Boundary regularity for the polyharmonic Dirichlet problem

Antoine Lemenant; R\'emy Mougenot

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Boundary regularity for the polyharmonic Dirichlet problem

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper proves that weak solutions of $m$-th order elliptic Dirichlet problems are $C^{m-1,\alpha}$ up to the boundary on Reifenberg-flat domains, even when the boundary may be fractal.

desk verdict Strong result, likely correct, but Proposition 5.2 has a real gap in the critical case 2m=N that needs repair before Theorem 1.1 is established. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.02964 v2 pith:OBVKYZ5S submitted 2025-02-05 math.AP

Antoine Lemenant , Rémy Mougenot This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.AP MSC 35B6535J4035D30

keywords polyharmonicoperatorsReifenberg-flatdomainsboundaryregularitytranslationmethodHöldercontinuityenergydecayDirichletproblem

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper proves that a weak solution of an $m$-th order elliptic Dirichlet problem is H\"older continuous up to the boundary, together with its derivatives through order $m-1$, on domains that are only Reifenberg-flat: rough sets whose boundary lies within a small fraction of the radius of a hyperplane at every point and scale, and which may even be fractal. The result applies to any constant-coefficient symmetric elliptic operator of order $2m$, including the polyharmonic operator $(-\Delta)^m$, and gives an a priori bound by the $L^q$ norm of the right-hand side. What makes this surprising is that the boundary itself is less regular than Lipschitz; the extra smoothness comes from the homogeneous Dirichlet condition, which forces the solution and its derivatives up to order $m-1$ to vanish at the boundary. If the theorem is correct, it completes the boundary regularity picture for the polyharmonic Dirichlet problem in a broad class of rough domains and shows a loss of only one derivative compared with interior regularity.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the boundary energy-decay estimate $\int_{B(x,r)}|\nabla^m u|^2\,dx \le C (r/R)^{N-b}\int_{B(x,R)}|\nabla^m u|^2\,dx$ for boundary points $x$, combined with a standard integral-decay-to-H\"older criterion that converts such decay into $C^{m-1,\alpha}$ regularity. The paper's main technical novelty is a self-contained proof of the flat-boundary case by the translation method: horizontal difference quotients are admissible test functions, and one then recovers vertical derivatives by an induction on the order using the decomposition $A = B - \partial_N D(\partial_N u)$, where $D$ is an elliptic operator of order $2m-2$. A key lemma (Lemma 2.1) guarantees the elliptic factor $D$, and a one-dimensional integral inequality bridges the one-derivative gap that would otherwise block the induction. The transfer from a hyperplane to a Reifenberg-flat domain is made by a compactness argument whose strong-convergence step uses a convergence notion for the spaces $H^m_0$ under Hausdorff convergence, inherited from the authors' earlier work on stable domains.

What would settle it

Consider the planar sector $\Omega_\varepsilon=\{(r,\theta): 0<\theta<\pi+\varepsilon\}$ with the clamped condition for $m=2$, and compute the leading exponent $\lambda(\varepsilon)$ in the boundary expansion of the solution to $\Delta^2 u=1$ with $u=\partial_\nu u=0$ on the two sides. The sector is Reifenberg-flat with flatness of order $\varepsilon$, so Theorem 1.1 predicts that for every $\alpha<1$, one can make $\lambda(\varepsilon)>1+\alpha$ by taking $\varepsilon$ small. If a numerical or asymptotic computation of the characteristic equation for $\lambda(\varepsilon)$ showed that $\lambda(\varepsilon_j)\le 1+\alpha$ for some fixed $\alpha>0$ along a sequence $\varepsilon_j\to0$, then the energy-decay claim behind the theorem would be false.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Theorem 1.1: for every $\alpha\in(0,1)$, if $q\ge 2$ with $m q\ge N$ when $2m<N$ (and $q=2$ otherwise), there exist flatness and scale parameters $\varepsilon_0>0$ and $r_0>0$ such that for every $(\varepsilon_0,r_0)$-Reifenberg-flat domain $\Omega$ and every $f\in L^q(\Omega)$, the weak solution $u\in H^m_0(\Omega)$ of $A(u)=f$ belongs to $C^{m-1,\alpha}(\Omega)$ and satisfies $\|u\|_{C^{m-1,\alpha}(\Omega)}\le C\|f\|_{L^q(\Omega)}$. This extends the known $m=1$ Poisson result to all orders $m$, and it is sharp: near conical boundary points one can construct solutions that are $C^{m-1,\alpha}$ but no better, so the boundary roughness exactly costs one derivative at the top order. The proof locates the mechanism in an energy-decay estimate at boundary points, a quantified statement that $\nabla^m u$ has no mass accumulating at the boundary faster than a power of the radius.

Load-bearing premise

The proof depends on the authors' earlier stable-domain theory: for Reifenberg-flat domains, $H^m_0(\Omega)$ is exactly the set of $H^m$ functions vanishing outside $\Omega$, and these spaces converge in a variational sense when the domains converge in Hausdorff distance; if that theory fails for some Reifenberg-flat domain, the compactness step that transfers flat-boundary decay to rough boundaries fails and the proof collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For the standard Laplacian ($m=1$), the theorem recovers and extends the previously known Poisson regularity result on Reifenberg-flat domains, without needing an a priori $L^p$ bound on $u$.
For the biharmonic operator ($m=2$) in dimension $3$, any $H^2_0$ solution of $\Delta^2 u=f$ with $f\in L^2$ is $C^{1,\alpha}$ up to the boundary for every $\alpha<1$ on Reifenberg-flat domains.
The boundary regularity of order $m-1$ is sharp: singular examples at conical boundaries show one cannot expect $C^{m,\alpha}$ regularity of the highest derivatives, and the homogeneous Dirichlet condition is what purchases the extra regularity.
The proof supplies a self-contained $H^{2m}$ up-to-the-boundary regularity theory for constant-coefficient elliptic operators of order $2m$ in smooth domains, via the translation method adapted to arbitrary order.
For Reifenberg-flat domains with fractal boundary, the result gives uniform a priori estimates depending only on flatness and scale constants, not on the boundary's Hausdorff dimension.

Reading between the lines

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

The energy-decay mechanism suggests the same $C^{m-1,\alpha}$ boundary regularity should persist for divergence-form operators with H\"older continuous coefficients, as the authors note; the compactness argument would then need to be re-run with a coefficient-freezing step.
The technique might extend to quasilinear higher-order problems wherever a Caccioppoli-type energy decay can be proved, with the flat-boundary translation method being the main obstacle to overcome.
A testable numerical consequence: on Reifenberg-flat domains, finite element convergence rates limited by boundary roughness should improve by exactly $m-1$ orders compared with generic rough-boundary PDEs, because the Dirichlet condition forces derivatives up to order $m-1$ to vanish at the boundary.
The paper's reliance on the stable-domain convergence theory suggests that if that convergence fails for a subfamily of Reifenberg-flat domains, the regularity might still hold but would require a different mechanism; the threshold $\varepsilon_0$ may be linked to the constant in the stable-domain theory.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Here's my take on arXiv:2502.02964. The paper proves boundary regularity up to C^{m-1,α} for the m-polyharmonic Dirichlet problem in Reifenberg-flat domains, for arbitrary m. That's new. The main tools are a Nirenberg translation method adapted to high-order operators, an induction on the operator order, and a compactness argument using polyharmonic replacements. The interior and flat-boundary regularity sections (Theorems 3.1 and 4.1) are detailed and self-contained, and the paper is honest about where the difficulty lies: you can't just differentiate in the normal direction.

The main theorem is plausible and, if the proof gap gets fixed, this will be a solid paper. But as written, there is a real gap in the proof of Proposition 5.2, in the critical case 2m = N. The authors need the inequality q(2−p′) ≥ 2p′ to hold with p′ close to 1 when q=2. Solving that inequality gives p′ ≤ 2q/(q+2), and for q=2 this forces p′ ≤ 1, which is impossible for any Lebesgue conjugate. The paper instead uses p′ ≤ 2q/(1+q), which is weaker and doesn't make (5.18) true. So the energy decay in that case is not established. This is not a counterexample—the inequality can likely be rescued by keeping the positive terms kη−N and η, choosing p′=1+δ with δ small, and taking k0 large. But as written, Theorem 1.1 is not fully proved.

A smaller point: the paper claims to be "completely self-contained" but relies on the authors' previous paper [12] for the stable-domain/Mosco convergence results, including the characterization (2.1) that is used throughout. That's not a fatal flaw—it's a published result and self-citation is fine when the cited work is real—but the self-contained claim is overstated.

My overall assessment: the result is significant, the method is new, and the paper is mostly carefully written. The critical-case gap is the one thing that needs to be fixed before this should be published. I'd send it to peer review, with instructions to focus on Proposition 5.2 and the dependence on [12]. If the authors can close that gap, I'd be happy to cite it.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript establishes C^{m-1,α} regularity up to the boundary for weak solutions u∈H^m_0(Ω) of the constant-coefficient elliptic Dirichlet problem A(u)=f in Reifenberg-flat domains Ω, with f∈L^q under the scaling condition mq≥N if 2m<N and q=2 otherwise. The proof combines a Nirenberg translation method adapted to operators of arbitrary order (interior and flat-boundary versions, Theorems 3.1 and 4.1), a compactness argument that transfers the flat-boundary decay to Reifenberg-flat boundaries (Proposition 5.1), a polyharmonic replacement argument for nonzero right-hand sides (Proposition 5.2), and Campanato embedding to conclude the Hölder estimate (Theorem 6.1). The main theorem is Theorem 1.1/6.1.

Significance. If completed, the result is significant: it gives C^{m-1,α} boundary regularity for higher-order elliptic equations on domains whose boundary need only be Reifenberg-flat, hence possibly only C^{0,γ} or fractal. The extension of the Nirenberg translation method to arbitrary order is a genuine technical contribution, and the replacement/decay framework is well suited to the higher-order Dirichlet problem. The writing is generally clear and the argument is convincing outside the critical case. However, one load-bearing exponent estimate in Proposition 5.2 is not proved for 2m=N, and the proof relies on imported stable-domain facts from [12] that should be stated precisely.

major comments (2)

[Proposition 5.2, Eqs. (5.17)-(5.18), Case 2] The exponent bookkeeping in the critical case 2m=N is incorrect. Solving q(2−p′)≥2p′ for p′ gives p′≤2q/(q+2), not p′≤2q/(1+q) as stated in Case 2. For q=2 the correct bound is p′≤1, which is incompatible with the value p′=1+δ that is available when 2m=N. Consequently the displayed lower bound γ−(k+1)(N−η)≥η in (5.17) is not justified in this case, and the proof of the energy decay (H_k) does not go through for q=2, which is precisely the case allowed by Theorem 1.1 and Theorem 6.1. The gap appears repairable: instead of discarding the nonnegative terms kη−N and η, one can keep them and choose p′=1+δ with δ<η/(2N) and k0≥N/η, which makes k(η−2Nδ)−N+η positive for all k≥k0. The same repair is needed in Proposition 5.3, whose proof is declared to be identical.
[Section 2, Eq. (2.1); Section 5, Claim A3] The proof of Proposition 5.1 uses two facts imported from the authors' previous paper [12]: the characterization H^m_0(Ω)={u∈H^m(R^N): u=0 a.e. on R^N\Ω} for Reifenberg-flat domains, and the approximation of a function in H^m(B(0,1)) vanishing on B(0,1)∩{x_N<0} by functions compactly supported in B+(0,1). These facts are load-bearing for Claim A3 and for the zero-extension used throughout Section 5. Since the introduction describes the paper as "completely self-contained", the precise statement of the imported theorem and a verification that its hypotheses cover (ε0,r0)-Reifenberg-flat domains should be added. If [12] indeed supplies these facts, this is a clarification issue rather than a mathematical error; without them, the contradiction argument in Proposition 5.1 is incomplete.

minor comments (4)

[Section 5, after Eq. (5.8)] Proposition 5.1 is applied to v_k, but v_k is only defined on B_k∩Ω and equals u on the artificial boundary; strictly speaking the proposition requires a function in H^m_0(Ω). The application is justified if v_k is extended by u outside B_k, since the extension lies in H^m_0(Ω) and is A-harmonic in B_k∩Ω; please state this extension explicitly.
[Lemma 2.2, Eq. (2.8)] The constants in the statement do not match the proof: the proof yields ∫_{Q_r} v² ≤ 4/(1−λ)∫_{Q^λ_r} v² + 8r²∫_{Q_r}(∂_N v)², whereas (2.8) is written with coefficients 4 and 3r. This appears to be a typo, but it should be corrected because the displayed inequality is used in the proof of Theorem 4.1.
[Proposition 2.3] The formula α=(λ−N)/p appears to contain a typo; from the definition of the Campanato seminorm the correct exponent is α=(λ−N)/2. The subsequent use in Proposition 2.4 is consistent with the corrected formula.
[Proposition 5.2, notation] The symbol C_A is used both for the ellipticity constant of A and, implicitly, for the constant coming from Proposition 5.1 in (5.8)-(5.10). Please use distinct notation (for example C_1 for the decay constant) throughout the replacement argument.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the main derivation is a compactness and energy-decay argument; the only import from the authors' previous paper [12] is stable-domain/Mosco-convergence infrastructure, which is independent support and does not presuppose the regularity theorem.

full rationale

The claimed derivation is a standard compactness/energy-decay chain: Theorem 4.1 proves flat-boundary H^{2m} regularity by the Nirenberg translation method; Corollary 4.1 turns this into an L-infinity bound; Proposition 5.1 transfers the decay (5.1) to Reifenberg-flat boundaries by contradiction, using Hausdorff convergence and the H^m_0-stability identity; Proposition 5.2 converts the decay into a Campanato estimate via a polyharmonic replacement; Theorem 6.1 assembles these into C^{m-1,alpha}. No step fits a parameter to the predicted quantity or defines the target regularity in terms of the conclusion. The only input from previous work of the authors is Section 2 Eq. (2.1) and the approximation used in Claim A3, both quoted from [12]: 'This is actually Corollary 5.1. in [12]'. That is load-bearing, and the introduction's claim that the paper is 'completely self-contained' is too strong, but [12] is a published stable-domain theorem whose assumptions do not include the regularity conclusion of this paper; it is independent infrastructure, not an ansatz or a renamed version of Theorem 1.1. The 'completely self-contained' sentence is best read as referring to the flat-boundary translation argument, not to the whole chain. Concerns about the q=2, 2m=N exponent bookkeeping in Proposition 5.2 are proof-correctness matters, not circularity, and do not affect this score.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No numerical parameters are fitted to data; proof constants such as a, b, ε0 and C_I are constructed in the argument and carry no empirical content. The central claim rests on standard Sobolev and Campanato theory plus the authors' prior stable-domain and Mosco-convergence results [12].

assumptions (3)

domain assumption Reifenberg-flat domains satisfy the internal corkscrew condition and the identity H^m_0(Ω) = {u ∈ H^m(R^N): u = 0 a.e. on R^N \ Ω} (from [12, Cor 5.1]).
Used throughout to extend solutions by zero outside Ω, to apply Poincaré inequalities, and in the compactness argument (Section 2, Eq. (2.1); Section 5, Claim A3).
domain assumption Stable-domain and Mosco-convergence theory for higher-order operators as developed in [12]: functions vanishing on a half-ball can be approximated by functions supported in the half-ball, and H^m_0 spaces behave continuously under Hausdorff convergence.
This is the key external input for Claims A1-A3 in Proposition 5.1; cited to [12] (Section 5, Proof of A3).
standard math Standard Sobolev embedding and Campanato-type embedding into Hölder spaces on Reifenberg-flat domains (Proposition 2.3 from [11]).
Used to convert energy decay into C^{m-1,α} regularity in Theorem 6.1 and to control the replacement error in Proposition 5.2.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Boundary regularity for the polyharmonic Dirichlet problem." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OBVKYZ5S

@misc{pith2026250202964,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Boundary regularity for the polyharmonic Dirichlet problem},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OBVKYZ5S}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.02964}
}

abstract

In this paper we prove that any solution of the $m$-polyharmonic Poisson equation in a Reifenberg-flat domain with homogeneous Dirichlet boundary condition, is $\mathscr{C}^{m-1,\alpha}$ regular up to the boundary. To achieve this result we extend the Nirenberg method of translations to operators of arbitrary order, and then use some Mosco-convergence tools developped in a previous paper.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

Boundary regularity for nonlocal elliptic equations over Reifenberg flat domains
math.AP 2025-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

For operators comparable to the fractional Laplacian of order 2s, solutions with zero exterior data on Reifenberg flat domains are C^{s-ε} up to the boundary.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

26 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[12]

Stable domains for higher order elliptic operators

Jean-Fran¸ cois Grosjean, Antoine Lemenant, and R´ emyMougenot. Stable domains for higher order elliptic operators. C. R., Math., Acad. Sci. Paris , 362:1189–1203, 2024

work page 2024
[1]

Agmon, A

S. Agmon, A. Douglis, and Louis Nirenberg. Estimates nea r the boundary for solutions of elliptic partial diﬀerential equations satisfying general boundary conditions. I. Commun. Pure Appl. Math. , 12:623–727, 1959

work page 1959
[2]

Agmon, A

S. Agmon, A. Douglis, and Louis Nirenberg. Estimates nea r the boundary for solutions of elliptic partial diﬀerential equations satisfying general boundary conditions. II. Commun. Pure Appl. Math. , 17:35–92, 1964

work page 1964
[3]

Di richlet and Neumann boundary values of solutions to higher order elliptic equations

Ariel Barton, Steve Hofmann, and Svitlana Mayboroda. Di richlet and Neumann boundary values of solutions to higher order elliptic equations. Ann. Inst. Fourier , 69(4):1627–1678, 2019

work page 2019
[4]

Higher-order elli ptic equations in non-smooth do- mains: a partial survey

Ariel Barton and Svitlana Mayboroda. Higher-order elli ptic equations in non-smooth do- mains: a partial survey. In Harmonic analysis, partial diﬀerential equations, comple x anal- ysis, Banach spaces, and operator theory. Volume 1. Celebrat ing Cora Sadosky’s life , pages 55–121. Cham: Springer, 2016

work page 2016
[5]

Lorentz-Morrey regularity fo r nonlinear elliptic problems with irregular obstacles over Reifenberg ﬂat domains

Sun-Sig Byun and Yumi Cho. Lorentz-Morrey regularity fo r nonlinear elliptic problems with irregular obstacles over Reifenberg ﬂat domains. Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst. , 35(10):4791– 4804, 2015

work page 2015
[6]

Palagachev

Sun-Sig Byun, Yumi Cho, and Dian K. Palagachev. Global we ighted estimates for nonlinear elliptic obstacle problems over Reifenberg domains. Proc. Am. Math. Soc. , 143(6):2527– 2541, 2015

work page 2015
[7]

Elliptic equations with BMO n onlinearity in Reifenberg domains

Sun-Sig Byun and Lihe Wang. Elliptic equations with BMO n onlinearity in Reifenberg domains. Adv. Math. , 219(6):1937–1971, 2008. 34

work page 1937

Show all 26 references

[8]

Higher order elliptic and pa rabolic systems with variably partially BMO coeﬃcients in regular and irregular domains

Hongjie Dong and Doyoon Kim. Higher order elliptic and pa rabolic systems with variably partially BMO coeﬃcients in regular and irregular domains. J. Funct. Anal. , 261(11):3279– 3327, 2011

2011
[9]

Lawrence C. Evans. Partial diﬀerential equations , volume 19 of Grad. Stud. Math. Provi- dence, RI: American Mathematical Society (AMS), 2nd ed. edi tion, 2010

2010
[10]

Polyharmonic boundary value problems

Filippo Gazzola, Hans-Christoph Grunau, and Guido Swe ers. Polyharmonic boundary value problems. Positivity preserving and nonlinear higher orde r elliptic equations in bounded domains, volume 1991 of Lect. Notes Math. Berlin: Springer, 2010

1991
[11]

Introduction to regularity theory for nonlinear elliptic sy stems

Mariano Giaquinta. Introduction to regularity theory for nonlinear elliptic sy stems. Basel: Birkh¨ auser Verlag, 1993

1993
[13]

Preprint, arXiv:2406.11604 [math.AP] (2024), 2024

Ignasi Guill´ en-Mola, Mart ´ ı Prats, and Xavier Tolsa.The dimension of planar elliptic mea- sures arising from Lipschitz matrices in Reifenberg ﬂat dom ains. Preprint, arXiv:2406.11604 [math.AP] (2024), 2024

2024 arXiv
[14]

Kenig and Tatiana Toro

Carlos E. Kenig and Tatiana Toro. Poisson kernel charac terization of Reifenberg ﬂat chord arc domains. Ann. Sci. ´Ec. Norm. Sup´ er. (4), 36(3):323–401, 2003

2003
[15]

Quantitative stability for the ﬁrst Dirichlet eigenvalue in Reifenberg ﬂat domains in RN

Antoine Lemenant and Emmanouil Milakis. Quantitative stability for the ﬁrst Dirichlet eigenvalue in Reifenberg ﬂat domains in RN . J. Math. Anal. Appl. , 364(2):522–533, 2010

2010
[16]

A stability re sult for nonlinear Neumann prob- lems in Reifenberg ﬂat domains in RN

Antoine Lemenant and Emmanouil Milakis. A stability re sult for nonlinear Neumann prob- lems in Reifenberg ﬂat domains in RN . Publ. Mat., Barc. , 55(2):413–432, 2011

2011
[17]

Spin olo

Antoine Lemenant, Emmanouil Milakis, and Laura V. Spin olo. Spectral stability estimates for the Dirichlet and Neumann Laplacian in rough domains. J. Funct. Anal. , 264(9):2097– 2135, 2013

2013
[18]

Boundary regularit y for the Poisson equation in Reifenberg-ﬂat domains

Antoine Lemenant and Yannick Sire. Boundary regularit y for the Poisson equation in Reifenberg-ﬂat domains. In Geometric partial diﬀerential equations. Based on the conf er- ence, CRM, Pisa, Italy, September 2012 , pages 189–209. Pisa: Edizioni della Normale, 2013

2012
[19]

Boundary Lipsc hitz regularity and the Hopf lemma on Reifenberg domains for fully nonlinear elliptic eq uations

Yuanyuan Lian, Wenxiu Xu, and Kai Zhang. Boundary Lipsc hitz regularity and the Hopf lemma on Reifenberg domains for fully nonlinear elliptic eq uations. Manuscr. Math. , 166(3- 4):343–357, 2021

2021
[20]

Boundary H¨ older Regulari ty for Elliptic Equations on Reifenberg Flat Domains

Yuanyuan Lian and Kai Zhang. Boundary H¨ older Regulari ty for Elliptic Equations on Reifenberg Flat Domains. Preprint, arXiv:1812.11354 [mat h.AP] (2018), 2018

2018 arXiv
[21]

Regularity of solutions to the polyharmonic equation in general domains

Svitlana Mayboroda and Vladimir Maz’ya. Regularity of solutions to the polyharmonic equation in general domains. Invent. Math. , 196(1):1–68, 2014

2014
[22]

Polyharmonic capacity and Wiener test of higher order

Svitlana Mayboroda and Vladimir Maz’ya. Polyharmonic capacity and Wiener test of higher order. Invent. Math. , 211(2):779–853, 2018. 35

2018
[23]

Divergence form op erators in Reifenberg ﬂat do- mains

Emmanouil Milakis and Tatiana Toro. Divergence form op erators in Reifenberg ﬂat do- mains. Math. Z. , 264(1):15–41, 2010

2010
[24]

Boundary regularity for nonlocal ellip tic equations over reifenberg ﬂat domains, 2025

Adriano Prade. Boundary regularity for nonlocal ellip tic equations over reifenberg ﬂat domains, 2025

2025
[25]

E. R. Reifenberg. Solution of the Plateau problem for m-dimensional surfaces of varying topological type. Acta Math. , 104:1–92, 1960

1960
[26]

William P. Ziemer. Weakly diﬀerentiable functions. Sobolev spaces and functi ons of bounded variation, volume 120 of Grad. Texts Math. Berlin etc.: Springer-Verlag, 1989. 36

1989

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [12]

Stable domains for higher order elliptic operators

Jean-Fran¸ cois Grosjean, Antoine Lemenant, and R´ emyMougenot. Stable domains for higher order elliptic operators. C. R., Math., Acad. Sci. Paris , 362:1189–1203, 2024

work page 2024

[2] [1]

Agmon, A

S. Agmon, A. Douglis, and Louis Nirenberg. Estimates nea r the boundary for solutions of elliptic partial diﬀerential equations satisfying general boundary conditions. I. Commun. Pure Appl. Math. , 12:623–727, 1959

work page 1959

[3] [2]

Agmon, A

S. Agmon, A. Douglis, and Louis Nirenberg. Estimates nea r the boundary for solutions of elliptic partial diﬀerential equations satisfying general boundary conditions. II. Commun. Pure Appl. Math. , 17:35–92, 1964

work page 1964

[4] [3]

Di richlet and Neumann boundary values of solutions to higher order elliptic equations

Ariel Barton, Steve Hofmann, and Svitlana Mayboroda. Di richlet and Neumann boundary values of solutions to higher order elliptic equations. Ann. Inst. Fourier , 69(4):1627–1678, 2019

work page 2019

[5] [4]

Higher-order elli ptic equations in non-smooth do- mains: a partial survey

Ariel Barton and Svitlana Mayboroda. Higher-order elli ptic equations in non-smooth do- mains: a partial survey. In Harmonic analysis, partial diﬀerential equations, comple x anal- ysis, Banach spaces, and operator theory. Volume 1. Celebrat ing Cora Sadosky’s life , pages 55–121. Cham: Springer, 2016

work page 2016

[6] [5]

Lorentz-Morrey regularity fo r nonlinear elliptic problems with irregular obstacles over Reifenberg ﬂat domains

Sun-Sig Byun and Yumi Cho. Lorentz-Morrey regularity fo r nonlinear elliptic problems with irregular obstacles over Reifenberg ﬂat domains. Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst. , 35(10):4791– 4804, 2015

work page 2015

[7] [6]

Palagachev

Sun-Sig Byun, Yumi Cho, and Dian K. Palagachev. Global we ighted estimates for nonlinear elliptic obstacle problems over Reifenberg domains. Proc. Am. Math. Soc. , 143(6):2527– 2541, 2015

work page 2015

[8] [7]

Elliptic equations with BMO n onlinearity in Reifenberg domains

Sun-Sig Byun and Lihe Wang. Elliptic equations with BMO n onlinearity in Reifenberg domains. Adv. Math. , 219(6):1937–1971, 2008. 34

work page 1937