pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.25182 · v1 · pith:U4SPFK4Wnew · submitted 2026-05-24 · 🧮 math.AP · math.SP

On the Hersch-Weinberger inequality in higher dimensions

T. V. Anoop , Vladimir Bobkov , Mrityunjoy Ghosh , Olga Pochinka This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-29 23:31 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🧮 math.AP math.SP
keywords Robin Laplacianfirst eigenvalueshape optimizationspherical shellHersch-Weinberger inequalitygradient floweffectless cut
0
0 comments X

The pith

A concentric spherical shell maximizes the first Robin eigenvalue among domains with two boundary components under volume and perimeter constraints.

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

The paper establishes that, for bounded smooth domains in R^N whose boundary has exactly two connected components, the concentric spherical shell maximizes the first eigenvalue of the Robin Laplacian when the enclosed volume and the total perimeter are held fixed. For N at least 3 an additional convexity assumption on the domain is imposed. The argument proceeds by analyzing the gradient flow of a regular first eigenfunction and applying approximation procedures, thereby extending the two-dimensional Hersch-Weinberger result without constructing the effectless cut. A reader would care because the result supplies an explicit optimal shape for an eigenvalue problem that models heat flow or quantum particles subject to Robin boundary conditions.

Core claim

A concentric spherical shell maximizes the first eigenvalue of the Robin Laplacian over a class of domains with two connected boundary components under perimeter and volume constraints, and under an additional convexity assumption when N ≥ 3. The proof relies on the gradient flow of the first eigenfunction together with several approximation procedures; the effectless cut is shown to possess basic topological properties but need not be a hypersurface.

What carries the argument

Gradient flow of the first eigenfunction, which generates the flow lines used to compare eigenvalues and to approximate the maximizer.

If this is right

  • The maximality result extends to a wider class of domains with two boundary components.
  • The effectless cut associated with the gradient flow is not necessarily a hypersurface.
  • The gradient-flow method replaces the earlier effectless-cut construction and works in all dimensions.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Gradient-flow techniques developed here could be tested on other Robin-type optimization problems with disconnected boundaries.
  • Numerical schemes that follow eigenfunction gradient flows might locate candidate maximizers in domains where convexity fails.
  • The topological description of the effectless cut suggests examining whether similar objects arise for higher eigenvalues or different boundary conditions.

Load-bearing premise

The domain boundary consists of exactly two connected components, the domain is convex when the dimension is at least three, and the first eigenfunction is sufficiently regular for its gradient flow to be analyzed.

What would settle it

A non-convex or non-concentric domain with two boundary components that achieves a strictly larger first Robin eigenvalue than the concentric shell while preserving the same volume and perimeter would falsify the maximality claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.25182 by Mrityunjoy Ghosh, Olga Pochinka, T. V. Anoop, Vladimir Bobkov.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The subdomains Ω1 and Ω2. Here, γe represents the effectless cut. In higher dimensions N ≥ 3, in the Neumann-Dirichlet case, the reverse Faber–Krahn inequality (1.5) was established in [3], assuming that Ωout is a ball and Ωout \ Ωin satisfies an isoperimetric constraint analogous to (1.6), namely, |∂Bβ| = |∂Ωout|, |Ωout \ Ωin| = |Bβ \ Bα|. (1.11) This result was further extended to the Neumann-Robin case … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Examples of domains in KN α,β. Remark 2.2. Clearly, if Ω belongs to KN α,β, then any translation and orthogonal transformation of Ωout or Ωin preserving the positive distance between connected components of the boundary keep the modified domain in the class KN α,β. In the planar case N = 2, other examples of domains in K2 α,β can be easily constructed (see, for instance, [12, Section 3]). Indeed, taking an… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The domain Ωk in R 2 . 3. Proof of Theorem 1.1 Let Ω ∈ KN α,β and hin, hout ∈ (0, +∞]. Throughout this section, we denote by (λ1(Ω), u) the first eigenpair of (RR), where u > 0 in Ω. Let us outline the arguments. In Section 3.1, we show that u can be approximated by the first eigenfunctions of perturbed problems in such a way that the approximating first eigenfunctions have no degenerate critical points. T… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The sets E1 t , E2 t , and the corresponding domains Ω 1 t , Ω 2 t . Here, ν is the unit outward normal vector to Ω 1 t and Ω 2 t . For a fixed n ∈ N and any t < 0, consider two sets (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Schematic phase portrait of ϕ t with various types of saddles. Intersection between pink and green sets is a heteroclinic intersection. Here, p, q ∈ R ∩ C∗ N−1 , σ ∈ R \ C∗ N−1 and σ ∈ C−, and ξ is a sink. Since R± is closed, [17, Theorem 1.1] implies that R± is a repeller of ϕ t . Namely, there exists a trapping neighborhood U± of R± such that R± = T t≤0 ϕ t (U±), and hence H± = S t≥0 ϕ t (U±). It then fo… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Illustration to Proposition 4.3 with m = 3. Fix i and consider two consecutive saddles pi , pi+1 (pm+1 := p1). Then Ws pi and Ws pi+1 form ∂Di . Recalling that in the case N = 2 there are no heteroclinic intersections, and that E is connected by Proposition 4.2, we see that the curve Di ∩ E connecting pi and pi+1 must contain at least one sink. If there were at least two such sinks, then there have to be a… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Effectless cut (blue) E = Wu p1 ∪Wu p2 which is not a manifold. Here, p1, p2 are saddles, and ω1, ω2 are sinks. Two green trajectories connect p2 with sources α±. Green circle is a section of Ws p2 . Four purple trajectories are heteroclinic intersections [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Cross-cap Let σ : R + → [0, 1] be a C∞-function such that σ(t) = 0 for t ≤ 2, σ(t) = 1 for t ≥ 3, and σ is strictly increasing in (2, 3). For x = (x1, x2, x3) ∈ R 3 , we denote ψ(x3) = x 4 3 − 3x 2 3 , z(x) = |x| 2 + ψ(x3) ≡ x 2 1 + x 2 2 + x 4 3 − 2x 2 3 , and let v : R 3 → R be given by v(x) = 1 − σ(|x| 2 )  · z(x) + σ(|x| 2 ) · |x| 2 . Let us show, by analyzing ∇v, that v is a Morse function with exact… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We investigate a reverse Faber-Krahn type inequality for the Robin Laplacian in a bounded smooth domain $\Omega \subset \mathbb{R}^N$ whose boundary has two connected components. We prove that a concentric spherical shell maximizes the first eigenvalue over a class of such domains under perimeter and volume constraints, and under an additional convexity assumption when $N \geq 3$. This result generalizes to a wider class, and extends to higher dimensions, the inequality of Hersch [20], whose approach was substantially based on a construction of the so-called effectless cut by Weinberger [35], so that we call it the Hersch-Weinberger inequality. Our method is based on the analysis of the gradient flow of the first eigenfunction and several approximation procedures, without relying on the effectless cut itself. The effectless cut being a complicated object related to the attractor of the gradient flow, we describe its most fundamental topological properties. In particular, we show that it does not necessarily have to be a hypersurface.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript proves that, among bounded smooth domains Ω ⊂ R^N with exactly two connected boundary components, the concentric spherical shell maximizes the first Robin eigenvalue λ1 under fixed volume and perimeter constraints (with an additional convexity assumption imposed when N ≥ 3). The argument proceeds by analyzing the gradient flow of a positive first eigenfunction, combined with several approximation procedures that avoid direct use of the effectless cut; the paper also establishes basic topological properties of the effectless cut, showing in particular that it need not be a hypersurface.

Significance. If the approximation arguments are fully rigorous, the result supplies a direct gradient-flow proof of a higher-dimensional Hersch-Weinberger inequality for Robin eigenvalues on domains with prescribed topology, thereby extending the classical two-dimensional case and furnishing new information on the attractor of the flow. The explicit description of the effectless cut’s topological features is a secondary but useful contribution.

major comments (3)
  1. [gradient-flow approximation section (post-Theorem 1.1)] The central approximation scheme (gradient flow followed by passage to the limit) must simultaneously preserve convexity (when N ≥ 3), connectedness of each boundary component, and the strict inequality λ1(Ω) < λ1(shell). The manuscript notes that the flow can develop critical points whose stable manifolds are not hypersurfaces, yet the argument that these phenomena do not violate the three listed properties in the limit is not supplied with sufficient detail or an independent check (e.g., an explicit non-radial convex annulus computation).
  2. [convexity handling paragraph] The convexity assumption is invoked to preclude focal points, but the paper does not verify that the approximating sequence remains inside the convex class while the flow is applied; without this, the comparison with the concentric shell cannot be closed.
  3. [eigenfunction regularity subsection] The claim that the first eigenfunction remains sufficiently regular for the flow analysis to be justified throughout the approximation is stated but not accompanied by uniform estimates that survive the limit while keeping the two boundary components distinct.
minor comments (2)
  1. [preliminaries] Notation for the Robin parameter and the two boundary components should be introduced once and used consistently; several passages switch between Γ1, Γ2 and ∂Ω± without explicit cross-reference.
  2. [effectless-cut topology paragraph] The statement that the effectless cut “does not necessarily have to be a hypersurface” would benefit from a concrete low-dimensional example or figure illustrating the topology that arises.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the thorough report and constructive suggestions. The comments correctly identify points where the approximation arguments need expanded justification. We will revise the manuscript to supply the missing details on limit preservation, convexity maintenance, and uniform estimates, thereby strengthening the rigor of the gradient-flow approach without altering the main results.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [gradient-flow approximation section (post-Theorem 1.1)] The central approximation scheme (gradient flow followed by passage to the limit) must simultaneously preserve convexity (when N ≥ 3), connectedness of each boundary component, and the strict inequality λ1(Ω) < λ1(shell). The manuscript notes that the flow can develop critical points whose stable manifolds are not hypersurfaces, yet the argument that these phenomena do not violate the three listed properties in the limit is not supplied with sufficient detail or an independent check (e.g., an explicit non-radial convex annulus computation).

    Authors: We agree that additional detail on the passage to the limit is warranted. In the revision we will insert a dedicated paragraph (or short subsection) after Theorem 1.1 that invokes the C^1-continuity of λ1 with respect to domain variation together with the strict inequality λ1(Ω) < λ1(shell) to show that connectedness of the two boundary components and the strict inequality are preserved; convexity is handled separately in the next comment. We maintain that an explicit non-radial convex annulus computation is not required for the general argument, as the topological properties of the effectless cut already control the possible singularities of the stable manifolds; we will clarify this distinction rather than add the suggested computation. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [convexity handling paragraph] The convexity assumption is invoked to preclude focal points, but the paper does not verify that the approximating sequence remains inside the convex class while the flow is applied; without this, the comparison with the concentric shell cannot be closed.

    Authors: We will expand the convexity-handling paragraph to include a short verification: the initial approximating domains are obtained by mollification of a smooth convex domain and therefore remain convex; standard comparison principles for the mean-curvature flow (or the specific gradient flow of the eigenfunction) preserve convexity when the initial datum is convex and the Robin parameter is positive. This keeps the entire approximating sequence inside the convex class, allowing the comparison with the concentric shell to close. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [eigenfunction regularity subsection] The claim that the first eigenfunction remains sufficiently regular for the flow analysis to be justified throughout the approximation is stated but not accompanied by uniform estimates that survive the limit while keeping the two boundary components distinct.

    Authors: We will add uniform Schauder estimates (derived from the standard elliptic theory for the Robin problem) that are independent of the approximation parameter. These estimates guarantee that the first eigenfunction stays in C^{2,α} up to the boundary uniformly, which in turn ensures that the two boundary components remain separated in the limit by the strict inequality λ1(Ω) < λ1(shell). The estimates will be collected in a short appendix for clarity. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: derivation via independent gradient-flow analysis

full rationale

The paper derives the maximizer property for the concentric shell by direct analysis of the gradient flow of the first Robin eigenfunction together with approximation procedures that preserve the two-component boundary and convexity constraints. No step reduces a claimed prediction to a fitted input by construction, nor does any load-bearing premise rest on a self-citation chain. The cited Hersch and Weinberger results are external prior work; the present argument explicitly avoids relying on the effectless-cut construction. The derivation is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard existence and regularity theory for elliptic eigenvalue problems together with the structural assumption that the boundary has two components.

axioms (2)
  • standard math The first eigenfunction of the Robin Laplacian exists and is sufficiently regular for the gradient flow to be well-defined on the space of admissible domains.
    Invoked implicitly when the authors analyze the gradient flow of the first eigenfunction.
  • domain assumption The domain is bounded and smooth with boundary consisting of exactly two connected components.
    Stated in the abstract as the setting for the inequality.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5713 in / 1295 out tokens · 33401 ms · 2026-06-29T23:31:26.485121+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    J. H. Albert. Generic properties of eigenfunctions of elliptic partial differential operators. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 238:341–354, 1978. doi:10.2307/1997812. 8, 24

    work page doi:10.2307/1997812 1978

  2. [2]

    Amato, N

    V. Amato, N. Gavitone, and F. de Giovanni. On the Effectless Cut Method for Laplacian Eigenvalues in any dimensions. arXiv:2604.00976, 2026. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2604.00976. 4, 7 24

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2604.00976 2026

  3. [3]

    T. V. Anoop and K. Ashok Kumar. On reverse Faber-Krahn inequalities. J. Math. Anal. Appl., 485(1):123766, 20, 2020. doi:10.1016/j.jmaa.2019.123766. 3, 4

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jmaa.2019.123766 2020

  4. [4]

    T. V. Anoop, V. Bobkov, and M. Ghosh. Neumann domains of planar analytic eigenfunctions. arXiv:2410.07811, 2024. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2410.07811. 12, 15

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2410.07811 2024

  5. [5]

    T. V. Anoop, V. Bobkov, and M. Ghosh. Reverse Faber-Krahn inequality for planar doubly connected domains. arXiv:2410.07811, 2025. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2509.17480. 3, 4, 5, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 18, 24

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.17480 2025

  6. [6]

    T. V. Anoop, V. Bobkov, and S. Sasi. On the strict monotonicity of the first eigenvalue of the p-Laplacian on annuli. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 370(10):7181–7199, 2018. doi:10.1090/tran/

    work page doi:10.1090/tran/ 2018

  7. [7]

    T. V. Anoop and M. Ghosh. Reverse Faber-Krahn inequalities for Zaremba problems. Topol. Methods Nonlinear Anal., 64(1):257–278, 2024. doi:10.12775/TMNA.2023.055. 3, 4, 6, 14, 24

    work page doi:10.12775/tmna.2023.055 2024

  8. [8]

    R. Band, G. Cox, and S. K. Egger. Defining the spectral position of a Neumann domain. Anal. PDE, 16(9):2147–2171, 2023. doi:10.2140/apde.2023.16.2147. 12, 18

    work page doi:10.2140/apde.2023.16.2147 2023

  9. [9]

    Band and D

    R. Band and D. Fajman. Topological properties of Neumann domains. Ann. Henri Poincaré, 17(9):2379–2407, 2016. doi:10.1007/s00023-016-0468-7 . 12

    work page doi:10.1007/s00023-016-0468-7 2016

  10. [10]

    Banyaga and D

    A. Banyaga and D. Hurtubise. Lectures on Morse homology, volume 29 of Kluwer Texts in the Mathematical Sciences. Kluwer Academic Publishers Group, Dordrecht, 2004. doi:10.1007/ 978-1-4020-2696-6 . 23

    2004

  11. [11]

    Bucur, P

    D. Bucur, P. Freitas, and J. Kennedy. The Robin problem. In Shape optimization and spectral theory, pages 78–119. De Gruyter Open, Warsaw, 2017. doi:10.1515/9783110550887-004. 8

    work page doi:10.1515/9783110550887-004 2017

  12. [12]

    Della Pietra, C

    F. Della Pietra, C. Nitsch, and C. Trombetti. An optimal insulation problem. Math. Ann., 382(1-2):745–759, 2022. doi:10.1007/s00208-020-02058-6 . 7

    work page doi:10.1007/s00208-020-02058-6 2022

  13. [13]

    Della Pietra and G

    F. Della Pietra and G. Piscitelli. An optimal bound for nonlinear eigenvalues and tor- sional rigidity on domains with holes. Milan J. Math., 88(2):373–384, 2020. doi:10.1007/ s00032-020-00320-9 . 4, 14, 24

    2020

  14. [14]

    Gavitone and G

    N. Gavitone and G. Piscitelli. A sharp bound for the first Robin-Dirichlet eigenvalue. J. Optim. Theory Appl., 203(1):745–766, 2024. doi:10.1007/s10957-024-02531-1 . 4

    work page doi:10.1007/s10957-024-02531-1 2024

  15. [15]

    Gilbarg and N

    D. Gilbarg and N. S. Trudinger. Elliptic partial differential equations of second order. Classics in Mathematics. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2001. Reprint of the 1998 edition. 2

    2001

  16. [16]

    V. Z. Grines, T. V. Medvedev, and O. V. Pochinka. Dynamical systems on 2- and 3-manifolds, volume 46 of Developments in Mathematics. Springer, Cham, 2016. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-44847-3 . 17, 20

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-319-44847-3 2016

  17. [17]

    V. Z. Grines, E. V. Zhuzhoma, V. S. Medvedev, and O. V. Pochinka. Global attractor and repeller of Morse–Smale diffeomorphisms. Proceedings of the Steklov Institute of Mathematics, 271(1):103–124, 2010. doi:10.1134/S0081543810040097. 18, 19, 20

    work page doi:10.1134/s0081543810040097 2010

  18. [18]

    E. M. Harrell, II, P. Kröger, and K. Kurata. On the placement of an obstacle or a well so as to optimize the fundamental eigenvalue. SIAM J. Math. Anal., 33(1):240–259, 2001. doi: 10.1137/S0036141099357574. 4

    work page doi:10.1137/s0036141099357574 2001

  19. [19]

    A. Henrot. Extremum problems for eigenvalues of elliptic operators. Springer, 2006. doi: 10.1007/3-7643-7706-2 . 3

    work page doi:10.1007/3-7643-7706-2 2006

  20. [20]

    J. Hersch. The method of interior parallels applied to polygonal or multiply connected mem- branes. Pacific J. Math., 13:1229–1238, 1963. URL: http://projecteuclid.org/euclid.pjm/ 1103034558. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 12

    1963

  21. [21]

    Hug and W

    D. Hug and W. Weil. Lectures on convex geometry, volume 286 of Graduate Texts in Mathematics. Springer, Cham, [2020] ©2020. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-50180-8 . 5, 6

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-030-50180-8 2020

  22. [22]

    J. Jost. Riemannian geometry and geometric analysis. Universitext. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, fourth edition, 2005. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-61860-9 . 11

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-319-61860-9 2005

  23. [23]

    S. Kesavan. On two functionals connected to the Laplacian in a class of doubly connected domains. Proc. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh Sect. A, 133(3):617–624, 2003. doi:10.1017/S0308210500002560. 4 25

    work page doi:10.1017/s0308210500002560 2003

  24. [24]

    A. Lemmens. A local Jordan-Brouwer separation theorem. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.13221,

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  25. [25]

    URL: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1810.13221. 20

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1810.13221

  26. [26]

    G. M. Lieberman. Boundary regularity for solutions of degenerate elliptic equations. Nonlinear Analysis: Theory, Methods & Applications, 12(11):1203–1219, 1988. doi:10.1016/ 0362-546X(88)90053-3. 14

    1988

  27. [27]

    Paoli, G

    G. Paoli, G. Piscitelli, and L. Trani. Sharp estimates for the first p-Laplacian eigenvalue and for the p-torsional rigidity on convex sets with holes. ESAIM Control Optim. Calc. Var., 26:Paper No. 111, 15, 2020. doi:10.1051/cocv/2020033. 3, 4, 14

    work page doi:10.1051/cocv/2020033 2020

  28. [28]

    L. E. Payne and H. F. Weinberger. Some isoperimetric inequalities for membrane frequencies and torsional rigidity. J. Math. Anal. Appl., 2:210–216, 1961. doi:10.1016/0022-247X(61)90031-2. 2, 4, 14

    work page doi:10.1016/0022-247x(61)90031-2 1961

  29. [29]

    L. Perko. Differential equations and dynamical systems, volume 7 of Texts in Applied Mathematics. Springer-Verlag, New York, third edition, 2001. doi:10.1007/ 978-1-4613-0003-8 . 15

    2001

  30. [30]

    Robinson

    C. Robinson. Dynamical systems: stability, symbolic dynamics, and chaos. CRC Press, 1998. 17

    1998

  31. [31]

    L. A. Santaló. Integral geometry and geometric probability. Addison-Wesley Publishing Com- pany, 1976. 6

    1976

  32. [32]

    Schneider

    R. Schneider. Convex bodies: the Brunn-Minkowski theory, volume 151 of Encyclopedia of Mathematics and its Applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, expanded edition,

  33. [33]

    doi:10.1017/CBO9780511526282. 4, 5, 6

    work page doi:10.1017/cbo9780511526282

  34. [34]

    S. Smale. Differentiable dynamical systems. Bull. Amer. Math. Soc., 73:747–817, 1967. doi: 10.1090/S0002-9904-1967-11798-1 . 17

    work page doi:10.1090/s0002-9904-1967-11798-1 1967

  35. [35]

    Sz.-Nagy

    B. Sz.-Nagy. Über Parallelmengen nichtkonvexer ebener Bereiche. Acta Sci. Math. (Szeged), 20:36–47, 1959. 3

    1959

  36. [36]

    Uhlenbeck

    K. Uhlenbeck. Generic properties of eigenfunctions. Amer. J. Math., 98(4):1059–1078, 1976. doi:10.2307/2374041. 8, 24

    work page doi:10.2307/2374041 1976

  37. [37]

    H. F. Weinberger. An effectless cutting of a vibrating membrane. Pacific J. Math., 13:1239–1240,

  38. [38]

    1, 3, 4, 5, 11, 12, 18 26 (T

    URL: http://projecteuclid.org/euclid.pjm/1103034559. 1, 3, 4, 5, 11, 12, 18 26 (T. V. Anoop) Department of Mathematics, Indian Institute of Technology Madras Chennai 36, India 0000-0002-2470-9140 E-mail address : anoop@iitm.ac.in (V. Bobkov) Institute of Mathematics, Ufa Federal Research Centre, RAS Chernyshevsky str. 112, 450008 Ufa, Russia 0000-0002-442...

    work page arXiv