Convergence of a heterogeneous Allen-Cahn equation to weighted mean curvature flow

Alice Marveggio; Kerrek Stinson; Likhit Ganedi

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 43 references

Convergence of a heterogeneous Allen-Cahn equation to weighted mean curvature flow

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper proves that, under an explicit energy-convergence hypothesis, solutions of the heterogeneous Allen–Cahn equation converge to a distributional solution of weighted mean curvature flow.

desk verdict Static first-variation convergence is the real contribution; the Allen-Cahn-to-weighted-MCF theorem is honestly conditional on an unproved energy-convergence hypothesis. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.02567 v1 pith:QMIK35SB submitted 2024-12-03 math.AP

Likhit Ganedi , Alice Marveggio , Kerrek Stinson This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.AP MSC 35A1553E1035D3035K5735A0274N20

keywords heterogeneousphasetransitionsGibbs-ThomsonrelationsharpinterfacelimitAllen-CahnequationweightedmeancurvatureflowBVsolutionsweak-stronguniqueness

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 heterogeneous phase-field model: a diffuse-interface energy $E_\varepsilon$ whose two potential wells $a(x)$ and $b(x)$ move with the spatial position $x$. It establishes two results for the sharp-interface limit $\varepsilon\to0$. First, the first variation of the diffuse interface energy converges to the first variation of a weighted perimeter with surface tension $\sigma(x)$, and this yields a Gibbs–Thomson relation linking chemical potential to weighted mean curvature. Second, under the explicit hypothesis that the time-integrated diffuse energies converge to the weighted perimeter, weak solutions of the heterogeneous Allen–Cahn equation converge to a distributional (BV) solution of weighted mean curvature flow; the paper also proves a weak-strong uniqueness principle for such solutions. The relevance is that material heterogeneities (nonconstant temperature, composition, or crystalline properties) enter naturally through moving wells, and the results show that the sharp-interface motion remains a well-posed weighted mean curvature flow.

What carries the argument

The central object is the heterogeneous Modica–Mortola energy $E_\varepsilon[u] = \int_\Omega \big(\tfrac{1}{\varepsilon}W(x,u) + \tfrac{\varepsilon}{2}|\nabla u|^2\big)\,dx$, with a double-well potential $W$ whose wells are two spatially moving functions $a(x)<b(x)$. Its $\Gamma$-limit is the weighted perimeter $E[u] = \int_\Omega \sigma\,d|\nabla\chi_A|$ with surface tension $\sigma(x)=\int_{a(x)}^{b(x)}\sqrt{2W(x,s)}\,ds$. The key technical device is the normalized well function $W_n(x,v):=W(x,a(x)+\gamma(x)v)$ with $\gamma=b-a$, which fixes the wells at $0$ and $1$ while retaining spatial dependence; the crucial estimate $|\partial_x\sqrt{W_n}|\le C\sqrt{W_n}$ permits comparing the surface tension at neighboring points. The machinery then rests on an equipartition-of-energy lemma (Lemma 3.5), showing that potential and gradient terms contribute equally in the limit, and on the first-variation convergence (Theorem 3.1): for test fields $\Psi$ with $\Psi\cdot n_\Omega=0$ on the boundary, $\nabla E_\varepsilon(u_\varepsilon)(\gamma\nabla v_\varepsilon\cdot\Psi)$ converges to $-\int_\Omega \sigma(\mathrm{Id}-n_A\otimes n_A):\nabla\Psi\,d|\nabla\chi_A| - \int_\Omega \nabla\sigma\cdot\Psi\,d|\nabla\chi_A|$, the weak form of weighted mean curvature motion. This identity is what converts the diffuse gradient flow into the sharp interface motion, and the time-dependent version (Remark 3.4) is used in the convergence proof.

What would settle it

Test the time-dependent first-variation identity (Remark 3.4) along a sequence of weak solutions that satisfies the energy-convergence hypothesis (4.8); if for some smooth test vector field $\Psi$ the limit of the diffuse first variation differs from the weighted perimeter first variation, then the motion law (4.4) fails and Theorem 4.3 would be refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The core discovery is that the sharp-interface limit of the heterogeneous Allen–Cahn equation is governed by weighted mean curvature flow with a spatially dependent surface tension. Concretely, Theorem 4.3 shows that if the initial data converge and the time-integrated diffuse energies converge to the weighted perimeter, then along a subsequence the phase fields converge in $L^1$ to $u_A=b\chi_A+a(1-\chi_A)$, and the sets $A(t)$ form a distributional solution in the sense of Definition 4.2: they admit a square-integrable normal velocity $V$ satisfying the transport equation, the weak motion law $\sigma V=\sigma H-\nabla\sigma\cdot n$, and the optimal dissipation inequality. Corollary 3.2 derives the Gibbs–Thomson relation $\lambda_0=\gamma^{-1}(-\sigma H+\nabla\sigma\cdot n)$ for mass-constrained minimizers, identifying the limit chemical potential with the weighted mean curvature of the interface. Theorem 5.2 establishes weak-strong uniqueness: as long as a smooth calibrated flow exists, any BV solution with the same initial datum coincides with it.

Load-bearing premise

The proof of the sharp-interface limit assumes that the time-integrated diffuse energies converge to the weighted perimeter of the limiting sets (hypothesis (4.8)); the paper does not derive this convergence from the Allen–Cahn dynamics, so the theorem is conditional on it.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

When the energy-convergence hypothesis holds and a smooth calibrated flow exists, the weak-strong uniqueness theorem forces the whole sequence of Allen–Cahn solutions to converge to that smooth flow, not just along a subsequence.
The Gibbs–Thomson relation extends the classical curvature–chemical-potential law to heterogeneous surface tensions, giving a precise meaning to the limit chemical potential of a mass-constrained phase-field minimizer.
The BV solution concept for weighted mean curvature flow is shown to be stable: it satisfies the optimal dissipation inequality and agrees with any smooth flow starting from the same initial set, so it is a viable weak formulation for numerical and analytical purposes.
The result justifies using the numerically convenient diffuse-interface Allen–Cahn model to approximate sharp-interface evolutions in heterogeneous media, provided the interface-width parameter is small and the energy convergence hypothesis is met.

Reading between the lines

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

The energy-convergence hypothesis (4.8) is the real bottleneck: for physically interesting potentials with strongly varying wells, verifying it from the dynamics alone may be as hard as the sharp-interface limit itself, and the paper does not provide such a verification.
The normalized-well trick, which reduces moving wells to a fixed-well energy landscape, points toward a general method: the same first-variation argument should produce Gibbs–Thomson relations and BV convergence for anisotropic or multiphase generalizations of the energy.
A natural next step is to test whether the derivative control $|\partial_x\sqrt{W_n}|\le C\sqrt{W_n}$ can be relaxed; if not, it becomes an additional hypothesis separating the heterogeneous problem from the homogeneous one.
The weak-strong uniqueness principle suggests a route to quantitative convergence rates for the heterogeneous Allen–Cahn approximation by a relative-entropy estimate, analogous to known rates in the homogeneous setting.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Plainly: this paper's real content is the static first-variation convergence for heterogeneous Modica-Mortola energies with moving wells. The dynamic theorem is an honest conditional statement, and the weak-strong uniqueness is a competent extension of known relative-energy techniques.

What is new: the normalized well W_n and the structural inequality (2.7) are a genuine trick. They let the authors reduce the moving-well problem to fixed wells while retaining spatial dependence, and the proof of Theorem 3.1 is essentially complete. The Gibbs-Thomson corollary is a clean payoff. The paper is transparent that Theorem 4.3 depends on the energy convergence hypothesis (4.8), and it follows the Luckhaus-Sturzenhecker template rather than pretending to derive (4.8).

Where the soft spots are: (4.8) is load-bearing. The motion-law step (4.13) uses (4.8) to replace diffuse energy densities by the weighted perimeter measure, and the time-integrated first-variation convergence of Remark 3.4 is stated without proof. If (4.8) fails, only the lower-semicontinuous dissipation survives and the velocity cannot be identified with weighted mean curvature. The authors say this is a hypothesis, and that is accurate; but it means the headline convergence is conditional in a way that is standard for this line of work, not resolved here. Minor gaps: the error estimates in (4.13) are sketched, the calibration construction in Section 5 is deferred to [17,34], and Remark 3.4 is asserted. These look fillable. The denominator convergence in Corollary 3.2 is fine once the reduced boundary is nonempty, which follows from the mass constraint.

The citation pattern is appropriate; the self-citations to [10,34] are to closely related work and not a red flag.

Who should read this: anyone working on sharp-interface limits, phase-field models, or geometric flows with heterogeneous surface tension. The static theorem is a useful tool. The dynamic theorem is a conditional step that the community will likely want to strengthen. It deserves a serious referee; I would accept it for review and probably recommend publication after the (4.8) limitation is made even more prominent and the sketched estimates are filled in.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper studies the sharp-interface limit of a heterogeneous Allen-Cahn equation with a space-dependent double-well potential and moving wells. The main results are: (i) a proof that the first variation of the diffuse energy E_ε converges to the first variation of the weighted perimeter E, both in the static case (Theorem 3.1) and, by assertion, in a time-integrated form (Remark 3.4); (ii) a Gibbs-Thomson relation for heterogeneous surface tensions (Corollary 3.2); (iii) a conditional convergence theorem (Theorem 4.3) stating that, under the energy convergence hypothesis (4.8), weak solutions of the heterogeneous Allen-Cahn equation converge, up to subsequence, to a BV/distributional solution of weighted mean curvature flow; and (iv) a weak-strong uniqueness principle for BV solutions of weighted mean curvature flow (Theorem 5.2), proved via the relative energy technique. The static first-variation result relies on a normalization of the moving wells, an equipartition lemma, and a control of the x-derivative of the normalized potential (2.7). The paper is transparent about the conditional nature of Theorem 4.3.

Significance. The paper makes a solid contribution to the variational theory of heterogeneous phase transitions. The static first-variation convergence for moving wells (Theorem 3.1) is new and appears to be proved with essentially complete arguments; the resulting Gibbs-Thomson relation extends earlier results of Luckhaus-Modica to spatially dependent wells. The conditional convergence of the heterogeneous Allen-Cahn equation to weighted mean curvature flow is formulated in the standard Luckhaus-Sturzenhecker framework and extends that framework to heterogeneous potentials. The weak-strong uniqueness result generalizes recent relative-energy arguments to weighted mean curvature flow and is a useful addition to the literature. The authors clearly state the unproved energy convergence hypothesis (4.8) and correctly identify it as the key assumption. The main weakness is that several technically load-bearing passages, especially the time-dependent first-variation convergence and the error estimates in Substep 2.2 of Theorem 4.3, are asserted rather than proved in detail.

major comments (3)

[§4, Substep 2.2, Eq. (4.14) and Remark 3.4] The time-integrated first-variation convergence stated in Remark 3.4 is asserted without proof and is used critically in Substep 2.2 to pass to the limit in the right-hand side of (4.12). The same substep also contains an unproved estimate for the first two terms of (4.14), which are claimed to vanish at rate C(∫|n_A−η|^2 d|∇χ_A| dt)^{1/2} by reference to Substep 4.2 of Theorem 3.1. Because these two passages are load-bearing for the motion law (4.4), the authors should provide a complete proof of the time-dependent version of Theorem 3.1, including the measure-convergence statements and the error estimates under the energy convergence hypothesis (4.8).
[§4, Theorem 4.3, hypothesis (4.8)] The convergence result of Theorem 4.3 is conditional on the energy convergence hypothesis (4.8), which is not derived from the Allen-Cahn dynamics. As the proof of Substep 2.2 makes clear, (4.8) is exactly what converts a lower-semicontinuous inequality into the identity needed to identify the velocity; if (4.8) fails, the motion law (4.4) is not established. This is a standard type of hypothesis in the Luckhaus-Sturzenhecker framework, but the title of the paper currently advertises the convergence without qualification. The authors should adjust the title (e.g., "Conditional convergence ...") and add a remark in Section 4 discussing the status of (4.8) as a no-energy-loss condition and its relation to the analogous assumptions in [36] and [24].
[§3, Corollary 3.2] The hypotheses of Corollary 3.2 do not explicitly include the energy convergence E_ε[u_ε] → E[u_A], which is required to apply Theorem 3.1 in Step 1 of the proof. This convergence follows from the minimizing property and standard Γ-convergence with the mass constraint, but it should be stated either as a hypothesis or as a consequence proved before invoking Theorem 3.1. Without this, the proof of the Gibbs-Thomson relation has an implicit unverified hypothesis.

minor comments (5)

[§3.3, statement of Corollary 3.2] The interval for the constraint m appears to be misstated: with a < b, the set (−∫ a dx, −∫ b dx) is empty; it should be (−∫ b dx, −∫ a dx).
[§4, Substep 2.1, Eq. (4.11)] In the last inequality of (4.11), the second factor should be (1/2 ∫ σ|φ|^2 d|∇χ_A(t)| dt)^{1/2} rather than (∫ σ|φ|^2 d|∇χ_A(t)| dt)^{1/2}, since by Lemma 3.5 the measure W/ε converges to (1/2)σ|∇χ_A(t)|. The missing factor does not affect the conclusion, but the displayed inequality is not exact.
[§3, Theorem 3.1, Step 3] The vector measures ν_ε := √(2W_n)γ∇v L^N are claimed to converge in weak-star sense and in total variation to σ∇χ_A 'by Lemma 3.5'. Lemma 3.5 as stated only covers scalar measures; the directional convergence needed for the vector measure is established later in Substep 4.2, but the reader is not pointed to it. Please add a remark or restructure the proof so that this claim is clearly justified.
[§3, Theorem 3.1, Step 1] The sentence 'By Hölder's inequality and Young's inequality, respectively, we see ∫ ε|∇v_ε| dx → 0 and ∫ ε|v_ε||∇v_ε| dx → 0' misattributes the inequalities: both estimates follow from Hölder (or Cauchy-Schwarz), and Young's inequality alone would not give the second o(1).
[§5, Theorem 5.2 and Definition 5.1] The weak-strong uniqueness theorem is stated in R^N, while the BV solution concept in Definition 4.2 is formulated on a bounded C^2 domain Ω. The authors should clarify how the BV solution notion is adapted to the whole space (e.g., by extending functions by zero or by stating the R^N analogue of Definition 4.2).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the main convergence theorem is explicitly conditional on the energy convergence hypothesis (4.8), and no derived quantity is assumed as an input.

full rationale

The advertised result is explicitly conditional: Theorem 4.3 proves convergence of Allen-Cahn solutions to a BV solution of weighted mean curvature flow only under the energy convergence hypothesis (4.8). This hypothesis is an input, not a conclusion, and it is structurally distinct from the target statement: (4.8) concerns the diffuse energies E_epsilon and the sharp weighted perimeter E, while the theorem's conclusion concerns the transport equation, motion law, and dissipation inequality for the limit sets A(t). The proof of the motion law in Substep 2.2 uses (4.8) only to pass the equipartition of energy (Remark 3.4) to the time-integrated setting and to control cross terms; this is a legitimate conditional derivation, not a tautology. The paper also relies on external results such as Bouchitte's Gamma-convergence, Luckhaus-Sturzenhecker, Hensel-Laux, and Fischer et al., and it cites prior work by the authors ([10], [34]) mainly as background or methodological references. These self-citations are not load-bearing substitutes for the main argument. The Gibbs-Thomson corollary and the weak-strong uniqueness theorem are derived from Theorem 3.1 and Definition 5.1 respectively, with no step in which the conclusion is assumed as an input. The main limitation is that (4.8) is unproved, making the sharp-interface limit conditional; however, a conditional theorem is not a circular one. No significant circularity was found.

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

The central claim rests on the assumed energy convergence hypothesis (4.8) and on the structural inequality (2.7), neither of which is derived. The paper also borrows standard Gamma-convergence and calibration tools from the literature. There are no fitted parameters and no newly invented physical entities.

assumptions (5)

standard math Bouchitté's Gamma-convergence and lower bound: the Gamma-limit of Eε is the weighted perimeter E, and liminf of ∫√(2W)|∇uε| is at least E[u] (References [2, eq. (3.20), Theorem 4.1]).
Invoked in Lemma 3.5 to prove equipartition of energy and measure convergence; accepted as a known theorem, not re-derived.
domain assumption Structural inequality (2.7): |∂_x √(W_n)(x,v)| ≤ C √(W_n)(x,v) for the normalized well W_n.
Explicitly assumed in Section 2.2; used to control the term involving ∂_x W_n in the proof of Theorem 3.1, Step 2. Not derived from the standing hypotheses on W, though it holds for canonical double-well examples as noted in Remark 2.1.
domain assumption Energy convergence hypothesis (4.8): ∫0^T Eε(uε(·,t)) dt → ∫0^T E(u_A(t)) dt as ε→0.
Stated hypothesis of Theorem 4.3; it is the key unproved input that lets the first-variation convergence of Remark 3.4 be applied in time and yields the motion law for the limit flow.
domain assumption Existence of a gradient flow calibration (ξ,B,ϑ) for a smooth weighted mean curvature flow, as constructed in [17, Section 4.1-4.2] (see also [34, Lemma 5.5]).
Used in Theorem 5.2 to define the relative energy and prove weak-strong uniqueness; the paper sketches the construction (nearest-point projection and truncation) and delegates the verification to the cited references.
standard math The normalized surface tension σ_n = σ/γ is bounded above and below and is C^2, so σ is uniformly positive and Lipschitz in the Section 5 setting.
Follows from δ_sep>0, a,b ∈ C^2 and the assumptions on W; used throughout, including the coercivity properties of the relative energy.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Convergence of a heterogeneous Allen-Cahn equation to weighted mean curvature flow." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QMIK35SB

@misc{pith2026241202567,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Convergence of a heterogeneous Allen-Cahn equation to weighted mean curvature flow},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QMIK35SB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.02567}
}

read the original abstract

We consider a variational model for heterogeneous phase separation, based on a diffuse interface energy with moving wells. Our main result identifies the asymptotic behavior of the first variation of the phase field energies as the width of the diffuse interface vanishes. This convergence result allows us to deduce a Gibbs-Thomson relation for heterogeneous surface tensions. Proceeding from this information, we prove that (weak) solutions of the Allen-Cahn equation with space dependent potential converge to a BV solution of weighted mean curvature flow, under an energy convergence hypothesis. Additionally, relying on the relative energy technique, we establish a weak-strong uniqueness principle for solutions of weighted mean curvature flow.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages

[36]

Luckhaus and T

S. Luckhaus and T. Sturzenhecker , Implicit time discretization for the mean curvature ﬂow equ ation, Calculus of Variations and Partial Diﬀerential Equations, 3 (1995), pp . 253–271

work page 1995
[24]

11 1–148

, BV solutions for mean curvature ﬂow with constant angle: All en-Cahn approximation and weak-strong unique- ness, Indiana University Mathematics Journal, 73 (2024), pp. 11 1–148

work page 2024
[1]

Ambrosio, N

L. Ambrosio, N. Fusco, and D. Pallara , Functions of bounded variation and free discontinuity prob lems, Oxford Mathematical Monographs. Oxford University Press, New Yor k, USA, 2000

work page 2000
[2]

Bouchitt ´e, Singular perturbations of variational problems arising fr om a two-phase transition model , Applied mathematics & optimization, 21 (1990), pp

G. Bouchitt ´e, Singular perturbations of variational problems arising fr om a two-phase transition model , Applied mathematics & optimization, 21 (1990), pp. 289–314

work page 1990
[3]

K. A. Brakke , The motion of a surface by its mean curvature , vol. 20 of Mathematical Notes, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1978

work page 1978
[4]

Bungert, T

L. Bungert, T. Laux, and K. Stinson , A mean curvature ﬂow arising in adversarial training , Journal de Math´ ematiques Pures et Appliqu´ ees, 192 (2024), p. 103625

work page 2024
[5]

Chambolle, D

A. Chambolle, D. D. Gennaro, and M. Morini , Minimizing movements for anisotropic and inhomogeneous me an curvature ﬂows , Advances in Calculus of Variations, 17 (2024), pp. 1095–11 29

work page 2024
[6]

Chen , Generation and propagation of interfaces for reaction-diﬀ usion equations, Journal of Diﬀerential Equations, 96 (1992), pp

X. Chen , Generation and propagation of interfaces for reaction-diﬀ usion equations, Journal of Diﬀerential Equations, 96 (1992), pp. 116–141

work page 1992

Show all 43 references

[7]

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

1991
[8]

Cicalese, Y

M. Cicalese, Y. Nagase, and G. Pisante , The Gibbs–Thomson relation for non homogeneous anisotropi c phase transitions, Advances in Calculus of Variations, 3 (2010), pp. 321–344

2010
[9]

Cristoferi, I

R. Cristoferi, I. Fonseca, and L. Ganedi , Homogenization and phase separation with ﬁxed wells–the su percritical case, preprint, (2023). arXiv:2301.07012

2023 arXiv
[10]

, Homogenization and phase separation with space dependent w ells: The subcritical case , Archive for Rational Mechanics and Analysis, 247 (2023), p. 94

2023
[11]

Cristoferi, I

R. Cristoferi, I. Fonseca, A. Hagerty, and C. Popovici , A homogenization result in the gradient theory of phase transitions, Interfaces and Free Boundaries, (2019)

2019
[12]

Cristoferi and G

R. Cristoferi and G. Gravina , Sharp interface limit of a multi-phase transitions model un der nonisothermal con- ditions, Calculus of Variations and Partial Diﬀerential Equations , 60 (2021), p. 142

2021
[13]

de Mottoni and M

P. de Mottoni and M. Schatzman , Geometrical evolution of developed interfaces , Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, 347 (1995), pp. 1533–1589

1995
[14]

L. C. Evans, H. M. Soner, and P. E. Souganidis , Phase transitions and generalized motion by mean curvature , Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics, 45 (1992), pp. 1097–1123

1992
[15]

L. C. Evans and J. Spruck , Motion of level sets by mean curvature I , Journal of Diﬀerential Geometry, 5 (1991), pp. 635–681

1991
[16]

W. M. Feldman and P. Morfe , The occurrence of surface tension gradient discontinuitie s and zero mobility for Allen-Cahn and curvature ﬂows in periodic media , Interfaces and Free Boundaries, 25 (2023). CONVERGENCE OF A HETEROGENEOUS ALLEN–CAHN EQUATION TO WEIG HTED MCF 25

2023
[17]

Fischer and S

J. Fischer and S. Hensel , Weak–strong uniqueness for the navier–stokes equation for two ﬂuids with surface tension , Archive for Rational Mechanics and Analysis, 236 (2019), pp . 967–1087

2019
[18]

Fischer, S

J. Fischer, S. Hensel, T. Laux, and T. Simon , The local structure of the energy landscape in multiphase me an curvature ﬂow: Weak-strong uniqueness and stability of evo lutions, ﬁrst part accepted for publication at Journal of the European Mathematical Society, (2023), p. 55....

2023
[19]

Fischer, S

J. Fischer, S. Hensel, A. Marveggio, and M. Moser , Stability of multiphase mean curvature ﬂow beyond circular topology changes, Preprint, (2024), p. 56. arXiv:2404.02884

2024 arXiv
[20]

Fischer, T

J. Fischer, T. Laux, and T. M. Simon , Convergence rates of the Allen–Cahn equation to mean curvat ure ﬂow: A short proof based on relative entropies , SIAM Journal on Mathematical Analysis, 52 (2020), pp. 6222 –6233

2020
[21]

Fischer and A

J. Fischer and A. Marveggio , Quantitative convergence of the vectorial Allen-Cahn equa tion towards multiphase mean curvature ﬂow , Annales de l’Institut Henri Poincar´ e C. Analyse Non Lin´ eaire, 41 (2024), pp. 1117–1178

2024
[22]

Gurtin , Some Results and Conjectures in the Gradient Theory of Phase Transitions, vol

M. Gurtin , Some Results and Conjectures in the Gradient Theory of Phase Transitions, vol. 3, Springer, New York, NY, 1987

1987
[23]

Hensel and T

S. Hensel and T. Laux , Weak-strong uniqueness for the mean curvature ﬂow of double bubbles, Interfaces and Free Boundaries, 25 (2023), pp. 37–107

2023
[25]

, A new varifold solution concept for mean curvature ﬂow: Conv ergence of the Allen-Cahn equation and weak- strong uniqueness , accepted for publication at Journal of Diﬀerential Geomet ry, (2024), p. 40. arXiv:2109.04233

2024 arXiv
[26]

Hensel and A

S. Hensel and A. Marveggio , Weak-strong uniqueness for the Navier-Stokes equation for two ﬂuids with ninety degree contact angle and same viscosities , Journal of Mathematical Fluid Mechanics, 24 (2022)

2022
[27]

Hensel and M

S. Hensel and M. Moser , Convergence rates for the Allen–Cahn equation with boundar y contact energy: the non- perturbative regime, Calculus of Variations and Partial Diﬀerential Equations , 61 (2022), p. 201

2022
[28]

Ilmanen , Convergence of the Allen-Cahn equation to Brakke’s motion b y mean curvature , Journal of Diﬀerential Geometry, 38 (1993), pp

T. Ilmanen , Convergence of the Allen-Cahn equation to Brakke’s motion b y mean curvature , Journal of Diﬀerential Geometry, 38 (1993), pp. 417–461

1993
[29]

I. Kim, A. Mellet, and Y. Wu , Density-constrained chemotaxis and Hele-Shaw ﬂow , Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, 377 (2024), pp. 395–429

2024
[30]

Kim and Y

L. Kim and Y. Tonegaw a , On the mean curvature ﬂow of grain boundaries , Annales de l’Institut Fourier, 67 (2017), pp. 43–142

2017
[31]

Kroemer and T

M. Kroemer and T. Laux , The Hele–Shaw ﬂow as the sharp interface limit of the Cahn–Hi lliard equation with disparate mobilities, Communications in Partial Diﬀerential Equations, 47 (202 1), pp. 2444 – 2486
[32]

Laux , Weak-strong uniqueness for volume-preserving mean curvat ure ﬂow , Revista Matem´ atica Iberoamericana, 40 (2024), pp

T. Laux , Weak-strong uniqueness for volume-preserving mean curvat ure ﬂow , Revista Matem´ atica Iberoamericana, 40 (2024), pp. 93–110

2024
[33]

Laux and T

T. Laux and T. M. Simon , Convergence of the allen-cahn equation to multiphase mean c urvature ﬂow , Communica- tions on Pure and Applied Mathematics, 71 (2018), pp. 1597–1 647

2018
[34]

T. Laux, K. Stinson, and C. Ullrich , Diﬀuse-interface approximation and weak-strong uniquene ss of anisotropic mean curvature ﬂow , European Journal of Applied Mathematics, (2024), pp. 1–61

2024
[35]

Luckhaus and L

S. Luckhaus and L. Modica , The Gibbs-Thompson relation within the gradient theory of p hase transitions , Archive for Rational Mechanics and Analysis, 107 (1989), pp. 71–83

1989
[37]

Modica , The gradient theory of phase transitions and the minimal int erface criterion , Archive for Rational Me- chanics and Analysis, 98 (1987), pp

L. Modica , The gradient theory of phase transitions and the minimal int erface criterion , Archive for Rational Me- chanics and Analysis, 98 (1987), pp. 123–142

1987
[38]

Modica and S

L. Modica and S. Mortola , Un esempio di Γ -convergenza, Bollettino dell’Unione Matematica Italiana B (5), 14 (1977), pp. 285–299

1977
[39]

P. S. Morfe , Homogenization of the Allen–Cahn equation with periodic mo bility, Calculus of Variations and Partial Diﬀerential Equations, 61 (2020)

2020
[40]

P. S. Morfe , Surface tension and Γ -convergence of Van der Waals–Cahn-Hilliard phase transit ions in stationary ergodic media, Journal of Statistical Physics, 181 (2020), pp. 2225–2256

2020
[41]

G. D. Philippis and F. Maggi , Regularity of free boundaries in anisotropic capillarity p roblems and the validity of young’s law, Archive for Rational Mechanics and Analysis, 216 (2014), p p. 473–568

2014
[42]

Sternberg, The eﬀect of a singular perturbation on nonconvex variation al problems, Archive for Rational Mechanics and Analysis, 101 (1988), pp

P. Sternberg, The eﬀect of a singular perturbation on nonconvex variation al problems, Archive for Rational Mechanics and Analysis, 101 (1988), pp. 209–260

1988
[43]

Stuvard and Y

S. Stuvard and Y. Tonegaw a , On the existence of canonical multi-phase Brakke ﬂows , Advances in Calculus of Variations, 17 (2024), pp. 33–78. 26 L. GANEDI, A. MAR VEGGIO, AND K. STINSON (Likhit Ganedi) Institut f ¨ur Mathematik, R WTH Aachen, Templergraben 55, 52062 Aachen, ...

2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [36]

Luckhaus and T

S. Luckhaus and T. Sturzenhecker , Implicit time discretization for the mean curvature ﬂow equ ation, Calculus of Variations and Partial Diﬀerential Equations, 3 (1995), pp . 253–271

work page 1995

[2] [24]

11 1–148

, BV solutions for mean curvature ﬂow with constant angle: All en-Cahn approximation and weak-strong unique- ness, Indiana University Mathematics Journal, 73 (2024), pp. 11 1–148

work page 2024

[3] [1]

Ambrosio, N

L. Ambrosio, N. Fusco, and D. Pallara , Functions of bounded variation and free discontinuity prob lems, Oxford Mathematical Monographs. Oxford University Press, New Yor k, USA, 2000

work page 2000

[4] [2]

Bouchitt ´e, Singular perturbations of variational problems arising fr om a two-phase transition model , Applied mathematics & optimization, 21 (1990), pp

G. Bouchitt ´e, Singular perturbations of variational problems arising fr om a two-phase transition model , Applied mathematics & optimization, 21 (1990), pp. 289–314

work page 1990

[5] [3]

K. A. Brakke , The motion of a surface by its mean curvature , vol. 20 of Mathematical Notes, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1978

work page 1978

[6] [4]

Bungert, T

L. Bungert, T. Laux, and K. Stinson , A mean curvature ﬂow arising in adversarial training , Journal de Math´ ematiques Pures et Appliqu´ ees, 192 (2024), p. 103625

work page 2024

[7] [5]

Chambolle, D

A. Chambolle, D. D. Gennaro, and M. Morini , Minimizing movements for anisotropic and inhomogeneous me an curvature ﬂows , Advances in Calculus of Variations, 17 (2024), pp. 1095–11 29

work page 2024

[8] [6]

Chen , Generation and propagation of interfaces for reaction-diﬀ usion equations, Journal of Diﬀerential Equations, 96 (1992), pp

X. Chen , Generation and propagation of interfaces for reaction-diﬀ usion equations, Journal of Diﬀerential Equations, 96 (1992), pp. 116–141

work page 1992