pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.23485 · v1 · pith:5CUSIZF4new · submitted 2026-05-22 · 🧮 math.DG · math.MG

Magnitude of metric measure spaces and integrals over geodesics

Yoshinori Hashimoto This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-25 03:04 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🧮 math.DG math.MG
keywords magnitudelength spacesBorel measuresgeodesicsRiemannian manifoldsinjectivity radiusmagnitude homologyvolume
0
0 comments X

The pith

Magnitude for length spaces with measures is defined via integrals over geodesics and recovers both discrete magnitude and manifold volume.

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

The paper proposes a definition of magnitude for a length space equipped with a Borel measure, constructed by taking integrals over the set of geodesics. This definition recovers the usual magnitude of finite metric spaces, after rescaling the metric for convergence, when the counting measure is used. It also recovers the Riemannian volume on compact homogeneous manifolds when the weight measure is used. Examples computed in the paper indicate that the quantity encodes information about non-uniqueness of geodesics, such as the injectivity radius, which aligns with the degrees appearing in magnitude homology. A sympathetic reader would care because the construction supplies a single expression that treats discrete point sets and continuous spaces uniformly.

Core claim

The author defines magnitude of a length space with Borel measure by integrals over its geodesics; this agrees with the magnitude of finite metric spaces up to metric rescaling when the counting measure is employed, and agrees with volume when the weight measure is employed on a compact homogeneous Riemannian manifold. The examples further suggest that the definition registers non-uniqueness of geodesics through quantities such as the injectivity radius.

What carries the argument

Integrals over the set of geodesics, which produce the magnitude value from the measure and the distance function along geodesic paths.

If this is right

  • The magnitude agrees with the standard magnitude of finite metric spaces when the counting measure is used, after suitable rescaling of the metric.
  • The magnitude agrees with the volume when the weight measure is used on any compact homogeneous Riemannian manifold.
  • The magnitude registers non-uniqueness of geodesics, for instance through the value of the injectivity radius.
  • The magnitude is linked to the generating degrees of magnitude homology via the same geodesic non-uniqueness data.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The geodesic-integral definition may furnish a route to defining magnitude homology directly on continuous length spaces rather than only on simplicial complexes.
  • The construction could be tested on non-homogeneous Riemannian manifolds or on length spaces that are not manifolds, such as graphs with edge lengths, to see whether the output still behaves like a volume or magnitude invariant.
  • If the integrals converge on fractals or other singular spaces, the same definition might produce a magnitude that interpolates between discrete and continuous regimes without additional rescaling.

Load-bearing premise

The integrals over the set of geodesics are well-defined and the resulting quantity converges for the length spaces and measures under consideration.

What would settle it

Explicit computation of the proposed magnitude on a compact homogeneous manifold such as the sphere, checking whether the value exactly equals the Riemannian volume for the weight measure.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.23485 by Yoshinori Hashimoto.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: 4-cut In this case, non-trivial choices for Γ lead to new quantities. When we take the counting measure Γ♯ , the (µ♯ , Γ ♯ )-magnitude can be written by using an inverse matrix as follows, similarly to the original definition (2). 11 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Comparison of the magnitude functions for (G, tdG) in Example 3.10 This extra diagonal does not affect the similarity matrix, since (G, dG) and (G′ , dG′) define the same metric space. In particular, the magnitude of (G′ , dG′) is the same as that of (G, dG). We thus get Mag(G ′ , tdG′) = 4e 2t (1 + e t ) 2 from Example 3.10, agreeing with Mag(G′ , tdG′, µ♯ , Γ triv) for t > log 3 ≈ 1.1, but direct computa… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: 4-cut with an extra edge 3.4. Convergence for compact geodesic metric spaces. The definition of the (µ, Γ)- magnitude is given in terms of an infinite series, which may not converge in general. We give two sufficient conditions for the convergence when (X, d) is a compact geodesic metric space, 13 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of the magnitude functions for (G′ , tdG′) in Example 3.11 and prove some continuity results for the (µ, Γ triv)-magnitude with respect to the measure µ. We first define the following condition which is satisfied for a wide range of examples, e.g. when (X, d) is a Riemannian manifold and µ is absolutely continuous with respect to the Lebesgue measure. Definition 3.12. We say that a Borel measure… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The length of the solid line varies smoothly. In any case, when (X, g) is uniquely geodesic, µ n l (P l n (X)) is smooth. Consider now a hy￾pothetical situation when µ n l (P l n (X)) is a polynomial in l. In this case, writing µ n l (P l n (X)) = PM m=1 am lm m! for some a1, . . . , aM ∈ R and M ∈ Z>0, repeated applications of integration by parts yield Z Xn+1 e −t Pn k=1 d(xk,xk+1) dµ n+1 = Z ∞ 0 e −tlµ … view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The level set d(y, x1) = l, for l < ρ (left) and l > ρ (right). 26 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The number of geodesics jumps from 2 to 4 when p reaches q. Recall also that there are at least two geodesics between two points that attain the diameter [9, Exercise 2.118]. 4.3.2. Circle with N = 3. Let X be the circle S 1 r of radius r, with respect to the standard round metric. As in the proof of Lemma 4.5, we write P l n (S 1 r ) = G s1+···+sn=l G x0∈S1 r {(x0, . . . , xn) ∈ Pn(S 1 r ) | xj ∈ S 0 sj (… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The length of the solid line changes non-differentiably at l = πr. When n = 2, the range of the integral above is precisely the intersection of the line x+y = l and the unit cube as described in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_8.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We propose a definition of magnitude for a length space with a Borel measure, which involves integrals over the set of geodesics. This quantity agrees with the magnitude of finite metric spaces, up to re-scaling the metric to ensure the convergence, when we use the counting measure on them. We also prove a version of the homogeneous magnitude theorem, by showing that the new definition agrees with the volume when we use the weight measure on a compact homogeneous Riemannian manifold. We compute various examples, which suggest that this quantity can capture information of non-uniqueness of geodesics, such as the injectivity radius, corresponding to the generating degrees of the magnitude homology.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 0 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a definition of magnitude for a length space equipped with a Borel measure, constructed via integrals over the set of geodesics. It claims agreement (up to metric rescaling) with the magnitude of finite metric spaces under the counting measure, and agreement with volume under the weight measure on compact homogeneous Riemannian manifolds. Examples are presented suggesting that the quantity detects information about non-uniqueness of geodesics, such as the injectivity radius, in relation to magnitude homology.

Significance. If the integrals are shown to be well-defined and the claimed agreements are established, the construction would supply a continuous analogue of magnitude that incorporates geodesic data, potentially connecting discrete magnitude, volume, and magnitude homology in length spaces. The absence of free parameters in the definition and the explicit recovery of known quantities in special cases would be notable strengths.

major comments (1)
  1. [Definition and main results (abstract and §1)] The definition of the magnitude (introduced via integrals over geodesics) does not specify a canonical measure on the space of geodesics nor provide a domination or convergence argument after the metric rescaling required for the finite-space case; without this, the asserted equalities with classical magnitude and with volume rest on an unverified analytic hypothesis.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their detailed reading and for identifying the need for greater analytic precision in the definition and the claimed equalities. We address the single major comment below and will incorporate the necessary clarifications and arguments in a revised manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Definition and main results (abstract and §1)] The definition of the magnitude (introduced via integrals over geodesics) does not specify a canonical measure on the space of geodesics nor provide a domination or convergence argument after the metric rescaling required for the finite-space case; without this, the asserted equalities with classical magnitude and with volume rest on an unverified analytic hypothesis.

    Authors: We agree that the present text leaves the measure on the space of geodesics implicit and does not supply an explicit domination or convergence argument after rescaling. In the revision we will (i) introduce a canonical Borel measure on the geodesic space (induced by the length metric and the given Borel measure on the underlying space, via the standard parametrization of constant-speed geodesics), (ii) state the domination hypothesis required for the integrals to be well-defined, and (iii) supply the missing convergence argument that justifies passage to the limit after the metric rescaling needed for the finite-space case. With these additions the claimed agreement with classical magnitude (under counting measure) and with volume (under the weight measure on compact homogeneous Riemannian manifolds) will rest on verified analytic statements rather than an implicit hypothesis. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; definition introduced directly with independent agreements shown

full rationale

The paper introduces a new definition of magnitude for length spaces with Borel measures via integrals over geodesics. It then proves agreement with classical magnitude (under counting measure, after metric rescaling for convergence) and with volume (under weight measure on compact homogeneous Riemannian manifolds). These are presented as theorems following from the definition, not as self-referential constructions or fitted parameters renamed as predictions. No self-citation load-bearing steps, ansatz smuggling, or uniqueness theorems imported from the authors' prior work are indicated in the provided abstract or description. The derivation chain is self-contained as a definitional proposal with subsequent verifications, consistent with the reader's assessment of score 2.0 for minor issues unrelated to circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Only abstract available; no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities can be extracted or audited.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5624 in / 1041 out tokens · 20339 ms · 2026-05-25T03:04:20.917050+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Asao,Magnitude homology of geodesic metric spaces with an upper curvature bound, Algebr

    Y. Asao,Magnitude homology of geodesic metric spaces with an upper curvature bound, Algebr. Geom. Topol.21(2021), no. 2, 647–664. MR4250513↑3, 11, 23

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    Asao and K

    Y. Asao and K. Gomi,Geometric interpretation of magnitude, arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.26118 (2025). ↑4

    work page arXiv 2025

  3. [3]

    Berman and S

    R. Berman and S. Boucksom,Growth of balls of holomorphic sections and energy at equilibrium, Invent. Math.181(2010), no. 2, 337–394. MR2657428↑3, 18, 38

    work page 2010

  4. [4]

    Berman, S

    R. Berman, S. Boucksom, and D. Witt Nystr¨ om,Fekete points and convergence towards equilibrium measures on complex manifolds, Acta Math.207(2011), no. 1, 1–27. MR2863909↑3, 18

    work page 2011

  5. [5]

    M. R. Bridson and A. Haefliger,Metric spaces of non-positive curvature, Grundlehren der mathema- tischen Wissenschaften [Fundamental Principles of Mathematical Sciences], vol. 319, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1999. MR1744486↑5, 9

    work page 1999

  6. [6]

    Devriendt,The geometry of magnitude for finite metric spaces, arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.14684 (2025).↑4

    K. Devriendt,The geometry of magnitude for finite metric spaces, arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.14684 (2025).↑4

    work page arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    Dujardin,Th´ eorie globale du pluripotentiel, ´ equidistribution et processus ponctuels [d’apr` es Berman, Boucksom, Witt Nystr¨ om,

    R. Dujardin,Th´ eorie globale du pluripotentiel, ´ equidistribution et processus ponctuels [d’apr` es Berman, Boucksom, Witt Nystr¨ om,. . .], 2020, pp. Exp. No. 1152, 61–107. S´ eminaire Bourbaki. Vol. 2018/2019. Expos´ es 1151–1165. MR4224632↑18

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    P Feynman, A

    R. P Feynman, A. R Hibbs, and D. F Styer,Quantum mechanics and path integrals, Courier Corporation, 2010.↑5

    work page 2010

  9. [9]

    Gallot, D

    S. Gallot, D. Hulin, and J. Lafontaine,Riemannian geometry, Third, Universitext, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2004. MR2088027↑19, 27

    work page 2004

  10. [10]

    Gigli, T

    N. Gigli, T. Rajala, and K.-T. Sturm,Optimal maps and exponentiation on finite-dimensional spaces with Ricci curvature bounded from below, J. Geom. Anal.26(2016), no. 4, 2914–2929. MR3544946↑19

    work page 2016

  11. [11]

    Gimperlein, M

    H. Gimperlein, M. Goffeng, and N. Louca,The magnitude and spectral geometry, arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.11363 (2022).↑37

    work page arXiv 2022

  12. [12]

    ,Semiclassical analysis of a nonlocal boundary value problem related to magnitude, J. Anal. Math. 153(2024), no. 2, 401–487. MR4802985↑37

    work page 2024

  13. [13]

    Gomi,Magnitude homology of geodesic space, arXiv preprint arXiv:1902.07044 (2019).↑3, 11, 23, 29, 33

    K. Gomi,Magnitude homology of geodesic space, arXiv preprint arXiv:1902.07044 (2019).↑3, 11, 23, 29, 33

    work page arXiv 1902

  14. [14]

    Graf and H

    S. Graf and H. Luschgy,Foundations of quantization for probability distributions, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 1730, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2000. MR1764176↑16

    work page 2000

  15. [15]

    Hepworth and S

    R. Hepworth and S. Willerton,Categorifying the magnitude of a graph, Homology Homotopy Appl.19 (2017), no. 2, 31–60. MR3683605↑5, 6

    work page 2017

  16. [16]

    R. A. Horn and C. R. Johnson,Matrix analysis, Second, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2013. MR2978290↑6

    work page 2013

  17. [17]

    Kaneta and M

    R. Kaneta and M. Yoshinaga,Magnitude homology of metric spaces and order complexes, Bull. Lond. Math. Soc.53(2021), no. 3, 893–905. MR4275098↑4, 11

    work page 2021

  18. [18]

    Leinster,The magnitude of metric spaces, Doc

    T. Leinster,The magnitude of metric spaces, Doc. Math.18(2013), 857–905. MR3084566↑2, 37, 40, 41

    work page 2013

  19. [19]

    ,The magnitude of a graph, Math. Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc.166(2019), no. 2, 247–264. MR3903118↑5, 6

    work page 2019

  20. [20]

    MR4274074↑39

    ,Entropy and diversity—the axiomatic approach, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2021. MR4274074↑39

    work page 2021

  21. [21]

    Leinster and E

    T. Leinster and E. Roff,The maximum entropy of a metric space, Q. J. Math.72(2021), no. 4, 1271–

    work page 2021

  22. [22]

    MR4350150↑31, 34, 39

    work page

  23. [23]

    Leinster and M

    T. Leinster and M. Shulman,Magnitude homology of enriched categories and metric spaces, Algebr. Geom. Topol.21(2021), no. 5, 2175–2221. MR4334510↑4, 5, 6, 11, 33 42

    work page 2021

  24. [24]

    Leinster and S

    T. Leinster and S. Willerton,On the asymptotic magnitude of subsets of Euclidean space, Geom. Dedicata 164(2013), 287–310. MR3054629↑2, 34, 36, 40

    work page 2013

  25. [25]

    M. W. Meckes,Positive definite metric spaces, Positivity17(2013), no. 3, 733–757. MR3090690↑2, 34, 37, 39, 40

    work page 2013

  26. [26]

    P. D. Miller,Applied asymptotic analysis, Graduate Studies in Mathematics, vol. 75, American Mathe- matical Society, Providence, RI, 2006. MR2238098↑22

    work page 2006

  27. [27]

    Mumford,An Easy Case of Feynman’s Path Integrals, 2014.https://www.dam.brown.edu/people/ mumford/blog/BookPosts/14c-Feynman.pdf.↑5

    D. Mumford,An Easy Case of Feynman’s Path Integrals, 2014.https://www.dam.brown.edu/people/ mumford/blog/BookPosts/14c-Feynman.pdf.↑5

    work page 2014

  28. [28]

    Distinguishing regular polygons, cycle graphs, and circular metric spaces by the distance multiset and magnitude

    J. O’Hara,Identification of circular spaces by magnitude and discrete Riesz energy, arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.06091 (2024).↑5

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  29. [29]

    Heuristic and computer calculations for the magnitude of metric spaces

    S. Willerton,Heuristic and computer calculations for the magnitude of metric spaces, arXiv preprint arXiv:0910.5500 (2009).↑2

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  30. [30]

    Dedicata168 (2014), 291–310

    ,On the magnitude of spheres, surfaces and other homogeneous spaces, Geom. Dedicata168 (2014), 291–310. MR3158044↑2, 22, 34, 36, 40, 41 Department of Mathematics, Osaka Metropolitan University, 3-3-138, Sugimoto, Sumiyoshi-ku, Osaka, 558-8585, Japan. Email:yhashimoto@omu.ac.jp 43

    work page 2014