1: \begin{abstract}

2: This paper aims first at a simultaneous axiomatic presentation of the proof of optimal convergence rates for adaptive finite element methods

3: and second at some refinements of particular questions like 

4: the avoidance of (discrete) lower bounds,

5: inexact solvers, 

6: inhomogeneous boundary data, or the use of equivalent error estimators. Solely four axioms guarantee the optimality in terms of the error estimators. %The first 

7: %four axioms~\eqref{A:stable}--\eqref{A:reliable} guarantee convergence and 

8: %the second set~\eqref{A:dlr}--\eqref{A:efficient} optimality in the sense of 

9: %approximation classes for residual-based refinement indicators.

10: 

11: Compared to the state of the art in the temporary literature, the improvements of this article can be 

12: summarized as follows: 

13: %

14: First, a general framework is presented which covers the existing literature 

15: on optimality of adaptive schemes.

16: The abstract analysis covers linear as 

17: well as nonlinear problems and is independent of the underlying finite element or

18: boundary element method.

19: %

20: Second, efficiency of the error estimator is neither needed to prove

21: convergence nor quasi-optimal convergence behavior of the error estimator. In this paper, efficiency exclusively

22: characterizes the approximation classes involved in terms of the best-approximation error and data resolution and so the upper bound on the optimal marking parameters does not depend on the

23: efficiency constant.

24: %

25: Third, some general quasi-Galerkin orthogonality is not only 

26: sufficient, but also necessary for the $R$-linear convergence of 

27: the error estimator, which is a fundamental ingredient in the current

28: quasi-optimality analysis due to Stevenson 2007.

29: %

30: Finally, the general analysis allows for equivalent error estimators 

31: and inexact solvers as well as different non-homogeneous and mixed boundary conditions.

32: \end{abstract}

33: