Fast and slow decaying solutions for $H^{1}$-supercritical quasilinear Schr\"{o}dinger equations
Yongkuan Cheng, Juncheng Wei

TL;DR
This paper investigates the existence of multiple positive solutions with different decay rates for a class of supercritical quasilinear Schrödinger equations, using perturbative methods and analysis of the zero mass problem.
Contribution
It establishes the existence of infinitely many slow-decaying solutions and a fast-decaying solution under specific conditions, advancing understanding of solution behaviors in supercritical regimes.
Findings
Existence of infinitely many slow-decaying solutions for ε=1.
Existence of a fast-decaying solution for small ε.
Analysis of the zero mass problem structure.
Abstract
We consider the following quasilinear Schr\"{o}dinger equations of the form \begin{equation*} \triangle u-\varepsilon V(x)u+u\triangle u^2+u^{p}=0,\ u>0\ \mbox{in}\ \mathbb{R}^N\ \mbox{and}\ \underset{|x|\rightarrow \infty}{\lim} u(x)=0, \end{equation*} where and is a positive function. By imposing appropriate conditions on we prove that, for the existence of infinity many positive solutions with slow decaying at infinity if and, for sufficiently small, a positive solution with fast decaying if The proofs are based on perturbative approach. To this aim, we also analyze the structure of positive solutions for the zero mass problem.
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsAdvanced Mathematical Physics Problems · Nonlinear Partial Differential Equations · Spectral Theory in Mathematical Physics
Fast and slow decaying solutions for -supercritical quasilinear Schrödinger equations††thanks: Supported by NSFC (No.11371146) and NSERC of Canada;
E-mail: [email protected]; [email protected].
** Yongkuan Cheng1, Juncheng Wei2 **
1School of Mathematics, South China University of Technology,** **
Guangzhou, 510640, PR China** **
2Department of Mathematics, University of British Columbia,** **
Vancouver, B. C., V6T 1Z2, Canada**** Corresponding author.
**Abstract ** We consider the following quasilinear Schrödinger equations of the form
[TABLE]
where and is a positive function. By imposing appropriate conditions on we prove that, for the existence of infinity many positive solutions with slow decaying at infinity if and, for sufficiently small, a positive solution with fast decaying if The proofs are based on perturbative approach. To this aim, we also analyze the structure of positive solutions for the zero mass problem.
Keywords Nonlinear Schrödinger equations; -supercritical; Fast and slow decaying solutions
MSC 35J20; 35J60; 35Q55
1 Introduction
The nonlinear Schrödinger equation
[TABLE]
where is a given potential, has been introduced in [1, 2, 3] to study a model of a self-trapped electrons in quadratic or hexagonal lattices (see also [4]). In those references numerical and analytical results have been given.
Here of particular interest is in the existence of standing wave solutions, that is, solutions of type where Assuming that the amplitude is positive and vanishing at infinity, it is well known that satisfies (1.1) if and only if the function solves the following equation of quasilinear elliptic type
[TABLE]
where is the new potential function. In the rest of this paper we will assume that is a bound and positive function.
Because of the presence of the quasilinear term we can see that is the critical exponent for the existence of solutions from the view of variational matheods. For the subcritical case, that is, construction of solutions to this problem by variational methods has been a hot topic during the last decade. A typical result for the equation (1.2) is, up to our knowledge, due to Liu, Wang and Wang [5]. The idea in [5] is to make a change of variable and reduce the quasilinear problem (1.2) to a semilinear one and the Orlicz space framework is used to prove the existence of positive solutions via the mountain pass theorem. Subsequently, the same method of changing of variable is also used in Colin and Jeanjean [6], but the usual Sobolev space is used as the working space. Recently, Shen and Wang in [7] study the following generalized quasilinear Schrödinger equation:
[TABLE]
where By introducing the variable replacement
[TABLE]
and imposing some conditions on the authors obtain the positive solution for (1.3) with a general function when is superlinear and subcritical. But under the condition
[TABLE]
the solvability of the equation (1.2) with still remains open.
Subcriticality is a rather essential constraint in the use of many variational methods devised in the literature and many papers [8, 9, 10, 11, 12] focused on the subcritical case. Very little is known in the supercritical case since a major technical obstacle in understanding such problems stems from the lack of Sobolev embeddings suitably fit to a weak formulation of this problem. Direct tools of the calculus of variation, very useful in subcritical, and even critical cases, are not appropriate in the supercritical. In the critical case, Liu et al. in [5] asked the following open question: are there solutions for (1.2) in the case of However, generally speaking, except some results relate to the critical exponent, see, for instance, [13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20], there are still no conclusive results about the existence of positive solutions for the problem (1.2) with or .
In all the papers mentioned above variational methods are used. In this paper, we shall explore the distinctive nature of this problem for having two critical exponents, one being (from the quasilinear term ) and the other being which is -critical (from the term ). We shall concentrate in the problem (1.2) when the exponent is -supercritical, that is, (which includes ), and we establish a new phenomenon from the viewpoint of singular perturbations. Noticing that (1.2) is a quasilinear problem, we adopt the change of variables which enable us to convert the original quasilinear problem (1.2) into a semilinear problem
[TABLE]
where and Thus, if is a solution of (1.6), we have is a solution of
A solution to (1.6) is called fast decaying if at infinity and slow decaying if . Then, to describe our result about the fast and slow decaying solutions, our starting point is the zero mass problem
[TABLE]
Applying the change of variables (1.4) again, the quasilinear problem (1.7) can be reduced to the equations of the form
[TABLE]
Our first result concerns with the structure of positive radial solutions of the zero mass problem (1.7).
Theorem 1.1**.**
Suppose that Then
- (1).
there exist no fast decaying solutions to the problem (1.7) if or
- (2).
there exist a unique fast decaying radial solution to the problem (1.7) if
- (3).
there exist a one-parameter family of slow decaying radial solutions to the problem (1.7) if
Remark 1.1**.**
Some cases of the results of Theorem 1.1 are contained in [25, 26]. More specifically, similarly to the standard Liouville theorem, if the authors proved the nonexistence results of fast decay solutions to (1.7) (See [25]). In [26], the authors showed the existence of a unique fast decay solution and a one-parameter family of slow decay solutions to (1.7) if via the results introduced in [27]. Moreover, the authors in [26] also pointed out that they did not know whether there are solutions for the equation (1.7) with Particularly, in Theorem 1.1, we draw the definite conclusion about this case by using the Pohozeav identity.
Theorem 1.1 shows that the structure of solutions changes along with the variations of the power and we remark that the solvability of the equation (1.7) heavily depends on the power Let us explain the main reason for such a rich phenomenon. On one hand, as On the other hand, as That is, the nonlinearity is not a pure power of but has both -subcritical and -supercritical growth in In [28], the authors consider a similar model
[TABLE]
where and give an almost complete description for the structure of positive radial solutions by a shooting argument.
The following result is about the fast decaying solutions of the equation (1.2).
Theorem 1.2**.**
Assume that
[TABLE]
hold. Then for sufficiently small the problem (1.2) has a positive fast decaying solution if
Compared with Theorem 1.1, it is natural to ask whether the nonexistence of a fast decaying solution remains true for (1.2) when This may be in general a difficult question to answer if no other conditions imposed on For the special case the authors in [29] show the nonexistence results of fast decay solutions by a Pohozeav identity for the equation (1.2) in the case and
Our final result concerns the existence of slow decaying solutions.
Theorem 1.3**.**
Assume that Then the problem (1.2) has a continuum of solutions such that uniformly in either and the condition (1.9) holds or and there exist such that
[TABLE]
Remark 1.2**.**
In this theorem, we answer the question raised in [5] for
The proofs of Theorems 1.2 and 1.3 are based perturbative approach, introduced by Davila, del Pino, Musso and Wei [21, 22, 23, 24] in the study of fast and slow decaying solutions for second order or nonlinear Schrödinger equations and exterior domain problems. Some of our ideas are motivated from these papers.
In the fast-decaying case, we consider the problem (1.6) as small perturbation of the problem when is sufficiently small. For a point used as the reference origin, the function is considered as an initial approximation, where is a solution of (1.8). This function will constitute a good approximation for small By adjusting we prove that the solutions we want can be achieved.
As for the slow decay solution of the equation (1.2), we set and consider the equation with a parameter by means of replacing the variable in the equation (1.6) by
[TABLE]
where and We observe that and as Thus the problem may be regarded as small perturbation of the problem
[TABLE]
when is sufficiently small. Consequently, infinitely many positive solutions with slow decay at infinity can be constructed similar to the perturbative procedure introduced by Davila, del Pino, Musso and Wei [21].
In this paper, we make use of the following notations: the symbol denotes a positive constant (possibly different) independent with if and only if there exist two positive constants such that denotes the unique fast decaying solution of (1.8).
2 Proof of Theorem 1.1
In this section, we analyze the structure of positive decaying solutions (1.7). We first prove the nonexistence of fast-decaying solutions for or by using the Pohozaev identity. Then we show the existence of fast decaying solution for (1.7) by using the classical Berestycki-Lions condition in [30] for Finally we use a perturbative approach to prove the existence of a family of slow-decaying solutions for
To prove the nonexistence results for the equation (1.8), we recall the following Pohozaev identity.
Lemma 2.1**.**
(Pohozaev identity)* Suppose satisfies*
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Then, if and there holds the following identity
[TABLE]
We omit the proof of this lemma, since it can be mainly found in [31].
To present the Pohozaev identity associated to (1.7), we rewrite the equation (1.7) as
[TABLE]
Thus, the integrands in (2.2) can be expressed as
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Consequently, we achieve the following lemma based on Lemma 2.1 under the conditions and
Lemma 2.2**.**
Suppose that is a solution of (1.7). Then
[TABLE]
if and
Equations (1.7) can be rewritten as
[TABLE]
where By Lemma 2.2, the Pohozaev identity associated to (2.5) is
[TABLE]
On the other hand, the classical solution of (2.5) satisfies
[TABLE]
By taking we achieve
[TABLE]
Consequently, combining (2.6) and (2.7), we have
[TABLE]
If then and Therefore, (2.8) implies that under this situation. Similarly, if it follows that and Thus, (2.8) also shows that So there are no nonzero solutions for (1.7) if or
This proves (1) of Theorem 1.1.
Next we prove the existence of fast decaying solutions to (1.8). By the change of variable we only need to consider (1.8). To this end we recall the following classical proposition by Berestycki and Lions [30].
Proposition 2.1**.**
Suppose that the following assumptions hold:
- (F-1).
* and where *
- (F-2).
There exists such that where
- (F-3).
Let If for all then
Then the problem (1.8) has a positive, spherically symmetric and decreasing (with ) solution such that
We now show that satisfies the conditions (F-1)-(F-3) in Proposition 2.1.
By the definition of we know that (F-2) is trivial. Noticing that we have
[TABLE]
which shows that satisfies the condition (F-1).
To verify the condition (F-3), it suffices to show that
[TABLE]
since and for all Combining the fact we deduce that
[TABLE]
This proves (2) of Theorem 1.1.
Finally we prove (3) of Theorem 1.1. To prove the existence of slow decay solutions, since we are considering the autonomous case, that is, we can restrict to the radially symmetric case. For this reason, we take where
We first consider the problem in the entire space
[TABLE]
It is well known that this problem possesses a unique positive symmetric solution whenever Then all radial solutions to this problem defined in can be expressed as
[TABLE]
and, at a main order, one has
[TABLE]
which implies that this behavior is actually common to all solutions
Since the problem (1.8) does not carry any parameter explicitly, for we can make parameters appear by means of replacing the variable in the equation by in such a way the problem (1.8) becomes
[TABLE]
Then, jointly with the properties of and as if is uniformly bounded, we observe that as Thus the problem may be regarded as small perturbation of the problem
[TABLE]
when is sufficiently small. Consequently, a positive solution with slow decay at infinity can be constructed by asymptotic analysis and Liapunov-Schmidt reduction method. To be more specific, the idea of the proof of Theorem 1.1-(3) is, for small, to consider the function as an initial approximation. This scaling will constitute a good approximation under our situations for sufficiently small. Then, by a classical fixed point argument for contraction mappings, we prove that (2.9) possesses solutions as desired. Similar idea has been used in [21, 23].
Under appropriate norms
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
where we first consider the solvability of the linear problem
[TABLE]
and thus we need the following lemma which is Lemma A. 1 proved by Dávila, del Pino, Musso and Wei [21].
Lemma 2.3**.**
Assume and Then there exists a constant such that for any satisfying equation (2.12) has a solution such that define a linear map and
[TABLE]
Let us look for a solution to (2.9) of the form which yields the following equation for
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
We first estimate the error of the approximate solution. The fact
[TABLE]
and the properties of the change of variables (1.4) show that, for
[TABLE]
Thus, it follows that
[TABLE]
We then conclude
[TABLE]
On the other hand, recalling that we obtain
[TABLE]
From (2.14) and (2.15), we have
[TABLE]
In what follows, the proof relies on the contraction mapping theorem. We observe that solves (2.13) if and only if is a fixed point for the operator
[TABLE]
where is introduced in Lemma 2.3. That is to say, solves (2.13) if and only if is a fixed point for the operator
[TABLE]
We define
[TABLE]
and we will prove that has a fixed point in
For any and according to the arguments given in [21], we have
[TABLE]
since
[TABLE]
Therefore, combining (2.16), (2.17) and Lemma 2.3, it follows that
[TABLE]
which implies that
We still have to prove that is a contraction mapping in Let us take Then we have
[TABLE]
Moreover, noting that
[TABLE]
we have the estimate
[TABLE]
for suitable small This means that is a contraction mapping from into itself, and hence a fixed point in this region indeed exists. So the function is a continuum solutions of (2.13) satisfying uniformly in and is our desired solution. This complete the proof of Theorem 1.1.
3 Proof of Theorem 1.2
In this section, we will construct a fast decaying solution to the problem (1.2) when by the reduction method. The idea of the proof of Theorem 1.2 is, for and small, to consider the function as an initial approximation, where is the unique positive radial solution of the zero mass problem (1.7) stated in Theorem 1.1. These functions will constitute good approximations under our situations for suitable and sufficiently small. Then, by adjusting we prove that (1.2) possesses a solution as desired.
At the beginning, we state some notations which will be used in the following. We consider the initial value problem
[TABLE]
where By Theorem 1.1, there exists a unique such that the corresponding solution is the unique positive fast decay solution. Moreover, satisfies the following initial value problem
[TABLE]
Then by Lemma 4.4 in [26], we have that is non-degenerate in –radial functions in . Our next lemma shows that it is nondegenerate in the class of bounded functions. Let for Then we have the following result.
Lemma 3.1**.**
If satisfies and
[TABLE]
then
Proof.
If is bounded and satisfies (3.3), by bootstrapping, we achieve as Expanding as
[TABLE]
we see that is a solution of
[TABLE]
For mode noticing that we know is a solution of (3.4) and, by Lemma 4.2 in [26], satisfies
[TABLE]
where Thus, if we conclude that
[TABLE]
which is a contradiction. For mode with according to Lemma A. 3 in [21], we conclude that the solution to (3.4) is zero by the maximum principle. Consequently, jointly with the nondegeneracy in radial class, we have
[TABLE]
∎
We introduce appropriate norms
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
where and We first solve the linear problem
[TABLE]
Lemma 3.2**.**
Let and Assume and Then there is a linear map defined whenever such that satisfies (3.7) and
[TABLE]
Moreover, for all if and only if
[TABLE]
Proof.
We will divide the proof into two steps.
Step 1. A priori estimate
By taking in (3.7), where and we have
[TABLE]
If we take that is,
[TABLE]
it follows from (3.10) that
[TABLE]
and for all if and only if
[TABLE]
So, in what follows, we consider
[TABLE]
We first prove the priori estimates (3.8) by using the contradiction argument. Suppose that there exist such that and as By the definition of we can take with the property
[TABLE]
Then, we again have to distinguish two possibilities. Along a subsequence, it follows that or
If standard elliptic estimates show that uniformly on compact sets of Moreover, is a solution to (3.13) with satisfying
[TABLE]
and Thus Lemma 3.1 shows that
[TABLE]
Then the facts for show that We achieve a contradiction to (3.15) since
If We consider and observe that satisfies
[TABLE]
where and Noticing that we have
[TABLE]
where So is uniformly bounded on compact sets of Similarly, considering that
[TABLE]
we obtain uniformly on compact sets of as Thus, by elliptic estimates, we have uniformly on compact sets of and satisfies
[TABLE]
where By the maximum principle, we conclude that which is impossible since
Step 2. Existence
We first want to solve (3.7) on a bounded domain Let us consider the subspace
[TABLE]
Then, according the arguments in [32], finding solution to (3.7) in this case is equivalent to finding such that
[TABLE]
Now, for satisfying let us denote by the unique solution of the problem
[TABLE]
Thus, (3.17) can be written as
[TABLE]
and, by the compactness of Sobolev’s embedding, the map is compact.
Hence, we conclude the existence of the solution by the Fredholm alternative since the priori estimate (3.8) implies that the only solution of this equation is when Finally, thanks to the priori estimate again, we can let and obtain the existence in the whole space. ∎
Now we begin to prove Theorem 1.2. We look for a solution of the form to the equation (1.6) and thus acieve the following equation for
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
However, the problem (3.18) may not be solvable under our situation unless can be chosen in a very special way. So instead of solving (3.18), we consider the following projected problem
[TABLE]
where are constants.
For we first estimate the error of the approximate solution Considering that
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
we have
[TABLE]
In what follows, by applying the Banach fixed point theorem, we can prove that (3.19) is indeed solvable and achieve a solution We then obtain a solution of the problem (3.18) if for all
Based on the description of Lemma 3.2, solving (3.19) reduces now to a fixed point problem. Namely, we need to find a fixed point for the map
[TABLE]
Here, we will restrict to be small enough such that the function is always positive and we define the set
[TABLE]
We now prove that has a fixed point in
For any we first estimate Note that
[TABLE]
We have
[TABLE]
and then
[TABLE]
To estimate we need the following fact: if then
[TABLE]
Indeed, since
[TABLE]
we have
[TABLE]
Then, noticing that we have
[TABLE]
since
[TABLE]
where belongs to the segment jointing and On the other hand, by a similar strategy as the proof of the inequality (3.23), we conclude that
[TABLE]
and thus show the inequality (3.21).
Since is small, based on the fact (3.21), we observe that
[TABLE]
where lies in the segment jointing and with Thus, jointly with the fact for all we have
[TABLE]
where
Therefore, by (3.20) and (3.25), jointly with Lemma 3.2, it follows that
[TABLE]
which shows
We still have to prove that is a contraction mapping in If we take
[TABLE]
then we have
[TABLE]
To estimate we note that
[TABLE]
where lies in the segment joining and Moreover, a direct calculation shows
[TABLE]
Then,
[TABLE]
Thus, we have
[TABLE]
Now we estimate We note that
[TABLE]
where lies in the segment joining and Moreover,
[TABLE]
where with Then, similarly as the proof of (3.25), we have
[TABLE]
Thus, under our situation, combining (3.27), (3.31) and (3.34), we have that is a contraction mapping in and hence there indeed exists a fixed point
In what follows of this section, we will complete the proof of Theorem 1.2.
We have found a solution to (3.19) satisfying
[TABLE]
To prove the result contained in Theorem 1.2, it suffices to show that the point can be adjust so that the constants are all contemporarily equal to zero. Combining Lemma 3.2, we only need to show
[TABLE]
We first define
[TABLE]
The subordinate terms in (3.36) are and Indeed, we have the following estimates
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Noticing that there exist and such that the dominant term in (3.36) satisfies
[TABLE]
Combining (3.37), (3.38) and (3.39), we achieve
[TABLE]
Thus, if we set then and This implies that attains a global maximum point for some By the definition of stable critical point (Musso and Pistoia [33]), has a stable critical point in and as a result, we deduce that, for small, has a zero point in Consequently, for
4 Proof of Theorem 1.3
In this section, we will construct slow decay solutions to the problem (1.2) with The results of Theorem 1.3 are based on a suitable linear theory devised for the linearized operator associated to the equation (1.2) at in the entire space and in the application of perturbation arguments. We consider as an approximation for a solution of (1.2), provided that is chosen small enough. To this aim, we need to know the solvability of the operator in suitable weighted Sobolev space.
Let
[TABLE]
where satisfies Moreover, if and if for a fixed number large enough.
Under appropriate norms
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
where and we first consider the solvability of the linear problem
[TABLE]
and thus we need the following lemma which is proved by Dávila, del Pino, Musso and Wei in [21].
Lemma 4.1**.**
Let Suppose satisfies (1.9) and Then, for sufficiently small,
- (1).
if equation (4.3) with for and has a solution which depends linearly on and there exist a constant independent with such that
[TABLE]
- (2).
if and also satisfies (1.10), equation (4.3) has a solution which depends linearly on and there exist a constant independent with such that
[TABLE]
Moreover, for all if and only if
[TABLE]
Based on Lemma 4.1, we can prove Theorem 1.3. We look for a solution of the form to the equation (1.11) and, for defined in Section 2 and , we achieve the following equation
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
The case
In this case, we rescale as that is, in the previous paragraph. Computations show that
[TABLE]
According to the arguments in [21], we know
[TABLE]
Thus, for the error of the approximate solution in the norm (4.2) is
[TABLE]
where Consequently, for the operator where is given in Lemma 4.1-(1), we can use the contraction mapping theorem on
[TABLE]
and we will prove that has a fixed point in
For any we first give the estimate of We observe that, for a number
[TABLE]
Thus, we have
[TABLE]
On the other hand, combining
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
we have
[TABLE]
Consequently, combining (4.8) and (4.11), we have
[TABLE]
Thus, jointly with the estimate of in Section 2, we conclude
[TABLE]
That is,
For any we want to estimate We note that
[TABLE]
where lies in the segment joining and Then, it follows that
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Thus, we have
[TABLE]
Moreover, a direct calculation shows
[TABLE]
To go a step further, based on the arguments in the previous paragraph, we conclude that
[TABLE]
Consequently, combining (4.14) and (4.16), it follows that
[TABLE]
for sufficiently small.
It is straightforward to show that
[TABLE]
since we can achieve that
[TABLE]
according to Section 2 for sufficiently small. This means that is a contraction mapping from into itself and hence a fixed point indeed exists. So the function is a continuum solutions of (1.11) satisfying uniformly in and is our desired solution to (1.2).
The case
In this case, the problem (4.5) may not be solvable under our situation unless is chosen in a very special way. So, instead of solving (4.5), we consider the following projected problem
[TABLE]
where are constants. Moreover, we will slightly change the previous definition of the norms as
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Just as the case we can prove that (4.19) is indeed solvable and achieve a solution We then obtain a solution of the problem (4.5) if for all
Here, we also fix and find the error of the approximate solution is
[TABLE]
where as So we can define
[TABLE]
Similarly, as the proof of the previous case, jointly with Lemma 4.1-(2), we conclude that the operator is a contraction mapping in and hence achieve a fixed point
[TABLE]
which satisfies the equation (4.19). Moreover, under the condition (1.10), we observe that can be taken as in (4.20) for any That is,
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Thus, to complete our proof, by Lemma 4.1-(2) we need to find such that
[TABLE]
Combining the arguments in [21] and noticing that , we know
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Moreover, noticing that
[TABLE]
we have
[TABLE]
Now, we claim that the dominant term in (4.24) is
[TABLE]
Note that
[TABLE]
We have
[TABLE]
If we define
[TABLE]
and Then, by (4.25), (4.26), (4.27) and (4.29), we achieve that
[TABLE]
and so we can show the existence of a solution to (4.24) since [math] is a critical point of Thus, we conclude that
[TABLE]
where is a fixed small constant. Using this fact and degree theory we obtain the existence of such that in This complete the proof of Theorem 1.3.
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1[1] L. Brizhik, A. Eremko, B. Piette, W. J. Zakrzewski, Electron self-trapping in a discrete two-dimensional lattice, Physica D, 159 (2001), 71-90.
- 2[2] L. Brizhik, A. Eremko, B. Piette, W. J. Zakrzewski, Static solutions of a D-dimensional modified nonlinear Schrödinger equation, Nonlinearity, 16 (2003), 1481-1497.
- 3[3] H. Hartmann, W. J. Zakrzewski, Electrons on hexaonal lattices and applications to nanotubes, Phys. Rev. B, 68 (2003), 184-302.
- 4[4] Y. Brihaye, B. Hartmann, W. J. Zakrzewski, Spinning solitons of a modified nonlinear Schrödinger equation, Phys. Rev. D, 69 (2004), 087701.
- 5[5] J. Q. Liu, Y. Q. Wang, Z. Q. Wang, Soliton solutions for quasilinear Schrödinger equations II, J. Differential Equations, 187 (2003), 473-493.
- 6[6] M. Colin, L. Jeanjean, Solutions for quasilinear Schrödinger equations: a dual approach, Nonlinear Anal. TMA, 56 (2004), 213-226.
- 7[7] Y. T. Shen, Y. J. Wang, Soliton solutions for generalized quasilinear Schrödinger equations, Nonlinear Anal. TMA, 80 (2013), 194-201.
- 8[8] M. Poppenberg, K. Schmitt, Z. Q. Wang, On the existence of soliton solutions to quasilinear Schrödinger equation, Calc. Var. Partial Differential Equations, 14 (2002), 329-344.
