Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 51 references

No Spectral Invisibility for Dissipative Barrier Truncations in Any Dimension

T0 review · 3 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 The paper proves that the dissipative barrier method cannot cause spectral invisibility for Schrödinger operators in any dimension.

desk verdict First proof of the d≥2 no-invisibility theorem for dissipative barrier truncations; the argument is coherent and new, but the essential-spectrum case rides on one cited-and-unreproduced inequality that a referee must verify. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.22120 v1 pith:ZZH5I2I3 submitted 2026-07-24 math.NA cs.NAmath-phmath.MPmath.SP

Matthew J. Colbrook , Marco Marletta This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.NAcs.NAmath-phmath.MPmath.SP MSC 35J1047A1047B4446N4047-0865J1065N25
keywords spectralinvisibilitygraveyardproblemdissipativebarrierdomaintruncationSchattenclasspollutionSchrödingeroperatoressentialspectrum
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 settles the 'graveyard problem' in computational spectral theory: the dissipative barrier method, which adds an imaginary absorbing potential to suppress spurious eigenvalues, cannot hide genuine spectral points when the computational domain is truncated. For any Dirichlet Schrödinger operator H = -Δ + V + iS in dimension d ≥ 2, with S at the critical Sobolev scale, every nested family of bounded domains gives spectra that accumulate on all of σ(H). This means every true spectral point — essential or discrete — is detected by the finite-domain approximations, so the cure for spectral pollution does not create the complementary disease of spectral invisibility. The proof is an eigenvalue-counting argument using Schatten-class bounds and a reversed spectral-variation inequality.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing identity is the resolvent formula H_R^{-1} - A_R^{-1} = A_R^{-1/2}(I + i W_R)^{-1}(-i W_R) A_R^{-1/2}, where W_R is the non-negative compact Birman–Schwinger operator A_R^{-1/2} S A_R^{-1/2}. Its Schatten norm is uniformly bounded in R by Cwikel-type estimates, so the perturbation is uniformly trace-class-like. The other essential ingredient is the reversed spectral-variation inequality of Hansmann–Weyl type: for compact self-adjoint B and compact C with C-B in S^r, the eigenvalues of C cannot all be driven away from those of B; the counting consequence is that if J is a Borel set separated from σ(C) ∪ {0}, then rank 1_J(B) ≤ (const / η^r) ||C-B||_{S_r}^r. This turns the Sch

What would settle it

Exhibit a compact self-adjoint operator B and a compact operator C with C-B in S^r for some r > 1, and a Borel set J separated from σ(C) ∪ {0}, such that rank 1_J(B) exceeds (2+2b_r)^r η^{-r} ||C-B||_{S_r}^r. That would disprove the key eigenvalue-counting lemma and, with it, the proof of Theorem 1.1.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Theorem 1.1: for every λ in the essential spectrum of H and every open neighborhood U of λ, the spectrum of the truncated operator H_R meets U for all sufficiently large R, and the same holds for eigenvalues when H has the unique continuation property. Equivalently, σ(H) ⊆ liminf σ(H_R). This is proved by showing that near each point of σ_ess(A) the self-adjoint truncations A_R have arbitrarily many eigenvalues, while the resolvent difference H_R^{-1} - A_R^{-1} has Schatten norm uniformly bounded in R; a reversed Hansmann-type inequality then forces any uniformly small non-self-adjoint perturbation to leave some eigenvalues in every neighborhood. The result holds withou

Load-bearing premise

The proof relies on the reversed spectral-variation inequality of Hansmann–Weyl type: that a compact non-self-adjoint perturbation with finite Schatten norm cannot move all eigenvalues of a compact self-adjoint operator away from any Borel set. If that inequality is false or its hypotheses do not apply to the resolvent pairs in this setting, the central no-invisibility claim for the essential spectrum would fail.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Every genuine spectral point of H is detected by the finite-domain approximations, so numerical methods that use dissipative barriers and then discretize cannot fail solely because of the truncation step.
  • The theorem holds at the critical Sobolev scale S ∈ L^{d/2} for d ≥ 3 and any S ∈ L^p, p > 1, for d = 2, matching the natural compactness threshold.
  • No boundary regularity of Ω is needed, so the result covers irregular computational domains.
  • Together with the earlier one-dimensional result, the no-invisibility question is now settled in all dimensions.
  • The same mechanism applies to higher-order elliptic operators under analogous integrability conditions (Remark 2.6).

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the reversed spectral-variation inequality holds with explicit constants, the proof could yield quantitative rates at which spectral points are detected, e.g., how large R must be for a given accuracy.
  • The result suggests that spectral invisibility is not a generic failure of domain-truncation schemes for non-self-adjoint operators; it may be avoidable whenever the perturbation is compact in a suitable Schatten sense and the self-adjoint truncations have growing eigenvalue multiplicities.
  • The method could be adapted to other non-self-adjoint perturbations beyond the dissipative Schrödinger case, such as complex potentials that are not purely imaginary, as long as the resolvent difference falls in a Schatten class.
  • Experimental tests on the two-dimensional example show convergence of the discrete spectra; a natural extension would be to verify the theorem numerically for a case with essential spectrum that has a gap, checking that the band edges are detected.
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 proves that for Dirichlet Schrödinger operators H = -Δ + V + iS on connected open sets Ω ⊂ R^d (d ≥ 2), with S ≥ 0 in L^p at the Sobolev critical scale, every nested bounded Dirichlet exhaustion Ω_R ↗ Ω has no spectral invisibility: σ(H) ⊆ liminf_{R→∞} σ(H_R). The proof combines uniform-in-R Schatten bounds for H_R^{-1} - A_R^{-1}, generalized strong resolvent convergence of A_R to A, and a counting contradiction based on a reversed Hansmann–Weyl inequality. The discrete-spectrum case is handled via the Bögli–Marletta–Tretter framework under a unique continuation condition. A two-dimensional finite-element experiment illustrates recovery of the periodic band and lifting of a defect eigenvalue.

Significance. If correct, this settles the graveyard problem in all dimensions and gives the first general no-invisibility theorem for dissipative barrier truncations at the critical Sobolev scale. The proof is structural: it avoids diagonal resolvent-kernel estimates and depends only on Schatten-class and spectral-variation tools. The paper is refreshingly free of fitted parameters or ad hoc hypotheses, and the numerical example is reproducible with detailed convergence data. The main caveat is that the central inequality for the essential-spectrum case is imported from a recent paper of Gil' and is not verified in the manuscript, so the significance is conditional on that theorem.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4, Lemma 4.1, Eq. (4.3)] The central reversed Hansmann inequality is entirely delegated to [25, Thm 1.1], which is neither stated nor proved in the manuscript. Proposition 5.2 reduces no-invisibility for the essential spectrum to exactly this inequality, so the reader cannot verify that the theorem applies to B_n = A_{R_n}^{-1} and C_n = H_{R_n}^{-1} (compact operators with infinitely many zero eigenvalues), or that the constant b_r is independent of B, C. Please state Gil's theorem with full hypotheses (multiplicity conventions, boundedness, permutation) and either include a proof or a detailed verification of the hypotheses. As written, the main essential-spectrum claim is conditional on this external result.
  2. [§5, Proposition 5.1, step (1)] The proof that eigenvalues of H are non-real asserts that ∫S|u|^2 = 0 implies u = 0 by the unique continuation principle. The standard UCP [31,46] requires u to vanish on a nonempty open set. Under the assumptions S ≥ 0, S ∈ L^p, the set {S > 0} need not contain an open set (e.g., a fat Cantor set of positive measure). Thus the discrete-spectrum part of Theorem 1.1 is not proven for all S allowed by (1.4). Either add a hypothesis such as S > 0 a.e. or supp S containing an open set, or give a valid UCP argument from vanishing on a positive-measure set.
  3. [§5, Proposition 5.1] This proof invokes [10, Thm 5.4], which requires generalized strong resolvent convergence of both H_R → H and H_R^* → H^*. Lemma 3.2 only establishes H_R → H. The proof of Lemma 3.2 extends verbatim with S replaced by -S, but the adjoint convergence must be stated explicitly because it determines the limiting essential set in the hypothesis of [10, Thm 5.4].
minor comments (4)
  1. [§2, proof of Lemma 2.4] The text refers to 'Theorem 2.3' and 'Theorem 2.4'; these should be Lemmas 2.3 and 2.4.
  2. [§4, Eq. (4.4)] The inequality for imaginary parts is not the classical Weyl eigenvalue inequality; please state the precise theorem from [26] being used.
  3. [§6.2] The bound on the eigenvalue counting function for -Δ_{Ω_R} is cited as Weyl's law; for arbitrary bounded open sets the classical asymptotic may require boundary regularity. The needed upper bound is due to Berezin/Lieb/Rozenblum and should be cited.
  4. [§1.3] The narrative about ChatGPT-based agents is out of place in a mathematical paper; I suggest moving it to the acknowledgments or removing it.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central theorem is derived from external Schatten estimates and spectral-variation inequalities, not from its own conclusion.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. The essential-spectrum claim is proved by contradiction in Proposition 5.2: assuming a missed neighborhood U of λ∈σ_ess(H), the self-adjoint resolvents B_n=A_{R_n}^{-1} have N_n=rank 1_J(B_n)→∞ by generalized strong resolvent convergence (Lemma 3.2), while uniform Schatten control of B_n−C_n (Lemma 3.1) together with Gil's reversed Hansmann inequality (Lemma 4.1) forces N_n η^r ≤ const, a contradiction. None of these ingredients is defined in terms of the conclusion σ(H)⊆lim inf σ(H_R), and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The citations to [35] and [10] are to prior published theorems used as tools; [10] supplies the abstract generalized-resolvent framework and is not used as an unverified uniqueness premise. The load-bearing Lemma 4.1 is cited from Gil' [25] rather than reproduced, but that is an external dependence and a verification concern, not circularity. Hence no circular step is identified.

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

The central claim adds no free parameters, fitted constants, or new physical/mathematical entities. It rests on standard functional-analytic tools and on two external results—Gil's Schatten spectral-variation theorem and the Gohberg–Krein imaginary-part inequality—which are load-bearing but not circular. No quantity in the theorem is defined in terms of a fitted parameter.

assumptions (8)
  • standard math Cwikel theorem: for g(ξ)=(|ξ|²+1)^-1/2 ∈ L^{2p,∞} and √S∈L^{2p}, the Birman–Schwinger operator √S(-Δ+1)^-1/2 lies in S_{2p,∞} with norm bounded by C_{p,d}||S||_p^{1/2}.
    Invoked in Lemma 2.3 to obtain the uniform Schatten bounds that drive the whole proof; without it there is no uniform control of the barrier perturbation.
  • standard math Marcinkiewicz interpolation inequality for Schatten classes (Eq. 1.6).
    Bootstraps weak Schatten bounds to strong S^r bounds; used in Lemmas 2.3, 2.4, and 3.1.
  • standard math Kato's first representation theorem for m-sectorial forms.
    Constructs H and H_R from the sectorial form h; used in Section 1.2.
  • domain assumption Gil's theorem [25]: ℓ^r matching of real parts of eigenvalues under Schatten perturbations, with constant b_r depending only on r.
    The unproved external result behind Lemma 4.1; if this fails, the eigenvalue-counting contradiction in Proposition 5.2 fails.
  • domain assumption Weyl's inequality for imaginary parts of eigenvalues in Schatten classes (Gohberg–Krein, [26, Ch. II §6]).
    Used in Lemma 4.1 to convert real-part matching into full eigenvalue matching; cited but not proved in the paper.
  • domain assumption Bogli–Marletta–Tretter abstract spectral-inclusion framework, including [10, Thm 5.4] and [10, Prop 5.7].
    Used in Proposition 5.1 for discrete eigenvalues; a prior result co-authored by one of the present authors, but not the target theorem.
  • domain assumption Unique continuation principle for Schrödinger operators with potentials in L^p_loc.
    Needed to ensure eigenvalues of H are non-real and to apply the abstract visibility result in Proposition 5.1; the theorem's discrete-spectrum conclusion depends on it.
  • standard math Sobolev embedding and Hölder's inequality on H^1_0(Ω) and its Dirichlet subdomains.
    Used in Lemma 2.1 to bound ∫S|u|² by ||S||_p||u||_a² with R-independent constants.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of No Spectral Invisibility for Dissipative Barrier Truncations in Any Dimension." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZZH5I2I3

@misc{pith2026260722120,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: No Spectral Invisibility for Dissipative Barrier Truncations in Any Dimension},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZZH5I2I3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.22120}
}
abstract

The dissipative barrier method suppresses spectral pollution, but whether it can itself conceal genuine spectral points has remained open. Known as the graveyard problem in computational spectral theory, the higher-dimensional case has remained unresolved for more than a decade. We resolve it for Schr\"{o}dinger operators in dimensions $d\geq2$; together with the known one-dimensional theorem, this settles the no-invisibility problem in all dimensions. Let $A=-\Delta+V$ be a Dirichlet Schr\"odinger operator on a connected open set $\Omega\subseteq\mathbb R^d$ with $V\in L^1_{\mathrm{loc}}(\Omega)$ bounded below, and set $H=A+iS$, where $S\geq0$ and $S\in L^p(\Omega)$, with $1<p<\infty$ for $d=2$ and $d/2\leq p<\infty$ for $d\geq3$. Let $(\Omega_R)_{R>0}$ be a nested family of nonempty connected bounded open sets such that $\Omega_R\nearrow\Omega$ as $R\nearrow+\infty$. Denote by $H_R$ the Dirichlet truncation of $H$ to $\Omega_R$. We prove that every spectral point of $H$ is detected by the truncations: for every $\lambda\in\sigma(H)$ and every neighborhood $U$ of $\lambda$, $\sigma(H_R)\cap U\neq\emptyset$ for sufficiently large $R$. Equivalently, $\sigma(H)\subseteq\liminf_{R\to\infty}\sigma(H_R)$. Thus the barrier method does not trade suppression of spectral pollution for spectral invisibility. No regularity of $\partial\Omega$ is required, and the assumptions reach the critical Sobolev scale. The proof combines compactness of the dissipative form perturbation, Cwikel-type Schatten estimates for Birman--Schwinger operators, generalized strong resolvent convergence, and a reverse Hansmann--Weyl spectral-variation inequality due to Gil'. A two-dimensional numerical example illustrates the absence of spectral invisibility for the truncated dissipative operators.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.22120 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The Galerkin eigenvalues with Re z < 1.3 for R = 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, computed on the finest mesh δ = 1/16. All panels use the same axes. The lightly shaded strip marks the real￾part window of the first periodic band I1, the black segment marks the band itself, and the diamond marks the dissipative lift of the localised defect eigenvalue. Algebraic multiplicities were retained in the computations, although coinci… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Successive refinement discrepancies ER(δ) = dH(ΣR,δ, ΣR,δ/2) for R = 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20. The dashed reference line has slope 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The localised defect mode without and with the dis￾sipative barrier, computed on Ω20 with δ = 1/8. Left: the real self-adjoint eigenfunction u0. Right: Re uS, after phase alignment with u0. Both eigenfunctions have unit L 2 (Ω20) norm and the pan￾els use the same symmetric colour scale. The grey lines show the criss-cross finite element mesh and the dashed circle marks ρ = 8, inside which S = 0.2. Only the window [−… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references

  1. [25]

    M. Gil’. Perturbations of real parts of eigenvalues of bounded linear operators in a Hilbert space.Czechoslovak Mathematical Journal, 74(149)(2):567–573, 2024

    2024

  2. [1]

    Aguilar and J.-M

    J. Aguilar and J.-M. Combes. A class of analytic perturbations for one-body Schr¨ odinger Hamiltonians.Communications in Mathematical Physics, 22(4):269–279, 1971

    1971

  3. [2]

    Alper, M

    J. Alper, M. Barany, A. Chavarri Villarello, S. Dahmen, W. Dean, K. Ganapathy, M. Harris, D. Holmes, M. Jamnik, S. Kelk, B. Kra, U. Martin, B. Naskrecki, R. Ochigame, J. Portegies, and J. Schmitt. Leiden declaration on artificial intelligence and mathematics, 2026

    2026

  4. [3]

    D. N. Arnold.Finite Element Exterior Calculus, volume 93 ofCBMS-NSF Regional Confer- ence Series in Applied Mathematics. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, 2018

    2018

  5. [4]

    D. N. Arnold, R. S. Falk, and R. Winther. Finite element exterior calculus, homological techniques, and applications.Acta Numerica, 15:1–155, 2006

    2006

  6. [5]

    D. N. Arnold, R. S. Falk, and R. Winther. Finite element exterior calculus: From Hodge theory to numerical stability.Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society, 47(2):281–354, 2010

    2010

  7. [6]

    Babuˇ ska and J

    I. Babuˇ ska and J. Osborn. Eigenvalue problems. InHandbook of numerical analysis, Vol. II, Handb. Numer. Anal., II, pages 641–787. North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1991

    1991

  8. [7]

    Balslev and J.-M

    E. Balslev and J.-M. Combes. Spectral properties of many-body Schr¨ odinger operators with dilatation-analytic interactions.Communications in Mathematical Physics, 22(4):280–294, 1971

    1971

Show all 51 references
  1. [8]

    B´ erenger

    J.-P. B´ erenger. A perfectly matched layer for the absorption of electromagnetic waves.Journal of Computational Physics, 114(2):185–200, 1994

    1994

  2. [9]

    D. Boffi. Finite element approximation of eigenvalue problems.Acta Numerica, 19:1–120, 2010

    2010

  3. [10]

    B¨ ogli, M

    S. B¨ ogli, M. Marletta, and C. Tretter. The essential numerical range for unbounded linear operators.Journal of Functional Analysis, 279(1):108509, 2020

    2020

  4. [11]

    Bonnet-Ben Dhia, S

    A.-S. Bonnet-Ben Dhia, S. N. Chandler-Wilde, S. Fliss, C. Hazard, K.-M. Perfekt, and Y. Tjandrawidjaja. The complex-scaled half-space matching method.SIAM Journal on Math- ematical Analysis, 54(1):512–557, 2022

    2022

  5. [12]

    Bossavit

    A. Bossavit. Whitney forms: A class of finite elements for three-dimensional computations in electromagnetism.IEE Proceedings A Physical Science, Measurement and Instrumentation, Management and Education, Reviews, 135(8):493–500, 1988

    1988

  6. [13]

    Boulton, N

    L. Boulton, N. Boussa ¨ ıd, and M. Lewin. Generalised Weyl theorems and spectral pollution in the Galerkin method.Journal of Spectral Theory, 2(4):329–354, 2012

    2012

  7. [14]

    Canc` es, V

    E. Canc` es, V. Ehrlacher, and Y. Maday. Periodic Schr¨ odinger operators with local defects and spectral pollution.SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis, 50(6):3016–3035, 2012

    2012

  8. [15]

    M. J. Colbrook.Infinite-Dimensional Spectral Computations. Cambridge University Press,

  9. [16]

    M. J. Colbrook and A. C. Hansen. The foundations of spectral computations via the solvability complexity index hierarchy.Journal of the European Mathematical Society, 25(12):4639–4718, 2023

    2023

  10. [17]

    M. J. Colbrook, B. Roman, and A. C. Hansen. How to compute spectra with error control. Physical Review Letters, 122(25):250201, 2019

    2019

  11. [18]

    Costabel and M

    M. Costabel and M. Dauge. Maxwell and Lam´ e eigenvalues on polyhedra.Mathematical Methods in the Applied Sciences, 22(3):243–258, 1999. 20 MATTHEW J. COLBROOK AND MARCO MARLETTA

    1999

  12. [19]

    M. Cwikel. Weak type estimates for singular values and the number of bound states of Schr¨ odinger operators.Ann. of Math. (2), 106(1):93–100, 1977

    1977

  13. [20]

    E. B. Davies and M. Plum. Spectral pollution.IMA Journal of Numerical Analysis, 24(3):417–438, 2004

    2004

  14. [21]

    Demuth, M

    M. Demuth, M. Hansmann, and G. Katriel. Lieb-Thirring type inequalities for Schr¨ odinger operators with a complex-valued potential.Integral Equations Operator Theory, 75(1):1–5, 2013

    2013

  15. [22]

    D. E. Edmunds and W. D. Evans.Spectral Theory and Differential Operators. Oxford Math- ematical Monographs. Oxford University Press, 1987

    1987

  16. [23]

    L. C. Evans.Partial Differential Equations, volume 19. American Mathematical Society, first edition, 1998

    1998

  17. [24]

    M. Gil’. Inequalities for imaginary parts of eigenvalues of Schatten–von Neumann operators. Rendiconti del Circolo Matematico di Palermo. Second Series, 73(3):801–807, 2024

    2024

  18. [26]

    I. C. Gohberg and M. G. Krein.Introduction to the Theory of Linear Nonselfadjoint Op- erators, volume 18 ofTranslations of Mathematical Monographs. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 1969

    1969

  19. [27]

    Golinskii and S

    L. Golinskii and S. Kupin. On complex perturbations of infinite band Schr¨ odinger operators. Methods Funct. Anal. Topology, 21(3):237–245, 2015

    2015

  20. [28]

    Hansmann

    M. Hansmann. Variation of discrete spectra for non-selfadjoint perturbations of selfadjoint operators.Integral Equations and Operator Theory, 76(2):163–178, 2013

    2013

  21. [29]

    Hansmann and D

    M. Hansmann and D. Krejˇ ciˇ r ´ ık. The abstract Birman-Schwinger principle and spectral sta- bility.J. Anal. Math., 148(1):361–398, 2022

    2022

  22. [30]

    Hiptmair

    R. Hiptmair. Finite elements in computational electromagnetism.Acta Numerica, 11:237– 339, 2002

    2002

  23. [31]

    Jerison and C

    D. Jerison and C. E. Kenig. Unique continuation and absence of positive eigenvalues for Schr¨ odinger operators.Ann. of Math. (2), 121(3):463–494, 1985. With an appendix by E. M. Stein

    1985

  24. [32]

    Kato.Perturbation Theory for Linear Operators, volume 132

    T. Kato.Perturbation Theory for Linear Operators, volume 132. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, second edition, 1995

    1995

  25. [33]

    Levitin and E

    M. Levitin and E. Shargorodsky. Spectral pollution and second-order relative spectra for self-adjoint operators.IMA Journal of Numerical Analysis, 24(3):393–416, 2004

    2004

  26. [34]

    Lewin and ´E

    M. Lewin and ´E. S´ er´ e. Spectral pollution and how to avoid it.Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society, 100(3):864–900, 2010

    2010

  27. [35]

    Marletta and S

    M. Marletta and S. Naboko. The finite section method for dissipative operators.Mathematika, 60(2):415–443, 2014

    2014

  28. [36]

    Marletta and R

    M. Marletta and R. Scheichl. Eigenvalues in spectral gaps of differential operators.Journal of Spectral Theory, 2(3):293–320, 2012

    2012

  29. [37]

    Nonnenmacher and M

    S. Nonnenmacher and M. Zworski. Quantum decay rates in chaotic scattering.Acta Mathe- matica, 203:149–233, 2009

    2009

  30. [38]

    Nonnenmacher and M

    S. Nonnenmacher and M. Zworski. Decay of correlations for normally hyperbolic trapping. Inventiones Mathematicae, 200(2):345–438, 2015

    2015

  31. [39]

    J. E. Osborn. Spectral approximation for compact operators.Math. Comput., 29:712–725, 1975

    1975

  32. [40]

    J. S. Ovall and R. Reid. An algorithm for identifying eigenvectors exhibiting strong spatial localization.Math. Comp., 92(341):1005–1031, 2023

    2023

  33. [41]

    Pokrzywa

    A. Pokrzywa. Method of orthogonal projections and approximation of the spectrum of a bounded operator II.Studia Mathematica, 70(1):1–9, 1981

    1981

  34. [42]

    J. Rappaz. Approximation of the spectrum of a non-compact operator given by the magne- tohydrodynamic stability of a plasma.Numerische Mathematik, 28(1):15–24, 1977

    1977

  35. [43]

    membrane

    J. Rappaz, J. Sanchez Hubert, E. Sanchez Palencia, and D. Vassiliev. On spectral pollution in the finite element approximation of thin elastic “membrane” shells.Numerische Mathematik, 75(4):473–500, 1997

    1997

  36. [44]

    Reed and B

    M. Reed and B. Simon.Methods of modern mathematical physics. I. Functional analysis. Academic Press, New York-London, 1972

    1972

  37. [45]

    D. Sambou. Lieb-Thirring type inequalities for non-self-adjoint perturbations of magnetic Schr¨ odinger operators.J. Funct. Anal., 266(8):5016–5044, 2014. NO SPECTRAL INVISIBILITY FOR DISSIPATIVE BARRIER TRUNCATIONS 21

    2014

  38. [46]

    Schechter and B

    M. Schechter and B. Simon. Unique continuation for Schr¨ odinger operators with unbounded potentials.J. Math. Anal. Appl., 77(2):482–492, 1980

    1980

  39. [47]

    Simon.Trace Ideals and Their Applications, volume 120 ofMathematical Surveys and Monographs

    B. Simon.Trace Ideals and Their Applications, volume 120 ofMathematical Surveys and Monographs. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, second edition, 2005

    2005

  40. [48]

    M. Strauss. A new approach to spectral approximation.Journal of Functional Analysis, 267(8):3084–3103, 2014

    2014

  41. [49]

    L. N. Trefethen and M. Embree.Spectra and Pseudospectra: The Behavior of Nonnormal Matrices and Operators. Princeton University Press, 2005

    2005

  42. [50]

    A. Zygmund. On a theorem of Marcinkiewicz concerning interpolation of operations.J. Math. Pures Appl. (9), 35:223–248, 1956. Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics, University of Cam- bridge, Cambridge CB3 0W A, United Kingdom Email address:mjc249@cam.ac.uk ...

    1956

  43. [2026]

    To appear, August 2026

    2026

Pith tools

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