We consider optimal control of the scalar wave equation where the control enters as a coefficient in the principal part. Adding a total variation penalty allows showing existence of optimal controls, which requires continuity results for the coefficient-to-solution mapping for discontinuous coefficients. We additionally consider a so-called "multi-bang" penalty that promotes controls taking on values pointwise almost everywhere from a specified discrete set. Under additional assumptions on the data, we derive an improved regularity result for the state, leading to optimality conditions that can be interpreted in an appropriate pointwise fashion. The numerical solution makes use of a stabilized finite element method and a nonlinear primal-dual proximal splitting algorithm.
For every u \in \hat U and (f, y_0, y_1) \in L^2(I,H) \times V \times H, there exists a unique (weak) solution y = y(u) \in Z := C(\overline V) \cap C^1(\overline H) to (?) satisfying
for a constant C_1 independent of (f,y_0, y_1) \in L^2(I,H) \times V \times H and u \in \hat U.
For every u\in \hat U and g\in L^2(I,H), \varphi_0\in V, and \varphi_1 \in H, there exists a unique solution \varphi \in Z to (?) satisfying
There exists a constant L>0 such that the mapping u\mapsto y(u) satisfies
Let \{u_n\}_{n\in\mathbb{N}}\subset \hat U be a sequence with u_n\to u in L^r(\Omega) for some r\in [1,\infty). Then u\in \hat U and y(u_n)\rightharpoonup y(u) in L^2(I,V)\cap W^{1,2}(I,H)\cap W^{2,2}(I,V^*). Furthermore, y(u_n)\rightharpoonup y(u) in H pointwise for all t\in [0,T].
Assume that f\in L^2(I,V) and let \{u_n\}_{n\in\mathbb{N}}\subset \hat U be a sequence with u_n\to u in L^\infty(\Omega). Then y(u_n)\to y(u) in L^2(I,V)\cap W^{1,2}(I,H).
The data satisfy f\in L^2(I;V) and (y_0,y_1)\in H^2(\Omega)\times H^1(\Omega) with \partial_\nu y_0 =0. Furthermore,
\hat u is constant on \Omega\setminus \omega_c and
y_0 is constant on \omega_c and \overline{\omega_c} \subset \Omega.
Let u\in \hat U and Assumption 1 hold. Then there exists q > 2 and a constant \hat C independent of u such that y(u) \in {L^\infty(I,W^{1,q}(\Omega))} and for all u \in \hat U,
If Assumption 1 holds, the requirement in Lemma Lemma on the convergence of u_n can be relaxed to u_n\to u in L^{\frac{q}{q-2}}(\Omega), where q is the exponent from Proposition Proposition. In this case, the first term on the right-hand side in (?) can be estimated by Hölder’s inequality as
where we used Proposition Proposition. Then again y(u_n) \to y(u) in W.
In Assumption 1 (ii), the requirement \overline {\omega_c} \subset \Omega was only used in Step 2 of the proof of Proposition Proposition. It it is not necessary if instead y_0\in H^3(\Omega) is assumed.
For every \varepsilon\geq 0, there exists a global minimizer \bar u\in BV(\omega_c)\cap U of J_\varepsilon.
For every \varepsilon>0, the mapping F_\varepsilon defined in (?) is Fréchet differentiable in every u\in L^\infty(\omega_c), and the Fréchet derivative is given by
where y=y(\hat E\Phi_\varepsilon(u)) is the solution of (?), p is the solution of (?), and \hat E_0^*:L^2(\Omega)\to L^2(\omega_c) is the restriction operator.
If Assumption 1 holds, F_\varepsilon'(u) \in L^{\frac{2q}{2+q}}(\omega_c) for the q>2 given in Proposition Proposition.
If \varepsilon>0 and Assumption 1 holds, every local minimizer \bar u\in BV(\omega_c) to (?) satisfies
where G and \mathrm{TV} are considered as extended real-valued convex functionals on L^\frac{2q}{q-2}(\omega_c).
For any local minimizer \bar u\in BV(\omega_c) to (?), there exist \bar q \in L^\frac{2q}{2+q}(\omega_c) and \bar \xi \in L^{\frac{2q}{2+q}}(\omega_c) satisfying
We call y_{\vartheta}\in D_{\vartheta}:=D_h \otimes D_\tau a discrete solution of (?) if y_{\vartheta} satisfies
for all v \in D_{\vartheta} with v(T)=0 and initial condition y_{\vartheta}(0)=S_0 y_0 defined via
The text on this page is from arXiv:1912.08672v3 by Christian Clason, Karl Kunisch and Philip Trautmann, under the licence CC BY 4.0. The corpus made these changes: it read the items out of the LaTeX source, it expanded the macros of the paper, it put each proof after its statement, and it converted the text to HTML. The formulas are the TeX of the paper, and KaTeX renders them. A formula or a reference can look different from the PDF. The page is published under CC BY 4.0.
The record of each item is in analysis/objects/1912/1912.08672.jsonl.