Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 65 references

Positive solutions to general semilinear overdetermined boundary problems

T0 review · 3 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 dimensions up to four, any smooth periodic admissible choice of coefficients and nonlinearity, together with any prescribed q-weighted volume, yields a bounded domain with smooth boundary on which the semilinear overdetermined problem…

desk verdict Genuinely new existence theorem for overdetermined semilinear problems, well worth refereeing, but Section 8 Step 3 has a real gap between truncated and original minimization. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.11902 v2 pith:4ARCQVV3 submitted 2024-12-16 math.AP

Alberto Enciso , Pablo Hidalgo-Palencia , Xavier Ros-Oton This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.AP MSC 35R3535J2535J6135B65
keywords overdeterminedboundaryproblemssemilinearellipticequationsfreeregularityone-phasevariationalcompactsupportofminimizersperiodiccoefficientsNeumannconditionsingularsetdimension
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 establishes an existence theorem for a general class of semilinear elliptic overdetermined boundary problems: for $n\leq 4$, given smooth, $x$-periodic, admissible coefficient data $A,q$ and nonlinearity $f$, and any $m>0$, there is a bounded open set $\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^n$ with smooth boundary, $q$-weighted volume $m$, and a constant $c>0$ such that the problem $-\operatorname{div}(A\nabla v)=f(x,v)$ in $\Omega$, $v=0$ and $\nabla v A\nabla v^T=c\,q$ on $\partial\Omega$, admits a positive solution $v\in C^{\infty}(\Omega)$. Here admissibility roughly means $A$ is uniformly elliptic, $q$ is bounded above and below, and $f$ is nonnegative and grows at most linearly. The proof treats the unknown domain as the support of a minimizer of a one-phase free-boundary energy on the whole space, and the main technical achievement is controlling the minimizer on the unbounded setting: uniform $L^{\infty}$ bounds, bounded support, and uniform bounds on the number and diameter of the support's components. The method also gives free-boundary regularity: outside a singular set of Hausdorff dimension at most $n-5$ (empty for $n\leq 4$), $\partial\Omega$ is $C^{1,\alpha}$ and smooth when the data are smooth; the results are new even for the Poisson equation $-\Delta v=g(x)$ with constant Neumann data.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the variational problem for $F_0(u)=\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}\big(\nabla u A\nabla u^T-2F(x,u)\big)\,dx$ over the class $K_{\leq m}=\{u\in H^1(\mathbb{R}^n): u\geq 0,\ \operatorname{Vol}_q(\{u>0\})\leq m\}$, with $F$ the primitive of $f$ and the overdetermined constant $c$ emerging as a Lagrange multiplier $\Lambda$. The proof is a complete one-phase free-boundary program on the unbounded space: an approximate mean-value formula for inhomogeneous divergence-form equations, uniform boundedness of minimizers through subharmonic comparison with Newtonian potentials, Lipschitz regularity and non-degeneracy from comparison with harmonic replacements, compact support from a corkscrew condition, and a modified almost-monotone scaling identity whose derivative is only bounded below, enough to prove that blow-up limits are $1$-homogeneous. Those limits are then classified, forcing the viscosity Neumann condition $\nabla u A\nabla u^T=\Lambda q$; a regularity theorem for divergence-form free boundaries then gives the $C^{1,\alpha}$ regular set and the $n-5$ singular-set bound. Periodicity enters in the final step: it lets each enlarged connected component of the support be translated by whole periods into a fixed large ball without increasing the energy, which gives uniform support bounds and lets the truncated nonlinearity be replaced by the original $F$.

What would settle it

Compute the energy of a first-eigenfunction spike for the supercritical quadratic nonlinearity: with $F(x,u)=b u^2$, $A=I$, $q=1$ and $b>\lambda_1(B_m)/2$, one gets $F_0(\tau\varphi_1)=\tau^2(\lambda_1(B_m)-2b)\int\varphi_1^2\to -\infty$, so no minimizer exists and the growth assumption (HF4) is sharp. Independently, the Appendix A two-bump example shows that dropping periodicity makes the support diameter of minimizers arbitrarily large, contradicting the uniform support bound on which Theorem 1.2 depends.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Theorem 1.2: for any $m>0$ and admissible $x$-periodic data, the energy $F_0$ has a Lipschitz minimizer $u$ in $K_{\leq m}$ that saturates the volume constraint, $\operatorname{Vol}_q(\{u>0\})=m$; the set $\Omega=\{u>0\}$ is open and bounded, and in $\Omega$ the minimizer solves $-\operatorname{div}(A\nabla u)=F'(x,u)$, while on $\partial\Omega$ it satisfies $\nabla u A\nabla u^T=\Lambda q$ in the viscosity sense for some positive constant $\Lambda$, which is the $c$ of the overdetermined problem. The free boundary splits into a regular part $\operatorname{Reg}(\partial\Omega)$, a $C^{1,\alpha}$ hypersurface open in $\partial\Omega$ on which the Neumann condition holds classically and which is smooth when $A,q,f$ are smooth, and a singular part $\operatorname{Sing}(\partial\Omega)$ of Hausdorff dimension at most $n-5$, empty for $n\leq 4$ and at most countable for $n=5$. Taking $v=u|_{\Omega}$ gives Theorem 1.1: in dimensions $n\leq 4$ the boundary is smooth, so the overdetermined problem has a positive $C^{\infty}$ solution on a bounded domain of any prescribed $q$-volume. A key point of the paper is that the construction uses no free eigenvalue parameter and does not start from a small perturbation of a ball.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing hypothesis is $x$-periodicity of $A$, $q$ and $F$: it is what allows each enlarged connected component of a minimizer's support to be translated into one fixed large ball without increasing the energy, and Appendix A shows that without periodicity admissible problems can have minimizers whose support diameter is arbitrarily large; the quadratic growth of $F$ must also stay below the coercivity threshold $b<\lambda\lambda_1(B_m)/2$.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For $n\leq 4$ and any $m>0$, the construction yields a bounded domain with smooth boundary and $q$-volume $m$ on which the overdetermined problem (1.2) has a positive smooth solution; no eigenvalue parameter is needed.
  • The free boundary of the minimizer is mostly smooth: a regular part that is $C^{1,\alpha}$ (smooth for smooth data) and a singular part of Hausdorff dimension at most $n-5$, empty for $n\leq 4$ and at most countable for $n=5$.
  • The minimizer always saturates the constraint, $\operatorname{Vol}_q(\{u>0\})=m$, so the full prescribed mass is used.
  • The same argument proves the Laplace--Beltrami analogue on compact Riemannian manifolds of dimension $n\leq 4$ for any $0<m<\operatorname{Vol}_{q,g}(M)$.
  • The theorem covers the Poisson equation $-\Delta v=g(x)$ with constant Neumann data, a case not previously handled.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The $n\leq 4$ restriction probably comes from the standing $n-5$ bound on the singular set: if that bound were improved, the identical construction would yield smooth domains in higher dimensions, while a minimizer in $n=5$ with an isolated conical boundary point would show the threshold is sharp.
  • Periodicity acts as a compactness normalization: the Appendix A two-bump example suggests that without it minimizers can be translated arbitrarily far apart, so a non-periodic theory would have to add a selection mechanism, such as pinning the support or working in a quotient.
  • In the constant-coefficient torsion case ($A=I$, $q=1$, $f\equiv 1$), the classical symmetry theorem forces the domain to be a ball; comparing the Lagrange constant $c$ with the explicit value $|\nabla u|=R/n$ on that ball would be a direct check of the free-boundary machinery.
  • Because the proof only needs the almost-monotone scaling identity to have derivative bounded below, one could try to weaken the smoothness of $A,q,f$ from $C^{1,1}$ to H\"older classes and still obtain Lipschitz minimizers with the same free-boundary structure.
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.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proves existence of bounded open sets with prescribed q-volume supporting positive solutions to the overdetermined semilinear elliptic problem (1.2) with position-dependent, periodic coefficients, in dimensions n <= 4, with a codimension-5 bound on the singular set in higher dimensions. The method is variational: one minimizes a one-phase Alt-Caffarelli energy over H^1(R^n) under a volume constraint, derives Lipschitz regularity, non-degeneracy, boundedness of the support, free-boundary regularity and the overdetermined Neumann condition for an assumed minimizer, and then constructs minimizers for truncated periodic energies in Section 8. A compact-manifold version and an appendix showing the necessity of periodicity for uniform support bounds are included.

Significance. If correct, this is a substantial advance: it supplies a non-perturbative existence theory for a general class of overdetermined problems without a free parameter, and is new even for the Poisson equation with constant Neumann data. The proof is detailed and builds on the Alt-Caffarelli program, Velichkov's monograph, and the De Silva-Ferrari-Salsa regularity theory. The paper is unusually honest about its fragile inputs: it flags the non-positivity of the Weiss derivative, repairs the initial non-negativity of the Lagrange multiplier, and shows in Appendix A that periodicity is genuinely needed for uniform support control. These strengths make the result worth publishing after the Section 8 gaps described below are repaired.

major comments (3)
  1. [§8, Step 1] The truncated energy is defined as F0,R(v,D) := ∫_D |∇v|^2 dx − 2∫_D FR(x,v) dx, without the coefficient matrix A(x) that appears in the original energy (1.5). Step 2 then invokes Corollary 5.4 and Proposition 7.9, whose variational and Euler-Lagrange structure is built on the operator L = −div(A∇·). With the displayed definition, the minimizer would satisfy −Δu = F_R'(x,u), not the equation in (1.6). Please replace |∇v|^2 by ∇v A∇v^T, or explicitly justify a reduction to A ≡ I, and recheck (8.2) and the lower-semicontinuity estimates accordingly. As written, the construction in Step 1 is for a different functional.
  2. [§8, Step 3] The final conclusion 'so is ũ0' and 'u := ũ0 has all the properties listed in Theorem 1.2' includes the assertion that u minimizes the original functional F0. The displayed argument only proves F0,R(ũ0) = inf F0,R and FR ≡ F on Ω_{ũ0}. For an arbitrary v ∈ K≤m one has F0(v) ≤ F0,R(v) (since F ≥ 0 and φR ≤ 1), while the inequality obtained is F0(ũ0) ≤ F0,R(ũ0) ≤ F0,R(v); this does not imply F0(ũ0) ≤ F0(v). The translation device applies to the constructed minimizer, not to arbitrary competitors, and Proposition 6.2 provides no diameter bound for general elements of K≤m. A limiting argument R→∞, using the uniform H^1 and support bounds to extract a subsequential limit, is needed to obtain a genuine minimizer of F0. Without that step, Theorem 1.2's existence-of-minimizer assertion is unsupported as written, although the PDE and free-boundary conclusions may still be recoverable from truncated minimality.
  3. [§8, Step 3] The step chooses R large enough after translating the enlarged connected components, relying on the assertion that N and D are independent of R. However, Propositions 5.3, 5.6 and 6.2 produce constants L, κ0, r0, N, D that depend on the Lagrange multiplier Λ from Lemma 4.1, and Lemma 4.1 only guarantees the existence of some Λ ≥ 0 for each minimizer; no uniform bound for Λ_R, and hence for L_R, κ0,R, is proved. Unless such uniformity is established, the constants N,D used to fix R may themselves depend on R, making the choice of R circular. Please provide a uniformity argument or an alternative construction that avoids this dependence.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§1.1] The sentence 'Our main result can the be stated' should read 'can then be stated'.
  2. [§3] The phrase 'even with he admissibility and periodicity assumptions' contains a typo: 'he' should be 'the'.
  3. [References] The reference [DEP1] is listed twice with different titles; the second entry, for the Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 239 (2021) paper on stationary Euler flows, should be given a distinct key such as [DEP2] or a new label.
  4. [Figure 3] The caption refers to 'cubes of length K', while the text uses 2D and 2DN′; please align the notation.
  5. [§7.2] In Proposition 7.9, Step 1, the passage from u0 to bu0 and back is implicit when deriving the bound on |∇φ(0)|; a brief sentence clarifying that the displayed inequality is after undoing the change of variables would help the reader.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the existence proof is a self-contained variational construction with R-independent bounds; self-citations are contextual only, and the flagged Step 3 concern is a proof gap, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The central claim (Theorem 1.1) is proved by a minimization argument: Sections 3-7 develop properties of minimizers under the conditional hypothesis (H*), and Section 8 removes the existence assumption by the direct method on the truncated energy F0,R, using the periodicity hypothesis (HPer) only to translate the finitely many enlarged connected components (uniformly bounded in number and diameter by Proposition 6.2) into a fixed ball. No quantity is fitted to a target: the constant c in (1.2) emerges as the Lagrange multiplier Λ multiplying q(x), with positivity proven in Proposition 5.5, and the overdetermined boundary condition is obtained, not imposed. The load-bearing regularity and classification inputs ([AC], [V], [DFS], [GT], [LSW], [KN], [LZ]) are external works, not authored by the present authors; the adaptations of [V, Prop. 11.10], [V, Lemma 9.8] and [V, Prop. 9.18] are made explicit, with the needed modifications described in the text. Self-citations ([DEP1], [DEP2], [EFR], [EFRS]) appear only in the introduction as descriptions of prior perturbation results (λ ≫ 1) that the paper explicitly does not use, so they are not load-bearing. One flagged concern, weighed here: in Section 8, Step 3, the final sentence asserts that the translated truncation minimizer has all properties of Theorem 1.2, including minimality for the original F0, but the displayed comparison only controls F0,R (since F0,R(v) ≥ F0(v) for competitors v, the inequality F0,R(ũ0) ≤ F0,R(v) does not imply F0(ũ0) ≤ F0(v)); this is an omitted compactness argument in a strengthening, not a circularity, because the PDE and free-boundary conclusions underlying Theorem 1.1 follow from truncated minimality together with FR ≡ F on the support of ũ0. The stated hypotheses (HF4)-(HF6) and (HPer) are assumptions used exactly where needed (coercivity, nontriviality, uniform support control), and Appendix A honestly exhibits a counterexample showing periodicity is necessary. The derivation is therefore self-contained and non-circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The proof introduces auxiliary mathematical objects (the truncated energy F_{0,R}, the enlarged connected components ECC) but no new physical entities, forces, or fitted parameters. The central claim rests on established background theory and the stated admissibility/periodicity assumptions.

assumptions (5)
  • standard math Standard elliptic regularity and maximum principle results (Gilbarg-Trudinger) are used throughout for the equation Lu = F'(x,u).
    Invoked in Corollary 5.4, Proposition 5.3, Proposition 5.5, Proposition 7.11.
  • standard math Alt-Caffarelli free boundary theory and its presentation in Velichkov's monograph [V], including [V, Prop. 10.13] for the dimension of the singular set, are assumed.
    Used in Sections 4-7, especially Lemma 4.2 and Proposition 7.12.
  • standard math De Silva-Ferrari-Salsa [DFS, Th. 1.4] gives C^{1,alpha} free-boundary regularity for a class of divergence-form problems with right-hand side.
    Used in Proposition 7.11 to upgrade flat free boundaries.
  • standard math Faber-Krahn and the existence of Faber-Krahn minimizers on compact manifolds (Lamboley-Sicbaldi [LS, Th. 1.1]) provide the Poincare inequality in K≤m.
    Used in Section 8, Step 1, and Section 9.
  • domain assumption The admissibility and periodicity hypotheses (Definition 2.1), especially f ≥ 0 (HF3), quadratic growth bound (HF4) with b < λ λ1(B_m)/2, and periodicity (HPer), are accepted as domain assumptions.
    These are the conditions of the theorem; Appendix A shows (HF4) quadratic growth is sharp and periodicity is necessary for uniform boundedness of supports.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Positive solutions to general semilinear overdetermined boundary problems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4ARCQVV3

@misc{pith2026241211902,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Positive solutions to general semilinear overdetermined boundary problems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4ARCQVV3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.11902}
}
abstract

We establish the existence of positive solutions to a general class of overdetermined semilinear elliptic boundary problems on suitable bounded open sets $\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^n$. Specifically, for $n\leq 4$ and under mild technical hypotheses on the coefficients and the nonlinearity, we show that there exist open sets $\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^n$ with smooth boundary and of any prescribed volume where the overdetermined problem admits a positive solution. The proof builds on ideas of Alt and Caffarelli on variational problems for functions defined on a bounded region. In our case, we need to consider functions defined on the whole $\mathbb{R}^n$, so the key challenge is to obtain uniform bounds for the minimizer and for the diameter of its support. Our methods extend to higher dimensions, although in this case the free boundary $\partial\Omega$ could have a singular set of codimension 5. The results are new even in the case of the Poisson equation $-\Delta v =g(x)$ with constant Neumann data.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.11902 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. To compute the Poisson kernel at a point x ∈ Br/2 , one may use the Green’s function at points close to the boundary. With these properties in hand, it is straightforward to follow the proof for the Laplacian, extending the result to a general L as in (2.1) with A(x) ∈ C α. The lemma then follows. □ 3. Some basic properties of minimizers Over the next sections we will establish the key intermediate results that we w… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Given any free boundary point y ∈ ∂{u > 0} there is always an interior ball Bρ(z) ⊂ Ωu ∩ B1(y), with ρ > 0 uniform [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Example of how one can move connected components of Ωu to fixed cubes of length K in a region around the origin, under the periodicity assumption (HPer). ˆ Wfj FR(x, ue0(x)) dx = ˆ Wj FR(x − T vj , u0(x)) dx = ˆ Wj F(x − T vj , u0(x)) φR(x − T vj ) dx = ˆ Wj F(x, u0(x)) φR(x − T vj ) dx ≥ ˆ Wj F(x, u0(x)) φR(x) dx. In the last step we have used the fact that F ≥ 0 (see (HF2) and (HF3)) and φR(x − T vj ) = 1 ≥ φR(x) … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: We can force Ωu to accumulate in two regions which are far apart. The reader should actually think that ϕ is very close to 0 in Bm \ Bm/2 . Step 1: Ωu consists of one or two separated balls. Let us consider the associated minimizer u of F0. Given any connected componen…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 63 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Adams, and J.J.F

    R.A. Adams, and J.J.F. Fournier, Sobolev spaces, Elsevier, Vol. 140, 2003

    work page 2003

  2. [2]

    Aftalion, and J

    A. Aftalion, and J. Busca, Radial symmetry of overdetermined boundary value problems in exterior domains, Arch. Rat. Mech. Anal. 143 (1998) 195--206

    work page 1998

  3. [3]

    Aftalion, J

    A. Aftalion, J. Busca, and W. Reichel, Approximate radial symmetry for overdetermined boundary value problems, Adv. Diff. Eqs. 4 (1999) 907--932

    work page 1999

  4. [4]

    Aguilera, H.W

    N. Aguilera, H.W. Alt, and L.A. Caffarelli, An optimization problem with volume constraint, SIAM J. Control Optim. 24 (1986), 191--198

    work page 1986

  5. [5]

    Alessandrini, and N

    G. Alessandrini, and N. Garofalo, Symmetry for degenerate parabolic equations, Arch. Rat. Mech. Anal. 108 (1989) 161--174

    work page 1989

  6. [6]

    Alt, and L.A

    H.W. Alt, and L.A. Caffarelli, Existence and regularity for a minimum problem with free boundary, J. Reine Angew. Math. 325 (1981), 105--144

    work page 1981

  7. [7]

    Blank, and Z

    I. Blank, and Z. Hao, The mean value theorem and basic properties of the obstacle problem for divergence form elliptic operators, Commun. Anal. Geom. 23 (2015), 129--158

    work page 2015

  8. [8]

    Brandolini, C

    B. Brandolini, C. Nitsch, P. Salani, and C. Trombetti, Serrin-type overdetermined problems: an alternative proof, Arch. Rat. Mech. Anal. 190 (2008) 267--280

    work page 2008

Show all 65 references
  1. [9]

    Caffarelli, The Obstacle Problem

    L.A. Caffarelli, The Obstacle Problem. The Fermi Lectures, Accademia Nazionale Dei Lincei Scuola Normale Superiore, 1998

    1998

  2. [10]

    Caffarelli, E.B

    L.A. Caffarelli, E.B. Fabes, S. Mortola, and S. Salsa, Boundary behavior of non-negative solutions of elliptic operators in divergence form, Indiana Univ. Math. J. 30 (1981), 621--640

    1981

  3. [11]

    Caffarelli, E.B

    L.A. Caffarelli, E.B. Fabes and C.E. Kenig, Completely singular elliptic-harmonic measures, Indiana Univ. Math. J. 30 (1981), 917--924

    1981

  4. [12]

    Cianchi, and P

    A. Cianchi, and P. Salani, Overdetermined anisotropic elliptic problems, Math. Ann. 345 (2009) 859--881

    2009

  5. [13]

    Damascelli, F

    L. Damascelli, F. Pacella, and M. Ramaswamy, Symmetry of ground states of p -Laplace equations via the moving plane method, Arch. Rat. Mech. Anal. 148 (1999) 291--308

    1999

  6. [14]

    De Silva, Free boundary regularity for a problem with right hand side, Interfaces Free Bound

    D. De Silva, Free boundary regularity for a problem with right hand side, Interfaces Free Bound. 13 (2011), 223--238

    2011

  7. [15]

    De Silva, F

    D. De Silva, F. Ferrari, and S. Salsa, Two-phase problems with distributed sources: regularity of the free boundary, Anal. PDE 7 (2014), 267--310

    2014

  8. [16]

    De Silva, F

    D. De Silva, F. Ferrari, and S. Salsa, Regularity of the free boundary for two-phase problems governed by divergence form equations and applications, Nonlinear Anal. 138 (2016), 3--30

    2016

  9. [17]

    Del Pino, F

    M. Del Pino, F. Pacard, and J. Wei, Serrin's overdetermined problem and constant mean curvature surfaces, Duke Math. J. 164 (2015) 2643--2722

    2015

  10. [18]

    Delay, and P

    E. Delay, and P. Sicbaldi, Extremal domains for the first eigenvalue in a general compact Riemannian manifold, Discrete Contin.\ Dyn.\ Syst.\ 35 (2015) 5799--5825

    2015

  11. [19]

    Dom\'inguez-V\'azquez, A

    M. Dom\'inguez-V\'azquez, A. Enciso, and D. Peralta-Salas, Solutions to the overdetermined boundary problem for semilinear equations with position-dependent nonlinearities, Adv. Math. 351 (2019), 718--760

    2019

  12. [20]

    Dom\' nguez-V\'azquez, A

    M. Dom\' nguez-V\'azquez, A. Enciso, D. Peralta-Salas, Piecewise smooth stationary Euler flows with compact support via overdetermined boundary problems, Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 239 (2021), 1327--1347

    2021

  13. [21]

    Dom\'inguez-V\'azquez, A

    M. Dom\'inguez-V\'azquez, A. Enciso, and D. Peralta-Salas, Overdetermined boundary problems with non constant Dirichlet and Neumann data, Anal. PDE 16 (2023), 1989--2003

    2023

  14. [22]

    Evans, Partial Differential Equations, American Mathematical Society, Providence, 1998

    L.C. Evans, Partial Differential Equations, American Mathematical Society, Providence, 1998

    1998

  15. [23]

    Enciso, A

    A. Enciso, A. Fern\'andez, and D. Ruiz, Smooth nonradial stationary Euler flows on the plane with compact support, preprint (2406.04414)

    arXiv

  16. [24]

    Enciso, A

    A. Enciso, A. Fern\'andez, D. Ruiz, and P. Sicbaldi, A Schiffer-type problem for annuli with applications to stationary planar Euler flows, Duke Math. J., in press

  17. [25]

    Farina, and E

    A. Farina, and E. Valdinoci, Flattening results for elliptic PDEs in unbounded domains with applications to overdetermined problems, Arch. Rat. Mech. Anal. 195 (2010) 1025--1058

    2010

  18. [26]

    Farina, and E

    A. Farina, and E. Valdinoci, On partially and globally overdetermined problems of elliptic type, Amer. J. Math. 135 (2013) 1699--1726

    2013

  19. [27]

    M.M. Fall, I. A. Minlend and T. Weth, Unbounded periodic solutions to Serrin's overdetermined boundary value problem, Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 233 (2017), no. 2, 737--759

    2017

  20. [28]

    M.M. Fall, I. A. Minlend and T. Weth, Serrin's overdetermined problem on the sphere, Calc. Var. Partial Differential Equations 57 (2018), no. 1, Art. 3, 24 pp

    2018

  21. [29]

    M. M. Fall, I. A. Minlend and T. Weth, The Schiffer problem on the cylinder and on the 2-sphere, J. Eur. Math. Soc., in press

  22. [30]

    Figalli and Y.RY

    A. Figalli and Y.RY. Zhang, Serrin's overdetermined problem in rough domains, arxiv.org/abs/2407.02293

    arXiv

  23. [31]

    Folland, Introduction to Partial Differential Equations, Princeton University Press, 1995

    G.B. Folland, Introduction to Partial Differential Equations, Princeton University Press, 1995

    1995

  24. [32]

    Fragal\`a, and F

    I. Fragal\`a, and F. Gazzola, Partially overdetermined elliptic boundary value problems, J. Differential Eqs. 245 (2008) 1299--1322

    2008

  25. [33]

    Fragal\`a, F

    I. Fragal\`a, F. Gazzola, and B. Kawohl, Overdetermined problems with possibly degenerate ellipticity, a geometric approach, Math. Z. 254 (2006) 117--132

    2006

  26. [34]

    Garofalo, and J.L

    N. Garofalo, and J.L. Lewis, A symmetry result related to some overdetermined boundary value problems, Amer. J. Math. 111 (1989) 9--33

    1989

  27. [35]

    Garofalo, and E

    N. Garofalo, and E. Sartori, Symmetry in exterior boundary value problems for quasilinear elliptic equations via blow-up and a priori estimates, Adv. Diff. Eq. 4 (1999) 137--161

    1999

  28. [36]

    Gilbarg, and N.S

    D. Gilbarg, and N.S. Trudinger, Elliptic Partial Differential Equations of Second Order, Grundlehren der Mathematischen Wissenschaften, Springer-Verlag, Berlin-New York (1977)

    1977

  29. [37]

    Gustafsson, and H

    B. Gustafsson, and H. Shahgholian, Existence and geometric properties of solutions of a free boundary problem in potential theory, J. Reine Angew. Math. 473 (1996), 137--179

    1996

  30. [38]

    Haziot, V.M

    S.V. Haziot, V.M. Hur, W.A. Strauss, J.F. Toland, E Wahl\'en, S. Walsh, M.H. Wheeler, Traveling water waves --- the ebb and flow of two centuries, Quart. Appl. Math. 80 (2022) 317--401

    2022

  31. [39]

    Heinonen, T

    J. Heinonen, T. Kilpeläinen, and O. Martio, Nonlinear potential theory of degenerate elliptic equations, Dover Publications, Inc., Mineola, NY, 2006, Unabridged republication of the 1993 original

    2006

  32. [40]

    Hofmann, and S

    S. Hofmann, and S. Kim, The Green function estimates for strongly elliptic systems of second order, Manuscripta Math. 124 (2007), 139--172

    2007

  33. [41]

    Kawohl, Symmetry or not?, Math

    B. Kawohl, Symmetry or not?, Math. Intelligencer 20 (1998) 16--22

    1998

  34. [42]

    Kinderlehrer, and L

    D. Kinderlehrer, and L. Nirenberg, Regularity in free boundary problems, Ann. Sc. Norm. Sup. Pisa 4 (1977), 373--391

    1977

  35. [43]

    Kumaresan, and J

    S. Kumaresan, and J. Prajapat, Serrin's result for hyperbolic space and sphere, Duke Math. J. 91 (1998) 17--28

    1998

  36. [44]

    Lamboley and P

    J. Lamboley and P. Sicbaldi, Existence and regularity of Faber-Krahn minimizers in a Riemannian manifold, J. Math. Pures Appl. 141 (2020), 137--183

    2020

  37. [45]

    Lederman, A free boundary problem with a volume penalization, Ann

    C. Lederman, A free boundary problem with a volume penalization, Ann. Sc. Norm. Super. Pisa Cl. Sci. 23 (1996), 249--300

    1996

  38. [46]

    Leoni, A First Course in Sobolev Spaces, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2009

    G. Leoni, A First Course in Sobolev Spaces, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2009

    2009

  39. [47]

    Lian, and K

    Y. Lian, and K. Zhang, Boundary pointwise regularity and applications to the regularity of free boundaries, Calc. Var. 62 (2023), 32 pp

    2023

  40. [48]

    Littman, G

    W. Littman, G. Stampacchia, and H.F. Weinberger, Regular points for elliptic equations with discontinuous coefficients, Ann. Scuola Norm.-Sci. 17 (1963), 43--77

    1963

  41. [49]

    Magnanini, and G

    R. Magnanini, and G. Poggesi, Nearly optimal stability for Serrin's problem and the soap bubble theorem, Calc. Var. PDE 59 (2020) 35

    2020

  42. [50]

    Magnanini, and G

    R. Magnanini, and G. Poggesi, Serrin's problem and Alexandrov's soap bubble theorem: enhanced stability via integral identities, Indiana Univ. Math. J. 69 (2020), 1181--1205

    2020

  43. [51]

    Modica and S

    L. Modica and S. Mortola, Construction of a singular elliptic-harmonic measure, Manuscripta Math. 33 (1980), 81--98

    1980

  44. [52]

    Pacard, and P

    F. Pacard, and P. Sicbaldi, Extremal domains for the first eigenvalue of the Laplace-Beltrami operator, Ann.\ Inst.\ Fourier 59 (2009), 515--542

    2009

  45. [53]

    Prajapat, Serrin's result for domains with a corner or cusp, Duke Math

    J. Prajapat, Serrin's result for domains with a corner or cusp, Duke Math. J. 91 (1998), 29--31

    1998

  46. [54]

    Rayleigh, The Theory of Sound , Macmillan, London, 1877

    J.W.S. Rayleigh, The Theory of Sound , Macmillan, London, 1877

  47. [55]

    A. Ros, D. Ruiz, and P. Sicbaldi, Solutions to overdetermined elliptic problems in nontrivial exterior domains, J. Eur. Math. Soc. 22 (2020) 253--281

    2020

  48. [56]

    Ruiz, Symmetry Results for Compactly Supported Steady Solutions of the 2D Euler Equations, Arch

    D. Ruiz, Symmetry Results for Compactly Supported Steady Solutions of the 2D Euler Equations, Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 247 (2023), no. 3, Paper No. 40, 25 pp

    2023

  49. [57]

    Ruiz, Nonsymmetric sign-changing solutions to overdetermined elliptic problems in bounded domains, J

    D. Ruiz, Nonsymmetric sign-changing solutions to overdetermined elliptic problems in bounded domains, J. Eur. Math. Soc., in press

  50. [58]

    D. Ruiz, P. Sicbaldi, J. Wu. Overdetermined elliptic problems in onduloid-type domains with general nonlinearities, J. Functional Analysis 283 (2022), 26 pp

    2022

  51. [59]

    Safonov, On the boundary estimates for second-order elliptic equations, Complex Var

    M. Safonov, On the boundary estimates for second-order elliptic equations, Complex Var. Elliptic Equ. 63 (2018), 1123--1141

    2018

  52. [60]

    Serrin, A symmetry problem in potential theory, Arch

    J. Serrin, A symmetry problem in potential theory, Arch. Rat. Mech. Anal. 43 (1971), 304--318

    1971

  53. [61]

    Sirakov, Overdetermined Elliptic Problems in Physics

    B. Sirakov, Overdetermined Elliptic Problems in Physics. In: Berestycki, H., Pomeau, Y. (eds), Nonlinear PDE's in Condensed Matter and Reactive Flows. NATO Science Series, vol 569. Springer, Dordrecht, 2002

    2002

  54. [62]

    Stein, Singular Integrals and Differentiability Properties of Functions, Princeton Math

    E.M. Stein, Singular Integrals and Differentiability Properties of Functions, Princeton Math. Ser., vol. 30, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1970

    1970

  55. [63]

    J. F. Toland, Stokes waves, Topol. Methods Nonlinear Anal. 7 (1996) 1--48

    1996

  56. [64]

    Traizet, Classification of the solutions to an overdetermined elliptic problem in the plane, Geom

    M. Traizet, Classification of the solutions to an overdetermined elliptic problem in the plane, Geom. Func. Anal. 24 (2014) 690--720

    2014

  57. [65]

    Velichkov, Regularity of the One-Phase Free Boundaries, Lect

    B. Velichkov, Regularity of the One-Phase Free Boundaries, Lect. Notes Unione Mat. Ital., Springer, Cham, 2023

    2023

Pith tools

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