Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 30 references

Cancellation properties and unconditional well-posedness for fifth order modified KdV type equations with periodic boundary conditions

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

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

Pith's one-line read The paper proves unconditional local well-posedness at $s=3/2$ for fifth-order modified KdV type equations on the torus when $\alpha=\beta$ or $\gamma=0$, including non-integrable cases.

desk verdict The normal-form machinery appears to close at H^{3/2}, but the existence proof rests on an unproved import from an unpublished preprint, so treat the main theorem as conditional until that external result is verified. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.04007 v1 pith:SZBOUF4X submitted 2025-02-06 math.AP

Takamori Kato , Kotaro Tsugawa This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.AP MSC 35Q5335A0135A02
keywords fifthordermodifiedKdVunconditionalwell-posednessnormalformreductioncancellationpropertyperiodicboundaryconditionslowregularitynon-integrableH^ssolutions
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 establishes a low-regularity well-posedness result for a family of fifth-order modified KdV type equations on the circle, with cubic, derivative-cubic, and quintic nonlinearities. The central claim is that, whenever the coefficients satisfy $\alpha=\beta$ or $\gamma=0$, every initial datum in $H^s(\mathbb{T})$ with $s\ge 3/2$ has a unique solution in $C([-T,T]:H^s(\mathbb{T}))$, and the solution map is continuous. This is an unconditional result, meaning uniqueness holds inside the natural solution class without auxiliary function spaces. It covers non-integrable coefficient choices, where no complete integrability is available, and the same argument yields global well-posedness in $H^2$ when $\alpha=\beta=0$. A sympathetic reader would care because previous methods on the torus either required higher regularity or relied on the integrable structure.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a normal form reduction based on the phase $$\$Phi^{{(N)}}$_\$\varphi$(k_1,\dots,k_N)=\varphi_\$\varphi$(k_1+\dots+k_N)-\sum_{j=1}^N \varphi_\$\varphi$(k_j),\qquad \varphi_\$\varphi$(k)=-$ik^{5}$+2i\gamma E_1(\phi)$k^{3}$.$$ Integration by parts in time replaces each non-resonant nonlinearity by a term with denominator $\Phi$, which is large for high frequencies; the paper proves detailed lower bounds for $\Phi^{(3)}$, $\Phi^{(5)}$, and $\Phi^{(7)}$ in Lemmas 2.1 through 2.5. The resonant parts, where this frequency gain fails, are handled by symmetrization: specific sums of multipliers such as $M^{(5)}_{1,\phi}+M^{(5)}_{9,\phi}$, $M^{(5)}_{11,\phi}+M^{(5)}_{13,\phi}$, and the symmetrized septic multiplier $\widetilde M^{(7)}_{6,\phi}$ are shown to lose no derivative. The added term $J_4(u)$, involving $\int u^4\,dx-(\int u^2\,dx)^2$, is the device that creates the needed cancellation. The proof reduces the equation to an integrated form for $\hat v=e^{-t\varphi_\phi(k)}\hat u$, and all estimates are carried out purely in $H^s$ norms.

What would settle it

Read the preprint cited as [30] and verify that its local well-posedness statement covers every coefficient tuple with $\alpha=\beta$ or $\gamma=0$ and every sufficiently large $m$. Since Proposition 8.6 is quoted without proof and the rest of the argument approximates rough data by smooth data, a single coefficient value not covered would leave the existence half of Theorem 1.1 unproved; uniqueness and stability estimates might survive, but existence would not.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that all derivative losses in the equation on the torus can be eliminated by a normal form reduction plus explicit cancellation among resonant multipliers, provided one first rewrites the equation using the conserved $L^2$ norm. When $\alpha=\beta$ or $\gamma=0$, the quantity $E_1(u)(t)=E_1(\phi)$ is conserved for solutions in $H^{3/2}$, so the phase function $\Phi^{(N)}_\phi$ in the normal form is time-independent. The paper rewrites the original equation as (1.5) by adding a term $J_4(u)$ that creates a new quintic resonant multiplier $M^{(5)}_{1,\phi}$, chosen so that its one-derivative loss cancels the one-derivative loss of $M^{(5)}_{9,\phi}$ coming from the cubic-quintic iteration. Similar cancellations handle the pair $M^{(5)}_{11,\phi}+M^{(5)}_{13,\phi}$ and the symmetrized septic multiplier $\widetilde M^{(7)}_{6,\phi}$. After these cancellations, every remaining non-resonant part gains enough factors of the phase $\Phi$ to be bounded by Sobolev-type inequalities at $s=3/2$, without Strichartz estimates or Fourier restriction norms. Existence is then obtained by approximating rough data by smooth data, using the a priori estimates and a smooth-data well-posedness theorem as a starting point.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes, as a black box, that smooth-data local well-posedness of (1.1) holds on the torus for sufficiently large $m$ and for all coefficient values; if that imported theorem does not cover the allowed range, the existence claim for rough initial data has no starting point.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If correct, unconditional local well-posedness holds for non-integrable fifth-order modified KdV type equations on the torus at $s=3/2$, the threshold where the cubic nonlinear terms become naturally defined.
  • The solution map is continuous in $H^s$, so small changes in the initial profile produce small changes in the solution over the existence interval.
  • When $\alpha=\beta=0$, the local solutions extend globally in $H^2$, giving global well-posedness in the energy space for these non-integrable equations.
  • The normal-form and cancellation scheme uses only Sobolev norms, avoiding Strichartz estimates or Fourier restriction norms, so the method may transfer to other fifth-order dispersive equations on compact domains.
  • The result improves the previously known higher-regularity and integrable-case results on the torus by reaching a lower regularity threshold and dropping integrability assumptions.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The proof's restriction to $\alpha=\beta$ or $\gamma=0$ is tied to the phase $\Phi^{(N)}_\phi$ being time-independent; if another conserved or controlled quantity made the phase autonomous, the same normal-form scheme could in principle cover a wider coefficient range.
  • As the paper itself suggests, combining this cancellation approach with the low-regularity mKdV techniques cited in Remark 1.2 might lower the $s\ge 3/2$ threshold; this is an extension beyond what the present proof establishes.
  • The imported smooth-data theorem is load-bearing: if it does not cover the full allowed range of $\alpha,\beta,\gamma,\delta$, the existence half of the main theorem would be unsupported even though the uniqueness and stability estimates might survive.
  • The deliberate insertion of $J_4(u)$ to create a resonant partner that cancels a bad multiplier suggests a general design principle for higher-order mKdV type equations: one can engineer extra nonlinear terms to repair derivative losses that normal form reduction alone cannot remove.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper studies the Cauchy problem (1.1)-(1.2) on the torus for a fifth-order modified KdV type equation with real parameters alpha, beta, gamma, delta. The main result (Theorem 1.1) claims unconditional local well-posedness in H^s(T) for s >= 3/2 under the structural conditions alpha = beta or gamma = 0, including non-integrable cases, with continuous dependence on the initial data. Corollary 1.3 claims global well-posedness in H^2(T) when alpha = beta = 0. The proof combines normal-form reduction (Section 3), algebraic cancellation identities for resonant multipliers (Section 4), pointwise multiplier bounds (Section 6), multilinear estimates (Section 5), and bootstrap estimates (Section 7). The L^2 conservation lemma (Lemma 8.1) fixes the time-dependent phase, and existence of smooth approximating solutions is imported as Proposition 8.6 from the second author's arXiv preprint [30]. The global result is asserted from the formal conserved quantities E1 and E3.

Significance. If all claims hold, this is a substantial advance: it removes Strichartz and Fourier-restriction-norm arguments and establishes unconditional well-posedness at s = 3/2 on T for a non-integrable fifth-order mKdV-type equation, improving on the level-set and s >= 2 results of [16,17]. The paper's positive features are real: the normal-form bootstrap estimates (7.5)-(7.6) are stated with explicit constants, the phase-difference estimates in Lemmas 2.1-2.5 and the continuity lemma 2.12 are quantified, and the cancellation propositions in Section 4 (especially Propositions 4.2, 4.3 and 4.5) are proved in the text, so a large part of the a priori machinery is checkable. However, the existence half of Theorem 1.1 depends entirely on an unproved import from an unpublished preprint, and the global Corollary 1.3 is not proved in the manuscript; these issues substantially temper the confidence with which the advertised results can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [§8, Proposition 8.6 and Remark 8.5] Proposition 8.6 is the only mechanism in the manuscript that produces the smooth approximating solutions w_n used in the proof of Proposition 8.4, and every later step—the uniform H^s bounds via Corollary 7.2, the convergence estimate for ∂t(um-un), and the passage to the limit—requires these w_n to exist on a common time interval. Remark 8.5 explicitly concedes that the normal-form equation (3.1) cannot be inverted to produce solutions of (1.5), so there is no independent existence mechanism in the paper. Proposition 8.6 is imported from arXiv:1707.09550v1, an unpublished first-version preprint of the second author, and the only verification offered is the sentence 'We can easily check that the nonlinear term of (1.1) is non-parabolic resonant type.' The proposition claims smooth-data local well-posedness for all real alpha, beta, gamma and delta, which is exactly what the proof of Theorem 1.1 needs. If the theorem in [30] has hidden coefficient restrictions, or if the 'non-parabolic resonant type' condition fails for some combination of beta and gamma, the existence half of Theorem 1.1 is unsupported. This is a correctness risk rather than an internal inconsistency, but it is load-bearing: the authors should state the precise theorem from [30], verify its hypotheses for (1.1) in full detail, and either provide a self-contained proof of Proposition 8.6 or cite a refereed, published source.
  2. [Corollary 1.3 and the conservation laws in §1] The global H^2 result is asserted to follow from the conserved quantities E1 and E3, but the paper records E2 and E3 only as formal conservation laws (p. 2), and no lemma analogous to Lemma 8.1 is proved for E3. Since the solution obtained in Theorem 1.1 is the H^s limit of smooth solutions, E3 conservation could in principle be recovered by continuity of E3 on H^2 and by conservation along the approximating sequence, but neither fact is stated or proved. In addition, an a priori H^2 bound requires a coercivity estimate showing that the conserved quantities control ||u(t)||_{H^2} uniformly; no such estimate appears. Section 8 contains no proof of Corollary 1.3 at all. This is a genuine gap for a headline claim of the paper, although it appears fixable within the manuscript's scope.
  3. [§8, end of the proof of Proposition 8.4; eq. (7.11)] The continuity part of Theorem 1.1 is dispatched with the sentence 'Finally, we can easily show the proof of the continuity of the solution map by Corollary 7.2.' This step is not immediate. In (7.11), the comparison between ||u1-u2||_{H^s} and ||v1-v2||_{H^s} involves the difference of the two linear propagators e^{tφ_{φ1}(k)} and e^{tφ_{φ2}(k)}; the relevant factor is e^{2iγt(E1(φ1)-E1(φ2))k^3}-1, which is not small in the operator norm on H^s uniformly over bounded sets, only pointwise in frequency for fixed data. To obtain a vanishing C* in (7.3), (7.4) and (7.11), one must fix the limiting datum φ and use the dominated convergence theorem for the specific sequence φ_j → φ in H^s, together with the dependence on |E1(f)-E1(g)| provided by Lemma 2.12. Please write out this argument; in the current version the continuity claim is asserted rather than proved.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§8, proof of Proposition 8.4] Lemma 8.1 applies only when alpha = beta, but the proof of Proposition 8.4 invokes the conservation law (8.1) also in the case gamma = 0 with alpha different from beta. In the latter case the equivalence between (1.1) and (1.4) is purely algebraic and no conservation is needed; the proof should separate the two cases explicitly.
  2. [§8, Proposition 8.6 and Remark 8.7] The assertion that w_n belongs to C((-T_max^n,T_max^n):H^∞) requires persistence of regularity beyond the single H^m statement of Proposition 8.6; for the argument it would suffice to work in H^m with m >= s, and this should be stated.
  3. [Throughout] There are numerous typographical irregularities that should be cleaned up: the author line contains 'TSUGA W A', several formulas contain doubled commas (for example 'k1,,2,3,4'), and Section 7 displays norms such as 'ls2' and 'H s3' instead of l^2_s and H^s.
  4. [Remark 2.6] The displayed estimate at the end of Remark 2.6 reads '≲ |k1,2,3,4|^2|k3|^3'; the last factor should presumably be |k5|^3, consistent with the surrounding lines.
  5. [Section 4, Lemma 4.1] Given the role of Lemma 4.1 and Propositions 4.2-4.5 in the cancellation mechanism, and the length of the polynomial identities involved, I recommend that the authors include a short verification or an auxiliary computation for the expansion (4.1)-(4.2), since an undetected sign error there would break the estimates of Section 7.
  6. [References] The only source for Proposition 8.6 is the unpublished v1 preprint [30]; if a newer version or a published version exists, it should be cited, and the precise theorem reference (theorem number and hypotheses) should be given in the text.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Existence for rough data rests on an unproved-in-this-paper smooth-data theorem cited to the second author's unpublished preprint [30]; the normal-form argument supplies the estimates but no independent existence mechanism.

  1. self citation load bearing [Section 8, Remark 8.5 and Proposition 8.6, used in the first paragraph of the proof of Proposition 8.4]
    "To avoid this difficulty, we use the existence of the solution to (1.1)–(1.2) for sufficiently smooth initial data. In [30], the second author has proved the local well-posedness of fifth order dispersive equations for sufficiently smooth data by the modified energy method. We can easily check that the nonlinear term of (1.1) is non-parabolic resonant type. Therefore, we have the following result by Theorem 1.1 in [30]. Proposition 8.6. Let m ∈ N be sufficiently large. Then, (1.1)–(1.2) is locally well-posed in H^m(T) on [−T,T] without any condition on α,β,γ and δ."

    The proof of Proposition 8.4 approximates φ by H^∞ φ_n and applies Proposition 8.6 to get smooth solutions w_n; the uniform H^s bounds and passage to the limit then yield u. Remark 8.5 explicitly says the normal-form equation (3.1) cannot be inverted to produce solutions of (1.5), so no existence mechanism is proved in the paper. The existence half of Theorem 1.1 therefore reduces, within this paper, to Theorem 1.1 of [30], an unpublished arXiv v1 preprint by the second author, with only 'We can easily check...' supplied to verify its hypotheses. If [30] does not cover the full parameter range or requires more regularity, existence is unsupported; this is load-bearing self-citation.

full rationale

No fitted parameters, data-fitting, or prediction-by-construction occurs: the assumptions α=β or γ=0 are structural and the L^2 conservation law used in the normal form is proved in Lemma 8.1. The normal-form reduction and the cancellation estimates of Sections 3–7 are carried out in the paper, and the uniqueness and stability parts of Proposition 8.4 are derived from those estimates. However, the existence proof for rough data depends essentially on Proposition 8.6, imported verbatim from the second author's own unpublished preprint [30]; Remark 8.5 concedes that the normal-form equation cannot be inverted to produce solutions. This is a load-bearing self-citation, raising the score to 4, but not higher: the paper's core contribution, the s=3/2 a priori estimates and cancellation structure, is independent content and the rough-data result genuinely goes beyond the cited smooth-data theorem if that theorem holds.

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

The proof is a pure mathematical argument with no fitted data. The central claim rests on standard Fourier analysis and Sobolev inequalities, and on two imported results: the smooth-data well-posedness theorem of [30] and the Lambda-continuity lemma quoted from [8]. Neither is derived in this paper. No physical constants or free parameters are fitted.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Local well-posedness of (1.1)-(1.2) in H^m(T) for sufficiently large m, for arbitrary coefficients, as stated in Proposition 8.6 via Theorem 1.1 in [30].
    Invoked in Section 8 to produce smooth approximating solutions; not proved in this text, and the source is the same second author's arXiv preprint.
  • domain assumption Lemma 2.12, the continuity of the multilinear normal-form operator with respect to E1(f) - E1(g), quoted from Lemma 2.11 in [8].
    Used in Section 7 to control differences between two phase functions; the proof is delegated to the authors' earlier published paper.
  • standard math Standard Sobolev and Young-Holder inequalities on the torus, including Lemmas 2.9 to 2.11 proven in the text.
    Background analytic tools; listed for completeness.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Cancellation properties and unconditional well-posedness for fifth order modified KdV type equations with periodic boundary conditions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SZBOUF4X

@misc{pith2026250204007,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Cancellation properties and unconditional well-posedness for fifth order modified KdV type equations with periodic boundary conditions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SZBOUF4X}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.04007}
}
abstract

We prove the unconditional well-posedness result for fifth order modified KdV type equations in $H^s(\mathbb{T})$ when $s \geq 3/2$, which includes non-integrable cases. By the conservation laws, we also obtain the global well-posedness result when $s = 2$, which also includes non-integrable cases. The main idea is to employ the normal form reduction and a kind of cancellation properties to deal with the derivative losses.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages

  1. [30]

    Parabolic smoothing effect and local well-posedness of fifth order semilinear dispersive equations on the torus

    K. Tsugawa, Parabolic smoothing effect and local well-posedness of fifth order semilinear dis- persive equations on the torus , arXiv:math/1707.09550v1 [math.AP]. (T.K. Kato) Mathematical Science Course, F aculty of Science and Engine ering, Saga University, Saga, 840-8502, Japan (K. Tsugawa) Department of Mathematics, F aculty of Science and Engineer ing, ...

    work page Pith review arXiv

  2. [1]

    Babin, A

    A. Babin, A. Ilyin and E. Titi, On the regularization mechanism for the periodic Korteweg- de Vries equation, Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 64 (2011), no. 5, 591–648

    work page 2011

  3. [2]

    Bourgain, Fourier transform restriction phenomena for certain latti ce subsets and applica- tions to nonlinear evolution equations

    J. Bourgain, Fourier transform restriction phenomena for certain latti ce subsets and applica- tions to nonlinear evolution equations. II. The KdV-equati on, Geom. Funct. Anal. 3 (1993), no. 3, 209–262. L WP OF FIFTH ORDER MKDV TYPE EQUATIONS ON THE TORUS 69

    work page 1993

  4. [3]

    Bringmann, R

    B. Bringmann, R. Killip and M. Visan, Global well-posedness for the Fifth-Order KdV Equa- tion in H − 1(R), Ann. of PDE 7 (2021), no. 2, Paper No.21, 46pp

    work page 2021

  5. [4]

    Z. Guo, C. Kwak and S. Kwon, Rough solutions of the fifth-order KdV equations , J. Funct. Anal. 265 (2013), no. 11, 2791–2829

    work page 2013

  6. [5]

    Z. Guo, S. Kwon and T. Oh, Poincar´ e-Dulac normal form reduction for unconditional w ell- posedness of the periodic cubic NLS , Comm. Math. Phys. 322 (2013), no. 1, 19–48

    work page 2013

  7. [6]

    Kappeler and J.-C

    T. Kappeler and J.-C. Molnar, On the well-posedness for the KdV/KdV2 equations and their frequency maps, Ann. Inst. H. Poincar´ e C Anal. Non Lin´ eaire35 (2018), no. 1, 101–160

    work page 2018

  8. [7]

    T.K. Kato, Unconditional well-posedness of fifth order KdV type equati ons with periodic bound- ary condition, Harmonic analysis and nonlinear partial differential equations, 105 –129, RIMS Kˆ okyˆ uroku BessatsuB70 Res. Int. Math. Sci. (RIMS), Kyoto, 2018

    work page 2018

Show all 30 references
  1. [8]

    T. K. Kato and K. Tsugawa, Cancellation properties and unconditional well-posednes s for the fifth order KdV type equations with periodic boundary condit ion, Partial Differ. Equ. Appl. 5 (2024), no. 3, Paper No. 18, 55 pp

    2024

  2. [9]

    C. E. Kenig and D. Pilod, Well-posedness for the fifth-order KdV equation in the energ y space, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 367 (2015), no.4, 2551–2612

    2015

  3. [10]

    Kishimoto, Unconditional local well-posedness for periodic NLS , J

    N. Kishimoto, Unconditional local well-posedness for periodic NLS , J. Differential Equations 274 (2021), 766–787

    2021

  4. [11]

    Kishimoto, Unconditional uniqueness of solutions for nonlinear dispe rsive equations , arXiv:math/1911.04349v4 [math

    N. Kishimoto, Unconditional uniqueness of solutions for nonlinear dispe rsive equations , arXiv:math/1911.04349v4 [math. AP]

    1911 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Kishimoto, Remarks on periodic Zakharov systems , Electron

    N. Kishimoto, Remarks on periodic Zakharov systems , Electron. J. Differential Equations 2022, Paper No. 20, 19pp

    2022

  6. [13]

    Kishimoto, Unconditional uniqueness for the periodic modified Benjami n-Ono equation by normal form approach , Int

    N. Kishimoto, Unconditional uniqueness for the periodic modified Benjami n-Ono equation by normal form approach , Int. Math. Res. Not. 2022 no. 16, 12180–12219

    2022

  7. [14]

    Kishimoto, Unconditional uniqueness for the periodic Benjamin-Ono eq uation by normal form approach, J

    N. Kishimoto, Unconditional uniqueness for the periodic Benjamin-Ono eq uation by normal form approach, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 514 (2022), no. 2, Paper No. 126309, 22pp

    2022

  8. [15]

    Kwak, Local well-posedness for the fifth-order KdV equations on T, J

    C. Kwak, Local well-posedness for the fifth-order KdV equations on T, J. Differential Equations 260 (2016), no. 10, 7683–7737

    2016

  9. [16]

    Kwak, Low regularity Cauchy problem for the fifth-order modified Kd V equations on T, J

    C. Kwak, Low regularity Cauchy problem for the fifth-order modified Kd V equations on T, J. Hyperbolic Differ. Equ. 15 (2018), no. 3, 463–557

    2018

  10. [17]

    Kwak and K

    C. Kwak and K. Lee, Energy solutions for the fifth-order modified Korteweg de-Vr ies equations, Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst. 44 (2024), no.11, 3302–3345

    2024

  11. [18]

    Kwon, On the fifth order KdV equation: local well-posedness and lac k of uniform continuity of the solution map , J

    S. Kwon, On the fifth order KdV equation: local well-posedness and lac k of uniform continuity of the solution map , J. Differential Equations 245 (2008), no.9, 2627–2659

    2008

  12. [19]

    Kwon, Well-posedness and ill-posedness of the fifth-order modifie d KdV equation , Electron J

    S. Kwon, Well-posedness and ill-posedness of the fifth-order modifie d KdV equation , Electron J. Differential Equations 2008 no. 1, 15pp

    2008

  13. [20]

    Kwon and T

    S. Kwon and T. Oh, On unconditional well-posedness of modified KdV , Int. Math. Res. Not. 2012 no. 15, 3509–3534

    2012

  14. [21]

    S. Kwon, T. Oh and H. Yoon, Normal form approach to unconditional well-posedness of nonlinear dispersive PDEs on the real line , Ann. Fac. Sci. Toulouse Math. 29 (2020), no. 3, 649–720. 70 T. K. KATO AND K. TSUGA W A

    2020

  15. [22]

    McConnell, Well-posedness for the non-integrable periodic fifth order KdV in Bourgain spaces, Discrete Contin

    R. McConnell, Well-posedness for the non-integrable periodic fifth order KdV in Bourgain spaces, Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst. 44 (2024), no. 11, 3507–3552

    2024

  16. [23]

    Molinet, D

    L. Molinet, D. Pilod and S. Vento, On unconditional well-posedness for the periodic modified Korteweg-de Vries equation , J. Math. Soc. Japan 71 (2019), no. 1, 147–201

    2019

  17. [24]

    Mosincat and D

    R. Mosincat and D. Pilod, Unconditional uniqueness for the Benjamin-Ono equation , Pure Appl. Anal. 5 (2023), no.2, 285–322

    2023

  18. [25]

    Mosincat and H

    R. Mosincat and H. Yoon, Unconditional uniqueness for the derivative nonlinear Sch r¨ odinger equation on the real line , Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst. 40 (2020), no.1, 47–80

    2020

  19. [26]

    Nakanishi, H

    K. Nakanishi, H. Takaoka and Y. Tsutsumi, Local well-posedness in low regularity of the mKdV equation with periodic boundary condition , Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst. 28 (2010), no.4, 1635– 1654

    2010

  20. [27]

    Ponce, Lax pairs and higher order models for water waves , J

    G. Ponce, Lax pairs and higher order models for water waves , J. Differential Equations 102 (1993), no. 2, 360–381

    1993

  21. [28]

    Shatah, Normal forms and quadratic nonlinear Klein-Gordon equatio ns, Comm

    J. Shatah, Normal forms and quadratic nonlinear Klein-Gordon equatio ns, Comm. Pure. Appl. Math 38 (1985), no.5, 685–696

    1985

  22. [29]

    Takaoka and Y

    H. Takaoka and Y. Tsustumi, Well-posedness of the Cauchy problem for the modified KdV equation with periodic boundary condition , Int. Math. Res. Not. 2004 no. 56, 3009–3040

    2004

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.