Inverse scattering for the nonlinear magnetic Schrodinger equation

Hua Huang; Lei Wei

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 25 references

Inverse scattering for the nonlinear magnetic Schrodinger equation

T0 review · 4 major / 5 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 The scattering operator of the nonlinear magnetic Schrödinger equation, through the small-amplitude limit of its action on incoming waves, uniquely determines the magnetic potential (and, under stronger assumptions, the electric potential…

desk verdict Weder adaptation is honest but the unconditional theorem fails: Section 3 proves n=1 while claiming n≥2 and uses a negative exponent r. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.01246 v1 pith:I7U4VWY2 submitted 2025-06-02 math.AP

Lei Wei , Hua Huang This is my paper

classification math.AP MSC 81U4035Q6035Q55

keywords inversescatteringmagneticpotentialnonlinearSchrödingerequationoperatoruniquenessRadontransformhigh-velocitylimitdispersiveestimate

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 is an inverse-scattering uniqueness result: it claims that the scattering operator of the nonlinear magnetic Schrödinger equation, which sends small incoming waves to their outgoing asymptotics after interacting with magnetic and electric potentials, determines those potentials uniquely. The central mechanism is a small-amplitude identity: for V=0, the normalized limit (1/ε)(S_A(εφ),ψ) as ε↓0 equals the linear scattering operator S_L of the magnetic Schrödinger operator, and from S_L the magnetic potential A is recovered by taking high-velocity scattering states and inverting a Radon transform. Under a second set of assumptions, the same small-amplitude identity yields both A and the electric potential V. The paper's first route is conditional on a dispersive estimate that its own Remark 1.1 calls an open problem; the second route substitutes a decay estimate from the authors' earlier work. If the claims are correct, the full nonlinear scattering map carries all the information needed to reconstruct the potentials.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the nonlinear scattering operator S_A (or S), the map from incoming asymptotic states φ_- to outgoing states φ_+ for solutions of (i∂t+H+V)u=|u|^{p-1}u, defined on a small ball in $H^{1}$. The main identity is (1.13): the small-amplitude limit lim_{ε↓0}(1/ε)(S_A(εφ),ψ) equals the linear scattering operator S_L=W_+^*W_- of the magnetic Schrödinger operator; this is what converts the nonlinear problem into a linear one. The second device is the family of high-velocity scattering states φ_ξ=$e^{{imξ·x}}$φ_0, which in the limit |ξ|→∞ turns S_L into the Radon transform of the matrix elements of the magnetic potential, via formula (2.19). Inverting that transform reconstructs A (and, by the same route, V).

What would settle it

The cleanest falsifier is a pair of exponentially decaying magnetic potentials, not gauge-equivalent, whose nonlinear scattering operators coincide on a neighborhood of zero in $H^{1}$; short of that, a concrete calculation is to test the dispersive estimate (1.2) numerically for a smooth exponentially decaying potential in n=3, since decay slower than |t|^{-3/2} would remove the standing hypothesis of Theorem 1.3 and Corollary 1.4.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the nonlinear scattering map is informationally complete for the potentials. Theorem 1.3 shows that for n≥3, if the magnetic Schrödinger operator obeys the decay estimate (1.2) and A decays exponentially, then for all φ,ψ∈$H^{1}$, lim_{ε↓0} (1/ε)(S_A(εφ),ψ) = (S_L φ,ψ), where S_A is the scattering operator of (i∂t+H)u=|u|^{p-1}u and S_L is the linear scattering operator of the magnetic operator H. Corollary 1.4 concludes from this that S_A determines A(x) uniquely. Theorem 1.5 proves the analogous small-amplitude identity in the weighted space Σ for n≥2, under assumption (III) on A and V, and Corollary 1.6 concludes that the scattering operator S determines both A(x) and V(x) uniquely. The proof recovers S_L first, then uses high-velocity scattering states to read off a Radon transform of A (and V), which is inverted to get the potentials pointwise.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is the assumed dispersive decay of the magnetic Schrödinger semigroup: Theorem 1.3 and Corollary 1.4 depend on the open estimate (1.2), and Theorem 1.5 depends on the estimate (3.1) taken from the authors' earlier paper without restating its conditions; if either decay estimate fails, the nonlinear scattering operator need not exist and the uniqueness conclusion has no basis.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Two exponentially decaying magnetic potentials that produce the same nonlinear scattering operator on a neighborhood of zero in H^1 must be the same potential, under the hypotheses of Theorem 1.3.
With the stronger assumptions (III), the nonlinear scattering operator determines both the magnetic and the electric potential simultaneously, per Corollary 1.6.
The small-amplitude limit recovers the linear scattering operator S_L exactly, so the nonlinear scattering data contain all the information of the linear scattering data in the ε→0 limit.
The high-velocity scattering states give a constructive inverse: the Radon transform of the matrix elements of A is read off from (2.19) and inverted pointwise.

Reading between the lines

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

A direct consequence the authors do not spell out: any future uniqueness theorem for the linear magnetic Schrödinger scattering operator immediately transfers to the nonlinear equation through identity (1.13), so progress on the linear side upgrades Corollary 1.4.
The conditional nature of the first route suggests a natural test: establish or disprove the dispersive estimate (1.2) for a concrete class of magnetic potentials; a counterexample would not refute the uniqueness claim as a statement about the world, but would force all of Theorem 1.3's conclusions to fall back on Theorem 1.5's hypotheses.
Formula (2.19) is effectively a Radon transform of A, so a numerical implementation could compute S_A(εφ) for small ε, extrapolate to ε=0 to approximate S_L, and then apply filtered back-projection; the paper gives no numerical demonstration, but the structure invites it.
The paper leaves the V-term in the Radon-transform reconstruction implicit; making it explicit would let readers verify the simultaneous recovery of A and V in Corollary 1.6.

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

Your take is right: this is an extension of Weder's method to the magnetic case, and that part is legitimate. But the paper does not deliver an unconditional theorem, and the one theorem meant to be unconditional isn't valid as written.

What's actually new: the statement that the nonlinear scattering operator determines the magnetic potential, plus the two-step plan (recover SL by small-amplitude limit, then apply PSU). That's a natural, honestly-motivated program, and nobody seems to have written it down. Theorem 1.3's derivation of (1.13) is standard and probably works if you grant Assumption (I). The problem is Assumption (I) — the L1→L∞ decay for the magnetic Schrödinger operator — is an open problem, as Remark 1.1 says. So Corollary 1.4 is conditional on an unproven estimate.

Theorem 1.5 is supposed to remove that condition, and it fails. Section 3 starts by setting n=1 while the theorem claims n≥2. The exponent r=(p−1)/(1−n) is negative for n≥2, so the L^r norms and the factors 1/r, 1/(r−p) in the contraction argument are undefined. The decay estimate (3.1) is imported from the authors' own [25] without conditions, and Assumption (III) is not shown to imply it. Corollary 1.6 then leans on the high-velocity formula (2.19), which is asserted rather than proved. The stress-test note is accurate on every load-bearing point.

Minor issues: the W^{k,p} definition is garbled, and refs [17] and [18] look like duplicates of the same Strauss paper. These are cosmetic next to the dimensional/negative-exponent failure.

I don't think this deserves referee time in its current form. The conditional theorem is a legitimate but modest extension, and the unconditional branch is not repairable by minor edits. A desk reject with a clear explanation, or a major-revision invitation only if the authors actually prove the n≥2 case, is the right call. I would not cite this, and I wouldn't put it on the reading group table except as an example of how a promising plan can fail at the proof stage.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies the inverse scattering problem for the nonlinear magnetic Schr\"odinger equation (1.1) and claims that the (small-data) scattering operator determines the magnetic potential A, and in the second route also the electric potential V. Two routes are offered. The first, Theorem 1.3 and Corollary 1.4, assumes the dispersive estimate (I) and exponential decay (II), derives the linear scattering operator as a small-amplitude limit of the nonlinear scattering operator, and then invokes a fixed-energy uniqueness result for linear magnetic Schr\"odinger operators. The second, Theorem 1.5 and Corollary 1.6, is intended to be unconditional and uses instead a decay estimate quoted from the authors' earlier paper [25], together with a high-velocity Radon-transform inversion. The main technical work is an adaptation of Weder's small-amplitude/high-velocity method to the magnetic setting.

Significance. If all theorems were correct, the paper would be a useful extension of Weder's nonlinear inverse scattering method to magnetic potentials and would give a parameter-free, principled route from the full nonlinear scattering operator to the magnetic and electric potentials. The paper is also honest: Remark 1.1 states explicitly that assumption (I) is an open problem. There are no fitted parameters and no circular reduction of the conclusion to an input. However, the central claim is not established as written. The unconditional branch, Theorem 1.5/Corollary 1.6, contains a fatal internal inconsistency in the definition of the exponent r and in the stated dimension of the proof, and its replacement decay estimate is imported without restating its hypotheses. The conditional branch, Theorem 1.3/Corollary 1.4, is explicitly contingent on an open dispersive estimate. The abstract and corollaries present the uniqueness conclusion as unconditional, so the significance of the paper is currently prospective rather than realized.

major comments (4)

[Section 3, proof of Theorem 1.5] The proof of Theorem 1.5 is internally invalid for every dimension claimed. The text explicitly says 'we consider Schr\"odinger equation (1.1) with \phi \in \Sigma in n = 1', while Theorem 1.5 states n \geq 2. Moreover, the definition r = (p-1)/(1-n) is undefined when n = 1 and negative for every n \geq 2. The contraction estimates in (3.4), the factor 1/(r-p), and the integral involving |t|^{1+1/(r-p)} after (3.10) are therefore meaningless. Since Corollary 1.6 depends entirely on Theorem 1.5, the only unconditional uniqueness result in the paper is unproved. This is a load-bearing error, not a merely typographical one.
[Remark 1.1 and Section 2] Theorem 1.3 and Corollary 1.4 are conditional on the dispersive estimate (I), which Remark 1.1 explicitly states is an open problem. The estimate (1.2) is used at load-bearing points: it is used to define the Z-space contraction in (2.2)-(2.4), to obtain the bound (2.10), and to justify the energy/continuity arguments (2.12)-(2.14). Without a proof of (I), there is no guarantee that the scattering operator S_A exists, and Corollary 1.4 does not provide an unconditional uniqueness theorem for the magnetic potential. The abstract and the introduction present the uniqueness goal in unconditional terms, so this gap directly affects the paper's central claim.
[Proof of Corollary 1.4, equation (2.19)] The high-velocity formula (2.19), |\xi|(i(S_L-I)\phi_\xi,\psi_\xi) = \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}(A(x+\tau\hat\xi)\phi_0,\psi_0)d\tau + O(|\xi|^{-1}), is asserted without proof. This formula is the bridge from the linear scattering operator to the Radon transform of A and is essential for the reconstruction claim. The paper does not specify the hypotheses on \phi_0,\psi_0, does not derive the remainder estimate, and does not explain how the magnetic term is isolated. Corollary 1.6 then invokes the same formula to recover both A and V, although no analogue for V is stated. The reconstruction step is therefore not verifiable from the manuscript.
[Section 3, estimate (3.1)] The global dispersive bound \|e^{itH}\phi\|_{L^\infty} \leq C|t|^{-n/2}\|\phi\|_\Sigma is quoted from the authors' earlier paper [25] without restating the exact theorem or checking that assumption (III) satisfies its hypotheses. Assumption (III) controls the magnetic field B = curl A and all derivatives of A of order at least one, but it does not assert a bound on A itself; it is not shown to imply the pointwise |t|^{-n/2} decay used in (3.3) and (3.10). Since (3.1) is the replacement for the open assumption (I), this is another load-bearing uncertainty.

minor comments (5)

[Section 2, definition of Z] The space Z is defined as L^r(R,L^{1+p}) \cap L^\infty(R,L^{1+p}) with '(r,1+p) \in \wedge', but the symbol \wedge and the exponent r are never defined. The reader cannot verify the Strichartz-type bound (2.3) or the convergence of the integrals in (2.10) without knowing which admissible pair is intended.
[Notation] The definition of W^{k,p}(R^n) in the Notation section is incorrect as written: it states (1+|\xi|^2)^{s/2}\hat u \in H^k(R^n), which mixes Fourier-variable conditions with an L^2-based Sobolev space. The definition should presumably be a standard Bessel-potential definition of W^{k,p}.
[Section 3, after (3.12)] The sentence 'the functional u \to \int_R |\phi|^{p+1}dx is bounded and uniformly Lipschitz continuous' should use u inside the integral, not \phi, and the domain of integration should be R^n rather than R to match the surrounding spaces.
[Throughout] There are numerous typographical and grammatical errors, including 'applyed', 'establiesd', 'exsit', 'the the magnetic potential', 'f or', and 'with megnetic potentials'. These should be corrected before any resubmission.
[References [17] and [18]] References [17] and [18] are both listed as J. Funct. Anal. 41 (1981) 110-133 but have different titles; please verify the bibliographic data for the sequel paper by Strauss.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circularity found: the derivation is a conditional chain from stated assumptions plus external inverse-scattering results; the self-cited decay estimate (3.1) has unstated hypotheses and the proof of Theorem 1.5 has an n-dependence inconsistency, but the conclusions do not reduce to their inputs by construction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is: (1) assume (I), or import (3.1) from [25], together with (II)/(III), to obtain global well-posedness and a scattering operator; (2) show lim_{epsilon->0} epsilon^{-1}(S_epsilon phi, psi) = (S_L phi, psi) in Theorems 1.3 and 1.5; (3) apply an external inverse-scattering theorem [15] or high-velocity Radon inversion (2.19) to reconstruct A and V. Nothing in this chain defines A or V by the scattering data, and no parameter is fitted to a subset of data and then renamed a prediction. The only overlapping-author citation is [25], used in Section 3: "Applying the decay estimate in our other paper [25], we have \|e^{itH}phi\|_{L^\infty} \le C|t|^{-n/2}\|phi\|_\Sigma," (3.1). This is load-bearing for Theorem 1.5, but it is an external published result rather than a conclusion equal to its hypothesis; the failure to restate [25]'s hypotheses is a missing-support or correctness concern, not circularity. Remark 1.1 explicitly says (I) is open, which makes Theorems 1.2-1.3 and Corollary 1.4 conditional; that is an honest limitation, not a circular step. The proof of Theorem 1.5 has internal inconsistencies: it says "we consider ... in n = 1" while claiming n >= 2, and the exponent r = (p-1)/(1-n) is undefined at n=1 and negative for n>=2, making the subsequent L^r estimates (3.4), (3.10) questionable. Corollary 1.6 also asserts a "similar" reconstruction of both A and V without proof, and identity (2.19) is asserted rather than proved. These are proof-validity gaps, not definitional circularity. Therefore, applying the hard rule that a circularity claim requires a specific equation reducing to itself or a fitted input called a prediction, I find no circular step to list.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No fitted constants or invented entities appear. The central theorems depend on two decay inputs whose status is delicate: assumption (I), admitted open, and the estimate (3.1) imported from the authors' own [25]. The uniqueness step also imports the fixed-energy inverse scattering theorem [15].

assumptions (6)

domain assumption Dispersive estimate (1.2): ||e^{itH}φ||_{L∞} ≤ C|t|^{-n/2}||φ||_{L1} for the magnetic Schrödinger operator H.
Assumption (I), stated in the introduction and admitted in Remark 1.1 to be an open problem. It underpins Theorem 1.2, Theorem 1.3, and Corollary 1.4.
domain assumption Exponential decay of the magnetic potential A, (1.3): A ∈ e^{-γ0⟨x⟩}W^{1,∞}(R^n,R^n).
Assumption (II), used in Theorems 1.2, 1.3 and Corollary 1.4 to ensure scattering and to enter the linear inverse scattering framework.
domain assumption Decay estimate (3.1) from the authors' prior paper [25]: ||e^{itH}φ||_{L∞} ≤ C|t|^{-n/2}||φ||_Σ.
Theorem 1.5 replaces (I) with this estimate, imported from a self-cited reference; its validity hypotheses are not restated in the present paper.
domain assumption Fixed-energy inverse scattering result for the linear magnetic Schrödinger operator (reference [15]).
Corollaries 1.4 and 1.6 conclude uniqueness of A and V from S_L through this external theorem; if it fails, the corollaries fail.
domain assumption Hypothesis (III), including (1.4) and V ≥ m > 0.
Used in Theorem 1.5 for the decay estimate and the boundedness of the energy, and to enter the Σ space of states.
domain assumption Boundedness of the wave operators W± on H^1 and on Σ.
Used in (2.16) and in Section 3 to pass the small-amplitude limit through the scattering operator.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Inverse scattering for the nonlinear magnetic Schrodinger equation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/I7U4VWY2

@misc{pith2026250601246,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Inverse scattering for the nonlinear magnetic Schrodinger equation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/I7U4VWY2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.01246}
}

read the original abstract

In this paper, we focus on the inverse scattering problem for the nonlinear Schrodinger equation with magnetic potentials. Specifically, we investigate whether the scattering operator associated with the nonlinear Schrodinger equation can uniquely determine the magnetic potential. Our main goal is to establish the uniqueness result for the magnetic potential based on the scattering data obtained from the scattering operator.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

25 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages

[25]

Nonlinear Analysis, 217 (2022) 1-23

Wei, L., Duan, Z.: Dispersive decay for the nonlinear magnetic Schr¨ odinger equation. Nonlinear Analysis, 217 (2022) 1-23. 15

work page 2022
[17]

Strauss. W. A.: Nonlinear scattering at low energy[J]. Journal of Functional Analysis, 41(1) (1981) 110-133

work page 1981
[18]

Strauss. W. A.: Nonlinear scattering theory at low energy: Sequel [J]. Journal of Functional Analysis, 41(1) (1981) 110-133

work page 1981
[1]

Agmon, S.: Spectral properties of Schr¨ odinger operators and scattering the- ory. Ann. Sc. Norm. Sup. Pisa Cl. Sci. 2, 151-218 (1975)

work page 1975
[2]

D.: Nonlinear Schr¨ odinger equations with magnetic fields

Bouard, A. D.: Nonlinear Schr¨ odinger equations with magnetic fields. Diff. Int. Eqns. 4, 73-88 (1991)

work page 1991
[3]

J.: Scattering in the Energy space and below for 3D NLS

Bourgain. J.: Scattering in the Energy space and below for 3D NLS. Journal D’Analyse Mathematique 75, 267-297 (1998) 13

work page 1998
[4]

Scattering for Schr¨ odinger operators with mag- netic fields

Demuth M., Ouhabaz E M. Scattering for Schr¨ odinger operators with mag- netic fields. Math. Nachr. 1997, 185, 49-58

work page 1997
[5]

Eskin, J

G. Eskin, J. Ralston, Inverse scattering problem for the Schr¨ odinger equation with magnetic potential at a fixed energy, Comm. Math. Phys., 173 (1995) 199-224

work page 1995

Show all 25 references

[6]

V., Weder

Enss. V., Weder. R.: Uniqueness and reconstruction formulae for the inverse N-particle scattering. Differential Equations and Mathematical Physics, Pro- ceedings of the International Conference, University of Alabama at Birming- ham, March 1994, International Press, Boston, (1...

1995
[7]

V., Weder

Enss. V., Weder. R.: Geometrical approach to inverse scattering, J. Math. Phys. 2 (1995) 3902-3921

1995
[8]

The analysis of linear partial differential operators I-IV

H¨ ormander L. The analysis of linear partial differential operators I-IV. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1983-1985

1983
[9]

Hayashi, Y

N. Hayashi, Y. Tsutsumi, Scattering theory for Hartree type equations, Ann. Inst. H. Poincare Phys. Theor. 46 (1987) 187-213

1987
[10]

Journ, A

J. Journ, A. Soffer, C.D. Sogge, Decay estimates for Schr¨ odinger operators[J]. Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics, 44(5) (1991) 573-604

1991
[11]

Kato, T.: On nonlinear Schr¨ odinger equations. Ann. Inst. Henri Poincar´ e, Physique Th´ eorique46, 113-129 (1987)

1987
[12]

Schr¨ odinger Operators

Kato, T.: Nonlinear Schr¨ odinger equations, in “Schr¨ odinger Operators”. Lec- ture Notes in Phys. 345, 218-263 (1989)

1989
[13]

Funkcialaj Ekvac.44, 1-18 (2001)

Nakamura, Y.: Local solvability and smoothing effects of nonlinear Schr¨ odinger equations with magnetic fields. Funkcialaj Ekvac.44, 1-18 (2001)

2001
[14]

Hokkaido Math

Nakamura, Y., Shimomura, A.: Local well-posedness and smoothing effects of strong solutions for nonlinear Schr¨ odinger equations with potentials and magnetic fields. Hokkaido Math. J. 34, 37-63 (2005)

2005
[15]

P¨ oiv¨ orinta, M

L. P¨ oiv¨ orinta, M. Salo, G. Uhlmann, Inverse scattering for the magnetic Schr¨ odinger operator, J. Funct. Anal., 259 (2010) 1771-1798

2010
[16]

Intertwing wave operators, Fourier restriction, and Wiener theo- rems

Schlag W. Intertwing wave operators, Fourier restriction, and Wiener theo- rems. Appear in Conference Proceedings Kato Centenntial Meeting, Tokyo, 2018 14

2018
[19]

Strauss. W. A.: Nonlinear Wave Equations. CBMS AMS, Providence, 73 (1989)

1989
[20]

Funkcial Ekvac

Tsutsumi, Y.: L2-solutions for nonlinear Schr¨ odinger equations and nonlinear groups. Funkcial Ekvac. 30, 115-125 (1987)

1987
[21]

Nonlinear Anal

Tsutsumi, Y.: Global strong solutions for nonlinear Schr¨ odinger equations. Nonlinear Anal. 11, 1143-1154 (1987)

1987
[22]

Com- munications in Partial Differential Equations, 22(11-12) (1997) 2089-2103

Weder, R.: Inverse scattering for the nonlinear Schr¨ odinger equation[J]. Com- munications in Partial Differential Equations, 22(11-12) (1997) 2089-2103

1997
[23]

Reconstruction of the Potential and the Nonlinearity in the Multidimensional Case[J]

Weder, R.: Inverse Scattering for the Nonlinear Schr¨ odinger Equation II. Reconstruction of the Potential and the Nonlinearity in the Multidimensional Case[J]. Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society, 129(12) (2001) 3637-3645

2001
[24]

Weder, R.: Multidimensional inverse scattering in an electric field, J. Funct. Anal. 139 (1996) 441-465

1996

Pith tools

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

[1] [25]

Nonlinear Analysis, 217 (2022) 1-23

Wei, L., Duan, Z.: Dispersive decay for the nonlinear magnetic Schr¨ odinger equation. Nonlinear Analysis, 217 (2022) 1-23. 15

work page 2022

[2] [17]

Strauss. W. A.: Nonlinear scattering at low energy[J]. Journal of Functional Analysis, 41(1) (1981) 110-133

work page 1981

[3] [18]

Strauss. W. A.: Nonlinear scattering theory at low energy: Sequel [J]. Journal of Functional Analysis, 41(1) (1981) 110-133

work page 1981

[4] [1]

Agmon, S.: Spectral properties of Schr¨ odinger operators and scattering the- ory. Ann. Sc. Norm. Sup. Pisa Cl. Sci. 2, 151-218 (1975)

work page 1975

[5] [2]

D.: Nonlinear Schr¨ odinger equations with magnetic fields

Bouard, A. D.: Nonlinear Schr¨ odinger equations with magnetic fields. Diff. Int. Eqns. 4, 73-88 (1991)

work page 1991

[6] [3]

J.: Scattering in the Energy space and below for 3D NLS

Bourgain. J.: Scattering in the Energy space and below for 3D NLS. Journal D’Analyse Mathematique 75, 267-297 (1998) 13

work page 1998

[7] [4]

Scattering for Schr¨ odinger operators with mag- netic fields

Demuth M., Ouhabaz E M. Scattering for Schr¨ odinger operators with mag- netic fields. Math. Nachr. 1997, 185, 49-58

work page 1997

[8] [5]

Eskin, J

G. Eskin, J. Ralston, Inverse scattering problem for the Schr¨ odinger equation with magnetic potential at a fixed energy, Comm. Math. Phys., 173 (1995) 199-224

work page 1995