Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 3 minor 44 references

Positivity and non-positivity results for the sixth-order $Q$-curvature of conformal metrics in $\mathbb{R}^n$

T0 review · 2 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read For conformal metrics on R^n, nonnegative top-order Q-curvature forces the sixth-order Q-curvature to be positive only in dimensions up to 4m−6; in higher dimensions, counterexamples exist.

desk verdict Kills the k=3 positivity conjecture with a sharp dimension split; the result is credible but the key kernel computation is hand-verified only. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.18205 v1 pith:ZHCECGM6 submitted 2026-07-20 math.DG math.AP

Jérôme Vétois , Samuel Zeitler This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.DGmath.AP MSC 53A3053C2135J30
keywords Q-curvaturesixth-ordercurvatureconformalmetricspositivityintegralrepresentationGJMSoperatorsconformallyEuclideandimensionthreshold
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 asks whether positivity of the highest-order Q-curvature Q^(2m) (with m≥4) on a conformally Euclidean metric on R^n forces the sixth-order Q-curvature Q^(6) to be positive. The answer, it shows, depends sharply on dimension: for every n between 2m and 4m−6, yes — Q^(6)>0 as soon as Q^(2m)≥0 and not identically zero. For n larger than a real threshold N_m, which is asymptotic to 10.55m, no: the paper constructs smooth conformally Euclidean metrics with C^{-1} ≤ Q^(2m) ≤ C yet Q^(6)(0)<0, and these metrics extend smoothly to the sphere S^n. This refutes the natural conjecture, proposed in earlier work, that positivity propagates to all lower-order Q-curvatures in every dimension. The proofs hinge entirely on an explicit integral representation of Q^(6) in terms of a 6-fold integral with a cubic kernel.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the integral representation of Proposition 2.1: for n>2m, Q^(6)_g(x) equals 2(m−3) times the six-fold integral of ∏|x−y_i|^{2m−n} P_{n,m}(Z) with respect to six copies of the Q^(2m)-measure dµ_g^{(2m)}, where P_{n,m} is an explicit cubic polynomial in eight associated quantities Z_{i,j}=|y_i−y_j|^2/(|x−y_i|^2|x−y_j|^2) (and the analogue with a 23-term cubic kernel when n=2m). The polynomial is derived by applying the Laplacian and product rules under the integral sign to u^t, with t=(n−6)/(n−2m). Its sign dictates everything: positivity of Q^(6) is proved by showing this cubic is nonnegative on the relevant dimension range using identities among the Z's; non-positi

What would settle it

Run a computer-algebra expansion of the expression for Q^(6)_g obtained from (2.8)–(2.10) and verify that the coefficients c'_1,…,c'_8 (and b'_1,…,b'_23 in the n=2m case) exactly match the printed values, with all terms containing a standalone Z_i or Z_i^2 vanishing. A cheaper test: pick m=4, n=30 and evaluate Q^(6)_g(0) numerically for the two-peak metric of Section 4 with r chosen so that K_{n,m}(r)<0; the sign should be negative.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central result is a dichotomy for the sixth-order Q-curvature. Let m≥4 and let g be a conformally Euclidean metric on R^n satisfying the asymptotic assumption (A). If Q^(2m)≥0 and Q^(2m)≢0, then Q^(6)>0 pointwise whenever n∈{2m,2m+1,...,4m−6}; this is Theorem 1.1. In contrast, Theorem 1.2 states that for every n>N_m (with N_m behaving like 10.55m as m→∞), there exists a conformally Euclidean metric g with C^{-1}≤Q^(2m)≤C on all of R^n but Q^(6)(0)<0. Thus positivity of the top Q-curvature does not propagate to the sixth order in high dimensions, contradicting the natural expectation from earlier positivity results for the scalar and fourth-order curvatures.

Load-bearing premise

The entire dichotomy is built on a single hand-computed formula (Proposition 2.1) in which one step — that all diagonal Z_i terms cancel out of the cubic kernel — is asserted without proof; if a sign error lurks there, both theorems would fail.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The natural conjecture that nonnegative Q^(2m) forces positivity of all lower-order Q-curvatures for every n≥2m is false for k=3; any further positivity result must account for a dimension threshold near 10.55m.
  • In the range n≤4m−6, the positivity of Q^(6) is a pure consequence of an algebraic inequality for a cubic kernel, so it holds for every conformally Euclidean metric satisfying (A), regardless of other geometric data.
  • The counterexamples extend by stereographic projection to smooth metrics on S^n, meaning the failure of positivity is not an artifact of noncompactness and occurs in the closed-manifold setting.
  • The techniques show that the sixth order is the first order where the sign of the kernel can change; the polynomial γ_m and its largest real root N_m provide an explicit, computable threshold for each m.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same two-peak construction could be adapted to test whether even higher orders (k≥4) exhibit a similar dimension threshold; the palindromic reduction suggests the mechanism is generic, not specific to k=3.
  • The unverified cancellation of the Z_i terms in the kernel is the natural place for an independent computer-algebra check; if it holds, the dichotomy is robust, but the proof as written leaves that gap.
  • One might conjecture that the optimal positivity range is exactly n<Λm (or n≤4m−6 is not sharp) — the paper's N_m is only an upper bound for where negativity first appears, so the true threshold could be lower.
  • The integral kernel representation, once established, may find use in other Q-curvature questions, such as isoperimetric inequalities or Green's function positivity, since it turns a differential-geometric issue into a finite-dimensional polynomial inequality.
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

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper studies the propagation of positivity from the top-order Q-curvature Q_g^{(2m)} to the sixth-order Q-curvature Q_g^{(6)} for conformally Euclidean metrics on R^n, for m >= 4. Theorem 1.1 claims that under assumption (A), if Q_g^{(2m)} >= 0 and not identically zero, then Q_g^{(6)} > 0 for every n in {2m,...,4m-6}. Theorem 1.2 claims that for every n > N_m, with N_m the largest real root of the explicit polynomial gamma_m and N_m ~ 10.55 m, there is a conformally Euclidean metric with C^{-1} <= Q_g^{(2m)} <= C but Q_g^{(6)}(0) < 0, extendable to S^n. Both results are derived from an explicit integral formula for Q_g^{(6)} in Proposition 2.1, obtained by a long computation involving repeated differentiation under the integral sign and the study of the sign of a cubic kernel.

Significance. If correct, these results are significant: they refute the natural conjecture of Li-Xu and Li-Wei-Xu that positivity of Q_g^{(2m)} implies positivity of all lower-order Q-curvatures for all n >= 2m, and they give a fairly precise dimensional threshold for k = 3. The paper's approach is largely self-contained and parameter-free: the threshold N_m is defined as the largest root of an explicit polynomial, the construction in Theorem 1.2 uses explicit approximate Dirac masses, and the positivity proof reduces to explicit polynomial inequalities with no fitted constants. The manuscript also states the full coefficient chains c_i, c_i', b_i, b_i', which is a useful feature for verification. However, the central computation in Proposition 2.1 is performed by hand, with one cancellation and one factorization asserted rather than shown, and there appears to be an exponent inconsistency in the derivation of the main integral formula for n > 2m. These issues are load-bearing for both theorems.

major comments (2)
  1. [§2, proof of Prop. 2.1, n > 2m case, equation after (2.11)] The stated identity Q_g^{(6)} = 2/(n-6) u^{6-t} (-\Delta)^3(u^t) is inconsistent with the definition (1.1). With u = \varphi^{(n-2m)/2} and t=(n-6)/(n-2m), formula (1.1) gives Q_g^{(6)} = 2/(n-6) u^{-(n+6)/(n-2m)} (-\Delta)^3(u^t), not u^{6-t}. The printed exponent differs from the correct one by u^{-6 - 12/(n-2m)}. Since (2.4) and therefore Theorems 1.1 and 1.2 are algebraic consequences of this identity, the proof as written establishes a formula for a different quantity. Please correct the exponent and, if necessary, recompute the coefficient lists and the subsequent sign analysis, or explain why the printed identity is the intended one.
  2. [§2, proof of Prop. 2.1, n > 2m and n = 2m cases] The proof of Proposition 2.1 contains two asserted computational steps: after the list c'_1,...,c'_8, the cancellation of all Z_i terms is asserted with 'computations similar to those above show that the coefficients of all these terms are zero', and in the n=2m case the final result is obtained by 'factorizing then gives (2.5)' without displaying the factorization. These steps are load-bearing: Theorem 1.1 requires the sign of the full kernel P_{n,m}, and Theorem 1.2 uses the exact coefficients through b_0,b_1,b_2 and the discriminant. A single sign or transcription error would change the threshold N_m or destroy the positivity interval. Please provide the complete cancellation/factorization computations, or a symbolic-verification artifact (e.g., a supplementary computer-algebra file).
minor comments (3)
  1. [§4, proof of Thm. 1.2, asymptotic claim] The proof that N_m < \Lambda m for all m >= 4 is summarized by 'after analyzing the polynomials in \tilde n ... it turns out that all of them are positive' without details. This is a finite but nontrivial verification; please include the estimates or a reference to a supplementary file.
  2. [§2, notation] In the n=2m case of Proposition 2.1, the parameter \lambda is written as \lambda := \mu_g^{(2m)}(\mathbb R^n), but in that case the measure is d\mu_g^{(n)}; for consistency use the same notation as in (1.2).
  3. [Throughout] Several displayed equations in the proof of Proposition 2.1 are not numbered (e.g., the initial formulas (2.6)-(2.11) are numbered but intermediate expressions are referred to by text). Numbering the key intermediate identities would help verification.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the main results reduce to explicit kernel sign computations and use external (non-self) integral representation theorems.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained in the sense relevant to circularity. Theorem 1.1 and Theorem 1.2 are algebraic consequences of the explicit integral formula for Q_g^(6) in Proposition 2.1, whose kernel P_{n,m} is written out with explicit coefficients. Theorem 1.2 defines N_m as the largest real root of an explicit polynomial γ_m(n), not as a parameter fitted to force the conclusion; the construction of the metric g_{r,ε} is an explicit bump/peak construction and the negativity of K_{n,m}(r) is shown via the palindromic-polynomial criterion (4.2), again an explicit inequality. No “prediction” is secretly a fitted input: no parameter is tuned to data, and no quantity claimed as an output is used as an assumption. The only external inputs are the integral representation formulas (1.2), imported from Li–Xu [32] and Li–Wei–Xu [30], which are not by the present authors and are not self-citations. The sentence “computations similar to those above show that the coefficients of all these terms are zero” and the unshown factorization in the n=2m case are potential correctness gaps in the hand computation, but an unverified algebraic step is not circularity: the coefficients are displayed and could in principle be checked independently, and they are not defined in terms of the theorem being proved. There is no self-citation chain supporting the central claim, no uniqueness theorem imported from the authors' own prior work, and no renaming of a known result as a new derivation. Accordingly, the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical or geometric entities are postulated; the metrics g_{r,ε} in Thm 1.2 are explicit constructions (Dirac-mass limit of two peaks) rather than invented mechanisms. The threshold N_m is the root of an explicit polynomial, not an ad hoc fitted constant.

free parameters (2)
  • r — relative peak height in the Thm 1.2 construction
    Existence parameter varying in (0,∞); the proof shows K_{n,m}(r) < 0 for some r > 0 by the palindromic-polynomial criterion (4.2), not by numerical fitting. No specific value is required for the theorem.
  • ε — regularization parameter (approximate Dirac masses)
    Q^(6)(0) for g_{r,ε} converges to the limiting value as ε → 0 (eq. (4.1)); the counterexample requires ε sufficiently small. It is a limiting parameter, not a fitted constant.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Integral representation (1.2) for conformal factors u on R^n under assumption (A): u(x) = ∫|x−y|^{2m−n} dµ_g^(2m)(y) (n > 2m) and u = ∫ln(|y|/|x−y|) dµ_g^(n)(y) + C (n = 2m), with differentiability under the integral sign up to order 2m−1.
    Invoked at the start of §2 and in (2.2)–(2.3); Prop 2.1 and both main theorems are built on it. It is imported from Li–Xu Thm 2.6 [32] and Li–Wei–Xu Thms 3.8–3.9 [30] and not proved in this paper.
  • domain assumption Assumption (A): for n > 2m, Q_g^(2m) ≥ c|x|^s near infinity with s ∈ (−2m, 0); for n = 2m, scalar curvature Q_g^(2) ≥ 0 and Q_g^(n) ≥ 0 near infinity with Q_g^(n) ≢ 0.
    Stated hypothesis required for the integral representation and for the sign/decay properties used in §3. The Thm 1.2 counterexamples are verified to satisfy (A).
  • standard math Definition of Q-curvature (1.1) and its conformal-invariance/GJMS background (Branson; Fefferman–Graham; Graham–Jenne–Mason–Sparling).
    Standard background facts cited in §1; not the object of this paper's proofs.
  • domain assumption λ := µ_g^(n)(R^n) satisfies 0 < λ ≤ 2 for n = 2m.
    Used in §2–3 (statement after Prop 2.1 and in the n = 2m case of Thm 1.1) to fix the signs of the P_{n,m} coefficients; inherited from Li–Wei–Xu Thm 3.8 [30].
  • standard math Conformal invariance under stereographic projection and the Green's-function formula for the GJMS operator of order 2m on (S^n, g₀).
    Used only at the end of Thm 1.2 to extend the counterexamples to the sphere; standard computation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Positivity and non-positivity results for the sixth-order $Q$-curvature of conformal metrics in $\mathbb{R}^n$." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZHCECGM6

@misc{pith2026260718205,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Positivity and non-positivity results for the sixth-order $Q$-curvature of conformal metrics in $\mathbbR^n$},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZHCECGM6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.18205}
}
abstract

Given $n,m\in\mathbb{N}$ such that $n\ge2m\ge4$, letting $g$ be a conformally Euclidean metric on $\mathbb{R}^n$, we consider the question of positivity of the lower-order $Q$-curvatures $Q_g^{(2k)}$ for $k\in\left\{1,\dotsc,m-1\right\}$ when $Q_g^{(2m)}$ is assumed to be nonnegative and not identically zero. We assume moreover that the scalar curvature of the metric $g$ is nonnegative near infinity if $n=2m$ or that $Q_g^{(2m)}$ satisfies a slow decay barrier condition near infinity if $n>2m$. Positive results for this question have been obtained by Gursky and Malchiodi for $m=2$ and $k=1$ in the context of closed manifolds with nonnegative scalar curvature and by Li and Xu and Li, Wei, and Xu for $m\ge2$ and $k\in\left\{1,\min(m-1,2)\right\}$ in the context of conformally Euclidean metrics on $\mathbb{R}^n$. These results hold for all $n\ge2m$. Considering the case where $m\ge4$ and $k=3$, we obtain a positive result for this question when $n\in\left\{2m,2m+1,\dotsc,4m-6\right\}$, namely for these dimensions, we obtain that if $Q_g^{(2m)}\ge0$ and $Q_g^{(2m)}\not\equiv0$ in $\mathbb{R}^n$, then $Q_g^{(6)}>0$. On the other hand, in surprising contrast with the results of Gursky and Malchiodi, Li and Xu, and Li, Wei, and Xu, we find that the answer to this question is negative when $k=3$ and $n\ge N_m$ for some $N_m\in\mathbb{R}$. In this case, we are able to construct examples of conformally Euclidean metrics such that $Q_g^{(2m)}$ is positive everywhere, but $Q_g^{(6)}$ is negative at some point. By stereographic projection, our examples extend to metrics conformal to the standard metric on $\mathbb{S}^n$.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 3 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    J. H. Andrade, T. K¨ onig, J. Ratzkin, and J. Wei,Quantitative stability of the total Q-curvature near minimizing metrics(2024). arXiv:2407.06934

    arXiv 2024

  2. [2]

    T. P. Branson,Sharp inequalities, the functional determinant, and the complementary series, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.347(1995), no. 10, 3671–3742

    1995

  3. [3]

    T. P. Branson and B. Ørsted,Explicit functional determinants in four dimensions, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc.113(1991), no. 3, 669–682

    1991

  4. [4]

    L. A. Caffarelli, B. Gidas, and J. Spruck,Asymptotic symmetry and local behavior of semilinear elliptic equations with critical Sobolev growth, Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 42(1989), no. 3, 271–297

    1989

  5. [5]

    J. S. Case,The Obata–V´ etois argument and its applications, J. Reine Angew. Math. 815(2024), 23–40

    2024

  6. [6]

    J. S. Case and A. R. Gover,The GJMS operators in geometry, analysis and physics, J. Lond. Math. Soc. (2)113(2026), no. 1, e70375

    2026

  7. [7]

    S.-Y. A. Chang, J. Qing, and P. C. Yang,On the Chern–Gauss–Bonnet integral for conformal metrics onR 4, Duke Math. J.103(2000), no. 3, 523–544

    2000

  8. [8]

    Chen and F

    X. Chen and F. Hou,Remarks on GJMS operator of order six, Pacific J. Math.289 (2017), no. 1, 35–70

    2017

Show all 44 references
  1. [9]

    Djadli, E

    Z. Djadli, E. Hebey, and M. Ledoux,Paneitz-type operators and applications, Duke Math. J.104(2000), no. 1, 129–169

    2000

  2. [10]

    Esposito and F

    P. Esposito and F. Robert,Mountain pass critical points for Paneitz–Branson oper- ators, Calc. Var. Partial Differential Equations15(2002), no. 4, 493–517

    2002

  3. [11]

    Fang,On a conformal Gauss–Bonnet–Chern inequality for LCF manifolds and related topics, Calc

    H. Fang,On a conformal Gauss–Bonnet–Chern inequality for LCF manifolds and related topics, Calc. Var. Partial Differential Equations23(2005), no. 4, 469–496

    2005

  4. [12]

    Fazly, J

    M. Fazly, J. Wei, and X. Xu,A pointwise inequality for the fourth-order Lane–Emden equation, Anal. PDE8(2015), no. 7, 1541–1563

    2015

  5. [13]

    Fefferman and C

    C. Fefferman and C. R. Graham,Conformal invariants, ´Elie Cartan et les math´ emati- ques d’aujourd’hui – Lyon, 25–29 juin 1984, Ast´ erisqueS131(1985), 95–116

    1984

  6. [14]

    178, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 2012

    ,The ambient metric, Annals of Mathematics Studies, vol. 178, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 2012. THE SIXTH-ORDERQ-CUR V ATURE OF CONFORMAL METRICS INR n 23

    2012

  7. [15]

    Finn,On a class of conformal metrics, with application to differential geometry in the large, Comment

    R. Finn,On a class of conformal metrics, with application to differential geometry in the large, Comment. Math. Helv.40(1965), 1–30

    1965

  8. [16]

    Y. Ge, G. Wang, and W. Wei,A Yamabe problem for the quotient between theQ- curvature and the scalar curvature(2026). arXiv:2603.15074

    2026

  9. [17]

    M. Gong, S. Kim, and J. Wei,Compactness and non-compactness theorems of the fourth-order and sixth-order constantQ-curvature problems(2025). arXiv:2502.14237

    2025

  10. [18]

    C. R. Graham, R. Jenne, L. J. Mason, and G. A. J. Sparling,Conformally invariant powers of the Laplacian. I. Existence, J. London Math. Soc. (2)46(1992), no. 3, 557–565

    1992

  11. [19]

    M. J. Gursky, F. Hang, and Y.-J. Lin,Riemannian manifolds with positive Yamabe invariant and Paneitz operator, Int. Math. Res. Not. IMRN5(2016), 1348–1367

    2016

  12. [20]

    M. J. Gursky and A. Malchiodi,A strong maximum principle for the Paneitz operator and a non-local flow for theQ-curvature, J. Eur. Math. Soc. (JEMS)17(2015), no. 9, 2137–2173

    2015

  13. [21]

    Hang and P

    F. Hang and P. C. Yang,Sign of Green ’s function of Paneitz operators and theQ curvature, Int. Math. Res. Not. IMRN19(2015), 9775–9791

    2015

  14. [22]

    Pure Appl

    ,Q-curvature on a class of manifolds with dimension at least 5, Comm. Pure Appl. Math.69(2016), no. 8, 1452–1491

    2016

  15. [23]

    Hebey and F

    E. Hebey and F. Robert,Compactness and global estimates for the geometric Paneitz equation in high dimensions, Electron. Res. Announc. Amer. Math. Soc.10(2004), 135–141

    2004

  16. [24]

    Hebey, F

    E. Hebey, F. Robert, and Y. Wen,Compactness and global estimates for a fourth order equation of critical Sobolev growth arising from conformal geometry, Commun. Contemp. Math.8(2006), no. 1, 9–65

    2006

  17. [25]

    Hyder and Y Sire,Singular solutions for the constantQ-curvature problem, J

    A. Hyder and Y Sire,Singular solutions for the constantQ-curvature problem, J. Funct. Anal.280(2021), no. 3, Paper No. 108819, 39

    2021

  18. [26]

    Li,The totalQ-curvature, volume entropy and polynomial growth polyharmonic functions, Adv

    M. Li,The totalQ-curvature, volume entropy and polynomial growth polyharmonic functions, Adv. Math.450(2024), no. 109768

    2024

  19. [27]

    arXiv:2408.03640

    ,The totalQ-curvature, volume entropy and polynomial growth polyharmonic functions (II)(2024). arXiv:2408.03640

    2024 arXiv

  20. [28]

    arXiv:2405

    ,Conformal metrics with finite totalQ-curvature revisited(2024). arXiv:2405. 09872

    2024

  21. [29]

    Li and J

    M. Li and J. Wei,A remark on the Case–Gursky–V´ etois identity and its applications, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc.153(2025), no. 8, 3417–3430

    2025

  22. [30]

    M. Li, J. Wei, and X. Xu,On geometry ofQ (2k) g -curvature(2025). arXiv:2506.20165

    2025

  23. [31]

    Li and J

    Y. Li and J. Xiong,Compactness of conformal metrics with constantQ-curvature. I, Adv. Math.345(2019), 116–160

    2019

  24. [32]

    Li and X

    M. Li and X. Xu,On positivity of theQ-curvatures of conformal metrics, J. Funct. Anal.289(2025), no. 8, 111011

    2025

  25. [33]

    arXiv:2607.06951

    ,A sharp isoperimetric inequality and the top orderQ-curvature(2025). arXiv:2607.06951

    2025 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Lin,A classification of solutions of a conformally invariant fourth order equation inR n, Comment

    C.-S. Lin,A classification of solutions of a conformally invariant fourth order equation inR n, Comment. Math. Helv.73(1998), no. 2, 206–231

    1998

  27. [35]

    Martinazzi,Classification of solutions to the higher order Liouville’s equation on R2m, Math

    L. Martinazzi,Classification of solutions to the higher order Liouville’s equation on R2m, Math. Z.263(2009), no. 2, 307–329

    2009

  28. [36]

    Mazumdar and B

    S. Mazumdar and B. Premoselli,Compactness of conformal metrics with constant Q-curvature of higher order(2026). arXiv:2603.06249

    2026

  29. [37]

    Mazumdar and C

    S. Mazumdar and C. B. Ndiaye,Barycenter technique for the higher orderQ-curvature equation(2025). arXiv:2510.00888

    2025

  30. [38]

    Mazumdar and J

    S. Mazumdar and J. V´ etois,Existence results for the higher-orderQ-curvature equa- tion, Calc. Var. Partial Differential Equations63(2024), no. 6, Paper No. 151, 29. 24 J ´ER ˆOME V ´ETOIS AND SAMUEL ZEITLER

    2024

  31. [39]

    C. B. Ndiaye and J. Xiao,An upper bound of the totalQ-curvature and its isoperi- metric deficit for higher-dimensional conformal Euclidean metrics, Calc. Var. Partial Differential Equations38(2010), no. 1-2, 1–27

    2010

  32. [40]

    Obata,The conjectures on conformal transformations of Riemannian manifolds, J

    M. Obata,The conjectures on conformal transformations of Riemannian manifolds, J. Differential Geometry6(1971/72)

    1971

  33. [41]

    Robert,Positive solutions for a fourth order equation invariant under isometries, Proc

    F. Robert,Positive solutions for a fourth order equation invariant under isometries, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc.131(2003), no. 5, 1423–1431

    2003

  34. [42]

    Math., vol

    ,AdmissibleQ-curvatures under isometries for the conformal GJMS operators, Nonlinear elliptic partial differential equations, Contemp. Math., vol. 540, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2011, pp. 241–259

    2011

  35. [43]

    V´ etois,Uniqueness of conformal metrics with constantQ-curvature on closed Ein- stein manifolds, Potential Anal.61(2024), no

    J. V´ etois,Uniqueness of conformal metrics with constantQ-curvature on closed Ein- stein manifolds, Potential Anal.61(2024), no. 3, 485–500

    2024

  36. [44]

    Wei and X

    J. Wei and X. Xu,Classification of solutions of higher order conformally invariant equations, Math. Ann.313(1999), no. 2, 207–228. J´erˆome V´etois, Department of Mathematics and Statistics, McGill Univer- sity, 805 Sherbrooke Street West, Montreal, Quebec H3A 0B9, Canada Emai...

    1999

Pith tools

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