Finite Potential Energy for Entire Solutions of the Planar Ginzburg--Landau Equation

Haicheng Yan; Hongge Chen; Juncheng Wei; Wen Yang

REVIEW 1 major objections 4 minor 26 references

Finite Potential Energy for Entire Solutions of the Planar Ginzburg--Landau Equation

T0 review · 1 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper proves that every smooth entire solution of the planar Ginzburg–Landau equation with unit limit at infinity has finite potential energy, resolving a long-standing open problem.

desk verdict Settles Brezis' open problem on finite potential energy for entire planar GL solutions; the argument is coherent and detailed, with the imported pointwise Bernstein estimate as the main checkpoint. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.17490 v2 pith:KQ3Q33QZ submitted 2026-07-20 math.AP math-phmath.MP

Hongge Chen , Juncheng Wei , Haicheng Yan , Wen Yang This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.APmath-phmath.MP MSC 35J4735J5035B4035B65

keywords Ginzburg–Landauequationentiresolutionpotentialenergyexteriorphasecurl-freemodeKelvininversioncriticalellipticdecayBernsteinestimate

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper proves that every smooth entire solution u of the planar Ginzburg–Landau equation with |u(x)|→1 at infinity has finite potential energy ∫(1−|u|²)² dx, settling a long-standing open problem. The obstruction is a possible curl-free mode carrying nonzero circulation that decays only like |x|⁻¹ and is not square-integrable; the authors construct a comparison field with the same circulation via a variational argument and show it decays optimally like |x|⁻¹, forcing the original field into L^γ for every γ>2. Applying this to the Ginzburg–Landau phase yields 1−|u|²∈L², hence finite potential energy. Combined with the quantization theorem, the result gives P(u)=2π deg(u,∞)².

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is an exterior phase estimate: a curl-free field k solving div((1−|k|²)k−F)=0 with F∈L² and uniform decay must belong to L^γ for all γ>2. The proof uses a variational comparison: replace the nonconvex map A(p)=(1−|p|²)p by a uniformly convex potential on a neighborhood, minimize a renormalized Taylor-remainder functional over L² gradient corrections to get a homogeneous field ℓ with the same circulation, then use Kelvin inversion and De Giorgi–Nash–Moser theory to derive |ℓ(x)|≤C/|x|. On the Ginzburg–Landau side, the Bernstein inequality |∇u|²≤1−|u|² and the coercivity of the Jacobi form yield ∇ρ, D²ρ, ∇k∈L², which produces the L² forcing and closes the proof.

What would settle it

Compute the pointwise quantity |∇u|² − (1−|u|²) for a numerically generated non-equivariant entire solution; a positive value anywhere would invalidate the Bernstein estimate and the proof. Equivalently, exhibit any entire solution satisfying |u|→1 with infinite potential energy, which would directly falsify Theorem 1.1.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the dangerous |x|⁻¹ circulation mode cannot survive in a genuine solution: although the phase field k may carry nonzero circulation and lie outside L², its curl-free structure plus an L² forcing term forces k to lie in L^γ for every γ>2. The proof constructs a homogeneous comparison field ℓ with the same circulation solving div((1−|ℓ|²)ℓ)=0 and showing |ℓ(x)|≤C/|x|; since k−ℓ∈L², k inherits the integrability. For the Ginzburg–Landau solution, the Bernstein inequality and coercivity of the Jacobi form put ∇ρ, D²ρ, ∇k in L², which yields the L² forcing F=σk; then 1−|u|²=|k|²+σ∈L², so the potential energy is finite.

Load-bearing premise

The argument depends on the pointwise Bernstein estimate |∇u|² ≤ 1−|u|², imported from the literature; if it failed for some entire solution satisfying the boundary condition, the construction of the L² forcing term and the proof of Theorem 1.1 would collapse.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Every smooth entire solution with |u|→1 at infinity satisfies P(u)=2π deg(u,∞)².
The degree-zero rigidity conclusion now holds without assuming finite potential energy: such a solution is a constant unit-modulus map.
The classification of entire solutions of degree ±1 now holds without a finite-potential-energy assumption.
The result requires neither local minimality nor stability, strengthening the earlier theorem for locally minimizing solutions.
The exterior phase theorem itself gives a general decay criterion for curl-free fields with L² forcing, independent of the Ginzburg–Landau equation.

Reading between the lines

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

The exterior phase estimate likely extends to other models with a phase/connection representation, such as magnetic Ginzburg–Landau systems, where the same |x|⁻¹ circulation obstruction appears.
The sharpness example in the paper suggests the L^γ conclusion cannot be pushed to γ=2 without extra structure; a testable extension is whether F∈L^p with p<2 still forces k∈L^q for suitable q.
The argument plausibly yields the quantitative far-field decay 1−|u|²=O(|x|⁻²), matching the known asymptotic expansion; this could be verified from the constructed bounds.
A self-contained proof of the Bernstein estimate for this class of solutions would remove the sole externally-imported ingredient.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

I agree with the reader's ACCEPT: this paper resolves Brezis' Open Problem 2.5. It proves that every smooth entire solution of the planar Ginzburg–Landau equation with |u(x)|→1 at infinity has finite potential energy, with no local minimality, stability, or finite-energy hypothesis. That's a real advancement. The quantization theorem then gives the unconditional identity P(u)=2π deg(u,∞)^2, and it removes the P(u)<∞ assumption from the degree-zero rigidity and degree-±1 classification results.

The paper's main tool is the exterior phase theorem (Theorem 1.2), which is independently interesting: it gives L^γ integrability for all γ>2 of a decayed curl-free field k satisfying div((1−|k|^2)k − F)=0 with F∈L^2. The handling of the |x|^{-1} circulation mode is the hard part, and the variational comparison via a modified convex potential is the clever work. The proof is long but transparent: Lemma 2.1's modified potential, Proposition 2.4's minimization over L^2 gradient corrections, Lemma 2.5's punctured-disk regularity, and Lemma 2.6's Kelvin-inversion decay are all spelled out with explicit constants. The sharpness example in Remark 2.7 is clean. I looked for circularity and found none; P(u)<∞ is never a hypothesis.

The soft spot is exactly what the stress-test note identifies: Lemma 3.1, the pointwise Bernstein estimate |∇u|^2 ≤ 1−|u|^2, is imported from [26, Theorem 3.5] without proof. Every subsequent estimate leans on it—h≥0 and e≤h, the |k|^2≤4h bound, the smallness condition (3.12), and the L^2 bounds in Proposition 3.5 that feed F=σk∈L^2. If [26] carries an unstated hypothesis, or doesn't apply to non-compact R^2 with only |u|→1, then Theorem 1.1 isn't established. That said, the stress-test note is right that a weaker bound e ≤ C h would suffice for the structural steps, so the sharp constant 1 is not the issue; the point is the existence of some gradient bound tied to the modulus defect. This is a verification request for the referee, not a discovered gap. Everything else—the Jacobi coercivity, the cutoff argument, the Kelvin inversion—checks out.

Minor quibbles: the proof is dense and could use a short roadmap; the AI-assistance statement is fine; the result honestly leaves |deg|≥2 classification open.

Who should read it: anyone working on Ginzburg–Landau, entire semilinear elliptic systems, or exterior phase equations. It deserves a serious referee. I'd send it to review and specifically ask for a careful check of Lemma 3.1's applicability and the algebra in Lemma 3.4.

Referee Report

1 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proves that every smooth entire solution u:R^2→R^2 of the planar Ginzburg–Landau equation −Δu=u(1−|u|^2) with |u(x)|→1 as |x|→∞ has finite potential energy ∫(1−|u|^2)^2 dx<∞. The proof introduces an exterior phase theorem (Theorem 1.2): for a closed one-form k with uniform decay and an L^2 forcing F satisfying div((1−|k|^2)k−F)=0, one has k∈L^γ for all γ>2. The theorem is proved by a variational comparison that produces a homogeneous field ℓ with the same circulation, followed by Kelvin inversion and De Giorgi–Nash–Moser/Schauder regularity to obtain |ℓ(x)|≤C/|x|. The authors then apply this to the Ginzburg–Landau solution: using the Bernstein estimate and coercivity of the Jacobi form, they obtain ∇ρ, D^2ρ, ∇k∈L^2, hence σ=(1−|u|^2)−|k|^2∈L^2, and set F=σk∈L^2. Theorem 1.2 yields k∈L^4, so 1−|u|^2=|k|^2+σ∈L^2.

Significance. If correct, the paper settles a longstanding open problem of Brezis (Open Problem 2.5 in [4]) and removes finite-potential-energy assumptions from earlier classification and quantization results. The exterior phase theorem (Theorem 1.2) is of independent interest, with a sharp L^γ restriction demonstrated by the circulation example in Remark 2.7. The proof is largely self-contained after the cited Bernstein estimate and is executed with explicit constants and careful functional-analytic arguments: the variational comparison, the circulation lemma, the Kelvin-inversion regularity, and the Jacobi coercivity estimates are all detailed. No circular use of the target conclusion was found.

major comments (1)

[Lemma 3.1 / §3.1] The proof of Theorem 1.1 rests on the pointwise Bernstein estimate |∇u|² ≤ 1−|u|², stated as Lemma 3.1 with the proof deferred to [26, Theorem 3.5]. This estimate is used at every subsequent step: it gives h≥0 and e≤h (3.7), the smallness condition 3h+7|k|²≤1 (3.12) via |k|²≤4h, and the cutoff estimate (3.32) that yields the L² bounds in Proposition 3.5. If the cited theorem carries unstated hypotheses (e.g., finite energy, local minimality, or stability), the construction of F∈L² in Corollary 3.6 and the application of Theorem 1.2 would collapse. Please state the theorem with its hypotheses and verify that smooth entire solutions satisfying only (1.3)–(1.4) satisfy them, or provide a self-contained proof.

minor comments (4)

[Proposition 2.4, proof of (2.11)] The displayed estimate contains 'L2(B2(0))^{1/2}', which appears to be a typo for '|B_2(0)|^{1/2}' (the square root of the area of the unit-radius ball). Please correct.
[Lemma 2.6, proof] Typo: 'fllowing identities' should read 'following identities'.
[Notation] The symbol ρ is used for the radius in Section 2 (e.g., in Lemma 2.2 and Proposition 2.4) and for the modulus |u| in Section 3. This is a potential source of confusion; consider renaming one of them.
[References] Reference [6] lists 'del Pino, Juneman and Musso'; the name 'Juneman' appears misspelled. Please verify the correct author name.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the proof derives P(u)<∞ from the GL equation, an independent exterior-phase theorem, and an external Bernstein estimate; no fitted parameter or self-citation chain is load-bearing.

full rationale

I walked the claimed derivation chain. The central target is P(u)=∫h²<∞, h=1−|u|². The proof never assumes h∈L². It uses the Bernstein estimate (Lemma 3.1, quoted from the external paper [26, Theorem 3.5]) to get e≤h, hence h≥0, k→0, the smallness condition (3.12), and the cutoff estimate (3.32). These estimates feed the Jacobi coercivity argument in Proposition 3.5, which yields ∇ρ, D²ρ, ∇k∈L². Corollary 3.6 then defines σ=h−|k|²=−Δρ/ρ∈L² and F=σk∈L², and verifies div((1−|k|²)k−F)=0 by the identity A(k)−F=ρ²k combined with div(ρ²k)=0. Theorem 1.2 is an independently developed exterior-phase result: it is proved by variational comparison (Proposition 2.4), Kelvin inversion, and De Giorgi–Nash–Moser/Schauder regularity (Lemmas 2.5–2.6), and its hypotheses do not include the target finiteness. Applying Theorem 1.2 gives k∈L⁴, so |k|²∈L²; together with σ∈L² this gives h∈L². The only self-reference, [17], is a note that the same strategy was used previously for KP-I lumps; it supplies no theorem or input. The quantization result of [2] is invoked only after Theorem 1.1 is established, to convert the finiteness into the value 2π deg(u,∞)². The unproved Bernstein estimate is an external, non-self citation and is a correctness checkpoint, not a circular step: no equation in the paper defines a hypothesis in terms of the conclusion, no fitted quantity is relabeled as a prediction, and no load-bearing claim rests on a self-citation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The proof introduces no free parameters fitted to data; δ is an auxiliary convexity parameter. The main imported inputs are classical elliptic regularity and the cited Bernstein estimate. The exterior comparison field is constructed rather than assumed, and the claimed conclusion P(u)<∞ is never used as a hypothesis.

free parameters (1)

δ (smoothing radius / convexity margin) = any value in (0,1/4); λ=1−12δ²
Introduced in Lemma 2.1 to construct a globally convex modification W~ of the non-monotone nonlinearity A(p)=(1−|p|²)p. The theorem is independent of the particular choice; the proof only needs δ small enough that |k|≤δ on the exterior region after truncation.

assumptions (5)

standard math De Giorgi–Nash–Moser and Schauder estimates for uniformly elliptic divergence-form equations (Lemma 2.2).
Used to pass from homogeneous equations for ℓ_m to Hölder and then C^{1,β} regularity in Lemma 2.6 and Proposition 2.4; cited to Gilbarg–Trudinger [12, Ch. 8].
standard math Difference-quotient / Sobolev regularity theorems and the weak Poincaré lemma for curl-free L²_loc fields.
Used to upgrade the minimizer w to W^{1,2}_loc and to derive the componentwise elliptic equations (2.17)–(2.18).
domain assumption Pointwise Bernstein estimate |∇u|²≤1−|u|² for all solutions under (1.3)–(1.4).
Quoted from [26, Theorem 3.5], not proved in the paper; it is load-bearing along the whole chain to F∈L². This is the main imported, non-elementary input.
standard math Covering-space lifting of S^1-valued maps and local representation of n as (cos φ, sin φ).
Used in Lemma 3.2 to identify k=∇φ locally and derive curl k=0.
standard math Sobolev chain rule and composition under the Kelvin inversion.
Used in Lemma 2.6 to justify applying ∂_m to the divergence equation and to invert the exterior equation into a punctured-disk equation.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Finite Potential Energy for Entire Solutions of the Planar Ginzburg--Landau Equation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KQ3Q33QZ

@misc{pith2026260717490,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Finite Potential Energy for Entire Solutions of the Planar Ginzburg--Landau Equation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KQ3Q33QZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.17490}
}

abstract

We prove that every smooth entire solution $ u\colon\mathbb{R}^2\to\mathbb{R}^2 $ of the Ginzburg--Landau equation $ -\Delta u=u(1-|u|^2) $ with $ |u(x)|\to1 $ as $ |x|\to\infty $ has finite potential energy, i.e., \begin{equation*} \int_{\mathbb{R}^2}(1-|u|^2)^2 \mathrm{d}x<+\infty, \end{equation*} thereby resolving Brezis' Open Problem 2.5 in [4]. The main difficulty stems from the possible presence of a curl-free mode that carries nonzero circulation and decays only like $ |x|^{-1} $; such a mode lies outside $ L^2 $ and does not admit a single-valued potential. By minimizing over $ L^2 $ gradient corrections, we construct a comparison field that solves the homogeneous equation and inherits the same circulation. The Kelvin inversion, combined with the De Giorgi--Nash--Moser theory for quasilinear elliptic equations, then produces the optimal decay $ O(|x|^{-1}) $. For a Ginzburg--Landau solution, the Bernstein estimate and the coercivity of the Jacobi form produce an $ L^2 $ forcing term in the exterior phase equation. The resulting $ L^4 $ bound on the phase field implies $1-|u|^2\in L^2(\mathbb{R}^2)$, and therefore the potential energy is finite.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

26 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

[26]

Smyrnelis,Gradient estimates for semilinear elliptic systems and other related results, Proc

P. Smyrnelis,Gradient estimates for semilinear elliptic systems and other related results, Proc. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh Sect. A145(2015), no. 6, 1313–1330. HONG-GECHEN, SCHOOL OFMATHEMATICS ANDSTATISTICS, KEYLABORATORY OFNON- LINEARANALYSIS& APPLICATIONS(MINISTRY OFEDUCATION), CENTRALCHINANORMAL UNIVERSITY, WUHAN, CHINA Email address:hongge chen@whu.edu.cn J...

2015
[4]

Brezis,Some of my favorite open problems, Rend

H. Brezis,Some of my favorite open problems, Rend. Lincei Mat. Appl.34(2023), no. 2, 307–335

2023
[1]

Bethuel, H

F. Bethuel, H. Brezis, and F. H´elein,Ginzburg–Landau Vortices, Progress in Nonlinear Differen- tial Equations and Their Applications, vol. 13, Birkh¨auser Boston, Boston, MA, 1994

1994
[2]

Brezis, F

H. Brezis, F. Merle, and T. Rivi`ere,Quantization effects for −∆u=u(1− |u|2) in R2, Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal.126(1994), no. 1, 35–58

1994
[3]

Brezis,Symmetry in nonlinear PDE’s, inDifferential equations: La Pietra 1996 (Florence), pp

H. Brezis,Symmetry in nonlinear PDE’s, inDifferential equations: La Pietra 1996 (Florence), pp. 1–12, Proc. Sympos. Pure Math. 65, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 1999

1996
[5]

del Pino, M

M. del Pino, M. Kowalczyk and M. Musso,Variational reduction for Ginzburg-Landau vortices, J. Funct. Anal.239(2006), 497–541

2006
[6]

del Pino, R

M. del Pino, R. Juneman and M. Musso,Solvability for the Ginzburg-Landau equation linearized at the degree-one vortex.J. Funct. Anal.289(2025), no. 9, Paper No. 111105, 28 pp

2025
[7]

Dong and B

G. Dong and B. Ou,Subsonic flows around a body in space, Comm. Partial Differential Equations 18(1993), no. 1-2, 355–379

1993

Show all 26 references

[8]

L. C. Evans,Partial Differential Equations, 2nd ed., Graduate Studies in Mathematics, vol. 19, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2010

2010
[9]

Farina,On the classification of entire local minimizers of the Ginzburg–Landau equation, inRecent trends in nonlinear partial differential equations

A. Farina,On the classification of entire local minimizers of the Ginzburg–Landau equation, inRecent trends in nonlinear partial differential equations. II. Stationary problems, 231–236, Contemp. Math.,595, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2013

2013
[10]

Farina,A Liouville property for Ginzburg–Landau systems, Anal

A. Farina,A Liouville property for Ginzburg–Landau systems, Anal. Appl. (Singap.)5(2007), no. 3, 285–290

2007
[11]

Farina,Two results on entire solutions of Ginzburg–Landau system in higher dimensions, J

A. Farina,Two results on entire solutions of Ginzburg–Landau system in higher dimensions, J. Funct. Anal.214(2004), no. 2, 386–395

2004
[12]

Gilbarg and N

D. Gilbarg and N. S. Trudinger,Elliptic Partial Differential Equations of Second Order, Classics in Mathematics, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2001

2001
[13]

Ignat, M

R. Ignat, M. Nahon, and L. Nguyen,Minimality of vortex solutions to Ginzburg–Landau type systems for gradient fields in the unit ball in dimension N≥4 , Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal.249 (2025), no. 1, Paper No. 14. 28 H.G. CHEN, J.C. WEI, H.C. Y AN, AND W. Y ANG

2025
[14]

Ignat, L

R. Ignat, L. Nguyen, V . Slastikov, and A. Zarnescu,Uniqueness of degree-one Ginzburg–Landau vortex in the unit ball in dimensions N≥7 , C. R. Math. Acad. Sci. Paris356(2018), no. 9, 922–926

2018
[15]

Ignat, L

R. Ignat, L. Nguyen, V . Slastikov, and A. Zarnescu,On the uniqueness of minimisers of Ginzburg– Landau functionals, Ann. Sci. ´Ec. Norm. Sup´er. (4)53(2020), no. 3, 589–613

2020
[16]

Ignat, L

R. Ignat, L. Nguyen, V . Slastikov, and A. Zarnescu,The Ginzburg–Landau system with general potential: maximum principle and gradient estimates, preprint, arXiv:2606.04615, 2026

2026 arXiv
[17]

Liu, J.C

Y . Liu, J.C. Wei, J.G. Xiong, and W. Yang,Complete classification of the KP-I Lump, preprint
[18]

Mironescu,Les minimiseurs locaux pour l’ ´equation de Ginzburg–Landau sont `a sym´etrie radiale, C

P. Mironescu,Les minimiseurs locaux pour l’ ´equation de Ginzburg–Landau sont `a sym´etrie radiale, C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris S´er. I Math.323(1996), no. 6, 593–598

1996
[19]

Pacard and T

F. Pacard and T. Rivi`ere,Linear and Nonlinear Aspects of Vortices: The Ginzburg–Landau Model, Progress in Nonlinear Differential Equations and Their Applications, vol. 39, Birkh¨auser Boston, Boston, MA, 2000

2000
[20]

Sandier and S

E. Sandier and S. Serfaty,Vortices in the Magnetic Ginzburg–Landau Model, Progress in Nonlinear Differential Equations and Their Applications, vol. 70, Birkh¨auser Boston, Boston, MA, 2007

2007
[21]

Sandier,Locally minimising solutions of −∆u=u(1−|u| 2) in R2, Proc

E. Sandier,Locally minimising solutions of −∆u=u(1−|u| 2) in R2, Proc. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh Sect. A128(1998), no. 2, 349–358

1998
[22]

Serrin,Isolated singularities of solutions of quasi-linear equations, Acta Math.113(1965), 219–240

J. Serrin,Isolated singularities of solutions of quasi-linear equations, Acta Math.113(1965), 219–240

1965
[23]

Shafrir,Remarks on solutions of −∆u= (1− |u|2)u in R2, C

I. Shafrir,Remarks on solutions of −∆u= (1− |u|2)u in R2, C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris S ´er. I Math.318(1994), no. 4, 327–331

1994
[24]

Shiffman,On the existence of subsonic flows of a compressible fluid, J

M. Shiffman,On the existence of subsonic flows of a compressible fluid, J. Rational Mech. Anal. 1 (1952), 605–652

1952
[25]

L. M. Sibner and R. J. Sibner,A non-linear Hodge-de Rham theorem, Acta Math.125(1970), 57–73

1970

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [26]

Smyrnelis,Gradient estimates for semilinear elliptic systems and other related results, Proc

P. Smyrnelis,Gradient estimates for semilinear elliptic systems and other related results, Proc. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh Sect. A145(2015), no. 6, 1313–1330. HONG-GECHEN, SCHOOL OFMATHEMATICS ANDSTATISTICS, KEYLABORATORY OFNON- LINEARANALYSIS& APPLICATIONS(MINISTRY OFEDUCATION), CENTRALCHINANORMAL UNIVERSITY, WUHAN, CHINA Email address:hongge chen@whu.edu.cn J...

2015

[2] [4]

Brezis,Some of my favorite open problems, Rend

H. Brezis,Some of my favorite open problems, Rend. Lincei Mat. Appl.34(2023), no. 2, 307–335

2023

[3] [1]

Bethuel, H

F. Bethuel, H. Brezis, and F. H´elein,Ginzburg–Landau Vortices, Progress in Nonlinear Differen- tial Equations and Their Applications, vol. 13, Birkh¨auser Boston, Boston, MA, 1994

1994

[4] [2]

Brezis, F

H. Brezis, F. Merle, and T. Rivi`ere,Quantization effects for −∆u=u(1− |u|2) in R2, Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal.126(1994), no. 1, 35–58

1994

[5] [3]

Brezis,Symmetry in nonlinear PDE’s, inDifferential equations: La Pietra 1996 (Florence), pp

H. Brezis,Symmetry in nonlinear PDE’s, inDifferential equations: La Pietra 1996 (Florence), pp. 1–12, Proc. Sympos. Pure Math. 65, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 1999

1996

[6] [5]

del Pino, M

M. del Pino, M. Kowalczyk and M. Musso,Variational reduction for Ginzburg-Landau vortices, J. Funct. Anal.239(2006), 497–541

2006

[7] [6]

del Pino, R

M. del Pino, R. Juneman and M. Musso,Solvability for the Ginzburg-Landau equation linearized at the degree-one vortex.J. Funct. Anal.289(2025), no. 9, Paper No. 111105, 28 pp

2025

[8] [7]

Dong and B

G. Dong and B. Ou,Subsonic flows around a body in space, Comm. Partial Differential Equations 18(1993), no. 1-2, 355–379

1993