Gumbel distribution in exit problems

Abstract: We explain the connection between the Gumbel limit for diffusion exit times and the theory of extreme values.

\section{Introduction}
The Gumbel distribution $\Lambda$ is one of the max-stable distributions. Its
distribution function is
\begin{equation*}
\Lambda(x)=e^{-e^{-x}},\quad x\in\mathbb{R},
\end{equation*}
and its density is given by
\begin{equation}
\lambda(x)=e^{-x-e^{-x}},\quad x\in\mathbb{R}.
\label{eq:Gumbel_density}
\end{equation}

The Gumbel distribution is mostly well-known as a limit law in the extreme value theory, see, e.g.,
\cite[Chapter 1]{deHaan:MR2234156}. Surprisingly, it also
appears as a limiting distribution (in the limit of vanishing noise)
for normalized exit times of diffusions conditioned on unlikely exit locations. The first result of
this kind was obtained in~\cite{Day:MR1110156} where exits through a characteristic repelling boundary were
considered. In a recent paper~\cite{ALEA} (see also references therein for related results) a similar
result was obtained for the case where the prescribed exit location for the diffusion is separated
from the starting point by a potential wall. Let us state the main result from~\cite{ALEA}.

 Let $X_{\varepsilon}$ be a strong solution of the following one-dimensional
stochastic differential equation
driven by a drift vector field $b$ and a Wiener process~$W$:
\begin{align}
\label{eq:basic-sde}
dX_\varepsilon(t)&=b(X_\varepsilon(t))dt+\varepsilon dW(t),\\
X_\varepsilon(0)&=x_0,
\end{align}
where $\varepsilon>0$ is a constant diffusion coefficient and $x_0$ is a nonrandom starting point.
This diffusion process is considered on a segment $[A,B]$ containing $0$ and $x_0$, until
the first exit time \[\tau_\varepsilon=\inf\bigl\{t\ge 0: X_\varepsilon(t)\in\{A,B\}\bigr\}.\]
It is assumed that the drift $b$ is smooth on $[A,B]$ and satisfies $b(0)=0$, $b'(0)>0$,
$b(x)<0$ for $x\in[A,0)$, and $b(x)>0$ for $x\in(0,B]$.

Let us assume that $x_0<0$. Then the event $C_\varepsilon=\{X_\varepsilon(\tau_\varepsilon)=B\}$ is unlikely for small $\varepsilon$
because on $C_\varepsilon$ the process $X_\varepsilon$ has to travel against
the drift. The probability of $C_\varepsilon$ decays exponentially in $\varepsilon^{-2}$ as follows from the celebrated
Freidlin--Wentzell theory of large deviations for small white noise perturbations of dynamical systems, see~\cite{FW:MR722136}.
Nevertheless, one can study the behavior of~$\tau_\varepsilon$ conditioned on this unlikely event.

\begin{theorem}[\cite{ALEA}] Under the conditions given above, there are constants $c_1,c_2,c_3$ such that
as $\varepsilon\to0$,
\[
\mathop{\mathsf{Law}}\left[\tau_\varepsilon-c_1\ln\frac{1}{\varepsilon}\ \Bigr|\ C_\varepsilon\right]\ \Rightarrow\   \mathop{\mathsf{Law}}\left[c_2Z+c_3\right],
\]
where $Z$ is a 	Gumbel random variable and ``$\Rightarrow$'' denotes weak convergence
of probability measures.
\end{theorem}

Although it is clear that the behavior of both extreme values and exit times depends
on the tails of the random variables involved, the precise reason why the Gumbel
distribution appears as a limit in both cases has not been known.
The goal of this note is to explain the connection which is provided by the theory
of residual life times developed in the classical work~\cite{residual:MR0359049}.

We stress that the computations in the present note are not new and go back at least to~\cite{Day:MR1110156}.
What is new is the realization that these computations can be viewed as a specific case of those
in the heart of residual life times theory. In fact, this link between exit times and residual life times is absent
in the literature known to the author (and MathSciNet).

 In Section~\ref{sec:linear} we consider a simple model problem that
simultaneously captures
the essence of the mechanism of generating
asymptotically Gumbel exit times, and allows for elementary computations.
In Section~\ref{sec:extreme-and-residual} we explain the necessary facts on extreme values and residual
life times. In Section~\ref{sec:log-transform}, we revisit the computations of Section~\ref{sec:linear}
and explain them
from the point of view of the theory of residual life times.

\medskip

{\bf Acknowledgements}. The author is grateful to Jon Wellner for pointing to~\cite{residual:MR0359049}. The author thanks
Gautam Goel for stimulating discussions and computer simulations. The partial support from NSF through CAREER Award DMS-0742424
is gratefully acknowledged.

\section{A simple exit problem}\label{sec:linear}

Here we consider the following model problem. Let us suppose that the drift
is linear, i.e., $b(x)\equiv \beta x$ for an arbitrary
constant $\beta>0$ and, the constants $A$ and $B$ are equal to $-1$ and~$1$, respectively.
Instead of considering a fixed value of $x_0\in(-1,0)$, we will assume that $x_0=-\varepsilon a$
for some $a>0$, and then sequentially take the limits $\varepsilon\to0$ and $a\to+\infty$.
This model is different from the one considered in~\cite{ALEA},\cite{Day:MR1110156},\cite{Day:MR1175267},\cite{Day:MR1376805},  and our results are not equivalent to the results therein. However, we choose this model and the limiting procedure
since this is the simplest setting that suits our goal of demonstrating a natural connection between exit problems and
extreme values theory.

Let us first study the limiting behavior of $\tau_\varepsilon$ as $\varepsilon\to0$.
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:eps-to-0} Let us fix $a>0$ and introduce $r=a\sqrt{2\beta}$.
As $\varepsilon\to0$,
\[
\mathop{\mathsf{Law}}\left[\tau_\varepsilon-\frac{1}{\beta}\ln\frac{1}{\varepsilon}\ \Bigr|\ X_\varepsilon(\tau_\varepsilon)=1\right]\Rightarrow
\mathop{\mathsf{Law}}\left[-\frac{1}{\beta}\ln(N-r)+\frac{1}{2\beta}\ln(2\beta)\ \Bigr|\ N>r\right],
\]
where $N$ is a standard Gaussian random variable.

\end{theorem}
\bpf In the case of linear drift, the solution $X_\varepsilon$ can be represented by the following Duhamel principle:
\begin{align}
\notag
X_\varepsilon(t)&=e^{\beta t}\left(x_0+\varepsilon \int_0^te^{-\beta s}dW(s)\right)\\
&=e^{\beta t}\left(-\varepsilon a+\varepsilon \int_0^te^{-\beta s}dW(s)\right)
\label{eq:Duhamel}\\
\notag
&=\varepsilon e^{\beta t}\left(-a+\int_0^te^{-\beta s}dW(s)\right).
\end{align}
conditioned on the exit through the right end of $[-1,1]$, i.e., on $\{X(\tau_\varepsilon)=1\}$.

Let us introduce
\[I_t=\int_0^te^{-\beta s}dW(s),\quad t\in[0,+\infty],\]
and $I^*=\sup_{t\ge0} |I_t|$. Representing $I_t$ as a
time changed Wiener process, we see that
$I^*$ is a.s.-finite. Since $|X_\varepsilon(\tau_\varepsilon)|=1$, equation~\eqref{eq:Duhamel}
implies
\[
\tau_\varepsilon\ge \frac{1}{\beta}\ln\frac{1}{\varepsilon (I^*+a)},
\]
and we can conclude that $\tau_\varepsilon\to+\infty$ a.s.
Combining this with~\eqref{eq:Duhamel} and continuity of $I_t$ on $[0,+\infty]$, we see that
\[
\frac{X_\varepsilon(\tau_\varepsilon)}{\varepsilon e^{\beta \tau_\varepsilon}}
=-a+I_{\tau_\varepsilon}\stackrel{\mathrm{a.s.}}{\longrightarrow}-a+I_\infty.
\]
Recalling that $|X_\varepsilon(\tau_\varepsilon)|=1$, we conclude that
\[
\tau_\varepsilon-\frac{1}{\beta}\ln\frac{1}{\varepsilon}\stackrel{\mathrm{a.s.}}{\longrightarrow}-\frac{1}{\beta}\ln|-a+I_\infty|.
\]
Also,
\[
X_\varepsilon(\tau_\varepsilon)\stackrel{\mathrm{a.s.}}{\longrightarrow}\mathop{\rm sgn}(-a+I_\infty).
\]
Now the Theorem follows since $I_\infty$ is a centered Gaussian random variable with variance $1/(2\beta)$,
i.e., $I_\infty=N/\sqrt{2\beta}$ for a standard Gaussian random variable $N$. {{\hfill $\Box$ \smallskip}}

\medskip

The limiting distribution provided for the first part of the limiting  procedure ($\varepsilon\to 0$) by Theorem~\ref{thm:eps-to-0}
is a linear transformation of the conditional distribution
$\mathop{\mathsf{Law}}\left[-\ln(N-r)\ \bigr|\ N>r\right]$, where $r=a\sqrt{2\beta}$.
In fact, this conditional distribution can be computed explicitly. For example, its density is given
by
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:p_r}
p_r(x)=\frac{\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}}e^{-x-(e^{-x}+r)^2/2}}{1-G(r)},
\end{equation}
where $G$ is the standard Gaussian distribution function.

Similar arguments were used to study exits from neighborhoods of unstable equilibria in \cite{Day:MR1110156,
Day:MR1175267,Day:MR1376805,Berglund-Gentz:MR2039489, Bakhtin:MR2411523,Bakhtin:MR2731621,Bakhtin:MR2800902,Bakhtin:MR2935120,
Bakhtin:MR2983392, BG_periodic2}.

\medskip

The second part of the analysis is letting $a\to\infty$ or, equivalently,
$r\to\infty$. Our next statement claims that as $r\to\infty$, under a proper normalization
(shift by~$\ln r$), the limit of the distributions described in Theorem~\ref{thm:eps-to-0}
is the Gumbel distribution.

\begin{theorem}\label{thm:density_limit} Let $\lambda$ and $p_r$ be defined by~\eqref{eq:Gumbel_density} and~\eqref{eq:p_r}. Then
\[
\lim_{r\to\infty} p_r(x-\ln r)= \lambda(x),\quad x\in\mathbb{R}.
\]
\end{theorem}
\bpf For any $x\in\mathbb{R}$,
\begin{align*}
p_r(x-\ln r)&=\frac{\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}}e^{-x-\ln r-(e^{-x-\ln r}+r)^2/2}}{1-G(r)}\\
&=\frac{\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}r}e^{-r^2/2}}{1-G(r)} e^{-x- e^{-2x}/(2r^2)-e^{-x}}\to\lambda(x),\quad r\to\infty,
\end{align*}
where we used the fact that $1-G(r)\sim \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}r}e^{-r^2/2}$.
{{\hfill $\Box$ \smallskip}}

\begin{corollary}\label{cor:log-conditioned-Gauss} As $r\to\infty$,
\[
\mathop{\mathsf{Law}}\left[-\ln(N-r)-\ln r\ \bigr|\ N>r\right]\Rightarrow \Lambda.
\]
\end{corollary}
\bpf  This claim is a direct consequence of Theorem~\ref{thm:density_limit} and Scheff\'e's theorem (see~\cite{Scheffe:MR0021585} or \cite[Appendix II]{Billingsley:MR0233396}) stating that pointwise convergence
of densities implies convergence of distributions in total variation and hence weak convergence. One can also give a direct proof:
\begin{align}\label{eq:proof_of_conv_to_gumbel}
\frac{\mathsf{P}\{-\ln(N-r)-\ln r<x\}}{\mathsf{P}\{N>r\}}&=\frac{\mathsf{P}\{N>r+e^{-x}/r\}}{\mathsf{P}\{N>r\}}\\
&\sim\frac{
\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}(r+e^{-x}/r)}e^{-(r+e^{-x}/r)^2/2}
}{
\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}r}e^{-r^2/2}}\sim e^{-e^{-x}}
\notag
\end{align}
{{\hfill $\Box$ \smallskip}}

Although this convergence statement along with Theorem~\ref{thm:density_limit} is a result of a straightforward
computation that in some form appeared for the first time in the diffusion context in~\cite{Day:MR1110156},
we still need to explain the connection to the theory of extreme values and residual life times, and we proceed to recall
some related basic facts.

\section{Gumbel distribution in extreme value theory and residual life time theory}
\label{sec:extreme-and-residual}
Let us start with some results from \cite{Gnedenko:MR0008655} where basins of attraction of $\Lambda$ and
other max-stable distributions were studied. If random variables $X_1,X_2,\ldots$ are i.i.d.\ with common distribution function $F$,
then
\[
\mathsf{P}\{\max(X_1,\ldots,X_n)\le x\}=F^n(x),\quad x\in\mathbb{R}, n\in\mathbb{N}.
\]
The following is a version of
Lemma~3 in \cite{Gnedenko:MR0008655}:
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:Gnedenko-criterion}
Let
 $F$ be a distribution function,
$\Phi$ a continuous distribution function,
and let $(a_n), (b_n)$ be number sequences, $a_n>0$ for all $n$. Then
\begin{equation}
\lim_{n\to\infty}F^n(a_nx+b_n)= \Phi(x),\quad  x\in\mathbb{R},
\label{eq:G33}
\end{equation}
if and only if
\begin{equation}
\Phi(x)\ne 0\quad \Rightarrow\quad \lim_{n\to\infty} n[1-F(a_n x+b_n)] = -\ln \Phi(x).
\label{eq:G34}
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}

\bpf Let us recall the proof of this statement from \cite{Gnedenko:MR0008655}. Condition~\eqref{eq:G33}
is equivalent to
\begin{equation}
\Phi(x)\ne 0\quad\Rightarrow\quad\lim_{n\to\infty} n\ln F(a_nx+b_n)=\ln \Phi(x).
\label{eq:G36}
\end{equation}
To deal with the l.h.s.\ of~\eqref{eq:G36} we notice that \eqref{eq:G33} implies
\begin{equation}
\Phi(x)\ne 0\quad\Rightarrow\quad\lim_{n\to\infty} F(a_nx+b_n)
=1,
\label{eq:G35}
\end{equation}
which in turn implies
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:G37}
\Phi(x)\ne 0\quad\Rightarrow\quad \ln F(a_nx+b_n)= -(1-F(a_nx+b_n))(1+o(1)),\quad n\to\infty.
\end{equation}
Now,~\eqref{eq:G34} follows from~\eqref{eq:G36} and~\eqref{eq:G37}.

If~\eqref{eq:G34} holds, then so does~\eqref{eq:G35} and, therefore,~\eqref{eq:G37}, which implies~\eqref{eq:G36} which
is equivalent
to~\eqref{eq:G33}.
{{\hfill $\Box$ \smallskip}}

\medskip

If~\eqref{eq:G33} holds for some sequences $(a_n)$ and $(b_n)$ with $a_n>0$, then we will write $F\in D(\Phi)$.

Let $G$ be the distribution function of the standard Gaussian distribution. The following simple
result shows that $G\in D(\Lambda)$.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:Gauss-tail}
Let $b_n$ satisfy
$1-G(b_n)=n^{-1}$
and let $a_n=b_n^{-1}$. Then
\[
\lim_{n\to\infty}G^n(a_n x+b_n)=\Lambda(x),\quad x\in\mathbb{R}.
\]
\end{lemma}
\bpf Noticing that as $n\to\infty$, one has $b_n\to\infty$, $a_n\to 0$, $a_nx+b_n\to\infty$,  we can write
\begin{align*}
n(1-G(a_nx+b_n))&\sim n\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi} (a_nx+b_n)}e^{-(a_nx+b_n)^2/2}\\
&\sim n\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi} b_n}e^{-b_n^2/2}e^{-b_na_nx}e^{-a_n^2x^2/2}\\
&\sim n(1-G(b_n))e^{-x}\sim e^{-x},
\end{align*}
i.e.,
\[
\lim_{n\to\infty}n(1-G(a_nx+b_n)) =-\ln \Lambda(x),\quad x\in\mathbb{R},
\]
and the result follows from Lemma~\ref{lem:Gnedenko-criterion}.{{\hfill $\Box$ \smallskip}}

\bigskip

Let us now turn to residual life times. For a random variable $X$ with distribution function $F(x)=\mathsf{P}\{X\le x\}$ and tail
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:tail}
R(x)=\mathsf{P}\{X>x\}=1-F(x),
\end{equation}
the distribution tail of residual life time after time $t$ is
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:residual_time}
R_r(x)=\mathsf{P}\{X-r>x| X>r\}=\frac{R(r+x)}{R(t)}.
\end{equation}
In~\cite{residual:MR0359049}, a theory of scaling limits
for residual life times was developed and connections with
the theory of scaling limits of extreme values were established.
The following is a version of
Theorem~3 from~\cite{residual:MR0359049}.
\begin{theorem}[\cite{residual:MR0359049}]
\label{thm:extreme-vs-residual} Let $F$ be a distribution function,  let $R$ and $R_r$ be defined by~\eqref{eq:tail} and \eqref{eq:residual_time}, and let $(a_n), (b_n)$ be number sequences satisfying $a_n>0$ for all $n$.
Then the following two conditions are equivalent:
\begin{enumerate}
\item \label{it:max-limit} For all $x\in\mathbb{R}$, $F(x)<1$ and $\lim_{n\to\infty}F^n(a_nx+b_n)=\Lambda(x)$.
\item \label{it:residual-limit} There are functions $a(r)>0$ and $b(r)$ such that
\begin{equation*}
\lim_{n\to\infty} \frac{R(a(r)x+b(r))}{R(r)}= -\ln \Lambda(x)=e^{-x},\quad x\in\mathbb{R}.
\end{equation*}

\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
\bpf[Sketch of proof] Suppose condition~\ref{it:max-limit} is satisfied. Lemma~\ref{lem:Gnedenko-criterion} implies that
\begin{equation}
\lim_{n\to\infty} nR(a_nx +b_n) = -\ln \Lambda(x)=e^{-x},\quad x\in\mathbb{R},
\label{eq:conv_to_ln_Lambda}
\end{equation}
and condition~\ref{it:residual-limit} follows with $a$ and $b$ satisfying $a(r)=a_n$ and $b(r)=b_n$ for all
$r$ such that $(n+1)^{-1}\le R(r)<n^{-1}$. We omit the proof of the converse implication and only mention that it is also based on~\eqref{eq:conv_to_ln_Lambda}.
{{\hfill $\Box$ \smallskip}}

\begin{remark}\label{rem:a(t)}\rm In fact, the function $b$ in condition~\ref{it:residual-limit} of the theorem can be chosen to be  $b(r)=r$
(see \cite{residual:MR0359049}, Corollary~2),
so that condition~\ref{it:residual-limit} can be rewritten as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:b_eq_t}
\lim_{n\to\infty}\frac{R(r+a(r)x)}{R(r)}= -\ln \Lambda(x) = e^{-x},\quad x\in\mathbb{R}.
\end{equation}
\end{remark}
\section{Logarithmic transformation of residual life times}\label{sec:log-transform}

Let $X$ be a random variable with distribution function $F$ and tail function $R=1-F$.
Motivated by the results of Section~\ref{sec:linear}, we would like to study the limiting behavior of
$\mathop{\mathsf{Law}}[-\ln (X-r)\ |\ X>r]$, so we
are interested in
\[
H_r(x)=\mathsf{P}\{-\ln(X-r)\le x| X>r\}.
\]
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:log-transform} Let $F\in D(\Lambda)$. Let $R$ be defined by~\eqref{eq:tail}.
If~\eqref{eq:b_eq_t} holds for some function $a(\cdot)$, then
\[
\lim_{n\to\infty}H_r(x-\ln a(r))=\Lambda(x).
\]
\end{theorem}
\bpf We can rewrite $H_r(x)$ as
\[
H_r(x)=\mathsf{P}\{X-r> e^{-x}| X>r\}=\frac{R(r+e^{-x})}{R(r)}.
\]
Since
\[
H_t(x-\ln a(r))=\frac{R(r+a(r)e^{-x})}{R(r)},
\]
Theorem~\ref{thm:extreme-vs-residual}, Remark~\ref{rem:a(t)},
and the basic identity
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:invariance-of-Lambda}
-\ln\Lambda(e^{-x})=\Lambda(x),
\end{equation}
imply our claim.
{{\hfill $\Box$ \smallskip}}

\bigskip

Theorem~\ref{thm:log-transform} can be applied to the Gaussian distribution as the following lemma shows.

\begin{lemma}\label{lem:Gaussian-tail} If $F$ is the standard Gaussian distribution function $G$, then
one can choose $a(t)=t^{-1}$ in~\eqref{eq:b_eq_t}.
\end{lemma}
\bpf The following computation for $R=1-G$ is essentially the same as~\eqref{eq:proof_of_conv_to_gumbel}
in the proof of Corollary~\ref{cor:log-conditioned-Gauss}:
\begin{align*}
\frac{R(t+x/t)}{R(t)}\sim\frac{\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}(t+x/t)}e^{-(t+x/t)^2/2}}{\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}t}e^{-t^2/2}}
\sim e^{-x},\quad t\to\infty.
\end{align*} {{\hfill $\Box$ \smallskip}}

Now Corollary~\ref{cor:log-conditioned-Gauss} responsible for the Gumbel limit for exit times can be seen
as a direct consequence of Theorem~\ref{thm:log-transform} and Lemma~\ref{lem:Gaussian-tail}. This puts
the Gumbel limit of exit times in the context of the residual life time theory. Interestingly, this
connection of exit times to the residual times theory depends on a trivial but seemingly random
property~\eqref{eq:invariance-of-Lambda} of the Gumbel distribution.

\bibliographystyle{alpha}

Gumbel distribution in exit problems


Minimizers of the p-oscillation functional

Abstract: We define a family of functionals, called p-oscillation functionals, that can be interpreted as discrete versions of the classical total variation functional for p=1 and of the p-Dirichlet functionals for p>1. We introduce the notion of minimizers and prove existence of solutions to the Dirichlet problem. Finally we provide a description of Class A minimizers (i.e. minimizers under compact perturbations) in dimension 1.

\section{Introduction}

Given~$\Omega\subseteq\mathbb{R}^n$, the classical quadratic Dirichlet energy
\begin{equation} \label{DIRI:2}   \int_\Omega |\nabla u(x)|^2\,dx\end{equation}
and its generalization to any homogeneous energy of the form
\begin{equation} \label{DIRI:p}
\int_\Omega |\nabla u(x)|^p\,dx,\qquad p\in[1,+\infty)\end{equation}
constitute the foundation of the modern analysis and of the calculus of variations
(see e.g. the Introduction in~\cite{COURANT77} for a detailed historical overview).
In particular, the minimization of the functional in~\eqref{DIRI:2} with prescribed boundary data is related to harmonic functions, while the functional in~\eqref{DIRI:p} gives rise to the
$p$-Laplace operator. In general, the functionals in~\eqref{DIRI:2} and~\eqref{DIRI:p} are the main building blocks for a number of problems in elasticity, heat conduction, population dynamics, etc.

In the recent years, suitable generalizations of
the functionals in~\eqref{DIRI:2} and~\eqref{DIRI:p} have been taken into account in the literature,
with the aim of modeling situations in which different scales come into play. Besides the natural mathematical curiosity, this type of problems is motivated by several concrete applications in which the setting is not scale invariant: for instance, in the digitalization process of images with tiny details
(e.g. fingerprints, tissues, layers, etc.) the use of
different scales allows the preservation of fine structures, precise elements and irregularities of the image in the process of removing white noises, and this constitutes an essential ingredient in the process of improving the quality of the data without losing important information.\medskip

In this paper, we consider a discrete version of the functionals
in~\eqref{DIRI:2} and~\eqref{DIRI:p} in which the gradient is replaced by an oscillation term
in a ball of fixed radius. On the one hand, this new functional retains the property of
attaining minimal value on constant functions, hence oscillatory functions cause an increasing of the energy values. On the other hand, this new type of functionals is nonlocal, since any modification
of the function at a given point influences the energy density in a fixed ball.
Differently than other kinds of nonlocal functions studied in the literature, the one that we study
here is not scale invariant,
since the radius of the ball on which the oscillation is computed provides a natural threshold of relevant magnitudes.\medskip

More precisely, the mathematical framework in which we work is the following.
For any function $u\in L^1_{\rm loc}(\mathbb{R}^n)$, $x\in\mathbb{R}^n$ and  $r>0$, we
define  the oscillation of~$u$ in~$B_r(x)$ as
$$ \osc_{B_r(x)} u:= \sup_{B_r(x)} u-\inf_{B_r(x)} u.$$
It can be checked by using the definition that a triangular inequality holds:
namely, for all $v,u\in  L^1_{\rm loc}(\mathbb{R}^n)$  and $\lambda, \mu\geq 0$,
$$ \osc_{B_r(x)} (\lambda u+\mu v)\leq  \lambda \osc_{B_r(x)} (u)+\mu \osc_{B_r(x)} (v).$$

Given~$p\ge1$
and an open set~$\Omega\subseteq\mathbb{R}^n$, we introduce the functional
\begin{equation}
\label{E r} {\mathcal{E}}_{r, p}(u, \Omega):=
\int_\Omega \left( \osc_{B_r(x)} u \right)^p\,dx,\end{equation}
which we will denote as the  $p$-oscillation functional.
This functional is $p$-homogeneous, and it is also convex, due to the triangular
inequality and the
convexity of the map~$[0,+\infty)\ni r\mapsto r^p$.
Therefore it is   lower semicontinuous in $L^1_{\rm{loc}}$,
see e.g.~\cite{MR3023439}.
Moreover, we observe that  for convex functionals, weak and strong
lower semicontinuity coincide (see e.g. Theorem~9.1 in~\cite{MR2798533}).

Furthermore,
we notice that if $u$ is not locally bounded, then~${\mathcal{E}}_{r, p}(u, \Omega)=+\infty$.
\medskip

When~$p=1$, this functional can be interpreted as a discrete version
(at scale~$r$) of the total variation functional (see~\cite{MR1857292}).
Indeed, it can be proved
that~$\mathcal{E}_{r, 1}(u, \Omega)$ $\Gamma$-converges as~$r\to 0$
to
$$
TV(u, \Omega):=\left\{\begin{matrix}
\displaystyle \int_{\Omega}|\nabla u(x)|\,dx, &{\mbox{ if }} u\in BV(\Omega),\\
+\infty, &{\mbox{ if }}u\not\in BV(\Omega),
\end{matrix}\right.$$
see~\cite[Proposition 3.5]{MR2655948}.
\medskip

We introduce the  definition of minimizers for the functionals ${\mathcal{E}}_{r,p}$,
in which competitors are fixed in a neighborhood
of width~$r$ of the boundary. The reason for this choice in the definition of minimizers
is due to the fact that the scale $r$ associated to the functional
has to be taken into account in order not
to trivialize the notion of Class~A minimizers (see the forthcoming
Proposition~\ref{CLASSIFICATION:FAC}).

We start with some preliminary definitions.
Given~$r>0$, we let
\begin{equation}
\label{omegar}
\begin{split} & \Omega\oplus B_r:=
\bigcup_{x\in \Omega} B_r(x)=(\partial \Omega\oplus B_r)\cup \Omega
=(\partial \Omega\oplus B_r)\cup(\Omega\ominus B_r),\\
{\mbox{where}}\qquad  &
\Omega\ominus B_r:=
\Omega\setminus \left(\bigcup_{x\in\partial \Omega} B_r(x)\right)=\Omega\setminus\big(
(\partial \Omega)\oplus B_r\big).\end{split}\end{equation}

\begin{definition}[Minimizers and Class~A minimizers] \label{DEFIN2}
Let $\Omega$ be a  open bounded set in $\mathbb{R}^n$.
We say that~$u\in L^1(\Omega )$ is
a minimizer in~$\Omega$ for~${\mathcal{E}}_{r,p}$ if
$$ {\mathcal{E}}_{r,p}(u, \Omega)\le {\mathcal{E}}_{r,p}(u+\varphi, \Omega)$$
for any~$\varphi\in L^1(\Omega)$
with~$\varphi=0$ in~$\Omega\setminus (\Omega\ominus B_r)$, where  $\Omega\ominus B_r$ is defined in \eqref{omegar}.

Also, we say that~$u\in L^1_{\rm loc}(\mathbb{R}^n)$ is
a Class~A minimizer if it is a minimizer in any ball of~$\mathbb{R}^n$.
\end{definition}

In this paper we are interested in the analysis of the main properties of such minimizers.
We start providing in Section~\ref{compas} a compactness result, which we can state as follows:

\begin{proposition}\label{prominfunzioni}Let $\Omega$ be a
open bounded set in $\mathbb{R}^n$, $p\geq 1$ and $u_k$ be a sequence of minimizers
of~${\mathcal{E}}_{r,p}(\cdot, \Omega)$ such that~$u_k\to u$ in~$L^1(\Omega)$.
Then, $u$ is a minimizer of ${\mathcal{E}}_{r,p}(\cdot , \Omega\ominus B_r)$.

In particular,
if $u_k$ is a sequence of Class~A minimizers
such that $u_k\to u$ in~$L^1_{\rm loc}(\mathbb{R}^n)$, then $u$ is a Class~A minimizer.
\end{proposition}

Then, in Section~\ref{mincos}
we analyze the relation between the functional~$\mathcal{E}_{r,1}$
and a nonlocal perimeter functional.
The framework in which we work goes as follows:
if $E\subseteq \mathbb{R}^n$ is a measurable set, then we denote
\begin{equation}\label{per}\mathrm{Per}_r(E, \Omega):=  \frac{1}{2r}{\mathcal{E}}_{r, 1}(\chi_E, \Omega)=\frac{1}{2r}{\mathcal{L}}^n \Big(
\big((\partial E)\oplus B_r\big)
\cap\Omega\Big)\end{equation}
where $(\partial E)\oplus B_r$ is defined in \eqref{omegar}.

The definition of~$\mathrm{Per}_r$ is inspired by
the classical Minkowski content (which would be recovered in
the limit, see e.g.~\cite{MR2655948, MR3187918}).
In particular, for
sets with compact and $(n-1)$-rectifiable boundaries, the functional in~\eqref{per}
may be seen as a nonlocal approximation of the classical perimeter functional,
in the sense that
\begin{equation*} \lim_{r\searrow0}  \mathrm{Per}_r(E)=
{\mathcal{H}}^{n-1} (\partial E).\end{equation*}
Then, we point out the following result:

\begin{theorem}\label{EQUIVALENCE}
If the  function~$u$ is a minimizer
of~${\mathcal{E}}_{r,1}(\cdot, \Omega)$
then for a.e.~$s\in\mathbb{R}$ the level set~$\{u>s\}$
is a minimizer  for~$\mathrm{Per}_r$ in~$\Omega\ominus B_r$.
Viceversa, if for a.e.~$s\in\mathbb{R}$ the level set~$\{u>s\}$
is a minimizer  for~$\mathrm{Per}_r$ in~$\Omega$ then $u$ is a minimizer
of~${\mathcal{E}}_{r,1}(\cdot, \Omega)$.
\end{theorem}

We provide additional results on~$\mathrm{Per}_r$
in~\cite{cdnv}. See~\cite{MR2728706, MR2655948, MR3187918, MR3023439, MR3401008}
for a number of related problems and results.
\medskip

One of the main results of this paper is about
the existence of solutions to the Dirichlet problem:

\begin{theorem}\label{EXISTENCE}
Let $\Omega\subseteq\mathbb{R}^n$ be a bounded open set, and $u_o\in L^\infty(\Omega\oplus B_r)$.
Then, there exists~$u\in L^\infty(\Omega\oplus B_r)$ with~$u=u_o$
in~$(\Omega\oplus B_r)\setminus\Omega$  and $\|u\|_{L^\infty(\Omega\oplus B_r)}\leq \|u_o\|_{L^\infty(\Omega\oplus B_r)}$ such that~$
{\mathcal{E}}_{r,p}(u,\Omega)\le {\mathcal{E}}_{r,p}(v,\Omega )$
for any~$v\in L^1_{\rm loc}(\Omega\oplus B_r)$ with~$v=u_o$
in~$(\Omega\oplus B_r)\setminus\Omega$.

Finally, if~$n=1$ and~$u_o\in L^\infty(\Omega\oplus B_r)$ is monotone, there exists a minimizer~$u$ that is also monotone.
\end{theorem}

This result is proved in Section~\ref{dirs}.
Finally, in Section~\ref{rigs}
we provide a description for
Class~A minimizers in dimension~1.
More precisely, we collect the results that we obtain in the following statement:

\begin{theorem} \label{THM3}
Let $n=1$. Then, the following holds:
\begin{enumerate}
\item If ~$u $ is
a Class~A minimizer for
the functional~$\mathcal{E}_{r,p}$ for some $p\geq 1$,  then $u$ is monotone.
\item Every monotone function is a Class~A minimizer for $\mathcal{E}_{r,1}$.
\item Every  monotone function $u$  such that  $u(x)=C x+ \phi(x)$ for
some $C\in\mathbb{R}$ and $\phi\in L^1_{\rm loc}(\mathbb{R})$ which is $2r$-periodic
is a Class~A minimizer for $\mathcal{E}_{r,p}$ for any $p> 1$.
\item If ~$u$ is a Class~A minimizer for $\mathcal{E}_{r,p}$
for some~$p>1$ and $u$ is strictly monotone, then there exist~$C\neq 0$
and~$\phi\in L^1_{\rm loc}(\mathbb{R})$ which is $2r$-periodic
such that~$u(x)= Cx+\phi(x)$.  \end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}

A related  problem which is left open is about the validity of rigidity results
for Class~A
minimizers in dimension greater than~1.
In particular, it could be interesting to
study an analogous of the Bernstein problem for the~$1$-oscillation functional,
in analogy with the classical total variation functional.
For $p>1$, rigidity type results should be in analogy with classical
Liouville type theorems for $p$-Dirichlet functionals.

\subsubsection*{Notation}
In the $\sup$ and $\inf$ notation, we mean
the ``essential supremum and infimum'' of the function (i.e.,
sets of null measure are neglected).  Moreover we shall identify a set~$E\subseteq \mathbb{R}^n$ with its points of density one and
$\partial E$ with the topological boundary of the set of points of density one.
Finally for any  $u:I\subset \mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R}$ monotone function,
we will always identify $u$ with its   right continuous representative.

\section{Compactness of minimizers}\label{compas}

Here we prove the
compactness result on the minimizers of the oscillation functional stated in Proposition~\ref{prominfunzioni}.

\begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition~\ref{prominfunzioni}]
Let $\Omega':=\Omega\ominus B_r$ and~$\varphi$ such
that ${\rm{supp}} \varphi = \Omega' \ominus B_r$,
and we claim that
\begin{equation}\label{iegergregerj}
\mathcal{E}_{r,p}(u+\varphi, \Omega')\geq
\mathcal{E}_{r,p}(u, \Omega').\end{equation}
For this, we define $u_k^*:=(u-u_k)\chi_{\Omega'} +u_k$.
Then we observe that for a.e. $x\in \Omega$ and for all $p\geq 1$
\begin{equation}\begin{split} \label{o1}
& \Big(\osc_{B_r(x)}u_k^*\Big)^p\leq
\max\left\{\Big(\osc_{B_r(x)}u_k\Big)^p, \Big(
\osc_{B_r(x)}u\Big)^p\right\}\\ \text{ and } \quad &
\Big(\osc_{B_r(x)}u \Big)^p\leq \liminf_k \Big(\osc_{B_r(x)}u_k\Big)^p.
\end{split}\end{equation}
Using \eqref{o1}, we compute
\begin{eqnarray*}
\int_{\Omega} (\osc_{B_r(x)}u_k^*)^p \,dx
&\leq &\int_{\Omega}( \osc_{B_r(x)}u_k)^p\, dx
+\int_{\Omega} \max(0, ( \osc_{B_r(x)}u)^p-(\osc_{B_r(x)}u_k)^p)\, dx\\&=&
\int_{\Omega} (\osc_{B_r(x)}u_k)^p\, dx+\omega_k,
\end{eqnarray*} where
\begin{equation}\label{iegergregerj:2}
{\mbox{$\omega_k\to 0$ as~$k\to+\infty$.}}\end{equation}
Therefore, we get, by construction and using the minimality of $u_k$,
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{E}_{r,p}(u+\varphi, \Omega')- \mathcal{E}_{r,p}(u, \Omega') =\mathcal{E}_{r,p}(u_k^*+\varphi, \Omega')-\mathcal{E}_{r,p}(u_k^*, \Omega')
\\\geq \mathcal{E}_{r,p}(u_k^*+\varphi, \Omega')-
\mathcal{E}_{r,p}(u_k, \Omega')-\omega_k\geq -\omega_k. \end{align*}
As a consequence, sending~$k\to+\infty$ and recalling~\eqref{iegergregerj:2},
we obtain~\eqref{iegergregerj}.
\end{proof}

\section{Relation with the Minkowski perimeter}\label{mincos}

In this section we discuss the relation between
the $p$-Dirichlet functional in~\eqref{E r} and the
Minkowski perimeter
in~\eqref{per}. Namely, we have the  following generalized coarea formula
which relates the functional~$\mathcal{E}_{r,1}$ with the functional~$\mathrm{Per}_r$
(see formulas~(4.3) and~(5.7)
in~\cite{MR3401008} for similar formulas in very related contexts).

\begin{lemma}\label{COAREA:L}
It holds that
\begin{equation}\label{COAREA}
\int_\Omega \osc_{B_r(x)} u\,dx=2r\,\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}
\mathrm{Per}_{r}(\{u>s\}, \Omega) \,ds.\end{equation}
\end{lemma}

The coarea formula and the previous Proposition \ref{prominfunzioni} provide a link between
local minimizers   of~${\mathcal{E}}_{r,1}(\cdot, \Omega)$
and the  local minimization of~$\mathrm{Per}_r$ in~$\Omega$ of the level sets,
according to Theorem~\ref{EQUIVALENCE} that we now prove.

\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{EQUIVALENCE}]
In all the proof, we will take~$v$ to be equal to~$u$
outside~$\Omega\ominus B_r$, i.e.~$v=u+\phi$,
with~$\phi$ vanishing
outside~$\Omega\ominus B_r$.

First, we assume that
for a.e.~$s\in\mathbb{R}$ the level set~$\{u>s\}$
is a minimizer  for~$\mathrm{Per}_r$ in~$\Omega$.
Then~$\mathrm{Per}_r\big(\{u>s\},\Omega)\le\mathrm{Per}_r\big(\{v>s\},\Omega)$
for a.e.~$s\in\mathbb{R}$, which combined with the coarea formula in~\eqref{COAREA}
gives that
$$ \int_\Omega \osc_{B_r(x)} u\,dx\le
\int_\Omega \osc_{B_r(x)} v\,dx.$$
This shows that~$u$ is a local minimizer of~${\mathcal{E}}_{r,1}(\cdot, \Omega)$, as desired.

Viceversa, assume now that~$u$ is a local minimizer
of~${\mathcal{E}}_{r,1}(\cdot, \Omega)$.
Given~$t\in\mathbb{R}$ and~$\lambda>0$, we define
\begin{equation}\label{LULAMB}
u_{\lambda,s}(x):=\frac12+\max\left\{\min\left\{
\lambda\big(u(x)-s\big),\frac12
\right\}
,\,-\frac12
\right\}.\end{equation}
We claim that
\begin{equation}\label{LU}
{\mbox{$u_{\lambda,s}$ is a   minimizer of~${\mathcal{E}}_{r,1}(\cdot, \Omega)$. }}
\end{equation}
To prove this,
we need to combine
different ideas appearing in the literature in different contexts.
On the one hand, arguing as in
Proposition~3.2 of~\cite{MR2655948},
one sees that the procedure of taking~$\min$ and~$\max$ (as in~\eqref{LULAMB})
makes the energy decrease.
On the other hand, this procedure in general changes the boundary
data hence the minimization in the appropriate class
may get lost (to picture this phenomenon, one can think at the
one dimensional case in which~$u_1(x)=x$ and~$u_2(x)=-x$
may have minimal properties, but the energy of~$\max\{u_1(x),u_2(x)\}=|x|$
may be lowered by horizontal cuts).

Hence, to overcome this difficulty, we will adopt a strategy developed
in Lemma~3.5 of~\cite{MR1930621} to consider specifically the horizontal cuts.
To this end,
we first notice that, for any constant~$c\in\mathbb{R}$,
\begin{equation} \label{OC COS}
\osc_{B_r(x)}u = \osc_{B_r(x)}\min\{u,c\} +
\osc_{B_r(x)}\max\{u,c\}.
\end{equation}
This fact is  a direct consequence of the definition.

Now, for any~$\phi$ supported in $\Omega\ominus B_r$,
using~\eqref{OC COS} and the minimality of~$u$, we find that
\begin{equation}\label{MI E MA0}
\begin{split}
& \int_\Omega \osc_{B_r(x)}\min\{u,c\} \,dx+\int_\Omega
\osc_{B_r(x)}\max\{u,c\}\,dx\\&\qquad=
\int_\Omega
\osc_{B_r(x)}u \,dx\le\int_\Omega
\osc_{B_r(x)}(u+\phi) \,dx\\&\qquad=\int_\Omega
\osc_{B_r(x)}(u+c+\phi) \,dx
=\int_\Omega\osc_{B_r(x)}\big(\min\{u,c\}+\max\{u,c\}+\phi\big) \,dx
.\end{split}\end{equation}
We also observe that by the triangular inequality
\begin{equation}\label{MI E MA1}
 \osc_{B_r(x)}\big(\min\{u,c\}+\max\{u,c\}+\phi\big)
\leq \osc_{B_r(x)}\min\{u,c\}+
\osc_{B_r(x)}\big(\max\{u,c\}+\phi\big).\end{equation}
In a similar way, we see that
\begin{equation}\label{MI E MA2}
\osc_{B_r(x)}\big(\min\{u,c\}+\max\{u,c\}+\phi\big)\le
\osc_{B_r(x)}\max\{u,c\}+
\osc_{B_r(x)}\big(\min\{u,c\}+\phi\big)
.\end{equation}
Inserting~\eqref{MI E MA1} into~\eqref{MI E MA0}
and simplifying one term, we obtain that
\begin{equation}\label{MI E MA3}
\int_\Omega
\osc_{B_r(x)}\max\{u,c\}\,dx\le
\int_\Omega
\osc_{B_r(x)}\big(\max\{u,c\}+\phi\big).
\end{equation}
Similarly, plugging~\eqref{MI E MA2} into~\eqref{MI E MA0}
and simplifying one term, we see that
\begin{equation}\label{MI E MA4}
\int_\Omega
\osc_{B_r(x)}\min\{u,c\}\,dx\le
\int_\Omega
\osc_{B_r(x)}\big(\min\{u,c\}+\phi\big).
\end{equation}
{F}rom~\eqref{MI E MA3}, we find that~$\max\{u,c\}$
is a minimizer with respect to the perturbation~$\phi$, while
from~\eqref{MI E MA4}
it follows that~$\min\{u,c\}$
is also a minimizer with this perturbation.
These considerations and~\eqref{LULAMB}
imply~\eqref{LU}, as desired.

Now we observe that, for a.e.~$s\in\mathbb{R}$, we have that
\begin{equation}\label{LEB}
{\mbox{$\{u=s\}$
has zero Lebesgue measure,}}\end{equation}
otherwise the disjoint union of these sets would have locally infinite
Lebesgue measure, and therefore
\begin{equation}\label{PASS:LI1}
{\mbox{$
u_{\lambda,s}$ converges to $\chi_{\{u>s\}}$
in $L^1_{\rm loc}(\mathbb{R}^n)$, as~$\lambda\to+\infty$.}}
\end{equation}
So, thanks to Proposition~\ref{prominfunzioni}, we conclude from~\eqref{LU}
that~$\chi_{\{u>s\}}$ is a local minimizer in~$\Omega\ominus B_r$.
\end{proof}

As a consequence of
Theorem~\ref{EQUIVALENCE}, we obtain the next proposition,
which explains why in the definition of minimizer in Definition \ref{DEFIN2}
we allow competitors
in a neighborhood of width~$r$ of the boundary.

\begin{proposition}\label{CLASSIFICATION:FAC}
Let  $u\in L^1_{\rm loc}(\mathbb{R}^n)$ such that for every ball $B$
$$ {\mathcal{E}}_{r,1}(u,B )\le {\mathcal{E}}_{r, 1}(u+\varphi, B)$$
for any~$\varphi\in L^1 (\mathbb{R}^n)$
with~$\varphi=0$ in~$\mathbb{R}^n\setminus B$.

Then~$u$ is necessarily constant.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof} \
By Theorem~\ref{EQUIVALENCE}
it holds that, for a.e.~$s\in\mathbb{R}$, $E_s=\{u>s\}$  satisfies the property that
for any measurable set~$F\subseteq\mathbb{R}^n$
with~$F\setminus B=E_s\setminus B$ it holds that
\[ \mathrm{Per}_r(E_s,B)\le\mathrm{Per}_r(F,B).\]
So, by \cite[Proposition 1.3]{cdnv},
either~$E_s=\varnothing$ or~$E_s=\mathbb{R}^n$.
As a consequence~$u$ is constant, as desired.
\end{proof}

\section{Existence for the Dirichlet problem} \label{dirs}

We provide here
the proof of Theorem~\ref{EXISTENCE} about
Dirichlet problem for the functional~${\mathcal{E}}_{r,p}$
and the one-dimensional monotonicity property.

\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{EXISTENCE}]
The existence
result is a straightforward application of the  direct method, recalling that the functional is weak lower semicontinuous.
Also, since cutting a function at the level~$\pm L$
decreases its oscillation,
we can reduce our competitors to bounded functions with $L^\infty$ norm bounded by $\|u_o\|_{L^\infty(\Omega\oplus B_r)}$.

\smallskip

Suppose now that~$n=1$ and $u_o$ is nondecreasing, and let~$\Omega=(a,b)$, for some~$b>a\in\mathbb{R}$.
First of all, we show that a minimizer would not overcome the value of~$u_o(b)$
inside~$(a,b)$. Namely,
given any~$u:(a-r,b+r)\to\mathbb{R}$, with $u=u_o$ for $x\in (a-r,a)\cup (b, b+r)$, we set
\begin{equation}\label{5566} \vartheta_u(x):=\left\{
\begin{matrix}
\min\{ u_o(b),\, u(x)\} & {\mbox{ if }} x\in(a,b)\\
u(x)(=u_o(x))& {\mbox{ if }}x\in (a-r, a]\cup [b,b+r).
\end{matrix}
\right. \end{equation}
By construction $u(x)\geq \vartheta_u(x)$ for all $x\in (a-r, b+r)$.
We claim that, for any interval~$I\subseteq(a-r,b+r)$,
\begin{equation}\label{meg}
\osc_I \vartheta_u\le\osc_I u.
\end{equation}

It is easy to check using definitions  that if $x,y\in (a, b)$, then there holds \begin{equation}\label{4ca}
|\vartheta_u(x)-\vartheta_u(y)|\le| u(x)-u(y)|.
\end{equation}
Indeed if either  both $u(x), u(y)\geq u_o(b)$, or $u(x), u(y)\leq u_o(b)$ there is nothing to prove. If $u(x)\geq u_o(b)>u(y)$, then $\vartheta_u(x)= u_o(b)$ and $\vartheta_u(y)=u(y)$, so
\[|\vartheta_u(x)-\vartheta_u(y)|= u_o(b)-u(y)\leq u(x)-u(y)=|u(x)-u(y)|.\]
Therefore we get that for all $I\subseteq (a,b)$, then \eqref{meg} holds.

Assume now that for some $\varepsilon>0$ small, either $(a-\varepsilon, a+\varepsilon)\subseteq I$ or $(b-\varepsilon, b+\varepsilon)\subseteq I$. Then
we observe that $\inf_{I} u= \inf_I \vartheta_u$, so recalling that $u\geq \vartheta_u$, we conclude again that \eqref{meg} holds.

Notice that, as a consequence of~\eqref{meg},
\begin{equation}\label{SUBS:0}
{\mbox{if $u$ is a minimizer, then so is $\vartheta_u$}}.
\end{equation}

Let  $u:(a-r,b+r)\to\mathbb{R}$ be a minimizer. So,  $u=u_o$ in~$(a-r,a]\cup[b,b+r)$. Moreover,  eventually replacing $u$ with $\vartheta_u$, we can assume that
$u\leq u_o(b)$ in $(a,b)$.

We denote by~$\eta_u$ the nondecreasing envelope of $u$, defined as
\begin{equation}\label{DETA} \eta_u(x):= \sup_{\tau\in (a-r,x]} u(\tau).\end{equation}
By definition $\eta_u\geq u$, therefore $\inf_I \eta_u\geq \inf_I u$, for all $I\subseteq (a-r, b+r)$.
Moreover, by monotonicity of $u_o$ and  since  $u\leq u_o(b)$ in $(a,b)$,  we get that $\eta_u=u_o$  in~$(a-r,a]\cup [b, b+r)$.

So $\eta_u$ is a competitor for the minimizer~$u$.
We claim that~$\eta_u$ is also a minimizer, namely
\begin{equation}\label{vetau}
{\mathcal{E}}_{r,p }(u, (a,b))\ge
{\mathcal{E}}_{r,p}(\eta_u, (a,b)).
\end{equation}
To this end, we show that, for any~$x\in(a,b)$,
\begin{equation}\label{osc mo}
\osc_{(x-r,x+r)} \eta_u   \le\osc_{(x-r,x+r)} u.
\end{equation}
First of all we observe that for almost every $x$, there holds
$\osc_{(x-r,x+r)} \eta_u =\eta_u(x+r)-\eta_u(x-r)$.

We may suppose that $
\eta_u(x-r)<\eta_u(x+r),
$
otherwise we would have that $ \osc_{(x-r,x+r)} \eta_u=0\le\osc_{(x-r,x+r)} u,$
as desired.

We observe that
\begin{equation}\label{019284}
{\mbox{for any $y\in(a-r,x-r]$, }}
\eta_u(x+r)>\eta_u(x-r)\ge \eta_u(y) \ge u(y).
\end{equation}
We claim that \begin{equation}\label{8uUUA}
\sup_{(x-r,x+r)} \eta_u=\sup_{(x-r,x+r)} u.
\end{equation}
To check this, let us assume, for a contradiction, that
$$ \sup_{(x-r,x+r)} \eta_u>\sup_{(x-r,x+r)} u.$$
Then, for any~$y\in(x-r,x+r)$, we have that
$u(y)\le \eta_u(x+r)-\alpha$, for some~$\alpha>0$.
Up to changing~$\alpha>0$, this holds true also for any~$y\in(a-r,x+r)$,
thanks to~\eqref{019284}.
Consequently, by~\eqref{DETA},
$$ \eta_u(x+r)= \sup_{y\in (a-r,x+r]} u(y) \le \eta_u(x+r)-\alpha,$$
which is of course a contradiction, which establishes~\eqref{8uUUA}.
This gives also ~\eqref{osc mo}, recalling that $\eta_u\geq u$.

Then, from~\eqref{osc mo} we deduce~\eqref{vetau}. Hence, $\eta_u$ is a minimizer,
and it is monotone, as desired.
\end{proof}

\begin{remark}\label{REM:NP}
We stress that the minimizer given by Theorem~\ref{EXISTENCE}
is not necessarily unique (not even when~$p>1$).
Also, when~$n=1$,
it is not necessarily monotone (not even when~$u_o$ is monotone).
Finally, it is not necessarily continuous (not even when~$u_o$ is analytic).

We consider for example, $\Omega:=(-1,1)\subset\mathbb{R}$, $r:=3$ and $u_o(x):=x$.
Notice that, for any~$x\in(-1,1)$, it holds that~$x-3 <-1$
and~$x+3>1$. Accordingly, if~$v$
coincides with~$u_o$
outside~$(-1,1)$, then
\begin{eqnarray*}
 \sup_{(x-3,x+3)} v\ge u_o(x+3)=x+3\qquad
\inf_{(x-3,x+3)} v\le u_o(x-3)=x-3,
\end{eqnarray*}
which implies that
$ \osc_{(x-3,x+3)} v\ge(x+3)-(x-3)=6,$
and thus
$ {\mathcal{E}}_{3,p }(v, (-1,1))
\ge 2\cdot 6^p.$
This says that any function~$u$ that
coincides with~$u_o$
outside~$(-1,1)$ and satisfies
$$ \sup_{(-1,1)} u\leq 1 \quad{\mbox{ and }}\quad
\inf_{(-1,1)}u\geq -1$$
is a minimizer in the sense of
Theorem~\ref{EXISTENCE}.
\end{remark}

\begin{remark}\label{NOZ}
It is interesting to point out that the ``inverse problem''
in Theorem~\ref{EXISTENCE} is not well posed, in the sense that
a minimizer~$u$ does not determine uniquely the datum~$u_o$.
For instance, while the null functions is obviously a minimizer
for null data, it may also be a minimizer for nontrivial data.

Assume e.g. that $n=1$ and~$\Omega=(a,b)$ for some~$b>a$, and  $$ u_o(x):=\left\{
\begin{matrix}
1 & {\mbox{ if }}x\in\left( a-r,a-\frac{r}{2}\right],\\
0 & {\mbox{ if }}x\in\left(a-\frac{r}{2},a\right]\cup
[b,b+r).
\end{matrix}
\right.$$

In this case the null function~$u$ in~$(a,b)$,
extended to~$u_o$ in~$(a-r,a]\cup[b,b+r)$ is a minimizer
according to Theorem~\ref{EXISTENCE}.
For this, we observe that if~$v=u_o$
in~$(a-r,a]\cup[b,b+r)$ and~$x\in \left( a,a+\frac{r}{2}\right)$,
it holds that~$\left\{ a-\frac{r}{2}\right\}\in (x-r,x+r)$,
and therefore ``$v$ sees the jump of~$u_o$ in such interval'', that is,
for any~$x\in \left( a,a+\frac{r}{2}\right)$,
$$ \osc_{(x-r,x+r)} v\ge 1.$$
This implies that
\begin{equation}\label{DASOTT}
{\mathcal{E}}_{r,p }(v, (a,b))\ge \int_a^{a+\frac{r}2}
\left(\osc_{(x-r,x+r)} v\right)^p
\,dx\ge \frac{r}{2}.\end{equation}
Now, the null function~$u$
extended to~$u_o$ in~$(a-r,a]\cup[b,b+r)$ satisfies,
for any~$x\in \left( a,a+\frac{r}{2}\right)$,
$ \osc_{(x-r,x+r)} u = 1$
and, for any~$x\in \left( a+\frac{r}{2},b\right)$, $ \osc_{(x-r,x+r)} u = 0.$
Consequently, we have that
$$ {\mathcal{E}}_{r,p }(u, (a,b))= \int_a^{a+\frac{r}2}
\left(\osc_{(x-r,x+r)} v\right)^p
\,dx=\frac{r}{2}.$$
By comparing this with~\eqref{DASOTT}, we conclude that~$u$
is a minimizer, as desired.
\end{remark}

\section{Rigidity properties of minimizers in dimension $1$} \label{rigs}

In this section, we provide some rigidity results about
Class~A minimizers in dimension~1 for
the functional~$\mathcal{E}_{r,p}$,
both in the cases~$p=1$ and~$p>1$.

We start with the following result:

\begin{proposition}\label{minmon}
Let~$u\in L^1_{\rm loc}(\mathbb{R})$ be
a Class~A minimizer for
the functional~$\mathcal{E}_{r,p}$, for some~$p\geq 1$.
Then~$u$ is monotone.
\end{proposition}

\begin{proof} We suppose by contradiction that~$u$ is not monotone.
First of all, we observe that $u$ has to be locally bounded.

For any $x\in\mathbb{R}$, we denote by
\[\underline{u}(x) :=\sup_{\varepsilon>0}\inf_{(x-\varepsilon, x+\varepsilon)} u
\leq \overline{u}(x) :=\inf_{\varepsilon>0}\sup_{(x-\varepsilon, x+\varepsilon)} u.\]
Note that, for any
Lebesgue point~$x$, we get that $\underline{u}(x)\leq u(x)\leq \overline{u}(x)$.

Moreover, for any Lebesgue point~$x$ of~$u$, it holds that
\begin{equation}\label{leb}
\inf_{(x-\varepsilon, x+\varepsilon)}u\leq u(x)\leq \sup_{(x-\varepsilon, x+\varepsilon)}u.\end{equation}
To check~\eqref{leb}, we argue by contradiction and we suppose, for instance, that
there exists~$\delta>0$ such that
$$ \sup_{(x-\varepsilon, x+\varepsilon)}u-u(x)=-\delta<0.$$
Thus, for every~$\tilde\varepsilon\in(0,\varepsilon)$,
$$\sup_{(x-\tilde\varepsilon, x+\tilde\varepsilon)}u\leq  u(x)-\delta.$$
From this we deduce that
$$\lim_{\tilde\varepsilon\to 0}\frac{1}{\tilde\varepsilon} \int_{x-\tilde\varepsilon}^{x+\tilde\varepsilon}
|u(y)-u(x)|\,dy\geq \delta>0,$$
which is in contradiction with the fact that $x$ is a Lebesgue point for $u$.
This proves~\eqref{leb}.

Now, since~$u$ is not monotone, we can suppose that there exist~$a<b$ such that
\begin{equation}
\label{cond}
[\underline{u}(a), \overline{u}(a)]\cap [\underline{u}(b), \overline{u}(b)]\not=
\varnothing\qquad \text{and } \qquad \osc_{(a,b)} u>0.\end{equation}
In virtue of~\eqref{cond}, we let
\[c\in [\underline{u}(a), \overline{u}(a)]\cap [\underline{u}(b), \overline{u}(b)]\]
and define the function
\begin{equation}\label{utilde} \tilde u(x):=\begin{cases}u(x) & {\mbox{ if }} x<a {\mbox{ and }}
x>b,\\
c & {\mbox{ if }} x\in [a,b].\end{cases}\end{equation}
Then, we get that
\[\osc_{B_r(x)} \tilde u\leq  \osc_{B_r(x)}u \qquad {\mbox{ for any }} x\in  \mathbb{R}^n.\]
Now, we observe that,
if $a,b$ are given by~\eqref{cond},
then necessarily
\begin{equation}\label{irthy568}
b-a\leq 2r.\end{equation}
Indeed, if on the contrary $b-a>2r$,
for all $x\in (a+r, b-r)$, we have that~$
\osc_{B_r(x)} \tilde u=0$, thanks to~\eqref{utilde}.
On the other hand, since~$\osc_{(a,b)} u>0$ (recall~\eqref{cond}),
there exists a set~$E\subseteq (a+r, b-r)$ of
positive measure such that~$\osc_{B_r(x)}  u>0$ for all~$x\in E$.
Hence, we would get that
$$\mathcal{E}_{r,p}(\tilde u, (a+r, b-r))<
\mathcal{E}_{r,p}(u, (a+r, b-r)),$$
which contradicts the minimality of~$u$.
This proves~\eqref{irthy568}.

Now, we fix~$a$ and~$b$ to be the maximal ones for which~\eqref{cond}
holds true (namely, we suppose that
it is not possible to find another couple~$a'$ and~$b'$
such that~$a'<a$, $b'>b$ and~\eqref{cond} is satisfied).
In this case, we can show that
\begin{equation}\label{uno}
{\mbox{either }}\;
\underline{u}(x)>c \,{\mbox{ for any }} x<a\; {\mbox{ and}}\;
\overline{u}(x)<c
\,{\mbox{ for any }} x>b,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{uno1}
{\mbox{or }}\;\overline{u}(x)<c \,{\mbox{ for any }}
x<a\; {\mbox{ and }}\; \underline{u}(x)>c \,{\mbox{ for any }} x>b.
\end{equation}
Indeed if we were not in this situation, then the maximality of the
couple~$a$, $b$ would be contradicted.

{F}rom now on, we suppose that~\eqref{uno} is satisfied
(being the case~\eqref{uno1} completely analogous).
Since~$\osc_{(a,b)} u>0$ (in virtue of~\eqref{cond}),
we get that there exists an interval~$(\alpha,\beta)\subset \subset(a,b)$
such that either~$\sup_{(\alpha, \beta)} u> c$
or~$\inf_{(\alpha,\beta)}u<c$.

Assume for instance that~$\sup_{(\alpha, \beta)} u> c$
and fix any $x\in (a+r, \alpha+r)$. Then, we have that~$a<x-r<\alpha$,
and so necessarily $x+r>b>\beta$, due to~\eqref{irthy568}.
In this way, we have that
\[\osc_{B_r(x)} u=\sup_{(x-r, x+r)}u-\inf_{(x-r, x+r)}u\geq \sup_{(\alpha,\beta)} u-\inf_{(x-r, x+r)}u>c-\inf_{(b, x+r)}u=\osc_{B_r(x)} \tilde u.\]
This implies that
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{E}_{r,p}(\tilde u, (a+r,\alpha+r))<\mathcal{E}_{r,p}
(u, (a+r,\alpha+r)),
\end{equation*}
which is in contradiction with
the fact that~$u$ is a Class~A minimizer.
This completes the proof of Proposition~\ref{minmon}.
\end{proof}

In particular, in the case~$p=1$ we have the following characterization of Class~A
minimizers:

\begin{theorem}\label{LAR}
A function~$u\in L^1_{\rm loc}(\mathbb{R})$ is
a Class~A minimizer for  $\mathcal{E}_{r,1}$
if and only if it is monotone.
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
Assume first that~$u\in L^1_{\rm loc}(\mathbb{R})$ is
a Class~A minimizer. Then, by Proposition \ref{minmon},
we conclude that~$u$ is monotone.

Let now assume that~$u$ is a monotone function and
we prove that $u$ is a Class~A minimizer.
First of all, we observe that if
$v\in L^1_{\rm loc}(\mathbb{R})$, then, for almost every $x\in\mathbb{R}$, there holds
\begin{equation}\label{54y85njsfd}
\osc_{(x-r,x+r)} v\ge |v(x+r)-v(x-r)|,\end{equation}
with equality if~$v$ is monotone.
Indeed, arguing as in \eqref{leb},
we get that at all the Lebesgue points~$x$ of~$v$, it holds that
$$\inf_{(x,x+r)} v\leq v(x)\leq \sup_{(x, x+r)} v,$$
and similarly
$$\inf_{(x-r,x)} v\leq v(x)\leq \sup_{(x-r, x)} v,$$
which imply~\eqref{54y85njsfd}.

Now, we fix an interval~$(a,b)\subseteq\mathbb{R}$ with~$b-a>2r$ and we take
a function~$v\in L^1_{\rm loc}(\mathbb{R})$ which
coincides with~$u$ outside~$(a+r,b-r)$.
Using~\eqref{54y85njsfd} and making suitable changes
of variables, we obtain that
\begin{eqnarray*} \int_{a}^{b} \osc_{(x-r,x+r)} v\,dx&\ge &
\int_{a}^{b}\big|
v(x+r)-v(x-r)\big|\,dx \\&\ge&\left| \int_{a}^{b}\big(
v(x+r)-v(x-r)\big)\,dx\right|\\&=&
\left|\int_{b-r}^{b+r} v(y)\,dy-
\int_{a-r}^{a+r} v(y)\,dy\right|
\\&=& \left|\int_{b-r}^{b+r} u(y)\,dy-
\int_{a-r}^{a+r} u(y)\,dy\right|\\ &=&\left|\int_{a}^{b}\big(
u(x+r)-u(x-r)\big)\,dx\right|\\&=& \int_{a}^{b}\big|
u(x+r)-u(x-r)\big|\,dx\\&=&\int_{a}^{b} \osc_{(x-r,x+r)} u\,dx
\end{eqnarray*}
where the last two equalities come from the fact
that $u$ is monotone, and~\eqref{54y85njsfd} has been used
once again in this case.
This shows that~$u$ is
a Class~A minimizer, and so the proof of Theorem~\ref{LAR}
is completed.
\end{proof}

In the case  $p>1$ we do not have a
complete description of Class~A minimizers, but we can state
the following two results:

\begin{proposition}\label{LAR2}
Let $p>1$.
Let $u\in L^1_{\rm loc}(\mathbb{R})$  be a monotone function such that
$u(x)=Cx+\phi(x)$, for
some $C\in\mathbb{R}$ and $\phi\in L^1_{\rm loc}(\mathbb{R})$ which is $2r$-periodic.
Then~$u$
is a Class~A minimizer for $\mathcal{E}_{r,p}$.
\end{proposition}

\begin{proof}
We observe that, by the definition of~$u$,
for a.e. $x\in\mathbb{R}$,
\begin{equation}\label{m} \osc_{(x-r,x+r)} u
=|C(x+r)+\phi(x+r)-C(x-r)-\phi(x-r)|=2|C|r.\end{equation}
Now, we fix an interval~$(a,b)\subseteq\mathbb{R}$ and a function~$
v\in L^1_{\rm loc}(\mathbb{R})$ which
coincides with~$u$ outside~$(a+r,b-r)$.
Reasoning as in the proof of Theorem \ref{LAR}, since $u$ is
monotone, one can prove that
\[ \int_{a}^{b} \osc_{(x-r,x+r)} v\,dx\ge
\int_{a}^{b} \osc_{(x-r,x+r)} u\,dx.\]
Using this and the Jensen inequality, we get that
\begin{eqnarray*}\frac{1}{b-a}
\int_{a}^{b} \left(\osc_{(x-r,x+r)} v\right)^p\,dx &\geq &
\left( \frac{1}{b-a}\int_{a}^{b} \osc_{(x-r,x+r)} v\,dx\right)^p\\ &\geq&
\left( \frac{1}{b-a}\int_{a}^{b} \osc_{(x-r,x+r)} u\,dx\right)^p\\
&=& (2|C|r)^p
,\end{eqnarray*}
where in the last equality we used~\eqref{m}.
This permits to conclude that
\[ \int_{a}^{b} \left(\osc_{(x-r,x+r)} v\right)^p\,dx\geq (b-a)
(2|C|r)^p=\int_{a}^{b} \left(\osc_{(x-r,x+r)} u\right)^p\,dx,\]
and so $u$ is a Class~A minimizer for $\mathcal{E}_{r,p}$, as desired.
\end{proof}

\begin{proposition}\label{LAR3}
Let $p>1$.
Let~$u\in L^1_{\rm loc}(\mathbb{R})$ be
a Class~A minimizer for  $\mathcal{E}_{r,p}$.
Suppose that~$u$ is strictly monotone.
Then, there exist~$C\neq 0$ and~$\phi\in L^1_{\rm loc}(\mathbb{R})$
which is $2r$-periodic, such that $u(x)=Cx+\phi(x)$.
\end{proposition}

\begin{proof}
We suppose that~$u$ is strictly increasing
(being the other case similar).
We fix $a<b$ such that $b-a>2r$,
and we take a function~$\psi\in C^{\infty}(\mathbb{R})$
such that~$\psi= 0$ in~$(-\infty, a+r]\cup [b-r, +\infty)$.
Then, for every $\delta\in \mathbb{R}$ such that $u+\delta\psi$ is
still nondecreasing in $(a,b)$, we get that
$$ \int_{a}^{b}\left( \osc_{(x-r,x+r)} (u+\delta\psi)\right)^p\,dx\ge
\int_{a}^{b}\left( \osc_{(x-r,x+r)}
u\right)^p\,dx,$$
since~$u$ is a Class~A minimizer. Namely, we see that
$$
\int_{a}^{b} \Big(u(x+r)-u(x-r)+\delta(\psi(x+r)-\psi(x-r))\Big)^p\,dx\ge
\int_{a}^{b} \big(u(x+r)-u(x-r)\big)^p\,dx.
$$
This implies that
\[p\int_a^b \Big(u(x+r)-u(x-r)\Big)^{p-1}
\big(\psi(x+r)-\psi(x-r)\big)\,dx=0. \]
Hence, recalling that~$\psi= 0$ in $(-\infty, a+r]\cup [b-r, +\infty)$,
this gives that
\[\int_{a+r}^{b-r}  \left(u(x)-u(x-2r)\right)^{p-1}\psi(x)\,dx-
\int_{a+r}^{b-r} \left(u(x+2r)-u(x)\right)^{p-1}\psi(x)\,dx=0.\]
As a consequence, using the fact that~$u$ is strictly monotone,
we get the following condition on $u$:
\begin{equation}\label{ire57hf07897}
u(x+2r)-u(x)=u(x)-u(x-2r)\qquad \text{for a.e. }x\in\mathbb{R}.
\end{equation}
Let now~$C(x):=u(x)-u(x-2r)$.
Then, we have that~$C(x)> 0$ for all $x$, and~$C(x+2kr)=C(x)$
for all $k\in\mathbb{Z}$. Also, from~\eqref{ire57hf07897} we get that,
for every~$k\in\mathbb{Z}$,
\begin{equation}\label{e} u(x+2kr)=u(x)+k[u(x)-u(x-2r)]=u(x)+k C(x).\end{equation}
We claim now that
\begin{equation}\label{ccost}
{\mbox{$C(x)\equiv C$, for some $C>0$.}}\end{equation}
To prove~\eqref{ccost}, we assume on the contrary that there
exist~$x_1$, $x_2$ such that~$|x_1-x_2|<2r$ and~$C(x_1)>C(x_2)$.
We fix $k_0\in\mathbb{N}$  sufficiently large  such that $C(x_1)>\frac{k+1}{k} C(x_2)$ for all $k\in\mathbb{N}$ such that $k\geq k_0$.
Then, for all $k\geq k_0$,  using \eqref{e}, and recalling that~$u$
is strictly
monotone and that~$x_2+2(k+1)r>x_1+2kr$,  we get
\[u(x_1)+kC(x_1)=u(x_1+2kr)<u(x_2+2(k+1)r)=u(x_2)+(k+1)C(x_2)
<u(x_2)+k C(x_1).\]
This implies that~$u(x_1)<u(x_2)$, and therefore~$x_1<x_2$,
which gives that $C$ is monotone.
But this is in contradiction with the fact that $C$ is $2r$-periodic,
and so~\eqref{ccost} is proved.

Now we define the function $\phi(x):=u(x)-\frac{C}{2r} x$.
We have that~$\phi\in L^1_{\rm loc}(\mathbb{R})$.
Moreover, using \eqref{e}, we check that $\phi$ is a $2r$-periodic
function:
$$ \phi(x+2kr)=u(x+2kr)-\frac{C }{2r}x -\frac{C }{2r}2kr
= u(x)+kC -\frac{C}{2r}x -Ck= \phi(x). $$
Hence, the proof of Proposition~\ref{LAR3} is complete.
\end{proof}

With this, we can now summarize the previous results,
thus completing the proof of Theorem~\ref{THM3}.

\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{THM3}]
The claim in~(1) follows from Proposition~\ref{minmon}
whereas the claim in~(2) is a consequence of
Theorem~\ref{LAR}. Furthermore, the claim in~(3)
is warranted by Proposition~\ref{LAR2}
and the one in~(4) follows from Proposition~\ref{LAR3}.\end{proof}

\section*{References}

\begin{biblist}[\normalsize]

\bib{MR1857292}{book}{
    AUTHOR = {Ambrosio, Luigi},
    AUTHOR = {Fusco, Nicola},
    AUTHOR = {Pallara, Diego},
     TITLE = {Functions of bounded variation and free discontinuity
              problems},
    SERIES = {Oxford Mathematical Monographs},
 PUBLISHER = {The Clarendon Press, Oxford University Press, New York},
      YEAR = {2000},
     PAGES = {xviii+434},
      ISBN = {0-19-850245-1},
   MRCLASS = {49-02 (49J45 49K10 49Qxx)},
  MRNUMBER = {1857292},
}

\bib{MR2728706}{article}{
   author={Barchiesi, M.},
   author={Kang, S. H.},
   author={Le, T. M.},
   author={Morini, M.},
   author={Ponsiglione, M.},
   title={A variational model for infinite perimeter segmentations based on
   Lipschitz level set functions: denoising while keeping finely oscillatory
   boundaries},
   journal={Multiscale Model. Simul.},
   volume={8},
   date={2010},
   number={5},
   pages={1715--1741},
   issn={1540-3459},
   review={\MR{2728706}},
   doi={10.1137/090773659},
}

\bib{MR2798533}{book}{
   author={Bauschke, H. H.},
   author={Combettes, P. L.},
   title={Convex analysis and monotone operator theory in Hilbert spaces},
   series={CMS Books in Mathematics/Ouvrages de Math\'ematiques de la SMC},
   note={With a foreword by H\'edy Attouch},
   publisher={Springer, New York},
   date={2011},
   pages={xvi+468},
   isbn={978-1-4419-9466-0},
   review={\MR{2798533}},
   doi={10.1007/978-1-4419-9467-7},
}

\bib{cdnv}{article}{
    AUTHOR = {Cesaroni, A.},
        author={Dipierro, S.},
    author={Novaga, M.},
        author={Valdinoci, E.},
     TITLE = {Minimizers for nonlocal perimeters of Minkowski type},
    journal={
    To appear in Calc. Var. Partial Differential Equations,
    arxiv preprint 2017, https://arxiv.org/abs/1704.03195 },
}

\bib{cn}{article}{
    AUTHOR = {Cesaroni, A.},
    author={Novaga, M.},
     TITLE = {Isoperimetric problems for a nonlocal perimeter of Minkowski
              type},
   JOURNAL = {Geom. Flows},
    VOLUME = {2},
      YEAR = {2017},
     PAGES = {86--93},
      ISSN = {2353-3382},
   review={\MR{3733869}},
       URL = {https://doi.org/10.1515/geofl-2017-0003},
}

\bib{MR2655948}{article}{
   author={Chambolle, A.},
   author={Giacomini, A.},
   author={Lussardi, L.},
   title={Continuous limits of discrete perimeters},
   journal={M2AN Math. Model. Numer. Anal.},
   volume={44},
   date={2010},
   number={2},
   pages={207--230},
   issn={0764-583X},
   review={\MR{2655948}},
   doi={10.1051/m2an/2009044},
}

\bib{MR3187918}{article}{
   author={Chambolle, A.},
   author={Lisini, S.},
   author={Lussardi, L.},
   title={A remark on the anisotropic outer Minkowski content},
   journal={Adv. Calc. Var.},
   volume={7},
   date={2014},
   number={2},
   pages={241--266},
   issn={1864-8258},
   review={\MR{3187918}},
   doi={10.1515/acv-2013-0103},
}

\bib{MR3023439}{article}{
   author={Chambolle, A.},
   author={Morini, M.},
   author={Ponsiglione, M.},
   title={A nonlocal mean curvature flow and its semi-implicit time-discrete
   approximation},
   journal={SIAM J. Math. Anal.},
   volume={44},
   date={2012},
   number={6},
   pages={4048--4077},
   issn={0036-1410},
   review={\MR{3023439}},
   doi={10.1137/120863587},
}

\bib{MR3401008}{article}{
  author={Chambolle, A.},
   author={Morini, M.},
   author={Ponsiglione, M.},
   title={Nonlocal curvature flows},
   journal={Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal.},
   volume={218},
   date={2015},
   number={3},
   pages={1263--1329},
   issn={0003-9527},
   review={\MR{3401008}},
   doi={10.1007/s00205-015-0880-z},
}

\bib{COURANT77}{book}{
   author={Courant, Richard},
   title={Dirichlet's principle, conformal mapping, and minimal surfaces},
   note={With an appendix by M. Schiffer;
   Reprint of the 1950 original},
   publisher={Springer-Verlag, New York-Heidelberg},
   date={1977},
   pages={xi+332},
   isbn={0-387-90246-5},
   review={\MR{0454858}},
}

\bib{dnv}{article}{
   author={Dipierro, S.},
      author={Novaga, M.},
   author={Valdinoci, E.},
   title={On a Minkowski geometric flow in the plane},
   journal={arxiv preprint 2017, https://arxiv.org/abs/1710.05236},
}

\bib{MR1930621}{article}{
   author={Novaga, M.},
   author={Paolini, E.},
   title={Regularity results for some 1-homogeneous functionals},
   journal={Nonlinear Anal. Real World Appl.},
   volume={3},
   date={2002},
   number={4},
   pages={555--566},
   issn={1468-1218},
   review={\MR{1930621}},
   doi={10.1016/S1468-1218(01)00048-7},
}

\bib{MR3046979}{article}{
   author={Valdinoci, E.},
     TITLE = {A fractional framework for perimeters and phase transitions},
   JOURNAL = {Milan J. Math.},
  FJOURNAL = {Milan Journal of Mathematics},
    VOLUME = {81},
      YEAR = {2013},
    NUMBER = {1},
     PAGES = {1--23},
      ISSN = {1424-9286},
   MRCLASS = {49Q05},
  MRNUMBER = {3046979},
       DOI = {10.1007/s00032-013-0199-x},
       URL = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00032-013-0199-x},
}

\end{biblist}

\end{document}