Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 40 references

Critical points of second Neumann eigenfunctions on some convex domains in two-dimensional space forms

T0 review · 2 major / 5 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 The second Neumann eigenfunction has no interior critical points on convex domains in a hemisphere with $\mu_2\le 2$, and a unified diameter criterion covers the hyperbolic plane while the Euclidean hot-spots constant drops to 2.4828.

desk verdict Genuinely new critical-point criteria for second Neumann eigenfunctions in S^2 and H^2, plus an improved Euclidean hot-spots constant, but the H^2 universal bound leans on an unverified external area criterion. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.17882 v1 pith:PUY6GFLD submitted 2026-07-20 math.AP

Haiyun Deng , Xuyong Jiang , Xiaoping Yang This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.AP MSC 35B3858J5035J2535J05
keywords hotspotsconjecturesecondNeumanneigenfunctioninteriorcriticalpointsconvexdomainsspaceformsBesselfunctionsLegendreconstant
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper studies the hot-spots conjecture for convex domains in the three two-dimensional constant-curvature spaces: the Euclidean plane, the sphere, and the hyperbolic plane. It tries to show that the second Neumann eigenfunction has no interior critical points—so its maxima and minima are on the boundary—under explicit conditions on the eigenvalue and diameter. The new sufficient conditions are $\mu_2(\Omega)\le 2$ for convex domains contained in a hemisphere and the unified scale-invariant criterion $\mu_2(\Omega)D^2\le j_{1,1}^2$ valid in both $\mathbb{S}^2$ and $\mathbb{H}^2$. When critical points do exist, the paper locates them: in a hemispherical domain each lies at least about $0.7967D$ from some boundary point. It also bounds the hot-spots constant, the largest possible ratio of interior to boundary supremum of a second eigenfunction, by $2.4828$ in the plane and by universal constants on the sphere and hyperbola.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the radial solution of the Helmholtz equation centered at a point $p$: the function $j_\mu(d(p,q))$, given by the Legendre function $P_\nu(\cos r)$ on $\mathbb{S}^2$, and $k_\mu(d(p,q))$, given by $P_\nu(\cosh r)$ on $\mathbb{H}^2$, together with its monotonicity radius—the largest radius on which the radial function is strictly decreasing. Given a candidate interior critical point $p$, the paper forms $w(q)=u(p)\Phi_\mu(d(p,q))-u(q)$, which has $p$ as a nodal critical point; the nodal-set topology and the Neumann condition force two disjoint positive nodal domains whose Rayleigh quotients contradict the variational characterization of $\mu_2$, unless $p$ lies where the radial function is decreasing. The quantitative input is a Sturm–Liouville lower bound $\tau_\mu\ge j_{1,1}/\sqrt{\mu}$ for the monotonicity radius, paired with diameter-dependent upper bounds on $\mu_2(\Omega)$ from test functions on geodesic balls. For the hot-spots constant, the method is an integral representation of the interior maximum through the singular fundamental solution $(\Delta+\mu)\Gamma=-\delta_p$, followed by a sharp bound on $z|Y_1(z)+cJ_1(z)|$.

What would settle it

Compute the second Neumann eigenfunction on a convex geodesic polygon contained in a hemisphere with $\mu_2(\Omega)\le 2$; a single such computation exhibiting an interior critical point would refute Theorem 1.1, and likewise a planar convex domain whose hot-spots constant exceeds $-1/J_0(j_{1,1})\approx 2.4828$ would refute the Euclidean bound.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the hot-spots conjecture holds for a broad, explicitly checkable class of convex domains in non-Euclidean two-dimensional space forms. If $\Omega\subset\mathbb{S}^2$ is convex, lies in a hemisphere, and its second Neumann eigenvalue satisfies $\mu_2(\Omega)\le 2$, then every second Neumann eigenfunction has no interior critical points; the same conclusion follows whenever $\mu_2(\Omega)D^2\le j_{1,1}^2$, where $D$ is the geodesic diameter and $j_{1,1}$ the first positive zero of the Bessel function $J_1$, for both hemispherical and hyperbolic convex domains. When these conditions fail, the paper still restricts where critical points can lie. Using a purely analytic Green-function argument, it establishes that on bounded convex domains in $\mathbb{R}^2$ the hot-spots constant $\mathfrak{C}(\Omega)$ is at most $-1/J_0(j_{1,1})\approx 2.4828$, improving the previous Euclidean bound, and that universal, domain-independent hot-spots constants exist for convex domains in hemispherical $\mathbb{S}^2$ and in $\mathbb{H}^2$.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is a borrowed fact not proved here: every bounded convex domain in the hyperbolic plane with area larger than $33.35$ already has its second eigenfunction's extrema on the boundary, and if that fact fails the paper's universality argument for $\mathbb{H}^2$ collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Every convex domain contained in a hemisphere with $\mu_2(\Omega)\le 2$ satisfies the hot-spots conjecture: generic Neumann heat flow has its extrema on the boundary.
  • The condition $\mu_2(\Omega)D^2\le j_{1,1}^2$ provides a computable certificate valid in both $\mathbb{S}^2$ and $\mathbb{H}^2$: measure the second eigenvalue and the diameter, and if the product is small enough, interior critical points are impossible.
  • When the certificate fails, any interior critical point in a hemispherical convex domain must have distance at least $0.7967D$ from some boundary point, creating a quantitatively hot-spots-free layer near the boundary.
  • The Euclidean hot-spots constant on convex domains is at most $2.4828$, independent of shape, and universal constants exist for spherical and hyperbolic convex domains; this quantifies how far any counterexample to the conjecture can deviate from boundary extrema.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same Green-function machinery should yield explicit, rather than merely existential, hot-spots constants on $\mathbb{S}^2$ and $\mathbb{H}^2$; the numerical search reported in the paper (value near $2.47$ for $\nu\le 10$) hints that the true universal constants may be close to the new Euclidean bound.
  • Because the spherical and hyperbolic estimates reduce to the Euclidean ones as the diameter tends to zero, the sharp hot-spots constant for all three space forms may be the same number $-1/J_0(j_{1,1})$; one could test this by computing $\mathfrak{C}(\Omega)$ for small geodesic caps or small hyperbolic polygons.
  • If Hatcher's area threshold $33.35$ can be sharpened, the hyperbolic universal constant in Theorem 5.10 improves accordingly; numerical experiments on convex hyperbolic polygons of increasing area could reveal the true threshold.
  • The monotonicity-radius construction suggests a route to interior-critical-point criteria for Robin boundary conditions or higher Neumann eigenvalues on convex domains in space forms, where the nodal-domain count changes but the comparison-function argument still applies.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. This paper studies critical points of the second Neumann eigenfunction on bounded convex domains in the two-dimensional space forms S², H², and R². Theorem 1.1 proves that a convex domain Ω⊂S² contained in a hemisphere has no interior critical points when μ2(Ω)≤2. Theorem 1.2 establishes a unified diameter criterion μ2(Ω)D²≤j_{1,1}² for S² and H², and Theorem 1.3 gives quantitative lower bounds on the distance from any interior critical point to the boundary in terms of the diameter. Theorem 1.4 concerns the hot-spots constant C(Ω): an improved Euclidean upper bound of 2.4828, and universal, non-explicit bounds for convex domains in S² and H². The proofs combine radial comparison functions built from Bessel and Legendre functions, monotonicity radii of radial solutions, nodal-domain and variational arguments, and Green-formula identities with singular fundamental solutions of the Helmholtz equation.

Significance. If the proofs are completed, the paper makes substantial advances: it extends Miyamoto's Euclidean diameter criterion to the sphere and hyperbolic plane, provides the first hot-spots constants for convex domains in non-Euclidean space forms, and improves the Euclidean upper bound from 3.1642 to 2.4828 by a purely analytic method. The Euclidean bound is explicit, and the nodal and variational arguments in Sections 2-4 are detailed and mostly convincing. The main caveat is that Theorem 1.4(H) relies on an unstated external area criterion attributed to Hatcher [17]; until that dependence is made explicit or removed, the hyperbolic universal constant is conditional. The spherical and Euclidean components of the paper are, in my reading, sound and publishable after the identified revisions.

major comments (2)
  1. [§5.3, Theorem 5.10] The proof of Theorem 5.10 begins by invoking "Corollary 1.2 in [17]" to the effect that every bounded convex Ω⊂H² with Area(Ω)>33.35 has a second Neumann eigenfunction with no interior critical points. This area criterion is never stated in the introduction or elsewhere in the manuscript, and the introduction attributes to Hatcher only the spectral criterion μ2(Ω)≤1/4. The area criterion is load-bearing because it is the only step that removes domains of arbitrarily large diameter, where the exponential factor e^{r/2} in Lemma 5.9 would otherwise make the integral in (5.20) uncontrollable. As written, Theorem 1.4(H) is conditional on an unverified external statement. Please state Hatcher's Corollary 1.2 explicitly and either prove it or give a fully specified self-contained reference; if the area constant or its statement is inaccurate, the claimed universal constant in Theorem 1.4(H) is unsupported.
  2. [§5.2, Theorem 5.5 and §5.3, Proposition 5.8] The proofs of the universal upper bounds assert uniform boundedness of g(r,ν)=Q'_ν(cos r) sin² r (respectively Q'_ν(cosh r) sinh² r) over non-compact admissible parameter spaces. The only argument for the non-compact direction ν→∞ is an asymptotic formula for the Legendre function at large degree, stated without decay estimates in ν or a supporting reference (see the discussion after Eq. (5.16)). Since these theorems are the basis for Theorem 1.4(S) and part of Theorem 1.4(H), please supply precise uniform asymptotic bounds, or a compactness argument with explicit estimates, with references to standard sources such as DLMF.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§5.2-5.3 cross-references] In the proof of Theorem 5.5, "Theorem 3.4" should be "Lemma 3.4"; in the text following Proposition 5.3, "Theorem 5.3" should be "Proposition 5.3"; and in Corollary 5.7, "Theorem 5.6" should be "Proposition 5.6".
  2. [§5.3, Theorem 5.10] Hatcher's criterion is invoked with the strict inequality Area(Ω)>33.35, but the proof then splits into the cases Area(Ω)<A and D≤D* or D>D*; the equality case Area(Ω)=33.35 is not covered. Please clarify, for instance by using a non-strict version of the criterion or by perturbing A.
  3. [Lemma 5.9] The limit at z→1+ is justified by appealing to "the standard expansion (5.14)", but Eq. (5.14) is the spherical expansion near z→1−. Please state the hyperbolic analogue near z→1+ explicitly.
  4. [Corollaries 5.4 and 5.7] The displayed maxima are taken over the roots ξ of Qν, but the set of roots may be empty. Please state that in that case the maximum is understood as the boundary value (which is 1 in these corollaries), or otherwise adjust the statement.
  5. [§5.1, Theorem 5.2] The proof uses the bound μ2(Ω)D²≤4j_{0,1}² for convex planar domains as "well known" without a reference. Please add a citation for this eigenvalue bound.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper's main theorems are proved from stated hypotheses, standard external eigenvalue bounds, and self-contained comparison arguments; the Hatcher area criterion used in Theorem 5.10 is an independent external input and not a self-referential reduction.

full rationale

I walked the derivation chain of each main claim and found no step in which a conclusion is used as an input or in which a fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. Theorem 1.1 follows from Lemma 2.1, where the monotonicity of j_mu is obtained by a Sturm-Liouville domain-monotonicity argument under mu <= 2, and from Proposition 2.4, which is a standard comparison-function/Rayleigh-quotient contradiction; the hypotheses mu <= 2 and mu <= lambda_1 (cited from [1]) are not the conclusion. Theorems 1.2 and 1.3 are derived algebraically from Lemmas 3.2 and 4.2 (monotonicity radius lower bounds obtained by explicit Rayleigh quotients and the Bessel operator eigenvalue j_{1,1}) together with Lemmas 3.4 and 4.5, whose only external input is the standard Dirichlet ball eigenvalue bound from [3,7]. No equation in the proof is identical by construction to its output. Theorem 1.4(E) is a genuine Green-formula derivation: equations (5.1)-(5.6) express M and 0 as boundary integrals, and Lemma 5.1 is a pure Bessel-function minimax calculation; the only external ingredient is the classical bound mu D^2 <= 4 j_{0,1}^2, which is not derived from the hot spots constant. The S^2 and H^2 hot-spots-constant theorems rely on compactness of admissible parameter sets, standard Legendre asymptotics, and previously proved critical-point results. The most delicate step is Theorem 5.10, which begins by invoking 'Corollary 1.2 in [17]': if Area(Omega) > 33.35 then the second Neumann eigenfunction has no interior critical points. This is an external, parameter-free theorem by a different author; it is not a self-citation and it does not define the target conclusion in terms of itself. Its non-reproduction in this paper is a real verification gap and a correctness risk, but under the review rules that is missing support, not circularity. No load-bearing self-citation occurs: the current authors' own references [14] and [15] appear only in the introduction as related work. The constants j_{1,1}, j_{0,1}, and the value 2.4828 come from solving Bessel/Legendre equations, not from fitting data. I therefore find no significant circularity and assign score 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central results are derived from standard spectral facts and cited external theorems. No free parameters or invented entities appear; the constants are Bessel and Legendre zeros.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption For convex domains Ω contained in a hemisphere of S², μ2(Ω) ≤ λ1(Ω).
    Invoked in Lemma 2.3 and Proposition 2.4 to rule out nodal loops; cited to Ashbaugh and Levine [1, Theorem 3.1], not proved in the paper.
  • domain assumption For bounded convex domains in H², μ2(Ω) ≤ λ1(Ω).
    Invoked in Section 4 before Theorem 4.1; cited to Mazzeo [31].
  • domain assumption If a bounded convex domain Ω⊂H² has Area(Ω)>33.35, then the second Neumann eigenfunction has no interior critical points (Corollary 1.2 of Hatcher [17]).
    Used in Theorem 5.10 to bound the hot-spots constant on H²; the result is cited, not proved or derived in the text.
  • standard math Standard nodal set structure theorem: at a critical zero of a non-trivial solution of Δw+μw=0, the nodal set consists of at least four analytic arcs meeting with equal angles.
    Used in Lemma 2.3 and Proposition 2.4; based on Cheng [11] and Hartman-Wintner [16].
  • domain assumption Eigenvalue bounds for geodesic balls in S² and H²: the first Dirichlet eigenvalue of a ball of radius r satisfies Λ(r) ≤ j²_{0,1}/r² − 1/3 on S² and Λ(r) ≤ 1/3 + j²_{0,1}/r² on H².
    Used in Lemmas 3.4 and 4.5; cited to Baginski [3] and Chavel [7].
  • domain assumption For any bounded convex domain in R², μ2(Ω)D² ≤ 4j²_{0,1}.
    Used in Theorem 5.2 to restrict z(θ) ≤ 2j_{0,1}; described as well known, no reference given.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Critical points of second Neumann eigenfunctions on some convex domains in two-dimensional space forms." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PUY6GFLD

@misc{pith2026260717882,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Critical points of second Neumann eigenfunctions on some convex domains in two-dimensional space forms},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PUY6GFLD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.17882}
}
abstract

In this paper, we investigate critical points of second Neumann eigenfunctions on convex domains in the two-dimensional space forms. We approach this problem from three complementary perspectives: spectral and geometric conditions; explicit quantitative location restrictions; the hot spots constant. Precisely, for the spectral and geometric conditions, we prove that if a convex domain $\Omega$ is contained in the hemisphere and satisfies $\mu_{2}(\Omega)\leq 2$, then its second Neumann eigenfunction has no interior critical points. Beyond this, we establish a unified diameter-based criterion $\mu_2(\Omega)D^2\leq j_{1,1}^2$ ensuring the absence of interior critical points in $\mathbb{S}^{2}$ and $\mathbb{H}^{2}$. Moreover, when interior critical points may exist, we derive explicit quantitative location restrictions in terms of the domain's diameter in $\mathbb{S}^{2}$ and $\mathbb{H}^{2}$. Finally, we study the hot spots constant $\mathfrak{C}(\Omega)$ on convex domains using purely analytical methods. We refine the known Euclidean upper bound of $\mathfrak{C}(\Omega)$ to $2.4828,$ and obtain the corresponding hot spots constants for convex domains in non-Euclidean space forms for the first time. Our proofs combine the properties of Bessel and Legendre functions, estimation of eigenvalues and Green formulas. Our results quantitatively measure ``how wrong'' the hot spots conjecture can be.

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages

  1. [17]

    Hot spots in convex hyperbolic planar domains with small eigenvalues

    L. Hatcher, Hot spots in convex hyperbolic planar domains with small eigenvalues, (2026), arXiv:2605.21621

    work page Pith review arXiv 2026

  2. [1]

    Ashbaugh, H.A

    M.S. Ashbaugh, H.A. Levine, Inequalities for Dirichlet and Neumann eigenvalues of the Laplacian for domains on spheres, Journées Équations aux Dérivées Partielles (Saint-Jean- de-Monts, 1997), Exp. No. I, 15 pp., École Polytech., Palaiseau, 1997

    work page 1997

  3. [2]

    Atar, K.Burdzy, On Neumann eigenfunctions in lip domains, J

    R. Atar, K.Burdzy, On Neumann eigenfunctions in lip domains, J. Amer. Math. Soc. 17 (2004), no. 2, 243-265

    work page 2004

  4. [3]

    Baginski, Upper and lower bounds for eigenvalues of the Laplacian on a spherical cap, Quart

    F.E. Baginski, Upper and lower bounds for eigenvalues of the Laplacian on a spherical cap, Quart. Appl. Math. 48 (1990), no. 3, 569-573

    work page 1990

  5. [4]

    hot spots

    R. Ba ˜nuelos, K. Burdzy, On the “hot spots” conjecture of J. Rauch, J. Funct. Anal. 164 (1999), no. 1, 1-33

    work page 1999

  6. [5]

    hot spots

    K. Burdzy, W. Werner, A counterexample to the “hot spots” conjecture, Ann. of Math. (2) 149 (1999), no. 1, 309-317

    work page 1999

  7. [6]

    Burdzy, The hot spots problem in planar domains with one hole, Duke Math

    K. Burdzy, The hot spots problem in planar domains with one hole, Duke Math. J. 129 (2005), no. 3, 481-502

    work page 2005

  8. [7]

    Chavel, Eigenvalues in Riemannian Geometry, Pure and Applied Mathematics, 115

    I. Chavel, Eigenvalues in Riemannian Geometry, Pure and Applied Mathematics, 115. Aca- demic Press, Inc., Orlando, FL, 1984

    work page 1984

Show all 40 references
  1. [8]

    Chen, C.F

    H.B. Chen, C.F. Gui, R.F. Yao, Uniqueness of critical points of the second Neumann eigenfunctions on triangles, Invent. Math. 244 (2026), no. 1, 299-353

    2026

  2. [9]

    H.B. Chen, K. Wu, R.F. Yao, Monotone properties of the second even Neumann eigenfunc- tion in symmetric domains, Ann. Mat. Pura Appl. (4) 205 (2026), no. 2, 635-657

    2026

  3. [10]

    H.B. Chen, Y. Li, L.H. Wang, Monotone properties of the eigenfunction of Neumann prob- lems, J. Math. Pures Appl. (9) 130 (2019), 112-129

    2019

  4. [11]

    Cheng, Eigenfunctions and nodal sets, Comment

    S.Y. Cheng, Eigenfunctions and nodal sets, Comment. Math. Helv. 51 (1976), no. 1, 43-55

    1976

  5. [12]

    de Dios Pont, Convex sets can have interior hot spots, (2024), arXiv:2412.06344

    J. de Dios Pont, Convex sets can have interior hot spots, (2024), arXiv:2412.06344

    2024 arXiv

  6. [13]

    de Dios Pont, A

    J. de Dios Pont, A. Hsu, M.A. Taylor, Sharp bounds on the failure of the hot spots conjec- ture, (2025), arXiv:2508.16321

    2025 arXiv

  7. [14]

    H.Y. Deng, M. Grossi, H.Y. Jian, X.Y. Jiang, On the critical points of solutions to some semilinear elliptic equations with Neumann and Robin boundary conditions on convex do- mains of Riemannian surfaces, Ann. Mat. Pura Appl. (4) 204 (2025), no. 6, 2555-2572

    2025

  8. [15]

    Deng, C.F

    H.Y. Deng, C.F. Gui, X.Y. Jiang, X.P. Yang, R.F. Yao, J. Zou, Critical points of the second Neumann eigenfunctions on the quadrangles with symmetry, (2026), arXiv:2604.19003. 29

    2026 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Hartman, A

    P. Hartman, A. Wintner, On the local behavior of solutions of non-parabolic partial differ- ential equations, Amer. J. Math. 75 (1953), 449-476

    1953

  10. [18]

    Hatcher, The hot spots conjecture for some non-convex polygons, SIAM J

    L. Hatcher, The hot spots conjecture for some non-convex polygons, SIAM J. Math. Anal. 57 (2025), no. 4, 4588-4608

    2025

  11. [19]

    Hatcher, First mixed Laplace eigenfunctions with no hot spots, Proc

    L. Hatcher, First mixed Laplace eigenfunctions with no hot spots, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 152 (2024), no. 12, 5191-5205

    2024

  12. [20]

    hot spots

    D. Jerison, N. Nadirashvili, The “hot spots” conjecture for domains with two axes of sym- metry, J. Amer. Math. Soc. 13 (4) (2000) 741-772

    2000

  13. [21]

    Judge, S

    C. Judge, S. Mondal, Euclidean triangles have no hot spots, Ann. of Math. (2) 191 (2020), no. 1, 167-211

    2020

  14. [22]

    Judge, S

    C. Judge, S. Mondal, Erratum: Euclidean triangles have no hot spots, Ann. of Math. (2) 195 (2022), no. 1, 337-362

    2022

  15. [23]

    Judge, S

    C. Judge, S. Mondal, Some remarks on critical sets of Laplace eigenfunctions, Ann. Math. Qu´e. 49 (2025), no. 1, 155–163

    2025

  16. [24]

    Judge, S

    C. Judge, S. Mondal, Critical points of Laplace eigenfunctions on polygons, Comm. Partial Differential Equations 47 (2022), no. 8, 1559–1590

    2022

  17. [25]

    Kawohl, Rearrangements and Convexity of Level Set in PDE, Lecture Notes in Mathe- matics, vol

    B. Kawohl, Rearrangements and Convexity of Level Set in PDE, Lecture Notes in Mathe- matics, vol. 1150, 1985

    1985

  18. [26]

    Kennedy, J

    J.B. Kennedy, J. Rohleder, On the hot spots conjecture in higher dimensions, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. Ser. B 13 (2026), 108-131

    2026

  19. [27]

    Kleefeld, The hot spots conjecture can be false: some numerical examples, Adv

    A. Kleefeld, The hot spots conjecture can be false: some numerical examples, Adv. Comput. Math. 47 (2021), no. 6, Paper No. 85, 31 pp

    2021

  20. [28]

    Langford, R.S

    J.J. Langford, R.S. Laugesen, Maximizers beyond the hemisphere for the second Neumann eigenvalue, Math. Ann. 386 (2023), no. 3-4, 2255-2281

    2023

  21. [29]

    Laugesen, B.A

    R.S. Laugesen, B.A. Siudeja, Minimizing Neumann fundamental tones of triangles: an optimal Poincaré inequality, J. Differential Equations 249 (2010), no. 1, 118-135

    2010

  22. [30]

    Mariano,H

    P. Mariano,H. Panzo, J. Wang, Improved upper bounds for the hot spots constant of Lips- chitz domains, Potential Anal. 59 (2023), no. 2, 771–787. 30

    2023

  23. [31]

    Mazzeo, Remarks on a paper of Friedlander concerning inequalities between Neumann and Dirichlet eigenvalues, Internat

    R. Mazzeo, Remarks on a paper of Friedlander concerning inequalities between Neumann and Dirichlet eigenvalues, Internat. Math. Res. Notices 1991, no. 4, 41-48

    1991

  24. [32]

    hot spots

    Y. Miyamoto, The “hot spots” conjecture for a certain class of planar convex domains, J. Math. Phys. 50 (2009), no. 10, 103530, 7 pp

    2009

  25. [33]

    NIST Digital Library of Mathematical Functions, https://dlmf.nist.gov/, Release 1.2.7 (2026-06-15)

    2026

  26. [34]

    https://polymathprojects.org/2013/08/09/polymath7-research- thread-5-the-hot-spots-conjecture/

    Polymath: Polymath project 7 research thread 5: the hot spots conjecture, June 3, 2012 through August 9, 2013. https://polymathprojects.org/2013/08/09/polymath7-research- thread-5-the-hot-spots-conjecture/

    2012

  27. [35]

    J. Rauch, Five problems: an introduction to the qualitative theory of partial differential equations, Partial differential equations and related topics (Program, Tulane Univ., New Orleans, La., 1974), pp. 355-369, Lecture Notes in Math., Vol. 446, Springer, Berlin-New York, 1975

    1974

  28. [36]

    Rohleder, A new approach to the hot spots conjecture, (2021), arXiv:2106.05224

    J. Rohleder, A new approach to the hot spots conjecture, (2021), arXiv:2106.05224

    2021 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Rohleder, A note on hot-spots free subregions of convex domains, Complex Anal

    J. Rohleder, A note on hot-spots free subregions of convex domains, Complex Anal. Oper. Theory 20 (2026), no. 2, Paper No. 57, 7 pp

    2026

  30. [38]

    Siudeja, Hot spots conjecture for a class of acute triangles, Math

    B. Siudeja, Hot spots conjecture for a class of acute triangles, Math. Z. 280 (2015), no. 3-4, 783-806

    2015

  31. [39]

    Steinerberger, Hot spots in convex domains are in the tips (up to an inradius), Comm

    S. Steinerberger, Hot spots in convex domains are in the tips (up to an inradius), Comm. Partial Differential Equations 45 (2020), no. 6, 641-654

    2020

  32. [40]

    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. 31

    2023

Pith tools

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