Aleksandrov reflection for Geometric Flows in Hyperbolic Spaces

Aakash Mishra; Jos\'e M. Espinar; Theodora Bourni

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

A reflection method shows that expanding curvature flows in hyperbolic space always become star-shaped after an explicit time and, when smooth, round out exponentially fast at infinity.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-02 23:53 UTC pith:OLBAXFXC

load-bearing objection A promising reflection framework for hyperbolic flows, but the load-bearing comparison principle is assumed, not proved, so the current claims don't stand. the 5 major comments →

arxiv 2602.12186 v2 pith:OLBAXFXC submitted 2026-02-12 math.DG

Aleksandrov reflection for Geometric Flows in Hyperbolic Spaces

Theodora Bourni , Jos\'e M. Espinar , Aakash Mishra This is my paper

classification math.DG MSC 53C4435D4053C42

keywords Aleksandrov reflectioninverse curvature flowlevel-set flowhyperbolic spacestar-shapednesshorosphereviscosity solutionexponential convergence

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper develops an Aleksandrov reflection technique for level-set formulations of expanding curvature flows in hyperbolic space, with inverse mean curvature flow as the model case. It proves that any compact viscosity solution becomes star-shaped after a finite waiting time computed explicitly from the in-radius and out-radius of the initial domain, and that smooth solutions then converge exponentially fast to a totally umbilic hypersurface at infinity. The same reflection scheme is extended to properly embedded non-compact hypersurfaces whose asymptotic boundary is a single point, where the flow becomes a global graph over a horosphere and, for inverse mean curvature flow, converges asymptotically to a horosphere. The method matters because previous smooth theories required a priori star-shapedness or convexity, while this approach starts from arbitrary compact embedded initial data and obtains the needed geometry from the flow itself.

Core claim

The central claim is that reflection symmetry does not deteriorate along the level-set flow: if a totally geodesic hyperplane is admissible for the initial hypersurface, then the same hyperplane remains admissible at every later time, because the flow equation is invariant under the isometric reflection and a maximum principle transfers the initial inequality u0(x) ≥ u0(x*) to u_t. From this, the signed distance to the evolving surface is monotone along normal geodesics issuing from an optimally placed hyperplane, which yields Lipschitz graphicality and, in exponential coordinates, a radial gradient estimate. Combining the gradient estimate with the known evolution of geodesic spheres shows

What carries the argument

The key object is the level-set equation ∂_t u = |∇u| F(κ_1,...,κ_n,t), with F monotone in the principal curvatures and, for inverse curvature flows, homogeneous of degree one. Aleksandrov reflection is implemented through the family of totally geodesic hyperplanes orthogonal to a geodesic from the origin, and admissibility of a hyperplane is the inequality u(x) ≥ u(x*) on one side. Because reflections are isometries that preserve the equation, the optimal admissible value s0(ν) is non-increasing in time; this monotonicity yields monotonicity of signed distance along normal geodesics, the Lipschitz and graphical estimates, and ultimately star-shapedness. Explicit horospherical barriers — geo

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the maximum principle transfers the initial reflection inequality u_t(x) ≥ u_t(x*) to all later times for the level-set equation; the paper asserts this for its broad class of speeds without a proof or a cited theorem covering non-homogeneous C^1 monotone F, and in the non-compact single-point case the existence of a viscosity solution is assumed rather than proved.

What would settle it

Compute or numerically approximate the level-set evolution of a compact non-star-shaped initial surface in H^4 under inverse mean curvature flow and check whether, at the advertised time T = n log(sinh r+ / sinh r-), every radial half-line from the origin meets the surface exactly once; a single ray meeting it twice or not at all would refute the star-shapedness theorem. Equivalently, exhibit a C^1 monotone non-homogeneous speed F for which comparison fails for two initially ordered level-set solutions, since the reflection persistence relies on comparison.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

Compact weak inverse curvature flows in H^{n+1} become star-shaped, hence topological spheres, after the explicit time T = n log(sinh r+ / sinh r-).
Smooth inverse curvature flows become strictly convex and converge exponentially fast to a totally umbilic hypersurface at infinity, even when the initial hypersurface was not star-shaped.
A compact initial hypersurface not homeomorphic to S^n must develop a singularity, possibly a self-intersection, no later than the same time T.
In the non-compact case with a single point at infinity, evolving hypersurfaces stay trapped between two explicit horospheres and become global graphs over a horosphere; smooth inverse mean curvature flow converges asymptotically to a horosphere.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The explicit waiting time depends only on the ratio of initial in-radius to out-radius, suggesting that a purely geometric regularization time may exist for other fully nonlinear parabolic flows in negatively curved ambient manifolds; this is an extrapolation beyond the paper's statements.
One testable extension is to run the level-set inverse mean curvature flow numerically from a non-star-shaped compact initial surface in H^4; the star-shapedness time T should mark the first time every radial ray from the origin meets the surface exactly once, and failure would point directly at the comparison-principle gap.
The abstract promises an analogous two-point asymptotic-boundary result, an eventual global graph over a hyperbolic cylinder with uniform gradient bounds, but the body of the paper contains no such proof; until that material appears, that assertion should be treated as announced rather than established.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

A promising reflection framework for hyperbolic flows, but the load-bearing comparison principle is assumed, not proved, so the current claims don't stand.

read the letter

Let me give you the short version: the Aleksandrov-reflection approach to hyperbolic level-set flows is a real idea, and the compact star-shapedness theorem would be a genuine advance if the comparison principle it depends on were actually proved. Right now it isn't, and the non-compact part has additional gaping holes.

The genuinely new material is the level-set adaptation of Chow–Gulliver reflection to hyperbolic space, with explicit waiting times and gradient estimates. Theorem 3.9's radial gradient bound and the horosphere-graph result in the one-point case are useful tools, and the idea to treat non-compact hypersurfaces via horospherical reflection is worth pursuing.

The soft spot is not small. Theorem 3.6 is the hinge: it converts initial admissibility into time-dependent admissibility for the level-set flow (6). The proof says 'by the maximum principle for viscosity solutions,' but no comparison theorem is stated, proved, or correctly cited for the fully nonlinear operator in (6) with speeds that are only C^1 and monotone. Chen–Giga–Goto and Evans–Spruck cover mean-curvature-type flows, not your general class. Without a comparison principle, the reflected inequality can't be propagated, and Theorems 3.8–3.11 lose their support. The existence/uniqueness of the level-set solution is also assumed rather than established. In the non-compact section you explicitly assume a viscosity solution, Theorem 4.2 is asserted with a sketch, and the barrier argument in Theorem 4.4 relies on an initial disjointness that is not justified. A citation to a non-existent Proposition 4.4 and an abstract that promises a two-point result absent from the body make the manuscript look rushed.

Some of this is repairable. If a comparison principle for (6) can be supplied—and I think it can, likely by combining [8,13] with Gerhardt's estimates—most of the compact results should go through. The non-compact story needs more work.

This deserves a serious referee, but on the current version I would not accept it. I'd recommend a major revision: fill the comparison-principle gap, prove or properly cite it, and clean up the dangling references.

That's my read.

Referee Report

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper develops an Aleksandrov-reflection framework for level-set viscosity solutions of expanding curvature flows in hyperbolic space, with inverse mean curvature flow as the model case. In the compact setting the authors claim that the optimal admissible value is non-increasing in time (Theorem 3.6), that the evolving level sets are Lipschitz graphs over hyperplanes (Theorem 3.8) and radial graphs with explicit gradient bounds (Theorem 3.9), and that inverse-curvature flows become star-shaped after the explicit time T = n log(sinh r+ / sinh r-) (Theorem 3.10), leading to exponential convergence to an umbilic hypersurface for smooth solutions (Corollary 3.11). For non-compact hypersurfaces with one point at infinity, the paper claims graph estimates over horospheres, preservation of horosphere barriers, and convergence to a horosphere (Theorems 4.2--4.5). The full text treats only the one-point-at-infinity non-compact case.

Significance. If valid, the compact results would provide a genuinely useful weak/viscosity alternative to smooth star-shaped inverse-curvature-flow theories, with an explicit waiting time and quantitative gradient control. The non-compact one-point results, if proved, would be novel. The paper has clear strengths: the explicit barrier evolutions (16) and (20), the Saccheri-quadrilateral computation (11), and the clean structure of the reflection method. However, the key comparison step for the fully nonlinear level-set equation is not established, and several non-compact statements are asserted without proof or rest on unsupported hypotheses. These gaps affect the central claims and cannot be described as cosmetic.

major comments (5)

[§3.3, Theorem 3.6] The proof of the key persistence inequality u_t(x) ≥ u_t(x*) consists of the sentence 'By the maximum principle for viscosity solutions, which we can apply because the flow is invariant under the reflection.' No comparison theorem for (6) is stated, proved, or cited for the paper's speed class, which is only C^1 and nondecreasing in the curvatures, possibly time-dependent. The references [8,13] are level-set mean-curvature-flow papers, and [10] treats smooth Euclidean flows; none supplies the required comparison principle. Since Theorem 3.6 is the only mechanism propagating reflected inequalities, Theorems 3.8–3.10 and Corollary 3.11 inherit this gap. The asserted existence and uniqueness of a continuous viscosity solution just before (6) is likewise not backed by a theorem.
[§4.2, Theorem 4.2] Theorem 4.2 is stated but not proved. The preceding text says Lemma 3.5, Theorem 3.6, and Proposition 3.7 'adapt verbatim', but no adaptation is shown. The non-compact setting uses a different foliation by hemispheres P_x(s), and the compactness argument needed to start the reflection is only sketched via the asymptotic-boundary condition. Since the C^2-graph conclusion with uniform gradient bound is a central non-compact result, leaving it as an unproved assertion is a load-bearing gap.
[§4.3, Theorem 4.4] The barrier argument assumes initial disjointness, stated as 'Since Σ_0 ∩ S_{r0}=∅ initially' and similarly for the equidistant barrier. The hypotheses only give Σ_0 ⊂ H^-(s+) or H^+(s-); they do not imply disjointness from a geodesic sphere tangent to H(s+) at an arbitrary point (especially for small r0), nor from a lower equidistant barrier. Thus the avoidance principle cannot be invoked as written, and the limits r0→∞ and d0→0 are unjustified. The vertical-strip reduction for non-compact avoidance is only sketched and does not provide a general avoidance principle for non-compact surfaces.
[§4.3, before Theorem 4.5] The text states 'Theorem 4.4 and Proposition 4.4 we see that...', but no Proposition 4.4 exists in the manuscript. This citation to a nonexistent entity cannot support the conclusion that the solution remains trapped between two horospheres and is a global graph for large times.
[§4.2, assumption of viscosity solution] The paper explicitly says 'we will assume the existence of a viscosity solution' in the non-compact one-point setting, with no proof or reference establishing such existence for the general speed class. The subsequent theorems, including the convergence result Theorem 4.5, are therefore conditional on an unproved existence statement, while the abstract presents these as unconditional results.

minor comments (6)

[Throughout] There are typographical errors including 'parrallel', 'hypesurfaces', 'It's convenient', and 'where wherer_-' in (17). The caption of Figure 1, 'value of 0 = 0', appears nonsensical and should be corrected.
[§3 and §3.4] The sign convention for IMCF is inconsistent: in §3 the flow is written with F=-1/H_t, while in §3.4 the inverse curvature flow is written as ∂_t φ = η/F with F=H. Please clarify the convention to avoid confusion.
[Theorem 3.10 proof] The expression '∂Ω_t ⊂ S^n × (r_+,∞)' is written as a product; it should be phrased in radial coordinates, e.g., points of ∂Ω_t have radial distance greater than r_+.
[Theorem 4.3] The theorem states that 'Σ_t ∩ H^-(¯s) is a graph over R^n×{0}', but the proof only yields a local graph over a subset U⊂R^n. The global-versus-local nature of the graph domain should be clarified.
[Abstract] The submitted abstract mentions a two-point-at-infinity result leading to a hyperbolic cylinder, but the full text contains no such theorem or section. The abstract and body should be aligned.
[References] Reference [1] is listed as a 2018 preprint without an arXiv identifier or publication venue. If it is a preprint, providing the arXiv number would be helpful.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circular reduction found; the chain is powered by external theorems, with a non-circular missing-comparison gap.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain does not reduce any claimed output to its own input. The finite-time star-shapedness theorem (Theorem 3.10) compares the viscosity solution with explicitly evolving geodesic spheres: the barrier radius satisfies sinh r(t) = e^{t/n} sinh r_0, which is solved from the inverse-curvature speed, and the radial graph estimate (Theorem 3.9) is obtained from reflection admissibility plus hyperbolic geometry. Smooth exponential convergence (Corollary 3.11) invokes Gerhardt [14] only after star-shapedness has been established, and the one-point-at-infinity convergence (Theorem 4.5) invokes Allen [1] only after the new containment/graph estimates. These are external results, not self-citations; the only self-citations ([4,5]) are introductory illustrations and carry no load. I do flag, per the reviewing rule, two internal gaps that are not circularity: (i) Theorem 3.6 propagates the reflected inequality by 'the maximum principle for viscosity solutions, which we can apply because the flow is invariant under the reflection' without proving or citing a comparison theorem for the fully nonlinear, non-homogeneous level-set operator (6) with merely C^1 speeds; and (ii) Section 4.2 explicitly says 'we will assume the existence of a viscosity solution' for non-compact data. These are omitted proofs/unsupported hypotheses that put the star-shapedness and convergence conclusions at correctness risk, but they are not reductions of the conclusions to the hypotheses by construction, so they do not raise the circularity score.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new particles, forces, dimensions, or entities; it uses standard geometric objects (horospheres, equidistant hypersurfaces, geodesic spheres) as barriers. The load-bearing premises are analytic: existence/comparison of viscosity solutions and applicability of avoidance to non-compact surfaces.

axioms (6)

ad hoc to paper Existence and uniqueness of a level-set viscosity solution for (6) for the general speed class in Section 3
Stated as a fact after (7); the cited theories [8,13] concern mean-curvature-type homogeneous flows, not the broad C^1 monotone speeds allowed.
ad hoc to paper Comparison principle for viscosity solutions of (6) is preserved under reflection
Used in Theorem 3.6 to propagate admissibility; no proof or specific citation to a comparison theorem for these non-homogeneous speeds.
ad hoc to paper Existence of a viscosity solution in the non-compact one-point setting
Section 4.2: 'we will assume the existence of a viscosity solution with initial set Σ0'. This is an explicit unproved premise for Theorems 4.2–4.5.
ad hoc to paper Avoidance principle applies to non-compact surfaces after vertical-strip restriction
In Theorem 4.4(ii), the proof restricts to a strip V(x1,x2) and claims Σ'_t is compact so avoidance applies; this compactness is not established for hypersurfaces with ∂∞Σ={∞}.
standard math Gerhardt's smooth convergence theorem for star-shaped inverse curvature flows
External result [14, Theorem 1.1]; used in Corollary 3.11 and Theorem 3.10.
standard math Allen's asymptotic convergence theorem for non-compact IMCF
External result [1]; used in Theorem 4.5 to turn graphical bounds into horosphere convergence.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 18629 in / 21257 out tokens · 200980 ms · 2026-08-02T23:53:59.038797+00:00 · methodology

0 comments

read the original abstract

We develop an Aleksandrov reflection framework for a large class of expanding curvature flows in hyperbolic space, with inverse mean curvature flow serving as a model case. The method applies to the level-set formulation of the flow, and as a consequence we obtain graphical and Lipschitz estimates. Using these estimates, we show that solutions become star-shaped and therefore converge exponentially fast to an umbilic hypersurface at infinity. We also extend these results to the non-compact setting in two cases. First, assuming the asymptotic boundary of the solution consists of a single point, we show that the flow becomes a graph over a horosphere with uniform gradient bounds and converges to a limiting horosphere. Second, assuming the asymptotic boundary consists of two points, we prove that the flow eventually becomes a global graph over a hyperbolic cylinder with uniform gradient bounds; this is achieved through an explicit cylindrical barrier construction analogous to the horospherical one.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.12186 by Aakash Mishra, Jos\'e M. Espinar, Theodora Bourni.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: Admissibility of the value s0 = 0 We further define the overall optimal admissible value by s¯ := max{s0(ν) : ν ∈ S n }. Note that ¯s ≥ 0, since one always has s0(ν)+s0(−ν) ≥ 0 for all ν ∈ S n . In the level-set formulation, one can express admissibility directly in terms of the continuous function u : Hn+1 → R whose zero set describes the evolving hypersurfaces. Definition 3.2. Let Σ, Ω, E be disjoint set… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Monotonicity of fy along the geodesic γy. Theorem 3.8. Let u be a solution to the level set flow given by (6). Let s¯ be the overall optimal admissible value for (Σ0, Ω0, E0). Then, for every ν0 ∈ S n and every t ∈ (0, T), ∂Et ∩ H+(ν0, s¯) and ∂Ωt ∩ H+(ν0, s¯) are Lipschitz graphs (in exponential coordinates) over Pν0 (¯s), with the Lipschitz bound independent of the time t and the speed F. Proof. We begin… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Comparison on the equidistant hypersurface Eν0 (d1). Since p1, p2 ∈ H+(ν0, s¯), which is open, there exists ε > 0 (depending on p1, p2) such that, for all ν in a small neighborhood B0(ν0, ε) ⊂ S n , we have pi ∈ H+(ν, s¯), V (pe2, ε) := B(pe2, ε) ∩ Eν0 (d1) ⊂ H+(ν, s¯). Let [p1, pe2]E(d1) denote the (closed) equidistant arc joining p1 and pe2 defined by [p1, pe2]E(d1) := {expy (d1 N(y)) ∈ Eν0 (d1) : y ∈ [y… view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Graphical representation of ∂Ωt over a geodesic sphere with controlled gradient [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_4.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Gradient estimate for Σt obtained via a totally geodesic comparison hypersurface may assume that V is a graph over a neighborhood U(x0) ⊂ R n × {0}, namely V = (x, rt(x)) : x ∈ U(x0) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_5.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Spheres Sr0 tangent to H(s+) serve as a barriers, that force the flow to stay below a horosphere. Proof. Recall that any horosphere is umbilic with principal curvatures equal to 1. Therefore, the evolution of any horosphere H(s(0)) = {y = [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_6.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Equidistant hypersurface Ed0 in H+(s−) serve as barriers that force the flow to stay above a horosphere [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_7.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

Geometric Gradient Flows from Elliptic Level Sets: Normal Decomposition and Reflection Dynamics
math.AP 2026-07 reject novelty 5.0

Derives a normal decomposition and discrete reflection approximation for elliptic superlevel sets, but the central displacement expansion and numerical validation are internally inconsistent.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

6 extracted references · cited by 1 Pith paper

[133]

[5]Bourni, T., Langford, M., and Tinaglia, G.Collapsing ancient solutions of mean curvature flow.Journal of Differential Geometry 119, 2 (2021), 187–

2021
[219]

[7]Cecil, T

[6]Brendle, S., Hung, P.-K., and W ang, M.-T.A Minkowski inequality for hypersurfaces in the anti-de Sitter–Schwarzschild manifold.Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics 69, 1 (2016), 124–144. [7]Cecil, T. E., and Ryan, P. J.Geometry of Hypersurfaces, reprint of the 1985 edition ed. Classics in Mathematics. Springer,

2016
[280]

L., and Gir ˜ao, F.An Alexandrov–Fenchel-type inequality in hyperbolic space with an application to a Penrose inequality.Annales Henri Poincar´ e 17, 4 (2016), 979–1002

[11]de Lima, L. L., and Gir ˜ao, F.An Alexandrov–Fenchel-type inequality in hyperbolic space with an application to a Penrose inequality.Annales Henri Poincar´ e 17, 4 (2016), 979–1002. [12]do Carmo, M. P., and Lawson, H. Blaine, J.On Alexandrov-Bernstein theorems in hyperbolic space.Duke Mathematical Journal 50(1983), 995–

2016
[1003]

C., and Spruck, J.Motion of level sets by mean curvature

[13]Evans, L. C., and Spruck, J.Motion of level sets by mean curvature. i. Journal of Differential Geometry 33, 3 (1991), 635–681. [14]Gerhardt, C.Inverse curvature flows in hyperbolic space.Journal of Differ- ential Geometry 89, 3 (2011), 487–527. [15]Harvie, B.On weak inverse mean curvature flow and minkowski-type inequal- ities in hyperbolic space.Prep...

1991
[2015]

G., Giga, Y., and Goto, S.Uniqueness and existence of viscosity solutions of generalized mean curvature flow equations.Journal of Differential Geometry 33, 3 (1991), 749–786

[8]Chen, Y. G., Giga, Y., and Goto, S.Uniqueness and existence of viscosity solutions of generalized mean curvature flow equations.Journal of Differential Geometry 33, 3 (1991), 749–786. [9]Chow, B.Aleksandrov reflection for extrinsic geometric flows of euclidean hypersurfaces.Advanced Nonlinear Studies 23, 1 (2023), Paper No. 20220034. [10]Chow, B., and ...

1991
[2018]

[3]Andrews, B., and Wei, Y.Quermassintegral preserving curvature flow in hyperbolic space.Geometric and Functional Analysis 28, 5 (2018), 1183–1208

[2]Andrews, B., Chen, X., and Wei, Y.Volume preserving flow and Alexandrov–Fenchel type inequalities in hyperbolic space.Journal of the Eu- ropean Mathematical Society 23, 7 (2021), 2467–2509. [3]Andrews, B., and Wei, Y.Quermassintegral preserving curvature flow in hyperbolic space.Geometric and Functional Analysis 28, 5 (2018), 1183–1208. [4]Bourni, T., ...

2021

[1] [133]

[5]Bourni, T., Langford, M., and Tinaglia, G.Collapsing ancient solutions of mean curvature flow.Journal of Differential Geometry 119, 2 (2021), 187–

2021

[2] [219]

[7]Cecil, T

[6]Brendle, S., Hung, P.-K., and W ang, M.-T.A Minkowski inequality for hypersurfaces in the anti-de Sitter–Schwarzschild manifold.Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics 69, 1 (2016), 124–144. [7]Cecil, T. E., and Ryan, P. J.Geometry of Hypersurfaces, reprint of the 1985 edition ed. Classics in Mathematics. Springer,

2016

[3] [280]

L., and Gir ˜ao, F.An Alexandrov–Fenchel-type inequality in hyperbolic space with an application to a Penrose inequality.Annales Henri Poincar´ e 17, 4 (2016), 979–1002

[11]de Lima, L. L., and Gir ˜ao, F.An Alexandrov–Fenchel-type inequality in hyperbolic space with an application to a Penrose inequality.Annales Henri Poincar´ e 17, 4 (2016), 979–1002. [12]do Carmo, M. P., and Lawson, H. Blaine, J.On Alexandrov-Bernstein theorems in hyperbolic space.Duke Mathematical Journal 50(1983), 995–

2016

[4] [1003]

C., and Spruck, J.Motion of level sets by mean curvature

[13]Evans, L. C., and Spruck, J.Motion of level sets by mean curvature. i. Journal of Differential Geometry 33, 3 (1991), 635–681. [14]Gerhardt, C.Inverse curvature flows in hyperbolic space.Journal of Differ- ential Geometry 89, 3 (2011), 487–527. [15]Harvie, B.On weak inverse mean curvature flow and minkowski-type inequal- ities in hyperbolic space.Prep...

1991

[5] [2015]

G., Giga, Y., and Goto, S.Uniqueness and existence of viscosity solutions of generalized mean curvature flow equations.Journal of Differential Geometry 33, 3 (1991), 749–786

[8]Chen, Y. G., Giga, Y., and Goto, S.Uniqueness and existence of viscosity solutions of generalized mean curvature flow equations.Journal of Differential Geometry 33, 3 (1991), 749–786. [9]Chow, B.Aleksandrov reflection for extrinsic geometric flows of euclidean hypersurfaces.Advanced Nonlinear Studies 23, 1 (2023), Paper No. 20220034. [10]Chow, B., and ...

1991

[6] [2018]

[3]Andrews, B., and Wei, Y.Quermassintegral preserving curvature flow in hyperbolic space.Geometric and Functional Analysis 28, 5 (2018), 1183–1208

[2]Andrews, B., Chen, X., and Wei, Y.Volume preserving flow and Alexandrov–Fenchel type inequalities in hyperbolic space.Journal of the Eu- ropean Mathematical Society 23, 7 (2021), 2467–2509. [3]Andrews, B., and Wei, Y.Quermassintegral preserving curvature flow in hyperbolic space.Geometric and Functional Analysis 28, 5 (2018), 1183–1208. [4]Bourni, T., ...

2021