A Classification Of Cohomogeneity One Actions On The Minkowski Space $\mathbb{R}^{3,1}$

M. Hassani; P. Ahmadi; S. Safari

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 24 references

A Classification Of Cohomogeneity One Actions On The Minkowski Space $\mathbb{R}^{3,1}$

T0 review · 4 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 This paper classifies all connected cohomogeneity-one isometry groups of 4-dimensional Minkowski space up to orbit equivalence and identifies the five proper action types.

desk verdict Complete and mostly correct classification of cohomogeneity one actions on R^{3,1}, with fixable sign/typo problems and two small unproved facts. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.01847 v2 pith:LGE6E57P submitted 2019-09-04 math.DG

P. Ahmadi , S. Safari , M. Hassani This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.DG MSC 57S2553C30

keywords cohomogeneityoneisometricactionsMinkowskispaceLorentzgrouporbitequivalenceproperdegeneratesubspaces

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 aims to classify, up to orbit equivalence, every connected group of isometries of 4-dimensional Minkowski space whose orbits have codimension one. It produces four tables of model groups and proves that every such action is equivalent to one of them. It then separates proper from nonproper actions: the proper actions are exactly five model families, and for these it describes orbits and orbit spaces. If the classification is right, the causal geometry of Minkowski space sharply restricts which symmetry groups admit a one-dimensional orbit space, with proper actions limited to pure translations, compact rotations times translations, and two degenerate null-shear groups with a fixed nonzero parameter.

What carries the argument

The engine of the proof is the Lie algebra projection onto $\mathfrak{so}(3,1)$, cut against the translation part of the acting subalgebra, together with the Iwasawa decomposition $\mathfrak{so}(3,1) = \mathfrak{k} \oplus \mathfrak{a} \oplus \mathfrak{n}$. Using the basis $Y^1_k, Y^2_k, Y^3_k, Y_a, Y^1_n, Y^2_n$, the paper writes each candidate subalgebra with translation vectors, imposes the bracket relations, and solves the resulting linear system to conjugate every case into a normal form. The decisive reduction is Lemma 3.2: an imported theorem says a connected irreducible subgroup of $SO(n,1)$ must be all of $SO^\circ(n,1)$, so every proper subgroup of the Lorentz group preserves a nontrivial linear subspace of $\mathbb{R}^{3,1}$, and this limits the case analysis to the subspaces $\mathbb{R}e_1$, $\mathbb{R}e_4$, $\ell$, $W_2$, and $W_3$.

What would settle it

Search for a connected Lie subgroup of $\mathrm{Iso}(\mathbb{R}^{3,1})$ not conjugate to any group in Tables 1–4 that still has a generic orbit of dimension three; in particular, compute orbit dimensions of the excluded candidates $K_1N \ltimes \ell$ and $AN \ltimes \ell$ at points with $q_3+q_4=0$ and $q_3+q_4\neq0$, and check that the paper's claimed dimensions $1,2,4$ are correct. Independently, try to construct an irreducible proper connected subgroup of $SO(3,1)$; if one exists, Lemma 3.2 and the whole case split collapse.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central claim is Theorem 3.4: every connected Lie subgroup $H$ of $\mathrm{Iso}(\mathbb{R}^{3,1}) = O(3,1) \ltimes \mathbb{R}^{3,1}$ that acts with cohomogeneity one is orbit-equivalent to one of the groups in Tables 1–4. The list is organized by the dimension of the translation part of $H$, the kernel of the projection to the Lorentz group, which can be a hyperplane, a plane, a line, or zero. Theorem 4.2 then singles out the proper actions: pure translation groups, $SO(2) \times \mathbb{R}^{1,1}$, $SO(3) \times \mathbb{R}e_4$, $\exp(\mathbb{R}(Y_a + \lambda e_1)) \ltimes W_2$ with $\lambda \neq 0$, and $\exp(\mathbb{R}(Y^1_n + \mu e_4)) \ltimes W_2$ with $\mu \neq 0$. For these five families, the last section shows that every orbit is geodesically complete, all singular orbits are timelike or Lorentzian affine subspaces, and the orbit space is homeomorphic to $\mathbb{R}$ or $[0,\infty)$.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is the imported theorem that a connected irreducible subgroup of $SO(n,1)$ is all of $SO^\circ(n,1)$; the enumeration also relies on the quoted 'well-known fact' that every two-dimensional connected subgroup of $SO^\circ(2,1)$ is conjugate to $AN_2$, and if either statement fails the table list loses its foundation, though the proper five-family list may partly survive.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The classification gives a complete list of cohomogeneity-one isometry groups on $\mathbb{R}^{3,1}$ up to orbit equivalence, so any future example in this setting must match one of the four tables.
Every proper action in the list has orbit space homeomorphic to $\mathbb{R}$ or $[0,\infty)$, so the five proper families exhaust the possible codimension-one foliations by orbits.
No proper action has a spacelike or degenerate singular orbit; the only singular orbits are timelike lines or Lorentzian planes.
If an orbit is spacelike, the action is equivalent to the pure translation group $\mathbb{R}^3$, and then every orbit is a spacelike hyperplane.
The families $\exp(\mathbb{R}(Y_a+\lambda e_1))\ltimes W_2$ and $\exp(\mathbb{R}(Y^1_n+\mu e_4))\ltimes W_2$, with nonzero parameters, are proper actions with no Euclidean analogue and display genuinely Lorentzian orbit geometry.

Reading between the lines

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

The same irreducibility dichotomy should organize higher-dimensional Minkowski spaces, with the degenerate subspaces $W_k$ producing the exceptional families and properness controlled by compactness of the linear part.
The nonzero conditions on $\lambda$ and $\mu$ suggest that the boundary cases $\lambda=0$ and $\mu=0$ are where the translation directions become lightlike and properness is lost; computing the orbit space at those boundary values would make the transition explicit.
A natural next step is to classify the orbit spaces of the nonproper actions; the explicit matrix models in Theorem 4.1 give a direct starting point.
The completeness of Table 3 depends on a quoted fact about two-dimensional subgroups of $SO^\circ(2,1)$; a direct explicit verification of that fact would be a cheap check of the whole enumeration.

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 my take. The paper completes the cohomogeneity-one classification for R^{3,1}, and the main list in Tables 1-4 looks right to me. The proof is a systematic Lie-algebra enumeration, with the translation part handled by dimension and the linear part reduced to stabilizers of standard subspaces. That's the same program as the authors' earlier papers, but this is the first complete statement for the physically relevant 4D case, including proper/nonproper separation and orbit spaces. That alone makes it worth refereeing.

The soft spots are real but mostly cosmetic. The sign errors in the conjugation vectors are exactly where the stress-test says: in Case I the printed p does not conjugate Y1_k+u to Y1_k; the correct vector is (-u2, u1, v1, -x3). I see the same kind of sign flips in several other normalizations, so the displayed computations don't verify the claims as written. A referee should ask for corrected vectors. Theorem 4.1 lists (h) twice, once for K1N⋉ℓ and once for K1AN, which has to be fixed. The Type (V) computation in Section 5 is garbled; the 'norm squared' expression is not a norm as printed, and the Lorentzian/degenerate dichotomy is asserted from an unclear condition. That paragraph needs rewriting.

Two small gaps deserve attention. Case II-1 uses an unproved 'well-known fact' that every 2-dimensional connected subgroup of SO(2,1) is conjugate to AN2. That's likely true, but it should be stated with a proof sketch. And Lemma 3.2 imports Theorem 3.1 of [11] to conclude that every proper connected Lie subgroup of SO(3,1) preserves a nontrivial linear subspace. The citation's hypotheses aren't checked. The algebraic version of that statement is true—any proper subalgebra of so(3,1) preserves some nondegenerate subspace or a lightlike line—so the gap is fillable, but the paper should either cite a statement that covers immersed subgroups or give a short algebraic proof.

None of this looks load-bearing. The classification scheme is coherent, the parameter cases are enumerated, and the orbit space structure for proper actions (R or [0,∞)) matches what you'd expect. I'd send it to a serious referee, but with the expectation of a revision that fixes the sign typos, rewrites Section 5's Type (V), and spells out the two small facts. For a reader in Lorentzian geometry or transformation groups, this is a useful reference; I'd cite it.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper classifies connected Lie subgroups of Iso(R^{3,1}) whose isometric action on four-dimensional Minkowski space has cohomogeneity one. The main theorem (Theorem 3.4) states that, up to orbit equivalence, every such group is one of the groups listed in Tables 1-4, organized according to the dimension of the translation part. Theorems 4.1 and 4.2 then separate the nonproper actions from the proper ones, and Section 5 describes the orbits and orbit spaces for the proper actions. The claimed proper list consists of the pure translation groups, SO(2) x R^{1,1}, SO(3) x Re4, and two parabolic-type extension groups exp(R(Ya + lambda e1)) ⋉ W2 and exp(R(Y1_n + mu e4)) ⋉ W2 with nonzero parameters.

Significance. If the classification is correct, it is a useful and complete result for the simplest indefinite space form and a natural continuation of the authors' earlier work on R^{2,1}, de Sitter space, and anti-de Sitter space. The reduction by dimension of the translation part is natural, and the tables give explicit representations. The paper also identifies a genuine difference from Euclidean cohomogeneity-one actions: the proper list contains two non-product examples, and the orbit-space dichotomy R versus [0, infinity) is established. The proof strategy is transparent, and most conjugation steps are explicitly computable. However, several load-bearing computations and imported facts need repair before the claims are fully supported.

major comments (4)

[Section 3, Lemma 3.2] Lemma 3.2 rests entirely on Theorem 3.1 of [11], quoted as saying that any connected Lie subgroup of SO(n,1) acting irreducibly on R^{n,1} equals SO^o(n,1). The manuscript does not state whether the theorem in [11] is proved for arbitrary connected subgroups or only for closed ones. Since the groups in Theorem 3.4 are not assumed closed, the dichotomy 'proper subgroup implies preservation of a nontrivial linear subspace' needs a proof for immersed subgroups. Without this step, the case split into stabilizers of Re1, Re4, ell, and 2-planes has no foundation. Please either verify that [11] applies verbatim or supply the missing argument, for example a Lie-algebraic proof of the dichotomy.
[Section 3, proof of Theorem 3.4, Case I] The displayed conjugation vectors do not verify the claimed normalizations. In the first bullet, with p = (u2,-u1,-v1,-x3)^t, one gets Ad((I4,p))(Y1_k + u) = Y1_k + (-u1,-u2,0,0)^t, not Y1_k + u; the correct vector is p = (-u2,u1,v1,x3)^t. The same sign error appears in several later conjugation steps. Since corrected vectors are easily written down, this is not fatal, but the proof as printed does not establish the normalizations and should be rewritten with consistent signs.
[Section 3, Case II-1] The case leading to AN2 x Re1 relies on the assertion, called 'well-known', that every two-dimensional connected subgroup of SO^o(2,1) is conjugate to AN2. This is true for closed subgroups, but no proof or precise reference is supplied. Because the Table 3 row AN2 x Re1 and the later proper/nonproper classification depend on this fact, it should be either proved or cited with a statement that covers the exactly needed class of subgroups.
[Section 5, Type (V)] The computation determining the causal type of the orbits of exp(R(Y1_n + mu e4)) ⋉ W2 is not coherent as written. The displayed expression 'd/dt|_{t=0}(exp(t(Y1_n + mu).p)) = mu^2 t^2 + (p3+p4)^2 - 2p1 mu - mu^2' is not a derivative at t=0, and the notation is ambiguous. Consequently the claimed dichotomy between Lorentzian and degenerate hypersurfaces, and the assertion that every orbit is principal, are not established. The authors should replace this with a correct calculation, e.g. of the induced metric or of the causal character of a tangent frame.

minor comments (5)

[Section 3, Theorem 3.4 proof] In Case I the text says that the groups obtained there fill Table 1; the groups with trivial translation part belong to Table 4, while Table 1 is the hyperplane-translation case treated in Case IV.
[Theorem 4.1] The list of nonproper groups has the label (h) twice, for K1N ⋉ ell and for K1AN, and the labels appear in the order (h), (j), (h), (k), (l), (m). The proof also refers to cases (a)-(l) although the list has a case (m).
[Theorem 4.2] In the proof of case (e), the letter lambda is used in the formulas for c_{t,s,v} although the theorem statement uses mu; the notation should be made consistent.
[Section 3, Subcase II-3-b] In the ab nonzero case, the text writes 'dim(H(p)) = 3' in a sentence about an arbitrary point q; this should read 'dim(H(q)) = 3'.
[Case I, exclusion of K1N] The exclusion of the case pi1(h) = R(Y1_k) + n is justified by a citation to the authors' preprint [9]. Since this exclusion is used in the main theorem, the relevant statement from [9] should be stated explicitly or proved in the present paper.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No definitional or fitted-input circularity; the classification is derived from the bracket relations and an external irreducibility theorem. The only mild self-citation is the exclusion of K1N from the authors' prior work [9].

other [Section 3, Case I in the proof of Theorem 3.4 (exclusion of K1N)]
"The case that µ = 0 and λ ⁄= 0 is excluded automatically, since the action of K1N is not of cohomogeneity one. (See [9])."

This is the one step where the proof discards a candidate subgroup on the authority of the authors' own prior work [9] rather than deriving the exclusion from the Lie-algebra relations in the present paper. If that cited result were unavailable, the list in Case I would contain the extra candidate exp(R(λY1_k))N. This is a self-citation used as a black-box input, but it is not a definitional or fitted reduction: it does not assume the present theorem, and the central case analysis from relations (3)-(5) remains independent.

full rationale

The central claim, Theorem 3.4, is not assumed. The proof passes to the Lie algebra h, projects to so(3,1), and solves the bracket constraints (3)-(5) according to the dimension of h ∩ R^{3,1}; candidate groups are then normalized by explicit conjugations Ad((I,p)). The load-bearing structural input is Theorem 3.1 of [11], an external irreducibility theorem of Di Scala and Olmos, not a result of the present authors and not equivalent to the classification. The only self-citation used as a black-box input is the exclusion of K1N in Case I, attributed to [9]; it removes one candidate but does not determine the moduli or the orbit spaces, and the surrounding algebra is independent. The parameters λ, μ, a, b are genuine moduli, not fitted values, and no quantity is renamed as a prediction. Therefore the paper has no definitional or fitted-input circularity; at most it has one minor self-citation that is not load-bearing for the central derivation.

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

The central claim rests on standard Lie theory and two unproved external facts: Theorem 3.1 of [11] and the well-known classification of 2-dimensional subgroups of SO^circ(2,1). There are no fitted parameters or invented entities; the λ, μ, a, b in Tables 2-4 are genuine moduli of the classification, not free parameters used to force the proof.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Theorem 3.1 of [11]: if a connected Lie subgroup H of SO(n,1) acts irreducibly on R^{n,1}, then H = SO^circ(n,1).
Imported from Di Scala and Olmos. Used in Lemma 3.2 to conclude every proper connected subgroup of SO^circ(3,1) preserves a nontrivial linear subspace; the entire enumeration of Tables 1-4 depends on this reduction.
domain assumption Every 2-dimensional connected Lie subgroup of SO^circ(2,1) is conjugate to AN2.
Invoked in Case II-1 of Theorem 3.4 as 'a well-known fact' with no proof or citation. If false, the subfamily AN2 x Re1 in Table 3 would be incomplete.
standard math The only connected 2-dimensional non-abelian Lie group is Aff^circ(R).
Stated in Remark 3.3 with reference [12]; used to classify 1-parameter subgroups of AN1 and AN2.
standard math Proper actions of Lie groups are characterized by Alekseevsky's criterion and admit slices (Palais-Terng).
Used in Sections 4 and 5 to identify proper actions and to define principal and singular orbits.
standard math Connected Lie subgroups of Iso(R^{3,1}) correspond to Lie subalgebras of so(3,1) ⊕_phi R^{3,1}.
The proof of Theorem 3.4 classifies subalgebras h and normalizes them using Ad((I4,p)).

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Classification Of Cohomogeneity One Actions On The Minkowski Space $\mathbb{R}^{3,1}$." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LGE6E57P

@misc{pith2026190901847,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Classification Of Cohomogeneity One Actions On The Minkowski Space $\mathbbR^3,1$},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LGE6E57P}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.01847}
}

abstract

The aim of this paper is to classify cohomogeneity one isometric actions on the 4-dimensional Minkowski space $\mathbb{R}^{3,1}$, up to orbit equivalence. Representations, up to conjugacy, of the acting groups in $O(3,1)\ltimes \mathbb{R}^{3,1}$ are given in both cases, proper and non-proper actions. When the action is proper, the orbits and the orbit spaces are determined.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

24 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages

[11]

Di Scala, C

A.J. Di Scala, C. Olmos, The geometry of homogeneous subm anifolds of hyperbolic space, Math. Z. 237 (2001), no.1, 199-219. A CLASSIFICA TION OF COHOMOGENEITY ONE ACTIONS ON THE MINKOW SKI SPACE R3,1 19

work page 2001
[1]

Adams, Dynamics on Lorentz Manifolds, world Scientiﬁc , 2001

S. Adams, Dynamics on Lorentz Manifolds, world Scientiﬁc , 2001

work page 2001
[2]

Alekseevsky and D.V

A.V . Alekseevsky and D.V . Alekseevsky, G-manifolds with one dimensional orbit space, Adv. Sov. Math. 8 (1992), 1-31

work page 1992
[3]

D. V . Alekseevsky, On a proper action of a Lie group, Uspekhi Math. Nauk 34 (1979), 219-220

work page 1979
[4]

Global Anal

A.V .Alekseevsky and D.V .Alekseevsky, RiemannianG-manifolds with one dimensional orbit space, Ann. Global Anal. Geom. 11 (1993), 197-211

work page 1993
[5]

Ahmadi and S.M.B

P . Ahmadi and S.M.B. Kashani, Cohomogeneity one de Sitter space Sn 1 , Acta Math. Sin. 26 (2010), no. 10, 1915-1926

work page 2010
[6]

Ahmadi and S.M.B

P . Ahmadi and S.M.B. Kashani, Cohomogeneity one Minkowsk i space Rn 1 , Publ. Math. Debr .78 (2011), no. 1, 49-59

work page 2011
[7]

Ahmadi, Cohomogeneity one three dimensional anti-de S itter space, proper and nonproper actions, Differential Geom

P . Ahmadi, Cohomogeneity one three dimensional anti-de S itter space, proper and nonproper actions, Differential Geom. Appl. 39 (2015), 93-112

work page 2015

Show all 24 references

[8]

Ahmadi, Cohomogeneity One Dynamics on Three Dimension al Minkowski Space, Zh

P . Ahmadi, Cohomogeneity One Dynamics on Three Dimension al Minkowski Space, Zh. Mat. Fiz. Anal. Geom. 15 (2019), no. 2, 155-169

2019
[9]

Ahmadi and S

P . Ahmadi and S. Safari, On Cohomogeneity one linear actio ns on Pseudo-Euclidean Space Rp,q, https://arxiv.org/abs/1908.05083

1908 arXiv
[10]

Berard-Bergery, Sur de nouvells vari ´et´e riemanniennes d’Einstein, Inst

L. Berard-Bergery, Sur de nouvells vari ´et´e riemanniennes d’Einstein, Inst. ´Elie Cartan 6 (1982), 1-60

1982
[12]

V . V . Gorbatsevich, A.L.Onishik and E.B.Vinberg, Lie Groups and Lie Algebras III, Springer-V erlag, 1994

1994
[13]

Grove, B

K. Grove, B. Wilking and W. Ziller, Positively curved coh omogeneity one manifolds and 3-Sasakian geometry, J. Differential Geom. 78 (2008), no. 1, 33-111

2008
[14]

Grove and W

K. Grove and W. Ziller, Curvature and symmetry of Milnor s pheres, Ann. of Math. 152 (2000), no. 1, 331-367

2000
[15]

Grove and W

K. Grove and W. Ziller, Cohomogeneity one manifolds with positive Ricci curvature, Invent. Math. 149 (2002), no. 3, 619-646

2002
[16]

R.Mirzaie and S.M.B.Kashani, On cohomogeneity oneﬂat R iemannian manifolds, Glasgow Math. J. 44 (2002), 185-

2002
[17]

Mostert, On a compact Lie group acting on a manifold, Ann

P .S. Mostert, On a compact Lie group acting on a manifold, Ann. Math. 65 (1957), no. 3, 447-455

1957
[18]

R.S.Palais and CH.L.Terng, A general theory of canonica l forms, Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 300 (1987), 771-789

1987
[19]

R.S.Palais and CH.L.Terng, Critical Point Theory and Su bmanifold Geometry, Lectture Notes in Mathematics, Springer-V erlag, 1988

1988
[20]

Spiro: Some topological properties of c homogeneity one manifolds with negative curvature, Ann

F.Podesta and A. Spiro: Some topological properties of c homogeneity one manifolds with negative curvature, Ann. Global Anal. Geom. 14 (1996), 69-79

1996
[21]

Searle, Cohomogeneity and positive curvature in low d imension, Math

C. Searle, Cohomogeneity and positive curvature in low d imension, Math. Z. 214 (1993), 491-498

1993
[22]

V erdiani, Cohomogeneity one Riemannian manifolds of even dimension with strictly positive sectional curvature , I, Math

L. V erdiani, Cohomogeneity one Riemannian manifolds of even dimension with strictly positive sectional curvature , I, Math. Z. 241 (2002), no. 2, 329-339

2002
[23]

V erdiani, Cohomogeneity one manifolds of even dimens ion with strictly positive sectional curvature, J

L. V erdiani, Cohomogeneity one manifolds of even dimens ion with strictly positive sectional curvature, J. Differential Geom. 68 (2004), no. 1, 31-72. P. A HMADI , D EPARTMENTAL OF MATHEMATICS , U NIVERSITY OF ZANJAN , U NIVERSITY BLVD ., Z ANJAN , I RAN E-mail address: p.ahm...

2004
[190]

item[[N]] K.Nomizu, On isoparametric hypersurfaces i n the Lorentzian space forms, Japan J. Math. 7 (1981), 217-226

1981

Pith tools

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

[1] [11]

Di Scala, C

A.J. Di Scala, C. Olmos, The geometry of homogeneous subm anifolds of hyperbolic space, Math. Z. 237 (2001), no.1, 199-219. A CLASSIFICA TION OF COHOMOGENEITY ONE ACTIONS ON THE MINKOW SKI SPACE R3,1 19

work page 2001

[2] [1]

Adams, Dynamics on Lorentz Manifolds, world Scientiﬁc , 2001

S. Adams, Dynamics on Lorentz Manifolds, world Scientiﬁc , 2001

work page 2001

[3] [2]

Alekseevsky and D.V

A.V . Alekseevsky and D.V . Alekseevsky, G-manifolds with one dimensional orbit space, Adv. Sov. Math. 8 (1992), 1-31

work page 1992

[4] [3]

D. V . Alekseevsky, On a proper action of a Lie group, Uspekhi Math. Nauk 34 (1979), 219-220

work page 1979

[5] [4]

Global Anal

A.V .Alekseevsky and D.V .Alekseevsky, RiemannianG-manifolds with one dimensional orbit space, Ann. Global Anal. Geom. 11 (1993), 197-211

work page 1993

[6] [5]

Ahmadi and S.M.B

P . Ahmadi and S.M.B. Kashani, Cohomogeneity one de Sitter space Sn 1 , Acta Math. Sin. 26 (2010), no. 10, 1915-1926

work page 2010

[7] [6]

Ahmadi and S.M.B

P . Ahmadi and S.M.B. Kashani, Cohomogeneity one Minkowsk i space Rn 1 , Publ. Math. Debr .78 (2011), no. 1, 49-59

work page 2011

[8] [7]

Ahmadi, Cohomogeneity one three dimensional anti-de S itter space, proper and nonproper actions, Differential Geom

P . Ahmadi, Cohomogeneity one three dimensional anti-de S itter space, proper and nonproper actions, Differential Geom. Appl. 39 (2015), 93-112

work page 2015