The $L^2$ contraction of solutions with large perturbation in multiple space dimensions from the oscillatory dispersive planar shock

Geng Chen; Harish Ravichandar; Yannan Shen

REVIEW 3 major objections 8 minor 17 references

The $L^2$ contraction of solutions with large perturbation in multiple space dimensions from the oscillatory dispersive planar shock

T0 review · 3 major / 8 minor · reviewed 2026-07-30 · grok-4.5

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

Pith's one-line read Planar dispersive shocks of dissipative KP and multi-D KdV-Burgers remain L2-stable under arbitrarily large multi-dimensional perturbations, up to a Lipschitz time shift.

desk verdict Solid multi-D extension of the authors’ own 1D L2-contraction theory for dispersive shocks; the monotone half is clean, the oscillatory half rides on thin numerical margins imported from an unrefeered companion preprint. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.27118 v1 pith:AVWJ762M submitted 2026-07-29 math.AP

Geng Chen , Harish Ravichandar , Yannan Shen This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.AP MSC 35B3535Q5335L6776L05

keywords dissipativeKadomtsev-Petviashvilimulti-dimensionalKdV-BurgersoscillatoryshockL2contractionuniformstabilityplanardispersivetime-dependentshift

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 planar monotone or oscillatory viscous-dispersive shock waves for the dissipative Kadomtsev-Petviashvili equation and the multi-dimensional Zakharov-Kuznetsov-Burgers equation are L2-contracting under large perturbations in the transverse directions. Solutions starting from any large L2 perturbation of the planar profile stay close to a time-shifted copy of that profile, with the shift itself remaining Lipschitz and asymptotically sublinear. The result covers both the monotone regime (viscosity dominates dispersion) and a range of the oscillatory regime (dispersion dominates), and it yields time-asymptotic stability in Lp for p>2. A sympathetic reader cares because multi-dimensional water-wave and plasma models routinely produce such shocks, yet previous L2-contraction theory existed only in one space dimension; the work supplies the first uniform multi-D control that does not require smallness of the initial perturbation.

What carries the argument

The relative entropy identity obtained after shifting the planar profile by a Lipschitz ODE that cancels the leading linear term, combined with a change of variables along the shock and a Poincaré inequality in the periodic transverse variables that absorbs the residual quadratic terms provided the shock is not too strong relative to transverse viscosity.

What would settle it

Numerically integrate the dissipative KP equation with a fixed oscillatory planar shock of strength s and successively smaller transverse viscosity ε2 until s exceeds the explicit threshold √(7.86 ε2)/(Mπ); if the L2 distance to every Lipschitz translate of the shock grows rather than contracts, the claimed inequality is false.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Under explicit parameter restrictions linking shock strength to transverse dissipation, any global solution of dissipative KP (or multi-D ZKB) that is a large L2 perturbation of a planar dispersive shock remains L2-contracting toward a Lipschitz time-dependent translate of that shock, and the L2 distance plus integrated dissipation controls the initial distance. The same contraction implies asymptotic stability in every Lp, p>2, and the shift velocity tends to zero.

Load-bearing premise

The shock jump must be small enough compared with the square root of the transverse dissipation coefficient; otherwise the transverse Poincaré estimate fails to close and the multi-dimensional energy balance no longer yields contraction.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Global L2 stability of planar dispersive shocks holds for both KP-I and KP-II under large multi-D perturbations once the shock is sufficiently weak relative to transverse viscosity.
The same contraction and asymptotic stability statements transfer verbatim to the multi-dimensional Zakharov-Kuznetsov-Burgers equation with arbitrary transverse dispersion coefficient.
The Lipschitz shift remains sublinear in time, so the long-time shape of the multi-D solution is still that of the original planar profile.
Existence of global solutions with unequal far-field states is obtained as a byproduct for the dissipative KP equation.

Reading between the lines

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

The method suggests that any viscous-dispersive system whose planar shock satisfies a uniform spectral gap and whose transverse dissipation supplies a Poincaré constant can inherit multi-D L2 contraction by the same relative-entropy-plus-shift argument.
Because the singular limit of vanishing transverse viscosity lies outside the present estimates, the result leaves open whether truly anisotropic physical shocks remain stable; a matched-asymptotics or weighted-energy refinement would be a natural next test.
The explicit decay rates on the oscillatory tails could be fed into a numerical continuation scheme to push the upper bound on the dispersion-to-viscosity ratio beyond 1/2 while retaining multi-D contraction.

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

The real news is that they get genuine multi-D L2-contraction (up to a Lipschitz shift) for planar viscous-dispersive shocks of dissipative KP and multi-D ZKB, under large L2 perturbations. That is new relative to their 1D papers [7,8]. The transverse dissipation, the Poincaré control on the torus, and the cancellation of the nonlocal KP term (via the zero-mean condition) are handled cleanly; Lemma 3.2 and the energy identity are self-contained and check out.

What they do well: global existence for KP with distinct end-states (Thm 1.1) is standard but useful and carefully written. The monotone case (Thm 1.3 / 7.1) is essentially self-contained once you accept the elementary profile inequality (4.1); the change-of-variable + Poincaré argument closes with explicit constants and the small-shock condition s = O(√ε2) is stated honestly in Remark 1.8. The asymptotic stability and sub-linear shift statements follow in the usual way.

The soft spot is the non-monotone half. Theorems 1.6 and 7.2 reduce to the induction in Appendix A / Thm 5.4, which imports the whole numerical package from the unrefeered companion [8]: overshoot u0 ≤ 1.0601s, decay rates ρ*, λ̄i, the L2 bounds (5.5)–(5.6), and the L1 bound 2.034s. Those numbers sit close to the edge of the diffusion budget that produces the 1/10 remainder; a few-percent slip breaks the chain. There is also an unexplained ~200× gap between the stated hypothesis (1.18) and the positivity condition actually used for C**. The monotone theory does not have this problem. Dependence on [7,8] is real but not circular—the profile estimates are independent analytic work—yet until [8] is vetted the oscillatory claim remains conditional.

This is for specialists already working on multi-D stability of viscous-dispersive shocks or KP-type models. They will cite the monotone statements and the existence theory immediately; the oscillatory statements need the companion paper to settle. It deserves a serious referee, with instructions to check the imported constants and the 7.86 discrepancy. I would engage.

Referee Report

3 major / 8 minor

Summary. The paper studies stability of planar viscous-dispersive shocks (both monotone and oscillatory) of the 2D dissipative Kadomtsev–Petviashvili equation (1.1), for both signs λ=±1, and of the multi-dimensional Zakharov–Kuznetsov–Burgers equation (1.4), under arbitrarily large L² perturbations periodic in the transverse variable(s). The main results are: global existence in a class XT respecting the KP zero-mean constraint (Theorem 1.1); L²-contraction up to a Lipschitz shift X(t) with explicit ODE in the monotone regime δ(u−−u+)/2ε1²≤1/4 under s<4π√(ε1ε2) (Theorem 1.3); the analogous contraction in the oscillatory regime 1/4<δs<1/2 under s<√(7.86ε2)/(Mπ), M=4/3 (Theorem 1.6); ZKB analogues (Theorems 7.1–7.2); plus L^p (p>2) time-asymptotic stability and sublinear shift growth. The method is the Kang–Vasseur-type shifted energy identity (Lemma 3.2), a change of variables by the shock profile, the weighted Poincaré inequality of [13], and transverse Poincaré on the torus; the oscillatory case closes via an induction on monotonicity intervals (Appendix A) that imports sharp numerical profile estimates from the authors' companion preprint [8].

Significance. If correct, this is the first multi-dimensional L²-contraction theory with large perturbations for oscillatory dispersive shocks, and a genuine extension of the recent 1D KdV–Burgers theory [2,7,8] to the KP and ZKB settings. Strengths worth naming: the monotone case (Sections 3–4) is self-contained and checkable line by line — the energy identity (3.3), the key cancellation (3.6) exploiting the intrinsic zero-mean condition (1.8) (which treats KP-I and KP-II simultaneously), the profile inequality (4.1), and the closing chain (4.15) are all internally consistent; the shift ODE is explicit; the smallness thresholds are stated with all constants; and a global existence theorem adapted to unequal end states is included. The results come with falsifiable, parameter-explicit hypotheses. The quantitative content of the oscillatory case, however, rests entirely on numerically specified profile constants quoted without proof from the unrefereed companion preprint [8], which tempers the current verifiability of Theorems 1.6 and 7.2.

major comments (3)

[§5.2, Eqs. (5.9)–(5.10) vs. Theorem 1.6 (and Theorem 7.2)] The constant C** printed in Theorem 1.6, C** = 2ε2 − 2.034 s²/(8π² M), does not match the proof. The chain (5.9) ends with the transverse coefficient (2.034 M s²/(16π²) − ε2), i.e. M in the numerator (the M comes from the shift weight M/(2s) in (3.7) and is untouched by Cauchy–Schwarz). Hence (5.10) is established only with C**/2 = ε2 − 2.034 M s²/(16π²), i.e. C** = 2ε2 − 2.034 M s²/(8π²). Since M = 4/3 > 1, the printed C** is larger than the one the proof delivers, so inequality (1.19) as stated is formally stronger than what is proved. The same mismatch appears in Theorem 7.2. Because hypothesis (1.18) is far stricter than either positivity condition, the theorems survive, but the statement, the proof, and the admissibility criterion C** ≥ 0 must be reconciled.
[Eq. (1.18) (and Eq. (7.8)), Remark 1.8] The constant 7.86 in the hypothesis s < √(7.86 ε2)/(Mπ) is never derived. The proof only needs positivity of the transverse coefficient in (5.9), i.e. s² < 16π²ε2/(2.034 M) ≈ 58.2 ε2 for M = 4/3 (or ≈103.5 ε2 under the printed C**), whereas (1.18) imposes s² < 7.86 ε2/(M²π²) ≈ 0.448 ε2 — roughly two orders of magnitude stricter, with no explanation. Since Remark 1.8 builds the paper's physical interpretation (admissible shock strength relative to transverse dissipation) on this condition, the authors should either derive 7.86 or replace (1.18)/(7.8) by the sharp condition the argument actually yields. As printed, a reader cannot tell whether 7.86 is a transcription error or a remnant of a different scaling.
[§5.1 (Props. 5.1–5.2, Thm 2.1) and Appendix A] Theorems 1.6 and 7.2 reduce to Theorem 5.4, whose induction consumes numerically specified constants imported from the unrefereed companion preprint [8]: u0 ≤ 1.0601s, ρ* = 4.64/4.77, λ̄0 = 0.355, λ̄1 = 9.60, the L² bounds 0.178/0.81/0.82 in (5.5), and the tail bound 0.001s in (5.6). The margins are thin: Step 0 requires C0 ≥ 14s/(222s − 198u0), which needs u0 < 1.1212s — the imported 1.0601s leaves ~6% slack, and M = 4/3 is exactly the saturated minimum 40C0/39 at C0 = 13/10; the diffusion budget on (ξ0,ξ̄1) reaches 0.83 + 0.06 = 0.89 against the 9/10 cap. A few-percent error in any imported constant breaks the chain. The manuscript should (i) state precisely how the constants of [8] are obtained (purely analytic ODE estimates, or computer-assisted, and if so with what rigor), (ii) clarify the publication/refereeing status of [8], and (iii) add a short sensitivity discussion showing whi

minor comments (8)

[§5.1, after Prop. 5.1] The definition Ji := (ξi, ξi) uses ξi for two distinct objects (the extremum location and the other point where ũ attains the value ui); as printed the interval reads as empty. Please distinguish the two (e.g. bar notation as presumably in [8]).
[Appendix A, first line] "Proof of the Theorem 5.8" should read Theorem 5.4.
[Theorems 1.3 and 1.6] The hypothesis "u0 ∈ H^s(Ω)" should be u0 − f ∈ H^s(Ω) as in Theorem 1.1; u0 itself does not decay.
[§7, Theorem 7.2] The proof of Theorem 7.2 — one of the four main theorems — is "left to the reader." Given that the paper advertises self-containment and that the constant issues of Major Comments 1–2 propagate to (7.8)–(7.9), the short adaptation of §5 should be included.
[Theorem 1.4] The proof is omitted as similar to [7]. Please state exactly which conclusions of Theorem 1.4 are used later (e.g. boundedness of ∥ũ′∥_{L^{4/3}} in the shift asymptotics) so the omission is checkable.
[Eq. (1.19) vs. (5.10)] The x-derivative coefficient is 1/10 in (5.10) but 1/5 in (1.19); this is consistent only after multiplying the integrated inequality by 2 (likewise C*ε1/2 → C*ε1 in (4.16) vs. (1.11)). One line of explanation would prevent confusion.
[Prop. 5.3] In the estimate 0.1202s/(ρ* − 1) + 2s ≤ 2.034s, state explicitly that ρ* = 4.64 (the smaller of the two rates in (5.1)) is used.
[Throughout] Typos/notation: "priori estimates" (§6, missing "a"), "inequalilty" (§6, Step 3), "ξ ↦→ξ" (§3 and §7, double arrow), and spacing artifacts in the title ("multip le", "sh ock").

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Standard extension of the authors' own 1D profile estimates; multi-D energy/shift argument is independent and not circular by construction.

self citation load bearing [Thm 2.1; Props 5.1–5.3; Thm 5.4 / Appendix A (esp. (5.1),(5.4)–(5.7), Steps 0–2)]
"Theorem 2.1 ([8, Theorem 2.1]). ... u0−u−≤... Moreover, the amplitudes of the oscillations |ui−u−| decay exponentially ... ρ∗ ... Proposition 5.1 ([8, Proposition 4.1]) ... λ̄0=0.355, λ̄1=9.60, λ̄2n=(1.94)ρ2n∗ ... Proposition 5.2 ([8, Proposition 4.2]) ... 0.178, i=1; 0.81(ρ∗)−i ... ∫ξs−∞(ũ−s)2dξ≤0.001s. ... ∫R|ũ'|dξ≤2.034s ... We choose C0=13/10. ... Fix M=4/3. ... less than 9/10 of the diffusion term ... ≤−1/10∫(wξ)2"

The non-monotone multi-D contraction (Thm 1.6 / 5.4) is closed only after importing numerically-specified ODE profile constants from the overlapping-author preprint [8]. Those constants fix the induction margins (C0, M, diffusion budget per subinterval, L1 bound feeding C∗∗). This is load-bearing self-citation. It is not circular by construction: [8] analyzes the planar traveling-wave ODE under assumptions that do not include multi-D L2 contraction, so the citation supplies independent analytic input rather than smuggling the target result.

full rationale

The multi-D L2-contraction identities (Lemma 3.2 / (3.7), Lemma 7.3), the Lipschitz shift ODEs, the Poincaré/transverse dissipation closing arguments ((4.15), (5.9), (7.22)), and the global-existence a priori estimates (Section 6) are derived in-place from the PDE and do not reduce to their conclusions by definition. The only load-bearing external input is the family of 1D traveling-wave inequalities (overshoot u0≤1.0601s, decay rates ρ*, λ̄i, L2 bounds on intervals Ji, tail ∫(ũ−s)2≤0.001s, and the consequent L1 bound ∫|ũ'|≤2.034s) imported from the authors' companion preprint [8] via Theorem 2.1 and Propositions 5.1–5.2, then consumed in Appendix A / Theorem 5.4. Those quantities are properties of the planar ODE (1.6) alone; they do not assume, and are not fitted to, the multi-D contraction claim. Citing one's own prior analytic estimates of an independent object is ordinary sequential research, not a self-definitional loop, fitted-input-as-prediction, or uniqueness-forbidding circularity. The monotone half is essentially self-contained (Lemma 4.1 proved here). Score 2 reflects heavy but non-circular self-citation on the non-monotone half only; the derivation chain does not collapse to its inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central multi-D contraction rests on (i) standard PDE calculus and Poincaré on the torus, (ii) domain assumptions of Lax shocks and positive viscosities, (iii) sharp 1D oscillatory profile bounds imported from the authors’ prior arXiv papers, and (iv) several hand-chosen numerical multipliers (M, C0, λ1 ranges, residual diffusion fractions) tuned so the induction closes. No new physical entities are postulated. The most fragile external input is the small-shock / positive-ε2 regime required to absorb transverse gradients.

free parameters (4)

M (shift weight) = 1/2 or 4/3
Chosen as 1/2 (monotone) or 4/3 (non-monotone) to close the squared-average term against the profile weight; not forced by a uniqueness theorem.
C0 in oscillatory Step 0 = 13/10
Set to 13/10 after checking u0≤1.0601s so that the far-field average term meets the 7/12(u0+s) threshold.
Residual diffusion fraction 1/10 = 1/10
After summing induction steps the paper claims <9/10 of D is consumed; 1/10 is the leftover used in (5.8)/(5.10).
λ1 range for monotone case = (1/4, √2−1)
Any λ1 in (1/4, √2−1) is allowed; the lower cut ensures C*>0 after Poincaré.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption Lax entropy u−>u+ and Rankine–Hugoniot speed σ=(u−+u+)/2 for the planar profile ODE (1.6).
Standard shock conditions; invoked from the introduction onward to guarantee a heteroclinic orbit.
domain assumption Positive longitudinal and transverse viscosities ε1,ε2>0 (and ε>0 for ZKB); dispersion δ>0.
Required for parabolic regularization and for the profile inequalities; Remark 1.8 stresses ε2>0 is indispensable.
domain assumption Sharp oscillatory profile bounds of Theorem 2.1 / Propositions 5.1–5.3 (u0≤1.0601s, ρ*≥4.64, λ̄i, L1 bound ∫|ũ′|≤2.034s) taken from [8] under 1/4<δs<1/2.
Load-bearing external analytic input; the entire non-monotone induction (Appendix A) uses these numerical rates.
domain assumption Zero-mean constraint ∫R(u−f)dx=0 for a.e. y, preserved by KP structure (Remark 1.2).
Used to kill the nonlocal term (3.6) and to place solutions in XT.
standard math Poincaré inequality on T1 (and Tn−1) and the weighted 1D inequality Lemma 3.1.
Standard functional inequalities applied after the change of variables z=ũ.
ad hoc to paper Global mild solutions exist in XT when u0−f∈Hs, s>1 (Theorem 1.1).
Proved in §6 by semigroup iteration; needed so that the contraction applies to actual solutions rather than formal ones.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The $L^2$ contraction of solutions with large perturbation in multiple space dimensions from the oscillatory dispersive planar shock." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AVWJ762M

@misc{pith2026260727118,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The $L^2$ contraction of solutions with large perturbation in multiple space dimensions from the oscillatory dispersive planar shock},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AVWJ762M}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.27118}
}

abstract

In this paper, we show the $L^2$ contraction property of the planar oscillatory or monotone dispersive shock profiles of the dissipative Kadomtsev-Petviashvili (KP) equation modelling water waves and the multi-dimensional Korteweg-de Vries (KdV) Burgers equation under arbitrarily large perturbations in two space dimensions, up to Lipschitz time-dependent shifts. This stability result extends the results of two recent papers by Chen, Eun, Kang, and Shen on $L^2$ contraction for the KdV-Burgers equation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.27118 by the authors.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

17 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

[8]

U niform stability of oscillatory shocks for KdV-Burgers equation

Geng Chen, Namhyun Eun, Moon-Jin Kang, and Yannan Shen. U niform stability of oscillatory shocks for KdV-Burgers equation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.22652 , 2026

arXiv 2026
[13]

Moon-Jin Kang and Alexis F. Vasseur. Contraction prope rty for large perturbations of shocks of the barotropic Navier–Stokes system. Journal of the European Mathematical So- ciety, 23(2):585–638, 2020

2020
[1]

Ablowitz and Harvey Segur

Mark J. Ablowitz and Harvey Segur. Solitons and the inverse scattering transform . SIAM, 1981

1981
[2]

Bronski, Vera M

Blake Barker, Jared C. Bronski, Vera M. Hur, and Zhao Yang . Asymptotic stability of sharp fronts: analysis and rigorous computation. J. Diﬀerential Equations , 444:Paper No. 113550, 59, 2025

2025
[3]

Gino Biondini, Alexander Bivolcic, and Mark A. Hoefer. M ach reﬂection and expansion of two-dimensional dispersive shock waves. Physical Review Letters , 135(6):067201, 2025

2025
[4]

Bona and Maria E

Jerry L. Bona and Maria E. Schonbek. Travelling-wave sol utions to the Korteweg-de Vries- Burgers equation. Proceedings. Section A. Mathematics , 101(3-4):207–226, 1985

1985
[5]

W ell-posedness results and dissi- pative limit of high dimensional kdv-type equations

Xavier Carvajal, Amin Esfahani, and Mahendra Panthee. W ell-posedness results and dissi- pative limit of high dimensional kdv-type equations. Bulletin of the Brazilian Mathematical Society, New Series , 48(4):505–550, 2017

2017
[6]

Cavalcanti, Val´ eria N

Marcelo M. Cavalcanti, Val´ eria N. Domingos Cavalcanti , Vilmos Komornik, and Jos´ e H. Ro- drigues. Global well-posedness and exponential decay rate s for a KdV-Burgers equation with indeﬁnite damping. In Annales de l’Institut Henri Poincare (C) Non Linear Analysis , vol- ume 31, pages 1079–1100. Elsevier, 2014. 35

2014

Show all 17 references

[7]

L2-contraction of shock waves for KdV-Burgers equation

Geng Chen, Namhyun Eun, Moon-Jin Kang, and Yannan Shen. L2-contraction of shock waves for KdV-Burgers equation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.09263 , 2026

2026
[9]

Zakharov-kuznetsov-burge rs equation in superthermal electron-positron-ion plasma

NA El-Bedwehy and WM Moslem. Zakharov-kuznetsov-burge rs equation in superthermal electron-positron-ion plasma. Astrophysics and Space Science , 335(2):435–442, 2011

2011
[10]

Malomed, and Takuji Kawahara

Bao-Feng Feng, Boris A. Malomed, and Takuji Kawahara. S table two-dimensional solitary pulses in linearly coupled dissipative Kadomtsev-Petvias hvili equations. Physical Review E , 66(5):056311, 2002

2002
[11]

Asymptotic proﬁle of solutions to the cauc hy problem for the general- ized Kadomtsev-Petviashvili equations with anisotropic d issipation in 2D

Ikki Fukuda. Asymptotic proﬁle of solutions to the cauc hy problem for the general- ized Kadomtsev-Petviashvili equations with anisotropic d issipation in 2D. arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.00956, 2026

2026
[12]

Kadomtsev

Boris B. Kadomtsev. On the stability of solitary waves i n weakly dispersing media. In Sov. Phys. Dokl. , volume 15, pages 539–541, 1970

1970
[14]

Moon-Jin Kang and Alexis F. Vasseur. Well-posedness of the Riemann problem with two shocks for the isentropic Euler system in a class of vanishin g physical viscosity limits. J. Diﬀerential Equations , 338:128–226, 2022

2022
[15]

Solitons in two-dimensional shallow water

Yuji Kodama. Solitons in two-dimensional shallow water . SIAM, 2018

2018
[16]

Almost sharp wave kinetic theory of multidimen sional kdv type equations with d ≥ 3

Xiao Ma. Almost sharp wave kinetic theory of multidimen sional kdv type equations with d ≥ 3. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.06148 , 2022

2022 arXiv
[17]

The cauchy problem for the (generalized) K adomtsev-Petviashvili-Burgers equa- tion

Luc Molinet. The cauchy problem for the (generalized) K adomtsev-Petviashvili-Burgers equa- tion. Diﬀerential and Integral Equations , 13(1-3):189, 2000. 36

2000

Pith tools

Reviewed July 30, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [8]

U niform stability of oscillatory shocks for KdV-Burgers equation

Geng Chen, Namhyun Eun, Moon-Jin Kang, and Yannan Shen. U niform stability of oscillatory shocks for KdV-Burgers equation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.22652 , 2026

arXiv 2026

[2] [13]

Moon-Jin Kang and Alexis F. Vasseur. Contraction prope rty for large perturbations of shocks of the barotropic Navier–Stokes system. Journal of the European Mathematical So- ciety, 23(2):585–638, 2020

2020

[3] [1]

Ablowitz and Harvey Segur

Mark J. Ablowitz and Harvey Segur. Solitons and the inverse scattering transform . SIAM, 1981

1981

[4] [2]

Bronski, Vera M

Blake Barker, Jared C. Bronski, Vera M. Hur, and Zhao Yang . Asymptotic stability of sharp fronts: analysis and rigorous computation. J. Diﬀerential Equations , 444:Paper No. 113550, 59, 2025

2025

[5] [3]

Gino Biondini, Alexander Bivolcic, and Mark A. Hoefer. M ach reﬂection and expansion of two-dimensional dispersive shock waves. Physical Review Letters , 135(6):067201, 2025

2025

[6] [4]

Bona and Maria E

Jerry L. Bona and Maria E. Schonbek. Travelling-wave sol utions to the Korteweg-de Vries- Burgers equation. Proceedings. Section A. Mathematics , 101(3-4):207–226, 1985

1985

[7] [5]

W ell-posedness results and dissi- pative limit of high dimensional kdv-type equations

Xavier Carvajal, Amin Esfahani, and Mahendra Panthee. W ell-posedness results and dissi- pative limit of high dimensional kdv-type equations. Bulletin of the Brazilian Mathematical Society, New Series , 48(4):505–550, 2017

2017

[8] [6]

Cavalcanti, Val´ eria N

Marcelo M. Cavalcanti, Val´ eria N. Domingos Cavalcanti , Vilmos Komornik, and Jos´ e H. Ro- drigues. Global well-posedness and exponential decay rate s for a KdV-Burgers equation with indeﬁnite damping. In Annales de l’Institut Henri Poincare (C) Non Linear Analysis , vol- ume 31, pages 1079–1100. Elsevier, 2014. 35

2014