Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 43 references

Normalized solutions to a Choquard equation involving mixed local and nonlocal operators

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read For exponents strictly between the two Hardy–Littlewood–Sobolev critical values, the mixed local-nonlocal Choquard equation with fixed L2 norm always has a weak solution, and that solution is the normalized ground state.

desk verdict Plausible extension of normalized-solution machinery to mixed local-nonlocal operators, but the Pohozaev identity is only proved under a narrower parameter range than the main theorems claim. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.09968 v1 pith:7QMDDZFH submitted 2025-09-12 math.AP

J. Giacomoni , Nidhi Nidhi , K. Sreenadh This is my paper
classification math.AP MSC 35J6035R1135A1535B65
keywords normalizedsolutionsChoquardequationmixedlocal-nonlocaloperatorPohozaevidentityHardy–Littlewood–Sobolevinequalityconcentration-compactnessgroundstatesSobolevregularity
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper proves that the Choquard-type equation Lu+u=µ(I_α∗|u|^p)|u|^{p−2}u, with L=−∆+λ(−∆)^s, has a weak solution with prescribed L2 norm τ, provided p lies strictly between (n+α)/n and (2s+n+α)/n, µ>0 is fixed, and λ>0 is sufficiently small. It then shows the constrained minimization problem is equivalent to the original equation, so normalized solutions are exactly normalized ground states. The paper also proves that weak solutions are smooth in the parameter range where the regularity theorem applies, and that at the two Hardy–Littlewood–Sobolev critical exponents no weak solution exists. A careful reader should note that the Pohozaev identity that carries the existence argument is established only under the narrower regularity hypotheses n−α<4 and 2≤p≤(n+α)/(n−2), so the proof as written does not cover the full claimed parameter region.

What carries the argument

The central object is the functional Iλ(u)=½∥∇u∥₂²+λ/2[u]²−µ/(2p)A_p(u) constrained to ∥u∥₂²=τ, where A_p(u)=∫∫|u(x)|^p|u(y)|^p|x−y|^{−(n−α)}dxdy. A Gagliardo–Nirenberg-type inequality bounds A_p by a power of the gradient norm times a power of the L2 norm; the scaling u_K(x)=K^{n/2}u(Kx) makes the infimum negative exactly in the subcritical range; and the asymptotic Pohozaev identity for the minimizing sequence rules out vanishing and forces a nonzero Lagrange multiplier. The Pohozaev identity for the mixed operator (Theorem A1) is the step that turns a constrained critical point into a genuine weak solution.

What would settle it

For a parameter point in the claimed but unproven region, such as n=5, α=1, s=1/2, p=1.3 (which satisfies (n+α)/n<p<(2s+n+α)/n but violates n−α<4 and p≥2), solve the constrained equation numerically and check whether the weak solution satisfies the Pohozaev identity (4.1). If it does not, the paper's existence claim fails at that parameter point; if it does, the gap is merely in the proof, not the statement.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that a prescribed-mass constraint can be imposed directly on a Choquard equation driven by the sum of the Laplacian and a fractional Laplacian, and the constrained minimizers are genuine weak solutions. Theorems 1.3 and 1.4 identify the open interval of exponents where this works: (n+α)/n < p < (2s+n+α)/n. Inside this interval the constrained energy has negative infimum on the L2 sphere, concentration-compactness applied to a minimizing sequence yields a nontrivial limit profile, and an asymptotic Pohozaev identity forces the Lagrange multiplier to be nonzero; the multiplier then rescales the limit profile to a solution of the original equation with exactly the presc

Load-bearing premise

The existence proof relies on a Pohozaev identity that is proven only under the regularity hypotheses n−α<4 and 2≤p≤(n+α)/(n−2), whereas the existence theorem is stated for all n≥3 and α∈(0,n) with p as low as (n+α)/n, so the identity—and the proof that depends on it—is not justified across the full claimed parameter region.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For every τ>0 and every µ>0 in the stated range, with λ>0 small enough, the equation has a weak solution whose L2 norm is exactly τ.
  • The set of normalized solutions and the set of normalized ground states coincide: solving the constrained minimization problem and solving the original PDE are the same thing.
  • At the two critical exponents p=(n+α)/n and p=(n+α)/(n−2) the problem has no weak solution, so the open interval is the natural existence window.
  • Under the narrower hypotheses n−α<4 and 2≤p≤(n+α)/(n−2), any weak solution lies in W^{2,q}_{loc} for every q≥1, so it is classical in a strong sense.
  • The negative infimum on the sphere gives a quantitative handle on the solution profiles, for instance a positive lower bound on their L2 mass concentration.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The 'λ sufficiently small' hypothesis suggests that for larger λ the fractional part may destabilize the constrained minimization; whether solutions persist for all λ>0 is a natural open question the paper itself flags.
  • The same asymptotic-Pohozaev strategy should extend to other mixed local-nonlocal operators (for example, p-Laplacian plus fractional p-Laplacian) once a Pohozaev identity is available in the full parameter range.
  • One can test the claimed range numerically: solve the constrained problem for n=5, α=1, p between 1.2 and (2s+6)/5 and check whether the computed solution satisfies the Pohozaev identity; a failure there would localize the gap to the identity rather than the variational framework.
  • The equivalence of normalized solutions and ground states suggests that bifurcation branches of the fixed-mass problem are energy-ordered, which is relevant for orbital-stability questions.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies normalized solutions of the mixed local/nonlocal Choquard equation Lu+u = μ(I_α*|u|^p)|u|^{p−2}u on R^n with the L^2 constraint ||u||_2^2 = τ, where L = −Δ + λ(−Δ)^s, s∈(0,1). The main results are: Theorem 1.1 gives L^q integrability for q in [2, (n/α)2n/(n−2)); Theorem 1.2 gives W^{2,q}_{loc} regularity under the restricted assumptions n−α<4 and 2≤p≤(n+α)/(n−2); Theorems 1.3 and 1.4 assert, for (n+α)/n < p < (2s+n+α)/n and λ>0 sufficiently small, that a normalized weak solution exists and that the problems (1.1) and the constrained minimization (1.9) are equivalent; Theorem 1.5 gives nonexistence at the Hardy–Littlewood–Sobolev critical endpoints. The proof follows Jeanjean's Lagrange multiplier approach, concentration-compactness, and a Pohozaev identity for the mixed operator stated as Theorem A1 and sketched in an appendix.

Significance. If the technical gap identified below is closed, the paper would be a meaningful extension of normalized-solution theory for Choquard equations from the purely local (and variational) setting to mixed local/nonlocal operators. The L^q bootstrap follows Moroz–Van Schaftingen's method and is clearly written; the equivalence between normalized solutions and ground states is a useful structural result. The paper does not supply code or machine-checked proofs; the analytic strategy is standard and the statements are plausible. The central existence claim, however, currently rests on a Pohozaev identity whose proof uses regularity hypotheses that are not established in the parameter range claimed by Theorems 1.3 and 1.4. This is a load-bearing gap rather than a presentation issue.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4 (Theorem A1) and Section 3 (Lemma 3.2)] Theorem A1 is the keystone of the existence proof: it is applied to limit profiles at (3.12) and (3.21), and to the original solution in the proof of Theorem 1.5. Its proof begins 'From Theorem 1.2, we have u∈W^{2,q}_{loc}' and relies on the resulting C^{1,δ}_{loc} regularity. But Theorem 1.2 is proved only under n−α<4 and 2≤p≤(n+α)/(n−2). The range of Theorems 1.3 and 1.4, (n+α)/n < p < (2s+n+α)/n with arbitrary n≥3, α∈(0,n), includes p<2 and n−α>4; examples are n=3, α=1, s=0.2, p=1.5 and n=6, α=1, s=0.1, p=1.18. For those parameters no regularity result in the paper supplies the W^{2,q}_{loc}/C^{1,δ}_{loc} regularity used in the appendix. Since (3.12) is used to prove Λ_0<0, to obtain the uniform lower bound on H(v_i), and to derive the asymptotic Pohozaev identity that closes the concentration-compactness argument, the existence proof does not cover the stated parameter range. Either
  2. [Section 3, Eqs. (3.11)–(3.12) and (3.21)] Theorem A1 is stated for the equation (1.1), i.e. Lu+u=μ(I_α*|u|^p)|u|^{p−2}u. In Lemma 3.2 the identity is applied to the shifted equation L(v)=μ(I_α*|v|^p)|v|^{p−2}v+2Λ_0 v, where Λ_0<0. This is not a literal application of Theorem A1. The statement is very likely recoverable by setting c=−2Λ_0>0 and rescaling, but the rescaling and the resulting identity are never written down. Since the shifted Pohozaev identity is used as a black box for every bubble v_i, the missing statement should be supplied explicitly.
  3. [Section 4 (Appendix)] The appendix is described as a 'sketch' and defers to the unpublished preprint [3] and to [2]. This is a load-bearing proof, not a supplementary remark. The limiting steps in (4.2) and (4.3) require uniform estimates for the difference-quotient approximations under the hypotheses of Theorems 1.3/1.4; these estimates are not provided. Please make the proof self-contained or replace [3] with a published reference and expand the details needed for the mixed operator with singular Riesz-potential nonlinearity.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 2, proof of Proposition 2.1] There are small notation slips: '¯N=max{−k,min{k,N_2}}' should read '¯N_{2,k}'; the truncation and convergence arguments are correct in spirit but should be stated uniformly.
  2. [Section 3, Lemma 3.2] Several displayed computations have coefficients and signs that are hard to follow, especially the chain leading to the lower bound on H(v_i) and the definition of D. Please re-check and rewrite the algebra; the sign of D depends on Λ_0<0 and should be made explicit.
  3. [Throughout] The dimension is denoted n in most places but N appears in some displayed equations (e.g. in the proof of Proposition 3.1 and in the expression '2N/(N−α)'). Please standardize to n.
  4. [Abstract / Introduction] The paper would benefit from a sentence clarifying that the Pohozaev identity for the shifted bubble equation is obtained by rescaling Theorem A1; this would remove the apparent mismatch with the statement of Theorem A1.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the existence and equivalence theorems are derived from independent concentration-compactness and Pohozaev arguments; the only self-citation is a standard, non-load-bearing convexity estimate. A parameter-range gap in the appendix Pohozaev proof is a correctness concern, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The paper's central claim (Theorems 1.3 and 1.4) is a PDE existence/equivalence theorem, not an empirical prediction, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The proof chain is: boundedness of minimizing sequences via the Gagliardo-Nirenberg estimate (Prop. 3.1), Jeanjean-type Lagrange multipliers, concentration-compactness decomposition into bubbles, Pohozaev identities (3.12)/(3.21) for each bubble, mass lower bounds, and strong convergence. Each of these is either derived in the text or imported from external sources ([26], [32], [33], [24], [28]). The only self-citation is [22, Lemma 3.5] used in Proposition 2.1 for a fractional convexity inequality; it is parameter-free, does not assume the target existence result, and is not load-bearing for the main theorem, so it does not constitute circularity. There is, however, a genuine missing-support issue that should be weighed separately from circularity. Appendix Theorem A1 begins: "From Theorem 1.2, we have that u∈W^{2,q}_{loc}(R^n) for all q≥2." But Theorem 1.2 is proved only under the hypotheses "n−α<4, 2≤p≤(n+α)/(n−2)", and its proof explicitly uses "since 2*(n+α)/(4n)>1 for n−α<4". Theorem A1 is then invoked in Lemma 3.2 for the full range n+α/n < p < (2s+n+α)/n, which includes p<2 and n−α≥4, and also for the variant L(u)=µ(Iα*|u|^p)|u|^{p−2}u + 2Λ0 u, a variant not literally covered by Theorem A1 as stated. This is a real correctness/parameter-range gap, but it is not a circular reduction: the Pohozaev identity is not assumed to be the theorem being proved, and the gap does not arise from defining an input in terms of an output. Hence the circularity score remains low, while the correctness risk should be evaluated separately.

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

Everything the central claim rests on is standard variational machinery (HLS inequality, Gagliardo-Nirenberg, concentration compactness, Jeanjean's scheme) plus two domain-specific results: the regularity theory for mixed local-nonlocal operators and the Pohozaev identity taken from an unpublished preprint [3]. No free parameters are fitted and no new entities are invented. The main burden is the unpublished Pohozaev identity and the regularity conditions silently imported into the existence theorem.

assumptions (6)
  • standard math Hardy-Littlewood-Sobolev inequality and its sharp constant (Proposition 1.1)
    Used throughout to define A_p(u) and to bound the nonlocal term; standard and stated explicitly.
  • standard math Gagliardo-Nirenberg inequality for Choquard nonlinearity (Proposition 3.1)
    Derived in the paper from the classical Gagliardo-Nirenberg inequality; independent of the main claim.
  • standard math Concentration-compactness lemma of Lions (Lemma I.1 in [28])
    Used in Lemma 3.2 to handle lack of strong convergence of the minimizing sequence.
  • domain assumption Regularity theory for mixed local-nonlocal operators, specifically [19, Theorem 1.2 and 1.4] and [20, Theorem 3.1.20]
    Used in the proof of Theorem 1.2 to pass from L^q integrability to L^infty_loc and then to W^{2,q}_loc. These are external results in the PDE literature.
  • ad hoc to paper Pohozaev identity for mixed operators with Choquard nonlinearity (Theorem A1)
    Central to Sections 3 and 4. The proof is a sketch following the unpublished preprint [3] (Anthal-Garain, arXiv:2506.08667, 2025) together with [32, Proposition 3.1]. The paper does not fully reproduce the argument.
  • domain assumption Fractional convexity estimate of Giacomoni-Goel-Sreenadh [22, Lemma 3.5]
    Used in Proposition 2.1 to obtain a lower bound on the fractional part of the bilinear form. This is a published result by one of the authors, but it is a standard type of fractional inequality.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Normalized solutions to a Choquard equation involving mixed local and nonlocal operators." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7QMDDZFH

@misc{pith2026250909968,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Normalized solutions to a Choquard equation involving mixed local and nonlocal operators},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7QMDDZFH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.09968}
}
read the original abstract

In the present paper, we study the existence of normalized solutions for a Choquard type equation involving mixed diffusion type operators. We also provide regularity results of these solutions. Next, the equivalence between existence of normalized solutions and the existence of normalized ground states is established.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

  1. [3]

    Anthal and P

    G.C. Anthal and P. Garain,Pohozaev-type identities for classes of quasilinear elliptic local and nonlocal equations and systems, with applications, arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.08667 (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  2. [2]

    Ambrosio,On the Pohozaev identity for the fractional p-Laplacian operator inR N, Bull

    V. Ambrosio,On the Pohozaev identity for the fractional p-Laplacian operator inR N, Bull. London. Math. Soc. 56 (2024), no.6, 1999-2013

    2024

  3. [1]

    Abatangelo and M

    N. Abatangelo and M. Cozzi,An elliptic boundary value problem with fractional nonlinearity, SIAM J. Math. Anal. 53 (2021), no.3, 3577-3601. 32

    2021

  4. [4]

    Arora and V.D

    R. Arora and V.D. Rădulescu,Combined effects in mixed local–nonlocal stationary problems, Proc. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh Sect. A 155 (2025), no.1, 1-47

    2025

  5. [5]

    Badiale and E

    M. Badiale and E. Serra,Semilinear elliptic equations for beginners: existence results via the variational approach, Springer Science and Business Media (2010)

    2010

  6. [6]

    Bartsch and S

    T. Bartsch and S. De Valeriola,Normalized solutions of nonlinear Schrödinger equations, Arch. Math (Basel) 100 (2013), no.1, 75-83

    2013

  7. [7]

    Bartsch and L

    T. Bartsch and L. Jeanjean,Normalized solutions for nonlinear Schrödinger systems, Proc. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh Sect. A 148 (2018), no. 2, 225-242

    2018

  8. [8]

    Bartsch, L

    T. Bartsch, L. Jeanjean and N. Soave,Normalized solutions for a system of coupled cubic Schrödinger equations on R3, J. Math. Pures Appl. (9) 106 (2016), no. 4, 583-614

    2016

Show all 43 references
  1. [9]

    Bartsch and N

    T. Bartsch and N. Soave,Multiple normalized solutions for a competing system of Schrödinger equations, Calc. Var. Partial Differential Equations 58 (2019), 1-24

    2019

  2. [10]

    Biagi, D

    S. Biagi, D. Mugnai and E. Vecchi,A Brezis–Oswald approach for mixed local and nonlocal operators, Commun. Contemp. Math. 26 (2024), no. 02, paper 2250057

    2024

  3. [11]

    Biagi, S

    S. Biagi, S. Dipierro, E. Valdinoci and E. Vecchi,Mixed local and nonlocal elliptic operators: regularity and maximum principles, Comm. Partial Differential Equations 47 (2022), no. 3, 585-629

    2022

  4. [12]

    Biswas and S

    R. Biswas and S. Tiwari,Regularity results for Choquard equations involving fractional p- Laplacian, Math. Nachr. 296 (2023), no. 09, 4060-4085

    2023

  5. [13]

    Brasco and E

    L. Brasco and E. Parini,The second eigenvalue of the fractional p-Laplacian, Adv. Calc. Var. 9 (2016), no. 04, 323-355

    2016

  6. [14]

    Cabré and Y

    X. Cabré and Y. Sire,Nonlinear equations for fractional Laplacians, I: Regularity, maximum principles, and Hamiltonian estimates, Ann. Inst. H. Poincaré C Anal. Non Linéaire 31 (2014), no. 1, 23-53

    2014

  7. [15]

    Brezis,Functional Analysis, Sobolev Space and Partial Differential Equations, Springer, New York (2011)

    H. Brezis,Functional Analysis, Sobolev Space and Partial Differential Equations, Springer, New York (2011)

    2011

  8. [16]

    S.Dipierro, E.P.LippiandE.Valdinoci,(Non) local logistic equations with Neumann conditions, Ann. Inst. H. Poincaré C Anal. Non Linéaire 40(2022), no. 5, 1093-1166

    2022

  9. [17]

    Filippucci and M

    R. Filippucci and M. Ghergu,Singular solutions for coercive quasilinear elliptic inequalities with nonlocal terms, Nonlinear Anal. 197 (2020), paper 111857

    2020

  10. [18]

    Fiorenza, M.R

    A. Fiorenza, M.R. Formica, T.G. Roskovec and F. Soudský,Detailed proof of classical Gagliardo–Nirenberg interpolation inequality with historical remarks, Z. Anal. Anwend. 40 (2021), no. 2, 217-236. 33

    2021

  11. [19]

    Garain and E

    P. Garain and E. LindgrenHigher Hölder regularity for mixed local and nonlocal degenerate elliptic equations, Calc. Var. Partial Differential Equations 62 (2023), no. 2, paper 67

    2023

  12. [20]

    Garroni and J.L

    M.G. Garroni and J.L. Menaldi,Second order elliptic integro-differential problems, Chapman and Hall/CRC (2002)

    2002

  13. [21]

    Gao and M

    F. Gao and M. Yang,On nonlocal Choquard equations with Hardy–Littlewood–Sobolev critical exponents, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 448 (2017), no. 2, 1006-1041

    2017

  14. [22]

    Giacomoni, D

    J. Giacomoni, D. Goel and K. Sreenadh,Regularity results on a class of doubly nonlocal prob- lems, J. Differential Equations 268 (2020), no. 9, 5301-5328

    2020

  15. [23]

    Gou and L

    T. Gou and L. Jeanjean,Multiple positive normalized solutions for nonlinear Schrödinger sys- tems, Nonlinearity 31 (2018), no. 5, paper 2319

    2018

  16. [24]

    Jeanjean,Existence of solutions with prescribed norm for semilinear elliptic equations, Non- linear Anal

    L. Jeanjean,Existence of solutions with prescribed norm for semilinear elliptic equations, Non- linear Anal. 28 (1997), no. 10, 1633-1659

    1997

  17. [25]

    Kesavan,Topics in Functional Analysis and Applications, New Age International Publishers, New Delhi, vol

    S. Kesavan,Topics in Functional Analysis and Applications, New Age International Publishers, New Delhi, vol. 23 (2019)

    2019

  18. [26]

    C. Lei, M. Yang and B. Zhang,Sufficient and necessary conditions for normalized solutions to a Choquard equation, J. Geom. Anal. 33 (2023), no. 4, paper 109

    2023

  19. [27]

    E.H.Lieb,Existence and uniqueness of the minimizing solution of Choquard’s nonlinear equation Stud. Appl. Math. 57 (1977), no. 2, 93-105

    1977

  20. [28]

    Lions,The concentration-compactness principle in the calculus of variations

    P.L. Lions,The concentration-compactness principle in the calculus of variations. The locally compact case, part 2, Ann. Inst. H. Poincaré C Anal. Non Linéaire 1 (1984), no. 4, 223-283

    1984

  21. [29]

    Liu and X

    J. Liu and X. Liu, On the eigenvalue problem for thep-Laplacian operator inRN, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 379 (2011), no. 2, 861-869

    2011

  22. [30]

    Liu, V.D

    Z. Liu, V.D. Rădulescu, C. Tang and J. Zhang,Another look at planar Schrödinger-Newton systems, J. Differential Equations 328 (2022), 65-104

    2022

  23. [31]

    Moroz V and J

    V. Moroz V and J. Van Schaftingen,A guide to the Choquard equation, J. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 19 (2017), 773-813

    2017

  24. [32]

    Moroz and J

    V. Moroz and J. Van Schaftingen,Groundstates of nonlinear Choquard equations: existence, qualitative properties and decay asymptotics, J. Funct. Anal. 265 (2013), no. 2, 153-184

    2013

  25. [33]

    Moroz and J

    V. Moroz and J. Van Schaftingen,Existence of groundstates for a class of nonlinear Choquard equations, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 367 (2015), no. 9, 6557-6579

    2015

  26. [34]

    Moroz and J

    V. Moroz and J. Van Schaftingen,A guide to the Choquard equation, J. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 19 (2017), 773-813

    2017

  27. [35]

    Noris, H

    B. Noris, H. Tavares and G. Verzini,Existence and orbital stability of the ground states with prescribed mass for the L2-critical and supercritical NLS on bounded domains, Anal. PDE 7 (2015), no. 8, 1807-1838. 34

    2015

  28. [36]

    Noris, H

    B. Noris, H. Tavares, G. Verzini,Stable solitary waves with prescribed -mass for the cubic Schrödinger system with trapping potentials, Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst. 35 (2015) no. 12, 6085-6112

    2015

  29. [37]

    Noris, H

    B. Noris, H. Tavares and G. Verzini,Normalized solutions for nonlinear Schrödinger systems on bounded domains, Nonlinearity 32 (2019), no. 3, paper 1044

    2019

  30. [38]

    Pierotti and G

    D. Pierotti and G. Verzini,Normalized bound states for the nonlinear Schrödinger equation in bounded domains, Calc. Var. Partial Differential Equations 56 (2017), paper 133

    2017

  31. [39]

    Pekar,Untersuchungen über die Elektronentheorie der Kristalle, De Gruyter (1954)

    S.I. Pekar,Untersuchungen über die Elektronentheorie der Kristalle, De Gruyter (1954)

    1954

  32. [40]

    Penrose,On gravity’s role in quantum state reduction, Gen

    R. Penrose,On gravity’s role in quantum state reduction, Gen. Relativity Gravitation 28 (1996), 581-600

    1996

  33. [41]

    Pagnini and S

    G. Pagnini and S. Vitali,Should I stay or should I go? Zero-size jumps in random walks for Lévy flights, Fract. Calc. Appl. Anal. 24 (2021), no. 1, 137-167

    2021

  34. [42]

    Pellacci, A

    B. Pellacci, A. Pistoia, G. Vaira and G. Verzini,Normalized concentrating solutions to nonlinear elliptic problems, J. Differential Equations 275 (2021), 882-919

    2021

  35. [43]

    Sreenadh and S

    K. Sreenadh and S. Tiwari,OnW (1,p(x)) versusC 1 local minimizers of functionals related to p(x)-Laplacian, Appl. Anal. 92 (2013), no. 6, 1271-1282. 35

    2013

Pith tools

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