Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 40 references

Nondegeneracy and Morse Index of Ginzburg--Landau Vortices

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read At degrees two and three, the standard Ginzburg–Landau vortex is nondegenerate: its only bounded kernel directions are the three geometric symmetries, and its Morse index is exactly 2 (degree two) or 6 (degree three).

desk verdict A serious proof of nondegeneracy and Morse indices for n=2,3 GL vortices, with a reproducible-computation gap in the n=3 case that should be fixed before publication. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.04976 v1 pith:BUV3PN2W submitted 2026-08-05 math.AP

Manuel del Pino , Yong Liu , Monica Musso , Juncheng Wei , Wen Yang This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.AP MSC 35Q5635J6135B3535P15
keywords Ginzburg-LandauvorticesnondegeneracyMorseindexvortexlinearizationFourierblockdecompositionexplicitbarriersJacobifieldsSchrödingeroperators
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 sets out to settle an open spectral question for the two lowest higher-degree Ginzburg–Landau vortices: the standard solutions $u_n(r,\theta)=f_n(r)e^{in\theta}$ for $n=2,3$ have no explicit formula, so their linearized operators have resisted direct analysis. The main theorem proves that these vortices are nondegenerate — the only bounded kernel directions of the linearized operator are the three geometric symmetries (one phase rotation and two translations) — and that the Morse index, the number of negative directions of the energy's second variation, is exactly $2$ for $n=2$ and $6$ for $n=3$. The result matters because vortex-based constructions must invert the linearized operator on the complement of its kernel: a hidden kernel mode would introduce an extra modulation parameter, and the index fixes how many unstable directions a min-max or evolutionary argument has to handle. Since higher-degree vortices are not energy minimizers, the stability argument used for the degree-one vortex cannot be recycled; the proof instead sandwiches $f_n$ between explicit algebraic barriers, decomposes perturbations into Fourier blocks, and reduces each block to a one-dimensional Schrödinger form whose positivity is certified by explicit supersolutions. If the theorem is right, the paper delivers the first rigorous nondegeneracy results for higher-degree Ginzburg–Landau vortices, and the same method is expected to extend to all degrees.

What carries the argument

Three pieces of machinery carry the proof. (1) Explicit algebraic barriers replace the unknown profile: Proposition 2.3 gives $r^2/\sqrt{r^4+4r^2+30+6\sqrt{21}}<f_2(r)<r^2/\sqrt{r^4+4r^2+24}$ and $g_{4000}(r)<f_3(r)<g_C(r)$ for $0<C<792$, where $g_C(r)=r^3/\sqrt{r^6+9r^4+99r^2+C}$; Lemma 2.2 certifies each barrier by the sign of the profile operator $E_n(g)$, via a maximum-principle argument on the ratio $f_n/g$. (2) The linearized operator is split into radial Fourier blocks $Q_m^{(n)}$ (following the conjugate-form treatment in [35]), which are mutually orthogonal, so each block can be analysed separately. (3) For the intermediate blocks $2\le m\le 2n-2$ the paper replaces $f_n$ by a lower barrier $g$, giving $Q^{(n)}_m\ge Q^{(n)}_{m,g}$, changes to logarithmic time $t=\log r$, and completes the square in one component using $A_m(t)=(n+m)^2-P(t)>0$ (the asserted bound $P(t)<(n+2)^2$); discarding the nonnegative square leaves the scalar Schrödinger form $\ell_m[d]=\int_{\mathbb R}(\dot d^2+V_m d^2)\,dt$ with $V_m=-P+A_mW/(A_m+W)$. Positivity is verified by explicit supersolutions on each side of a splitting point — for example $1-x/4$ and $1-4/x$ for the block $(2,2)$ — and Proposition 3.2 converts $k$ splitting points into the bound $\nu(Q_m^{(n)})\le k$; matching negative directions come from explicit test functions such as $a=(r^2+2)^{-1}$. All polynomial positivity checks reduce, via the Bernstein-basis criterion of Lemma 3.3, to nonnegativity of explicit coefficient lists.

What would settle it

A direct spectral computation would settle the theorem: numerically solve the radial eigenvalue problems of the linearized operator at $u_2$ and $u_3$ — especially the blocks $m=2$ (for $n=2$) and $m=2,3,4$ (for $n=3$) — and count negative eigenvalues and zero modes; the theorem requires exactly one negative eigenvalue and no $L^2$ kernel in each of those blocks, none in any other block, and the only bounded zero modes should be the three geometric ones. The asserted barrier inequality is even cheaper to test, since $P(t)<(n+2)^2$ is an explicit one-variable rational inequality for the two models; a single point where it fails would expose the gap in the reduction.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim, Theorem 1.1, is that for $n=2,3$ the linearized operator $L_n v=-\Delta v-(1-f_n^2)v+2u_n\,\mathrm{Re}(u_n\bar v)$ at the vortex $u_n$ satisfies $$\ker_{$C^{2}$(\mathbb $R^{2}$;\mathbb C)\cap L^\infty(\mathbb $R^{2}$)}L_n=\mathrm{span}_{\mathbb R}\{iu_n,\partial_{x_1}u_n,\partial_{x_2}u_n\},$$ so the $L^2$ kernel is trivial, and the Morse indices are $\mathrm{ind}(L_2)=2$ and $\mathrm{ind}(L_3)=6$. Theorem 1.2 locates every part of the spectrum at the block level: the $m=0$ Fourier block contributes only the phase mode; the $m=1$ block is nonnegative with kernel spanned by the pair $(q,-p)$, where $q=f_n'+n f_n/r$ and $p=n f_n/r-f_n'$, corresponding to the two translations; every block with $m\ge 2n-1$ is strictly positive; and among the intermediate blocks only $m=2$ (for $n=2$) and $m=2,3,4$ (for $n=3$) carry exactly one negative eigenvalue each, with no kernel. Since each block has two real angular copies, the full real indices are $2\cdot 1=2$ and $2\cdot 3=6$.

Load-bearing premise

The argument depends on an inequality stated without proof just before (3.11): for the two explicit comparison profiles used in the proof, the quantity $P(t)=x(1-g(x)^2)$ with $x=e^{2t}$ stays below $(n+2)^2$, which guarantees the coefficient $A_m(t)$ is positive; if that bound failed at any point, the reduction of each Fourier block to a one-dimensional Schrödinger form — the step that carries the whole Morse-index upper bound — would break down.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For $n=2,3$ the linearized operator is invertible on the complement of the three geometric modes, so any gluing or Lyapunov–Schmidt reduction built on a rescaled vortex needs exactly three modulation parameters (one phase, two positions) and gains no hidden solvability conditions.
  • The Morse indices $2$ and $6$ give the exact dimension of the descending space of the Ginzburg–Landau energy at these vortices, which is the number of unstable spectral channels an evolution has before the neutral symmetries are factored out.
  • Every Fourier block with $m\ge 2n-1$ is strictly positive for the degrees treated, so any instability or kernel of a higher-degree vortex can only occur in the finite strip $2\le m\le 2n-2$.
  • The explicit barriers for $f_2$ and $f_3$ are global algebraic functions, usable in any later argument that needs a definite sign in the transition region rather than an asymptotic series.
  • The paper expects the same barrier-plus-comparison scheme to prove nondegeneracy for all higher degrees, with the number of intermediate blocks growing as $2n-3$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A concrete next step the paper leaves implicit: before constructing analytic supersolutions for $n=4$, one can run the same Fourier-block and scalar-reduction scheme numerically for the blocks $m=2,\dots,6$; the authors expect multiple negative eigenvalues per block at larger $n$, and a numerical scan would show exactly where the difficulty begins.
  • If the conjectured bound $\mathrm{ind}\le n(n-1)$ holds, the unstable dimension of the degree-$n$ vortex grows quadratically in $n$, which numerically coincides with the conjectured index of the degree-$n$ complex sine-Gordon II vortex and with the number of free parameters in its Adler–Moser polynomials; that coincidence suggests a hidden combinatorial law for the vortex spectrum.
  • A cheap testable consequence of the reduction: for any candidate barrier, the single inequality $P(t)<(n+m)^2$ controls whether the 'complete the square and discard' step is legitimate, so the screening of future barriers reduces to evaluating one rational function.
  • If the nondegeneracy transfers to construction problems on bounded domains or magnetic models that use a planar vortex as the inner solution, the kernel classification means the matching equations contain precisely the three geometric unknowns — exactly the input such constructions assume.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proves that the standard degree-two and degree-three equivariant Ginzburg-Landau vortices are nondegenerate and computes their Morse indices: the C^2∩L^∞ kernel is exactly the span of the phase and two translation Jacobi fields, the L^2 kernel is trivial, and the full real Morse indices are 2 (n=2) and 6 (n=3). The proof combines new explicit algebraic upper and lower barriers for the radial profiles f_2 and f_3, a Fourier block decomposition of the linearized Hessian, ground-state identities for the symmetry blocks m=0 and m=1, a comparison argument that rules out all blocks with m≥2n−1, and one-dimensional Sturm-Liouville supersolution arguments for the remaining intermediate blocks. Explicit negative test functions provide matching lower bounds for the index.

Significance. If correct, Theorem 1.1 settles a natural open question for n=2,3: there are no hidden bounded Jacobi fields beyond the geometric symmetries, and the exact number of negative Hessian directions is known. The method is a substantial contribution to the spectral theory of Ginzburg-Landau vortices: the explicit global barriers for f_2 and f_3 are new, the m=0,1 ground-state identities are clean and fully analytic, and the comparison reducing high Fourier blocks to the translation block is elegant. The paper also gives explicit negative test functions, so the lower index bounds are concrete and checkable. The main caveat is that several decisive positivity checks for the (3,3) block are asserted rather than documented, so the upper index bound for n=3 is not currently independently verifiable from the text.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3, before (3.11); Proposition 3.2] The assertion P(t)<(n+2)^2 is stated without proof. This inequality is load-bearing: it guarantees A_m(t)>0, which is used to prove that the projection (c,d)↦d is injective on every nonpositive subspace of Q^(n)_{m,g} and hence that ν(Q^(n)_m)≤k follows from the scalar supersolution argument. For the n=2 barrier the inequality is immediate, but for the n=3 barrier it is a nontrivial polynomial inequality. The authors should include a proof of P(t)<(n+2)^2 for both barriers used in the paper.
  2. [Section 3.2, m=3 case] The positivity checks for the (3,3) block are not documented. The paper asserts that, after degree elevation to 10, all Bernstein coefficients of J_1 on [0,17/4] are nonnegative, and that after compactification w=z/(1+z) and subdivision at 0,1/4,1/2,3/4,13/16,7/8,1, all Bernstein coefficients of bJ_2(w) and of q_1,...,q_6 are strictly positive, but no coefficient tables or code are provided. These checks are load-bearing: Proposition 3.2 uses them to conclude ν(Q^(3)_3)≤1, and a single negative Bernstein coefficient would invalidate the claimed upper bound. The authors should include the complete verification, either as explicit tables of Bernstein coefficients or as reproducible code, or give an independent certificate that all required inequalities hold.
  3. [Section 2, Proposition 2.3] For the lower bound f_2>ϕ_{C*}, the paper displays the formula for E_2(ϕ_C)/ϕ_C but does not state the needed sign conclusion. To apply Lemma 2.2 for the lower bound one must show E_2(ϕ_{C*})≥0; this follows from the fact that C*=30+6√21 makes the discriminant of the numerator vanish, but the proof as written leaves this step implicit. Please spell out this verification, since the lower barrier for n=2 underpins all subsequent estimates for the degree-two vortex.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 3.2, m=2 case] The coefficient list for p(s) is hard to read because some commas are missing: "−547200000 1088506800" and "772436736 −449390592" should be separated by commas.
  2. [Section 1] There are typographical errors: "uniquness" should be "uniqueness" and "realted" should be "related".
  3. [Section 3, Proposition 3.2 proof] The phrase "the kevaluation maps" should read "the k evaluation maps".
  4. [Section 2, Lemma 2.1] The claim that multiplication by a bounded matrix-valued function converging to zero at infinity is form-compact relative to the radial operators is not correct in two dimensions for the 1/r^2 perturbation; the subsequent coercivity argument is sufficient for the finiteness of the negative spectrum, so the Weyl-theorem justification should be revised or removed.
  5. [Section 3.2, negative test functions] The negative test-function estimates for m=2 and m=4 are asserted without the computational details that are shown for m=3; please include the corresponding integral bounds or refer to a supplementary file.
  6. [Section 1, discussion of [5]] The statement that the proof in [5] relies on a variational argument requiring additional justification is vague; if this criticism is retained, the authors should identify the precise defect in the admissibility of the test function in [5, Theorem 1.8].

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the derivation uses explicit barriers, supersolutions, and test functions; self-citations are background only.

full rationale

The derivation is self-contained in the circularity sense. The key comparison (3.8) is an identity between the true Fourier form and the barrier form, the scalar reduction (3.12) is an algebraic completion of squares, and the index upper bound in Proposition 3.2 follows from Sturm-Liouville comparison with explicitly chosen supersolutions. The lower bounds for f2 and f3 are proved via Lemma 2.2 and direct polynomial inequalities such as B_C in (2.8), not fitted to the index. The n=2 negative direction is computed explicitly from the integral J in (3.20), and the n=3 negative directions are explicit integrals using the upper barrier g_243. The only self-citation touching the argument is [14], used as background and motivation from complex sine-Gordon II; it is not load-bearing for the Ginzburg-Landau spectral conclusions. The disputed prior claim [5] is explicitly not relied upon. Two verification gaps should be weighed for rigor, not circularity: the assertion just before (3.11) that P(t)<(n+2)^2 is stated without proof, though for the two explicit barriers it is an elementary polynomial inequality, and the positivity of the Bernstein coefficients for \hat J2 in the (n,m)=(3,3) block is asserted after subdivision without displaying the coefficient tables or code. These omissions make the n=3 upper index bound harder to check independently, but they do not make the result equivalent to its inputs: the supersolution coefficients are exhibited, the target inequalities are genuine consequences, and no fitted quantity is renamed as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim has no data-fitted parameters and no new physical or mathematical postulates. The listed constants are auxiliary proof artifacts used to construct barriers and supersolutions; they do not change the statement of the theorem. No invented entities such as new forces, particles, or conserved quantities appear.

free parameters (5)
  • C* in the f2 lower barrier = 30+6*sqrt(21)
    Parameter in the algebraic lower barrier for f2; chosen so that the algebraic identity C*^2 = 60 C* - 144 and the polynomial positivity in the (n,m)=(2,2) block hold. It is a proof tool, not fitted to the target result.
  • C=4000 in the f3 lower barrier = 4000
    Chosen in g_C so that E3(g_C)>0 and g_C lies below f3 near infinity. A proof artifact, not a target parameter.
  • Upper-barrier parameter C for f3 = 0<C<792 (used: 595, 243)
    Condition ensuring E3(g_C)<0 and the correct asymptotic ordering g_C > f3. Specific values are used later to construct negative test functions.
  • Trace and split points x0 = 4, 12, 17/4
    Points splitting the half-line in the supersolution arguments for blocks (2,2), (3,2), and (3,3). They are chosen to make the Bernstein coefficient checks positive.
  • Supersolution polynomial R(z) for block (3,3) = 36+336z+1357z^2+3815z^3+4442z^4+7378z^5+2275z^6+2478z^7+z^8
    Found by linear programming, rational approximation, and integer rescaling to prove positivity of the scalar form in the (n,m)=(3,3) block. The coefficients are not unique and are not fitted to any data.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Existence, uniqueness, monotonicity and asymptotics of the radial profile f_n (equation (1.2))
    Taken from the cited Ginzburg-Landau theory [6,13,25]; used to set the ODE problem and to justify the asymptotic ordering of the barriers.
  • standard math Maximum-principle comparison principle in Lemma 2.2
    Used to convert algebraic differential inequalities for the barrier functions into global upper and lower bounds on f2 and f3.
  • standard math Fourier block decomposition of perturbations of the linearized operator
    Orthogonality of angular modes reduces the spectral problem to coupled radial systems; this is standard in the degree-one vortex analysis of Pacard-Riviere.
  • standard math Weyl essential-spectrum and minimax spectral theorems for the radial operators
    Used in Lemma 2.1 to assert finite negative spectrum and in Proposition 3.2 to transfer index bounds from the scalar form to the two-component form.
  • ad hoc to paper The pointwise bound P(t)<(n+2)^2 for the chosen barriers
    Stated without proof immediately before equation (3.11); needed for A_m>0 and for the projection argument. It appears true for the explicit D(x) used here but is not demonstrated.
  • ad hoc to paper Correctness of the Mathematica/LP computations of Bernstein coefficients
    Essential for the positivity of supersolutions in the (3,3) block; no code or notebook is shipped, so the reader must trust the asserted arithmetic.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Nondegeneracy and Morse Index of Ginzburg--Landau Vortices." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BUV3PN2W

@misc{pith2026260804976,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Nondegeneracy and Morse Index of Ginzburg--Landau Vortices},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BUV3PN2W}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.04976}
}
read the original abstract

We prove that the standard degree-two and degree-three vortex solutions of the Ginzburg-Landau equation are nondegenerate. Their Morse indices are also computed. The proof relies on new explicit upper and lower bounds of the modulus of these solutions and a comparison argument. It is expected that our method can be generalized to study higher degree solutions.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Abrikosov, On the magnetic properties of superconductors of the second group,Soviet Phys

    A.A. Abrikosov, On the magnetic properties of superconductors of the second group,Soviet Phys. JETP5(1957), 1174–1182

    work page 1957

  2. [2]

    Almeida and F

    L. Almeida and F. Bethuel, Topological methods for the Ginzburg–Landau equations,J. Math. Pures Appl.(9)77(1998), no. 1, 1–49, doi:10.1016/S0021-7824(98)80064-0

    work page doi:10.1016/s0021-7824(98)80064-0 1998

  3. [3]

    Baraket and F

    S. Baraket and F. Pacard, Construction of singular limits for a semilinear elliptic equa- tion in dimension 2,Calc. Var. Partial Differential Equations6(1998), no. 1, 1–38, doi:10.1007/s005260050080

    work page doi:10.1007/s005260050080 1998

  4. [4]

    Barashenkov, V .S

    I.V . Barashenkov, V .S. Shchesnovich and R.M. Adams, Noncoaxial multivortices in the complex sine-Gordon theory on the plane,Nonlinearity,15(2002), 2121–2146. https://doi.org/10.1088/0951-7715/15/6/317

    work page doi:10.1088/0951-7715/15/6/317 2002

  5. [5]

    Beaulieu, Bounded solutions for an ordinary differential system from the Ginzburg–Landau theory,Proc

    A. Beaulieu, Bounded solutions for an ordinary differential system from the Ginzburg–Landau theory,Proc. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh Sect. A150(2020), 3378–3408

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    Berger and Y .Y

    M.S. Berger and Y .Y . Chen, Symmetric vortices for the Ginzburg–Landau equations of super- conductivity and the nonlinear desingularization phenomenon,J. Funct. Anal.82(1989), no. 2, 259–295

    work page 1989

  7. [7]

    Bethuel, H

    F. Bethuel, H. Brezis, and F. H ´elein, Asymptotics for the minimization of a Ginzburg– Landau functional,Calc. Var. Partial Differential Equations1(1993), no. 2, 123–148, doi:10.1007/BF01191614

    work page doi:10.1007/bf01191614 1993

  8. [8]

    Bethuel, H

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

    work page 1994

Show all 40 references
  1. [9]

    Bethuel, H

    F. Bethuel, H. Brezis, and G. Orlandi, Asymptotics for the Ginzburg–Landau equation in arbitrary dimensions,J. Funct. Anal.186(2001), no. 2, 432–520, doi:10.1006/jfan.2001.3791

    2001

  2. [10]

    Bethuel, G

    F. Bethuel, G. Orlandi, and D. Smets, Convergence of the parabolic Ginzburg–Landau equation to motion by mean curvature,Ann. of Math.(2)163(2006), no. 1, 37–163, doi:10.4007/annals.2006.163.37

    2006 doi

  3. [11]

    Bethuel, G

    F. Bethuel, G. Orlandi, and D. Smets, Dynamics of multiple-degree Ginzburg–Landau vortices, Comm. Math. Phys.272(2007), no. 1, 229–261, doi:10.1007/s00220-007-0206-6. 28 M. DEL PINO, Y . LIU, M. MUSSO, J.C. WEI, AND W. Y ANG

    2007 doi

  4. [12]

    Brezis, F

    H. Brezis, F. Merle, and T. Rivi`ere, Quantization effects for −∆u=u(1− |u|2) in R2,Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal.126(1994), no. 1, 35–58, doi:10.1007/BF00375695

    1994 doi

  5. [13]

    Chen, C.M

    X. Chen, C.M. Elliott, and T. Qi, Shooting method for vortex solutions of a complex-valued Ginzburg–Landau equation,Proc. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh Sect. A124(1994), no. 6, 1075–1088, doi:10.1017/S0308210500030122

    1994 doi

  6. [14]

    S. Chen, C. Gui, Y . Liu, J. Yang, and W. Yang, Symmetry breaking for the complex sine-Gordon equation, arXiv:2606.14104

  7. [15]

    Collot, P

    C. Collot, P. Germain, E. Pacherie, Estimates for the Gross-Pitaevskii equation linearized around a vortexarXiv preprint arXiv:2503.02953, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  8. [16]

    del Pino, P

    M. del Pino, P. Felmer, and M. Kowalczyk, Minimality and nondegeneracy of degree-one Ginzburg–Landau vortex as a Hardy’s type inequality,Int. Math. Res. Not.(2004), no. 30, 1511–1527, doi:10.1155/S1073792804133588

    2004 doi

  9. [17]

    del Pino, R

    M. del Pino, R. Juneman, and M. Musso, Solvability for the Ginzburg–Landau equation linearized at the degree-one vortex,J. Funct. Anal.289(2025), no. 9, article 111105, doi:10.1016/j.jfa.2025.111105

    2025

  10. [18]

    del Pino and M

    M. del Pino and M. Kowalczyk, Renormalized energy of interacting Ginzburg–Landau vortex filaments,J. Lond. Math. Soc.(2)77(2008), no. 3, 647–665, doi:10.1112/jlms/jdm126

    2008 doi

  11. [19]

    del Pino, M

    M. del Pino, M. Kowalczyk, and M. Musso, Variational reduction for Ginzburg–Landau vortices, J. Funct. Anal.239(2006), no. 2, 497–541, doi:10.1016/j.jfa.2006.07.006

    2006 doi

  12. [20]

    Duan and J

    L. Duan and J. Yang, On the non-degeneracy of radial vortex solutions for a coupled Ginzburg–Landau system,Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst.41(2021), no. 10, 4767–4790, doi:10.3934/dcds.2021056

    2021 doi

  13. [21]

    Ginzburg and L

    V .L. Ginzburg and L. D. Landau, On the theory of superconductivity,Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.20 (1950), 1064–1082

    1950

  14. [22]

    Gravejat, E

    P. Gravejat, E. Pacherie, and D. Smets, On the stability of the Ginzburg–Landau vortex,Proc. Lond. Math. Soc.(3)125(2022), no. 5, 1015–1065, doi:10.1112/plms.12475

    2022 doi

  15. [23]

    Guo, Instability of symmetric vortices with large charge and coupling constant,Comm

    Y . Guo, Instability of symmetric vortices with large charge and coupling constant,Comm. Pure Appl. Math.49(1996), no. 10, 1051–1080

    1996

  16. [24]

    Gustafson and I.M

    S. Gustafson and I.M. Sigal, The stability of magnetic vortices,Comm. Math. Phys.212(2000), no. 2, 257–275, doi:10.1007/PL00005526

    2000 doi

  17. [25]

    Herv´e and M

    R.M. Herv´e and M. Herv´e, ´Etude qualitative des solutions r´eelles d’une ´equation diff´erentielle li´ee `a l’´equation de Ginzburg–Landau,Ann. Inst. H. Poincar ´e Anal. Non Lin ´eaire11(1994), no. 4, 427–440, doi:10.1016/S0294-1449(16)30182-2

    1994 doi

  18. [26]

    Jaffe and C

    A. Jaffe and C. Taubes,Vortices and Monopoles: Structure of Static Gauge Theories, Progress in Physics, vol. 2, Birkh¨auser, Boston, 1980

    1980

  19. [27]

    Jerrard, Lower bounds for generalized Ginzburg–Landau functionals,SIAM J

    R.L. Jerrard, Lower bounds for generalized Ginzburg–Landau functionals,SIAM J. Math. Anal. 30(1999), no. 4, 721–746, doi:10.1137/S0036141097300581

    1999 doi

  20. [28]

    Jerrard and H.M

    R.L. Jerrard and H.M. Soner, The Jacobian and the Ginzburg–Landau energy,Calc. Var. Partial Differential Equations14(2002), no. 2, 151–191, doi:10.1007/s005260100093

    2002 doi

  21. [29]

    Lamy and A

    X. Lamy and A. Z´u˜niga, On the stability of radial solutions to an anisotropic Ginzburg–Landau equation,SIAM J. Math. Anal.54(2022), no. 1, 723–736, doi:10.1137/21M1433939

    2022 doi

  22. [30]

    Luhrmann, W

    J. Luhrmann, W. Schlag, S. Shahshahani, On the gross-pitaevskii evolution linearized around the degree-one vortex.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.07345, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Lin, Some dynamical properties of Ginzburg–Landau vortices,Comm

    F.H. Lin, Some dynamical properties of Ginzburg–Landau vortices,Comm. Pure Appl. Math.49 (1996), no. 4, 323–359

    1996

  24. [32]

    Lin, Complex Ginzburg–Landau equations and dynamics of vortices, filaments, and codimension-2submanifolds,Comm

    F.H. Lin, Complex Ginzburg–Landau equations and dynamics of vortices, filaments, and codimension-2submanifolds,Comm. Pure Appl. Math.51(1998), no. 4, 385–441

    1998

  25. [33]

    Mironescu, On the stability of radial solutions of the Ginzburg–Landau equation,J

    P. Mironescu, On the stability of radial solutions of the Ginzburg–Landau equation,J. Funct. Anal.130(1995), no. 2, 334–344, doi:10.1006/jfan.1995.1073

    1995

  26. [34]

    Ovchinnikov and I.M

    Y .N. Ovchinnikov and I.M. Sigal, The energy of Ginzburg–Landau vortices,European J. Appl. Math.13(2002), no. 2, 153–178, doi:10.1017/S0956792501004752. NONDEGENERACY AND MORSE INDEX OF GINZBURG–LANDAU VORTICES 29

    2002 doi

  27. [35]

    Pacard and T

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

    2000

  28. [36]

    Palacios and F

    J.M. Palacios and F. Pusateri, Linearized dynamic stability for vortices of Ginzburg–Landau evolutions,arXiv:2409.04393, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Sandier, Lower bounds for the energy of unit vector fields and applications,J

    E. Sandier, Lower bounds for the energy of unit vector fields and applications,J. Funct. Anal.152 (1998), no. 2, 379–403; erratum,J. Funct. Anal.171(2000), 233, doi:10.1006/jfan.1997.3170

    1998

  30. [38]

    Sandier and S

    E. Sandier and S. Serfaty,Γ-convergence of gradient flows with applications to Ginzburg–Landau, Comm. Pure Appl. Math.57(2004), no. 12, 1627–1672, doi:10.1002/cpa.20046

    2004 doi

  31. [39]

    Sandier and S

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

    2007

  32. [40]

    Serfaty and I

    S. Serfaty and I. Tice, Lorentz space estimates for the Ginzburg–Landau energy,J. Funct. Anal. 254(2008), no. 3, 773–825, doi:10.1016/j.jfa.2007.11.010. MANUEL DELPINO, DEPARTMENT OFMATHEMATICALSCIENCES, UNIVERSITY OFBATH, BATHBA2 7AY, UNITEDKINGDOM Email address:mdp59@bath.ac...

    2008 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.