Recovery of a Null Form in the Wave Equation from Scattering Data

Joel Nathe

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 37 references

Recovery of a Null Form in the Wave Equation from Scattering Data

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A specially constructed oscillatory wave, measured at one late time, completely determines all coefficients of null-form nonlinearities in a system of wave equations, via an injective light-ray transform in the linear regime and a non-abeli

desk verdict A solid nonlinear-geometric-optics inverse problem paper that genuinely extends the scalar null-form case to systems with antisymmetric terms; the main soft spot is the compressed injectivity step for k>l, which should be expanded before publication. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.28917 v1 pith:LXLRSYMT submitted 2026-07-31 math.AP math-phmath.MP

Joel Nathe This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.APmath-phmath.MP MSC 35L0535R3044A12

keywords inverseproblemnullformswaveequationnonlineargeometricopticslight-raytransformnon-abelianX-rayscatteringdatahighlyoscillatorysolutions

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper solves an inverse problem: can you recover unknown nonlinear terms in a system of wave equations by observing special solutions at a distance? The answer is yes for nonlinearities built from null forms. The author constructs highly oscillatory incident waves and shows that the first new term they create — of order h^3 in the linear regime and order h in the weakly nonlinear regime — is exactly an integral transform of the unknown coefficients. For the symmetric null form, that transform is the classical light-ray transform, known to be injective. For the antisymmetric null forms, the same measurement gives a light-ray transform of a vector field built from both q and p coefficients, and the paper supplies the injectivity argument. In the weakly nonlinear, time-independent case, the data determine a non-abelian X-ray transform that is invertible up to a gauge, and the author shows the gauge is eliminated by a special choice of wave direction.

What carries the argument

The central object is the oscillatory geometric optics solution, a background plane-wave null solution C + h φ_V e_l plus higher-order oscillatory corrections. The identity that carries the argument is that null forms of plane waves vanish, so the first nonlinear interaction between the background and the h^2 perturbing wave appears at order h^3 in the linear regime and order h in the weakly nonlinear regime; its amplitude is governed by a transport equation T_W along the null direction W. The measured coefficient is an integral along the light ray t ↦ (t, x' + tω) — precisely the light-ray transform, an integral of a vector field over all lines parallel to a null direction — of a vector fie

What would settle it

Directly verify equation (2.4): compute the exterior derivative of G for arbitrary compactly supported q_{rkl} and p_{rijkl}, and check whether dG=0 truly forces all coefficients to vanish. If one can produce a nonzero compactly supported pair with dG=0 while the measured light-ray transform also vanishes, the claimed injectivity in Section 2.2 collapses.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that evaluating a specially designed oscillatory solution at one large time T completely determines the null-form coefficients: for k=l, the order-h^3 term of the r-th component is the future light-ray transform of A^{(l)}_{1,0} q_{rll} φ'_V e_V, and for k>l it is the light-ray transform of a vector field G built from q_{rkl} and p_{rijkl}. Since the light-ray transform is injective modulo potential fields and the paper shows the only potential field is zero, all coefficients q_{rkl} and p_{rijkl} are recovered. In the weakly nonlinear regime, the order-h term solves a matrix transport equation whose scattering data is the non-abelian X-ray transform of a connection plus

Load-bearing premise

The proof that a vanishing exterior derivative forces all q and p coefficients to vanish — used to show the light-ray transform of the vector field G is injective — is the load-bearing step; if that computation has a sign or index error, the recovery of the p coefficients fails.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

All coefficients q_{rkl} and p_{rijkl} in the null-form system can be recovered from boundary values at a single time, without any knowledge of the initial data.
The recovery extends the previously treated scalar case to systems with both symmetric and antisymmetric null forms, covering equations such as wave maps and related geometric wave equations.
In the linear regime, the reconstruction reduces to inverting the light-ray transform, which is stable only when the coefficients are time-independent; time-dependent coefficients give an unstable inverse.
In the weakly nonlinear regime, time-independent coefficients are recovered through the non-abelian X-ray transform, which is injective only up to gauge; the paper shows the gauge is fixed by the ω=θ measurement.
The method does not require well-posedness of the Cauchy problem for arbitrary data; only the existence of these special oscillatory solutions is needed.

Reading between the lines

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

A natural next step would be to test numerically the injectivity of the non-abelian light-ray transform for genuinely time-dependent coefficients; the paper notes no injectivity result is known, and a counterexample would sharply delimit the method.
Because the coefficients may depend on the solution u, but the construction evaluates them at the constant C, varying C over a range of constants should trace out the full u-dependence from the same family of measurements — a likely but unstated extension.
The same template — engineering an oscillatory solution so that the leading interaction term is a Radon-type transform of the unknown — could apply to other hyperbolic systems with null structure, turning injectivity of the relevant integral geometry into a recovery theorem.
If the asserted exterior-derivative computation in Section 2.2 is made fully explicit, the method becomes a parameter-free reconstruction procedure: no regularization other than the oscillation frequency h and one measurement time.

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

Bottom line: this is a real extension, not a repackaging. The paper moves the known scalar null-form recovery [24] to an n-component system and, importantly, includes the antisymmetric Q_ij terms, which produce the p_{rijkl} coefficients. The two solution regimes (linear and weakly nonlinear) are handled with stan-dard nonlinear geometric optics, and the weakly nonlinear part correctly lands on a non-abelian X-ray transform where injectivity is known up to gauge. The gauge ambiguity is then removed by the omega=theta observation, which looks sound. The k=l case is well supported by the earlier scalar result, and the paper is honest about the time-dependent weakly nonlinear case not having an injectivity result.

The proof architecture is standard and plausible: construct approximate oscillatory solutions, match powers of h, reduce to integral geometry. The calculations in Section 3 are detailed enough to follow. The main soft spot is exactly where the stress-test note points: equation (2.4). The claim that dG=0 implies q_{rkl}=p_{rijkl}=0 is load-bearing for all p-recovery in the k>l linear regime, but the displayed exterior derivative is stated without derivation and the 'arbitrary phi, theta, chi' argument is compressed. The index conventions here are delicate (p_{rijlk}=-p_{rijkl}, sums over i>j, the asymmetric matrix G), and a sign slip would change the algebraic system. This is not a fatal flaw, but it is a place where a referee needs to see the full computation. I also noticed a few minor typos in the displayed formulas, e.g., the cos/sin arguments in (2.1) appear to be missing a real factor, and the text of Theorem 1 is a bit terse about the support shift to x_0<0. These are minor.

The self-citation to [24] is legitimate: the scalar kernel-injectivity lemma is independent of the system case, and the other main tools (light-ray transform injectivity, non-abelian X-ray transform invertibility) are cited to standard references. No circularity problem. No invented entities, no hidden free parameters.

Who is this for? Specialists in inverse problems for nonlinear hyperbolic equations, especially those working with null forms and geometric optics. It deserves a serious referee. I would recommend conditional acceptance: ask the author to expand the derivation of (2.4) and to double-check the sign/index conventions there. That is a concrete, addressable request, not a reason to reject.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper addresses the inverse problem of recovering the coefficients q_{rkl}(x,u) and p_{rijkl}(x,u) in a system of wave equations with null-form nonlinearities from scattering data. The author constructs highly oscillatory geometric optics solutions and shows that the trace of the solution at a fixed large time, over a family of incident waves parameterized by directions V,W, polarizations k,l and amplitudes, determines the coefficients. In the linear regime, the order h^3 term yields a light-ray transform of a vector field: for k=l this determines q_{rll}, and for k>l it determines q_{rkl} and p_{rijkl}. In the weakly nonlinear regime, the order h term yields a non-abelian light-ray/X-ray transform; when the coefficients are time-independent, injectivity of the non-abelian X-ray transform together with a gauge-fixing argument gives full recovery. The paper also constructs approximate solutions and invokes a result of Guès to pass to exact solutions.

Significance. If correct, the result is a meaningful extension of the scalar null-form recovery [24] to systems and to the antisymmetric null forms Q_{ij}. The strategy is natural: it reduces recovery to known integral-geometric injectivity results (light-ray transform, non-abelian X-ray transform) and gives an explicit measurement procedure. The weakly nonlinear time-independent result is attractive because it avoids the instability of the light-ray transform. The main caveats are technical: the paper delegates a key injectivity lemma to an unpublished preprint and leaves a crucial exterior-derivative computation essentially undisplayed. These are fixable but currently stand in the way of a fully verifiable proof.

major comments (3)

[§2.2, Eq. (2.4)] Equation (2.4) is load-bearing for the recovery of p_{rijkl}, but it is stated without derivation and the conclusion drawn from it is too compressed. Please provide a full computation of dG, state explicitly whether G is treated as a 1-form or vector field, and clarify the index conventions for p_{r j i k l} when j is not the larger spatial index. The isolation of the φ''_V coefficient by choosing the profile φ with prescribed φ' and φ'' should also be shown. Moreover, the algebraic step needs care: for a fixed θ the system 2θ_i A q + Σ_j θ_j A p_{r j i k l}=0 does not by itself force p=0 for d≥3; one must use that θ is arbitrary (or use the dx_m∧dx_i equations). As written, this step is not auditable.
[§2.1 and §3.1] The k=l recovery depends on Proposition 1.3 of [24] for the statement that dF=0 forces F=0, and the proof of Theorem 4 is also cited only to [24]. Since [24] is an arXiv preprint and a self-citation, the manuscript is not self-contained on these points. Please either prove these results in the present paper or state them fully as lemmas with complete proofs. This is not a presentation issue: Proposition 1.3 supplies the kernel-injectivity for the entire k=l recovery.
[§2.3] The gauge-fixing argument that removes the non-abelian X-ray transform ambiguity is written in three sentences. Please expand it: after applying the gauge transformation, the structural identity Φ + Σ_i θ_i Ψ_i = 0 for all θ gives Σ_i θ_i g^{-1}∂_i g = 0; choosing θ = e_j yields ∂_j g = 0, and the boundary condition gives g ≡ I. Also clarify the sign/gauge convention in the transformation formula for Ψ_i. Without this detail, the uniqueness claim in Theorem 2 is incomplete.

minor comments (4)

[§3.3, Eq. (3.7)] The displayed equation contains an index inconsistency: the Laplacian term should presumably be -□ A^{(r)}_m rather than -□ A^{(l)}_m. If this is intentional, please explain; otherwise correct it.
[§2.2, Eq. (2.4)] The sum over j in the dx_0∧dx_i coefficient appears to run over the wrong index set: it should be j=1,...,d (spatial indices), not j=1,...,n (solution components). This makes the formula hard to parse.
[Throughout] The notation '∑_{±m=0}^{∞}' in the expansions should be a finite sum over |m|≤N, or at least be defined consistently with the approximate solutions. As written, the infinite sum conflicts with the finite expansion in Theorem 3.
[Throughout] There are many typographical and OCR-style errors (e.g., 'd’Alambertian', 'S` a Barreto', inconsistent use of n and d in indices, garbled display in (3.6)). A careful proofreading pass is needed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the measurement is an injective transform of the unknown coefficients, and the only self-citation is a prior scalar-case lemma used as a lemma, not a fitted or definitional input.

full rationale

The derivation chain is: construct the oscillatory ansatz (1.5)/(1.12), derive transport equations (1.9)/(1.10)/(1.14), and then observe that the measured h^3 or h coefficient is a light-ray/X-ray transform of the unknown coefficients. The unknowns enter only through the transform kernel; they are not fitted to the data that is later 'predicted.' Injectivity is imported from external results: the light-ray transform modulo gradient fields from [32]/[26]/[31] and the non-abelian X-ray transform from [25]. The gauge fixing in Section 2.3 uses the structural identity Phi + sum omega_i Psi_i = 0 at omega = theta, which follows from definitions (1.15)-(1.16), not from an assumed conclusion. The k=l case invokes Proposition 1.3 of [24], a prior paper by the same authors; this is a self-citation, but it is a scalar-case kernel lemma used as a lemma and is not the system recovery being proved. The same is true for the proof of Gues's theorem cited to [24]. The unverified exterior-derivative computation (2.4) in Section 2.2 is a genuine correctness risk: it is displayed without derivation, and the subsequent 'Since our choice of phi was arbitrary' inference is compressed. But a missing or possibly erroneous computation is a proof-gap concern, not a circularity, and the paper explicitly acknowledges the lack of injectivity for the non-abelian light-ray transform in the time-dependent case, which cuts against any overclaim. No fitted input is renamed a prediction, and no ansatz is smuggled in via self-citation.

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

No free parameters are fitted; the paper proves an injectivity/recovery statement. It relies on classical transform injectivity theorems and on one self-cited scalar-case lemma that should be independently verified. No new physical entities are introduced.

assumptions (6)

standard math Null-form identities: □φ_V = T_V φ_V = Q0(φ_V,φ_V) = Qij(φ_V,φ_V) = 0
Used to build background solutions; equation (1.3).
domain assumption Gues' existence theorem for approximate oscillatory solutions (Theorem 4, after [8])
Provides existence and uniqueness of exact solutions near approximate solutions; proof cited to [24]. Invoked in Section 3.1.
standard math Injectivity of the future light-ray transform L1 modulo potential fields on Minkowski space
External result [32,26,31]; used in Sections 2.1 and 2.2.
domain assumption Proposition 1.3 of [24] (scalar n=1 case): dF=0 implies F=0 for the null-form vector field
Self-cited previous preprint; load-bearing for q_{rll} recovery in the vector case.
standard math Non-abelian X-ray transform is invertible up to gauge (Paternain-Salo-Uhlmann [25])
Used in Section 2.3 for time-independent weakly nonlinear recovery.
standard math Antisymmetry implies Φ + Σ θ_i Ψ_i = 0 when ω = θ, killing the gauge ambiguity
This fixes the gauge in Section 2.3 so the non-abelian X-ray data actually determine Φ and Ψ_i.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Recovery of a Null Form in the Wave Equation from Scattering Data." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LXLRSYMT

@misc{pith2026260728917,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Recovery of a Null Form in the Wave Equation from Scattering Data},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LXLRSYMT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.28917}
}

abstract

We use highly oscillatory geometric optics solutions to solve the inverse problem for the system \begin{equation} \square \begin{bmatrix} u^{(1)}\\ u^{(2)}\\ \vdots\\ u^{(n)}\end{bmatrix} = \sum_{\substack{k,l=1\\k\geq l}}^n \left(Q_0(u^{(k)},u^{(l)}) \begin{bmatrix} q_{1kl}\\q_{2kl}\\\vdots\\q_{nkl} \end{bmatrix} + \sum_{\substack{i,j=1\\i>j}}^d Q_{ij}(u^{(k)},u^{(l)})\begin{bmatrix} p_{1ijkl} \\ p_{2ijkl} \\ \vdots \\ p_{nijkl} \end{bmatrix}\right), \end{equation} where $Q_0$ and $Q_{ij}$ are the symmetric and anti-symmetric null forms. We present solutions in both the linear and weakly nonlinear regimes. In the linear regime, we show that the coefficients of order $h^3$ determine an injective light-ray transform of a vector field which depends on the coefficients $q_{rkl}, p_{rijkl}$. In the weakly nonlinear regime, we see that the coefficients of order $h$ determine the non-abelian light ray transform for matrices associated with the coefficients. While we do not have an injectivity result for this case, we do have one if we assume the coefficients do not depend on the time variable $x_0$, as our coefficients instead determine an injective non-abelian X-ray transform.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages

[24]

Nathe and A

J. Nathe and A. S´ a Barreto.The recovery of semilinear potentials satisfying null conditions from scattering data.https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.15997 (2026)

arXiv 2026
[1]

Bloembergen.Nonlinear Optics., W.A

N. Bloembergen.Nonlinear Optics., W.A. Benjamin Inc., New York, (1965)

1965
[2]

M.Born and E.Wolf.Principles of Optics.Pergamon Press, (1959)

1959
[3]

Boyd.Nonlinear Optics.Academic Press, (1992)

R. Boyd.Nonlinear Optics.Academic Press, (1992)

1992
[4]

Christodoulou.Solutions globales des ´ equations de Champ de Yang Mills.C

D. Christodoulou.Solutions globales des ´ equations de Champ de Yang Mills.C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris, 293, S´ eries A (1981), pp. 39–42. 14 JOEL NATHE

1981
[5]

Eptaminitakis and P

N. Eptaminitakis and P. Stefanov.Weakly nonlinear geometric optics for the Westervelt equation and recovery of the nonlinearity.SIAM Journal on Mathematical Analysis, 2024- 01, Vol.56 (1), p.801-819

2024
[6]

Eptaminitakis and P

N. Eptaminitakis and P. Stefanov.The DC Kerr effect in nonlinear optics.arXiv:2505.01392, (2025)

arXiv 2025
[7]

Feizmohammadi, M

A. Feizmohammadi, M. Lassas, and L. Oksanen.Inverse problems for nonlinear hyperbolic equations with disjoint sources and receivers.In Forum of Mathematics, Pi, volume 9, page e10. Cambridge University Press, (2021)

2021

Show all 37 references

[8]

Gu` es, O.,D´ eveloppement asymptotique de solutions exactes de syst` emes hyperboliques quasilin´ eaires.Asymptotic Analysis 6 (1993), 241-269

1993
[9]

Hintz and G

P. Hintz and G. Uhlmann.Reconstruction of Lorentzian manifolds from boundary light ob- servation sets.International Mathematics Research Notices, 2019(22):6949–6987, (2017)

2019
[10]

J-L. Joly, G. M´ etivier, and J. Rauch.Resonant one dimensional nonlinear geometric optics. J. Funct. Anal. 114 (1993), 106-231

1993
[11]

J-L. Joly, G. M´ etivier, and J. Rauch.Generic rigorous asymptotic expansions for weakly nonlinear multidimensional oscillatory waves.Duke Mathematical Journal, 70(2) (1993), 373–404. https://doi.org/10.1215/S0012-7094-93-07007-X

1993 doi
[12]

J-L. Joly, G. M´ etivier, and J. Rauch.Recent results in non-linear geometric optics.In Hy- perbolic problems: theory, numerics, applications, Vol. II (Z¨urich, 1998), volume 130 of Internat. Ser. Numer. Math., pages 723–736. Birkh¨¨auser, Basel, 1999

1998
[13]

Klainerman.The null condition and global existence to nonlinear wave equations.Lectures in Applied Mathematics Volume 23 (1986), 293-326

S. Klainerman.The null condition and global existence to nonlinear wave equations.Lectures in Applied Mathematics Volume 23 (1986), 293-326

1986
[14]

Klainerman and M

S. Klainerman and M. Machedon.Space-Time Estimates for Null Forms and the Local Ex- istence Theorem.Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics, Vol. XL VI (1993), 1221–1268

1993
[15]

Klainerman and M

S. Klainerman and M. Machedon.Smoothing estimates for null forms and applications.Duke Mathematical Journal (1995), 81(1), 99–133. https://doi.org/10.1215/s0012-7094-95-08109-5

1995 doi
[16]

Lassas, L

Y.Kurylev, M. Lassas, L. Oksanen and G. Uhlmann.Inverse problems for Einstein-scalar- field equations.Duke Math. J. 171 (2022), no. 16, 3215–3282

2022
[17]

Lassas and G

Y.Kurylev, M. Lassas and G. Uhlmann.Inverse problems for Lorentzian manifolds and non- linear hyperbolic equations.Invent. Math. 212 (2018), no. 3, 781–857

2018
[18]

Lassas and G

M. Lassas and G. Uhlmann and Y. Wang.Inverse problems for semilinear wave equations on Lorentzian manifolds.Comm. Math. Phys. 360 (2018), no. 2, 555 – 609

2018
[19]

P. D. Lax,Asymptotic solutions of oscillatory initial value problems.Duke Math. J. 24 (1957), 627-646

1957
[20]

P. D. Lax,Lectures on Hyperbolic Partial Differential Equations.Stanford University Lecture Notes (1963)

1963
[21]

Lindblad and I

H. Lindblad and I. Rodnianski.The weak null condition for Einstein ’s equations.C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris, Ser. I 336 (2003) 901–906

2003
[22]

Majda.Compressible fluid flow and systems of conservation laws in several space vari- ables.Volume 53 of Applied Mathematical Sciences (1984)

A. Majda.Compressible fluid flow and systems of conservation laws in several space vari- ables.Volume 53 of Applied Mathematical Sciences (1984). Springer-Verlag, New York, (1984)

1984
[23]

M´ etivier.The mathematics of nonlinear optics.In Handbook of differential equations: evolutionary equations

G. M´ etivier.The mathematics of nonlinear optics.In Handbook of differential equations: evolutionary equations. Vol. V, Handb. Differ. Equ., p. 169–313. Elsevier/North-Holland, Amsterdam, (2009)

2009
[25]

G. P. Paternain, M. Salo, G. Uhlmann,Geometric inverse problems.Cambridge University Press, (2023)

2023
[26]

RabieniaHaratbar,Support theorem for the Light-Ray transform of vector fields on Minkowski spaces.Inverse Problems and Imaging (2018), Volume 12, Issue 2: 293-314

S. RabieniaHaratbar,Support theorem for the Light-Ray transform of vector fields on Minkowski spaces.Inverse Problems and Imaging (2018), Volume 12, Issue 2: 293-314. Doi: 10.3934/ipi.2018013

2018 doi
[27]

S´ a Barreto and P

A. S´ a Barreto and P. Stefanov.Recovery of a cubic non-linearity in the wave equation in the weakly non- linear regime.Comm. Math. Phys. 392 (2022), no. 1, 25–53

2022
[28]

S´ a Barreto and P

A. S´ a Barreto and P. Stefanov.Recovery of a general nonlinearity in the semilinear wave equation.Asymp- tot. Anal. 138 (2024), no. 1-2, 27–68

2024
[29]

T. C. Sideris,The null condition and global existence of nonlinear elastic waves.Inventiones Mathematicae (1996), 123(2), 323–342. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002220050030 RECOVERY OF A NULL FORM IN THE W A VE EQUATION FROM SCATTERING DATA 15

1996 doi
[30]

Sogge,On local existence for nonlinear wave equations satisfying variable coeff- cient null conditions.Com m

C. Sogge,On local existence for nonlinear wave equations satisfying variable coeff- cient null conditions.Com m. in Part. Diff. Eqns. (1993), 18:11, 1795–1821, DOI: 10.1080/03605309308820994

1993 doi
[31]

Stefanov,Support theorems for the light ray transform on analytic lorentzian manifolds

P. Stefanov,Support theorems for the light ray transform on analytic lorentzian manifolds. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., 145 (2017), 1259–1274

2017
[32]

Stefanov and G

P. Stefanov and G. Uhlmann,Microlocal analysis and integral geometry.Book preprint, (2025)

2025
[33]

Tataru,On global existence and scattering for the wave maps equation.American Journal of Mathematics (2001), 123(1), 37–77

D. Tataru,On global existence and scattering for the wave maps equation.American Journal of Mathematics (2001), 123(1), 37–77. https://doi.org/10.1353/ajm.2001.0005

2001
[34]

Uhlmann and J

G. Uhlmann and J. Zhai,On an inverse boundary value problem for a nonlinear elastic wave equation.J. Math. Pures Appl. (9) 153 (2021), 114–136

2021
[35]

Uhlmann and J

G. Uhlmann and J. Zhai,Inverse problems for nonlinear hyperbolic equations.Discrete Con- tin. Dyn. Syst. (2021), Ser. A 41(1)

2021
[36]

Zworski,Semiclassical analysis.Grad

M. Zworski,Semiclassical analysis.Grad. Stud. Math., 138. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, (2012), xii+431 pp. ISBN: 978-0-8218-8320-4

2012
[37]

Zyskin,Light-ray radon transform for Abelian and non-Abelian connections in three- and four-dimensional space with a Minkowski metric.Phys

M. Zyskin,Light-ray radon transform for Abelian and non-Abelian connections in three- and four-dimensional space with a Minkowski metric.Phys. Review, 56 (2), (1997), 1175-1187

1997

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [24]

Nathe and A

J. Nathe and A. S´ a Barreto.The recovery of semilinear potentials satisfying null conditions from scattering data.https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.15997 (2026)

arXiv 2026

[2] [1]

Bloembergen.Nonlinear Optics., W.A

N. Bloembergen.Nonlinear Optics., W.A. Benjamin Inc., New York, (1965)

1965

[3] [2]

M.Born and E.Wolf.Principles of Optics.Pergamon Press, (1959)

1959

[4] [3]

Boyd.Nonlinear Optics.Academic Press, (1992)

R. Boyd.Nonlinear Optics.Academic Press, (1992)

1992

[5] [4]

Christodoulou.Solutions globales des ´ equations de Champ de Yang Mills.C

D. Christodoulou.Solutions globales des ´ equations de Champ de Yang Mills.C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris, 293, S´ eries A (1981), pp. 39–42. 14 JOEL NATHE

1981

[6] [5]

Eptaminitakis and P

N. Eptaminitakis and P. Stefanov.Weakly nonlinear geometric optics for the Westervelt equation and recovery of the nonlinearity.SIAM Journal on Mathematical Analysis, 2024- 01, Vol.56 (1), p.801-819

2024

[7] [6]

Eptaminitakis and P

N. Eptaminitakis and P. Stefanov.The DC Kerr effect in nonlinear optics.arXiv:2505.01392, (2025)

arXiv 2025

[8] [7]

Feizmohammadi, M

A. Feizmohammadi, M. Lassas, and L. Oksanen.Inverse problems for nonlinear hyperbolic equations with disjoint sources and receivers.In Forum of Mathematics, Pi, volume 9, page e10. Cambridge University Press, (2021)

2021