Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 43 references

Determining subgroups via stationary measures

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper proves that non-singular stationary measures on the boundary of an isometry-group action force the subgroups generated by the random walks to be commensurable, in hyperbolic, Teichmüller, and fibered 3-manifold settings.

desk verdict A genuinely new commensurability rigidity theorem via stationary measures, with a coherent abstract proof and strong applications; the main repair before publication is justifying the semigroup-to-group extension of Maher–Tiozzo in §2.4.1. read the letter →

arxiv 2512.12966 v4 pith:OVGDJONJ submitted 2025-12-15 math.GT math.DSmath.GRmath.PR

Dongryul M. Kim , Andrew Zimmer This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.GTmath.DSmath.GRmath.PR MSC 20F6560B1537A5030F4057K32
keywords stationarymeasuresrandomwalksongroupscommensurabilityrigidityhyperbolicmetricspacesTeichmüllerspacemappingclassfibered3-manifoldsquasi-geodesictracking
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 establish a general rigidity principle: for random walks on groups acting by isometries on suitable metric spaces, the stationary measure—the probability law of where a random walk lands on the boundary—determines the subgroup generated by the walk's step distribution up to commensurability. Concretely, if two probability measures have finite first moment, positive linear drift, are 'well-behaved' with respect to a chosen boundary and a family of quasi-geodesics, and if their forward hitting measures are not mutually singular, then the subgroups generated by their supports share a finite-index subgroup. The authors verify the hypotheses in three settings: hyperbolic metric spaces, the space of marked hyperbolic structures on a closed surface (Teichmüller space) with the mapping class group, and fibered hyperbolic 3-manifolds. In those settings they conclude that stationary measures can distinguish subgroups that classical limit-set theory cannot, for instance different fiber subgroups of a hyperbolic 3-manifold that share the full sphere at infinity. A reader should care because random-walk boundaries become a finer, measurable invariant of group structure than topological limit sets, while the proof reduces the rigidity to two tracking statements about quasi-geodesics and sample paths.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing objects are the 'well-behaved' axioms (W1)–(W5) for a probability measure on the isometry group with respect to a bordification and a G-equivariant assignment P of quasi-geodesics to boundary pairs; the engine of the argument is the pair of tracking theorems, Theorem 3.1 (random walks track quasi-geodesics) and Theorem 4.1 (quasi-geodesics track random walks). These convert non-singularity of boundary measures into a quantitative statement about how often one random walk visits a bounded neighborhood of the other subgroup's orbit. The final step is a finite stationary measure on the coset space $H_2\backslash G$: a positive lower bound on the visit frequency yields a weak-* limit measure

What would settle it

Look for a failure of the cited convergence theorem: if one can exhibit a probability measure on a non-elementary metrically proper subgroup of the isometry group of a hyperbolic space, with support generating the subgroup as a group and a semigroup containing two independent loxodromics, but whose hitting measure is atomic or whose random walk fails to converge to a point on the boundary at infinity, then the asserted extension used in Section 2.4.1 is false and Theorem 1.2 collapses for that case. Alternatively, attempt to construct two measures satisfying all the hypotheses of Theorem 2.1—f

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim, stated as Theorem 2.1 and re-proved as Theorem 5.1, is that under the paper's 'well-behaved' axioms—finite first moment for the metric, positive linear drift, convergence of generic sample paths to boundary points, non-atomic backward hitting measure, and a matching of boundary pairs to quasi-geodesics—non-singularity of the two forward hitting measures forces the subgroups generated by the step distributions to be commensurable. The proof passes through two complementary ergodic statements: a generic random walk spends most of its time near a quasi-geodesic joining its past and future boundary points, and, conversely, such a quasi-geodesic spends most of its time near the

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is the unproved assertion, made in Section 2.4.1, that a cited convergence-and-non-atomicity theorem for random walks on hyperbolic spaces remains true when the support generates the subgroup only as a group rather than as a semigroup, as long as the semigroup generated by the support contains two independent loxodromic isometries; if this extension fails, the hyperbolic-space case (Theorem 1.2) no longer follows from the general theorem, even though

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In any separable hyperbolic metric space with metrically proper action, non-elementary subgroups generated by the supports of two finite-first-moment measures are commensurable whenever their stationary boundary measures are not singular (Theorem 1.2).
  • A non-elementary infinite-index subgroup of a hyperbolic group carries a stationary measure on the boundary that is mutually singular with the stationary measure of the ambient group (Corollary 1.3).
  • For a hyperbolic 3-manifold fibering over the circle, stationary measures attached to different fiber subgroups are mutually singular, so random-walk data detects the fibration (Corollary 1.4).
  • The pushforward of a fiber subgroup's stationary measure through the space-filling boundary map is singular to the ambient 3-manifold's stationary measure (Corollary 1.5).
  • In the mapping class group setting, non-elementary subgroups with non-singular stationary measures on the projective measured-foliation boundary are commensurable; in particular the subgroup acting trivially on first homology is distinguished from the ambient mapping class group (Theorem 1.8 and Corollary 1.10).

Reading between the lines

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

  • An implicit upshot is that stationary measures function as a random-walk fingerprint: any measurable boundary invariant satisfying the well-behaved axioms should separate subgroups even when their topological limit sets coincide, suggesting the theorem extends to other boundaries such as those of relatively hyperbolic groups, which the paper touches on only in a corollary.
  • The proof's quantitative core—a positive fraction of time spent near the other group's orbit—suggests a measurable strengthening: the degree of overlap between the two stationary measures should control the index of the intersection, yielding an effective commensurability bound that the paper does not pursue.
  • A natural test bed is CAT(0) or cubical settings, where quasi-geodesic tracking is weaker; if the axioms can be verified there, the same rigidity would distinguish subgroups of cube complexes or right-angled Artin groups that share visual boundaries.
  • The moment-necessity examples in Section 6 imply the result sits at a sharp threshold: dropping the first-moment condition creates normal-subgroup counterexamples with identical stationary measures, so any relaxation must add conditions on the subgroup or the quotient rather than only on the step distribution.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proves a general rigidity theorem (Theorem 2.1, restated as Theorem 5.1): if two probability measures on a countable group G acting metrically properly on a geodesic bordified space satisfy finite first moment, positive linear drift, and a list of 'well-behaved' hypotheses, and if their forward hitting measures on the boundary are not singular, then the subgroups generated by their supports are commensurable. The proof is built from two tracking theorems (random walks track quasi-geodesics and conversely), followed by a quotient argument that produces a finite set of cosets H2\G on which a stationary measure is supported. The paper then verifies the hypotheses in two main settings: separable Gromov hyperbolic spaces (via Maher–Tiozzo, Gouëzel, and DSU) and Teichmüller spaces (via Kaimanovich–Masur, Tiozzo, and Masur). Applications include commensurability rigidity for hyperbolic groups, singularity of stationary measures for different fiber subgroups of fibered hyperbolic 3-manifolds, Cannon–Thurston map singularity, and singularity for the Torelli group. Section 6 gives examples showing that the first-moment assumption is necessary.

Significance. If the hyperbolic verification is completed, the abstract theorem is a strong and general principle: stationary measures determine subgroups up to commensurability across several major settings. The core argument is clear, self-contained, and appears sound: the tracking theorems are proved in detail, and the reduction to finiteness of H2\H2H1 via a stationary measure on the quotient is elegant. The paper is honest about its external inputs and does not rely on fitted parameters or circular reasoning. The main caveat is that the connection between the abstract theorem and the hyperbolic applications depends on a semigroup-to-group assertion for the Maher–Tiozzo theorem that is stated but not demonstrated in §2.4.1. This is load-bearing for Theorem 1.2 and its corollaries.

major comments (2)
  1. [§2.4.1] The verification that a hyperbolic random walk is well-behaved is load-bearing for Theorems 1.2 and Corollaries 1.3–1.5. The text asserts two statements in quick succession: (i) if the support of m generates a non-elementary group G acting metrically properly, then the semigroup ⟨supp m⟩^+ contains two independent loxodromic isometries, cited to [DSU17, Thm 6.2.3, Prop 6.2.14]; and (ii) Maher–Tiozzo's theorem applies even though the support is only assumed to generate a group, with the parenthetical remark that 'the proof of this statement works without the assumption that G is generated by supp m as a semigroup.' For (i), the relevant DSU statements are not quoted, so the reader cannot check the implication. For (ii), the paper explicitly presents the group-generated case as an extension of [MT18, Thm 1.1], but gives no proof or precise location in [MT18] where the semigroup assumption
  2. [§5.1 (proof of Lemma 5.2)] In passing from Equation (7) to Equation (9), the text says 'Then by Property (W5), for any g∈E and any σ...' Property (W5) is stated only for ν-a.e. y^+. The set E should be chosen to avoid the (W5) null set, in the same way that it is already chosen to intersect the set E′. This is a small fix, but as written it is an omitted null-set handling in a delicate part of the proof.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§6, Proposition 6.1] The assertion that the first-return measure m′ has support generating H as a group is stated without proof. A short induction on word length in the generating set of G would make the argument transparent and is probably expected.
  2. [§2.4.1] The sentence 'Gouëzel proved ℓ(m)>0 [Gou22, Theorem 1.1]' should explicitly note that the theorem is being applied under the same semigroup non-elementarity condition established for Maher–Tiozzo. Otherwise the reader may wonder whether an extra hypothesis is being imported.
  3. [§5.1] At the end of Lemma 5.2's proof, 'replacing E with its image under the projection G^Z → G^N' should note explicitly that the positive m1^N-measure property is preserved; this is immediate from the construction but worth spelling out.
  4. [Throughout] There are several typographical spacing artifacts (e.g., 'T eichm' in the introduction, 'P roposition' in Section 6, 'Gou¨ ezel' in the references). These should be cleaned up in revision.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the main derivation is self-contained; the flagged hyperbolic gap is an unproved external extension, not a circular step.

full rationale

The central result (Theorem 2.1 / Theorem 5.1) is proved from the paper's own axioms: the well-behaved conditions (W1)-(W5), finite first moment, positive linear drift, and metric properness. Non-singularity of the forward hitting measures is an input, and commensurability of the support-generated subgroups is derived through the tracking theorems (Theorems 3.1 and 4.1) and the finite-index argument in Section 5; it is not assumed or defined into the conclusion. The hitting measures are defined from the random walks, not from the target subgroups, and there are no fitted parameters or predictions that reduce to their inputs by construction. The applications invoke independent external results (Maher-Tiozzo, Kaimanovich-Masur, Gouëzel, Masur, Ballmann-Ledrappier, etc.), none of which are by the present authors, so there is no self-citation chain carrying the argument. The one substantive concern, flagged in Section 2.4.1, is the assertion that Maher-Tiozzo's proof extends from semigroup-generated to group-generated measures without a supplied proof or precise citation; that is a correctness or rigor gap in an external-theorem application, not circularity. Accordingly, the appropriate circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 10 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper relies on standard external theorems for existence and uniqueness of stationary measures, boundary support, quasi-geodesic stability, and positive drift. No free parameters are fitted; all constants are existential choices in the proofs. The only non-external load-bearing assertion is the extension of Maher–Tiozzo to group-generated measures, which is flagged.

assumptions (10)
  • standard math Maher–Tiozzo [MT18, Thm 1.1]: a probability measure whose semigroup contains two independent loxodromics has a unique stationary measure on the Gromov boundary, equal to the hitting measure.
    Invoked in Section 2.4.1 to establish (W1) and (W2) for hyperbolic spaces.
  • ad hoc to paper The same [MT18] conclusion remains true when the support generates a non-elementary group rather than a semigroup, provided the semigroup contains two independent loxodromics.
    Asserted in Section 2.4.1 without proof or precise citation; load-bearing for Theorem 1.2's group-generation hypothesis.
  • standard math DSU17 [Theorem 6.2.3, Proposition 6.2.14]: in a metrically proper non-elementary action, any subsemigroup with unbounded orbit contains two independent loxodromic isometries.
    Used in Section 2.4.1 to reduce the group-generated condition to a semigroup condition.
  • standard math Morse lemma / quasi-geodesic stability in Gromov hyperbolic spaces: (1,K)-quasi-geodesics with the same endpoints are at bounded Hausdorff distance, and points along them converge to the endpoints.
    Establishes (W3)–(W5) in the hyperbolic setting.
  • standard math Kaimanovich–Masur [KM96]: for non-elementary subgroups of Mod(S), the stationary measure on PMF exists, is unique, equals the hitting measure, and is supported on uniquely ergodic foliations.
    Used in Section 2.4.2 to verify (W1), (W2), and support properties for Teichmüller space.
  • standard math Masur [Mas80]: Teichmüller geodesic rays with the same uniquely ergodic endpoint are eventually within bounded Hausdorff distance.
    Used in Section 2.4.2 to establish (W5).
  • standard math Gouëzel [Gou22] and Tiozzo [Tio15]: finite first moment implies positive linear drift for non-elementary random walks on hyperbolic spaces and Teichmüller space.
    Theorem 5.1 requires positive linear drift.
  • standard math Benoist–Quint [BQ16, Lemmas 2.17 and 2.19]: martingale convergence for stationary measures.
    Used in the proof of Proposition 6.1.
  • standard math Chung–Fuchs [CF51]: simple random walk on Z and Z^2 is recurrent.
    Used in Lemma 6.2 to show the first return time to a normal subgroup with quotient Z or Z^2 is finite almost surely.
  • domain assumption Distinct fiber subgroups of a fibered hyperbolic 3-manifold are non-commensurable, since each is the kernel of a distinct homomorphism to Z.
    Needed for Corollary 1.4; standard but not proved in the paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Determining subgroups via stationary measures." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OVGDJONJ

@misc{pith2026251212966,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Determining subgroups via stationary measures},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OVGDJONJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2512.12966}
}
read the original abstract

In this paper, we consider random walks on the isometry groups of general metric spaces. Under some mild conditions, we show that if two non-elementary random walks on a discrete subgroup of the isometry group have non-singular stationary measures, then subgroups generated by the random walks are commensurable. This result in particular applies to Gromov hyperbolic spaces and Teichm\"uller spaces. As a specific application, we prove singularity between stationary measures associated to random walks on different fiber subgroups of the fundamental group of a hyperbolic 3-manifold fibering over the circle.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Tameness of hyperbolic 3-manifolds

    Ian Agol. Tameness of hyperbolic 3-manifolds. arXiv preprint math/0405568 , 2004

    arXiv 2004

  2. [2]

    The virtual H aken conjecture

    Ian Agol. The virtual H aken conjecture. Doc. Math. , 18:1045--1087, 2013. With an appendix by Agol, Daniel Groves, and Jason Manning

    2013

  3. [3]

    Anderson

    James W. Anderson. Intersections of analytically and geometrically finite subgroups of K leinian groups. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. , 343(1):87--98, 1994

    1994

  4. [4]

    Some asymptotic properties of random walks on homogeneous spaces

    Timoth\'ee B \'e nard. Some asymptotic properties of random walks on homogeneous spaces. J. Mod. Dyn. , 19:161--186, 2023

    2023

  5. [5]

    Bridson and Andr\'e Haefliger

    Martin R. Bridson and Andr\'e Haefliger. Metric spaces of non-positive curvature , volume 319 of Grundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften [Fundamental Principles of Mathematical Sciences] . Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1999

    1999

  6. [6]

    Discretization of positive harmonic functions on R iemannian manifolds and M artin boundary

    Werner Ballmann and Fran c ois Ledrappier. Discretization of positive harmonic functions on R iemannian manifolds and M artin boundary. In Actes de la T able R onde de G \'eom\'etrie D iff\'erentielle ( L uminy, 1992) , volume 1 of S\'emin. Congr. , pages 77--92. Soc. Math. France, Paris, 1996

    1992

  7. [7]

    Random walks on reductive groups , volume 62 of Ergebnisse der Mathematik und ihrer Grenzgebiete

    Yves Benoist and Jean-Fran c ois Quint. Random walks on reductive groups , volume 62 of Ergebnisse der Mathematik und ihrer Grenzgebiete. 3. Folge. A Series of Modern Surveys in Mathematics [Results in Mathematics and Related Areas. 3rd Series. A Series of Modern Surveys in Mathematics] . Springer, Cham, 2016

    2016

  8. [8]

    Richard D. Canary. Ends of hyperbolic 3 -manifolds. J. Amer. Math. Soc. , 6(1):1--35, 1993

    1993

Show all 43 references
  1. [9]

    K. L. Chung and W. H. J. Fuchs. On the distribution of values of sums of random variables. Mem. Amer. Math. Soc. , 6:12, 1951

    1951

  2. [10]

    Shrinkwrapping and the taming of hyperbolic 3-manifolds

    Danny Calegari and David Gabai. Shrinkwrapping and the taming of hyperbolic 3-manifolds. J. Amer. Math. Soc. , 19(2):385--446, 2006

    2006

  3. [11]

    Harmonicity of G ibbs measures

    Chris Connell and Roman Muchnik. Harmonicity of G ibbs measures. Duke Math. J. , 137(3):461--509, 2007

    2007

  4. [12]

    Harmonicity of quasiconformal measures and P oisson boundaries of hyperbolic spaces

    Chris Connell and Roman Muchnik. Harmonicity of quasiconformal measures and P oisson boundaries of hyperbolic spaces. Geom. Funct. Anal. , 17(3):707--769, 2007

    2007

  5. [13]

    Cannon and William P

    James W. Cannon and William P. Thurston. Group invariant P eano curves. Geom. Topol. , 11:1315--1355, 2007

    2007

  6. [14]

    Geometry and dynamics in G romov hyperbolic metric spaces , volume 218 of Mathematical Surveys and Monographs

    Tushar Das, David Simmons, and Mariusz Urba\'nski. Geometry and dynamics in G romov hyperbolic metric spaces , volume 218 of Mathematical Surveys and Monographs . American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2017. With an emphasis on non-proper settings

    2017

  7. [15]

    Earle and Irwin Kra

    Clifford J. Earle and Irwin Kra. On holomorphic mappings between T eichm\"uller spaces. In Contributions to analysis (a collection of papers dedicated to L ipman B ers) , pages 107--124. Academic Press, New York-London, 1974

    1974

  8. [16]

    Earle and Irwin Kra

    Clifford J. Earle and Irwin Kra. On isometries between T eichm\"uller spaces. Duke Math. J. , 41:583--591, 1974

    1974

  9. [17]

    In preparation

    Alex Eskin, Maryam Mirzakhani, and Kasra Rafi. In preparation

  10. [18]

    Travaux de T hurston sur les surfaces , volume 66 of Ast\' e risque

    Albert Fathi, Fran \'c ois Laudenbach, and Valentin Po \'e naru. Travaux de T hurston sur les surfaces , volume 66 of Ast\' e risque . Soci\' e t\' e Math\' e matique de France, Paris, 1979. S\' e minaire Orsay, With an English summary

    1979

  11. [19]

    The geometry of cross sections to flows

    David Fried. The geometry of cross sections to flows. Topology , 21(4):353--371, 1982

    1982

  12. [20]

    Singularity of C annon- T hurston maps

    Vaibhav Gadre, Joseph Maher, Catherine Pfaff, and Caglar Uyanik. Singularity of C annon- T hurston maps. arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.04350 , 2025

    2025 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Word length statistics for T eichm\"uller geodesics and singularity of harmonic measure

    Vaibhav Gadre, Joseph Maher, and Giulio Tiozzo. Word length statistics for T eichm\"uller geodesics and singularity of harmonic measure. Comment. Math. Helv. , 92(1):1--36, 2017

    2017

  14. [22]

    Exponential bounds for random walks on hyperbolic spaces without moment conditions

    S\'ebastien Gou\"ezel. Exponential bounds for random walks on hyperbolic spaces without moment conditions. Tunis. J. Math. , 4(4):635--671, 2022

    2022

  15. [23]

    Nikolai V. Ivanov. Isometries of T eichm\"uller spaces from the point of view of M ostow rigidity. In Topology, ergodic theory, real algebraic geometry , volume 202 of Amer. Math. Soc. Transl. Ser. 2 , pages 131--149. Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2001

    2001

  16. [24]

    Kaimanovich

    Vadim A. Kaimanovich. The P oisson formula for groups with hyperbolic properties. Ann. of Math. (2) , 152(3):659--692, 2000

    2000

  17. [25]

    Boundaries of hyperbolic groups

    Ilya Kapovich and Nadia Benakli. Boundaries of hyperbolic groups. In Combinatorial and geometric group theory ( N ew Y ork, 2000/ H oboken, NJ , 2001) , volume 296 of Contemp. Math. , pages 39--93. Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2002

    2000

  18. [26]

    Cannon- T hurston fibers for iwip automorphisms of F_N

    Ilya Kapovich and Martin Lustig. Cannon- T hurston fibers for iwip automorphisms of F_N . J. Lond. Math. Soc. (2) , 91(1):203--224, 2015

    2015

  19. [27]

    Kaimanovich and Howard Masur

    Vadim A. Kaimanovich and Howard Masur. The P oisson boundary of the mapping class group. Invent. Math. , 125(2):221--264, 1996

    1996

  20. [28]

    Lawler and Vlada Limic

    Gregory F. Lawler and Vlada Limic. Random walk: a modern introduction , volume 123 of Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2010

    2010

  21. [29]

    Function theory, random paths and covering spaces

    Terry Lyons and Dennis Sullivan. Function theory, random paths and covering spaces. J. Differential Geom. , 19(2):299--323, 1984

    1984

  22. [30]

    Uniquely ergodic quadratic differentials

    Howard Masur. Uniquely ergodic quadratic differentials. Comment. Math. Helv. , 55(2):255--266, 1980

    1980

  23. [31]

    Cannon- T hurston maps for hyperbolic group extensions

    Mahan Mitra. Cannon- T hurston maps for hyperbolic group extensions. Topology , 37(3):527--538, 1998

    1998

  24. [32]

    Dynamics on T hurston's sphere of projective measured foliations

    John McCarthy and Athanase Papadopoulos. Dynamics on T hurston's sphere of projective measured foliations. Comment. Math. Helv. , 64(1):133--166, 1989

    1989

  25. [33]

    Random walks on weakly hyperbolic groups

    Joseph Maher and Giulio Tiozzo. Random walks on weakly hyperbolic groups. J. Reine Angew. Math. , 742:187--239, 2018

    2018

  26. [34]

    Surface transformation classes of algebraically finite type

    Jakob Nielsen. Surface transformation classes of algebraically finite type. Danske Vid. Selsk. Mat.-Fys. Medd. , 21(2):89, 1944

    1944

  27. [35]

    H. L. Royden. Automorphisms and isometries of T eichm\"uller space. In Advances in the T heory of R iemann S urfaces ( P roc. C onf., S tony B rook, N . Y ., 1969) , volume No. 66 of Ann. of Math. Stud. , pages 369--383. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ, 1971

    1969

  28. [36]

    Perry Susskind and Gadde A. Swarup. Limit sets of geometrically finite hyperbolic groups. Amer. J. Math. , 114(2):233--250, 1992

    1992

  29. [37]

    Thurston

    William P. Thurston. A norm for the homology of 3 -manifolds. Mem. Amer. Math. Soc. , 59(339):i--vi and 99--130, 1986

    1986

  30. [38]

    Thurston

    William P. Thurston. On the geometry and dynamics of diffeomorphisms of surfaces. Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. (N.S.) , 19(2):417--431, 1988

    1988

  31. [39]

    Sublinear deviation between geodesics and sample paths

    Giulio Tiozzo. Sublinear deviation between geodesics and sample paths. Duke Math. J. , 164(3):511--539, 2015

    2015

  32. [40]

    P. Tukia. A rigidity theorem for M \"obius groups. Invent. Math. , 97(2):405--431, 1989

    1989

  33. [41]

    Daniel T. Wise. Research announcement: the structure of groups with a quasiconvex hierarchy. Electron. Res. Announc. Math. Sci. , 16:44--55, 2009

    2009

  34. [42]

    Daniel T. Wise. The structure of groups with a quasiconvex hierarchy , volume 209 of Annals of Mathematics Studies . Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, [2021] 2021

    2021

  35. [43]

    Limit sets and commensurability of K leinian groups

    Wen-Yuan Yang and Yue-Ping Jiang. Limit sets and commensurability of K leinian groups. Bull. Aust. Math. Soc. , 82(1):1--9, 2010

    2010

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.