Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 75 references

Inverse Nonlinear Scattering by a Metric

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 Full nonlinear scattering data determine a Lorentzian metric up to conformal equivalence.

desk verdict A genuinely new inverse result for nonlinear scattering on null infinity, but the proof hinges on an unproved boundary-determination step that has to be fixed before the theorem is established. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.09671 v1 pith:OQWFGS2S submitted 2024-11-14 math.AP

Peter Hintz , Antônio Sá Barreto , Gunther Uhlmann , Yang Zhang This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.AP MSC 35P2558J50
keywords inversescatteringsemilinearwaveequationLorentzianmetricoperatorconformaldiffeomorphismrecedingwaveslightobservationsetslayerstripping
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper tries to prove that the nonlinear scattering operator of a semilinear wave equation encodes the full geometry of the spacetime the waves travel through. The central claim is that if two metrics produce identical scattering operators for all small scattering data on past null infinity, then the two metrics must be conformally equivalent: they differ only by a smooth diffeomorphism and a positive pointwise rescaling. This matters because inverse scattering for time-dependent metrics is usually obstructed by gauge freedom, and the nonlinearity removes that obstruction by making waves interact. The paper shows the principle works for cubic nonlinearities and for any analytic nonlinearity that genuinely depends on the solution.

What carries the argument

The engine of the argument is multi-fold linearization combined with receding waves: specially built solutions of the linear wave equation whose singularities are conormal to a null hypersurface. When three such waves intersect transversally, the nonlinearity produces a new singularity whose principal symbol carries the metric and the nonlinearity coefficient; the resulting three-to-one scattering relations between lightlike vectors on $S_-$ and $S_+$ determine the regular scattering light observation sets of interior points. A layer-stripping procedure recovers the metric locally in regions free of cut points, and Theorem 6.1 converts equality of the observation sets into a conformal diffeomorphism.

What would settle it

Exhibit two metrics satisfying Assumption 1.1 whose linear scattering operators agree but whose earliest scattering light observation sets cannot be identified by any conformal diffeomorphism; such a pair would break the reduction in Remark 6.2 and Theorem 1.2 would not follow from the given argument.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On a globally hyperbolic Lorentzian spacetime $M$ with past and future null infinity $S_-$ and $S_+$, the paper considers the semilinear wave equation $\square_g u + F(T,X,u)=0$ with scattering data $u_-$ on $S_-$, and defines the nonlinear scattering operator $\mathcal{N}$ by sending $u_-$ to the restriction of the solution on $S_+$. Theorem 1.2 asserts: if $\mathcal{N}^{(1)}(u_-)=\mathcal{N}^{(2)}(u_-)$ for every sufficiently small $u_-$, then there exists a smooth diffeomorphism $\Psi\colon M\to M$ and a smooth function $\gamma$ such that $\Psi^* g^{(1)} = e^{2\gamma} g^{(2)}$. The proof takes higher-order derivatives of $\mathcal{N}$ at zero data; the nonlinear interaction of three receding waves creates new singularities that travel along null geodesics, and reading these singularities on $S_+$ reconstructs the scattering light observation sets, from which the conformal structure of the metric is recovered in layers.

Load-bearing premise

The argument depends on the assumption, stated in Remark 6.2, that equality of the linearized scattering operators already determines the null-geodesic lens relation and the boundary jets of the metric up to a conformal diffeomorphism; the paper cites a similar result rather than proving it.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Equality of the full nonlinear scattering operator forces the two spacetimes to be conformally diffeomorphic, leaving only the conformal factor and a diffeomorphism as ambiguity.
  • The cubic case already carries the reconstruction, and the general analytic nonlinearity reduces to it by using the first nonvanishing Taylor coefficient of the nonlinearity.
  • The reconstruction uses data only on past and future null infinity, so no receivers inside the spacetime are needed.
  • Because the reconstruction is layered, it handles caustics provided each small diamond region is free of cut points.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension is that the same scattering data should also determine the nonlinearity coefficients, up to the natural conformal gauge, since the principal symbols of the produced singularities depend on the nonlinearity at the interaction point.
  • The proof suggests that only a finite-order jet of the scattering operator matters in each layer, so one could test on model spacetimes whether truncated scattering data still fix the conformal class.
  • The layer-stripping construction may extend to asymptotically Minkowski or asymptotically de Sitter settings with nontrapping null geodesics, where the same scattering light observation sets can be defined at conformal infinity.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies the inverse problem of determining a time-dependent globally hyperbolic Lorentzian metric on a region M diffeomorphic to a diamond in (-1,1)×R^3 from the nonlinear scattering operator of a semilinear wave equation with analytic nonlinearity. The main result, Theorem 1.2, asserts that equality of the scattering operators N(1)=N(2) on a fixed domain of scattering data implies that the two metrics are conformally diffeomorphic. The proof combines higher-order linearization of the scattering operator, construction of receding conormal waves, propagation and interaction of their singularities, reconstruction of earliest and regular scattering light observation sets, and a layer-stripping procedure that builds the conformal structure from the future null boundary inward. A substantial part of the microlocal analysis, including the forward problem, the interaction calculus, and the reconstruction from a three-to-one scattering relation, is developed in detail.

Significance. If the proof can be completed, the paper would be a significant advance: it replaces boundary measurements for Lorentzian inverse problems by scattering data posed on characteristic null infinity, and it extends the source-to-solution-map results of Kurylev–Lassas–Uhlmann to a global scattering setting without interior observations. The paper contains many carefully proven lemmas, especially in Sections 4 and 7, and the symbolic computation for three-wave interaction is a genuine strength. It also makes falsifiable predictions about which singularities of nonlinear interactions are detectable from the scattering operator. The central obstruction is not the nonlinear interaction calculus but an unproved boundary-determination step asserted in Remark 6.2 and the incomplete termination argument of the layer-stripping procedure in Section 5.3.4.

major comments (3)
  1. [Remark 6.2] The step asserting that equality N(1)=N(2) yields a conformal diffeomorphism Φ:U(1)→U(2) relating the earliest scattering light observation sets is not proved; it is only justified by the phrase 'one can use a similar idea as in [60]'. This step is load-bearing: Theorem 6.1 assumes the existence of such a Φ, and Sections 7.2–7.3 only compare scattering relations and light observation sets locally on coordinate patches without constructing the boundary identification needed for a two-metric comparison. Moreover, [60] treats a Dirichlet-to-Neumann map on a timelike boundary, whereas S± here are characteristic null hypersurfaces with a degenerate induced metric and lightlike normal; the linear scattering operator is a wave-front relation between characteristic surfaces, not an elliptic boundary map. Transferring the boundary-determination statement therefore requires a genuinely new argument or a precise reference covering null boundaries. Without this step, the central chain N(1)=N(2) ⇒ Φ ⇒ Theorem 6.1 ⇒ local conformal reconstruction does not close.
  2. [Section 5.3.4] The termination of the layer-stripping procedure is described as a strategy rather than proved. The final paragraphs of Step 4 assert that the step sizes T1,T2,... 'do not get too small' by a compactness argument and then propose an ε0/N search with the claim 'Such an N0 does exist', but no proof is supplied. The load-bearing points are: (i) the reconstructed diamond sets cover a fixed region I(T0) independent of the choices made in the local reconstructions, and (ii) the stabilization criterion D_N = D_{N+1} actually detects whether the reconstructed conformal structure equals the true one. Both points are nontrivial because the local reconstructions are only up to conformal diffeomorphisms and the proposed failure test relies on unanalyzed singularities of scattering observation sets. This gap affects the global conclusion of Theorem 1.2, not merely a technical convenience.
  3. [Section 8.3] The extension to general analytic nonlinearities omits cross-terms from lower-order coefficients. After choosing m0 as the smallest index with β_{m0}(q) ≠ 0, the text asserts U_{m0} = Q_s(β_{m0} v_1^{m0−2} v_2 v_3), but the formulas in (8.2) show that for m0 ≥ 4 the corresponding mixed derivatives also contain contributions such as β_2 v_1 A_3^{jkl} and β_2 A_2^{ij} A_2^{kl} in A_4, and more generally products of β_2 with β_{m0−2}. Unless these contributions are shown to be absent or microlocally negligible, for example by an inductive argument using the vanishing condition v_1 ∈ ˚I^μ(Λ_1), the principal symbol of U_{m0} need not be the pure β_{m0} term on which the detection argument relies. Since Theorem 1.2 is stated for general analytic nonlinearities with possibly nonzero β_2, this gap is load-bearing.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Introduction] In the paragraph defining the scattering operator, 'we consider consider the set' contains a duplicated word.
  2. [Section 5] In the introductory paragraph of Section 5, 'By concatenating such local reconstructions, we cam eventually get' should read 'we can eventually get'.
  3. [Section 7.1] Definition 7.1 appears twice: once for sufficiency of V− and again for the three-to-one scattering relation. The second definition should be renumbered, and the reference in the proof of Lemma 7.6 to 'Condition (R7.1)' should be corrected.
  4. [Section 6.1.3] The proof of Lemma 6.17 contains two consecutive 'Proof.' blocks, the first ending with the sentence 'We can prove it using Lemma 6.4 and the proof in Section 6.3.2.' This appears to be a leftover and should be removed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the scattering-data hypothesis and the conformal-equivalence conclusion are connected by an independent microlocal reconstruction proof; the under-supported step in Remark 6.2 is a derivation gap, not a reduction to the inputs.

full rationale

The claimed derivation chain is not circular. The hypothesis N(1)(u−) = N(2)(u−) is measured scattering data, and the conclusion Ψ*g(1) = e^{2γ}g(2) is obtained through linearization, extraction of a three-to-one scattering relation, reconstruction of scattering light observation sets, and a local comparison theorem. No parameter is fitted to a subset of the data and then relabeled as a prediction. Theorem 6.1, the main local comparison step, is proved in Section 6.3 rather than merely imported: the topology, smooth structure, conformal structure, and time orientation are reconstructed from the regular scattering light observation sets using lemmas proved in the paper. The citations to [46], [50], and especially [34] are to published theorems with independent mathematical content, and the present paper supplies proofs for the adapted null-boundary versions, so these self-citations are not load-bearing in a circular sense. The genuinely fragile step is Remark 6.2, which states: "Then one can use a similar idea as in [60] to prove this linear scattering operator determines the lens relation and moreover the jets of the metric on the boundary up to conformal diffeomorphisms." This is an omitted proof and a possible domain mismatch, since [60] concerns a timelike boundary Dirichlet-to-Neumann map while the present setting has characteristic null boundaries. But this is a derivation gap or correctness risk, not circularity: the asserted boundary-determination statement is not assumed as an input to N, and [60] is not the present authors' own theorem. Therefore no circular step can be exhibited, and the appropriate circularity score is 0.

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

The proof rests on Assumption 1.1 and on an unproved assertion about the linearized scattering operator (Remark 6.2). No free parameters are fitted. No new particles or forces are introduced.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Assumption 1.1: (M,g) is globally hyperbolic, g is smooth up to i±, S± are simple characteristic hypersurfaces with no cut points from i±, and (M,g) is nontrapping.
    The reconstruction parameterization of S± by null geodesics and the microlocal normal form in Lemma 3.2 depend on this. Nontrapping ensures null geodesics connect S− to S+.
  • ad hoc to paper The linear scattering operator determines the lens relation and boundary jets of the metric up to conformal diffeomorphisms (Remark 6.2).
    This is asserted with a pointer to 'a similar idea as in [60]' but no proof is given. It is required to obtain the conformal boundary map Φ in Theorem 6.1 from the measured scattering operator.
  • standard math Standard microlocal analysis: Lagrangian distributions, paired Lagrangian distributions, wave front sets, propagation of singularities.
    Used throughout Sections 3-4 and 7; these are established tools in the field.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Inverse Nonlinear Scattering by a Metric." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OQWFGS2S

@misc{pith2026241109671,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Inverse Nonlinear Scattering by a Metric},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OQWFGS2S}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.09671}
}
read the original abstract

We study the inverse problem of determining a time-dependent globally hyperbolic Lorentzian metric from the scattering operator for semilinear wave equations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.09671 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Step 1. null geodesic segments. With T1 > 0 given, we can find ς1, ς2 > 0 such that p+ = µ + a (−ς1) with T(p+) = T1, p− = µ − b (ς2) with T(p−) = −T1. We observe we can choose T1 small enough such that p− and p+ are arbitrarily close to p0. Thus, there exists T1 > 0 such that J(p−, p+) ⊆ B(p0, δ). Further, let U+ ⊆ S+(0, T1) be a small open neighborhood of the geodesic segment µ + a ([−ς + a , −ς1]). Let U− ⊆ S−(0,… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Step 1, part 2. and µ − b : [0, ς− b ] → S¯− such that µb(ς − b ) = y−,0 and µ − b (ς2) = y−. for some a, b ∈ S 2 and ς1, ς2 > 0. We choose small T ′ 1 such that J(y−, y+) ⊆ B(y0, δ). As before, we set U+ ⊆ S+(0, T′ 1 ) be a small open neighborhood of the null geodesic segment µ + a ([−ς + a , −ς1]) and U− ⊆ S−(0, T′ 1 ) be that of the null geodesic segment µ + b ([ς2, ς− b ]). As J(y−, y+) is closed and contained i… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Step 2. Let δ > 0 be given by Lemma 5.1 and we focus on the reconstruction in B(p0, δ), for p0 ∈ S+(T1). Let T2 > 0 be small and to be specified in the following. Again, there exists a unique null pregeodesic µ + a : [−ς + a , 0] → S¯+ passing through p0 and we write p0 = µ + a (−ς0) for some 0 < ς0 < ς+ a and p ′′ 0 := µ + a (−ς + a ) ∈ R. With T2 > 0 given, we can find some 0 < ς1 < ς0 < ς+ a such that p+ = µ + a … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Step 3. Recall we denote by P+(T1) the boundary ∂J+(S−(T1)) within M. It is an achronal Lipschitz topological hypersurface contained in the null normal geodesic congruences of S−(T1). Thus, we may assume P+(T1) is contained in the reconstructed region. Let δ > 0 be giv…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Step 4. Further, we consider the unique µ + a : [−ς + a , 0] → S¯+ passing through p ′ +. There exists 0 < ς1 < ς2 < ς+ a such that p ′ + = µ + a (−ς1)S+(T2 + T3) and p ′′ + = µ + a (−ς2) ∈ S+(T2). There exists a unique null geodesic µ − b : [0, ς− b ] → S¯− passing th…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

75 extracted references · 74 canonical work pages

  1. [46]

    Inverse problems for Lorentzian manifolds and non- linear hyperbolic equations

    Yaroslav Kurylev, Matti Lassas, and Gunther Uhlmann. Inverse problems for Lorentzian manifolds and non- linear hyperbolic equations. Inventiones Mathematicae, 212(3):781–857, 2018

    work page 2018

  2. [27]

    Inverse problems for nonlinear hyperbolic equations with disjoint sources and receivers

    Ali Feizmohammadi, Matti Lassas, and Lauri Oksanen. Inverse problems for nonlinear hyperbolic equations with disjoint sources and receivers. In Forum of Mathematics, Pi , volume 9, page e10. Cambridge University Press, 2021

    work page 2021

  3. [34]

    Reconstruction of Lorentzian manifolds from boundary light observation sets

    Peter Hintz and Gunther Uhlmann. Reconstruction of Lorentzian manifolds from boundary light observation sets. International Mathematics Research Notices , 2019(22):6949–6987, 2017

    work page 2019

  4. [60]

    The inverse problem for the Dirichlet-to-Neumann map on Lorentzian mani- folds

    Plamen Stefanov and Yang Yang. The inverse problem for the Dirichlet-to-Neumann map on Lorentzian mani- folds. Analysis & PDE , 11(6):1381–1414, 2018

    work page 2018

  5. [1]

    Nonlinear ultrasound imaging modeled by a westervelt equation

    Sebastian Acosta, Gunther Uhlmann, and Jian Zhai. Nonlinear ultrasound imaging modeled by a westervelt equation. SIAM Journal on Applied Mathematics , 82(2):408–426, 2022

    work page 2022

  6. [2]

    Boundary of the future of a surface

    Chris Akers, Raphael Bousso, Illan F Halpern, and Grant N Remmen. Boundary of the future of a surface. Physical Review D , 97(2):024018, 2018

    work page 2018

  7. [3]

    Lecture notes on general relativity

    Stefanos Aretakis. Lecture notes on general relativity. columbia university. 2012

    work page 2012

  8. [4]

    J. C. Baez, I. E. Sehal, and Z.-F. Zhou. The global goursat problem and scattering for nonlinear wave equations. Journal of Functional Analysis , 93:239–269, 1990

    work page 1990

Show all 75 references
  1. [5]

    An inverse problem for the relativistic Boltzmann equation

    Tracey Balehowsky, Antti Kujanp¨ a¨ a, Matti Lassas, and Tony Liimatainen. An inverse problem for the relativistic Boltzmann equation. arXiv:2011.09312, 2020

    2011 arXiv

  2. [6]

    Christian B¨ ar and Roger T. Wafo. Initial value problems for wave equations on manifolds.Mathematical Physics, Analysis and Geometry , 18(1):Article 7, 1–29, 2015

    2015

  3. [7]

    S´ a Barreto

    A. S´ a Barreto. Radiation fields on asymptotically euclidean manifolds. Comm. Partial Differential Equations , 28(9–10):1661–1673, 2003

    2003

  4. [8]

    S´ a Barreto and J

    A. S´ a Barreto and J. Wunsch. The radiation field is a fourier integral operator. Ann. Inst. Fourier (Grenoble) , 55(1):213–227, 2005. 60 HINTZ, S ´A BARRETO, UHLMANN, AND ZHANG

    2005

  5. [9]

    Interactions of conormal waves for fully semilinear wave equations.Journal of Functional Analysis, 89:233–273, 1990

    Antˆ onio S´ a Barreto. Interactions of conormal waves for fully semilinear wave equations.Journal of Functional Analysis, 89:233–273, 1990

    1990

  6. [10]

    Recovery of a cubic non-linearity in the wave equation in the weakly non-linear regime

    Antˆ onio S´ a Barreto and Plamen Stefanov. Recovery of a cubic non-linearity in the wave equation in the weakly non-linear regime. To appear in Communications in Mathematical Physics, arXiv:2102.06323 , 2021

    2021 arXiv

  7. [11]

    Singularities generated by the triple interaction of semilinear conormal waves

    Antˆ onio S´ a Barreto and Yiran Wang. Singularities generated by the triple interaction of semilinear conormal waves. Analysis & PDE , 14(1):135–170, 2021

    2021

  8. [12]

    Inverse scattering for critical semilinear wave equa- tions

    Antˆ onio S´ a Barreto, Gunther Uhlmann, and Yiran Wang. Inverse scattering for critical semilinear wave equa- tions. To appear in Pure and Applied Analysis, arXiv:2003.03822 , 2020

    2003 arXiv

  9. [13]

    Asymptotics of radiation fields in asymptotically minkowski space

    Dean Baskin, Andr´ as Vasy, and Jared Wunsch. Asymptotics of radiation fields in asymptotically minkowski space. American Journal of Mathematics , 137(5):1293–1364, 2015

    2015

  10. [14]

    M. Beals. Propagation and interaction of singularities in nonlinear hyperbolic problems , volume 3 of Progress in Nonlinear Differential Equations and their Applications . Birkh¨ auser Boston, Inc., Boston, MA, 1989

    1989

  11. [15]

    Global Lorentzian Geometry, Second Edition

    John Beem. Global Lorentzian Geometry, Second Edition . CRC Press, London, 2017

    2017

  12. [16]

    Belishev and Y

    M. Belishev and Y. Kurylev. To the reconstruction of a riemannian manifold via its spectral data (bc-method). Comm. Partial Differential Equations , 17:767–804, 1992

    1992

  13. [17]

    J.-M. Bony. Propagation et interaction des singularit´ es pour les solutions des ´ equations aux d´ eriv´ ees partielles non-lin´ eaires. InProceedings of the International Congress of Mathematicians, Vol. 1, 2 (Warsaw, 1983) , pages 1133–1147, Warsaw, 1984. PWN

    1983

  14. [18]

    European Mathematical Society Publishing House, 2007

    Christian B¨ ar, Nicolas Ginoux, and Frank Pf¨ affle.Wave Equations on Lorentzian Manifolds and Quantization . European Mathematical Society Publishing House, 2007

    2007

  15. [19]

    Injectivity radius of lorentzian manifolds

    Bing-Long Chen and Philippe G LeFloch. Injectivity radius of lorentzian manifolds. Communications in math- ematical physics, 278:679–713, 2008

    2008

  16. [20]

    Detection of Hermitian connections in wave equations with cubic non-linearity

    Xi Chen, Matti Lassas, Lauri Oksanen, and Gabriel P Paternain. Detection of Hermitian connections in wave equations with cubic non-linearity. Journal of the European Mathematical Society , 2021

    2021

  17. [21]

    Paternain

    Xi Chen, Matti Lassas, Lauri Oksanen, and Gabriel P. Paternain. Inverse problem for the Yang–Mills equations. Communications in Mathematical Physics , 384(2):1187–1225, 2021

    2021

  18. [22]

    Diffraction from conormal singularities

    Maarten de Hoop, Gunther Uhlmann, and Andr´ as Vasy. Diffraction from conormal singularities. Annales Sci- entifiques de l ' ´Ecole Normale Sup´ erieure, 48(2):351–408, 2015

    2015

  19. [23]

    Nonlinear interaction of waves in elastodynamics and an inverse problem

    Maarten de Hoop, Gunther Uhlmann, and Yiran Wang. Nonlinear interaction of waves in elastodynamics and an inverse problem. Mathematische Annalen, 376(1-2):765–795, 2019

    2019

  20. [24]

    Nonlinear responses from the interaction of two pro- gressing waves at an interface

    Maarten de Hoop, Gunther Uhlmann, and Yiran Wang. Nonlinear responses from the interaction of two pro- gressing waves at an interface. Annales de l 'Institut Henri Poincar´ e C, Analyse Non Lin´ eaire, 36(2):347–363, 2019

    2019

  21. [25]

    Differential geometry of lightlike submanifolds

    Krishan L Duggal and Bayram Sahin. Differential geometry of lightlike submanifolds . Springer Science & Busi- ness Media, 2011

    2011

  22. [26]

    J. J. Duistermaat. Fourier Integral Operators. Springer Basel AG, 2010

    2010

  23. [28]

    Recovery of zeroth order coefficients in non-linear wave equations

    Ali Feizmohammadi and Lauri Oksanen. Recovery of zeroth order coefficients in non-linear wave equations. Journal of the Institute of Mathematics of Jussieu , pages 1–27, 2020

    2020

  24. [29]

    F. G. Friedlander. Radiation fields and hyperbolic scattering theory. Math. Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc. , 88:483–515, 1980

    1980

  25. [30]

    F. G. Friedlander. Notes on the wave equation on asymptotically euclidean manifolds. Journ. of Func. Anal. , 184(1):1–18, 2001

    2001

  26. [31]

    Estimates for singular Radon transforms and pseudodifferential oper- ators with singular symbols

    Allan Greenleaf and Gunther Uhlmann. Estimates for singular Radon transforms and pseudodifferential oper- ators with singular symbols. Journal of Functional Analysis , 89(1):202–232, 1990

    1990

  27. [32]

    Recovering singularities of a potential from singularities of scattering data

    Allan Greenleaf and Gunther Uhlmann. Recovering singularities of a potential from singularities of scattering data. Communications in Mathematical Physics , 157(3):549–572, 1993

    1993

  28. [33]

    Guillemin and G

    V. Guillemin and G. Uhlmann. Oscillatory integrals with singular symbols. Duke Mathematical Journal , 48(1), mar 1981

    1981

  29. [35]

    An inverse boundary value problem for a semilinear wave equation on Lorentzian manifolds

    Peter Hintz, Gunther Uhlmann, and Jian Zhai. An inverse boundary value problem for a semilinear wave equation on Lorentzian manifolds. International Mathematics Research Notices, arXiv:2005.10447 , 2021. INVERSE NONLINEAR SCATTERING 61

    2005 arXiv

  30. [36]

    The dirichlet-to-neumann map for a semilinear wave equation on lorentzian manifolds

    Peter Hintz, Gunther Uhlmann, and Jian Zhai. The dirichlet-to-neumann map for a semilinear wave equation on lorentzian manifolds. Communications in Partial Differential Equations , 47(12):2363–2400, 2022

    2022

  31. [37]

    Semilinear wave equations on asymptotically de sitter, kerr–de sitter and minkowski spacetimes

    Peter Hintz and Andr´ as Vasy. Semilinear wave equations on asymptotically de sitter, kerr–de sitter and minkowski spacetimes. Analysis & PDE , 8(8):1807–1890, 2015

    2015

  32. [38]

    H¨ ormander.The Analysis of Linear Partial Differential Operators IV

    L. H¨ ormander.The Analysis of Linear Partial Differential Operators IV. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, New York, 1990

    1990

  33. [39]

    H¨ ormander

    L. H¨ ormander. On the uniqueness of the cauchy problem under partial analyticity assumptions. InGeometrical Optics and Related Topics (Cortona, 1996) , volume 32 of Progress in Nonlinear Differential Equations and Their Applications, pages 179–219. Birkh¨ auser Boston, Boston...

    1996

  34. [40]

    A remark on the characteristic cauchy problem

    Lars H¨ ormander. A remark on the characteristic cauchy problem. Journal of Functional Analysis , 93:270–277, 1990

    1990

  35. [41]

    Classics in Mathematics

    Lars H¨ ormander.The Analysis of Linear Partial Differential Operators III . Classics in Mathematics. Springer, Berlin, 2007. Pseudo-differential operators, Reprint of the 1994 edition

    2007

  36. [42]

    Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2009

    Lars H¨ ormander.The Analysis of Linear Partial Differential Operators IV . Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2009

    2009

  37. [43]

    Isozaki, Y

    H. Isozaki, Y. Kurylev, and M. Lassas. Recent progress of inverse scattering theory on non-compact manifolds. In Inverse Problems and Applications , volume 615 of Contemporary Mathematics , pages 143–163. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2014

    2014

  38. [44]

    Inverse problem for Einstein-scalar field equations

    Yaroslav Kurylev, Matti Lassas, Lauri Oksanen, and Gunther Uhlmann. Inverse problem for Einstein-scalar field equations. To appear in Duke Mathematical Journal, arXiv:1406.4776 , 2014

    2014 arXiv

  39. [45]

    Inverse problems in spacetime I: Inverse problems for Einstein equations - extended preprint version

    Yaroslav Kurylev, Matti Lassas, and Gunther Uhlmann. Inverse problems in spacetime I: Inverse problems for Einstein equations - extended preprint version. arXiv:1405.4503, 2014

    2014 arXiv

  40. [47]

    Reconstruction of the collision kernel in the nonlinear Boltzmann equation

    Ru-Yu Lai, Gunther Uhlmann, and Yang Yang. Reconstruction of the collision kernel in the nonlinear Boltzmann equation. SIAM Journal on Mathematical Analysis , 53(1):1049–1069, 2021

    2021

  41. [48]

    Inverse problems for linear and non-linear hyperbolic equations

    Matti Lassas. Inverse problems for linear and non-linear hyperbolic equations. InProceedings of the International Congress of Mathematicians: Rio de Janeiro 2018 , pages 3751–3771. World Scientific, 2018

    2018

  42. [49]

    Determination of vacuum space-times from the Einstein- Maxwell equations

    Matti Lassas, Gunther Uhlmann, and Yiran Wang. Determination of vacuum space-times from the Einstein- Maxwell equations. arXiv:1703.10704, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  43. [50]

    Inverse problems for semilinear wave equations on Lorentzian manifolds

    Matti Lassas, Gunther Uhlmann, and Yiran Wang. Inverse problems for semilinear wave equations on Lorentzian manifolds. Communications in Mathematical Physics , 360(2):555–609, 2018

    2018

  44. [51]

    R. B. Melrose and G. A. Uhlmann. Lagrangian intersection and the Cauchy problem. Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics , 32(4):483–519, 1979

    1979

  45. [52]

    Interaction of nonlinear progressing waves for semilinear wave equations

    Richard Melrose and Nadine Ritter. Interaction of nonlinear progressing waves for semilinear wave equations. Annals of Mathematics, Second Series , 121(1):187–213, Jan 1985

    1985

  46. [53]

    Semi-Riemannian geometry : with applications to relativity

    Barrett Neill. Semi-Riemannian geometry : with applications to relativity . Academic Press, New York, 1983

    1983

  47. [54]

    On lars h¨ ormander’s remark on the characteristic cauchy problem

    Jean-Pierre Nicolas. On lars h¨ ormander’s remark on the characteristic cauchy problem. Annales de l’Institut Fourier (Grenoble), 56:517–543, 2006

    2006

  48. [55]

    R. Penrose. Asymptotic properties of fields and space-times. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 10:66–68, 1963

    1963

  49. [56]

    R. Penrose. Conformal treatment of infinity. In Relativit´ e, Groupes et Topologie (Lectures, Les Houches, 1963 Summer School of Theoret. Phys., Univ. Grenoble) , pages 563–584. Gordon and Breach, New York, 1964

    1963

  50. [57]

    Calcul symbolique non lin´ eaire pour une onde conormale simple

    Alain Piriou. Calcul symbolique non lin´ eaire pour une onde conormale simple. Annales de l’institut Fourier , 38(4):173–187, 1988

    1988

  51. [58]

    Rauch and M

    J. Rauch and M. Reed. Singularities produced by the nonlinear interaction of three progressing waves; examples. Comm. Partial Differential Equations , 7(9):1117–1133, 1982

    1982

  52. [59]

    Inverse scattering for critical semilinear wave equa- tions

    Antˆ onio S´ a Barreto, Gunther Uhlmann, and Yiran Wang. Inverse scattering for critical semilinear wave equa- tions. Pure and Applied Analysis , 4(2):191–223, 2022

    2022

  53. [61]

    D. Tataru. Unique continuation for solutions to pde’s: Between h¨ ormander’s theorem and holmgren’s theorem. Comm. Partial Differential Equations , 20:855–884, 1995

    1995

  54. [62]

    D. Tataru. Unique continuation for operators with partially analytic coefficients. Journal de Math´ ematiques Pures et Appliqu´ ees, 78:505–521, 1999

    1999

  55. [63]

    Pseudodifferential Operators (PMS-34)

    Michael Eugene Taylor. Pseudodifferential Operators (PMS-34). Princeton University Press, 2017. 62 HINTZ, S ´A BARRETO, UHLMANN, AND ZHANG

    2017

  56. [64]

    Determining Riemannian manifolds from nonlinear wave observations at a single point

    Leo Tzou. Determining Riemannian manifolds from nonlinear wave observations at a single point. arXiv:2102.01841, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  57. [65]

    On the block-decomposability of 1-parameter matrix flows and static matrices

    Frank Uhlig. On the block-decomposability of 1-parameter matrix flows and static matrices. Numerical Algo- rithms, (2):529–549, 2022

    2022

  58. [66]

    Reconstruction of lorentzian manifolds from null cone light observation sets

    Alexander Uhlmann. Reconstruction of lorentzian manifolds from null cone light observation sets. 2022

    2022

  59. [67]

    G. Uhlmann. Developments in inverse problems since calder´ on’s foundational paper. In Harmonic analysis and partial differential equations (Chicago, IL, 1996) , Chicago Lectures in Math., pages 295–345. Univ. Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, 1999

    1996

  60. [68]

    G. Uhlmann. Inverse problems: seeing the unseen. Bull. Math. Sci. , 4(2):209–279, 2014

    2014

  61. [69]

    Determination of space-time structures from gravitational perturbations

    Gunther Uhlmann and Yiran Wang. Determination of space-time structures from gravitational perturbations. Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics , 73(6):1315–1367, 2020

    2020

  62. [70]

    Inverse problems for nonlinear hyperbolic equations

    Gunther Uhlmann and Jian Zhai. Inverse problems for nonlinear hyperbolic equations. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - A , 41(1):455–469, 2021

    2021

  63. [71]

    On an inverse boundary value problem for a nonlinear elastic wave equation

    Gunther Uhlmann and Jian Zhai. On an inverse boundary value problem for a nonlinear elastic wave equation. Journal de Math´ ematiques Pures et Appliqu´ ees, 153:114–136, 2021

    2021

  64. [72]

    Inverse boundary value problems for wave equations with quadratic non- linearities

    Gunther Uhlmann and Yang Zhang. Inverse boundary value problems for wave equations with quadratic non- linearities. Journal of Differential Equations , 309:558–607, 2022

    2022

  65. [73]

    An inverse boundary value problem arising in nonlinear acoustics

    Gunther Uhlmann and Yang Zhang. An inverse boundary value problem arising in nonlinear acoustics. SIAM Journal on Mathematical Analysis , 55(2):1364–1404, 2023

    2023

  66. [74]

    Inverse problems for quadratic derivative nonlinear wave equations

    Yiran Wang and Ting Zhou. Inverse problems for quadratic derivative nonlinear wave equations. Communica- tions in Partial Differential Equations , 44(11):1140–1158, 2019

    2019

  67. [75]

    Nonlinear acoustic imaging with damping

    Yang Zhang. Nonlinear acoustic imaging with damping. arXiv preprint, arXiv:2302.14174 , 2023. Peter Hintz ETH Zurich, Department of Mathematics, Group 5 HG G 62.2 R ¨amistrasse 101 8092 Zurich, Switzerland Email address : peter.hintz@math.ethz.ch Antˆonio S´a Barreto Departmen...

    2023 arXiv

Pith tools

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