Boundary control of heat-heat cascades

CaGE); Christophe Prieur (GIPSA-INFINITY); Emmanuel Tr\'elat (LJLL (UMR\_7598); Hugo Lhachemi (L2S)

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 27 references

Boundary control of heat-heat cascades

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A boundary-coupled pair of heat equations can be exponentially stabilized at any prescribed decay rate by explicit state or output feedback, once an explicitly characterized mode-controllability condition holds.

desk verdict Solid spectral-analysis paper on heat-heat cascades; the output-feedback theorem leans on an unstated lemma, but the load-bearing condition is likely satisfied. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.10497 v1 pith:CFH476Y6 submitted 2025-06-12 math.OC

Hugo Lhachemi (L2S) , Christophe Prieur (GIPSA-INFINITY) , Emmanuel Trélat (LJLL (UMR_7598) , CaGE) This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.OC MSC 93C2093D1535K0593B52

keywords boundarycontrolheatequationcascadespectralreductionRieszbasisexponentialstabilizationoutputfeedbackHautustestparabolicPDE

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 treats two heat equations coupled through their boundary conditions, with the control entering at the boundary of the first equation. Its central claim is that if the cascade is analyzed as one single system rather than as two linked subsystems, the generalized eigenmodes of the coupled operator form a Riesz basis, and this makes the controllability of every mode exactly computable. Under a sharp condition that excludes the few resonant coefficient choices where a mode becomes uncontrollable, the paper constructs explicit state-feedback and output-feedback laws that drive the state to zero exponentially at any chosen decay rate, in both $L^2$ and $H^1$ norms. In the noncollocated configuration, every mode is controllable and no such condition is needed. A reader should care because this turns a class of boundary-coupled parabolic control problems into a finite-dimensional pole-placement exercise with explicit spectral tests.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Riesz basis $\Phi$ of generalized eigenvectors of the coupled operator $A$, obtained by solving the eigenvalue problem of the whole cascade rather than of each heat equation separately. Because $\Phi$ is a Riesz basis and its scaled version is a Riesz basis of $H^1$, modal coefficients behave like $\ell^2$ sequences, so the infinite-dimensional system splits into a finite-dimensional part containing all nonsimple modes plus an exponentially stable residual. The sets $\Delta(a,b)$ and $\Theta(a,b)$ record, respectively, which eigenvalues coincide into Jordan blocks and which first-component modes lose controllability; the Hautus test converts this information into the necessary and sufficient condition (33). Lyapunov functions weighted by the basis coefficients then turn a finite-dimensional Hurwitz assignment for $(A_{1,a},B_{1,a})$ into the full PDE decay estimate, and the same Lyapunov machinery is reused with an observer for output feedback.

What would settle it

Take the state-feedback claim: choose $a=b$ with $a\ge\pi^2/4$, so mode $\lambda_{1,0}\ge0$ is uncontrollable by the paper's criterion (33), and attempt to find any boundary feedback that satisfies the decay estimate (35); a successful construction would refute the claimed necessity. For the output-feedback claim, compute the solution $P$ of $F^{\top}P+PF+2\delta P=-I$ for the matrix $F$ in (42)-(44) as $N,M$ grow, say for generic nonresonant coefficients, and check whether $\|P\|=O(1)$; if the norm grows without bound, the feasibility step in the proof of Theorem 3 fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's discovery is that the heat-heat cascade, treated as one operator $A(f,g)=(f''+af,g''+bg)$ with coupling boundary conditions, has generalized eigenvectors that form a Riesz basis of the state space (Lemma 2), and a scaled version forms a Riesz basis of the $H^1$ space (Lemma 3). This basis lets the authors write the cascade's mode dynamics exactly, and the Hautus test then characterizes modal controllability completely: for the collocated cascade, mode $\lambda_{1,n}$ is uncontrollable exactly when $n\in\Theta(a,b)$, a small explicit set; for the noncollocated cascade, all modes are controllable. Consequently, whenever $\Theta(a,b)$ does not intersect the retained modes, a feedback $v=-KX_{1,a}$ built on the finite-dimensional truncated dynamics yields the exponential decay estimate (35) in $L^2$ and $H^1$; with the additional observability conditions (38), (49), or (50), output feedback achieves the same estimate. The same spectral template is transferred to the two dual cascades, giving analogous state- and output-feedback theorems and exact controllability and observability in weighted Hilbert spaces.

Load-bearing premise

The output-feedback proof leans on a lemma from an earlier paper, quoted only by citation, that a certain Lyapunov matrix solution stays bounded as the observer is enlarged; if that lemma does not apply to the specific coupling and measurement terms here, the output-feedback construction may not be feasible.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For the noncollocated cascade (2), Theorem 2 applies without the controllability assumption: every mode is controllable, so exponential stabilization at any decay rate in $L^2$ and $H^1$ is always achievable by state feedback.
For the collocated cascade (1), stabilization is impossible once an uncontrollable mode is nonnegative, as in $a=b\ge\pi^2/4$ or $a=\pi^2$, $b=3\pi^2$; this is an intrinsic obstruction rather than a limitation of the method.
With a distributed or pointwise measurement of the second component, output feedback stabilizes the cascade in both $L^2$ and $H^1$ norms, provided the explicit observability conditions (38), (49), or (50) hold.
The dual cascades (51) and (52) admit the same theorems with the controllability condition replaced by an analogous one for (51); the noncollocated dual (52) again needs no controllability condition.

Reading between the lines

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

An implicit consequence of the analysis is that the same 'reduce the whole cascade, not each component' prescription should transfer to other two-component parabolic or hyperbolic-parabolic cascades whose coupled operator admits a Riesz basis; the paper already mentions a wave-heat cascade as a neighboring case.
Because $\Theta(a,b)$ is a sparse set of isolated reaction-coefficient differences, generic collocated cascades are controllable; one could test whether the stabilizability estimate (35) degrades continuously as $b$ approaches one of these resonant values.
The output-feedback construction is in principle infinite-dimensional, but the proof shows the observer can be truncated at finite $N,M$ with residual terms absorbed; a practical follow-up would be to turn the proof's threshold estimates into explicit formulas for how large $N,M$ must be for a given decay rate $\delta$.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Read this one. It gives the first complete modal controllability characterization for boundary-coupled heat-heat cascades, with explicit state- and output-feedback gains that achieve exponential stabilization at any prescribed decay rate in both L2 and H1. The spectral analysis is the real work: the generalized eigenvectors form a Riesz basis, the finite set of exceptional modes is handled carefully, and the collocated versus noncollocated distinction is new and correct. Theorems 2 and 3 are proved in detail, and my spot checks of Lemma 5 and the controllability conditions came out right. This is a genuine step beyond [23,24], which only had sufficient conditions under extra assumptions.

The soft spots are two. First, the proof of Theorem 3 relies on an appendix lemma from the authors' Automatica paper [16] to assert that the Lyapunov solution P of F^T P + PF + 2δP = -I has ||P||=O(1) uniformly as N,M grow. The lemma is not stated, so a referee cannot check its hypotheses without fetching the old paper. That is a real completeness gap, but not a fatal one: F is block-triangular with fixed Hurwitz blocks and an A2 tail whose eigenvalues go to -∞, and the off-diagonal blocks LaC2 and -LC2 have norms that actually tend to 0 as N,M→∞ (for the distributed output because c∈L2 makes the tail coefficients square-summable; for pointwise outputs because of the κ reweighting). The stress-test worry that these couplings 'do not vanish' does not hold up. Still, because the uniform bound is load-bearing for the Schur complement step, the authors should either state the lemma and verify its hypotheses or prove the bound directly. Minor second point: Lemma 2 asserts ω-linear independence without proof; it is probably standard Bari's theorem territory, but a line or two would close it.

The informal Theorem 1 says 'any decay rate' while the formal conditions are rate-dependent; that is a phrasing issue, not a mathematical one.

Who is this for? Anyone working on boundary control of coupled parabolic systems. It deserves a serious referee. I would engage with it; the flaws are presentation-level, not conceptual.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies boundary feedback stabilization of a cascade of two heat equations coupled through boundary conditions, in two configurations: collocated (control and coupling at the same boundary) and non-collocated. The authors perform a spectral analysis of the cascade as a single operator, prove that the generalized eigenvectors form Riesz bases in L2 and H1, characterize modal controllability and observability, and design explicit state-feedback and output-feedback control laws that achieve exponential stability at an arbitrary prescribed decay rate under explicit sufficient conditions. The results are also transposed to the dual cascades, and an appendix discusses exact null controllability in weighted spaces.

Significance. If the gaps identified below are repaired, this is a substantial contribution to the boundary control of coupled parabolic systems. The paper's main strengths are the detailed spectral analysis of the cascade as one operator, the explicit Riesz-basis construction, the sharp modal controllability/observability characterizations, and the explicit feedback designs that achieve any prescribed decay rate in both L2 and H1 norms. The extension to dual systems and the exact-controllability appendix broaden the scope. The state-feedback theorem (Theorem 2) and the spectral results appear sound and are proved with care. The main unresolved point is the output-feedback Lyapunov bound in Theorem 3, which rests on an unstated lemma from a previous paper.

major comments (2)

[Theorem 3, proof (after Eq. (45))] The output-feedback proof asserts that the solution P to F^T P + PF + 2δP = -I satisfies ||P|| = O(1) uniformly as N,M grow, citing [16, Lemma in Appendix] without stating the lemma or verifying its hypotheses for the specific matrix F in (42)-(44). This uniform bound is load-bearing: it is used in the Schur complement to conclude that Θ1 ≤ 0 for N,M large, which yields the exponential estimate (40). The paper only notes that ||C2||, ||B2,u||, ||B2,v|| are O(1), which is weaker than the convergence properties needed if the cited lemma requires vanishing off-diagonal couplings. Please state the lemma and check its assumptions for the coupling blocks L_a C2, -L C2, and B2,u, B2,v, or provide a self-contained proof of the uniform bound.
[Theorem 4, proof (measurement (48))] In the Neumann pointwise-measurement case, Γ1,n is defined as 2(−(n+1/2)^2(π^2 − 1/ε1) + a + δ) + (n+1/2)^{3/2} η1 Sζ1,N. The claim that Γ1,n ≤ Γ1,N+1 for all n ≥ N+1 does not follow for arbitrary N, because the second term is increasing in n and may create a maximum above N+1. The conclusion can be repaired by observing that Sζ1,N → 0 as N → ∞, so the maximum occurs at n = N+1 for N sufficiently large; the proof should be rewritten with this explicit qualification.

minor comments (5)

[Theorem 3, proof (H0 case)] The Lyapunov function for the H0 case is defined with tail sums starting at N0+1 and M0+1, while the vector X already contains the high-order estimates up to N and M. This double counts the modes N0+1..N and M0+1..M; the derivative computation for that case is not shown. It appears the sums should start at N+1 and M+1, as in the H1 case; please clarify.
[Lemmas 2 and 3] The ω-linear independence of Φ and Φ1 is asserted without proof or reference. This is part of the hypotheses of Bari's theorem used to conclude the Riesz-basis property; a short justification or a specific reference should be added.
[Section 4, before Eq. (31)] If ∆(a,b) is empty, the functions θ1, θ2 are defined on an empty set and the quantities max ∆1(a,b), max ∆2(a,b) are not defined; the presentation should handle this edge case (e.g., by setting the maxima to -1 or by reformulating).
[Section 6.2.3] The sentence 'We can now characterize the controllability of each mode of the PDE cascade (1)' should refer to system (51), since the subsection is devoted to the dual cascade.
[Acknowledgment] There is a typo: 'Acknowlegment' should be 'Acknowledgment'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the spectral and Lyapunov derivations are carried out in this paper, and the cited auxiliary lemma from [16] is an independent technical tool rather than a restatement of the target result.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are the exponential stabilization of the heat-heat cascade (1) via explicitly constructed state-feedback (Theorem 2) and output-feedback (Theorems 3 and 4). The derivation chain is largely self-contained: the spectrum and generalized eigenvectors are computed directly in Lemma 1; the Riesz basis property is proven in Lemmas 2 and 3 using Bari's theorem and explicit O(1/m) estimates rather than by assuming the stabilization result; mode controllability is characterized from explicit formulas for nu_{i,k} in Lemma 5 and the Hautus test; and the state-feedback proof constructs a Lyapunov function from the finite-dimensional Riccati/Lyapunov solution plus damped tail-mode sums. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no controllability or observability condition is defined in terms of the closed-loop stability claim. The only notable self-citation is the use of [16, Lemma in Appendix] in the proof of Theorem 3 and again in Theorem 4, to assert that the positive solution P of F^T P + PF + 2 delta P = -I satisfies ||P|| = O(1) uniformly as the observer orders N,M grow. This use is load-bearing for the feasibility of the Lyapunov inequalities, and the lemma's statement is not reproduced nor are its hypotheses explicitly checked against the block matrix F in (42)-(44). However, this is a completeness and verification gap, not circularity: the cited lemma is a general matrix-bound result from prior work on a different reaction-diffusion stabilization problem, and it is not equivalent to, nor defined in terms of, the heat-heat stabilization claim asserted here. The surrounding proof still contains the actual observer-error dynamics, the Lyapunov inequalities, the tail-residue estimates, and the Schur-complement argument. The unpublished same-author paper [19] is cited for the spectral-reduction methodology and for the wave-heat cascade, but the heat-heat spectral analysis and feedback constructions are performed in this manuscript rather than imported as ready-made conclusions. Under rule 4 of the circularity protocol, self-citation is not circularity when the cited result is an independent mathematical tool with stated assumptions not including the target theorem; even though the lemma is unstated here, the paper does not reduce the heat-heat result to it by construction. Therefore the appropriate circularity score is 0.

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

The paper introduces no new physical entities or fitted parameters. It relies on standard mathematical tools and one specialized lemma from the authors' prior work [16]. No data fitting occurs; the reaction coefficients a,b,s are plant parameters, and the control gains K,L are design choices, not fitted values.

assumptions (4)

standard math Bari's theorem on Riesz bases
Used in Lemma 2 and Lemma 3 to conclude that the generalized eigenvectors form a Riesz basis of H0 and H1, based on closeness to an orthonormal basis and omega-linear independence.
standard math Hautus test for controllability and observability
Used in Lemma 6 and Lemma 7 to characterize controllability and observability of the finite-dimensional projected pairs (A1,a,B1,a) and (A1,C1).
standard math Moment method with Muntz-Szasz theorem
Used in Appendix A to establish the observability inequality for the dual system and hence exact null controllability.
domain assumption Lemma in the appendix of [16] bounding the Lyapunov solution norm
Invoked in the proof of Theorem 3 to assert ||P||=O(1) uniformly in N,M for the block matrix F. The lemma is not restated in this paper, so the reader must consult [16].

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Boundary control of heat-heat cascades." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CFH476Y6

@misc{pith2026250610497,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Boundary control of heat-heat cascades},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CFH476Y6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.10497}
}

read the original abstract

This paper addresses the problem of feedback stabilization of a cascade of two heat equations that are coupled in the boundary conditions, the input being a boundary control for the first component of the cascade. Two distinct control input settings are studied: one being collocated with the coupling condition of the two heat equations, and the other being noncollocated. These two different configurations induce different controllability properties. The key idea developed in this paper is to carry out spectral reductions, not for each of the two components of the cascade separately, but instead, directly for the PDE cascade viewed as one single system. A detailed study of the eigenelements of the PDE cascade yields a complete characterization of the spectral mode controllability and allows us to derive an explicit state-feedback control strategy for the exponential stabilization of the plant. This approach is extended to a systematic output-feedback control strategy either with a distributed output operator or with a pointwise measurement done on the second heat equation of the PDE cascade. In both state-feedback and output-feedback scenarios, stabilization results are established in L^2 and H^1 norms. Finally, we show how the results developed in this paper for the two studied heat-heat cascades extend to their dual problems.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

27 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages

[16]

Lhachemi and C

H. Lhachemi and C. Prieur. Finite-dimensional observer-base d boundary stabilization of reaction-diﬀusion equations with either a Dirichlet or Neumann bound ary measurement. Au- tomatica, 135:109955, 2022. 24

work page 2022
[1]

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. Math. Control Relat. Fields, 1(3):267–306, 2011

work page 2011
[2]

S. A. Avdonin and S. A. Ivanov. Families of exponentials . Cambridge University Press, Cam- bridge, 1995. The method of moments in controllability problems for d istributed parameter systems, Translated from the Russian and revised by the authors

work page 1995
[3]

Benabdallah, F

A. Benabdallah, F. Boyer, and M. Morancey. A block moment meth od to handle spectral condensation phenomenon in parabolic control problems. Annales Henri Lebesgue , 3:717–793, 2020

work page 2020
[4]

Bhandari and F

K. Bhandari and F. Boyer. Boundary null-controllability of couple d parabolic systems with Robin conditions. Evolution Equations and Control Theory , 10(1):61–102, 2021

2021
[5]

F. Boyer. Controllability of linear parabolic equations and systems . hal-02470625v4f, 2022

work page 2022
[6]

S. Chen, R. Vazquez, and M. Krstic. Backstepping control des ign for a coupled hyperbolic- parabolic mixed class PDE system. In IEEE 56th Annual Conference on Decision and Control , pages 664–669, 2017

work page 2017
[7]

Chowdhury, R

S. Chowdhury, R. Dutta, and S. Majumdar. Boundary controlla bility and stabilizability of a coupled ﬁrst-order hyperbolic-elliptic system. Evolution Equations & Control Theory , 12(3), 2023

2023

Show all 27 references

[8]

Coron and E

J.-M. Coron and E. Tr´ elat. Global steady-state controllability o f one-dimensional semilinear heat equations. SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization , 43(2):549–569, 2004

2004
[9]

R. F. Curtain and H. Zwart. An introduction to inﬁnite-dimensional linear systems the ory, volume 21. Springer Science & Business Media, 2012

2012
[10]

Ghousein and E

M. Ghousein and E. Witrant. Backstepping control for a class o f coupled hyperbolic-parabolic PDE systems. In 2020 American Control Conference (ACC) , pages 1600–1605. IEEE, 2020

2020
[11]

Gohberg and M

I. Gohberg and M. G. Kreuin. Introduction to the theory of linear nonselfadjoint operat ors, volume 18. American Mathematical Soc., 1978

1978
[12]

Gr¨ une and T

L. Gr¨ une and T. Meurer. Finite-dimensional output stabilizatio n of linear diﬀusion-reaction systems–a small-gain approach. arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.06102 , 2021

2021 arXiv
[13]

Kang and B.-Z

W. Kang and B.-Z. Guo. Stabilisation of unstable cascaded heat p artial diﬀerential equation system subject to boundary disturbance. IET Control Theory & Applications , 10(9):1027– 1039, 2016

2016
[14]

Katz and E

R. Katz and E. Fridman. Constructive method for ﬁnite-dimens ional observer-based control of 1-D parabolic PDEs. Automatica, 122:109285, 2020

2020
[15]

F. A. Khodja, A. Benabdallah, M. Gonz´ alez-Burgos, and L. de Teresa. New phenomena for the null controllability of parabolic systems: Minimal time and geometrical dependence. Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications , 444(2):1071–1113, 2016

2016
[17]

Lhachemi and C

H. Lhachemi and C. Prieur. Nonlinear boundary output feedba ck stabilization of reaction– diﬀusion equations. Systems & Control Letters , 166:105301, 2022

2022
[18]

Lhachemi, C

H. Lhachemi, C. Prieur, and E. Tr´ elat. PI regulation of a react ion–diﬀusion equation with delayed boundary control. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control , 66(4):1573–1587, 2020

2020
[19]

Lhachemi, C

H. Lhachemi, C. Prieur, and E. Tr´ elat. Controllability and stabilization of a wave-heat cascade system. Under review , 2025

2025
[20]

Rosier and B.-Y

L. Rosier and B.-Y. Zhang. Unique continuation property and co ntrol for the Benjamin–Bona– Mahony equation on a periodic domain. Journal of Diﬀerential Equations , 254(1):141–178, 2013

2013
[21]

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

1978
[22]

Y. Sakawa. Feedback stabilization of linear diﬀusion systems. SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization, 21(5):667–676, 1983

1983
[23]

Tang, J.-M

J.-Q. Tang, J.-M. Wang, and W. Kang. Boundary feedback stab ilization of an unstable cascaded heat–heat system with diﬀerent reaction coeﬃcients. Systems & Control Letters , 183:105684, 2024

2024
[24]

Tang, J.-M

J.-Q. Tang, J.-M. Wang, and W. Kang. Sampled-data control of an unstable cascaded heat– heat system with diﬀerent reaction coeﬃcients. Automatica, 171:111904, 2025

2025
[25]

Tr´ elat.Control in ﬁnite and inﬁnite dimension

E. Tr´ elat.Control in ﬁnite and inﬁnite dimension . Springer, 2024

2024
[26]

Wang, L.-L

J.-M. Wang, L.-L. Su, and H.-X. Li. Stabilization of an unstable rea ction–diﬀusion PDE cascaded with a heat equation. Systems & Control Letters , 76:8–18, 2015

2015
[27]

Zhang and E

X. Zhang and E. Zuazua. Polynomial decay and control of a 1-D hyperbolic–parabolic coupled system. Journal of Diﬀerential Equations , 204(2):380–438, 2004. 25

2004

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [16]

Lhachemi and C

H. Lhachemi and C. Prieur. Finite-dimensional observer-base d boundary stabilization of reaction-diﬀusion equations with either a Dirichlet or Neumann bound ary measurement. Au- tomatica, 135:109955, 2022. 24

work page 2022

[2] [1]

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. Math. Control Relat. Fields, 1(3):267–306, 2011

work page 2011

[3] [2]

S. A. Avdonin and S. A. Ivanov. Families of exponentials . Cambridge University Press, Cam- bridge, 1995. The method of moments in controllability problems for d istributed parameter systems, Translated from the Russian and revised by the authors

work page 1995

[4] [3]

Benabdallah, F

A. Benabdallah, F. Boyer, and M. Morancey. A block moment meth od to handle spectral condensation phenomenon in parabolic control problems. Annales Henri Lebesgue , 3:717–793, 2020

work page 2020

[5] [4]

Bhandari and F

K. Bhandari and F. Boyer. Boundary null-controllability of couple d parabolic systems with Robin conditions. Evolution Equations and Control Theory , 10(1):61–102, 2021

2021

[6] [5]

F. Boyer. Controllability of linear parabolic equations and systems . hal-02470625v4f, 2022

work page 2022

[7] [6]

S. Chen, R. Vazquez, and M. Krstic. Backstepping control des ign for a coupled hyperbolic- parabolic mixed class PDE system. In IEEE 56th Annual Conference on Decision and Control , pages 664–669, 2017

work page 2017

[8] [7]

Chowdhury, R

S. Chowdhury, R. Dutta, and S. Majumdar. Boundary controlla bility and stabilizability of a coupled ﬁrst-order hyperbolic-elliptic system. Evolution Equations & Control Theory , 12(3), 2023

2023