Decay estimates for massive Dirac equation in a constant magnetic field

Zhiqing Yin

REVIEW 4 major objections 3 minor 46 references

Decay estimates for massive Dirac equation in a constant magnetic field

T0 review · 4 major / 3 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 This paper establishes microlocal L1-to-L∞ decay for the massive Dirac flow in a uniform magnetic field and derives local Strichartz estimates.

desk verdict First claim of microlocal decay/Strichartz for Dirac in a uniform magnetic field, but the main theorem is not proved as stated because the imported half-wave decomposition fails at the lowest Landau level. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.11956 v1 pith:WQMOID7F submitted 2024-12-16 math.AP

Zhiqing Yin This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.AP MSC 42B3735Q40

keywords decayestimatesStrichartzDiracequationconstantmagneticfieldLandauHamiltonianmicrolocalanalysisKlein-GordonpropagatorLittlewood-Paleytheory

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 sets out to prove that solutions of the two-dimensional massive Dirac equation in a constant magnetic field decay at the same microlocal rate as a wave propagator: after localizing to frequencies $2^j$, the $L^\infty$ norm decays like $2^{2j}(1+2^j|t|)^{-1/2}$ times the $L^1$ norm, for every finite time interval. This is presented as the first dispersive and Strichartz theory for a Dirac operator with an unbounded magnetic potential, a setting where perturbative methods break down. The proof exploits the spinorial structure by squaring the Dirac operator, which separates the two spinor components into Klein-Gordon equations governed by Pauli-type Landau Hamiltonians. As a consequence, the paper obtains local-in-time Strichartz estimates for the massive case $m>0$. The finite-time restriction is expected because the constant magnetic field traps particles, so global dispersion cannot hold.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing identity is the square of the magnetic Dirac operator, $D_A^2=\operatorname{diag}(H_{B_0}+m^2-B_0,\,H_{B_0}+m^2+B_0)$, where $H_{B_0}$ is the Landau Hamiltonian, the magnetic Laplacian $(i\nabla+A)^2$. The technical engine is a microlocal decomposition of the half-wave propagator, Proposition 2.8, which splits $\varphi(2^{-j}\sqrt{H_{B_0}})e^{it\sqrt{H_{B_0}+m^2\mp B_0}}$ into a rapidly decaying remainder plus an integral of Schr\"odinger propagators with effective time $2^{-j}t s$ and $s$ supported in $[1/16,8]$. Around this sit the explicit heat kernel (2.16), Bernstein inequalities for the spectral projectors of $H_{B_0}$, a square-function inequality, and an abstract Strichartz criterion that converts the decay estimate into the final $L^q_t L^p_x$ bound.

What would settle it

Using the explicit heat kernel (2.16), write the integral kernel of $\varphi(2^{-j}\sqrt{H_{B_0}})e^{it\sqrt{H_{B_0}+m^2\mp B_0}}$ in terms of the spectral eigenfunctions and evaluate its $L^1\to L^\infty$ operator norm at $t=2^{-j}$ for a sequence of $j$. The claim (1.25) predicts a uniform bound $C_T 2^{2j}(1+2^j|t|)^{-1/2}$; a single frequency $j$ where this norm grows faster than $2^{2j}$ would refute the theorem, while checking the $m=0$ lowest Landau level, where the $\tilde{x}>0$ hypothesis of Proposition 2.8 is violated, would settle whether the massless range is valid.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Theorem 1.4: with $A(x)=\frac{B_0}{2}(-x_2,x_1)$ and $H_{B_0}=(i\nabla+A)^2$, if $\varphi(2^{-j}\sqrt{H_{B_0}})f$ lies in $[L^1(\mathbb{R}^2)]^2$, then for every finite $T$ there is a constant $C_T$ such that $$\|\varphi($2^{{-j}}$\sqrt{H_{B_0}})$e^{{itD_A}}$f\|_{[L^\infty(\mathbb{R}^2)]^2} \le C_T $2^{{2j}}$(1+2^j|t|)^{-1/2} \|\varphi($2^{{-j}}$\sqrt{H_{B_0}})f\|_{[$L^{1}$(\mathbb{R}^2)]^2},\quad |t|\le T.$$ The paper further proves the local Strichartz estimate (1.26) for $m>0$. The route is to square the Dirac operator, obtaining $D_A^2=\operatorname{diag}(H_{B_0}+m^2-B_0,\,H_{B_0}+m^2+B_0)$, which decouples the spinor evolution into two Klein-Gordon equations whose Hamiltonians differ by the Pauli shift $\mp B_0$; the problem then reduces to proving wave-type microlocal decay for the half-wave propagators $e^{it\sqrt{H_{B_0}+m^2\mp B_0}}$.

Load-bearing premise

The argument's load-bearing premise is Proposition 2.8, an imported, unproved decomposition of the microlocalized half-wave propagator from an unpublished companion preprint, on which the entire high-frequency long-time case depends.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For every finite $T$ and every frequency $j$, the microlocalized Dirac flow decays like $C_T2^{2j}(1+2^j|t|)^{-1/2}$, matching the wave-propagator law.
For $m>0$, the local Strichartz estimate (1.26) holds for all admissible pairs $(q,p)\in\Lambda^W_s$ with $0\le s\le 1$.
The spinorial structure is essential: squaring $D_A$ diagonalizes the problem into two Klein-Gordon equations, so dispersive information for the Dirac flow is inherited from the Landau half-wave propagators.
Because the constant magnetic field is trapping, the estimates are local in time and the constant $C_T$ depends on the time horizon; global decay is not claimed.

Reading between the lines

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

A direct calculation on the lowest Landau level would test whether the $m=0$ range of Theorem 1.4 survives, since at that level the component $H_{B_0}+B_0$ has eigenvalue zero and Proposition 2.8's $\tilde{x}>0$ hypothesis fails; this is a check the paper leaves open.
The same subordination-plus-projection strategy should transfer to other operators whose squares are Pauli-type shifts of a Landau Hamiltonian, such as three-dimensional Dirac operators in uniform fields, provided the corresponding Bernstein and square-function inequalities hold.
The local Strichartz estimates put nonlinear Dirac equations in uniform magnetic fields within reach of standard well-posedness arguments, since the admissible range now matches the wave equation's.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The headline: this is the first paper I know to state microlocal decay and Strichartz estimates for the Dirac flow in a uniform magnetic field, and the reduction to a pair of Klein–Gordon equations via squaring D_A is the right way to start. But the main theorem, as stated for m≥0, is not proved. The load-bearing tool, Proposition 2.8, is imported from an unpublished preprint [44], and its hypotheses exclude the spectral point that matters for the m=0 spin-up component: x>B0 and x̃=x+m²∓B0>0 fail at the lowest Landau level x=B0. At x̃=0 the left side of (2.21) is time-independent, while the oscillatory integral has no stationary point on supp χ and decays rapidly; the remainder ρ would have to be non-decaying, contradicting (2.22). So the decomposition cannot hold, or even apply, where Theorem 1.4 needs it. Even for m>0, the condition x>B0 leaves out x=B0, so Case 2 of Proposition 3.1 does not cover the full support of φ. The paper contains no separate zero-mode argument.

There are smaller problems. The abstract uses φ(2^{-j}|D_A|) while Theorem 1.4 proves the scalar localization φ(2^{-j}√H_B0); these are not the same object. The proof of (3.2) contains a frequency split that does not work: 'for j≤j0, 2^j t≲1' is false, since j0 is chosen with 2^{-j0}T small, which makes 2^{j0}T large. Self-adjointness is deferred to [7] (in preparation), and the stationary-phase lemma to [44] (a preprint); that citation burden is noticeable but not fatal if the cited statements are true.

What the paper does well: the squaring step is clean, the heat-kernel and subordination framework is the natural toolbox, and the Strichartz reduction via Keel–Tao is standard. The result, if fixed, would be a modest but real contribution: first dispersive bounds for Dirac in a constant field, useful for comparison with the nonrelativistic model and for nonlinear applications. The m>0 case away from the lowest Landau level looks salvageable; the fix is to prove the half-wave decomposition at x=B0, or to split off the zero mode and treat it by a separate argument.

Who is this for: people working on dispersive estimates for magnetic operators, especially Dirac and Pauli equations. It deserves a serious referee: the gap is specific and possibly fixable, and the question is worth answering. I would not accept the current version, but I would send it to review rather than desk-reject it.

Referee Report

4 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper studies local-in-time microlocal L^1-to-L^infty decay estimates and Strichartz estimates for the two-dimensional massive Dirac equation in a constant magnetic field. The main theorem asserts, for m≥0, the estimate (1.25) for the microlocalized propagator phi(2^{-j} sqrt(H_B0)) e^{itD_A}, and for m>0 the local Strichartz estimates (1.26). The proof reduces the squared Dirac operator to two Klein-Gordon-type operators H_B0+m^2∓B0, then uses a microlocal decomposition of the half-wave propagator (Proposition 2.8, taken from the unpublished preprint [44]), Bernstein inequalities adapted to the Landau Hamiltonian, and the known dispersive estimate for the Schrödinger propagator in a constant magnetic field.

Significance. If established, the result would be a useful contribution to dispersive PDE with unbounded magnetic potentials: the local-in-time microlocal decay (1.25) and the Strichartz estimates for m>0 would extend the known theory for Dirac equations in electromagnetic fields. The paper contains a clean algebraic reduction from the Dirac flow to two Klein-Gordon equations, and it correctly identifies the role of the Landau-level structure and the need for Bernstein-type inequalities. However, the m=0 case is false as stated, and the proof of the high-frequency representation depends on an unpublished lemma; these issues are load-bearing and prevent the paper from being accepted in its current form.

major comments (4)

[Theorem 1.4, Eq. (1.25)] The estimate (1.25) cannot hold for m=0. Let f=(f_+,0) where f_+ is a lowest Landau level eigenfunction of H_B0 with eigenvalue B0, chosen so that f is in L1. For m=0, D_A^2 acts as H_B0-B0 on the upper component, so D_A^2 f=0 and hence D_A f=0; the propagator satisfies e^{itD_A}f=f for all t. Taking j with 2^j ~ B0^{1/2}, the left side of (1.25) is constant in t, while the right side contains the factor (1+2^j t)^{-1/2}, which decays. Thus (1.25) is contradicted. The failure is already visible in Proposition 2.8: its hypotheses x>B0 and tilde{x}=x+m^2-B0>0 exclude the spectral point x=B0 at m=0, where the half-wave phase is identically 1 and the oscillatory integral in (2.21) has no stationary phase. The m=0 case therefore requires a separate treatment or must be removed from the statement.
[Proposition 2.8 and Lemma 2.10] The central decomposition (2.21) is imported from the unpublished preprint [44], and the proof in §2.5 cites Lemma 2.10, which is stated only as '[44, Lemma]' and is not proved in this paper. This is load-bearing: the whole of Case 2 in Proposition 3.1 depends on (2.21) and the estimates (2.22)-(2.23). Moreover, the hypothesis x>B0 excludes the lowest Landau level x=B0 even when m>0, where tilde{x}=m^2>0 but x>B0 fails. Since the support of phi(2^{-j} sqrt(x)) in the proof of Proposition 3.1 can intersect x=B0, the decomposition is not justified on the full spectral support of the microlocalization. The paper needs a proof of Lemma 2.10, a version of Proposition 2.8 valid for x≥B0 (or a separate handling of the lowest Landau level), and a clear statement of which parts of the proof depend on unpublished work.
[Proposition 3.1, last paragraph] The passage from (3.1) to (3.2) contains an incorrect frequency split. The text says that for j≤j0, 2^j t ≲ 1, but the choice 2^{-j0}T ≤ π/(8B0) only implies 2^{j0} ≥ (8B0/π)T; for j close to j0 and t close to T, 2^j t can be large, so the first case does not apply. In Case 2, the estimate of the rho term requires |(m^2∓B0)/2^{2j}| ≤ 1/100, but the case condition t2^j ≫1 together with t≤T does not imply a lower bound on 2^j; for small j and large t the ratio (m^2∓B0)/2^{2j} need not be small, so the asserted bound 1/8 ≤ (λ_{k,ℓ}+m^2∓B0)/2^{2j} ≤ 8 is not guaranteed. Thus the proof does not establish the claimed finite-T estimate (3.2).
[Abstract versus Theorem 1.4] The abstract states the decay estimate with the microlocalization phi(2^{-j}|D_A|), while Theorem 1.4 proves an estimate with phi(2^{-j} sqrt(H_B0)). Since |D_A| = diag(sqrt(H_B0+m^2-B0), sqrt(H_B0+m^2+B0)), these are different cutoffs for m>0; the two operators do not commute in the same way with the scalar spectral parameter. The claim advertised in the abstract is therefore not the claim proved in the body, and the abstract estimate is unsupported.

minor comments (3)

[Throughout] The manuscript contains several typos and stylistic issues, including 'deacy' in the title/abstract, 'ﬁled' in §1, and 'Stricartz' in the reference list; these should be corrected.
[Lemma 2.4] The displayed computation for ||D_A f||^2 ends with the expression ||nabla_A f_-||^2 - B0||f_-||^2 + ||nabla_A f_+||^2 + B0||f_+||^2, but the claimed bound by ||f||_{[H^1_A]^2} does not follow from this line without further argument, since the signs of the B0 terms differ. The proof should be clarified or the statement checked.
[References] The paper relies on [7] ('In preparation', with the author) for self-adjointness and on [44] for the key Lemma 2.10; both are unpublished. This makes the verification of the main proof difficult and should be disclosed explicitly in the introduction.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No definitional or fitted-input circularity; the cited unproved microlocal decomposition is an external correctness gap, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The derivation chain for Theorem 1.4 is: square the Dirac operator to obtain two Klein-Gordon type equations (1.29)-(1.30); use the spectral structure of H_B0, Bernstein inequalities, and a microlocal decomposition of e^{it sqrt(H_B0+m^2±B0)} into a rapidly decaying remainder and a Schrodinger integral (Proposition 2.8); then apply the uniform-field Schrodinger dispersive estimate from Kieffer-Loss and the abstract Strichartz Lemma 3.3. Each of these inputs is external and parameter-free. There is no fitted quantity later renamed as a prediction, and no definition in which the conclusion is built into the hypothesis. The microlocal projection phi(2^{-j} sqrt(H_B0)) appears on both sides as the same fixed Littlewood-Paley cutoff, not as a fitted parameter. The self-citation to [7] for self-adjointness is backed by a self-contained proof in Section 2.1, so it is not load-bearing. The principal unproved ingredient, Lemma 2.10 ('This is [44, Lemma]') and Proposition 2.8 imported from the external preprint [44], is a genuine completeness and correctness concern, especially since the hypothesis x>B0 with tilde-x>0 excludes the m=0 lowest Landau level; however, that is a gap or possible failure of an external lemma, not a circular reduction of (1.25) to itself. No score-raising circular step is present.

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

The paper introduces no new physical entities; the spin-up/spin-down decomposition is standard Dirac algebra. The free-parameter count is zero because no values are fitted to data or chosen by hand; the theorem only asserts existence of a finite-time constant C_T.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption The magnetic Dirac operator D_A is essentially self-adjoint on C_c^infty(R^2)^2; the deficiency indices vanish.
Used to define e^{itD_A}; proof refers to [7, Section 2] (in preparation) and [23], with a sketched deficiency-space computation in Section 2.1.
standard math The Landau Hamiltonian H_B0 has the Mehler heat kernel (2.16), and the Schrodinger propagator satisfies ||e^{itH_B0}||_{L1 to Linfty} <= C|sin(tB0)|^{-1}.
Quoted from [41,32]; underlies the Bernstein inequalities and the Schrodinger-type oscillatory term in Proposition 3.1.
domain assumption The microlocal half-wave decomposition (2.21) holds with rho and chi satisfying (2.22) and (2.23).
Quoted from [44, Lemma] and not proved; this is the key high-frequency tool in Proposition 3.1, Case 2.
domain assumption The H_B0-Sobolev and magnetic Besov norms are equivalent, and the square-function inequality (2.18) holds.
Taken from [43, Proposition 2.5] and [42], needed for the Strichartz summation.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Decay estimates for massive Dirac equation in a constant magnetic field." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WQMOID7F

@misc{pith2026241211956,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Decay estimates for massive Dirac equation in a constant magnetic field},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WQMOID7F}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.11956}
}

abstract

We study the deacy and Strichartz estimates for the massive Dirac Hamiltonian in a constant magnetic fields in $\mathbb{R}_t\times\mathbb{R}^2_x$: \begin{equation*} \begin{cases} i\partial_tu(t,x)-\mathcal{D}_Au(t,x)=0, u(0,x)=f, \end{cases} \end{equation*} where $\mathcal{D}_A=-i{\bf \sigma}\cdot (\nabla-i{\bf A}(x))+\sigma_3m$ with $m\geq0$ being the mass and $\sigma_i$ being the Dirac matrices and the potential ${\bf A}(x)=\frac{B_0}{2}(-x_2,x_1),\,B_0>0$. In particular, we show the $L^1(\mathbb{R}^2)\to L^\infty(\mathbb{R}^2)$ type micro-localized decay estimates, for any finite time $T>0$, there exists a constant $C_T$ such that \begin{equation*} \|e^{it\mathcal{D}_{A}}\varphi(2^{-j}|\mathcal{D}_{A}|)f(x)\|_{[L^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^2)]^2} \leq C_T 2^{2j}(1+2^{j}|t|)^{-\frac12} \|\varphi(2^{-j}|\mathcal{D}_{A}|)f\|_{[L^1{(\mathbb{R}^2)]^2}}, \quad |t|\leq T, \end{equation*} and we further prove the local-in-time Strichartz estimates for the Dirac equations with this unbounded potential.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 46 canonical work pages

[44]

Decay estimates for one Aharonov-Bohm solenoid in a uniform magnetic field II: wave equation

H. W ang, F. Zhang and J. Zhang, Decay estimates for one Aharonov-Bohm solenoid in a uniform magnetic ﬁeld II: wave equation , arXiv 2309.07649. 6, 8, 10, 12

work page Pith review arXiv
[7]

Cacciafesta, P

F. Cacciafesta, P. D’Ancona, Z. Yin and J. Zhang , Dispersive estimates for massless Dirac equation in Aharonov-Bohm magnetic ﬁelds , In preparetion. 3, 5, 6

work page
[1]

Abramowitz, I

M. Abramowitz, I. Stegun eitors , Handbook of Mathematical Functions . Dover Publica- tions, New York, (1970). 8

work page 1970
[2]

Aharonov and D

Y. Aharonov and D. Bohm , Signiﬁcance of electromagnetic potentials in the quantum theory, Phys. Rev. 115 (1959), no. 2, 485-491. 2

work page 1959
[3]

A vron, I

J. A vron, I. Herbst and B. Simon , Schr¨ odinger operators with magnetic ﬁelds. I. General interactions, Duke Math. J. 45 (1978), no. 4, 847-883. 2

work page 1978
[4]

A vron, I

J. A vron, I. Herbst and B. Simon , Schr¨ odinger operators with magnetic ﬁelds, II. Separa- tion of center of mass in homogeneous magnetic ﬁelds , Ann. Phys. 114 (1978), 431-451. 2

work page 1978
[5]

A vron, I

J. A vron, I. Herbst and B. Simon , Schr¨ odinger operators in magnetic ﬁelds, III. Atoms in homogeneous magnetic ﬁeld , Commun. Math. Phys. 79 (1981), 529-572. 2

work page 1981
[6]

Abramowitz and I

M. Abramowitz and I. A. Stegun , Handbook of mathematical functions with formulas, graphs and mathematical tables , U. S. Government Printing Oﬃce, W ashington, DC, 1965

work page 1965

Show all 46 references

[8]

Cacciafesta, E

F. Cacciafesta, E. S `er`e, Local smoothing estimates for the massless Dirac-Coulomb e qua- tion in 2 and 3 dimensions , J. Funct. Anal. 271 (2016), no. 8, 2339-2358. 3

2016
[9]

Cacciafesta, E

F. Cacciafesta, E. S `er`e and J. Zhang , Generalized Strichartz estimates for the massless Dirac-Coulomb equation, Springer INdAM Ser. 52 (2022), 127-139 3

2022
[10]

Cacciafesta, L

F. Cacciafesta, L. F anelli, Dispersive estimates for the Dirac equation in an Aharonov- Bohm ﬁeld , J. Differential equations. 263 (2017), no. 7, 4382-4399. 3

2017
[11]

Cacciafesta, L

F. Cacciafesta, L. F anelli, Weak dispersive estimates for fractional Aharonov-Bohm- Schroedinger groups, Dynamics of PDE. Vol. 16 (2019) no. 1, 95-103. 3

2019
[12]

Cacciafesta, Z

F. Cacciafesta, Z. Yin, J. Zhang, Generalized Strichartz estimates for the wave and Dirac equations in Aharonov-Bohm magnetic ﬁelds , Dynamics of PDE. 19 (2022), no. 1, 71-90. 3

2022
[13]

Cuccagna and P

S. Cuccagna and P. P. Schirmer, On the wave equation with a magnetic potential , Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 54 (2001), no. 2, 135-152. 3

2001
[14]

D’Ancona and L

P. D’Ancona and L. F anelli, Decay estimates for the wave and Dirac equations with a magnetic potential , Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 60 (2007), no. 3, 357-392. 3

2007
[15]

D’Ancona, L

P. D’Ancona, L. F anelli, L. Vega and N. Visciglia, Endpoint Strichartz estimates for the magnetic Schr¨ odinger equation, J. Funct. Anal. 258 (2010), no. 10, 3227-3240. 3

2010
[16]

D’Ancona, V

P. D’Ancona, V. Pierfelice and F. Ricci, On the wave equation associated to the Hermite and the twisted Laplacian , J. Fourier Anal. Appl. 16 (2010), no. 2, 294-310. 10

2010
[17]

Danesi, Stricartz estimates for the 2D and 3D massless Dirac-Coulom b equations and applications, J

E. Danesi, Stricartz estimates for the 2D and 3D massless Dirac-Coulom b equations and applications, J. Funct. Anal. 286 (2024), no. 3, 110251. 3

2024
[18]

M. B. Erdo ˘gan, M. Goldberg and W. Schlag, Strichartz and smoothing estimates for Schr¨ odinger operators with almost critical magnetic pote ntials in three and higher dimen- sions, Forum Math. 21 (2009), no. 4, 687-722. 3

2009
[19]

M. B. Erdogan, M. Goldberg and W. Schlag, Strichartz and smoothing estimates for Schr¨ odinger operators with large magnetic potentials in R3, J. Eur. Math. Soc. 10 (2008), no. 2, 507-531. 3

2008
[20]

M. B. Erdo ˘gan, W. R. Green, The Dirac equation in two dimensions: dispersive estimates and classiﬁcation of threshold obstructions , Commun. Math. Phys. 352(2017), 719-757. 3

2017
[21]

M. B. Erdo ˘gan, M. Goldberg, and W. R. Green, Limiting absorption principle and Strichartz estimates for Dirac operators in two and higher d imensions, Commun. Math. Phys. 367(2019), 241-263

2019
[22]

M. B. Erdo ˘gan, W. R. Green, E. Toprak, Dispersive estimates for Dirac operators in dimension three with obstructions at threshold energies , Amer. J. Math. 141(2019), 1217-

2019
[23]

F alomir, and P

H. F alomir, and P. A. G. Pisani, Hamiltonian self-adjoint extensions for (2+1)- dimensional Dirac particles , Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General 34 (2001), no. 19, 4143. 7

2001
[24]

F anelli, Spherical Schr¨ odinger Hamiltonians: spectral analysis a nd time decay , A

L. F anelli, Spherical Schr¨ odinger Hamiltonians: spectral analysis a nd time decay , A. Michelangeli, G. DellAntonio (eds.), Advances in Quantum Mec hanics, Springer INdAM Ser., 18, Springer, Cham, 2017. 3 18 ZHIQING YIN

2017
[25]

F anelli, V

L. F anelli, V. Felli, M. A. Fontelos and A. Primo, Time decay of scaling invariant electromagnetic Schr¨ odinger equations on the plane , Comm. Math. Phys. 337 (2015), no. 3, 1515-1533. 3

2015
[26]

F anelli, V

L. F anelli, V. Felli, M. A. Fontelos and A. Primo, Time decay of scaling critical electromagnetic Schr¨ odinger ﬂows, Comm. Math. Phys. 324 (2013), no. 3, 1033-1067. 3

2013
[27]

F anelli, and L

L. F anelli, and L. Vega, Magnetic virial identities, weak dispersion and Strichart z in- equalities, Math. Ann. 344 (2009), 249-278. 3

2009
[28]

F anelli, J

L. F anelli, J. Zhang and J. Zheng, Dispersive estimates for 2D-wave equations with critical potentials, Adv. Math. 400 (2022), Paper No. 108333, 46 pp. 3

2022
[29]

X. Gao, Z. Yin, J. Zhang and J. Zheng, Decay and Strichartz estimates in critical electromagnetic ﬁelds , J. Funct. Anal. 282 (2022), no. 5, Paper No. 109350, 51 pp. 3

2022
[30]

Ginibre, G

J. Ginibre, G. Velo, Generalized Strichartz inequalities for the wave equation , J. Funct. Anal. 133 (1995), 50-68. 3

1995
[31]

Keel and T

M. Keel and T. Tao, Endpoint Strichartz estimates , Amer. J. Math. 120 (1998), no. 5, 955-980. 3, 15

1998
[32]

T. F. Kieffer and M. Loss, Non-linear Schr¨ odinger equation in a uniform magnetic ﬁel d, Partial differential equations, spectral theory, and math ematical physics - the Ari Laptev anniversary volume, EMS Ser. Congr. Rep. EMS Press , Berlin, (2021), 247-265. 6, 14

2021
[33]

H. Koch, D. Tataru and M. Zworski, Semiclassical Lp estimates, Ann. Henri Poincar ´e, 8 (2007), 885-916. 15

2007
[34]

Landau, E.M

L.D. Landau, E.M. Lifshitz, Course of theoretical physics, Volume 4: Quantum electrody - namics, Pergamon Press, 1987. 2

1987
[35]

Leinfelder, C.G

H. Leinfelder, C.G. Simader, Schr¨ odinger operators with singular magnetic vector poten- tials, Math. Z. 176(1981), 1-19. 5

1981
[36]

Loss and B

M. Loss and B. Thaller, Optimal heat kernel estimates for Schr¨ odinger operators w ith magnetic ﬁelds in two dimensions , Comm. Math. Phys. 186 (1997), no. 1, 95-107

1997
[37]

M ¨uller and A

D. M ¨uller and A. Seeger, Sharp Lp bounds for the wave equation on groups of Heisenberg type, Anal. PDE 8 (2015), no. 5, 1051-1100. 10

2015
[38]

Reed and B

M. Reed and B. Simon, Methods of modern mathematical physics. II. Fourier analys is, self-adjointness, Academic Press, New York-London, 1975. 2, 7

1975
[39]

Schlag, Dispersive estimates for Schr¨ odinger operators: a survey , Mathematical aspects of nonlinear dispersive equations, Ann

W. Schlag, Dispersive estimates for Schr¨ odinger operators: a survey , Mathematical aspects of nonlinear dispersive equations, Ann. of Math. Stu d. Princeton Univerity Press, Princeton, NJ, 163 (2007), 255-285. 3

2007
[40]

Shatah, M

J. Shatah, M. Struwe, Geometric wave equations. New York University Courant Inst itute of Mathematical Sciences , New York, 1998. 16

1998
[41]

Simon, Functional integration and quantum physics , Pure Appl

B. Simon, Functional integration and quantum physics , Pure Appl. Math., 86, Academic Press, New York-London, 1979. 10

1979
[42]

E. M. Stein, Singular integrals and diﬀerentiability properties of fun ctions, Princeton Math. Ser., No. 30, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1970. 10

1970
[43]

W ang, F

H. W ang, F. Zhang and J. Zhang, Decay estimates for one Aharonov-Bohm solenoid in a uniform magnetic ﬁeld I: Schr¨ odinger equation , arXiv 2309.07635. 6, 8, 9, 10

arXiv
[45]

Zhang, Strichartz estimates and nonlinear wave equation on nontra pping asymptotically conic manifolds, Adv

J. Zhang, Strichartz estimates and nonlinear wave equation on nontra pping asymptotically conic manifolds, Adv. Math. 271 (2015), 91-111. 15

2015
[46]

Zworski, Semiclassical analysis , Grad

M. Zworski, Semiclassical analysis , Grad. Stud. Math., 138, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2012. 15 Department of Mathematics, Beijing Institute of Technolog y, Beijing 100081; Email address : zhiqingyin@bit.edu.cn

2012

Pith tools

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

[1] [44]

Decay estimates for one Aharonov-Bohm solenoid in a uniform magnetic field II: wave equation

H. W ang, F. Zhang and J. Zhang, Decay estimates for one Aharonov-Bohm solenoid in a uniform magnetic ﬁeld II: wave equation , arXiv 2309.07649. 6, 8, 10, 12

work page Pith review arXiv

[2] [7]

Cacciafesta, P

F. Cacciafesta, P. D’Ancona, Z. Yin and J. Zhang , Dispersive estimates for massless Dirac equation in Aharonov-Bohm magnetic ﬁelds , In preparetion. 3, 5, 6

work page

[3] [1]

Abramowitz, I

M. Abramowitz, I. Stegun eitors , Handbook of Mathematical Functions . Dover Publica- tions, New York, (1970). 8

work page 1970

[4] [2]

Aharonov and D

Y. Aharonov and D. Bohm , Signiﬁcance of electromagnetic potentials in the quantum theory, Phys. Rev. 115 (1959), no. 2, 485-491. 2

work page 1959

[5] [3]

A vron, I

J. A vron, I. Herbst and B. Simon , Schr¨ odinger operators with magnetic ﬁelds. I. General interactions, Duke Math. J. 45 (1978), no. 4, 847-883. 2

work page 1978

[6] [4]

A vron, I

J. A vron, I. Herbst and B. Simon , Schr¨ odinger operators with magnetic ﬁelds, II. Separa- tion of center of mass in homogeneous magnetic ﬁelds , Ann. Phys. 114 (1978), 431-451. 2

work page 1978

[7] [5]

A vron, I

J. A vron, I. Herbst and B. Simon , Schr¨ odinger operators in magnetic ﬁelds, III. Atoms in homogeneous magnetic ﬁeld , Commun. Math. Phys. 79 (1981), 529-572. 2

work page 1981

[8] [6]

Abramowitz and I

M. Abramowitz and I. A. Stegun , Handbook of mathematical functions with formulas, graphs and mathematical tables , U. S. Government Printing Oﬃce, W ashington, DC, 1965

work page 1965