Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 67 references

Potential Theory and the Boundary of Combinatorial Graphs

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A graph's potential-theoretic boundary is where neighbors point inward, and six classical inequalities hold there.

desk verdict A worthwhile paper with four solid theorems and two unproven ones; referee it, but do not accept as is. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.20833 v1 pith:OOJLCPLZ submitted 2025-07-28 math.CA math.APmath.COmath.PR

Stefan Steinerberger This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.CAmath.APmath.COmath.PR MSC 05C8131C20
keywords graphboundarypotentialtheoryrandomwalkhittingtimeFaber-KrahninequalityHardyAlexandrov-Bakelman-PucciestimatehotspotsBjörcktheorem
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 proposes that a finite connected graph has an intrinsic boundary: a vertex belongs to ∂G when some other vertex witnesses that the average neighbor is closer to it than the vertex itself. The claim is that this boundary behaves like the boundary of a Euclidean domain for potential theory. To support this, the author proves six quantitative analogues of classical results for functions vanishing on ∂G: an expected-exit-time bound for random walks, a Faber–Krahn inequality, a Hardy inequality, an Alexandrov–Bakelman–Pucci estimate, a stability estimate for the hot-spots eigenfunction, and a Björck-type theorem saying energy-maximizing measures live on the boundary. If correct, these six results together say that imposing Dirichlet conditions on ∂G reproduces the scaling laws of classical analysis on arbitrary finite graphs, making ∂G a natural object for graph PDEs and spectral theory.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the boundary ∂G defined by the witness condition, together with Proposition 1: v∈∂G if and only if, for some w, v has more neighbors at distance one closer to w than at distance one farther from w. Negating gives the interior characterization used throughout: for every w, the number of neighbors moving away from w is at least the number moving toward w. That single combinatorial dichotomy converts graph questions into questions about a one-dimensional random walk on distance layers {0,1,...,diam(G)} with no leftward drift; Lemma 1 bounds the exit time of this dominated walk by diam(G)^2 with an exponential tail. The expected hitting time φ of ∂G then serves as the Hardy weight and as the super-solution in a modified Agmon–Allegretto–Piepenbrink argument, while the same distance-walk bound supplies the mixing input for the ABP and hot-spots estimates.

What would settle it

A direct check of the definition on the complete bipartite graph $K_{n,n}$ settles part of the naturalness claim: every vertex has a witness, so $\partial G=V$ and the interior $V\setminus\partial G$ is empty; if one regards $K_{n,n}$ as having no natural geometric boundary, then the six theorems become vacuous on it and the potential-theoretic interpretation would need to explain what 'interior' means there.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that the witness-based set ∂G is a usable Dirichlet boundary for all finite connected graphs, not just trees or grids. The central quantitative package is the following: a random walk from any vertex hits ∂G in expected time at most max_v deg(v)·diam(G)^2; the smallest eigenvalue of the graph Laplacian with Dirichlet conditions on ∂G is at least (1/4) min_v deg(v)/diam(G)^2; the expected hitting time φ satisfies a Hardy inequality with weight deg(v)/φ(v); a function's maximum is controlled by its boundary maximum plus 2(maxdeg/mindeg)diam(G)^2 ∥Lf∥∞; the second eigenfunction's interior maximum is bounded by a possibly large constant times its boundary maximum when its eigenvalue λ2<1; and any extremal probability measure for a strictly convex increasing function of graph distance is supported in ∂G. The proofs rest on a distance-layer characterization: an interior vertex has at least as many neighbors farther from every witness as closer to it.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the witness-defined set ∂G is the right boundary notion; two of the proofs (Theorems 2 and 5) additionally assume, without an explicit justification, that Lemma 1's exponential tail bound transfers from the auxiliary distance-change walk to the original graph walk.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Functions vanishing on ∂G form a genuine Dirichlet space: the principal eigenvalue of the restricted Laplacian is positive and bounded below by $\min_v \deg(v)/(4\,\mathrm{diam}(G)^2)$, so interior heat decay has a rate controlled by the diameter.
  • The random walk exit-time bound $\mathbb{E}T \le \max_v \deg(v)\,\mathrm{diam}(G)^2$ holds from any starting vertex, so boundary absorption is always quadratically fast in the diameter, matching Brownian intuition.
  • The Björck-type theorem implies that for any strictly convex increasing function of graph distance, a maximizer of the two-point energy can be chosen with all mass on $\partial G$; in particular, for $\alpha>1$ the distance-energy maximizers avoid interior vertices.
  • The ABP estimate yields a quantitative maximum principle: if $\|Lf\|_{L^\infty(V\setminus\partial G)}$ is small, then $f$'s maximum exceeds its boundary maximum only by a controlled multiple of $\mathrm{diam}(G)^2$.
  • For path-like graphs, where the second eigenvalue satisfies $\lambda_2 \lesssim 1/\mathrm{diam}(G)^2$, the hot-spots constant in Theorem 5 stays uniformly bounded, giving genuine interior-to-boundary control for the second eigenvector.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If ∂G is accepted as the potential-theoretic boundary, then other classical boundary notions (Martin boundary, measure-theoretic boundary) likely have distinct graph analogues with their own sets of true theorems; the paper itself says this is probably not the end of the story.
  • The stochastic-domination proof suggests a testable extension: replacing the uniform maximum degree by a local degree average might sharpen the constant in Theorems 1, 2, and 4 on graphs with heterogeneous degrees.
  • The Björck theorem has a computational corollary the author leaves implicit: for maximum-dispersion-type optimization on graphs, one may restrict the search to ∂G, shrinking the feasible set dramatically on graphs with small boundary.
  • Because the boundary is defined through distance comparisons, graph embeddings or metric perturbations that change distances can shift ∂G nonlocally; quantifying that sensitivity would tell whether ∂G is robust enough for use in data-science Laplacian pipelines.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript defines a boundary set ∂G for a finite connected graph: a vertex v lies in ∂G if some vertex w has the property that the average distance from the neighbors of v to w is strictly smaller than d(v,w). It then states and proves six discrete analogues of classical potential-theoretic results: the Pólya-type random-walk hitting-time bound, Faber-Krahn, Hardy, Alexandrov-Bakelman-Pucci, a hot-spots stability estimate, and Björck's theorem. The intended claim is that ∂G plays for graphs the role that the Euclidean boundary plays for compact domains in PDE theory. The proofs are elementary and mostly self-contained; in my reading, four of the six arguments (Theorems 1, 3, 4, and 6) are sound, while the proofs of Theorems 2 and 5 contain nontrivial gaps that affect the advertised conclusions.

Significance. If fully established, the six theorems would form a coherent body of evidence that ∂G is the natural potential-theoretic boundary for finite graphs, and the paper would be a useful contribution to discrete analysis. The Hardy inequality (Theorem 3) and the Björck-type result (Theorem 6) are proved by clean, explicit arguments; Theorem 1 gives the expected quadratic hitting-time bound; and Theorem 4 has a correct ABP-type estimate with explicit constants. The main value is the unified picture: several classical PDE statements, each normally proved by different methods, are shown to hold with the same boundary notion. However, the two gaps identified below leave that package incomplete as it stands. They do not undermine the results whose proofs are sound, but they do affect two of the six central claims, so the paper is not ready for acceptance in its current form.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 5, proof of Theorem 2] The passage from Lemma 1 to the original graph walk is unjustified. Lemma 1 bounds the number of sign changes of the distance process (the b-walk) needed to exit an interval, but the quantity μ_k(V\∂G) in the proof is the probability that the original graph walk has not hit ∂G after k actual steps. Between two b-jumps the walk may spend arbitrarily many graph steps at the same distance, and the displayed factor max_v deg(v) in the inequality (1-q)^k ≤ 4 max_v deg(v) 2^{-k/(2 diam(G)^2)} does not repair the exponent, because it does not convert a bound in the number of b-jumps into a bound in the number of graph steps with the same k. A correct stochastic domination argument would yield an exponent of order k/(max_v deg(v) diam(G)^2), giving only λ_1(L_2) ≥ c min_v deg(v)/(max_v deg(v) diam(G)^2) rather than the stated λ_1(L_2) ≥ (1/4) min_v deg(v)/diam(G)^2. Since the Faber-Krahn statement is one of the paper's central advertised analogues, the theorem is not established as stated.
  2. [Section 7.3, proof of Theorem 5] The final algebraic step is invalid. From A^k f(v_0) ≤ (M + f(v_0))/2, with A = 1 - λ_2/min_v deg(v), the correct rearrangement is f(v_0) ≤ M/(2A^k - 1), not f(v_0) ≤ A^{-k} M; the latter is a stronger bound and does not follow. Moreover, if 2A^k ≤ 1, the displayed inequality gives no upper bound on f(v_0) at all, and nothing in the proof guarantees 2A^k > 1 for the chosen k. In addition, the iterated inequality (1 - λ_2/min_v deg(v)) f(v_k) ≤ E[f(v_{k+1}) | v_k] is only valid when f(v_k) ≥ 0; the second eigenfunction generally changes sign on V\∂G, so the transition from the eigenvalue equation to A^k f(v_0) ≤ E f(v_k) requires an additional argument that is not supplied. The proof also uses k = 2 max_v diam(G)^2, whereas Theorem 4 and Theorem 1 require k = 2 max_v deg(v) diam(G)^2 to guarantee that half the walk has hit the boundary.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 7.3] The displayed value k = 2 max_v diam(G)^2 appears inconsistent with Theorem 4, where k = 2 max_v deg(v) diam(G)^2 is used; the discrepancy changes the exponent in the claimed bound and should be corrected.
  2. [Section 5] The phrase 'letting k→∞' is misleading: the subsequent inference 2^{1/(2 diam(G)^2)} ≤ 1/(1-q) is valid only if the tail bound has been proved for the original graph walk with a constant independent of k, which is exactly the missing step identified above.
  3. [Proposition 1] The displayed line 'i = d(v,w) > 1/deg(v) sum ...' contains a typographical artifact (a stray '>' sign) that should be cleaned up.
  4. [Throughout] The manuscript contains no numbered equations, which makes it unnecessarily difficult to cite specific steps; adding equation numbers would improve verifiability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper derives its potential-theoretic inequalities from a restated definition of the graph boundary, with no fitted parameters and no predictions that reduce to their inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central object, the boundary ∂G, is introduced by the definition from the author's prior paper [57], but that definition is quoted in full in Section 1 and in Section 3, so the paper is self-contained about the meaning of ∂G. All six theorems are then derived from this definition and from elementary properties of graph distances and random walks. Theorem 1 uses Proposition 2, which is the negation of the boundary definition, to compare distances to the starting point and then applies Lemma 1 plus Wald's identity; no quantity being bounded is assumed as an input. Theorem 2 derives the Faber-Krahn bound from the eigenvalue equation for L2 and the same random-walk tail estimate; the constant comes from the proof, not from a fitted parameter. Theorem 3 is an Agmon-Allegretto-Piepenbrink argument using the expected hitting time ϕ, with the identity (D−A)ϕ = deg(v) obtained from the definition of ϕ; the Hardy weight is constructed, not assumed. Theorem 4 is a rearrangement of the Laplacian equation combined with Theorem 1, and Theorem 6 uses Proposition 2 directly on the distance partition around an interior vertex. There are no fitted parameters, no data subsets, and no predicted quantity that equals a fitted input by construction. The only self-citation is the attribution of the boundary definition to [57], which is not load-bearing in the sense of importing an unproved theorem: the definition is stated explicitly and all subsequent arguments use that stated definition. The skeptical concerns about the transfer in the proofs of Theorems 2 and 5 concern whether the stochastic-domination step is valid; that is a correctness question, not a circularity question. Honest non-finding is therefore appropriate.

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

The paper introduces no fitted parameters; all constants are explicit. The main burden is the boundary definition itself, which is taken from the author's prior work. The proofs then use standard random walk and spectral tools.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The graph G = (V,E) is finite and connected.
    All theorems are stated for finite connected graphs, and the proofs use connectedness (distance well-defined, hitting times finite) and finiteness (compactness arguments).
  • standard math Standard properties of simple random walks on finite graphs: Markov property, Wald's identity, Markov's inequality.
    Used in Theorems 1, 2, 4, 5 to relate walk hitting times and expectations.
  • standard math Rayleigh-Ritz characterization and eigenfunction existence for the graph Laplacian, including the absolute-value reduction for the minimizer.
    Used in Theorem 2 to convert the variational problem into the eigenvalue equation (4).
  • domain assumption The interior condition from Proposition 2: for an interior vertex, every witness w gives #neighbors further from w ≥ #neighbors closer to w.
    Derived from the boundary definition in Proposition 1; it is the load-bearing structural fact used in Theorems 1, 2, 4, 5, 6.
  • standard math Strict convexity and monotonicity of the kernel f in Theorem 6 give the rearrangement inequalities used in the mass-shifting argument.
    Used in the proof of Theorem 6.
invented entities (1)
  • Boundary set ∂G defined by: v ∈ ∂G iff there exists w with (1/deg(v))Σ_{x~v} d(x,w) < d(v,w).
    purpose: Acts as the Dirichlet boundary for all six potential-theory inequalities.
    The definition is introduced in the author's prior paper [57] and is used here as the object under test; no external benchmark or falsifiable prediction outside the author's program is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Potential Theory and the Boundary of Combinatorial Graphs." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OOJLCPLZ

@misc{pith2026250720833,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Potential Theory and the Boundary of Combinatorial Graphs},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OOJLCPLZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.20833}
}
abstract

Let $G=(V,E)$ be a finite, connected graph. We investigate a notion of boundary $\partial G \subseteq V$ and argue that it is well behaved from the point of view of potential theory. This is done by proving a number of discrete analogous of classical results for compact domains $\Omega \subset \mathbb{R}^d$. These include (1) an analogue of P\'olya's result that a random walk in $\Omega$ typically hits the boundary $\partial \Omega$ within $\lesssim \mbox{diam}(\Omega)^2$ units of time, (2) an analogue of the Faber-Krahn inequality, (3) an analogue of the Hardy inequality, (4) an analogue of the Alexandrov-Bakelman-Pucci estimate, (5) a stability estimate for hot spots and (6) a Theorem of Bj\"orck stating that probability measures $\mu$ that maximize $\int_{\Omega \times \Omega} \|x-y\|^{\alpha} d\mu(x) d\mu(y)$ are fully supported in the boundary.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.20833 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Graphs with their boundary vertices ∂G in red. On the other hand, graphs can also be regarded as metric spaces. If we find ourselves in a closed room, the notion of boundary (say, a wall) makes sense independently of whether there is an external universe outside the room or not. To the best of our knowledge, such a notion of graph boundary was first proposed by Chartrand￾Erwin-Johns-Zhang [16, 17] and further develo… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Graphs with their boundary vertices ∂G in red [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Graphs with their boundary vertices ∂G in red. The removal of a single vertex can change the boundary everywhere. 1.4. The big picture. The main purpose of this paper is to present several clas￾sical results that are true for functions f : Ω → R that vanish on the boundary of the domain ∂Ω. We prove discrete versions on graphs G = (V, E) for functions f : V → R that vanish on the boundary ∂G. Graphs have traditional… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Vertices at distance i − 1, i and i + 1 from w. Two vertices (red) are being identified by w as being boundary vertices. We note that a vertex v ∈ V is in the boundary if it is witnessed as being in the boundary by one other vertex w ∈ V . In particular, if a vertex v …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: A random walk on the graph where we only keep track of the distance to v ∈ V introduces a random walk on the integers. of how long ak may stay the same distance. This implies, by construction, that bℓ+1 = bℓ ± 1 is a classical random walk on the integers in the sense t…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: An example where C(X) is large: f, on a binary tree, is harmonic except for the root and the leaves. While C(X) < ∞ is trivial, C(X) may depend on G = (V, E) and X in a com￾plicated way and it may be exponentially large in various graph parameters. We quickly construct…

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

67 extracted references · 66 canonical work pages

  1. [57]

    Steinerberger, The Boundary of a Graph and its Isoperimetric Inequality, Discrete Applied Mathematics 338 (2023), p

    S. Steinerberger, The Boundary of a Graph and its Isoperimetric Inequality, Discrete Applied Mathematics 338 (2023), p. 125-134

    work page 2023

  2. [1]

    Agmon, Lectures on exponential decay of solutions of second order elliptic equations

    S. Agmon, Lectures on exponential decay of solutions of second order elliptic equations. Bounds on eigenfunctions of N-body Schr¨ odinger operators. Mathematical Notes, Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, N.J., 1982

    work page 1982

  3. [2]

    Alexander, Generalized sums of distances

    R. Alexander, Generalized sums of distances. Pacific J. Math. 56 (1975), no. 2, 297–304

    work page 1975

  4. [3]

    Allegretto, On the equivalence of two types of oscillation for elliptic operators, Pacific J

    W. Allegretto, On the equivalence of two types of oscillation for elliptic operators, Pacific J. Math. 55 (1974), 319-328

    work page 1974

  5. [4]

    Allegretto, Positive solutions and spectral properties of second order elliptic operators, Pacific J

    W. Allegretto, Positive solutions and spectral properties of second order elliptic operators, Pacific J. Math. 92 (1981), 15-25

    work page 1981

  6. [5]

    Alexander and K

    R. Alexander and K. Stolarsky, Extremal problems of distance geometry related to energy integrals. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 193 (1974), 1–31

    work page 1974

  7. [6]

    A. D. Aleksandrov, Certain estimates for the Dirichlet problem. Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR 134, p. 1001-1004; translated as Soviet Math. Dokl. 1, p. 1151–1154 (1961)

    work page 1961

  8. [7]

    A. D. Aleksandrov, Uniqueness conditions and bounds for the solution of the Dirichlet prob- lem, Vestnik Leningrad. Univ. Ser. Mat. Meh. Astronom. 18, p. 5–29 (1963)

    work page 1963

Show all 67 references
  1. [8]

    Bakelman, On the theory of quasilinear elliptic equations

    I. Bakelman, On the theory of quasilinear elliptic equations. Sibirsk. Mat. Z, 179–186 (1961) 25

    1961

  2. [9]

    Balinsky, W

    A. Balinsky, W. Desmond Evans, and Roger T. Lewis. The analysis and geometry of Hardy’s inequality. Vol. 1. Cham: Springer, 2015

    2015

  3. [10]

    Bieberbach, ¨Uber eine Extremaleigenschaft des Kreises, J.-Ber

    L. Bieberbach, ¨Uber eine Extremaleigenschaft des Kreises, J.-Ber. Deutsch. Math. Verein. 24 (1915), p. 247–250

    1915

  4. [11]

    Bjorck, Distributions of positive mass, which maximize a certain generalized energy inte- gral

    G. Bjorck, Distributions of positive mass, which maximize a certain generalized energy inte- gral. Arkiv f¨ or Matematik, 3 (1956), 255–269

    1956

  5. [12]

    Brasco and B

    L. Brasco and B. Ruffini, Compact Sobolev embeddings and torsion functions. In Annales de l’Institut Henri Poincar´ e C, Analyse non lin´ eaire Vol. 34 (2017), p. 817-843

    2017

  6. [13]

    Burdzy and W

    K. Burdzy and W. Werner, A counterexample to the” hot spots” conjecture, Annals of mathematics (1999): 309–317

    1999

  7. [14]

    Caceres, C

    J. Caceres, C. Hernando, M. Mora, I. Pelayo, M. Puertas and C. Seara, On geodetic sets formed by boundary vertices. Discrete Math. 306 (2006), no. 2, 188–198

    2006

  8. [15]

    Carando, D

    D. Carando, D. Galicer and D. Pinasco, Energy integrals and metric embedding theory. Int. Math. Res. Not. 2015, no. 16, 7417–7435

    2015

  9. [16]

    Chartrand, D

    G. Chartrand, D. Erwin, G. Johns and P. Zhang, Boundary vertices in graphs, Discrete Math. 263 (2003), p. 25 – 34

    2003

  10. [17]

    Chartrand, D

    G. Chartrand, D. Erwin, G. Johns, and P. Zhang, On boundary vertices in graphs. J. Combin. Math. Combin. Comput., 48:39–53, 2004

    2004

  11. [18]

    Cheng, M

    X. Cheng, M. Rachh and S. Steinerberger, On the diffusion geometry of graph Laplacians and applications. Applied and Computational Harmonic Analysis, 46 (2019), 674-688

    2019

  12. [19]

    Chiem, W

    N. Chiem, W. Dudarov, C. Lee, S. Lee, K. Liu, A characterization of graphs with at most four boundary vertices, Journal of Combinatorics, to appear

  13. [20]

    Brian Davies, Heat kernels and spectral theory, Cambridge University Press, 1989

    E. Brian Davies, Heat kernels and spectral theory, Cambridge University Press, 1989

    1989

  14. [21]

    Ciaurri and L

    O. Ciaurri and L. Roncal, Hardy’s inequality for the fractional powers of a discrete Laplacian, J. Anal., 26 (2018), p. 211-225

    2018

  15. [22]

    de Dios Pont, Convex sets can have interior hot spots, arXiv: 2412.06344

    J. de Dios Pont, Convex sets can have interior hot spots, arXiv: 2412.06344

    arXiv

  16. [23]

    DePavia and S

    A. DePavia and S. Steinerberger, Spectral clustering revisited: Information hidden in the Fiedler vector, Foundations of Data 3 (2021), p. 225–249

    2021

  17. [24]

    Eroh and R

    L. Eroh and R. Oellermann, Geodetic and Steiner geodetic sets in 3-Steiner distance heredi- tary graphs. Discrete Math. 308 (2008), no. 18, 4212–4220

    2008

  18. [25]

    Fischer, Hardy inequalities on graphs, Doctoral dissertation, Universit¨ at Potsdam, 2024

    F. Fischer, Hardy inequalities on graphs, Doctoral dissertation, Universit¨ at Potsdam, 2024

    2024

  19. [26]

    Fischer, On the optimality and decay of p-Hardy weights on graphs

    F. Fischer, On the optimality and decay of p-Hardy weights on graphs. Calculus of Variations and Partial Differential Equations, 63 (2024), 162

    2024

  20. [27]

    Georgiev and M

    B. Georgiev and M. Mukherjee, On maximizing the fundamental frequency of the complement of an obstacle. Comptes Rendus Mathematique, 356 (2018), 406-411

    2018

  21. [28]

    Gupta, Hardy and Rellich inequality on lattices, Calc

    S. Gupta, Hardy and Rellich inequality on lattices, Calc. Var. Partial Differential Equations, 62(2024):Paper No. 81

    2024

  22. [29]

    Gupta, One-dimensional discrete Hardy and Rellich inequalities on integers

    S. Gupta, One-dimensional discrete Hardy and Rellich inequalities on integers. J. Fourier Anal. Appl., 30 (2025): Paper No. 15

    2025

  23. [30]

    Gross, The rendezvous value of metric space

    O. Gross, The rendezvous value of metric space. Advances in game theory pp. 49-53 Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, 1964

    1964

  24. [31]

    P. M. Gruber, Convex and discrete geometry. Springer, 2007

    2007

  25. [32]

    Hasegawa and A

    Y. Hasegawa and A. Saito, Graphs with small boundary. Discrete Math. 307:1801–1807, 2007

    2007

  26. [33]

    Hinrichs, P

    A. Hinrichs, P. Nickolas and R. Wolf, A note on the metric geometry of the unit ball. Math. Z. 268 (2011), no. 3-4, 887–896

    2011

  27. [34]

    J. G. Hoskins and S. Steinerberger, Towards optimal gradient bounds for the torsion function in the plane. The Journal of Geometric Analysis, 31 (2021), 7812-7841

    2021

  28. [35]

    Keller, Y

    M. Keller, Y. Pinchover, F. Pogorzelski, Optimal Hardy inequalities for Schr¨ odinger operators on graphs, Communications in Mathematical Physics, 358 (2018), 767–790

    2018

  29. [36]

    Keller, Y

    M. Keller, Y. Pinchover, F. Pogorzelski, From Hardy to Rellich inequalities on graphs. Pro- ceedings of the London Mathematical Society, 122 (2021), 458-477

    2021

  30. [37]

    Keller and M

    M. Keller and M. Nietschmann, Optimal Hardy inequality for fractional Laplacians on the integers. Ann. Henri Poincar´ e, 24 (2023), p. 2729–2741

    2023

  31. [38]

    Keller, Y

    M. Keller, Y. Pinchover, and F. Pogorzelski. Criticality theory for Schr¨ odinger operators on graphs. J. Spectr. Theory, 10(2020): p. 73–114, 2020

    2020

  32. [39]

    Kennedy and J

    J. Kennedy and J. Rohleder, On the hot spots of quantum trees. PAMM, 18 (2018), e201800122. 26

    2018

  33. [40]

    Kennedy and J

    J. Kennedy and J. Rohleder, On the hot spots of quantum graphs, Comm. Pure Appl. Anal. 20 (2021), 3029-3063

    2021

  34. [41]

    Lederman and S

    R. Lederman and S. Steinerberger, Extreme values of the Fiedler vector on trees, Linear Algebra and its Applications 703 (2024), p. 528-555

    2024

  35. [42]

    E. H. Lieb, On the lowest eigenvalue of the Laplacian for the intersection of two domains. Inventiones mathematicae, 74(3), 441–448

  36. [43]

    Lu and S

    J. Lu and S. Steinerberger, A dimension-free Hermite-Hadamard inequality via gradient es- timates for the torsion function. Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society, 148 (2020), 673-679

    2020

  37. [44]

    Mariano, H

    P. Mariano, H. Panzo and J. Wang, Improved upper bounds for the Hot Spots constant of Lipschitz domains. Potential Analysis, 59 (2023), 771-787

    2023

  38. [45]

    M¨ uller, A

    T. M¨ uller, A. P´ or, and J.-S. Sereni, Lower bounding the boundary of a graph in terms of its maximum or minimum degree. Discrete Math. 308, p. 6581–6583, 2008

    2008

  39. [46]

    Pelayo, Geodesic convexity in graphs

    I. Pelayo, Geodesic convexity in graphs. Vol. 577. New York: Springer, 2013

    2013

  40. [47]

    Persson, A

    L.-E. Persson, A. Kufner, N. Samko, Weighted inequalities of Hardy type. World Scientific Publishing Company. 2017

    2017

  41. [48]

    Piepenbrink, Nonoscillatory elliptic equations, J

    J. Piepenbrink, Nonoscillatory elliptic equations, J. Differential Equations 15 (1974), 541-550

    1974

  42. [49]

    P´ olya, Torsional rigidity, principal frequency, electrostatic capacity and symmetrization

    G. P´ olya, Torsional rigidity, principal frequency, electrostatic capacity and symmetrization. Quart. Appl. Math. 6, 267-277 (1948)

    1948

  43. [50]

    Pucci, Limitazioni per soluzioni di equazioni ellittiche

    C. Pucci, Limitazioni per soluzioni di equazioni ellittiche. Ann. Mat. Pura Appl. 74, 1966, p. 15–30

    1966

  44. [51]

    Pucci, Operatori ellittici estremanti, Ann

    C. Pucci, Operatori ellittici estremanti, Ann. Mat. Pura. Appl., (4), 72, (1966), p. 141–170

    1966

  45. [52]

    Rachh and S

    M. Rachh and S. Steinerberger, On the location of maxima of solutions of Schr¨ odinger’s equation. Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics, 71 (2018), 1109-1122

    2018

  46. [53]

    Rayleigh, The theory of sound, MacMillan, New York, 1877,1894; Dover, New York, 194

  47. [54]

    I. J. Sch¨ onberg, Remarks to Maurice Fr´ echet’s article ”Sur la d´ efinition axiomatique d’une classe d’espaces vectoriels distanci´ es applicables vectoriellement sur l’espace de Hilbert, An- nals of Math. 36 (1935), 724-732

    1935

  48. [55]

    I. J. Sch¨ onberg, On certain metric spaces arising from Euclidean spaces by a change of metric and their imbedding in Hilbert space. Annals of Math. 38 (1937), 787-793

    1937

  49. [56]

    Steinerberger, An endpoint Alexandrov Bakelman Pucci estimate in the plane

    S. Steinerberger, An endpoint Alexandrov Bakelman Pucci estimate in the plane. Canadian Mathematical Bulletin, 62 (2019), 643-651

    2019

  50. [58]

    Steinerberger, Sums of distances on graphs and embeddings into Euclidean space

    S. Steinerberger, Sums of distances on graphs and embeddings into Euclidean space. Mathe- matika, 69 (2023), 600-621

    2023

  51. [59]

    Steinerberger, The first eigenvector of a distance matrix is nearly constant, Discrete Math- ematics, 346 (2023), 113291

    S. Steinerberger, The first eigenvector of a distance matrix is nearly constant, Discrete Math- ematics, 346 (2023), 113291

    2023

  52. [60]

    Steinerberger, Curvature on graphs via equilibrium measures, Journal of Graph Theory 103.3 (2023): 415-436

    S. Steinerberger, Curvature on graphs via equilibrium measures, Journal of Graph Theory 103.3 (2023): 415-436

    2023

  53. [61]

    Steinerberger, An upper bound on the hot spots constant, Rev

    S. Steinerberger, An upper bound on the hot spots constant, Rev. Mat. Iberoam. 39 (2023), no. 4, 1373–1386

    2023

  54. [62]

    Steinerberger, The Hermite-Hadamard inequality in higher dimensions

    S. Steinerberger, The Hermite-Hadamard inequality in higher dimensions. The Journal of Geometric Analysis, 30 (2020), 466-483

    2020

  55. [63]

    Talenti, Elliptic equations and rearrangements

    G. Talenti, Elliptic equations and rearrangements. Ann. Scuola Norm. Sup. Pisa Cl. Sci. (4) 3, 697–718 (1976)

    1976

  56. [64]

    Thomassen, The rendezvous number of a symmetric matrix and a compact connected metric space

    C. Thomassen, The rendezvous number of a symmetric matrix and a compact connected metric space. Amer. Math. Monthly 107 (2000), no. 2, 163–166

    2000

  57. [65]

    Wald, On cumulative sums of random variables, The Annals of Mathematical Statistics

    A. Wald, On cumulative sums of random variables, The Annals of Mathematical Statistics. 15 (1944): 283–296

    1944

  58. [66]

    Wald, Some generalizations of the theory of cumulative sums of random variables, The Annals of Mathematical Statistics

    A. Wald, Some generalizations of the theory of cumulative sums of random variables, The Annals of Mathematical Statistics. 16 (1945): 287-293

    1945

  59. [67]

    Wolf, On the average distance property and certain energy integrals

    R. Wolf, On the average distance property and certain energy integrals. Ark. Mat. 35 (1997), no. 2, 387-400. Department of Mathematics, University of W ashington, Seattle, W A 98195, USA Email address : steinerb@uw.edu

    1997

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.