Behaviour of the Schwarzian derivative on long complex projective tubes

Tommaso Cremaschi; Viola Giovannini

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 32 references

Behaviour of the Schwarzian derivative on long complex projective tubes

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read On long complex projective tubes, the Schwarzian derivative is asymptotically universal and controls renormalized volume.

desk verdict A careful, mostly self-contained proof of sharp exponential asymptotics for the Schwarzian on long projective tubes, with the explicit constants resting on one external input that deserves scrutiny. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.10071 v1 pith:2TZWE5GS submitted 2025-02-14 math.DG math.GT

Tommaso Cremaschi , Viola Giovannini This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.DGmath.GT MSC 32G1530F6053A30

keywords SchwarzianderivativecomplexprojectivestructureslongtubesrenormalizedvolumeearthquakesandgraftingsOsgood-StowetensorTeichmüllerspaceconvexco-compacthyperbolic3-manifolds

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 shows that on a long complex projective tube whose core geodesic has hyperbolic length $\ell$, the Schwarzian derivative of the developing map has one forced leading shape: $S(f)=\frac{1}{2z^2}\left(1+\frac{4\pi^2}{\ell^2}\right)dz^2$, with an error that decays like $e^{-\pi^2/(2\ell)}/\ell^2$. This is the same Schwarzian as for the symmetric tube built from $z^{2\pi i/\ell}$, so any sufficiently thin tube is asymptotically indistinguishable from the symmetric one. Because the real part of the Schwarzian is the differential of the renormalized volume, the estimate controls how renormalized volume changes under earthquakes and graftings. The paper proves that infinitesimal earthquakes pair with the Schwarzian only at exponentially small size, while infinitesimal graftings pair at size $\pi^2/\ell$ up to controlled error, and it converts these into bounds along earthquake paths and an asymptotic divergence formula under pinching a compressible curve.

What carries the argument

The central tool is the Osgood-Stowe tensor $B(g,e^{2u}g)$, a real symmetric $(0,2)$-tensor computed from the conformal factor $u$ between two metrics; for a developing map it equals the real part of the Schwarzian derivative. The paper factors the developing map on the tube through three intermediate metrics, so the Osgood-Stowe tensor splits into three terms, two of which are computable flat-cylinder terms. The essential unknown is a harmonic function $u_1$ on the cylinder $[-m,m]\times S^1$ that relates two flat metrics; Fourier analysis shows its coefficients and derivatives decay like $k^n e^{-km}$, and since $m\ge \pi^2/(2\ell)$ this produces the exponential error in the theorem. A Stokes-type lemma converts pairings with infinitesimal earthquakes and graftings into integrals of the Osgood-Stowe tensor over the core curve, which is why the pairing bounds reduce to estimates on $u_1$ and its derivatives.

What would settle it

Construct a non-symmetric long tube (for example, a convex co-compact hyperbolic example with a short compressible curve), compute the developing map and its Schwarzian numerically at several points of the core, and test whether the normalized error $|S(f)-\frac{1}{2z^2}(1+\frac{4\pi^2}{\ell^2})dz^2|/(e^{-\pi^2/(2\ell)}/\ell^2)$ remains bounded as $\ell\to 0$. Alternatively, compute renormalized volume along a grafting ray and check whether $V_R(M_s)-V_R(M_0)+\pi^3/\ell_s-\pi^3/\ell_0-(\ell_s-\ell_0)\pi/4$ is $O(e^{-\pi s/(2\ell_0)}s^3)$; a failure of this decay would contradict the claimed Schwarzian asymptotics.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim, Theorem 1.1, is that for a long tube $A$ of a complex projective surface $Z$ with core geodesic $\gamma$ of length $\ell\le \varepsilon_0=2\operatorname{arsinh}(1)$, the developing map $f:\mathbb{H}^2\to\mathbb{CP}^1$ satisfies $S(f)=\frac{1}{2z^2}\left(1+\frac{4\pi^2}{\ell^2}\right)dz^2+O\!\left(\frac{e^{-\pi^2/(2\ell)}}{\ell^2}\right)dz^2$ uniformly in a tubular neighbourhood of $f^{-1}(\gamma)$. The leading term is exactly the Schwarzian computed in Section 3 for the symmetric tube, so the theorem says that the Schwarzian of every long tube is asymptotic to a universal symmetric form. Theorem 1.2 then bounds the pairings with infinitesimal earthquakes and graftings, and Theorems 1.3 and 1.4 translate those bounds into renormalized-volume statements: along an earthquake path the renormalized volume changes at most by a constant times $e^{-\pi^2/\ell}t/\ell$, and along a grafting (pinching) path it follows $V_R(M_s)-V_R(M_0)=\pi^3/\ell_0-\pi^3/\ell_s+(\ell_s-\ell_0)\pi/4+O(e^{-\pi s/(2\ell_0)}s^3)$, diverging as $-\pi^3/\ell_s$ when the curve is pinched.

Load-bearing premise

The explicit constants rest on an external estimate that the conformal factor $u_1$ is bounded by $W\le 3.7$ on the boundary of the tube, obtained by comparing the ambient conformal metric with the induced metric on the convex core boundary; if this boundary bound were false or substantially larger, the stated rates in Theorems 1.2, 1.3, and 1.4 would need to be changed.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Any long tube with core length $\ell$ has Schwarzian $\frac{1}{2z^2}\left(1+\frac{4\pi^2}{\ell^2}\right)dz^2$ up to an error $O(e^{-\pi^2/(2\ell)}/\ell^2)$, uniformly near the core.
The real Schwarzian is asymptotically orthogonal to infinitesimal earthquakes: $|\langle\operatorname{Re}S(f),\mu\rangle|\le C e^{-\pi^2/\ell}/\ell$.
Infinitesimal graftings pair at size $\pi^2/\ell$, with error at most $\ell/4+C e^{-\pi^2/\ell}/\ell$.
Along an earthquake path on a short compressible curve, renormalized volume changes by at most $C e^{-\pi^2/\ell}t/\ell$.
Along a grafting or pinching path, $V_R(M_s)-V_R(M_0)=\pi^3/\ell_0-\pi^3/\ell_s+(\ell_s-\ell_0)\pi/4+O(e^{-\pi s/(2\ell_0)}s^3)$, so renormalized volume diverges as $-\pi^3/\ell_s$.

Reading between the lines

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

One testable extension is that the same Fourier decay should control all derivatives of the conformal factor near the core, not just its first and second derivatives, giving uniform $C^k$ versions of Theorem 1.1.
The mechanism suggests the universal leading term is stable under deformations of the surface outside the tube: two long tubes with the same core length should have Schwarzians differing only by the exponentially small remainder, which a numerical experiment could check directly.
The error term in the pinching formula might be improvable: Lemma 4.1 gives only a two-sided bound on $\ell_s$, so sharper grafting-ray length estimates would likely make the $O(e^{-\pi s/(2\ell_0)}s^3)$ remainder more explicit.
Since the earthquake pairing is exponentially small, the standard variational formula for the hyperbolic length of a curve suggests the length function of a short curve is nearly constant along earthquake directions, a quantitative rigidity statement not stated in the paper.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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

Short version: this is a serious paper with genuinely new results. Theorem 1.1 and the quantitative pairing bounds in Theorem 1.2 are new, and the exponential error terms are far from the usual soft arguments. The Fourier-analysis treatment of the conformal factor u1 via the Osgood–Stowe tensor is a real technique, and the toy-model check in Section 3 is honest and useful. The paper also recovers Schlenker–Witten as a byproduct, which gives a good sanity check. I think the central mechanism holds up.

The main soft spot is the one the stress-test flags: Lemma 5.20 produces the boundary bound |u1| ≤ 3.7 using [Can01, Thm 5.1] through Lemma 5.18, and that theorem is quoted with a length < 1 hypothesis while the relevant curves have lengths up to 2.5. The footnote says the hypothesis is only needed for a linear bound, and that may well be true, but the paper does not prove the needed extension. Every explicit constant in Theorems 1.2, 1.3, and 1.4 inherits this W. If the true bound is larger than 3.7, those constants change. The exponential decay structure survives because it comes from e^{-m} ≤ e^{-π²/(2ℓ)}, not from the value of W. So this is a real weakness in the quantitative claims, but it is not a fatal flaw in the main theorem or the method.

Other issues are minor. There are several typos and small notational glitches, and Lemma 2.2 is taken from an earlier paper, though the proof is a short Stokes argument and the citation is clear. The constant G(ℓ) is defined in a slightly tangled way, but the bounds are explicit. Theorem 1.4 integrates a length derivative along a grafting path using a known bound on length decrease; that step is plausible and cross-checked against the Diaz–Kim inequality.

Who is this for? Anyone working on complex projective structures, Teichmüller theory, or renormalized volume of convex cocompact 3-manifolds. The paper deserves a serious referee. The referee should spend time on Section 5.4 and check whether the Canary bound can be extended to lengths up to 2.5 with the stated constants. Even if that fails, I would still expect the main asymptotic statements to be correct, possibly with less explicit constants. I recommend sending this to peer review.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies the Schwarzian derivative of the developing map of a complex projective structure restricted to a long tube around a short geodesic. Theorem 1.1 gives an asymptotic formula S(f) = (1/(2z^2))(1+4π^2/ℓ^2)dz^2 + O(e^{-π^2/(2ℓ)}/ℓ^2)dz^2 on a tubular neighborhood of the core. Theorem 1.2 gives quantitative bounds for the pairing of Re S(f) with infinitesimal earthquakes and graftings, with explicit constants and exponential decay. Theorems 1.3 and 1.4 translate these into bounds and asymptotics for the renormalized volume under complex earthquake paths and under pinching a compressible curve. The proof strategy is to decompose the Osgood-Stowe tensor into three terms, estimate the non-symmetric term via Fourier analysis on a Euclidean cylinder, and compare with an explicit symmetric toy model computed in Section 3.

Significance. If the quantitative estimates hold, the paper provides one of the first precise asymptotic descriptions of the Schwarzian derivative on long complex projective tubes and gives explicit control on renormalized volume variations in the compressible-boundary setting, recovering in particular the Schlenker-Witten pinching asymptotics. The method is natural and has useful cross-checks: the symmetric tube computation in Proposition 3.5 matches the main theorem to leading order, and the comparison with Gardiner's formula and McMullen's complex earthquake theory gives independent consistency. The explicit constants are a strength if fully justified, and the Osgood-Stowe/Fourier decomposition is a clean framework. However, two load-bearing quantitative steps need repair before the stated results are established: the use of Canary's theorem outside its stated length hypothesis, and the treatment of the zero Fourier mode in the core bound for the conformal factor.

major comments (3)

[§5.4 and Remark 5.21] The Fourier estimate for the zero mode is not justified. The text solves Δu=0 on the Euclidean cylinder [−m,m]×S^1 with boundary bound |u(±m,·)|≤W≤3.7 and writes the zero mode as u_0(r)=C0+C1r. It then asserts |v1(0)|=|C0|≤W0, with W0 the smaller bound on the interior curve α. From the stated boundary data alone, one can only conclude |C0|≤W and |C1|≤2W/m, since C0 is the value at the core of a linear harmonic function whose endpoint values may be as large as W. The interior bound |u|α≤W0 does not control C0 without an additional estimate for C1 and the radial position of α. This is load-bearing: Remark 5.21 uses the W0-bound to obtain the core estimate |u(γ)|≤2.8, and Lemma 5.22 and the definition of G(ℓ) depend on it, so the constants in Theorems 5.7, 5.14 and Theorem 1.2 inherit the gap. Please either justify an r-symmetry statement for u1 for general long tubes, or provide a separate bound for the zero mode.
[Lemmas 5.18 and 5.20] The boundary bound |u1|∂A≤W≤3.7 is the quantitative anchor of the Fourier estimates, and it is obtained from Lemma 5.18 via [Can01, Theorem 5.1]. The curves to which it is applied have h∞-lengths ℓ∞(α0)∈[2,2.5] and ℓ∞(α)=ε0≈1.76, while the quoted theorem is stated under a length <1 hypothesis. The footnote in Lemma 5.18 asserts that the length hypothesis is only needed for a linear bound, but this assertion is not substantiated and the numerical values W≤3.7, W0≤2.3 depend on the extrapolated values of b at x=2.5 and x=ε0. Since W appears in every Fourier bound in §5.4 and hence in the explicit constants 113π^2, 142π^4, and 18π^2 in Theorems 5.7, 5.14, 1.2, and 1.3, the quantitative form of the main results is not established as stated. Please either prove the required extension of Canary's bound or state the results with constants depending on an unspecified boundary bound.
[Abstract and Theorem 1.2] The abstract and the introductory statement of Theorem 1.2 claim |Fe(ℓ)|, |Fgr(ℓ)| ≤ C e^{-π^2/ℓ}/ℓ. The bounds actually proved in §5.2 and §5.3 contain terms 113π^2 e^{-π^2/(2ℓ)}/ℓ and 18π^2 e^{-π^2/(2ℓ)}/ℓ. Since e^{-π^2/(2ℓ)}/e^{-π^2/ℓ}=e^{π^2/(2ℓ)}→∞ as ℓ→0, no constant C independent of ℓ can absorb those terms. Thus the stated exponential rate is strictly stronger than the proof supports. Please correct the statements (probably to e^{-π^2/(2ℓ)}) or improve the estimates.

minor comments (5)

[Lemma 5.18] The line defining ℓ∞(αd) reads 'ℓ∞(αd) = ℓ cosh(L) = ℓ cosh(L−d)'; the first equality is inconsistent with the definition of αd and should be ℓ cosh(L−d).
[Lemma 5.18] The displayed formula for b(x) is typeset in a garbled way, with missing parentheses and unclear placement of ℓ∞(αd); as printed it is not readable enough to verify the numerical values used in Lemma 5.20.
[Lemma 2.2] The first equality of Lemma 2.2 is quoted from [GCS24, Lemma 5.1] without reproducing the argument; since the lemma is called 'key' and used repeatedly, a self-contained proof or a precise statement of the cited lemma would improve the paper.
[References] There are small typographical issues in the references, e.g. 'srojective structures' in [KM] and 'Menifolds' in [MT98]; these should be corrected.
[Figure 1] The caption of Figure 1 mentions id3, but the diagram and the surrounding decomposition only use id0, id1, id2; this is confusing and should be fixed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central estimates derive from external geometric bounds; only a minor, non-load-bearing self-citation appears.

full rationale

The paper's central claims (Theorems 1.1-1.4) are not circular. Theorem 1.1 is proved by comparing a general long tube to the explicitly computed symmetric tube via the conformal map F_l, with the discrepancy controlled by the Osgood-Stowe tensor and Fourier estimates on the flat conformal factor u_1; neither the model computation nor the error mechanism is defined in terms of the target Schwarzian asymptotics. Theorem 1.2 follows from Lemma 2.2 plus the independent estimates in Theorems 5.7 and 5.14, and Lemma 2.2 is a Stokes-type identity whose second half is proved in the text and whose first half is a standard computation (cited from [GCS24] but not load-bearing: it only converts pairings to boundary integrals and does not inject the desired conclusion). The explicit constants depend on the boundary bound W from Lemma 5.20, which rests on Canary's external theorem [Can01]; this is an external input and a possible correctness risk (e.g. the footnote extends Canary's bound beyond its stated length < 1 hypothesis), not a circularity. The paper also checks against independent benchmarks: the symmetric tube toy model, Gardiner's formula, McMullen's complex earthquakes, and the known Schlenker-Witten pinching asymptotics, which it recovers rather than assumes. No fitted parameters are renamed as predictions and no uniqueness theorem from the authors' prior work is invoked to force a choice.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard theorems in Teichmüller theory and hyperbolic geometry (uniformization, Bers embedding, collar lemma, McMullen's complex earthquakes, Gardiner's formula, Canary's convex core length bound, and KS08's differential of renormalized volume). No ad hoc parameters or entities are introduced. The constants W and W0 are derived bounds, not fitted values.

assumptions (8)

standard math Riemann uniformization and Bers embedding identify Teichmüller space with Beltrami and quadratic differentials.
Used throughout section 2 to define pairings and the vector bundle of projective structures.
standard math Collar lemma and Margulis tube estimates (Buser, Theorem 4.1.6).
Defines the thin tube T(ℓ) and controls injectivity radius, used in section 5.
standard math McMullen's theorem that the complex earthquake map is holomorphic and ν = iμ.
Used in Lemma 2.2 to derive the grafting pairing from the earthquake pairing.
standard math Gardiner's formula for the differential of hyperbolic length.
Used in Lemma 4.3 to relate dℓ to the pairing with dz^2/z^2.
standard math Canary's bound on lengths of curves on the convex core boundary (Can01, Theorem 5.1).
Load-bearing for the boundary bound on u1 in Lemma 5.20 and hence for the explicit constants W and W0.
standard math Krasnov-Schlenker theorem: dVR = Re⟨S(f), μ⟩.
Transfers Schwarzian estimates to renormalized volume in section 4.
standard math Diaz-Kim grafting length bounds (DK07, Proposition 3.4).
Used in Theorem 1.4 to convert error terms in ℓ_s to error terms in s.
domain assumption Tameness and deformation space parametrization CC(M) ≅ T(∂M)/T0(D).
Sets up the hyperbolic 3-manifold setting for compressible boundary.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Behaviour of the Schwarzian derivative on long complex projective tubes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2TZWE5GS

@misc{pith2026250210071,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Behaviour of the Schwarzian derivative on long complex projective tubes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2TZWE5GS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.10071}
}

read the original abstract

The Schwarzian derivative parametrizes the fibres of the space of complex projective structures on a surface as vector bundle over its Teichm\"uller space. We study its behaviour on long complex projective tubes, and get estimates for the pairing of its real part with infinitesimal earthquakes and graftings. As the real part of their Schwarzian coincides with the differential of the renormalized volume we obtain bounds for the variation of renormalized volume under complex earthquake paths, and its asymptotic behaviour under pinching a compressible curve.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.10071 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** The long tube in the universal covers with the respective metrics. Remark 5.3. If A is symmetric (as in Section 3), the domains in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages

[1]

Tameness of hyperbolic 3-manifolds

Ian Agol. Tameness of hyperbolic 3-manifolds . http://arxiv.org/abs/math/0405568 , 2004

arXiv 2004
[2]

Epstein surfaces, w -volume, and the osgood-stowe differential

Martin Bridgeman and Kenneth Bromberg. Epstein surfaces, w -volume, and the osgood-stowe differential. 2024

work page 2024
[3]

Schwarzian derivatives, projective structures, and the weil--petersson gradient flow for renormalized volume

Martin Bridgeman, Jeffrey Brock, and Kenneth Bromberg. Schwarzian derivatives, projective structures, and the weil--petersson gradient flow for renormalized volume. Duke Mathematical Journal , 168(5):867 -- 896, 2019

work page 2019
[4]

Schwarzian derivatives, projective structures, and the W eil- P etersson gradient flow for renormalized volume

Martin Bridgeman, Jeffrey Brock, and Kenneth Bromberg. Schwarzian derivatives, projective structures, and the W eil- P etersson gradient flow for renormalized volume. Duke Math. J. , 168(5):867--896, 2019

work page 2019
[5]

The W eil- P etersson gradient flow of renormalized volume and 3-dimensional convex cores

Martin Bridgeman, Jeffrey Brock, and Kenneth Bromberg. The W eil- P etersson gradient flow of renormalized volume and 3-dimensional convex cores. Geom. Topol. , 27(8):3183--3228, 2023

work page 2023
[6]

Convergence of the gradient flow of renormalized volume to convex cores with totally geodesic boundary

Martin Bridgeman, Kenneth Bromberg, and Franco Vargas Pallete. Convergence of the gradient flow of renormalized volume to convex cores with totally geodesic boundary. Compos. Math. , 159(4):830--859, 2023

work page 2023
[7]

Martin Bridgeman and Richard D. Canary. Renormalized volume and the volume of the convex core. Annales de l'Institut Fourier , 67(5):2083--2098, 2017

work page 2017
[8]

Einstein Manifolds

Arthur Besse. Einstein Manifolds . Springer, 1987

work page 1987

Show all 32 references

[9]

a user Classics. Birkh\

Peter Buser. Geometry and spectra of compact R iemann surfaces . Modern Birkh\" a user Classics. Birkh\" a user Boston, Ltd., Boston, MA, 2010. Reprint of the 1992 edition

2010
[10]

R. D. Canary. The conformal boundary and the boundary of the convex core . Duke Mathematical Journal , 106(1):193 -- 207, 2001

2001
[11]

Shrinkwrapping and the taming of hyperbolic 3-manifolds

Danny Calegary and David Gabai. Shrinkwrapping and the taming of hyperbolic 3-manifolds . Journal of American Mathematical Society , 19(2):385--446, 2006

2006
[12]

Asymptotic behavior of grafting rays

Raquel Diaz and Inkang Kim. Asymptotic behavior of grafting rays. 2007

2007
[13]

Complex projective structures

David Dumas. Complex projective structures. 13:455--508, 2008

2008
[14]

Projective structures, grafting and measured laminations

David Dumas and Michael Wolf. Projective structures, grafting and measured laminations . Geometry & Topology , 12(1):351 -- 386, 2008

2008
[15]

Primer on Mapping Class Groups

Benson Farb and Dan Margalit. Primer on Mapping Class Groups . Princeton Mathematical Series , 2011

2011
[16]

Gardiner

Frederick P. Gardiner. Schiffer's interior variation and quasiconformal mapping. Duke Math. J. , 42(1):371--380, 1975

1975
[17]

Quasiconformal Teichm\"uller Theory , volume 76 of Mathematical Surveys and Monographs

Nikola Gardiner, Frederick P.; Lakic. Quasiconformal Teichm\"uller Theory , volume 76 of Mathematical Surveys and Monographs . American Mathematical Society, first edition, 2000

2000
[19]

Sebastian W. Hensel. Iterated grafting and holonomy lifts of teichmueller space, 2008

2008
[20]

Teichm \"u ller theory and applications to geometry, topology, and dynamics , volume 1-2

John H Hubbard. Teichm \"u ller theory and applications to geometry, topology, and dynamics , volume 1-2. Matrix Editions, 2016

2016
[21]

Kra and B

I. Kra and B. Maskit. Remarks on srojective structures: Riemann Surfaces and Related Topics
[22]

On the renormalized volume of hyperbolic 3-manifolds

Kirill Krasnov and Jean-Marc Schlenker. On the renormalized volume of hyperbolic 3-manifolds. Communications in Mathematical Physics , (279):637--668, 2008

2008
[23]

Hyperbolic Manifolds: An introduction in 2 and 3 dimensions

Albert Marden. Hyperbolic Manifolds: An introduction in 2 and 3 dimensions . Cambridge University Press , 2016

2016
[24]

An introduction to geometric topology

Bruno Martelli. An introduction to geometric topology . arXiv:1610.02592v1 , 2016

2016 arXiv
[25]

Complex earthquakes and teichm\"uller theory

Curt McMullen. Complex earthquakes and teichm\"uller theory. Journal of the American Mathematical Society , 11:283--320, 1998

1998
[26]

Hyperbolic Menifolds and Kleinian Groups

Katsuhiko Matsuzaki and Masahiko Taniguchi. Hyperbolic Menifolds and Kleinian Groups . Oxford University Press , 1998

1998
[27]

The schwarzian derivative and schlicht functions

Zeev Nehari. The schwarzian derivative and schlicht functions. Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. , 55:545--551, 1949

1949
[28]

The schwarzian derivative and conformal mapping of riemannian manifolds

Brad Osgood and Dennis Stowe. The schwarzian derivative and conformal mapping of riemannian manifolds. Duke Mathematical Journal , 67(1):57 -- 99, 1992

1992
[29]

Continuity of the renormalized volume under geometric limits

Franco Vargas Pallete. Continuity of the renormalized volume under geometric limits. arXiv:1605.07986, 2016

2016 arXiv
[30]

Hypersurfaces in H n and the space of its horospheres

Jean-Marc Schlenker. Hypersurfaces in H n and the space of its horospheres. Geom. Funct. Anal. , 12(2):395--435, 2002

2002
[31]

The renormalized volume and the volume of the convex core of quasifuchsian manifolds

Jean-Marc Schlenker. The renormalized volume and the volume of the convex core of quasifuchsian manifolds. Math. Res. Lett. , 20(4):773--786, 2013. Corrected version available as arXiv:1109.6663v4

2013 arXiv
[32]

Notes on the Schwarzian tensor and measured foliations at infinity of quasifuchsian manifolds

Jean-Marc Schlenker . Notes on the Schwarzian tensor and measured foliations at infinity of quasifuchsian manifolds . ArXiv e-prints , August 2017

2017
[33]

No ensemble averaging below the black hole threshold

Jean-Marc Schlenker and Edward Witten. No ensemble averaging below the black hole threshold. J. High Energy Phys. , (7):Paper No. 143, 50, 2022

2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Tameness of hyperbolic 3-manifolds

Ian Agol. Tameness of hyperbolic 3-manifolds . http://arxiv.org/abs/math/0405568 , 2004

arXiv 2004

[2] [2]

Epstein surfaces, w -volume, and the osgood-stowe differential

Martin Bridgeman and Kenneth Bromberg. Epstein surfaces, w -volume, and the osgood-stowe differential. 2024

work page 2024

[3] [3]

Schwarzian derivatives, projective structures, and the weil--petersson gradient flow for renormalized volume

Martin Bridgeman, Jeffrey Brock, and Kenneth Bromberg. Schwarzian derivatives, projective structures, and the weil--petersson gradient flow for renormalized volume. Duke Mathematical Journal , 168(5):867 -- 896, 2019

work page 2019

[4] [4]

Schwarzian derivatives, projective structures, and the W eil- P etersson gradient flow for renormalized volume

Martin Bridgeman, Jeffrey Brock, and Kenneth Bromberg. Schwarzian derivatives, projective structures, and the W eil- P etersson gradient flow for renormalized volume. Duke Math. J. , 168(5):867--896, 2019

work page 2019

[5] [5]

The W eil- P etersson gradient flow of renormalized volume and 3-dimensional convex cores

Martin Bridgeman, Jeffrey Brock, and Kenneth Bromberg. The W eil- P etersson gradient flow of renormalized volume and 3-dimensional convex cores. Geom. Topol. , 27(8):3183--3228, 2023

work page 2023

[6] [6]

Convergence of the gradient flow of renormalized volume to convex cores with totally geodesic boundary

Martin Bridgeman, Kenneth Bromberg, and Franco Vargas Pallete. Convergence of the gradient flow of renormalized volume to convex cores with totally geodesic boundary. Compos. Math. , 159(4):830--859, 2023

work page 2023

[7] [7]

Martin Bridgeman and Richard D. Canary. Renormalized volume and the volume of the convex core. Annales de l'Institut Fourier , 67(5):2083--2098, 2017

work page 2017

[8] [8]

Einstein Manifolds

Arthur Besse. Einstein Manifolds . Springer, 1987

work page 1987