Topological invariance of Liouville structures for taut foliations and Anosov flows

Jonathan Bowden; Thomas Massoni

REVIEW 1 major objections 1 minor 1 cited by

Topological invariance of Liouville structures for taut foliations and Anosov flows

T0 review · 1 major / 1 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper proves that the Liouville thickening of an admissible hypertaut foliation is a topological invariant: homeomorphic such foliations induce exact symplectomorphic Liouville structures on [-1,1]×M, so every Floer-type invariant built

desk verdict A substantial, likely-correct proof that Liouville thickenings are topological invariants of admissible taut foliations, conditional on a load-bearing but probably-fillable gap in the refined Vogel uniqueness argument. read the letter →

arxiv 2510.15325 v2 pith:3IDP77GQ submitted 2025-10-17 math.SG math.DSmath.GT

Jonathan Bowden , Thomas Massoni This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.SGmath.DSmath.GT MSC 53D1053D3557R3037D20

keywords tautfoliationsLiouvillestructuresAnosovflowscontactapproximationstopologicalinvarianceorbitequivalencebicontactpartialhyperbolicity

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

Taut foliations of 3-manifolds can be thickened into symplectic objects—Liouville structures on the product of the manifold with an interval—by approximating the foliation by contact structures, a classical construction. The paper shows this construction is insensitive to the choices involved, provided the foliation is admissible and hypertaut: two such foliations that are merely homeomorphic produce Liouville structures that are exact symplectomorphic after completion. Because Floer-type invariants (wrapped Fukaya categories and similar) are attached to Liouville structures, they become true topological invariants of the foliation. For Anosov flows, whose weak stable and unstable foliations are admissible and hypertaut, this means orbit-equivalent flows have symplectomorphic Anosov Liouville domains, and their supporting bicontact structures are deformation equivalent—so orbit equivalent flows are deformation equivalent through projectively Anosov flows. The two load-bearing techniques are a smoothing scheme for topological conjugacies of C1 foliations with control on tangent-plane distortion, and a refinement of a known uniqueness theorem for contact approximations of foliations with an extra transversality constraint.

What carries the argument

The argument rests on three independent pieces. First, a smoothing scheme (Theorems 5 and 7) approximates a homeomorphism conjugating two C1 foliations by a smooth diffeomorphism that stays C0-close to the original homeomorphism and keeps the pushed-forward tangent plane fields C0-close to the target foliation's plane field; a variant handles pairs of transverse foliations. Second, a refinement of the uniqueness of contact approximations (Theorem 9 / 2.4) asserts that for an admissible foliation F and any fixed smooth transverse line field I, there is a C0-neighborhood of TF inside the space of plane fields transverse to I in which every positive (resp. negative) contact structure is contact

What would settle it

Take an admissible C1 foliation F with a smooth transverse line field I and two positive contact structures ξ, ξ′ contained in arbitrarily small C0-neighborhoods of TF within the space of plane fields transverse to I. If ξ and ξ′ are not contact homotopic through plane fields transverse to I, the paper's Theorem 2.4 is false and Theorem A fails. A concrete place to look is the ribbon-slope computation of Section 2.4: if the 'pull-down' inequality (12) cannot be satisfied for some positive parallel transport, the window-pulling lemma in Section 2.6 collapses, and with it the uniqueness theorem.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Let F0 and F1 be homeomorphic hypertaut admissible C1 foliations of a closed oriented 3-manifold M. The paper's main theorem asserts that their Liouville thickenings λF0 and λF1, defined on V=[-1,1]×M, are deformation equivalent: after replacing the homeomorphism by a smooth diffeomorphism h̃ isotopic to it, (id×h̃)*λF0 and λF1 are homotopic Liouville structures, hence exact symplectomorphic after completion. Consequently every invariant derived from the Liouville thickening—in particular Floer-type invariants—is the same for topologically conjugate foliations. The paper extends this to C0-deformation equivalence (homotopies and conjugations), and applies it to oriented Anosov flows, where t

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is the refined uniqueness theorem for contact approximations: for an admissible foliation and a fixed transverse line field, every positive contact structure sufficiently C0-close to the foliation—and transverse to that line field—is contact homotopic to the standard one while staying transverse to the line field. If this uniqueness-with-transversality fails, the Liouville thickening depends on the choice of approximating contact pair and Theorem A co

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Floer-type invariants of an admissible hypertaut foliation—wrapped Fukaya categories and related symplectic invariants of its Liouville thickening—are invariants of the foliation up to C0-deformation equivalence.
Orbit equivalent oriented Anosov flows have exact symplectomorphic Anosov Liouville domains; in particular their boundary contact structures are contactomorphic via diffeomorphisms isotopic to the orbit equivalence.
Supporting bicontact structures of orbit equivalent Anosov flows are deformation equivalent through bicontact structures; consequently orbit equivalent Anosov flows are deformation equivalent through projectively Anosov flows.
For positive (resp. negative) skewed R-covered Anosov flows, the positive (resp. negative) supporting contact structure admits a contact form whose Reeb flow is Anosov and isotopically equivalent to the original flow; a contact structure admits an Anosov Reeb flow exactly when some skewed R-covered Anosov flow is tangent to it, and any two such flows tangent to the same contact structure are isoto
The smoothing scheme yields new collapsed Anosov flows: every orientation-preserving self orbit equivalence of an orientable Anosov flow with orientable weak foliations is realized by a strong collapsed Anosov flow, completing a classification program for transitive partially hyperbolic diffeomorphisms in dimension three and producing first examples of double translations.

Reading between the lines

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

Because the Liouville thickening is now known to be topological, symplectic invariants such as wrapped Fukaya categories or symplectic cohomology could be used to distinguish foliations that are homeomorphic but not smoothly conjugate; the paper does not pursue this, but it is a direct testable consequence.
A parametric version of the refined contact-uniqueness theorem—which the paper explicitly notes it does not prove—would likely imply that a whole family of contact approximations can be simultaneously straightened, strengthening the invariance statements and potentially answering the paper's Question 6 for more general neighborhoods.
The smoothing scheme suggests a general transfer principle: any C0 conjugacy between C1 foliations can be upgraded to a smooth diffeomorphism with arbitrarily small distortion of tangent data. This may have applications beyond contact geometry, for instance in classifying partially hyperbolic systems or in rigidity questions for foliations.
The converse question—whether exact symplectomorphism of Anosov Liouville domains forces orbit equivalence—becomes a sharp test of how much dynamical information the Liouville thickening retains; the paper notes this is open except for R-covered flows.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

You should know two things. First, the main results are new and substantial. Theorem A upgrades the known smooth deformation invariance of Liouville thickenings to full topological invariance for hypertaut admissible foliations, and the Anosov consequences (Theorems C and D, plus the deformation through projectively Anosov flows) are the kind of statements people in this area have been after. Second, the proof is honest about where it gets delicate: the refined Vogel uniqueness theorem (Theorem 9, §2.4) is load-bearing, and its most delicate step rests on a convexity/nondegeneracy condition that the authors explicitly say they cannot ensure in general (Remark 2.7).

What is new: the smoothing scheme for foliated and bifoliated homeomorphisms (Theorems 5 and 7), the transversality-controlled refinement of Vogel's uniqueness theorem, and the applications to Anosov orbit equivalences. Along the way the paper corrects a wrong computation in Vogel (equation 3-4) and replaces it with Lemma 2.6, a real contribution in its own right.

What it does well: the smoothing section is worked out carefully — clean covers, induction over the skeleton, the auxiliary smoothing that tames the 'wiggly' images of the cells. The 2D preamble is a good idea. The authors state their limitations plainly: no parametric version of Theorem 9 (Remark 2.5), and the 3-cell step of the bifoliated smoothing is explicitly left to the reader (§1.4).

The soft spot: Lemma 2.6 needs h ≤ 0 along the flow lines hitting the boundary annuli. The proof asserts this follows from making the annuli convex 'by first modifying ξ generically,' but the modification is not written out, and Remark 2.7 concedes the inequality is not known to hold without the nondegeneracy condition on closed characteristics. Since Theorem 9 feeds directly into Proposition 4.2 and then Theorem A, this is load-bearing. My guess is the gap is fillable — a C∞-small generic perturbation stays in the Vogel C0 neighborhood and preserves transversality to I — but the current text does not demonstrate the compatibility, and a referee should ask for it. The non-parametric limitation worries me less: Proposition 4.2 only needs a path between two fixed structures.

I do not see circularity. Proposition 4.2 invokes Theorem 9, which is independent of the main theorem. The paper leans on the authors' own prior work, but that is citation, not circularity. The appendix's classification claim depends on the announced [FP25], a limitation but not a flaw of the main text.

Who this is for: people working on symplectic/contact invariants of foliations or on Anosov flows. It deserves a serious referee; the conditional status is about completing details, not a flawed idea. Send it to review, and ask for the convexity modification in §2.4 to be spelled out, plus the routine 3-cell details in Theorem 7.

Referee Report

1 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper associates to a hypertaut admissible C^1 foliation F on a closed oriented 3-manifold M a Liouville structure λ_F on the thickening [-1,1]×M (Construction 2 and §4.1). Theorem A asserts that λ_F is a topological invariant: a homeomorphism conjugating two such foliations is isotopic to a diffeomorphism pulling back one Liouville structure to a structure Liouville-homotopic to the other. Theorem B gives a similar invariance for positive contact pairs, and Theorems C and D translate these results to Anosov flows, yielding invariance of Anosov Liouville structures under orbit equivalence and deformation equivalence of supporting bicontact structures. The proofs combine three ingredients: a smoothing scheme for foliated and bifoliated homeomorphisms (Theorems 5 and 7), a refinement of Vogel's uniqueness theorem for contact approximations with fixed transverse line field (Theorem 9/2.4), and a deformation result turning pre-Liouville structures into Liouville structures (Proposition 3.5/Proposition 10). An appendix by Barthelmé–Fenley–Potrie uses the smoothing theorem to construct new collapsed Anosov flows, completing a classification program for partially hyperbolic diffeomorphisms.

Significance. If correct, the paper is a substantial contribution to the symplectic and contact topology of foliations and Anosov flows: it turns the Liouville thickening into a topological invariant, hence all Floer-type invariants built from it become invariants of the foliation up to homeomorphism, and of the Anosov flow up to orbit equivalence. The paper also strengthens Vogel's theorem to C^1 admissible foliations with control on a fixed transverse line field, and corrects an erroneous computation in [Vog16] (equation (3-4), replaced by Lemma 2.6). The appendix solves an outstanding question about realizability of self orbit equivalences by partially hyperbolic diffeomorphisms, giving a key step in the classification of transitive partially hyperbolic diffeomorphisms. The proofs are detailed, with some steps still left to the reader; the main technical risk is concentrated in the refined uniqueness theorem for contact approximations.

major comments (1)

[§4.1, Proposition 4.2, Step 1] The independence of the Liouville thickening from the contact approximations uses Theorem 9 in an essential way: the paths of contact structures ξ^t_± produced by Theorem 9 are used to construct paths of pre-Liouville structures. If Theorem 9 has the gap described above, then Proposition 4.2 does not establish well-definedness of λ_F. This is a direct consequence of the issues in §2.4 and §2.3. The authors should make explicit how the convexity problem is resolved before Proposition 4.2 can be accepted.

minor comments (1)

[§2.5.2] In the proof of Proposition 2.12, Step 1 says 'Since ξ is tight, D_z(ξ) has no closed leaf' — a brief justification or reference for this fact (Legendrian unknottedness/Thurston–Bennequin bound) would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: Theorem A’s derivation is self-contained and does not reduce any claim to its own inputs.

full rationale

The central derivation chain is independent and non-circular. The Liouville thickening is defined explicitly in Construction 2 via a 1-form lambda = beta + epsilon*t*alpha_tilde, and Proposition 4.2 shows independence of the choices by invoking Theorem 9/2.4, the refined Vogel uniqueness theorem. That theorem is proved in Section 2 using the polyhedral/ribbon strategy of Vogel, not assumed from the paper’s own conclusions; the paper even corrects Vogel’s equation (3-4) and fills in steps (Sections 2.4-2.6). Theorem 5/7 provides the smoothing of foliated homeomorphisms by an independent explicit induction over a clean cover, and Proposition 3.5/Theorem 3.2 converts pre-Liouville structures to Liouville structures in a homotopically unique way. Theorem A then follows from these ingredients without presupposing topological invariance of lambda_F. The self-citations that appear ([Mas24], [Mas25a], [Mas25b]) are not load-bearing: the Liouville-fillability cited from [Mas24, Prop. 4.4] is re-derived in Construction 2, and the Anosov Liouville comparison in Lemma 5.3 is proved in the paper, while Theorem C/D rely on independent prior results (e.g., Hozoori) or on arguments given here. The paper does flag a genuine unresolved hypothesis in Remark 2.7: 'We do not know how to ensure this condition without some nondegeneracy condition on the gamma_t^+-’s, which essentially amounts to a convexity condition.' This is an acknowledged completeness/correctness risk in the proof of Lemma 2.6, and Remark 2.5 explicitly disclaims a parametric version of Theorem 2.4. These are gaps that could affect validity, but they are not circular reductions: no equation in the derivation is made equal to its own input, and no fitted or chosen datum is relabeled as a prediction. Hence the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 9 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on established theorems in foliation/contact geometry, on the authors' prior work [Mas24; Mas25a; Mas25b], and on Vogel's framework; no parameters are fitted. The new content is the smoothing scheme and the transversality-controlled Vogel refinement, both proven in the text with some details deferred.

assumptions (9)

standard math Vogel's uniqueness theorem for C^2 admissible foliations and its proof framework
Theorem 9 is presented as a refinement of [Vog16]; the proof assumes familiarity with Vogel's polyhedral decompositions, ribbons, and holonomy correction (§2.3–2.5).
standard math Eliashberg–Thurston existence of contact approximations via linear deformations
Construction 2 relies on existence of contact pairs (ξ−,ξ+) approximating F with dβ|ξ±>0; C^0 version from [Bow16; KR17] (§4.1).
standard math Sacksteder's theorem on linear holonomy in minimal sets of C^2 foliations
Used in Proposition 4.1 to show hypertaut C^2 foliations are admissible.
standard math Hirsch–Pugh–Shub C^1 regularity of weak invariant foliations of Anosov flows
Proposition 5.2 uses this to apply admissibility and Vogel theory to weak foliations.
standard math Anosov Closing Lemma (density of closed orbits in the non-wandering set)
Lemma 5.1 uses it to produce a finite set Γ of closed orbits meeting every weak-unstable leaf closure.
standard math Marty's theorem that skewed R-covered Anosov flows are contact Anosov (Reeb-like)
Theorem E and Corollaries 13–14 rely on [Mar25] to identify skewed R-covered flows with contact Anosov flows.
standard math Hozoori's theorem: a contact structure tangent to an Anosov flow is homotopic to one in a supporting bicontact structure
Used in the proof of Proposition 12 to reduce to uniqueness of contact approximations of F^wu.
standard math Barthelmé–Fenley–Potrie [BFP23, Prop B.2] construction of strong collapsed Anosov flows
Appendix B converts the smoothed self orbit equivalence into a collapsed Anosov flow via this proposition.
domain assumption Fenley–Potrie [FP25] announced classification of transitive partially hyperbolic diffeomorphisms in 3-manifolds
The appendix's 'completes classification' statement is conditional on this announced, not yet public, preprint.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Topological invariance of Liouville structures for taut foliations and Anosov flows." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3IDP77GQ

@misc{pith2026251015325,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Topological invariance of Liouville structures for taut foliations and Anosov flows},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3IDP77GQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2510.15325}
}

abstract

Building on the work of Eliashberg and Thurston, we associate to a taut foliation on a closed oriented $3$-manifold $M$ a Liouville structure on the thickening $[-1,1] \times M$, under suitable hypotheses. Our main result shows that this Liouville structure is a topological invariant of the foliation: two such foliations which are topologically conjugate induce Liouville structures that are exact symplectomorphic (after completion). Specializing to the case of weak foliations of Anosov flows, we obtain that under natural orientability conditions, the Liouville structures originally introduced by Mitsumatsu are invariant under orbit equivalence. Our methods also imply that two orbit equivalent Anosov flows are deformation equivalent through projectively Anosov flows. The proofs combine two main technical ingredients: (1) a careful smoothing scheme for topological conjugacies between $C^1$-foliations, and (2) a refinement of a deep result of Vogel on the uniqueness of contact structures approximating a foliation. In an appendix, this smoothing scheme is used to construct new examples of collapsed Anosov flows, providing a key step to complete the classification of transitive partially hyperbolic diffeomorphisms in dimension three.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.15325 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Summary of Vogel’s theorem. To this end, let PI ⊂ P denote the space of oriented plane fields on M transverse to I. Let (ξ−, ξ+) be a contact pair obtained by a linear deformation of F so that ξ± ∈ PI. By linear deformation, we mean that there are 1-forms α and β of class C 1 so that ker α = TF and α ± tβ is a positive (resp. negative) contact form for all 0 < t ≪ 1 sufficiently small and positive; such linear defor… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Local depiction of h. It is easy to approximate u by a smooth map ue = ue(x, y) satisfying ∂xu >e 0, and v by a smooth map ve = ve(y) satisfying ∂yv >e 0. Then, the map eh(x, y) := [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Neighborhoods of simplices. union U1 of the Ut ’s over the edges t ∈ T1. For such an edge t ∈ T1, we consider the maps ht := ψt ◦ h ◦ φ −1 t : (0, 1)2 → R 2 , eht,0 := ψt ◦ eh0 ◦ φ −1 t : φ(U0) → R 2 , which are of the form ht(x, y) = ut(x, y), vt(y) , eht,0(x, y) = uet,0(x, y), vet,0(y) , where ut and uet,0 (resp. vt and vet,0) are C 0 -close on the set where they are both defined. See Figure 4a. One can find s… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (5 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Steps of the smoothing procedure. 17 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Blueprint of the setup of Vogel’s proof. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p036_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: The characteristic foliation near the boundary of the annulus [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p039_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: The function f in blue. The dashed red line is the identity, and the teal line has slope ϵ. We want to choose ϵ such that s(θ, z) ≤ wθ ◦ fθ(z), (12) where the right hand side is the slope of ξ0 at that point. We consider several cases. • z ∈ [−1, −1 + σ]. Then fθ(z) = …

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Anosov/dominated splitting and supporting bicontact structure. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p059_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

Infinite ECH Capacities and Anosov Flows
math.SG 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

ECH capacities are infinite for cotangent disk bundles over genus at least two surfaces, obstructing oriented Anosov Hamiltonian flows in dimension four.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

10 extracted references · 3 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

Caractérisation des flots d’Anosov en dimension 3 par leurs feuilletages faibles

[Ano69] D. V. Anosov.Geodesic flows on closed Riemann manifolds with negative curvature. Vol. No. 90 (1967). Proceedings of the Steklov Institute of Mathematics. Translated from the Russian by S. Feder. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 1969, pp. iv+235. [Bar95] Thierry Barbot. “Caractérisation des flots d’Anosov en dimension 3 par leurs feui...

1967
[13]

Anosov flows in3-manifolds

University Lecture Series. American Mathematical Society, 1998.isbn: 978-0-8218-0776-7. [Fen94] Sérgio R. Fenley. “Anosov flows in3-manifolds”. In:Ann. of Math. (2)139.1 (1994), pp. 79–115. [FP24] Sérgio R. Fenley and Rafael Potrie. “Partial hyperbolicity and pseudo-Anosov dynamics”. In:Geometric and Functional Analysis34 (2024), pp. 409–485. [FP25] Sérgi...

1998
[23]

American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2000, pp

Graduate Studies in Mathematics. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2000, pp. xiv+402. isbn: 0-8218-0809-5. 70 [Cie+22] Kai Cieliebak, Oleg Lazarev, Thomas Massoni, and Agustin Moreno.Floer theory of Anosov flows in dimension three

2000
[373]

Anosov flows and non-Stein symplectic manifolds

[Mit95] Yoshihiko Mitsumatsu. “Anosov flows and non-Stein symplectic manifolds”. In: Ann. Inst. Fourier (Grenoble)45.5 (1995), pp. 1407–1421. [Sac65] Richard Sacksteder. “Foliations and pseudogroups”. In:Amer. J. Math.87 (1965), pp. 79–102. [Sha21] Mario Shannon.Hyperbolic models for transitive topological Anosov flows in dimension three

1995
[1997]

On the uniqueness of the contact structure approximating a foliation

arXiv:math/ 9712268. [Vog16] Thomas Vogel. “On the uniqueness of the contact structure approximating a foliation”. In:Geometry & Topology20.5 (2016), pp. 2439–2573. [Zun24] Jonathan Zung. “Reeb flows transverse to foliations”. In:Geometry & Topology 28.8 (2024), pp. 3661–3695. 72

2016
[2019]

Foliations and the topology of3-manifolds

[Gab83] David Gabai. “Foliations and the topology of3-manifolds”. In:J. Differential Geom.18.3 (1983), pp. 445–503. [Goo75] Sue E. Goodman. “Closed leaves in foliations of codimension one”. In:Comment. Math. Helv.50.3 (1975), pp. 383–388. [Got82] Mark Gotay. “On coisotropic imbeddings of presymplectic manifolds”. In:Pro- ceedings of the American Mathemati...

1983
[2021]

Differentiable dynamical systems

arXiv:2108.12000. [Sma67] Stephen Smale. “Differentiable dynamical systems”. In:Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 73 (1967), pp. 747–817. [Sul76] Dennis Sullivan. “Cycles for the dynamical study of foliated manifolds and complex manifolds”. In:Invent. Math.36 (1976), pp. 225–255. [Thu74] William Thurston. “The theory of foliations of codimension greater than one”. I...

arXiv 1967
[2022]

Stabilité topologique des structures de contact en dimension3

arXiv:2211.07453. [Col99] Vincent Colin. “Stabilité topologique des structures de contact en dimension3”. In:Duke Mathematical Journal99.2 (1999), pp. 329–351. [CF11] Vincent Colin and Sebastião Firmo. “Paires de Structures de Contact Sur Les Variétés de Dimension Trois. (French)”. In:Algebraic & Geometric Topology11.5 (2011), pp. 2627–53. [Eli91] Yakov E...

arXiv 1999

Show all 10 references

[2024]

A symplectic viewpoint on Anosov flows

arXiv:2405.15635. 71 [Mas25a] Thomas Massoni. “A symplectic viewpoint on Anosov flows”. In:Journal of Fixed Point Theory and Applications27.40 (2025). [Mas25b] Thomas Massoni. “Anosov flows and Liouville pairs in dimension three”. In: Algebr. Geom. Topol.25.3 (2025), pp. 1793–...

2025 arXiv
[2025]

Feuilles compactes d’un feuilletage génériqueencodimension1

eprint:2509.15375. [BF94] Christian Bonatti and Sebastião Firmo. “Feuilles compactes d’un feuilletage génériqueencodimension1”.In:Annales scientifiques de l’École Normale Supérieure 27.4 (1994), pp. 407–462. [Bon+20] Christian Bonatti, Andrey Gogolev, Andy Hammerlindl, and Raf...

1994

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

Caractérisation des flots d’Anosov en dimension 3 par leurs feuilletages faibles

[Ano69] D. V. Anosov.Geodesic flows on closed Riemann manifolds with negative curvature. Vol. No. 90 (1967). Proceedings of the Steklov Institute of Mathematics. Translated from the Russian by S. Feder. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 1969, pp. iv+235. [Bar95] Thierry Barbot. “Caractérisation des flots d’Anosov en dimension 3 par leurs feui...

1967

[2] [13]

Anosov flows in3-manifolds

University Lecture Series. American Mathematical Society, 1998.isbn: 978-0-8218-0776-7. [Fen94] Sérgio R. Fenley. “Anosov flows in3-manifolds”. In:Ann. of Math. (2)139.1 (1994), pp. 79–115. [FP24] Sérgio R. Fenley and Rafael Potrie. “Partial hyperbolicity and pseudo-Anosov dynamics”. In:Geometric and Functional Analysis34 (2024), pp. 409–485. [FP25] Sérgi...

1998

[3] [23]

American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2000, pp

Graduate Studies in Mathematics. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2000, pp. xiv+402. isbn: 0-8218-0809-5. 70 [Cie+22] Kai Cieliebak, Oleg Lazarev, Thomas Massoni, and Agustin Moreno.Floer theory of Anosov flows in dimension three

2000

[4] [373]

Anosov flows and non-Stein symplectic manifolds

[Mit95] Yoshihiko Mitsumatsu. “Anosov flows and non-Stein symplectic manifolds”. In: Ann. Inst. Fourier (Grenoble)45.5 (1995), pp. 1407–1421. [Sac65] Richard Sacksteder. “Foliations and pseudogroups”. In:Amer. J. Math.87 (1965), pp. 79–102. [Sha21] Mario Shannon.Hyperbolic models for transitive topological Anosov flows in dimension three

1995

[5] [1997]

On the uniqueness of the contact structure approximating a foliation

arXiv:math/ 9712268. [Vog16] Thomas Vogel. “On the uniqueness of the contact structure approximating a foliation”. In:Geometry & Topology20.5 (2016), pp. 2439–2573. [Zun24] Jonathan Zung. “Reeb flows transverse to foliations”. In:Geometry & Topology 28.8 (2024), pp. 3661–3695. 72

2016

[6] [2019]

Foliations and the topology of3-manifolds

[Gab83] David Gabai. “Foliations and the topology of3-manifolds”. In:J. Differential Geom.18.3 (1983), pp. 445–503. [Goo75] Sue E. Goodman. “Closed leaves in foliations of codimension one”. In:Comment. Math. Helv.50.3 (1975), pp. 383–388. [Got82] Mark Gotay. “On coisotropic imbeddings of presymplectic manifolds”. In:Pro- ceedings of the American Mathemati...

1983

[7] [2021]

Differentiable dynamical systems

arXiv:2108.12000. [Sma67] Stephen Smale. “Differentiable dynamical systems”. In:Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 73 (1967), pp. 747–817. [Sul76] Dennis Sullivan. “Cycles for the dynamical study of foliated manifolds and complex manifolds”. In:Invent. Math.36 (1976), pp. 225–255. [Thu74] William Thurston. “The theory of foliations of codimension greater than one”. I...

arXiv 1967

[8] [2022]

Stabilité topologique des structures de contact en dimension3

arXiv:2211.07453. [Col99] Vincent Colin. “Stabilité topologique des structures de contact en dimension3”. In:Duke Mathematical Journal99.2 (1999), pp. 329–351. [CF11] Vincent Colin and Sebastião Firmo. “Paires de Structures de Contact Sur Les Variétés de Dimension Trois. (French)”. In:Algebraic & Geometric Topology11.5 (2011), pp. 2627–53. [Eli91] Yakov E...

arXiv 1999