Blow-up and strong instability of standing waves for the NLS-$\delta$ equation on a star graph

Masahito Ohta; Nataliia Goloshchapova

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 21 references

Blow-up and strong instability of standing waves for the NLS-$\delta$ equation on a star graph

T0 review · 3 major / 4 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 For the NLS equation with δ-interaction on a star graph, the ground-state standing wave is strongly unstable: arbitrarily close initial data blow up in finite time for supercritical nonlinearities.

desk verdict Solid repulsive-branch blow-up theorem, but the flagship attractive-branch result rests on an unproved and misdescribed inequality, so the paper deserves a demanding referee rather than immediate acceptance. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.07122 v2 pith:UXX7EGYE submitted 2019-08-20 math.AP math.SP

Nataliia Goloshchapova , Masahito Ohta This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.APmath.SP MSC 35Q5581Q3537K4037K4547E05

keywords NLSstargraphdeltainteractionstandingwavesstronginstabilityblow-upvirialidentityprime

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 studies the nonlinear Schrödinger equation with a δ-interaction at the vertex of a star graph and tries to prove that the ground-state standing waves are strongly unstable, meaning that every neighborhood of the profile contains initial data whose solution blows up in finite time. Two regimes are established: for positive coupling strength $\alpha>0$ and $p\ge 5$, and for negative $\alpha<0$ and $p>5$ above an explicit frequency threshold $\omega_1$. The proof upgrades earlier orbital-instability results to finite-time blow-up, and it supplies a variational route that avoids detailed spectral analysis. If the claims are correct, the standing wave is not merely unstable in shape but cannot persist dynamically at all in these parameter ranges.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the equal-edge variational identity $d_{\rm eq}(\omega)=S_\omega(\Phi^\alpha_0)=\frac{N}{2}d_{\rm line}^r(\omega)$, imported from the line problem, which characterizes the profile as the minimizer of the action $S_\omega$ on the Nehari manifold inside the equal-edge subspace $E_{\rm eq}(\Gamma)$. Around this sit two auxiliary tools: the virial identity $f''(t)=8P(U(t))$ for the second moment $f(t)=\|xU(t)\|_2^2$, and the invariance of the sets $B^\pm_\omega$ under the flow. The novel variational lemmas (Lemma 4.1 and Lemma 4.8) prove that if $P(V)\le 0$ and $V$ lies in the relevant class, then $d_{\rm eq}(\omega)\le S_\omega(V)-\frac12 P(V)$; this inequality converts the negative curvature of the second moment into a strictly negative bound, yielding finite-time blow-up.

What would settle it

Directly compute, for a fixed $\alpha>0$, $p\ge 5$, and $\omega>\alpha^2/N^2$, the equal-edge Nehari minimum $d_{\rm eq}(\omega)$ and compare it with $S_\omega(\Phi^\alpha_0)$; if equality fails for some such parameter triple, Lemma 4.1 and Theorem 1.3 collapse.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the ground-state profile $\Phi^\alpha_0$ on an $N$-edge star graph, with equal mass on each edge, is strongly unstable by blow-up for supercritical powers. Theorem 1.3 states that for $\alpha>0$, $\omega>\alpha^2/N^2$, and $p\ge 5$, the standing wave $e^{i\omega t}\Phi^\alpha_0(x)$ is strongly unstable. Theorem 1.4 states that for $\alpha<0$, $p>5$, and $\omega\ge\omega_1$, where $\omega_1=\alpha^2/(N^2\xi_1(p)^2)$ and $\xi_1(p)\in(0,1)$ is the unique solution of a displayed integral equation, the same strong instability holds. The proof constructs scaled profiles $\Phi_\lambda$ arbitrarily close to $\Phi^\alpha_0$, shows they enter an invariant set on which the action lies below the ground-state value and the virial functional is negative, and then uses the virial identity to force the second moment of the solution to become negative in finite time, which is impossible unless the solution ceases to exist.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the equal-edge variational identity $d_{\rm eq}(\omega)=S_\omega(\Phi^\alpha_0)=\frac{N}{2}d_{\rm line}^r(\omega)$ holds for both signs of $\alpha$, together with flow invariance of the equal-edge subspace $E_{\rm eq}$, and neither fact is reproved in this paper.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For $\alpha>0$, the standing wave $e^{i\omega t}\Phi^\alpha_0(x)$ is strongly unstable for all $p\ge 5$ and all $\omega>\alpha^2/N^2$, completing the orbital-instability picture for that branch.
For $\alpha<0$ and $p>5$, strong instability holds once $\omega$ exceeds the explicit threshold $\omega_1$ defined by the unique zero $\xi_1(p)$ of the displayed integral equation.
In the limit $\alpha=0$, the same argument gives strong instability of the standard NLS ground state on the star graph for $p\ge 5$.
The technique transfers to the NLS-$\delta'$ equation on the line, yielding strong instability of the asymmetric and odd standing waves for $p>5$ above explicit frequency thresholds $\omega_2$ and $\omega_3$.
The virial identity and the variational inequality are established for $H^1$-solutions, not only for smooth data, so the blow-up conclusion holds at the natural regularity level of the Cauchy problem.

Reading between the lines

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

A reader might infer that the equal-edge identity $d_{\rm eq}=N d_{\rm half}=\frac{N}{2}d_{\rm line}^r$ is the real bottleneck: the paper's Remark 3.1 notes that for $\alpha>0$ the variational properties of the profiles were previously unknown, yet the identity is imported from [13,14] without reproof, so a direct verification for $\alpha>0$ would remove the main unstated assumption.
One testable extension is to replace the star graph by a finite tree with a δ-coupling at each vertex and check whether the same invariant-set construction forces blow-up on every edge or only on the equal-edge component.
The threshold $\omega_1$ suggests a sharp stability transition for $\alpha<0, p>5$: below $\omega_1$ the proof gives no blow-up, and a companion orbital-stability analysis around $\omega_1$ would show whether the transition is continuous or discontinuous.
The same variational inequality could be applied to other point-interaction models, such as the δ'-interaction on graphs or networks with different vertex conditions, whenever an equal-edge Nehari minimizer is available.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Here's my read of 1908.07122.

The headline: Theorem 1.3, the repulsive case (alpha > 0, p >= 5), is a clean, substantial contribution and appears to be proved correctly. Theorem 1.4, the main attractive-branch result, has a real gap: the decisive inequality (4.13) in Lemma 4.8 is not proved, and the verification the authors sketch is wrong as stated. They claim the derivative of the displayed g is nonpositive on (0,1), but for beta = 3 the derivative is positive near lambda = 1. The inequality itself may still be true (for beta = 3 it reduces to 3lambda/(2-lambda) <= 2lambda+1, which holds), but the bridge in the manuscript does not establish it. Since Lemma 4.8 is what makes the invariant set B^-_omega work, Theorem 1.4 is not fully supported as written. The delta-prime theorems in Section 5 inherit this problem because their proof is only a key-steps sketch and says to repeat the proof of Theorem 1.4.

What is genuinely new and good: the well-posedness theorem in D_H, the virial identity for NLS-delta on a star graph via the H^1 approximation argument, and the blow-up results in regimes not previously covered. The equal-edge reduction d_eq = (N/2) d_line^r is imported from earlier work; that lowers novelty but is not by itself a flaw. The citation pattern is mostly standard for this community, though the paper leans heavily on [6], [13], [14], and [12, Lemma 3.2]. The manuscript is honest about some limitations, e.g. Remark 3.1 concedes that variational properties for alpha > 0 were previously unknown, and Remark 5.3 concedes the Strichartz estimates for the delta-prime flow are not fully supplied.

One more soft spot worth naming: identity (3.5) is load-bearing for both main theorems, but it is imported rather than reproved. I think the equal-edge scaling is standard and not circular, but given the paper's own Remark 3.1, a complete proof or a clearly stated assumption would close a legitimate loophole.

Who is this for: researchers working on NLS on metric graphs and on point interactions. It deserves a serious referee, but the referee should be asked to verify (4.13) and to fill in the delta-prime analogues before the attractive-branch theorems are accepted. I would not cite Theorem 1.4 in its current form; I would cite the virial identity and the repulsive-branch theorem after checking them. Send it to peer review, not to the desk reject pile.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies the nonlinear Schr"odinger equation with a delta interaction on a star graph. It establishes local well-posedness in the operator domain D_H, derives the virial identity for H^1 solutions, and uses a variational characterization of the ground-state profile Phi_0^alpha to prove strong instability by finite-time blow-up: Theorem 1.3 covers the repulsive case alpha > 0 with p >= 5, and Theorem 1.4 covers the attractive case alpha < 0 with p > 5 and omega >= omega_1, where omega_1 is defined by an explicit integral equation. Section 5 states analogous strong instability theorems for the NLS-delta' equation on the line. The proof strategy follows the classical Berestycki-Cazenave method adapted to the graph: invariant sets B_omega^+ and B_omega^- are built from the action S_omega, the virial functional P, and the variational bounds d_eq(omega), and blow-up is forced by the virial identity on these sets.

Significance. If the main theorems are fully proved, the results are a meaningful strengthening of previously known orbital instability results for NLS-delta on star graphs: strong instability by blow-up is a stronger dynamical statement, and the paper supplies a virial identity in a graph setting with a point interaction, which is a useful technical contribution. The explicit threshold omega_1 in Theorem 1.4, obtained from a one-dimensional integral equation, is also a concrete and potentially falsifiable prediction. The paper is transparent about its external inputs, and the well-posedness proof in D_H is given in detail. However, the load-bearing inequality in Lemma 4.8 is not actually verified in the manuscript, and the delta-prime theorems in Section 5 are only sketched, with Remark 5.3 conceding a missing Strichartz ingredient.

major comments (3)

[Section 4.2, Eq. (4.13)] The proof of Lemma 4.8 is incomplete. The reduction from (4.6)-(4.12) to inequality (4.13) is not completed, and the suggested verification is incorrect as stated. For beta = 3, the displayed function g satisfies g(lambda) = 3lambda/(2-lambda) - (2lambda+1), whose derivative is 6/(2-lambda)^2 - 2, which is positive near lambda = 1, not nonpositive. The inequality itself appears true in this special case, so a different argument might repair the lemma, but the text provides no such argument. Since Lemma 4.8 is used to prove invariance of B_omega^- in Lemma 4.10 and then Theorem 1.4, the attractive-branch strong instability theorem is not fully supported by the manuscript as written. Theorem 1.3 is not affected by this particular gap.
[Section 5, Remark 5.3 and Theorems 5.4-5.5] The proofs of Theorems 5.4 and 5.5 are only presented as 'key steps'. In particular, the virial identity (5.6) is asserted after Remark 5.3, which explicitly concedes that Strichartz estimates for e^{-iH_gamma t} 'might be obtained' using [4] but are not established. Without those estimates, the equality T_{H^1} = T_H used to justify the virial identity for H^1 initial data is not proved. Moreover, the delta-prime analogue of Lemma 4.8 is not stated or proved. Thus, the strong instability results for the delta-prime equation are announced rather than demonstrated in this manuscript.
[Section 3, Eq. (3.5) and Remark 3.1] The variational identity d_eq(omega) = S_omega(Phi_0^alpha) = N/2 d_line^r(omega) is load-bearing for both main theorems, but it is imported from [13,14] without a proof that the equal-edge lift of the line minimizer remains minimizing among E_eq for the graph. Remark 3.1 explicitly states that for alpha > 0 the variational properties of the profiles were previously unknown. If the cited line results are intended to cover the repulsive branch, the paper should state the precise identification of delta-strengths in the reduction; if not, Theorem 1.3 lacks its key variational input. The same comment applies to the use of [6, Theorem 3.4] for invariance of E_eq under the flow, which is cited without proof.

minor comments (4)

[Theorem 1.4] The displayed integral defining xi_1(p) is ambiguous as printed: it should read ((p-5)/2) integral_xi^1 (1-s^2)^{2/(p-1)} ds = xi(1-xi^2)^{2/(p-1)}.
[Lemma 4.6] The qualitative argument for uniqueness of the zero of f(xi) would be clearer if the derivative f'(xi) were displayed; the current sentence 'f'(xi) has a unique zero' is stated without the formula needed to verify it.
[Remark 4.4] Remark 4.4 states the alpha = 0 result without proof; a sentence indicating the limiting argument or the needed modification of Lemma 4.1 would be helpful.
[Notation throughout] The notation phi_omega in Eq. (3.5) depends on both omega and alpha, while phi_{omega,0} is used for alpha=0; this dependence should be made explicit to avoid confusion.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: external variational characterization plus explicit threshold equations carry the derivation.

full rationale

The main instability results are not circular. The threshold deq(ω) is defined by the explicit minimization problem (3.3), and the identification deq(ω)=S_ω(Φ^α_0)=N/2 d_line^r(ω) is imported from the line-delta variational theorems of Fukuizumi–Jeanjean [13] and Fukuizumi–Ohta–Ozawa [14]; these are external, parameter-free characterizations of a different one-dimensional problem and do not assume the star-graph instability conclusion. The thresholds ω1 and ω3 are derived in Lemma 4.6 and Section 5 from explicit equations for ξ1 and ξ3, not fitted to the blow-up result. The invariant sets B^± are defined by inequalities involving these independently characterized quantities, and the blow-up conclusion follows from the virial identity proved in Proposition 2.5. The author-overlapping citations at load-bearing points, chiefly [6] for flow-invariance of E_eq and [14,19] for variational and proof comparisons, are external published theorems or elementary estimates rather than restatements of the target result. Remark 3.1 does not undermine the derivation: it concerns ordering of excited profiles for α>0, while the k=0 identification in (3.5) rests on the line result. A separate correctness concern is that inequality (4.13) is asserted without a completed verification and the stated monotonicity of g appears questionable; however, a missing or erroneous elementary check is a mathematical gap, not circular reasoning. No quantity in the derivation is defined in terms of the conclusion it is used to prove.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no free parameters fitted to data and no invented physical entities. The quantities alpha, N, p, and omega are problem parameters, while xi_1, omega_1, and omega_3 are defined by explicit integral or critical-point equations. The central claim imports the variational threshold from [13,14] and the equal-edge flow invariance from [6], and these imported results are the main unproved premises.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption deq(omega)=S_omega(Phi^alpha_0)=N/2 d_line^r(omega) from [13,14]
Imported without reproof in Eq. (3.5). It is the foundation for Lemmas 4.1, 4.7, and 4.8; if this minimizer identity fails, the key variational bounds that drive blow-up fail.
domain assumption The equal-edge subspace E_eq is invariant under the NLS-delta flow
Taken from [6, Theorem 3.4] and used in Lemmas 4.2 and 4.10 to keep solutions inside E_eq, where the variational calculus applies.
domain assumption Strichartz estimates for e^{-iHt} on the star graph from [8, Theorem 1.3]
Invoked in the virial identity proof, Proposition 2.5 Step 2, to identify T_H1 with T_H and transfer the blow-up alternative from DH to H1.
standard math The algebraic inequality (4.13) in Lemma 4.8, verified by analogy with [12, Lemma 3.2]
The text says it can be verified by showing a derivative is nonpositive, but no full computation appears. This inequality is essential for the alpha<0 theorem.
domain assumption Variational characterization of the delta-prime profiles from [1]
Theorems 5.4 and 5.5 use the minimizer properties of phi^odd and phi^as from [1, Theorem 5.3] without reproof.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Blow-up and strong instability of standing waves for the NLS-$\delta$ equation on a star graph." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UXX7EGYE

@misc{pith2026190807122,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Blow-up and strong instability of standing waves for the NLS-$\delta$ equation on a star graph},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UXX7EGYE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.07122}
}

abstract

We study strong instability (by blow-up) of the standing waves for the nonlinear Schr\"odinger equation with $\delta$-interaction on a star graph $\Gamma$. The key ingredient is a novel variational technique applied to the standing wave solutions being minimizers of a specific variational problem. We also show well-posedness of the corresponding Cauchy problem in the domain of the self-adjoint operator which defines $\delta$-interaction. This permits to prove virial identity for the $H^1$- solutions to the Cauchy problem. We also prove certain strong instability results for the standing waves of the NLS-$\delta'$ equation on the line.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

21 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages

[6]

Angulo, N

J. Angulo, N. Goloshchapova, Extension theory approach in the stability of the stand- ing waves for the NLS equation with point interactions on a st ar graph , Advances in Diﬀerential Equations 23 (2018), 793–846

work page 2018
[13]

Fukuizumi, L

R. Fukuizumi, L. Jeanjean, Stability of standing waves for a nonlinear Schr¨ odinger equation with a repulsive Dirac delta potential , Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst. 21 (2008), no. 1, 121–136

work page 2008
[14]

Fukuizumi, M

R. Fukuizumi, M. Ohta and T. Ozawa, Nonlinear Schr¨ odinger equation with a point defect, Ann. Inst. H. Poincar´ e Anal. Non Lin´ eaire25 (2008), no. 5, 837–845

work page 2008
[4]

Albeverio, Z

S. Albeverio, Z. Brzezniak, L. Dabrowski, Fundamental Solution of the Heat and Schr¨ odinger Equations with Point Interaction, J. Funct. Anal. 130 (1995), 220–254

work page 1995
[1]

Adami and D

R. Adami and D. Noja, Stability and symmetry-breaking bifurcation for the groun d states of a NLS with a δ′ interaction, Comm. Math. Phys. 318 (2013), no. 1, 247–289

work page 2013
[2]

Adami, C

R. Adami, C. Cacciapuoti, D. Finco, D. Noja, Variational properties and orbital sta- bility of standing waves for NLS equation on a star graph , J. Diﬀerential Equations 257 (2014), no. 10, 3738–3777. 28

work page 2014
[3]

Adami, C

R. Adami, C. Cacciapuoti, D. Finco, and D. Noja, Stable standing waves for a NLS on star graphs as local minimizers of the constrained energy , J. Diﬀerential Equations 260 (2016), no. 10, 7397 – 7415

work page 2016
[5]

Albeverio, F

S. Albeverio, F. Gesztesy, R. Hoegh-Krohn and H. Holden, Solvable models in quantum mechanics, second edition, AMS Chelsea Publishing, Providence, RI, 2005

work page 2005

Show all 21 references

[7]

Angulo, N

J. Angulo, N. Goloshchapova, On the orbital instability of excited states for the NLS equation with the δ-interaction on a star graph , Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems 38 (2018), no. 10, 5039–5066

2018
[8]

Banica, L.I.Ignat, Dispersion for the Schr¨ odinger equation on the line with mu ltiple Dirac delta potentials and on delta trees , Anal

V. Banica, L.I.Ignat, Dispersion for the Schr¨ odinger equation on the line with mu ltiple Dirac delta potentials and on delta trees , Anal. Partial Diﬀer. Equ. 7 (2014), no. 4, 903–927

2014
[9]

Berestycki and T

H. Berestycki and T. Cazenave, Instabilit´ e des ´ etats stationnaires dans les ´ equations de Schr¨ odinger et de Klein-Gordon non lin´ eaires, C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris S´ er. I Math. 293 (1981), 489–492

1981
[10]

Cacciapuoti, D

C. Cacciapuoti, D. Finco and D. Noja, Ground state and orbital stability for the NLS equation on a general starlike graph with potentials , Nonlinearity 30 (2017), 3271–3303

2017
[11]

Cazenave, Semilinear Schr¨ odinger equations, Courant Lect

T. Cazenave, Semilinear Schr¨ odinger equations, Courant Lect. Notes in Math., 10, New York University, Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences , New York; Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2003

2003
[12]

Fukaya and M

N. Fukaya and M. Ohta, Strong instablity of standing waves for nonlinear Schr¨ odinger equations with attractive inverse power potential , preprint, arXiv:1804.02127

arXiv
[15]

Kairzhan, Orbital instability of standing waves for NLS equation on st ar graphs , Proc

A. Kairzhan, Orbital instability of standing waves for NLS equation on st ar graphs , Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 147 (2019), 2911–2924

2019
[16]

Le Coz, A note on Berestycki-Cazenave’s classical instability res ult for nonlinear Schr¨ odinger equations, Adv

S. Le Coz, A note on Berestycki-Cazenave’s classical instability res ult for nonlinear Schr¨ odinger equations, Adv. Nonlinear Stud. 8 (2008), 455–463. 29

2008
[17]

Le Coz, R

S. Le Coz, R. Fukuizumi, G. Fibich, B. Ksherim and Y. Sivan, Instability of bound states of a nonlinear Schr¨ odinger equation with a Dirac pot ential, Physica D 237 (2008), 1103–1128

2008
[18]

Ohta, Strong instability of standing waves for nonlinear Schr¨ odinger equations with harmonic potential, Funkcialaj Ekvacioj 61 (2018), 135–143

M. Ohta, Strong instability of standing waves for nonlinear Schr¨ odinger equations with harmonic potential, Funkcialaj Ekvacioj 61 (2018), 135–143

2018
[19]

Ohta, Instability of standing waves for nonlinear Schr¨ odinger equations with delta potential, Sao Paulo Journal of Mathematical Sciences 13 (2019), 465–474

M. Ohta, Instability of standing waves for nonlinear Schr¨ odinger equations with delta potential, Sao Paulo Journal of Mathematical Sciences 13 (2019), 465–474

2019
[20]

Ohta and T

M. Ohta and T. Yamaguchi, Strong instability of standing waves for nonlinear Schr¨ odinger equations with double power nonlinearity, SUT J. Math. 51 (2015), 49–58

2015
[21]

Ohta and T

M. Ohta and T. Yamaguchi, Strong instability of standing waves for nonlinear Schr¨ odinger equations with a delta potential, RIMS Kokyuroku Bessatsu B56 (2016), 79–92. 30

2016

Pith tools

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

[1] [6]

Angulo, N

J. Angulo, N. Goloshchapova, Extension theory approach in the stability of the stand- ing waves for the NLS equation with point interactions on a st ar graph , Advances in Diﬀerential Equations 23 (2018), 793–846

work page 2018

[2] [13]

Fukuizumi, L

R. Fukuizumi, L. Jeanjean, Stability of standing waves for a nonlinear Schr¨ odinger equation with a repulsive Dirac delta potential , Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst. 21 (2008), no. 1, 121–136

work page 2008

[3] [14]

Fukuizumi, M

R. Fukuizumi, M. Ohta and T. Ozawa, Nonlinear Schr¨ odinger equation with a point defect, Ann. Inst. H. Poincar´ e Anal. Non Lin´ eaire25 (2008), no. 5, 837–845

work page 2008

[4] [4]

Albeverio, Z

S. Albeverio, Z. Brzezniak, L. Dabrowski, Fundamental Solution of the Heat and Schr¨ odinger Equations with Point Interaction, J. Funct. Anal. 130 (1995), 220–254

work page 1995

[5] [1]

Adami and D

R. Adami and D. Noja, Stability and symmetry-breaking bifurcation for the groun d states of a NLS with a δ′ interaction, Comm. Math. Phys. 318 (2013), no. 1, 247–289

work page 2013

[6] [2]

Adami, C

R. Adami, C. Cacciapuoti, D. Finco, D. Noja, Variational properties and orbital sta- bility of standing waves for NLS equation on a star graph , J. Diﬀerential Equations 257 (2014), no. 10, 3738–3777. 28

work page 2014

[7] [3]

Adami, C

R. Adami, C. Cacciapuoti, D. Finco, and D. Noja, Stable standing waves for a NLS on star graphs as local minimizers of the constrained energy , J. Diﬀerential Equations 260 (2016), no. 10, 7397 – 7415

work page 2016

[8] [5]

Albeverio, F

S. Albeverio, F. Gesztesy, R. Hoegh-Krohn and H. Holden, Solvable models in quantum mechanics, second edition, AMS Chelsea Publishing, Providence, RI, 2005

work page 2005