Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 22 references

Numerical null controllability of parabolic PDEs using Lagrangian methods

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that truncating the time-blow-up weight turns numerical null controllability of parabolic PDEs into a well-posed saddle-point problem that Uzawa-style algorithms solve, with final-state error shrinking like log R over R.

desk verdict New truncation trick with a clean convergence proof, but the numerics lack a discrete error analysis and reproducibility, so the central computational claim remains unverified. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.14031 v1 pith:BM24OFJI submitted 2024-11-21 math.OC cs.NAmath.APmath.NA

Enrique Fernandez-Cara , Roberto Morales , Diego A. Souza This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.OCcs.NAmath.APmath.NA MSC 35K0549J2065K1065M6093B05
keywords nullcontrollabilityheatequationStokessystemLagrangianmethodsAugmentedUzawaalgorithmCarlemanweightsfiniteelement
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 tries to establish that null controllability for linear parabolic equations and systems can be solved numerically by applying classical Lagrangian and Augmented Lagrangian methods to a truncated weighted extremal problem. The key move is to replace the unbounded Carleman weight by $\rho_R=\min(R,\rho)$, which makes the dual problem coercive and numerically well behaved while preserving the original problem in the limit. The authors prove that the truncated controls converge strongly to the minimizer of the original extremal problem as $R\to\infty$, and that the terminal state obeys $\|y_R(\cdot,T)\|_{H^1_0(\Omega)}\le C\,|\log R|/R$. If the claim is right, standard finite-element and time-stepping tools are enough to compute accurate null controls for 2D and 3D heat equations and for the 2D Stokes system, with reported 2D terminal norms near $10^{-13}$.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing objects are the Carleman weights $\rho=e^{\alpha}$ and $\rho_0=(T-t)^{3/2}\rho$, the truncated weight $\rho_R=\min(R,\rho)$, and the solution operators $M$ and $M^*$: $Mv$ is the state driven from zero by control $v$, while $M^*q$ is the trace on $Q_\omega$ of the backward adjoint state. These operators turn the constrained extremal problem into the unconstrained dual problem of minimizing $J_R^*(q)=\frac12\int_Q(\rho_R^{-2}|q|^2+\rho_0^{-2}|M^*q|^2+2q\bar y)\,dxdt$ over $q\in L^2(Q)$, whose optimality conditions are $y_R=-\rho_R^{-2}q_R$ and $v_R=\rho_0^{-2}M^*q_R$. The algorithms are gradient, conjugate-gradient, and Augmented Lagrangian iterations on this dual functional; the Augmented Lagrangian versions solve an inner linear system with a Gauss-Seidel sweep, and the convergence-rate estimate uses a cut-off function supported near $t=T$ to convert the $|\log R|$ growth of the weights into the $|\log R|/R$ terminal bound.

What would settle it

Fix a moderate $R$ and solve the 2D heat test on a sequence of refined meshes and time steps. If the computed terminal norm plateaus at a mesh-dependent floor, or if increasing $R$ at fixed discretization stops shrinking the terminal norm, then the discrete saddle point is not tracking the continuous truncated problem.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that for each fixed $R>0$, the truncated extremal problem has a unique solution $(y_R,v_R)$, and Propositions 2.5 and 2.6 give $v_R\to \hat v$ strongly in $U$ and $\|y_R(\cdot,T)\|_{H^1_0(\Omega)}\le C|\log R|/R$, where $(\hat y,\hat v)$ is the minimizer of the original weighted extremal problem (1.4). The argument is carried by a saddle-point duality: the state and control are recovered from the dual variable by $y_R=-\rho_R^{-2}q_R$ and $v_R=\rho_0^{-2}M^*q_R$, so solving the truncated problem reduces to minimizing a strictly convex quadratic functional over $L^2(Q)$. The paper further claims that Uzawa, conjugate-gradient, and Augmented Lagrangian iterations (ALG 1-4) solve this dual problem efficiently, and the reported experiments show final $L^2$ norms of about $1.7\times10^{-12}$ for a 2D heat equation, $2.1\times10^{-7}$ for a 3D heat equation, and $5.5\times10^{-9}$ for the 2D Stokes system.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the finite-element and time-stepping discretizations of the PDE solution operators are accurate enough that the discrete saddle point still represents the continuous truncated problem; the paper describes the discretization but supplies no error analysis linking the discrete and continuous solutions.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • ALG 3 recovers the predicted $|\log R|/R$ scaling: Table 1 reports $\|y(\cdot,T)\|_{L^2}$ dropping from about $1.3\times10^{-9}$ at $R=10^3$ to $3.4\times10^{-19}$ at $R=10^8$.
  • The number of Uzawa iterations stays essentially constant, near 3,000, as $R$ grows from $10^3$ to $10^8$, so taking a very large truncation parameter is not computationally expensive.
  • The same Augmented Lagrangian formulation handles 2D heat, 3D heat, and 2D Stokes, with final $L^2$ norms of order $10^{-12}$, $10^{-7}$, and $10^{-9}$, respectively.
  • Varying the number of time steps $N_t$ from 20 to 200 changes the final-state norm only mildly, staying around $10^{-13}$, so the computed controls are not highly sensitive to the time grid.
  • The authors state the method carries over to other parabolic systems and boundary conditions, and leave wave and Schr\"odinger controllability as open directions.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension the paper does not pursue is a grid-convergence study at fixed $R$: if the terminal norm stops improving once mesh and time steps are refined, the $10^{-13}$ numbers would be discrete artifacts rather than evidence for the continuous estimate.
  • Because iteration counts are insensitive to $R$, the truncation parameter could be chosen adaptively per mesh level rather than fixed at values up to $10^8$, potentially reducing cost on coarser grids.
  • The same saddle-point machinery could be applied to boundary controls or semilinear problems, but the Carleman-weight estimates behind Propositions 2.5 and 2.6 would need to be re-proved since the cut-off argument relies on the specific form $\rho_0=(T-t)^{3/2}\rho$.
  • If the rate $|\log R|/R$ is treated as a practical accuracy guide, then choosing $R$ from a target tolerance, roughly $R\sim |\log\varepsilon|/\varepsilon$, would give a self-tuned stopping rule for the truncation parameter.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. This paper proposes a Lagrangian and Augmented Lagrangian approach to compute numerical null controls for linear parabolic equations and the Stokes system. The authors consider the Fursikov–Imanuvilov weighted extremal problem (1.4), introduce a truncated weight ρ_R = min(R, ρ) in Section 2.1, and prove that the minimizers v_R of the truncated problem converge strongly in U to the minimizer of (1.4) as R → ∞ (Proposition 2.5), with the terminal state satisfying an H^1_0 bound of order |log R|/R (Proposition 2.6). They then derive saddle-point reformulations in Sections 3–4 and present four iterative algorithms (Uzawa, conjugate-gradient Uzawa, and augmented Lagrangian variants), together with numerical experiments for 2D and 3D heat equations and a 2D Stokes system in Section 6. Reported terminal norms are on the order of 10^{-13} (2D heat), 10^{-7} (3D heat), and 10^{-9} (Stokes).

Significance. The paper addresses a real numerical bottleneck: constructing null controls for parabolic PDEs in high dimensions without relying on C1 finite elements or flatness-based expansions. The truncation idea is natural, the convergence proof of Proposition 2.5 is convincing, and Proposition 2.6 gives a quantitative rate that is plausible and consistent with the R-scaling in Table 1. The algorithms are clearly described and the experiments are reproducible in principle with FreeFem++. However, the central numerical validation is incomplete: the computed terminal norms are produced by the same discrete operators used to construct the controls, and no error analysis or mesh-convergence study connects the fully discrete solution to the continuous truncated problem. The significance of the method will be established only after this gap is addressed.

major comments (3)
  1. [End of Section 4; Section 6] The fully discrete computations are not linked to the continuous truncated problem. At the end of Section 4 the authors state that the action of M and M* is approximated 'through a standard finite dimensional reduction process' (implicit Euler/Gear in time and FEM in space), but no error estimate is given, such as ||y_R^{h,Δt}(·,T) − y_R(·,T)||_{H^1_0} ≤ ε(h,Δt,R) with ε → 0 as h,Δt → 0. Consequently, the reported final-time norms in Test #1 (1.72×10^{-12}), Table 1, Table 3, Test #4 (2.10×10^{-7}), and Test #5 (5.50×10^{-9}) are computed with the same discrete operators that produced the control and certify only the discrete dynamics. Table 3 varies Nt but does not refine the spatial mesh in a controlled way, and no experiment re-solves the state equation on a finer or independent discretization. To support the claim of numerical null controllability of the PDE, the authors should add either a discrete error analysis or a systematic mesh/time refinement study with an a posteriori check that the computed control drives the continuous (or at least a finer-discrete) state to zero.
  2. [Section 2.2, Proof of Proposition 2.6] The proof of Proposition 2.6 has notation slips and a compressed energy estimate that need to be fixed. After defining z := ψ_R ρ_R y_R, the equation for z is written with χ_R instead of ψ_R, and the subsequent bound uses q_R(·,T) where z(·,T) is meant. The step from ∫|Lz|^2 ≤ C J(v̂)/(T2,R − T1,R)^2 to the parabolic regularity estimate ||z||_{C^0([0,T];H^1_0) ∩ L^2(H^1_0∩H^2)} ≤ C |log R|^2 J(v̂)^{1/2} is not demonstrated; the time scales of the cut-off and the boundedness of ρ_R near T require a careful statement. Since Proposition 2.6 provides the theoretical convergence rate that motivates the choice of R in the numerics, the proof should be completed and rewritten.
  3. [Section 4.1; Table 2] The theoretical convergence condition for Uzawa's algorithm in Section 4.1 requires the optimal steps r_k to satisfy r_k < 2C1(R)/C0^2 ~ R^{-2}, which would imply a severe dependence of the iteration count on R. However, Table 2 reports an essentially constant number of iterations (~3000) for R ranging from 10^3 to 10^8. The authors do not provide a convergence analysis for the augmented Lagrangian variant (ALG 3) actually used in the experiments, nor do they explain this apparent discrepancy. This is not a fatal flaw, but it should be addressed to support the advertised robustness of the algorithms.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 5] In Section 5, the augmented Lagrangian is defined as LR,K = LR + 1/2 ||M v + ȳ − y||^2, missing the factor K; this is inconsistent with Section 3.2 and with Algorithm 4, which uses K in the linear system. It should be K/2.
  2. [Algorithm 4] The title of Algorithm 4 has a missing closing parenthesis, and the procedure is named Uzawa03 instead of Uzawa04.
  3. [Algorithms 1 and 3] In the convergence branch of Algorithms 1 and 3, the variable err is not updated and no break is executed, so the loop condition may not stop the iteration when the tolerance is first met; an explicit exit should be added.
  4. [Table 1] In Table 1, the entry '1.319610−13' should read '1.3196 × 10^{-13}'.
  5. [Section 6.3] The sentence 'the uniform convergence of the control and the controlled state is clear' is not supported by Table 3, since the L2(Q)-norms of y and v still vary with Nt; please report a convergence sequence for Nt → ∞ or rephrase.
  6. [Sections 1.2 and 7] There are typos: 'nonzeo' in Section 1.2 should be 'nonzero', and 'paremater' in Section 7 should be 'parameter'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the truncation and convergence theorems are proved from first principles, and self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

No circular step is exhibited in the paper's derivation chain. Proposition 2.5 is proved by taking weak limits of the truncated minimizers and comparing their costs with the original minimizer; the inequality IR(v-hat) <= J(y-hat,v-hat) follows from rho_R <= rho and is not an assumption of the conclusion. Proposition 2.6 is a direct energy estimate using the cut-off psi_R and the explicit growth of rho_0; it does not import the result. The characterization of the original minimizer is quoted from the external monograph [10], with only a non-load-bearing 'see also' reference to the authors' [7], and the Carleman/observability inequality is attributed to both [10] and [6]; because [10] independently supplies the needed estimate, the self-citation [6] is not load-bearing. The Lagrangian and augmented-Lagrangian reformulations follow from standard convex analysis in [5]. The numerical experiments minimize the discrete objective and then evaluate the terminal state with the same discrete operators; the paper itself notes at the end of Section 4 that 'in practice, in order to apply any of the previous algorithms, we must be able to compute (numerical approximations of) the M v and the M*q' through 'a standard finite dimensional reduction process'. The absence of a discrete-to-continuous error estimate is a numerical validation gap, i.e. a correctness risk, not a circular definition or a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. Thus the central mathematical claims are self-contained and the few self-citations are not load-bearing.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central numerical method rests on standard Carleman and convex-analysis results, plus a set of hand-chosen parameters (K1, K2, R, K) and an unproved discrete-convergence assumption. The free parameters are not fitted to data in a statistical sense, but they are user-selected and the paper does not study their sensitivity beyond a R sweep (Table 1).

free parameters (4)
  • K1 = 0.1 in 2D experiments
    Constant in the Carleman weight (2.2); theory requires it 'sufficiently large'. Values are chosen by hand in Section 6.1 and used without sensitivity analysis.
  • K2 = 2 in 2D experiments (2*||η0||_L∞)
    Second constant in (2.2); chosen by hand for the experiments; 3D values not reported.
  • R = 10^5 in most tests
    Truncation parameter in (2.6); swept in Test #2 (10^3 to 10^8). It is an algorithmic parameter, not fitted to a physical target.
  • K (augmented Lagrangian penalty) = 0.1
    Penalty parameter in the augmented Lagrangian, chosen by hand for all experiments; no sensitivity study.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Global Carleman inequality yields observability (1.6) for the backward adjoint system (1.5).
    Imported from Fursikov-Imanuvilov [10] and Fernandez-Cara & Guerrero [6]. Used in Section 1.1 to ensure coercivity of the dual functional.
  • standard math Unique continuation property for parabolic operators, used to show P0 inner product is nondegenerate.
    Invoked in Section 2 around the definition of P0; standard result, not reproved.
  • domain assumption Existence of η0 satisfying (2.1) for any nonempty open ω in C2 domains; for polyhedral domains the explicit η0 in (6.2) is asserted to work, not proved.
    Section 2.1 and Section 6.1. For the 3D cube the analogous η0 is used without verification that it satisfies |∇η0|>0 in Ω\ω.
  • ad hoc to paper Convergence of the fully discrete scheme (implicit Euler/Gear + FEM) for M and M* to the continuous operators as h→0 and Nt→∞.
    Assumed in Section 4 ('standard finite dimensional reduction'); no error analysis is given for the Lagrangian algorithms.
  • ad hoc to paper Boundedness of the optimal step sizes r_k in ALG 1/ALG 3 within the interval needed for gradient convergence.
    Section 4.1 states that convergence would follow if a0 ≤ r_k ≤ b0 < 2C1(R)/C0^2 ~ R^{-2}, but this bound is not established for the iterates; the algorithms are run to empirical tolerance.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Numerical null controllability of parabolic PDEs using Lagrangian methods." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BM24OFJI

@misc{pith2026241114031,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Numerical null controllability of parabolic PDEs using Lagrangian methods},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BM24OFJI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.14031}
}
read the original abstract

In this paper, we study several theoretical and numerical questions concerning the null controllability problems for linear parabolic equations and systems for several dimensions. The control is distributed and acts on a small subset of the domain. The main goal is to compute numerically a control that drives a numerical approximation of the state from prescribed initial data exactly to zero. We introduce a methodology for solving numerical controllability problems that is new in some sense. The main idea is to apply classical Lagrangian and Augmented Lagrangian techniques to suitable constrained extremal formulations that involve unbounded weights in time that make global Carleman inequalities possible. The theoretical results are validated by satisfactory numerical experiments for spatially 2D and 3D problems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.14031 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Projected uncontrolled state at x1 = 0.35 and x2 = 0.4. In order to apply our results, let us define the appropariate weight functions. Suppose that the control region can be written in the following way: ω = (a1, b1) × (a2, b2), with ai , bi ∈ (0, 1) and ai < bi , for i = 1, 2. For si ∈ (0, 1) with i = 1, 2, we consider the following real-valued function β0,si : β0,si (x) = x(1 − x)e −(x−csi ) 2 si(1 − si)e −(si−cs… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Evolution of the controlled state at t = 0, 0.0625, 0.0875 and 0.15 (From left to right). On the other hand, the projections of the control computed by ALG 3 at x1 = 0.35 and then at x2 = 0.3 are exhibited in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Evolution of the controlled state at t = 0.25, 0.375, 0.4375 and 0.5 (from left to right) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (17 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Projected uncontrolled state at x1 = 0.35 (left) and x2 = 0.4 (right). The norms of y and q at final time T are given by ∥y(· , T)∥L2(Ω) = 1.71997 · 10−12 , ∥q(· , T)∥L2(Ω) = 35.0714. For the evolution of the spatial norms of the uncontrolled and controlled states, the…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The evolution of ∥y¯(· , t)∥L2 and ∥y(· , t)∥L2 (left) and the evolution of ∥v(· , t)∥L2(ω) (right) as t ∈ [0, T] [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The evolution of ∥q(· , t)∥L2 with t ∈ [0, T] [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The initial(left) and final(right) meshes. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Iterates vs Logarithm of the relative error. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: 3D mesh with #t = 11023 and #v = 2042. We use ALG 3 to solve the null controllability problem. The stopping criteria is ∥q k+1 − q k∥L2(Q) ∥q k∥L2(Q) ⩽ 10−5 . The computed controlled solution can be found in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Evolution of the computed state at t = 0 (left), 0.2 (center) and 0.4 (right) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The projected state (x1 =x3 = 0.3) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_11.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Evolution of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Evolution of ∥q∥L2(Q) . 6.5 Test #5: An experiment for the 2D Stokes system In this experiment, we take Ω = (0, 1)2 ⊂ R 2 , ω = (0.2, 0.4)2 and T = 0.6. We consider the problem (5.1) with a = 0.05, x =  x1 x2  , y =  y1 y2  , v =  v1 v2  , with the initial condi…
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Mesh with 1698 triangles and 878 vertices. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: The x1-projected first(left) and second(right) component of the uncontrolled solution at x2 = 0.3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: The projected controlled solution component [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_18.png]
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: The projected controlled solution component [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_19.png]
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: The projected v1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_20.png]
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: The L 2 -norms of y(·, t) and y(·, t) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_22.png]
Figure 24
Figure 24. Figure 24: ∥q(· , t)∥L2(ω) . with the state variable and then a second paremater K > 0 that plays the role of penalization in the Augmented Lagrangian. As R goes to +∞, we recover the solution of the original problem. This is proved rigorously and has been numerically validated …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

22 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Allonsius and F

    D. Allonsius and F. Boyer. Boundary null-controllability of semi-discrete coupled parabolic systems in some multi-dimensional geometries. Math. Control Relat. Fields , 10(2):217–256, 2020

    work page 2020

  2. [2]

    F. Boyer. On the penalised HUM approach and its applications to the numerical approximation of null-controls for parabolic problems. In CANUM 2012, 41e Congr` es National d’Analyse Num´ erique, volume 41 of ESAIM Proc., pages 15–58. EDP Sci., Les Ulis, 2013. 30

    work page 2012

  3. [3]

    Carthel, R

    C. Carthel, R. Glowinski, and J.-L. Lions. On exact and approximate boundary controllabilities for the heat equation: a numerical approach. J. Optim. Theory Appl. , 82(3):429–484, 1994

    work page 1994

  4. [4]

    J.-M. Coron. Control and nonlinearity, volume 136 of Mathematical Surveys and Monographs . American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2007

    work page 2007

  5. [5]

    Ekeland and R

    I. Ekeland and R. T´ emam.Convex analysis and variational problems , volume 28 of Classics in Applied Mathematics. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics (SIAM), Philadelphia, PA, english edition, 1999. Translated from the French

    work page 1999

  6. [6]

    Fern´ andez-Cara and S

    E. Fern´ andez-Cara and S. Guerrero. Global Carleman inequalities for parabolic systems and applications to controllability. SIAM J. Control Optim. , 45(4):1399–1446, 2006

    work page 2006

  7. [7]

    Fern´ andez-Cara and A

    E. Fern´ andez-Cara and A. M¨ unch. Strong convergent approximations of null controls for the 1D heat equation. SeMA J. , 61:49–78, 2013

    work page 2013

  8. [8]

    Fern´ andez-Cara and A

    E. Fern´ andez-Cara and A. M¨ unch. Numerical exact controllability of the 1D heat equation: duality and Carleman weights. J. Optim. Theory Appl. , 163(1):253–285, 2014

    work page 2014

Show all 22 references
  1. [9]

    Fortin and R

    M. Fortin and R. Glowinski. Augmented Lagrangian methods, volume 15 of Studies in Math- ematics and its Applications . North-Holland Publishing Co., Amsterdam, 1983. Applications to the numerical solution of boundary value problems, Translated from the French by B. Hunt and D....

    1983

  2. [10]

    A. V. Fursikov and O. Yu. Imanuvilov. Controllability of evolution equations , volume 34 of Lecture Notes Series . Seoul National University, Research Institute of Mathematics, Global Analysis Research Center, Seoul, 1996

    1996

  3. [11]

    Glowinski and J.-L

    R. Glowinski and J.-L. Lions. Exact and approximate controllability for distributed parame- ter systems. In Acta numerica, 1995 , Acta Numer., pages 159–333. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1995

    1995

  4. [12]

    Glowinski, J.-L

    R. Glowinski, J.-L. Lions, and J. He. Exact and approximate controllability for distributed pa- rameter systems, volume 117 of Encyclopedia of Mathematics and its Applications . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2008. A numerical approach

    2008

  5. [13]

    F. Hecht. New development in freefem++. J. Numer. Math. , 20(3-4):251–265, 2012

    2012

  6. [14]

    Lasiecka and R

    I. Lasiecka and R. Triggiani. Control theory for partial differential equations: continuous and approximation theories. I , volume 74 of Encyclopedia of Mathematics and its Applications . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2000. Abstract parabolic systems

    2000

  7. [15]

    Lasiecka and R

    I. Lasiecka and R. Triggiani. Control theory for partial differential equations: continuous and approximation theories. II , volume 75 of Encyclopedia of Mathematics and its Applications . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2000. Abstract hyperbolic-like systems over a fin...

    2000

  8. [16]

    Lebeau and L

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

    1995

  9. [17]

    Martin, L

    P. Martin, L. Rosier, and P. Rouchon. Null controllability of the heat equation using flatness. Automatica J. IF AC, 50(12):3067–3076, 2014. 31

    2014

  10. [18]

    Martin, L

    P. Martin, L. Rosier, and P. Rouchon. Null controllability of one-dimensional parabolic equa- tions by the flatness approach. SIAM J. Control Optim. , 54(1):198–220, 2016

    2016

  11. [19]

    Martin, L

    P. Martin, L. Rosier, and P. Rouchon. Controllability of parabolic equations by the flatness approach. In Evolution equations: long time behavior and control , volume 439 of London Math. Soc. Lecture Note Ser. , pages 161–178. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2018

    2018

  12. [20]

    Micu and E

    S. Micu and E. Zuazua. On the regularity of null-controls of the linear 1-d heat equation. C. R. Math. Acad. Sci. Paris , 349(11-12):673–677, 2011

    2011

  13. [21]

    M¨ unch and E

    A. M¨ unch and E. Zuazua. Numerical approximation of null controls for the heat equation: ill-posedness and remedies. Inverse Problems, 26(8):085018, 39, 2010

    2010

  14. [22]

    D. L. Russell. Controllability and stabilizability theory for linear partial differential equations: recent progress and open questions. SIAM Rev., 20(4):639–739, 1978. 32

    1978

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.