Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 31 references

Multi-bump positive solutions for a logarithmic Schr\"{o}dinger equation with deepening potential well

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 A logarithmic Schrödinger equation with a multi-well potential admits at least 2^k−1 positive multi-bump solutions for sufficiently deep wells.

desk verdict Solid extension of the penalization method to the log Schrödinger equation, but the load-bearing minimax estimate is borrowed from a power-nonlinearity paper without proof. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.09153 v2 pith:YIAHA3KP submitted 2019-08-24 math.AP

Claudianor O. Alves , Chao Ji This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.AP MSC 35A1535J1035B09
keywords logarithmicSchrödingerequationmulti-bumpsolutionsdeepeningpotentialwellvariationalmethodsmountainpasspenalizationmethodPalais-Smaleconditionleastenergysolution
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 that a logarithmic Schrödinger equation with a deepening potential well (a nonnegative potential V whose zero set has k disjoint bounded components) has at least 2^k−1 positive solutions for large λ. These solutions concentrate on any chosen nonempty subset of the wells, with each bump resembling a least-energy solution on the corresponding component. The proof works despite the energy functional not being well-defined on unbounded domains, by first solving an auxiliary penalized problem on large balls and then passing to the limit.

What carries the argument

The auxiliary problem (Mλ,R) on a ball BR(0), obtained by splitting the nonlinearity into F1 and F2: F2(s) − F1(s) = ½s² log s², with F1 convex, even, nonnegative and F2 modified outside Ω′Γ so that its derivative grows at most linearly. The key mechanism is the comparison of minimax levels: the mountain-pass type level bλ,R,Γ for the auxiliary functional lies between ∑cλ,j and cΓ, and converges to cΓ as λ→∞. This level control forces the solutions to have nonzero components on each chosen well and to vanish outside Γ, leading to multi-bump structure.

What would settle it

Compute explicitly the functions F1 and F2 for the given δ, l, a0 and check whether F1 is convex and nonnegative for all s, and whether F2′(s)/s is nondecreasing and F2′(s)≥0 for s>0 as claimed. If any of these properties fails for the specific choices, the auxiliary problem (Mλ,R) does not have the mountain-pass geometry and the main theorem is not established. Alternatively, a numerical simulation for a concrete potential V with two wells could test the claim of existence of multi-bump solutions for large λ, checking whether positive solutions indeed concentrate on each chosen well.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that for any nonempty subset Γ of {1,…,k}, there exists λ* such that for all λ ≥ λ* problem (Pλ) has a positive solution uλ. As λ tends to infinity along a sequence, a subsequence converges strongly in $H^{1}$ to a function u that vanishes outside ΩΓ and is a least-energy solution of the limit problem −Δu = u log u² on ΩΓ with Dirichlet boundary conditions. The immediate corollary is that for large λ the equation has at least 2^k−1 positive solutions, one for each nonempty subset of the wells.

Load-bearing premise

The paper assumes without proof that the decomposition of the logarithmic nonlinearity into F1 and F2 satisfies all the listed properties (convexity, growth, monotonicity) for the particular constants δ, l, a0 chosen; if those properties fail, the auxiliary problem loses its geometry and the whole construction collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For any prescribed subset of the k wells, there is a positive solution whose mass is concentrated in those wells, with negligible mass elsewhere.
  • The number of positive solutions grows exponentially with the number of wells: at least 2^k−1.
  • The solutions are obtained without requiring the energy functional to be finite on all of H^1(R^N), overcoming the lack of well-definedness by an approximation on balls.
  • The method extends the penalization approach of del Pino and Felmer to logarithmic nonlinearities, which do not satisfy the usual polynomial asymptotics near zero.
  • The limit profiles are least-energy solutions of the Dirichlet problem on the union of the selected wells, establishing a precise concentration behavior.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A likely testable extension is to replace the logarithmic nonlinearity by a family of subcritical nonlinearities that converge to the logarithmic law, checking whether the number of bumps persists under the limit.
  • The exponential growth in the number of solutions suggests that similar multi-bump counting may hold for other nonlocal or fractional logarithmic Schrödinger equations, provided a suitable penalization can be constructed.
  • The paper's technique of proving boundedness of Palais-Smale sequences via the logarithmic Sobolev-type inequality (Lemma 2.2) might be applicable to other problems where the energy functional is not coercive in the usual sense.
  • The uniformity of the level convergence bλ,R,Γ → cΓ as λ→∞ could be sharpened to explicit rates, which would give quantitative information about the size of the bumps.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies the logarithmic Schrödinger equation -Δu + λV(x)u = u log u^2 on R^N, with a nonnegative potential V whose zero set is a bounded set Ω consisting of k disjoint components Ω_1,...,Ω_k. The main result, Theorem 1.1, asserts that for every nonempty Γ ⊆ {1,...,k} and all sufficiently large λ there is a positive solution u_λ whose energy is concentrated on Ω_Γ = ∪_{j∈Γ}Ω_j, and that along λ_n→∞ a subsequence converges strongly in H^1 to a least-energy solution of the limit problem -Δu = u log u^2 on Ω_Γ with zero boundary condition. Corollary 1.1 concludes that there are at least 2^k-1 positive solutions. The proof follows the penalization approach of del Pino and Felmer: the nonlinearity is truncated near zero and modified outside Ω'_Γ, an auxiliary problem is solved on large balls B_R(0), the associated functional is shown to satisfy the (PS) condition, special minimax levels b_{λ,R,Γ} are introduced, and a deformation argument produces critical points with prescribed bumps on each Ω_j; finally, solutions are recovered for the original problem as R→∞ and then as λ→∞.

Significance. If the proof is completed, the result is a meaningful extension of the multi-bump results of Ding and Tanaka from power nonlinearities to the logarithmic nonlinearity, which is technically delicate because the natural energy functional is not well defined or C^1 on the whole space. The paper contains substantial original work: the penalized functional on balls, the (PS)_∞ analysis, the L^∞-bounds via Moser iteration, and the passage from balls to R^N are all carried out in detail. The main issue is completeness: several lemmas that are load-bearing for the central minimax comparison and for the convergence of solutions on expanding balls are stated without proof and referred to earlier papers, and one step in the deformation argument appears to require a stronger choice of the constant r than the one made. These gaps are fixable, but they need to be addressed before the main theorem can be considered established.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.4, Lemma 2.8 and Corollary 2.4] The proof of the key minimax comparison is omitted entirely. Lemma 2.8(a) asserts Σ c_{λ,j} ≤ b_{λ,R,Γ} ≤ c_Γ, and Corollary 2.4(b) asserts b_{λ,R,Γ} → c_Γ uniformly for large R; the text says that the proof is 'the same as that of Proposition 4.2 in [1]' and 'similar to that of Corollary 4.3 in [1]'. This is load-bearing: Proposition 2.4 obtains its contradiction precisely from the fact that b_{λ,R,Γ} < c_Γ for large λ,R, while Corollary 2.4(b) forces b_{λ,R,Γ} → c_Γ. Moreover, the cited reference [1] concerns a different, quasilinear-type problem, so the adaptation to the logarithmic penalized functional is not automatic; in particular, the lower bound Σ c_{λ,j} ≤ b_{λ,R,Γ} requires ruling out minimax points whose restriction to some Ω'_j is trivial, using the sign conditions in (2.13). Please provide a complete proof or a precise statement of which estimates transfer and why the logarithmic modification preserves them.
  2. [§2.5, Proposition 2.4] The deformation argument contains a gap in the treatment of the set B^λ_r. The radius r is only required to satisfy r > max{‖ω_j‖_{H^1_0(Ω_j)}}, but the paths γ_0 contain terms s_j Tω_j with T large, so γ_0([1/T^2,1]^l) need not lie in B^λ_{r/2}. Consequently, the claim in case (2)(ii) that leaving B^λ_r implies a displacement at least r from the initial point u is not justified: if u ∈ B^λ_r but is close to the boundary, a path can leave B^λ_r with arbitrarily small displacement. The proof needs a choice such as r > 2 sup_{t∈[1/T^2,1]^l} ‖γ_0(t)‖, together with a corresponding adjustment of the case analysis, in order for the energy-drop estimate (2.16) to hold. This estimate is what produces the contradiction with Corollary 2.4(b), so the gap directly affects the existence of the critical point in A^λ_{μ,R}.
  3. [§3, Lemmas 3.1 and 3.2] Lemmas 3.1 and 3.2 are stated without proof, with the comment that they follow by arguments similar to those in Proposition 2.2. These lemmas are needed to pass from solutions u_{λ,R_n} on expanding balls to a solution u_λ on R^N, and in particular to justify the strong H^1 convergence u_{λ,n} → u_λ and the L^1 convergence of F_1(u_{λ,n}) and F'_1(u_{λ,n})u_{λ,n}. For a logarithmic nonlinearity these integrability assertions are not completely routine. Please supply the proofs or give a detailed indication of the modifications of Proposition 2.2 that establish them.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§2.1, definitions of F_1 and F_2] The paper states that the required properties of F_1 and F_2 were proved in [21] and [24], but it does not indicate the range of δ for which F_1 is convex and nonnegative. Since the argument later fixes δ small and chooses p ∈ (2,2^*) in (2.2), it would be helpful to state the precise conditions on δ and p that are being used.
  2. [§2.5, notation] In the paragraph after the definition of A^λ_{μ,R}, the notation 'w = Σ_{j=1}^l w_j ∈ A^λ_{μ,R}' is used before w_j is defined; presumably w_j = ω_j. Please clarify this notation.
  3. [§2.5, Proposition 2.3] In the proof of Proposition 2.3, the consequence drawn from (2.12) is written as '‖u‖_j^2 > τ/(2T)'. Since (2.12) states ‖u‖_j > τ, the square norm is actually > τ^2; the displayed inequality is true only after choosing T large enough so that τ^2 > τ/(2T). Please make that choice explicit.
  4. [§3, definition of Φ_λ] The functional Φ_λ on E_λ is introduced only after Lemma 3.2, but it is used earlier in the definition of A^λ_μ. Please define Φ_λ before its first use and state its domain and regularity properties clearly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular reduction: the derivation is self-contained apart from one borrowed auxiliary minimax estimate whose transfer is a rigor concern, not a circularity.

full rationale

The paper derives the multi-bump theorem from a penalized auxiliary problem on the ball BR(0). The auxiliary functional is constructed so that F2(s)-F1(s) = (1/2)s^2 log s^2, which is a definitional identity rather than an input equivalent to the conclusion. The mountain-pass geometry (Lemma 2.1), boundedness of Palais-Smale sequences (Lemma 2.3), the (PS) condition (Lemma 2.4), the concentration analysis for (PS)∞,R sequences (Propositions 2.1 and 2.2), the L∞ bound outside Ω'_Γ (Lemmas 2.5 and 2.6), and the deformation argument in Proposition 2.4 are all carried out in the paper. The only place where a central auxiliary fact is not proved is Lemma 2.8 and Corollary 2.4, where the text says 'The proof of the lemma is the same as that of Proposition 4.2 in [1], so we omit it' and 'The proof of the corollary is similar to that of Corollary 4.3 in [1], here we also omit it.' This is a genuine transfer/correctness risk, because [1] treats a different quasilinear problem and the logarithmic modification may affect the estimates. However, it is not a circular reduction: Corollary 2.4 is not the theorem being proved, b_{λ,R,Γ} is not defined in terms of c_Γ in a way that makes the convergence b_{λ,R,Γ} → c_Γ trivial, and the cited result is not a repackaged version of the paper's own conclusion. Likewise, the F1/F2 decomposition imported from [21,24] supplies explicit convexity and growth properties of elementary functions, not the target multi-bump existence. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no input is equivalent to the output by construction. Hence no significant circularity is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters are fitted to observations; the listed constants are proof parameters. The load-bearing imported ingredient is the F1/F2 decomposition, and the auxiliary penalized problem is an internal device, not a new physical entity.

free parameters (4)
  • δ > 0 (truncation threshold)
    Small enough for F1 to be convex; existence from [21,24]. Affects the mountain pass geometry in Lemma 2.1 and the (PS) condition in Lemma 2.4.
  • l ∈ (0,1)
    Slope of the linear extension of the penalized nonlinearity; the inequality ∫ \tilde F'_2(u)u ≤ l∫u^2 is used to force u=0 in wells not in Γ. The proof requires l<1.
  • a0 > 0
    Determined by F'_2(a0)/a0 = l; the bound |u_{λ,R}|∞ ≤ a0 outside wells in Lemma 2.6 is the mechanism by which penalized solutions become true solutions.
  • T > 0 large
    Scaling constant for the path γ0; chosen large enough so that γ0 exits the sublevel cΓ on the boundary, supporting the minimax comparison in Lemma 2.8.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption V satisfies (V1)-(V3): V≥0 continuous; Ω=int V^{-1}(0) is a nonempty bounded open set with smooth boundary, Ω=V^{-1}(0); Ω has k connected components Ω_j.
    Standing hypothesis of Theorem 1.1 defining the wells and all limit problems.
  • ad hoc to paper The truncation functions F1 and F2 in Section 2 exist and satisfy the stated properties (F1 convex and even, F1≥0, F'_1(s)s≥0, F'_2(s)/s nondecreasing, |F'_2(s)|≤C|s|^{p-1}).
    Imported from [21,24]; not proved here. Every later estimate depends on these properties.
  • standard math Lemma 2.2: ∫|u|^2 log(|u|^2) dx ≤ A + B log(‖u‖) for u∈H^1 with constants A,B>0.
    Logarithmic Sobolev inequality from del Pino-Dolbeault [17], used to get boundedness of (PS) sequences in Lemma 2.3 and Corollary 2.2.
  • standard math Each limit problem (D_j) on Ω_j has a least energy solution ω_j at the mountain pass level c_j, and there is τ>0 separating the Nehari manifold from 0.
    Invoked in Section 2.4; follows from the mountain pass theorem and compactness on bounded domains.
  • standard math Maximum principle for weak solutions of elliptic equations with logarithmic nonlinearity (Vázquez [27]).
    Used in Theorem 2.1 to show the nontrivial solution u_{λ,R} is strictly positive.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Multi-bump positive solutions for a logarithmic Schr\"{o}dinger equation with deepening potential well." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YIAHA3KP

@misc{pith2026190809153,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Multi-bump positive solutions for a logarithmic Schr\"odinger equation with deepening potential well},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YIAHA3KP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.09153}
}
abstract

This article concerns the existence of multi-bump positive solutions for the following logarithmic Schr\"{o}dinger equation $$ \left\{ \begin{array}{lc} -\Delta u+ \lambda V(x)u=u \log u^2, & \mbox{in} \quad \mathbb{R}^{N}, \\ u \in H^1(\mathbb{R}^{N}), \\ \end{array} \right. $$ where $N \geq 1$, $\lambda>0$ is a parameter and the nonnegative continuous function $V: \mathbb{R}^{N}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ has a potential well $\Omega: =\text{int}\, V^{-1}(0)$ which possesses $k$ disjoint bounded components $\Omega=\bigcup_{j=1}^{k}\Omega_{j}$. Using the variational methods, we prove that if the parameter $\lambda>0$ is large enough, then the equation has at least $2^{k}-1$ multi-bump positive solutions.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

  1. [3]

    Alves, D

    C.O. Alves, D. C. de Morais Filho, G. M. Figueiredo, On concentration of solution to a Schr¨ odinger logarithmic equation with deepening potential well , Math. Methods Appl. Sci. 42 (2019), 4862-4875. 26

    work page 2019

  2. [1]

    Alves, Existence of multi-bump solutions for a class of quasilinea r problems, Adv

    C.O. Alves, Existence of multi-bump solutions for a class of quasilinea r problems, Adv. Nonlinear Stud. 6 (2006), 491-509

    work page 2006

  3. [2]

    Alves, D

    C.O. Alves, D. C. de Morais Filho, Existence of concentration of positive solutions for a Schr¨ odinger logarithmic equation, Z. Angew. Math. Phys. 69 (2018), 144

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    Alves, D

    C.O. Alves, D. C. de Morais Filho, M. A. S. Souto, Multiplicity of positive solutions for a class of problems with critical growth in RN , Proc. Edinb. Math. Soc. 52 (2009), 1-21

    work page 2009

  5. [5]

    Alves, C

    C.O. Alves, C. Ji, Multiple positive solutions for a Schr¨ odinger logarithmi c equation , Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst. 40 (2020), 2671-2685

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    Alves, C

    C.O. Alves, C. Ji, Existence of a positive solution for a logarithmic Schr¨ odinger equation with saddle-like potential , Manuscripta Math. (2020), DOI: 10.1007/s00229-020-01197- z

    work page doi:10.1007/s00229-020-01197- 2020

  7. [7]

    Alves, C

    C.O. Alves, C. Ji, Existence and concentration of positive solutions for a log arithmic Schr¨ odinger equation via penalization method, Calc. Var. Partial Differential Equations 59 (2020), art 21, 27 pp

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    Alves, A

    C.O. Alves, A. B. N´ obrega, Existence of multi-bump solutions for a class of elliptic problems involving the biharmonic operator , Monatsh Math. 183 (2017), 35-60

    work page 2017

Show all 31 references
  1. [9]

    Alves, A

    C.O. Alves, A. B. N´ obrega, M. B. Yang, Multi-bump solutions for Choquard equation with deepening potential well , Calc. Var. Partial Differential Equations 55 (2016), art 48, 28 pp

    2016

  2. [10]

    Alves, M

    C.O. Alves, M. A. S. Souto, Multiplicity of positive solutions for a class of problems with exponential critical growth in R2, J. Differential Equations 244 (2008), 1501-1520

    2008

  3. [11]

    Ambrosetti, P.H

    A. Ambrosetti, P.H. Rabinowitz, Dual variational methods in critical point theory and applications, J. Funct. Anal. 14 (1973), 349-381

    1973

  4. [12]

    Bartsch, Z.-Q

    T. Bartsch, Z.-Q. Wang, Existence and multiplicity results for some superlinear el liptic problems on RN , Comm. Part. Diff. Equ. 20 (1995), 1725-1741

    1995

  5. [13]

    Bartsch, Z.-Q

    T. Bartsch, Z.-Q. Wang, Multiple positive solutions for a nonlinear Schr¨ odinger equation, Z. Angew. Math. Phys. 51 (2000), 366-384

    2000

  6. [14]

    d’Avenia, E

    P. d’Avenia, E. Montefusco, M. Squassina, On the logarithmic Schr¨ odinger equation , Commun. Contemp. Math. 16 (2014), 1350032

    2014

  7. [15]

    d’Avenia, M

    P. d’Avenia, M. Squassina, M. Zenari, Fractional logarithmic Schr¨ odinger equations, Math. Methods Appl. Sci. 38 (2015), 5207-5216

    2015

  8. [16]

    Degiovanni, S

    M. Degiovanni, S. Zani, Multiple solutions of semilinear elliptic equations with o ne- sided growth conditions, nonlinear operator theory. Math. Comput. Model. 32 (2000), 1377-1393

    2000

  9. [17]

    del Pino, J

    M. del Pino, J. Dolbeault, The optimal Euclidean Lp-Sobolev logarithmic inequality , J. Funct. Anal. 197 (2003), 151-161

    2003

  10. [18]

    del Pino, P.L

    M. del Pino, P.L. Felmer, Local Mountain Pass for semilinear elliptic problems in unbounded domains, Calc. Var. Partial Differential Equations, 4 (1996), 121-137

    1996

  11. [19]

    Guo, Z.W

    Y.X. Guo, Z.W. Tang, Multi-bump bound state solutions for the quasilinear Schr¨odinger equation with critical frequency , Pacific J. Math. 270 (2014), 49-77. 27

    2014

  12. [20]

    Y.H. Ding, K. Tanaka, Multiplicity of positive solutions of a nonlinear Schr¨ odi nger equation, Manuscripta Math. 112 (2003), 109-135

    2003

  13. [21]

    C. Ji, A. Szulkin, A logarithmic Schr¨ odinger equation with asymptotic conditions on the potential, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 437 (2016), 241-254

    2016

  14. [22]

    Liang, J.H

    S.H. Liang, J.H. Zhang, Multi-bump solutions for a class of Kirchhoff type problems with critical growth in RN , Topol. Methods Nonlinear Anal. 48 (2016), 71-101

    2016

  15. [23]

    Miranda, Un ’osservazione su un teorema di Brouwer, Boll

    C. Miranda, Un ’osservazione su un teorema di Brouwer, Boll. Unione Mat. Ital. 3 (1940), 5-7

    1940

  16. [24]

    Squassina, A

    M. Squassina, A. Szulkin, Multiple solution to logarithmic Schr¨ odinger equations w ith periodic potential, Calc. Var. Partial Differential Equations 54 (2015), 585-597

    2015

  17. [25]

    Squassina, A

    M. Squassina, A. Szulkin, Erratum to: Multiple solutions to logarithmic Schr¨ oinger equations with periodic potential , Calc. Var. Partial Differential Equations DOI: 10.1007/s00526-017-1127-7

    doi

  18. [26]

    Tanaka, C.X

    K. Tanaka, C.X. Zhang, Multi-bump solutions for logarithmic Schr¨ odinger, Calc. Var. Partial Differential Equations 56 (2017), art 33, 35 pp

    2017

  19. [27]

    V´ azquez,A strong maximum principle for some quasilinear elliptic eq uations, Appl

    J.L. V´ azquez,A strong maximum principle for some quasilinear elliptic eq uations, Appl. Math. Optim. 12 (1984), 191-201

    1984

  20. [28]

    Wang, C.X

    Z.-Q. Wang, C.X. Zhang, Convergence from power-law to logarithmic-law in nonlinea r scalar field equations , Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 231 (2019), 45-61

    2019

  21. [29]

    Willem, Minimax Theorems, Birkhauser, (1996)

    M. Willem, Minimax Theorems, Birkhauser, (1996)

    1996

  22. [30]

    Zhang, X

    C.X. Zhang, X. Zhang, Bound states for logarithmic Schr¨ odinger equations with potentials unbounded below , Calc. Var. Partial Differential Equations 59 (2020), art 23, 31 pp

    2020

  23. [31]

    Zloshchastiev, Logarithmic nonlinearity in the theories of quantum gravit y: origin of time and observational consequences , Grav

    K.G. Zloshchastiev, Logarithmic nonlinearity in the theories of quantum gravit y: origin of time and observational consequences , Grav. Cosmol. 16 (2010), 288-297. Claudianor O. Alves Unidade Acadˆ emica de Matem´ atica Universidade Federal de Campina Grande Campina Grande, PB...

    2010

Pith tools

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