Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 42 references

Stability threshold of Couette flow for 3D Boussinesq system in Sobolev spaces

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · 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 3D Boussinesq perturbations of Couette flow with velocity size $\varepsilon\nu$ and temperature size $\varepsilon\nu^2$ in $H^2$ remain global in time.

desk verdict First global Sobolev stability threshold for the unstratified 3D Boussinesq near Couette, with the velocity at ν and temperature at ν², but the proof rests on an unproved imported linear estimate that needs a complete derivation before the result can be certified. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.16401 v1 pith:WL27X55A submitted 2025-04-23 math.AP

Shikun Cui , Lili Wang , Wendong Wang This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.AP MSC 35Q3576E0535B35
keywords 3DBoussinesqsystemCouetteflowstabilitythresholdenhanceddissipationlift-upeffectglobalregularitySobolevspacesquasi-linearization
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 proves a stability threshold for the three-dimensional Boussinesq system near Couette flow in the unstratified, constant-temperature case, where the 3D lift-up mechanism is active rather than suppressed by stratification. The theorem states that if the initial velocity perturbation is at most $\varepsilon\nu$ and the initial temperature perturbation at most $\varepsilon\nu^2$ in $H^2$, with $\varepsilon$ independent of the Reynolds number, then the solution exists globally in time. This gives Sobolev threshold exponents $\beta=1$ for velocity and $\beta=2$ for temperature, matching the formal balance of the lift-up and thermal-diffusion effects. A sympathetic reader should care because it extends the sharp Sobolev threshold known for 3D Navier-Stokes to the Boussinesq system while showing that temperature must be initialized one power of $\nu$ smaller than velocity.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by a six-component energy functional ($E_1,\dots,E_6$) with time weights $e^{a\nu^{1/3}t}$, measuring zero and nonzero Fourier modes separately. Two devices make the closure possible: the split $u_{1,0}=d u_{1,0}+g u_{1,0}$ isolates the part of the streamwise zero mode that suffers lift-up amplification, and the good unknown $Q=u_{2,\neq}+\kappa u_{3,\neq}$, with $\kappa=\partial_z V/\partial_y V$ and $V=y+d u_{1,0}$, absorbs the worst velocity–temperature coupling terms. The proof imports linear space-time estimates for the moving-background operator $L_V=\partial_t-\nu\Delta+V\partial_x$ (Propositions A.1–A.5), which supply the enhanced dissipation and inviscid damping rates on which the nonlinear bootstrap rests.

What would settle it

Solve the linearized Boussinesq equations around the modified Couette profile $V=y+d u_{1,0}$ with a nonzero-mode temperature forcing and check numerically whether the time-weighted $X_a$ and $X_b$ bounds of Propositions A.1–A.5 hold with the stated powers of $\nu$; a single mode whose enhanced-dissipation exponent is worse than $\nu^{1/3}$, or a zero-mode contribution that violates the $P_0$ conditions, would break the bootstrap.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is Theorem 1.1: for the perturbation system (1.2)–(1.3) on $\mathbb{T}\times\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{T}$ with equal viscosity and thermal diffusivity $\nu$, any data with $\|u_{\rm in}\|_{H^2}\leq\varepsilon\nu$ and $\|\Theta_{\rm in}\|_{H^2}\leq\varepsilon\nu^2$ produce a global solution, provided $\varepsilon$ is sufficiently small and independent of $\nu$. The proof handles the genuinely unstratified case $\alpha=0$, where the standard symmetrization of stratified Boussinesq fails, and controls the 3D lift-up effect by introducing new good unknowns and a quasi-linear decomposition. The authors further argue from zero-mode balance that the two exponents are optimal: a temperature perturbation of order $\nu^2$ is the largest that the linear transfer through $u_{2,0}$ can absorb without destabilizing.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes, without reproving, that the imported linear decay estimates for the moving background $L_V$ remain valid for all the velocity–temperature coupling terms that appear in the Boussinesq equations, under the smallness condition on $d u_{1,0}$ that the bootstrap itself maintains.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Global-in-time existence follows for all $H^2$ data meeting the two size conditions, so no finite-time singularity develops near Couette flow at these amplitudes.
  • The threshold exponents match what formal asymptotics predict: $\beta=1$ for velocity and $\beta=2$ for temperature, with Remark 1.2 explaining why larger temperature data should destabilize through the zero-mode channel.
  • When the temperature is set to zero the result reduces to the known Sobolev threshold for 3D Navier-Stokes, so the theorem is consistent with the purely hydrodynamic case.
  • The weighted norms force nonzero modes to decay on the enhanced-dissipation time scale $\nu^{-1/3}$, while the zero mode relaxes toward a modified Couette profile.
  • The result covers the unstratified case $\alpha=0$, complementing the stratified case where the lift-up effect is suppressed and a smaller threshold exponent is available.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The proof treats $\nu=\mu$ only; a natural extension would allow independent viscosity and thermal diffusivity and ask how the temperature exponent $\beta=2$ changes with the ratio $\mu/\nu$.
  • The $H^2$ regularity is probably not the true boundary of the method; the same quasi-linear decomposition may push the threshold to lower Sobolev or Besov regularity, or to Gevrey data with a different exponent.
  • The imported linear estimates were proved for the Navier-Stokes operator; one can test their validity for the Boussinesq coupling by computing the spectrum or resolvent of the linearized operator around the modified profile $V$ including the $\Theta$ feedback.
  • The same good-unknown construction may transfer to other shear flows with a lift-up instability, such as Poiseuille or Kolmogorov flow, whenever the background flow admits the $\kappa$-weighted derivative structure.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies the 3D Boussinesq system near Couette flow in T×R×T with ν=μ and g=1. The main theorem (Theorem 1.1) asserts that if the initial velocity perturbation is H²-bounded by εν and the initial temperature perturbation by εν², for a universal ε>0, then the solution is global in time. The proof is organized as a bootstrap over six energy functionals E1–E6, combining zero-mode and non-zero-mode estimates. The non-zero-mode estimates rely on space-time linear estimates for the perturbed linear operator L_V that are imported from Wei–Zhang [35], with one new coupled estimate, Proposition A.2, stated without proof. The paper claims the exponents β=1 for velocity and β=2 for temperature are optimal, supported by the formal balance in Remark 1.2.

Significance. If the proof is completed, this would be the first Sobolev-space stability threshold for the unstratified 3D Boussinesq Couette problem, where the 3D lift-up effect is active, complementing the stratified result of Coti Zelati–Del Zotto–Widmayer [14]. The bootstrap architecture is transparent, the paper explicitly identifies the hard imported linear estimates, and the formal optimality discussion in Remark 1.2 gives a concrete falsifiable prediction. The introduction of the new good unknown Q=u_{2,≠}+κu_{3,≠} and the quasi-linear decomposition are plausible and potentially useful ingredients. The paper is also honest about its reliance on external results. However, as detailed below, a load-bearing gap appears in the treatment of the coupled linear estimate Proposition A.2, and several smaller technical issues must be addressed before the proof is certifiable.

major comments (4)
  1. [Appendix A, Proposition A.2; used in §6.1, Eq. (6.1)] Proposition A.2 is the key imported estimate for the coupling between △u_{2,≠} and (∂x²+∂z²)u_{3,≠}, and it is used in the derivation of the E4 bound in Proposition 6.1. The proposition is stated with the sentence "can be derived from Proposition 4.3 in [35], and we omit it," with no proof or derivation. This is not a cosmetic omission: the proposition contains the nonlocal lift-up coupling term −2∂x∂z△^{-2}f and a temperature forcing, and it must hold with exactly the zero-mode conditions and initial-data terms used in (6.1). If the derivation from Proposition 4.3 of [35] requires hypotheses that are not verified for the Boussinesq forcings, then the E4 bound is unsupported; since E4 enters the closures for E1, E2, E5 and E6, Theorem 1.1 collapses. Please provide a complete proof of Proposition A.2, or at minimum a detailed derivation from Proposition 4.3 of [35] that verifies every hypothesis, including the smallness condition on du_{1,0} and the zero-mode conditions for all forcing terms.
  2. [§6.1, Eq. (6.1)] The right-hand side of (6.1) contains the term ν^{-4/3}∥(∂x²,∂z²)Θ_{≠}∥²_{X_b}, but the energy E5 defined in Section 2.2 only gives ∥∂x²Θ_{≠}∥_{X_b} and ∥∂z²Θ_{≠}∥_{X_a}, with 0<a<b. With the given definitions, the pair (∂x²Θ_{≠}, ∂z²Θ_{≠}) is not directly bounded in X_b by E5. This mismatch must be fixed, for instance by proving Proposition A.2 with the temperature forcing in the appropriate X_a norm, or by adding an additional term to E5. As written, the line after (6.1) "using Lemma 4.3, Lemma 4.5 and Lemma 4.6" does not resolve this discrepancy. This is likely fixable, but it confirms that the Proposition A.2 application needs to be carried out in detail.
  3. [Theorem 1.1 and §2.3] The manuscript does not state a local well-posedness theorem for the perturbation system (1.2)–(1.3) in H². Theorem 1.1 asserts that "the solution" is global, and the bootstrap in Section 2.3 assumes a solution exists on [0,T]. Without an explicit LWP statement (or a reference), the global existence claim lacks a foundation. Please state the local well-posedness result for H² initial data, or give a precise reference, and explain how the bootstrap implies global existence via a maximal time argument.
  4. [§2.3 and Propositions 5.1–6.3] The bootstrap closure repeatedly says "taking ε0 small enough" in each proposition without specifying the ordering of the choices of the small constants. In particular, the imported estimates Propositions A.3–A.5 require a smallness condition on ∥du_{1,0}∥_{H⁴}+ν^{-1}∥∂t du_{1,0}∥_{H²}, which is controlled by E1. The constants C in the estimates may depend on the constants δ2,δ3,δ4 in those hypotheses, and on a,b. To make the closure rigorous, the paper should present an explicit ordering: first fix δ1,...,δ4 sufficiently small, then choose ε0 sufficiently small relative to those constants, then choose ε in Theorem 1.1. As written, the dependencies are not tracked, and it is not immediate that a single ε0 satisfies all the required smallness conditions simultaneously.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 6, Eq. (6.18) vs Lemma 3.3] The symbol κ is used in Lemma 3.3 before its definition in (6.18). Please move the definition earlier or add a forward reference to avoid confusion.
  2. [Lemma 4.7, Eq. (4.33) and Lemma 4.5, Eq. (4.16)] The factors in (4.16) and (4.33) use different constants, e^{(b-a)ν^{1/3}t} versus e^{(b-a)/2 ν^{1/3}t}. Both are plausible since b>a, but the inconsistency is distracting and should be harmonized.
  3. [Remark 2.1, bullet for E4,1] The bullet says E4,1 is "more simplified than that in [35], since there is an additional term ν^{2/3}∥△u3,≠∥_{X_b}", but the definition of E4,1 does not include that term. This appears to be a leftover from an earlier formulation; please clarify the intended comparison.
  4. [Abstract and Theorem 1.1] The abstract states the result for the Boussinesq system without specifying ν=μ or g=1, which are introduced in Section 1. Please state these assumptions in Theorem 1.1 or in the abstract for accuracy.
  5. [Throughout] The paper repeatedly uses the phrase "taking ε0 small enough" and "Cε0<1/2" in several propositions. While this is standard in bootstrap proofs, a short summary of the bootstrap constants and their dependencies at the end of Section 2 would greatly improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central bootstrap relies on external [35] estimates, and the only self-citation is a minor Appendix B embedding lemma.

full rationale

I find no circular step. The central bootstrap (Propositions 5.1-5.3 and 6.1-6.3) controls energy functionals E1-E6 whose definitions do not encode the theorem's conclusions; the threshold assumptions ||u_in||_{H^2} <= epsilon nu and ||Theta_in||_{H^2} <= epsilon nu^2 enter only as initial-data bounds, and the energy inequalities are derived from the PDE rather than fitted to those bounds. The time-weighted linear estimates are imported from Wei-Zhang [35] (Propositions A.1, A.3-A.5 and Lemma A.1), an external source not authored by the present authors; Proposition A.2 is explicitly attributed to Proposition 4.3 of [35]. No uniqueness theorem from the authors' own prior work is invoked to force a choice, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The only self-citation is in Appendix B, where the Sobolev embedding lemmas B.1 and B.2 are referred to the authors' own [17]; these are standard, parameter-free inequalities and are not the load-bearing mechanism of the central claim. Two caveats are correctness risks rather than circularity: Proposition A.2's proof is omitted ('can be derived from Proposition 4.3 in [35], and we omit it'), and the application in (6.1) includes a nu^{-4/3}||(partial_x^2,partial_z^2)Theta_neq||^2_{Xb} term while E5 only places partial_z^2 Theta_neq in Xa; either gap could invalidate the bootstrap, but neither makes a prediction equal to an input. The heuristic optimality discussion in Remark 1.2 is not used in the proof. The low score reflects only the minor, non-load-bearing self-citation in Appendix B.

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

The central claim rests on no fitted parameters. It imports a block of linear space-time estimates from Wei-Zhang and assumes equal diffusivities; the new content is the nonlinear energy closure for the Boussinesq coupling. No new physical entities are introduced; κ, Q, ρ1 and ρ2 are mathematical changes of variables.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Local well-posedness of the 3D Boussinesq system in H² for small data.
    The bootstrap in §2.3 assumes solutions exist up to time T and can be continued; no local existence theorem is stated or proved in the paper.
  • standard math Validity of the space-time estimates quoted from Wei-Zhang [35] for the operator L_V with V=y+du_{1,0}.
    Propositions A.1, A.3, A.4, A.5 and Lemma A.1 are imported from [35], and Proposition A.2 is asserted to follow from Proposition 4.3 of [35] without proof. These estimates are used throughout E4, E5 and E6.
  • domain assumption Equal viscosity and thermal diffusivity, ν=μ.
    Stated in Section 1: 'For simplicity, we focus on ν=μ.' All estimates for temperature and velocity use the same dissipation coefficient, and the optimality heuristic is built on this balance.
  • domain assumption The smallness condition ∥du_{1,0}∥H4 + ν^{-1}∥∂t du_{1,0}∥H2 < δ is maintained on the bootstrap interval.
    Proposition A.3-A.5 require this condition to treat L_V as a perturbation of L. Its verification is part of the bootstrap via E1, so a failure would invalidate the imported linear estimates.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Stability threshold of Couette flow for 3D Boussinesq system in Sobolev spaces." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WL27X55A

@misc{pith2026250416401,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Stability threshold of Couette flow for 3D Boussinesq system in Sobolev spaces},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WL27X55A}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.16401}
}
abstract

In this paper, we investigate the nonlinear stability and transition threshold for the 3D Boussinesq system in Sobolev space under the high Reynolds number and small thermal diffusion in $\mathbb{T}\times\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{T} $. It is proved that if the initial velocity $v_{\rm in}$ and the initial temperature $ \theta_{\rm in} $ satisfy $ \|v_{\rm in}-(y,0,0)\|_{H^{2}}\leq \varepsilon\nu, \|\theta_{\rm in}\|_{H^{2}}\leq \varepsilon\nu^{2} $, respectively for some $ \varepsilon>0 $ independent of the Reynolds number or thermal diffusion, then the solutions of 3D Boussinesq system are global in time.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages

  1. [35]

    and Zhang Z

    Wei D. and Zhang Z. (2020). Transition threshold for the 3d Couette flow in sobolev space. Comm. Pure Appl. Math., 74(11), 2398-2479

    work page 2020

  2. [14]

    and Widmayer K

    Coti Zelati M., Del Zotto A. and Widmayer K. (2024). Stability of viscous three-dimensional stratified Couette flow via dispersionand mixing. arXiv: 2402.15312V1

    arXiv 2024

  3. [1]

    Arbon R. (2025). Enhanced Dissipation, Taylor Dispersion, and Inviscid Damping of Couette flow in the Boussinesq system on the Plane. arXiv: 2501.00690

    arXiv 2025

  4. [2]

    and Dolce M

    Bedrossian J., Bianchini R., Coti Zelati M. and Dolce M. (2023). Nonlinear inviscid damping and shear-buoyancy instability in the two-dimensional Boussinesq equations. Comm. Pure Appl. Math., 76(12), 3685-3768

    work page 2023

  5. [3]

    and Masmoudi N

    Bedrossian J., Germain P. and Masmoudi N. (2017). On the stability threshold for the 3D Couette flow in Sobolev regularity. Ann. Math., 185(2), 541-608

    work page 2017

  6. [4]

    and Masmoudi N

    Bedrossian J., Germain P. and Masmoudi N. (2020). Dynamics near the subcritical transition of the 3D Couette flow I: Below threshold case. Mem. Amer. Math. Soc., 266, 1294

    work page 2020

  7. [5]

    and Vicol, V

    Bedrossian, J., Masmoudi, N. and Vicol, V. (2016). Enhanced dissipation and inviscid damping in the inviscid limit of the Navier–Stokes equations near the two dimensional Couette flow. Arch. Rational Mech. Anal., 219, 1087-1159. STABILITY OF 3D BOUSSINESQ SYSTEM 39

    work page 2016

  8. [6]

    and Wang F

    Bedrossian J., Vicol V. and Wang F. (2018). The Sobolev stability threshold for 2D shear flows near Couette. J. Nonlinear Sci., 28, 2051-2075

    work page 2018

Show all 42 references
  1. [7]

    and He S

    Beekie R. and He S. Transition Threshold for Strictly Monotone Shear Flows in Sobolev Spaces. arXiv: 2409.09219

    arXiv

  2. [8]

    Chapman, S. J. Subcritical transition in channel flows. J. Fluid Mech., 451 (2002), 35–97

    2002

  3. [9]

    and Zhang Z

    Chen Q., Ding S., Lin Z. and Zhang Z. (2024). Nonlinear stability for 3D plane Poiseuille flow in a finite channel. arXiv: 2310.11694

    2024 arXiv

  4. [10]

    and Zhang Z

    Chen Q., Li T., Wei D. and Zhang Z. (2020). Transition threshold for the 2-D Couette flow in a finite channel. Arch. Rational Mech. Anal., 238, 125-183

    2020

  5. [11]

    and Zhang Z

    Chen Q., Wei D. and Zhang Z. (2024). Transition threshold for the 3D Couette flow in a finite channel. Mem. Amer. Math. Soc., 296, 1478

    2024

  6. [12]

    Constantin P., Doering C. R. (1996). Heat transfer in convective turbulence. Nonlinearity, 9(4), 1049-1060

    1996

  7. [13]

    and Del Zotto A

    Coti Zelati M. and Del Zotto A. (2025). Suppression of lift-up effect in the 3D Boussinesq equations around a stably stratified Couette flow. Quart. Appl. Math., 83(2), 389–401

    2025

  8. [15]

    and Widmayer K

    Coti Zelati M., Del Zotto A. and Widmayer K. On the stability of viscous three-dimensional rotating Couette flow. arXiv: 2501.17735

    arXiv

  9. [16]

    Coti Zelati M., Elgindi T. M. and Widmayer K. (2020). Enhanced dissipation in the Navier- Stokes equations near the Poiseuille flow. Comm. Math. Phys., 378, 987-1010

    2020

  10. [17]

    and Wang W

    Cui S., Wang L. and Wang W. Suppression of blow-up for the 3D Patlak-Keller-Segel-Navier- Stokes system via the Couette flow. arXiv: 2412.19197

    arXiv

  11. [18]

    and Zhang P

    Deng W., Wu J. and Zhang P. (2021). Stability of Couette flow for 2D Boussinesq system with vertical dissipation. J. Funct. Anal., 281, 109255

    2021

  12. [19]

    and Lin Z

    Ding S. and Lin Z. (2022). Enhanced dissipation and transition threshold for the 2-D plane Poiseuille flow via resolvent estimate. J. Differ. Equ, 332, 404-439

    2022

  13. [20]

    Doering C. R. and Constantin P. (1996). Variational bounds on energy dissipation in incom- pressible flows. III. Convection, Phys. Rev. E, Stat. Phys. Plasmas Fluids Relat. Interdiscip. Topics 53 (6), 5957-5981

    1996

  14. [21]

    Getling A. V. (1998). Rayleigh-B´ enard Convection. Advanced Series in Nonlinear Dynamics, vol. 11, World Scientific Publishing Co., Inc., River Edge, NJ, Structures and dynamics

    1998

  15. [22]

    Gill A. (1982). Atmosphere-Ocean Dynamics. International Geophysics. vol. 30, Academic Press, Cambridge

    1982

  16. [23]

    and Xu X

    Huang W., Sun Y. and Xu X. (2024). On the Sobolev stability threshold for 3D Navier-Stokes equations with rotation near the Couette flow. arXiv: 2409.05104

    2024 arXiv

  17. [24]

    and Xu X

    Huang W., Sun Y. and Xu X. (2024). Stability of the Couette flow for 3D Navier-Stokes equations with rotation. arXiv: 2412.11005

    2024 arXiv

  18. [25]

    and Zhao W

    Li H. and Zhao W. (2024). Asymptotic stability in the critical space of 2D monotone shear flow in the viscous fluid. Comm. Math. Phys., 405(11), 267

    2024

  19. [26]

    and Zhang Z.(2020)

    Li T., Wei D. and Zhang Z.(2020). Pseudospectral bound and transition threshold for the 3D Kolmogorov flow. Comm. Pure Appl. Math., 73, 465-557

    2020

  20. [27]

    Liss K. (2020). On the Sobolev stability threshold of 3D Couette flow in a uniform magnetic field. Comm. Math. Phys., 377(2), 859-908. 40 SHIKUN CUI, LILI W ANG, AND WENDONG W ANG

    2020

  21. [28]

    Majda A. (2003). Introduction to PDEs and Waves for the Atmosphere and Ocean (Vol. 9). American Mathematical Soc

    2003

  22. [29]

    and Zhao W

    Masmoudi N., Said-Houari B. and Zhao W. (2022). Stability of the Couette flow for a 2D Boussinesq system without thermal diffusivity. Arch. Rational Mech. Anal., 245(2), 645-752

    2022

  23. [30]

    and Zhao W

    Masmoudi N. and Zhao W. (2022). Stability threshold of the 2D Couette flow in Sobolev spaces. Ann. Inst. H. Poincare C Anal. Non Lineaire., 39, 245-325

    2022

  24. [31]

    and Zhao W

    Niu B. and Zhao W. (2024). Improved stability threshold of the two-dimensional Couette flow for Navier-Stokes-Boussinesq systems via quasi-linearization. arXiv: 2409.16216

    2024 arXiv

  25. [32]

    Pedlosky J. (1987). Geophysical Fluid Dynamics, Springer, New York

    1987

  26. [33]

    and Zi R

    Rao Y., Zhang Z. and Zi R. (2025). Stability threshold of Couette flow for the 3D MHD equations. J. Funct. Anal., 288(5), 110796

    2025

  27. [34]

    Wang G. (2024). Enhanced dissipation and stability of Poiseuille flow for two-dimensional Boussinesq system. arXiv: 2405.11787

    2024 arXiv

  28. [36]

    and Zhang Z

    Wei D. and Zhang Z. (2023). Nonlinear enhanced dissipation and inviscid damping for the 2-D Couette flow. Tunis. J. Math., 5, 573-592

    2023

  29. [37]

    and Zhao W

    Wei D., Zhang Z. and Zhao W. (2020). Linear inviscid damping and enhanced dissipation for the Kolmogorov flow. Adv. Math., 362, 106963

    2020

  30. [38]

    and Zi R

    Zeng L., Zhang Z. and Zi R. (2022). Linear stability of the Couette flow in the 3D isentropic compressible Navier-Stokes equations. SIAM J. Math. Anal., 54(5), 5698-5741

    2022

  31. [39]

    and Zhao W

    Zhai C. and Zhao W. (2023). Stability threshold of the Couette flow for Navier–stokes Boussi- nesq system with large Richardson number γ2 > 1

    2023

  32. [40]

    SIAM J. Math. Anal., 55(2), 1284-1318

  33. [41]

    and Zi R

    Zhang Z. and Zi R. (2023). Stability threshold of Couette flow for 2D Boussinesq equations in Sobolev spaces. J. Math. Pures Appl., 179, 123-182

    2023

  34. [42]

    Zotto A. Del. (2023). Enhanced dissipation and transition threshold for the Poiseuille flow in a periodic strip. SIAM J. Math. Anal., 55, 4410-4424. (Shikun Cui) School of Mathematical Sciences, Dalian University of Technology, Dalian, 116024, China Email address : cskmath@163...

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.