Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 31 references

Differentiability of the value function in control-constrained parabolic problems

T0 review · 3 major / 4 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 Under a second-order growth condition, the value function of a semilinear parabolic tracking problem is Frechet differentiable along the optimal trajectory, and its gradient is the adjoint state.

desk verdict Removing the Tikhonov term is genuinely new, but the main theorem's upper bound rests on an unproved adjoint-stability estimate, so the paper needs major revision before the claims are fully established. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.20310 v3 pith:5SA7OQAR submitted 2024-12-29 math.OC

Alberto Domínguez Corella , Nicolai Jork , Stefan Volkwein This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.OC MSC 49L9935K5849K40
keywords valuefunctionsemilinearparabolicPDEoptimalcontrolconstraintsFréchetdifferentiabilityadjointstatesecond-ordersufficientconditionssolutionstability
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper establishes differentiability of the value function for an optimal control problem governed by a semilinear parabolic equation with box constraints on the control and no Tikhonov regularization. The main theorem says that if the reference control is a strict global minimizer satisfying a second-order growth condition on the cost (Assumption 2.2), then the value function is Frechet differentiable in the initial condition at every point of the optimal trajectory, and the gradient is the adjoint state. Under an additional time-differentiability assumption on the optimal state, the value function is also differentiable in time and jointly in both variables. The paper's significance is that differentiability of the value function is a prerequisite for HJB-based feedback synthesis and policy iteration, and this is the first such result for unregularized control-constrained parabolic problems under these weak assumptions.

What carries the argument

The engine is Assumption 2.2: for all small admissible directions $v$, $J'(\bar u)v + \tfrac{1}{2}J''(\bar u)(v,v) \ge c\|z_v\|_{L^2(Q)}^2$ with $c>0$, where $z_v$ solves the linearized state equation (2.3). This joint first-plus-second variation growth condition, imported from earlier stability theory, implies a global quadratic growth bound in state distance (Lemma 3.4), its restriction to shifted time intervals (Corollary 3.5), and the key stability estimate Theorem 3.9, which yields $\|y^{\tau+h,\bar y(\tau)+\eta}_{u^{h,\eta}} - \bar y\|_{L^2(Q_{\tau+h})} \le \kappa (\|\bar y(\tau+h)-\bar y(\tau)\|_H + \|\eta\|_H)$ for all small $h$ and $\eta$. The adjoint state $\bar p$ is the object that carries the gradient: the integration-by-parts identity for the linearized state, $\int (\bar y - y_Q) z = \int \bar p\, \delta u + \langle \bar p(\tau), \xi \rangle$, is used twice (once with the reference data and once with the perturbed data) to squeeze the difference quotient of the value function between two expressions that converge to $\langle \bar p(\tau), \eta \rangle$.

What would settle it

Take a concrete one-dimensional semilinear tracking problem (e.g., $f(y)=y$ with box constraints), verify Assumption 2.2 by direct computation, and check numerically whether the difference quotient $\left( v(y_0+\eta)-v(y_0)-\langle \bar p(0),\eta \rangle \right)/\|\eta\|_H$ tends to zero as $\eta \to 0$; a nonzero limit would contradict the theorem under its stated hypotheses, while a zero limit would confirm the mechanism.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Theorem 2.4: under Assumptions 2.1 and 2.2, if the reference control $\bar u$ is a strict global minimizer of the tracking problem (P), then for every $\tau \in [0,T]$ the value function $v(\tau, \cdot) : L^2(\Omega) \to \mathbb{R}$ is Frechet differentiable at the reference optimal state $\bar y(\tau)$, and its gradient equals the adjoint state $\bar p(\tau)$. The proof proceeds by establishing the two-sided bound $\limsup \le 0 \le \liminf$ for the difference quotient in the initial condition. The upper bound uses the stability estimate Theorem 3.9 (which controls the $L^2$-distance between the perturbed optimal state and the reference state by a constant times the perturbation size), an $L^s$-$L^1$ estimate to control the error between the perturbed state and its linearization, and the adjoint identity to identify the leading term as the inner product with $\bar p(0)$. The lower bound is obtained by reversing the roles of the reference and perturbed problems and using the adjoint of the perturbed problem. Theorems 2.5 and 2.6 extend the result to one-sided and two-sided time derivatives, and to joint differentiability in (time, state), under the additional hypothesis that the reference optimal state is time-differentiable in $L^2$ at the point.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is Assumption 2.2, a uniform lower bound $c>0$ on the first plus half the second variation of the cost in terms of the squared linearized-state norm, which the paper does not verify for any concrete datum but imports from earlier stability theory.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For any $\tau$, the value function $v(\tau,\cdot)$ is Frechet differentiable at the reference optimal state $\bar y(\tau)$, with gradient $\bar p(\tau)$.
  • If the reference optimal state is right (left) differentiable in time at $\tau$, the value function has a one-sided derivative formula involving $\bar p$ and the Lagrangian $L(\bar y(\tau))$; both one-sided derivatives coincide when the state is differentiable, giving full time differentiability.
  • At points where the optimal state is differentiable in time, the value function is differentiable jointly in (time, state) on $L^2(\Omega)$.
  • The differentiability results hold for initial data in $H^1$ or $L^\infty$ with the same arguments, and the $L^\infty$ setting admits more general nonlinearities.
  • Under an additional control growth condition or a pointwise Legendre-Clebsch-type condition, the differentiability extends to a neighborhood of the optimal trajectory rather than only at the trajectory.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's proof suggests that the stability estimate Theorem 3.9 is the true workhorse: the same two-step template—state-distance stability plus adjoint-based squeezing—should transfer to other control-affine PDE problems (e.g., quasilinear or Navier-Stokes constraints) once an analogous stability estimate is available, even though the paper does not state this extension.
  • Because the paper verifies no concrete datum against Assumption 2.2, a natural next step is to check the assumption for a simple model (e.g., $f(y)=y$ with box constraints) and compute the value function numerically to confirm the predicted gradient, which would turn the abstract theorem into an implementable check.
  • The discussion of multiple minimizers suggests a plausible route to extend differentiability to problems with finitely many global minimizers, provided one can prove that the perturbed optimal states remain uniformly close to the set of reference optimal states; the paper leaves this as future work, so this is an inference.
  • If the value function is differentiable along the optimal trajectory, then the dynamic programming or HJB equation holds at those points, which could be used to construct locally stabilizing feedback laws; the paper mentions this motivation but does not derive such feedbacks.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies the value function of a control-constrained semilinear parabolic optimal control problem with a tracking-type objective and no Tikhonov regularization. It claims Fréchet differentiability of the value function with respect to the initial condition along the optimal trajectory (Theorem 2.4), one-sided and two-sided time differentiability under additional regularity of the optimal state (Theorem 2.5), joint differentiability in time and initial condition (Theorem 2.6), and discusses differentiability in a neighborhood of the trajectory. The proofs rely on a second-order growth assumption on the first and second variations (Assumption 2.2) and on stability estimates from previous work of the authors.

Significance. If the main theorems are correct, the paper would provide the first differentiability results for the value function of unregularized PDE-constrained optimal control problems under assumptions weaker than Tikhonov regularization, and the results are also new for ODE-constrained problems. The proof strategy based on joint growth of the first and second variations, together with the linearized-state stability estimate in Theorem 3.9, is an interesting and potentially useful framework. However, the current manuscript leaves a load-bearing adjoint-stability estimate unproved and provides only a sketch for the time-differentiability statements, so the central claims are not yet fully established.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4, proof of Theorem 2.4] The upper-bound half of the Fréchet differentiability proof is completed by the sentence: 'using integration by parts with the adjoint p_η ... and using fact that ||p_η(0)-p̄(0)||_H ≤ c''||η||_H for some constant c'' > 0 independent of η.' This adjoint-stability estimate is never proved or cited. It is not an immediate consequence of Theorem 3.9, because the difference P = p_η - p̄ solves a backward parabolic equation whose source contains the term (f'(y_η)-f'(ȳ))p̄, and bounding this term in L^2(Q) requires more regularity of p̄ than W(0,T) provides (W(0,T) embeds into L^{2(d+2)/d}(Q), not into L^∞(Q)). Since the limsup inequality depends on controlling the adjoint difference, this is a gap in the proof of the paper's main theorem. The authors should provide a full proof of this estimate or a precise reference.
  2. [Section 4, proof of Theorem 2.5, Step 3] The passage to the limit h→0+ in the term ∫_Ω p_h(τ+h,x) [ȳ(τ+h)-ȳ(τ)]/h dx implicitly requires p_h(τ+h) → p̄(τ) in H (or an appropriate weak convergence with the stated normalization), but no adjoint-stability result for the family p_h is stated or cited. Moreover, the proof explicitly assumes f(y)=y and defers the case of general nonlinearities to 'standard arguments' without specifying the necessary estimates. Both points need to be addressed for Theorem 2.5 to be considered proven.
  3. [Section 4, proof of Theorem 2.6] Theorem 2.6 is proved in a single sentence: 'The statement follows by the same arguments as in the proofs of Theorem 2.4 and Theorem 2.5.' Given that Theorem 2.5 is only proved for f(y)=y and already relies on the unproved adjoint convergence, the joint-differentiability claim needs at least a detailed sketch explaining how the state and time variations are coupled and which additional regularity is required. As written, the proof is insufficient to verify the theorem.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.2, Lemmas 3.7 and 3.8] The interval 's ∈ [1, d+2/d)' is a typo for 's ∈ [1, (d+2)/d)' (and similarly 's < d+2/d' for 's < (d+2)/d'). The same notational ambiguity appears in the proof of Theorem 2.4.
  2. [Section 4, equation after (4.2)] The displayed formula for A omits the term + ȳ^2 in the integrand. As written, ∫_Q [1/2(y_η^2 - ȳ^2) - ȳ y_η] dxdt is not necessarily nonnegative, whereas the correct quadratic remainder 1/2(y_η - ȳ)^2 is. The conclusion A ≥ 0 is correct once the typo is fixed.
  3. [Assumption 2.2] The paper claims that Assumption 2.2 is 'generally applicable to a wide range of problems, including, for instance, certain tracking-type problems,' but no concrete example or explicit verification for any data is provided. A brief example or a reference where the condition is checked would help the reader assess the scope of the main results.
  4. [Throughout] The notation for the value function is inconsistent: Theorem 2.6 uses v while the rest of the paper uses υ. This should be unified.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the value-function differentiability claim is derived from explicit growth assumptions and stability estimates; the unproved adjoint-stability estimate is a proof gap, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The central derivation is not circular. The paper proves Fréchet differentiability of the value function by combining the stability estimate of Theorem 3.9 with integration by parts and first-order optimality conditions. Assumption 2.2 is an explicit growth condition on the first and second variations; it does not contain the differentiability conclusion and is not derived from it. Proposition 2.3's local quadratic growth is attributed to an external standard Taylor-expansion argument, and Lemma 3.4's globalization uses only the assumed strict global minimality. The self-citations [9,14,15] support stability theory that is independent, parameter-free, and does not assert the target result. The proof of Theorem 2.4's upper bound does invoke an unproved adjoint-stability estimate, 'using fact that ||p_eta(0)-p_bar(0)||_H <= c''||eta||_H', and Theorem 2.5 similarly assumes p_h(tau+h) -> p_bar(tau); these are omissions in the proof's completeness, but they are not circular because the adjoint-stability inequality is not identical to, nor does it by construction imply, the value-function derivative formula. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work to force the conclusion. The discussion in Section 5.2 is explicitly conditional on growth assumptions and is not offered as a closed derivation. Overall, the paper's main claim is not equivalent to its inputs by definition or by self-citation chain.

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

The paper introduces no new physical or mathematical entities and fits no parameters to data. The central claims rest on the standard well-posedness assumptions in Assumption 2.1, on the imported and uninstantiated growth condition Assumption 2.2, and on the strict-minimality hypothesis. The existential constants in those assumptions are not fitted values, so the free-parameter list is empty.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Assumption 2.1: Omega bounded with Lipschitz boundary, A uniformly elliptic and symmetric in L-infinity, f in C^2 with f' and f'' bounded and f' >= 0, y_Q in L^r(Q) for r > 1 + d/2, u_a and u_b in L-infinity(Q), y_0 in C(Omega-bar).
    Standard well-posedness hypotheses for the semilinear parabolic state equation; they guarantee existence and uniqueness of states and of global minimizers (Propositions 3.1 and 3.3).
  • ad hoc to paper Assumption 2.2: J'(u-bar)v + (1/2)J''(u-bar)(v,v) >= c ||z_v||^2_{L2(Q)} for all v in U_ad - u-bar with ||z_v|| <= delta.
    Key local growth condition imported from the authors' earlier stability papers [9,14]. It is not derived or instantiated in this paper, and all stability estimates in Section 3 rest on it.
  • domain assumption u-bar is a strict global minimizer of (P).
    Strictness is used in Lemma 3.4 to turn the local growth into a global quadratic lower bound; without it the key estimate (3.2) can fail.
  • domain assumption For Theorem 2.5 and 2.6, y_Q belongs to C([0,T],L2(Omega)) and y-bar is differentiable in L2 at tau.
    Hypotheses of the time-differentiability statements; the value function's time derivative is expressed through the state time derivative, so it exists only under this additional regularity.
  • standard math Standard functional-analytic background: Gelfand triple, Aubin-Lions compactness, W(I) embedded in C(I;L2(Omega)), and maximal parabolic regularity for linear equations.
    Used throughout Section 3 and in the proofs; standard results from the cited monograph of Troeltzsch and from Casas-Wachsmuth.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Differentiability of the value function in control-constrained parabolic problems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5SA7OQAR

@misc{pith2026241220310,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Differentiability of the value function in control-constrained parabolic problems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5SA7OQAR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.20310}
}
read the original abstract

Along the optimal trajectory of an optimal control problem constrained by a semilinear parabolic partial differential equation, we prove the differentiability of the value function with respect to the initial condition and, under additional assumptions on the solution of the state equation, the differentiability of the value function with respect to the time variable. In our proof, we rely on local growth assumptions commonly associated with the study of second-order sufficient conditions. These assumptions are generally applicable to a wide range of problems, including, for instance, certain tracking-type problems. Finally, we discuss the differentiability of the value function in a neighborhood of the optimal trajectory when a growth condition for optimal controls is used.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry add.period write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTION or pop #1 'skip if FUNCTION new.block.checka empty 'skip 'new.block if FUNCTION field.or.null duplicate empty pop "" 'skip ...

  2. [2]

    M. S. Aronna , Second order necessary and sufficient optimality conditions for singular solutions of partially-affine control problems , Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst., Ser. S, 11 (2018), pp. 1233--1258, https://doi.org/10.3934/dcdss.2018070

    work page doi:10.3934/dcdss.2018070 2018

  3. [3]

    M. S. Aronna, J. F. Bonnans, A. V. Dmitruk, and P. A. Lotito , Quadratic order conditions for bang-singular extremals , Numer. Algebra Control Optim., 2 (2012), pp. 511--546, https://doi.org/10.3934/naco.2012.2.511

    work page doi:10.3934/naco.2012.2.511 2012

  4. [4]

    M. S. Aronna, J. F. Bonnans, and B. S. Goh , Second order analysis of control-affine problems with scalar state constraint , Math. Program., 160 (2016), pp. 115--147, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10107-015-0976-0

    work page doi:10.1007/s10107-015-0976-0 2016

  5. [5]

    Bergounioux and N

    M. Bergounioux and N. Merabet , Sensitivity analysis for optimal control of problems governed by semilinear parabolic equations , Control Cybernet., 29 (2000), pp. 861--886, https://bibliotekanauki.pl/articles/206854

    work page 2000

  6. [6]

    Breiten, K

    T. Breiten, K. Kunisch, and L. Pfeiffer , Infinite-horizon bilinear optimal control problems: sensitivity analysis and polynomial feedback laws , SIAM J. Control Optim., 56 (2018), pp. 3184--3214, https://doi.org/10.1137/18M1173952, https://doi.org/10.1137/18M1173952

    work page doi:10.1137/18m1173952 2018

  7. [7]

    Breiten, K

    T. Breiten, K. Kunisch, and L. Pfeiffer , Feedback stabilization of the two-dimensional N avier- S tokes equations by value function approximation , Appl. Math. Optim., 80 (2019), pp. 599--641, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00245-019-09586-x, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00245-019-09586-x

    work page doi:10.1007/s00245-019-09586-x 2019

  8. [8]

    Breiten, K

    T. Breiten, K. Kunisch, and L. Pfeiffer , Taylor expansions of the value function associated with a bilinear optimal control problem , Ann. Inst. H. Poincar\'e C Anal. Non Lin\'eaire, 36 (2019), pp. 1361--1399, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anihpc.2019.01.001, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anihpc.2019.01.001

    doi:10.1016/j.anihpc.2019.01.001 2019

Show all 31 references
  1. [9]

    Cannarsa and H

    P. Cannarsa and H. Frankowska , Local regularity of the value function in optimal control , Systems Control Lett., 62 (2013), pp. 791--794, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sysconle.2013.06.001

    2013 doi

  2. [10]

    Casas, A

    E. Casas, A. Dom\'inguez Corella, and N. Jork , New assumptions for stability analysis in elliptic optimal control problems , SIAM J. Control Optim., 61 (2023), pp. 1394--1414, https://doi.org/10.1137/22M149199X

    2023 doi

  3. [11]

    Casas and M

    E. Casas and M. Mateos , Critical cones for sufficient second order conditions in PDE constrained optimization , SIAM J. Optim., 30 (2020), pp. 585--603, https://doi.org/10.1137/19M1258244

    2020 doi

  4. [12]

    Casas and F

    E. Casas and F. Tr\"oltzsch , Second-order optimality conditions for weak and strong local solutions of parabolic optimal control problems , Vietnam J. Math., 44 (2016), pp. 181--202, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10013-015-0175-6

    2016 doi

  5. [13]

    Casas and D

    E. Casas and D. Wachsmuth , A note on existence of solutions to control problems of semilinear partial differential equations , SIAM J. Control Optim., 61 (2023), pp. 1095--1112, https://doi.org/10.1137/22M1486418

    2023 doi

  6. [14]

    Christof and G

    C. Christof and G. Wachsmuth , On second-order optimality conditions for optimal control problems governed by the obstacle problem , Optimization, 70 (2021), pp. 2247--2287, https://doi.org/10.1080/02331934.2020.1778686

    2021

  7. [15]

    Dom\'inguez Corella, N

    A. Dom\'inguez Corella, N. Jork, and V. M. Veliov , On the solution stability of parabolic optimal control problems , Comput. Optim. Appl., 86 (2023), pp. 1035--1079, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10589-023-00473-4

    2023 doi

  8. [16]

    Dom \' nguez Corella and T

    A. Dom \' nguez Corella and T. M. L \^e , On the growth of nonconvex functionals at strict local minimizers , arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.01833, (2024)

    2024

  9. [17]

    Dom\'inguez Corella and G

    A. Dom\'inguez Corella and G. Wachsmuth , Stability and genericity of bang-bang controls in affine problems , SIAM J. Control Optim., 62 (2024), pp. 1669--1689, https://doi.org/10.1137/23M1586446

    2024 doi

  10. [18]

    Esteve-Yag\"ue and E

    C. Esteve-Yag\"ue and E. Zuazua , Differentiability with respect to the initial condition for H amilton- J acobi equations , SIAM J. Math. Anal., 54 (2022), pp. 5388--5423, https://doi.org/10.1137/22M1469353

    2022 doi

  11. [19]

    Fathi and A

    A. Fathi and A. Siconolfi , Existence of C^1 critical subsolutions of the H amilton- J acobi equation , Invent. Math., 155 (2004), pp. 363--388, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00222-003-0323-6

    2004 doi

  12. [20]

    Goebel , Convex optimal control problems with smooth H amiltonians , SIAM J

    R. Goebel , Convex optimal control problems with smooth H amiltonians , SIAM J. Control Optim., 43 (2005), pp. 1787--1811, https://doi.org/10.1137/S0363012902411581

    2005 doi

  13. [21]

    Jork and J

    N. Jork and J. Simon , Analysis of unregularized optimal control problems constrained by the boussinesq system , arXiv-Preprint, (2024), https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2402.06873

    2024 doi arXiv

  14. [22]

    Kunisch and B

    K. Kunisch and B. Priyasad , Continuous differentiability of the value function of semilinear parabolic infinite time horizon optimal control problems on L^2( ) under control constraints , Applied Mathematics and Optimization, 85 (2022), pp. Paper No. 10, 48, https://doi.org/1...

    2022 doi

  15. [23]

    Kunisch and B

    K. Kunisch and B. Priyasad , Differentiability of the value function on H^1( ) of semilinear parabolic infinite time horizon optimal control problems under control constraints , Mathematical Control and Related Fields, (2024), https://doi.org/10.3934/mcrf.2024020

    2024 doi

  16. [24]

    Maurer and N

    H. Maurer and N. P. Osmolovskii , Second order sufficient conditions for time-optimal bang-bang control , SIAM J. Control Optim., 42 (2004), pp. 2239--2263, https://doi.org/10.1137/S0363012902402578

    2004 doi

  17. [25]

    N. P. Osmolovskii and H. Maurer , Second order sufficient optimality conditions for a control problem with continuous and bang-bang control components: Riccati approach , in System modeling and optimization. 23rd IFIP TC 7 conference, CSMO 2007, Cracow, Poland, July 23--27, 20...

    2007 doi

  18. [26]

    N. P. Osmolovskii and H. Maurer , Applications to regular and bang-bang control. Second -order necessary and sufficient optimality conditions in calculus of variations and optimal control , vol. 24 of Adv. Des. Control, Philadelphia, PA: Society for Industrial and Applied Math...

    2012

  19. [27]

    N. P. Osmolovskii and V. M. Veliov , Metric sub-regularity in optimal control of affine problems with free end state , ESAIM, Control Optim. Calc. Var., 26 (2020), p. 19, https://doi.org/10.1051/cocv/2019046. Id/No 47

    2020

  20. [28]

    N. P. Osmolovskii and V. M. Veliov , On the regularity of Mayer -type affine optimal control problems , in Large-scale scientific computing. 12th international conference, LSSC 2019, Sozopol, Bulgaria, June 10--14, 2019. Revised selected papers, Cham: Springer, 2020, pp. 56--6...

    2019 doi

  21. [29]

    Pighin , Nonuniqueness of minimizers for semilinear optimal control problems , J

    D. Pighin , Nonuniqueness of minimizers for semilinear optimal control problems , J. Eur. Math. Soc. (JEMS), 25 (2023), pp. 2127--2162, https://doi.org/10.4171/jems/1232

    2023 doi

  22. [30]

    Preiss , Differentiability of L ipschitz functions on B anach spaces , J

    D. Preiss , Differentiability of L ipschitz functions on B anach spaces , J. Funct. Anal., 91 (1990), pp. 312--345, https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1236(90)90147-D

    1990 doi

  23. [31]

    Tr \"o ltzsch , Optimal control of partial differential equations

    F. Tr \"o ltzsch , Optimal control of partial differential equations. Theory , methods and applications , vol. 112 of Grad. Stud. Math., Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society (AMS), 2010, https://doi.org/10.1090/gsm/112

    2010 doi

Pith tools

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