Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 48 references

Normalized solutions for fractional Choquard equation with critical growth on bounded domain

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A mass-constrained critical fractional Choquard equation on star-shaped bounded domains has two positive solutions when the prescribed mass is small enough.

desk verdict Genuinely new first results on normalized fractional Choquard in bounded domains, but Theorem 1.2 overclaims as printed — it omits the N∈(2s,6s) hypothesis the proof needs — and several load-bearing steps are left as citations or 'trivial arguments.' read the letter →

arxiv 2509.07618 v1 pith:JJ2FXTN2 submitted 2025-09-09 math.AP

Divya Goel , Asmita Rai This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.AP MSC 35A1535J2035J60
keywords normalizedsolutionsfractionalLaplacianChoquardequationstar-shapedboundeddomainHardy–Littlewood–SobolevcriticalgrowthPohozaevidentitymountainpassprescribedL²norm
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 claims the first existence and multiplicity results for normalized (fixed L²-mass) solutions of a critical fractional Choquard equation on a bounded domain. Because the domain is bounded, the scaling invariance that drives whole-space constructions is lost; the authors compensate with a Pohozaev-type identity whose boundary term is positive on star-shaped domains, forcing every critical point into a constraint set T on which the energy is coercive. When the prescribed mass d lies below the explicit thresholds (1.4)–(1.6), a positive solution exists as the minimizer over T (Theorem 1.1), with the Lagrange multiplier positive for α ≤ 0 and below the first Dirichlet eigenvalue for α > 0. Under the additional conditions 2 < p < 2*_s − 1 and, for α ≠ 0, N ∈ (2s, 6s), a second positive solution of mountain-pass type exists (Theorem 1.2). If correct, the result shows that normalized-solution theory, previously confined to R^N, extends to bounded domains through geometry rather than scaling.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Pohozaev identity of Lemma 2.3: every critical point of J̃_d on the mass sphere S_d^+ satisfies ||u||²_{X0} − (Γ(1+s)²/2)∫_{∂Ω}(∂u/δ^s)²(x·ρ)dσ = αδ_p||u^+||_p^p + ||u^+||^{2*_{μ,s}}_{NL}. Because Ω is star-shaped, x·ρ > 0 on the boundary, so the boundary integral is strictly positive and every critical point lands in the coercivity set T of (2.4) — the bounded-domain stand-in for the whole-space Pohozaev manifold. For the second solution, the machinery is Jeanjean's monotonicity trick on the homotopy J̃_{d,θ} (θ ∈ [1/2,1]), plus cut-off HLS bubbles v_ϵ = ζU_ϵ (Lemmas 5.1–5.2) that push the mountain-pass level below m_d + ((2*_{μ,s}−1)/(22*_{μ,s})) S_HL^{2*_{μ,

What would settle it

Take the unit ball, α = 0, and some d below threshold (1.4); compute the ground state u_d solving (F_d) numerically and evaluate Lemma 2.3's identity directly: the boundary integral (Γ(1+s)²/2)∫_{∂B}(∂u_d/δ^s)²(x·ρ)dσ must be strictly positive and the identity must balance to numerical precision, placing u_d in T with energy m_d below inf_{∂T} J̃_d. A violation of any of these checks would falsify the structural lemma on which both existence theorems rest.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that the mass-constrained critical fractional Choquard problem (F_d) on a bounded star-shaped domain has a positive solution realizing m_d = inf_T J̃_d, with T the Pohozaev set of (2.4); and, when 2 < p < 2*_s − 1 (and N ∈ (2s,6s) if α ≠ 0), a second positive solution at the mountain-pass level β(d). The multiplier λ_d is positive for α ≤ 0, below the first Dirichlet eigenvalue for α > 0. The mass thresholds (1.4)–(1.6) enforce inf_T J̃_d < inf_{∂T} J̃_d, keeping minimizers off ∂T, so Ekeland's principle yields a critical point; Jeanjean's monotonicity trick supplies the bounded Palais–Smale sequence at β(d), and a strict estimate below the Hardy–Littlewood–Sobolev critical

Load-bearing premise

Everything rests on the Pohozaev-type identity of Lemma 2.3, which the paper cites in one line from prior work: every critical point on the fixed-mass sphere satisfies an energy balance including a boundary integral, and the strict positivity of that integral — guaranteed only by star-shapedness — is what places all critical points in the set T. If the identity is misstated, or the boundary term could vanish or change sign on a smooth bounded domain, then T may be empty and b

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Normalized Choquard theory, previously developed on R^N, now covers bounded star-shaped domains: the Pohozaev set T replaces the Pohozaev manifold, with star-shapedness supplying the sign that scaling supplied in the whole space.
  • The thresholds (1.4)–(1.6) are explicit conditions: any prescribed mass d below the displayed supremum is admissible, giving a checkable range of masses for which a ground state exists.
  • For α > 0 the ground state's Lagrange multiplier is strictly below the first Dirichlet eigenvalue λ_{1,s} of (−Δ)^s, while for α ≤ 0 it is positive — the sign of the local power nonlinearity determines which side of the spectrum the multiplier sits on.
  • The second solution coexists with the minimizer at a strictly higher mountain-pass level β(d), which remains below the compactness threshold m_d + ((2*_{μ,s}−1)/(22*_{μ,s})) S_HL^{2*_{μ,s}/(2*_{μ,s}−1)}; the theorem additionally requires 2 < p < 2*_s − 1 and, for α ≠ 0, N ∈ (2s, 6s).

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial extension: the same construction — a Pohozaev identity with positive boundary term defining a coercivity set T — should transfer to other nonlocal critical problems with prescribed mass on star-shaped domains (systems, mixed-order operators, other Riesz-kernel nonlinearities), since the paper's mechanism never uses the specific Choquard kernel except through the Hardy–Littlewood–Sobolev
  • Editorial observation: the method is geometric in an essential way — if the domain is not star-shaped, the boundary integral in Lemma 2.3 can change sign, so T would no longer contain all critical points; extending the results to general bounded domains would require a different mechanism, and the paper leaves that open.
  • Testable direction: evaluating the suprema in (1.4)–(1.6) on simple domains such as the unit ball would yield explicit mass ranges; probing d near the threshold would show whether the gap inf_T J̃_d < inf_{∂T} J̃_d closes continuously, indicating a sharp condition, or whether the thresholds are merely sufficient.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies the existence and multiplicity of normalized positive solutions to a critical fractional Choquard equation with an L^2-mass constraint on a smooth bounded star-shaped domain. The proof is variational: the authors minimize an associated energy J̃_d on the Pohozaev set T (defined by a strict inequality derived from a fractional Pohozaev identity), obtaining a ground-state solution u_d (Theorem 1.1). They then construct a second solution by a uniform mountain pass argument combined with the monotonicity trick of Jeanjean, with compactness at the mountain-pass level achieved through a strict energy comparison built on a concentrated test function v_ε (Proposition 5.1, Theorem 1.2).

Significance. If the proofs are completed, the paper would contribute a genuinely new result: the first treatment of normalized solutions for a critical nonlocal Choquard equation on a bounded domain, extending to a nonlocal, non-scale-invariant setting the recent bounded-domain normalized-solution literature. The strategy is standard in outline but technically demanding because of the double nonlocality and the lack of scaling invariance. The paper also contains useful structural elements: the Pohozaev-set reduction, the family of functionals J̃_{d,θ}, and the test-function estimate. However, several load-bearing steps are currently asserted rather than proved, and at least one theorem statement goes beyond what the proof establishes. With careful repair, the results are plausible; as written, the manuscript is not yet a complete proof of its stated theorems.

major comments (4)
  1. [§1, Theorem 1.2; §5, Proposition 5.1] Theorem 1.2 is stated without any restriction on N beyond N>2s, yet both Proposition 4.2 and Proposition 5.1 explicitly assume N∈(2s,6s) when α≠0. The restriction is essential: in the notation of Proposition 5.1, b^s=∥w_{ε,k}∥₂/√d, and for N>4s, Lemma 5.1(ii) gives ∥v_ε∥₂²=C_s ε^{2s}. Hence 1−b^{p(δ_p−1)} is of order k²ε^{2s}. This enters (5.2)–(5.3) as a positive term for α>0, and the only negative term that can dominate it is the HLS mixed term k^{2q−1}B ε^{(N−2s)/2} from Lemma 5.2(ii). When N≥6s, (N−2s)/2≥2s, so this negative term is o(ε^{2s}) and cannot compensate for any fixed k as ε→0. Therefore (5.1), and hence the strict inequality β(d)<m_d+... is not established for N≥6s. The theorem statement overclaims the range of validity of the proof. Also, Theorem 1.2 refers to a nonexistent 'Theorem 2.3'; the intended reference is presumably Theorem 1.1.
  2. [§2, Lemma 2.3 and (2.4)] Lemma 2.3 is the structural input that places every critical point of J̃_d on S_d^+ into the Pohozaev set T, and therefore underlies the coercivity, the gap inf_T J̃_d < inf_∂T J̃_d, and both existence theorems. As written, the identity has no term involving the Lagrange multiplier λ, even though the critical point equation contains λu. For a constrained critical point, the standard fractional Pohozaev identity for (−Δ)^s u = λu + ... contains a λ∥u∥₂² contribution; its coefficient may be nonzero, and for α>0 the sign of λ is not controlled (only λ<λ_{1,s}). If the identity should include λ∥u∥₂², the implication u∈T is not automatic. The one-line citation to [32,39] is insufficient here, because those references treat fixed-frequency problems. Please prove the identity in the constrained setting or state precisely the version being imported and explain why the λ-term is absent/irrelevant
  3. [§5, after (5.2)] The first displayed relation in the proof of Proposition 5.1, J̃_d(W_{ε,k}) = J̃_d(w_{ε,k}) + (α/p)(1−b^{p(δ_p−1)})∥w_{ε,k}∥_p^p, is not derived. W_{ε,k} is obtained from w_{ε,k} by the L^2-normalizing dilation b, so the kinetic term and the HLS term acquire additional b-dependent factors; these give positive contributions of order (b^{2s}−1)∥w∥²_X0, i.e., of order k²ε^{2s} when N>4s. The proof must show that these positive terms are controlled by the negative HLS term from Lemma 5.2(ii); the condition N<6s appears to be exactly what is needed, but the estimates are not provided. The subsequent statement that for k∈(k₀,k₁) one can choose R small enough is not quantified, and the dependence of the constants B_i in Lemma 5.2 on R and on the profile u_d is not addressed. This leaves the crucial strict inequality (5.1) unsupported.
  4. [§3, proof of Theorem 1.1; §4, Proposition 4.2] In the compactness arguments, the paper passes from the constrained critical-point equations to the identity ∥w_n∥²_X0 = ∥w_n∥^{2*}_{NL}+o_n(1) by invoking the Brezis-Lieb lemma [5]. The standard Brezis-Lieb lemma applies to L^r norms, not directly to the double integral of the Riesz potential appearing in the HLS term. A Brezis-Lieb-type lemma for the Choquard term is needed; the paper itself cites such a result only later in Lemma 5.1(v) (from [14]). Without this step being justified, the strict convergence at both the ground-state level and the mountain-pass level is incomplete. Please supply the missing nonlocal version of Brezis-Lieb and verify that its hypotheses hold for sequences in S_d^+ with bounded X₀-norm.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§1, Theorem 1.2] The phrase 'suppose α,d,p satisfy the conditions as in Theorem 2.3' refers to a nonexistent theorem. It should read 'as in Theorem 1.1'.
  2. [§2, Proposition 2.2(iii)] The sentence 'Φ'(t)>0 in (t_u,∞)' should presumably be 'Φ'(t)<0 in (t_u,∞)'; otherwise it contradicts the preceding uniqueness statement and the decay of Φ(t) as t→∞.
  3. [§1, Theorem 1.2] The condition '2<p<2*−1' is ambiguous: it should specify whether 2* denotes 2*_s or 2*_{μ,s}, and how it interacts with the hypotheses in (A2) and (A3).
  4. [Throughout] The notation ∥u^+∥^{2*_{μ,s}}_{NL} is used for the HLS double integral without a definition. Since this object is not an ordinary L^r norm, it should be defined explicitly, e.g., I(u)=∫∫ |u(x)|^{2*}|u(y)|^{2*}/|x−y|^μ dxdy.
  5. [§3, proof of Theorem 1.1] The line 'u_n → u_d strongly in L^p(Ω), for 2≤p<2*_{μ,s}' is slightly misleading: since 2*_{μ,s}<2*_s, compactness holds for the larger range 2≤p<2*_s. This is not a mathematical error, but the stated range should be justified or corrected.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the variational derivation is self-contained; the flagged Theorem 1.2 gap is a correctness issue, not circularity.

full rationale

The existence theorems are derived by standard variational arguments against external benchmarks, not by fitting or renaming the conclusion. Lemma 2.3 imports the Pohozaev identity from [32,39] (not the present authors) and uses it only to define the constraint set T; nonemptiness of T and the key gap inf_T Jtilde_d < inf_∂T Jtilde_d are verified directly in Proposition 2.2(ii) using independent constants S_HL, lambda_{1,s}, C_p, and Gagliardo-Nirenberg. The first solution u_d is obtained by Ekeland's principle plus Brezis-Lieb, with positivity from an external maximum principle; the sign of lambda_d follows from u_d in T, not from any fitted parameter. The second solution is a mountain-pass construction: Proposition 4.2 and 4.3 use Jeanjean's monotonicity trick, and Proposition 5.1 provides the strict subadditivity estimate beta(d) < m_d + const by explicit test functions v_epsilon = zeta U_epsilon built from the known optimizer in [32]. The self-citations [13] and [14] are used only for a regularity/maximum-principle input and for a Hardy-Littlewood-Sobolev expansion of ||u_d + k v_epsilon||_{NL}; both are parameter-free technical lemmas whose statements do not include the target existence theorem, so under the stated rules they are independent support and do not raise the circularity score. No fitted input is renamed as a prediction; the thresholds (1.4)-(1.6) are sufficient conditions on d, not outputs manufactured from the solutions. Two non-circular correctness concerns are flagged and located: Theorem 1.2 refers to 'Theorem 2.3', which does not exist (presumably a typo for Theorem 1.1), and Theorem 1.2 states no N-restriction even though Proposition 5.1 explicitly assumes N in (2s,6s) for alpha != 0; for N >= 6s the asymptotic estimates in (5.1)-(5.3) are not justified by the displayed argument. These affect validity, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

All analytic infrastructure (HLS inequality, fractional Sobolev embedding and extremals, GN inequality, Brezis-Lieb, fractional Pohozaev identity, maximum principle) is imported from cited literature and is individually checkable. The reader genuinely pays for: (i) star-shapedness of Omega, which makes the Pohozaev boundary term strictly positive and is the reason the constrained minimization on T works at all; (ii) the small-mass thresholds (1.4)-(1.6) that guarantee T is nonempty with an energy gap; and (iii) Lemma 5.1(v), an unproved-in-text expansion borrowed from [14] that determines the mountain pass threshold for the second solution. No parameter is fitted to data and no new entity is postulated.

assumptions (8)
  • standard math Hardy-Littlewood-Sobolev inequality with sharp constant C(N,mu) (Prop 2.1)
    Cited to [21]; defines the Choquard interaction norm and the constant S_HL used throughout.
  • standard math Fractional Sobolev embedding X0 -> L^r for r in [1, 2_s^*] with best constant S; S_HL attained by U_epsilon(x) = C(b^2 + |x-a|^2)^{-(N-2s)/2} (Lemma 2.1)
    Cited to [3,32]; supplies the sharp threshold constants and the test function family v_epsilon.
  • standard math Gagliardo-Nirenberg inequality with constant C_p and exponent delta_p = N(p-2)/(2ps) (Lemma 2.2)
    Cited to [10]; used to bound the p-norm on the boundary of T and in the coercivity estimates.
  • domain assumption Fractional Pohozaev identity with boundary term (Lemma 2.3)
    Stated with a one-line citation to [32,39]; the positivity of Gamma(1+s)^2/2 integral_{dOmega} (du/delta^s)^2 (x.rho) dsigma requires star-shapedness and is the mechanism that puts critical points into T. This is the paper's most consequential import.
  • domain assumption Omega is a bounded smooth star-shaped domain with respect to the origin (Theorems 1.1, 1.2)
    Star-shapedness (x.rho > 0) is the structural hypothesis for the whole T-set construction and the t >= 1 scaling argument.
  • domain assumption Small-mass hypotheses (1.4)-(1.6) hold for d
    These thresholds are stated conditions guaranteeing T is nonempty and inf_T J_tilde_d < inf_{dT} J_tilde_d (Prop 2.2(ii)); the theorems only cover this regime.
  • ad hoc to paper Asymptotic expansion of the HLS term for u_d + k v_epsilon (Lemma 5.1(v))
    Stated in the paper with only 'we can use [14]'; the expansion, including cross-terms and the o(epsilon^{(N-2s)/2}) error, carries Proposition 5.1 and hence the second solution. Its proof is not in the manuscript.
  • standard math Brezis-Lieb lemma and strong maximum principle for the fractional Laplacian
    Cited to [5,7,13]; used to pass weak limits in the Choquard term and to obtain strict positivity u_d > 0, u_theta > 0.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Normalized solutions for fractional Choquard equation with critical growth on bounded domain." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JJ2FXTN2

@misc{pith2026250907618,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Normalized solutions for fractional Choquard equation with critical growth on bounded domain},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JJ2FXTN2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.07618}
}
abstract

In this work, we establish the multiplicity of positive solutions for the following critical fractional Choquard equation with a perturbation on the star-shaped bounded domain $$ \left\{ \begin{array}{lr} (-\Delta)^s u = \lambda u +\alpha|u|^{p-2}u+ \left( \int\limits_{\Omega} \frac{|u(y)|^{2^{*}_{\mu ,s}}}{|x-y|^ \mu}\, dy\right) |u|^{2^{*}_{\mu ,s}-2}u\; \text{in} \; \Omega,\\ u>0\; \text{in}\; \Omega,\; \\ u = 0\; \text{in} \; \mathbb{R}^{N}\backslash\Omega, \\ \int_{\Omega}|u|^2 dx=d, \end{array} \right. $$ where, $s\in(0,1), N>2s$, $\alpha\in \mathbb{R}$, $d>0$, $2<p<2^*_s:=\frac{2N}{N-2s}$ and $2^{*}_{\mu ,s}:=\frac{2N-\mu}{N-2s}$ represents fractional Hardy-Littlewood-Sobolev critical exponent. Using the minimization technique over an appropriate set and the uniform mountain pass theorem, we prove the existence of first and second solutions, respectively.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 46 canonical work pages

  1. [15]

    Normalized ground states for the critical fractional Choquard equation with a local perturbation.The Journal of Geometric Analysis, 32(10):252, 2022

    Xiaoming He, Vicent ¸iu D R˘ adulescu, and Wenming Zou. Normalized ground states for the critical fractional Choquard equation with a local perturbation.The Journal of Geometric Analysis, 32(10):252, 2022

    work page 2022

  2. [43]

    Two positive normalized solutions on star-shaped bounded domains to the Brezis-Nirenberg problem, i: Existence.arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.11204, 2024

    Linjie Song and Wenming Zou. Two positive normalized solutions on star-shaped bounded domains to the Brezis-Nirenberg problem, i: Existence.arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.11204, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  3. [5]

    A relation between pointwise convergence of functions and convergence of functionals.Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society, 88(3):486– 490, 1983

    Ha ¨ ım Br´ ezis and Elliott Lieb. A relation between pointwise convergence of functions and convergence of functionals.Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society, 88(3):486– 490, 1983

    work page 1983

  4. [14]

    Kirchhoff equations with Hardy–Littlewood–Sobolev critical nonlinearity.Nonlinear Analysis, 186:162–186, 2019

    Divya Goel and K Sreenadh. Kirchhoff equations with Hardy–Littlewood–Sobolev critical nonlinearity.Nonlinear Analysis, 186:162–186, 2019

    work page 2019

  5. [1]

    Existence of solutions for a nonlinear Choquard equation with potential vanishing at infinity.Advances in Nonlinear Analysis, 5(4):331–345, 2016

    Claudianor O Alves, Giovany M Figueiredo, and Minbo Yang. Existence of solutions for a nonlinear Choquard equation with potential vanishing at infinity.Advances in Nonlinear Analysis, 5(4):331–345, 2016

    work page 2016

  6. [2]

    L´ evy processes-from probability to finance and quantum groups.Notices of the AMS, 51(11):1336–1347, 2004

    David Applebaum. L´ evy processes-from probability to finance and quantum groups.Notices of the AMS, 51(11):1336–1347, 2004

    work page 2004

  7. [3]

    Cambridge University Press, 2016

    Giovanni Molica Bisci, Vicent ¸iu D R˘ adulescu, and Raffaella Servadei.Variational methods for nonlocal fractional problems, volume 162. Cambridge University Press, 2016

    work page 2016

  8. [4]

    Variable order nonlocal Choquard problem with variable exponents.Complex Variables and Elliptic Equations, 66(5):853–875, 2021

    Reshmi Biswas and Sweta Tiwari. Variable order nonlocal Choquard problem with variable exponents.Complex Variables and Elliptic Equations, 66(5):853–875, 2021. 20

    work page 2021

Show all 48 references
  1. [6]

    The existence of multiple solutions for a class of upper critical Choquard equation in a bounded domain.Demonstratio Mathematica, 57(1):20230152, 2024

    Yongpeng Chen and Zhipeng Yang. The existence of multiple solutions for a class of upper critical Choquard equation in a bounded domain.Demonstratio Mathematica, 57(1):20230152, 2024

    2024

  2. [7]

    The maximum principles for fractional laplacian equations and their applications.Communications in Contemporary Mathematics, 19(06):1750018, 2017

    Tingzhi Cheng, Genggeng Huang, and Congming Li. The maximum principles for fractional laplacian equations and their applications.Communications in Contemporary Mathematics, 19(06):1750018, 2017

    2017

  3. [8]

    On fractional Choquard equa- tions.Mathematical Models and Methods in Applied Sciences, 25(08):1447–1476, 2015

    Pietro d’Avenia, Gaetano Siciliano, and Marco Squassina. On fractional Choquard equa- tions.Mathematical Models and Methods in Applied Sciences, 25(08):1447–1476, 2015

    2015

  4. [9]

    Hitchhiker’s guide to the fractional Sobolev spaces.Bulletin des sciences math´ ematiques, 136(5):521–573, 2012

    Eleonora Di Nezza, Giampiero Palatucci, and Enrico Valdinoci. Hitchhiker’s guide to the fractional Sobolev spaces.Bulletin des sciences math´ ematiques, 136(5):521–573, 2012

    2012

  5. [10]

    Uniqueness of radial solutions for the fractional Laplacian.Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics, 69(9):1671–1726, 2016

    Rupert L Frank, Enno Lenzmann, and Luis Silvestre. Uniqueness of radial solutions for the fractional Laplacian.Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics, 69(9):1671–1726, 2016

    2016

  6. [11]

    Boson stars as solitary waves

    J¨ urg Fr¨ ohlich, B Lars G Jonsson, and Enno Lenzmann. Boson stars as solitary waves. Communications in mathematical physics, 274(1):1–30, 2007

    2007

  7. [12]

    The Brezis-Nirenberg type critical problem for the nonlinear Choquard equation.Science China Mathematics, 61:1219–1242, 2018

    Fashun Gao and Minbo Yang. The Brezis-Nirenberg type critical problem for the nonlinear Choquard equation.Science China Mathematics, 61:1219–1242, 2018

    2018

  8. [13]

    Regularity results on a class of doubly nonlocal problems.Journal of Differential Equations, 268(9):5301–5328, 2020

    Jacques Giacomoni, Divya Goel, and Konijeti Sreenadh. Regularity results on a class of doubly nonlocal problems.Journal of Differential Equations, 268(9):5301–5328, 2020

    2020

  9. [16]

    Existence of solutions with prescribed norm for semilinear elliptic equa- tions.Nonlinear Analysis: Theory, Methods & Applications, 28(10):1633–1659, 1997

    Louis Jeanjean. Existence of solutions with prescribed norm for semilinear elliptic equa- tions.Nonlinear Analysis: Theory, Methods & Applications, 28(10):1633–1659, 1997

    1997

  10. [17]

    Louis Jeanjean. On the existence of bounded Palais–Smale sequences and application to a Landesman–Lazer-type problem set onR N .Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh Section A: Mathematics, 129(4):787–809, 1999

    1999

  11. [18]

    Fractional quantum mechanics and L´ evy path integrals.Physics Letters A, 268(4-6):298–305, 2000

    Nikolai Laskin. Fractional quantum mechanics and L´ evy path integrals.Physics Letters A, 268(4-6):298–305, 2000

    2000

  12. [19]

    Nonexistence, existence and symmetry of normalized ground states to Choquard equations with a local perturbation.Complex Variables and Elliptic Equations, 68(4):578– 602, 2023

    Xinfu Li. Nonexistence, existence and symmetry of normalized ground states to Choquard equations with a local perturbation.Complex Variables and Elliptic Equations, 68(4):578– 602, 2023

    2023

  13. [20]

    Existence and uniqueness of the minimizing solution of Choquard’s nonlinear equation.Studies in Applied Mathematics, 57(2):93–105, 1977

    Elliott H Lieb. Existence and uniqueness of the minimizing solution of Choquard’s nonlinear equation.Studies in Applied Mathematics, 57(2):93–105, 1977

    1977

  14. [21]

    American Mathematical Soc., 2001

    Elliott H Lieb and Michael Loss.Analysis, volume 14. American Mathematical Soc., 2001

    2001

  15. [22]

    Normalized solutions on large smooth domains to the Schr¨ odinger equation with potential and general nonlinearity: Mass super-critical case

    Xiaolu Lin and Zongyan Lv. Normalized solutions on large smooth domains to the Schr¨ odinger equation with potential and general nonlinearity: Mass super-critical case. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.04893, 2025. 21

    2025 arXiv

  16. [23]

    Normalized solutions for Kirchhoff equation with L2-critical exponents.Journal of Mathematical Physics, 65(7), 2024

    Changlin Liu, Ying Lv, and Zengqi Ou. Normalized solutions for Kirchhoff equation with L2-critical exponents.Journal of Mathematical Physics, 65(7), 2024

    2024

  17. [24]

    Sign-changing solutions for critical Choquard equation on bounded domain.Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications, 541(2):128726, 2025

    Chenchen Liu and Xiaolong Yang. Sign-changing solutions for critical Choquard equation on bounded domain.Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications, 541(2):128726, 2025

    2025

  18. [25]

    Multiple normalized solutions for Choquard equations involving Kirchhoff type perturbation.Topological Methods in Nonlinear Analysis, 54(1):297–319, 2019

    Zeng Liu. Multiple normalized solutions for Choquard equations involving Kirchhoff type perturbation.Topological Methods in Nonlinear Analysis, 54(1):297–319, 2019

    2019

  19. [26]

    Fractional Schr¨ odinger equation in optics.Optics letters, 40(6):1117–1120, 2015

    Stefano Longhi. Fractional Schr¨ odinger equation in optics.Optics letters, 40(6):1117–1120, 2015

    2015

  20. [27]

    Normalized solutions to the fractional Schr¨ odinger equations with combined nonlinearities.Calculus of Variations and Partial Differential Equations, 59(4):143, 2020

    Haijun Luo and Zhitao Zhang. Normalized solutions to the fractional Schr¨ odinger equations with combined nonlinearities.Calculus of Variations and Partial Differential Equations, 59(4):143, 2020

    2020

  21. [28]

    Existence and multiplicity of solutions for fractional Choquard equations.Nonlinear Analysis, 164:100–117, 2017

    Pei Ma and Jihui Zhang. Existence and multiplicity of solutions for fractional Choquard equations.Nonlinear Analysis, 164:100–117, 2017

    2017

  22. [29]

    Normalized solutions for the fractional Choquard equations with Hardy–Littlewood–Sobolev upper critical exponent.Qualitative Theory of Dynamical Systems, 23(1):19, 2024

    Yuxi Meng and Xiaoming He. Normalized solutions for the fractional Choquard equations with Hardy–Littlewood–Sobolev upper critical exponent.Qualitative Theory of Dynamical Systems, 23(1):19, 2024

    2024

  23. [30]

    Groundstates of nonlinear Choquard equations: existence, qualitative properties and decay asymptotics.Journal of Functional Analysis, 265(2):153–184, 2013

    Vitaly Moroz and Jean Van Schaftingen. Groundstates of nonlinear Choquard equations: existence, qualitative properties and decay asymptotics.Journal of Functional Analysis, 265(2):153–184, 2013

    2013

  24. [31]

    Existence of groundstates for a class of nonlinear Choquard equations.Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, 367(9):6557– 6579, 2015

    Vitaly Moroz and Jean Van Schaftingen. Existence of groundstates for a class of nonlinear Choquard equations.Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, 367(9):6557– 6579, 2015

    2015

  25. [32]

    Fractional Choquard equation with critical nonlinearities

    T Mukherjee and K Sreenadh. Fractional Choquard equation with critical nonlinearities. Nonlinear Differential Equations and Applications NoDEA, 24:1–34, 2017

    2017

  26. [33]

    Existence and orbital stability of the ground states with prescribed mass for theL 2–critical and supercritical nls on bounded domains.Analysis & PDE, 7(8):1807–1838, 2015

    Benedetta Noris, Hugo Tavares, and Gianmaria Verzini. Existence and orbital stability of the ground states with prescribed mass for theL 2–critical and supercritical nls on bounded domains.Analysis & PDE, 7(8):1807–1838, 2015

    2015

  27. [34]

    De Gruyter, 1954

    Solomon I Pekar.Untersuchungen ¨ uber die Elektronentheorie der Kristalle. De Gruyter, 1954

    1954

  28. [35]

    On gravity’s role in quantum state reduction.General relativity and gravitation, 28:581–600, 1996

    Roger Penrose. On gravity’s role in quantum state reduction.General relativity and gravitation, 28:581–600, 1996

    1996

  29. [36]

    Normalized bound states for the nonlinear Schr¨ odinger equation in bounded domains.Calculus of Variations and Partial Differential Equations, 56:1–27, 2017

    Dario Pierotti and Gianmaria Verzini. Normalized bound states for the nonlinear Schr¨ odinger equation in bounded domains.Calculus of Variations and Partial Differential Equations, 56:1–27, 2017

    2017

  30. [37]

    Normalized solutions for sobolev critical Schr¨ odinger equations on bounded domains.SIAM Journal on Mathematical Analysis, 57(1):262–285, 2025

    Dario Pierotti, Gianmaria Verzini, and Junwei Yu. Normalized solutions for sobolev critical Schr¨ odinger equations on bounded domains.SIAM Journal on Mathematical Analysis, 57(1):262–285, 2025

    2025

  31. [38]

    Normalized solutions of nonhomogeneous mass supercritical Schr¨ odinger equations in bounded domains.The Journal of Geometric Analysis, 34(2):59, 2024

    Shijie Qi and Wenming Zou. Normalized solutions of nonhomogeneous mass supercritical Schr¨ odinger equations in bounded domains.The Journal of Geometric Analysis, 34(2):59, 2024

    2024

  32. [39]

    The Pohozaev identity for the fractional Laplacian

    Xavier Ros-Oton and Joaquim Serra. The Pohozaev identity for the fractional Laplacian. Archive for Rational Mechanics and Analysis, 213:587–628, 2014. 22

    2014

  33. [40]

    The Brezis-Nirenberg result for the fractional Laplacian.Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, 367(1):67–102, 2015

    Raffaella Servadei and Enrico Valdinoci. The Brezis-Nirenberg result for the fractional Laplacian.Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, 367(1):67–102, 2015

    2015

  34. [41]

    Normalized ground states for the NLS equation with combined nonlinearities

    Nicola Soave. Normalized ground states for the NLS equation with combined nonlinearities. Journal of Differential Equations, 269(9):6941–6987, 2020

    2020

  35. [42]

    Normalized ground states for the nls equation with combined nonlinearities: the Sobolev critical case.Journal of Functional Analysis, 279(6):108610, 2020

    Nicola Soave. Normalized ground states for the nls equation with combined nonlinearities: the Sobolev critical case.Journal of Functional Analysis, 279(6):108610, 2020

    2020

  36. [44]

    Normalized solutions ofL 2–supercritical Kirchhoff equa- tions in bounded domains.The Journal of Geometric Analysis, 34(12):358, 2024

    Qun Wang and Xiaojun Chang. Normalized solutions ofL 2–supercritical Kirchhoff equa- tions in bounded domains.The Journal of Geometric Analysis, 34(12):358, 2024

    2024

  37. [45]

    Multiplicity and concentration behaviour of solutions for a fractional Choquard equation with critical growth.Advances in Nonlinear Analysis, 10(1):732–774, 2020

    Zhipeng Yang and Fukun Zhao. Multiplicity and concentration behaviour of solutions for a fractional Choquard equation with critical growth.Advances in Nonlinear Analysis, 10(1):732–774, 2020

    2020

  38. [46]

    Normalized ground states for the lower critical fractional Choquard equation with a focusing local perturbation.Discrete and Continuous Dynamical Systems-S, 16(11):3369–3393, 2023

    Shubin Yu, Chunlei Tang, and Ziheng Zhang. Normalized ground states for the lower critical fractional Choquard equation with a focusing local perturbation.Discrete and Continuous Dynamical Systems-S, 16(11):3369–3393, 2023

    2023

  39. [47]

    Normalized solutions for NLS equa- tions with potential on bounded domains: Ground states and multiplicity.arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.17951, 2024

    He Zhang, Haibo Chen, Shuai Yao, and Juntao Sun. Normalized solutions for NLS equa- tions with potential on bounded domains: Ground states and multiplicity.arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.17951, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Normalized ground states for Kirchhoff equations inR 3 with a critical nonlinearity.Journal of Mathematical Physics, 63(2), 2022

    Penghui Zhang and Zhiqing Han. Normalized ground states for Kirchhoff equations inR 3 with a critical nonlinearity.Journal of Mathematical Physics, 63(2), 2022. 23

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.