Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 8 minor 52 references

No universal bound on flatness order for multisymplectic forms

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · glm-5.2

2026-07-07 20:25 UTC pith:MQEY6ZJF

load-bearing objection Genuine new contributions to multisymplectic integrability; the proof of Theorem 5.7 is sketched and has a real gap connecting PDE solvability to the structure tensors c_k. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.05267 v1 pith:MQEY6ZJF submitted 2026-07-06 math.DG

The Spencer cohomology and integrability of multisymplectic structures

Manuel de Le\'on , Rub\'en Izquierdo-L\'opez , Manuel Lainz This is my paper
classification math.DG
keywords multisymplecticstructurescohomologyconstantintegrabilitylinearspencertheory
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper studies when a multisymplectic form — a closed, nondegenerate differential form of degree higher than 2 — can be brought into constant-coefficient form by a coordinate change, the analogue of Darboux's theorem for symplectic geometry. The authors cast multisymplectic structures as G-structures and use Spencer cohomology to compute the obstructions to flatness. They prove that for every j ≥ 1, there exists a nondegenerate 3-form ϖ_j on a vector space of dimension 2j+5 whose Spencer cohomology H^{2,j}(g_{ϖ_j}) is nonzero, and they construct explicit multisymplectic forms on R^{2j+5} whose structure tensors vanish through order j−1 but not at order j. This shows that the conditions guaranteeing flat coordinates for multisymplectic forms can involve derivatives of arbitrarily high order, with no universal bound. Along the way, the authors give a rough classification of multisymplectic linear types into irreducible, product, j-isotropic, and semi-finite types, and prove flatness theorems for the 1-isotropic case (which covers classical field theories) by combining the Moser trick with existence results for smooth solutions of constant-coefficient PDE systems.

Core claim

The central discovery is a family of 3-forms ϖ_j on R^{2j+5} (for each j ≥ 1) whose flatness requires conditions of exactly order j, proved by showing H^{2,j}(g_{ϖ_j}) ≠ {0} via a retraction argument from an auxiliary tableau A_j, and by constructing explicit forms ω_j whose j-th structure tensor c_j is nonzero while all lower-order structure tensors vanish. This demonstrates that no finite order suffices to capture all flatness obstructions for multisymplectic structures.

What carries the argument

Spencer cohomology of the Lie algebra g_ϖ (the stabilizer of a linear form ϖ); structure tensors c_j measuring obstructions to k-flatness of G-structures; the isomorphism between H^{l,j}(g_ϖ) and the cohomology of forms valued in Hamiltonian forms; the tableau retraction technique (Corollary 2.4) to transfer nonzero cohomology from A_j to g_{ϖ_j}; the Moser trick adapted to distributions for reducing multisymplectic flatness to flattening the image bundle {ι_v ω}; and a Fréchet convergence argument extending Hörmander's C^k PDE solvability results to the smooth category.

Load-bearing premise

The flatness theorem for 1-isotropic types (Theorem 4.13) relies on the existence of smooth solutions to inhomogeneous constant-coefficient PDE systems, which the authors derive from Hörmander's C^k results via a Fréchet convergence argument because they could not find the smooth statement in the existing literature.

What would settle it

Construct a multisymplectic form of constant linear type ϖ_j that is formally flat (all structure tensors vanish) but not flat, which would separate formal flatness from actual flatness for these structures.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • No bounded-order Darboux theorem can hold for all multisymplectic forms: any framework claiming first-order (or fixed-order) flatness conditions must restrict to specific linear types.
  • The classification into irreducible, product, j-isotropic, and semi-finite types provides a practical strategy for proving Darboux-type theorems case by case, reducing flatness to linear algebra in favorable scenarios.
  • For classical field theories (whose multisymplectic forms are of 1-isotropic type), formal flatness plus flatness of the leaf and quotient geometries suffices for actual flatness, giving a workable integrability criterion.
  • The explicit Lie algebra computations for polarized multisymplectic forms yield a characterization of Hamiltonian forms in flat field-theoretic multisymplectic structures.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 8 minor

Summary. This manuscript studies the integrability (flatness) of multisymplectic structures of constant linear type by recasting them as G-structures and applying Spencer cohomology. The main contributions are: (1) a rough classification of multisymplectic representations into irreducible, product, j-isotropic, and semi-finite types (Theorem 4.5); (2) flatness theorems for j-isotropic types (Theorems 4.11 and 4.13), with the j=1 case relying on a PDE solvability result proved in the Appendix (Theorem A.3); (3) the construction, for every j≥1, of a 3-form ϖ_j on R^{2j+5} with H^{2,j}(g_{ϖ_j})≠{0} (Theorem 5.4), and an explicit multisymplectic form ω_j whose structure tensors satisfy c_0=⋯=c_{j-1}=0 but c_j≠0 (Theorem 5.7); and (4) explicit computation of the Lie algebras for polarized multisymplectic forms arising in field theories (Section 6). The core algebraic constructions are parameter-free and presented with detailed proofs.

Significance. The paper addresses a genuine gap in the multisymplectic Darboux theorem literature: whether flatness conditions can be of arbitrarily high order. The construction of linear types ϖ_j with H^{2,j}(g_{ϖ_j})≠{0} for all j is a concrete and valuable contribution, as is the explicit computation of the multisymplectic Lie algebras in Section 6. The cohomology isomorphism (Proposition 4.3) and the retraction technique (Corollary 2.4) are clean and parameter-free. The Appendix's derivation of smooth solutions to constant-coefficient PDE systems from Hörmander's C^k results, while a supporting rather than central result, fills a useful gap in the literature. The main concern is whether Theorem 5.7, one of the headline results, is established with sufficient rigor.

major comments (3)
  1. Theorem 5.7 (§5.3): The proof is explicitly sketched ('We simply sketch the computations, which are somewhat straightforward') and has a structural gap in connecting the PDE analysis to the structure tensors c_k. The argument derives a PDE system from Proposition 4.12, which gives necessary conditions for full flatness, not for k-flatness. The correspondence between 'PDE solvable to order k' and 'the G-structure is (k+1)-flat' (i.e., c_0=⋯=c_k=0 per Definitions 3.7–3.10) is not explicitly established. Without this correspondence, the claim that c_0=⋯=c_{j-1}=0 is not fully justified from the PDE solvability analysis presented.
  2. Theorem 5.7 (§5.3): The vanishing of c_0,…,c_{j-1} is not established from the cohomology side. Theorem 5.4 shows H^{2,j}(g_{ϖ_j})≠{0} via the retraction H^{2,j}(A_j) ↪ H^{2,j}(g_{ϖ_j}) (Corollary 2.4). However, this retraction only provides an injection in degree (2,j); it gives no information about H^{2,k}(g_{ϖ_j}) for k<j. Theorem 5.1 gives vanishing for A_j, but the retraction does not transfer vanishing in other degrees to g_{ϖ_j}. To conclude c_j≠0 (rather than some c_k for k>j), one needs either H^{2,k}(g_{ϖ_j})=0 for k<j, or a direct argument that the obstruction occurs at order exactly j. The manuscript provides neither.
  3. Theorem 4.13 (§4.3) and Theorem A.3 (Appendix A): The proof of Theorem 4.13 relies on Theorem A.3 for the existence of smooth solutions to inhomogeneous constant-coefficient PDE systems. The Fréchet convergence argument in the proof of Theorem A.3 is given in reasonable detail, but the step where the compatibility operator Q is applied (in the proof of Theorem 4.13) requires that the (k+1)-flatness of the structure at x implies Q[D]·α=0 at x. The argument on p.24 ('These coordinates are given by certain choices of functions g^i that solve dg^i∧α^i = α at x up to order (k+1)') conflates formal solvability to order k+1 with the compatibility condition Q[D]·α=0, which is a condition on all derivatives. The implication needs a more careful justification: formal solvability to finite order does not automatically imply the full compatibility condition unless additional analyticity or finite-dc
minor comments (8)
  1. §4.2, p.17: 'Before giving the proof to the result above, we would like to give soem results' — typo: 'soem' should be 'some'.
  2. §5.1, Theorem 5.1: The statement says H^{l',j'}(A_j) = 0 if (l',j')≠(2,j) and R if (l',j')=(2,j), but the proof only checks l≥3 by dimension, l=0,1 by Lemma 5.3, and l=2 by explicit computation. The case l=2, j'<j is addressed by showing the cocycles are coboundaries, but the statement could be clearer about the range of j' covered.
  3. §5.3, Theorem 5.7: The form ω_j is defined with a term −f(y_2)dy_1∧dy_2∧x_{j+1}, but the condition for nonvanishing c_j is stated as ∂^j f/∂(y_2)^j ≠ 0. It would help to state explicitly what f is chosen (e.g., f(y_2) = (y_2)^j/j!) to make the example fully concrete.
  4. §4.3, proof of Theorem 4.13: The notation P[D]·f = α is introduced but the dimensions of the system (number of equations, number of unknowns) are not specified. Adding these would help the reader verify the applicability of Theorem A.1.
  5. §3.1, Definition 3.7: 'k-flat' is defined via J^kB|_x ∩ H^q(M)|_x ≠ ∅, but the index q appears to be a typo for k.
  6. §6, Remark 6.3: The notation ker ∂_r is used but ∂_r is only defined as a restriction; it would be clearer to state explicitly that ker ∂_r denotes the kernel of this restricted map.
  7. The reference [43] is cited as 'Accepted for publication' with arXiv number; if published by the time of revision, the reference should be updated.
  8. §4.1, Proposition 4.3: In the degenerate case, the proof uses that 'the previous complex is exact' for elements taking values in W. It would help to specify which complex is meant and cite the exactness result.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for a careful and constructive report. The referee correctly identifies the main contributions of the paper and raises three substantive concerns, all centered on the rigor of Theorem 5.7 and the proof of Theorem 4.13. We address each below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Theorem 5.7 (§5.3): The proof is explicitly sketched and has a structural gap connecting PDE analysis to structure tensors c_k. Proposition 4.12 gives necessary conditions for full flatness, not k-flatness. The correspondence between 'PDE solvable to order k' and 'the G-structure is (k+1)-flat' is not explicitly established.

    Authors: The referee is correct that the proof of Theorem 5.7 is insufficiently detailed and that the connection between finite-order PDE solvability and the vanishing of the structure tensors c_0,...,c_{j-1} is not explicitly established in the manuscript. We will revise §5.3 substantially to fill this gap. The key observation is as follows. The structure tensor c_k takes values in H^{2,k}(g_{ϖ_j}). By Theorem 5.4 and the retraction argument, H^{2,j}(g_{ϖ_j}) ≠ {0}. The PDE system derived from Proposition 4.12 is a constant-coefficient system whose compatibility operator Q has order exactly j. The structure tensor c_k at a point x measures the obstruction to (k+1)-flatness, and by Guillemin's theorem (Theorem 3.6), c_k(x) = 0 if and only if the structure is (k+1)-flat at x. The PDE system from Proposition 4.12 encodes precisely the condition for finding coordinates that make the structure flat; solvability of this system to order k at x is equivalent to (k+1)-flatness at x. For the specific form ω_j, the PDE system can be solved to order j-1 (we show this explicitly by constructing polynomial solutions of degree j), but not to order j when ∂^j f/∂(y^2)^j ≠ 0. This directly shows c_0 = ... = c_{j-1} = 0 and c_j ≠ 0. We will make this correspondence explicit in the revised manuscript. revision: yes

  2. Referee: Theorem 5.7 (§5.3): The vanishing of c_0,...,c_{j-1} is not established from the cohomology side. The retraction only gives injection in degree (2,j), with no information about H^{2,k}(g_{ϖ_j}) for k<j. Theorem 5.1 gives vanishing for A_j, but the retraction does not transfer vanishing to g_{ϖ_j}. One needs either H^{2,k}(g_{ϖ_j})=0 for k<j or a direct argument that the obstruction occurs at order exactly j.

    Authors: The referee raises a valid point. The retraction argument (Corollary 2.4) indeed only provides an injection H^{2,j}(A_j) ↪ H^{2,j}(g_{ϖ_j}) and does not transfer the vanishing H^{2,k}(A_j) = 0 for k < j to g_{ϖ_j}. We cannot conclude c_0 = ... = c_{j-1} = 0 purely from the cohomology of A_j. However, the vanishing of c_0,...,c_{j-1} for the specific form ω_j is established directly from the PDE analysis, not from the cohomology side. The PDE system derived in the proof of Theorem 5.7 can be explicitly solved to order j-1 (we exhibit polynomial solutions), which by the correspondence discussed in our response to the first comment implies (j)-flatness, i.e., c_0 = ... = c_{j-1} = 0. The non-vanishing of c_j then follows from the fact that the PDE is not solvable to order j when ∂^j f/∂(y^2)^j ≠ 0, combined with H^{2,j}(g_{ϖ_j}) ≠ {0} from Theorem 5.4. We agree that the manuscript does not currently make this argument clear, and we will revise §5.3 to separate the two roles of the cohomology (showing H^{2,j} ≠ 0, hence the obstruction can occur at order j) and the PDE analysis (showing the obstruction does occur at order j for the specific ω_j, and does not occur at lower orders). revision: yes

  3. Referee: Theorem 4.13 and Theorem A.3: The proof of Theorem 4.13 relies on Theorem A.3 for smooth solutions. The step where the compatibility operator Q is applied requires that (k+1)-flatness at x implies Q[D]·α=0 at x. The argument on p.24 conflates formal solvability to order k+1 with the compatibility condition Q[D]·α=0, which is a condition on all derivatives. Formal solvability to finite order does not automatically imply the full compatibility condition.

    Authors: The referee is correct that the argument on p.24 is incomplete. The issue is that Q[D]·α = 0 is a condition on all derivatives of α at x, while (k+1)-flatness at x only guarantees that the PDE is solvable to finite order k+1 at x. The referee is right that finite-order formal solvability does not automatically imply the full compatibility condition. We can partially address this: since the structure is formally flat (by hypothesis in Theorem 4.13), it is k-flat for every k. Thus, for every finite order N, there exist functions g^i solving the PDE to order N at x, which implies Q[D]·α vanishes to order N-p at x (where p = ord Q) for every N. Since N is arbitrary, all derivatives of Q[D]·α vanish at x, so Q[D]·α = 0 in a neighborhood by smoothness. This closes the gap, but it requires the hypothesis of formal flatness (not just finite-order flatness), which is indeed the hypothesis of Theorem 4.13. We will revise the proof on p.24 to make this argument explicit, clarifying that the implication uses formal flatness (k-flatness for all k) rather than finite-order flatness. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity found; the main constructions are parameter-free and the derivation chain is self-contained.

full rationale

The paper's central results are built from explicit, parameter-free constructions. The forms ϖ_j (Definition 5.1) and the tableaux A_j (Section 5.1) are concretely defined, and the cohomology H^{2,j}(A_j) ≅ ℝ is computed directly from the Spencer complex (Theorem 5.1). The injection H^{2,j}(A_j) ↪ H^{2,j}(g_{ϖ_j}) follows from the retraction argument (Corollary 2.4), which is proven from first principles. The explicit multisymplectic form ω_j (Theorem 5.7) is constructed explicitly and the obstruction ∂^j f/∂(y_2)^j ≠ 0 is derived by direct computation from the PDE system. The flatness theorems (4.11, 4.13) derive conditions from the Spencer complex and the Moser trick, not by fitting parameters to target results. Self-citations ([11] by de León and Izquierdo-López) appear only in the conclusions for context on graded Poisson structures and are not load-bearing for any derivation. The Appendix (Theorem A.3) provides a self-contained proof of the PDE solvability result used in Theorem 4.13, derived from Hörmander's external results. No step reduces to its inputs by construction, and no 'prediction' is a renamed fit. The skeptic's concern about the proof sketch in Theorem 5.7 is a correctness/completeness issue (the gap between PDE solvability and structure tensor vanishing), not a circularity issue—the claim is not equivalent to its inputs by definition.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 6 axioms · 3 invented entities

No free parameters are fitted to data. The axioms are standard mathematical results except for Theorem A.3 (smooth PDE solvability), which the authors prove. The invented entities (ϖ_j, A_j, the classification) are explicitly constructed with verifiable algebraic properties. No new physical entities or forces are postulated.

axioms (6)
  • standard math Standard theory of G-structures, frame bundles, and principal connections (Kobayashi-Nomizu, Sternberg)
    Used throughout Section 3 to define structure tensors and flatness. Standard differential geometry background.
  • standard math Spencer cohomology theory for Cartan tableaux (Bryant et al., Goldschmidt-Spencer)
    Section 2 recalls this theory; it is the computational backbone of the paper. Standard in exterior differential systems.
  • standard math Guillemin's theorem: formally flat G-structures of finite type or with irreducible G-action are flat (Theorems 3.8, 3.9)
    Invoked in Section 4.3 and in the flatness strategy. A known result from the G-structure literature.
  • domain assumption Existence of smooth solutions to compatible constant-coefficient PDE systems on convex domains (Theorem A.3)
    Proved in the Appendix from Hörmander's C^k results. This is the analytical foundation for Theorem 4.13. The authors note they could not find this exact statement in the literature.
  • domain assumption The Moser trick applies to multisymplectic forms of constant linear type when the image bundle is flat (Proposition 4.10)
    The adaptation of Moser's argument to the multisymplectic setting is a key step. The argument is given in detail and appears correct, but it is specific to this paper's setting.
  • domain assumption The conjecture that every formally flat G-structure is flat remains open in general (discussed in Section 4.3)
    The paper works around this open problem by proving flatness for specific cases. The authors note debate in the literature about whether this has been proved.
invented entities (3)
  • Linear types ϖ_j (3-forms on R^{2j+5}) independent evidence
    purpose: To demonstrate that flatness conditions for multisymplectic structures can be of arbitrarily high order j
    The forms are explicitly constructed (Definition 5.1) and their Spencer cohomology is computed directly (Theorem 5.4). Explicit multisymplectic manifolds realizing the obstructions are given (Theorem 5.7). These are falsifiable by direct computation.
  • Tableaux A_j (subspaces of V* ⊗ W) independent evidence
    purpose: Intermediate objects whose Spencer cohomology H^{2,j}(A_j) ≅ R is computed, then embedded into H^{2,j}(g_{ϖ_j}) via retraction
    Explicitly defined in Section 5.1 with full cohomology computation in Theorem 5.1. The retraction mechanism is verified algebraically.
  • Classification of multisymplectic representations into irreducible, product, j-isotropic, and semi-finite types independent evidence
    purpose: To provide a systematic framework for proving Darboux theorems case by case
    The classification (Theorem 4.5, Definition 4.4) is derived from standard representation theory. The types are shown to be exhaustive under the stated hypotheses.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-glm · 40420 in / 3238 out tokens · 304129 ms · 2026-07-07T20:25:18.706994+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We study the integrability problem of multisymplectic structures, by identifying them as $G$-structures. Applying the theory of Spencer cohomology, we give conditions on a multisymplectic form for it to admit a chart in which it has constant coefficients. This general study allows for a rough classification of multisymplectic structures of constant linear type, depending on the natural action of the stabilizer group. The theory is illustrated by providing a scheme for proving a Darboux theorem, which is exemplified with several relevant cases. We also build linear types of multisymplectic forms $\varpi_j$ whose flatness strictly requires a condition of order $j$. Finally, the corresponding Lie algebras are computed in the case of field theories.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 52 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Abraham and J

    R. Abraham and J. E. Marsden.Foundations of Mechanics. Vol.364. AMS Chelsea Publishing. 10.1090/chel/364. Benjamin/Cummings Pub. Co., 1978

    work page doi:10.1090/chel/364 1978

  2. [2]

    Sur la g´ eom´ etrie diff´ erentielle desG-structures

    D. Bernard. “Sur la g´ eom´ etrie diff´ erentielle desG-structures”. In:Universit´ e de Grenoble, Annales de l’Institut Fourier10(1960). numdam.org/item?id=AIF 1960 10 151 0, pp. 151– 270

    work page 1960

  3. [3]

    E. Binz, J. ´Sniatycki, and H. Fischer.Geometry of Classical Fields. Vol. 154. North-Holland Mathematics Studies. Notas de Matem´ atica, 123. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Co., 1988, pp. xviii+450.isbn: 0-444-70544-9

    work page 1988

  4. [4]

    R. L. Bryant et al.Exterior Differential Systems. Vol. 18. Mathematical Sciences Research Insti- tute Publications. 10.1007/978-1-4613-9714-4. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1991, pp. viii+475. isbn: 0-387-97411-3

    work page doi:10.1007/978-1-4613-9714-4 1991

  5. [5]

    Multisymplectic Forms of Degree Three in Dimension Seven

    J. Bureˇ s and J. Vanˇ zura. “Multisymplectic Forms of Degree Three in Dimension Seven”. In: Proceedings of the 22nd Winter School “Geometry and Physics” (Srn´ ı, 2002). 71. 2003, pp. 73– 91

    work page 2002

  6. [6]

    Th´ eor` eme g´ en´ eral d’´ equivalence pour les pseudogroupes de Lie plats transitifs

    C. Buttin and P. Molino. “Th´ eor` eme g´ en´ eral d’´ equivalence pour les pseudogroupes de Lie plats transitifs”. In:Journal of Differential Geometry9(1974), pp. 347–354

    work page 1974

  7. [7]

    Hamiltonian Structures on Multisymplectic Manifolds

    F. Cantrijn, A. Ibort, and M. de Le´ on. “Hamiltonian Structures on Multisymplectic Manifolds”. In:Universit` a e Politecnico di Torino. Seminario Matematico. Rendiconti54.3 (1996), pp. 225– 236

    work page 1996

  8. [8]

    On the Geometry of Multisymplectic Manifolds

    F. Cantrijn, A. Ibort, and M. de Le´ on. “On the Geometry of Multisymplectic Manifolds”. In: Journal of the Australian Mathematical Society, Series A66.3 (1999), pp. 303–330

    work page 1999

  9. [9]

    A General Approach to Almost Structures in Geometry

    F. Cattafi. “A General Approach to Almost Structures in Geometry”. Advisor: Marius Crainic. dspace.library.uu.nl/handle/1874/395162. PhD thesis. Utrecht, The Netherlands: Universiteit Utrecht, 2020.isbn: 978-90-393-7257-9. 40

    work page 2020

  10. [10]

    The Geometry ofG-Structures

    S. S. Chern. “The Geometry ofG-Structures”. In:Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society72(1966). 10.1090/S0002-9904-1966-11473-8, pp. 167–219

    work page doi:10.1090/s0002-9904-1966-11473-8 1966

  11. [11]

    Graded Poisson and Graded Dirac Structures

    M. de Le´ on and R. Izquierdo-L´ opez. “Graded Poisson and Graded Dirac Structures”. In:J. Math. Phys.66.2 (2025). 10.1063/5.0243128, p. 022901

    work page doi:10.1063/5.0243128 2025

  12. [12]

    Solution of Some Problems of Division. I. Division by a Polynomial of Deriva- tion

    L. Ehrenpreis. “Solution of Some Problems of Division. I. Division by a Polynomial of Deriva- tion”. In:American Journal of Mathematics76.4 (1954). 10.2307/2372662, pp. 883–903

    work page doi:10.2307/2372662 1954

  13. [13]

    Fujimoto.Theory ofG-Structures

    A. Fujimoto.Theory ofG-Structures. English. Vol. Vol. 1. Publications of the Study Group of Geometry. Okayama University, College of Liberal Arts and Science, Department of Applied Mathematics, Study Group of Geometry, Okayama, 1972, pp. vi+143

    work page 1972

  14. [14]

    The Poincar´ e–Cartan Invariant in the Calculus of Variations

    P. L. Garc´ ıa. “The Poincar´ e–Cartan Invariant in the Calculus of Variations”. In:Symposia Mathematica14(1974). Symposia Mathematica, Vol. XIV, pp. 219–246

    work page 1974

  15. [15]

    The Integrability Problem for Lie Equations

    H. Goldschmidt. “The Integrability Problem for Lie Equations”. In:Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society84.4 (1978), pp. 531–546

    work page 1978

  16. [16]

    On the Non-Linear Cohomology of Lie Equations. I

    H. Goldschmidt and D. Spencer. “On the Non-Linear Cohomology of Lie Equations. I”. In: Acta Mathematica136.1-2 (1976). 10.1007/BF02392044, pp. 103–170

    work page doi:10.1007/bf02392044 1976

  17. [17]

    On the Non-Linear Cohomology of Lie Equations. II

    H. Goldschmidt and D. Spencer. “On the Non-Linear Cohomology of Lie Equations. II”. In: Acta Mathematica136.3-4 (1976). 10.1007/BF02392045, pp. 171–239

    work page doi:10.1007/bf02392045 1976

  18. [18]

    An introduction to higher-form symmetries

    P. R. S. Gomes. “An introduction to higher-form symmetries”. In:SciPost Phys. Lect. Notes (2023), p. 74.doi:10.21468/SciPostPhysLectNotes.74

    work page doi:10.21468/scipostphyslectnotes.74 2023

  19. [19]

    M. J. Gotay et al.Momentum Maps and Classical Relativistic Fields. Part I: Covariant Field Theory. arXiv:physics/9801019. 2004. arXiv:physics/9801019 [math-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  20. [20]

    On Darboux Theorems for Geometric Structures Induced by Closed Forms

    X. Gr` acia et al. “On Darboux Theorems for Geometric Structures Induced by Closed Forms”. In:Revista de la Real Academia de Ciencias Exactas, F´ ısicas y Naturales. Serie A. Matem´ aticas 118.3 (2024). 10.1007/s13398-024-01632-w, p. 131

    work page doi:10.1007/s13398-024-01632-w 2024

  21. [21]

    The Integrability Problem forG-Structures

    V. Guillemin. “The Integrability Problem forG-Structures”. In:Transactions of the American Mathematical Society116(1965). 10.2307/1994134, pp. 544–560

    work page doi:10.2307/1994134 1965

  22. [22]

    H¨ ormander.An Introduction to Complex Analysis in Several Variables

    L. H¨ ormander.An Introduction to Complex Analysis in Several Variables. 3rd revised ed. Vol. 7. North-Holland Mathematical Library. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1990.isbn: 0-444-88446-7

    work page 1990

  23. [23]

    T. A. Ivey and J. M. Landsberg.Cartan for Beginners: Differential Geometry via Moving Frames and Exterior Differential Systems. Vol. 61. Graduate Studies in Mathematics. 10.1090/gsm/061. Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society, 2003, pp. xiv+378.isbn: 0-8218-3375-8

    work page doi:10.1090/gsm/061 2003

  24. [24]

    Kijowski and W

    J. Kijowski and W. M. Tulczyjew.A Symplectic Framework for Field Theories. Lecture Notes in Physics. 10.1007/3-540-09538-1. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 1979.isbn: 978-3-540-09538-5

    work page doi:10.1007/3-540-09538-1 1979

  25. [25]

    On a Fundamental Theorem of Weyl-Cartan onG-Structures

    S. Kobayashi and T. Nagano. “On a Fundamental Theorem of Weyl-Cartan onG-Structures”. In:Journal of the Mathematical Society of Japan17(1965). 10.2969/jmsj/01710084, pp. 84– 101

    work page doi:10.2969/jmsj/01710084 1965

  26. [26]

    Kobayashi and K

    S. Kobayashi and K. Nomizu.Foundations of Differential Geometry. Vol. I. Wiley Classics Library. Reprint of the 1963 original, A Wiley-Interscience Publication. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1996, pp. xii+329.isbn: 0-471-15733-3

    work page 1963

  27. [27]

    Kol´ aˇ r, J

    I. Kol´ aˇ r, J. Slov´ ak, and P. W. Michor.Natural Operations in Differential Geometry. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, 1993.isbn: 978-3-662-02950-3

    work page 1993

  28. [28]

    A New Geometric Setting for Classical Field Theories

    M. de Le´ on, J. C. Marrero, and D. Mart´ ın de Diego. “A New Geometric Setting for Classical Field Theories”. In:Classical and Quantum Integrability (Warsaw, 2001). Vol. 59. Banach Center Publications. 10.4064/bc59-0-10. Polish Academy of Sciences, Institute of Mathematics, Warsaw, 2003, pp. 189–209. 41

    work page doi:10.4064/bc59-0-10 2001

  29. [29]

    Tulczyjew’s Triples and La- grangian Submanifolds in Classical Field Theories

    M. de Le´ on, D. Mart´ ın de Diego, and A. Santamaria-Merino. “Tulczyjew’s Triples and La- grangian Submanifolds in Classical Field Theories”. In:Applied Differential Geometry and Mechanics. Ghent, Belgium: Academia Press, 2003, pp. 21–47

    work page 2003

  30. [30]

    de Le´ on, L

    M. de Le´ on, L. A. Cordero, and C. T. J. Dodson.Differential Geometry of Frame Bundles. Mathematics and Its Applications. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1989

    work page 1989

  31. [31]

    Symmetries in Classical Field Theory

    M. de Le´ on, D. Mart´ ın de Diego, and A. Santamar´ ıa-Merino. “Symmetries in Classical Field Theory”. In:International Journal of Geometric Methods in Modern Physics1.5 (2004). 10.1142/S0219887804000290, pp. 651–710

    work page doi:10.1142/s0219887804000290 2004

  32. [32]

    Density-Valued Symplectic Forms from a Multisymplectic Viewpoint

    L. Leski and L. Ryvkin. “Density-Valued Symplectic Forms from a Multisymplectic Viewpoint”. In:Differential Geometry and its Applications103(2026). 10.1016/j.difgeo.2026.102334, Paper No. 102334, 11

    work page doi:10.1016/j.difgeo.2026.102334 2026

  33. [33]

    Introduction to the Theory of Semi-Holonomic Jets

    P. Libermann. “Introduction to the Theory of Semi-Holonomic Jets”. In:Archivum Mathe- maticum33.3 (1997). eudml.org/doc/18495, pp. 173–189

    work page 1997

  34. [34]

    Reasons to Fall (More) in Love with Combinatorial Reconfiguration

    P. Libermann and C.-M. Marle.Symplectic Geometry and Analytical Mechanics. 10.1007/978- 94-009-3807-6. Springer Netherlands, 1987

    work page doi:10.1007/978- 1987

  35. [35]

    Existence et approximation des solutions des ´ equations aux d´ eriv´ ees partielles et des ´ equations de convolution

    B. Malgrange. “Existence et approximation des solutions des ´ equations aux d´ eriv´ ees partielles et des ´ equations de convolution”. In:Annales de l’Institut Fourier6(1956). 10.5802/aif.65, pp. 271–355

    work page doi:10.5802/aif.65 1956

  36. [36]

    A Darboux Theorem for Multi-Symplectic Manifolds

    G. Martin. “A Darboux Theorem for Multi-Symplectic Manifolds”. In:Letters in Mathematical Physics16.2 (1988). 10.1007/BF00402020, pp. 133–138

    work page doi:10.1007/bf00402020 1988

  37. [37]

    On the Volume Elements on a Manifold

    J. Moser. “On the Volume Elements on a Manifold”. In:Transactions of the American Math- ematical Society120.2 (1965). 10.2307/1994022, pp. 286–294

    work page doi:10.2307/1994022 1965

  38. [38]

    Differential Systems Associated with Tableaux over Lie Alge- bras

    E. Musso and L. Nicolodi. “Differential Systems Associated with Tableaux over Lie Alge- bras”. In:Symmetries and Overdetermined Systems of Partial Differential Equations. Vol. 144. IMA Volumes in Mathematics and Its Applications. 10.1007/978-0-387-73831-4 26. New York: Springer, 2008, pp. 497–513.isbn: 978-0-387-73830-7

    work page doi:10.1007/978-0-387-73831-4 2008

  39. [39]

    V. P. Palamodov.Linear Differential Operators with Constant Coefficients. 1st ed. Vol. 168. Grundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften. Springer Berlin, Heidelberg, 1970, pp. VIII+448. isbn: 978-3-642-46221-4

    work page 1970

  40. [40]

    The Integrability Problem for Pseudogroup Structures

    A. S. Pollack. “The Integrability Problem for Pseudogroup Structures”. In:Journal of Differ- ential Geometry9(1974), pp. 355–390

    work page 1974

  41. [41]

    Formes trilin´ eaires altern´ ees de rang 7

    P. Revoy. “Formes trilin´ eaires altern´ ees de rang 7”. In:Bulletin des Sciences Math´ ematiques, 2e S´ erie112.3 (1988), pp. 357–368

    work page 1988

  42. [42]

    Multisymplectic Lagrangian and Hamiltonian Formalisms of Classical Field Theories

    N. Rom´ an-Roy. “Multisymplectic Lagrangian and Hamiltonian Formalisms of Classical Field Theories”. In:SIGMA. Symmetry, Integrability and Geometry. Methods and Applications5 (2009). 10.3842/SIGMA.2009.100, Paper 100, 25

    work page doi:10.3842/sigma.2009.100 2009

  43. [43]

    Darboux type theorems in multisymplectic geometry

    L. Ryvkin. “Darboux Type Theorems in Multisymplectic Geometry”. In:Accepted for publi- cation in the Springer INdAM volume ‘Poisson Geometry and Mathematical Physics’(2025). arXiv:2503.03672. arXiv:2503.03672

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  44. [44]

    An Invitation to Multisymplectic Geometry

    L. Ryvkin and T. Wurzbacher. “An Invitation to Multisymplectic Geometry”. In:Journal of Geometry and Physics142(2019). 10.1016/j.geomphys.2019.03.006, pp. 9–36

    work page doi:10.1016/j.geomphys.2019.03.006 2019

  45. [45]

    The Infinite Groups of Lie and Cartan. I. The Transitive Groups

    I. M. Singer and S. Sternberg. “The Infinite Groups of Lie and Cartan. I. The Transitive Groups”. In:Journal d’Analyse Math´ ematique15(1965). 10.1007/BF02787690, pp. 1–114. 42

    work page doi:10.1007/bf02787690 1965

  46. [46]

    Sternberg.Lectures on Differential Geometry

    S. Sternberg.Lectures on Differential Geometry. Second. With an appendix by Sternberg and Victor W. Guillemin. New York: Chelsea Publishing Co., 1983, pp. xviii+442.isbn: 0-8284- 0316-3

    work page 1983

  47. [47]

    One Kind of Multisymplectic Structures on 6-Manifolds

    J. Vanˇ zura. “One Kind of Multisymplectic Structures on 6-Manifolds”. In:Steps in Differen- tial Geometry (Debrecen, 2000). Institute of Mathematics and Informatics, Debrecen, 2001, pp. 375–391

    work page 2000

  48. [48]

    Hamiltonian Dynamics and Geometry on the Two-Plectic Six-Sphere

    M. Wagner and T. Wurzbacher. “Hamiltonian Dynamics and Geometry on the Two-Plectic Six-Sphere”. In: (2025). arXiv:2502.00756. arXiv:2502.00756

    work page arXiv 2025

  49. [49]

    Symplectic Manifolds and Their Lagrangian Submanifolds

    A. Weinstein. “Symplectic Manifolds and Their Lagrangian Submanifolds”. In:Advances in Mathematics6.3 (1971). 10.1016/0001-8708(71)90020-X, pp. 329–346

    work page doi:10.1016/0001-8708(71)90020-x 1971

  50. [50]

    Irreducible Lengths of Trivectors of Rank Seven and Eight

    R. Westwick. “Irreducible Lengths of Trivectors of Rank Seven and Eight”. In:Pacific Journal of Mathematics80.2 (1979). projecteuclid.org/euclid.pjm/1102785726, pp. 575–579

    work page arXiv 1979

  51. [51]

    Real Trivectors of Rank Seven

    R. Westwick. “Real Trivectors of Rank Seven”. In:Linear and Multilinear Algebra10.3 (1981). 10.1080/03081088108817411, pp. 183–204

    work page doi:10.1080/03081088108817411 1981

  52. [52]

    Trivectors in a Space of Seven Dimensions

    R. Westwick. “Trivectors in a Space of Seven Dimensions”. In:Canadian Mathematical Bulletin 20.3 (1977). 10.4153/CMB-1977-061-5, p. 401. 43

    work page doi:10.4153/cmb-1977-061-5 1977