Finite codimension stability of invariant surfaces

Giovanni Forni

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 23 references

Finite codimension stability of invariant surfaces

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Almost every invariant surface survives smooth perturbations

desk verdict The finite-codimension theorem is a real new claim, but the proof's linearization is internally inconsistent (Lemma 5.1 vs Section 6) and the required surjectivity of the obstruction map is unproved, so the main result is not established. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.00898 v2 pith:RUKLMR6R submitted 2025-02-02 math.DS

Giovanni Forni This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.DS MSC 37C7537C8335S50

keywords translationsurfacesrationalpolygonalbilliardsinvariantfinitecodimensionstabilitypara-differentialcalculuscohomologicalequationKAMtheorygeodesicflow

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 establishes that, for almost every direction on a translation surface, the two-dimensional invariant surface of the flat geodesic flow is stable with finite codimension under smooth perturbations of the Hamiltonian. In concrete terms, there is a finite-codimension local subvariety of nearby Hamiltonians for which the perturbed flow still has an invariant surface, and that surface is a slightly regular graph over the original one with the restricted flow smoothly conjugate to the translation flow. This is a higher-genus analogue of KAM persistence, applied to pseudo-integrable systems such as rational polygonal billiards, whose phase spaces are foliated by invariant surfaces rather than tori. As a corollary, for rational polygonal billiards the invariant surfaces in typical directions survive perturbations within a finite-codimension family of metrics, and the codimension grows linearly with the differentiability class and with the genus and number of conical singularities.

What carries the argument

Para-differential operators, a frequency-localized form of pseudodifferential calculus used to linearize nonlinear expressions, are applied to the invariant-surface equation $F_\xi(H,u)=0$. The central object is the para-differential cohomological equation with counter-terms, $$T_{M[u]}\begin{pmatrix}0&S[u]\\0&0\end{pmatrix}T_{M[u]}^{-1}v - T_{M[u]}X_\xi(T_{M[u]}^{-1}v) + \sum_i c_i[\chi_i] = f,$$ where $M[u]$ is a matrix built from the differential of $u$, $S[u]$ is a $2\times2$ matrix constructed from the Lagrangian measurement $L[u]=(Du)^t J Du$, and $\chi_i$ are a basis of invariant distributions for the translation vector field $X_\xi$. The invariant distributions are the obstructions: the linearized equation is solvable only when the data annihilate them, and the counter-terms $c_i$ are chosen to cancel those obstructions. The proof shows that for Hamiltonians for which the counter-terms vanish, the nonlinear equation is solved by a fixed-point argument, yielding the finite-codimension submanifold.

What would settle it

Evaluate the matrix $S[u_0]$ directly from its defining formula in Lemma 4.1 for the flat Hamiltonian $H_0$ and the identity section $u_0$; substituting $A[u_0]$ and $Du_0$ settles whether the value is $-I_2$ or $0$. Then, for a translation surface of genus two with a single cone point, compute the linearized obstruction map at $(H_0,u_0)$ by varying $H$ through a basis of smooth Hamiltonian perturbations $h$; the claimed finite codimension requires that the resulting coefficients $d_i$ range over the full finite-dimensional obstruction space. Finding one invariant distribution not attained by any such variation disproves the surjectivity the proof needs.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Main theorem: let $(M,\omega)$ be any translation surface. For almost all directions $\xi \in P^1(\mathbb{R}^2)$, the invariant two-dimensional surface $M_\xi$ in a fixed energy level of the flat geodesic flow is stable with finite codimension in the following sense. There exists $s_0>0$ such that for every $s>s_0$ there is a finite-codimension local subvariety $H_s(\xi)$ of the space of Hamiltonians near the flat Hamiltonian $H_0$ in the Sobolev space $H^s(M)$; every $H \in H_s(\xi)$ admits an invariant surface $M_H^\xi$ that is an $H^t$ graph over $M_\xi$ for $t<s-s_0$, and the Hamiltonian flow of $H$ on $M_H^\xi$ is $H^t$-conjugate to the translation flow on $M_\xi$. The codimension $h_s$ grows linearly in $s$, in the genus of $M$, and in the number of conical singularities of the translation structure. The proof para-linearizes the invariant-surface equation and reduces it to a cohomological equation with counter-terms; the obstructions are the invariant distributions of the translation flow, and requiring all obstructions to vanish carves out the finite-codimension submanifold of admissible Hamiltonians. The same statement holds for billiards in rational polygons after unfolding to a translation surface.

Load-bearing premise

The proof depends on the linearized obstruction map from Hamiltonian variations to the coefficients $d_i$ of the invariant-distribution obstructions being surjective at the unperturbed Hamiltonian, so that the zero set of the obstructions has the claimed finite codimension; the paper asserts this is 'clearly possible' without supplying the derivation, and the linearization is internally inconsistent about the value of the matrix $S[u_0]$ (Lemma 5.1 computes it as $-I_2$, while Section 6 states it is $0$).

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For rational polygonal billiards, almost every direction has an invariant surface that survives perturbations within a finite-codimension family of metrics, so there are finite-codimension families of non-ergodic perturbations of these pseudo-integrable systems.
The codimension of the stable family grows linearly with the Sobolev regularity $s$, which means that in the $C^\infty$ limit the allowed perturbations are infinite codimension, consistent with the known infinite codimension of the range of the cohomological equation in the smooth category.
The result gives a positive answer to the conjecture that typical translation flows are stable with finite codimension under smooth perturbations, at least for almost all directions.
The para-differential fixed-point approach succeeds where a Nash-Moser iteration would fail because the smoothing operators make the distributional obstructions of growing Sobolev order blow up.

Reading between the lines

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

The author suggests in the introduction that the para-differential counter-term method may lead to a new proof of the linearization theorem for interval exchange transformations under weaker Diophantine conditions than the Roth-type condition; carrying out that program would be a natural next step.
One could test the conclusion numerically on a low-genus translation surface by checking that small Hamiltonian perturbations inside the finite-codimension family leave a nearby invariant graph, while generic perturbations destroy it.
The finite-codimension formulation raises a quantitative question the paper does not address: whether the codimension equals the dimension of the invariant-distribution obstruction space, so that the stability is optimal.

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

Here's my take. The paper claims a genuinely new result: finite-codimension stability of invariant higher-genus surfaces for flat geodesic flows on translation surfaces, extending KAM persistence beyond Liouville tori. The strategy—transfer the Alazard–Shao para-differential fixed-point scheme and use your cohomological equation theorem as the linear input—is credible. The paper is honest about the literature and credits prior work properly.

The problem is that the main theorem is not established by the written proof. The finite-codimension conclusion depends on one step: the differential of H -> P[u(H)] at H0 must be surjective onto the obstruction space. Section 6 attempts to prove this, but it states the linearization as Xξ v + Σ d_i [χ_i] = -D_H F(H0,u0)(h) 'since M[u0]=Id, S[u0]=0'. Earlier, Lemma 5.1 and the computation before it give M[u0]=diag(I2,-I2) and S[u0]=-I2. These are incompatible. With the correct values, the first block of the linearized system contains an extra S[u0] v2 term, coupling the two components. The subsequent claim that you can realize any prescribed vector of coefficients 'as long as the obstructions are linearly independent' does not follow from linear independence alone; you need a proof of surjectivity of the actual map, and that is absent. The acknowledgment that Lemma 4.1 contained a calculation mistake adds to the uncertainty about which formulas are correct.

This is a load-bearing gap, not a cosmetic typo. If the surjectivity can be proved, the theorem would be significant and likely correct. But the current manuscript is not ready. I would send it to a serious referee—the result and the program deserve that—but the referee should be told to focus on the linearization and the submersion step. For my own work, I would not cite it yet. The paper is coherent in its overall plan, but the internal contradiction makes it not coherent at the proof level.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper claims to prove (Theorem 1.1) that for almost every direction ξ on a translation surface (M,ω), the invariant two-dimensional surface Mξ of the flat geodesic flow in a fixed energy level is stable with finite codimension under smooth Hamiltonian perturbations: there is a finite-codimensional local subvariety Hs(ξ) of Hamiltonians close to H0 such that each H in Hs(ξ) admits an invariant surface M_H^ξ that is an H^t graph over Mξ and the restricted flow is H^t-conjugated to the translation flow. The codimension is claimed to grow linearly in the Sobolev regularity s, the genus of M, and the number of conical singularities. A corollary is stated for rational polygonal billiards. The proof combines the author's cohomological equation results [F97, F21] with the para-differential approach of Alazard-Shao [AlSh] and invokes a fixed-point argument for a para-cohomological equation with counter-terms.

Significance. If the proof were complete, this would be a significant advance: it would establish a persistence result for higher-genus invariant surfaces in pseudo-integrable systems where standard KAM iteration is obstructed by distributional obstructions of growing Sobolev order, and it would transfer the finite-codimension phenomenon for the linearized cohomological equation to a nonlinear finite-codimension stability statement. The manuscript is honest about relying on published theorems rather than introducing fitted parameters, and the overall strategy of para-linearizing the invariant-surface equation and solving a cohomological equation with counter-terms is coherent. However, the central submersion step connecting the linearized equation to the finite codimension of the subvariety is not demonstrated, and there is an internal contradiction in the linearization; the main theorem should not be accepted in the present form.

major comments (3)

[Section 6 (proof of Theorem 1.1)] Section 6 claims that the linearization of the para-cohomological equation at H=H0 is Xξ v + Σ di[χi] = -D_H Fξ(H0,u0)(h), 'since M[u0]=Id, S[u0]=0'. This contradicts Lemma 5.1, where M[u0]=diag(I2,-I2) and S[u0]=-I2, and it also contradicts the statement in Section 3 that M[u] is close to diag(I2,-I2). With the values computed in the paper, the linearized system is coupled: in the variable w=(w1,w2) it contains a term S[u0]w2 in the first line together with Xξ w1, so the coefficients di,1 can be determined only after solving the second block for w2. The sentence 'It is clearly possible to find a variation h such that the values of the coefficients (di) is any given vector of coefficients' is therefore not justified by linear independence of the obstructions. Since the finite codimension of Hs(ξ) is obtained solely from the claim that the map h ↦ P[u(H)] has surjective differential at H0, this gap is load-bearing and the main theorem is not established.
[Section 6 (surjectivity of dP)] Even under the simplified linearization assumed in Section 6, no proof is given that the map h ↦ (di) is surjective onto the finite-dimensional obstruction space. The expression D_H Fξ(H0,u0)(h) is never computed, and no argument links an arbitrary linear combination of the invariant distributions χi to a Hamiltonian perturbation h. Linear independence of the χi gives injectivity of the coefficient-to-functional map, not surjectivity of the perturbation-to-coefficient map. A submersion theorem requires the latter, and the implicit function theorem cannot be invoked until this surjectivity is established.
[Acknowledgments and Lemma 4.1] The acknowledgments state that N. Tedesco pointed out a calculation mistake in Lemma 4.1, but the manuscript does not include the corrected statement. Lemma 4.1 is the starting point of the para-linearized equation used in Section 4, in Lemma 5.1, and again in the final identity for Fξ(H,u) in Section 6. Without a corrected Lemma 4.1, the derivation of the operator S[u] and the subsequent solution of the para-cohomological equation cannot be checked. This is not a presentation issue; it affects the core of the proof.

minor comments (4)

[Section 3 (before Lemma 3.3)] The sentence 'L[u]=0 if and only if the differential of the pull-back under u of the standard symplectic form on M×R^2 is a closed 2-form' is inaccurate: the pull-back of a symplectic form is always closed, and the Lagrangian condition is u^*Ω=0.
[Lemma 5.1 proof] In the solution of the first equation, the inequality 'Σ |ci,2| ≤ ... ∥(T^{-1}_{M[u]} f)_1 - TS[u] v̂2∥' should refer to ci,1, not ci,2; as written it concerns the wrong set of constants.
[Sections 5 and 6] The notation switches between P[u(H)], P_i[u], and the operator P[u] introduced in Lemma 5.1; the text should define explicitly which finite-dimensional vector is being set to zero in the condition P[u(H)]=0.
[Throughout] There are numerous typos, including 'he genus' in Theorem 1.1, 'the the' in Theorem 1.1 and Corollary 1.2, and 'Inv ariant' in the title; these should be corrected in a revision.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the proof derives finite-codimension stability from the independent [F97] cohomological-equation theorem and external para-differential calculus; the Section 6 surjectivity gap is a proof defect, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. The finite-codimension stability conclusion is obtained by solving the para-linearized cohomological equation (Section 5, Lemma 5.1) and then imposing the obstruction equations P[u(H)] = 0 (Section 6). The solvability of the linear equation is imported from the author's Theorem 3.1 ([F97], 'the cohomological equation X_xi u = f has a solution') and Corollary 3.2; that is a published, independent result about the Lie derivative X_xi, not a restatement of the target theorem. The para-differential machinery is taken from Alazard-Shao [AlSh] and stated as Propositions 2.2-2.4; it does not encode invariant-surface stability. No parameter is fitted to data and no 'prediction' is a renamed input. The only serious defect I find is not circularity: Section 6 asserts 'since M[u0] = Id, S[u0] = 0' when Lemma 5.1 computed S[u0] = -I2 and the text itself says M[u0] is diag(I2,-I2); and the claimed surjectivity of d(P∘u)(H0) is not proved ('It is clearly possible to find a variation h...'). These are gaps in the proof of finite codimension, not reductions of the conclusion to an assumption. Accordingly the circularity score is 0.

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

No free parameters are fitted; the constants s0, σ, ρ, K are existence constants from prior theorems, not tuned to data. The central proof rests on the cited cohomological equation theorem for translation flows, the almost-everywhere Roth-type condition, the para-differential estimates from Alazard-Shao, and the Lagrangian estimate from de la Llave et al. No new entities are postulated.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Cohomological equation for translation flows is solvable up to finite-dimensional obstructions with loss of derivatives ([F97], Theorem 3.1 here); solutions vanish at Σ under Corollary 3.2 conditions.
Invoked in Lemma 5.1 as the linear solver and in Section 6 for the linearized counter-term equation; not proved in this paper.
domain assumption Almost every direction ξ satisfies the Roth-type/full-measure condition from [CE15], [EM18], [EMM15], [Fil16].
Used to extend Theorem 3.1 to almost all directions.
domain assumption Para-differential calculus on translation surfaces (Propositions 2.2, 2.3, 2.4) extends from [AlSh] and gives para-linearization with controlled remainders.
Central technical tool; the extension to weighted Sobolev spaces with conical singularities is summarized, not fully proved.
domain assumption Lemma 3.3 from [LGJV05] controls L[u] linearly by Fξ(H,u), yielding the contraction estimate for B[u,L,F] in Section 6.
Used to prove Fξ(H,u) = 0 at the fixed point under the submersion condition.
standard math Schauder fixed point theorem and the inverse and implicit function theorems in Banach spaces are applicable.
Used to produce the fixed point u(H) and the finite-codimension submanifold structure.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Finite codimension stability of invariant surfaces." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RUKLMR6R

@misc{pith2026250200898,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Finite codimension stability of invariant surfaces},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RUKLMR6R}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.00898}
}

read the original abstract

Following recent work of T. Alazard and C. Shao on applications of para-differential calculus to smooth conjugacy and stability problems for Hamiltonian systems, we prove finite codimension stability of invariant surfaces (in finite differentiability classes) of flat geodesic flows on translation surfaces. The result is also based on work of the author on the cohomological equation for translation flows.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

23 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages

[1]

Alazard & C

T. Alazard & C. Shao, KAM via Standard Fixed Point Theorems, preprint, arXiv:2312.13971v1

arXiv
[2]

Bony, Calcul symbolique et propagation des singularit\'es pour les \'equations aux d\'eriv\'ees partielles non lin\'eaires Annales scientifiques de l’ \'E.N.S

J-M. Bony, Calcul symbolique et propagation des singularit\'es pour les \'equations aux d\'eriv\'ees partielles non lin\'eaires Annales scientifiques de l’ \'E.N.S. 4e s\'erie, tome 14, no 2 (1981), 209--246

work page 1981
[3]

Y. G. Bonthonneau, C. Guillarmou, T. de Poyferré, A paradifferential approach for hyperbolic dynamical systems and applications, Tunisian J. Math. 4 (2022) 673--718

work page 2022
[4]

Chaika and A

J. Chaika and A. Eskin, Every flat surface is Birkhoff and Oseledets generic in almost every direction, Journal of Modern Dynamics 9 (2015), 1--23. Doi: 10.3934/jmd.2015.9.1

doi:10.3934/jmd.2015.9.1 2015
[5]

Delort, Quasi-linear perturbations of Hamiltonian Klein-Gordon equations on spheres

J.-M. Delort, Quasi-linear perturbations of Hamiltonian Klein-Gordon equations on spheres. Mem. Amer. Math. Soc. 234 (2015), no. 1103, vi+80

work page 2015
[6]

Eskin and M

A. Eskin and M. Mirzakhani, Invariant and stationary measures for the SL (2 , R ) action on Moduli space. Publ. Math. IH\'ES 127 (2018), 95-324. doi : 10.1007/s10240-018-0099-2. http://www.numdam.org/articles/10.1007/s10240-018-0099-2/

doi:10.1007/s10240-018-0099-2 2018
[7]

Eskin, M

A. Eskin, M. Mirzakhani and A. Mohammadi, Isolation, equidistribution, and orbit closures for the SL(2, ) action on moduli space, Annals of Mathematics 182 (2) (2015), 673--721

work page 2015
[8]

Filip, Semisimplicity and rigidity of the Kontsevich-Zorich cocycle, Inventiones mathematicae 205 (3) (2016), 617--670

S. Filip, Semisimplicity and rigidity of the Kontsevich-Zorich cocycle, Inventiones mathematicae 205 (3) (2016), 617--670

work page 2016

Show all 23 references

[9]

Forni, Solutions of the cohomological equation for area-preserving flows on compact surfaces of higher genus

G. Forni, Solutions of the cohomological equation for area-preserving flows on compact surfaces of higher genus. Ann. of Math. 146(2) (1997), 295--344

1997
[10]

Forni, Sobolev regularity of solutions of the cohomological equation

G. Forni, Sobolev regularity of solutions of the cohomological equation. Ergodic Theory and Dynamical Systems. 41(3) (2021), 685--789. doi:10.1017/etds.2019.108

2021 doi
[11]

Ghazouani, Local rigidity for periodic generalised interval exchange transformations

S. Ghazouani, Local rigidity for periodic generalised interval exchange transformations. Invent. math. 226, 467--520 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00222-021-01051-3

2021 doi
[12]

Ghazouani, C .Ulcigrai, A priori bounds for GIETs, affine shadows and rigidity of foliations in genus two

S. Ghazouani, C .Ulcigrai, A priori bounds for GIETs, affine shadows and rigidity of foliations in genus two. Publ. Math. IH\'ES 138, 229--366 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10240-023-00142-6

2023 doi
[13]

, Regularity of Conjugacies of Linearizable Generalized Interval Exchange Transformations. Commun. Math. Phys. 406, 42 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00220-024-05197-y

2025 doi
[14]

Herman, Sur la conjugaison diff\'erentiable des diff\'eomorphismes du cercle \`a des rotations, Inst

M. Herman, Sur la conjugaison diff\'erentiable des diff\'eomorphismes du cercle \`a des rotations, Inst. Hautes \'Etudes Sci. Publ. Math. 49 (1979), 5--233

1979
[15]

, Simple proofs of local conjugacy theorems for diffeomorphisms of the circle with almost every rotation number, Bol. Soc. Brasil. Mat. 16 (1985), 45--83. MR 0819805. Zbl 0651.58008. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ BF02584836

1985
[16]

de la Llave, A

R. de la Llave, A. Gonz\'alez, \`A. Jorba, and J. Villanueva. KAM theory without action-angle variables. Nonlinearity, 18 (2) (2005), 855

2005
[17]

Marmi, P

S. Marmi, P. Moussa and J.-C. Yoccoz, The cohomological equation for Roth-type interval exchange maps. J. Am. Math. Soc. 18(4) (2005), 823--872

2005
[18]

Marmi, P

S. Marmi, P. Moussa and J.-C. Yoccoz, Linearization of generalized interval exchange maps. Annals of Mathematics 176 (3) (2012), 1583--1646. http://dx.doi.org/10.4007/annals.2012.176.3.5

2012 doi
[19]

Marmi and J.-C

S. Marmi and J.-C. Yoccoz, H\"older Regularity of the Solutions of the Cohomological Equation for Roth Type Interval Exchange Maps. Commun. Math. Phys. 344 (2016), 117--139. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00220-016-2624-9

2016 doi
[20]

M\'etivier, Para-differential Calculus and Applications to the Cauchy Problem for Nonlinear Systems, Publications of the Scuola Normale Superiore CRM Series, Vol

G. M\'etivier, Para-differential Calculus and Applications to the Cauchy Problem for Nonlinear Systems, Publications of the Scuola Normale Superiore CRM Series, Vol. 5, Scuola Normale Superiore, 2008

2008
[21]

Shao, Long Time Dynamics of Spherical Objects Governed by Surface Tension, Ph

C. Shao, Long Time Dynamics of Spherical Objects Governed by Surface Tension, Ph. D. thesis, MIT, 2022 (available at https://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/144697/shao-chengyang-phd-math-2022-thesis.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y)

2022
[22]

M. E. Taylor, Pseudodifferential operators and nonlinear PDE, Progress in Mathematics, vol. 100, Birkh\"auser Basel, 1991

1991
[23]

M. E. Taylor, Partial Differential Equation III, Applied Mathematical Sciences Volume 117, Springer 2011

2011

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Alazard & C

T. Alazard & C. Shao, KAM via Standard Fixed Point Theorems, preprint, arXiv:2312.13971v1

arXiv

[2] [2]

Bony, Calcul symbolique et propagation des singularit\'es pour les \'equations aux d\'eriv\'ees partielles non lin\'eaires Annales scientifiques de l’ \'E.N.S

J-M. Bony, Calcul symbolique et propagation des singularit\'es pour les \'equations aux d\'eriv\'ees partielles non lin\'eaires Annales scientifiques de l’ \'E.N.S. 4e s\'erie, tome 14, no 2 (1981), 209--246

work page 1981

[3] [3]

Y. G. Bonthonneau, C. Guillarmou, T. de Poyferré, A paradifferential approach for hyperbolic dynamical systems and applications, Tunisian J. Math. 4 (2022) 673--718

work page 2022

[4] [4]

Chaika and A

J. Chaika and A. Eskin, Every flat surface is Birkhoff and Oseledets generic in almost every direction, Journal of Modern Dynamics 9 (2015), 1--23. Doi: 10.3934/jmd.2015.9.1

doi:10.3934/jmd.2015.9.1 2015

[5] [5]

Delort, Quasi-linear perturbations of Hamiltonian Klein-Gordon equations on spheres

J.-M. Delort, Quasi-linear perturbations of Hamiltonian Klein-Gordon equations on spheres. Mem. Amer. Math. Soc. 234 (2015), no. 1103, vi+80

work page 2015

[6] [6]

Eskin and M

A. Eskin and M. Mirzakhani, Invariant and stationary measures for the SL (2 , R ) action on Moduli space. Publ. Math. IH\'ES 127 (2018), 95-324. doi : 10.1007/s10240-018-0099-2. http://www.numdam.org/articles/10.1007/s10240-018-0099-2/

doi:10.1007/s10240-018-0099-2 2018

[7] [7]

Eskin, M

A. Eskin, M. Mirzakhani and A. Mohammadi, Isolation, equidistribution, and orbit closures for the SL(2, ) action on moduli space, Annals of Mathematics 182 (2) (2015), 673--721

work page 2015

[8] [8]

Filip, Semisimplicity and rigidity of the Kontsevich-Zorich cocycle, Inventiones mathematicae 205 (3) (2016), 617--670

S. Filip, Semisimplicity and rigidity of the Kontsevich-Zorich cocycle, Inventiones mathematicae 205 (3) (2016), 617--670

work page 2016