Constructive proofs for localised radial solutions of semilinear elliptic systems on Rd
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Ground state solutions of elliptic problems have been analysed extensively in the theory of partial differential equations, as they represent fundamental spatial patterns in many model equations. While the results for scalar equations, as well as certain specific classes of elliptic systems, are comprehensive, much less is known about these localised solutions in generic systems of nonlinear elliptic equations. In this paper we present a general method to prove constructively the existence of localised radially symmetric solutions of elliptic systems on R d . Such solutions are essentially described by systems of non-autonomous ordinary differential equations. We study these systems using dynamical systems theory and computer-assisted proof techniques, combining a suitably chosen Lyapunov–Perron operator with a Newton–Kantorovich type theorem. We demonstrate the power of this methodology by proving specific localised radial solutions of the cubic Klein–Gordon equation on R 3 , the Swift–Hohenberg equation on R 2 , and a three-component FitzHugh–Nagumo system on R 2 . These results illustrate that ground state solutions in a wide range of elliptic systems are tractable through constructive proofs.
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 | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".