Contact 3-manifolds that admit a non-free toric action

Aleksandra Marinkovi\'c; Laura Starkston

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 19 references

Contact 3-manifolds that admit a non-free toric action

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Every lens space has exactly one tight and two overtwisted contact structures that admit a non-free toric action.

desk verdict A substantive classification that completes Lerman's program; the main claims look right, but the proof has a few fixable gaps and leans on a companion preprint for the tight/overtwisted criterion. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.09386 v1 pith:5VEKKZ53 submitted 2025-01-16 math.SG

Aleksandra Marinković , Laura Starkston This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.SG MSC 53D1053D3557R17

keywords contacttoricmanifoldslensspacestightstructuresovertwistedLutztwistlinearplumbingmomentconenon-freeaction

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

Earlier work reduced every contact 3-manifold with a non-free toric action to a family of models $(Y(t_1,t_2),\xi_{t_1,t_2})$: a quotient of $T^2\times[0,1]$ whose contact plane rotates through an angle $t_2-t_1$, with boundary tori collapsed along rational-slope circles. This paper completes the contactomorphism classification of these models. The result is that each lens space $L(k,l)$ (including $S^3$ and $S^1\times S^2$) carries exactly one tight toric contact structure and exactly two overtwisted ones, the latter being the half-Lutz and full-Lutz twists of the former. The paper also proves that every such model is the concave contact boundary of a linear plumbing of sphere bundles with at least one non-negative self-intersection number. The upshot is a complete, repetition-free list of the contactomorphism types hidden in the earlier classification, with explicit geometric descriptions.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the model $(Y(t_1,t_2),\xi_{t_1,t_2})$: the quotient of $T^2\times[0,1]$ with contact form $\ker(\cos((1-t)t_1+t t_2)d\theta_1+\sin((1-t)t_1+t t_2)d\theta_2)$, where the boundary tori are collapsed along circles whose slopes are normal to the two rays of the moment cone at angles $t_1<t_2$. The angle $t_2-t_1$ controls tightness: the structure is overtwisted precisely when this angle exceeds $\pi$. The main mechanism of the proof is that two operations on the model govern the classification — $\mathrm{SL}(2,\mathbb{Z})$ changes of moment-cone basis identify all tight models for a fixed lens space, and Lutz twists along a circle orbit rotate the second ray by $\pi$ (half-Lutz) or $2\pi$ (full-Lutz), producing the two overtwisted classes. To show the two overtwisted classes are distinct, the paper uses the plane-field obstruction $d_2(\xi_1,\xi_2)\in H^2(Y;\mathbb{Z})$, and on $S^3$ the $\theta$-invariant coming from almost-complex bounding 4-manifolds.

What would settle it

Produce a contact toric structure on a fixed lens space whose moment-cone angle is $\le\pi$ but which is not contactomorphic to the quotient of the standard tight $S^3$ structure, or one with angle $>\pi$ that is tight; either would contradict Theorems 1.1 and 1.2. A concrete check is to verify the companion overtwistedness criterion independently: build $(Y(0,\pi+\varepsilon),\xi)$ explicitly and look for an overtwisted disc, or compute the $\theta$-invariant for the claimed two overtwisted structures on $S^3$ and find they are equal.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the non-free contact toric 3-manifolds are classified up to contactomorphism by the underlying lens space together with a tight/overtwisted split, where the overtwisted side contains exactly two distinct classes. Theorem 1.1 states that all tight contact toric structures on a fixed lens space are contactomorphic, and each is the quotient of the standard tight structure on $S^3$. Theorem 1.2 states that the overtwisted ones are exactly the half-Lutz and full-Lutz twists of that tight structure, and that these two are not contactomorphic; the distinction is detected by the obstruction class $d_2$ in $H^2(Y;\mathbb{Z})$, and on $S^3$ by the $\theta$-invariant where $H^2$ vanishes. Theorem 1.4 asserts that every member of the family arises as a concave contact boundary of a linear plumbing of spheres with at least one non-negative self-intersection number. In the paper's own framing, this turns the earlier list of possible manifolds into a classification with no repetitions, and it yields Corollary 1.5 for concave boundaries of linear plumbings.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is the previously established criterion that $(Y(t_1,t_2),\xi_{t_1,t_2})$ is overtwisted exactly when $t_2-t_1>\pi$; the tight/overtwisted split and both uniqueness theorems rely on this imported result, not re-proved in this paper.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The earlier list of non-free contact toric 3-manifolds becomes a complete contactomorphism classification: for each lens space, exactly one tight and two overtwisted classes, with no repetition.
The unique tight toric structure on a lens space is the universally tight one, obtained as a $\mathbb{Z}_k$-quotient of the standard tight $S^3$ structure; the many non-universally-tight structures on lens spaces are shown not to be toric.
The two overtwisted toric structures are exactly the half-Lutz and full-Lutz twists of the universally tight structure, so Lutz twists along the toric circle orbits realize all overtwisted toric structures on lens spaces.
Every non-free contact toric 3-manifold can be realized as the concave contact boundary of a linear plumbing of sphere bundles with at least one non-negative self-intersection number, giving an explicit symplectic construction of all such manifolds.
For any lens space that appears as a concave contact boundary of such a plumbing, there are again exactly one tight and two overtwisted contact structures up to contactomorphism (Corollary 1.5).

Reading between the lines

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

A consequence the paper leaves implicit is that admitting a non-free toric action is a very strong restriction on tight contact geometry: among all tight contact structures on a lens space, only the universally tight one can be toric.
The model's boundary case $t_2-t_1=2\pi$ (the half-Lutz of the tight $S^1\times S^2$ structure) suggests reading the overtwisted classification modulo $2\pi$; checking whether the paper's case split covers all boundary angles coherently is a natural next step.
A testable extension is to compute contact invariants (for instance, contact homology) for the three toric contact structures on each lens space directly from the linear-plumbing presentation, and compare with known values for the universally tight and Lutz-twisted structures.
The classification also suggests that any contact structure on a lens space admitting a non-free toric action must be in one of three homotopy classes of plane fields, so one could search for contact structures admitting toric actions in other homotopy classes and find none by the $d_2$ obstruction.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Formalized claims in Lean

Claim #1: The central claim is that the non-free contact toric 3-manifolds are classified up to contactomorphism by the underlying lens space together with a tight/overtwisted split, where the overtwisted side contains exactly two distinct classes. Theorem 1.1 states that all tight contact toric structures on a fixed lens space are contactomorphic, and each is the quotient of the standard tight structure on

/-- @claim 1 The central claim is that the non-free contact toric 3-manifolds are classified up to contactomorphism by the underlying lens space together with a tight/overtwisted split, where the overtwisted side contains exactly two distinct classes. Theorem 1.1 states that all tight contact toric structures on a fixed lens space are contactomorphic, and each is the quotient of the standard tight structure on -/
def central_claim : Prop :=

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

Bottom line: this is a real step forward, not a repackaging of Lerman. It turns Lerman's equivariant list into an actual contactomorphism classification: one tight and two overtwisted contact structures per lens space, with the overtwisted ones identified as half- and full-Lutz twists. The plumbing converse and the continued fraction algorithm are new and explicit, and the theta-invariant computation on S^3 is concrete and checkable.

The main arguments hold up. Theorem 2.5, imported from the companion MNRSTW25, really is load-bearing: it supplies the tight/overtwisted dichotomy that splits Theorems 1.1 and 1.2. That dependency is stated plainly, but since the companion is a preprint with overlapping authors, a referee should read it as part of this submission. If that criterion is sound, the classification follows.

Soft spots, all minor to moderate. The proof of Theorem 1.1 contains 'By Theorem 1.2, t2 - t1 <= pi', which is circular if taken literally; the intended reference is clearly Theorem 2.5. The intervals in Step 1 of Theorem 1.2 do not cover t2 - t1 = 2*pi*n exactly; for S^1 x S^2, Remark 4.5 patches the case, but the proof as written leaves a boundary gap. Lemma 5.1's l=1 case uses the plumbing (k-1,-1), which falls outside the sufficient convexity condition (s2 <= -2) the authors cite; the construction still works, but the proof should verify it directly or use the simpler one-sphere plumbing (k). These are the kinds of things that should be cleaned up, not signs of a broken approach.

The citation pattern is fine: the paper relies on MNRSTW25 for one specific theorem and says so explicitly. I would not call the dependency circular, since the companion is a separate construction. But the authors should either prove Theorem 2.5 in an appendix or make sure the companion is vetted simultaneously.

Who is this for: people working on contact toric geometry, lens space contact topology, and concave plumbings. It is a solid contribution that deserves refereeing. My recommendation: send it to review, with instructions to fix the cross-reference, cover the boundary case, and coordinate with the companion preprint.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper classifies contact 3-manifolds admitting a non-free toric action up to contactomorphism. Using Lerman's model (Y(t1,t2), ξ_{t1,t2}), the authors prove that each lens space admits a unique tight contact structure admitting a toric action (Theorem 1.1), exactly two overtwisted such structures, obtained by half- and full-Lutz twists (Theorem 1.2), and that every such contact toric manifold is the concave contact boundary of a linear plumbing over spheres (Theorem 1.4). Corollary 1.5 translates these results to a statement about boundary contact structures of linear plumbings. The central classification splits the tight and overtwisted cases using the criterion, imported from the companion preprint [MNRSTW25], that (Y(t1,t2), ξ_{t1,t2}) is overtwisted if and only if t2−t1>π.

Significance. If correct, this completes the contactomorphism classification of Lerman's non-free contact toric 3-manifolds and gives a clean picture: one universally tight structure plus two overtwisted structures on every lens space. The paper contains explicit and checkable computations—continued fraction algorithms, the d2 and θ invariants, and concrete Lutz-twist descriptions—and it provides a converse to the plumbing construction of [MNRSTW25]. The main weakness is that the tight/overtwisted dichotomy is not proved here but is cited from a companion preprint by the same authors, making the classification conditional on an externally supplied result.

major comments (3)

[Section 2.1, Theorem 2.5] The entire classification rests on Theorem 2.5, which is cited verbatim from [MNRSTW25, Theorem 3.2] and is not proved in the present paper. This theorem is used to conclude that t2−t1≤π for the tight case in Theorem 1.1 and to split the overtwisted cases in Theorem 1.2; if the criterion had any exception, the uniqueness statements and the 'exactly two' count would fail. Please include a proof of Theorem 2.5 in this paper, or at minimum state it as an explicit assumption whose proof appears in an accepted or otherwise verifiable source.
[Section 3, Proof of Theorem 1.1] The proof says 'By Theorem 1.2, t2−t1≤π.' Read literally, this is circular: Theorem 1.2 is about overtwisted structures, is proved later, and itself uses Theorem 1.1. The intended reference is clearly Theorem 2.5, but the proof as written contains a wrong and load-bearing citation. Please correct this.
[Section 5, Lemma 5.1, l=1 case] In the l=1 case the paper realizes L(k,1) as the boundary of the plumbing (k−1,−1). This has s2=−1, which violates the condition s2,…,sn≤−2 that the lemma states is needed for the cited [MNRSTW25, Theorem 5.3] to apply. Since the proof of Theorem 1.4 relies on Lemma 5.1, please justify that the construction of [MNRSTW25, Theorem 4.1] applies to the pair (k−1,−1), or give a separate argument for the l=1 case.

minor comments (4)

[Section 4, Proof of Theorem 1.2, Step 1] The angle intervals used to collect the overtwisted cones omit the exact case t2−t1=2πm for m≥1. For S1×S2 this is precisely the boundary case that arises; Remark 4.5 discusses it informally, but the proof of Theorem 1.2 should integrate this case explicitly so that the statement for all L(k,l), including L(0,1), is covered by the proof.
[Section 4, Proof of Theorem 1.2, Step 3] In the sentence introducing the θ computation, the text reads '(S3, ξ1) and (S3, ξ1)'; the second factor should be (S3, ξ2).
[Section 4, Proposition 4.2] The proof of part (b) gives an isotopy argument rather than an equivariant contactomorphism, although the proposition is stated equivariantly. Please clarify whether the equivariant statement is known directly or whether only the contactomorphism statement is needed for Theorem 1.2.
[Section 2.4, Remark 2.4] There is a typographical error: 'Reidmeister' should be 'Reidemeister'.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Load-bearing tight/overtwisted dichotomy imported from the authors' companion preprint, plus one literal circular cross-reference in the proof of Theorem 1.1; the classification itself has independent content.

self citation load bearing [Section 2.1, Theorem 2.5 (cited from [MNRSTW25, Theorem 3.2]); applied in Section 3 (proof of Theorem 1.1) and Section 4 (proof of Theorem 1.2, Step 1)]
"Theorem 2.5. [MNRSTW25, Theorem 3.2.] ( Y (t1, t2), ξt1,t2) is overtwisted if and only if t2 − t1 > π. This property will be essential in the proof of Theorem 1.1 and Theorem 1.2."

The paper's own text says this dichotomy is 'essential' for both main theorems, but it is not proved here. It is imported verbatim from [MNRSTW25], a companion preprint whose author list overlaps with the present paper (Marinković and Starkston are coauthors of both). The tight case in Theorem 1.1 is essentially the contrapositive of Theorem 2.5 applied to Lerman's normal form, and Theorem 1.2 uses the same criterion to decide which cones are overtwisted before counting the two Lutz-twist classes. If Theorem 2.5 failed in either direction, the claimed uniqueness of the tight toric structure and the 'exactly two' overtwisted count would not follow. This is a load-bearing self-citation rather than an internally derived result.
other [Section 3, proof of Theorem 1.1, first paragraph]
"By Theorem 1.2, t2 − t1 ≤ π."

Read literally, the proof of Theorem 1.1 invokes Theorem 1.2 to conclude that a tight toric structure has angle at most π. But Theorem 1.2 is the overtwisted classification, and its proof in Step 1 uses Theorem 1.1 to identify the unique tight structure before applying Lutz twists. This creates a circular dependency: Theorem 1.1 appears to use Theorem 1.2, which in turn uses Theorem 1.1. The statement of Theorem 2.5 and the surrounding text show that the intended reference is almost certainly Theorem 2.5, since that theorem is exactly 'overtwisted iff t2 − t1 > π.' Thus this is a cross-reference typo rather than a substantive mathematical reduction, but as written the derivation at this line is circular.

full rationale

The main classification is not a restatement of its inputs. The proof of Theorem 1.1 reduces tight toric lens spaces to the standard universally tight quotient via SL(2,Z) cone transformations and the involution (z1,z2) → (z1,\bar z2). The proof of Theorem 1.2 uses Lutz twists (Proposition 4.2), Eliashberg's classification of overtwisted contact structures, and the d2/d3 obstruction classes to separate the two overtwisted homotopy classes. These arguments are internal and do not assume the conclusion. The genuinely load-bearing external input is Theorem 2.5, which supplies the tight/overtwisted dichotomy. Because Theorem 2.5 is cited from [MNRSTW25]—a preprint by the same research group—and is not reproved here, the paper is not fully self-contained on that dichotomy. This is a self-citation dependence, but it is not a case where a fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction or where the conclusion is identical to the premise. In addition, the line 'By Theorem 1.2, t2 − t1 ≤ π' in the proof of Theorem 1.1 is circular if read literally, since Theorem 1.2 is proved later and uses Theorem 1.1; the intended reference is Theorem 2.5. This is a typographical cross-reference issue rather than a substantive circular derivation. Other concerns, such as the t2 − t1 = 2π endpoint in Step 1 of Theorem 1.2, are boundary-case correctness issues rather than circularity. Overall score 4: some self-citation is load-bearing and there is one literal circular reference, but the central classification retains independent mathematical content.

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

The central classification is built on Lerman's complete list and the authors' companion paper's tightness criterion and plumbing construction. No new physical or geometric entities are postulated; moment cones, Lutz twists, and plumbings are standard. The integers s1,...,sn in plumbings are outputs of a deterministic continued fraction algorithm, not fitted parameters.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption Lerman's classification: every compact connected contact toric 3-manifold with non-free action is equivariantly contactomorphic to Y(t1,t2), xi_{t1,t2} for some rational-slope angles t1,t2.
The entire classification in Sections 3 and 4 starts from this list; the paper does not reprove it. Location: Section 2.1, Theorem 2.3.
domain assumption MNRSTW25 Theorem 3.2: (Y(t1,t2), xi_{t1,t2}) is overtwisted iff t2-t1>pi.
Load-bearing for the tight/overtwisted split in Theorems 1.1 and 1.2. Cited from a companion preprint by overlapping authors; not verified here.
standard math Eliashberg's classification: overtwisted contact structures on a closed 3-manifold are unique up to isotopy in each homotopy class of 2-plane fields.
Used in Proposition 4.2(b) and Step 1 of Theorem 1.2 to promote homotopy equivalence to contactomorphism. Location: Section 4.
standard math Gompf's theta invariant is well-defined and distinguishes homotopy classes of plane fields with torsion c1.
Used in Step 3 of Theorem 1.2 to distinguish the two overtwisted structures on S3. Location: Section 4, Step 3, citing [Gom98].
domain assumption MNRSTW25 Theorem 4.1: a linear plumbing over spheres with at least one non-negative self-intersection admits a concave Liouville structure whose boundary is contact toric.
Used as the forward direction in Theorem 1.4 and in Lemma 5.3. Location: Section 2.2 and Section 5.
domain assumption MNRSTW25 Theorem 5.1/5.3: continued fraction expansions of k/l with signs produce plumbings whose boundary has the prescribed moment cone and convexity conditions.
Used in Lemma 5.1 to realize tight cones by plumbings. Location: Section 5, Lemma 5.1.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Contact 3-manifolds that admit a non-free toric action." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5VEKKZ53

@misc{pith2026250109386,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Contact 3-manifolds that admit a non-free toric action},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5VEKKZ53}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.09386}
}

read the original abstract

We classify contact toric 3-manifolds up to contactomorphism, through explicit descriptions, building off of work by Lerman [Lerman03]. As an application, we classify all contact structures on 3-manifolds that can be realised as a concave boundary of linear plumbing over spheres. The later result is inspired by the work [MNRSTW25].

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.09386 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** A moment cone of (Y (t1, t2), ξt1,t2 ) Theorem 2.3. ([Ler03, Theorem 2.18. (2)]) Every compact connected contact toric manifold with a non-free toric action is equivariantly contactomorphic to (Y (t1, t2), ξt1,t2 ) for some pair of real numbers t1, t2 with 0 ≤ t1 < 2π, t1 < t2, such that (costi ,sin ti) is proportionate to (mi , ni) ∈ Z 2 , i = 1, 2, As SL(2, Z) transformations of moment cones preserve the correspo… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** L-shape- the moment map image of (s1, s2) refer to [MNRSTW25, Section 4]. The moment map image of the plumbing (s1, s2), where s1 ≥ 0 is shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Gluing of (0, sn) to (0, sn−1) where Aj = −sj −1 1 0 , for all j = 2, . . . , n − 1. 3. Tight contact toric structures In this section we focus on contact toric 3-manifolds with tight contact structures. If the action is free then, as mentioned in Section 2.1 any such manifold is equivariantly contactomorphic to (T 3 , ξn = ker(cos(nt) dθ1 + sin(nt) dθ2)), for some n ∈ N. If the action is non-free, then, accordi… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Moment cone of a Lens space L(k, l) with a standard tight contact structure, left l > 0, right k = 0. and dividing the first circle acting by k we obtain a well defined toric action on (L(k, l), ker αkl) (e i2πt1 , ei2πt2 ) ∗ (z1, z2) 7→ (e i2πt1/kz1, ei2πlt1/ke i2πt2…

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: a) A half-Lutz twist, b) a full-Lutz twist the contact condition h1(r)h ′ 2 (r) − h2(r)h ′ 1 (r) ̸= 0, for all 0 ≤ r < ε, and ξ ′ coincides with ξ outside S 1 × D2 t,r<ε. This procedure is called: a) a half-Lutz twist if h1(r) = −1, h2(r) = −r 2 , for r ∈ [0, ε/3], h1(…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

19 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages

[1]

Contact homology of good toric contact manifolds

Abreu, M., Macarini, L. Contact homology of good toric contact manifolds. Compositio Math, Vol 148, (2012), 304-334

work page 2012
[2]

G\'eom\'etrie des formes de contact compl\'etement int\'egrables de type toriques

Banyaga, A., Molino, P. G\'eom\'etrie des formes de contact compl\'etement int\'egrables de type toriques. S\'eminaire Gaston Darboux de G\'eom\'etrie et Topologie Diff\'erentielle, 1991–1992, Univ. Montpellier II, Montpellier (1993), 1–25

work page 1993
[3]

Complete integrability in contact geometry

Banyaga, A., Molino, P. Complete integrability in contact geometry. Penn State preprint PM 197, (1996)

work page 1996
[4]

P., Galicki, K

Boyer, C. P., Galicki, K. A note on toric contact geometry. J. of Geom. and Phys. Vol 35, (2000) 288–298

work page 2000
[5]

Hamiltoniens p\'eriodiques et image convexe de l’application moment

Delzant, T. Hamiltoniens p\'eriodiques et image convexe de l’application moment. Bull. Soc. Math. France, Vol 116, (1988), 315–339

work page 1988
[6]

Classification of overtwisted contact structures on 3-manifolds

Eliashberg, Y. Classification of overtwisted contact structures on 3-manifolds. Invent Math, Vol 98, (1989) 623–637

work page 1989
[7]

Introduction to Contact Topology Cambridge University Press (2009)

Geiges, H. Introduction to Contact Topology Cambridge University Press (2009)

work page 2009
[8]

Handlebody construction of Stein surfaces., Ann

Gompf, R. Handlebody construction of Stein surfaces., Ann. of Math. Vol 148, (1998), 619–693

work page 1998

Show all 19 references

[9]

4-manifolds and Kirby calculus., Graduate Studies in Mathematics Vol 20, American Mathematical Society (1999)

Gompf, R., Stipsicz, A. 4-manifolds and Kirby calculus., Graduate Studies in Mathematics Vol 20, American Mathematical Society (1999)

1999
[10]

On the classification of tight contact structures I

Honda, K. On the classification of tight contact structures I. Geom. Topol. Vol 4, (2000), 309-368

2000
[11]

The classification of tight contact structures on the 3–torus

Kanda, Y. The classification of tight contact structures on the 3–torus. Comm. in Anal. and Geom. Vol 5, (1997), 413–438

1997
[12]

Contact cuts

Lerman, E. Contact cuts. Israel J. Math. Vol 124, (2001), 77–92

2001
[13]

Contact toric manifolds

Lerman, E. Contact toric manifolds. J. Symplectic Geom. Vol 1, (2003), 785–828

2003
[14]

Fillability of contact toric manifolds

Marinkovi\'c, A. Fillability of contact toric manifolds. Period. Math. Hung. Vol 73, (2016), 16–26

2016
[15]

: Properties of contact toric structures and concave boundaries of linear plumbings, arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.08451

Marinkovi\'c, A., Nelson, J., Rechtman, A.,Starkston, L., Tanny, S., Wang, L. : Properties of contact toric structures and concave boundaries of linear plumbings, arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.08451

arXiv
[16]

The local behaviour of holomorphic curves in almost complex 4-manifolds

McDuff, D. The local behaviour of holomorphic curves in almost complex 4-manifolds. J. Differential Geometry Vol 34, (1991), 143–164

1991
[17]

Milnor, J. W. Topology from the Differentiable Viewpoint. The University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville (1965)

1965
[18]

Neumann. W. D. A Calculus for Plumbing Applied to the Topology of Complex Surface Singularities and Degenerating Complex Curves Transactions of the AMS Vol. 268, (1981), 299-344

1981
[19]

Taubes, C. H. A compendium of pseudoholomorphic beasts in R S^1 S^2 . Geom. Topol. Vol 6, (2002) 657-814

2002

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Contact homology of good toric contact manifolds

Abreu, M., Macarini, L. Contact homology of good toric contact manifolds. Compositio Math, Vol 148, (2012), 304-334

work page 2012

[2] [2]

G\'eom\'etrie des formes de contact compl\'etement int\'egrables de type toriques

Banyaga, A., Molino, P. G\'eom\'etrie des formes de contact compl\'etement int\'egrables de type toriques. S\'eminaire Gaston Darboux de G\'eom\'etrie et Topologie Diff\'erentielle, 1991–1992, Univ. Montpellier II, Montpellier (1993), 1–25

work page 1993

[3] [3]

Complete integrability in contact geometry

Banyaga, A., Molino, P. Complete integrability in contact geometry. Penn State preprint PM 197, (1996)

work page 1996

[4] [4]

P., Galicki, K

Boyer, C. P., Galicki, K. A note on toric contact geometry. J. of Geom. and Phys. Vol 35, (2000) 288–298

work page 2000

[5] [5]

Hamiltoniens p\'eriodiques et image convexe de l’application moment

Delzant, T. Hamiltoniens p\'eriodiques et image convexe de l’application moment. Bull. Soc. Math. France, Vol 116, (1988), 315–339

work page 1988

[6] [6]

Classification of overtwisted contact structures on 3-manifolds

Eliashberg, Y. Classification of overtwisted contact structures on 3-manifolds. Invent Math, Vol 98, (1989) 623–637

work page 1989

[7] [7]

Introduction to Contact Topology Cambridge University Press (2009)

Geiges, H. Introduction to Contact Topology Cambridge University Press (2009)

work page 2009

[8] [8]

Handlebody construction of Stein surfaces., Ann

Gompf, R. Handlebody construction of Stein surfaces., Ann. of Math. Vol 148, (1998), 619–693

work page 1998