Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 29 references

Quantitative regularity properties for the optimal design problem

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper proves that, in two dimensions, minimizers of the optimal design problem have completely smooth free boundaries whenever the two conductivity constants satisfy β < 4α, settling the relevant case of Larsen's conjecture and…

desk verdict Theorem 1.1 (β<4α) looks solid and is the real news; the uniform-rectifiability section has a genuine but repairable gap that currently undermines Theorems 1.2–1.3. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.22365 v1 pith:NUCA7Y5U submitted 2025-05-28 math.OC

Lorenzo Lamberti , Antoine Lemenant This is my paper
classification math.OC MSC 35R3549Q1049Q20
keywords optimaldesignfreeboundaryregularityuniformrectifiabilityalmostminimizersmonotonicityformulaLarsenconjecturecomponentseparationperimeterpenalization
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

Consider a two-material conductor: one phase costs α per unit of |∇u|², the other costs β > α, with a perimeter penalty and a fixed volume for the better phase. This paper claims that in two dimensions the interface between the phases is completely smooth—a $C^{{1,α}}$ curve—whenever β < 4α, regardless of how many components the optimal set has. It further claims that the interface of a much wider class of near-minimizers is uniformly rectifiable in every dimension, and uses that rigidity to show that any two connected components of the optimal phase are either separated by a fixed distance or have one component whose area controls the squared distance. A sympathetic reader should care because the β < 4α case answers a previously open case of Larsen's regularity conjecture and gives a quantitative form of a result Larsen proved only qualitatively.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is a Bonnet-type monotonicity formula (Proposition 5.2): for a local minimizer u of the weighted Dirichlet energy with weight σ between α and β, the normalized energy $r^{{-γ}}$ ∫_{B_r} σ |∇u|² dx is nondecreasing with γ = 2√(α/β). The formula is derived from the identity ∫_{B_r} σ |∇u|² dx = ∫_{∂B_r} σ u ∂ν u dH¹ together with Wirtinger's inequality on circles, choosing the Young parameter optimally. When β < 4α, γ > 1, so the energy has superlinear decay and the pair (u, E) is an almost minimizer for perimeter, invoking Tamanini's regularity theory. A second mechanism is the geometric proof that ∂E is Ahlfors-regular and satisfies condition-B, which by the David–Semmes characterization forces uniform rectifiability; the quantitative component-separation theorem then uses uniform rectifiability through Lemma 4.2 to find flat balls on a lower-regular subset of a component boundary.

What would settle it

Any explicit two-dimensional minimizer with β < 4α whose free boundary fails to be smooth at some point would refute Theorem 1.1; for Theorem 1.2, one could search numerically for a minimizer with two components whose squared distance is smaller than ε₀ while both components have area well above the threshold $C₀^{{-1}}$ dist², which would violate the dichotomy.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery, Theorem 1.1, is that in N = 2 the full regularity conjecture of Larsen is true in the regime β < 4α: for every constrained minimizer (u, E) of (1), the free boundary ∂E is a $C^{{1,α}}$-smooth surface in Ω. The proof shows that the monotonicity formula of Proposition 5.2 gives the decay ∫_{B_r} σ_E |∇u|² dx ≤ C $r^{{1+ε}}$ with ε = 2√(α/β) − 1 > 0, which makes E an almost minimizer for the perimeter and lets classical regularity theory apply. Along the way the paper establishes Theorem 1.3, uniform rectifiability of ∂E for Λ-quasi-minimizers in any dimension, and Theorem 1.2, a quantitative mutual-distance estimate: two components E₁, E₂ satisfy either dist(E₁, E₂) ≥ ε₀ or dist(E₁, E₂)² ≥ C₀ min{|E₁|, |E₂|}.

Load-bearing premise

The arguments take as given, from cited work rather than proofs inside the paper, that every constrained minimizer of (1) is a Λ-minimizer of the penalized functional (4); without that equivalence the almost-minimality and uniform-rectifiability machinery would not reach the constrained problem.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In two dimensions, minimizers with β < 4α have no singular points on the free boundary: ∂E is a C^{1,α}-curve throughout Ω.
  • Larsen's qualitative separation dist(E₁, E₂) > 0 becomes quantitative: an extremely close pair of components must have at least one member of comparably tiny area.
  • For Λ-quasi-minimizers in any dimension, ∂E is Ahlfors-regular and uniformly rectifiable, giving uniform control of flatness at all scales.
  • The singular set of the free boundary has Hausdorff dimension strictly less than N − 1, by porosity (Corollary 4.5).
  • Larsen's earlier estimate comparing a small component with the collar around it is re-derived by the uniform-rectifiability route (Proposition 3.8).

Reading between the lines

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

  • The threshold β = 4α is plausibly the limit of the Wirtinger/monotonicity strategy: the spectral analysis in Proposition 5.3 suggests the constant degenerates as β/α approaches 4, so a genuinely new ingredient would be needed to remove the restriction.
  • Because the uniform-rectifiability theorem is stated for perimeter-comparable measures Ψ_E, it should extend to anisotropic or Hölder-coefficient variants of the problem with only cosmetic changes.
  • Theorem 1.2 is likely improvable in form: the dichotomy probably holds with exponent 2 replaced by dimension-dependent powers in N ≥ 3, even though the two-dimensional topological lemma behind the proof does not survive there.
  • If the conjecture is eventually proved for all β/α, the remaining obstruction is a mechanism preventing infinitely many components from accumulating while each is locally smooth.
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

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper studies the optimal design problem (1) and its penalized quasi-minimizer version (3)-(4). The main results are: (i) Theorem 1.1: in dimension N=2, if β<4α, then the free boundary ∂E of any minimizer is a C^{1,α}-surface in Ω; (ii) Theorem 1.2: a quantitative lower bound on the distance between two connected components of E in dimension 2; (iii) Theorem 1.3: uniform rectifiability of ∂E for Λ-quasi-minimizers in any dimension, obtained by proving Ahlfors regularity and condition-B. The proof of Theorem 1.1 uses a Bonnet-type monotonicity formula for the Dirichlet energy and reduces the problem to almost-minimality for the perimeter. The proofs of Theorems 1.2 and 1.3 rely on the uniform-rectifiability machinery developed in Sections 3 and 4.

Significance. If the results are valid, Theorem 1.1 improves the previous two-dimensional threshold β≤(5/3)α obtained by Esposito and Fusco to β<4α, giving a partial positive answer to Larsen's conjecture. Theorem 1.2 gives a quantitative version of Larsen's qualitative distance bound, and Theorem 1.3 extends uniform rectifiability to a broader class of quasi-minimizers. The monotonicity formula in Section 5.1 is clean and explicit, and the reduction of Theorem 1.1 to almost-minimality is rigorous and dimensionally consistent. The paper also contains a detailed rewriting of Larsen's component-distance argument. However, the uniform-rectifiability part rests on a reverse Hölder inequality that is false as stated in dimension two, and on a sketched, partly circular step in the proof of Ahlfors regularity; these issues currently undermine the proofs of Theorems 1.3 and 1.2, although they appear repairable.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 3, Lemma 3.2 (Eq. (19))] The reverse Hölder inequality (19) is false as stated in N=2. For p=2N/(N+2)=1, applying the rescaling u_λ(x)=u(λx) and replacing r by r/λ shows that the left side of (19) scales like λ^{2-N} while the right side scales like λ^{2-2N/p}; equality of exponents requires p=2. Equivalently, the proof produces an extra r^{-2} factor before the Sobolev-Poincaré estimate, because the usual inequality gives ||u-u_{B_r}||_{L^2} ≤ C r^{1-N/p+N/2}||∇u||_{L^p} = C r^0||∇u||_{L^p} for this value of p. The correct statement should contain r^{-2} on the right-hand side. This is load-bearing: Lemma 3.3 uses (19) to find small-energy balls, and that construction feeds into Corollary 3.5, Proposition 3.6, Proposition 3.7, and hence Theorem 1.3 and Theorem 1.2. The error is likely repairable by restoring the r^{-2} factor and adjusting the powers of ε and t in Lemma 3.3, but as written the uniform-rectifiability claim lacks a valid proof.
  2. [Section 3, Theorem 3.1, Step 3] The lower perimeter estimate is not proved. The step begins by assuming x0∈∂*E and ends by invoking the representative choice 'such that ∂E=∂*E', but that equality is exactly what Step 4 is supposed to establish. The argument is deferred to [20, Proposition 4.4] with only a sketch; as written it does not verify that the hypotheses of [20, Proposition 4.4] are satisfied under the weaker Ψ-comparability (5) and the rescaled Λ-minimality (16). Since the lower Ahlfors-regularity bound is a necessary input for condition-B and for Lemma 3.4, this gap must be filled or the reduction made precise.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Throughout] The term 'Alhfors-regular' (Definitions 2.1 and elsewhere) should be 'Ahlfors-regular'.
  2. [Section 3, Lemma 3.3] In the contradiction argument, the factor log(a/3) is negative for a∈(0,1); the correct factor is log(1/(3a)), and the parameter a should be chosen small, not large, to make the lower bound exceed Cr^{N-1}.
  3. [Section 4, Lemma 4.4] The proof states 'By Lemma 3.4, there exists b>0 ...' but the quoted claim (existence of a small-energy ball) is Lemma 3.3, not Lemma 3.4. The sentence 'We choose ε<3ε1' and the subsequent comparison involving b^{N-1}ε/3 are also unclear and need rewriting.
  4. [Section 3, Theorem 3.1, Step 1] There are several typos in this step: 'by (11) and the and the equi-integrability' should read 'by (11) and the equi-integrability', and the constant in (11) is written as C(N, α/β, K, Λ) although the previous line suggests C(N, α, β, K, Λ); the dependence should be made consistent.
  5. [Section 5, Proposition 5.3] The transmission condition 'αu'(0)=βu'(0)' is written without specifying one-sided derivatives, and as displayed it is meaningless. The intended condition presumably involves the left and right derivatives at the interface points.
  6. [Section 5, Lemma 5.6] The line 'Dz ⊂ {(x,y) | |y| ≤ arcsin(η)}' is dimensionally inconsistent; the intended statement is that the direction of the diameter Dz lies in an angular sector of aperture at most 2 arcsin(η), so the set description should involve an angle bound rather than a coordinate bound.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

Moderate circularity: load-bearing self-citation [19] and a circular boundary-representative sentence in Theorem 3.1; Theorem 1.1 remains independent.

  1. self citation load bearing [Section 2, Theorem 2.7; Section 3, Theorem 3.1, Step 1]
    "To conclude the section, we cite the following theorem, whose proof is contained in [19]. Theorem 2.7 ([19]). There exists a constant Λ0>0 such that if (u,E) is a minimizer of the functional ... then |E|=V0 and (E,u) is a minimizer of Problem (3). Conversely, if (E,u) is a minimizer of Problem (3), then it is a minimizer of (6), for any Λ>0."

    Step 1 of Theorem 3.1 obtains the energy bound (9) by testing Λ-minimality with (u,E∪B_r), and the paper refers this Λ-minimality to Theorem 2.7, whose proof is contained in [19], a preprint co-authored by L. Lamberti. Section 3 does not reprove that bridge, so the Ahlfors-regularity and condition-B conclusions of Theorem 1.3 rest on a load-bearing self-citation rather than on an independent derivation inside the paper. The cited statement is an equivalence between two penalized problems and does not itself assert uniform rectifiability, so this is a citation gap rather than a full definitional collapse.

  2. other [Section 3, Theorem 3.1, Step 3 (lower estimate on perimeter)]
    "If x0∈∂E, we get the same estimate by recalling that we chose the representative of ∂E such that ∂E=∂*E."

    Step 3 first proves the lower perimeter density estimate at points of ∂*E by contradiction; for a general point x0∈∂E it then invokes the equality ∂E=∂*E as if that equality had been fixed by the choice of representative. At that stage of the proof the equality has not been established; Step 4 later proves only H^{N-1}((∂E\∂*E)∩Ω)=0, not actual set equality. The Step 3 argument therefore assumes the conclusion it needs in order to cover ∂E\∂*E, a local circularity in the proof of Theorem 3.1.

full rationale

The paper is a forward derivation from stated hypotheses. No parameter is fitted and then relabeled as a prediction; no known result is merely renamed. The headline regularity claim, Theorem 1.1, is proved in Section 5.1 through the Bonnet-type monotonicity formula (Proposition 5.2), the external bridge [16] from the constrained problem (1) to Λ-minimizers, and Tamanini's almost-minimizer regularity theory; none of these steps assumes the C^{1,α} conclusion. The uniform-rectifiability part (Theorems 1.2 and 1.3) is where the derivation chain is not fully self-contained: it imports the local Λ-minimality relation from the self-cited preprint [19], and Step 3 of Theorem 3.1 contains a sentence that uses ∂E=∂*E before that equality is proved. These are genuine circularity flags, but they are localized and potentially repairable; they do not make the main theorem reduce to a definition. The reported scale inconsistency of Lemma 3.2 is a mathematical-correctness concern about the displayed reverse Hölder inequality, not a circularity, and in any case Theorem 1.1 does not use Section 3. Overall score 5 reflects one load-bearing self-citation plus one internal circular step, with the central claims still carrying independent content.

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

All results are derived from the stated variational problem. The paper relies on standard geometric measure theory and prior regularity theorems for optimal design problems. No free parameters are fitted and no invented entities are postulated. Key external inputs are the constrained-to-penalized equivalence and the David-Semmes uniform rectifiability theory.

assumptions (6)
  • standard math Minimizers of (1) are Λ-minimizers of (4) for some Λ>0.
    Invoked in proofs of Theorems 1.1 and 1.2 to move from the constrained problem to the penalized quasi-minimizer setting. Taken from [16, Theorem 1] and [19, Theorem 2.7].
  • standard math David-Semmes equivalence between uniform rectifiability and the bilateral weak geometric lemma.
    Used in Lemma 4.2 and Proposition 2.6 as the bridge from condition-B to uniform rectifiability. See [12].
  • standard math Tamanini's regularity for almost-minimizers of perimeter.
    Used in Theorem 1.1 to conclude C^{1,α} smoothness from the almost-minimality estimate. See [29].
  • standard math Existence of minimizers and standard BV/geometric measure theory facts.
    Throughout Section 3, including Ahlfors regularity and condition-B; from [1], [2], [26].
  • standard math Newman's theorem on connected subsets of boundaries separating plane sets.
    Used in Lemma 5.5 to produce separating continua in the boundary of connected components. See [27].
  • domain assumption Ω bounded connected open set, 0<α<β, u0∈H^1(Ω), V0∈(0,|Ω|).
    These are the standing hypotheses of the optimal design problem (1), from the introduction and Section 2.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantitative regularity properties for the optimal design problem." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NUCA7Y5U

@misc{pith2026250522365,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantitative regularity properties for the optimal design problem},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NUCA7Y5U}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.22365}
}
read the original abstract

In this paper we slightly improve the regularity theory for the so called optimal design problem. We first establish the uniform rectifiability of the boundary of the optimal set, for a larger class of minimizers, in any dimension. As an application, we improve the bound obtained by Larsen in dimension~2 about the mutual distance between two connected components. Finally we also prove that the full regularity in dimension 2 holds true provided that the ratio between the two constants in front of the Dirichlet energy is not larger than 4, which partially answers to a question raised by Larsen.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.22365 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The domain noted by I used as a competitor in the proof of Lemma 5.5, following the idea of Larsen [23]: if the two connected components E1 and E2 were not flat enough in BR, then we could win a lot of perimeter by adding the domain denoted by I in the picture. Thus, by the triangle inequality and the previous one, we get η “ distpry1, y2s, Dq ď sup zPΣ3 distpz,ry1, y2sq ` sup zPΣ3 distpz, Dq ď sup zPΣ distpz,ry1, y… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. In the proof of Theorem 1.2, we get a contradiction by finding a ball in which BE should be a smooth surface thanks to the ε-regularity result, which prevents a component to be shrinked in a thin rectangle. for R sufficiently small. By ε-regularity we have that BE1 1 X B aR 2 pyq is a C 1,γ-hypersurface. We can choose δ ă ` a 4C ˘4 and ε ă ` a 4C ˘4 so that the radius of the ball B aR 2 pyq is greater than the heigh… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages

  1. [20]

    On the regularity of critical and minimal sets of a free interface problem

    Nicola Fusco and Vesa Julin. On the regularity of critical and minimal sets of a free interface problem. Interfaces Free Bound., 17(1):117–142, 2015

    work page 2015

  2. [1]

    An optimal design problem with perimeter penal- ization

    Luigi Ambrosio and Giuseppe Buttazzo. An optimal design problem with perimeter penal- ization. Calc. Var. Partial Differ. Equ. , 1(1):55–69, 1993

    work page 1993

  3. [2]

    Functions of bounded variation and free discontinuity problems

    Luigi Ambrosio, Nicola Fusco, and Diego Pallara. Functions of bounded variation and free discontinuity problems. Oxford Math. Monogr. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2000

    work page 2000

  4. [3]

    Regularity for free interface variational problems in a general class of gradients

    Adolfo Arroyo-Rabasa. Regularity for free interface variational problems in a general class of gradients. Calc. Var. Partial Differ. Equ. , 55(6):44, 2016. Id/No 154

    work page 2016

  5. [4]

    Partial regularity for the crack set minimizing the two-dimensional griffith energy

    Jean-Fran¸ cois Babadjian, Flaviana Iurlano, and Antoine Lemenant. Partial regularity for the crack set minimizing the two-dimensional griffith energy. J. Eur. Math. Soc. (JEMS) , 24(7):2443–2492, 2022

    work page 2022

  6. [5]

    On the regularity of the edge set of Mumford-Shah minimizers

    Alexis Bonnet. On the regularity of the edge set of Mumford-Shah minimizers. In Vari- ational methods for discontinuous structures. Applications to image segmentation, contin- uum mechanics, homogenization. Proceedings of the international conference, Como, Italy, September 8–10, 1994 , pages 93–103. Basel: Birkh¨ auser, 1996

    work page 1994

  7. [6]

    Quasiconvex bulk and surface energies: C 1,α regularity

    Menita Carozza, Luca Esposito, and Lorenzo Lamberti. Quasiconvex bulk and surface energies: C 1,α regularity. Adv. Nonlinear Anal., 13:34, 2024. Id/No 20240021

    work page 2024

  8. [7]

    Quasiconvex bulk and surface energies with subquadratic growth

    Menita Carozza, Luca Esposito, and Lorenzo Lamberti. Quasiconvex bulk and surface energies with subquadratic growth. Math. Eng. , 7:36, 2025

    work page 2025

Show all 29 references
  1. [8]

    Regularity results for an optimal design problem with a volume constraint

    Menita Carozza, Irene Fonseca, and Antonia Passarelli Di Napoli. Regularity results for an optimal design problem with a volume constraint. ESAIM, Control Optim. Calc. Var. , 20(2):460–487, 2014

    2014

  2. [9]

    Regularity results for an optimal design problem with quasiconvex bulk energies

    Menita Carozza, Irene Fonseca, and Antonia Passarelli di Napoli. Regularity results for an optimal design problem with quasiconvex bulk energies. Calc. Var. Partial Differ. Equ. , 57(2):34, 2018. Id/No 68

    2018

  3. [10]

    On the connectedness of boundary and complement for domains

    Andrzej Czarnecki, Marcin Kulczycki, and Wojciech Lubawski. On the connectedness of boundary and complement for domains. Annales Polonici Mathematici , 103, 01 2012

    2012

  4. [11]

    Singular sets of minimizers for the Mumford-Shah functional , volume 233 of Prog

    Guy David. Singular sets of minimizers for the Mumford-Shah functional , volume 233 of Prog. Math. Basel: Birkh¨ auser, 2005

    2005

  5. [12]

    Analysis of and on uniformly rectifiable sets , volume 38 of Math

    Guy David and Stephen Semmes. Analysis of and on uniformly rectifiable sets , volume 38 of Math. Surv. Monogr. Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society, 1993

    1993

  6. [13]

    Quantitative rectifiability and Lipschitz mappings.Trans

    Guy David and Stephen Semmes. Quantitative rectifiability and Lipschitz mappings.Trans. Am. Math. Soc. , 337(2):855–889, 1993

    1993

  7. [14]

    A note on the dimension of the singular set in free interface problems

    Guido De Philippis and Alessio Figalli. A note on the dimension of the singular set in free interface problems. Differ. Integral Equ. , 28(5-6):523–536, 2015

    2015

  8. [15]

    Density lower bound estimate for local minimizer of free interface problem with volume constraint

    Luca Esposito. Density lower bound estimate for local minimizer of free interface problem with volume constraint. Ric. Mat., 68(2):359–373, 2019

    2019

  9. [16]

    A remark on a free interface problem with volume con- straint

    Luca Esposito and Nicola Fusco. A remark on a free interface problem with volume con- straint. J. Convex Anal. , 18(2):417–426, 2011

    2011

  10. [17]

    Regularity results for a free interface problem with H¨ older coefficients.Calc

    Luca Esposito and Lorenzo Lamberti. Regularity results for a free interface problem with H¨ older coefficients.Calc. Var. Partial Differ. Equ. , 62(5):49, 2023. Id/No 156

    2023

  11. [18]

    Regularity results for an optimal design problem with lower order terms

    Luca Esposito and Lorenzo Lamberti. Regularity results for an optimal design problem with lower order terms. Adv. Calc. Var., 16(4):1093–1122, 2023

    2023

  12. [19]

    Regularity results for almost- minimizers of anisotropic free interface problem with H¨ older dependence on the position

    Luca Esposito, Lorenzo Lamberti, and Giovanni Pisante. Regularity results for almost- minimizers of anisotropic free interface problem with H¨ older dependence on the position. Preprint, arXiv:2404.02086 [math.OC] (2024), 2024

    2024 arXiv

  13. [21]

    A regularity result for minimal configurations of a free interface problem

    Lorenzo Lamberti. A regularity result for minimal configurations of a free interface problem. Boll. Unione Mat. Ital. , 14(3):521–539, 2021

    2021

  14. [22]

    Christopher J. Larsen. Distance between components in optimal design problems with perimeter penalization. Ann. Sc. Norm. Super. Pisa, Cl. Sci., IV. Ser. , 28(4):641–649, 1999

    1999

  15. [23]

    Christopher J. Larsen. Regularity of components in optimal design problems with perimeter penalization. Calc. Var. Partial Differ. Equ. , 16(1):17–29, 2003. 27

    2003

  16. [24]

    F. H. Lin and R. V. Kohn. Partial regularity for optimal design problems involving both bulk and surface energies. Chinese Annals of Mathematics , 20(2):137–158, 1999

    1999

  17. [25]

    Variational problems with free interfaces

    Fang Hua Lin. Variational problems with free interfaces. Calc. Var. Partial Differ. Equ. , 1(2):149–168, 1993

    1993

  18. [26]

    Sets of finite perimeter and geometric variational problems

    Francesco Maggi. Sets of finite perimeter and geometric variational problems. An intro- duction to geometric measure theory , volume 135 of Camb. Stud. Adv. Math. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012

    2012

  19. [27]

    M. H. A. Newman. Elements of the topology of plane sets of points. New York, NY: Dover Publications, reprint of the 2nd ed. edition, 1992

    1992

  20. [28]

    Big pieces of C 1,α-graphs for minimizers of the Mumford-Shah functional

    S´ everine Rigot. Big pieces of C 1,α-graphs for minimizers of the Mumford-Shah functional. Ann. Scuola Norm. Sup. Pisa Cl. Sci. (4) , 29(2):329–349, 2000

    2000

  21. [29]

    Regularity results for almost minimal oriented hypersurfaces in Rn

    Italo Tamanini. Regularity results for almost minimal oriented hypersurfaces in Rn. Lecce: Dipartimento di Matematica dell’Universit` a di Lecce, 1984. 28

    1984

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.