On the absence of point defects in biaxial Landau--de Gennes models

Haotong Fu; Huaijie Wang; Wei Wang; Zhifei Zhang

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 20 references

On the absence of point defects in biaxial Landau--de Gennes models

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Local minimizers into the biaxial vacuum manifold are smooth, with no interior point defects.

desk verdict Serious, detailed proof that biaxial LdG local minimizers have no point defects; the only real question is the imported Berger-sphere formulas. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.04908 v1 pith:7SJPBP7Y submitted 2026-08-05 math.AP math-phmath.DGmath.MP

Haotong Fu , Huaijie Wang , Wei Wang , Zhifei Zhang This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.APmath-phmath.DGmath.MP MSC 35B6558E2076A15

keywords Landau-deGennesbiaxialnematicpointdefectsharmonicmapsBergermetricstabilitysmall-elastic-constantlimitliquidcrystals

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

The paper sets out to prove that, in the small-elastic-constant limit of a sextic Landau–de Gennes model, local minimizers of the Dirichlet energy into the biaxial vacuum manifold cannot have interior point singularities. The result would mean that interior defects in biaxial nematic liquid crystals are limited to line defects or none at all, in contrast with the standard uniaxial hedgehog point defect. The proof identifies the lifted metric on the universal cover of the vacuum manifold with a rescaled Berger metric and then constructs a variation field adapted to the Hopf direction that makes any hypothetical spherical tangent cone quantitatively unstable. The main insight is that the non-round target metric is not an obstacle to regularity but the mechanism that excludes point defects.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing identity is (2.9): the pullback of the Frobenius metric on the biaxial vacuum manifold $N_b$ to its universal cover $S^3$ is, up to an explicit diffeomorphism and a constant rescaling, the Berger metric $g_4$, which weights the Hopf-circle direction by a factor of four. The other central object is a variation field $W=N+k(C)T$ along the harmonic two-sphere link, where $N$ is the global unit normal of the branched minimal immersion, $T$ is the tangential part of the unit Hopf Killing field, and $k(C)=6C/(1+3C^2)$ depends on the angle $C$ between $N$ and that Hopf field. The surface identities of Lemma 4.6 make this field infinitesimally isometric, and Lemmas 4.10 and 4.11 convert the same identities into the quantitative bounds $|W|^2_{g_4}\le 13/4$ and $I_{g_4}(W,W)\le -8\pi$. This target-specific construction remains smooth across branch points and replaces the round-sphere test fields that cannot be used with the Berger target metric.

What would settle it

Take an explicit nonconstant harmonic two-sphere $\varphi$ from $S^2$ to $(S^3,g_4)$ (for example the totally geodesic Hopf-fiber sphere), compute the angle $C=g_4(N,\xi\circ\varphi)$, the field $W=N+\frac{6C}{1+3C^2}(\xi\circ\varphi-CN)$, and the index form $I_{g_4}(W,W)$ together with $\|W\|^2_{g_4}$. If either $I_{g_4}(W,W)>-8\pi$ or $\|W\|^2_{g_4}>13/4$, Proposition 4.1 fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Theorem 1.1: every local minimizer $Q_0 \in H^1_{loc}(\Omega;N_b)$ of the Dirichlet energy (1.5) is smooth in the interior, so the point-defect set $S_{pts}$ is empty. To prove it, the paper argues by contradiction: a hypothetical point singularity would blow up to a nonconstant zero-homogeneous tangent map whose link is a harmonic two-sphere in the Berger sphere, and local minimality would force that link to satisfy a shifted stability inequality. The paper then constructs a smooth variation field $W=N+k(C)T$ along the link and shows this field is infinitesimally isometric, has squared length at most $13/4$, and has index form at most $-8\pi$, contradicting the shifted bound. Hence no point-defect tangent cone exists, $S_{pts}$ is empty, and $Q_0$ is $C^\infty$ in the interior.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the spherical link of a hypothetical point singularity satisfies the precise surface identities derived in Lemma 4.6, equivalently that the holomorphic quadratic differential controlling the geometry of surfaces in the Berger sphere vanishes with the parameters (4,2) and extends smoothly through branch points. If the parameter identification or the removable-singularity step fails, the constructed field's bounds $13/4$ and $-8\pi$ would change and the contradiction with cone stability could collapse.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the theorem is correct, the limiting map $Q_0$ is smooth throughout the interior of the domain, so the only possible singularities in the small-elastic-constant limit are line defects (or none), never isolated points.
The proof supplies an explicit instability direction with quantitative bounds, so the nonexistence of point defects is certified by a direct second-variation estimate rather than by curvature estimates alone.
The result marks a sharp contrast with uniaxial models, where the radial hedgehog is a genuine interior point defect; biaxiality itself is the feature that excludes point singularities.
Because the blow-up link is a harmonic two-sphere in the Berger sphere, the contradiction also shows that no such nonconstant sphere can be stable in the shifted sense, a stronger geometric statement than the absence of point defects alone.

Reading between the lines

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

Editorial inference: the same Hopf-adapted instability construction should apply to stable stationary harmonic maps into other homogeneous three-manifolds carrying a unit Killing field with the same algebraic structure, extending the no-point-defect conclusion beyond this vacuum manifold.
Editorial inference: because the proof concerns the limiting map $Q_0$, it leaves open whether positive-$\varepsilon$ local minimizers develop point defects before the limit; a uniform-in-$\varepsilon$ regularity estimate near a potential blow-up point is a natural next step.
Editorial inference: with point defects excluded, the remaining singular set is a union of line defects, and the Hopf-fiber structure used here may help classify the allowed homotopy classes and energy asymptotics of those line defects.

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

Colleague—

The thing to know: this paper proves a genuinely new regularity result—local minimizers of the biaxial Landau–de Gennes energy have no interior point singularities. The proof is real: they identify the lifted Frobenius metric on S^3 with a rescaled Berger metric, then show that a hypothetical tangent cone link (a harmonic two-sphere into the Berger sphere) admits a smooth destabilizing variation whose index is ≤ -8π, contradicting the shifted stability inequality. The construction of the variation field is the heart of the paper, and it is original.

What's good: The metric identification (Lemma 2.8) is explicit and checked. The stability-to-instability contradiction is assembled carefully; the estimates in Lemmas 4.6–4.11 and the Gauss-Bonnet argument in Lemma 4.10 are detailed. The paper does not hand-wave. It also correctly notes that prior Lie-group regularity results (Krantz) don't apply because the Berger metric is not bi-invariant, and that uniaxial point defects exist, so the result is sharp in that sense.

The soft spot: the whole contradiction hinges on Lemma 4.6, where they import compatibility equations from Torralbo–Urbano [19] for surfaces in the Berger sphere with (κ,τ)=(4,2). They don't re-derive those equations; they just identify their metric with [19]'s and read off the Abresch–Rosenberg differential and the compatibility system. If the parameter mapping or the normalization of the vertical Killing field is off by a constant or sign, the identities (4.22)–(4.26) get different coefficients, and the -8π bound could fail. I don't see an internal error in how they use those formulas afterward, but this is the least externally secured step. A referee should check this identification carefully.

Also worth noting: the convergence from the LdG energy to the harmonic map relies on the authors' own earlier theorem with Zhang [20]. That's overlapping authorship, but it's a published preprint and the result is context, not part of the proof of Theorem 1.1. Not a flaw.

The paper is for specialists in harmonic maps and Landau–de Gennes theory; it deserves a serious referee, not a desk reject. If the Torralbo–Urbano identification verifies, this is a clean, significant result.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proves Theorem 1.1: if Q0 ∈ H¹_loc(Ω; Nb) is a local minimizer of the Dirichlet energy E(Q;U) = (1/2)∫_U |∇Q|²_F dx for maps with values in the biaxial vacuum manifold Nb of the sextic Landau–de Gennes potential, then Q0 ∈ C^∞_loc(Ω;Nb), i.e., the point-defect set S_pts introduced by the small-elastic-constant limit is empty. The proof has four steps. (1) Section 2 shows that the quaternionic covering P: S³ → Nb pulls the Frobenius metric back to the explicit Berger metric 8r*²g4 up to a diffeomorphism (Lemma 2.8). (2) Section 3 shows that a hypothetical point singularity produces, by the Schoen–Uhlenbeck blow-up analysis, a nonconstant harmonic link φ: (S²,gr) → (S³,g4) satisfying the shifted stability inequality (3.5). (3) Section 4 establishes Proposition 4.1: every nonconstant harmonic two-sphere in the Berger sphere admits a global smooth vector field W along φ with pointwise length bound |W|² ≤ 13/4 and index form I(W,W) ≤ −8π. The construction uses the Abresch–Rosenberg differential (Lemma 4.6), an infinitesimally isometric variation field W = N + k(C)T (Lemma 4.7), the Jacobi potential q = (1/2)(1+3C²)² (Lemma 4.9), a curvature-one conformal rescaling of the induced metric (Lemma 4.10), and the Ejiri–Micallef comparison between energy and area Hessians (Lemma 4.11). (4) Section 5 combines −8π + 13π/4 = −19π/4 < 0 with (3.5) to obtain the contradiction.

Significance. If correct, Theorem 1.1 is a significant contribution to the regularity theory of Landau–de Gennes limits: it excludes interior point defects for the biaxial vacuum manifold, in sharp contrast with the uniaxial case where the radial hedgehog is the standard point singularity. The geometric idea is genuinely new — the lifted Frobenius metric is a Berger metric rather than the round metric, so the classical round-sphere test fields are replaced by a target-adapted field combining the ramified normal with the Hopf Killing field. The paper is unusually explicit: Lemma 4.4 is a self-contained branch-point factorization via a Cauchy–Green fixed-point argument; the length bound (4.30)–(4.32) and the Gauss–Bonnet computation (4.53)–(4.54) are fully written out; and the constants 13/4 and 8π are explicit and comfortably beat the 1/4 shift in (3.5). I verified that the downstream algebra — Lemmas 4.7, 4.9, 4.10, and the final arithmetic in Section 5 — is internally consistent given the identities (4.24)–(4.26).

major comments (3)

[§4.3, Eqs. (4.23)–(4.24)] Equations (4.24) do not follow from (4.23) under the conventions stated in the paper. With ∂z = (1/2)(∂x − i∂y) (Lemma 4.4) and ā = (1/2)(a − ib) (Eq. (4.21)), one computes ā_z = (1/4)[(a_x − b_y) − i(b_x + a_y)]. Setting this equal to ie^{2u}C gives a_x = b_y and a_y + b_x = −4e^{2u}C, whereas (4.24) asserts a_x + b_y = 0 and a_y − b_x = 4e^{2u}C; the two systems coincide only in degenerate cases. The intended identities do follow if the second displayed equation of (4.23) is read as ā_{z̄} = ie^{2u}C (with ∂_{z̄} = (1/2)(∂x + i∂y)) and if the second term of the first displayed equation contains the conjugate ā, i.e., C_z = 2ia − 2e^{−2u}āp. As printed, the paper mixes two complex-conjugation conventions; Eq. (4.6) has the same problem, since with the stated ∂z the expression 4∇_{∂z}φ_z is not the tension, the correct identity being τ = 4e^{−2v}∇_{∂z̄}φ_z. Since (4.24) feeds into (4.25)–(4.26), into the Jacobi potential q = (1/2)(1+3C²)² (Lemma 4.9), into the curvature-one rescaling (Lemma 4.10), and ultimately into the bound I(W,W) ≤ −8π (Proposition 4.1), this is the load-bearing algebraic step; it must be corrected and the conventions stated unambiguously.
[§4.3, identification with [19]] The quantitative constants 13/4 and −8π — and hence the contradiction in Section 5 — depend on the exact normalization of the Abresch–Rosenberg differential and of the compatibility equations imported from [19, (3.2) and Prop. 3.1] with (κ,τ) = (4,2). The paper states the identification g_{4,2} = g_r + 3g_r(·,V_H)² and τ = 2, but it does not verify that [19]'s vertical Killing field is normalized to unit g₄-length (which in the present paper is ξ = V_H/2) nor that [19]'s complex one-form and Hopf-differential conventions match (4.21). Given the conjugate mismatches documented in Major Comment 1, I cannot determine from the manuscript alone whether the transcription of [19, (3.2), (3.3)] is faithful. The authors should either reproduce the derivation of (4.23) from [19] with page and equation numbers for each displayed formula, or give a self-contained derivation of (4.22)–(4.26) in an appendix; Proposition 4.1 is not independently verifiable without one of these.
[§3, Lemma 3.1] The Hardy-type computation in the proof of Lemma 3.1 is incorrect as displayed. For η_R(r) = r^{−1/2}χ(log(r/R)), the substitution s = log(r/R) gives η_R(r) = R^{−1/2}e^{−s/2}χ(s), so ∫₀^∞ η_R² dr = ∫χ² ds and ∫₀^∞ r²|η'_R|² dr = ∫(χ' − χ/2)² ds = ∫|χ'|² ds + (1/4)∫χ² ds (the cross term vanishes for compactly supported χ). The quotient is therefore 1/4 + (∫|χ'|² ds)/(∫χ² ds), independent of R; the displayed factor 1/R² and the conclusion '→ 1/4' do not follow. The lemma can be repaired by the standard two-parameter family η_{R,ε}(r) = r^{−1/2}χ(ε log(r/R)) with ε → 0, so (3.5) is recoverable, but the proof as written leaves a gap at the very inequality that Section 5 contradicts.

minor comments (4)

[§4, Eq. (4.6)] The displayed identity τ = 4e^{−2v}∇^{φ*g₄}_{∂z}φ_z is not correct for the ∂z defined in Lemma 4.4; with ∂z = (1/2)(∂x − i∂y), 4∇_{∂z}φ_z = (∇_{∂x}φ_x − ∇_{∂y}φ_y) − i(∇_{∂x}φ_y + ∇_{∂y}φ_x), whose imaginary part is −2∇_{∂x}φ_y rather than 0 and whose real part is not the tension. The correct identity is τ = 4e^{−2v}∇^{φ*g₄}_{∂z̄}φ_z; please correct this together with the convention issues in Major Comment 1.
[§4.3, notation] The symbol 'a' is overloaded in the proof of Lemma 4.6: it denotes the one-form coefficient in γ = a dx + b dy, the complex quantity ā = (1/2)(a − ib) in (4.21), and, in (4.23), a symbol without a bar whose placement determines which system (4.24) is obtained. Please disambiguate, for instance by using α, β for the coefficients of γ and reserving a for the complex function.
[References] The reference list is internally inconsistent in format: '[11] Krantz J.' and '[20] Wang W. and Zhang Z.' deviate from the name conventions of the other entries, and the preprint status of [5], [8], [9], [11], and [20] should be marked uniformly.
[Remark 1.2(2)] The description 'Krantz [11, Proposition 8.1] likewise proves generalized results for the case where the target manifold is a Lie group' is vague about what is generalized and why the result fails for the present Berger metric; since [11] is a preprint, please add a sentence specifying the content of [11, Prop. 8.1] and the precise obstruction.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the proof of Theorem 1.1 is self-contained from a geometric computation of the lifted metric through a quantitative instability estimate; the only overlapping-author citation supplies non-load-bearing background.

full rationale

The central derivation is not circular. Lemma 2.8 directly computes the lifted Frobenius metric and identifies it with a rescaled Berger metric, so the target geometry is established by an explicit computation rather than assumed. The blow-up argument in Section 3 reduces a hypothetical point singularity to a nonconstant harmonic two-sphere into the Berger sphere using standard Schoen–Uhlenbeck theory; this reduction is an external mathematical input, not an equivalent reformulation of the conclusion. The shifted stability inequality (3.5) is derived from local minimality and a logarithmic cutoff, again without importing the desired regularity. The instability estimate in Proposition 4.1 is constructed, not fitted: the section W is built from the geometry of the Berger sphere, the constants 13/4 and -8π are computed from algebraic inequalities and Gauss–Bonnet, and the area lower bound comes from a genuinely external theorem. The only same-author citation that appears in the narrative is [20], used to pass from Landau–de Gennes minimizers to the limiting harmonic map Q0; that passage is contextual background and is not used in the proof of Theorem 1.1, which begins with the local-minimizer hypothesis for Q0. A possible fragility in the identification with Torralbo–Urbano's (κ,τ)=(4,2) Berger-sphere formulas is a correctness risk about an external cited theorem, not a circular step in this paper's derivation.

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

The paper introduces no free parameters: the material constants and r* appear only through a constant rescaling c=8r_*² that cancels out of the shifted stability inequality after applying (2.18) to the local isometry. The proof introduces no new physical entities. It relies on the established theorems listed as axioms, including the prior Wang-Zhang convergence result [20] (overlap with the present authors), which supplies the LdG setting but is not needed for the geometric core of Theorem 1.1.

assumptions (6)

standard math Schoen-Uhlenbeck regularity theory: energy-minimizing harmonic maps into smooth compact targets have discrete singular set in dimension 3, and blow-up produces energy-minimizing tangent maps with smooth link.
Invoked in Section 3 to pass from a point singularity to a nonconstant harmonic link and in Section 1 to justify S_pts discrete.
standard math Sacks-Uhlenbeck and Gulliver-Osserman-Royden: every nonconstant harmonic map from S^2 to a Riemannian manifold is a conformal branched minimal immersion with isolated branch points.
Used in Lemma 4.2.
domain assumption Torralbo-Urbano formulas for surfaces in Berger spheres: the Abresch-Rosenberg differential is holomorphic and the compatibility equations (4.23)-(4.24) hold with parameters (κ,τ)=(4,2).
Central to Lemma 4.6 and Lemma 4.9.
standard math Ejiri-Micallef comparison identity between energy and area Hessians for branched conformal immersions, equation (4.57).
Used in Lemma 4.11.
standard math Aronszajn unique continuation for elliptic systems, used in Lemma 4.4.
Ensures the holomorphic function P^{-1}u does not vanish identically.
domain assumption Wang-Zhang convergence theorem [20]: local minimizers of E_ε converge to a local minimizer Q0 of (1.5) under uniform energy and L∞ bounds.
Provides the setting in which Q0 arises from the small-elastic-constant limit; note overlapping authors with the present paper.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of On the absence of point defects in biaxial Landau--de Gennes models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7SJPBP7Y

@misc{pith2026260804908,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: On the absence of point defects in biaxial Landau--de Gennes models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7SJPBP7Y}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.04908}
}

abstract

We study local minimizers of a sextic-potential Landau--de Gennes energy for nematic liquid crystals in the small-elastic-constant limit. Under the uniform energy and $L^\infty$ bounds, these minimizers converge to a locally energy-minimizing harmonic map $\mathbf{Q}_0$ into a biaxial vacuum manifold. The main result of this paper is that such a limiting map $\mathbf{Q}_0$ has no interior point singularities. The proof relies on a geometric identification of the lifted Frobenius metric on the universal cover $\mathbb{S}^3$ with a rescaled Berger metric. For a hypothetical tangent cone at a point singularity, its link is a nonconstant harmonic two-sphere into the Berger sphere. We construct a smooth variation field adapted to the Hopf direction and show that it induces a quantitative instability estimate, in contradiction with the shifted stability inequality inherited from local minimality. This replaces the usual round-sphere test fields by a target-specific construction and rules out interior point defects in the biaxial setting. The result is sharp in view of the well-known existence of point defects in the uniaxial theory.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

20 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages

[19]

Torralbo and F

F. Torralbo and F. Urbano. Compact stable constant mean curvature surfaces in homogeneous 3-manifolds. Indiana Univ. Math. J., 61(3):1129–1156, 2012

work page 2012
[20]

and Zhang Z

Wang W. and Zhang Z. Landau-de Gennes model with sextic potentials: asymptotic behavior of minimizers. Preprint, arXiv:2404.00677 [math.AP] (2024), 2024. School of Mathematical Sciences, Peking University, Beijing 100871, China Email address:2301110012@pku.edu.cn School of Mathematical Sciences, Peking University, Beijing 100871, China Email address:huaij...

arXiv 2024
[1]

Allender and L

D. Allender and L. Longa. Landau–de Gennes theory of biaxial nematics reexamined.Phys. Rev. E, 78(1):011704, 2008

work page 2008
[2]

Aronszajn

N. Aronszajn. A unique continuation theorem for solutions of elliptic partial differential equations or inequalities of second order.J. Math. Pures Appl. (9), 36:235–249, 1957

work page 1957
[3]

Canevari

G. Canevari. Biaxiality in the asymptotic analysis of a 2D Landau-de Gennes model for liquid crystals.ESAIM, Control Optim. Calc. Var., 21(1):101–137, 2015

2015
[4]

Canevari

G. Canevari. Line defects in the small elastic constant limit of a three-dimensional Landau-de Gennes model. Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal., 223(2):591–676, 2017

2017
[5]

Singular Limits for Three-Dimensional Global Minimizers of Ginzburg--Landau-Type Functionals: Uniform Estimates and Singular Sets

G. Canevari, H. Fu, and W. Wang. Singular Limits for Three-Dimensional Global Minimizers of Ginzburg– Landau-Type Functionals: Uniform Estimates and Singular Sets. Preprint, arXiv:2606.27691 [math.AP] (2026), 2026

work page Pith review arXiv 2026
[6]

Ejiri and M

N. Ejiri and M. Micallef. Comparison between second variation of area and second variation of energy of a minimal surface.Adv. Calc. Var., 1(3):223–239, 2008

work page 2008

Show all 20 references

[7]

Feng and M

Z. Feng and M. Hong. Existence of minimizers and convergence of critical points for a new Landau-de Gennes energy functional in nematic liquid crystals.Calc. Var. Partial Differ. Equ., 61(6):36, 2022. Id/No 219

2022
[8]

H. Fu, H. Wang, and W. Wang. Improved convergence of landau–de Gennes minimizers in the vanishing elasticity limit. Preprint, arXiv:2507.14955 [math.AP] (2025), 2025

2025 arXiv
[9]

H. Fu, H. Wang, and W. Wang. Uniform estimates of Landau-de Gennes minimizers in the vanishing elasticity limit with line defects.SIAM J. Math. Anal., 58(4):3306–3324, 2026

2026
[10]

R. D. II Gulliver, R. Osserman, and H. L. Royden. A theory of branched immersions of surfaces.Am. J. Math., 95:750–812, 1973

1973
[11]

Partial Regularity of Stable Stationary Harmonic Maps into Certain Lie Groups

Krantz J. Partial Regularity of Stable Stationary Harmonic Maps into Certain Lie Groups. Preprint, arXiv:2605.03809 [math.DG] (2026), 2026

2026 arXiv
[12]

Lin and C

F. Lin and C. Wang. Stable stationary harmonic maps to spheres.Acta Math. Sin., Engl. Ser., 22(2):319–330, 2006

2006
[13]

Majumdar and A

A. Majumdar and A. Zarnescu. Landau-De Gennes theory of nematic liquid crystals: the Oseen-Frank limit and beyond.Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal., 196(1):227–280, 2010

2010
[14]

Nguyen and A

L. Nguyen and A. Zarnescu. Refined approximation for minimizers of a Landau-de Gennes energy functional. Calc. Var. Partial Differ. Equ., 47(1-2):383–432, 2013

2013
[15]

Sacks and K

J. Sacks and K. Uhlenbeck. The existence of minimal immersions of 2-spheres.Ann. Math. (2), 113:1–24, 1981

1981
[16]

Schoen and K

R. Schoen and K. Uhlenbeck. A regularity theory for harmonic maps.J. Differ. Geom., 17(2):307–335, 1982

1982
[17]

Schoen and K

R. Schoen and K. Uhlenbeck. Regularity of minimizing harmonic maps into the sphere.Invent. Math., 78:89–100, 1984

1984
[18]

Severing and K

K. Severing and K. Saalw¨ achter. Biaxial nematic phase in a thermotropic liquid-crystalline side-chain polymer. Phys. Rev. Lett., 92(12):125501, 2004

2004

Pith tools

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

[1] [19]

Torralbo and F

F. Torralbo and F. Urbano. Compact stable constant mean curvature surfaces in homogeneous 3-manifolds. Indiana Univ. Math. J., 61(3):1129–1156, 2012

work page 2012

[2] [20]

and Zhang Z

Wang W. and Zhang Z. Landau-de Gennes model with sextic potentials: asymptotic behavior of minimizers. Preprint, arXiv:2404.00677 [math.AP] (2024), 2024. School of Mathematical Sciences, Peking University, Beijing 100871, China Email address:2301110012@pku.edu.cn School of Mathematical Sciences, Peking University, Beijing 100871, China Email address:huaij...

arXiv 2024

[3] [1]

Allender and L

D. Allender and L. Longa. Landau–de Gennes theory of biaxial nematics reexamined.Phys. Rev. E, 78(1):011704, 2008

work page 2008

[4] [2]

Aronszajn

N. Aronszajn. A unique continuation theorem for solutions of elliptic partial differential equations or inequalities of second order.J. Math. Pures Appl. (9), 36:235–249, 1957

work page 1957

[5] [3]

Canevari

G. Canevari. Biaxiality in the asymptotic analysis of a 2D Landau-de Gennes model for liquid crystals.ESAIM, Control Optim. Calc. Var., 21(1):101–137, 2015

2015

[6] [4]

Canevari

G. Canevari. Line defects in the small elastic constant limit of a three-dimensional Landau-de Gennes model. Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal., 223(2):591–676, 2017

2017

[7] [5]

Singular Limits for Three-Dimensional Global Minimizers of Ginzburg--Landau-Type Functionals: Uniform Estimates and Singular Sets

G. Canevari, H. Fu, and W. Wang. Singular Limits for Three-Dimensional Global Minimizers of Ginzburg– Landau-Type Functionals: Uniform Estimates and Singular Sets. Preprint, arXiv:2606.27691 [math.AP] (2026), 2026

work page Pith review arXiv 2026

[8] [6]

Ejiri and M

N. Ejiri and M. Micallef. Comparison between second variation of area and second variation of energy of a minimal surface.Adv. Calc. Var., 1(3):223–239, 2008

work page 2008