
Artificial general intelligence (AGI), or strong AI, aims to replicate human-like cognitive abilities across diverse tasks and domains, demonstrating adaptability and learning like human intelligence. In contrast, weak AI refers to systems designed for specific tasks, lacking the broad cognitive flexibility of AGI. This paper introduces a novel approach to optimize oil production by integrating fundamental principles of AGI with geophysical data inversion and continuous monitoring techniques. Specifically, the study explored how AGI-inspired algorithms, combined with established reinforcement learning (RL) techniques, can enhance borehole electric/electromagnetic monitoring and reservoir fluid mapping technology. This integration aims to mitigate the risk of unwanted water invasion in production wells while optimizing oil extraction. The proposed methodology leverages real-time geophysical data analysis and automated regulation of oil production. The paper begins by outlining the key features of AGI and RL, and then discusses their application in electric/electromagnetic monitoring to define optimal production policies. The effectiveness of this approach was verified through synthetic tests, showing significant improvements in production efficiency, resource recovery, and environmental impact reduction.
Citation: Paolo Dell'Aversana. Reservoir geophysical monitoring supported by artificial general intelligence and Q-Learning for oil production optimization[J]. AIMS Geosciences, 2024, 10(3): 641-661. doi: 10.3934/geosci.2024033
[1] | Jun Zhou . Initial boundary value problem for a inhomogeneous pseudo-parabolic equation. Electronic Research Archive, 2020, 28(1): 67-90. doi: 10.3934/era.2020005 |
[2] | Yang Cao, Qiuting Zhao . Initial boundary value problem of a class of mixed pseudo-parabolic Kirchhoff equations. Electronic Research Archive, 2021, 29(6): 3833-3851. doi: 10.3934/era.2021064 |
[3] | Qianqian Zhu, Yaojun Ye, Shuting Chang . Blow-up upper and lower bounds for solutions of a class of higher order nonlinear pseudo-parabolic equations. Electronic Research Archive, 2024, 32(2): 945-961. doi: 10.3934/era.2024046 |
[4] | Xu Liu, Jun Zhou . Initial-boundary value problem for a fourth-order plate equation with Hardy-Hénon potential and polynomial nonlinearity. Electronic Research Archive, 2020, 28(2): 599-625. doi: 10.3934/era.2020032 |
[5] | Hui Jian, Min Gong, Meixia Cai . Global existence, blow-up and mass concentration for the inhomogeneous nonlinear Schrödinger equation with inverse-square potential. Electronic Research Archive, 2023, 31(12): 7427-7451. doi: 10.3934/era.2023375 |
[6] | Shuting Chang, Yaojun Ye . Upper and lower bounds for the blow-up time of a fourth-order parabolic equation with exponential nonlinearity. Electronic Research Archive, 2024, 32(11): 6225-6234. doi: 10.3934/era.2024289 |
[7] | Yitian Wang, Xiaoping Liu, Yuxuan Chen . Semilinear pseudo-parabolic equations on manifolds with conical singularities. Electronic Research Archive, 2021, 29(6): 3687-3720. doi: 10.3934/era.2021057 |
[8] | Yaning Li, Yuting Yang . The critical exponents for a semilinear fractional pseudo-parabolic equation with nonlinear memory in a bounded domain. Electronic Research Archive, 2023, 31(5): 2555-2567. doi: 10.3934/era.2023129 |
[9] | Mingyou Zhang, Qingsong Zhao, Yu Liu, Wenke Li . Finite time blow-up and global existence of solutions for semilinear parabolic equations with nonlinear dynamical boundary condition. Electronic Research Archive, 2020, 28(1): 369-381. doi: 10.3934/era.2020021 |
[10] | Lianbing She, Nan Liu, Xin Li, Renhai Wang . Three types of weak pullback attractors for lattice pseudo-parabolic equations driven by locally Lipschitz noise. Electronic Research Archive, 2021, 29(5): 3097-3119. doi: 10.3934/era.2021028 |
Artificial general intelligence (AGI), or strong AI, aims to replicate human-like cognitive abilities across diverse tasks and domains, demonstrating adaptability and learning like human intelligence. In contrast, weak AI refers to systems designed for specific tasks, lacking the broad cognitive flexibility of AGI. This paper introduces a novel approach to optimize oil production by integrating fundamental principles of AGI with geophysical data inversion and continuous monitoring techniques. Specifically, the study explored how AGI-inspired algorithms, combined with established reinforcement learning (RL) techniques, can enhance borehole electric/electromagnetic monitoring and reservoir fluid mapping technology. This integration aims to mitigate the risk of unwanted water invasion in production wells while optimizing oil extraction. The proposed methodology leverages real-time geophysical data analysis and automated regulation of oil production. The paper begins by outlining the key features of AGI and RL, and then discusses their application in electric/electromagnetic monitoring to define optimal production policies. The effectiveness of this approach was verified through synthetic tests, showing significant improvements in production efficiency, resource recovery, and environmental impact reduction.
In this paper, we consider the following initial-boundary value problem
{ut−Δut−Δu=|x|σ|u|p−1u,x∈Ω,t>0,u(x,t)=0,x∈∂Ω,t>0,u(x,0)=u0(x),x∈Ω | (1) |
and its corresponding steady-state problem
{−Δu=|x|σ|u|p−1u,x∈Ω,u=0,x∈∂Ω, | (2) |
where
1<p<{∞,n=1,2;n+2n−2,n≥3,σ>{−n,n=1,2;(p+1)(n−2)2−n,n≥3. | (3) |
(1) was called homogeneous (inhomogeneous) pseudo-parabolic equation when
The homogeneous problem, i.e.
Li and Du [12] studied the Cauchy problem of equation in (1) with
(1) If
(2) If
Φα:={ξ(x)∈BC(Rn):ξ(x)≥0,lim inf|x|↑∞|x|αξ(x)>0}, |
and
Φα:={ξ(x)∈BC(Rn):ξ(x)≥0,lim sup|x|↑∞|x|αξ(x)<∞}. |
Here
In view of the above introductions, we find that
(1) for Cauchy problem in
(2) for zero Dirichlet problem in a bounded domain
The difficulty of allowing
σ>(p+1)(n−2)2−n⏟<0 if n≥3 |
for
The main results of this paper can be summarized as follows: Let
(1) (the case
(2) (the case
(3) (arbitrary initial energy level) For any
(4) Moreover, under suitable assumptions, we show the exponential decay of global solutions and lifespan (i.e. the upper bound of blow-up time) of the blowing-up solutions.
The organizations of the remain part of this paper are as follows. In Section 2, we introduce the notations used in this paper and the main results of this paper; in Section 3, we give some preliminaries which will be used in the proofs; in Section 4, we give the proofs of the main results.
Throughout this paper we denote the norm of
‖ϕ‖Lγ={(∫Ω|ϕ(x)|γdx)1γ, if 1≤γ<∞;esssupx∈Ω|ϕ(x)|, if γ=∞. |
We denote the
Lp+1σ(Ω):={ϕ:ϕ is measurable on Ω and ‖u‖Lp+1σ<∞}, | (4) |
where
‖ϕ‖Lp+1σ:=(∫Ω|x|σ|ϕ(x)|p+1dx)1p+1,ϕ∈Lp+1σ(Ω). | (5) |
By standard arguments as the space
We denote the inner product of
(ϕ,φ)H10:=∫Ω(∇ϕ(x)⋅∇φ(x)+ϕ(x)φ(x))dx,ϕ,φ∈H10(Ω). | (6) |
The norm of
‖ϕ‖H10:=√(ϕ,ϕ)H10=√‖∇ϕ‖2L2+‖ϕ‖2L2,ϕ∈H10(Ω). | (7) |
An equivalent norm of
‖∇ϕ‖L2≤‖ϕ‖H10≤√λ1+1λ1‖∇ϕ‖L2,ϕ∈H10(Ω), | (8) |
where
λ1=infϕ∈H10(Ω)‖∇ϕ‖2L2‖ϕ‖2L2. | (9) |
Moreover, by Theorem 3.2, we have
for p and σ satisfying (4), H10(Ω)↪Lp+1σ(Ω) continuously and compactly. | (10) |
Then we let
Cpσ=supu∈H10(Ω)∖{0}‖ϕ‖Lp+1σ‖∇ϕ‖L2. | (11) |
We define two functionals
J(ϕ):=12‖∇ϕ‖2L2−1p+1‖ϕ‖p+1Lp+1σ | (12) |
and
I(ϕ):=‖∇ϕ‖2L2−‖ϕ‖p+1Lp+1σ. | (13) |
By (3) and (10), we know that
We denote the mountain-pass level
d:=infϕ∈NJ(ϕ), | (14) |
where
N:={ϕ∈H10(Ω)∖{0}:I(ϕ)=0}. | (15) |
By Theorem 3.3, we have
d=p−12(p+1)C−2(p+1)p−1pσ, | (16) |
where
For
Jρ={ϕ∈H10(Ω):J(ϕ)<ρ}. | (17) |
Then, we define the set
Nρ={ϕ∈N:‖∇ϕ‖2L2<2(p+1)ρp−1},ρ>d. | (18) |
For
λρ:=infϕ∈Nρ‖ϕ‖H10,Λρ:=supϕ∈Nρ‖ϕ‖H10 | (19) |
and two sets
Sρ:={ϕ∈H10(Ω):‖ϕ‖H10≤λρ,I(ϕ)>0},Sρ:={ϕ∈H10(Ω):‖ϕ‖H10≥Λρ,I(ϕ)<0}. | (20) |
Remark 1. There are two remarks on the above definitions.
(1) By the definitions of
(2) By Theorem 3.4, we have
√2(p+1)dp−1≤λρ≤Λρ≤√2(p+1)(λ1+1)ρλ1(p−1). | (21) |
Then the sets
‖sϕ‖H10≤√2(p+1)dp−1⇔s≤δ1:=√2(p+1)dp−1‖ϕ‖−1H10,I(sϕ)=s2‖∇ϕ‖2L2−sp+1‖ϕ‖p−1Lp+1σ>0⇔s<δ2:=(‖∇ϕ‖2L2‖ϕ‖p+1Lp+1σ)1p−1,‖sϕ‖H10≥√2(p+1)(λ1+1)ρλ1(p−1)⇔s≥δ3:=√2(p+1)(λ1+1)ρλ1(p−1)‖ϕ‖−1H10,I(sϕ)=s2‖∇ϕ‖2L2−sp+1‖ϕ‖p−1Lp+1σ<0⇔s>δ2. |
So,
{sϕ:0<s<min{δ1,δ2}}⊂Sρ,{sϕ:s>max{δ2,δ3}}⊂Sρ. |
In this paper we consider weak solutions to problem (1), local existence of which can be obtained by Galerkin's method (see for example [22,Chapter II,Sections 3 and 4]) and a standard limit process and the details are omitted.
Definition 2.1. Assume
∫Ω(utv+∇ut⋅∇v+∇u⋅∇v−|x|σ|u|p−1uv)dx=0 | (22) |
holds for any
u(⋅,0)=u0(⋅) in H10(Ω). | (23) |
Remark 2. There are some remarks on the above definition.
(1) Since
(2) Denote by
(3) Taking
‖u(⋅,t)‖2H10=‖u0‖2H10−2∫t0I(u(⋅,s))ds,0≤t≤T, | (24) |
where
(4) Taking
J(u(⋅,t))=J(u0)−∫t0‖us(⋅,s)‖2H10ds,0≤t≤T, | (25) |
where
Definition 2.2. Assume (3) holds. A function
∫Ω(∇u⋅∇v−|x|σ|u|p−1uv)dx=0 | (26) |
holds for any
Remark 3. There are some remarks to the above definition.
(1) By (10), we know all the terms in (26) are well-defined.
(2) If we denote by
Φ={ϕ∈H10(Ω):J′(ϕ)=0 in H−1(Ω)}⊂(N∪{0}), | (27) |
where
With the set
Definition 2.3. Assume (3) holds. A function
J(u)=infϕ∈Φ∖{0}J(ϕ). |
With the above preparations, now we can state the main results of this paper. Firstly, we consider the case
(1)
(2)
(3)
Theorem 2.4. Assume (3) holds and
‖∇u(⋅,t)‖L2≤√2(p+1)J(u0)p−1,0≤t<∞, | (28) |
where
V:={ϕ∈H10(Ω):J(ϕ)≤d,I(ϕ)>0}. | (29) |
In, in addition,
‖u(⋅,t)‖H10≤‖u0‖H10exp[−λ1λ1+1(1−(J(u0)d)p−12)t]. | (30) |
Remark 4. Since
J(u0)>p−12(p+1)‖∇u0‖2L2>0. |
So the equality (28) makes sense.
Theorem 2.5. Assume (3) holds and
limt↑Tmax∫t0‖u(⋅,s)‖2H10ds=∞, |
where
W:={ϕ∈H10(Ω):J(ϕ)≤d,I(ϕ)<0} | (31) |
and
Tmax≤4p‖u0‖2H10(p−1)2(p+1)(d−J(u0)). | (32) |
Remark 5. There are two remarks.
(1) If
(2) The sets
f(s)=J(sϕ)=s22‖∇ϕ‖2L2−sp+1p+1‖ϕ‖p+1Lp+1σ,g(s)=I(sϕ)=s2‖∇ϕ‖2L2−sp+1‖ϕ‖p+1Lp+1σ. |
Then (see Fig. 2)
(a)
maxs∈[0,∞)f(s)=f(s∗3)=p−12(p+1)(‖∇ϕ‖L2‖ϕ‖Lp+1σ)2(p+1)p−1≤d⏟By (14) since s∗3ϕ∈N, | (33) |
(b)
maxs∈[0,∞)g(s)=g(s∗1)=p−1p+1(2p+1)2p−1(‖∇ϕ‖L2‖ϕ‖Lp+1σ)2(p+1)p−1, |
(c)
f(s∗2)=g(s∗2)=p−12p(p+12p)2p−1(‖∇ϕ‖L2‖ϕ‖Lp+1σ)2(p+1)p−1, |
where
s∗1:=(2‖∇ϕ‖2L2(p+1)‖ϕ‖p+1Lp+1σ)1p−1<s∗2:=((p+1)‖∇ϕ‖2L22p‖ϕ‖p+1Lp+1σ)1p−1<s∗3:=(‖∇ϕ‖2L2‖ϕ‖p+1Lp+1σ)1p−1<s∗4:=((p+1)‖∇ϕ‖2L22‖ϕ‖p+1Lp+1σ)1p−1. |
So,
Theorem 2.6. Assume (3) holds and
G:={ϕ∈H10(Ω):J(ϕ)=d,I(ϕ)=0}. | (34) |
Remark 6. There are two remarks on the above theorem.
(1) Unlike Remark 5, it is not easy to show
(2) To prove the above Theorem, we only need to show
Theorem 2.7. Assume (3) holds and let
Secondly, we consider the case
Theorem 2.8. Assume (3) holds and the initial value
(i): If
(ii): If
Here
Next, we show the solution of the problem (1) can blow up at arbitrary initial energy level (Theorem 2.10). To this end, we firstly introduce the following theorem.
Theorem 2.9. Assume (3) holds and
Tmax≤8p‖u0‖2H10(p−1)2(λ1(p−1)λ1+1‖u0‖2H10−2(p+1)J(u0)) | (35) |
and
limt↑Tmax∫t0‖u(⋅,s)‖2H10ds=∞, |
where
ˆW:={ϕ∈H10(Ω):J(ϕ)<λ1(p−1)2(λ1+1)(p+1)‖ϕ‖2H10}. | (36) |
and
By using the above theorem, we get the following theorem.
Theorem 2.10. For any
The following lemma can be found in [11].
Lemma 3.1. Suppose that
F″(t)F(t)−(1+γ)(F′(t))2≥0 |
for some constant
T≤F(0)γF′(0)<∞ |
and
Theorem 3.2. Assume
Proof. Since
We divide the proof into three cases. We will use the notation
Case 1.
H10(Ω)↪Lp+1(Ω) continuously and compactly. | (37) |
Then we have, for any
‖u‖p+1Lp+1σ=∫Ω|x|σ|u|p+1dx≤Rσ‖u‖p+1Lp+1≲‖u‖p+1H10, |
which, together with (37), implies
Case 2.
H10(Ω)↪L(p+1)rr−1(Ω) continuously and compactly, | (38) |
for any
‖u‖p+1Lp+1σ=∫Ω|x|σ|u|p+1dx≤(∫B(0,R)|x|σrdx)1r(∫Ω|u|(p+1)rr−1dx)r−1r≤{(2σr+1Rσr+1)1r‖u‖p+1L(p+1)rr−1≲‖u‖p+1H10,n=1;(2πσr+2Rσr+2)1r‖u‖p+1L(p+1)rr−1≲‖u‖p+1H10,n=2, |
which, together with (38), implies
Case 3.
−σn<1r<1−(p+1)(n−2)2n. |
By the second inequality of the above inequalities, we have
(p+1)rr−1=p+11−1r<p+1(p+1)(n−2)2n=2nn−2. |
So,
H10(Ω)↪L(p+1)rr−1(Ω) continuously and compactly. | (39) |
Then by Hölder's inequality, for any
‖u‖p+1Lp+1σ=∫Ω|x|σ|u|p+1dx≤(∫B(0,R)|x|σrdx)1r(∫Ω|u|(p+1)rr−1dx)r−1r≤(ωn−1σr+nRσr+n)1r‖u‖p+1L(p+1)rr−1≲‖u‖p+1H10, |
which, together with (39), implies
Theorem 3.3. Assume
d=p−12(p+1)C2(p+1)p−1pσ, |
where
Proof. Firstly, we show
infϕ∈NJ(ϕ)=minϕ∈H10(Ω)∖{0}J(s∗ϕϕ), | (40) |
where
s∗ϕ:=(‖∇ϕ‖2L2‖ϕ‖p+1Lp+1σ)1p−1. | (41) |
By the definition of
On one hand, since
minϕ∈H10(Ω)∖{0}J(s∗ϕϕ)≤minϕ∈NJ(s∗ϕϕ)=minϕ∈NJ(ϕ). |
On the other hand, since
infϕ∈NJ(ϕ)≤infϕ∈H10(Ω)∖{0}J(s∗ϕϕ). |
Then (40) follows from the above two inequalities.
By (40), the definition of
d=minϕ∈H10(Ω)∖{0}J(s∗ϕϕ)=p−12(p+1)minϕ∈H10(Ω)∖{0}(‖∇ϕ‖L2‖ϕ‖Lp+1σ)2(p+1)p−1=p−12(p+1)C−2(p+1)p−1pσ. |
Theorem 3.4. Assume (3) holds. Let
√2(p+1)dp−1≤λρ≤Λρ≤√2(p+1)(λ1+1)ρλ1(p−1). | (42) |
Proof. Let
λρ≤Λρ. | (43) |
Since
d=infϕ∈NJ(ϕ)=p−12(p+1)infϕ∈N‖∇ϕ‖2L2≤p−12(p+1)infϕ∈Nρ‖ϕ‖2H10=p−12(p+1)λ2ρ, |
which implies
λρ≥√2(p+1)dp−1 |
On the other hand, by (8) and (18), we have
Λρ=supϕ∈Nρ‖ϕ‖H10≤√λ1+1λ1supϕ∈Nρ‖∇ϕ‖L2≤√λ1+1λ1√2(p+1)ρp−1. |
Combining the above two inequalities with (43), we get (42), the proof is complete.
Theorem 3.5. Assume (3) holds and
Proof. We only prove the invariance of
For any
‖∇ϕ‖2L2<‖ϕ‖p+1Lp+1σ≤Cp+1pσ‖∇ϕ‖p+1L2, |
which implies
‖∇ϕ‖L2>C−p+1p−1pσ. | (44) |
Let
I(u(⋅,t))<0,t∈[0,ε]. | (45) |
Then by (24),
J(u(⋅,t))<d for t∈(0,ε]. | (46) |
We argument by contradiction. Since
J(u(⋅,t0))<d | (47) |
(note (25) and (46),
‖∇u(⋅,t0)‖L2≥C−p+1p−1pσ>0, |
which, together with
J(u(⋅,t0))≥d, |
which contradicts (47). So the conclusion holds.
Theorem 3.6. Assume (3) holds and
‖∇u(⋅,t)‖2L2≥2(p+1)p−1d,0≤t<Tmax, | (48) |
where
Proof. Let
By the proof in Theorem 3.3,
d=minϕ∈H10(Ω)∖{0}J(s∗ϕϕ)≤minϕ∈N−J(s∗ϕϕ)≤J(s∗uu(⋅,t))=(s∗u)22‖∇u(⋅,t)‖2L2−(s∗u)p+1p+1‖u(⋅,t)‖p+1Lp+1σ≤((s∗u)22−(s∗u)p+1p+1)‖∇u(⋅,t)‖2L2, |
where we have used
d=minϕ∈H10(Ω)∖{0}J(s∗ϕϕ)≤minϕ∈N−J(s∗ϕϕ)≤J(s∗uu(⋅,t))=(s∗u)22‖∇u(⋅,t)‖2L2−(s∗u)p+1p+1‖u(⋅,t)‖p+1Lp+1σ≤((s∗u)22−(s∗u)p+1p+1)‖∇u(⋅,t)‖2L2, |
Then
d≤max0≤s≤1(s22−sp+1p+1)‖∇u(⋅,t)‖2L2=(s22−sp+1p+1)s=1‖∇u(⋅,t)‖2L2=p−12(p+1)‖∇u(⋅,t)‖2L2, |
and (48) follows from the above inequality.
Theorem 3.7. Assume (3) holds and
Proof. Firstly, we show
12‖∇u0‖2L2−1p+1‖u0‖p+1Lp+1σ=J(u0)<λ1(p−1)2(λ1+1)(p+1)‖u0‖2H10≤p−12(p+1)‖∇u0‖2L2, |
which implies
I(u0)=‖∇u0‖2L2−‖u0‖p+1Lp+1σ<0. |
Secondly, we prove
J(u0)<λ1(p−1)2(λ1+1)(p+1)‖u0‖2H10<λ1(p−1)2(λ1+1)(p+1)‖u(⋅,t0)‖2H10≤p−12(p+1)‖∇u(⋅,t0)‖2L2. | (49) |
On the other hand, by (24), (12), (13) and
J(u0)≥J(u(⋅,t0))=p−12(p+1)‖∇u(⋅,t0)‖2L2, |
which contradicts (49). The proof is complete.
Proof of Theorem 2.4. Let
J(u0)≥J(u(⋅,t))≥p−12(p+1)‖∇u(⋅,t)‖2L2,0≤t<Tmax, |
which implies
‖∇u(⋅,t)‖L2≤√2(p+1)J(u0)p−1,0≤t<∞. | (50) |
Next, we prove
ddt(‖u(⋅,t)‖2H10)=−2I(u(⋅,t))=−2(‖∇u(⋅,t)‖2L2−‖u(⋅,t)‖p+1Lp+1σ)≤−2(1−Cp+1pσ‖∇u(⋅,t)‖p−1L2)‖∇u(⋅,t)‖2L2≤−2(1−Cp+1pσ(√2(p+1)J(u0)p−1)p−1)‖∇u(⋅,t)‖2L2=−2(1−(J(u0)d)p−12)‖∇u(⋅,t)‖2L2≤−2λ1λ1+1(1−(J(u0)d)p−12)‖u(⋅,t)‖2H10, |
which leads to
‖u(⋅,t)‖2H10≤‖u0‖2H10exp[−2λ1λ1+1(1−(J(u0)d)p−12)t]. |
The proof is complete.
Proof of Theorem 2.5. Let
Firstly, we consider the case
ξ(t):=(∫t0‖u(⋅,s)‖2H10ds)12,η(t):=(∫t0‖us(⋅,s)‖2H10ds)12,0≤t<Tmax. | (51) |
For any
F(t):=ξ2(t)+(T∗−t)‖u0‖2H10+β(t+α)2,0≤t≤T∗. | (52) |
Then
F(0)=T∗‖u0‖2H10+βα2>0, | (53) |
F′(t)=‖u(⋅,t)‖2H10−‖u0‖2H10+2β(t+α)=2(12∫t0dds‖u(⋅,s)‖2H10ds+β(t+α)),0≤t≤T∗, | (54) |
and (by (24), (12), (13), (48), (25))
F″(t)=−2I(u(⋅,t))+2β=(p−1)‖∇u(⋅,t)‖2L2−2(p+1)J(u(⋅,t))+2β≥2(p+1)(d−J(u0))+2(p+1)η2(t)+2β,0≤t≤T∗. | (55) |
Since
F′(t)≥2β(t+α). |
Then
F(t)=F(0)+∫t0F′(s)ds≥T∗‖u0‖2H10+βα2+2αβt+βt2,0≤t≤T∗. | (56) |
By (6), Schwartz's inequality and Hölder's inequality, we have
12∫t0dds‖u(⋅,s)‖2H10ds=∫t0(u(⋅,s),us(⋅,s))H10ds≤∫t0‖u(⋅,s)‖H10‖us(⋅,s)‖H10ds≤ξ(t)η(t),0≤t≤T∗, |
which, together with the definition of
(F(t)−(T∗−t)‖u0‖2H10)(η2(t)+β)=(ξ2(t)+β(t+α)2)(η2(t)+β)=ξ2(t)η2(t)+βξ2(t)+β(t+α)2η2(t)+β2(t+α)2≥ξ2(t)η2(t)+2ξ(t)η(t)β(t+α)+β2(t+α)2≥(ξ(t)η(t)+β(t+α))2≥(12∫t0dds‖u(⋅,s)‖2H10ds+β(t+α))2,0≤t≤T∗. |
Then it follows from (54) and the above inequality that
(F′(t))2=4(12t∫0dds‖u(s)‖2H10ds+β(t+α))2≤4F(t)(η2(t)+β),0≤t≤T∗. | (57) |
In view of (55), (56), and (57), we have
F(t)F″(t)−p+12(F′(t))2≥F(t)(2(p+1)(d−J(u0))−2pβ),0≤t≤T∗. |
If we take
0<β≤p+1p(d−J(u0)), | (58) |
then
T∗≤F(0)(p+12−1)F′(0)=T∗‖u0‖2H10+βα2(p−1)αβ. |
Then for
α∈(‖u0‖2H10(p−1)β,∞), | (59) |
we get
T∗≤βα2(p−1)αβ−‖u0‖2H10. |
Minimizing the above inequality for
T∗≤βα2(p−1)αβ−‖u0‖2H10|α=2‖u0‖2H10(p−1)β=4‖u0‖2H10(p−1)2β. |
Minimizing the above inequality for
T∗≤4p‖u0‖2H10(p−1)2(p+1)(d−J(u0)). |
By the arbitrariness of
Tmax≤4p‖u0‖2H10(p−1)2(p+1)(d−J(u0)). |
Secondly, we consider the case
Proof of Theorems 2.6 and 2.7. Since Theorem 2.6 follows from Theorem 2.7 directly, we only need to prove Theorem 2.7.
Firstly, we show
d=infϕ∈NJ(ϕ)=p−12(p+1)infϕ∈N‖∇ϕ‖2L2. |
Then a minimizing sequence
limk↑∞J(ϕk)=p−12(p+1)limk↑∞‖∇ϕk‖2L2=d, | (60) |
which implies
(1)
(2)
Now, in view of
limk↑∞J(ϕk)=p−12(p+1)limk↑∞‖∇ϕk‖2L2=d, | (60) |
We claim
‖∇φ‖2L2=‖φ‖p+1Lp+1σ i.e. I(φ)=0. | (62) |
In fact, if the claim is not true, then by (61),
‖∇φ‖2L2<‖φ‖p+1Lp+1σ. |
By the proof of Theorem 3.3, we know that
J(s∗φφ)≥d, | (63) |
where
J(s∗φφ)≥d, | (63) |
On the other hand, since
J(s∗φφ)=p−12(p+1)(s∗φ)2‖∇φ‖2L2<p−12(p+1)‖∇φ‖2L2≤p−12(p+1)lim infk↑∞‖∇ϕk‖2L2=d, |
which contradicts to (63). So the claim is true, i.e.
limk↑∞‖∇ϕk‖2L2=‖φ‖p+1Lp+1σ, |
which, together with
Second, we prove
limk↑∞‖∇ϕk‖2L2=‖φ‖p+1Lp+1σ, |
Then
A:={τ(s)(φ+sv):s∈(−ε,ε)} |
is a curve on
A:={τ(s)(φ+sv):s∈(−ε,ε)} |
where
ξ:=2∫Ω∇(φ+sv)⋅∇vdx‖φ+sv‖p+1Lp+1σ,η:=(p+1)∫Ω|x|σ|φ+sv|p−1(φ+sv)vdx‖∇(φ+sv)‖2L2. |
Since (62), we get
τ′(0)=1(p−1)‖φ‖p+1Lp+1σ(2∫Ω∇φ∇vdx−(p+1)∫Ω|x|σ|φ|p−1φvdx). | (65) |
Let
ϱ(s):=J(τ(s)(φ+sv))=τ2(s)2‖∇(φ+sv)‖2L2−τp+1(s)p+1‖φ+sv‖p+1Lp+1σ,s∈(−ε,ε). |
Since
0=ϱ′(0)=τ(s)τ′(s)‖∇(φ+sv)‖2L2+τ2(s)∫Ω∇(φ+sv)⋅∇vdx|s=0−τp(s)τ′(s)‖φ+sv‖p+1Lp+1σ−τp+1(s)∫Ω|x|σ|φ+sv|p−1(φ+sv)vdx|s=0=∫Ω∇φ⋅∇vdx−∫Ω|x|σ|φ|p−1φvdx. |
So,
Finally, in view of Definition 2.3 and
d=infϕ∈Φ∖{0}J(ϕ). | (66) |
In fact, by the above proof and (27), we have
d=infϕ∈NJ(ϕ) |
and
Proof of Theorem 2.8. Let
ω(u0)=∩t≥0¯{u(⋅,s):s≥t}H10(Ω) |
the
(i) Assume
v(x,t)={u(x,t), if 0≤t≤t0;0, if t>t0 |
is a global weak solution of problem (1), and the proof is complete.
We claim that
I(u(⋅,t))>0,0≤t<Tmax. | (67) |
Since
I(u(⋅,t))>0,0≤t<t0 | (68) |
and
I(u(⋅,t0))=0, | (69) |
which together with the definition of
‖u(⋅,t0)‖H10≥λρ. | (70) |
On the other hand, it follows from (24), (68) and
‖u(⋅,t)‖H10<‖u0‖H10≤λρ, |
which contradicts (70). So (67) is true. Then by (24) again, we get
‖u(⋅,t)‖H10≤‖u0‖H10,0≤t<Tmax, |
which implies
By (24) and (67),
limt↑∞‖u(⋅,t)‖H10=c. |
Taking
∫∞0I(u(⋅,s))ds≤12(‖u0‖2H10−c)<∞. |
Note that
limn↑∞I(u(⋅,tn))=0. | (71) |
Let
u(⋅,tn)→ω in H10(Ω) as n↑∞. | (72) |
Then by (71), we get
I(ω)=limn↑∞I(u(⋅,tn))=0. | (73) |
As the above, one can easily see
‖ω‖H10<λρ≤λJ(u0),J(ω)<J(u0)⏟⇒ω∈JJ(u0), |
which implies
limt↑∞‖u(⋅,t)‖H10=limn↑∞‖u(⋅,tn)‖H10=‖ω‖H10=0. |
(ⅱ) Assume
I(u(⋅,t))<0,0≤t<Tmax. | (74) |
Since
I(u(⋅,t))<0,0≤t<t0 | (75) |
and
I(u(⋅,t0))=0. | (76) |
Since (75), by (44) and
\begin{equation*} \|\nabla u(\cdot,t_0)\|_{L^2}\geq C_{p\sigma}^{-\frac{p+1}{p-1}}, \end{equation*} |
which, together with the definition of
\begin{equation} \|u(\cdot,t_0)\|_{H_0^1}\leq \Lambda_{\rho}. \end{equation} | (77) |
On the other hand, it follows from (24), (75) and
\begin{equation*} \|u(\cdot,t)\|_{H_0^1} > \|u_0\|_{H_0^1}\geq\Lambda_\rho, \end{equation*} |
which contradicts (77). So (74) is true.
Suppose by contradiction that
\begin{equation*} \lim\limits_{t\uparrow\infty}\|u(\cdot,t)\|_{H_0^1} = \tilde c, \end{equation*} |
Taking
\begin{equation*} -\int_0^\infty I(u(\cdot,s))ds\leq\frac12\left( \tilde c-\|u_0\|_{H_0^1}^2\right) < \infty. \end{equation*} |
Note
\begin{equation} \lim\limits_{n\uparrow\infty}I(u(\cdot,t_n)) = 0. \end{equation} | (78) |
Let
\begin{equation} u(\cdot,t_n)\rightarrow\omega \hbox{ in }H_0^1( \Omega)\hbox{ as }n\uparrow\infty. \end{equation} | (79) |
Since
\begin{equation*} \lim\limits_{t\uparrow\infty}\|u(\cdot,t)\|_{H_0^1} = \lim\limits_{n\uparrow\infty}\|u(\cdot,t_n)\|_{H_0^1} = \|\omega\|_{H_0^1}. \end{equation*} |
Then by (78), we get
\begin{equation} I(\omega) = \lim\limits_{n\uparrow\infty}I(u(\cdot,t_n)) = 0. \end{equation} | (80) |
By (24), (25) and (74), one can easily see
\begin{equation*} \|\omega\|_{H_0^1} > \|u_0\|_{H_0^1}\geq\Lambda_\rho\geq\Lambda_{J(u_0)},\; \; \; \underbrace{J(\omega) < J(u_0)}_{\Rightarrow\omega\in J^{J(u_0)}}, \end{equation*} |
which implies
Proof of Theorem 2.9. Let
\begin{equation} \|\nabla u(\cdot,t)\|_{L^2}^2\geq \frac{ \lambda_1}{ \lambda_1+1}\|u(\cdot,t)\|_{H_0^1}^2\geq\frac{ \lambda_1}{ \lambda_1+1}\|u_0\|_{H_0^1}^2,\; \; \; 0\leq t < {T_{\max}}. \end{equation} | (81) |
The remain proofs are similar to the proof of Theorem 2.9. For any
\begin{equation} \begin{split} F''(t) = &-2I(u(\cdot,t))+2 \beta\\ = &(p-1)\|\nabla u(\cdot,t)\|_{L^2}^2-2(p+1)J(u(\cdot,t))+2 \beta\\ \geq&\frac{ \lambda_1(p-1)}{ \lambda_1+1}\|u_0\|_{H_0^1}^2-2(p+1)J(u_0)+2(p+1)\eta^2(t)+2 \beta,\; \; \; 0\leq t\leq T^*. \end{split} \end{equation} | (82) |
We also have (56) and (57). Then it follows from (56), (57) and (82) that
\begin{align*} &F(t)F''(t)-\frac{p+1}{2}(F'(t))^2\\ \geq& F(t)\left(\frac{ \lambda_1(p-1)}{ \lambda_1+1}\|u_0\|_{H_0^1}^2-2(p+1)J(u_0)-2p \beta\right),\; \; \; 0\leq t\leq T^*. \end{align*} |
If we take
\begin{equation} 0 < \beta\leq\frac{1}{2p}\left(\frac{ \lambda_1(p-1)}{ \lambda_1+1}\|u_0\|_{H_0^1}^2-2(p+1)J(u_0)\right), \end{equation} | (83) |
then
\begin{equation*} T^*\leq\frac{F(0)}{\left(\frac{p+1}{2}-1\right) F'(0)} = \frac{T^*\|u_0\|_{H_0^1}^2+ \beta \alpha^2}{(p-1) \alpha \beta}. \end{equation*} |
Then for
\begin{equation} \alpha\in\left(\frac{\|u_0\|_{H_0^1}^2}{(p-1) \beta},\infty\right), \end{equation} | (84) |
we get
\begin{equation*} T^*\leq \frac{ \beta \alpha^2}{(p-1) \alpha \beta-\|u_0\|_{H_0^1}^2}. \end{equation*} |
Minimizing the above inequality for
\begin{equation*} T^*\leq\left.\frac{ \beta \alpha^2}{(p-1) \alpha \beta-\|u_0\|_{H_0^1}^2}\right|_{ \alpha = \frac{2\|u_0\|_{H_0^1}^2}{(p-1) \beta}} = \frac{4\|u_0\|_{H_0^1}^2}{(p-1)^2 \beta}. \end{equation*} |
Minimizing the above inequality for
\begin{equation*} T^*\leq\frac{8p\|u_0\|_{H_0^1}^2}{(p-1)^2\left(\frac{ \lambda_1(p-1)}{ \lambda_1+1}\|u_0\|_{H_0^1}^2-2(p+1)J(u_0)\right)}. \end{equation*} |
By the arbitrariness of
\begin{equation*} {T_{\max}}\leq\frac{8p\|u_0\|_{H_0^1}^2}{(p-1)^2\left(\frac{ \lambda_1(p-1)}{ \lambda_1+1}\|u_0\|_{H_0^1}^2-2(p+1)J(u_0)\right)}. \end{equation*} |
Proof of Theorem 2.10. For any
\begin{equation} \| \alpha\psi\|_{H_0^1}^2 > \frac{2( \lambda_1+1)(p+1)}{ \lambda_1(p-1)}M. \end{equation} | (85) |
For such
\begin{equation} J(s_3^*\phi)\geq M-J( \alpha \psi), \end{equation} | (86) |
where (see Remark 5)
\begin{equation} J(s_3^*\phi)\geq M-J( \alpha \psi), \end{equation} | (86) |
which can be done since
\begin{equation*} J(s_3^*\phi) = \frac{p-1}{2(p+1)}\left(\frac{\|\nabla \phi\|_{L^2}}{\|\phi\|_{L_\sigma^{p+1}}}\right)^{\frac{2(p+1)}{p-1}} \end{equation*} |
and
By Remark 5 again,
\begin{equation} J(\{s\phi:0\leq s < \infty\}) = (-\infty, J(s_3^*\phi)]. \end{equation} | (87) |
By (87) and (86), we can choose
\begin{equation*} J(u_0) = J(v)+J( \alpha\psi) = M \end{equation*} |
and (note (85))
\begin{align*} J(u_0)& = M < \frac{ \lambda_1(p-1)}{2( \lambda_1+1)(p+1)}\| \alpha\psi\|_{H_0^1}^2\\ &\leq\frac{ \lambda_1(p-1)}{2( \lambda_1+1)(p+1)}\left(\| \alpha\psi\|_{H_0^1}^2+\|v\|_{H_0^1}^2\right)\\ & = \frac{ \lambda_1(p-1)}{2( \lambda_1+1)(p+1)}\|u_0\|_{H_0^1}^2. \end{align*} |
Let
[1] | Wang P, Goertzel B (2007) Introduction: Aspects of Artificial General Intelligence. Artificial General Intelligence: Concepts, Architectures and Algorithms. IOS Press, 1–16. |
[2] | Goertzel B, Pennachin C (2007) Artificial General Intelligence, Springer Science and Business Media. |
[3] | Goertzel B (2021) The General Theory of General Intelligence: A Pragmatic Patternist Perspective. arXiv: 2103.15100. |
[4] | Franz A, Gogulya V, Löffler MW (2019) William: A monolithic approach to agi. International Conference on Artificial General Intelligence, Springer International Publishing, 44–58. |
[5] | Franz A (2015) Artificial general intelligence through recursive data compression and grounded reasoning: a position paper. arXiv preprint arXiv: 1506.04366. |
[6] | Al-Sikaiti SH, Regtien J (2008) Challenging Conventional Wisdom, Waterflooding Experience on Heavy Oil Fields in Southern Oman. Canada. |
[7] |
Chierici GL, Ciucci GM, Pizzi G (1964) A Systematic Study of Gas and Water Coning By Potentiometric Models. J Pet Technol 16: 923–929. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/871-PA doi: 10.2118/871-PA
![]() |
[8] | Chaperon I (1986) Theoretical Study of Coning Toward Horizontal and Vertical Wells in Anisotropic Formations: Subcritical and Critical Rates. SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition. https://doi.org/10.2118/15377-MS |
[9] | Wheatley MJ (1985) An Approximate Theory of Oil/Water Coning. SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, USA. https://doi.org/10.2118/14210-MS |
[10] |
Karami M, Khaksar Manshad A, Ashoori S (2014) The Prediction of Water Breakthrough Time and Critical Rate with a New Equation for an Iranian Oil Field. Pet Sci Technol 32: 211–216. https://doi.org/10.1080/10916466.2011.586960 doi: 10.1080/10916466.2011.586960
![]() |
[11] | Bottazzi F, Dell'Aversana P, Molaschi C, et al. (2020) A New Downhole System for Real Time Reservoir Fluid Distribution Mapping: E-REMM, the Eni-Reservoir Electro-Magnetic Mapping System. International Petroleum Technology Conference. https://doi.org/10.2523/IPTC-19807-MS |
[12] | Dell'Aversana P, Servodio R, Bottazzi F, et al., (2019) Asset Value Maximization through a Novel Well Completion System for 3d Time Lapse Electromagnetic Tomography Supported by Machine Learning. Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition & Conference. https://doi.org/10.2118/197573-MS |
[13] | Dell'Aversana P, Rizzo E, Servodio R (2017) 4D borehole electric tomography for hydrocarbon reservoir monitoring. 79th EAGE Conference & Exhibition 2017. European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers. 1–5. |
[14] | Dell'Aversana P, Bottazzi F, Molaschi C, et al. (2022) Monitoring and mapping system of the space-time distribution of formation fluids in a reservoir and a completion and production plant of a well for the extraction of formation fluids. U.S. Patent 11,268,374. |
[15] |
Chella A, Frixione M, Gaglio S (2008) A cognitive architecture for robot self-consciousness. Artif Intell Med 44: 147–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artmed.2008.07.003 doi: 10.1016/j.artmed.2008.07.003
![]() |
[16] |
Dehaene S, Lau H, Kouider S (2017) What is consciousness, and could machines have it? Science 358: 486–492. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aan8871 doi: 10.1126/science.aan8871
![]() |
[17] |
Dell'Aversana P (2024) Enhancing Deep Learning and Computer Image Analysis in Petrography through Artificial Self-Awareness Mechanisms. Minerals 14: 247. https://doi.org/10.3390/min14030247 doi: 10.3390/min14030247
![]() |
[18] |
Um ES, Alumbaugh D, Commer M, et al. (2024) Deep learning multiphysics network for imaging CO2 saturation and estimating uncertainty in geological carbon storage. Geophys Prospect 72: 183–198. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2478.13257 doi: 10.1111/1365-2478.13257
![]() |
[19] |
Bergmann P, Schmidt-Hattenberger C, Kiessling D, et al. (2012) Surface-downhole electrical resistivity tomography applied to monitoring of CO2 storage at Ketzin, Germany. Geophysics 77: B253–B267. https://doi.org/10.1190/GEO2011-0515.1 doi: 10.1190/GEO2011-0515.1
![]() |
[20] |
Bergmann P, Schmidt-Hattenberger C, Labitzke T, et al. (2017) Fluid injection monitoring using electrical resistivity tomography—five years of CO2 injection at Ketzin, Germany. Geophys Prospect 65: 859–875. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2478.12426 doi: 10.1111/1365-2478.12426
![]() |
[21] |
Binley A (2015) Tools and Techniques: DC Electrical Methods. Treatise Geophys 11: 233–259. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-53802-4.00192-5 doi: 10.1016/B978-0-444-53802-4.00192-5
![]() |
[22] | Binley A, Kemna A (2005) DC Resistivity and Induced Polarization Methods, In: Rubin Y, Hubbard SS, Authors, Hydrogeophysics, Springer, 129–156. |
[23] |
Buscheck TA, White JA, Chen M, et al. (2014) Pre-injection brine production for managing pressure in compartmentalized CO2 storage reservoirs. Energy Procedia 63: 5333–5340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2014.11.565 doi: 10.1016/j.egypro.2014.11.565
![]() |
[24] |
Christensen NB, Sherlock D, Dodds K (2006) Monitoring CO2 injection with cross-hole electrical resistivity tomography. Explor Geophys 37: 44–49. https://doi.org/10.1071/EG06044 doi: 10.1071/EG06044
![]() |
[25] |
Descloitres M, Ribolzi O, Le Troquer Y (2003) Study of infiltration in a Sahelian gully erosion area using time-lapse resistivity mapping. Catena 53: 229–253. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0341-8162(03)00038-9 doi: 10.1016/S0341-8162(03)00038-9
![]() |
[26] | Goldman M, Kafri U (2006) Hydrogeophysical applications in coastal aquifers. Applied Hydrogeophysics, Springer: Dordrecht, 71: 233–254. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-4912-5_8 |
[27] |
Schmidt-Hattenberger C, Bergmann P, Bösing D, et al. (2013) Electrical resistivity tomography (ERT) for monitoring of CO2 migration—from tool development to reservoir surveillance at the Ketzinpilot site. Energy Procedia 37: 4268–4275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2013.06.329 doi: 10.1016/j.egypro.2013.06.329
![]() |
[28] |
Kazakis N, Pavlou A, Vargemezis G, et al. (2016) Seawater intrusion mapping using electrical resistivity tomography and hydrochemical data. An application in the coastal area of eastern Thermaikos Gulf, Greece. Sci Total Environ 543: 373–387. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.11.041 doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.11.041
![]() |
[29] | Tarrahi M, Afra S (2015) Optimization of Geological Carbon Sequestration in Heterogeneous Saline Aquifers through Managed Injection for Uniform CO2 Distribution. Carbon Management Technology Conference. https://doi.org/10.7122/440233-MS |
[30] | Befus KM (2018) Pyres: A Python Wrapper for Electrical Resistivity Modeling with R2. J Geophys Eng 15: 338–346. |
[31] | Binley A (2016) R2 version 3.1 Manual. Lancaster, UK. |
[32] |
Dell'Aversana P (2021) Reservoir prescriptive management combining electric resistivity tomography and machine learning. AIMS Geosci 7: 138–161. https://doi.org/10.3934/geosci.2021009 doi: 10.3934/geosci.2021009
![]() |
[33] |
Kaelbling LP, Littman ML, Moore AW (1996) Reinforcement Learning: A Survey. J Artif Intell Res 4: 237–285. https://doi.org/10.1613/jair.301 doi: 10.1613/jair.301
![]() |
[34] | Raschka S, Mirjalili V (2017) Python Machine Learning: Machine Learning and Deep Learning with Python, scikit-learn, and TensorFlow, 2nd Eds., PACKT Books. |
[35] | Ribeiro C, Szepesvári C (1996) Q-learning combined with spreading: Convergence and results, Proceedings of the ISRF-IEE International Conference: Intelligent and Cognitive Systems (Neural Networks Symposium), 32–36. |
[36] | Russell S, Norvig P (2016) Artificial Intelligence: A Modern approach, Global Edition, Pearson Education, Inc., publishing as Prentice Hall. |
[37] | Ravichandiran S (2020) Deep Reinforcement Learning with Python: Master classic RL, deep RL, distributional RL, inverse RL, and more with OpenAI Gym and TensorFlow, Packt Publishing. |
[38] |
Ullah J, Li H, Ashraf U, et al. (2023) Knowledge-based machine learning for mineral classification in a complex tectonic regime of Yingxiu-Beichuan fault zone, Sichuan basin. Geoenergy Sci Eng 229: 212077. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoen.2023.212077 doi: 10.1016/j.geoen.2023.212077
![]() |
[39] |
Ullah J, Luo M, Ashraf U, et al. (2022) Evaluation of the geothermal parameters to decipher the thermal structure of the upper crust of the Longmenshan fault zone derived from borehole data. Geothermics 98: 102268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geothermics.2021.102268 doi: 10.1016/j.geothermics.2021.102268
![]() |
[40] |
Ullah J, Li H, Soupios P, et al. (2024) Optimizing geothermal reservoir modeling: A unified bayesian PSO and BiGRU approach for precise history matching under uncertainty. Geothermics 119: 102958. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geothermics.2024.102958 doi: 10.1016/j.geothermics.2024.102958
![]() |
[41] | Eppelbaum LV, Zheludev V, Averbuch A (2014) Diffusion maps as a powerful tool for integrated geophysical field analysis to detecting hidden karst terranes. Izv Acad Sci Azerb Rep Ser.: Earth Sciences 2014: 36–46. |
1. | Yuxuan Chen, Jiangbo Han, Global existence and nonexistence for a class of finitely degenerate coupled parabolic systems with high initial energy level, 2021, 14, 1937-1632, 4179, 10.3934/dcdss.2021109 | |
2. | Quang-Minh Tran, Hong-Danh Pham, Global existence and blow-up results for a nonlinear model for a dynamic suspension bridge, 2021, 14, 1937-1632, 4521, 10.3934/dcdss.2021135 | |
3. | Jun Zhou, Guangyu Xu, Chunlai Mu, Analysis of a pseudo-parabolic equation by potential wells, 2021, 200, 0373-3114, 2741, 10.1007/s10231-021-01099-1 | |
4. | Le Thi Phuong Ngoc, Khong Thi Thao Uyen, Nguyen Huu Nhan, Nguyen Thanh Long, On a system of nonlinear pseudoparabolic equations with Robin-Dirichlet boundary conditions, 2022, 21, 1534-0392, 585, 10.3934/cpaa.2021190 | |
5. | Jinxing Liu, Xiongrui Wang, Jun Zhou, Huan Zhang, Blow-up phenomena for the sixth-order Boussinesq equation with fourth-order dispersion term and nonlinear source, 2021, 14, 1937-1632, 4321, 10.3934/dcdss.2021108 | |
6. | Peiqun Lin, Chenxing He, Lingshu Zhong, Mingyang Pei, Chuhao Zhou, Yang Liu, Bus timetable optimization model in response to the diverse and uncertain requirements of passengers for travel comfort, 2023, 31, 2688-1594, 2315, 10.3934/era.2023118 | |
7. | Hang Ding, Renhai Wang, Jun Zhou, Infinite time blow‐up of solutions to a class of wave equations with weak and strong damping terms and logarithmic nonlinearity, 2021, 147, 0022-2526, 914, 10.1111/sapm.12405 | |
8. | Le Thi Phuong Ngoc, Nguyen Anh Triet, Phan Thi My Duyen, Nguyen Thanh Long, General Decay and Blow-up Results of a Robin-Dirichlet Problem for a Pseudoparabolic Nonlinear Equation of Kirchhoff-Carrier Type with Viscoelastic Term, 2023, 0251-4184, 10.1007/s40306-023-00496-3 | |
9. | Gang Cheng, Yijie He, Enhancing passenger comfort and operator efficiency through multi-objective bus timetable optimization, 2024, 32, 2688-1594, 565, 10.3934/era.2024028 |