pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.00999 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-01 · 🧮 math.OC · math.AP

Stackelberg-Nash controllability for a multi-objective Stefan problem

Thiago C. A de Carvalho , Suerlan Silva , Gilcenio R. de Sousa-Neto , Franciane de B. Vieira This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-09 18:26 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🧮 math.OC math.AP
keywords Stefan problemStackelberg-Nashnull controllabilityCarleman estimatesfree boundarymoving boundaryoptimality systemdistributed control
0
0 comments X

The pith

Under suitable geometric conditions, a Stackelberg-Nash strategy locally null-controls a one-dimensional Stefan system.

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

The paper shows that a hierarchical control setup combining a Stackelberg leader with Nash followers can drive a Stefan free-boundary system to the zero state in a local sense. This reduction turns the original nonlinear multi-objective problem into a controllability question for an optimality system that includes the moving interface. A sympathetic reader would care because it provides a framework for managing phase transitions with competing control objectives, which arise in physical models of melting or solidification. The proof uses Carleman estimates tailored to the moving boundary to get the needed observability for the linearized version.

Core claim

The interaction between the hierarchical control and the moving interface results in a nonlinear optimality system, and the original problem reduces to the null controllability of this optimality system. Under suitable geometric conditions on the control regions, local null controllability is established for the one-dimensional Stefan system.

What carries the argument

The adapted Carleman estimates applied to the linearized optimality system in the presence of a moving boundary, which yield the observability inequality required for null controllability.

If this is right

  • The multi-objective Stefan problem admits local null controllability via the Stackelberg-Nash approach.
  • The nonlinear problem is reduced to controlling the linearized optimality system without additional hidden restrictions.
  • Carleman estimates can be adapted to handle the moving boundary in this control setting.
  • These results apply to the first treatment of Stefan systems in a Stackelberg-Nash framework.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • This approach might apply to other free-boundary problems like those in fluid dynamics or population models with phase changes.
  • The geometric conditions on control regions could be tested numerically to see the boundary between controllable and non-controllable cases.
  • Extensions to higher dimensions would require new estimates for the moving boundary in 2D or 3D.
  • Physical applications could include controlling ice formation with multiple agents having different goals.

Load-bearing premise

The geometric conditions on the control regions must be such that the adapted Carleman estimates produce the observability inequality for the linearized system.

What would settle it

Finding a specific geometry satisfying the conditions where the observability inequality fails for the linearized optimality system, or where no controls exist to achieve null state despite the conditions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.00999 by Franciane de B. Vieira, Gilcenio R. de Sousa-Neto, Suerlan Silva, Thiago C. A de Carvalho.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The sets O1,d, O2,d, and O are represented by the black-hatched and blue-dotted regions, respectively. Figure (a) illustrates the first case of (G2), where O1,d∩O2,d = ∅. Figure (b) illustrates the second case of (G2), where O1,d ∩ O2,d ̸= ∅ but O1,d ̸= O2,d. Figure (c) illustrates the case where O1,d = O2,d. Stackelberg strategies in the context of partial differential equations were first introduced in [… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We investigate a hierarchical control problem for a one-dimensional Stefan system with localized distributed controls. The setting combines a Stackelberg strategy with a Nash equilibrium among multiple followers, yielding a multi-objective free-boundary problem. The interaction between the hierarchical control and the moving interface results in a nonlinear optimality system, and we show that the original problem reduces to the null controllability of this optimality system. Under suitable geometric conditions on the control regions, we establish a local null controllability result. The proof relies on an observability inequality for a linearized system, obtained through Carleman estimates adapted to the presence of a moving boundary. These results constitute, to the best of our knowledge, the first treatment of a Stefan system within a Stackelberg-Nash framework.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies a one-dimensional Stefan free-boundary problem under a Stackelberg-Nash hierarchical control framework with multiple followers and localized distributed controls. It reduces the original multi-objective problem to local null controllability of a nonlinear optimality system, then linearizes this system and establishes the controllability result via an observability inequality derived from Carleman estimates adapted to the time-dependent domain, assuming suitable geometric conditions on the control regions.

Significance. If the technical steps hold, the work would constitute the first treatment of Stefan problems within a Stackelberg-Nash setting, extending controllability techniques for free-boundary PDEs to hierarchical multi-objective scenarios. The combination of the reduction to an optimality system and the handling of the moving interface via adapted Carleman estimates represents a non-trivial advance, provided the estimates close without residual uncontrolled terms.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3] §3 (reduction step): the claim that the Stackelberg-Nash problem reduces exactly to null controllability of the nonlinear optimality system requires explicit verification that the Nash equilibrium conditions for the followers translate into the stated optimality system without hidden compatibility restrictions on the initial data or control supports; the current sketch leaves open whether the free-boundary coupling introduces additional constraints that prevent the reduction from being bijective.
  2. [§4.2] §4.2 (Carleman estimates for the linearized optimality system): the observability inequality must absorb or cancel all interface integrals generated by integration by parts across the moving Stefan boundary (where the normal velocity equals the jump of the normal derivative). The geometric conditions on the control regions are stated to control distributed terms, but it is not shown that the trace contributions on the free boundary remain bounded by the observation term; if a non-zero residual persists, the observability constant blows up and the subsequent fixed-point argument for local controllability fails.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Introduction] Notation for the multi-objective cost functionals and the precise definition of the Nash equilibrium (e.g., the number of followers) should be introduced earlier and used consistently; the current abstract and introduction switch between “multi-objective” and “Stackelberg-Nash” without a single clarifying sentence.
  2. [Theorem statement] The statement of the main theorem (presumably Theorem 1.1 or 4.1) should explicitly list the geometric conditions on the control regions rather than referring only to “suitable” assumptions; this would allow immediate assessment of their restrictiveness.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and valuable comments on our manuscript. We address each major comment below and indicate the revisions we will make to strengthen the presentation.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§3] §3 (reduction step): the claim that the Stackelberg-Nash problem reduces exactly to null controllability of the nonlinear optimality system requires explicit verification that the Nash equilibrium conditions for the followers translate into the stated optimality system without hidden compatibility restrictions on the initial data or control supports; the current sketch leaves open whether the free-boundary coupling introduces additional constraints that prevent the reduction from being bijective.

    Authors: We agree that the reduction step merits a more explicit verification. In Section 3 the optimality system is obtained by substituting the first-order necessary conditions for the followers' Nash equilibrium and the leader's minimization into the state equations. The mapping from controls to states remains bijective for the Stefan problem under the standard compatibility assumptions on the initial data (continuous matching at the free boundary) and the localized supports of the controls, which do not introduce further restrictions beyond those already required for well-posedness. To remove any ambiguity we will insert a short proposition in the revised Section 3 that states the equivalence and verifies that the free-boundary coupling is fully absorbed into the state and adjoint equations without residual constraints. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§4.2] §4.2 (Carleman estimates for the linearized optimality system): the observability inequality must absorb or cancel all interface integrals generated by integration by parts across the moving Stefan boundary (where the normal velocity equals the jump of the normal derivative). The geometric conditions on the control regions are stated to control distributed terms, but it is not shown that the trace contributions on the free boundary remain bounded by the observation term; if a non-zero residual persists, the observability constant blows up and the subsequent fixed-point argument for local controllability fails.

    Authors: This observation correctly identifies a point that requires additional detail. The Carleman estimates in Section 4.2 are constructed with weights adapted to the moving domain; after integration by parts the interface integrals arising from the Stefan condition are estimated using the geometric assumptions on the control regions together with the positivity properties of the Carleman parameter. These terms are absorbed into the observation integrals without leaving a residual that would inflate the constant. In the revised manuscript we will add an explicit computation (as a lemma or remark) showing the cancellation of the trace contributions on the free boundary, thereby confirming that the observability inequality holds with a constant independent of the linearization parameter. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Derivation chain is self-contained with no reduction to inputs by construction

full rationale

The paper reduces the Stackelberg-Nash problem to null controllability of a nonlinear optimality system, then linearizes it and invokes an observability inequality derived from Carleman estimates on the time-dependent domain. This is a standard analytic strategy relying on external estimates rather than self-definition, fitted parameters renamed as predictions, or load-bearing self-citations. No equations or steps in the abstract or described chain equate the final controllability result to its own assumptions by construction; the geometric conditions on control regions serve as independent hypotheses enabling the estimates, not as tautological inputs. The derivation therefore remains non-circular.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper relies on standard background results in PDE theory and controllability plus two key domain assumptions: geometric placement of control regions and the validity of Carleman estimates adapted to the moving boundary. No free parameters or new invented entities are indicated in the abstract.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Suitable geometric conditions on the control regions allow the observability inequality to hold for the linearized system.
    Invoked directly as the condition under which local null controllability is established.
  • domain assumption Carleman estimates can be adapted to the presence of a moving boundary in the linearized optimality system.
    This adaptation is the central technical step used to obtain the observability inequality.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5440 in / 1536 out tokens · 34766 ms · 2026-05-09T18:26:19.119067+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 48 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Araruna, E

    F. Araruna, E. Fernández-Cara, and L. Da Silva. Hierarchical exact controllability of semilinear parabolic equations with distributed and boundary controls.Communications in Contemporary Mathematics, 22(07):1950034, 2020

    work page 2020

  2. [2]

    Araruna, E

    F. Araruna, E. Fernández-Cara, and L. da Silva. Bi-objective and hierarchical control for the burgers equation.Journal of Evolution Equations, 24(2):30, 2024

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    Araruna, E

    F. Araruna, E. Fernández-Cara, S. Guerrero, and M. Santos. New results on the stackel- berg–nash exact control of linear parabolic equations.Systems & Control Letters, 104:78– 85, 2017

    work page 2017

  4. [4]

    Araruna, E

    F. Araruna, E. Fernández-Cara, and M. Santos. Stackelberg-nash exact controllability for linear and semilinear parabolic equations.ESAIM: COCV, 21(3):835–856, 2015

    work page 2015

  5. [5]

    F. D. Araruna, B. Araújo, and E. Fernández-Cara. Stackelberg–nash null controllability for some linear and semilinear degenerate parabolic equations.Mathematics of Control, Signals, and Systems, 30:1–31, 2018

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    R. K. Araújo, E. Fernández-Cara, J. Límaco, and D. A. Souza. Remarks on the control of two-phase stefan free-boundary problems.SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization, 60(5):3078–3099, 2022

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    D. Aronson. Some properties of the interface for a gas flow in porous media. InProceedings of the Montecatini Symposium on Free Boundary Problems, Pitman, New York, 1983

    work page 1983

  8. [8]

    J. A. Bárcena-Petisco, E. Fernández-Cara, and D. A. Souza. Exact controllability to the trajectories of the one-phase stefan problem.Journal of Differential Equations, 376:126– 153, 2023

    work page 2023

  9. [9]

    Bodart, M

    O. Bodart, M. González-Burgos, and R. Pérez-García. Existence of insensitizing controls for a semilinear heat equation with a superlinear nonlinearity.Communications in Partial Differential Equations, 29(7-8):1017–1050, 2004

    work page 2004

  10. [10]

    C. A. Brebbia and L. C. Wrobel.Computational Modelling of Free and Moving Boundary Problems: Vol 1, Fluid Flow: Proceedings of the First International Conference held 2-4 July 1991, Southhampton, UK.De Gruyter, 2016

    work page 1991

  11. [11]

    B. M. Calsavara, E. Fernández-Cara, L. de Teresa, and J. A. Villa. New results concerning the hierarchical control of linear and semilinear parabolic equations.ESAIM: Control, Optimisation and Calculus of Variations, 28:14, 2022

    work page 2022

  12. [12]

    Carreno and M

    N. Carreno and M. Santos. Stackelberg–nash exact controllability for the kuramoto– sivashinsky equation.Journal of Differential Equations, 266(9):6068–6108, 2019. 31

    work page 2019

  13. [13]

    Carreno and M

    N. Carreno and M. C. Santos. Stackelberg-nash exact controllability for the kuramoto- sivashinsky equation with boundary and distributed controls.Journal of Differential Equations, 343:1–63, 2023

    work page 2023

  14. [14]

    Costa, J

    V. Costa, J. Límaco, A. Lopes, and L. Prouvée. On the controllability of a free-boundary problem for 1d heat equation with local and nonlocal nonlinearities.Applied Mathematics & Optimization, 87(1):11, 2023

    work page 2023

  15. [15]

    Demarque and E

    R. Demarque and E. Fernández-Cara. Local null controllability of one-phase stefan prob- lems in 2d star-shaped domains.Journal of Evolution Equations, 18(1):245–261, 2018

    work page 2018

  16. [16]

    Díaz and J

    J. Díaz and J. Lions. On the approximate controllability of stackelberg-nash strategies. In Ocean Circulation and Pollution Control—A Mathematical and Numerical Investigation: A Diderot Mathematical Forum, pages 17–27. Springer, 2004

    work page 2004

  17. [17]

    Djomegne, C

    L. Djomegne, C. Kenne, R. Dorville, and P. Zongo. Stackelberg–nash null controlla- bility for a non linear coupled degenerate parabolic equations.Applied Mathematics & Optimization, 87(2):18, 2023

    work page 2023

  18. [18]

    Djomegne, C

    L. Djomegne, C. Kenne, R. Dorville, and P. Zongo. Hierarchical null controllability of a semilineardegenerateparabolicequationwithagradientterm.Optimization, 74(15):4007– 4047, 2025

    work page 2025

  19. [19]

    Fernández-Cara and I

    E. Fernández-Cara and I. De Sousa. Local null controllability of a free-boundary problem for the viscous burgers equation.SeMA Journal, 74:411–427, 2017

    work page 2017

  20. [20]

    Fernández-Cara and I

    E. Fernández-Cara and I. T. de Sousa. Local null controllability of a free-boundary problem for the semilinear 1d heat equation.Bulletin of the Brazilian Mathematical Society, New Series, 48(2):303–315, 2017

    work page 2017

  21. [21]

    Fernández-Cara, F

    E. Fernández-Cara, F. Hernández, and J. Límaco. Local null controllability of a 1d stefan problem.Bulletin of the Brazilian Mathematical Society, New Series, 50:745–769, 2019

    work page 2019

  22. [22]

    Fernández-Cara, J

    E. Fernández-Cara, J. Limaco, and S. de Menezes. On the controllability of a free- boundary problem for the 1d heat equation.Systems & Control Letters, 87:29–35, 2016

    work page 2016

  23. [23]

    Friedman

    A. Friedman. Pde problems arising in mathematical biology.Networks and heterogeneous media, 7(4):691–703, 2012

    work page 2012

  24. [24]

    Friedman and B

    A. Friedman and B. D. Aguda.Tutorials in mathematical biosciences III: cell cycle, proliferation, and cancer. Springer, 2006

    work page 2006

  25. [25]

    Friedman and F

    A. Friedman and F. Reitich. Analysis of a mathematical model for the growth of tumors. Journal of mathematical biology, 38:262–284, 1999

    work page 1999

  26. [26]

    Geshkovski and E

    B. Geshkovski and E. Zuazua. Controllability of one-dimensional viscous free boundary flows.SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization, 59(3):1830–1850, 2021

    work page 2021

  27. [27]

    Abstractlpestimatesforthecauchyproblemwithapplicationstothe navier-stokes equations in exterior domains.Journal of Functional Analysis, 102(1):72–94, 1991

    Y.GigaandH.Sohr. Abstractlpestimatesforthecauchyproblemwithapplicationstothe navier-stokes equations in exterior domains.Journal of Functional Analysis, 102(1):72–94, 1991. 32

    work page 1991

  28. [28]

    González-Burgos and R

    M. González-Burgos and R. Pérez-García. Controllability results for some nonlinear cou- pled parabolic systems by one control force.Asymptotic Analysis, 46(2):123–162, 2006

    work page 2006

  29. [29]

    Hermans.Water waves and ship hydrodynamics: An introduction

    A. Hermans.Water waves and ship hydrodynamics: An introduction. Springer Science & Business Media, 2010

    work page 2010

  30. [30]

    Hernández-Santamaría and L

    V. Hernández-Santamaría and L. de Teresa. Some remarks on the hierarchic control for coupled parabolic pdes.Recent Advances in PDEs: Analysis, Numerics and Control: In Honor of Prof. Fernández-Cara’s 60th Birthday, pages 117–137, 2018

    work page 2018

  31. [31]

    Hernandez-Santamaria, L

    V. Hernandez-Santamaria, L. de Teresa, and A. Poznyak. Hierarchic control for a coupled parabolic system.Portugaliae Mathematica, 73(2):115–137, 2016

    work page 2016

  32. [32]

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

    work page 2003

  33. [33]

    N. V. Krylov.Lectures on elliptic and parabolic equations in Holder spaces, volume 12. American Mathematical Soc., 1996

    work page 1996

  34. [34]

    Ladyzhenskaia, V

    O. Ladyzhenskaia, V. Solonnikov, and N. Ural’tseva.Linear and Quasi-linear Equations of Parabolic Type. American Mathematical Society, translations of mathematical mono- graphs. American Mathematical Society, 1968

    work page 1968

  35. [35]

    C. Lei, Z. Lin, and H. Wang. The free boundary problem describing information diffusion in online social networks.Journal of Differential Equations, 254(3):1326–1341, 2013

    work page 2013

  36. [36]

    G. M. Lieberman.Second order parabolic differential equations. World scientific, 1996

    work page 1996

  37. [37]

    J. Lions. Hierarchic control.Proceedings Mathematical Sciences, 104:295–304, 1994

    work page 1994

  38. [38]

    J.-L. Lions. Some remarks on stackelberg’s optimization.Mathematical Models and Meth- ods in Applied Sciences, 4(04):477–487, 1994

    work page 1994

  39. [39]

    Límaco, João Carlos Barreira, S

    J. Límaco, João Carlos Barreira, S. Silva, and L. P. Yapu. Hierarchical null controllability of a degenerate parabolic equation with nonlocal coefficient.Nonlinear Analysis: Real World Applications, 89:104513, 2026

    work page 2026

  40. [40]

    J. F. Nash. Non-cooperative games. InThe Foundations of Price Theory Vol 4, pages 329–340. Routledge, 2024

    work page 2024

  41. [41]

    Nina-Huaman and J

    D. Nina-Huaman and J. Límaco. Stackelberg–nash controllability for n-dimensional non- linear parabolic partial differential equations.Applied Mathematics & Optimization, 84:1401–1452, 2021

    work page 2021

  42. [42]

    J. J. Stoker.Water waves: The mathematical theory with applications. Courier Dover Publications, 2019

    work page 2019

  43. [43]

    J. L. Vázquez.The porous medium equation: mathematical theory. Oxford university press, 2007. 33

    work page 2007

  44. [44]

    Klassiker der Nationalökonomie

    H. von Stackelberg.Marktform und Gleichgewicht. Die Handelsblatt-Bibliothek “Klassiker der Nationalökonomie". J. Springer, 1934

    work page 1934

  45. [45]

    L. Wang, Y. Lan, and P. Lei. Local null controllability of a free-boundary problem for the quasi-linear 1d parabolic equation.Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications, 506(2):125676, 2022

    work page 2022

  46. [46]

    Insensitizingcontrolsofa1dstefanproblemforthesemilinear heat equation.Bulletin of the Brazilian Mathematical Society, New Series, 53(4):1351– 1375, 2022

    L.Wang, P.Lei, andQ.Wu. Insensitizingcontrolsofa1dstefanproblemforthesemilinear heat equation.Bulletin of the Brazilian Mathematical Society, New Series, 53(4):1351– 1375, 2022

    work page 2022

  47. [47]

    L. Wang, P. Lei, and Q. Wu. Null controllability of a 1d stefan problem for the heat equation governed by a multiplicative control.Systems & Control Letters, 171:105417, 2023

    work page 2023

  48. [48]

    Z. Wu, J. Yin, and C. Wang.Elliptic and parabolic equations. World Scientific Publishing Company, 2006. 34

    work page 2006