Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 49 references

Vortex dynamics for the Gross-Pitaevskii equation

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper constructs smooth multi-vortex solutions of the planar Gross-Pitaevskii equation whose trajectories follow the Helmholtz-Kirchhoff point-vortex law to leading order, with a first correction fixed by a linear wave equation.

desk verdict This is the first construction of true time-dependent multi-vortex solutions for planar Gross-Pitaevskii with tracked profiles and a first-order correction to Helmholtz-Kirchhoff dynamics; the main risk is the load-bearing elliptic solvability theorem delegated to the companion paper [17]. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.18590 v2 pith:VMYMXQPV submitted 2025-07-24 math.AP

Manuel del Pino , Rowan Juneman , Monica Musso This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.AP MSC 35Q5535B2535C2076B4735L05
keywords Gross-PitaevskiiequationvortexdynamicsHelmholtz-KirchhoffsystemGinzburg-Landaumatchedasymptoticsradiationcorrectionlinearwavesingularperturbation
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 the formal vortex-dynamics asymptotics of Neu are real: for any collisionless trajectory of the Helmholtz-Kirchhoff point-vortex system and any sufficiently small core size $\epsilon$, there is a smooth solution of the planar Gross-Pitaevskii equation made of sharply rescaled degree-one vortices whose positions track that trajectory to within $O(\epsilon^2|\log \epsilon|^2)$. The construction works for any number $n\geq 2$ of vortices of degree $\pm 1$ on an arbitrarily long finite time interval, and it is the first to give the solution profile near the cores rather than only a measure-theoretic limit of vorticity. The paper also identifies the first correction to the leading-order motion: a small forcing term obtained from a linear wave equation, which the vortices themselves emit as they move, validating the formal expansion of Ovchinnikov and Sigal. A sympathetic reader should care because the result turns a 35-year-old formal picture into theorems with explicit descriptions of both the zero set and the next-order dynamics.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is a matched two-scale ansatz, $u_*(y,t)=e^{i\psi^{\mathrm{out}}}\prod_j(\eta_j(W_j+\varphi_j)+(1-\eta_j)W_j e^{\varphi_j/W_j})$, in which inner corrections $\varphi_j$ near each vortex solve elliptic equations $L_j[\varphi_j]=H_j$ for the linearized Ginzburg-Landau operator, and the outer correction $\psi^{\mathrm{out}}_1$ solves the linear wave equation (1.8). The elliptic step fixes the vortex parameters through orthogonality conditions; the wave step turns the far-field error into radiation. A separate linear stability analysis controls the remainder by a modified energy: a quadratic form built from the second variation of a conserved-type functional, with a vector field $A$ and scalar $B$ chosen so that the formal continuity and phase equations (2.20)-(2.21) hold, yielding coercivity on the complement of the approximate kernel.

What would settle it

Solve the modified system (1.11) for a symmetric pair of equal-degree vortices, compute the resulting first-order correction to the angular frequency and separation, and compare these predictions to direct numerical evolution of (1.1) at several small $\epsilon$ (for example $\epsilon=0.02,0.01,0.005$) over one rotation period. If the measured displacement of the zeroes from $\xi^0(t)$ is not $O(\epsilon^2|\log\epsilon|^2)$ with the wave-determined coefficient, or if the $\epsilon^{3-\sigma}$ zero-location statement of Theorem 3 fails, the central claim collapses.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Theorem 1 together with its refinements in Theorems 2 and 3. Given a smooth collisionless solution $\xi^0(t)$ of (1.5) and $\epsilon$ sufficiently small, there exists a smooth solution $u_\epsilon$ of (1.1) of the form (1.7), a product of rescaled copies of the degree-one vortex and its conjugate at positions $\xi_j(t)=\xi^0_j(t)+O(\epsilon^2|\log\epsilon|^2)$, with a remainder of size $O(\epsilon^2|\log\epsilon|^2)$. Away from the cores, the phase admits the expansion (1.9) in which the first non-trivial term $\psi^{\mathrm{out},1}_1$ solves the linear wave equation (1.8) with forcing (1.10); and the zeroes of $u_\epsilon$ lie at points $\xi^*_j(t)+O(\epsilon^{3-\sigma})$ where $\xi^*$ solves the modified system (1.11). In short, the paper establishes both Neu's leading-order dynamics and the Ovchinnikov-Sigal first-order radiation correction by constructing solutions rather than by passing to limits.

Load-bearing premise

The construction relies on a technical result it does not prove in this paper — the solvability of the linearized vortex equation for general right-hand sides, stated in Section 3.2 and attributed to the companion paper [17] — and if that result is incomplete, the approximate profile, phase expansion, and corrected dynamics all fail.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For every $n\geq 2$, every smooth collisionless point-vortex trajectory is realized by an actual family of Gross-Pitaevskii solutions, so the Helmholtz-Kirchhoff law is a theorem about smooth solutions, not only about limiting vorticity measures.
  • The vortex positions of the constructed solutions are known pointwise to order $\epsilon^{3-\sigma}$, which makes the zero set a controlled object rather than a weak limit.
  • The first correction to vortex motion is explicitly computable from a linear wave equation, so the Ovchinnikov-Sigal radiation term becomes a defined, checkable quantity rather than a formal one.
  • The same construction yields refined remainder estimates in weighted and unweighted $H^1$, giving quantitative control on how close the true solution remains to a product of rescaled vortices over the whole time interval.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: a similar inner-outer decomposition with a radiation wave should apply to other soliton equations with topological charges, such as wave-map or complex Ginzburg-Landau models; the obstacle will be finding the analogue of the coercive quadratic form.
  • Editorial inference: the explicit forcing in (1.11) gives a concrete route to test the predicted slow separation of two same-sign vortices; one can compute the radiation-induced drift for the two-vortex configuration and compare it with the $O(t^{1/6})$ spiral predicted by formal asymptotics.
  • Editorial inference: a direct numerical experiment is now well posed: evolve (1.1) from initial data built from the ansatz (2.7), measure the zeroes at several $\epsilon$, and check that the displacement from $\xi^0(t)$ follows the $O(\epsilon^2|\log\epsilon|^2)$ scale with the wave-determined coefficient; agreement would confirm that the detected correction is the dominant next-order effect.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper constructs, for any n >= 2, smooth solutions of the planar Gross-Pitaevskii equation that look like products of n degree +/-1 vortices with trajectories close to a given collisionless solution of the Helmholtz-Kirchhoff system. The main results are Theorem 1 (existence with O(epsilon^2 |log epsilon|^2) trajectory and remainder error), Theorem 2 (an asymptotic expansion of the phase in the outer region whose first correction is the solution of a linear wave equation), and Theorem 3 (locations of the zeroes up to O(epsilon^{3-sigma}), governed by a modified system with a forcing term equal to 2 grad psi_1^{out,1}). The proof is a gluing construction: elliptic corrections are built in the vortex cores using the linearized Ginzburg-Landau operator, wave corrections are built in the outer region, the parameters xi_j(t) are adjusted to kill resonant modes, and a final energy/quadratic-form argument controls the remainder. The paper is a 65-page manuscript with explicit error bookkeeping and an induction producing an approximation accurate to arbitrary algebraic order in epsilon.

Significance. If the proofs are complete, this is a major advance: it supplies the first rigorous multi-vortex solutions whose vortex trajectories are tracked beyond the leading-order Helmholtz-Kirchhoff law, and it gives the first rigorous justification of the Ovchinnikov-Sigal radiation correction. The paper is genuinely constructive, contains no fitted parameters, and makes precise falsifiable predictions about the profile and the first-order dynamics. The introduction of a tailored quadratic form for the linearized evolution is a promising methodological contribution. However, the strength of the paper rests on a small number of load-bearing black boxes, especially the solvability theory for the linearized vortex operator, which is delegated to the companion paper [17]. The manuscript also contains a possible coefficient error in the derivation of the wave equation for the outer phase correction that affects the statements of Theorems 2 and 3.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.2, Remark 3.4] The general solvability theory for the linearized Ginzburg-Landau operator L_j is delegated to the companion paper [17, Section 5]. The manuscript proves sharp representation formulas only for right-hand sides with finitely many Fourier modes, but the applications in Lemmas 4.11, 4.13 and the recursive problems (5.19)-(5.20) require existence and weighted estimates for right-hand sides of epsilon-dependent support and with imaginary parts of size epsilon^3 r log r, together with derivative bounds uniform in epsilon. Remark 3.4 states the hypotheses of [17] as Re(h)=O(r^{-2}) and Im(h)=O(1), but the manuscript does not verify that these hypotheses cover the present right-hand sides. This black box underpins estimates (4.32), (5.21) and hence Proposition 5.1; if it fails or does not apply, the inner corrections, the zero locations, and the outer wave equation all collapse. Please either state and prove the required extension in this paper, or give a precise verifiable correspondence between the hypotheses of [17] and every right-hand side used here.
  2. [Section 5.3, Proof of Proposition 5.1] The induction proving Proposition 5.1 is presented as an outline. In particular, the key derivative-loss estimate (5.45) is asserted rather than proved, the recursive definition of M_k is only sketched, and the constants c_k are not tracked explicitly. Since Proposition 5.1 produces the arbitrary-order approximate solution that is fed into the final error bound (8.1), this summarized induction is load-bearing. The paper would need either a complete induction proof or a precise induction statement with all constants and a detailed verification of the derivative bookkeeping before the claim can be accepted.
  3. [Section 4.3, equations (4.42)-(4.45)] There appears to be a factor error in the definition of the wave forcing. With tau = sqrt(2) epsilon^{-1} t, substituting psi_2^{out} = (1/2)(E_2 + epsilon^2 partial_t psi_1^{out}) into the real part of (4.39) gives a term -epsilon^{-1}/sqrt(2) partial_tau E_2 in the rescaled equation, not -epsilon^{-1} sqrt(2) partial_tau E_2 as written in (4.42) and (4.45). As a consequence, the forcing F^{out,1} used in the wave equation, in Theorem 2, and in the modified dynamics (1.11) may be off by a factor of two. Please check the algebra carefully; if the displayed factor is intentional, explain the rescaled variables; otherwise correct the coefficient and re-verify the estimates in Lemma 4.15 that depend on the size of the solution of (4.46).
  4. [Section 7.3, Proposition 7.9] The coercivity proof of the quadratic form is a contradiction/compactness argument and is only partially written out. In Step 3, the passage from the limit profile, the use of [16, Lemma 3.1] to obtain (7.49), and the treatment of boundary terms at |y_j|=R are summarized rather than demonstrated, and the uniformity in epsilon of the compactness is not shown. Since the coercivity estimate (7.55) is the basis of Proposition 7.13 and of the final linear estimate (7.2), this is another load-bearing point that needs to be either fully proved or replaced by a precise reference with verified hypotheses.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Section 1.1] The phrase 'arbitrarily large, finite time interval' could be misread as uniform in T; the theorems fix T and all constants depend on T. Please clarify that the interval is arbitrary but fixed before epsilon is chosen.
  2. [Section 7.1, Lemma 7.2] The computation of d/dt B[phi,phi] is stated with 'the details left to the reader.' Since this identity is central to the energy argument, include at least the main integration-by-parts steps or a supplementary calculation in an appendix.
  3. [Section 5.3] The constants c_k=c_{k,m} in Proposition 5.1 are never assigned explicit values; give the recursive definition or at least state that they are finite and independent of epsilon, with the dependence on m and k made explicit.
  4. [Section 4.3] The notation in equation (1.10) and (4.45) uses O_c(epsilon^2 |log epsilon|), 'lower order terms', and a cut-off chi that are introduced informally in Theorem 2. Please give the exact definition of chi and the compactly supported convention in the theorem statement, not only in Section 4.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the corrected dynamics are derived from frozen-parameter radiation data, and the only companion-paper dependency is a prior parameter-free solvability tool rather than a source of the paper's conclusions.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. The main theorems take as input an arbitrary smooth collisionless Helmholtz-Kirchhoff trajectory xi0 and construct a solution near it; the leading-order law (1.5) is a hypothesis, not an output obtained by fitting parameters. The corrected trajectory xi* in Theorem 3 is genuinely derived: xi1 is defined by the ODE (5.4) with forcing equal to 2 grad psi^out,1_1(xi0_j, tau; xi0) frozen at xi0, and the system (1.11) is that ODE rewritten as the Helmholtz-Kirchhoff velocity plus the same frozen radiation gradient. Thus the radiation correction is computed before the trajectory correction and then feeds into it, rather than being adjusted to match a pre-imposed dynamics. The only self-citation that could raise concern is the solvability theory for the linearized vortex operator, delegated in Remark 3.4: 'Existence and estimates extend to the general case ... See [17, Section 5]', with [17] a companion paper by the same three authors. This is load-bearing in the sense that the inner corrections use it, but it is not circular under the review's criteria: [17] is a prior, parameter-free study of the linearized Ginzburg-Landau operator with stated hypotheses on right-hand-side decay, and its conclusion (solvability and estimates) does not contain the vortex dynamics, the first-order radiation correction, or the zero-location statements proved here. The paper does contain omitted details and proof summaries (for example, Lemma 4.13 says 'We omit the details' and Lemma 7.2 says 'We leave the details to the reader'), but these are completeness or correctness risks, not instances of a result reducing to its own inputs. No equation in the paper is equal to another by construction in the sense of the circularity patterns listed, and no fitted quantity is renamed as a prediction.

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

The paper introduces no fitted free parameters and no new physical entities. It relies on established facts about the degree-one vortex and its linearized operator, plus, critically, the elliptic solvability theory from the same authors' companion paper [17], which is imported as a black box. The wave-equation estimates in Section 6 are proved in the paper.

assumptions (3)
  • ad hoc to paper Solvability theory for the linearized Ginzburg-Landau operator L[phi]=h with sharp weighted estimates, including extension to all Fourier modes
    Invoked in Section 3.2 (Propositions 3.2, 3.3, Remark 3.4) and used to construct every inner correction phi_j in Sections 4 and 5. The theory is taken from the same authors' companion paper [17], not proved here.
  • domain assumption All bounded solutions of L[phi]=0 are linear combinations of iW, partial_1 W, partial_2 W; the quadratic form (3.4) is nonnegative with equality only on the translation kernel
    Used in Section 7.3 (Proposition 7.9, Step 2) to force the limiting profile to be a translation mode; cited to [42, Theorem 3.2] and [16, Theorem 1.1].
  • domain assumption Properties of the degree-one vortex profile W: existence, uniqueness, positivity, asymptotics w(r)~r as r to 0 and w(r)~1-1/(2r^2) as r to infinity, derivative asymptotics (4.35)
    Used throughout the error estimates, e.g., Lemmas 4.2 and 4.11 and Remark 4.12; cited to [9,23,36,37,39].

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Vortex dynamics for the Gross-Pitaevskii equation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VMYMXQPV

@misc{pith2026250718590,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Vortex dynamics for the Gross-Pitaevskii equation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VMYMXQPV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.18590}
}
abstract

We rigorously establish the formal asymptotics of Neu for Gross-Pitaevskii vortex dynamics in the plane. Given any integer $n\geq2$, we construct a family of $n$-vortex solutions with vortices of degree $\pm1$, and describe precisely the solution profile and associated vortex dynamics on an arbitrarily large, finite time interval. We compute an asymptotic expansion of the vortex positions in terms of the vortex core size $\epsilon>0$, and show that the dynamics is governed at leading order as $\epsilon\to0$ by the classical Helmholtz-Kirchhoff system. Moreover, we show that the first correction to the leading order dynamics is determined by the solution of a linear wave equation, justifying a formal expansion found by Ovchinnikov and Sigal.

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages

  1. [17]

    del Pino, R

    M. del Pino, R. Juneman, and M. Musso, Solvability for the Ginzburg-Landau equation linearized at the degree-one vortex, J. Funct. Anal. 289 (2025), 111105

    work page 2025

  2. [1]

    W. Ao, Y. Huang, Y. Liu, and J. Wei, Generalized Adler-Moser polynomials and multiple vortex rings for the Gross-Pitaevskii equation, SIAM J. Math. Anal. 53 (2021), 6959–6992

    work page 2021

  3. [2]

    V. I. Arnold, Conditions for nonlinear stability of plane stationary curvilinear flows of an ideal fluid , Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR 162 (1965), 975–978

    work page 1965

  4. [3]

    Bethuel, R

    F. Bethuel, R. L. Jerrard, and D. Smets, On the NLS dynamics for infinite energy vortex configurations on the plane, Rev. Mat. Iberoam. 24 (2008), 671–702

    work page 2008

  5. [4]

    Bethuel, G

    F. Bethuel, G. Orlandi, and D. Smets, Collisions and phase-vortex interactions in dissipative Ginzburg-Landau dynamics, Duke Math. J. 130 (2005), 523–614

    work page 2005

  6. [5]

    , Dynamics of multiple degree Ginzburg-Landau vortices , Comm. Math. Phys. 272 (2007), 229–261

    work page 2007

  7. [6]

    , Quantization and motion law for Ginzburg-Landau vortices , Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 183 (2007), 315–370

    work page 2007

  8. [7]

    Bethuel and D

    F. Bethuel and D. Smets, A remark on the Cauchy problem for the 2D Gross-Pitaevskii equation with nonzero degree at infinity, Differential Integral Equations 20 (2007), 325–338

    work page 2007

Show all 49 references
  1. [8]

    B. C. Carlson, Elliptic Integrals , Digital Library of Mathematical Functions, section 19.12, https://dlmf.nist.gov/19.12

  2. [9]

    X. Chen, C. M. Elliott, and T. Qi, Shooting method for vortex solutions of a complex-valued Ginzburg-Landau equation, Proc. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh Sect. A 124 (1994), 1075–1088

    1994

  3. [10]

    Chiron and E

    D. Chiron and E. Pacherie, Smooth branch of travelling waves for the Gross-Pitaevskii equation in R2 for small speed, Ann. Sc. Norm. Super. Pisa Cl. Sci. 22 (2021), 1937–2038

    2021

  4. [11]

    , Coercivity for travelling waves in the Gross-Pitaevskii equation in R2 for small speed, Publ. Mat. 67 (2023), 277–410

    2023

  5. [12]

    J. E. Colliander and R. L. Jerrard, Vortex dynamics for the Ginzburg-Landau-Schr¨ odinger equation , Int. Math. Res. Notices 7 (1998), 333–358

    1998

  6. [13]

    Collot, P

    C. Collot, P. Germain, and E. Pacherie, Estimates for the Gross-Pitaevskii equation linearized around a vortex, Preprint arXiv:2503.02953

    arXiv

  7. [14]

    D´ avila, M

    J. D´ avila, M. del Pino, M. Medina, and R. Rodiac,Interacting helical vortex filaments in the three-dimensional Ginzburg-Landau equation, J. Eur. Math. Soc. 24 (2022), 4143–4199

    2022

  8. [15]

    D´ avila, M

    J. D´ avila, M. del Pino, M. Musso, and J. Wei, Gluing methods for vortex dynamics in Euler flows , Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 235 (2020), 1467–1530

    2020

  9. [16]

    del Pino, P

    M. del Pino, P. Felmer, and M. Kowalczyk, Minimality and non-degeneracy of degree-one Ginzburg–Landau vortex as a Hardy’s type inequality , Int. Math. Res. Not. 30 (2004), 1511–1527

    2004

  10. [18]

    del Pino, M

    M. del Pino, M. Kowalczyk, and M. Musso, Variational reduction for Ginzburg-Landau vortices , J. Funct. Anal. 239 (2006), 497–541

    2006

  11. [19]

    Dolce and T

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

  12. [20]

    Gallay, Interaction of vortices in weakly viscous planar flows , Arch

    T. Gallay, Interaction of vortices in weakly viscous planar flows , Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 200 (2011), 445–490

    2011

  13. [21]

    Gallay and V

    T. Gallay and V. ˇSver´ ak,Arnold’s variational principle and its application to the stability of planar vortices , Anal. PDE 17 (2024), 681–722

    2024

  14. [22]

    Gravejat, E

    P. Gravejat, E. Pacherie, and D. Smets, On the stability of the Ginzburg-Landau vortex , Proc. Lond. Math. Soc. 125 (2022), 1015–1065

    2022

  15. [23]

    Herv´ e and M

    R.-M. Herv´ e and M. Herv´ e,´Etude qualitative des solutions r´ eelles d’une ´ equation diff´ erentielle li´ ee ` a l’´ equation de Ginzburg-Landau, Ann. Inst. H. Poincar´ e C Anal. Non Lin´ eaire11 (1994), 427–440

    1994

  16. [24]

    R. L. Jerrard and H. M. Soner, Dynamics of Ginzburg-Landau vortices , Arch. Rational Mech. Anal. 142 (1998), 99–125

    1998

  17. [25]

    R. L. Jerrard and D. Spirn, Refined Jacobian estimates and Gross-Pitaevsky vortex dynamics , Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 190 (2008), 425–475

    2008

  18. [26]

    Partial Differential Equations 40 (2015), 135–190

    , Hydrodynamic limit of the Gross-Pitaevskii equation , Comm. Partial Differential Equations 40 (2015), 135–190

    2015

  19. [27]

    Kurzke, C

    M. Kurzke, C. Melcher, R. Moser, and D. Spirn, Dynamics for Ginzburg-Landau vortices under a mixed flow , Indiana Univ. Math. J. 58 (2009), 2597–2621

    2009

  20. [28]

    Lin, Some dynamical properties of Ginzburg-Landau vortices , Comm

    F.-H. Lin, Some dynamical properties of Ginzburg-Landau vortices , Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 49 (1996), 323–359

    1996

  21. [29]

    Lin and J

    F.-H. Lin and J. X. Xin, On the dynamical law of the Ginzburg-Landau vortices on the plane , Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 52 (1999), 1189–1212

    1999

  22. [30]

    , On the incompressible fluid limit and the vortex motion law of the nonlinear Schr¨ odinger equation , Comm. Math. Phys. 200 (1999), 249–274. VORTEX DYNAMICS FOR THE GROSS-PITAEVSKII EQUATION 65

    1999

  23. [31]

    Liu and J

    Y. Liu and J. Wei, Multivortex traveling waves for the Gross-Pitaevskii equation and the Adler-Moser poly- nomials, SIAM J. Math. Anal. 52 (2020), 3546–3579

    2020

  24. [32]

    L¨ uhrmann, W

    J. L¨ uhrmann, W. Schlag, and S. Shahshahani,On the Gross-Pitaevskii evolution linearized around the degree- one vortex, Preprint arXiv:2503.07345

    arXiv

  25. [33]

    Manton and P

    N. Manton and P. Sutcliffe, Topological solitons, Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics, Cam- bridge University Press, Cambridge, 2004

    2004

  26. [34]

    Marchioro and M

    C. Marchioro and M. Pulvirenti, Mathematical theory of incompressible nonviscous fluids , Applied Mathe- matical Sciences, vol. 96, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1994

    1994

  27. [35]

    Miot, Dynamics of vortices for the complex Ginzburg-Landau equation , Anal

    E. Miot, Dynamics of vortices for the complex Ginzburg-Landau equation , Anal. PDE 2 (2009), 159–186

    2009

  28. [36]

    Mironescu, On the stability of radial solutions of the Ginzburg-Landau equation, J

    P. Mironescu, On the stability of radial solutions of the Ginzburg-Landau equation, J. Funct. Anal.130 (1995), 334–344

    1995

  29. [37]

    , Les minimiseurs locaux pour l’´ equation de Ginzburg-Landau sont ` a sym´ etrie radiale, C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris S´ er. I Math.323 (1996), 593–598

    1996

  30. [38]

    J. C. Neu, Vortices in complex scalar fields , Phys. D 43 (1990), 385–406

    1990

  31. [39]

    Y. N. Ovchinnikov and I. M. Sigal, Ginzburg-Landau equation. I. Static vortices, Partial differential equations and their applications (Toronto, ON, 1995), CRM Proc. Lecture Notes, vol. 12, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 1997, pp. 199–220

    1995

  32. [40]

    , The Ginzburg-Landau equation. III. Vortex dynamics , Nonlinearity 11 (1998), 1277–1294

    1998

  33. [41]

    , Long-time behaviour of Ginzburg-Landau vortices , Nonlinearity 11 (1998), 1295–1309

    1998

  34. [42]

    Pacard and T

    F. Pacard and T. Rivi` ere,Linear and nonlinear aspects of vortices. The Ginzburg-Landau model , Progress in Nonlinear Differential Equations and their Applications, 39, Birkh¨ auser Boston, Boston, MA, 2000

    2000

  35. [43]

    J. M. Palacios and F. Pusateri, Linearized dynamic stability for vortices of Ginzburg-Landau evolutions , Preprint arXiv:2409.04393

    arXiv

  36. [44]

    Sandier and S

    E. Sandier and S. Serfaty, Gamma-convergence of gradient flows with applications to Ginzburg-Landau , Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 57 (2004), 1627–1672

    2004

  37. [45]

    Serfaty, Vortex collisions and energy-dissipation rates in the Ginzburg-Landau heat flow

    S. Serfaty, Vortex collisions and energy-dissipation rates in the Ginzburg-Landau heat flow. I. Study of the perturbed Ginzburg-Landau equation, J. Eur. Math. Soc. 9 (2007), 177–217

    2007

  38. [46]

    , Vortex collisions and energy-dissipation rates in the Ginzburg-Landau heat flow. II. The dynamics , J. Eur. Math. Soc. 9 (2007), 383–426

    2007

  39. [47]

    , Mean field limits of the Gross-Pitaevskii and parabolic Ginzburg-Landau equations , J. Amer. Math. Soc. 30 (2017), 713–768

    2017

  40. [48]

    Tartar, An introduction to Sobolev spaces and interpolation spaces, Lecture Notes of the Unione Matematica Italiana, 3

    L. Tartar, An introduction to Sobolev spaces and interpolation spaces, Lecture Notes of the Unione Matematica Italiana, 3. Springer, Berlin, UMI, Bologna, 2007, pp. xxvi+218

    2007

  41. [49]

    Venkatraman, Periodic orbits of Gross-Pitaevskii in the disc with vortices following point vortex flow , Calc

    R. Venkatraman, Periodic orbits of Gross-Pitaevskii in the disc with vortices following point vortex flow , Calc. Var. Partial Differential Equations 56 (2017), Paper No. 64, 35 pp. M. del Pino: Department of Mathematical Sciences University of Bath, Bath BA2 7AY, United Kingd...

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.