Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 37 references

Soliton solutions associated with a class of third-order ordinary linear differential operators

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper derives the known multi-soliton formulas for the Sawada–Kotera and modified bad Boussinesq equations from reflectionless inverse scattering, so the constants in those formulas become bound-state data rather than ansatz parameters.

desk verdict Solid inverse-scattering derivation of soliton solutions for a third-order operator, but the reduction to Hirota's N-soliton solutions rests on two unproved algebraic identities. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.10971 v2 pith:IBU53MXQ submitted 2024-12-14 nlin.SI math-phmath.MP

Tuncay Aktosun , Abdon E. Choque-Rivero , Ivan Toledo , Mehmet Unlu This is my paper · ORCID
classification nlin.SImath-phmath.MP MSC 34A5534M5035C08
keywords inversescatteringthird-orderdifferentialequationreflectionlesscasebound-statedependencyconstantssolitonsolutionsSawada-KoteramodifiedbadBoussinesqRiemann-Hilbertproblem
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's goal is to show that the N-soliton solutions already known for the Sawada–Kotera equation and the modified bad Boussinesq equation are not ad hoc algebraic constructs: they are the reflectionless inverse-scattering solutions of the third-order differential equation $\psi''' + Q\psi' + P\psi = k^3\psi$. The input that determines the solution is the set of bound-state poles of a transmission coefficient together with bound-state dependency constants at those poles. Using time-evolved dependency constants, the paper constructs $Q$ and $P$ explicitly from a Riemann–Hilbert problem, and then shows that with poles restricted to $k_j = iz\eta_j$ and dependency constants restricted by reality conditions, the special cases $P=0$ and $P=Q_x$ reproduce the bilinear N-soliton formulas. If the construction is right, each constant in those formulas has a spectral meaning: $\eta_j$ locates the bound state and $r_j$ fixes the dependency constant. That would turn a solution-generating ansatz into a first-principles derivation.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the bound-state dependency constant, the proportionality constant linking the left Jost solution to the decaying solution at a bound-state pole; after incorporating time evolution it becomes the modified dependency constant $\gamma(k_j)$. The construction solves a Riemann–Hilbert problem on a line dividing the complex $k$-plane, using plus and minus functions whose product with a polynomial is entire, leading to the linear system $M(x)A(x)=-B(x)$. Two algebraic facts carry the Sawada–Kotera reduction: the determinant identity $\det[M_1]=\Sigma_N\det[M]+\frac{d}{dx}(\det[M])$, and the perfect-square property that $\det[M(x)]/\lim_{x\to-\infty}\det[M(x)]$ equals $\Delta(N,x)^2$ with $\Delta$ a degree-$N$ polynomial with positive coefficients. The paper states that both can be proved by induction and uses them to obtain $Q(x)=6\,\frac{d}{dx}(\Delta'/\Delta)$.

What would settle it

Take $N=2$ (or $N=3$), choose $\eta_1<\eta_2$ and arbitrary $r_1,r_2$, define $s_1,s_2$ by the listed restrictions, build $M(x)$ from the given formulas, and symbolically check whether $\det[M_1]=\Sigma_N\det[M]+\frac{d}{dx}(\det[M])$ and whether $\det[M]/\lim_{x\to-\infty}\det[M]$ is a perfect square of degree $N$ with positive coefficients; then compare the resulting $Q(x)$ from the $\Delta$ formula term by term with the bilinear N-soliton formula. Failure of either identity or a mismatch in coefficients would falsify the claimed equivalence.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that solving the inverse scattering problem in the reflectionless case for the third-order equation, with left transmission coefficient $T_l(k)=\Gamma(k)/\Gamma(-k)$ built from pairs of conjugate bound-state poles, yields a $2N$-parameter family of explicit solutions to the coupled fifth-order system; restricting the poles to $k_j=iz\eta_j$ and the modified dependency constants $\gamma(k_j)=r_j+is_j$ to the listed reality conditions forces $P=0$ or $P=Q_x$ and reduces $Q$ to $6\,\frac{d}{dx}(\Delta'/\Delta)$, the N-soliton solution of the Sawada–Kotera equation. The paper therefore claims that the constants $\eta_j$ and $r_j$ in that solution are bound-state pole positions and dependency-constant data for the third-order operator, not fitting parameters. The same machinery, with the time evolution of the dependency constants governed by the operator $A=3iD^2-4iq$, produces real-valued N-soliton solutions of the modified bad Boussinesq equation, again interpreting the constants as scattering data.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that two algebraic statements about the determinant of the matrix $M(x)$ are true for every $N$: the identity $\det[M_1]=\Sigma_N\det[M]+\frac{d}{dx}(\det[M])$, and the claim that $\det[M(x)]/\lim_{x\to-\infty}\det[M(x)]$ is the square of a degree-$N$ polynomial with positive coefficients; the paper says these follow by induction but does not supply the proofs.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The two constants in each one-soliton term of the bilinear Sawada–Kotera solution are fixed by the bound-state pole location and the dependency constant, so choosing scattering data determines the soliton without an ansatz.
  • The N-soliton Sawada–Kotera solution is a special case of a $2N$-soliton solution of the coupled system, and the paper shows it cannot be obtained from the $N$-soliton solution built from $N$ single poles.
  • Because the inverse-scattering construction is independent of the time evolution, the same input data set works for any integrable equation associated with the third-order operator once the dependency constants are evolved with the correct Lax operator; the modified bad Boussinesq equation is the second worked example.
  • Under the stated reality restrictions the resulting $Q$ is real and nonsingular, and the displayed snapshots show the standard soliton interaction pattern in which faster, taller solitons pass slower, shorter ones.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the determinant identity and perfect-square property hold, the same derivation should go through for the Kaup–Kupershmidt equation by setting $P=Q_x/2$, a case the paper explicitly leaves unanalyzed.
  • The spectral reading of the constants suggests a concrete numerical check: initialize the direct scattering problem for the third-order operator with the constructed $Q$ and $P$ and recover the input pole locations and dependency constants; agreement would confirm that the constants are literally the scattering data.
  • The two unproved induction steps are the point to audit first; a counterexample for some $N$ would show that the explicit reduction to $\Delta$ is nontrivial even if the inverse-scattering formalism is sound.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper constructs explicit soliton solutions for integrable evolution equations associated with the third-order operator L = D^3 + QD + P by solving the inverse scattering problem in the reflectionless case. The input data consist of the bound-state poles of the left transmission coefficient and the corresponding bound-state dependency constants. The authors obtain N-soliton solutions to the coupled system (1.5), and then, by restricting the poles to kj = izηj and the dependency constants to γ(kj) = rj + isj with conditions such as (5.89) and (5.91), they reduce a 2N-soliton solution to the real-valued N-soliton solution of the Sawada–Kotera equation. The same machinery is applied to a modified bad Boussinesq equation in Section 6. The central interpretive claim is that the constants appearing in Hirota's bilinear N-soliton formulas have a scattering-theoretic origin: they are bound-state pole locations and initial dependency constants.

Significance. If the algebraic reduction is fully established, the paper makes a valuable contribution: it connects Hirota's algebraic N-soliton formulas to the scattering data of a third-order operator, gives explicit determinantal formulas, and demonstrates the construction for two different integrable equations without assuming the transmission coefficients to be identically one, thus avoiding a severe restriction in earlier work by Deift–Tomei–Trubowitz. The 1- and 2-soliton cases are displayed explicitly, and the N=3,4 coefficient patterns are indicated. However, the general-N claim is presently conditional on two asserted induction proofs and on a coefficient comparison with Hirota's method that is only demonstrated for small N. Since no machine-checkable proof or code is supplied, the general-N verification cannot currently be reproduced from the manuscript. The significance for arbitrary N is therefore real but not yet fully supported.

major comments (4)
  1. [§5.3, Eq. (5.76)] The identity det[M1] = Σ_N det[M] + d(det[M])/dx is load-bearing: it is the only bridge from the Cramer-rule expression (5.64) to the logarithmic-derivative form (5.77), and hence to the final formula Q = 6 d/dx(Δ'/Δ) in (5.88). The paper states that a proof can be given by induction, but no induction proof or reference is supplied. Without this identity, the reduction from the 2N-soliton solution of (1.5) to the N-soliton solution of (1.9) is not established for general N. Please provide the proof or a precise reference to one.
  2. [§5.3, around (5.80)] The assertion that, under the restrictions on sj, the ratio det[M]/lim_{x→−∞} det[M] is the perfect square of a degree-N polynomial Δ(N,x) with positive coefficients is stated to be provable by induction, but no proof is given. This is load-bearing because (5.88) attributes the N-soliton shape to Δ, and the agreement with Hirota's N-soliton formula requires not only existence of a square root but also that the resulting Δ is exactly the Hirota polynomial. The displayed coefficients for N=1,2 and the partial lists for N=3,4 are supportive but do not establish the general case. In addition, no explicit general-N formula for the restrictions sj(r1,...,rN; η1,...,ηN) is stated; only N=1 through N=4 are listed. Please provide a complete proof or a general construction of these restrictions.
  3. [§5.3, unnumbered remark before Example 5.4] The paper claims that 'the explicit expressions for the coefficients in Δ(N,x) agree with the coefficients evaluated by using Hirota's bilinear method', and this agreement is the central evidence that the method reproduces Hirota's N-soliton solution. For N=1 and N=2 the coefficients are displayed and directly checkable; for N=3 and N=4 the authors say the coefficients can be displayed with Mathematica, but they are not shown and the general-N case is not proved. Since this agreement is central to the advertised claim about the physical origin of Hirota's constants, either a general proof (for example, showing by induction that the restricted determinant equals the relevant Hirota tau function) should be supplied, or the claim should be stated as verified only for small N.
  4. [§6] The abstract claims that the method explains the physical origin of the constants in the N-soliton solution to the modified bad Boussinesq equation. Section 6, however, provides a general N-soliton formula only for the complex-valued potential q in Example 6.1, while the real-valued reduction is carried out explicitly only for N=1 and N=2 in Example 6.2. The restrictions on the dependency constants that make q real for general N are not derived, and no comparison with Hirota's N-soliton formula for the bad Boussinesq equation is presented. Thus the claim for arbitrary N is not supported by the manuscript as it stands. Please provide the general-N restriction and comparison, or restrict the claim in the abstract to the cases actually established.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Throughout] The word 'spacial' is used repeatedly; it should be 'spatial'.
  2. [§5.3, after (5.80)] When it is said that the quantity under the square root is a polynomial of degree 2N in the variables χj, it would help to state explicitly that, by (5.74), the variables χ(kj*) coincide with χj, so the polynomial is a function of the N independent variables χ1,...,χN.
  3. [§5.1, Eq. (5.33)] After (5.33), the sentence 'The choice r1 < 0 ensures that Q(x) in (5.90) does not have any singularities' is correct, but the analogous statement for (5.92) ('The choice r1 > 0') would be easier to verify if the denominators were written with the sign convention made explicit in both formulas.
  4. [§6, after (6.6)] The relation between q(x,t) and the modified bad Boussinesq equation is clear, but the sentence 'solitons solutions decay exponentially' contains a typo and should read 'soliton solutions'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No definitional circularity: the soliton constants are derived from scattering data and checked against Hirota, not fitted to it; the main caveats are unproved algebraic reductions and reliance on the co-authored thesis [35].

full rationale

The construction is not circular in the sense of Eq. X = Eq. Y by construction. The paper starts from a reflectionless transmission coefficient and bound-state dependency constants as input data, solves the Riemann-Hilbert problem in (5.37)-(5.45), and recovers Q and P via (5.70). The constants eta_j and r_j are not fitted to Hirota's formulas; they are constrained by the requirements P=0 or P=Qx and real-valuedness, e.g. (5.89), (5.91), and the analogous conditions through (5.119). Hirota's bilinear method is used only as an external comparison after the derivation, not as an input. The two most serious gaps are algebraic, not circular: identity (5.76), det[M1] = Sigma_N det[M] + d(det[M])/dx, and the claim that with the stated s_j restrictions the ratio det[M(x)]/lim det[M(x)] is a perfect square of a degree-N polynomial Delta(N,x) with positive coefficients. The paper says both follow by induction but gives no induction proof, and for N>=3 the coefficients are delegated to Mathematica; these are omitted-proof or correctness risks. The self-citation to the third author's thesis [35] for the analyticity and Jost-solution properties (Theorem 2.1, Section 2; Section 4) is load-bearing for the framework, but it is not a definitional reduction of the final result to the assumptions, and the final N-soliton formulas for N=1,2 are exhibited explicitly and compared with Hirota's known coefficients. Thus no significant circularity is present; the score 2 reflects the unproved algebraic reduction and the reliance on [35], not a fitted-input-called-prediction or self-definitional step.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The construction depends on standard analyticity theorems for Jost solutions, the assumption of reflectionless scattering data with simple poles, and several unproved algebraic identities used to connect the 2N-soliton system solution to Hirota's N-soliton solution.

free parameters (3)
  • Bound-state pole locations kj = kj = iz eta_j, with 0 < eta_1 < ... < eta_N (for real solutions in Section 5)
    Input data set {kj}; each pole is a free parameter of the constructed solution family, inherited from the choice of transmission coefficient (5.1)/(5.34).
  • Initial bound-state dependency constants E(kj) / modified gamma(kj)=rj+i sj = gamma(kj) = rj + i sj, with s_j fixed to a rational function of r_j and eta's for P=0 or P=Qx
    Input data set; the reality and singularity-free restrictions in (5.89)-(5.119) pin s_j to r_j. These are the constants whose physical origin the paper claims to explain.
  • Boussinesq 2-soliton parameters eta1, eta2, b1, b2 = eta1=1, eta2=2, b1=1, b2=-1 in (6.35)
    Free parameters chosen for the illustrative 2-soliton solution in Example 6.2.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Reflectionless scattering data with simple poles and no poles on the contour lines L1, L2, L3, L4.
    Used throughout Sections 4-6 to set reflection coefficients to zero and avoid boundary poles; stated at the start of Section 4.
  • domain assumption Jost solutions f,g and scattering coefficients have the analyticity and asymptotics stated in Theorem 2.1 and (2.12)-(2.15), (2.32).
    Quoted from Toledo's thesis [35]; not proved in the paper.
  • standard math Generalized Liouville theorem ensures entire functions of polynomial growth are polynomials.
    Used to solve the Riemann-Hilbert problem in (5.4), (5.7), (5.37), (5.40).
  • ad hoc to paper Determinant identity (5.76) and the perfect-square property of det[M]/lim det[M].
    Stated as provable by induction but no proof is given; they are needed to reduce the 2N-soliton solution of (1.5) to the N-soliton solution of (1.9).
  • domain assumption Meromorphic extension of Jost solutions to the full k-plane.
    Assumed near (3.38) to define fundamental matrices F and G and derive (3.45).
  • domain assumption The potentials Q and P belong to the Schwartz class in x.
    Assumed at the start of Section 1 and used throughout the direct and inverse scattering analysis.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Soliton solutions associated with a class of third-order ordinary linear differential operators." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IBU53MXQ

@misc{pith2026241210971,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Soliton solutions associated with a class of third-order ordinary linear differential operators},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IBU53MXQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.10971}
}
abstract

Explicit solutions to the related integrable nonlinear evolution equations are constructed by solving the inverse scattering problem in the reflectionless case for the third-order differential equation $d^3\psi/dx^3+Q\,d\psi/dx+P\psi =k^3\psi,$ where $Q$ and $P$ are the potentials in the Schwartz class and $k^3$ is the spectral parameter. The input data set used to solve the relevant inverse problem consists of the bound-state poles of a transmission coefficient and the corresponding bound-state dependency constants. Using the time-evolved dependency constants, explicit solutions to the related integrable evolution equations are obtained. In the special cases of the Sawada--Kotera equation and the modified bad Boussinesq equation, the method presented here explains the physical origin of the constants appearing in the relevant $\mathbf N$-soliton solutions algebraically constructed, but without any physical insight, by the bilinear method of Hirota.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.10971 by the authors.

Figure 2.1
Figure 2.1. The directed half lines L1, L2, L3, L4 and the open sectors Ω1, Ω2, Ω3, Ω4 in the complex k-plane. complex number e 2πi/3 , which is equivalently defined as z := − 1 2 + i √ 3 2 . (2.1) 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2.2
Figure 2.2. The complex k-plane is divided into the six sectors Ωup 1 , Ω down 1 , Ω2, Ω down 3 , Ω up 3 , and Ω4 as shown on the left plot, and the k-domains of three basic solutions to (1.1) in each of the six regions, respectively, are shown on the right plot. h up(k, x) := f(−zk∗ , x) ∗ ; g(−z 2 k ∗ , x) ∗ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4.1
Figure 4.1. The k-domains of Tl(k)f(k, x), m(k, x), g(k, x), and n(k, x), respectively, are shown on the left plot. The right plot shows the plus and minus regions in the complex k-plane separated by the directed full line L, as well as the plus and minus functions in their respective k-domains. In a similar manner, we establish that the function Φ−(k, x) defined in (4.2) is meromorphic in k ∈ P−, and it is continuous in k ∈ P−… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 5.1
Figure 5.1. Figure 5.1: The snapshots for the 1-soliton solution [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p041_5_1.png]
Figure 5.2
Figure 5.2. Figure 5.2: The snapshots for the 2-soliton solution [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p042_5_2.png]
Figure 5.3
Figure 5.3. Figure 5.3: The snapshots for the 3-soliton solution [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p042_5_3.png]
Figure 5.4
Figure 5.4. Figure 5.4: The snapshots for the 4-soliton solution [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p042_5_4.png]
Figure 6.1
Figure 6.1. Figure 6.1: The snapshots for the 2-soliton solution [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p048_6_1.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    M. J. Ablowitz and P. A. Clarkson, Solitons, nonlinear evolution equations and inverse scat- tering, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1991

    work page 1991

  2. [2]

    M. J. Ablowitz and H. Segur, Solitons and the inverse scattering transform, SIAM, Philadel- phia, 1981

    work page 1981

  3. [3]

    Aktosun, Solitons and inverse scattering transform, In: D

    T. Aktosun, Solitons and inverse scattering transform, In: D. P. Clemence and G. Tang (eds.), Mathematical studies in nonlinear wave propagation, Am. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2005, pp. 47–62

    work page 2005

  4. [4]

    Aktosun, Inverse scattering transform and the theory of solitons, In: R

    T. Aktosun, Inverse scattering transform and the theory of solitons, In: R. A. Meyers (ed.), Encyclopedia of complexity and systems science, Springer, New York, 2009, pp. 4960–4971

    work page 2009

  5. [5]

    Aktosun and R

    T. Aktosun and R. Ercan, Direct and inverse scattering problems for a first-order system with energy-dependent potentials, Inverse Problems 35, 085002 (2019)

    2019

  6. [6]

    Aktosun and R

    T. Aktosun and R. Ercan, Direct and inverse scattering problems for the first-order discrete system associated with the derivative NLS system, Stud. Appl. Math. 148, 270–339 (2022)

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Aktosun, R

    T. Aktosun, R. Ercan, and M. Unlu, The generalized Marchenko method in the inverse scat- tering problem for a first-order linear system with energy-dependent potentials, J. Math. Phys. Anal. Geom. 19, 3–58 (2023)

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Aktosun and M

    T. Aktosun and M. Klaus, Chapter 2.2.4: Inverse theory: problem on the line, In: E. R. Pike and P. C. Sabatier (eds.), Scattering, Academic Press, London, 2001, pp. 770–785

    work page 2001

Show all 37 references
  1. [9]

    J. Boussinesq, Th´ eorie des ondes et des remous qui se propagent le long d’un canal rectangu- laire horizontal, en communiquant au liquide contenu dans ce canal des vitesses sensiblement pareilles de la surface au fond, J. Math. Pures Appl. 17, 55–108 (1872)

  2. [10]

    Chadan and P

    K. Chadan and P. C. Sabatier, Inverse problems in quantum scattering theory, Springer, New York, 1989

    1989

  3. [11]

    Charlier and J

    C. Charlier and J. Lenells, On Boussinesq’s equation for water waves, arXiv:2204.02365v2 (2023). 49

    2023 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Charlier and J

    C. Charlier and J. Lenells, Direct and inverse scattering for the Boussinesq equation with solitons, arXiv:2302.14593 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Charlier and J

    C. Charlier and J. Lenells, Boussinesq’s equation for water waves: the soliton resolution con- jecture for sector IV, arXiv:2303.00434 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Charlier and J

    C. Charlier and J. Lenells, The soliton resolution conjecture for the Boussinesq equation, J. Math. Pures Appl. 191,103621 (2024)

    2024

  7. [15]

    Charlier, J

    C. Charlier, J. Lenells, and D. S. Wang, The “good” Boussinesq equation: long-time asymp- totics, Anal. PDE 16, 1351–1388 (2023)

    2023

  8. [16]

    Deift, C

    P. Deift, C. Tomei, and E. Trubowitz, Inverse scattering and the Boussinesq equation, Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 35, 567–628 (1982)

    1982

  9. [17]

    Deift and E

    P. Deift and E. Trubowitz, Inverse scattering on the line, Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 32, 121– 251 (1979)

    1979

  10. [18]

    R. K. Dodd, J. C. Eilbeck, J. D. Gibbon, and H. C. Morris, Solitons and nonlinear wave equations, Academic Press, London, 1982

    1982

  11. [19]

    P. G. Drazin and R. S. Johnson, Solitons: an introduction, Cambridge University Press, Cam- bridge, 1989

    1989

  12. [20]

    L. D. Faddeev, Properties of the S-matrix of the one-dimensional Schr¨ odinger equation, Am. Math. Soc. Transl. (Ser. 2) 65, 139–166 (1967)

    1967

  13. [21]

    C. S. Gardner, J. M. Greene, M. D. Kruskal, and R. M. Miura, Method for solving the Korteweg–de Vries equation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 19, 1095–1097 (1967)

    1967

  14. [22]

    G. H. Golub and C. F. Van Loan, Matrix computations, 4th ed., The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 2013

    2013

  15. [23]

    Hirota, Exact N -soliton solutions of the wave equation of long waves in shallow-water and in nonlinear lattices, J

    R. Hirota, Exact N -soliton solutions of the wave equation of long waves in shallow-water and in nonlinear lattices, J. Math. Phys. 14, 810–814 (1973)

    1973

  16. [24]

    Hirota, Soliton solutions to the BKP equations

    R. Hirota, Soliton solutions to the BKP equations. II. The integral equation, J. Phys. Soc. Japan 58, 2705–2712 (1989)

    1989

  17. [25]

    D. J. Kaup, On the inverse scattering problem for cubic eigenvalue problems of the class ψxxx + 6Qψx + 6Rψ = λψ, Stud. Appl. Math. 62, 189–216 (1980)

    1980

  18. [26]

    D. J. Kaup, The legacy of the IST, In: J. Bona, R. Choudhury, and D. J. Kaup (eds.), The legacy of the inverse scattering transform in applied mathematics, Am. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2002, pp. 1–14

    2002

  19. [27]

    B. A. Kupershmidt, A super Korteweg–de Vries equation: an integrable system, Phys. Lett. A 102, 213–215 (1984)

    1984

  20. [28]

    P. D. Lax, Integrals of nonlinear equations of evolution and solitary waves, Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 21, 467–490 (1968)

    1968

  21. [29]

    B. M. Levitan, Inverse Sturm–Liouville problems, VNU Science Press, Utrecht, 1987. 50

    1987

  22. [30]

    V. A. Marchenko, Sturm–Liouville operators and applications, Rev. ed., Am. Math. Soc., Chelsea Publishing, Providence, RI, 2011

    2011

  23. [31]

    Novikov, S

    S. Novikov, S. V. Manakov, L. P. Pitaevskii, and V. E. Zakharov, Theory of solitons, Consul- tants Bureau, New York, 1984

    1984

  24. [32]

    Parker, A reformulation of the dressing method for the Sawada–Kotera equation, Inverse Problems 17, 885–895 (2001)

    A. Parker, A reformulation of the dressing method for the Sawada–Kotera equation, Inverse Problems 17, 885–895 (2001)

    2001

  25. [33]

    Rudin, Real and complex analysis, 3rd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, 1987

    W. Rudin, Real and complex analysis, 3rd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, 1987

    1987

  26. [34]

    Sawada and T

    K. Sawada and T. Kotera, A method for finding N-soliton solutions of the KdV equation and KdV-like equation, Prog. Theor. Phys. 51, 1355–1367 (1974)

    1974

  27. [35]

    Toledo, The direct and inverse scattering problems for the third-order operator, Ph.D

    I. Toledo, The direct and inverse scattering problems for the third-order operator, Ph.D. thesis, The University of Texas at Arlington, 2024

    2024

  28. [36]

    D. S. Wang and X. Zhu, Direct and inverse scattering problems of the modified Sawada–Kotera equation: Riemann–Hilbert approach, Proc. R. Soc. A 478, 20220541 (2022)

    2022

  29. [37]

    V. E. Zakharov, On the dressing method, In: P. C. Sabatier (ed.), Inverse methods in action, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1990, pp. 602–623. 51

    1990

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.