Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 44 references

Birkhoff attractors for dissipative symplectic billiards

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper proposes a dissipative version of symplectic billiards and proves that its Birkhoff attractor is a normally contracted graph for strong dissipation and a chaotic indecomposable continuum for mild dissipation, with no pinching con

desk verdict New model and a solid strong-dissipation theorem, but the mild-dissipation half is unsupported as written because of a twist-sign mismatch, plus unfinished and inaccurate details. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.13086 v1 pith:QGFKI4LC submitted 2025-09-16 math.DS

Luca Baracco , Olga Bernardi , Anna Florio , Alessandra Nardi This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.DS MSC 37E4037C7037D1037J12
keywords dissipativesymplecticbilliardsBirkhoffattractorconformallymapstwistnormallyhyperbolicinvariantmanifoldsindecomposablecontinuumtopologicalentropycentrallysymmetricbilliardtables
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 introduces a dissipative variant of symplectic billiards, a billiard law in which successive bounce points are related by a determinant condition rather than equal angles. The resulting map contracts area by a fixed factor λ, so it has a compact invariant Birkhoff attractor. The central claim is that this attractor is fully controlled by the dissipation rate: for λ small it is a normally contracted graph over the zero section and coincides with the global attractor; for λ close to 1 on an open dense set of centrally symmetric tables, or on any table with a zero-curvature point, it becomes an indecomposable continuum with positive topological entropy. This is the first full description of a Birkhoff attractor for a symplectic billiard family, and it needs no geometric pinching condition, unlike the earlier dissipative Birkhoff billiard results.

What carries the argument

The central object is the dissipative symplectic billiard map Tλ and its Birkhoff attractor Λ, the smallest compact, connected, invariant set separating the phase annulus. Tλ is a dissipative twist map with Jacobian λ, obtained by composing the conservative symplectic billiard map T with a λ-contraction along the fibers of the cylinder. Two engines carry the argument: a cone-field criterion that produces a dominated splitting of Λ0 and turns Λ into a normally contracted graph for small λ, and the Le Calvez–Charpentier upper/lower rotation-number dichotomy that forces Λ to be an indecomposable continuum when ρ− < ρ+. The compatible choice of origin places all 4-periodic orbits on the zero sec

What would settle it

Take a specific strongly convex, non-centrally-symmetric table, for example with support function p(θ)=1+0.1cos(3θ), and compute DTλ for λ=10^{-3} and |s|≤Mλ; if some vector inside the horizontal cone leaves the cone after one iterate, Proposition 3.1 and the graph conclusion of Theorem 3.7 fail. Alternatively, simulate Tλ on that table at several small λ values and check whether the attractor remains a graph over S.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The dissipative symplectic billiard map is Tλ = Hλ ∘ T, where T is the standard symplectic billiard map and Hλ contracts the second coordinate by λ, making the map conformally symplectic. The paper proves that for every strongly convex C^k table, once λ is small enough the Birkhoff attractor Λ equals the global attractor Λ0 and is a C^1 graph over the zero section, with C^{k−1} regularity and convergence to S×{0} for even smaller λ. For centrally symmetric tables it then intersects the zero section exactly in the 4-periodic points, and generically Λ is the union of unstable manifolds of finitely many 4-periodic saddles with rotation number 1/4. For mild dissipation, if the conservative map h

Load-bearing premise

The paper's strongest theorems are declared word-for-word or adapted from a prior Birkhoff-billiard paper, so the load-bearing premise is that none of those proofs secretly uses Birkhoff geometry or its pinching condition; additionally, the genericity lemma contains an unfinished step ('ANNA QUI') that the proof depends on.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For any strongly convex C^2 table and sufficiently small damping, the Birkhoff attractor is a C^1 graph over the zero section and coincides with the global attractor; for smaller damping the graph is C^{k−1} and converges to S×{0} in C^1.
  • No geometric pinching condition is needed, in contrast with dissipative Birkhoff billiards; the symplectic reflection law alone yields the required cone-field.
  • Generically in centrally symmetric tables, the small-damping attractor has rotation number 1/4 and is a finite union of unstable manifolds of 4-periodic saddles.
  • For mild damping, on an open dense set of centrally symmetric tables and on any table with a zero-curvature point, the Birkhoff attractor is an indecomposable continuum with positive topological entropy and contains periodic points of every rational rotation number between ρ− and ρ+.
  • Centrally symmetric Radon domains, including ellipses, have Birkhoff attractor exactly the zero section for every damping λ.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the graph theorem is as robust as claimed, the same cone-field strategy should yield a normally contracted Birkhoff attractor for any conformally symplectic twist map of the annulus that satisfies a uniform cone-field estimate; this is a testable generalization beyond billiards.
  • The numerical section hints at a third regime for non-symmetric tables, where the global attractor strictly contains the Birkhoff attractor (for instance around a 3-periodic orbit); a systematic scan of Λ0 versus Λ for non-symmetric tables could map this intermediate behavior.
  • Because the dissipative law depends on the chosen origin while the conservative one does not, moving the origin changes which 4-periodic orbits lie on the zero section; this could be used as a tuning knob for the small-damping attractor's geometry.
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

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a dissipative variant of symplectic billiards in planar strictly convex domains, defined by T_λ = H_λ ∘ T, where T is the conservative symplectic billiard map and H_λ is vertical contraction by λ∈(0,1). The main results are: (a) for strong dissipation, the Birkhoff attractor Λ coincides with the global attractor Λ_0 and is a normally contracted C^1 (or C^{k-1}) graph over the zero section; (b) for mild dissipation, on an open dense set of centrally symmetric strongly convex tables, or for tables with a zero-curvature point, the conservative map has an instability region containing the zero section, and the dissipative Birkhoff attractor is an indecomposable continuum with positive topological entropy. The paper also proves properties of 4-periodic orbits, a genericity lemma, and a fragility result for invariant curves of rotation number 1/4, and gives numerical simulations.

Significance. If the main claims are correct, the paper gives the first complete picture of Birkhoff attractors for a dissipative billiard family in which the attractor can pass from a simple curve to a chaotic continuum as the dissipation parameter varies. The differential formula (2.9) and the cone-field argument in Proposition 3.1 are genuinely useful and do not rely on a pinching condition, in contrast to the Birkhoff billiard case. The connections to conformally symplectic dynamics and to Le Calvez's theory are also potentially valuable. However, the central structural theorems are largely delegated to the companion paper [15], and the weak-dissipation theorem has a sign inconsistency that blocks its application as stated. These issues must be resolved before the paper's main claims can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [§5, Proposition 5.5 and Remark 5.4] Proposition 5.5 assumes that T:I→I is a positive twist map with respect to β∈(0,π/2). But Lemma 2.18 gives ∂(p_1∘T_λ)/∂s = -1/L_12 < 0, so T_λ and T are negative twist maps, and Remark 5.4 explicitly states this. No conjugation (t,s)↦(t,-s), which would convert negative to positive twist, is supplied before Proposition 5.5 is invoked. Thus Theorem 5.6 and the abstract's mild-dissipation claim are not proved as written. The gap is likely fixable by an explicit conjugation and a corresponding check of the twist-with-respect-to-β condition, but the argument must be written out.
  2. [§3 and §4, Theorem 3.7, Corollary 3.5, Lemma 4.3, Proposition 4.7] Several load-bearing results are declared 'verbatim' or 'an adaptation' of results in [15] rather than proved: Corollary 3.5, Theorem 3.7 (including the C^{k-1} regularity and the C^1 convergence), Lemma 4.3 (the eigenvalue classification), and Proposition 4.7 (the decomposition into unstable manifolds). The paper's claim that no geometric pinning condition is needed in the symplectic case rests on the unstated premise that none of the proofs in [15] uses Birkhoff-billiard-specific geometry. This is not verifiable from the present text. A referee cannot certify the central theorems without either full proofs or a detailed point-by-point transfer argument showing that every step in [15] applies verbatim to the symplectic billiard map.
  3. [§4.1, Lemma 4.5] The proof of Lemma 4.5 contains the unfinished passage 'ANNA QUI' immediately before equation (4.18). The derivation of ∂_θ G(θ_1,ε)=0 is therefore incomplete. This lemma is not a side remark: it is used in Corollary 4.6, Proposition 4.7, Proposition 4.10, and ultimately Theorem 5.6. Moreover, the argument that the function ε(θ) is not identically zero and that ∂_ε G(θ_0,0)≠0 can be achieved for every degenerate 4-periodic point needs a clear justification. As written, the genericity statement is not fully supported.
minor comments (3)
  1. [§5, after Proposition 5.5] The phrase 'hypothesis of Proposition 5.5' should be 'the hypotheses of Proposition 5.5' (grammar).
  2. [§6, numerical simulations] The simulations are heuristic: they plot finite orbit segments and do not distinguish the global attractor from the Birkhoff attractor except by visual inspection. A statement acknowledging this limitation would be helpful.
  3. [References] Reference [15] is cited as 'ETDS 2024' in the reader's report, but in the text it is given as 'Ergodic Theory and Dynamical Systems, 2024' with a DOI. Please ensure the final published volume and page numbers are supplied.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

No fitted-input or definitional circularity, but the main structural theorems are transferred by self-citation to the authors' prior Birkhoff-billiard paper, making the derivation chain load-bearing on that citation.

  1. self citation load bearing [Section 3, Corollary 3.5 and Theorem 3.7; cf. [15, Prop. 5.5 and Thm. 5.7]]
    "Corollary 3.5: 'The proof follows from the application of the cone-field criterion (see [23, Theorem 2.6]), and it is verbatim the proof of [15, Proposition 5.5].' Theorem 3.7: 'Idea of the proof. The proof is verbatim the proof of [15, Theorem 5.7].'"

    The paper's main structural result — that for strong dissipation the Birkhoff attractor is a normally contracted graph — is not proved in the text; its proof is declared verbatim identical to a theorem in [15], a paper co-authored by two of the present authors on dissipative Birkhoff billiards, where the result required a pinching condition. The authors prove a symplectic cone-field criterion (Prop. 3.1), but the remaining steps of Theorem 3.7 are transferred by citation. If any step of [15]'s proof uses Birkhoff-specific geometry, the transfer fails; the paper supplies no check. Thus the derivation of Theorem 3.7 reduces to a self-citation rather than an independent verification.

  2. self citation load bearing [Section 4.1, Lemma 4.3 and Proposition 4.7; cf. [15, Appendix A and Thm. 5.14]]
    "Lemma 4.3: 'Repeating then verbatim the proof in [15], we conclude.' Proposition 4.7: 'The proof is an adaptation of the proof of Theorem 5.14 in [15].'"

    The classification of 4-periodic orbits and the unstable-manifold decomposition of the Birkhoff attractor are likewise taken, not derived, from the same authors' prior paper. The symplectic computation reduces the eigenvalue polynomial to the same form as [15, Appendix A], but the structural conclusion (finite collection of saddle 4-periodic points whose unstable manifolds form the attractor, rotation number 1/4) is imported as an 'adaptation' of [15, Theorem 5.14]. No argument shows that the symplectic twist map satisfies every Birkhoff-specific hypothesis used there; the result therefore rests on the authors' own earlier theorem rather than on a self-contained derivation.

full rationale

There is no parameter fitting and no definitional circularity: λ is a model input, and the thresholds λ(Ω), λ'(Ω), λ''(Ω) are existential constants, not fitted to the objects they are used to predict. The Birkhoff attractor is defined by the standard minimal separating-set construction, not made equal to the zero section by definition. The circularity score is raised by the repeated, load-bearing use of [15] (Bernardi–Florio–Leguil), a paper co-authored by two of the current authors, for the central structure theorems: Corollary 3.5 is declared verbatim [15, Prop. 5.5], Theorem 3.7 verbatim [15, Thm. 5.7], Lemma 4.3 verbatim [15, Appendix A], and Proposition 4.7 an adaptation of [15, Thm. 5.14]. The authors do prove a new symplectic cone-field criterion, so the central claim retains independent content; this is not a case where the conclusion is identical to the cited theorem. However, the transfer of the remaining proof is unverified for the symplectic reflection law and for the absence of the pinching condition, making the derivation chain partially dependent on a self-citation. Two non-circular correctness gaps are noted for completeness but are not scored as circularity: (i) Proposition 5.5 assumes a positive twist map while Lemma 2.18 and Remark 5.4 imply Tλ and T are negative twist maps, an internal inconsistency that needs an explicit conjugation argument; (ii) Lemma 4.5 contains an unfinished computation ('ANNA QUI') and an implicit non-vanishing assumption on the defining analytic function, which is an incomplete-support issue rather than a circular step. If the authors supply full transferred proofs or complete the deferred arguments, the circularity score would drop to 0–2; as written, the main structural theorems lean on the authors' own earlier work.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No data fitting: lambda is the model input, and the thresholds lambda(Omega), lambda'(Omega), lambda''(Omega) are existential constants with no numerical values. The paper's genuine input is geometric (strict/strong convexity, central symmetry) plus the established twist-map toolbox, with a heavy and partly undeclared dependence on the authors' own [15]. No invented entities (particles, forces, constants) are postulated; the dissipative symplectic billiard map is a definition, not an unexplained entity.

assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Strict (and often strong) convexity of the table with C^k boundary, k >= 2; central symmetry in Sections 4-5; origin in int(Omega) (compatible in Lemma 2.21, center of symmetry in Remark 2.23)
    The whole analysis is set in strictly convex planar domains (Section 2.2). Strong convexity (positive curvature) enters the cone-field proof of Prop 3.1 to bound |L11| below away from zero; central symmetry is used in Sections 4-5 (Lemma 4.1, Prop 5.1).
  • standard math Twist-map and Aubry-Mather theory: Birkhoff's invariant-curve theorem for twist maps, Mather sets M_{2p/q}, Bangert's theory of Mather sets for twist maps ([8])
    Invoked in Lemma 4.9 (Birkhoff [16]), Prop 5.1 (Mather sets for T and T^2, [8],[37],[3]), and Prop 4.10 (Aubry-Mather, [8]). These underpin the rotation-number rigidity results.
  • standard math Le Calvez-Birkhoff attractor framework: separation property, upper/lower rotation numbers (Prop 2.9), Charpentier's indecomposability theorem (Thm 2.10), Le Calvez's Prop 14.3 on unstable manifolds
    Section 2.1 and Section 5. The adaptation in Prop 5.5 is explicitly from [15], which itself adapts Le Calvez [32, Section 8].
  • standard math Results of Bernardi-Florio-Leguil [15] (ETDS 2024) used as black boxes: dissipative Birkhoff billiard graph theorem, eigenvalue classification (their Appendix A), Theorem 5.14, Propositions 6.10 and 6.12
    Theorem 3.7, Cor 3.5, Lemma 4.3, Prop 4.7 and Prop 5.5 are stated with proofs declared 'verbatim' or 'an adaptation' of [15]. Two of the four present co-authors (Bernardi, Florio) are co-authors of [15]; the paper is not self-contained on these points.
  • standard math Mather's theorem on non-existence of caustics when curvature vanishes (cited as [1, Theorem 2])
    Prop 5.7 concludes the whole phase space is an instability region from a zero-curvature point via this theorem.
  • standard math Normal hyperbolicity theory and cone-field criteria (Hirsch-Pugh-Shub [30], Berger-Bounemoura [14], Crovisier-Potrie [23, Theorem 2.6])
    Used in Cor 3.5 and Theorem 3.7 to upgrade the invariant graph to a normally contracted manifold and to obtain the C^{k-1} regularity.
  • standard math Structure of circle homeomorphisms with rational rotation number (Poincare classification) and of invariant curves of rational rotation number for twist maps
    Prop 4.10 uses the fact that a C^1 invariant curve of rotation number 1/4 is a chain of heteroclinic connections between hyperbolic 4-periodic points, and that smooth stable/unstable coincidence forces degeneracy.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Birkhoff attractors for dissipative symplectic billiards." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QGFKI4LC

@misc{pith2026250913086,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Birkhoff attractors for dissipative symplectic billiards},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QGFKI4LC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.13086}
}
read the original abstract

The aim of the present paper is to propose and study a dissipative variant of symplectic billiards within planar strictly convex domains. The associated billiard map is dissipative, thus it admits a compact invariant set, the so-called Birkhoff attractor. Its complexity depends on the rate of the dissipation as well as on the geometry of the billiard table. We prove that (a) for strong dissipation, the Birkhoff attractor is a normally contracted graph over the zero section; (b) for mild dissipation, the Birkhoff attractor within a centrally symmetric domain is an indecomposable continuum whose restricted dynamics has positive topological entropy. We compare these results with the case of dissipative Birkhoff billiards, studied in a paper by Bernardi-Florio-Leguil

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.13086 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The dissipative symplectic billiard map compared with the conservative one. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The dissipative Birkhoff billiard map compared with the conservative one. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The red bold line corresponds to the Birkhoff attractor, while the black and red is the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The determinant det(x1 − O, x2 − O) is the area of the parallelogram in figure. Let us indicate then L: (v, u) ∈ R 2 → L(v, u) := det(v, u) ∈ R . In particular, for all t1, t2 ∈ S, the notation L(γ(t1), γ(t2)) denotes the signed area of the parallelogram of sides γ(t1)…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The symplectic billiard map reflection: after the points [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The phase space P. Observe that ψ1 < 0 < ψ2, so in particular the zero section S × {0} is contained in P. By the variational condition (2.2), denoting by (t0, t1) ∈ Pˆ the point such that Tˆ(t0, t1) = (t1, t2), we have also that the second component of ϕ(t1, t2) equals…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: For the symplectic billiard map on centrally symmetric domains, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The support function p(θ) at the point θ ∈ S. The characteristic polynomial is then χλ(x) = x 2 − [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Invariant curve of rotation number 1 4 with homoclinic (heteroclinic) connexions. Denote by T the symplectic billiard map associated to the table. With an abuse of notation, denote by T also a lift of it. According to the notation used in [8], we can consider bi-infini…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Definition of twist map. We refer to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: p(θ) = 1 + sin 2θ 8 , λ = 0.9, n0 = 30. which, we guess, are due to the presence of a 3-periodic orbit. In [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p035_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: p(θ) = 1 + sin 2θ 8 + cos 3θ 27 , λ = 0.71, n0 = 10. points of zero curvature. In this example, we use polar coordinates to represent the table. It is well known from the previous section, that in this case, the entire phase space forms a region of instability, and th…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: r(θ) = 1 − cos 2θ 5 , λ = 0.71, n0 = 10. References [1] P. Albers and S. Tabachnikov. Introducing symplectic billiards. Adv. Math., 333:822–867, 2018. [2] S. Allais and M.-C. Arnaud. The dynamics of conformal Hamiltonian flows: dissipativity and conservativity. Rev. M…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [15]

    Bernardi, A

    O. Bernardi, A. Florio, and M. Leguil. Birkhoff attractors of dissipative billiards.Ergodic Theory and Dynamical Systems, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1017/etds.2024.68

    work page doi:10.1017/etds.2024.68 2024

  2. [1]

    Albers and S

    P. Albers and S. Tabachnikov. Introducing symplectic billiards.Adv. Math., 333:822–867, 2018

    2018

  3. [2]

    Allais and M.-C

    S. Allais and M.-C. Arnaud. The dynamics of conformal Hamiltonian flows: dissipativity and conservativity.Rev. Mat. Iberoam., 40(3):987–1021, 2024

    2024

  4. [3]

    M.-C. Arnaud. Hyperbolicity for conservative twist maps of the 2-dimensional annulus.Publ. Mat. Urug., 16:1–39, 2016

    2016

  5. [4]

    Arnaud and J

    M.-C. Arnaud and J. Fejoz. Invariant submanifolds of conformal symplectic dynamics.J. Éc. polytech. Math., 11:159–185, 2024

    2024

  6. [5]

    Arnaud, A

    M.-C. Arnaud, A. Florio, and V. Roos. Vanishing asymptotic Maslov index for conformally symplectic flows.Ann. H. Lebesgue, 7:307–355, 2024

    2024

  7. [6]

    Arnaud, V

    M.-C. Arnaud, V. Humilière, and C. Viterbo. Higher Dimensional Birkhoff attractors, 2024. arXiv:2404.00804

    arXiv 2024

  8. [7]

    Asano, S

    T. Asano, S. Guillermou, Y. Ike, and C. Viterbo. Regular Lagrangians are smooth La- grangians, 2024. arXiv:2407.00395, to appear in J. Math. Soc. Japan

    arXiv 2024

Show all 44 references
  1. [8]

    V. Bangert. Mather sets for twist maps and geodesics on tori. InDynamics reported, Vol. 1, volume 1 ofDynam. Report. Ser. Dynam. Systems Appl., pages 1–56. Wiley, Chichester, 1988

    1988

  2. [9]

    Baracco and O

    L. Baracco and O. Bernardi. Totally integrable symplectic billiards are ellipses.Adv. Math., 454:Paper No. 109873, 17, 2024

    2024

  3. [10]

    Baracco, O

    L. Baracco, O. Bernardi, and A. Nardi. Bialy-Mironov type rigidity for centrally symmetric symplectic billiards.Nonlinearity, 37(12):Paper No. 125025, 12, 2024

    2024

  4. [11]

    Baracco, O

    L. Baracco, O. Bernardi, and A. Nardi. Higher order terms of Mather’sβ-function for sym- plectic and outer billiards.J. Math. Anal. Appl., 537(2):Paper No. 128353, 20, 2024

    2024

  5. [12]

    Baracco, O

    L. Baracco, O. Bernardi, and A. Nardi. Area spectral rigidity for axially symmetric and Radon domains. Preprint, arXiv:2410.12644 [math.DS] (2025), 2025

    2025 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Barge and R

    M. Barge and R. M. Gillette. Rotation and periodicity in plane separating continua.Ergodic Theory Dynam. Systems, 11(4):619–631, 1991. 36

    1991

  7. [14]

    Berger and A

    P. Berger and A. Bounemoura. A geometrical proof of the persistence of normally hyperbolic submanifolds.Dyn. Syst., 28(4):567–581, 2013

    2013

  8. [16]

    G. D. Birkhoff. Surface transformations and their dynamical applications.Acta Math., 43(1):1–119, 1922

    1922

  9. [17]

    G. D. Birkhoff. Sur quelques courbes fermées remarquables.Bull. Soc. Math. France, 60:1–26, 1932

    1932

  10. [18]

    Calleja, A

    R. Calleja, A. Celletti, and R. de la Llave. KAM theory for some dissipative systems. InNew frontiers of celestial mechanics—theory and applications, volume 399 ofSpringer Proc. Math. Stat., pages 81–122. Springer, Cham, [2022]©2022

    2022

  11. [19]

    Capi` nski, M

    M. Capi` nski, M. Gröger, A. Passeggi, and F. A. Tal. Conditions Implying Annular Chaos: Quantitative results and Computer Assisted Proofs, 2025. arXiv:2506.06608

    2025 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Charpentier

    M. Charpentier. Sur quelques propriétés des courbes de m. birkhoff.Bulletin de la Société Mathématique de France, 62:193–224, 1934

    1934

  13. [21]

    Q. Chen, A. Fathi, M. Zavidovique, and J. Zhang. Convergence of the solutions of the nonlinear discounted Hamilton-Jacobi equation: the central role of Mather measures.J. Math. Pures Appl. (9), 181:22–57, 2024

    2024

  14. [22]

    Crovisier

    S. Crovisier. Langues d’Arnold généralisées des applications de l’anneau déviant la verticale. C. R. Math. Acad. Sci. Paris, 334(1):47–52, 2002

    2002

  15. [23]

    Crovisier and R

    S. Crovisier and R. Potrie. Introduction to partially hyperbolic dynamics. ICTP, Trieste (2015)

    2015

  16. [24]

    Davini and M

    A. Davini and M. Zavidovique. Convergence of the solutions of discounted Hamilton-Jacobi systems.Adv. Calc. Var., 14(2):193–206, 2021

    2021

  17. [25]

    M. M. Day. Polygons circumscribed about closed convex curves.Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 62:315–319, 1947

    1947

  18. [26]

    Fierobe, A

    C. Fierobe, A. Sorrentino, and A. Vig. Deformational spectral rigidity of axially-symmetric symplectic billiards. Preprint, arXiv:2410.13777 [math.DS] (2024), 2024

    2024 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Flanders

    H. Flanders. A proof of minkowski’s inequality for convex curves.The American Mathematical Monthly, 75(6):581–593, 1968

    1968

  20. [28]

    Gidea, R

    M. Gidea, R. de la Llave, and T. M-Seara. Geometric, topological and dynamical properties of conformally symplectic systems, normally hyperbolic invariant manifolds, and scattering maps, 2025. arXiv:2508.14794

    2025

  21. [29]

    Herman.Sur les courbes invariantes par les difféomorphismes de l’anneau

    M. Herman.Sur les courbes invariantes par les difféomorphismes de l’anneau. Vol. 1, volume 103-104 ofAstérisque. Société Mathématique de France, Paris, 1983. With an appendix by Albert Fathi, With an English summary

    1983

  22. [30]

    M. W. Hirsch, C. C. Pugh, and M. Shub. Invariant manifolds.Bull. Amer. Math. Soc., 76:1015–1019, 1970

    1970

  23. [31]

    Koropecki

    A. Koropecki. Realizing rotation numbers on annular continua.Math. Z., 285(1-2):549–564, 2017

    2017

  24. [32]

    Le Calvez

    P. Le Calvez. Propriétés des attracteurs de Birkhoff.Ergodic Theory Dynam. Systems, 8(2):241–310, 1988

    1988

  25. [33]

    Le Calvez

    P. Le Calvez. Étude topologique des applications déviant la verticale. / patrice le calvez. Ensaios Matemáticos, 2:7–102, 1990. 37

    1990

  26. [34]

    Markarian, E

    R. Markarian, E. J. Pujals, and M. Sambarino. Pinball billiards with dominated splitting. Ergodic Theory Dynam. Systems, 30(6):1757–1786, 2010

    2010

  27. [35]

    Marò and A

    S. Marò and A. Sorrentino. Aubry-Mather theory for conformally symplectic systems.Comm. Math. Phys., 354(2):775–808, 2017

    2017

  28. [36]

    Martini and K

    H. Martini and K. J. Swanepoel. Equiframed curves—a generalization of Radon curves. Monatsh. Math., 141(4):301–314, 2004

    2004

  29. [37]

    J. N. Mather. Variational construction of orbits of twist diffeomorphisms.J. Amer. Math. Soc., 4(2):207–263, 1991

    1991

  30. [38]

    Passeggi, R

    A. Passeggi, R. Potrie, and M. Sambarino. Rotation intervals and entropy on attracting annular continua.Geom. Topol., 22(4):2145–2186, 2018

    2018

  31. [39]

    Passeggi and F

    A. Passeggi and F. A. Tal. Conditions implying annular chaos, 2023. arXiv:2305.02963

    2023 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Sambarino

    M. Sambarino. A (short) survey on dominated splittings. InMathematical Congress of the Americas, volume 656 ofContemp. Math., pages 149–183. Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2016

    2016

  33. [41]

    Tabachnikov

    S. Tabachnikov. Outer billiards.Uspekhi Mat. Nauk, 48(6(294)):75–102, 1993

    1993

  34. [42]

    Tsodikovich

    D. Tsodikovich. Local rigidity for symplectic billiards.J. Geom. Anal., 35(10):26, 2025. Id/No 306

    2025

  35. [43]

    C. Viterbo. On the supports in the Humilière completion andγ-coisotropic sets, 2022. arXiv:2204.04133

    2022

  36. [44]

    Zavidovique

    M. Zavidovique. Convergence of solutions for some degenerate discounted Hamilton-Jacobi equations.Anal. PDE, 15(5):1287–1311, 2022. 38

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.