Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

Marsden--Meyer--Weinstein reduction for $k$-contact field theories

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper establishes sufficient conditions under which Marsden–Meyer–Weinstein reduction of a k-contact manifold yields another k-contact manifold, and corrects the reduction group used in earlier one-contact reductions.

desk verdict Main k-contact reduction theorem is worth refereeing, but the submanifold-reduction lemma is false for k>1 and needs a fix before the paper can stand as written. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.05462 v1 pith:5NHSDUFL submitted 2025-05-08 math.DG math-phmath.MPmath.SG

J. de Lucas , X. Rivas , S. Vilarino , B.M. Zawora This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.DGmath-phmath.MPmath.SG MSC 53C1553C3053D0553D1053C10
keywords Marsden–Meyer–Weinsteinreductionk-contactmanifoldk-symplecticsymplectichomogeneouscontactHamilton–DeDonder–Weylequationssymmetrymomentummap
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 extends Marsden–Meyer–Weinstein reduction—the standard way to simplify a system by dividing out its symmetry group—from symplectic and contact geometry to k-contact geometry, the formalism used for non-autonomous and dissipative Hamiltonian field theories. The target claim is Theorem 4.14: under weak regularity of a k-contact momentum map plus two tangent-space identities, the quotient of a level set by a specifically chosen symmetry subgroup $K[\mu]$ is again a k-contact manifold, with the reduced dynamics given by k-contact Hamilton–De Donder–Weyl equations. A sympathetic reader should care because the reduction turns systems like coupled damped strings into simpler reduced systems of the same geometric type, and because the paper also identifies and corrects an error in the reduction group used by earlier one-contact reduction schemes. All statements are local; global regularity of the quotient is assumed rather than proved.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing device is the one-step extension of a k-contact manifold to an exact k-symplectic manifold: $(M,\eta)$ becomes $(\mathbb{R}^{\times} \times M,\ \omega = d(s\,\mathrm{pr}_M^*\eta))$, with the Reeb vector fields lifted to span the kernel of $\mathrm{pr}_M^* d\eta \cap \ker ds$. On this cover the paper runs a k-symplectic Marsden–Meyer–Weinstein reduction modified to use the scaled level set $\mathbb{R}^{\times k}\mu$ and the group $K[\mu]$ defined by $k[\mu] = \ker\mu \cap \mathfrak{g}_{[\mu]}$. The key identities are the tangent-space descriptions of Lemma 4.7, which identify $T_x J^{-1}_\eta(\mathbb{R}^{\times k}\mu)$ with the $d\eta$-orthogonal of $T_x(Gx) \cap \ker\eta_x$, and the two sufficient conditions (4.8) and (4.9), which force the kernel of $i^*\eta \cap d i^*\eta$ to coincide with $T_x(K[\mu]x)$. That equality is exactly what makes the quotient k-contact rather than merely a smooth manifold.

What would settle it

A direct test is to compute the tangent-space conditions (4.8) and (4.9) for a concrete k-contact Hamiltonian system with a free proper symmetry group; if the quotient $J^{-1}(\mathbb{R}^{\times k}\mu)/K[\mu]$ carries a well-defined one-form whose kernel intersects its exterior derivative's kernel nontrivially (or has the wrong corank or rank), the theorem's conclusion fails. In the $k=1$ case, the paper's own $T^*\mathrm{SL}_2 \times \mathbb{R}$ example shows that reducing by $K_\mu$ gives an even-dimensional quotient with no contact form, whereas reducing by $K[\mu]$ gives a contact manifold; finding a $k>1$ system where even $K[\mu]$ fails would refute the generality claimed.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the right reduction group for k-contact Marsden–Meyer–Weinstein reduction is not the isotropy subgroup $K_\mu$ fixing $\mu$, but the larger group $K[\mu]$ with Lie algebra $k[\mu] = \ker\mu \cap \mathfrak{g}_{[\mu]}$, where $\mathfrak{g}_{[\mu]}$ consists of elements whose coadjoint action only scales each component of $\mu$ ($\mathrm{ad}^*_\xi \mu \wedge \mu = 0$). Quotienting the $\mathbb{R}^{\times k}$-scaled level set $J^{-1}_\eta(\mathbb{R}^{\times k}\mu)$ by $K[\mu]$ yields a k-contact manifold with form $\eta_{[\mu]}$ satisfying $\pi_{[\mu]}^*\eta_{[\mu]} = i_{[\mu]}^*\eta$, provided conditions (4.8) and (4.9) hold. The proof routes through the exact k-symplectic manifold $\mathbb{R}^{\times} \times M$ with form $d(s\,\mathrm{pr}_M^*\eta)$, applies a modified k-symplectic Marsden–Meyer–Weinstein reduction to this cover, and pushes the reduced structure back down to $M$. In the $k=1$ case this recovers the contact reductions of the literature with a corrected reduction group, resolving a counterexample where the old group produced an even-dimensional quotient. The same mechanism shows k-contact Hamiltonian vector fields tangent to the level set descend to the reduced manifold.

Load-bearing premise

The construction hinges on the scaled level set $J^{-1}(\mathbb{R}^{\times k}\mu)$ being a smooth submanifold with a smooth quotient under $K[\mu]$—a global regularity the paper assumes by restricting to local considerations—rather than a proved consequence of the k-contact hypothesis.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For $k=1$, the theorem yields a corrected contact Marsden–Meyer–Weinstein reduction whose quotient group is $K[\mu]$; it applies in cases where the classical condition $\ker\mu + \mathfrak{g}_\mu = \mathfrak{g}$ fails, including the spherical cotangent bundle of a Lie group.
  • For products of k contact manifolds, the reduced space is the product of the individual one-contact reductions, so the scheme respects decomposition of a field theory into independent components.
  • A $G$-invariant k-contact Hamiltonian system whose k-contact Hamiltonian vector field is tangent to the scaled level set descends to a k-contact Hamiltonian system on the reduced manifold, with reduced Hamiltonian $h_{[\mu]}$ defined by pullback.
  • The coupled-damped-strings example shows the reduction converts a two-component damped system into the equation of a single damped string with an effective forcing, illustrating the promised simplification of dissipative field equations.
  • The paper's correction to the one-contact reduction group implies that earlier reduction theorems remain valid once the quotient is taken by $K[\mu]$, with the caveat that one-dimensional reduced targets are not contact.

Reading between the lines

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

  • For systems with residual symmetries, the same reduction could plausibly be iterated, producing a tower of successively simpler k-contact models; the paper does not develop this, but its construction is compatible with such iteration.
  • The paper's correction to the one-contact reduction group suggests that analogous corrections may be needed in other settings where reduction is taken by coadjoint isotropy, such as prequantization or groupoid-based contact reduction.
  • Because the level set is taken over $\mathbb{R}^{\times k}\mu$ rather than a single $\mu$, the reduced structure should be invariant under separate nonzero scalings of the momentum components; checking this invariance explicitly in examples would make the geometric meaning of the construction clearer.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a Marsden-Meyer-Weinstein reduction for co-oriented k-contact manifolds. It first reviews k-symplectic and k-contact geometry, then introduces a modified k-symplectic MMW reduction for preimages of R^{x k} mu (Theorem 3.23). Using the symplectization R^x x M of a k-contact manifold (Theorem 4.10), it translates the k-symplectic sufficient conditions into k-contact conditions (Lemma 4.13) and states the principal result Theorem 4.14: under weak regularity of the momentum map, quotientability by K[mu], and conditions (4.8)-(4.9), the quotient J_eta^{-1}(R^{x k} mu)/K[mu] is k-contact with pi^* eta_[mu] = i^* eta. A submanifold reduction theorem (Theorem 4.6) and a k-contact MMW theorem via Lemma 4.7 (Theorem 4.9) are also presented, together with reduction of k-contact Hamiltonian dynamics (Theorem 4.16). The paper contains several examples, including damped wave equations and coupled strings, and a comparison section that identifies a correction to the reduction subgroup in reference [36].

Significance. If the main result and its proof were fully valid, this would be a substantial contribution: it gives a unified reduction scheme for k-contact field theories and clarifies the one-contact literature by correcting the reduction group in [36]. The symplectization route is natural, the physical examples are concrete, and the discussion of [36] is backed by a dimension-counting counterexample for the contact case. However, the paper is not in publishable form because the k-contact submanifold reduction rests on a false tangent-space identity, and one load-bearing step in the proof of the main theorem is asserted rather than proved. The main theorem may well survive a repair, but the manuscript currently makes claims beyond what its proofs establish.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 4.2, Lemma 4.7(2)] The claimed identity T_x J_eta^{-1}(R^{x k} mu) = (T_x(Gx) cap ker eta_x)^{perp d eta} is false for k > 1. In Example 4.18, take M = R^5 x R^5 with eta = (ds1 - x2 dx1 - x4 dx3) otimes e1 + (ds2 - y2 dy1 - y4 dy3) otimes e2, the three fundamental vector fields xi1_M = d/ds2, xi2_M = d/dx3, xi3_M = d/dy1 + d/dy3, and mu = (1,0,-1) otimes e2. For a point x with x4 = 0 and y2 + y4 = 1, the level set is J_eta^{-1}(R^{x 2} mu) = {x4 = 0, y2 + y4 = 1}, so its tangent space is {dx4 = 0, dy2 + dy4 = 0}, of dimension 8. But T_x(Gx) cap ker eta_x = span(d/dx3), and therefore (T_x(Gx) cap ker eta_x)^{perp d eta} = {dx4 = 0}, of dimension 9. The equality in Lemma 4.7(2) is thus false. The underlying reason is that for k > 1, xi in ker mu does not follow from xi_x in ker eta_x, because the components sum_{alpha} <mu_alpha, xi> can cancel even when each individual term is nonzero. Since Theorem 4.9 is derived by combining Theorem 4.6 with Lemma 4.7 and no independent proof of Theorem 4.9 is supplied, the k-contact submanifold reduction theorem is unsupported as stated; the correct tangent-space description should use span{xi_x : xi in ker mu} rather than T_x(Gx) cap ker eta_x.
  2. [Proof of Theorem 4.14, final paragraph] The proof of the main theorem contains the assertion 'ker i^*_[mu] eta cap ker d i^*_[mu] eta = T_x(K[mu]x)' with the citation 'by (4.8) and (4.8)' (the second reference should be (4.9)). This is exactly the point where the contact kernel on the reduced space is identified, and it is not a formal consequence of (4.8)-(4.9) unless one also proves a relation between the kernel of the restricted k-symplectic form on R^x x M and the kernel of i^*_[mu] eta. Because this is the load-bearing step that makes the quotient into a k-contact manifold, the proof needs a lemma establishing this identification explicitly rather than a passing assertion.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Proof of Theorem 4.14] The phrase 'by (4.8) and (4.8)' should read 'by (4.8) and (4.9)'.
  2. [Proposition 3.12] In the computation of ad^*_{[xi,nu]} mu, the term ad^*_nu ad^*_xi mu is written twice; the second occurrence should be ad^*_xi ad^*_nu mu.
  3. [Lemma 4.7] The objects G_[mu] and g_[mu] are used for mu in (g*)^k, but Proposition 3.12 and Lemma 3.14 define k[mu] and G_[mu] only for a single mu in g*; the k-tuple versions should be defined explicitly.
  4. [Example 4.18] The coordinate list '(s1,x2,x2,x3,x4)' appears to contain a repeated x2; it should presumably read '(s1,x1,x2,x3,x4)'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the k-contact MMW reduction is derived from an explicitly proved exact k-symplectic reduction and a symplectization theorem; overlapping-author citations are contextual or technical background, not substitutes for the new proof.

full rationale

The central claim, Theorem 4.14, is not a restatement of its inputs. The k-contact momentum map and the level sets are defined independently (Definition 4.1 and Section 4.1), and the reduced space is then proved to be k-contact by an explicit chain: Section 3 builds the exact k-symplectic reduction Theorem 3.23 from the linear-algebra lemmas in Lemmas 3.13-3.22; Theorem 4.10 proves the equivalence between k-contact structures and exact k-symplectic fibrations over R^x; Lemma 4.13 translates the sufficient k-symplectic conditions (3.9)-(3.10) into the k-contact conditions (4.8)-(4.9); and the proof of Theorem 4.14 then checks the k-contact axioms directly (non-trivial intersection ker eta ∩ ker d eta = 0, rank of ker eta, Reeb vector fields on the quotient). Conditions (4.8) and (4.9) are sufficient hypotheses, not the conclusion of the theorem, so no fitted input is renamed as a prediction. The self-citations that appear do not carry the central argument. The paper cites [37] for the origin of the modified k-symplectic reduction and [52] for standard k-symplectic reduction background; these are external published results, and the paper itself gives the needed lemmas and constructions. Statements such as "The proofs of the previous lemmas follow as in the standard k-symplectic case presented in [52]" are routine delegation of technical linear-algebra arguments, not an import of the k-contact result. Similarly, [24], [25], and [16] are used for context and for the background formalism already reviewed in Section 2. No uniqueness theorem from the authors is invoked to force a choice, and the paper's comparison with [36] is supported by an explicit counterexample rather than by authority. The paper's own caveat at the start of Section 2, "All our considerations are local," is a stated limitation on global quotient regularity, not a circular input. The reviewer's objection that Lemma 4.7(2) fails for k>1 is a correctness issue affecting the proof of Theorem 4.9, but it does not render the derivation circular: a false intermediate statement is not an input-output equivalence. Overall, the derivation is self-contained against its stated assumptions, and the new k-contact reduction is not obtained by definition or by self-citation.

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

The paper introduces no free parameters or new entities. It relies on standard results from prior k-symplectic reduction literature and on explicit technical hypotheses.

assumptions (5)
  • standard math Local Darboux theorems for k-symplectic and k-contact manifolds (Theorems 2.6 and 2.15) are taken from prior literature.
    These theorems provide the normal forms used throughout the paper and are cited from [19, 31, 38].
  • domain assumption All structures are smooth and all quotient spaces under consideration are smooth manifolds.
    Stated in Section 2: 'All our considerations are local to avoid technical problems concerning the global manifold structure of quotient spaces.'
  • domain assumption The level set J^{-1}(R^{×k}µ) is a submanifold and K[µ] acts on it quotientably.
    Assumed in Theorem 4.14; this is a standard regularity requirement in reduction theory but can fail in general.
  • ad hoc to paper Technical conditions (4.8) and (4.9) hold for every point in J^{-1}(R^{×k}µ).
    These vector-space identities are introduced to guarantee that the reduced space is a k-contact manifold; they are sufficient, not necessary.
  • domain assumption The extended k-symplectic fibred manifold (R^× × M, d(s pr* η)) admits vector fields ilde R_α satisfying ι_{\tilde R_α}ω_β = -δ_βα ds and ilde R_α s = 0.
    Theorem 4.10 shows this is equivalent to k-contactness, but the converse direction assumes these vector fields exist.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Marsden--Meyer--Weinstein reduction for $k$-contact field theories." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5NHSDUFL

@misc{pith2026250505462,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Marsden--Meyer--Weinstein reduction for $k$-contact field theories},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5NHSDUFL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.05462}
}
abstract

This work devises a Marsden--Meyer--Weinstein $k$-contact reduction. Our techniques are illustrated with several examples of mathematical and physical relevance. As a byproduct, we review the previous contact reduction literature so as to clarify and to solve some inaccuracies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.05462 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Diagram illustrating part of the processes to accomplish a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Note that the geometric structures on the left are covers of the structures of the right [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The table above summarises the notation used in the subsequent section. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p036_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Multisymplectic observable reduction using constraint triples

    math.SG 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Any BV-module with a cocycle yields an L∞-algebra of observables, and constraint-triple reduction of that algebra recovers and explains the multisymplectic reduction of Blacker, Miti and Ryvkin.

  2. A relation between k-symplectic and k-contact Hamiltonian systems

    math-ph 2025-06 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A k-symplectic Hamiltonian system lifts to a k-contact Hamiltonian system such that any projectable solution of the lifted system projects to a solution of the original system.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

68 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [36]

    Grabowska and J

    K. Grabowska and J. Grabowski. Reductions: precontact versus presymplectic.Ann. Mat. Pura Appl.,202:2803–2839, 2023. 10.1007/s10231-023-01341-y

    work page doi:10.1007/s10231-023-01341-y 2023

  2. [1]

    Abraham and J

    R. Abraham and J. E. Marsden.Foundations of mechanics, volume 364 ofAMS Chelsea publishing. Benjamin/Cummings Pub. Co., New York, 1978. 10.1090/chel/364. 46 Reduction ofk-contact field theories J. de Lucas, X. Rivas, S. Vilari˜ no, and B.M. Zawora

    doi:10.1090/chel/364 1978

  3. [2]

    Abraham, J

    R. Abraham, J. E. Marsden, and T. Ratiu.Manifolds, Tensor Analysis and Applications, volume 75 ofApplied Mathematical Sciences. Springer-Verlag, New York, 2nd edition, 1988. 10.1007/978-1-4612-1029-0

    doi:10.1007/978-1-4612-1029-0 1988

  4. [3]

    A. Adem, J. Leida, and Y. Ruan.Orbifolds and Stringy Topology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, 2007. 10.1017/CBO9780511543081

    doi:10.1017/cbo9780511543081 2007

  5. [4]

    A. Adem, J. Morava, and Y. Ruan, editors.Orbifolds in mathematics and physics, volume 310 ofContemporary Mathematics. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2002. 10.1090/conm/310

    work page doi:10.1090/conm/310 2002

  6. [5]

    C. Albert. Le th´ eor` eme de r´ eduction de Marsden–Weinstein en g´ eom´ etrie cosymplectique et de contact.J. Geom. Phys.,6(4):627–649, 1989. 10.1016/0393-0440(89)90029-6

    doi:10.1016/0393-0440(89)90029-6 1989

  7. [6]

    Awane.k-symplectic structures.J

    A. Awane.k-symplectic structures.J. Math. Phys.,33(12):4046, 1992. 10.1063/1.529855

    doi:10.1063/1.529855 1992

  8. [7]

    Balibanu and M

    A. Balibanu and M. Mayrand. Reduction along strong dirac maps, 2023. arχiv:2210.07200

    arXiv 2023

Show all 68 references
  1. [8]

    C. Blacker. Polysymplectic reduction and the moduli space of flat connections.J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.,52(33):335201, 2019. 10.1088/1751-8121/ab2eed

    2019 doi

  2. [9]

    Blacker, A

    C. Blacker, A. M. Miti, and L. Ryvkin. Reduction ofL ∞-algebras of observables on mul- tisymplectic manifolds.SIGMA Symmetry Integrability Geom. Methods Appl.,20(061):47,

  3. [10]

    A. M. Blaga. The reduction of the standardk-cosymplectic manifold associated to a regular Lagrangian. InGeometry and Topology of Manifolds, volume 76, pages 491–495. Banach Center Pub., Inst. of Math., Polish Acad. Sci., Warsawa, 2007

    2007

  4. [11]

    Blair.Riemannian geometry of contact and symplectic manifolds, volume 203 ofProgress in Mathematics

    D. Blair.Riemannian geometry of contact and symplectic manifolds, volume 203 ofProgress in Mathematics. Birkh¨ auser Boston, Ltd., second edition, 2010. 10.1007/978-0-8176-4959-3

    2010 doi

  5. [12]

    Blankenstein and T

    G. Blankenstein and T. S. Ratiu. Singular reduction of implicit Hamiltonian systems.Rep. Math. Phys.,53(2):211–260, 2004. 10.1016/S0034-4877(04)90013-4

    2004 doi

  6. [13]

    Bravetti

    A. Bravetti. Contact Hamiltonian dynamics: The concept and its use.Entropy,10(19):535,

  7. [14]

    Bravetti, M

    A. Bravetti, M. de Le´ on, J. C. Marrero, and E. Padr´ on. Invariant measures for contact Hamiltonian systems: symplectic sandwiches with contact bread.J. Phys. A: Math. Theor., 53:455205, 2020. 10.1088/1751-8121/abbaaa

    2020 doi

  8. [15]

    Choquet-Bruhat, C

    Y. Choquet-Bruhat, C. DeWitt-Morette, and M. Dillard-Bleick.Analysis, Manifolds and Physics. North Holland Pub. Co., 1978

    1978

  9. [16]

    Colombo, J

    L. Colombo, J. de Lucas, X. Rivas, and B. M. Zawora. An energy-momentum method for ordinary differential equations with an underlyingk-symplectic structure. arχiv:2311.15035, 2023

    2023

  10. [17]

    Crooks and M

    P. Crooks and M. Mayrand. Scheme-theoretic coisotropic reduction, 2024. arχiv:2408.11932

    2024

  11. [18]

    de Le´ on, V

    M. de Le´ on, V. M. Jim´ enez, and M. Lainz-Valc´ azar. Contact Hamiltonian and La- grangian systems with nonholonomic constraints.J. Geom. Mech.,13(1):25–53, 2021. 10.3934/jgm.2021001

    2021 doi

  12. [19]

    de Le´ on, M

    M. de Le´ on, M. Salgado, and S. Vilari˜ no.Methods of Differential Geometry in Classical Field Theories. World Scientific, Singapore, 2015. 10.1142/9693. 47 Reduction ofk-contact field theories J. de Lucas, X. Rivas, S. Vilari˜ no, and B.M. Zawora

    2015 doi

  13. [20]

    de Le´ on and M

    M. de Le´ on and M. Saralegi. Cosymplectic reduction for singular momentum maps.J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.,26(19):5033, 1993. 10.1088/0305-4470/26/19/032

    1993 doi

  14. [21]

    de Le´ on and C

    M. de Le´ on and C. Sard´ on. Cosymplectic and contact structures for time-dependent and dissipative Hamiltonian systems.J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.,50(25):255205, 2017. 10.1088/1751-8121/aa711d

    2017 doi

  15. [22]

    de Le´ on and S

    M. de Le´ on and S. Vilari˜ no. Lagrangian submanifolds ink-symplectic settings.Monatsh. Math.,170:381–404, 2013. 10.1007/s00605-012-0415-8

    2013 doi

  16. [23]

    de Lucas and X

    J. de Lucas and X. Rivas. Contact Lie systems: theory and applications.J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.,56(33):335203, 2023. 10.1088/1751-8121/ace0e7

    2023 doi

  17. [24]

    de Lucas, X

    J. de Lucas, X. Rivas, and T. Sobczak. Foundations onk-contact geometry. arχiv:2409.11001, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  18. [25]

    de Lucas, X

    J. de Lucas, X. Rivas, S. Vilari˜ no, and B. M. Zawora. Onk-polycosymplectic Marsden– Weinstein reductions.J. Geom. Phys.,191:104899, 2023. 10.1016/j.geomphys.2023.104899

    2023

  19. [26]

    de Lucas and S

    J. de Lucas and S. Vilari˜ no.k-symplectic Lie systems: theory and applications.J. Differ. Equ.,258(6):2221–2255, 2015. 10.1016/j.jde.2014.12.005

    2015 doi

  20. [27]

    Dr˘ agulete, L

    O. Dr˘ agulete, L. Ornea, and T. Ratiu. Cosphere bundle reduction in contact geometry.J. Symplectic Geom.,1(4):695–714, 2003

    2003

  21. [28]

    Dr˘ agulete, T

    O. Dr˘ agulete, T. Ratiu, and M. Rodr´ ıguez-Olmos. Singular cosphere bundle reduction. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.,359(9):4209–4235, 2007. 10.1090/S0002-9947-07-04229-8

    2007 doi

  22. [29]

    O. Esen, M. Lainz Valc´ azar, M. de Le´ on, and J. C. Marrero. Contact Dynamics: Legendrian and Lagrangian Submanifolds.Mathematics,9(21):2704, 2021. 10.3390/math9212704

    2021 doi

  23. [30]

    Garc´ ıa-Tora˜ no Andr´ es and T

    E. Garc´ ıa-Tora˜ no Andr´ es and T. Mestdag. Conditions for symmetry reduction of polysym- plectic and polycosymplectic structures.J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.,56(33):335202, 2023. 10.1088/1751-8121/ace74c

    2023 doi

  24. [31]

    Gaset, X

    J. Gaset, X. Gr` acia, M. C. Mu˜ noz-Lecanda, X. Rivas, and N. Rom´ an-Roy. A contact geometry framework for field theories with dissipation.Ann. Phys.,414:168092, 2020. 10.1016/j.aop.2020.168092

    2020

  25. [32]

    Gaset, X

    J. Gaset, X. Gr` acia, M. C. Mu˜ noz-Lecanda, X. Rivas, and N. Rom´ an-Roy. New contri- butions to the Hamiltonian and Lagrangian contact formalisms for dissipative mechanical systems and their symmetries.Int. J. Geom. Methods Mod. Phys.,17(6):2050090, 2020. 10.1142/S0219887820500905

    2020 doi

  26. [33]

    Gaset, X

    J. Gaset, X. Gr` acia, M. C. Mu˜ noz-Lecanda, X. Rivas, and N. Rom´ an-Roy. Ak-contact Lagrangian formulation for nonconservative field theories.Rep. Math. Phys.,87(3):347– 368, 2021. 10.1016/S0034-4877(21)00041-0

    2021 doi

  27. [34]

    Geiges.An introduction to contact topology, volume 109 ofCambridge Stud- ies in Advanced Mathematics

    H. Geiges.An introduction to contact topology, volume 109 ofCambridge Stud- ies in Advanced Mathematics. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, 2008. 10.1017/CBO9780511611438

    2008 doi

  28. [35]

    Grabowska and J

    K. Grabowska and J. Grabowski. A geometric approach to contact Hamiltonians and con- tact Hamilton–Jacobi theory.J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.,55(43):435204, 2022. 10.1088/1751- 8121/ac9adb. 48 Reduction ofk-contact field theories J. de Lucas, X. Rivas, S. Vilari˜ no, and B.M. Zawora

    2022 doi

  29. [37]

    Gr` acia, J

    X. Gr` acia, J. de Lucas, M. C. Mu˜ noz-Lecanda, and S. Vilari˜ no. Multisymplectic structures and invariant tensors for Lie systems.J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.,52(21):215201, 2019. 10.1088/1751-8121/ab15f2

    2019 doi

  30. [38]

    Gr` acia, J

    X. Gr` acia, J. de Lucas, X. Rivas, and N. Rom´ an-Roy. On Darboux theorems for geometric structures induced by closed forms.Rev. Real Acad. Cienc. Exactas Fis. Nat. - A: Mat., 118(131):1–35, 2024. 10.1007/s13398-024-01632-w

    2024 doi

  31. [39]

    Gr` acia, X

    X. Gr` acia, X. Rivas, and N. Rom´ an-Roy. Skinner–Rusk formalism fork-contact systems. J. Geom. Phys.,172:104429, 2022. 10.1016/j.geomphys.2021.104429

    2022

  32. [40]

    G¨ unther

    C. G¨ unther. The polysymplectic Hamiltonian formalism in field theory and calculus of variations I: The local case.J. Differ. Geom.,25(1):23–53, 1987. 10.4310/jdg/1214440723

    1987

  33. [41]

    Herbig, G

    H.-C. Herbig, G. W. Schwarz, and C. Seaton. When is a symplectic quotient an orbifold? Adv. Math.,280:208–224, 2015. 10.1016/j.aim.2015.04.016

    2015 doi

  34. [42]

    Iglesias-Zemmour.Diffeology, volume 185

    P. Iglesias-Zemmour.Diffeology, volume 185. American Mathematical Society, 2013

    2013

  35. [43]

    J. M. Lee.Introduction to topological manifolds, volume 202 ofGraduate Texts in Mathe- matics. Springer, New York, second edition, 2011

    2011

  36. [44]

    J. M. Lee.Introduction to Smooth Manifolds, volume 218 ofGraduate Texts in Mathematics. Springer, New York, 2nd edition, 2012. 10.1007/978-1-4419-9982-5

    2012 doi

  37. [45]

    Lerman, R

    E. Lerman, R. Montgomery, and R. Sjamaar. Examples of singular reduction. InSymplectic Geometry, volume 192 ofLondon Mathematical Society Lecture Note Series, pages 127–156. Cambridge University Press, 1994. 10.1017/CBO9780511526343.008

    1994 doi

  38. [46]

    Lerman and C

    E. Lerman and C. Willett. The topological structure of contact and symplectic quotients. Internat. Math. Res. Notices,2001(1):33–52, 2001. 10.1155/S1073792801000022

    2001 doi

  39. [47]

    A. D. Lewis. Generalised subbundles and distributions: A comprehensive review. arχiv:2309.10471, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  40. [48]

    S. Lie. Ueber einige partielle Differential-Gleichungen zweiter Orduung.Math. Ann., 5(2):209–256, 1872

  41. [49]

    Y. Lin, Y. Loizides, R. Sjamaar, and Y. Song. Symplectic reduction and a Darboux– Moser–Weinstein theorem for Lie algebroids.Pure Appl. Math. Q.,19(4):2067–2131, 2023. pamq.2023.v19.n4.a13

    2023

  42. [50]

    F. Loose. Reduction in contact geometry.J. Lie Theory,11(1):9–22, 2001

    2001

  43. [51]

    J. C. Marrero, E. Padr´ on, and M. Rodr´ ıguez-Olmos. Reduction of a symplectic-like Lie algebroid with momentum map and its application to fiberwise linear Poisson structures. J. Phys. A,45(16):165201, 34, 2012. 10.1088/1751-8113/45/16/165201

    2012 doi

  44. [52]

    J. C. Marrero, N. Rom´ an-Roy, M. Salgado, and S. Vilari˜ no. Reduction of polysymplectic manifolds.J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.,48(5):055206, 2015. 10.1088/1751-8113/48/5/055206

    2015 doi

  45. [53]

    Marsden and A

    J. Marsden and A. Weinstein. Reduction of symplectic manifolds with symmetry.Rep. Math. Phys.,5(1):121–130, 1974. 10.1016/0034-4877(74)90021-4. 49 Reduction ofk-contact field theories J. de Lucas, X. Rivas, S. Vilari˜ no, and B.M. Zawora

    1974 doi

  46. [54]

    J. E. Marsden and A. Weinstein. Comments on the history, theory, and applications of symplectic reduction. InQuantization of Singular Symplectic Quotients, volume 198 of Progress in Mathematics, pages 1–19. Birkhauser, Basel, 2001. 10.1007/978-3-0348-8364- 1 1

    2001 doi

  47. [55]

    K. R. Meyer. Symmetries and Integrals in Mechanics. InDynamical Systems, pages 259–

  48. [56]

    J. P. Ortega and T. S. Ratiu.Momentum maps and Hamiltonian reduction, volume 222 of Progress in Mathematics. Birkh¨ auser Boston, Inc., Boston, 2004. 10.1007/978-1-4757-3811- 7

    2004 doi

  49. [57]

    Rivas.Geometrical aspects of contact mechanical systems and field theories

    X. Rivas.Geometrical aspects of contact mechanical systems and field theories. PhD thesis, Universitat Polit` ecnica de Catalunya (UPC), 2021. arχiv:2204.11537

    2021 arXiv

  50. [58]

    X. Rivas. Nonautonomousk-contact field theories.J. Math. Phys.,64(3):033507, 2023. 10.1063/5.0131110

    2023 doi

  51. [59]

    Rivas, M

    X. Rivas, M. Salgado, and S. Souto. Some contributions tok-contact Lagrangian field equations, symmetries and dissipation laws.Rev. Math. Phys.,36(8):2450019, 2024. 10.1142/S0129055X24500193

    2024 doi

  52. [60]

    Rom´ an-Roy, M

    N. Rom´ an-Roy, M. Salgado, and S. Vilari˜ no. Symmetries and conservation laws in the G¨ untherk-symplectic formalism of field theory.Rev. Math. Phys.,19(10):1117–1147, 2007. 10.1142/S0129055X07003188

    2007 doi

  53. [61]

    A. A. Simoes, M. de Le´ on, M. Lainz Valc´ azar, and D. M. de Diego. Contact geometry for simple thermodynamical systems with friction.Proc. R. Soc. A: Math. Phys. Eng. Sci., 476(2241):20200244, 16, 2020. 10.1098/rspa.2020.0244

    2020

  54. [62]

    Sjamaar and E

    R. Sjamaar and E. Lerman. Stratified symplectic spaces and reduction.Ann. of Math. (2), 134(2):375–422, 1991. 10.2307/2944350

    1991 doi

  55. [63]

    H. J. Sussmann. Geometry and optimal control. InMathematical control theory, pages 140–198. Springer, New York, 1999. 10.1007/978-1-4612-1416-8 5

    1999 doi

  56. [64]

    W. P. Thurston.Three-Dimensional Geometry and Topology, Volume 1. Princeton Math- ematical Series. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, 1997. j.ctt1k3s9kd

    1997

  57. [65]

    C. Willett. Contact reduction.Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.,354(10):4245–4260, 2002. 10.1090/S0002-9947-02-03045-3

    2002 doi

  58. [66]

    Zambon and C

    M. Zambon and C. Zhu. Contact reduction and groupoid actions.Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.,358(3):1365–1401, 2006. 10.1090/S0002-9947-05-03832-8. 50

    2006 doi

  59. [272]

    10.1016/B978-0-12-550350-1.50025-4

    Academic Press, 1973. 10.1016/B978-0-12-550350-1.50025-4

    1973 doi

  60. [2024]

    10.3842/SIGMA.2024.061

    2024 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.