The Max-Plus Finite Element Method for Solving Deterministic Optimal Control Problems: Basic Properties and Convergence Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We introduce a max-plus analogue of the Petrov–Galerkin finite element method to solve finite horizon deterministic optimal control problems. The method relies on a max-plus variational formulation. We show that the error in the sup-norm can be bounded from the difference between the value function and its projections on max-plus and min-plus semimodules when the max-plus analogue of the stiffness matrix is exactly known. In general, the stiffness matrix must be approximated: this requires approximating the operation of the Lax–Oleinik semigroup on finite elements. We consider two approximations relying on the Hamiltonian. We derive a convergence result, in arbitrary dimension, showing that for a class of problems, the error estimate is of order $\delta+\Delta x(\delta)^{-1}$ or $\sqrt{\delta}+\Delta x(\delta)^{-1}$, depending on the choice of the approximation, where $\delta$ and $\Delta x$ are, respectively, the time and space discretization steps. We compare our method with another max-plus based discretization method previously introduced by Fleming and McEneaney. We give numerical examples in dimensions 1 and 2.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".