Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Phase field approximation for Plateau's problem: a curve geodesic distance penalty approach

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read For a single Lipschitz curve on a cylinder's edge, quasi-minimizers of an Ambrosio-Tortorelli energy with a geodesic distance penalty converge to a Plateau minimal surface.

desk verdict The model is a real step toward phase-field Plateau approximations, and the cylinder-case Gamma-convergence proof is mostly sound, but the p<∞ branch has a genuine Chebyshev gap that leaves Theorem 1.1 unproved for the numerically relevant p=2; the fix is easy, so it deserves peer review. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.22273 v1 pith:T36375YC submitted 2025-06-27 math.OC cs.NAmath.APmath.NA

Matthieu Bonnivard , Elie Bretin , Antoine Lemenant , Eve Machefert This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.OCcs.NAmath.APmath.NA MSC 49Q0549Q2049J45
keywords phasefieldapproximationPlateau'sproblemGamma-convergencegeodesicdistancepenaltyminimalsurfacesAmbrosio-Tortorellienergysoapfilmstopologicalconstraint
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 introduces a phase field model for Plateau's problem, the search for a least-area surface spanning prescribed boundary curves. The energy combines the standard Ambrosio-Tortorelli approximation of area with a geodesic distance penalty that connects boundary curves through homotopies, so the topological spanning condition is enforced only in the limit. The main theorem treats a single Lipschitz graph curve on the edge of a cylinder: any quasi-minimizing sequence produces level sets whose selected connected component converges in $L^1$ to a solution of Plateau's problem. The numerical section shows the same scheme approximating catenoids, two disks joined by a tube, the singular cube film, and non-orientable surfaces.

What carries the argument

The central object is the functional $F^p_\varepsilon(u)=\varepsilon\int_C|\nabla u|^2\,dx+\frac{1}{4\varepsilon}\int_C(1-u)^2\,dx+\frac{1}{c_\varepsilon}d^p_u(\gamma,\gamma_0)$, where $d^p_u$ is the $p$-geodesic distance between curves, defined as the infimum of $\int_{S_\ell}(|u|^p+\delta_\varepsilon)\,dH^2$ (or of the sup norm when $p=\infty$) over Lipschitz homotopies $\ell$ joining $\gamma$ to $\gamma_0$, with $S_\ell=\ell([0,1]\times S^1)$. The geodesic term is the carrier of the topological constraint: when it is small, the surface $S_\ell$ lies in a region where $u$ is small, and the separation property of such surfaces forces the selected level set to separate the cylinder. The proof then uses the co-area formula on $g_\varepsilon=u_\varepsilon-u_\varepsilon^2/2$, an averaging lemma to pick a good level $t_\varepsilon$, and the two competitors extracted from the separated components to obtain the liminf bound.

What would settle it

Run the numerical scheme in the exact one-curve cylinder setting and measure the perimeter in $C_0$ of the $L^1$ limit of the selected level-set component; if for a quasi-minimizing sequence that perimeter is strictly larger than the perimeter of the graph minimizer, Theorem 1.1 fails. A more targeted check is whether the Minkowski content identity $\lim_{r\to0}\mathcal{L}^3(K_r)/(2r)=H^2(K)$ holds for the essential boundary $K$ of the cylinder minimizer; a violation there breaks the limsup construction.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Theorem 1.1: for $p\in[1,\infty]$, if the prescribed curve $\gamma$ is the graph of a Lipschitz function on the lateral boundary of a cylinder and $\gamma_0$ is a constant curve inside it, then any quasi-minimizing sequence $u_\varepsilon$ of $F^p_\varepsilon$ yields a level set $\{u_\varepsilon-u_\varepsilon^2/2>t_\varepsilon\}$ whose component containing the upper part of the cylinder converges in $L^1$, up to a subsequence, to a solution of Plateau's problem. The proof is a $\Gamma$-convergence style argument: the limsup inequality builds a recovery sequence from the optimal Modica-Mortola profile around the minimizer's boundary, while the liminf inequality selects a suitable level set, proves it separates the cylinder, and reads off two competitors whose perimeters force the limit to be minimal. The paper therefore claims that topology can be prescribed by a penalty term at the limit, removing the need for an explicit current or divergence constraint.

Load-bearing premise

The proof depends on the regularity of the ideal minimal surface: its boundary is a graph, its essential boundary coincides with its topological boundary almost everywhere, and its area in small balls is bounded above and below by a constant times the radius squared; if that regularity fails, the recovery sequence used in the limsup inequality may not have the claimed energy.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Quasi-minimizers of $F^p_\varepsilon$ give a computable route to least-area surfaces: minimizers of the phase field energy approximate Plateau solutions without imposing a divergence or current constraint on the field.
  • In the cylinder setting, any algorithm that decreases the energy sufficiently fast eventually produces the minimal surface, because the energy gap to the optimum controls the $L^1$ distance of the selected level-set component.
  • The same geodesic-penalty design extends formally to several boundary curves and to non-oriented films, as the numerical experiments with catenoids, tubes, and the cube suggest.
  • The method is a higher-dimensional analogue of the Steiner phase field approximation: shortest connection between points is replaced by least-area homotopy between curves.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The cylinder and single-curve assumptions look technical rather than essential; a natural conjecture is that the same level-set argument works on any domain where admissible homotopies separate the boundary and the limit minimizer is Ahlfors regular up to the boundary.
  • The numerical construction uses non-optimal geodesics and still converges to good films, which suggests the geodesic penalty is doing less topological work than the analysis requires; testing the exact energy with optimal geodesics in the cylinder would isolate how much slack the numerical relaxation introduces.
  • The choice of connection graph $I_\gamma$ (which curve is paired with which point or curve) appears to select which Plateau solution is reached, so variants that learn $I_\gamma$ during the flow could target or avoid singular solutions such as the tube connecting two disks.
  • Proving a $\Gamma$-limit for the Willmore-Cahn-Hilliard variant and for multiple curves would close the gap between the analysis and the numerics; numerical benchmarks with measured perimeters could serve as the first evidence.
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.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a phase-field approximation of a Reifenberg-type Plateau problem in R^3. The functional combines an Ambrosio-Tortorelli term with a p-geodesic distance penalty between a prescribed boundary curve and a point on it, generalizing earlier Steiner-problem approximations. The main theoretical result, Theorem 1.1, states that in a cylinder, for p in [1,∞], any quasi-minimizing sequence of the p-energy produces level sets that converge in L1 to a solution of the Plateau problem. The proof is organized as a Γ-limsup/liminf pair (Theorems 2.1 and 2.2), with the liminf proof using a separation argument based on the Borsuk theorem and an averaging argument over level sets. The numerical section develops a gradient-flow scheme using a Willmore-Cahn-Hilliard variant and fast-marching approximations of the geodesic term, with experiments for one, two, three, and six boundary curves, including the cube example.

Significance. If the main theorem is correct, this is a valuable contribution: it provides a new phase-field model for Plateau's problem in the Reifenberg sense, with a topological penalty that is not reduced to a current boundary constraint, and it gives the first Γ-convergence analysis in a nontrivial geometric setting. The proof is genuinely original in its use of separation and level-set averaging, and no fitted parameters or circular arguments are involved. The numerical experiments are visually convincing and suggest that the model is practically useful. However, the manuscript currently contains a load-bearing gap in the p<∞ part of the liminf proof, and it depends at a central point on an unpublished regularity result. These issues need to be resolved before the claims can be accepted as stated.

major comments (2)
  1. [§2.5.3, Step 2 (Eq. (28))] The Chebyshev bound displayed in Step 2 is not a consequence of the energy estimate. From ∫_{S_ℓε} |uε|^p dH² ≤ C cε one obtains H²(S_ℓε ∩ {uε ≥ α}) ≤ C cε / α^p, not (C cε/α)^p as written. With the chosen αε = √cε, the correct bound gives H²(Kε) ≤ C cε^{1−p/2}, which fails to tend to zero for p ≥ 2 and diverges for p > 2. Consequently assertion (28), the conclusion P(Uε) → 0, and equality (31) in Step 3 are not established for p ∈ [2,∞), which includes the value p = 2 used throughout the numerical section. The gap appears repairable, for example by taking αε = cε^{1/(2p)}, which gives H²(Kε) = O(√cε) and still sε → 0; but as written the p<∞ half of Theorem 2.2, and hence Theorem 1.1, is incomplete.
  2. [Proposition 2.1, used in §2.4 (Eq. (13)) and §2.5] The limsup inequality relies on the Ahlfors regularity of the essential boundary through (12)–(13), while the liminf proof uses the graph structure and the equality ∂∗Ω = ∂Ω stated in Proposition 2.1. The proof of this proposition is not contained in the manuscript; it is attributed to the unpublished manuscript [Mac25] ('in preparation'). Since these properties are load-bearing for both inequalities, the paper is not self-contained at a central point. The authors should provide a proof of Proposition 2.1, or at least a detailed self-contained argument in an appendix, or replace the reference by a publicly available verifiable source.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§2.4, Eq. (15)] In the p<∞ part of the limsup proof, the integral of |uε|^p over K equals H²(K)(kε^p + δε), not H²(K)(kε + δε) as displayed; the conclusion (15) is unchanged because kε = cε² makes the extra factor vanish, but the displayed equality is inaccurate.
  2. [§2.5.2, Step 4, Eq. (22)] The displayed identity '∂∗Ω1ε ∩ ∂∗Ω1ε ∩ C0 = ∅' should almost certainly read '∂∗Ω1ε ∩ ∂∗Ω2ε ∩ C0 = ∅'.
  3. [Theorem 1.1] The statement asserts sε = O(cε), but in the p<∞ proof sε = αε − αε²/2 with αε = √cε (and after the proposed fix, αε = cε^{1/(2p)}); in neither case is sε = O(cε) for p ≥ 2. The theorem should state sε → 0, or give the exact order.
  4. [§3.2, numerical experiments] The numerical section explicitly acknowledges (Remark 3.3 and §3.2.2) that the computed geodesics are not optimal and reports no quantitative error metrics; the cylinder-instead-of-catenoid example is admitted. The numerical claims are therefore qualitative, and the paper should add convergence or error data, or state more cautiously that these are heuristic illustrations.
  5. [§3.1.2] The statement that replacing ATε by the Willmore-Cahn-Hilliard energy Pε preserves the Γ-convergence result is made without proof or reference; since the numerical minimization uses Pε, a precise statement or reference would be helpful.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the claimed Gamma-limit is derived from the functional's own construction; the only load-bearing external input is a regularity proposition, and the noted p<infinity gap is a correctness issue rather than a reduction to inputs.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. The functional F^p_epsilon is defined by an Ambrosio-Tortorelli term plus a geodesic-distance penalty (Definition 1.1 and equation (6)), and the claimed Gamma-limits (Theorems 2.1 and 2.2) are proved by explicit recovery sequences and coarea/perimeter estimates. No parameter is fitted to the target perimeter, and the geodesic-distance upper bound in the limsup is computed on the actual graph minimizer supplied by Proposition 2.1 rather than imposed by construction. The main external input, Proposition 2.1, is cited partly to [Mac25], an in-preparation manuscript by one of the authors, but that proposition is a regularity statement for Plateau minimizers whose hypotheses do not mention the phase-field model or geodesic penalty; under the stated criteria this is load-bearing but independent support, not circularity. A separate correctness gap should be flagged: in Section 2.5.3, Step 2, the choice alpha_epsilon = sqrt(c_epsilon) gives, by Chebyshev, H^2(K_epsilon) <= C c_epsilon^{1-p/2}, which does not tend to 0 for p >= 2, so assertion (28) is unjustified. This is an incompleteness in the p < infinity branch of Theorem 2.2, not an instance of a claimed result being equivalent to its inputs. The numerics use p = 2 and are explicitly outside the proved setting, so they do not create circular validation either. Overall, no step reduces a claimed prediction to its input by definition or by fitting.

Assumptions & free parameters 9 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central theorem depends on the sequences c_epsilon and delta_epsilon and on choices k_epsilon, alpha_epsilon inside the proof; these are not fit to data but are hand-chosen. The numerical claim rests on five hand-set hyperparameters. No new physical or mathematical entities are postulated.

free parameters (9)
  • c_epsilon = converges to 0, with delta_epsilon/c_epsilon -> 0
    Strength of the geodesic penalty in F^p_epsilon; any such sequence is allowed in the statements, fixed values are used in numerics.
  • delta_epsilon = converges to 0
    Additive regularization in the geodesic weight; the ratio condition delta_epsilon/c_epsilon -> 0 is assumed throughout.
  • k_epsilon = c_epsilon^2
    Chosen in the limsup construction (Section 2.4) to force the normalized geodesic term to vanish.
  • alpha_epsilon = sqrt(c_epsilon) as written
    Used in the p<infinity liminf to select a small set K_epsilon; the standard Chebyshev bound would require alpha_epsilon = c_epsilon^(1/(2p)) for all p.
  • spatial grid size P = 2^7
    Fixed for all numerical runs in Section 3.2.2.
  • interface width epsilon = 2/P
    Phase field width in numerical experiments.
  • time step delta_t = 10 epsilon^2
    Gradient flow time step in the numerical scheme.
  • Willmore weight sigma_epsilon = 1/epsilon^2
    Weight of the Willmore-Cahn-Hilliard term in the modified model.
  • kernel size r = 0.1 epsilon^2
    Size of the convolution kernel regularizing the geodesic term.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Existence of a Plateau minimizer that is open with ∂*Omega=∂Omega H2-a.e. and Ahlfors regular up to the boundary (Proposition 2.1).
    Asserted largely on the basis of the unpublished manuscript [Mac25]; used in the limsup construction to identify Minkowski content in equation (13).
  • standard math Rado's theorem: a Jordan curve with one-to-one orthogonal projection onto a convex curve has a unique minimal surface solution that is a graph.
    Used in Proposition 2.1 to justify that the Plateau minimizer is a graph inside C0.
  • standard math Borsuk separation theorem: if a compact set A is deformed into B without crossing p,q, then p,q remain in distinct components.
    Used in Proposition 2.2 to prove that any homotopy surface S_l separates the cylinder.
  • standard math Coarea formula for BV and for Lipschitz functions, and the average-value lemma for finite measures.
    Used in the liminf proofs to select level sets with controlled perimeter.
  • domain assumption The prescribed curve Gamma is a Lipschitz graph over S1 and gamma0 is a constant curve at a point of Gamma.
    This simplified geometry ensures separation properties; the theory is not extended to general boundary curves.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Phase field approximation for Plateau's problem: a curve geodesic distance penalty approach." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/T36375YC

@misc{pith2026250622273,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Phase field approximation for Plateau's problem: a curve geodesic distance penalty approach},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/T36375YC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.22273}
}
read the original abstract

This work focuses on a phase field approximation of Plateau's problem. Inspired by Reifenberg's point of view, we introduce a model that combines the Ambrosio-Torterelli energy with a geodesic distance term, which can be considered as a generalization of the approach developed by Bonnivard, Lemenant and Santambrogio to approximate solutions to Steiner's problem. First, we present a Gamma-convergence analysis of this model in the simple case of a single curve located on the edge of a cylinder. In a numerical section, we detail the numerical optimisation schemes used to minimize this energy for numerous examples, for which good approximations of solutions to Plateau's problem are found.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.22273 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Examples of numerical approximations of the solution of the Plateau problem [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Geometrical setting of Plateau’s problem. The boundary constraint is defined through a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Construction of the competitors Ω1 ε and Ω2 ε . Then we recall that Sℓε ⊂ {gε < sε} ∩ C0 ⊂ Aε ∩ C0 = A˜ ε because sε ⩽ tε. By Corollary 2.1, A˜ ε ∪ Σ separates C. This implies that C\(A˜ ε ∪ Σ) contains at least two connected components. We denote by Ω1 ε the connected component containing the north pole N = (0, 0, h) (where 2h is the height of the centered cylinder C) and Ω2 ε the one containing the south pole S = … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (15 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Left: case of one curve Γ1 , parametrized by γ 1 and connected to a point x 2 ∈ Γ 1 , represented by the constant curve γ 2 . Right: case of two curves Γ1 and Γ2 , resp. parametrized by γ 1 and γ 2 . Several possibilities occur: Γ1 can be connected to a point x 3 ∈ Γ 2…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Numerical example of geodesic computation. Left: the weight function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Numerical experiments to approximate solutions of Steiner’s problem. First line with 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Example of numerical approximation of mean curvature flow using the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Numerical experiments to approximate solution of Steiner problem using the second order [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Example of calculation of a geodesic between two centered and horizontal circles. Left: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Example of calculation of a geodesic between two horizontal circles at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Two numerical examples of geodesic computations in the case of a single curve Γ with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Two numerical examples of geodesic computations in the case of a two curves Γ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Numerical approximations of Plateau’s problem ; case [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Numerical approximations of Plateau’s problem ; [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Numerical approximations of Plateau’s problem ; [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Numerical approximations of Plateau’s problem ; [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Numerical approximations of Plateau’s problem ; [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Numerical approximations of Plateau’s problem ; [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_18.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Optimal regularity up to the boundary for Plateau-quasi-minimizers

    math.OC 2025-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Plateau-quasi-minimizers in co-dimension one are characterized, up to the boundary, by bi-John domains with Ahlfors regular boundaries.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Ambrosio, N

    L. Ambrosio, N. Fusco, and D. Pallara. Functions of bounded variation and free discontinuity problems . Oxford Mathematical Monographs. The Clarendon Press, Oxford University Press, New York, 2000

    2000

  2. [2]

    Bonnivard, E

    M. Bonnivard, E. Bretin, and A. Lemenant. Numerical approximation of the Steiner problem in dimension 2 and 3 . Math. Comput. , 89(321):1--43, 2020

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    A cahn--hilliard--willmore phase field model for non-oriented interfaces, 2024

    Elie Bretin, Antonin Chambolle, and Simon Masnou. A cahn--hilliard--willmore phase field model for non-oriented interfaces, 2024

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    A penalized allen-cahn equation for the mean curvature flow of thin structures, 2024

    Elie Bretin, Chih-Kang Huang, and Simon Masnou. A penalized allen-cahn equation for the mean curvature flow of thin structures, 2024

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    On a phase field approximation of the planar steiner problem: existence, regularity, and asymptotic of minimizers

    Matthieu Bonnivard, Antoine Lemenant, and Vincent Millot. On a phase field approximation of the planar steiner problem: existence, regularity, and asymptotic of minimizers. Interfaces and free Boundaries , 20(1):69--106, 2018

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    Bonnivard, A

    M. Bonnivard, A. Lemenant, and F. Santambrogio. Approximation of length minimization problems among compact connected sets. SIAM Journal on Mathematical Analysis , 47(2):1489--1529, 2015

    work page 2015

  7. [7]

    A numerical method for computing minimal surfaces in arbitrary dimension

    Thomas Cecil. A numerical method for computing minimal surfaces in arbitrary dimension. J. Comput. Phys. , 206(2):650--660, 2005

    work page 2005

  8. [8]

    Antonin Chambolle, Luca A. D. Ferrari, and Benoit Merlet. Variational approximation of size-mass energies for \(k\) -dimensional currents. ESAIM, Control Optim. Calc. Var. , 25:39, 2019. Id/No 43

    work page 2019

Show all 38 references
  1. [9]

    A phase-field approximation of the Steiner problem in dimension two

    Antonin Chambolle, Luca Alberto Davide Ferrari, and Benoit Merlet. A phase-field approximation of the Steiner problem in dimension two. Adv. Calc. Var. , 12(2):157--179, 2019

    2019

  2. [10]

    Coppin and D

    C. Coppin and D. Greenspan. A contribution to the particle modeling of soap films. Appl. Math. Comput. , 26(4):315--331, 1988

    1988

  3. [11]

    David L. Chopp. Computing minimal surfaces via level set curvature flow. J. Comput. Phys. , 106(1):77--91, 1993

    1993

  4. [12]

    G. David. Sliding almost minimal sets and the Plateau problem. In Harmonic analysis and applications , pages 199--256. Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society (AMS); Princeton, NJ: Institute for Advanced Study (IAS), 2020

    2020

  5. [13]

    Su una teoria generale della misura \((r-1)\) -dimensionale in uno spazio ad \(r\) dimensioni

    Ennio De Giorgi. Su una teoria generale della misura \((r-1)\) -dimensionale in uno spazio ad \(r\) dimensioni. Ann. Mat. Pura Appl. (4) , 36:191--213, 1954

    1954

  6. [14]

    Frontiere orientate di misura minima

    Ennio De Giorgi. Frontiere orientate di misura minima. Seminario di Matematica. Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa , 1960

    1960

  7. [15]

    Hutchinson

    Gerhard Dziuk and John E. Hutchinson. The discrete P lateau problem: algorithm and numerics. Math. Comp. , 68(225):1--23, 1999

    1999

  8. [16]

    Hutchinson

    Gerhard Dziuk and John E. Hutchinson. The discrete P lateau problem: convergence results. Math. Comp. , 68(226):519--546, 1999

    1999

  9. [17]

    A direct approach to plateau's problem

    Camillo De Lellis, Francesco Ghiraldin, and Francesco Maggi. A direct approach to plateau's problem. Journal of the European Mathematical Society , 19(8):2219--2240, 2017

    2017

  10. [18]

    A method of numerical solution of the problem of P lateau

    Jesse Douglas. A method of numerical solution of the problem of P lateau. Ann. of Math. (2) , 29(1-4):180--188, 1927/28

    1927

  11. [19]

    Dugundji

    J. Dugundji. Topology . Allyn and Bacon series in advanced mathematics. Allyn and Bacon, 1966

    1966

  12. [20]

    L.C Evans and R.F. Gariepy. Measure Theory and Fine Properties of Functions . Studies in Advanced Mathematics. Taylor and Francis , 1991

    1991

  13. [21]

    D. Eyre. Computational and mathematical models of microstructural evolution. Warrendale:The Material Research Society , 1998

    1998

  14. [22]

    Herbert Federer and Wendell H. Fleming. Normal and integral currents. Annals of Mathematics , 72(3):458--520, 1960

    1960

  15. [23]

    Minimal surfaces and functions of bounded variation , volume 80 of Monogr

    Enrico Giusti. Minimal surfaces and functions of bounded variation , volume 80 of Monogr. Math., Basel . Birkh \"a user, Cham, 1984

    1984

  16. [24]

    Soap film solutions to plateau’s problem

    Jenny Harrison. Soap film solutions to plateau’s problem. Journal of Geometric Analysis , 24:271--297, 2014

    2014

  17. [25]

    Existence and soap film regularity of solutions to plateau’s problem

    Jenny Harrison and Harrison Pugh. Existence and soap film regularity of solutions to plateau’s problem. Advances in Calculus of Variations , 9(4):357--394, 2016

    2016

  18. [26]

    Blaine jun

    H. Blaine jun. Lawson. Lectures on minimal submanifolds. Vol . I , volume 9 of Math. Lect. Ser. Publish or Perish, Inc., Wilmington, 1980

    1980

  19. [27]

    A Modica - Mortola approximation for the Steiner problem

    Antoine Lemenant and Filippo Santambrogio. A Modica - Mortola approximation for the Steiner problem. C. R., Math., Acad. Sci. Paris , 352(5):451--454, 2014

    2014

  20. [28]

    Machefert

    E. Machefert. Optimal regularity up to the boundary for plateau-quasi-minimizers. in preparation , 2025

    2025

  21. [29]

    Sets of finite perimeter and geometric variational problems

    Francesco Maggi. Sets of finite perimeter and geometric variational problems. An introduction to geometric measure theory , volume 135 of Camb. Stud. Adv. Math. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012

    2012

  22. [30]

    A hierarchy of plateau problems and the approximation of plateau's laws via the allen--cahn equation

    Francesco Maggi, Michael Novack, and Daniel Restrepo. A hierarchy of plateau problems and the approximation of plateau's laws via the allen--cahn equation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.11139 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Plateau borders in soap films and gauss' capillarity theory

    Francesco Maggi, Michael Novack, and Daniel Restrepo. Plateau borders in soap films and gauss' capillarity theory. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.20169 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  24. [32]

    On the problem of Plateau , volume 2 of Ergeb

    Tibor Rad \'o . On the problem of Plateau , volume 2 of Ergeb. Math. Grenzgeb. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1933

    1933

  25. [33]

    E. R. Reifenberg. Solution of the Plateau problem for \(m\) -dimensional surfaces of varying topological type. Acta Math. , 104:1--92, 1960

    1960

  26. [34]

    J. A. Sethian. Fast marching methods. SIAM Review , 41(2):199--235, 1999

    1999

  27. [35]

    J. A. Sethian. Level Set Methods and Fast Marching Methods . Cambridge University Press, second edition edition, 1999

    1999

  28. [36]

    J. Shen, C. Wang, X. Wang, and S. M. Wise. Second-order convex splitting schemes for gradient flows with E hrlich- S chwoebel type energy: Application to thin film epitaxy. SIAM J. Numerical Analysis , 50(1):105--125, 2012

    2012

  29. [37]

    H.-J. Wagner. A contribution to the numerical approximation of minimal surfaces. Computing , 19(1):35--58, 1977/78

    1977

  30. [38]

    Computing minimal surfaces with differential forms

    Stephanie Wang and Albert Chern. Computing minimal surfaces with differential forms. ACM Trans. Graph. , 40(4):113:1--113:14, August 2021

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.