Area-charge inequalities and rigidity of time-symmetric initial data sets

Abra\~ao Mendes; Tiarlos Cruz

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 38 references

Area-charge inequalities and rigidity of time-symmetric initial data sets

T0 review · 4 major / 5 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 sharp lower bounds on the area of a boundary component of a time-symmetric Einstein-Maxwell initial data set in terms of its electric charge and cosmological constant, and shows that equality forces the manifold to split…

desk verdict Genuinely new noncompact µ-bubble area-charge inequalities, with a real gap in the rigidity half; the compact case is solid but overlaps prior work by the same authors. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.13040 v1 pith:5WBIJ67U submitted 2025-07-17 gr-qc math.DG

Tiarlos Cruz , Abraão Mendes This is my paper

classification gr-qcmath.DG MSC 53A1053C2449Q05

keywords area-chargeinequalityrigidityarea-minimizingsurfacesμ-bubblesEinstein-Maxwellinitialdatadominantenergyconditioncosmologicalconstanttime-symmetric

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 establishes sharp lower bounds on the area of a boundary component $\Sigma$ of a time-symmetric Einstein-Maxwell initial data set, in terms of the enclosed electric charge $Q(\Sigma)$ and the cosmological constant $\Lambda$, under the charged dominant energy condition $R_g \ge 2\Lambda + 2|E|^2$. The bounds hold for compact and noncompact three-manifolds with weakly mean-convex boundary, and each inequality is sharp: when equality holds, the manifold is isometric to a product $[0,\ell]\times \Sigma$ (or a half-cylinder $[0,\infty)\times\Sigma$) whose slices have constant Gaussian curvature $a^2+\Lambda$, with electric field $E = aN$ normal to the foliation. The results have no analogue in the uncharged setting except for a known negative-cosmological-constant case, and they allow charged tori and higher-genus boundary surfaces when $\Lambda<0$. The noncompact case is handled by the $\mu$-bubble technique, applied here to this charged-setting problem for the first time.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by stable minimal surface theory plus two tools. First, for a minimal weakly outermost or area-minimizing boundary, the Gauss-Bonnet theorem and Cauchy-Schwarz produce the master inequality $\Lambda|\Sigma| + 16\pi^2 Q(\Sigma)^2/|\Sigma| \le 2\pi\chi(\Sigma)$ (Eq. 3.4), from which all the area bounds follow by algebra. Second, in the equality case a local rigidity proposition (Proposition 6) uses the evolution equation for mean curvature under normal variations to show that a collar neighborhood of $\Sigma$ splits as $[0,\delta)\times\Sigma$ with $E=aN_t$ and constant Gaussian curvature. For the noncompact theorem, the $\mu$-bubble, a minimizer of the weighted area functional $\Omega\mapsto H^{n-1}(\partial\Omega) - \int_\Omega h$, is used to produce a sequence of surfaces with prescribed mean curvature, whose limits are area-minimizing minimal boundaries via curvature estimates.

What would settle it

A concrete counterexample would settle the claim: construct a complete noncompact time-symmetric Einstein-Maxwell 3-manifold satisfying the hypotheses of Theorem 3 whose boundary area is strictly less than the bound in Eq. (1.5) or (1.6). An equality case that is not isometric to the half-cylinder product would refute the rigidity statement.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is a family of sharp area-charge inequalities for a connected weakly mean-convex boundary component $\Sigma$ of a time-symmetric Einstein-Maxwell initial data set $(M^3,g,E)$ with $\operatorname{div} E=0$ and $R_g \ge 2\Lambda+2|E|^2$. For $\Lambda>0$, the paper proves $4\Lambda Q(\Sigma)^2\le 1$ and $|\Sigma| \ge \frac{2\pi}{\Lambda}(1-\sqrt{1-4\Lambda Q(\Sigma)^2})$ (Eq. 1.1); for $\Lambda=0$, $|\Sigma|\ge 4\pi Q(\Sigma)^2$ (Eq. 1.2); and for $\Lambda<0$, under specified topological hypotheses, $|\Sigma|\ge \frac{2\pi}{|\Lambda|}(\sqrt{1+4|\Lambda|Q(\Sigma)^2}-1)$ (Eq. 1.3) or the genus-dependent bound of Eq. 1.4. The same bounds hold for the compact boundary of a complete noncompact manifold under $H_2(M,\partial M)=0$ and uniform positivity of $\Lambda+|E|^2$. Equality in any bound forces $(M,g)$ to be a Riemannian product $([0,\ell]\times\Sigma, dt^2+g_0)$ (or a half-cylinder in the noncompact case) with constant Gaussian curvature $\kappa_g=a^2+\Lambda$ and $E=aN$; for $\Lambda>0$ equality forces the genus of $\Sigma$ to be zero.

Load-bearing premise

The noncompact result depends on the assumption that the approximating minimal surfaces settle down to a single smooth limiting surface rather than developing multiple layers or degenerating; without this, the rigidity conclusion could fail.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For $\Lambda=0$, any weakly mean-convex boundary component with $H_2(M,\Sigma)=0$ must have area at least $4\pi Q(\Sigma)^2$, so a small area forces a small enclosed charge.
Equality in the $\Lambda>0$ bound forces the boundary to be a round sphere in a Bertotti-Robinson-type product, and the same rigidity extends to the noncompact complete case.
When $\Lambda<0$, the area bound holds for incompressible boundary surfaces of any genus in irreducible manifolds without non-orientable surfaces; charged tori admit the explicit lower bound $|\Sigma|\ge 4\pi |Q(\Sigma)|/\sqrt{|\Lambda|}$.
In the noncompact setting, a connected compact weakly mean-convex boundary satisfying $H_2(M,\partial M)=0$ obeys the same sharp bounds; equality gives an isometry to a half-cylinder $[0,\infty)\times\partial M$ with constant-curvature slices.
The paper notes that the results remain valid, with appropriate adaptations, when a magnetic field $B$ is present.

Reading between the lines

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

If the $\mu$-bubble convergence step is robust, the same technique should yield analogous area-charge bounds for stable marginally outer trapped surfaces in non-time-symmetric initial data, where the charge is still defined by a flux integral; the paper does not pursue this.
The sharp bounds suggest an upper bound on the charge that a region of given boundary area can enclose: for $\Lambda>0$, $4\Lambda Q^2\le 1$ and $|\Sigma|$ grows with $Q$; one could test numerically whether near-extremal charged initial data in full general relativity obey the same relation.
Equality rigidity implies that the exterior of a saturating charged body is locally indistinguishable from a Bertotti-Robinson or anti-Nariai-type product; a natural extension would be to globalize the splitting without the compactness assumptions used in the continuity argument, or to allow multiple boundary components.

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

Short version: the area-charge inequalities are real and the compact-case proof is solid; the noncompact theorem's rigidity half rests on a convergence step that is asserted rather than demonstrated. This deserves a serious referee, not a desk reject.

What's new: the µ-bubble treatment for complete noncompact manifolds (Theorem 3) and the charged higher-genus Λ<0 case in Theorem 2(2). The paper also supplies clean model solutions that saturate each bound, so the constants are not numerology. The derivation of the central inequality (3.4) from stability, Gauss–Bonnet, and Cauchy–Schwarz is self-contained and correct as far as I can see.

Weak spots, in order. First, the equality argument in Theorem 3 assumes that the µ-bubble minimizers Σ_k converge smoothly with multiplicity one to a connected area-minimizing minimal surface. This is exactly where the rigidity conclusion hangs, but the proof simply invokes [34, Theorem 3.6] and asserts the convergence, without checking that the theorem applies to these minimizers of the weighted functional on exhausting bands or proving the local graphical/multiplicity-one statement. If the limit had multiplicity or a disconnected component, the chain |∂M| ≥ |Σ| ≥ ... and Q(Σ)=Q(∂M) would not follow. This is a genuine gap in the noncompact rigidity theorem, not just a missing detail. Second, the paper leans heavily on the authors' own prior results [14] and [29] for the compact framework and for local rigidity; the overlap is not delineated, so a reader cannot tell how much of Theorem 1 is new. Third, the 'continuity argument' extending the local splitting to the whole manifold is standard but is given in one sentence; in the compact case it is probably fine, while in the noncompact case it inherits the convergence gap.

The main inequalities themselves appear sound, and the model solutions are convincing. I would send this to a serious referee, and I would ask the referee specifically to verify the convergence step in Section 4.2 and to clarify the overlap with [14] and [29].

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper establishes sharp area-charge inequalities for boundary components of time-symmetric Einstein-Maxwell initial data sets satisfying R_g ≥ 2Λ + 2|E|², in both compact and noncompact settings. The compact case (Theorems 1 and 2) uses stability of area-minimizing surfaces, Gauss-Bonnet, and a local splitting result (Proposition 6). The noncompact case (Theorem 3) employs Gromov's µ-bubble technique to produce approximating surfaces Σ_k and then pass to a limit. Sharpness is illustrated by explicit Bertotti-Robinson and Nariai-type model solutions. When equality holds, the authors claim rigidity: the manifold splits as a product of an interval and a surface of constant Gaussian curvature with electric field E = aN.

Significance. If the results are correct, the paper provides a substantial new family of geometric inequalities for charged initial data, with sharp constants and a new application of µ-bubbles to Einstein-Maxwell data. The core derivation in Proposition 4 is clean and self-contained, and the model solutions convincingly demonstrate optimality of the inequalities. The noncompact theorem (Theorem 3) is particularly novel and would extend the µ-bubble method to a charged setting. The main caveat is that the rigidity conclusions, especially in the noncompact case, depend on a compactness and convergence step that is not fully justified; the area-charge inequalities themselves are obtained before that step and appear sound.

major comments (4)

[Section 4.2 (proof of Theorem 3)] The convergence of the µ-bubble minimizers Σ_k to a smooth area-minimizing minimal boundary Σ 'in a locally graphical sense with multiplicity one' is asserted by invoking [34, Theorem 3.6], but the hypotheses of that theorem are not verified: the manuscript does not show that the stable minimizers of the weighted functionals µ_{ε_k} on the exhausting bands M_{ε_k} satisfy the conditions required by [34, Theorem 3.6], nor does it supply a proof of multiplicity-one convergence. This step is load-bearing for the rigidity claim, because the equality chain |∂M| ≥ |Σ| ≥ ... and the identity Q(Σ)=Q(Σ_k)=Q(∂M) require the limit to be a connected, multiplicity-one surface homologous to Σ_k; if the limit were degenerate or carried multiplicity, the rigidity conclusion would not follow. The area-charge inequalities (1.5)–(1.6) are obtained before this compactness step and are not affected.
[Section 4.2 (proof of Theorem 3)] After passing to the limit, the argument that Σ must be a 2-sphere is terse: it cites [36, Lemma 4.1] and [17, Theorem 8.8] to conclude that Σ consists of spherical components, and then asserts that since each Σ_k is connected, the limit Σ must be a 2-sphere. This does not rule out a limit with several spherical components, and the connectedness of the limit is not demonstrated from the stated graphical convergence or the homology. The rigidity conclusion depends on Σ being connected and homologous to ∂M, so this step needs a precise argument.
[Section 4.1 (proof of Theorem 1)] The final step of the rigidity proof relies on a 'continuity argument, extending the local splitting to the entire manifold M' without giving the details. One must show that the product collar produced by Proposition 6 can be extended monotonically across M, that the limit surface Σ_δ remains a smooth area-minimizing surface satisfying the same equality case, and that no singularities or topology changes occur before reaching the other boundary component. Since the global rigidity statements are central claims of the paper, this argument should be written out or replaced by a precise reference.
[Section 3.2 (Proposition 6)] There is a sign inconsistency in the proof. The paper defines weak mean-convexity in Section 3.1 with the inward normal N and H ≤ 0, but in Proposition 6 the inequality |Σ| − |Σ_t| = −∫_0^t H(s)(∫_{Σ_s} φ) ds ≤ 0 is justified 'since H(t) ≥ 0'. With N_t = φ^{-1}∂t pointing into M, the earlier convention gives H(0) ≤ 0, so the stated inequality requires clarification. The conclusion H(t) = 0 may still be correct, but the proof as written is not consistent with the sign conventions.

minor comments (5)

[Title/header] The title in the header contains a typo: 'DA T A' should be 'DATA'.
[Section 2] The identities for the model parameters, e.g., 'Λ = B − A/2 > 0' and 'Q² = A+B/2B²', are ambiguous; they should be typeset as (B−A)/2 and (A+B)/(2B²) respectively.
[Section 3.1 (Proposition 4)] In the proof of Proposition 4, the statement 'by evolving Σ via mean curvature flow, we obtain a surface Σ′ close to Σ whose mean curvature and area satisfy H < 0 and |Σ′| < |Σ|' should specify the direction of the flow and explain why the resulting surface is an admissible competitor for the weakly outermost condition.
[Section 4.1 (Theorem 2, Case 1)] The claim that a stable minimal surface in a manifold with R_g > 0 must be a 2-sphere is not quite immediate, since an embedded projective plane is also possible; the orientability hypotheses should be invoked explicitly.
[Section 4.2 (proof of Theorem 3)] The paper would benefit from a statement of [34, Theorem 3.6] or at least a precise description of the hypotheses that are being verified, since the compactness argument in Section 4.2 depends on it.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Area-charge inequalities are derived self-contained; the equality/rigidity conclusions defer their final product-splitting step to same-author citations.

self citation load bearing [Section 3.2, proof of Proposition 6 (final paragraph)]
"Thus, by Lemma 3.2 in [28], it follows that H(t) ≤ 0 for all t ∈ [0, δ). ... Standard computations as in [29] then yield the desired result."

Proposition 6 is the local product-splitting rigidity statement (a collar isometric to [0,δ) × Σ with E = aN_t) that powers the equality case of every main theorem. The proof stops once H(t) = 0 is obtained; the actual step producing the product metric dt² + g0 and the normal electric field E = aN_t is not carried out in the paper, but is referred to [29], a preprint by co-author Mendes. The preceding H(t) ≤ 0 conclusion also relies on Lemma 3.2 from [28], also by Mendes. The paper says it proves Proposition 6 'for the sake of completeness', but the final load-bearing computation is outsourced to a same-author citation, so the rigidity half of the central claim rests on self-citation rather than on a self-contained derivation.

full rationale

The main area-charge inequalities are not circular. Proposition 4 derives the fundamental inequality Λ|Σ| + 16π²Q(Σ)²/|Σ| ≤ 2πχ(Σ) directly from the stability inequality, Gauss-Bonnet, the charged dominant energy condition Rg ≥ 2Λ + 2|E|², and the Cauchy-Schwarz estimate for the flux Q(Σ); no parameter is fitted and no quantity is defined in terms of the desired bound. The proofs of Theorems 1 and 2 then combine this with external existence results for area-minimizing surfaces (Federer, Meeks-Simon-Yau, Hass-Scott). The noncompact argument uses Gromov's μ-bubble minimization and cites external regularity/compactness results (Zhu, Chodosh-Li, Zhou-Zhu); the possible failure of [34, Theorem 3.6] to apply is a correctness gap, not a circular reduction to the paper's own inputs. The only notable circularity-adjacent issue is the equality/rigidity chain: Proposition 6's final splitting step is explicitly deferred to [29], a same-author preprint, and one intermediate estimate uses [28], also same-author. Because the area-charge inequalities themselves remain independently derived, this is partial self-citation dependence rather than full circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 9 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The theorems assume the Einstein-Maxwell dominant energy condition, a divergence-free electric field, and various topological hypotheses. The proof machinery (stability inequality, Gauss-Bonnet, existence and compactness theorems for minimal surfaces and mu-bubbles) is standard and cited. No free parameters are fitted; the charge and cosmological constant are inputs.

assumptions (9)

standard math Stability inequality for stable minimal surfaces
Used in Proposition 4 to derive Eq. (3.4); standard second variation formula for minimal surfaces.
standard math Gauss-Bonnet theorem
Converts integral of Gaussian curvature to 2πχ(Σ) in Proposition 4 and Section 4.2.
standard math Cauchy-Schwarz inequality
Binds flux integral Q(Σ) to the L2 norm of E in Proposition 4.
standard math Existence of area-minimizing surfaces in homology classes (Federer)
Used in Theorem 1 to get a smooth area-minimizing surface in the homology class of Σ.
standard math Meeks-Simon-Yau / Hass-Scott least-area surface in isotopy class
Used in Theorem 2(2) to minimize area in the isotopy class of an incompressible surface.
standard math Existence and regularity of mu-bubble minimizers (Zhu; Chodosh-Li)
Provides minimizers for the weighted area functional in Theorem 3.
standard math Curvature estimates for prescribed mean curvature surfaces (Zhou-Zhu [34])
Used in Theorem 3 for smooth convergence of the mu-bubble sequence.
domain assumption Dominant energy condition R_g >= 2Λ + 2|E|^2 and div E = 0
The physical hypothesis of the theorems, stated in the introduction and Section 2.
domain assumption Topological hypotheses: H_2(M, Σ) = 0, H_2(M, ∂M) = 0, irreducibility, no non-orientable surfaces
Needed for existence and connectedness of minimizers in Theorems 1-3.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Area-charge inequalities and rigidity of time-symmetric initial data sets." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5WBIJ67U

@misc{pith2026250713040,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Area-charge inequalities and rigidity of time-symmetric initial data sets},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5WBIJ67U}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.13040}
}

abstract

In this paper, we establish new area-charge inequalities for the boundary of time-symmetric Einstein-Maxwell initial data sets, in both compact and noncompact cases, under the dominant energy condition. These inequalities lead to novel rigidity theorems with no analogues in the uncharged setting. In the noncompact case, our result is obtained by applying Gromov's $\mu$-bubble technique in a new geometric context.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages

[14]

Galloway and Abra˜ ao Mendes,Some rigidity results for charged initial data sets, Nonlinear Anal., Theory Methods Appl., Ser

Gregory J. Galloway and Abra˜ ao Mendes,Some rigidity results for charged initial data sets, Nonlinear Anal., Theory Methods Appl., Ser. A, Theory Methods 256 (2025), 9 (English), Id/No 113780

work page 2025
[29]

, Area-charge inequality and local rigidity in charged initial data sets , Preprint, arXiv:2505.20060 [math.DG], 2025

work page Pith review arXiv 2025
[1]

Galloway, Rigidity and positivity of mass for asymptotically hyperbolic manifolds , Ann

Lars Andersson, Mingliang Cai, and Gregory J. Galloway, Rigidity and positivity of mass for asymptotically hyperbolic manifolds , Ann. Henri Poincar´ e9 (2008), no. 1, 1–33 (English)

work page 2008
[2]

H. Bray, S. Brendle, M. Eichmair, and A. Neves, Area-minimizing projective planes in 3-manifolds , Commun. Pure Appl. Math. 63 (2010), no. 9, 1237–1247 (English)

work page 2010
[3]

Hubert Bray, Simon Brendle, and Andre Neves, Rigidity of area-minimizing two- spheres in three-manifolds, Commun. Anal. Geom.18 (2010), no. 4, 821–830 (English)

work page 2010
[4]

Galloway, Rigidity of area minimizing tori in 3- manifolds of nonnegative scalar curvature , Commun

Mingliang Cai and Gregory J. Galloway, Rigidity of area minimizing tori in 3- manifolds of nonnegative scalar curvature , Commun. Anal. Geom. 8 (2000), no. 3, 565–573 (English)

work page 2000
[5]

Vitor Cardoso, ´Oscar J. C. Dias, and Jos´ e P. S. Lemos, Nariai, Bertotti-Robinson, and anti-Nariai solutions in higher dimensions , Phys. Rev. D 70 (2004), 024002

work page 2004
[6]

Simone Cecchini, Daniel R¨ ade, and Rudolf Zeidler, Nonnegative scalar curvature on manifolds with at least two ends , J. Topol. 16 (2023), no. 3, 855–876 (English)

work page 2023

Show all 38 references

[7]

Pure Appl

Otis Chodosh, Michael Eichmair, and Vlad Moraru, A splitting theorem for scalar curvature, Commun. Pure Appl. Math. 72 (2019), no. 6, 1231–1242 (English)

2019
[8]

Pi 11 (2023), 22 (English), Id/No e3

Otis Chodosh and Chao Li, Stable anisotropic minimal hypersurfaces in R4, Forum Math. Pi 11 (2023), 22 (English), Id/No e3

2023
[9]

, Generalized soap bubbles and the topology of manifolds with positive scalar curvature, Ann. Math. (2) 199 (2024), no. 2, 707–740 (English)

2024
[10]

Tiarlos Cruz, Vanderson Lima, and Alexandre de Sousa, Min-max minimal surfaces, horizons and electrostatic systems , J. Differ. Geom. 128 (2024), no. 2, 583–637 (Eng- lish)

2024
[11]

Sergio Dain and Mar ´ ıa Eugenia Gabach-Clement, Geometrical inequalities bounding angular momentum and charges in General Relativity , Living Reviews in Relativity 21 (2018), no. 5, 1–74. 18 T. CRUZ AND A. MENDES

2018
[12]

3, 15 (English), Id/No 035013

Sergio Dain, Jos´ e Luis Jaramillo, and Mart ´ ın Reiris,Area-charge inequality for black holes, Classical Quantum Gravity 29 (2012), no. 3, 15 (English), Id/No 035013

2012
[13]

Wiss., vol

Herbert Federer, Geometric measure theory , Grundlehren Math. Wiss., vol. 153, Springer, Cham, 1969 (English)

1969
[15]

Gibbons, Some comments on gravitational entropy and the inverse mean curvature flow, Classical Quantum Gravity 16 (1999), no

Gary W. Gibbons, Some comments on gravitational entropy and the inverse mean curvature flow, Classical Quantum Gravity 16 (1999), no. 6, 1677–1687 (English)

1999
[16]

Math., Basel, vol

Enrico Giusti, Minimal surfaces and functions of bounded variation , Monogr. Math., Basel, vol. 80, Birkh¨ auser, Cham, 1984 (English)

1984
[17]

Blaine Lawson, Jr., Positive scalar curvature and the Dirac operator on complete Riemannian manifolds , Publ

Mikhael Gromov and H. Blaine Lawson, Jr., Positive scalar curvature and the Dirac operator on complete Riemannian manifolds , Publ. Math., Inst. Hautes ´Etud. Sci. 58 (1983), 83–196 (English)

1983
[18]

Volume II

Misha Gromov, Positive curvature, macroscopic dimension, spectral gaps and higher signatures, Functional analysis on the eve of the 21st century. Volume II. In honor of the eightieth birthday of I. M. Gelfand. Proceedings of a conference, held at Rutgers University, New Brunsw...

1993
[19]

, No metrics with Positive Scalar Curvatures on Aspherical 5-Manifolds , Preprint, arXiv:2009.05332 [math.DG], 2020

2009 arXiv
[20]

In 2 vol- umes, Singapore: World Scientific, 2023, pp

, Four lectures on scalar curvature , Perspectives in scalar curvature. In 2 vol- umes, Singapore: World Scientific, 2023, pp. 1–514 (English)

2023
[21]

Joel Hass and Peter Scott, The existence of least area surfaces in 3-manifolds , Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 310 (1988), no. 1, 87–114 (English)

1988
[22]

Lectures given at the 2nd session of the Centro Internazionale Matematico Estivo (CIME), Cetraro, Italy, June 15–22, 1996, Berlin: Springer, 1999, pp

Gerhard Huisken and Alexander Polden, Geometric evolution equations for hypersur- faces, Calculus of variations and geometric evolution problems. Lectures given at the 2nd session of the Centro Internazionale Matematico Estivo (CIME), Cetraro, Italy, June 15–22, 1996, Berlin: ...

1996
[23]

Martin Lesourd, Ryan Unger, and Shing-Tung Yau, The positive mass theorem with arbitrary ends, J. Differ. Geom. 128 (2024), no. 1, 257–293 (English)

2024
[24]

Lima, Paulo A

Alexandre B. Lima, Paulo A. Sousa, and Rondinelle M. Batista, Rigidity of marginally outer trapped surfaces in charged initial data sets, Lett. Math. Phys. 115 (2025), no. 2, 15 (English), Id/No 41

2025
[25]

Marques and Andr´ e Neves,Rigidity of min-max minimal spheres in three- manifolds, Duke Math

Fernando C. Marques and Andr´ e Neves,Rigidity of min-max minimal spheres in three- manifolds, Duke Math. J. 161 (2012), no. 14, 2725–2752 (English)

2012
[26]

Laurent Mazet, Stable minimal hypersurfaces in R6, Preprint, arXiv:2405.14676 [math.DG], 2024

2024 arXiv
[27]

Meeks III, Leon Simon, and Shing-Tung Yau, Embedded minimal surfaces, exotic spheres, and manifolds with positive Ricci curvature, Ann

William H. Meeks III, Leon Simon, and Shing-Tung Yau, Embedded minimal surfaces, exotic spheres, and manifolds with positive Ricci curvature, Ann. Math. (2)116 (1982), 621–659 (English)

1982
[28]

Abra˜ ao Mendes, Rigidity of marginally outer trapped (hyper)surfaces with negative σ-constant, Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 372 (2019), no. 8, 5851–5868 (English)

2019
[30]

Mario Micallef and Vlad Moraru, Splitting of 3-manifolds and rigidity of area- minimising surfaces, Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 143 (2015), no. 7, 2865–2872 (English)

2015
[31]

Ivaldo Nunes, Rigidity of area-minimizing hyperbolic surfaces in three-manifolds , J. Geom. Anal. 23 (2013), no. 3, 1290–1302 (English)

2013
[32]

6, 5 (English), Id/No 062001

Walter Simon, Bounds on area and charge for marginally trapped surfaces with a cosmological constant, Classical Quantum Gravity 29 (2012), no. 6, 5 (English), Id/No 062001

2012
[33]

Jian Wang, Topology of 3-manifolds with uniformly positive scalar curvature, Preprint, arXiv:2212.14383 [math.DG], 2022

2022 arXiv
[34]

Xin Zhou and Jonathan Zhu, Existence of hypersurfaces with prescribed mean curva- ture I – generic min-max , Camb. J. Math. 8 (2020), no. 2, 311–362 (English). AREA-CHARGE INEQUALITIES AND RIGIDITY OF INITIAL DATA SETS 19

2020
[35]

Jintian Zhu, Width estimate and doubly warped product , Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 374 (2021), no. 2, 1497–1511 (English)

2021
[36]

, Rigidity results for complete manifolds with nonnegative scalar curvature , J. Differ. Geom. 125 (2023), no. 3, 623–644 (English)

2023
[37]

, Calabi-Yau type theorem for complete manifolds with nonnegative scalar cur- vature, Preprint, arXiv:2402.15118 [math.DG], 2024, pp. 1–14

2024 arXiv
[38]

, Riemannian-Penrose inequality without horizon in dimension three , Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 377 (2024), no. 6, 4101–4116 (English). Institute of Mathematics, Federal University of Alagoas, 57072-970, Macei´o-AL, Brazil Email address : cicero.cruz@im.ufal.br Email address : abra...

2024

Pith tools

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

[1] [14]

Galloway and Abra˜ ao Mendes,Some rigidity results for charged initial data sets, Nonlinear Anal., Theory Methods Appl., Ser

Gregory J. Galloway and Abra˜ ao Mendes,Some rigidity results for charged initial data sets, Nonlinear Anal., Theory Methods Appl., Ser. A, Theory Methods 256 (2025), 9 (English), Id/No 113780

work page 2025

[2] [29]

, Area-charge inequality and local rigidity in charged initial data sets , Preprint, arXiv:2505.20060 [math.DG], 2025

work page Pith review arXiv 2025

[3] [1]

Galloway, Rigidity and positivity of mass for asymptotically hyperbolic manifolds , Ann

Lars Andersson, Mingliang Cai, and Gregory J. Galloway, Rigidity and positivity of mass for asymptotically hyperbolic manifolds , Ann. Henri Poincar´ e9 (2008), no. 1, 1–33 (English)

work page 2008

[4] [2]

H. Bray, S. Brendle, M. Eichmair, and A. Neves, Area-minimizing projective planes in 3-manifolds , Commun. Pure Appl. Math. 63 (2010), no. 9, 1237–1247 (English)

work page 2010

[5] [3]

Hubert Bray, Simon Brendle, and Andre Neves, Rigidity of area-minimizing two- spheres in three-manifolds, Commun. Anal. Geom.18 (2010), no. 4, 821–830 (English)

work page 2010

[6] [4]

Galloway, Rigidity of area minimizing tori in 3- manifolds of nonnegative scalar curvature , Commun

Mingliang Cai and Gregory J. Galloway, Rigidity of area minimizing tori in 3- manifolds of nonnegative scalar curvature , Commun. Anal. Geom. 8 (2000), no. 3, 565–573 (English)

work page 2000

[7] [5]

Vitor Cardoso, ´Oscar J. C. Dias, and Jos´ e P. S. Lemos, Nariai, Bertotti-Robinson, and anti-Nariai solutions in higher dimensions , Phys. Rev. D 70 (2004), 024002

work page 2004

[8] [6]

Simone Cecchini, Daniel R¨ ade, and Rudolf Zeidler, Nonnegative scalar curvature on manifolds with at least two ends , J. Topol. 16 (2023), no. 3, 855–876 (English)

work page 2023