Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 49 references

Regularity of a bulk-surface Cahn-Hilliard model driven by Leray velocity fields

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper proves a bulk-surface Cahn–Hilliard system with singular potentials stays strongly well-posed when the driving velocity fields have only Leray-type regularity — the level weak solutions of the Navier–Stokes equations provide.

desk verdict Solid, honest extension of the authors' own prior work; the new elliptic regularity theory is the real contribution. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.18617 v1 pith:QH5AAB5O submitted 2025-06-23 math.AP math-phmath.MP

Andrea Giorgini , Patrik Knopf , Jonas Stange This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.APmath-phmath.MP MSC 35K3535D3035A0135A0235Q9235B65
keywords convectiveCahn-Hilliardequationbulk-surfaceinteractiondynamicboundaryconditionsLerayvelocityfieldssingularpotentialsregularitytheorywell-posedness
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 bulk-surface Cahn–Hilliard system with dynamic boundary conditions and singular double-well potentials — a diffuse-interface model of phase separation whose boundary carries its own Cahn–Hilliard-type equation — remains well-posed when it is driven by velocity fields much rougher than those previously allowed. Weak solutions are shown to exist for prescribed velocities merely in $L^2(0,T;L^2)$, down from the earlier requirement of $L^3$ bulk and $L^{2+\omega}$ surface integrability, and the weak solution is unique and depends continuously on the data, with velocity differences measured only in the $L^2$ norm. The main result, Theorem 3.6, upgrades the solution to full strong regularity — $(\partial_t\phi,\partial_t\psi)\in L^\infty(0,T;(H^1_{L,\beta})')\cap L^2(0,T;H^1)$, $(\phi,\psi)\in L^\infty(0,T;W^{2,6})\cap C(Q)\times C(\Sigma)$, $(\mu,\theta)\in L^\infty(0,T;H^1_{L,\beta})\cap L^2(0,T;H^3)$ — when the velocity fields have Leray-type regularity, the level that weak solutions of the Navier–Stokes equations supply. Since that is precisely the regularity a coupled fluid problem would hand to the Cahn–Hilliard subsystem, the result makes the model usable in bulk-surface Navier–Stokes–Cahn–Hilliard analysis. The proofs rest on a new well-posedness and regularity theory for a coupled bulk-surface elliptic system with singular nonlinearities, developed in Section 5, which the authors note may be of independent interest.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is a new regularity theory for the coupled bulk-surface elliptic system (5.1), $-\Delta u+F'_1(u)=f$ in $\Omega$, $-\Delta_\Gamma v+G'_1(v)+\alpha\partial_n u=g$ on $\Gamma$, $K\partial_n u=\alpha v-u$ on $\Gamma$, with singular convex potentials. Its three pillars are: the characterization of the subdifferential of the singular part of the free energy, $\partial\tilde{E}_K(u,v)=(-\Delta u+F'_1(u),-\Delta_\Gamma v+G'_1(v)+\alpha\partial_n u)$, a maximal monotone operator whose essential domain is the pairs $(u,v)\in H^2$ with $(F'_1(u),G'_1(v))\in L^2$ satisfying the boundary condition (Proposition 4.2); the $L^p$ estimate $\|(u,v)\|_{W^{2,p}}+\|(F'_1(u),G'_1(v))\|_{L^p}\le C(1+\|(f,g)\|_{L^p}+\gamma(K)\|\partial_n u\|_{L^p(\Gamma)})$ for all $p\in[2,\infty]$, together with the separation property $|u|\le 1-\delta$, $|v|\le 1-\delta$ (Proposition 5.3); and the domination assumption (2.4), $|F'_1(\alpha s)|\le\kappa_1|G'_1(s)|+\kappa_2$, which is exactly what absorbs the boundary terms carrying the normal derivative and the trace of the bulk potential derivative in the estimates (5.8) and (5.20). These elliptic estimates are established uniformly in the Moreau–Yosida regularization parameter (a standard smoothing of the singular convex potentials), so the approximation scheme of Section 7 — regularized potentials, initial data defined through the elliptic system, and time-mollified velocity fields — produces the differential inequality (7.78) for $\|(\mu_\lambda,\theta_\lambda)\|^2_{L,\beta}$, and Gronwall's lemma combined with elliptic regularity for bulk-surface systems delivers the regularity of Theorem 3.6.

What would settle it

A concrete calculation settles the role of the weakest assumption: fix $\alpha=1$, let $G_1$ be the logarithmic Flory–Huggins potential, for which $|G'_1(s)|$ grows like $|\log(1-s)|$, and let $F_1$ satisfy (2.2)–(2.3) with $|F'_1(s)|\sim(1-s)^{-\gamma}$ for some $\gamma\in(0,1)$, so that (2.4) fails because $|F'_1(s)|/|G'_1(s)|\to\infty$ as $s\to1$; then solve the elliptic system (5.1) with a family of smooth data $(f,g)$ and check whether the bound $\|(F'_1(u),G'_1(v))\|_{L^p}\le C(1+\|(f,g)\|_{L^p})$ of Proposition 5.3 still holds. A sequence of data driving the left-hand side to infinity would show the regularity theory genuinely needs (2.4), while a verified bound would show the assumption can be weakened; in the admissible case (logarithmic potentials, Leray-type velocity fields, three dimensions), a high-resolution numerical solution of System (1.1) could confirm whether the claimed regularity $(\mu,\theta)\in L^2(0,T;H^3)$ is actually realized.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the authors' own terms, the central result (Theorem 3.6) is the following. Let $\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^d$, $d=2,3$, be of class $C^3$, let the mobilities be constant, let $F_1,G_1$ be singular convex potentials satisfying (2.2)–(2.4), let $K\in[0,\infty)$ and $L\in(0,\infty]$, and let the initial data satisfy (3.1) together with the compatibility condition (C); if the prescribed velocity fields belong to the Leray class $(v,w)\in L^\infty(0,T;L^2_{\rm div})\cap L^2(0,T;H^1)$, and if $v|_\Gamma=w$ almost everywhere in the case $K=0$, then the unique weak solution of System (1.1) obtained in Theorem 3.2 enjoys the regularity $(\partial_t\phi,\partial_t\psi)\in L^\infty(0,T;(H^1_{L,\beta})')\cap L^2(0,T;H^1)$, $(\phi,\psi)\in L^\infty(0,T;W^{2,6})\cap C(Q)\times C(\Sigma)$, $(\mu,\theta)\in L^\infty(0,T;H^1_{L,\beta})\cap L^2(0,T;H^3)$, and $(F'(\phi),G'(\psi))\in L^2(0,T;L^\infty)\cap L^\infty(0,T;L^6)$, so that every equation of System (1.1) holds almost everywhere, with the explicit estimates (3.17)–(3.18). The paper also establishes weak well-posedness under the weaker velocity assumption (1.7), a continuous-dependence estimate (3.13) involving only the $L^2(0,T;L^2)$ norm of the velocity difference, and the higher time regularity $(\phi,\psi)\in L^4(0,T;H^2)$ for $K\in(0,\infty)$ (with $L^3(0,T;H^2)$ for $K=0$) for every weak solution; by Remark 3.7(a), the strong result additionally covers $L=0$ in two dimensions, and in three dimensions covers $K=L=0$ under a compatibility condition on the regular parts of the potentials.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is the domination condition (2.4) — that near the pure-phase values $\pm 1$ the singular part of the bulk potential, evaluated at $\alpha s$, cannot blow up faster than the singular part of the boundary potential at $s$ — because without that inequality the boundary terms carrying the normal derivative can no longer be absorbed, and the proof of Theorem 3.6 collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In any coupled bulk-surface Navier–Stokes–Cahn–Hilliard model, the velocity field delivered to the phase-field subsystem by the fluid's energy balance has exactly the Leray regularity required by Theorem 3.6, so the subsystem can be treated as strongly well-posed without demanding extra time regularity from the fluid; the paper identifies this as the main benefit over the earlier theory.
  • Weak well-posedness holds with velocity fields only in $L^2(0,T;L^2)$, and the stability estimate (3.13) measures velocity differences only in the $L^2(0,T;L^2)$ norm; both relaxations match what a compactness argument in a coupled scheme would supply.
  • Every weak solution gains the extra time regularity $(\phi,\psi)\in L^4(0,T;H^2)$ for $K\in(0,\infty)$ (or $L^3(0,T;H^2)$ for $K=0$), and for $L\in(0,\infty]$ the weak solution satisfies the energy equality rather than merely an inequality.
  • The Section 5 elliptic theory — well-posedness, $W^{2,p}$ estimates, and separation from the pure phases, with constants independent of the smoothing parameter — applies to any Cahn–Hilliard- or Allen–Cahn-type system with dynamic boundary conditions and singular potentials, as the authors point out.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The restriction in Remark 3.7(a) — in three dimensions the case $L=0$ is covered only for $K=0$ together with a compatibility condition on the regular potentials — points to the trace relation $\mu=\beta\theta$ on the boundary as the genuine obstacle: the approximation scheme must preserve that trace at the level of the regularized initial data, and Leray-type velocities do not supply the extra ti
  • Since the domination condition (2.4) enters only through the boundary-term absorptions (5.8) and (5.20), a natural weakening would allow $|F'_1(\alpha s)|$ to grow like a power of $|G'_1(s)|$ plus a constant, with the exponent $p$ in (5.4) then depending on that power; testing this would show whether the restriction is physically necessary or an artifact of the method.
  • The stability estimate (3.13), which needs only the $L^2(0,T;L^2)$ norm of the velocity difference, is exactly the continuity statement that lets coupled schemes pass to the limit when velocities are recovered by compactness; the paper does not exploit this direction, but the estimate seems built for it.
  • The explicit bounds (3.17)–(3.18) grow exponentially in the accumulated $H^1$-norm of the velocity field; for velocities that decay in time, a Gronwall refinement should reduce this to a polynomial factor, which would matter for long-time and attractor analyses.
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.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies a convective bulk-surface Cahn–Hilliard system with dynamic boundary conditions and singular potentials, for prescribed divergence-free velocity fields. The main results are: (i) existence of weak solutions when the velocities satisfy only L^2(0,T;L^2_div)×L^2(0,T;L^2_τ) regularity, improving earlier L^3/L^{2+ω} assumptions; (ii) a continuous-dependence and uniqueness estimate measured in L^2 for velocity differences; and (iii) existence of unique strong solutions, with higher regularity, for Leray-type velocities in L^∞(0,T;L^2)∩L^2(0,T;H^1). The proofs are based on a new regularity theory for a bulk-surface elliptic system with singular nonlinearities, which is developed in Section 5 via subdifferential techniques and a series of L^p estimates. The paper is carefully organized, but two of the three central proofs are only outlined and refer to the authors' earlier work, and one displayed identity in the proof of Theorem 3.6 is not justified.

Significance. If the results are correct, they constitute a meaningful improvement over the state of the art: the Leray-type velocity regularity is the natural class arising from weak solutions of Navier–Stokes equations, and the weak well-posedness under purely L^2 velocities is relevant for coupled bulk-surface flow models. The auxiliary elliptic theory of Section 5, including the maximal monotonicity of the subdifferential, the L^p estimates, and the higher Sobolev regularity for the singular bulk-surface elliptic system, is a substantive contribution that may be of independent interest. The paper provides explicit a priori estimates, including estimates with constants independent of the final time, and clearly states all hypotheses such as the compatibility condition (C) and the domination assumption (2.4). The main concern is that Eq. (7.54), which is load-bearing for the proof of Theorem 3.6, appears to be false as stated, and the proofs of Theorem 3.2 and Theorem 3.5 rely heavily on references to prior work without a complete derivation of the modified estimates.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 7, Eq. (7.54)] Equation (7.54) is not justified and appears to be false in general. In the simplified case v=w=0, F=G=0, L=K=∞, the displayed equality would assert ||∂tφ||²_{L2} = −C⟨µ,∂tφ⟩. For a Neumann eigenfunction with −∆φ=λφ, one has ∂tφ=−λ²φ and µ=λφ, so ||∂tφ||²_{L2}=λ⁴||φ||²_{L2} but −⟨µ,∂tφ⟩=λ³||φ||²_{L2}, which are not equal for λ≠1. Since this equality is used to derive the differential inequality (7.60) and hence the estimates (3.17)–(3.18), the proof of Theorem 3.6 contains a load-bearing gap; a corrected bound for the F''_2-terms (e.g., via (7.50)–(7.52) with a suitable absorption argument) should be supplied.
  2. [Section 6, proofs of Theorem 3.2 and Theorem 3.5] The proofs of the two main weak well-posedness results are largely delegated to the authors' earlier papers. The proof of Theorem 3.2 states that the uniform estimates follow by repeating [34, Theorem 3.4]; since the new point is precisely the weaker velocity class, the convective estimates should be shown in detail. The proof of Theorem 3.5 reduces the key differential inequality (6.2) to 'repeating the line of argument' in [35] and [34], and the displayed estimate (6.3) contains an unsquared ||(v,w)||_{L2} term. Please provide complete arguments (or a detailed appendix) for these two load-bearing results.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Theorem 3.2] The velocity space in the statement contains a duplicated L2(0,T): 'let (v,w)∈ L2(0,T ; L2(0,T ; L2_div(Ω)× L2_τ(Γ)))' should be 'let (v,w)∈ L2(0,T; L2_div(Ω)× L2_τ(Γ))'.
  2. [Section 7, Step 7] The convergence '(µλ,θλ)→(µ,θ) weakly-* in L∞(0,T;H3)' is not supported by the established L2(0,T;H3) bound; it should read 'weakly in L2(0,T;H3)' unless an additional L∞(0,T;H3) bound is proved.
  3. [Section 6, Eq. (6.3)] In the first term of the final bound in (6.3), ||(v,w)||_{L2} should be squared to match the use of Young's inequality.
  4. [Section 4, Eq. (4.12)] The boundary term in (4.12) appears to have an extra factor α: after combining the boundary contributions from the bulk and surface equations it should be ∫Γ ∂n uλ (αG'_1,λ(vλ)−F'_1,λ(uλ)) dΓ. Please verify.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central regularity theorems are proved from new elliptic estimates, with prior self-citations used only as non-circular building blocks.

full rationale

The claimed derivations are not circular. The main new results (Theorems 3.2, 3.3, 3.5 and 3.6) are obtained by approximating the velocity fields and the singular potentials, deriving uniform estimates, and passing to the limit. The paper's own Sections 4 and 5 develop a new bulk-surface elliptic regularity theory (Proposition 4.2, Propositions 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4 and 5.5) from the convex subdifferential, Moreau-Yosida regularization, truncation arguments and elliptic regularity for coupled bulk-surface systems; these results are proved in the text and do not assume the target regularity of the Cahn-Hilliard system. Prior works are invoked only as explicit building blocks with stronger hypotheses: [34, Theorem 3.4] supplies weak solutions for velocity fields satisfying (3.7), [35, Theorem 3.2] supplies the regular-potential approximate system, and [34, Theorem 3.7] together with [32, Theorem 3.3] supplies higher elliptic regularity and elliptic estimates. These cited statements have fixed assumptions that do not include the Leray-velocity conclusion, and the final passage from the regularized systems to Leray-type velocity fields is carried out through new a posteriori estimates exploiting |phi|<1 and |psi|<1 and through the new elliptic estimates, not by restating the prior theorems as the conclusion. There are no fitted parameters, no definitional identities in which an output quantity equals an input by construction, and no uniqueness theorem imported from the authors' prior work to forbid alternatives. The paper does rely extensively on the authors' previous papers for standard approximation and elliptic-regularity steps, but that is ordinary self-citation rather than circularity, because the cited results are independent of the target theorem and are not equivalent to its inputs.

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

The results rest on classical analytic tools (Poincaré inequality, elliptic regularity, compactness) and on structural assumptions on the potentials and domain. No invented physical entities or fitted numerical parameters are introduced; all constants are part of the problem data.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Structural assumptions on potentials F1,G1,F2,G2: singular convex parts with (2.2)-(2.4), regular Lipschitz parts, as in Section 2.3.
    Restricts admissible free energies; the Flory-Huggins potential is given as an admissible example.
  • domain assumption Domination property (2.4): |F'_1(αs)| ≤ κ1|G'_1(s)| + κ2 for all s∈(−1,1).
    Crucial for estimating boundary terms in Propositions 4.2, 5.3 and Corollary 5.4; not derived from physics.
  • domain assumption Compatibility condition (C) in Theorem 3.6: existence of (μ0,θ0)∈H^1_{L,β} satisfying the weak equation for initial data.
    Needed for strong well-posedness; may be satisfied for H^3 initial data as stated in Remark 3.7(b).
  • standard math Bulk-surface Poincaré inequality (Lemma 2.1) and elliptic regularity for coupled bulk-surface systems ([32, Theorem 3.3]).
    Used throughout to bound norms; referenced rather than proven.
  • standard math Aubin-Lions-Simon lemma, Banach fixed point theorem, Gronwall lemma, and Yosida regularization properties (M1)-(M5).
    Standard tools used in proofs.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Regularity of a bulk-surface Cahn-Hilliard model driven by Leray velocity fields." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QH5AAB5O

@misc{pith2026250618617,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Regularity of a bulk-surface Cahn-Hilliard model driven by Leray velocity fields},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QH5AAB5O}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.18617}
}
read the original abstract

We consider a convective bulk-surface Cahn--Hilliard system with dynamic boundary conditions and singular potentials. For this model, well-posedness results concerning weak and strong solutions have already been established in the literature. However, they require the prescribed velocity fields to belong to function spaces with high time regularity. In this paper, we prove that the well-posedness of weak solutions holds true under more general regularity assumptions on the velocity fields. Next, via an alternative proof for higher regularity, we show the well-posedness of strong solutions for velocity fields of Leray type, which is a more relevant assumption for physical applications. Our approach hinges upon a new well-posedness and regularity theory for a bulk-surface elliptic system with singular nonlinearities, which may be of independent interest.

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages

  1. [34]

    Knopf and J

    P. Knopf and J. Stange. Strong well-posedness and separation properties for a bulk-surface convective Cahn–Hilliard system with singular potentials. J. Differential Equations, 439(113408), 2024

    work page 2024

  2. [35]

    Knopf and J

    P. Knopf and J. Stange. Well-posedness of a bulk-surface convective Cahn–Hilliard system with dynamic boundary conditions. NoDEA Nonlinear Differential Equations Appl., 31(5):Paper No. 82, 2024

    work page 2024

  3. [1]

    Abels, H

    H. Abels, H. Garcke, and A. Giorgini. Global regularity and asymptotic stabilization for the incompressible Navier–Stokes- Cahn–Hilliard model with unmatched densities. Mathematische Annalen, 389(2):1267–1321, 2024

    work page 2024

  4. [2]

    Abels and M

    H. Abels and M. Wilke. Convergence to equilibrium for the Cahn-Hilliard equation with a logarithmic free energy. Nonlinear Anal., 67(11):3176–3193, 2007

    work page 2007

  5. [3]

    H. W. Alt. Linear functional analysis . Universitext. Springer-Verlag London, Ltd., London, german edition, 2016. An application-oriented introduction

    work page 2016

  6. [4]

    Bao and H

    X. Bao and H. Zhang. Numerical approximations and error analysis of the Cahn-Hilliard equation with dynamic boundary conditions. Commun. Math. Sci., 19(3):663–685, 2021

    work page 2021

  7. [5]

    Bao and H

    X. Bao and H. Zhang. Numerical approximations and error analysis of the Cahn-Hilliard equation with reaction rate dependent dynamic boundary conditions. J. Sci. Comput., 87(3):Paper No. 72, 32, 2021

    work page 2021

  8. [6]

    Barbu.Nonlinear semigroups and differential equations in Banach spaces

    V . Barbu.Nonlinear semigroups and differential equations in Banach spaces. Editura Academiei Republicii Socialiste Româ- nia, Bucharest; Noordhoff International Publishing, Leiden, 1976. Translated from the Romanian

    work page 1976

Show all 49 references
  1. [7]

    V . Barbu. Nonlinear differential equations of monotone types in Banach spaces . Springer Monographs in Mathematics. Springer, New York, 2010

    2010

  2. [8]

    Binder and H

    K. Binder and H. L. Frisch. Dynamics of surface enrichment: A theory based on the Kawasaki spin-exchange model in the presence of a wall. Z. Phys. B, 84:403–418, 1991

    1991

  3. [9]

    Brezzi and G

    F. Brezzi and G. Gilardi. Part I. FEM mathematics. In H. Kardestuncer and D. H. Norrie, editors, Finite element handbook. McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, 1987

    1987

  4. [10]

    Bullerjahn

    N. Bullerjahn. Error estimates for full discretization by an almost mass conservation technique for Cahn–Hilliard systems with dynamic boundary conditions. Preprint: arXiv:2502.03847 [math.AP], 2025. REGULARITY OF A CONVECTIVE BULK-SURFACE CAHN–HILLIARD MODEL 41

    2025 arXiv

  5. [11]

    Bullerjahn and B

    N. Bullerjahn and B. Kovács. Error estimates for full discretization of Cahn–Hilliard equation with dynamic boundary condi- tions. IMA Journal of Numerical Analysis, pages 1–45, 04 2025

    2025

  6. [12]

    Calatroni and P

    L. Calatroni and P. Colli. Global solution to the Allen-Cahn equation with singular potentials and dynamic boundary conditions. Nonlinear Anal., 79:12–27, 2013

    2013

  7. [13]

    Colli, T

    P. Colli, T. Fukao, and L. Scarpa. The Cahn-Hilliard equation with forward-backward dynamic boundary condition via vanish- ing viscosity. SIAM J. Math. Anal., 54(3):3292–3315, 2022

    2022

  8. [14]

    Colli, T

    P. Colli, T. Fukao, and L. Scarpa. A Cahn-Hilliard system with forward-backward dynamic boundary condition and non-smooth potentials. J. Evol. Equ., 22(4):Paper No. 89, 31, 2022

    2022

  9. [15]

    Colli, T

    P. Colli, T. Fukao, and H. Wu. On a transmission problem for equation and dynamic boundary condition of Cahn-Hilliard type with nonsmooth potentials. Math. Nachr., 293(11):2051–2081, 2020

    2020

  10. [16]

    Colli, P

    P. Colli, P. Knopf, G. Schimperna, and A. Signori. Two-phase flows through porous media described by a Cahn-Hilliard- Brinkman model with dynamic boundary conditions. J. Evol. Equ., 24(4):Paper No. 85, 55, 2024

    2024

  11. [17]

    Conti and A

    M. Conti and A. Giorgini. Well-posedness for the Brinkman-Cahn-Hilliard system with unmatched viscosities. J. Differential Equations, 268(10):6350–6384, 2020

    2020

  12. [18]

    Fischer, P

    H. Fischer, P. Maass, and W. Dieterich. Novel Surface Modes in Spinodal Decomposition.Phys. Rev. Lett., 79:893–896, 1997

    1997

  13. [19]

    Fischer, J

    H. Fischer, J. Reinhard, W. Dieterich, J.-F. Gouyet, P. Maass, A. Majhofer, and D. Reinel. Time-dependent density functional theory and the kinetics of lattice gas systems in contact with a wall. J. Chem. Phys., 108(7):3028–3037, 1998

    1998

  14. [20]

    Fukao and H

    T. Fukao and H. Wu. Separation property and convergence to equilibrium for the equation and dynamic boundary condition of Cahn-Hilliard type with singular potential. Asymptot. Anal., 124(3-4):303–341, 2021

    2021

  15. [21]

    C. G. Gal, M. Lv, and H. Wu. On a thermodynamically consistent diffuse interface model for two-phase incompressible flows with non-matched densities: Dynamics of moving contact lines, surface diffusion, and mass transfer. Preprint on ResearchGate: https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2...

  16. [22]

    Garcke and P

    H. Garcke and P. Knopf. Weak solutions of the Cahn-Hilliard system with dynamic boundary conditions: a gradient flow approach. SIAM J. Math. Anal., 52(1):340–369, 2020

    2020

  17. [23]

    Garcke, P

    H. Garcke, P. Knopf, and S. Yayla. Long-time dynamics of the Cahn-Hilliard equation with kinetic rate dependent dynamic boundary conditions. Nonlinear Anal., 215:Paper No. 112619, 44, 2022

    2022

  18. [24]

    Garcke and K

    H. Garcke and K. F. Lam. Analysis of a Cahn-Hilliard system with non-zero Dirichlet conditions modeling tumor growth with chemotaxis. Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst., 37(8):4277–4308, 2017

    2017

  19. [25]

    Gilardi, A

    G. Gilardi, A. Miranville, and G. Schimperna. On the Cahn-Hilliard equation with irregular potentials and dynamic boundary conditions. Commun. Pure Appl. Anal., 8(3):881–912, 2009

    2009

  20. [26]

    Giorgini and P

    A. Giorgini and P. Knopf. Two-phase flows with bulk-surface interaction: thermodynamically consistent Navier-Stokes-Cahn- Hilliard models with dynamic boundary conditions. J. Math. Fluid Mech., 25(3):Paper No. 65, 44, 2023

    2023

  21. [27]

    G. R. Goldstein, A. Miranville, and G. Schimperna. A Cahn-Hilliard model in a domain with non-permeable walls. Phys. D, 240(8):754–766, 2011

    2011

  22. [28]

    Harder and B

    P. Harder and B. Kovács. Error estimates for the Cahn-Hilliard equation with dynamic boundary conditions. IMA J. Numer. Anal., 42(3):2589–2620, 2022

    2022

  23. [29]

    Kenzler, F

    R. Kenzler, F. Eurich, P. Maass, B. Rinn, J. Schropp, E. Bohl, and W. Dietrich. Phase separation in confined geometries: Solving the Cahn–Hilliard equation with generic boundary conditions. Comp. Phys. Comm., 133:139–157, 2001

    2001

  24. [30]

    Knopf and K

    P. Knopf and K. F. Lam. Convergence of a Robin boundary approximation for a Cahn-Hilliard system with dynamic boundary conditions. Nonlinearity, 33(8):4191–4235, 2020

    2020

  25. [31]

    Knopf, K

    P. Knopf, K. F. Lam, C. Liu, and S. Metzger. Phase-field dynamics with transfer of materials: the Cahn-Hillard equation with reaction rate dependent dynamic boundary conditions. ESAIM Math. Model. Numer. Anal., 55(1):229–282, 2021

    2021

  26. [32]

    Knopf and C

    P. Knopf and C. Liu. On second-order and fourth-order elliptic systems consisting of bulk and surface PDEs: Well-posedness, regularity theory and eigenvalue problems. Interfaces and Free Boundaries, 23(4):507–533, 2021

    2021

  27. [33]

    Knopf and A

    P. Knopf and A. Signori. On the nonlocal Cahn-Hilliard equation with nonlocal dynamic boundary condition and boundary penalization. J. Differential Equations, 280:236–291, 2021

    2021

  28. [36]

    Liu and H

    C. Liu and H. Wu. An energetic variational approach for the Cahn-Hilliard equation with dynamic boundary condition: model derivation and mathematical analysis. Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal., 233(1):167–247, 2019

    2019

  29. [37]

    Lv and H

    M. Lv and H. Wu. On the Cahn–Hilliard equation with kinetic rate dependent dynamic boundary condition and non-smooth potential: separation property and long-time behavior. Preprint: arXiv.2405.20807 [math.AP], 2024

    2024 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Lv and H

    M. Lv and H. Wu. Separation property and asymptotic behavior for a transmission problem of the bulk-surface coupled Cahn– Hilliard system with singular potentials and its Robin approximation. Analysis and Applications, pages 1–42, 2024

    2024

  31. [39]

    Lv and H

    M. Lv and H. Wu. On the Cahn-Hilliard equation with kinetic rate dependent dynamic boundary conditions and non-smooth potentials: well-posedness and asymptotic limits. Interfaces Free Bound., 27(2):177–234, 2025. 42 ANDREA GIORGINI, PATRIK KNOPF & JONAS STANGE

    2025

  32. [40]

    Lv and H

    M. Lv and H. Wu. On the nonlocal Cahn–Hilliard equation with nonlocal dynamic boundary condition and singular potential: well-posedness, regularity and asymptotic limits. Nonlinearity, 38(4):045017, 2025

    2025

  33. [41]

    X. Meng, X. Bao, and Z. Zhang. Second order stabilized semi-implicit scheme for the Cahn-Hilliard model with dynamic boundary conditions. J. Comput. Appl. Math., 428:Paper No. 115145, 22, 2023

    2023

  34. [42]

    S. Metzger. An efficient and convergent finite element scheme for Cahn-Hilliard equations with dynamic boundary conditions. SIAM J. Numer. Anal., 59(1):219–248, 2021

    2021

  35. [43]

    S. Metzger. A convergent SA V scheme for Cahn–Hilliard equations with dynamic boundary conditions. IMA Journal of Nu- merical Analysis, page drac078, 01 2023

    2023

  36. [44]

    Miranville

    A. Miranville. The Cahn–Hilliard equation: Recent advances and applications, volume 95 ofCBMS-NSF Regional Conference Series in Applied Mathematics. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics (SIAM), Philadelphia, PA, 2019

    2019

  37. [45]

    Miranville and H

    A. Miranville and H. Wu. Long-time behavior of the Cahn-Hilliard equation with dynamic boundary condition. J. Elliptic Parabol. Equ., 6(1):283–309, 2020

    2020

  38. [46]

    Miranville and S

    A. Miranville and S. Zelik. Robust exponential attractors for Cahn-Hilliard type equations with singular potentials. Math. Methods Appl. Sci., 27(5):545–582, 2004

    2004

  39. [47]

    J. Ne ˇcas. Direct methods in the theory of elliptic equations. Springer Monographs in Mathematics. Springer, Heidelberg, 2012. Translated from the 1967 French original by Gerard Tronel and Alois Kufner, Editorial coordination and preface by Šárka Neˇcasová and a contribution ...

    2012

  40. [48]

    Rocca and G

    E. Rocca and G. Schimperna. Universal attractor for some singular phase transition systems.Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena, 192(3):279–307, 2004

    2004

  41. [49]

    H. Wu. A review on the Cahn-Hilliard equation: classical results and recent advances in dynamic boundary conditions. Elec- tron. Res. Arch., 30(8):2788–2832, 2022

    2022

Pith tools

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