Bubbling solutions for a planar exponential nonlinear elliptic equation with a singular source

Jiamei Hu; Jingyi Dong; Yibin Zhang

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 24 references

Bubbling solutions for a planar exponential nonlinear elliptic equation with a singular source

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 For any prescribed m, a planar exponential equation with a point singularity admits solutions with m+1 bubbles all collapsing at the source point, carrying total mass 8π(m+1+α)φ1(p).

desk verdict A natural singular extension of del Pino–Muñoz that is carefully set up, but the central fixed-point argument in Proposition 4.1 does not close because the boundary error is O(1) in the weighted norm. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.05532 v7 pith:N2YFBB4K submitted 2019-08-15 math.AP

Jingyi Dong , Jiamei Hu , Yibin Zhang This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.AP MSC 35B2535J2535B40

keywords bubblingsolutionsexponentialnonlinearitysingularsourceDiracmeasureLyapunov-SchmidtreductionLazer-McKennaconjectureconcentrationphenomenon

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 studies a two-dimensional Dirichlet problem in which a large parameter s drives an exponential nonlinearity with an added point source of strength α. The authors prove that when the source point p is a strict local maximum of the positive first eigenfunction φ1, the problem has solutions with any prescribed number m of separate bubbles—peaks of the exponential term—that all shrink onto p as s grows. The total mass ∫$e^{{υ_s}}$ converges to the quantized value 8π(m+1+α)φ1(p). This extends the known multi-bubble phenomenon for the regular Ambrosetti–Prodi-type problem to the case with a singular source, and it gives an exact mass quantization. The proof is a Lyapunov–Schmidt reduction: build an explicit approximate solution from Green's functions, solve a weighted linearized problem, and maximize a finite-dimensional energy over bubble locations.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a Lyapunov–Schmidt reduction built on an explicit multi-bubble ansatz. The approximate solution U is the sum of one singular bubble u0, of the form log[$8μ0^{2}$(1+α)^2/(k(p)($ε0^{2}$ $μ0^{2}$ + |x−p|^{2(1+α)})^2)], and m standard bubbles ui of the form log[$8μ_i^{2}$/(k(ξ_i)|ξ_i−p|^{2α}($ε_i^{2}$ $μ_i^{2}$ + |x−ξ_i|^2)^2)], each corrected by a harmonic term Hi that matches the Dirichlet boundary condition. The concentration scales are ε0=$e^{{−t/2}}$ and ε_i=$e^{{−tφ1(ξ_i)/2}}$, and the parameters μ0, μ_i are chosen so that all Green's-function interactions cancel at leading order. The core technical step is a linear solvability theory for L(φ)=−Δφ−Wφ on the scaled domain Ω_t with a weighted L∞ norm, giving an inverse bounded by Ct; a contraction argument then solves the nonlinear projected problem. Finally, the finite-dimensional reduced energy F_t(ξ) is maximized over the location set O_t = {ξ: |ξ_i−p| ≥ $t^{{−β}}$, |ξ_i−ξ_j| ≥ $t^{{−β}}$, 1−φ1(ξ_i) ≤ $t^{{−1/2}}$} with β=(m+1)(m+1+α)/2, and the logarithmic terms in its expansion force the maximizer into the interior.

What would settle it

Evaluate the claimed norm bound (4.5) for the error E restricted to the region near the far boundary of Ω_t, where |ε0 y−p| ≈ 2d. From (2.32)–(2.33) and the weight in (3.7), the ratio |E|/weight there is O($e^{{−tφ1(ε0y)}}$) up to powers of t, which is O(1) when φ1(ε0y) is order one near the boundary. A direct asymptotic or numerical evaluation of this boundary contribution would settle whether ‖E‖_* is actually small enough for the contraction argument in Proposition 4.1 to close.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Theorem 1.2: for α ∈ (−1,+∞)∖ℕ, if p is a strict local maximum of the first Dirichlet eigenfunction φ1, then for every integer m≥1 and every sufficiently large s, problem (1.1) has a family of solutions υ_s with m distinct regular bubbles accumulating at p, and lim_{s→∞} ∫_Ω $e^{{υ_s}}$ = 8π(m+1+α)φ1(p). In the equivalent rescaled problem (1.4), this is an m+1-bubbling at p: one singular bubble of mass 8π(1+α) plus m standard bubbles of mass 8π each, all collapsing at p, so that |x−p|^{2α}k(x)$e^{{−tφ1}}$$e^{{u_t}}$ ⇀ 8π(m+1+α)δ_p. For m=0, the paper proves that a single-bubble solution exists at p without requiring the maximum condition, so the singularity alone is enough for one bubble.

Load-bearing premise

The entire proof of existence hinges on one estimate: the error left by the approximate solution must be tiny in a specially weighted maximum norm, so that a fixed-point step can find the true correction. If that error is not small near the far boundary of the rescaled domain, the fixed-point argument has no solution.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For any prescribed m≥1, problem (1.1) has at least one family of solutions for all large s, so the number of distinct bubbling configurations is unbounded as s→∞.
The limiting mass ∫e^{υ_s} is exactly 8π(m+1+α)φ1(p), matching the standard quantization of 8π for each regular bubble plus 8π(1+α) for the singular bubble, scaled by the eigenfunction value at p.
Since α=0 is allowed, the result covers the regular Ambrosetti–Prodi/Lazer–McKenna problem and shows that arbitrarily many bubbles can be made to concentrate at a single strict maximum of φ1, not only at distinct maxima.
The bubble locations ξ_i,t converge to p with mutual separation at least t^{−β}; in the reduced energy, the terms 16π(2+α)log|ξ_i−p| and 16πlog|ξ_i−ξ_j| provide the balance that keeps the maximizer inside O_t.
For m=0, the construction gives a single-bubble solution at p without any maximum assumption, so the singularity alone is sufficient for one bubble.

Reading between the lines

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

The strict-maximum condition on φ1 appears to serve only to stabilize the additional regular bubbles at p, so the same reduction likely produces solutions with bubbles accumulating at several strict maxima of φ1, with total mass 8π times the sum of the corresponding eigenfunction values.
The exclusion of integer α is technical: the weighted norm uses an auxiliary exponent α̂ with −1<α̂<min{α,−2/3}, and the linearized kernel classification is imported for non-integer α. One could test whether integer α only needs a modified ansatz, since the mass formula is continuous in α.
Because the construction is variational, the resulting bubbling solutions are local maxima of the reduced energy; one may infer a well-defined Morse index depending on m, although the paper does not compute stability.
A direct numerical experiment on a symmetric domain with φ1 known explicitly could verify the predicted positions and masses at leading order, providing an inexpensive test of the mechanism beyond the analytic argument.

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

Short version: this is a serious Lyapunov–Schmidt paper with the right ansatz and a clean statement, but the proof of Theorem 1.1 is not complete as written. The load-bearing gap is in Proposition 4.1.

The contraction argument there needs the error E to be small in the weighted norm (3.7). That norm contains a uniform ε0^2 term. The error estimate (2.33) gives E(y)=O(ε0^2 e^{-tφ1(ε0 y)}) near the boundary, and since φ1=0 on ∂Ω, the quotient |E|/weight is O(1) in a boundary layer. So ‖E‖_* is not o(1). The paper itself allows this by putting ‖e^{-tφ1/2}‖_{L∞(Ω_t)} on the right-hand side of (4.5), but that norm is exactly 1. Consequently the ball F_κ has radius κt, and the quadratic bound |e^φ−1−φ|≤Cφ^2 used to control N(φ) is invalid on that ball. The map A is not shown to map F_κ into itself, and the contraction is not obtained. Without the correction φ from Proposition 4.1, the Lyapunov–Schmidt reduction—and hence Theorems 1.1–1.4—is not established.

What the paper does well: the combination of the Dirac source with the exponential small forcing is a natural open case, and the construction of arbitrary m bubbles accumulating at p is the right kind of result. The ansatz and the choices (2.12)–(2.13) are sensible and not circular; the linear theory in Section 3 looks standard and careful; the energy expansion in Section 5 is plausible. This is not a paper full of invented errors—it has one central technical flaw in the nonlinear projected problem.

Is it fixable? Possibly. One could rework the weighted norm so that it does not include the uniform ε0^2 term, or handle the boundary contribution separately. But that is real work, not a typo. Until then I would not cite the main theorem.

The paper deserves a serious referee because the question is important and the technical presentation is otherwise serious. My recommendation: send it to peer review, but the referee should be asked to verify Proposition 4.1 closely and the expectation should be major revision.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies the Dirichlet problem -Δυ = e^υ - sφ1 - 4παδ_p - h(x) in a bounded smooth planar domain, with α∈(-1,∞)\N, and claims existence of families of solutions with arbitrarily many bubbles accumulating at a strict local maximum p of the first eigenfunction φ1, together with the mass quantization limit ∫Ω e^{υ_s} → 8π(m+1+α)φ1(p) as s→∞. The proof follows the standard Lyapunov-Schmidt scheme: an approximate solution U is built in Section 2, a linear solvability theory is developed in Section 3, the nonlinear projected problem is solved in Proposition 4.1, and a reduced finite-dimensional maximization problem is solved in Section 5. Theorems 1.1-1.4 are the stated existence results.

Significance. If established, the result would be a natural extension of the Lazer-McKenna multi-bubbling construction to singular sources, adding a bubble at the singular point and quantifying the mass limit. The paper is clearly organized and follows a well-recognized Lyapunov-Schmidt strategy; the linear theory in Section 3 is detailed and largely standard, and the paper is self-contained, with no circular dependence on the claimed conclusions. However, the central contraction argument in Proposition 4.1 does not close as written, and the same gap propagates to the reduced energy estimates and the final reduction. At present the main existence theorems are not proven.

major comments (2)

[§4, proof of Proposition 4.1; Eqs. (3.7), (2.33), (4.5)] The weighted norm (3.7) contains a uniform ε0^2 term. In the exterior region described by (2.33), the error satisfies E(y)=O(ε0^2 e^{-tφ1(ε0y)}/(|ε0y-p|^{4+2α} ∏_{i=1}^m |ε0y-ξ_i|^4)) plus smaller terms. On the boundary of Ω_t, and in any fixed (in the scaled variable) neighborhood of it, φ1(ε0y)=o(1/t), hence e^{-tφ1(ε0y)}→1, while the denominators are bounded below by a positive constant because p and all ξ_i are at positive distance from ∂Ω. Therefore |E(y)| is comparable to ε0^2, and dividing by the weight (3.7) gives an O(1) contribution. Consequently ‖E‖_* is not small; in particular the last term in the maximum in (4.5) is ‖e^{-tφ1/2}‖_{L∞(Ω_t)}=1. The displayed bound (4.5) therefore gives only ‖E‖_*≤C, not a small quantity. The ball F_κ has radius κt times an O(1) quantity, so admissible φ may be of size O(t); for such φ the estimate ‖N(φ)‖_*≤C‖φ‖∞^2 does not provide the claimed contraction, and the inequality '‖A(φ)‖≤Ct max{...}' does not imply that A maps F_κ into itself with a contraction constant below 1. Proposition 4.1, which is the decisive step producing the correction φ for every ξ∈O_t, is therefore not established. This is an internal gap in the proof as written.
[§5, Step 2 and Step 3, Eq. (5.11)] The expansion F_t(ξ)=J_t(U(ξ))+o(1) in (5.11) relies on the asserted smallness of the correction φ obtained from Proposition 4.1. Because the bound (4.2) contains the factor ‖e^{-tφ1/2}‖_{L∞(Ω_t)}=1, the available bound is only ‖φ‖∞=O(t), not o(1). The displayed error estimate in Step 2 then becomes O(t^2) (or at least not o(1)), so the uniform expansion (5.11) does not follow. Consequently the comparison of boundary and interior values in Step 3 of Proposition 5.1, and the conclusion that the maximizer lies in the interior of O_t, are not justified. Theorems 1.1 and 1.2, and by the same argument Theorems 1.3 and 1.4, are not proven as written.

minor comments (4)

[§2, Eq. (2.2)] The notation B_d(p) is used without an explicit definition; if it denotes the ball of radius d, this should be stated.
[§3, Eq. (3.7)] The exponent in the first weight term is written as 4+2α̂+2α, while later in the text the same weight is sometimes written with exponent 4+2α̂; the intended exponent should be fixed for consistency.
[§1, Theorems 1.3 and 1.4] The cases m=0 are asserted to follow by arguing exactly along the sketch of the proof of Theorem 1.1, but no proof is supplied; since the m=0 case has no competing bubbles and no reduced maximization over ξ, a separate argument is needed.
[§2, Eq. (2.7)] The parameters ε0,t and εi,t in Theorem 1.1 are written with an extra subscript t, while the definitions in (2.7) omit it; the notation should be unified.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the mass limit is a consequence of the construction, the concentration parameters are fixed a priori, and no load-bearing self-citation is used.

full rationale

The paper's Lyapunov–Schmidt construction is self-contained. The concentration parameters μ0 and μi are not fitted to the target mass; they are fixed a priori as functions of the concentration points ξ through the cancellation conditions (2.12)–(2.13), and the limiting mass 8π(m+1+α)φ1(p) is obtained only afterwards from the bubble integrals (2.6) and the normalization φ1(p)=1. The error estimates (2.28)–(2.33) are used to set up the linear and nonlinear projected problems in Sections 3–4, and the reduced problem in Section 5 is maximized over ξ∈O_t; the interior-maximum condition in Proposition 5.1 then forces the coefficients c_ij to vanish through the diagonally dominant system (6.3). None of these steps assumes the conclusion of Theorems 1.1–1.4. The kernel classifications cited in Section 3 are standard external results, and the only apparent self-citation, [13] Yang–Zhang, is motivational background on the regular Lazer–McKenna problem and is not used in the proof. The reader's skeptical objection about Proposition 4.1—that the boundary error E may be O(1) in the weighted norm because the ε0^2 term in the weight matches the boundary error—identifies a possible technical gap in the contraction argument, but this is a correctness concern, not a circular dependence of the result on its inputs. Therefore no circular step is exhibited.

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

The central claim rests on standard tools (Green's functions, maximum principle, elliptic regularity) plus a kernel classification theorem from the literature. The concentration parameters μ0 and μi are auxiliary quantities fixed by the ansatz, not independent degrees of freedom. No new entities are postulated.

free parameters (2)

μ0 = determined by (2.12): log(8 μ0^2 (1+α)^2/k(p)) = (1+α)H(p,p) + Σ_j G(p,ξ_j)
Auxiliary concentration parameter for the bubble at p, chosen to cancel leading-order interaction errors. Not fitted to external data, but introduced by the construction.
μi (i=1,...,m) = determined by (2.13): log(8 μ_i^2/(k(ξ_i)|ξ_i-p|^{2α})) = H(ξ_i,ξ_i) + (1+α)G(ξ_i,p) + Σ_{j≠i} G(ξ_i,ξ_j)
Auxiliary concentration parameters for the m nearby bubbles, fixed as functions of ξ. Also not external.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption Classification of bounded solutions to the linearized blow-up equations (3.3) and (3.4): for α∉N, the kernel is spanned by Z_p; for the standard Liouville kernel, by Z_0,Z_1,Z_2.
Invoked in Step 3 of Proposition 3.1 and credited to [8,9,20,23,24]. This is a known theorem from the literature.
domain assumption p is a strict local maximum point of φ1 and φ1(p)=1.
Hypothesis of the theorems and used in Section 5 to ensure the reduced energy attains an interior maximum.
standard math Green's function representation, maximum principle, elliptic regularity, Fredholm alternative.
Background results used throughout, standard for this field.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Bubbling solutions for a planar exponential nonlinear elliptic equation with a singular source." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/N2YFBB4K

@misc{pith2026190805532,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Bubbling solutions for a planar exponential nonlinear elliptic equation with a singular source},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/N2YFBB4K}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.05532}
}

abstract

Let $\Omega$ be a bounded domain in $\mathbb{R}^2$ with smooth boundary, we study the following elliptic Dirichlet problem $$ \begin{cases} -\Delta\upsilon= e^{\upsilon}-s\phi_1-4\pi\alpha\delta_p-h(x)\,\,\,\, \,\textrm{in}\,\,\,\,\,\Omega,\\[2mm] \upsilon=0 \quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad \qquad\qquad\quad\quad\,\,\,\, \textrm{on}\,\ \,\partial\Omega, \end{cases} $$ where $s>0$ is a large parameter, $h\in C^{0,\gamma}(\overline{\Omega})$, $p\in\Omega$, $\alpha\in(-1,+\infty)\setminus\mathbb{N}$, $\delta_p$ denotes the Dirac measure supported at point $p$ and $\phi_1$ is a positive first eigenfunction of the problem $-\Delta\phi=\lambda\phi$ under Dirichlet boundary condition in $\Omega$. If $p$ is a strict local maximum point of $\phi_1$, we show that such a problem has a family of solutions $\upsilon_s$ with arbitrary $m$ bubbles accumulating to $p$, and the quantity $\int_{\Omega}e^{\upsilon_s}\rightarrow8\pi(m+1+\alpha)\phi_1(p)$ as $s\rightarrow+\infty$.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

24 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages

[1]

Ambrosetti, G

A. Ambrosetti, G. Prodi, On the inversion of some diﬀeren tiable mappings with singularities between Banach spaces, Ann. Mat. Pura Appl. 93 (1973) 231–247

work page 1973
[2]

Lazer, P.J

A.C. Lazer, P.J. McKenna, On the number of solutions of a n onlinear Dirichlet problem, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 84 (1981) 282–294

work page 1981
[3]

del Pino, C

M. del Pino, C. Muñoz, The two-dimensional Lazer-Mckenn a conjecture for an exponential nonlinearity, J. Diﬀerenti al Equations 231 (2006) 108–134

work page 2006
[4]

Brezis, F

H. Brezis, F. Merle, Uniform estimates and blow-up behav ior for solutions of − ∆ u = V (x)eu in two dimensions, Comm. Partial Diﬀerential Equations 16 (1991) 1223–1253

work page 1991
[5]

Y. Li, I. Shafrir, Blow-up analysis for solutions of − ∆ u = V eu in dimension two, Indiana Univ. Math. J. 43 (1994) 1255–1270

work page 1994
[6]

L. Ma, J. Wei, Convergence for a Liouville equation, Comm ent. Math. Helv. 76 (2001) 506–514

work page 2001
[7]

Nagasaki, T

K. Nagasaki, T. Suzuki, Asymptotic analysis for two-dim ensional elliptic eigenvalue problems with exponentially dominated nonlinearities, Asymptotic Anal. 3 (1990) 173–1 88

work page 1990
[8]

Baraket, F

S. Baraket, F. Parcard, Construction of singular limits for a semilinear elliptic equation in dimension 2, Calc. Var . Partial Diﬀerential Equations 6 (1998) 1–38

1998

Show all 24 references

[9]

C. Chen, C. Lin, Topological degree for a mean ﬁeld equati on on Riemann surfaces, Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 56 (2003) 1667–1727

2003
[10]

del Pino, M

M. del Pino, M. Kowalczyk, M. Musso, Singular limits in L iouville-type equations, Calc. Var. Partial Diﬀerential Equations 24 (2005) 47–81

2005
[11]

Esposito, M

P. Esposito, M. Grossi, A. Pistoia, On the existence of b lowing-up solutions for a mean ﬁeld equation, Ann. Inst. H. Poincaré Anal. Non Linéaire 22 (2005) 227–257

2005
[12]

Weston, On the asymptotic solution of a partial diﬀ erential equation with an exponential nonlinearity, SIAM J

V.H. Weston, On the asymptotic solution of a partial diﬀ erential equation with an exponential nonlinearity, SIAM J. Math. Anal. 9 (1978) 1030–1053

1978
[13]

H. Yang, Y. Zhang, Bubbling solutions for an anisotropi c planar elliptic problem with exponential nonlinearity, Nonlinear Analysis 174 (2018) 141–168

2018
[14]

A. Tur, V. Yanovsky, Point vortices with a rational neck lace: New exact stationary solutions of the two-dimensiona l Euler equation, Phys. Fluids 16 (2004) 2877–2885

2004
[15]

Del Pino, P

M. Del Pino, P. Esposito, M. Musso, Two dimensional Eule r ﬂows with concentrated vorticities, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 362 (2010) 6381–6395

2010
[16]

F. Luo, G. Tian, Liouville equation and spherical conve x polytopes, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 116 (1992) 1119–1129

1992
[17]

Nolasco, G

M. Nolasco, G. Tarantello, Double vortex condensates i n the Chern-Simons-Higgs theory, Calc. Var. Partial Diﬀer- ential Equations 9 (1999) 31–91

1999
[18]

Tarantello, Multiple condensate solutions for the C hern-Simons-Higgs theory, J

G. Tarantello, Multiple condensate solutions for the C hern-Simons-Higgs theory, J. Math. Phys. 37 (1996) 3769–37 96

1996
[19]

D’Aprile, Multiple blow-up solutions for the Liouvi lle equation with singular data, Comm

T. D’Aprile, Multiple blow-up solutions for the Liouvi lle equation with singular data, Comm. Partial Diﬀerential Equations 38 (2013) 1409–1436

2013
[20]

Esposito, Blowup solutions for a Liouville equation with singular data, SIAM J

P. Esposito, Blowup solutions for a Liouville equation with singular data, SIAM J. Math. Anal. 36 (2005) 1310–1345

2005
[21]

Tarantello, Analytical aspects of Liouville-type e quations with singular sources, in: Stationary Partial Diﬀ erential Equations, in: Handbook Diﬀer

G. Tarantello, Analytical aspects of Liouville-type e quations with singular sources, in: Stationary Partial Diﬀ erential Equations, in: Handbook Diﬀer. Equ., vol.1, North-Holland , Amsterdam, 2004, pp.491–592

2004
[22]

D’Aprile, Blow-up phenonmena for the Liouville equa tion with a singular source of integer multiplicity, J

T. D’Aprile, Blow-up phenonmena for the Liouville equa tion with a singular source of integer multiplicity, J. Dif- ferential Equations 266 (2019) 7379–7415

2019
[23]

Chang, H

Y. Chang, H. Yang, Multiple blowing-up and concentrati ng solutions for Liouville-type equations with singular sources under mixed boundary conditions, Bound. Value Prob l. 2012, 2012:33, 25 pp. BUBBLING SOLUTIONS 31

2012
[24]

Esposito, A

P. Esposito, A. Pistoia, J. Wei, Concentrationg soluti ons for the Hénon equation in R2, J. Anal. Math. 100 (2006) 249–280

2006

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

Ambrosetti, G

A. Ambrosetti, G. Prodi, On the inversion of some diﬀeren tiable mappings with singularities between Banach spaces, Ann. Mat. Pura Appl. 93 (1973) 231–247

work page 1973

[2] [2]

Lazer, P.J

A.C. Lazer, P.J. McKenna, On the number of solutions of a n onlinear Dirichlet problem, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 84 (1981) 282–294

work page 1981

[3] [3]

del Pino, C

M. del Pino, C. Muñoz, The two-dimensional Lazer-Mckenn a conjecture for an exponential nonlinearity, J. Diﬀerenti al Equations 231 (2006) 108–134

work page 2006

[4] [4]

Brezis, F

H. Brezis, F. Merle, Uniform estimates and blow-up behav ior for solutions of − ∆ u = V (x)eu in two dimensions, Comm. Partial Diﬀerential Equations 16 (1991) 1223–1253

work page 1991

[5] [5]

Y. Li, I. Shafrir, Blow-up analysis for solutions of − ∆ u = V eu in dimension two, Indiana Univ. Math. J. 43 (1994) 1255–1270

work page 1994

[6] [6]

L. Ma, J. Wei, Convergence for a Liouville equation, Comm ent. Math. Helv. 76 (2001) 506–514

work page 2001

[7] [7]

Nagasaki, T

K. Nagasaki, T. Suzuki, Asymptotic analysis for two-dim ensional elliptic eigenvalue problems with exponentially dominated nonlinearities, Asymptotic Anal. 3 (1990) 173–1 88

work page 1990

[8] [8]

Baraket, F

S. Baraket, F. Parcard, Construction of singular limits for a semilinear elliptic equation in dimension 2, Calc. Var . Partial Diﬀerential Equations 6 (1998) 1–38

1998