Shock-type singularity of the hyperbolic-parabolic chemotaxis system

Woojae Lee

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 26 references

Shock-type singularity of the hyperbolic-parabolic chemotaxis system

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · 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 one-dimensional hyperbolic-parabolic chemotaxis system can develop a shock-type cusp singularity in finite time from smooth initial data, with explicit bounds on the blow-up time and location.

desk verdict First rigorous construction of a cusp-type (shock) singularity for the hyperbolic-parabolic chemotaxis system, on a plausible B-S-V-style bootstrap that has two written gaps: a likely m >= 5 vs m <= 3 typo in Theorem 4.1 and an asserted-but-unproved local well-posedness step for the modulation ODEs. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.09656 v1 pith:F4JVTYOA submitted 2025-01-16 math.AP

Woojae Lee This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.AP MSC 35B4435Q9235L67

keywords hyperbolic-parabolicchemotaxisfinite-timeblow-upshock-typesingularitycuspself-similarprofileBurgersvasculogenesismodulationanalysis

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 establish the first blow-up analysis for the one-dimensional hyperbolic-parabolic chemotaxis system that models early vascular network formation. Building on numerical evidence that cells accumulate along network edges rather than in Dirac peaks, the author constructs smooth initial data for which the solution develops a shock-type singularity in finite time. The transformed density and velocity $(q,u)$ stay bounded while their spatial gradients diverge like $1/(T^*-t)$, and at the unique blow-up time the profile has a cusp singularity of $C^{1/3}$ regularity, while the chemoattractant concentration remains $C^2$. If the construction is correct, it provides a concrete predicted shape for the first singularity and a route to similar blow-up profiles in other hyperbolic-parabolic systems.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by a self-similar modulation analysis. Riemann-type variables $w=u+q+\kappa_0/2$ and $z=u-q+\kappa_0/2$ rewrite the system as damped transport equations, and the change of variables $y=(x-\xi(t))/(\tau(t)-t)^{3/2}$, $s=-\ln(\tau(t)-t)$ converts finite-time blow-up into a global-in-$s$ stability problem. The reference profile is the steady self-similar Burgers solution $\bar W$, which satisfies $\bar W(0)=0$ and $\partial_y\bar W(0)=-1$ and solves $-\frac12\bar W+(\frac32 y+\bar W)\partial_y\bar W=0$. Modulation variables $\kappa,\tau,\xi$ are fixed by imposing these constraints on $W$ at $y=0$, and a bootstrap argument shows $W$ remains close to $\bar W$ in weighted norms while the modulation ODEs determine $T^*$ and $x^*$.

What would settle it

Take smooth initial data satisfying (3.5)--(3.9) for a fixed small $\epsilon$, solve the 1D HPC system with high resolution, and measure the first time at which $\max|q_x|$ and $\max|u_x|$ exceed a large threshold. The theorem predicts that time is at most $\frac32\epsilon$ and that the terminal profile has $w_x(x,T^*)\sim -|x-x^*|^{-2/3}$; observing a different exponent, a second blow-up point, or a blow-up time outside the stated bound would refute the construction.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Theorem 3.1: for smooth initial data satisfying (3.3)--(3.13), there is a unique smooth solution of the HPC system (1.3) that blows up at a finite time $T^*$ with $|T^*| \le \frac32\epsilon$ and at a unique point $x^*$ with $|x^*| \le 6M\epsilon$. The tracked spatial slope satisfies $w_x(\xi(t),t)\to -\infty$ with $\|w_x\|_{L^\infty} \sim 1/(T^*-t)$, while at the blow-up time $w_x(x,T^*) \sim -|x-x^*|^{-2/3}$ for $|x-x^*|<1$, so $w(x,T^*)$ behaves like $-(x-x^*)^{1/3}$. The chemoattractant $\varphi$ is $C^2$ and the companion variable $z$ is $C^1$ up to $T^*$, and the solution is stable in $H^m$ for $m\ge 5$ before the singularity forms.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the ordinary differential equations (5.4)--(5.6) that track the blow-up time and blow-up location have a unique solution up to the singular time; Section 5 announces this local well-posedness as a consequence of the earlier Sobolev well-posedness but gives no proof, and the coefficients of those ODEs are themselves evolving quantities controlled by the same bootstrap.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

$q_x$ and $u_x$ both diverge to $-\infty$ at the blow-up point, with $\|w_x\|_{L^\infty}$ growing like $1/(T^*-t)$ as $t\to T^*$.
At the first singularity, $w_x(x,T^*)\sim -|x-x^*|^{-2/3}$ for $|x-x^*|<1$, so the profile is a cusp $-(x-x^*)^{1/3}$ rather than a Dirac mass.
Before the singularity the solution is $H^m$-stable for $m\ge 5$, and away from $x^*$ the system remains $C^1$; $\varphi$ is $C^2$ and $z$ is $C^1$ up to $T^*$.
The estimates locate the singularity quantitatively: $|T^*|\le \frac32\epsilon$ and $|x^*|\le 6M\epsilon$, so the construction predicts both when and where the first cusp appears.

Reading between the lines

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

Editorial extension: the same modulation/bootstrap route should transfer to other hyperbolic-parabolic systems with a diffusing agent, because the main obstacle identified here, namely that the parabolic component destroys finite speed of propagation, is structural rather than specific to chemotaxis.
Direct testable corollary: a numerical experiment starting from data obeying (3.5)--(3.9) should see the first singularity occur within $|T^*|\le \frac32\epsilon$ and $|x^*|\le 6M\epsilon$ with terminal exponent $-2/3$; no such experiment appears in the paper.
Neighbouring problem: the proof suggests that increasing the damping $\beta$ forces $\epsilon$ smaller, so stronger friction should delay or suppress the shock-type event; comparing simulations at different $\beta$ would test this quantitative dependence.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

You should know this paper is the first rigorous construction of a cusp-type singularity for the hyperbolic-parabolic chemotaxis system, and the construction is plausible, but the written proof has two gaps that need patching before the result is fully trustworthy.

What is genuinely new: the modulation/self-similar framework is from Buckmaster-Shkoller-Vicol, but the application is not a routine transplant. The parabolic chemoattractant component breaks finite speed of propagation, and the author's response is a set of weighted heat-kernel decay estimates (Section 8.2) combined with particle-trajectory bounds that control the hyperbolic-parabolic coupling. The bootstrap in Sections 7-8 is long, detailed, and mostly coherent, and the final output is sharp: w_x ~ -|x-x*|^{-2/3}, phi has C^2 regularity, and the blow-up time and location are estimated explicitly. I found no circularity: the profile W comes from prior independent work, the theorem's quantitative outputs are not fed back in, and the initial data are constructed near the stable manifold with explicit assumptions.

The two soft spots, in order of size. First, Theorem 4.1 is stated for m <= 3, while the main theorem needs H^m for m >= 5. The proof's energy estimates nowhere use m <= 3, and Remark 4.1 suggests the intended range is m > d/2 + 2, so this is almost certainly a typo for m >= 3. It still has to be fixed: as stated, the local well-posedness theorem does not cover the paper's own initial data.

Second, and more substantively, the stress-test note lands: Section 5 says "we now demonstrate the local well-posedness of the system consisting of (5.4) and (5.6)," and no demonstration follows. Those ODEs for (tau, xi) are derived from the constraints W(0,s)=0, ∂_y W(0,s)=-1, ∂_y^2 W(0,s)=0, but to use them one must show the constraints are solvable along the actual solution, an implicit-function step that needs the nondegeneracy ∂_y^3 W(0,s) != 0, which is itself only a bootstrap assumption (6.3b), closed later in Proposition 7.5. This is a genuine missing lemma, standard in the B-S-V framework and very likely repairable, but it is load-bearing: the estimates on T* - t and x* rest on it. The author should supply the argument or cite the analogous lemma in [4,5]. The typo-level issues ('Φ estiamtes', 'Unform spatial decay estimates', skipped n=1 in a section header) are minor.

Bottom line: this deserves a serious referee. With the modulation lemma added and Theorem 4.1 corrected, I would expect acceptance. The result is a significant within-field advance, and the parabolic coupling genuinely distinguishes it from the Euler case. I would bring it to a reading group and cite it if I worked on chemotaxis blow-up.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies the one-dimensional hyperbolic-parabolic chemotaxis system (1.3) and claims to construct a finite-time shock-type singularity from smooth initial data. The main result, Theorem 3.1, asserts that under assumptions (3.3)-(3.13) with m>=5 the solution remains smooth in H^m before the first singularity, that w_x, q_x and u_x blow up like 1/(T*-t) at a unique point x*, and that at T* the profiles w and z have a cusp singularity with w_x(x,T*) ~ -|x-x*|^{-2/3} while phi is C^2. The proof uses self-similar variables and modulation parameters (tau, xi, kappa) analogous to the Buckmaster-Shkoller-Vicol shock-formation program, with W the stable self-similar Burgers profile, and closes a bootstrap for the perturbation ~W, Z, Phi and the weighted density/velocity variables.

Significance. If the result is correct, this is the first rigorous construction of a detailed blow-up profile for the hyperbolic-parabolic chemotaxis system, going beyond norm-inflation statements and providing explicit estimates for the blow-up time, location and the cusp exponent. The strategy of transplanting self-similar modulation analysis from compressible Euler to a hyperbolic-parabolic system is potentially valuable. The manuscript contains many explicit bootstrap propositions and quantitative bounds, and it is careful about initial-data constraints (3.5)-(3.13). However, two load-bearing gaps, described below, currently prevent the proof from being considered complete.

major comments (3)

[Section 4, Theorem 4.1] The statement of Theorem 4.1 restricts the smoothness parameter to "m <= 3", but the main theorem and the whole bootstrap require m >= 5; for instance Proposition 7.2 estimates derivatives of Phi up to order five, and Section 8 uses derivatives of ~W up to order four in the H^m framework. As written, Theorem 4.1 does not provide the local well-posedness needed for the initial data in (3.3)-(3.13), and Theorem 4.2 inherits the conflict because it assumes 3 <= l <= m-1. If "m <= 3" is a typo, the statement and proof must be corrected to the actual range; otherwise the H^m-stability claim in Theorem 3.1(1) is unsupported.
[Section 5, Eqs. (5.4)-(5.6)] After deriving the modulation ODEs (5.4)-(5.6), the text says "we now demonstrate the local well-posedness of the system", but no proof or reference follows. The right-hand sides involve d_y Z(0,s), d_y^2 Z(0,s) and d_y^2 Phi(0,s), quantities whose control is itself part of the bootstrap (Propositions 7.3, 7.2 and 8.3). More importantly, the ODEs are derived from the constraints (5.1), so the existence of tau(t) and xi(t) requires a nondegeneracy proof that these constraints can be solved for the actual solution; Proposition 7.5 only controls d_y^3 W(0,s) after the fact. Without such a proof, the bootstrap estimates for tau and xi in Proposition 7.1, and therefore the estimates |T*| <= 3 epsilon/2 and |x*| <= 6 M epsilon in Theorem 3.1(2), are not grounded.
[Section 9.1] The pointwise definition of w_x(x,T*) for x != x* is not actually carried out. The text says "Since similar arguments hold for w_x(x,T*) when x != x*, we focus solely on z_x(.,T*)", but the proof for z_x uses the z-characteristics and the L^1 bounds (9.3), while equation (9.1a) for w_x contains the self-amplifying term w_x^2 and requires a separate argument to show that w_x has a finite pointwise limit and equals the derivative of w. This is needed for Theorem 3.1(5) and for the cusp description in Theorem 3.1(4), so an independent argument or a precise reduction to the z-case is necessary.

minor comments (5)

[Section 7.2] The section heading contains a spelling error: "estiamtes" should be "estimates".
[Theorem 3.1(1)] The displayed regularity line contains a stray semicolon and a typesetting error in "L2(0,T*); dot H^{m+2}"; it should read L^2((0,T*); dot H^{m+2}).
[Lemma 7.6] The displayed definition of D appears to be missing parentheses in the integrand; it should presumably be an expression of the form (1+|e^{s'/2}-e^{s*/2}|^2)^{-1/3}, and the subsequent change of variables uses an integrand that does not match the printed formula as written.
[Proposition 8.3] The statement of Proposition 8.3 does not include the closing bound on d_y^2 Phi; that bound appears only in the paragraph after the proof. Please restate the proposition so that the closure of the bootstrap assumption (6.6) is explicit.
[Throughout] There are several proofreading slips, including "self-seimilar", "Fa´ a-di-Bruno", and the inconsistent reference to "Theorem (4.1)"; a careful editorial pass is needed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular reasoning found: the blow-up construction is self-contained, with the one notable gap (unproved local well-posedness of the modulation ODEs) being a correctness issue rather than a circular reduction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. The self-similar Burgers profile W and its quantitative estimates (Lemma 2.1) are imported from prior independent work (references [5,26]), not from the present paper. The modulation variables (τ,ξ,κ) are introduced through the constraints (5.1) and the ODEs (5.4),(5.6) are derived from those constraints; the theorem's quantitative outputs (T* ≤ 3ε/2, |x*| ≤ 6Mε, cusp exponent −2/3) are then obtained by closing bootstrap estimates on the actual solution, not by feeding those outputs back in. The initial data are chosen near W with a prescribed negative slope −1/ε, but the proof genuinely establishes the subsequent dynamics from that data; the blow-up rate ‖w_x‖_{L∞} ∼ 1/(T*−t) follows from the e^s scaling together with the boundedness of ‖∂_yW‖_{L∞}, not from an assumed rate. No equation was found in which a claimed prediction is identical by construction to an input, and no load-bearing self-citation or imported uniqueness theorem is used. The one notable deficiency is that Section 5 states 'we now demonstrate the local well-posedness of the system consisting of (5.4) and (5.6)' but no proof or reference follows; the right-hand sides involve bootstrap unknowns such as ∂²_yΦ(0,s) and ∂_yZ(0,s). This is a genuine proof gap in the modulation construction, but it is a correctness risk rather than a circular step, because the modulation ODEs are auxiliary definitions derived from constraints, not the conclusions of the main theorem. Accordingly, the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The proof introduces modulation variables, Riemann invariants, and self-similar coordinates, but these are analytical tools, not new physical entities. The only hand-chosen parameters are epsilon, M, and kappa0, all part of the theorem's quantifier structure rather than fitted data.

free parameters (3)

epsilon (initial slope scale) = small, 0 < epsilon << 1, chosen after M
Controls the initial maximal negative slope -1/epsilon and the blow-up time and location scales. It is a small parameter in the construction, not fitted to external data.
M (bootstrap largeness) = large, M = M(alpha, beta, kappa0)
Used throughout the bootstrap assumptions (6.1)-(6.12) and chosen sufficiently large to absorb constants; the quantitative estimates in Theorem 3.1 depend on M.
kappa0 (initial amplitude threshold) = kappa0 >= 5(1+alpha)/alpha
Sets the background density and the size of the damping coefficient; chosen large by assumption (3.2) to make the proof work.

assumptions (4)

standard math Sobolev product and commutator inequalities (Lemma 4.1), heat kernel estimates (Lemmas 7.1, 8.1), Aubin-Lions, Gronwall, Gagliardo-Nirenberg-Sobolev inequalities.
These underpin the energy estimates and decay estimates in Sections 4, 7, and 8; cited to [3,12] and other standard references.
standard math Properties of the self-similar Burgers profile W in Lemma 2.1.
The profile (2.1) and its derivative bounds are imported from [5,26]; these bounds drive the bootstrap and the cusp analysis.
domain assumption Existence of smooth initial data satisfying the constraints (3.5)-(3.13).
The theorem quantifies over such data; the paper does not explicitly construct a family, but the constraints are compatible with W scaling and O(1) data.
domain assumption Pressure law P(rho) = rho^gamma / gamma with gamma > 1 and parameter normalization a = mu = D = b = 1.
This is the specific HPC model (1.2) being studied; the normalization is stated in Section 1 and does not restrict the result.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Shock-type singularity of the hyperbolic-parabolic chemotaxis system." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/F4JVTYOA

@misc{pith2026250109656,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Shock-type singularity of the hyperbolic-parabolic chemotaxis system},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/F4JVTYOA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.09656}
}

abstract

This paper deals with the hyperbolic-parabolic chemotaxis (HPC) model, which is a hydrodynamic model describing vascular network formation at the early stage of the vasculature. We study analytically the singularity formation associated with the shock-type structure, which was numerically observed by Filbet, Lauren{\c{c}}ot, and Perthame \cite{filbet2005derivation} and Filbet and Shu \cite{filbet2005approximation}. We construct the blow-up profile in a 1D HPC system on $\mathbb{R}$ as follows: The blow-up profile is stable in the sense of $H^m$ topology ($m\geq 5$) prior to the occurrence of the singularity. For the first singularity, while the density and velocity $(\rho, u)$ of endothelial cells themselves remain bounded, the gradients of the density and velocity blow up. The chemoattractant concentration $\phi$ has $C^2$ regularity. However, the density and velocity with $C^ {\frac{1}{3}}$ regularity exhibit a cusp singularity at a unique blow-up point, the location and time of which are explicitly estimated. Furthermore, the HPC system is $C^1$ differentiable except in any neighborhood of the blow-up point.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

26 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages

[1]

A review of vasculogenesis models

Ambrosi, Davide and Bussolino, Federico and Preziosi, L uigi. A review of vasculogenesis models. Journal of Theoretical Medicine, 6(1):1–19, 2005

work page 2005
[2]

Structure of singularities for the Euler-Poisson system of ion dynami cs

Bae, Junsik and Kim, Yunjoo and Kwon, Bongsuk. Structure of singularities for the Euler-Poisson system of ion dynami cs. Preprint, 2024. arXiv:2405.02557

arXiv 2024
[3]

Fourier Analysis and Nonlinear Partial Diﬀerential Eq ua- tions

Bahouri, Hajer and Chemin, Jean-Yves and Danchin, Rapha ¨ el. Fourier Analysis and Nonlinear Partial Diﬀerential Eq ua- tions. Springer

work page
[4]

Formation of point shocks for 3D compressible Euler Communi- cations on Pure and Applied Mathematics , 76(9):2073–2191, 2023

Buckmaster, Tristan and Shkoller, Steve and Vicol, Vlad . Formation of point shocks for 3D compressible Euler Communi- cations on Pure and Applied Mathematics , 76(9):2073–2191, 2023

work page 2023
[5]

Formation of shocks for 2D isentropic compressible Euler

Buckmaster, Tristan and Shkoller, Steve and Vicol, Vlad . Formation of shocks for 2D isentropic compressible Euler. Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics 75(9):2069–2120, 2022

work page 2022
[6]

Shock formation and vorticity creation for 3d Euler, Communi- cations on Pure and Applied Mathematics , 76(9):1965–2072, 2023

Buckmaster, Tristan and Shkoller, Steve and Vicol, Vlad . Shock formation and vorticity creation for 3d Euler, Communi- cations on Pure and Applied Mathematics , 76(9):1965–2072, 2023

work page 1965
[7]

The onset of inst ability in unsteady boundary-layer separation

Cassel, KW and Smith, FT and W alker, JDA. The onset of inst ability in unsteady boundary-layer separation. Journal of Fluid Mechanics , 315:223–256, 1996

work page 1996
[8]

Kinetic and hydrodynamic models of chemotactic aggregation

Chavanis, Pierre-Henri and Sire, Cl´ ement. Kinetic and hydrodynamic models of chemotactic aggregation. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications , 384(2):199–222, 2007

work page 2007

Show all 26 references

[9]

Singularity formation for Burgers equation with transv erse viscosity

Collot, Charles and Ghoul, Tej-Eddine and Masmoudi, Nad er. Singularity formation for Burgers equation with transv erse viscosity. Preprint, 2018. arXiv:1803.07826

2018 arXiv
[10]

The Hyperbolic-Parabolic Chemotaxis System for Vascul o- genesis: Global Dynamics and Relaxation Limit Toward a Kell er–Segel Model

Crin-Barat, Timoth´ ee and He, Qingyou and Shou, Ling-Y un. The Hyperbolic-Parabolic Chemotaxis System for Vascul o- genesis: Global Dynamics and Relaxation Limit Toward a Kell er–Segel Model. SIAM Journal on Mathematical Analysis , 55(5):4445–4492, 2023

2023
[11]

The role of self-sim ilarity in singularities of partial diﬀerential equations

Eggers, Jens and Fontelos, Marco A. The role of self-sim ilarity in singularities of partial diﬀerential equations . Nonlinearity 22(1), 2008

2008
[12]

Partial diﬀerential equations

Evans, Lawrence C. Partial diﬀerential equations. Ame rican Mathematical Society 19, 2022

2022
[13]

Derivation of hyperbolic models for chemosensitive move- ment

Filbet, Francis and Lauren¸ cot, Philippe and Perthame , Beno ˆ ıt. Derivation of hyperbolic models for chemosensitive move- ment. Journal of Mathematical Biology , 50(2):189–207, 2005

2005
[14]

Approximation of hy perbolic models for chemosensitive movement

Filbet, Francis and Shu, Chi-W ang. Approximation of hy perbolic models for chemosensitive movement. SIAM Journal on Scientiﬁc Computing , 27(3):850–872, 2005

2005
[15]

Percola tion, morphogenesis, and Burgers dynamics in blood vessels formation

Gamba, A and Ambrosi, D and Coniglio, Antonio and de Cand ia, Antonio and Di Talia, S and Giraudo, Enrico and Serini, Guido and Preziosi, Luigi and Bussolino, Federico. Percola tion, morphogenesis, and Burgers dynamics in blood vessels formation. Physical review letters , 90(1...

2003
[16]

Nonlinear stability of phase transition steady states to a hyperbolic–parabolic system modeling va scular networks

Hong, Guangyi and Peng, Hongyun and W ang, Zhi-An and Zhu , Changjiang. Nonlinear stability of phase transition steady states to a hyperbolic–parabolic system modeling va scular networks. Journal of the London Mathematical Society , 103(4):1480–1514, 2021

2021
[17]

Asymp totic stability of diﬀusion waves of a quasi-linear hyperbo lic- parabolic model for vasculogenesis

Liu, Qingqing and Peng, Hongyun and W ang, Zhi-An. Asymp totic stability of diﬀusion waves of a quasi-linear hyperbo lic- parabolic model for vasculogenesis. SIAM Journal on Mathematical Analysis , 54(1):1313–1346, 2022

2022
[18]

Conve rgence to nonlinear diﬀusion waves for a hyperbolic-parabo lic chemotaxis system modelling vasculogenesis

Liu, Qingqing and Peng, Hongyun and W ang, Zhi-An. Conve rgence to nonlinear diﬀusion waves for a hyperbolic-parabo lic chemotaxis system modelling vasculogenesis. Journal of Diﬀerential Equations , 314:251–286, 2022

2022
[19]

Vort icity and incompressible ﬂow

Majda, Andrew J and Bertozzi, Andrea L and Ogawa, A. Vort icity and incompressible ﬂow. Cambridge texts in applied mathematics. Appl. Mech. Rev. , 55(4), 2002

2002
[20]

Asymptotics for L2 minimal blow-up solutions of critical nonlinear Schr¨ odinger equation

Merle, Frank. Asymptotics for L2 minimal blow-up solutions of critical nonlinear Schr¨ odinger equation. Annales de l’Institut Henri Poincar´ e C, Analyse non lin´ eaire, 13(50):553–565,1996

1996
[21]

The blow-up dynamic a nd upper bound on the blow-up rate for critical nonlinear Schr¨ odinger equation.Annals of mathematics , 157–222, 2005

Merle, Frank and Raphael, Pierre. The blow-up dynamic a nd upper bound on the blow-up rate for critical nonlinear Schr¨ odinger equation.Annals of mathematics , 157–222, 2005

2005
[22]

On strongly anisotropic type I blowup

Merle, Frank and Rapha¨ el, Pierre and Szeftel, Jeremie . On strongly anisotropic type I blowup. International Mathematics Research Notices, 2020(2):541–606, 2020

2020
[23]

Stability of the blow-up p roﬁle for equations of the type ut = ∆ u + |u|p− 1u

Merle, Frank and Zaag, Hatem. Stability of the blow-up p roﬁle for equations of the type ut = ∆ u + |u|p− 1u. Duke Mathematical Journal , 86(1):143–195, 1997

1997
[24]

Gradient blow -up for dispersive and dissipative perturbations of the Bur gers equation

Oh, Sung-Jin and Pasqualotto, Federico. Gradient blow -up for dispersive and dissipative perturbations of the Bur gers equation. Archive for Rational Mechanics and Analysis , 248(3):54, 2024

2024
[25]

Existence and asym ptotic behavior of solutions to a quasi-linear hyperbolic- parabolic model of vasculogenesis

Russo, Cristiana Di and Sepe, Alice. Existence and asym ptotic behavior of solutions to a quasi-linear hyperbolic- parabolic model of vasculogenesis. SIAM Journal on Mathematical Analysis , 45(2):748–776, 2013

2013
[26]

Shock Formation of the Burgers–Hilbert Equation

Yang, Ruoxuan. Shock Formation of the Burgers–Hilbert Equation. SIAM Journal on Mathematical Analysis , 53(5):5756– 5802, 2021. (Woojae Lee) Department of Mathematics Yonsei University, 50 Yonsei-Ro, Seodaemun-Gu, Seoul 03722, R epublic of Korea Email address: woori0108@yonsei.ac.kr

2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

A review of vasculogenesis models

Ambrosi, Davide and Bussolino, Federico and Preziosi, L uigi. A review of vasculogenesis models. Journal of Theoretical Medicine, 6(1):1–19, 2005

work page 2005

[2] [2]

Structure of singularities for the Euler-Poisson system of ion dynami cs

Bae, Junsik and Kim, Yunjoo and Kwon, Bongsuk. Structure of singularities for the Euler-Poisson system of ion dynami cs. Preprint, 2024. arXiv:2405.02557

arXiv 2024

[3] [3]

Fourier Analysis and Nonlinear Partial Diﬀerential Eq ua- tions

Bahouri, Hajer and Chemin, Jean-Yves and Danchin, Rapha ¨ el. Fourier Analysis and Nonlinear Partial Diﬀerential Eq ua- tions. Springer

work page

[4] [4]

Formation of point shocks for 3D compressible Euler Communi- cations on Pure and Applied Mathematics , 76(9):2073–2191, 2023

Buckmaster, Tristan and Shkoller, Steve and Vicol, Vlad . Formation of point shocks for 3D compressible Euler Communi- cations on Pure and Applied Mathematics , 76(9):2073–2191, 2023

work page 2023

[5] [5]

Formation of shocks for 2D isentropic compressible Euler

Buckmaster, Tristan and Shkoller, Steve and Vicol, Vlad . Formation of shocks for 2D isentropic compressible Euler. Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics 75(9):2069–2120, 2022

work page 2022

[6] [6]

Shock formation and vorticity creation for 3d Euler, Communi- cations on Pure and Applied Mathematics , 76(9):1965–2072, 2023

Buckmaster, Tristan and Shkoller, Steve and Vicol, Vlad . Shock formation and vorticity creation for 3d Euler, Communi- cations on Pure and Applied Mathematics , 76(9):1965–2072, 2023

work page 1965

[7] [7]

The onset of inst ability in unsteady boundary-layer separation

Cassel, KW and Smith, FT and W alker, JDA. The onset of inst ability in unsteady boundary-layer separation. Journal of Fluid Mechanics , 315:223–256, 1996

work page 1996

[8] [8]

Kinetic and hydrodynamic models of chemotactic aggregation

Chavanis, Pierre-Henri and Sire, Cl´ ement. Kinetic and hydrodynamic models of chemotactic aggregation. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications , 384(2):199–222, 2007

work page 2007