect to the constraint level. A constraint qualification is then used to identify the dual multiplier with the normal Pontryagin multiplier of the augmented isoperimetric system. We also treat linear-quadratic problems with a single quadratic equality constraint by reducing them to quadratic forms on a Hilbert space. The resulting analysis separates the validity of the envelope formula from the regularity needed for Riccati synthesis, showing that sensitivity may persist even when the modified control-weight operator becomes singular.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

107 extracted references · 19 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Routledge (2018) 32

    Pontryagin, L.S.: Mathematical Theory of Optimal Processes. Routledge (2018) 32

    2018

  2. [2]

    (No Title) (1966)

    Hestenes, M.R.: Calculus of variations and optimal control theory. (No Title) (1966)

    1966

  3. [3]

    Springer (2013)

    Gamkrelidze, R.: Principles of Optimal Control Theory. Springer (2013)

    2013

  4. [4]

    Springer (2013)

    Berkovitz, L.D.: Optimal Control Theory. Springer (2013)

    2013

  5. [5]

    (No Title)

    Lee, E.B., Markus, L.: Foundations of optimal control theory. (No Title)

  6. [6]

    Routledge (2018)

    Bryson, A.E.: Applied Optimal Control: Optimization, Estimation and Control. Routledge (2018)

    2018

  7. [7]

    Courier Corporation (2013)

    Athans, M., Falb, P.L.: Optimal Control: an Introduction to the Theory and Its Applications. Courier Corporation (2013)

    2013

  8. [8]

    Results in Applied Mathematics27, 100621 (2025)

    Wang, L.S., Yu, J.: Analysis framework for stochastic predator–prey model with demographic noise. Results in Applied Mathematics27, 100621 (2025)

    2025

  9. [9]

    Springer (2012)

    Fleming, W.H., Rishel, R.W.: Deterministic and Stochastic Optimal Control. Springer (2012)

    2012

  10. [10]

    Vinter, R.B., Vinter, R.: Optimal Control vol. 2. Springer (2010)

    2010

  11. [11]

    Clarke, F.: Functional Analysis, Calculus of Variations and Optimal Control vol

  12. [12]

    Liberzon, D.: Calculus of variations and optimal control theory: a concise introduction (2011)

    2011

  13. [13]

    North-Holland (1979)

    Ioe, A., Tihomirov, V.: Theory of extremal problems. North-Holland (1979)

    1979

  14. [14]

    (No Title)

    Bliss, G.A.: Lectures on the calculus of variations. (No Title)

  15. [15]

    Inc., Englewood Cliffs 7(1963)

    Gelfand, I., Fomin, S.: Calculus of variations prentice-hall. Inc., Englewood Cliffs 7(1963)

    1963

  16. [16]

    Mathematics13(17), 2898 (2025)

    Wang, L.S., Yu, J., Li, S., Liu, Z.: Analysis and mean-field limit of a hybrid pde- abm modeling angiogenesis-regulated resistance evolution. Mathematics13(17), 2898 (2025)

    2025

  17. [17]

    Giaquinta, M., Hildebrandt, S.: Calculus of Variations II vol. 311. Springer (2013)

    2013

  18. [18]

    Springer (2012)

    Cesari, L.: Optimization—theory and Applications: Problems with Ordinary Differential Equations. Springer (2012)

    2012

  19. [19]

    Academic press (2014) 33

    Warga, J.: Optimal Control of Differential and Functional Equations. Academic press (2014) 33

    2014

  20. [20]

    Bioengineering12(10), 1097 (2025)

    Liu, Z., Wang, L.S., Yu, J., Zhang, J., Martel, E., Li, S.: Bidirectional endothelial feedback drives turing-vascular patterning and drug-resistance niches: a hybrid pde-agent-based study. Bioengineering12(10), 1097 (2025)

    2025

  21. [21]

    Young, L.C.: Lectures on the Calculus of Variations and Optimal Control Theory vol. 304. American Mathematical Society (2024)

    2024

  22. [22]

    SIAM journal on control and optimization22(4), 570– 598 (1984)

    Balder, E.J.: A general approach to lower semicontinuity and lower closure in optimal control theory. SIAM journal on control and optimization22(4), 570– 598 (1984)

    1984

  23. [23]

    SIAM (1999)

    Ekeland, I., Temam, R.: Convex Analysis and Variational Problems. SIAM (1999)

    1999

  24. [24]

    Rockafellar, R.T.: Convex Analysis vol. 28. Princeton university press (1997)

    1997

  25. [25]

    SIAM (1974)

    Rockafellar, R.T.: Conjugate Duality and Optimization. SIAM (1974)

    1974

  26. [26]

    Mathematics13(22), 3583 (2025)

    Liang, Y., Wang, L.S., Yu, J., Liu, Z.: Global well-posedness and stability of nonlocal damage-structured lineage model with feedback and dedifferentiation. Mathematics13(22), 3583 (2025)

    2025

  27. [27]

    Springer (1998)

    Rockafellar, R.T., Wets, R.J.: Variational Analysis. Springer (1998)

    1998

  28. [28]

    Springer (2013)

    Bonnans, J.F., Shapiro, A.: Perturbation Analysis of Optimization Problems. Springer (2013)

    2013

  29. [29]

    Fiacco, A.V.: Introduction to sensitivity and stability analysis in non linear programming (1983)

    1983

  30. [30]

    Mathematical Programming12(1), 136– 138 (1977)

    Gauvin, J.: A necessary and sufficient regularity condition to have bounded multipliers in nonconvex programming. Mathematical Programming12(1), 136– 138 (1977)

    1977

  31. [31]

    Mordukhovich, B.S.: Variational Analysis and Generalized Differentiation I: Basic Theory vol. 330. Springer (2006)

    2006

  32. [32]

    Mordukhovich, B.S.: Variational Analysis and Generalized Differentiation II: Applications vol. 331. Springer (2006)

    2006

  33. [33]

    In: Mutational and Morphological Analysis: Tools for Shape Evolution and Morphogenesis, pp

    Aubin, J.-P.: Set-valued analysis. In: Mutational and Morphological Analysis: Tools for Shape Evolution and Morphogenesis, pp. 205–264. Springer (1990)

    1990

  34. [34]

    Electronic Research Archive34(1), 251–290 (2026)

    Wang, L.S., Yu, J.: Algebraic–spectral thresholds and discrete–continuous stabil- ity transfer in leslie–gower systems. Electronic Research Archive34(1), 251–290 (2026)

    2026

  35. [35]

    Springer (2004)

    Cannarsa, P., Sinestrari, C.: Semiconcave Functions, Hamilton—Jacobi 34 Equations, and Optimal Control. Springer (2004)

    2004

  36. [36]

    John Wiley & Sons (1997)

    Luenberger, D.G.: Optimization by Vector Space Methods. John Wiley & Sons (1997)

    1997

  37. [37]

    Information Technology and Control54(2), 413–438 (2025)

    Wang, Z., Wang, D., Yu, J.: Multi-strategy hybrid improved intelligent algo- rithm for solving uav-mtsp. Information Technology and Control54(2), 413–438 (2025)

    2025

  38. [38]

    In: 2022 International Conference on Data Analytics, Computing and Artificial Intelligence (ICDACAI), pp

    Gao, Y., Li, L., Yu, J.: Rolling prediction model of closing price based on eemd data noise reduction and hgs-delm. In: 2022 International Conference on Data Analytics, Computing and Artificial Intelligence (ICDACAI), pp. 255–260 (2022). IEEE

    2022

  39. [39]

    Springer (2006)

    Borwein, J., Lewis, A.: Convex Analysis and Nonlinear Optimization: Theory and Examples. Springer (2006)

    2006

  40. [40]

    SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis13(4), 497–513 (1976)

    Robinson, S.M.: Stability theory for systems of inequalities, part ii: Differentiable nonlinear systems. SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis13(4), 497–513 (1976)

    1976

  41. [41]

    Applied mathematics and Optimization5(1), 49–62 (1979)

    Zowe, J., Kurcyusz, S.: Regularity and stability for the mathematical program- ming problem in banach spaces. Applied mathematics and Optimization5(1), 49–62 (1979)

    1979

  42. [42]

    Plos one21(2), 0335163 (2026)

    Wang, L.S., Yu, J., Liu, Z.: A damage-structured pde model of stem cell hier- archies: The dual role of dedifferentiation in tissue homeostasis and aging. Plos one21(2), 0335163 (2026)

    2026

  43. [43]

    Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications20(1), 81–110 (1976)

    Kurcyusz, S.: On the existence and nonexistence of lagrange multipliers in banach spaces. Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications20(1), 81–110 (1976)

    1976

  44. [44]

    Mathematical programming16(1), 98–110 (1979)

    Maurer, H., Zowe, J.: First and second-order necessary and sufficient optimal- ity conditions for infinite-dimensional programming problems. Mathematical programming16(1), 98–110 (1979)

    1979

  45. [45]

    Springer (2007)

    Jahn, J.: Introduction to the Theory of Nonlinear Optimization. Springer (2007)

    2007

  46. [46]

    Mathematische Zeitschrift2(1), 187–197 (1918)

    Toeplitz, O.: Das algebraische analogon zu einem satze von fej´ er. Mathematische Zeitschrift2(1), 187–197 (1918)

    1918

  47. [47]

    Mathematische Zeitschrift3(1), 314–316 (1919)

    Hausdorff, F.: Der wertvorrat einer bilinearform. Mathematische Zeitschrift3(1), 314–316 (1919)

    1919

  48. [48]

    Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society47(6), 494–498 (1941) 35

    Dines, L.L.: On the mapping of quadratic forms. Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society47(6), 494–498 (1941) 35

    1941

  49. [49]

    Transport Phenomena (0) (2026)

    Yu, J., Wang, L.S., Liu, Z., Liu, J.: Pattern suppression and recovery under one- way versus two-way chemotactic coupling in hybrid partial differential equation– ordinary differential equation models. Transport Phenomena (0) (2026)

    2026

  50. [50]

    Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society12(1), 61–66 (1961)

    Brickman, L.: On the field of values of a matrix. Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society12(1), 61–66 (1961)

    1961

  51. [51]

    Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications99(3), 553–583 (1998)

    Polyak, B.T.: Convexity of quadratic transformations and its use in control and optimization. Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications99(3), 553–583 (1998)

    1998

  52. [52]

    quadratic world

    Hiriart-Urruty, J.-B., Torki, M.: Permanently going back and forth between the“quadratic world”and the“convexity world”in optimization. Applied Mathe- matics & Optimization45(2), 169–184 (2002)

    2002

  53. [53]

    Vestnik Leninggrad- skogo Universiteta, Ser

    Yakubovich, V.A.: S-procedure in nolinear control theory. Vestnik Leninggrad- skogo Universiteta, Ser. Matematika, 62–77 (1971)

    1971

  54. [54]

    Fradkov, A., Yakubovich, V.: The s-procedure and duality relations in nonconvex problems of quadratic programming. Vestn. LGU, Ser. Mat., Mekh., Astron,(1), 101–109 (1979)

    1979

  55. [55]

    SIAM review49(3), 371–418 (2007)

    P´ olik, I., Terlaky, T.: A survey of the s-lemma. SIAM review49(3), 371–418 (2007)

    2007

  56. [56]

    SIAM (2001)

    Ben-Tal, A., Nemirovski, A.: Lectures on Modern Convex Optimization: Analy- sis, Algorithms, and Engineering Applications. SIAM (2001)

    2001

  57. [57]

    SIAM Journal on optimization17(3), 844–860 (2006)

    Beck, A., Eldar, Y.C.: Strong duality in nonconvex quadratic optimization with two quadratic constraints. SIAM Journal on optimization17(3), 844–860 (2006)

    2006

  58. [58]

    SIAM Journal on Scientific and Statistical Computing2(2), 186–197 (1981)

    Gay, D.M.: Computing optimal locally constrained steps. SIAM Journal on Scientific and Statistical Computing2(2), 186–197 (1981)

    1981

  59. [59]

    SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis19(2), 409–426 (1982)

    Sorensen, D.C.: Newton’s method with a model trust region modification. SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis19(2), 409–426 (1982)

    1982

  60. [60]

    SIAM Journal on scientific and statistical computing4(3), 553–572 (1983)

    Mor´ e, J.J., Sorensen, D.C.: Computing a trust region step. SIAM Journal on scientific and statistical computing4(3), 553–572 (1983)

    1983

  61. [61]

    Electronic Research Archive34(6), 4248–4289 (2026)

    Wang, L.S., Yu, J., Liang, Y., Zhang, J.: The breakdown of linear quasi-cycles: Demographic noise and absorbing boundaries in finite predator–prey systems. Electronic Research Archive34(6), 4248–4289 (2026)

    2026

  62. [62]

    SIAM (2000)

    Conn, A.R., Gould, N.I., Toint, P.L.: Trust Region Methods. SIAM (2000)

    2000

  63. [63]

    SIAM Journal on Optimization5(2), 286–313 36 (1995)

    Stern, R.J., Wolkowicz, H.: Indefinite trust region subproblems and nonsym- metric eigenvalue perturbations. SIAM Journal on Optimization5(2), 286–313 36 (1995)

    1995

  64. [64]

    SIAM Journal on Optimization4(1), 159–176 (1994)

    Mart´ ınez, J.M.: Local minimizers of quadratic functions on euclidean balls and spheres. SIAM Journal on Optimization4(1), 159–176 (1994)

    1994

  65. [65]

    Courier Corporation (2007)

    Anderson, B.D., Moore, J.B.: Optimal Control: Linear Quadratic Methods. Courier Corporation (2007)

    2007

  66. [66]

    SIAM Journal on Control6(4), 681–697 (1968)

    Wonham, W.M.: On a matrix riccati equation of stochastic control. SIAM Journal on Control6(4), 681–697 (1968)

    1968

  67. [67]

    Berlin and New York, Springer-Verlag, 1991, 347 (1991)

    Bittanti, S., LAUB, A., WILLEMS, J.: The riccati equation(book). Berlin and New York, Springer-Verlag, 1991, 347 (1991)

    1991

  68. [68]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2607.03813 (2026)

    Liu, Z., Yu, J., Su, L., Wang, L.S., Du, Y., Liu, J.: Computational oncology of chemotaxis-driven tumour–immune spatial patterning and stability. arXiv preprint arXiv:2607.03813 (2026)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  69. [69]

    Clarendon press (1995)

    Lancaster, P., Rodman, L.: Algebraic Riccati Equations. Clarendon press (1995)

    1995

  70. [70]

    Birkh¨ auser (2012)

    Abou-Kandil, H., Freiling, G., Ionescu, V., Jank, G.: Matrix Riccati Equations in Control and Systems Theory. Birkh¨ auser (2012)

    2012

  71. [71]

    IEEE transactions on automatic control42(6), 819–830 (1997)

    Megretski, A., Rantzer, A.: System analysis via integral quadratic constraints. IEEE transactions on automatic control42(6), 819–830 (1997)

    1997

  72. [72]

    Mathematical Methods in the Applied Sciences (2026)

    Yu, J., Wang, L.S., Liang, Y.: Rigorous analysis of a nonlocal transport–renewal system for physiologically structured populations. Mathematical Methods in the Applied Sciences (2026)

    2026

  73. [73]

    Archive for rational mechanics and analysis45(5), 321–351 (1972)

    Willems, J.C.: Dissipative dynamical systems part i: General theory. Archive for rational mechanics and analysis45(5), 321–351 (1972)

    1972

  74. [74]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2607.02877 (2026)

    Yu, J., Wang, L.S.: Endogenous feedback in size-structured transport equations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2607.02877 (2026)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  75. [75]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2607.03790 (2026)

    Wang, L.S., Yu, J.: Optimal harvesting of size-structured populations with envi- ronmental feedback and fixed recruitment flux. arXiv preprint arXiv:2607.03790 (2026)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  76. [76]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2607.01403 (2026)

    Yu, J., Wang, L.S.: Fredholm–residue selection of the unsteady kutta amplitude. arXiv preprint arXiv:2607.01403 (2026)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  77. [77]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.00387 (2026)

    Wang, L.S.: Introduction to exact penalization for mathematical programming with equilibrium constraints. arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.00387 (2026)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  78. [78]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2607.01347 (2026) 37

    Yu, J., Wang, L.S.: Bilinear control of age–space structured populations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2607.01347 (2026) 37

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  79. [79]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.00386 (2026)

    Wang, L.S.: Introduction to mathematical programming with equilibrium con- straints (mpecs) and bilevel optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.00386 (2026)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  80. [80]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.05882 (2026)

    Wang, L.S.: Lecture note for bounded controls in continuous-time and control of several variables. arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.05882 (2026)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

Showing first 80 references.