Next Article in Journal
Nonparametric Functional Times Series Data Analysis by kNN–Local Linear M-Regression
Previous Article in Journal
Optimizing Maintenance Contract Pricing Through Comprehensive Risk Assessment
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

On Higher-Order PDE Constrained Multiobjective Optimization Models

by
Savin Treanţă
1,2,3,* and
Omar Mutab Alsalami
4
1
Faculty of Applied Sciences, National University of Science and Technology Politehnica Bucharest, 060042 Bucharest, Romania
2
Academy of Romanian Scientists, 54 Splaiul Independentei, 050094 Bucharest, Romania
3
Fundamental Sciences Applied in Engineering—Research Center, National University of Science and Technology Politehnica Bucharest, 060042 Bucharest, Romania
4
Department of Electrical Engineering, College of Engineering, Taif University, Taif 21944, Saudi Arabia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Mathematics 2026, 14(9), 1454; https://doi.org/10.3390/math14091454
Submission received: 20 March 2026 / Revised: 16 April 2026 / Accepted: 23 April 2026 / Published: 26 April 2026

Abstract

In this paper, we formulate and prove necessary conditions of efficiency for a new class of multiobjective variational models governed by higher order partial derivatives. More precisely, we consider a multiobjective optimization model of minimizing a vector of multiple integral functionals subject to certain higher order differential equations and/or inequations. The main results are derived by applying suitable techniques coming from variational calculus. The current contribution lies in vector-valued functionals given by multiple integrals, constraint coupling, and the characterization of efficiency criteria.

1. Framework and Problem Description

Over time, several authors have been interested in the investigation of vector (multiobjective) variational problems by considering generalized convexity (see, for instance, Mititelu and Udrişte [1], Mititelu [2], Nahak and Mohapatra [3], and Preda and Gramatovici [4]). Moreover, many studies extend this notion of convexity and develop a multitime variational theory, sometimes using a geometrical language (see, for instance, Treanţă [5,6,7], Vetro and Zeng [8]). For other ideas related to this topic, we address the readers to Chinchuluun and Pardalos [9], Geoffrion [10], Jagannathan [11], Treanţă [12], and Cen et al. [13,14,15]. Sadek et al. [16,17] extended the classical framework to conformal and trigonometric fractional calculus and provided new properties and applications. Moreover, the Galerkin Bell method to solve the fractional optimal control problems with inequality constraints, and the extended block Arnoldi method to solve generalized differential Sylvester equations have been considered in recent studies (see Sadek et al. [18,19]).
In this work, we extend and further develop some optimization outcomes in connection with the efficiency of admissible solutions associated with a family of multiple objective non-fractional programming problems implying higher order partial derivatives. Thus, we introduce and formulate a study on multiobjective (vector) variational model consisting in extremizing a vector made up of multiple integral functionals constrained by partial differential equations and inequations of higher order. The main novelty element associated with this paper is the presence of higher order partial derivatives. Also, as a natural consequence, the corresponding context is dominated by new and more complex techniques and methods. Moreover, the current paper is motivated by various applications in wide areas of research and in natural phenomena, where partial derivatives (of higher order) are requested.
The proper motivation for investigating such issues is, more precisely, the following:
(i) Pointwise state-constrained optimization problem:
min u , ϑ 1 2 Ω t 0 , t 1 u ( t ) s i n ( 2 π t 1 t 2 ) 2 d t 1 d t 2 + α 2 Ω t 0 , t 1 ϑ 2 ( t ) d t 1 d t 2
subject to
Δ u ( t ) = ϑ ( t ) , t Ω t 0 , t 1 ; u ( t ) = 0 , t Ω t 0 , t 1 ,
studied by Udrişte and Matei [20], as well, by considering a simplified multi-time maximum principle.
(ii) Neumann boundary control:
J ( ϑ ( · ) ) = 1 2 Ω ( x ( t ) z d ) 2 d t 1 d t m + β 2 Γ ϑ 2 ( t ) d s ,
where Ω is a bounded set in R m having the boundary Γ of C 2 -class, the pair ( x , ϑ ) satisfies Δ x + x = f in Ω and x n = ϑ on Γ . The above-mentioned function f is a source term, and the function ϑ is a control variable. Since β 2 Γ ϑ 2 ( t ) d s (with β > 0 ) is proportional with the consumed energy, the extremizing of the functional J is a compromise between finding ϑ such that x is close to the desired profile z d and the energy consumption. The control variable is named boundary control because it acts on the boundary Γ .
The above optimization problems (implying second-order partial derivatives) were taken from the specialized literature. Other illustrative examples and new points of view, can be read in Udrişte and Matei [20] and Raymond [21].
The passing from the first-order partial derivatives to the higher-order partial derivatives is a very complex task because it requests specific techniques and an appropriate mathematical framework. Studies regarding higher-order variational calculus and optimal control theory have been formulated until now by certain researchers. However, the current contribution lies in vector-valued functionals given by multiple integrals, constraint coupling, and the characterization of efficiency criteria.
Before presenting our results, for the completeness of the exposition, we set the following notations.
Consider the real multi-interval Ω : = [ t 0 , t 1 ] R w (hyper-parallelepiped determined by the diagonal corners t 0 = ( t 0 1 , t 0 w ) and t 1 : = ( t 1 1 , t 1 w ) ) and
σ = σ ξ : Ω × R n ( μ + 1 ) R a , ξ = 1 , a ¯ ,
σ = ( σ 1 ( t , π ( t ) , π γ 1 ( t ) , , π γ 1 γ μ ( t ) ) ,
, σ a ( t , π ( t ) , π γ 1 ( t ) , , π γ 1 γ μ ( t ) ) ) ,
a C μ + 1 -class functional, where π γ 1 γ μ ( t ) : = μ t γ 1 t γ μ π ( t ) , with μ 1 a fixed natural number, and γ 1 , , γ μ { 1 , 2 , , w } . Also, let ψ = ψ 1 , , ψ k : Ω × R n ( μ + 1 ) R k , with k < n , and τ = τ 1 , , τ r : Ω × R n ( μ + 1 ) R r , with r < n , two C μ + 1 -class functionals. Assume that the previous C μ + 1 -class Lagrangians,
σ ξ ( t , π ( t ) , π γ 1 ( t ) , , π γ 1 γ μ ( t ) ) , ξ = 1 , a ¯ ,
generate the multiple integral functionals
F ξ π ( · ) : = Ω σ ξ ( t , π ( t ) , π γ 1 ( t ) , , π γ 1 γ μ ( t ) ) d v ,
ξ = 1 , a ¯ ,
where d v : = d t 1 d t w (volume element).
Let C Ω , R n be the space of all functions π : Ω R n of C -class, with the norm
π : = π + β = 1 μ π γ 1 γ β ,
or, for generality, we can assume the Sobolev-type spaces for our framework.
As usual, two vectors, b = b 1 , , b s , v = v 1 , , v s in R s are related via
b = v b i = v i , b v b i v i
b < v b i < v i , b v b v , b v , i = 1 , s ¯ .
Also, we underline that the argument of our Lagrangians is denoted as follows
z π ( t ) : = ( t , π ( t ) , π γ 1 ( t ) , , π γ 1 γ μ ( t ) ) .
Using these ingredients, we formulate the multiobjective variational problem (MVP) (higher-order PDE constrained optimization problem),
min π · Q ( π ( · ) ) = Ω σ 1 ( z π ( t ) ) d v , , Ω σ a ( z π ( t ) ) d v subject to π · Q Ω ,
where the set (domain) Q Ω of all feasible solutions is
π C Ω , R n , π ( t ε ) = π ε , π γ 1 γ β ( t ε ) = π β ε
ψ ( z π ( t ) ) 0 , τ ( z π ( t ) ) = 0 , t Ω , β = 1 , μ 1 ¯ ,
with ε { 0 , 1 } .
In this paper, we are looking for necessary efficiency conditions for the foregoing multiobjective variational problem (MVP). The next section introduces the necessary mathematical elements which will be used to state the main results.

2. Preliminaries

Let us start with the case of one functional, considering the next scalar problem (SP),
min π ( · ) Θ π ( · ) = Ω Y z π ( t ) d v subject to π · Q Ω .
Consider the auxiliary Lagrange functional B , defined as
B ( z π ( t ) , e ( t ) , u ( t ) , h ) : = h Y z π ( t )
+ e a ( t ) ψ a ( z π ( t ) ) + u ζ ( t ) τ ζ ( z π ( t ) ) ,
(with summation over the repeated indices) that allows us to establish necessary conditions of efficiency for (SP). We must note that the next theorem includes functional perturbation, first variation derivation, and integration by parts associated with higher-order derivatives.
Theorem 1.
Consider that π 0 is an optimal solution and Y , ψ , τ are C μ + 1 -class functions. Then, there exist h and the following functions (piecewise smooth) e ( t ) and u ( t ) , fulfilling
B π ( z π 0 ( t ) , e ( t ) , u ( t ) , h )
t γ 1 B π γ 1 ( z π 0 ( t ) , e ( t ) , u ( t ) , h )
+ + ( 1 ) μ μ t γ 1 t γ μ B π γ 1 γ μ ( z π 0 ( t ) , e ( t ) , u ( t ) , h ) = 0
( higher-order   Euler-Lagrange   PDEs )
e ( t ) ψ ( z π 0 ( t ) ) = 0 , e ( t ) 0 , ( ) t Ω .
The previous result represents a generalization of Valentine’s necessary conditions (see [22]).
Definition 1.
The optimal solution π 0 ( · ) of problem (SP) is called normal optimal solution if h 0 .
Further, we can assume that h = 1 .
In this work, we are interested in finding the necessary conditions of efficiency of the considered problem (MVP) in Q Ω . In this respect, we give the following definition.
Definition 2.
A feasible solution π 0 ( · ) Q Ω is named efficient solution in (MVP) if there exists no other π ( · ) Q Ω satisfying Q π ( · ) Q π 0 ( · ) .

3. Main Results

To develop our theory, we establish the following results. The next lemma is a connection of the weighted-sum scalarization and the Geoffrion efficiency concept (see Definition 2).
Lemma 1.
The feasible solution π 0 · Q Ω is an efficient solution of the problem (MVP) if and only if π 0 · Q Ω is an optimal solution of every A ϑ ( π 0 ) , ϑ = 1 , a ¯ ,
min π ( · ) Ω σ ϑ z π ( t ) d v
subject to
π · Q Ω , Ω σ ν z π ( t ) d v Ω σ ν z π 0 ( t ) d v
for ν = 1 , a ¯ , ν ϑ .
Proof. 
” Consider π 0 · Q Ω an efficient solution of (MVP). Let us suppose there exists μ { 1 , , a } such that π 0 · Q Ω is not an optimal solution of A μ ( π 0 ) . Thus, there exists y · Q Ω fulfilling
Ω σ ν z y ( t ) d v Ω σ ν z π 0 ( t ) d v
for ν = 1 , a ¯ , ν μ , and
Ω σ μ z y ( t ) d v < Ω σ μ z π 0 ( t ) d v .
This contradicts the efficiency of the function π 0 · Q Ω in (MVP). Consequently, we proved the direct implication.
” Let π 0 · Q Ω be an optimal solution of A ϑ ( π 0 ) , ϑ = 1 , a ¯ . Assume that π 0 · Q Ω is not an efficient solution of (MVP). Thus, there exists y · Q Ω fulfilling
Ω σ ν z y ( t ) d v Ω σ ν z π 0 ( t ) d v , ν = 1 , a ¯
and there exists μ { 1 , , a } such that
Ω σ μ z y ( t ) d v < Ω σ μ z π 0 ( t ) d v .
But, π 0 · Q Ω minimizes Ω σ μ z π ( t ) d v on the feasible solution set of problem A μ ( π 0 ) . The proof is complete.   □
The next lemma, assuming the necessary constraint qualifications, takes into account the Lagrange multipliers. Similar arguments are considered for Pontryagin’s Principle in PDE control systems (see Udrişte and Matei [20]).
Lemma 2.
Consider ϑ { 1 , , a } fixed and π 0 · Q Ω an optimal solution for A ϑ ( π 0 ) . Then there exist h ν ϑ 0 and e ϑ ( t ) , u ϑ ( t ) (piecewise smooth functions) such that
ν = 1 a h ν ϑ σ ν π ( z π 0 ( t ) ) + e ϑ ( t ) ψ π ( z π 0 ( t ) )
+ u ϑ ( t ) τ π ( z π 0 ( t ) ) t γ 1 ν = 1 a h ν ϑ σ ν π γ 1 ( z π 0 ( t ) )
t γ 1 e ϑ ( t ) ψ π γ 1 ( z π 0 ( t ) ) + u ϑ ( t ) τ π γ 1 ( z π 0 ( t ) )
+ + ( 1 ) μ μ t γ 1 t γ μ ν = 1 a h ν ϑ σ ν π γ 1 γ μ ( z π 0 ( t ) )
+ ( 1 ) μ μ t γ 1 t γ μ e ϑ ( t ) ψ π γ 1 γ μ ( z π 0 ( t ) )
+ ( 1 ) μ μ t γ 1 t γ μ u ϑ ( t ) τ π γ 1 γ μ ( z π 0 ( t ) ) = 0
( h i g h e r o r d e r E u l e r - L a g r a n g e P D E s )
e ϑ ( t ) ψ ( z π 0 ( t ) ) = 0 , e ϑ ( t ) 0 , ( ) t Ω .
Proof. 
Consider M ϑ 0 : = Ω σ ϑ z π 0 ( t ) d v = min π ( · ) Ω σ ϑ z π ( t ) d v , ϑ = 1 , a ¯ . Define the C μ + 1 -class functions, Ψ ν : Ω × R n ( μ + 1 ) R , Ψ ν ( z π ( t ) ) 0 , ν = 1 , a ¯ , ν ϑ , as follows
F ν ( π ( · ) ) : = Ω σ ν z π ( t ) M ν 0 + Ψ ν ( z π ( t ) ) d v
= 0 .
Thus, the problem A ϑ ( π 0 ) , ϑ { 1 , , a } fixed, becomes
max π ( · ) Ω σ ϑ z π d v
subject to
π Q Ω , F ν ( π ( · ) ) = 0
Ψ ν ( z π ) 0 , ν = 1 , a ¯ , ν ϑ
or
max π ( · ) { Ω σ ϑ z π
+ ν = 1 ; ν ϑ a h ν ϑ σ ν z π M ν 0 + Ψ ν ( z π ) d v }
subject to
π Q Ω , Ψ ν ( z π ) 0 , ν = 1 , a ¯ , ν ϑ .
or, equivalently,
max π ( · ) { Ω σ ϑ z π
+ ν = 1 ; ν ϑ a h ν ϑ σ ν z π M ν 0 + Ψ ν ( z π ) d v }
subject to
π · Q Ω , Ψ ν ( z π ) 0 , ν = 1 , a ¯ , ν ϑ .
Let consider the following Lagrangian,
R ϑ ( z π , e ϑ , u ϑ , γ ϑ , a ν ) : = γ ϑ σ ϑ z π
+ γ ϑ ν = 1 ; ν ϑ a h ν ϑ σ ν z π M ν 0 + Ψ ν ( z π )
+ e ϑ ( t ) ψ ( z π ) + u ϑ ( t ) τ ( z π ) ν = 1 ; ν ϑ a a ν ( t ) Ψ ν ( z π ) ,
where γ ϑ R , γ ϑ 0 , and e ϑ : Ω R k , u ϑ : Ω R r , a ν : Ω R , a ν 0 , ν = 1 , a ¯ , ν ϑ are piecewise smooth functions. Since π 0 is an optimal solution in ( 1 ) , the following Valentine’s necessary conditions hold
R ϑ π ( z π 0 , e ϑ , u ϑ , γ ϑ , a ν ) t γ 1 R ϑ π γ 1 ( z π 0 , e ϑ , u ϑ , γ ϑ , a ν )
+ + ( 1 ) μ μ t γ 1 t γ μ R ϑ π γ 1 γ μ ( z π 0 , e ϑ , u ϑ , γ ϑ , a ν ) = 0
e ϑ ( t ) ψ ( z π 0 ( t ) ) = 0 , e ϑ ( t ) 0 , t Ω
a ν ( t ) Ψ ν ( z π 0 ( t ) ) = 0 , a ν ( t ) 0 , ν = 1 , a ¯ , ν ϑ
γ ϑ 0 , h ν ϑ 0 , ν = 1 , a ¯ , ν ϑ .
Concretely, we have
γ ϑ σ ϑ π ( z π 0 ) + ν = 1 ; ν ϑ a γ ϑ h ν ϑ σ ν π ( z π 0 ) + Ψ ν π ( z π 0 )
+ e ϑ ( t ) ψ π ( z π 0 ) + u ϑ ( t ) τ π ( z π 0 )
ν = 1 ; ν ϑ a a ν ( t ) Ψ ν π ( z π 0 ) t γ 1 γ ϑ σ ϑ π γ 1 ( z π 0 )
t γ 1 ν = 1 ; ν ϑ a γ ϑ h ν ϑ σ ν π γ 1 z π 0 + Ψ ν π γ 1 ( z π 0 )
t γ 1 e ϑ ( t ) ψ π γ 1 ( z π 0 ) + u ϑ ( t ) τ π γ 1 ( z π 0 )
+ t γ 1 ν = 1 ; ν ϑ a a ν ( t ) Ψ ν π γ 1 ( z π 0 )
+ + ( 1 ) μ μ t γ 1 t γ μ γ ϑ σ ϑ π γ 1 γ μ ( z π 0 )
+ ( 1 ) μ μ t γ 1 t γ μ ν = 1 ; ν ϑ a γ ϑ h ν ϑ σ ν π γ 1 γ μ z π 0
+ ( 1 ) μ μ t γ 1 t γ μ ν = 1 ; ν ϑ a γ ϑ h ν ϑ Ψ ν π γ 1 γ μ ( z π 0 )
+ ( 1 ) μ μ t γ 1 t γ μ e ϑ ( t ) ψ π γ 1 γ μ ( z π 0 ) + u ϑ ( t ) τ π γ 1 γ μ ( z π 0 )
+ ( 1 ) μ + 1 μ t γ 1 t γ μ ν = 1 ; ν ϑ a a ν ( t ) Ψ ν π γ 1 γ μ ( z π 0 ) = 0 ,
or, equivalently,
γ ϑ σ ϑ π ( z π 0 ) + ν = 1 ; ν ϑ a γ ϑ h ν ϑ σ ν π ( z π 0 )
+ ν = 1 ; ν ϑ a γ ϑ h ν ϑ a ν ( t ) Ψ ν π ( z π 0 )
+ e ϑ ( t ) ψ π ( z π 0 ) + u ϑ ( t ) τ π ( z π 0 )
t γ 1 γ ϑ σ ϑ π γ 1 ( z π 0 ) + ν = 1 ; ν ϑ a γ ϑ h ν ϑ σ ν π γ 1 z π 0
t γ 1 ν = 1 ; ν ϑ a γ ϑ h ν ϑ a ν ( t ) Ψ ν π γ 1 ( z π 0 )
t γ 1 e ϑ ( t ) ψ π γ 1 ( z π 0 ) + u ϑ ( t ) τ π γ 1 ( z π 0 )
+ + ( 1 ) μ μ t γ 1 t γ μ γ ϑ σ ϑ π γ 1 γ μ ( z π 0 )
+ ( 1 ) μ μ t γ 1 t γ μ ν = 1 ; ν ϑ a γ ϑ h ν ϑ σ ν π γ 1 γ μ z π 0
+ ( 1 ) μ μ t γ 1 t γ μ ν = 1 ; ν ϑ a γ ϑ h ν ϑ a ν ( t ) Ψ ν π γ 1 γ μ ( z π 0 )
+ ( 1 ) μ μ t γ 1 t γ μ e ϑ ( t ) ψ π γ 1 γ μ ( z π 0 ) + u ϑ ( t ) τ π γ 1 γ μ ( z π 0 )
= 0 .
Next, we write the conditions: γ ϑ h ν ϑ a ν ( t ) = 0 , ν = 1 , a ¯ , ν ϑ , for any t Ω , γ ϑ = h l l 0 , h ν ϑ = γ ϑ h ν ϑ 0 , ν = 1 , a ¯ , ν ϑ . By considering ( 2 ) , it follows
h l l σ ϑ π ( z π 0 ) + ν = 1 ; ν ϑ a h ν ϑ σ ν π ( z π 0 ) + e ϑ ( t ) ψ π ( z π 0 )
+ u ϑ ( t ) τ π ( z π 0 ) t γ 1 h l l σ ϑ π γ 1 ( z π 0 )
t γ 1 ν = 1 ; ν ϑ a h ν ϑ σ ν π γ 1 z π 0 + e ϑ ( t ) ψ π γ 1 ( z π 0 )
t γ 1 u ϑ ( t ) τ π γ 1 ( z π 0 )
+ + ( 1 ) μ μ t γ 1 t γ μ h l l σ ϑ π γ 1 γ μ ( z π 0 )
+ ( 1 ) μ μ t γ 1 t γ μ ν = 1 ; ν ϑ a h ν ϑ σ ν π γ 1 γ μ z π 0
+ ( 1 ) μ μ t γ 1 t γ μ e ϑ ( t ) ψ π γ 1 γ μ ( z π 0 ) + u ϑ ( t ) τ π γ 1 γ μ ( z π 0 )
= 0
and the proof is complete.   □
Definition 3.
The point π 0 ( · ) Q Ω is called a normal efficient solution in (MVP) if it is a normal optimal solution for at least one A ϑ ( π 0 ) , ϑ = 1 , a ¯ .
Now, we establish the main result of this study, namely, the normal necessary efficiency conditions of the program (MVP). The presence of higher-order derivatives introduces additional boundary terms and complexity. This result can be reduced to the classical form, as well.
Theorem 2
([Normal] necessary efficiency conditions for (MVP)). If π 0 ( · ) Q Ω is a [normal] efficient solution in (MVP), then there are h R a , e : Ω R k and u : Ω R r fulfilling the relations:
ν = 1 a h ν σ ν π ( z π 0 ( t ) ) + e ( t ) ψ π ( z π 0 ( t ) )
+ u ( t ) τ π ( z π 0 ( t ) ) t γ 1 ν = 1 a h ν σ ν π γ 1 ( z π 0 ( t ) )
t γ 1 e ( t ) ψ π γ 1 ( z π 0 ( t ) ) + u ( t ) τ π γ 1 ( z π 0 ( t ) )
+ + ( 1 ) μ μ t γ 1 t γ μ ν = 1 a h ν σ ν π γ 1 γ μ ( z π 0 ( t ) )
+ ( 1 ) μ μ t γ 1 t γ μ e ( t ) ψ π γ 1 γ μ ( z π 0 ( t ) )
+ ( 1 ) μ μ t γ 1 t γ μ u ( t ) τ π γ 1 γ μ ( z π 0 ( t ) ) = 0
( h i g h e r o r d e r E u l e r - L a g r a n g e P D E s )
e ( t ) ψ ( z π 0 ( t ) ) = 0 , e ( t ) 0 , ( ) t Ω
h 0 , q t h = 1 , q t = ( 1 , 1 , , 1 ) R a .
Proof. 
By using Lemma 1, we get π 0 ( · ) Q Ω is an optimal solution in A ϑ ( π 0 ) , ϑ = 1 , a ¯ . Thus, if π 0 ( · ) Q Ω is [normal] optimal solution of A ϑ ( π 0 ) , ϑ { 1 , , a } fixed, then Lemma 2 holds [ h l l = 1 ]. By summation over ϑ = 1 , a ¯ of all condition given in Lemma 2 and by setting
ϑ = 1 a h ν ϑ = h ˜ ν , ϑ = 1 a e ϑ ( t ) = a ˜ ( t ) , ϑ = 1 a u ϑ ( t ) = u ˜ ( t ) ,
we obtain
ν = 1 a h ˜ ν σ ν π ( z π 0 ) + a ˜ ( t ) ψ π ( z π 0 ) + u ˜ ( t ) τ π ( z π 0 )
t γ 1 ν = 1 a h ˜ ν σ ν π γ 1 ( z π 0 ) + a ˜ ( t ) ψ π γ 1 ( z π 0 )
t γ 1 u ˜ ( t ) τ π γ 1 ( z π 0 )
+ + ( 1 ) μ μ t γ 1 t γ μ ν = 1 a h ˜ ν σ ν π γ 1 γ μ ( z π 0 )
+ ( 1 ) μ μ t γ 1 t γ μ a ˜ ( t ) ψ π γ 1 γ μ ( z π 0 ) + u ˜ ( t ) τ π γ 1 γ μ ( z π 0 ) = 0
a ˜ ( t ) ψ ( z π 0 ( t ) ) = 0 , a ˜ ( t ) 0 , ( ) t Ω
h ˜ ν 0 , [ h ˜ ν 1 ] .
By dividing with D = ν = 1 a h ˜ ν 1 and denoting h ν = h ˜ ν / D , e ( t ) = a ˜ ( t ) / D , u ( t ) = u ˜ ( t ) / D , we obtain
ν = 1 a h ν σ ν π ( z π 0 ) + e ( t ) ψ π ( z π 0 ) + u ( t ) τ π ( z π 0 )
t γ 1 ν = 1 a h ν σ ν π γ 1 ( z π 0 ) + e ( t ) ψ π γ 1 ( z π 0 )
t γ 1 u ( t ) τ π γ 1 ( z π 0 )
+ + ( 1 ) μ μ t γ 1 t γ μ ν = 1 a h ν σ ν π γ 1 γ μ ( z π 0 )
+ ( 1 ) μ μ t γ 1 t γ μ e ( t ) ψ π γ 1 γ μ ( z π 0 )
+ ( 1 ) μ μ t γ 1 t γ μ u ( t ) τ π γ 1 γ μ ( z π 0 ) = 0
e ( t ) ψ ( z π 0 ( t ) ) = 0 , e ( t ) 0 , ( ) t Ω
h 0 , q t h = 1 , q t = ( 1 , 1 , , 1 ) R a
and the proof is complete.   □
Application.  Find the extremals of the following functional
I π ( · ) = 1 2 Ω π x 2 + π y 2 d x d y ,
subject to 2 π x + 3 π y + 8 π = 0 and the boundary conditions π ( 0 , 0 ) = 0 , π ( 1 , 1 ) = 1 , where Ω = [ 0 , 1 ] 2 .
Solution. Consider the following Lagrangian
B = 1 2 π x 2 + π y 2 + u ( x , y ) 2 π x + 3 π y + 8 π .
Since
B π = 8 u , B π x = π x + 2 u , B π y = π y + 3 u ,
the extremals are described by the following system of PDEs
8 u x π x + 2 u y π y + 3 u = 0 , 2 π x + 3 π y + 8 π = 0 .
The first-order PDE 2 π x + 3 π y + 8 π = 0 admits the general solution π ( x , y ) = e 4 x f ( 3 x 2 y ) , where f is an arbitrary C 2 -class function. Replacing in the second-order PDE, we find a first-order PDE with u ( x , y ) as unknown.
Remark 1.
The higher-order Euler–Lagrange conditions have, of course, an impact on solution smoothness. Moreover, computational challenges (e.g., solving high-order PDE systems) inevitably appear (see, for instance, Treanţă [5]).

4. Conclusions

In this paper, the authors investigated a new family of optimization models involving higher order partial derivatives. Concretely, necessary efficiency criteria have been stated and proved for this class of variational problems. In this regard, a specific and complex framework has been adopted. As further developments associated with the current paper, the author would recommend the extension of these results for curvilinear type functionals which are path-independent. Another new research direction is the study of saddle-point criteria for this class of extremization models.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.T. and O.M.A.; formal analysis, S.T. and O.M.A.; funding acquisition, S.T. and O.M.A.; investigation, S.T. and O.M.A.; methodology, S.T. and O.M.A.; validation, S.T. and O.M.A.; visualization, S.T. and O.M.A.; writing—original draft, S.T. and O.M.A.; writing—review and editing, S.T. and O.M.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The authors would like to acknowledge the Deanship of Graduate Studies and Scientific Research, Taif University, for funding this work.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the referees for their important suggestions that contributed to the current form of this article. Also, the authors would like to acknowledge the Deanship of Graduate Studies and Scientific Research, Taif University, for funding this work.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Mititelu, Ş.; Udrişte, C. Vector fractional programming with quasiinvexity on Riemannian manifolds. In Proceedings of the 12th WSEAS CSCC Multiconference, Heraklion, Greece, 22–25 July 2008; New Aspects of Computers, Part III; Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, 2008; pp. 1107–1112. [Google Scholar]
  2. Mititelu, Ş. Efficiency conditions for multiobjective fractional variational problems. Appl. Sci. 2008, 10, 162–175. [Google Scholar]
  3. Nahak, C.; Mohapatra, R.N. Nonsmooth ρ − (η, θ)-invexity in multiobjective programming problems. Optim. Lett. 2012, 6, 253–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Preda, V.; Gramatovici, S. Some sufficient optimality conditions for a class of multiobjective variational problems. An. Univ. Bucur. Mat.-Inform. 2002, 61, 33–43. [Google Scholar]
  5. Treanţă, S. On a new class of vector variational control problems. Numer. Funct. Anal. Optim. 2018, 39, 1594–1603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Treanţă, S. KT-geodesic pseudoinvex control problems governed by multiple integrals. J. Nonlinear Convex Anal. 2019, 20, 73–84. [Google Scholar]
  7. Treanţă, S. Efficiency in generalized V-KT-pseudoinvex control problems. Int. J. Control 2020, 93, 611–618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Vetro, C.; Zeng, S.D. Regularity and Dirichlet Problem for Double-Phase Energy Functionals of Different Power Growth. J. Geom. Anal. 2024, 34, 105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Chinchuluun, A.; Pardalos, P.M. A survey of recent developments in multiobjective optimization. Ann. Oper. Res. 2007, 154, 29–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Geoffrion, M.A. Proper efficiency and the theory of vector minimization. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 1968, 22, 618–630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Jagannathan, R. Duality for nonlinear fractional programming. Z. Oper. Res. 1973, 17, 1–3. [Google Scholar]
  12. Treanţă, S. Characterization of efficient solutions for a class of PDE-constrained vector control problems. Numer. Algebr. Control. Optim. 2020, 10, 93–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Cen, J.X.; Khan, A.A.; Motreanu, D.; Zeng, S.D. Inverse problems for generalized quasi-variational inequalities with application to elliptic mixed boundary value systems. Inverse Probl. 2022, 38, 065006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Cen, J.X.; Haddad, T.; Nguyen, V.T.; Zeng, S.D. Simultaneous distributed-boundary optimal control problems driven by nonlinear complementarity systems. J. Glob. Optim. 2022, 84, 783–805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Cen, J.X.; Paczka, D.; Yao, J.-C.; Zeng, S.D. Asymptotic Analysis of Double Phase Mixed Boundary Value Problems with Multivalued Convection Term. J. Geom. Anal. 2023, 33, 287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Sadek, L.; Akgül, A. New properties for conformable fractional derivative and applications. Progr. Fract. Differ. Appl. 2024, 10, 335–344. [Google Scholar]
  17. Sadek, L.; Algefary, A. On quantum trigonometric fractional calculus. Alex. Eng. J. 2025, 120, 371–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Sadek, L.; Ounamane, S.; Abouzaid, B.; Sadek, E.M. The Galerkin Bell method to solve the fractional optimal control problems with inequality constraints. J. Comput. Sci. 2024, 77, 102244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Sadek, L.; Alaoui, H.T. The extended block Arnoldi method for solving generalized differential Sylvester equations. J. Math. Model. 2020, 8, 189–206. [Google Scholar]
  20. Udrişte, C.; Matei, L. Lagrange-Hamilton Theories; Monographs and Textbooks 8; Geometry Balkan Press: Bucharest, Romania, 2008. (In Romanian) [Google Scholar]
  21. Raymond, J.P. Optimal Control of Partial Differential Equations; Université Paul Sabatier: Toulouse, France, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  22. Valentine, F.A. The problem of Lagrange with differentiable inequality as added side conditions. In Contributions to the Calculus of Variations; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 1937; pp. 407–448. [Google Scholar]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Treanţă, S.; Alsalami, O.M. On Higher-Order PDE Constrained Multiobjective Optimization Models. Mathematics 2026, 14, 1454. https://doi.org/10.3390/math14091454

AMA Style

Treanţă S, Alsalami OM. On Higher-Order PDE Constrained Multiobjective Optimization Models. Mathematics. 2026; 14(9):1454. https://doi.org/10.3390/math14091454

Chicago/Turabian Style

Treanţă, Savin, and Omar Mutab Alsalami. 2026. "On Higher-Order PDE Constrained Multiobjective Optimization Models" Mathematics 14, no. 9: 1454. https://doi.org/10.3390/math14091454

APA Style

Treanţă, S., & Alsalami, O. M. (2026). On Higher-Order PDE Constrained Multiobjective Optimization Models. Mathematics, 14(9), 1454. https://doi.org/10.3390/math14091454

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop