pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.18980 · v1 · pith:7ZC2GJ46new · submitted 2026-06-17 · 🧮 math.AP · math.OC

Local Exact Controllability of Landau-Lifshitz-Gilbert Equation

Chunxi Jiao , Ho Man Tai This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-26 20:07 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🧮 math.AP math.OC
keywords Landau-Lifshitz-Gilbert equationexact controllabilityCarleman estimatesquasilinear parabolic systemslocalized controlobservabilityfixed-point arguments
0
0 comments X

The pith

If the initial energy is small enough, a localized magnetic field steers the Landau-Lifshitz-Gilbert equation exactly to any nearby target trajectory in any positive time.

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

The paper proves local exact controllability for the Landau-Lifshitz-Gilbert equation on the two-torus when the initial energy is sufficiently small. For any terminal time T greater than zero, a localized external magnetic field exists that drives the system to the endpoint of any sufficiently close uncontrolled trajectory. The argument first maps the equation to a quasilinear parabolic system on the plane via stereographic projection, then builds a Carleman estimate on the linearised adjoint by splitting it according to self-adjoint and skew-adjoint parts, and finally recovers the nonlinear controllability through a fixed-point argument. A reader would care because the result supplies a precise condition under which magnetic spin dynamics can be steered exactly with spatially restricted inputs.

Core claim

The paper claims that under a small initial energy assumption, the controlled Landau-Lifshitz-Gilbert equation on the torus admits local exact controllability to any nearby uncontrolled trajectory for arbitrary positive terminal times, via a localised magnetic field control. This is shown by reducing to a quasilinear parabolic system, proving Carleman estimates for the linearised system using a decomposition respecting self-adjoint and skew-adjoint structures, deriving observability and L^∞ null controllability, and applying a Kakutani fixed-point argument to recover the nonlinear result. A semi-global controllability result is also obtained under a hemisphere condition.

What carries the argument

The Carleman estimate for the linearised system, obtained through a decomposition adapted to the self-adjoint and skew-adjoint structure of the conjugated adjoint operator, which produces the observability inequality needed for controllability.

If this is right

  • The system reaches the terminal state of any nearby uncontrolled trajectory exactly when the initial energy is small.
  • Observability and L^∞ null controllability hold for the linearised system.
  • The nonlinear projected equation is controllable by a Kakutani fixed-point argument.
  • Semi-global controllability holds when the solution stays inside a hemisphere.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same decomposition technique for Carleman estimates could be tested on other quasilinear parabolic systems arising in geometric flows.
  • Numerical discretisations of the equation could be used to locate the practical threshold value of initial energy below which controllability appears.
  • The localisation of the control suggests that similar results might apply to domains with obstacles or restricted actuator regions.

Load-bearing premise

The Carleman estimate can be established for the linearised system through the adapted decomposition of the conjugated adjoint operator.

What would settle it

A concrete small-energy initial datum together with a nearby target trajectory for which no localised magnetic field achieves exact steering in a chosen time T would falsify the claim.

read the original abstract

We prove a local exact controllability result for controlled Landau--Lifshitz--Gilbert equations on $\mathbb T^2$: if the initial energy is sufficiently small, then for any terminal time $T>0$, there is a localised external magnetic field such that the system can be steered exactly to the terminal value of any nearby uncontrolled trajectory. We first transform the equation to a quasilinear parabolic system on $\mathbb R^2$ by a suitable stereographic chart. Then the Carleman estimate is established for the linearised system through a decomposition adapted to the self-adjoint and skew-adjoint structure of the conjugated adjoint operator. This yields observability and $L^\infty$-null controllability for the linearised system. The nonlinear projected equation is then recovered by a Kakutani fixed-point argument. We also obtain a semi-global controllability result under a hemisphere condition.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript claims local exact controllability for the controlled Landau-Lifshitz-Gilbert equation on T^2: if the initial energy is sufficiently small, then for any T>0 a localized external magnetic field steers the system exactly to the terminal value of any nearby uncontrolled trajectory. The proof reduces the system via stereographic projection to a quasilinear parabolic equation on R^2, establishes a Carleman estimate for the linearized system by decomposing the conjugated adjoint operator into self-adjoint and skew-adjoint parts (yielding observability and L^∞ null controllability), and recovers the nonlinear result via a Kakutani fixed-point argument. A semi-global controllability result is also obtained under a hemisphere condition.

Significance. If the result holds, it would constitute a meaningful advance in the controllability of quasilinear parabolic systems arising from geometric evolution equations. The adaptation of Carleman estimates to the self-adjoint/skew-adjoint structure of the linearized LLG operator, together with the direct (non-circular) existence argument via fixed point, represents a technical contribution that could be useful for related control problems in micromagnetics.

major comments (1)
  1. [Proof strategy paragraph (Carleman estimate for linearized system)] The Carleman estimate for the linearized system (described in the abstract as obtained via decomposition of the conjugated adjoint operator) must be shown to dominate all commutator terms of order |ξ| or lower that arise from the first-order cross-product contributions and variable-coefficient terms in the linearization of the stereographically projected equation. These terms depend on the uncontrolled trajectory and are not automatically absorbed by standard weights; without explicit estimates confirming their absorption or cancellation, the subsequent observability inequality and L^∞ null controllability step remain unverified.
minor comments (1)
  1. The precise function spaces in which the nearby uncontrolled trajectories and the controls are taken should be stated explicitly already in the introduction, rather than deferred to the technical sections.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading of the manuscript and for highlighting the need to make the absorption of commutator terms fully explicit in the Carleman estimate. We address the single major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Proof strategy paragraph (Carleman estimate for linearized system)] The Carleman estimate for the linearized system (described in the abstract as obtained via decomposition of the conjugated adjoint operator) must be shown to dominate all commutator terms of order |ξ| or lower that arise from the first-order cross-product contributions and variable-coefficient terms in the linearization of the stereographically projected equation. These terms depend on the uncontrolled trajectory and are not automatically absorbed by standard weights; without explicit estimates confirming their absorption or cancellation, the subsequent observability inequality and L^∞ null controllability step remain unverified.

    Authors: We agree that the absorption of the lower-order commutator terms must be verified explicitly. The decomposition into self-adjoint and skew-adjoint parts of the conjugated adjoint operator is designed to produce a positive bulk term that absorbs first-order contributions, and the small-energy assumption on the uncontrolled trajectory is used to control the variable-coefficient remainders via the weight functions. Nevertheless, the current write-up does not display the precise constants and absorption steps for every commutator of order |ξ| or lower. In the revised manuscript we will insert a dedicated subsection (or an expanded appendix) that computes these estimates term by term, confirming that they are dominated by the principal Carleman terms under the small-energy hypothesis. This will render the passage from the Carleman inequality to the observability and L^∞ null controllability statements fully rigorous. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: standard functional-analytic controllability proof

full rationale

The derivation proceeds by stereographic projection to a quasilinear parabolic system, followed by a Carleman estimate on the linearized adjoint via self-adjoint/skew-adjoint decomposition, yielding observability and L^∞ null controllability, then Kakutani fixed-point recovery of the nonlinear result. None of these steps reduces by construction to a fitted parameter, self-definition, or self-citation chain; the Carleman estimate is derived directly from the conjugated operator structure without importing uniqueness theorems or ansatzes from the authors' prior work. The argument is self-contained against external benchmarks (standard Carleman techniques for parabolic systems) and contains no load-bearing self-referential quantities.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The proof relies on standard Sobolev embeddings, Carleman estimates for parabolic operators, and the Kakutani fixed-point theorem; no free parameters, ad-hoc axioms, or new invented entities are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (2)
  • standard math Standard Carleman estimates hold for the linearised parabolic operator after the chosen decomposition into self-adjoint and skew-adjoint parts.
    Invoked in the abstract to obtain observability for the adjoint system.
  • domain assumption The stereographic chart yields a quasilinear parabolic system whose linearization admits the required Carleman estimate.
    Central coordinate change stated in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5676 in / 1480 out tokens · 26809 ms · 2026-06-26T20:07:05.599239+00:00 · methodology

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

71 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A. A. Agrachev and A. V. Sarychev. Controllability of 2D Euler and Navier–Stokes equations by degenerate forcing. Communications in Mathematical Physics , 265:673– 697, 2006

    2006

  2. [2]

    Alabau-Boussouira, P

    F. Alabau-Boussouira, P. Cannarsa, and G. Fragnelli. Carleman estimates for degen- erate parabolic operators with applications to null controllability.Journal of Evolution Equations, 6(2):161–204, 2006

    2006

  3. [3]

    Alabau-Boussouira, P

    F. Alabau-Boussouira, P. Cannarsa, and C. Urbani. Exact controllability to eigen- solutions for evolution equations of parabolic type via bilinear control. Nonlinear Differential Equations and Applications NoDEA , 29:38, 2022

    2022

  4. [4]

    Alessandrini and L

    G. Alessandrini and L. Escauriaza. Null-controllability of one-dimensional parabolic equations. ESAIM: Control, Optimisation and Calculus of Variations , 14(2):284–293, 2008

    2008

  5. [5]

    C. D. Aliprantis and K. C. Border. Infinite dimensional analysis: a hitchhiker’s guide . Springer Berlin, Heidelberg, second edition, 1999

    1999

  6. [6]

    H. Amann. Linear and Quasilinear Parabolic Problems. Volume I: Abstract Linear Theory. Monographs in Mathematics. Birkh¨ auser Basel, 1 edition, 1995

    1995

  7. [7]

    Ammar-Khodja, A

    F. Ammar-Khodja, A. Benabdallah, C. Dupaix, and M. Gonz´ alez-Burgos. A Kalman rank condition for the localized distributed controllability of a class of linear parabolic systems. Journal of Evolution Equations , 9(2):267–291, 2009

    2009

  8. [8]

    Ammar-Khodja, A

    F. Ammar-Khodja, A. Benabdallah, M. Gonz´ alez-Burgos, and L. de Teresa. Recent results on the controllability of linear coupled parabolic problems: A survey. Mathe- matical Control and Related Fields , 1(3):267–306, 2011

    2011

  9. [9]

    Anit ¸a and D

    S. Anit ¸a and D. Tataru. Null controllability for the dissipative semilinear heat equa- tion. Applied Mathematics and Optimization , 46:97–105, 2002

    2002

  10. [10]

    C. H. Back, R. Allenspach, W. Weber, S. S. P. Parkin, D. Weller, E. L. Garwin, and H. C. Siegmann. Minimum field strength in precessional magnetization reversal. Science, 285(5429):864–867, 1999

    1999

  11. [11]

    M. P. Bonkile, A. Awasthi, C. Lakshmi, V. Mukundan, and V. S. Aswin. A systematic literature review of Burgers’ equation with recent advances. Pramana, 90:69, 2018

    2018

  12. [12]

    Boyer and G

    F. Boyer and G. Olive. Approximate controllability conditions for some linear 1D par- abolic systems with space-dependent coefficients. Mathematical Control and Related Fields, 4(3):263–287, 2014

    2014

  13. [13]

    Y. Cao, M. Gunzburger, and J. Turner. The controllability of systems governed by parabolic differential equations. Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications , 215(1):174–189, 1997

    1997

  14. [14]

    Carre no and S

    N. Carre no and S. Guerrero. Local null controllability of the N-dimensional Navier– Stokes system with N − 1 scalar controls in an arbitrary control domain. Journal of Mathematical Fluid Mechanics, 15:139–153, 2013

    2013

  15. [15]

    Coron and P

    J.-M. Coron and P. Lissy. Local null controllability of the three-dimensional Navier– Stokes system with a distributed control having two vanishing components. Inven- tiones mathematicae, 198:833–880, 2014. 50 CHUNXI JIAO AND HO MAN TAI

    2014

  16. [16]

    Coron, F

    J.-M. Coron, F. Marbach, and F. Sueur. Small-time global exact controllability of the Navier–Stokes equation with Navier slip-with-friction boundary conditions. Journal of the European Mathematical Society , 22(5):1625–1673, 2020

    2020

  17. [17]

    Coron, F

    J.-M. Coron, F. Marbach, F. Sueur, and P. Zhang. Controllability of the Navier–Stokes equation in a rectangle with a little help of a distributed phantom force. Annals of PDE, 5(2):17, 2019

    2019

  18. [18]

    Coron and S

    J.-M. Coron and S. Xiang. Global controllability to harmonic maps of the heat flow from a circle to a sphere. Journal de Math´ ematiques Pures et Appliqu´ ees, 204:103761, 2025

    2025

  19. [19]

    R. Denk, M. Hieber, and J. Pr¨ uss. Optimal Lp-Lq-estimates for parabolic boundary value problems with inhomogeneous data. Mathematische Zeitschrift, 257(1):193–224, 2007

    2007

  20. [20]

    Di Nezza, G

    E. Di Nezza, G. Palatucci, and E. Valdinoci. Hitchhiker’s guide to the fractional Sobolev spaces. Bulletin des sciences math´ ematiques, 136(5):521–573, 2012

    2012

  21. [21]

    Donato, E

    P. Donato, E. C. Jose, and D. Onofrei. On the approximate controllability of parabolic problems with non-smooth coefficients. Asymptotic Analysis, 122(3-4):395–402, 2021

    2021

  22. [22]

    Approximate controllability of linear parabolic equations in perforated domains

    Donato, Patrizia and Nabil, A¨ ıssam. Approximate controllability of linear parabolic equations in perforated domains. ESAIM: Control, Optimisation and Calculus of Variations, 6:21–38, 2001

    2001

  23. [23]

    Doubova, E

    A. Doubova, E. Fern’andez-Cara, and M. Gonz’alez-Burgos. On the controllability of the heat equation with nonlinear boundary Fourier conditions. Journal of Differential Equations, 196(2):385–417, 2004

    2004

  24. [24]

    Doubova, E

    A. Doubova, E. Fern’andez-Cara, M. Gonz’alez-Burgos, and E. Zuazua. On the con- trollability of parabolic systems with a nonlinear term involving the state and the gradient. SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization , 41(3):798–819, 2002

    2002

  25. [25]

    Doubova, A

    A. Doubova, A. Osses, and J.-P. Puel. Exact controllability to trajectories for semi- linear heat equations with discontinuous diffusion coefficients. ESAIM: Control, Op- timisation and Calculus of Variations , 8:621–661, 2002

    2002

  26. [26]

    Duprez and P

    M. Duprez and P. Lissy. Positive and negative results on the internal controllability of parabolic equations coupled by zero-and first-order terms. Journal of Evolution Equations, 18(2):659–680, 2018

    2018

  27. [27]

    Duyckaerts, X

    T. Duyckaerts, X. Zhang, and E. Zuazua. On the optimality of the observability inequalities for parabolic and hyperbolic systems with potentials. Annales de l’Institut Henri Poincar´ e C, Analyse non lin´ eaire, 25(1):1–41, 2008

    2008

  28. [28]

    Ervedoza, O

    S. Ervedoza, O. Glass, S. Guerrero, and J.-P. Puel. Local exact controllability for the one-dimensional compressible Navier–Stokes equation. Archive for Rational Mechanics and Analysis, 206:189–238, 2012

    2012

  29. [29]

    H. O. Fattorini and D. L. Russell. Exact controllability theorems for linear para- bolic equations in one space dimension. Archive for Rational Mechanics and Analysis, 43(4):272–292, 1971

    1971

  30. [30]

    Fern´ andez-Cara, M

    E. Fern´ andez-Cara, M. Gonz´ alez-Burgos, and L. de Teresa. Controllability of linear and semilinear non-diagonalizable parabolic systems. ESAIM: Control, Optimisation and Calculus of Variations , 21(4):1178–1204, 2015. LOCAL EXACT CONTROLLABILITY OF LANDAU–LIFSHITZ–GILBERT EQUATION 51

    2015

  31. [31]

    Fern’andez-Cara, M

    E. Fern’andez-Cara, M. Gonz’alez-Burgos, S. Guerrero, and J.-P. Puel. Exact control- lability to the trajectories of the heat equation with Fourier boundary conditions: The semilinear case. ESAIM: Control, Optimisation and Calculus of Variations, 12(3):466– 483, 2006

    2006

  32. [32]

    Fern´ andez-Cara, M

    E. Fern´ andez-Cara, M. Gonz´ alez-Burgos, S. Guerrero, and J.-P. Puel. Null controlla- bility of the heat equation withboundary Fourier conditions: the linear case. ESAIM: Control, Optimisation and Calculus of Variations , 12(3):442–465, 2006

    2006

  33. [33]

    Fern’andez-Cara, S

    E. Fern’andez-Cara, S. Guerrero, O. Y. Imanuvilov, and J.-P. Puel. Local exact con- trollability of the Navier–Stokes system. Journal de Math’ematiques Pures et Ap- pliqu’ees, 83(12):1501–1542, 2004

    2004

  34. [34]

    Fern’andez-Cara, S

    E. Fern’andez-Cara, S. Guerrero, O. Y. Imanuvilov, and J.-P. Puel. Some controlla- bility results for the N-dimensional Navier–Stokes and Boussinesq systems with N −1 scalar controls. SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization , 45(1):146–173, 2006

    2006

  35. [35]

    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

  36. [36]

    Fern´ andez-Cara and S

    E. Fern´ andez-Cara and S. Guerrero. Global Carleman inequalities for parabolic sys- tems and applications to controllability. SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization , 45(4):1395–1446, 2006

    2006

  37. [37]

    Exact controllability to the trajectories of the heat equation with Fourier boundary conditions: the semilinear case

    Fern´ andez-Cara, Enrique, Gonz´ alez-Burgos, Manuel, Guerrero, Sergio, and Puel, Jean- Pierre. Exact controllability to the trajectories of the heat equation with Fourier boundary conditions: the semilinear case. ESAIM: COCV, 12(3):466–483, 2006

    2006

  38. [38]

    X. Fu. Null controllability for the parabolic equation with a complex principal part. Journal of Functional Analysis , 257(5):1333–1354, 2009

    2009

  39. [39]

    Fursikov and O

    A. Fursikov and O. Imanuvilov. Controllability of Evolution Equations . Lecture Notes Series - Seoul National University, Research Institute of Mathematics, Global Analysis Research Center. Seoul National University, 1996

    1996

  40. [40]

    Fursikov and O

    A. Fursikov and O. Imanuvilov. Controllability of evolution equations. 1996

    1996

  41. [41]

    A. V. Fursikov and O. Y. Imanuvilov. Exact controllability of the Navier–Stokes and Boussinesq equations. Russian Mathematical Surveys, 54(3):565–618, 1999

    1999

  42. [42]

    Gerrits, H

    T. Gerrits, H. Van Den Berg, J. Hohlfeld, L. B¨ ar, and T. Rasing. Ultrafast pre- cessional magnetization reversal by picosecond magnetic field pulse shaping. Nature, 418(6897):509–512, 2002

    2002

  43. [43]

    T. L. Gilbert. A Lagrangian formulation of the gyromagnetic equation of the magne- tization field. Physical Review D, 100:1243, 1955

    1955

  44. [44]

    Glowinski and J

    R. Glowinski and J. Lions. Exact and approximate controllability for distributed parameter systems. Acta Numerica, 3:269–378, 1994

    1994

  45. [45]

    Gonz´ alez-Burgos and L

    M. Gonz´ alez-Burgos and L. de Teresa. Some results on controllability for linear and nonlinear heat equations in unbounded domains. Advances in Differential Equations , 12(11):1201 – 1240, 2007

    2007

  46. [46]

    Hern´ andez-Santamar´ ıa, K

    V. Hern´ andez-Santamar´ ıa, K. Le Balc’h, and L. Peralta. Global null-controllability for stochastic semilinear parabolic equations. Annales de l’Institut Henri Poincar´ e C, 40(6):1415–1455, 2023. 52 CHUNXI JIAO AND HO MAN TAI

    2023

  47. [47]

    O. Y. Imanuvilov. On exact controllability for the Navier–Stokes equations. ESAIM: Control, Optimisation and Calculus of Variations , 3:97–131, 1998

    1998

  48. [48]

    O. Y. Imanuvilov. Remarks on exact controllability for the Navier–Stokes equations. ESAIM: Control, Optimisation and Calculus of Variations , 6:39–72, 2001

    2001

  49. [49]

    O. Y. Imanuvilov and M. Yamamoto. Carleman inequalities for parabolic equations in Sobolev spaces of negative order and exact controllability for semilinear parabolic equations. Publications of the Research Institute for Mathematical Sciences, 39(2):227– 274, 2003

    2003

  50. [50]

    A. Y. Khapalov. Global non-negative controllability of the semilinear parabolic equa- tion governed by bilinear control. ESAIM: Control, Optimisation and Calculus of Variations, 7:269–283, 2002

    2002

  51. [51]

    A. Y. Khapalov. Controllability of the semilinear parabolic equation governed by a multiplicative control in the reaction term: A qualitative approach. SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization , 41(6):1886–1900, 2003

    1900

  52. [52]

    Landau, E

    L. Landau, E. Lifshitz, et al. On the theory of the dispersion of magnetic permeability in ferromagnetic bodies. Phys. Z. Sowjetunion , 8(153):101–114, 1935

    1935

  53. [53]

    Le Balc’h

    K. Le Balc’h. Null-controllability of two species reaction-diffusion system with non- linear coupling: A new duality method. SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization , 57(4):2541–2573, 2019

    2019

  54. [54]

    Le Balc’h

    K. Le Balc’h. Local controllability of reaction-diffusion systems around nonnegative stationary states. ESAIM: Control, Optimisation and Calculus of Variations , 26:55, 2020

    2020

  55. [55]

    J. Liao, F. Sueur, and P. Zhang. Smooth controllability of the Navier–Stokes equation with Navier conditions: Application to Lagrangian controllability.Archive for Rational Mechanics and Analysis, 243:869–941, 2022

    2022

  56. [56]

    L. Liu. Controllability of quasilinear parabolic equations under multiplicative mobile controls, 2026

    2026

  57. [57]

    Y. Liu. Control of harmonic map heat flow with an external field. arXiv preprint arXiv:1809.01447, 2018

    work page arXiv 2018

  58. [58]

    L´ opez, X

    A. L´ opez, X. Zhang, and E. Zuazua. Null controllability of the heat equation as singular limit of the exact controllability of dissipative wave equations. Journal de math´ ematiques pures et appliqu´ ees, 79(8):741–808, 2000

    2000

  59. [59]

    Lu and X

    Q. Lu and X. Zhang. A mini-course on stochastic control.Control and inverse problems for partial differential equations , 22:171–254, 2016

    2016

  60. [60]

    Maity, M

    D. Maity, M. Tucsnak, and E. Zuazua. Controllability and positivity constraints in population dynamics with age structuring and diffusion. Journal de Math´ ematiques Pures et Appliqu´ ees, 129:153–179, 2019

    2019

  61. [61]

    Martin, L

    P. Martin, L. Rosier, and P. Rouchon. Null controllability of one-dimensional parabolic equations by the flatness approach. SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization , 54(1):198–220, 2016

    2016

  62. [62]

    Martinez and J

    P. Martinez and J. Vancostenoble. Carleman estimates for one-dimensional degenerate heat equations. Journal of Evolution Equations , 6(2):325–362, 2006. LOCAL EXACT CONTROLLABILITY OF LANDAU–LIFSHITZ–GILBERT EQUATION 53

    2006

  63. [63]

    Micu and E

    S. Micu and E. Zuazua. An introduction to the controllability of partial differential equations. Quelques questions de th´ eorie du contrˆ ole. Sari, T., ed., Collection Travaux en Cours Hermann, to appear , page 9, 2004

    2004

  64. [64]

    Micu and E

    S. Micu and E. Zuazua. On the controllability of a fractional order parabolic equation. SIAM journal on Control and Optimization , 44(6):1950–1972, 2006

    1950

  65. [65]

    J. L. Rousseau and L. Robbiano. Carleman estimate for elliptic operators with co- efficients with jumps at an interface in arbitrary dimension and application to the null controllability of linear parabolic equations. Archive for rational mechanics and analysis, 195(3):953–990, 2010

    2010

  66. [66]

    Shirikyan

    A. Shirikyan. Approximate controllability of three-dimensional Navier–Stokes equa- tions. Communications in Mathematical Physics , 266:123–151, 2006

    2006

  67. [67]

    Shirikyan

    A. Shirikyan. Exact controllability in projections for three-dimensional Navier–Stokes equations. Annales de l’Institut Henri Poincar’e C, Analyse Non Lin’eaire , 24(4):521– 537, 2007

    2007

  68. [68]

    G. Wang. L∞-null controllability for the heat equation and its consequences for the time optimal control problem. SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization , 47(4):1701–1720, 2008

    2008

  69. [69]

    Yamamoto

    M. Yamamoto. Carleman estimates for parabolic equations and applications. Inverse Problems, 25(12):123013, dec 2009

    2009

  70. [70]

    J.-G. Zhu, X. Zhu, and Y. Tang. Microwave assisted magnetic recording. IEEE Transactions on Magnetics, 44(1):125–131, 2008

    2008

  71. [71]

    E. Zuazua. Controllability of partial differential equations and its semi-discrete ap- proximations. Discrete and continuous dynamical systems , 8(2):469–517, 2002. School of Mathematics and Statistics, UNSW Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia Email address : chunxi.jiao@unsw.edu.au School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Aus...

    2002