The Keller-Segel model with mass critical exponent

Shen Bian; Yichen Zou

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 41 references

The Keller-Segel model with mass critical exponent

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 Sharp critical mass separates spreading from blow-up in a fractional Keller-Segel model.

desk verdict The claimed sharp critical mass rests on an unproven and likely false equality of constants in Proposition 4; the threshold value is not established. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.12586 v1 pith:ZRCSZJM2 submitted 2024-12-17 math.AP

Shen Bian , Yichen Zou This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.AP MSC 35K5535B4435R1135A2335Q92

keywords Keller-SegelcriticalmassfractionalLaplacianporousmediumdiffusionHardy-Littlewood-Sobolevinequalityfinitetimeblow-upglobalexistencefreeenergy

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

This paper studies the Keller-Segel aggregation-diffusion equation with nonlinear porous-medium diffusion and a nonlocal attractive fractional interaction, specialized to the mass-critical exponent $m=2-2s/d$. Its central claim is that the system has a sharp critical mass $M_*$: whenever the initial mass is below $M_*$ the solution exists globally, and whenever it is above $M_*$ there are initial data with negative free energy whose density blows up in finite time. The threshold is written explicitly as $M_*=[2/((m-1)C_*c_{d,s})]^{d/(2s)}$, with $C_*$ the optimal constant of a variant of the Hardy-Littlewood-Sobolev inequality. This matters because it locates the exact boundary between diffusion-dominated spreading and attraction-dominated collapse in a regime where steady states are compactly supported.

What carries the argument

The central object is a variant of the Hardy-Littlewood-Sobolev inequality (11) with an optimal constant $C_*$ claimed to equal the classical HLS constant and with extremals that are radially symmetric, non-increasing, and compactly supported. The inequality controls the free energy $F(u)$: below $M_*$ it forces the $L^m$ norm to stay bounded and therefore global existence; above $M_*$, the extremal rescaled to mass $M>M_*$ has $F<0$, and the identity $dm_2/dt=2(d-2s)F(u)$ turns that negative energy into finite-time blow-up of the second moment and then of $L^r$ norms.

What would settle it

Evaluate the quotient $J(U)=\omega(U)/(\|U\|_{L^1}^{2s/d}\|U\|_{L^m}^m)$ for the explicit HLS maximizer $U(x)=(1+|x|^2)^{-(d+2s)/2}$ with $2<2s<d$ and $m=2-2s/d$, and compare it with the right-hand side of (39). A strict inequality, or a numerical maximization of $J$ over compactly supported radial functions giving a smaller supremum, would show the stated $C_*$ is not optimal and would shift $M_*$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that for $m=2-2s/d$ with $2<2s<d$, equation (1) with $(-\Delta)^s\varphi=u$ has a critical mass $M_*=[2/((m-1)C_*c_{d,s})]^{d/(2s)}$. If the $L^1$ norm of $u_0$ is $M<M_*$, a weak solution exists on $[0,\infty)$; if $M>M_*$, there exists an initial datum—a rescaling of the maximizer of the modified Hardy-Littlewood-Sobolev inequality—whose free energy is negative, so the second moment decreases to zero in finite time and the $L^r$ norm blows up. The constant $C_*$ is the optimal constant of the modified Hardy-Littlewood-Sobolev inequality (11), and the extremals are radially symmetric, non-increasing, compactly supported functions; at exactly $M=M_*$ these extremals are stationary solutions of the equation.

Load-bearing premise

The numerical value of the threshold assumes, without proof, that the best constant in the modified Hardy-Littlewood-Sobolev inequality is exactly the best constant in the classical one; if that equality is false, the claimed threshold shifts.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For every initial mass below $M_*$, the $L^m$ norm of the solution remains bounded for all time, so the regularized approximations converge to a global weak solution.
For every mass above $M_*$, there exist smooth initial data with finite second moment whose second moment hits zero in finite time; consequently the $L^r$ norm blows up before collapse.
The threshold is explicit and computable from $d$, $s$, and the optimal VHLS constant: $M_*=[2/((m-1)C_*c_{d,s})]^{d/(2s)}$.
At exactly $M=M_*$, the maximizer of the VHLS inequality is a stationary solution of the equation, linking the dynamical threshold to compactly supported steady states.
The paper also reports that in the range $0<s<1$ the same sign estimate forces global existence for arbitrary initial data, so the sharp mass threshold is specific to $s>1$.

Reading between the lines

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

Editorial: the numerical value of $M_*$ rests on the unproved equality of the VHLS and HLS optimal constants; if the true VHLS constant is strictly smaller, the threshold moves but the global/blow-up dichotomy itself survives.
Editorial: the paper leaves the critical case $M=M_*$ open; by analogy with the classical Keller-Segel critical-mass problem, one expects infinite-time aggregation or stationary behavior at exactly the threshold, but this is not established here.
Editorial: a numerical maximization of the functional $J$ over compactly supported radial functions could test the sharp constant directly and would give a practical check of the predicted threshold.
Editorial: the same free-energy plus second-moment structure could be used to locate critical masses for other fractional interaction kernels, since the only input needed is a sharp interpolation inequality of the same form.

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

Couple of things you should know. The paper targets a real gap—the mass-critical case m = 2 − 2s/d with s > 1 for the fractional Keller-Segel equation—and the proof strategy is the standard one: energy estimates, second moment, and a variational constant. If the constant were right, Theorems 8 and 9 would give a clean dichotomy. But the central claim is not established. Proposition 4 asserts the optimal constant C_* in the VHLS inequality equals the standard HLS constant (39). The proof only gives the upper bound by composing HLS with L^1–L^m interpolation. Equality in that composite bound would need a single function to be simultaneously a Lorentzian (for HLS equality) and constant on its support (for the interpolation equality). No such function exists. Worse, the paper itself claims the maximizer U is compactly supported, and a compactly supported function cannot attain HLS equality. So C_* is strictly smaller than the value in (39), and the critical mass M_* defined through it is too small. The maximizer existence proof also has a gap: pointwise convergence of the radially symmetric normalized sequence doesn't preserve the L^1 and L^m norms; the argument implicitly requires norm preservation to conclude J(U) = C_*, but that is not shown. These are not cosmetic issues. The threshold value is the main quantitative output of the paper, and it is wrong as stated.

There is also a minor internal inconsistency: the introduction says global existence holds for M > M* and blow-up for M < M*, which is the reverse of Theorems 8–9 and the abstract. The abstract itself is fine.

What the paper does well: the local existence and blow-up criteria follow known regularization arguments, the second-moment computation is clean, and the structure of the proof is sensible. The flaw is localized to Proposition 4, but since that proposition carries the sharp constant, the main theorems do not stand.

Who is this for? People working on aggregation-diffusion equations might find the approach worth knowing, but they should not cite the threshold. I would send it to a referee because the constant issue is subtle enough to require expert scrutiny, but my own verdict is reject unless the authors can replace (39) with a correct value or drop the claim of sharpness.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies the aggregation-diffusion equation (1) with porous-medium diffusion exponent m = 2 - 2s/d, fractional interaction (−∆)^s φ = u, and 2 < 2s < d. This is the mass-critical regime in which the scaling preserves the L1 norm. The authors propose a sharp critical mass M* defined through the optimal constant C* of a variant of the Hardy-Littlewood-Sobolev inequality (the VHLS inequality, Eq. (11) and Proposition 4). They claim finite-time blow-up for initial mass M > M* and global existence for M < M* (Theorems 8 and 9), with local existence and blow-up criteria in Theorem 3. The proofs combine HLS inequalities, L1-Lm interpolation, compactness and rearrangement arguments for maximizers of the VHLS functional, and energy/second-moment arguments for the evolution.

Significance. If the sharp constant and the threshold M* were correctly identified, the paper would provide a clean mass dichotomy for a fractional Keller-Segel system in the mass-critical exponent, extending known results for the classical case and for other ranges of m. The overall strategy is attractive: free-energy dissipation, second-moment evolution, and a variational characterization of the threshold are natural tools, and the paper makes explicit use of the correct-looking scaling and interpolation structure. However, the central load-bearing step — the identification of the optimal constant C* in Proposition 4 — is not proved and is in fact incompatible with the paper's own maximizer existence claim. Since the value of M* in Eq. (12) is directly defined through C*, the main dichotomy as stated is not established. The paper also contains a concrete algebraic error in the computation of the free energy in Theorem 8. These are not cosmetic issues: they concern the exact threshold that constitutes the paper's main contribution.

major comments (3)

[Section 3, Proposition 4, Eqs. (38)–(41)] The equality C* = C(d,s) is not established, and the proof given in Step 1 only yields the upper bound C* ≤ C(d,s). Equality in the composed inequality (40) would require one function to attain equality simultaneously in the HLS inequality and in the L1-Lm interpolation. HLS equality forces the function to be of the Lorentzian form (20), which is not in L1(R^d) when d > 2s and is not compactly supported; equality in the interpolation step forces a function that is essentially two-valued on its support. No admissible function satisfies both conditions. Moreover, Proposition 4 itself asserts that the maximizer U is compactly supported, and such a function cannot attain HLS equality. Therefore the sharp constant C* is strictly smaller than the HLS constant (or, at minimum, the asserted value is unsupported). Since M* in Eq. (12)/(52) is defined through the value in Eq. (39), the claimed critical mass and the statements of Theorems 8 and 9 do not follow.
[Section 3, Step 2 of Proposition 4, Eqs. (45)–(50)] The compactness argument for the existence of a maximizer is not valid as written. The bound (47) gives u_j(R) ≤ G(R) with G(R) ≈ R^{-d/m} for large R. For p = 2d/(d+2s), a direct computation shows that G is not in L^p(R^d) when d > 2s, because the decay exponent satisfies (d/m) · p < d. Consequently, the claimed dominated-convergence step for ω(u_j) → ω(U) lacks a valid dominating function. The argument also does not prove that the limit U is compactly supported, although Proposition 4 asserts this and Proposition 5 uses supp(U) in an essential way. Thus the proof of Proposition 4 is incomplete independently of the constant-value issue.
[Section 4.1, Eq. (65)] The computation of the free energy of u0 = (M/M*)U is algebraically incorrect. The interaction term scales quadratically in the amplitude: ∫ φ_{u0} u0 dx = (M/M*)^2 ∫ φ_U U dx, not (M/M*) ∫ φ_U U dx. The correct expression is F(u0) = (||U||_m^m/(m-1))[(M/M*)^m − (M/M*)^2], up to the standard constant conventions. The displayed factorization in Eq. (65) is therefore false. Since m = 2 − 2s/d ∈ (1,2), the corrected expression is still negative for M > M*, so Theorem 8 may be repairable, but the proof as written contains a genuine mathematical error in a main theorem.

minor comments (5)

[Introduction, after Eq. (12)] The sentence 'global solutions exist for M > M*' contradicts Theorem 9, which proves global existence for M < M*, and Theorem 8, which proves blow-up for M > M*; the words 'greater than' and 'less than' are interchanged.
[Proposition 5, Eq. (57)] The term involving ∫ φ dx should be handled after using the definition of φ with zero integral; as written, the expression is hard to follow and should be made explicit that the mass-derivative term vanishes.
[Section 2, Theorem 3 and Definition 1] The proof of Theorem 3 establishes L^r bounds for finite r but Definition 1 requires u ∈ L∞(0,T; L1 ∩ L∞(R^d)); the gap between the stated regularity and the obtained estimates should be clarified or the definition adjusted.
[Eq. (23) and surrounding text] The notation for the exponent of the L^r norm in the equality at the end of (23) is ambiguous; please write the exponent as (r+1)/(1+(2s−2)/d) or an equivalent unambiguous form.
[References] The reference list contains many entries that are not cited in the text (for example items [28]–[41]), which should be either cited or removed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the threshold is derived from an inequality constant and energy arguments, not from the predicted dichotomy.

full rationale

The paper's critical-mass threshold M_* is defined via the VHLS optimal constant C_* in (12)/(52), and the blow-up/global-existence dichotomy follows from the second moment identity (62) and the energy estimate (70). No parameter is fitted to data, and no prediction is defined in terms of the quantity it predicts. The delicate point is Proposition 4, where equation (39) asserts equality of C_* with the standard HLS constant; the proof only establishes the upper bound (40), and the equality is not derived. This is a potential mathematical gap that would shift the value of M_*, but it is not circular: the theorems' logic does not assume the conclusion. The same-author citation [2] is invoked in Proposition 5 to identify the maximizer as a stationary solution, but stationarity is not used in the blow-up construction or the global-existence estimate, so this self-citation is not load-bearing. The intro's reversed statement of the threshold direction is an apparent typo, not a circular step.

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

The paper introduces no fitted parameters. The load-bearing input is the asserted equality of the composite inequality constant with the standard HLS constant, which is not proven.

assumptions (6)

standard math Hardy-Littlewood-Sobolev inequality with sharp constant and equality cases (Lemma 2).
Used in (23) and (40) to bound the interaction energy.
standard math Gagliardo-Nirenberg-Sobolev inequality (24).
Used in the local existence proof to control intermediate L^p norms by the gradient and L^r norm.
standard math Riesz rearrangement inequality [21, Theorem 3.7].
Used in Step 2 of Proposition 4 to symmetrize maximizing sequences.
domain assumption Existence and convergence of regularized solutions (from [3], [11], [26]).
The local existence proof relies on a standard approximation argument; no proof is given in this paper.
domain assumption Proposition 3.2 of [2] that the maximizer U is a stationary solution and compactly supported.
Cited to identify the maximizer's regularity and support; a load-bearing external result.
ad hoc to paper Equality case of the VHLS inequality: C_* = C_HLS and attainment by a compactly supported function.
Stated in Proposition 4 and used to define M_*, but not derived; the paper provides no equality case proof, and the assertion is inconsistent with the strictness of the interpolation step.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Keller-Segel model with mass critical exponent." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZRCSZJM2

@misc{pith2026241212586,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Keller-Segel model with mass critical exponent},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZRCSZJM2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.12586}
}

abstract

We consider a Keller-Segel model with non-linear porous medium type diffusion and non-local attractive power law interaction, focusing on potentials that are less singular than Newtonian interaction. Here, the nonlinear diffusion is chosen to be $m=2-\frac{2s}{d}$, in which case the steady states are compactly supported. We analyse under what conditions on the initial data the regime that attractive forces are stronger than diffusion occurs and classify the conditions for global existence and finite time blow-up of solutions. It is shown that there exists a threshold value which is characterized by the optimal constant of a variant of the Hardy-Littlewood-Sobolev inequality. Specifically, the solution will exist globally if the initial data is below the threshold, while the solution blows up in finite time when the initial data is above the threshold.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages

[1]

S. Abe, S. Thurner, Anomalous Diﬀusion in View of Einstein ’s 1905 Theory of Brownian Motion, Physica A Statistical Mechanics and Its Applications , 356 (2004) 403-407

work page 2004
[2]

Bian, The aggregation-diﬀusion equation with energy c ritical exponent, Discrete and Contin- uous Dynamical Systems - B , 29 (2024) 1128-1145

S. Bian, The aggregation-diﬀusion equation with energy c ritical exponent, Discrete and Contin- uous Dynamical Systems - B , 29 (2024) 1128-1145

work page 2024
[3]

Bian, J.- G

S. Bian, J.- G. Liu and C. Zou, Ultra-contractivity for Ke ller-Segel model with diﬀusion exponent m> 1 − 2/d , Kinetic and Related Models , 7 (2014) 9-28

work page 2014
[4]

Bian, J.- G

S. Bian, J.- G. Liu, Dynamic and Steady States for Multi-D imensional Keller-Segel Model with Diﬀusion Exponent m> 0, Communications in Mathematical Physics , 323 (2013) 1017-1070

work page 2013
[5]

Blanchet, J

A. Blanchet, J. A. Carrillo and P. Laurenot, Critical mas s for a Patlak–Keller–Segel model with degenerate diﬀusion in higher dimensions, Calculus of Variations and Partial Diﬀerential Equations, 35 (2009) 133-168

work page 2009
[6]

Blanchet, J

A. Blanchet, J. A. Carrillo and N. Masmoudi, Inﬁnite time aggregation for the critical Patlak- Keller-Segel model in Rd, Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics , 61 (2008) 1449- 1481

work page 2008
[7]

Blanchet, J

A. Blanchet, J. Dolbeault and B. Perthame, Two-dimensio nal Keller-Segel model: Optimal criti- cal mass and qualitative properties of the solutions, Electronic Journal of Diﬀerential Equations , 44 (2006) 1-32

work page 2006
[8]

Calvez, J

V. Calvez, J. A. Carrillo and H. Franca, Uniqueness of sta tionary states for singular Keller–Segel type models, Nonlinear Analysis, 205 (2021) 1-24

work page 2021

Show all 41 references

[9]

Calvez, J

V. Calvez, J. A. Carrillo and F. Hoﬀmann, Equilibria of hom ogeneous functionals in the fair- competition regime, Nonlinear Analysis, 159 (2017) 58-128. 14

2017
[10]

Calvez, Blow-up, concentration phenomenon and glob al existence for the Keller-Segel model in high dimension, Communications in Partial Diﬀerential Equations , 37 (2012) 561-584

V. Calvez, Blow-up, concentration phenomenon and glob al existence for the Keller-Segel model in high dimension, Communications in Partial Diﬀerential Equations , 37 (2012) 561-584

2012
[11]

J. A. Carrillo, S. Hittmeir, B. Volzone and Y. Yao, The Pa tlak-Keller-Segel model and its vari- ations: properties of solutions via maximum principle, Inventiones Mathematicae , 218 (2019) 889-977

2019
[12]

J. A. Carrillo, H. Franca, E. Mainini and B. Volzone, Gro und States in the Diﬀusion-Dominated Regime, Calculus of Variations and Partial Diﬀerential Equations , 57 (2018) No. 127, 28 pp

2018
[13]

J. A. Carrillo, D. Castorina and B. Volzone, Ground Stat es for Diﬀusion Dominated Free En- ergies with Logarithmic Interaction, Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics , 47 (2015) 1-25

2015
[14]

H. Chan, M. M. Gonz´ alez, Y.-H. Huang, E. Mainini and B. V olzone, Uniqueness of entire ground states for the fractional plasma problem, Calc. Var. Parital Diﬀerential Equations , 59 (2020) 1-42

2020
[15]

W. Chen, C. Li and B. Ou, Classiﬁcation of solutions for a n integral equation, Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics , 59 (2006) 330-343

2006
[16]

Frisch, S

U. Frisch, S. Kurien, R. Pandit, W. Pauls, S. S. Ray, A. Wi rth and J. Z. Zhu, Hyperviscosity, Galerkin Truncation, and Bottlenecks in Turbulence, Physical review letters, 101 (2008) 111-114

2008
[17]

Jara, Nonequilibrium scaling limit for a tagged part icle in the simple exclusion process with long jumps, Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics , (2009)

M. Jara, Nonequilibrium scaling limit for a tagged part icle in the simple exclusion process with long jumps, Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics , (2009)

2009
[18]

E. F. Keller, L. A. Segel, Initiation of slide mold aggre gation viewed as an instability, Journal of Theoretical Biology , 26 (1970) 399-415

1970
[19]

I. Kim, Y. Yao, The Patlak-Keller-Segel model and its va riations: properties of solutions via maximum principle, Siam Journal on Mathematical Analysis , 44 (2012) 568-602

2012
[20]

Li, J.-G

L. Li, J.-G. Liu and L. Z. Wang, Cauchy problems for Kelle r–Segel type time–space fractional diﬀusion equation, Journal of Diﬀerential Equations , 265 (2017) 1044-1096

2017
[21]

E. H. Lieb, M. P. Loss, Blow-up, Analysis, second editio n, Graduate Studies in Mathematics , (2001). 15

2001
[22]

Mellet, S

A. Mellet, S. Mischler and C. Mouhot, Fractional Diﬀusio n Limit for Collisional Kinetic Equa- tions, Archive for Rational Mechanics and Analysis , (2011)

2011
[23]

Perthame, Transport Equations in Biology, Basel-Boston-Berlin: Birkhaeuser Verlag , (2007)

B. Perthame, Transport Equations in Biology, Basel-Boston-Berlin: Birkhaeuser Verlag , (2007)

2007
[24]

Sugiyama, Y

Y. Sugiyama, Y. Yahagi, Extinction, decay and blow-up f or Keller–Segel systems of fast diﬀu- sion type, Journal of Diﬀerential Equations , 250 (2011) 3047-3087

2011
[25]

Y. Sugiyama, Global existence in sub-critical cases an d ﬁnite time blow-up in super-critical cases to degenerate Keller-Segel systems, Diﬀerential and Integral Equations , 19 (2006) 841- 876

2006
[26]

Sugiyama, H

Y. Sugiyama, H. Kunii, Global existence and decay prope rties for a degenerate Keller –Segel model with a power factor in drift term, Journal of Diﬀerential Equations , 227 (2006) 333-364

2006
[27]

T. P. Witelski, A. J. Bernoﬀ and A. L. Bertozzi, Blow-up a nd Dissipation in a Critical-Case Unstable Thin Film Equation, Cambridge University Press , 15 (2004) 223-256

2004
[28]

F. Liu, P. Zhuang, V. Anh, I. Turner and K. Burrage, Stabi lity and convergence of the diﬀerence methods for the space-time fractional advection-diﬀusion e quation, Applied Mathematics and Computation, 191 (2007) 12-20

2007
[29]

Baleanu, New applications of fractional variationa l principles, Reports on Mathematical Physics, 61 (2008) 199-206

D. Baleanu, New applications of fractional variationa l principles, Reports on Mathematical Physics, 61 (2008) 199-206

2008
[30]

E. M. Rabei, I. M. Rawashdeh, S. Muslih and D. Baleanu, Ha milton-Jacobi formulation for systems in terms of Riesz’s fractional derivatives, International Journal of Theoretical Physics , 50 (2011) 1569-1576

2011
[31]

J. H. Cushman, B. X. Hu and T. R. Ginn, Nonequilibrium sta tistical mechanics of preasymp- totic dispersion, Journal of Statistical Physics , 75 (1994) 859-878

1994
[32]

M. F. Bidaut-V´ eron, H. Giacomini, A new dynamical appr oach of Emden-Fowler equations and systems, Adv. Diﬀerential Equations , 15 (2010) 1033-1082

2010
[33]

W. Chen, W. Dai and G. Qin, Liouville type theorems, a pri ori estimates and existence of solutions for critical order Hardy-H´ enon equations in Rn, preprint, submitted for publication, arXiv: 1808.06609. 16

arXiv
[34]

Caﬀarelli, B

L. Caﬀarelli, B. Gidas and J. Spruck, Asymptotic symmetr y and local behavior of semilinear elliptic equation with critical Sobolev growth, Comm. Pure Appl. Math. , 42 (1989) 271-297

1989
[35]

Cheng and S

T. Cheng and S. Liu, A Liouville type theorem for higher o rder Hardy-H´ enon equation inRn, J. Math. Anal. Appl. , 444 (2016) 370-389

2016
[36]

W. Chen, C. Li and Y. Li, A direct method of moving planes f or the fractional Laplacian, Adv. Math., 308 (2017) 404-437

2017
[37]

W. Chen, Y. Li and R. Zhang, A direct method of moving sphe res on fractional order equations, J. Funct. Anal. , 272 (2017) 4131-4157

2017
[38]

W. Dai, Y. Fang and G. Qin, Classiﬁcation of positive sol utions to fractional order Hartree equations via a direct method of moving planes, J. Diﬀerential Equations , 265 (2018) 2044-2063

2018
[39]

W. Dai, S. Peng and G. Qin, Liouville type theorems, a pri ori estimates and existence of so- lutions for non-critical higher order Lane-Emden-Hardy eq uations, J. d’Analyse Math´ ematique, in press, 38 pp, arXiv: 1808.10771

arXiv
[40]

Gidas and J

B. Gidas and J. Spruck, Global and local behavior of posi tive solutions of nonlinear elliptic equations, Comm. Pure Appl. Math. , 34 (1981) 525-598

1981
[41]

Wei and X

J. Wei and X. Xu, Classiﬁcation of solutions of higher or der conformally invariant equations, Math. Ann. , 313 (1999) 207-228. 17

1999

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

S. Abe, S. Thurner, Anomalous Diﬀusion in View of Einstein ’s 1905 Theory of Brownian Motion, Physica A Statistical Mechanics and Its Applications , 356 (2004) 403-407

work page 2004

[2] [2]

Bian, The aggregation-diﬀusion equation with energy c ritical exponent, Discrete and Contin- uous Dynamical Systems - B , 29 (2024) 1128-1145

S. Bian, The aggregation-diﬀusion equation with energy c ritical exponent, Discrete and Contin- uous Dynamical Systems - B , 29 (2024) 1128-1145

work page 2024

[3] [3]

Bian, J.- G

S. Bian, J.- G. Liu and C. Zou, Ultra-contractivity for Ke ller-Segel model with diﬀusion exponent m> 1 − 2/d , Kinetic and Related Models , 7 (2014) 9-28

work page 2014

[4] [4]

Bian, J.- G

S. Bian, J.- G. Liu, Dynamic and Steady States for Multi-D imensional Keller-Segel Model with Diﬀusion Exponent m> 0, Communications in Mathematical Physics , 323 (2013) 1017-1070

work page 2013

[5] [5]

Blanchet, J

A. Blanchet, J. A. Carrillo and P. Laurenot, Critical mas s for a Patlak–Keller–Segel model with degenerate diﬀusion in higher dimensions, Calculus of Variations and Partial Diﬀerential Equations, 35 (2009) 133-168

work page 2009

[6] [6]

Blanchet, J

A. Blanchet, J. A. Carrillo and N. Masmoudi, Inﬁnite time aggregation for the critical Patlak- Keller-Segel model in Rd, Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics , 61 (2008) 1449- 1481

work page 2008

[7] [7]

Blanchet, J

A. Blanchet, J. Dolbeault and B. Perthame, Two-dimensio nal Keller-Segel model: Optimal criti- cal mass and qualitative properties of the solutions, Electronic Journal of Diﬀerential Equations , 44 (2006) 1-32

work page 2006

[8] [8]

Calvez, J

V. Calvez, J. A. Carrillo and H. Franca, Uniqueness of sta tionary states for singular Keller–Segel type models, Nonlinear Analysis, 205 (2021) 1-24

work page 2021