Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 78 references

Numerical Analysis of differential equations on weighted Sobolev spaces: beyond classical orthogonal polynomials

T0 review · 3 major / 4 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 differential equations on Freud-weighted Sobolev spaces can be solved rigorously with a new basis of Sobolev orthogonal polynomials, quantifying compactness and certifying Gross-Pitaevskii solutions to errors as…

desk verdict Genuinely new Freud–Sobolev framework with a quantitative compactness estimate, but the headline constants hang on an unpinned computer-assisted certificate. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.13672 v2 pith:2KLPCVOQ submitted 2025-01-23 math.NA cs.NAmath.APmath.CAmath.FA

Maxime Breden , Hugo Chu This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.NAcs.NAmath.APmath.CAmath.FA MSC 35B4542C0546B5046E2046E3547B3641A8135J61
keywords SobolevorthogonalpolynomialsFreudweightsweightedspacescompactnessestimatesdiscretePainlevéIcomputer-assistedproofsGross-Pitaevskiiequation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper shows that differential equations naturally posed in Sobolev spaces weighted by a Gibbs measure $e^{-V}dx/Z$ can be solved rigorously and efficiently with respect to a purpose-built orthogonal polynomial basis, not just with classical Hermite, Jacobi, or Laguerre families. The key move is to define Sobolev-orthonormal polynomials $q_n$ by the derivative relation $q_n' = p_{n-1}$ and zero mean, which makes the differentiation and change-of-basis operators bidiagonal. For the quartic Freud potential $V = x^4/4 - \kappa x^2/2$, the paper quantifies the compactness of the embedding $H^1(\nu) \hookrightarrow L^2(\nu)$, proving an explicit tail bound with decay $m^{-3/4}$ whose constants are certified by controlling the growth of the recurrence coefficients, which solve the discrete Painlevé I equation. As a demonstration, the estimates are embedded in computer-assisted proofs that establish existence of even positive solutions of the sextic Gross-Pitaevskii equation with $H^1(\mathbb{R})$ errors of order $10^{-101}$ and $10^{-141}$.

What carries the argument

The central object is the family of Sobolev orthogonal polynomials $q_n$ defined by $q_n' = p_{n-1}$ and zero mean, together with the bidiagonal matrices $P$ (change of basis from $L^2$ to $H^1$) and $D$ (differentiation), whose entries are $\alpha_n = n/a_n$ and $\beta_n = a_n a_{n+1} a_{n+2}$. The proof of compactness reduces to showing $\beta_n/\alpha_n \le \theta < 1$ on a tail, which in turn reduces to two-sided bounds $c_-\sqrt{n/3} \le b_n \le c_+\sqrt{n/3}$ for $b_n = a_n^2$ satisfying discrete Painlevé I. These bounds are obtained by a computer-assisted fixed-point argument (Schauder-Tychonoff with explicit barriers and $\varepsilon$-inflation) verified in interval arithmetic up to $N_1 = 9{,}000{,}000$.

What would settle it

Run the shipped interval-arithmetic notebook 'GP eq/Painleve bounds.ipynb' with a different verified rounding mode or an independent interval library and check whether the claimed barriers $b^-$ and $b^+$ still satisfy the Tychonoff enclosure; alternatively, numerically search in $\operatorname{Span}\{q_j\}_{j>2187}$ for a function with $\|u\|_{L^2(\nu)}/\|u\|_{H^1(\nu)}$ exceeding $1.2233/m^{3/4}$, which would contradict Theorem 4.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The authors establish that the apparent obstruction to working with non-classical weights, namely that the derivative of a non-classical orthogonal polynomial is not diagonal in the same basis, can be overcome by factorising the leading linear component $L = V'\partial_x - \partial_{xx}$ through a new basis. Their basis $\{q_n\}$ of $H^1(\nu)$ is defined by $q_n' = p_{n-1}$ and zero mean; for even polynomial potentials the differentiation operator becomes bidiagonal, with entries expressed through the three-term recurrence coefficients $a_n$. Controlling the positive solution $b_n = a_n^2$ of the discrete Painlevé I equation $n/b_n = b_{n-1} + b_n + b_{n+1} - \kappa$ with explicit interval-arithmetic certificates yields the compactness estimate $\|u\|_{L^2(\nu)} \le (C/m^{3/4})\|u\|_{H^1(\nu)}$ for tails, with $C = 1.2233$ and $N = 2187$ when $\kappa = 4$. This is the first quantitative compactness estimate for a non-classical weighted Sobolev embedding, and it powers the rigorous enclosures of Gross-Pitaevskii solutions.

Load-bearing premise

The quantitative bounds on the recurrence coefficients $b_n$ come from a computer-assisted interval-arithmetic proof; if that computational certificate is wrong, the explicit constants in the compactness estimate and in the Gross-Pitaevskii existence proofs lose their certification, even though the qualitative picture may survive.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Rigorous spectral-method proofs for semilinear equations on unbounded domains no longer require classical bases; the same workflow applies to any even polynomial Freud weight for which the Painlevé-type recurrence can be bounded.
  • The explicit tail bound gives a certified convergence rate of $m^{-3/4}$ for spectral approximations in $H^1(\nu)$, the first such quantitative compactness estimate in a non-classical setting.
  • The coupling between Freud's conjecture and compact embeddings yields Conjecture 11: for a degree-$2k$ potential the decay should be $m^{-(2k-1)/(2k)}$, matching the known Hermite ($k=1$) and Legendre limits.
  • The computer-assisted proofs establish true solutions of the sextic Gross-Pitaevskii equation with $H^1(\mathbb{R})$ errors below $4\times 10^{-101}$ and $9\times 10^{-141}$, demonstrating the practical tightness of the method.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the Painlevé-bound approach extends to higher-degree even potentials, the compactness decay exponent should improve with $k$, making the method more favourable as the confining potential grows.
  • The same Sobolev-polynomial construction, based only on a Poincaré inequality, could yield spectral bases for other weighted spaces, such as beta or gamma measures, where the paper already shows classical polynomials reappear for special parameters.
  • The explicit constants $C = 1.2233$ and $N = 2187$ are likely far from optimal; the gap between $N_2 = 9{,}215$ and $N = 2{,}187$ in the verification suggests that sharper barriers could shrink the tail threshold considerably.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops a numerical and functional-analytic framework for differential equations on weighted Sobolev spaces H^1(ν) with ν(dx)=e^{-V(x)}dx/Z, using a new family of Sobolev orthogonal polynomials adapted to the Hilbert structure (3) induced by the Poincaré inequality. For the quartic Freud weight V(x)=x^4/4-κx^2/2, it proves that the differentiation operator is bidiagonal in these bases, links the recurrence coefficients to the discrete Painlevé I equation, and obtains quantitative bounds on these coefficients via a computer-assisted fixed-point argument (Proposition 9). From those bounds, it derives a quantitative compactness estimate H^1(ν)↪L^2(ν) with an explicit tail bound (Theorem 4; C=1.2233, N=2,187 for κ=4), a sharp enclosure of the Poincaré constant (Theorem 3; CP=33.58004242±2.3e-7), and Sobolev-type estimates (Lemma 40). These estimates are then used in Newton–Kantorovich computer-assisted proofs to establish existence of even solutions of a sextic Gross–Pitaevskii equation with extremely tight H^1(R) error bounds (Theorems 6 and 7).

Significance. If the computer-assisted certificates are correct and reproducible, this is a substantial and novel contribution. The paper introduces a natural and computationally tractable Sobolev orthogonal basis, proves the first quantitative compactness estimates for a non-classical weighted Sobolev embedding, and demonstrates that these bases can be used for rigorous computer-assisted proofs of PDEs on unbounded domains. The connection between Freud's conjecture, discrete Painlevé equations, and quantified compactness is elegant, and the explicit constants (e.g., C=1.2233, N=2,187) are valuable. The small error bounds in Theorems 6 and 7 (3.67e-101 and 8.16e-141) showcase the practical efficiency of the method. However, the validity of the main theorems depends entirely on the supplied numerical certificate, whose verification and reproducibility are not yet at the standard expected for a computer-assisted proof.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.2, Proposition 9] The computer-assisted proof of Proposition 9 is not independently verifiable from the manuscript. The decisive interval-arithmetic verification that establishes the enclosure (30) for all n lives solely in the notebook 'GP eq/Painleve bounds.ipynb', with no pinned commit hash, no Julia version, and no package manifest. Since Proposition 9 is the basis for Corollary 35, Theorem 4, and ultimately Theorems 6 and 7, the manuscript should include a machine-checked certificate (e.g., a script that regenerates all enclosures, or a full output log of the interval computations) or point to a versioned, archived repository that can be rerun to reproduce the claimed N1=9,000,000, N2=9,215, and N=2,187. As it stands, the central numerical results cannot be independently checked.
  2. [Abstract and §1.2] The abstract claims that the paper 'rigorously demonstrate[s] the phenomenon of stochastic resonance via a computer-assisted proof,' but the body, in the bullet list in §1.2, explicitly states that the Benzi–Parisi–Sutera–Vulpiani model 'will be treated in an upcoming version of this work.' This is an unsupported claim in the abstract and should be removed or qualified to avoid misleading readers.
  3. [§3.2, Step 4] The description of the ε-inflation procedure is too sketchy. The sentence 'we gradually decrease b^-_n and increase b^+_n by ε-inflation until (30) holds for all n ≥ 1' does not specify the algorithm, the initial values, the inflation mechanism, or the precise rigorous termination criterion. This step is an essential part of the computer-assisted proof; without a complete algorithmic description, an independent verifier cannot assess the argument even with the notebook. The authors should provide a detailed specification of the ε-inflation process, including the interval operations used.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§1.1] There are typographical errors: 'scricto sensu' should be 'stricto sensu' and 'polynominal' should be 'polynomial.'
  2. [Example 14] The Gaussian density is written as e^{-x^2/2}dx/√π, but the correct normalising constant for a probability measure is 1/√(2π); this typo affects the stated form of the Poincaré inequality.
  3. [§3.3.1, proof of Theorem 4] After deriving the constants C12 and C22 for the even subspace, the text states that 'repeating the same analysis on the odd subspaces and taking the maximum of the two constants' yields the result, but the odd-case calculation is not shown. Since the b_n bounds hold uniformly for all n≥N, the constants are presumably the same, but it would be helpful to state this explicitly or provide the analogous matrices.
  4. [§4.2.1, Y bound] The displayed formula for ∥Π_∞^{H^1} \tilde{L}^{-1}Π_n^{L^2} f(\bar{u})∥ appears to be missing a norm or a bracket around the product involving (\bar{P}^{-1})_{:,-1}^T; please check the typesetting for clarity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular dependency: the compactness estimate and Gross–Pitaevskii proofs are driven by independent computer-assisted bounds on the discrete Painlevé I recurrence, not by the target solutions.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained in the relevant sense. Proposition 9, the load-bearing quantitative input, is proved by a fixed-point enclosure of the discrete Painlevé I recurrence (24): explicit sequences b± are constructed so that (30) holds, and Lemma 34 combined with the external uniqueness result for positive solutions ([3, 14]) implies the true recurrence solution is enclosed. No quantity in this argument is fitted to the Gross–Pitaevskii equation or to the compactness estimate it later feeds. Theorem 4 then follows by elementary ℓ2 estimates on the bidiagonal matrices P and D_n using Corollary 35; the target solution never enters these constants. Theorems 6 and 7 use Theorem 4 only as a tail bound within a standard Newton–Kantorovich argument: the approximate solution ubar defines the contraction T, the Y and Z bounds are verified by rigorous quadrature, and existence of a true nearby solution is concluded from Theorem 44. There is no equation in the paper that reduces by construction to its own inputs, no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction, and the uniqueness and positivity facts cited from earlier work are external results, not author-specific imports that forbid alternatives. I flag two non-circular concerns: the abstract's claim to rigorously demonstrate stochastic resonance is not supported in this version, since §1.2 says it will be treated in an upcoming version, and the quantitative certificate for Proposition 9 lives in an unpinned Jupyter notebook, so its interval-arithmetic computation must be reproduced for the explicit constants to be accepted. These are correctness and reproducibility risks, not circularity, so the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The main external inputs are the positivity and uniqueness theory for discrete Painleve I, the Poincare inequality background, and standard fixed-point theorems. The only genuinely paper-specific burden is trust in the shipped computer-assisted certificates, which are reproducible from the GitHub repository. The constants c_- and c_+ are proof parameters, not fitted data.

free parameters (1)
  • c_- and c_+ = c_- = 0.987 and c_+ = 1.025 with N = 2,187 for kappa = 4
    Chosen by hand inside the open intervals (0,1) and (1,infinity) to make Proposition 9's explicit enclosure succeed. All later constants, including C_alpha and theta, depend on c_+. They are not fitted to the Gross-Pitaevskii solution, but they are freely chosen proof parameters.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The sequence b_n=(a_n)^2 associated with V via (23)-(25) is the unique positive solution of the discrete Painleve I equation (24).
    Used in Proposition 9 to identify the fixed point of the map S with the desired recurrence coefficient sequence; quoted from [3,14].
  • standard math The Schauder-Tychonoff fixed-point theorem and Tychonoff compactness hold for the product of intervals K = product [b_n^-, b_n^+].
    Used in Lemma 34 to obtain the enclosing fixed point in the product topology; Section 3.2.
  • domain assumption The Poincare inequality (17) holds for V = x^4/4 - kappa x^2/2, via Proposition 13 quoted from [76, Theorem A.1].
    Guarantees that the inner product (.,.) defines the H^1(nu) topology and that L has the needed spectral structure; Section 2.1.
  • ad hoc to paper The interval-arithmetic verifications in Steps 3-5 of Proposition 9 and in the Gross-Pitaevskii proofs were executed correctly by the shipped code.
    The explicit values N=2,187, theta about 0.3503, and the error bounds in Theorems 6-7 are outputs of these computations and are not derived in closed form; Sections 3.2 and 4.2.
  • standard math The radii-polynomial or Newton-Kantorovich criterion of Theorem 44 is valid for the compact-perturbation reformulation F(u)=u-L_tilde^{-1}f(u).
    Provides the contraction argument used to prove existence and tight enclosure of Gross-Pitaevskii solutions; Section 4.1.
invented entities (1)
  • Freud-Sobolev orthogonal basis {q_n} independent evidence
    purpose: Serves as an orthonormal basis of H^1(nu) with q_n' = p_{n-1}; it gives the bidiagonal representation of differentiation and the tail-in-space estimates.
    This is a new mathematical object introduced by the paper, but it is explicitly constructed from the L^2(nu) orthonormal polynomials p_n, so it is not an unexplained postulate. Its defining identities can be verified computationally and are implemented in the shipped code.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Numerical Analysis of differential equations on weighted Sobolev spaces: beyond classical orthogonal polynomials." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2KLPCVOQ

@misc{pith2026250113672,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Numerical Analysis of differential equations on weighted Sobolev spaces: beyond classical orthogonal polynomials},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2KLPCVOQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.13672}
}
abstract

We lay mathematical foundations for the Numerical Analysis of differential equations on Sobolev spaces weighted by a Gibbs probability measure $\nu(\mathrm{d} x) = e^{-V(x)}\mathrm{d} x/\mathcal{Z}$ on the real line. Over recent decades, the Functional Analysis of these spaces has been thoroughly developed to study Schr\"odinger-type equations and diffusion processes. While such equations should therefore be amenable to a numerical resolution with respect to orthogonal polynomials, this feat has only ever been achieved with respect to classical bases. We bridge this gap by showing that such equations can be solved with respect to suitable bases by factorising their leading linear component. In particular, we propose a new natural notion of Sobolev orthogonal polynomials, simpler and more tractable than those arising from the usual Sobolev inner product. In the case of $V$ being an even polynomial, we further establish quantitative estimates for the compactness of the embedding $H^1(\nu)\hookrightarrow L^2(\nu)$, uncovering a connection with the growth of the Jacobi recurrence coefficients, which are solutions of corresponding Painlev\'e-type discrete equations. As an application, we rigorously and tightly enclose solutions of the Gross--Pitaevskii equation with sextic potential and rigorously demonstrate the phenomenon of stochastic resonance via a computer-assisted proof.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.13672 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Plots of orthonormal polynomials with respect to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Plots of the numerical approximations ¯φ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Bounds on bn for k = 4, c − = 0.987 and c + = 1.025. 3.3 Compactness estimates We now show how estimates on the growth of the positive solution of the discrete Painlev´e I equation can be leveraged to quantify the compactness of the Sobolev embedding H1 (ν) ,→ L 2 (ν) and the Poincar´e inequality on H1 (ν), i.e. we give quantitative versions of Proposition 13 and Theorem 15 via Theorems 3 and 4 respectively.First, u… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

78 extracted references · 77 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Abramowitz and I

    M. Abramowitz and I. A. Stegun. Handbook of Mathematical Functions: With Formulas, Graphs, and Mathematical Tables Applied mathematics series . 1970

    work page 1970

  2. [2]

    G. Allaire. Numerical Analysis And Optimization . Oxford University PressOxford, May 2007

    work page 2007

  3. [3]

    S. M. Alsulami, P. Nevai, J. Szabados, and W. Van Assche. A family of nonlinear difference equations: Existence, uniqueness, and asymptotic behavior of positive solutions.Journal of Approximation Theory, 193:39–55, 2015. 30

    work page 2015

  4. [4]

    Althammer

    P. Althammer. Eine Erweiterung des Orthogonalit¨ atsbegriffes bei Polynomen und deren Anwendung auf die beste Approximation. Journal f¨ ur die reine und angewandte Mathematik, 1962(211):192–204, 1962

    work page 1962

  5. [5]

    D. Bakry. L’hypercontractivit´ e et son utilisation en th´ eorie des semigroupes. In P. Bernard, editor, Lectures on Probability Theory: Ecole d’Et´ e de Probabilit´ es de Saint-Flour XXII-1992, pages 1–114. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1994

    work page 1992

  6. [6]

    Bakry, I

    D. Bakry, I. Gentil, and M. Ledoux. Analysis and Geometry of Markov Diffusion Operators, volume 348 of Grundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften . Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2014

    work page 2014

  7. [7]

    Bakry and O

    D. Bakry and O. Mazet. Characterization of Markov semigroups on R Associated to Some Families of Orthogonal Polynomials. In S´ eminaire de Probabilit´ es XXXVII, pages 60–80. 2003

    work page 2003

  8. [8]

    Bakry, S

    D. Bakry, S. Orevkov, and M. Zani. Orthogonal polynomials and diffusion operators. Annales de la Facult´ e des sciences de Toulouse : Math´ ematiques, 30(5):985–1073, Mar. 2022

    work page 2022

Show all 78 references
  1. [9]

    P. H. Baxendale. Lyapunov exponents and shear-induced chaos for a Hopf bifurcation with additive noise. Probability Theory and Related Fields , (1), July 2024

    2024

  2. [10]

    Benzi, G

    R. Benzi, G. Parisi, A. Sutera, and A. Vulpiani. A Theory of Stochastic Resonance in Climatic Change. SIAM Journal on Applied Mathematics , 43(3):565–578, June 1983

    1983

  3. [11]

    Bleher and A

    P. Bleher and A. Its. Semiclassical Asymptotics of Orthogonal Polynomials, Riemann-Hilbert Problem, and Universality in the Matrix Model. The Annals of Mathematics , 150(1):185, July 1999

    1999

  4. [12]

    Blessing, A

    A. Blessing, A. Blumenthal, M. Breden, and M. Engel. Detecting random bifurcations via rigorous enclosures of large deviations rate functions:1–45, Aug. 2024

    2024

  5. [13]

    S. G. Bobkov. Isoperimetric and Analytic Inequalities for Log-Concave Probability Measures. The Annals of Probability, 27(4):1903–1921, Oct. 1999

    1903

  6. [14]

    Bonan and P

    S. Bonan and P. Nevai. Orthogonal polynomials and their derivatives, I. Journal of Approximation Theory, 40(2):134–147, 1984

    1984

  7. [15]

    Bonnefont

    M. Bonnefont. Poincar´ e inequality with explicit constant in dimension d ≥ 1. In 2022. Available at https://www.math.u-bordeaux.fr/~mibonnef/Poincare__Toulouse.pdf

    2022

  8. [16]

    Bouwe van den Berg, O

    J. Bouwe van den Berg, O. H´ enot, and J.-P. Lessard. Constructive proofs for localised radial solutions of semilinear elliptic systems on Rd. Nonlinearity, 36(12):6476–6512, Dec. 2023

    2023

  9. [17]

    H. J. Brascamp and E. H. Lieb. On extensions of the Brunn-Minkowski and Pr´ ekopa-Leindler theorems, including inequalities for log concave functions, and with an application to the diffusion equation. Journal of Functional Analysis , 22(4):366–389, Aug. 1976

    1976

  10. [18]

    Breden and H

    M. Breden and H. Chu. Constructive proofs for some semilinear PDEs on H 2(e|x|2/4, Rd). arXiv, Apr. 2024

    2024

  11. [19]

    Breden, H

    M. Breden, H. Chu, J. S. W. Lamb, and M. Rasmussen. Rigorous enclosure of Lyapunov exponents of stochastic flows. arXiv, Nov. 2024

    2024

  12. [20]

    Breden, L

    M. Breden, L. Desvillettes, and J.-P. Lessard. Rigorous numerics for nonlinear operators with tridiag- onal dominant linear part. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - A , 35(10):4765–4789, 2015

    2015

  13. [21]

    Breden and C

    M. Breden and C. Kuehn. Rigorous validation of stochastic transition paths. Journal de Math´ ematiques Pures et Appliqu´ ees, 131:88–129, Nov. 2019

    2019

  14. [22]

    S. C. Brenner and L. R. Scott. The Mathematical Theory of Finite Element Methods , volume 15 of Texts in Applied Mathematics . Springer New York, New York, NY, 2008

    2008

  15. [23]

    H. Brezis. Functional Analysis, Sobolev Spaces and Partial Differential Equations . Springer New York, New York, NY, 2011

    2011

  16. [24]

    Cadiot, J

    M. Cadiot, J. Jaquette, J.-P. Lessard, and A. Takayasu. Validated matrix multiplication transform for orthogonal polynomials with applications to computer-assisted proofs for pdes. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.18361, 2024. 31

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Cadiot, J.-P

    M. Cadiot, J.-P. Lessard, and J.-C. Nave. Rigorous computation of solutions of semilinear pdes on unbounded domains via spectral methods. SIAM Journal on Applied Dynamical Systems , 23(3):1966– 2017, 2024

    1966

  18. [26]

    Callaway, T

    M. Callaway, T. S. Doan, J. S. W. Lamb, and M. Rasmussen. The dichotomy spectrum for random dynamical systems and pitchfork bifurcations with additive noise.Annales de l’Institut Henri Poincar´ e, Probabilit´ es et Statistiques, 53(4):1548–1574, Nov. 2017

    2017

  19. [27]

    Canuto and A

    C. Canuto and A. Quarteroni. Approximation Results for Orthogonal Polynomials in Sobolev Spaces. Mathematics of Computation , 38(157):67, Jan. 1982

    1982

  20. [28]

    Chemnitz and M

    D. Chemnitz and M. Engel. Positive Lyapunov Exponent in the Hopf Normal Form with Additive Noise. Communications in Mathematical Physics , 402(2):1807–1843, Sept. 2023

    2023

  21. [29]

    A. M. Cherubini, J. S. W. Lamb, M. Rasmussen, and Y. Sato. A random dynamical systems perspective on stochastic resonance. Nonlinearity, 30(7):2835–2853, July 2017

    2017

  22. [30]

    Solutions of differential equations in Freud-weighted Sobolev spaces

    H. Chu. Codes associated to “Solutions of differential equations in Freud-weighted Sobolev spaces”,

  23. [31]

    P. G. Ciarlet. The Finite Element Method for Elliptic Problems . Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Jan. 2002

    2002

  24. [32]

    P. A. Clarkson and K. Jordaan. Properties of generalized Freud polynomials. Journal of Approximation Theory, 225:148–175, 2018

    2018

  25. [33]

    P. A. Clarkson, K. Jordaan, and A. Loureiro. Generalized higher-order Freud weights. Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences , 479(2272), Apr. 2023

    2023

  26. [34]

    Crauel and F

    H. Crauel and F. Flandoli. Additive noise destroys a pitchfork bifurcation. Journal of Dynamics and Differential Equations, 10(2):259–274, 1998

    1998

  27. [35]

    P. Deift. Orthogonal Polynomials and Random Matrices: A Riemann-Hilbert Approach , volume 3 of Courant Lecture Notes. American Mathematical Society, Providence, Rhode Island, Oct. 2000

    2000

  28. [36]

    R. C. Desai and R. Zwanzig. Statistical mechanics of a nonlinear stochastic model. Journal of Statistical Physics, 19(1):1–24, July 1978

    1978

  29. [37]

    R. E. L. DeVille, N. S. Namachchivaya, and Z. Rapti. Stability of a Stochastic Two-Dimensional Non-Hamiltonian System. SIAM Journal on Applied Mathematics , 71(4):1458–1475, Jan. 2011

    2011

  30. [38]

    T. A. Driscoll, N. Hale, and L. N. Trefethen. Chebfun Guide . Pafnuty Publications, 2014

    2014

  31. [39]

    L. Evans. Partial Differential Equations , volume 19 of Graduate Studies in Mathematics . American Mathematical Society, Providence, Rhode Island, Mar. 2010

    2010

  32. [40]

    C. Feng, H. Zhao, and J. Zhong. Existence of geometric ergodic periodic measures of stochastic differ- ential equations. Journal of Differential Equations , 359:67–106, June 2023

    2023

  33. [41]

    A. S. Fokas, A. R. Its, and A. V. Kitaev. Discrete Painlev´ e equations and their appearance in quantum gravity. Communications in Mathematical Physics , 142(2):313–344, Dec. 1991

    1991

  34. [42]

    G. Freud. On the Coefficients in the Recursion Formulae of Orthogonal Polynomials. Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy. Section A: Mathematical and Physical Sciences , 76:1–6, Jan. 1976

    1976

  35. [43]

    Funaro and O

    D. Funaro and O. Kavian. Approximation of Some Diffusion Evolution Equations in Unbounded Do- mains by Hermite Functions. Mathematics of Computation , 57(196):597, 1991

    1991

  36. [44]

    L. E. Garza, E. J. Huertas, and F. Marcell´ an. On Freud–Sobolev type orthogonal polynomials. Afrika Matematika, 30(3-4):505–528, 2019

    2019

  37. [45]

    Gautschi

    W. Gautschi. Orthogonal Polynomials. Oxford University Press, Apr. 2004

    2004

  38. [46]

    G´ omez-Serrano

    J. G´ omez-Serrano. Computer-assisted proofs in PDE: a survey. SeMA Journal , 76(3):459–484, Sept. 2019

    2019

  39. [47]

    D. Hajela. On solutions of some nonlinear recurrences. Journal of Approximation Theory , 50(3):208– 213, July 1987. 32

    1987

  40. [48]

    B. F. Hildebrand. Introduction to Numerical Analysis: 2nd Edition . Dover Publications, Inc., USA, 1987

    1987

  41. [49]

    Iserles and M

    A. Iserles and M. Webb. A Differential Analogue of Favard’s Theorem. In F. Gesztesy and A. Martinez- Finkelshtein, editors, From Operator Theory to Orthogonal Polynomials, Combinatorics, and Number Theory, chapter 13, pages 239–263. Birkh¨ auser, Cham, 2021

    2021

  42. [50]

    Johansson

    F. Johansson. Arb: Efficient Arbitrary-Precision Midpoint-Radius Interval Arithmetic. IEEE Transac- tions on Computers , 66(8):1281–1292, Aug. 2017

    2017

  43. [51]

    Kannan, L

    R. Kannan, L. Lov´ asz, and M. Simonovits. Isoperimetric problems for convex bodies and a localization lemma. Discrete & Computational Geometry , 13(3-4):541–559, June 1995

    1995

  44. [52]

    Kapela, M

    T. Kapela, M. Mrozek, D. Wilczak, and P. Zgliczy´ nski. CAPD:: DynSys: a flexible C++ toolbox for rigorous numerical analysis of dynamical systems. Communications in nonlinear science and numerical simulation, 101:105578, 2021

    2021

  45. [53]

    Kavian, G

    O. Kavian, G. Kerkyacharian, and B. Roynette. Some Remarks on Ultracontractivity. Journal of Functional Analysis, 111(1):155–196, Jan. 1993

    1993

  46. [54]

    Lessard and C

    J.-P. Lessard and C. Reinhardt. Rigorous numerics for nonlinear differential equations using chebyshev series. SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis , 52(1):1–22, 2014

    2014

  47. [55]

    J. S. Lew and D. A. Quarles. Nonnegative solutions of a nonlinear recurrence. Journal of Approximation Theory, 38(4):357–379, Aug. 1983

    1983

  48. [56]

    D. S. Lubinsky, H. N. Mhaskar, and E. B. Saff. Freud’s conjecture for exponential weights. Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society , 15(2):217–221, 1986

    1986

  49. [57]

    A. P. Magnus. Freud’s equations for orthogonal polynomials as discrete Painlev´ e equations. In P. A. Clarkson and F. W. Nijhoff, editors, Symmetries and Integrability of Difference Equations , London Mathematical Society Lecture Note Series, pages 228–244. Cambridge Universit...

    1999

  50. [58]

    A. P. Magnus. Painlev´ e-type differential equations for the recurrence coefficients of semi-classical or- thogonal polynomials. Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics, 57(1-2):215–237, Feb. 1995

    1995

  51. [59]

    Marcell´ an and J

    F. Marcell´ an and J. J. Moreno-Balc´ azar. WHAT IS... a Sobolev Orthogonal Polynomial? Notices of the American Mathematical Society , 64(08):873–875, Sept. 2017

    2017

  52. [60]

    Marcell´ an and Y

    F. Marcell´ an and Y. Xu. On Sobolev orthogonal polynomials. Expositiones Mathematicae, 33(3):308– 352, 2015

    2015

  53. [61]

    P. Maroni. Prol´ egom` enes ` a l’´ etude des polynˆ omes orthogonaux semi-classiques.Annali di Matematica Pura ed Applicata, 149(1):165–184, Dec. 1987

    1987

  54. [62]

    Mart ´ ınez-Finkelshtein

    A. Mart ´ ınez-Finkelshtein. Analytic aspects of Sobolev orthogonal polynomials revisited. Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics , 127(1-2):255–266, Jan. 2001

    2001

  55. [63]

    G. Mayer. Epsilon-inflation in verification algorithms. Journal of Computational and Applied Mathe- matics, 60(1-2):147–169, June 1995

    1995

  56. [64]

    O. Mazet. Classification des Semi-Groupes de diffusion sur R associ´ es ` a une famille de polynˆ omes orthogonaux. In J. Az´ ema, M. Yor, and M. Emery, editors,S´ eminaire de Probabilit´ es XXXI, pages 40– 53, Berlin, Heidelberg. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 1997

    1997

  57. [65]

    M. T. Nakao. A numerical approach to the proof of existence of solutions for elliptic problems. Japan Journal of Applied Mathematics , 5(2):313–332, June 1988

    1988

  58. [66]

    M. T. Nakao, M. Plum, and Y. Watanabe. Numerical Verification Methods and Computer-Assisted Proofs for Partial Differential Equations, volume 53 of Springer Series in Computational Mathematics . Springer Singapore, Singapore, 2019

    2019

  59. [67]

    Nevai, editor

    P. Nevai, editor. Orthogonal Polynomials. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, 1990

    1990

  60. [68]

    P. Nevai. Orthogonal polynomials associated with exp( −x4). In Second Edmonton Conference on Ap- proximation Theory, volume 3, pages 263–285. Proc. Canad. Math. Soc, 1983

    1983

  61. [69]

    G. A. Pavliotis. Stochastic Processes and Applications , volume 60 of Texts in Applied Mathematics . Springer New York, New York, NY, 2014. 33

    2014

  62. [70]

    D. P. Sanders, B. Richard, O. H´ enot, L. Benet, L. Ferranti, K. Agarwal, P. Vana, J. Grawitter, M. F. Herbst, M. Forets, E. Gupta, yashrajgupta, E. Hanson, V. Tjeng, T. Koolen, S. Olver, S. Miclut ,a- Cˆ ampeanu, R. Vasani, C. Rackauckas, B. van Dyk, spaette, C. Schilling, ma...

    2024

  63. [71]

    G. Szeg˝ o. Orthogonal Polynomials , volume 23. American Mathematical Society, Providence, Rhode Island, 4th edition, Dec. 1939

    1939

  64. [72]

    W. Tucker. Validated numerics: a short introduction to rigorous computations . Princeton University Press, 2011

    2011

  65. [73]

    Van Buggenhout

    N. Van Buggenhout. On generating Sobolev orthogonal polynomials. Numerische Mathematik , 155(3- 4):415–443, Dec. 2023

    2023

  66. [74]

    J. B. van den Berg and J.-P. Lessard. Rigorous Numerics in Dynamics. Notices of the American Mathematical Society, 62(09):1057, Oct. 2015

    2015

  67. [75]

    Veysseire

    L. Veysseire. A harmonic mean bound for the spectral gap of the Laplacian on Riemannian manifolds. Comptes Rendus. Math´ ematique, 348(23-24):1319–1322, Nov. 2010

    2010

  68. [76]

    C. Villani. Hypocoercivity, volume 202 of number 950. American Mathematical Society, 2009. A Proof of Lemma 40 Again, without loss of generality, we work on the subspace of even functions. Recall that we want to find a constant c such that ∥J ∥H 1→L2 = ∥[J ]H 1→L2 ∥ℓ2 = ∥DT P ...

    2009

  69. [78]

    Then, φ(x) > 0 for all x ∈ R. Proof. See the proof of [18, Lemma 31] Now, by a usual bootstrap argument, if φ = e−V /2u ∈ H 1(R) is a solution to −∂xxφ + W φ+ φ3 − ωφ = 0, then φ ∈ C∞(R+). Furthermore, since φ ∈ H 1(R), by [23, Corollary VIII.8], lim r→+∞ φ(x) = 0 as |x| → ∞. ...

  70. [2025]

    Available at https://github.com/Huggzz/Freud-Sobolev-proofs

Pith tools

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