Abstract
This paper deals with the application of Stackelberg-Nash strategies to the control to quasi-linear parabolic equations in dimensions 1D, 2D, or 3D. We consider two followers, intended to solve a Nash multi-objective equilibrium; and one leader satisfying the controllability to the trajectories.
We’re sorry, something doesn't seem to be working properly.
Please try refreshing the page. If that doesn't work, please contact support so we can address the problem.
References
Alekseev VM, Tikhomorov VM, Formin SV. Optimal control. New York: Consultants Bureau; 1987.
Araruna FD, Fernández-Cara E, Santos MC. Stackelberg-Nash controllability for linear and semilinear parabolic equations. ESAIM: Control Optim Calc Var 2015;21:835–56.
Araruna FD, Fernández-Cara E, Guerrero S, Santos MC. New results on the Stackelberg-Nash exact control of linear parabolic equations. Syst Control Lett 2017;104:78–85.
Beceanu M. Local exact controllability of the diffusion equation in one dimensional. Abstr Appl Anal 2003;14:793–811.
Clark HR, Fernández-Cara E, Limaco J, Medeiros LA. Theoretical and numerical local null controllability for a parabolic system with local and nonlocal nonlinearities. Appl Math Comput 2013;223:483–505.
Díaz J. On the Von Neumann problem and the approximate controllability of Stackelberg-Nash strategies for some environmental problems. Rev R Acad Cien Serie A Mat 2002;96(3):343–56.
Fernández-Cara E, Nina-Huaman D, Nuñez-Chávez MR, Vieira FB. On the theoretical and numerical control of a one-dimensional nonlinear parabolic partial differential equation. J Optim Theory Appl 2017;175(3):652–82.
Fursikov AV, Imanuvilov OY. 1996. Controllability of evolution equations, lecture note series. Research Institute of Mathematics Seoul National University.
Glowinski R, Ramos A, Periaux J. Nash equilibria for the multiobjective control of linear partial differential equations. J Optim Theory Appl 2002; 112(3):457–98.
Guillén-González F, Marques-Lopes F, Rojas-Medar M. On the approximate controllability of Stackelberg-Nash strategies for Stokes equations. Proc Am Math Soc 2013;141(5):1759–73.
Hernández V, de Teresa L. Some remark on the hierarchic control for coupled parabolic PDEs. Book Springer Series SEMA SIMAI 2018;17:117–37.
Hernández V, de Teresa L, Poznyak A. Hierarchic control for a coupled parabolic system. Portugaliae Math Fasc 2016;2:115–37.
Imanuvilov OY, Yamamoto M. Carleman inequalities for parabolic equations in Sobolev spaces of negative order and exact controllability for semilinear parabolic equations. Publ RIMS Kyoto Univ 2003;39:227–74.
Límaco J, Clark H, Medeiros L. Remarks on hierarchic control. J Math Anal Appl 2009;359(1):368–83.
Lions JL. Hierarchical control. Proc Indian Acad Sci Math Sci 1994; 104(1):295–304.
Lions JL. Some remark on Stackelberg optimization. Math Models Methods Appl Sci 1994;4:477–87.
Nash JF. Non-cooperative games. Ann Math 1951;54(2):286–95.
Rincon MA, Limaco J, Liu I-S. A nonlinear heat equation with temperature-dependent parameters. Math Phys Electron J. 2006;12.
Von Stackelberg H. Marktform und Gleichgewicht. Vienna: Springer; 1934.
Funding
Partially supported by CAPES (Brazil)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendix: Proof of Theorem 3.1
Appendix: Proof of Theorem 3.1
Consider the following system:
In order to prove the existence of solution, we will first study the existence of solution for Eq. A.66. We have the following:
Lemma A.1
There exists r > 0 such that for each \(z^{0}\in H^{3}({\Omega })\cap {H^{1}_{0}}({\Omega })\) and g ∈ H1(0,T; L2(Ω)) with ∇g(0) ∈ L2(Ω) satisfying
the problem Eq. A.66has a unique solution z satisfying
Where \(C:=C(M, {\Omega }, a_{0}, a_{1}, \overline {y})\)
Proof
The proof in this lemma is obtained by the argument similar to Theorem 3 in [18]. We employ Galerkin method with the Hilbertian basis from \({H^{1}_{0}}({\Omega })\), given by eigenvectors (wj) of the spectral problem ((wj,v)) = λj(wj,v), for all \(v\in V=H^{3}({\Omega })\cap {H^{1}_{0}}({\Omega })\) and j = 1, 2, 3,... We represent by Vm the subspace of V generated by vectors {w1,w2,...,wm}. We propose the following approximate problem:
The existence and uniqueness of (local in time) solution to the Eq. A.67 are ensured by classical ODE theory. The following estimates show that, in fact, they are defined for all t. We can get uniform estimates of the zm in the usual ways:
- Estimate I::
-
Taking v = zm(t) in Eq. A.67, we deduce that
$$ \frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{dt}||z_{m}||^{2}+\frac{a_{0}}{2}{\int}_{\Omega}|\nabla z_{m}|^{2} dx\leq \tilde{C}_{1}||z_{m}||^{2}+||g||^{2} $$(A.68)and
$$ ||z_{m}||^{2}_{L^{\infty}(0,T;L^{2}({\Omega}))}+||\nabla z_{m}||^{2}_{L^{2}(Q)}\leq \tilde{C}_{2}(||z^{0}||^{2}+||g||^{2}_{L^{2}(Q)}) $$(A.69)In the sequel, the symbol \(\tilde {C}_{k}\) is a constant that only depends on \(M, {\Omega }, a_{0}, a_{1}, \overline {y}\), for k = 1, 2,..., 20
- Estimate II::
-
Taking v = −Δzm(t) in Eq. A.67, we see that
$$ \frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{dt}||\nabla z_{m}||^{2}+\frac{a_{0}}{4}||{\Delta} z_{m}||^{2}\leq \tilde{C}_{2}||\nabla z_{m}||^{2}+ \tilde{C}_{3}||{\Delta} z_{m}||^{4}+\frac{2}{a_{0}\tilde{C}_{11}}||g||^{2} $$(A.70) - Estimate III::
-
Taking \(v=-{\Delta } z^{\prime }_{m}\), we deduce that
$$ ||\nabla z^{\prime}_{m}||^{2}+\frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{dt}\left( {\int}_{\Omega}a(z_{m}+\overline{y})|{\Delta} z_{m}|^{2} dx\right)\leq \tilde{C}_{4}||{\Delta} z_{m}||^{2} + \frac{a_{0}}{8\tilde{C}_{8}}||{\Delta} z^{\prime}_{m}||^{2}+\frac{8}{a_{0}\tilde{C}_{8}}||g||^{2} $$(A.71) - Estimate IV::
-
Taking derivative in the Eq. A.671 with respect t and taking \(v=-{\Delta } z^{\prime }_{m}\), we have
$$ \begin{array}{@{}rcl@{}} &&\ \frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{dt}||\nabla z^{\prime}_{m}||^{2}+\frac{a_{0}}{2}||{\Delta} z^{\prime}_{m}||^{2}\leq \tilde{C}_{5}||{\Delta} z_{m}||^{4}+\tilde{C}_{6}||{\Delta} z_{m}||^{2} ||{\Delta} z^{\prime}_{m}||^{2}\\ &&\qquad\qquad +\tilde{C}_{7}||{\Delta} z_{m}||^{2}+\tilde{C}_{8}||\nabla z^{\prime}_{m}||^{2}+\tilde{C}_{9}(||g||^{2}+||g^{\prime}||^{2}) \end{array} $$(A.72)
We will denote by \(\tilde {C}_{10}=\tilde {C}_{9}+\frac {8}{a_{0}}\), \(\tilde {C}_{11}=2\tilde {C}_{4}\tilde {C}_{8}+\tilde {C}_{7}\), \(\tilde {C}_{12}=\frac {8\tilde {C}_{11}}{a_{0}}\) and \(\tilde {C}_{14}=\tilde {C}_{2} \tilde {C}_{12}\). Now, multiplying Eq. A.71 by \(2\tilde {C}_{8}\), Eq. A.70 by \(\tilde {C}_{12}\), Eq. A.68 by \(\tilde {C}_{15}\) and adding these terms, from Eq. A.69, we have
From Eq. A.67 taking \(v=-{\Delta } z^{\prime }_{m}(0)\), we have
There exists 𝜖0 > 0 such that for
we have
where \( \tilde {a}=min\left \{\frac {a_{0}}{4},\tilde {C}_{11}\right \}\).
Therefore, we can confirm that
We argue by contradiction and using Eqs. A.73, A.74, and A.75 . Since, the inequality Eq. A.76 is valid, we obtain that
These uniform bounds allow taking limits in Eq. A.67 (at least for a subsequence) as \(m\to \infty \). Indeed, the unique delicate point is the a.e. convergence of \(a(z_{m}+\overline {y})\). But this is a consequence of the fact that the sequence {zm} is pre-compact in \(L^{2}(0,T;{H^{1}_{0}}({\Omega }))\) and \(a\in C^{3}(\mathbb {R})\).
The uniqueness of the strong solution to Eq. A.67 can be proved by argument standards (to see [18]). □
Proof of Theorem 3.1
Let r given by Lemma A.1 and assume that
□
we will use Schauder’s Fixed Point Theorem. Indeed, let R0 be a constant to be determined later, let us introduce the Banach space K1 and K2, with
denote by Z = K1 × K1, K = K2 × K2 and fix \((\hat {p}^{1},\hat {p}^{2})\in B_{K}[0,R_{0}]\). Notice that
If we take \(R_{0} = \frac {r}{2}\left (\frac {1}{\mu _{1}}+\frac {1}{\mu _{2}}\right )^{-1}\) then, by Lemma A.1, there exists \(\hat {z}\) the unique solution of Eq. A.66 with \(g=f 1_{\mathcal {O}}-\frac {1}{\mu _{1}}\hat {p}^{1} 1_{\mathcal {O}_{1}}-\frac {1}{\mu _{2}}\hat {p}^{2} 1_{\mathcal {O}_{2}}, \hat {z}(0)=z^{0}\) and from Eq. A.73 and Eq. A.76, we have
where \(C_{1} := C_{1}({\Omega }, \mathcal {O}, \mathcal {O}_{i}, M, a_{0}, a_{1})\).
Now, consider \((\tilde {p}^{1},\tilde {p}^{2})\in Z\) solution of
satisfying
where \(C_{3}:= C_{3}({\Omega },\mathcal {O}, \mathcal {O}_{i}, M, ||z_{id}||_{H^{1}(0,T;L^{2}({\Omega }))})\).
In this way, if μ1 and μ2 are sufficiently large, such that
then, Λ : Z → Z given by \({\Lambda } (\hat {p}^{1},\hat {p}^{2})=(\tilde {p}^{1},\tilde {p}^{2})\) is compact and Λ(BK[0,R0]) ⊂ BK[0,R0]. By Schauder’s Fixed Point Theorem Λ has a fixed point \((\hat {p}^{1},\hat {p}^{2})\) which is, together with \(\hat {z}\), a solution of Eq. 3.14.
Notice that, due to Eqs. A.77 and A.78, the solution \((\hat {z},\hat {p}^{1},\hat {p}^{2})\) satisfies
The uniqueness can be proved using these last inequality and standard energy estimates.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Huaman, D.N. Stackelberg-Nash Controllability for a Quasi-linear Parabolic Equation in Dimension 1D, 2D, or 3D. J Dyn Control Syst 28, 291–317 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10883-021-09536-3
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10883-021-09536-3