Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 42 references

The log-concavity of eigenfunction to complex Monge-Amp\`ere operator in $\mathbb{C}^2$

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The first complex Monge-Ampère eigenfunction is log-concave on every smooth strictly convex domain in C².

desk verdict The theorem is already in Chen-Li-Ma by the authors' own admission, and the proof as written drops a factor of 16 in the real-coordinate equation, but the argument looks repairable and the paper deserves a serious referee. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.12817 v3 pith:HMXXEMSF submitted 2025-05-19 math.AP

Wei Zhang , Qi Zhou This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.AP MSC 35B5032W20
keywords log-concavitycomplexMonge-AmpèreoperatoreigenvalueproblemconstantranktheoremstrictconvexityplurisubharmonicfunctionsdeformationmethodrealHessian
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

This paper proves that the first eigenfunction of the complex Monge-Ampère Dirichlet problem is log-concave on any bounded, smooth, strictly convex domain in two complex dimensions. Concretely, if $u$ solves $\det(u_{i\bar j})=\lambda(\Omega)(-u)^2$ with $u=0$ on $\partial\Omega$, then the rescaled function $v=-\log(-u/4)$ has a strictly positive definite real Hessian throughout the interior. The proof converts the complex equation into a real fully nonlinear equation for $v$, proves a constant rank theorem for the real Hessian of $v$, and then deforms any such domain into a ball, showing that strict convexity cannot be lost along the deformation. The property matters because log-concavity is the shape condition underlying Brunn–Minkowski-type inequalities for eigenvalues, and it gives the complex Monge-Ampère operator the same shape property long known for Laplacian eigenfunctions on convex domains.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the auxiliary matrix $K = I - B A^{-1} B A^{-1}$, formed from the complex Hessians $A=(v_{z_i\bar z_j})$ and $B=(v_{z_i z_j})$, together with the rank identity $\operatorname{rank}(\nabla^2 v)=\operatorname{rank}(K)+2$ that reduces the $4\times4$ real Hessian to a $2\times2$ complex object. In coordinates adapted via the Autonne–Takagi factorization (a complex linear change of coordinates that diagonalizes the real Hessian), $\nabla^2 v$ is diagonal, and its minimal rank can only be $2$ or $3$. For each case the paper constructs an auxiliary function $\phi$ — $\operatorname{tr}(K)+\det(K)/\operatorname{tr}(K)$ for minimal rank $2$, and $\det(K)$ for minimal rank $3$ — proves the differential inequality $\sum_{i,j}F_{ij}\phi_{ij}\le C(\phi+|\nabla\phi|)$, and invokes the strong maximum principle to conclude that $\nabla^2 v$ has constant rank. The boundary strict-convexity estimates then contradict constant degeneracy, so the deformation from the ball preserves strict convexity.

What would settle it

Numerically compute the first eigenfunction $u$ of $\det(u_{i\bar j})=\lambda(\Omega)(-u)^2$ on a smooth strictly convex domain that is not a ball, say a convex ellipsoid in $\mathbb{C}^2$ with unequal axes; then evaluate the smallest eigenvalue of the real Hessian of $v=-\log(-u/4)$ on a fine interior grid. A single interior point where that eigenvalue is $\le 0$, while the boundary strip is strictly convex, would contradict Theorem 1.1 and its constant-rank corollary.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Theorem 1.1: on a bounded, smooth, strictly convex domain $\Omega \subset \mathbb{C}^2$, the unique plurisubharmonic (complex-convex) solution $u \in C^\infty(\Omega)\cap C^{1,1}(\bar\Omega)$ of the eigenvalue problem $\det(u_{i\bar j})=\lambda(\Omega)(-u)^2$ in $\Omega$, with $u<0$ and $u=0$ on $\partial\Omega$, has the property that $v=-\log(-u/4)$ is strictly convex in $\Omega$. Equivalently, the positive function $-u$ is strictly log-concave. The proof reduces the question to a constant rank theorem: for solutions of the transformed real equation $F(\nabla^2 v,\nabla v)=0$ in $\mathbb{R}^4$, the real Hessian $\nabla^2 v$ cannot change rank inside the domain. Strict convexity is known outright for the ball, boundary estimates force full rank near $\partial\Omega$, and the deformation from a ball to any smooth strictly convex domain then rules out any interior loss of strict convexity.

Load-bearing premise

The proof stands or falls on the constant rank theorem for the transformed real equation: if the real Hessian of $v$ could change rank at an interior point, the deformation argument would have no route to rule out the first loss of strict convexity.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • On every bounded, smooth, strictly convex domain in $\mathbb{C}^2$, the level sets $\{x : -u(x) \ge c\}$ of the first complex Monge-Ampère eigenfunction are strictly convex bodies.
  • The real Hessian of $v=-\log(-u/4)$ has constant rank throughout the domain, so it cannot pass from full rank near the boundary to a degenerate rank in the interior.
  • Strict convexity of $v$ persists along every smooth deformation of the domain that keeps it smooth and strictly convex, giving a whole family of log-concave eigenfunctions.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the rank-identity strategy scales, the same strict log-concavity should hold for the complex Monge-Ampère eigenfunction in all dimensions $n\ge 2$; the two-dimensional case here is the natural test case for that mechanism.
  • Strict log-concavity of the eigenfunction is the analytic input from which a Brunn–Minkowski inequality for the first complex Monge-Ampère eigenvalue in $\mathbb{C}^2$ is expected to follow by standard factorization arguments; the paper does not draw that consequence.
  • The mechanism reveals that real-Hessian convexity is compatible with unitary-invariance of the complex equation: it is the logarithmic change of variables, not a real-linear symmetry, that exposes the convexity, suggesting similar results for other complex fully nonlinear Dirichlet problems on convex domains.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper claims that for a bounded, smooth, strictly convex domain in C^2, the unique solution u of the complex Monge-Ampère Dirichlet eigenvalue problem det(u_{i\bar j}) = λ(Ω)(-u)^2 is such that v = -log(-u/4) is strictly convex in Ω (Theorem 1.1). The proof combines a boundary-strip convexity estimate, a constant rank theorem for the real Hessian equation satisfied by v, and a deformation argument from the ball. The constant rank theorem is the main technical content: it treats the cases where the real Hessian has minimal rank 2 or 3, using auxiliary functions adapted to the complex structure, following the framework of Bian and Guan. The ball case is handled in Lemma 4.1, and the paper explicitly notes in Remark 1.2 that a more general result was subsequently obtained by Chen, Li and Ma, whose theorem in complex dimension 2 coincides with Theorem 1.1.

Significance. If the proof is correct, the paper provides an independent proof of log-concavity of the eigenfunction in C^2 and, more importantly, a constant rank theorem for a fully nonlinear equation that is not concave in the real Hessian. The ball case, Lemma 4.1, is explicit and checkable, and the overall strategy is classical. However, the novelty of the main theorem is limited by the acknowledged result of Chen, Li and Ma [12], which already covers Theorem 1.1 as a special case. The potential value of the paper therefore lies in the constant rank technique itself, which must be correct and self-contained. The reader's verification of the ball case appears sound, but the central constant rank theorem has a scaling inconsistency with the transformed equation, as detailed below.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2, (2.6)–(2.7), and Lemma 4.1] The constant rank theorem is proved for the wrong equation by a factor of 16. From (2.3)–(2.5), A = 1/4(U+W) + (√-1/4)(V-V^T), so det(A) = 1/16[(v11+v33)(v22+v44) - (v12+v34)^2 - (v14-v32)^2]. Since the transformed equation (2.2) is det(A) = λ, equation (2.6) should have 16λ on the left, and F in (2.7) should be the bracket minus 16λ, not the bracket minus λ. Lemma 4.1 confirms the missing factor: equation (4.1) contains 16λu^2 and the ODE (4.3) contains 8λ. Thus Theorems 3.1, 3.2, and Corollary 3.3 are established for a different PDE. The error may be repairable by replacing λ with 16λ throughout Section 3, because the argument mostly uses λ > 0, but the identities (3.20), Claim 1, and Claims 2–3 must be rechecked with this replacement; the correction is not merely notational.
  2. [§4, proof of Theorem 1.1] The deformation argument assumes uniform C^3 bounds for v_t on Ω_t, stated only as "According to the a priori estimates for the eigenvalue problem (1.2) established by Chu, Liu and McCleerey [14]". The proof needs a precise statement of the estimate, including its dependence on the geometry and its uniformity in t, and verification that the normalized transformed family v_t = -log(-u_t/4) with inf v_t = 2 log 2 satisfies it. Without this, the passage from strict convexity for t < t0 to convexity but not strict convexity at the first loss time t0 is not fully justified.
  3. [§2, (2.8)–(2.9), Lemmas 2.2–2.3] The proof of Corollary 3.3 depends on imported machinery from the authors' preprint [42]: the rank identity rank(∇^2v) = rank(K) + 2, the adapted coordinate system, and Lemmas 2.2–2.3. These are load-bearing for the constant rank theorem but are not proved in the present paper and their precise hypotheses are only summarized. If [42] is not yet published, the manuscript should include proofs of these statements or at least state them with full hypotheses; as it stands, the constant rank theorem is not self-contained.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§1.1] The word "probelm" in the first paragraph should be "problem".
  2. [§3.1, display after (3.9)] In the expansion of φ_{ij}, the term (v11j+v33j)(v22i+v33i) appears to be a typo; it should presumably be (v22i+v44i) by symmetry with the preceding terms.
  3. [§2, Lemma 2.3] The notation σ_2^1(B) and σ_1^3(B) is used without definition; the paper defines σ_k(W|i) and σ_k(W|ij), but not the superscript notation used in Lemma 2.3. Please clarify.
  4. [§1.2, Remark 1.2] Because Remark 1.2 acknowledges that Theorem 1.1 is already contained in the more general result of Chen, Li and Ma [12], the introduction should state explicitly that the paper's contribution is the constant rank proof rather than the log-concavity theorem itself.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

No definitional or fitted-input circularity, but the constant-rank core defers its key rank identity and auxiliary-function estimates to the authors' own preprint [42].

  1. self citation load bearing [Section 2, equations (2.8)-(2.9); applied in Corollary 3.3]
    "As proved in [42], the real Hessian ∇^2v and the matrix K satisfy the rank identity (2.9) rank(∇^2v) = rank(K) + 2. Consequently, the study of the constant rank property of ∇^2v is reduced to that of K."

    The constant rank theorem, which is the pivotal step in the deformation proof of Theorem 1.1, concludes that ∇^2v has constant rank by transferring the problem to K via (2.9). That identity is not proved in this manuscript; it is imported from the authors' own earlier preprint [42]. If (2.9) failed, Corollary 3.3 would not follow, so the paper's central mechanism depends on a load-bearing self-citation rather than on a derivation contained in this paper.

  2. self citation load bearing [Section 2, Lemmas 2.2-2.3; used in the proof of Theorem 3.1]
    "The following differential estimates for q(∇^2v) in (2.14) were established in our earlier work [42]. We recall them here for completeness."

    Theorem 3.1's proof of the differential inequality (3.1) for the minimal-rank-2 case uses Lemma 2.2 for first derivatives of q and Lemma 2.3 for its second derivatives. These estimates are not re-derived; they are only recalled from the authors' own preprint. Since (3.1) is exactly what yields the constant rank property via the strong maximum principle, the core computation of the paper is deferred to a self-citation.

full rationale

The theorem is not circular in the definitional or fitting sense. The change of variables v=-log(-u/4) exactly rewrites det(u_{i\bar j})=λ(Ω)(-u)^2 as det(v_{z_i\bar z_j}-v_{z_i}v_{\bar z_j})=λ, with λ(Ω) an eigenvalue determined by the domain; no parameter is fitted and then renamed as a prediction. The deformation to the ball, the ball-case ODE analysis, and the boundary convexity estimate are standard and independent of the conclusion. However, the constant rank theorem, the load-bearing step that forces the Hessian to be degenerate everywhere at the first loss of strict convexity, is not self-contained: the rank identity (2.9) and Lemmas 2.2-2.3 are supplied by the authors' own preprint [42]. Those citations carry essential content, so the derivation chain has a structural self-citation load, though the central differential inequalities are proved in this paper. Separately, the apparent missing factor of 1/16 in (2.6)-(2.7) is a correctness concern rather than a circularity: the determinant computation gives λ = (1/16)RHS, so as written the constant rank theorem is proved for a different constant multiple of the transformed equation; this may be repairable by rescaling λ, but it is not a circularity in the derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 1 invented entities

No numerical fitting occurs: λ(Ω) is an eigenvalue determined by the domain, and the constant 4 in v = -log(-u/4) is a normalization that makes the transformed right-hand side equal to λ exactly. The paper's dependence is instead structural: it imports the rank identity, adapted coordinates, and two derivative-estimate lemmas from the authors' own preprint [42] (partially de-risked by the claimed independent reproof of [42]'s main theorem in [13]), and it imports regularity and a priori C^3 bounds from [4] and [14]. The auxiliary matrix K and the quotient functions ϕ are technical devices, not physical postulates.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Rank identity rank(∇^2 v) = rank(K) + 2, with K = I - B A^{-1} B-bar A^{-1}, as in equations (2.8)-(2.9)
    Central structural fact imported from the authors' earlier preprint [42]; not reproved here. The paper's constant rank argument reduces the real Hessian rank study to the rank of K.
  • domain assumption Lemmas 2.2 and 2.3: first and second derivative estimates for q(∇^2 v), stated as Lemma 3.2 and Proposition 3.4 of [42]
    The differential inequality in Theorem 3.1 relies directly on these estimates; details are deferred to [42]. Independent support is partial: [13] reportedly reproves the main theorem of [42] by another method.
  • standard math Lemmas 2.4 and 2.5 quoted from Bian and Guan [5]: third-derivative controls for convex C^{3,1} functions and the bad-index trace inequality
    Quoted from the literature; used to absorb quadratic terms in the final differential inequalities of Theorems 3.1 and 3.2.
  • domain assumption Existence, uniqueness and regularity of solutions to (1.2), including C^{1,1} up to the boundary, C^∞ in the interior, and uniform a priori C^3 bounds along the deformation
    Attributed to Badiane and Zeriahi [4] and to Chu, Liu and McCleerey [14]. The uniform C^3 bound is load-bearing for the maximal-continuity argument in the deformation proof but is not stated precisely or proved here.
  • standard math Boundary strict convexity in a strip (Lemma 4.2), attributed to Korevaar [22] and Caffarelli and Friedman [9]
    Standard boundary convexity estimate for v = -log(-u/4); used to contradict the constant rank degeneracy at the first loss of strict convexity.
  • standard math Autonne-Takagi factorization and invariance of the normalized equation under the induced complex linear coordinate change
    Used to choose adapted coordinates that diagonalize the real Hessian and the matrices A and B at a fixed point; standard linear algebra.
invented entities (1)
  • Auxiliary matrix K = I - B A^{-1} B-bar A^{-1} and the quotient-type auxiliary functions ϕ = tr(K) + det(K)/tr(K) (rank 2 case) and ϕ = det(K) (rank 3 case)
    purpose: Reduce the constant rank study of the real Hessian ∇^2 v to that of the 2 by 2 matrix K via the rank identity; the differential inequalities for ϕ drive the strong maximum principle argument.
    A mathematical device imported from [42], not a physical entity. The rank identity is stated in [42] and the main theorem of [42] reportedly has an independent reproof by [13], but the rank identity itself is not falsifiable outside the algebra of this paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The log-concavity of eigenfunction to complex Monge-Amp\`ere operator in $\mathbb{C}^2$." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HMXXEMSF

@misc{pith2026250512817,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The log-concavity of eigenfunction to complex Monge-Amp\`ere operator in $\mathbbC^2$},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HMXXEMSF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.12817}
}
abstract

Following the authors' recent work \cite{Zhang-Zhou2025}, we further explore the convexity properties of solutions to the Dirichlet problem for the complex Monge-Amp\`{e}re operator. In this paper, we establish the $\log$-concavity of solutions to the Dirichlet eigenvalue problem for the complex Monge-Amp\`{e}re operator on bounded, smooth, strictly convex domain in $\mathbb{C}^2$. Our approach combines a constant rank theorem adapted to the study of real convexity in the complex setting with a deformation method.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages

  1. [12]

    Brunn–Minkowski Inequality for the First Complex σ2-Hessian Eigenvalue.arXiv:2606.25678, 2026

    Chuanqiang Chen, Jiahuan Li, and Xi-Nan Ma. Brunn–Minkowski Inequality for the First Complex σ2-Hessian Eigenvalue.arXiv:2606.25678, 2026

    arXiv 2026

  2. [42]

    Power convexity of solutions to complex Monge-Amp` ere equation inC 2

    Wei Zhang and Qi Zhou. Power convexity of solutions to complex Monge-Amp` ere equation inC 2. arXiv:2505.11002v3, 2026. School of Mathematics and Statistics, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, 730000, Gansu Province, China. Email address:zhangw@lzu.edu.cn School of Mathematics and Statistics, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, 730000, Gansu Province, China. Email add...

    arXiv 2026

  3. [14]

    The eigenvalue problem for the complex Hessian operator onm-pseudoconvex manifolds.J

    Jianchun Chu, Yaxiong Liu, and Nicholas McCleerey. The eigenvalue problem for the complex Hessian operator onm-pseudoconvex manifolds.J. Funct. Anal., 290(3):Paper No. 111258, 58, 2026

    work page 2026

  4. [1]

    Acker, L

    A. Acker, L. E. Payne, and G. Philippin. On the convexity of level lines of the fundamental mode in the clamped membrane problem, and the existence of convex solutions in a related free boundary proble.Z. Angew. Math. Phys., 32(6):683–694, 1981

    work page 1981

  5. [2]

    Alvarez, J.-M

    O. Alvarez, J.-M. Lasry, and P.-L. Lions. Convex viscosity solutions and state constraints.J. Math. Pures Appl. (9), 76(3):265–288, 1997

    work page 1997

  6. [3]

    Proof of the fundamental gap conjecture.J

    Ben Andrews and Julie Clutterbuck. Proof of the fundamental gap conjecture.J. Amer. Math. Soc., 24(3):899–916, 2011. 36 WEI ZHANG AND QI ZHOU

    work page 2011

  7. [4]

    The eigenvalue problem for the complex Monge-Amp` ere operator

    Papa Badiane and Ahmed Zeriahi. The eigenvalue problem for the complex Monge-Amp` ere operator. J. Geom. Anal., 33(12):Paper No. 367, 44, 2023

    work page 2023

  8. [5]

    A microscopic convexity principle for nonlinear partial differential equations.Invent

    Baojun Bian and Pengfei Guan. A microscopic convexity principle for nonlinear partial differential equations.Invent. Math., 177(2):307–335, 2009

    work page 2009

Show all 42 references
  1. [6]

    Power concavity for solutions of nonlinear elliptic problems in convex domains

    Massimiliano Bianchini and Paolo Salani. Power concavity for solutions of nonlinear elliptic problems in convex domains. InGeometric properties for parabolic and elliptic PDE’s, volume 2 ofSpringer INdAM Ser., pages 35–48. Springer, Milan, 2013

    2013

  2. [7]

    Concavity properties for solutions top-Laplace equations with concave nonlinearities.Adv

    William Borrelli, Sunra Mosconi, and Marco Squassina. Concavity properties for solutions top-Laplace equations with concave nonlinearities.Adv. Calc. Var., 17(1):79–97, 2024

    2024

  3. [8]

    Herm Jan Brascamp and Elliott H. Lieb. On extensions of the Brunn-Minkowski and Pr´ ekopa-Leindler theorems, including inequalities for log concave functions, and with an application to the diffusion equation.J. Functional Analysis, 22(4):366–389, 1976

    1976

  4. [9]

    Caffarelli and Avner Friedman

    Luis A. Caffarelli and Avner Friedman. Convexity of solutions of semilinear elliptic equations.Duke Math. J., 52(2):431–456, 1985

    1985

  5. [10]

    Caffarelli and Joel Spruck

    Luis A. Caffarelli and Joel Spruck. Convexity properties of solutions to some classical variational problems.Comm. Partial Differential Equations, 7(11):1337–1379, 1982

    1982

  6. [11]

    Strict power convexity of solutions to fully nonlinear elliptic partial differential equations in two dimensional convex domains.J

    Chuanqiang Chen, Haohao Jia, and Jiawei Xiong. Strict power convexity of solutions to fully nonlinear elliptic partial differential equations in two dimensional convex domains.J. Differential Equations, 419:505–517, 2025

    2025

  7. [13]

    Power Convexity of Solutions to the Complex Monge- Amp` ere Equation det(ui¯j) = 1 in Complex Dimension Two.arXiv:2607.06895, 2026

    Hongyu Chen, Jingchen Hu, and Li Sheng. Power Convexity of Solutions to the Complex Monge- Amp` ere Equation det(ui¯j) = 1 in Complex Dimension Two.arXiv:2607.06895, 2026

    2026 arXiv

  8. [15]

    On the Dirichlet and Serrin problems for the inhomogeneous infinity Laplacian in convex domains: regularity and geometric results.Arch

    Graziano Crasta and Ilaria Fragal` a. On the Dirichlet and Serrin problems for the inhomogeneous infinity Laplacian in convex domains: regularity and geometric results.Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal., 218(3):1577–1607, 2015

    2015

  9. [16]

    The convexity of a fully nonlinear operator and its related eigenvalue problem.J

    Jiuzhou Huang. The convexity of a fully nonlinear operator and its related eigenvalue problem.J. Math. Study, 52(1):75–97, 2019

    2019

  10. [17]

    Power concavity in weakly coupled elliptic and parabolic systems.Nonlinear Anal., 131:81–97, 2016

    Kazuhiro Ishige, Kazushige Nakagawa, and Paolo Salani. Power concavity in weakly coupled elliptic and parabolic systems.Nonlinear Anal., 131:81–97, 2016

    2016

  11. [18]

    Convexity estimates for Green’s function and the first eigenfunction of Laplace operator.Potential Anal., 59(4):1525–1545, 2023

    Xiaohan Jia, Xi-Nan Ma, and Shujun Shi. Convexity estimates for Green’s function and the first eigenfunction of Laplace operator.Potential Anal., 59(4):1525–1545, 2023

    2023

  12. [19]

    B. Kawohl. A remark on N. Korevaar’s concavity maximum principle and on the asymptotic uniqueness of solutions to the plasma problem.Math. Methods Appl. Sci., 8(1):93–101, 1986

    1986

  13. [20]

    Kennington

    Alan U. Kennington. Power concavity and boundary value problems.Indiana Univ. Math. J., 34(3):687–704, 1985

    1985

  14. [21]

    Capillary surface convexity above convex domains.Indiana Univ

    Nicholas Korevaar. Capillary surface convexity above convex domains.Indiana Univ. Math. J., 32(1):73–81, 1983

    1983

  15. [22]

    Korevaar

    Nicholas J. Korevaar. Convex solutions to nonlinear elliptic and parabolic boundary value problems. Indiana Univ. Math. J., 32(4):603–614, 1983

    1983

  16. [23]

    Korevaar and John L

    Nicholas J. Korevaar and John L. Lewis. Convex solutions of certain elliptic equations have constant rank Hessians.Arch. Rational Mech. Anal., 97(1):19–32, 1987

    1987

  17. [24]

    N. D. Kutev and I. P. Ramadanov. Valeurs propres radiales de l’op´ erateur de Monge-Amp` ere complexe. Bull. Sci. Math. (2), 113(2):195–212, 1989

    1989

  18. [25]

    N. D. Kutev and I. P. Ramadanov. An eigenvalue problem for the complex Monge-Amp` ere operator in pseudoconvex domains.Ann. Inst. H. Poincar´ e C Anal. Non Lin´ eaire, 7(5):493–503, 1990

    1990

  19. [26]

    Concavity of solutions to degenerate elliptic equations on the sphere.Comm

    Mat Langford and Julian Scheuer. Concavity of solutions to degenerate elliptic equations on the sphere.Comm. Partial Differential Equations, 46(6):1005–1016, 2021. THE LOG-CONCAVITY OF EIGENFUNCTION TO COMPLEX MONGE-AMP `ERE OPERATOR 37

    2021

  20. [27]

    Le.Analysis of Monge-Amp` ere equations, volume 240 ofGraduate Studies in Mathematics

    Nam Q. Le.Analysis of Monge-Amp` ere equations, volume 240 ofGraduate Studies in Mathematics. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, [2024]©2024

    2024

  21. [28]

    A Brunn–Minkowski Inequality for the Hessian eigenvalue in convex domain.arXiv:2606.22847, 2026

    Jiahuan Li, Xi-Nan Ma, and Paolo Salani. A Brunn–Minkowski Inequality for the Hessian eigenvalue in convex domain.arXiv:2606.22847, 2026

    2026 arXiv

  22. [29]

    P.-L. Lions. Two remarks on Monge-Amp` ere equations.Ann. Mat. Pura Appl. (4), 142:263–275, 1985

    1985

  23. [30]

    A Brunn-Minkowski inequality for the Hessian eigenvalue in three- dimensional convex domain.Adv

    Pan Liu, Xi-Nan Ma, and Lu Xu. A Brunn-Minkowski inequality for the Hessian eigenvalue in three- dimensional convex domain.Adv. Math., 225(3):1616–1633, 2010

    2010

  24. [31]

    The convexity estimates for the solutions of two elliptic equations

    Xi-Nan Ma, Shujun Shi, and Yu Ye. The convexity estimates for the solutions of two elliptic equations. Comm. Partial Differential Equations, 37(12):2116–2137, 2012

    2012

  25. [32]

    The convexity of solution of a class Hessian equation in bounded convex domain inR 3.J

    Xi-Nan Ma and Lu Xu. The convexity of solution of a class Hessian equation in bounded convex domain inR 3.J. Funct. Anal., 255(7):1713–1723, 2008

    2008

  26. [33]

    L. G. Makar-Limanov. The solution of the Dirichlet problem for the equation ∆u=−1 in a convex region.Mat. Zametki, 9:89–92, 1971

    1971

  27. [34]

    Concavity, quasiconcavity, and quasilinear elliptic equations.Taiwanese J

    John McCuan. Concavity, quasiconcavity, and quasilinear elliptic equations.Taiwanese J. Math., 6(2):157–174, 2002

    2002

  28. [35]

    Concave solutions to Finslerp-Laplace type equations.Discrete Contin

    Sunra Mosconi, Giuseppe Riey, and Marco Squassina. Concave solutions to Finslerp-Laplace type equations.Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst., 44(12):3669–3697, 2024

    2024

  29. [36]

    Concavity properties of solutions to some degenerate quasilinear elliptic Dirichlet problems.Ann

    Shigeru Sakaguchi. Concavity properties of solutions to some degenerate quasilinear elliptic Dirichlet problems.Ann. Scuola Norm. Sup. Pisa Cl. Sci. (4), 14(3):403–421 (1988), 1987

    1988

  30. [37]

    Convexity of solutions and Brunn-Minkowski inequalities for Hessian equations inR 3

    Paolo Salani. Convexity of solutions and Brunn-Minkowski inequalities for Hessian equations inR 3. Adv. Math., 229(3):1924–1948, 2012

    1924

  31. [38]

    Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, expanded edition, 2014

    Rolf Schneider.Convex bodies: the Brunn-Minkowski theory, volume 151 ofEncyclopedia of Mathe- matics and its Applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, expanded edition, 2014

    2014

  32. [39]

    I. M. Singer, Bun Wong, Shing-Tung Yau, and Stephen S.-T. Yau. An estimate of the gap of the first two eigenvalues in the Schr¨ odinger operator.Ann. Scuola Norm. Sup. Pisa Cl. Sci. (4), 12(2):319–333, 1985

    1985

  33. [40]

    A class of fully nonlinear elliptic equations and related functionals.Indiana Univ

    Xu Jia Wang. A class of fully nonlinear elliptic equations and related functionals.Indiana Univ. Math. J., 43(1):25–54, 1994

    1994

  34. [41]

    Power convexity of solutions to a special Lagrangian equation in dimension two.J

    Wei Zhang and Qi Zhou. Power convexity of solutions to a special Lagrangian equation in dimension two.J. Geom. Anal., 33(4):Paper No. 135, 13, 2023

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.