Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 32 references

Unique continuation for a non bi-Laplacian fourth order elliptic operator

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper proves that a solution of the fourth-order elliptic operator $\mathcal L_{A,q}$ vanishing on any nonempty open subset must vanish on the whole connected domain.

desk verdict The paper takes on a genuinely new fourth-order operator and has the right plan, but a false algebraic identity in the convexified-symbol computation leaves the main Carleman estimates unproved. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.05882 v2 pith:QU4S73P2 submitted 2019-08-16 math.AP

Amrita Ghosh , Tuhin Ghosh This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.AP MSC 35B6035J4035A23
keywords uniquecontinuationCarlemanestimatesfourth-orderellipticoperatornon-bi-Laplacianstrongstabilityestimatesubellipticityconvexifiedweight
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper proves a weak unique continuation theorem for the fourth-order elliptic operator $\mathcal L_{A,q}u=\sum_j D_{x_j}^4u+\sum_j A_jD_{x_j}u+qu$ on bounded connected domains, with $A\in W^{1,\infty}$ and $q\in L^\infty$. The theorem says an $H^4$ solution that vanishes on a nonempty open subset must vanish everywhere in the domain. This matters because the principal part $\sum_j D_{x_j}^4$ is not the bi-Laplacian and cannot be written as a power of the Laplacian, so the usual second-order unique-continuation tools do not apply directly. The paper supplies Carleman estimates with convexified weights to fill that gap, and as by-products derives unique continuation from vanishing Cauchy data on part of the boundary, a stability estimate, and a two-dimensional strong unique continuation theorem.

What carries the argument

The engine is a semiclassical Carleman estimate for the conjugated operator $P_\varphi=e^{\varphi/h}\,h^4\sum_j D_{x_j}^4\,e^{-\varphi/h}=A+iB$. The proof requires the Poisson bracket $\{a,b\}$ of the Weyl symbols of the real and imaginary parts to be nonnegative on the characteristic set $a=b=0$; for this the linear weight is convexified to $\psi=\varphi+(h/2\varepsilon)\varphi^2$. The convexification contributes a positive term proportional to $(h/\varepsilon)(\xi_j(\partial_j\varphi)^3)^2$ plus a term from $\{a,b\}$, and the resulting positivity feeds a Gårding inequality that yields $h^2\|w\|^2_{H^1_{\mathrm{scl}}}\lesssim\|P_\psi w\|^2_{L^2}$. Lower-order terms are absorbed for $0<h\ll\varepsilon\ll1$. Cutoff arguments and a connectedness argument over concentric balls and hypersurfaces convert the estimate into the weak UCP, the Cauchy-data UCP, and the stability estimate; Caccioppoli-type interior estimates control second and third derivatives of the solution in terms of the $H^1$ norm.

What would settle it

A direct symbolic check settles the proof's mechanism: take $\varphi=x_n^2$, set $\xi_n^2=(3+2\sqrt{2})(2x_n)^2$, and compute both sides of inequality (2.9) and the Poisson bracket $\{\tilde a,\tilde b\}$ on the characteristic set $\tilde a=\tilde b=0$; if the bracket is nonpositive there, the subellipticity lower bound (2.10) and the Carleman estimate of Proposition 2.3 are not established by the given argument.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that unique continuation holds for the perturbed fourth-order operator $\mathcal L_{A,q}$ despite its principal symbol $\sum_j\xi_j^4$ lacking the mixed-derivative structure of the bi-Laplacian. Theorem 1.1 states that if $u\in H^4(\Omega)$, $\mathcal L_{A,q}u=0$ in $\Omega$, and $u=0$ on a nonempty open set $\omega\subset\Omega$, then $u=0$ in $\Omega$. The proof builds a Carleman estimate, Proposition 2.3, by conjugating the semiclassical operator and convexifying the weight to obtain strict positivity of the Poisson bracket of the real and imaginary parts of the symbol. The same estimate yields the UCP across hypersurfaces, the UCP for local Cauchy data, and a stability estimate; strong unique continuation is established in dimension two by factoring $D_1^4+D_2^4=(D_1^2+D_2^2-\sqrt2\,D_1D_2)(D_1^2+D_2^2+\sqrt2\,D_1D_2)$, while in three and higher dimensions the paper notes that the strong form fails.

Load-bearing premise

The entire theorem depends on the convexified weight satisfying a strict subellipticity condition, meaning the Poisson bracket of the conjugated symbol is strictly positive on the characteristic set; the manuscript derives this through an inequality that is not valid on the branch $\xi_j^2=(3+2\sqrt{2})(\partial_j\varphi)^2$ allowed by the characteristic equations.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A solution vanishing on any nonempty open subset is identically zero on the whole connected domain, so interior measurements on an arbitrarily small open patch determine the solution globally (Theorem 1.1).
  • Vanishing Cauchy data of orders zero through three on a nonempty open part of the boundary force the solution to vanish throughout the domain (Theorem 1.2).
  • The stability estimate gives quantitative control: the $H^1$ norm of the solution on interior level sets of a Carleman weight is bounded by $C(F+F^\theta M^{1-\theta})$, so small errors in the Cauchy data produce controlled errors on interior domains (Theorem 1.3).
  • In two dimensions a solution that vanishes to infinite order at one point is identically zero, while in three and higher dimensions this strong unique continuation fails; the two-dimensional strong result is thus sharp.
  • The same Carleman machinery proves unique continuation across a general smooth hypersurface, so the side on which the solution vanishes does not need to be flat.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the positivity step in the convexified-weight argument can be repaired or replaced, the stability estimate should transfer to partial-boundary inverse problems for the coefficients $A$ and $q$ of $\mathcal L_{A,q}$.
  • The dimension dependence of strong unique continuation suggests that anisotropic fourth-order operators whose principal parts factor into elliptic quadratics are exactly the family for which strong continuation can be expected, and the symbol condition of the non-uniqueness construction marks the dividing line in higher dimensions.
  • The comparison with the bi-Laplacian Caccioppoli inequality indicates that $H^1$ is the natural energy space for this operator's stability theory; one could test whether a finer choice of Carleman weight sharpens the interpolation exponent $\theta=\delta/(2\Phi-\delta)$.
  • The boundary-friendly form of the Carleman estimate opens a route to controllability or unique-determination statements for fourth-order plate-type equations whose principal part has no mixed derivatives, a class the paper does not itself pursue.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies the fourth-order elliptic operator L_{A,q}u = \sum_j D_{x_j}^4 u + \sum_j A_j D_{x_j}u + q u, whose principal part is not a power of the Laplacian. It claims a weak unique continuation principle (Theorem 1.1), a unique continuation result for local Cauchy data (Theorem 1.2), a stability estimate (Theorem 1.3), and a strong unique continuation principle in two dimensions based on the factorization D_1^4+D_2^4 = (D_1^2+D_2^2-\sqrt2 D_1D_2)(D_1^2+D_2^2+\sqrt2 D_1D_2). The proofs rely on Carleman estimates obtained from a semiclassical symbol calculus and a convexified weight, together with Caccioppoli-type estimates. The paper also explains, via an Alinhac-type counterexample, why strong unique continuation should fail in dimensions three and higher. The overall structure is coherent, but the central Carleman estimate rests on an algebraic identity in Section 2 that is false on the characteristic set, and there is a second gap in the use of the Caccioppoli estimate in the stability proof.

Significance. If the main theorems were proved, the paper would make a useful contribution: unique continuation for a fourth-order elliptic operator whose principal symbol is \sum \xi_j^4 is much less studied than for iterated Laplacians, and the contrast between weak unique continuation and dimension-dependent failure of strong unique continuation is interesting. The stability estimate would also be a valuable by-product. The use of Alinhac's theorem to exhibit non-uniqueness in higher dimensions and the factorization argument in two dimensions are attractive features. However, the Carleman estimate is the engine of the paper, and the proof of that estimate contains a load-bearing algebraic error; the stability proof additionally applies a homogeneous Caccioppoli estimate to an inhomogeneous solution. These issues need to be repaired before the claims can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2, Eq. (2.9)] The identity in (2.9) is false on the set a=b=0. For n=2, take φ(x)=x_2+x_1^2, evaluate at x_1=1/2 so that ∂_1φ=∂_2φ=1, and choose ξ_1=-ξ_2=\sqrt{3+2\sqrt2}. Then a=0 and b=0 as sums over j, but the left side 64\sum_j ξ_j^2(∂_jφ)^6 equals 128(3+2\sqrt2), while the right side 16\sum_j(ξ_j^3∂_jφ+ξ_j(∂_jφ)^3)^2 is larger by a factor exceeding 10. The equality would require ξ_j^2=(∂_jφ)^2 for each j, which is not a consequence of (2.6)–(2.7) because those conditions are sums over j. Since this equality is the only justification for the strict positivity (2.10), the subellipticity hypothesis in Proposition 2.3 is not verified, and the Carleman estimates in Lemma 2.1 and Lemma 2.5, and hence Theorems 1.1–1.3, inherit the gap.
  2. [Proposition 2.4 and Lemma 2.5] In the proof of Proposition 2.4, the modified weight ~φ_0 = φ_0 + ~C|x'|^2 ∓ δ^2 is introduced and the argument is continued as if Lemma 2.5 applies to it, but the subellipticity condition (2.5) is only checked for the model quadratic weight ±x_n+|x'|^2∓c^2. The paper does not verify that {a,b}≥0 on the set a=b=0 for the modified weight; choosing ~C so that the Hessian is nonnegative is not shown to imply (2.5). This is a second independent gap in the Carleman machinery used to prove unique continuation across a general hypersurface.
  3. [Theorem 1.3, proof after Eq. (4.1)] The Caccioppoli inequality (4.1) is stated for solutions of the homogeneous equation L_{A,q}u=0 in B_1, but in the proof of Theorem 1.3 it is applied to u^*=u-υ, which solves L_{A,q}u^*=f+L_{A,q}υ. The passage in which the |D^2u^*|^2 and |D^3u^*|^2 terms in the integral over Ω_0\setminusΩ_{δ/2} are discarded requires an inhomogeneous Caccioppoli estimate in which the source f+L_{A,q}υ is controlled. Without such an estimate, the inequality leading to (4.7) is not justified, and the claimed stability bound is not established.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract contains the typo 'unique continuation principal'; it should be 'principle'.
  2. [Proof of Proposition 2.2] In the proof of Proposition 2.2, 'near x3=b' should read 'near x_n=b'.
  3. [Section 2, Eq. (2.3)] The summation convention over j is used in (2.3) but not stated explicitly; spelling this out would help readers avoid interpreting (2.6) and (2.7) componentwise, which is the source of the error in (2.9).
  4. [Theorem 1.3] The statement of Theorem 1.3 uses Ω_0 without defining Ω_δ for δ=0 in the same way; the assumption '∂Ω_0 ⊂ Γ' should be stated more carefully, and δ should be fixed before the theorem is applied.
  5. [Section 4, Eq. (4.6)] Equation (4.6) is written as if it holds for every Carleman weight φ, but Proposition 2.3 requires the weight to satisfy (2.5); this should be stated explicitly in the stability proof.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular reasoning evident; the Carleman estimates are derived from symbol calculus and applied to UCP, with the lower-order terms absorbed as small perturbations.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is a standard Carleman-estimate argument: conjugate the semiclassical principal operator by e^{φ/h}, write the symbol as a+ib, compute the Poisson bracket {a,b}, convexify the weight, obtain a positive lower bound (2.10), and then use the commutator term plus Gårding's inequality to prove Proposition 2.3. From there, the UCP theorems follow by the usual h→0 limiting argument with cutoffs. No parameter is fitted to data and no target conclusion is assumed as an input; the lower-order coefficients A and q are genuinely treated as perturbations that are absorbed for small h. The citations to Alinhac and to Colombini–Koch are independent external results used for SUCP failure in n≥3 and SUCP in 2D, respectively. The self-citations [Gho15], [GK15], and [BG19] are contextual references to earlier inverse problems and are not load-bearing for the UCP proof. The reviewer's concern about identity (2.9) is a mathematical correctness issue: if (2.9) is false on the branch allowed by (2.6), then the positivity bound (2.10) is not established by the given computation, and Proposition 2.3 would lack its subellipticity verification. That is a proof gap, not circularity, because the Carleman estimate is not equivalent to its own inputs by construction. Similarly, the unchecked subellipticity of the modified weight φ̃0 in Proposition 2.4 is an unverified hypothesis, not a circular reduction. The paper is therefore self-contained in its derivation chain, and the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper is pure mathematics: it introduces no new physical entities and fits no parameters to data. All dependencies are standard PDE tools or previously published theorems. The only non-standard element is the operator itself, which is the object of study rather than an invented entity. Auxiliary constants such as ε, δ, r, ρ in the proofs are not fitted values but proof parameters.

assumptions (6)
  • standard math Weyl quantization and Gårding inequality for semiclassical pseudodifferential operators (Hörmander's calculus)
    Used throughout Section 2 to compute commutators and derive the Carleman estimate. Not proved in the paper.
  • standard math Carleman estimates on C_c^∞ extend by density to H^4_0(Ω)
    Invoked in the proofs of Propositions 2.2 and 2.4 and Theorem 1.3 to apply the estimate to cutoff solutions χu and ηu*.
  • standard math Alinhac's non-uniqueness theorem for operators with complex non-conjugate roots
    Quoted in the Introduction to show SUCP fails in n≥3 for Σ D^4_j.
  • standard math Colombini-Koch strong unique continuation for products of second-order elliptic operators
    Quoted in the Introduction to conclude SUCP in 2D for the factorized operator.
  • domain assumption Coefficient regularity A ∈ W^{1,∞}(Ω, C^n), q ∈ L∞(Ω, C), with Ω bounded connected open
    This is the class of operators studied in Theorems 1.1-1.3.
  • standard math There exists a lifting υ ∈ H^4(Ω) of the Cauchy data with the stated norm bound (4.5)
    Used at the start of the proof of Theorem 1.3; this is a standard trace lifting result.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Unique continuation for a non bi-Laplacian fourth order elliptic operator." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QU4S73P2

@misc{pith2026190805882,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Unique continuation for a non bi-Laplacian fourth order elliptic operator},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QU4S73P2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.05882}
}
abstract

This paper discusses the unique continuation principal of the solutions of the following perturbed fourth order elliptic differential operator $\mathcal{L}_{A,q}u=0$, where \[ \mathcal{L}_{A,q}(x,D)\ =\ \sum_{j=1}^nD^4_{x_j} + \sum_{j=1}^n A_jD_{x_j} + q, \qquad (A, q) \in W^{1,\infty}(\Omega,\mathbb{C}^n) \times L^{\infty}(\Omega,\mathbb{C}) \] whose principal term is not given by some integer power of the Laplacian operator. We derive some suitable Carleman estimates which is the main tool to prove the unique continuation principle. As a by-product, we also deduce some stability estimate and prove the strong unique continuation principle in $2$-dimension.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Aronszajn, A

    N. Aronszajn, A. Krzywicki, and J. Szarski. A unique continuation theorem for exterior differential forms on R iemannian manifolds. Ark. Mat. , 4:417--453 (1962), 1962

    work page 1962

  2. [2]

    Non-unicit\' e pour des op\' e rateurs diff\' e rentiels \`a caract\' e ristiques complexes simples

    Serge Alinhac. Non-unicit\' e pour des op\' e rateurs diff\' e rentiels \`a caract\' e ristiques complexes simples. Ann. Sci. \' E cole Norm. Sup. (4) , 13(3):385--393, 1980

    work page 1980

  3. [3]

    The stability for the C auchy problem for elliptic equations

    Giovanni Alessandrini, Luca Rondi, Edi Rosset, and Sergio Vessella. The stability for the C auchy problem for elliptic equations. Inverse Problems , 25(12):123004, 47, 2009

    work page 2009

  4. [4]

    Optimal three spheres inequality at the boundary for the K irchhoff- L ove plate's equation with D irichlet conditions

    Giovanni Alessandrini, Edi Rosset, and Sergio Vessella. Optimal three spheres inequality at the boundary for the K irchhoff- L ove plate's equation with D irichlet conditions. Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. , 231(3):1455--1486, 2019

    work page 2019

  5. [5]

    Inverse boundary value problem of determining up to a second order tensor appear in the lower order perturbation of a polyharmonic operator

    Sombuddha Bhattacharyya and Tuhin Ghosh. Inverse boundary value problem of determining up to a second order tensor appear in the lower order perturbation of a polyharmonic operator. J. Fourier Anal. Appl. , 25(3):661--683, 2019

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    Boundary-value problems for higher-order elliptic equations in non-smooth domains

    Ariel Barton and Svitlana Mayboroda. Boundary-value problems for higher-order elliptic equations in non-smooth domains. In Concrete operators, spectral theory, operators in harmonic analysis and approximation , volume 236 of Oper. Theory Adv. Appl. , pages 53--93. Birkh\" a user/Springer, Basel, 2014

    work page 2014

  7. [7]

    Luis M. B. C. Campos. Generalized calculus with applications to matter and forces . Mathematics and Physics for Science and Technology. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 2014

    work page 2014

  8. [8]

    Carleman

    T. Carleman. Sur un probl\`eme d'unicit\' e pur les syst\`emes d'\' e quations aux d\' e riv\' e es partielles \`a deux variables ind\' e pendantes. Ark. Mat., Astr. Fys. , 26(17):9, 1939

    work page 1939

Show all 32 references
  1. [9]

    Strong unique continuation for products of elliptic operators of second order

    Ferruccio Colombini and Herbert Koch. Strong unique continuation for products of elliptic operators of second order. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. , 362(1):345--355, 2010

    2010

  2. [10]

    Carleman estimates and applications to uniqueness and control theory , volume 46 of Progress in Nonlinear Differential Equations and their Applications

    Ferruccio Colombini and Claude Zuily, editors. Carleman estimates and applications to uniqueness and control theory , volume 46 of Progress in Nonlinear Differential Equations and their Applications . Birkh\" a user Boston, Inc., Boston, MA, 2001. Papers from the Meeting on Ca...

    2001

  3. [11]

    Polyharmonic boundary value problems , volume 1991 of Lecture Notes in Mathematics

    Filippo Gazzola, Hans-Christoph Grunau, and Guido Sweers. Polyharmonic boundary value problems , volume 1991 of Lecture Notes in Mathematics . Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2010. Positivity preserving and nonlinear higher order elliptic equations in bounded domains

    1991

  4. [12]

    An inverse problem on determining upto first order perturbations of a fourth order operator with partial boundary data

    Tuhin Ghosh. An inverse problem on determining upto first order perturbations of a fourth order operator with partial boundary data. Inverse Problems , 31(10):105009, 19, 2015

    2015

  5. [13]

    Determination of lower order perturbations of the polyharmonic operator from partial boundary data

    Tuhin Ghosh and Venkateswaran Krishnan. Determination of lower order perturbations of the polyharmonic operator from partial boundary data. Applicable Analysis: An International Journal , 94, 2015

    2015

  6. [14]

    Unique continuation for elliptic operators: a geometric-variational approach

    Nicola Garofalo and Fang-Hua Lin. Unique continuation for elliptic operators: a geometric-variational approach. Comm. Pure Appl. Math. , 40(3):347--366, 1987

    1987

  7. [15]

    On a frequency function approach to the unique continuation principle

    Seppo Granlund and Niko Marola. On a frequency function approach to the unique continuation principle. Expo. Math. , 30(2):154--167, 2012

    2012

  8. [16]

    Linear partial differential operators

    Lars H\" o rmander. Linear partial differential operators . Die Grundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften, Bd. 116. Academic Press, Inc., Publishers, New York; Springer-Verlag, Berlin-G\" o ttingen-Heidelberg, 1963

    1963

  9. [17]

    The analysis of linear partial differential operators

    Lars H\" o rmander. The analysis of linear partial differential operators. III , volume 274 of Grundlehren der Mathematischen Wissenschaften [Fundamental Principles of Mathematical Sciences] . Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1985. Pseudodifferential operators

    1985

  10. [18]

    The analysis of linear partial differential operators

    Lars H\" o rmander. The analysis of linear partial differential operators. IV , volume 275 of Grundlehren der Mathematischen Wissenschaften [Fundamental Principles of Mathematical Sciences] . Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1985. Fourier integral operators

    1985

  11. [19]

    Partial differential equations

    Fritz John. Partial differential equations . Springer-Verlag, New York-Heidelberg, second edition, 1975. Applied mathematical sciences, Vol. 1

    1975

  12. [20]

    Determining a first order perturbation of the biharmonic operator by partial boundary measurements

    Katsiaryna Krupchyk, Matti Lassas, and Gunther Uhlmann. Determining a first order perturbation of the biharmonic operator by partial boundary measurements. J. Funct. Anal. , 262(4):1781--1801, 2012

    2012

  13. [21]

    Inverse boundary value problems for the perturbed polyharmonic operator

    Katsiaryna Krupchyk, Matti Lassas, and Gunther Uhlmann. Inverse boundary value problems for the perturbed polyharmonic operator. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. , 366(1):95--112, 2014

    2014

  14. [22]

    Kenig, Antonio Ruiz, and Christopher D

    Carlos E. Kenig, Antonio Ruiz, and Christopher D. Sogge. Uniform S obolev inequalities and unique continuation for second order constant coefficient differential operators. Duke Math. J. , 55(2):329--347, 1987

    1987

  15. [23]

    Carleman estimates and unique continuation for second-order elliptic equations with nonsmooth coefficients

    Herbert Koch and Daniel Tataru. Carleman estimates and unique continuation for second-order elliptic equations with nonsmooth coefficients. Comm. Pure Appl. Math. , 54(3):339--360, 2001

    2001

  16. [24]

    Strong uniqueness for fourth order elliptic differential operators

    Philippe Le Borgne. Strong uniqueness for fourth order elliptic differential operators. In Carleman estimates and applications to uniqueness and control theory ( C ortona, 1999) , volume 46 of Progr. Nonlinear Differential Equations Appl. , pages 85--108. Birkh\" a user Boston...

    1999

  17. [25]

    Carleman inequalities

    Nicolas Lerner. Carleman inequalities. In Lectures on the analysis of nonlinear partial differential equations. P art 5 , volume 5 of Morningside Lect. Math. , pages 149--262. Int. Press, Somerville, MA, 2018

    2018

  18. [26]

    Strong unique continuation for m -th powers of a L aplacian operator with singular coefficients

    Ching-Lung Lin. Strong unique continuation for m -th powers of a L aplacian operator with singular coefficients. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. , 135(2):569--578, 2007

    2007

  19. [27]

    On C arleman estimates for elliptic and parabolic operators

    J\' e r\^ o me Le Rousseau and Gilles Lebeau. On C arleman estimates for elliptic and parabolic operators. A pplications to unique continuation and control of parabolic equations. ESAIM Control Optim. Calc. Var. , 18(3):712--747, 2012

    2012

  20. [28]

    Murray H. Protter. Unique continuation for elliptic equations. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. , 95:81--91, 1960

    1960

  21. [29]

    Unique continuation for elliptic equations

    Mikko Salo. Unique continuation for elliptic equations. http://users.jyu.fi/ salomi/lecturenotes/index.html

  22. [30]

    Carleman estimates, unique continuation and applications

    Daniel Tataru. Carleman estimates, unique continuation and applications. https://math.berkeley.edu/ tataru/ucp.html

  23. [31]

    Unique continuation problems for partial differential equations

    Daniel Tataru. Unique continuation problems for partial differential equations. In Geometric methods in inverse problems and PDE control , volume 137 of IMA Vol. Math. Appl. , pages 239--255. Springer, New York, 2004

    2004

  24. [32]

    Thomas H. Wolff. Recent work on sharp estimates in second-order elliptic unique continuation problems. J. Geom. Anal. , 3(6):621--650, 1993

    1993

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.