Structure of two-dimensional mod$(q)$ area-minimizing currents near flat singularities: the codimension one case

Anna Skorobogatova; Luca Spolaor; Salvatore Stuvard

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 28 references

Structure of two-dimensional mod$(q)$ area-minimizing currents near flat singularities: the codimension one case

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 Near flat singularities, two-dimensional mod(q) area minimizers are C^{1,α} perturbations of explicit alternating harmonic multigraphs.

desk verdict Likely correct and genuinely new structural result for 2D mod(q) minimizers, but the proof of the key reduction to a single center manifold is omitted and must be supplied. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.17813 v1 pith:PLWQ74UL submitted 2025-06-21 math.AP math.DG

Anna Skorobogatova , Luca Spolaor , Salvatore Stuvard This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.APmath.DG MSC 49Q2049Q15

keywords mod(q)area-minimizingcurrentsflatsingularitiesbranchpointsQ-valuedfunctionsfrequencyfunctionharmonicpolynomialscodimensiononeregularitysingularsetdiscreteness

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 establishes a sharp local model for two-dimensional area-minimizing surfaces modulo an even integer $q$, at points where the surface has a flat singularity: a tangent cone that is a single plane of multiplicity $Q = q/2$. In codimension one, the main theorem says that, up to rotation, the surface in a small ball is a $C^{1,\alpha}$-perturbation of the multigraph of an explicit function built from alternating sectors of the harmonic polynomial $r^{I_0}\sin(I_0\theta)$, with integer frequency $I_0 \ge 2$ and real coefficients. The same analysis also gives, in every codimension, uniqueness of the fine blow-up with a power-law rate of decay, and shows that the density-$Q$ flat singularities that are genuinely mod$(q)$ form a discrete set. A reader should care because this is the first complete local description of branch-point singularities in this class of variational surfaces.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the pair consisting of a center manifold $M$, a two-dimensional surface near which the current is concentrated, and its associated $M$-normal approximation $N$, a special $Q$-valued map that records the sheets of the current over $M$. On this parametrization the paper studies the frequency function $I(r) = rD(r)/H(r)$, where $D(r)$ is the gradient energy of $N$ on the ball of radius $r$ and $H(r)$ is the $L^2$ height on the boundary circle; a frequency that is almost constant forces the map to be almost homogeneous. The main technical step is a comparison with a specially chosen competitor built from eigenfunctions of the Laplace operator on the boundary arcs, which yields the almost-minimality of $N$ and hence the key decay estimate of Theorem 6.2 for $I(r)$, $H(r)/r^{2I_0+1}$, and $D(r)/r^{2I_0}$. The whole argument requires a single such center manifold covering the ball, which is encoded in Assumption 4.3.

What would settle it

As a direct test, look at the rescaled normal approximation $N_r = (N\circ\Phi)(r\,\cdot)/D(r)^{1/2}$ on $\partial B_1$ near a flat singularity: Theorem 6.2 predicts the angular spectrum is dominated by one integer mode $I_0 \ge 2$, with all other modes decaying as $r^\gamma$. A current whose leading angular mode has non-integer homogeneity, or a flat singularity whose blow-up is not made of alternating sectors $r^{I_0}\sin(I_0\theta)$, would contradict the classification in Theorem 4.1 and collapse Theorem 1.2.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Theorem 1.2: under the paper's standing assumptions, with $q = 2Q \ge 4$ and codimension $\bar n = 1$, there are $r_0 > 0$ and $\alpha \in (0,1)$ such that, up to rotation, $T$ restricted to $B_{r_0}$ is a $C^{1,\alpha}$-perturbation of the multigraph whose height is $u(r,\theta) = \sum_{i=1}^Q J c^{\pm}_{j,i} r^{I_0}\sin(I_0\theta)K$ on the alternating sectors $U_j^\pm$, where $I_0 \in \mathbb N$, $I_0 \ge 2$, and the coefficients are real. The multigraph is special in that each sheet carries a sign $+1$ or $-1$ according to the sector, reflecting the mod$(q)$ structure. Theorem 1.3 states that, in any codimension, the set $F_Q(T)$ of flat singularities of density $Q$ where the current is genuinely mod$(q)$ is discrete. The proofs rest on a frequency-function decay estimate that yields power-law convergence of rescalings to the harmonic model.

Load-bearing premise

The entire local model rests on Assumption 4.3, namely that after the preliminary analysis the current is captured on a single center manifold with one normal approximation over the whole unit ball; the paper obtains this from Corollary 4.2, whose proof is omitted and which is asserted to follow from [3, Propositions 2.3 and 2.4].

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Every density-$Q$ flat singularity in a codimension-one two-dimensional mod$(q)$ minimizer has a unique blow-up that is an explicit alternating harmonic fan with integer homogeneity $I_0 \ge 2$.
The rescaled currents converge to that fan with a power-law rate, not merely qualitatively, giving quantitative control on the local shape.
In any codimension, density-$Q$ flat singularities that are genuinely mod$(q)$ cannot accumulate; each one is isolated.
Near such a singularity, the singular set has a rigid geometry: the model's nodal lines $\theta = k\pi/I_0$ imply the surface is smooth away from a finite union of arcs meeting at the singularity.

Reading between the lines

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

Beyond the paper: if the same decay estimate holds in higher codimension once lower-density branch points are ruled out, the local model at any flat singularity would be the same alternating harmonic fan, regardless of codimension.
The classification of tangent functions as $r^{I_0}\sin(I_0\theta)$ suggests a direct connection to nodal-set geometry of harmonic polynomials; the singular set near a flat singularity should be a union of smooth arcs with angles $\pi/I_0$, a structure that might be detected numerically in soap-film models.
A quantitative strengthening the authors do not attempt: extract explicit bounds for the exponent $\alpha$ and the decay rate $\gamma$ in terms of $q$ and the ambient dimension; the proof only establishes existence.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Short version: this is a real step forward in the mod(q) regularity program, and I think the main theorems are probably true. The catch is that the proof of Corollary 4.2—the reduction to a single center manifold, which everything downstream depends on—is omitted, and that omission is load-bearing, not cosmetic.

What is genuinely new: Theorem 1.2 gives the first C^{1,α} harmonic multigraph structure near flat singularities for 2D mod(q) currents in codimension one, and Theorem 1.3 gives discreteness of top-density flat singularities in arbitrary codimension. Theorem 4.1, the classification of 2D tangent functions, is also new beyond the codimension-one setting. The overall architecture is sensible: classify tangent functions, force a single center manifold, derive variational estimates and almost Dir-minimality, construct a competitor, and get frequency decay. The estimates in Sections 5 and 6 are detailed and the reliance on prior work is explicit rather than hidden.

The main soft spot is exactly what the stress-test flags. Corollary 4.2 is used to pass from the local tangent classification to the global Assumption 4.3, and Sections 5–6 operate entirely under that assumption. The paper says the proof is omitted because the arguments in [3, Props 2.3–2.4] do not use codimension one once Theorem 4.1 and the power-law tilt excess decay from [8, Prop 7.2] are available. That is plausible, but it's a nontrivial transfer: the interval of flattening, Whitney regions, and the control of m_{0,j} on a single interval are exactly what need checking. A referee should ask for this proof to be written out, or at least for a detailed outline that verifies the higher-codimension steps. Corollary 5.2 also has no proof, but there it's more believable that it follows routinely from Proposition 5.1 plus the cited references. The harmonicity step in Theorem 4.1 is compressed—the tangent-function argument across the nodal set is stated rather than fully shown—but I don't see an obvious error.

Who is this for: GMT specialists working on mod(q) regularity, singular sets, and multiple-valued functions. They will want to read it carefully. It deserves peer review, not desk rejection. My recommendation: send it to a serious referee, and make it a condition of acceptance that the proof of Corollary 4.2 be included in full or the paper be restructured so the main theorems do not depend on an unproved assertion.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript proves two structural results for two-dimensional area-minimizing currents modulo an even integer q. Under Assumption 1.1 with codimension n-bar=1, Theorem 1.2 asserts that near a flat singularity of density Q, the current is a C^{1,alpha}-perturbation of the multigraph of an explicit radially homogeneous special multiple-valued function u built from harmonic polynomials r^{I0} sin(I0 theta) on alternating sectors. Theorem 1.3 asserts in any codimension that the set F_Q(T) of flat singularities of density Q is discrete. The proof combines the center manifold and M-normal approximation machinery of [5], a new classification of two-dimensional homogeneous tangent functions (Theorem 4.1), variational estimates and almost Dir-minimality for the reparameterized normal approximation (Section 5), and a competitor construction that yields power-law frequency decay (Theorem 6.2).

Significance. If valid, these results give the first fine description of the local structure of two-dimensional mod(q) area-minimizing currents at top-density branch points in codimension one, and they establish discreteness of such points in arbitrary codimension. The paper is careful in attributing prior machinery and the strategy is coherent; in particular, the reduction to explicit homogeneous harmonics and the clean statement of Theorem 1.3 are significant advances. The main shortcomings are not conceptual but expository/completeness: several load-bearing corollaries have omitted proofs, and the most delicate point in Theorem 4.1 is compressed.

major comments (3)

[Section 4, Corollary 4.2 and following paragraph] The reduction to a single center manifold and M-normal approximation on B_{3/2}, formalized in Assumption 4.3, is exactly the content of Corollary 4.2, whose proof is omitted. The statement that 'no part of the proofs therein rely on the codimension being 1' is an assertion about a multi-step induction over intervals of flattening, Whitney regions, and control of m_{0,j}; it is not demonstrated. Since Proposition 5.4, Lemma 6.5, and Theorem 6.2 are all stated under Assumption 4.3, the central frequency-decay argument in Section 6 has no proven global foundation if Corollary 4.2 fails. The authors should either include the proof of Corollary 4.2 or provide a precise verification that [3, Propositions 2.3 and 2.4] transfer to codimension n-bar > 1 under the hypotheses of Theorem 4.1 and [8, Proposition 7.2].
[Section 5, Corollary 5.2] Corollary 5.2, the almost-monotonicity estimate I'(r) >= -C r^{gamma-1}, is used in the proof of Theorem 6.2 to select r_1, to control I(r)-alpha from below, and to integrate the differential inequality; it is therefore load-bearing. Its proof is omitted, with only a reference to [12, Proof of Theorem 3.2] and [9, Lemma 4.1]. Because the definition of I(r) in this paper is the classical (non-regularized) frequency for the reparameterized map N, the transfer from the regularized frequency in [12, 5] is not automatic; at least a sketch of the computation of I'(r) using (5.2)-(5.4) should be supplied.
[Section 4, Theorem 4.1, harmonicity of p] The proof that p is harmonic across the nodal set Omega^0 is summarized in a few sentences. The key step asserts that a tangent function g at x is translation-invariant in the direction spanned by x, reduces to a one-dimensional homogeneous Dir-minimizer h, and that the inner variation identity implies |Dh| constant, from which the equality of normal derivatives partial_nu p_+(x) = partial_nu p_-(x) is deduced. Several implications require justification: why the tangent function at a point x != 0 with u(x) = QJ0K is translation-invariant along x; why constancy of |Dh| implies equality (not just equality of absolute values) of the normal derivatives of p_+ and p_-; and how the argument handles points where more than two nodal lines meet. Since Theorem 4.1 is used both in Corollary 4.2 and in the classification underlying Theorem 6.2, this step needs to be written out in full.

minor comments (5)

[Section 5, first paragraph] The notation N is used both for the map on M and for its reparameterization N := N circ Phi; the distinction is sometimes blurred in the displayed formulas (e.g., Proposition 5.1 uses |DN|^2 on Phi(B_r) and on B_r). Please use different symbols or state explicitly which domain is meant in each integral.
[Section 6, proof of Lemma 6.5] The line 'by Theorem [7, Theorem 11.5]' contains misplaced brackets; also the proof of (6.10) is only sketched via contradiction and would benefit from more details on how the eigenfunction expansions pass to the limit.
[Section 4, proof of Theorem 4.1] The statement 'there exist i != j such that v_i(theta) != v_j(theta) for each theta in I' should be 'for almost every theta in I' unless the selections are continuous; otherwise it is not justified from W^{1,2} selections alone.
[Section 6, proof of Theorem 6.2] There is a typo: 'for abritrary r' should be 'for arbitrary r'.
[Section 2, Strategy of proof] The sentence 'This allows us to assume that we are working with a single center manifold' refers to Corollary 4.2, but the reader is not told until Section 4 that the proof of that corollary is omitted; consider moving or expanding the discussion to flag this dependency.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the classification, frequency decay, and structural theorems are derived from the assumptions and prior independent regularity results; the omitted proof of Corollary 4.2 is a rigor gap, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. Theorem 4.1 is proved directly: radial homogeneity reduces each sector to boundary-value problems for v_i'' + α^2 v_i = 0, giving v_i = a_i sin(αθ), and the nodal structure forces α ∈ N; the harmonic polynomial |u+| − |u−| is then checked across the interface. This classification is an output of the proof, not an input. Corollary 4.2 (single interval of flattening and containment F_Q(T) ∩ B_η ⊂ Φ(Γ) ⊂ M) has its proof omitted and is asserted to follow by transferring [3, Props 2.3–2.4] using Theorem 4.1 and [8, Prop 7.2]. This is a load-bearing missing-proof/rigor concern: if the transfer fails, Assumption 4.3 and therefore the global variational and competitor arguments of Sections 5–6 would not be justified. But it is not circular, since the cited propositions are prior theorems about mod(p) hypercurrents and integral currents, with stated assumptions that do not include the target Theorem 1.2 or 1.3. Sections 5–6 then derive, rather than assume, the variational identities, almost Dir-minimality, competitor estimates, and the power-law frequency decay (Theorem 6.2). The explicit form r^{I0} sin(I0 θ) in Theorem 1.2 comes from the classification of the blow-up, not from a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. Theorem 1.3 is obtained by contradiction using persistence of Q-points and the prior [7, Theorem 2.6]; again the cited theorem does not contain the conclusion being proved. The paper's Remark 1.4 honestly states the codimension > 1 limitation. No equation is shown to be equivalent to its own input by construction, and no fitted quantity is relabeled as a prediction. The numerous self-citations ([2], [3], [5], [7], [8]) are load-bearing but function as independent prior results with assumptions disjoint from the target statements; under the stated rules this is not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new entities or fitting constants. Its contribution is structural, organizing the known machinery into a classification and decay theorem. The main imported component is the center manifold apparatus.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption T is a 2-dimensional area-minimizing current mod(q) with q = 2Q >= 4, in a C^{3,kappa} Riemannian submanifold Sigma, with a flat singular point of density Q whose tangent cone is Q[Jpi0].
Assumption 1.1; this is the exact class of singularities being studied, so it limits the theorem's scope but is not an extra postulate.
domain assumption The center manifold and normal approximation machinery of [5] applies under the small-excess Assumption 3.1.
Invoked in Section 3 to obtain M and N; a large technical framework the paper imports rather than derives.
standard math The inner/outer variation formulas for the multigraph current TF ([6, Theorems 14.2 and 14.3]) hold in the mod(q) setting.
Used in Proposition 5.1; the paper notes the estimates remain valid with minor amendments.
standard math Known classification and compactness results for tangent functions: [3, Theorem 3.6], [7, Theorem 11.5], [10, Prop. 1.2], and the persistence-of-Q-points property [23, Section 8].
Used in Theorem 4.1, Lemma 6.5 and Theorem 1.3; these are prior published results.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Structure of two-dimensional mod$(q)$ area-minimizing currents near flat singularities: the codimension one case." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PLWQ74UL

@misc{pith2026250617813,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Structure of two-dimensional mod$(q)$ area-minimizing currents near flat singularities: the codimension one case},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PLWQ74UL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.17813}
}

abstract

We obtain a fine structural result for two-dimensional mod$(q)$ area-minimizing currents of codimension one, close to flat singularities. Precisely, we show that, locally around any such singularity, the current is a $C^{1,\alpha}$-perturbation of the graph of a radially homogeneous special multiple-valued function that arises from a superposition of homogeneous harmonic polynomials. Additionally, as a preliminary step towards an analogous result in arbitrary codimension, we prove in general that the set of flat singularities of density $\frac{q}{2}$, where the current is ``genuinely mod$(q)$", consists of isolated points.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages

[5]

De Lellis, J

C. De Lellis, J. Hirsch, A. Marchese, and S. Stuvard, Regularity of area minimizing currents mod p , Geom. Funct. Anal. 30 (2020), no. 5, 1224–1336

work page 2020
[1]

J Almgren, Almgren’s big regularity paper: Q-valued functions minimizing Dirichlet’s integral and the regularity of area-minimizing rectifiable currents up to codimension 2 , Vol

F. J Almgren, Almgren’s big regularity paper: Q-valued functions minimizing Dirichlet’s integral and the regularity of area-minimizing rectifiable currents up to codimension 2 , Vol. 1, World scientific, 2000

work page 2000
[2]

De Lellis, J

C. De Lellis, J. Hirsch, A. Marchese, L. Spolaor, and S. Stuvard, Area minimizing hypersurfaces modulo p: a geometric free-boundary problem, preprint arXiv:2105.08135 (2021)

arXiv 2021
[3]

, Fine structure of the singular set of area minimizing hypersurfaces modulo p, preprint arXiv:2201.10204 (2022)

arXiv 2022
[4]

247 (2024), Paper No

, Excess decay for minimizing hypercurrents mod 2Q, Nonlinear Anal. 247 (2024), Paper No. 113606, 47

work page 2024
[6]

Pure Appl

, Area-minimizing currentsmod 2Q: linear regularity theory, Comm. Pure Appl. Math.75 (2022), no. 1, 83–127

work page 2022
[7]

De Lellis, P

C. De Lellis, P. Minter, and A. Skorobogatova, Fine structure of singularities in area-minimizing currents mod(q), preprint arXiv:2403.15889 (2024)

arXiv 2024
[8]

De Lellis and A

C. De Lellis and A. Skorobogatova, The fine structure of the singular set of area-minimizing integral currents I: the singularity degree of flat singular points , preprint arXiv:2304.11552 (2023)

arXiv 2023

Show all 28 references

[9]

, The fine structure of the singular set of area-minimizing integral currents II: rectifiability of flat singular points with singularity degree larger than 1, preprint arXiv:2304.11555 (2023)

2023 arXiv
[10]

De Lellis and E

C. De Lellis and E. Spadaro, Q-valued functions revisited, Mem. Amer. Math. Soc. 211 (2011), no. 991, vi+79

2011
[11]

of Math.(2) (2016), 499–575

, Regularity of area minimizing currents II: center manifold , Ann. of Math.(2) (2016), 499–575

2016
[12]

of Math.(2) (2016), 577–617

, Regularity of area minimizing currents III: blow-up , Ann. of Math.(2) (2016), 577–617

2016
[13]

De Lellis, E

C. De Lellis, E. Spadaro, and L. Spolaor, Regularity theory for 2-dimensional almost minimal currents II: branched center manifold, Ann. PDE 3 (2017), 1–85

2017
[14]

, Regularity theory for 2-dimensional almost minimal currents I: Lipschitz approximation, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 370 (2018), no. 3, 1783–1801

2018
[15]

Differential Geom

, Regularity theory for 2-dimensional almost minimal currents iii: Blowup , J. Differential Geom. 116 (2020), no. 1, 125–185

2020
[16]

Federer, The singular sets of area minimizing rectifiable currents with codimension one and of area mini- mizing flat chains modulo two with arbitrary codimension , Bull

H. Federer, The singular sets of area minimizing rectifiable currents with codimension one and of area mini- mizing flat chains modulo two with arbitrary codimension , Bull. Amer. Math. Soc 76 (1970), 767–771

1970
[17]

Hirsch, A

J. Hirsch, A. Skorobogatova, L. Spolaor, and S. Stuvard, Forthcoming. 21
[18]

Krummel and N

B. Krummel and N. Wickramasekera, Fine properties of branch point singularities: stationary two-valued graphs and stable minimal hypersurfaces near points of density < 3, preprint arXiv:2111.12246 (2021)

2021 arXiv
[19]

Liu, Homologically area-minimizing surfaces mod v have at worst codimension 2 singular sets asymptoti- cally, preprint arXiv:2401.18074 (2024)

Z. Liu, Homologically area-minimizing surfaces mod v have at worst codimension 2 singular sets asymptoti- cally, preprint arXiv:2401.18074 (2024)

2024 arXiv
[20]

Minter, The structure of stable codimension one integral varifolds near classical cones of density Q+ 1/2 , Calc

P. Minter, The structure of stable codimension one integral varifolds near classical cones of density Q+ 1/2 , Calc. Var. Partial Differential Equations 63 (2024), no. 1, 5

2024
[21]

Minter and N

P. Minter and N. Wickramasekera, A structure theory for stable codimension 1 integral varifolds with appli- cations to area minimising hypersurfaces mod p, J. Amer. Math. Soc. 37 (2024), no. 3, 861–927

2024
[22]

Simon, Cylindrical tangent cones and the singular set of minimal submanifolds , J

L. Simon, Cylindrical tangent cones and the singular set of minimal submanifolds , J. Differential Geom. 38 (1993), no. 3, 585–652

1993
[23]

Skorobogatova, An upper Minkowski bound for the interior singular set of area minimizing currents, Comm

A. Skorobogatova, An upper Minkowski bound for the interior singular set of area minimizing currents, Comm. Pure Appl. Math. to appear. available on arXiv:2108.00418

arXiv
[24]

, Rectifiability of flat singular points for area-minimizing mod(2Q) hypercurrents, Int. Math. Res. Not. IMRN 11 (2024), 9237–9255

2024
[25]

J. E. Taylor, Regularity of the singular sets of two-dimensional area-minimizing flat chains modulo 3 in R3, Invent. Math. 22 (1973), 119–159

1973
[26]

White, The structure of minimizing hypersurfaces mod 4, Invent

B. White, The structure of minimizing hypersurfaces mod 4, Invent. Math. 53 (1979), no. 1, 45–58

1979
[27]

, A regularity theorem for minimizing hypersurfaces modulo p, Geometric measure theory and the calculus of variations (Arcata, Calif., 1984), 1986, pp. 413–427

1984
[28]

Wickramasekera, A general regularity theory for stable codimension 1 integral varifolds , Ann

N. Wickramasekera, A general regularity theory for stable codimension 1 integral varifolds , Ann. of Math.(2) (2014), 843–1007. Institute for Theoretical Sciences, ETH Z ¨urich, 8006 Z¨urich, Switzerland Email address: anna.skorobogatova@eth-its.ethz.ch University of Californi...

2014

Pith tools

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

[1] [5]

De Lellis, J

C. De Lellis, J. Hirsch, A. Marchese, and S. Stuvard, Regularity of area minimizing currents mod p , Geom. Funct. Anal. 30 (2020), no. 5, 1224–1336

work page 2020

[2] [1]

J Almgren, Almgren’s big regularity paper: Q-valued functions minimizing Dirichlet’s integral and the regularity of area-minimizing rectifiable currents up to codimension 2 , Vol

F. J Almgren, Almgren’s big regularity paper: Q-valued functions minimizing Dirichlet’s integral and the regularity of area-minimizing rectifiable currents up to codimension 2 , Vol. 1, World scientific, 2000

work page 2000

[3] [2]

De Lellis, J

C. De Lellis, J. Hirsch, A. Marchese, L. Spolaor, and S. Stuvard, Area minimizing hypersurfaces modulo p: a geometric free-boundary problem, preprint arXiv:2105.08135 (2021)

arXiv 2021

[4] [3]

, Fine structure of the singular set of area minimizing hypersurfaces modulo p, preprint arXiv:2201.10204 (2022)

arXiv 2022

[5] [4]

247 (2024), Paper No

, Excess decay for minimizing hypercurrents mod 2Q, Nonlinear Anal. 247 (2024), Paper No. 113606, 47

work page 2024

[6] [6]

Pure Appl

, Area-minimizing currentsmod 2Q: linear regularity theory, Comm. Pure Appl. Math.75 (2022), no. 1, 83–127

work page 2022

[7] [7]

De Lellis, P

C. De Lellis, P. Minter, and A. Skorobogatova, Fine structure of singularities in area-minimizing currents mod(q), preprint arXiv:2403.15889 (2024)

arXiv 2024

[8] [8]

De Lellis and A

C. De Lellis and A. Skorobogatova, The fine structure of the singular set of area-minimizing integral currents I: the singularity degree of flat singular points , preprint arXiv:2304.11552 (2023)

arXiv 2023