Generic regularity of free boundaries in the obstacle problem for the fractional Laplacian

Matteo Carducci; Roberto Colombo

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Generic regularity of free boundaries in the obstacle problem for the fractional Laplacian

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read For almost every obstacle, the free boundary of the fractional obstacle problem has no degenerate points in dimensions up to 3, and the degenerate set has Hausdorff dimension at most $n-3-\alpha$ in higher dimensions.

desk verdict Substantial and carefully written paper that very likely proves the stated generic regularity theorem; the one genuinely load-bearing dependency is the frequency gap (2m,2m+2s) in Prop 5.10, where the key sign claim is only sketched and cited to a preprint. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.16066 v1 pith:SDTWO4P2 submitted 2024-12-20 math.AP

Matteo Carducci , Roberto Colombo This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.AP MSC 35R3547G20

keywords fractionalLaplacianobstacleproblemfreeboundarygenericregularitythinfrequencygapsepiperimetricinequalitydegeneratepoints

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 a generic regularity statement for the obstacle problem for the fractional Laplacian $(-\Delta)^s$: inside a one-parameter family of solutions driven by obstacles $\varphi-t$, almost every member has a free boundary with no degenerate points when the spatial dimension $n$ is at most 3, and a degenerate set of Hausdorff dimension at most $n-3-\alpha$ when $n\ge 4$. This extends earlier generic-regularity results, which covered dimension 1 for every $s\in(0,1)$ or the case $s=1/2$ with zero obstacle, to all $s\in(0,1)$ and to general nonzero obstacles. The proof works through the Caffarelli--Silvestre extension, turning the nonlocal problem into a thin obstacle problem, and then combines a new frequency-gap theorem, a blow-up analysis at points with frequency $2m+2s$, dimension-reduction bounds, and cleaning results. A corollary states that for $C^\infty$ obstacles in dimensions $n\le 3$, the free boundary is a $C^\infty$ manifold of dimension $n-1$ for almost every time.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is a splitting of the degenerate set by Almgren frequency together with the classification of admissible frequencies in dimension $2$, namely $A_{1,s}=\{2m\}_{m}\cup\{2m+2s\}_{m}\cup\{2m+1+s\}_{m}$, which the paper quotes and uses to control the non-admissible frequency set $\Gamma_*$. The new frequency-gap theorem, Theorem 1.6, shows that no other frequencies occur in explicit intervals around each admissible frequency, which feeds into the cleaning results. The other central object is the Weiss energy and its epiperimetric inequalities at frequencies $2m+2s$, which yield polynomial rates of convergence to the blow-up at those points and also make the frequencies $2m+2s$ isolated. A truncated Almgren frequency function adapted to nonzero obstacles, together with the second blow-up analysis at quadratic points, separates quadratic points into ordinary and anomalous pieces and gives the dimensional bounds for $\Gamma_2^a$.

What would settle it

Find a nonzero global solution of the thin obstacle problem in $\mathbb{R}^2$ with homogeneity inside $(2,3)$ different from $2+2s$, or more generally not among $A_{1,s}$; such a solution would refute the classification used in the dimension-reduction step and could allow degenerate points to accumulate, invalidating the $n\le 3$ generic regularity conclusion.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central assertion, Theorem 1.1, is that for every $s\in(0,1)$ and every obstacle $\varphi\in C^{4,\gamma}$ with $\gamma\in(a_-,1]$, a monotone one-parameter family of solutions with obstacle $\varphi-t$ has, for almost every $t$, an empty degenerate set $\operatorname{Deg}(v(\cdot,t))$ when $n\le 3$, and $\dim_H \operatorname{Deg}(v(\cdot,t))\le n-3-\alpha$ when $n\ge 4$. The equivalent statement for the extended thin obstacle problem is Theorem 1.3, and the paper also proves new explicit frequency gaps for admissible homogeneities, summarized in Theorem 1.6. These gaps, together with a classification of two-dimensional admissible frequencies, are the engine that lets the authors isolate the degenerate set into pieces of controlled dimension and controlled cleaning rate. The paper further establishes uniqueness and polynomial convergence of blow-ups at points with frequency $2m+2s$, and a stratification of the corresponding contact set.

Load-bearing premise

The proof assumes that the only possible growth rates of two-dimensional blow-up limits are the known list $2m$, $2m+2s$, and $2m+1+s$; if an additional rate existed, the dimension bounds for the bad sets and the final generic dimension estimate could fail.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For $n\le 3$ and every $s\in(0,1)$, almost every obstacle has a free boundary with only regular points, so the free boundary is locally a $C^{1,\alpha}$ manifold; with $C^\infty$ obstacles it is a $C^\infty$ manifold of dimension $n-1$.
For $n\ge 4$, the degenerate set has Hausdorff dimension at most $n-3-\alpha$, so singularities form a set of codimension at least $3+\alpha$.
The explicit frequency gaps imply that admissible frequencies concentrate around integers as $s\downarrow 0$ and around even integers as $s\uparrow 1$.
Points with frequency $2m+2s$ have unique blow-ups with polynomial convergence and their contact sets are stratified into at most countably many $C^{1,\alpha}$ manifolds.
For $s=1/2$ and zero obstacle, the main theorem recovers the previously known generic regularity for the thin obstacle problem up to dimension 3.

Reading between the lines

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

If the frequency-gap classification is sharp, the dimension bound $n-3-\alpha$ in $n\ge 4$ may be the natural barrier for the GMT-based method: new mechanisms would be needed to push generic regularity to dimension 4 and beyond.
The structure of the proof suggests that the same combination of frequency gaps and cleaning, once available, could apply to other nonlocal obstacle-type problems, such as fractional obstacle problems with drift or variable coefficients.
Because the only low-dimensional classification entering the argument is quoted from the literature, a direct proof of the two-dimensional frequency classification inside the same framework would make the generic-regularity result and the frequency-gap theorem self-contained.
The paper does not assert sharpness; one could test whether there exist obstacles for which the degenerate set in $n\ge 4$ actually achieves dimension $n-3-\alpha$, which would show the generic bound is optimal.

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

I read Carducci and Colombo's paper on generic regularity of free boundaries in the fractional obstacle problem. The paper is in good shape. It extends generic regularity from the thin obstacle case s=1/2 with zero obstacle (FT23) and from n=1 for all s (FR21) to all s in (0,1), nonzero obstacles, and dimensions up to 3: for a prevalence-generic obstacle, the degenerate set is empty when n<=3 and has dimension at most n-3-alpha when n>=4. That is a real step forward. The blow-up analysis at frequency 2m+2s (Theorem 1.4) with polynomial rate of convergence, the stratification of the contact set, and the new frequency gaps (Theorem 1.6) are genuinely new and go beyond the cited literature. The paper is carefully structured, follows established strategies, and I found no internal contradictions or hidden circularity.

The soft spot is exactly where the stress-test note points. Proposition 5.10, which rules out admissible frequencies in (2m,2m+2s) for every s, is load-bearing for the s>1/2 case: it supplies the gap (2,2+2s+sigma) used to clean the set Gamma_* in Prop 7.5 and hence to close Theorem 1.3. The proof of Prop 5.10 reduces to a sign claim, (5.3), about the homogeneous solutions p_alpha of the ODE (5.1). The claim is plausible, but it is not proved in the paper. The text says 'arguing exactly as in [FS24a, Lemma 2]' and gives a sketch about zeros of p_alpha and d^a_theta p_alpha being isolated and intertwined, with the number of zeros constant as alpha varies and increasing by one at alpha=2m and alpha=2m+2s. Since [FS24a] treats only s=1/2 (a=0), the extension to all a in (-1,1) requires an independent verification. If (5.3) fails for some s, the cleaning of Gamma_* does not go through and the main theorem for s>1/2 collapses. I do not think this is a death blow; the claim is likely true and the adaptation is probably routine, but it is not routine enough to skip.

The reader's weakest assumption was the classification of A_{1,s} in dimension 2, quoted from [FS18]. That is not a real concern; that classification is well-established and the dimension reduction uses it in a standard way. The paper depends on recent preprints ([FS24a], [CV24]) and same-author work ([Car24]); that is common in this area but adds to the verification burden.

Who is this for? Anyone working on free boundary regularity in obstacle problems, especially the fractional/Signorini community. It deserves a serious referee: the main theorem is important and the proof is mostly detailed and honest. My recommendation is to send it to review, with the referee explicitly asked to verify the sign claim in Prop 5.10 or require a self-contained proof before acceptance.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proves generic regularity for the fractional obstacle problem: for a family of solutions v(·,t) with obstacle φ−t, for almost every t the degenerate set is empty in dimensions n≤3 and has Hausdorff dimension at most n−3−α in dimensions n≥4, for every s∈(0,1) and general nonzero C^{4,γ} obstacles. The proof proceeds through the Caffarelli-Silvestre extension to the thin obstacle problem, a fine analysis of quadratic and (2m+2s)-frequency points, new explicit frequency gaps for admissible homogeneities, dimension reduction arguments, and cleaning estimates for each component of the degenerate set. The paper also establishes a full stratification of the contact set at (2m+2s)-frequency points and several new uniform frequency gaps, summarized in Theorem 1.6.

Significance. If the main results are correct, this is a substantial advance: it extends the generic regularity theorem of Fernández-Real–Torres-Latorre from s=1/2 to all s∈(0,1) and from zero obstacles to general nonzero obstacles, and it provides new explicit frequency gaps (Theorem 1.6) that are uniform in dimension and frequency. The paper is detailed and follows the established strategy of Figalli–Ros-Oton–Serra and Fernández-Real–Torres-Latorre, with new epiperimetric inequalities at frequencies 2m+2s and a new second blow-up analysis at quadratic points. The main theorem is falsifiable and the architecture of the proof is transparent. However, two load-bearing inputs are not fully proved in the manuscript: the sign claim in Proposition 5.10 and the spectral stability lemma (Lemma 4.7) whose proof is delegated to an unpublished preprint.

major comments (2)

[§5.3, Proposition 5.10] The proof of Proposition 5.10 rests on the sign claim (5.3), which is not proved in the paper. The sentence 'Claim (5.3) is proved arguing exactly as in [FS24a, Lemma 2]' is not sufficient because [FS24a] treats only s=1/2 (a=0), whereas the ODE (5.1) and the boundary flux ∂^a_θ p_α depend on a∈(−1,1). The sketched zero-counting argument does not establish that the number of zeros of p_α and ∂^a_θ p_α in [0,π/2] remains constant as α varies through (2m,2m+2s), nor that the endpoint signs change exactly at α=2m and α=2m+2s. This gap is load-bearing: the exclusion A_{n,s}∩(2m,2m+2s)=∅ enters Theorem 1.6, then Proposition 7.5(b) and Proposition 8.2 for s>1/2, and ultimately the generic dimension bound for n=3 in Theorem 1.3. Please provide a complete proof of (5.3), or a published reference that covers the present a-dependent case.
[§4.2, Lemma 4.7] Lemma 4.7 is stated without proof; the text says only that the conclusion follows from the stability of eigenvalues and eigenfunctions under domain variation, citing [CV24, Proposition 3.1, Lemma 3.2]. Since [CV24] is a preprint (arXiv:2409.12110) and Lemma 4.7 is the key spectral input in the construction of the competitor in Proposition 4.5, which in turn underpins Theorem 1.4 and Proposition 5.1, the manuscript should either include a proof of Lemma 4.7 or reference a published, fully documented source. As it stands, a central tool of the paper is not self-contained.

minor comments (5)

[§1.1 and throughout] The notation a− in the condition γ∈(a−,1] is undefined. Since a=1−2s is already defined, please clarify whether the intended condition is γ>max{a,0} or γ∈(0,1] together with an additional lower bound when s<1/2.
[§3, §5, §6] Several typos should be corrected: Section 3 heading 'qadratic' should be 'quadratic'; Section 5 heading 'freqency' should be 'frequency'; Remark 2.7 'contronominal' should be 'contrapositive'; in the proof of Proposition 6.4, 'Haussdorf' should be 'Hausdorff'.
[§5.3, proof of Proposition 5.10] In the last sentence of the proof, the sets '2N' and '2N+2s' should be denoted with the standard notation for the natural numbers; the current typesetting could be misread as the number 2N.
[§7.1, Lemma 7.2] In Lemma 7.2(b), the statement that for δ=0 the first eigenfunction is (x_1^2+x_{n+1}^2)^{-a/2} is unclear; please specify the normalization and explain how the exponent −a/2 arises, since the subsequent limit μ(δ)↓2s−1 is used in the proof.
[§2.2, Proposition 2.2] The classification A_{1,s}={2m}∪{2m+2s}∪{2m+1+s} is quoted from [FS18, Proposition A.1] and is used critically in the dimension reduction arguments of Proposition 6.1. Please give a more precise reference to the location of this statement in [FS18], or include a proof in an appendix.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the main theorem is not defined in terms of the paper's own outputs, and the same-author citations used are independent published results; the main external dependency is a frequency-gap proof from [FS24a], which is a correctness risk rather than circularity.

full rationale

The derivation chain for Theorem 1.1 is: reduce to the extended thin obstacle problem via Caffarelli-Silvestre, split the degenerate set according to frequency, prove dimensional bounds by dimension reduction, prove cleaning estimates, and apply the GMT lemma from [FRS20]. None of these steps defines the target in terms of itself. The frequency gaps in Theorem 1.6 are derived from in-paper epiperimetric inequalities (Proposition 4.5), eigenvalue monotonicity (Proposition 5.7), parity obstructions (Proposition 5.8), and an extension of [FS24a] (Proposition 5.10). The proof of Proposition 5.10 delegates the key sign claim (5.3) to 'arguing exactly as in [FS24a, Lemma 2]' and gives only a zero-counting sketch; this is an external dependency and a possible gap in justification, but it is not a reduction of the result to the paper's own inputs. Same-author citations, [Car24] for the Weiss monotonicity formula and even-frequency isolation and [CV24] for the epiperimetric strategy, are load-bearing but are independent published results with proofs that do not assume the present theorem; they are not used as an unverified premise that forces the conclusion. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no known result is repackaged as a new one. The main theorem genuinely extends [FR21; FT23] to all s in (0,1) and nonzero obstacles, so the central claim has independent mathematical content. The correct verdict is no circularity, with the caveat that Proposition 5.10's outsourced sign claim deserves independent verification.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters are fitted in this paper; all constants (α, η, σ, c±) are existential and depend only on fixed data. The proof rests on standard PDE tools and well-cited prior results, not on newly postulated physical entities.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption Standing hypothesis: the obstacle φ belongs to C^{k,γ}(R^n) with k≥4 and γ∈(a−,1], and {φ>0} is compactly contained.
Eq. (1.2) and Theorem 1.1/1.3. The lower bound on γ is used to estimate the generic dimension of Γ≥k+γ.
domain assumption The family of solutions u(·,t) satisfies the monotonicity and normalization conditions (1.9).
Used in the accumulation lemmas (Lemma 6.3 and Lemma 6.6) and in the cleaning results; this is the prevalence formulation borrowed from FRS20, FR21, and FT23.
standard math Caffarelli-Silvestre extension: the nonlocal problem (1.1) is equivalent to the local thin obstacle problem (1.7) via (−∆)^s v(x) = −lim_{y↓0} y^a ∂_y u.
Section 1.2, eq. (1.6). This is a known and widely used correspondence in the fractional Laplacian literature.
standard math Classification of admissible frequencies in dimension 2: A_{1,s} = {2m}∪{2m+2s}∪{2m+1+s}, quoted from [FS18, Proposition A.1].
Proposition 2.2. Used in Proposition 6.1 to rule out accumulation of Γ∗ and high-frequency points in dimension reduction.
standard math GMT lemma of Figalli-Ros-Oton-Serra (Lemma 2.5, from [FRS20, Corollary 7.8]) relating Hausdorff dimension of the union to cleaning exponents.
Used in Proposition 8.2 to convert dimensional bounds and cleaning rates into generic dimension bounds.
standard math Known monotonicity structure: truncated Almgren frequency (Proposition 2.1, from [GR19]) and modified Weiss energy monotonicity for nonzero obstacles (Proposition 2.3, from [Car24]).
These provide the frequency function and Weiss-energy control that drive the blow-up analysis throughout the paper.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Generic regularity of free boundaries in the obstacle problem for the fractional Laplacian." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SDTWO4P2

@misc{pith2026241216066,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Generic regularity of free boundaries in the obstacle problem for the fractional Laplacian},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SDTWO4P2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.16066}
}

abstract

We establish generic regularity results of free boundaries for solutions of the obstacle problem for the fractional Laplacian $(-\Delta)^s$. We prove that, for almost every obstacle, the free boundary contains only regular points up to dimension $3$, for every $s\in(0,1)$. To do so, we extend some results on the fine structure of the free boundary to the case $s\in (0,1)$ and general non-zero obstacle, including a blow-up analysis at points with frequency $2m+2s$, and we prove new explicit uniform frequency gaps for solutions of the fractional obstacle problem.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.16066 by the authors.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

Nonlocal minimal surfaces are generically unique, and smooth in one extra dimension
math.AP 2026-07 accept novelty 7.0 of 10

Nonlocal minimal surfaces are unique for all but countably many parameters in any strictly increasing family of exterior data, and arbitrarily small perturbations yield smooth minimizers in one dimension beyond the cr...
Free boundary regularity for a tumor growth model with obstacle
math.AP 2025-07 accept novelty 7.0 of 10

For a one-phase tumor growth free boundary problem with an obstacle, viscosity solutions exist and the free boundary is analytic in the interior and C^{1,α} at contact points under a non-degeneracy condition.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

6 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

[1]

An epiperimetric inequality for odd frequencies in the thin obstacle problem

[AC04] I. Athanasopoulos and L. A. Caffarelli. Optimal regularity of lower dimensional obstacle problems . Zap. Nauchn. Sem. S.-Peterburg. Otdel. Mat. Inst. Steklov. (POMI) 310 (2004), pp. 49–66. [ACS08] I. Athanasopoulos, L. A. Caffarelli, and S. Salsa. The structure of the free boundary for lower dimensional obstacle problems. Amer. J. Math. 130:2 (2008...

work page Pith review arXiv 2004
[1976]

[FKS82] E. B. Fabes, C. E. Kenig, and R. P. Serapioni. The local regularity of solutions of degenerate elliptic equations. Comm. Partial Differential Equations 7:1 (1982), pp. 77–116. [FY23] X. Fernández-Real and H. Yu. Generic properties in free boundary problems . Preprint: arXiv:2308.13209 (2023). [Fer22] X. Fernández-Real. The thin obstacle problem: a...

arXiv 1982
[2004]

Obstacle problems involving the fractional Laplacian

[DS18] D. Danielli and S. Salsa. “Obstacle problems involving the fractional Laplacian”. Recent developments in nonlocal theory . De Gruyter, Berlin, 2018, pp. 81–164. [DS16] D. De Silva and O. Savin. Boundary Harnack estimates in slit domains and applications to thin free boundary problems. Rev. Mat. Iberoam. 32:3 (2016), pp. 891–912. [DL76] G. Duvaut an...

work page 2016
[2012]

Ros-Oton and J

[RS16] X. Ros-Oton and J. Serra. Regularity theory for general stable operators. J. Differential Equations260:12 (2016), pp. 8675–8715. [RS24] M. Rosenzweig and S. Serfaty. The Lake equation as a supercritical mean-field limit. Preprint: arXiv:2408 .14642 (2024). [SY22a] O. Savin and H. Yu. Half-space solutions with 7/2 frequency in the thin obstacle prob...

work page 2016
[2015]

Signorini

[Sig33] A. Signorini. Sopra alcune questioni di statica dei sistemi continui . Ann. Scuola Norm. Super. Pisa Cl. Sci. 2:2 (1933), pp. 231–251. [Sig59] A. Signorini. Questioni di elasticità non linearizzata e semilinearizzata . Rend. Mat. e Appl. 18 (1959), pp. 95–139. [Sil07] L. Silvestre. Regularity of the obstacle problem for a fractional power of the L...

work page 1933
[2024]

A note on the frequency gaps between integers in the thin obstacle problem

[FT23] X. Fernández-Real and C. Torres-Latorre. Generic regularity of free boundaries for the thin obstacle problem. Adv. Math. 433 (2023). [FRS20] A. Figalli, X. Ros-Oton, and J. Serra. Generic regularity of free boundaries for the obstacle problem. Publ. Math. Inst. Hautes Études Sci. 132 (2020), pp. 181–292. [FS16] M. Focardi and E. Spadaro. An epiperi...

work page Pith review arXiv 2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

An epiperimetric inequality for odd frequencies in the thin obstacle problem

[AC04] I. Athanasopoulos and L. A. Caffarelli. Optimal regularity of lower dimensional obstacle problems . Zap. Nauchn. Sem. S.-Peterburg. Otdel. Mat. Inst. Steklov. (POMI) 310 (2004), pp. 49–66. [ACS08] I. Athanasopoulos, L. A. Caffarelli, and S. Salsa. The structure of the free boundary for lower dimensional obstacle problems. Amer. J. Math. 130:2 (2008...

work page Pith review arXiv 2004

[2] [1976]

[FKS82] E. B. Fabes, C. E. Kenig, and R. P. Serapioni. The local regularity of solutions of degenerate elliptic equations. Comm. Partial Differential Equations 7:1 (1982), pp. 77–116. [FY23] X. Fernández-Real and H. Yu. Generic properties in free boundary problems . Preprint: arXiv:2308.13209 (2023). [Fer22] X. Fernández-Real. The thin obstacle problem: a...

arXiv 1982

[3] [2004]

Obstacle problems involving the fractional Laplacian

[DS18] D. Danielli and S. Salsa. “Obstacle problems involving the fractional Laplacian”. Recent developments in nonlocal theory . De Gruyter, Berlin, 2018, pp. 81–164. [DS16] D. De Silva and O. Savin. Boundary Harnack estimates in slit domains and applications to thin free boundary problems. Rev. Mat. Iberoam. 32:3 (2016), pp. 891–912. [DL76] G. Duvaut an...

work page 2016

[4] [2012]

Ros-Oton and J

[RS16] X. Ros-Oton and J. Serra. Regularity theory for general stable operators. J. Differential Equations260:12 (2016), pp. 8675–8715. [RS24] M. Rosenzweig and S. Serfaty. The Lake equation as a supercritical mean-field limit. Preprint: arXiv:2408 .14642 (2024). [SY22a] O. Savin and H. Yu. Half-space solutions with 7/2 frequency in the thin obstacle prob...

work page 2016

[5] [2015]

Signorini

[Sig33] A. Signorini. Sopra alcune questioni di statica dei sistemi continui . Ann. Scuola Norm. Super. Pisa Cl. Sci. 2:2 (1933), pp. 231–251. [Sig59] A. Signorini. Questioni di elasticità non linearizzata e semilinearizzata . Rend. Mat. e Appl. 18 (1959), pp. 95–139. [Sil07] L. Silvestre. Regularity of the obstacle problem for a fractional power of the L...

work page 1933

[6] [2024]

A note on the frequency gaps between integers in the thin obstacle problem

[FT23] X. Fernández-Real and C. Torres-Latorre. Generic regularity of free boundaries for the thin obstacle problem. Adv. Math. 433 (2023). [FRS20] A. Figalli, X. Ros-Oton, and J. Serra. Generic regularity of free boundaries for the obstacle problem. Publ. Math. Inst. Hautes Études Sci. 132 (2020), pp. 181–292. [FS16] M. Focardi and E. Spadaro. An epiperi...

work page Pith review arXiv 2023