Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 49 references

On convergence of solutions to nonlocal optimal control problems with quasi-minimization constraints

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Nonlocal optimal control converges to the local problem once minimizer constraints are relaxed by a tolerance.

desk verdict A genuine new relaxation with a real payoff, but the proofs as written have load-bearing gaps — most importantly the missing boundedness of Z_ad — that need patching before the main theorems are solid. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.21822 v1 pith:ZXCWS3ZY submitted 2026-07-23 math.OC math.AP

Joshua M. Siktar This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.OCmath.AP MSC 49J2049J4535R1149K20
keywords nonlocaloptimalcontrolepsilon-quasi-minimizersGamma-convergencefractionalgradientvanishinghorizonquasiconvexenergyPDE-constrainedoptimization
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper tries to close a gap in the asymptotic theory of nonlocal optimal control. Earlier work constrained the state to be a global minimizer of a quasiconvex energy; because such energies can have many minimizers, no proof of convergence to the corresponding local, PDE-constrained problem was available. The paper instead imposes an epsilon-quasi-minimizer constraint — the state only needs to come within epsilon of the minimal energy — and shows that, for every fixed tolerance, solutions of the nonlocal problems converge, as the fractional order tends to 1 or the interaction horizon shrinks to 0, to solutions of the local problem. A sympathetic reader would care because this supplies a general Gamma-convergence route for parameterized control problems with nonunique constraints, and because the tolerance mirrors what a numerical solver actually enforces.

What carries the argument

The central object is the admissible set T^{delta,s}_epsilon = {(u,g): W^{delta,s}_g(u) - m_{g,delta,s} <= epsilon}, where W^{delta,s}_g(u) = integral over Omega of W(x,u,D^s_delta u) dx - <g,u> is a quasiconvex nonlocal energy with a linear control term, and m_{g,delta,s} is its minimal value. The epsilon-quasi-minimizer inequality acts as a relaxed constraint that keeps admissible states bounded, weakly closed, and compatible with Gamma-convergence of W^{delta,s}_g to the local functional W^loc_g. Two auxiliary tools carry the argument: compactness lemmas that convert bounded nonlocal gradients into weak convergence of D^s_delta u to nabla u as s -> 1^- or delta -> 0^+, and a recovery sequ

What would settle it

Compute, for a one-dimensional double-well quasiconvex energy with controls g_delta oscillating between two forces that select different wells and converging weakly to a limit g, the difference between min W^{delta,s}_{g_delta} and min W^loc_g. If this difference does not tend to zero, or if the associated minimizers do not converge, then equation (4.19) fails and Theorem 4.10 collapses; if it tends to zero, the moving-target step is confirmed.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes two convergence theorems. For fixed horizon delta > 0, every solution (u^{delta,s}, g^{delta,s}) of the nonlocal epsilon-quasi-minimizer problem has a subsequence with u^{delta,s} -> u strongly in L^p and g^{delta,s} -> g weakly in L^{p'}, where (u,g) solves the local optimal control problem with the same tolerance epsilon, and the values of the cost functionals converge. The identical statement holds as the horizon shrinks to 0 with s fixed. The proof works through Gamma-convergence of the nonlocal energy functionals to the local one; the central step is proving that the limit pair is admissible, which is handled by constructing a recovery sequence fr

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the minimal values of the nonlocal energies converge to the local minimal value even while the control g in the linear term is itself varying and only weakly convergent — the moving-target version of Gamma-convergence — and the paper proves only the fixed-control version, while the stated limit domain shifts between Omega_{-delta} and Omega.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For every fixed tolerance epsilon > 0, the nonlocal optimal control problem is asymptotically compatible: any limit point of solutions solves the local problem, so fractional or long-range models can be replaced by classical PDE constraints in the limit.
  • The result applies to cost functionals that depend explicitly on the nonlocal gradient, not just to compliance-type costs, widening the class of tracking and design problems that can be localized.
  • The proof gives an alternative existence route for the local problem: existence in the nonlocal family plus compactness produces a local solution.
  • The controls converge strongly in every L^r space, not merely weakly, so the recovered control is a genuine limit object rather than an abstract equivalence class.
  • The tolerance is essential: the paper states explicitly that the argument cannot be pushed to epsilon = 0, so the global-minimizer problem remains open.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial extension: the interpolation step (u_t = t u + (1-t) v_s) looks like a general regularization device — any family of constraints defined by Gamma-convergent, equicoercive energies with nonunique minimizers can likely be handled by adding an epsilon-band around the minimizer set.
  • Editorial extension: a decisive test is to compute, in a one-dimensional double-well energy with controls g_delta oscillating between the two wells and converging weakly to g, whether min W^{delta,s}_{g_delta} - min W^loc_g tends to zero; this would confirm or refute the moving-target Gamma-convergence step behind equation (4.19).
  • Editorial extension: the stated limit domain shifts between Omega_{-delta} and Omega in the s -> 1^- theorem, and reconciling this inconsistency is necessary before the result can be used in numerical schemes on shrinking domains.
  • Editorial extension: if the moving-target energy convergence fails for some controls, a natural repair is to impose a compactness or equicontinuity condition on the family of controls, or to upgrade weak convergence of controls to a stronger mode in the admissible-set characterization.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies nonlocal optimal control problems with constraints given by epsilon-quasi-minimizers of quasiconvex nonlocal energies. It proves existence of solutions for fixed s and delta (Problem 2.18), and then establishes Gamma-convergence-based localization results as s -> 1^- and delta -> 0^+: solutions converge along subsequences to solutions of a local PDE-constrained problem with epsilon-quasi-minimization constraint (Theorems 4.10 and 4.20). The key novelty claimed is the use of epsilon-relaxed minimality to overcome the obstacle identified in prior work [20] for global-minimizer constraints, together with a recovery sequence constructed via convex combinations of the candidate limit and approximate minimizers.

Significance. If the convergence theorems are correct, the paper makes a substantive advance: it provides a general framework for localizing a class of ill-posed nonlocal control problems with non-unique constraints, extending the earlier partial results of [20] to a broader class of cost functionals and to the quasi-minimization setting. The use of Gamma-convergence with a carefully designed recovery sequence is a natural and potentially reusable technique. The paper also states all assumptions explicitly and gives concrete examples (box constraints, desired-state and compliance costs), which aids reproducibility. However, the proof of the central convergence claim relies on two unproved compactness and commutation steps; these are load-bearing and need to be addressed before the theorems can be considered established.

major comments (4)
  1. [Assumption 2.13, Lemma 3.1, Theorem 3.4] Assumption 2.13 only postulates closedness, nonemptiness, and convexity of Z_ad in L^{p'}(Omega;R^n); no boundedness is imposed. Lemma 3.1 nevertheless asserts that the image V^{delta,s}_epsilon is bounded. The proof omits the linear term -<g,u> in (2.8). From (2.7) and the epsilon-quasi-minimality one gets only c_w ||D^s_delta u||_p^p <= c0|Omega| + C_w|Omega| + epsilon + <g,u>. Without a uniform bound on ||g||_{p'} this does not yield boundedness; with p=2, Z_ad = L^2, and g_k = k, exact minimizers have ||D^s_delta u_k||_2 -> infinity. The same defect propagates to Lemma 3.2 and to Theorem 3.4, where the sentence 'Z_ad, which is itself a bounded subset of L^{p'}' is asserted without support. It also invalidates Lemma 4.8 and the subsequence extraction of g in Theorem 4.10. This is repairable by adding an explicit boundedness assumption on Z_ad (e.g., box constraints as in Example 2.14)
  2. [Theorem 4.10, Eq. (4.19)] Equation (4.19) asserts that lim_s min_v W^{delta,s}_{g_{delta,s}}(v) = min_v W^{loc}_g(v) for the weakly convergent family of controls g_{delta,s} -> g. The paper only proves Gamma-convergence for a fixed control g (Theorem 4.7). Applying [22, Corollary 7.20] to functionals with moving linear terms requires a joint Gamma-convergence or an equi-coercivity plus convergence of the linear perturbations in the appropriate topology. That point is not established. When g_{delta,s} is not strongly convergent, the linear term -<g,u> need not pass to the limit along arbitrary recovery sequences, and the advertised equality of minima is exactly what needs proof. This step is load-bearing for admissibility of the limit pair (4.20) and for the optimality argument.
  3. [Theorem 4.10 and Section 4.1 (domain inconsistency)] The local limit space is defined as W^{1,p}_0(tilde(Omega);R^n), with tilde(Omega)=Omega_{-delta} in Subsection 4.2 and tilde(Omega)=Omega in Subsection 4.3. However, in the proof of Theorem 4.10, lines (4.20) and (4.22) write W^{1,p}_0(Omega;R^n) while the statement and the local problem use W^{1,p}_0(tilde(Omega);R^n). In the s->1^- case these do not agree, since Omega_{-delta} is strictly smaller than Omega. This inconsistency leaves ambiguous which boundary conditions are meant and whether the compactness result [18, Lemma 9] actually yields a limit in W^{1,p}_0(Omega_{-delta}). The same issue appears in the delta->0^+ analogue. The notation should be cleaned up and every occurrence matched to the domain of the local problem.
  4. [Lemma 4.9 and Lemma 4.19] The lim-inf inequalities for the nonlocal cost integrand are asserted with reference to [21, Theorem 8.11] and the translation argument of [18]. This is plausible, but the proof as written is only a sketch: it states that the argument of [18] can be 'repeated' with u-dependence, without verifying that the translation map used in [18] is compatible with the u-dependence of F under the assumed strong L^p convergence of u_s. In particular, the translation changes the spatial argument of u, and the Caratheodory regularity plus growth (2.14) must be shown to allow that interchange. Since Lemma 4.9 is used in the energy-convergence part of Theorem 4.10, a complete proof (or a precise citation of a theorem that covers u-dependent integrands) is needed.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Introduction] Minor wording: 'we get stronger convergence results' and 'main convergence results establish a novel analytic technique' would benefit from concrete quantification of what 'strong' means (state convergence, control convergence, cost convergence). Also, the abstract says 'a fractional parameters' (typo, 'parameter').
  2. [Theorem 4.7 and Theorem 4.17] The statements say the family {W^{delta,s}_g}_{s<1} Gamma-converges to W^{loc}_g, but the notation 'Wloc_g' is inconsistent with the earlier definition W^{loc}_g. Also, Theorem 4.17 states the Gamma-convergence as delta->0^+ but writes '{W^{delta,s}_g}_{s<1}' in the notation; the index should be delta.
  3. [Remark 4.14] Remark 4.14 discusses the epsilon->0^+ limit but appears to use 'F^{loc}' where the nonlocal cost is intended at the end of the bullet list; also the claim that a direct verification proves optimality of (u_s,g_s) for the epsilon=0 problem is not detailed. This is a remark, not a theorem, so it is not blocking, but it is currently too cryptic.
  4. [Section 5] The concluding remarks mention enforcing admissible pairs to be equilibrium points as future work, but do not mention the boundedness-of-controls issue or the moving-target Gamma-convergence step that the paper leaves open. Adding a sentence on the limitations and possible fixes would improve the manuscript.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central convergence result is not forced by definitions or fitted inputs; the only self-citation ([20]) supplies an independent Γ-convergence lemma and is not load-bearing in a circular way.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained and does not reduce its conclusions to its inputs. Theorem 4.10's proof rests on standard compactness (Props. 2.6/2.7), lower semicontinuity (Lemmas 4.9/4.19), and Γ-convergence of the nonlocal energy functionals (Theorems 4.7/4.17). The Γ-convergence statement is quoted from [20], which shares an author, but the paper notes its core mechanism comes from [18, Theorem 7]; moreover, it is a parameter-free limit theorem for fixed controls and fixed energy densities, not a statement of the control-problem convergence being proved. The genuinely new ingredient — the ε-quasi-minimizer tolerance and the convex-combination recovery sequence in Cases 1 and 2 of Theorem 4.10 — is not contained in [20] and is not obtained by assuming the desired conclusion. The admissibility of the limit pair is proved through (4.18)-(4.20), and optimality is proved by constructing admissible recovery sequences, rather than by defining the limit problem to match the nonlocal one. No fitted parameters, data subsets, or definitional identities appear. The manuscript itself flags the ε=0 case as the previous limitation (Remark 4.11), which confirms that the new result is a genuine extension rather than a renaming. A possible gap in the proof of (4.19) for weakly convergent controls is a correctness concern, not a circularity, and does not affect the circularity score. The non-zero score reflects only the minor, non-load-bearing self-citation of [20] in the Γ-convergence lemmas.

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

The paper contributes a proof technique (convex-combination recovery sequences inside the ε-tolerance) rather than new entities or fitted parameters. All free parameters (s, δ, ε, p) are inputs to the problem, not fitted. The additional kernel assumptions (4.5 and 4.15) are introduced ad hoc for the asymptotic theorems; they are natural but could fail for the general kernels allowed in Assumption 2.1.

assumptions (6)
  • standard math Morrey-type quasiconvexity and weak lower semicontinuity of integral functionals with quasiconvex integrands ([18, Theorem 5], [21, Theorem 8.11])
    Used pervasively: Lemma 3.3, Lemma 4.2, Lemma 4.9, and the Γ-convergence theorems assume the characterization of weak LSC by quasiconvexity.
  • standard math Nonlocal Poincaré inequalities and compact embeddings for H^{s,p,δ} spaces ([18, Propositions 2.4-2.7], [19])
    Used in Lemma 3.1 (boundedness of admissible states), Lemma 4.8, Lemma 4.18, and to obtain uniform coercivity of the energy family. These are prior theorems, not proved here.
  • standard math Γ-convergence preserves minima under equicoercivity ([22, Corollary 7.20])
    Invoked to pass from Γ-convergence of W^{δ,s}_g to convergence of minima in (4.19) and (4.22). Requires the Γ-convergence hypothesis, which is only proved for fixed g.
  • domain assumption Energy density W satisfies quasiconvexity and growth (2.7); admissible control set Z_ad is closed and convex; kernel satisfies Assumption 2.1
    These are the standing structural hypotheses under which the paper works. They are stated but not proved; they are natural in nonlinear elasticity and nonlocal peridynamics.
  • ad hoc to paper Assumption 4.5: the kernel normalization constant a_0 = 1
    Added specifically to obtain the s-uniform Poincaré inequality (Proposition 4.6), which is needed for equicoercivity of the energy family as s→1⁻. This is a kernel normalization condition introduced for the proof.
  • ad hoc to paper Assumption 4.15: w_δ(x) = w(x/δ) for a fixed kernel w
    Added specifically to obtain the δ-uniform Poincaré inequality (Proposition 4.16), needed for equicoercivity as δ→0⁺. This is a self-similarity/scaling assumption introduced for the proof.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of On convergence of solutions to nonlocal optimal control problems with quasi-minimization constraints." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZXCWS3ZY

@misc{pith2026260721822,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: On convergence of solutions to nonlocal optimal control problems with quasi-minimization constraints},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZXCWS3ZY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.21822}
}
abstract

This paper studies a new class of nonlocal optimal control problems where the constraints involve approximations of minimizers of quasiconvex energies. These problems are parameterized by a fractional parameter $s \in (0, 1)$ and a horizon parameter $\delta > 0$, and the energy density depends on a nonlocal fractional gradient. Here, the constraint consists of finding quasi-minimizers with respect to the quasiconvex energy. Despite the fact that the energies of interest may not have unique minimizers, we may prove the existence of solutions to this class of control problems. The constraint in Cueto-Siktar 2026 was finding global minimizers of the energy, and this problem's main limitation was an inability to prove convergence of solutions for the nonlocal control problems to those of a corresponding local, PDE-constrained optimal control problem. While this issue arises from the lack of uniqueness of minimizers for the constraining energy, we get stronger convergence results with our new choice of constraints. Namely, we obtain convergence of minimizers for nonlocal optimal control problems that have a general cost functional depending on the nonlocal gradient.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 3 linked inside Pith

  1. [20]

    Localization for nonlocal gradient-based optimal control problems.arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.09220, 2026

    Javier Cueto and Joshua M Siktar. Localization for nonlocal gradient-based optimal control problems.arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.09220, 2026

    arXiv 2026

  2. [18]

    A variational theory for integral functionals involving finite-horizon fractional gradients.Fractional Calculus and Applied Analysis, pages 1–56, 2023

    Javier Cueto, Carolin Kreisbeck, and Hidde Schönberger. A variational theory for integral functionals involving finite-horizon fractional gradients.Fractional Calculus and Applied Analysis, pages 1–56, 2023

    2023

  3. [1]

    Semicontinuity problems in the calculus of variations.Archive for Rational Me- chanics and Analysis, 86(2):125–145, 1984

    Emilio Acerbi and Nicola Fusco. Semicontinuity problems in the calculus of variations.Archive for Rational Me- chanics and Analysis, 86(2):125–145, 1984

    1984

  4. [2]

    On some recent advances in shape optimization.Comptes Rendus de l’Académie des Sciences-Series IIB-Mechanics, 329(5):383–396, 2001

    Grégoire Allaire and Antoine Henrot. On some recent advances in shape optimization.Comptes Rendus de l’Académie des Sciences-Series IIB-Mechanics, 329(5):383–396, 2001

    2001

  5. [3]

    Minimization of the compliance under a nonlocal p- laplacian constraint.Mathematics, 11(7):1679, 2023

    Fuensanta Andrés, Damián Castaño, and Julio Muñoz. Minimization of the compliance under a nonlocal p- laplacian constraint.Mathematics, 11(7):1679, 2023

    2023

  6. [4]

    Convexity conditions and existence theorems in nonlinear elasticity.Archive for rational mechanics and Analysis, 63(4):337–403, 1976

    John M Ball. Convexity conditions and existence theorems in nonlinear elasticity.Archive for rational mechanics and Analysis, 63(4):337–403, 1976

    1976

  7. [5]

    Null lagrangians, weak continuity, and variational problems of arbitrary order.Journal of Functional Analysis, 41(2):135–174, 1981

    John M Ball, JC Currie, and Peter J Olver. Null lagrangians, weak continuity, and variational problems of arbitrary order.Journal of Functional Analysis, 41(2):135–174, 1981

    1981

  8. [6]

    Bond-based peridynamics does not converge to hyperelas- ticity as the horizon goes to zero.Journal of Elasticity, 141(2):273–289, 2020

    José C Bellido, Javier Cueto, and Carlos Mora-Corral. Bond-based peridynamics does not converge to hyperelas- ticity as the horizon goes to zero.Journal of Elasticity, 141(2):273–289, 2020

    2020

Show all 49 references
  1. [7]

    José C Bellido, Javier Cueto, and Carlos Mora-Corral.γ-convergence of polyconvex functionals involving s- fractional gradients to their local counterparts.Calculus of Variations and Partial Differential Equations, 60(1):7, 2021

    2021

  2. [8]

    Minimizers of nonlocal polyconvex energies in nonlocal hyperelasticity.Advances in Calculus of Variations, 2023

    José C Bellido, Javier Cueto, and Carlos Mora-Corral. Minimizers of nonlocal polyconvex energies in nonlocal hyperelasticity.Advances in Calculus of Variations, 2023. 20 JOSHUA M. SIKTAR

    2023

  3. [9]

    Bellido and Carlos Mora-Corral

    José C. Bellido and Carlos Mora-Corral. Existence for nonlocal variational problems in peridynamics.SIAM Jour- nal on Mathematical Analysis, 46(1):890–916, 2014

    2014

  4. [10]

    Nonlocal green theorems and helmholtz decompositions for truncated fractional gradients.Applied Mathematics & Optimization, 90(1):16, 2024

    José Carlos Bellido, Javier Cueto, Mikil D Foss, and Petronela Radu. Nonlocal green theorems and helmholtz decompositions for truncated fractional gradients.Applied Mathematics & Optimization, 90(1):16, 2024

    2024

  5. [11]

    Non-local gradients in bounded domains motivated by continuum mechanics: Fundamental theorem of calculus and embeddings.Advances in Nonlinear Analysis, 12(1):20220316, 2023

    José Carlos Bellido, Javier Cueto, and Carlos Mora-Corral. Non-local gradients in bounded domains motivated by continuum mechanics: Fundamental theorem of calculus and embeddings.Advances in Nonlinear Analysis, 12(1):20220316, 2023

    2023

  6. [12]

    Nonlocal gradients: Fundamental theorem of calculus, poincaré inequalities, and embeddings.Journal of the London Mathematical Society, 112(2):e70277, 2025

    José Carlos Bellido, Carlos Mora-Corral, and Hidde Schönberger. Nonlocal gradients: Fundamental theorem of calculus, poincaré inequalities, and embeddings.Journal of the London Mathematical Society, 112(2):e70277, 2025

    2025

  7. [13]

    Numerical analysis of the ldg method for large deformations of prestrained plates.IMA Journal of Numerical Analysis, 43(2):627–662, 2023

    Andrea Bonito, Diane Guignard, Ricardo H Nochetto, and Shuo Yang. Numerical analysis of the ldg method for large deformations of prestrained plates.IMA Journal of Numerical Analysis, 43(2):627–662, 2023

    2023

  8. [14]

    Dg approach to large bending plate deformations with isometry constraint.Mathematical Models and Methods in Applied Sciences, 31(01):133–175, 2021

    Andrea Bonito, Ricardo H Nochetto, and Dimitrios Ntogkas. Dg approach to large bending plate deformations with isometry constraint.Mathematical Models and Methods in Applied Sciences, 31(01):133–175, 2021

    2021

  9. [15]

    Giuseppe Buttazzo and Gianni Dal Maso.Γ-convergence and optimal control problems.Journal of optimization theory and applications, 38(3):385–407, 1982

    1982

  10. [16]

    De Bure Frères, 1828

    Augustin Louis Baron Cauchy.Exercices de mathématiques, volume 3. De Bure Frères, 1828

  11. [17]

    Springer, 1997

    Andrej Cherkaev and Robert Kohn.Topics in the mathematical modelling of composite materials. Springer, 1997

    1997

  12. [19]

    Javier Cueto, Carolin Kreisbeck, and Hidde Schönberger.γ-convergence involving nonlocal gradients with varying horizon: Recovery of local and fractional models.Nonlinear Analysis: Real World Applications, 85:104371, 2025

    2025

  13. [21]

    Springer Science & Business Media, 2007

    Bernard Dacorogna.Direct methods in the calculus of variations, volume 78. Springer Science & Business Media, 2007

    2007

  14. [22]

    Springer Science & Business Media, 2012

    Gianni Dal Maso.An introduction toΓ-convergence, volume 8. Springer Science & Business Media, 2012

    2012

  15. [23]

    Optimal distributed control of nonlocal steady diffusion problems.SIAM Jour- nal on Control and Optimization, 52(1):243–273, 2014

    Marta D’Elia and Max Gunzburger. Optimal distributed control of nonlocal steady diffusion problems.SIAM Jour- nal on Control and Optimization, 52(1):243–273, 2014

    2014

  16. [24]

    Springer Science & Business Media, 2007

    Irene Fonseca and Giovanni Leoni.Modern methods in the calculus of variations:L p spaces. Springer Science & Business Media, 2007

    2007

  17. [25]

    Relaxation of quasiconvex functionals in BV(ω, p)for integrandsf(x, u,∇u).Arch

    Irene Fonseca and S Müller. Relaxation of quasiconvex functionals in BV(ω, p)for integrandsf(x, u,∇u).Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal, 123(1):1–49, 1993

    1993

  18. [26]

    On the formulation of constitutive equations in thermodynamical theories of continua.The Quarterly Journal of Mechanics and Applied Mathematics, 20(3):265–275, 1967

    AE Green and N Laws. On the formulation of constitutive equations in thermodynamical theories of continua.The Quarterly Journal of Mechanics and Applied Mathematics, 20(3):265–275, 1967

    1967

  19. [27]

    Convergence of dis- continuous galerkin methods for quasiconvex and relaxed variational problems.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.11944, 2025

    Georgios Grekas, Konstantinos Koumatos, Charalambos Makridakis, and Andreas Vikelis. Convergence of dis- continuous galerkin methods for quasiconvex and relaxed variational problems.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.11944, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Springer Science & Business Media, 2008

    Michael Hinze, René Pinnau, Michael Ulbrich, and Stefan Ulbrich.Optimization with PDE constraints, volume 23. Springer Science & Business Media, 2008

    2008

  21. [29]

    Non-constant functions with zero nonlocal gradient and their role in nonlocal neumann-type problems.Nonlinear Analysis, 249:113642, 2024

    Carolin Kreisbeck and Hidde Schönberger. Non-constant functions with zero nonlocal gradient and their role in nonlocal neumann-type problems.Nonlinear Analysis, 249:113642, 2024

    2024

  22. [30]

    Torres Ledesma

    Cèsar E. Torres Ledesma. Existence and symmetry result for fractional p-laplacian inR n.Communications on Pure and Applied Analysis, 16(1):99–114, 2017

    2017

  23. [31]

    Approximation of quasiconvex functions, and lower semicontinuity of multiple integrals

    Paolo Marcellini. Approximation of quasiconvex functions, and lower semicontinuity of multiple integrals. manuscripta mathematica, 51(1):1–28, 1985

    1985

  24. [32]

    Nonlocal Korn-type characterization of Sobolev vector fields.Communications in Contempo- rary Mathematics, 14(04):1250028, 2012

    Tadele Mengesha. Nonlocal Korn-type characterization of Sobolev vector fields.Communications in Contempo- rary Mathematics, 14(04):1250028, 2012

    2012

  25. [33]

    The bond-based peridynamic system with Dirichlet-type volume constraint.Pro- ceedings of the royal society of Edinburgh section A: mathematics, 144(1):161–186, 2014

    Tadele Mengesha and Qiang Du. The bond-based peridynamic system with Dirichlet-type volume constraint.Pro- ceedings of the royal society of Edinburgh section A: mathematics, 144(1):161–186, 2014. ON CONVERGENCE OF SOLUTIONS TO NONLOCAL OPTIMAL CONTROL PROBLEMS WITH QUASI-MINIM...

    2014

  26. [34]

    On the variational limit of a class of nonlocal functionals related to peridynamics

    Tadele Mengesha and Qiang Du. On the variational limit of a class of nonlocal functionals related to peridynamics. Nonlinearity, 28(11):3999, 2015

    2015

  27. [35]

    Salgado, and Joshua M

    Tadele Mengesha, Abner J. Salgado, and Joshua M. Siktar. On the optimal control of a linear peridynamics model. Applied Mathematics and Optimization, 88(70):1–43, 2023

    2023

  28. [36]

    Asymptotic compatibility of parametrized optimal design problems.ESAIM: Mathematical Modelling and Numerical Analysis, 59(6):3069–3105, 2025

    Tadele Mengesha, Abner J Salgado, and Joshua M Siktar. Asymptotic compatibility of parametrized optimal design problems.ESAIM: Mathematical Modelling and Numerical Analysis, 59(6):3069–3105, 2025

    2025

  29. [37]

    Quasi-convexity and lower semi-continuity of multiple variational integrals of any order.Trans- actions of the American Mathematical Society, 119(1):125–149, 1965

    Norman G Meyers. Quasi-convexity and lower semi-continuity of multiple variational integrals of any order.Trans- actions of the American Mathematical Society, 119(1):125–149, 1965

    1965

  30. [38]

    Quasi-convexity and the lower semicontinuity of multiple integrals

    Charles B Morrey Jr. Quasi-convexity and the lower semicontinuity of multiple integrals. 1952

    1952

  31. [39]

    Local and nonlocal optimal control in the source.Mediterranean Journal of Mathematics, 19(1):1– 24, 2022

    Julio Muñoz. Local and nonlocal optimal control in the source.Mediterranean Journal of Mathematics, 19(1):1– 24, 2022

    2022

  32. [40]

    Rindler.Calculus of Variations, First Edition

    F. Rindler.Calculus of Variations, First Edition. Springer, 2018

    2018

  33. [41]

    PhD thesis, Katholische Universität Eichstätt-Ingolstadt, 2024

    Hidde Schönberger.Nonlocal gradients within variational models: existence theories and asymptotic analysis. PhD thesis, Katholische Universität Eichstätt-Ingolstadt, 2024

    2024

  34. [42]

    A fractional korn-type inequality.Discrete and Continuous Dynamical Systems, 39(6):3315–3343, 2019

    James Scott and Tadele Mengesha. A fractional korn-type inequality.Discrete and Continuous Dynamical Systems, 39(6):3315–3343, 2019

    2019

  35. [43]

    Mountain pass solutions for non-local elliptic operators.Journal of Math- ematical Analysis and Applications, 389(2):887–898, 2012

    Raffaella Servadei and Enrico Valdinoci. Mountain pass solutions for non-local elliptic operators.Journal of Math- ematical Analysis and Applications, 389(2):887–898, 2012

    2012

  36. [44]

    Variational methods for non-local operators of elliptic type.Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems, 33(5):2105–2137, 2013

    Raffaella Servadei and Enrico Valdinoci. Variational methods for non-local operators of elliptic type.Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems, 33(5):2105–2137, 2013

    2013

  37. [45]

    Joshua M. Siktar. Existence of solutions for fractional optimal control problems with superlinear-subcritical con- trols.arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.09586, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Reformulation of elasticity theory for discontinuities and long-range forces.Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids, 48(1):175–209, 2000

    Stewart A Silling. Reformulation of elasticity theory for discontinuities and long-range forces.Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids, 48(1):175–209, 2000

    2000

  39. [47]

    Peridynamic states and consti- tutive modeling.Journal of Elasticity, 88(2):151–184, 2007

    Stewart A Silling, M Epton, Olaf Weckner, Jifeng Xu, and E23481501120 Askari. Peridynamic states and consti- tutive modeling.Journal of Elasticity, 88(2):151–184, 2007

    2007

  40. [48]

    Peridynamic modeling of membranes and fibers.International Journal of Non-Linear Mechanics, 40(2-3):395–409, 2005

    Stewart Andrew Silling and Florin Bobaru. Peridynamic modeling of membranes and fibers.International Journal of Non-Linear Mechanics, 40(2-3):395–409, 2005

    2005

  41. [49]

    American Mathematical Soc., 2010

    Fredi Tröltzsch.Optimal control of partial differential equations: theory, methods, and applications, volume 112. American Mathematical Soc., 2010

    2010

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.