Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 46 references

Intertwining operators beyond the Stark Effect

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper constructs spectrally projected intertwining operators for electromagnetic Schrödinger Hamiltonians and proves their $L^p$-boundedness in two dimensions, transferring dispersive, resolvent, and Bochner–Riesz estimates.

desk verdict New 2D intertwining framework that is elegant but currently has a hole in the resonant-case verification of the proper-perturbation hypothesis. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.04406 v1 pith:772BM756 submitted 2024-12-05 math.AP

Luca Fanelli , Xiaoyan Su , Ying Wang , Junyong Zhang , Jiqiang Zheng This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.AP MSC 35P2535A2335Q40
keywords intertwiningoperatorStarkeffectelectromagneticSchrödingerLpboundednessdispersiveestimatesuniformresolventBochner-Rieszmeanseigenvalueclusters
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 show that the Stark–Zeeman splitting of a spherical Schrödinger operator by scaling-critical magnetic and electric potentials does not destroy the wave-operator picture. It defines, cluster by cluster, an intertwining operator $W$ that maps the spectral projections of the electric-free operator $L_{A,0}$ onto those of the perturbed operator $L_{A,a}$, with the identity $F(L_{A,a}) = W F(L_{A,0}) W^*$ for every bounded Borel function $F$. The main discovery is that in dimension two $W$ and $W^*$ are bounded on $L^p(R^2)$ for all $1

What carries the argument

The central object is the spectrally projected intertwining operator $W f = \sum_{\alpha} H_{\tilde\nu_\alpha} H_{\tilde\mu_\alpha} f_\alpha(r)\,\varphi_\alpha(\theta)$ and its dual $W^*$, where $H_\nu$ is the Hankel transform of order $\nu$, $\mu_\alpha$ and $\nu_\alpha$ are the eigenvalues of the unperturbed and perturbed spherical operators, and $\varphi_\alpha$ is the perturbed eigenfunction paired with the unperturbed $e_\alpha$. The identity $F(L_{A,a})=W F(L_{A,0}) W^*$ is what makes the operator useful. The $L^p$ argument rests on three tools: the new variable-coefficient discrete multiplier theorem (Lemma 2.3), which lets angle-dependent multipliers $C_{jk}(\theta)$ act on the unperturbed eigenbasis while keeping $L^p$ norms; Mellin-transform bounds for the Hankel composition $H_\nu H_\mu$, whose multiplier is a ratio of Gamma functions and whose admissible $p$ range is governed by the first eigenvalues; and a decomposition of the radial kernel into far-from-diagonal pieces, a diagonal singular integral, and error terms. The proper-perturbation hypothesis controls the remainder $R_{jk}$ in $\varphi_{jk}=e_{jk}(1+R_{jk})$ and is exactly what lets the perturbed eigenbasis inherit the discrete-multiplier property from the unperturbed one.

What would settle it

Compute, for an admissible $W^{1,\infty}$ pair with $\bar A\in\tfrac12\mathbb{Z}$ and symmetric $a$, the high-energy remainders $R_{jk}$ directly from the Hill equation (5.1); if for some such pair the uniform $O(1/j)$ decay or the difference/derivative bounds of Definition 2.4(2) fail on a positive-density subsequence, the proper-perturbation hypothesis used to pass from the unperturbed to the perturbed eigenbasis would give way and Theorem 2.13 could fail for that pair.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim, stated as Theorem 2.13, is that for $a \in W^{1,\infty}(S^1)$, $A \in W^{1,\infty}(S^1;\mathbb{R}^2)$ with $A(\theta)\cdot\theta=0$ and $\lambda_1(A,a)\ge 0$, the operators $W$ and $W^*$ defined by (1.6)–(1.7) are bounded on $L^p(\mathbb{R}^2)$ for every $1<p<\infty$ whenever $\bar A\notin \tfrac12\mathbb{Z}$, or $\bar A\in \tfrac12\mathbb{Z}$ and $a(\pi-\theta)=a(\pi+\theta)$. The proof routes through the general Theorem 2.9, which in any dimension reduces $L^p$-boundedness of the intertwining operators to three ingredients: cluster asymptotics with matching low-frequency bases (Assumption 1.1), a variable-coefficient discrete multiplier theorem for the unperturbed eigenbasis (Lemma 2.3), and the proper-perturbation condition on the eigenfunction remainders (Definition 2.4). In two dimensions each ingredient is verified using the $T$-periodic ODE comparison principle and the eigenfunction asymptotics of [15], and the resulting $L^p$ bounds are then combined with the intertwining identity to transfer the wave-propagator dispersive estimate, the uniform resolvent estimate, and Bochner–Riesz summability from $L_{A,0}$ to $L_{A,a}$.

Load-bearing premise

The argument stands on the assumption that each perturbed spherical eigenfunction differs from the unperturbed one by a factor $1+R_{jk}(\theta)$ with uniformly decaying, well-behaved remainders (the proper-perturbation condition), a property imported from asymptotic formulas in two dimensions and only partially established for one symmetric-case remainder term.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Every admissible two-dimensional $L_{A,a}$ satisfies the wave-propagator bound $\|\sin(t\sqrt{L_{A,a}})/\sqrt{L_{A,a}}\,\phi(\sqrt{L_{A,a}})f\|_{L^{p'}} \le C(1+|t|)^{-\frac12(\frac1p-\frac1{p'})}\|f\|_{L^p}$ for $1<p\le 2$.
  • Every such operator satisfies the uniform resolvent bound $\|(L_{A,a}-z)^{-1}f\|_{L^q} \le C|z|^{\frac1p-\frac1q-1}\|f\|_{L^p}$ for $(p,q)$ in the strip (2.3) and all $z\notin\mathbb{R}_+$.
  • Its Bochner–Riesz means $S^\delta_1(L_{A,a})$ are $L^p$-bounded for every $\delta>\delta_c(p,2)$ and $1<p<\infty$, so $S^\delta_R(L_{A,a})f\to f$ in $L^p$.
  • In dimensions $d\ge 3$, the conditional theorem already covers the inverse-square potential and would transfer the same family of estimates for any operator that satisfies Assumption 1.1 and Definition 2.4, making higher-dimensional progress a spectral-asymptotics problem.
  • The $L^2$ intertwining identity is unconditional once the eigenbasis matching is fixed; only the $L^p$-boundedness of the transfer depends on the proper-perturbation hypothesis.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural next test is the minimal-regularity question the paper leaves open: if eigenfunction cluster asymptotics survive below $W^{1,\infty}$, the same proof may push the $L^p$ transfer to rougher electric potentials, and if not, $W^{1,\infty}$ is close to the natural threshold.
  • Because $W$ is unitary on $L^2$ but only bounded on $L^p$ for $p\neq 2$, comparing the transferred dispersive upper bound with lower bounds for the original propagator could show whether the $|t|^{-1/2}$ decay is sharp for magnetic Stark-split systems.
  • The same scheme should transfer any functional calculus estimate that holds for $L_{A,0}$, such as Strichartz or maximal estimates, without new spectral work, as long as $W$ and $W^*$ are bounded on the relevant spaces.
  • For zonal potentials in $d\ge 3$, the missing piece is a verification of Definition 2.4; a direct computation of the high-energy eigenfunction remainders for such potentials would either unlock the conjecture stated in the paper or locate a failure of the proper-perturbation hypothesis.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper develops a general framework, in the spirit of Kato wave operators and of the recent work of Miao, Su, and Zheng, for defining spectrally projected intertwining operators W and W* between the electromagnetic Schrödinger operator L_{A,a} and its electric-free counterpart L_{A,0}. The operators are built from angular maps sending e_α to φ_α and radial Hankel-transform compositions, and they satisfy the exact intertwining identity F(L_{A,a}) = W F(L_{A,0}) W*. The central technical result, Theorem 2.9, asserts L^p boundedness of W and W* under an abstract 'proper perturbation' condition on the spherical eigenfunctions. In dimension two, Theorem 2.13 claims a complete result: for a ∈ W^{1,∞}(S^1) and A ∈ W^{1,∞}(S^1,R^2), under the stated conditions on the average magnetic flux ~A and a symmetry condition on a, W and W* are bounded on L^p(R^2) for all 1 < p < ∞. Corollaries then transfer dispersive estimates for the wave propagator, uniform resolvent estimates, and Bochner-Riesz summability from L_{A,0} to L_{A,a}. The proof combines a variable-coefficient discrete multiplier theorem (Lemma 2.3), reduction of the kernel analysis to that of [31] (Proposition 4.1), and asymptotics of the angular eigenfunctions imported from [15,16].

Significance. If the proof is completed, the paper would provide a widely applicable transfer principle for scaling-critical electromagnetic Schrödinger operators: an L^p-bounded functional calculus for the unperturbed operator yields the same for a class of nonconstant spherical perturbations. This goes substantially beyond the constant inverse-square case treated in [31] and is of clear interest for dispersive estimates, uniform resolvent bounds, and Bochner-Riesz summability. The paper is also honest in exposing its dependence on prior eigenfunction asymptotics and in formulating the higher-dimensional situation as a conjecture. However, the 2D resonant cases contain a load-bearing gap in the verification of the 'proper perturbation' hypothesis, so the main theorem as stated is not yet fully proven.

major comments (3)
  1. [§5.2 and §5.3; Definition 2.4(2); Lemma 2.8; Theorem 2.9] In the resonant cases of Theorem 2.13, the eigenfunction expansions are written as φ_{j1} = e_{j1}(1 + R_{j1,c} + R^2_{j1}) + e_{j2} R_{j1,s} and φ_{j2} = e_{j2}(1 + R_{j2,c} + R^2_{j2}) + e_{j1} R_{j2,s} (and analogously in §5.3). This does not match the scalar form φ_{jk} = e_{jk}(1 + R_{jk}) required by Definition 2.4(2). The actual quotient R_{j1} = φ_{j1}/e_{j1} - 1 equals R_{j1,c} + R^2_{j1} + cot(jθ) R_{j1,s}, and no estimate is given for the cotangent term: bounding R_{j1,s} by O(1/j) does not control the dyadic block sums of D R_{j1} and D R'_{j1} in regions where sin(jθ) is small. The text explicitly concedes in §5.2 that R^2_{j1} does not satisfy the derivative estimate required by Definition 2.4(2). Since the reduction I3 ≲ I2 in the proof of Theorem 2.9 is justified by Lemma 2.8 precisely under the scalar-form hypothesis, and since no matrix-valued generalization of Lemma 2.8 is supplied, the proof of Theorem 2.13 in the resonant cases is incomplete as written.
  2. [Definition 2.4(2) and Lemma 2.8] Definition 2.4(2) states the smallness conditions (a)–(d) for the averaged remainder R_j(θ) = (1/m_j) Σ_k R_{jk}(θ), whereas Lemma 2.8 and Lemma 2.3 require bounds for the individual variable coefficients R_{jk}(θ) in order to apply the discrete multiplier theorem. The paper does not explain how the averaged estimates imply the individual estimates needed for the multiplier theorem when m_j > 1. In the 2D applications m_j = 2 and the authors prove stronger individual bounds in §5.1, but Theorem 2.9 is stated in full generality, so the gap affects the abstract theorem as stated.
  3. [Lemma 2.3] The proof of Lemma 2.3 is only a sketch. The inductive application of the fundamental theorem of calculus is not carried out, and the paper states that 'a precise enumeration could be given with the Faà di Bruno formula' but does not provide it. The assertion that every resulting integral term can be treated as a constant-coefficient multiplier satisfying (2.1)–(2.2) uniformly in the integration variables is essential for the conclusion, yet it is not demonstrated. Since Lemma 2.3 is used in the proofs of Lemma 2.8 and Proposition 4.1, this is a load-bearing technical point that needs a complete proof.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§5.1] The phrase 'Assumption 1.11' should read 'Assumption 1.1'.
  2. [References and abstract] The reference to Miao–Su–Zheng in the abstract and text is given as 'Tran. Amer. Math. Soc.'; the correct abbreviation is 'Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.'.
  3. [Reference [37]] The word 'approzimation' should be 'approximation'.
  4. [§5.3] The displayed estimate for the hatted remainder terms contains a duplicated factor: '|\hat{R}_{jk,s}(θ)|, |\hat{R}_{jk,s}(θ)||\hat{R}'_{jk,s}(θ)|, |\hat{R}'_{jk,s}(θ)|' should list the four quantities |\hat{R}_{jk,s}|, |\hat{R}_{jk,c}|, |\hat{R}'_{jk,s}|, |\hat{R}'_{jk,c}|.
  5. [Abstract] The abstract has a grammatical slip: 'with a (fixed) magnetic potential an electric potential' should be 'with a (fixed) magnetic potential and an electric potential'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular reasoning: the Lp boundedness proof rests on independently derived eigenfunction asymptotics and a genuinely new variable-coefficient multiplier argument.

full rationale

The claimed derivation chain is: (i) Theorem 2.9 reduces the Lp-boundedness of W and W* to a discrete multiplier property of the perturbed eigenbasis (Lemma 2.8) plus a radial kernel estimate (Proposition 4.1); (ii) Proposition 4.1 is proved in Appendix A by adapting the kernel expansion of [31], a published paper by two of the present authors; (iii) the 2D verification of the 'proper perturbation' hypothesis in Section 5 uses eigenfunction asymptotics from [15]/[16]. None of these inputs presupposes the boundedness of W or the dispersive, resolvent, or Bochner-Riesz conclusions. The spectral asymptotics nu^2_jk = ~a + mu^2_jk + O(1/j) and the expansions phi_jk = e_jk(1 + R_jk) are derived in the cited works from the ODE, not fitted to W. The variable-coefficient discrete multiplier lemma (Lemma 2.3) is new and is applied to coefficients satisfying explicit hypotheses. The central result for nonconstant potentials with cluster formation is not contained in [15], [16], or [31]. The manuscript's own caveat in Section 5.2, 'Strictly speaking, the remainder term does not satisfy Assumption (2) in Definition 2.4, as we do not know the estimate for the derivatives of R^2_jk,' flags an incompleteness in the verification of the proper-perturbation hypothesis for the R^2_jk term; that is a proof gap concerning dyadic quotient estimates, not a circular reduction. Similarly, the cross-term R_jk,s in Section 5.2 is not reduced to the scalar remainder form required by Definition 2.4(2); again this is a completeness issue, not circularity. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no load-bearing claim is justified solely by a self-citation.

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

The central claim rests on spectral hypotheses that are partly verified, partly imported from prior work by the same research group. No numerical parameters are fitted to data; the constants C_A, ℓ, ℓ_0, and C_a are existential. The dependence on [31] and [15]/[16] is the main external load.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Assumption 1.1: the free eigenvalues η_j^2 cluster into exactly m_j perturbed eigenvalues localized in [η_j + C_A − 1/2, η_j + C_A + 1/2], and the two eigenbases can be completed with the same low-frequency index set.
    Main hypothesis of Theorem 2.9; verified for the 2D cases in Section 5 and stated for zonal potentials in higher dimensions, with no proof given in this paper for general d ≥ 3.
  • domain assumption The free angular eigenbasis {e_α} of L_{A,0} is a discrete multiplier basis (DMB, Definition 2.1).
    Needed for Lemma 2.8 and Proposition 4.1; for smooth potentials it is cited to [35, Thm 5.3.1], while for W^{1,∞} A in 2D the paper asserts it 'clearly' in Section 5.1 without a full proof.
  • domain assumption L_{A,a} is a proper perturbation of L_{A,0} (Definition 2.4): eigenvalue gaps O(1/j) and eigenfunction remainders R_jk with bounds (2)(a)-(d).
    Core quantitative input; verified in the 2D cases using eigenfunction expansions from [15], and separately for the inverse-square potential in all dimensions.
  • domain assumption Eigenvalue and eigenfunction asymptotics from [15, Lemmas 2.1, B.7, B.10] and kernel estimates from [31, (4.9), Lemmas 2.11, 4.3-4.6].
    The radial kernel proof in Appendix A and the 2D spectral verification rely on these prior results, which are not re-derived in this paper; [15] is the arXiv version of [16] and [31] shares two co-authors with the present work.
  • standard math Stirling-type Gamma estimates (Lemma 3.1) and the Mellin multiplier theorem [30, Theorem 2.6].
    Used for the L^p boundedness of the radial operators H_ν H_μ; standard tools in the field.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Intertwining operators beyond the Stark Effect." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/772BM756

@misc{pith2026241204406,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Intertwining operators beyond the Stark Effect},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/772BM756}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.04406}
}
abstract

The main mathematical manifestation of the Stark effect in quantum mechanics is the shift and the formation of clusters of eigenvalues when a spherical Hamiltonian is perturbed by lower order terms. Understanding this mechanism turned out to be fundamental in the description of the large-time asymptotics of the associated Schr\"odinger groups and can be responsible for the lack of dispersion in Fanelli, Felli, Fontelos and Primo [Comm. Math. Phys., 324(2013), 1033-1067; 337(2015), 1515-1533]. Recently, Miao, Su, and Zheng introduced in [Tran. Amer. Math. Soc., 376(2023), 1739--1797] a family of spectrally projected intertwining operators, reminiscent of the Kato's wave operators, in the case of constant perturbations on the sphere (inverse-square potential), and also proved their boundedness in $L^p$. Our aim is to establish a general framework in which some suitable intertwining operators can be defined also for non constant spherical perturbations in space dimensions 2 and higher. In addition, we investigate the mapping properties between $L^p$-spaces of these operators. In 2D, we prove a complete result, for the Schr\"odinger Hamiltonian with a (fixed) magnetic potential an electric potential, both scaling critical, allowing us to prove dispersive estimates, uniform resolvent estimates, and $L^p$-bounds of Bochner--Riesz means. In higher dimensions, apart from recovering the example of inverse-square potential, we can conjecture a complete result in presence of some symmetries (zonal potentials), and open some interesting spectral problems concerning the asymptotics of eigenfunctions.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages

  1. [31]

    C. Miao, X. Su and J. Zheng, The W s,p-boundedness of stationary wave operators for the Schrödinger operator with inverse-square potential, Tran . Amer. Math. Soc., 376(2023), 1739– 1797

    work page 2023

  2. [1]

    Aharonov, and D

    Y. Aharonov, and D. Bohm, Significance of electromagneti c potentials in quantum theory, Phys. Rev. 115 (1959), 485-491

    work page 1959

  3. [2]

    Bartolomei, M

    H. Bartolomei, M. Kumar, R. Bisognin, et al., Fractional statistics in anyon collisions, Science, 368 (2020), 173–177

    work page 2020

  4. [3]

    Bonami, J

    A. Bonami, J. L. Clerc, Sommes de Cesàro et multiplicateurs des developpements en ha r- moniques sphériques , Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 183 (1973), 223–263

    work page 1973

  5. [4]

    Beceanu and M

    M. Beceanu and M. Goldberg, Schrödinger dispersive esti mates for a scaling-critical class of potentials, Comm. Math. Phys. 314 (2012), 471-481

    work page 2012

  6. [5]

    N. Burq, F. Planchon, J. Stalker and A. S. Tahvildar-Zade h, Strichartz estimates for the wave and Schrödinger equations with the inverse-square potenti al, J. Funct. Anal., 203 (2003), 519- 549

    work page 2003

  7. [6]

    N. Burq, F. Planchon, J. Stalker and A. S. Tahvildar-Zade h, Strichartz estimates for the wave and Schrödinger equations with potentials of critical decay, Indiana Univ. Math. J. 53 (2004), 1665-1680

    work page 2004

  8. [7]

    Carleson, P

    L. Carleson, P. Sjölin, Oscillatory integrals and a mult iplier problem for the disc, Studia Math. 44 (1972), 287-299

    work page 1972

Show all 46 references
  1. [8]

    T. M. Dunster, On the order of derivatives of Bessel funct ions, Constructive Approximation, 46 (2017), 47-68

    2017

  2. [9]

    D’Ancona, and L

    P. D’Ancona, and L. Fanelli, Lp-Boundedness of the W ave Operator for the One Dimensional Schr¨dinger Operator, Comm. Math. Phys. 268 (2006), 415–438

    2006

  3. [10]

    M. S. P. Eastham, The Spectral Theory of Periodic Differe ntial Equations, Scottish Academic Press, 1973

    1973

  4. [11]

    M. B. Erdogan, M. Goldberg, and W. R. Green, Counterexam ples to Lp-boundedness of wave operators for classical and higher order Schrödinger opera tors, J. Funct. Anal. 285, (2023) no. 5, 110008. 16 pages

    2023

  5. [12]

    M. B. Erdogan, W. Green, and K. Lamaster, Lp-continuity of W ave Operators for higher order Schrödinger operators with threshold eigenvalues in high dimensions, arXiv:2407.07069 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Evéquoz, Existence and asymptotic behavior of stand ing waves of the nonlinear Helmholtz equation in the plane, Analysis (Berlin) 37 (2017), 55–68

    G. Evéquoz, Existence and asymptotic behavior of stand ing waves of the nonlinear Helmholtz equation in the plane, Analysis (Berlin) 37 (2017), 55–68

    2017

  7. [14]

    Fanelli, V

    L. Fanelli, V. Felli, M. A. Fontelos, and A. Primo, Time d ecay of scaling critical electromag- netic Schrödinger flows, Comm. Math. Phys., 324(2013), 1033 -1067

    2013

  8. [15]

    Fanelli, V

    L. Fanelli, V. Felli, M. A. Fontelos, and A. Primo, Time d ecay of scaling invariant electro- magnetic Schrödinger equations on the plane, arXiv:1405.1 784 (2014)

    2014

  9. [16]

    Fanelli, V

    L. Fanelli, V. Felli, M. A. Fontelos, and A. Primo, Time d ecay of scaling invariant electro- magnetic Schrödinger equations on the plane, Comm. Math. Ph ys., 337(2015), 1515-1533. INTERTWINING OPERATORS BEYOND THE STARK EFFECT 29

    2015

  10. [17]

    Fanelli, V

    L. Fanelli, V. Felli, M. A. Fontelos, and A. Primo, Frequ ency-dependent time-decay pf Schrödinger flows, J. Spectral Theory 8 (2018), 509–521

    2018

  11. [18]

    Fanelli, G

    L. Fanelli, G. Grillo, H. Kovarík, Improved time-decay for a class of scaling critical electro- magnetic Schrödinger flows, Journal of Functional Analysis , 269(2015), 3336–3346

    2015

  12. [19]

    Fanelli, J

    L. Fanelli, J. Zhang and J. Zheng, Dispersive estimates for 2D-wave equations with critical potentials, Advances in Mathematics, 400(2022), 108333

    2022

  13. [20]

    Fanelli, J

    L. Fanelli, J. Zhang and J. Zheng, Uniform resolvent est imates for critical magnetic Schrödinger operators in 2D, International Mathematics Re search Notices, 20(2023), 17656– 17703

    2023

  14. [21]

    Felli, A

    V. Felli, A. Ferrero, S. Terracini, Asymptotic behavio r of solutions to Schrödinger equations near an isolated singularity of the electromagnetic potent ial. J. Eur. Math. Soc. 13(2011), 119-174

    2011

  15. [22]

    X. Gao, J. W ang, J. Zhang and J. Zheng, Uniform resolvent estimates for Schrödinger oper- ators in Aharonov–Bohm magnetic fields, Journal of Diff. Equ. , 292(2021), 70-89

    2021

  16. [23]

    X. Gao, Z. Yin, J. Zhang and J. Zheng, Decay and Strichart z estimates in critical electro- magnetic fields, Journal of Functional Analysis, 282(2022) , 109350

    2022

  17. [24]

    Gurarie, Zonal Schrödinger operators on the n-sphere: Inverse spectral problem and rigid- ity, Commun

    D. Gurarie, Zonal Schrödinger operators on the n-sphere: Inverse spectral problem and rigid- ity, Commun. Math. Phys., 131(1990), 571–603

    1990

  18. [25]

    Gutiérrez, Non trivial Lq solutions to the Ginzburg–Landau equation , Math

    S. Gutiérrez, Non trivial Lq solutions to the Ginzburg–Landau equation , Math. Ann., 328 (2004), 1–25

    2004

  19. [26]

    Goldberg, Strichartz estimates for the Schrödinger equation with time-periodic Ln/ 2 po- tentials, J

    M. Goldberg, Strichartz estimates for the Schrödinger equation with time-periodic Ln/ 2 po- tentials, J. Funct. Anal. 256 (2009), 718-746

    2009

  20. [27]

    Jensen and T

    A. Jensen and T. Kato, Spectral properties of Schröding er operators and time-decay of the wave functions, Duke Math. J. 46 (1979), 583-611

    1979

  21. [28]

    Kato, Perturbation theory for linear operators, Spr inger–Verlag, Berlin, 1966

    T. Kato, Perturbation theory for linear operators, Spr inger–Verlag, Berlin, 1966

    1966

  22. [29]

    C. E. Kenig, A. Ruiz, and C. D. Sogge, Uniform Sobolev inequalities and unique continuation for second order constant coefficient differential operators , Duke Math. J., 55 (1987), 329– 347

    1987

  23. [30]

    A. C. McBride, and W. J. Spratt, A class of Mellin multipl iers, Can. Math. Bull., 35 (1992), 252–260

    1992

  24. [32]

    C. Miao, L. Yan and J. Zhang, Bochner–Riesz means for cri tical magnetic Schrödinger oper- ators in the plane. arXiv:2405.02531

    arXiv

  25. [33]

    Peshkin, and A

    M. Peshkin, and A. Tonomura. The Aharonov–Bohm Effect. L ect. Notes Phys. 340 (1989)

    1989

  26. [34]

    Stark Beobachtungen über den Effekt des elektrischen Feldes auf Sp ektrallinien I

    J. Stark Beobachtungen über den Effekt des elektrischen Feldes auf Sp ektrallinien I. Queref- fekt, Annalen der Physik, vol. 43, pp. 965–983 (1914)

    1914

  27. [35]

    Sogge, Fourier Integrals in Classical Analysis, Cambridge University Press 1993

    C. Sogge, Fourier Integrals in Classical Analysis, Cambridge University Press 1993

    1993

  28. [36]

    Stein, Oscillatory integrals in Fourier analysis , in: Beijing Lectures in Harmonic Anal- ysis, Beijing, 1984, in: Ann

    E.M. Stein, Oscillatory integrals in Fourier analysis , in: Beijing Lectures in Harmonic Anal- ysis, Beijing, 1984, in: Ann. of Math. Stud., vol. 112, Princ eton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ, 1986, pp. 307-355

    1984

  29. [37]

    Thomas, and S

    L. Thomas, and S. W assell, Semiclassical approzimatio n for Schrödinger operators on a two- sphere at high energy, J. Math. Phys. 36 (1995), 5480–5505

    1995

  30. [38]

    F. G. Tricomi, and A. Erdélyi, The asymptotic expansions of a ratio of Gamma functions, Pacific J. Math., 1, 133–142 (1951)

    1951

  31. [39]

    W eder, The W k,p-continuity of Schrödinger wave operators on the line, Comm

    R. W eder, The W k,p-continuity of Schrödinger wave operators on the line, Comm. Math. Phys. 208 (1999), 507–520

    1999

  32. [40]

    Yajima, The W k,p-continuity of wave operators for Schrödinger operators

    K. Yajima, The W k,p-continuity of wave operators for Schrödinger operators. J. Math. Soc. Japan 47 (1995), no. 3, 551–581

    1995

  33. [41]

    Yajima, The W k,p-continuity of wave operators for Schrödinger operators

    K. Yajima, The W k,p-continuity of wave operators for Schrödinger operators. I I. Positive potentials in even dimensions m ≥ 4. Spectral and scattering theory (Sanda, 1992), 287–300, Lecture Notes in Pure and Appl. Math., 161, Dekker, New York, 1994

    1992

  34. [42]

    Yajima, The W k,p-continuity of wave operators for Schrödinger operators

    K. Yajima, The W k,p-continuity of wave operators for Schrödinger operators. I II. Even- dimensional cases m ≥ 4. J. Math. Sci. Univ. Tokyo 2 (1995), no. 2, 311–346

    1995

  35. [43]

    Yajima, The Lp-continuity of wave operators for Schrödinger operators wi th threshold singularities I

    K. Yajima, The Lp-continuity of wave operators for Schrödinger operators wi th threshold singularities I. The odd dimensional case. J. Math. Sci. Univ. Tokyo 13 (2006), 43–94. 30 L. F ANELLI, X. SU, Y. W ANG, J. ZHANG, AND J. ZHENG

    2006

  36. [44]

    Yajima, W ave operators for Schrödinger operators wi th threshold singularities Revisited

    K. Yajima, W ave operators for Schrödinger operators wi th threshold singularities Revisited. Preprint, arXiv:1508.05738

    arXiv

  37. [45]

    Yajima Remark on the Lp-boundedness of wave operator s for Schrödinger operators with threshold singularities, Documenta Mathematica 21 (2016), 391–443

    K. Yajima Remark on the Lp-boundedness of wave operator s for Schrödinger operators with threshold singularities, Documenta Mathematica 21 (2016), 391–443

    2016

  38. [46]

    P. Zeeman, Over de invloed eener magnetisatie op den aard van het door ee n stof uitgezon- den licht , Verslagen van de Gewone Vergaderingen der Wis - en Natuurku ndige Afdeeling (Koninklijk Akademie van W etenschappen te Amsterdam) 5 (1896), 181-184; 242-248 Luca F anelli Ike...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.