Geometric Theory of Weyl Structures

Andreas Cap; Thomas Mettler

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 29 references

Geometric Theory of Weyl Structures

T0 review · 3 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 Weyl-structure bundles carry a canonical Einstein metric, and flat projective convexity becomes a minimal-submanifold condition.

desk verdict Solid generalization of the projective-surface constructions to all torsion-free AHS structures, but the abstract's nonzero-scalar-curvature claim and the general-n version of Cor 4.6 need work. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.10325 v2 pith:3PQJETHF submitted 2019-08-27 math.DG

Andreas Cap , Thomas Mettler This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.DG MSC 53C1053C2553A2053D1235J96

keywords parabolicgeometryWeylstructuresAHSEinsteinmetricalmostbi-LagrangianstructureCartanprojectiveMonge-Ampereequationproperlyconvex

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 gives a uniform geometric home for Weyl structures: they are exactly the sections of a natural affine bundle $A\to M$ over a manifold carrying a parabolic geometry, and the original geometry makes $A$ itself a Cartan geometry with a canonical connection, a two-form $\Omega$, and a split-signature metric $h$. The central discovery is that, for torsion-free AHS structures (the $|1|$-graded parabolic geometries, including projective, conformal, and quaternionic structures), the metric $h$ is always Einstein. The bundle viewpoint also turns each Weyl structure into a submanifold $s(M)\subset A$; Lagrangian Weyl structures are exactly those with symmetric Rho tensor, and minimal Lagrangian ones are governed by a universal PDE. For locally flat projective manifolds, that PDE is the projectively invariant Monge-Ampère equation, and its solutions with positive definite Rho tensor correspond precisely to properly convex projective structures. A sympathetic reader would care because this connects convexity and fully nonlinear PDE to the submanifold geometry of a single canonical bundle.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the bundle of Weyl structures $A=\mathcal{G}\times_P(P/G_0)$, a natural affine bundle over $M$ whose smooth sections are exactly the Weyl structures. Its central structural fact (Proposition 2.3) is that the original Cartan connection $\omega$ makes $\mathcal{G}\to A$ a Cartan geometry of type $(G,G_0)$; hence $A$ has a canonical connection $D$, a parallel decomposition $TA=L_-\oplus L_+$ with $L_+\cong\pi^*T^*M$ and $L_-\cong\pi^*TM$, an almost bi-Lagrangian structure (two complementary Lagrangian distributions $L_\pm$ for the two-form $\Omega$), and a split-signature metric $h$ obtained by pairing $L_-$ with $L_+$ through the Killing form. The Einstein theorem is carried by the curvature and torsion decomposition of $D$ (universal torsion $T$, Weyl curvature $W$, Cotton-York tensor $Y$), the contorsion tensor $C$ between $D$ and the Levi-Civita connection of $h$, and the representation-theoretic vanishing of contractions of $W$; the Monge-Ampère part is carried by the universal Rho tensor $P\in\Omega^1(A,L_+)$, whose pullback along a section is the Rho tensor of the corresponding Weyl structure.

What would settle it

Compute the Ricci tensor of the canonical metric $h$ on the bundle of Weyl structures for a concrete torsion-free AHS structure that is not locally flat, such as a conformal structure on a four-manifold with nonzero Weyl curvature, and check whether it is a scalar multiple of $h$; a single example with non-proportional Ricci tensor would refute Theorem 3.5. Alternatively, an explicit decomposition of $\Lambda^2(\mathfrak{g}_{-1})^*\otimes\mathfrak{g}_0$ for any $|1|$-grading that exhibits a nonvanishing trace contraction of the Weyl component would break Lemma 3.4 and with it the Einstein proof.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For a parabolic geometry $(p:\mathcal{G}\to M,\omega)$, the paper constructs the bundle of Weyl structures $A=\mathcal{G}\times_P(P/G_0)$ and shows that the original Cartan connection $\omega$ makes $\mathcal{G}\to A$ a Cartan geometry with structure group $G_0$. Consequently $A$ carries a canonical linear connection $D$, a decomposition $TA=L_-\oplus L_+$ with $L_+\cong\pi^*T^*M$ and $L_-\cong\pi^*TM$, a two-form $\Omega$, and a split-signature metric $h$ for which both distributions are isotropic. Theorem 3.1 pins down the symplectic case: $\Omega$ is closed exactly when the geometry is torsion-free and corresponds to a $|1|$-grading, i.e. an AHS structure. Theorem 3.5 then asserts the central metric result: for every torsion-free AHS structure, $h$ is Einstein with nonzero scalar curvature. The second half treats a Weyl structure as the submanifold $s(M)\subset A$; Lagrangian Weyl structures are exactly those with symmetric Rho tensor, and for non-degenerate Lagrangian ones the second fundamental form is given by universal formulae in terms of the Weyl connection, the Rho tensor, and its inverse. The paper closes with the flat projective correspondence: a closed oriented locally flat projective structure is properly convex if and only if it arises from a minimal Lagrangian Weyl structure whose Rho tensor is positive definite, equivalently from a solution of the projectively invariant Monge-Ampère equation.

Load-bearing premise

The Einstein proof depends on a structural fact it cites rather than proves: for the $|1|$-graded model, the relevant Weyl-curvature component is an irreducible representation, so every trace contraction of it vanishes; if this algebraic fact failed, the Ricci tensor of the constructed metric would not be forced to be proportional to the metric itself.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For every torsion-free AHS structure, including projective, conformal, almost Grassmannian, and quaternionic structures, the canonical split-signature metric $h$ on $A$ is Einstein with nonzero scalar curvature; this turns the projective-surface result of [16] into a general phenomenon.
A Weyl structure is Lagrangian precisely when its Rho tensor is symmetric and non-degenerate precisely when the symmetric part of that tensor is non-degenerate, so submanifold geometry in $(A,\Omega,h)$ translates directly into data of the Weyl structure.
For non-degenerate Lagrangian Weyl structures, the second fundamental form of $s(M)\subset A$ has a universal expression in terms of the Weyl connection, the Rho tensor, and its inverse, for both the canonical connection $D$ and the Levi-Civita connection of $h$.
Non-degenerate Lagrangian Weyl structures whose images are minimal submanifolds of $(A,h)$ are characterized by a universal invariant PDE, which in the projective-surface case recovers the minimal-Lagrangian-connection equation of [25].
For closed oriented locally flat projective manifolds, properly convex projective structures are exactly those arising from a minimal Lagrangian Weyl structure with positive definite Rho tensor, and the same minimality condition suggests a notion of convexity for curved projective structures and analogs for other AHS structures.

Reading between the lines

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

The paper leaves implicit that the full curvature of $h$, not just its Ricci contraction, should be computable from the same bundle data; for projective surfaces it is known to be anti-self-dual, so checking whether the conformal, quaternionic, or Grassmannian versions produce metrics with special holonomy or self-duality is a direct next calculation.
The minimal-Lagrangian equation can be read variationally, since minimal submanifolds extremize volume; that makes the affine space of Weyl structures a natural setting for existence, uniqueness, and gradient-flow questions, which the paper notes in Remark 4.7 remain open outside partial uniqueness results for projective surfaces.
Because Theorem 4.2 identifies $A$ with the bundle of linear connections on a density line bundle, the Einstein metric and the Monge-Ampère equation should be expressible purely in terms of those connections; this coordinate-friendly reformulation could make the construction testable numerically on compact models.
In the flat projective case the paper's equivalence suggests a testable extension: define 'convexity' for possibly curved projective structures by the existence of a minimal Lagrangian Weyl structure with positive definite Rho tensor, and check whether the geodesic or dynamical properties of properly convex structures survive under small curvature perturbations.

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

You should know that the main results of this paper appear to be correct, but the abstract promises slightly more than the proofs deliver. The non-zero scalar curvature part of the Einstein claim is not proven, and Corollary 4.6 has a dimension issue in the forward direction. Those are fixable, but they need attention.

What's new: the paper gives a uniform reductive Cartan geometry on the bundle A of Weyl structures, turning the theory of Weyl structures into submanifold geometry. The closedness of Omega for exactly torsion-free AHS structures (Thm 3.1) is a clean characterization. The Einstein metric theorem (Thm 3.5) generalizes Dunajski-Mettler and Mettler to all torsion-free AHS structures, and the second fundamental form formulae (Thm 3.10) are genuinely universal. The tractor description of A in Section 4 is elegant and should be useful. The proofs are detailed and use standard Cartan/BGG machinery; I checked the central computations in Thm 3.5 and they are coherent. This is a substantial paper.

Soft spots, in order:

1. Non-zero scalar curvature. The abstract says 'Einstein with non-zero scalar curvature'. Theorem 3.5 only proves Einstein. Lemma 3.4 shows the Ricci contraction of rho is a multiple of h, and the proof of Thm 3.5 shows the same for the Levi-Civita connection, but nowhere is the multiple computed or shown non-zero. This is likely a known Casimir calculation, but as written it is a gap. Either prove it or remove 'non-zero' from the abstract.

2. Corollary 4.6. The forward direction uses Theorem 3.2.1 of Labourie [21], whose title says 'on surfaces'. The statement is for closed oriented locally flat projective manifolds of any dimension. The reverse direction uses Loftin and is fine in general n. To keep the corollary in general dimension, the forward direction needs a general-n proof or a different reference (Loftin's affine sphere theorem would likely do, since minimal Lagrangian plus positive Rho gives a solution to the Monge-Ampere equation via Theorem 4.4). If a general proof isn't available, the corollary should be restricted to surfaces, which is what the examples in the paper focus on.

3. Minor: Lemma 3.4's claim that the Weyl curvature component W, being irreducible with multiplicity one, implies all contractions vanish. That's standard in conformal/projective geometry but might deserve a sentence pointing to the trace-free Weyl curvature facts. Likely harmless.

Bottom line: the core geometry is solid, the novelty is clear, and the generalization is more than cosmetic. Specialists in parabolic geometry will find this useful. I would send it to a serious referee and expect it to be accepted after a revision addressing the above.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops a geometric theory of the bundle A of Weyl structures associated to a parabolic geometry. Section 2 shows that A carries a natural Cartan geometry of type (G, G0), a canonical connection D, a splitting T A = L- ⊕ L+, and an almost bi-Lagrangian structure (Ω, h). Theorem 3.1 characterizes closedness of Ω as equivalent to the geometry being a torsion-free AHS structure. Section 3 then restricts to torsion-free AHS structures and proves Theorem 3.5, that the induced neutral metric h on A is Einstein. The paper also computes the second fundamental form of a non-degenerate Lagrangian Weyl structure (Theorem 3.10) and connects the resulting minimality condition to the projective Monge–Ampère equation, yielding Corollary 4.6 relating properly convex projective structures to minimal Lagrangian Weyl structures with positive definite Rho tensor. The final section sketches analogues for other AHS structures.

Significance. If the main results are correct, the paper provides a uniform and conceptual framework for Weyl structures, generalizing the earlier Dunajski–Mettler construction for projective structures. The explicit second-fundamental-form formulae and the relation between minimal Lagrangian Weyl structures, Monge–Ampère equations, and properly convex projective structures are valuable and likely to be influential. The paper is coherent and uses standard Cartan/BGG machinery; the computations in Sections 3 and 4 are largely explicit and checkable. The main caveats are concentrated in the proof of Lemma 3.4 and in the gap between the abstract's non-zero scalar curvature claim and the statement of Theorem 3.5.

major comments (3)

[§3.3, Lemma 3.4] The proof of Lemma 3.4 asserts that the Weyl curvature W has values in an irreducible G0-representation occurring with multiplicity one in Λ^*g_-^*⊗g, 'which implies that any contraction of W vanishes identically.' This implication is not immediate: an equivariant contraction from an irreducible module to a target containing a copy of the same irreducible can be nonzero. The paper cites [12] rather than giving the module decomposition or a direct trace-freeness argument. Since the Einstein conclusion Ric(h) ∝ h in Theorem 3.5 rests on this step, please supply a precise statement (for example, that the relevant irreducible component lies in the kernel of the algebraic Ricci contraction) together with a proof or an exact reference to a theorem that states this.
[Abstract and Theorem 3.5] The abstract advertises that the induced metric is 'Einstein with non-zero scalar curvature,' but Theorem 3.5 only proves that h is Einstein. Lemma 3.4 shows that the Ricci-type contraction is a multiple of h but does not compute the multiple or prove it is nonzero. If the constant were zero for some AHS structures, the metric would still be Einstein but the advertised nonzero scalar curvature would be false. Please either compute the constant explicitly from the grading/Casimir data and show it is nonzero, or remove the phrase 'with non-zero scalar curvature' from the abstract and opening summary.
[Corollary 4.6, proof] The proof of the 'if' direction states 'By Theorem 3.10, the nowhere vanishing density det(Ps) is preserved by ∇s.' As written, this attribution is imprecise: Theorem 3.10 gives the second fundamental form, while the equivalence between minimality and ∇s det(Ps) = 0 is established in the proof of Theorem 4.4(2) using the vanishing of the Cotton–York tensor in the projectively flat case. Please state the argument explicitly so the reader can verify that the hypotheses of [21, Theorem 3.2.1] are exactly satisfied.

minor comments (4)

[Abstract and Introduction] The abstract and the introductory theorem statement disagree on the scalar curvature claim: the abstract says 'Einstein with non-zero scalar curvature,' while the second main theorem in the introduction says only 'is an Einstein metric.' Please align these statements.
[§3.3, proof of Theorem 3.5] In the displayed formula for the D+-derivative of the curvature components, the expression 'D+ϕ, Y' appears to be a typographical error; it should read 'D+ϕ Y'.
[§3.2, Proposition 3.3] The notation ~[ξ,η] is used for the L−-lift of [ξ,η] but is not defined before this proposition. Please define it explicitly as the unique section of L− projecting to [ξ,η].
[§4.2, equation (6)] The sign convention in the projective Monge–Ampère equation det(H(σ)) = ±σ^{-n-2} is stated with a '±', while the proof of Corollary 4.6 uses a specific sign (−1)^{n+2}. Please clarify the sign convention so the two displays are consistent.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the target theorems are proved from canonical constructions on A plus independent representation theory and external results.

full rationale

No circularity found. The central new claims — closedness of Ω (Theorem 3.1), Einstein property of h (Theorem 3.5), the second fundamental form formulae (Theorem 3.10), and the Monge-Ampère/minimal-Weyl correspondence (Theorem 4.4, Corollary 4.6) — are derived by constructing a canonical G0-Cartan geometry on the bundle A (Proposition 2.3) and then applying standard Cartan-curvature, Bianchi, and BGG machinery. No parameter is fitted to data and then renamed as a prediction. Lemma 3.4's assertion that the Weyl curvature W has values in a multiplicity-one irreducible representation, forcing all contractions to vanish, is cited to [12] rather than proved; that is a representation-theoretic input independent of the target conclusion and does not presuppose h is Einstein. Similarly, the |1|-grading representation facts in Theorem 3.1 are standard and not introduced ad hoc. The paper frequently cites the authors' own earlier work ([12], [13], [14], [16], [25]), but those citations supply background, notation, and prior special cases; [16] and [25] are explicitly described as special cases being generalized, not as the source of the new Einstein conclusion. Corollary 4.6 rests on external theorems of Labourie [21] and Loftin [22], so it is not a self-citation chain. The unproved trace-freeness statement in Lemma 3.4 and the abstract's 'non-zero scalar curvature' assertion are better viewed as correctness/completeness risks than as circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters and no invented entities. The new objects, including the universal Rho-tensor P, the bundles L±, the metric h, and the 2-form Ω, are canonically constructed from the given parabolic geometry, not chosen or fitted. The paper's load is its dependence on established parabolic geometry, BGG, and representation theory, plus external results of Loftin and Labourie for the projective corollary.

assumptions (5)

standard math Background machinery of regular normal parabolic geometries and Cartan connections as in Cap-Slovak [12] is assumed.
Invoked throughout Sections 2 and 3, beginning with Section 2.1, for Cartan connection, regularity, normality, and Weyl structures.
domain assumption For a |1|-grading, the underlying structure is a first-order G0-structure, and torsion-freeness of the Cartan geometry equals vanishing intrinsic torsion.
Used in Remark 3.2(2) and to justify restriction to torsion-free AHS structures after Theorem 3.1.
standard math Representation-theoretic facts: g_-1 and g_1 are dual irreducible G0-representations; the Weyl curvature W lies in a multiplicity-one irreducible component whose contractions vanish.
Used in Lemma 3.4 and Theorem 3.5 to show the Ricci contraction of the canonical connection curvature is proportional to h.
standard math BGG splitting operator S and jet isomorphism J^1 E_M ≅ V_M/V^2M from Branson-Cap-Eastwood-Gover [4].
Used in the proof of Theorem 4.2 to identify A with connections on the line bundle E_M.
domain assumption Labourie [21] and Loftin [22] characterize properly convex projective structures via solutions of the projective Monge-Ampere equation or affine spheres.
Used in the proof of Corollary 4.6; the surface-specific scope of [21] is a point of concern.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Geometric Theory of Weyl Structures." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3PQJETHF

@misc{pith2026190810325,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Geometric Theory of Weyl Structures},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3PQJETHF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.10325}
}

abstract

Given a parabolic geometry on a smooth manifold $M$, we study a natural affine bundle $A \to M$, whose smooth sections can be identified with Weyl structures for the geometry. We show that the initial parabolic geometry defines a reductive Cartan geometry on $A$, which induces an almost bi-Lagrangian structure on $A$ and a compatible linear connection on $TA$. We prove that the split-signature metric given by the almost bi-Lagrangian structure is Einstein with non-zero scalar curvature, provided the parabolic geometry is torsion-free and $|1|$-graded. We proceed to study Weyl structures via the submanifold geometry of the image of the corresponding section in $A$. For Weyl structures satisfying appropriate non-degeneracy conditions, we derive a universal formula for the second fundamental form of this image. We also show that for locally flat projective structures, this has close relations to solutions of a projectively invariant Monge-Ampere equation and thus to properly convex projective structures.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages

[21]

Labourie, Flat projective structures on surfaces and cubic holomorph ic diﬀerentials , Pure Appl

F. Labourie, Flat projective structures on surfaces and cubic holomorph ic diﬀerentials , Pure Appl. Math. Q. 3 (2007), no. 4, Special Issue: In honor of Grigory Margulis., 1057–1099. MR 2402597 ↑33, 34

work page 2007
[12]

ˇCap and J

A. ˇCap and J. Slov´ ak, Parabolic geometries. I , Mathematical Surveys and Mono- graphs, vol. 154, American Mathematical Society, Providen ce, RI, 2009. Background and general theory. MR 2532439 ↑1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 25, 31

work page 2009
[1]

T. N. Bailey, M. G. Eastwood, and A. R. Gover, Thomas’s structure bundle for conformal, projective and related structures , Rocky Mountain J. Math. 24 (1994), no. 4, 1191–1217. MR 1322223 ↑25, 30, 32, 33, 34

work page 1994
[2]

R. J. Baston, Almost Hermitian symmetric manifolds. I. Local twistor the ory, Duke Math. J. 63 (1991), no. 1, 81–112. MR 1106939 ↑4

work page 1991
[3]

R. J. Baston, Almost Hermitian symmetric manifolds. II. Diﬀerential inva riants, Duke Math. J. 63 (1991), no. 1, 113–138. MR 1106940 ↑4

work page 1991
[4]

Branson, A

T. Branson, A. ˇCap, M. Eastwood, and A. R. Gover, Prolongations of geometric overdetermined systems, Internat. J. Math. 17 (2006), no. 6, 641–664. MR 2246885 ↑29, 35

work page 2006
[5]

Calabi, Complete aﬃne hyperspheres

E. Calabi, Complete aﬃne hyperspheres. I , Symposia Mathematica, Vol. X (Convegno di Geometria Diﬀerenziale, INDAM, Rome, 1971), Academic Pr ess, London, 1972, pp. 19–38. MR 0365607 ↑5

work page 1971
[6]

D. M. J. Calderbank, Selfdual 4-manifolds, projective surfaces, and the Dunajs ki- West construction, SIGMA Symmetry Integrability Geom. Methods Appl. 10 (2014), Paper 035, 18. MR 3210600 ↑23

work page 2014

Show all 29 references

[7]

D. M. J. Calderbank and T. Diemer, Diﬀerential invariants and curved Bernstein- Gelfand-Gelfand sequences, J. Reine Angew. Math. 537 (2001), 67–103. MR 1856258 ↑27

2001
[8]

D. M. J. Calderbank, T. Diemer, and V. Souˇ cek, Ricci-corrected derivatives and invariant diﬀerential operators , Diﬀerential Geom. Appl. 23 (2005), no. 2, 149–

2005
[9]

ˇCap and A

A. ˇCap and A. R. Gover, Projective compactiﬁcations and Einstein metrics , J. Reine Angew. Math. 717 (2016), 47–75. MR 3530534 ↑31, 32

2016
[10]

A. ˇCap, A. R. Gover, and M. Hammerl, Holonomy reductions of Cartan geome- tries and curved orbit decompositions , Duke Math. J. 163 (2014), no. 5, 1035–

2014
[11]

A. ˇCap, A. R. Gover, and H. R. Macbeth, Einstein metrics in projective geometry , Geom. Dedicata 168 (2014), 235–244. MR 3158041 ↑25

2014
[13]

ˇCap and J

A. ˇCap and J. Slov´ ak, Weyl structures for parabolic geometries , Math. Scand. 93 (2003), no. 1, 53–90. MR 1997873 ↑2, 8, 15

2003
[14]

A. ˇCap, J. Slov´ ak, and V. Souˇ cek,Invariant operators on manifolds with almost Her- mitian symmetric structures. I. Invariant diﬀerentiation , Acta Math. Univ. Come- nian. (N.S.) 66 (1997), no. 1, 33–69. MR 1474550 ↑4, 35

1997
[15]

A. ˇCap, J. Slov´ ak, and V. Souˇ cek, Bernstein-Gelfand-Gelfand sequences , Ann. of Math. 154 (2001), no. 1, 97–113. MR 1847589 ↑27

2001
[16]

Dunajski and T

M. Dunajski and T. Mettler, Gauge theory on projective surfaces and anti-self- dual Einstein metrics in dimension four , J. Geom. Anal. 28 (2018), no. 3, 2780–

2018
[17]

Herzlich, Parabolic geodesics as parallel curves in parabolic geomet ries, Internat

M. Herzlich, Parabolic geodesics as parallel curves in parabolic geomet ries, Internat. J. Math. 24 (2013), no. 9, 1350067, 16. MR 3109439 ↑3, 8, 9 W eyl structures 37

2013
[18]

Hildebrand, Half-dimensional immersions in para-K¨ ahler manifolds, Int

R. Hildebrand, Half-dimensional immersions in para-K¨ ahler manifolds, Int. Electron. J. Geom. 4 (2011), no. 2, 85–113. MR 2854277 ↑5

2011
[19]

Hildebrand, The cross-ratio manifold: a model of centro-aﬃne geometry , Int

R. Hildebrand, The cross-ratio manifold: a model of centro-aﬃne geometry , Int. Elec- tron. J. Geom. 4 (2011), no. 2, 32–62. MR 2854275 ↑5

2011
[20]

Kobayashi and T

S. Kobayashi and T. Nagano, On ﬁltered Lie algebras and geometric structures. I , J. Math. Mech. 13 (1964), 875–907. MR 0168704 ↑7, 19

1964
[22]

J. C. Loftin, Aﬃne spheres and convex RPn-manifolds, Amer. J. Math. 123 (2001), no. 2, 255–274. MR 1828223 ↑5, 33, 34

2001
[23]

Mettler, Extremal conformal structures on projective surfaces (2015), available at arXiv:1510.01043

T. Mettler, Extremal conformal structures on projective surfaces (2015), available at arXiv:1510.01043. to appear in Ann. Scuola Norm. Sup. Pisa Cl. Sci. (5) . ↑34

2015 arXiv
[24]

Mettler, Geodesic rigidity of conformal connections on surfaces , Math

T. Mettler, Geodesic rigidity of conformal connections on surfaces , Math. Z. 281 (2015), no. 1-2, 379–393. MR 3384876 ↑34

2015
[25]

Mettler, Minimal Lagrangian connections on compact surfaces , Adv

T. Mettler, Minimal Lagrangian connections on compact surfaces , Adv. Math. 354 (2019). MR 3987443 ↑3, 4, 5, 33

2019
[26]

Mettler and G

T. Mettler and G. P. Paternain, Convex projective surfaces with compatible Weyl con- nection are hyperbolic (2018), available at arXiv:1804.04616. to appear in Anal. PDE. ↑34

2018 arXiv
[27]

Mettler and G

T. Mettler and G. P. Paternain, Holomorphic diﬀerentials, thermostats and Anosov ﬂows, Math. Ann. 373 (2019), no. 1-2, 553–580. MR 3968880 ↑34

2019
[28]

Wienhard, An invitation to higher Teichm¨ uller theory (2018), available at arXiv:1803.06870

A. Wienhard, An invitation to higher Teichm¨ uller theory (2018), available at arXiv:1803.06870. ↑3 A. ˇC.: F aculty of Mathematics, University of Vienna, Oskar–Mo rgenstern– Platz 1, 1090 Wien, Austria E-mail address : Andreas.Cap@univie.ac.at T.M.: Institut f ¨ur Mathematik,...

2018 arXiv
[2811]

MR 3833818 ↑2, 4, 23, 28, 30

Pith tools

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

[1] [21]

Labourie, Flat projective structures on surfaces and cubic holomorph ic diﬀerentials , Pure Appl

F. Labourie, Flat projective structures on surfaces and cubic holomorph ic diﬀerentials , Pure Appl. Math. Q. 3 (2007), no. 4, Special Issue: In honor of Grigory Margulis., 1057–1099. MR 2402597 ↑33, 34

work page 2007

[2] [12]

ˇCap and J

A. ˇCap and J. Slov´ ak, Parabolic geometries. I , Mathematical Surveys and Mono- graphs, vol. 154, American Mathematical Society, Providen ce, RI, 2009. Background and general theory. MR 2532439 ↑1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 25, 31

work page 2009

[3] [1]

T. N. Bailey, M. G. Eastwood, and A. R. Gover, Thomas’s structure bundle for conformal, projective and related structures , Rocky Mountain J. Math. 24 (1994), no. 4, 1191–1217. MR 1322223 ↑25, 30, 32, 33, 34

work page 1994

[4] [2]

R. J. Baston, Almost Hermitian symmetric manifolds. I. Local twistor the ory, Duke Math. J. 63 (1991), no. 1, 81–112. MR 1106939 ↑4

work page 1991

[5] [3]

R. J. Baston, Almost Hermitian symmetric manifolds. II. Diﬀerential inva riants, Duke Math. J. 63 (1991), no. 1, 113–138. MR 1106940 ↑4

work page 1991

[6] [4]

Branson, A

T. Branson, A. ˇCap, M. Eastwood, and A. R. Gover, Prolongations of geometric overdetermined systems, Internat. J. Math. 17 (2006), no. 6, 641–664. MR 2246885 ↑29, 35

work page 2006

[7] [5]

Calabi, Complete aﬃne hyperspheres

E. Calabi, Complete aﬃne hyperspheres. I , Symposia Mathematica, Vol. X (Convegno di Geometria Diﬀerenziale, INDAM, Rome, 1971), Academic Pr ess, London, 1972, pp. 19–38. MR 0365607 ↑5

work page 1971

[8] [6]

D. M. J. Calderbank, Selfdual 4-manifolds, projective surfaces, and the Dunajs ki- West construction, SIGMA Symmetry Integrability Geom. Methods Appl. 10 (2014), Paper 035, 18. MR 3210600 ↑23

work page 2014