Relaxed uniqueness conditions for the parabolic Schrodinger equation on Riemannian manifolds

Fabio Punzo

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 31 references

Relaxed uniqueness conditions for the parabolic Schrodinger equation on Riemannian manifolds

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A growing potential in the parabolic Schrödinger equation relaxes the integral condition that forces the zero solution, by replacing the usual heat-equation weight with the decay of a positive stationary solution.

desk verdict The relaxed-uniqueness idea is clean and the explicit examples are solid, but the sharpest theorem depends on an unproved manifold version of Agmon's comparison and on an 'in preparation' reference. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.24368 v1 pith:6HHCKKI4 submitted 2025-05-30 math.AP

Fabio Punzo This is my paper

classification math.AP MSC 35K1535J1035A0235A0158J0558J35

keywords SchrödingerequationparabolicCauchyproblemuniquenessRiemannianmanifoldsweightedheatsub–supersolutionswithapoleexponentialdecay

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 establishes that, for the parabolic Schrödinger equation $u_t - \Delta u + V u = 0$ on a complete noncompact Riemannian manifold, the presence of a suitable potential $V$ genuinely widens the uniqueness class for the zero-initial-value Cauchy problem. Where the heat-equation theory asks for $\int_0^T\int_M |u|^p e^{-h(r)}\,d\nu\,dt < \infty$, the paper shows it suffices to have $\int_0^T\int_M |u|^p e^{-h(r)} \varphi^{2-p}\,d\nu\,dt < \infty$, with $\varphi$ a positive solution of the stationary equation $\Delta\varphi - V\varphi = 0$. For potentials growing like $c_0 r^\alpha$, the constructed decay $\varphi \sim \exp\{-a_0 r^{\alpha/2+1}\}$ makes the new condition strictly weaker than the potential-free one, so solutions that would escape the heat-equation condition are still forced to vanish. The proof works by the gauge change $w = u/\varphi$, which turns the Schrödinger equation into a weighted heat equation for the measure $\varphi^2\,d\nu$.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing identity is the gauge transform $w = u/\varphi$: whenever $\varphi$ is a positive classical solution of $\Delta\varphi - V\varphi = 0$ and $d\mu = \varphi^2\,d\nu$, a solution of the parabolic Schrödinger equation becomes a solution of the weighted heat equation $w_t - \Delta_\mu w = 0$ with $\Delta_\mu w = \Delta w + 2\langle \nabla\varphi/\varphi, \nabla w\rangle$. If $\varphi$ is only a positive weak supersolution, nonnegative subsolutions become weak subsolutions of the same weighted problem. The second ingredient is the explicit radial supersolution $z(r) = \exp\{-a_0 r^{\alpha/2+1}\}$ for $V \ge c_0 r^\alpha$; the choice $a_0 = 2\sqrt{c_0}/(\alpha+2)$ makes the leading term of $\Delta z - Vz$ nonpositive, and a comparison bound on exponential decay, quoted from the literature, transfers this decay to the actual solution.

What would settle it

On a model manifold with radial Laplacian coefficient $m(r) \ge 0$ and potential $V = c_0 r^\alpha$, compute the decaying radial solution $\varphi$ of $\varphi'' + m(r)\varphi' - c_0 r^\alpha \varphi = 0$ and test whether $\varphi(r)/\exp\{-a_0 r^{\alpha/2+1}\}$ stays bounded; if it is unbounded for some admissible $m$, Proposition 6.5 and the relaxed uniqueness condition fail.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that uniqueness for problem (1.1) can be read off from the stationary equation rather than from the geometry alone. If $\Lambda_1 = \inf \sigma(-\Delta + V) \ge 0$ and $\varphi > 0$ solves $\Delta\varphi - V\varphi = 0$, then any solution $u$ satisfying (1.8) is identically zero; if only a positive weak supersolution $\xi$ is available, the same conclusion holds for nonnegative subsolutions under (3.4). For potentials with $V \ge c_0 r^\alpha$ outside a ball and with $\Lambda_1 = 0$, Proposition 6.5 produces a positive $L^2$ solution $\varphi$ obeying $\varphi \le C\exp\{-a_0 r^{\alpha/2+1}\}$, so condition (3.9) follows; the same rate is obtained when $V \ge -\lambda_1$ via a locally Lipschitz weak supersolution, yielding uniqueness of nonnegative subsolutions. The paper presents examples on $\mathbb{R}^n$, on model manifolds, and on hyperbolic space where the relaxed condition is verified.

Load-bearing premise

The argument's load-bearing premise is that the comparison bound on exponential decay of positive Schrödinger solutions, proved in Euclidean space, can be transplanted to every complete manifold with a pole satisfying $m \ge 0$ without new hypotheses; the paper states this transfer rather than proving it.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Every solution satisfying the relaxed condition (1.8), or the explicit condition (3.9), is identically zero, so at most one solution of the inhomogeneous Cauchy problem (3.3) can meet the same condition.
For potentials with $V \ge c_0 r^\alpha$ and $\Lambda_1 = 0$, uniqueness is obtained under a weight with the extra factor $\exp\{-a_0(2-p)r^{\alpha/2+1}\}$; when $\alpha > 2$ this is a strictly weaker hypothesis than the classical heat-equation condition (1.4).
The same gauge transformation yields uniqueness of nonnegative subsolutions when only a locally Lipschitz weak supersolution of the stationary equation is available, as in Theorem 3.8.
In the explicit examples, initial data growing like $\exp\{K|x|^b\}$ with $b > 2$ and $K$ below the stationary decay rate still admit a unique solution, so the relaxed condition is genuinely usable.

Reading between the lines

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

Inference: the natural general weight suggested by the proof is $\exp\{-a(2-p)\rho(x)\}$ with $\rho$ the Agmon distance of $-\Delta + V$; the paper only realizes the radial rate $r^{\alpha/2+1}$.
Inference: the borderline case $\alpha = 2$ is not treated; the method suggests only polynomial or logarithmic corrections there, and it would be informative to test whether uniqueness still holds with a weight $e^{-h}\,r^{-\beta}$.
Inference: making the Euclidean-to-manifold transfer of the comparison bound explicit under curvature or volume-growth hypotheses would extend Theorem 3.6 beyond the class of manifolds with a pole and $m \ge 0$.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

I'll get straight to it. The core idea is new: replace the usual weighted integrability condition in the parabolic Schrödinger uniqueness theorem with one that also includes the decay of a positive stationary solution φ, i.e. use φ^{2-p} as an extra weight. For potentials growing like r^α, with φ ~ exp(-a r^{α/2+1}), the condition genuinely weakens when α>2. The gauge transform u=φw is standard, so Theorem 3.1 is a corollary of known weighted heat uniqueness. The real work is in Section 6 and the examples: explicit supersolutions, decay estimates, and cases where the relaxation does and does not occur. Example 7.1 is particularly nice: it gives an explicit sign-changing V with φ=e^{-a r^b}, proves uniqueness under the relaxed condition, and even shows existence of a solution with exponentially growing initial data.

Soft spots: Proposition 4.2's written proof has a coefficient error. The weak supersolution inequality is multiplied by φ, but (4.5) omits the φ^{-1} factors that should appear in the dµ conversion. The fix is straightforward, but as written the proof is not correct. More importantly, Theorem 3.6's sharp relaxation rests on Proposition 6.5, which invokes Agmon's comparison bound [4, Corollary 2.8] on R^n and asserts, in Remark 6.4, that it 'with the same proof' holds on a manifold with a pole and m≥0. No proof or precise hypotheses are provided. This is a load-bearing step: without it, you only have the supersolution z, which gives Theorem 3.8 for nonnegative subsolutions, not the general solution case of Theorem 3.6. The third soft spot is the central weighted heat uniqueness theorem, credited to [20], which is in preparation.

Overall, the framework is coherent and the examples are instructive. These are gaps that can be fixed, not signs the idea is wrong. But the current manuscript is not fully verified.

Recommendation: send it to a serious referee. The referees should be asked to prove the manifold version of the Agmon comparison (or give explicit counterexamples), correct the Prop 4.2 calculation, and either complete or replace the [20] reliance. If those come through, the paper is a real contribution.

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper studies uniqueness for the Cauchy problem associated with the parabolic Schrödinger equation on complete noncompact Riemannian manifolds, under integral conditions on the solution. The main mechanism is a change of variable w = u/φ, where φ is a positive solution of the stationary Schrödinger equation Δφ - Vφ = 0; this transforms solutions of the parabolic problem into solutions of a weighted heat equation, reducing uniqueness to known or cited weighted-heat uniqueness theorems. The paper's central claim is that the standard uniqueness condition ∫∫|u|^p e^{-h} dν < ∞ can be relaxed to ∫∫|u|^p e^{-h} φ^{2-p} dν < ∞, and that for potentials V(x) ≥ c0 r^α on manifolds with a pole and m(r,θ) ≥ 0, the decay of φ can be quantified as φ ≤ C exp{-a0 r^{α/2+1}}, yielding the concrete relaxed condition (3.9). The paper also establishes a version for nonnegative subsolutions using only weak supersolutions of the stationary equation, and it gives several explicit examples, including a sign-changing potential on R^n and model manifolds.

Significance. If the main theorem is correct, the paper makes a genuine contribution: it shows that the potential can enlarge the uniqueness class for the parabolic Schrödinger equation, with an explicit rate a0 = 2√c0/(α+2) entering the relaxed integrability condition. The reduction of the parabolic problem to a weighted heat equation via a positive solution of the stationary equation is clean, and the explicit computations in Sections 6 and 7 give verifiable estimates with no fitted parameters. The paper is also honest about the limitations of the supersolution method in Remark 6.8. However, the sharpest result for general solutions, Theorem 3.6, depends on an unproved manifold transfer of an Agmon comparison bound, and the main weighted-heat uniqueness theorem for 1 < p < 2 is deferred to a paper 'in preparation'. These dependencies make the central claim not yet fully verifiable in the present manuscript.

major comments (2)

[§6.1, Remark 6.4 and Proposition 6.5] The proof of Theorem 3.6 rests entirely on the assertion in Remark 6.4 that the Agmon comparison bound [4, Corollary 2.8], proved in R^n, 'with the same proof also holds in M'. This transfer is load-bearing: Proposition 6.5 uses it to conclude that the L2 ground state φ of (1.7) satisfies φ ≤ C exp{-a0 r^{α/2+1}} on M∖B_R, which is what converts the supersolution of Proposition 6.3 into the relaxed condition (3.9). No hypotheses from [4, Corollary 2.8] are stated, and no manifold version is proved. Because Agmon's comparison argument may depend on Euclidean structure, the claim 'with the same proof' is not verifiable as written. Please either prove the manifold version under explicit geometric hypotheses, or state precisely which conditions on (M,g) and V are needed, or restrict Theorem 3.6 to the class where the comparison can actually be established.
[§5, Theorem 5.1] The main engine for all results is the weighted-heat uniqueness theorem, but for 1 < p < 2 it is attributed to [20], which is 'in preparation', and Theorem 5.2 is said to follow by 'minor changes' without proof. Since Theorem 3.1 and Theorem 3.3 reduce directly to these statements, the paper's central uniqueness claims are not self-contained. The authors should either state and prove the needed weighted-heat uniqueness results, or provide a precise statement of the result in [20] with all hypotheses and a reference that is publicly available, so that the reduction in Section 5 is verifiable.

minor comments (6)

[§2, equations (2.1)–(2.2)] The equation numbering is inconsistent: the Green identity is numbered (2.1) after an equation already numbered (2.2), and the weighted Laplacian is also numbered (2.2). Please renumber.
[§5, Theorems 5.1 and 5.2] In Theorem 5.1 the solution is called w, but condition (5.1) and the conclusion use u; the same issue appears in Theorem 5.2. Please correct the notation so that the integrability condition and the conclusion refer to the same function.
[Example 7.1(b)] In Example 7.1(b), the supersolution is defined as u(x,t) = exp{A(1-Qt)|x|^b}, but a few lines later θ(x,t) is set to A(1+Qt)r^b, and the computation of θ_t uses the sign AQ r^b instead of -AQ r^b. This inconsistency should be fixed; the supersolution construction may still work with the correct sign, but as written the computation is not correct.
[Example 7.2] In the discussion of the case γ = b, the line 'V(r) → sgn(ab − (n−1)αγ)∞' is ambiguous; please state explicitly the sign of the leading coefficient and the resulting limit.
[Example 7.5] The extension of φ(x)=|x|^β_- from |x|>1 to all of R^n is described only as 'using a cutoff or mollification'; since β_- is negative, the extension near the origin must be made carefully to keep φ positive and C^2, and the resulting V must still be C^1. Please provide sufficient detail.
[Corollary 3.2 and Remark 3.7] There is a typo in 'corollariy' in Corollary 3.2. In Remark 3.7, the compact-resolvent implication is cited to [28, Theorem XIII.16], which is stated for R^n; a sentence justifying the manifold version would be helpful, as the same 'exactly the same holds on M' transfer appears here as in Remark 6.4.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the relaxation mechanism is a genuine gauge transform plus explicit supersolution construction, with the main caveats being unproved transfers of external results rather than self-referential reductions.

full rationale

Walking the derivation chain, Theorem 3.1 is a direct gauge transform: writing w = u/φ converts (1.1) into the weighted heat equation (1.5), and condition (1.8) is algebraically identical to the weighted integrability condition (5.1). Uniqueness of w is then referred to an external weighted-heat theorem (Theorem 5.1, attributed to [20], [13], and [27]), not to the theorem being proved. Theorems 3.6 and 3.8 add an explicit supersolution z (Proposition 6.3), whose exponent a0 is forced by the elementary inequality a²γ² ≤ c0 with γ = α/2 + 1; no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The most load-bearing imported step is Remark 6.4 / Proposition 6.5, which transfers Agmon's comparison bound [4, Corollary 2.8] from R^n to a manifold with a pole and m ≥ 0 by asserting that the proof is the same; this is an unproved external transfer and a soundness/reproducibility gap, but it is not circular because it does not assume the target uniqueness conclusion. Similarly, Theorem 5.1 for p ≠ 2 rests on an "in preparation" reference [20], which is a verifiability concern rather than a self-referential reduction. The Examples in Section 7 construct explicit positive solutions φ and check the resulting integral conditions directly, so the paper does not hide its input in its output. Overall, no equation is defined in terms of the target result, no fitted input is called a prediction, and the central claim has independent mathematical content; the score reflects only the minor self-citation of [27] and the unresolved external dependencies [20] and [4, Cor. 2.8] transferred without proof.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no fitted constants and no invented entities. Its free parameters are limited to constants determined by the assumptions, e.g., a0 from c0 and α. The main external imports are the weighted-heat uniqueness theorem and Agmon's comparison theorem, both cited from the literature; the former is partly unpublished, and the latter is asserted to extend to manifolds without proof.

free parameters (1)

a0 = 2√c0/(α+2) = 2√c0/(α+2)
Coefficient in the supersolution z = exp(-a0 r^{α/2+1}) of Proposition 6.3. It is not fitted to data; it is the exact coefficient that makes inequality (6.2) hold at equality when γ = α/2 + 1. It is fully determined by the assumed growth constants c0 and α of the potential, so it carries no independent freedom.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Weighted heat equation uniqueness (Theorem 5.1): if w solves (1.5) and satisfies (5.1), then w≡0
Central to the proof of Theorem 3.1; taken from [20] (in preparation), [13, Theorem 11.9] and [27, Theorem 2.2]. This is an external result not proven in the paper.
standard math Λ1≥0 iff there exists a positive solution of (1.7) (Proposition 6.1)
Cited to [2, Theorem 3.1, Remark 3.2] and [4, Theorem 2.6]; used to justify the existence of φ in Theorems 3.1 and 3.6.
domain assumption Agmon comparison [4, Corollary 2.8] holds on Riemannian manifolds with a pole and m≥0, giving φ≤Cz for an L2 solution φ and a supersolution z
Asserted to hold 'with the same proof' on M, but no proof or precise hypotheses are given; this transfer is load-bearing for Proposition 6.5 and Theorem 3.6.
standard math The operator -Δ+V with V(x)→∞ has compact resolvent and discrete spectrum with eigenvalues tending to +∞
Cited to [28, Theorem XIII.16]; standard spectral theory for Schrödinger operators with confining potentials, used in Proposition 6.5.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Relaxed uniqueness conditions for the parabolic Schrodinger equation on Riemannian manifolds." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6HHCKKI4

@misc{pith2026250524368,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Relaxed uniqueness conditions for the parabolic Schrodinger equation on Riemannian manifolds},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6HHCKKI4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.24368}
}

read the original abstract

We study uniqueness for solutions to the Cauchy problem associated with the parabolic Schr\"odinger equation on complete noncompact Riemannian manifolds, under suitable integral conditions on the solution. We show that, under suitable assumptions on the potential V, the required integrability condition can be significantly relaxed compared to the case without potential. This improvement is achieved by exploiting the decay of positive solutions to the associated stationary Schrodinger equation. To the best of our knowledge, identifying how the behavior of the potential influences the uniqueness integral condition, through the decay properties of solutions to the corresponding stationary equation, constitutes a novel contribution to the theory.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

[20]

Meglioli, A

G. Meglioli, A. Roncoroni, in preparation (2025)

work page 2025
[1]

S. Agmon, Lectures on Exponential Decay of Solutions of Second-Order Elliptic Equa- tions: Bounds on Eigenfunctions of N-body Schr¨ odinger Operators, Mathematical Notes, 29, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1982

work page 1982
[2]

S. Agmon, On positivity and decay of solutions of second order elliptic equations on Rie- mannian manifolds , in ”Methods of Functional Analysis and Theory of Elliptic Equa- tions” (Naples, 1982), 19–52, Liguori, Naples, 1983

work page 1982
[3]

S. Agmon, On positive solutions of elliptic equations with periodic coefficients in Rd, spectral results and extensions to elliptic operators on Riemannian manifolds , in ”Dif- ferential Equations” (Birmingham, 1983), 7–17, NorthHolland Math. Stud. 92, North- Holland, Amsterdam, 1984

work page 1983
[4]

Agmon, Bounds on exponential decay of eigenfunctions of Schr¨ odinger operators, in ”Schr¨ odinger Operators” (Como, 1984), 1–38, Lecture Notes in Math

S. Agmon, Bounds on exponential decay of eigenfunctions of Schr¨ odinger operators, in ”Schr¨ odinger Operators” (Como, 1984), 1–38, Lecture Notes in Math. 1159, Springer, Berlin, 1985

work page 1984
[5]

Aronson, P

D.G. Aronson, P. Besala, Uniqueness of solutions to the Cauchy problem for parabolic equations, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 13 (1966), 516–526

work page 1966
[6]

S. D. Eidelman, S. Kamin, F. Porper, Uniqueness of solutions of the Cauchy problem for parabolic equations degenerating at infinity , Asympt. Anal. 22 (2000), 349–358

work page 2000
[7]

Gaffney, The conservation property of the heat equation on Riemannian manifolds , Comm

M.P. Gaffney, The conservation property of the heat equation on Riemannian manifolds , Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 12 (1959), 1–11

work page 1959

Show all 31 references

[8]

Graves–McCleary, L

A. Graves–McCleary, L. Saloff–Coste, Heat Kernel Estimates for Schr¨ odinger Operators with Decay at Infinity on Parabolic Manifolds , preprint (2025) arXiv:2501.04221

2025 arXiv
[9]

Grigor’yan, On stochastically complete manifolds , Dokl

A. Grigor’yan, On stochastically complete manifolds , Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR 290 (1986), 534–537; Engl. transl. Sov. Math. Dokl. 34 (1987), 310–313

1986
[10]

Grigor’yan Bounded solution for the Schr¨ odinger equation on noncompact Rieman- nian manifolds , J

A. Grigor’yan Bounded solution for the Schr¨ odinger equation on noncompact Rieman- nian manifolds , J. Soviet Math. 51 (1990), 2340–2349

1990
[11]

Grigor’yan, Analytic and geometric background of recurrence and non-explosion of the Brownian motion on Riemannian manifolds , Bull

A. Grigor’yan, Analytic and geometric background of recurrence and non-explosion of the Brownian motion on Riemannian manifolds , Bull. Am. Math. Soc. 36 (1999), 134–249. 20

1999
[12]

Grigor’yan, Heat kernels on weighted manifolds and applications, Cont

A. Grigor’yan, Heat kernels on weighted manifolds and applications, Cont. Math. 398 (2006), 93–191

2006
[13]

Grigor’yan, ”Heat Kernel and Analysis on Manifolds”, AMS/IP Studies in Advanced Mathematics, 47

A. Grigor’yan, ”Heat Kernel and Analysis on Manifolds”, AMS/IP Studies in Advanced Mathematics, 47. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI; International Press, Boston, MA, 2009

2009
[14]

Y. Hou, Y. Pinchover, A. Rasila, Positive solutions of the A-Laplace equation with a potential, Potential Anal. 60 (2024), 721–758

2024
[15]

Hsu, Heat semigroup on a complete Riemannian manifold, Ann

E.P. Hsu, Heat semigroup on a complete Riemannian manifold, Ann. Probab. 17 (1989), 1248–1254

1989
[16]

Ichihara, Curvature, geodesics and the Brownian motion on a Riemannian manifold

K. Ichihara, Curvature, geodesics and the Brownian motion on a Riemannian manifold. II. Explosion properties , Nagoya Math. J. 87 (1982), 115–125

1982
[17]

Ishige, M

K. Ishige, M. Murata, Uniqueness of nonnegative solutions of the Cauchy problem for parabolic equations on manifolds or domains , ASNS di Pisa 30 (2001), 171–223,

2001
[18]

Kamin, F

S. Kamin, F. Punzo, Prescribed conditions at infinity for parabolic equations , Comm. Cont. Math. 17 (2015), 1–19

2015
[19]

Li, Uniqueness of L1-solutions for the Laplace equation and the heat equation on Riemannian manifolds, J

P. Li, Uniqueness of L1-solutions for the Laplace equation and the heat equation on Riemannian manifolds, J. Differential Geom. 20 (1984), 447–457

1984
[21]

Murata, Heat escape, Math

M. Murata, Heat escape, Math. Ann. 327 (2003), 203–226

2003
[22]

Murata, Nonnegative solutions of the heat equation on rotationally symmetric Rie- mannian manifolds and semismall perturbations, Rev

M. Murata, Nonnegative solutions of the heat equation on rotationally symmetric Rie- mannian manifolds and semismall perturbations, Rev. Mat. Iberoam. 27 (2011), 885– 907

2011
[23]

Pinchover, On positive solutions of second-order elliptic equations, stability results, and classification, Duke Math

Y. Pinchover, On positive solutions of second-order elliptic equations, stability results, and classification, Duke Math. J. 57 (1988), 955–980

1988
[24]

Pinchover, On criticality and ground states of second order elliptic equations, II , J

Y. Pinchover, On criticality and ground states of second order elliptic equations, II , J. Diff. Eq.. 87 (1990), 353–364

1990
[25]

Pozio, F

M.A. Pozio, F. Punzo, A. Tesei, Criteria for well-posedness of degenerate elliptic and parabolic problems, J. Math. Pures Appl. 90 (2008), 353–386

2008
[26]

Pozio, F

M.A. Pozio, F. Punzo, A. Tesei, Uniqueness and nonuniqueness of solutions to parabolic problems with singular coefficients , DCDS-A 30 (2011), 891–916

2011
[27]

Punzo, Uniqueness for the heat equation in Riemannian manifolds , J

F. Punzo, Uniqueness for the heat equation in Riemannian manifolds , J. Math. Anal. Appl. 424 (2015), 402–422

2015
[28]

M. Reed, B. Simon, ”Methods of Modern Mathematical Physics. IV: Analysis of Oper- ators”, Academic Press, New York, 1978

1978
[29]

Smirnova, The Cauchy problem for degenerate at infinity parabolic equations, Math

G.N. Smirnova, The Cauchy problem for degenerate at infinity parabolic equations, Math. Sb. 70 (1966), 591–604 (in Russian)

1966
[30]

Sonin, On uniqueness classes for degenerating parabolic equations , Math

I.M. Sonin, On uniqueness classes for degenerating parabolic equations , Math. USSR, Sbornik 14 (1971), 453–469

1971
[31]

Yau, Some function-theoretic properties of complete Riemannian manifolds and their applications to geometry , Indiana Univ

T.S. Yau, Some function-theoretic properties of complete Riemannian manifolds and their applications to geometry , Indiana Univ. Math. J. 25 (1976) 659–670. 21

1976

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [20]

Meglioli, A

G. Meglioli, A. Roncoroni, in preparation (2025)

work page 2025

[2] [1]

S. Agmon, Lectures on Exponential Decay of Solutions of Second-Order Elliptic Equa- tions: Bounds on Eigenfunctions of N-body Schr¨ odinger Operators, Mathematical Notes, 29, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1982

work page 1982

[3] [2]

S. Agmon, On positivity and decay of solutions of second order elliptic equations on Rie- mannian manifolds , in ”Methods of Functional Analysis and Theory of Elliptic Equa- tions” (Naples, 1982), 19–52, Liguori, Naples, 1983

work page 1982

[4] [3]

S. Agmon, On positive solutions of elliptic equations with periodic coefficients in Rd, spectral results and extensions to elliptic operators on Riemannian manifolds , in ”Dif- ferential Equations” (Birmingham, 1983), 7–17, NorthHolland Math. Stud. 92, North- Holland, Amsterdam, 1984

work page 1983

[5] [4]

Agmon, Bounds on exponential decay of eigenfunctions of Schr¨ odinger operators, in ”Schr¨ odinger Operators” (Como, 1984), 1–38, Lecture Notes in Math

S. Agmon, Bounds on exponential decay of eigenfunctions of Schr¨ odinger operators, in ”Schr¨ odinger Operators” (Como, 1984), 1–38, Lecture Notes in Math. 1159, Springer, Berlin, 1985

work page 1984

[6] [5]

Aronson, P

D.G. Aronson, P. Besala, Uniqueness of solutions to the Cauchy problem for parabolic equations, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 13 (1966), 516–526

work page 1966

[7] [6]

S. D. Eidelman, S. Kamin, F. Porper, Uniqueness of solutions of the Cauchy problem for parabolic equations degenerating at infinity , Asympt. Anal. 22 (2000), 349–358

work page 2000

[8] [7]

Gaffney, The conservation property of the heat equation on Riemannian manifolds , Comm

M.P. Gaffney, The conservation property of the heat equation on Riemannian manifolds , Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 12 (1959), 1–11

work page 1959