Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 41 references

Existence and Regularity of Extremal Metrics for the Conformal Dirichlet-to-Robin Map

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper proves that, on compact manifolds with boundary of dimension at least three, the second normalized eigenvalue of the conformal Dirichlet-to-Robin map is maximized within a conformal class by a generalized metric, and characterizes

desk verdict A plausible and genuinely new existence theorem for the second conformal Dirichlet-to-Robin eigenvalue, but the proof leans on two boundary-setting formulas deferred to the author's closed-manifold paper, and that is exactly where the transfer is not automatic. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.27489 v1 pith:TTGTG43I submitted 2026-07-29 math.DG

Samuel Pérez-Ayala This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.DG MSC 58J5058J3235J25
keywords conformalDirichlet-to-RobinmapgeneralizedeigenvaluesextremalmetricsTypeIIYamabeproblemfree-boundaryharmonicmapssign-changingsolutionsboundaryeigenvalueoptimizationpseudodifferentialoperator
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 is about the spectrum of the conformal Dirichlet-to-Robin map, a boundary operator that encodes how a harmonic function's normal derivative responds to its boundary values in a conformally invariant way. The main result, Theorem 1.2, states that if a conformal class on a manifold with boundary has at least two negative eigenvalues of this operator, then there is a generalized metric — allowed to degenerate on a small boundary set — that maximizes the second normalized eigenvalue. The maximizer is regular away from its zero set, and its structure is rigid: it either gives a sign-changing solution of a critical Escobar–Yamabe type equation, or a weakly free-boundary harmonic map into a Euclidean ball. A sympathetic reader would care because this transfers a well-known phenomenon from closed manifolds to the boundary setting, and it shows that extremal eigenvalue problems can produce genuine geometric objects even when the extremal metric is not smooth.

What carries the argument

Generalized conformal factors are $L^N_{\ge 0}(\Sigma)$ functions with $N = \frac{2(n-1)}{n-2}$, interpreted as possibly singular conformal factors; the generalized eigenvalue $\lambda_k(u)$ is defined through the Rayleigh quotient $R^u_g(\psi) = \frac{\int_M \left(|\nabla_g \psi|^2 + 2c_n h_g \psi^2\right)}{\int_\Sigma \psi^2 u^{N-2}}$. The proof introduces a regularized functional $F_{2,\epsilon}$ with a penalty term that forces maximizers $u_\epsilon$ to exist and to satisfy the Euler–Lagrange identity $\gamma_{1,\epsilon} u^N = u^{N-2} \sum c_i \varphi_i^2 + \gamma_{2,\epsilon} u^{-\epsilon}$. Uniform estimates in $\epsilon$, using elliptic regularity for the order-one pseudodifferential operator $D_g$ and a boundary Moser iteration, allow a limit passage to obtain the actual maximizer. The identity (1.22) is the key bridge to the geom

What would settle it

Check whether the one-sided derivative formula (4.5) for $t \mapsto \lambda_2(u(1+th))$ holds for a specific boundary example, or construct a maximizing sequence on a flat torus with a ball removed and test whether the limiting zero set can have positive measure; if it does, Claim 7.1 and the unique continuation input are violated.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Theorem 1.2: under the hypotheses that the Type II Yamabe invariant $Q(M,\Sigma,[g])$ is finite, the number of negative eigenvalues $N([g])\ge 2$, and $0$ is not in the spectrum of $D_g$, there exists a nonnegative function $u\in C^{0,\beta}(\Sigma)\cap C^\infty(\Sigma\setminus u^{-1}(0))$ whose $g$-harmonic extension is smooth and positive in $M$, such that $u$ maximizes the functional $F_2$ over generalized conformal factors. Moreover, the zero set $u^{-1}(0)$ has Hausdorff dimension at most $n-2$, and there are generalized second eigenfunctions $\varphi_1,\ldots,\varphi_k$ satisfying $\sum \varphi_i^2 = u^2$ on the boundary. Corollary 1.3 then asserts that if $k=1$, $u=|\varphi|$ for a sign-changing solution $\varphi$ of the boundary equation $\Delta_g \varphi=0$, $B_g(\varphi)=\lambda_2(u) \varphi |\varphi|^{2/(n-2)}$

Load-bearing premise

The proof leans on two one-sided derivative formulas and an Euler–Lagrange identity taken from the closed-manifold case without detailed verification in the boundary/pseudodifferential setting, and on a unique continuation theorem for Robin problems with non-smooth potentials applied to the limit function $u$; if either of these inputs fails, the regularity and zero-set conclusions of Theorem 1.2 would not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If Theorem 1.2 is correct, the second normalized eigenvalue of D_g always attains its supremum in the conformal class when N([g])≥2, even though the extremal metric is generally not smooth.
  • In the k=1 case, one obtains sign-changing solutions to the critical boundary equation (1.23), a class of solutions for which little is known when the Type II Yamabe invariant is negative.
  • In the k>1 case, the maximizer yields a harmonic map into a finite-dimensional Euclidean ball with free boundary, connecting spectral optimization with harmonic map theory in arbitrary dimension.
  • The identity Σ φ_i^2 = u^2 on the boundary shows that any maximizer is encoded by a finite set of eigenfunctions, which may allow explicit constructions of maximizers.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same variational framework may extend to higher eigenvalues λ_k with k>2, provided the number of negative eigenvalues is at least k, though the dichotomy may require more eigenfunctions and could lead to maps into higher-dimensional balls or spheres.
  • One could test the dichotomy numerically on a flat torus with a small ball removed: for N([g])=2 one expects a sign-changing extremal, while adding more negative eigenvalues (e.g., via a product with a circle) should produce a harmonic-map regime.
  • The author notes that no example of the k>1 case is known, so a concrete construction on a product manifold with a two-dimensional second eigenspace would be a testable extension of the theory.
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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper studies variational properties of the spectrum of the conformal Dirichlet-to-Robin map D_g on a compact manifold with boundary, n≥3. For the first eigenvalue, it proves (Theorem 1.1) that the normalized functional F_1 is bounded above by the Type II Yamabe invariant Q(M,Σ,[g]) when Q<0 and below when Q>0, with equality characterized by scalar-flat/constant-mean-curvature metrics and, in the negative case, by boundary homotheties. The main result (Theorem 1.2) asserts that under the assumptions Q finite, N([g])≥2 and 0∉Spec(D_g), there is a generalized conformal factor u∈C^{0,β}(Σ)∩C^∞(Σ∖u^{-1}(0)) maximizing the normalized second eigenvalue functional F_2, with u^{-1}(0) of Hausdorff dimension ≤n−2, and a collection of second generalized eigenfunctions satisfying Σ φ_i^2 = u^2 on Σ. Corollary 1.3 derives either a sign-changing Escobar–Yamabe type solution or a weakly free-boundary harmonic map into a unit ball. The proof follows the author's earlier closed-manifold work [18], with a regularization F_{2,ε}, ε-uniform estimates, and a limit ε→0+ argument.

Significance. If the two deferred technical propositions are valid, this is a substantial contribution: it gives the first existence and regularity theory for extremal eigenvalues of the conformal Dirichlet-to-Robin map and connects the second eigenvalue to free-boundary harmonic maps into Euclidean balls, in analogy with the second Yamabe invariant. The paper contains several strong auxiliary results that go beyond routine transfer from the closed case, notably Proposition 2.10 (Moser iteration with an L^{n-1} boundary potential), the uniform boundary estimates in Propositions 6.2–6.8, and the careful treatment of the limit via (7.10)–(7.11). The author is also transparent about the results invoked externally: Propositions 4.2 and 5.6 are explicitly deferred to [18], and Claim 7.1 relies on Li's unique continuation theorem [29]. This transparency is commendable, but it also means the central claim is currently conditional on unproved ingredients in the manuscript.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4, Proposition 4.2 (Eqs. (4.5)–(4.6))] The one-sided derivative formulas for t↦λ_2(u(1+th)) are stated without proof and deferred to [18, §3]. This is load-bearing: the formulas are used in Proposition 5.1 to compute one-sided derivatives of F_{2,ε}, and hence feed directly into the Euler–Lagrange equation (5.41). The transfer from the closed-manifold setting is not automatic. Here u lies in L^N_{>0}(Σ), the eigenvalue problem is the Robin boundary problem D_g φ = λ φ u^{N-2}, and D_g is an elliptic pseudodifferential operator of order 1 on the boundary. The variation of the boundary condition with u_t may introduce terms absent in the closed case. Please include a complete proof of Proposition 4.2, or a detailed verification that the closed-case argument applies verbatim, with the boundary variation terms explicitly accounted for.
  2. [§5, Proposition 5.6 (Eq. (5.41))] The Euler–Lagrange equation for maximizers of F_{2,ε} is likewise deferred to [18, Prop. 4.3], with the explanation that interior Sobolev spaces are replaced by boundary spaces. This is not a purely cosmetic substitution: the Hahn–Banach separation argument must handle the constraint u∈D_ε, the weight u^{N-2}, and the term ∫ u^{-ε}. Moreover, the bound k_ε≤N([g])−1 uses Carathéodory's theorem in a convex hull of a finite-dimensional eigenspace, and the projection step is not automatic in the boundary setting. Equation (5.41) is the engine for Propositions 6.5, 6.7, 6.8 and 6.9, and ultimately for the key identity (7.11). Without a proof of (5.41), Theorem 1.2 is unsupported. I request the full proof or a precise statement of the hypotheses that must be checked in the boundary setting.
  3. [Claim 7.1 (§7)] The zero-set conclusion u^{-1}(0) has zero boundary measure is essential for u∈L^N_{>0}(Σ), which is used in Proposition 2.4, in the lower bound of Proposition 6.1, and in the maximality argument of Claim 7.3. The claim invokes Li's theorem [29, Thm 1.1(b)] and asserts that the hypotheses are met because φ_{i_o}∈C^{0,β}(Σ)∩W^{1,2}(M) and u∈C^{0,β}(Σ). However, the Robin problem (7.9) has the boundary potential q=λ_2 u^{N-2}−2c_n h_g, and Li's theorem has specific regularity requirements on the potential and the initial data that are not verified here. Please state Li's theorem, check the admissible range of β and the integrability/regularity of q, and supply the missing verification. If Li's theorem does not directly apply, a different unique continuation argument is needed.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§1, Abstract] The abstract says 'Type II Yamabe metrics extremize the first normalized eigenvalue functional,' but Theorem 1.1 distinguishes the sign of Q and, in the positive case, requires assumption (1.16). This is a minor overstatement; consider aligning the abstract with the precise statement.
  2. [§2.3] After Remark 2.13, the sentence 'we omit the proof' before Proposition 2.10 refers to a different L^{N+ε}-integrability result; the wording is slightly confusing. Consider separating the deferred statement from the proved Proposition 2.10.
  3. [§5, Proposition 5.3] In the proof, the inequality F_{2,ε}(u_j)≥F_{2,ε}(1) uses the maximality of u_ε and the normalization ∫ u^N=1; it would help to say this explicitly before deriving (5.16).
  4. [§6, Proposition 6.1] The proof of (6.3) assumes u^{-1}(0) has zero boundary measure; this is true for u_j∈D_ε, but it may be worth highlighting because the same statement for the limit u is only established later in Claim 7.1.
  5. [§7, Claim 7.6] The notation g_{\hat u} is used both for the conformal metric defined by the harmonic extension and for the symbol of the Dirichlet-to-Robin map in earlier sections. At first use in Claim 7.6, define it precisely to avoid ambiguity.
  6. [References] Reference [6] is cited as arXiv:2511.10553v2 [math.DG], 2026. If a journal version exists, please update; otherwise, mark it as a preprint.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular reduction; the main theorem is an extension of the author's prior closed-manifold work, not a restatement of it. Deferred proofs are a gap, not a circularity.

full rationale

I traced the derivation chain. The central claim is the existence of a generalized conformal factor u maximizing F_2(u) = λ_2(D_{g_u})(∫_Σ u^N)^{(N-2)/N}, with the structural identity u^2 = ∑ φ_i^2. The proof proceeds by regularizing with F_{2,ε}, deriving the Euler-Lagrange equation (5.41): γ_{1,ε}u_ε^N − u_ε^{N−2}∑ c_{i,ε}φ_{i,ε}^2 − γ_{2,ε}u_ε^{−ε} = 0, and then using ε-independent compactness estimates (Propositions 6.5, 6.8, 6.9) to pass to the limit and obtain (7.11), ∑ c_i φ_i^2 = u^2. This is a variational construction, not an assumption of the conclusion. The two load-bearing variational formulas, Propositions 4.2 and 5.6, are stated without proof and deferred to the author's closed-manifold paper [18]: 'For the proof in this specific context, see Proposition 4.3 in [18]. After replacing the interior Sobolev spaces by the corresponding boundary spaces, the argument is the same and thus we have decided to omit it here.' This is a genuine proof gap and a self-citation, and the transfer to the boundary/pseudodifferential setting should be checked. However, it is not a circular reduction: [18] concerns a closed-manifold analogue, and the present theorem extends it to the Dirichlet-to-Robin operator; equation (5.41) is not identical to any input assumption. The zero-set estimate in Claim 7.1 uses an external unique continuation theorem of Li [29]. No parameter is fitted to data, and no 'prediction' is a renamed fitted quantity. The self-citation is load-bearing but not circular in the sense of this review; hence the low score.

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

The central claim rests on established external theorems (Escobar, Li, Winkert) and on the author's own prior variational machinery [18]. No new physical or mathematical entities are postulated beyond the standard generalized conformal factors introduced by Ammann–Humbert. The main unverified input is the transfer of the derivative/Euler–Lagrange formulas from the closed case to the boundary setting.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Existence of a Type II Yamabe minimizer when (1.16) holds; in the Q<0 case, existence is automatic and the minimizer has R_g=0 and constant mean curvature on the boundary.
    Invoked to normalize the background metric with R_g=0, h_g<0 constant, Vol(Σ)=1 (Section 2, Assumptions). Relies on Escobar [12] and later results [1,4,5,32,33].
  • domain assumption Finiteness of Q(M,Σ,[g]) is equivalent to λ_1(L^D_g)>0, and hence 0∉Spec(L^D_g) so the L_g-harmonic extension is unique.
    Used to guarantee well-definedness of D_g and uniqueness of H_g; cited to Escobar's addendum [13].
  • domain assumption Unique continuation principle for Robin problems with non-smooth potentials (Li [29], Theorem 1.1(b)): a W^{1,2} solution φ of ∆φ=0 in M, ∂_ν φ = a φ on Σ with appropriate regularity has boundary nodal set of Hausdorff dimension ≤ n−2.
    Used in Claim 7.1 to prove u^{-1}(0) has zero boundary measure and dimension ≤ n−2; the application requires the hypotheses of [29] to hold for u∈C^{0,β}(Σ) and φ∈C^{1,β}(Σ).
  • domain assumption The one-sided derivative formula (Prop. 4.2) and the Euler–Lagrange equation (Prop. 5.6) hold in the boundary/pseudodifferential setting with proofs identical to those in Gursky–Pérez-Ayala [18].
    Stated without proof in Sections 4 and 5; the entire variational construction of the maximizing sequence u_ϵ relies on these formulas. This is the weakest unverified link in the paper.
  • standard math Boundary trace inequality (2.59) of Winkert [30]/Marino–Winkert [31] and the resulting boundary L^∞ estimates.
    Used in the Moser iteration in Proposition 2.10 to control boundary integrals; standard analytic input.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Existence and Regularity of Extremal Metrics for the Conformal Dirichlet-to-Robin Map." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TTGTG43I

@misc{pith2026260727489,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Existence and Regularity of Extremal Metrics for the Conformal Dirichlet-to-Robin Map},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TTGTG43I}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.27489}
}
abstract

We study the variational properties of the spectrum of the Dirichlet-to-Robin map $\mathcal{D}_g$ on connected compact manifolds with boundary of dimension at least three. For the first eigenvalue, we show that Type II Yamabe metrics extremize the first normalized eigenvalue functional, and we characterize all extremals. If $[g]$ is a conformal class for which $\mathcal{D}_g$ has at least two negative eigenvalues, then we show the existence of a generalized metric that maximizes the second normalized eigenvalue of $\mathcal{D}_g$ in the conformal class. Moreover, we show that each such metric either defines a solution to an Escobar--Yamabe type equation on manifolds with boundary that changes sign along the boundary, or a weakly free-boundary harmonic map into the unit Euclidean ball.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 3 linked inside Pith

  1. [18]

    M. J. Gursky and S. P´ erez-Ayala, Variational properties of the second eigenvalue of the conformal Laplacian,J. Funct. Anal.282(2022), no. 8, Paper No. 109371

    2022

  2. [29]

    Li, Unique continuation for Robin problems with non-smooth potentials,J

    Z. Li, Unique continuation for Robin problems with non-smooth potentials,J. Funct. Anal. 288(2025), no. 6, Article No. 110811

    2025

  3. [1]

    Almaraz, Convergence of scalar-flat metrics on manifolds with boundary under a Yamabe- type flow,J

    S. Almaraz, Convergence of scalar-flat metrics on manifolds with boundary under a Yamabe- type flow,J. Differential Equations259(2015), no. 6, 2626–2694

    2015

  4. [2]

    Ammann and E

    B. Ammann and E. Humbert, The second Yamabe invariant,J. Funct. Anal.235(2006), no. 2, 377–412

    2006

  5. [3]

    Brezis,Functional Analysis, Sobolev Spaces and Partial Differential Equations, Universi- text, Springer, New York, 2011

    H. Brezis,Functional Analysis, Sobolev Spaces and Partial Differential Equations, Universi- text, Springer, New York, 2011

    2011

  6. [4]

    S.-Y. S. Chen, Conformal deformation to scalar flat metrics with constant mean curvature on the boundary in higher dimensions,Geom. Funct. Anal.19(2009), 1029–1064

    2009

  7. [5]

    X. Chen, M. Lai, and F. Wang, Escobar–Yamabe compactifications for Poincar´ e–Einstein manifolds and rigidity theorems,Adv. Math.343(2019), 16–35

    2019

  8. [6]

    Clapp, B

    M. Clapp, B. Pellacci, and A. Pistoia, Sign-changing solutions to the Yamabe problem on manifolds with boundary, arXiv:2511.10553v2 [math.DG], 2026

    arXiv 2026

Show all 41 references
  1. [7]

    G. Cox, D. Jakobson, M. Karpukhin, and Y. Sire, Conformal invariants from nodal sets. II. Manifolds with boundary,J. Spectr. Theory11(2021), no. 2, 387–409

    2021

  2. [8]

    El Sayed, Second eigenvalue of the Yamabe operator and applications,Calc

    S. El Sayed, Second eigenvalue of the Yamabe operator and applications,Calc. Var. Partial Differential Equations50(2014), no. 3–4, 665–692

    2014

  3. [9]

    El Soufi and S

    A. El Soufi and S. Ilias, Riemannian manifolds admitting isometric immersions by their first eigenfunctions,Pacific J. Math.195(2000), no. 1, 91–99

    2000

  4. [10]

    El Soufi and S

    A. El Soufi and S. Ilias, Laplacian eigenvalue functionals and metric deformations on compact manifolds,J. Geom. Phys.58(2008), no. 1, 89–104

    2008

  5. [11]

    J. F. Escobar, Uniqueness theorems on conformal deformation of metrics, Sobolev inequalities, and an eigenvalue estimate,Comm. Pure Appl. Math.43(1990), no. 7, 857–883

    1990

  6. [12]

    J. F. Escobar, Conformal deformation of a Riemannian metric to a scalar flat metric with constant mean curvature on the boundary,Ann. of Math. (2)136(1992), no. 1, 1–50

    1992

  7. [13]

    J. F. Escobar, Addendum: conformal deformation of a Riemannian metric to a scalar flat metric with constant mean curvature on the boundary,Ann. of Math. (2)139(1994), no. 3, 749–750

    1994

  8. [14]

    Fraser and R

    A. Fraser and R. Schoen, Minimal surfaces and eigenvalue problems, inGeometric Analysis, Contemp. Math., vol. 599, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2013, pp. 105–121

    2013

  9. [15]

    Fraser and R

    A. Fraser and R. Schoen, Sharp eigenvalue bounds and minimal surfaces in the ball,Invent. Math.203(2016), no. 3, 823–890

    2016

  10. [16]

    Gilbarg and N

    D. Gilbarg and N. S. Trudinger,Elliptic Partial Differential Equations of Second Order, 2nd ed., Classics in Mathematics, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2001

    2001

  11. [17]

    del Mar Gonz´ alez and M

    M. del Mar Gonz´ alez and M. S´ aez, Eigenvalue bounds for the Paneitz operator and its asso- ciated third-order boundary operator on locally conformally flat manifolds,Ann. Sc. Norm. Super. Pisa Cl. Sci. (5)24(2023), no. 4, 2047–2081

    2023

  12. [19]

    Hamanaka and P

    S. Hamanaka and P. T. Ho, Notes on the uniqueness of Type II Yamabe metrics,Nonlinear Differ. Equ. Appl.32(2025), Article No. 81

    2025

  13. [20]

    Hebey,Nonlinear Analysis on Manifolds: Sobolev Spaces and Inequalities, Courant Lec- ture Notes in Mathematics, vol

    E. Hebey,Nonlinear Analysis on Manifolds: Sobolev Spaces and Inequalities, Courant Lec- ture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 5, New York University, Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences, New York; American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2000

    2000

  14. [21]

    G. C. Hsiao and W. L. Wendland,Boundary Integral Equations, Applied Mathematical Sci- ences, vol. 164, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2008

    2008

  15. [22]

    Humbert, R

    E. Humbert, R. Petrides, and B. Premoselli, Extremising eigenvalues of the GJMS operators in a fixed conformal class, arXiv:2505.08280 [math.DG], 2025

    2025 arXiv

  16. [23]

    J. Jost, L. Liu, and M. Zhu, The qualitative behavior at the free boundary for approximate harmonic maps from surfaces,Math. Ann.374(2019), no. 1–2, 133–177

    2019

  17. [24]

    Karpukhin, N

    M. Karpukhin, N. Nadirashvili, A. V. Penskoi, and I. Polterovich, Conformally maximal metrics for Laplace eigenvalues on surfaces,Surv. Differ. Geom.24(2019), 205–256

    2019

  18. [25]

    Karpukhin and D

    M. Karpukhin and D. L. Stern, Min–max harmonic maps and a new characterization of conformal eigenvalues,J. Eur. Math. Soc. (JEMS)26(2024), no. 11, 4071–4129

    2024

  19. [26]

    Kokarev, Variational aspects of Laplace eigenvalues on Riemannian surfaces,Adv

    G. Kokarev, Variational aspects of Laplace eigenvalues on Riemannian surfaces,Adv. Math. 258(2014), 191–239. EXTREMAL METRICS FOR CONFORMAL DIRICHLET-TO-ROBIN MAP 39

    2014

  20. [27]

    Lassas, T

    M. Lassas, T. Liimatainen, and M. Salo, The Calder´ on problem for the conformal Laplacian, Comm. Anal. Geom.30(2022), no. 5, 1121–1184

    2022

  21. [28]

    Laurain and R

    P. Laurain and R. Petrides, Regularity and quantification for harmonic maps with free bound- ary,Adv. Calc. Var.10(2017), no. 1, 69–82

    2017

  22. [30]

    Winkert, On the boundedness of solutions to elliptic variational inequalities,Set-Valued Var

    P. Winkert, On the boundedness of solutions to elliptic variational inequalities,Set-Valued Var. Anal.22(2014), no. 4, 763–781

    2014

  23. [31]

    Marino and P

    G. Marino and P. Winkert, Moser iteration applied to elliptic equations with critical growth on the boundary,Nonlinear Anal.180(2019), 154–169

    2019

  24. [32]

    F. C. Marques, Conformal deformations to scalar-flat metrics with constant mean curvature on the boundary,Comm. Anal. Geom.15(2007), no. 2, 381–405

    2007

  25. [33]

    F. C. Marques, Existence results for the Yamabe problem on manifolds with boundary,Indi- ana Univ. Math. J.54(2005), no. 6, 1599–1620

    2005

  26. [34]

    Nadirashvili, Berger’s isoperimetric problem and minimal immersions of surfaces,Geom

    N. Nadirashvili, Berger’s isoperimetric problem and minimal immersions of surfaces,Geom. Funct. Anal.6(1996), no. 5, 877–897

    1996

  27. [35]

    Petrides, Existence and regularity of maximal metrics for the first Laplace eigenvalue on surfaces,Geom

    R. Petrides, Existence and regularity of maximal metrics for the first Laplace eigenvalue on surfaces,Geom. Funct. Anal.24(2014), no. 4, 1336–1376

    2014

  28. [36]

    Petrides, Maximizing Steklov eigenvalues on surfaces,J

    R. Petrides, Maximizing Steklov eigenvalues on surfaces,J. Differential Geom.113(2019), no. 1, 95–188

    2019

  29. [37]

    P´ erez-Ayala, Extremal eigenvalues of the conformal Laplacian under Sire–Xu normaliza- tion,Nonlinear Anal.208(2021), Article No

    S. P´ erez-Ayala, Extremal eigenvalues of the conformal Laplacian under Sire–Xu normaliza- tion,Nonlinear Anal.208(2021), Article No. 112308

    2021

  30. [38]

    P´ erez-Ayala, Extremal metrics for the Paneitz operator on closed four-manifolds,J

    S. P´ erez-Ayala, Extremal metrics for the Paneitz operator on closed four-manifolds,J. Geom. Phys.182(2022), Article No. 104666

    2022

  31. [39]

    M. E. Taylor,Pseudodifferential Operators and Nonlinear PDE, Progress in Mathematics, vol. 100, Birkh¨ auser, Boston, 1991

    1991

  32. [40]

    Vinokurov, Conformal optimization of eigenvalues on surfaces with symmetries,J

    D. Vinokurov, Conformal optimization of eigenvalues on surfaces with symmetries,J. Lond. Math. Soc. (2)112(2025), no. 6, e70386

    2025

  33. [41]

    Vinokurov, Maximizing higher eigenvalues in dimensions three and above, arXiv:2506.09328 [math.SP], 2025

    D. Vinokurov, Maximizing higher eigenvalues in dimensions three and above, arXiv:2506.09328 [math.SP], 2025. Department of Mathematics, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544

    2025 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.