Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 54 references

A Sm\"org\aa sbord of (bi)contact structures, Reeb flows and pseudo-Anosov flows

T0 review · 3 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read If a bicontact pair supports an Anosov flow and one side has a bitransverse Anosov Reeb flow, the supported flow is forced to be positively skew and isotopically equivalent to that Reeb flow.

desk verdict A useful, honest invitation/survey whose two new results are plausible but rest on an unproved free-homotopy/cylindrical-leaf dictionary that needs to be supplied or precisely referenced. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.07716 v1 pith:UPJZNH3H submitted 2025-02-11 math.DS math.GT

Thomas Barthelmé This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.DSmath.GT MSC 37D2037C2753D1057R17
keywords AnosovflowsReebbicontactstructuresfreehomotopydataorbitequivalencepseudo-AnosovBirkhoffsectionscontacthomology
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

What is at stake is whether different Reeb flows of the same contact structure must have related dynamics, and how strongly. The note argues that for contact structures tied to Anosov flows the relationship is very strong: the free homotopy data $\mathcal{P}(\phi)$, the set of free homotopy classes of unoriented periodic orbits, is a complete invariant for a large class of Anosov flows, and cylindrical contact homology forces all Reeb-Anosov flows of a fixed Anosov contact structure to share that data. The main new rigidity result says that if a bicontact pair $(\xi_+,\xi_-)$ supports an Anosov flow $X$ and $\xi_+$ admits a bitransverse Anosov Reeb flow $R_+$, then $X$ is positively skew and isotopically equivalent to $R_+$, so the negative side cannot admit a bitransverse Anosov Reeb flow. A second new result shows that every contact structure admitting an Anosov Reeb flow is itself Anosov-supporting, with the supported Anosov flow unique up to orbit equivalence. The note also surveys how these rigidity phenomena might extend to pseudo-Anosov models via Birkhoff sections.

What carries the argument

The argument runs on three connected ideas. A bicontact structure is a pair of transverse contact structures of opposite sign that supports a projectively Anosov flow; a Reeb flow of one side is bitransverse when it stays transverse to both invariant distributions of the supported flow. The free homotopy data $\mathcal{P}(\phi)$ records which free homotopy classes contain an unoriented periodic orbit of $\phi$; for $R$-covered Anosov flows and Anosov flows without transverse tori, equality of these sets is equivalent to isotopy equivalence. The engine of the rigidity theorems is the fact that a skew Anosov flow transverse to a foliation forces the foliation to be $R$-covered and to be a blow-up of the stable or unstable foliation of the flow; carrying the periodic-orbit data through that blow-up, and then through the free-homotopy-data invariant, upgrades equality of periodic orbit sets to a full isotopy equivalence.

What would settle it

Compute the free homotopy data for an Anosov flow whose stable foliation is a topological blow-up of the stable foliation of a skew Anosov flow; if the two sets differ in any concrete example, the dictionary used in Theorem 4.9 is false. More directly, any bicontact pair supporting an Anosov flow $X$ with a bitransverse Anosov Reeb flow $R_+$ for which $X$ is not positively skew, or is not isotopically equivalent to $R_+$, would disprove the theorem.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is rigidity: once a Reeb-Anosov flow appears as one leg of a supporting bicontact pair, it determines the supported flow. Specifically, let $(\xi_+,\xi_-)$ be transverse contact structures of opposite sign supporting an Anosov flow $X$. If $\xi_+$ has a bitransverse Reeb flow $R_+$ that is itself Anosov, then $X$ is positively skew and isotopically equivalent to $R_+$; consequently $\xi_-$ cannot admit a bitransverse Anosov Reeb flow. The companion statement runs in the opposite direction: if $\beta$ is an Anosov contact structure, then $\beta$ is Anosov-supporting, and the Anosov flow supported by the pair $(\beta,\xi_-)$ is isotopically equivalent to the Reeb-Anosov flow of $\beta$, hence unique up to orbit equivalence. Throughout, the free homotopy data $\mathcal{P}(\cdot)$ is the invariant that detects this equivalence, together with the blow-up relation between stable foliations.

Load-bearing premise

The proof of the main rigidity theorem assumes, without proof, that an element of the fundamental group lies in the free homotopy data of an Anosov flow exactly when it is freely homotopic to a closed curve inside a cylindrical leaf of the stable foliation; if that correspondence fails, the equality of free homotopy data used to conclude isotopy equivalence is not established.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If $\xi_+$ admits a bitransverse Anosov Reeb flow, the supporting flow $X$ is forced to be positively skew and isotopically equivalent to $R_+$; it cannot be non-$R$-covered or negatively skew.
  • The same hypothesis rules out a bitransverse Anosov Reeb flow on $\xi_-$, because positively and negatively skew Anosov flows cannot be isotopically equivalent on an oriented manifold.
  • Every Anosov contact structure is Anosov-supporting: the tangential Anosov flow built from the second contact structure is isotopically equivalent to the Reeb-Anosov flow, and is the unique Anosov flow supported by that contact structure up to orbit equivalence.
  • For an Anosov contact structure, the free homotopy data of any nondegenerate Reeb flow contains the free homotopy data of the supported tangential Anosov flow, with equality when the Reeb flow is Anosov.
  • On hyperbolic 3-manifolds, any flow admitting an embedded Birkhoff section has a possibly 1-pronged pseudo-Anosov model, and the model's free homotopy data is contained in the original flow's.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A rigorous proof of the cylindrical-leaf dictionary used in the main rigidity theorem would likely let the same argument work for pseudo-Anosov flows, giving analogous rigidity when a bitransverse Reeb flow is pseudo-Anosov rather than Anosov.
  • Conjecture 4.19 could be tested in known examples by computing the free homotopy data of the two bitransverse Reeb flows and checking the predicted dichotomy, $\mathcal{P}(R_+)=\mathcal{P}(X)$ and $\mathcal{P}(R_-)\cap\mathcal{P}(X)=\emptyset$.
  • The Birkhoff-section construction suggests a practical route to pseudo-Anosov models for Reeb flows: since Birkhoff sections are generic and pseudo-Anosov representatives minimize periodic orbits, the free homotopy data of the model is always a subset of that of the original flow, and uniqueness questions could be probed by comparing these subsets.
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 / 7 minor

Summary. The paper is a proceedings note that surveys and extends recent work on the relationship between Reeb flows of a fixed contact structure and the dynamics of Anosov flows supported by bicontact structures. It recalls the free homotopy data invariant P(φ) and Theorem 3.1, from the author's work with Bowden, Frankel, and Mann, which says that equality of P for two Anosov flows implies isotopic equivalence under R-covered or no-transverse-torus assumptions. The main new results are Theorem 4.9, asserting that if a bitransverse Reeb flow R+ of one contact structure in a supporting bicontact pair is Anosov, then the supported Anosov flow X is positively skew and isotopically equivalent to R+, and Proposition 4.15, asserting that every Anosov contact structure is Anosov-supporting. The paper also contains many questions and conjectures, including a conjectural trichotomy for bicontact pairs and a discussion of pseudo-Anosov models via Birkhoff sections.

Significance. If the new results are correct, Theorem 4.9 is a strong rigidity statement: an Anosov Reeb flow on one side of a supporting bicontact pair completely determines the supported Anosov flow up to isotopic equivalence. Proposition 4.15 shows that the class of Anosov-supporting contact structures contains all Anosov contact structures, and Corollary 4.17 connects the free homotopy data of Reeb-Anosov flows with that of tangential Anosov flows. The paper is also useful as an expository bridge between recent work of Hozoori, Marty, Zung, and Salmoiraghi, and it formulates several precise conjectures that could guide future research. The author is explicit that the note is informal and contains more questions than answers; however, the proofs of the main new theorems are sketches that rely on substantial cited results, and the key transfer argument in Theorem 4.9 is not fully justified.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4, Theorem 4.9 (proof)] The proof of Theorem 4.9 contains an unproved transfer of free homotopy data across the topological blow-up relation. After applying Theorem 4.12 to conclude that F^s_Y is R-covered and topologically equivalent to a blow-up of F^s_{R+}, the text states: 'An element g ∈ π1(M) is in P(Y) if and only if it is freely homotopic to a closed curve in a cylindrical leaf of F^s_Y. Since F^s_Y is a blow-up of F^s_{R+}, g represents a cylindrical leaf of F^s_Y if and only if it represents a cylindrical leaf of F^s_{R+}.' The first assertion is standard for Anosov flows, but the second is not automatic: a topological blow-up of the stable foliation can alter the cylindrical leaves, for instance by replacing a cylinder with an I-bundle of cylinders, and the manuscript does not show that the set of conjugacy classes represented by closed curves in cylindrical leaves is unchanged. This equality P(Y)=P(R+) is exactly what permits the invocation of Theorem 3.1 to conclude isotopic equivalence. Since Theorem 4.9 is the main new rigidity statement and is used in Corollary 4.11 and again in Proposition 4.15, this gap is load-bearing. Please either prove the transfer, or give a precise citation to the statement in [Fen05] or [BFM22] that establishes it.
  2. [§4, Proposition 4.15] The proof of Proposition 4.15 ends with the sentence 'Then, as in the end of the proof of Theorem 4.9, we deduce from Theorem 3.1 that X and Y are isotopically equivalent.' The deduction relies on the same cylindrical-leaf/free-homotopy transfer identified in the previous comment: F^s_X is shown to be a blow-up of the stable foliation of Y, and the equality P(X)=P(Y) is then asserted by analogy with the end of Theorem 4.9. Consequently Proposition 4.15 and Corollary 4.17 inherit the same missing justification. The argument should be expanded after the transfer statement is made precise.
  3. [§4, Lemma 4.13] The proof of Lemma 4.13 is a two-sentence sketch; the assertion that the existence of periodic orbits freely homotopic to their inverses is 'easily seen to be incompatible with being regulating' is not demonstrated. This lemma is used to exclude the regulating case in the proof of Theorem 4.12, which in turn is used in Theorem 4.9. If this is a known result, please replace the sketch with a precise reference; otherwise provide a proof. This is less central than the previous two points, but it is another place where the manuscript leans on an unstated geometric argument.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Definition 2.7] The definition of orbit equivalence contains a typo: 'orbits of X21' should read 'orbits of X2'.
  2. [Abstract] 'Heideleberg' is misspelled; it should be 'Heidelberg'.
  3. [§4, after Proposition 4.3] 'Mistumatsu' should be 'Mitsumatsu'.
  4. [§4, Theorem 4.9 (proof)] The notation is inconsistent: the theorem statement uses X for the supported Anosov flow, but the proof writes F^s_Y and P(Y) without defining Y; please use X throughout.
  5. [§4, Theorem 4.9 (proof)] The sentence 'But one easily sees that this implies that Y and R+ are orbit equivalent' is asserted without argument, and the subsequent paragraph uses Theorem 3.1 instead; please remove the sentence or replace it with a precise statement.
  6. [References] References [Hoz24a] and [Mar24b] contain stray commas in the arXiv URL fields, and the final periods are misplaced.
  7. [Proposition 2.3] The expression 'P Xt7' appears to have a misplaced superscript or footnote marker; the formatting should be corrected.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the new theorems are derived from independently established prior results, and the 'one easily sees' bridge in Theorem 4.9 is a missing justification rather than a circular reduction.

full rationale

The paper is largely a survey note, and its two new statements, Theorem 4.9 and Proposition 4.15, are genuine derivations from prior theorems rather than conclusions defined in terms of their inputs. The main workhorse, Theorem 3.1 (P(X1)=P(X2) if and only if X1 and X2 are isotopically equivalent for R-covered Anosov flows), is cited from the author's earlier work with Frankel and Mann, but it is an independently proved theorem with stated assumptions that do not include the target results. Citing it is therefore legitimate evidence, not circularity. In the proof of Theorem 4.9, Fenley's Theorem 4.12 is used to obtain that the stable foliation of the supporting Anosov flow is R-covered and is a blow-up of the stable foliation of the Reeb-Anosov flow, and then free homotopy data are transferred via the assertion that an element g lies in P(Y) if and only if it is freely homotopic to a closed curve in a cylindrical leaf of the stable foliation. The paper says 'one easily sees' and does not prove or precisely cite this dictionary, so the step is a potential correctness gap or omitted justification. It is not, however, a circular reduction: P is defined independently of the conclusion, and the equality P(Y)=P(R+) is not true by construction. Proposition 4.15 similarly combines Fenley's theorem, Hozoori's theorem, Plante's result, and Theorem 3.1 in a chain of logical consequences. There is no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction, no ansatz smuggled in via citation, no uniqueness theorem invoked merely to forbid alternatives, and no renaming of a known result as a new one. The self-citations are frequent but none is load-bearing in the sense of being the only support for a premise that is itself the claimed conclusion. Score 1 reflects the presence of self-citation in the derivation chain without any circular equivalence.

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

No free parameters or invented entities. The paper is a deductive survey: all substantive inputs are established theorems and standing conventions, cited explicitly; the new propositions are logical consequences of these inputs.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Theorem 3.1 (free homotopy data as complete invariant for R-covered or no-transverse-tori Anosov flows)
    Invoked in the proofs of Theorem 4.9 and Proposition 4.15 to upgrade equality of free homotopy data to isotopic equivalence; cited to [BM24] and [BFM22].
  • domain assumption Theorem 4.12 (Fenley): skew Anosov flow transverse to a foliation forces R-covered and blow-up of stable/unstable foliation
    Used in the proof of Theorem 4.9 to conclude F^s_X is a blow-up of F^s_{R+}.
  • domain assumption Corollary 4.8 / Theorem 4.5 (Hozoori): bitransverse Reeb flow characterizes Anosov among projectively Anosov flows
    Used in Proposition 4.15 to show the flow Y in β∩ξ− is Anosov.
  • domain assumption Plante's theorem: Anosov flows on solvmanifolds are suspensions of Anosov diffeomorphisms
    Used in Proposition 4.15 to rule out Y being a suspension when M is not a solvmanifold.
  • domain assumption Theorem 2.11 (Marty): An Anosov flow is positively/negatively skew iff isotopically equivalent to a Reeb-Anosov flow of a positive/negative contact structure
    Used to justify that Reeb-Anosov flows are skew and hence eligible for Fenley's Theorem 4.12.
  • domain assumption Convention 2.4: manifolds orientable and Anosov flows transversally orientable
    Standing scope restriction stated in Section 2.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Sm\"org\aa sbord of (bi)contact structures, Reeb flows and pseudo-Anosov flows." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UPJZNH3H

@misc{pith2026250207716,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Sm\"org\aa sbord of (bi)contact structures, Reeb flows and pseudo-Anosov flows},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UPJZNH3H}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.07716}
}
read the original abstract

This note was written for the proceedings of the conference "Symplectic Geometry and Anosov Flows" held in Heideleberg in July 2024. It is meant as an invitation to the study of certain families of contact structures, centering around the following question: ``How much can one relate the dynamics of two distinct Reeb flows of the same contact structure?'' We gather some results as well as state many more questions and conjectures around that theme.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.07716 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The local picture of stable and unstable foliations near a 3-prong singularity One can also give a smooth version of a pseudo-Anosov flow, where one assume that away from the singular orbits, the flow is smooth Anosov, and that the homeomorphisms of item (ii) can be made Lipshitz, see [AT24, Definition 5.9]. In section 5, we will encounter 1-pronged pseudo-Anosov flow. Those are pseudo-Anosov flows as in the above d… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The contact structures ξ ± in their respective quadrants In fact, one obtains the invariant distributions Ecu (resp. Ecs) as a limit as t → +∞ (resp. t → −∞) of (Xt )∗ξ ±. Notice that a given projectively Anosov vector field X is always supported by many distinct bicontact structures, for instance, for any choice of t1, t2, ((Xt1 )∗ξ +,(Xt2 )∗ξ −) supports X. Hozoori [Hoz24b] proved that the existence of Reeb flows … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. A bitransverse Reeb vector field R+ To show the theorem, we will use the following result of Fenley about (pseudo)-Anosov flows transverse to foliations. Theorem 4.12 (Fenley [Fen05]). Let Y be a skew Anosov flow transverse to a foliation F. Then F is R-covered. Moreover, F is topologically equivalent to a blow-up of the stable or unstable foliation of Y . Since this statement is not directly written in [Fen05], we … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The vector fields X, Y and the three contact structures Proof. First β and ξ − are of distinct signs, coorientable, and transverse (since X is in ξ − but never in β), so they define a bicontact structure. Then, as X is a Reeb flow of β and X ∈ ξ −, Corollary 4.8 implie…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: A lozenge and its corners I hope the following is true: Conjecture 4.20. Let X be an Anosov flow supported by (ξ +, ξ−), then there exists bitransverse Reeb flows R+ and R− such that, for any [g] ∈ P(X), we have [g] ∈ P(R+) (resp. [g] ∈ P(R−)) if and only if g fixes a …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Oriented Birkhoff sections of Anosov flows

    M. Asaoka, C. Bonatti, and T. Marty, Oriented Birkhoff sections of Anosov flows , Preprint, 2022, arXiv:2212.06483 https://arxiv.org/abs/2212.06483

    work page Pith review arXiv 2022

  2. [2]

    M. R. R. Alves, Cylindrical contact homology and topological entropy, Geom. Topol. 20 (2016), no. 6, 3519--3569

    work page 2016

  3. [3]

    D. V. Anosov, Geodesic flows on closed R iemannian manifolds of negative curvature , Trudy Mat. Inst. Steklov. 90 (1967), 209

    work page 1967

  4. [4]

    Arroyo and F

    A. Arroyo and F. Rodriguez Hertz, Homoclinic bifurcations and uniform hyperbolicity for three-dimensional flows., Ann. Inst. Henri Poincar \'e , Anal. Non Lin \'e aire 20 (2003), no. 5, 805--841 (English)

    work page 2003

  5. [5]

    Dynamics of veering triangulations: infinitesimal components of their flow graphs and applications

    I. Agol and C. C. Tsang, Dynamics of veering triangulations: infinitesimal components of their flow graphs and applications, 2024, arXiv:2201.02706 https://arxiv.org/pdf/2201.02706

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    Barbot, Caract\'erisation des flots d' A nosov en dimension 3 par leurs feuilletages faibles , Ergodic Theory Dynam

    T. Barbot, Caract\'erisation des flots d' A nosov en dimension 3 par leurs feuilletages faibles , Ergodic Theory Dynam. Systems 15 (1995), no. 2, 247--270

    1995

  7. [7]

    , Mise en position optimale de tores par rapport \`a un flot d' A nosov , Comment. Math. Helv. 70 (1995), no. 1, 113--160

    work page 1995

  8. [8]

    , Plane affine geometry and A nosov flows , Ann. Sci. \'Ecole Norm. Sup. (4) 34 (2001), no. 6, 871--889

    work page 2001

Show all 54 references
  1. [9]

    Barthelm\'e, C

    T. Barthelm\'e, C. Bonatti, A. Gogolev, and F. Rodriguez Hertz, Anomalous A nosov flows revisited , Proc. Lond. Math. Soc. (3) 122 (2021), no. 1, 93--117

    2021

  2. [10]

    Barthelm\'e, C

    T. Barthelm\'e, C. Bonatti, and K. Mann, Non-transitive pseudo- A nosov flows , arXiv preprint (2024), arXiv:2411.03586 https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.03586

    2024

  3. [11]

    Barthelm\'e, S

    T. Barthelm\'e, S. Frankel, and K. Mann, Orbit equivalence of pseudo- A nosov flows , arXiv preprint (2022), arXiv:2211.10505 https://arxiv.org/pdf/2211.10505

    2022 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Barthelm\'e and K

    T. Barthelm\'e and K. Mann, Orbit equivalences of \( R \) -covered Anosov flows and hyperbolic-like actions on the line. With an appendix written jointly with Jonathan Bowden , Geom. Topol. 28 (2024), no. 2, 867--899

    2024

  5. [13]

    Brunella, Separating the basic sets of a nontransitive A nosov flow , Bull

    M. Brunella, Separating the basic sets of a nontransitive A nosov flow , Bull. London Math. Soc. 25 (1993), no. 5, 487--490

    1993

  6. [14]

    Calegari, Foliations and the geometry of 3-manifolds, Oxford Mathematical Monographs, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2007

    D. Calegari, Foliations and the geometry of 3-manifolds, Oxford Mathematical Monographs, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2007

    2007

  7. [15]

    Calegari and N

    D. Calegari and N.. Dunfield, Laminations and groups of homeomorphisms of the circle, Invent. Math. 152 (2003), no. 1, 149--204

    2003

  8. [16]

    Colin, P

    V. Colin, P. Dehornoy, U. Hryniewicz, and A. Rechtman, Generic properties of 3-dimensional R eeb flows: B irkhoff sections and entropy , Comment. Math. Helv. 99 (2024), no. 3, 557--611

    2024

  9. [17]

    Colin, P

    V. Colin, P. Dehornoy, and A. Rechtman, On the existence of supporting broken book decompositions for contact forms in dimension 3, Invent. Math. 231 (2023), no. 3, 1489--1539

    2023

  10. [18]

    Colin, K

    V. Colin, K. Honda, and F. Laudenbach, On the flux of pseudo- A nosov homeomorphisms , Algebr. Geom. Topol. 8 (2008), no. 4, 2147--2160

    2008

  11. [19]

    Colin, U

    V. Colin, U. Hryniewicz, and A. Rechtman, Homoclinic orbits, R eeb chords and nice B irkhoff sections for R eeb flows in 3d , preprint. (2025), arXiv:2501.11725 https://www.arxiv.org/pdf/2501.11725

    2025 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Cieliebak, O

    K. Cieliebak, O. Lazarev, T. Massoni, and A. Moreno, Floer theory of A nosov flows in dimension three , 2022, arXiv:2211.07453 https://arxiv.org/abs/2211.07453

    2022 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Contreras and M

    G. Contreras and M. Mazzucchelli, Existence of B irkhoff sections for K upka- S male R eeb flows of closed contact 3-manifolds , Geom. Funct. Anal. 32 (2022), no. 5, 951--979. 4498837

    2022

  14. [22]

    Eliashberg, A

    Y. Eliashberg, A. Givental, and H. Hofer, Introduction to symplectic field theory, 2000, GAFA 2000 (Tel Aviv, 1999), pp. 560--673

    2000

  15. [23]

    Eliashberg and W

    Y. Eliashberg and W. Thurston, Confoliations, Univ. Lect. Ser., vol. 13, Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society, 1998 (English)

    1998

  16. [24]

    Fenley, Anosov flows in 3 -manifolds , Ann

    S. Fenley, Anosov flows in 3 -manifolds , Ann. of Math. (2) 139 (1994), no. 1, 79--115

    1994

  17. [25]

    Differential Geom

    , Quasigeodesic A nosov flows and homotopic properties of flow lines , J. Differential Geom. 41 (1995), no. 2, 479--514

    1995

  18. [26]

    Dedicata 99 (2003), 61--102

    , Pseudo- A nosov flows and incompressible tori , Geom. Dedicata 99 (2003), 61--102

    2003

  19. [27]

    , Regulating flows, topology of foliations and rigidity, Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 357 (2005), no. 12, 4957--5000

    2005

  20. [28]

    , Laminar free hyperbolic 3-manifolds, Comment. Math. Helv. 82 (2007), no. 2, 247--321

    2007

  21. [29]

    Foulon and B

    P. Foulon and B. Hasselblatt, Contact Anosov flows on hyperbolic 3-manifolds , Geom. Topol. 17 (2013), no. 2, 1225--1252

    2013

  22. [30]

    Fisher and B

    T. Fisher and B. Hasselblatt, Hyperbolic flows, Zurich Lectures in Advanced Mathematics, 2019

    2019

  23. [31]

    Foulon, B

    P. Foulon, B. Hasselblatt, and A. Vaugon, Orbit growth of contact structures after surgery, Ann. H. Lebesgue 4 (2021), 1103--1141

    2021

  24. [32]

    66-67, Soci\'et\'e Math\'ematique de France, Paris, 1979, S\'eminaire Orsay, With an English summary

    Travaux de T hurston sur les surfaces , Ast\'erisque, vol. 66-67, Soci\'et\'e Math\'ematique de France, Paris, 1979, S\'eminaire Orsay, With an English summary

    1979

  25. [33]

    Fenley and L

    S. Fenley and L. Mosher, Quasigeodesic flows in hyperbolic 3-manifolds, Topology 40 (2001), no. 3, 503--537

    2001

  26. [34]

    Farb and D

    B. Farb and D. Margalit, A primer on mapping class groups, Princeton Mathematical Series, vol. 49, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 2012

    2012

  27. [35]

    Fried, Transitive A nosov flows and pseudo- A nosov maps , Topology 22 (1983), no

    D. Fried, Transitive A nosov flows and pseudo- A nosov maps , Topology 22 (1983), no. 3, 299--303

    1983

  28. [36]

    Handel, Global shadowing of pseudo- A nosov homeomorphisms , Ergodic Theory Dynam

    M. Handel, Global shadowing of pseudo- A nosov homeomorphisms , Ergodic Theory Dynam. Systems 5 (1985), no. 3, 373--377

    1985

  29. [37]

    Hutchings and J

    M. Hutchings and J. Nelson, Cylindrical contact homology for dynamically convex contact forms in three dimensions, J. Symplectic Geom. 14 (2016), no. 4, 983--1012

    2016

  30. [38]

    Hozoori, Strongly adapted contact geometry of A nosov 3-flows , 2024, https://arxiv.org/pdf/2410.21208 arXiv:2410.21208,

    S. Hozoori, Strongly adapted contact geometry of A nosov 3-flows , 2024, https://arxiv.org/pdf/2410.21208 arXiv:2410.21208,

    2024 arXiv

  31. [39]

    , Symplectic geometry of A nosov flows in dimension 3 and bi-contact topology , Adv. Math. 450 (2024), Paper No. 109764, 41

    2024

  32. [40]

    Marty, Reeb-- A nosov flows are skewed R -covered, shorter proof , J

    T. Marty, Reeb-- A nosov flows are skewed R -covered, shorter proof , J. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 26 (2024), no. 4, Paper No. 58

    2024

  33. [41]

    , Skewed A nosov flows are orbit equivalent to R eeb- A nosov flows in dimension 3 , 2024, arXiv:2301.00842 https://arxiv.org/abs/2301.00842,

    2024 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Massoni, A nosov flows and L iouville pairs in dimension three , Algebraic & Geometric Topology, to appear (2025), arXiv:2211.11036 https://arxiv.org/abs/2211.11036

    T. Massoni, A nosov flows and L iouville pairs in dimension three , Algebraic & Geometric Topology, to appear (2025), arXiv:2211.11036 https://arxiv.org/abs/2211.11036

    2025 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Mitsumatsu, Anosov flows and non- Stein symplectic manifolds , Ann

    Y. Mitsumatsu, Anosov flows and non- Stein symplectic manifolds , Ann. Inst. Fourier 45 (1995), no. 5, 1407--1421 (English)

    1995

  36. [44]

    Mosher, Surfaces and branched surfaces transverse to pseudo- A nosov flows on 3 -manifolds , J

    L. Mosher, Surfaces and branched surfaces transverse to pseudo- A nosov flows on 3 -manifolds , J. Differential Geom. 34 (1991), no. 1, 1--36

    1991

  37. [45]

    , Dynamical systems and the homology norm of a 3 -manifold. I . E fficient intersection of surfaces and flows , Duke Math. J. 65 (1992), no. 3, 449--500

    1992

  38. [46]

    Macarini and G

    L. Macarini and G. P. Paternain, Equivariant symplectic homology of A nosov contact structures , Bull. Braz. Math. Soc. (N.S.) 43 (2012), no. 4, 513--527

    2012

  39. [47]

    J. F. Plante, Anosov flows, transversely affine foliations, and a conjecture of V erjovsky , J. London Math. Soc. (2) 23 (1981), no. 2, 359--362

    1981

  40. [48]

    Potrie, A nosov flows in dimension 3 : an outside look , 2024, Lecture notes available at https://agustin-moreno.com/symplectic-geometry-and-anosov-flows/

    R. Potrie, A nosov flows in dimension 3 : an outside look , 2024, Lecture notes available at https://agustin-moreno.com/symplectic-geometry-and-anosov-flows/

    2024

  41. [49]

    Roberts, J

    R. Roberts, J. Shareshian, and M. Stein, Infinitely many hyperbolic 3-manifolds which contain no Reebless foliation , J. Am. Math. Soc. 16 (2003), no. 3, 639--679

    2003

  42. [50]

    Salmoiraghi, Goodman surgery and projectively A nosov flows , 2023, arXiv:2202.01328 https://arxiv.org/abs/2202.01328

    F. Salmoiraghi, Goodman surgery and projectively A nosov flows , 2023, arXiv:2202.01328 https://arxiv.org/abs/2202.01328

    2023 arXiv

  43. [51]

    , Surgery on A nosov flows using bi-contact geometry , 2024, arXiv:2104.07109 https://arxiv.org/abs/2104.07109

    2024 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Thurston, 3-manifolds, foliations and circles I , arXiv:math/9712268 [math.GT] https://arxiv.org/abs/math/9712268

    W. Thurston, 3-manifolds, foliations and circles I , arXiv:math/9712268 [math.GT] https://arxiv.org/abs/math/9712268

    arXiv

  45. [53]

    Vaugon, Contact homology of contact A nosov flows , Unpublished work available at https://anne.vaugon.vwx.fr/Anosov.pdf

    A. Vaugon, Contact homology of contact A nosov flows , Unpublished work available at https://anne.vaugon.vwx.fr/Anosov.pdf

  46. [54]

    Zung, Pseudo- A nosov representatives of stable H amiltonian structures , 2024, arXiv:2410.02186 https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.02186

    J. Zung, Pseudo- A nosov representatives of stable H amiltonian structures , 2024, arXiv:2410.02186 https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.02186

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.