Equivariant basic cohomology under deformations

Dirk Toeben; Francisco C. Caramello Jr.

REVIEW 1 major objections 5 minor 37 references

Equivariant basic cohomology under deformations

T0 review · 1 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · 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 the equivariant basic cohomology ring of a Killing foliation is invariant under regular deformations, and that equivariant formality then makes the basic Betti numbers constants of the deformation.

desk verdict The ring-invariance theorem is new and the proof is sound modulo the imported Haefliger–Salem machinery; worth refereeing. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.05266 v2 pith:64R6RIHF submitted 2019-08-14 math.DG

Francisco C. Caramello Jr. , Dirk Toeben This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.DG MSC 53C1255N25

keywords equivariantbasiccohomologyKillingfoliationregulardeformationBettinumbersformalitytransversecurvatureorbifoldK-contactmanifold

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

A Killing foliation can have leaves that wind around densely instead of closing, and there is a standard way to deform it into a foliation whose leaves all close. This paper proves that one transverse cohomological invariant, the equivariant basic cohomology ring, is unchanged throughout any such regular deformation. Because that ring is preserved, an algebraic condition called equivariant formality becomes a sufficient condition for the ordinary basic Betti numbers to stay constant as well. This matters because the closing deformation turns the leaf space into an orbifold with a torus action, so the invariant can be read off from a closed finite model.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Haefliger–Salem model $(\mathcal O, \mathbb T^N, H, \Upsilon)$: an orbifold $\mathcal O$ with an effective torus action, a dense contractible subgroup $H$ acting locally freely, and a good map $\Upsilon$ from $M$ to $\mathcal O$ whose pullback of the $H$-orbit foliation is $\mathcal F$. The deformation is encoded by a path of subgroups $H(t)$ joining $H$ to a closed subgroup $K$, with each $H(t)$ locally free and transverse to $\Upsilon$, and with a fixed subalgebra $\mathfrak{a}$ of the torus Lie algebra complementary to every $\mathfrak{h}(t)$. The algebraic engine is the commuting-actions principle (Proposition 3.4), which identifies the $\mathfrak{a}$-equivariant basic cohomology of the pulled-back foliation with the $(\mathfrak{h}(t) \times \mathfrak{a})$-equivariant cohomology of $\mathcal O$, that is, with $\mathbb H_{\mathfrak{t}}(\mathcal O)$. Since these identifications all pass through the same fixed complement $\mathfrak{a}$, their composites are ring isomorphisms for every $t$.

What would settle it

Compute the equivariant basic cohomology rings $H_{\mathfrak{a}}(\mathcal F_t)$ for two different parameters of a regular deformation family and check whether they are isomorphic; any degree where the rings differ would falsify Theorem 5.3. The $S^3 \times S^1$ example with two closed limits is the first test case, since the theorem predicts that $H_{S^1}(S^2 \times S^1)$ and $H_{S^1}(S^3)$ with the Hopf action are isomorphic, and finding a deformation where this equality fails would falsify the central claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central result is that if $\mathcal F$ is a Killing foliation of a compact manifold $M$ and $\mathcal F_t$ is a regular deformation, then $H_{\mathfrak{a}}(\mathcal F)$ and $H_{\mathfrak{a}}(\mathcal F_t)$ are isomorphic as $\mathbb R$-algebras (Theorem 5.3). This holds even though the basic Betti numbers themselves can change, as the $S^3 \times S^1$ example shows. The proof passes through the Haefliger–Salem model: the foliation is pulled back from the orbits of a dense contractible subgroup $H$ of a torus acting on an orbifold, and the deformation is pulled back from a nearby subgroup $H(t)$. Using the commuting-actions principle, each $H_{\mathfrak{a}}(\mathcal F_t)$ is identified as a ring with the full torus-equivariant cohomology of the orbifold, and the identifications are tied together by a fixed complement $\mathfrak{a}$ inside the torus Lie algebra. Consequently $H_{\mathfrak{a}}(\mathcal F)$ is also isomorphic, as an $\mathbb R$-algebra, to the torus-equivariant cohomology of the orbifold attached to any sufficiently close closed foliation.

Load-bearing premise

The proof requires that, for every Killing foliation under consideration, there is a nearby family of closed approximations obtained by moving a dense torus subgroup slightly, with all the moved subgroups staying locally free and transverse to the same fixed map, and with one fixed complementary symmetry algebra throughout.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The equivariant basic cohomology ring is a deformation invariant for regular deformations of Killing foliations, so the ring of a non-closed foliation can be computed from any sufficiently close closed approximation.
If a Killing foliation is equivariantly formal, its basic Betti numbers are constant throughout a regular deformation, and they coincide with the Betti numbers of the quotient orbifold of the closed approximation.
There is a universal constant $C(q)$ bounding the sum of the basic Betti numbers of every $q$-codimensional, equivariantly formal, positively curved Killing foliation of a compact manifold.
A Killing foliation with negative transverse Ricci curvature must be closed, and one with negative transverse sectional curvature is closed with exponentially growing fundamental group.
In the even-codimension, positively curved, transversely orientable case the leaf space is simply connected, and in the odd-codimension case the foliation is transversely orientable under a holonomy condition.

Reading between the lines

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

Because the proof preserves only the ring structure and not the module structure over the symmetric algebra, any deformation-stable invariant built from equivariant cohomology must be a ring-level invariant; Cohen–Macaulayness is one such property, which is why equivariant formality survives the deformation.
Corollary 5.5 suggests a practical test: one can check equivariant formality of a Killing foliation by deforming it to a closed foliation and testing formality of the induced torus action on the quotient orbifold, so non-formal torus orbifolds would yield non-formal Killing foliations.
The example of two closed limits with different basic Betti numbers indicates that whenever basic Betti numbers change across a regular deformation, equivariant formality must fail for at least one member of the family; examining such examples would map out exactly where Theorem 6.3 stops applying.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Here's the short version: this is a real result, not a rebranding. The new thing is Theorem 5.3, which upgrades the authors' earlier invariance of the basic Euler characteristic under regular deformations to an isomorphism of the full equivariant basic cohomology ring H_a(F) ≅ H_a(F_t). That is strictly stronger, and it buys the Betti-number constancy under equivariant formality (Theorem 6.3), plus the universal bound and the geometric applications. I read the core proof carefully: the chain through Proposition 3.4, the equivariant De Rham theorem for orbifolds, and pseudogroup equivalence is coherent. The connection averaging over the torus is fine because the group is abelian. I don't see an internal error.

The genuinely load-bearing assumption is Theorem 4.1, imported from the authors' earlier paper [7] and from Haefliger–Salem [18]: for every Killing foliation you get an orbifold O, a dense contractible subgroup H, a good map Υ, and—crucially—a path of subgroups H(t) with one fixed subalgebra a complementary to every h(t). None of that is reproved here. If some piece of the Haefliger–Salem model fails for a particular F, Theorem 5.3 has nothing to grab onto. This is an external dependency, not a contradiction. My read agrees with the stress-test note: the internal algebra is sound, and the risk is confined to the imported construction. That deserves an explicit check by the referee.

Minor things: the self-citation is heavy but not abusive; [7] and [13] really are the sources for the deformation and the equivariant basic cohomology framework. The applications in Sections 4 and 6—negative transverse Ricci implies closed, Milnor growth, Synge—are mostly quick consequences of Theorem 4.1 plus orbifold Bochner and Milnor; they look fine. The remark that H_a(F) ≅ H_a(F_t) is not an S(a*)-algebra isomorphism is honest and important. I would ask the authors to add a line justifying the Poincaré series cancellation in Theorem 6.3; it is legitimate, but it deserves a sentence.

This paper deserves a serious referee. It is not desk-reject material, and the main theorem is a genuine structural improvement over what the authors had before. I would send it to a good differential geometry journal, with the referee asked specifically to verify the hypotheses of Theorem 4.1 and the well-definedness of the maps j_t.

Referee Report

1 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies Killing foliations on compact manifolds and their regular deformations, introduced by Haefliger-Salem and further developed by the authors in [7]. The main result (Theorem 5.3) states that the equivariant basic cohomology ring H_a(F) is invariant under regular deformations, as an R-algebra. From this, the authors derive that equivariant formality of the transverse structural algebra action implies constancy of basic Betti numbers (Theorem 6.3), with applications to K-contact manifolds (Corollary 4) and a universal bound for positively curved equivariantly formal Killing foliations (Theorem 6.5). The paper also proves several geometric consequences: a foliation with negative transverse Ricci curvature is closed (Theorem 4.3), negative transverse sectional curvature implies closedness and exponential growth of the fundamental group (Theorem 4.6), and a transverse Synge theorem (Theorem 4.5).

Significance. If the main theorem is correct, it establishes a new deformation invariant of Killing foliations: the ring structure of equivariant basic cohomology, rather than merely its Euler characteristic. This is a genuine advance in the transverse topology of Riemannian foliations. The paper is clearly written and carefully assembles tools from equivariant de Rham theory, orbifold geometry, and pseudogroup theory. Strengths include the explicit proofs of orbifold versions of Bochner's theorem, Milnor's growth theorem, and Synge's theorem, and the clean chain of isomorphisms in Theorem 5.3. The main limitation is the dependence on the authors' earlier Theorem 4.1 and on the Haefliger-Salem model; these are external but published dependencies, not circular.

major comments (1)

[Section 4 and proof of Theorem 5.3] The proof of Theorem 5.3 requires, for every t in the deformation, a fixed subalgebra a of t complementary to each h(t), together with a path H(t) of subgroups acting locally freely and transversely to Υ; this is asserted in the paragraph after Theorem 4.1 ('by taking k closer to h if necessary, we can fix a subalgebra a < t which is complementary to each h(t)') but is not proved in this manuscript and no precise statement in [7] is cited for it. Since this assumption is load-bearing for the main theorem and for all subsequent applications, please supply the missing argument or an explicit reference to where this is established.

minor comments (5)

[Section 6, definition of equivariant formality] The displayed definition is incomplete; it should read 'if S(g*)g ⊗ H(A) ≅ H_g(A) as S(g*)g-modules'.
[Section 3.2, proof of Theorem 3.6] The appeal to Proposition 3.4 requires a u(n)-connection that is invariant under the commuting G-action on the unitary frame bundle; please add a sentence explaining that such a connection exists by averaging over the compact group G.
[Theorem 4.5(i)] The notation '|M//G|^{T^d}' should be the orbit space '|M//G|/T^d', not the fixed-point set, to avoid confusion.
[Theorem 4.5(ii)] The notation 'Hol(L)' should be specified as Hol_x(L) for some x ∈ L, since the germinal holonomy group is defined at a basepoint.
[Corollary 4.7] The summation range starts at i=1, whereas Theorem 6.5 and the usual basic Betti number convention sum from i=0; this is likely a typo.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: Theorem 5.3 is proved from the Haefliger–Salem model and the commuting-actions isomorphism, not from its own conclusion.

full rationale

The central invariance theorem is not assumed or fitted. In the proof of Theorem 5.3, the chain Ha(Ft) ≅ Ha(HFt) ≅ Ha(HFH(t)) ≅ Ha(Ω^{bas h(t)}(O)) uses Proposition 3.7 to identify basic forms on the foliation with h(t)-basic forms on the Haefliger–Salem orbifold, then Proposition 3.4 identifies Ha(Ω^{bas h(t)}(O)) with H_{h(t)×a}(O) = H_t(O). Since the latter ring depends only on the fixed Lie algebra t and the fixed action of the torus T^N, the composition j_t^{-1}∘j_0 is a genuine constructed isomorphism, not an assumed one. The regular-deformation data (orbifold O, torus action, dense subgroup H, good map Υ, path h(t), and fixed complementary subalgebra a) is imported as Theorem 4.1 from the authors' earlier paper [7] and from Haefliger–Salem [18]; this is an external dependency, not a circular one, because those sources state assumptions that do not include the invariance of Ha and the present paper does not define Ha(Ft) so as to force the isomorphism. The later equivariant-formality and Betti-number steps rely on [13, Prop. B.3] and [2, Thm A.6.18], both independent published results; the self-citation overlap in [13] does not make the argument circular. The only self-referential note, Remark 4.2, retracts a prior claim about symplectic forms and is not load-bearing. No specific reduction of the theorem to its inputs by construction was found.

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

The paper introduces no free parameters or invented entities. All assumptions are standard structural results from foliation theory (Molino, Haefliger-Salem) plus algebraic topology tools. The main load-bearing external inputs are the authors' own prior deformation theorem [7] and the published commuting actions principle [13].

assumptions (6)

domain assumption Molino structural theory: a complete Riemannian foliation has a locally constant sheaf of transverse Killing fields; for Killing foliations the structural algebra is abelian and generates the closures of leaves.
Invoked in Section 2.3 to define the structural algebra a and the transverse action underlying Ha(F). Standard in the field, cited to [29].
domain assumption Haefliger-Salem construction: for a Killing foliation of a compact manifold there exists an orbifold O with a TN action and a dense contractible subgroup H acting locally freely, plus a smooth good map Υ that pulls back the H-foliation to F.
Used in Section 4 to build the regular deformation; external result from [18].
domain assumption Regular deformation existence and preservation (Theorem 4.1 from [7]): curvature bounds, the T^d action on M//G, and M/F being isomorphic to (M/G)/T^d.
Load-bearing for Theorems 5.3, 6.5, 4.3, 4.5, and 4.6; self-cited, previously published by the authors.
standard math Commuting actions principle (Proposition 3.4): for g = h×k and A locally free as an h?*-algebra with a k-invariant connection, H_k(A_bas_h) is isomorphic to H_g(A).
Used in the proof of Theorem 5.3 to pass between basic and full equivariant cohomology; cited from [13, Prop 3.9] and [22, Prop A.6.3].
standard math Orbifold De Rham theorems (Theorems 2.2 and 3.6): H(O) is isomorphic to H(|O|,R) and the G-equivariant cohomology of an orbifold equals the Lie algebra equivariant cohomology.
Used to identify basic cohomology of closed foliations with orbifold cohomology and to relate Ha to HTd.
domain assumption Orbifold versions of Bochner (Theorem 2.5), Milnor (Theorem 2.6), and Synge (from [37]) theorems.
Used in the applications Theorems 4.3, 4.5, and 4.6; Bochner and Milnor are proved inside the paper, Synge is cited.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Equivariant basic cohomology under deformations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/64R6RIHF

@misc{pith2026190805266,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Equivariant basic cohomology under deformations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/64R6RIHF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.05266}
}

abstract

There is a natural way to deform a Killing foliation with non-closed leaves, due to Ghys and Haefliger--Salem, into a closed foliation, i.e., a foliation whose leaves are all closed. Certain transverse geometric and topological properties are preserved under these deformations, as previously shown by the authors. For instance, the basic Euler characteristic is invariant. In this article we show that the equivariant basic cohomology ring structure is preserved under these deformations, which in turn leads to a sufficient algebraic condition (namely, equivariant formality) for the Betti numbers of basic cohomology to be preserved as well. In particular, this is true for the deformation of the Reeb orbit foliation of a $K$-contact manifold. Another consequence is that there is a universal bound on the sum of basic Betti numbers of any equivariantly formal, positively curved Killing foliation of a given codimension. We also show that a Killing foliation with negative transverse Ricci curvature is closed. If the transverse sectional curvature is negative we show, furthermore, that its fundamental group has exponential growth. Finally, we obtain a transverse generalization of Synge's theorem to Killing foliations.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

[7]

Caramello, D

F. Caramello, D. T¨ oben: Positively curved Killing foliations via deformations , Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 372 (2019), 8131–8158

work page 2019
[18]

Haeﬂiger, E

A. Haeﬂiger, E. Salem: Riemannian foliations on simply connected manifolds and ac tions of tori on orbifolds, Illinois J. Math. 34 (1990), 706–730

work page 1990
[13]

Goertsches, D

O. Goertsches, D. T¨ oben: Equivariant basic cohomology of riemannian foliations , J. Reine Angew. Math. 2018(745) (2018), 1–40

work page 2018
[1]

A. Adem, J. Leida, Y. Ruan: Orbifolds and Stringy Topology, Tracts in Mathematics 171, Cambridge University Press, 2007

work page 2007
[2]

Allday, V

C. Allday, V. Puppe: Cohomological Methods in Transformation Groups , Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics 32, Cambridge University Press, 1993

work page 1993
[3]

Armstrong: Calculating the fundamental group of an orbit space , Proc

M. Armstrong: Calculating the fundamental group of an orbit space , Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 84(2) (1982), 267–271

work page 1982
[4]

Borzellino: Orbifolds with lower Ricci curvature bounds , Proc

J. Borzellino: Orbifolds with lower Ricci curvature bounds , Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 125(10) (1997), 3011–3018

work page 1997
[5]

Bridson, A

M. Bridson, A. Haeﬂiger: Metric spaces of non-positive curvature Springer, 2013

work page 2013

Show all 37 references

[6]

Candel, L

A. Candel, L. Conlon: Foliations I , Graduate Studies in Mathematics 23, American Mathematical Society, 2000

2000
[8]

W. Chen, Y. Ruan: Orbifold Gromov–Witten theory , in: Orbifolds in Mathematics and Physics , ed. by A. Adem, J. Morava and Y. Ruan, Contemporary Mathematics 310, American Mathematical Society, 2002, 25–85

2002
[9]

Galaz-Garc ´ ıa et al: Torus orbifolds, slice-maximal torus actions and rational ellipticity, Int

F. Galaz-Garc ´ ıa et al: Torus orbifolds, slice-maximal torus actions and rational ellipticity, Int. Math. Res. Not. IMRN (2017), rnx064

2017
[10]

Ghys: Feuilletages riemanniens sur les varietes simplement conn exes, Ann

E. Ghys: Feuilletages riemanniens sur les varietes simplement conn exes, Ann. Inst. Fourier 34 (1984), 203–223

1984
[11]

Goertsches, H

O. Goertsches, H. Nozawa, D. T¨ oben: Equivariant cohomology of K-contact manifolds, Math. Ann. 354(4) (2012), 1555–1582

2012
[12]

Goertsches, H

O. Goertsches, H. Nozawa, D. T¨ oben: Localization of Chern-Simons type invariants of Riemannia n foliations, Israel J. Math. 222(2) (2017), 867–920

2017
[14]

Gromov: Curvature, diameter and Betti numbers , Comment

M. Gromov: Curvature, diameter and Betti numbers , Comment. Math. Helvetici 56 (1981), 179–195

1981
[15]

Gromov: Structures m´ etriques pour les vari´ et´ es riemanniennes, Cedic-Nathan, 1981

M. Gromov: Structures m´ etriques pour les vari´ et´ es riemanniennes, Cedic-Nathan, 1981

1981
[16]

Gromov: Volume and bounded cohomology, Inst

M. Gromov: Volume and bounded cohomology, Inst. Hautes Etudes Sci. Publ. Math. 56 (1982), 5–99

1982
[17]

Guillemin, S

V. Guillemin, S. Sternberg: Supersymmetry and Equivariant de Rham Theory , Springer-Verlag, 1999

1999
[19]

Hebda: Curvature and focal points in riemannian foliations , Indiana Univ

J. Hebda: Curvature and focal points in riemannian foliations , Indiana Univ. Math. J. 35 (1986), 321–331

1986
[20]

Kleiner, J

B. Kleiner, J. Lott: Geometrization of three-dimensional orbifolds via Ricci ﬂ ow, Ast´ erisque 365 (2014), 101–177

2014
[21]

Koh: Betti numbers of Alexandrov spaces , Proc

L.-K. Koh: Betti numbers of Alexandrov spaces , Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 122(1) (1994), 247–252. 19

1994
[22]

Y. Lin, R. Sjamaar: A Thom isomorphism in foliated de Rham theory , preprint arXiv:2001.11848 [math.DG]

2001 arXiv
[23]

L¨ oh: Geometric group theory , Universitext, Springer, 2017

C. L¨ oh: Geometric group theory , Universitext, Springer, 2017

2017
[24]

Lupercio, B

E. Lupercio, B. Uribe: Gerbes over orbifolds and twisted K-theory, Comm. Math. Phys. 245(3) (2004), 449–489

2004
[25]

McCleary: User’s Guide to Spectral Sequences , Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics 58, Cambridge University Press, 2001

J. McCleary: User’s Guide to Spectral Sequences , Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics 58, Cambridge University Press, 2001

2001
[26]

Milnor: A note on curvature and fundamental group , J

J. Milnor: A note on curvature and fundamental group , J. Diﬀer. Geom 2(1) (1968), 1–7

1968
[27]

Moerdijk, J

I. Moerdijk, J. Mrˇ cun: Introduction to Foliations and Lie Groupoids, Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics 91, Cambridge University Press, 2003

2003
[28]

Molino: Desingularisation des feuilletages riemanniens , Amer

P. Molino: Desingularisation des feuilletages riemanniens , Amer. J. Math. 106(5) (1984), 1091–1106

1984
[29]

Molino: Riemannian Foliations, Progress in Mathematics 73, Birkh¨ auser, 1988

P. Molino: Riemannian Foliations, Progress in Mathematics 73, Birkh¨ auser, 1988

1988
[30]

Nicolaescu: On a theorem of Henri Cartan concerning the equivaraint coho mology, preprint arXiv:math/0005068 [math.DG]

L. Nicolaescu: On a theorem of Henri Cartan concerning the equivaraint coho mology, preprint arXiv:math/0005068 [math.DG]

arXiv
[31]

Petersen: Riemannian Geometry, Second Edition, Graduate Texts in Mathematics 171, Springer, 2006

P. Petersen: Riemannian Geometry, Second Edition, Graduate Texts in Mathematics 171, Springer, 2006

2006
[32]

Salem: Riemannian foliations and pseudogroups of isometries , Appendix D in: Riemmanian Foliations by P

E. Salem: Riemannian foliations and pseudogroups of isometries , Appendix D in: Riemmanian Foliations by P. Molino, Progress in Mathematics 73, Birkh¨ auser, 1988, 265–296

1988
[33]

Samet: Betti numbers of ﬁnite volume orbifolds , Geom

I. Samet: Betti numbers of ﬁnite volume orbifolds , Geom. Topol. 17 (2013), 1113-1147

2013
[34]

Satake: On a generalization of the notion of manifold , Proc

I. Satake: On a generalization of the notion of manifold , Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 42(6) (1956), 359–363

1956
[35]

Serre: Local Algebra, Springer Monographs in Mathematics, Springer-Verlag, 20 00

J.-P. Serre: Local Algebra, Springer Monographs in Mathematics, Springer-Verlag, 20 00
[36]

T¨ oben: Localization of basic characteristic classes , Ann

D. T¨ oben: Localization of basic characteristic classes , Ann. Inst. Fourier (Grenoble), 64(2) (2014), 537–570

2014
[37]

Yeroshkin: Riemannian orbifolds with non-negative curvature , Doctoral Dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, 2014

D. Yeroshkin: Riemannian orbifolds with non-negative curvature , Doctoral Dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, 2014. Departamento de Matem´atica, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, R. Eng. Agr. Andrei Cristian Ferreira, 88040-900, Florian ´opolis - SC, Brazil E-mail ...

2014

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [7]

Caramello, D

F. Caramello, D. T¨ oben: Positively curved Killing foliations via deformations , Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 372 (2019), 8131–8158

work page 2019

[2] [18]

Haeﬂiger, E

A. Haeﬂiger, E. Salem: Riemannian foliations on simply connected manifolds and ac tions of tori on orbifolds, Illinois J. Math. 34 (1990), 706–730

work page 1990

[3] [13]

Goertsches, D

O. Goertsches, D. T¨ oben: Equivariant basic cohomology of riemannian foliations , J. Reine Angew. Math. 2018(745) (2018), 1–40

work page 2018

[4] [1]

A. Adem, J. Leida, Y. Ruan: Orbifolds and Stringy Topology, Tracts in Mathematics 171, Cambridge University Press, 2007

work page 2007

[5] [2]

Allday, V

C. Allday, V. Puppe: Cohomological Methods in Transformation Groups , Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics 32, Cambridge University Press, 1993

work page 1993

[6] [3]

Armstrong: Calculating the fundamental group of an orbit space , Proc

M. Armstrong: Calculating the fundamental group of an orbit space , Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 84(2) (1982), 267–271

work page 1982

[7] [4]

Borzellino: Orbifolds with lower Ricci curvature bounds , Proc

J. Borzellino: Orbifolds with lower Ricci curvature bounds , Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 125(10) (1997), 3011–3018

work page 1997

[8] [5]

Bridson, A

M. Bridson, A. Haeﬂiger: Metric spaces of non-positive curvature Springer, 2013

work page 2013