Quantitative finiteness of hyperplanes in hybrid manifolds

Anthony Sanchez; Ko W. Ohm

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 40 references

Quantitative finiteness of hyperplanes in hybrid manifolds

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 The paper proves an explicit upper bound on the number of codimension-one totally geodesic hyperplanes in non-arithmetic hyperbolic manifolds obtained from the Gromov–Piatetski-Shapiro gluing construction, for every dimension $n \ge 3$.

desk verdict Genuinely new quantitative finiteness theorem for hybrid hyperbolic manifolds, but the main input is stated one way and used another; the proof needs frame-flow decay on G/Γ, not just geodesic-flow decay on T^1M, and that assumption is not secured for non-compact lattices. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.14478 v1 pith:BR262NRF submitted 2025-06-17 math.DS math.GT

Ko W. Ohm , Anthony Sanchez This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.DSmath.GT MSC 22F3037D4022E40

keywords hyperbolicmanifoldstotallygeodesichyperplanesnon-arithmeticlatticesGromov–Piatetski-ShapirohybridshomogeneousdynamicseffectiveequidistributionMargulisfunctionsrestrictedprojection

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper proves a quantitative finiteness theorem for non-arithmetic hyperbolic $n$-manifolds built by the Gromov–Piatetski-Shapiro gluing construction, for all $n \ge 3$. It bounds the number of codimension-one totally geodesic hyperplanes by an explicit expression involving the volume of the manifold, the volume of the gluing hypersurface, the decay-of-correlations rate of the geodesic flow, and a Margulis-type injectivity constant. The result turns a qualitative finiteness statement, previously known through superrigidity, into an effective bound, extending a dimension-three bound to every higher dimension. The proof's engine is a new effective density theorem: every closed orbit of the subgroup $\mathrm{SO}(n-1,1)$ acting on the frame bundle of the manifold is polynomially dense in the ambient space at scales set by its volume. A sympathetic reader should care because the paper gives a quantitative version of the expectation that non-arithmetic hyperbolic manifolds admit only finitely many totally geodesic hyperplanes.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by three objects. First, the Margulis function $f_Y$ attached to a closed $H$-orbit $Y$, a sum over nearby transverse directions $\mathfrak{r} = \mathrm{Lie}(H)^\perp$ of inverse distances along the orbit; its integral is bounded by a constant times $\operatorname{vol}(Y)$, and a pigeonhole argument extracts a finite set $F \subset \mathfrak{r}$ of coarse dimension nearly one with $\exp(F)y_0 \subset Y$. Second, a restricted projection theorem (Theorem 1.3, proved more generally as Theorem 8.1) projects this coarse dimension into the single expanding direction of the horospherical subgroup, reducing the analysis to a nearly-full-dimensional measure on a one-dimensional fiber. Third, an effective equidistribution theorem (Theorem 1.4, proved in a general form as Theorem 11.1) for expanding translates of measures on the horospherical subgroup that are nearly full dimensional supplies the polynomial density claim. Angular rigidity of the hybrid construction, imported from the earlier rigidity result, is the geometric input that converts density into the hyperplane count.

What would settle it

Determine, for an explicit Gromov–Piatetski-Shapiro hybrid in dimension four or higher, whether any codimension-one totally geodesic submanifold crosses the gluing hypersurface at a nonzero angle; the existence of such a crossing would violate the angular rigidity premise that Theorem 1.1 depends on. Alternatively, enumerate the closed $\mathrm{SO}(n-1,1)$-orbits of volume below the threshold appearing in the proof of Theorem 1.1 for a small explicit example and compare the resulting hyperplane count with the bound; exceeding the bound would refute the theorem.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is Theorem 1.1: if $M$ is a non-arithmetic hyperbolic $n$-manifold obtained by gluing two non-commensurable arithmetic pieces along isometric totally geodesic boundary, then the number of totally geodesic hyperplanes of codimension one in $M$ is at most $L(\operatorname{vol}_{n-1}(\Sigma)\, \operatorname{vol}_n(M)\, \eta_X^{-1}\, \kappa_X^{-1})^{L/\kappa_1}$, with $L = L(n)$, $\kappa_1 = O(\kappa_X^2)$, $\kappa_X$ the rate of decay of correlations of the geodesic flow on $M$, and $\eta_X$ a Margulis-type constant. The bound is obtained by lifting each hyperplane to a periodic orbit of $H = \mathrm{SO}(n-1,1)$ in the frame bundle $X = G/\Gamma$, combining effective density of such orbits (Theorem 1.2) with a quantitative isolation bound on low-volume orbits, and using the angular rigidity of hybrid manifolds to ensure that any large hyperplane crossing the gluing hypersurface crosses orthogonally. Because the density exponent grows polynomially in $\kappa_X$, the finiteness is genuinely quantitative: the hyperplane count is controlled by the geometry of a single gluing construction.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is the angular rigidity of the hybrid construction: every totally geodesic hyperplane that crosses the gluing hypersurface must do so at a right angle; if a hybrid manifold admitted a non-orthogonal crossing hyperplane, the counting argument of Theorem 1.1 would not go through.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If Theorem 1.1 is correct, every Gromov–Piatetski-Shapiro hybrid manifold carries an explicitly bounded number of codimension-one totally geodesic hyperplanes, not merely finitely many.
The bound is controlled by volume and the dynamical constants of one manifold, so increasing volume or improving decay of correlations directly controls the possible hyperplane count.
The effective density theorem applies to every lattice quotient of $\mathrm{SO}(n,1)$, arithmetic or not, giving polynomial density of all closed $\mathrm{SO}(n-1,1)$-orbits at a scale set by their volume.
The restricted projection and equidistribution results are general enough to give effective density for a wider class of homogeneous spaces and horospherical measures, going beyond the hyperplane-counting application.
In dimension three the result recovers the recent effective density theorem, and for congruence lattices the density exponent becomes absolute.

Reading between the lines

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

If angular rigidity holds for hybrids built from more than two non-commensurable arithmetic pieces, the same proof would yield the same quantitative bound for those manifolds; the paper's remark already points in this direction.
The exponent in the bound is likely not optimal; each of the projection, equidistribution, and correlation steps introduces constants, and sharper restricted projection estimates would improve the polynomial dependence on $\kappa_X$ in Theorem 1.1.
One testable extension is to compute, for small explicit arithmetic or hybrid quotients, the volume threshold below which hyperplanes are forced and compare it with the bound of Theorem 1.1; a mismatch would indicate where the chain of constants can be tightened.
The general mechanism—Margulis function, coarse-dimension lift, projection to an expanding fiber, then equidistribution—may transfer to other rank-one groups or to products, yielding quantitative finiteness of maximal totally geodesic submanifolds in broader classes of non-arithmetic quotients.

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 paper proves the first quantitative upper bound on the number of totally geodesic hyperplanes in GPS hybrid n-manifolds for all n≥3, extending Lindenstrauss-Mohammadi from n=3. The architecture is sound: effective density of H-orbits, a restricted projection theorem for n−2 dimensional families, and an effective equidistribution theorem. The restricted projection theorem (Theorem 1.3 / 8.1) is a real technical contribution and its proof, using known tools, looks plausible. The appendix's effective equidistribution result should be reusable independently.

The main soft spot is the mismatch between the stated input and the actual proof. Theorem 1.1 says κ_X is the rate of decay of correlations of the geodesic flow on the tangent bundle T^1M, citing Corollary 11.2. But the appendix has Proposition 11.2, not a corollary, and it is a decay of correlations for arbitrary smooth functions on the frame bundle X = G/Γ. These are not the same: decay for SO(n−1)-invariant observables (geodesic flow on T^1M) does not imply decay for all frame-bundle observables. More importantly, Proposition 11.2, imported from [KM96], claims exponential mixing of the G-action on G/Γ for any lattice. That is not known to hold for the non-compact finite-volume lattices that can occur in the GPS construction; cusps typically destroy a uniform rate for all compactly supported functions. If the intended hypothesis is frame-flow decay on G/Γ, the authors should state it explicitly and either prove it under the required geometric assumptions or restrict the main theorem to cases where it holds (e.g., compact hybrids). As written, Theorem 1.1 may be conditional on a hypothesis that the GPS hybrids do not satisfy.

There are also smaller points. The proof of Theorem 1.2 in Section 10 hides a choice of N that relates ϱ to b; the reader has to reconstruct it. The application of [LM23, Thm. B] in Section 8.2 is not fully justified, though likely fixable. The BCH argument in Lemma 2.1 is sketchy but probably correct.

Who is this for? Researchers in homogeneous dynamics and hyperbolic geometry. The paper deserves a serious referee round: the quantitative statement is genuinely new, and the restricted projection theorem is independently useful. The referee list should include someone who can verify the KM96 citation and pin down the mixing assumptions. I would ask for a revision that explicitly states the frame-flow decay assumption and either verifies it for the relevant lattices or restricts the theorem to compact hybrids. The counting argument itself is solid once the effective density input is on firm ground.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript proves a quantitative upper bound on the number of codimension-one totally geodesic hyperplanes in non-arithmetic hyperbolic n-manifolds obtained from the Gromov-Piatetski-Shapiro gluing construction, for n≥3. The bound is expressed in terms of the volume of the manifold, the volume of the gluing hypersurface, an injectivity-radius constant η_X, and a decay-of-correlations rate κ_X. The proof is built around a new effective density theorem for periodic orbits of H = SO(n−1,1) in X = G/Γ with G = SO(n,1), which is obtained by combining a Margulis-function construction, a restricted projection theorem, and an effective equidistribution theorem for nearly full-dimensional measures on horospherical subgroups.

Significance. If the central theorem holds, this would be the first quantitative finiteness result for totally geodesic hyperplanes in Gromov–Piatetski-Shapiro hybrid manifolds, extending the dimension-three work of Lindenstrauss–Mohammadi [LM23] to all n≥3. The paper introduces several techniques of independent interest: an effective density theorem for H-orbits with explicit dependence on the dynamical rate κ_X, a restricted projection theorem for families of projections in R^n, and an effective equidistribution statement for large-dimensional horospherical measures. The proofs are detailed and the manuscript is generally careful with constant bookkeeping. The main obstruction is that the stated hypothesis in Theorem 1.1 (decay of correlations of the geodesic flow on the tangent bundle of M) is weaker than the frame-flow decay that the proof of Theorem 1.4 and Proposition 11.2 actually requires; this gap, together with the unverified existence of a positive frame-flow rate for arbitrary finite-volume non-arithmetic lattices, prevents the main theorem from being established as stated.

major comments (3)

[Section 11 (Prop. 11.2), Theorem 1.1] Theorem 1.1 states that κ_X is the rate of decay of correlations of the geodesic flow on the tangent bundle of M, but the proof in Section 10 (via Theorem 1.4 and Proposition 11.2) requires exponential decay of correlations for the full frame flow on X = G/Γ for all C_c^∞ functions. These are different flows: the geodesic flow corresponds to the action of A on M\G, where M ≃ SO(n−1) is the compact fiber, whereas Proposition 11.2 is stated for the right G-action on G/Γ and is used in Theorem 11.1 on test functions of the form \hat f_{s1,s2}(y) = f(a_t u_{s1} a_{-t} y) f(a_t u_{s2} a_{-t} y), which are not invariant under the fiber. Therefore, unless κ_X is understood as the frame-flow rate on X, the proof of Theorems 1.1 and 1.2 does not follow from the stated hypotheses. Moreover, Proposition 11.2 is imported from [KM96, Cor. 2.4.4] without verification that a positive κ_X exists for arbitrary finite-volume, possibly noncompact, non-arithmetic lattices in SO(n,1); this is a nontrivial spectral-gap property and is not automatic when n=3, since SO(3,1) does not have Kazhdan's property (T). This gap is load-bearing for the main finiteness claim.
[Section 11, proof of Theorem 11.1] In the proof of Theorem 11.1, in the region |s1−s2| > e^{-t}e^{t/(2l)}, the paper claims d(e,u_{e^t(s1−s2)}) ≥ e^t|s1−s2|. For a unipotent one-parameter subgroup of SO(n,1), the Riemannian distance from the identity to u_s satisfies d(e,u_s) ≍ log(1+|s|), not |s|. The displayed chain of inequalities is therefore false. The intended exponential bound e^{-κ_X t/(2l)} can be recovered from the logarithmic distance by adjusting the constant, but the proof as written contains an incorrect inequality and needs repair.
[Section 8.2, use of [LM23, Thm. B]] The proof of Theorem 8.1 applies [LM23, Thm. B] as a black box without stating its hypotheses or conclusion. The paper only says that K_s and ρ_s satisfy the conditions in [LM23, Thm. B], but since Theorem 8.1 is a key new input and the application is to a family of quadratically parameterized projections, the quoted theorem should be stated explicitly and its conditions verified for K_s and ρ_s. Without this, the restricted projection theorem is not independently checkable.

minor comments (5)

[Abstract] The abstract contains a spelling error in 'Piatestski-Shapiro' (should be 'Piatetski-Shapiro') and the phrase 'a number of a ideas' should be 'a number of ideas'.
[Section 10, proof of Theorem 1.1] The sentence referring to Proposition 5.1 of [FLMS21] is ungrammatical: 'such that the projection into the 1-neighborhood of M0 and does not intersect.' Please rewrite to state precisely what open set O is constructed and which set it avoids.
[Section 11, proof of Theorem 11.1] The notation '2⋆' appears in several places (for example, 'κ3/2⋆ ≤ θ ≤ κ3/2⋆−1' and 'l = 2⋆ℓ′κ4^{-1}') and should be replaced with a clear expression such as '2^ℓ' or '2ℓ'.
[Section 10, proof of Theorem 1.2] The choice of N in the estimate S(f_{ϱ,x}) ≤ ϱ^{-N} is never specified; the final rate is κ2 = κ3/(8N), so the exponent depends on this unspecified N. Please state that N depends only on the Sobolev order and the dimension, or make N explicit.
[Section 2, proof of Lemma 2.1] The proof invokes the open mapping theorem to obtain a local diffeomorphism; the inverse function theorem or standard Baker–Campbell–Hausdorff properties would be more apt here.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: Theorem 1.1 is derived from new effective-density, projection, and equidistribution results; the cited self-papers are used as transparent external inputs, not as definitions of the target.

full rationale

The main derivation chain is not circular by construction. Theorem 1.1 reduces counting hyperplanes to bounding the volume of H-orbits, using the hybrid geometry of [FLMS21] (angular rigidity) and Theorem 1.2. Theorem 1.2 is proved from Theorem 1.3 (a new restricted projection theorem) and Theorem 1.4, whose appendix version (Theorem 11.1) explicitly takes effective equidistribution of the full horospherical translate as a hypothesis and then derives equidistribution for nearly full-dimensional measures; this is a genuine one-way implication, not an identity. The rate kappa_X is imported from [KM96, Cor. 2.4.4] as an external decay-of-correlations bound, and the paper does not fit kappa_X to the quantity it claims to predict. The self-citations [SS24] and [San23] are used transparently: the Margulis-function framework is reproved with strengthened constants (Section 6), [San23] is mentioned only as a related setting, and [SS24, Thms. 4 and 5] are parameter-free prior theorems with assumptions that do not include Theorem 1.1; citation of such results is legitimate external support rather than circularity. A separate correctness concern exists—Theorem 1.1 states the input as geodesic-flow decay on T^1M while Proposition 11.2 gives frame-flow decay on G/Γ—but that is an assumption mismatch, not a circular reduction, and does not affect the circularity score.

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

The proof depends on several substantial results taken from the literature, including the angular rigidity of hybrids ([FLMS21]), the effective equidistribution and isolation theorems from the authors' prior work ([SS24], [San23]), and the projection theorem of [LM23]. None of these are reproved in full; the paper's own new content is the combination and extension to higher dimensions.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Angular rigidity of Gromov-Piatetski-Shapiro hybrids: every totally geodesic hyperplane crossing the gluing hypersurface meets it orthogonally (FLMS21, Theorem 4.1).
Used in Section 10, proof of Theorem 1.1, to constrain how hyperplanes cross the gluing surface. This is an external geometric input; if it fails for some hybrid, the counting argument collapses.
domain assumption Existence of a positive rate κ_X of exponential decay of correlations for the geodesic flow on X (KM96, Corollary 2.4.4).
Used in Theorem 1.4 and the appendix to quantify rates; all exponents κ2, κ3, ε0 depend on κ_X.
domain assumption Quantitative isolation and bounded-volume orbit bounds for closed H-orbits (SS24, Theorems 4 and 5).
Invoked in Section 10 to bound the number of closed H-orbits of bounded volume and to lower-bound separation radii. This is prior work by one of the present authors (Sanchez) and is taken as a black box.
domain assumption Projection theorem of Lindenstrauss-Mohammadi (LM23, Theorem B) for sets in R^3, used to finish the proof of Theorem 8.1.
Applied in Section 8.2 to a set Ks ⊂ R^3; the paper states the conditions are satisfied but does not prove the theorem.
standard math Standard hyperbolic geometry facts: thick-thin decomposition, cusp structure, log-continuity of height (Bowditch; Mohammadi-Oh; Tamam-Warren).
Used in Sections 3 and elsewhere; these are standard results cited rather than proved.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantitative finiteness of hyperplanes in hybrid manifolds." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BR262NRF

@misc{pith2026250614478,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantitative finiteness of hyperplanes in hybrid manifolds},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BR262NRF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.14478}
}

abstract

We prove a quantitative finiteness theorem for the number of totally geodesic hyperplanes of non-arithmetic hyperbolic $n$-manifolds that arise from a gluing construction of Gromov and Piatetski-Shapiro for $n\ge3$. This extends work of Lindenstrauss-Mohammadi in dimension 3. This follows from effective density theorem for periodic orbits of $\mathrm{SO}(n-1,1)$ acting on quotients of $\mathrm{SO}(n,1)$ by a lattice for $n\ge3$. The effective density result uses a number of a ideas including Margulis functions, a restricted projection theorem, and an effective equidistribution result for measures on the horospherical subgroup that are nearly full dimensional.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

[1]

Subspace stabilisers in hyperbolic lattices

Mikhail Belolipetsky, Nikolay Bogachev, Alexander Kolpakov, and Leone Slavich. Subspace stabilisers in hyperbolic lattices. arXiv preprint arXiv:2105.06897 , 2023

work page Pith review arXiv 2023
[2]

Bourgain, A

J. Bourgain, A. Furman, E. Lindenstrauss, and S. Mozes. Stationary measures and equidistribution for orbits of nonabelian semigroups on the torus. Journal of the American Mathematical Society , 24(1):231--280, 2011

work page 2011
[3]

Arithmeticity, superrigidity, and totally geodesic submanifolds

Uri Bader, David Fisher, Nicholas Miller, and Matthew Stover. Arithmeticity, superrigidity, and totally geodesic submanifolds. Ann. of Math. (2) , 193(3):837--861, 2021

work page 2021
[4]

The discretized sum-product and projection theorems

Jean Bourgain. The discretized sum-product and projection theorems. J. Anal. Math. , 112:193--236, 2010

work page 2010
[5]

B. H. Bowditch. Geometrical finiteness for hyperbolic groups. J. Funct. Anal. , 113(2):245--317, 1993

work page 1993
[6]

S. G. Dani. On invariant measures, minimal sets and a lemma of M argulis. Invent. Math. , 51(3):239--260, 1979

work page 1979
[7]

S. G. Dani and G. A. Margulis. Limit distributions of orbits of unipotent flows and values of quadratic forms. In I. M . G elfand S eminar , volume 16, Part 1 of Adv. Soviet Math. , pages 91--137. Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 1993

work page 1993
[8]

Samuel C. Edwards. On the rate of equidistribution of expanding translates of horospheres in G . Comment. Math. Helv. , 96(2):275--337, 2021

work page 2021

Show all 40 references

[9]

Upper bounds and asymptotics in a quantitative version of the O ppenheim conjecture

Alex Eskin, Gregory Margulis, and Shahar Mozes. Upper bounds and asymptotics in a quantitative version of the O ppenheim conjecture. Ann. of Math. (2) , 147(1):93--141, 1998

1998
[10]

Isolation, equidistribution, and orbit closures for the SL (2, R) action on moduli space

Alex Eskin, Maryam Mirzakhani, and Amir Mohammadi. Isolation, equidistribution, and orbit closures for the SL (2, R) action on moduli space. Ann. of Math. (2) , 182(2):673--721, 2015

2015
[11]

Einsiedler, G

M. Einsiedler, G. Margulis, A. Mohammadi, and A. Venkatesh. Effective equidistribution and property ( ) . J. Amer. Math. Soc. , 33(1):223--289, 2020

2020
[12]

Einsiedler, G

M. Einsiedler, G. Margulis, and A. Venkatesh. Effective equidistribution for closed orbits of semisimple groups on homogeneous spaces. Invent. Math. , 177(1):137--212, 2009

2009
[13]

Finiteness of maximal geodesic submanifolds in hyperbolic hybrids

David Fisher, Jean-Francois Lafont, Nicholas Miller, and Matthew Stover. Finiteness of maximal geodesic submanifolds in hyperbolic hybrids. J. Eur. Math. Soc. , 23(11):3591--3623, 2021

2021
[14]

Gelander and Levit A

T. Gelander and Levit A. Counting commensurability classes of hyperbolic manifolds. Geom. Funct. Anal , 24:1431–1447, 2014

2014
[15]

A restricted projection problem for fractal sets in R ^n , 2022

Shengwen Gan, Shaoming Guo, and Hong Wang. A restricted projection problem for fractal sets in R ^n , 2022

2022
[16]

Gromov and I

M. Gromov and I. Piatetski-Shapiro. Nonarithmetic groups in L obachevsky spaces. Inst. Hautes \' E tudes Sci. Publ. Math. , (66):93--103, 1988

1988
[17]

A. Katz. Margulis' inequality for translates of horospherical orbits and applications, 2020

2020
[18]

On H ausdorff dimension of projections

Robert Kaufman. On H ausdorff dimension of projections. Mathematika , 15:153--155, 1968

1968
[19]

D. Y. Kleinbock and G. A. Margulis. Bounded orbits of nonquasiunipotent flows on homogeneous spaces. In Sina 's M oscow S eminar on D ynamical S ystems , volume 171 of Amer. Math. Soc. Transl. Ser. 2 , pages 141--172. Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 1996

1996
[20]

D. Y. Kleinbock and G. A. Margulis. Flows on homogeneous spaces and D iophantine approximation on manifolds. Ann. of Math. (2) , 148(1):339--360, 1998

1998
[21]

Shrinking targets for the geodesic flow on geometrically finite hyperbolic manifolds

Dubi Kelmer and Hee Oh. Shrinking targets for the geodesic flow on geometrically finite hyperbolic manifolds. J. Mod. Dyn. , 17:401--434, 2021

2021
[22]

A M arstrand-type restricted projection theorem in R ^ 3 , 2017

Antti K\" a enm\" a ki, Tuomas Orponen, and Laura Venieri. A M arstrand-type restricted projection theorem in R ^ 3 , 2017

2017
[23]

Polynomial effective density in quotient of SL_2( Q _p) SL_2( Q _p)

Zuo Lin. Polynomial effective density in quotient of SL_2( Q _p) SL_2( Q _p) . arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.13931 , 2024

2024 arXiv
[24]

Lindenstrauss and A

E. Lindenstrauss and A. Mohammadi. Polynomial effective density in quotients of H^3 and H^2 H^2 . Invent. Math. , 231(3):1141--1237, 2023

2023
[25]

Lindenstrauss, A

E. Lindenstrauss, A. Mohammadi, and Z. Wang. Effective equidistribution for some one parameter unipotent flows. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.11099 , 2022

2022
[26]

Lindenstrauss, A

E. Lindenstrauss, A. Mohammadi, Z. Wang, and L. Yang. Effective equidistribution in rank 2 homogeneous spaces and values of quadratic forms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.21064 , 2025

2025 arXiv
[27]

Arithmeticity of hyperbolic 3-manifolds containing infinitely many totally geodesic surfaces

Amir Mohammadi and Gregorii Margulis. Arithmeticity of hyperbolic 3-manifolds containing infinitely many totally geodesic surfaces. Ergodic Theory Dynam. Systems , 42(3):1188--1219, 2022

2022
[28]

Isolations of geodesic planes in the frame bundle of a hyperbolic 3-manifold

Amir Mohammadi and Hee Oh. Isolations of geodesic planes in the frame bundle of a hyperbolic 3-manifold. Compos. Math. , 159(3):488--529, 2023

2023
[29]

Smoothness of projections, B ernoulli convolutions, and the dimension of exceptions

Yuval Peres and Wilhelm Schlag. Smoothness of projections, B ernoulli convolutions, and the dimension of exceptions. Duke Math. J. , 102(2):193--251, 2000

2000
[30]

A F urstenberg-type problem for circles, and a K aufman-type restricted projection theorem in R ^3 , 2022

Malabika Pramanik, Tongou Yang, and Joshua Zahl. A F urstenberg-type problem for circles, and a K aufman-type restricted projection theorem in R ^3 , 2022

2022
[31]

A note on maximal lattice growth in so(1,n)

Jean Raimbault. A note on maximal lattice growth in so(1,n). International Mathematics Research Notices , 2013(16):3722--3731, 06 2012

2013
[32]

E.J. Remez. Sur une propri\' e te des polyn\^ o mes de tchebycheff. Comm. Inst. Sci. Kharkow , 13:93--95, 1936

1936
[33]

A. Sanchez. Effective equidistribution of large dimensional measures on affine invariant submanifolds. ar X iv:2306.06740 , 2023

2023 arXiv
[34]

On continuum incidence problems related to harmonic analysis

Wilhelm Schlag. On continuum incidence problems related to harmonic analysis. Journal of Functional Analysis , 201:480--521, 07 2003

2003
[35]

Nimish A. Shah. Limit distributions of expanding translates of certain orbits on homogeneous spaces. Proc. Indian Acad. Sci. Math. Sci. , 106(2):105--125, 1996

1996
[36]

An avoidance principle and M argulis functions for expanding translates of unipotent orbits

Anthony Sanchez and Juno Seong. An avoidance principle and M argulis functions for expanding translates of unipotent orbits. J. Mod. Dyn. , 20:409--439, 2024

2024
[37]

Nattalie Tamam and Jacqueline M. Warren. Effective equidistribution of horospherical flows in infinite volume rank-one homogeneous spaces. Ergodic Theory Dynam. Systems , 43(8):2780--2840, 2023

2023
[38]

T. Wolff. Local smoothing type estimates on L^p for large p . Geom. Funct. Anal. , 10(5):1237--1288, 2000

2000
[39]

Expanding curves in T ^1( H^n) under geodesic flow and equidistribution in homogeneous spaces

Lei Yang. Expanding curves in T ^1( H^n) under geodesic flow and equidistribution in homogeneous spaces. Israel J. Math. , 216(1):389--413, 2016

2016
[40]

Equidistribution of expanding translates of curves in homogeneous spaces with the action of ( SO (n,1))^k

Lei Yang. Equidistribution of expanding translates of curves in homogeneous spaces with the action of ( SO (n,1))^k . Acta Math. Sin. (Engl. Ser.) , 38(1):205--224, 2022

2022

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

Subspace stabilisers in hyperbolic lattices

Mikhail Belolipetsky, Nikolay Bogachev, Alexander Kolpakov, and Leone Slavich. Subspace stabilisers in hyperbolic lattices. arXiv preprint arXiv:2105.06897 , 2023

work page Pith review arXiv 2023

[2] [2]

Bourgain, A

J. Bourgain, A. Furman, E. Lindenstrauss, and S. Mozes. Stationary measures and equidistribution for orbits of nonabelian semigroups on the torus. Journal of the American Mathematical Society , 24(1):231--280, 2011

work page 2011

[3] [3]

Arithmeticity, superrigidity, and totally geodesic submanifolds

Uri Bader, David Fisher, Nicholas Miller, and Matthew Stover. Arithmeticity, superrigidity, and totally geodesic submanifolds. Ann. of Math. (2) , 193(3):837--861, 2021

work page 2021

[4] [4]

The discretized sum-product and projection theorems

Jean Bourgain. The discretized sum-product and projection theorems. J. Anal. Math. , 112:193--236, 2010

work page 2010

[5] [5]

B. H. Bowditch. Geometrical finiteness for hyperbolic groups. J. Funct. Anal. , 113(2):245--317, 1993

work page 1993

[6] [6]

S. G. Dani. On invariant measures, minimal sets and a lemma of M argulis. Invent. Math. , 51(3):239--260, 1979

work page 1979

[7] [7]

S. G. Dani and G. A. Margulis. Limit distributions of orbits of unipotent flows and values of quadratic forms. In I. M . G elfand S eminar , volume 16, Part 1 of Adv. Soviet Math. , pages 91--137. Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 1993

work page 1993

[8] [8]

Samuel C. Edwards. On the rate of equidistribution of expanding translates of horospheres in G . Comment. Math. Helv. , 96(2):275--337, 2021

work page 2021