Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 minor 1 cited by

Optimal geometric barriers for weighted observability of heat semigroups on metric measure spaces

T0 review · 0 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper proves that any weight in a heat observability inequality must decay like e^{-d^2/(2t)}, where d is the essential maximal distance to the observation set.

desk verdict Settles the infinite-time maximal-distance bound γ∞ ≥ L(ω)²/2 with a careful, honest proof; the main spectral assumption is explicit and verified in all claimed settings, so the paper deserves a serious referee. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.13279 v1 pith:75YOTOGY submitted 2026-07-14 math.AP math.OCmath.SP

Vincent Boulard , Amaury Hayat , Emmanuel Trélat This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.APmath.OCmath.SP MSC 35K0535B6093B0735P2058J35
keywords observabilityheatsemigroupgeometricbarrieressentialmaximaldistanceWeyllawfinitespeedofpropagationKannaitransmutationmetricmeasurespace
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

Integrated observability inequalities for heat equations typically come with a small-time factor e^{-γ/t}. This paper proves that this exponential scale is not an artifact of Carleman or spectral estimates: it is imposed by the geometry of the observation set. On a doubling metric measure space, for any nonnegative self-adjoint operator satisfying ultracontractivity, Davies–Gaffney estimates and a pointwise Weyl law, any admissible weight h satisfying the inequality must obey h(t) ≤ A e^{-κ L(ω)^2/t} for every κ<1/2, where L(ω) is the essential maximal distance to the observation set. Equivalently, limsup_{t→0} t log h(t) ≤ -L(ω)^2/2. This yields the optimal lower bound γ∞ ≥ L(ω)^2/2 for the infinite-time observability constant, resolving an open problem, and recovers Miller's fast-control bound. The result covers Riemannian manifolds, Schrödinger operators, sub-Riemannian (Grushin) structures and δ'-coupled metric graphs.

What carries the argument

One test object drives the proof: the spectral packet (cosh(r√A) − 1)e^{-tA} centered at x, with r below δ = d_ess(x,ω). A pointwise Plancherel identity expresses its L^2 norm through the pointwise spectral measure ν_x; the pointwise Weyl law makes this norm grow at least like e^{(1−η)r^2/(2t)}. Finite speed of propagation (Davies–Gaffney) and the Kannai transmutation formula make the packet exponentially small on ω, of order e^{-(δ^2−r^2)/(2t)}. Matching the two rates yields h(t) ≲ e^{-κ r^2/t}; optimizing r ↑ δ and x gives L(ω)^2/2.

What would settle it

Compute the optimal observability weight for the Dirichlet Laplacian on a dumbbell domain (two unit squares joined by a thin corridor) with observation set equal to one square: the theorem predicts limsup_{t→0} t log h(t) = -L(ω)^2/2, where L(ω) is the maximal distance from the far square. A numerical or spectral computation of the optimal weight that finds a strictly greater (less negative) value would contradict the logarithmic endpoint (9) and would indicate a hidden failure of one of the three assumptions, most likely the pointwise Weyl law at the maximal-distance point.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the e^{-γ/t} factor in heat observability is a geometric necessity, not a by-product of Carleman or spectral proofs. Under three assumptions — ultracontractivity, Davies–Gaffney estimates (finite wave propagation speed), and a pointwise local Weyl law — Theorem 1 says that if an integrated observability inequality holds with an admissible weight h on a measurable set ω, then for every κ<1/2, h(t) ≤ A_{T,κ} e^{-κ L(ω)^2/t} for 0<t<T, where L(ω) is the essential maximal distance to ω. This is equivalent to limsup_{t→0} t log h(t) ≤ -L(ω)^2/2. The coefficient 1/2 is optimal as a universal threshold. For h(t)=e^{-γ∞/t} with infinite horizon, this yields γ∞ ≥ L(ω)^2/2, s

Load-bearing premise

The pointwise local Weyl law (Assumption (A3)) — that the spectral density at almost every point grows like c(x)λ^{α2} times a slowly varying factor — is the load-bearing input; it is the only hypothesis that produces the lower bound on the test packet and fixes the exponential scale r^2/(2t). If it fails on a positive-measure set of points, the proof's lower bound is lost and the barrier is not established.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Infinite-time observability: an exponential weight e^{-γ∞/t} requires γ∞ ≥ L(ω)^2/2, answering the open question from earlier work on the infinite-time constant.
  • Fast controls: the squared observability constant grows at least like e^{L(ω)^2/(2T)}, equivalently the L^2 null-control rate K_heat ≥ L(ω)^2/4, recovering Miller's bound and extending it to sub-Riemannian and graph settings.
  • High-frequency barrier: the integrated observability multiplier H_T(λ) decays at most like e^{-β L(ω)√λ} for every β<1, so the sharp observability inequality (5) is optimal within the integrated approach.
  • Generality: the result holds without compact resolvent or kernel continuity, covering Laplace-type operators, coupled heat systems, Schrödinger operators on R^d, equiregular sub-Laplacians, Grushin models, and δ′-coupled metric graphs.
  • Arbitrary admissible weights: the geometry forces the exponential scale even when h is not prescribed to be exponential, giving the Varadhan-type logarithmic endpoint.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same packet construction suggests an analogous barrier for fractional heat semigroups e^{-tA^α}: once a finite-speed wave kernel is available, a bound of the form h(t) ≲ e^{-c L(ω)^{2α}/t} should be expected, with c depending on α.
  • The proof uses the pointwise Weyl law at a single base point, so the barrier may extend to operators whose spectral density is non-uniform but has at least one 'Weyl-regular' point arbitrarily far from ω; this weakens (A3) to an existence statement.
  • Because the barrier is governed by the essential maximal distance, observability inequalities are stable under null-set modifications of ω; practical observers gain nothing by adding measure-zero obstacles.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proves a universal small-time geometric barrier for weighted integrated observability of heat semigroups. Under hypotheses (A1) ultracontractivity, (A2) Davies–Gaffney estimates/finite propagation speed, and (A3) a pointwise local Weyl law on a doubling metric measure space, Theorem 1 shows that if an admissible weight h satisfies the integrated observability inequality (7) on a measurable set ω, then h(t) ≤ A_{T,κ} exp(−κ L(ω)^2/t) for every κ<1/2, equivalently limsup_{t↓0} t log h(t) ≤ −L(ω)^2/2. Corollary 1 gives the previously open infinite-time bound γ∞ ≥ L(ω)^2/2 for exponential weights; Corollary 2 recovers Miller's fast-control lower bound; Corollary 3 gives a corresponding high-frequency spectral constraint. The proof uses the spectral packet (cosh(r√A)−1)e^{−tA}, with a lower bound from the Weyl law at a base point and an upper bound on ω via a weak wave kernel and Kannai transmutation. Appendices develop pointwise spectral measures and L^∞_Δ kernel calculus without compact resolvent or kernel continuity. Applications include compact Riemannian Laplace-type operators, Schrödinger operators on R^d, sub-Riemannian/Grushin structures, and δ′-coupled metric graphs.

Significance. If the proof is correct — and I found it coherent — the result is significant: it shows that the ubiquitous e^{−γ/t} scale in heat observability is a geometric obstruction rather than an artifact of Carleman or spectral methods. The theorem is conditional on explicit, stated hypotheses, and the proof has no fitted parameters: the observability inequality is only the starting assumption, while the lower bound is fed by the Weyl law and the upper bound by finite-speed propagation, so there is no circularity. The framework is genuinely broader than earlier treatments, covering non-continuous kernels and operators without compact resolvent, and the four application classes give the result concrete reach. The paper is also honest about its limitations: Remark 3 explicitly disclaims the constant-prefactor endpoint κ=1/2, and (A3) is a real spectral input that is verified rather than derived. These features make the central claim credible and well-scoped.

minor comments (4)
  1. [1.1] The paragraph after (1) uses C_T for both the observability constant in (1) and the usual L2 null-control cost, then states 'C_T = C_T^2'. This is confusing. Please rename one of the two constants (e.g., use K_T for the control cost) so the conversion between the squared-observability and control-norm normalizations is unambiguous.
  2. [Remark 3] Remark 3 correctly flags that the theorem proves the logarithmic endpoint and the quantitative family (8) for every κ<1/2, but not an endpoint estimate h(t) ≤ A e^{−L(ω)^2/(2t)} with a bounded prefactor. This is a genuine limitation and is appropriately stated; I mention it to confirm that the abstract's phrase 'sharp logarithmic endpoint' should not be overread as a constant-prefactor result.
  3. [4.2] For Schrödinger operators on R^d with bounded potential, the verification of (A3) is given by two arguments: Hörmander's local asymptotics and Feynman–Kac plus Karamata. Since Hörmander's theorem is usually stated for compact manifolds, the Karamata route is the more transparent justification in the noncompact setting; consider making it the primary proof and keeping the Hörmander remark as a comment.
  4. [B.1] The proof of Lemma B.1 is correct but compressed, especially in the Seeley-extension step after inequality (53). Adding one or two sentences explaining how the zeroth-order and 2m-th order extension bounds combine to yield (52) would improve readability. This is purely expository.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the geometric barrier is derived as a conditional necessary condition from explicit hypotheses (A1)-(A3), with no fitted parameter or load-bearing self-citation.

full rationale

The derivation chain is non-circular. Theorem 1 assumes the integrated observability inequality (7) and applies it to a single spectral test packet e_{r,t,x} = K((cosh(r√A)-1)e^{-tA})(·,x). The lower bound on this packet comes from the pointwise Plancherel identity (19) plus the explicit local Weyl law (A3), producing the exponential scale r^2/(2t) via the elementary maximum of 2r√λ - 2tλ (Lemma 2). The upper bound on ω comes from the Davies-Gaffney/finite-speed hypothesis (A2) through the Kannai transmutation formula and the wave-kernel support property (Lemma 3 and Remark A.3). Neither estimate imports the target inequality: (7) is used only once, to relate the L^2 norm to the observed norm, and no parameter is fitted to match the conclusion. The theorem is a genuine necessary condition: it assumes observability and derives a forced weight bound. The definition of L(ω) is purely metric/measure-theoretic and independent of h. Corollaries 1-3 are direct substitutions or Laplace-method consequences, not renamings. The only self-citations are in the applications, e.g. Section 4.3 uses [12,13] to verify (A3) for sub-Riemannian structures; [12] is a published external result and, in any case, this verification does not support the abstract proof. Remark 4 explicitly notes that (A3) is used only at a single base point, and Remark 3 declines a constant-prefactor endpoint; these are stated limitations, not hidden circular steps. If (A3) failed on a positive-measure set the barrier would not follow under the stated hypotheses, but the paper says this and verifies (A3) in each application class. That is a correctness/scope risk, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 4 invented entities

The ledger contains no fitted parameters: the theorem is a universal necessary condition and the constants A_{T,κ} are existential. The assumptions (A1)–(A3) are structural hypotheses, each verified in the four application classes. The new objects (pointwise spectral measures, weak wave kernel, L∞_Δ) are constructed in the appendix rather than postulated. Minimal circularity: the only self-cited inputs (sub-Riemannian Weyl law [12,13]) appear in applications, not in the proof of the main theorem.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Doubling volume property (Section 2.1, Eq (12)): µ(B(x,2r)) ≤ C_D µ(B(x,r)) for all x,r.
    Used in Lemma B.2 to make Gaussian-in-weight integrals finite; standard in heat-kernel analysis.
  • domain assumption (A1) Ultracontractivity: ∥e^{-tA}∥_{L²→L∞} ≤ C t^{-α1/2} for t∈(0,1].
    Gives heat kernel and pointwise spectral measures; ensures test sections are L² functions. Verified in all applications.
  • domain assumption (A2) Davies–Gaffney: ∥1_F e^{-tA}1_E∥ ≤ e^{-d(E,F)²/(4t)}, equivalent to finite wave speed.
    Yields support of weak wave kernel and exponential smallness of packet on ω; quoted from [53].
  • domain assumption (A3) Pointwise local Weyl law: E_x(λ) ∼ c(x) λ^{α2} χ2(λ) for µ-a.e. x as λ→∞.
    Underlies lower bound in Lemma 2; weakest structural hypothesis.
  • standard math Standard functional analysis: spectral theorem, functional calculus, Paley–Wiener theorem, Karamata Tauberian theorem, Landau–Kolmogorov and Seeley extension inequalities, Gaussian integral identities.
    Background tools used in Lemmas 1–4 and Appendices A–B without further proof.
  • domain assumption Essential-distance definition (6) and properties: d_ess(·,ω) is 1-Lipschitz, superlevel sets are open and of positive measure when nonempty, d(x,y) ≥ d_ess(x,ω) for µ-a.e. y∈ω.
    Enables optimizing over base points; formulation is intrinsic to the theorem.
invented entities (4)
  • Pointwise spectral measures Π_{x,y}
    purpose: Replace eigenfunction expansions when A lacks compact resolvent; state the pointwise Plancherel identity (39) used to compute the L² norm of the test packet.
    Constructed rigorously in Proposition A.2; purely mathematical object, no physical postulation.
  • Weak wave kernel w
    purpose: Represent cos(s√A) distributionally and mediate the Kannai transmutation; its support property (50) encodes finite speed of propagation.
    Defined in Proposition A.4; existence and support are proven, not assumed.
  • L∞_Δ spaces of ∆-a.e. defined kernels
    purpose: Make diagonal values canonical for non-continuous kernels, enabling pointwise spectral measures.
    Definition A.1; technical device, no extra geometric content.
  • Essential maximal distance L(ω)
    purpose: Null-set-insensitive geometric quantity governing the barrier.
    Defined in Eq (6); no evidence beyond definition.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Optimal geometric barriers for weighted observability of heat semigroups on metric measure spaces." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/75YOTOGY

@misc{pith2026260713279,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Optimal geometric barriers for weighted observability of heat semigroups on metric measure spaces},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/75YOTOGY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.13279}
}
abstract

Weighted integrated observability inequalities for heat equations usually involve a small-time factor of the form $e^{-\gamma/t}$. We prove that this scale is not an artefact of Carleman or spectral methods: it is forced by the geometry of the observation set. Let $A$ be a nonnegative self-adjoint operator on sections of a finite-rank Euclidean vector bundle over a doubling metric measure space, satisfying ultracontractivity, Davies-Gaffney estimates (equivalently, finite speed of propagation for the wave equation) and a pointwise local Weyl law. If a weighted integrated observability inequality holds on a measurable set $\omega$, for a fixed horizon $T\in(0,+\infty]$ and an admissible weight $h$, then, for every $0<\kappa<\frac{1}{2}$, $$ h(t)\leq A_{T,\kappa}\exp\left(-\kappa\frac{\mathcal{L}(\omega)^2}{t}\right),\qquad 0<t<T, $$ where $\mathcal{L}(\omega)$ is the essential maximal distance to $\omega$, replaced by any finite radius when $\mathcal{L}(\omega)=+\infty$. Thus, for $h(t)=e^{-\gamma/t}$, necessarily $\gamma\geq\mathcal{L}(\omega)^2/2$. This settles, with the optimal threshold, the maximal-distance lower bound for the infinite-time constant left open in earlier work. In the control-norm convention, the fast-control rate is at least $\mathcal{L}(\omega)^2/4$, recovering Miller's bound. The proof rests on the spectral packet $(\cosh(r\sqrt A)-1)e^{-tA}$. A pointwise Weyl law gives its sharp lower growth, while finite propagation speed and a weak-kernel Kannai transmutation formula make it exponentially small on $\omega$. Without kernel continuity or compact resolvent, we develop pointwise spectral measures and weak wave kernels. The framework covers Laplace-type operators on compact Riemannian manifolds, coupled heat systems, Schr\"odinger operators on $\mathbb{R}^d$, equiregular sub-Laplacians and Grushin models, and $\delta'$-coupled Laplacians on metric graphs.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID 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. Optimal cost of fast boundary controls for the one-dimensional heat equation

    math.OC 2026-08 accept novelty 8.0 of 10

    The exact small-time null-control cost for the 1D heat equation is exp((kappa_* L^2 + o(1))/T) with kappa_* = Gamma(1/4)^4 / (8 pi^3) approximately 0.6966.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 4 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Agrachev, D

    A. Agrachev, D. Barilari, and U. Boscain.A Comprehensive Introduction to Sub-Riemannian Geometry, volume 181 ofCambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2019

    2019

  2. [2]

    Ammari, A

    K. Ammari, A. Duca, R. Joly, and K. Le Balc’h. The graph geometric control condition, Mar. 2025. arXiv:2503.18864

    arXiv 2025

  3. [3]

    Apraiz and J

    J. Apraiz and J. A. B´ arcena-Petisco. Observability and control of parabolic equations on networks with loops.Journal of Evolution Equations, 23:37, 2023

    2023

  4. [4]

    Avdonin, J

    S. Avdonin, J. Edward, and G. Leugering. Controllability for the wave equation on graph with cycle and delta-prime vertex conditions.Evolution Equations and Control Theory, 12(6):1542–1558, 2023

    2023

  5. [5]

    Beauchard, P

    K. Beauchard, P. Cannarsa, and R. Guglielmi. Null controllability of Grushin-type operators in dimension two.Journal of the European Mathematical Society, 16(1):67–101, 2014

    2014

  6. [6]

    Beauchard, J

    K. Beauchard, J. Dard´ e, and S. Ervedoza. Minimal time issues for the observability of Grushin-type equations.Annales de l’Institut Fourier, 70(1):247–312, 2020

    2020

  7. [7]

    Beauchard, L

    K. Beauchard, L. Miller, and M. Morancey. 2D Grushin-type equations: Minimal time and null controllable data.Journal of Differential Equations, 259(11):5813–5845, 2015

    2015

  8. [8]

    Berkolaiko and P

    G. Berkolaiko and P. Kuchment.Introduction to Quantum Graphs, volume 186 ofMathematical Surveys and Monographs. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2013

    2013

Show all 58 references
  1. [9]

    Bifulco and J

    P. Bifulco and J. Kerner. A modified local Weyl law and spectral comparison results for δ′-coupling conditions.Journal of Mathematical Physics, 66(3):033503, 2025. Also available as arXiv:2407.21719

    2025 arXiv

  2. [10]

    N. H. Bingham, C. M. Goldie, and J. L. Teugels.Regular Variation, volume 27 ofEncyclopedia of Mathematics and its Applications. Cambridge University Press, 1987

    1987

  3. [11]

    Bolte, S

    J. Bolte, S. Egger, and R. Rueckriemen. Heat-kernel and resolvent asymptotics for Schr¨ odinger operators on metric graphs.Applied Mathematics Research eXpress, 2015(1):129–165, 2015

    2015

  4. [12]

    Colin de Verdi` ere, L

    Y. Colin de Verdi` ere, L. Hillairet, and E. Tr´ elat. Small-time asymptotics of hypoelliptic heat kernels near the diagonal, nilpotentization and related results.Annales Henri Lebesgue, 4:897–971, 2021

    2021

  5. [13]

    Colin de Verdi` ere, L

    Y. Colin de Verdi` ere, L. Hillairet, and E. Tr´ elat. Spectral asymptotics for sub-Riemannian Laplacians. Preprint, arXiv:2212.02920, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Coulhon and A

    T. Coulhon and A. Sikora. Gaussian heat kernel upper bounds via the Phragm´ en–Lindel¨ of theorem. Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society, 96(2):507–544, 2008

    2008

  7. [15]

    E. B. Davies.Heat Kernels and Spectral Theory, volume 92 ofCambridge Tracts in Mathematics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1989

    1989

  8. [16]

    E. B. Davies and B. Simon. Ultracontractivity and the heat kernel for Schr¨ odinger operators and Dirichlet Laplacians.Journal of Functional Analysis, 59(2):335–395, 1984

    1984

  9. [17]

    N. G. de Bruijn.Asymptotic Methods in Analysis. North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1958

    1958

  10. [18]

    Dicke, A

    A. Dicke, A. Seelmann, and I. Veseli´ c. Spectral inequality with sensor sets of decaying density for Schr¨ odinger operators with power growth potentials.Partial Differential Equations and Applications, 5:Article no. 7, 2024. 32

    2024

  11. [19]

    Dolecki and D

    S. Dolecki and D. L. Russell. A general theory of observation and control.SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization, 15(2):185–220, 1977

    1977

  12. [20]

    Y. Duan, L. Wang, and C. Zhang. Observability inequalities for the heat equation with bounded potentials on the whole space.SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization, 58(4):1939–1960, 2020

    1939

  13. [21]

    Duprez and A

    M. Duprez and A. Koenig. Control of the Grushin equation: non-rectangular control region and minimal time.ESAIM: Control, Optimisation and Calculus of Variations, 26:54, 2020

    2020

  14. [22]

    Egidi and I

    M. Egidi and I. Veseli´ c. Sharp geometric condition for null-controllability of the heat equation on Rd and consistent estimates on the control cost.Archiv der Mathematik, 111(1):85–99, July 2018

    2018

  15. [23]

    Ervedoza and E

    S. Ervedoza and E. Zuazua. Sharp observability estimates for heat equations.Archive for Rational Mechanics and Analysis, 202:975–1017, 2011

    2011

  16. [24]

    Fern´ andez-Cara and E

    E. Fern´ andez-Cara and E. Zuazua. The cost of approximate controllability for heat equations: the linear case.Advances in Differential Equations, 5(4–6):465–514, 2000

    2000

  17. [25]

    A. V. Fursikov and O. Y. Imanuvilov.Controllability of Evolution Equations, volume 34 ofLecture Notes Series. Research Institute of Mathematics, Seoul National University, Seoul, 1996

    1996

  18. [26]

    Grigor ’yan.Heat Kernel and Analysis on Manifolds, volume 47 ofAMS/IP Studies in Advanced Mathematics

    A. Grigor ’yan.Heat Kernel and Analysis on Manifolds, volume 47 ofAMS/IP Studies in Advanced Mathematics. American Mathematical Society / International Press of Boston, Providence, RI / Boston, MA, 2009

    2009

  19. [27]

    Grigor’yan, J

    A. Grigor’yan, J. Hu, and K.-S. Lau. Heat kernels on metric measure spaces. InGeometry and Analysis of Fractals, volume 88 ofSpringer Proceedings in Mathematics and Statistics, pages 147–207. Springer, 2014

    2014

  20. [28]

    Grigor’yan and J

    A. Grigor’yan and J. Hu. Upper bounds of heat kernels on doubling spaces.Moscow Mathematical Journal, 14(3):505–563, 2014

    2014

  21. [29]

    E. N. G¨ uichal. A lower bound of the norm of the control operator for the heat equation.Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications, 110(2):519–527, 1985

    1985

  22. [30]

    G. H. Hardy, J. E. Littlewood, and G. P´ olya.Inequalities. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2 edition, 1952

    1952

  23. [31]

    R. Hersh. The method of transmutations. In J. A. Goldstein, editor,Partial Differential Equations and Related Topics, volume 446 ofLecture Notes in Mathematics, pages 264–282. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1975

    1975

  24. [32]

    H¨ ormander

    L. H¨ ormander. Hypoelliptic second order differential equations.Acta Mathematica, 119:147–171, 1967

    1967

  25. [33]

    H¨ ormander

    L. H¨ ormander. The spectral function of an elliptic operator.Acta Mathematica, 121:193–218, 1968

    1968

  26. [34]

    O. Y. Imanuvilov. Controllability of parabolic equations.Sbornik: Mathematics, 186(6):879–900, 1995

    1995

  27. [35]

    Y. Kannai. Off diagonal short time asymptotics for fundamental solutions of diffusion equations.Commu- nications in Partial Differential Equations, 2(8):781–830, 1977

    1977

  28. [36]

    Laurent and M

    C. Laurent and M. L´ eautaud. Observability of the heat equation, geometric constants in control theory, and a conjecture of Luc Miller.Analysis & PDE, 14(2):355–423, 2021

    2021

  29. [37]

    Le Rousseau and G

    J. Le Rousseau and G. Lebeau. On Carleman estimates for elliptic and parabolic operators. applications to unique continuation and control of parabolic equations.ESAIM: Control, Optimisation and Calculus of Variations, 18(3):712–747, 2012

    2012

  30. [38]

    Lebeau and I

    G. Lebeau and I. Moyano. Spectral inequalities for the Schr¨ odinger operator. Preprint, arXiv:1901.03513, 2019

    1901 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Lebeau and L

    G. Lebeau and L. Robbiano. Contrˆ ole exact de l´ equation de la chaleur.Communications in Partial Differential Equations, 20(1–2):335–356, 1995

    1995

  32. [40]

    J.-L. Lions. Exact controllability, stabilization and perturbations for distributed systems.SIAM Review, 30(1):1–68, 1988

    1988

  33. [41]

    Lissy and E

    P. Lissy and E. Zuazua. Internal observability for coupled systems of linear partial differential equations. SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization, 57(2):832–853, 2019

    2019

  34. [42]

    M. Ludewig. Strong short-time asymptotics and convolution approximation of the heat kernel.Annals of Global Analysis and Geometry, 55:371–394, 2019. 33

    2019

  35. [43]

    Mazari-Fouquer, Y

    I. Mazari-Fouquer, Y. Privat, and E. Tr´ elat. Large-time optimal observation domain for linear parabolic systems.Annales de l’Institut Henri Poincar´ e C, Analyse Non Lin´ eaire, 2025. Published online first (23 Jan 2025)

    2025

  36. [44]

    R. Melrose. Propagation for the wave group of a positive subelliptic second-order differential operator. In S. Mizohata, editor,Hyperbolic Equations and Related Topics: Proceedings of the Taniguchi International Symposium, Katata and Kyoto, 1984, pages 181–192. Academic Press, 1986

    1984

  37. [45]

    L. Miller. Geometric bounds on the growth rate of null-controllability cost for the heat equation in small time.Journal of Differential Equations, 204(1):202–226, 2004

    2004

  38. [46]

    L. Miller. On exponential observability estimates for the heat semigroup with explicit rates.Rendiconti Lincei. Matematica e Applicazioni, 17(4):351–366, 2006

    2006

  39. [47]

    Naki´ c, M

    I. Naki´ c, M. T¨ aufer, M. Tautenhahn, and I. Veseli´ c. Scale-free unique continuation principle for spectral projectors, eigenvalue lifting and Wegner estimates for random Schr¨ odinger operators.Analysis & PDE, 11(4):1049–1081, 2018

    2018

  40. [48]

    Naki´ c, M

    I. Naki´ c, M. T¨ aufer, M. Tautenhahn, and I. Veseli´ c. Sharp estimates and homogenization of the control cost of the heat equation on large domains.ESAIM: Control, Optimisation and Calculus of Variations, 26:Article no. 54, 2020

    2020

  41. [49]

    Odˇ zak and L.ˇS´ ceta

    A. Odˇ zak and L.ˇS´ ceta. On the Weyl law for quantum graphs.Bulletin of the Malaysian Mathematical Sciences Society, 42(1):119–131, 2019

    2019

  42. [50]

    N. P. Romanoff. On one-parameter groups of linear transformations. I.Annals of Mathematics, 48(2):216– 233, 1947

    1947

  43. [51]

    S´ anchez-Calle

    A. S´ anchez-Calle. Fundamental solutions and geometry of the sum of squares of vector fields.Inventiones Mathematicae, 78(1):143–160, Feb. 1984

    1984

  44. [52]

    R. T. Seeley. Extension of C ∞ functions defined in a half-space.Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society, 15:625–626, 1964

    1964

  45. [53]

    A. Sikora. Riesz transform, Gaussian bounds and the method of wave equation.Mathematische Zeitschrift, 247:643–662, 2004

    2004

  46. [54]

    Tr´ elat.Control in Finite and Infinite Dimension

    E. Tr´ elat.Control in Finite and Infinite Dimension. SpringerBriefs in PDEs and Data Science. Springer, 2024

    2024

  47. [55]

    A. Ungar. On an integral transform related to the wave and to the heat equations.Notices of the American Mathematical Society, 18:1100, 1971

    1971

  48. [56]

    S. R. S. Varadhan. On the behavior of the fundamental solution of the heat equation with variable coefficients.Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics, 20(2):431–455, 1967

    1967

  49. [57]

    G. Wang, M. Wang, C. Zhang, and Y. Zhang. Observable set, observability, interpolation inequality and spectral inequality for the heat equation in Rn.Journal de Math´ ematiques Pures et Appliqu´ ees, 126:144–194, June 2019

    2019

  50. [58]

    E. Zuazua. Some results and open problems on the controllability of linear and semilinear heat equations. In F. Colombini and C. Zuily, editors,Carleman Estimates and Applications to Uniqueness and Control Theory, volume 46 ofProgress in Nonlinear Differential Equations and Th...

    2001

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.