Toward an Asymptotic Efficiency Theory on Regular Parameter Manifolds

Lin Liu; Lvfang Sun; Zhenhua Lin

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 1 cited by

Toward an Asymptotic Efficiency Theory on Regular Parameter Manifolds

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper proves that the classical efficiency bound—inverse Fisher information transported through the functional derivative—holds for regular estimators of manifold-valued parameters, and applies it to Fréchet means and single-index coeff

desk verdict Real framework contribution, but the semiparametric headline theorem is misstated as written and needs fixing before the paper is usable. read the letter →

arxiv 2510.13703 v4 pith:VZTG22SG submitted 2025-10-15 math.ST stat.MLstat.TH

Lvfang Sun , Zhenhua Lin , Lin Liu This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.STstat.MLstat.TH MSC 62B0562F1262G2062R30

keywords asymptoticefficiencytheorysemiparametricRiemannianmanifoldsconvolutiontheoremlocalminimaxFréchetmeansingle-indexmodelinfluenceoperator

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 Le Cam's asymptotic efficiency theory from normed linear spaces to Riemannian manifolds. The central result is a convolution theorem: the limiting law of any regular estimator of a manifold-valued parameter decomposes as a Gaussian with covariance ψ̇(θ)G⁻¹ψ̇(θ)* convolved with an independent nuisance measure, and no regular estimator can beat this bound. The same machinery yields a local asymptotic minimax theorem and a working calculus of influence operators for manifold-valued parameters. These results unify previously case-by-case efficiency bounds: the sample Fréchet mean attains the semiparametric bound, and the single-index coefficient bound follows from the exponential map on the unit hemisphere. The paper matters because modern datasets—covariance matrices, networks, shapes—live on nonlinear spaces, and this provides a single standard for optimal estimation there.

What carries the argument

The central objects are the exponential map Expθ and its inverse logarithmic map Exp^{-1}μ, which replace addition and subtraction on a manifold, together with parallel transport Πψ(θ)ψ(θ') along the distance-minimizing geodesic, which moves residuals between tangent spaces and defines regular estimators. The key identity is the influence-operator equation ψ̇(θ) = E[IFψ·S(θ)], and the convolution decomposition Lψθ = N(0, ψ̇(θ)G⁻¹θψ̇(θ)*) * Δψ(θ). The workhorse technical fact is the second-order Jacobi-field expansion of Exp and Exp^{-1} (Lemma A.6), which shows curvature enters the finite-sample Cramér–Rao bound only through terms that vanish at √n scale.

What would settle it

On a manifold with a point whose sectional curvature grows without bound near the support of the estimator, simulate a regular estimator (e.g., Fréchet mean on a family of tori with shrinking injectivity radius) and check whether the limiting distribution of √n Exp^{-1}_{ψ(θ)} ψ̂n is a convolution with N(0, ψ̇G⁻¹ψ̇*) or whether the Gaussian component is altered; equivalently, verify numerically whether the equality in Lemma A.6 (∇Exp^{-1}_{μ} μ_h = id + (1/6)R_μ(h,·)h + O(‖h‖³)) holds uniformly in h along the path h/√n.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the Hájék–Le Cam convolution theorem and the local asymptotic minimax theorem hold for parameters valued in a complete Riemannian manifold, with the same Gaussian component ψ̇(θ)G⁻¹θψ̇(θ)* as in linear spaces. The proof works by defining regular estimators through parallel transport of √n-scaled residuals across tangent spaces along the unique distance-minimizing geodesic, and by controlling the curvature remainders in the Taylor expansions of the exponential and logarithmic maps. As a consequence, the sample Fréchet mean is semiparametrically efficient with influence operator IFμ0 = {E[∇Exp^{-1}μ0 X]}⁻¹ Exp^{-1}μ0 X (Theorem 5.2), and the single-index regressio

Load-bearing premise

The paper assumes that along local perturbation paths the curvature of the parameter manifold is controlled well enough that the second-order Taylor expansions of the exponential and logarithmic maps hold uniformly, so the parallel-transported residuals drift by o(1) at the √n scale; if the manifold has unbounded curvature or the estimator approaches the cut locus, this uniformity can fail and the convolution bound may collapse.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Any regular estimator of a manifold-valued parameter has an asymptotic variance lower bound equal to the transported inverse Fisher information; a Hodges-type superefficient estimator is excluded by regularity in the manifold sense.
The sample Fréchet mean is asymptotically efficient among regular estimators and attains the semiparametric bound V = E[IF⊗²], including under missing-at-random mechanisms where the influence operator generalizes the classical MAR mean influence function.
Single-index model coefficients, constrained to a unit hemisphere, obtain a semiparametric efficiency bound without crafting ad hoc parametric submodels; the exponential map automatically produces valid submodel paths.
The calculus of influence operators—solving E[IF·S] = ψ̇(θ) and projecting onto the tangent space—is licit for manifold-valued parameters, so practitioners can construct one-step or debiased estimators on manifolds.
Local asymptotic minimax holds, so the bound applies to all estimator sequences, not just regular ones, with a curvature-dependent term that disappears in the large-n limit.

Reading between the lines

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

The framework suggests that curvature affects only finite-sample Cramér–Rao bounds and vanishes asymptotically, implying that large-sample inference on curved spaces can safely ignore curvature—but also that non-asymptotic or higher-order efficiency will depend on curvature and should be studied separately.
The same vocabulary could be pushed to infinite-dimensional parameter manifolds (e.g., Wasserstein space of distributions), but the paper's reliance on finite-dimensional tangent-space isomorphism suggests new tools would be needed; a testable extension is whether the convolution theorem survives for Fréchet means in Wasserstein space with non-unique geodesics.
A reader can empirically check the regularity condition behind the theorem by computing bootstrap distributions of parallel-transported residuals: if the law of √n Πψ(θ)ψ(θ_{n,h}) Exp^{-1}_{ψ(θ_{n,h})} ψ̂n stabilizes in h, the estimator is regular and the bound applies.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Two things you should know. First, the paper genuinely does something new: it builds a Le Cam-style efficiency vocabulary for Riemannian parameter manifolds, states and proves convolution and LAM theorems for parametric models, and develops an influence-operator calculus. The two applications match existing known bounds (Fréchet mean, single-index model), which is the strongest evidence that the underlying calculus is right. Second, the semiparametric headline, Theorem 4.1, is misstated. The proof in Appendix D.1 derives a convolution with N(0, V_x) where V_x = E[IF⊗IF]; the theorem instead states N(0, G_P^{-1}), where G_P is the Fisher information of a one-dimensional submodel. Those two coincide only when the submodel score is proportional to the efficient influence operator, which is neither assumed nor generally true. So the theorem as written is either ill-posed at the semiparametric level or false. The applications don't rely on the faulty statement, but the main claim of Section 4 does.

What is genuinely good: the parametric convolution theorem and LAM theorem for general manifolds appear to be new, and the external consistency checks (Bhattacharya-Patrangenaru for Fréchet means, Kuchibhotla-Patra for single-index) are reassuring. The geometric regularity premise is the real soft spot: the proofs need uniform control of curvature and cut-locus structure along perturbation paths, but the paper only assumes completeness and almost-sure avoidance of the cut locus. Primitive conditions like bounded curvature or a positive injectivity radius should be stated explicitly.

Smaller issues: the single-index example introduces 1/σ^2 in the efficient score (equation 34), silently assuming Gaussian errors, while the model only states E(ε|X)=0. Assumption C.2, on which the LAM theorem leans, is asserted to hold under continuity but verification is one sentence. A few regularity steps in Theorem 5.1 and Appendix B.1 are compressed.

Overall, the framework is real and fixable. The misstated Theorem 4.1 should be corrected or the proof aligned, and the geometric assumptions made explicit. If you work in non-Euclidean statistics, this is worth engaging with now; it deserves peer review with a strong request for revision.

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper develops an asymptotic efficiency theory for statistical models whose parameter of interest lies on a Riemannian manifold. It introduces manifold analogues of DQM/LAN, regular estimators, the Hájek–Le Cam convolution theorem, and the local asymptotic minimax theorem, and extends these to differentiable functionals over semiparametric models. The framework is then applied to two examples: the Fréchet mean, where the sample Fréchet mean is shown to attain the semiparametric bound E[IF⊗IF], and the single-index model, where the coefficient bound is derived from the manifold calculus.

Significance. If the main results are correct, this would be a substantial unification: it brings the classical linear-space machinery of efficiency theory to a class of nonlinear parameter spaces and reduces previously case-specific derivations to a common geometric language. A reassuring check is that the two application bounds are consistent with existing external results: the Fréchet-mean covariance matches Bhattacharya–Patrangenaru, and the single-index bound matches Kuchibhotla–Patra. The paper also provides a useful conceptual vocabulary (Table 1) and explicit influence-operator formulas. However, the central semiparametric theorem has a statement/proof mismatch, and some geometric uniformity conditions are not stated as primitive assumptions.

major comments (3)

[Section 4, Definition 4.1, Theorem 4.1, Appendix D.1] Theorem 4.1 states that the limiting law of any regular estimator satisfies L_P = N(0, G_P^{-1}) * Δ_P. But G_P is defined in Definition 4.1 only for a one-dimensional parametric submodel as G_P = E[s⊗s]; it is not attached to the full semiparametric model. The proof in Appendix D.1, equations (59)–(62), derives a convolution with N(0, V_χ) where V_χ = E[IF_χ⊗IF_χ]. These two covariance operators coincide only when the score s used in G_P is the efficient score s_χ = V_χ^{-1}IF_χ, which is neither stated in Theorem 4.1 nor part of Definition 4.1. If G_P is read as the information of an arbitrary one-dimensional submodel, the statement is false: G_P^{-1} is a scalar while V_χ is the efficient covariance. This is a load-bearing inconsistency in the paper’s central semiparametric claim and must be fixed by restating the theorem in terms of V_χ or the efficient score, and by aligning the not
[Section 3.2, Lemma C.6, Appendix A.2] The proof of Theorem 3.1 relies on uniform Taylor expansions of Exp and Exp^{-1} with O(‖h‖^3) remainders (Lemma A.6), and on the transported-residual drift being o(1) at the √n scale, as used in equations (19), (53), and (54). The assumptions stated in the paper — completeness, smoothness, and Assumption 3.2 — do not provide primitive sufficient conditions under which these expansions hold uniformly along local perturbation paths. In particular, unbounded sectional curvature or a shrinking injectivity radius near the support of the estimator would break the required uniformity, and the parameter path ψ(θ_{n,h}) itself is not explicitly assumed to avoid the cut locus of ψ(θ). Please add explicit geometric conditions (e.g., bounded curvature, positive injectivity radius, uniform non-cut-locus neighborhoods) or prove that the current assumptions are sufficient.
[Section 5.2, equation (34), Theorem 5.3] The efficient score formula in (34) uses (Y - g_0(β_0^T X))/σ^2, which corresponds to ℓ'_{ε|X}(ε) = ε/σ^2, i.e., Gaussian conditional errors. Model (29), however, is stated only with E(ε|X)=0 and finite variance σ^2; no Gaussian assumption is made. For non-Gaussian errors the efficient score should contain ℓ'_{ε|X}(ε) rather than ε/σ^2, so equation (34) and Theorem 5.3 are only valid under an additional Gaussian-error assumption (or under a different derivation). This should be stated explicitly, or the general formula should be derived.

minor comments (3)

[Section 5.2, equation (30)] The parameter space B is written as {β: ‖β‖=1, β_1 ≥ 0}, which is a manifold with boundary (a closed hemisphere). The exponential-map formula (31) and the tangent-space description are for the smooth sphere, and paths starting at boundary points may leave B. Since identifiability typically requires β_1 > 0, the set should be stated as an open hemisphere, or the boundary case should be addressed.
[Section 4, equations (24)–(25)] The notation G_P is used in Theorem 4.1 for the semiparametric covariance while Definition 4.1 defines it only for a one-dimensional submodel. Consider using V_χ or E[S_eff⊗S_eff]^-1 consistently, and distinguish it from the parametric G_θ.
[Appendix C.4, Lemma 3.3] Assumption C.1 is stated after the proof of Lemma 3.3 begins, but it is used in the proof. It should be moved before the lemma statement or explicitly referenced as a standing assumption in the lemma.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No meaningful circularity: score operator, Fisher information, and influence operators come from model definitions; the single self-citation is not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are not constructed from their own outputs. Definition 3.1 defines DQM via the score operator Sθ, and Definition 3.2 defines Gθ=E[Sθ⊗Sθ]; the convolution theorem (Theorem 3.1) is proved from LAN (Proposition 3.1) and the geometric expansion in Lemma C.6, with Zψθ ~ N(0, ψ̇G^{-1}ψ̇*) emerging from the limiting score, not fitted to an estimator. Similarly, Theorem 4.1's proof in Appendix D.1 uses the Riesz representation (23) and the score approximation (60) to derive the Gaussian factor Vχ=E[IFχ⊗IFχ] (eq. 62); the theorem statement's G_P^{-1} appears to be a consistency/correctness issue rather than circularity, since the proof does not assume the bound it states. Applications are benchmarked externally: Theorem 5.2 matches Bhattacharya–Patrangenaru [31] and Pennec [82], and Theorem 5.3 matches Kuchibhotla–Patra [65]; the single-index nuisance tangent space calculation is imported from that external result, not from this paper's own conclusions. The only self-citation (Remark 5.3, Lin et al. [23]) explicitly says the prior work 'did not prove whether that estimator achieves the efficiency bound,' so the current derivation does not rest on it. Overall, no step reduces by construction to its own inputs; score 1 reflects the presence of a self-citation plus the minor Theorem 4.1 inconsistency, neither of which is load-bearing circularity.

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

The framework rests on classical Riemannian geometry (exp/log maps, Jacobi fields, metric Taylor expansions), treated as standard, and on classical Le Cam machinery extended to Exp-perturbations. No free parameter is fitted to data and no new entity (force, particle, conserved quantity, dimension) is postulated. The two genuinely ad hoc inputs are Assumption C.2 for the LAM proof and the implicit Gaussianity in the single-index application. The prior literature supplies the CRLB (Smith), the van Trees inequality (Jupp), and the M-estimation asymptotics (Brunel).

assumptions (6)

domain assumption The parameter manifold is a complete smooth Riemannian manifold and estimators a.s. avoid its cut locus (Assumption 3.2).
Needed so Exp⁻¹_{ψ(θ)} bψ and parallel transport along distance-minimizing geodesics are well defined; excludes practical boundary cases (antipodal data on spheres, non-identifiable Fréchet means) and is stated rather than derived.
standard math Uniform Taylor-type expansions of Exp and Exp⁻¹ hold along local perturbation paths (Lemma A.6: ∇Exp = id ∓ (1/6)R(h,·)h + O(‖h‖³)).
Jacobi-field computation, standard in differential geometry; but the uniform control of the remainder needed for Lemma C.6 and eq. (19)'s o(1) is never reduced to primitive curvature/injectivity-radius conditions.
domain assumption Models are differentiable in quadratic mean over the manifold with a score operator in the cotangent space (Definition 3.1).
The manifold analogue of the classical DQM condition; it is a modeling premise inherited from Le Cam theory, extended to Exp-perturbations, and must hold uniformly for the LAN proposition.
ad hoc to paper Assumption C.2: component-wise convergence of the van-Trees sandwich Γ_{θ0,c,n} to ψ̇(θ0)ᵀG⁻¹_{θ0}ψ̇(θ0).
Introduced expressly for the LAM proof (Theorem 3.3); the paper asserts it holds under continuity of ψ̇ and G but does not provide the component-wise computation.
domain assumption Loss m(x;·) is geodesically convex a.s. and M has a unique minimizer (Proposition 5.1 conditions).
Imported from Brunel (2023) and needed for the asymptotic linearity on which both efficiency claims in Section 5.1 build.
ad hoc to paper Errors ε in model (29) are effectively Gaussian, or at least ℓ'_{ε|X}(ε) = ε/σ², for the efficient score (34) to be valid.
Model (29) states only E(ε|X)=0 and finite variance σ²; the 1/σ² coefficient in eq. (34) is the Gaussian-error form, so Theorem 5.3 silently adds a distributional assumption.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Toward an Asymptotic Efficiency Theory on Regular Parameter Manifolds." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VZTG22SG

@misc{pith2026251013703,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Toward an Asymptotic Efficiency Theory on Regular Parameter Manifolds},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VZTG22SG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2510.13703}
}

read the original abstract

Asymptotic efficiency theory is one of the pillars in the foundations of modern mathematical statistics. Not only does it serve as a rigorous theoretical benchmark for evaluating statistical methods, but it also sheds light on how to develop and unify novel statistical procedures. For example, the calculus of influence functions has led to many important statistical breakthroughs in the past decades. Responding to the pressing challenge of analyzing increasingly complex datasets, particularly those with non-Euclidean/nonlinear structures, many novel statistical models and methods have been proposed in recent years. However, the existing efficiency theory is not always readily applicable to these cases, as the theory was developed, for the most part, under the often neglected premise that both the sample space and the parameter space are normed linear spaces. As a consequence, efficiency results outside normed linear spaces are quite rare and isolated, obtained on a case-by-case basis. This paper aims to develop a more unified asymptotic efficiency theory, allowing the sample space, the parameter space, or both to be Riemannian manifolds satisfying certain regularity conditions. We build a vocabulary that helps translate essential concepts in efficiency theory from normed linear spaces to Riemannian manifolds, such as (locally) regular estimators, differentiable functionals, etc. Efficiency bounds are established under conditions parallel to those for normed linear spaces. We also demonstrate the conceptual advantage of the new framework by applying it to two concrete examples in statistics: the population Frechet mean and the regression coefficient vector of Single-Index Models.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

Nuisance parameters and elliptically symmetric distributions: a geometric approach to parametric and semiparametric efficiency
math.ST 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

A general condition determines when ignoring the unknown density generator causes no loss in estimating location and scatter in elliptically symmetric parametric and semiparametric models.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

12 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

Springer, 2018

John M Lee.Introduction to Riemannian manifolds, volume 2. Springer, 2018

2018
[2]

Large sample theory of intrinsic and extrinsic sample means on manifolds – II.The Annals of Statistics, 33(3):1225–1259, 2005

Rabi Bhattacharya and Vic Patrangenaru. Large sample theory of intrinsic and extrinsic sample means on manifolds – II.The Annals of Statistics, 33(3):1225–1259, 2005

2005
[3]

Wilfrid S Kendall and Huiling Le. Limit theorems for empirical Fr´ echet means of indepen- dent and non-identically distributed manifold-valued random variables.Brazilian Journal of Probability and Statistics, 25(3):323–352, 2011

2011
[4]

Central limit theorem for intrinsic Fr´ echet means in smooth compact Riemannian manifolds.Probability Theory and Related Fields, 189 (3):1219–1246, 2024

Thomas Hotz, Huiling Le, and Andrew TA Wood. Central limit theorem for intrinsic Fr´ echet means in smooth compact Riemannian manifolds.Probability Theory and Related Fields, 189 (3):1219–1246, 2024

2024
[5]

Covariance, subspace, and intrinsic Cram´ er-Rao bounds.IEEE Trans- actions on Signal Processing, 53(5):1610–1630, 2005

Steven Thomas Smith. Covariance, subspace, and intrinsic Cram´ er-Rao bounds.IEEE Trans- actions on Signal Processing, 53(5):1610–1630, 2005

2005
[6]

John Wiley & Sons, 2013

Patrick Billingsley.Convergence of probability measures. John Wiley & Sons, 2013

2013
[7]

Springer Science & Business Media, 2023

Aad W van der Vaart and Jon A Wellner.Weak Convergence and Empirical Processes: with Applications to Statistics. Springer Science & Business Media, 2023

2023
[8]

The Taylor expansion of the exponential map and geometric applications.Revista de la Real Academia de Ciencias Exactas, Fisicas y Naturales

Maria G Monera, A Montesinos-Amilibia, and Esther Sanabria-Codesal. The Taylor expansion of the exponential map and geometric applications.Revista de la Real Academia de Ciencias Exactas, Fisicas y Naturales. Serie A. Matematicas, 108:881–906, 2014

2014

Show all 12 references

[9]

Approximated logarithmic maps on Riemannian manifolds and their applications.JSIAM Letters, 13:17–20, 2021

Jumpei Goto and Hiroyuki Sato. Approximated logarithmic maps on Riemannian manifolds and their applications.JSIAM Letters, 13:17–20, 2021

2021
[10]

The van Trees inequality in the spirit of Haj´ ek and Le Cam.Statistical Science, 39(4):644–653, 2024

Elisabeth Gassiat and Gilles Stoltz. The van Trees inequality in the spirit of Haj´ ek and Le Cam.Statistical Science, 39(4):644–653, 2024

2024
[11]

On differentiable functionals.The Annals of Statistics, 19(1):178–204, 1991

Aad van der Vaart. On differentiable functionals.The Annals of Statistics, 19(1):178–204, 1991

1991
[12]

Xavier Pennec. Curvature effects on the empirical mean in Riemannian and affine manifolds: a non-asymptotic high concentration expansion in the small-sample regime.arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.07418, 2019. 55

1906 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Springer, 2018

John M Lee.Introduction to Riemannian manifolds, volume 2. Springer, 2018

2018

[2] [2]

Large sample theory of intrinsic and extrinsic sample means on manifolds – II.The Annals of Statistics, 33(3):1225–1259, 2005

Rabi Bhattacharya and Vic Patrangenaru. Large sample theory of intrinsic and extrinsic sample means on manifolds – II.The Annals of Statistics, 33(3):1225–1259, 2005

2005

[3] [3]

Wilfrid S Kendall and Huiling Le. Limit theorems for empirical Fr´ echet means of indepen- dent and non-identically distributed manifold-valued random variables.Brazilian Journal of Probability and Statistics, 25(3):323–352, 2011

2011

[4] [4]

Central limit theorem for intrinsic Fr´ echet means in smooth compact Riemannian manifolds.Probability Theory and Related Fields, 189 (3):1219–1246, 2024

Thomas Hotz, Huiling Le, and Andrew TA Wood. Central limit theorem for intrinsic Fr´ echet means in smooth compact Riemannian manifolds.Probability Theory and Related Fields, 189 (3):1219–1246, 2024

2024

[5] [5]

Covariance, subspace, and intrinsic Cram´ er-Rao bounds.IEEE Trans- actions on Signal Processing, 53(5):1610–1630, 2005

Steven Thomas Smith. Covariance, subspace, and intrinsic Cram´ er-Rao bounds.IEEE Trans- actions on Signal Processing, 53(5):1610–1630, 2005

2005

[6] [6]

John Wiley & Sons, 2013

Patrick Billingsley.Convergence of probability measures. John Wiley & Sons, 2013

2013

[7] [7]

Springer Science & Business Media, 2023

Aad W van der Vaart and Jon A Wellner.Weak Convergence and Empirical Processes: with Applications to Statistics. Springer Science & Business Media, 2023

2023

[8] [8]

The Taylor expansion of the exponential map and geometric applications.Revista de la Real Academia de Ciencias Exactas, Fisicas y Naturales

Maria G Monera, A Montesinos-Amilibia, and Esther Sanabria-Codesal. The Taylor expansion of the exponential map and geometric applications.Revista de la Real Academia de Ciencias Exactas, Fisicas y Naturales. Serie A. Matematicas, 108:881–906, 2014

2014