Unconditional well-posendness for the fourth order nonlinear Schrodinger type equations on the torus

Takamori Kato

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 29 references

Unconditional well-posendness for the fourth order nonlinear Schrodinger type equations on the torus

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 ↗

Pith's one-line read Unconditional well-posedness at H^1 for 4NLS on the torus

desk verdict Real progress on the H^1 threshold for fourth-order NLS on the torus, but the existence proof's final step is deferred to the author's prior work and needs to be written out before the claim is fully checkable. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.11455 v2 pith:TYNHBFKL submitted 2025-01-20 math.AP

Takamori Kato This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.AP MSC 35Q5535A0135A02

keywords fourth-ordernonlinearSchrödingerunconditionalwell-posednessnormalformreductioncancellationpropertytorusH^1non-integrablecase

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

The paper proves that the fourth-order nonlinear Schrödinger type equation (1.1) on the torus is unconditionally locally well-posed in $H^s(\mathbb{T})$ for every $s \ge 1$, provided the coefficient $\lambda_5$ is either $0$ or $\lambda_2+\lambda_4$. It gives an unconditional well-posedness result at the $H^1$ threshold for this class, including non-integrable choices of the coefficients. The threshold is optimal: for $s<1$ the nonlinear terms $\bar u(\partial_x u)^2$ and $u|\partial_x u|^2$ cannot be defined as space-time distributions. The proof removes derivative losses by applying the normal-form reduction twice and by proving a cancellation property for the remaining resonant quintic term. The central claim is that rough $H^1$ solutions exist, are unique among all $H^1$ solutions, and depend continuously on the data.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by a two-stage normal-form reduction. The linear phase is $\varphi_\phi(k)=k^4+\lambda_5 E_1(\phi)k^2$, and the nonlinear phases $\Phi_\phi^{(3)}$, $\Phi_\phi^{(5)}$ are the differences between the output phase and the sum of input phases. The first normal form, division by $\Phi_\phi^{(3)}$, recovers one derivative from the cubic non-resonant terms; the second normal form would recover another derivative from the quintic terms, but it encounters the resonant multiplier $M^{(5)}_{8,\phi}$, which carries a derivative loss. The paper proves that the symmetrization $\widetilde M^{(5)}_{8,\phi}$ — the multiplier averaged over permutations of the input frequencies — has no derivative loss, and this cancellation property is what lets the second normal form close at $H^1$.

What would settle it

Inspect the proof of Proposition 8.4 in [13] and locate the step that reconstructs a solution of the original equation from the normal-form equation; if that step uses a conservation law or algebraic identity specific to fifth-order mKdV that has no analogue for (1.6), then Proposition 8.3 is not proved and Theorem 1.1 lacks a proof.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Theorem 1.1: for $s \ge 1$ and $\lambda_5 = \lambda_2+\lambda_4$ or $\lambda_5=0$, the Cauchy problem (1.1)–(1.2) on $\mathbb{T}$ is unconditionally locally well-posed in $H^s(\mathbb{T})$. 'Unconditionally' means the solution is required to lie only in $C([-T,T];H^s)$, not in a finer auxiliary space, and uniqueness holds in that class; continuous dependence on the initial datum also holds. The result covers non-integrable coefficient combinations, and the $H^1$ threshold is optimal because the two cubic derivative terms cannot be interpreted as space-time distributions below $H^1$. The same approach handles the generalized equation (1.3) that includes a cubic term and a $\partial_x^2$ term.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the final existence step — passing from a solution of the renormalized normal-form equation (3.1) back to a solution of the original equation (1.6) — follows by a limiting argument carried out in a companion paper, since this manuscript defers that step to '[13]' without writing it out.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

At $s=1$ the theorem gives uniqueness in $C([-T,T];H^1)$: no solution can hide in an auxiliary space, and any two $H^1$ solutions with the same datum coincide.
For the Hamiltonian case $\lambda_3=2\lambda_4$, $\lambda_5=\lambda_2+\lambda_4$, the local $H^2$ solutions extend to global ones; under $A_1$ and $A_3$, the local $H^1$ solutions extend globally.
Because the same proof applies to (1.3), the unconditional well-posedness also holds for the generalized equation with the additional cubic term and $\partial_x^2$ term.
The $H^1$ cutoff is sharp: for $s<1$ the nonlinear terms $\bar u(\partial_x u)^2$ and $u|\partial_x u|^2$ are not defined even as space-time distributions, so unconditional well-posedness cannot hold below it.

Reading between the lines

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

If the deferred existence step transfers, the same two-stage normal form may apply to other fourth-order dispersive equations on compact manifolds where linear smoothing is absent; the key ingredient to check is the symmetrized resonant multiplier.
The coefficient condition $\lambda_5=\lambda_2+\lambda_4$ or $\lambda_5=0$ is exactly where the $L^2$ conservation enters the rewriting of (1.1) as (1.6); for other $\lambda_5$ values the proof gives no $H^1$ result, and a natural test is whether $H^1$ ill-posedness actually occurs there.
The multiplier bound for $\widetilde M^{(5)}_{8,\phi}$ raises a quantitative question: whether the same cancellation persists for near-resonant frequencies, and if so, whether the $H^1$ threshold could be improved by a finer analysis.
A direct extension would be to state explicitly the choice of $L$ and $T$ needed in Corollary 7.2 and to write out the limiting argument that reconstructs solutions of (1.6) from solutions of the normal-form equation.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The genuinely new thing here is an unconditional local well-posedness theorem at H^1 for a class of fourth-order NLS on the torus, improving Segata's H^4 and H^2 results and covering non-integrable coefficient choices. The mechanism is a double normal form reduction plus a symmetrization cancellation for the resonant quintic multiplier. The displayed phase lower bounds, the cancellation computation, and the multilinear estimates are concrete and I found no internal contradiction. The paper is honest about what it inherits from the earlier work with Tsugawa, and the citation pattern is appropriate.

The soft spot is exactly where the stress-test note points. Section 8 says Proposition 8.3 follows from Corollary 7.2 and Segata's H^m theorem, with details deferred to [13]. That is the step that turns the renormalized equation into a solution of the original equation for arbitrary H^s data. Corollary 7.2 gives a priori bounds and difference estimates assuming solutions already exist; it does not by itself produce a uniform positive existence time for H^s data approximated by smooth data. If [13] contains a time-of-existence argument that transfers, then the proof is complete after adding it; if not, Theorem 1.1 is unproved. This is specific and repairable, not a contradiction. The secondary overclaim is Remark 1.2(i), which asserts optimality for s < 1 without a full distributional non-definability proof.

Overall, this is a serious paper with a real result attached to a deferred proof component. A referee should be engaged, and should ask for the missing limiting argument to be written into the manuscript rather than cited. The paper deserves a serious round of refereeing, and the sensible outcome is likely acceptance after the deferred step is supplied.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies the Cauchy problem for a fourth-order nonlinear Schrödinger-type equation on the torus, (1.1), with initial data in H^s(T). The main theorem (Theorem 1.1) asserts unconditional local well-posedness for s ≥ 1 under the condition λ5 = λ2 + λ4 or λ5 = 0, with continuous dependence of the solution map. The proof strategy is to rewrite the equation using conserved quantities and a change of variables (1.5)-(1.6), apply a two-step normal form reduction to obtain the transformed equation (3.1), prove a cancellation property for the resonant quintic multiplier M^(5)_{8,φ} (Proposition 4.1), and collect a large set of multilinear and pointwise multiplier estimates in Sections 5-7. Corollary 7.2 then gives a priori H^s bounds and difference estimates for solutions of (1.6). The paper also claims in Remark 1.2(i) that the regularity threshold s = 1 is optimal because the nonlinear terms cannot be defined as space-time distributions for s < 1.

Significance. If Theorem 1.1 is correct, it constitutes the first unconditional well-posedness result at H^1 for this class of fourth-order NLS-type equations on the torus, including non-integrable cases, improving on the existing H^4 local well-posedness (Segata) and the integrable-case H^2 result. The normal-form/cancellation machinery is substantial and the displayed estimates are detailed; the manuscript contains no fitted constants and the estimates are stated in an explicit, checkable form. A serious caveat is that the existence half of the theorem is not proved in the manuscript: the final step is explicitly deferred to a prior paper ([13]). The optimality claim in Remark 1.2(i) is likewise stated without proof. If the missing existence argument can be supplied, the paper would be a strong contribution to the low-regularity theory of higher-order dispersive equations on compact domains.

major comments (2)

[Section 8 (proof of Proposition 8.3)] The central existence statement is not proved in this manuscript. After deriving Corollary 7.2 and citing Segata's H^m well-posedness as Proposition 8.4, the paper says: 'By Corollary 7.2 and Proposition 8.4, we show Proposition 8.3. For details, see the proof of Proposition 8.4 in [13].' Corollary 7.2 provides a priori bounds for solutions of (1.6) that are assumed to exist on [-T,T], while Proposition 8.4 gives existence on a time interval depending on the H^m norm of the initial data. To conclude existence in H^s for arbitrary data, one must prove that smooth approximating solutions exist on a common interval with T = T(||φ||_{H^s}) and pass to the limit to obtain a solution of (1.6). This limiting argument is exactly the step that connects the normal-form estimates to the existence claim, and it is not included. Without it, Theorem 1.1 is unproved in the present manuscript.
[Section 2 (Lemma 2.8) and Section 8 (Lemma 8.2)] Two lemmas that are used in essential estimates are stated without proofs, with only references to arguments in [12]: Lemma 2.8 ('By a slight modification of the proof of Lemma 2.11 in [12], we show this lemma') and Lemma 8.2 ('In a similar manner as Proposition 8.1 in [12], the following lemma holds'). Lemma 2.8 underlies the continuity estimates in Section 7, and Lemma 8.2 is used in the equivalence reduction from (1.5) to (1.6). Since the present paper does not reproduce these arguments, a reader cannot verify the main proof without consulting [12]. The author should either provide complete proofs or state precisely which statements from [12] are being imported and why they apply verbatim to the present setting.

minor comments (4)

[Title] The title contains a typo: 'well-posdeness' should be 'well-posedness'.
[Remark 1.2(i)] The claim that the threshold s = 1 is optimal because the nonlinear terms cannot be defined as space-time distributions for s < 1 is not proved. If this is intended as a rigorous statement, a proof of non-definability should be given; otherwise the remark should be phrased as a heuristic justification.
[Section 1 and throughout] Several typographical and LaTeX artifacts appear, e.g., 'SCHR ¨ODINGER' in the title, 'k3, 4, 5' in place of k3, k4, k5, and '~M 2N +1 j,g' in the proof of Lemma 7.4. A careful proofreading pass is needed.
[Section 1 (notation)] The notation 'k2i+1, 2i+2,..., 2j+1 to mean sum_{l=i}^j k_{2l+1} - sum_{l=i}^{j-1} k_{2l+2}' is hard to read. Consider defining an explicit alternating sum notation, such as k_{2i+1} - k_{2i+2} + ... + k_{2j+1}, or a symbol like Alt(k_{2i+1}, ..., k_{2j+1}).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the normal-form estimates are self-contained; the main proof gap is a delegated self-citation, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The paper contains no fitted constants and no equation whose proof assumes Theorem 1.1. The normal-form transformation (Proposition 3.1), the cancellation property for M^{(5)}_{8,\phi} (Proposition 4.1), and the multilinear estimates (Proposition 7.1 and Lemmas 7.3-7.5) are derived inside the manuscript from the equation itself, so the core derivation is not circular. The only significant concern is the final existence step: "By Corollary 7.2 and Proposition 8.4, we show Proposition 8.3. For details, see the proof of Proposition 8.4 in [13]." Since the paper states "Theorem 1.1 is equivalent to Proposition 8.3 below and we only show it," the proof of Proposition 8.3 is the load-bearing part, and it is delegated to the authors' own arXiv preprint [13] on fifth-order mKdV. This is an omitted-proof and self-citation concern, but it is not circular: [13] is not assumed to contain the present theorem, and the a priori estimates in Corollary 7.2 together with Segata's high-regularity result Proposition 8.4 are independent inputs. Minor technical dependencies on [12] (e.g., Lemma 2.8 and Lemma 8.2) are also non-circular. The score of 2 reflects the load-bearing self-citation for the final adaptation, not a reduction of the target result to its own statement.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities, no fitted parameters, and no ad hoc constants. Its underlying assumptions are standard harmonic analysis tools plus several cited results, three of which are deferred to the author's earlier papers. The coefficient condition λ5=λ2+λ4 or λ5=0 is a stated hypothesis of the theorem, not a hidden free parameter.

assumptions (5)

standard math Standard Fourier, Sobolev, Hölder, Young, and Plancherel tools on the torus.
Used throughout Sections 2, 5, 7, and 8 for multilinear estimates and distribution arguments.
domain assumption Segata's high-regularity local well-posedness in H^m(T), cited as Theorem 1.1 in [27].
Proposition 8.4 relies on this external theorem to provide smooth approximating solutions for the limiting argument.
domain assumption The final adaptation proof is assumed to be supplied by Proposition 8.4 in [13].
The manuscript says 'For details, see the proof of Proposition 8.4 in [13]' for the step that turns the normal-form equation into a solution of (1.6).
domain assumption Lemma 2.8 is assumed to follow from a slight modification of Lemma 2.11 in [12].
Lemma 2.8 is load-bearing for the continuity estimates in Lemmas 7.3 and 7.4, but its proof is deferred to a cited previous paper.
domain assumption Lemma 8.2 is assumed to follow in a similar manner as Proposition 8.1 in [12].
The homeomorphism property of the translation map is used to pass between (1.5) and (1.6), and its proof is deferred.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Unconditional well-posendness for the fourth order nonlinear Schrodinger type equations on the torus." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TYNHBFKL

@misc{pith2026250111455,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Unconditional well-posendness for the fourth order nonlinear Schrodinger type equations on the torus},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TYNHBFKL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.11455}
}

read the original abstract

We prove the unconditional well-posedness for the fourth order nonlinear Schrodinger type equations in H^s(\mathbb{T}) when s \geq 1, which includes the non-integrable case. This regularity threshold is optimal because the nonlinear terms cannot be defined in the space-time distribution framework for s<1. The main idea is to employ the normal form reduction and a kind of cancellation property to deal with derivative losses.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages

[13]

T. K. Kato and K. Tsugawa, Cancellation properties and unconditional well-posednes s for ﬁfth order modiﬁed KdV type equations with periodic boundar y condition , arXiv:math/2502. 04007v1 [math AP]

work page
[12]

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), 1–55. UNCONDITIONAL WELL-POSDENESS FOR THE 4NLS ON THE TORUS 49

work page 2024
[1]

Adams, Well-posedness for the NLS hierarchy , arXiv:math/2402

J. Adams, Well-posedness for the NLS hierarchy , arXiv:math/2402. 07652v2 [math AP]

work page
[2]

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

2011
[3]

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. I. Schr¨ odinger equations, Geom. Funct. Anal. 3 (1993), no. 2, 107–156

work page 1993
[4]

L. S. Da Rios, On the motion of an unbounded ﬂuid with a vortex ﬁlament of any shape, Rend. Circ. Mat. Palermo 22 (1906), 117–135 [Italian]

work page 1906
[5]

M. Chen, Y. Lu and Y. Wang, Global well-posedness for fourth-order nonlinear Schr¨ odinger equation, arXiv:math/2409. 11002v1 [math AP]

work page
[6]

Fukumoto and H

Y. Fukumoto and H. K. Moﬀatt, Motion and expansion of a viscous vortex ring. Part I. A higher-order asymptotics formula for the velocity , J. Fluid. Mech. 417 (2000), 1–45

work page 2000

Show all 29 references

[7]

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

2013
[8]

Hasimoto, A soliton on a vortex ﬁlament , J

H. Hasimoto, A soliton on a vortex ﬁlament , J. Fluid. Mech. 51 (1972), 477-485

1972
[9]

Hirayama, M

H. Hirayama, M. Ikeda and T. Tanaka, Well-posedness for the fourth-order Schr¨ odinger equa- tion with third order derivative nonlinearities , NoDEA Nonlinear Diﬀerential Equations Appl. 28 (2021), no. 5, Paper No. 46, 72pp

2021
[10]

Huo and Y

Z. Huo and Y. Jia, The Cauchy problem for the fourth-order nonlinear Schr¨ odi ger equation related to vortex ﬁlament , Comm. Partial Diﬀerential Equations 214 (2005), 1-35

2005
[11]

Huo and Y

Z. Huo and Y. Jia, A reﬁned well-posedness for the fourth-order nonlinear Sch r¨ odiger equation related to vortex ﬁlament , J. Diﬀerential Equations 32 (2007), no. 10–12, 1493–1510

2007
[14]

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
[15]

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
[16]

Kishimoto, Remark on periodic Zakharov system , Electron J

N. Kishimoto, Remark on periodic Zakharov system , Electron J. Diﬀerential Equations 2022 no. 20, 1–19

2022
[17]

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
[18]

Kishimoto, Unconditional uniqueness for the Benjamin-Ono equation by normal form ap- proach, J

N. Kishimoto, Unconditional uniqueness for the Benjamin-Ono equation by normal form ap- proach, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 514 (2022), no. 2, Paper No. 126309

2022
[19]

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), 2627–2659

2008
[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
[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

2020
[22]

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
[23]

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
[24]

Segata, Well-posedness for the fourth order nonlinear Schr¨ odinge r type equation related to the vortex ﬁlament , Diﬀ

J. Segata, Well-posedness for the fourth order nonlinear Schr¨ odinge r type equation related to the vortex ﬁlament , Diﬀ. Integral. Eqs. 6 (2003), 841–864

2003
[25]

Segata, Remark on well-posedness for the fourth order nonlinear Sch r¨ odinger type equation, Proc

J. Segata, Remark on well-posedness for the fourth order nonlinear Sch r¨ odinger type equation, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 132 (2004) 3559–3568

2004
[26]

Segata, Well-posedness and existence of standing waves for the four th order nonlinear Schr¨ odinger type equation, Discrete Contin

J. Segata, Well-posedness and existence of standing waves for the four th order nonlinear Schr¨ odinger type equation, Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst. 27 (2010), 1093–1105

2010
[27]

Segata, Reﬁned energy inequality with application to well-posedne ss for the fourth order nonlinear Schr¨ odinger type equation on torus , J

J. Segata, Reﬁned energy inequality with application to well-posedne ss for the fourth order nonlinear Schr¨ odinger type equation on torus , J. Diﬀerential Equations 252 (2012), no.11, 5994–6011

2012
[28]

Segata, Initial value problem for the fourth order nonlinear Schr¨ o dinger type equation on torus and orbital stability of standing waves , Comm

J. Segata, Initial value problem for the fourth order nonlinear Schr¨ o dinger type equation on torus and orbital stability of standing waves , Comm. Pure and Appl. Anal. 14 (2015), no.3, 843–859

2015
[29]

Takaoka and Y

H. Takaoka and Y. Tsutsumi, Well-posedness of the Cauchy problem for the modiﬁed KdV equation with periodic boundary condition , Int. Math. Res. Not. 2004 no. 56, 3009–3040. (T. K. Kato) Mathematical Science Course, F aculty of Science and Engine ering, Saga University, Saga, ...

2004

Pith tools

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

[1] [13]

T. K. Kato and K. Tsugawa, Cancellation properties and unconditional well-posednes s for ﬁfth order modiﬁed KdV type equations with periodic boundar y condition , arXiv:math/2502. 04007v1 [math AP]

work page

[2] [12]

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), 1–55. UNCONDITIONAL WELL-POSDENESS FOR THE 4NLS ON THE TORUS 49

work page 2024

[3] [1]

Adams, Well-posedness for the NLS hierarchy , arXiv:math/2402

J. Adams, Well-posedness for the NLS hierarchy , arXiv:math/2402. 07652v2 [math AP]

work page

[4] [2]

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

2011

[5] [3]

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. I. Schr¨ odinger equations, Geom. Funct. Anal. 3 (1993), no. 2, 107–156

work page 1993

[6] [4]

L. S. Da Rios, On the motion of an unbounded ﬂuid with a vortex ﬁlament of any shape, Rend. Circ. Mat. Palermo 22 (1906), 117–135 [Italian]

work page 1906

[7] [5]

M. Chen, Y. Lu and Y. Wang, Global well-posedness for fourth-order nonlinear Schr¨ odinger equation, arXiv:math/2409. 11002v1 [math AP]

work page

[8] [6]

Fukumoto and H

Y. Fukumoto and H. K. Moﬀatt, Motion and expansion of a viscous vortex ring. Part I. A higher-order asymptotics formula for the velocity , J. Fluid. Mech. 417 (2000), 1–45

work page 2000