Global dynamics above the ground state for the energy-critical Hartree equation with radial data

Chenxi Liu; Guixiang Xu; Xuemei Li

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 52 references

Global dynamics above the ground state for the energy-critical Hartree equation with radial data

T0 review · 4 major / 4 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 For radial Hartree solutions with energy just above the soliton threshold, a continuous sign functional Θ decides between scattering and finite-time blow-up after a single pass near the ground state.

desk verdict Serious, credible extension of the Nakanishi–Schlag one-pass program to the energy-critical Hartree equation; the main theorem is new and the architecture is right, but the proof leans on imported spectral and pre-compactness results that a referee should verify. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.05406 v1 pith:GISMU7SW submitted 2025-06-04 math.AP

Xuemei Li , Chenxi Liu , Guixiang Xu This is my paper

classification math.AP MSC 35Q4135Q55

keywords Blow-upHartreeequationConcentration-compactness-rigidityargumentInductiononenergyModulationanalysisOne-passlemmaScatteringtheoryVariationalmethod

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 classifies the long-time behavior of radial solutions to the focusing energy-critical Hartree equation whose energy is slightly above the energy of the ground state $W$. It builds a closed set $X_\epsilon$ around the soliton manifold and a continuous sign function $\Theta$ defined outside $X_\epsilon$, and proves that every solution can stay inside $X_\epsilon$ only on a single interval of time. After leaving $X_\epsilon$, $\Theta = +1$ forces scattering to a free wave at large time, while $\Theta = -1$ (for $L^2$ data) forces finite-time blow-up. The proof rests on a one-pass lemma showing that a solution can pass near $W$ and leave at most once.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the unstable-mode description of the flow near $W$: after the orthogonal decomposition $v = \lambda_+ g_+ + \lambda_- g_- + \gamma$ into the eigenfunctions $g_\pm$ of the linearized operator $iL$ and the orthogonal remainder $\gamma$, the mode equations $\partial_\tau \lambda_\pm = \pm \mu \lambda_\pm + O(\|v\|^2)$ make the flow hyperbolic, so a solution entering a small neighborhood of $W$ with outward radial distance is ejected with $\lambda_1$ growing exponentially. Around this sit the nonlinear distance $\widetilde{d}_W$ (a smoothed energy-excess that is strictly convex in the rescaled time $\tau$), the sign functional $\Theta$ glued from $\operatorname{sign} K$ and $-\operatorname{sign} \lambda_1$, and the one-pass lemma (Proposition 3.12), which uses a localized virial identity and cut-off estimates to prove that no solution can re-enter the small neighborhood after leaving it.

What would settle it

Compute the radial linearized eigenvalue problem $L_- h = \nu h$ at $W$: any negative eigenvalue $\nu < 0$ on the subspace orthogonal to $\mathrm{span}\{W\}$ would falsify Proposition 2.3(e), destroy the coercivity of the linearized energy on $G^\perp$, and invalidate the ejection lemma and the sign functional used in Theorem 1.5.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Theorem 1.5: for each dimension $d \ge 5$ there is an absolute $\epsilon_* \in (0,1)$ such that for every $\epsilon \in (0, \epsilon_*]$ there exist a relatively closed $X_\epsilon \subset H_\epsilon$ and a continuous $\Theta : H_\epsilon \setminus X_\epsilon \to \{\pm 1\}$ with the property that any solution $u$ of (1.1) with radial data can meet $X_\epsilon$ only on an interval (possibly its whole lifespan), and on each component of the complement the constant sign $\Theta(u(t))$ decides the asymptotic fate: $\Theta = +1$ near the maximal forward time implies the solution scatters, and $\Theta = -1$ with $u_0 \in L^2$ implies finite-time blow-up in that direction. The sign functional $\Theta$ is constructed so that it equals $\operatorname{sign} K$ (the virial functional) away from $W$ and equals $-\operatorname{sign} \lambda_1$ (the unstable eigenmode) near $W$, and the two definitions are glued by the ejection lemma. The proof combines hyperbolic dynamics near the soliton — the unstable mode grows exponentially with rate $\mu$ and dominates the remainder — with a one-pass argument far from $W$ that rules out returns to the soliton, and with the known classification below $E(W)$ for the scattering side.

Load-bearing premise

The paper's argument stands on the non-degeneracy of the ground state $W$: the linearized operator around $W$ must have exactly one unstable and one stable direction (eigenvalues $\pm\mu$), no other negative modes, and a coercive bound on the orthogonal remainder; if these spectral facts failed, the ejection dynamics and the one-pass lemma would break.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Every radial solution with $E(u_0) < E(W) + \epsilon^2$ has its visits to the $\epsilon$-neighborhood of the soliton confined to one interval of time; outside that interval the sign $\Theta$ is constant.
If $\Theta = +1$ after the ejection time, the solution scatters in that time direction — its Strichartz norm is finite and it approaches a linear wave.
If $\Theta = -1$ after ejection and the initial data lie in $L^2$, the solution blows up in finite time in that direction.
The four one-sided behaviors — scatter/scatter, scatter/blow-up, blow-up/scatter, and blow-up/blow-up — all occur on open sets of data, so mixed dynamics are generic in $H_\epsilon \cap L^2$.
The dichotomy is uniform in $\epsilon$: the same spectral constants define $X_\epsilon$ and $\Theta$ for every small $\epsilon$, so the classification is stable under small changes of the energy threshold.

Reading between the lines

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

If the same spectral gap around $W$ persisted for nearby nonlocal kernels, the ejection-and-one-pass scheme would extend the dichotomy to a family of Hartree-type equations, with the admissible energy window set by the uniform spectral constants rather than by the exact interaction.
The sign functional effectively labels the two connected components of the energy shell outside the stable manifold of the linearized flow; a numerical continuation of that manifold would yield a concrete, checkable criterion for predicting scatter versus blow-up for a given radial datum.
The one-pass lemma suggests the no-return property is a spectral fact rather than a radial-symmetry fact: any solution that came back near $W$ would have to cross the ejected region with both signs of $K$, which the virial estimates forbid; this hints the dichotomy may survive without radial symmetry.
A solution that scatters in the past and blows up in the future must cross the soliton neighborhood exactly once; the crossing time and the value of $\lambda_1$ at injection could serve as an observable order parameter in numerical experiments.

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

Bottom line: this is a real result, not a marginal one. It classifies radial solutions slightly above the ground state for the energy-critical Hartree equation, extending the known below-threshold theory and transferring the Nakanishi–Schlag mechanism to a nonlocal critical equation. Theorem 1.5 and the non-empty four intersections in Theorem 1.7 are genuinely new, and the introduction of the scaling parameter in the modulation is the right adaptation: without it the critical scaling would break the finite-dimensional control. The paper ships detailed proofs of the key one-pass lemma in Section 4 and the ejection lemma in Proposition 3.8, and I can see the logic: ejection forces growth of the unstable mode, the sign functional Θ is well-defined, and the one-pass argument precludes re-entry. So far the architecture is coherent.

Where I hesitate: the spectral pillar Proposition 2.3 is imported from [29,34]. The stress-test is right that the coercivity on G^⊥ and the simple ±μ spectrum are load-bearing. But I do not treat that as a flaw in the paper itself: it is a published external theorem, and citing it is normal mathematical practice. What I would want from the authors is a precise pointer to the theorem statements and a discussion of exactly where [29,34] prove part (e), because Proposition 3.5 and the ejection mechanism only work verbatim if the G^⊥ coercivity holds at the stated norm. The sketches in Proposition 3.10 and Lemma 5.4 are thinner: they say 'same as [44, Lemma 4.3]' and 'see [37, Prop 4.2]'. For a paper of this length, that is acceptable in the subfield but should be upgraded in the published version, especially Lemma 5.4 because pre-compactness of the critical flow is what closes the contradiction.

The self-citation pattern is fine. The nondegeneracy papers overlap with the authors, but the results are independently proven and the dependency is transparent. I found no circularity.

Who it is for: dispersive PDE people working on threshold dynamics and concentration-compactness. It deserves a serious referee; it is exactly the kind of paper that should be read carefully rather than desk-rejected. My recommendation: send it to peer review, with referee attention on Prop. 2.3 compatibility and the two sketches.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies radial solutions of the focusing, energy-critical Hartree equation in dimensions d≥5 with energy slightly above the ground state energy E(W). Adapting the Nakanishi–Schlag strategy of ejection dynamics and one-pass lemmas, the authors introduce a nonlinear distance function ed_W, a sign functional Θ, and a relatively closed set X_ε inside the energy shell H_ε. Their main theorem, Theorem 1.5, asserts that any solution can remain in X_ε only on an interval, and once it leaves X_ε its fate is determined by Θ: Θ=+1 gives scattering while Θ=-1 gives finite-time blow-up for L² data. The proof combines modulation analysis around the ground-state manifold, spectral properties of the linearized operator, virial identities, a critical-element argument, and a perturbation reduction to the sub-threshold theory of [37]. Theorem 1.7 further proves that the four forward/backward scattering/blow-up classes have nonempty interior.

Significance. If the spectral input from [29,34] and the sketched lemmas are accepted, the paper would provide a complete classification of radial dynamics slightly above the ground state for a nonlocal energy-critical equation, extending the NLS/NLW/NLKG results of Nakanishi–Schlag, Krieger–Nakanishi–Schlag, and Roy. The adaptation is nontrivial: the scaling parameter must be incorporated into the hyperbolic dynamics, the nonlinear distance requires a dynamical mollification, and the one-pass proof involves a virial comparison between hyperbolic and variational regions. The construction of the four open sets in Theorem 1.7 is a useful additional result. However, several load-bearing ingredients are only cited or sketched, so the current manuscript is not yet fully verifiable.

major comments (4)

[Section 2, Proposition 2.3] The coercivity statement Proposition 2.3(e), namely Φ(h) ≥ c‖h‖² on G⊥, is imported from [29,34] with no proof. This is load-bearing: Proposition 3.5 uses it to conclude ‖γ‖² ∼ ⟨Lγ,γ⟩, which underpins the equivalent norm in (3.12), the nonlinear distance estimates in Proposition 3.7, and the ejection dynamics in Proposition 3.8. Since the nondegeneracy results in [28,29,30] are by the same group and Proposition 2.3 adds spectral conclusions beyond nondegeneracy, the manuscript should either prove Proposition 2.3(e) or give precise theorem/lemma references and a summary of the argument. The reader currently cannot independently check the hypothesis on which the entire hyperbolic mechanism rests.
[Section 3.3, Proposition 3.3] After equation (3.2), the text states that ω(g±,γ)=0 'implies γ∈G⊥'. This is not immediate because G⊥ is defined by three orthogonality conditions: (iW,γ)=(fW,γ)=ω(g±,γ)=0. The spectral decomposition fixes only the symplectic orthogonality to g±. The authors need to justify that g± are H¹-orthogonal to iW and fW, for example by proving that the linearized generator iL is skew-adjoint with respect to the H¹ inner product, or by an explicit computation. Without this, the coercivity in Proposition 2.3(e) cannot be applied to the remainder γ in Proposition 3.5.
[Section 3.6, Proposition 3.10] Proposition 3.10 is stated with only a 'Sketch of proof' and refers to [44, Lemma 4.3]. It is used twice in load-bearing ways: in Proposition 3.11 to ensure sign K(φ) is constant on H_ϵ \ eB_δ(W), and in the one-pass proof to obtain the lower bounds −K ≥ κ(δ_V) and K ≥ κ(δ_V) on the variational region. The distance ed_W here is defined through a temporal mollification and the nonlinearity is nonlocal, so the reduction to [44] is not automatic. A full proof, or at least a detailed statement of the modifications needed for the Hartree kernel |x|^{-4}, should be included.
[Section 5, Lemma 5.4] Lemma 5.4, the precompactness of the critical flow up to scaling, is essential for Lemma 5.5: it is used to exclude concentration blow-up in Step 1, to prove inf σ_c = −∞ in Step 2, and to construct the limiting object U_ω in Step 3. The proof is only a sketch referring to [37, Proposition 4.2]. Since the critical solution here has energy above E(W) and carries the additional constraint Θ=+1, the adaptation is not merely a citation and should be written out or the exact modifications should be supplied.

minor comments (4)

[Throughout] The manuscript contains many typos and formatting errors, including 'ST A TE' in the title, 'invairances', 'pionerred', 'defination', and 'Lemmma'. A careful proofreading pass is needed.
[Section 7, construction of γ(0)] In the proof of Theorem 1.7, the vector B in the definition γ(0) := -P^⊥_B φ^C_R W + ω(φ^C_R W, g_-)g_+ - ω(φ^C_R W, g_+)g_- is not defined; the text says only 'where B satisfies ω(g±,B)=0'. Please clarify what B is and how the projection P^⊥_B is chosen.
[Section 4, parameter hierarchy] The list of smallness conditions (4.1), (4.16), (4.18), (4.23), (4.24), (4.36), (4.40), and (4.43) is hard to follow because some conditions involve δ and δ_M jointly while δ_M is later fixed as an absolute constant. It would help to state the final ordering of parameters explicitly at the beginning of Section 4.
[Introduction, Theorem 1.2] The sentence 'Later, D. Li and X. Zhang in [24] removed the radial assumption' is not fully aligned with the reference [24], which appears to have three authors; please verify the attribution and the bibliography entry.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central ejection/one-pass derivation is proved in the paper, and the imported spectral non-degeneracy is an external, parameter-free result rather than a disguised restatement of the target theorem.

full rationale

The paper's central new content is the ejection lemma (Proposition 3.8) and the one-pass lemma (Proposition 3.12), both proved internally. The ejection dynamics are derived from the linearized equations ∂τλ± = ±μλ± + O(‖v‖²) (Proposition 3.4), which are obtained by decomposing the solution near the ground state and using the spectral structure of iL. The control of the orthogonal component γ via Proposition 3.5 uses the coercivity of the linearized energy Φ on G⊥, which is part of the imported Proposition 2.3. That proposition is cited from the authors' prior work [29,34], but it is a parameter-free spectral statement about the explicit ground state W and the explicitly defined operator L; it does not assume or contain the conclusion of Theorem 1.5, and it is externally checkable. The nonlinear distance ed_W is constructed via a convolution, but the key equivalence ed_W ∼ |λ1| on ˇH is proved from the energy expansion and coercivity, not assumed. The sign functional Θ is defined through signK and −signλ1, and the paper proves consistency and then proves by virial and energy-induction arguments that Θ = +1 gives scattering and Θ = −1 gives blow-up; this is not a definitional renaming. No fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction: ε∗ and δ_B are absolute constants produced by the proof, not calibrated to data. The use of the sub-threshold result [37] is an external theorem for E(u) < E(W), with independent proof. Thus, although several key inputs are self-citations with overlapping authors, they are real, independently proved mathematical facts and are not equivalent to the paper's own claims by construction. No circular step can be exhibited from the text.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

Everything essential is imported from prior literature: the sharp inequalities, the well-posedness theory, the non-degeneracy of the ground state (from the authors' own prior work), and the sub-threshold dynamics. The paper contributes the new dynamical classification argument; no new entities are postulated and no empirical parameters are fitted.

assumptions (5)

standard math Sharp Sobolev and Hardy-Littlewood-Sobolev inequalities (Proposition 1.1)
The characterization of the ground state W as the unique extremizer of the HLS inequality enters the variational estimates in Proposition 3.10 and the virial estimates.
standard math Local well-posedness and Strichartz estimates (Proposition 2.1)
Provides the existence theory and the scattering criterion used throughout the paper.
domain assumption Non-degeneracy of the ground state and spectral properties of the linearized operator L (Proposition 2.3)
Gives the simple eigenvalues ±μ and the coercivity on G⊥; this underpins the ejection lemma (Proposition 3.8) and the sign functional Θ. Cited from [29,34], which are prior works by overlapping authors.
domain assumption Variational characterization of E(W) (Proposition 2.2)
Used to relate K, G, and I near the ground state and to control the nonlinear terms in the blow-up and scattering regions.
domain assumption Sub-threshold dynamics of [24,37] (Theorem 1.2)
Used at the end of the scattering proof to conclude that the reduced solution below E(W) scatters, following Bourgain's energy induction.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Global dynamics above the ground state for the energy-critical Hartree equation with radial data." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GISMU7SW

@misc{pith2026250605406,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Global dynamics above the ground state for the energy-critical Hartree equation with radial data},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GISMU7SW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.05406}
}

abstract

Based on the concentration-compactness-rigidity argument in \cite{KenM:NLS,KenM:NLW} and the non-degeneracy of the ground state in \cite{LLTX:Nondeg,LLTX:g-Hart,LTX:Nondeg}, long time dynamics for the focusing energy-critical Hartree equation with radial data have been classified when the energy $E(u_0)\leq E(W)$ in \cite{LiMZ:crit Hart,LLTX:g-Hart,MWX:Hart,MXZ:crit Hart:f rad}, where $W$ is the ground state. In this paper, we continue the study on the dynamics of the radial solutions with the energy $E(u_0)$ at most slightly larger than that of the ground states. This is an extension of the results \cite{KriNS:NLW rad, KriNS:NLW non,NakR,NakS:NLKG,NakS:book,NakS:NLS,NakS:NLKG:non,Roy} on NLS, NLW and NLKG, which were pioneered by K. Nakanishi and W. Schlag in \cite{NakS:NLKG, NakS:book} in the study of nonlinear Klein-Gordon equation in the subcritical case. The argument is an adaptation of the works in \cite{KriNS:NLW rad, KriNS:NLW non,NakR,Roy}, the proof uses an analysis of the hyperbolic dynamics near the ground state and the variational structure far from them. The key components that allow to classify the solutions are the hyperbolic (ejection) dynamical behavior near the ground state and the one-pass lemma.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 51 canonical work pages

[37]

C. Miao, G. Xu and L. Zhao,Global well-posedness, scattering and blow-up for the energy-critical, focusing Hartree equation in the radial case, Colloq. Math.,114(2009), no. 2, 213–236

work page 2009
[44]

Nakanishi and W

K. Nakanishi and W. Schlag,Global dynamics above the ground state energy for the focusing nonlinear Klein-Gordon equation, J. Diff. Eq.,250(2011), 2299–2333

work page 2011
[1]

Aubin,Probl´ emes isop´ erim´ etriques et espaces de Sobolev, J

T. Aubin,Probl´ emes isop´ erim´ etriques et espaces de Sobolev, J. Diff. Geom.,11(1976), 573–598

work page 1976
[2]

Bardos, L

C. Bardos, L. Erd¨ os, F. Golse, N. Mauser and H.-T. Yau,Derivation of the Schr¨ odinger-Poisson equation from the quantum N-body problem, C. R. Math. Acad. Sci. Paris,334:6(2002), 515–520

work page 2002
[3]

Bardos, F

C. Bardos, F. Golse and N. J. Mauser,Weak coupling limit of the N-particle Schr¨ odinger equation, Meth. Appl. Anal.,7:2(2000), 275–293

work page 2000
[4]

Bourgain,Global well-posedness of defocusing critical nonlinear Schr¨ odinger equation in the radial case, J

J. Bourgain,Global well-posedness of defocusing critical nonlinear Schr¨ odinger equation in the radial case, J. Amer. Math. Soc,12(1999), 145–171

work page 1999
[5]

Cao and Q

D. Cao and Q. Guo,Divergent solutions to the 5D Hartree equations, Coll. Math.125(2011), 255–287

work page 2011
[6]

Cazenave,Semilinear Schr¨ odinger equations

T. Cazenave,Semilinear Schr¨ odinger equations. CLNM, Vol.10. NYU, AMS, Providence, Phode Island, 2003

work page 2003

Show all 52 references

[7]

Duyckaerts and F

T. Duyckaerts and F. Merle,Dynamic of threshold solutions for energy-critical NLS.Geom. Funct. Anal.,18:6(2009), 1787–1840

2009
[8]

Duyckaerts and F

T. Duyckaerts and F. Merle,Dynamic of threshold solutions for energy-critical wave equation.Int. Math. Res. Papers (2010), Vol.2008, article ID rpn002, 67 pages

2010
[9]

Fr¨ ohlich, S

J. Fr¨ ohlich, S. Graffi and S. Schwarz,Mean-field- and classical limit of many-body Schr¨ odinger dynamics for bosons, Comm. Math. Phys.,271:3(2007), 681–697. 48 GLOBAL DYNAMICS ABOVE THE GROUND STATE FOR THE HARTREE EQUATION

2007
[10]

Fr¨ ohlich, and E

J. Fr¨ ohlich, and E. Lenzmann,Mean-field limit of quantum Bose gases and nonlinear Hartree equa- tion.S´ emin.´Equ. D´ eriv. Partielles [Seminar: Partial Differential Equations]´Ecole Polytechnique, Cen- tre de Math´ ematiques, Palaiseau, 2004, Exp. No. XIX, 26 pp

2004
[11]

Ginibre and G

J. Ginibre and G. Velo,On a class of nonlinear Schr¨ odinger equations with nonlocal interaction, Math. Z.,170:2(1980), 109–136

1980
[12]

Ginibre and G

J. Ginibre and G. Velo,Scattering theory in the energy space for a class of Hartree equations, Nonlinear wave equations (Providence, RI, 1998), 29–60, Contemp. Math,263, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2000

1998
[13]

Hepp,The classical limit for quantum mechanical correlation functions, Comm

K. Hepp,The classical limit for quantum mechanical correlation functions, Comm. Math. Phys., 35(1974), 265–277

1974
[14]

Ibrahim, N

S. Ibrahim, N. Masmoudi and K. Nakanishi,Scattering threshold for the focusing nonlinear Klein- Gordon equation, Anal. PDE,4:3(2011), 405—460

2011
[15]

C. E. Kenig and F. Merle,Global well-posedness, scattering and blow up for the energy-critical, focus- ing, nonlinear Schr¨ odinger equation in the radial case, Invent. Math.,166(2006), 645–675

2006
[16]

C. E. Kenig and F. Merle,Global well-posedness, scattering and blow-up for the energy critical focusing non-linear wave equation, Acta Math.,201:2(2008), 147–212

2008
[17]

Keraani,On the defect of compactness for the Strichartz estimates of the Schr¨ odinger equations, J

S. Keraani,On the defect of compactness for the Strichartz estimates of the Schr¨ odinger equations, J. Diff. Eq.,175(2001), 353–392

2001
[18]

Killip and M

R. Killip and M. Visan,The focusing energy-critical nonlinear Schr¨ odinger equation in dimensions five and higher, Amer. J. Math.,132:2(2010), 361–424

2010
[19]

Krieger, E

J. Krieger, E. Lenzman and P. Rapha¨ el,On stability of pseudo-conformal blowup forL2-critical Hartree NLS, Annales Henri Poincar´ e,10:6(2009), 1159–1205

2009
[20]

Krieger, Y

J. Krieger, Y. Martel and P. Rapha¨ el,Two soliton solutions to the three dimensional gravitational Hartree equation, Comm. Pure Appl. Math.62(2009), 1501–1550

2009
[21]

Krieger, K

J. Krieger, K. Nakanishi and W. Schlag,Global dynamics above the ground state energy for the one- dimensional NLKG equation, Math. Z.,272:1–2(2012), 297–316

2012
[22]

Krieger, K

J. Krieger, K. Nakanishi and W. Schlag,Global dynamics away from the ground state for the energy- critical nonlinear wave equation, Amer. J. Math.,135(2013), 935–965

2013
[23]

Krieger, K

J. Krieger, K. Nakanishi and W. Schlag,Global dynamics of the nonradial energy-critical wave equation above the ground state energy, Discrete, Cont, Dyn. Syst.,33(2013), 2423–2450

2013
[24]

D. Li, C. Miao and X. Zhang,The focusing energy-critical Hartree equation, J. Diff. Equat.,246(2009), 1139–1163

2009
[25]

Li and X

D. Li and X. Zhang,On the classification of minimal mass blowup solutions of the focusing mass- critical Hartree equations, Adv. Math.,220(2009), 1171–1192

2009
[26]

Li and X

D. Li and X. Zhang,Dynamics for the energy critical nonlinear Schr¨ odinger equation in high dimen- sions, J. Funct. Anal.,256:6(2009), 1928–1961

2009
[27]

Li and X

D. Li and X. Zhang,Dynamics for the energy critical nonlinear wave equation in high dimensions, Trans. AMS.,363(2011), 1137–1160

2011
[28]

X. Li, C. Liu, X. Tang and G. Xu,Nondegeneracy of positive bubble solutions for generalized energy- critical Hartree equations, arXiv:2304.04139

arXiv
[29]

X. Li, C. Liu, X. Tang and G. Xu,Dynamics of radial threshold solutions for generalized energy-critical Hartree equation, Forum Math.,37:5(2025), 1469–1502

2025
[30]

X. Li, X. Tang and G. Xu,Nondegeneracy of the positive solutions for critical nonlinear Hartree equation inR 6, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc.,150:12(2022), 5203–5216

2022
[31]

E. H. Lieb,Sharp constants in the Hardy-Littlewood-Sobolev and related inequalities, Ann. Math., 118(1983), 349–374

1983
[32]

E. H. Lieb and M. Loss,Analysis, GSM, Vol.14, AMS, Providence, Rhode Island, 2001

2001
[33]

E. H. Lieb and H.-T. Yau.The Chandrasekhar theory of stellar collapse as the limit of quantum mechanics, Comm. Math. Phys.,112:1(1987), 147–174. GLOBAL DYNAMICS ABOVE THE GROUND STATE FOR THE HARTREE EQUATION 49

1987
[34]

C. Miao, Y. Wu and G. Xu,Dynamics for the focusing, energy-critical nonlinear Hartree equation. Forum Math.,27(2015), 373–447

2015
[35]

C. Miao, G. Xu and L. Zhao,Global well-posedness and scattering for the energy-critical, defocusing Hartree equation for radial data, J. Funct. Anal.,253:2(2007), 605–627

2007
[36]

C. Miao, G. Xu and L. Zhao,The Cauchy problem of the Hartree equation, J. PDE,21(2008), 22–44

2008
[38]

C. Miao, G. Xu and L. Zhao,Global well-posedness and scattering for the defocusingH 1 2 -subcritical Hartree equation inR d, Ann. Inst. H. Poincar´eAnal. Non Lin´eaire,26:5(2009), 1831–1852

2009
[39]

C. Miao, G. Xu and L. Zhao,Global well-posedness and scattering for the mass-critical Hartree equation with radial data, J. Math. Pures Appl.,91(2009), 49–79

2009
[40]

C. Miao, G. Xu and L. Zhao,On the blow up phenomenon for the mass critical focusing Hartree equation inR 4.Coll. Math.,119:1(2010), 23–50

2010
[41]

C. Miao, G. Xu and L. Zhao,Global well-posedness and scattering for the energy-critical, defocusing Hartree equation inR 1+n, Comm. Partial Differential Equations,36(2011), 729–776

2011
[42]

Nakanishi,Energy scattering for Hartree equations, Math

K. Nakanishi,Energy scattering for Hartree equations, Math. Res. Lett.,6(1999), 107–118

1999
[43]

Nakanishi and T

K. Nakanishi and T. Roy,Global dynamics above the ground state for the energy-critical Schr¨ odinger equation with radial data, Commun. Pure Appl. Anal.15:6(2016), 2023–2058

2016
[45]

Nakanishi and W

K. Nakanishi and W. Schlag,Invariant Manifolds and Dispersive Hamiltonian Evolution Equations, Zur. Lect. Adv. Math., EMS, 2011

2011
[46]

Nakanishi and W

K. Nakanishi and W. Schlag,Global dynamics above the ground state energy for the cubic NLS equation in 3D, Calc. Var. and PDE,44(2012), 1–45

2012
[47]

Nakanishi and W

K. Nakanishi and W. Schlag,Global dynamics above the ground state energy for the focusing nonlinear Klein-Gordon equation without a radial assumption, Arch. Rational Mech. Analysis,203(2012), 809– 851

2012
[48]

L. P. Pitaevskii,Vortex lines in an imperfect Bose gas, Sov. Phys. JETP,13(1961), no. 2, 451–454

1961
[49]

Roy,Global dynamics above the ground state energy for the energy-critical Klein-Gordon equation, Trans

T. Roy,Global dynamics above the ground state energy for the energy-critical Klein-Gordon equation, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.,377(2024), no. 10, 6883–6935

2024
[50]

Spohn,Kinetic equations from Hamiltonian dynamics: Markovian limits

H. Spohn,Kinetic equations from Hamiltonian dynamics: Markovian limits. Rev. Modern Phys., 52:3(1980), 569–615

1980
[51]

M. I. Weinstein,Modulational stability of ground states of nonlinear Schr¨ odinger equations, SIAM J. Math. Anal.,16:3(1985), 472–491

1985
[52]

Zhou,Threshold solutions for the focusing generalized Hartree equations, J

T. Zhou,Threshold solutions for the focusing generalized Hartree equations, J. Diff. Equat.,439(2025), 113394. 50 GLOBAL DYNAMICS ABOVE THE GROUND STATE FOR THE HARTREE EQUATION Xuemei Li Laboratory of Mathematics and Complex Systems, Ministry of Education, School of Mathemati...

2025

Pith tools

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

[1] [37]

C. Miao, G. Xu and L. Zhao,Global well-posedness, scattering and blow-up for the energy-critical, focusing Hartree equation in the radial case, Colloq. Math.,114(2009), no. 2, 213–236

work page 2009

[2] [44]

Nakanishi and W

K. Nakanishi and W. Schlag,Global dynamics above the ground state energy for the focusing nonlinear Klein-Gordon equation, J. Diff. Eq.,250(2011), 2299–2333

work page 2011

[3] [1]

Aubin,Probl´ emes isop´ erim´ etriques et espaces de Sobolev, J

T. Aubin,Probl´ emes isop´ erim´ etriques et espaces de Sobolev, J. Diff. Geom.,11(1976), 573–598

work page 1976

[4] [2]

Bardos, L

C. Bardos, L. Erd¨ os, F. Golse, N. Mauser and H.-T. Yau,Derivation of the Schr¨ odinger-Poisson equation from the quantum N-body problem, C. R. Math. Acad. Sci. Paris,334:6(2002), 515–520

work page 2002

[5] [3]

Bardos, F

C. Bardos, F. Golse and N. J. Mauser,Weak coupling limit of the N-particle Schr¨ odinger equation, Meth. Appl. Anal.,7:2(2000), 275–293

work page 2000

[6] [4]

Bourgain,Global well-posedness of defocusing critical nonlinear Schr¨ odinger equation in the radial case, J

J. Bourgain,Global well-posedness of defocusing critical nonlinear Schr¨ odinger equation in the radial case, J. Amer. Math. Soc,12(1999), 145–171

work page 1999

[7] [5]

Cao and Q

D. Cao and Q. Guo,Divergent solutions to the 5D Hartree equations, Coll. Math.125(2011), 255–287

work page 2011

[8] [6]

Cazenave,Semilinear Schr¨ odinger equations

T. Cazenave,Semilinear Schr¨ odinger equations. CLNM, Vol.10. NYU, AMS, Providence, Phode Island, 2003

work page 2003