Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 3 minor 35 references

Normalized solutions to focusing Sobolev critical biharmonic Schr\"{o}dinger equation with mixed dispersion

T0 review · 2 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · 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 existence and multiplicity of normalized solutions to the focusing biharmonic Schrödinger equation with mixed dispersion and Sobolev critical growth, in both mass-subcritical and mass-supercritical regimes.

desk verdict Mass-subcritical results are solid and new; supercritical Theorem 1.5 has a real gap at the sign of lambda-bar in Lemma 5.9. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.02049 v1 pith:5HEBKOI2 submitted 2025-02-04 math.AP

Jianlun Liu , Hong-Rui Sun , Ziheng Zhang This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.AP MSC 35A1535J3035J3535J60
keywords normalizedsolutionsbiharmonicSchrödingerequationmixeddispersionSobolevcriticalgrowthconcentration-compactnessgenustheorymountainpasstheoremLagrangemultiplier
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 tries to establish that the equation Δ²u − Δu − λu = μ|u|^{p−2}u + |u|^{4*−2}u admits solutions with a prescribed L² mass c, where λ is a Lagrange multiplier rather than a preset parameter. In the mass-subcritical range 2 < p < 2 + 4/N and for small masses c < c*, it claims one negative-energy solution for every μ > 0, and for sufficiently large μ, at least m solution pairs with negative energy and negative λ. In the mass-supercritical range p̄ < p < 4*, under dimension-dependent restrictions on p and for large μ, it claims a non-negative solution with positive energy strictly below the critical threshold (2/N)$S^{{N/4}}$. If the arguments hold, these are among the first existence and multiplicity results for normalized solutions of the mixed-dispersion problem with Sobolev critical growth.

What carries the argument

In the subcritical regime the argument is carried by the truncated constraint Vr(c) = {u ∈ Sr(c) : ∥Δu∥₂² + ∥∇u∥₂² < r*²}, where r* comes from the auxiliary function hc(r) = (1/2)r² − (μ/p)C_{N,p}^p $c^{{p(1−γp)/2}}$ $r^{{pγp}}$ − (1/(4* $S^{{4*/2}}$)) $r^{{4*}}$; the condition c < c* makes hc positive on [0, r*), giving a bounded-below region in which a local Palais-Smale condition holds. Multiplicity is obtained through the genus minimax theorem on symmetric subsets of Vr(c). In the supercritical regime the load-bearing objects are the Pohožaev manifold Pr(c), the auxiliary scaled functional Ĩ(u,s) = I(H(u,s)) on H²(RN) × R, and the mountain-pass level γμ(c) = inf_{h∈Γ} max_t I(h(t)), shown to equal m_r(c) = inf_{Pr(c)} I. The extremal profile uε = ψUε built from the explicit solution of Δ²u = |u|^{4*−2}u supplies the energy estimate 0 < m_r(c) < (2/N)$S^{{N/4}}$, and a scaling-ratio estimate handling ∥∇u∥₂² is the device that controls the dispersion term.

What would settle it

Take the (PS) sequence {u_n} built in Lemma 5.8 for N = 5, p = 5 at level m_r(c) < (2/N)$S^{{N/4}}$ and examine its weak limit ū; if μ(1−γp)∥ū∥_p^p ≤ ϱ₂/2 for some large μ, then the inequality driving λ̄ < 0 fails and the strong L² convergence asserted in Lemma 5.9 is not justified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that Problem (1.1) has normalized critical points of the functional I on the sphere S(c) in two regimes. For 2 < p < 2 + 4/N and 0 < c < c*, the restriction of I to the truncated radial set Vr(c) has a critical point with I(u) < 0 and Lagrange multiplier λ < 0, and for μ ≥ μm there are at least m distinct couples (uj, λj) with these properties, with energies tending to 0− as m grows. For p̄ < p < 4*, under the restrictions 5 ≤ p < 10 when N = 5, 4 < p < 6 when N = 6, 7/2 < p < 14/3 when N = 7, and p̄ < p < 4* when N ≥ 8, the paper claims that for large μ there is a non-negative solution uμ,c satisfying 0 < I(uμ,c) < (2/N)$S^{{N/4}}$ and λμ,c < 0. The paper also claims a multiplicity analogue for the biharmonic equation without the dispersion term Δu.

Load-bearing premise

The supercritical existence theorem rests on the claim that the Lagrange multiplier of the weak limit is negative, and the proof needs a quantitative inequality involving the weak limit's L^p norm that the paper does not establish.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For every prescribed mass c < c*, the standing wave ψ(t,x) = e^{−iλt}u(x) exists with negative energy and λ < 0, so fixed-mass solutions are available in the subcritical focusing regime.
  • For each integer m, taking μ large enough yields at least m couples (uj, λj) of normalized critical points with negative energy and negative Lagrange multiplier; the energies of these critical points cluster at 0 from below as m increases.
  • In the supercritical regime, for the stated dimensions and exponent ranges and large μ, a non-negative normalized solution exists with energy below the critical value (2/N)S^{N/4}, so it lies below the threshold at which Sobolev concentration normally destroys compactness.
  • The truncation-and-genus route also produces multiplicity for the pure biharmonic equation without Δu, extending the earlier ground-state result to arbitrarily many solutions.
  • Because the supercritical solution lies on the Pohožaev manifold with positive energy, it is a mountain-pass-type critical point rather than a local minimum of the energy on the mass sphere.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural check beyond the paper is whether the quantitative inequality μ(1−γp)∥ū∥_p^p > ϱ₂/2 genuinely holds for the weak limit produced by Lemma 5.8; if it fails for some large μ, the supercritical existence proof would need a different route to strong L² convergence.
  • The dimension-by-dimension restrictions in Theorem 1.5 mirror the decay of the ratio ∥∇uε∥₂²/∥uε∥_p^p as ε → 0; analogous energy estimates might extend the conclusion to other N and p whenever that ratio vanishes fast enough.
  • The threshold c* is expressed through the Gagliardo-Nirenberg constant C_{N,p}; making that constant quantitative would turn the existence interval c < c* into an explicit numerical range rather than an existential one.
  • The non-negativity argument at the end suggests that the supercritical solution is radial and non-negative; whether the same method yields signed or symmetry-breaking solutions is not addressed by the paper.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper studies normalized solutions of the focusing biharmonic Schrödinger equation with mixed dispersion and Sobolev critical growth, problem (1.1). For the L^2-subcritical perturbation 2<p<2+4/N and 0<c<c*, it claims a critical point of I restricted to V_r(c) with negative energy and negative Lagrange multiplier (Theorem 1.1), and multiplicity of such critical points for large μ (Theorem 1.2), with an analogous subcritical multiplicity result for the equation without the Laplacian term (Theorem 1.4). For the L^2-supercritical range p̄<p<4*, the paper claims, under dimension restrictions and for large μ, a nonnegative normalized solution u_{μ,c} with energy below (2/N)S^{N/4} and negative Lagrange multiplier (Theorem 1.5). The proofs are variational: truncation, concentration-compactness, genus theory, Pohožaev manifold, and mountain-pass arguments.

Significance. If correct, the paper would provide the first existence and multiplicity results for normalized solutions of a mixed-dispersion biharmonic NLS with Sobolev critical growth, extending earlier work of Ma–Chang and Chang et al. The subcritical part is supported by a coherent combination of established tools: a local Palais–Smale condition, concentration-compactness, and genus theory, with explicit threshold c* and quantitative energy bounds. The supercritical part contains an interesting novel mechanism for controlling the dispersion term in the mountain-pass level (Lemma 5.12). However, the supercritical existence theorem depends on a compactness lemma whose key sign estimate is not proved, and the paper's radial function space is defined inconsistently. These issues must be resolved before the claims can be accepted.

major comments (2)
  1. [§5, Lemma 5.9 (display after (5.25))] The proof that the limiting Lagrange multiplier is negative, λ̄<0, reduces to the inequality μ(1−γp)∥ū∥_p^p > ϱ2/2, but this inequality is nowhere established. The preceding estimates (5.21)–(5.22) are upper bounds on μ∥u_n∥_p^p + (p/4*)∥u_n∥_{4*}^{4*} and on ∥Δu_n∥_2^2+∥∇u_n∥_2^2; they are compatible with μ∥ū∥_p^p = o(1) as μ→∞, since the weak limit ū depends on μ. Consequently the phrase 'for μ sufficiently large' cannot be justified from γp−1<0 alone. This is load-bearing: the conclusion that the equation 0 = λ̄ lim_n ∥u_n−ū∥_2^2 after (5.39) forces strong L^2 convergence, and hence the normalization ∥ū∥_2^2=c in alternative (ii), uses only the sign of λ̄, and the final assertion λ_{μ,c}<0 also depends on this sign. Without a quantitative lower bound on μ∥ū∥_p^p, Lemma 5.9 does not close and Theorem 1.5 is not proved.
  2. [§2, Eq. (1.11)] The space H^2_r(R^N) is defined as the set of radially decreasing functions. Taken literally, this is not a linear subspace of H^2(R^N): the sum of two radially decreasing functions need not be radially decreasing, and multiplication by negative scalars fails. Therefore S_r(c)=S(c)∩H^2_r is not a C^1 manifold, is not symmetric under u↦−u, and the genus arguments in Section 4 (e.g., Lemma 4.3, where T_m is homeomorphic to S^{m−1} and is required to lie in V_r(c)) are not valid as written. The proofs require H^2_r to be the usual space of radial functions, with monotonicity used only in decay estimates. Please correct the definition or provide a justification that the set as defined carries the manifold and symmetry structure used throughout.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Proof of Theorem 1.1] The proof is a single sentence invoking Lemmas 3.2 and 3.3. Since V_r(c) is not closed, the existence of a (PS)_{m*(c)} sequence at the infimum should be justified explicitly, for example by an Ekeland variational principle on a suitable complete subset, before applying the local Palais–Smale condition.
  2. [Lemma 5.9] The lemma statement contains an unresolved cross-reference: 'where λ_n is given in (?? below)'. Please replace this with the explicit formula or a displayed equation number.
  3. [Section 3, Eq. (3.2)] The symbol E is used for a constant in (3.2), while in Section 5 E denotes the product space H^2(R^N)×R. Using the same letter for two unrelated objects is confusing and should be fixed by renaming one of them.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the proof is self-contained, and the disputed sign of the Lagrange multiplier in Lemma 5.9 is a compactness gap rather than a circular reduction.

full rationale

This paper is a self-contained constrained-variational existence proof. The main results are derived from the Gagliardo-Nirenberg inequality (2.1), the Pohozaev identity (1.16), concentration-compactness, genus theory, and explicit test-function estimates; no parameter is fitted to data and no theorem is assumed in a form equivalent to the conclusion. Theorems 1.1, 1.2, and 1.4 are built on truncation, local Palais-Smale conditions, and the genus minimax theorem, while Theorem 1.5 constructs a mountain-pass sequence from the auxiliary functional (5.11) and then uses Lemma 5.9 to obtain either concentration or strong convergence. The most exposed step is the assertion in Lemma 5.9 that the Lagrange multiplier of the weak limit is negative, which requires the inequality μ(1−γp)‖ū‖_p^p > ϱ2/2; the preceding estimates only provide upper bounds, so the sign of λ̄ is not secured. This is a genuine correctness or compactness concern, but it is not circularity: the target existence statement is not built into an assumption, and the gap is a missing quantitative estimate rather than a definitional or fitted-input reduction. The only notable self-citation is to [19] for Lemma 5.6, whose proof is described as 'almost the repetition' of [19, Lemma 2.5]; that is a standard Ekeland-type perturbation lemma and is not the central claim, so it does not make the derivation circular. Overall, no load-bearing circularity is exhibited, and the paper's main assertions have independent mathematical content.

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

The paper introduces no free parameters fitted to data and no invented physical entities. The thresholds c*, r_*, K(c,μ) are derived constants, not tuned parameters. The argument rests on standard variational machinery plus one critical unproven sign estimate in Lemma 5.9, which is a derivation gap rather than a circularity issue.

assumptions (4)
  • standard math Gagliardo-Nirenberg inequality (2.1) with sharp Sobolev constant S for the biharmonic operator
    Invoked in Lemma 3.1, Lemma 3.2, and throughout Section 5 to bound nonlinear terms by powers of the Δ-norm and the L² norm.
  • standard math Compactness of the embedding H^2_r(R^N) ↪ L^p(R^N) for 2<p<4*, via the radial lemma
    Used in Lemma 3.3 to pass to limits in the subcritical term and in Lemma 5.9; this is the standard radial compactness property.
  • domain assumption Concentration-compactness principle for the critical exponent, as in Alves-do Ó [1, Lemma 2.1]
    Used in Lemma 3.3 to analyze possible concentration of the critical term and to rule out concentration points using the truncation radius r_*.
  • domain assumption Natural constraint property of the Pohozaev manifold P(c) and the mountain pass framework of Jeanjean [15]
    Used in Section 5 to construct (PS) sequences and to identify the mountain pass level with the Pohozaev infimum; this is a standard framework for normalized solutions.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Normalized solutions to focusing Sobolev critical biharmonic Schr\"{o}dinger equation with mixed dispersion." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5HEBKOI2

@misc{pith2026250202049,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Normalized solutions to focusing Sobolev critical biharmonic Schr\"odinger equation with mixed dispersion},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5HEBKOI2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.02049}
}
abstract

This paper is concerned with the following focusing biharmonic Schr\"{o}dinger equation with mixed dispersion and Sobolev critical growth: $$ \begin{cases} {\Delta}^2u-\Delta u-\lambda u-\mu|u|^{p-2}u-|u|^{4^*-2}u=0\ \ \mbox{in}\ \mathbb{R}^N, \\[0.1cm] \int_{\mathbb{R}^N} u^2 dx = c, \end{cases} $$ where $N \geq 5$, $\mu,c>0$, $2<p<4^*:=\frac{2N}{N-4}$ and $\lambda \in \mathbb{R}$ is a Lagrange multiplier. For this problem, under the $L^2$-subcritical perturbation ($2<p<2+\frac{8}{N}$), we derive the existence and multiplicity of normalized solutions via the truncation technique, concentration-compactness principle and the genus theory presented by C.O. Alves et al. (Arxiv, (2021), doi: 2103.07940v2). Compared to the results of C.O. Alves et al. we obtain a more general result after removing the further assumptions given in (3.2) of their paper. In the case of $L^2$-supercritical perturbation ($2+\frac{8}{N}<p<4^*$), we explore the existence results of normalized solutions by applying the constrained variational methods and the mountain pass theorem. Moreover, we propose a novel method to address the effects of the dispersion term $\Delta u$. This approach allows us to extend the recent results obtained by X. Chang et al. (Arxiv, (2023), doi: 2305.00327v1) to the mixed dispersion situation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.02049 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. figure of hc(r) for 0 < c < c∗ Summarizing the above discussions, we are allowed to introduce the following set: Vr(c) :=  u ∈ Sr(c) : ∥∆u∥ 2 2 + ∥∇u∥ 2 2 < r2 ∗ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Alves and J

    C.O. Alves and J. do ´O, Positive solutions of a fourth-order semilinear problem involving critical growth, Adv. Nonlinear Stud., 2(2002), 437-458

    work page 2002

  2. [2]

    Multiplicity of normalized solutions for a Schr\"{o}dinger equation with critical growth in $\mathbb{R}^{N}$

    C.O. Alves, C. Ji and O.H. Miyagaki, Multiplicity of normalized solutions for a Schr¨ odinger equation with critical growth in RN , Arxiv preprint, (2021), doi:2103.07940v2

    work page Pith review arXiv 2021

  3. [3]

    Bartsch and N

    T. Bartsch and N. Soave, Multiple normalized solutions for a competing system of Schr¨ odinger equations, Calc. Var. Partial Differential Equations, 58(2019), 22

    work page 2019

  4. [4]

    Bellazzini and N

    J. Bellazzini and N. Visciglia, On the orbital stability for a class of nonautonomous NLS , Indiana Univ. Math. J., 59(2010), 1211-1230

    work page 2010

  5. [5]

    Berestycki and P.L

    H. Berestycki and P.L. Lions, Nonlinear scalar field equation II , Arch. Rat. Mech. Anal., 82(1983), 347-376. 46

    work page 1983

  6. [6]

    Bonheure, J.B

    D. Bonheure, J.B. Casteras, T. Gou and L. Jeanjean, Strong instability of ground states to a fourth order Schr¨ odinger equation, Int. Math. Res. Notices, 2019(2017), 5299-5315

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    Bonheure, J.B

    D. Bonheure, J.B. Casteras, T. Gou and L. Jeanjean, Normalized solutions to the mixed dispersion nonlinear Schr¨ odinger equation in the mass critical and supercritical regime , Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 372(2019), 2167-2212

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    Bonheure, J.B

    D. Bonheure, J.B. Casteras, E. dos Santos and R. Nascimento, Orbitally stable stand- ing waves of a mixed dispersion nonlinear Schr¨ odinger equation , SIAM J. Math. Anal., 50(2018), 5027-5071

    work page 2018

Show all 35 references
  1. [9]

    Boussa ¨ ıd, A.J

    N. Boussa ¨ ıd, A.J. Fern´ andez and L. Jeanjean, Some remarks on a minimization prob- lem associated to a fourth order nonlinear Schr¨ odinger equation , ArXiv preprint, (2019), doi:1910.13177v1

    2019 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Chabrowski and J

    J. Chabrowski and J. do ´O, On some fourth-order semilinear elliptic problems in RN , Nonlinear Anal., 49(2002), 861-884

    2002

  3. [11]

    Chang, H

    X. Chang, H. Hajaiej, Z. Ma and L. Song Existence and instability of standing waves for the biharmonic nonlinear Schr¨ odinger equation with combined nonlinearities, Arxiv preprint, (2023), doi:2305.00327v1

    2023 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Fern´ andez, L

    A.J. Fern´ andez, L. Jeanjean, R. Mandel and M. Maris, Non-homogeneous Gagliardo- Nirenberg inequalities in RN and application to a biharmonic non-linear Schr¨ odinger equa- tion, J. Differential Equations, 330(2022), 1-65

    2022

  5. [13]

    Fibich, B

    G. Fibich, B. Ilan and G. Papaniclaou, Self-focusing fourth order dispersion, SIAM J. Appl. Math., 62(2002), 1437-1462

    2002

  6. [14]

    Ivanov and A.M

    B.A. Ivanov and A.M. Kosevich, Stable three-dimensional small-amplitude soliton in mag- netic materials , Sov. J. Low Temp. Phys., 9(1983), 439-442

    1983

  7. [15]

    Jeanjean, Existence of solutions with prescribed norm for semilinear elliptic equations , Nonlinear Anal., 28(1997), 1633-1659

    L. Jeanjean, Existence of solutions with prescribed norm for semilinear elliptic equations , Nonlinear Anal., 28(1997), 1633-1659

    1997

  8. [16]

    Jeanjean and S.S

    L. Jeanjean and S.S. Lu, Nonradial normalized solutions for nonlinear scalar field equations, Nonlinearity, 32(2019), 4942-4966

    2019

  9. [17]

    Karpman, Stabilization of soliton instabilities by higher-order dispersion: fourth-order nonlinear Schr¨ odinger-type equations, Phys

    V.I. Karpman, Stabilization of soliton instabilities by higher-order dispersion: fourth-order nonlinear Schr¨ odinger-type equations, Phys. Rev. E, 53(1996), 1336-1339

    1996

  10. [18]

    Karpman and A.G

    V.I. Karpman and A.G. Shagalov, Stability of soliton described by nonlinear Schr¨ odinger- type equations with higher-order dispersion , Phys. D, 144(2000), 194-210

    2000

  11. [19]

    Liu and Z

    J. Liu and Z. Zhang, Normalized solutions to biharmonic Schr¨ odinger equation with critical growth in RN , Comput. Appl. Math., 42(2023), 276. 47

    2023

  12. [20]

    Luo and T

    X. Luo and T. Yang, Normalized solutions for a fourth-order Schr¨ odinger equation with a positive second-order dispersion coefficient, Sci. China Math., 66(2023), 1237-1262

    2023

  13. [21]

    Luo and Z

    H. Luo and Z. Zhang, Existence and stability of normalized solutions to the mixed dispersion nonlinear Schr¨ odinger equations, Electron. Res. Arch., 30(2022), 2871-2898

    2022

  14. [22]

    T. Luo, S. Zheng and S. Zhu, The Existence and stability of normalized solutions for a bi- harmonic nonlinear Schr¨ odinger equation with mixed dispersion, Acta Math. Sci., 43(2023), 539-563

    2023

  15. [23]

    Ma and X

    Z. Ma and X. Chang, Normalized ground states of nonlinear biharmonic Schr¨ odinger equa- tions with Sobolev critical growth and combined nonlinearities, Appl. Math. Lett., 22(2022), 108388

    2022

  16. [24]

    Z. Ma, X. Chang and Z. Feng, Normalized ground state of a mixed dispersion nonlin- ear Schr¨ odinger equation with combined power-type nonlinearities, Electron. J. Differential Equations, 2024(2024), 29

    2024

  17. [25]

    C. Miao, G. Xu and L. Zhao, Global well-posedness and scattering for the focusing energy- critical nonlinear Schr¨ odinger equations of fourth order in the radial case , J. Differential Equations, 246(2009), 3715-3749

    2009

  18. [26]

    Nirenberg, On elliptic partial differential equations , Ann

    L. Nirenberg, On elliptic partial differential equations , Ann. Scuola Norm. Sup. Pisa (3), 13(1959), 115-162

    1959

  19. [27]

    Pausader, The cubic fourth-order Schr¨ odinger equation , J

    B. Pausader, The cubic fourth-order Schr¨ odinger equation , J. Funct. Anal., 256(2009), 2473-2517

    2009

  20. [28]

    Phan, Blowup for biharmonic Schr¨ odinger equation with critical nonlinearity , Z

    T.V. Phan, Blowup for biharmonic Schr¨ odinger equation with critical nonlinearity , Z. Angew. Math. Phys., 69(2018), 31

    2018

  21. [29]

    Turitsyn, Three-dimensional dispersion of nonlinearity and stability of multidimen- sional solitons , Teoret

    S.K. Turitsyn, Three-dimensional dispersion of nonlinearity and stability of multidimen- sional solitons , Teoret. Mat. Fiz., 64(1985), 226-232

    1985

  22. [30]

    Willem, Minimax Theorems, Birkh¨ auser, Boston, (1996)

    M. Willem, Minimax Theorems, Birkh¨ auser, Boston, (1996)

    1996

  23. [31]

    Zhang and J

    J. Zhang and J. Zheng, Energy critical fourth-order Schr¨ odinger equation with subcritical perturbations, Nonlinear Anal., 73(2010), 1004-1014

    2010

  24. [32]

    Zhang and Y

    Z. Zhang and Y. Wang, Normalized ground state solutions of the biharmonic Schr¨ odinger equation with general mass supercritical nonlinearities , Appl. Math. Lett., 163(2024), 109415

    2024

  25. [33]

    Zhang and Z

    Z. Zhang and Z. Zhang, Normalized solutions of mass subcritical Schr¨ odinger equations in exterior domains , Nonlinear Differ. Equ. Appl., 29(2022), 32

    2022

  26. [34]

    S. Zhu, J. Zhang and H. Yang, Limiting profile of the blow-up solutions for the fourth-order nonlinear Schr¨ odinger equation, Dyn. Partial. Differ. Equ., 7(2010), 187-205. 48

    2010

  27. [35]

    Zou and M

    W. Zou and M. Schechter, Critical Point Theory and its Applications, Springer New York, New York, (2006). 49

    2006

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.