Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 79 references

Persistence of invariant graphs for twist maps under analytic perturbations

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper proves that invariant graphs with real-analytic conjugacy to a rigid rotation can persist for frequencies strictly outside the classical Brjuno–Rüssmann set, as long as the perturbation is sufficiently Gevrey-smooth and is…

desk verdict New results and a coherent framework, but the central resummation step rests on an unproved cancellation lemma; worthy of refereeing, not of acceptance as-is. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.05239 v1 pith:MWTEREZV submitted 2026-08-05 math.DS

Qi Li , Yi Liu , Lin Wang This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.DS MSC 37J4037E40
keywords directKAMmethodinvariantgraphstwistmapsPropertyA_ωBrjuno–RüssmannconditionGevreyregularityLindstedtseriesresonancerenormalization
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 asks when the strongest possible invariant object of a twist map—a graph on which the dynamics is real-analytically conjugate to a rigid rotation—survives perturbation. In the area-preserving case, it exhibits a frequency set $\Delta^\alpha$ strictly larger than the classical Brjuno–Rüssmann set and proves that for any Gevrey-$\gamma$ perturbation with $\gamma<\varepsilon/\alpha$, a carefully renormalized sequence of standard-like maps admits such an invariant graph, even though the map diverges in every Gevrey-$(\alpha-\varepsilon)$ norm. In the dissipative case, it proves that an analytic perturbation whose size is below a threshold independent of the dissipation parameter $\lambda$ still leaves a unique invariant graph with the same strongest dynamics. The paper thus claims that enhancing the regularity of the perturbation enlarges the admissible frequency set and removes the normal-hyperbolicity dependence of the persistence threshold.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the parameterized direct KAM method built on Lindstedt series for the conjugacy equation $D^2_{\lambda,\omega}u=\varepsilon\phi(\theta+u)$, organized as tree expansions whose lines carry Fourier momenta and propagators $1/\gamma(\nu)$ with $\gamma(\nu)=(1+\lambda)(\cos 2\pi\omega\nu-1)+i(1-\lambda)\sin 2\pi\omega\nu$. A multi-scale decomposition splits each propagator according to the size of $\|\omega\nu\|$, clusters and resonances are defined through the momentum threshold $\kappa(n)=\min\{k:q_{mk}\ge q_{m+n}\}$, and a counting lemma (the Siegel–Brjuno estimate) bounds the number of lines on each scale. The decisive step is resonance renormalization: localized resonance factors cancel exactly, so the factors counting lines that exit clusters can be replaced by resonance-count factors, yielding the refined estimate (32). For the dissipative case, the two-component lower bound on $|\gamma(\nu)|$ gives a radius of convergence $\rho(\omega)\ge\max\{\Lambda(1-\lambda),\Omega(1+\lambda)\}$, which is what makes the persistence threshold independent of $\lambda$.

What would settle it

Take a single Fourier mode $\varphi(x)=e^{2\pi i q_m x}$ and a frequency $\omega\in\Delta^\alpha$, and compute the sum over the resonance family of the localized resonance factors in (61)–(64) for a resonance with two entering lines and total momentum zero, with $M(T)<\kappa(n)$; if this sum is nonzero for any admissible tree, the cancellation lemma is false and the proof of Theorem 1 breaks down.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the direct KAM method, implemented through Lindstedt series, tree expansions, multi-scale decompositions, and renormalization of resonances, can prove persistence of invariant graphs with Property $A_\omega$ under conditions that classical KAM and normally hyperbolic invariant manifold theory do not cover. Theorem 1 constructs, for each $\omega\in\Delta^\alpha$ and each Gevrey-$\gamma$ function $\varphi$ with $0\le\gamma<\varepsilon/\alpha$, a sequence of perturbation amplitudes $\delta_m$ such that the map $f_m(x,y)=(x+\omega+y+\delta_m\varphi(q_m x),y+\delta_m\varphi(q_m x))$ has an invariant graph that is real-analytically conjugate to rotation by $\omega$, with $\|f_m-T\|_{\alpha,L}\to0$ and $\|f_m-T\|_{\alpha-\varepsilon,L}\to\infty$. Theorem 2 shows that for a Brjuno frequency and an analytic perturbation, the invariant graph persists with a perturbation size that is uniform in $\lambda\in(0,1]$, and Corollary 4 extends this to trigonometric polynomial perturbations controlled in $C^1$.

Load-bearing premise

The whole argument rests on a cancellation among renormalized trees that the paper borrows from an earlier work; if that cancellation fails for trees whose Fourier labels are restricted to multiples of $q_m$ with the threshold $\kappa(n)$, the small-divisor estimates and the convergence radius collapse.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For frequencies in $\Delta^\alpha\setminus BR^\alpha$, an uncountable set, there exist Gevrey perturbations of class $\gamma<\varepsilon/\alpha$ that keep the rotation-conjugate invariant graph while the same perturbation is invisible in every stronger Gevrey topology.
  • The explicit choice $\delta_m=\exp(-c_0q_m^{\sigma})$ with $\sigma=1/(\alpha(1-\gamma))$ ties the allowed perturbation size to the arithmetic of the frequency, and the condition $\gamma<\varepsilon/\alpha$ is exactly what makes the $\alpha$-norm converge and the $(\alpha-\varepsilon)$-norm diverge.
  • In the dissipative setting, the uniform radius $\rho(\omega)\ge\Omega(1+\lambda)$ gives a persistence threshold for analytic perturbations that does not vanish as $\lambda\to1^-$, which normal hyperbolicity alone does not provide.
  • For trigonometric polynomial perturbations, a $C^1$ smallness condition with a threshold independent of $\lambda$ suffices for the strongest dynamics to persist at Brjuno frequencies.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The renormalized-perturbation mechanism suggests a general principle: regularity of the perturbation can compensate for arithmetic difficulties of the frequency, and the same tree-resummation technology could yield analogous compensation for higher-dimensional tori or quasi-periodic forcing.
  • The divergence of $\|f_m-T\|_{\alpha-\varepsilon,L}$ despite persistence of the analytic invariant graph means the invariant object is robust while the map itself escapes every stronger Gevrey neighbourhood; this sharpens the usual KAM picture in which persistence requires closeness in the working topology.
  • A direct numerical evaluation of the cancellation in Lemma A.4 for small resonances with momenta supported on multiples of $q_m$ would test the key step before a complete analytic proof is supplied.
  • The boundary case $\gamma=\varepsilon/\alpha$ is left open; testing perturbations with Gevrey exponent exactly at the threshold could reveal whether the persistence phenomenon has a phase transition.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies persistence of invariant graphs for standard-like area-preserving and dissipative twist maps under Gevrey perturbations. The main result, Theorem 1, constructs, for each frequency in an extended set Δ^α and each Gevrey-γ perturbation with γ < ε/α, a sequence of area-preserving maps whose Gevrey-α distance to the integrable twist map tends to 0 while their Gevrey-(α−ε) distance tends to ∞, and each such map admits an invariant graph real-analytically conjugate to a rotation of frequency ω. The dissipative results, Theorem 2 and its corollaries, claim persistence with a uniform smallness threshold independent of λ, including uniqueness of the invariant graph. The proofs are based on a tree expansion with a multi-scale decomposition, a counting lemma for resonances, and a renormalization procedure in Appendix A.

Significance. If correct, Theorem 1 would be a genuinely interesting extension beyond the classical Brjuno–Rüssmann framework: for every α>1 and ω∈Δ^α∖BR_α, sufficiently regular Gevrey perturbations need not be small in the ambient analytic topology, because δ_m can be chosen so that the α-norm is small while the (α−ε)-norm blows up. The paper also contains useful concrete ingredients: Lemma 2.6 gives a uniform propagator lower bound for all λ∈(0,1], Lemma 2.14 is an explicit counting lemma, and Section 5 provides a constructive example verifying Remark 1.5. However, the principal estimate (32) rests on a resonance-cancellation lemma that is not proved in the paper, and the tree-summation lemma (Lemma 3.3) is only sketched. These gaps prevent the main theorems from being fully established as written.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.2.2, Eq. (32); Appendix A, Lemma A.4] The transition from (31) to (32) is the decisive step: the factor ∏(768 q_{m+n}+1)^{2P_n(ϑ)} is replaced by ∏(768 q_{m+n}+1)^{2N_n^R(ϑ)}, which makes the counting lemma applicable and yields the radius bound in Section 3.2.5. The only support cited for this replacement is Lemma A.4, whose proof is delegated to [Gen15, Lemma 3.16] with the phrase 'identical telescoping argument'. Appendix A itself lists three modifications of the [BG01]/[Gen15] setting—the m-dependent multi-scale decomposition, the threshold κ(n), and the mixed hyperbolic/elliptic propagator—but it does not prove that the resonance family F_V(ϑ) is closed under line reattachments and mode-label inversions for trees whose Fourier labels are restricted to multiples of q_m, nor that condition (5) of Definition 2.9 (M(T)<κ(n)) is preserved under these operations. Without this verification, estimate (32) is unsupported, and the radius bound in Section 3.2.5 does not follow. Since Theorem 1 is the central new claim, this gap must be repaired.
  2. [Section 3.2.4, Lemma 3.3] The summation over the enlarged tree set T^*_{ν,k} is the other load-bearing step: it converts the per-tree estimates (35)–(36) into the coefficient bound (37) from which the radius and δ_m in (38) are chosen. Lemma 3.3 is only a sketch. The stated constant C_5=4·17·C_3C_4C_6 refers to a C_6 that has not been defined at that point, and the proof does not explain how the resonance renormalization of Appendix A affects the count of renormalized trees; in particular, the simple factor 4^k·17^{#lines} does not account for the multiplicities and equivalence classes in Eq. (58) and the counting in Appendix A.8. A complete proof of Lemma 3.3, or a replacement that counts the renormalized trees rigorously, is needed before (37) can be used.
  3. [Theorem 2 / Section 4.1] Theorem 2 asserts that the invariant graph with Property A_ω is unique, but the proof in Section 4.1 establishes only convergence of the Lindstedt series to one real-analytic solution of Eq. (11). No uniqueness argument is given, and uniqueness is not automatic for nonlinear equations of this type, especially because the graph is not claimed to be 1-normally hyperbolic uniformly in λ. The statement should be weakened to existence, or uniqueness should be proved.
  4. [Theorem 1 and Theorem 2 statements] Both theorems are stated for arbitrary φ∈G^γ(T) (resp. ψ∈C^ω_s(T)), but the model (1) assumes ∫φ=0, and the recurrence (13) has γ(0)=0; a nonzero constant Fourier mode of φ cannot be absorbed by a mean-zero u, so the Lindstedt series does not solve Eq. (11). The same issue affects Theorem 2 and Corollary 4. The statements need either the mean-zero hypothesis or an argument that adjusts ω (as in Eq. (54)) before the tree expansion is applied.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 1.1.2] The assertion that both BR_α and Δ^α have Hausdorff dimension zero is incorrect: the Brjuno–Rüssmann set has full Lebesgue measure, hence Hausdorff dimension 1. This does not affect the proof of Theorem 1, but the statement should be corrected.
  2. [Section 3.2.1, Eq. (27)] The case γ=0 is left as 'the obvious interpretation'; since 1/γ is undefined in (27) and the subsequent estimates use quantities such as (γ/s_1)^{γk}, the trigonometric-polynomial case should be treated separately or by a limiting argument.
  3. [Proposition 3.1] The displayed definition of a_j in the construction of the continued fraction coefficients is garbled; the floor and exponent notation is not typeset correctly, making the construction difficult to verify.
  4. [Appendix A.8] The bound (77) is asserted to follow from [BG01, Lemma 5.1] after the statement e^{4k}; since the appendix is announced as self-contained, either the combinatorial argument should be given or the precise reference with a verification of the present setting should be supplied.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No substantive circularity: the main theorems do not reduce to their hypotheses or to fitted parameters; only auxiliary self-citations appear in Sections 4.3 and 5.

full rationale

No circular step satisfying the seven patterns is exhibited. Theorem 1's frequency condition Delta^alpha is a hypothesis on omega, not an output of the proof; the sequence delta_m is chosen only after the convergence-radius estimate rho(omega) is derived, so it is not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The convergence proof uses the defining arithmetic of Delta^alpha in the Siegel-Brjuno estimate, but that is ordinary hypothesis-use rather than self-reference. The main load-bearing external step is Lemma A.4, the cancellation of localized resonance factors, whose proof is quoted as 'identical telescoping argument' to [Gen15, Lemma 3.16]. That is an independent published result rather than a self-citation, so it does not make the derivation circular; it is a completeness gap if the q_m-renormalized resonance family is not verified to satisfy the hypotheses of the cited lemma. The paper itself lists the three modifications to [BG01]/[Gen15] (m-dependent decomposition, kappa(n) threshold, hyperbolic-plus-elliptic propagator) and asserts a self-contained treatment while omitting the proof of Lemma A.4; this is a correctness risk, not a circularity. The self-citations [HLW26] and [SW26] appear in the auxiliary verification of Remark 1.5 and in the Herman-Mather frequency-matching discussion of Section 4.3; neither is used to force the main conclusions of Theorems 1 or 2, and no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work to forbid alternatives. Accordingly, the paper is not circular in its central claims, and the only minor concern is the presence of auxiliary self-citations, giving score 2 rather than 0.

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

The central claims rest on standard KAM machinery (Lindstedt series, tree expansions, continued fractions) plus three domain assumptions: the arithmetic set Δ^α, the Gevrey Fourier decay, and the unproved resummation lemma. No fitted parameters or new physical entities appear.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The frequency ω belongs to the set Δ^α, defined by ∑_{n≥0} (ln q_{m+n+1})/q_{m+n} ≤ k q_m^{1/α-1} for all m (Section 1.1.2).
    Hypothesis of Theorem 1; the proof uses this tail bound at Eq. (33).
  • domain assumption Every Gevrey-γ function φ has Fourier coefficients with decay |φ̂(n)| ≤ C_0 e^{-2πs|n|^{1/γ}} (Eq. 27).
    The node-factor estimates (29) and Lemma 3.4 depend on this specific decay rate; for γ=0 the paper only notes 'obvious interpretation'.
  • ad hoc to paper The resonance renormalization machinery of [BG01],[Gen15] extends to trees whose Fourier labels are restricted to multiples of q_m, with the modified threshold κ(n) of Definition 2.9.
    This is the main new technical step. Lemma A.4 is not proved in the manuscript; Proposition A.6 is only partially proved.
  • standard math The Herman-Mather formula (53) and (56) holds for conformally symplectic twist maps (from [SW26, Proposition 2.1]).
    Used in Section 4.3 and Section 5 to set the frequency matching condition and to construct ψ.
  • standard math The Brjuno condition for ω in Theorem 2 and the standard continued-fraction estimates of Lemma 2.12 (from [Her79]).
    Controls the small divisors in the dissipative proof.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Persistence of invariant graphs for twist maps under analytic perturbations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MWTEREZV

@misc{pith2026260805239,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Persistence of invariant graphs for twist maps under analytic perturbations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MWTEREZV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.05239}
}
abstract

We consider the persistence for invariant graphs of twist maps that exhibit the strongest possible dynamics, namely those real-analytically conjugate to rigid rotations, under Gevrey-$\gamma$ ($\gamma\in [0,1]$) perturbations. By enhancing the regularity of the perturbation itself, we show that invariant graphs with the strongest dynamics can persist even when the size of the perturbation and the constraints on the frequency go beyond the requirements of classical KAM theory and the theory of normally hyperbolic invariant manifolds. The proofs of these results are based on a parameterized direct KAM method.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.05239 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The dynamics generated by the integrable dissipative twist map Tλ,α. The horizontal motion on the invariant circle is a rigid rotation of frequency ω0 = α1+λα2/(1−λ). Now consider the perturbed map F ψ λ,α(x, y) = (x + α1 + λy + ψ(x), α2 + λy + ψ(x)), where ψ ∈ C ω(T) with R 1 0 ψ(x) dx = 0. We seek an invariant circle Γ′ on which the dynamics is conjugate to a rigid rotation of frequency ω. Using the Herman-Mather … view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

79 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    V. Bangert. Mather sets for twist maps and geodesics on tori . Dynamics Reported 1 (1988), 1-45

    work page 1988

  2. [2]

    Berretti, G

    A. Berretti, G. Gentile. Scaling Properties for the Radius of Convergence of a Lindstedt Series: The Standard Map . J. Math. Pures Appl. (9) 78 (1999), no. 2, 159-176

    work page 1999

  3. [3]

    Berretti, G

    A. Berretti, G. Gentile. Scaling properties for the radius of convergence of Lindstedt series: generalized standard maps . J. Math. Pures Appl. (9) 79 (2000), no. 7, 691-713

    2000

  4. [4]

    Berretti, G

    A. Berretti, G. Gentile. Bryuno function and the standard map . Comm. Math. Phys., 220 (2001), no. 3, 623-656

    2001

  5. [5]

    Berretti, G

    A. Berretti, G. Gentile. Periodic and quasi-periodic orbits for the standard map . Comm. Math. Phys. 231 (2002), no. 1, 135-156

    2002

  6. [6]

    U. Bessi. An analytic counterexample to the KAM theorem . Ergodic Theory Dynam. Systems 20 (2000), 317-333

    2000

  7. [7]

    G. D. Birkhoff. Surface transformations and their dynamical applications . Acta Mathematicae 43 (1920) 44-47 Collected Mathematical Papers of G.D. Birkhoff , vol. II, p. 195-202, Dover, New York (1968)

    1920

  8. [8]

    G. D. Birkhoff. Sur quelques courbes ferm\' e es remarquables . Bull. Soc. Math. France 60 (1932), 1-26

    1932

Show all 79 references
  1. [9]

    Bounemoura and J

    A. Bounemoura and J. F\' e joz. KAM, -Gevrey regularity and the -Bruno-R\" u ssmann condition . Ann. Sc. Norm. Super. Pisa Cl. Sci. (5) 19 (2019), no. 4, 1225-1279

    2019

  2. [10]

    Bounemoura

    A. Bounemoura. Some remarks on the optimality of the Bruno-R\" u ssmann condition . Bulletin de la soci\' e t\' e math\' e matique de France, 2019, 147 (2), pp.341-353

    2019

  3. [11]

    Calleja, A

    R. Calleja, A. Celletti and R. de la Llave. A KAM theory for conformally symplectic systems: efficient algorithms and their validation . J. Differ. Equ. 255 (2013), 978-1049

    2013

  4. [12]

    Calleja, A

    R. Calleja, A. Celletti and R. de la Llave. KAM Theory for Some Dissipative Systems . New Frontiers of Celestial Mechanics: Theory and Applications. I-CELMECH 2020. Springer Proceedings in Mathematics & Statistics, vol 399. Springer

    2020

  5. [13]

    Calleja, A

    R. Calleja, A. Celletti and R. de la Llave. KAM quasi-periodic solutions for the dissipative standard map . Commun. Nonlinear Sci. Numer. Simul. 106 (2022), Paper No. 106111, 29 pp

    2022

  6. [14]

    Chierchia and C

    L. Chierchia and C. Falcolini. A direct proof of a theorem by Kolmogorov in Hamiltonian systems . Ann. Scuola Norm. Sup. Pisa Cl. Sci. (4) 21 (1994), no. 4, 541-593

    1994

  7. [15]

    Casdagli

    M. Casdagli. Periodic orbits for dissipative twist maps . Ergod. Th. & Dynam. Sys. 7 (1987), 165-173

    1987

  8. [16]

    Cheng and L

    C.-Q. Cheng and L. Wang. Destruction of Lagrangian torus for positive definite Hamiltonian systems . Geom. Funct. Anal. 23 (2013), 848-866

    2013

  9. [17]

    C. Conley. Isolated Invariant Sets and the Morse Index . CBMS Regional Conference Series in Mathematics. 38 American Mathematical Society, Providence (1978)

    1978

  10. [18]

    de Melo, S

    W. de Melo, S. van Strien. One-Dimensional Dynamics . Springer-Verlag. (1993)

    1993

  11. [19]

    A. Denjoy. Sur les courbes d\' e finies par les \' e quations diff\' e rentielles \` a la surface du tore . J. de Math. Pures et Appl., (9), 11 (1932), 333-375

    1932

  12. [20]

    R. Devaney. An Introduction to Chaotic Dynamical Systems . Wetsview Press. 2 (2003), 102-113

    2003

  13. [21]

    A. Davie. The Critical Function for the Semistandard Map . Nonlinearity 7, (1994), 219-229

    1994

  14. [22]

    Eliasson Compensations of signs in a small divisor problem

    H. Eliasson Compensations of signs in a small divisor problem . in Aspects dynamiques et topologiques des groupes infinis de transformation de la mecanique (Lyon, 1986), 37-48, Travaux en Cours Vol. 25, Hermann,

    1986

  15. [23]

    Eliasson Absolutely convergent series expansions for quasi-periodic motions

    H. Eliasson Absolutely convergent series expansions for quasi-periodic motions . University of Stockholm preprint (1988), and Math. Phys. Elect. J. 2, No. 4 (1996),

    1988

  16. [24]

    J. Favard. Sur les meilleurs proc\' e d\' e s d'approximation . B.S.M. 61 (1937), 243-256

    1937

  17. [25]

    Fayad and R

    B. Fayad and R. Krikorian. Some questions around quasi-periodic dynamics . World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., Hackensack, NJ, 2018, 1909-1932

    2018

  18. [26]

    G. Forni. Analytic destruction of invariant circles . Ergod. Th. & Dynam. Sys. 14 (1994), 267-298

    1994

  19. [27]

    Gallavotti

    G. Gallavotti. Invariant tori: a field-theoretic point of view of Eliasson's work . in Advances in dynamical systems and quantum physics (Capri, 1993), 117-132, World Sci. Publishing, River Edge, NJ, 1995

    1993

  20. [28]

    G. Gentile. Invariant curves for exact symplectic twist maps of the cylinder with Bryuno rotation numbers . Nonlinearity 28 (2015) 2555-2585

    2015

  21. [29]

    Gentile, V

    G. Gentile, V. Mastropietro. Methods for the analysis of the Lindstedt series for KAM tori and renormalizability in classical mechanics . A review with some applications, Rev. Math. Phys. 8 (1996), 393-444

    1996

  22. [30]

    C. Gol\' e . Symplectic twist maps: global variational techniques . Vol. 18. World Scientific, 2001

    2001

  23. [31]

    J. Guo, Y. Liu and L. Wang. On non-KAM invariant circles for area-preserving twist maps . arXiv:2510.21098 [math.DS]

  24. [32]

    M. R. Herman. Sur la conjugation diff e rentiable des diff e omorphismes du cercle a des rotations . Publ. Math. IHES 49 (1979), 5-233

    1979

  25. [33]

    M.R. Herman. Sur les courbes invariantes par les diff\' e omorphismes de l'anneau . Ast\' e risque 103-104 (1983), 1-221

    1983

  26. [34]

    M. R. Herman. Sur les courbes invariantes par les diff e omorphismes de l'anneau . Ast e risque 144 (1986), 1-243

    1986

  27. [35]

    M.R. Herman. In\' e galit\' e s ``a priori" pour des

  28. [36]

    M.R. Herman. Non existence of Lagrangian graphs

  29. [37]

    M.R. Herman. Some open problems in dynamical systems . Proceedings of the International Congress of Mathematicians, Vol. II (Berlin, 1998) Doc. Math. 1998, Extra Vol. II, 797-808

    1998

  30. [38]

    Huang, J

    Y. Huang, J. Li and L. Wang. On the sharpness of the \(C^1\)-norm threshold for perturbations in the normally hyperbolic invariant manifold theorem---a toy model perspective . Preprint

  31. [39]

    Hirsch, C

    M. Hirsch, C. Pugh and M. Shub. Invariant manifolds . Lecture Notes in Mathematics, Vol. 583. Springer-Verlag, (1977), ii+149 pp

    1977

  32. [40]

    Jarn\' k

    V. Jarn\' k. Diophantischen Approximationen und Hausdorffsches mass. Mat. Sbornik 36 (1929), 371-382

    1929

  33. [41]

    A. Ya. Khinchin. Continued Fractions .University of Chicago Press, 1964

    1964

  34. [42]

    V. F. Lazutkin. Recent results on the separatrix splitting for the standard map . S\' e minaire de Th\' e orie spectrale et g\' e om\' e trie, 11(1992-1993), 157-165

    1992

  35. [43]

    Le Calvez

    P. Le Calvez. Existence d'orbites quasi-periodiques dans les attracteurs de Birkhoff . Commun. Math. Phys. 106 (1986), 383-394

    1986

  36. [44]

    Le Calvez

    P. Le Calvez. Propri\' e t\' e s des attracteurs de Birkhoff . Ergod. Th. & Dynam. Sys. 8 (1987), 241-310

    1987

  37. [45]

    Libermann

    P. Libermann. Sur les automorphismes infinit\' e simaux des structures symplectiques et des structures de contact . (French) 1959 Colloque G\' e om. Diff. Globale

    1959

  38. [46]

    Li and L

    Q. Li and L. Wang. On the Dynamics of Invariant Graphs for Dissipative Twist Maps . arXiv:2506.04938 [math.DS]

    arXiv

  39. [47]

    Liu and L

    Y. Liu and L. Wang. Herman's converse KAM mechanism revisited . Preprint

  40. [48]

    Katznelson and D

    Y. Katznelson and D. Ornstein. Smoothness of invariant curves . Proceedings of the Conference in Honor of Jean-Pierre Kahane (Orsay, 1993) J. Fourier Anal. Appl.,Special Issue(1995), 283-310

    1995

  41. [49]

    Marco and D

    J.-P. Marco and D. Sauzin, Stability and instability for Gevrey quasi-convex near-integrable Hamiltonian systems, Publ. Math. IHES 96 (2003), 199-275

    2003

  42. [50]

    Mar\`o and A

    S. Mar\`o and A. Sorrentino. Aubry-Mather theory for conformally symplectic systems. Comm. Math. Phys. 354 (2017), 775-808

    2017

  43. [51]

    J. E. Massetti. Attractive invariant circles `a la Chenciner . Regul. Chaot. Dyn. 28, 447-467 (2023)

    2023

  44. [52]

    Mather and G

    J. Mather and G. Forni. Action minimizing orbits in hamiltomian systems . Transition to chaos in classical and quantum mechanics (Montecatini Terme, 1991), 92-186. Lecture Notes in Math., 1589 Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1994

    1991

  45. [53]

    J. Moser. On invariant curves of area-preserving mappings of an annulus . Nachr. Akad. Wiss. G\" o ttingen, II. Math-Phys. KL. 1 (1962), 1-20

    1962

  46. [54]

    J. Moser. Stable and Random Motions in Dynamical Systems . Princeton University

  47. [55]

    J. P. Marco and D. Sauzin. Stability and instability for Gevrey quasi-convex near-integrable Hamiltonian systems . Publ. Math. IHES 96 (2003), 199-275

    2003

  48. [56]

    Marmi and J.-C

    S. Marmi and J.-C. Yoccoz. Some open problems related to small divisors Lecture Notes in Math., 1784 Fond. CIME/CIME Found. Subser. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2002, 175-191

    2002

  49. [57]

    J. N. Mather. Non-existence of invariant circles . Ergod. Th. & Dynam. Sys. 4 (1984), 301-309

    1984

  50. [58]

    J. N. Mather. Modulus of continuity for Peierls's barrier . Periodic Solutions of Hamiltonian Systems and Related Topics. ed. P.H.Rabinowitz et al . NATO ASI Series C 209 . Reidel: Dordrecht, (1987), 177-202

    1987

  51. [59]

    J. N. Mather. Destruction of invariant circles . Ergod. Th. & Dynam. Sys. 8 (1988), 199-214

    1988

  52. [60]

    Massetti

    J. Massetti. Attractive invariant circles \` a la Chenciner . Regul. Chaot. Dyn. 28, 447-467 (2023)

    2023

  53. [61]

    Newhouse

    S. Newhouse. Cone-fields, domination, and hyperbolicity . Brin,

  54. [62]

    Olvera and N

    A. Olvera and N. Petrov. Regularity Properties of Critical Invariant Circles

  55. [63]

    o schel. \

    J. P\" o schel. \" U ber invariante Tori in differenzierbaren Hamiltonschen Systemen . (German)[On invariant tori in differentiable Hamiltonian systems]

  56. [64]

    u ssmann. Kleine Nenner. I. \

    H. R\" u ssmann. Kleine Nenner. I. \" U ber invariante Kurven differenzierbarer Abbildungen eines Kreisringes . Nachr. Akad. Wiss. G\" o ttingen Math.-Phys. Kl. II(1970), 67-105

    1970

  57. [65]

    D. Rand. Existence, nonexistence and universal breakdown of dissipative golden invariant tori. III. Invariant circles for mappings of the annulus . Nonlinearity 5 (1992), no. 3, 681-706

    1992

  58. [66]

    R\" u ssmann

    H. R\" u ssmann. On the existence of invariant curves of twist mappings of an annulus . Lecture Notes in Mathematics. 1007 (1983), 677-718

    1983

  59. [67]

    R\" u ssman

    H. R\" u ssman. On the frequencies of quasi-periodic solutions of nearly integrable Hamiltonian systems . Euler International Mathematical Institute, St. Petersburg, Dynamical Systems, 14-27 October 1991

    1991

  60. [68]

    D. Salamon. The Kolmogorov-Arnold-Moser theorem . Math. Phys. Electron. J. 10 (2004), Paper 3, 37 pp

    2004

  61. [69]

    C. Siegel. Iteration of analytic functions . Ann. of Math. (2) 43 (1942), 607-612

    1942

  62. [70]

    Sorrentino and L

    A. Sorrentino and L. Wang. On the Destruction of Invariant Lagrangian Graphs for Conformal Symplectic Twist Maps . Calc. Var. Partial Differential Equations, 65(5), 2026, Article 153

    2026

  63. [71]

    Su and L

    X. Su and L. Wang. Total destruction of invariant tori for the generalized Frenkel-Kontorova model , Journal of Math. Phys. , 53 (2012), 022702, 7pp

    2012

  64. [72]

    F. Takens. A C^1 counterexample to Moser's twist theorem. Nederl. Akad. Wetensch. Proc. Ser. A 74 . Indag. Math. 33

  65. [73]

    L. Wang. Variational destruction of invariant circles . Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst. , 32 (2012), 4429-4443

    2012

  66. [74]

    L. Wang. Destruction of invariant circles for Gevrey area-preserving twist maps . J. Dynam. Differential Equations , 27 (2015), 283-295

    2015

  67. [75]

    L. Wang. Total destruction of Lagrangian tori . J. Math. Anal. Appl. 410 (2014), 827-836.012)

    2014

  68. [76]

    L. Wang. Quantitative destruction of invariant circles . Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst. , 42 (2022), 1569-1583

    2022

  69. [77]

    L. Wang. Quantitative Destruction and Persistence of Lagrangian Torus in Hamiltonian Systems . arXiv:2312.01695v3 [math.DS]

    arXiv

  70. [78]

    J.-C. Yoccoz. Conjugaison diff\' e rentiable des diff\' e omorphismes du cercle dont le nombre de rotation v\' e rifie une condition diophantienne . Ann. Sci. \' E cole Norm. Sup. (4) 17 (1984), no. 3, 333-359

    1984

  71. [79]

    J.-C. Yoccoz. Travaux de Herman sur les tores invariants. Astrisque, 206, 311C346

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.