Limiting Measures and Energy Growth for Sequences of Solutions to Taubes’s Seiberg–Witten Equations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We consider sequences of solutions $$(\psi _n,A_n)_{n=1}^\infty $$ ( ψ n , A n ) n = 1 ∞ to Taubes’s modified Seiberg–Witten equations, associated with a fixed volume-preserving vector field X on a 3-manifold and corresponding to arbitrarily large values of the strength parameter $$r_n\rightarrow \infty $$ r n → ∞ . In Taubes’s work, the asymptotic behavior of these solutions is related to the dynamics of X. We consider the rather unexplored case of sequences of solutions whose energy is not uniformly bounded as $$n\rightarrow \infty $$ n → ∞ . Our first main result shows that when the energy grows more slowly than $$r_n^{1/2}$$ r n 1 / 2 , the limiting nodal set of the solutions converges to an invariant set of the vector field X. The main tool we use is a novel maximum principle for the solutions with the key property that it remains valid in the unbounded energy case. As a byproduct, in the usual case of sequences of solutions with bounded energy, we obtain a new, more straightforward proof of Taubes’s result on the existence of periodic orbits that does not involve a local analysis or the vortex equations. Our second main result proves that, contrary to what happens in the bounded energy case, when the energy is unbounded there are no local restrictions to the limiting measures that may arise in the modified Seiberg–Witten equations. Furthermore, we obtain a connection between the dimension of the support of the limiting measure (as expressed through a d-Frostman property) and the energy growth of the sequence of local solutions we construct.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".