Pith. Sign in

RECORD

Semiclassical resolvent bounds in dimension two

Analysis of PDEs · Submitted 13 Apr 2016

abstract compiled · 2026-09-23 · no language-model review

The authors' main claim We give an elementary proof of weighted resolvent bounds for semiclassical Schr\"odinger operators in dimension two.

how it is stated · asserted 1.00 read the record →

Comment (0) Read on arXiv ↗
Cite ▾
arXiv ID1604.03852 (version 3)
Pith ID5AJWOFE3, Pith's permanent record of this paper and its review
CitationJacob Shapiro. "Semiclassical resolvent bounds in dimension two." arXiv:1604.03852 (2016). https://pith.science/paper/5AJWOFE3
Claim paper

The compiled record

The paper's own sentences, arranged. Each label is drawn from a closed vocabulary; the number beside it is the probability the classifier gave that label. Numbers in the tables are the authors', checked by code. No sentence in this record was written by a model.

Open the compiled record

Compiled by classifier-1.13.0 via TypeSafe API, question bank abstract-p1-20260923, 2026-09-23: 1 request, 3,451 input tokens.

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.08 · states limitation 0.74 · human participants 0.01 · controlled comparison 0.02 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.83 · compares with prior results 0.85 · mentions code or data availability 0.02.

The abstract, sentence by sentence

arXiv listing abstract v3. Results and the main claim are underlined; .

We give an elementary proof of weighted resolvent bounds for semiclassical Schr\"odinger operators in dimension two. We require the potential function to be Lipschitz with long range decay. The resolvent norm grows exponentially in the inverse semiclassical parameter, but near infinity it grows linearly. Our result covers the missing case from the work of Datchev.

background contribution method result interpretation main claim

What the classifier reports for each sentence. The number is the probability it gave the label.
#sentencerolethe authors' own workstates the main conclusionstrength
s0 We give an elementary proof of weighted resolvent bounds for semiclassical Schr\"odinger operators in dimension two. contribution 1.00 0.96 0.77 asserted 1.00
s1 We require the potential function to be Lipschitz with long range decay. limitation 0.68 0.41 0.04 asserted 0.99
s2 The resolvent norm grows exponentially in the inverse semiclassical parameter, but near infinity it grows linearly. result 1.00 0.82 0.41 asserted 1.00
s3 Our result covers the missing case from the work of Datchev. gap 0.61 0.68 0.09 asserted 1.00

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: theoretical result 1.00 · evidence from proof or derivation 1.00.

What was examined, and what was not

sources read
  • arXiv listing abstract v3
not examined
  • full text
  • figures and tables
  • references and citing sentences
  • relations to other papers
levels run
  • P abstract
not run
  • S sections
  • T body sentences
  • C citations
  • R cross-paper relations

Every quoted sentence on this record is the authors'. Every label is from Pith's closed vocabulary, with the probability shown beside it. Every number in the measurements table is the authors', checked by code. Record as JSON

The paper
Original abstract

We give an elementary proof of weighted resolvent bounds for semiclassical Schr\"odinger operators in dimension two. We require the potential function to be Lipschitz with long range decay. The resolvent norm grows exponentially in the inverse semiclassical parameter, but near infinity it grows linearly. Our result covers the missing case from the work of Datchev.

Human review
How the literature uses it

5 arXiv papers cite this in 12 sentences

Each citing sentence is taken from the citing paper's LaTeX source and typed by Pith's classifier. A label appears at probability 0.8 or more (0.95 for support), a contest at 0.7 or more; the quoted words are the citing authors'. How each label was checked · JSON

Papers citing it · 7 sentences without a confident label

Uses its method or tool 2 papers
Compares with it 1 paper

Discussion

Know something about this paper? Leave a comment, or highlight any passage above to comment on it.