Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 48 references

Dispersive estimates for Dirac Operators in dimension four with obstructions at threshold energies

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read For the massive Dirac equation in four dimensions with a decaying self-adjoint potential, the paper proves that the low-energy evolution decays like $t^{-2}$ when the threshold energies are regular, and like $t^{-1}$ up to a finite-rank…

desk verdict Closes the 4D massive Dirac threshold-obstruction case; main theorems look right, but Section 5 is too terse exactly where it carries the non-regular argument. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.08831 v1 pith:I2PBSMLN submitted 2025-06-10 math.AP math-phmath.MP

William R. Green , Connor Lane , Benjamin Lyons This is my paper
classification math.APmath-phmath.MP MSC 35Q4135B4035P25
keywords Diracequationdispersiveestimatesthresholdresonanceseigenvaluesfourdimensionsresolventexpansionsfinite-rankcorrectionsmassiveoperator
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 aims to settle the low-energy dispersive behavior of the massive Dirac equation in four spatial dimensions with a decaying potential. The central result is that when the thresholds $\pm m$ are regular and $|V(x)|\lesssim \langle x\rangle^{-\delta}$ with $\delta>5$, the absolutely continuous part of the evolution satisfies $\|e^{itH}\chi(H)P_{\mathrm{ac}}(H)\|_{L^1\to L^\infty}\lesssim \langle t\rangle^{-2}$. When a threshold is obstructed, the evolution is instead $t^{-1}$ away from an explicit finite-rank operator $F_t$ with $\|F_t\|_{L^1\to L^\infty}\lesssim (\log t)^{-1}$, and $F_t=0$ if there is an eigenvalue but no resonance. A sympathetic reader would care because this gives a complete dispersive description in four dimensions, matching the known Schr\"odinger picture and identifying exactly how threshold obstructions degrade the decay.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by the resolvent identity $(D_m-\lambda)(D_m+\lambda)=-\Delta+m^2-\lambda^2$, which expresses the Dirac resolvent through the four-dimensional Schr\"odinger resolvent, combined with expansions of the Schr\"odinger resolvent near zero energy that contain logarithmic terms and the operators $G_0,G_1,G_2$. Threshold regularity is defined through invertibility of $T_0=U+vG_0v^*$, and obstructions are classified by the Riesz projections $S_1$ onto $\ker T_0$ and $S_2$ onto $\ker(S_1T_1S_1)$ inside $S_1L^2$. The load-bearing structural facts are that $S_1-S_2$ has rank at most two and that $S_2vG_1=0$; these make the inverse $M^{-1}_\pm(z)$ have the specific singular expansions in Proposition 4.4, from which the finite-rank operator $F_t$ and the $(\log t)^{-1}$ bound are obtained through the Jensen--Nenciu inversion formula.

What would settle it

Find a self-adjoint potential with $|V(x)|\lesssim \langle x\rangle^{-\delta}$, $\delta>5$, whose four-dimensional Dirac operator has a threshold resonance space $S_1-S_2$ of dimension three, or for which $S_2vG_1\neq 0$; then Corollaries 5.3 and 5.4 would fail, the expansion of $M^{-1}_\pm(z)$ in Proposition 4.4 would not have the asserted form, and the finite-rank operator $F_t$ would need rank larger than two. A more direct test is to compute numerically the low-energy kernel of $e^{itH}\chi(H)P_{\mathrm{ac}}(H)-F_t$ for a potential with a rank-two resonance and check whether the $L^1\to L^\infty$ norm decays like $t^{-1}$ with a $(\log t)^{-1}$ correction term.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that threshold obstructions for the four-dimensional massive Dirac operator are rare and structurally simple: at each threshold there is an at most two-dimensional resonance space and finitely many eigenfunctions. With regular thresholds, the low-energy part of the evolution has the natural $t^{-2}$ decay. When the threshold is not regular, the paper constructs a time-dependent finite-rank operator $F_t$, of rank at most two per threshold, such that $\|e^{itH}\chi(H)P_{\mathrm{ac}}(H)-F_t\|_{L^1\to L^\infty}\lesssim t^{-1}$ for $t>2$, with $\|F_t\|\lesssim (\log t)^{-1}$. The eigenvalue-only case is singled out: there $F_t=0$, so no finite-rank correction is needed. The discovery is thus a complete dichotomy: either the threshold is regular and decay is $t^{-2}$, or it is obstructed and the obstruction contributes only a slowly decaying finite-rank term.

Load-bearing premise

The argument stands or falls on the threshold classification: at each threshold the resonance subspace is at most two-dimensional and the eigenfunction subspace satisfies the orthogonality condition $S_2vG_1=0$, and if a potential produced a larger resonance space or broke that orthogonality, the constructed finite-rank correction $F_t$ and the $(\log t)^{-1}$ rate would not follow from the stated expansions.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the thresholds are regular, the low-energy Dirac evolution in four dimensions has the natural $\langle t\rangle^{-2}$ decay, and pairing this with the high-energy dyadic bounds gives global dispersive bounds with $\langle H\rangle^{-11/2-}$ smoothness on the initial data.
  • If a threshold resonance or eigenvalue is present, the evolution is $t^{-1}$ up to a finite-rank term of size $(\log t)^{-1}$, which is the strongest uniform decay one can expect in the obstructed case from this method.
  • When there is an eigenvalue but no resonance, $F_t=0$, so the sole effect of the eigenvalue is to reduce the rate from $t^{-2}$ to $t^{-1}$ without introducing a separate correction term.
  • The resolvent expansions imply a limiting absorption principle near the thresholds and, consequently, that only finitely many eigenvalues lie in the spectral gap $[-m,m]$.
  • The dispersive bounds yield Strichartz estimates through the standard $T^*T$ argument.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The rank-at-most-two threshold classification suggests that the four-dimensional massive and massless Dirac equations may share the same dispersive lifespan; a natural test is whether sending $m\to 0$ reproduces the massless threshold structure and whether the $(\log t)^{-1}$ correction survives.
  • The $(\log t)^{-1}$ rate appears tied to the logarithmic terms in the resolvent expansion, so it may be optimal: a potential whose resonance space saturates the two-dimensional bound should be the extremal case where no further cancellation is available.
  • The proof requires $\delta>8$ in the eigenvalue case, while the low-energy boundedness argument of Theorem 1.3 is run with only $\delta>5/2$; a testable extension is whether a refined selective iteration could lower the eigenvalue-case decay assumption toward the $\delta>4$ range.
  • The explicit form $F_t$ in (60) suggests concrete numerical checks: for a given resonance potential, one can compute the $L^1\to L^\infty$ norm of the corrected evolution and verify that the correction term indeed saturates the $(\log t)^{-1}$ size.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper studies L1-to-Linfinity dispersive estimates for massive Dirac operators D_m+V in four spatial dimensions with decaying self-adjoint matrix-valued potentials. Theorem 1.1 proves a t^{-2} bound at regular thresholds and, when a threshold is not regular, a bound with a finite-rank correction F_t satisfying ||F_t|| ≲ 1/log t and residual t^{-1}, with explicit decay assumptions (delta > 5, delta > 4, delta > 8 depending on the obstruction type). The proof combines expansions of the free Dirac resolvent near the thresholds, the symmetric resolvent identity, a Jensen-Nenciu/Feshbach inversion scheme for M_±(z), and a classification of threshold obstructions in terms of the subspaces S_1 and S_2 in Section 5. Theorems 1.2 and 1.3 add high-energy frequency-localized estimates and a near-optimal boundedness result.

Significance. If correct, the paper gives a complete low-energy dispersive description for four-dimensional massive Dirac operators with threshold obstructions, matching the Schrödinger analogue in [19] and extending earlier work in dimensions 1, 2, and 3. The paper is notable for its explicit decay thresholds, the explicit construction of the finite-rank operator F_t, and the absence of fitted parameters. The main risk is concentrated in the nonregular branch of Theorem 1.1, which depends on structural properties of the threshold subspaces proved in Section 5 and on the consistency of the + and - resolvent expansions. Those points need repair, but they appear to be fixable within the scope of the manuscript. The stress-test concern about the rank-two/orthogonality classification is real, although part of the missing argument can be reconstructed from Lemmas 5.1 and 5.2.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2, Eqs. (11)-(12)] The definitions of g_+^1 and g_-^1 are inconsistent with their later use. Eq. (11) states g_+^1(z) = g_-^1(z) = z^2(a_1 log z + b_1) and Eq. (12) states g_+^2(z) = g_-^2(z) = z^4(a_2 log z + b_2). However, the paper repeatedly uses nonzero differences g_+^1 - g_-^1 and g_+^2 - g_-^2: after Eq. (19) one reads 2 Im(g_+^1(z)) = c z^2; Lemma 4.2 ends with the claim (g_+^1 - g_-^1) = c z^2; and the proof of the S_1 = S_2 case in Section 4 asserts (g_+^2(z) - g_-^2(z))/z^4 = 2 Im(b_2) ≠ 0. These statements are impossible under Eqs. (11)-(12) as written. Since the nonregular branch of Theorem 1.1, including the definition of F_t in Eq. (60), depends on the difference between the + and - resolvent expansions, please correct the definition (presumably b_1^+ ≠ b_1^- and b_2^+ ≠ b_2^-) and recheck all signs and leading terms in Propositions 4.1, 4.3, 4.4, and Corollary 4.5.
  2. [Section 5, Corollary 5.4] The proof of the rank bound dim(S_1 - S_2) ≤ 2 is too terse for a load-bearing statement. The calculation shows that for φ in S_1, the non-L2 part of ψ = -G_0 v* φ has the form <x>^{-2}(a_1, a_2, 0, 0)^T + O_{L2}(1). To conclude that the quotient S_1/S_2 has dimension at most two, one must also show that the map φ → M_uc v* φ has kernel exactly S_2 and that the quotient dimension equals the rank of this map. This quotient/rank step is not explicitly written. The missing step is load-bearing because Lemma 4.2 uses two-dimensionality to represent z^{-2} Q A_±(z) Q as a 2x2 matrix and to prove invertibility from the linear independence of G_1 v* φ_1 and G_1 v* φ_2. If the resonance quotient had dimension three or more, the block decomposition in Proposition 4.1, the expansions in Proposition 4.4, and the definition of F_t in Eq. (60) would fail. Please expand the proof or provide a precise reference that supplies the quotient argument in the four-dimensional setting.
  3. [Section 4, Corollary 4.5, S_1 = S_2 case] The proof contains a false identity. Corollary 4.5 states that 'Definition 2.3 tells us that S_2 D_0 = S_1 D_0 = 0', but Definition 2.3(2) and its remarks state S_1 D_0 = D_0 S_1 = S_1. Consequently, the claim that the first term in the difference (M_+^{-1} - M_-^{-1}) is O_1(z^{2-}) is not justified; with S_1 D_0 = S_1, the leading contribution appears to be O(1), not O(z^2). This case drives the eigenvalue-only branch of Theorem 1.1, where F_t is claimed to be zero, so the argument needs to be redone. The final statement of Corollary 4.5 may still be true, but the proof as written does not establish it.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 2, Lemma 2.4] The proof of Lemma 2.4 says 'we leave the details to the reader'. Since D_0 is used in the expansions in Lemma 2.5 and in boundary terms in Lemma 3.8, please include a fuller proof or cite the specific lemma in [20], [23], or [26] that covers this exact operator with the four-dimensional kernels.
  2. [Section 2, paragraph after Eq. (19)] In the sentence 'This follows from the relationship R_0^+ - R_0^+ = (D_m + sqrt(z^2 + m^2))[R_0^+ - R_0^-]', the first difference should presumably be R_0^+ - R_0^-.
  3. [Section 4, Propositions 4.3-4.4] The operator D_2 appears in the expansions (B_±(z))^{-1} = -D_2/z^2 + ... and M_±^{-1}(z) = -D_2/z^2 + ... but is never defined in Section 4. It appears again in Lemma 5.6. Please define D_2 explicitly, presumably as the inverse of S_2 v G_2 v* S_2 on S_2 L^2.
  4. [Theorem 1.1 and Theorem 1.2, items (i)-(iii)] The phrase 'resonance at zero' and 'eigenvalue at zero' is used even though the thresholds under consideration are λ = m and λ = -m. Please say 'at a threshold' or 'at ±m' to avoid confusion with the spectral parameter z = 0.
  5. [Section 5, Lemma 5.6] Lemma 5.6 is stated without proof. Even if the lemma is not directly invoked in Section 4, it is part of the advertised classification of threshold obstructions. Please provide the proof or a complete statement of the three-dimensional result being adapted, including how Eq. (67) and the logarithmic terms in four dimensions are used.
  6. [Remark 2.6 and end of Section 5] The negative threshold -m is dismissed with 'straightforward modifications' in Remark 2.6 and at the end of Section 5. Theorem 1.1 quantifies obstructions at both thresholds, and the total rank bound for F_t is twice the per-threshold rank. Please state the exact changes needed for the negative branch, including the analogues of Corollaries 5.3-5.4 and Proposition 4.4.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the dispersive bounds are derived from parameter-free resolvent expansions; the threshold resonance/eigenvalue classification is proved in Section 5, and the cited prior works are independent published tools rather than load-bearing self-referential assumptions.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained modulo external published tools. Theorem 1.1 is a parameter-free statement: the low-energy bounds follow from Stone's formula (4), the free Dirac resolvent identity (3), and the symmetric resolvent identity (22); no quantity is fitted to the claimed decay rates. The regular case inverts M±(z) by a Neumann series (Lemma 2.5), and the nonregular case uses the Jensen-Nenciu formula (51) and Feshbach block inversion (56); the singular expansions in Propositions 4.1-4.4 are derived, not assumed. The structural facts S2 v G1 = 0 and rank(S1−S2) ≤ 2 are not imported by citation: Corollary 5.3 is an immediate consequence of the proof of Lemma 5.2 (S2 = ker M_uc v*), and Corollary 5.4 follows from the representation (63)-(64), which embeds S1/S2 into C² via φ ↦ M_uc v* φ. The proof of Corollary 5.4 is telegraphic and would benefit from stating this quotient argument explicitly, but the claim is proved from the paper's own equations. Lemma 5.6 omits its proof with the reference 'see [26]' and the sentence 'We omit the proof for the sake of brevity'; this is a real omission, but P_m is not used in the main dispersive argument and therefore does not make the central claim circular. Self-citations such as [19], [21], [26], and [35] supply resolvent expansions, inversion strategies, and a limiting absorption principle; these are published, parameter-free results with stated assumptions and are used as tools, not as a source of the target t^{-2} or (log t)^{-1} decay. The finite-rank operator F_t is explicitly defined in (60) from the leading singular difference of M^{-1}_+ and M^{-1}_-; in the eigenvalue-only case F_t = 0 follows from cancellation of the -D2/z^2 term in Proposition 4.4, not by construction of the theorem's conclusion. No fitted input is called a prediction, and no uniqueness claim is borrowed from the authors' prior work to force the chosen expansion.

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

The central results rest on standard spectral theory, the free resolvent expansion, the limiting absorption principle, and potential decay assumptions. No free parameters are fitted to data, and no new physical entities are introduced. The most paper-specific premises are the potential decay class and the use of prior resolvent inversion machinery. Several auxiliary lemmas are stated without full proof (flagged in red_flags).

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The potential V is self-adjoint, 4x4 matrix-valued, with entries satisfying |V(x)| less than or similar to <x>^{-delta} for various delta (delta > 5, delta > 8, delta > 4, delta > 5/2).
    This defines the class of potentials. Stated in Theorems 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 (Section 1); the dispersive bounds are conditional on this decay, which controls the integral operators in the resolvent expansions.
  • standard math The free Dirac resolvent expansion via Bessel functions (equation (10)) and the four-dimensional Schrodinger resolvent expansion from [19].
    Used in Section 2 to derive the expansions in Lemma 2.1; the expansion is taken from [19] and ultimately from [1].
  • domain assumption Limiting absorption principle for Dirac operators, including the derivative bounds in (71), from [20] and [21].
    Invoked in Section 6 for high energy bounds; requires continuous potential entries and specific decay, and is cited from prior work rather than proved here.
  • standard math Spectral theorem, Stone's formula (equation (4)), and the absence of embedded eigenvalues and singular continuous spectrum from [31,10].
    Used throughout to express the evolution via the spectral measure and to justify the projection P_ac; the absence results are cited from the literature.
  • standard math Integral estimates of Lemma 3.3, taken from Lemma 6.3 of [22] and Lemma 3.8 of [34].
    Used throughout Sections 3, 4, and 6 to bound iterated resolvent integrals; explicitly quoted from prior papers.
  • standard math Jensen-Nenciu resolvent inversion formula (Lemma 2.1 of [39]).
    Used in equation (51) in Section 4 to invert M^pm(z) in the non-regular case.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dispersive estimates for Dirac Operators in dimension four with obstructions at threshold energies." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/I2PBSMLN

@misc{pith2026250608831,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dispersive estimates for Dirac Operators in dimension four with obstructions at threshold energies},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/I2PBSMLN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.08831}
}
abstract

We investigate $L^1\to L^\infty$ dispersive estimates for the Dirac equation with a potential in four spatial dimensions. We classify the structure of the obstructions at the thresholds as being composed of an at most two dimensional space of resonances per threshold, and finitely many eigenfunctions. Similar to the Schr\"odinger evolution, we prove the natural $t^{-2}$ decay rate when the thresholds are regular. When there is a threshold resonance or eigenvalue, we show that there is a time dependent, finite rank operator satisfying $\|F_t\|_{L^1\to L^\infty}\lesssim (\log t)^{-1}$ for $t>2$ such that $$ \|e^{it\mathcal H}P(\mathcal H)-F_t\|_{L^1\to L^\infty}\lesssim t^{-1} \quad \text{for } t>2, $$ with $P$ a projection onto a subspace of the absolutely continuous spectrum in a small neighborhood of the thresholds. We further show that the operator $F_t=0$ if there is a threshold eigenvalue but no threshold resonance. We pair this with high energy bounds for the evolution and provide a complete description of the dispersive bounds.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 48 canonical work pages

  1. [19]

    B., Goldberg, M, and Green, W

    Erdo˘ gan, M. B., Goldberg, M, and Green, W. R.Dispersive estimates for four dimensional Schr¨ odinger and wave equations with obstructions at zero energy.Comm. PDE 39 (2014), no. 10, 1936–1964

    work page 2014

  2. [1]

    Abramowitz and I

    M. Abramowitz and I. A. Stegun,Handbook of mathematical functions with formulas, graphs, and mathematical tables.National Bureau of Standards Applied Mathematics Series, 55. For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 1964

    work page 1964

  3. [2]

    Scuola Norm

    Agmon, S.Spectral properties of Schr¨ odinger operators and scattering theory.Ann. Scuola Norm. Sup. Pisa Cl. Sci. (4) 2 (1975), no. 2, 151–218

    work page 1975

  4. [3]

    Arai, M., and Yamada, O.Essential selfadjointness and invariance of the essential spectrum for Dirac opera- tors.Publ. Res. Inst. Math. Sci. 18 (1982), no. 3, 973–985

    work page 1982

  5. [4]

    Berthier and V

    A. Berthier and V. Georgescu,On the point spectrum of Dirac operators.J. Funct. Anal. 71 (1987), no. 2, 309–338

    work page 1987

  6. [5]

    Bejenaru, I., and Herr, S.The cubic Dirac equation: small initial data inH 1(R3).Comm. Math. Phys. 335 (2015), no. 1, 43–82

    work page 2015

  7. [6]

    Bejenaru, I., and Herr, S.The cubic Dirac equation: small initial data inH 1/2(R2).Commun. Math. Phys. 343 (2016), 515–562

    work page 2016

  8. [7]

    Borrelli, W., and Frank, R.Sharp decay estimates for critical Dirac equations.Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 373 (2020), no. 3, 2045–2070

    work page 2020

Show all 48 references
  1. [8]

    Borrelli, W.Symmetric solutions for a 2D critical Dirac equation.Commun. Contemp. Math. 24 (2022), no. 4, Paper No. 2150019, 27 pp

    2022

  2. [9]

    Boussa ¨ ıd, N.Stable directions for small nonlinear Dirac standing waves.Comm. Math. Phys. 268 (2006), no. 3, 757–817. 58 W. R. GREEN, C. LANE, B. LYONS

    2006

  3. [10]

    Boussa ¨ ıd, N., and Comech, A.On spectral stability of the nonlinear Dirac equation.J. Funct. Anal. 271 (2016), no. 6, 1462–1524

    2016

  4. [11]

    , and Comech, A.Spectral stability of small amplitude solitary waves of the Dirac equation with the Soler-type nonlinearity,J

    Boussa ¨ ıd, N. , and Comech, A.Spectral stability of small amplitude solitary waves of the Dirac equation with the Soler-type nonlinearity,J. Funct. Anal., 277 (2019), no. 12, 108289

    2019

  5. [12]

    , and Comech, ANonlinear Dirac equation

    Boussa ¨ ıd, N. , and Comech, ANonlinear Dirac equation. Spectral stability of solitary waves. Mathematical Surveys and Monographs, 244. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, (2019), vi+297 pp. ISBN: 978-1-4704-4395-5

    2019

  6. [13]

    Boussa ¨ ıd, N., and Golenia, S.Limiting absorption principle for some long range perturbations of Dirac systems at threshold energies.Comm. Math. Phys. 299 (2010), no. 3, 677–708

    2010

  7. [14]

    Partial Differential Equations 48 (2023), no.3, 355–385

    Cacciafesta, F., S´ er´ e,´E., and Zhang, J.Asymptotic estimates for the wave functions of the Dirac-Coulomb operator and applications.Comm. Partial Differential Equations 48 (2023), no.3, 355–385

    2023

  8. [15]

    Carey, A., Gesztesy, F., Kaad, J., Levitina, G., Nichols, R., Potapov, D., and Sukochev, F.,On the Global Limiting Absorption Principle for Massless Dirac Operators. Ann. Henri Poincar´ e 19, No. 7, 1993—2019 (2018)

    2018

  9. [16]

    Comech, A., Phan, T., and Stefanov, A.Asymptotic stability of solitary waves in generalized Gross-Neveu model. Ann. Inst. H. Poincar´ e C Anal. Non Lin´ eaire.A 34 (2017), no. 1, 157–196

    2017

  10. [17]

    D’Ancona, P., and Fanelli, L.Decay estimates for the wave and Dirac equations with a magnetic potential. Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 60 (2007), no. 3, 357–392

    2007

  11. [18]

    Danesi, E.Strichartz estimates for the 2D and 3D massless Dirac-Coulomb equations and applications.J. Funct. Anal. 286 (2024), no.3, Paper No. 110251

    2024

  12. [20]

    B., Goldberg, M, and Green, W

    Erdo˘ gan, M. B., Goldberg, M, and Green, W. R.Limiting absorption principle and Strichartz estimates for Dirac operators in two and higher dimensions.Comm. Math. Phys. 367 (2019), no. 1, 241–263

    2019

  13. [21]

    B., Goldberg, M, and Green, W

    Erdo˘ gan, M. B., Goldberg, M, and Green, W. R.The Massless Dirac Equation in Two Dimensions: Zero- Energy Obstructions and Dispersive Estimates, J. Spectr. Theory 11 (2021), no. 3, 935–979

    2021

  14. [22]

    B., and Green, W

    Erdo˘ gan, M. B., and Green, W. R.Dispersive estimates for the Schrodinger equation forC n−3 2 potentials in odd dimensions. Int. Math. Res. Notices 2010:13, 2532–2565

    2010

  15. [23]

    B., and Green, W

    Erdo˘ gan, M. B., and Green, W. R.Dispersive estimates for Schr¨ odinger operators in dimension two with obstructions at zero energy. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 365 (2013), 6403–6440

    2013

  16. [24]

    B., and Green, W

    Erdo˘ gan, M. B., and Green, W. R.The Dirac equation in two dimensions: Dispersive estimates and classi- fication of threshold obstructions. Commun. Math. Phys. 352 (2017), no. 2, 719–757

    2017

  17. [25]

    B., and Green, W

    Erdo˘ gan, M. B., and Green, W. R.On the one dimensional Dirac equation with potential, J. Math. Pures Appl. (9) 151 (2021), 132–170

    2021

  18. [26]

    B., Green, W

    Erdo˘ gan, M. B., Green, W. R. and Toprak, E.Dispersive estimates for Dirac operators in dimension three with obstructions at threshold energies.Amer. J. Math. 141, no. 5, 1217–1258

  19. [27]

    B., Green, W

    Erdo˘ gan, M. B., Green, W. R. and Toprak, E.Dispersive estimates for massive Dirac operators in dimension two.J. Differential Equations 264 (2018), no. 9, 5802–5837

    2018

  20. [28]

    B., Green, W

    Erdo˘ gan, M. B., Green, W. R., and Toprak, E.,What is the Dirac equation?Notices Amer. Math. Soc. 68 (2021), no. 10, 1782–1785

    2021

  21. [29]

    Erdo˘ gan, M. B., and Schlag, W.Dispersive estimates for Schr¨ odinger operators in the presence of a resonance and/or an eigenvalue at zero energy in dimension three: I, Dynamics of PDE 1 (2004), 359–379. DISPERSIVE ESTIMATES FOR DIRAC OPERATORS 59

    2004

  22. [30]

    Escobedo, M., and Vega, L.A semilinear Dirac equation inH s(R3)fors >1.SIAM J. Math. Anal. 28 (1997), no. 2, 338–362

    1997

  23. [31]

    Operator Theory 46 (2001), no

    Georgescu, V., and Mantoiu, M.On the spectral theory of singular Dirac type Hamiltonians.J. Operator Theory 46 (2001), no. 2, 289-321

    2001

  24. [32]

    Ginibre, J., Velo, G.Generalized Strichartz inequalities for the wave equation.J. Funct. Anal. 133 (1995), no.1, 50–68

    1995

  25. [33]

    Schlag.Dispersive estimates for Schr¨ odinger operators in dimensions one and three

    Goldberg, M., and W. Schlag.Dispersive estimates for Schr¨ odinger operators in dimensions one and three. Comm. Math. Phys. vol. 251, no. 1 (2004), 157–178

    2004

  26. [34]

    Goldberg, M., and Visan, M.A Counterexample to Dispersive Estimates for Schr¨ odinger Operators in Higher Dimensions.Comm. Math. Phys. 266 (2006), no. 1, 211-238

    2006

  27. [35]

    Differential Equations, Vol

    Green, W., Lane, C., Lyons, B., Ravishankar, S., and Shaw, A.The Massless Dirac Equation in Three Dimensions: Dispersive estimates and zero energy obstructions,J. Differential Equations, Vol. 416, Part 1, (2025), 449–490

    2025

  28. [36]

    Duke Math

    Jensen, A.Spectral properties of Schr¨ odinger operators and time-decay of the wave functions results in L2(Rm),m≥5. Duke Math. J. 47 (1980), no. 1, 57–80

    1980

  29. [37]

    Results in L2(R4)

    Jensen, A.Spectral properties of Schr¨ odinger operators and time-decay of the wave functions. Results in L2(R4). J. Math. Anal. Appl. 101 (1984), no. 2, 397–422

    1984

  30. [38]

    Jensen, A., Kato, T.Spectral properties of Schr¨ odinger operators and time–decay of the wave functions.Duke Math. J. 46 (1979), no. 3, 583–611

    1979

  31. [39]

    Nenciu.A unified approach to resolvent expansions at thresholds

    Jensen, A., and G. Nenciu.A unified approach to resolvent expansions at thresholds. Rev. Mat. Phys. vol. 13, no. 6 (2001), 717–754

    2001

  32. [40]

    and Schlag, W.Stable manifolds for all monic supercritical focusing nonlinear Schr¨ odinger equa- tions in one dimensionJ

    Krieger, J. and Schlag, W.Stable manifolds for all monic supercritical focusing nonlinear Schr¨ odinger equa- tions in one dimensionJ. Amer. Math. Soc. 19 (2006), no. 4, 815–920

    2006

  33. [41]

    Kraisler, J., Sagiv, A., and Weinstein, M.On the time-decay of solutions arising from periodically forced Dirac Hamiltonians.SIAM J. of Math. Anal. 56 (5) (2024), p.7194–7227

    2024

  34. [42]

    Preprint 2025, arxiv:2501.07466

    Kraisler, J., Sagiv, A., and Weinstein, M.Dispersive decay estimates for Dirac equations with a domain wall. Preprint 2025, arxiv:2501.07466

    2025 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Murata, M.Asymptotic expansions in time for solutions of Schr¨ odinger-type equationsJ. Funct. Anal. 49 (1) (1982), 10–56

    1982

  36. [44]

    and Stefanov, A.Asymptotic stability of small gap solitons in nonlinear Dirac equations.J

    Pelinovsky, D. and Stefanov, A.Asymptotic stability of small gap solitons in nonlinear Dirac equations.J. Math. Phys. 53 (2012), no. 7, 073705, 27 pp

    2012

  37. [45]

    Schlag, W.Dispersive estimates for Schr¨ odinger operators in dimension two.Comm. Math. Phys. 257 (2005), no. 1, 87–117

    2005

  38. [46]

    Schlag, W.On pointwise decay of waves.J. Math. Phys. 62 (2021), no. 6, Paper No. 061509, 27 pp

    2021

  39. [47]

    Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1992

    Thaller, B.The Dirac equation.Texts and Monographs in Physics. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1992

    1992

  40. [48]

    Japan Acad

    Yamada, O.A remark on the limiting absorption method for Dirac operators.Proc. Japan Acad. Ser. A Math. Sci. 69 (1993), no. 7, 243–246. Department of Mathematics, Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology, Terre Haute, IN 47803, U.S.A. Email address:green@rose-hulman.edu, lanecf@ros...

    1993

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.