Thermodynamic reduction of contact dynamics

Hyun-Seok Do; Yong-Geun Oh

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 20 references

Thermodynamic reduction of contact dynamics

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper shows that every regular contact multi-Hamiltonian system reduces canonically to a finite-dimensional Legendrian submanifold of a 1-jet bundle, the contact thermodynamic equilibrium, whose points are constrained entropy maxima…

desk verdict A promising contact-geometric framework for thermodynamics whose central transversality claim is not yet proved and likely needs repair; worth engaging, but not citable as an established result. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.19319 v2 pith:CIEMTQLA submitted 2024-12-26 math.DS math.SG

Hyun-Seok Do , Yong-Geun Oh This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.DSmath.SG MSC 53D1053D1237D3537J55

keywords contactdynamicsthermodynamicreductionLegendriansubmanifoldrelativeinformationentropymulti-Hamiltoniansystemsymplecticequilibriummeasuregeneratingfunction

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper establishes a universal recipe that attaches to any contact multi-Hamiltonian system — a closed contact manifold M, a reference contact form λ0, and N smooth observables F_1,...,F_N — a finite-dimensional Legendrian submanifold of the 1-jet bundle $J^{1}$R^N. The recipe works by treating the averaged observations q_i = ∫ F_i dμλ as moment maps and the relative information entropy S(λ|λ0) = ∫ log(dμλ/dμλ0) dμλ as a generating function. Points of the resulting Legendrian, called the contact thermodynamic equilibrium, are constrained entropy extrema, and their equilibrium densities have the Gibbs form dμλ/dμλ0 = $e^{{-w+Σ p_i F_i}}$. Because contact flows generically fail to preserve any volume, no recurrence theorem applies to them; the paper offers this reduction as a canonical way to convert that dissipative dynamics into thermodynamic and geometric data.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the two-step symplecto-contact reduction. First, lifted observations ilde O_{F_i} = O_{F_i} ∘ π are used as Hamiltonian functions on the cotangent bundle T^*C_+(M) (or T^*C_+(M,ξ)); their Hamiltonian flows translate along the fibers, generate an R^N action, and the corresponding moment map is the collective observation O_F = (O_{F_1},...,O_{F_N}). Marsden-Weinstein reduction produces the F-reduced phase space, and the lifted relative entropy descends to a reduced entropy $S_F^{{red}}$. Second, the relative entropy S_{λ0} itself is used as a generating function: its vertical differential d_v S_{λ0} with respect to the fibration O_F : C_+(M) → R^N defines the critical set Σ, and the horizontal differential at a critical point gives the conjugate variables p_i. The key identity making the equilibrium explicit is the Lagrange multiplier equation dS_{λ0} = Σ p_i dO_{F_i}, which forces dμλ/dμλ0 = $e^{{-w+Σ p_i F_i}}$. The transversality result — germwise linear independence of {1,F_1,...,F_N} and, for the big phase space, additional germwise independence of the contact Hamiltonian vector fields X_{F_i} — guarantees that the vertical Hessian is nondegenerate, so Σ is N-dimensional and the image is an immersed Legendrian submanifold.

What would settle it

Compute the reduction for an explicit low-dimensional example where the observables are not germwise independent — e.g., on the standard contact sphere $S^{3}$ with F_1 constant on an open set — and check whether Σ remains a manifold and whether Λ = dz − Σ p_i dq_i pulls back to zero on ι(Σ). If the dimension of Σ differs from N or the pullback fails at one computed point, the central claim is false.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the thermodynamic reduction of a contact multi-Hamiltonian system (λ,F) is the image R_{Sλ0;F} = Im ι_{Sλ0} ⊂ $J^{1}$R^N, where ι_{Sλ0}(λ) = (O_F(λ), D_h Sλ0(λ), Sλ0(λ)) is defined on the vertical critical set Σ_{Sλ0;F} = {λ : d_v Sλ0(λ) = 0}. Under the regularity assumptions, Σ is a smooth N-dimensional manifold and ι immerses it as a Legendrian submanifold with respect to the standard contact form Λ = dz − Σ_{i=1}^N p_i dq_i on $J^{1}$R^N. Local coordinates on the equilibrium are q_i = O_{F_i}(λ), the p_i are Lagrange multipliers enforcing the constraints q_i = ∫ F_i dμλ, and z = Sλ0(λ). At each critical point the volume density must be dμλ/dμλ0 = $e^{{-w+Σ p_i F_i}}$, with normalization w = log ∫_M $e^{{Σ p_i F_i}}$ dμλ0; the observations then satisfy q_i = ∂w/∂p_i, and the entropy on the equilibrium is Sλ0(p) = ∫ (−w + Σ p_i F_i) $e^{{-w+Σ p_i F_i}}$ dμλ0. The paper presents this as a canonical, discrete set of dynamical invariants of the given contact Hamiltonian system, obtained by applying the observation-is-a-moment-map and relative-entropy-is-a-generating-function algorithm to both the big phase space of all contact forms and the small phase space of forms compatible with a fixed contact structure.

Load-bearing premise

The entire construction collapses unless the vertical critical set Σ_{Sλ0;F} is a smooth N-dimensional manifold, which the paper secures only under germwise linear-independence conditions on the observables; the big-phase-space analogue (Proposition 9.7) is stated with the proof left to the reader, and the infinite-dimensional Marsden-Weinstein quotient is handled formally.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the transversality hypotheses hold, every contact Hamiltonian system with N independent observables carries a canonical N-dimensional Legendrian submanifold in J^1R^N, the contact thermodynamic equilibrium of the system.
The equilibrium densities are exactly the Gibbs-type measures dμλ/dμλ0 = e^{-w+Σ p_i F_i}, so thermodynamic quantities such as the normalization w and the expectation values q_i = ∂w/∂p_i are encoded by the Legendrian.
Because Legendrian submanifolds of a fixed contact jet space are preserved by contact transformations, the reduction yields a discrete set of dynamical invariants that can distinguish contact flows.
The same construction runs on both the big phase space of all contact forms and the small phase space of forms defining a fixed contact structure; the small-space version has a clean explicit transversality criterion.
Normalizing the volume to 1 turns the equilibrium condition into a partition function w = log ∫ e^{Σ p_i F_i} dμλ0, connecting the reduction to standard thermodynamic formalism.

Reading between the lines

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

The Legendrian equilibrium likely encodes not just equilibrium data but dissipative structure: for instance, the conformal exponent that measures how a contact flow dilates the contact volume should be recoverable from how the Legendrian moves under iteration of the flow, though the paper only gestures toward this.
One could test the construction on classical contact Hamiltonian systems on S^{2n+1} or on ideal-gas-like examples; computing R_{Sλ0;F} explicitly for low N would show whether the Legendrian is embedded or only immersed and where self-intersections occur.
The transversality assumption singles out a residual set of observable systems, the complement of a discriminant, so for a generic choice of N observables the reduction should be well-defined; phase transitions or wall-crossing in the invariant may correspond to crossing that discriminant.
The paper's appendix suggests the conformal exponent g(ψ;λ) will be renamed a thermodynamic potential in the sequel; if that link is made, the Legendrian equilibrium constructed here could serve as the finite-dimensional state space on which topological pressure and equilibrium states live.

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

Short version: this is a framework-building paper, honest about being a survey for a sequel, and the contact-specific adaptation of [LO23] is real work. But the central object is only conditionally defined: the transversality hypothesis is not established, and one of the stated arguments for it (Remark 9.4) is wrong in a way that matters.

What is genuinely new: the big and small contact kinetic theory phase spaces, the contact relative entropy, the regularity criteria in Section 6, and the Hessian computations (Lemma 9.1, Proposition 9.6, Appendix A). The contact calculus is substantive, especially Proposition 6.2 and the derivation in Appendix A. The paper is clearly written and does not oversell what it proves; it repeatedly flags what is deferred to [DO].

The soft spots are real and concentrated in Section 9. Proposition 9.2 proves only that the vertical derivative Dℵ has dense image. Remark 9.4 then claims this implies isomorphism via a self-adjoint extension. That inference is invalid: a bounded self-adjoint multiplication operator whose symbol has a zero has dense range and trivial kernel but is not surjective. The stress-test note I saw makes exactly this point, and a check of Lemma 9.1 confirms the vertical Hessian is multiplication by a function that generically vanishes on a hypersurface. So Corollary 9.3's isomorphism hypothesis is not automatic, and Proposition 9.7—the big phase space transversality—is stated with proof left to the reader. The big-space Hessian in Proposition 9.6 is more complex than a pure multiplication operator, so the same counterexample does not directly land there, but the onus is still on the authors to prove (8.5). They do not. This makes R_{S_λ0;F} a conditional construction, not a proven invariant.

Other soft spots: the infinite-dimensional Marsden-Weinstein reduction is formally used (Remark 4.1), the immersion check in Appendix B assumes Σ is a manifold (which is what is in question), and the dynamical content of the invariants is explicitly deferred to Problems 8.9. There are no worked examples, which would have helped a lot for a paper proposing an algorithm.

None of this kills the program. The paper is a first step, and it is transparent about being one. But the central claim should be read as conditional, and the functional-analytic gap in Remark 9.4 is a genuine flaw, not a minor omission.

Recommendation: send to peer review. The program is important and the contact-specific computations are worth referee time. A serious referee can push for a correct transversality proof or a revised claim. I would not cite it as a result in the next year, but I would bring it to a reading group to discuss the gap.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a thermodynamic reduction of contact Hamiltonian dynamics. It introduces two infinite-dimensional phase spaces, T*C+(M) and T*C+(M,ξ), treats an observable system F as a moment map via the observation map O_F, and uses the contact relative entropy S_{λ0} as a generating function. Under a transversality condition, the vertical critical set Σ_{S_{λ0};F} is claimed to be an N-dimensional manifold whose image under ι is an immersed Legendrian submanifold R_{S_{λ0};F} ⊂ J^1R^N, called the contact thermodynamic equilibrium. The paper derives equilibrium densities of the form e^{-w+Σp_iF_i}µ_{λ0} and outlines applications to topological pressure and thermodynamic formalism in a sequel. Much of the infinite-dimensional reduction is formal.

Significance. If the main transversality claims were correct, the construction would provide a canonical Legendrian invariant for contact multi-Hamiltonian systems and a bridge between contact dynamics and information-theoretic thermodynamics. The paper contains several genuinely useful explicit calculations: the first variation of contact volume (Proposition 6.2), the Hessian formulas (Lemma 9.1 and Proposition 9.6 with Appendix A), and a clean proof of the Legendrian property conditional on transversality (Appendix B). It is also transparent about the programmatic nature of the work. However, the transversality step, which is load-bearing for the definition of R_{S_{λ0};F}, is not proved; the proof that is sketched contains a substantial gap, and the proposed regularity criterion is in fact insufficient. The advertised dynamical-invariance property is also not established. The equilibrium distribution (10.10) is the standard maximum-entropy exponential family, so the novelty lies in the contact-geometric packaging rather than in the form of the resulting measure.

major comments (4)

[§9.2, Proposition 9.7; §9.1, Lemma 9.1; §10, Eq. (10.6)] The stated transversality criterion is insufficient, and Proposition 9.7 is false as stated. At a vertical critical point the vertical Hessian (Lemma 9.1) is the L^2 multiplication operator with symbol a_λ = (n+1)(2n+1)+n(n+1) log f_{λ;λ0}. At criticality (10.6) gives log f_{λ;λ0} = Σ p_i F_i - 1, so for a nonconstant observable F_1 and a suitable Lagrange multiplier p the continuous function a_λ has a nonempty zero set. The vertical tangent space contains smooth functions h_k, supported in balls shrinking to a zero of a_λ, with ∫ F_i h_k dµ_λ = 0 and ‖h_k‖_{L^2} = 1; for these, Hess(h_k,h_k) ≤ sup_{B_k}|a_λ| → 0. Thus D^vℵ(λ) is not an isomorphism and condition (8.5) fails. The same sequence is vertical in the big phase with Y^π_i = 0, where (9.9) reduces to the same multiplication operator, so the additional germwise independence of {X_{F_i}} does not remove the obstruction.
[§9.1, Proposition 9.2] The cokernel argument is invalid. The equation ∫ ((n+1)(2n+1)+n(n+1)Σ p_i F_i) h_1 h_2 dµ_λ = 0 is obtained only for h_1 in the vertical tangent space V = {h : ∫ F_i h dµ_λ = 0}, not for all h_1. The conclusion that the symbol times h_2 vanishes pointwise therefore does not follow; the correct consequence is only that the symbol times h_2 lies in the span of the F_i. Since h_2 itself may be supported in the zero set of the symbol and orthogonal to the F_i, this does not force h_2 = 0. This gap is load-bearing because Corollary 9.3 and Proposition 9.7 both invoke Proposition 9.2.
[§9.1, Remark 9.4] The passage from dense image to isomorphism via a self-adjoint extension is incorrect. A symmetric operator with dense range need not be surjective after taking a self-adjoint extension; multiplication by x on L^2(-1,1) has dense range and zero kernel but is not surjective. Since the vertical Hessian under discussion is precisely a multiplication operator whose symbol may vanish, this remark cannot supply the isomorphism hypothesis needed in Corollary 9.3.
[§1.2, §8, Definition 8.6 and Problem 8.9] The paper's advertised conclusion that the construction gives dynamical invariants of a contact Hamiltonian system is not established. The object R_{S_{λ0};F} depends on an arbitrary reference contact form λ0 and an arbitrary observable system F; no equivalence relation on contact multi-Hamiltonian systems is defined, and the connection to the dynamics of a contact Hamiltonian H is deferred to Problem 8.9 and to the sequel [DO]. As it stands, the paper proves, conditionally, a Legendrian associated to the pair (λ0,F), not an invariant of the dynamics.

minor comments (5)

[§6.2, Eq. (6.5)] Equation (6.5) omits the divergence term ∇·Y^π_α that is present in Proposition 6.2; as an equality for general α it is false. The submersion conclusion is unaffected because the argument only needs variations with Y^π_α = 0, but the displayed formula should be corrected.
[§9.1, Proposition 9.2] There is an index inconsistency in the statement ('{1,F_1,...,F_n}_{i=1}^N'), and the proof says 'for all function h1' where the quantifier should be 'for all h1 ∈ VT_λ C+(M,ξ)'.
[§9.2, Proposition 9.7] Proposition 9.7 is the only transversality statement for the big phase space, yet its proof is omitted entirely with the phrase 'We leave the details to the interested readers'. Even if the claim were true, a full proof or a precise statement of the functional-analytic setting is required for the main invariant to be well defined.
[§4 and §8, Remark 4.1 and Definition 8.5] The Marsden-Weinstein reduction is used formally, and the paper explicitly postpones the infinite-dimensional functional analysis. The introduction should state clearly that the main construction is formal in the infinite-dimensional phase spaces and indicate which statements are rigorous and which are conditional on a suitable Banach or convenient setting.
[Appendix C] Appendix C is a 'sneak preview' of the sequel [DO] and states results such as Theorem C.6 without proof; these should be marked as announcements rather than results of the present paper.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No material circularity: the contact thermodynamic reduction and equilibrium densities are derived from the stated variational construction, not from an assumed Gibbs ansatz or fitted data.

full rationale

The paper's central object R_{S_λ0;F} is defined (Definition 8.6 and equations (8.7)-(8.8)) as the image of the vertical critical set Σ_{S_λ0;F} under a Legendrian-generating map; the equilibrium distribution (10.10) is obtained by solving the Euler-Lagrange equation (10.2)-(10.6) for the relative entropy under observation constraints, so the exponential-family form is a consequence of the calculus, not an input. The Legendrian property is proved in Appendix B from the standard generating-function identity (B.2)-(B.3) and the definition of Σ. The reduction algorithm is adopted transparently from the published [LO23]; the contact-specific Hessian and transversality computations (Lemma 9.1, Proposition 9.6) are new and do not reduce to that citation. There are genuine functional-analytic gaps (Remark 4.1, Remark 9.4, Proposition 9.7 with proof left to the reader, and Theorem C.6 cited to the in-preparation [DO]), but these are missing-proof or correctness concerns, not circularity: no fitted value is renamed as a prediction and no claim is equivalent to its input by construction. The self-citation to [LO23] is framework-level and not a load-bearing circularity.

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

The construction rests on standard symplectic reduction and generating-function theory, plus domain assumptions about the contact manifold and regularity of the observation map. The key load-bearing input is the transversality hypothesis on the observable system F, which enters in the smoothness of the critical set; the big phase space version is not proved. The infinite-dimensional Marsden-Weinstein step is used formally. No numerical parameters are fitted; the reference contact form λ0 and the observable system F are inputs to the construction.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption M is a compact connected coorientable contact manifold; the observation map O_F: C+(M) to R^N is a submersion when the F_i are linearly independent.
The reduction needs a smooth fibration O_F so that the Marsden-Weinstein quotient is a manifold; proved in Propositions 6.3 and 6.4, though the displayed formula (6.5) omits the divergence term.
domain assumption Transversality: the germ of {1,F_1,...,F_N} at any point of M is linearly independent and the vertical Hessian VHess S_λ0 is invertible on vertical tangent spaces.
Needed for Σ_{S_λ0;F} to be a smooth N-dimensional manifold and for R_{S_λ0;F} to be an immersed Legendrian; Proposition 9.7 on the big phase space is stated without proof.
domain assumption The Marsden-Weinstein reduction applies to the infinite-dimensional cotangent bundles T*C+(M) and T*C+(M,ξ), with regular moment map values and free proper group action.
The authors use the reduction at a formal level and explicitly postpone the functional analysis (Remark 4.1 and Definition 8.5, described as somewhat formal and vague).
domain assumption The reference contact form λ0 is fixed; the construction of R_{S_λ0;F} depends on it, and the claimed independence of λ0 is deferred to the sequel [DO].
Section 8 fixes λ0 for the generating function; Theorem C.6 in Appendix C, asserting independence from the contact form, is quoted from the in-preparation paper [DO] and not proved here.
standard math Standard results: Kullback-Leibler divergence properties (Jensen, nonnegativity), Fredholm alternative, and the standard fact that a Morse family generates a Legendrian submanifold.
Used throughout Sections 5, 6, 8 and Appendix B; standard mathematical background external to the paper.

invented entities (5)

Big contact kinetic theory phase space (b-CKTPS), T*C+(M) independent evidence
purpose: Phase space on which thermodynamic reduction is performed over the space of all positive contact forms.
Formally defined in Section 2 as the cotangent bundle with canonical symplectic form; it is used to carry out the reduction, so it has a clear internal role.
Small contact kinetic theory phase space (s-CKTPS), T*C+(M,ξ) independent evidence
purpose: Phase space for reduction on contact forms sharing a fixed contact structure ξ.
Defined in Section 3 and used for the transversality proofs in Section 9.1.
Contact thermodynamic equilibrium R_{S_λ0;F}
purpose: Proposed Legendrian invariant recording observations, Lagrange multipliers, and entropy for a contact multi-Hamiltonian system.
The paper proves the Legendrian property only under unproven transversality and does not establish dynamical content or independence of λ0; no concrete example is computed (Problem 8.9).
Thermodynamic reduction map TdR_N
purpose: Canonical map from (λ,F) to Legendrian submanifolds of J^1 R^N.
Defined in Definition 8.8 as the main output of the paper, but with open questions on invariance and dynamics left to follow-up work.
Contact relative entropy and thermodynamic potential (new names for KL divergence and conformal exponent) independent evidence
purpose: Reinterpret existing information-theoretic and contact-geometric quantities as thermodynamic variables.
These are renamings of the KL divergence between contact volumes and the logarithm of the conformal factor; Proposition 5.3 and Appendix C establish some basic properties.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Thermodynamic reduction of contact dynamics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CIEMTQLA

@misc{pith2026241219319,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Thermodynamic reduction of contact dynamics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CIEMTQLA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.19319}
}

read the original abstract

A universal algorithm to derive a macroscopic dynamics from the microscopic dynamical system via the averaging process and symplecto-contact reduction was introduced by Jin-wook Lim and the second-named author in [LO23]. They apply the algorithm to derive non-equilibrium thermodynamics from the statistical mechanics utilizing the relative information entropy as a generating function of the associated thermodynamic equilibrium. In the present paper, we apply this algorithm to the contact Hamiltonian dynamical systems. We describe a procedure of obtaining a discrete set of dynamical invariants of the given contact Hamiltonian system, or more generally of a contact multi-Hamiltonian system in a canonical way by deriving a (finite-dimensional non-equilibrium) thermodynamic system. We call this reduction the thermodynamic reduction of contact dynamics.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

20 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages

[1]

1543--1583

Mathieu Anel and Damien Calaque, Shifted symplectic reduction of derived critical loci, Advances in Theoretical and Mathematical Physics 26 (6) (2022), pp. 1543--1583

work page 2022
[2]

Abraham and J

R. Abraham and J. Marsden, Foundations of mechanics, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc., 1978

work page 1978
[3]

Bravetti, H

A. Bravetti, H. Cruz, and D. Tapias, Contact H amiltonian mechanics , Ann. Physics 376 (2017), 17--39

work page 2017
[4]

Rufus Bowen, Entropy for group endomorphism and homogenenous spaces, Trans. of Amer. Math. Soc. 153 (1971), 401--414

work page 1971
[5]

470, Springer-Verlag, Berlin-New York, 1975, i+108 pp

, Equilibrium states and the ergodic theory of anosov diffeomorphisms, Lecture Notes in Math., vol. 470, Springer-Verlag, Berlin-New York, 1975, i+108 pp

work page 1975
[6]

Rufus Bowen and David Ruelle, The ergodic theory of axiom A flows , Invent. Math. 29 (1975), 181--202

work page 1975
[7]

Bruin, Notes on thermodynamic formalism, available in https://www.mat.univie.ac.at/ bruin/TF.pdf, 2017

H. Bruin, Notes on thermodynamic formalism, available in https://www.mat.univie.ac.at/ bruin/TF.pdf, 2017

work page 2017
[8]

Manuel de Le\'on and Manuel Lainz Valc\'azar, Contact H amiltonian systems , J. Math. Phys. 60 (2019), no. 10, 102902, 18 pp

work page 2019

Show all 20 references

[9]

Oh, Thermodynamic formalism of contact dynamics, in preparation

Hyun-Seok Do and Y.-G. Oh, Thermodynamic formalism of contact dynamics, in preparation
[10]

J. J. Duistermaat, Fourier integral operators, Mod. Birkhäuser Class., Birkhäuser/Springer, New York, 2011, xii+142 pp

2011
[11]

Herbert Federer, Geometric measure theory, Die Grundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften
[12]

Hirsch, Differential topology, Grad

Morris W. Hirsch, Differential topology, Grad. Texts in Math., vol. 33, Springer-Verlag, New York-Heidelberg, 1976, x+221 pp

1976
[13]

Kullback and R

S. Kullback and R. A. Leibler, On information and sufficiency, Ann. Math. Statistics 22 (1951), 79--86

1951
[14]

Kriegl and P

A. Kriegl and P. W. Michor, The convenient setting of global analysis, American Mathematical Society, 1997

1997
[15]

Oh, Nonequilibrium thermodynamics as a symplecto-contact reduction and relative information entropy, Rep

Jin-wook Lim and Y.-G. Oh, Nonequilibrium thermodynamics as a symplecto-contact reduction and relative information entropy, Rep. Math. Phys. 92 (2023), no. 3, 347--400

2023
[16]

Marsden and A

J. Marsden and A. Weinstein, Reduction of symplectic manifolds with symmetry, Rep. Mathematical Phys. 5 (1974), no. 1, 121--130

1974
[17]

Oh, Contact H amiltonian dynamics and perturbed contact instantons with L egendrian boundary condition , preprint, arXiv:2103.15390(v2), 2021

Y.-G. Oh, Contact H amiltonian dynamics and perturbed contact instantons with L egendrian boundary condition , preprint, arXiv:2103.15390(v2), 2021

2021 arXiv
[18]

Oh and Seungook Yu, Legendrian contact instanton cohomology and its spectral invariants on the one-jet bundle, preprint, 2023, arXiv:2301.06704

Y.-G. Oh and Seungook Yu, Legendrian contact instanton cohomology and its spectral invariants on the one-jet bundle, preprint, 2023, arXiv:2301.06704

2023 arXiv
[19]

Walter Rudin, Functional analysis, McGraw-Hill Series in Higher Mathematics, McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York-Düsseldorf-Johannesburg, 1973, xiii+397 pp

1973
[20]

Appl., vol

David Ruelle, Thermodynamic formalism, Encyclopedia Math. Appl., vol. 5, Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., Reading, MA, 1978, xix+183 pp

1978

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

1543--1583

Mathieu Anel and Damien Calaque, Shifted symplectic reduction of derived critical loci, Advances in Theoretical and Mathematical Physics 26 (6) (2022), pp. 1543--1583

work page 2022

[2] [2]

Abraham and J

R. Abraham and J. Marsden, Foundations of mechanics, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc., 1978

work page 1978

[3] [3]

Bravetti, H

A. Bravetti, H. Cruz, and D. Tapias, Contact H amiltonian mechanics , Ann. Physics 376 (2017), 17--39

work page 2017

[4] [4]

Rufus Bowen, Entropy for group endomorphism and homogenenous spaces, Trans. of Amer. Math. Soc. 153 (1971), 401--414

work page 1971

[5] [5]

470, Springer-Verlag, Berlin-New York, 1975, i+108 pp

, Equilibrium states and the ergodic theory of anosov diffeomorphisms, Lecture Notes in Math., vol. 470, Springer-Verlag, Berlin-New York, 1975, i+108 pp

work page 1975

[6] [6]

Rufus Bowen and David Ruelle, The ergodic theory of axiom A flows , Invent. Math. 29 (1975), 181--202

work page 1975

[7] [7]

Bruin, Notes on thermodynamic formalism, available in https://www.mat.univie.ac.at/ bruin/TF.pdf, 2017

H. Bruin, Notes on thermodynamic formalism, available in https://www.mat.univie.ac.at/ bruin/TF.pdf, 2017

work page 2017

[8] [8]

Manuel de Le\'on and Manuel Lainz Valc\'azar, Contact H amiltonian systems , J. Math. Phys. 60 (2019), no. 10, 102902, 18 pp

work page 2019