Well- and Ill-posedness of the Cauchy problem for derivative fractional nonlinear Schr\"odinger equations on the torus

Mamoru Okamoto; Takamori Kato; Toshiki Kondo

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 39 references

Well- and Ill-posedness of the Cauchy problem for derivative fractional nonlinear Schr\"odinger equations on the torus

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read For $\alpha>2$ and $s>s^*(\alpha)$, the derivative fNLS Cauchy problem on the torus is well-posed exactly when $\int_{\mathbb T} \operatorname{Im} F_\omega(\psi,\partial_x\psi,\overline{\psi},\partial_x\overline{\psi})\,dx=0$ for every $\ps

desk verdict Strong, honest paper: a genuinely new necessary-and-sufficient well-posedness result for derivative fNLS on the torus, with a modified energy construction that holds together despite a few patched seams. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.11866 v1 pith:VU2CAOZH submitted 2025-08-16 math.AP

Takamori Kato , Toshiki Kondo , Mamoru Okamoto This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.AP MSC 35Q55

keywords fractionalnonlinearSchrödingerequationtoruswell-posednessill-posednessnon-existencemodifiedenergyderivativenonlinearityCauchyproblem

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 for the derivative fractional nonlinear Schrödinger equation on the torus, with dispersion order $\alpha>2$ and Sobolev regularity $s>\max(\alpha/2+1,5/2)$, the Cauchy problem is well-posed exactly when a single integral condition holds: the mean of the imaginary part of $F_\omega$, the derivative of the nonlinearity with respect to the derivative variable, must vanish. The same condition was already known for the semi-linear case $\alpha=2$, so the paper extends the necessary-and-sufficient characterization to all $\alpha>2$. This matters because it completely identifies which derivative nonlinearities admit local periodic solutions, and because the proof introduces a modified energy method with inductively constructed correction terms that replaces the gauge transformation, which is not available for fractional dispersion. When the condition fails, the paper shows a strong form of ill-posedness: for suitably chosen initial data, no solution exists in $C([0,T];H^s)$ or $C([-T,0];H^s)$, due to a Cauchy–Riemann-type operator that arises from resonant interactions.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by two devices. First, the modified energy $E^r_\varepsilon(t)$ defined by (3.10), built from the Sobolev norm of $u$ and $v=\partial_x u$ plus the correction terms $L^r_{n,\varepsilon}$ that cancel the problematic resonant contributions in the energy estimate. Second, the refined Kato–Ponce-type commutator estimate Proposition 2.6 for the operator $\mathrm{Com}^s[f](g)=\langle D\rangle^s(fg)-f\langle D\rangle^s g+s(\partial_x f)\langle D\rangle^{s-2}\partial_x g$, whose error bound loses only $\|g\|_{H^{\min(s-2,1/2+\varepsilon)}}$ rather than a full derivative; this exact cancellation is what allows the induction to close for $\alpha\in(2,3)$. For ill-posedness, the

What would settle it

Compute $\mathrm{Com}^s[f](g)$ for $s\in(2,3)$ with $f$ and $g$ having Fourier coefficients concentrated at a single large frequency $N$ (e.g., $\hat f$ supported at $N$, $\hat g$ at $-N$) and check whether $\|\mathrm{Com}^s[f](g)\|_{L^2}$ can exceed the claimed bound by a factor growing like $N^{1/2-\varepsilon}$. If such an example exists, Proposition 2.6 fails and the well-posedness range $\alpha\in(2,3)$ would have to be replaced by $\alpha\ge 3$. Separately, the linear case $F=i\omega$ gives the explicit solution $\hat u(t,k)=\hat\phi(k)e^{-i|k|^\alpha t-kt}$, exhibiting exponential growt

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Theorem 1.3: for $\alpha>2$ and $s>s^*(\alpha):=\max(\alpha/2+1,5/2)$, the Cauchy problem (1.1) is well-posed in $H^s(\mathbb T)$ if and only if $\int_{\mathbb T}\operatorname{Im} F_\omega(\psi,\partial_x\psi,\overline{\psi},\partial_x\overline{\psi})\,dx=0$ for every $\psi\in H^s(\mathbb T)$. The necessity is proved by Theorem 1.4, which constructs initial data for which no local solution exists whenever the integral is nonzero for some $\psi$. The proof uses a modified energy method in place of the gauge transformation, which cannot be used for $\alpha>2$ because it would generate a new problematic term containing $D^{\alpha-2}\partial_x v$. Correction terms $L^r_{n,\v

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is the refined commutator estimate Proposition 2.6, specifically that its error term loses at most $\|g\|_{H^{\min(s-2,1/2+\varepsilon)}}$; if the true bound required the full $H^{1/2+\varepsilon}$ norm of $g$, the proof of well-posedness for $\alpha\in(2,3)$ would collapse and the theorem would need $\alpha\ge 3$.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For $\alpha>2$ and $s>s^*(\alpha)$, a nonlinearity is well-posed in $H^s(\mathbb T)$ exactly when it satisfies the mean-zero condition (1.4); this matches the $\alpha=2$ classification, so the dispersion order does not change the structural condition.
Nonlinearities that violate (1.4) give genuine non-existence: there are initial data for which no local solution exists in $C([0,T];H^s)$ or $C([-T,0];H^s)$, a stronger failure than norm inflation or loss of uniformity.
Concrete tests: $|u|^{2m}u$ and $u^m\partial_x u$ are always well-posed; $c\partial_x(|u|^2u)$ is well-posed iff $c$ is real; $c_1(\partial_xu)^2u+c_2|\partial_xu|^2u$ is well-posed iff $\operatorname{Re}(2c_1-c_2)=0$, so the sum of two individually ill-posed nonlinearities can be well-posed.
The gauge transformation used for $\alpha=2$ is recovered as the formal $\alpha\to 2$ limit of the modified energy with infinitely many correction terms, unifying the two methods.
The number of correction terms needed changes at $\alpha=3$: one term suffices for $\alpha\ge 3$, while an inductive sequence is required for $\alpha\in(2,3)$.

Reading between the lines

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

The condition (1.4) can be read as a resonance cancellation: it removes the part of the nonlinearity whose interaction with the derivative variable has zero dispersion. The paper shows that for periodic problems this is the only obstruction to local solvability, suggesting that similar mean-zero conditions may characterize well-posedness for other derivative dispersive equations on compact manifol
The non-existence result is stronger than typical ill-posedness (norm inflation, loss of continuity): it asserts there are no distributional solutions in the given space. This implies that numerical schemes for such equations should either impose (1.4) or expect exponential growth in high Fourier modes, as the linear example $F=i\omega$ already exhibits.
The inductive construction of correction terms for $\alpha\in(2,3)$ is reminiscent of a renormalization of the energy; the same mechanism might yield sharp regularity thresholds for specific nonlinearities, since the paper notes that $s^*(\alpha)$ is not optimal (e.g., cubic fNLS is $L^2$ well-posed).
The Cauchy–Riemann-type operator appearing in the ill-posedness proof suggests a link to elliptic theory: the equation $\partial_t+i a\partial_x$ with $a\neq 0$ forces propagation of regularity, which is why $P_\pm\phi$ must belong to $H^{s+\delta}$; this mechanism may be generalizable to systems of dispersive equations.

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

Bottom line: this is a strong paper, and if I referee it I'd likely accept after minor revision. The main theorem is genuinely new—for α>2 with derivative nonlinearity on T, prior results barely existed below α=4 (outside α=2). The clean dichotomy (1.4) is the same as the α=2 semilinear case, but the proof has to be different: the gauge transformation fails, and the modified energy needs a number of correction terms that grows with α in (2,3). I checked the critical commutator estimate (Prop. 2.6) against the stress-test note. The internal calculation is consistent: the second term's H^{min(s−2,1/2+ε)} norm is not a full-strength loss, and it closes exactly where the paper needs it. So the α∈(2,3) construction isn't secretly requiring α≥3.

What the paper does well: the cancellations are written out in Lemma 3.9 (R5=−R6, J3=K_{n+1}, etc.), the energy estimates are organized, and the ill-posedness/non-existence section is self-contained. The inductive construction of corrections is a reusable idea, and the regularity threshold s*(α)=max(α/2+1,5/2) is explained heuristically in the introduction.

Soft spots, in proportion: (1) Lemma 3.6 is proved for the parabolic regularization, then Proposition 4.2 invokes it for the original equation without explicitly justifying the ε→0 pass. I believe it's harmless because Lemma 3.6's proof only uses H^s bounds and the equation structure, but the paper should say so. (2) Several estimates are deferred to 'same calculation as'—fine for insiders, annoying for referees, but not a mathematical flaw. (3) Remark 1.6 claims real-analytic extension without proof; minor.

The citation pattern is honest: the authors cite their own [20,21] for the α=2 case and norm inflation, and the α>2 argument is new, so self-citation isn't doing load-bearing work.

Verdict: this deserves a serious referee. It's a dense paper, but the main theorem is important within dispersive PDEs and the proof, while long, is structured. I'd send it to peer review and ask for the seams to be patched.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proves a sharp dichotomy for derivative fractional nonlinear Schrödinger equations on the torus. For α>2 and s>s*(α)=max(α/2+1,5/2), the Cauchy problem (1.1) with polynomial nonlinearity F is well-posed in H^s(T) if and only if the mean condition ∫ Im F_ω(ψ,∂xψ,ψ̄,∂xψ̄)dx=0 holds for every ψ∈H^s(T). If the integral is nonzero for some ψ, the paper constructs initial data for which no local solution exists in C([0,T];H^s) or C([-T,0];H^s). Well-posedness is proved by parabolic regularization, a modified energy with finitely many correction terms (the number depending on whether α∈(2,3] or α>3), and Bona–Smith approximation for continuity in H^s. Ill-posedness is proved by analyzing the equation for v=∂xu, extracting a Cauchy–Riemann-type resonant operator, and showing that existence would force extra regularity on one half of the Fourier support of the initial data.

Significance. If the result is correct, it is a substantial extension of the semi-linear α=2 dichotomy of Kondo–Okamoto to derivative fNLS with fractional dispersion, and it gives the first well-posedness/ill-posedness classification for derivative fNLS on the torus in the range 2<α<4. The technical core is nontrivial: the refined commutator estimate Proposition 2.6, the inductive construction of correction terms with the exact cancellations in Lemma 3.9, and the CR-type integration by parts in Proposition 4.2. The proof is largely self-contained and the most delicate algebraic identities are written out. I checked the key step (2.13) in Proposition 2.6 and it is internally consistent: the H^{min(s-2,1/2+ε)} loss is exactly what is needed for the modified energy to close without forcing α≥3. The manuscript should be accepted if the gaps noted below are properly addressed.

major comments (2)

[§4.1, Proposition 4.2] Proposition 4.2 is the main a priori estimate for the non-existence argument, and its proof uses Lemma 3.6 to control ∂tΘ_ω in (4.19). However, Lemma 3.6 is stated and proved only for the parabolic regularization (3.5) with ε∈(0,1); Section 4 applies it to a solution u of the original problem (1.1), i.e. to ε=0. The proof of Lemma 3.6 carries over verbatim with the ε∂x² term omitted, but this is not stated. As written, the estimate is not formally available for the object to which it is applied, and this is load-bearing for Theorem 4.1. Please add an explicit statement, or a remark, that Lemma 3.6 (or its proof) also applies to the ε=0 solution.
[§3.2–3.4, Lemmas 3.10 and 3.15] Several difference estimates that are essential for uniqueness and for continuous dependence are asserted without proof. In Lemma 3.10, the bound for the sum ˘K_n+Σ_{ℓ∈{1,2,4,5,6}}˘J_ℓ−˘K_{n+1} is stated to follow by 'a calculation similar to that for (3.30) and (3.34)–(3.37)'; similarly, Lemma 3.15 refers back to (3.30), (3.35)–(3.37) for the main modified-energy contribution. These estimates involve the same type of cancellation as Lemma 3.9, so they may well be correct, but the manuscript currently leaves the reader to reconstruct the computations. Since the difference estimates underlie the proof of continuous dependence, I ask the authors to include at least the analogue of the key cancellation (3.35) and to state clearly which terms are bounded by the suppressed arguments.

minor comments (4)

[Remark 2.7] The wording '∥g∥_{H^{1/2+ε}} does not appear on the right-hand side' is imprecise because the right-hand side of Proposition 2.6 contains ∥g∥_{H^{min(s−2,1/2+ε)}}, which equals ∥g∥_{H^{1/2+ε}} for s>5/2+ε. The intended point is that in the application for α∈(2,3) the minimum selects H^{s−2}; please clarify to avoid confusion.
[Throughout] Minor typos: 'diffrential inequality' in Proposition 3.11, 'intgrating by parts' after (3.29), and 'impiles' after (3.77).
[Footnote 2] The phrase 'unconditional uniqueness' is misleading because Corollary 3.13 assumes solutions in C([0,T];H^s), not merely in L∞([0,T];H^s). Please rephrase or clarify.
[§4.2, (4.26)] The factor √2 in the bound (4.26) comes from restricting the ℓ² norm to k<0; a brief parenthetical justification would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the α>2 modified-energy construction and the non-existence proof are self-contained, and the condition (1.4) is a theorem characterization rather than a fitted input.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is a two-direction theorem: well-posedness is proved under condition (1.4) by a modified-energy construction, and failure of (1.4) is shown to imply non-existence via the Cauchy–Riemann-type resonant term. Neither direction reduces to the other, and the condition is not used as an assumption inside its own proof except in the intended way (setting the problematic zero-mode to zero). The key technical novelty, Proposition 2.6, is stated in a form tailored to the problem but proved in the paper via the decomposition (2.10)–(2.13), with no appeal to the main theorem. The inductive correction terms (3.6)–(3.10) are explicitly constructed, and the cancellation of K^n + ∂_t L^n − K^{n+1} is carried out in Lemma 3.9. The non-existence proof derives a regularity gain for P_±ϕ from the assumed existence of a solution, which is a genuine necessary-condition argument. The self-citations to the authors' own [20, 21] are used for the α=2 analogue, norm-inflation comparison, and a technical approximation lemma; these are not load-bearing for the α>2 estimates, which are developed with full proofs here. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, no ansatz is smuggled in via citation, and no known result is merely relabeled. The proof is self-contained for the central α>2 result, aside from routine external references, so the circularity score is 0.

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

The paper's assumptions are standard for the field: polynomial nonlinearities, Sobolev spaces on the torus, and established bilinear/commutator estimates from the literature. The key new estimate (Proposition 2.6) is proved in the paper. No free parameters are fitted; the only 'condition' is the structural hypothesis (1.4) which is the theorem's dichotomy. No new physical entities are introduced.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption The nonlinearity F is a polynomial in (ζ, ω, ζ̄, ω̄); the result for real-analytic F is only claimed in Remark 1.6, not proved.
This restricts the main theorems; fractional derivatives on polynomially nonlinear terms are handled, real-analytic would require additional limiting arguments.
standard math Background bilinear and commutator estimates (Propositions 2.1, 2.2, 2.4, 2.5) are valid on the torus; Theorem 2.1 is cited to [38] with a modification, Propositions 2.4-2.5 are proved in the paper.
These are used repeatedly; Proposition 2.1 is taken from Tao's work as stated.
standard math The fractional Leibniz rule expansion (1.7) from Li [24] is used to motivate the modified energy; the actual estimates rest on the paper's own commutator lemmas.
Cited to [24], not reproved.
domain assumption The Cauchy problem is set in H^s(T) with s > 3/2 so that the nonlinearity is well-defined; Theorem 1.3 assumes s > s*(α) ≥ 5/2, which is strictly stronger.
Definition 1.1 and Corollary 2.3 ensure the nonlinear term is a distribution; the threshold s*(α) comes from the energy estimates.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Well- and Ill-posedness of the Cauchy problem for derivative fractional nonlinear Schr\"odinger equations on the torus." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VU2CAOZH

@misc{pith2026250811866,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Well- and Ill-posedness of the Cauchy problem for derivative fractional nonlinear Schr\"odinger equations on the torus},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VU2CAOZH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.11866}
}

abstract

We consider the Cauchy problem for derivative fractional Schr\"odinger equations (fNLS) on the torus $\mathbb T$. Recently, the second and third authors established a necessary and sufficient condition on the nonlinearity for well-posedness of semi-linear Schr\"odinger equations on $\mathbb T$. In this paper, we extend this result to derivative fNLS. More precisely, we prove that the necessary and sufficient condition on the nonlinearity is the same as that for semi-linear Schr\"odinger equations. However, since we can not employ a gauge transformation for derivative fNLS, we use the modified energy method to prove well-posedness. We need to inductively construct correction terms for the modified energy when the fractional Laplacian is of order between $1$ and $\frac 32$. For the ill-posedness, we prove the non-existence of solutions to the Cauchy problem by exploiting a Cauchy-Riemann-type operator that appears in nonlinear interactions.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 3 linked inside Pith

[1]

Alphonse, N

P. Alphonse, N. Tzvetkov, A smoothing effect for the fractional Schr¨ odinger equations on the circle and observability , Int. Math. Res. Not. IMRN 2025, no. 8, Paper No. rnaf100, 20 pp

2025
[2]

Bahouri, G

H. Bahouri, G. Perelman, Global well-posedness for the derivative nonlinear Schr¨ odinger equation with periodic boundary condition, Int. Math. Res. Not. IMRN 2024, no. 24, 14479–14518

2024
[3]

J. L. Bona, R. Smith, The initial-value problem for the Korteweg-de Vries equation , Philos. Trans. Roy. Soc. London Ser. A 278 (1975), no. 1287, 555–601

1975
[4]

E. Brun, G. Li, R. Liu, Y. Zine, Global well-posedness of one-dimensional cubic frac- tional nonlinear Schr¨ odinger equations in negative Sobolev spaces, arXiv:2311.13370

arXiv
[5]

Chihara, The initial value problem for Schr¨ odinger equations on the torus , Int

H. Chihara, The initial value problem for Schr¨ odinger equations on the torus , Int. Math. Res. Not. (2002), no. 15, 789–820

2002
[6]

Chihara, Fourth-order dispersive systems on the one-dimensional torus, J

H. Chihara, Fourth-order dispersive systems on the one-dimensional torus, J. Pseudo- Differ. Oper. Appl. 6 (2015), no. 2, 237–263

2015
[7]

Y. Deng, A. R. Nahmod, H. Yue, Optimal local well-posedness for the periodic deriv- ative nonlinear Schr¨ odinger equation, Comm. Math. Phys. 384 (2021), no. 2, 1061– 1107

2021
[8]

M. B. Erdo˘ gan, T. B. G¨ urel, N. Tzirakis,Smoothing for the fractional Schr¨ odinger equation on the torus and the real line , Indiana Univ. Math. J. 68 (2019), no. 2, 369–392

2019

Show all 39 references

[9]

Gassot, The third order Benjamin-Ono equation on the torus: well-posedness, traveling waves and stability , Ann

L. Gassot, The third order Benjamin-Ono equation on the torus: well-posedness, traveling waves and stability , Ann. Inst. H. Poincar´ e C Anal. Non Lin´ eaire38 (2021), no. 3, 815–840

2021
[10]

Hayashi, T

M. Hayashi, T. Ozawa, N. Visciglia, Global H 2-solutions for the generalized derivative NLS on T, SIAM J. Math. Anal. 57 (2025), no. 2, 1483–1501

2025
[11]

Herr, On the Cauchy problem for the derivative nonlinear Schr¨ odinger equation with periodic boundary condition , Int

S. Herr, On the Cauchy problem for the derivative nonlinear Schr¨ odinger equation with periodic boundary condition , Int. Math. Res. Not. (2006), Art. ID 96763, 33 pp

2006
[12]

R. J. Iorio, V. de M. Iorio, Fourier analysis and partial differential equations , Cam- bridge Stud. Adv. Math., 70, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2001. xii+411 pp

2001
[13]

J¨ ockel,Well-posedness of the periodic dispersion-generalized Benjamin-Ono equa- tion in the weakly dispersive regime, Nonlinearity 37 (2024), no

N. J¨ ockel,Well-posedness of the periodic dispersion-generalized Benjamin-Ono equa- tion in the weakly dispersive regime, Nonlinearity 37 (2024), no. 8, Paper No. 085002, 37 pp

2024
[14]

Kappeler, P

T. Kappeler, P. Topalov, Global wellposedness of KdV in H −1(T, R), Duke Math. J. 135 (2006), no. 2, 327–360

2006
[15]

T. K. Kato, Unconditional well-posedness for the fourth-order nonlinear Schr¨ odinger- type equations on the torus , J. Evol. Equ. 25 (2025), no. 3, Paper No. 75

2025
[16]

C. E. Kenig, D. Pilod, Local well-posedness for the KdV hierarchy at high regularity. Adv. Differential Equations 21 (2016), no. 9–10, 801–836

2016
[17]

C. E. Kenig, G. Ponce, L. Vega, Small solutions to nonlinear Schr¨ odinger equations, Ann. Inst. H. Poincar´ e C Anal. Non Lin´ eaire10 (1993), no. 3, 255–288. 56 T.K. KATO, T. KONDO, AND M. OKAMOTO

1993
[18]

Killip, M

R. Killip, M. Ntekoume, M. Vi¸ san, On the well-posedness problem for the derivative nonlinear Schr¨ odinger equation, Anal. PDE 16 (2023), no. 5, 1245–1270

2023
[19]

Kishimoto, Y

N. Kishimoto, Y. Tsutsumi, Ill-posedness of the third order NLS equation with Raman scattering term, Math. Res. Lett. 25 (2018), no. 5, 1447–1484

2018
[20]

Kondo, M

T. Kondo, M. Okamoto, Norm inflation for a higher-order nonlinear Schr¨ odinger equation with a derivative on the circle , Partial Differ. Equ. Appl. 6 (2025), no. 2, Paper No. 11, 14 pp

2025
[21]

Kondo, M

T. Kondo, M. Okamoto, Well- and ill-posedness of the Cauchy problem for semi-linear Schr¨ odinger equations on the torus, arXiv:2501.04205

arXiv
[22]

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

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

2018
[23]

Laskin, Fractional quantum mechanics and L´ evy path integrals, Phys

N. Laskin, Fractional quantum mechanics and L´ evy path integrals, Phys. Lett. A 268 (2000), no. 4–6, 298–305

2000
[24]

Li, On Kato-Ponce and fractional Leibniz , Rev

D. Li, On Kato-Ponce and fractional Leibniz , Rev. Mat. Iberoam. 35 (2019), no. 1, 23–100

2019
[25]

Liang, Y

R. Liang, Y. Wang, Gibbs dynamics for fractional nonlinear Schr¨ odinger equations with weak dispersion, Comm. Math. Phys. 405 (2024), no. 10, Paper No. 250, 69 pp

2024
[26]

J. Liu, J. Zhang, The quasi-periodic solution of fractional nonlinear Schr¨ odinger equa- tion on tori , Phys. D 461 (2024), Paper No. 134102, 9 pp

2024
[27]

Mizuhara, The initial value problem for third and fourth order dispersive equations in one space dimension , Funkcial

R. Mizuhara, The initial value problem for third and fourth order dispersive equations in one space dimension , Funkcial. Ekvac. 49 (2006), no. 1, 1–38

2006
[28]

Molinet, T

L. Molinet, T. Tanaka, Unconditional well-posedness for some nonlinear periodic one- dimensional dispersive equations, J. Funct. Anal.283 (2022), no. 1, Paper No. 109490, 45 pp

2022
[29]

Nakanishi, B

K. Nakanishi, B. Wang, Global wellposedness of general nonlinear evolution equations for distributions on the Fourier half space , J. Funct. Anal. 289 (2025), no. 8, Paper No. 111004, 70 pp

2025
[30]

Onodera, Local well-posedness for a fourth-order nonlinear dispersive system on the 1D torus , arXiv:2411.00452

E. Onodera, Local well-posedness for a fourth-order nonlinear dispersive system on the 1D torus , arXiv:2411.00452

arXiv
[31]

Roy, Local well-posedness and parabolic smoothing of solutions of fully nonlinear third-order equations on the torus , Nonlinear Anal

T. Roy, Local well-posedness and parabolic smoothing of solutions of fully nonlinear third-order equations on the torus , Nonlinear Anal. 221 (2022), Paper No. 112845, 45 pp

2022
[32]

Sanchez, O

B. Sanchez, O. Ria˜ no, S. Roudenko, On the well-posedness of the periodic fractional Schr¨ odinger equation, Partial Differ. Equ. Appl. 6 (2025), no. 3, Paper No. 23, 28 pp

2025
[33]

Schippa, Local and global well-posedness for dispersion generalized Benjamin-Ono equations on the circle , Nonlinear Anal

R. Schippa, Local and global well-posedness for dispersion generalized Benjamin-Ono equations on the circle , Nonlinear Anal. 196 (2020), 111777, 38 pp

2020
[34]

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

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

2012
[35]

Segata, Initial value problem for the fourth order nonlinear Schr¨ odinger type equa- tion on torus and orbital stability of standing waves , Commun

J. Segata, Initial value problem for the fourth order nonlinear Schr¨ odinger type equa- tion on torus and orbital stability of standing waves , Commun. Pure Appl. Anal. 14 (2015), no. 3, 843–859

2015
[36]

Takaoka, Well-posedness for the one-dimensional nonlinear Schr¨ odinger equation with the derivative nonlinearity , Adv

H. Takaoka, Well-posedness for the one-dimensional nonlinear Schr¨ odinger equation with the derivative nonlinearity , Adv. Differential Equations 4 (1999), no. 4, 561–580

1999
[37]

Tanaka, K

T. Tanaka, K. Tsugawa, Well-posedness and parabolic smoothing effect for higher order Schr¨ odinger type equations with constant coefficients, Osaka J. Math. 59 (2022), no. 2, 465–480

2022
[38]

Tao, Multilinear weighted convolution of L2-functions, and applications to nonlin- ear dispersive equations, Amer

T. Tao, Multilinear weighted convolution of L2-functions, and applications to nonlin- ear dispersive equations, Amer. J. Math. 123 (2001), no. 5, 839–908

2001
[39]

X. Yang, J. Zhang, J. Liu, Long time stability of fractional nonlinear Schr¨ odinger equations, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 544 (2025), no. 1, Paper No. 129035, 46 pp. WELL- AND ILL-POSEDNESS FOR DERIV ATIVE FNLS ON THE TORUS 57 Takamori Kato, Mathematical Science Course, F aculty of...

2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Alphonse, N

P. Alphonse, N. Tzvetkov, A smoothing effect for the fractional Schr¨ odinger equations on the circle and observability , Int. Math. Res. Not. IMRN 2025, no. 8, Paper No. rnaf100, 20 pp

2025

[2] [2]

Bahouri, G

H. Bahouri, G. Perelman, Global well-posedness for the derivative nonlinear Schr¨ odinger equation with periodic boundary condition, Int. Math. Res. Not. IMRN 2024, no. 24, 14479–14518

2024

[3] [3]

J. L. Bona, R. Smith, The initial-value problem for the Korteweg-de Vries equation , Philos. Trans. Roy. Soc. London Ser. A 278 (1975), no. 1287, 555–601

1975

[4] [4]

E. Brun, G. Li, R. Liu, Y. Zine, Global well-posedness of one-dimensional cubic frac- tional nonlinear Schr¨ odinger equations in negative Sobolev spaces, arXiv:2311.13370

arXiv

[5] [5]

Chihara, The initial value problem for Schr¨ odinger equations on the torus , Int

H. Chihara, The initial value problem for Schr¨ odinger equations on the torus , Int. Math. Res. Not. (2002), no. 15, 789–820

2002

[6] [6]

Chihara, Fourth-order dispersive systems on the one-dimensional torus, J

H. Chihara, Fourth-order dispersive systems on the one-dimensional torus, J. Pseudo- Differ. Oper. Appl. 6 (2015), no. 2, 237–263

2015

[7] [7]

Y. Deng, A. R. Nahmod, H. Yue, Optimal local well-posedness for the periodic deriv- ative nonlinear Schr¨ odinger equation, Comm. Math. Phys. 384 (2021), no. 2, 1061– 1107

2021

[8] [8]

M. B. Erdo˘ gan, T. B. G¨ urel, N. Tzirakis,Smoothing for the fractional Schr¨ odinger equation on the torus and the real line , Indiana Univ. Math. J. 68 (2019), no. 2, 369–392

2019