Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

Asymptotics for the magnetic Dirichlet-to-Neumann eigenvalues in general domains

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper proves that the strong-field limit of the lowest magnetic Dirichlet-to-Neumann eigenvalue is governed by boundary magnetic data, with an explicit curvature correction and no bulk contribution at leading order.

desk verdict The 2D magnetic D-to-N asymptotics are solid and new; the 3D theorem is plausible but the lower bound is only sketched, so treat Theorem 1.6 as provisional. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.00947 v2 pith:KTXAURYK submitted 2025-01-01 math-ph math.APmath.MPmath.SP

Bernard Helffer , Ayman Kachmar , Francois Nicoleau This is my paper · ORCID
classification math-phmath.APmath.MPmath.SP MSC 58J5035P20
keywords magneticDirichlet-to-NeumannoperatoreigenvalueasymptoticsstrongfieldboundaryparaboliccylinderfunctionsRobinLaplacianharmonicextension
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

$\lambda^{\mathrm{DN}}(bA,\Omega)$ denotes the lowest eigenvalue of the magnetic Dirichlet-to-Neumann operator. The paper establishes that as the field strength $b\to+\infty$, this eigenvalue grows like $b^{1/2}$, with a leading constant fixed by the magnetic field on the boundary. In two dimensions and constant unit field, the two-term law is $\lambda^{\mathrm{DN}}(bA,\Omega)=\hat{\alpha} b^{1/2}-\hat{\alpha}^2+\frac{1}{3}\max_{\partial\Omega}\kappa+o(1)$, where $-\alpha$ is the unique negative zero of the parabolic cylinder function $D_{1/2}$ and $\hat{\alpha}=\alpha/\sqrt{2}$. In three dimensions and variable fields, $b^{-1/2}\lambda^{\mathrm{DN}}\to\inf_{x\in\partial\Omega}\lambda^{\mathrm{DN}}(\vartheta(x))|B(x)|^{1/2}$, so interior values of the magnetic field do not enter the leading term. These results refine a recent conjecture and connect the D-to-N problem to magnetic Robin Laplacian asymptotics.

What carries the argument

The argument runs through the variational quotient $\inf_u\|(-i\nabla-bA)u\|_\Omega^2/\|u\|_{\partial\Omega}^2$. Near a boundary point, a gauge transformation flattens the potential to a constant-field approximation, and parallel coordinates reduce the model to a half-plane with tangential field; the model constant $\hat{\alpha}$ is the bottom of a Robin harmonic oscillator, equivalently the zero of $\Theta(\gamma)$ at $\gamma=-\hat{\alpha}$. Upper bounds are built from quasimodes localized in the normal direction using the profile $f_*$; lower bounds use the identity $\mathrm{Re}\int_\Omega(-i\nabla-A)u\cdot(-i\nabla-A)(w^2u) = \int_\Omega|(-i\nabla-A)(wu)|^2-\int_\Omega|\nabla w|^2|u|^2$, partitions of unity, and Agmon-type exponential decay of the magnetic harmonic extension. For the second term, the disk and exterior-disk models provide curvature comparison; for 3D, the half-space model $\lambda^{\mathrm{DN}}(\vartheta)$ is minimized at $\vartheta=0$, and the Lu-Pan Neumann lower bound supplies the localization step.

What would settle it

Take the disk of radius $R$ and compute the exact D-to-N eigenvalue $\lambda=(bR/2)I_0'(bR^2/4)/I_0(bR^2/4)$ for a range of large $b$; Theorem 1.2 predicts $\lambda-\hat{\alpha}b^{1/2}+\hat{\alpha}^2-1/(3R)=o(1)$, so any deviation not tending to zero would show the two-term law fails. Alternatively, solve the three-dimensional variational problem on a cylinder whose boundary field angle is known and check that $b^{-1/2}\lambda^{\mathrm{DN}}$ converges to the boundary infimum in Theorem 1.6.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the strong-field ground state of the magnetic D-to-N operator is a boundary-layer state. For a regular planar domain with constant unit field, Theorem 1.2 gives $\lambda^{\mathrm{DN}}(bA,\Omega)=\hat{\alpha}b^{1/2}-\hat{\alpha}^2+\frac{1}{3}\max_{x\in\partial\Omega}\kappa_x+o(1)$, and the same two-term form holds for each fixed eigenvalue once the curvature maximum is isolated. For variable fields in two and three dimensions, the leading coefficient is $\inf_{x\in\partial\Omega}\lambda^{\mathrm{DN}}(\vartheta(x))|B(x)|^{1/2}$, where $\vartheta(x)$ is the angle between the magnetic vector field and the normal; the bulk of $B$ is invisible at leading order, in contrast to the Neumann magnetic Laplacian. The paper also proves a weak-field limit $\lambda^{\mathrm{DN}}(bA,\Omega)=b^2|\partial\Omega|^{-1}\int_\Omega|A_\Omega|^2dx+o(b^2)$ and a $b^{-1/4}$ eigenvalue splitting under a non-degenerate curvature maximum.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the three-dimensional lower bound really does follow by repeating the two-dimensional localization proof with the Neumann lower bound of Lu and Pan in place of the two-dimensional bound; the paper invokes this adaptation rather than carrying it out, and Section 6.5 leaves the half-space D-to-N operator as a formal variational object.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In two dimensions with constant field, the low-lying eigenvalues all have expansion $\lambda_j=\hat{\alpha}b^{1/2}-\hat{\alpha}^2+\frac{1}{3}\max_{\partial\Omega}\kappa+(2j-1)c_*b^{-1/4}+o(b^{-1/4})$ when the curvature has a unique nondegenerate maximum.
  • If the magnetic field vanishes only on a finite set of smooth interior curves and stays nonzero on the boundary, the leading term is still $\hat{\alpha}(\inf_{\partial\Omega}|B|)^{1/2}b^{1/2}$; interior zeros do not affect it.
  • In three dimensions, the leading constant is an infimum over the boundary of the half-space D-to-N energy $\lambda^{\mathrm{DN}}(\vartheta(x))$ weighted by $|B(x)|^{1/2}$, and a boundary component homeomorphic to $S^2$ forces $\vartheta=0$ somewhere, yielding the universal constant $\hat{\alpha}$ for constant field.
  • The D-to-N eigenvalues are zeros of Robin Laplacian eigenvalues via $\lambda_j=-b^{1/2}\gamma_j(b)$, so two-term and splitting asymptotics transfer between the two problems.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the stated theorems, the boundary-only leading term suggests that at strong fields the D-to-N operator acts as a boundary observable: bulk magnetic wells cost too much energy, so the ground state lives in a boundary layer and measurements of its energy mainly reveal boundary field magnitude and angle.
  • A natural follow-up is to make the half-space D-to-N operator self-adjoint; the paper deliberately avoids this by using the variational ground-state energy, so $\lambda^{\mathrm{DN}}(\vartheta)$ would then be a spectral quantity rather than only an infimum.
  • One testable extension is to tune the magnetic field to vanish on part of the boundary; the paper's admissible-field condition forbids this, and a sharp answer would show whether the $b^{1/2}$ law breaks or acquires a new exponent.
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 studies the ground state energy of the magnetic Dirichlet-to-Neumann operator on bounded regular domains in dimensions 2 and 3 in the strong-field limit. In two dimensions it proves, for fields that are constant near the boundary, the two-term asymptotics λ^DN(bA,Ω) = α̂ b^{1/2} − α̂² + (1/3) max_{∂Ω} κ + o(1), and for variable non-vanishing boundary fields, the leading term α̂ (inf_{∂Ω}|B|)^{1/2} b^{1/2}. In three dimensions it states an analogue with coefficient λ^DN(ϑ(x))|B(x)|^{1/2}, depending on the angle between the magnetic field and the boundary normal. The paper also gives a Robin-Laplacian comparison yielding a splitting estimate for 2D domains with a unique non-degenerate curvature maximum, and a weak-field expansion λ^DN(bA,Ω) = b² |∂Ω|^{-1} ∫_Ω |A_Ω|² dx + o(b²).

Significance. If the main theorems are correct, the paper settles the Chakradhar–Gittins–Habib–Peyerimhoff conjecture and establishes a striking boundary-only leading-order dependence for the magnetic D-to-N eigenvalues. A clear strength is that the universal constant α̂ is not fitted: it is derived from an explicit harmonic-oscillator/Robin spectral problem (Proposition 2.1), and the 2D proof is detailed, with explicit quasimodes, Agmon-type concentration estimates, and a Robin-comparison argument. The 3D upper bound is plausible and the model half-space analysis in Proposition 6.1 is useful. However, the 3D lower bound is only sketched, and there are internal inconsistencies in a corollary and a remark that need to be corrected before the paper can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [§6.3, Proposition 6.9] The proof of the 3D lower bound, which is load-bearing for Theorem 1.6, is not actually carried out. The text only says to follow the 2D proof, to replace the 2D Neumann bound by the Lu–Pan estimate (6.23), to use Lemma 5.4 from [27], and to implement the constant-field results. None of the local half-space comparison estimates, the gauge-approximation error terms, the boundary partition at scale b^{-ρ}, or the uniformity in the boundary point p is displayed. In particular, when the infimum in Theorem 1.6 is attained at a point with ϑ(p)>0, the coefficient is λ^DN(ϑ(p))|B(p)|^{1/2}, which is not the simpler value α̂|B(p)|^{1/2} established in Proposition 6.1; the local comparison needed to obtain this angle-dependent coefficient is exactly the missing step. Remark 6.11 concedes that the half-space D-to-N operator is not constructed, further underlining that the local variational inequality is assumed rather than proved.
  2. [Remark 1.10] The displayed disk formula λ^DN(bA,D(0,R)) = (bR/2) I'_0(bR²/4)/I_0(bR²/4) grows linearly in b as b→∞, whereas Theorem 1.1 and Proposition 3.2 give λ^DN(bA,Ω) ∼ α̂ b^{1/2} for the same disk. The formula cannot be the lowest D-to-N eigenvalue of the disk; it appears to be the value for the n=0 (radial) boundary mode only. This internal inconsistency should be corrected by identifying the formula as a sector value or by giving the actual explicit spectral resolution.
  3. [Corollary 1.3] The inequality direction in Corollary 1.3 appears to be reversed. Under Theorem 1.2, λ^DN(bA,Ω) ≈ α̂ b^{1/2} − α̂² + (1/3) max_{∂Ω} κ, while for the disk B of the same area the curvature term is (1/3) sqrt(π/|Ω|). Pankrashkin's inequality (cited as [31]) gives max_{∂Ω} κ ≥ sqrt(π/|Ω|), so the disk has the smaller or equal constant-order term and therefore λ^DN(bA,Ω) ≥ λ^DN(bA,B) for large b, not ≤ as stated.
  4. [§5, Theorem 5.2 and Proposition 5.3] The proof of Theorem 5.2 uses Proposition 5.3, whose equality λ_j(bA,Ω) = −b^{1/2}γ_j(b) is conditional on the simplicity of μ_j(γ_j(b),b) for all j up to the relevant order. The proof does not establish this simplicity, and the asymptotic input (5.1) is quoted for fixed γ while the theorem requires the b-dependent value γ_j(b) to be inserted. The local uniformity in γ is asserted, but the simplicity condition needed to identify the j-th Robin zero with the j-th D-to-N eigenvalue should be proved or explicitly referenced from [7].
minor comments (4)
  1. [Proposition 2.1(iii)] The third moment identity contains a typo: the integrand should be (t−α̂)³|f∗(t)|² dt, not |f∗(t)|³ dt, which has the wrong homogeneity.
  2. [Eq. (6.3)] The space C^∞_0(R^3_+) in the variational definition of λ^DN(ϑ) should be replaced by smooth functions compactly supported in the closure R^3_+ ∪ ∂R^3_+; otherwise the traces at x_1=0 vanish identically and the quotient is undefined.
  3. [Eqs. (4.14)–(4.16)] The sign convention for the exterior-disk formula should be clarified: for R<0, equation (4.16) gives a different α̂² term than the exterior-disk formula (4.15) if R^{-1} is negative. The authors should state the curvature convention used for exterior boundaries.
  4. [Section 6.5] The definition of the trace space ̂H^{1/2}(R²) and the formal weak form (6.26) are not needed for the variational results, but the notation suggests a self-adjoint operator that is not constructed. A brief statement that only the variational ground-state energy is used would avoid confusion.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the universal constant α̂ is derived from an explicit model problem and used as a benchmark, not fitted; self-citations to prior work are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The derivation of α̂ is self-contained in Section 2: α̂ = E(1) is defined by the half-plane variational problem (2.1)-(2.3), and Proposition 2.1 constructs the optimizer f* from the ODE -f'' + (t-α̂)^2 f = 0 with f'(0) = -α̂; none of the identities (iii)-(iv) are fitted to the theorems. The upper bounds (Propositions 3.1, 3.2) are explicit quasimode constructions using f*, and the lower bounds (Propositions 4.2, 4.6) are localization plus gauge-reduction arguments whose external ingredients (Assumption 4.1, the Lu-Pan/Helffer-Morame Neumann lower bounds, and the disk formula (4.14) from [17]) are prior parameter-free results, not consequences of the present theorems. [17] is a special case of the program but not of the target general-domain result; using it as a local model is legitimate. Lemma 4.7 invokes [18, Lemma V.9] and [7, Lemma B.4] for the Robin model; these give the coefficient C1(γ) explicitly, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The 3D lower bound in Proposition 6.9 is admittedly sketched ('We follow the proof of Proposition 1.4...') and the self-adjoint half-space D-to-N operator is deferred in Remark 6.11; this is a completeness gap, not a circularity, because the cited Lu-Pan lower bound (6.23) and the Section 6.2 half-space computations are independent of Theorem 1.6. No equation in the paper reduces to its inputs by construction; the universal constant α̂, the curvature correction 1/3, and the 3D coefficient λ^DN(ϑ(x))|B(x)|^{1/2} are computed from auxiliary model problems rather than obtained by fitting to the eigenvalues being asymptotically expanded.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central results rest on a large body of prior spectral theory for magnetic Laplacians (Lu-Pan [27], Helffer-Morame [13,14], Raymond [32,33], Fahs et al. [7], Kachmar [18,19], Giorgi-Smits [10]) and on the authors' earlier analysis [17]. The only genuinely ad hoc ingredient is Assumption 4.1, a lower-bound condition on the magnetic Laplacian that is imported rather than derived, though it is verified in Example 1 for common field classes. No free parameters are fitted to data; the universal constant α̂ comes from an explicit one-dimensional Robin harmonic oscillator.

assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption The magnetic Dirichlet problem (HA u = 0, u|∂Ω = f) is well-posed on regular bounded domains for smooth vector potentials.
    Used in Section 1.1 to define the D-to-N map via the unique magnetic harmonic extension.
  • standard math Spectral theory of compactly resolvent self-adjoint operators (min-max principle, discrete spectrum).
    Used for the variational characterizations (1.6)-(1.7) and the Robin comparison in Proposition 5.3.
  • ad hoc to paper Assumption 4.1: liminf_{b→∞} b^{-ζ} inf_{‖u‖=1} ‖(−i∇−bA)u‖²_Ω > 0 for some ζ > 1/2.
    Introduced to make the lower bound in Proposition 4.2 work; verified in Example 1 for field classes with no interior zeros, step-function fields, and non-degenerate interior zeros.
  • domain assumption Lu-Pan 3D Neumann magnetic Laplacian lower bound (6.23) and the associated local approximations [27, Lemma 3.4/5.4].
    Used in the proof of Proposition 6.9 for the 3D lower bound and in Proposition 6.10 for local coordinates.
  • domain assumption Robin magnetic Laplacian eigenvalue asymptotics (5.1) from Fahs-Le Treust-Raymond-Vu Ngoc [7].
    Used in Section 5.2 to derive the b^{-1/4} eigenvalue splitting.
  • domain assumption Giorgi-Smits asymptotic E1(λ,0) = -(|∂Ω|/|Ω|) λ + o(λ) [10, Theorem 2.1].
    Used in the proof of Theorem 1.8 for the weak-field limit.
  • domain assumption de Gennes lower bounds (4.11)-(4.12) from Kachmar [19, Theorem 1.1(2)].
    Used in the concentration estimate Proposition 4.3.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Asymptotics for the magnetic Dirichlet-to-Neumann eigenvalues in general domains." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KTXAURYK

@misc{pith2026250100947,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Asymptotics for the magnetic Dirichlet-to-Neumann eigenvalues in general domains},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KTXAURYK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.00947}
}
read the original abstract

Inspired by a paper by T. Chakradhar, K. Gittins, G. Habib and N. Peyerimhoff, we analyze their conjecture that the ground state energy of the magnetic Dirichlet-to-Neumann operator tends to infinity as the magnetic field tends to infinity. More precisely, we prove refined conjectures for general two dimensional domains, based on the analysis in the case of the half-plane and the disk by two of us (B.H. and F.N.). We also extend our analysis to the three dimensional case, and explore a connection with the eigenvalue asymptotics of the magnetic Robin Laplacian.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.00947 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Graph of the function Θ(γ). 2.3. D-to-N on the half-axis. We can also derive the relation ˆα = −γ0, where γ0 is the unique zero of Θ(·), directly from the following characterization of ˆα = α/√ 2 (see [17, Eq. (6.7)]) (2.12) ˆα = inf f(0)̸=0 ξ∈R R +∞ 0 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. The exterior Steklov problem for Euclidean domains

    math.SP 2025-11 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    New sharp lower and upper bounds for exterior Steklov eigenvalues are proved, showing first eigenvalues can blow up on fixed-volume convex domains in n≥3 while a Weinstock-type isoperimetric bound holds in 2D.

  2. On the magnetic Dirichlet to Neumann operator on the disk -- strong diamagnetism and strong magnetic field limit--

    math.AP 2024-11 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    For the unit disk with a constant magnetic field of strength 2b, the ground state energy of the magnetic Dirichlet-to-Neumann operator satisfies λ_DN(b)=α√b-(α²+2)/6+O(b^{-1/2}) with α=0.76495..., the unique negative ...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [27]

    Lu and X

    K. Lu and X. Pan. Surface nucleation of superconductivity in 3-dimensions. J. of Diff. Equations 168 (2000), 386–452

    work page 2000

  2. [31]

    Pankrashkin

    K. Pankrashkin. An inequality for the maximum curvature through a geometric flow. Arch. Math. 105 (2015), 297–300

    work page 2015

  3. [7]

    R. Fahs, L. Le Treust, N. Raymond, and S. V˜ u Ng¸ oc. Boundary states of the Robin magnetic Laplacian. Doc. Math. 29 (2024), 1157–1200

    work page 2024

  4. [1]

    W. Assaad. The breakdown of superconductivity in the presence of magnetic steps. Commun. Contemp. Math. 23 (2021), Paper No. 2050005, 53 pp

    work page 2021

  5. [2]

    Assaad and A

    W. Assaad and A. Kachmar. Lowest energy band function for magnetic steps. J. Spectr. Theory 12 (2022), 813-833

    work page 2022

  6. [3]

    Bernoff and P

    A. Bernoff and P. Sternberg. Onset of superconductivity in decreasing fields for general domains. J. Math. Phys. 39 (1998), 1272–1284

    work page 1998

  7. [4]

    A note on the magnetic Steklov operator on functions

    T. Chakradhar, K. Gittins, G. Habib, and N. Peyerimhoff. A note on the magnetic Steklov operator on functions. arXiv:2410.07462 v1 and v2 (2024)

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  8. [5]

    Colbois, C

    B. Colbois, C. L´ ena, L. Provenzano, A. Savo. A reverse Faber-Krahn inequality for the magnetic Laplacian. J. Math. Pures Appl. 192 (2024), article no. 103632

    work page 2024

Show all 33 references
  1. [6]

    Daners and J.B

    D. Daners and J.B. Kennedy. On the asymptotic behaviour of the eigenvalues of a Robin problem. Differential Integral Equations 23 (2010), 659–669

    2010

  2. [8]

    Fournais and B

    S. Fournais and B. Helffer. Inequalities for the lowest magnetic Neumann eigenvalue. Lett. Math. Phys. 109 (2019), 1683-1700

    2019

  3. [9]

    Fournais and B

    S. Fournais and B. Helffer. Spectral Methods in Surface Superconductivity. Progress in Nonlinear Differential Equations and Their Applications, Vol. 77, Birkh¨ auser, (2010)

    2010

  4. [10]

    Giorgi and R

    T. Giorgi and R. Smits. Eigenvalue estimates and critical temperature in zero fields for enhanced surface superconductivity. Z. Angew. Math. Phys. 58 (2007), 224-245

    2007

  5. [11]

    Helffer and A

    B. Helffer and A. Kachmar. Helical magnetic fields and semi-classical asymptotics of the lowest eigenvalue. Doc. Math. 28 (2023), 857–901

    2023

  6. [12]

    Helffer, A

    B. Helffer, A. Kachmar and N. Raymond. Magnetic confinement for the 3D Robin Laplacian. Pure Appl. Funct. Anal. 7 (2022), 601–639

    2022

  7. [13]

    Helffer and A

    B. Helffer and A. Morame. Magnetic bottles in connection with superconductivity. J. Funct. Anal. 185 (2001), 604–680

    2001

  8. [14]

    Helffer and A

    B. Helffer and A. Morame. Magnetic bottles for the Neumann problem: the case of dimension 3. Proc. Indian Acad. Sci. 112 (2002), 71–84

    2002

  9. [15]

    Helffer and A

    B. Helffer and A. Morame. Magnetic bottles for the Neumann problem: curvature effects in the case of dimension 3 (general case) Ann. Scient. ´Ec. Norm. Sup., 4e s´ erie, 37 (2004), 105–170

    2004

  10. [16]

    Helffer and F

    B. Helffer and F. Nicoleau. Trace formulas for the magnetic Dirichlet to Neumann operator. ArXiv:2407.08671, to appear in Asymptotic Analysis

    arXiv

  11. [17]

    Helffer and F

    B. Helffer and F. Nicoleau. On the magnetic Dirichlet to Neumann operator on the disk– strong diamagnetism and strong magnetic field limit– ArXiv:2411.15522 v2, (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  12. [18]

    A. Kachmar. On the ground state energy for a magnetic Schr¨ odinger operator and the effect of the de Gennes boundary condition. J. Math. Phys. 47 (2006), art. no. 072106

    2006

  13. [19]

    A. Kachmar. Diamagnetism versus Robin condition and concentration of ground states. Asymptot. Anal. 98 (2016), no. 4, 341–375

    2016

  14. [20]

    Kachmar, V

    A. Kachmar, V. Lotoreichik. On the isoperimetric inequality for the magnetic Robin Laplacian with negative boundary parameter. J. Geom. Anal.32 (2022), 182; Correction 32 (2022), 237

    2022

  15. [21]

    Kachmar, V

    A. Kachmar, V. Lotoreichik. A geometric bound on the lowest magnetic Neumann eigenvalue via the torsion function. SIAM J. Math. Anal. 56 (2024), 5723–5745

    2024

  16. [22]

    Y. Kian. Determination of non-compactly supported electromagnetic potentials in unbounded closed waveg- uide. Revista Matem` atica Iberoamericana, 36 (2020), 671-710. 38 BERNARD HELFFER, AYMAN KACHMAR, AND FRANC ¸ OIS NICOLEAU

    2020

  17. [23]

    Krupchyk, M

    K. Krupchyk, M. Lassas, G. Uhlmann. Inverse problems with partial data for a magnetic Schr¨ odinger operator in an Infinite slab or bounded domain. Comm. Math. Phys., 327 (2014), 993-1009

    2014

  18. [24]

    X. Li. Inverse boundary value problems with partial data in unbounded domains. Inverse Problems, 28 (2012), 085003

    2012

  19. [25]

    Lu and X

    K. Lu and X. Pan. Gauge invariant eigenvalue problems in R2 and in R2 +. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 352 (2000), 1247–276

    2000

  20. [26]

    Lu and X

    K. Lu and X. Pan. Eigenvalue problems of Ginzburg-Landau operator in bounded domains. Journal of Mathematical Physics 4 (1999), 2647–2667

    1999

  21. [28]

    Magnus, F

    W. Magnus, F. Oberhettinger and R.P. Soni. Formulas and theorems for the special functions of mathematical physics, 3rd enlarged ed, Grundlehren der Mathematischen Wissenschaften, Volume 52, Springer, (1965)

    1965

  22. [29]

    X.B. Pan. An eigenvalue variation problem of magnetic Schr¨ odinger operator in three dimensions. Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst. 24 (2009), 933–978

    2009

  23. [30]

    Pan and K.H

    X.B. Pan and K.H. Kwek. Schr¨ odinger operators with non-degenerately vanishing magnetic fields in bounded domains.Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 354 (2002), 4201–4227

    2002

  24. [32]

    N. Raymond. Sharp asymptotics for the Neumann Laplacian with variable magnetic field: case of dimension 2. Ann. Henri Poincar´ e 10 (2009), 95–122

    2009

  25. [33]

    N. Raymond. On the semiclasssical (3 D)- Neumann Laplacian with variable magnetic field. Asymptotic Analysis 68 (2010), 1–40. (B. Helffer) Laboratoire de Math´ematiques Jean Leray, CNRS, Nantes Universit ´e, 44000 Nantes, France. Email address: Bernard.Helffer@univ-nantes.fr (...

    2010

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.