Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 78 references

A survey on geometric frameworks for action-dependent classical field theories and their relationship

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read When the phase bundle is trivial, the multicontact, k-contact, and k-cocontact formulations of action-dependent classical field theories are connected by explicit contraction formulas, and results proved in any one framework transfer…

desk verdict Useful survey with a real sign error in the main equivalence theorem; fixable, but the stated converse is false. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.11646 v1 pith:GOIAWTCS submitted 2025-06-13 math-ph math.DGmath.MP

Jordi Gaset-Rifà , Xavier Rivas , Narciso Román-Roy This is my paper · ORCID
classification math-phmath.DGmath.MP MSC 70S0570S1053D1035R0135Q9953C1553Z0558A10
keywords ClassicalfieldtheoriesAction-dependentLagrangianandHamiltonianformalismsMulticontactstructuresk-contactk-cocontactHerglotzvariationalprincipleTrivialbundles
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

Action-dependent classical field theories, whose Lagrangians or Hamiltonians include extra variables tied to the action and which typically encode dissipation, have been developed in three geometric languages: multicontact, k-contact, and k-cocontact structures. This paper reviews the Lagrangian and Hamiltonian formalisms in each language and then proves that, for trivial phase bundles, the three structures are equivalent. The equivalence is explicit: contracting the multicontact k-form with k spacetime directions yields the k-(co)contact 1-forms, and a wedge construction rebuilds the multicontact form. The practical consequence is that field equations, solutions, and structural theorems obtained in one framework carry over to the other two without re-derivation. The paper also compares its multicontact definition with an alternative notion from the literature and shows that, in the variational cases, the associated distributions are maximally non-integrable.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the special multicontact form $\Theta$, a k-form on the phase bundle whose kernels define a Reeb distribution and a dissipation 1-form $\sigma_\Theta$ (Definition 4.3). The argument moves between frameworks by a contraction-and-wedge mechanism: with global coordinates $x^\alpha$ available on the trivial bundle, each $\alpha$-component of the k-cocontact or k-contact structure is recovered by contracting $\Theta$ with all $\partial/\partial x^\beta$ except $\beta = \alpha$ and pulling back to the embedded phase space, and the multicontact form is rebuilt as $\Theta = -H\,d^k x + \eta^\alpha \wedge d^{k-1}x_\alpha$. This pair of operations transfers the Hamilton-de Donder-Weyl and Euler-Lagrange equations between formalisms, and it also identifies the Reeb vector fields, which generate the extra dissipation directions $s^\alpha$.

What would settle it

Take a non-trivial bundle over a compact base $M$, for instance a non-trivial circle or torus bundle with $k=2$, and try to apply formulas (5.3)-(5.4): because the vector fields $\partial/\partial x^\alpha$ are not globally defined on $M$, the resulting forms $\eta^\alpha$ would fail to be global 1-forms, showing the equivalence as stated is confined to the trivial case. Alternatively, an explicit Lagrangian with a degenerate Hessian matrix $(\partial^2 L/\partial y^a_\alpha \partial y^b_\beta)$ fails Proposition 4.18, so its form is not multicontact and the correspondence with a k-contact Hamiltonian system is not defined.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that special multicontact, k-contact, and k-cocontact structures describe the same geometric content for action-dependent field theories whenever the phase bundles are trivial. Proposition 5.1 establishes the key diffeomorphism $\Lambda^k_2 T^*(\mathbb{R}^k \times Q) \simeq \mathbb{R}^k \times \mathbb{R} \times \oplus^k T^*Q$, and from it the paper derives formulas (5.1)-(5.7) that pass between the canonical special multicontact form $\Theta$ and the canonical 1-forms $\eta^\alpha = ds^\alpha - p^\alpha_a\,dy^a$: contracting $\Theta$ with the vector fields $\partial/\partial x^\beta$ for $\beta \neq \alpha$ and pulling back along the zero-section yields $\eta^\alpha$, while $\Theta = -H\,d^k x + \eta^\alpha \wedge d^{k-1}x_\alpha$ rebuilds the multicontact form from k-contact or k-cocontact data. The same operations work in the Lagrangian picture, with the Lagrangian energy $E_L$ in place of $H$, for autonomous Lagrangians (Theorem 5.6) and non-autonomous ones (Theorem 5.7). Because the formulas preserve the Reeb vector fields, the corresponding Herglotz-Euler-Lagrange and Herglotz-Hamilton-de Donder-Weyl equations coincide.

Load-bearing premise

The proof of the equivalence assumes the bundle is trivial, so global coordinates $x^\alpha$ and $s^\alpha$ and the diffeomorphism of Proposition 5.1 exist; if the bundle is curved or non-trivial, the contraction formulas do not define global forms and the equivalence is not established, and only regular Lagrangians and Hamiltonians are treated.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For trivial phase bundles, every k-contact Hamiltonian or Lagrangian system arises from a special multicontact system via the contraction formulas, and conversely via the wedge reconstruction, so the two theories have the same solutions.
  • The non-autonomous k-cocontact equations and the autonomous k-contact equations are recovered as the x-dependent and x-independent cases of the same multicontact equations, so no separate derivation is needed for either.
  • The Hamiltonian and Lagrangian versions of the equivalence are consistent: the Legendre map intertwines the forms, so a regular or hyperregular Lagrangian produces equivalent k-contact, k-cocontact, and multicontact Hamiltonian systems.
  • When k=1, the unified picture reproduces contact mechanics and time-dependent cocontact mechanics as special cases of the same construction.
  • In the variational cases, the multicontact distribution $\ker \Theta$ and the k-cocontact distribution $\mathcal{D}_S \cap \mathcal{D}_C$ are maximally non-integrable, which links these structures to the alternative definition of multicontact structure compared in Section 6.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the equivalence is taken as a working principle, any theorem proved only for multicontact structures, for instance a Noether-type conservation result, should immediately have k-contact and k-cocontact versions on trivial bundles, even where the paper does not spell those versions out.
  • The restriction to trivial bundles points to the next natural question of globalization: for non-trivial bundles the contraction formulas would hold only locally, and the structures would need to be patched by transition data, which the paper does not address.
  • Because the field equations in all three formalisms reduce to the same PDE system, the multicontact picture could serve as a master coordinate system from which k-contact and k-cocontact descriptions are generated by fixing or eliminating spacetime variables.
  • The connection with maximally non-integrable distributions suggests a possible homotopical reading: if the alternative multicontact definition is algebraic in nature, the equivalence established here may imply that the k-contact and k-cocontact formalisms inherit that algebraic structure on trivial bundles, which is beyond what the paper proves.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript surveys three geometric frameworks for action-dependent classical field theories: k-contact, k-cocontact, and multicontact structures. Sections 2–4 review the definitions, Darboux-type coordinate results, and the Lagrangian/Hamiltonian formalisms for each framework in the regular case. Section 5 is the main new contribution: it claims explicit formulas relating the multicontact forms and the (co)contact forms when the relevant bundles are trivial, for both the Hamiltonian and Lagrangian settings. Section 6 compares the paper's multicontact notion with Vitagliano's maximally non-integrable distributions and gives a counterexample showing that non-variational special multicontact structures need not yield such distributions.

Significance. If the equivalence theorems in Section 5 were correct, they would provide a useful dictionary allowing results proved in any one of the three frameworks to be transferred to the others, at least for trivial bundles. The survey portions are largely coherent and the counterexample in Section 6 is a genuine contribution. However, the central Section 5 computations contain load-bearing sign errors: the converse formulas do not reproduce the forms defined earlier in the paper. Since the main novelty of the paper rests on these equivalences, the manuscript needs substantial correction before it can be accepted, although the intended framework is plausible and the errors appear fixable.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 5.1.1, Eq. (5.1)] The computation of the 1-forms η^α from the canonical multicontact form eΘ contains sign errors. A direct coordinate check for k=3, α=3 gives, after applying eȷ^*, the value +p^a_3 dy^a - ds^3, whereas the canonical k-contact form of Remark 2.6 is ds^3 - p^a_3 dy^a. Equivalently, the displayed identity eΘ ∧ dx^α = (-1)^{k-1}(... ∧ d^k x) is not correct in general: since d^{k-1}x^α ∧ dx^α = d^k x, the correct wedge product is (ds^α - p^a_α dy^a) ∧ d^k x. Thus the claimed derivation of the canonical k-contact structure from eΘ is not valid as written, and Theorem 5.2 is affected in its forward direction as well as its converse.
  2. [Section 5.1.1, Eq. (5.2)] The converse formula reconstructing eΘ from the k-contact forms has the wrong sign on the p d^k x term. Definition 4.23 gives eΘ = -p^a_α dy^a ∧ d^{k-1}x^α - p d^k x + ds^α ∧ d^{k-1}x^α. Substituting η^α = ds^α - p^a_α dy^a into (5.2) yields +p d^k x, so the reconstructed form differs from the canonical one by 2p d^k x. This is not a harmless convention shift, because the sign of the d^k x coefficient changes the form itself and is fixed by the earlier definition. The same reconstruction pattern is used in Sections 5.1.3 and 5.1.4, so Theorems 5.4 and 5.5 inherit the error.
  3. [Section 5.2, Theorems 5.6 and 5.7] The Lagrangian converse formulas have the wrong sign on the Lagrangian energy term. Equation (4.3) states Θ_L = -∂L/∂y^a_μ dy^a ∧ d^{k-1}x^μ + (∂L/∂y^a_μ y^a_μ - L) d^k x + ds^μ ∧ d^{k-1}x^μ, i.e. the d^k x coefficient is +E_L, not -E_L. Combining (4.3) with η^α_L = ds^α - ∂L/∂y^a_α dy^a gives Θ_L = E_L d^k x + η^α_L ∧ d^{k-1}x^α. Theorems 5.6 and 5.7 instead state Θ_L = -E_L d^k t + κ_2^*θ^α ∧ d^{k-1}x^α, which does not reproduce the Lagrangian form defined earlier. These theorems are the Lagrangian counterparts of the central equivalence claim, so the error is load-bearing.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 6, Proposition 6.1] The final sentence of the proof is garbled: it should say that ι_X dη^α vanishes on Γ(DS ∩ DC) and on Γ(DR), and therefore by (6.1) vanishes on all of TM, forcing ι_X dη^α = 0; the printed text instead writes 'for every α and X ∈ Γ(DR)', which is not the intended statement.
  2. [Section 5.1.2] In the paragraph following Proposition 5.1, the phrase 'the canonical special multicontact form in eP' near formula (5.4) should refer to P* ≃ R^k × ⊕^k T*Q × R^k, not to eP; as printed it is confusing because (5.4) defines a form on P*, not on eP.
  3. [Theorem 5.4 statement] The statement contains a typographical error: 'P∗ = Rk ⊕k T∗Q × Rk' should read 'P∗ = R^k × ⊕^k T*Q × R^k'; the missing product symbol obscures the mathematical content.
  4. [References] References [22] and [69] are both assigned the arXiv identifier 2505.13224; this appears to be a duplication or a citation error and should be checked and corrected.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the Section 5 correspondence is an explicit coordinate computation from independently defined canonical forms, and the paper's self-citations are source attributions rather than load-bearing premises.

full rationale

The paper's central original claim is the relationship among the multicontact, k-contact, and k-cocontact structures on trivial phase bundles. The canonical structures are independently defined: for example, the k-contact forms eta^alpha = ds^alpha - p^alpha_a dy^a in (2.2), the k-cocontact forms tau^alpha = dx^alpha and eta^alpha = ds^alpha - p^alpha_a dy^a in Example 3.6, and the multicontact form eTheta = -p^a_alpha dy^a wedge d^{k-1}x^alpha - p d^k x + ds^alpha wedge d^{k-1}x^alpha in (4.16)/(4.23). The relationship theorems (5.2)-(5.7) are then verified by direct contraction and wedge-product computations in coordinates, not assumed in the definitions. The observations that the Herglotz-Euler-Lagrange equations coincide across formalisms (equations (4.15), (3.5), and (2.14)) are likewise coordinate checks. The many self-citations ([20], [22], [38], [40], [68], etc.) identify the origin of previously introduced definitions and technical lemmas; the load-bearing argument in Section 5 does not reduce to an unverified self-citation, since the needed identities are displayed in the text. A separate sign inconsistency in the converse formula (5.2) relative to the canonical form (4.23) would be a correctness defect, not a circularity, and does not change this verdict.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 2 invented entities

No free parameters are fitted to data. The mathematical results rest on definitions and theorems from the authors' prior work (k-contact from [38], k-cocontact from [68], multicontact from [20,21,22]) and on standard smooth manifold theory. The new relationship theorems in Section 5 add no new empirical entities; they combine these accepted structures under the trivial-bundle assumption.

assumptions (7)
  • standard math Smooth manifold theory, exterior calculus, and standard multivector field formalism (Appendix A) are assumed.
    These background tools are used throughout the paper without proof; cited to standard references [13,14,33,59,63].
  • domain assumption The definition of k-contact structure and its Darboux theorem (Theorem 2.5) requiring an integrable subdistribution V ⊂ D_C of rank nk are taken from [38].
    Adopted from the authors' prior work; the canonical coordinates (y^a, p^a_a, s^α) are used in Section 5 to relate forms.
  • domain assumption The definition of k-cocontact structure and its Darboux theorem (Theorem 3.7) are taken from [68].
    Adopted from prior work; needed for the non-autonomous identification in Theorems 5.5 and 5.7.
  • domain assumption The special and variational multicontact structures, including the Reeb distribution, dissipation form σ_Θ, and adapted coordinates (Theorem 4.7), are taken from [20,21,22].
    The central object Θ_L in Section 4 and the contraction formulas in Section 5 rely on this structure.
  • domain assumption The Herglotz variational principle yields the field equations for action-dependent theories (cited to [41,45,60]).
    Used to justify that the multicontact Lagrangian and Hamiltonian equations (4.7) and (4.21) are the correct physical equations.
  • standard math For the trivial bundle R^k × Q, the identification Λ^k_2 T^*(R^k × Q) ≅ R^k × R × ⊕^k T^*Q holds (Proposition 5.1).
    This is a standard vector-bundle identification, proved in the text for this special case; it is the structural premise for all of Section 5.
  • domain assumption Regularity of Lagrangians/Hamiltonians: the Hessian matrix is assumed nondegenerate everywhere.
    The review explicitly restricts to regular theories; singular cases are excluded (stated in the introduction and in Definitions 2.20, 3.20, 4.19).
invented entities (2)
  • Special multicontact structure (Θ, ω)
    purpose: Geometric framework for action-dependent field theories that unifies the Lagrangian and Hamiltonian formalisms through forms Θ and ω.
    Defined in prior work by de León, Gaset, Muñoz-Lecanda, Rivas, Román-Roy [20,21,22]; this paper uses it as the central object and compares its reductions. It makes no empirically falsifiable prediction outside the formalism itself.
  • Dissipation form σ_Θ
    purpose: A 1-form that encodes the dissipative terms in the multicontact field equations, defined in Proposition 4.4.
    Defined internally from the multicontact structure; it parametrizes the action-dependence in the equations but has no independent physical signature established here.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A survey on geometric frameworks for action-dependent classical field theories and their relationship." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GOIAWTCS

@misc{pith2026250611646,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A survey on geometric frameworks for action-dependent classical field theories and their relationship},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GOIAWTCS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.11646}
}
read the original abstract

This work presents a comprehensive overview of three recently developed geometric frameworks for the study of classical action-dependent field theories. Specifically, the three underlying geometric structures - namely, k-contact, k-cocontact, and multicontact - are first introduced, and then used to develop the Lagrangian and Hamiltonian formalisms of the aforementioned theories. Finally, the relationship among these three types of structures is analyzed in the case of trivial bundles; as well as the comparison with other alternative definitions of multicontact structure presented in the literature.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

78 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Abraham and J

    R. Abraham and J. E. Marsden. Foundations of mechanics, volume 364 of AMS Chelsea publishing . Benjamin/Cummings Pub. Co., New York, 2nd edition, 1978. 10.1090/chel/364

    doi:10.1090/chel/364 1978

  2. [2]

    Aldaya and J

    V. Aldaya and J. A. de Azc´ arraga. Geometric formulation of classical mechanics and field theory. Riv. Nuovo Cim. , 3(1):1–66, 1980. 10.1007/BF02906204

    doi:10.1007/bf02906204 1980

  3. [3]

    V. I. Arnold. Mathematical Methods of Classical Mechanics , volume 60 of Graduate Texts in Mathematics. Springer, New York, 2nd edition, 1989. 10.1007/978-1-4757-1693-1

    doi:10.1007/978-1-4757-1693-1 1989

  4. [4]

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

    doi:10.1063/1.529855 1992

  5. [5]

    A. Awane. G-espaces K-symplectiques homog` enes.J. Geom. Phys., 13(2):139–157, 1994. 10.1016/0393- 0440(94)90024-8

    work page doi:10.1016/0393- 1994

  6. [6]

    Awane and M

    A. Awane and M. Goze. Pfaffian systems, k-symplectic systems. Springer, Dordrecht, 1st edition,

    work page

  7. [7]

    Banyaga and D

    A. Banyaga and D. F. Houenou. A brief introduction to symplectic and contact manifolds , volume 15 of Nankai Tracts in Mathematics . World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., Singapore, 2016. 10.1142/9667

    work page doi:10.1142/9667 2016

  8. [8]

    P. Bolle. Une condition de contact pour les sous-vari´ et´ es coısotropes d’une vari´ et´ e symplectique.C. R. Math. Acad. Sci. S´ er. 1, 1:83–96, 1996

    work page 1996

Show all 78 references
  1. [9]

    Bravetti

    A. Bravetti. Contact Hamiltonian dynamics: The concept and its use. Entropy, 10(19):535, 2017. 10.3390/e19100535

    2017 doi

  2. [10]

    Bravetti

    A. Bravetti. Contact geometry and thermodynamics. Int. J. Geom. Methods Mod. Phys. , 16(supp01):1940003, 2018. 10.1142/S0219887819400036. 37 Geometry of action-dependent classical field theories J. Gaset, X. Rivas, and N. Rom´ an-Roy

    2018 doi

  3. [11]

    Bravetti, H

    A. Bravetti, H. Cruz, and D. Tapias. Contact Hamiltonian mechanics. Ann. Phys., 376:17–39, 2017. 10.1016/j.aop.2016.11.003

    2017 doi

  4. [12]

    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

  5. [13]

    R. L. Bryant, S. S. Chern, R. B. Gardner, H. L. Goldshmidt, and P. A. Griffith. Exterior Differential Systems, volume 18 of Mathematical Sciences Research Institute Publications . Springer-Verlag, New York, 1st edition, 1991. 10.1007/978-1-4613-9714-4

    1991 doi

  6. [14]

    Cantrijn, A

    F. Cantrijn, A. Ibort, and M. de Le´ on. Hamiltonian structures on multisymplectic manifolds. Rend. Sem. Mat. Univ. Pol. Torino , 54(3):225–236, 1996. http://www.seminariomatematico.polito. it/rendiconti/cartaceo/54-3/225.pdf

    1996

  7. [15]

    J. F. Cari˜ nena, M. Crampin, and L. A. Ibort. On the multisymplectic formalism for first order field theories. Diff. Geom. Appl. , 1(4):345–374, 1991. 10.1016/0926-2245(91)90013-Y

    1991 doi

  8. [16]

    J. F. Cari˜ nena and P. Guha. Nonstandard Hamiltonian structures of the Li´ enard equation and contact geometry. Int. J. Geom. Methods Mod. Phys., 16(supp01):1940001, 2019. 10.1142/S0219887819400012

    2019 doi

  9. [17]

    F. M. Ciaglia, H. Cruz, and G. Marmo. Contact manifolds and dissipation, classical and quantum. Ann. Phys., 398:159–179, 2018. 10.1016/j.aop.2018.09.012

    2018 doi

  10. [18]

    de Le´ on, M

    M. de Le´ on, M. McLean, L. Norris, A. Rey-Roca, and M. Salgado. Geometric structures in field theory. arXiv:math-ph/0208036, 2002

    2002 arXiv

  11. [19]

    de Le´ on, J

    M. de Le´ on, J. Gaset, X. Gr` acia, M. C. Mu˜ noz-Lecanda, and X. Rivas. Time-dependent contact mechanics. Monatsh. Math. , 201:1149–1183, 2023. 10.1007/s00605-022-01767-1

    2023 doi

  12. [20]

    de Le´ on, J

    M. de Le´ on, J. Gaset, M. C. Mu˜ noz-Lecanda, X. Rivas, and N. Rom´ an-Roy. Multicontact formulation for non-conservative field theories. J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. , 56(2):025201, 2023. 10.1088/1751- 8121/acb575

    2023 doi

  13. [21]

    de Le´ on, J

    M. de Le´ on, J. Gaset, M. C. Mu˜ noz-Lecanda, X. Rivas, and N. Rom´ an-Roy. Practical introduction to action-dependent field theories. Fortschr. Phys., 7(5), 2025. 10.1002/prop.70000

    2025 doi

  14. [23]

    de Le´ on and M

    M. de Le´ on and M. Lainz-Valc´ azar. Singular Lagrangians and precontact Hamiltonian systems.Int. J. Geom. Methods Mod. Phys. , 16(10):1950158, 2019. 10.1142/S0219887819501585

    2019 doi

  15. [24]

    de Le´ on and M

    M. de Le´ on and M. La ´ ınz-Valc´ azar. Contact Hamiltonian systems.J. Math. Phys. , 60(10):102902,

  16. [25]

    de Le´ on, D

    M. de Le´ on, D. Mart ´ ın de Diego, and A. Santamar ´ ıa-Merino. Tulczyjew triples and Lagrangian submanifolds in classical field theories. In Applied Differential Geometry and Mechanic , pages 21–47. Univ. of Gent, Academia Press, Gent, 2003. arxiv:math-ph/0302026

    2003 arXiv

  17. [26]

    de Le´ on, J

    M. de Le´ on, J. Mar ´ ın-Solano, and J. C. Marrero.A geometrical approach to Classical Field Theories: a constraint algorithm for singular theories , pages 291–312. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, 1996. 10.1007/978-94-009-0149-0 22

    1996 doi

  18. [27]

    de Le´ on, E

    M. de Le´ on, E. Merino, J. A. Oubi˜ na, P. R. Rodrigues, and M. Salgado. Hamiltonian systems on k-cosymplectic manifolds. J. Math. Phys. , 39(2):876, 1998. 10.1063/1.532358

    1998 doi

  19. [28]

    de Le´ on, E

    M. de Le´ on, E. Merino, J. A. Oubi˜ na, and M. Salgado. Stable almost cotangent structures.Bolletino Unione Mat. Ital. B (7) , 11(3):509–529, 1997

    1997

  20. [29]

    de Le´ on and P

    M. de Le´ on and P. R. Rodrigues.Methods of differential geometry in analytical mechanics , volume 158 of Mathematics Studies . North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1989. 10.1016/s0304-0208(08)x7115-4

    1989 doi

  21. [30]

    de Le´ on, M

    M. de Le´ on, M. Salgado, and S. Vilari˜ no.Methods of Differential Geometry in Classical Field Theories . World Scientific, 2015. 10.1142/9693

    2015 doi

  22. [31]

    de Lucas, X

    J. de Lucas, X. Rivas, and T. Sobczak. Foundations on k-contact geometry. 2409.11001, 2024. 38 Geometry of action-dependent classical field theories J. Gaset, X. Rivas, and N. Rom´ an-Roy

    2024 arXiv

  23. [32]

    Echeverr ´ ıa-Enr ´ ıquez, M

    A. Echeverr ´ ıa-Enr ´ ıquez, M. C. Mu˜ noz-Lecanda, and N. Rom´ an-Roy. Geometry of Lagrangian first-order classical field theories. Fortschr. Phys., 44(3):235–280, 1996. 10.1002/prop.2190440304

    1996 doi

  24. [33]

    Echeverr ´ ıa-Enr ´ ıquez, M

    A. Echeverr ´ ıa-Enr ´ ıquez, M. C. Mu˜ noz-Lecanda, and N. Rom´ an-Roy. Multivector fields and con- nections: Setting Lagrangian equations in field theories. J. Math. Phys. , 39(9):4578–4603, 1998. 10.1063/1.532525

    1998 doi

  25. [34]

    Echeverr ´ ıa-Enr ´ ıquez, M

    A. Echeverr ´ ıa-Enr ´ ıquez, M. C. Mu˜ noz-Lecanda, and N. Rom´ an-Roy. Geometry of multisymplectic Hamiltonian first-order field theories. J. Math. Phys. , 41(11):7402–7444, 2000. 10.1063/1.1308075

    doi

  26. [35]

    Finamore

    D. Finamore. Contact foliations and generalised Weinstein conjectures. Ann. Glob. Anal. Geom. , 65(27), 2024. 10.1007/s10455-024-09957-w

    2024 doi

  27. [36]

    Forger, C

    M. Forger, C. Paufler, and H. R¨ omer. Hamiltonian multivector fields and Poisson forms in multisym- plectic field theory. J. Math, Phys. , 46(11):112903, 2005. 10.1063/1.2116320

    2005 doi

  28. [37]

    P. L. Garc ´ ıa. The Poincar´ e–Cartan invariant in the calculus of variations. InSymposia Mathematiea, volume 14, pages 219–246, London, 1974. (Convegno di Geometria Simplettica e Fisica Matematica, INDAM, Rome, 1973), Academic Press

    1974

  29. [38]

    Gaset, X

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

    2020

  30. [39]

    Gaset, X

    J. Gaset, X. Gr` acia, M. C. Mu˜ noz-Lecanda, X. Rivas, and N. Rom´ an-Roy. New contributions 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

  31. [40]

    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

  32. [41]

    Gaset, M

    J. Gaset, M. Lainz, A. Mas, and X. Rivas. The Herglotz variational principle for dissipative field theories. Geom. Mech., 1(2):153–178, 2024. 10.1142/S2972458924500060

    2024 doi

  33. [42]

    Gaset, A

    J. Gaset, A. L´ opez-Gord´ on, and X. Rivas. Symmetries, conservation and dissipation in time-dependent contact systems. Fortschr. Phys., 71(8–9):2300048, 2023. 10.1002/prop.202300048

    2023 doi

  34. [43]

    Gaset and A

    J. Gaset and A. Mas. A variational derivation of the field equations of an action-dependent Einstein– Hilbert Lagrangian. J. Geom. Mech. , 15(1):357–374, 2023. 10.3934/jgm.2023014

    2023 doi

  35. [44]

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

    2008 doi

  36. [45]

    Georgieva, R

    B. Georgieva, R. Gunther, and T. Bodurov. Generalized variational principle of Herglotz for several independent variables. First Noether-type theorem. J. Math. Phys. , 44(9):3911, 2003. 10.1063/1.1597419

    2003 doi

  37. [46]

    Giachetta, L

    G. Giachetta, L. Mangiarotti, and G. A. Sardanashvily. New Lagrangian and Hamiltonian Methods in Field Theory . World Scientific, River Edge, 1997. 10.1142/2199

    1997 doi

  38. [47]

    Goldschmidt and S

    H. Goldschmidt and S. Sternberg. The Hamilton–Cartan formalism in the calculus of variations. Ann. Inst. Fourier , 23(1):203–267, 1973. 10.5802/aif.451

    1973 doi

  39. [48]

    M. J. Gotay, J. Isenberg, J. E. Marsden, and R. Montgomery. Momentum Maps and Classical Relativistic Fields. Part I: Covariant Field Theory. arxiv:physics/9801019, 1998

    1998 arXiv

  40. [49]

    Grabowska and J

    K. Grabowska and J. Grabowski. A geometric approach to contact Hamiltonians and contact Hamilton–Jacobi theory. J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. , 55(43):435204, 2022. 10.1088/1751-8121/ac9adb

    2022 doi

  41. [50]

    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

  42. [51]

    Helein and J

    F. Helein and J. Kouneiher. Finite dimensional Hamiltonian formalism for gauge and quantum field theories. J. Math. Phys. , 43(5):2306–2347, 2002. 10.1063/1.1467710

    2002 doi

  43. [52]

    Herglotz

    G. Herglotz. Ber¨ uhrungstransformationen. Lectures at the University of G¨ ottingen, 1930. 39 Geometry of action-dependent classical field theories J. Gaset, X. Rivas, and N. Rom´ an-Roy

    1930

  44. [53]

    Herglotz

    G. Herglotz. Vorlesungen ¨ uber die Mechanik der Kontinua, volume 3 ofTeubner-Archiv zur Mathematik. Teubner, Leipzig, 1985. 10.1007/978-3-7091-9510-9

    1985 doi

  45. [54]

    D. D. Holm. Geometric Mechanics. Part I . Imperial College Press, World Scientific, London, 2011. 10.1142/p801

    2011 doi

  46. [55]

    I. V. Kanatchikov. Canonical structure of classical field theory in the polymomentum phase space. Rep. Math. Phys. , 41(1):49–90, 1998. 10.1016/S0034-4877(98)80182-1

    1998 doi

  47. [56]

    A. L. Kholodenko. Applications of contact geometry and topology in physics . World Scientific, Singapore, 2013. 10.1142/8514

    2013 doi

  48. [57]

    Kijowski

    J. Kijowski. A finite-dimensional canonical formalism in the classical field theory. Comm. Math. Phys., 30(2):99–128, 1973. 10.1007/BF01645975

    1973 doi

  49. [58]

    Kijowski and W

    J. Kijowski and W. M. Tulczyjew. A symplectic framework for field theories , volume 107 of Lecture Notes in Physics . Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg, 1st edition, 1979. 10.1007/3-540-09538-1

    1979 doi

  50. [59]

    Kol´ aˇ r, P

    I. Kol´ aˇ r, P. W. Michor, and J. Slov´ ak.Natural operations in differential geometry . Springer Berlin, Heidelberg, 1993. 10.1007/978-3-662-02950-3

    1993 doi

  51. [60]

    M. Lazo, J. Paiva, J. Amaral, and G. Frederico. Action principle for action-dependent Lagrangians to- ward nonconservative gravity: Accelerating universe without dark energy.Phys. Rev. D, 95(10):101501,

  52. [61]

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

    2012 doi

  53. [62]

    Libermann and C.-M

    P. Libermann and C.-M. Marle. Symplectic geometry and analytical mechanics , volume 35 of Mathematics and Its Applications . Springer Dordrecht, 1987. 10.1007/978-94-009-3807-6

    1987 doi

  54. [63]

    C.-M. Marle. The Schouten–Nijenhuis bracket and interior products.J. Geom. Phys., 23(3–4):350–359,

  55. [64]

    G. Martin. A Darboux theorem for multi-symplectic manifolds. Lett. Math. Phys. , 16:133–138, 1988. 10.1007/BF00402020

    1988 doi

  56. [65]

    B. Montano. Integral submanifolds of r-contact manifolds. Demonstr. Math. , 41(1):189–202, 2015. 10.1515/dema-2013-0054

    2015 doi

  57. [66]

    M. C. Mu˜ noz-Lecanda and N. Rom´ an-Roy.Geometry of Mechanics . World Scientific, London, 2025. 10.1142/q0490

    2025 doi

  58. [67]

    A. M. Rey, N. Rom´ an-Roy, M. Salgado, and S. Vilari˜ no. On the k-symplectic, k-cosymplectic and multisymplectic formalisms of classical field theories. J. Geom. Mech. , 3(1):113–137, 2011. 10.3934/jgm.2011.3.113

    2011 doi

  59. [68]

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

    2023 doi

  60. [69]

    Rivas, N

    X. Rivas, N. Rom´ an-Roy, and B. M. Zawora. Symmetries and Noether’s theorem for multicontact field theories. 2505.13224, 2025

    2025

  61. [70]

    Rivas and D

    X. Rivas and D. Torres. Lagrangian–Hamiltonian formalism for cocontact systems. J. Geom. Mech. , 15(1):1–26, 2023. 10.3934/jgm.2023001

    2023 doi

  62. [71]

    Rom´ an-Roy

    N. Rom´ an-Roy. Multisymplectic Lagrangian and Hamiltonian formalisms of classical field theories. Symmetry Integr. Geom.: Methods Appl. (SIGMA) , 5(100), 2009. 10.3842/SIGMA.2009.100

    2009 doi

  63. [72]

    Ryvkin and T

    L. Ryvkin and T. Wurzbacher. An invitation to multisymplectic geometry. J. Geom. Phys., 142:9–36,

  64. [73]

    D. J. Saunders. The geometry of jet bundles , volume 142 of London Mathematical Society Lecture Note Series . Cambridge University Press, 1989. 10.1017/CBO9780511526411

    1989 doi

  65. [74]

    Tomassini and L

    A. Tomassini and L. Vezzoni. Contact Calabi–Yau manifolds and special Legendrian submanifolds. Osaka J. Math. , 45(1):127–147, 2008

    2008

  66. [75]

    Vitagliano

    L. Vitagliano. L∞-algebras from multicontact geometry. Diff. Geom. Appl. , 39:147–165, 2015. 10.1016/j.difgeo.2015.01.006. 40

    2015 doi

  67. [1997]

    10.1016/S0393-0440(97)80009-5

    doi

  68. [2000]

    10.1007/978-94-015-9526-1

    doi

  69. [2017]

    10.1103/PhysRevD.95.101501

    doi

  70. [2019]

    10.1016/j.geomphys.2019.03.006

    2019 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.