Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 57 references

Stokes-Lagrange and Stokes-Dirac representations of $N$-dimensional port-Hamiltonian systems for modelling and control

T0 review · 4 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 This paper defines a Stokes-Lagrange structure on $N$-dimensional domains and proves it is a Lagrange structure, giving port-Hamiltonian systems implicit Hamiltonians and boundary energy ports.

desk verdict Genuinely new N-D Stokes-Lagrange framework with a fixable domain gap in the main proof and several example typos; worth reviewing but needs revision. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.04499 v1 pith:NVMNJCDX submitted 2024-12-01 math.OC math.DSmath.FA

Antoine Bendimerad-Hohl , Ghislain Haine , Laurent Lefèvre , Denis Matignon This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.OCmath.DSmath.FA MSC 93C2037K0674K2035Q61
keywords Port-HamiltoniansystemsStokes-DiracstructureStokes-LagrangeimplicitconstitutiverelationsboundaryenergyportsplatemodelsMaxwell'sequationspassivity-basedcontrol
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 extends the port-Hamiltonian framework to $N$-dimensional spatial domains by introducing a Stokes-Lagrange structure: a subspace built from four operators that satisfy an integration-by-parts identity, playing for the Hamiltonian the role that a Stokes-Dirac structure plays for the dynamics. The central claim is that this subspace is a Lagrange structure under natural symmetry, maximality, and density assumptions, so it can define a Hamiltonian implicitly even when constitutive relations are nonlocal or involve unbounded operators. The paper shows that standard distributed systems, including the wave equation, Reissner-Mindlin and Kirchhoff-Love plates, Maxwell's equations, and the Dzektser seepage equation, admit both Stokes-Dirac and Stokes-Lagrange representations related by a transposition operator. If the claim is right, modelers can choose where differential operators live and can use boundary energy ports for passivity-based control.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Stokes-Lagrange structure itself, defined as the image of the operator block $\begin{bmatrix}P&\gamma&S&\beta\end{bmatrix}^\top$ applied to a latent space $\mathcal{Z}_1$, where $P$ maps latent states to state variables, $S$ maps them to effort variables, and $\gamma$ and $\beta$ record boundary observation and boundary control. Assumption 3 encodes an integration-by-parts identity (formal symmetry), Assumption 4 encodes maximal reciprocity, and Assumption 5 ensures density of boundary data; together they make the minus-pairing orthogonal of $L$ equal to $L$. The Hamiltonian is then $H(z)=\frac12\langle Sz,Pz\rangle+\frac12\langle\beta z,\gamma z\rangle$, which is explicit in the latent variable but implicit in the physical state. A secondary machinery is the transposition operator $G$ that converts a Stokes-Dirac representation into a Stokes-Lagrange one, moving differential operators from the structure matrix into the Hamiltonian.

What would settle it

Choose $P=-\Delta$ and $S=-\Delta$ on a bounded $N$-dimensional domain, with $\gamma$ the Dirichlet trace and $\beta$ the Neumann trace, and compute whether the image subspace $L=\{(Pz,\gamma z,Sz,\beta z)\}$ satisfies $L=L^{\perp_-}$; if it fails, the boundedness assumption is essential and the framework does not cover such fourth-order-like systems.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

At the paper's core is Theorem 6: given operators $P$ (state map) and $S$ (effort map) from a latent space $\mathcal{Z}_1$ to state and effort spaces, together with boundary operators $\gamma$ and $\beta$, and given symmetry, maximality, and density assumptions, the image subspace $L=\{(Pz,\gamma z,Sz,\beta z)\mid z\in\mathcal{Z}_1\}$ equals its orthogonal complement with respect to the minus pairing $\langle\langle(x_1,\chi_1,e_1,\varepsilon_1),(x_2,\chi_2,e_2,\varepsilon_2)\rangle\rangle_- = \langle e_2,x_1\rangle-\langle e_1,x_2\rangle+\langle\varepsilon_2,\chi_1\rangle-\langle\varepsilon_1,\chi_2\rangle$. In other words, a Stokes-Lagrange structure is a Lagrange structure. A companion result, Theorem 1, gives an equivalence between Stokes-Dirac and Stokes-Lagrange representations through a transposition operator $G$ and its formal adjoint $G^\dagger$, so the same physical system can be written with differential operators in the structure matrix or in the Hamiltonian. The examples then show how implicit constitutive relations, including Eringen-type nonlocal elasticity, plate models, and the vector-potential form of Maxwell's equations, fit the new structure and yield boundary energy ports rather than only boundary power ports.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is Assumption 2, which requires at least one of the operators $P$ and $S$ to be bounded; if both are unbounded, the construction of the Stokes-Lagrange structure and Theorem 6 do not apply.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any system that admits a Stokes-Dirac representation in the wave-like form (12) also admits an equivalent Stokes-Lagrange representation, so a modeler can choose whether differential operators sit in the structure matrix or in the Hamiltonian.
  • Implicit or nonlocal constitutive relations, such as Eringen-type elasticity or the Dzektser equation, get a well-defined Hamiltonian without expanding the flow and effort spaces, which enables sparse numerical formulations for nonlocal problems.
  • Boundary energy ports, whose coordinates are traces of state variables such as boundary displacement, become available as controls; interconnecting two such systems through a potential yields passivity with respect to a non-separable total Hamiltonian.
  • The framework covers 2D and 3D examples including Reissner-Mindlin and Kirchhoff-Love plates and Maxwell's equations in both classical and vector-potential forms, preserving the power-balance interpretation across representations.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural step the paper leaves open is a structure-preserving discretization of the minus-pairing orthogonality; a mixed finite-element method preserving $L=L^{\perp_-}$ would likely keep nonlocal models sparse and could be tested on the Dzektser equation.
  • The boundedness assumption, at most one of $P$ and $S$ unbounded, is the main restriction; extending the proof to both-unbounded cases would require working on $D(P)\cap D(S)$ and would open up fourth-order plate and beam models.
  • The energy-port viewpoint suggests a general passivity-based design rule: take as interconnection variable the boundary coordinate whose time derivative is the passive output, then shape the total Hamiltonian by adding a potential of those coordinates; the paper illustrates this on waves and piezoelectric coupling but does not state such a general recipe.
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.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes an N-dimensional extension of the 1D Stokes-Lagrange subspaces introduced in prior work, defining a Stokes-Lagrange structure as the image of operators (P,S,γ,β) satisfying symmetry, maximality, and density assumptions, and proving in Theorem 6 that such a subspace is a Lagrange structure with respect to the minus pairing. It also establishes an operator-transposition equivalence between Stokes-Dirac and Stokes-Lagrange representations, and illustrates the framework on Reissner-Mindlin and Kirchhoff-Love plates, Maxwell's equations, and the Dzektser equation, with applications to passivity-based control via energy ports. The central theorem is plausible and the proof structure in Appendix C.1 is coherent, but the manuscript contains concrete sign and coefficient errors in the examples and an unclosed domain issue in the maximality proof for the canonical wave-like construction.

Significance. If Theorem 6 and the representation equivalence Theorem 1 are made fully rigorous, the paper provides a useful operator-theoretic framework for implicit Hamiltonian definitions and boundary energy ports in N-dimensional port-Hamiltonian systems, complementing Stokes-Dirac structures and enabling new interconnection schemes. The examples are well chosen and the control section gives a clear motivation for energy ports. However, the significance is conditional: the examples do not verify the assumptions of Theorem 6, and the proof that the canonical construction satisfies the maximality assumption has a gap. These are load-bearing issues, though they appear repairable. The paper is not accompanied by code or machine-checked proofs; its value is conceptual and methodological.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.1.2, Lemma 9 and S^SL_RM] The variational derivative δφH_SL_RM is computed with the wrong sign. Since H_SL_RM contains the term (1/2)∫ kGh|grad w − φ|², the contribution to δφ is −kGh(grad w − φ), not +kGh(grad w − φ). The correct expression is δφH_SL_RM = −kGh(grad w − φ) − Div(D Grad φ). Consequently, in the matrix S^SL_RM the (3,1) entry should be −kGh grad(·), not +kGh grad(·). With the signs as printed, the constitutive relation e^SL = S^SL_RM α^SL does not reproduce the Reissner-Mindlin dynamics (17) through (20). This is load-bearing because the claimed Stokes-Lagrange representation of the plate model is one of the central examples.
  2. [Section 3.2.2, S^SL and P^SL] The displayed operator S^SL is inconsistent with the Hamiltonian H_SL_EM. Since e^SL = (δ_D H_SL_EM, δ_A H_SL_EM) = ((1/ε0)D, curl((1/µ0)curl A)), the operator S^SL must be diag((1/ε0)I3, curl((1/µ0)curl·)). The paper displays S^SL = diag(I3, curl((1/µ0)curl·)), omitting the 1/ε0 factor. In addition, P^SL is written as [[I3,0],[0,1 I3]], which is not the identity operator used in the state equation. As printed, the constitutive relation for the electric effort does not match the Hamiltonian.
  3. [Sections 3.1.2 and 3.2.2 (Assumptions 3-5)] The examples in the plate and Maxwell sections are presented as Stokes-Lagrange structures without verifying the assumptions of Theorem 6. In both sections the latent space Z1, the boundary operators γ and β, and the maximality and density conditions are not specified. For the Reissner-Mindlin plate, the boundary energy ports in Theorem 10 suggest γ(w,φ) = (w|∂Ω, φ|∂Ω) and β(w,φ) = (kGh(grad w − φ)·n, D Grad φ n), but this identification is not stated and Assumption 4 is not checked. Without such checks, the power-balance computations alone do not establish that the displayed subspaces are Stokes-Lagrange structures in the sense of Definition 5.
  4. [Appendix A.2, Lemma 19] The maximality proof contains an adjoint-domain gap. Before z̃ is known to lie in D(K) or D(K†ηK), the proof uses the identities ⟨K†(ηK)z0, z̃⟩ = ⟨ηK z0, K z̃⟩ and ⟨K z0, ηK z̃⟩ = ⟨z0, K†(ηK)z̃⟩. These identities are only justified when the relevant vectors belong to the corresponding adjoint domains; at that point z̃ is only known to lie in D(S0*). The conclusion z̃1 ∈ D(K†ηK) and e1 = K†(ηK)z̃1 therefore does not follow as written. This is load-bearing because Lemma 19 is the verification of Assumption 4 for the canonical construction behind the wave-like equivalence in Theorem 1. The gap is probably fixable by a standard adjoint-domain argument, but it must be closed explicitly.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Theorem 14] The second integral in the power balance is written over ∂Ω, but it should be over Ω: the term is the distributed power ∫Ω J·E dx, not a boundary integral.
  2. [Remark 27] The claim that ∂t div(D) = 0 follows from div curl = 0 omits the current term. From ∂t D = curl H − J one obtains ∂t div D = −div J, so preserving div D = 0 requires div J = 0.
  3. [Assumption 4 and Lemma 23] There is a typo in the definition P0 := S|Z0; it should read P0 := P|Z0.
  4. [Example 4] The displayed total Hamiltonian is missing the squares on p and ε. It should read H̃ = (1/2)∫ (1/ρ)p² + kε² + (1/ε0)D² + (1/µ0)B² + 2qDε dx.
  5. [Section 3.1.2, Kirchhoff-Love reduction] After imposing the Kirchhoff-Love constraints, the reduced Hamiltonian is still denoted H_SL_RM; it should be H_SL_KL. The same typo appears in Theorem 11.
  6. [Throughout] There are unresolved citation placeholders, for example '[ ?]' in Section 1 and in Section 3.3 (Dzektser equation). These should be completed before publication.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the Stokes-Lagrange construction and Theorem 6 are self-contained; self-citations are background only.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that the image subspace L = {(Pz, gamma z, Sz, beta z) | z in Z1}, defined under Assumptions 2-5, satisfies L = L^{⊥_-}, i.e. it is a Lagrange structure. This is proved directly in Appendix C.1 from the stated assumptions: isotropy follows from Assumption 3, and co-isotropy follows from Assumption 4 (maximality) together with Assumption 5 (density of the boundary operator range). Assumption 4 is explicitly identified in Remark 18 as the condition that guarantees co-isotropy, so the theorem is a transparent verification of a definitional class against a general definition, not a hidden reduction of a prediction to its own input. The equivalence Theorem 1 between Stokes-Dirac and Stokes-Lagrange representations is proven algebraically in A.3 by direct computation of G alpha, G† e, and G J_SL G†. The examples (plates, Maxwell, Dzektser) are presented as explicit representations with power balances; whether Assumption 4 is actually verified in every example is a technical completeness question, not circularity. Self-citations such as [5], [8], [9], [12], [21], [22] are used as background, prior 1D work, or discretization references, but the N-dimensional definition and the main proofs do not depend on the truth of those citations. There is no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction and no known result merely relabeled as new. The apparent adjoint-domain gap in Lemma 19, where identities involving K†(eta K) are used before z-tilde is shown to lie in D(K† eta K), is a correctness risk in a direct proof rather than a circular reliance on the conclusion. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained and the circularity score is therefore low.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The paper is axiomatic rather than empirical: no data are fitted and no constants are tuned. The main content is the set of structural assumptions (boundedness of P or S, symmetry, maximality, density) that define admissible Stokes-Lagrange structures, plus standard functional analytic background (Hilbert spaces, adjoints, trace theorems) and, for the Maxwell example, a simple-connectedness assumption to justify the vector potential.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Assumption 2: Either P or S is bounded on Z.
    Restricts the framework to cases with at most one unbounded operator, avoiding domain intersection issues; the paper acknowledges this in Remark 16.
  • domain assumption Assumption 3 (Symmetry): For all z1, z2 in Z1, <beta z1, gamma z2> + <S z1, P z2> = <S z2, P z1> + <beta z2, gamma z1>.
    This is the integration-by-parts identity required for isotropy of the Stokes-Lagrange structure; it must hold for the specific operators P, S and boundary operators gamma, beta.
  • domain assumption Assumption 4 (Maximality): Any (x,e) annihilating Z0 under the minus pairing lies in the image of (P,S).
    Ensures co-isotropy; it is a completeness condition on the operators.
  • domain assumption Assumption 5 (Density): The range of (gamma, beta) is dense in Y times U.
    Technical condition used in the proof of Theorem 6 to identify boundary components.
  • domain assumption The spatial domain Omega is smooth enough for trace operators and Stokes' identities to hold.
    Used throughout the examples to perform integration by parts.
  • domain assumption For the Maxwell vector-potential example, Omega is simply connected and the magnetic field satisfies div(B)=0, so that B = curl(A) is justified.
    Used in Section 3.2.2 to define the vector potential A.
invented entities (1)
  • Stokes-Lagrange structure
    purpose: A new subspace L = {(Pz, gamma z, Sz, beta z) | z in Z1} over N-dimensional domains that defines an implicit Hamiltonian with boundary energy ports.
    This is a new mathematical construct, not a physical entity. It has no independent empirical evidence; its utility rests on the proof of Theorem 6 and on the examples presented in the paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Stokes-Lagrange and Stokes-Dirac representations of $N$-dimensional port-Hamiltonian systems for modelling and control." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NVMNJCDX

@misc{pith2026241204499,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Stokes-Lagrange and Stokes-Dirac representations of $N$-dimensional port-Hamiltonian systems for modelling and control},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NVMNJCDX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.04499}
}
abstract

In this paper, we extend the port-Hamiltonian framework by introducing the concept of Stokes-Lagrange structure, which enables the implicit definition of a Hamiltonian over an $N$-dimensional domain and incorporates energy ports into the system. This new framework parallels the existing Dirac and Stokes-Dirac structures. We propose the Stokes-Lagrange structure as a specific case where the subspace is explicitly defined via differential operators that satisfy an integration by parts formula. By examining various examples through the lens of the Stokes-Lagrange structure, we demonstrate the existence of multiple equivalent system representations. These representations provide significant advantages for both numerical simulation and control design, offering additional tools for the modelling and control of port-Hamiltonian systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.04499 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Comparison of the assembly + solving time of the implicit vs explicit [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Diagram of an implicitly defined port-Hamiltonian system. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Commutative diagram showing the relations between the representa [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Commutative diagram showing the relations between the two represen [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Energy port interconnection using a potential [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Definition of the Hamiltonian candidate. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p044_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 55 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A novel energy-based modeling framework

    R. Altmann and P. Schulze, A novel energy-based modeling framework, arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.12391, (2024)

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  2. [2]

    D. N. Arnold , Finite element exterior calculus , SIAM, 2018

    2018

  3. [3]

    Assous, P

    F. Assous, P. Ciarlet, and S. Labrunie , Mathematical foundations of computational electromagnetism, Springer, 2018

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    Beattie, V

    C. Beattie, V. Mehrmann, H. Xu, and H. Zwart , Linear port- Hamiltonian descriptor systems , Mathematics of Control, Signals, and Sys- tems, 30 (2018), pp. 1–27

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    Bendimerad-Hohl, D

    A. Bendimerad-Hohl, D. Matignon, G. Haine, and L. Lef `evre, On Stokes-Lagrange and Stokes-Dirac representations for 1D distributed port-Hamiltonian systems , IF AC-PapersOnLine, 58 (2024), pp. 238–243. 26th International Symposium on Mathematical Theory of Networks and Systems

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Bogn ´ar, Indefinite inner product spaces , vol

    J. Bogn ´ar, Indefinite inner product spaces , vol. 78, Springer Science & Business Media, 2012

    work page 2012

  7. [7]

    Borja, J

    P. Borja, J. Ferguson, and A. van der Schaft , Interconnection schemes in modeling and control , IEEE Control Systems Letters, 7 (2023), pp. 2287–2292

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Brugnoli, D

    A. Brugnoli, D. Alazard, V. Pommier-Budinger, and D. Matignon , port-Hamiltonian formulation and symplectic dis- cretization of plate models Part I: Mindlin model for thick plates , Applied Mathematical Modelling, 75 (2019), pp. 940–960. 36

    work page 2019

Show all 57 references
  1. [9]

    , port-Hamiltonian formulation and symplectic discretization of plate models Part II: Kirchhoff model for thin plates , Applied Mathematical Modelling, 75 (2019), pp. 961–981

    2019

  2. [10]

    Brugnoli, G

    A. Brugnoli, G. Haine, and D. Matignon, Stokes-Dirac structures for distributed parameter port-Hamiltonian systems: An analytical viewpoint , Communications in Analysis and Mechanics, 15 (2023), pp. 362–387

    2023

  3. [11]

    Buffa, H

    A. Buffa, H. Ammari, and J.-C. N´ed´elec, A justification of eddy cur- rents model for the Maxwell equations , SIAM Journal on Applied Mathe- matics, 60 (2000), pp. 1805–1823

    2000

  4. [12]

    F. L. Cardoso-Ribeiro, G. Haine, Y. Le Gorrec, D. Matignon, and H. Ramirez , port-Hamiltonian formulations for the modeling, simu- lation and control of fluids , Computers & Fluids, 283 (2024), p. 106407

    2024

  5. [13]

    Destuynder and M

    P. Destuynder and M. Sala ¨un, Mathematical analysis of thin plate models, vol. 24, Springer Science & Business Media, 2013

    2013

  6. [14]

    Duindam, A

    V. Duindam, A. Macchelli, S. Stramigioli, and H. Bruyninckx , Modeling and control of complex physical systems: the port-Hamiltonian approach, Springer Science & Business Media, 2009

    2009

  7. [15]

    E. S. Dzektser, Generalization of the equation of motion of ground waters with free surface, Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR, 202 (1972), pp. 1031–1033

    1972

  8. [16]

    Erbay, B

    M. Erbay, B. Jacob, and K. Morris , On the Weierstraß form of infinite-dimensional differential algebraic equations , Journal of Evolution Equations, 24 (2024), p. 73

    2024

  9. [17]

    A. C. Eringen , On differential equations of nonlocal elasticity and solu- tions of screw dislocation and surface waves , Journal of Applied Physics, 54 (1983), pp. 4703–4710

    1983

  10. [18]

    A. F. Gangi , Constitutive equations and reciprocity, Geophysical Journal International, 143 (2000), pp. 311–318

    2000

  11. [19]

    Gay-Balmaz and H

    F. Gay-Balmaz and H. Yoshimura , A Lagrangian variational formu- lation for nonequilibrium thermodynamics. Part II: Continuum systems , Journal of Geometry and Physics, 111 (2017), pp. 194–212

    2017

  12. [20]

    Gernandt, F

    H. Gernandt, F. M. Philipp, T. Preuster, and M. Schaller , On the equivalence of geometric and descriptor representations of linear port-Hamiltonian systems , in Systems Theory and PDEs, Springer, 2022, pp. 149–165

    2022

  13. [21]

    Haine and D

    G. Haine and D. Matignon , Incompressible Navier-Stokes Equation as port-Hamiltonian system: velocity formulation versus vorticity formulation , IF AC-PapersOnLine, 54 (2021), pp. 161–166. 37

    2021

  14. [22]

    Haine, D

    G. Haine, D. Matignon, and A. Serhani , Numerical analysis of a structure-preserving space-discretization for an anisotropic and het- erogeneous boundary controlled N -dimensional wave equation as a port- Hamiltonian system, International Journal of Numerical Analysis and Mod-...

    2023

  15. [23]

    Hairer, C

    E. Hairer, C. Lubich, and G. W anner, Geometric Numerical Integra- tion: Structure-Preserving Algorithms for Ordinary Differential Equations , vol. 31 of Springer Series in Computational Mathematics, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2006

    2006

  16. [24]

    Heidari and H

    H. Heidari and H. Zwart, Port-Hamiltonian modelling of nonlocal lon- gitudinal vibrations in a viscoelastic nanorod, Mathematical and Computer Modelling of Dynamical Systems, 25 (2019), pp. 447–462

    2019

  17. [25]

    Heidari and H

    H. Heidari and H. Zwart, Nonlocal longitudinal vibration in a nanorod, a system theoretic analysis , Mathematical Modelling of Natural Phenom- ena, 17 (2022), p. 24

    2022

  18. [26]

    Jacob and K

    B. Jacob and K. Morris, On solvability of dissipative partial differential- algebraic equations, IEEE Control Systems Lett., 6 (2022), pp. 3188–3193

    2022

  19. [27]

    Jacob and H

    B. Jacob and H. J. Zwart, Linear port-Hamiltonian systems on infinite- dimensional spaces, vol. 223, Springer Science, 2012

    2012

  20. [28]

    Kovetz, Electromagnetic theory, Oxford University Press, 2000

    A. Kovetz, Electromagnetic theory, Oxford University Press, 2000

    2000

  21. [29]

    Krha ˇc, B

    K. Krha ˇc, B. Maschke, and A. van der Schaft , Port-Hamiltonian systems with energy and power ports , IF AC-PapersOnLine, 58 (2024), pp. 280–285

    2024

  22. [30]

    Kurula, H

    M. Kurula, H. Zwart, A. van der Schaft, and J. Behrndt , Dirac structures and their composition on Hilbert spaces, Journal of mathematical analysis and applications, 372 (2010), pp. 402–422

    2010

  23. [31]

    Macchelli, Energy shaping of distributed parameter port-Hamiltonian systems based on finite element approximation , Systems & Control Letters, 60 (2011), pp

    A. Macchelli, Energy shaping of distributed parameter port-Hamiltonian systems based on finite element approximation , Systems & Control Letters, 60 (2011), pp. 579–589

    2011

  24. [32]

    Macchelli, A

    A. Macchelli, A. van der Schaft, and C. Melchiorri , Multi- variable port-Hamiltonian model of piezoelectric material , in 2004 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) (IEEE Cat. No.04CH37566), vol. 1, 2004, pp. 897–902 vol.1

    2004

  25. [33]

    Maschke and A

    B. Maschke and A. van der Schaft , Linear boundary port- Hamiltonian systems with implicitly defined energy , arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.13772, (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Mehrmann and B

    V. Mehrmann and B. Unger , Control of port-Hamiltonian differential- algebraic systems and applications, Acta Numerica, 32 (2023), pp. 395–515. 38

    2023

  27. [35]

    Mehrmann and A

    V. Mehrmann and A. van der Schaft , Differential–algebraic systems with dissipative Hamiltonian structure , Mathematics of Control, Signals, and Systems, 35 (2023), pp. 541–584

    2023

  28. [36]

    R. D. Mindlin, Influence of rotatory inertia and shear on flexural motions of isotropic, elastic plates, Journal of Applied Mechanics, 18 (1951), pp. 31– 38

    1951

  29. [37]

    P. J. Olver, Applications of Lie groups to differential equations , vol. 107, Springer Science & Business Media, 1993

    1993

  30. [38]

    Ortega, A

    R. Ortega, A. van der Schaft, F. Castanos, and A. Astolfi , Control by interconnection and standard passivity-based control of port- Hamiltonian systems, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 53 (2008), pp. 2527–2542

    2008

  31. [39]

    Ponce, Y

    C. Ponce, Y. Wu, Y. Le Gorrec, and H. Ramirez , A systematic methodology for port-Hamiltonian modeling of multidimensional flexible linear mechanical systems , Applied Mathematical Modelling, 134 (2024), pp. 434–451

    2024

  32. [40]

    Preuster, B

    T. Preuster, B. Maschke, and M. Schaller , Jet space extensions of infinite-dimensional Hamiltonian systems , IF AC-PapersOnLine, 58 (2024), pp. 298–303

    2024

  33. [41]

    Rashad, F

    R. Rashad, F. Califano, A. J. van der Schaft, and S. Strami- gioli, Twenty years of distributed port-Hamiltonian systems: a literature review, IMA Journal of Mathematical Control and Information, 37 (2020), pp. 1400–1422

    2020

  34. [42]

    Reis and T

    T. Reis and T. Stykel, Passivity, port-Hamiltonian formulation and so- lution estimates for a coupled magneto-quasistatic system , Evolution Equa- tions and Control Theory, 12 (2023), pp. 1208–1232

    2023

  35. [43]

    Rudin , Functional analysis , International series in pure and applied mathematics, McGraw-Hill, 2nd edition ed., 1991

    W. Rudin , Functional analysis , International series in pure and applied mathematics, McGraw-Hill, 2nd edition ed., 1991

    1991

  36. [44]

    Sch ¨oberl and K

    M. Sch ¨oberl and K. Schlacher , First-order Hamiltonian field theory and mechanics, Mathematical and Computer Modelling of Dynamical Sys- tems, 17 (2011), pp. 105–121

    2011

  37. [45]

    , Lagrangian and port-Hamiltonian formulation for distributed- parameter systems, IF AC-PapersOnLine, 48 (2015), pp. 610–615

    2015

  38. [46]

    Sch ¨oberl and A

    M. Sch ¨oberl and A. Siuka , Analysis and comparison of port- Hamiltonian formulations for field theories - demonstrated by means of the Mindlin plate, in 2013 European Control Conference (ECC), 2013, pp. 548– 553. 39

    2013

  39. [47]

    Sch ¨oberl and A

    M. Sch ¨oberl and A. Siuka , Jet bundle formulation of infinite- dimensional port-Hamiltonian systems using differential operators , Auto- matica, 50 (2014), pp. 607–613

    2014

  40. [48]

    van der Schaft, D

    A. van der Schaft, D. Jeltsema, et al. , Port-Hamiltonian systems theory: An introductory overview , Foundations and Trends ® in Systems and Control, 1 (2014), pp. 173–378

    2014

  41. [49]

    van der Schaft and B

    A. van der Schaft and B. Maschke , Generalized port-Hamiltonian DAE systems, Systems & Control Letters, 121 (2018), pp. 31–37

    2018

  42. [50]

    929– 939

    , Dirac and Lagrange algebraic constraints in nonlinear port- Hamiltonian systems, Vietnam Journal of Mathematics, 48 (2020), pp. 929– 939

    2020

  43. [51]

    , Boundary control port-Hamiltonian systems with power and energy ports, in 26th International Symposium on Mathematical Theory of Net- works and Systems, Cambridge, UK, 2024, pp. 120–122

    2024

  44. [52]

    A. J. van der Schaft and B. Maschke , Hamiltonian formulation of distributed-parameter systems with boundary energy flow, Journal of Geom- etry and Physics, 42 (2002), pp. 166–194

    2002

  45. [53]

    Yaghi, F

    M. Yaghi, F. Couenne, A. Galfr ´e, L. Lef `evre, and B. Maschke , Port-Hamiltonian formulation of the solidification process for a pure sub- stance: A phase field approach , IF AC-PapersOnLine, 55 (2022), pp. 93–98

    2022

  46. [54]

    Zwart and V

    H. Zwart and V. Mehrmann , Abstract Dissipative Hamiltonian Differential-Algebraic Equations Are Everywhere, DAE Panel, 2 (2024). A Operator transposition In this appendix, we will show that the Stokes-Dirac and Stokes-Lagrange rep- resentations of the wave-like system (12) ar...

    2024

  47. [55]

    Let x = x1 x2 ∈ W1, then computing x1 x2 , JSD x1 x2 Es yields: x1 x2 , JSD x1 x2 Es = ⟨x1, Kx2⟩L2 − ⟨x2, K†x1⟩L2 = ⟨ β 0 x, 0 γ x⟩Eu,FY = ⟨Gx, Kx⟩Eu,Fu

  48. [56]

    Let us now prove that satisfies J ∗ 0 = −J

    J0 := J|W0 is densely defined as W0 is dense in Es. Let us now prove that satisfies J ∗ 0 = −J. From the block structure of J, this gives us the following conditions: (K† | ker(β))∗ = K , (K| ker(γ))∗ = K† , which is true by the definition of the formal adjoint

  49. [57]

    This shows that (13) is defined on a Stokes-Dirac structure

    γ and β have dense image in Y and U respectively, hence, K G = 0 γ β 0 has a dense range in Fu × Eu. This shows that (13) is defined on a Stokes-Dirac structure. A.2 Stokes-Lagrange representation Let us now study the Stokes-Lagrange representation (14). To do so, let us defin...

Pith tools

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