Center foliation rigidity for partially hyperbolic toral diffeomorphisms

Andrey Gogolev; Boris Kalinin; Victoria Sadovskaya

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 40 references

Center foliation rigidity for partially hyperbolic toral diffeomorphisms

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Smoothness of the center foliation forces a smooth leaf conjugacy to the linear automorphism.

desk verdict A strong, interesting paper whose central Theorem 1.1 currently rests on a real suspension-gap in Proposition 5.1; Theorem 1.3 and the corollaries look sound, so referee it but do not accept as-is. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.03177 v1 pith:SNMMHKEE submitted 2019-08-08 math.DS math.DG

Andrey Gogolev , Boris Kalinin , Victoria Sadovskaya This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.DSmath.DG MSC 37D3037C8537C0537D20

keywords partiallyhyperbolicdiffeomorphismscenterfoliationrigiditynormalformsleafconjugacytoralautomorphismsLyapunovexponentssymplecticperturbations

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

The paper proves a rigidity theorem for small perturbations of partially hyperbolic linear maps of the torus: once the perturbation's center foliation is smooth, the whole system is smoothly equivalent to the linear model. Specifically, a $C^\infty$ diffeomorphism close to a diagonalizable partially hyperbolic toral automorphism with dense center foliation is $C^\infty$ leaf-conjugate to that automorphism whenever its center foliation is $C^\infty$. It also upgrades a merely bi-Hölder conjugacy to a smooth one under a regularity condition on the center foliation, and derives further corollaries for symplectic perturbations and for automorphisms with two-dimensional center. The interest is that 'weak equivalence implies strong equivalence' holds here for a single system, not only for higher-rank group actions, and the mechanism is normal-form rigidity on the contracting foliations rather than hyperbolicity.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the non-stationary normal form for the contracting stable and unstable foliations (Theorem 2.3): each leaf is assigned $C^\infty$ coordinates $\Phi_x$ in which the restricted dynamics becomes a sub-resonance-generated polynomial—a polynomial map built only from monomials compatible with the resonance relations among the contraction eigenvalues—taking values in a finite-dimensional Lie group $P_A$. The key identity is that every center holonomy $H_{x,y}$ between stable leaves is carried by these coordinates to a polynomial in $P_A$; this is proved for true conjugacies via a suspension-flow argument (Proposition 3.2) and for leaf conjugacies by replacing $f$ with a flow adjusted along center leaves (Proposition 5.1). Once holonomies are polynomial, density of the linear center foliation yields a continuous homomorphism from $E^s$ into a Lie group of polynomial diffeomorphisms, whose automatic smoothness gives uniform smoothness of the conjugacy along stable and unstable leaves. Global smoothness is assembled from uniform smoothness along the three foliations by the standard regularity lemma for functions of several variables and, for the center component, by distributional estimates powered by exponential mixing.

What would settle it

Compute, for a concrete small perturbation of a diagonalizable $L$ with dense center foliation and smooth center foliation, the normal-form coordinates $\Phi_x$ of Theorem 2.3 and a center holonomy $H_{x,y}: W^s(x) \to W^s(y)$ for $y \in W^c(x)$; Proposition 5.1 asserts $\Phi_y \circ H_{x,y} \circ \Phi_x^{-1}$ is always in $P_{L^s}$. Finding a single pair for which this map includes a non-resonant monomial, or a homomorphism $\eta_x: E^s \to \bar{P}_x$ that is not smooth, would refute Proposition 5.1 and hence Theorems 1.1 and 1.3.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that smoothness of the center foliation acts as a rigidity trigger. For a partially hyperbolic automorphism $L$ of the torus that is diagonalizable over $\mathbb{C}$ and has dense center foliation, any $C^\infty$ diffeomorphism $f$ sufficiently $C^1$ close to $L$ with $C^\infty$ center foliation is $C^\infty$ leaf-conjugate to $L$ (Theorem 1.1). The paper further shows that when $f$ is bi-Hölder conjugate to $L$ and its center foliation is $C^r$ for $r>r(L)$, the conjugacy itself is $C^\infty$ (Theorem 1.3). In the symplectic case, any bi-Hölder conjugacy between such $f$ and $L$ must be smooth (Corollary 1.5). For totally irreducible $L$ with two-dimensional center, several dynamical conditions—vanishing or equality of center Lyapunov exponents, non-accessibility, topological conjugacy, joint integrability of the stable and unstable foliations—are shown to be equivalent to smooth conjugacy (Theorem 1.7).

Load-bearing premise

The proof's load-bearing premise is that every center holonomy, being only $C^{d(A)+\varepsilon}$ along leaves, is sent by normal-form coordinates to a sub-resonance polynomial; if some center holonomy lacks this leaf regularity, or the normal-form coordinates do not have the asserted homogeneous structure, the smoothness argument along stable and unstable leaves collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If Theorem 1.1 holds as stated, every $C^\infty$ perturbation of a diagonalizable partially hyperbolic toral automorphism with dense center foliation and smooth center foliation belongs to a single smooth leaf-conjugacy class, so classification of such perturbations reduces to classification of smooth center foliations.
Under Theorem 1.3, the Hölder modulus of the conjugacy is irrelevant: the only obstruction to smoothness is the regularity of the center foliation, with the explicit threshold $r>r(L)$.
Corollary 1.5 gives a 'weak implies strong' rigidity result for individual symplectic maps, not just higher-rank actions: bi-Hölder conjugacy to the linear automorphism automatically upgrades to $C^\infty$ conjugacy.
Theorem 1.7 and Corollary 1.8 imply that for totally irreducible two-dimensional-center automorphisms, several ostensibly soft dynamical properties (non-accessibility, equal center exponents, topological conjugacy, joint integrability) are all equivalent to smooth conjugacy; in the symplectic setting this is a dichotomy: either the system is non-uniformly hyperbolic or it is smoothly conjugate to

Reading between the lines

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

The normal-form argument does not use compact center leaves or one-dimensional stable and unstable bundles, so a natural extension is to partially hyperbolic diffeomorphisms on other homogeneous spaces, or to higher-rank abelian actions, where the same 'dense center leaves plus polynomial holonomies' mechanism should produce smooth rigidity whenever the relevant normal-form theorem holds.
The threshold $r(L)$, defined solely by ratios of stable and unstable eigenvalue moduli, suggests a quantitative finite-regularity version: for fixed $L$, the guaranteed differentiability of the leaf conjugacy should grow linearly in the regularity $r$ of the center foliation, so one could state explicit $C^q$ bounds rather than the $C^r$ or $C^{r-\varepsilon}$ version noted in Remark 1.2.
The use of exponential mixing to regularize the center component hints that the mixing rate controls the gain: automorphisms with slower mixing would still yield $C^r$ conjugacies but the smoothness upgrade might fail, giving a testable family of examples where the distributional estimate is sharp.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Two things you should know up front. The paper is worth reading and the normal-form machinery is used in a genuinely new way, but Theorem 1.1 has a concrete gap in the proof of Proposition 5.1. The stress-test note is correct: for a leaf conjugacy h, the map \tilde h(x,t)=(h(x),t) does not descend to the mapping tori. A leaf conjugacy only gives h(f(x)) ∈ W^c(L(h(x))), not h(f(x)) = L(h(x)). Under the identifications (x,1)∼(f(x),0) and (z,1)∼(Lz,0), well-definedness would require exactly that equality. So the suspension lifts φ^t, the extensions F^t, G, and the normal-form argument built on them are not actually defined. This is not a peripheral technicality; it is the central mechanism of Theorem 1.1. The reader's conditional verdict was fair but did not pinpoint this issue.

What the paper does well: Theorem 1.3 is a solid result, and the proof through Section 3 is coherent. Smoothness along stable/unstable leaves via normal forms and holonomy limits is genuinely clever, and the sub-exponential growth plus distributional estimates in Section 3.5 are plausible, though compressed. The consequences for symplectic perturbations and the two-dimensional center case (Corollary 1.5, Theorem 1.7/1.8) are attractive and go beyond prior T^3 or compact-center results. The authors are also honest about relying on [KS16] and [K19]; that is not a flaw by itself, but the hypotheses of Theorem 2.3(4) are not checked in detail, and the paper is not self-contained at exactly the point where it matters.

Minor issues: Remark 1.6 and the Section 5.1 claim that a leaf conjugacy can be chosen smooth along W^c are unsupported; they should either be proved or explicitly labeled as conjectural. Section 3.5's estimates are abbreviated enough that a referee will need to fill in details.

Who this is for: researchers in smooth dynamics and rigidity, especially those working on partially hyperbolic systems and normal forms. I would not cite Theorem 1.1 in its current form, but I would not desk-reject the paper. Send it to a good referee, and ask specifically whether Proposition 5.1 can be repaired — perhaps by choosing a center-section for the suspension or by working with a genuine conjugacy on the torus. If the suspension issue is fixable, this is a strong paper; if not, Theorem 1.3 and the corollaries still stand on their own.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies C^∞ diffeomorphisms f of T^d that are C^1-close to a partially hyperbolic toral automorphism L, under the assumption that the center foliation of f is smooth. Theorem 1.1 asserts that if L is diagonalizable over C and has dense center foliation, then every sufficiently small perturbation with smooth center foliation is C^∞ leaf-conjugate to L. Theorem 1.3 asserts that a bi-Hölder conjugacy between L and a volume-preserving perturbation with sufficiently regular center foliation is necessarily C^∞, and Corollary 1.5 gives a symplectic version. The proofs use nonstationary normal forms for contracting foliations, center holonomies, suspension constructions, exponential mixing, and Journé's lemma. Further results are derived for totally irreducible automorphisms with two-dimensional center, using work of Rodriguez Hertz and Avila-Viana.

Significance. If correct, the paper establishes strong rigidity phenomena for partially hyperbolic toral diffeomorphisms: smoothness of the center foliation forces smoothness of the leaf conjugacy, and a weak bi-Hölder conjugacy automatically improves to a smooth conjugacy. These conclusions are substantially stronger than previously known results and are obtained by a coherent combination of normal-form theory and dynamical arguments. The entropy argument in Section 3.3 and the use of normal forms along stable and unstable foliations are elegant. However, there is a load-bearing gap in the suspension construction of Proposition 5.1 that affects the proof of the main Theorem 1.1; this gap must be repaired before the paper's central claims can be accepted.

major comments (2)

[Section 5, Proposition 5.1, first paragraph] The map \tilde h:M_f→M_L defined by \tilde h(x,t)=(h(x),t) is not well-defined when h is only a leaf conjugacy. In M_f one has [x,1]=[f(x),0], so well-definedness would require [h(f(x)),0]=[h(x),1], equivalently h(f(x))=Lh(x). For a leaf conjugacy one only has h(f(x))∈W^c(Lh(x)); with the choice \bar H_c=0 made in Section 5.1, the center components differ by F_c(x)=(h(f(x)))_c-(Lh(x))_c, which need not vanish. Consequently the maps \tilde h, φ^t, g_v, F^t, and G used in the rest of Proposition 5.1 are not defined, and the proof of Theorem 1.1 loses its central mechanism. Theorem 1.3 is not affected because there h is an exact conjugacy.
[Section 3.5, equations (3.10)–(3.13)] The exponential mixing estimate used to bound ⟨D^ℓ_c L^{-k}_c(G_c∘f^k), η_ε⟩ requires that the pair (G_c∘f^k, D^ℓ_c η_ε) have zero mean, or that the distributional calculus from [FKSp13, Section 8] explicitly cancels the mean term. Even if η is a zero-average test function, η_ε is a smooth convolution approximation and D^ℓ_c η_ε need not have zero average; the text does not show that G_c has zero mean. This gap can likely be repaired by centering D^ℓ_c η_ε or by spelling out the formal adjoint of the leafwise derivative, but as written the exponential decay claimed in (3.12) is not justified and the proof of smoothness of H_c in Theorem 1.3 is incomplete at this point.

minor comments (4)

[Abstract] The abstract states the main result without the hypotheses that L is diagonalizable over C and has dense center foliation; these hypotheses should be included in the abstract for accuracy.
[Section 5.1, construction of h] The claim that a leaf conjugacy can always be chosen smooth along W^c is nontrivial, and the verification that the specific map defined via (3.3)–(3.4) with \bar h_c(x)=x_c is indeed a homeomorphism and a leaf conjugacy is omitted. A few sentences of justification would help.
[Theorems 1.7 and 1.8] In the statements of Theorem 1.7 and Corollary 1.8, the symbols W^s, W^u, E^s, E^u are used both for the linear automorphism and for the perturbation; the intended system should be specified each time.
[Section 5.2, final paragraph] The assertion that \hat h_x = h^s|_{W^s(x)} under the natural identification is stated as easy to see; this identification is important for concluding that h^s is uniformly C^∞ and should be written out in more detail.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the rigidity conclusions are independent of the hypotheses; the cited normal-form results are external support, not input-to-output reductions.

full rationale

Walking the derivation chain, I found no step where a claimed prediction or derived conclusion is equivalent to an input by construction. In Theorem 1.1 and Theorem 1.3, the hypotheses are smoothness or bi-Hölder conjugacy plus a smooth center foliation, while the conclusions are smooth leaf-conjugacy or smoothness of the conjugacy; the conclusions are not assumed. The proof relies on normal-form coordinates from Theorem 2.1 (Guysinsky-Katok, Guysinsky, Kalinin) and Theorem 2.3 ([KS16]). These are self-citations, but they are general theorems about contracting extensions and contracting foliations with stated hypotheses (C^r leaf dependence, derivative close to a constant contraction, commutation) that do not include the rigidity conclusions of this paper. They therefore serve as independent evidence rather than as circular imports of the target result. The stable and unstable components h_s and h_u are defined by convergent cohomological series and are not fitted to the desired smoothness; no parameter is tuned to force the conclusion. The equivalence results in Theorem 1.7 are implications among dynamical conditions and are not a redefinition of the conclusion. Potential correctness issues, such as the well-definedness of the induced suspension leaf-conjugacy in Proposition 5.1, would be mathematical gaps rather than circularity, and are not scored here.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 9 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim does not introduce new entities or fitted parameters. The proof rests entirely on standard and cited dynamical systems theorems, most notably the authors' own non-stationary normal form results. The main cost the reader pays upstream is the regularity and structural hypotheses of those theorems.

assumptions (9)

standard math Non-stationary normal forms for contracting foliations (Theorem 2.3, [KS16]), including the property that commuting maps smooth along leaves are sub-resonance generated polynomials.
Central tool for smoothness along stable and unstable foliations; invoked in Propositions 3.2 and 5.1. The paper does not prove it, and the argument collapses if the commuting maps are not in the stated sub-resonance class.
standard math Non-stationary normal forms for contracting extensions (Theorem 2.1, [GuKt98, Gu02, KS17, K19]).
Used in the suspension flow construction in Proposition 5.1 to obtain normal form coordinates for the flow extensions.
standard math Structural stability of partially hyperbolic systems: C1-close f is dynamically coherent and leaf-conjugate to L by a bi-Hölder homeomorphism (HPS77).
Provides the initial leaf conjugacy or conjugacy h required by all theorems.
domain assumption For L irreducible ergodic or diagonalizable over C with dense center foliation, the linear foliations parallel to the eigen-subspaces of E^c are dense in T^d.
Density is used in Section 3.2 and Section 5.2 to approximate arbitrary points on stable leaves by center holonomies; without it the normal form argument does not close.
standard math Ergodic toral automorphisms have exponential mixing on Hölder functions (L82, GoSp14).
Used in Section 3.5 to obtain exponential decay of the pairing terms in the distributional estimate for the center component.
standard math Journé's lemma (J88) upgrades uniform C∞ along three transverse foliations to global C∞.
Used in Section 3.4 to conclude Hu and Hs are globally smooth.
standard math [FKSp13, Corollary 8.5] gives a distributional criterion for C∞ smoothness of a function whose derivatives along the foliations are distributions dual to Hölder functions.
Used at the end of Section 3.5 to conclude Hc is C∞.
standard math Uniqueness of the measure of maximal entropy for ergodic toral automorphisms (B67).
Used in Section 3.3 to prove the conjugacy preserves the volume.
standard math [RH05] stable ergodicity and bi-Hölder conjugacy results for totally irreducible automorphisms with two-dimensional center.
Used in the proof of Theorem 1.7 and Corollary 1.8 to produce bi-Hölder conjugacies and the accessibility dichotomy.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Center foliation rigidity for partially hyperbolic toral diffeomorphisms." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SNMMHKEE

@misc{pith2026190803177,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Center foliation rigidity for partially hyperbolic toral diffeomorphisms},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SNMMHKEE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.03177}
}

read the original abstract

We study perturbations of a partially hyperbolic toral automorphism L which is diagonalizable over C and has a dense center foliation. For a small perturbation of L with a smooth center foliation we establish existence of a smooth leaf conjugacy to L. We also show that if a small perturbation of an ergodic irreducible L has smooth center foliation and is bi-Holder conjugate to L, then the conjugacy is smooth. As a corollary, we show that for any symplectic perturbation of such an L any bi-Holder conjugacy must be smooth. For a totally irreducible L with two-dimensional center, we establish a number of equivalent conditions on the perturbation that ensure smooth conjugacy to L.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

[1]

Avila, M

A. Avila, M. Viana. Extremal Lyapunov exponents: an invariance principle and applications. Inventiones Mathematicae (2010) Vol. 181, Issue 1, 115-178

work page 2010
[2]

Avila, M

A. Avila, M. Viana, A. Wilkinson. Absolute continuity, Lyapunov exponents and rigidity I: geodesic flows. J. Eur. Math. Soc. (JEMS) 17 (2015), no. 6, 1435-1462

work page 2015
[3]

Avila, M

A. Avila, M. Viana, A. Wilkinson. Absolute continuity, Lyapunov exponents and rigidity II. Preprint

work page
[4]

Barreira and Ya

L. Barreira and Ya. Pesin. Nonuniformly hyperbolicity:

work page
[5]

K. Berg. Entropy of torus automorphisms. 1968 Topological Dynamics (Symposium, Colorado State Univ., Ft. Collins, Colo., 1967) 67-79, Benjamin, New York

work page 1968
[6]

Damjanovic, D

D. Damjanovic, D. Xu. On conservative partially hyperbolic abelian actions with compact center leaves. Preprint

work page
[7]

Damjanovic, A

D. Damjanovic, A. Wilkinson, D. Xu

work page
[8]

de la Llave and R

R. de la Llave and R. Obaya. Regularity of the composition operator in spaces of H\"older functions. Discrete and Continuous Dynamical Systems. 5 (1999), no. 1, 157-184

work page 1999

Show all 40 references

[9]

de la Llave and A

R. de la Llave and A. Windsor. Liv s ic theorem for non-commutative groups including groups of diffeomorphisms, and invariant geometric structures. Ergodic Theory Dynam. Systems, 30, no. 4 (2010), 1055-1100

2010
[10]

Fisher, B

D. Fisher, B. Kalinin, R. Spatzier. Totally non-symplectic Anosov actions on tori and nilmanifolds. Geometry and Topology 15 (2011) 191-216

2011
[11]

Fisher, B

D. Fisher, B. Kalinin, R. Spatzier. Global rigidity of higher rank Anosov actions on tori and nilmanifolds . J. Amer. Math. Soc., 26 (2013), no. 1, 167-198

2013
[12]

Gorodnik, R

A. Gorodnik, R. Spatzier. Exponential mixing of nilmanifold automorphisms. Journal d'Analyse, 123 (2014), 355-396

2014
[13]

Gogolev, B

A. Gogolev, B. Kalinin, V. Sadovskaya.\, Local rigidity of Lyapunov spectrum for toral automorphisms. To appear in Israel J. Math
[14]

Guysinsky

M. Guysinsky. The theory of non-stationary normal forms. Ergodic Theory Dynamical Systems, 22 (3), (2002), 845-862

2002
[15]

Guysinsky, A

M. Guysinsky, A. Katok. Normal forms and invariant geometric structures for dynamical systems with invariant contracting foliations. Math. Research Letters 5 (1998), 149-163

1998
[16]

B. Hall. Lie Groups, Lie Algebras, and Representations: An Elementary Introduction. Graduate Texts in Mathematics, 222, 2nd ed., (2015) Springer

2015
[17]

Hammerlindl

A. Hammerlindl. Integrability and Lyapunov exponents. J. Modern Dynamics, 5 (2011), no. 1, 107-122

2011
[18]

Hirsch, C

M. Hirsch, C. Pugh, M. Shub. Invariant manifolds. Lecture Notes in Math., 583, Springer-Verlag, (1977)

1977
[19]

Journ\'e

J.-L. Journ\'e. A regularity lemma for functions of several variables. Revista Matem\'atica Iberoamericana 4 (1988), no. 2, 187-193

1988
[20]

B. Kalinin. Non-stationary normal forms for contracting extensions . Preprint
[21]

Kalinin, V

B. Kalinin, V. Sadovskaya. Global Rigidity for TNS Anosov ^k Actions. Geometry and Topology, 10 (2006), 929-954

2006
[22]

Kalinin, V

B. Kalinin, V. Sadovskaya. On classification of resonance-free Anosov ^k actions. Michigan Math. Journal, 55 (2007), no. 3, 651-670

2007
[23]

Kalinin, V

B. Kalinin, V. Sadovskaya. Normal forms on contracting foliations: smoothness and homogeneous structure. Geometriae Dedicata, Vol. 183 (2016), no. 1, 181-194

2016
[24]

Kalinin, V

B. Kalinin, V. Sadovskaya. Normal forms for non-uniform contractions . Journal of Modern Dynamics, vol. 11 (2017), 341-368

2017
[25]

Katok, B

A. Katok, B. Hasselblatt
[26]

Katok, J

A. Katok, J. Lewis. Local rigidity for certain groups of toral automorphisms. Israel J. Math. 75 (1991), 203--241

1991
[27]

Katok, R

A. Katok, R. Spatzier. Differential rigidity of Anosov actions of higher rank abelian groups and algebraic lattice actions. Tr. Mat. Inst. Steklova 216 (1997), Din. Sist. i Smezhnye Vopr., 292--319; translation in Proc. Steklov Inst. Math. 1997, no. 1 (216), 287-314

1997
[28]

Katznelson

Y. Katznelson. Ergodic automorphisms of ^n are Bernoulli shifts. Israel J. Math. 10 (1971), 186-195

1971
[29]

D. Lind. Dynamical properties of quasihyperbolic toral automorphisms. Ergodic Theory Dynamical Systems, 2 (1982), no. 1, 4968

1982
[30]

B. Marcus. A note on periodic points of toral automorphisms. Monatsh. Math. 89 (1980), 121-129

1980
[31]

Montgomery, L

D. Montgomery, L. Zippin. Topological transformation groups. Robert E. Krieger Publishing Co., Huntington, N.Y., (1974). MR0379739 Reprint of the 1955 original

1974
[32]

Oseledets

V. Oseledets. A multiplicative ergodic theorem. Liapunov characteristic numbers for dynamical systems. Trans. Mosc. Math. Soc. 19 (1968), 197-221

1968
[33]

C. Pugh, M. Shub, A. Wilkinson. H\"older foliations. Duke Math. J. Volume 86, Number 3 (1997), 517-546

1997
[34]

C. Pugh, M. Shub, A. Wilkinson
[35]

Rodriguez Hertz

F. Rodriguez Hertz. Stable ergodicity of certain linear automorphisms of the torus. Annals of Math., 162 (2005), 65-107

2005
[36]

S. J. Schreiber. On growth rates of subadditive functions for semi-flows. J. Differential Equations, 148 (1998), 334-350

1998
[37]

Saghin, J

R. Saghin, J. Yang. Lyapunov exponents and rigidity of Anosov automorphisms and skew products. Preprint
[38]

Horita, A

V. Horita, A. Tahzibi, Partial hyperbolicity for symplectic diffeomorphisms
[39]

K. Schmidt. Representations of toral automorphisms. Topology and its Applications. Vol. 205 (2016), 88-116

2016
[40]

W. Veech. Periodic points and invariant pseudomeasures for toral endomorphisms. \\ Ergodic Theory Dynamical Systems, 6 (1986), 449-473

1986

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Avila, M

A. Avila, M. Viana. Extremal Lyapunov exponents: an invariance principle and applications. Inventiones Mathematicae (2010) Vol. 181, Issue 1, 115-178

work page 2010

[2] [2]

Avila, M

A. Avila, M. Viana, A. Wilkinson. Absolute continuity, Lyapunov exponents and rigidity I: geodesic flows. J. Eur. Math. Soc. (JEMS) 17 (2015), no. 6, 1435-1462

work page 2015

[3] [3]

Avila, M

A. Avila, M. Viana, A. Wilkinson. Absolute continuity, Lyapunov exponents and rigidity II. Preprint

work page

[4] [4]

Barreira and Ya

L. Barreira and Ya. Pesin. Nonuniformly hyperbolicity:

work page

[5] [5]

K. Berg. Entropy of torus automorphisms. 1968 Topological Dynamics (Symposium, Colorado State Univ., Ft. Collins, Colo., 1967) 67-79, Benjamin, New York

work page 1968

[6] [6]

Damjanovic, D

D. Damjanovic, D. Xu. On conservative partially hyperbolic abelian actions with compact center leaves. Preprint

work page

[7] [7]

Damjanovic, A

D. Damjanovic, A. Wilkinson, D. Xu

work page

[8] [8]

de la Llave and R

R. de la Llave and R. Obaya. Regularity of the composition operator in spaces of H\"older functions. Discrete and Continuous Dynamical Systems. 5 (1999), no. 1, 157-184

work page 1999