The Riemannian Quantitative Isoperimetric Inequality

Luca Spolaor; Max Engelstein; Otis Chodosh

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 46 references

The Riemannian Quantitative Isoperimetric Inequality

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The squared isoperimetric inequality fails on closed Riemannian manifolds; a modified version holds.

desk verdict Strong, genuinely novel paper on Riemannian quantitative isoperimetry, but the generic theorem has a real proof gap in the slice argument that needs repair. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.00677 v1 pith:GS4WVWRA submitted 2019-08-02 math.DG math.AP

Otis Chodosh , Max Engelstein , Luca Spolaor This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.DGmath.AP MSC 53C2149Q20

keywords quantitativeisoperimetricinequalityRiemannianmanifoldLojasiewicz-SimonselectionprincipleprofileFraenkelasymmetrybumpymetricsstableminimalhypersurfaces

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 asks whether the Euclidean quantitative isoperimetric inequality—perimeter excess controls the squared volume asymmetry to a ball—has a true analogue on a closed Riemannian manifold. It shows the direct analogue with exponent two fails in general, even for real-analytic metrics, and it constructs explicit counterexamples. In the positive direction, it proves that for generic metrics and generic volumes the exponent-two inequality does hold, and that every closed real-analytic manifold of dimension $2\le n\le7$ satisfies a modified quantitative inequality, with a possibly larger exponent, for every volume and every competitor. The reason this matters is that the positive results need no classification or shape information about the isoperimetric regions themselves.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is an infinite-dimensional Lojasiewicz-Simon inequality for the perimeter functional, stated as Lemma 1.6. It says that near a smooth isoperimetric region $\Sigma$, the perimeter excess of a volume-preserving competitor controls the distance to the set of nearby minimizers raised to a power $2+\gamma$, with $\gamma=0$ when the minimizer is integrable and a stronger quadratic bound when it is strictly stable. The proof combines a Lyapunov-Schmidt reduction to the finite-dimensional kernel of the Jacobi operator, a selection principle that produces penalized minimizers converging to a worst-case minimizer, and a finite-cover compactness argument over the space of all minimizers. For the generic theorem, strict stability is forced by a volume-constrained bumpy-metrics result obtained through an infinite-dimensional Sard-Smale argument.

What would settle it

To refute the central positive claim, find a closed real-analytic manifold of dimension $2\le n\le7$ and a volume $V_0$ with a sequence $E_k$ of competitors of volume $V_0$ such that $\alpha_g(E_k)\to0$ but $(P_g(E_k)-I_g(V_0))/\alpha_g(E_k)^{2+\gamma}\to0$ for every $\gamma>0$; such a sequence would contradict Theorem 1.4. To test sharpness, compute the optimal exponent in the paper's warped-product example, where the warping function vanishes like $x^{2m}$: the predicted growth of the optimal $\gamma$ with $m$ is a concrete quantitative check of the counterexample mechanism.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that quantitative isoperimetric control on a closed Riemannian manifold $(M^n,g)$ is genuinely different from the Euclidean case. Writing $I_g(V_0)$ for the least perimeter among sets of volume $V_0$ and $\alpha_g(E)$ for the Fraenkel asymmetry, the least $L^1$ distance from $E$ to any isoperimetric region of volume $V_0$, the paper proves that $P_g(E)-I_g(V_0)\ge C\alpha_g(E)^2$ is false in general: there are real-analytic metrics with a uniquely isoperimetric region $\Omega$ and sets $E_k$ of the same volume such that $|E_k\,\Delta\,\Omega|_g\to0$ while $(\alpha_g(E_k))^2/(P_g(E_k)-I_g(V_0))\to\infty$, and smooth metrics where no power of $\alpha_g(E_k)$ bounds the perimeter deficit. Theorems 1.2 and 1.4 then give the positive statements: for $2\le n\le7$, an open dense set of $C^3$ metrics has an open dense set of volumes for which the exponent-two inequality holds, and every real-analytic metric admits constants $C_0>0$ and $\gamma\ge0$ such that $P_g(E)-I_g(V_0)\ge C_0\,\alpha_g(E)^{2+\gamma}$ for every admissible $E$. The paper also shows the exponent $2+\gamma$ cannot in general be improved to $\gamma=0$.

Load-bearing premise

The generic theorem depends on the assumption that each 'good' metric is accompanied by an open dense set of good volumes; the proof only shows that the collection of good metrics and the collection of good volumes are each open and dense, and separate density does not force them to match up.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

On every closed real-analytic manifold of dimension $2\le n\le7$, every fixed volume admits a quantitative isoperimetric inequality with no structural assumptions on the minimizers; this removes a classification bottleneck present in nearly all previous quantitative results.
The Euclidean exponent $2$ cannot be recovered in general: the paper's counterexamples show the optimal exponent may be strictly greater than $2$, and for smooth non-analytic metrics no power of the asymmetry may control the perimeter deficit.
For a generic $C^3$ metric and generic volumes, the exponent-two inequality holds, and for any prescribed volume one can perturb the metric so that the exponent-two inequality holds at that volume without changing the volume.
The same Lojasiewicz-Simon mechanism produces a quantitative minimality theorem for stable minimal hypersurfaces in real-analytic ambient manifolds, valid in every dimension where the surface is smooth.
The dimension restriction $2\le n\le7$ is tied to boundary regularity of isoperimetric regions; extending Theorem 1.4 to $n\ge8$ would require handling singular minimizers.

Reading between the lines

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

Editorial inference: the paper's local-to-global structure suggests a general recipe for quantitative stability in analytic variational problems—obtain a local Lojasiewicz-Simon estimate near each smooth minimizer, then run a selection-principle compactness argument—so the absence of a classification of extremizers should not block similar inequalities for other geometric functionals.
Editorial inference: in the warped-product counterexamples with warping function behaving like $x^{2m}$ near the minimizer, the optimal exponent $\gamma$ should grow with $m$; computing that growth would give a precise test of how the flatness of the isoperimetric profile forces the loss of exponent.
Editorial inference: for finite-volume noncompact manifolds, the paper's closing discussion suggests that the theorem may fail when a minimizer has infinitely many components with unbounded Lojasiewicz-Simon exponents; constructing that example would sharply delimit the noncompact analogue.
Editorial inference: in dimensions $n\ge8$, a local Lojasiewicz-Simon estimate away from the singular stratum of an isoperimetric boundary might sustain a quantitative inequality with the distance measured to the full minimizer, even though the present proof stops at $n=7$.

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

Colleague — this is a serious paper: the first to show the Euclidean quantitative isoperimetric inequality fails in general on closed manifolds, to prove a generic sharp-exponent version, and to get a real-analytic result via Lojasiewicz–Simon without knowing minimizer structure. The main line of thought is coherent, and the local Lojasiewicz-meets-Fuglede estimate is a real advance. The counterexample in Section 4 is instructive; the n=2 case and the analytic perturbation sketch are plausible though compressed.

The soft spots: the stress-test note is right. In Section 5.2, after Sard–Smale gives open dense G_N in Γ×R, the proof projects to G and U and says 'let g∈G and V∈...∩U'. That does not put (g,V) in the intersection of the G_N. You need a slice-density statement, and mere openness of projections does not provide it. The gap is load-bearing for Theorem 1.2; Theorem 1.4's proof in Section 3 does not rely on this step, and the generic theorem may still be true by a Kuratowski–Ulam refinement, but as written it needs repair.

Also, the n≥8 case of Lemma 4.1 is only asserted to be 'easily modified' for the singular set; for a paper of this ambition, that deserves at least a reference or a sentence of substance. The analytic counterexample with γ arbitrarily large is only sketched. These are minor-to-moderate.

No circular reasoning found. The external benchmarks are the right ones: Fusco–Maggi–Pratelli, Bög elein–Duzaar–Scheven, Cicalese–Leonardi, White, Simon. The real-analytic result does depend on the Lojasiewicz–Simon inequality, but that is a legitimate tool, not a missing proof. The citation pattern is honest.

Bottom line: Theorem 1.4 and the counterexample are likely correct; Theorem 1.2 has a genuine gap in the proof as written. The paper deserves a serious referee — send it to review, not desk reject — and the authors should be asked to fix the slice argument. I'd bring it to reading group, and I'd cite it even now for the counterexample and the analytic theorem.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies quantitative isoperimetric inequalities on closed Riemannian manifolds. It proves three main results. Theorem 1.1 constructs examples showing that the direct Euclidean-type inequality with exponent 2 fails in general, even for real analytic metrics, and that for smooth non-analytic metrics no power-type bound may hold. Theorem 1.2 asserts that, for 2 ≤ n ≤ 7, on an open dense set of C^3 metrics and, for each such metric, on an open dense set of volumes, the quantitative isoperimetric inequality holds with exponent 2. Theorem 1.4 asserts that for real analytic metrics in dimensions 2 ≤ n ≤ 7, for every fixed volume, a quantitative inequality holds with some exponent 2+γ, without any a priori knowledge of the isoperimetric regions. The proof of Theorem 1.4 combines a Lyapunov-Schmidt reduction, a Lojasiewicz-Simon gradient inequality, and a selection principle. The proof of Theorem 1.2 combines Sard-Smale with the strict-stability case of the local inequality. The paper also states a stable-minimal-surface analogue and discusses possible extensions to finite-volume non-compact manifolds.

Significance. If the results are correct, the paper makes a substantial contribution. The main novelty, as stated in the abstract, is that the quantitative inequalities are proved without any classification or structure assumption on the isoperimetric regions; Theorem 1.4 is the first such result for all volumes on real analytic manifolds, and the sharpness examples in Theorem 1.1 clarify the need for the exponent 2+γ and for the analyticity assumption. The proof of Lemma 1.6, combining the Lojasiewicz-Simon inequality with the selection principle, is a promising and exportable technique. The paper is generally well written, and the reliance on external benchmarks (Fusco-Maggi-Pratelli, Bogelein-Duzaar-Scheven, White's bumpy metrics, Tamanini's almost-minimizer regularity) is explicit. However, the proof of Theorem 1.2 contains a genuine logical gap in the passage from a generic subset of the product Γ×R to open dense slices for each metric. That gap is load-bearing because Theorem 1.2 is one of the paper's central claims. The optimality section also leaves some technical points under-derived, especially in dimensions n ≥ 8.

major comments (3)

[5.2] The proof of Theorem 1.2 contains a logical gap in the projection/slice step. After defining G := ⋂_i G_{N_i} as an open dense subset of Γ×R, the text states that its projections G and U are open and dense and then proceeds: 'Now let g ∈ G and V ∈ (0, |M|_g) ∩ U.' Membership of the pair (g,V) in the two projections separately does not imply (g,V) ∈ G. A pair (g,V) can belong to both projections while the pair itself is excluded from G. What is needed is a slice-density statement: for a sufficiently large set of metrics g, the set of volumes V with (g,V) ∈ G should be open and dense in (0,|M|_g). The projection argument does not supply this. A Kuratowski-Ulam type refinement applied to the residual set of regular values would give residual slices, not necessarily open dense slices, and the open-density claim would require additional properness information that is not provided. This gap affects Theorem 1.2 and Corollaries 5.3 and 5.4, since the conclusion that every minimizer for the pair (g,V) is strictly stable is exactly the point at which the argument breaks.
[4, Lemma 4.1] The proof of Lemma 4.1 is given only for 3 ≤ n ≤ 7, with the statement that it 'can be easily modified to accommodate for a singular set in higher dimensions.' Since Lemma 4.1 is used in Theorem 1.1, which is asserted for all n ≥ 2, the higher-dimensional case is load-bearing. The modification is not automatic: for n ≥ 8, isoperimetric regions may have a singular set, and the argument that the reduced boundary has exactly one component and that each component has bounded diameter needs to be revisited in the presence of singularities. The delicate limiting argument involving monotonicity and volume comparison should be written out for all dimensions.
[4, proof of Theorem 1.1] The construction of the counterexamples in Theorem 1.1 is only sketched. The calibration argument identifying the unique isoperimetric regions of half volume in the warped product metric, the precise choice of ρ_δ, and the verification that the perturbed regions Γ_δ are valid competitors (with the correct volume and with boundary a graph over the minimizer) are not given in detail. This matters because Theorem 1.1 is used to justify the optimality of Theorems 1.2 and 1.4, including the claim that γ may be arbitrarily large for analytic metrics. The authors should provide a complete argument, or at least indicate exactly which standard calibration and comparison results are being invoked and why they apply uniformly in the parameters.

minor comments (5)

[Abstract and throughout] There are several typographical errors: 'quantiative' in the abstract, 'the the set' in the introduction, and the repeated '/suppress' artifacts before 'Lojasiewicz' throughout the text. These should be corrected.
[3.1, Lemma 3.3] In the statement of Lemma 3.3, the text says 'if and only if the function P of Lemma 3.3 is constant,' but P is defined in Lemma 3.1, not Lemma 3.3. The cross-reference should be fixed.
[3.4, proof of Theorem 1.4] The contradiction argument producing α_0 should spell out the relabeling step: after passing to a subsequence E_j → Σ̄ and choosing Σ_j from the finite subcover with ‖χ_{Σ̄} - χ_{Σ_j}‖_{L^1} ≤ δ(Σ_j)/2, the triangle inequality gives ‖χ_{E_N} - χ_{Σ_j}‖_{L^1} ≤ δ(Σ_j) for large N. As written, the line 'we can assume without loss of generality that ‖χ_{E_N} - χ_{Σ_1}‖_{L^1} ≤ δ(Σ_1)' is compressed and could confuse a reader.
[4.1] The discussion of finite-volume non-compact manifolds is intriguing but speculative; it would be helpful to state explicitly whether the authors expect the obstruction to occur for every such manifold or only in a constructed example.
[Appendix B, Lemma B.5] The proof of Lemma B.5 is extremely brief and relies on 'standard facts about almost-minimizers.' Since the selection principle is central to the paper, one or two precise references for the Hausdorff convergence and ε-regularity statements would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular reasoning found; the flagged issue in Theorem 1.2 is a non-circular proof gap.

full rationale

The paper's central results are derived from external ingredients rather than from the quantities they aim to prove. Theorem 1.4 reduces to Lemma 1.6, which is proved via Lyapunov–Schmidt reduction and the Lojasiewicz–Simon inequality (Lemma 3.1, equation (3.3)); the asymmetry α_δ is defined independently as a distance to the full minimizer set, and the exponent γ is existential rather than fitted to the data. The global compactness argument then combines local constants in a standard way. Theorem 1.2 is built on White's bumpyness and Sard–Smale framework, with external references [44, 45, 40] and [12]; no quantity defined in the paper is reused as an input, and no self-citation is load-bearing. There is, however, a genuine but non-circular gap in Section 5.2: after defining G = ∩_i G_{N_i} as open dense in Γ × R, the proof projects G to G ⊂ Γ and U ⊂ R and then takes arbitrary g ∈ G and V ∈ (0, |M|_g) ∩ U; membership in the two projections separately does not imply (g, V) ∈ G, so the slice-density assertion needed for the proof of Theorem 1.2 is not established. This is a correctness and rigor concern, not a circular reduction: it does not make any theorem's conclusion an input of its own proof, and it does not raise the circularity score. Since the main analytic claims are checked against external benchmarks and no circular derivation chain is present, the appropriate circularity score is 0.

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

No free parameters are fitted to data; the constants γ, C0, and δ are existential constants supplied by the Lojasiewicz and stability arguments, not chosen to match observations. The paper introduces no new postulated objects beyond standard isoperimetric regions, Jacobi fields, and the reduced finite-dimensional functional P; the warped-product counterexamples are explicit constructions, not invented entities.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption Regularity of isoperimetric regions: minimizers have smooth boundary except for a singular set of Hausdorff dimension at most n-8 (Theorem 2.2, cited to [31]).
Used throughout; it restricts the main theorems to 2 ≤ n ≤ 7, where the singular set is empty and minimizer boundaries are smooth.
standard math Lojasiewicz inequality for real analytic functions on R^l, used as equation (3.3) and cited to [18].
Underpins the reduction of the non-integrable case in Lemma 3.4; it requires the metric to be real analytic and the reduced functional P to be analytic.
standard math Sard-Smale theorem for Fredholm maps of index 0, cited to [40].
Used in Section 5.2 to obtain the open dense set of pairs (g,V) for which minimizers are strictly stable and nondegenerate.
standard math Almost-minimizer regularity and epsilon-regularity for perimeter almost-minimizers, cited to [42] and [12].
Used in Appendix B to obtain smooth convergence of penalized minimizers; assumes the local R^n statements transfer to C^3 manifolds, an argument that is stated but not proved in detail.
standard math Uniform boundedness of mean curvature for isoperimetric regions (Lemma C.1), relying on Cheung's nonexistence theorem [8] and a blow-up stability argument.
Supports Lemma 2.3 on the uniform bound on the number of boundary components, needed for the covering argument in Theorem 1.4 and for the countability of diffeomorphism types in Theorem 1.2.
domain assumption Dimension restriction 2 ≤ n ≤ 7 is a domain assumption throughout the main theorems.
Needed so isoperimetric minimizers are smooth, with no singular set; the counterexample Theorem 1.1 is stated for all n, but the proof is complete only for n ≤ 7.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Riemannian Quantitative Isoperimetric Inequality." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GS4WVWRA

@misc{pith2026190800677,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Riemannian Quantitative Isoperimetric Inequality},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GS4WVWRA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.00677}
}

read the original abstract

We study the Riemannian quantiative isoperimetric inequality. We show that direct analogue of the Euclidean quantitative isoperimetric inequality is--in general--false on a closed Riemannian manifold. In spite of this, we show that the inequality is true generically. Moreover, we show that a modified (but sharp) version of the quantitative isoperimetric inequality holds for a real analytic metric, using the Lojasiewicz-Simon inequality. A main novelty of our work is that in all our results we do not require any a priori knowledge on the structure/shape of the minimizers.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 46 canonical work pages

[1]

Acerbi, N

E. Acerbi, N. Fusco, and M. Morini. Minimality via second variation for a nonlocal isoperimetric problem. Comm. Math. Phys. , 322(2):515–557, 2013

work page 2013
[2]

Rates of asymptotic converge nce near isolated singu- larities of geometric extrema

David Adams and Leon Simon. Rates of asymptotic converge nce near isolated singu- larities of geometric extrema. Indiana Univ. Math. J. , 37(2):225–254, 1988

work page 1988
[3]

Balogh and Alexandru Krist´ aly

Zolt´ an M. Balogh and Alexandru Krist´ aly. Equality in Borell-Brascamp-Lieb inequal- ities on curved spaces. Adv. Math., 339:453–494, 2018

work page 2018
[4]

A quan titative isoperimetric in- equality on the sphere

Verena B¨ ogelein, Frank Duzaar, and Nicola Fusco. A quan titative isoperimetric in- equality on the sphere. Adv. Calc. Var. , 10(3):223–265, 2017

work page 2017
[5]

Verena B¨ ogelein, Frank Duzaar, and Christoph Scheven.A sharp quantitative isoperi- metric inequality in hyperbolic n-space. Calc. Var. Partial Diﬀerential Equations , 54(4):3967–4017, 2015

work page 2015
[6]

Brasco, G

L. Brasco, G. De Philippis, and B. Velichkov. Faber-krahn inequalities in sharp quan- titative form. Duke Math. J. , 164(9):1777–1832, 2015

work page 2015
[7]

Carlen and Alessio Figalli

Eric A. Carlen and Alessio Figalli. Stability for a GNS in equality and the log-HLS inequality, with application to the critical mass Keller-Segel equation. Duke Math. J. , 162(3):579–625, 2013

work page 2013
[8]

A nonexistence theorem for stable cons tant mean curvature hy- persurfaces

Leung-Fu Cheung. A nonexistence theorem for stable cons tant mean curvature hy- persurfaces. Manuscripta Math. , 70(2):219–226, 1991. QUANTITATIVE ISOPERIMETRY ON MANIFOLDS 27

work page 1991

Show all 46 references

[9]

Uniqueness of asymptoti cally conical tangent ﬂows

Otis Chodosh and Felix Schulze. Uniqueness of asymptoti cally conical tangent ﬂows. https://arxiv.org/abs/1901.06369

1901 arXiv
[10]

Inequalities of Riesz-Sobolev type for compact connected Abelian groups

Michael Christ and Marina Iliopoulou. Inequalities of Riesz-Sobolev type for compact connected Abelian groups. https: // arxiv. org/ pdf/ 1808. 08368. pdf, 2018

2018
[11]

Cianchi, N

A. Cianchi, N. Fusco, F. Maggi, and A. Pratelli. On the is operimetric deﬁcit in Gauss space. Amer. J. Math. , 133(1):131–186, 2011

2011
[12]

A selection pri nciple for the sharp quanti- tative isoperimetric inequality

Marco Cicalese and Gian Paolo Leonardi. A selection pri nciple for the sharp quanti- tative isoperimetric inequality. Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. , 206(2):617–643, 2012

2012
[13]

Best constants for the isoperimetric in- equality in quantitative form

Marco Cicalese and Gian Paolo Leonardi. Best constants for the isoperimetric in- equality in quantitative form. J. Eur. Math. Soc. (JEMS) , 15(3):1101–1129, 2013

2013
[14]

Minicozzi, II

Tobias Holck Colding and William P. Minicozzi, II. Uniq ueness of blowups and /suppress lo- jasiewicz inequalities. Ann. of Math. (2) , 182(1):221–285, 2015

2015
[15]

O n the as- ymptotic behavior of the solutions to parabolic variationa l inequalities

Maria Colombo, Luca Spolaor, and Bozhidar Velichkov. O n the as- ymptotic behavior of the solutions to parabolic variationa l inequalities. https: // arxiv. org/ pdf/ 1809. 06075. pdf, 2018

2018
[16]

Unique isoperimetri c foliations of asymptotically ﬂat manifolds in all dimensions

Michael Eichmair and Jan Metzger. Unique isoperimetri c foliations of asymptotically ﬂat manifolds in all dimensions. Invent. Math. , 194(3):591–630, 2013

2013
[17]

(Log-)epiperimetric inequal- ity and regularity over smooth cones for almost area-minimi zing currents

Max Engelstein, Luca Spolaor, and Bozhidar Velichkov. (Log-)epiperimetric inequal- ity and regularity over smooth cones for almost area-minimi zing currents. Geom. Topol., 23(1):513–540, 2019

2019
[18]

Paul M. N. Feehan. Resolution of singularities and geometric proofs of the /suppress lojasiewicz inequalities. https: // arxiv. org/ pdf/ 1708. 09775. pdf, 2017

2017
[19]

Paul M. N. Feehan and Manousos Maridakis. Lojasiewicz- simon gradient inequalities for analytic and morse-bott functions on banach spaces. to appear in Crelle’s Jounral, 2019

2019
[20]

Figalli, F

A. Figalli, F. Maggi, and A. Pratelli. A mass transporta tion approach to quantitative isoperimetric inequalities. Invent. Math. , 182(1):167–211, 2010

2010
[21]

Quantitative stabi lity for the Brunn-Minkowski inequality

Alessio Figalli and David Jerison. Quantitative stabi lity for the Brunn-Minkowski inequality. Adv. Math., 314:1–47, 2017

2017
[22]

Fischer-Colbrie

D. Fischer-Colbrie. On complete minimal surfaces with ﬁnite Morse index in three- manifolds. Invent. Math. , 82(1):121–132, 1985

1985
[23]

Stability in the isoperimetric problem f or convex or nearly spherical domains in Rn

Bent Fuglede. Stability in the isoperimetric problem f or convex or nearly spherical domains in Rn. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. , 314(2):619–638, 1989

1989
[24]

Fusco, F

N. Fusco, F. Maggi, and A. Pratelli. The sharp quantitat ive isoperimetric inequality. Ann. of Math. (2) , 168(3):941–980, 2008

2008
[25]

The quantitative isoperimetric inequality and related topics.Bull

Nicola Fusco. The quantitative isoperimetric inequality and related topics.Bull. Math. Sci., 5(3):517–607, 2015

2015
[26]

A strong form of the quantit ative isoperimetric inequal- ity

Nicola Fusco and Vesa Julin. A strong form of the quantit ative isoperimetric inequal- ity. Calc. Var. Partial Diﬀerential Equations , 50(3-4):925–937, 2014

2014
[27]

R. R. Hall. A quantitative isoperimetric inequality in n-dimensional space. J. Reine Angew. Math. , 428:161–176, 1992

1992
[28]

Extremal functions for M orrey’s inequality

Ryan Hynd and Francis Seuﬀert. Extremal functions for M orrey’s inequality. https: // arxiv. org/ pdf/ 1810. 04393. pdf, 2018

2018
[29]

Quantitative mini mality of strictly stable extremal submanifolds in a ﬂat neighbourhood

Dominik Inauen and Andrea Marchese. Quantitative mini mality of strictly stable extremal submanifolds in a ﬂat neighbourhood. J. Funct. Anal. , 275(6):1532–1550, 2018

2018
[30]

Ensembles semi-analytiques

Stanis/suppress law /suppress Lojasiewicz. Ensembles semi-analytiques. IHES notes, 1965

1965
[31]

Sets of ﬁnite perimeter and geometric variational problems , volume 135 of Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics

Francesco Maggi. Sets of ﬁnite perimeter and geometric variational problems , volume 135 of Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2012. An introduction to geometric measure theo ry

2012
[32]

Geometric measure theory

Frank Morgan. Geometric measure theory . Elsevier/Academic Press, Amsterdam, ﬁfth edition, 2016. A beginner’s guide, Illustrated by Jame s F. Bredt. QUANTITATIVE ISOPERIMETRY ON MANIFOLDS 28

2016
[33]

Frank Morgan and David L. Johnson. Some sharp isoperime tric theorems for Rie- mannian manifolds. Indiana Univ. Math. J. , 49(3):1017–1041, 2000

2000
[34]

Stable constant-mean-cu rvature hypersurfaces are area minimizing in small L1 neighborhoods

Frank Morgan and Antonio Ros. Stable constant-mean-cu rvature hypersurfaces are area minimizing in small L1 neighborhoods. Interfaces Free Bound. , 12(2):151–155, 2010

2010
[35]

A note on strong-form stability for the sobolev inequality

Robin Neumayer. A note on strong-form stability for the sobolev inequality. https: // arxiv. org/ abs/ 1901. 08879, 2019

1901
[36]

The isoperimetric inequality

Robert Osserman. The isoperimetric inequality. Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. , 84(6):1182– 1238, 1978

1978
[37]

Renato H. L. Pedrosa. The isoperimetric problem in sphe rical cylinders. Ann. Global Anal. Geom., 26(4):333–354, 2004

2004
[38]

Renato H. L. Pedrosa and Manuel Ritor´ e. Isoperimetric domains in the Riemann- ian product of a circle with a simply connected space form and applications to free boundary problems. Indiana Univ. Math. J. , 48(4):1357–1394, 1999

1999
[39]

Asymptotics for a class of nonlinear evolut ion equations, with applica- tions to geometric problems

Leon Simon. Asymptotics for a class of nonlinear evolut ion equations, with applica- tions to geometric problems. Ann. of Math. (2) , 118(3):525–571, 1983

1983
[40]

S. Smale. An inﬁnite dimensional version of Sard’s theo rem. Amer. J. Math. , 87:861– 866, 1965

1965
[41]

On stable constant mean curvature surface s in S2 × R and H2 × R

Rabah Souam. On stable constant mean curvature surface s in S2 × R and H2 × R. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. , 362(6):2845–2857, 2010

2010
[42]

Regularity Results for Almost Minimal Oriented Hypersurfa ces in Rn

Italo Tamanini. Regularity Results for Almost Minimal Oriented Hypersurfa ces in Rn. Quaderni del Dipartimento Matematica dell’Universita de L ecce, 1984

1984
[43]

Rigidity in the harmonic map heat ﬂ ow

Peter Miles Topping. Rigidity in the harmonic map heat ﬂ ow. J. Diﬀerential Geom. , 45(3):593–610, 1997

1997
[44]

The space of m-dimensional surfaces that are stationary for a parametric elliptic functional

Brian White. The space of m-dimensional surfaces that are stationary for a parametric elliptic functional. Indiana Univ. Math. J. , 36(3):567–602, 1987

1987
[45]

The space of minimal submanifolds for vary ing Riemannian metrics

Brian White. The space of minimal submanifolds for vary ing Riemannian metrics. Indiana Univ. Math. J. , 40(1):161–200, 1991

1991
[46]

A strong minimax property of nondegenerat e minimal submanifolds

Brian White. A strong minimax property of nondegenerat e minimal submanifolds. J. Reine Angew. Math. , 457:203–218, 1994. OC: Department of Mathematics, Princeton University, Fine Hall, W ash- ington Road, Princeton, NJ, 08544, USA School of Mathematics, Institute for Advanced...

1994

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Acerbi, N

E. Acerbi, N. Fusco, and M. Morini. Minimality via second variation for a nonlocal isoperimetric problem. Comm. Math. Phys. , 322(2):515–557, 2013

work page 2013

[2] [2]

Rates of asymptotic converge nce near isolated singu- larities of geometric extrema

David Adams and Leon Simon. Rates of asymptotic converge nce near isolated singu- larities of geometric extrema. Indiana Univ. Math. J. , 37(2):225–254, 1988

work page 1988

[3] [3]

Balogh and Alexandru Krist´ aly

Zolt´ an M. Balogh and Alexandru Krist´ aly. Equality in Borell-Brascamp-Lieb inequal- ities on curved spaces. Adv. Math., 339:453–494, 2018

work page 2018

[4] [4]

A quan titative isoperimetric in- equality on the sphere

Verena B¨ ogelein, Frank Duzaar, and Nicola Fusco. A quan titative isoperimetric in- equality on the sphere. Adv. Calc. Var. , 10(3):223–265, 2017

work page 2017

[5] [5]

Verena B¨ ogelein, Frank Duzaar, and Christoph Scheven.A sharp quantitative isoperi- metric inequality in hyperbolic n-space. Calc. Var. Partial Diﬀerential Equations , 54(4):3967–4017, 2015

work page 2015

[6] [6]

Brasco, G

L. Brasco, G. De Philippis, and B. Velichkov. Faber-krahn inequalities in sharp quan- titative form. Duke Math. J. , 164(9):1777–1832, 2015

work page 2015

[7] [7]

Carlen and Alessio Figalli

Eric A. Carlen and Alessio Figalli. Stability for a GNS in equality and the log-HLS inequality, with application to the critical mass Keller-Segel equation. Duke Math. J. , 162(3):579–625, 2013

work page 2013

[8] [8]

A nonexistence theorem for stable cons tant mean curvature hy- persurfaces

Leung-Fu Cheung. A nonexistence theorem for stable cons tant mean curvature hy- persurfaces. Manuscripta Math. , 70(2):219–226, 1991. QUANTITATIVE ISOPERIMETRY ON MANIFOLDS 27

work page 1991