Area bounds for constant mean curvature surfaces in hyperbolic 3-manifolds

Ruojing Jiang

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 33 references

Area bounds for constant mean curvature surfaces in hyperbolic 3-manifolds

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper proves that closed constant-mean-curvature surfaces in finite-volume hyperbolic 3-manifolds have area bounded above by a constant depending only on the manifold, the mean curvature bound, and the genus, and that Bryant surfaces sa

desk verdict The Bryant linear genus-area bound (Thm 1.4) as written only goes through for embedded surfaces though stated for immersed ones; the real gap sits in Lemma 5.3, not the coset decomposition, and Theorems 1.1/1.3 are credible enough to referee. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.09881 v1 pith:EEH25FAD submitted 2025-09-11 math.DG

Ruojing Jiang This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.DG MSC 53A1053C42

keywords constantmeancurvaturehyperbolic3-manifoldBryantsurfaceareaboundcompactnessestimategenushandlebody

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 aims to prove that closed constant-mean-curvature (CMC) surfaces in hyperbolic 3-manifolds cannot have arbitrarily large area once their mean curvature is bounded below by 1 (in absolute value) and their genus is bounded. It establishes a uniform area bound depending only on the manifold, the curvature bound, and the genus, and derives a smooth compactness theorem for sequences of such surfaces. For the special case of Bryant surfaces (CMC equal to 1), it shows the genus is at least 3 and the area grows at most linearly with the genus. The proof works by combining intrinsic and extrinsic curvature estimates for CMC disks in hyperbolic space with a singularity analysis and a counting argument over lifts of the surface.

What carries the argument

The key machinery is a curvature estimate for embedded CMC disks in hyperbolic 3-space with |H| ≥ 1, which bounds the second fundamental form in terms of intrinsic distance to the boundary. This is combined with a singular-set analysis: if a sequence of surfaces had unbounded area, small portions near collapsing injectivity radius would rescale to minimal surfaces in Euclidean space such as catenoids or helicoids, whose structure is incompatible with the separation property. For Bryant surfaces, the additional machinery is the area-counting identity over lifts to hyperbolic space and the handlebody structure of the mean-convex side, which bounds the number of sheets contributing to the area.

What would settle it

Find a closed hyperbolic 3-manifold and a sequence of immersed closed Bryant surfaces S_n with genus g_n such that area(S_n)/g_n → ∞, or exhibit a closed Bryant surface of genus 2; either would refute Theorem 1.4's quantitative bound or genus lower bound.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that, contrary to what happens for minimal surfaces in flat tori, closed CMC surfaces with |H| ≥ 1 in finite-volume hyperbolic 3-manifolds satisfy a uniform area bound controlled by genus and curvature. For Bryant surfaces the paper proves a stronger quantitative statement: area is bounded by a constant times the genus, and genus 1 and 2 surfaces cannot exist. This follows from the fact that such surfaces separate the manifold, have bounded second fundamental form away from singular points, and their mean-convex sides are handlebodies whose geometry prevents the area from growing faster than linearly.

Load-bearing premise

For Bryant surfaces, the proof counts the area of an immersed surface by summing the areas of its components after lifting to the universal cover of the manifold, assuming one component per element of the coset space; this decomposition is automatic for one-sided (π1-injective) surfaces, but the paper does not show it holds for the compressible Bryant surfaces it studies.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Any sequence of closed embedded CMC surfaces with |H| between 1 and H0 and genus ≤ g0 in a finite-volume hyperbolic 3-manifold has a smoothly converging subsequence away from a finite singular set.
Closed Bryant surfaces in closed hyperbolic 3-manifolds have genus at least 3, ruling out genus 1 and 2 examples.
The area of a closed Bryant surface of genus g is O(g), so high-genus Bryant surfaces cannot be arbitrarily large in a fixed hyperbolic 3-manifold.
The area bound prevents the kind of divergent-area examples known for minimal surfaces in flat 3-tori from existing in the CMC |H| ≥ 1 setting of hyperbolic 3-manifolds.
The compactness theorem gives strong Alexandrov-embedded limits with multiplicity one, so the space of such surfaces is precompact.

Reading between the lines

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

If the area-counting identity for immersed Bryant surfaces can be justified for compressible surfaces, the linear genus–area bound should extend to all finite-volume manifolds without the genus ≠ 1 caveat.
The same curvature-estimate strategy may apply to CMC surfaces with mean curvature bounded away from 0 in other pinched negative curvature manifolds, where horospheres still force separation when |H| is large enough.
A concrete test would be to search for a closed Bryant surface of genus 2 in a closed hyperbolic 3-manifold; the paper predicts none exist, so a construction would refute the genus bound.
The area bound suggests a compactness result for the moduli space of CMC surfaces in a given homotopy class, which could inform existence questions via min-max or variational methods.

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 headline: two real results and one real gap. The area bound and compactness for closed embedded CMC surfaces with |H|≥1 in finite-volume hyperbolic 3-manifolds (Theorems 1.1 and 1.3) are plausible, new, and follow a credible Meeks–Tinaglia-style blow-up strategy. The Bryant results (Theorem 1.4, Corollary 1.5), genus ≥3 plus area ≤ C(M)g, are the more striking claims. The genus bound is fine, but the area bound as written only works for embedded surfaces while the theorem states immersed. That mismatch is load-bearing, not cosmetic.

Where the paper earns credit: the question is natural—whether CMC surfaces with |H|≥1 in hyperbolic 3-manifolds mimic the flat-torus picture, where fixed-genus minimal surfaces have unbounded area. The answer here is no: area stays bounded at fixed genus, and the strategy is clear—rule out injectivity-radius collapse via curvature estimates, classify the blow-up limits (catenoids and higher-genus minimal surfaces), and count singular points by volume. The genus ≥3 obstruction via the hyperbolic Gauss map is clean. The paper also outsources a lot of machinery honestly, which is standard for this corner of the field.

Soft spots, in order of size.

1. The embedded/immersed mismatch in Theorem 1.4. Lemma 5.2 (handlebody structure, genus-zero boundary pieces) is proved for embedded Bryant surfaces only. Lemma 5.3 then applies it to the lifted pieces φ(˜S_n)∩Δ of an immersed S_n, asserts ∂Δ_n has genus zero and boundedly many boundary components, and gets the uniform area bound from that. For an immersed surface the lift to H^3 need not be embedded and need not bound a mean-convex domain, so the handlebody argument does not apply. The coset decomposition (5.2) is not the problem—that part is fine for immersed surfaces. The problem is the missing embeddedness hypothesis between Lemmas 5.2 and 5.3.

2. In the H_n→1 case of Theorem 1.1, equation (4.5) uses an unexplained '≈' and '+1' to pass from an integral over the rescaled surface to a global Gauss–Bonnet integral over S_n. Since area(S_n) is blowing up, (H_n^2−1)·area(S_n) is an indeterminate 0·∞; the epsilonics matter and this needs a real fix.

3. Proposition 3.2, the engine of the paper, is not really proved here: Section 3.3 lists the chord-arc, one-sided curvature, and weak intrinsic estimates and defers to [29]. That is a lot of weight on a reference, even a standard one.

Also, Corollary 1.5 depends on the companion preprint [19] as a black box; fine if [19] is solid, but it makes the finite-volume Bryant result conditional on an unpublished companion.

Who this is for: geometric analysts working on CMC surfaces and compactness. It is a credible advance on a natural question and deserves a serious referee. Send it out, with instructions to push hard on the Section 5 embeddedness assumption and on (4.5).

Referee Report

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper studies closed constant mean curvature (CMC) surfaces in finite-volume hyperbolic 3-manifolds, focusing on the regime |H| ≥ 1. The main results are Theorem 1.1, an area bound for closed embedded H-surfaces with 1 ≤ |H| ≤ H0 and bounded genus, and Theorem 1.4, an area bound linear in the genus for closed Bryant surfaces (H = 1) immersed in a closed hyperbolic 3-manifold, together with a genus lower bound g ≥ 3. Corollary 1.5 extends the Bryant surface bound to finite-volume manifolds for genus g ≠ 1. The proof strategy combines intrinsic and extrinsic curvature estimates for CMC disks in H3 (Section 3), a contradiction argument involving a singular set analysis and a volume estimate (Section 4), and, for Bryant surfaces, a counting argument in the universal cover using handlebody decompositions (Section 5). The paper is clearly structured and engages with a substantial body of recent work on CMC surfaces, but several load-bearing steps in the written proofs are incomplete or unjustified.

Significance. If correct, the results would be significant: they would establish the first general area bounds and compactness for closed CMC surfaces with |H| ≥ 1 in finite-volume hyperbolic 3-manifolds, a regime where essential surfaces do not exist, and they would give an explicit linear area-genus bound for Bryant surfaces. The statements are clean and the constants depend only on the manifold, the mean-curvature bound, and the genus bound, giving parameter-free bounds. The paper builds on sophisticated tools, including Meeks–Tinaglia curvature estimates, Choi–Schoen type estimates, and Calegari–Marques–Neves entropy arguments. The writing is generally clear and the geometric intuition is valuable. However, as detailed below, the proof of the main compactness theorem has an unjustified integral estimate, the separation property for embedded CMC surfaces is not established rigorously, and the proof of the Bryant surface bound contains a serious embeddedness gap. These issues are central to the claims, so the paper cannot be accepted in its present form.

major comments (5)

[§4.1.2, Eq. (4.5)] The passage from ∫_{\tilde S_n}|˚A|^2 dA to ∫_{S_n}(|˚A|^2 − 2(H(S_n)^2 −1)) dA + 1 is not justified. The difference between the two integrands is 2(H(S_n)^2 − 1), which integrates to 2(H(S_n)^2 − 1)·area(S_n). Since the proof is by contradiction with area(S_n) → ∞ and H(S_n) → 1, this term need not tend to zero; the product may diverge. The subsequent bound ∫_{\tilde S_n}|˚A|^2 ≤ 8π(g0−1)+1, the small-curvature estimate (4.6), and the conclusion that H(S_n) ≥ h0 > 1 for large n all depend on this step. Without a rigorous estimate for the term 2(H^2−1)area(S_n), the argument in the H_n → 1 case collapses.
[§5.1, Lemma 5.3 (and Theorem 1.4)] Lemma 5.2, which provides the handlebody structure and the bound on genus and number of boundary components of ∂Δ_n, is proved only for embedded Bryant surfaces. Theorem 1.4 is stated for immersed Bryant surfaces, and Lemma 5.3 is applied in this immersed setting. For an immersed surface S_n, the lift to H^3 need not be embedded; it may self-intersect and does not in general bound a mean-convex domain. Thus the objects φ(\tilde S_n)∩Δ, φ(\tilde B(S_n))∩Δ, and ∂Δ_n in the proof of Lemma 5.3 are not well-defined as stated. The proof therefore establishes the linear area bound only under an embeddedness hypothesis that is absent from the theorem. A separate argument, such as passing to a suitable covering to make the lift embedded, is required but not supplied.
[§3.1, Lemma 3.3] The proof of the separation property contains a false inference: from the fact that S is not essential (in the sense of not being π1-injective) the paper concludes that S does not represent a non-zero element in H_2(M;Z) and hence separates M. This implication is not valid in general: compressible non-separating surfaces exist in closed hyperbolic 3-manifolds (for example, a non-separating incompressible fiber can be tubed to a solid torus to produce a compressible non-separating surface). The separation property is used later in §4.1.3 and §4.1.4 to guarantee a mean-convex domain B_{S_n} and in Lemma 5.2 to identify the mean-convex component. The proof needs a correct geometric argument showing embedded |H| ≥ 1 CMC surfaces are separating, or the statements relying on separation must be reformulated.
[§3.3, Proposition 3.2] The intrinsic curvature estimate, which is the foundation for Proposition 3.1 and hence for Theorem 1.1, is not actually proved in the paper. The section states Lemma 3.8 (weak chord arc property), Lemma 3.9 (one-sided curvature estimate), and Lemma 3.10 (weak intrinsic curvature estimate) and then says the remainder follows the same procedure as in R^3 and refers to [29]. These lemmas are not proved and their hypotheses are not verified for the hyperbolic setting beyond a sentence. Since this is load-bearing for the global area bound, the paper should either include the proofs or state clearly that these are imported theorems from [29], with the precise adaptation and verification of the necessary geometric hypotheses.
[§4.1.2, first bullet] In ruling out the Riemann minimal example, the proof invokes 'Claim 5.3 of [15]' and asserts that, although the claim is proved for flat 3-tori, 'its proof also applies to our case.' No details of this transfer are given. Since this claim is used to obtain a contradiction for a possible limiting minimal surface in R^3 arising from the rescaled CMC surfaces, the argument is incomplete as written. The author should either provide a proof of the hyperbolic analogue or specify exactly which features of the flat-torus proof carry over.

minor comments (6)

[§5.1, Lemma 5.2 proof] The phrase 'By Lemma 3.3 that is stated later' is inaccurate: Lemma 3.3 appears in Section 3, before Section 5. It should read 'stated earlier.'
[§5.1, display after (5.1)] The equation following (5.1) is malformed: the line break makes it read as if the integral itself tends to zero. It should be written as (∫_{S_n} |˚A|^2/2 dA)/area(S_n) → 0.
[§4.1.2] The text says 'the norm squared second fundamental form of \tilde S_n may not be locally bounded' and then later 'locally bounded norm of the second fundamental form'; the inconsistent notation should be unified.
[Definition 1.2] The definition of 'strongly Alexandrov embedded' is unusual: 'immersion extends to an injective immersion in a domain B⊂M with ∂B=S' should probably be 'embedding of a codimension-zero submanifold with boundary' to make the condition clear.
[§4.1.5] ω_2 is defined as the area of the unit disk in H^3, but the expression 4π sinh^2(1) is the area of the unit sphere. The notation should be corrected or clarified.
[§5.2, Corollary 1.5] Corollary 1.5 relies on Theorem B of the companion preprint [19] as a black box. The exact statement used should be reproduced or cited more precisely so the reader can verify the hypotheses.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

No fitted-input or definitional circularity; one load-bearing self-citation for the finite-volume corollary.

self citation load bearing [Section 5.2, proof of Corollary 1.5]
"In the most recent work by the author and Vargas Pallete [19, Theorem B], this result was extended to finite-volume hyperbolic 3-manifolds ... In particular, the total curvature estimates for closed surfaces in closed hyperbolic 3-manifolds (Lemma 5.3) can be generalized to ambient manifolds with cusps, which provides a key ingredient for proving the 'only if' direction. Consequently, Corollary 1.5 follows."

Corollary 1.5 is the finite-volume analogue of Theorem 1.4. Its proof does not repeat or adapt the closed-manifold argument; instead it asserts that [19] already generalized the needed total-curvature estimate (Lemma 5.3) to cusped manifolds and then 'Consequently, Corollary 1.5 follows.' [19] is a companion preprint by the same author (with a coauthor), not proven or checked in this paper, and it is exactly the missing key ingredient. Under the rubric this is a load-bearing self-citation: the corollary's derivation terminates in a citation to the author's own prior work rather than in an independent proof or an external machine-checked/benchmark result. Because Theorem 1.4 itself does not depend on [19], the central closed-manifold theorem retains independent content, so this is not full

full rationale

Theorem 1.1 is self-contained: it assumes a counter-sequence, rescales near singularities, and derives contradictions using known curvature estimates and compactness results; no parameter is fitted to the target area bound and no assumption equivalent to the theorem enters the proof. Theorem 1.4 is also proved by contradiction, with Lemma 5.2 and Lemma 5.3 supplying structural inputs; the reviewer's embeddedness objection is a real mathematical gap (Lemma 5.2 is stated for embedded surfaces while Theorem 1.4 allows immersed ones), but that is a soundness defect, not a circular reduction: the lemma is not defined in terms of the conclusion, and the proof does not assume the area bound it aims to prove. The only circularity-type issue is Corollary 1.5's reliance on the author's companion preprint [19] to supply the finite-volume generalization of Lemma 5.3. Since [19] is a same-author result used as a black box and is not established inside the paper, it is load-bearing self-citation; however it affects only the corollary, not Theorems 1.1 or 1.4, so the overall circularity score is moderate rather than high.

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

The paper's conclusions rest on a substantial external corpus: the Lawson correspondence, Bryant representation, Meeks-Tinaglia curvature theory, helicoid uniqueness, stability classifications, half-space theorems, horosphere density, counting arguments, and a companion preprint by the author. Most are standard theorems, but several are either transferred across settings without proof or taken as black boxes, and these are the load-bearing external inputs.

assumptions (9)

standard math Lawson correspondence (H-surface in H^3 corresponds to (H−1)-surface in R^3)
Used in Section 2.1 and Corollary 3.5 to transfer stability and sphere classification from R^3 to H^3.
standard math Bryant representation for H=1 surfaces via hyperbolic Gauss map and holomorphic 1-form
Section 2.2; used in Lemma 5.1 for the Gauss map degree argument proving genus at least three.
standard math Meeks-Tinaglia curvature estimates, chord arc properties, and one-sided estimates for H-disks in R^3 and H^3
Basis for Proposition 3.2 and Lemmas 3.8-3.10; the proof in Section 3.3 is explicitly deferred to [29].
standard math Uniqueness of the helicoid and classification of stable minimal surfaces in R^3
Used in Lemma 3.4 and Corollary 3.5 to rule out non-flat stable limits and identify the limiting helicoid.
standard math Calegari-Marques-Neves counting and entropy framework for essential minimal surfaces
Used in Lemma 5.3 to control sums over deck transformations; the adaptation to compressible Bryant surfaces is not fully justified.
standard math Half-space theorem for Bryant surfaces (Rodriguez-Rosenberg)
Used in Lemma 5.2 to show the mean convex component of an embedded Bryant surface is a handlebody.
standard math Horospheres project densely to closed hyperbolic 3-manifolds (Ratner/Shah)
Used in Lemma 5.1 to rule out a torus Bryant surface arising as a projected horosphere.
ad hoc to paper Claim 5.3 of [15] (proven for flat 3-tori) applies verbatim to hyperbolic 3-manifolds
Used in Section 4.1.2 to rule out Riemann minimal example and annulus configurations; the transfer is asserted with only the comment that the proof applies to the current case.
domain assumption Author's companion result [19] (Jiang and Vargas Pallete) generalizing Lemma 5.3 to finite-volume manifolds
Used in Section 5.2 for Corollary 1.5; this is a black-box reliance on a parallel preprint by the same author, not independently verified here.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Area bounds for constant mean curvature surfaces in hyperbolic 3-manifolds." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EEH25FAD

@misc{pith2026250909881,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Area bounds for constant mean curvature surfaces in hyperbolic 3-manifolds},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EEH25FAD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.09881}
}

abstract

On a finite-volume hyperbolic $3$-manifold, we establish an upper bound on the area of closed embedded surfaces with constant mean curvature at least one, depending on the mean curvature and the genus bounds. This area bound implies compactness for such surfaces. In particular, for Bryant surfaces with constant mean curvature equal to one, the area is bounded proportionally to the genus.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 3 linked inside Pith

[29]

Tinaglia

G. Tinaglia. On curvature estimates for constant mean curvature surfaces.Contemp. Math., 570:165–185, 2012

2012
[19]

Jiang and F

R. Jiang and F. Vargas Pallete. Minimal surface entropy and applications of Ricci flow on finite-volume hyperbolic 3-manifolds.arXiv:2509.00197, 2025

arXiv 2025
[15]

Meeks III and G

W.H. Meeks III and G. Tinaglia. Triply periodic constant mean curvature surfaces.Adv. Math., 335:809–837, 2018

2018
[1]

Barbosa and M

J.L. Barbosa and M. do Carmo. Stability of hypersurfaces with constant mean curvature.Math. Z., 185:339–353, 1984

1984
[2]

Bellettini and N

C. Bellettini and N. Wickramasekera. The inhomogeneous Allen–Cahn equation and the exis- tence of prescribed-mean-curvature hypersurfaces.arXiv:2010.05847, 2021

arXiv 2010
[3]

Bourni and G

T. Bourni and G. Tinaglia. Curvature estimates for surfaces with bounded mean curvature. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 364(11):5813–5828, 2012

2012
[4]

R.L. Bryant. Surfaces of mean curvature one in hyperbolic space.dans Théorie des variétés minimales et applications, Astérisque, 12(154-155):321–347, 1987

1987
[5]

Calegari, F

D. Calegari, F. Marques, and A. Neves. Counting minimal surfaces in negatively curved 3- manifolds.Duke Math. J., 2022

2022

Show all 33 references

[6]

Choi and R

H.I. Choi and R. Schoen. The space of minimal embeddings of a surface into a three-dimensional manifold of positive Ricci curvature.Invent. Math., 81:387–394, 1985

1985
[7]

Colding and W.P

T.H. Colding and W.P. Minicozzi. The space of embedded minimal surfaces of fixed genus in a 3-manifold IV; Locally simply connected.Ann. of Math., 160(2):573–615, 2004

2004
[8]

Colding and W.P

T.H. Colding and W.P. Minicozzi. The Calabi-Yau conjectures for embedded surfaces.Ann. of Math., 167(1):211–243, 2008

2008
[9]

Hoffman and W.H

D. Hoffman and W.H. Meeks. The strong halfspace theorem for minimal surfaces.Invent. Math., 101:373–377, 1990

1990
[10]

Meeks III

W.H. Meeks III. The theory of triply periodic minimal surfaces.Indiana Univ. Math. J., 39, 1990

1990
[11]

Meeks III and H

W.H. Meeks III and H. Rosenberg. Maximum principles at infinity.J. Differential Geom., 79(1):141–165, 2008

2008
[12]

Meeks III and G

W.H. Meeks III and G. Tinaglia. Existence of regular neighborhoods forH-surfaces.Illinois J. Math., 55, 02 2010

2010
[13]

Meeks III and G

W.H. Meeks III and G. Tinaglia. The dynamics theorem for CMC surfaces inR3.J. Differential Geom., 85(1):141 – 173, 2010

2010
[14]

Meeks III and G

W.H. Meeks III and G. Tinaglia. Chord arc properties for constant mean curvature disks.Geom. Topol., 22(1):305–322, oct 2017

2017
[16]

Meeks III and G

W.H. Meeks III and G. Tinaglia. Curvature estimates for constant mean curvature surfaces. Duke Math. J., 168(16):3057 – 3102, 2019

2019
[17]

Meeks III and G

W.H. Meeks III and G. Tinaglia. Limit lamination theorems forH-surfaces.J. Reine Angew. Math., 2019(748):269–296, 2019

2019
[18]

Meeks III and G

W.H. Meeks III and G. Tinaglia. Limit lamination theorem for H-disks.Invent. Math., 226:393– 420, 2021

2021
[20]

Korevaar, R

N.J. Korevaar, R. Kusner, W.H. Meeks III, and B. Solomon. Constant mean curvature surfaces in hyperbolic space.Amer. J. Math., 114(1):1–43, 1992

1992
[21]

H.B. Lawson. Complete minimal surfaces ins3.Ann. of Math., 92(3):335–374, 1970

1970
[22]

Meeks and H

W.H. Meeks and H. Rosenberg. The uniqueness of the helicoid.Ann. of Math., 161(2):727–758, 2005

2005
[23]

M. Ratner. Raghunathan’s topological conjecture and distributions of unipotent flows.Duke Math. J., 63(1):235–280, 1991

1991
[24]

Rodriguez and H

L. Rodriguez and H. Rosenberg. Half-space theorems for mean curvature one surfaces in hy- perbolic space.Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., 126, 01 1998

1998
[25]

20 RUOJING JIANG

L.SarnataroandD.Stryker.Optimalregularityforminimizersoftheprescribedmeancurvature functional over isotopies.arXiv:2304.02722, 2025. 20 RUOJING JIANG

2025 arXiv
[26]

N.A. Shah. Closures of totally geodesic immersions in manifolds of constant negative curvature. Singapore: World Scientific, 1991

1991
[27]

Simon.Lectures on Geometric Measure Theory, volume 3 ofProceedings of the Centre for Mathematical Analysis

L. Simon.Lectures on Geometric Measure Theory, volume 3 ofProceedings of the Centre for Mathematical Analysis. Centre for Mathematical Analysis, Australian National University, 1984

1984
[28]

A. Sun. Compactness of constant mean curvature surfaces in a three-manifold with positive Ricci curvature.Pacific J. Math., 305(2):735–756, apr 2020

2020
[30]

M. Traizet. On the genus of triply periodic minimal surfaces.J. Differential Geom., 79(2):243– 275, 2008

2008
[31]

S. Zhang. Curvature estimates for CMC surfaces in three dimensional manifolds.Math. Z., 249:613–624, 2005

2005
[32]

Zhou and J.J

X. Zhou and J.J. Zhu. Min-max theory for constant mean curvature hypersurfaces.Invent. Math., 218:441–490, 2019

2019
[33]

Zhou and J.J

X. Zhou and J.J. Zhu. Existence of hypersurfaces with prescribed mean curvature I – Generic min-max.Camb. J. Math., 8(2):311–362, 2020. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Department of Mathematics, Cambridge, MA 02139 Email address:ruojingj@mit.edu

2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [29]

Tinaglia

G. Tinaglia. On curvature estimates for constant mean curvature surfaces.Contemp. Math., 570:165–185, 2012

2012

[2] [19]

Jiang and F

R. Jiang and F. Vargas Pallete. Minimal surface entropy and applications of Ricci flow on finite-volume hyperbolic 3-manifolds.arXiv:2509.00197, 2025

arXiv 2025

[3] [15]

Meeks III and G

W.H. Meeks III and G. Tinaglia. Triply periodic constant mean curvature surfaces.Adv. Math., 335:809–837, 2018

2018

[4] [1]

Barbosa and M

J.L. Barbosa and M. do Carmo. Stability of hypersurfaces with constant mean curvature.Math. Z., 185:339–353, 1984

1984

[5] [2]

Bellettini and N

C. Bellettini and N. Wickramasekera. The inhomogeneous Allen–Cahn equation and the exis- tence of prescribed-mean-curvature hypersurfaces.arXiv:2010.05847, 2021

arXiv 2010

[6] [3]

Bourni and G

T. Bourni and G. Tinaglia. Curvature estimates for surfaces with bounded mean curvature. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 364(11):5813–5828, 2012

2012

[7] [4]

R.L. Bryant. Surfaces of mean curvature one in hyperbolic space.dans Théorie des variétés minimales et applications, Astérisque, 12(154-155):321–347, 1987

1987

[8] [5]

Calegari, F

D. Calegari, F. Marques, and A. Neves. Counting minimal surfaces in negatively curved 3- manifolds.Duke Math. J., 2022

2022