Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Stability for multiple Lamb dipoles

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A superposition of Lamb dipoles is Lyapunov stable for all time, provided the faster dipoles start to the right of the slower ones and the initial gaps are large enough.

desk verdict A substantial multi-dipole stability theorem whose proof has a real gap: the energy bootstrap in Proposition 5.5 omits an essential estimate. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.16474 v2 pith:G33LDJ2I submitted 2025-07-22 math.AP math-phmath.MP

Ken Abe , In-Jee Jeong , Yao Yao This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.APmath-phmath.MP MSC 76B4735Q3535B40
keywords LambdipolevortexstabilityEulerequationsupperhalf-planevariationalprincipleLagrangianbootstrappingmulti-solitonenergymaximizer
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 proves that a finite collection of Lamb dipoles—self-propelled, compactly supported vortex pairs that translate without changing shape—is stable in the upper half-plane, provided the faster dipoles are initially to the right of the slower ones and the gaps between them are large enough. The result is Lyapunov stability in the $L^2\cap L^1_*$ norm: initial data close to such a superposition stays $\varepsilon$-close to a shifted superposition for all time, with each center tracking its linear motion up to an error of order $\varepsilon^{1/2}(1+t)$. This matters because 2D Euler generically creates filaments and exchanges enstrophy, impulse, and energy between nearby structures, and the proof shows that speed ordering plus separation makes these exchanges too weak to break the configuration. A second theorem shows that a fast Lamb dipole can be separated out from an arbitrary slower left-side vorticity without detailed information about it.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Lamb dipole, defined by $\omega_{\mathrm{Lamb}}(x)=-\frac{2c_L}{J_0(c_L)}J_1(c_L r)\mathbf{1}_{[0,1]}(r)\sin\theta$ with $c_L$ the first positive zero of $J_1$; it is the unique maximizer of kinetic energy among nonnegative vorticities with $L^2$ norm bounded by $\kappa$ and weighted $L^1$ impulse bounded by $\mu$, up to horizontal translations. The proof uses a quantitative, local version of this maximizer statement (Proposition 1.3): if a vorticity has near-maximal energy and only slightly relaxed $L^2$ and impulse bounds, it must be close to a translate of the Lamb dipole. Around this, the authors build a decomposition of the solution into $N$ pieces separated by moving vertical borders placed at the midpoints of expected dipole centers, and a bootstrap that keeps each piece inside the coercive regime of Proposition 1.3. The most delicate element is the 'Gain–Error interaction' estimate (Lemma 5.4), which controls the exchange of impulse between vorticity that has crossed a border from right to left and the error layer just right of that border; because the borders separate linearly in time, each gained particle contributes significant impulse exchange only for a short interval, which is tracked in Lagrangian coordinates.

What would settle it

A direct numerical simulation of two Lamb dipoles with ordered speeds and initial separation $D_0$ large, tracking the bootstrap quantities: if the enstrophy of the left piece $K_{\le 1}(t)$ or its impulse $\mu_{\le 1}(t)$ ever increases by more than $C\delta_0$ relative to its initial value, or if the $L^2\cap L^1_*$ distance from $\omega(t)$ to the best shifted two-dipole superposition exceeds $\varepsilon$ for some $t>0$ while the initial data satisfy the hypotheses of Theorem A, the theorem would be false.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Theorem A: for any $N\ge 1$ and any strictly ordered speeds (equivalently, strictly ordered $L^2$ norms) $\kappa_1>\kappa_2>\cdots>\kappa_N$, there exist thresholds $\delta_0$ and $D_0$ such that every nonnegative initial vorticity that is $\delta_0$-close in $L^2\cap L^1_*$ to a superposition of $N$ Lamb dipoles with centers separated by more than $D_0$, and with $L^1\cap L^\infty$ and support-area bounds, evolves so that the solution remains $\varepsilon$-close in $L^2\cap L^1_*$ to a superposition of the same dipoles for all time, with centers $p_i(t)$ satisfying $|p_i(t)-\bar p_i-\bar V_i t|\le C\varepsilon^{1/2}(1+t)$. The dipoles need not have ordered amplitudes or radii; only their traveling speeds are ordered. The proof treats the case $N=1$ as known and reduces the general case to a bootstrap on the enstrophy, impulse, and energy of each of the $N$ pieces, using the variational characterization of a single Lamb dipole as the unique energy maximizer in its admissible class.

Load-bearing premise

The proof depends on the local coercivity of the Lamb dipole as an energy maximizer: if a vorticity with near-maximal energy and only slightly relaxed $L^2$ and impulse bounds could be far from every translate of the Lamb dipole, the bootstrap for each piece would fail and the stability conclusion would not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Theorem A gives the first Lyapunov stability result for multi-dipole solutions of 2D Euler in the half-plane, with a quantitative drift estimate for the centers.
  • The bootstrap shows that linear separation between ordered dipoles dominates the time-integrated effects of filamentation and lift-up, so the configuration remains coherent for all time.
  • As a corollary, the rescaled vorticity $t^2\omega(t,tx)$ converges in the sense of measures to a finite sum of Dirac masses with explicitly predicted positions and strengths, giving concrete realizations of the general scattering picture for the half-plane.
  • The same strategy yields Theorem B, a separation result for a single fast Lamb dipole in front of an arbitrary slower vorticity; this requires no detailed information about the slower part beyond a rearrangement-velocity bound.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The proof suggests a sharp ordering rule for 2D Euler in the half-plane: a separated vortex configuration persists exactly when the spatial order matches the order by speed; the paper's remark that reversing the order breaks stability indicates this is a genuine threshold phenomenon.
  • The Lagrangian gain–error estimate may extend to countably many dipoles with summable $L^1$ norm, where the limiting measure could accumulate Dirac masses at the origin; the paper explicitly leaves this as a challenging open direction.
  • The sharp energy inequality $E[\omega]\le (1/\sqrt{\pi c_L})\|\omega\|_{L^1_*}\|\omega\|_{L^2}$, with equality only at Lamb dipoles, is an isoperimetric statement for the half-plane interaction energy that could be of independent use in rearrangement problems.
  • Because the bootstrap uses only $L^2$, $L^1_*$, and support-area bounds, replacing $L^2$ by $L^p$ with $p>1$ through the energy inequality of Remark 2.6 may yield stability for other orbitally stable traveling waves under the same ordering and separation hypotheses.
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. This paper proves Theorem A: for a fixed ordered family of Lamb dipoles with speeds κ1 > κ2 > ... > κN in the upper half-plane, sufficiently separated initial positions, and initial data close in L2 ∩ L1* to their superposition, the Euler evolution remains ε-close to a translated superposition for all positive times, with the shifts satisfying |p_i(t) - p̄_i - V̄_i t| ≤ C ε^{1/2}(1+t). The proof decomposes the solution using moving cutoffs, imposes bootstrap assumptions (B1)-(B3) on cumulative enstrophy, cumulative impulse, and individual energies, derives consequences (approximation by Lamb dipoles, smallness of gains and errors, smallness of interaction energy), and then closes the bootstrap via flux estimates and a Lagrangian estimate for gain-error interactions. The paper also states Theorem B, which separates out a Lamb dipole from a slower and less structured background, and sketches its proof by parallel bootstrap assumptions.

Significance. If fully established, the result is a substantial advance: it provides the first multi-soliton-type Lyapunov stability theorem for the 2D Euler equation in the half-plane, with quantitative orbital stability and shift estimates. The paper contains genuinely useful new ingredients, especially the interaction energy bounds of Proposition 2.4, the use of rearrangements in Theorem B, and the Lagrangian treatment of gain-error interactions in Lemma 5.4. The overall architecture of the proof is clear and the bootstrap is carefully arranged. However, the current manuscript contains an explicit omitted proof of a load-bearing estimate in Proposition 5.5 and only a sketched closing argument for Theorem B; these gaps prevent the results from being accepted as fully proved at present.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 5.4, Proposition 5.5] The proof of Proposition 5.5 does not establish a bound for the interaction term ∫_0^T ∫ −∇ψ_i·(u_j ω_i) dx dt, which appears in the energy formula (5.5) for i ≠ j. The manuscript states that bounding this term by o(δ) is 'somewhat simpler than the proof of Proposition 5.3' and then omits the proof. This term is essential for closing the energy bootstrap (B3), and Lemma 4.1, and hence Theorem A, depends on (B3) holding globally in time. The asserted additional smallness from the factor −∇ψ_i is not demonstrated: |∇ψ_i| is of order one on the support of ω_i, and near the border L_i(t) the gain and error parts can be arbitrarily close in space, so a separate time-integrability argument of the type used for Lemma 5.4 is required. Without this estimate, the bootstrap cannot be closed and Theorem A is not established as written.
  2. [Section 6.3, Closing (B2') and (B3')] Theorem B is stated as a theorem, but its proof closes the bootstrap assumptions (B2') and (B3') with a single sentence saying that the arguments are 'almost identical' to the rightmost dipole case of Theorem A. That case itself relies on the omitted estimate from Proposition 5.5, so the asserted parallel is not sufficient. In particular, the analogue of Lemma 5.4 for the slanted border L(t, x2) is not written out, and the energy closing for ω_r is not verified. The authors should either provide the complete proof of these closing steps or explicitly state Theorem B as a conditional result.
  3. [Section 1.2.1, Proposition 1.3] The proof of Theorem A relies crucially on Proposition 1.3, the coercive version of the variational characterization of a single Lamb dipole, whose proof is deferred to the preprint [22] by Choi, Jeong, and Yao. This proposition is used for each of the N pieces to obtain the approximation in Lemma 4.1. Because it is a load-bearing external input, the authors should either include a self-contained proof of Proposition 1.3 or a precise derivation from the published results in [1], and clarify whether [22] is available in refereed form.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.4, Lemma 4.4] The proof of Lemma 4.4 contains the line 'using ∥ω_i,err∥_{L2} ≤ ∥ω_i,err∥_{L2} ≤ ε0', which is tautological and appears to be a typo; the intended bound is likely ∥ω_i,err∥_{L2} ≤ ∥ω_i,rem∥_{L2} ≤ ε0.
  2. [Section 5.4, Proposition 5.5] The notation 'o(δ)' in the proof of Proposition 5.5 is not quantified, although the bootstrap argument requires a specific improvement from δ to δ/100. The omitted estimate should be stated with an explicit power of δ, e.g. C δ^{1+α}, so that it can be absorbed for δ sufficiently small.
  3. [Section 3.4.2] The Lagrangian decomposition ω≥i = ω≥i,∗ + ω≥i,gain is introduced before the flow map notation is fully explained; the definitions of Φ^{-1} and the statement that particles cross each L_i(t) only from right to left would be clearer if the relevant crossing lemma were stated immediately after the decomposition.
  4. [Section 2.3, Theorem 2.7] The proof of Theorem 2.7 says that the sharp constant in the energy inequality is obtained by plugging in a Lamb dipole, which is correct only after the variational principle from [1] is invoked; the phrasing could be made more explicit that the equality case in (2.18) follows from the uniqueness part of the first statement.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the N≥2 bootstrap proof is self-contained and anchored to the externally published single-dipole theorem [1] (Abe–Choi, ARMA 2022); only minor non-load-bearing self-citations ([22], [47]) occur, and the flagged omission in Proposition 5.5 is an incompleteness gap, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The derivation chain for Theorem A is self-contained once the single-dipole variational theory is granted. Theorem 2.7 (unique energy maximizer in the class eA_{κ,μ}, sharp inequality E[ω] ≤ C_L‖ω‖_{L1*}‖ω‖_{L2}) is quoted from Abe–Choi [1], a published refereed paper, and the sharp constant is verified in-paper by explicit computation: the paper computes E[ω̄_Lamb] = π, ‖ω̄_Lamb‖_{L1*} = π, ‖ω̄_Lamb‖_{L2} = √π c_L directly from (1.3)–(2.17), so the equality case rests on the external uniqueness theorem, not on a present-paper assumption. Proposition 1.3, the local coercivity applied to each piece in Lemma 4.1, is taken from [22] (with overlapping authors Jeong and Yao), but the paper states it is 'just a reformulation of the compactness statement from [1, Theorems 1.3 and 1.5]', so the load-bearing content is externally published. The genuinely new N≥2 machinery — hard-cutoff decomposition (3.2), the gain–error Lagrangian estimate (Lemma 5.4), the interaction-energy bounds (Lemma 4.5), and the shift construction via H(t,p) in Lemma 4.1 — is proved in the paper; the shift argument follows the technique of [47] (also self-cited) but is reproduced in Steps 1–4, so no conclusion is imported by citation. No parameter is fitted and no conclusion is defined into existence: p_i(t) is an implicit re-centering of the already-proven closeness (4.4), and the nontrivial shift estimate (4.3) is derived from the traveling-wave identity (u − V̄e1)·∇ω̄_Lamb = 0, not assumed. One flagged item is a completeness concern rather than circularity: in Proposition 5.5 the cross-term ∫∫ −∇ψ_i·(u_jω_i) needed to close the energy bootstrap is dismissed with 'Bounding this by o(δ) is somewhat simpler than the proof of Proposition 5.3 ... Therefore we omit the proof.' As written, an essential estimate is asserted, so the closing of (B3) is incomplete; but this is an omitted proof, not a reduction of a conclusion to its own premises, and no citation is being leaned on to supply it. Self-citations [22] and [47] are minor and either trace to [1] or are reproduced in-text.

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

The paper introduces no free parameters or invented entities. It rests on prior published variational results by the same research group (single-dipole stability and the shift estimate), which are external benchmarks despite the self-citation. The bootstrap assumptions are proof devices, not fitted constants.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Yudovich global well-posedness for L1∩L∞ vorticities in the half-plane.
    Cited [63] and used throughout to define the unique global solution of (1.1) from initial data in the stated class.
  • domain assumption Conservation of all Lp norms, L1* impulse, and kinetic energy by the Euler flow.
    Basic invariants invoked repeatedly in the bootstrap, e.g. in §1.1 and in the closing of energy in Proposition 5.5; standard results.
  • domain assumption Lamb dipoles are unique energy maximizers in the admissible class A_{κ,μ} (Theorem 2.7).
    Imported from Abe-Choi [1] and used to derive the sharp energy inequality and to identify near-extremizers with dipoles; load-bearing for Lemma 4.1.
  • domain assumption Local coercivity: near-maximal energy with slightly relaxed constraints implies L2∩L1* closeness to a shift (Proposition 1.3).
    Reformulated from [1]/[22]; applied piecewise to each ω_i(t) after decomposition. If false, the bootstrap cannot close.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Stability for multiple Lamb dipoles." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/G33LDJ2I

@misc{pith2026250716474,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Stability for multiple Lamb dipoles},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/G33LDJ2I}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.16474}
}
read the original abstract

In the class of nonnegative vorticities on the half-plane, we establish the Lyapunov stability of finite sums of Lamb dipoles under the initial assumptions that the dipoles are sufficiently separated and that the faster dipoles are positioned to the right of the slower ones. Our approach combines sharp energy estimates near the Lamb dipoles with a Lagrangian bootstrapping scheme, enabling us to quantify the exchanges of circulation, enstrophy, impulse, and energy between various parts of the solution. The strategy of the proof is robust, and we present several potential extensions of the result.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.16474 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Vorticity and streamlines of a normalized Lamb dipole in the moving frame We are now ready to state our first main result. Given N ≥ 1, positive N-vectors κ¯ = {κ¯i} N i=1, µ¯ = {µ¯i} N i=1 (that is, ¯κi , µ¯i > 0 for all 1 ≤ i ≤ N) and ¯p = (¯p1, · · · , p¯N ) ∈ R N , we introduce the N 1The illustration is shown in the whole plane R 2 . Due to the odd-in-x2 symmetry, if we only take the portion in the upper half p… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. An illustration of a superposition of three Lamb dipoles with ordered velocities V¯ 1 > V¯ 2 > V¯ 3 that are far apart. (Note that Theorem A requires the initial condition to be close to a superposition where the velocities are ordered and the centers are far apart.) Theorem A (Stability of linear superposition of N Lamb dipoles). Fix M > 0, N ≥ 1, and positive N-vectors κ¯, µ¯, with κ¯ satisfying κ¯1 > κ¯2 > · · · … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. An illustration of the initial data of Theorem B (left figure), and the solution at time t (right figure). Here ω0r and ωr(t, ·) are the vorticities on the yellow background at time 0 and t respectively. See [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: An illustration of the borders Li and the vorticities ωi(t, ·) in the case of N = 3. Here ω1, ω2, ω3 are the vorticities lying on the green, yellow and blue backgrounds respectively. 16 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: An illustration of the Eulerian decomposition of ωi into the “central part” ωi,cen (on yellow background) and the two “error terms” ω (ℓ) i,err, ω (r) i,err on the left and right (on gray background). 3.4.2. Lagrangian decomposition: gain and the rest. For i ≥ 2, we de…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: An illustration of the Lagrangian decomposition of ω≥i(t, ·) into the “gained” part ω≥i,gain and the rest ω≥i,∗. In this figure, we color the vorticity in red if the fluid particle is initially located on the left of Li(0) at initial time; and blue otherwise. So ω≥i,∗(…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Illustration of the decomposition of ωl (vorticity to the left of the slanted purple line) into ωl,∗ (red color) and ωl,gain (blue color), and the decomposition of ωr (vorticity to the right of the slanted purple line) into ωr,err (on the gray background) and ωr,cen (o…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Stability of oppositely-propagating pair of Hill's spherical vortices

    math.AP 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    An odd-symmetric pair of Hill's spherical vortices is globally stable in 3D axisymmetric Euler flow, with propagation speed close to the single-vortex speed and a sharp linear error estimate.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

63 extracted references · 55 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [22]

    Choi, I.-J

    K. Choi, I.-J. Jeong, and Y. Yao. Stability of vortex quadrupoles with odd-odd symmetry. arXiv:2409.19822

    arXiv

  2. [1]

    Abe and K

    K. Abe and K. Choi. Stability of Lamb dipoles. Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. , 244(3):877–917, 2022

    work page 2022

  3. [2]

    V. I. Arnold. Sur la g´ eom´ etrie diff´ erentielle des groupes de Lie de dimension infinie et ses applications l’hydrodynamique des fluides parfaits. Ann. Inst. Fourier (Grenoble) , 16:319–361, 1966

    work page 1966

  4. [3]

    T. B. Benjamin. Impulse, flow force and variational principles. IMA J. Appl. Math. , 32:3–68, (1984)

    work page 1984

  5. [4]

    Berti, Z

    M. Berti, Z. Hassainia, and N. Masmoudi. Time quasi-periodic vortex patches of Euler equation in the plane. Invent. Math. , 233(3):1279–1391, 2023

    work page 2023

  6. [5]

    Bouchet and A

    F. Bouchet and A. Venaille. Statistical mechanics of two-dimensional and geophysical flows. Physics Reports, 515(5):227–295, 2012. Statistical mechanics of two-dimensional and geophysical flows

    work page 2012

  7. [6]

    G. R. Burton. Steady symmetric vortex pairs and rearrangements. Proc. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh Sect. A , 108:269– 290, (1988). 34

    work page 1988

  8. [7]

    G. R. Burton. Variational problems on classes of rearrangements and multiple configurations for steady vortices. Ann. Inst. H. Poincar´ e Anal. Non Lin´ eaire, 6(4):295–319, 1989

    work page 1989

Show all 63 references
  1. [8]

    G. R. Burton. Uniqueness for the circular vortex-pair in a uniform flow. Proc. Roy. Soc. London Ser. A, 452:2343– 2350, 1996

    1996

  2. [9]

    G. R. Burton. Vortex-rings of prescribed impulse. Math. Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc. , 134(3):515–528, 2003

    2003

  3. [10]

    G. R. Burton. Isoperimetric properties of Lamb’s circular vortex-pair. J. Math. Fluid Mech. , 7:S68–S80, 2005

    2005

  4. [11]

    G. R. Burton. Compactness and stability for planar vortex-pairs with prescribed impulse. J. Differential Equa- tions, 270:547–572, 2021

    2021

  5. [12]

    G. R. Burton, H. J. Nussenzveig Lopes, and M. C. Lopes Filho. Nonlinear stability for steady vortex pairs. Comm. Math. Phys. , 324:445–463, 2013

    2013

  6. [13]

    Butt` a, G

    P. Butt` a, G. Cavallaro, and C. Marchioro. Leapfrogging vortex rings as scaling limit of Euler equations. SIAM J. Math. Anal. , 57(1):789–824, 2025

    2025

  7. [14]

    D. Cao, G. Qin, W. Yu, W. Zhan, and C. Zou. Existence, uniqueness and stability of steady vortex rings of small cross-section, arXiv:2201.08232

    arXiv

  8. [15]

    D. Cao, G. Qin, W. Zhan, and C. Zou. Global solutions for the generalized SQG equation and rearrangements. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. , 376(3):2181–2211, 2023

    2023

  9. [16]

    D. Cao, G. Qin, W. Zhan, and C. Zou. Uniqueness and stability of traveling vortex pairs for the incompressible Euler equation. Ann. PDE, 11(1):Paper No. 1, 55, 2025

    2025

  10. [17]

    S. A. Chaplygin. One case of vortex motion in fluid. Trudy Otd. Fiz. Nauk Imper. Mosk. Obshch. Lyub. Estest. , 11(11–14), 1903

    1903

  11. [18]

    K. Choi. Stability of Hill’s spherical vortex. Comm. Pure Appl. Math. , 77(1):52–138, 2024

    2024

  12. [19]

    Choi and I.-J

    K. Choi and I.-J. Jeong. Infinite growth in vorticity gradient of compactly supported planar vorticity near Lamb dipole. Nonlinear Anal. Real World Appl. , 65:Paper No. 103470, 20, 2022

    2022

  13. [20]

    Choi and I.-J

    K. Choi and I.-J. Jeong. Filamentation near Hill’s vortex. Comm. Partial Differential Equations , 48(1):54–85, 2023

    2023

  14. [21]

    Choi, I.-J

    K. Choi, I.-J. Jeong, and Y.-J. Sim. On existence of Sadovskii vortex patch: A touching pair of symmetric counter-rotating uniform vortex. Ann. PDE, 11(18), 2025

    2025

  15. [23]

    Choi, Y.-J

    K. Choi, Y.-J. Sim, and K. Woo. Existence and stability of Sadovskii vortices: from vortex patches to regular vorticity arXiv:2507.00910

  16. [24]

    Cifani, M

    P. Cifani, M. Viviani, and K. Modin. An efficient geometric method for incompressible hydrodynamics on the sphere. J. Comput. Phys. , 473:Paper No. 111772, 10, 2023

    2023

  17. [25]

    Crouseilles and E

    N. Crouseilles and E. Faou. Quasi-periodic solutions of the 2D Euler equation. Asymptot. Anal. , 81(1):31–34, 2013

    2013

  18. [26]

    D´ avila, M

    J. D´ avila, M. del Pino, M. Musso, and S. Parmeshwar. Global in time vortex configurations for the 2D Euler equations. arXiv:2310.07238

  19. [27]

    D´ avila, M

    J. D´ avila, M. del Pino, M. Musso, and S. Parmeshwar. Asymptotic properties of vortex-pair solutions for incom- pressible Euler equations in R2. J. Differential Equations , 408:33–63, 2024

    2024

  20. [28]

    D´ avila, M

    J. D´ avila, M. del Pino, M. Musso, and J. Wei. Travelling helices and the vortex filament conjecture in the incompressible Euler equations. Calc. Var. Partial Differential Equations , 61(4):Paper No. 119, 30, 2022

    2022

  21. [29]

    D´ avila, M

    J. D´ avila, M. del Pino, M. Musso, and J. Wei. Leapfrogging vortex rings for the three-dimensional incompressible Euler equations. Comm. Pure Appl. Math. , 77(10):3843–3957, 2024

    2024

  22. [30]

    Dolce and T

    M. Dolce and T. Gallay. The long way of a viscous vortex dipole. arXiv:2407.13562

  23. [31]

    Donati, L

    M. Donati, L. E. Hientzsch, C. Lacave, and E. Miot. On the dynamics of leapfrogging vortex rings. arXiv:2503.21604

    arXiv

  24. [32]

    T. D. Drivas and T. M. Elgindi. Singularity formation in the incompressible Euler equation in finite and infinite time. EMS Surv. Math. Sci. , 10(1):1–100, 2023

    2023

  25. [33]

    T. D. Drivas, T. M. Elgindi, and I.-J. Jeong. Twisting in Hamiltonian flows and perfect fluids. Invent. Math. , 238(1):331–370, 2024

    2024

  26. [34]

    Enciso, D

    A. Enciso, D. Peralta-Salas, and F. Torres de Lizaur. Quasi-periodic solutions to the incompressible Euler equations in dimensions two and higher. J. Differential Equations , 354:170–182, 2023

    2023

  27. [35]

    J. B. Flor and G. J. F. Van Heijst. An experimental study of dipolar vortex structures in a stratified fluid. J. Fluid Mech., 279:101–133, 1994

    1994

  28. [36]

    Gallay and V

    T. Gallay and V. ˇSver´ ak. Vanishing viscosity limit for axisymmetric vortex rings.Invent. Math., 237(1):275–348, 2024

    2024

  29. [37]

    J. H. G. M. Van Geffena and G. J. F. Van Heijst. Viscous evolution of 2d dipolar vortices. Fluid Dynamics Research, 22:191–213, 1998. 35

    1998

  30. [38]

    G´ omez-Serrano, A

    J. G´ omez-Serrano, A. D. Ionescu, and J. Park. Quasiperiodic solutions of the generalized SQG equation. arXiv:2303.03992

    arXiv

  31. [39]

    Hassainia, T

    Z. Hassainia, T. Hmidi, and N. Masmoudi. Rigorous derivation of the leapfrogging motion for planar Euler equations. arXiv:2311.15765

    arXiv

  32. [40]

    Hassainia and E

    Z. Hassainia and E. Roulley. Boundary effects on the emergence of quasi-periodic solutions for Euler equations. Nonlinearity, 38(1):Paper No. 015016, 81, 2025

    2025

  33. [41]

    Huang and J

    D. Huang and J. Tong. Steady contiguous vortex-patch dipole solutions of the 2D incompressible Euler equation. arXiv:2406.09849

    arXiv

  34. [42]

    Iftimie, M

    D. Iftimie, M. C. Lopes Filho, and H. J. Nussenzveig Lopes. Large time behavior for vortex evolution in the half-plane. Comm. Math. Phys. , 237(3):441–469, 2003

    2003

  35. [43]

    D. Iftimie. ´Evolution de tourbillon ´ a support compact. InJourn´ ees ‘´Equations aux D´ eriv´ ees Partielles” (Saint- Jean-de-Monts, 1999), pages Exp. No. IV, 8. Univ. Nantes, Nantes, 1999

    1999

  36. [44]

    D. Iftimie. Large time behavior in perfect incompressible flows. In Partial differential equations and applications , volume 15 of S´ emin. Congr., pages 119–179. Soc. Math. France, Paris, 2007

    2007

  37. [45]

    Iftimie, T

    D. Iftimie, T. C. Sideris, and P. Gamblin. On the evolution of compactly supported planar vorticity. Comm. Partial Differential Equations , 24:1709–1730, 1999

    1999

  38. [46]

    Jang and J

    J. Jang and J. Seok. On uniformly rotating binary stars and galaxies. Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal., 244(2):443–499, 2022

    2022

  39. [47]

    Jeong, Y

    I.-J. Jeong, Y. Yao, and T. Zhou. Superlinear gradient growth for 2D Euler equation without boundary. arXiv:2507.15739

    arXiv

  40. [48]

    K. M. Khanin. Quasiperiodic motions of vortex systems. Phys. D , 4(2):261–269, 1981/82. With an appendix by S. L. Ziglin

    1981

  41. [49]

    Krasny and L

    R. Krasny and L. Xu. Vorticity and circulation decay in the viscous Lamb dipole. Fluid Dyn. Res. , 53(015514), 2021

    2021

  42. [50]

    H. Lamb. Hydrodynamics. Cambridge Univ. Press., 3rd ed. edition, 1906

    1906

  43. [51]

    Martel, F

    Y. Martel, F. Merle, and T.-P. Tsai. Stability and asymptotic stability in the energy space of the sum of N solitons for subcritical gKdV equations. Comm. Math. Phys. , 231:347–373, 2002

    2002

  44. [52]

    J. C. Mcwilliams. The emergence of isolated coherent vortices in turbulent flow. Journal of Fluid Mechanics , 146:21–43, 1984

    1984

  45. [53]

    H. K. Moffatt and D. W. Moore. The response of Hill’s spherical vortex to a small axisymmetric disturbance. J. Fluid Mech., 87(4):749–760, 1978

    1978

  46. [54]

    E. A. Overman and N. J. Zabusky. Coaxial scattering of Euler-equation translating V -states via contour dynam- ics. J. Fluid Mech. , 125:187–202, 1982

    1982

  47. [55]

    D. I. Pullin. Contour dynamics methods. In Annual review of fluid mechanics, Vol. 24 , pages 89–115. Annual Reviews, Palo Alto, CA, 1992

    1992

  48. [56]

    Thomson (Lord Kelvin)

    W. Thomson (Lord Kelvin). Maximum and minimum energy in vortex motion, Nature 22, no. 574, 618–620 (1880). In Mathematical and Physical Papers 4 , pages 172–183. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1910

    1910

  49. [57]

    Turkington

    B. Turkington. On steady vortex flow in two dimensions. I, II. Comm. Partial Differential Equations, 8:999–1030, 1031–1071, 1983

    1983

  50. [58]

    Turkington

    B. Turkington. On the evolution of a concentrated vortex in an ideal fluid. Arch. Rational Mech. Anal., 97(1):75– 87, 1987

    1987

  51. [59]

    G. F. van Heijst and J. Flor. Dipole formation and collisions in a stratified fluid. Nature., 340:212–215, 1989

    1989

  52. [60]

    Y. H. Wan. The stability of rotating vortex patches. Comm. Math. Phys. , 107:1–20, 1986

    1986

  53. [61]

    Y. H. Wan. Variational principles for Hill’s spherical vortex and nearly spherical vortices. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 308:299–312, 1988

    1988

  54. [62]

    G. Wang. On concentrated traveling vortex pairs with prescribed impulse.Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 377(4):2635– 2661, 2024

    2024

  55. [63]

    V. I. Yudovich. Non-stationary flows of an ideal incompressible fluid. Z. Vycisl. Mat. i Mat. Fiz. , 3:1032–1066, 1963. 36 Department of Mathematics, Graduate School of Science, Osaka Metropolitan University, 3-3-138 Sugimoto, Sumiyoshi-ku Osaka, 558-8585, Japan. Email address...

    1963

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.