Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 8 minor 43 references

Symmetry-breaking and local stability of a two-phase eigenvalue problem in optimal insulation

T0 review · 2 major / 8 minor · reviewed 2026-07-09 · glm-5.2

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

Pith's one-line read Concentric insulation breaks symmetry when inner eigenvalue exceeds Neumann threshold

desk verdict Solid paper proving local symmetry-breaking for finite-thickness two-phase Robin problem via Neumann eigenvalue threshold read the letter →

arxiv 2607.07218 v1 pith:MCIDVDQZ submitted 2026-07-08 math.AP

Emanuele Cristoforoni , Federico Villone This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.AP
keywords eigenvalueproblemballbetaconditionslambdalocaltwo-phase
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 studies a two-phase Robin eigenvalue problem motivated by thermal insulation: a fixed inner conductor ball B_r is surrounded by an insulating layer of different diffusivity, and the outer boundary A is free to vary under a volume constraint. The question is whether the concentric ball B_R is locally optimal. The authors prove that the answer depends on a single comparison: whether the two-phase Robin eigenvalue λ_β(B_r, B_R) is below or above the principal Neumann eigenvalue λ_N(B_r) of the inner ball. When the Robin eigenvalue is smaller, the concentric configuration is a strictly stable local minimum. When it is larger, translating the outer ball off-center strictly decreases the eigenvalue, producing local symmetry-breaking. For the physically relevant case a < 1 (insulating layer less conductive than the core), monotonicity of the eigenvalue in the outer radius yields a critical β* separating the two regimes: below β* the concentric ball is always stable; above β*, symmetry-breaking occurs when the insulating volume is small enough. This mirrors the symmetry-breaking phenomenon previously known only in a thin-layer limiting regime, but here it is established directly on the original two-phase problem.

What carries the argument

The argument rests on three components. First, the first and second shape derivatives of λ_β(Ω, A) are computed via Hadamard-type formulas, yielding an expression for the shape Hessian involving a quadratic form Q_λ in the derivative of the eigenfunction. Second, a modified Steklov eigenvalue problem Q_λ(φ, v) = σ ∫_{∂A} φv is introduced to spectrally decompose the boundary data, reducing coercivity analysis to checking the sign of a quantity f(a, β, r, R) = σ_β − β − a(λ_β/β − H). Third, a weighted Wronskian argument between the radial eigenfunction U and the principal Steklov eigenfunction V_1 shows f factors as (r/R)^{n−1}(a−1)U''(r−)/(β U(R) V(r)), and Bessel function theory identifies U

What would settle it

If one could exhibit a smooth volume-preserving perturbation h of the outer ball B_R with arbitrarily small C^{2,γ}-norm such that the second variation of λ_β(B_r, ·) at B_R is non-negative despite λ_β(B_r, B_R) > λ_N(B_r), the main theorem would fail. Concretely, the translation perturbation h = v·x/|x| is shown to produce a negative second variation exactly when the eigenvalue comparison fails; if this computation contained an error in the boundary term k_0 U(R)^2 or in the Steklov eigenvalue identification, the symmetry-breaking conclusion would not hold.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The stability of the concentric ball B_R as a local minimizer of λ_β(B_r, ·) under volume constraint is completely characterized by the sign of λ_β(B_r, B_R) − λ_N(B_r). The proof works by computing the first and second shape derivatives of the eigenvalue at the concentric ball, showing that the first derivative vanishes (criticality), and then analyzing the second derivative via a modified Steklov eigenvalue problem. The key algebraic identity (Lemma 4.11) rewrites the coercivity condition in terms of U''(r−), the second derivative of the radial eigenfunction profile at the inner interface, which by Bessel function analysis (Lemma 4.12) has the same sign as λ_β − λ_N(B_r). For a < 1, monotk

Load-bearing premise

The improved continuity estimate for the second shape derivative requires that a coercivity constant (arising from the spectral gap between the first and second eigenvalues) remains uniform along the entire deformation path. This uniformity is inherited from the spectral gap and controlled by a smallness condition on the perturbation size, but the uniformity is asserted qualitatively rather than verified with explicit constants.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The threshold β* defined by λ_{β*}(B_r) = λ_N(B_r) provides a computable, geometry-free criterion for when symmetry-breaking becomes possible in two-phase insulation design.
  • For a > 1 (insulating layer more conductive than the core), the stability condition reverses, requiring both λ_β > λ_N and a separate bound involving k_0 > 0, suggesting richer phase diagrams in that regime.
  • The modified Steklov eigenvalue problem introduced here could serve as a tool for analyzing stability of other two-phase shape optimization problems where the inner domain is fixed.
  • The parallel result for Dirichlet boundary conditions (Theorem 5.1) shows the same λ vs. λ_N comparison governs stability, suggesting this threshold is a universal feature of two-phase ball-on-ball configurations regardless of exterior boundary type.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The fact that the same λ vs. λ_N threshold governs both Robin and Dirichlet exterior conditions, and both the finite-thickness and thin-layer regimes, suggests that the Neumann eigenvalue of the inner domain plays the role of a universal stability barrier for two-phase insulation — any insulation configuration whose effective decay rate exceeds the inner domain's first nontrivial Neumann mode is v
  • The modified Steklov eigenvalue problem and its spectral decomposition technique could potentially be extended to non-ball inner domains Ω, where spherical harmonics are unavailable, by working with the Neumann eigenbasis of Ω directly — though the clean factorization via the Wronskian is specific to radial geometry.
  • The dependence of the stability threshold on the ratio a = κ_Σ/κ_Ω suggests that in composite material design, the contrast ratio between phases directly controls whether symmetric coating configurations are locally optimal or not.
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.

Referee Report

2 major / 8 minor

Summary. This paper studies the first eigenvalue $λ_β(Ω,A)$ of a two-phase Robin eigenvalue problem for the Laplacian, where the two phases have ellipticity constants $1$ (inside $Ω$) and $a$ (outside $Ω$). The main results (Theorems 1.2 and 1.4) characterize when the concentric ball $B_R$ is a strictly stable local minimum under volume constraint for the functional $A ↦ λ_β(B_r, A)$, with the inner ball $B_r$ fixed. The threshold is given by the principal Neumann eigenvalue $λ_N(B_r)$: for $a < 1$, $B_R$ is stable if and only if $λ_β(B_r, B_R) < λ_N(B_r)$, and symmetry-breaking (translation of the outer ball decreases the eigenvalue) occurs when $λ_β(B_r, B_R) > λ_N(B_r)$. For $a > 1$, an additional condition on $k_0$ is required. The paper also treats the Dirichlet case (Section 5.1) and the thin-layer limit (Section 5.2), recovering known results of Della Pietra–Oliva [28] via a direct perturbative approach. The technical core consists of computing first and second shape derivatives (Section 3), introducing a modified Steklov eigenvalue problem for spectral decomposition (Section 4.1), reducing the coercivity condition to the sign of $U''(r^-)$ via a Wronskian argument (Lemma 4.11), and connecting this to $λ_N(B_r)$ through Bessel function properties (Lemma 4.12).

Significance. The paper addresses a natural and well-motivated question: whether the symmetry-breaking phenomenon previously observed only in the thin-layer limit ($a → 0$) can be detected directly at the level of the original two-phase functional. The answer is affirmative, and the threshold condition is the same as in the limit case, which is a satisfying consistency result. The key technical achievement is the clean reduction of the second-order stability condition to the sign of $U''(r^-)$, and then to the comparison $λ_β(B_r, B_R)$ vs. $λ_N(B_r)$ via classical Bessel function theory (Dixon's theorem). The modified Steklov eigenvalue problem (4.1)–(4.2) is a useful technical device that enables the spectral decomposition on $∂B_R$. The alternative proof of the thin-layer symmetry-breaking result (Section 5.2) via the same perturbative framework is a nice addition that unifies the analysis. The results are falsifiable through explicit numerical computation of the eigenvalues involved.

major comments (2)
  1. Theorems 1.2 and 1.4 state strict inequalities ($<$ and $>$) but do not address the threshold case $λ_β(B_r, B_R) = λ_N(B_r)$. Case 3 of Proposition 4.9 shows that in this degenerate case, $ℓ²[λ_β + ΛV](B_R)(h,h) ≥ 0$ for all $h ∈ T(∂B_R)$ but equality holds for $h = v·x/|x|$. It would strengthen the paper to state explicitly in the main theorems (or in a remark immediately following them) that at the threshold, $B_R$ is a critical shape with vanishing second variation along translations, so that higher-order analysis would be needed to determine stability. This is a gap in the statement, not in the analysis, but it should be acknowledged.
  2. In Theorem 1.4 ($a > 1$), the stability condition requires both $λ_β(B_r, B_R) > λ_N(B_r)$ and $λ_β(B_r, B_R) > β(n-1)/R - β²/a$ (equivalently $k_0 > 0$). Remark 3.6 shows that $k_0$ can change sign when $a > 1$, but the remark does not fully characterize the parameter regime where $k_0 < 0$. The reader is told that $k_0 > 0$ when $β → 0^+$ or $β → +∞$, and that $k_0 < 0$ is possible for intermediate $β$ and large $a$, but the precise region in the $(a, β, r, R)$ parameter space is left implicit. While a complete characterization may be difficult, a brief discussion of whether the two conditions in Theorem 1.4 can fail simultaneously (i.e., whether there exist parameters where $λ_β > λ_N$ but $k_0 < 0$) would clarify the logical structure of the theorem.
minor comments (8)
  1. Section 1, page 4: The critical volume $m^* = m^*(r, β)$ is defined implicitly via $λ_β(B_r, B_{R^*}) = λ_N(B_r)$. It would help to note that existence and uniqueness of $R^*$ follow from the strict monotonicity of $R ↦ λ_β(B_r, B_R)$ (Proposition 3.5) and the limits $R → r^+$ and $R → +∞$.
  2. Lemma 3.3, Eq. (3.3): The boundary condition on $∂A_t$ reads $a∂_{ν_t} ˙u_t + β ˙u_t = k_t u_t h_t + a div_τ(h_t ∇_τ u_t)$. The notation $div_τ$ for the tangential divergence is used before being explicitly defined; a brief note pointing to its definition would aid readability.
  3. Proposition 4.7: The statement that $σ_{k,l}$ is monotone in $k$ is proven, but the claim that $V_k > 0$ in $(0, R]$ relies on the inequality $λ_β < λ_D(B_r, B_R)$ and monotonicity of Dirichlet eigenvalues. This argument is correct but somewhat compressed; one sentence clarifying that $V_k(|x|)Y_{k,l}(x/|x|)$ would be a Dirichlet eigenfunction if $V_k$ vanished would improve clarity.
  4. Section 4.2, Eq. (4.28): The pulled-back equation for $ˆ{˙u}_t$ uses the matrix $M_t = J_t[DΦ_t]^{-1}[DΦ_t]^{-T}$. It would be helpful to note explicitly that $M_t = I$ near $̄Ω$ (since $χ = 0$ there), so the equation reduces to the standard Laplacian in $Ω$, which is used implicitly in the regularity argument.
  5. Section 5.1: The Dirichlet case is stated with $s = 1/2$ in Proposition 5.4 (vs. $s = 1$ for the Robin case). A brief remark explaining the origin of this difference (the boundary condition $˙u = -h∂_ν u$ vs. the Robin-type condition involving $div_τ$) would be instructive.
  6. Typographical: In the abstract, 'characterised' is used (British spelling) while the body uses both British and American spellings inconsistently (e.g., 'minimisation' vs. 'minimization'). Consistency would be preferred.
  7. Reference [20] and [27] are dated 2026; if these are forthcoming/preprints, the status should be clarified.
  8. Figure 1 is referenced but not visible in the manuscript text provided; if it exists, ensure it clearly depicts the symmetric and translated configurations as described.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity detected

full rationale

The paper's central derivation chain is self-contained and verified through explicit, checkable computations. The main results (Theorems 1.2 and 1.4) establish that the concentric ball B_R is a strictly stable local minimum for λ_β(B_r,·) under volume constraint if and only if λ_β(B_r,B_R) < λ_N(B_r) (for a<1), with the opposite threshold for a>1. The derivation proceeds as follows: (1) First and second shape derivatives of λ_β are computed directly via Hadamard formulas (Lemma 3.3, Lemma 3.7), yielding explicit expressions in terms of boundary integrals. (2) A modified Steklov eigenvalue problem (4.1) is introduced as an analytical tool to decompose the shape Hessian via its eigenfunctions (Proposition 4.7). (3) The coercivity condition for the Lagrangian reduces to the sign of f(a,β,r,R) = σ_β − β − a(λ_β/β − H) (Proposition 4.9). (4) A Wronskian argument (Lemma 4.11) shows f(a,β,r,R) = (r/R)^{n−1}(a−1)/(βU(R)) · V(r)U''(r−), which is a direct computation from the ODEs satisfied by U and V. (5) The sign of U''(r−) is related to λ_N(B_r) via classical Bessel function properties and Dixon's theorem (Lemma 4.12). No step in this chain reduces to its inputs by construction. The thin-layer result of Della Pietra–Oliva [28] is cited as motivation and recovered as a limit case (Section 5.2), but the main theorems do not depend on it. Self-citations ([2], [3], [21]) concern related but distinct problems and are not load-bearing for the present derivation. The framework of Dambrine–Lamboley [24] (Theorem 2.7) provides the abstract sufficient conditions for local optimality, but these are standard and externally verified; the paper's contribution is verifying these conditions for the specific two-phase Robin problem through independent computations.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The paper relies on standard mathematical results (elliptic regularity, shape derivative structure theorems, Bessel function theory) and introduces one auxiliary spectral problem (modified Steklov) as a proof tool. No ad hoc axioms or free parameters are introduced. The stability framework of Dambrine-Lamboley [24] is a cited theorem whose hypotheses are verified, not assumed.

assumptions (5)
  • standard math Existence and regularity of the first eigenfunction for the two-phase Robin problem (Theorem 2.8, based on standard elliptic regularity)
    Invoked throughout; the C^{2,γ} regularity of the eigenfunction is needed for the shape derivative computations in Section 3.
  • standard math Structure theorem for first and second shape derivatives (Theorem 2.1, from Henrot-Pierre [32])
    Used to express the shape gradient and Hessian as forms on ∂A. Standard result in shape optimization.
  • standard math Stability theorem for critical shapes under volume constraint (Theorem 2.7, from Dambrine-Lamboley [24])
    The main theorems are proved by verifying the hypotheses (CH_s), (IC_{H^s,X}), and strict stability of this theorem. The theorem itself is a cited result.
  • standard math Properties of Bessel functions: interlacing of zeros (Dixon's theorem), recurrence relations
    Used in Lemma 4.12 to connect U''(r-) > 0 to λ_β > λ_N(B_r) via the first zero of ψ(s) = sJ'_{n/2}(s) - (n-2)/2 · J_{n/2}(s).
  • standard math Simplicity and positivity of the first Robin eigenvalue for connected domains
    Used to decompose H^1(A) into span{u} ⊕ (span{u})⊥ and to establish coercivity of Q_λ on the complement.
invented entities (1)
  • Modified Steklov eigenvalue problem (4.1)-(4.2) independent evidence
    purpose: Spectral decomposition of the shape Hessian on ∂A, enabling characterization of coercivity via the principal eigenvalue σ_β
    The Steklov problem is a standard auxiliary spectral problem; its eigenvalues are well-defined and the spectral theorem applies. The principal eigenvalue σ_β is shown to be generated by degree-1 spherical harmonics (Proposition 4.7), providing a falsifiable computational check.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Symmetry-breaking and local stability of a two-phase eigenvalue problem in optimal insulation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MCIDVDQZ

@misc{pith2026260707218,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Symmetry-breaking and local stability of a two-phase eigenvalue problem in optimal insulation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MCIDVDQZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.07218}
}
abstract

We consider the first eigenvalue, $\lambda_\beta(\Omega,A)$, of a two-phase eigenvalue problem for the Laplacian with Robin boundary conditions, where the two phases are characterised by different ellipticity constants. We characterise the conditions under which a ball $B_R$ is a local minimum under a volume constraint for the minimisation problem $A\mapsto\lambda_\beta(B_r,A)$, in terms of the principal Neumann eigenvalue of the fixed inner ball $B_r$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.07218 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Depiction of the symmetric configuration (left) and of the translated one (right) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages

  1. [28]

    Some remarks on optimal insulation with Robin boundary conditions

    F. Della Pietra and F. Oliva. “Some remarks on optimal insulation with Robin boundary conditions”. In:Calculus of Variations and Partial Differential Equations64.5 (May 2025).issn: 1432-0835.doi: 10.1007/s00526-025-03009-2 .url: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00526- 025-03009-2

    work page doi:10.1007/s00526-025-03009-2 2025

  2. [1]

    Handbook of Mathematical Functions

    M. Abramowitz, I. A. Stegun, and D. A. Mcquarrie. “Handbook of Mathematical Functions.” In: American Mathematical Monthly73 (1966), p. 1143.url: https://api.semanticscholar.org/ CorpusID:122602056

    work page 1966

  3. [2]

    On the asymptotic behavior of a diffraction problem with a thin layer

    P. Acampora and E. Cristoforoni. “On the asymptotic behavior of a diffraction problem with a thin layer”. In:Advances in Calculus of Variations(May 2025).issn: 1864-8266.doi:10.1515/acv- 2024-0052.url:http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/acv-2024-0052

    work page doi:10.1515/acv- 2025

  4. [3]

    On the optimal shape of a thin insulating layer

    P. Acampora, E. Cristoforoni, C. Nitsch, and C. Trombetti. “On the optimal shape of a thin insulating layer”. In:SIAM J. Math. Anal.56.3 (2024), pp. 3509–3536.issn: 0036-1410,1095-7154. doi:10.1137/23M1572544.url:https://doi.org/10.1137/23M1572544

    work page doi:10.1137/23m1572544.url:https://doi.org/10.1137/23m1572544 2024

  5. [4]

    Reinforcement problems in the calculus of variations

    E. Acerbi and G. Buttazzo. “Reinforcement problems in the calculus of variations”. In:Annales de l’Institut Henri Poincaré C, Analyse non linéaire3.4 (1986), pp. 273–284.issn: 0294-1449. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0294-1449(16)30380-8.url: https://www.sciencedirect. com/science/article/pii/S0294144916303808

    work page doi:10.1016/s0294-1449(16)30380-8.url: 1986

  6. [5]

    A lower bound for the first eigenvalue of an elliptic operator

    A. Alvino and G. Trombetti. “A lower bound for the first eigenvalue of an elliptic operator”. In:Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications94.2 (July 1983), pp. 328–337.issn: 0022-247X.doi: 10.1016/0022-247x(83)90066-5 .url: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0022- 247X(83)90066-5

    work page doi:10.1016/0022-247x(83)90066-5 1983

  7. [6]

    Bandle and A

    C. Bandle and A. Wagner.Shape optimization—variations of domains and applications. Vol. 42. De Gruyter Series in Nonlinear Analysis and Applications. De Gruyter, Berlin, 2023.isbn: 978-3-11-102526-1; 978-3-11-102581-0

    work page 2023

  8. [7]

    Cross-product of Bessel functions: Monotonicity patterns and functional inequalities

    Á. Baricz, S. Ponnusamy, and S. Singh. “Cross-product of Bessel functions: Monotonicity patterns and functional inequalities”. In:Proceedings - Mathematical Sciences128.3 (2018).issn: 0973-7685. doi:10.1007/s12044-018-0398-z.url:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12044-018-0398-z

    work page doi:10.1007/s12044-018-0398-z.url:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12044-018-0398-z 2018

Show all 43 references
  1. [8]

    Numerical solution of a nonlinear eigenvalue problem arising in optimal insulation

    S. Bartels and G. Buttazzo. “Numerical solution of a nonlinear eigenvalue problem arising in optimal insulation”. In:Interfaces and Free Boundaries, Mathematical Analysis, Computation and Applications21.1 (May 2019), pp. 1–19.issn: 1463-9971. 52

    2019

  2. [9]

    Longueurs extrémales et fonctionnelles de domaine

    M.H. Bossel. “Longueurs extrémales et fonctionnelles de domaine”. In:Complex Variables and Elliptic Equations6.2–4 (1986), pp. 203–234

    1986

  3. [10]

    Reinforcement problems for elliptic equations and variational inequalities

    H. Brézis, L. A. Caffarelli, and A. Friedman. “Reinforcement problems for elliptic equations and variational inequalities”. In:Annali di matematica pura ed applicata123.1 (1980), pp. 219–246

    1980

  4. [11]

    Symmetry breaking for a problem in optimal insulation

    D. Bucur, G. Buttazzo, and C. Nitsch. “Symmetry breaking for a problem in optimal insulation”. In:Journal de Mathématiques Pures et Appliquées107.4 (2017), pp. 451–463

    2017

  5. [12]

    Two optimization problems in thermal insulation

    D. Bucur, G. Buttazzo, and C. Nitsch. “Two optimization problems in thermal insulation”. In: Notices Amer. Math. Soc.64.8 (2017), pp. 830–835.issn: 0002-9920,1088-9477.doi:10.1090/ noti1557.url:https://doi.org/10.1090/noti1557

    2017 doi

  6. [13]

    Thin insulating layers: the optimization point of view

    G. Buttazzo. “Thin insulating layers: the optimization point of view”. In:Material instabilities in continuum mechanics (Edinburgh, 1985–1986). Oxford Sci. Publ. Oxford Univ. Press, New York, 1988, pp. 11–19.isbn: 0-19-853273-3

    1985

  7. [14]

    H. S. Carslaw and J. C. Jaeger.Conduction of Heat in Solids. 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1959.isbn: 978-0-1985330-3-0

    1959

  8. [15]

    A characterization result for the existence of a two-phase material minimizing the first eigenvalue

    J. Casado-Díaz. “A characterization result for the existence of a two-phase material minimizing the first eigenvalue”. In:Annales de l’Institut Henri Poincaré C, Analyse non linéaire34.5 (Oct. 2017), pp. 1215–1226.issn: 1873-1430.doi: 10 . 1016 / j . anihpc . 2016 . 09 . 006.u...

    2017 doi

  9. [16]

    Smoothness Properties for the Optimal Mixture of Two Isotropic Materials: The Compliance and Eigenvalue Problems

    J. Casado-Díaz. “Smoothness Properties for the Optimal Mixture of Two Isotropic Materials: The Compliance and Eigenvalue Problems”. In:SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization53.4 (Jan. 2015), pp. 2319–2349.issn: 1095-7138.doi:10.1137/140971087.url: http://dx.doi. org/10.1137/...

    2015 doi

  10. [17]

    Minimization of the Ground State for Two Phase Conductors in Low Contrast Regime

    C. Conca, A. Laurain, and R. Mahadevan. “Minimization of the Ground State for Two Phase Conductors in Low Contrast Regime”. In:SIAM J. Appl. Math.72 (2012), pp. 1238–1259.url: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:6271329

    2012

  11. [18]

    Shape derivative for a two-phase eigenvalue problem and optimal configurations in a ball

    C. Conca, R. Mahadevan, and L. Sanz. “Shape derivative for a two-phase eigenvalue problem and optimal configurations in a ball”. In:ESAIM: Proceedings27 (2009). Ed. by C. Besse, O. Goubet, T. Goudon, and S. Nicaise, pp. 311–321.issn: 1270-900X.doi:10.1051/proc/2009034.url: htt...

    2009 doi

  12. [19]

    Extremal eigenvalue problems for two-phase conductors

    S. Cox and R. Lipton. “Extremal eigenvalue problems for two-phase conductors”. In:Archive for Rational Mechanics and Analysis136.2 (Dec. 1996), pp. 101–117.issn: 1432-0673.doi: 10.1007/bf02316974.url:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02316974

    1996 doi

  13. [20]

    On the classical reinforcement problem and optimisation

    E. Cristoforoni, C. Nitsch, and C. Trombetti. “On the classical reinforcement problem and optimisation”. In:Nonlinear Analysis272 (Nov. 2026), p. 114180.issn: 0362-546X.doi:10.1016/ j.na.2026.114180.url:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.na.2026.114180

    2026 doi

  14. [21]

    Remarks on the reinforcement of the spectrum of an elliptic problem with Robin boundary condition

    E. Cristoforoni and F. Villone. “Remarks on the reinforcement of the spectrum of an elliptic problem with Robin boundary condition”. In:arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.22305(2026)

    2026 arXiv

  15. [22]

    On variations of the shape Hessian and sufficient conditions for the stability of critical shapes

    M. Dambrine. “On variations of the shape Hessian and sufficient conditions for the stability of critical shapes.” In:Racsam96 (2002), pp. 95–121

    2002

  16. [23]

    On the Shape Sensitivity of the First Dirichlet Eigenvalue for Two-Phase Problems

    M. Dambrine and D. Kateb. “On the Shape Sensitivity of the First Dirichlet Eigenvalue for Two-Phase Problems”. In:Applied Mathematics & Optimization63.1 (July 2010), pp. 45–74.issn: 1432-0606.doi: 10.1007/s00245-010-9111-z .url: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00245- 010-9111-z

    2010 doi

  17. [24]

    Stability in shape optimization with second variation

    M. Dambrine and J. Lamboley. “Stability in shape optimization with second variation”. In: Journal of Differential Equations267.5 (2019), pp. 3009–3045

    2019

  18. [25]

    A Faber-Krahn inequality for Robin problems in any space dimension

    D. Daners. “A Faber-Krahn inequality for Robin problems in any space dimension”. In:Mathe- matische Annalen335.4 (2006), pp. 767–785. 53

    2006

  19. [26]

    An optimization problem in thermal insulation with Robin boundary conditions

    F. Della Pietra, C. Nitsch, R. Scala, and C. Trombetti. “An optimization problem in thermal insulation with Robin boundary conditions”. In:Communications in Partial Differential Equations 46.12 (2021), pp. 2288–2304

    2021

  20. [27]

    Della Pietra and F Oliva.Optimal insulation and concentration breaking for nonlinear Robin boundary value problems

    F. Della Pietra and F Oliva.Optimal insulation and concentration breaking for nonlinear Robin boundary value problems. 2026. arXiv:2607.02229 [math.AP].url: https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2607.02229

    2026 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Beweis, dass unter allen homogenen Membranen von gleicher Fläche und gleicher Spannung die kreisförmige den tiefsten Grundton gibt

    G. Faber. “Beweis, dass unter allen homogenen Membranen von gleicher Fläche und gleicher Spannung die kreisförmige den tiefsten Grundton gibt”. In:Sitzungsberichte der mathematisch- physikalischen Klasse der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften(1923), pp. 169–172

    1923

  22. [30]

    Reinforcement of the principal eigenvalue of an elliptic operator

    A. Friedman. “Reinforcement of the principal eigenvalue of an elliptic operator”. In:Archive for Rational Mechanics and Analysis73.1 (1980), pp. 1–17

    1980

  23. [31]

    Monotonicity results for the principal eigenvalue of the generalized Robin problem

    T. Giorgi and R. G. Smits. “Monotonicity results for the principal eigenvalue of the generalized Robin problem”. In:Illinois J. Math.49.4 (2005), pp. 1133–1143.issn: 0019-2082,1945-6581.url: http://projecteuclid.org/euclid.ijm/1258138130

    2005

  24. [32]

    Henrot and M

    A. Henrot and M. Pierre.Shape Variation and Optimization: A Geometrical Analysis. EMS tracts in mathematics. European Mathematical Society, 2018.isbn: 9783037191781.url:https: //books.google.it/books?id=_fCqswEACAAJ

    2018

  25. [33]

    Concentration breaking on two optimization problems

    Y. Huang, Q. Li, and Q. Li. “Concentration breaking on two optimization problems”. In:Science China Mathematics67.7 (Jan. 2024), pp. 1555–1570.issn: 1869-1862.doi: 10.1007/s11425- 022-2128-5.url:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11425-022-2128-5

    2024 doi

  26. [34]

    Stability analysis on two thermal insulation problems

    Y. Huang, Q. Li, and Q. Li. “Stability analysis on two thermal insulation problems”. English. In:J. Math. Pures Appl. (9)168 (2022), pp. 168–191.issn: 0021-7824.doi:10.1016/j.matpur. 2022.11.003

    2022 doi

  27. [35]

    Über eine von Rayleigh formulierte Minimaleigenschaft des Kreises

    E. Krahn. “Über eine von Rayleigh formulierte Minimaleigenschaft des Kreises”. In:Mathematische Annalen94 (1925), pp. 97–100

    1925

  28. [36]

    O. A. Ladyzhenskaya and N. N. Ural’tseva.Linear and quasilinear elliptic equations. Translated from the Russian by Scripta Technica, Inc, Translation editor: Leon Ehrenpreis. Academic Press, New York-London, 1968, pp. xviii+495

    1968

  29. [37]

    Global minimizer of the ground state for two phase conductors in low contrast regime

    A. Laurain. “Global minimizer of the ground state for two phase conductors in low contrast regime”. In:ESAIM: Control, Optimisation and Calculus of Variations20.2 (Mar. 2014), pp. 362–388.issn: 1262-3377.doi:10.1051/cocv/2013067.url:http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/cocv/2013067

    2014 doi

  30. [38]

    Asymptotic behavior of Robin problem for heat equation on a coated body

    J. Li, X. Wang, G. Zhang, and K. Zhang. “Asymptotic behavior of Robin problem for heat equation on a coated body”. In:The Rocky Mountain Journal of Mathematics(2012), pp. 937–958

    2012

  31. [39]

    Shape optimization of a weighted two-phase Dirichlet eigenvalue

    I. Mazari, G. Nadin, and Y. Privat. “Shape optimization of a weighted two-phase Dirichlet eigenvalue”. In:Archive for Rational Mechanics and Analysis243.1 (2022), pp. 95–137

    2022

  32. [40]

    G. N. Watson.A treatise on the theory of Bessel functions. Vol. 3. The University Press, 1922

    1922

  33. [41]

    Asymptotic behavior for the principal eigenvalue of a reinforcement problem

    T. Yachimura. “Asymptotic behavior for the principal eigenvalue of a reinforcement problem”. In: Applicable Analysis98.10 (Sept. 2018), pp. 1946–1958.issn: 1563-504X.doi:10.1080/00036811. 2018.1517411.url:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00036811.2018.1517411

    2018 doi

  34. [42]

    Estimating thermal insulating ability of anisotropic coatings via Robin eigenvalues and eigenfunctions

    G. Zhang, S. Rosencrans, X. Wang, and K. Zhang. “Estimating thermal insulating ability of anisotropic coatings via Robin eigenvalues and eigenfunctions”. In:Discrete and Continuous Dynamical Systems - A25.3 (2009), pp. 1061–1079.issn: 1553-5231.doi:10.3934/dcds.2009. 25.1061.u...

    2009 doi

  35. [43]

    Regularity of a transmission problem and periodic homogenization

    J. Zhuge. “Regularity of a transmission problem and periodic homogenization”. In:Journal de Mathématiques Pures et Appliquées153 (Sept. 2021), pp. 213–247.issn: 0021-7824.doi: 10.1016/j.matpur.2021.07.003.url:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.matpur.2021.07.003. E-mail address, E. C...

    2021 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed July 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.