Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 3 minor 29 references

Reconstruction of the magnetic field for a Schr\"odinger operator in a cylindrical setting

T0 review · 2 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper proves that, under a zero-mean condition on the magnetic potential, the magnetic field $\operatorname{curl}V$ can be reconstructed constructively from the Dirichlet-to-Neumann map on a compact domain inside…

desk verdict A solid, honest thesis that delivers the first reconstruction of curl V on the cylinder, with one genuinely misprinted key theorem that is easily repaired. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.01386 v1 pith:4NBSE7HT submitted 2019-08-04 math.AP

Daniel Campos This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.AP MSC 35R3035J1035S0558J32
keywords magneticSchrodingeroperatorinverseboundaryvalueproblemDirichlet-to-NeumannmapCarlemanestimatecomplexgeometricopticscylindricalmanifoldreconstructionoffieldsemiclassicalpseudodifferentialoperators
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 tries to establish a constructive inverse boundary value theorem: on a compact domain inside the infinite cylinder $\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{T}^d$ with $d\ge3$, the magnetic field $\operatorname{curl}V$ of a magnetic Schrodinger operator $H_{V,W}=(D+V)^2+W$ is determined by the Dirichlet-to-Neumann map $\Lambda_{V,W}$. The admissible potentials must be smooth, compactly supported in the interior, have zero average along the cylinder axis for each point of the torus, and avoid zero as a Dirichlet eigenvalue. A sympathetic reader would care because this turns a uniqueness statement for magnetic potentials into an actual algorithm: the field, which is gauge-invariant and physically meaningful, can in principle be computed from boundary pairings. The proof's engine is a global Carleman estimate for the conjugated operator, obtained by conjugating the magnetic operator essentially into the Laplacian through semiclassical pseudodifferential operators on the cylinder.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the conjugation identity $(\Delta_\hbar+2\hbar V_\hbar)A=B\Delta_\hbar+\hbar^{1+\varepsilon}R$, in which $\hbar=\tau^{-1}$, $A$ and $B$ are invertible semiclassical pseudodifferential operators on $\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{T}^d$, $V_\hbar$ is the conjugated magnetic term, and $R$ is a remainder that gains a power of the small parameter. The symbol of $A$ is built from the solution $u$ of a first-order transport equation $(\xi+i)D_{x_1}u+\hbar t\cdot D_{x'}u=(\xi+i)F+\hbar t\cdot G$ in directions where the Laplacian symbol is elliptic; the vanishing-moment condition makes that solution decay. This identity reduces the Carleman estimate for the magnetic operator to the known anisotropic Carleman estimate for the Laplacian, and later the same decay estimates control the error terms in the reconstruction of $\operatorname{curl}V$.

What would settle it

Take $d\ge3$ and a smooth compactly supported magnetic potential $V$ on $M^-$ whose $x_1$-mean is nonzero for some $x'$, while keeping all other hypotheses; then compute whether the conjugated operator $e^{2\pi\tau x_1}H_{V,W}e^{-2\pi\tau x_1}$ is still invertible from $L^2_\delta$ to $H^2_{-\delta}$ with the bound $\|u\|_{H^s_{-\delta}}\lesssim|\tau|^{s-1}\|f\|_{L^2_\delta}$. The paper's own ODE analysis shows the transport equation $(\xi+i)D_{x_1}u_m+\hbar t\cdot m\,u_m=(\xi+i)F_m+\hbar t\cdot G_m$ has no decaying solution when $\hbar t\cdot m=0$ and the moment is nonzero, so failure of invertibility in that case would falsify the claimed reduction.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Theorem 1.1: for $d\ge3$, if $V\in C^\infty_c(M^-)$, $W\in L^\infty(M)$, $\int_{\mathbb{R}}V(x_1,x')\,dx_1=0$ for all $x'\in\mathbb{T}^d$, and $0$ is not an eigenvalue of $H_{V,W}$ in $M$, then $\operatorname{curl}V$ can be reconstructed from $\Lambda_{V,W}$. The supporting Theorem 1.2 states that for $1/2<\delta<1$ and $\tau^2\notin\operatorname{Spec}(-\Delta_{g_0})$, the conjugated operator $e^{2\pi\tau x_1}H_{V,W}e^{-2\pi\tau x_1}$ is invertible from $L^2_\delta$ onto $H^2_{-\delta}$ with the one-derivative gain $\|u\|_{H^s_{-\delta}}\lesssim|\tau|^{s-1}\|f\|_{L^2_\delta}$ for $s=0,1,2$. Theorem 1.2 is proved by a pseudodifferential conjugation that reduces the magnetic operator to the Laplacian, whose Carleman estimates are already available; the reconstruction then follows the complex-geometric-optics route, producing special solutions whose boundary values are computable from $\Lambda_{V,W}$ and whose asymptotic integrals determine the Fourier coefficients of $\operatorname{curl}V$.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is the vanishing-moment condition $\int_{\mathbb{R}}V(x_1,x')\,dx_1=0$ for every $x'$: when the Fourier-mode denominator $(\xi+i)\eta+\hbar t\cdot m$ vanishes, the paper itself notes that there is no unique decaying solution, and without this condition the conjugation, the decay estimates, and the reconstruction all break.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Boundary values of the constructed CGO solutions are explicitly computable from $\Lambda_{V,W}$ via the invertible boundary operator $I+\operatorname{tr}\circ S_\tau(\Lambda_{V,W}-\Lambda_{0,0})$.
  • The measured boundary pairings determine the mixed integrals $I(m,n)=\int_M e^{2\pi\mu_{m,n}x_1}e^{-n(x')}(i|m|,m)\cdot V\,\tilde a_m$, and, via the power-series relation of Theorem 6.5, the linear integrals $J(m,n)$.
  • The Fourier coefficients of $\operatorname{curl}V$ are recovered by expressing each curl vector as a linear combination of vectors $(i|m|,m)$ with the same norm, a step the paper proves for $d\ge3$.
  • The magnetic potential $V$ itself cannot be recovered, only $\operatorname{curl}V$: the boundary map is gauge-invariant under $V\mapsto V+\nabla\phi$ with $\phi|_{\partial M}=0$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the zero-mean condition were dropped, the method's own Fourier-mode analysis indicates there is no decaying solution to the transport equation when $\hbar t\cdot m=0$, so the decay estimates (15) and (21) would fail; a different conjugation, or a genuinely different class of amplitudes, would be needed.
  • The reconstruction is constructive but relies on limits along a sequence $N\to\infty$ and on the Laplace transform of an entire function recovered from values on a convergent sequence; a numerical implementation would therefore need boundary data of high accuracy and a stabilization strategy, neither of which the paper addresses.
  • Because the linear algebra step uses equal-norm lattice points perpendicular to a fixed direction, the method appears tied to $d\ge3$; extending the reconstruction to $d=2$ would require a new way to generate the curl vectors.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper studies the Calderón-type inverse problem for the magnetic Schrödinger operator H_{V,W} = (D+V)^2 + W on a compact submanifold M of the infinite cylinder T = R × T^d. The main result, Theorem 1.1, asserts that, for d ≥ 3 and under the hypotheses (†), the magnetic field curl V can be reconstructed in a constructive way from the Dirichlet-to-Neumann map Λ_{V,W}. The proof proceeds by establishing a global Carleman estimate (Theorem 1.2) via conjugation of the magnetic operator to the Laplacian using semiclassical pseudodifferential operators, then constructing complex geometric optics solutions, characterizing their boundary values through a boundary integral equation, and finally extracting the Fourier coefficients of curl V from limits of boundary pairings and Laplace-transform reconstruction. The paper is written in thesis style, with most of the required pseudodifferential calculus and auxiliary results proved in detail.

Significance. If the main result is correct, this is the first constructive reconstruction of the magnetic field and the first global Carleman estimate for the magnetic Schrödinger operator in the cylindrical setting, extending the uniqueness result of Dos Santos Ferreira–Kenig–Salo–Uhlmann and the Euclidean reconstruction of Salo. The paper is careful in stating hypotheses and in flagging its own limitations: the restriction δ < 1, the spectral exclusions τ² ∉ Spec(−Δ_{g0}), the d ≥ 3 requirement in Lemma 6.8, and the explicit remark in Section 4.5 that the uniqueness step is not a direct perturbative consequence. However, the manuscript contains a false key statement in Theorem 6.5 relating the measured integrals I(m,n) to the needed integrals J(m,n); the correct formulas appear in equations (60)–(61), so the central derivation is repairable but not correct as printed.

major comments (2)
  1. [§6.4.1, Theorem 6.5 and equations (60)–(61)] The displayed formulas in Theorem 6.5 for J(m,n) have interchanged superscripts and reversed signs relative to the derivation. From the definitions of T^±_j in §6.4.1, if m·n > 0 then T^-_1(m,n) is empty, hence I^-_j(m,n) = 0 for all j; the printed formula would therefore force J(m,n) = 0 for every positive dot product, contradicting the same theorem's clause that J(m,n) = I(m,n) when m·n = ±1 and contradicting the correct equations (60)–(61). Since this theorem is the bridge that converts the measured quantities I(m,n) into the integrals J(m,n) used for the Laplace reconstruction, it is load-bearing: a reader following Theorem 6.5 literally would conclude that all positive-dot-product contributions vanish and the reconstruction fails. Please replace the statement of Theorem 6.5 with the formulas in (60)–(61) and re-verify every occurrence of the superscripts and signs.
  2. [§4.1 and conditions (⋆)/(†)] The vanishing moment condition ∫_R V(x1,x') dx1 = 0 is a genuine restriction on the admissible magnetic potentials and is not merely a gauge normalization used for convenience. The author's own discussion around equation (16) and Theorem 4.8 states that when the denominator (ξ+i)η + ℏt·m vanishes there is no unique decaying solution and that the vanishing moment condition is the 'simplest way to avoid the problem.' This condition is load-bearing for the conjugation in Theorem 4.2, for the CGO construction, and ultimately for Theorem 1.1. The paper should state prominently, both in the introduction and in the discussion of Theorem 1.1, that the reconstruction is proved only under this mean-zero hypothesis, and should comment on whether the condition can be relaxed or whether it is essential to the method.
minor comments (3)
  1. [§6.2 and §4.3] The notation a_m is used both for Fourier coefficients and for the WKB amplitude introduced in Proposition 6.2. The remark after Proposition 6.2 acknowledges this conflict, but using a different symbol for the amplitude (for example, A_m or α_m) throughout Chapter 6 would substantially improve readability.
  2. [§4.5, Theorem 4.12] Theorem 4.12 states 'There exists ℏ0 ≥ 1' but the proof requires small ℏ and uses bounds of the form 0 < |ℏ| ≤ ℏ0; the intended statement is clearly ℏ0 ∈ (0,1]. Please correct the inequality.
  3. [§6.4.2, remark after Lemma 6.8] The d ≥ 3 restriction is shown to be sharp for the linear-algebra construction, and this is an important structural limitation of the reconstruction procedure. Since Theorem 1.1 is stated only for d ≥ 3, this restriction is consistent, but it would be helpful to mention it explicitly in the introduction rather than only in the appendix.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the magnetic-field reconstruction is derived from boundary data, and the new Carleman estimate is built from external Laplacian estimates.

full rationale

The claimed reconstruction is not circular: the Dirichlet-to-Neumann map enters only as data. In Proposition 5.13 the identity Kτ(EXJu)(x) = Sτ[(ΛV,W − Λ0,0)tr−(u)](x) is derived by integration by parts, and Corollary 5.15 then characterizes the boundary values of the CGOs as the unique solution of (I + tr∘Sτ(ΛV,W − Λ0,0))f = tr(h), an equation fully determined by the measured map. The integral transform I(m,n) is defined as the large-N limit of boundary pairings T(m,n,N) against fixed harmonic functions, so it is measurement-derived. The passage from I(m,n) to the needed integrals J(m,n) is explicit: equations (54)–(55) express both as boundary evaluations, (59) recovers ~am = exp(vm) on |x1| ≥ R from the I's, and equations (60)–(61) then give J in terms of I. Lemma 6.8 and Theorem 6.16 provide the constructive linear-algebra and entire-function steps from J to the Fourier coefficients of curl V. The Carleman estimate (Theorem 1.2) is proved by reducing to the Laplacian estimate of Kenig–Salo–Uhlmann (Theorem 4.1), an external input, and the conjugation symbol u solves the stated transport equation (13) with estimates proven in Chapter 4; no part of the reconstruction is used to prove the estimate. The vanishing-moment hypothesis (⋆)/(†) and the spectral condition are explicitly stated restrictions, with Section 4.1 and the remark in Section 4.5 explaining where they are required; they are not fitted parameters or renamed predictions. There are no load-bearing self-citations by the author. A sign inconsistency in the printed statement of Theorem 6.5 relative to equations (60)–(61) is a correctness risk, not a circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on three kinds of input: standard analytic background (Sobolev theory, pseudodifferential calculus, Fredholm theory), two quoted external theorems (the Laplacian Carleman estimate from [8] and the transmission property from [12]), and the stated hypotheses of the theorems (support, vanishing moment, non-eigenvalue, spectral exclusion). No constant is fitted to any data, and the auxiliary exponents θ = 1/2, σ = 2, ε = 1 - δ are hand-chosen only to make error terms converge. No new entities are postulated. The count of free parameters is therefore low, and the main epistemic load falls on the stated hypotheses rather than on hidden choices.

free parameters (3)
  • θ (cutoff exponent in the conjugation symbol) = 1/2
    Chosen in Section 4.4 to make the two error terms r1 and r2 acquire a factor ℏ^{1+ε} with ε = 1 - δ > 0 when viewed between the weighted spaces L²_{-δ} and L²_δ; the requirement is 2 - 2δθ > 1 and 1 + 2θ - 2δθ > 1, which holds for θ = 1/2 and δ < 1. It is an auxiliary hand-chosen exponent, not fitted to data.
  • σ (cutoff exponent for the CGO amplitudes) = 2
    Chosen in Proposition 6.2 in the definition w_m = v_m ψ(x1/|m|^σ); the error term b_m has L²_δ norm of order |m|^{σ(2δ-1)/2} and |m|^{1+σ(2δ-3)/2}, and any σ > 1 makes both exponents negative; σ = 2 is the explicit pick. Hand-chosen, not fitted to data.
  • τ (large parameter sequence) = near |m_N| = N|m|, with |τ - |m_N|| |m_N|^σ ≲ 1 and τ² ∉ Spec(-Δ_g0)
    Algorithmic parameter of the Carleman estimate and of the boundary integral equation; the estimates of Proposition 6.3 require the approximation condition while Theorem 1.2 excludes spectral values. The existence for each N is stated without proof; see the red flag.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Laplacian Carleman estimate on the cylinder (Theorem 4.1)
    Quoted from Kenig-Salo-Uhlmann [8, KSU11a] with the remark that the proof given for R × M0 'can be carried out in the exact same way for the torus T^d'. It is the base estimate onto which the magnetic operator is conjugated in Theorem 4.2; the thesis does not prove it.
  • standard math Semiclassical pseudodifferential calculus on R and T^d (Calderón-Vaillancourt boundedness, composition, invertibility of exponentials)
    Used throughout Chapters 3-4; the cylinder-specific statements are developed in the thesis, building on Stein [21], Zworski [29], Ruzhansky-Turunen [17], and Salo [18].
  • domain assumption 0 is not a Dirichlet eigenvalue of H_{V,W} on M
    Hypothesis of Theorem 1.1 and of the boundary characterization (Theorem 5.12, Proposition 5.14); it guarantees unique solvability of the Dirichlet problem (Proposition 2.6) and the Fredholm invertibility of I + tr∘S_τ(Λ_{V,W} - Λ_{0,0}) in Corollary 5.15.
  • domain assumption Vanishing moment and interior-support conditions on V (conditions (⋆) and (†))
    Hypotheses that make the mode equations (16) solvable with decay (Theorem 4.8); the author notes in Section 4.1 that without ∫ V dx1 = 0 the denominator in the Fourier-transformed ODE can vanish and uniqueness and decay fail. This is the most restrictive premise.
  • domain assumption Spectral exclusion τ² ∉ Spec(-Δ_g0)
    Required by Theorem 1.2 and noted in Section 4.5 to be sharp: if τ² = |m|² then the homogeneous problem has the solution u = e_m(x') ∈ H²_{-δ}.
  • standard math Transmission property for harmonic single layer potentials
    Invoked in Proposition 5.11(e) and cited to McLean [12]; needed for the regularity of tr∘S_τ, used in the boundary characterization and Corollary 5.15.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Reconstruction of the magnetic field for a Schr\"odinger operator in a cylindrical setting." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4NBSE7HT

@misc{pith2026190801386,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Reconstruction of the magnetic field for a Schr\"odinger operator in a cylindrical setting},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4NBSE7HT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.01386}
}
read the original abstract

In this thesis we consider a magnetic Schr\"odinger inverse problem over a compact domain contained in an infinite cylindrical manifold. We show that, under certain conditions on the electromagnetic potentials, we can recover the magnetic field from boundary measurements in a constructive way. A fundamental tool for this procedure is a global Carleman estimate for the magnetic Schr\"odinger operator. We prove this by conjugating the magnetic operator essentially into the Laplacian, and using the Carleman estimates for it proven by Kenig-Salo-Uhlmann in the anisotropic setting, see [KSU11a]. The conjugation is achieved through pseudodifferential operators over the cylinder, for which we develop the necessary results. The main motivations to attempt this question are the following results concerning the magnetic Schr\"odinger operator: first, the solution to the uniqueness problem in the cylindrical setting in [DSFKSU09], and, second, the reconstruction algorithm in the Euclidean setting from [Sal06]. We will also borrow ideas from the reconstruction of the electric potential in the cylindrical setting from [KSU11b]. These two new results answer partially the Carleman estimate problem (Question 4.3.) proposed in [Sal13] and the reconstruction for the magnetic Schr\"odinger operator mentioned in the introduction of [KSU11b]. To our knowledge, these are the first global Carleman estimates and reconstruction procedure for the magnetic Schr\"odinger operator available in the cylindrical setting.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Calder ´on, On an inverse boundary value problem , Seminar on Numerical Analysis and its Application to Continuum Physics, Soc

    A.P. Calder ´on, On an inverse boundary value problem , Seminar on Numerical Analysis and its Application to Continuum Physics, Soc. Brasileira de Matem´ atica, Rio de Janeiro, 1980, pp. 65–73

    work page 1980

  2. [2]

    Dos Santos Ferreira, C

    D. Dos Santos Ferreira, C. Kenig, M. Salo, G. Uhlmann , Limiting Carleman weights and anisotropic inverse problems , Invent math (2009) 178: 119–171

    work page 2009

  3. [3]

    Dos Santos Ferreira, C

    D. Dos Santos Ferreira, C. Kenig, J. Sj ¨ostrand, G. Uhlmann , Determining a magnetic Schr¨odinger operator from partial Cauchy data , Comm. Math. Phys. 271, 467–488 (2007)

    work page 2007

  4. [4]

    Eskin, J

    G. Eskin, J. Ralston , Inverse scattering problem for the Schr ¨odinger equation with magnetic potential at a fixed energy , Comm. Math. Phys., 173: 199–224, 1995

    work page 1995

  5. [5]

    G ˚arding, Some Points of Analysis and their History , University Lecture Series Volume 11, American Mathematical Society, 1997

    L. G ˚arding, Some Points of Analysis and their History , University Lecture Series Volume 11, American Mathematical Society, 1997

    work page 1997

  6. [6]

    Haberman , Inverse problems with rough data , PhD Thesis, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, May 2015

    B. Haberman , Inverse problems with rough data , PhD Thesis, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, May 2015

    work page 2015

  7. [7]

    Isakov , Inverse Problems for Partial Differential Equations , Applied Mathematical Sciences 127, Second Edition, Springer, 2006

    V. Isakov , Inverse Problems for Partial Differential Equations , Applied Mathematical Sciences 127, Second Edition, Springer, 2006. 59

    work page 2006

  8. [8]

    Kenig, M

    C. Kenig, M. Salo, G. Uhlmann , Inverse problems for the anisotropic Maxwell equations , Duke Math J., Volume 157, Number 2 (2011), 369–419

    work page 2011

Show all 29 references
  1. [9]

    Kenig, M

    C. Kenig, M. Salo, G. Uhlmann , Reconstructions from boundary measurements on admissible manifolds, Inverse Problems & Imaging 2011, 5(4): 859-877

    2011

  2. [10]

    Kenig, J

    C. Kenig, J. Sj ¨ostrand, G. Uhlmann , The Calder´ on problem with partial data , Annals of Mathematics, 165 (2007), 567–591

    2007

  3. [11]

    Krupchyk, G

    K. Krupchyk, G. Uhlmann , Uniqueness in an inverse boundary problem for a magnetic Schr¨odinger operator with a bounded magnetic potential , Comm. Math. Phys., 327 (2014), no. 3, 993–1009

    2014

  4. [12]

    McLean , Strongly elliptic systems and boundary integral equations , Cambridge University Press, 2000

    W. McLean , Strongly elliptic systems and boundary integral equations , Cambridge University Press, 2000

    2000

  5. [13]

    Nachman , Reconstructions from Boundary Measurements , Annals of Mathematics, Vol

    A. Nachman , Reconstructions from Boundary Measurements , Annals of Mathematics, Vol. 128, No. 3 (1988), pp. 531-576

    1988

  6. [14]

    Nachman, J

    A. Nachman, J. Sylvester, G. Uhlmann , An n-dimensional Borg–Levinson theorem , Com- mun. Math. Phys. 115, 595-605 (1988)

    1988

  7. [15]

    Nakamura, Z

    G. Nakamura, Z. Sun, G. Uhlmann , Global identifiability for an inverse problem for the Schr¨odinger equation in a magnetic field , Math. Ann., 303:377-388, 1995

    1995

  8. [16]

    Nakamura, G

    G. Nakamura, G. Uhlmann , Global uniqueness for an inverse boundary problem arising i n elasticity, Invent. math. 118, 457-474 (1994)

    1994

  9. [17]

    Ruzhansky, V

    M. Ruzhansky, V. Turunen , Quantization of Pseudo-differential Operators on the Torus , J. Fourier Anal. Appl. (2010) 16: 943-982

    2010

  10. [18]

    Salo , Semiclassical Pseudodifferential Calculus and the Reconst ruction of a Magnetic Field , Comm

    M. Salo , Semiclassical Pseudodifferential Calculus and the Reconst ruction of a Magnetic Field , Comm. PDE 31, 1639-1666 (2006)

    2006

  11. [19]

    Salo , The Calder´ on problem on Riemannian manifolds , Chapter in Inverse Problems and Applications: Inside Out II (edited by G

    M. Salo , The Calder´ on problem on Riemannian manifolds , Chapter in Inverse Problems and Applications: Inside Out II (edited by G. Uhlmann), MSRI Publications, Cambridge University Press, 2012

    2012

  12. [20]

    Sobolev , Absolute continuity of the periodic magnetic Schr ¨odinger operator, Invent

    A.V. Sobolev , Absolute continuity of the periodic magnetic Schr ¨odinger operator, Invent. math. 137, 85-112 (1999)

    1999

  13. [21]

    Stein , Harmonic Analysis: Real-Variable Methods, Orthogonality , and Oscillatory Inte- grals, Princeton University Press, 1993

    E.M. Stein , Harmonic Analysis: Real-Variable Methods, Orthogonality , and Oscillatory Inte- grals, Princeton University Press, 1993

    1993

  14. [22]

    Sun , An inverse boundary value problem for Schr ¨odinger operator with vector potentials , Trans

    Z. Sun , An inverse boundary value problem for Schr ¨odinger operator with vector potentials , Trans. of AMS, 338(2), (1993), 953-969

    1993

  15. [23]

    Sylvester, G

    J. Sylvester, G. Uhlmann , A Global Uniqueness Theorem for an Inverse Boundary Value Problem, The Annals of Mathematics, Second Series, Vol. 125, No. 1 (1987) , pp. 153-169

    1987

  16. [24]

    Taylor , Partial Differential Equations I

    M.E. Taylor , Partial Differential Equations I. Basic Theory , Applied Mathematical Sciences Volume 115, Springer, 1996

    1996

  17. [25]

    Taylor, Pseudodifferential Operators , Princeton Mathematical Series 34, Princeton Uni- versity Press, 1981

    M.E. Taylor, Pseudodifferential Operators , Princeton Mathematical Series 34, Princeton Uni- versity Press, 1981

    1981

  18. [26]

    Uhlmann , 30 years of Calder´ on’s problem, S´ eminaire Laurent Schwartz – EDP et applications, Institut des hautes ´ etudes scientifiques, 2012–2013, Expos´ en◦ XIII, 1–25

    G. Uhlmann , 30 years of Calder´ on’s problem, S´ eminaire Laurent Schwartz – EDP et applications, Institut des hautes ´ etudes scientifiques, 2012–2013, Expos´ en◦ XIII, 1–25

    2012

  19. [27]

    Uhlmann , Inverse problems: seeing the unseen , Bull

    G. Uhlmann , Inverse problems: seeing the unseen , Bull. Math. Sci. (2014) 4: 209–279. 60

    2014

  20. [28]

    Weintraub , A Guide to Advanced Linear Algebra , Dolciani Mathematical Expositions 44, Mathematical Association of America, 2011

    S.H. Weintraub , A Guide to Advanced Linear Algebra , Dolciani Mathematical Expositions 44, Mathematical Association of America, 2011

    2011

  21. [29]

    Zworski, Semiclassical Analysis, Graduate Studies in Mathematics Vol

    M. Zworski, Semiclassical Analysis, Graduate Studies in Mathematics Vol. 138, American Math- ematical Society, 2012 61

    2012

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.