Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 74 references

Symplectic torus actions with non-contractible orbits

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A symplectic torus action of maximal size is Hamiltonian exactly when its orbits are contractible.

desk verdict Resolves the last open dimension regime for Hamiltonian-vs-contractible-orbits, and the proof is mostly solid; the one load-bearing assertion in Lemma 4.2 needs to be proved before I'd sign off. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.21159 v1 pith:2XH6SZV5 submitted 2026-07-23 math.SG math.DG

Rei Henigman , Yael Karshon This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.SGmath.DG MSC 53D2053D3557R1757S15
keywords symplectictorusactionsHamiltoniancontractibleorbitscylinder-valuedmomentummapsDuistermaat-Heckmanmeasurecomplexityonespacessplittinglemmanon-extendability
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper proves that for the largest torus symmetries that can act on a symplectic manifold without being Hamiltonian—a T^{n-1} action on a closed 2n-dimensional symplectic manifold—the action is Hamiltonian if and only if every orbit map is null-homotopic, equivalently, if orbits are contractible. This turns an analytic condition, existence of a momentum map, into a purely topological one, and it extends a four-dimensional theorem to all dimensions. The proof isolates the non-Hamiltonian part of the action and shows, using strict log-concavity of Duistermaat–Heckman densities, that it must act locally freely; a further vanishing of a real Chern class and a Moser-type isotopy argument then force its orbits to be essential. As a consequence, several a priori different properties—fixed points, Hamiltonianity, contractible orbits, null-homotopic orbit maps, and equivariant formality—coincide in this setting, and several known non-Hamiltonian circle actions can be shown not to extend to larger torus actions.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing device is the Splitting Lemma: under isotropic orbits and dim T ≥ n−1, the torus decomposes as T = T_ham × T_c, where T_ham acts Hamiltonially and T_c acts locally freely. The lemma is obtained from strict log-concavity of the Duistermaat–Heckman density for complexity-one actions, applied to a cylinder-valued momentum map for the non-Hamiltonian part; this forces every one-dimensional non-Hamiltonian circle to be locally free. A second ingredient is the vanishing of the real Chern class on level sets of the cylinder-valued momentum map, proved by a Moser-type isotopy theorem for complexity-one spaces; combined with a long exact sequence of homotopy groups and a lemma on loc

What would settle it

A concrete counterexample would be a faithful symplectic T^{n-1} action on a closed connected 2n-dimensional symplectic manifold that is non-Hamiltonian and has at least one fixed point; Theorem 1.1 would then fail because the orbit maps of a fixed point are constant. At the proof level, one could look for a non-Hamiltonian complexity-one action with isotropic orbits whose cylinder-valued Duistermaat–Heckman density violates the strict one-sided derivative inequality ∂ξ f(y+) < ∂ξ f(y−) across a codimension-one wall; that failure would invalidate the Splitting Lemma.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On a closed connected symplectic manifold (M^{2n}, ω), let T be a torus of dimension at least n−1 acting faithfully and symplectically. The paper's central claim is that the action is Hamiltonian if and only if its orbit maps are null-homotopic. Because Hamiltonian actions always have fixed points, the nontrivial direction is the converse: a non-Hamiltonian T^{n-1} action must have essential orbits. When the orbits are isotropic, the paper proves more: every non-Hamiltonian subcircle represents a non-torsion element of π₁(M), and the action splits as a product of a maximal Hamiltonian subtorus and a locally-free non-Hamiltonian part. These results imply that known six-dimensional non-Hamilto

Load-bearing premise

The proof assumes that the strict log-concavity inequality for Duistermaat–Heckman densities, known for Hamiltonian complexity-one actions, continues to hold around every interior wall after replacing the Hamiltonian momentum map by a cylinder-valued momentum map of a non-Hamiltonian T^{n-1} action; this transfer is asserted without proof and the Splitting Lemma, and hence the main theorems, depend on it.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For T^{n-1} actions on 2n-manifolds, Hamiltonianity is detected by orbit topology: contractible orbits, null-homotopic orbit maps, fixed points, and equivariant formality all become equivalent.
  • In dimension 6, non-Hamiltonian circle actions with contractible orbits, including free ones and ones with fixed points, cannot be extended to symplectic T² actions; in higher dimensions they cannot be extended to isotropic T^{n-1} actions.
  • Any non-Hamiltonian subcircle of an isotropic T^{n-1} action generates a non-torsion class in π₁(M), so the fundamental group records all non-Hamiltonian directions.
  • Reduced spaces of free symplectic circle actions with contractible orbits must satisfy ⟨c, π₂(N)⟩ = Z for some integral class c; aspherical symplectic manifolds and manifolds with second Betti number one are ruled out as reduced spaces.
  • Non-Hamiltonian T^{n-1} actions with isotropic orbits are constrained to local models where the Hamiltonian part is separated from a locally-free part, a structural step toward classifying such actions.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the strict log-concavity assumption for non-Hamiltonian cylinder-valued Duistermaat–Heckman densities can be verified directly, the proof would also give a construction guide: non-Hamiltonian T^{n-1} actions are essentially built from a Hamiltonian complexity-one piece and a locally-free torus bundle, suggesting a classification parallel to the known four-dimensional case.
  • Conjecture 8.5 points to a testable refinement: for non-isotropic orbits of rank 2r, the same conclusions should hold when dim T ≥ n+r−1; quotienting by the symplectic part of the action would reduce to the isotropic case, but only if the Moser-type isotopy theorem survives for orbifolds.
  • The reduced-space criterion of Theorem 7.3 could be used computationally to search for new free circle actions with contractible orbits: one should look for symplectic manifolds N admitting an integral class c with ⟨c, π₂(N)⟩ = Z and a diffeomorphism Ψ that reverses a straight line of symplectic forms in the direction c; candidates that are not K3 surfaces would answer the paper's Problem 8.3.
  • The non-extendability corollary suggests that the boundary of symplectic extendability in 6-manifolds is drawn by π₁: a circle action whose orbits are torsion in π₁ cannot sit inside a T² action.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proves that if a torus T acts symplectically on a closed connected symplectic manifold (M,ω) with dim M = 2n and dim T ≥ n−1, then the action is Hamiltonian if and only if its orbit maps are null-homotopic (Theorem 1.1). The main case dim T = n−1 is established through three structural results: the Splitting Lemma (Lemmas 1.5 and 4.2), which says that with isotropic orbits the non-Hamiltonian part acts locally freely; Proposition 5.5, which shows the real Chern class vanishes on the level sets of the cylinder-valued momentum map for the non-Hamiltonan part; and Theorem 1.3, which asserts that non-Hamiltonian subcircle actions represent non-torsion elements of π1(M). The paper also derives non-extendability results for symplectic circle actions and gives a topological characterization of reduced spaces of free circle actions with contractible orbits (Theorem 7.3).

Significance. If correct, Theorem 1.1 closes the remaining dimension range for the question of when Hamiltonianity of a symplectic torus action is detected by the topology of its orbits, extending the four-dimensional theorem of Lalonde–McDuff–Polterovich and giving new restrictions on non-Hamiltonian actions. The proof is well organized and uses external results — Benoist, Graham, Karshon–Tolman, Duistermaat–Pelayo — without circularity. The paper also provides independent, checkable consequences, such as non-extendability of known six-dimensional circle actions and cohomological obstructions for reduced spaces. The main concern is a specific unproved local-lift step in the proof of Lemma 4.2; it is likely fillable, but it is load-bearing for the central theorem.

major comments (2)
  1. [§4, proof of Lemma 4.2 (after Eq. (4.3))] The sentence 'Even though our action is not Hamiltonian, the above facts are still true...' is load-bearing and unproved. Graham's strict log-concavity is a theorem for Hamiltonian complexity-one spaces; to apply it to the cylinder-valued momentum map of a non-Hamiltonian T^{n-1}-action one must choose a contractible neighbourhood W of y in t*/P, lift it to t*, and check that on µ^{-1}(W) the lifted map is a genuine Hamiltonian momentum map. The manuscript supplies none of this. If the transfer failed, the conclusion that t*_c lies in every codimension-one wall — and hence Lemma 4.2, the Splitting Lemma, Proposition 5.5, Theorem 1.3, and Theorem 1.1 — would no longer follow. The gap is likely fillable, but it must be written out.
  2. [§5, proof of Proposition 5.5 (paragraph after Eq. (5.10), beginning 'Since W is convex')] The same local-lift issue recurs when the paper asserts that the T-action on µ^{-1}(W) is Hamiltonian and hence defines a complexity-one space. One needs to prove that a local section of the covering t* -> t*/P over the contractible set W yields a momentum map satisfying Hamilton's equation and proper over W; this also underlies Lemma 5.2's use of Hamiltonian T-models for a non-Hamiltonian action. As written, this is a second unsupported transfer of Hamiltonian facts to the cylinder-valued setup. Add the local-lift argument, and state explicitly the compactness hypothesis used in Lemma 5.2.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§5, Lemma 5.2 and Proposition 5.5] The statements say 'connected symplectic manifold' but the proofs use compactness (finite invariant cover). All applications are to closed manifolds, so add 'closed' to the hypotheses or justify the finiteness otherwise.
  2. [§4, proof of Lemma 4.2] The sentence 'Because (R·P) \ {0} is dense in the dual t*_c' is imprecise: when P is a lattice in t*_c, the set R·P equals t*_c. This does not affect the argument.
  3. [§2.3, Definition 2.13] The assertion 'The T-action is Hamiltonian if and only if P = {0}' is used repeatedly; a one-sentence justification or reference would help the reader.
  4. [§7, Lemma 7.1 and Theorem 7.3] The notation '⟨c,π2(N)⟩ = Z' should be glossed as 'the image of the evaluation map equals Z', since c is a cohomology class and π2(N) is a group. This is clear from context but worth stating.
  5. [Appendix C] In Lemma C.2, the expression γ^{-b_j/a_j} should be interpreted as γ^{-b_j a_j^{-1}} in the finite cyclic group; the current notation is slightly abusive.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central theorem is derived from independent published results; the main weakness is an unproved transfer, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

I walked the derivation chain: Theorem 1.1 depends on Proposition 6.1, which depends on Theorem 1.3; Theorem 1.3 uses Proposition 5.5, Lemma 4.2, and Benoist's connectedness result; Proposition 5.5 uses Lemma 4.2 and the Karshon–Tolman Moser-type theorem ([44,46]). None of these steps defines the conclusion in terms of the conclusion. No parameter is fitted and then relabeled as a prediction; no empirical pattern is merely renamed. The self-citations to Karshon–Tolman [44,46] and to Henigman [38] are prior published/arXiv results with their own stated assumptions; they are not used as an unverified uniqueness theorem to forbid alternatives, and the Karshon–Tolman theorem is independent of the present target result. Thus Rule 4 applies and these citations do not raise the circularity score. The most serious concern is a gap, not a circularity: in the proof of Lemma 4.2 the authors write, 'Even though our action is not Hamiltonian, the above facts are still true around the preimage of a small neighbourhood of any point in t*/P' (Section 4, after Eq. (4.3)); this transfers Graham's strict log-concavity statement from the Hamiltonian complexity-one setting to a cylinder-valued non-Hamiltonian setup without giving the local-lift argument. If that transfer fails, the Splitting Lemma and Theorems 1.1/1.3 would not follow. But the assertion is not equivalent by construction to the paper's conclusion; it is an omitted proof/correctness risk rather than a self-definitional or fitted-input circularity. Therefore the circularity score is 0, with the caveat that the unproved transfer must be supplied for the proof to be complete.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

Pure theorem proof; no fitted values or invented entities. The central claim depends on standard symplectic geometry background plus several nontrivial external theorems: log-concavity/strictness of the DH measure for complexity-one spaces, Benoist's closedness of the maximal Hamiltonian subtorus, and Karshon–Tolman's Moser-type theorem. These are domain assumptions from the literature, not ad hoc constructions.

assumptions (6)
  • standard math Guillemin–Sternberg–Marle local normal form and Duistermaat–Heckman measure theory (Eq. 2.7)
    Used throughout Sections 4–6; accepted background for Hamiltonian torus actions.
  • domain assumption Graham's strict log-concavity inequality for complexity-one Duistermaat–Heckman densities at codimension-one walls
    Used in Lemma 4.2 to force the non-Hamiltonian part into every wall; the paper assumes it transfers to cylinder-valued non-Hamiltonian actions without detailed proof.
  • domain assumption Benoist's theorem: maximal Hamiltonian Lie subalgebra exponentiates to a closed subtorus
    External result [9, Cor. 3.2] needed for Splitting Lemma 1.5.
  • domain assumption Karshon–Tolman Moser-type theorem for complexity-one spaces
    Used in Proposition 5.5 to convert μ-T-diffeomorphisms into isomorphisms; paper uses a slightly stronger isotopy formulation claimed to follow from [44,46].
  • domain assumption Equivariant formality criteria (Atiyah–Bott/Kirwan; Allday–Hauschild–Puppe; Bai–Pomerleano)
    Used only for Corollary 1.2 and Appendix A, not the main theorem.
  • standard math Koszul slice theorem (free orbits are dense for faithful torus actions)
    Used in Lemma 3.1 and Proposition 6.1 to pick free orbits.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Symplectic torus actions with non-contractible orbits." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2XH6SZV5

@misc{pith2026260721159,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Symplectic torus actions with non-contractible orbits},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2XH6SZV5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.21159}
}
abstract

We prove that a symplectic $T^{n-1}$ action on a closed connected $2n$-dimensional symplectic manifold is Hamiltonian if and only if its orbits are contractible. This generalizes a result of Lalonde--McDuff--Polterovich on four-manifolds and theorems of McDuff and Kim on existence of fixed points. When the orbits are isotropic, we prove a stronger variant of this result, which implies non-extendability of certain symplectic circle actions on 6-manifolds to symplectic $T^2$ actions. Moreover, we prove that a symplectic $T^{n-1}$ action with isotropic orbits always splits into a maximal Hamiltonian action and a locally-free action. We end by posing several open questions on the topology of symplectic torus actions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.21159 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Summary of logical implications between topological prop￾erties of a smooth torus action. Remark 3.2. All of the arrows in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Diagram of y, π −1 (y), and W, with respect to the projec￾tion π from the cylinder t ∗/P ∼= R k×T n−k−1 to the torus t ∗ c /P ∼= T n−k−1 . By Equation (5.8), the equivariant diffeomorphism Ψj 1 : M → M restricts to a µ-T-diffeomorphism Ψj 1 : µ −1 (W) → µ −1 (W). Hence, by Theorem 5.4, we can con￾struct an isotopy through µ-T-diffeomorphisms from the µ-T-diffeomorphism Ψj 1 to an isomorphism Fj : (µ −1 (W), ω, µ, W)… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

74 extracted references · 4 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Orbifolds and stringy topol- ogy

    Alejandro Adem, Johann Leida, and Yongbin Ruan. Orbifolds and stringy topol- ogy. Vol. 171. Cambridge Tracts in Mathematics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2007, pp. xii+149. REFERENCES 35

    2007

  2. [2]

    A non-fixed point theorem for Hamiltonian Lie group actions

    Christopher Allday, Volker Hauschild, and Volker Puppe. “A non-fixed point theorem for Hamiltonian Lie group actions”. In: Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 354.7 (2002), pp. 2971–2982

    2002

  3. [3]

    A c-symplectic free S1-manifold with con- tractible orbits and cat = 1 2 DIM

    Christopher Allday and John Oprea. “A c-symplectic free S1-manifold with con- tractible orbits and cat = 1 2 DIM”. In: Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 134.2 (2006), pp. 599–604

    2006

  4. [4]

    Remarks on symplectic circle actions, torsion and loops

    Marcelo S. Atallah. “Remarks on symplectic circle actions, torsion and loops”. In: Algebr. Geom. Topol. 24.4 (2024), pp. 2367–2384

    2024

  5. [5]

    Convexity and commuting Hamiltonians

    M. F. Atiyah. “Convexity and commuting Hamiltonians”. In: Bull. London Math. Soc. 14.1 (1982), pp. 1–15

    1982

  6. [6]

    The moment map and equivariant cohomology

    M. F. Atiyah and R. Bott. “The moment map and equivariant cohomology”. In: Topology 23.1 (1984), pp. 1–28

    1984

  7. [7]

    Torus actions on symplectic manifolds

    Mich` ele Audin. Torus actions on symplectic manifolds . revised. Vol. 93. Progress in Mathematics. Birkh¨ auser Verlag, Basel, 2004, pp. viii+325

    2004

  8. [8]

    Equivariant formality in complex-oriented theories

    Shaoyun Bai and Daniel Pomerleano. “Equivariant formality in complex-oriented theories”. In: arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.05821 (2024)

    arXiv 2024

Show all 74 references
  1. [9]

    Actions symplectiques de groupes compacts

    Yves Benoist. “Actions symplectiques de groupes compacts”. In: Geom. Dedicata 89 (2002), pp. 181–245

    2002

  2. [10]

    Classes caract´ eristiques ´ equivariantes. For- mule de localisation en cohomologie ´ equivariante

    Nicole Berline and Mich` ele Vergne. “Classes caract´ eristiques ´ equivariantes. For- mule de localisation en cohomologie ´ equivariante”. In:C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris S´ er. I Math. 295.9 (1982), pp. 539–541

    1982

  3. [11]

    Seminar on transformation groups

    Armand Borel. Seminar on transformation groups . Vol. No. 46. Annals of Math- ematics Studies. With contributions by G. Bredon, E. E. Floyd, D. Montgomery, R. Palais. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1960, pp. vii+245

    1960

  4. [12]

    Lectures on symplectic geometry

    Ana Cannas da Silva. Lectures on symplectic geometry. Vol. 1764. Lecture Notes in Mathematics. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2001, pp. xii+217

    2001

  5. [13]

    Upper bound for the Gromov width of coadjoint orbits of compact Lie groups

    Alexander Caviedes Castro. Upper bound for the Gromov width of coadjoint orbits of compact Lie groups . In: arXiv:1404.4647 [math.SG]

    arXiv

  6. [14]

    Upper bound for the Gromov width of coadjoint orbits of compact Lie groups

    Alexander Caviedes Castro. “Upper bound for the Gromov width of coadjoint orbits of compact Lie groups”. In: J. Lie Theory 26.3 (2016), pp. 821–860

    2016

  7. [15]

    Log-concavity of complexity one Hamiltonian torus actions

    Yunhyung Cho and Min Kyu Kim. “Log-concavity of complexity one Hamiltonian torus actions”. In: C. R. Math. Acad. Sci. Paris 350.17-18 (2012), pp. 845–848

    2012

  8. [16]

    G´ eom´ etrie du moment

    M. Condevaux, P. Dazord, and P. Molino. “G´ eom´ etrie du moment”. In:Travaux du S´ eminaire Sud-Rhodanien de G´ eom´ etrie, I. Vol. 88-1. Publ. D´ ep. Math. Nou- velle S´ er. B. Univ. Claude-Bernard, Lyon, 1988, pp. 131–160

    1988

  9. [17]

    Hamiltoniens p´ eriodiques et images convexes de l’application moment

    Thomas Delzant. “Hamiltoniens p´ eriodiques et images convexes de l’application moment”. In: Bull. Soc. Math. France 116.3 (1988), pp. 315–339

    1988

  10. [18]

    On the variation in the cohomology of the symplectic form of the reduced phase space

    J. J. Duistermaat and G. J. Heckman. “On the variation in the cohomology of the symplectic form of the reduced phase space”. In: Invent. Math. 69.2 (1982), pp. 259–268

    1982

  11. [19]

    Symplectic torus actions with coisotropic principal orbits

    Johannes Jisse Duistermaat and ´Alvaro Pelayo. “Symplectic torus actions with coisotropic principal orbits”. In: vol. 57. 7. Festival Yves Colin de Verdi` ere. 2007, pp. 2239–2327. 36 REFERENCES

    2007

  12. [20]

    Compact symplectic man- ifolds with free circle actions, and Massey products

    Marisa Fern´ andez, Alfred Gray, and John W. Morgan. “Compact symplectic man- ifolds with free circle actions, and Massey products”. In: Michigan Math. J. 38.2 (1991), pp. 271–283

    1991

  13. [21]

    Equivariant dynamical systems

    M. J. Field. “Equivariant dynamical systems”. In: Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 259.1 (1980), pp. 185–205

    1980

  14. [22]

    Fixed points and torsion on K¨ ahler manifolds

    Theodore Frankel. “Fixed points and torsion on K¨ ahler manifolds”. In: Ann. of Math. (2) 70 (1959), pp. 1–8

    1959

  15. [23]

    Some remarks on symplectic actions of compact groups

    Viktor L. Ginzburg. “Some remarks on symplectic actions of compact groups”. In: Math. Z. 210.4 (1992), pp. 625–640

    1992

  16. [24]

    Assignments and ab- stract moment maps

    Viktor L. Ginzburg, Victor Guillemin, and Yael Karshon. “Assignments and ab- stract moment maps”. In: J. Differential Geom. 52.2 (1999), pp. 259–301

    1999

  17. [25]

    Classification of Hamiltonian S1-actions on compact symplectic orbifolds with isolated cyclic singular points in dimension four

    Leonor Godinho, Grace T. Mwakyoma-Oliveira, and Daniele Sepe. “Classification of Hamiltonian S1-actions on compact symplectic orbifolds with isolated cyclic singular points in dimension four”. In: arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2401.15466 (Jan. 2024), arXiv:2401.15466

    2024 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Distinguishing the chambers of the moment polytope

    R. F. Goldin, T. S. Holm, and L. C. Jeffrey. “Distinguishing the chambers of the moment polytope”. In: J. Symplectic Geom. 2.1 (2003), pp. 109–131

    2003

  19. [27]

    Logarithmic convexity of push-forward measures

    William Graham. “Logarithmic convexity of push-forward measures”. In: Invent. Math. 123.2 (1996), pp. 315–322

    1996

  20. [28]

    Equivariant index and the moment map for completely integrable torus actions

    Michael D. Grossberg and Yael Karshon. “Equivariant index and the moment map for completely integrable torus actions”. In: Adv. Math. 133.2 (1998), pp. 185– 223

    1998

  21. [29]

    Convexity properties of the moment mapping

    V. Guillemin and S. Sternberg. “Convexity properties of the moment mapping”. In: Invent. Math. 67.3 (1982), pp. 491–513

    1982

  22. [30]

    Moment maps, cobordisms, and Hamiltonian group actions

    Victor Guillemin, Viktor Ginzburg, and Yael Karshon. Moment maps, cobordisms, and Hamiltonian group actions . Vol. 98. Mathematical Surveys and Monographs. Appendix J by Maxim Braverman. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2002, pp. viii+350

    2002

  23. [31]

    On the Kostant mul- tiplicity formula

    Victor Guillemin, Eugene Lerman, and Shlomo Sternberg. “On the Kostant mul- tiplicity formula”. In: Journal of Geometry and Physics 5.4 (1988), pp. 721–750

    1988

  24. [32]

    Symplectic fibrations and multiplicity diagrams

    Victor Guillemin, Eugene Lerman, and Shlomo Sternberg. Symplectic fibrations and multiplicity diagrams . Cambridge University Press, 1996

    1996

  25. [33]

    A normal form for the moment map

    Victor Guillemin and Shlomo Sternberg. “A normal form for the moment map”. In: Differential geometric methods in mathematical physics (Jerusalem, 1982) . Vol. 6. Math. Phys. Stud. Reidel, Dordrecht, 1984, pp. 161–175

    1982

  26. [34]

    Birational equivalence in the symplectic category

    Victor Guillemin and Shlomo Sternberg. “Birational equivalence in the symplectic category”. In: Inventiones mathematicae 97.3 (1989), pp. 485–522

    1989

  27. [35]

    Symplectic techniques in physics

    Victor Guillemin and Shlomo Sternberg. Symplectic techniques in physics . Cam- bridge university press, 1990

    1990

  28. [36]

    Guillemin and Shlomo Sternberg

    Victor W. Guillemin and Shlomo Sternberg. Supersymmetry and equivariant de Rham theory. Mathematics Past and Present. With an appendix containing two reprints by Henri Cartan [MR0042426 (13,107e); MR0042427 (13,107f)]. Springer- Verlag, Berlin, 1999, pp. xxiv+228. REFERENCES 37

    1999

  29. [37]

    Groupoides d’holonomie et classifiants

    Andr´ e Haefliger. “Groupoides d’holonomie et classifiants”. In: 116. Transversal structure of foliations (Toulouse, 1982). 1984, pp. 70–97

    1982

  30. [38]

    Classification of symplectic non-Hamiltonian circle actions on 4-manifolds

    Rei Henigman. “Classification of symplectic non-Hamiltonian circle actions on 4-manifolds”. In: arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.10157 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Orbifolds as diffeologies

    Patrick Iglesias, Yael Karshon, and Moshe Zadka. “Orbifolds as diffeologies”. In: Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 362.6 (2010), pp. 2811–2831

    2010

  32. [40]

    Non-Hamiltonian actions with fewer isolated fixed points

    Donghoon Jang and Susan Tolman. “Non-Hamiltonian actions with fewer isolated fixed points”. In: Int. Math. Res. Not. IMRN 7 (2023), pp. 6045–6077

    2023

  33. [41]

    Example of a non-log-concave Duistermaat-Heckman measure

    Yael Karshon. “Example of a non-log-concave Duistermaat-Heckman measure”. In: Math. Res. Lett. 3.4 (1996), pp. 537–540

    1996

  34. [42]

    Periodic Hamiltonian flows on four-dimensional manifolds

    Yael Karshon. “Periodic Hamiltonian flows on four-dimensional manifolds”. In: Mem. Amer. Math. Soc. 141.672 (1999), pp. viii+71

    1999

  35. [43]

    Non-compact symplectic toric manifolds

    Yael Karshon and Eugene Lerman. “Non-compact symplectic toric manifolds”. In: SIGMA Symmetry Integrability Geom. Methods Appl. 11 (2015), Paper 055, 37

    2015

  36. [44]

    Centered complexity one Hamiltonian torus actions

    Yael Karshon and Susan Tolman. “Centered complexity one Hamiltonian torus actions”. In: Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 353.12 (2001), pp. 4831–4861

    2001

  37. [45]

    Complete invariants for Hamiltonian torus actions with two dimensional quotients

    Yael Karshon and Susan Tolman. “Complete invariants for Hamiltonian torus actions with two dimensional quotients”. In: J. Symplectic Geom. 2.1 (2003), pp. 25–82

    2003

  38. [46]

    Classification of Hamiltonian torus actions with two-dimensional quotients

    Yael Karshon and Susan Tolman. “Classification of Hamiltonian torus actions with two-dimensional quotients”. In: Geom. Topol. 18.2 (2014), pp. 669–716

    2014

  39. [47]

    Frankel’s theorem in the symplectic category

    Min Kyu Kim. “Frankel’s theorem in the symplectic category”. In: Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 358.10 (2006), pp. 4367–4377

    2006

  40. [48]

    Cohomology of quotients in symplectic and algebraic ge- ometry

    Frances Clare Kirwan. Cohomology of quotients in symplectic and algebraic ge- ometry. Vol. 31. Mathematical Notes. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1984, pp. i+211

    1984

  41. [49]

    Sur certains groupes de transformations de Lie

    J. L. Koszul. “Sur certains groupes de transformations de Lie”. In: G´ eom´ etrie diff´ erentielle. Colloques Internationaux du Centre National de la Recherche Sci- entifique, Strasbourg, 1953. CNRS, Paris, 1953, pp. 137–141

    1953

  42. [50]

    Free circle actions with contractible orbits on symplectic mani- folds

    D. Kotschick. “Free circle actions with contractible orbits on symplectic mani- folds”. In: Math. Z. 252.1 (2006), pp. 19–25

    2006

  43. [51]

    On the flux conjec- tures

    Fran¸ cois Lalonde, Dusa McDuff, and Leonid Polterovich. “On the flux conjec- tures”. In: Geometry, topology, and dynamics (Montreal, PQ, 1995) . Vol. 15. CRM Proc. Lecture Notes. Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 1998, pp. 69–85

    1995

  44. [52]

    Orbifolds as stacks?

    Eugene Lerman. “Orbifolds as stacks?” In: Enseign. Math. (2) 56.3-4 (2010), pp. 315–363

    2010

  45. [53]

    Hamiltonian Torus Actions on Symplectic Orbifold and Toric Varieties

    Eugene Lerman and Susan Tolman. “Hamiltonian Torus Actions on Symplectic Orbifold and Toric Varieties”. In: Transactions of the American Mathematical Society 349.10 (1997), pp. 4201–4230

    1997

  46. [54]

    The log-concavity conjecture for the Duistermaat-Heckman measure revisited

    Yi Lin. “The log-concavity conjecture for the Duistermaat-Heckman measure revisited”. In: Int. Math. Res. Not. IMRN 10 (2008), Art. ID rnn027, 19

    2008

  47. [55]

    Log-concavity and symplectic flows

    Yi Lin and ´Alvaro Pelayo. “Log-concavity and symplectic flows”. In: Math. Res. Lett. 22.2 (2015), pp. 501–527. 38 REFERENCES

    2015

  48. [56]

    Toric extension of complexity one spaces

    Yichen Liu. “Toric extension of complexity one spaces”. in preparation

  49. [57]

    Extending tall complexity one spaces to symplectic toric manifolds

    Yichen Liu, Joseph Palmer, and Susan Tolman. “Extending tall complexity one spaces to symplectic toric manifolds”. in preparation

  50. [58]

    Cohomologically symplectic spaces: toral ac- tions and the Gottlieb group

    Gregory Lupton and John Oprea. “Cohomologically symplectic spaces: toral ac- tions and the Gottlieb group”. In: Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 347.1 (1995), pp. 261– 288

    1995

  51. [59]

    Mod` ele d’action hamiltonienne d’un groupe de Lie sur une vari´ et´ e symplectique. (Model of Hamiltonian action of a Lie group on a symplectic manifold)

    Charles-Michel Marle. “Mod` ele d’action hamiltonienne d’un groupe de Lie sur une vari´ et´ e symplectique. (Model of Hamiltonian action of a Lie group on a symplectic manifold)”. In: Rendiconti del Seminario Matematico (Jan. 1985)

    1985

  52. [60]

    Reduction of symplectic manifolds with symmetry

    Jerrold Marsden and Alan Weinstein. “Reduction of symplectic manifolds with symmetry”. In: Reports on Mathematical Physics 5.1 (1974), pp. 121–130

    1974

  53. [61]

    The moment map for circle actions on symplectic manifolds

    Dusa McDuff. “The moment map for circle actions on symplectic manifolds”. In: J. Geom. Phys. 5.2 (1988), pp. 149–160

    1988

  54. [62]

    Introduction to symplectic topology

    Dusa McDuff and Dietmar Salamon. Introduction to symplectic topology. Oxford Mathematical Monographs. Oxford Science Publications. The Clarendon Press, Oxford University Press, New York, 1995, pp. viii+425

    1995

  55. [63]

    Floer-Novikov cohomology and the flux conjecture

    K. Ono. “Floer-Novikov cohomology and the flux conjecture”. In: Geom. Funct. Anal. 16.5 (2006), pp. 981–1020

    2006

  56. [64]

    Equivariant projective imbedding theorem for symplectic mani- folds

    Kaoru Ono. “Equivariant projective imbedding theorem for symplectic mani- folds”. In: J. Fac. Sci. Univ. Tokyo Sect. IA Math. 35.2 (1988), pp. 381–392

    1988

  57. [65]

    Quotient maps, group actions and Lusternik- Schnirelmann category

    John Oprea and John Walsh. “Quotient maps, group actions and Lusternik- Schnirelmann category”. In: Topology Appl. 117.3 (2002), pp. 285–305

    2002

  58. [66]

    Seifert manifolds

    Peter Orlik. Seifert manifolds . Vol. Vol. 291. Lecture Notes in Mathematics. Springer-Verlag, Berlin-New York, 1972, pp. viii+155

    1972

  59. [67]

    Juan-Pablo Ortega and Tudor S. Ratiu. Momentum maps and Hamiltonian re- duction. Vol. 222. Progress in Mathematics. Birkh¨ auser Boston Inc., Boston, MA, 2004, pp. xxxiv+497

    2004

  60. [68]

    Symplectic actions of 2-tori on 4-manifolds

    ´Alvaro Pelayo. “Symplectic actions of 2-tori on 4-manifolds”. In: Mem. Amer. Math. Soc. 204.959 (2010), pp. viii+81

    2010

  61. [69]

    Circle-valued momentum maps for symplectic periodic flows

    ´Alvaro Pelayo and Tudor S. Ratiu. “Circle-valued momentum maps for symplectic periodic flows”. In: Enseign. Math. (2) 58.1-2 (2012), pp. 205–219

    2012

  62. [70]

    On a generalization of the notion of manifold

    Ichiro Satake. “On a generalization of the notion of manifold”. In: Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 42 (1956), pp. 359–363

    1956

  63. [71]

    The Gauss-Bonnet theorem for V -manifolds

    Ichiro Satake. “The Gauss-Bonnet theorem for V -manifolds”. In: J. Math. Soc. Japan 9 (1957), pp. 464–492

    1957

  64. [72]

    The geometry and topology of three-manifolds: With a pref- ace by Steven P

    William P Thurston. The geometry and topology of three-manifolds: With a pref- ace by Steven P. Kerckhoff . Vol. 27. American Mathematical Society, 2022

    2022

  65. [73]

    Non-Hamiltonian actions with isolated fixed points

    Susan Tolman. “Non-Hamiltonian actions with isolated fixed points”. In: Invent. Math. 210.3 (2017), pp. 877–910

    2017

  66. [74]

    On semifree symplectic circle actions with isolated fixed points

    Susan Tolman and Jonathan Weitsman. “On semifree symplectic circle actions with isolated fixed points”. In: Topology 39.2 (2000), pp. 299–309. REFERENCES 39 School of Mathematical Sciences, Tel A viv University Email address : rei.henigman@gmail.com School of Mathematical Scie...

    2000

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.