Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 48 references

Sharp regularity of gradient blow-up solutions in the Camassa-Holm equation

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper proves that smooth Camassa-Holm solutions that blow up in finite time form $C^{3/5}$ cusps at the blow-up point, with all stronger Hölder seminorms diverging at the rate $(T_*-t)^{-(5\alpha-3)/2}$.

desk verdict Sharp C^{3/5} for Camassa-Holm blow-up is a genuine advance, but the proof's foundation rests on two maximum principles imported from an overlapping preprint; send to review and require the gap be closed. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.00558 v1 pith:E3JLIDI4 submitted 2024-11-30 math.AP

Yunjoo Kim , Bongsuk Kwon , Jeongsik Yoon This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.AP MSC 35Q3535A2176B1535C0676B25
keywords Camassa-Holmequationgradientblow-upHölderregularityself-similarprofileswavebreakingHunter-Saxtonmodulationtheory$C^{3/5}$cusp
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper proves that when smooth solutions of the Camassa-Holm equation break in finite time—gradient blows up while the solution stays bounded—the first singularity is generically a cusp of Hölder class $C^{3/5}$, not the $C^{1/3}$ cubic-root cusp of Burgers shocks. This is the first proof of the sharp Hölder regularity of Camassa-Holm gradient blow-up. The argument constructs a one-parameter family of self-similar blow-up profiles, shows they are stable via a bootstrap in self-similar coordinates, and derives global pointwise estimates. It also transfers the same $C^{3/5}$ description to generic singularities of the Hunter-Saxton equation. If correct, it identifies a new, milder type of wave-breaking singularity than that known for other transport-type equations.

What carries the argument

The central object is the one-parameter family of odd self-similar profiles $\{U_\beta\}$ solving the profile ODE $(1+\tfrac12 U')U'+(U+\tfrac52 y)U''=0$, with $U'(0)=-2$ and $U'''(0)=256\beta$. This ODE comes from the self-similar ansatz $u(x,t)=(-t)^{3/2}U(x/(-t)^{5/2})$ for the Hunter-Saxton equation, which is the leading-order correction to the Camassa-Holm equation near blow-up. Its far-field behavior $|y|^{2/5}|U_\beta'(y)|\to(50\beta)^{-1/5}$ gives the exponent $3/5$, and its local expansion fixes the modulation dynamics. The proof then uses modulation variables $(\tau,\kappa,\xi)$ and a bootstrap in self-similar time; the closure of the bootstrap is carried by two nonlocal maximum principles (Lemmas 6.5 and 6.6) that control transport-type equations with integral terms.

What would settle it

Run a high-resolution numerical simulation of the Camassa-Holm equation from initial data satisfying (1.7)–(1.13) and measure the Hölder exponent of the solution at the blow-up time in a neighborhood of the blow-up point; if it is not $3/5$ within numerical error, the sharp-regularity claim is wrong. Independently, check the two nonlocal maximum principles cited to [2] in exactly the form used here; a counterexample to either would collapse the bootstrap closure.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Theorem 1.1: for $H^5$ initial data satisfying a set of localization and steepness conditions near a unique minimum of $\partial_x u$, the Camassa-Holm solution remains smooth up to $T_*$, and at $T_*$ the solution is exactly $C^{3/5}$ at the blow-up point. The $C^{3/5}$ Hölder seminorm stays uniformly bounded on bounded sets, while for every $\alpha>3/5$ it diverges at the rate $(T_*-t)^{-(5\alpha-3)/2}$. The invariant Hamiltonian $H(t)=\int(u^2+u_x^2)\,dx$ already rules out $C^{1/3}$ (in fact any regularity worse than $C^{1/2}$); the paper pins the threshold at $3/5$. The mechanism is that the leading-order correction to the Camassa-Holm equation in the blow-up regime is the Hunter-Saxton equation, whose self-similar profiles $U_\beta$ have $U_\beta(y)\sim -(5/3)(50\beta)^{-1/5}|y|^{3/5}$ at infinity, and this $y^{3/5}$ decay becomes the spatial cusp. Generic Hunter-Saxton singularities are shown to be of the same type.

Load-bearing premise

The bootstrap closure relies on two nonlocal maximum-principle lemmas (Lemma 6.5 and Lemma 6.6) whose proofs are not included in the paper but are referred to a companion preprint; if those lemmas are invalid, or are misapplied to this transport-type equation, the global pointwise estimates that produce the $C^{3/5}$ conclusion lose their foundation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At the blow-up time the Camassa-Holm solution is a $C^{3/5}$ cusp at the blow-up point: the $C^{3/5}$ Hölder seminorm is finite on any bounded set containing that point, while every stronger Hölder seminorm blows up with the stated rate.
  • Because the $C^{3/5}$ bound is uniform on bounded sets, the solution remains bounded at blow-up even though $\partial_x u$ becomes infinite, matching the physical picture of wave breaking.
  • The same $C^{3/5}$ threshold holds for generic singularities of the Hunter-Saxton equation, without the small-or-large-gradient restriction needed for the Camassa-Holm result.
  • The invariant $H^1$ energy forces any Camassa-Holm pre-shock to be at least $C^{1/2}$; the theorem sharpens this to exactly $C^{3/5}$ for the constructed open set of initial data.
  • For these data the blow-up time satisfies $|T_*|=O(\varepsilon^3)$, so the self-similar scale $(-t)^{5/2}$ and the time scale are quantitatively controlled.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same mechanism would likely apply to other hybrid hyperbolic-elliptic systems with an $H^1$-type invariant: whenever the leading-order blow-up correction is a scalar transport equation with a quadratic gradient term, the generic cusp exponent may be fixed by the far field of a profile ODE rather than by Burgers' cubic-root singularity.
  • A direct numerical measurement of the Hölder exponent at blow-up for the Camassa-Holm equation, using high-resolution spectral methods, could independently confirm or refute $3/5$; existing numerical estimates around $0.58$ are consistent but not conclusive.
  • The validity of Lemmas 6.5 and 6.6 is a prerequisite for the proof: because their proofs are deferred to a companion paper, an independent check of those maximum principles in exactly the form used here is needed before the bootstrap closure is fully self-contained.
  • If the far-field decay of the profile were different, say $|U'(y)|\sim|y|^{-p}$, the same argument would produce Hölder exponent $1/(1+p)$; the value $3/5$ is tied to the specific exponent $2/5$ in the far-field decay.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies the Camassa-Holm (CH) equation and proves that, for a class of smooth initial data with a large negative slope at one point, the solution loses C^1 regularity at a finite time T* by forming a C^{3/5} cusp: the solution remains bounded, its C^{3/5} Hölder seminorm stays bounded uniformly in time on bounded open sets, while for any α>3/5 the α-Hölder seminorm diverges at the rate (T*−t)^{-(5α−3)/2}. The proof constructs a one-parameter family of self-similar blow-up profiles U_β for the Hunter–Saxton (HS) equation, which the authors identify as the leading-order correction to the CH equation in the blow-up regime. A modulation/bootstrap argument in self-similar variables yields global pointwise estimates (3.35a)–(3.35f) on the rescaled solution, from which the sharp regularity statement follows. A parallel theorem is stated and outlined for the HS equation. The appendix contains several profile inequalities, one of which (2.24) is verified both by an analytic asymptotic argument and by numerical computation.

Significance. If the proof is correct, this is a substantial advance: it is the first proof of a sharp Hölder exponent for generic pre-shocks of the CH equation, identifying C^{3/5} rather than the C^{1/3} of Burgers shocks, and it provides detailed spatial and temporal blow-up dynamics. The construction of the self-similar profiles and the asymptotic analysis of the profile ODE in Proposition 2.1 are elegant and self-contained, and the exponent 3/5 is derived from the ODE asymptotics rather than fitted. The paper also gives a clean corollary for the Hunter–Saxton equation. The main limitation is the dependence of the bootstrap on two maximum principles (Lemmas 6.5 and 6.6) whose proofs are only cited to an unpublished overlapping-author preprint [2]; as a result the paper is not fully self-contained for a load-bearing part of the argument. The numerical verification of (2.24) is useful but is not a substitute for a rigorous proof of that inequality.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 6.3; Lemmas 6.5 and 6.6] Lemmas 6.5 and 6.6 are stated in the appendix, but their proofs are not included; the text refers to the unpublished preprint [2] (arXiv:2405.02557) by two of the same authors. These lemmas are used in every bootstrap closure step: Lemma 4.2 uses Theorem 6.5, Lemma 4.3 uses Theorem 6.5 and Lemma 6.6, Lemma 4.5 uses Theorem 6.5 and Lemma 6.6, Lemma 4.7 uses Lemma 6.6, and Lemma 4.8 uses Theorem 6.5 and Lemma 6.6 via the kernel bound (4.41). Consequently, the global pointwise estimates (3.35a)–(3.35f), on which Theorem 1.1 rests, cannot be verified from the present manuscript alone. The authors should either include complete proofs of Lemmas 6.5 and 6.6 in the paper (adapting them to the exact unbounded-domain, weighted setting used here) or point to a published version of [2] that contains those proofs.
  2. [Lemmas 4.2, 4.3, 4.5, and 4.8] In each application of Theorem 6.5, the hypothesis (6.14), namely d0 λ_D > F0/(2(1−δ)), must be verified with the specific constants d0, F0, λ_D, and δ appearing in that lemma. The manuscript only asserts this for Lemma 4.2 ("We remark that the condition (6.14) in Theorem 6.5 holds for sufficiently small ε >0") and does not verify it for Lemmas 4.3, 4.5, and 4.8. Since (6.14) is a strict inequality involving constants that depend on M, l, and ε, an explicit check is needed; otherwise the use of the maximum principle is not fully justified.
  3. [Lemma 6.4 and Lemma 4.8] The proof of the key profile inequality (2.24) with m0=2·10^6 and λ=1.0001 is not complete. The text states that g'(X) ≤ 0, g(k) < 0, and h(X) ≤ 0 for X in the relevant intervals are "straightforward" polynomial checks, but the actual algebra is not displayed. Since Lemma 4.8 uses (2.24) via (4.44) to establish the kernel comparison (4.41), which closes the bootstrap for the sharp C^{3/5} bound, this polynomial verification is load-bearing. The authors should provide a complete, verifiable proof (for example, using interval arithmetic or Sturm sequences) rather than relying on the numerical plots in Section 6.2, which are not a substitute for a rigorous proof.
minor comments (4)
  1. [After Lemma 6.6] There is a typographical error: "Lemma 6 .7" should read "Lemma 6.7" (with no space).
  2. [Lemmas 4.2 and 4.8] The indicator notation I[0,y] is used without definition; please define it explicitly, e.g., as the characteristic function of the interval [0,y] (or [y,0] when y<0).
  3. [Section 4 overall] The proofs repeatedly choose constants "sufficiently large M" and "sufficiently small ε" without specifying the order of the choices. A short paragraph in Section 4 stating the hierarchy (e.g., first fix M, then choose ε small depending on M) would improve readability and verifiability.
  4. [Theorem 1.1, Step 3] The blow-up location x_* is defined only inside the proof as x_* = β^{−1/2} ξ(T_*). Restating this definition in the statement of Theorem 1.1 would help the reader.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 3.0 of 10

Bootstrap closure rests on two maximum principles (Lemmas 6.5, 6.6) whose proofs are only cited to the overlapping-author preprint [2]; the central C^{3/5} derivation itself is independent of those lemmas.

  1. self citation load bearing [Appendix 6.3 (Lemmas 6.5 and 6.6), used in Section 4 (Lemmas 4.2, 4.3, 4.5, 4.7, 4.8)]
    "Lemma 6.5. ([2]) ... For the proof, we refer to that of Lemma 6.6 in the Appendix of [2]. ... Lemma 6.6. ([2]) ... For the proof, we refer to Lemma 6.7 in the Appendix of [2]."

    The bootstrap closure Proposition 3.4 is achieved through Lemmas 4.1–4.8, and the key pointwise estimates rely on the two imported maximum principles: Lemma 4.2 'Appealing to Theorem 6.5', Lemma 4.3 'Applying Lemma 6.6', Lemma 4.5 'applying Lemma 6.6', Lemma 4.7 'we apply Lemma 6.6', and Lemma 4.8 uses the kernel comparison (4.41) together with the same Lemma 6.6 mechanism. These lemmas are not proved in the paper; their proofs are delegated to [2], an overlapping-author preprint (Bae–Kim–Kwon, arXiv:2405.02557). Consequently the global estimates (3.35a)–(3.35f) — and thereby Theorem 1.1 — depend on an unverified same-group citation.

full rationale

The central claim — sharp C^{3/5} regularity of gradient blow-up solutions — is not obtained by fitting a parameter or by renaming a known result. The exponent 3/5 is derived from the self-similar profile ODE: equation (2.20) expresses U/y^{3/5} as a function of U', and the limits (2.9) give y^{3/5} asymptotics, which feed into the Hölder estimates in Step 3 of the proof of Theorem 1.1. The bootstrap argument supplies the required uniform control, but its closure repeatedly invokes Lemmas 6.5 and 6.6, which are stated but not proved in this paper and whose proofs are cited to [2], an overlapping-author preprint. Because those lemmas are general maximum principles for transport equations with hypotheses independent of the Camassa-Holm problem, their citation does not make the derivation circular in the sense of reducing the theorem to its own assumptions. Still, the paper is not fully self-contained: if either imported lemma were invalid or misapplied, the pointwise estimates (3.35) and hence Theorem 1.1 would lack foundation. This is a load-bearing self-citation, so the score is 3 rather than 0-2; no higher score is warranted because no prediction reduces by construction to a fitted value and the regularity exponent is fixed by the profile ODE, not by the imported results.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entity is introduced. The only parameters in the profile family are β and the technical constant Θ, both declared in the assumptions rather than fitted to the target regularity. The main imported mathematical ingredient is the maximum principle pair from [2].

free parameters (2)
  • β (profile family parameter) = β = ε^6 k3 / 256, with k3 ∈ [ε^{-(1+η0)}, ε^{-(11-η0)}]
    Labels the one-parameter family of self-similar profiles U_β in (1.3)-(1.10); it is set by the initial data, not fitted to the blow-up exponent.
  • Θ = any number with 50^{-1/5} < Θ < 6/13
    Technical localization constant in (1.11) and in the definition of θ in (1.14); the sharp 3/5 exponent is independent of the chosen value.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Lemma 6.5 and Lemma 6.6 (maximum principle and spatial-decay estimates) hold as stated
    Proofs are deferred to [2], an overlapping preprint; these lemmas are used in Lemmas 4.2, 4.3, 4.5, 4.7, and 4.8.
  • domain assumption Local well-posedness and continuation criterion for CH in H^5 (Lemma 3.1)
    Standard, cited to [47]; needed for the bootstrap continuation argument and for extending the solution up to the blow-up time.
  • standard math Standard ODE theory for the initial value problem W' = V(W) in Proposition 2.1
    Used to construct the smooth global profiles U_β from the implicit relation (2.11).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Sharp regularity of gradient blow-up solutions in the Camassa-Holm equation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/E3JLIDI4

@misc{pith2026241200558,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Sharp regularity of gradient blow-up solutions in the Camassa-Holm equation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/E3JLIDI4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.00558}
}
abstract

We study the formation of singularities in the Camassa-Holm (CH) equation, providing a detailed description of the blow-up dynamics and identifying the precise H\"older regularity of the gradient blow-up solutions. To this end, we first construct self-similar blow-up profiles and examine their properties, including the asymptotic behavior at infinity, which determines the type of singularity. Using these profiles as a reference and employing modulation theory, we establish global pointwise estimates for the blow-up solutions in self-similar variables, thereby demonstrating the stability of the self-similar profiles we construct. Our results indicate that the solutions, evolving from smooth initial data within a fairly general open set, form $C^{3/5}$ cusps as the first singularity in finite time. These singularities are analogous to \emph{pre-shocks} emerging in the Burgers equation, exhibiting unbounded gradients while the solutions themselves remain bounded. However, the nature of the singularity differs from that of the Burgers equation, which is a cubic-root singularity, i.e., $C^{1/3}$. Our work provides the first proof that generic pre-shocks of the CH equation exhibit $C^{3/5}$ H\"older regularity. It is our construction of new self-similar profiles, incorporating the precise leading-order correction to the CH equation in the blow-up regime, that enables us to identify the sharp H\"older regularity of the singularities and to capture the detailed spatial and temporal dynamics of the blow-up. We also show that the generic singularities developed in the Hunter-Saxton (HS) equation are of the same type as those in the CH equation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.00558 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Numerical profile of U (left) and the asymptotic behavior of U for |y| ≪ 1 and |y| ≫ 1, respectively (center and right). With U numerically constructed profile, we can numerically verify that (6.8) in Lemma 6.4 holds for all |y| ≥ 93 with λ = 1.0001. Specifically, we multiply both side of (6.8) by 103 y 2/5 and set λ = 1.0001 to have Lw(y) = 1.0001 · 103 y 2/5 (y 2/5 + 1)|U ′′(y)| Z |y| 0 dy′ 1 + (y ′) 2/5 , Rw(y) =… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Numerical plots of Lw and Rw, with Lw −Rw changing sign at y ≈ 92.882 (left). Profiles of U and V , where V is the self-similar profile of the Burgers (right) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p037_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages

  1. [2]

    J. Bae, Y. Kim, B. Kwon, Structure of singularities for the Euler-Poisson system of ion dynamics, preprint, arXiv:2405.02557 (2024)

    arXiv 2024

  2. [1]

    J. Bae, Y. Kim, B. Kwon, Delta-shock for the pressureless Euler-Poisson system, preprint, arXiv:2407.15669 (2024)

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  3. [3]

    Beals, D.H

    R. Beals, D.H. Sattinger, J. Szmigielski, Multi-peakons and a theorem of Stieltjes, Inverse Problems 15(1), L1-L4 (1999)

    work page 1999

  4. [4]

    Beals, D.H

    R. Beals, D.H. Sattinger, J. Szmigielski, Peakon-antipeakon interaction, J. Nonlinear Math. Phys. 8, 23-27 (2001)

    work page 2001

  5. [5]

    Brandolese, Local-in-space criteria for blowup in shallow water and dispersive rod equations, Comm

    L. Brandolese, Local-in-space criteria for blowup in shallow water and dispersive rod equations, Comm. Math. Phys. 330, 401-414 (2014)

    work page 2014

  6. [6]

    Brandolese, M.F

    L. Brandolese, M.F. Cortez, Blowup issues for a class of nonlinear dispersive wave equations, J. Differ. Equ. 256(12), 3981-3998 (2014)

    work page 2014

  7. [7]

    Brandolese, M.F

    L. Brandolese, M.F. Cortez, On permanent and breaking waves in hyperelastic rods and rings, J. Funct. Anal. 266(12), 6954-6987 (2014)

    work page 2014

  8. [8]

    Bressan, A

    A. Bressan, A. Constantin, Global conservative solutions of the Camassa–Holm Equation, Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 183, 215-239 (2007)

    work page 2007

Show all 48 references
  1. [9]

    Bressan, A

    A. Bressan, A. Constantin, Global solutions of the Hunter-Saxton equation. SIAM J. Math. Anal. 37, 996-1026 (2005)

    2005

  2. [10]

    Bressan, H

    A. Bressan, H. Holden, X. Raynaud, Lipschitz metric for the Hunter-Saxton equation. J. Math. Pure. Appl. 94(1), 68–92 (2010)

    2010

  3. [11]

    Buckmaster, S

    T. Buckmaster, S. Shkoller, V. Vicol, Formation of shocks for 2D isentropic compressible Euler, Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 75(9), 2069-2120 (2022)

    2022

  4. [12]

    Buckmaster, S

    T. Buckmaster, S. Shkoller, V. Vicol, Formation of point shocks for 3D compressible Euler, Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 76(9), 2073-2191 (2023)

    2023

  5. [13]

    Camassa, D.D

    R. Camassa, D.D. Holm, An integrable shallow water equation with peaked solitons, Phys. Rev. Lett. 71(11), 1661-1664 (1993)

    1993

  6. [14]

    Camassa, D.D

    R. Camassa, D.D. Holm, J.M. Hyman, A new integrable shallow water equation, Adv. Appl. Mech. 31, 1-33 (1994)

    1994

  7. [15]

    Cassel, F.T

    K.W. Cassel, F.T. Smith, J.D.A. Walker, The onset of instability in unsteady boundary-layer separation, J. Fluid Mech. 315, 223-256 (1996)

    1996

  8. [16]

    G. M. Coclite, F. Gargano, V. Sciacca, Analytic solutions and singularity formation for the Peakon b-family equations, Acta Appl. Math. 122, 419-434 (2012)

    2012

  9. [17]

    Constantin, D

    A. Constantin, D. Lannes, The hydrodynamical relevance of the Camassa–Holm and Degasperis–Procesi equations, Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 192(1), 165–186 (2009)

    2009

  10. [18]

    Constantin, Existence of permanent and breaking waves for a shallow water equation: a geometric approach, Ann

    A. Constantin, Existence of permanent and breaking waves for a shallow water equation: a geometric approach, Ann. Inst. Fourier (Grenoble) 50(2), 321-362 (2000)

    2000

  11. [19]

    Constantin, On the blow-up of solutions of a periodic shallow water equation, J

    A. Constantin, On the blow-up of solutions of a periodic shallow water equation, J. Nonlinear Sci. 10(3), 391-399 (2000)

    2000

  12. [20]

    Constantin, J

    A. Constantin, J. Escher, Wave breaking for nonlinear nonlocal shallow water equations, Acta Math. 181(2), 229-243 (1998)

    1998

  13. [21]

    Constantin, J

    A. Constantin, J. Escher, On the structure of a family of quasilinear equations arising in shallow water theory, Math. Ann. 312(3), 403-416 (1998)

    1998

  14. [22]

    Constantin, J

    A. Constantin, J. Escher, On the blow-up rate and the blow-up set of breaking waves for a shallow water equation, Math. Z. 233(1), 75-91 (2000)

    2000

  15. [23]

    Constantin, J

    A. Constantin, J. Escher, Well-posedness, global existence and blow-up phenomena for a periodic quasilinear hyperbolic equation, Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 51(5), 475-504 (1998)

    1998

  16. [24]

    Constantin, J

    A. Constantin, J. Escher, Global existence and blow-up for a shallow water equation, Ann. Scuola Norm. Sup. Pisa Cl. Sci. (4) 26(2), 303-328 (1998)

    1998

  17. [25]

    Constantin, D

    A. Constantin, D. Lannes, The hydrodynamical relevance of the Camassa-Holm and Degasperis-Procesi equations, Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 192(1), 165-186 (2009)

    2009

  18. [26]

    Constantin, H.P

    A. Constantin, H.P. McKean, A shallow water equation on the circle, Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 52(8), 949-982 (1999)

    1999

  19. [27]

    Constantin, W.A

    A. Constantin, W.A. Strauss, Stability of a class of solitary waves in compressible elastic rods, Phys. Lett. A 270 (3-4), 140-148 (2000)

    2000

  20. [28]

    Constantin, W.A

    A. Constantin, W.A. Strauss, Stability of peakons, Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 53(5), 603–610 (2000)

    2000

  21. [29]

    Eggers, M.A

    J. Eggers, M.A. Fontelos, Singularities: Formation, Structure, and Propagation, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2015)

    2015

  22. [30]

    Fuchssteiner, Some tricks from the symmetry-toolbox for nonlinear equations : generalizations of the Camassa-Holm equation, Phys

    B. Fuchssteiner, Some tricks from the symmetry-toolbox for nonlinear equations : generalizations of the Camassa-Holm equation, Phys. D 95(3-4), 229-243 (1996)

    1996

  23. [31]

    Fuchssteiner, A.S

    B. Fuchssteiner, A.S. Fokas, Symplectic structures, their B¨ acklund transformations and hereditary symmetries, Phys. D 4(1), 47-46 (1981)

    1981

  24. [32]

    Y. Gao, H. Liu, T.-K. Wong, Regularity Structure of Conservative Solutions to the Hunter-Saxton Equation, SIAM J. Math. Anal., Volume 54, Issue 1, 423-452 (2022)

    2022

  25. [33]

    G. Gui, Y. Liu, P.J. Olver, C. Qu, Wave-breaking and peakons for a modified Camassa-Holm equation, Comm. Math. Phys. 319, 731-759 (2013)

    2013

  26. [34]

    Hunter, R

    J.K. Hunter, R. Saxton, Dynamics of director fields, SIAM J. Appl. Math. 51(6), 1498-1521 (1991)

    1991

  27. [35]

    Hunter, Y

    J.K. Hunter, Y. Zheng, On a completely integrable nonlinear hyperbolic variational equation, Phys. D 79(2-4), 361-386 (1994)

    1994

  28. [36]

    Johnson, Camassa–Holm, Korteweg–de Vries and related models for water waves, J

    R.S. Johnson, Camassa–Holm, Korteweg–de Vries and related models for water waves, J. Fluid Mech. 455, 63-82 (2002)

    2002

  29. [37]

    Y.A. Li, P.J. Olver, Well-posedness and blow-up solutions for an integrable nonlinearly dispersive model wave equation, J. Differ. Equ. 162(1), 27-63 (2000)

    2000

  30. [38]

    McKean, Fredholm determinants and the Camassa-Holm hierarchy, Comm

    H.P. McKean, Fredholm determinants and the Camassa-Holm hierarchy, Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 56(5), 638-680 (2003) 40 Y. KIM, B. KWON, AND J. YOON

    2003

  31. [39]

    S.J. Oh, F. Pasqualotto, Gradient blow-Up for dispersive and dissipative perturbations of the Burgers equation, Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 248(3), 54(61pp) (2024)

    2024

  32. [40]

    Olver, P

    P.J. Olver, P. Rosenau, Tri-Hamiltonian duality between solitons and solitary-wave solutions having compact support, Phys. Rev. E(3) 53(2), 1900-1906 (1996)

    1996

  33. [41]

    Rocca, M.C

    G.D. Rocca, M.C. Lombardo, M. Sammartino, V. Sciacca, Singularity tracking for Camassa-Holm and Prandtl’s equations, Appl. Numer. Math. 56(8), 1108-1122 (2006)

    2006

  34. [42]

    Sulem, P.L

    C. Sulem, P.L. Sulem, H. Frisch, Tracing complex singularities with spectral methods, J. Comput. Phys. 50(1), 138-161 (1983)

    1983

  35. [43]

    C. Tian, W. Yan, H. Zhang, The Cauchy problem for the generalized hyperelastic rod equation, Math. Nachr. 287(17-18), 2116-2137 (2014)

    2014

  36. [44]

    Wahl´ en, The interaction of peakons and antipeakons, Dyn

    E. Wahl´ en, The interaction of peakons and antipeakons, Dyn. Contin. Discrete Impuls. Syst. Ser. A Math. Anal. 13(3-4), 465-472 (2006)

    2006

  37. [45]

    W. Ye, Z. Yin, Global Existence and Blow-Up Phenomena for the Hunter-Saxton Equation on the Line. J. Math. Fluid Mech. 24, 25 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00021-021-00630-x

    2022 doi

  38. [46]

    Yin, On the structure of solutions to the periodic Hunter-Saxton equation

    Z. Yin, On the structure of solutions to the periodic Hunter-Saxton equation. SIAM J. Math. Anal. 36, 272–283 (2004)

    2004

  39. [47]

    Yin, Well-posedness, global solutions and blowup phenomena for a nonlinearly dispersive wave equation, J

    Z. Yin, Well-posedness, global solutions and blowup phenomena for a nonlinearly dispersive wave equation, J. Evol. Equ. 4(3), 391-419 (2004)

    2004

  40. [48]

    Zhou, Wave breaking for a shallow water equation, Nonlinear Anal

    Y. Zhou, Wave breaking for a shallow water equation, Nonlinear Anal. 57(1), 137-152 (2004) (YK) Department of Mathematical Sciences, Ulsan National Institute of Science and Technology, Ulsan, 44919, Korea Email address : gomuli3@unist.ac.kr (BK) Department of Mathematical Scie...

    2004

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.