Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 2 minor 72 references

Invariant distributions of partially hyperbolic systems: fractal graphs, excessive regularity, and rigidity

T0 review · 2 major / 2 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Hölder thresholds decide smooth rigidity on the 3-torus

desk verdict A genuinely new fractal-vs-smoothness principle with sharp T^3 applications, but the proof that the center foliation is C^1 has a regularity gap that needs fixing. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.19665 v3 pith:MSX7AQT5 submitted 2024-11-29 math.DS

Disheng Xu , Jiesong Zhang This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.DS MSC 37D3037D2028A80
keywords partiallyhyperbolicdynamicsinvariantdistributionsfractalgraphsHölderregularityrigidityAnosovdiffeomorphismsboxdimensionnon-fractalinvarianceprinciple
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 dichotomy for invariant distributions of partially hyperbolic systems: a continuous invariant section of a bundle map that expands fibers more slowly than the base's unstable direction either has a fractal graph or is smooth along the unstable foliation and invariant under unstable holonomy. Applied to partially hyperbolic Anosov diffeomorphisms of the 3-torus with contracting center, this yields a sharp phase transition: if the stable or center distribution exceeds its critical Hölder exponent, it jumps to $C^1$ and forces rigidity, while below that threshold its graph has lower box dimension strictly larger than the manifold dimension. The main rigidity theorem says that a $C^\infty$ volume-preserving partially hyperbolic Anosov diffeomorphism of $\mathbb{T}^3$ is $C^\infty$-conjugate to a linear automorphism if and only if both the stable and center distributions beat their critical exponents. The authors propose that generically every invariant distribution is either stably $C^1$ or stably fractal, with center distributions typically fractal.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the obstruction function $\Delta_\delta(x) = \sup_{t \in W^u_\delta(x)} d(\Phi(t), \gamma_x(t))$, where $\gamma_x(t)$ is the point obtained by pushing $\Phi(x)$ along the unstable holonomy of the bundle map $F$. Minimality of $W^u$ makes $\Delta_\delta$ either identically zero or uniformly bounded away from zero: if $\Delta_\delta(x) = 0$ at one point, iterating backward spreads vanishing along the dense unstable leaf. If $\Phi$ is $\alpha^+$-Hölder and $\alpha > \alpha(k,x)$, backward contraction estimates force $\Delta_\delta(x)=0$, hence $\Phi$ is holonomy-invariant and $C^r$ along $W^u$. If instead $\Delta_\delta$ is uniformly positive, the same backward estimates yield oscillations of $\Phi$ at every scale whose packing count gives the lower bound $\dim_B \mathrm{Graph}(\Phi) \geq \dim M + 1 - A$. The applications identify $F$ with the Grassmannian bundle over $E^{cs}$ induced by $Df$, so that $E^s$ and $E^c$ become invariant sections; the critical exponents $\alpha_s$, $\alpha_c$ are shown in Appendix A to coincide with the pinching coefficients $\theta_s$, $\theta_c$, and a standard regularity lemma upgrades $C^1$ along $W^u$ and $W^{cs}$ to global $C^1$.

What would settle it

Take a topologically transitive but not $W^u$-minimal partially hyperbolic $f$ on a compact manifold, any bundle map $F$ satisfying the fiber-expansion bound, and any continuous $F$-invariant section $\Phi$ that is $\alpha^+$-Hölder along $W^u$ but not invariant under the unstable holonomy; Theorem 3.1 would be false, and the failure would show up as $\Delta_\delta$ vanishing along a dense set of $W^u$-leaves while remaining positive on a wandering leaf. A more numerical check: in the family of Example 6.10, estimate the lower box dimension of $\mathrm{Graph}(E^s)$; the theorem predicts $\dim_B > 3$ whenever $E^s$ is not $C^1$, so an open parameter interval with $E^s \notin C^1$ and $\dim_B = 3$ would refute the sharp dichotomy.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is the non-fractal invariance principle (Theorems 2.1 and 3.1). Let $f$ be a $C^r$ partially hyperbolic diffeomorphism with minimal unstable foliation $W^u$, and let $F$ be a bundle map over $f$ that expands fibers more weakly than $f$ along $W^u$. Then every continuous $F$-invariant section $\Phi$ either has a fractal graph, with lower box dimension at least $\dim M + 1 - A$, or is uniformly $C^r$ along $W^u$ and invariant under the unstable holonomy $h_F^u$. The quantitative version uses $\alpha = \inf \alpha(k,x)$ as the critical Hölder exponent: $\Phi$ being $\alpha^+$-Hölder along $W^u$ forces holonomy invariance and $C^r$ leaves, while failure implies the box-dimension lower bound. For a $C^2$ volume-preserving partially hyperbolic Anosov diffeomorphism of $\mathbb{T}^3$ with contracting center, the stable distribution $E^s$ is $\theta_s^-$-Hölder in general; if it is $\theta_s^+$-Hölder, then it is $C^1$ and $E^s \oplus E^u$ is jointly integrable, and otherwise the graph of $E^s$ has lower box dimension greater than 3. The analogous statement for the center is that $E^c$ being $\theta_c^+$-Hölder along $W^s$ forces $W^c$ to be a $C^1$ foliation, and otherwise $E^c$ has a fractal graph. Theorem 1.12 concludes that $f \in \mathrm{Diff}^\infty_{\mathrm{vol}}(\mathbb{T}^3)$ is $C^\infty$-rigid exactly when $E^s$ is $\theta_s^+$-Hölder and $E^c$ is $\theta_c^+$-Hölder.

Load-bearing premise

The dichotomy depends on the unstable foliation $W^u$ being minimal so that vanishing of the obstruction function at one point propagates globally, a hypothesis verified on $\mathbb{T}^3$ but not proved under the weaker topological-transitivity assumptions stated in the general theorems.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For every $C^2$ volume-preserving partially hyperbolic Anosov diffeomorphism of $\mathbb{T}^3$ with contracting center, the stable distribution $E^s$ is either $C^1$ with $E^s \oplus E^u$ jointly integrable, or its graph has lower box dimension strictly larger than 3; the non-$C^1$ case is generic outside a codimension-$\infty$ subset.
  • For the center direction, the same alternative holds: $E^c$ is either uniformly $C^1$ along $W^s$ and $W^c$ is a $C^1$ foliation, or the graph of $E^c$ is fractal; in particular, any pathological (non-absolutely-continuous) center foliation forces $E^c$ to have a fractal graph.
  • For $C^\infty$ volume-preserving $f$ on $\mathbb{T}^3$, $C^\infty$-rigidity—smooth conjugacy to a linear Anosov automorphism—is equivalent to the two sharp Hölder conditions $E^s$ being $\theta_s^+$-Hölder and $E^c$ being $\theta_c^+$-Hölder; this is a bootstrap from mild Hölder regularity to full smoothness.
  • The non-fractal invariance principle applies beyond $\mathbb{T}^3$: under the bunching and minimality hypotheses of Theorems 3.2 and 3.3, the fractal-or-smooth alternative holds for invariant distributions of partially hyperbolic Anosov systems on general compact manifolds, and the authors state it for sections of general fiber bundles.
  • The paper's Conjecture 1.14 predicts a $C^1$-open, $C^r$-dense partition of partially hyperbolic diffeomorphisms into stably $C^1$ and stably fractal distributions, with the center distribution stably fractal whenever the stable and unstable distributions are both nontrivial.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial extension: the lower bound $\dim_B \mathrm{Graph}(\Phi) \geq \dim M + 1 - A$ suggests a pressure-based dimension formula for dynamically invariant sections, as in the classical theory of self-affine sets; deriving such a formula in the non-conformal, non-algebraic setting could be a route to proving the stable-fractal part of Conjecture 1.14.
  • Editorial inference: the dichotomy implies that invariant distributions that fail to be $C^1$ are not merely non-smooth but carry positive dimensional excess, so finite-resolution numerical approximations of such distributions should show resolution-dependent complexity; one could test this on the one-parameter family of Example 6.10 by estimating the box dimension of $E^s$ as the parameter varies
  • The paper leaves open whether a $C^1$ foliation can coexist with a fractal tangent distribution, as it notes explicitly; a natural test is to construct a partially hyperbolic $f$ where $W^c$ is $C^1$ but $E^c$ is not, and measure the graph dimension to separate foliation regularity from distribution regularity.
  • The proof of the general statement in Section 6.1 uses minimality of $W^u$ after the stated hypotheses assume only topological transitivity; on $\mathbb{T}^3$ the missing step is supplied by known results, but a reader extending the theorems to other manifolds would need to close this gap or add minimality as an explicit hypothesis.
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

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. This paper introduces a non-fractal invariance principle for invariant sections of partially hyperbolic bundle maps: if the fiber expansion is weaker than the base unstable direction, then any continuous invariant section either has fractal graph (dim_B graph >= dim M + 1 - A) or is uniformly C^r along W^u and invariant under the unstable holonomy, assuming W^u is minimal. The authors apply this to partially hyperbolic Anosov diffeomorphisms on T^3, obtaining sharp thresholds: theta_s^+-Hölder continuity of E^s implies E^s is C^1 and E^s ⊕ E^u is jointly integrable; theta_c^+-Hölder continuity of E^c along W^s implies W^c is a C^1 foliation; and failure of these gives fractal graphs. These are used to prove a C^∞ rigidity criterion for f ∈ Diff^∞_vol(T^3): f is C^∞-rigid iff both E^s and E^c are theta_s^+- and theta_c^+-Hölder continuous. The paper also states stable C^1/fractal conjectures.

Significance. The results are novel and potentially significant: they establish a link between fractal geometry and rigidity in partially hyperbolic dynamics, give essentially sharp bootstrap thresholds for Hölder regularity of invariant distributions, and show that Hölder regularity alone can imply smooth rigidity in a setting where such conclusions are rare. The core analytic lemmas (Lemmas 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.5, 5.6) are coherent, and the T^3 applications rely on known minimality and rigidity theorems rather than on circular use of the target results. The proposed conjectures are well motivated. However, two load-bearing gaps (see major comments) prevent the paper from being fully validated as written.

major comments (2)
  1. [§6.1, Theorem 3.2] The proof of Theorem 3.2 states 'Since W^u is minimal, by Theorem 3.1' and then applies Theorem 3.1, but the theorem's stated hypotheses only assume topological transitivity. Minimality of W^u is not derived from the stated assumptions and does not follow in general for arbitrary compact manifolds; this is load-bearing because Theorem 3.1 explicitly requires W^u-minimality. The T^3 applications are protected because W^u-minimality is known there (Proposition 4.4), but the general theorem as stated is not proved. The authors should either add W^u-minimality as an explicit hypothesis or prove that topological transitivity together with the bunching assumptions implies it, or restrict the statement to the cases where it is available.
  2. [§6.4, Proposition 6.6] The proof reduces to R^2 via 'a C^2 coordinate change such that x=(0,0), W^c(x)={0}×R and the stable leaves are parallel to the x-axis.' Such a coordinate change would force the leaf W^c(x) to be a C^2 curve, hence the center foliation to be C^2 at x, but Proposition 4.4 states that W^c may fail to be C^2 even for C^∞ diffeomorphisms. With only a C^1 chart, the paper does not justify the Lipschitz estimate |e(z(t))-e(y(t))| ≤ L|ζ(t)| used in the Gronwall argument, since the transformed vector field e may lose Lipschitz regularity along W^s under a non-C^2 coordinate change. This step upgrades 'E^c uniformly C^1 along W^s' to 'W^c is a C^1 foliation' and is used in Theorems 1.8 and 1.12, so it is load-bearing. The issue is likely repairable using a C^1 coordinate chart that is smooth along the C^2 stable foliation, but the proof as written is not justified.
minor comments (2)
  1. [§6.2, proof of Theorem 1.5] The proof phrase 'Let f ∈ Diff^2(T^3) be C^1-close to a volume-preserving diffeomorphism g' is confusing because the theorem is stated for all f ∈ Diff^2_vol(T^3); while every such f is C^1-close to itself, the intended verification that volume preservation on T^3 implies the hypotheses of Theorem 3.2 should be stated directly, for example using λ_s + λ_c + λ_u = 0.
  2. [§6.4, Lemma 6.5] Lemma 6.5 is ambiguously stated: 'Df is Hölder continuous on a set of full Lebesgue measure' should require a uniform Hölder constant on that set and an explicit argument that the derivative extends to a Hölder function on U; as written, the claim is not generally justified. The application in Proposition 6.6 appears to have such uniform estimates, but they should be spelled out.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the rigidity theorems are derived from a self-contained non-fractal invariance principle and external rigidity results, not from their own conclusions.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. The critical exponents θs and θc are defined directly from the derivative cocycle (Section 1.5, Appendix A), and the bootstrap theorems compare the a-priori Hölder regularity of Es and Ec against these cocycle-defined thresholds; the thresholds are not fitted to the regularity being predicted. The non-fractal invariance principle (Theorems 2.1 and 3.1) is proved in Section 5 from the obstruction function, box-dimension estimates, and the minimality of W^u; the proof does not invoke the rigidity conclusions it is later used to derive. The applications in Section 6 correctly reduce the T^3 rigidity statements to external theorems: [24] for joint integrability versus c-periodic data, [28] for C^1 center foliation versus s-periodic data, and [29,30] for periodic-data rigidity; these are independent results, not the authors' own conclusions. The authors' own prior works appear only in historical remarks and are not load-bearing. Two correctness gaps flagged in the text are real but are not circularity: the unproved use of W^u-minimality in the proof of Theorem 3.2 (Section 6.1, stated hypotheses only assume topological transitivity) and the C^2 straightening of W^c in Proposition 6.6 (Section 6.4, which would require more regularity of W^c than the hypotheses supply). Both are unsupported stronger premises or missing justifications, not reductions of the target result to itself, so they do not raise the circularity score.

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

No parameters are fitted to data. The critical exponents θs and θc are derived from the derivative cocycle of f, and the fractal-graph condition is a geometric property of the section. The load-bearing background inputs are listed as axioms. The two ad hoc axioms correspond to proof gaps flagged in the report.

assumptions (6)
  • standard math Journé's regularity lemma: a function that is C^r along two transverse foliations is C^r (Proposition 4.2)
    Invoked to upgrade regularity along W^u and W^cs to global C^1 for E^s and E^c.
  • standard math Livšic-type theorem for matrix cocycles (Lemma A.1, reference [51])
    Used in Proposition A.2 to identify the critical exponents θs and θc with the general αs and αc.
  • domain assumption Bunching implies C^1 regularity of E^cs and C^1 holonomies (references [37,62])
    Basis for setting up the Grassmannian bundles and for the C^1 center-stable holonomy used in Propositions 6.4 and 6.6.
  • domain assumption Minimality of W^u and W^cs for partially hyperbolic Anosov diffeomorphisms on T^3 (references [23,58])
    Provides the minimality required by Lemma 5.3 in the main T^3 applications.
  • ad hoc to paper W^u-minimality in Theorem 3.2 follows from topological transitivity
    The proof of Theorem 3.2 says 'Since W^u is minimal' without deriving it from the stated hypotheses; no reference is given for general compact manifolds.
  • ad hoc to paper W^c can be straightened by a C^2 coordinate chart in Proposition 6.6
    The proof assumes a C^2 coordinate change making W^c vertical before establishing that W^c is a C^1 foliation; such a chart need not exist if W^c is only continuous with C^1 leaves.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Invariant distributions of partially hyperbolic systems: fractal graphs, excessive regularity, and rigidity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MSX7AQT5

@misc{pith2026241119665,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Invariant distributions of partially hyperbolic systems: fractal graphs, excessive regularity, and rigidity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MSX7AQT5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.19665}
}
abstract

We introduce a novel approach linking fractal geometry to partially hyperbolic dynamics, revealing several new phenomena related to regularity jumps and rigidity. One key result demonstrates a sharp phase transition for partially hyperbolic diffeomorphisms $f \in \mathrm{Diff}^\infty_{\mathrm{vol}}(\mathbb{T}^3)$ with a contracting center direction: $f$ is $C^\infty$-rigid if and only if both $E^s$ and $E^c$ exhibit H\"older exponents exceeding the expected threshold. Specifically, we prove: If the H\"older exponent of $E^s$ exceeds the expected value, then $E^s$ is $C^{1+}$ and $E^u \oplus E^s$ is jointly integrable. If the H\"older exponent of $E^c$ exceeds the expected value, then $W^c$ forms a $C^{1+}$ foliation. If $E^s$ (or $E^c$) does not exhibit excessive H\"older regularity, it must have a fractal graph. These and related results originate from a general non-fractal invariance principle: for a skew product $F$ over a partially hyperbolic system $f$, if $F$ expands fibers more weakly than $f$ along $W^u_f$ in the base, then for any $F$-invariant section, if $\Phi$ has no a fractal graph, then it is smooth along $W^u_f$ and holonomy-invariant. Motivated by these findings, we propose a new conjecture on the stable fractal or stable smooth behavior of invariant distributions in typical partially hyperbolic diffeomorphisms.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.19665 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The space of smooth partially hyperbolic systems: the bunch￾ing region is open, the fractal region is conjectured to be open, and the critical part and rigid part are conjectured to have no interior. To present this answer more rigorously, we introduce the definition of fractal graphs. Remark 1.2. It is worth noting that there are examples neither in the bunching region nor the fractal region: the strong stable (uns… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

72 extracted references · 69 canonical work pages

  1. [48]

    Jiang, Ya

    M. Jiang, Ya. B. Pesin, and R. de la Llave. On the integrability of intermediate distributions for Anosov diffeomorphisms. Ergodic Theory Dynam. Systems , 15(2):317–331, 1995

    work page 1995

  2. [1]

    Alvarez, M

    S. Alvarez, M. Leguil, D. Obata, and B. Santiago. Rigidity of u-gibbs measures near conservative Anosov diffeomorphisms on T3. J. Eur. Math. Soc. (JEMS) , published online first, 2024

    work page 2024

  3. [2]

    D. V. Anosov. Geodesic flows on closed Riemannian manifolds of negative curvature. Trudy Mat. Inst. Steklov. , 90:209, 1967

    1967

  4. [3]

    A. Avez. Anosov diffeomorphisms. In Topological Dynamics (Symposium, Colorado State Univ., Ft. Collins, Colo., 1967) , pages 17–51. W. A. Benjamin, Inc., New York-Amsterdam, 1968

    work page 1967

  5. [4]

    Avila, M

    A. Avila, M. Viana, and A. Wilkinson. Absolute continuity, Lyapunov exponents and rigidity I: geodesic flows. J. Eur. Math. Soc. (JEMS) , 17(6):1435–1462, 2015

    work page 2015

  6. [5]

    Avila, M

    A. Avila, M. Viana, and A. Wilkinson. Absolute continuity, Lyapunov exponents, and rigidity II: systems with compact center leaves. Ergodic Theory Dynam. Systems , 42(2):437–490, 2022

    work page 2022

  7. [6]

    B´ ar´ any, M

    B. B´ ar´ any, M. Hochman, and A. Rapaport. Hausdorff dimension of planar self-affine sets and mea- sures. Invent. Math. , 216(3):601–659, 2019

    work page 2019

  8. [7]

    T. Bedford. The box dimension of self-affine graphs and repellers. Nonlinearity, 2(1):53–71, 1989

    work page 1989

Show all 72 references
  1. [8]

    Benoist and F

    Y. Benoist and F. Labourie. Sur les diff´ eomorphismes d’Anosov affines ` a feuilletages stable et instable diff´ erentiables.Invent. Math. , 111(2):285–308, 1993

    1993

  2. [9]

    R. Bowen. Hausdorff dimension of quasicircles. Inst. Hautes ´Etudes Sci. Publ. Math. , (50):11–25, 1979

    1979

  3. [10]

    M. Brin, D. Burago, and S. Ivanov. Dynamical coherence of partially hyperbolic diffeomorphisms of the 3-torus. J. Mod. Dyn. , 3(1):1–11, 2009

    2009

  4. [11]

    Burns and A

    K. Burns and A. Wilkinson. Dynamical coherence and center bunching. Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst., 22(1-2):89–100, 2008

    2008

  5. [12]

    Crovisier and R

    B. Crovisier and R. Potire. Introduction to partially hyperbolic dynamics. School on Dynamical Systems, ICTP, Trieste, 2015

    2015

  6. [13]

    de la Llave

    R. de la Llave. Smooth conjugacy and S-R-B measures for uniformly and non-uniformly hyperbolic systems. Comm. Math. Phys. , 150(2):289–320, 1992

    1992

  7. [14]

    de la Llave, J

    R. de la Llave, J. Marco, and R. Moriy´ on. Invariants for smooth conjugacy of hyperbolic dynamical systems. I-IV. Comm. Math. Phys. , 109,112,116, 1987-1988

    1987

  8. [15]

    J. Dewitt. Local Lyapunov spectrum rigidity of nilmanifold automorphisms. J. Mod. Dyn. , 17:65– 109, 2021

    2021

  9. [16]

    Dewitt and A

    J. Dewitt and A. Gogolev. Dominated splitting from constant periodic data and global rigidity of Anosov automorphisms. Geom. Funct. Anal., 2024

    2024

  10. [17]

    L. J. D ´ ıaz, K. Gelfert, M. Gr¨ oger, and T. J¨ ager. Hyperbolic graphs: critical regularity and box dimension. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. , 371(12):8535–8585, 2019

    2019

  11. [18]

    Falconer

    K. Falconer. Fractal geometry. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., Chichester, 1990. Mathematical foundations and applications

    1990

  12. [19]

    K. J. Falconer. The Hausdorff dimension of self-affine fractals. Math. Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc. , 103(2):339–350, 1988

    1988

  13. [20]

    T. Fisher. Thesis. Available online at http://www.etda.libraries.psu.edu/theses/approved/WorldWideFiles/ETD- 1174/fisher-thesis-draft.pdf. PennState, 2006. , 2006

    2006

  14. [21]

    Flaminio and A

    L. Flaminio and A. Katok. Rigidity of symplectic Anosov diffeomorphisms on low-dimensional tori. Ergodic Theory Dynam. Systems , 11(3):427–441, 1991

    1991

  15. [22]

    Foulon and B

    P. Foulon and B. Hasselblatt. Zygmund strong foliations. Israel J. Math. , 138:157–169, 2003

    2003

  16. [23]

    J. Franks. Anosov diffeomorphisms on tori. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. , 145:117–124, 1969

    1969

  17. [24]

    Gan and Y

    S. Gan and Y. Shi. Rigidity of center Lyapunov exponents and su-integrability. Comment. Math. Helv., 95(3):569–592, 2020

    2020

  18. [25]

    ´E. Ghys. Rigidit´ e diff´ erentiable des groupes fuchsiens. Inst. Hautes ´Etudes Sci. Publ. Math. , (78):163–185, 1993. FRACTAL VS REGULARITY AND RIGIDITY 23

    1993

  19. [26]

    A. Gogolev. Smooth conjugacy of Anosov diffeomorphisms on higher-dimensional tori. J. Mod. Dyn., 2(4):645–700, 2008

    2008

  20. [27]

    A. Gogolev. Diffeomorphisms H¨ older conjugate to anosov diffeomorphisms. Ergodic Theory and Dynamical Systems, 30(2):441–456, 2010

    2010

  21. [28]

    A. Gogolev. How typical are pathological foliations in partially hyperbolic dynamics: an example. Israel J. Math. , 187:493–507, 2012

    2012

  22. [29]

    A. Gogolev. Bootstrap for local rigidity of Anosov automorphisms on the 3-torus. Comm. Math. Phys., 352(2):439–455, 2017

    2017

  23. [30]

    Gogolev and M

    A. Gogolev and M. Guysinsky. C 1-differentiable conjugacy of Anosov diffeomorphisms on three dimensional torus. Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst. , 22(1-2):183–200, 2008

    2008

  24. [31]

    Gogolev, B

    A. Gogolev, B. Kalinin, and V. Sadovskaya. Local rigidity for Anosov automorphisms. Math. Res. Lett., 18(5):843–858, 2011. With an appendix by Rafael de la Llave

    2011

  25. [32]

    Gogolev, B

    A. Gogolev, B. Kalinin, and V. Sadovskaya. Local rigidity of Lyapunov spectrum for toral automor- phisms. Israel J. Math. , 238(1):389–403, 2020

    2020

  26. [33]

    R. Gu. Smooth stable foliations of Anosov diffeomorphisms. arXiv:2310.19088, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  27. [34]

    Hadjiloucas, M

    D. Hadjiloucas, M. Nicol, and C. Walkden. Regularity of invariant graphs over hyperbolic systems. Ergodic theory and Dynamical systems , 22(2):469–482, 2002

    2002

  28. [35]

    Hammerlindl and Y

    A. Hammerlindl and Y. Shi. Accessibility of derived-from-Anosov systems. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 374(4):2949–2966, 2021

    2021

  29. [36]

    Hasselblatt

    B. Hasselblatt. Bootstrapping regularity of the Anosov splitting. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. , 115(3):817–819, 1992

    1992

  30. [37]

    Hasselblatt

    B. Hasselblatt. Regularity of the Anosov splitting and of horospheric foliations. Ergodic Theory Dynam. Systems , 14(4):645–666, 1994

    1994

  31. [38]

    Hasselblatt

    B. Hasselblatt. Regularity of the Anosov splitting. II. Ergodic Theory Dynam. Systems , 17(1):169– 172, 1997

    1997

  32. [39]

    Hasselblatt

    B. Hasselblatt. Critical regularity of invariant foliations. Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst. , 8(4):931–937, 2002

    2002

  33. [40]

    Hasselblatt and A

    B. Hasselblatt and A. Wilkinson. Prevalence of non-Lipschitz Anosov foliations. Ergodic Theory Dynam. Systems , 19(3):643–656, 1999

    1999

  34. [41]

    Hirayama and Y

    M. Hirayama and Y. Pesin. Non-absolutely continuous foliations. Israel J. Math., 160:173–187, 2007

    2007

  35. [42]

    M. W. Hirsch, C. C. Pugh, and M. Shub. Invariant manifolds , volume Vol. 583 of Lecture Notes in Mathematics. Springer-Verlag, Berlin-New York, 1977

    1977

  36. [43]

    M. Hochman. On self-similar sets with overlaps and inverse theorems for entropy. Ann. of Math. (2), 180(2):773–822, 2014

    2014

  37. [44]

    Hochman and A

    M. Hochman and A. Rapaport. Hausdorff dimension of planar self-affine sets and measures with overlaps. J. Eur. Math. Soc. (JEMS) , 24(7):2361–2441, 2022

    2022

  38. [45]

    E. Hopf. Statistik der geod¨ atischen Linien in Mannigfaltigkeiten negativer Kr¨ ummung.Ber. Verh. S¨ achs. Akad. Wiss. Leipzig Math.-Phys. Kl., 91:261–304, 1939

    1939

  39. [46]

    Hu and K

    T. Hu and K. Lau. Fractal dimensions and singularities of the Weierstrass type functions. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. , 335(2):649–665, 1993

    1993

  40. [47]

    Hurder and A

    S. Hurder and A. Katok. Differentiability, rigidity and Godbillon-Vey classes for Anosov flows. Inst. Hautes ´Etudes Sci. Publ. Math. , (72):5–61, 1990

    1990

  41. [49]

    Y. Jiao, J. Li, W. Pan, and D. Xu. On the dimension of limit sets on P(R3) via stationary measures: variational principles and applications. IMRN, 2024(19):13015–13045, 2024

    2024

  42. [50]

    Journ´ e

    J.-L. Journ´ e. A regularity lemma for functions of several variables. Rev. Mat. Iberoamericana , 4(2):187–193, 1988

    1988

  43. [51]

    B. Kalinin. Livˇ sic theorem for matrix cocycles. Ann. of Math. (2) , 173(2):1025–1042, 2011

    2011

  44. [52]

    Kalinin and V

    B. Kalinin and V. Sadovskaya. On Anosov diffeomorphisms with asymptotically conformal periodic data. Ergodic Theory Dynam. Systems , 29(1):117–136, 2009

    2009

  45. [53]

    Kalinin, V

    B. Kalinin, V. Sadovskaya, and Z. Wang. Smooth local rigidity for hyperbolic toral automorphisms. Commun. Am. Math. Soc. , 3:290–328, 2023

    2023

  46. [54]

    Kalinin, V

    B. Kalinin, V. Sadovskaya, and Z. Wang. Global smooth rigidity for toral automorphisms. arXiv:2407.13877, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Kaplan, J

    J.L. Kaplan, J. Mallet-Paret, and J.A. Yorke. The Lyapunov dimension of a nowhere differentiable attracting torus. Ergodic Theory Dynam. Systems , 4(2):261–281, 1984. 24 DISHENG XU AND JIESONG ZHANG

    1984

  48. [56]

    Katok and B

    A. Katok and B. Hasselblatt. Introduction to the modern theory of dynamical systems , volume 54 of Encyclopedia of Mathematics and its Applications . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1995

    1995

  49. [57]

    J. Li, W. Pan, and D. Xu. On the dimension of limit sets on P(R3) via stationary measures: the theory and applications. 2311.10265, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  50. [58]

    A. Manning. There are no new Anosov diffeomorphisms on tori. Amer. J. Math. , 96:422–429, 1974

    1974

  51. [59]

    P. Mattila. Geometry of sets and measures in Euclidean spaces: Fractals and rectifiability, volume 44 of Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1995

    1995

  52. [60]

    J. Milnor. Fubini foiled: Katok’s paradoxical example in measure theory. The Mathematical Intelli- gencer, 19(2):30–32, 1997

    1997

  53. [61]

    R. Potrie. Partial hyperbolicity and foliations in T3. J. Mod. Dyn. , 9:81–121, 2015

    2015

  54. [62]

    C. Pugh, M. Shub, and A. Wilkinson. H¨ older foliations. Duke Math. J. , 86(3):517–546, 1997

    1997

  55. [63]

    C. Pugh, M. Shub, and A. Wilkinson. H¨ older foliations, revisited. J. Mod. Dyn. , 6(1):79–120, 2012

    2012

  56. [64]

    Rapaport

    A. Rapaport. On self-affine measures associated to strongly irreducible and proximal systems. Adv. Math., 449:Paper No. 109734, 116, 2024

    2024

  57. [65]

    Ren and W

    H. Ren and W. Shen. A dichotomy for the Weierstrass-type functions. Invent. Math. , 226(3):1057– 1100, 2021

    2021

  58. [66]

    Y. Ren, S. Gan, and P. Zhang. Accessibility and homology bounded strong unstable foliation for Anosov diffeomorphisms on 3-torus. Acta Math. Sin. (Engl. Ser.) , 33(1):71–76, 2017

    2017

  59. [67]

    Rodriguez Hertz, M

    F. Rodriguez Hertz, M. Rodriguez Hertz, and R. Ures. A survey of partially hyperbolic dynamics. In Partially hyperbolic dynamics, laminations, and Teichm¨ uller flow , volume 51 of Fields Inst. Commun., pages 35–87. Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2007

    2007

  60. [68]

    Saghin and Z

    R. Saghin and Z. Xia. Geometric expansion, Lyapunov exponents and foliations. Ann. Inst. H. Poincar´ e C Anal. Non Lin´ eaire, 26(2):689–704, 2009

    2009

  61. [69]

    Saghin and J

    R. Saghin and J. Yang. Lyapunov exponents and rigidity of Anosov automorphisms and skew prod- ucts. Adv. Math., 355:106764, 45, 2019

    2019

  62. [70]

    W. Shen. Hausdorff dimension of the graphs of the classical Weierstrass functions. Math. Z., 289(1- 2):223–266, 2018

    2018

  63. [71]

    Shub and A

    M. Shub and A. Wilkinson. Pathological foliations and removable zero exponents. Invent. Math. , 139(3):495–508, 2000

    2000

  64. [72]

    R. Var˜ ao. Center foliation: absolute continuity, disintegration and rigidity.Ergodic Theory Dynam. Systems, 36(1):256–275, 2016. School of Science, Great Bay University and Great bay institute for advanced study, Songshan Lake International Innovation Entrepreneurship Commun...

    2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.