Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Introduction to moduli spaces and Dirac geometry

T0 review · 2 major / 4 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 Every flat-bundle moduli space over a surface with boundary carries a canonical 2-form, constructed by cutting the surface into polygons and gluing the local forms together.

desk verdict A clean, well-attributed survey of known quasi-Hamiltonian constructions on moduli spaces, but the advertised Dirac-geometric proof of minimal degeneracy has a real transversality gap. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.04150 v1 pith:LIEUW2AN submitted 2025-06-04 math.DG

Eckhard Meinrenken This is my paper
classification math.DG MSC 53D1753D20
keywords modulispacesofflatbundlesquasi-HamiltoniangeometryDiracstructuresCartan3-formfundamentalgroupoidGoldmanflowsgluingpatternsquasi-symplecticgroupoids
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

This paper establishes a finite-dimensional, gluing-based construction of a canonical 2-form $\omega$ on the moduli space $\mathcal{M}_G(\Sigma,V)$ of flat $G$-bundles over a compact oriented surface $\Sigma$ with boundary, with base points $V$ meeting every boundary component, where $G$ is a Lie group whose Lie algebra carries an invariant metric. The form is assembled by cutting $\Sigma$ into polygons, writing an explicit form on each polygon as a product of edge holonomies, and gluing the pieces back: the result is independent of the cutting and is invariant under the $G^V$-action and the mapping class group. The form is not closed in general; its differential equals minus the sum of the pullbacks of the Cartan 3-form $\eta$ under the boundary holonomies, and its contractions with the generators of the $G^V$-action are described explicitly. When all base points lie on the boundary, the minimal degeneracy condition $\ker(\omega)\cap\ker(T\Phi)=\{0\}$ holds for the boundary-holonomy map $\Phi$, a property proved through Dirac geometry. The payoff is that the Atiyah-Bott symplectic structure on closed surfaces and the Goldman flows on surfaces with boundary both emerge from one cut-and-paste recipe.

What carries the argument

The carrying identity is the cocycle relation for the Cartan 3-form $\eta=\frac1{12}\theta_L\cdot[\theta_L,\theta_L]$ together with $\beta=\frac12\mathrm{pr}_1^*\theta_L\cdot\mathrm{pr}_2^*\theta_R$: these satisfy $d\eta=0$, $d\beta=\delta\eta$, $\delta\beta=0$, so $\eta+\beta$ is a closed element of total degree 4 in the Bott-Shulman double complex. On any manifold $M$, forms valued in $G$ pair with ordinary 2-forms through the group product $(\Phi_1,\omega_1)\bullet(\Phi_2,\omega_2)=(\Phi_1\Phi_2,\omega_1+\omega_2-(\Phi_1,\Phi_2)^*\beta)$, and the map $(\Phi,\omega)\mapsto d\omega-\Phi^*\eta$ is a group homomorphism; this product is what packages the polygon gluing into the formula $(e,\omega)=(g_1,0)\bullet\cdots\bullet(g_n,0)$. For the minimal degeneracy, the key object is the Dirac structure $A=G^E\times\mathfrak{g}^V$ on $G^E$: the boundary holonomies $\Phi$ together with the 2-form $\omega$ form a Dirac morphism, and the Cross Section Theorem for Dirac structures converts a cut surface into a Hamiltonian space for this structure, which yields $\ker(\omega)\cap\ker(T\Phi)=\{0\}$.

What would settle it

For the once-punctured torus with one boundary vertex and $G=\mathrm{SU}(2)$, evaluate the gluing-diagram formula (15)-(19) at the trivial homomorphism $\kappa=(e,e)\in\mathcal{M}_G(\Sigma,V)\cong G^2$: at this point $T\Phi=0$, so Theorem 4.1(c) forces $\omega$ to be nondegenerate on the full six-dimensional tangent space, and checking whether the computed bilinear form is nondegenerate there would settle the minimal degeneracy claim in this case.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim, Theorem 4.1, is that for every pair $(\Sigma,V)$ satisfying the boundary assumptions there is a canonically defined 2-form $\omega\in\Omega^2(\mathcal{M}_G(\Sigma,V))$ with three properties: (a) $d\omega=-\sum_{e\in E}\Phi_e^*\eta$, where $\Phi_e$ are the boundary holonomies and $\eta$ the Cartan 3-form; (b) $\iota(\xi_{\mathcal{M}_G})\omega=-\frac12\sum_e\Phi_e^*(\theta_R\cdot\xi_{t(e)}+\theta_L\cdot\xi_{s(e)})$ for $\xi\in\mathfrak{g}^V$, with $\theta_L,\theta_R$ the Maurer-Cartan forms; and (c) when $V\subseteq\partial\Sigma$, minimal degeneracy $\ker(\omega)\cap\ker(T\Phi)=\{0\}$. The construction first produces $\omega$ on an $n$-gon by the product formula $(e,\omega)=(g_1,0)\bullet\cdots\bullet(g_n,0)$ in the group structure on $C^\infty(\mathcal{M},G)\times\Omega^2(\mathcal{M})$ of Proposition 4.7, then presents any surface as a quotient of polygons by a gluing pattern and pulls back the sum of the polygon forms; Proposition 4.14 shows the result is independent of the gluing pattern. Property (c) is then proved in Section 8 by showing that the boundary holonomies make $\mathcal{M}_G(\Sigma,V)$ a Hamiltonian space for a Dirac structure on $G^E$ and applying the Cross Section Theorem to the cut surface.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is the Dirac-geometric Cross Section Theorem that the paper imports from its companion work without proof; the demonstration that $\ker(\omega)\cap\ker(T\Phi)=\{0\}$ depends on applying that theorem to a cut surface, and if the theorem were false the minimal degeneracy property would be unproved.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Quotienting $\Phi^{-1}(e)$ by $G$ after capping off a disk recovers the Atiyah-Bott symplectic structure on the moduli space of a closed surface, so the gluing construction reproduces the classical symplectic geometry of flat bundles.
  • Every $G^V$-invariant smooth function on $\mathcal{M}_G(\Sigma,V)$ has a unique Hamiltonian vector field that is tangent to the level sets of $\Phi$, giving the quotient $\mathcal{M}_G(\Sigma)=\mathcal{M}_G(\Sigma,V)/G^V$ a (possibly singular) Poisson structure.
  • For a simple interior loop $\alpha$ and an invariant function $\varphi$ on $G$, the Hamiltonian flow acts on each holonomy by inserting factors $\exp(\pm t\,\dot\varphi(\operatorname{holonomy}))$ ordered by the intersection points, which gives the Goldman flows.
  • When all vertices lie on the boundary, the preimage under $\Phi$ of a product of pairwise transverse Lagrangian subgroups $H_e\subseteq G$ is a symplectic submanifold of $\mathcal{M}_G(\Sigma,V)$, establishing the Lagrangian boundary conditions of Proposition 5.9.
  • The moduli space of the cylinder with vertices $V\times\partial I$ is a quasi-symplectic groupoid, and every surface moduli space with boundary vertices is a Hamiltonian space for this groupoid through its boundary holonomies.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the 2-form is assembled by gluing polygons, the construction looks like a cocycle for a 2-dimensional cobordism category; a natural next step would be to formalize it as a topological field theory whose values are quasi-Hamiltonian or quasi-symplectic-groupoid data.
  • The minimal-degeneracy proof leans on an imported cross-section theorem, so a direct verification of formula (11) for concrete groups such as SU(2) on the once-punctured torus would make the argument self-contained without relying on the external theorem.
  • The Hamiltonian-vector-field formalism on boundary surfaces suggests a unified proof of the Goldman bracket that includes the boundary case directly, rather than treating closed surfaces by reduction as the paper does.
  • Since the cylinder moduli space acts as the identity under reduction, iterated gluings of cylinders along boundary components should generate the 2-form on any surface, hinting at a recursive presentation of $\omega$.
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.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops a finite-dimensional, cutting-and-gluing construction of the quasi-symplectic 2-form on moduli spaces M_G(Σ,V) of flat G-bundles with framings at a vertex set V, for surfaces with boundary. The main object is Theorem 4.1, which states that for a Lie group G with invariant metric and a surface satisfying (A1)–(A2), there is a canonically defined 2-form ω with the differential identity (a), the momentum-map identity (b), and, under (A3), the minimal degeneracy property (c). The construction is carried out by reducing to polygons via gluing patterns and using Sevara's product on C^∞(M,G)×Ω^2(M). The paper also computes Goldman flows, constructs the cylinder quasi-symplectic groupoid, and develops Dirac-geometric tools, including Dirac morphisms and a cross-section theorem, to prove minimal degeneracy and Lagrangian boundary conditions. The central theorem is stated as known from [4,36], and the paper aims to provide a self-contained exposition and proof of it.

Significance. If the Dirac-geometric proof is repaired, this would be a valuable synthesis: the 2-form construction via Sevara's product is explicit and elegant, the gluing-independence argument is mostly self-contained, and the paper gives concrete formulas for the cylinder, orbit 2-forms, and Goldman flows, together with many exercises. The paper is also honest about which results are imported from the literature. However, the proof of the minimal degeneracy property (c) rests on a false transversality assertion, so the Dirac-geometric part is not currently reliable. The theorem itself is standard, so the gap is repairable, but the present manuscript does not supply a correct proof of one of its central claims.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 8.7, before Lemma 8.9] The proof of Proposition 8.8 uses the claim 'G^{bV}·Q=G^{bE}' to conclude that the anchor of bA is transverse to Q. This claim is false. For example, let Σ be a disk cut along a diagonal AC into two triangles ABC and ACD. The paired edges are e:A→C in the first triangle and e':C→A in the second, and Q⊆G^{bE} is defined by g_{e'}=g_e^{-1}. For any h∈G^{bV}, the transformed pair satisfies (h·g)_{e'} = h_A g_e^{-1} h_C^{-1} = ((h·g)_e)^{-1}, so Q is invariant under G^{bV}. Thus G^{bV}·Q=Q, which is a proper subset of G^{bE}; for instance, a tuple with g_{e'}≠g_e^{-1} is not in the orbit. Consequently, the anchor image lies inside T_qQ for q∈Q, Q is not transverse to the anchor, and the Cross Section Theorem (Prop. 8.7) cannot be applied. The Dirac morphism (39) and the subsequent derivation of property (c) of Theorem 4.1 therefore collapse. This is a load-bearing gap; the text must either supply a corrected argument or explicitly cite [4,36] for the minimal degeneracy property.
  2. [Section 8.7 and consequences] Because property (c) of Theorem 4.1 is also used to justify Proposition 8.2 and Proposition 8.3, the Hamiltonian vector-field results of Theorem 6.1 and the quasi-symplectic groupoid property of Theorem 7.4 are left unsupported unless minimal degeneracy is established by another route. The paper should clarify which statements are proved by the present Dirac-geometric argument and which remain dependent on the cited literature.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 2, displayed equation for Maurer-Cartan elements] The displayed equation contains a typographical duplication: 'dA+ 1/2 [A,A] = 0 = 0' should have a single '=0'.
  2. [Section 8.1, Jacobi identity] The displayed Jacobi identity for the Courant bracket has malformed bracket notation: '[ [σ1,[ [σ2, σ3] ]] ] = [ [[ [σ1, σ2, σ3] ]] ] + ...' is difficult to parse and should be typeset consistently.
  3. [Section 8.8] In the Lagrangian boundary condition computation, the condition ξ_{s(e)} + Ad_{h_e} ξ_{t(e)} ∈ h_e appears to have the wrong adjoint: since θ^R = Ad_g θ^L, the computation should give ξ_{s(e)} + Ad_{h_e^{-1}} ξ_{t(e)} ∈ h_e under the stated conventions. Please check the sign.
  4. [Section 4.4] The independence of the 2-form from the choice of gluing pattern relies on the assertion, cited from [50, Problem 1.3.12], that any two gluing patterns are related by iterated cuts and gluings. A brief statement of this standard fact would improve self-containedness.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No material circularity: the 2-form is constructed from gluing diagrams and the Cartan 3-form, and the cited Dirac-geometric cross-section theorem is independent support rather than a disguised restatement.

full rationale

The paper's central claim, Theorem 4.1, is a construction: the 2-form ω is defined in §4.4 as the pullback of a sum of polygon 2-forms through the gluing-pattern embedding (18)-(19). Properties (a) and (b) are verified in the proof of Proposition 4.14 by direct computation with the Severa product and the identities Inv^* η = -η and Inv^*(θ_R·ξ' + θ_L·ξ) = -θ_R·ξ - θ_L·ξ'. Independence of the gluing pattern is shown by checking that cutting a polygon along a diagonal inserts (c,0)•(c^{-1},0)=(e,0), yielding bω(k)=bω(k)_1+bω(k)_2. These steps compute the properties from the definition; they do not presuppose them. Property (c) is not derived from (a),(b) by a circular argument, but is proved in §8.7 using the Dirac-geometric Cross Section Theorem (Prop. 8.7), whose precise statement and proof are cited to [41, Thm. B.7]. That citation is to the author's own prior work, but it supplies a general theorem about Dirac morphisms and transversality whose assumptions do not include the moduli 2-form or its minimal degeneracy; it is therefore independent mathematical support rather than a self-referential restatement. I find no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction, no definition of the target quantity in terms of itself, and no uniqueness claim whose only justification is the authors' prior result. The unproved transversality assertion G^{bV}·Q=G^{bE} in §8.7 is a potential gap in the proof as written, but a proof gap is a correctness risk, not a circularity. Overall, the derivation is self-contained against external benchmarks and the modest self-citation does not make the argument circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard differential-geometric background: invariant metrics on Lie algebras, retraction of surfaces with boundary onto graphs, and a cross-section theorem for Dirac morphisms. There are no fitted parameters and no newly hypothesized entities; the assumptions are explicit in the paper's standing hypotheses (A1),(A2),(A3).

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The Lie algebra g carries an Ad-invariant nondegenerate symmetric bilinear form (metric)
    Invoked in Section 4 to define the Cartan 3-form η and the 2-form ω; this is a standing assumption of the paper, not proved.
  • standard math Every compact oriented surface with boundary satisfying (A1),(A2) retracts onto a graph with vertex set V and #E = #V - χ(Σ) edges
    Used in Section 3.2 to identify M_G(Σ,V) as a product of copies of G (Proposition 3.4), with proof sketched via pictures and exercises.
  • standard math Any two gluing patterns for (Σ,V) are related by iterated cuttings and gluings along diagonals
    Used in the proof of Proposition 4.14 (independence of gluing pattern), cited to Thurston [50, Problem 1.3.12] rather than proved.
  • standard math Cross Section Theorem for Dirac morphisms (Proposition 8.7)
    Imported from Meinrenken-Tawfik [41, Theorem B.7]; used to prove minimal degeneracy and the Lagrangian boundary conditions in Section 8.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Introduction to moduli spaces and Dirac geometry." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LIEUW2AN

@misc{pith2026250604150,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Introduction to moduli spaces and Dirac geometry},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LIEUW2AN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.04150}
}
abstract

Let $G$ be a Lie group, with an invariant metric on its Lie algebra $\mathfrak{g}$. Given a surface $\Sigma$ with boundary, and a collection of base points $\mathcal{V}\subset \Sigma$ meeting every boundary component, the moduli space (representation variety) $\mathcal{M}_G(\Sigma,\mathcal{V})$ carries a distinguished `quasi-symplectic' 2-form. We shall explain the finite-dimensional construction of this 2-form and discuss its basic properties, using quasi-Hamiltonian techniques and Dirac geometry. This article is an extended version of lectures given at the summer school 'Poisson 2024' at the Accademia Pontaniana in Napoli, July 2024.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. The reduced Dirac structure of General Relativity on manifolds with corners

    math-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    The reduced corner phase space of Palatini–Cartan gravity is a Dirac structure—the graph of a Poisson bivector—yielding a strict BF2V theory.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 53 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Ahlfors,Some remarks on Teichm¨ uller’s space of Riemann surfaces, Ann

    L. Ahlfors,Some remarks on Teichm¨ uller’s space of Riemann surfaces, Ann. of Math. (2)74(1961), 171–

    work page 1961

  2. [2]

    Alekseev, H

    A. Alekseev, H. Bursztyn, and E. Meinrenken,Pure spinors on Lie groups, Ast´ erisque327(2009), 131–199

    work page 2009

  3. [3]

    Alekseev, Y

    A. Alekseev, Y. Kosmann-Schwarzbach, and E. Meinrenken,Quasi-Poisson manifolds, Canad. J. Math.54 (2002), no. 1, 3–29

    work page 2002

  4. [4]

    Alekseev, A

    A. Alekseev, A. Malkin, and E. Meinrenken,Lie group valued moment maps, J. Differential Geom.48 (1998), no. 3, 445–495

    work page 1998

  5. [5]

    Alekseev and E

    A. Alekseev and E. Meinrenken,On the coadjoint Virasoro action, Journal of Geometry and Physics195 (2024), 105029

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    ´Alvarez,Poisson groupoids and moduli spaces of flat bundles over surfaces, Adv

    D. ´Alvarez,Poisson groupoids and moduli spaces of flat bundles over surfaces, Adv. Math.440(2024), Paper no. 109523

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    ,Transitive Courant algebroids and double symplectic groupoids, Int. Math. Res. Not. IMRN (2024), no. 9, 7526–7551. MR 4742833

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Androulidakis and G

    I. Androulidakis and G. Skandalis,The holonomy groupoid of a singular foliation, J. Reine Angew. Math. 626(2009), 1–37

    work page 2009

Show all 53 references
  1. [9]

    M. F. Atiyah and R. Bott,The Yang-Mills equations over Riemann surfaces, Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. London Ser. A308(1982), 523–615

    1982

  2. [10]

    Balibanu and M

    A. Balibanu and M. Mayrand,Reduction along strong Dirac maps, Preprint, arXiv 2210.07200

    arXiv

  3. [11]

    Boalch,Quasi-Hamiltonian Geometry of Meromorphic Connections, Duke Math

    P. Boalch,Quasi-Hamiltonian Geometry of Meromorphic Connections, Duke Math. J.139(2007), 369–405

    2007

  4. [12]

    ,Through the analytic Halo: fission via irregular singularities, Ann. Inst. Fourier (Grenoble)59 (2009), no. 7, 2669–2684. MR 2649336

    2009

  5. [13]

    Bott,On the Chern-Weil homomorphism and the continuous cohomology of Lie-groups, Advances in Math.11(1973), 289–303

    R. Bott,On the Chern-Weil homomorphism and the continuous cohomology of Lie-groups, Advances in Math.11(1973), 289–303. MR 345115

    1973

  6. [14]

    Burger, A

    M. Burger, A. Iozzi, and A. Wienhard,Higher Teichm¨ uller spaces: fromSL(2,R)to other Lie groups, Handbook of Teichm¨ uller theory. Vol. IV, IRMA Lect. Math. Theor. Phys., vol. 19, Eur. Math. Soc., Z¨ urich, 2014, pp. 539–618. MR 3289711 INTRODUCTION TO MODULI SPACES AND DIRAC...

    2014

  7. [15]

    Bursztyn and M

    H. Bursztyn and M. Crainic,Dirac structures, momentum maps, and quasi-Poisson manifolds, The breadth of symplectic and Poisson geometry, Progr. Math., vol. 232, Birkh¨ auser Boston, Boston, MA, 2005, pp. 1–40

    2005

  8. [16]

    Bursztyn, M

    H. Bursztyn, M. Crainic, A. Weinstein, and C. Zhu,Integration of twisted Dirac brackets, Duke Math. J. 123(2004), no. 3, 549–607

    2004

  9. [17]

    Bursztyn, D

    H. Bursztyn, D. Iglesias Ponte, and P. Severa,Courant morphisms and moment maps, Math. Res. Lett.16 (2009), no. 2, 215–232

    2009

  10. [18]

    Choi and W

    S. Choi and W. Goldman,Convex real projective structures on closed surfaces are closed, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc.118(1993), no. 2, 657–661

    1993

  11. [19]

    Courant,Dirac manifolds, Trans

    T. Courant,Dirac manifolds, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.319(1990), no. 2, 631–661

    1990

  12. [20]

    Courant and A

    T. Courant and A. Weinstein,Beyond Poisson structures, Action hamiltoniennes de groupes. Troisi` eme th´ eor` eme de Lie (Lyon, 1986), Travaux en Cours, vol. 27, Hermann, Paris, 1988, pp. 39–49

    1986

  13. [21]

    Crainic, R

    M. Crainic, R. Fernandes, and I. Marcut,Lectures on Poisson geometry, Graduate Studies in Mathematics, vol. 217, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, [2021]©2021

    2021

  14. [22]

    Crooks and M

    P. Crooks and M. R¨ oser,The log symplectic geometry of Poisson slices, J. Symplectic Geom.20(2022), no. 1, 135–189

    2022

  15. [23]

    V. G. Drinfel ′d,Quasi-Hopf algebras, Algebra i Analiz1(1989), no. 6, 114–148

    1989

  16. [24]

    Farb and D

    B. Farb and D. Margalit,A primer on mapping class groups, Princeton Mathematical Series, vol. 49, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 2012

    2012

  17. [25]

    Fock and A

    V. Fock and A. Goncharov,Moduli spaces of local systems and higher Teichm¨ uller theory, Publ. Math. Inst. Hautes ´Etudes Sci. (2006), no. 103, 1–211

    2006

  18. [26]

    W. M. Goldman,The symplectic nature of fundamental groups of surfaces, Adv. in Math.54(1984), no. 2, 200–225

    1984

  19. [27]

    Math.85(1986), no

    ,Invariant functions on Lie groups and Hamiltonian flows of surface group representations, Invent. Math.85(1986), no. 2, 263–302

    1986

  20. [28]

    Math.93(1988), no

    ,Topological components of spaces of representations, Invent. Math.93(1988), no. 3, 557–607

    1988

  21. [29]

    Guillemin and S

    V. Guillemin and S. Sternberg,Symplectic techniques in physics, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1990

    1990

  22. [30]

    Guruprasad, J

    K. Guruprasad, J. Huebschmann, L. Jeffrey, and A. Weinstein,Group systems, groupoids, and moduli spaces of parabolic bundles, Duke Math. J.89(1997), no. 2, 377–412

    1997

  23. [31]

    N. J. Hitchin,The self-duality equations on a Riemann surface, Proc. London Math. Soc. (3)55(1987), no. 1, 59–126

    1987

  24. [32]

    3, 449–473

    ,Lie groups and Teichm¨ uller space, Topology31(1992), no. 3, 449–473

    1992

  25. [33]

    Jeffrey,Group cohomology construction of the cohomology of moduli spaces of flat connections on2- manifolds, Duke Math

    L. Jeffrey,Group cohomology construction of the cohomology of moduli spaces of flat connections on2- manifolds, Duke Math. J.77(1995), 407–429

    1995

  26. [34]

    Karshon,An algebraic proof for the symplectic structure of moduli space, Proc

    Y. Karshon,An algebraic proof for the symplectic structure of moduli space, Proc. AMS.116(1992), 591– 605

    1992

  27. [35]

    Li-Bland and E

    D. Li-Bland and E. Meinrenken,On the integration of manin pairs, Differential Geometry and its Applica- tions99(2025), 102246

    2025

  28. [36]

    Li-Bland and P

    D. Li-Bland and P. ˇSevera,Moduli spaces for quilted surfaces and Poisson structures, Doc. Math.20(2015), 1071–1135

    2015

  29. [37]

    ,Symplectic and Poisson geometry of the moduli spaces of flat connections over quilted surfaces, Mathematical aspects of quantum field theories, Math. Phys. Stud., Springer, Cham, 2015, pp. 343–411

    2015

  30. [38]

    Lu and A

    J.-H. Lu and A. Weinstein,Groupo ¨ ıdes symplectiques doubles des groupes de Lie-Poisson, C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris S´ er. I Math.309(1989), no. 18, 951–954

    1989

  31. [39]

    Mackenzie,General theory of Lie groupoids and Lie algebroids, London Mathematical Society Lecture Note Series, vol

    K. Mackenzie,General theory of Lie groupoids and Lie algebroids, London Mathematical Society Lecture Note Series, vol. 213, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2005

    2005

  32. [40]

    Massuyeau and V

    G. Massuyeau and V. Turaev,Quasi-Poisson structures on representation spaces of surfaces, Int. Math. Res. Not. IMRN (2014), no. 1, 1–64

    2014

  33. [41]

    Meinrenken and S

    E. Meinrenken and S. Tawfik,Moment maps and Manin pairs revisited, 2024, arxiv:2404.17518

    2024 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Meinrenken and C

    E. Meinrenken and C. Woodward,Hamiltonian loop group actions and Verlinde factorization, J. Differential Geom.50(1999), 417–470

    1999

  35. [43]

    Mikami and A

    K. Mikami and A. Weinstein,Moments and reduction for symplectic groupoids, Publ. Res. Inst. Math. Sci. 24(1988), no. 1, 121–140

    1988

  36. [44]

    Milnor,On the existence of a connection with curvature zero, Comment

    J. Milnor,On the existence of a connection with curvature zero, Comment. Math. Helv.32(1958), 215–223. 50 ECKHARD MEINRENKEN

    1958

  37. [45]

    M. S. Narasimhan,Geometry of moduli spaces of vector bundles, Actes du Congr` es International des Math´ ematiciens (Nice, 1970), Tome 2, Gauthier-Villars´Editeur, Paris, 1971, pp. 199–201

    1970

  38. [46]

    M. S. Narasimhan and C. S. Seshadri,Stable bundles and unitary bundles on a compact Riemann surface, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.52(1964), 207–211

    1964

  39. [47]

    Polyakov and P.B

    A.M. Polyakov and P.B. Wiegmann,Goldstone fields in two-dimensions with multivalued actions,141B, 223–228

  40. [48]

    ˇSevera,Moduli spaces of flat connections and Morita equivalence of quantum tori, Doc

    P. ˇSevera,Moduli spaces of flat connections and Morita equivalence of quantum tori, Doc. Math.17(2012), 607–625

    2012

  41. [49]

    Sjamaar,Singular orbit spaces in Riemannian and symplectic geometry, Ph.D

    R. Sjamaar,Singular orbit spaces in Riemannian and symplectic geometry, Ph.D. thesis, Rijksuniversiteit te Utrecht, 1990

    1990

  42. [50]

    Thurston,Three-dimensional geometry and topology

    W. Thurston,Three-dimensional geometry and topology. Vol. 1, Princeton Mathematical Series, vol. 35, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1997, Edited by Silvio Levy

    1997

  43. [51]

    Weinstein,The symplectic structure on moduli space, The Floer memorial volume, Progr

    A. Weinstein,The symplectic structure on moduli space, The Floer memorial volume, Progr. Math., vol. 133, Birkh¨ auser, Basel, 1995, pp. 627–635

    1995

  44. [52]

    Wood,Bundles with totally disconnected structure group, Comment

    J. Wood,Bundles with totally disconnected structure group, Comment. Math. Helv.46(1971), 257–273

    1971

  45. [53]

    Xu,Momentum maps and Morita equivalence, J

    P. Xu,Momentum maps and Morita equivalence, J. Differential Geom.67(2004), no. 2, 289–333

    2004

Pith tools

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