Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 50 references

Under Gompertz growth, the worst treatment for total tumor load is bang-bang; with constant growth and large diffusion it sits at one endpoint of the domain.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-31 14:01 UTC pith:LLHBGTW7

load-bearing objection Solid, incremental extension of the logistic total-population program to Gompertz: unique constant minimizer, bang-bang maximizers, and 1D large-d endpoint support are proved cleanly; the “new vs logistic” monotonicity claim is only numerical. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.24468 v1 pith:LLHBGTW7 submitted 2026-07-27 math.AP cs.NAmath.NA

Optimization of the total tumor population under Gompertz growth

Iulia Martina Bulai , Francesca Gladiali , Benedetta Pellacci This is my paper
classification math.AP cs.NAmath.NA MSC 35J2535B4035Q9249J20
keywords Gompertz growthreaction-diffusion equationsoptimal controlbang-bang controlstumor populationswitching functionL1-L∞ constraints
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper studies how to place a limited treatment budget so as to minimize or maximize the total steady-state tumor population when cells follow Gompertz growth and diffuse in space. The treatment is a density-dependent removal rate constrained in both intensity and total mass. When the intrinsic growth rate is spatially constant, the unique minimizer is the uniform distribution of treatment. For the opposite problem of maximizing total population, every optimal control is bang-bang: it saturates the local intensity bound on a measurable set of the right total mass and vanishes elsewhere. In one space dimension, when diffusion is large enough and the intensity bound is constant, that active set is simply an interval glued to one endpoint of the domain. Numerical experiments confirm the bang-bang structure, show how heterogeneity and restricted treatment regions reshape the optimizers, and reveal that the optimized total population varies monotonically with the diffusion coefficient—unlike the logistic models previously studied.

Core claim

Every maximizer of total steady-state tumor mass under L1–L∞ treatment constraints is of bang-bang type, equal to the pointwise intensity bound on a measurable set that is a sublevel set of the switching function formed by the product of state and adjoint; when growth is constant, the unique minimizer is the spatially uniform treatment of the same total mass.

What carries the argument

The switching function φ = u p, where u is the unique positive steady state and p solves the adjoint linearization; first- and second-order Gateaux derivatives of the total-mass map with respect to admissible control perturbations force any maximizer to be extreme and to coincide with a sublevel set of φ.

Load-bearing premise

The sharp one-dimensional claim that the active set sticks to an endpoint requires constant growth rate, constant intensity bound, and diffusion large enough that the first-order expansion in 1/d already controls the true maximizer.

What would settle it

In one dimension with constant growth and intensity bound equal to 1, compute a maximizer for a sequence of large diffusion values; if the positivity set fails to converge to an interval of length M glued to 0 or to 1, the large-diffusion characterization is false.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Uniform treatment is the unique best strategy for minimizing total load when growth is homogeneous and the intensity bound permits it.
  • The worst treatment always concentrates maximal intensity on a proper subset whose geometry is read off the switching function.
  • For large motility in one dimension the worst placement is an endpoint interval, giving an explicit geometric rule.
  • Optimized total population decreases monotonically with diffusion, ruling out the small-diffusion fragmentation seen in logistic models.
  • Heterogeneous growth or restricted admissible regions force the active set to align with high-growth zones or with the admissible support, still in bang-bang form.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same large-diffusion rearrangement argument should place maximizers near corners of a square, matching the two-dimensional numerics already shown.
  • If the small-diffusion limit of the optimized mass can be shown to equal the large-diffusion limit only for constant controls, fragmentation is excluded for every diffusion rate.
  • The free-boundary regularity of the bang-bang interface remains open and would follow from adapting existing free-boundary techniques once the switching function is known to be non-degenerate.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies optimization of the total steady-state population J_d(m) = ∫_Ω u for a reaction–diffusion tumor model with Gompertz growth, where the control m (a density-dependent removal/treatment rate) is subject to 0 ≤ m ≤ m̄(x) and ∫m = M. The authors prove existence and uniqueness of a positive steady state with uniform bounds ε̄ ≤ u < K (Prop. 2.1); that for constant growth rate s the constant weight M/|Ω| is the unique minimizer (Thm 1.1, via the w = ln u transformation and Jensen); that every maximizer is of generalized bang-bang type, m* = m̄ χ_{ω*} with ω* a sublevel set of the switching function φ* = u*p* (Thm 1.2, via first- and second-order conditions in the spirit of Mazari–Nadin–Privat and Ferreri–Mazari-Fouquer–Prunier); and that in one dimension with constant s and m̄ ≡ 1, for all sufficiently large d the optimal set is an interval at one endpoint of the domain (Thm 1.3, via a first-order expansion in 1/d recast as a min–min rearrangement problem). Numerical simulations explore heterogeneous s, localized admissible regions, the 2D case, and report a monotone dependence of the optimal value on d, in contrast with the logistic setting.

Significance. If correct, the paper extends the well-developed Mazari–Nadin–Privat theory of total-population optimization from logistic to Gompertz growth, a nonlinearity with singular derivative at zero, and does so under L¹–L∞ constraints with a spatially varying upper bound m̄(x) that may vanish on a set of positive measure — a localized-treatment regime that is open even for the logistic model. The 1D large-diffusion endpoint characterization is a sharp, falsifiable structural result, and the numerically observed monotone dependence of the optimized population on d (in contrast to the fragmentation phenomenon in the logistic case) identifies a genuinely new qualitative feature worth further study. The analysis is supported by clean uniform two-sided bounds on the state (ε̄ ≤ u < K), a complete first/second-order sensitivity and adjoint apparatus, and transparent, reproducible-looking numerics. The contribution is incremental relative to the logistic program but nontrivial and clearly executed.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.1 (proof of Theorem 1.2)] §4.1, proof of Theorem 1.2 (around Eq. (4.15)): the two load-bearing estimates — J''(m*)[g,g] ≥ A1||g||²_{W^{-1,2}} − B2||g||²_{W^{-2,2}} and its small-support improvement (4.15) — are imported from [16, Propositions A.2, 2.1.6, 2.1.8]. Yet Remark 3.2 states explicitly that the Gompertz nonlinearity 'does not fit the hypotheses on Q' of [16]. If those propositions are purely functional-analytic and independent of the reaction term, the authors should say so and verify the hypotheses in their setting (or reproduce the short proofs); otherwise the second-variation argument contains an unverified step. This is compounded by [16] being an unpublished preprint. This is the only point in the proof of the central Theorem 1.2 that I could not check from the manuscript alone.
  2. [§7 (proof of Theorem 1.3)] §7, proof of Theorem 1.3: Theorem 7.2 and Corollary 6.9 yield convergence of m*_d and z_d only up to subsequences, and the limit problem J1 has two maximizers, χ_{(0,M)} and χ_{(1−M,1)}. The proof derives the endpoint-interval conclusion along one convergent subsequence, but the theorem is stated for every d > d̂. The bridging step is missing: one needs the standard contradiction/compactness argument (if the conclusion failed for a sequence d_k → ∞, extract a subsequence converging to one of the two limits and apply the C^1 convergence of z_d to reach a contradiction). Please add this explicitly, and clarify that d̂ is uniform with respect to the choice of maximizer m*_d (the problem may have several).
  3. [§6, Corollary 6.4] Proof of Corollary 6.4: the chain '∫η = ∫sη/s > (1/s)∫sη ≥ 0' is not justified as written. Since η is not known to be signed, ∫s(x)η(x)/s(x) dx ≥ (1/s̄)∫(sη)⁺ + (1/s̲)∫(sη)⁻, which does not follow from ∫sη > 0. For constant s the claim ∫η > 0 does follow from (7.10), ∫|∇η|² = U∞ s ∫η, so one fix is to restrict the corollary to constant s; otherwise a genuine argument for ∫η > 0 (e.g. via a Neumann Green-function representation and the normalization (6.6)) is needed. The corollary is not used in the main theorems, but the gap should be closed or the statement weakened.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] Typos/grammar: 'contradicton' and 'impossibile' (proof of Prop. 2.1); 'minumum' and 'Ley us briefly' (Prop. 4.1); 'analize' and 'definiton' (§6, Lemma 6.8); 'possibile' (several places); 'extremals' (Thm 7.2); 'with u is the solution' after (1.9); brace typo in (4.6), '0 < m*(x) < m(x}'.
  2. [§3, §6] Cross-references: 'Proposition 3.6' in the proof of Lemma 6.6 should be Lemma 3.6; 'as p → ∞' in the same proof should be 'as d → ∞'. The quantity J∞(m) in Corollary 6.4 is used without definition (presumably ∫U∞ = lim_{d→∞} J_d(m)).
  3. [§1, §2, §3, §5] Hypotheses (1.7), (5.3), (5.6): please state that the pointwise inequalities on m̄ are meant a.e. in Ω. In Proposition 3.1, 'inf_Ω t(x)' should be ess inf. In Remark 2.2(2), the indicated test functions for the Brezis–Oswald argument look garbled ('testing the equation of u1 with u2²/u1 and the equation solved by u2 with u2'); please check.
  4. [§8, Figures 1 and 4] Figure 1 (right): the text says the grid is logarithmic in [1e-8, 1] but the axis is drawn linearly on [0,1]; likewise check the axis scaling in Figure 4 (top right), where the logarithmic scale is mentioned only in the caption. A consistent log-axis would make the small-d behavior (the interesting regime) visible.
  5. [§8.1] The numerical optimizer is a local method (projected L-BFGS with best-of-several restarts); the manuscript is mostly careful to phrase conclusions as numerical evidence, and the honest discussion of the delicate small-d branch in Figure 6 is appreciated. I suggest one sentence in §8.1 stating tolerances/grid size and that global optimality of the computed candidates is not certified.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: bang-bang and constant-minimizer theorems are derived from PDE optimality conditions and asymptotics, not forced by definition or self-citation.

full rationale

The paper defines the cost J_d(m)=∫u dx from the unique positive steady state of the Gompertz elliptic problem, then characterizes minimizers and maximizers by direct methods, Gateaux differentiability of the control-to-state map, adjoint/switching-function first-order conditions, second-variation arguments, and large-d expansions. Theorem 1.1 follows from the identity for ∫ln u plus Jensen on t↦e^t when s is constant; Theorem 1.2 follows the standard bang-bang pipeline (admissible perturbations, φ=up constant on the singular set, second variation positivity ruling out intermediate values); Theorem 1.3 transfers the rearranged min-min problem for the first-order functional J_1 back to large d by H^1/C^{1,α} convergence. None of these steps defines the optimizer in terms of the claimed conclusion, fits a parameter and renames it a prediction, or imports a uniqueness theorem from the authors’ own prior work as an external fact that forces the result. Self-citations (authors’ metastatic numerics; Pellacci spectral work; logistic analogues by Mazari–Nadin–Privat, Lou, etc.) supply background or technique templates and are not load-bearing inputs to the Gompertz identities. The numerical monotone d↦J_d(m*) observation is reported as computation, not as a fitted identity. Derivation chain is self-contained against the stated PDE assumptions.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 5 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard elliptic PDE and optimal-control axioms plus domain modeling choices (stationary Gompertz with density-dependent removal, L1–L∞ dose class, Neumann domain). No fitted physical constants enter the theorems; numerical free choices affect only illustrative figures. No new particles or forces are invented—only standard control-theoretic objects (switching function, admissible perturbations).

free parameters (3)
  • Numerical carrying capacity K = 0.01
    Fixed to K=0.01 in all reported simulations; scales the state but is a hand-chosen illustration value, not fitted to data.
  • Dose budget M and upper bound profile m = M=0.5 (typical); m≡1 or localized
    Chosen per experiment (e.g. M=0.5, m≡1 or m=χ_ω); define the admissible set M and thus which optimizers are compared. Not data-fitted.
  • Diffusion values d and growth profiles s(x) = d ∈ [1e-8,1]; s average 5/18 typical
    Log-spaced d in [1e-8,1] and several s shapes (constant, piecewise, sinusoidal, centered rectangle) chosen to explore regimes; drive numerical claims about monotonicity and active-set location.
axioms (5)
  • standard math Standard weak solutions, elliptic regularity, strong maximum principle/Hopf lemma on C2 domains with Neumann conditions.
    Used throughout §2–4 for existence, uniqueness, and sign of adjoint/switching function.
  • domain assumption Gompertz stationary model −dΔu = s(x)u ln(K/u) − m(x)u with u>0 is the correct long-time surrogate for treatment design.
    Justified via parabolic convergence (Rem 2.5) but is a modeling choice; time-dependent or stochastic therapy could differ.
  • domain assumption Admissible treatments are exactly the L1–L∞ class M = {0≤m≤m, ∫m=M}.
    Classical resource/toxicity constraint (cited [23]); bang-bang and uniform-minimizer conclusions are relative to this class.
  • standard math Gateaux derivatives along admissible perturbations (Lem 3.3) and second-variation positivity on small supports imply bang-bang (strategy of [35,16]).
    Core of Thm 1.2; relies on invertibility of linearized operator Lu (Prop 3.1) from the Gompertz structure.
  • ad hoc to paper For Thm 1.3: large-d first-order cost J1 and rearrangement min-min problem on (0,1) with s const, m≡1 characterize true maximizers for d large.
    Transfer argument in §7; d̂ existence is non-constructive and dimension/s-profile restricted.
invented entities (1)
  • Switching function φ = u p for Gompertz (eq 1.9) independent evidence
    purpose: Characterize active set of maximizers as sublevel sets of φ.
    Standard adjoint construct specialized to this nonlinearity; not a new physical entity.

pith-pipeline@v1.2.0-grok45-kimik3 · 45675 in / 3771 out tokens · 84989 ms · 2026-07-31T14:01:29.811740+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We study optimal control problems for a stationary reaction--diffusion model describing the spatial distribution of a tumor cell population with Gompertz growth. The control $m(x)$ represents a treatment term acting as a density-dependent removal rate and it is subject to $L^{1}-L^{\infty}$ constraints. When the intrinsic growth rate is constant, the uniform distribution of the treatment is shown to be the unique minimizer. For the maximization problem, we prove that every optimal control is of bang-bang type. In addition, we show that in the one dimensional case and for sufficiently large diffusion rates, the positivity set of optimal controls is an interval sticking to one of the extrema of the domain. Finally, numerical simulations complement the theoretical analysis and explore regimes that are not fully covered by the results proved in the paper. The computations confirm the bang-bang structure of maximizers, and illustrate how the shape of optimal controls and the associated states are affected by spatial heterogeneity in the growth rate, localized admissible treatment regions, and the diffusion coefficient. Moreover, they reveal a monotone dependence of the optimized total population on the diffusion coefficient: this is a new phenomenon with respect to the logistic setting.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.24468 by Benedetta Pellacci, Francesca Gladiali, Iulia Martina Bulai.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Left: growth profiles s(x) corresponding to the constant and piecewise cases. Right: optimal value J(m∗) as a function of the diffusion parameter d, computed for d ∈ [10−8 , 1] on a logarithmically spaced grid with 100 points, under the budget constraint ´ Ω m(x) dx = M, with M = 0.5 and K = 0.01 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Piecewise growth case with budget M = 0.5 and K = 0.01. Top left: distribution of the optimal control m∗(x) over (x, d); top right: distribution of the corresponding optimal state u∗(x) over (x, d). Bottom left: selected cross-sections of m∗(x) for representative values of the diffusion parameter d; bottom right: the associated profiles of u∗(x). The figure shows the dependence of both the optimal strategy… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Profiles associated with the optimal solution in th [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: One-dimensional stationary Gompertz maximizati [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p034_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Numerical results for the maximization problem in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p035_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Numerical results for the maximization problem in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p036_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Two-dimensional numerical result for the Gompert [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p037_7.png] view at source ↗

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

50 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Allegretti, I

    S. Allegretti, I. M. Bulai, S. Lenhart and G. Orrù, Optima l control of virother- apy in a tumor model, Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena , 489 (2026), 135146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physd.2026.135146

    arXiv 2026

  2. [2]

    D. G. Aronson and J. Serrin, Local behavior of solutions o f quasilinear parabolic equations, Arch. Rational Mech. Anal. 25 (1967), 81–122. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00281291

    work page doi:10.1007/bf00281291 1967

  3. [3]

    Berestycki, F

    H. Berestycki, F. Hamel and L. Roques, Analysis of the per iodically fragmented en- vironment model. I. Species persistence, J. Math. Biol. 51 (2005), no. 1, 75–113. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00285-004-0313-3 37

    work page doi:10.1007/s00285-004-0313-3 2005

  4. [4]

    Brezis and L

    H. Brezis and L. Oswald, Remarks on sublinear elliptic eq uations, Nonlinear Anal. 10 (1986), no. 1, 55–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/0362-546X(86)90011-8

    work page doi:10.1016/0362-546x(86)90011-8 1986

  5. [5]

    I. M. Bulai, M. C. De Bonis, C. Laurita and V. Sagaria, MatL ab Toolbox for the numerical solution of linear Volterra integral equatio ns arising in metastatic tumor growth models, Dolomites Research Notes on Approximation , 15 (2022), no. 2, 13–24. https://dx.doi.org/10.14658/PUPJ-DRNA-2022-2-2

    work page doi:10.14658/pupj-drna-2022-2-2 2022

  6. [6]

    I. M. Bulai, M. C. De Bonis, C. Laurita and V. Sagaria, Mode ling metastatic tumor evolution, numerical resolution and growth prediction, Mathematics and Computers in Simulation , 203 (2023), 721–740. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matcom.2022.07.002

    work page doi:10.1016/j.matcom.2022.07.002 2023

  7. [7]

    I. M. Bulai, M. C. De Bonis and C. Laurita, Numerical solut ion of metastatic tumor growth models with treatment, Applied Mathematics and Computation , 484 (2025), 128988. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amc.2024.128988

    arXiv 2025

  8. [8]

    I. M. Bulai, M. C. De Bonis and C. Laurita, A new MATLAB soft ware for numerical computation of biological observables for metastatic tumor growth, Mathematics and Computers in Simulation , 234 (2025), 31–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matcom.2025.02.014

    work page doi:10.1016/j.matcom.2025.02.014 2025

  9. [9]

    R. S. Cantrell and C. Cosner, Spatial Ecology via Reaction-Diffusion Equations , Wiley, Chichester,

  10. [10]

    M. A. J. Chaplain, Modelling aspects of cancer growth: i nsight from mathematical and nu- merical analysis and computational simulation, in Multiscale Problems in the Life Sciences , Lecture Notes in Mathematics, Vol. 1940, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2008, pp. 147–200. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-78362-6_3

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-540-78362-6_3 1940

  11. [11]

    D. L. De Angelis, W.-M. Ni and B. Zhang, Dispersal and spa tial heterogeneity: single species, J. Math. Biol. 72 (2016), no. 1–2, 239–254. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00285-015-0879-y

    work page doi:10.1007/s00285-015-0879-y 2016

  12. [12]

    W. Ding, H. Finotti, S. Lenhart, Y. Lou and Q. Ye, Optimal control of growth coefficient on a steady-state population model, Nonlinear Anal. Real World Appl. 11 (2010), no. 2, 688–704. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nonrwa.2009.01.015

    work page doi:10.1016/j.nonrwa.2009.01.015 2010

  13. [13]

    Ferreri, G

    L. Ferreri, G. Verzini Asymptotic properties of an opti mal principal eigenvalue with spher- ical weight and Dirichlet boundary conditions. N onlinear Anal., 224 (2022) no. 113103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.na.2022.113103

    arXiv 2022

  14. [14]

    Ferreri, G

    L. Ferreri, G. Verzini Asymptotic properties of an opti mal principal Dirichlet eigenvalue arising in population dynamics. J. Funct. Anal., 287 (2024), no. 7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfa.2024.110543

    arXiv 2024

  15. [15]

    Ferreri, D

    L. Ferreri, D. Mazzoleni, B. Pellacci, G. Verzini Asymp totic location and shape of the optimal favorable region in a Neumann spectral problem. J. Math. Pures Appl. 205 (2026), no. 9 33 pp. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpur.2025.103815

    arXiv 2026

  16. [16]

    Ferreri, I

    L. Ferreri, I. Mazari-Fouquer, R. Prunier, Unstable fr ee-boundary problems in optimal control theory: Existence and regularity. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2605.00694

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  17. [17]

    Ferreri, D

    L. Ferreri, D. Mazzoleni, B. Pellacci, G. Verzini, Asym ptotic location and shape of the optimal favorable region in a Neumann spectral problem, J. Math. Pures Appl. , 9, (2026), 205

    2026

  18. [18]

    K. R. Fister and J. C. Panetta, Optimal control applied t o cell-cycle-specific can- cer chemotherapy, SIAM Journal on Applied Mathematics , 60 (2000), 1059–1072. https://doi.org/10.1137/S0036139998338509

    work page doi:10.1137/s0036139998338509 2000

  19. [19]

    Gerlee, The model muddle: in search of tumor growth la ws, Cancer Res

    P. Gerlee, The model muddle: in search of tumor growth la ws, Cancer Res. 73 (2013), no. 8, 2407–

    2013

  20. [20]

    Gompertz, On the nature of the function expressive of the law of human mortality, and on a new mode of determining the value of life contingencies, Philos

    B. Gompertz, On the nature of the function expressive of the law of human mortality, and on a new mode of determining the value of life contingencies, Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. 115 (1825), 513–583. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstl.1825.0026

    arXiv

  21. [21]

    Q. Guo, X. He and W.-M. Ni, On the effects of carrying capac ity and intrinsic growth rate on single and multiple species in spatially heterogeneous environme nts, J. Math. Biol. 81 (2020), 403–433. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00285-020-01507-9

    work page doi:10.1007/s00285-020-01507-9 2020

  22. [22]

    Heo and Y

    J. Heo and Y. Kim, On the fragmentation phenomenon in the population optimization problem, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 149 (2021), no. 12, 5211–5221. https://doi.org/10.1090/proc/15633

    work page doi:10.1090/proc/15633 2021

  23. [23]

    Henrot and M

    A. Henrot and M. Pierre, Shape Variation and Optimizati on: A Geometrical Analy- sis, EMS Tracts in Mathematics , vol. 28, European Mathematical Society, Zürich, 2018. https://doi.org/10.4171/178

    doi:10.4171/178 2018

  24. [24]

    Hintermüller, C.-Y

    M. Hintermüller, C.-Y. Kao A. Laurain, Principal eigen value minimization for an elliptic problem with indefinite weight and Robin boundary conditions. (Engl ish summary) Appl. Math. Optim. 65, (2012) 1, 111-–146. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00245-011-9153-x

    work page doi:10.1007/s00245-011-9153-x 2012

  25. [25]

    Kao and S

    C.-Y. Kao and S. A. Mohammadi, Maximal total population of species in a diffusive logistic model, Journal of Mathematical Biology , 85 (2022), 47. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00285-022-01817-0

    work page doi:10.1007/s00285-022-01817-0 2022

  26. [26]

    Kawohl, Rearrangements and Convexity of Level Sets i n PDE, Lecture Notes in Mathematics , vol

    B. Kawohl, Rearrangements and Convexity of Level Sets i n PDE, Lecture Notes in Mathematics , vol. 1150, Springer, Berlin, 1985. https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0075060

    work page doi:10.1007/bfb0075060 1985

  27. [27]

    A. K. Laird, Dynamics of tumor growth, Br. J. Cancer 18 (1964), 490–502. https://doi.org/10.1038/bjc.1964.55

    work page doi:10.1038/bjc.1964.55 1964

  28. [28]

    Properties of optimizers of the principal eigenvalue with indefinite weight and Robin conditions

    Lamboley J., Laurain A., Nadin G., Privat Y. Properties of optimizers of the principal eigenvalue with indefinite weight and Robin conditions. Calc. Var. Partial Differential Equations 55, 6, Art. 144, 37 pp 2016. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00526-016-1084-6

    work page doi:10.1007/s00526-016-1084-6 2016

  29. [29]

    Lenhart and J

    S. Lenhart and J. T. Workman, Optimal Control Applied to Biological Models , Chapman and Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, FL, 2007. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781420011418

    work page doi:10.1201/9781420011418 2007

  30. [30]

    Lou, On singular sets of local solutions to p-Laplace equations, Chin

    H. Lou, On singular sets of local solutions to p-Laplace equations, Chin. Ann. Math. Ser. B 29 (2008), no. 5, 521–530. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11401-007-0312-y

    work page doi:10.1007/s11401-007-0312-y 2008

  31. [31]

    Lou, On the effects of migration and spatial heterogen eity on single and multiple species, J

    Y. Lou, On the effects of migration and spatial heterogen eity on single and multiple species, J. Differential Equations 223 (2006), no. 2, 400–426. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jde.2005.05.010

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jde.2005.05.010 2006

  32. [32]

    Minimization of the principal eigen value for an elliptic boundary value problem with indefinite weight, and applications to population dyna mics

    Lou Y., Yanagida E. Minimization of the principal eigen value for an elliptic boundary value problem with indefinite weight, and applications to population dyna mics. Japan J. Indust. Appl. Math. 23: 275–292, 2006. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03167595

    work page doi:10.1007/bf03167595 2006

  33. [33]

    Mazari, G

    I. Mazari, G. Nadin and Y. Privat, Optimal location of re sources maximizing the total population size in logistic models, J. Math. Pures Appl. 134 (2020), 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpur.2019.10.008

    work page doi:10.1016/j.matpur.2019.10.008 2020

  34. [34]

    Mazari, G

    I. Mazari, G. Nadin and Y. Privat, Some challenging optimization problems for logistic diffu- sive equations and their numerical modeling. E. Trélat and E. Zuazua, editors, Numerical Con- trol: Part A, volume 23 of Handbook of Numerical Analysis, pa ges 401–426. Elsevier, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.hna.2021.12.012

    work page doi:10.1016/bs.hna.2021.12.012 2022

  35. [35]

    Mazari, G

    I. Mazari, G. Nadin and Y. Privat, Optimisation of the to tal population size for logistic diffusive equations: bang-bang property and fragmentation rate, Comm. Partial Differential Equations 47 (2022), no. 4, 797–828. https://doi.org/10.1080/03605302.2021.2007533

    arXiv 2022

  36. [36]

    Mazari and D

    I. Mazari and D. Ruiz-Balet, A fragmentation phenomeno n for a nonenergetic optimal control prob- lem: optimization of the total population size in logistic d iffusive models, SIAM J. Appl. Math. 81 (2021), no. 1, 153–172. https://doi.org/10.1137/20M132818X 39

    work page doi:10.1137/20m132818x 2021

  37. [37]

    Mazzoleni, B

    D. Mazzoleni, B. Pellacci, G. Verzini, Asymptotic sphe rical shapes in some spectral optimization problems. J. Math. Pures Appl. (9), 135:256–283, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpur.2019.10.002

    work page doi:10.1016/j.matpur.2019.10.002 2020

  38. [38]

    Mazzoleni, B

    D. Mazzoleni, B. Pellacci, G. Verzini, Singular analys is of the optimizers of the principal eigenvalue in indefinite weighted Neumann problems. S IAM J. Math. Anal. 55 (2023), no. 4, 4162-–4192. https://doi.org/10.1137/22M1490600

    work page doi:10.1137/22m1490600 2023

  39. [39]

    J. D. Murray, Mathematical Biology II: Spatial Models and Biomedical Appli cations, 3rd ed., Interdisciplinary Applied Mathematics, Vol. 18, S pringer, New York, 2003. https://doi.org/10.1007/b98869

    doi:10.1007/b98869 2003

  40. [40]

    Nagahara and E

    K. Nagahara and E. Yanagida, Maximization of the total p opulation in a reaction-diffusion model with logistic growth, Calc. Var. Partial Differential Equations 57 (2018), no. 3, No. 80. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00526-018-1353-7

    work page doi:10.1007/s00526-018-1353-7 2018

  41. [41]

    Nocedal and S

    J. Nocedal and S. J. Wright, Numerical Optimization, 2n d ed. New York: Springer, 2006. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-40065-5

    doi:10.1007/978-0-387-40065-5 2006

  42. [42]

    Pellacci, G

    B. Pellacci, G. Pisante, D. Schiera Spectral optimizat ion for weighted anisotropic problems with Robin conditions, J. Differential Equations 378, (2024), 303–338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jde.2023.09.030

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jde.2023.09.030 2024

  43. [43]

    Salsa and G

    S. Salsa and G. Verzini, Partial Differential Equations in Action: From Modelling to T heory, 4th ed., UNITEXT, Springer, Cham, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-21853-8

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-031-21853-8 2022

  44. [44]

    K. R. Swanson, E. C. Alvord and J. D. Murray, Virtual brai n tumours (gliomas) enhance the reality of medical imaging and highlight inadequacies of current th erapy, British Journal of Cancer , 86 (2002), 14–18. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6600021

    work page doi:10.1038/sj.bjc.6600021 2002

  45. [45]

    K. R. Swanson, C. Bridge, J. D. Murray and E. C. Alvord, Vi rtual and real brain tumors: using mathematical modeling to quantify glioma growth and invasi on, Journal of the Neurological Sciences , 216 (2003), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jns.2003.06.001

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jns.2003.06.001 2003

  46. [46]

    Talkington and R

    A. Talkington and R. Durrett, Estimating tumor growth r ates in vivo, Bulletin of Mathematical Biology, 77 (2015), 1934–1954. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11538-015-0110-8

    work page doi:10.1007/s11538-015-0110-8 2015

  47. [47]

    Tröltzsch, Optimal Control of Partial Differential Equations: Theory, Me thods and Applications , Graduate Studies in Mathematics, Vol

    F. Tröltzsch, Optimal Control of Partial Differential Equations: Theory, Me thods and Applications , Graduate Studies in Mathematics, Vol. 112, American Mathem atical Society, Providence, RI, 2010. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:119333389

    2010

  48. [48]

    Vaghi, A

    C. Vaghi, A. Rodallec, R. Fanciullino, J. Ciccolini, J. P. Mochel, M. Mastri, J. M. L. Ebos and S. Benzekry, Population modeling of tumor growth curves and th e reduced Gompertz model improve prediction of the age of experimental tumors, PLOS Computational Biology , 16 (2020), e1007178. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1007178 40

    work page doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1007178 2020

  49. [2003]

    https://doi.org/10.1002/0470871296

    work page doi:10.1002/0470871296

  50. [2411]

    https://doi.org/10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-12-4355 38

    work page doi:10.1158/0008-5472.can-12-4355