Dynamics of Bubbling Wave Maps with Prescribed Radiation

Andrew Lawrie; Casey Rodriguez; Jacek Jendrej

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 45 references

Dynamics of Bubbling Wave Maps with Prescribed Radiation

T0 review · 2 major / 4 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 the radiation field of a bubbling one-equivariant wave map determines the sharp blow-up rate and that such bubbles occur exactly when the radiation's leading coefficient is negative.

desk verdict Sharp classification of bubbling wave-map blow-up rates from prescribed radiation is the real advance; the explicit constant leans on a compressed comparison estimate that deserves referee scrutiny. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.08512 v1 pith:FSJYDGLV submitted 2019-08-22 math.AP

Jacek Jendrej , Andrew Lawrie , Casey Rodriguez This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.AP MSC 35L7135B4435Q5137K40

keywords wavemapsenergycriticalequivariantblow-upradiationfieldmodulationmethodbubblingS^2target

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 shows that for energy-critical, one-equivariant wave maps with values in the two-sphere, the radiation emitted at a singularity carries the information that fixes how fast a concentrating bubble collapses. For radiation whose leading part is a pure power of the radius, vanishing like $qr^\nu$ or $q r^{\nu-1}$ with $\nu>9/2$, the paper constructs blow-up solutions with that prescribed radiation and proves that every one-bubble blow-up with the same radiation must have $q<0$ and must obey an explicit rate law $\lambda(t)\sim \frac{p|q|}{\nu^2(\nu+1)}\,\frac{t^{\nu+1}}{|\log t|}$. The significance is that the blow-up rate is not an accident of the initial data but is encoded in the low-order Taylor coefficient of the radiation field, with explicit constants.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing identity is the near-light-cone description of the radiation: inside $\{r\le t\}$, one has $u^*(t,r)=q p(\nu) t^{\nu-1} r$ plus controlled errors. This comes from lifting $u^*/r$ to a free wave in one higher dimension and applying Kirchhoff's formula, which also produces the explicit constants $p(\nu)$. The bubble-radiation interaction then acts as a forcing term in the modulation equations for the scale $\lambda(t)$. To control the modulation, the paper introduces an auxiliary variable $\zeta(t)=4\lambda(t)\log(t/\lambda(t))-\int_0^t \Lambda Q_{\lambda(t)}\,g(t,r)\,r\,dr$ and a corrected variable $b(t)$ built from $\zeta'(t)$ plus a truncated virial functional; the key differential inequality is $b'(t)\ge (4p|q|-\delta)t^{\nu-1}$ minus controlled errors. An energy estimate for the remainder $g$ shows that the interaction term $\langle DE_{\mathrm{loc}}(u^*),g\rangle$ contributes a leading-order $8\pi p q\int \lambda'(\tau)\tau^{\nu-1}d\tau$, and this is what turns the formal rate law into a two-sided classification.

What would settle it

Run a high-resolution numerical Cauchy evolution of the equation from compactly supported data $\chi(r)(q r^5,0)$ with $\nu=5>9/2$ for small backward times and measure $M(t)=\sup_{0<r\le t}|\nabla_{t,r}u^*(t,r)-\nabla_{t,r}u^*_L(t,r)|/(r t^{13})$; the paper's estimate (2.8) predicts that $M(t)$ remains bounded, so if $M(t)$ grows like a positive power of $1/t$ the claimed rate constant for $\nu=5$ is not established.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Let $u_0^*$ be a radiation field of the form $\chi(r)(q r^\nu,0)$, or of the form $\chi(r)(0,q r^{\nu-1})$, with $\nu>9/2$, and let $u^*(t)$ be its nonlinear wave-map evolution. Theorem 1.1 asserts that if $q<0$, there exists a finite-energy solution $u_c(t)$ that blows up backwards in time at $T=0$ and satisfies $u_c(t)=Q_{\lambda_c(t)}+u_0^*+o_{\mathcal H}(1)$, with $\lambda_c(t)=\frac{p|q|}{\nu^2(\nu+1)}\,\frac{t^{\nu+1}}{|\log t|}$, where $p=p(\nu)$ is an explicit Gamma-function constant (different for the two types of radiation). Conversely, if any finite-energy solution blows up by concentrating one bubble backwards in time with radiation $u_0^*$ and scaling parameter $\lambda(t)=o(t)$, then necessarily $q<0$ and $\lambda(t)=\bigl(\frac{p|q|}{\nu^2(\nu+1)}+o(1)\bigr)\frac{t^{\nu+1}}{|\log t|}$ as $t\to 0^+$. Thus the vanishing order $\nu$ of the radiation sets the power law of the collapse, and the coefficient $q$ determines both whether collapse is possible and the precise prefactor.

Load-bearing premise

The sharp rate constant hinges on Lemma 2.2's assertion that inside the light cone the nonlinear radiation flow differs from the linear flow by at most $C r |t|^{3\nu-2}$; if that comparison failed, the leading term $q p(\nu)t^{\nu-1}r$ that drives the rate could be contaminated by nonlinear effects.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For any one-bubble blow-up with radiation of the prescribed power-law form, the collapse rate is rigidly determined: $\lambda(t)\sim \frac{p|q|}{\nu^2(\nu+1)}\,\frac{t^{\nu+1}}{|\log t|}$, with no room for a different power or prefactor.
The sign condition $q<0$ is necessary: radiation whose leading coefficient is positive cannot drive a backwards-in-time one-bubble collapse of this type, because the bubble-radiation interaction is then repulsive.
Any two solutions that blow up with the same radiation field exhibit the same asymptotic profile: their difference tends to zero in the energy space as $t\to 0^+$ (Corollary 1.8), so the constructed solution is the unique profile at energy level.
Time reversal gives forward-in-time blow-up solutions with the same rates, and for velocity-type radiation the forward bubble appears with the opposite sign, i.e. the full map undergoes a 180-degree rotation in $S^2$.
The classification sharpens earlier constructions by showing that the explicit rate constant is not just a technical artifact but is forced by the radiation for all one-bubble solutions in this class.

Reading between the lines

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

Read as an extension: the same leading-order calculation suggests that radiation with logarithmic corrections, such as $u_0^*(r)=-r^\nu|\log r|^\mu$, would produce rates $\lambda(t)\asymp t^{\nu+1}|\log t|^{\mu-1}$; the paper states this as a formal consequence, not as a proved theorem.
A natural next step, suggested by the paper's Conjecture 1.9, is to upgrade Corollary 1.8 from convergence in energy to actual uniqueness of the blow-up solution with a given radiation field, which would give an energy-preserving continuation through the singular time.
Because the rate constant is determined by the value at the origin of a four-dimensional linear wave lift, analogous classifications should hold for any radiation whose lifted linear evolution has a comparable nonzero leading constant, not only for pure monomials.
The sign reversal for radiation of type (1.5) hints that non-equivariant perturbations may see a rapid 180-degree rotation of the concentrating bubble, an instability mechanism that the present one-equivariant setting does not reveal directly.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Read this one. It does something the literature has been circling: it makes the radiation field the input and derives the blow-up rate from it, both constructively and as a classification. Part (a) builds finite-energy solutions with a prescribed polynomial radiation field and gives the explicit rate lambda(t) ~ p|q|/(nu^2(nu+1)) t^{nu+1}/|log t|. Part (b) is the sharper statement: any one-bubble solution with that radiation must have that rate, constant included. That classification is new, as far as I know, and it is not a fitting job—the constant comes from Kirchhoff's formula for the linear evolution, not from matching an ansatz.

The proof is careful and mostly self-contained. The modulation method is modified via the auxiliary b(t), and the energy estimate for the error g(t) in Section 4 handles the non-autonomous term (the D E(u*) g coupling) that earlier backward constructions could drop. The authors are upfront that they avoid refined ansatz and instead refine modulation parameters, and the structure does hold together. The formal derivation in Appendix A demystifies the constant and the claim in Remark 1.6 that KST rates are recovered is plausible and in line with the mechanism.

The soft spot is real: Lemma 2.2, which compares the nonlinear radiation flow to the linear flow inside the light cone, is proved in one line. The bound |∇u* − ∇u*_L| ≤ C r |t|^{3ν−−2} is exactly what lets Corollary 2.3 replace the nonlinear radiation by the linear leading term, and that replacement produces the constant p(ν). If the exponent were wrong, the rate would shift. The estimate is the sort of cubic lifespan bound that follows from the well-posedness theory for (1.2), and the cited [39] does contain the tools, but the derivation is not shown. The reader's medium correctness risk is fair. This is not a fatal flaw; it is a place where the paper asks the referee to trust a standard argument that is not spelled out. I would also flag a minor issue: the condition ν > 9/2 is technical and acknowledged, and the adaptation to (1.5) in Appendix B is a sketch, though it looks straightforward.

Who is this for? Anyone working on singularity formation for wave maps, and the broader bubbling-on-solitons community. It deserves a serious referee; I would not desk reject. If I were handling it, I'd send it out and explicitly ask the referee to verify Lemma 2.2 and the passage from (2.8) to Corollary 2.3, and to check the Appendix B constant.

Recommendation: accept if those checks pass; at minimum, major revision with an expanded proof of Lemma 2.2.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies one-equivariant energy-critical wave maps from R^{1+2} to S^2, in the symmetry-reduced form (1.2). The authors fix a radiation profile u*_0 that vanishes like q r^ν (or q r^{ν-1} for the time-derivative component), with ν > 9/2, and show that this radiation determines the blow-up rate of a single concentrating bubble. Theorem 1.1 asserts: (a) for q < 0 there exists a finite-energy solution blowing up backwards in time with radiation u*_0 and scaling parameter λ_c(t) = p|q|/(ν^2(ν+1)) t^{ν+1}/|log t| for an explicit constant p(ν); and (b) any finite-energy single-bubble blow-up solution with the same radiation must have q < 0 and the same leading-order rate. The proof combines a modulation argument with a modified virial functional, a local energy identity for the error term, and a bootstrap construction. Appendix A gives a formal derivation of the rate, and Appendix B sketches the analogue for radiation supported in the velocity component.

Significance. If the proofs are correct, this is a substantial contribution: it gives the first sharp classification of the blow-up rate in terms of the prescribed radiation, with explicit constants that are not fitted. The backwards perspective is natural and leads to Corollary 1.8 and the Radiative Uniqueness Conjecture, which may open a route to unique continuation past the blow-up time. The paper is honest about its technical assumptions, and the main line of the argument — linear radiation leading-order behaviour, modulation equations, and coercive energy estimates — is coherent. The explicit constants in Theorem 1.1, the formal derivation in Appendix A, and the detailed bootstrap in Section 5 are all valuable features.

major comments (2)

[Lemma 2.2, equations (2.8)–(2.9)] The comparison estimate between the nonlinear radiation u*(t) and the linear radiation u*_L(t) is load-bearing: Corollary 2.3 uses it to replace u* by its linear leading term q p t^{ν-1} r, and this leading term produces the explicit constant p(ν) in Theorem 1.1. The proof of Lemma 2.2 is, however, a single line invoking finite speed and the well-posedness theory of [39], followed by a norm bound whose right-hand side is stated without derivation. As written, the hypotheses of the cited well-posedness result are not matched to the norm used in (2.8), and the exponent 3ν−2 is not obtained explicitly. I ask the authors to state the relevant abstract estimate from [39] in the precise form used here and to verify that the initial data in (2.1) satisfy its hypotheses, or to give a self-contained proof of (2.8)–(2.9). The scaling heuristic is plausible (||u0||_{H(r≤2t)} ~ t^ν, ||∂_r u0||_{H(r≤2t)} ~ t^{ν-1}, ||∂_r^2 u0||_{H(r≤2t)} ~ t^{ν-2}), but the nonlinear comparison is exactly the missing step, and a gap here would change the leading-order radiation and hence the rate constant.
[Proposition 3.5, inequality (3.20)] The statement of Proposition 3.5 does not assume q < 0, yet the lower bound b'(t) ≥ (4p|q| − δ)t^{ν-1} − C_0 λ(t)/t^2 − δ λ^{-1}||g(t)||^2_H is derived in the proof from an estimate of the form b'(t) + 4p q t^{ν-1} ≥ ... . For q > 0 the displayed bound with |q| is not justified and is in fact false at leading order, since the interaction term changes sign. All later applications are for q < 0, and in Section 6 the sign q < 0 is proved before the proposition is used, so the issue is repairable. Still, the proposition as stated is internally inconsistent; please add the hypothesis q < 0 (or replace |q| by −4pq throughout the statement and proof) and make the use of the sign explicit.

minor comments (4)

[Proposition 3.5 and Lemma 5.2] The smallness hypothesis is written as "||g(t)||^2_H + α + sup_J ≤ η1". This is ambiguous, since sup_J is a time, not a norm. It should presumably read sup_{t∈J}||g(t)||^2_H + α ≤ η1, or a similar clearly stated condition.
[Lemma 3.3, property (P5)] The operator in property (P5) is misprinted: "( d²/dr² + 1/r d/dr r)² q(r)" should be written with unambiguous parentheses, for example ((d²/dr²) + r^{-1}(d/dr r))² q(r) or the intended radial Laplacian expression.
[Proposition 6.4, last paragraph] The text states "Since log t/λ(t) → 0" twice; since λ(t) = o(t) and λ(t) log(t/λ(t)) ≲ t^{ν+1}, the quantity log(t/λ(t)) tends to +∞, not 0. The intended inequality is clear, but the reversed limit statement should be corrected.
[Lemma 2.1 and Lemma B.1] The regularity assertions "φ(z) ∈ C^4([−1, −1])" and "φ(z) ∈ C^3([−1, −1])" contain a typo: the interval should be [−1, 1].

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the blow-up rate is derived from prescribed radiation via linear evolution and energy estimates, not fitted or self-referential.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained: u*0 enters only through q and nu, Lemma 2.1 computes the leading linear term q p(nu) |t|^{nu-1} r by Kirchhoff's formula, and the constant p(nu) is obtained by an explicit quadrature rather than by matching the final rate. Lemma 2.2 and Corollary 2.3 then transfer this leading behavior to the nonlinear radiation flow inside the light cone, which produces the interaction term 4p|q|t^{nu-1} in Proposition 3.5; the construction in Section 5 and the classification in Section 6 both use this same derived quantity, and the classification deduces lambda(t) = (p|q|/(nu^2(nu+1))+o(1)) t^{nu+1}/|log t| without assuming it. The proof does import technical virial/modulation lemmas from the authors' earlier papers (e.g., Lemma 3.4 refers to [12, Lemma 5.5]), but these lemmas have stated hypotheses that do not include Theorem 1.1 and serve as auxiliary infrastructure, not as an input equivalent to the target result. The only genuinely delicate step is the compressed comparison estimate (2.8) in Lemma 2.2; if that estimate failed the rate constant could change, but this is a correctness/rigor risk, not circularity. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem from the authors is invoked to force the choice of dynamics.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The proof introduces no new physical or mathematical entities beyond the prescribed radiation field. The constants q and nu are data describing the radiation, and the rate constant p(nu) is computed explicitly from the linear evolution, not fitted. Several auxiliary technical constants (c0, R) are chosen small or large in the virial estimates to make inequalities work; they do not affect the final blow-up rate.

free parameters (2)

q = nonzero real
Amplitude of the leading-order term of the prescribed radiation field. It is an input to the theorem, not fitted by the analysis, and the sign condition q < 0 is a conclusion in part (b).
nu = > 9/2
Order of vanishing of the radiation at r=0. Prescribed in the hypothesis and constrained by a technical regularity requirement used in Lemma 2.1.

assumptions (4)

standard math Well-posedness theory for the 1-equivariant wave map equation (1.2) in the energy space H, as established by Shatah-Tahvildar-Zadeh [40].
Used throughout the paper to define local solutions and the radiation flow u*(t).
domain assumption The one-bubble decomposition (1.9) for blow-up solutions, proved in [4, Theorem 1.3] and [3] under stated energy or single-bubble hypotheses.
The classification part (b) assumes such a decomposition exists, and Remark 1.2 explains that this is a mild hypothesis given the existing literature.
standard math Existence of the truncated virial function q_{c,R} with properties (P1)-(P6), imported from [12, Lemma 4.6].
The modulation control in Proposition 3.5 relies on this auxiliary function; it is a cited technical result from prior work of the first author.
standard math Kirchhoff's formula for the 4D free wave equation applied to the lifted variable v = u/r.
Used in Lemma 2.1 to obtain the leading-order asymptotic of the linear radiation inside the light cone.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dynamics of Bubbling Wave Maps with Prescribed Radiation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FSJYDGLV

@misc{pith2026190808512,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dynamics of Bubbling Wave Maps with Prescribed Radiation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FSJYDGLV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.08512}
}

read the original abstract

We study energy critical one-equivariant wave maps taking values in the two-sphere. It is known that any finite energy wave map that develops a singularity does so by concentrating the energy of (possibly) several copies of the ground state harmonic map at the origin. If only a single bubble of energy is concentrated, the solution decomposes into a dynamically rescaled harmonic map plus a term that accounts for the energy that radiates away from the singularity. In this paper, we construct blow up solutions by prescribing the radiative component of the map. In addition, we give a sharp classification of the dynamical blow up rate for every solution with this prescribed radiation.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages

[39]

Threshold dynamics for corotational wave maps

Casey Rodriguez. Threshold dynamics for corotational wave maps. arXiv E-Prints , 2018

work page 2018
[1]

Hyperboloidal similarity coor- dinates and a globally stable blowup proﬁle for supercritic al wave maps

Pawe/suppress l Biernat, Roland Donninger, and Birgit Sch¨ orkhuber. Hyperboloidal similarity coor- dinates and a globally stable blowup proﬁle for supercritic al wave maps. ArXiv e-prints , 2017

work page 2017
[2]

Bourgain and W

J. Bourgain and W. Wang. Construction of blowup solution s for the nonlinear Schr¨ odinger equation with critical nonlinearity. Ann. Scuola Norm. Sup. Pisa Cl. Sci. (4) , 25:197–215, 1997

work page 1997
[3]

R. Cˆ ote. Instability of nonconstant harmonic maps for t he (1 + 2)-dimensional equivariant wave map system. Int. Math. Res. Not. , (57):3525–3549, 2005

work page 2005
[4]

Characterization of large energy solutions of the equivariant wave map problem: I

Raphael Cˆ ote, Carlos Kenig, Andrew Lawrie, and WilhelmSchlag. Characterization of large energy solutions of the equivariant wave map problem: I. Amer. J. Math. , 137(1):139–207, 2015

work page 2015
[5]

Universality of blow up proﬁle for small blow up solutions to the energy critical wave map eq uation

Thomas Duyckaerts, Hao Jia, Carlos Kenig, and Frank Merl e. Universality of blow up proﬁle for small blow up solutions to the energy critical wave map eq uation. Int. Math. Res. Not. IMRN, (22):6961–7025, 2018

work page 2018
[6]

Optimal polynomial blow up r ange for critical wave maps

Can Gao and Joachim Krieger. Optimal polynomial blow up r ange for critical wave maps. Commun. Pure Appl. Anal. , 14(5):1705–1741, 2015

work page 2015
[7]

Grillakis

Dan-Andrei Geba and Manoussos G. Grillakis. An introduction to the theory of wave maps and related geometric problems . World Scientiﬁc Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., Hackensack, NJ, 2017

work page 2017

Show all 45 references

[8]

J. Jendrej. Bounds on the speed of type II blow-up for the e nergy critical wave equation in the radial case. Int. Math. Res. Not. , 2015

2015
[9]

J. Jendrej. Construction of two-bubble solutions for th e energy-critical nls. Anal. PDE , 10(8):1923–1959, 2017

1923
[10]

J. Jendrej. Construction of type II blow-up solutions f or the energy-critical wave equation in dimension 5. J. Funct. Anal. , 272(3):866–917, 2017

2017
[11]

Dynamics of strongly interacting unsta ble two-solitons for generalized korteweg-de vries equations

Jacek Jendrej. Dynamics of strongly interacting unsta ble two-solitons for generalized korteweg-de vries equations. arXiv E-Prints , 2018

2018
[12]

Construction of two-bubble solutions for energy-critical wave equations

Jacek Jendrej. Construction of two-bubble solutions for energy-critical wave equations. Amer. J. Math. , 141(1):55–118, 2019

2019
[13]

Two-bubble dynamics f or threshold solutions to the wave maps equation

Jacek Jendrej and Andrew Lawrie. Two-bubble dynamics f or threshold solutions to the wave maps equation. Invent. Math. , 213(3):1249–1325, 2018

2018
[14]

Asymptotic decomposition for semilinear wave and equivariant wave map equations

Hao Jia and Carlos Kenig. Asymptotic decomposition for semilinear wave and equivariant wave map equations. Amer. J. Math. , 139(6):1521–1603, 2017

2017
[15]

Krieger, W

J. Krieger, W. Schlag, and D. Tataru. Renormalization and blow up for charge one equivariant wave critical wave maps. Invent. Math. , 171(3):543–615, 2008

2008
[16]

On stability of blow up solutions for the critical co- rotational wave maps problem

Joachim Krieger and Shuang Miao. On stability of blow up solutions for the critical co- rotational wave maps problem. arXiv E-Prints , 2018

2018
[17]

Manton and P

N. Manton and P. Sutcliﬀe. Topological solitons. Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2004

2004
[18]

Y. Martel. Asymptotic N-soliton-like solutions of the subcritical and critical ge neralized Korteweg-de Vries equations. Amer. J. Math. , 127(5):1103–1140, 2005

2005
[19]

Martel, F

Y. Martel, F. Merle, and P. Rapha¨ el. Blow up for the crit ical gKdV equation I: dynamics near the soliton. Acta Math., 212(1):59–140, 2014

2014
[20]

Martel, F

Y. Martel, F. Merle, and P. Rapha¨ el. Blow up for the crit ical gKdV equation II: minimal mass dynamics. J. Eur. Math. Soc. , 17:1855–1925, 2015

1925
[21]

Martel, F

Y. Martel, F. Merle, and P. Rapha¨ el. Blow up for the crit ical gKdV equation III: exotic regimes. Ann. Sc. Norm. Super. Pisa Cl. Sci. , XIV:575–631, 2015

2015
[22]

Blow up and near soliton dynamics for the L2 critical gKdV equation

Yvan Martel, Frank Merle, and Pierre Rapha¨ el. Blow up and near soliton dynamics for the L2 critical gKdV equation. In S´ eminaire Laurent Schwartz— ´Equations aux d´ eriv´ ees partielles et applications. Ann´ ee 2011–2012, S´ emin.´Equ. D´ eriv. Partielles, pages Exp. No. XXXVII,

2011
[23]

´Ecole Polytech., Palaiseau, 2013

2013
[24]

Blow up for the critical generalized Korteweg– de Vries equation

Yvan Martel, Frank Merle, and Pierre Rapha¨ el. Blow up for the critical generalized Korteweg– de Vries equation. I: Dynamics near the soliton. Acta Math., 212(1):59–140, 2014

2014
[25]

Blow up for the critical gKdV equation

Yvan Martel, Frank Merle, and Pierre Rapha¨ el. Blow up for the critical gKdV equation. II: Minimal mass dynamics. J. Eur. Math. Soc. (JEMS) , 17(8):1855–1925, 2015. 60 JACEK JENDREJ, ANDREW LA WRIE, AND CASEY RODRIGUEZ

1925
[26]

Blow up for the critical gKdV equation III: exotic regimes

Yvan Martel, Frank Merle, and Pierre Rapha¨ el. Blow up for the critical gKdV equation III: exotic regimes. Ann. Sc. Norm. Super. Pisa Cl. Sci. (5) , 14(2):575–631, 2015

2015
[27]

F. Merle. Construction of solutions with exactly k blow-up points for the Schr¨ odinger equation with critical nonlinearity. Commun. Math. Phys. , 129(2):223–240, 1990

1990
[28]

F. Merle. Determination of blow-up solutions with mini mal mass for nonlinear Schr¨ odinger equations with critical power. Duke Math. J. , 69(2):427–454, 1993

1993
[29]

Merle and P

F. Merle and P. Raphael. Sharp upper bound on the blow-up rate for the critical nonlinear Schr¨ odinger equation.Geom. Funct. Anal. , 13(3):591–642, 2003

2003
[30]

Merle and P

F. Merle and P. Rapha¨ el. Proﬁles and quantization of the blow up mass for critical nonlinear Schr¨ odinger equation.Commun. Math. Phys. , 253(3):675–704, 2005

2005
[31]

Merle, P

F. Merle, P. Rapha¨ el, and I. Rodnianski. Blowup dynami cs for smooth data equivariant solutions to the critical Schr¨ odinger map problem.Invent. Math. , 193(2):249–365, 2013

2013
[32]

On universality of blow -up proﬁle for L2 critical nonlinear Schr¨ odinger equation.Invent

Frank Merle and Pierre Raphael. On universality of blow -up proﬁle for L2 critical nonlinear Schr¨ odinger equation.Invent. Math. , 156(3):565–672, 2004

2004
[33]

The blow-up dynamic and upper bound on the blow-up rate for critical nonlinear Schr¨ odinger equation.Ann

Frank Merle and Pierre Raphael. The blow-up dynamic and upper bound on the blow-up rate for critical nonlinear Schr¨ odinger equation.Ann. of Math. (2) , 161(1):157–222, 2005

2005
[34]

Proﬁles and quantizati on of the blow up mass for critical nonlinear Schr¨ odinger equation.Comm

Frank Merle and Pierre Raphael. Proﬁles and quantizati on of the blow up mass for critical nonlinear Schr¨ odinger equation.Comm. Math. Phys. , 253(3):675–704, 2005

2005
[35]

On a sharp lower bound on the blow-up rate for the L2 critical nonlinear Schr¨ odinger equation.J

Frank Merle and Pierre Raphael. On a sharp lower bound on the blow-up rate for the L2 critical nonlinear Schr¨ odinger equation.J. Amer. Math. Soc. , 19(1):37–90, 2006

2006
[36]

Rapha¨ el and I

P. Rapha¨ el and I. Rodnianski. Stable blow up dynamics f or the critical co-rotational wave maps and equivariant Yang-Mills problems. Publ. Math. Inst. Hautes ´Etudes Sci. , pages 1–122, 2012

2012
[37]

Rapha¨ el and J

P. Rapha¨ el and J. Szeftel. Existence and uniqueness ofminimal mass blow up solutions to an inhomogeneous L2-critical NLS. J. Amer. Math. Soc. , 24(2):471–546, 2011

2011
[38]

Rodnianski and J

I. Rodnianski and J. Sterbenz. On the formation of singu larities in the critical O(3) σ-model. Ann. of Math. , 172:187–242, 2010

2010
[40]

Shatah and M

J. Shatah and M. Struwe. Geometric Wave Equations , volume 2 of Courant Lecture Notes in Mathematics . AMS, 2000

2000
[41]

Shatah and A

J. Shatah and A. Tahvildar-Zadeh. On the Cauchy problem for equivariant wave maps. Comm. Pure Appl. Math. , 47(5):719–754, 1994

1994
[42]

M. Struwe. Equivariant wave maps in two space dimension s. Comm. Pure Appl. Math. , 56(7):815–823, 2003

2003
[43]

Uniqueness for critical nonlinear wav e equations and wave maps via the energy inequality

Michael Struwe. Uniqueness for critical nonlinear wav e equations and wave maps via the energy inequality. Comm. Pure Appl. Math. , 52(9):1179–1188, 1999

1999
[44]

Reverse bubbling and nonuniqueness in t he harmonic map ﬂow

Peter Topping. Reverse bubbling and nonuniqueness in t he harmonic map ﬂow. Int. Math. Res. Not., (10):505–520, 2002

2002
[45]

Jan Bouwe van den Berg and J. F. Williams. (In-)stabilit y of singular equivariant solutions to the Landau-Lifshitz-Gilbert equation. European J. Appl. Math. , 24(6):921–948, 2013. Jacek Jendrej CNRS and LAGA, Universit´ e Paris 13 99 av Jean-Baptiste Cl´ ement, 93430 Villetan...

2013

Pith tools

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

[1] [39]

Threshold dynamics for corotational wave maps

Casey Rodriguez. Threshold dynamics for corotational wave maps. arXiv E-Prints , 2018

work page 2018

[2] [1]

Hyperboloidal similarity coor- dinates and a globally stable blowup proﬁle for supercritic al wave maps

Pawe/suppress l Biernat, Roland Donninger, and Birgit Sch¨ orkhuber. Hyperboloidal similarity coor- dinates and a globally stable blowup proﬁle for supercritic al wave maps. ArXiv e-prints , 2017

work page 2017

[3] [2]

Bourgain and W

J. Bourgain and W. Wang. Construction of blowup solution s for the nonlinear Schr¨ odinger equation with critical nonlinearity. Ann. Scuola Norm. Sup. Pisa Cl. Sci. (4) , 25:197–215, 1997

work page 1997

[4] [3]

R. Cˆ ote. Instability of nonconstant harmonic maps for t he (1 + 2)-dimensional equivariant wave map system. Int. Math. Res. Not. , (57):3525–3549, 2005

work page 2005

[5] [4]

Characterization of large energy solutions of the equivariant wave map problem: I

Raphael Cˆ ote, Carlos Kenig, Andrew Lawrie, and WilhelmSchlag. Characterization of large energy solutions of the equivariant wave map problem: I. Amer. J. Math. , 137(1):139–207, 2015

work page 2015

[6] [5]

Universality of blow up proﬁle for small blow up solutions to the energy critical wave map eq uation

Thomas Duyckaerts, Hao Jia, Carlos Kenig, and Frank Merl e. Universality of blow up proﬁle for small blow up solutions to the energy critical wave map eq uation. Int. Math. Res. Not. IMRN, (22):6961–7025, 2018

work page 2018

[7] [6]

Optimal polynomial blow up r ange for critical wave maps

Can Gao and Joachim Krieger. Optimal polynomial blow up r ange for critical wave maps. Commun. Pure Appl. Anal. , 14(5):1705–1741, 2015

work page 2015

[8] [7]

Grillakis

Dan-Andrei Geba and Manoussos G. Grillakis. An introduction to the theory of wave maps and related geometric problems . World Scientiﬁc Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., Hackensack, NJ, 2017

work page 2017