Free boundary regularity for a tumor growth model with obstacle

Giulia Bevilacqua; Matteo Carducci

REVIEW 2 major objections 3 minor 60 references

Free boundary regularity for a tumor growth model with obstacle

T0 review · 2 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper proves that the free boundary of a tumor growth model is well behaved: analytic away from obstacles and C^1,α where it meets them.

desk verdict A genuinely new and mostly rigorous free boundary paper; the oblique thin obstacle result is real and useful, but Lemma 5.8 has a fixable false equality that the authors need to correct. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.02837 v2 pith:HY2KATVO submitted 2025-07-03 math.AP math-phmath.MP

Giulia Bevilacqua , Matteo Carducci This is my paper

classification math.APmath-phmath.MP MSC 35R3535Q9276D27

keywords freeboundaryproblemviscositysolutionsPerron'smethodthinobstacleobliqueconditionC^{1\alpha}regularitytumorgrowthHele-Shaw

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 develops an existence and regularity theory for a geometric free boundary problem describing a tumor that grows along a preferred direction inside an accessible region while being blocked by an obstacle. The central claim is that the free boundary, the tumor surface, is well behaved everywhere it can appear: analytic away from the obstacle, and $C^{1}$,α where it meets the obstacle. The proof works through Perron's method for existence, an improvement-of-flatness argument for interior points, and a reduction of contact-point regularity to a new $C^{1}$,α estimate for an oblique thin obstacle problem. A sympathetic reader should care because the result turns a non-variational, drift-driven free boundary condition into classical regularity theory.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the oblique thin obstacle problem: Δv = 0 in the half ball, with oblique Neumann condition ∇v·W = 0 off the contact set and ∇v·W ≤ 0 on the thin space, where W·e_d ≥ δ > 0. Its $C^{1}$,α regularity (Theorem 1.4) is the engine; the contact-point proof flattens the obstacle by a change of coordinates, shows every contact point has a planar blow-up, and then feeds an improvement-of-flatness iteration at branching points whose limiting linearized problem is exactly this oblique thin obstacle problem.

What would settle it

Exhibit a viscosity solution with a contact point where the growth direction is exactly tangent to the obstacle (V·ν_K = 0) whose free boundary is not a single $C^{1}$,α graph—for instance, a boundary that splits into two branches or develops a tangential cusp. Within the oblique thin obstacle problem, the corresponding test is whether the $C^{1}$,α estimate fails as the obliqueness W·e_d approaches zero, or whether a blow-up at a point with W·e_d = 0 yields a non-$C^{1}$ limit.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes that viscosity solutions of the obstacle-tumor free boundary problem exist for continuous boundary data and that their free boundary has the following structure: at interior regular points where the growth direction has positive normal component, the boundary is analytic; at contact points with the obstacle where the growth direction points into the obstacle, the boundary is a $C^{1}$,α graph for every α below a universal exponent. The key reduction is Theorem 1.3: the boundary behavior at contact points is controlled by the regularity of the oblique thin obstacle problem, for which the paper proves $C^{1}$,α estimates with a constant depending only on the obliqueness.

Load-bearing premise

Everything rests on the standing non-degeneracy that the growth direction has a uniformly positive normal component on the relevant part of the free boundary, in particular at obstacle contacts, so that flatness cannot degenerate to zero slope; the theory says nothing at points where the direction is exactly tangent or the slope vanishes.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the contact regularity theorem holds, the tumor boundary cannot develop cusps or fractal singularities at obstacle contacts, so the interface can be reliably resolved numerically.
The reduction to the oblique thin obstacle problem means any future sharpening of the exponent in Theorem 1.4 immediately upgrades the contact regularity theorem.
The interior result gives analyticity of the free boundary away from the obstacle, so the interface is not merely differentiable but fully smooth there.
Existence via Perron's method provides a canonical viscosity solution for arbitrary continuous boundary data, giving a platform for uniqueness or comparison questions.
Combined with the graphical property, the free boundary is a graph along the drift direction, which constrains the possible shapes of the tumor.

Reading between the lines

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

The paper leaves the degenerate case where the growth direction is exactly tangent to the obstacle (V·ν_K = 0) open; at such points the improvement-of-flatness argument loses its uniform control and genuinely different singular behavior might occur, such as cusps aligned with the drift.
The authors expect the optimal exponent in the contact theorem to coincide with the optimal regularity of the oblique thin obstacle problem; if the oblique problem is shown to be C^1,1/2-sharp as in the classical thin obstacle case, the contact theorem would inherit that sharpness.
A rigorous derivation of the model as an incompressible limit of a porous-medium system is conjectured but not proved; supplying that limit would connect this static regularity theory to the time-dependent Hele-Shaw flow.
A numerical testable extension: simulate the model with V nearly tangent to the obstacle and check whether the contact boundary loses Hölder regularity as V·ν_K approaches zero.

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

The main results are new and the paper is well built around them. Theorem 1.3, C^{1,α} regularity at obstacle contact points, depends on a genuinely new auxiliary result, Theorem 1.4 for the oblique thin obstacle problem. The authors correctly note that the nonlocal result in [32] does not transfer, and their proof via semiconvexity, the adjoint direction, and a C^{0,α} estimate for the oblique derivative is a real contribution worth having on record. The existence theory via Perron's method, the interior flatness improvement, and the hodograph step to analyticity are all executed cleanly, and the paper is honest about the non-degeneracy assumptions V·ν > 0, stating them explicitly and never pretending to cover the degenerate case. Citation patterns look fair; the self-citations are to closely related work and are used contextually, not as a crutch. No code or formal verification, but this is a PDE paper where the proofs are the deliverable, so that is not a gap.

There is one genuine soft spot: Lemma 5.8 is false as stated for non-vertical W. The claimed identity σd = σW on the contact set should be σW = Wd σd, because the tangential contribution vanishes only in the limit and the normal component survives. The test solution v(x) = -xd makes this concrete: σd = -1 but σW = -Wd. As far as I can tell the downstream arguments in Lemma 5.10 and Lemma 5.12 use the wrong identity in the displayed expansions, but the correction only introduces a factor 1/Wd, bounded by 1/δ. So the architecture of the proof survives, but the current text contains a false assertion in a load-bearing lemma, and the authors need to rewrite that section before the paper is publishable. The other delegated claims, to [51] and [58], are standard enough but not fully self-contained, which I'd rank as minor.

This is a solid paper for people working in free boundary regularity: it opens a new model with an obstacle and a preferred direction, and the oblique thin obstacle theorem is a reusable tool. I would send it to a serious referee with a request to check the corrected Section 5, not desk-reject it. If the authors fix Lemma 5.8, I would accept it.

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper studies a one-phase free boundary problem modelling tumor growth in a domain with an obstacle. The tumor region is {u>0}, u is harmonic in its interior, and the free boundary satisfies |∇u|^2 = ∇u·V away from the obstacle, with an inequality on the obstacle. The authors prove existence of viscosity solutions by Perron's method, interior analyticity of the free boundary near nondegenerate regular points, and C^{1,α} regularity of the free boundary at contact points with the obstacle, assuming a nondegeneracy condition V·ν_K>0. The contact-point result is reduced to a new C^{1,α} regularity theorem for an oblique thin obstacle problem, which is proved in Section 5.

Significance. If the main theorems are correct, this is a substantial contribution to the regularity theory of nonvariational free boundary problems arising from tumor growth. The architecture is coherent and mostly self-contained: Perron existence, improvement-of-flatness arguments, a hodograph transform for analyticity, and a reduction of the contact case to an oblique thin obstacle problem. The paper is honest about its main structural limitation, namely that the nondegeneracy assumptions V·ν>0 and V·ν_K(x0)>0 are essential and the degenerate case is not treated. The central proofs are detailed and the claims are concrete and checkable. However, the proof of Theorem 1.4, which is the key input for Theorem 1.3, contains a false identity in Lemma 5.8; the error appears fixable, but the manuscript cannot be accepted in its present form.

major comments (2)

[Section 5.3, Lemma 5.8] The asserted equality σd = σW is false for general oblique W. Writing W=(W',Wd) and eW=(-W',Wd), one has ∇v·W = Wd ∂d v + W'·∇'v. The proof of Lemma 5.8 shows only that the tangential contribution W'·∇'v tends to zero at almost every contact point, so the correct conclusion is σW = Wd σd, not σd = σW. The counterexample v(x)=-xd is a viscosity solution of (5.1): it is harmonic, v=0≥0 on B'1, ∇v·W = -Wd ≤ 0, and Ω_v is empty; for this solution σd = -1 while σW = -Wd, so equality holds only in the normal case Wd=1. The identity is used in Lemma 5.10 and in the C^{0,α} argument for σW in Lemma 5.12 through the expansion vℓ(z',yd) = vℓ(z',0)+σW(z')yd+... . Inserting the correct factor 1/Wd changes constants by at most a factor depending on 1/δ, and Wd≥δ, so the argument can likely be repaired; nevertheless, as written the proof of Theorem 1.4 contains a false assertion and must be corrected.
[Section 5.3, Lemma 5.7] The penalized problems v_k^ℓ are introduced and the properties (a)-(e) are asserted 'exactly as in [51, Section 2]', but the existence of the penalized solutions and, more importantly, the uniform bound (b) on ∇v_k^ℓ·W are not proved in the manuscript. Since the oblique condition has a nontrivial tangential component, the transfer of the penalization argument from [51] is not immediate and needs a precise justification or a statement-by-statement reference. This is a load-bearing step in the proof that σW≤0, which is used in Lemma 5.12 and in the proof of Theorem 5.1.

minor comments (3)

[Section 5.3, Lemma 5.8] The set G is introduced only inside the conclusion of the lemma; please state explicitly that there exists a Borel set G⊂B'1 with H^{d-1}(B'1\G)=0 such that the displayed identity holds on Λ(vℓ)∩G.
[Section 1.4 and Section 5.4] There are several unpolished formulations, e.g. 'Differently form the interior version' in Section 1.4, 'a non vanishing function' in Section 3.1.1, and 'Providing that' in Section 5.4; these should be corrected in a final revision.
[Section 1.3.2 and Theorems 1.2-1.3] The assumptions V·ν>0 and V·ν_K(x0)>0 are essential for the proofs, and the borderline case V·ν=0 is explicitly outside the scope; it would help future readers if the paper stated in one place that the degenerate case remains open.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No load-bearing circularity; the central proofs are self-contained and the self-citations are contextual only.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. Theorem 1.1 is proved by Perron's method in Section 2 using standard comparison and elliptic estimates, with no fitted input being renamed as a prediction. Theorem 1.2 is obtained from the improvement-of-flatness Lemma 3.6, whose linearized limit is the oblique elliptic problem (1.4); Lemma 3.5 invokes classical estimates [49,37], not the authors' own results. Theorem 1.3 is reduced to Theorem 1.4, and Theorem 1.4 is proved independently in Section 5 by a Caffarelli-type viscosity argument; the proof of Section 5 does not invoke Theorem 1.2 or Theorem 1.3. The only self-citations are [13], [14], and [15]. These are contextual: for example, the introduction cites [15] for the statement that anisotropic one-phase regularity is known when g(nu) >= delta, but the actual proof of Theorem 1.2 re-proves the needed regularity internally and does not rely on [15] for a load-bearing step. Similarly, [13] and [14] are cited alongside classical references for background on Bernstein-type arguments and thin-obstacle regularity. No uniqueness theorem from the authors' prior work is invoked to forbid alternatives, and no ansatz is smuggled in through a self-citation. There is a separate correctness concern in the proof of Theorem 1.4: Lemma 5.8 asserts sigma_d = sigma_W on the contact set, which for non-normal W would require a factor 1/W_d; however, this is a mathematical gap in the argument, not a circular reduction of the conclusion to its own inputs. The circularity score is therefore low, reflecting only the presence of minor, non-load-bearing self-citations.

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

No free parameters are fitted to data: this is a pure mathematics paper, and constants in the proofs are existential. The only new mathematical object is the oblique thin obstacle problem and the adjoint direction eW, which are auxiliary tools, not postulated physical entities with independent evidence.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption B, K and the boundary datum satisfy the smoothness and compatibility assumptions (B), (K), (D), and ϕ=0 on ∂B∩∂K.
Assumptions stated at the start of Section 1.3 and used in Theorem 2.3 to guarantee existence of a Perron solution.
domain assumption The non-degeneracy conditions V·ν ≥ δ > 0 at interior regular points and V·ν_K(x0) ≥ 4δ > 0 at contact points hold.
Stated in Theorems 3.1, 3.2, 4.2 and used in the improvement of flatness lemmas; without them no regularity is claimed.
standard math Classical elliptic regularity for oblique derivative problems, Hopf lemma, Harnack inequalities, and boundary Schauder estimates are valid in the stated domains.
Invoked repeatedly, e.g. Lemma 3.5 cites [49, Theorem 4.5] and [37, Lemma 6.27]; Theorem 3.8 cites [49, Proposition 11.21] and [1, Theorem 11.1].
standard math Bounded harmonic functions on smooth domains are represented by their almost everywhere boundary values (Lemma 5.11).
The proof cites [58] and uses this to allow boundary data defined only almost everywhere in a barrier argument.
standard math Existence, uniform estimates and convergence of the penalized approximations v^k_l in Lemma 5.7 follow from the method of [51, Section 2].
The authors delegate these technical claims to an external reference; if this fails, the C^{0,α} regularity of σ_W in Theorem 5.1 is not established.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Free boundary regularity for a tumor growth model with obstacle." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HY2KATVO

@misc{pith2026250702837,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Free boundary regularity for a tumor growth model with obstacle},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HY2KATVO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.02837}
}

abstract

We develop an existence and regularity theory for solutions to a geometric free boundary problem motivated by models of tumor growth. In this setting, the tumor invades an accessible region $D$, its motion is directed along a constant vector $V$, and it cannot penetrate another region $K$ acting as an obstacle to the spread of the tumor. Due to the non variational structure of the problem, we show existence of viscosity solutions via Perron's method. Subsequently, we prove interior regularity for the free boundary near regular points by means of an improvement of flatness argument. We further analyze the boundary regularity and we prove that the free boundary meets the obstacle as a $C^{1,\alpha}$ graph. A key step in the analysis of the boundary regularity involves the study of a thin obstacle problem with oblique boundary conditions, for which we establish $C^{1,\alpha}$ estimates.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.02837 by the authors.

**Figure 1.1.** Graphical representation of the geometrical setting of the problem. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1_1.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 4.1.** Figure 4.1: Graphical representation of the geometrical construction employed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p040_4_1.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 58 canonical work pages

[32]

Fernández-Real and X

X. Fernández-Real and X. Ros-Oton. The obstacle problem for the fractional Laplacian with critical drift . Math. Ann. 371:3-4 (2018), pp. 1683–1735

work page 2018
[51]

Milakis and L

E. Milakis and L. Silvestre. Regularity for the nonlinear Signorini problem. Adv. Math. 217:3 (2008), pp. 1301–1312

work page 2008
[58]

E. M. Stein. Boundary behavior of holomorphic functions of several complex variables . Vol. No. 11. Mathematical Notes. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, University of Tokyo Press, Tokyo, 1972, pp. x+72

work page 1972
[1]

Agmon, A

S. Agmon, A. Douglis, and L. Nirenberg. Estimates near the boundary for solutions of elliptic partial differential equations satisfying general boundary conditions. I. Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 12 (1959), pp. 623–727

work page 1959
[2]

Alexander, I

D. Alexander, I. Kim, and Y. Yao. Quasi-static evolution and congested crowd transport. Nonlinearity 27:4 (2014), p. 823

work page 2014
[3]

D. G. Aronson and P . Bénilan. Régularité des solutions de l’équation des milieux poreux dans RN. CR Acad. Sci. Paris Sér. AB 288:2 (1979), A103–A105

work page 1979
[4]

Athanasopoulos and L

I. Athanasopoulos and L. A. Caffarelli. Optimal regularity of lower dimensional obstacle problems . Zap. Nauchn. Sem. S.-Peterburg. Otdel. Mat. Inst. Steklov. (POMI)310 (2004), pp. 49–66

work page 2004
[5]

Athanasopoulos, L

I. Athanasopoulos, L. A. Caffarelli, and S. Salsa. The structure of the free boundary for lower dimensional obstacle prob- lems. Amer. J. Math. 130:2 (2008), pp. 485–498

work page 2008

Show all 60 references

[6]

Bevilacqua, B

G. Bevilacqua, B. Perthame, and M. Schmidtchen. The Aronson-Bénilan estimate in Lebesgue spaces . Ann. Inst. H. Poincaré C Anal. Non Linéaire 40:2 (2023), pp. 259–286

2023
[7]

Bubba, B

F. Bubba, B. Perthame, C. Pouchol, and M. Schmidtchen. Hele-Shaw limit for a system of two reaction-(cross-)diffusion equations for living tissues. Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 236:2 (2020), pp. 735–766

2020
[8]

H. M. Byrne and M. A. Chaplain. Modelling the role of cell-cell adhesion in the growth and development of carcinomas . Math. Comput. Model. 24:12 (1996), pp. 1–17

1996
[9]

Cabré, S

X. Cabré, S. Dipierro, and E. Valdinoci. The Bernstein technique for integro-differential equations . Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 243:3 (2022), pp. 1597–1652

2022
[10]

L. A. Caffarelli. Further regularity for the Signorini problem. Comm. Partial Differential Equations4:9 (1979), pp. 1067– 1075

1979
[11]

L. A. Caffarelli. A Harnack inequality approach to the regularity of free boundaries. Part III: existence theory, compactness, and dependence on X. Ann. Sc. Norm. Super. Pisa Cl. Sci. 15:4 (1988), pp. 583–602

1988
[12]

L. A. Caffarelli and S. Salsa. A geometric approach to free boundary problems . Vol. 68. American Mathematical Soc., 2005

2005
[13]

Carducci and R

M. Carducci and R. Colombo. Generic regularity of free boundaries in the obstacle problem for the fractional Laplacian . Preprint arXiv:2412.16066 (2024)

2024 arXiv
[14]

Carducci and B

M. Carducci and B. Velichkov. An epiperimetric inequality for odd frequencies in the thin obstacle problem. J. Funct. Anal. (2025), p. 111115

2025
[15]

Carducci and B

M. Carducci and B. Velichkov. Existence and regularity in the fully nonlinear one-phase free boundary problem . Preprint arXiv:2501.12101 (2025)

2025 arXiv
[16]

J. A. Carrillo, S. Fagioli, F. Santambrogio, and M. Schmidtchen. Splitting schemes and segregation in reaction cross- diffusion systems. SIAM J. Math. Anal. 50:5 (2018), pp. 5695–5718

2018
[17]

Boundary regularity for the free boundary in the one-phase problem

H. Chang-Lara and O. Savin. “Boundary regularity for the free boundary in the one-phase problem”. New develop- ments in the analysis of nonlocal operators. Vol. 723. Contemp. Math. Amer. Math. Soc., [Providence], RI, 2019, pp. 149– 165

2019
[18]

Ciarletta, L Foret, and M Ben Amar

P . Ciarletta, L Foret, and M Ben Amar. The radial growth phase of malignant melanoma: multi-phase modelling, numerical simulations and linear stability analysis. J. R. Soc. Interface 8:56 (2011), pp. 345–368. 53

2011
[19]

M. G. Crandall, H. Ishii, and P .-L. Lions. User’s guide to viscosity solutions of second order partial differential equations . Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. (N.S.) 27:1 (1992), pp. 1–67

1992
[20]

M. G. Crandall and P .-L. Lions. Viscosity solutions of Hamilton-Jacobi equations. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 277:1 (1983), pp. 1–42

1983
[21]

M. G. Crandall and M. Pierre. Regularizing effects for ut = ∆φ(u). Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.274:1 (1982), pp. 159–168

1982
[22]

Cui and J

S. Cui and J. Escher. Asymptotic behaviour of solutions of a multidimensional moving boundary problem modeling tumor growth. Comm. Partial Differential Equations 33:4 (2008), pp. 636–655

2008
[23]

H. P . G. Darcy. Les Fontaines publiques de la ville de Dijon. Exposition et application des principes à suivre et des formules à employer dans les questions de distribution d’eau, etc. V . Dalamont, 1856
[24]

David and B

N. David and B. Perthame. Free boundary limit of a tumor growth model with nutrient . J. Math. Pures Appl. (9) 155 (2021), pp. 62–82

2021
[25]

David and M

N. David and M. Schmidtchen. On the incompressible limit for a tumour growth model incorporating convective effects . Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 77:5 (2024), pp. 2613–2650

2024
[26]

De Silva

D. De Silva. Free boundary regularity for a problem with right hand side. Interfaces Free Bound. 13:2 (2011), pp. 223–238

2011
[27]

De Silva, F

D. De Silva, F. Ferrari, and S. Salsa. Perron’s solutions for two-phase free boundary problems with distributed sources . Nonlinear Anal. 121 (2015), pp. 382–402

2015
[28]

Fernández-Real

X. Fernández-Real. C1,α estimates for the fully nonlinear Signorini problem. Calc. Var. Partial Differential Equations55:4 (2016)

2016
[29]

Fernández-Real

X. Fernández-Real. The thin obstacle problem: a survey. Publ. Mat. 66:1 (2022), pp. 3–55

2022
[30]

Fernández-Real and Y

X. Fernández-Real and Y. Jhaveri. On the singular set in the thin obstacle problem: higher-order blow-ups and the very thin obstacle problem. Anal. PDE 14:5 (2021), pp. 1599–1669

2021
[31]

Fernández-Real and X

X. Fernández-Real and X. Ros-Oton. Free boundary regularity for almost every solution to the Signorini problem . Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 240:1 (2021), pp. 419–466

2021
[33]

Focardi and E

M. Focardi and E. Spadaro. On the Measure and the Structure of the Free Boundary of the Lower Dimensional Obstacle Problem. Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 230 (2018), 125–184

2018
[34]

Garofalo and A

N. Garofalo and A. Petrosyan. Some new monotonicity formulas and the singular set in the lower dimensional obstacle problem. Invent. Math. 177 (2009), pp. 415–461

2009
[35]

Gil and F

O. Gil and F. Quirós. Boundary layer formation in the transition from the porous media equation to a Hele-Shaw flow. Ann. Inst. H. Poincaré C Anal. Non Linéaire 20:1 (2003), pp. 13–36. ISSN : 0294-1449,1873-1430

2003
[36]

Gil and F

O. Gil and F. Quirós. Convergence of the porous media equation to Hele-Shaw . Nonlinear Anal. 44:8 (2001), pp. 1111– 1131

2001
[37]

Gilbarg and N

D. Gilbarg and N. S. Trudinger. Elliptic partial differential equations of second order. Vol. 224. 2. Springer, 1977

1977
[38]

H. P . Greenspan. On the growth and stability of cell cultures and solid tumors. J. Theoret. Biol. 56:1 (1976), pp. 229–242. ISSN : 0022-5193,1095-8541

1976
[39]

H. P . Greenspan. Models for the growth of a solid tumor by diffusion. Stud. Appl. Math. 51:4 (1972), pp. 317–340

1972
[40]

Gwiazda, B

P . Gwiazda, B. Perthame, and A. ´Swierczewska-Gwiazda. A two-species hyperbolic-parabolic model of tissue growth . Comm. Partial Differential Equations 44:12 (2019), pp. 1605–1618

2019
[41]

Han and F

Q. Han and F. Lin. Elliptic partial differential equations. Vol. 1. American Mathematical Soc., 2011

2011
[42]

Kim and N

I. Kim and N. Požár. Porous medium equation to Hele-Shaw flow with general initial density . Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 370:2 (2018), pp. 873–909

2018
[43]

I. Kim, N. Požár, and B. Woodhouse. Singular limit of the porous medium equation with a drift. Adv. Math. 349 (2019), pp. 682–732

2019
[44]

Kim and O

I. Kim and O. Turanova. Uniform convergence for the incompressible limit of a tumor growth model. Ann. Inst. H. Poincaré C Anal. Non Linéaire 35:5 (2018), pp. 1321–1354

2018
[45]

I. C. Kim. Uniqueness and existence results on the Hele-Shaw and the Stefan problems . Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 168:4 (2003), pp. 299–328. ISSN : 0003-9527,1432-0673. 54

2003
[46]

I. C. Kim and H. K. Lei. Degenerate diffusion with a drift potential: A viscosity solutions approach. Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst. 27:2 (2010), pp. 767–786

2010
[47]

I. C. Kim, B. Perthame, and P . E. Souganidis. Free boundary problems for tumor growth: a viscosity solutions approach . Nonlinear Anal. 138 (2016), pp. 207–228

2016
[48]

Kinderlehrer and L

D. Kinderlehrer and L. Nirenberg. Regularity in free boundary problems. Ann. Sc. Norm. Super. Pisa Cl. Sci.4:2 (1977), pp. 373–391

1977
[49]

G. M. Lieberman. Oblique derivative problems for elliptic equations. World Scientific, 2013

2013
[50]

Mellet, B

A. Mellet, B. Perthame, and F. Quirós. A Hele–Shaw problem for tumor growth. J. Funct. Anal. 273:10 (2017), pp. 3061– 3093

2017
[52]

C. B. Morrey Jr. Multiple integrals in the calculus of variations . Classics in Mathematics. Reprint of the 1966 edition. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2008, pp. x+506

1966
[53]

Perthame, F

B. Perthame, F. Quirós, M. Tang, and N. Vauchelet. Derivation of a Hele-Shaw type system from a cell model with active motion. Interfaces Free Bound. 16:4 (2014), pp. 489–508

2014
[54]

Perthame, F

B. Perthame, F. Quirós, and J. L. Vázquez. The Hele-Shaw asymptotics for mechanical models of tumor growth . Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 212:1 (2014), pp. 93–127

2014
[55]

Perthame and N

B. Perthame and N. Vauchelet. Incompressible limit of a mechanical model of tumour growth with viscosity. Philos. Trans. Roy. Soc. A 373:2050 (2015), pp. 20140283, 16

2015
[56]

Ribba, O

B. Ribba, O. Saut, T. Colin, D. Bresch, E. Grenier, and J. P . Boissel. A multiscale mathematical model of avascular tumor growth to investigate the therapeutic benefit of anti-invasive agents. J. Theoret. Biol. 243:4 (2006), pp. 532–541

2006
[57]

Savin and H

O. Savin and H. Yu. Contact points with integer frequencies in the thin obstacle problem. Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 76:12 (2023), pp. 4048–4074

2023
[59]

Velichkov

B. Velichkov. Regularity of the one-phase free boundaries. Springer Nature, 2023

2023
[60]

P .-Y. Wang. Existence of solutions of two-phase free boundary problems for fully nonlinear elliptic equations of second order. J. Geom. Anal. 13:4 (2003), pp. 715–738. 55

2003

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [32]

Fernández-Real and X

X. Fernández-Real and X. Ros-Oton. The obstacle problem for the fractional Laplacian with critical drift . Math. Ann. 371:3-4 (2018), pp. 1683–1735

work page 2018

[2] [51]

Milakis and L

E. Milakis and L. Silvestre. Regularity for the nonlinear Signorini problem. Adv. Math. 217:3 (2008), pp. 1301–1312

work page 2008

[3] [58]

E. M. Stein. Boundary behavior of holomorphic functions of several complex variables . Vol. No. 11. Mathematical Notes. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, University of Tokyo Press, Tokyo, 1972, pp. x+72

work page 1972

[4] [1]

Agmon, A

S. Agmon, A. Douglis, and L. Nirenberg. Estimates near the boundary for solutions of elliptic partial differential equations satisfying general boundary conditions. I. Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 12 (1959), pp. 623–727

work page 1959

[5] [2]

Alexander, I

D. Alexander, I. Kim, and Y. Yao. Quasi-static evolution and congested crowd transport. Nonlinearity 27:4 (2014), p. 823

work page 2014

[6] [3]

D. G. Aronson and P . Bénilan. Régularité des solutions de l’équation des milieux poreux dans RN. CR Acad. Sci. Paris Sér. AB 288:2 (1979), A103–A105

work page 1979

[7] [4]

Athanasopoulos and L

I. Athanasopoulos and L. A. Caffarelli. Optimal regularity of lower dimensional obstacle problems . Zap. Nauchn. Sem. S.-Peterburg. Otdel. Mat. Inst. Steklov. (POMI)310 (2004), pp. 49–66

work page 2004

[8] [5]

Athanasopoulos, L

I. Athanasopoulos, L. A. Caffarelli, and S. Salsa. The structure of the free boundary for lower dimensional obstacle prob- lems. Amer. J. Math. 130:2 (2008), pp. 485–498

work page 2008