The 1997 paper of Alvino, Ferone, Trombetti and Lions introduced convex (Wulff-shape) symmetrization and proved comparison results, in the spirit of the classical Talenti principle, for elliptic equations and variational problems whose principal part dominates H(ξ)2H(\xi)^2 for an anisotropic gauge HH satisfying only convexity, positive 1-homogeneity and uniform comparability with the Euclidean norm — a class that already contains polyhedral (crystalline) norms. The comparison function is the Wulff-radial minimizer zz of a symmetrized variational functional; it is characterized as solving an Euler-Lagrange equation only under the conditional statement that HH is regular enough, and Remark 4.2 of that paper sketches extensions to lower-order terms and to parabolic equations without proof. The sketched extensions to lower-order terms, to parabolic problems, and to exponents p≠2p\neq 2 have been substantially established for regular gauges by Piscitelli, Della Pietra and Gavitone, Cianchi, Alberico, di Blasio and Feo, Brock, Diaz, Ferone, Gomez-Castro and Mercaldo, Chen and Yang, and others. What remains open is the strand the source left conditional: for gauge functions that are merely convex but not differentiable off the origin (the model case being polyhedral or crystalline norms), the pointwise Euler-Lagrange equation is meaningless, and the comparison function must be identified and characterized through a weak (variational or subdifferential) formulation of the symmetrized problem.

Background

Symmetrization is a classical tool in the theory of elliptic partial differential equations. Given a function uu on a domain Ω⊂Rn\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^n, its decreasing rearrangement is the function u∗u^* on [0,∣Ω∣][0,|\Omega|] equimeasurable with uu, and its Schwarz symmetrization is the radially decreasing function with the same rearrangement. A classical comparison principle (called the Talenti comparison principle in the later anisotropic literature) states that if uu solves −Δu=f-\Delta u=f with homogeneous Dirichlet data (u=0u=0 on ∂Ω\partial\Omega), then the rearrangement of uu is pointwise dominated by the solution vv of the radially symmetric problem on the ball of the same volume with symmetrized data f#f^\#; the extremal role of balls underlies sharp a priori estimates and Faber-Krahn-type bounds (the statement that the ball minimizes the first Dirichlet eigenvalue among sets of given volume).

The 1997 paper [1] developed the anisotropic counterpart. A gauge is a function H:Rn→[0,∞)H:\mathbb{R}^n\to[0,\infty) that is convex and positively 1-homogeneous, H(tξ)=∣t∣H(ξ)H(t\xi)=|t|H(\xi); think of a non-Euclidean norm such as H(ξ)=max⁡i∣ξi∣H(\xi)=\max_i|\xi_i|. Its polar gauge is H∘(x)=sup⁡{⟨x,ξ⟩:H(ξ)≤1}H^\circ(x)=\sup\{\langle x,\xi\rangle:H(\xi)\le 1\}, and the convex body K∘={x:H∘(x)≤1}K^\circ=\{x:H^\circ(x)\le 1\} is the Wulff shape of HH — in surface-energy physics the equilibrium shape of a crystal with interfacial energy density HH; κn\kappa_n denotes its volume. The anisotropic perimeter of a set EE of finite perimeter is PH(E)=∫∂∗EH(νE) dHn−1P_H(E)=\int_{\partial^*E}H(\nu_E)\,d\mathcal{H}^{n-1}, where ∂∗E\partial^*E is the reduced boundary and νE\nu_E its measure-theoretic outer normal; the anisotropic isoperimetric inequality PH(E)≥nκn1/n∣E∣1−1/nP_H(E)\ge n\kappa_n^{1/n}|E|^{1-1/n} holds with equality exactly for homothets of the Wulff shape. The convex symmetrization of uu is the rearrangement u⋆(x)=u∗(κn(H∘(x))n)u^\star(x)=u^*(\kappa_n(H^\circ(x))^n), whose level sets are homothetic to the Wulff shape, and the anisotropic Polya-Szego inequality ∫ΩH(Du)p dx≥∫Ω⋆H(Du⋆)p dx\int_\Omega H(Du)^p\,dx\ge\int_{\Omega^\star}H(Du^\star)^p\,dx holds for p≥1p\ge 1 on the Wulff-shaped rearranged domain Ω⋆\Omega^\star.

Theorem 4.1 of the 1997 paper [1] compares solutions of −div a(x,u,Du)=f-\mathrm{div}\,a(x,u,Du)=f, u=0u=0 on ∂Ω\partial\Omega, under the structure condition a(x,r,ξ)⋅ξ≥H2(ξ)a(x,r,\xi)\cdot\xi\ge H^2(\xi), which forces the principal part to dominate the quadratic form H2H^2: the rearrangement u∗u^* is bounded above by (ωn/κn)2/nv∗(\omega_n/\kappa_n)^{2/n}v^*, where ωn\omega_n is the volume of the Euclidean unit ball and vv solves the symmetrized problem on Ω⋆\Omega^\star. Theorem 4.2 gives the analogous statement for minimizers of variational integrals F(u)=∫(A(Du)−fu) dxF(u)=\int(A(Du)-fu)\,dx whose recession function (the positively 1-homogeneous leading-growth profile A~(ξ)=lim⁡t→∞A(tξ)/t\tilde A(\xi)=\lim_{t\to\infty}A(t\xi)/t) dominates H2H^2. The comparison object is the minimizer zz of the symmetrized functional F∘(w)=∫(12H(Dw)2−f⋆w) dxF^\circ(w)=\int(\tfrac12H(Dw)^2-f^\star w)\,dx. Both theorems are proved for any gauge HH satisfying only the standing hypotheses of Section 2 of the paper — convexity, the homogeneity (2.1), and the comparability (2.2), α∣ξ∣≤H(ξ)≤β∣ξ∣\alpha|\xi|\le H(\xi)\le\beta|\xi| for positive constants α,β\alpha,\beta — together with Caratheodory coefficients subject to the growth hypothesis (4.2) and data f∈L2n/(n+2)f\in L^{2n/(n+2)} for n≥3n\ge 3 (respectively f∈Lpf\in L^p, p>1p>1, for n=2n=2); no differentiability of HH is used. Existence of a Wulff-radial minimizer z=z⋆z=z^\star of F∘F^\circ is established in the paper via the Polya-Szegő and Hardy-Littlewood inequalities. The paper states, conditionally, that if HH is regular enough then zz solves the Euler-Lagrange equation

−(H(Dw)Hξi(Dw))xi=f⋆,-\big(H(Dw)H_{\xi_i}(Dw)\big)_{x_i}=f^\star,

the anisotropic analogue of the radial ODE in the classical isotropic comparison, which involves the partial derivatives HξiH_{\xi_i} of the gauge. The same regularity is built into the anisotropic pp-Laplacian Qpu=div(H(Du)p−1Hξ(Du))Q_pu=\mathrm{div}(H(Du)^{p-1}H_\xi(Du)), the Euler-Lagrange operator of ∫H(Du)p\int H(Du)^p, treated in later follow-up work for general pp.

For the open question below, the relevant gauge classes are: smooth gauges, meaning HH of class C1C^1 off the origin, typically with strictly convex level sets and uniformly comparable to the Euclidean norm (α∣ξ∣≤H(ξ)≤β∣ξ∣\alpha|\xi|\le H(\xi)\le\beta|\xi|), which essentially all comparison results subsequent to the 1997 paper assume; and non-smooth gauges, still uniformly comparable to the Euclidean norm, the model case being polyhedral or crystalline norms H(ξ)=max⁡1≤j≤m⟨ξ,ηj⟩H(\xi)=\max_{1\le j\le m}\langle\xi,\eta_j\rangle determined by finitely many facet normals ηj\eta_j, the standard surface-energy anisotropies in the theory of crystalline curvature evolution, for which the formal operator HHξH H_\xi becomes set-valued and constant along whole facets. For non-smooth HH the natural weak formulation of the symmetrized problem is variational: w↦∫H(Dw)pw\mapsto\int H(Dw)^p is still convex, and its subdifferential (the set-valued generalization of the Euler-Lagrange operator) or the underlying minimization problem replaces the pointwise equation above.

Problem Statement

Let H:Rn→[0,∞)H:\mathbb{R}^n\to[0,\infty) be a positively 1-homogeneous convex gauge that is uniformly comparable to the Euclidean norm (α∣ξ∣≤H(ξ)≤β∣ξ∣\alpha|\xi|\le H(\xi)\le\beta|\xi| for some positive constants α,β\alpha,\beta) but not of class C1C^1 off the origin; the model case is a polyhedral or crystalline norm H(ξ)=max⁡1≤j≤m⟨ξ,ηj⟩H(\xi)=\max_{1\le j\le m}\langle\xi,\eta_j\rangle. Consider the Dirichlet problem −div a(x,u,Du)=f-\mathrm{div}\,a(x,u,Du)=f in a bounded domain, u=0u=0 on the boundary, under the structure condition a(x,r,ξ)⋅ξ≥H2(ξ)a(x,r,\xi)\cdot\xi\ge H^2(\xi), and, in parallel, the variational problem for F(u)=∫(A(Du)−fu) dxF(u)=\int(A(Du)-fu)\,dx whose recession function dominates H2H^2, in both cases under the standing hypotheses of Theorems 4.1 and 4.2 of Alvino, Ferone, Trombetti and Lions (1997) (Caratheodory coefficients with growth condition (4.2) and data f∈L2n/(n+2)f\in L^{2n/(n+2)} for n≥3n\ge 3, respectively f∈Lpf\in L^p, p>1p>1, for n=2n=2). For such gauges the comparison theorems of the source already hold: the minimizer zz of the symmetrized functional F∘(w)=∫(12H(Dw)2−f⋆w) dxF^\circ(w)=\int(\tfrac12H(Dw)^2-f^\star w)\,dx on the Wulff-shaped domain Ω⋆\Omega^\star exists, is Wulff-radial (constant on level sets homothetic to the boundary of the Wulff shape), and yields the comparison u⋆≤zu^\star\le z with the same sharp constants as in the smooth case. What the source leaves conditional is the characterization of zz: the pointwise Euler-Lagrange equation −(H(Dw)Hξi(Dw))xi=f⋆-(H(Dw)H_{\xi_i}(Dw))_{x_i}=f^\star (problem (4.12) of the paper) has no meaning for non-smooth HH. Establish, or refute, the extension of this Euler-Lagrange characterization to non-smooth gauges. Establishing the extension amounts to (i) specifying and justifying the weak (variational or subdifferential) formulation replacing the Euler-Lagrange equation, including its well-posedness, and (ii) proving, in that formulation, that the comparison function zz is characterized as its solution — in particular, resolving the reduced one-dimensional problem on the Wulff shape, where the formal operator HHξH H_\xi is set-valued and constant along whole facets — or identifying precisely which parts of the characterization survive; refuting the extension amounts to (iii) exhibiting a specific non-smooth gauge, domain, and data for which no weak formulation of the required kind singles out the comparison function zz.

References

  1. Angelo Alvino, Vincenzo Ferone, Guido Trombetti, Pierre-Louis Lions, Convex symmetrization and applications, Ann. Inst. H. Poincare Anal. Non Lineaire 14 (1997), no. 2, 275-293, DOI 10.1016/s0294-1449(97)80147-3, https://www.numdam.org/item/AIHPC_1997__14_2_275_0/
  2. Gianpaolo Piscitelli, Convex Symmetrization for Anisotropic Elliptic Equations with a lower order term, Rendiconto dell'Accademia delle Scienze Fisiche e Matematiche di Napoli, Serie 4, Vol. LXXXI (2014), 249-264, arXiv:2008.03754, https://arxiv.org/abs/2008.03754
  3. Francesco Della Pietra, Nunzia Gavitone, Sharp estimates and existence for anisotropic elliptic problems with general growth in the gradient, Zeitschrift fur Analysis und ihre Anwendungen 35 (2015), no. 1, 61-80, DOI 10.4171/zaa/1555, arXiv:1402.3086, https://arxiv.org/abs/1402.3086
  4. Francesco Della Pietra, Nunzia Gavitone, Symmetrization with respect to the anisotropic perimeter and applications, Mathematische Annalen 363 (2015), no. 3-4, 953-971, DOI 10.1007/s00208-015-1191-2, arXiv:1410.0504, https://arxiv.org/abs/1410.0504
  5. Francesco Della Pietra, Nunzia Gavitone, Chao Xia, Symmetrization with respect to mixed volumes, Advances in Mathematics 388 (2021), 107887, DOI 10.1016/j.aim.2021.107887, arXiv:1902.04965, https://arxiv.org/abs/1902.04965 (published version)
  6. Andrea Cianchi, Symmetrization in Anisotropic Elliptic Problems, Communications in Partial Differential Equations 32 (2007), no. 5, 693-717, DOI 10.1080/03605300600634973, https://doi.org/10.1080/03605300600634973
  7. Angela Alberico, Giuseppina di Blasio, Filomena Feo, Estimates for fully anisotropic elliptic equations with a zero order term, Nonlinear Analysis 181 (2019), 249-264, DOI 10.1016/j.na.2018.11.013, arXiv:1711.10559, https://arxiv.org/abs/1711.10559
  8. Angela Alberico, Giuseppina di Blasio, Filomena Feo, Comparison results for nonlinear anisotropic parabolic problems, Rendiconti Lincei - Matematica e Applicazioni 28 (2017), no. 2, 305-322, DOI 10.4171/RLM/764, arXiv:1607.07219, https://arxiv.org/abs/1607.07219
  9. F. Brock, J. I. Diaz, A. Ferone, D. Gomez-Castro, A. Mercaldo, Steiner symmetrization for anisotropic quasilinear equations via partial discretization, Annales de l'Institut Henri Poincare C, Analyse non lineaire 38 (2021), no. 2, 347-368, DOI 10.1016/j.anihpc.2020.07.005, arXiv:1912.02080, https://arxiv.org/abs/1912.02080
  10. Rossano Sannipoli, Comparison results for the solutions to the anisotropic Laplacian with Robin boundary conditions, Nonlinear Analysis 214 (2022), 112615, DOI 10.1016/j.na.2021.112615, arXiv:2103.02955, https://arxiv.org/abs/2103.02955 (Robin boundary conditions mean conditions of the type ∂u/∂ν+βu=0\partial u/\partial\nu+\beta u=0 on ∂Ω\partial\Omega)
  11. Lu Chen, Yabo Yang, Talenti comparison results and rigidity results for anisotropic p-Laplacian operator with Robin boundary conditions, Advanced Nonlinear Studies 25 (2025), no. 4, 1047-1078, DOI 10.1515/ans-2023-0194, https://doi.org/10.1515/ans-2023-0194
  12. A. Alvino, A. Ferone, A. Mercaldo, R. Volpicelli, Anisotropic parabolic equations and Steiner symmetrization, Nonlinear Analysis 274 (2027), article 114256 (available online 2026), DOI 10.1016/j.na.2026.114256, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.na.2026.114256
  13. A. Alvino, G. Trombetti, P.-L. Lions, Comparison results for elliptic and parabolic equations via Schwarz symmetrization, Ann. Inst. H. Poincare Anal. Non Lineaire 7 (1990), no. 2, 37-65, DOI 10.1016/s0294-1449(16)30303-1, https://www.numdam.org/item/AIHPC_1990__7_2_37_0/ (the isotropic predecessor cited as [ALT] in Remark 4.2 of the 1997 paper [1])
  14. M. Amar, G. Bellettini, A notion of total variation depending on a metric with discontinuous coefficients, Ann. Inst. H. Poincare Anal. Non Lineaire 11 (1994), no. 1, 91-133, DOI 10.1016/s0294-1449(16)30197-4, https://doi.org/10.1016/s0294-1449(16)30197-4