Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 38 references

Dispersive estimates for Schr\"{o}dinger's and wave equations on Riemannian manifolds

T0 review · 2 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 The paper claims that on 3D manifolds with curvature close to constant negative curvature, the wave propagator decays as $t^{-1}$ and the Schrödinger propagator as $|t|^{-3/2}$, even after adding a small scalar potential.

desk verdict Strong sine-propagator and Schrödinger results on perturbed hyperbolic manifolds, but the cosine bound in Theorem 1 is asserted without proof; referee should demand a real argument. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.06957 v2 pith:44OSGTWK submitted 2025-01-12 math.AP

Marius Beceanu This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.AP MSC 35L0535Q4135B4053B2058J3758J45
keywords dispersiveestimatesSchrödingerequationwaveRiemannianmanifoldsconstantnegativecurvatureJacobifieldsKatoclasspropagatorseries
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper tries to show that the basic decay laws for waves and Schrödinger solutions—$t^{-1}$ for the wave propagator and $|t|^{-3/2}$ for Schrödinger—are not special to flat or hyperbolic space, but survive on any three-dimensional Riemannian manifold whose curvature tensor is a small perturbation of constant negative curvature. The main result, Theorem 1, states that under such a geometric smallness condition, together with a small scalar potential in a global Kato class, the cosine propagator decays like $t^{-1}$ in $L^1\to L^\infty$ and the Schrödinger propagator like $|t|^{-3/2}$. If true, dispersive behavior is stable under small geometric perturbations, so decay-based arguments for nonlinear equations can be run on these curved backgrounds. The paper also proves matching estimates on the sphere $\mathbb{S}^3$ and hyperbolic space $\mathbb{H}^3$, where the sphere shows the expected periodic refocusing with $1/\sin t$ factors.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the sine propagator series. On constant-curvature space the sine propagator is exactly $(4\pi j(t))^{-1}\delta_{d(x_0,x)=t}$, with $j(t)=\sinh(\alpha_0 t)/\alpha_0$ on $\mathbb{H}^3$ and $j(t)=\sin t$ on $\mathbb{S}^3$. For a perturbed metric the paper writes the approximate propagator $S_0(t)=(4\pi\sqrt{a})^{-1}\delta_{d=t}$, where $a=J_1\wedge J_2$ is the area element from two Jacobi fields along geodesics; the Laplacian of $a^{-1/2}$ produces an error term $E$ supported on the light cone, and the true propagator is $S=S_0+S_0*E+S_0*E*E+\cdots$ in the convolution algebroid $U(X,Y)$ whose norm tests time-integrated operator bounds between Banach lattices. Conditions (24), (26), and (27) make the contraction estimate $|J-j\,e|\lesssim \epsilon j$ and the error bound $\|E\|_{U(L^1)}\lesssim \epsilon$ work, so the series converges and the derivation identity $tS=(tS_0)*(I-E)^{-1}+S_0*(I-E)^{-1}*(tE)*(I-E)^{-1}$ converts free $t^{-1}$ decay into perturbed $t^{-1}$ decay. The same algebra with exponential weights produces the $\sinh$ improvement.

What would settle it

Integrate the Jacobi equation numerically along a single long geodesic in a 3D metric built so that $\int |Rm-Rm_0|\,ds = \epsilon/2$ but the curvature deviation is concentrated in a long interval; the paper's estimates require $|J(r)-j(r)e|\lesssim \epsilon j(r)$ throughout. If, before the curvature integral reaches $\epsilon$, the deviation exceeds $C\epsilon j(r)$ for any reasonable constant $C$, the contraction step in Section 4.1 fails and the central claim would be false for that family of metrics.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that on a simply connected 3D manifold whose Riemann curvature tensor satisfies the geodesic integrability conditions (24), (26), and (27)—the $L^1$ norm along every geodesic of $Rm-Rm_0$, $\nabla Rm$, and $\nabla^2 Rm$ is smaller than a tiny $\epsilon$, with corresponding global $L^1$ smallness—and with a small Kato-class potential $V$, the cosine propagator satisfies $\|\cos(t\sqrt{H})f\|_{L^\infty} \lesssim t^{-1}\|f\|_{W^{2,1}}$ and the Schrödinger propagator satisfies $\|e^{itH}f\|_{L^\infty} \lesssim |t|^{-3/2}\|f\|_{L^1}$. When $V$ lies in the modified Kato class $\widetilde{K}$, the polynomial $t$ can be replaced by $\sinh(t(\alpha_0-\delta))$ for any $\delta>0$. The mechanism is direct and geometric: the sine propagator is approximated by the explicit surface measure built from Jacobi fields, the error is shown to be small in a convolution algebroid, and the true propagator is obtained by iterating this error in a convergent series. A byproduct is the absence of embedded eigenvalues and threshold resonances for small potentials.

Load-bearing premise

The whole proof rests on the assumption that along every infinite geodesic the total amount by which the curvature tensor differs from constant negative curvature, together with the totals of its first two derivatives, is smaller than one tiny epsilon; if some geodesic accumulates even a moderate amount of curvature deviation, the contraction estimate for Jacobi fields and the convergence of the propagator series may fail.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The $t^{-3/2}$ Schrödinger and $t^{-1}$ wave decay estimates imply the usual Strichartz estimates on the perturbed manifold, so nonlinear well-posedness results on hyperbolic space transfer to these curved backgrounds.
  • For small potentials in the modified Kato space, the decay is exponential in $\sinh(t(\alpha_0-\delta))$, giving a quantitative rate independent of the potential except through its size.
  • On $\mathbb{S}^3$, the wave propagators obey $1/\sin t$ estimates, consistent with periodic refocusing and discrete spectrum; the paper derives spectral projection bounds from these estimates.
  • The convergent Born/Duhamel series rules out embedded eigenvalues and threshold resonances for small potentials, since a resonance would create a pole the convergent series cannot have.
  • The estimates are new even in some constant-curvature cases, providing $L^p$ decay for shifted wave and Schrödinger equations on $\mathbb{H}^3$ and $\mathbb{S}^3$ through one geometric proof.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the result is correct, the natural next test is whether the geodesic-by-geodesic condition (24) can be relaxed to an averaged $L^1$ condition, since the paper itself uses global $L^1$ smallness to sharpen the geodesic bounds; one could engineer a metric where the geodesic supremum is slightly large but the average is small and see whether decay still holds.
  • The same Jacobi-field contraction may extend to asymptotically hyperbolic or non-positive curvature settings in three dimensions, while positive curvature would require a different ansatz because conjugate points destroy the surface-measure propagator; the paper explicitly flags positive curvature as future work.
  • A concrete numerical check of the paper's estimates is to integrate the Jacobi equation along a long geodesic in a perturbed metric and compare $a=J_1\wedge J_2$ with $j^2$: the estimates predict $|a-j^2|\lesssim \epsilon j^2$ and $|\partial_r a-2jj'|\lesssim \epsilon jj'$, which is directly testable.
  • For applications, the exponential-in-$\sinh$ rate suggests that very large-time behavior is governed by the constant-curvature background, so model-space or effective one-dimensional reductions may be justified for nonlinear problems on these manifolds.
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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proves dispersive (L^1-to-L^\infty) decay estimates for Schr\"odinger and wave equations on three-dimensional Riemannian manifolds, with the main theorem treating metrics whose curvature tensor is close to constant negative curvature in a geodesic-\ell^1 sense, plus a small Kato-class scalar potential. The technical core is a construction of the sine propagator as a convergent series of approximate cone-supported measures, using Jacobi-field estimates and an algebra of integral kernels (the U-spaces). Model results are also given for constant-curvature S^3 and H^3, with and without potentials.

Significance. If the main theorem is correct, it is a substantial contribution: it would give global t^{-1} and t^{-3/2} decay on nonconstant negatively curved backgrounds under relatively explicit geometric smallness assumptions, and the exponential replacement by sinh(t(\alpha_0-\delta)) would be a strong hyperbolic-space-like result. The paper has real strengths: Proposition 4 gives a clean explicit sine-propagator identity for constant curvature; the contraction argument for Jacobi fields in Section 4.1 is detailed; the U-algebra framework in Proposition 6 is elegant and, notably, contains no fitted parameters—the smallness assumptions are hypotheses rather than quantities tuned to force the conclusions. The main weakness is that the cosine-propagator estimates, which are load-bearing for Theorems 1 and 3, are asserted rather than proved in the nonconstant and perturbed settings, and the one displayed Duhamel expansion used for the perturbed cosine propagator is algebraically incorrect as written.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 5.4, proof of Theorem 1] The proof of Theorem 1 asserts that tS_V(t) \in U(L^1,L^\infty) "implies the t^{-1} L^1 \to L^\infty decay estimate for the cosine propagator, same as (116)". This implication is not established and is not a direct consequence of the stated U-space bound: C_V(t)=\partial_t S_V(t), and an integrable bound on tS_V gives no control of its time derivative. In the constant-curvature cases the cosine estimate is obtained from the explicit distribution kernel (98), which contains a \delta' term and requires the \nabla a and \nabla^2 a estimates supplied by Proposition 6; no analogue of that computation is carried out for the nonconstant metric. The same gap affects the claimed replacement of t by \sinh(t(\alpha_0-\delta)) in (10), since only j_\delta(t) S_V(t), not j_\delta(t) C_V(t), is proved to lie in U(L^1,L^\infty).
  2. [Section 5.3, Duhamel expansion for the cosine propagator] The displayed expansion \chi_{t\ge0}C=(I+[\chi S_0 V])^{-1}*[\chi C_0] does not follow from differentiating (112). Since S=S_0*(I+V S_0)^{-1}, differentiation gives C=C_0*(I+V S_0)^{-1}+S_0*\partial_t[(I+V S_0)^{-1}], and the second term is not accounted for in the series shown. The correct expansion should contain terms such as C_0*V S_0 and S_0*V C_0 in addition to S_0*V S_0*V C_0; omitting them means the cosine estimates (116) for the perturbed problem are not justified. This affects Theorem 3 and the constant-curvature-with-potential case, not just the general setting of Theorem 1.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Proposition 4] The formula S_0(t)=(4\pi j(t))^{-1}\delta_{d=|t|} is not correct on S^3 for all t: for |t|>\pi the set {d=|t|} is empty, while the propagator is supported at distance 2\pi-|t| with the sign given by the oddness relation S_0(t)=-S_0(2\pi-t), which Section 5.1 later uses. Please state the formula on a fundamental period or with the appropriate antipodal identification.
  2. [Equation (98)] The cosine kernel formula (98) is stated without derivation; since the estimates (100)-(101) and (105)-(106) depend on its distributional structure, a short derivation from Proposition 4 or from the spectral decomposition would improve the readability and verifiability of the constant-curvature sections.
  3. [Section 5.1] The notation \delta_{d=t} with t\in(\pi,2\pi) is confusing because the sphere of radius t is empty; writing the support explicitly as \delta_{d=2\pi-t} would make the sign conventions in the cosine and sine estimates unambiguous.
  4. [Equation (109)] The estimate F[e^{it\lambda^2}]\lesssim t^{-1/2} is stated loosely: the oscillatory integral is a distribution and needs a stationary-phase justification, and the operator-valued Fourier transform notation should be clarified before the t^{-3/2} conclusion is drawn.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the propagator estimates are self-contained; the Section 5.4 cosine bound is a proof gap, not a circular inference.

full rationale

The derivation is not circular. The hypotheses of Theorem 1 — smallness of Rm−Rm0, ∇Rm, ∇²Rm in L1(Γ) and L1, and smallness of V in the Kato space — are geometric and potential assumptions, not quantities fitted to force the conclusion. Proposition 6 and the proof of Theorem 1 construct the sine propagator directly by an iterated series S = S0 + S0*E + S0*E*E + ... and estimate each term using the assumed L1 and Kato norms; no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no conclusion is equivalent to an input by definition. The self-citations to [BecGol1] and [BecGol2] are used only to introduce the U(X,Y) algebra notation and to point to a future large-potential method; they are not load-bearing. The constant-curvature results and the perturbed-resolvent/Duhamel arguments in Sections 5.1–5.3 are explicit and self-contained. One passage warrants a correctness flag rather than a circularity flag: Section 5.4 states, without proof, that the bound tS_V(t) ∈ U(L1,L∞) implies the t^{-1} cosine-propagator bound, 'same as (116)', and that the t^{-3/2} Schrödinger bound 'also follows from tS_V(t) ∈ U(L1,L∞)'. Since C_V(t) = ∂_t S_V(t), a bound on tS_V(t) does not by itself control tC_V(t); this is an omitted derivation, but it is not a reduction of the theorem to its assumptions, so it does not make the paper circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no fitted constants. The smallness parameters ϵ and δ are existential hypotheses; δ ∈ (0, α0) is chosen to trade decay rate against the modified Kato norm, not fitted to data. The central assumptions are geometric (L1 smallness of curvature deviation along and across geodesics) and analytic (Kato smallness of the potential).

assumptions (6)
  • standard math Cartan-Hadamard: in a simply connected manifold with non-positive sectional curvature, the exponential map is a diffeomorphism.
    Used in Section 1.1 to assume the exponential map is bijective for negative curvature and flat cases.
  • standard math The Jacobi equation governs the derivative of the geodesic flow and the area element (equation (14)).
    Foundation of Section 2.1 and used throughout Section 4 to estimate the area element and its derivatives.
  • standard math Sobolev embedding W^{1,1}(R) ⊂ L∞(R) and W^{1,1}(S^2) ⊂ L^2(S^2).
    Used in Sections 4.1 and 4.2 to turn L1 integrability of curvature derivatives into pointwise or averaged bounds.
  • standard math The U-algebra (67) is an associative algebra with submultiplicative norm under convolution (68).
    Used to sum Duhamel series in Propositions 5 and 6 and Section 5.3; properties are proved in the paper but rely on standard Fubini and Young arguments.
  • domain assumption The manifold is simply connected and, in negative and flat cases, the exponential map is bijective.
    Stated in Section 1.1; excludes manifolds with nontrivial topology and trapped geodesics.
  • domain assumption The curvature perturbation satisfies smallness in L1(Γ) and L1, as in equations (24), (26), and (27).
    This is the central geometric hypothesis; it guarantees contraction in Jacobi field estimates and integrability of the error term.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dispersive estimates for Schr\"{o}dinger's and wave equations on Riemannian manifolds." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/44OSGTWK

@misc{pith2026250106957,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dispersive estimates for Schr\"odinger's and wave equations on Riemannian manifolds},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/44OSGTWK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.06957}
}
abstract

This paper proves $L^p$ decay estimates for Schr\"{o}dinger's and wave equations with scalar potentials on three-dimensional Riemannian manifolds. The main result regards small perturbations of a metric with constant negative sectional curvature. We also prove estimates on $\mathbb S^3$, the three-dimensional sphere, and $\mathbb H^3$, the three-dimensional hyperbolic space. Most of the estimates hold for the perturbed Hamiltonian $H=H_0+V$, where $H_0$ is the shifted Laplacian $H_0=-\Delta+\kappa_0$, $\kappa_0$ is the constant (or asymptotic) sectional curvature, and $V$ is a small scalar potential. The results are based on direct estimates of the wave propagator. All results hold in three space dimensions. The metric is required to have four derivatives.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Anker, V

    J. Anker, V. Pierfelice, Nonlinear Schr\" o dinger equation on real hyperbolic spaces , Ann. Inst. H. Poincar\' e (C) Non Linear Analysis 26 (2009), pp. 1853--1869

    work page 2009

  2. [2]

    Anker, V

    J. Anker, V. Pierfelice, Wave and Klein–Gordon equations on hyperbolic spaces, Anal. PDE, 7(2014), pp. 953-995

    work page 2014

  3. [3]

    Anker, V

    J. Anker, V. Pierfelice, M. Vallarino, The wave equation on hyperbolic spaces, Journal of Differential Equations, 2012, 252 (10), pp. 5613--5661

    work page 2012

  4. [4]

    Anker, V

    J. Anker, V. Pierfelice, M. Vallarino, The wave equation on Damek--Ricci spaces, Ann. Mat. Pura Appl. (4), 194(3) pp. 731--758 (2015)

    work page 2015

  5. [5]

    Beceanu, M

    M. Beceanu, M. Goldberg Dispersive estimates for the Schrödinger equation with scaling-critical potential, Communications in Mathematical Physics (2012), Vol. 314, Issue 2, pp. 471--481

    work page 2012

  6. [6]

    Beceanu, M

    M. Beceanu, M. Goldberg, Strichartz estimates and maximal operators for the wave equation in ^3 , Journal of Functional Analysis (2014) 266, Issue 3, pp. 147--151

    work page 2014

  7. [7]

    Beceanu, H

    M. Beceanu, H. Kwon, Decay estimates for Schr\" o dinger's equation with magnetic potentials in three dimensions , preprint, arXiv:2411.11787

    arXiv

  8. [8]

    o fstr\

    J. Bergh, J. L\" o fstr\" o m, Interpolation spaces, Springer--Verlag, 1976

    work page 1976

Show all 38 references
  1. [9]

    Calegari, Introduction to differential geometry, preprint, online

    D. Calegari, Introduction to differential geometry, preprint, online

  2. [10]

    Chen, Resolvent and spectral measure on non-trapping asymptotically hyperbolic manifolds III

    X. Chen, Resolvent and spectral measure on non-trapping asymptotically hyperbolic manifolds III. Global-in-time Strichartz estimates without loss, Ann. I. H. Poincar\' e -AN 35 (2018), pp. 803--829

    2018

  3. [11]

    Do Carmo, Riemannian Geometry, Birkh\" a user, 1992

    M. Do Carmo, Riemannian Geometry, Birkh\" a user, 1992

    1992

  4. [12]

    D. Geba, D. Tataru, Dispersive estimates for wave equations, Comm. Partial Differential Equations 30 (2005), no. 4--6, pp. 849--880

    2005

  5. [13]

    Hassani, Wave equation on Riemannian symmetric spaces, J

    A. Hassani, Wave equation on Riemannian symmetric spaces, J. Math. Phys. 52 (2011), 043514

    2011

  6. [14]

    Hassell, J

    A. Hassell, J. Zhang, Global-in-time Strichartz estimates on nontrapping asymptotically conic manifolds, Analysis & PDE, 9 (2016), pp. 151--192

    2016

  7. [15]

    Ionescu, Fourier integral operators on noncompact symmetric spaces of real rank one, J

    A. Ionescu, Fourier integral operators on noncompact symmetric spaces of real rank one, J. Funct. Anal. 174 (2000), pp. 274--300

    2000

  8. [16]

    Kapitanski, Norm estimates in Besov and Lizorkin--Treibel spaces for the solutions of second order linear hyperbolic equations, J

    L. Kapitanski, Norm estimates in Besov and Lizorkin--Treibel spaces for the solutions of second order linear hyperbolic equations, J. Sov. Math., 56 (1991), pp. 2348--2389

    1991

  9. [17]

    Lee, Riemannian manifolds

    J. Lee, Riemannian manifolds. An introduction to curvature, Springer, 1997

    1997

  10. [18]

    Marzuola, J

    J. Marzuola, J. Metcalfe, D. Tataru, Wave packet parametrices for evolutions governed by pdo's with rough symbols, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 136 (2008), no. 2, pp. 597--604

    2008

  11. [19]

    Marzuola, J

    J. Marzuola, J. Metcalfe, D. Tataru, Strichartz estimates and local smoothing estimates for asymptotically flat Schr\" o dinger equations , J. Funct. Anal. 255 (2008), no. 6, pp. 1497--1553

    2008

  12. [20]

    Metcalfe, M

    J. Metcalfe, M. Taylor, Nonlinear waves on 3D hyperbolic space, Transactions of the American Mathematical Society Vol. 363, no. 7, pp. 3489--3529

  13. [21]

    Metcalfe, D

    J. Metcalfe, D. Tataru, Global parametrices and dispersive estimates for variable coefficients wave equations, Math. Ann. 353 (2012), no. 4, pp. 1183--1237

    2012

  14. [22]

    Mockenhaupt, A

    G. Mockenhaupt, A. Seeger, C. Sogge, Local smoothing of Fourier integral operators and Carleson--Sj\" o lin estimates , J. Amer. Math. Soc., 6 (1993), pp. 65--130

    1993

  15. [23]

    Rodnianski, W

    I. Rodnianski, W. Schlag, Time decay for solutions of Schr\" o dinger equations with rough and time-dependent potentials , Invent. Math. 155 (2004), no. 3, pp. 451--513

    2004

  16. [24]

    Schlag, A

    W. Schlag, A. Soffer, W. Staubach, Decay for the wave and Schrödinger evolutions on manifolds with conical ends, Part I, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 362 (2010), no. 1, pp. 19-52

    2010

  17. [25]

    Schlag, A

    W. Schlag, A. Soffer, W. Staubach, Decay for the wave and Schrödinger evolutions on manifolds with conical ends, Part II, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 362 (2010), no. 1, pp. 289-318

    2010

  18. [26]

    Y. Sire, C. Sogge, C. Wang, J. Zhang, Strichartz estimates and Strauss conjecture on non-trapping asymptotically hyperbolic manifolds, Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, Vol. 373, No. 11, 2020, pp. 7639--7668

    2020

  19. [27]

    Smith, A parametrix construction for wave equations with C^ 1,1 coefficients , Ann

    H. Smith, A parametrix construction for wave equations with C^ 1,1 coefficients , Ann. Inst. Fourier (Grenoble), 48(3), pp. 797–835, 1998

    1998

  20. [28]

    Smith, C

    H. Smith, C. Sogge, On Strichartz and eigenfunction estimates for low regularity metrics, Math. Res. Lett., 1(6) pp. 729--737, 1994

    1994

  21. [29]

    Smith, C

    H. Smith, C. Sogge, Global Strichartz estimates for nontrapping perturbations of the Laplacian, Comm. Partial Differential Equations, 25(11-12), pp. 2171–2183, 2000

    2000

  22. [30]

    Sogge, C

    C. Sogge, C. Wang, Concerning the wave equation on asymptotically Euclidean manifolds, Journal d'Analyze Math\' e matique, Vol. 112, pp. 1--32, 2010

    2010

  23. [31]

    Staffilani, D

    G. Staffilani, D. Tataru, Strichartz estimates for a Schr\" o dinger equation with nonsmooth coefficients , Comm. Partial Differential Equations 27 (2002), pp. 1337--1372

    2002

  24. [32]

    Tataru, Strichartz estimates for operators with nonsmooth coefficients and the nonlinear wave equation Amer

    D. Tataru, Strichartz estimates for operators with nonsmooth coefficients and the nonlinear wave equation Amer. J. Math., 122(2), pp. 349--376, 2000

    2000

  25. [33]

    Tataru, Strichartz estimates for second order hyperbolic operators with nonsmooth coefficients II, Amer

    D. Tataru, Strichartz estimates for second order hyperbolic operators with nonsmooth coefficients II, Amer. J. Math., 123(3) pp. 385--423, 2001

    2001

  26. [34]

    Tataru, Strichartz estimates in the hyperbolic space and global existence for the semilinear wave equation, Trans

    D. Tataru, Strichartz estimates in the hyperbolic space and global existence for the semilinear wave equation, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 353 (2001), pp. 795--807

    2001

  27. [35]

    Tataru, Strichartz estimates for second order hyperbolic operators with nonsmooth coefficients III

    D. Tataru, Strichartz estimates for second order hyperbolic operators with nonsmooth coefficients III. J. Amer. Math. Soc., 15 (2) pp. 419--442, 2002

    2002

  28. [36]

    Tataru, Parametrices and dispersive estimates for Schr\" o dinger operators with variable coefficients , Amer

    D. Tataru, Parametrices and dispersive estimates for Schr\" o dinger operators with variable coefficients , Amer. J. Math. 130 (2008), no. 3, pp. 571--634

    2008

  29. [37]

    Tataru, Local decay of waves on asymptotically flat stationary space-times, Amer

    D. Tataru, Local decay of waves on asymptotically flat stationary space-times, Amer. J. Math. 135 (2013), no. 2, pp. 361--401

    2013

  30. [38]

    Zhang, Strichartz estimates and nonlinear wave equation on nontrapping asymptotically conic manifolds, Advances in Math., 271(2015), pp

    J. Zhang, Strichartz estimates and nonlinear wave equation on nontrapping asymptotically conic manifolds, Advances in Math., 271(2015), pp. 91--111

    2015

Pith tools

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