pith. sign in

arxiv: 2607.02493 · v1 · pith:2HSY7ASDnew · submitted 2026-07-02 · 🧮 math.AP

Stability of global self-similar solutions to the cubic wave equation and the wave maps equation

Akansha Sanwal , Birgit Sch\"orkhuber , David Wallauch This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-07-04 03:17 UTC · model glm-5.2

classification 🧮 math.AP MSC 35L7135B3535B4035Q75
keywords nonlinear wave equationself-similar solutionsorbital stabilitywave mapsStrichartz estimatesenergy supercriticalresolventsimilarity coordinates
0
0 comments X

The pith

Self-similar wave solutions stay stable forward in time

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

This paper proves that certain special solutions to two nonlinear wave equations, the cubic wave equation in 6 spatial dimensions and the corotational wave maps equation in 4 dimensions, are stable when evolved forward in time. The solutions in question are self-similar, meaning they maintain their shape under the natural scaling of the equation. They serve as smooth global solutions in the forward time direction, even though they correspond to blowup in the backward direction. The authors show that if one perturbs the initial data of such a solution by a small amount in the critical Sobolev norm, the solution remains close to the original self-similar one for all future time. The key mechanism is a Strichartz estimate for the linearized wave equation with a potential, derived in similarity coordinates. The proof requires constructing the resolvent of the linearized operator across three singular points (the origin, the light cone, and spatial infinity) and gluing the local solutions together. A central technical obstacle is a matching problem at the light cone boundary, where a connection coefficient may vanish on the integration contour; the authors circumvent this by an analyticity argument showing the coefficient has only finitely many zeros, allowing the contour to be shifted.

Core claim

The paper establishes orbital stability of admissible self-similar solutions under small perturbations in the critical Sobolev space, for both the cubic wave equation in d=6 and the corotational wave maps equation in d=4. The perturbation remains bounded in the critical norm for all forward time. This is achieved by proving Strichartz estimates and energy bounds for the semigroup generated by the linearized operator in forward self-similar coordinates, where the linearized equation is a wave equation with a decaying potential. The resolvent construction handles three singular points and overcomes a matching problem at the light cone via a finite-zeros argument for an analytically varying连接系数

What carries the argument

Strichartz estimates in similarity coordinates; resolvent construction via ODE analysis and gluing at the light cone; spectral analysis showing no unstable eigenvalues; fixed-point argument in a custom function space

If this is right

  • Self-similar solutions that blow up backward in time can serve as stable, non-dispersive global solutions forward in time, providing explicit examples of large-data global behavior in energy-supercritical equations.
  • The forward-in-time stability framework differs from backward blowup stability: it yields orbital stability for any admissible profile rather than finite-codimension asymptotic stability, and cannot be restricted to a forward light cone due to finite propagation speed.
  • The analysis is carried out at integer critical regularity (s_c = 2 in d=6) but the authors expect the results extend to all supercritical dimensions d >= 5.
  • The gluing and resolvent construction technique may be adaptable to other energy-supercritical wave equations admitting self-similar solutions.

Load-bearing premise

The gluing construction at the light cone boundary depends on a connection coefficient being an analytic function of the spectral parameter with only finitely many zeros, which allows shifting the integration contour to avoid those zeros; if this analyticity or finite-zeros property failed for a particular self-similar profile, the resolvent construction would break down.

What would settle it

If a self-similar profile existed for which the connection coefficient c_{0,1}(lambda) had infinitely many zeros accumulating near the imaginary axis, the contour-shifting argument would fail and the resolvent could not be constructed, invalidating the Strichartz estimates and hence the stability result.

read the original abstract

We study the long-time stability of global self-similar solutions to two energy supercritical nonlinear wave equations, namely, the cubic nonlinear wave equation in $6$ dimensions and the corotational wave maps equation in $4$ dimensions. We prove the stability of self-similar solutions under perturbations that are small in the critical Sobolev spaces. The proof is based on Strichartz estimates for wave equations with potentials in similarity variables.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 9 minor

Summary. This paper studies the forward-in-time stability of global self-similar solutions to two energy-supercritical equations: the cubic wave equation in d=6 and the corotational wave maps equation in d=4 (formulated as a radial equation on R^6). The main results (Theorems 1.3 and 1.6) establish orbital stability: small perturbations in the critical Sobolev space H^2 x H^1 remain small for all forward time. The proof proceeds by transforming to forward self-similar coordinates, linearizing around the self-similar profile, and analyzing the resulting semigroup. The key steps are: (1) spectral analysis excluding unstable eigenvalues (Proposition 3.4), (2) resolvent construction via ODE analysis with a gluing procedure at the light-cone boundary rho=1 (Section 4), (3) Strichartz and energy estimates for the semigroup in both the interior and exterior of the light cone (Sections 5-7), and (4) a fixed-point argument (Section 8). The analysis handles the matching problem at rho=1 by exploiting analyticity of the connection coefficient c_{0,1}(lambda) to choose a contour Re(lambda) = +/- delta avoiding its zeros, and uses interpolation between weighted estimates on these contours to recover unweighted bounds.

Significance. The paper addresses a natural and important question — forward-in-time stability of self-similar solutions — that is complementary to the well-studied blowup stability problem. The results are parameter-free and apply to any admissible self-similar profile, not just explicit ones. The gluing construction at the light-cone boundary and the interpolation argument between weighted estimates on Re(lambda) = +/- delta to handle the essential spectrum crossing are technically nontrivial adaptations of the blowup stability framework. The paper provides falsifiable predictions: any admissible self-similar solution satisfying the stated decay assumptions should exhibit forward stability. The explicit verification that the potential V_b decays like rho^{-2} for both the cubic wave profiles (via Lemma 1.2) and the wave maps profiles (via Lemma 9.3) grounds the abstract framework in concrete examples.

major comments (3)
  1. Section 4.4, Lemma 4.14: The gluing construction defines the matching constant c(f;lambda) = mu(f;lambda) = c_{0,1}(lambda)^{-1} * integral, and the resolvent R(f) is claimed to be the unique solution in H^2(R^6). However, the proof verifies regularity piecewise on (0,1) and (1,infty) and checks continuity at rho=1, but the verification that the second derivative matches at rho=1 (i.e., that R(f) is C^2 or at least H^2 across rho=1) is not explicitly carried out. The proof states 'Regularit of the resolvent: From the construction... we can deduce that R(f)(rho;lambda) in H^2(R^6)' but does not show the matching of derivatives. Since H^2(R^6) for radial functions requires the second derivative to be in L^2, a jump in the second derivative at rho=1 would still be in L^2, so this may not be a genuine obstruction — but the argument should be clarified. The analogous construction in the blowu
  2. Section 5, Lemma 5.8: The second displayed estimate states ||T_{j,pm,kappa2}(.)f||_{L^p L^q} <= ||f||_{H^2}, which is the same norm bound as the first estimate ||T_{j,pm,kappa2}(.)f||_{L^p L^q} <= ||f||_{H^1}. This appears to be a typo — the second estimate should likely have a dot-T (i.e., ||dot{T}_{j,pm,kappa2}||) or a different operator. If it is genuinely a second estimate for the same operator with a stronger norm on the right, the proof should explain why the H^2 bound is needed or useful here. This should be clarified.
  3. Section 8.2, proof of Theorem 1.6: The proof states 'The proof follows exactly in the same way as the proof of Theorem 1.3' and refers to [20, Section 7] for the wave maps case, noting that one should 'omit the projection P and replace B_1 by the full space R^6.' However, the nonlinearity estimates for the wave maps equation (Lemma 8.2) involve different function spaces (X_WM with L^3_t L^9 and L^6_t L^{36/5} norms) than the cubic wave case (X_NLW). A brief verification that the Strichartz estimates from Theorem 7.2 suffice to control all the norms appearing in X_WM — particularly the L^3_t L^9 and L^6_t L^{36/5} components, which do not appear in the cubic wave fixed-point space — would strengthen the proof. As stated, the reader must verify this compatibility independently.
minor comments (9)
  1. Remark 2.1 states that the wave maps potential decays like <rho>^{-1}, but the text later (Section 3.1) states V_b(rho) ~ 1/<rho>^2. For the wave maps case, the potential is -(d-1)/rho^2 [cos(2rho U*) - 1], which decays like rho^{-2} when rho U* -> c with cos(2c) != 1, and faster otherwise. The remark should be corrected for consistency.
  2. Several proofs are abbreviated with references to [20] and [38] for detailed arguments (e.g., Lemmas 5.4, 5.6, 5.18, 5.21). While this is reasonable given the length, a brief indication of what modifications are needed beyond the sign change lambda -> -lambda (noted in Section 4.2) would aid the reader.
  3. In Lemma 5.8, the second estimate appears to duplicate the first with H^2 instead of H^1 on the right-hand side. If this is meant to be a bound on dot{T}_{j,pm,kappa2}, the dot should be added; otherwise, clarify that the T is correctly stated.
  4. The notation for weighted Sobolev spaces W^{s,2}_{alpha} is introduced implicitly through usage (e.g., in Lemma 5.18) without a formal definition. A brief definition in Section 1.3 would improve readability.
  5. In the proof of Lemma 4.14, the terms A, B, C, D (equations 4.16-4.18) are introduced but the cancellation argument is described somewhat informally ('an integration by parts... leads to a cancellation'). Specifying which terms cancel (e.g., 'the boundary terms from A and C cancel') would help.
  6. The paper states in Section 1.1.1 that 'we believe that our analysis holds for all supercritical dimensions d >= 5' but restricts to d=6. A brief remark on what the obstruction is for d != 6 (e.g., non-integer critical exponent, different Strichartz admissibility) would be helpful.
  7. In Proposition 5.10, the interpolation identities are stated for specific ranges of parameters. The condition delta >= 0 sufficiently small is used in Lemma 5.13 but the relationship between the smallness of delta and the validity of the interpolation should be stated explicitly.
  8. The reference [6] (Bonk and Donninger) is cited as a 2026 preprint. If this is a simultaneous/forthcoming work, a brief note on the relationship to the present paper's results would help contextualize the contribution.
  9. Minor typos: (i) In the abstract, 'Schorkhuber' has an encoding issue. (ii) In equation (2.10), the nonlinear term notation uses a tilde that is inconsistent with later usage. (iii) In Lemma 4.11, the Wronskian formula has a superscript formatting issue. (iv) 'Regularit' in the proof of Lemma 4.14 should be 'Regularity'. (v) In Section 6.3.1, equation (6.39) has a missing closing parenthesis in the second term.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for a careful reading and for identifying three points where the exposition can be improved. All three comments are well-taken: the first concerns a gap in the regularity verification at the gluing point in Lemma 4.14, the second is a typo in Lemma 5.8, and the third requests an explicit verification that the Strichartz estimates from Theorem 7.2 control the wave maps fixed-point space X_WM. We will address all three in a revision.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Section 4.4, Lemma 4.14: The gluing construction defines the matching constant c(f;lambda) and the resolvent R(f) is claimed to be the unique solution in H^2(R^6). However, the proof verifies regularity piecewise on (0,1) and (1,infty) and checks continuity at rho=1, but the verification that the second derivative matches at rho=1 (i.e., that R(f) is C^2 or at least H^2 across rho=1) is not explicitly carried out.

    Authors: The referee is correct that the proof of Lemma 4.14 does not explicitly verify the matching of derivatives at rho=1. We note that, as the referee observes, a jump in the second derivative at a single point would still yield an L^2 function, so H^2 membership is not obstructed. However, the argument should be made explicit. In fact, the matching of the second derivative follows from the ODE itself: since R(f) solves the inhomogeneous equation (4.15) on both sides of rho=1 and the coefficients of the ODE are smooth across rho=1 (the singularity at rho=1 is removable in the sense that (1-rho^2) vanishes but the equation can be rewritten in regular form), the value of u''(1) is determined by u(1), u'(1), and f(1) via the ODE. Since u and u' are continuous at rho=1 by construction (the matching constant c is chosen precisely to ensure continuity of u), the second derivative must also match. We will add an explicit paragraph to the proof of Lemma 4.14 clarifying this point. The analogous argument in the free case (Lemma 9.2, where the ODE is simpler) already demonstrates this principle explicitly — see equations (9.14) and (9.15), where the second derivatives from both sides are shown to agree. revision: partial

  2. Referee: Section 5, Lemma 5.8: The second displayed estimate states ||T_{j,pm,kappa2}(.)f||_{L^p L^q} <= ||f||_{H^2}, which is the same norm bound as the first estimate ||T_{j,pm,kappa2}(.)f||_{L^p L^q} <= ||f||_{H^1}. This appears to be a typo — the second estimate should likely have a dot-T (i.e., ||dot{T}_{j,pm,kappa2}||) or a different operator.

    Authors: The referee is correct that the second displayed estimate in Lemma 5.8 is a typo. The second estimate should read ||dot{T}_{j,pm,kappa2}(.)f||_{L^p L^q} <= ||f||_{H^2}, i.e., it should involve the dot-T operator (the operator with the extra factor of omega in the integrand), not the same T operator as in the first estimate. This is consistent with the pattern in Lemmas 5.4 and 5.6, where both T and dot-T estimates are stated. The proof of the dot-T estimate proceeds by performing one additional integration by parts (as described in the proof, e.g., for dot{T}_{16,pm,kappa2}) and then arguing as for T. We will correct the typo in the revised manuscript. revision: yes

  3. Referee: Section 8.2, proof of Theorem 1.6: The proof states 'The proof follows exactly in the same way as the proof of Theorem 1.3' and refers to [20, Section 7] for the wave maps case. However, the nonlinearity estimates for the wave maps equation (Lemma 8.2) involve different function spaces (X_WM with L^3_t L^9 and L^6_t L^{36/5} norms) than the cubic wave case (X_NLW). A brief verification that the Strichartz estimates from Theorem 7.2 suffice to control all the norms appearing in X_WM would strengthen the proof.

    Authors: The referee raises a valid point. The space X_WM contains the norms L^3_tau L^9 and L^6_tau L^{36/5}, which do not appear in X_NLW, and the proof of Theorem 1.6 should explicitly verify that these are controlled by the Strichartz estimates of Theorem 7.2. This is indeed the case: the admissible Strichartz pairs (q,r) in Theorem 7.2 satisfy 1/q + 6/r = 1 with q in [2,infty] and r in [6,12]. The pair (q,r) = (3,9) satisfies 1/3 + 6/9 = 1 and falls within the admissible range, so the L^3_tau L^9 norm is directly controlled. For the L^6_tau L^{36/5} norm, we note that (q,r) = (6, 36/5) satisfies 1/6 + 6/(36/5) = 1/6 + 5/6 = 1 and r = 36/5 = 7.2 lies in [6,12], so this pair is also admissible. Thus both norms are controlled by Theorem 7.2. We will add a brief remark in Section 8.2 (or at the end of Section 8.1.2) explicitly verifying this compatibility, so that the reader does not need to check it independently. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity detected; derivation is parameter-free with minor self-citation for ODE techniques

full rationale

The paper proves orbital stability of self-similar solutions to the cubic wave equation (d=6) and wave maps equation (d=4) via Strichartz estimates for the linearized operator in forward self-similar coordinates. The derivation chain is: (1) transform to self-similar coordinates, (2) linearize around admissible profiles, (3) construct the resolvent via ODE analysis, (4) prove Strichartz and energy estimates for the semigroup, (5) run a fixed-point argument. No step reduces to its inputs by construction. The self-similar profiles (Eq. 1.3, 1.11) are explicit inputs from prior literature, not constructs of this paper. The spectral analysis (Proposition 3.4) excludes unstable eigenvalues by direct ODE asymptotics at infinity, not by assumption. The gluing construction (Section 4.4) depends on the connection coefficient c_{0,1}(λ) having finitely many zeros (Lemma 4.5), which is proven from analyticity and asymptotics (Eq. 4.4), not assumed. Self-citations to [20] and [38] are for ODE techniques (Volterra iteration, Bessel function asymptotics) and Strichartz estimate lemmas — these are technical tools, not the target result. The cited works address blowup stability (backward in time), while this paper addresses forward-in-time stability, a genuinely different problem requiring treatment of the singular point ρ=∞. The interpolation framework (Proposition 5.10) uses standard complex interpolation. The fixed-point argument (Section 8) uses standard Duhamel formulation with the Strichartz estimates derived independently. No fitted parameters, no self-definitional chains, no uniqueness theorem invoked to forbid alternatives. The one minor concern is that several kernel estimate proofs (Lemmas 5.4, 5.6, 5.8) are deferred to [20] with statements like 'follows from arguments exhibited in [20]', but these are for specific integral operator bounds, not the central claim, and the techniques are standard (Young's inequality, Hardy's inequality, change of variables). This warrants a score of 2 rather than 0, but does not constitute circularity of the main result.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities or postulated objects. All operators, function spaces, and solutions are standard in the PDE literature. The potential V_b is derived from the self-similar profile, not invented.

free parameters (2)
  • δ (stability threshold) = small, unspecified
    The smallness parameter δ for initial data is not explicitly computed; it emerges from the fixed-point argument requiring the nonlinearity to be contractive.
  • δ' (perturbation bound) = unspecified
    The bound on the perturbation size δ' depends on δ and the semigroup estimates.
axioms (5)
  • standard math Local well-posedness of supercritical wave equations in critical Sobolev spaces
    Invoked implicitly in Section 1.1.2, referencing Lindblad-Sogge [32] for the cubic wave equation and Shatah-Tahvildar-Zadeh [36] for wave maps.
  • domain assumption Existence of smooth self-similar profiles with decay U(ρ) ~ ρ⁻¹
    Definition 1.1 assumes admissible self-similar solutions exist. The explicit profile (1.3) from Glogić-Schörkhuber [26] and the wave maps ground state (1.11) satisfy this, but the stability result applies to any admissible profile.
  • standard math Strichartz estimates for the free wave equation in R^6
    Used in Proposition 2.6 to derive estimates for the free semigroup S_0 by reversing the similarity coordinate transform.
  • standard math Gearhart-Prüss theorem for semigroup stability
    Invoked in Lemma 3.6 to obtain exponential bounds on the semigroup from resolvent estimates.
  • standard math Complex interpolation of weighted Sobolev spaces
    Proposition 5.10 uses interpolation between weighted spaces to obtain the unweighted H² estimates, following [1].

pith-pipeline@v1.0.0 · 95158 in / 2649 out tokens · 90482 ms · 2026-07-04T03:17:56.959301+00:00 · methodology

Review history (2 revisions) →

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Springer Science & Business Media, 2012

    J¨ oran Bergh and J¨ orgen L¨ ofstr¨ om.Interpolation spaces: an introduction, volume 223. Springer Science & Business Media, 2012

    2012

  2. [2]

    Threshold for blowup for equivariant wave maps in higher dimensions.Nonlinearity, 30(4):1513–1522, 2017

    Pawe l Biernat, Piotr Bizo´ n, and Maciej Maliborski. Threshold for blowup for equivariant wave maps in higher dimensions.Nonlinearity, 30(4):1513–1522, 2017

    2017

  3. [3]

    Equivariant self-similar wave maps from Minkowski spacetime into 3-sphere.Comm

    Piotr Bizo´ n. Equivariant self-similar wave maps from Minkowski spacetime into 3-sphere.Comm. Math. Phys., 215(1):45–56, 2000

    2000

  4. [4]

    Generic self-similar blowup for equivariant wave maps and Yang-Mills fields in higher dimensions.Comm

    Piotr Bizo´ n and Pawe l Biernat. Generic self-similar blowup for equivariant wave maps and Yang-Mills fields in higher dimensions.Comm. Math. Phys., 338(3):1443–1450, 2015

    2015

  5. [5]

    Self-similar solutions of semilinear wave equations with a focusing nonlinearity.Nonlinearity, 20(9):2061–2074, 2007

    Piotr Bizon, Dieter Maison, and Arthur Wasserman. Self-similar solutions of semilinear wave equations with a focusing nonlinearity.Nonlinearity, 20(9):2061–2074, 2007

    2061

  6. [6]

    Future stability of large-data wave maps in energy-supercritical dimensions, 2026

    Andras Bonk and Roland Donninger. Future stability of large-data wave maps in energy-supercritical dimensions, 2026

    2026

  7. [7]

    On the division problem for the wave maps equation.Ann

    Timothy Candy and Sebastian Herr. On the division problem for the wave maps equation.Ann. PDE, 4(2):Paper No. 17, 61, 2018

    2018

  8. [8]

    On blowup of co-rotational wave maps in odd space dimensions.J

    Athanasios Chatzikaleas, Roland Donninger, and Irfan Glogi´ c. On blowup of co-rotational wave maps in odd space dimensions.J. Differential Equations, 263(8):5090–5119, 2017

    2017

  9. [9]

    A class of large global solutions for the wave-map equation.Trans

    Elisabetta Chiodaroli and Joachim Krieger. A class of large global solutions for the wave-map equation.Trans. Am. Math. Soc., 369(4):2747–2773, 2017

    2017

  10. [10]

    Type II blow up manifolds for the energy supercritical semilinear wave equation.Mem

    Charles Collot. Type II blow up manifolds for the energy supercritical semilinear wave equation.Mem. Amer. Math. Soc., 252(1205):v+163, 2018

    2018

  11. [11]

    Costin, R

    O. Costin, R. Donninger, and X. Xia. A proof for the mode stability of a self-similar wave map.Nonlinearity, 29(8):2451–2473, 2016

    2016

  12. [12]

    On the stability of self-similar solutions to nonlinear wave equations.Comm

    Ovidiu Costin, Roland Donninger, Irfan Glogi´ c, and Min Huang. On the stability of self-similar solutions to nonlinear wave equations.Comm. Math. Phys., 343(1):299–310, 2016

    2016

  13. [13]

    On blowup for the supercritical quadratic wave equation.Anal

    Elek Csobo, Irfan Glogi´ c, and Birgit Sch¨ orkhuber. On blowup for the supercritical quadratic wave equation.Anal. PDE, 17(2):617–680, 2024

    2024

  14. [14]

    Self-similar solutions of focusing semi-linear wave equations inR N.J

    Wei Dai and Thomas Duyckaerts. Self-similar solutions of focusing semi-linear wave equations inR N.J. Evol. Equ., 21(4):4703–4750, 2021

    2021

  15. [15]

    On stable self-similar blowup for equivariant wave maps.Comm

    Roland Donninger. On stable self-similar blowup for equivariant wave maps.Comm. Pure Appl. Math., 64(8):1095– 1147, 2011

    2011

  16. [16]

    Strichartz estimates in similarity coordinates and stable blowup for the critical wave equation

    Roland Donninger. Strichartz estimates in similarity coordinates and stable blowup for the critical wave equation. Duke Math. J., 166(9):1627–1683, 2017

    2017

  17. [17]

    Stable blow up dynamics for energy supercritical wave equations.Trans

    Roland Donninger and Birgit Sch¨ orkhuber. Stable blow up dynamics for energy supercritical wave equations.Trans. Am. Math. Soc., 366(4):2167–2189, 2014. 90

    2014

  18. [18]

    On blowup in supercritical wave equations.Comm

    Roland Donninger and Birgit Sch¨ orkhuber. On blowup in supercritical wave equations.Comm. Math. Phys., 346(3):907–943, 2016

    2016

  19. [19]

    Aichelburg

    Roland Donninger, Birgit Sch¨ orkhuber, and Peter C. Aichelburg. On stable self-similar blow up for equivariant wave maps: the linearized problem.Ann. Henri Poincar´ e, 13(1):103–144, 2012

    2012

  20. [20]

    Optimal blowup stability for supercritical wave maps.Adv

    Roland Donninger and David Wallauch. Optimal blowup stability for supercritical wave maps.Adv. Math., 433:86,

  21. [21]

    Optimal blowup stability for three-dimensional wave maps.Anal

    Roland Donninger and David Wallauch. Optimal blowup stability for three-dimensional wave maps.Anal. PDE, 18(4):895–962, 2025

    2025

  22. [22]

    Texts Math.Berlin: Springer, 2000

    Klaus-Jochen Engel and Rainer Nagel.One-parameter semigroups for linear evolution equations, volume 194 ofGrad. Texts Math.Berlin: Springer, 2000

    2000

  23. [23]

    Besov spaces and self-similar solutions for the wave-map equation.Comm

    Pierre Germain. Besov spaces and self-similar solutions for the wave-map equation.Comm. Partial Differential Equa- tions, 33(7-9):1571–1596, 2008

    2008

  24. [24]

    Ghoul, S

    T. Ghoul, S. Ibrahim, and V. T. Nguyen. Construction of type II blowup solutions for the 1-corotational energy supercritical wave maps.J. Differential Equations, 265(7):2968–3047, 2018

    2018

  25. [25]

    Globally stable blowup profile for supercritical wave maps in all dimensions.Calc

    Irfan Glogi´ c. Globally stable blowup profile for supercritical wave maps in all dimensions.Calc. Var. Partial Differ. Equ., 64(2):34, 2025. Id/No 46

    2025

  26. [26]

    Co-dimension one stable blowup for the supercritical cubic wave equation.Adv

    Irfan Glogi´ c and Birgit Sch¨ orkhuber. Co-dimension one stable blowup for the supercritical cubic wave equation.Adv. Math., 390:79, 2021. Id/No 107930

    2021

  27. [27]

    Existence and stability of discretely self-similar blowup for a wave maps type equation.arXiv preprint, 2025

    Irfan Glogi´ c, David Hilditch, and David Wallauch. Existence and stability of discretely self-similar blowup for a wave maps type equation.arXiv preprint, 2025

    2025

  28. [28]

    Sobolev spaces of symmetric functions and applications.Journal of Functional Analysis, 261(12):3735–3770, 2011

    Djairo Guedes de Figueiredo, Ederson Moreira dos Santos, and Ol´ ımpio Hiroshi Miyagaki. Sobolev spaces of symmetric functions and applications.Journal of Functional Analysis, 261(12):3735–3770, 2011

    2011

  29. [29]

    Weissler

    Otared Kavian and Fred B. Weissler. Finite energy self-similar solutions of a nonlinear wave equation.Commun. Partial Differ. Equations, 15(10):1381–1420, 1990

    1990

  30. [30]

    Large global solutions for energy supercritical nonlinear wave equations on R3+1.J

    Joachim Krieger and Wilhelm Schlag. Large global solutions for energy supercritical nonlinear wave equations on R3+1.J. Anal. Math., 133:91–131, 2017

    2017

  31. [31]

    On self-similar solutions of semilinear wave equations in higher space dimensions.Appl

    Rados law Kycia. On self-similar solutions of semilinear wave equations in higher space dimensions.Appl. Math. Comput., 217(22):9451–9466, 2011

    2011

  32. [32]

    Hans Lindblad and Christopher D. Sogge. On existence and scattering with minimal regularity for semilinear wave equations.J. Funct. Anal., 130(2):357–426, 1995

    1995

  33. [33]

    Stable blowup for focusing semilinear wave equations in all dimensions.Trans

    Matthias Ostermann. Stable blowup for focusing semilinear wave equations in all dimensions.Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 377(7):4727–4778, 2024

    2024

  34. [34]

    Self-similar solutions and semi-linear wave equations in Besov spaces.J

    Fabrice Planchon. Self-similar solutions and semi-linear wave equations in Besov spaces.J. Math. Pures Appl. (9), 79(8):809–820, 2000

    2000

  35. [35]

    Weak solutions and development of singularities of the SU(2)σ-model.Comm

    Jalal Shatah. Weak solutions and development of singularities of the SU(2)σ-model.Comm. Pure Appl. Math., 41(4):459–469, 1988

    1988

  36. [36]

    Shadi Tahvildar-Zadeh

    Jalal Shatah and A. Shadi Tahvildar-Zadeh. On the Cauchy problem for equivariant wave maps.Comm. Pure Appl. Math., 47(5):719–754, 1994

    1994

  37. [37]

    Global texture and the microwave background.Physical Review Letters, 64(23):2736, 1990

    Neil Turok and David Spergel. Global texture and the microwave background.Physical Review Letters, 64(23):2736, 1990

    1990

  38. [38]

    On Strichartz estimates and optimal blowup stability of supercritical wave equations.arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.15939, 2024

    David Wallauch. On Strichartz estimates and optimal blowup stability of supercritical wave equations.arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.15939, 2024. Universit¨at Innsbruck, Institut f ¨ur Mathematik, Technikerstraße 13, 6020 Innsbruck, Austria Email address:akansha.sanwal@uibk.ac.at Universit¨at Innsbruck, Institut f ¨ur Mathematik, Technikerstraße 13, 6020 Innsbr...

    work page arXiv 2024