Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 53 references

Compatible pairs of Hamiltonian operators of the first and third orders

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper proves that compatibility of a first-order and a third-order Hamiltonian operator reduces to linear algebra, with the first-order operator built from commuting conservation laws of the third-order one.

desk verdict A substantial computational paper that reduces first/third-order bi-Hamiltonian compatibility to algebra and yields new WDVV pairs; the main caveat is the unproved-in-paper reliance on the prior classification [23] for completeness. read the letter →

arxiv 2602.14739 v1 pith:CQ7YWPTI submitted 2026-02-16 nlin.SI

Paolo Lorenzoni , Stanislav Opanasenko , Raffaele Vitolo This is my paper · ORCID
classification nlin.SI MSC 37K1037K05
keywords bi-HamiltonianstructurescompatibleHamiltonianoperatorsweaklynonlocalthird-orderhomogeneousvariationalSchoutenbracketWDVVequationshydrodynamictypeintegrablePDEs
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper tries to establish that the hard differential conditions for two homogeneous Hamiltonian operators—one of first order, one of third order—to be compatible can be compressed into purely algebraic equations. If true, verifying a bi-Hamiltonian structure for many integrable PDEs (KdV, Camassa–Holm, dispersive water waves, Dym, WDVV) becomes a finite calculation rather than an elaborate Schouten-bracket computation. The first-order operator is not arbitrary: its nonlocal part and its metric are completely determined by systems of conservation laws that are Hamiltonian with respect to the third-order operator. The paper also produces new first-order Hamiltonian operators for WDVV equations in dimensions four and five.

What carries the argument

The central object is the variational Schouten bracket [P,R], whose vanishing defines compatibility. The paper computes it via an algorithmic reduction that separates nonlocal and local parts, using the Doyle–Potëmin canonical form R = D_x(f^{ij}D_x + c^{ij}_s u^s_x)D_x and the factorization f^{ij} = φ^{αβ}ψ^i_αψ^j_β of the Monge metric. The load-bearing simplification is the classification of R-Hamiltonian conservation-law systems: their fluxes are w^i = ψ^i_γ Z^γ with Z linear, reducing the problem to the linear system (5). The Structure Formula then expresses the metric g of P in terms of these same data.

What would settle it

Take a third-order homogeneous Hamiltonian operator R and explicitly compute the Schouten bracket [P,R] for a pair (P,R) that satisfies all four algebraic conditions of Theorem 14; if the bracket is nonzero, the algebraic reduction is incomplete. Alternatively, exhibit a Hamiltonian system of conservation laws for such R whose fluxes do not fit the linear parametrization w^i = ψ^i_γ Z^γ.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes that the compatibility of a weakly nonlocal first-order Hamiltonian operator P of hydrodynamic type with a third-order homogeneous Hamiltonian operator R is characterized by a finite set of algebraic equations. The nonlocal 'tail' of P must consist of fluxes of systems of conservation laws that are themselves Hamiltonian with respect to R; these fluxes are linear functions built from the data of R. The metric of P is then given by the Structure Formula g^{ij} = ψ^i_γ Z^{γj} + ψ^j_γ Z^{γi} − c^{αβ} w^i_α w^j_β, where the Z's and w's are solutions of a linear algebraic system attached to R. The remaining conditions are two quadratic algebraic identities. As a corollary, t

Load-bearing premise

The argument relies on a prior classification stating that every system of conservation laws Hamiltonian with respect to a third-order homogeneous Hamiltonian operator has fluxes of the form w^i = ψ^i_γ Z^γ with Z linear and satisfying a fixed linear algebraic system; if that classification missed solutions, the characterization would be incomplete.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Checking compatibility of a first-order and third-order homogeneous Hamiltonian operator no longer requires computing the variational Schouten bracket; it reduces to solving the linear system (5) and verifying the algebraic identities (17b) and (17d).
  • A compatible first-order operator P is completely determined by finitely many linear data—the matrices Z^{γj} and vectors w^i_α—that are Hamiltonian systems for R.
  • The Hamiltonian property of P in a compatible pair is equivalent to the mutual commutativity of the conservation-law flux families {w_α} and {r^{hk}}.
  • New first-order Hamiltonian operators exist for WDVV equations in dimensions N = 4 and N = 5, confirming the conjecture that those systems admit bi-Hamiltonian structures of WDVV type.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same algebraic reduction may extend to compatible pairs of first- and second-order homogeneous operators; the authors hint at ongoing work in that direction, and if the mechanism generalizes, higher-order compatibility checks could be handled uniformly.
  • The structure formula suggests a fast numerical filter: for a given third-order operator R, one could search for compatible first-order operators by solving the linear system (5) and checking the quadratic conditions, without any differential computation.
  • The explicit form of g as a difference of two 'squares' built from R-Hamiltonian conservation laws may allow a geometric interpretation of the metric's signature and thus inform which bi-Hamiltonian hierarchies are physically admissible.
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.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper derives compatibility conditions for a weakly nonlocal first-order homogeneous Hamiltonian operator P and a third-order homogeneous Hamiltonian operator R in Doyle–Potemin canonical form. The main result, Theorem 14, states that [P,R]=0 is equivalent to four conditions: (1) the nonlocal coefficients w^i_alpha are fluxes of systems of conservation laws Hamiltonian with respect to R; (2) the metric g^{ij} is given by the Structure Formula g^{ij}=ψ^i_γ Z^{γj}+ψ^j_γ Z^{γi}-c^{αβ} w^i_α w^j_β, with Z solving the linear algebraic system (5); (3) and (4) are the remaining algebraic equations (17b) and (17d). The paper also proves a Hamiltonian characterization of P in terms of commuting families of fluxes (Theorem 17) and gives examples, including new WDVV-type examples in dimensions N=4 and N=5.

Significance. If the central claim is correct, the paper is a substantial advance: it reduces the Schouten-bracket compatibility of such operator pairs to a finite system of linear and quadratic equations, and it clarifies the structural role of Hamiltonian conservation laws of the third-order operator. The Structure Formula and the flux-commutativity interpretation are conceptually valuable and likely to be useful in classifications of bi-Hamiltonian hierarchies. The new WDVV examples are also a concrete contribution. The paper builds on established external results ([23], Ferapontov's conditions) rather than introducing ad-hoc assumptions, and the proof strategy is coherent. Its main weakness is that a central part of the computation is not displayed and no code is provided, making the verification of Theorem 14 dependent on the authors' unpublished intermediate algebra.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.5, Theorem 5] The proof of Theorem 5, on which Theorem 14 rests, is not fully verifiable from the text. After displaying the general form of T_LR and L_{αβ}, the authors state that "most of the coefficients are too cumbersome to display" and they explicitly give only a40, a22, a31 as the sources of (17a) and (17b). The vanishing of the remaining coefficients a00, a01, a02, a10, a20, a11 is asserted after using (17c), (17d) and Lemmas 18–21, but the actual coefficient expressions and their simplification are not supplied. Since these vanishings are load-bearing for the equivalence [P,R]=0 ⇔ (17a)–(17d), I request either a supplementary file with the full coefficient list and simplifications, or a computer-algebra script (e.g. using the package from [8]) that reproduces the calculation. Without such an artifact, the central theorem cannot be independently checked.
  2. [§3.6, Proposition 11 and Eq. (29b)] The reduction from (29a)–(29b) to the linear algebraic system for Z^{γj} is imported from [23], and the paper does not state the precise external theorem or its hypotheses. In particular, the step "(29b) transforms into Z^{γj}_{,hk}=0" is asserted without proof, and the sentence "repeating the above argument" in Proposition 11 is not a self-contained derivation. If the classification in [23] required additional regularity or degeneracy assumptions on ψ beyond non-degeneracy, or if it missed solutions, then the necessity part of Theorem 14 would fail. I am not claiming that [23] is wrong, but because Theorem 14 is only as strong as this classification, the authors should either state the theorem from [23] explicitly and verify that its hypotheses are satisfied for r^{ij}=ψ^i_γ Z^{γj}, or provide a direct proof of the Z-linearity step in the appendix.
  3. [Discussion and Theorem 14, conditions 3–4] The Discussion states that the additional conditions (17b) and (17d) "seem not to play any role" and "there exists the possibility that they vanish identically". If they are indeed identically satisfied after using the other conditions, the theorem remains logically correct but the claim that the list in Theorem 14 is a full, non-redundant set of compatibility conditions is not established. The authors should either prove or disprove the redundancy and state the status explicitly in the theorem. This does not undermine the equivalence claim, but it affects the interpretation of Theorem 14 as a minimal algebraic characterization.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Notation throughout] The symbol ψ is used both for the matrix ψ^γ_k(u) and for the constant coefficients ψ^γ_{ks}; this is a recurring source of possible confusion. Consider a more systematic notation, e.g. using a different letter for the constant coefficients.
  2. [Eq. (5) vs Theorem 14] The linear algebraic system is written with θ^{γα}_k in the Introduction (Eq. (5)) but with η^{γj}_k in Theorem 14 and Section 3.6. Please unify the notation.
  3. [§4.2] In the WDVV examples, some data are said to be defined "up to inessential parameters" in Z, and in the N=5 case the system is not written in full. Since these examples are new and are used to support the algebraic reduction, it would be helpful to include a small repository or appendix with the complete matrices and, if possible, a verification script that checks the compatibility conditions.
  4. [Corollary 6] The phrase "associative algebra (without unity)" should be clarified: the associativity condition (26) is displayed, but the product structure is not explicitly identified beyond the Christoffel symbols. A short explanation would improve readability.
  5. [Various typos] There are minor typographical issues, e.g. "Doyle–Pot¨ emin" with the umlaut formatting, and in the examples the parameter μ sometimes appears without a clear definition of its domain. These are not substantive.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the compatibility reductions are obtained by direct Schouten-bracket computation and integration; the cited classification [23] is independent external support.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is not circular. The nonlocal part of [P,R] is computed directly (Theorem 2), yielding conditions (15); the local part is computed and simplified (Theorem 5) into conditions (17a)-(17d). Lemma 7 integrates (22) into r^{ij}, Lemma 8 derives g^{ij}+c^{αβ}w^i_α w^j_β = r^{ij}+r^{ji}, and Lemma 9 rewrites (17a)-(17c) as (29a)-(29b). The Structure Formula (Corollary 12) then follows by (28), and Theorem 14 collects the algebraic conditions. The only input from outside the paper is the classification [23] (Ferapontov-Pavlov-Vitolo 2018) of first-order systems of conservation laws Hamiltonian with respect to a third-order operator R: fluxes have the form w^i = ψ^i_γ Z^γ with Z linear and satisfying the linear algebraic system (5). This is invoked in Corollary 3 and Proposition 11 to conclude that the potentials w^i_α and r^{ij} are exhausted by that parametrization. That cited theorem is a prior published, parameter-free classification whose assumptions do not include the target compatibility claim [P,R]=0; it is independent support, not a fit or a renamed version of the conclusion. The paper even notes it proves one of [23]'s conditions redundant (Theorem 1). The self-citations (e.g., [21], [22], [45], [51]) concern canonical forms and known examples, not the target equivalence. The Discussion's remark that (17b) and (17d) 'seem not to play any role' and may vanish identically is a caveat about possible redundancy, not a circular step. Thus the compatibility reduction is derived, not assumed, and the completeness of the algebraic reduction inherits only the external, non-circular assumption of [23].

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new fields, particles, forces, or postulated geometric entities are introduced; the new objects (compatible first-order operators for WDVV N=4,5) are constructed examples, not invented entities. The central theorem is parameter-free; arbitrary constants such as μ appear only in illustrative examples.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The Hamiltonian property of a weakly nonlocal first-order operator P is equivalent to the Ferapontov conditions (metric plus Christoffel, symmetric W tensors, covariant constancy, commuting vector fields, curvature formula, symmetric nondegenerate c).
    Invoked throughout Section 3; stated in Section 2.1.
  • standard math A homogeneous third-order Hamiltonian operator can be reduced by a change of dependent variables to the Doyle–Potëmin canonical form R = D_x(f D_x + c u_x) D_x, with f a Monge metric factorized as f = ΨΦΨ^T and Ψ linear in u; algebraic constraints (10),(11),(2) characterize this.
    Section 2.2; results of Doyle, Potëmin, and Ferapontov–Pavlov–Vitolo.
  • domain assumption All systems of conservation laws Hamiltonian with respect to a third-order operator R have fluxes w^i = ψ^i_γ Z^γ with Z linear and satisfying the linear algebraic system (5), as classified in [23].
    Used in Corollary 3 and Proposition 11 to identify the nonlocal data of P and the matrix Z in the Structure Formula; this is the load-bearing external classification.
  • standard math The variational Schouten bracket is computed via cyclic linearization and can be uniquely represented modulo total x-derivatives using the algorithm of [9].
    Section 3.1–3.2; required for all coefficient extraction and simplification.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Compatible pairs of Hamiltonian operators of the first and third orders." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CQ7YWPTI

@misc{pith2026260214739,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Compatible pairs of Hamiltonian operators of the first and third orders},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CQ7YWPTI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2602.14739}
}
read the original abstract

We compute general compatibility conditions between a weakly nonlocal homogeneous Hamiltonian operator and a third-order homogeneous Hamiltonian operator. Such operators determine a bi-Hamiltonian structure for many integrable PDEs (Korteweg--De Vries, Camassa--Holm, dispersive water waves, Dym, WDVV and others). Remarkably, the full set of conditions is purely algebraic and the first-order operator is completely determined by commuting systems of conservation laws that are Hamiltonian with respect to a third-order operator. We illustrate the above results with several examples, some of which, concerning WDVV equations, are new.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages

  1. [23]

    Ferapontov, M.V

    E.V. Ferapontov, M.V. Pavlov, and R.F. Vitolo. Systems of conservation laws with third-order Hamiltonian structures.Lett. Math. Phys., 108(6):1525–1550, 2018, arXiv:https://arxiv.org/ abs/1703.06173

    arXiv 2018

  2. [8]

    Casati, P

    M. Casati, P. Lorenzoni, D. Valeri, and R. Vitolo. Weakly nonlocal Poisson brackets: tools, examples, computations.Computer Physics Communications, 274:108284, 2022, DOI:https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.cpc.2022.108284, arXiv:https://arxiv.org/abs/2101.06467

    arXiv 2022

  3. [1]

    Agafonov and E.V

    S.I. Agafonov and E.V. Ferapontov. Integrable four-component systems of conservation laws and linear congruences inP 5.Glasgow Math. J., 47A:17–32, 2005

    2005

  4. [2]

    Antonowicz and A.P

    M. Antonowicz and A.P. Fordy. Coupled Harry Dym equations with multi-Hamiltonian structures. J. Phys. A, 21:269–275, 1988

    1988

  5. [3]

    Antonowicz and A.P

    M. Antonowicz and A.P. Fordy. Factorisation of energy dependent Scr¨ odinger operators: Miura maps and modified systems.Comm. Math. Phys., 124:465–486, 1989

    1989

  6. [4]

    Balandin and G.V

    A.V. Balandin and G.V. Potemin. On non-degenerate differential-geometric Poisson brackets of third order.Russian Math. Surveys, 56(5):976–977, 2001

    2001

  7. [5]

    A. V. Bocharov, V. N. Chetverikov, S. V. Duzhin, N. G. Khor ′kova, I. S. Krasil ′shchik, A. V. Sam- okhin, Yu. N. Torkhov, A. M. Verbovetsky, and A. M. Vinogradov.Symmetries and Conservation Laws for Differential Equations of Mathematical Physics. Monograph. Amer. Math. Soc., 1999. I. S. Krasil′shchik and A. M. Vinogradov editors

    1999

  8. [6]

    Bolsinov, A.Yu

    A.V. Bolsinov, A.Yu. Konyaev, and V.S. Matveev. Applications of Nijenhuis geometry III: Frobenius pencils and compatible non-homogeneous Poisson structures. preprint, arXiv:https://arxiv.org/ abs/2112.09471

    arXiv

Show all 53 references
  1. [7]

    Carlet and M

    G. Carlet and M. Casati. On the structure of homogeneous local Poisson brackets.Diff. Geom. and its Appl., 100:102276, 2025

    2025

  2. [9]

    Casati, P

    M. Casati, P. Lorenzoni, and R. Vitolo. Three computational approaches to weakly nonlocal poisson brackets.Stud. Appl. Math., 144(4):412–448, 2020, DOI:10.1111/sapm.12302, arXiv:https:// arxiv.org/abs/1903.08204

    2020 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Dell’Atti, A

    M. Dell’Atti, A. Rizzo, and P. Vergallo. Geometric aspects of non-homogeneous 1 + 0 operators. Preprint, 2025, arXiv:https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.21917

    2025

  4. [11]

    I. Ya. Dorfman.Dirac Structures and Integrability of Nonlinear Evolution Equations. John Wiley & Sons, 1993. 25

    1993

  5. [12]

    P.W. Doyle. Differential geometric Poisson bivectors in one space variable.J. Mathematical Phys., 34(4):1314–1338, 1993

    1993

  6. [13]

    Dubrovin and Y

    B. Dubrovin and Y. Zhang. Normal forms of integrable PDEs, Frobenius manifolds and Gromov– Witten invariants. Preprint, 2001, arXiv:https://arxiv.org/abs/math/0108160

    2001 arXiv

  7. [14]

    B. A. Dubrovin and S. P. Novikov. Poisson brackets of hydrodynamic type.Soviet Math. Dokl., 30:651–654, 1984,http://www.mi-ras.ru/ ~snovikov/88.pdf

    1984

  8. [15]

    Dubrovin and S.P

    B.A. Dubrovin and S.P. Novikov. Hamiltonian formalism of one-dimensional systems of hydrodynamic type and the Bogolyubov–Whitham averaging method.Soviet Math. Dokl., 27(3):665–669, 1983, http://www.mi-ras.ru/~snovikov/80.pdf

    1983

  9. [16]

    G. Falqui. On a Camassa-Holm type equation with two dependent variables.J. Phys. A, 39:327–342, 2006

    2006

  10. [17]

    Ferapontov

    E.V. Ferapontov. Differential geometry of nonlocal Hamiltonian operators of hydrodynamic type. Funktsional. Anal. i Prilozhen., 25(3):37–48, 1991. in Russian, translated inFunct. Anal. Appl.25 (1991), no. 3, 195–204

    1991

  11. [18]

    Ferapontov

    E.V. Ferapontov. Nonlocal Hamiltonian operators of hydrodynamic type: Differential geometry and applications.Amer. Math. Soc. Transl., 170(2):33–58, 1995

    1995

  12. [19]

    Ferapontov, C.A.P

    E.V. Ferapontov, C.A.P. Galvao, O. Mokhov, and Y. Nutku. Bi-Hamiltonian structure of equations of associativity in 2-d topological field theory.Comm. Math. Phys., 186:649–669, 1997

    1997

  13. [20]

    Ferapontov and L

    E.V. Ferapontov and L. Manivel. Systems of conservation laws with third-order Hamiltonian struc- tures.Lett. Math. Phys., 108:1525–1550, 2018, https://arxiv.org/abs/1810.12216

    2018 arXiv

  14. [21]

    Ferapontov, M.V

    E.V. Ferapontov, M.V. Pavlov, and R.F. Vitolo. Projective-geometric aspects of ho- mogeneous third-order Hamiltonian operators.J. Geom. Phys., 85:16–28, 2014. DOI: 10.1016/j.geomphys.2014.05.027, arXiv:https://arxiv.org/abs/1401.7235

    2014 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Ferapontov, M.V

    E.V. Ferapontov, M.V. Pavlov, and R.F. Vitolo. Towards the classification of homogeneous third- order Hamiltonian operators.Int. Math. Res. Not., 22:6829–6855, 2016, arXiv:https://arxiv.org/ abs/1508.02752

    2016 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Igonin, A

    S. Igonin, A. Verbovetsky, and R. Vitolo. On the formalism of local variational differential operators. Memorandum 1641, Faculty of Mathematical Sciences, University of Twente, The Netherlands, 2002

    2002

  17. [25]

    Igonin, A

    S. Igonin, A. Verbovetsky, and R. Vitolo. Variational multivectors and brackets in the geometry of jet spaces. InSymmetry in Nonlinear Mathematical Physics. Part 3, pages 1335–1342. Institute of Mathematics of NAS of Ukraine, Kiev, 2003

    2003

  18. [26]

    Kalayci and Y

    J. Kalayci and Y. Nutku. Bi-Hamiltonian structure of a WDVV equation in 2dtopological field theory. Phys. Lett. A, 227:177–182, 1997

    1997

  19. [27]

    Kalayci and Y

    J. Kalayci and Y. Nutku. Alternative bi-Hamiltonian structures for WDVV equations of associativity. J. Phys. A, 31:723–734, 1998, arXiv:https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9810076. 26

    1998 arXiv

  20. [28]

    A. Yu. Konyaev. Geometry of inhomogeneous Poisson brackets, multicomponent Harry Dym hier- archies and multicomponent Hunter-Saxton equations. Preprint, 2021, arXiv:https://arxiv.org/ abs/2112.05635

    2021 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Kruglikov and V

    B. Kruglikov and V. Lychagin. Geometry of differential equations. In D. Krupka and D. J. Saunders, editors,Handbook of global analysis, pages 725–771, 1214. Elsevier, 2008

    2008

  22. [30]

    Kupershmidt

    B.A. Kupershmidt. Mathematics of dispersive water waves.Comm. Math. Phys., 99:51–73, 1985

    1985

  23. [31]

    Liu and Y

    S.Q. Liu and Y. Zhang. Deformations of semisimple bi-Hamiltonian structures of hydrodynamic type. J. Geom. Phys., 54(4):427–453, 2005, DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomphys.2004.11.003, arXiv:https://arxiv.org/abs/math/0405146

    2005 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Lorenzoni, S

    P. Lorenzoni, S. Opanasenko, and R. Vitolo. Compatible pairs of Hamiltonian operators of the first and second order. work in progress

  25. [33]

    Lorenzoni, A

    P. Lorenzoni, A. Savoldi, and R. Vitolo. Bi-Hamiltonian systems of KdV type.J. Phys. A, 51(4):045202, 2018, arXiv:https://arxiv.org/abs/1607.07020

    2018 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Lorenzoni and R

    P. Lorenzoni and R. Vitolo. Weakly nonlocal poisson brackets, schouten brackets and supermanifolds. J. Geom. Phys., 149:103573, 2020, DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomphys.2019.103573, arXiv:https://arxiv.org/abs/1909.07695

    2020

  27. [35]

    Lorenzoni and R

    P. Lorenzoni and R. Vitolo. Projective-geometric aspects of bi-Hamiltonian structures of KdV type. In I.S. Krasil’shchik, A.B. Sossinsky, and A.M. Verbovetsky, editors,The Diverse World of PDEs: Geo- metry and Mathematical Physics, volume 788 ofContemporary Mathematics. Americ...

    2023 doi

  28. [36]

    Lorenzoni and R

    P. Lorenzoni and R. Vitolo. Bi-Hamiltonian structures of KdV type, cyclic frobenius algebrae and monge metrics.J. Phys. A: Math. Theor., 57:485202, 2024

    2024

  29. [37]

    F. Magri. A simple model of the integrable Hamiltonian equation.J. Math. Phys., 19:1156–1162, 1978

    1978

  30. [38]

    Magri and C

    F. Magri and C. Morosi. A geometrical characterization of Hamiltonian systems through the theory of Poisson–Nijenhuis manifolds. Technical report, University of Milano–Bicocca, 2008,https://boa. unimib.it/handle/10281/17656?mode=simple.47

    2008

  31. [39]

    O.I. Mokhov. Symplectic and Poisson geometry on loop spaces of smooth manifolds and integrable equations. In S.P. Novikov and I.M. Krichever, editors,Reviews in mathematics and mathematical physics, volume 11, pages 1–128. Harwood academic publishers, 1998

    1998

  32. [40]

    O.I. Mokhov. Compatible and almost compatible pseudo-Riemannian metrics.Funct. Anal. Appl., 35(2):100–110, 2001

    2001

  33. [41]

    O.I. Mokhov. Pencils of compatible metrics and integrable systems.Russian Math. Surveys, 72(5):889– 937, 2017

    2017

  34. [42]

    Olver.Applications of Lie Groups to Differential Equations

    P.J. Olver.Applications of Lie Groups to Differential Equations. Springer-Verlag, 2nd edition, 1993

    1993

  35. [43]

    Olver and Y

    P.J. Olver and Y. Nutku. Hamiltonian structures for systems of hyperbolic conservation laws.J. Math. Phys., 29(7):1610–1619, 1988

    1988

  36. [44]

    Olver and P

    P.J. Olver and P. Rosenau. Tri-Hamiltonian duality between solitons and solitary-wave solutions having compact support.Phys. Rev. E (3), 53:1900–1906, 1996. 27

    1900

  37. [45]

    Opanasenko and R

    S. Opanasenko and R. Vitolo. Bi-Hamiltonian structures of WDVV type.Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. A Math. Phys. Eng. Sci., 480:20240249, 2024, DOI:https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.2024.0249 arXiv:https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.17189

    2024

  38. [46]

    Opanasenko and R

    S. Opanasenko and R. Vitolo. On the geometry of WDVV equations and their Hamiltonian formalism in arbitrary dimension. Preprint, 2025, arXiv:https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.13757

    2025

  39. [47]

    Pavlov, P

    M.V. Pavlov, P. Vergallo, and R. Vitolo. Classification of bi-Hamiltonian pairs extended by iso- metries.Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 477(2251):20210185, 2021, DOI:https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.2021.0185

    2021

  40. [48]

    Pavlov and R.F

    M.V. Pavlov and R.F. Vitolo. On the bi-Hamiltonian geometry of the WDVV equations.Lett. Math. Phys., 105(8):1135–1163, 2015, arXiv:https://arxiv.org/abs/1409.7647

    2015 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Potemin.Some aspects of differential geometry and algebraic geometry in the theory of solitons

    G.V. Potemin.Some aspects of differential geometry and algebraic geometry in the theory of solitons. PhD thesis, Moscow State University, 1991. 99 pages, in Russian

    1991

  42. [50]

    G.V. Potemin. On third-order Poisson brackets of differential geometry.Russian Math. Surveys, 52:617–618, 1997

    1997

  43. [51]

    Vaˇ s ´ ıˇ cek and R

    J. Vaˇ s ´ ıˇ cek and R. Vitolo. WDVV equations and invariant bi-Hamiltonian formalism.J. of High Energy Physics, 129, 2021, arXiv:https://arxiv.org/abs/2104.13206. Calculations in GitHub: https://github.com/Jakub-Vasicek/WDVV-computations

    2021 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Vaˇ s ´ ıˇ cek and R

    J. Vaˇ s ´ ıˇ cek and R. Vitolo. WDVV equations: symbolic computations of Hamiltonian operat- ors.Applicable Algebra in Engineering, Communication and Computing, 33(6):915–934, 2022, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00200-022-00565-4

    2022 doi

  45. [53]

    Vergallo and R

    P. Vergallo and R. Vitolo. Homogeneous Hamiltonian operators and the theory of coverings.Differ- ential Geom. Appl., 75:101713, 2021, arXiv:https://arxiv.org/abs/2007.15294. 5 Appendix Here we give the details of the proof of some results that we use to simplify the coefficien...

    2021 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.