Smooth Convergence of Landau-de Gennes Minimizers in the Lyuksyutov Regime

Haotong Fu; Huaijie Wang; Wei Wang

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 25 references

Smooth Convergence of Landau-de Gennes Minimizers in the Lyuksyutov Regime

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Global minimizers of the Landau–de Gennes energy in the Lyuksyutov regime converge smoothly, not just in H^1, to an S^4-valued minimizer, with the distance to the unit sphere bounded by C/µ.

desk verdict The result is plausible and worth engaging, but the proof of the main theorem has a circular step and the claimed O(1/μ) rate is not derived as written. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.08456 v1 pith:FIXDZKXT submitted 2026-08-09 math.AP math-phmath.MP

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

classification math.APmath-phmath.MP MSC 35B6535J4749J4582D30

keywords Landau-deGennesLyuksyutovregimeliquidcrystalsQ-tensorsmoothconvergencesingularperturbationregularitytheorypartial

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 studies minimizers of a Landau–de Gennes energy for nematic liquid crystals in the Lyuksyutov regime, where a large parameter µ drives the tensor order parameter Q onto the unit sphere $S^{4}$ inside the space of traceless symmetric matrices. Its central claim is that, for each fixed λ > 0, these minimizers converge as µ → ∞ to a minimizer of a limiting $S^{4}$-valued energy not only in energy norm, as previously known, but smoothly: locally in C^∞ and up to the boundary in $C^{{1,α}}$, with the distance 1 − |Q| bounded by C/µ. This matters because it upgrades a compactness result into a sharp quantitative description of how the constraint |Q| = 1 is approached, and it rules out the development of interior singularities in this regime.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the small-energy regularity scheme for the Euler–Lagrange equation (1.7). The key objects are the scaled energy density e_{λ,µ}(Q) = ½|∇Q|² + f_{λ,µ}(Q), the monotonicity formula giving Θ_{λ,µ}(Q; x, r) monotone in r, and the Bochner-type inequality −∆e_{λ,µ}(Q) ≤ C(e_{λ,µ}(Q)² + λ²), which replaces the cleaner inequality without the λ² term. The λ² error is handled by rescaling, and the smoothness of the limiting map supplies the small-energy condition (1.8) at arbitrarily small scales. A boundary version of the same machinery, using a Harnack inequality and estimates for Poisson’s equation near a curved boundary, yields the up-to-the-boundary $C^{{1,α}}$ convergence.

What would settle it

Compute, numerically or analytically, the quantity µ(1 − |Q_{λ,µ}|) for a simple domain such as the unit ball with constant boundary data in $S^{4}$, for a fixed λ and increasing µ; if the limsup of µ(1 − |Q_{λ,µ}|) is unbounded, or the local C^∞ convergence fails at some interior point, then the theorem would be false. Equivalently, any construction of an E_λ-minimizer with an interior singularity, of the kind that occurs in other Landau–de Gennes regimes, would contradict the smooth-limit premise on which the small-energy condition rests.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Theorem 1.1 asserts that for a bounded $C^{3}$ domain with $C^{2}$ boundary data taking values in $S^{4}$, any family of global minimizers Q_{λ,µ} of F_{λ,µ} admits a subsequence converging in C^∞_{loc}(Ω,S_0) ∩ $C^{{1,α}}$(Ω,S_0) to a minimizer Q_λ of the limiting energy E_λ, together with the sharp estimate limsup_{µ→∞} µ(1 − |Q_{λ,µ}|) ≤ C. The previously established $H^{1}$ convergence is the starting point; the new content is uniform regularity independent of µ and the first-order rate at which the configurations approach the unit sphere. The proof obtains this by combining a small-energy condition inherited from the smoothness of the limit with monotonicity, a Bochner-type inequality with a controlled $λ^{2}$ error, and a bootstrap that upgrades bounded energy density to bounds on all derivatives.

Load-bearing premise

The proof assumes that for each fixed λ the limiting map Q_λ is smooth everywhere in the domain; this is taken from earlier work, and if that limit could form a singularity, the small-energy condition on arbitrarily small balls that starts the whole argument would fail.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For every fixed λ, all derivatives of the minimizers are uniformly bounded away from the boundary and independent of µ, so the family is precompact in every local C^k norm.
The distance to the unit sphere shrinks at the sharp rate O(1/µ), so the Lyuksyutov constraint |Q| = 1 is approached with controlled first-order error rather than merely asymptotically.
No interior singularities can appear in the limiting map in this regime, and convergence is global up to the boundary in C^{1,α} for every α ∈ (0,1).
The uniform energy-density bound and the O(1/µ) estimate give quantitative control on how well near-minimizers of F_{λ,µ} approximate minimizers of the S^4-valued energy E_λ.

Reading between the lines

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

We infer that the O(µ^{-1}) distance-to-S^4 rate is the natural first-order penalty rate for this type of singular perturbation, analogous to the normal-direction gap in Ginzburg–Landau-type problems; the same proof structure may extend to other bulk potentials whose zero set is a smooth submanifold of S₀.
Because the interior and boundary regularity propositions are stated for any smooth solution of (1.7) with small energy, the method likely applies to critical points with uniformly bounded energy, not only global minimizers, whenever the small-energy condition holds.
The theorem establishes convergence of a subsequence; a natural testable strengthening would be convergence of the full family without subsequence extraction in situations where the limiting minimizer is known to be unique.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

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 paper claims a sharp upgrade of the Dipasquale–Millot–Pisante H1 convergence: in the Lyuksyutov regime, minimizers converge smoothly and the distance to S^4 decays like 1/μ. If true, that is a useful and non-obvious sharpening, and the authors show real command of the known machinery. The modified Bochner inequality with the λ^2 error is a legitimate technical novelty, and the boundary estimates in Section 4 are carefully done, modulo one omitted lemma.

But the proof as written does not close. In Section 5, Propositions 3.1 and 4.1—the only tools that produce the uniform L∞ bound on the energy density—are invoked before the hypothesis |Q|≥1/2 is established. The text first concludes ∥e∥∞≤C and only afterwards asserts that |Q|≥1/2 for large μ. That is circular: the propositions require the lower bound to even apply. The small-energy condition alone cannot supply it, since a tiny isotropic core of radius ρ≪μ^{-1/2} has scale-invariant energy O(μρ^2), which can be small while |Q|≈0. Monotonicity rules out large holes but not arbitrarily small ones. This needs a separate ‘no-hole’ lemma or a maximum-principle argument that runs before Proposition 3.1.

There is a second issue with Theorem 1.1(2). A uniform bound on e gives only μ(1-|Q|^2)^2≤C, hence 1-|Q|≤Cμ^{-1/2}, not the claimed O(μ^{-1}). To get O(μ^{-1}) you need to use the equation for u=1-|Q|^2 and the fact |Q|≥1/2 to obtain a strong comparison bound. That argument is absent, so even granting the propositions, the rate does not follow from what is written.

The bootstrap in Proposition 3.3 also appears to drop a term μ^{-1/2}(t-s)^{-1} in the step leading to (3.12); for tiny t-s this is not absorbed into the δΦ term. This may be fixable by arranging the dyadic scales relative to μ^{-1/2}, but it is not in the text. Lemma 4.5 is stated without proof, which is a minor but real gap.

Net: the core idea is sound and the likely fix is to prove the lower bound first, then run the partial-regularity and bootstrap. As written, the central theorem is not established. This deserves full peer review, not a desk reject, because the result is significant and the gaps are identifiable and probably repairable. I would send it to a good referee with the instruction to focus on Section 5.

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper studies global minimizers Q_{λ,μ} of the Landau–de Gennes functional F_{λ,μ} in the Lyuksyutov regime, where λ>0 is fixed and μ→∞, on a bounded C^3 domain with S^4-valued boundary data. Theorem 1.1 claims three facts: (1) H^1 convergence to a minimizer Q_λ of the limiting S^4-valued energy E_λ (attributed to [8]), (2) the quantitative estimate limsup_{μ→∞} μ(1-|Q_{λ,μ}|) ≤ C, and (3) convergence in C^∞_{loc}(Ω,S0) ∩ C^{1,α}(Ω,S0). The proof follows the strategy of Majumdar–Zarnescu and Nguyen–Zarnescu: a monotonicity formula, a Bochner-type inequality with an error term, interior and boundary partial regularity propositions (Propositions 3.1 and 4.1), and a bootstrap (Propositions 3.3 and 4.2) to upgrade to smooth convergence. The central new input is that the limiting map Q_λ is smooth, so the small-energy condition (1.8) can be used at small scales without a defect analysis.

Significance. If the proof were complete, this would be a substantial improvement: the known H^1 convergence of [8] would be upgraded to smooth convergence with a sharp O(μ^{-1}) rate of approach to the unit sphere, and the C^{1,α} convergence up to the boundary would be new. The paper is honest about relying on [8] for existence, H^1 convergence, and smoothness of the limiting map; there are no fitted parameters or invented entities. The claimed estimates are specific and falsifiable. However, the main proof as written contains a circular step: the lower bound |Q|≥1/2 is both a hypothesis of the partial regularity propositions and a conclusion drawn after they are applied. Because this gap blocks the derivation of Theorem 1.1(2) and (3), the manuscript in its current form does not establish the central claim.

major comments (3)

[Section 5, paragraph 'By Propositions 3.1 and 4.1...'] The proof applies Propositions 3.1 and 4.1 before establishing their lower-bound hypotheses. Proposition 3.1 requires |Q|∈[1/2,1] on B_{2r}(x), and Proposition 4.1 requires |Q|∈(1−δ,1] on U_{2r}(x_0). The text first concludes ∥e_{λ,μ}∥_{L∞(Ω)} ≤ C from these propositions and only then states 'for sufficiently large μ, |Q|≥1/2 in Ω'. This is circular. The small-energy condition (1/r0)∫ e < 2δ does not imply the lower bound: a configuration with an isotropic 'hole' of radius ρ ≈ μ^{-1/2} and |Q|≈0 inside has energy ≈ μ ρ^3 = O(μ^{-1/2}) in that ball, so it satisfies the small-energy test at any fixed r0 for large μ while violating |Q|≥1/2 on every fixed ball containing the hole. Consequently, the partial-regularity bootstrap cannot start as written. A separate no-hole lemma (for instance, a minimality-based argument showing that minimizers cannot contain such bubbles) is needed before Propositions 3.1 and 4.1 can be invoked. Without it, Theorem 1.1(2) and the C^∞_{loc} claim are not established.
[Section 5, derivation of Theorem 1.1(2); Section 4.3, Proposition 4.2] Even if the circularity of the lower bound were resolved, the step from ∥e_{λ,μ}∥_{L∞} ≤ C to the claimed O(μ^{-1}) estimate is not justified. From the L∞ bound on e one obtains μ(1−|Q|^2)^2 ≤ C, hence only 1−|Q| ≤ C μ^{-1/2}, not limsup μ(1−|Q|) ≤ C. To get the stronger O(μ^{-1}) rate one must use the equation for u = 1−|Q|^2, e.g. (2.4), at an interior maximum of u: since |∇Q| and λ are bounded after the partial regularity step and |Q|≥1/2, the inequality −Δu ≤ C − 2μ|Q|^2u forces u ≤ C/μ. This maximum-principle argument is not given in the manuscript. The missing bound is also required for the hypothesis of Proposition 3.3, whose condition (3.6) demands a uniform L∞ bound on μ(1−|Q|^2), not merely on μ(1−|Q|^2)^2. Thus the application of Proposition 3.3 at the end of Section 5 is currently unsupported.
[Section 4.3, Lemma 4.5] Lemma 4.5 is stated without proof (the text says 'We omit the proof for simplicity'), but it is a load-bearing boundary estimate: Proposition 4.2 uses it to control u = (1−|Q|^2)^2 near the boundary, and Proposition 4.2 is in turn used for the C^{1,α}(Ω) boundary convergence in Theorem 1.1(3). The lemma is a boundary version of Lemma 3.5 with a distance weight, and its proof is not a trivial repetition of the interior case because the boundary condition and the geometry of ∂U must be handled. A central lemma cannot be left with only a reference to '[22, Lemma 6]' and a statement; the proof or a precise derivation from [22, Lemma 6] should be included.

minor comments (3)

[Section 4.1, Proposition 4.1, and Section 5] The hypothesis E_μ < δ in Proposition 4.1 requires smallness of Θ at all scales 0<ρ<2r, while Section 5 only establishes the small-energy condition at the fixed scale r0. The reduction to smaller scales via the monotonicity formula (Proposition 2.1) is not written out; for boundary balls the additive term C(R−r) in Proposition 2.1(2) must be absorbed by choosing r0 small. This is likely routine, but it should be stated explicitly.
[Remark 1.3] The numbering is inconsistent: the main theorem is Theorem 1.1, but Remark 1.3 refers to 'Theorem 1.2(1)' and 'Theorem 1.2(2)&(3)'. These should be Theorem 1.1.
[Section 3.2, proof of Proposition 3.3] In the iteration leading to (3.7), the displayed sum omits the factor (ρ_{ℓ+1}−ρ_ℓ)^{-1} inside the sum; when this factor is restored, the terms combine with δ^ℓ to give 3(t−s)^{-1}Σ(3/4)^ℓ, which converges. The argument is therefore valid, but the presentation should include this computation for clarity.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Partial-regularity bootstrap is circular: the |Q|≥1/2 hypothesis of Propositions 3.1 and 4.1 is derived from their own conclusion.

other [Section 5, Proof of Theorem 1.1; hypotheses of Propositions 3.1 and 4.1]
"By Propositions 3.1 and 4.1, we can choose δ > 0 sufficiently small so that ∥eλ,µ(Qλ,µ)∥L∞(Ω) ≤ C(Ω,Qb). This implies the second property of Theorem 1.1. Additionally, for sufficiently large µ > 0, we have |Q| ≥ 1/2 in Ω."

Propositions 3.1 and 4.1 are stated only under the hypothesis |Q|∈[1/2,1] (interior) or |Q|∈(1−δ,1] (boundary). Section 5 invokes them after H¹ convergence and smoothness of Qλ, without establishing that pointwise lower bound. The conclusion ∥eλ,µ∥L∞≤C then forces μ(1−|Q|²)²≤C, hence |Q|≥1−C/√μ≥1/2, which the text adds only 'Additionally'. Thus the lower-bound hypothesis needed to enter the ε-regularity argument is obtained from the output of the very propositions that require it. Small average energy at fixed scale r0 does not imply a pointwise lower bound: an isotropic bubble of radius ~μ^{-1/2} has energy O(μ^{-1/2}) and satisfies the small-energy test for large μ. Consequently the O(μ^{-1}) estimate and smooth convergence are not derived from independent inputs as written.

full rationale

The paper's main theorem depends on external results from [8] for existence, H¹ convergence, and smoothness of the limiting map; those are independent supports, not self-citations. There are no fitted parameters, no renamed known results, and no ansatz smuggled in via the authors' prior work. However, the proof of Theorem 1.1(2)(3) contains a genuine circular bootstrap in Section 5: Propositions 3.1 and 4.1, the only tools that produce the uniform L∞ bound on eλ,µ, explicitly assume |Q| is bounded away from zero (|Q|≥1/2 or |Q|∈(1−δ,1]), yet the text applies them before proving that bound, and then derives |Q|≥1/2 from the resulting energy-density estimate. Since H¹ convergence plus smoothness of Qλ does not imply a uniform pointwise lower bound, and the small-energy condition is compatible with small isotropic bubbles, the regularity argument cannot start as written without an additional no-hole lemma or an independent proof of |Q|≥1/2. This is a partial circularity of the central claim, so the score is 6 rather than 0–2.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no free parameters and no invented entities. Its central claim rests on external results from [8]: the existence and H^1 convergence of minimizers, uniform boundedness |Q| <= 1, and smoothness of the limiting map Q_lambda. Standard elliptic regularity tools are used as background. These are acknowledged dependencies rather than hidden assumptions.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption The limiting map Q_lambda is smooth for each fixed lambda > 0 (cited from Dipasquale et al. [8, Theorem 1.2]).
Used in Section 5 to ensure the small-energy condition (1.8) at small scales, which starts the partial regularity and bootstrap arguments. This is the key external input.
domain assumption Global minimizers Q_{lambda,mu} exist, satisfy |Q_{lambda,mu}| <= 1, and converge strongly in H^1 to Q_lambda (cited from [8, Theorem 1.2/1.3]).
Invoked in Section 5 to apply the monotonicity formula and to identify the limit; provides the uniform energy bound.
standard math Standard elliptic estimates: maximum principle, Caccioppoli inequality (Lemma 2.4), interior gradient estimates (Lemma 3.4 from Bethuel-Brezis-Helein [2]), and boundary Lipschitz estimates (Lemma 2.5 from Nguyen-Zarnescu [22]).
Used throughout Sections 2-4 without proof; standard tools in elliptic regularity.
standard math Finite-energy S^4-valued extension of the boundary data exists (Hardt-Lin [16, Theorem 6.2]).
Used in Remark 1.2 to guarantee the direct method yields minimizers.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Smooth Convergence of Landau-de Gennes Minimizers in the Lyuksyutov Regime." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FIXDZKXT

@misc{pith2026260808456,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Smooth Convergence of Landau-de Gennes Minimizers in the Lyuksyutov Regime},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FIXDZKXT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.08456}
}

abstract

In this paper, we analyze global minimizers of the Landau--de Gennes functional in 3-dimensional domains in the Lyuksyutov regime. We prove smooth convergence to an $\mathbb{S}^4$-valued limit and obtain an $O(\mu^{-1})$ estimate for the distance to $\mathbb{S}^4$ as $\mu \to +\infty$, thereby extending the convergence results of Dipasquale et al.[Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 239: 599--678, 2021].

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

25 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages

[8]

Dipasquale, V

F. Dipasquale, V. Millot, and A. Pisante. Torus-like solutions for the Landau-de Gennes model. I: The Lyuksyutov regime.Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal., 239(2):599–678, 2021

work page 2021
[1]

J. M. Ball. Liquid crystals and their defects. InMathematical thermodynamcis of complex fluids, Cetraro, Italy, June 2015. Lecture notes, pages 1–46. Cham: Springer; Florence: Fondazione CIME, 2017

work page 2015
[2]

Bethuel, H

F. Bethuel, H. Br´ ezis, and F. H´ elein. Asymptotics for the minimization of a Ginzburg-Landau functional.Calc. Var. Partial Differ. Equ., 1(2):123–148, 1993

1993
[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

work page 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]

Contreras and X

A. Contreras and X. Lamy. Biaxial escape in nematics at low temperature.J. Funct. Anal., 272(10):3987–3997, 2017. CONVERGENCE OF LANDAU-DE GENNES MINIMIZERS IN THE LYUKSYUTOV REGIME 17

work page 2017
[6]

Contreras and X

A. Contreras and X. Lamy. Singular perturbation of manifold-valued maps with anisotropic energy.Anal. PDE, 15(6):1531–1560, 2022

2022
[7]

de Gennes and J

P.-G. de Gennes and J. Prost.The Physics of Liquid Crystals. International Series of Monographs on Physics. Clarendon Press, 1993

work page 1993

Show all 25 references

[9]

Dipasquale, V

F. Dipasquale, V. Millot, and A. Pisante. Torus-like solutions for the Landau-de Gennes model. II: Topology of S1-equivariant minimizers.J. Funct. Anal., 286(7):98, 2024. Id/No 110314

2024
[10]

F. L. Dipasquale, V. Millot, and A. Pisante. Torus-like solutions for the Landau-de Gennes model. III: Torus vs split minimizers.Calc. Var. Partial Differ. Equ., 63(5):85, 2024. Id/No 136

2024
[11]

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
[12]

H. Fu, H. Wang, and W. Wang. Uniform estimates of Landau-de Gennes minimizers in the vanishing elasticity limit with line defects. Preprint, arXiv:2508.01811 [math.AP] (2025), 2025

2025 arXiv
[13]

Geng and C

Z. Geng and C. Wang. Eigenframe discontinuities of theQ-tensor model.Calc. Var. Partial Differ. Equ., 64(9):19,
[14]

Geng and A

Z. Geng and A. Zarnescu. Uniform profile near the point defect of Landau-de Gennes model.Calc. Var. Partial Differ. Equ., 62(1):29, 2023. Id/No 3

2023
[15]

Han and F

Q. Han and F. Lin.Elliptic partial differential equations, volume 1 ofCourant Lect. Notes Math.New York, NY: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences; Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society (AMS), 2nd ed. edition, 2011

2011
[16]

Hardt and F

R. Hardt and F. Lin. Mappings minimizing theL p norm of the gradient.Commun. Pure Appl. Math., 40(5):555– 588, 1987

1987
[17]

Henao, A

D. Henao, A. Majumdar, and A. Pisante. Uniaxial versus biaxial character of nematic equilibria in three dimen- sions.Calc. Var. Partial Differ. Equ., 56(2):22, 2017. Id/No 55

2017
[18]

Kl´ eman

M. Kl´ eman. Defects in liquid crystals.Reports on Progress in Physics, 52(5):555, 1989

1989
[19]

Lavrentovich.Defects in liquid crystals: Computer simulations, theory and experiments, volume 43

O. Lavrentovich.Defects in liquid crystals: Computer simulations, theory and experiments, volume 43. Springer Science & Business Media, 2001

2001
[20]

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
[21]

N. J. Mottram and C. J. P. Newton. Introduction toQ-tensor theory, 2014

2014
[22]

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
[23]

Tai and Y

H. Tai and Y. Yu. Pattern formation in Landau-de Gennes theory.J. Funct. Anal., 285(1):120, 2023. Id/No 109923

2023
[24]

E. G. Virga.Variational theories for liquid crystals, volume 8 ofAppl. Math. Math. Comput.London: Chapman & Hall, 1994

1994
[25]

Y. Yu. Disclinations in limiting Landau-de Gennes theory.Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal., 237(1):147–200, 2020. School of Mathematical Sciences, Peking University, Beijing 100871, China Email address:547434974@qq.com School of Mathematical Sciences, Peking University, Beijing 100871...

2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [8]

Dipasquale, V

F. Dipasquale, V. Millot, and A. Pisante. Torus-like solutions for the Landau-de Gennes model. I: The Lyuksyutov regime.Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal., 239(2):599–678, 2021

work page 2021

[2] [1]

J. M. Ball. Liquid crystals and their defects. InMathematical thermodynamcis of complex fluids, Cetraro, Italy, June 2015. Lecture notes, pages 1–46. Cham: Springer; Florence: Fondazione CIME, 2017

work page 2015

[3] [2]

Bethuel, H

F. Bethuel, H. Br´ ezis, and F. H´ elein. Asymptotics for the minimization of a Ginzburg-Landau functional.Calc. Var. Partial Differ. Equ., 1(2):123–148, 1993

1993

[4] [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

work page 2015

[5] [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

[6] [5]

Contreras and X

A. Contreras and X. Lamy. Biaxial escape in nematics at low temperature.J. Funct. Anal., 272(10):3987–3997, 2017. CONVERGENCE OF LANDAU-DE GENNES MINIMIZERS IN THE LYUKSYUTOV REGIME 17

work page 2017

[7] [6]

Contreras and X

A. Contreras and X. Lamy. Singular perturbation of manifold-valued maps with anisotropic energy.Anal. PDE, 15(6):1531–1560, 2022

2022

[8] [7]

de Gennes and J

P.-G. de Gennes and J. Prost.The Physics of Liquid Crystals. International Series of Monographs on Physics. Clarendon Press, 1993

work page 1993