Polygons as maximizers of Dirichlet energy or first eigenvalue of Dirichlet-Laplacian among convex planar domains
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We prove that solutions to several shape optimization problems in the plane, with a convexity constraint on the admissible domains, are polygons. The main terms of the shape functionals we consider are either the Dirichlet energy E f ( Ω ) {E_{f}(\Omega)} of the Laplacian in the domain Ω or the first eigenvalue λ 1 ( Ω ) {\lambda_{1}(\Omega)} of the Dirichlet-Laplacian. Usually, one considers minimization of such functionals (often with measure constraint), as for example for the famous Saint-Venant and Faber-Krahn inequalities. By adding the convexity constraint (and possibly other natural constraints), we instead consider the rather unusual and difficult question of maximizing these functionals. This paper follows a series of papers by the authors, where the leading idea is that a certain concavity property of the shape functional that is minimized leads optimal shapes to locally saturate their convexity constraint, which geometrically means that they are polygonal. In these previous papers, the leading term in the shape functional was usually the opposite of the perimeter, for which the aforementioned concavity property was rather easy to obtain through computations of its second order shape derivative. By carrying classical shape calculus, a similar concavity property can be observed for the opposite of E f ( Ω ) {E_{f}(\Omega)} or λ 1 ( Ω ) {\lambda_{1}(\Omega)} when shapes are smooth and convex. The main novelty in the present paper is the proof of a weak convexity property of E f ( Ω ) {E_{f}(\Omega)} and λ 1 ( Ω ) {\lambda_{1}(\Omega)} among planar convex shapes, namely rather nonsmooth shapes. This involves new computations and estimates of the second order shape derivatives of E f ( Ω ) {E_{f}(\Omega)} and λ 1 ( Ω )
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".