Pith. sign in

REVIEW 6 major objections 3 minor 27 references

Soliton Dynamics and Modulation Instability in the (3+1)-dimensional ZK equation: A Lie Symmetry Approach

T0 review · 6 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that a seven-generator Lie symmetry analysis of the (3+1)-dimensional Zakharov–Kuznetsov equation yields a classified family of exact invariant solutions, a kink-type traveling wave, a modulation-instability gain…

desk verdict Competent Lie symmetry bookkeeping undercut by invariant solutions that do not solve the ZK equation. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.07682 v3 pith:DPWDXDFP submitted 2025-02-11 math.AP

Anshika Singhal , Urvashi Joshi , Rajan Arora This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.AP MSC 35Q5335B0635C0535A30
keywords LiesymmetryanalysisZakharov–Kuznetsovequationoptimalsubalgebrainvariantsolutionstravelingwavemodulationinstabilityconservationlawsnonlinearself-adjointness
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 show that the (3+1)-dimensional Zakharov–Kuznetsov equation, $u_t + a u u_x + u_{xx}+u_{yy}+u_{zz}=0$, the higher-dimensional cousin of the KdV equation used for ion-acoustic waves in magnetized plasma, can be solved systematically by Lie symmetry analysis rather than by ad hoc ansatz methods. It derives seven infinitesimal symmetry generators, organizes them into an optimal system, and reduces the PDE to ODEs whose exact solutions describe soliton propagation and wave evolution under a magnetic field. It also constructs a traveling-wave solution with kink-type solitons, a modulation-instability analysis with a gain spectrum, and conservation laws obtained through nonlinear self-adjointness, a property that lets such equations admit conserved quantities without a variational principle. If correct, this would provide a symmetry-grounded catalogue of exact solutions and conserved quantities for a non-integrable higher-dimensional wave equation.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Lie algebra $L_7$ spanned by seven vector fields $D_1,\dots,D_7$ — dilation, translations in $t,x,y,z$, rotation, and a Galilean boost — together with its commutator table, adjoint representation, Killing form, and the resulting one-dimensional optimal system. This machinery converts the PDE into characteristic equations and reduced ODEs, with each optimal subalgebra representative yielding a distinct invariant solution family; the nonlinear self-adjointness condition $\Psi = c_1 y z + c_2 y + c_3 z + c_4$ supplies the adjoint solutions used to build conserved vectors.

What would settle it

Substitute $u_2(x,t)=x/(a\sqrt{t})$ into the left-hand side of (1.1) and check whether $u_t + a u u_x + u_{xx}+u_{yy}+u_{zz}$ vanishes identically for all $x,t$ with $a\neq 0$; this single substitution settles whether the claimed dilation-symmetry solution is an exact solution.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the ZK equation admits a seven-dimensional Lie algebra of point symmetries, and that invariant solutions generated from the optimal one-dimensional subalgebra give closed-form descriptions of soliton dynamics, such as $u_1 = 2/(1+2C\,e^{t-x})$, $u_3 = (d_5/(d_4 a))(d_4 t/d_2 - y)$, and $u_4 = (x-8\sqrt{t})/(a\sqrt{t})$. The traveling-wave reduction yields a kink-type solitary profile, and the stability analysis gives a modulation-instability gain $G(A)=2\sqrt{p^2-A^2}$ that is nonzero exactly when $A^2 < b^2+c^2+d^2$. The same symmetry data are used to prove nonlinear self-adjointness and to tabulate conserved vectors for each generator. The paper further claims that the Lie framework contains the modified simple equation method as a parameter-restricted special case.

Load-bearing premise

The whole analysis assumes that the table describing how the seven symmetry operations combine with each other is correct; every claimed solution and conserved quantity is built on that table.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Each representative of the one-dimensional optimal system yields a distinct invariant solution family, giving a systematic catalogue rather than isolated ansatz solutions.
  • The traveling-wave solution $u_7$ exhibits a kink-type solitary profile, and the modulation-instability analysis identifies stable ($A^2 > b^2+c^2+d^2$) and unstable ($A^2 < b^2+c^2+d^2$) regimes with gain $G(A)=2\sqrt{p^2-A^2}$.
  • The conserved vectors generated for each symmetry provide physically meaningful invariants for a non-integrable higher-dimensional equation.
  • The Lie-derived solutions subsume the MSE-method traveling waves as special parameter choices, so the symmetry approach claims to cover prior symbolic results.
  • The numerical validation with RK4 and ode45, if the analytical solutions are correct, confirms that each closed-form solution is consistent with the reduced ODEs.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same reduction ladder (PDE to similarity variables to reduced ODE to closed form) should transfer to ZK-type equations with variable coefficients, provided the symmetry classification is recomputed for each new equation.
  • The modulation-instability threshold $A^2 = b^2+c^2+d^2$ suggests an experiment: start with a background amplitude $A$ and a small perturbation with wave number $p=\sqrt{b^2+c^2+d^2}$, and look for growth when $p^2$ exceeds $A^2$.
  • The conserved vectors from nonlinear self-adjointness could serve as templates for structure-preserving numerical schemes that keep mass, momentum, or energy exactly conserved.
  • If the MSE solutions are indeed parameter-restricted cases of the Lie solutions, other ansatz methods such as Riccati or $(G'/G)$-expansion may also be expressible as special slices of the symmetry classification.
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

6 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript applies Lie symmetry analysis to the (3+1)-dimensional Zakharov-Kuznetsov equation ut + a u ux + uxx + uyy + uzz = 0. It derives seven infinitesimal generators, a commutator table, an optimal system, and uses symmetry reductions to produce claimed invariant solutions u1–u6, a traveling-wave solution, a modulation-instability analysis, a nonlinear self-adjointness result, and associated conservation laws. The numerical section compares analytical solutions of the reduced ODEs with RK4 and ode45 solutions.

Significance. If the central claims were correct, the paper would provide a systematic family of exact invariant solutions and conservation laws for a physically relevant higher-dimensional nonlinear evolution equation. Some parts of the Lie-algebra work are correct: I verified that the commutator entry [D1,D3] = 0 in Table 2 is correct (the contrary concern raised in the review correspondence does not survive direct computation), and the first reduction leading to u1 in Eq. (5.23) is internally consistent. However, several of the claimed invariant solutions fail direct substitution into Eq. (1.1), and the self-adjointness section contains a fundamental error. Because the paper's central deliverable is these exact solutions and conservation laws, the failures are load-bearing rather than cosmetic.

major comments (6)
  1. [§5.1.2, Eq. (5.25)] The claimed solution u2 = x/(a sqrt(t)) does not satisfy Eq. (1.1). Direct substitution gives ut + a u ux + uxx + uyy + uzz = x(2 sqrt(t) - 1)/(2 a t^(3/2)), which is nonzero for generic x and t. The error is a missing factor: from the first reduction u = F(P,Q,R)/sqrt(t) with F = P/a = x/(a sqrt(t)), the correct invariant solution is u = x/(a t).
  2. [§5.1.2, second reduction table] The printed second reduced equation, a G G_r + G_rr + 4 G_s + 4 s G_ss = 0, is not the correct reduction of the first equation. Substituting F = G(r,s) with r = P, s = Q^2 + R^2 into the first reduced equation yields a G G_r + G_rr + 4 G_s + 4 s G_ss - G/2 - (r/2) G_r - s G_s = 0. The paper omits the last three terms. Consequently the stated solution G = r/a does not satisfy the printed equation (the residual is r/a), although it does satisfy the completed equation.
  3. [§5.1.3, Eq. (5.27)] The claimed solution u3 = (d5/(d4 a))(d4 t/d2 - y) does not solve Eq. (1.1). For this function, ut = d5/(a d2), uy = -d5/(a d4), and all other derivatives vanish, so the left-hand side of Eq. (1.1) reduces to d5/(a d2), which is nonzero unless d5 = 0 (the trivial zero solution). The mapping from the reduced ODE solution to the invariant solution is therefore erroneous.
  4. [§5.1.4, Eq. (5.29)] The claimed solution u4 = (x - 8 sqrt(t))/(a sqrt(t)) also fails direct substitution: the residual is x(2 sqrt(t) - 1)/(2 a t^(3/2)) - 8/(a sqrt(t)). From G = (r - 8)/a and u = F/sqrt(t) with r = P = x/sqrt(t), the correct invariant solution is u = (x - 8 sqrt(t))/(a t), not Eq. (5.29). Figure 4 and the associated discussion therefore describe a function that is not a solution.
  5. [§8, Eqs. (8.39)–(8.44)] The modulation-instability analysis does not follow from Eq. (1.1). Substituting the complex ansatz v = (u + sqrt(A)) e^{i A t} into a real PDE produces Eq. (8.40), which contains the time-dependent factor e^{i A t} multiplying u_x; a constant-coefficient Fourier ansatz then cannot yield the dispersion relation (8.42). The parameter A is introduced as a free 'sensitivity parameter' rather than being related to the background amplitude of the ZK equation, so the claimed stability threshold A^2 = b^2 + c^2 + d^2 is not derived from the model.
  6. [§11, Eq. (11.45)] The adjoint equation is computed incorrectly. For L = Ψ(ut + a u ux + uxx + uyy + uzz), the Euler–Lagrange derivative is δL/δu = -Ψ_t - a u Ψ_x + Ψ_xx + Ψ_yy + Ψ_zz, not the expression printed in Eq. (11.45). Because this starting point is wrong, the nonlinear self-adjointness condition (11.48)–(11.50) and the conservation laws in Table 7 are not established.
minor comments (3)
  1. [§7, Eq. (7.36)] The traveling-wave ODE (7.36) appears garbled: the symbol k(η) should presumably be K(η), and the second-derivative terms should combine as (a^2 + b^2 + c^2) K'' rather than being written twice with the coefficient a^2. As printed, the passage from Eq. (7.36) to the solution (7.38) cannot be checked.
  2. [§2, Eq. (2.6)] The last formula in Eq. (2.6) contains the typo 'ξt_tau'; it should read ξ^u = -(ξ^t_t + 2 ξ^x_t)/(2a).
  3. [§5.2.1, table row for d2 ≠ 0] The entry 'No solution' in the d2 ≠ 0 row is inconsistent with the surrounding text, which presents a reduced ODE and claims numerical comparison for that case (Figure 13). This should be clarified or corrected.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Partial circularity in the MI threshold and in the numerical validation; the central Lie-symmetry derivation is independent (though its solutions fail substitution).

  1. self definitional [Section 8, Eqs. (8.39), (8.42) and the stability bullets]
    "v = (u + √A)e^{iAt}, (8.39) where A is a sensitivity parameter. ... w = sqrt(A^2 − (b^2 + c^2 + d^2)), (8.42) ... When A^2 > p^2 = b^2 + c^2 + d^2, a real value of w is obtained by the dispersion relation, which indicates that the system is stable and there is no modulation instability."

    The parameter A is introduced ad hoc as a 'sensitivity parameter' in the ansatz (8.39) and then reappears as the sole threshold in (8.42): w = sqrt(A^2 − p^2). The stability classification 'A^2 > p^2 stable / A^2 < p^2 unstable' is therefore just the sign of the quantity defined by the inserted parameter; it is a restatement of the ansatz, not a prediction from the ZK equation. The ZK nonlinearity coefficient a is absent from the dispersion relation, confirming that the threshold is built into the chosen form rather than derived from the equation's structure.

  2. other [Sections 9–10, numerical method and analytical/numerical comparison]
    "To verify the accuracy and consistency of the invariant solutions of the (3+1)-dimensional ZK equation, obtained from the Lie symmetry reductions, we solve the resulting nonlinear ODEs using two widely used numerical methods ... the comparison plots ... illustrate that the analytical and numerical plots are almost indistinguishable; that confirms the stability and correctness of the solutions."

    The numerical comparison solves the same reduced ODEs (not Eq. (1.1)) with the same parameter values and with initial conditions supplied by the analytical solution being tested. Under standard ODE uniqueness, the RK4/ode45 solution must reproduce that analytical solution, so the agreement is guaranteed by construction. It cannot confirm that the similarity reduction is correct or that the resulting u(x,y,z,t) solves the original PDE; it only confirms internal consistency of the IVP. Thus the claimed 'validation of the analytical solutions' is self-referential.

full rationale

Circularity is partial and confined to supporting claims. The Lie symmetry computation (Sections 2–5) is a self-contained derivation: the vector fields are obtained from the invariance condition, the optimal system from adjoint actions, and the invariant solutions from solving reduced equations; none of these steps fits a parameter to the target solution or imports a uniqueness theorem from the authors' prior work. Reference [25] is used only for the definition of the Killing form and is not load-bearing. The exact-solution failures (e.g., u2 in Eq. (5.25) does not satisfy Eq. (1.1)) are mathematical errors, not circularity. The circularity enters in two secondary places: the modulation-instability threshold is just the sign of the square of the ad hoc parameter A inserted in Eq. (8.39), and the numerical 'validation' compares the analytical solution with a numerical solution of the same reduced ODE/IVP, so agreement is guaranteed by construction and does not test substitution into the PDE. These reduce by construction but do not by themselves force the central Lie derivation, so the score is 4 rather than 6+.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced. The main extra ingredients are the free sensitivity parameter A in the modulation instability analysis, the arbitrary perturbation wave numbers, and several unverified computational and algebraic assumptions. The incorrect commutator table is the most damaging axiom because it supports the optimal system.

free parameters (2)
  • Sensitivity parameter A = not fitted
    Introduced in Section 8 Eq (8.39) as a 'sensitivity parameter' for the MI analysis; the threshold A^2 = p^2 between stable and unstable regions is chosen by hand and not derived from the equation's parameters.
  • Wave numbers b, c, d in perturbation ansatz = arbitrary
    Injected in Eq (8.41) to parametrize the perturbation; the gain spectrum is plotted against p = sqrt(b^2+c^2+d^2), effectively scanning this free vector.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The determining equations (2.6) computed with Maple are correct
    Section 2 states 'Owing to the extensive calculations, we relied on Maple to derive the following system of PDEs', but the Maple worksheet is not provided, so the computed symmetries are an unverified input.
  • ad hoc to paper The commutator table (Table 2) is correct
    Table 2 states [D1,D3]=0, but direct computation from the vector fields in Table 1 gives [D1,D3]=D3. This incorrect Lie bracket is used to build the adjoint representation and optimal system.
  • ad hoc to paper The complex perturbation ansatz in Section 8 is valid for the real ZK equation
    Eq (8.39) substitutes a complex exponential-like ansatz into the real PDE (1.1) and linearizes to derive a dispersion relation that matches the NLS-type result; the validity for the ZK equation is not established.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Soliton Dynamics and Modulation Instability in the (3+1)-dimensional ZK equation: A Lie Symmetry Approach." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DPWDXDFP

@misc{pith2026250207682,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Soliton Dynamics and Modulation Instability in the (3+1)-dimensional ZK equation: A Lie Symmetry Approach},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DPWDXDFP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.07682}
}
read the original abstract

The core focus of this research work is to obtain invariant solutions and conservation laws of the (3+1)-dimensional ZK equation, a higher-dimensional generalization of the Korteweg--de Vries (KdV) equation, which describes the phenomenon of wave stability and soliton propagation. Lie symmetry analysis has been applied to derive infinitesimal generators and classify the optimal subalgebras. Utilizing them, we construct exact invariant solutions that reveal how waves retain their shape as they travel, how they interact in space, and the impact of magnetic fields on wave propagation. Further, by implementing the traveling wave transformation, we derive additional exact solutions, including those exhibiting kink-type solitons. It also concludes with the conservation laws and the nonlinear self-adjointness property. Our examination is broadened to cover modulation instability and gain spectrum. To contextualize our results, we compare the solutions obtained from the Lie symmetry method with those derived using the modified simple equation (MSE) method and other symbolic techniques reported in recent literature. To validate the accuracy of the analytical solutions obtained via Lie symmetry, a numerical method is implemented. A review of the ZK equation's physical background and mathematical complexity is explored, emphasizing the limitations of symbolic approaches.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.07682 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Solution profile of amplitude u1(x, t) to Eq. 5.23. (a) (b) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Solution profile of amplitude u2(x, t) to Eq. 5.25. (a) (b) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Solution profile of amplitude u3(y, t) to Eq. 5.27. 11 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Solution profile of amplitude u4(x, t) to Eq. 5.29. (a) (b) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Solution profile of amplitude u5(x, y) for d1 ̸= 0. (a) (b) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Solution profile of amplitude u6(x, y) for d3 ̸= 0. 7 Traveling Wave Solution To find traveling wave solution of (1.1) , we assume the transformation as, η = ax + by + cz − dt, u(x, y, z, t) = K(η). (7.35) Substituting the above values in the governing model 1.1, we ge…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: 3D and 2D plots for u7(x, t) corresponding to (7.38). • Figures 7(a) and 7(b) show the 3D and 2D plots for u, respectively, that demonstrate how the wave retains its shape as it moves along the x axis over t. It represents the kink-type solitary wave. 8 Modulation Inst…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Frequency of w for distinct p ′ s (a) A ≥ p and (b) A < p. (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Gain spectrum for distinct p ′ s. • [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: ODE plot of H(λ) and H′ (λ) for symmetry X = b2D2 + D3 + b5D5 + b6D6 5.1.1. (a) (b) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_10.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: ODE plot of H(λ) and H′ (λ) for translation symmetry D2 for sub-case d1 ̸= 0 5.2.1. (a) (b) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: ODE plot of H(λ) and H′ (λ) for translation symmetry D2 for sub-case d2 ̸= 0 5.2.1. (a) (b) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: ODE plot of H(λ) and H′ (λ) for translation symmetry D2 for sub-case d3 ̸= 0 5.2.1. 11 Nonlinear Self-Adjointness for ZK Equation Ibragimov [22] introduced the concept of nonlinear self-adjointness for a given system of partial differential equations. Theorem 11.1. Th…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

27 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages

  1. [17]

    Tracin` a, On the nonlinear self-adjointness of the Zakharov–Kuznetsov equation, Communications in Nonlinear Science and Numerical Simulation 19 (2) (2014) 377–382

    R. Tracin` a, On the nonlinear self-adjointness of the Zakharov–Kuznetsov equation, Communications in Nonlinear Science and Numerical Simulation 19 (2) (2014) 377–382

    work page 2014

  2. [1]

    Zakharov, E

    V. Zakharov, E. Kuznetsov, On three dimensional solitons, Zhurnal Eksp. Teoret. Fiz 66 (1974) 594–597

    work page 1974

  3. [2]

    Wazwaz, Partial differential equations and solitary waves theory, Springer Science & Business Media, 2010

    A.-M. Wazwaz, Partial differential equations and solitary waves theory, Springer Science & Business Media, 2010. 19

    work page 2010

  4. [3]

    M. S. Islam, K. Khan, A. H. Arnous, Generalized kudryashov method for solving some (3+ 1)-dimensional nonlinear evolution equations, New Trends in Mathematical Sciences 3 (3) (2015) 46

    work page 2015

  5. [4]

    K. Khan, M. A. Akbar, Exact solutions of the (2+ 1)-dimensional cubic klein–gordon equation and the (3+ 1)- dimensional zakharov–kuznetsov equation using the modified simple equation method, Journal of the Association of Arab Universities for Basic and Applied Sciences 15 (2014) 74–81

    work page 2014

  6. [5]

    Niwas, S

    M. Niwas, S. Kumar, R. Rajput, D. Chadha, Exploring localized waves and different dynamics of solitons in (2+ 1)-dimensional hirota bilinear equation: a multivariate generalized exponential rational integral function approach, Nonlinear Dynamics (2024) 1–14

    work page 2024

  7. [6]

    T. Mathanaranjan, An effective technique for the conformable space-time fractional cubic-quartic nonlinear Schrodinger equation with different laws of nonlinearity, Computational Methods for Differential Equations 10 (3) (2022) 701–715

    work page 2022

  8. [7]

    T.-Y. Zhou, B. Tian, C.-R. Zhang, S.-H. Liu, Auto-b¨ acklund transformations, bilinear forms, multiple-soliton, quasi-soliton and hybrid solutions of a (3+ 1)-dimensional modified Korteweg-de Vries-Zakharov-Kuznetsov equation in an electron-positron plasma, The European Physical Journal Plus 137 (8) (2022) 912

    work page 2022

Show all 27 references
  1. [8]

    Fritzsche, Sophus Lie, Journal of Lie Theory 9 (1999) 1–38

    B. Fritzsche, Sophus Lie, Journal of Lie Theory 9 (1999) 1–38

    1999

  2. [9]

    Helgason, Sophus Lie, the mathematician, in: The Sophus Lie Memorial Conference, Scandinavian Univ

    S. Helgason, Sophus Lie, the mathematician, in: The Sophus Lie Memorial Conference, Scandinavian Univ. Press Oslo, August, 1992, pp. 3–21

    1992

  3. [10]

    Schwarz, Symmetries of differential equations: from Sophus Lie to computer algebra, SIAM Review 30 (3) (1988) 450–481

    F. Schwarz, Symmetries of differential equations: from Sophus Lie to computer algebra, SIAM Review 30 (3) (1988) 450–481

    1988

  4. [11]

    Lou, H.-C

    S.-Y. Lou, H.-C. Ma, Non-Lie symmetry groups of (2+ 1)-dimensional nonlinear systems obtained from a simple direct method, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General 38 (7) (2005) L129

    2005

  5. [12]

    X.-H. Zhai, Y. Zhang, Lie symmetry analysis on time scales and its application on mechanical systems, Journal of Vibration and Control 25 (3) (2019) 581–592

    2019

  6. [13]

    R. K. Gazizov, N. H. Ibragimov, Lie symmetry analysis of differential equations in finance, Nonlinear Dynamics 17 (1998) 387–407

    1998

  7. [14]

    Kosmann-Schwarzbach, et al., Groups and Symmetries, Universitext, Springer, New York (2010)

    Y. Kosmann-Schwarzbach, et al., Groups and Symmetries, Universitext, Springer, New York (2010)

    2010

  8. [15]

    B. J. Cantwell, T. Moulden, Introduction to symmetry analysis, Applied Mechanics Reviews 57 (1) (2004) B4

    2004

  9. [16]

    Bluman, Simplifying the form of Lie groups admitted by a given differential equation, Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications 145 (1) (1990) 52–62

    G. Bluman, Simplifying the form of Lie groups admitted by a given differential equation, Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications 145 (1) (1990) 52–62

    1990

  10. [18]

    Kosmann-Schwarzbach, B

    Y. Kosmann-Schwarzbach, B. E. Schwarzbach, Y. Kosmann-Schwarzbach, The Noether theorems, Springer, 2011

    2011

  11. [19]

    Byers, E

    N. Byers, E. Noether’s discovery of the deep connection between symmetries and conservation laws, arXiv preprint physics/9807044 (1998)

    1998 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Naz, Conservation laws for some systems of nonlinear partial differential equations via multiplier approach, Journal of Applied Mathematics 2012 (1) (2012) 871253

    R. Naz, Conservation laws for some systems of nonlinear partial differential equations via multiplier approach, Journal of Applied Mathematics 2012 (1) (2012) 871253

    2012

  13. [21]

    Yasar, Y

    E. Yasar, Y. Yildirim, Symmetries and conservation laws of evolution equations via multiplier and nonlocal conservation methods, New Trends in Mathematical Sciences 5 (1) (2017) 128–136

    2017

  14. [22]

    N. H. Ibragimov, Nonlinear self-adjointness and conservation laws, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 44 (43) (2011) 432002

    2011

  15. [23]

    N. H. Ibragimov, E. D. Avdonina, Nonlinear self-adjointness, conservation laws, and the construction of solutions of partial differential equations using conservation laws, Russian Mathematical Surveys 68 (5) (2013) 889. 20

    2013

  16. [24]

    S. C. Anco, On the incompleteness of Ibragimov’s conservation law theorem and its equivalence to a standard formula using symmetries and adjoint-symmetries, Symmetry 9 (3) (2017) 33

    2017

  17. [25]

    A. K. Sharma, S. Yadav, R. Arora, Invariance analysis, optimal system, and group invariant solutions of (3+ 1)- dimensional non-linear MA-F AN equation, Mathematical Methods in the Applied Sciences 46 (17) (2023) 17883– 17909

    2023

  18. [26]

    X. Hu, Y. Li, Y. Chen, A direct algorithm of one-dimensional optimal system for the group invariant solutions, Journal of Mathematical Physics 56 (5) (2015)

    2015

  19. [27]

    Qawaqneh, J

    H. Qawaqneh, J. Manafian, M. Alharthi, Y. Alrashedi, Stability analysis, modulation instability, and beta-time fractional exact soliton solutions to the van der waals equation., Mathematics (2227-7390) 12 (14) (2024). 21

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.