text:
# Submanifold averaging in riemannian and symplectic geometry

## 1 Introduction

In 1999 Alan Weinstein \[We\] presented a procedure to average a family $`\{N_g\}`$ of submanifolds of a Riemannian manifold $`M`$: if the submanifolds are close to each other in a $`C^1`$ sense, one can produce *canonically* 111The construction is canonical because it does not involve any arbitrary choice but uses only the Riemannian metric on $`M`$. an “average” $`N`$ which is close to each member of the family $`\{N_g\}`$. The main property of this averaging procedure is that it is equivariant with respect to isometries of $`M`$, and therefore if the family $`\{N_g\}`$ is obtained by applying the isometric action of a compact group $`G`$ to some submanifold $`N_0`$ of $`M`$, the resulting average will be invariant under the $`G`$-action. This generalizes results about fixed points of group actions \[We\].
In the first part of this paper we will exhibit a result by Hermann Karcher and the author which improves Weinstein’s theorem.
In the main body of the paper we specialize Weinstein’s averaging to the setting of symplectic geometry: given a family of *isotropic* submanifolds $`\{N_g\}`$ of a symplectic manifold $`M`$, we obtain an *isotropic* average $`L`$. We achieve this in two steps: first we introduce a compatible Riemannian metric on $`M`$ and apply Weinstein’s averaging to obtain a submanifold $`N`$. This submanifold will be “nearly isotropic” because it is $`C^1`$-close to isotropic ones, and using the family $`\{N_g\}`$ we will deform $`N`$ to an isotropic submanifold $`L`$.222It would be interesting to find a way to deform any given “nearly isotropic” submanifold to an honest isotropic one in a canonical fashion. Our construction depends only on the the symplectic structure of $`M`$ and on the choice of compatible metric. Therefore applying our construction to the case of compact group actions by isometric symplectomorphism we can obtain isotropic submanifolds which are invariant under the action.
As a simple application we show that the image of an almost invariant isotropic submanifold under a compact Hamiltonian action is “small”.
Another application is the following: given a symplectic action of a compact group $`G`$ on two symplectic manifolds $`M_1`$ and $`M_2`$ together with an almost equivariant symplectomorphism $`\varphi :M_1M_2`$, apply the averaging procedure to $`graph(\varphi )M_1\times M_2`$. If the resulting $`G`$-invariant submanifold $`L`$ is a graph, then it will be the graph of a $`G`$-equivariant symplectomorphism. This means that we would be able to deform almost equivariant symplectomorphisms to equivariant ones. To assure that $`L`$ is again a graph one needs to improve Weinstein’s averaging procedure 333We need to improve Weinstein’s theorem in order to assure that $`graph(\varphi )`$ and $`L`$ be $`C^1`$-close; see Remark 1 in Section 8 ; this is the subject of work in progress.
We would like to extend our averaging procedure to coisotropic submanifolds too: indeed, if one could average any two coisotropic submanifolds $`N_0`$ and $`N_1`$ which are close to each other, then by “shifting weights” in the parameter space $`G=\{0,1\}`$ one would produce a continuous path of coisotropic submanifolds connecting $`N_0`$ to $`N_1`$. This would show that the space of coisotropic submanifolds is locally path connected.
In the remainder of the introduction we will recall the averaging procedure in the Riemannian setting by Weinstein (see \[We\]), we will state our results, and we will outline our construction to average isotropic submanifolds.

### 1.1 Averaging of Riemannian submanifolds

The starting point for our isotropic averaging construction is the statement of Theorem 2.3 in \[We\]. We first recall some definitions from \[We\] in order to state the theorem.
If $`M`$ is a Riemannian manifold and $`N`$ a submanifold, $`(M,N)`$ is called gentle pair if (i) the normal injectivity radius of $`N`$ is at least one; (ii) the sectional curvatures of $`M`$ in the tubular neighborhood of radius one about $`N`$ are bounded in absolute value by one; (iii) the injectivity radius of each point of the above neighborhood is at least one.
The distance between two subspaces of the same dimension $`F,F^{}`$ of a Euclidean vector space $`E`$, denoted by $`d(F,F^{})`$, is equal to the $`C^0`$-distance between the unit spheres of $`F`$ and $`F^{}`$ considered as Riemannian submanifolds of the unit sphere of $`E`$. This distance is symmetric and satisfies $`d(F,F^{})=d(F^{},F_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{})`$. It is always smaller or equal than $`\frac{\pi }{2}`$, and it is equal to $`\frac{\pi }{2}`$ iff $`F`$ and $`F_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$ are not transversal.
One can define a $`C^1`$-distance between two submanifolds  $`N,N^{}`$ of a Riemannian manifold if $`N^{}`$ lies in the tubular neighborhood of $`N`$ and is the image under the normal exponential map of $`N`$ of a section of $`\nu N`$ (so $`N`$ and $`N^{}`$ are necessarily diffeomorphic). This is done by assigning two numbers to each $`x^{}N^{}`$: the length of the geodesic segment from $`x^{}`$ to the nearest point $`x`$ in $`N`$ and the distance between $`T_x^{}N^{}`$ and the parallel translate of $`T_xN`$ along the above geodesic segment. The $`C^1`$-distance is defined as the supremum of these numbers as $`x^{}`$ ranges over $`N^{}`$ and is denoted by $`d_1(N,N^{})`$.
Note that this distance is not symmetric, but if $`(M,N)`$ and $`(M,N^{})`$ are both gentle pairs with $`d_1(N,N^{})<\frac{1}{4}`$, then $`d_1(N^{},N)<250d_1(N,N^{})`$ (see Remark 3.18 in \[We\]).
The improvement of Theorem 2.3 in \[We\] by Karcher and the author is our Theorem 4 and reads 444We omit the compactness assumption on the $`N_g`$’s stated there since it is superfluous.:
Theorem \[Weinstein\]  Let $`M`$ be a Riemannian manifold and $`\{N_g\}`$ a family of submanifolds of $`M`$ parametrized in a measurable way by elements of a probability space $`G`$, such that all the pairs $`(M,N_g)`$ are gentle. If $`d_1(N_g,N_h)<ϵ<\frac{1}{20000}`$ for all $`g`$ and $`h`$ in $`G`$, there is a well defined *center of mass* submanifold $`N`$ with $`d_1(N_g,N)<2500ϵ`$ for all $`g`$ in $`G`$. The center of mass construction is equivariant with respect to isometries of $`M`$ and measure preserving automorphisms of $`G`$.
Remark: For any $`gG`$ the center of mass $`N`$ is the image under the exponential map of a section of $`\nu N_g`$ and $`d_0(N_g,N)<100ϵ`$.
From this one gets immediately a statement about invariant submanifolds under compact group actions (cfr. Theorem 2.2 of \[We\]).

### 1.2 Averaging of isotropic submanifolds

Recall that for any symplectic manifold $`(M,\omega )`$ we can choose a compatible Riemannian metric $`g`$, i.e. a metric such that the endomorphism $`I`$ of $`TM`$ determined by $`\omega (,I)=g(,)`$ satisfies $`I^2=Id_{TM}`$. The tuple $`(M,g,\omega ,I)`$ is called *almost-Kähler manifold*. To prove our Main Theorem we need assume a bound on the $`C^0`$-norm of $`\omega `$ (here $``$ is the Levi-Civita connection given by $`g`$), which measures how far our almost-Kähler manifold is from being Kähler 555Recall that an almost-Kähler manifold is Kähler if the almost complex structure $`I`$ is integrable, or equivalently if $`I=0`$ or $`\omega =0`$.. We state the theorem choosing the bound to be one (but see Remark i)).

###### Theorem 1

*\[Main Theorem\]* Let $`(M^m,g,\omega ,I)`$ be an almost-Kähler manifold satisfying $`|\omega |<1`$ and $`\{N_g^n\}`$ a family of isotropic submanifolds of $`M`$ parametrized in a measurable way by elements of a probability space $`G`$, such that all the pairs $`(M,N_g)`$ are gentle. If $`d_1(N_g,N_h)<ϵ<\frac{1}{70000}`$ for all $`g`$ and $`h`$ in $`G`$, there is a well defined *isotropic center of mass* submanifold $`L^n`$ with $`d_0(N_g,L)<1000ϵ`$ for all $`g`$ in $`G`$. This construction is equivariant with respect to isometric symplectomorphisms of $`M`$ and measure preserving automorphisms of $`G`$.

Remark: i) The theorem still holds if we assume higher bounds on $`|\omega |`$, but in this case the bound $`\frac{1}{70000}`$ for $`ϵ`$ would have to be chosen smaller. See the remark in Section 7.4.
ii) Notice that we are not longer able to give estimates on the $`C^1`$-distance of the isotropic center of mass from the $`N_g`$’s. Such an estimate could possibly be given provided we have more information about the extrinsic geometry of Weinstein’s center of mass submanifold; see Remark 1 in Section 8. Instead we can only give estimates on the $`C^0`$-distances $`d_0(N_g,L)=sup\{d(x,N_g):xL\}`$.

An easy consequence of our Main Theorem is a statement about group actions. Recall that, given any action of a compact Lie group $`G`$ on a symplectic manifold $`(M,\omega )`$ by symplectomorphisms, by averaging over the compact group one can always find some invariant metric $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$. Using $`\omega `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$ one can canonically construct a metric $`g`$ which is compatible with $`\omega `$ (see \[Ca\]), and since $`g`$ is constructed canonically out of objects that are $`G`$-invariant, it will be $`G`$-invariant too. Therefore the group $`G`$ acts respecting the structure of the almost Kähler manifold $`(M,g,\omega )`$. In general it does not seem possible to give any bound on $`|\omega |`$, where $``$ is the Levi-Civita connection corresponding to $`g`$.

###### Theorem 2

Let $`(M,g,\omega ,I)`$ be an almost-Kähler manifold satisfying $`|\omega |<1`$ and let $`G`$ be a compact Lie group acting on $`M`$ by isometric symplectomorphisms. Let $`N_0`$ be an isotropic submanifold of $`M`$ such that $`(M,N_0)`$ is a gentle pair and $`d_1(N_0,gN_0)<ϵ<\frac{1}{70000}`$ for all $`gG`$. Then there is a $`G`$-invariant isotropic submanifold $`L`$ with $`d_0(N_0,L)<1000ϵ`$.

The invariant isotropic submanifold $`L`$ as above is constructed endowing $`G`$ with the bi-invariant probability measure and applying Theorem 1 to the family $`\{gN_0\}_{gG}`$. The resulting isotropic average $`L`$ is $`G`$-invariant because of the equivariance properties of the averaging procedure.

### 1.3 Outline of the proof of the Main Theorem

This is the main subsection of this paper.
We will try to convince the reader that the construction we use to prove Theorem 1 works if only one chooses $`ϵ`$ small enough. Let us begin by requiring $`ϵ<\frac{1}{20000}`$.
$``$ PART I  We start by considering the average of the submanifolds $`N_g`$ as in Theorem 2.3 of \[We\], which we will denote $`N`$. We will use the notation $`\mathrm{exp}_N`$ to indicate the restriction of the exponential map to $`TM|_N`$, and similarly for any of the $`N_g`$’s. For any $`g`$ in $`G`$, the average $`N`$ lies in a tubular neighborhood of $`N_g`$ and is the image under $`\mathrm{exp}_{N_g}`$ of a section $`\sigma `$ of $`\nu N_g`$ (see \[We\]). Therefore for any point $`p`$ of $`N_g`$ there is a canonical path $`\gamma _q(t)=\mathrm{exp}_p(t\sigma (p))`$ from $`p`$ to the unique point $`q`$ of $`N`$ lying in the normal slice of $`N_g`$ through $`p`$. Here, using the notation $`(\nu N_g)_1`$ for the open unit disk bundle in $`\nu N_g`$, we denote by the term “normal slice” the submanifold $`\mathrm{exp}_{N_g}(\nu _pN_g)_1`$. We define the following map:

$$\phi _g:\mathrm{exp}_{N_g}(\nu N_g)_1M,\mathrm{exp}_p(v)\mathrm{exp}_q(_{\gamma _q}\backslash \backslash v).$$

Here $`p,q`$, and $`\gamma _q`$ are as above, $`v(\nu _pN_g)_1`$.
So $`\phi _g`$ takes the normal slice $`\mathrm{exp}_p(\nu _pN_g)_1`$ to $`\mathrm{exp}_q(Vert_q^g)_1`$, where $`Vert_q^gT_qM`$ is the parallel translation along $`\gamma _q`$ of $`\nu _pN_gT_pM`$.
We have $`d(Vert_q^g,\nu _qN)<d_1(N_g,N)<2500ϵ<\frac{\pi }{2}`$, so $`Vert_q^g`$ and $`T_qN`$ are transversal. Therefore $`\phi _g`$ is a local diffeomorphism at all points of $`N_g`$, and it is clearly injective there. Using the geometry if $`N_g`$, $`N`$ and $`M`$ in Proposition 6.1 we will show that $`\phi _g`$ is a diffeomorphism onto if restricted to the tubular neighborhood $`\mathrm{exp}_{N_g}(\nu N_g)_{0.05}`$ of $`N_g`$.
We restrict our map to this neighborhood and we also restrict the target space so to obtain a diffeomorphism, which we will still denote by $`\phi _g`$ .

$``$ PART II Now we introduce the symplectic form

$$\omega _g:=(\phi _g^1)^{}\omega $$

on $`\mathrm{exp}_N(Vert^g)_{0.05}`$. Notice that $`N`$ is isotropic with respect to $`\omega _g`$ by construction, therefore it is also with respect to the two-form $`_g\omega _g`$ which is defined on $`_{gG}\mathrm{exp}_N(Vert^g)_{0.05}`$. We would like to apply Moser’s trick 666 Recall that Moser’s Theorem states the following: if $`\mathrm{\Omega }_t`$ ($`t[0,1]`$) is a smooth family of symplectic forms lying in the same cohomology class in a compact manifold then there is a family of diffeomorphisms $`\rho _t`$ with $`\rho _0=Id`$ satisfying $`\rho _t^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_t=\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$. (see \[Ca, Chapter III\]) to $`\omega `$ and $`_g\omega _g`$. To do so first we restrict our forms to a smaller tubular neighborhood $`\text{tub}^ϵ`$ of $`N`$, which we define in Section 7.1. To apply Moser’s trick we have to check:

1. On $`\text{tub}^ϵ`$ the convex linear combination $`\omega _t=\omega +t(_g\omega _g\omega )`$ consists of symplectic forms.
Indeed we will show that on $`\text{tub}^ϵ`$ the differential of $`\phi _g^1`$ is “close” to the parallel translation $`\backslash \backslash `$ along certain “canonical” geodesics that will be specified at the beginning of Section 3. This and the bound on $`|\omega |`$ imply that for any $`q\text{tub}^ϵ`$ and nonzero $`X,YT_qM`$:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill (\omega _g)_q(X,Y)=& \omega _{\phi _g^1(q)}(\phi _{g}^{1}{}_{}{}^{}(X),\phi _{g}^{1}{}_{}{}^{}(Y))\hfill \\ \hfill & \omega _{\phi _g^1(q)}(\backslash \backslash X,\backslash \backslash Y)\hfill \\ \hfill & \omega _q(X,Y),\hfill \end{array}$$

i.e. $`\omega _g`$ and $`\omega `$ are very close to each other. So $`\omega _t(X,IX)\omega (X,IX)=|X|^2>0`$. Therefore each $`\omega _t`$ is non-degenerate, and it is clearly also closed.
2. On $`\text{tub}^ϵ`$ the forms $`\omega `$ and $`_g\omega _g`$ belong to the same cohomology class.
Fix $`gG`$. The inclusion $`i:\text{tub}^ϵ\mathrm{exp}_{N_g}(\nu N_g)_1`$ is homotopic to $`\phi _g^1:\text{tub}^ϵ\mathrm{exp}_{N_g}(\nu N_g)_1`$. A homotopy is given by thinking of $`N`$ as a section of $`\nu N_g`$ and “sliding along the fibers” to the zero-section. Therefore these two maps induce the same map in cohomology, and pulling back $`\omega `$ we have

$$[\omega |_{\text{tub}^ϵ}]=i^{}[\omega ]=(\phi _g^1)^{}[\omega ]=[\omega _g].$$

Integrating over $`G`$ finishes the argument.

Now we can apply Moser’s trick: if $`\alpha `$ is a one form on $`\text{tub}^ϵ`$ such that $`d\alpha `$ is equal to $`\frac{d}{dt}\omega _t=_g\omega _g\omega `$, then the flow $`\rho _t`$ of the time-dependent vector field $`v_t:=\stackrel{~}{\omega _t}^1(\alpha )`$ has the property $`\rho _t^{}\omega _t=\omega `$ (and in particular $`\rho _1^{}(_g\omega _g)=\omega `$) where it is defined. Therefore if $`L:=\rho _1^1(N)`$ is a well-defined submanifold of $`\text{tub}^ϵ`$, then it will be isotropic with respect to $`\omega `$ since $`N`$ is isotropic with respect to $`_g\omega _g`$.
We will construct canonically a primitive $`\alpha `$ as above in Section 7.2. Using the fact that the distance between the $`N_g`$’s and $`N`$ is small, we will show that $`\alpha `$ has small maximum-norm. So, if $`ϵ`$ is small enough, the time-1 flow of the time-dependent vector field $`\{v_{1t}\}`$ will not take $`N`$ out of $`\text{tub}^ϵ`$ and $`L`$ will be well-defined.
Since our construction is canonical after fixing the almost-Kähler structure $`(g,\omega ,I)`$ of $`M`$ and the probability space $`G`$, the construction of $`L`$ is equivariant with respect to isometric symplectomorphisms of $`M`$ and measure preserving automorphisms of $`G`$.

### 1.4 Structure of the paper and acknowledgements

This paper is organized as follows:
In Section 2 we present the improvement of Theorem 2.3 in \[We\] obtained by Karcher and the author. In Section 3 we will start the proof of the Main Theorem by studying the map $`\phi _g`$. In Section 4 we will state a proposition about geodesic triangles, and in Section 5 we will apply it in our setup. This will allow us to show in Section 6 that each $`\phi _g`$ is injective on $`\mathrm{exp}_{N_g}(\nu N_g)_{0.05}`$. The proofs of some estimates of Sections 4 and 5 are rather involved, and we present them in the three appendices. This will conclude the proof of the first part of the theorem.
In Section 7 we will make use for the first time of the symplectic structure of $`M`$. We will show that the $`\omega _t`$’s are symplectic forms and that the 1-form $`\alpha `$, and therefore the Moser vector field $`v_t`$, are small in the maximum norm. Comparison with the results of Section 6 will end the proof of the Main Theorem.
Section 8 will be devoted to remarks about the Main Theorem, and in Section 9 we will present a simple application to Hamiltonian group actions.
At this point I would like to thank everyone who helped me and supported me in the preparation of this paper. In particular I would like to thank Alan Weinstein for helpful discussions during the preparation of this paper, the referee for his careful review of the manuscript, his interest and for suggesting improvements, Yael Karshon for proposing the application in Section 9 and River Chiang for simplifying the arguments used there. Further I thank Hermann Karcher for sharing the ideas involved in Section 2 and for the collaboration.

## 2 Improved error estimates for the shape operators of parallel tubes with application to Weinstein’s submanifold averaging

In this section we will present the improvement of Theorem 2.3 in \[We\] obtained by Hermann Karcher and the author. In the first subsection we will improve Proposition 3.11 in \[We\]. Then using this result we will follow Weinstein’s proof and present the statement of the improved theorem.

### 2.1 Estimates for the shape operators of parallel tubes

In Proposition 3.11 of \[We\] one has the setup we are going to describe now.
$`M`$ is a Riemannian manifold, $`N`$ is a submanifold of $`M`$ such that $`(M,N)`$ form a gentle pair (so the second fundamental form $`B`$ of $`N`$ satisfies $`|B|\frac{3}{2}`$, see \[We, Cor 3.2\]). In the tubular neighborhood of radius one about $`N`$ let $`\rho _N`$ be the distance function from $`N`$, and $`P_N=\frac{1}{2}\rho _N^2`$. We are interested in estimating the Hessian of $`P_N`$, i.e. the symmetric endomorphism of each tangent space of the tubular neighborhood given by $`H_N(v)=_v\text{grad}P_N.`$ Differentiating the relation $`\text{grad}P_N=\rho _N\text{grad}\rho _N`$ we see that

$$H_N(v)=U_N,vU_N+\rho _NS_N(\text{pr}(v))$$

where $`U_N=\text{grad}\rho _N`$ is the radial unit vector (pointing away from $`N`$), pr denotes orthogonal projection onto $`U_N^{}`$, and $`S_N`$ is the second fundamental form of the tube given by a level set $`\tau (t)`$ of $`\rho _N`$ in direction of the normal vector $`U_N`$777 So $`S_Nv=\text{pr}(_vU_N)`$ for all vectors $`v`$ tangent to $`\tau (t)`$, where $``$ is the Levi-Civita connection on $`M`$. .
Proposition 3.11 of \[We\] states that, at a point $`p`$ of distance $`t\frac{1}{4}`$ from $`N`$, the following estimate holds for the decompositions into vertical and horizontal parts 888See our Section 3 or Section 2.1 in \[We\] for the definition of vertical and horizontal bundle at $`p`$. of $`T_pM`$:

$$\left[\begin{array}{cc}0.64I& 0\\ 0& 3tI\end{array}\right]<H_N<\left[\begin{array}{cc}1.32I& 0\\ 0& 3tI\end{array}\right],$$

where for two symmetric matrices $`P`$ and $`Q`$ the inequality $`P<Q`$ means that $`QP`$ is positive definite.
The above proposition is proved using the Riccati equation. An immediate consequence is Corollary 3.13 in \[We\], which states that, if $`v`$ is a horizontal vector and $`w`$ a vertical vector at $`p`$, then $`|H_N(v),w|3\sqrt{t}|v||w|.`$ This square root is responsible for the presence of upper bounds proportional to $`\sqrt{ϵ}`$ rather than $`ϵ`$ in Theorems 2.2 and 2.3 of \[We\].
We will improve the estimate of Corollary 3.13 in \[We\] determining $`S_N`$ by means of Jacobi-fields estimates rather than by the Riccati equation. More precisely, we will make use of this simple observation:

###### Lemma 2.1

Let $`N`$ be a submanifold of the Riemannian manifold $`M`$, and fix $`t\text{normal injectivity radius of }N`$. Let p lie in the tube $`\tau (t):=\rho _N^1(t)`$, and let $`S_N:T_p\tau (t)T_p\tau (t)`$ be the second fundamental form in direction of $`U_N`$. For any $`vT_p\tau (t)`$ consider the Jacobi field $`\stackrel{~}{J}(r)`$ arising from the variation $`r\mathrm{exp}_{c(s)}rU_N(c(s))`$, where $`c(s)`$ is any curve in $`\tau (t)`$ tangent to $`v`$. Then

$$S_Nv=\stackrel{~}{J}^{}(0).$$

Proof:  Denoting by $`f(s,r)`$ the above variation and by $``$ the Levi-Civita connection on $`M`$ we have

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \stackrel{~}{J}^{}(0)& =\frac{}{dr}|_0\frac{d}{ds}|_0f(s,r)\hfill \\ & =\frac{}{ds}|_0\frac{d}{dr}|_0f(s,r)\hfill \\ & =\frac{}{ds}|_0U_N(c(s))\hfill \\ & =_vU_N\hfill \\ & =\text{pr}(_vU_N)\hfill \\ & =S_Nv.\hfill \end{array}$$

$``$

Using the above lemma we will be able to prove this improvement of Proposition 3.11 in \[We\], for which we don’t require $`(M,N)`$ to be a gentle pair but only a bound on $`|B|`$:

###### Theorem 3

Let $`N`$ be a submanifold of the Riemannian manifold $`M`$ with second fundamental form $`B`$, and fix $`t\text{normal injectivity radius of }N`$. Let $`\gamma `$ be a unit speed geodesic emanating normally from $`N`$. Let $`\tau (t)`$ be the $`t`$-tube about $`N`$, and let $`S_N(t)`$ denote the second fundamental form of $`\tau (t)`$ in direction $`\dot{\gamma }(t)`$ at $`\gamma (t)`$. Then w.r.t. the splitting into vertical and horizontal spaces of $`T_{\gamma (t)}\tau (t)`$, as long as $`t\mathrm{min}\{\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2|B|}\}`$, we have

$$tS_N(t)=\left[\begin{array}{cc}I& 0\\ 0& tB\end{array}\right]+\left(\begin{array}{cc}16t^2& 16t^2\\ 16t^2& (22+2|B|^2)t^2\end{array}\right).$$

Remark : We adopt the following unconventional notation: If $`M,\stackrel{~}{M}`$ are matrices and $`c`$ a real number, $`M=\stackrel{~}{M}+c`$ means that $`M\stackrel{~}{M}`$ has operator norm $`c`$. Generalizing to the case where we consider also vertical-horizontal decompositions of matrices,

$$\left[\begin{array}{cc}A& B\\ C& D\end{array}\right]\left[\begin{array}{cc}\stackrel{~}{A}& \stackrel{~}{B}\\ \stackrel{~}{C}& \stackrel{~}{D}\end{array}\right]+\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ c& d\end{array}\right)$$

means that the above convention holds for each endomorphism between horizontal/vertical spaces, i.e. $`A\stackrel{~}{A}`$ has operator norm $`a`$ and so on.

Proof:  Choose an orthonormal basis $`\{E_1,\mathrm{},E_{n1}\}`$ of $`\dot{\gamma }(0)^{}T_{\gamma (0)}M`$ such that $`\{E_1,\mathrm{},E_k\}`$ lie in the normal space to $`N`$ and $`\{E_{k+1},\mathrm{},E_{n1}\}`$ lie in the tangent space to $`N`$. (Here $`dim(M)=n`$.) Now we define Jacobi fields $`J_i`$ along $`\gamma `$ with the following initial conditions:

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}J_i(0)=0,J_i^{}(0)=E_i\hfill & \text{ if }ik\text{ (vertical Jacobi fields)}\hfill \\ J_i(0)=E_i,J_i^{}(0)=B_{\dot{\gamma }(0)}E_i\hfill & \text{ if }ik+1\text{ (horizontal Jacobi fields).}\hfill \end{array}$$

Notice that, among all $`N`$-Jacobi fields (see Section 3 for their definition) satisfying $`J_i(0)=E_i`$, our $`J_i`$ are those having smallest derivative at time zero. Also notice that all $`J_i`$ and their derivatives are perpendicular to $`\dot{\gamma }(0)`$, therefore, as long as the $`J_i(t)`$ are linearly independent, they form a basis of $`\dot{\gamma }(t)^{}=T_{\gamma (t)}\tau (t)`$. Also, the $`J_i`$’s are $`N`$-Jacobi fields, i.e. Jacobi fields for which $`J_i(0)`$ is tangent to $`N`$ and $`J_i^{}(0)B_{\dot{\gamma }(0)}J_i(0)`$ is normal to $`N`$, or equivalently Jacobi fields that arise from variations of geodesics emanating normally from $`N`$ (see \[Wa, p. 342\]). Moreover the $`J_i`$’s are a basis of the space of $`N`$-Jacobi fields along $`\gamma `$ which are orthogonal to $`\dot{\gamma }`$, and this space coincides with the space of $`N`$-Jacobi fields arising from a variation of unit-speed 999Indeed, connecting the points of an integral curve in $`\tau (t)`$ of some $`J_i(t)`$ to $`N`$ by unit speed shortest geodesics we obtain such a variation, and the Jacobi field arising from this variation must be $`J_i`$ since it is an $`N`$-Jacobi field orthogonal to $`\dot{\gamma }`$ which coincides with $`J_i(t)`$ at time $`t`$. geodesics normal to $`N`$. The velocity vectors of such variations at time $`t`$ coincide with $`U_N`$. Therefore applying Lemma 2.1 with $`v=J_i(t)`$ we conclude that $`S_N(t)J_i(t)=J_i^{}(t)`$ for all $`i`$.

Now consider the maps

$$J(t):^{n1}T_{\gamma (t)}\tau (t),e_iJ_i(t)$$

and

$$J^{}(t):^{n1}T_{\gamma (t)}\tau (t),e_iJ_i^{}(t),$$

where $`\{e_i\}`$ is the standard basis of $`^{n1}`$. As long as the $`J_i(t)`$’s are linearly independent, we clearly have

$$S_N(t)=J^{}(t)J(t)^1.$$

Propagating the $`E_i`$’s along $`\gamma `$ by parallel translation we obtain an orthonormal basis $`\{E_i(t)\}`$ of $`T_{\gamma (t)}\tau (t)`$. Furthermore, $`\{E_1(t),\mathrm{},E_k(t)\}`$ together with $`\dot{\gamma }(t)`$ span the vertical space at $`\gamma (t)`$ and $`\{E_{k+1}(t),\mathrm{},E_{n1}(t)\}`$ span the horizontal space there. We will represent the maps $`J(t)`$,$`J^{}(t)`$ and $`S_N(t)`$ by matrices w.r.t. the bases $`\{e_i\}`$ for $`^{n1}`$ and $`\{E_i(t)\}`$ for $`T_{\gamma (t)}\tau (t)`$.

Now we use Jacobi field estimates as in \[BK 6.3.8iii\] to determine the operator norm of $`J(t)`$, or rather of the endomorphisms $`J(t)_{VV}`$, $`J(t)_{HV}`$, $`J(t)_{VH}`$ and $`J(t)_{HH}`$ that $`J(t)`$ induces on horizontal and vertical subspaces. 101010To be more precise: $`J(t)_{HV}:^k\times \{0\}Hor(t)`$ is given by restricting $`J(t)`$ and then composing with the orthogonal projection onto the horizontal space at $`\gamma (t)`$. This will allow us to obtain corresponding estimates for $`J^1(t)`$ and $`J^{}(t)`$, and therefore for $`S_N(t)`$.
For all $`i`$ let us define the vector fields $`A_i(t)=\backslash \backslash (J_i(0)+tJ_i^{}(0))`$, where $`\backslash \backslash `$ denotes parallel translation along $`\gamma `$. The map $`^{n1}T_{\gamma (t)}\tau (t),e_iA_i(t),`$ in matrix form reads

$$A(t)=\left[\begin{array}{cc}tI& 0\\ 0& I+tB\end{array}\right].$$

For $`ik`$ we have $`J_i(0)=0`$ and $`\{J_i^{}(0)\}`$ is an orthonormal set. If $`(c_1,\mathrm{},c_k,0,\mathrm{},0)`$ is a unit vector in $`^{n1}`$, we have $`|(c_iJ_i)^{}(0)|=1`$, so applying \[BK, 6.3.8iii\] we obtain $`|c_i(J_i(t)A_i(t))|\mathrm{sinh}(t)t`$.
Similarly, for $`ik+1`$, the set $`\{J_i(0)\}`$ is an orthonormal set and $`J_i^{}(0)=B(J_i(0))`$. Again, if $`(0,\mathrm{},0,c_{k+1},\mathrm{},c_{n1})`$ is a unit vector in $`^{n1}`$, since $`|(c_iJ_i)^{}(0)|=|B(c_iJ_i(0))||B|`$, we have $`|c_i(J_i(t)A_i(t))|\mathrm{cosh}(t)1+|B|(\mathrm{sinh}(t)t)`$. Therefore we have

$$J(t)A(t)=:F_1(t)\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{sinh}(t)t& \mathrm{cosh}(t)1+|B|(\mathrm{sinh}(t)t)\\ \mathrm{sinh}(t)t& \mathrm{cosh}(t)1+|B|(\mathrm{sinh}(t)t)\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}\frac{1}{5}t^3& \frac{3}{4}t^2\\ \frac{1}{5}t^3& \frac{3}{4}t^2\end{array}\right).$$

Now we want to estimate $`tJ^1(t)`$. Notice that, suppressing the $`t`$-dependence in the notation, $`J=A[I+A^1F_1]`$, so that

$$tJ^1=[I+A^1F_1]^1tA^1.$$

Clearly $`A`$ is invertible and

$$tA^1=\left[\begin{array}{cc}I& 0\\ 0& t(I+tB)^1\end{array}\right]\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 2t\end{array}\right)$$

since we assume $`t\frac{1}{2|B|}`$. We have

$$A^1F_1\left(\begin{array}{cc}\frac{1}{5}t^2& \frac{3}{4}t\\ \frac{2}{5}t^3& \frac{3}{2}t^2\end{array}\right).$$

Clearly 111111If $`\left[\begin{array}{cc}A& B\\ C& D\end{array}\right]\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ c& d\end{array}\right)`$ then the full operator norm of the matrix is bounded by $`\sqrt{\mathrm{max}\{\left|\begin{array}{c}a\\ c\end{array}\right|,\left|\begin{array}{c}b\\ d\end{array}\right|\}+ab+cd}\sqrt{2}\mathrm{max}\{\left|\begin{array}{c}a\\ c\end{array}\right|,\left|\begin{array}{c}b\\ d\end{array}\right|\}`$. this is less than $`\sqrt{2}\frac{3}{4}t\sqrt{1+4t^2}\frac{3}{2}t<1`$ since $`t\frac{1}{2}`$. Therefore $`I+A^1F_1`$ is invertible and $`[I+A^1F_1]^1=_{j=0}^{\mathrm{}}[A^1F_1]^j.`$ Using the above estimate for $`A^1F_1`$ we have

$$[A^1F_1]^2\left(\begin{array}{cc}\frac{1}{2}t^4& \frac{3}{2}t^3\\ t^5& 3t^4\end{array}\right).$$

Using the coarse estimate $`A^1F_1\frac{3}{2}t`$ and $`t\frac{1}{2}`$ we have $`_{j=3}^{\mathrm{}}[A^1F_1]^j14t^3.`$ Putting together these estimates we obtain

$$[I+A^1F_1]^1=I+F_2\text{ where }F_2\left(\begin{array}{cc}\frac{15}{2}t^2& 5t\\ 15t^3& \frac{19}{2}t^2\end{array}\right).$$

To estimate $`J^{}(t)`$ we first estimate $`|J^{\prime \prime }(t)A^{\prime \prime }(t)|`$ and then integrate. For all $`i`$ we have

$$|J_i^{\prime \prime }(t)A_i^{\prime \prime }(t)|=|J_i^{\prime \prime }(t)||J_i(t)|$$

by the Jacobi equation using the bound on curvature, and an analogous estimate holds for linear combinations $`c_iJ_i(t)`$.
If $`(c_1,\mathrm{},c_k,0,\mathrm{},0)`$ is a unit vector in $`^{n1}`$ we have $`|c_iJ_i(t)|\mathrm{sinh}(t)`$ by Rauch’s theorem.
Similarly, if $`(0,\mathrm{},0,c_{k+1},\mathrm{},c_{n1})`$ is a unit vector in $`^{n1}`$ we have $`|c_iJ_i(0)|=1`$ and $`|c_iJ_i^{}(0)||B|`$, so by Berger’s extension of Rauch’s theorem (see Lemma 2.7.9 in \[Kl\]) we have $`|c_iJ_i(t)|\mathrm{cosh}(t)+|B|\mathrm{sinh}(t)`$.
In both cases integration delivers

$`|{\displaystyle c_i(J_i^{}(t)A_i^{}(t))}|`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle _0^t}|{\displaystyle c_i(J_i^{\prime \prime }(t)A_i^{\prime \prime }(t))}|\text{dt}`$
$``$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cosh}(t)1\frac{3}{4}t^2\hfill & \text{ if }ik\hfill \\ \mathrm{sinh}(t)+|B|(\mathrm{cosh}(t)1)\frac{3}{2}t\hfill & \text{ if }ik+1.\hfill \end{array}`$
So altogether we obtain

$$J^{}(t)A^{}(t)=:F_3(t)\text{ where }F_3(t)\left(\begin{array}{cc}\frac{3}{4}t^2& \frac{3}{2}t\\ \frac{3}{4}t^2& \frac{3}{2}t\end{array}\right).$$

Now finally we can estimate

$`tS_N(t)`$ $`=`$ $`tJ^{}J^1`$
$`=`$ $`(A^{}+F_3)(I+F_2)tA^1`$
$``$ $`\left\{\left[\begin{array}{cc}I& 0\\ 0& B\end{array}\right]+\left(\begin{array}{cc}\frac{3}{4}t^2& \frac{3}{2}t\\ \frac{3}{4}t^2& \frac{3}{2}t\end{array}\right)+\left(\begin{array}{cc}\frac{15}{2}t^2& 5t\\ 15|B|t^3& \frac{19}{2}|B|t^2\end{array}\right)+\left(\begin{array}{cc}30t^4& 18t^3\\ 30t^4& 18t^3\end{array}\right)\right\}tA^1`$
$``$ $`\left[\begin{array}{cc}I& 0\\ 0& tB\end{array}\right]+\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ 0& 2|B|^2t^2\end{array}\right)+\left(\begin{array}{cc}\frac{3}{4}t^2& 3t^2\\ \frac{3}{4}t^2& 3t^2\end{array}\right)+\left(\begin{array}{cc}\frac{15}{2}t^2& 10t^2\\ 15|B|t^3& 19|B|t^3\end{array}\right)+\left(\begin{array}{cc}30t^4& 36t^4\\ 30t^4& 36t^4\end{array}\right)`$
Here we used

$$tA^1\left[\begin{array}{cc}I& 0\\ 0& tI\end{array}\right]+\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ 0& 2|B|t^2\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 2t\end{array}\right)$$

in the last inequality. Using our bounds on $`t`$ and the fact that $`S_N(t)`$ is a symmetric operator this gives the claimed estimate. $``$

Returning to the case when $`(M,N)`$ is gentle pair, so that $`|B|\frac{3}{2}`$, we obtain our improvement of Corollary 3.13 in \[We\]. Now we can achieve an upper bound proportional to $`t^2`$, versus the bound proportional to $`\sqrt{t}`$ of Corollary 3.13 in \[We\].

###### Corollary 2.1

Let $`M`$ be a Riemannian manifold, $`N`$ a submanifold so that $`(M,N)`$ form a gentle pair. If $`v`$ is a horizontal vector and $`w`$ a vertical vector at some point of distance $`t\frac{1}{3}`$ from $`N`$, then $`|H_N(v),w|16t^2|v||w|`$.

### 2.2 Improvement of Weinstein’s averaging theorem

Now we use Corollary 2.1 to replace some estimates in \[We\] that were originally derived using Corollary 3.13 there. We will improve only estimates contained in Lemma 4.7 and Lemma 4.8 of \[We\], where the author considers the covariant derivative of a certain vector field $`𝒱`$ on $`M`$ in directions which are almost vertical or almost horizontal 121212See our Section 3 or Section 3.2 in \[We\] for the definitions of almost horizontal and almost vertical bundle. with respect to a fixed submanifold $`N_e`$. (The zero set of $`𝒱`$ is the average $`N`$ of the family $`\{N_g\}`$). As in \[We\] all estimates will hold for $`ϵ<\frac{1}{20000}`$, and we set $`t=100ϵ`$.

We will replace the constant “$`\frac{89}{200}`$” in Lemma 4.7 by “$`\frac{4}{5}`$” as follows:

###### Lemma 2.2

For any almost vertical vector $`v`$ at any point of $`N`$,

$$D_v𝒱,v\frac{4}{5}v^2.$$

Proof:  By Theorem 3 (applied to the gentle pair $`(M,N_g)`$) for the operator norm of $`H_g`$ we have $`116t^2|H_g|`$, so that one obtains $`H_g(_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_g}v,_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_g}v)>\frac{19}{20}`$ in the proof of Lemma 4.7 in \[We\]. Similarly, Theorem 3 together with footnote 11 imply that $`|H_g|<1.01`$. Using these estimates in the proof of Lemma 4.7 in \[We\] gives the claim. $``$

Similarly, we will replace the term “$`60\sqrt{ϵ}`$” in Lemma 4.8 by “$`1950ϵ`$”.

###### Lemma 2.3

For any almost horizontal vector $`v`$ at any point of $`N`$

$$D𝒱(v)1950ϵv.$$

Proof:  By Corollary 2.1 we can replace “$`3\sqrt{t}`$” by “$`16t^2`$” in the proof of Lemma 4.8 in \[We\] and we can use 1.01 instead of 1.32 as an upper bound for $`|H_g|`$. Furthermore, we replace the constant 1000 coming from Lemma 4.3 in \[We\] by 525.131313Lemma 4.3 of \[We\] quotes incorrectly Proposition A.8 from its own appendix. This delivers the improved estimate $`H_g(v,_{\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}}w)850ϵvw`$ and simple arithmetics concludes the proof. $``$

From these two lemmas it follows that the operator from $`(aVert^e)^{}`$ to $`aVert^e`$ whose graph is $`T_xN`$ has norm at most $`\frac{5}{4}1950ϵ`$. Following to the end the proof of Theorem 2.3 in \[We\] allows us to replace the bound “$`136\sqrt{ϵ}`$” by a bound linear in $`ϵ`$, so we obtain the following improved statement:

###### Theorem 4

Let $`M`$ be a Riemannian manifold and $`\{N_g\}`$ a family of submanifolds of $`M`$ parametrized in a measurable way by elements of a probability space $`G`$, such that all the pairs $`(M,N_g)`$ are gentle. If $`d_1(N_g,N_h)<ϵ<\frac{1}{20000}`$ for all $`g`$ and $`h`$ in $`G`$, there is a well defined *center of mass* submanifold $`N`$ with $`d_1(N_g,N)<2500ϵ`$ for all $`g`$ in $`G`$. The center of mass construction is equivariant with respect to isometries of $`M`$ and measure preserving automorphisms of $`G`$.

## 3 Estimates on the map $`\phi _g`$

In sections 3-7 we will prove the Main Theorem. The reader is referred to Section 1.3 for an outline of the proof and some of the notation introduced there. We will present Part I of the proof in sections 3-6 and Part II in Section 7.

Fix $`gG`$ and let $`p`$ be a point in the tubular neighborhood of $`N_g`$ and $`XT_pM`$. The aim of this section is to estimate the difference between $`\phi _{g}^{}{}_{}{}^{}X`$ and $`\backslash \backslash X`$. This will be achieved in Proposition 3.4.
Here we denote by $`\backslash \backslash X`$ the following parallel translation of $`X`$, where $`\pi _{N_g}`$ is the projection onto $`N_g`$ along the normal slices. First we parallel translate $`X`$ along the shortest geodesic from $`p`$ to $`\pi _{N_g}(p)`$, then along the shortest geodesic from $`\pi _{N_g}(p)N_g`$ to its image under $`\phi _g`$, and finally along the shortest geodesic to $`\phi _g(p)`$. We view “$`\backslash \backslash `$” as a canonical way to associate $`XT_pM`$ to a vector in $`T_{\phi _g(p)}M`$.
Before we begin proving our estimates, following section 2.1 of \[We\] we introduce two subbundles of $`TM|_{\mathrm{exp}_{N_g}(\nu N_g)_1}`$ and their orthogonal complements.
The vertical bundle $`Vert^g`$ has fiber at $`p`$ given by the parallel translation of $`\nu _{\pi _{N_g}(p)}N_g`$ along the shortest geodesic from $`\pi _{N_g}(p)`$ to $`p`$.
The almost vertical bundle $`aVert^g`$ has fiber at $`p`$ given by the tangent space at $`p`$ of the normal slice to $`N_g`$ through $`\pi _{N_g}(p)`$.
The horizontal bundle $`Hor^g`$ and the almost horizontal bundle $`aHor^g`$ are given by their orthogonal complements.
Remark: Notice that $`aVert^g`$ is the kernel of $`(\pi _{N_g})_{}`$, and that according to Proposition 3.7 in \[We\] we have $`d(Vert_p^g,aVert_p^g)<\frac{1}{4}d(p,N_g)^2`$ for any $`p`$ in $`\mathrm{exp}_{N_g}(\nu N_g)_1`$, and similarly for $`Hor^g`$ and $`aHor^g`$.
Since $`\frac{1}{4}d(p,N_g)^2<\frac{\pi }{2}`$, $`Vert^g`$ and $`aHor^g`$ are always transversal (and clearly the same holds for $`Hor^g`$ and $`aVert^g`$). As seen in Section 1.3 $`Vert^g`$ and $`TN`$ are transversal along $`N`$, and $`aVert^g`$ and $`TN`$ are also transversal since $`N`$ corresponds to a section of $`\nu N_g`$ and $`aVert^g=\text{Ker}(\pi _{N_g})_{}`$.
Now we are ready to give our estimates on the map $`\phi _g`$. Recall from the Introduction that for any point $`q`$ of the tubular neighborhood of $`N_g`$ we denote by $`\gamma _q`$ the geodesic from $`\pi _{N_g}(q)N_g`$ to $`q`$. Until the end of this section all geodesics will be parametrized to arc-length.
In sections 3 to 6 all estimates will hold for $`ϵ<\frac{1}{20000}`$.

### 3.1 Case 1: $`p`$ is a point of $`N_g`$

###### Proposition 3.1

If $`pN_g`$ and $`XT_pN_g`$ is a unit vector, then

$$|\phi _{g}^{}{}_{}{}^{}(X)\backslash \backslash X|3200ϵ.$$

Remark: Notice that if $`X`$ is a vector normal to $`N_g`$ by definition of $`\phi _g`$ and $`\backslash \backslash `$ we have $`\phi _{g}^{}{}_{}{}^{}(X)=\backslash \backslash X`$. Therefore in this subsection we will assume that $`X`$ is tangent to $`N_g`$.
Also, we will denote by $`A`$ the second fundamental form 141414In Section 2 we adopted the sign convention of \[We\] which differs from this. $`N_g`$, i.e. $`A_\xi v:=(_v\xi )^T`$ for tangent vectors $`v`$ of $`N_g`$ and normal vector fields $`\xi `$, where $`()^T`$ denotes projecting to the component tangent to $`N_g`$ and $``$ is the Levi-Civita connection on $`M`$. Since $`(M,N_g)`$ is a gentle pair, the norm of $`A`$ is bounded by $`\frac{3}{2}`$, as shown in \[We, Cor. 3.2\].
Now let $`pN_g`$, $`XT_pN_g`$ a unit vector, and $`q:=\phi _g(p)`$. We will denote by $`E`$ the distance $`d(p,\phi _g(p))<100ϵ`$ (see end of Section 4 in \[We\]).
We will show that at $`q`$

$$\backslash \backslash XJ(E)H\phi _{g}^{}{}_{}{}^{}(X)$$

where the Jacobi field $`J`$ and the horizontal vector $`H`$ will be specified below.

###### Lemma 3.1

Let $`J`$ be the Jacobi-field along the geodesic $`\gamma _q`$ such that $`J(0)=X`$ and $`J^{}(0)=A_{\dot{\gamma }_q(0)}X`$. Then

$$|J(E)\backslash \backslash X|\frac{3}{2}(e^E1).$$

Proof: This is an immediate consequence of \[BK,6.3.8.iii\] 151515\[BK,6.3.8\] assumes that $`J(0)`$ and $`J^{}(0)`$ be linearly dependent. However statement iii) holds without this assumption, as one can always decompose $`J`$ as $`J=J_1+J_2`$, where $`J_1`$ and $`J_2`$ are Jacobi fields such that $`J_1(0)=J(0),J_1^{}(0)=0`$ and $`J_1(0)=0,J_1^{}(0)=J^{}(0)`$ respectively. Furthermore we make use of $`|J|^{}(0)|J^{}(0)|`$. which will be used later again and which under the curvature assumptions $`|K|1`$ states the following: if $`J`$ is any Jacobi field along a unit-speed geodesic, then we have

$$|J(t)_t^0\backslash \backslash (J(0)+tJ^{}(0))|\left|J(0)\right|(\mathrm{cosh}(t)1)+\left|J^{}(0)\right|(\mathrm{sinh}(t)t),$$

where $`{}_{t}{}^{0}\backslash \backslash `$ denotes parallel translation to the starting point of the geodesic. Using $`|A_{\dot{\gamma }_q(0)}X|\frac{3}{2}`$ by \[We, Cor 3.2\] the above estimates gives $`|J(E)\backslash \backslash X|(\mathrm{cosh}(E)1)+\frac{3}{2}\mathrm{sinh}(E)`$. Alternatively, this Lemma can be proven using the methods of \[We, Prop 3.7\]. $``$

Before proceeding we need a lemma about projections:

###### Lemma 3.2

If $`YT_qM`$ is a vertical unit vector, write $`Y=Y_{av}+Y_h`$ for the splitting into its almost vertical and horizontal components. Then

$$\left|Y_h\right|\mathrm{tan}\left(\frac{E^2}{4}\right)\text{ and }\left|Y_{av}\right|\frac{1}{\mathrm{cos}(\frac{E^2}{4})}.$$

Proof: By \[We, Prop 3.7\] we have $`d(Vert_q^g,aVert_q^g)\frac{E^2}{4}<\frac{\pi }{2}`$, so the subspace $`aVert_q^g`$ of $`T_qM`$ is the graph of a linear map $`\varphi :Vert_q^gHor_q^g`$. So $`Y_{av}=Y+\varphi (Y)`$ and $`Y_h=\varphi (Y)`$. Since the angle enclosed by $`Y`$ and $`Y_{av}`$ is at most $`d(Vert_q^g,aVert_q^g)\frac{E^2}{4}`$, one obtains $`|Y|\mathrm{cos}(\frac{E^2}{4})|Y_{av}|`$ which gives the second estimate of the Lemma. From this, using $`|Y_h|^2=|Y_{av}|^2|Y|^2`$ we obtain the first estimate. $``$

###### Lemma 3.3

If $`H`$ is the unique horizontal vector at $`q`$ such that $`\pi _{N_g}^{}{}_{}{}^{}(H)=X`$, then

$$\left|J(E)H\right|\frac{3}{2}(e^E1)\frac{1}{\mathrm{cos}(\frac{E^2}{4})}.$$

Proof: Let $`J`$ be the Jacobi-field of Lemma 3.1. Write $`J(E)=W+Y`$ for the splitting into horizontal and vertical components. Then, using the notation of Lemma 3.2, we have $`J(E)_h=W+Y_h`$ and $`J(E)_{av}=Y_{av}`$. Notice that the Jacobi field $`J`$ arises from a variation of geodesics orthogonal to $`N_g`$ (see the Remark in Section 3.2), so $`(\pi _{N_g})_{}J(E)=X=(\pi _{N_g})_{}H`$. Using $`aVert^g=\mathrm{ker}(\pi _{N_g})_{}`$ it follows that $`H=J(E)_h`$. So

$$|J(E)H|=|Y_{av}||Y|\frac{1}{\mathrm{cos}(\frac{E^2}{4})}\frac{3}{2}(e^E1)\frac{1}{\mathrm{cos}(\frac{E^2}{4})}$$

where we used Lemma 3.2 and $`\left|Y\right||J(E)\backslash \backslash X|`$ together with Lemma 3.1. $``$
Now we will compare $`H`$ to $`\phi _{g}^{}{}_{}{}^{}(X)`$ and finish our proof.
Proof of Proposition 3.1:  We have

$$|\backslash \backslash X\phi _{g}^{}{}_{}{}^{}(X)||\backslash \backslash XJ(E)|+|J(E)H|+|H\phi _{g}^{}{}_{}{}^{}(X)|.$$

The first and second terms are bounded by the estimates of Lemmata 3.1 and 3.3. For the third term we proceed analogously to Lemma 3.3: since $`\phi _{g}^{}{}_{}{}^{}(X)`$ and $`H`$ are both mapped to $`X`$ via $`\pi _{N_g}`$, one has $`(\phi _{g}^{}{}_{}{}^{}(X))_{av}=\phi _{g}^{}{}_{}{}^{}(X)H`$. As earlier, if $`\phi _{g}^{}{}_{}{}^{}(X)=\stackrel{~}{W}+\stackrel{~}{Y}`$ is the splitting into horizontal and vertical components, we have $`(\phi _{g}^{}{}_{}{}^{}(X))_{av}=\stackrel{~}{Y}_{av}`$. Therefore

$$|\phi _{g}^{}{}_{}{}^{}(X)H|=|\stackrel{~}{Y}_{av}||\stackrel{~}{Y}|\frac{1}{\mathrm{cos}(\frac{E^2}{4})}|\phi _{g}^{}{}_{}{}^{}(X)|\frac{\mathrm{sin}(2500ϵ)}{\mathrm{cos}(\frac{E^2}{4})}.$$

Here we also used Lemma 3.2 and the fact that the angle enclosed by $`\phi _{g}^{}{}_{}{}^{}(X)`$ and its orthogonal projection onto $`Hor_g^q`$ is at most $`d(Hor_q^g,T_qN)2500ϵ`$ by Theorem 4. Altogether we have

$$|\backslash \backslash X\phi _{g}^{}{}_{}{}^{}(X)|\frac{3}{2}(e^E1)[1+\frac{1}{\mathrm{cos}(\frac{E^2}{4})}]+|\phi _{g}^{}{}_{}{}^{}(X)|\frac{\mathrm{sin}(2500ϵ)}{\mathrm{cos}(\frac{E^2}{4})}.$$

Using this inequality we can bound $`|\phi _{g}^{}{}_{}{}^{}(X)|`$ from above in terms of $`E`$ and $`ϵ`$. Substituting into the right hand side of the above inequality we obtain a function of $`ϵ`$ (recall that $`E=100ϵ`$)which is increasing and bounded above by $`3200ϵ`$. $``$

### 3.2 Case 2: $`p`$ is a point of $`\mathrm{exp}_{N_g}(\nu N_g)_L`$ and $`XT_pM`$ is almost vertical

In this subsection we require $`L<1`$, as in the definition of gentle pair.
Remark: Jacobi-fields $`\overline{J}`$ along $`\gamma _p`$ (the geodesic from $`\pi _{N_g}(p)`$ to $`p`$) with $`\overline{J}(0)`$ tangent to $`N_g`$ and $`A_{\dot{\gamma }_p(0)}\overline{J}(0)+\overline{J}^{}(0)`$ normal to $`N_g`$ are called $`N_g`$ Jacobi-fields. They clearly form a vector space of dimension equal to $`dim(M)`$ and they are exactly the Jacobi-fields that arise from variations of $`\gamma _p`$ by geodesics that start on $`N_g`$ and are normal to $`N_g`$ there.
Since $`(M,N_g)`$ is a gentle pair, there are no focal points of $`\pi _{N_g}(p)`$ along $`\gamma _p`$, so the map

$$\{N_g\text{ Jacobi-fields along }\gamma _p\}T_pM,\overline{J}\overline{J}(L)$$

is an isomorphism. The $`N_g`$ Jacobi fields that map to $`aVert_p^g`$ are exactly those with the property $`J(0)=0`$, $`J^{}(0)\nu _{\pi _{N_g}(p)}N_g`$. Indeed such a vector field is the variational vector field of the variation

$$f_s(t)=\mathrm{exp}_{\pi _{N_g}(p)}t[\dot{\gamma _p}(0)+sJ^{}(0)],$$

so $`J(L)`$ will be tangent to the normal slice of $`N_g`$ at $`\pi _{N_g}(p)`$. From dimension considerations it follows that the $`N_g`$ Jacobi-fields that satisfy $`J(0)T_{\pi _{N_g}(p)}N_g`$ and $`A_{\dot{\gamma }_p(0)}J(0)+J^{}(0)=0`$ \- which are called  strong $`N_g`$ Jacobi-fields  \- map to a subspace of $`T_pM`$ which is a complement of $`aVert_p^g`$. As pointed out in \[Wa, p. 354\], these two subspaces are in general not orthogonal.

###### Proposition 3.2

If $`p\mathrm{exp}_{N_g}(\nu N_g)_L`$ and $`XT_pM`$ is an almost vertical unit vector, then

$$|\phi _{g}^{}{}_{}{}^{}(X)\backslash \backslash X|2\frac{\mathrm{sinh}(L)L}{\mathrm{sin}(L)}.$$

We begin proving

###### Lemma 3.4

Let $`J`$ be a Jacobi-field along $`\gamma _p`$ such that $`J(0)=0`$ and $`J^{}(0)\nu _{\pi _{N_g}(p)}N_g`$, normalized such that $`|J(L)|=1`$. Then

$$|J(L)L_{\gamma _p}\backslash \backslash J^{}(0)|\frac{\mathrm{sinh}(L)L}{\mathrm{sin}(L)}.$$

Proof: Again \[BK, 6.3.8iii\] shows that $`|J(L)L\backslash \backslash J^{}(0)||J^{}(0)|(\mathrm{sinh}(L)L).`$ Using the upper curvature bound $`K1`$ and Rauch’s theorem we obtain $`|J^{}(0)|\frac{1}{\mathrm{sin}(L)}`$ and we are done. $``$
We saw in the remark above that $`X`$ is equal to $`J(L)`$ for a Jacobi-field $`J`$ as in Lemma 3.4, and that $`J`$ comes from a variation $`f_s(t)=\mathrm{exp}_{\pi _{N_g}(p)}t[\dot{\gamma _p}(0)+sJ^{}(0)]`$. So $`\phi _{g}^{}{}_{}{}^{}(X)`$ comes from the variation

$$\phi _g\left(f_s(t)\right)=\mathrm{exp}_{\phi _g(\pi _{N_g}(p))}t[\backslash \backslash \dot{\gamma _p}(0)+s\backslash \backslash J^{}(0)]$$

along the geodesic $`\phi _g(\gamma _p(t))`$. More precisely, if we denote by $`\stackrel{~}{J}(t)`$ the Jacobi-field that arises from the above variation, we will have $`\phi _{g}^{}{}_{}{}^{}(X)=\stackrel{~}{J}(L)`$. Notice that $`\stackrel{~}{J}(0)=0`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{J}^{}(0)=\backslash \backslash J^{}(0)`$.

###### Lemma 3.5

$$|\stackrel{~}{J}(L)L_{\phi _g\gamma _p}\backslash \backslash \stackrel{~}{J}^{}(0)|\frac{\mathrm{sinh}(L)L}{\mathrm{sin}(L)}.$$

Proof: Exactly as for Lemma 3.4 since $`\stackrel{~}{J}(0)=0`$ and $`|\stackrel{~}{J}^{}(0)|=|J^{}(0)|.`$ $``$
Proof of Proposition 3.2:  We have $`XLJ^{}(0)=L\stackrel{~}{J}^{}(0)\phi _{g}^{}{}_{}{}^{}(X)`$. Here we identify tangent spaces to $`M`$ parallel translating along $`\gamma _p`$, along the geodesic $`\gamma _{\phi _g(\pi _{N_g}(p))}`$ from $`\pi _{N_g}(p)`$ to its $`\phi _g`$-image and along $`\phi _g\gamma _p`$ respectively. Notice that these three geodesics are exactly those used in the definition of “$`\backslash \backslash `$”.
The estimates for the two relations “$``$” are in Lemma 3.4 and Lemma 3.5 respectively (recall $`X=J(L)`$ and $`\phi _{g}^{}{}_{}{}^{}(X)=\stackrel{~}{J}(L)`$), and the equality holds because $`\stackrel{~}{J}^{}(0)=\backslash \backslash J^{}(0).`$ $``$

### 3.3 Case 3: $`p`$ is a point of $`\mathrm{exp}_{N_g}(\nu N_g)_L`$ and $`X=J(L)`$ for some strong $`N_g`$ Jacobi-field $`J`$ along $`\gamma _p`$

From now on we have to assume $`L<0.08`$.

###### Proposition 3.3

If $`p\mathrm{exp}_{N_g}(\nu N_g)_L`$ and $`X`$ is a unit vector equal to $`J(L)`$ for some strong $`N_g`$ Jacobi-field $`J`$ along $`\gamma _p`$, then

$$|\phi _{g}^{}{}_{}{}^{}(X)\backslash \backslash X|\frac{18}{5}L+3700ϵ.$$

We proceed analogously to Case 2.

###### Lemma 3.6

For a vector field $`J`$ as in the above proposition we have

$$|J(L)_{\gamma _p}\backslash \backslash J(0)|\frac{\frac{3}{2}(e^L1)}{1\frac{3}{2}(e^L1)}\frac{9}{5}L.$$

Furthermore we have $`|J(0)|\frac{1}{1\frac{3}{2}(e^L1)}.`$

Proof: By Lemma 3.1 we have $`|J(L)_{\gamma _p}\backslash \backslash J(0)|\frac{3}{2}(e^L1)|J(0)|`$, from which we obtain the estimate for $`|J(0)|`$ and then the first estimate of the lemma. $``$
$`J`$ comes from a variation $`f_s(t)=\mathrm{exp}_{\sigma (s)}tv(s)`$ for some curve $`\sigma `$ in $`N_g`$ with $`\dot{\sigma }(0)=J(0)`$ and some normal vector field $`v`$ along $`\sigma `$. We denote by $`\stackrel{~}{J}`$ the Jacobi-field along the geodesic $`\phi _g(\gamma _p(t))`$ arising from the variation

$$\stackrel{~}{f_s}(t)=\phi _g\left(f_s(t)\right)=\mathrm{exp}_{\stackrel{~}{\sigma }(s)}(t\backslash \backslash v(s)),$$

where $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }=\phi _g\sigma `$ is the lift of $`\sigma `$ to $`N`$. Then we have $`\stackrel{~}{J}(L)=\phi _{g}^{}{}_{}{}^{}(X)`$. Notice that here $`\backslash \backslash v(s)`$ is just the parallel translation of $`v(s)`$ along $`\gamma _{\stackrel{~}{\sigma }(s)}=:\gamma _s`$.

###### Lemma 3.7

$$|\stackrel{~}{J}(L)_{\phi _g\gamma _p}\backslash \backslash \stackrel{~}{J}(0)|\frac{9}{5}L$$

Proof: Using \[BK 6.3.8iii\] as in Lemma 3.1 we obtain

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill |\stackrel{~}{J}(L)_{\phi _g\gamma _p}\backslash \backslash \stackrel{~}{J}(0)|& |\stackrel{~}{J}^{}(0)|(\mathrm{sinh}(L))+|\stackrel{~}{J}(0)|(\mathrm{cosh}(L)1),()\hfill \end{array}$$

so that we just have to estimate the norms of $`\stackrel{~}{J}(0)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{J}^{}(0)`$.
Since $`\stackrel{~}{J}(0)=\phi _{g}^{}{}_{}{}^{}J(0)`$, applying Proposition 3.1 gives $`|\stackrel{~}{J}(0)_{\gamma _0}\backslash \backslash J(0)|3200ϵ|J(0)|`$. Using the bound for $`|J(0)|`$ given in Lemma 3.6 we obtain $`|\stackrel{~}{J}(0)|\frac{1+3200ϵ}{1\frac{3}{2}(e^L1)}`$.
To estimate $`\stackrel{~}{J}^{}(0)`$ notice that in the expression for $`f_s(t)`$ we can choose $`v(s)=_{\sigma _s}\backslash \backslash [\dot{\gamma }_0(0)+sJ^{}(0)]`$, where $`{}_{\sigma _s}{}^{}\backslash \backslash `$ denotes parallel translation from $`\sigma (0)`$ to $`\sigma (s)`$ along $`\sigma `$. So

$$\backslash \backslash v(s)=_{\gamma _s}\backslash \backslash _{\sigma _s}\backslash \backslash [\dot{\gamma }_0(0)+sJ^{}(0)],$$

and

$$\stackrel{~}{J}^{}(0)=\frac{}{ds}|_0(\backslash \backslash v(s))=\frac{}{ds}|_0{}_{\gamma _s}{}^{}\backslash \backslash _{\sigma _s}\backslash \backslash \dot{\gamma }_0(0)+_{\gamma _0}\backslash \backslash J^{}(0)$$

where we used the Leibniz rule for covariant derivatives to obtain the second equality.
To estimate the first term note that the difference between the identity and the holonomy around a loop in a Riemannian manifold is bounded in the operator norm by the surface spanned by the loop times the a bound for the curvature (see \[BK, 6.2.1\]). Therefore we write $`{}_{\gamma _s}{}^{}\backslash \backslash _{\sigma _s}\backslash \backslash \dot{\gamma }_0(0)`$ as $`{}_{\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_s}{}^{}\backslash \backslash _{\gamma _0}\backslash \backslash \dot{\gamma }_0(0)+\epsilon (s)`$ where $`\epsilon (s)`$ is a vector field along $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }(s)`$ with norm bounded by the area of the polygon spanned by $`\sigma (0),\sigma (s),\stackrel{~}{\sigma }(s)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }(0)`$. Assuming that $`\sigma `$ has constant speed $`|J(0)|`$ we can estimate $`d(\sigma (0),\sigma (s))s|J(0)|`$ and using Proposition 3.1 to estimate $`|\dot{\stackrel{~}{\sigma }}(s)|=|\phi _{g}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\dot{\sigma }(s)|`$ we obtain $`d(\stackrel{~}{\sigma }(0),\stackrel{~}{\sigma }(s))s(1+3200ϵ)|J(0)|`$. Using $`d(\stackrel{~}{\sigma }(s),\sigma (s))100ϵ`$ and Lemma 3.6 we can bound the area of the polygon safely by $`\frac{100ϵs(2+3200ϵ)}{1\frac{3}{2}(e^L1)}.`$ So we obtain

$$|\frac{}{ds}|_{0}^{}{}_{\gamma _s}{}^{}\backslash \backslash _{\sigma _s}\backslash \backslash \dot{\gamma }_0(0)|=\left|\frac{}{ds}|_0\epsilon (s)\right|\frac{100ϵ(2+3200ϵ)}{1\frac{3}{2}(e^L1)}.$$

To bound $`{}_{\gamma _0}{}^{}\backslash \backslash J^{}(0)`$ notice that $`|J^{}(0)|\frac{3}{2}|J(0)|`$ using the fact that $`J`$ is a strong Jacobi-field and \[We, Cor. 3.2\], so $`|J^{}(0)|\frac{3}{2}\frac{1}{1\frac{3}{2}(e^L1)}.`$
Substituting our estimates for $`|\stackrel{~}{J}(0)|`$ and $`|\stackrel{~}{J}^{}(0)|`$ in $`()`$ we obtain a function which, for $`ϵ<\frac{1}{20000}`$ and $`L<0.08`$, is bounded above by $`\frac{9}{5}L`$. $``$
The vectors $`\stackrel{~}{J}(0)`$ and $`\backslash \backslash J(0)`$ generally are not equal, so we need one more estimate that has no counterpart in Case 2:

###### Lemma 3.8

$$|\stackrel{~}{J}(0)\backslash \backslash J(0)|\frac{3200ϵ}{1\frac{3}{2}(e^L1)}3700ϵ.$$

Proof: Since $`\stackrel{~}{J}(0)=\phi _{g}^{}{}_{}{}^{}J(0)`$, Proposition 3.1 gives

$$|\stackrel{~}{J}(0)\backslash \backslash J(0)|3200ϵ|J(0)|\frac{3200ϵ}{1\frac{3}{2}(e^L1)}.$$

Since $`\frac{1}{1\frac{3}{2}(e^L1)}<1.15`$ when $`L<0.08`$ we are done. $``$
Proof of Proposition 3.3:  We have $`XJ(0)\stackrel{~}{J}(0)\phi _{g}^{}{}_{}{}^{}(X)`$ where we identify tangent spaces by parallel translation along $`\gamma _p`$, $`\gamma _0`$ and $`\phi _g\gamma _p`$ respectively. Combining the last three lemmas and recalling $`X=J(L)`$, $`\phi _{g}^{}{}_{}{}^{}(X)=\stackrel{~}{J}(L)`$ we finish the proof. $``$

### 3.4 The general case

This proposition summarizes the three cases considered up to now:

###### Proposition 3.4

Assume $`ϵ<\frac{1}{20000}`$ and $`L<0.08`$. Let $`p\mathrm{exp}_{N_g}(\nu N_g)_L`$ and $`XT_pM`$ a unit vector. Then

$$|\phi _{g}^{}{}_{}{}^{}(X)\backslash \backslash X|4L+4100ϵ.$$

We will write the unit vector $`X`$ as $`J(L)+K(L)`$ where $`J`$ and $`K`$, up to normalization, are Jacobi fields as in the next lemma. We will need to estimate the norms of $`J(L)`$ and $`K(L)`$, so we begin by estimating the angle they enclose:

###### Lemma 3.9

Let $`J`$ be a $`N_g`$ Jacobi-field along $`\gamma _p`$ with $`J(0)=0`$, $`J^{}(0)`$ normal to $`N_g`$ (as in Case 2) and $`K`$ a strong $`N_g`$ Jacobi-field (as in Case 3), normalized such that $`J(L)`$ and $`K(L)`$ are unit vectors. Then

$$\left|J(L),K(L)\right|\frac{\frac{3}{2}(e^L1)}{1\frac{3}{2}(e^L1)}+\frac{1}{1\frac{3}{2}(e^L1)}\frac{\mathrm{sinh}(L)L}{\mathrm{sin}(L)}\frac{9}{5}L.$$

Proof: Identifying tangent spaces along $`\gamma _p`$ by parallel translation, we have

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \left|J(L),K(L)\right|=& \left|J(L),K(L)LJ^{}(0),K(0)\right|\hfill \\ \hfill & \left|J(L),K(L)K(0)\right|+\left|J(L)LJ^{}(0),K(0)\right|\hfill \\ \hfill & \left|K(L)K(0)\right|+\left|K(0)\right|\left|J(L)LJ^{}(0)\right|,\hfill \end{array}$$

which can be estimated using Lemma 3.6 and Lemma 3.4 $``$

###### Lemma 3.10

Let $`XT_pM`$ be a unit vector such that $`X=J(L)+K(L)`$ where $`J,K`$ are Jacobi-fields as in the Lemma 3.9 (up to normalization). Then

$$\left|J(L)\right|,\left|K(L)\right|\frac{1}{\sqrt{1\frac{9}{5}L}}1.1.$$

Proof: Let $`c:=\frac{J(L)}{|J(L)|},\frac{K(L)}{|K(L)|}`$, so $`|c|\frac{9}{5}L`$. There is an orthonormal basis $`\{e_1,e_2\}`$ of span$`\{J(L),K(L)\}`$ such that $`J(L)=|J(L)|e_1`$ and $`K(L)=|K(L)|(ce_1+\sqrt{1c^2}e_2)`$. An elementary computation shows that $`1=|J(L)+K(L)|^2(1|c|)(|J(L)|^2+|K(L)|^2)`$, from which the lemma easily follows. $``$
Proof of Proposition 3.4:  The remark at the beginning of Case 2  implies that we can (uniquely) write $`X=J(L)+K(L)`$ for $`N_g`$ Jacobi-fields $`J`$ and $`K`$ as in Lemma 3.10. So, using Lemma 3.10, Proposition 3.2 and Proposition 3.3

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill |\phi _{g}^{}{}_{}{}^{}(X)\backslash \backslash X|& |\phi _{g}^{}{}_{}{}^{}J(L)\backslash \backslash J(L)|+|\phi _{g}^{}{}_{}{}^{}K(L)\backslash \backslash K(L)|\hfill \\ \hfill & 1.1\left(2\frac{\mathrm{sinh}(L)L}{\mathrm{sin}(L)}+\frac{18}{5}L+3700ϵ\right)\hfill \\ \hfill & 4L+4100ϵ.\hfill \end{array}$$

$``$

## 4 Proposition 4.1 about geodesic triangles in $`M`$

Fix $`g`$ in $`G`$ and let $`\phi _g`$ be the map from a tubular neighborhood of $`N_g`$ to one of $`N`$ defined in the introduction. Our aim in the next three sections is to show that $`\mathrm{exp}_{N_g}(\nu N_g)_{0.05}`$ is a tubular neighborhood of $`N_g`$ on which $`\phi _g`$ is injective.
We will begin by giving a lower bound on the length of the edges of certain geodesic triangles in $`M`$.
In this section we take $`M`$ to be simply any Riemannian manifold with the following two properties:

> i) the sectional curvature lies between -1 and 1
> ii) the injectivity radius at any point is at least 1.

In our later applications we will work in the neighborhood of a submanifold that forms a gentle pair with $`M`$, so these two conditions will be automatically satisfied.
Now let us choose points $`A,B,C`$ in $`M`$ and let us assume $`d(C,A)<0.15`$ and $`d(C,B)<0.5`$. Connecting the three points by the unique shortest geodesics defined on the interval $`[0,1]`$, we obtain a geodesic triangle $`ABC`$.
We will denote by the symbol $`\dot{CB}`$ the initial velocity vector of the geodesic from $`C`$ to $`B`$, and similarly for the other edges of the triangle.

###### Proposition 4.1

Let $`M`$ be a Riemannian manifold and $`ABC`$ a geodesic triangle as above. Let $`P_C,P_A`$ be subspaces of $`T_CM`$ and $`T_AM`$ respectively of equal dimensions such that $`\dot{CB}P_C`$ and $`\dot{AB}P_A.`$ Assume that:

$$\mathrm{}(P_A,\dot{AC})\frac{\pi }{2}\delta $$

and

$$\theta :=d(P_A,_{CA}\backslash \backslash P_C)𝒞d(A,C)$$

for some constants $`\delta ,𝒞`$. We assume $`𝒞2`$. Then

$$d(C,B)\frac{10}{11}\frac{1}{(𝒞+6)\sqrt{1+\mathrm{tan}^2\delta }}.$$

Remark 1: Here $`{}_{CA}{}^{}\backslash \backslash `$ denotes parallel translation of $`P_C`$ along the geodesic from $`C`$ to $`A`$.
The angle between the subspace $`P_A`$ and the vector $`\dot{AC}`$ is given as follows: for every nonzero $`vP_A`$ we consider the non-oriented angle $`\mathrm{}(v,\dot{AC})[0,\pi ].`$ Then we have

$$\mathrm{}(P_A,\dot{AC}):=\text{Min }\{\mathrm{}(v,\dot{AC}):vP_A\text{ nonzero }\}[0,\frac{\pi }{2}].$$

Notice that $`\mathrm{}(P_A,\dot{AC})\frac{\pi }{2}\delta `$ iff for all nonzero $`vP_A`$ we have $`\mathrm{}(v,\dot{AC})[\frac{\pi }{2}\delta ,\frac{\pi }{2}+\delta ].`$
Remark 2:  This proposition generalizes the following simple statement about triangles in the plane: if two edges $`CB`$ and $`AB`$ form an angle bounded by the length of the base edge $`AC`$ times a constant $`𝒞`$, and if we assume that $`CB`$ and $`AB`$ are nearly perpendicular to $`AC`$, then the lengths $`|CB|`$ and $`|AB|`$ will be bounded below by a constant depending on $`𝒞`$ (but not on $`|AC|`$).
In the general case of Proposition 4.1 however we make assumptions on $`d(P_A,_{CA}\backslash \backslash P_C)`$ from which we are not able to obtain easily bounds on the angle $`\mathrm{}(\dot{CB},\dot{AB})`$ at $`B`$ (such a bound together with the law of sines would immediately imply the statement of Proposition 4.1).
Proof: Using the chart $`\mathrm{exp}_A`$ we can lift $`B`$ and $`C`$ to the points $`\stackrel{~}{B}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$ of $`T_AM`$. We obtain a triangle $`0\stackrel{~}{B}\stackrel{~}{C}`$, which differs in one edge from the lift of the triangle $`ABC`$. Denoting by $`Q`$ the endpoint of the vector $`(\stackrel{~}{B}\stackrel{~}{C})`$ translated to the origin, consider the triangle $`0\stackrel{~}{B}Q`$. Let $`P`$ be the closest point to $`Q`$ in $`P_A`$.
Claim 1:

$$|\stackrel{~}{B}P|\mathrm{tan}(\delta )|QP|.$$

Using $`\mathrm{}(P_A,\dot{AC})\frac{\pi }{2}\delta `$ and $`\dot{AC}=\stackrel{~}{C}0`$ we see that the angle between any vector in $`P_A`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{C}0`$ lies in the interval $`[\frac{\pi }{2}\delta ,\frac{\pi }{2}+\delta ]`$. Since $`\stackrel{~}{C}0`$ and $`Q\stackrel{~}{B}`$ are parallel, the angle between any vector of $`P_A`$ and $`Q\stackrel{~}{B}`$ lies in $`[\frac{\pi }{2}\delta ,\frac{\pi }{2}+\delta ]`$. Since $`P\stackrel{~}{B}P_A`$ we have

$$\mathrm{}(P\stackrel{~}{B},Q\stackrel{~}{B})[\frac{\pi }{2}\delta ,\frac{\pi }{2}+\delta ].$$

The triangle $`\stackrel{~}{B}PQ`$ has a right angle at $`P`$, so the angle $`\mathrm{}(PQ,\stackrel{~}{B}Q)`$ is less of equal than $`\delta `$, and claim 1 follows.
Claim 2:

$$|QP|\mathrm{sin}\left[(6+𝒞)d(C,A)\right]|Q0|.$$

$`(\mathrm{exp}_A^1)_{}\dot{CB}`$ does not coincide with $`\stackrel{~}{B}\stackrel{~}{C}T_{\stackrel{~}{C}}(T_AM)`$. Estimating - see Corollary A.2 in Appendix A - the angle between these two vectors we will be able to estimate the angle between $`\stackrel{~}{B}\stackrel{~}{C}=Q0T_AM`$ and $`{}_{CA}{}^{}\backslash \backslash \dot{CB}T_AM`$, i.e. the parallel translation in $`M`$ of $`\dot{CB}`$ along the geodesic from $`C`$ to $`A`$ (see Corollary A.3). Our estimate will be $`\mathrm{}({}_{CA}{}^{}\backslash \backslash \dot{CB},Q0)<4d(A,C).`$
Now let $`P^{}`$ be the closest point to $`{}_{CA}{}^{}\backslash \backslash \dot{CB}`$ in $`P_A`$. Since $`P^{}0P_A`$ and $`\dot{CB}P_C`$, using the definition of distance between subspaces we get $`\mathrm{}(_{CA}\backslash \backslash \dot{CB},P^{}0)d(P_A,_{CA}\backslash \backslash P_C)=\theta 𝒞d(C,A).`$
Finally we will show - see Corollary A.1 \- that $`\mathrm{}(P0,P^{}0)2d(C,A).`$
Combining the last three estimates we get $`\mathrm{}(P0,Q0)<(6+𝒞)d(C,A)`$, which is less than $`\frac{\pi }{2}`$.
Claim 2 follows since $`0PQ`$ is a right triangle at $`P`$.

Claim 3:

$$d(C,B)\frac{20}{21}\frac{1}{(𝒞+6)\sqrt{1+\mathrm{tan}^2\delta }}.$$

The triangle $`\stackrel{~}{B}PQ`$ is a right triangle at $`P`$, so using claim 1 and claim 2 we have

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill |Q\stackrel{~}{B}|^2=& |\stackrel{~}{B}P|^2+|QP|^2\hfill \\ \hfill & \left(1+\mathrm{tan}^2\delta \right)|QP|^2\hfill \\ \hfill & \left(1+\mathrm{tan}^2\delta \right)(6+𝒞)^2d(C,A)^2|Q0|^2.\hfill \end{array}$$

The vector $`Q\stackrel{~}{B}`$ is just $`0\stackrel{~}{C}`$, the length of which is $`d(A,C)`$, and the vector $`Q0`$ is $`\stackrel{~}{B}\stackrel{~}{C}`$. So

$$d(A,C)\sqrt{(1+\mathrm{tan}^2\delta )}(6+𝒞)d(C,A)|\stackrel{~}{B}\stackrel{~}{C}|,$$

and

$$\frac{1}{(6+𝒞)\sqrt{1+\mathrm{tan}^2\delta }}|\stackrel{~}{B}\stackrel{~}{C}|.$$

Using standard estimates - see Corollary A.4 \- we obtain $`|\stackrel{~}{B}\stackrel{~}{C}|\frac{11}{10}d(C,B)`$, and the proposition follows. $``$

## 5 Application of Proposition 4.1 to $`Vert^g`$.

Fix $`g`$ in $`G`$. Let $`C`$ and $`A`$ be points on Weinstein’s average $`N`$ with $`d(C,A)<0.15`$ joint by a minimizing geodesic $`\gamma `$ in $`M`$. Suppose that $`\mathrm{exp}_C(v)=\mathrm{exp}_A(w)=:B`$ for vertical vectors $`vVert_C^g`$ and $`wVert_A^g`$ of lengths less than 0.5. In this section we will apply Proposition 4.1 to the geodesic triangle given by the above three points of $`M`$ and $`P_A=Vert_A^g,P_C=Vert_C^g`$. We will do so in Proposition 5.5
To this aim, first we will estimate the constants $`\delta `$ and $`𝒞`$ of Proposition 4.1 in this specific case. As always our estimates will hold for $`ϵ<\frac{1}{20000}`$.
Roughly speaking, the constant $`\delta `$ \- which measures how much the angle between $`\dot{CA}=\dot{\gamma }(0)`$ and $`Vert_C^g`$ deviates from $`\frac{\pi }{2}`$ \- will be determined by using the fact that $`N`$ is $`C^1`$-close to $`N_g`$, so that the shortest geodesic $`\gamma `$ between $`C`$ and $`A`$ is “nearly tangent” to the distribution $`Hor^g`$.
Bounding the constant $`𝒞`$ \- which measures how the angle between $`Vert_A^g`$ and $`Vert_C^g`$ depends on $`d(A,C)`$ \- will be easier, noticing that both spaces are parallel translations of normal spaces to $`N_g`$, which is a submanifold with bounded second fundamental form.
Since we have

$$\mathrm{}(\dot{\gamma }(0),Vert_C^g)=\frac{\pi }{2}\mathrm{}(\dot{\gamma }(0),Hor_C^g),$$

to determine $`\delta `$ we just have to estimate the angle

$$\alpha :=\mathrm{}(\dot{\gamma }(0),Hor_C^g).$$

We already introduced the geodesic $`\gamma (t)`$ from $`C`$ to $`A`$, which we assume to be parametrized to arc length. We now consider the curve $`\pi (t):=\pi _{N_g}\gamma (t)`$ in $`N_g`$. We can lift the curve $`\pi `$ to a curve $`\phi _g\pi `$ in $`N`$ connecting $`C`$ and $`A`$; we will call $`c(t)`$ the parametrization to arc length of this lift.
$`^{}`$ will denote the connection induced on $`\nu N_g`$ by the Levi-Civita connection $``$ of $`M`$, and $`{}_{\pi ^b}{}^{}\backslash \backslash `$ applied to some $`\xi \nu _{\pi (t)}N_g`$ will denote its $`^{}`$-parallel transport from $`\pi (t)`$ to $`\pi (0)`$ along $`\pi `$. (The superscript “$`b`$” stands for “backwards” and is a reminder that we are parallel translating to the initial point of the curve $`\pi `$.)
Further we will need

$$r:=100ϵ+\frac{L(\gamma )}{2}\underset{t}{sup}\{d(\gamma (t),N_g)\}\text{ and }f(r):=\mathrm{cos}(r)\frac{3}{2}\mathrm{sin}(r).$$

Notice that $`r<0.08`$ due to our restrictions on $`ϵ`$ and $`d(C,A)`$.

Using the fact that $`c`$ is a curve in $`N`$ and $`N`$ is $`C^1`$-close to $`N_g`$, in Appendix B we will show that the section $`\stackrel{~}{c}:=\mathrm{exp}_{N_g}^1(c(t))`$ of $`\nu N_g`$ along $`\pi `$ is “approximately parallel”. This will allow us to bound from above the “distance” between its endpoints as follows:

###### Proposition 5.1

$$|\mathrm{exp}_{N_g}^1C_{\pi ^b}^{}\backslash \backslash (\mathrm{exp}_{N_g}^1A)|L(\gamma )\frac{3150ϵ}{f(r)}.$$

Using the fact that $`\gamma `$ is a geodesic and our bound on the extrinsic curvature of $`N_g`$, in Appendix C we will show that the section $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }:=\mathrm{exp}_{N_g}^1(\gamma (t))`$ of $`\nu N_g`$ along $`\pi `$ approximately “grows at a constant rate”. Since its covariant derivative at zero depends on $`\alpha `$, we will be able to estimate the “distance” between its endpoints - which are also the endpoints of $`\stackrel{~}{c}`$ \- in terms in $`\alpha `$. We will obtain:

###### Proposition 5.2

$$|\mathrm{exp}_{N_g}^1(C)_{\pi ^b}^{}\backslash \backslash \mathrm{exp}_{N_g}^1(A)|L(\gamma )[\frac{99}{100}\mathrm{sin}(\alpha \frac{ϵ}{4})500ϵ3r\frac{8}{3}L(\gamma )(r+\frac{r+\frac{3}{2}}{f(r)})].$$

Comparison of Proposition 5.1 and Proposition 5.2 gives

$$\frac{3150ϵ}{f(r)}\frac{99}{100}\mathrm{sin}\left(\alpha \frac{ϵ}{4}\right)500ϵ3r\frac{8}{3}L(\gamma )\left(r+\frac{r+\frac{3}{2}}{f(r)}\right).$$

Recall that $`r=100ϵ+\frac{L(\gamma )}{2}`$. If $`L(\gamma )`$ and $`ϵ`$ are small enough one can solve the above inequality for $`\alpha `$. With our restriction $`ϵ<\frac{1}{20000}`$ this can be done whenever $`L(\gamma )<0.1`$. One obtains

$$\delta (ϵ,L(\gamma )):=\frac{ϵ}{4}+\mathrm{arcsin}\left\{\frac{100}{99}\left[\frac{3150ϵ}{f(r)}+500ϵ+3r+\frac{8}{3}L(\gamma )\left(r+\frac{r+\frac{3}{2}}{f(r)}\right)\right]\right\}>\alpha .$$

We can now state the main results of this section. First we determine the constant $`\delta `$ of Proposition 4.1 in our setting.

###### Proposition 5.3

Let $`C,A`$ be points in $`N`$ and $`\gamma `$ the shortest geodesic in $`M`$ from $`C`$ to $`A`$. Assume $`ϵ<\frac{1}{20000}`$ and $`L(\gamma )<0.1`$. Then $`\delta (ϵ,L(\gamma ))`$ is well defined and

$$\mathrm{}(Hor_C^g,\dot{\gamma }(0))=\alpha <\delta (ϵ,L(\gamma )).$$

Therefore

$$\mathrm{}(Vert_C^g,\dot{\gamma }(0))\frac{\pi }{2}\delta (ϵ,L(\gamma ))$$

and for symmetry reasons

$$\mathrm{}(Vert_A^g,\dot{\gamma }(L(\gamma )))\frac{\pi }{2}\delta (ϵ,L(\gamma )).$$

To determine the constant $`𝒞`$ we only need Lemma C.3:

###### Proposition 5.4

Let $`C,A`$ and $`\gamma `$ be as above and assume $`L(\gamma )<0.1`$. Then

$$d(Vert_C^g,_{\gamma ^b}\backslash \backslash Vert_A^g)2L(\gamma ).$$

Proof: By Lemma C.3 we have $`d(Vert_C^g,_{\gamma ^b}\backslash \backslash Vert_A^g)\mathrm{arcsin}[L(\gamma )(r+\frac{r+\frac{3}{2}}{f(r)})]`$, where $`r=100ϵ+\frac{L(\gamma )}{2}`$. For the above values of $`ϵ`$ and $`L(\gamma )`$ this last expression is bounded above by $`2L(\gamma )`$. $``$
Now making use of the estimates in the last two propositions we can apply Proposition 4.1.

###### Proposition 5.5

Fix $`gG`$. Let $`C,A`$ be points in $`N`$ such that $`d(A,C)<0.1`$ and suppose that $`\mathrm{exp}_C(v)=\mathrm{exp}_A(w)=:B`$ for vertical vectors $`vVert_C^g,wVert_A^g`$. Then

$$|v|,|w|\frac{1}{9}\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+\mathrm{tan}^2(\delta (ϵ,d(A,C))}}.$$

Proof: If $`|v|0.5`$ than the estimate for $`|v|`$ clearly holds, as the right hand side is $`\frac{1}{9}`$. So we assume $`|v|=d(B,C)<0.5`$.
Since $`d(B,N_g)<0.5+100ϵ<1`$ and $`(M,N_g)`$ is a gentle pair, the triangle $`ABC`$ lies in an open subset of $`M`$ with the properties

> i) the sectional curvature lies between -1 and 1
> ii) the injectivity radius at each point is at least 1.

Therefore we are in the situation of Proposition 4.1. Setting $`P_C=Vert_C^g`$ and $`P_A=Vert_A^g`$ in the statement of Proposition 4.1, Proposition 5.3 and Proposition 5.4 allow us to choose:

$$\delta =\delta (ϵ,d(A,C))\text{ and }𝒞=2.$$

Therefore, since $`\frac{10}{11}(\frac{1}{2+6})>\frac{1}{9}`$, we obtain

$$|v|\frac{1}{9}\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+\mathrm{tan}^2(\delta (ϵ,d(A,C))}}.$$

The statement for $`|w|`$ follows exactly in the same way. $``$

## 6 Estimates on tubular neighborhoods of $`N_g`$ on which $`\phi _g`$ is injective

In this section we will finally apply the results of Section 4 and Section 5, which were summarized in Proposition 5.5, to show that $`\mathrm{exp}_{N_g}(\nu N_g)_{0.05}`$ is a tubular neighborhood of $`N`$ on which $`\phi _g`$ is injective. We will also bound from below the size of $`_{gG}\mathrm{exp}_N(Vert^g)_{0.05}`$ (where the 2-form $`_g\omega _g`$ is defined).

###### Proposition 6.1

If $`ϵ<\frac{1}{20000}`$ the map

$$\phi _g:\mathrm{exp}_{N_g}(\nu N_g)_{0.05}\mathrm{exp}_N(Vert^g)_{0.05}$$

is a diffeomorphism.

Proof: From the definition of $`\phi _g`$ it is clear that it is enough to show the injectivity of

$$\mathrm{exp}_N:(Vert^g)_{0.05}\mathrm{exp}_N(Vert^g)_{0.05}.$$

Let $`A,CN`$ and $`vVert_C^g,wVert_A^g`$ be vectors of length strictly less than $`0.05`$. We suppose that $`\mathrm{exp}_C(v)=\mathrm{exp}_A(w)`$ and argue by contradiction.
Clearly $`d(A,C)<0.1`$. We can apply Proposition 5.5, which implies $`|v|,|w|\frac{1}{9}\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+\mathrm{tan}^2(\delta (ϵ,d(A,C))}}.`$ Since the function $`\delta (ϵ,L)`$ increases with $`L`$ we have

$$|v|,|w|\frac{1}{9}\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+\mathrm{tan}^2\left(\delta (ϵ,0.1)\right)}}.$$

For $`ϵ<\frac{1}{20000}`$ the above function is larger than $`0.05`$, so we have a contradiction.
So $`\mathrm{exp}_C(v)\mathrm{exp}_A(w)`$ and the above map is injective. $``$
For each $`L0.05`$ we want to estimate the radius of a tubular neighborhood of $`N`$ contained in $`_{gG}\mathrm{exp}_N(Vert^g)_L`$. This will be used in Section 7 to determine where $`\omega _g`$ is non-degenerate, so that one can apply Moser’s trick there. As a by-product, the proposition below will also give us an estimate of the size of the neighborhood in which $`_g\omega _g`$ is defined.

###### Proposition 6.2

For $`L0.05`$ and $`ϵ<\frac{1}{20000}`$, using the notation

$$R_L^ϵ:=\mathrm{sin}(L)\mathrm{cos}\left(\delta (ϵ,2L)+2L^2\right)$$

we have

$$\mathrm{exp}_N(\nu N)_{R_L^ϵ}_{gG}\mathrm{exp}_N(Vert^g)_L.$$

Remark: The function $`R_{0.05}^ϵ`$ decreases with $`ϵ`$ and assumes the value $`0.039\mathrm{}`$ at $`ϵ=0`$ and the value $`0.027\mathrm{}`$ when $`ϵ=\frac{1}{20000}`$.
To prove the proposition we will consider again geodesic triangles:

###### Lemma 6.1

Let $`ABC`$ be a geodesic triangle lying in $`\mathrm{exp}_{N_g}(\nu N_g)_1`$ such that $`d(A,B)d(C,B)=:L<0.05`$. Let $`\gamma `$ denote the angle at $`C`$, and suppose that $`\gamma [\frac{\pi }{2}\stackrel{~}{\delta },\frac{\pi }{2}+\stackrel{~}{\delta }]`$. Then

$$d(A,B)\mathrm{sin}(L)\mathrm{cos}\left(\stackrel{~}{\delta }+2L^2\right).$$

Proof: Denote by $`\alpha ,\beta `$ the angles at $`A`$ and $`B`$ respectively, and denote further by $`\alpha ^{},\beta ^{},\gamma ^{}`$ the angles of the Alexandrov triangle in $`S^2`$ corresponding to $`ABC`$ (i.e. the triangle in $`S^2`$ having the same side lengths as $`ABC`$). By \[Kl, remark 2.7.5\] we have $`\mathrm{sin}(d(A,B))=\mathrm{sin}(d(C,B))\frac{\mathrm{sin}(\gamma ^{})}{\mathrm{sin}(\alpha ^{})}\mathrm{sin}(d(C,B))\mathrm{sin}(\gamma ^{})`$.
By Toponogov’s theorem (see \[Kl\]) $`\gamma ^{}\gamma `$. On the other hand, using the bound $`L^2`$ for the area of the Alexandrov triangles in $`S^2`$ and $`H^2`$ corresponding to $`ABC`$, we have $`\gamma ^{}\gamma 2L^2`$ (see proof of Lemma A.1). So $`\gamma ^{}[\frac{\pi }{2}\stackrel{~}{\delta },\frac{\pi }{2}+\stackrel{~}{\delta }+2L^2]`$. Altogether this gives

$$d(A,B)\mathrm{sin}\left(d(A,B)\right)\mathrm{sin}(d(C,B))\mathrm{sin}(\gamma ^{})\mathrm{sin}(L)\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{\pi }{2}+\stackrel{~}{\delta }+2L^2\right).$$

$``$
Now we want to apply the Lemma 6.1 to our case of interest:

###### Lemma 6.2

Let $`CN`$ and $`B=\mathrm{exp}_C(w)`$ for some $`wVert_C^g`$ of length $`L<0.05`$, and assume as usual $`ϵ<\frac{1}{20000}`$. Then

$$d(B,N)\mathrm{sin}(L)\mathrm{cos}\left(\delta (ϵ,2L)+2L^2\right)=R_L^ϵ.$$

Here the function $`\delta `$ is as in Section 5.

Proof: Let $`A`$ be the closest point in $`N`$ to $`B`$. Clearly $`d(A,B)d(C,B)=L`$, so the shortest geodesic $`\gamma `$ from $`C`$ to $`A`$ has length $`L(\gamma )2L`$. By Proposition 5.3 we have

$$\mathrm{}(\dot{\gamma }(0),Vert_C^g)\frac{\pi }{2}\delta (ϵ,L(\gamma ))\frac{\pi }{2}\delta (ϵ,2L).$$

So, since $`wVert_C^g`$,

$$\mathrm{}(\dot{\gamma }(0),w)[\frac{\pi }{2}\delta (ϵ,2L),\frac{\pi }{2}+\delta (ϵ,2L)].$$

Using the fact that, for any $`gG`$, the triangle $`ABC`$ lies in $`\mathrm{exp}_{N_g}(\nu N_g)_1`$, the lemma follows using Lemma 6.1 with $`\stackrel{~}{\delta }=\delta (ϵ,2L)`$. $``$
Proof of Proposition 6.2: For any $`gG`$ and positive number $`L<0.05`$, by Lemma 6.2 each point $`B(\mathrm{exp}_N(Vert^g)_L)`$ has distance at least $`\mathrm{sin}(L)\mathrm{cos}(\delta (ϵ,2L)+2L^2)=R_L^ϵ`$ from $`N`$. Therefore $`tub(R_L^ϵ)`$ lies in $`\mathrm{exp}_N(Vert^g)_L`$, and since this holds for all $`g`$ we are done. $``$

## 7 Conclusion of the proof of the Main Theorem

In sections 3-6, making use of the Riemannian structure of $`M`$, we showed that the two-form $`_g\omega _g`$ is well-defined in the neighborhood $`_{gG}\mathrm{exp}_N(Vert^g)_{0.05}`$ of $`N`$ (Recall that $`\omega _g:=(\phi _{g}^{}{}_{}{}^{1})^{}\omega `$ was defined in the Introduction). In this section we will focus on the symplectic structure of $`M`$ and conclude the proof of the Main Theorem, as outlined in Part II of Section 1.3.
First we will show that $`_g\omega _g`$ is a symplectic form on a suitably defined neighborhood $`\text{tub}^ϵ`$ of $`N`$. Then it will easily follow that the convex linear combination $`\omega _t:=\omega +t(_g\omega _g\omega )`$ consists of symplectic forms.
As we saw in the introduction, $`[\omega ]=[_g\omega _g]H^2(\text{tub}^ϵ,)`$, so we can apply Moser’s trick. The main step consists of constructing canonically a primitive $`\alpha `$ of small maximum norm for the two-form $`\frac{d}{dt}\omega _t`$.
Comparing the size of the resulting Moser vector field with the size of $`\text{tub}^ϵ`$ we will determine an $`ϵ`$ for which the existence of an isotropic average of the $`N_g`$’s is ensured.
In this section we require $`L<0.05`$. Notice that the estimates of Section 3 hold for such $`L`$. We start by requiring $`ϵ<\frac{1}{20000}`$ and introduce the abbreviation

$$D_L^ϵ:=4L+4100ϵ$$

for the upper bound obtained in Proposition 3.4 on $`\mathrm{exp}_N(Vert^g)_L`$.

### 7.1 Symplectic forms in $`\text{tub}^ϵ`$

In Section 3 we estimated the difference between $`(\phi _g)_{}X`$ and $`\backslash \backslash X`$. This lemma does the same for $`\phi _g^1`$.

###### Lemma 7.1

Let $`q\mathrm{exp}_N(Vert^g)_L`$ and $`XT_qM`$ a unit vector. Then

$$|(\phi _g^1)_{}X\backslash \backslash X|\frac{D_L^ϵ}{1D_L^ϵ}.$$

Furthermore,

$$\frac{1}{1+D_L^ϵ}\left|(\phi _g^1)_{}X\right|\frac{1}{1D_L^ϵ}.$$

Proof: Let $`p:=\phi _g^1(q)`$. By Proposition 3.4, for any vector $`ZT_pM`$ we have

$$\frac{|\phi _{g}^{}{}_{}{}^{}(Z)|}{1+D_L^ϵ}\left|Z\right|\frac{|\phi _{g}^{}{}_{}{}^{}(Z)|}{1D_L^ϵ}.$$

The second statement of this lemma follows setting $`Z=(\phi _g^1)_{}X`$.
Choosing instead $`Z=(\phi _g^1)_{}X\backslash \backslash XT_pM`$ and applying once more Proposition 3.4 gives

$$|(\phi _g^1)_{}X\backslash \backslash X|\frac{|X(\phi _g)_{}\backslash \backslash X|}{1D_L^ϵ}\frac{D_L^ϵ}{1D_L^ϵ}.$$

$``$
Since $`(\phi _g^1)_{}X`$ is close to $`\backslash \backslash X`$ and since our assumption on $`\omega `$ allows us to control to which extent $`\omega `$ is invariant under parallel translation we are able to show that $`\omega `$ and $`\omega _g=(\phi _g^1)^{}\omega `$ are close to each other:

###### Lemma 7.2

Let $`X,Y`$ be unit tangent vectors at $`q\mathrm{exp}_N(Vert^g)_L`$. Then

$$|(\omega _g\omega )(X,Y)|\frac{D_L^ϵ}{1D_L^ϵ}\left(\frac{D_L^ϵ}{1D_L^ϵ}+2\right)+2L+100ϵ.$$

Proof: Denoting $`p:=\phi _g^1(q)`$ we have

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill (\omega _g\omega )_q(X,Y)=& \omega _p((\phi _g^1)_{}X,(\phi _g^1)_{}Y)\omega _q(X,Y)\hfill \\ \hfill =& \omega _p(\backslash \backslash X[(\phi _g^1)_{}X\backslash \backslash X],\backslash \backslash Y[(\phi _g^1)_{}Y\backslash \backslash Y])\omega _q(X,Y)\hfill \\ \hfill =& \omega _p((\phi _g^1)_{}X\backslash \backslash X,(\phi _g^1)_{}Y\backslash \backslash Y)\hfill \\ & +\omega _p(\backslash \backslash X,(\phi _g^1)_{}Y\backslash \backslash Y)+\omega _p((\phi _g^1)_{}X\backslash \backslash X,\backslash \backslash Y)\hfill \\ & +\omega _p(\backslash \backslash X,\backslash \backslash Y)\omega _q(X,Y).\hfill \end{array}$$

Now since “$`\backslash \backslash `$” is the parallel translation along a curve of length $`<2L+100ϵ`$ (see Section 3) and $`|\omega |<1`$ we have $`\omega _p(\backslash \backslash X,\backslash \backslash Y)\omega _q(X,Y)<2L+100ϵ`$ and using Lemma 7.1 we are done. $``$
Since the symplectic form $`\omega `$ is compatible with the metric and the $`\omega _g`$’s are close to $`\omega `$ we obtain the non-degeneracy of $`\omega _t`$ for $`L`$ and $`ϵ`$ small enough.

###### Corollary 7.1

Let $`X`$ be a unit tangent vector at $`q_{gG}\mathrm{exp}_N(Vert^g)_L`$. Then for all $`t[0,1]`$

$$\omega _t(X,IX)1\left[\frac{D_L^ϵ}{1D_L^ϵ}\left(\frac{D_L^ϵ}{1D_L^ϵ}+2\right)+2L+100ϵ\right].$$

Proof: By definition

$$\begin{array}{c}\hfill \omega _t(X,IX)=\omega (X,IX)+t_g(\omega _g\omega )(X,IX).\end{array}$$

The first term is equal to 1 because $`\omega `$ is almost-Kähler, the norm of the second one is estimated using Lemma 7.2. $``$

Remark: The right hand side of Corollary 7.1 is surely positive if $`D_L^ϵ0.1`$. We set 161616This choice of $`L^ϵ`$ will allow us to obtain good numerical estimates in Section 7.4.

$$L^ϵ:=\frac{0.14100ϵ}{4}$$

and require $`ϵ<\frac{1}{70000}`$. We obtain immediately:

###### Proposition 7.1

On

$$\text{tub}^ϵ:=\mathrm{exp}_N(\nu N)_{R_{L^ϵ}^ϵ}_{gG}\mathrm{exp}_N(Vert^g)_{L^ϵ}$$

the convex linear combination $`\omega _t:=\omega +t(_g\omega _g\omega )`$ consists of symplectic forms.

Remark: Recall that the function $`R_L^ϵ`$ was defined in Proposition 6.2. See Section 7.4 for a graph of $`R_{L^ϵ}^ϵ`$, a function of $`ϵ`$.

### 7.2 The construction of the primitive of $`\frac{d}{dt}\omega _t`$

We want to construct canonically a primitive $`\alpha `$ of $`\frac{d}{dt}\omega _t=\omega _g\omega `$ on $`_{gG}\mathrm{exp}_N(Vert^g)_{0.05}`$. We first recall the following fact, which is a slight modification of \[Ca, Chapter III\].
Let $`N`$ be a submanifold of a Riemannian manifold $`M`$, and let $`EN`$ be a subbundle of $`TM|_NN`$ such that $`ETN=TM|_N`$. Furthermore let $`\stackrel{~}{U}`$ be a fiber-wise convex neighborhood of the zero section of $`EN`$ such that $`\mathrm{exp}:\stackrel{~}{U}UM`$ be a diffeomorphism. Denote by $`\pi :UN`$ the projection along the slices given by exponentiating the fibers of $`E`$ and by $`i:NM`$ the inclusion.
Then there is an operator $`Q:\mathrm{\Omega }^{}(U)\mathrm{\Omega }^1(U)`$ such that

$$\text{Id}(i\pi )^{}=dQ+Qd:\mathrm{\Omega }^{}(U)\mathrm{\Omega }^{}(U).$$

A concrete example is given by considering $`\rho _t:UU,\mathrm{exp}_q(v)\mathrm{exp}_q(tv)`$ and $`w_t|_{\rho _t(p)}:=\frac{d}{ds}|_{s=t}\rho _s(p)`$. Then

$$Qf:=_0^1Q_tf\text{dt},Q_tf:=\rho _t^{}(i_{w_t}f)$$

gives an operator with the above property.
Note that for a 2-form $`\omega `$ evaluated on $`XT_pM`$ we have

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \left|(Q_t\omega )_pX\right|=& \left|\omega _p(w_t|_{\rho _t(p)},\rho _{t}^{}{}_{}{}^{}(X))\right|\hfill \\ \hfill & |\stackrel{~}{\omega }_p|_{\text{op}}d(p,\pi (p))|\rho _{t}^{}{}_{}{}^{}(X)|(\mathrm{})\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`|\stackrel{~}{\omega }_p|_{\text{op}}`$ is the operator norm of $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }_p:T_pMT_p^{}M`$ and the inner product on $`T_p^{}M`$ is induced by the one on $`T_pM`$.
For each $`g`$ in $`G`$ we want to construct a canonical primitive $`\alpha `$ of $`\omega _g\omega `$ on $`\mathrm{exp}_N(Vert^g)_{0.05}`$ We do so in two steps:
Step I   We apply the above procedure to the vector bundle $`Vert^gN`$ to obtain an operator $`Q_N^g`$ such that

$$\text{Id}(\pi _N^g)^{}(i_N)^{}=dQ_N^g+Q_N^gd$$

for all differential forms on $`\mathrm{exp}_N(Vert^g)_{0.05}`$. Since $`N`$ is isotropic with respect to $`\omega _g`$ and $`\omega _g\omega `$ is closed we have

$$\omega _g\omega =dQ_N^g(\omega _g\omega )+(\pi _N^g)^{}(i_N)^{}(\omega ).$$

Step II   Now we apply the procedure to the vector bundle $`\nu N_gN_g`$ to get an operator $`Q_{N_g}`$ on differential forms on $`\mathrm{exp}_{N_g}(\nu N_g)_{100ϵ}`$. Since $`N_g`$ is isotropic with respect to $`\omega `$ we have

$$\omega =dQ_{N_g}\omega ,$$

so we found a primitive of $`\omega `$ on $`\mathrm{exp}_{N_g}(\nu N_g)_{100ϵ}`$.
Since $`N\mathrm{exp}_{N_g}(\nu N_g)_{100ϵ}`$ the 1-form $`\beta ^g:=i_N^{}(Q_{N_g}\omega )`$ on $`N`$ is a well defined primitive of $`i_N^{}\omega `$.
Summing up these two steps we see that

$$\alpha ^g:=Q_N^g(\omega _g\omega )(\pi _N^g)^{}\beta ^g$$

is a primitive of $`\omega _g\omega `$ on $`\mathrm{exp}_N(Vert^g)_{0.05}`$.
So clearly $`\alpha :=_g\alpha ^g`$ is a primitive of $`\frac{d}{dt}\omega _t=_g\omega _g\omega `$ on $`_{gG}\mathrm{exp}_N(Vert^g)_{0.05}`$.

### 7.3 Estimates on the primitive of $`\frac{d}{dt}\omega _t`$

In this section we will estimate the $`C^0`$-norm of the one-form $`\alpha `$ constructed in Section 7.2.
Step II   We will first estimate the norm of $`\beta ^g:=i_N^{}(Q_{N_g}\omega )`$ using $`(\mathrm{})`$ and then the norm of $`(\pi _N^g)^{}\beta ^g`$.

###### Lemma 7.3

If $`p\mathrm{exp}_{N_g}(\nu N_g)_{100ϵ}`$ and $`XT_pM`$ is a unit vector, then for any $`t[0,1]`$

$$\left|(\rho _{N_g})_{t}^{}{}_{}{}^{}X\right|\frac{5}{4}.$$

Proof: Let $`L:=d(p,N_g)<100ϵ<\frac{1}{700}`$ and write $`X=J(L)+K(L)`$, where $`J`$ and $`K`$ are $`N_g`$ Jacobi fields along the unit speed geodesic $`\gamma _p`$ from $`p^{}:=\pi _{N_g}(p)`$ to $`p`$ such that $`J(0)`$ vanishes, $`J^{}(0)`$ is normal to $`N_g`$, and $`K`$ is a strong $`N_g`$ Jacobi field (see the remark in Section 3.2).
$`J(t)`$ is the variational vector field of a variation $`f_s(t)=\mathrm{exp}_p^{}(tv(s))`$ where the $`v(s)`$’s are unit normal vectors at $`p^{}`$. Therefore

$$(\rho _{N_g})_{t}^{}{}_{}{}^{}J(L)=\frac{d}{ds}|_0\left[(\rho _{N_g})_t\mathrm{exp}_p^{}(Lv(s))\right]=\frac{d}{ds}|_0\left[\mathrm{exp}_p^{}(tLv(s))\right]=J(tL).$$

Using Lemma 3.4 we have on one hand $`|LJ^{}(0)|(1+\sigma (L))|J(L)|`$ and on the other hand $`|J(tL)|(1\sigma (tL))tL|J^{}(0)|`$ where $`\sigma (x):=\frac{\mathrm{sinh}(x)x}{\mathrm{sin}(x)}.`$ So

$$|J(tL)|t\frac{1+\sigma (L)}{1\sigma (tL)}|J(L)|\frac{21}{20}t|J(L)|.$$

Similarly we have $`(\rho _{N_g})_{t}^{}{}_{}{}^{}K(L)=K(tL)`$. Using Lemma 3.6 we have $`|K(0)|(1+\frac{9}{5}L)|K(L)|`$ and $`|K(tL)|\frac{|K(0)|}{1\frac{9}{5}tL}`$, therefore $`|K(tL)|\frac{1+\frac{9}{5}L}{1\frac{9}{5}tL}|K(L)|\frac{21}{20}|K(L)|.`$
Altogether we have

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \left|(\rho _{N_g})_{t}^{}{}_{}{}^{}X\right|^2=& \left|J(tL)+K(tL)\right|^2\hfill \\ \hfill & \left|J(tL)\right|^2+\left|K(tL)\right|^2+2\frac{9}{5}tL\left|J(tL)\right|\left|K(tL)\right|\hfill \\ \hfill & (\frac{21}{20})^2\left[\left|J(L)\right|^2+\left|K(L)\right|^2+\frac{18}{5}L\left|J(L)\right|\left|K(L)\right|\right]\hfill \\ \hfill & (\frac{21}{20})^2\left[\left|J(L)+K(L)\right|^2+\frac{36}{5}L\left|J(L)\right|\left|K(L)\right|\right]\hfill \\ \hfill & (\frac{21}{20})^2\left[1+\frac{36}{5}1.1^2L\right]\frac{5}{4}\hfill \end{array}$$

where in the first and third inequality we used Lemma 3.9 and in the fourth in addition we used Lemma 3.10. $``$

###### Corollary 7.2

The one-form $`\beta ^g`$ on $`N`$ satisfies

$$|\beta ^g|<125ϵ.$$

Proof: At any point $`pN\mathrm{exp}_{N_g}(\nu N_g)_{100ϵ}`$, using $`(\mathrm{})`$ , $`|\stackrel{~}{\omega }|_{\text{op}}=1`$ and Lemma 7.3, we have $`|(Q_{N_g}\omega )_p|<125ϵ`$. Clearly $`|(Q_{N_g}\omega )_p||i_N^{}(Q_{N_g}\omega )_p|=|\beta _p^g|.`$ $``$
Now we would like to estimate $`(\pi _N^g)_{}X`$ for a unit tangent vector $`X`$. Since $`\pi _N^g=(\rho _N^g)_0`$ we prove a stronger statement that will be used again later. Recall that we assume $`L0.05`$.

###### Lemma 7.4

If $`q\mathrm{exp}_N(Vert^g)_L`$ and $`XT_qM`$ is a unit vector then for any $`t[0,1]`$ we have

$$|(\rho _N^g)_{t}^{}{}_{}{}^{}X|1.5\frac{1+D_L^ϵ}{1D_L^ϵ}.$$

Proof: Using Lemma 7.1 we have

$$\left|(\rho _N^g)_{t}^{}{}_{}{}^{}X\right|(1+D_L^ϵ)\left|(\phi _g^1)_{}(\rho _N^g)_{t}^{}{}_{}{}^{}X\right|.$$

Clearly $`(\rho _N^g)_t\phi _g=\phi _g(\rho _{N_g})_t`$, since - up to exponentiating - $`\phi _g`$ maps $`\nu N_g`$ to $`Vert^g`$, and $`(\rho _{N_g})_t`$ and $`(\rho _N^g)_t`$ are just rescaling of the respective fibers by a factor of $`t`$.
If we reproduce the proof of Lemma 7.3 requiring $`p`$ to lie in $`\mathrm{exp}_{N_g}(\nu N_g)_L`$ we obtain 171717Since $`L<0.05`$ now we have to replace the constant $`\frac{21}{20}`$ in that proof by the constant $`\frac{6}{5}`$. $`|(\rho _{N_g})_{t}^{}{}_{}{}^{}Y|<1.5`$ for unit vectors $`Y`$ at $`p`$. Using this and Lemma 7.1 respectively we have

$$\left|(\rho _{N_g})_{t}^{}{}_{}{}^{}(\phi _g^1)_{}X\right|1.5\left|(\phi _g^1)_{}X\right|\text{ and }\left|(\phi _g^1)_{}X\right|\frac{1}{1D_L^ϵ}.$$

Altogether this proves the lemma. $``$

###### Corollary 7.3

On $`\mathrm{exp}_N(Vert^g)_L`$ we have

$$|(\pi _N^g)^{}\beta ^g|200ϵ\frac{1+D_L^ϵ}{1D_L^ϵ}.$$

Proof: This is clear from $`|((\pi _N^g)^{}\beta ^g)X|=|\beta ^g((\pi _N^g)_{}X)|`$, Corollary 7.2 and Lemma 7.4. $``$
Step I   Now we estimate $`|Q_N^g(\omega _g\omega )|`$. This is easily achieved using Lemma 7.2 and Lemma 7.4 to estimate the quantities involved in $`(\mathrm{})`$:

###### Corollary 7.4

For $`q\mathrm{exp}_N(Vert^g)_L`$ we have

$$\left|Q_N^g(\omega _g\omega )_q\right|1.5\frac{1+D_L^ϵ}{1D_L^ϵ}L\left[\frac{D_L^ϵ}{1D_L^ϵ}\left(\frac{D_L^ϵ}{1D_L^ϵ}+2\right)+2L+100ϵ\right].$$

Remark: By Proposition 5.2 $`d(q,N)R_L^ϵ`$. Furthermore, when $`ϵ<\frac{1}{70000}`$ and $`L<0.05`$, one can show that $`R_L^ϵ\frac{2}{3}L`$. So $`L\frac{3}{2}d(q,N).`$
Now finally using Corollary 7.3 and Corollary 7.4 we can estimate the norm of $`\alpha :=_g\alpha ^g`$:

###### Proposition 7.2

Assuming $`L<0.05`$ at $`q_g\mathrm{exp}_N(Vert^g)_L`$ we have

$`\left|\alpha _q\right|`$ $``$ $`1.5{\displaystyle \frac{1+D_L^ϵ}{1D_L^ϵ}}{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}d(q,N)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{D_L^ϵ}{1D_L^ϵ}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{D_L^ϵ}{1D_L^ϵ}}+2\right)+2L+100ϵ\right]`$
$`+`$ $`200ϵ{\displaystyle \frac{1+D_L^ϵ}{1D_L^ϵ}}.`$
### 7.4 The end of the proof of the Main Theorem

Proposition 7.1 showed that the Moser vector field $`v_t:=\stackrel{~}{\omega _t}^1\alpha `$ is well-defined on $`\text{tub}^ϵ_{gG}\mathrm{exp}_N(Vert^g)_{L^ϵ}`$. Recalling that $`D_{L^ϵ}^ϵ=0.1`$, Corollary 7.1 immediately implies

###### Corollary 7.5

At $`q\text{tub}^ϵ_g\mathrm{exp}_N(Vert^g)_{L^ϵ}`$ we have

$$\left|(\stackrel{~}{\omega _t})_q^1\right|_{\text{op}}\frac{1}{1\left[\frac{D_{L^ϵ}^ϵ}{1D_{L^ϵ}^ϵ}(\frac{D_{L^ϵ}^ϵ}{1D_{L^ϵ}^ϵ}+2)+2L^ϵ+100ϵ\right]}1.53.$$

From Corollary 7.5 and Proposition 7.2 we obtain:

###### Proposition 7.3

For all $`t[0,1]`$ and $`q\text{tub}^ϵ`$

$$\left|(v_t)_q\right|\left|(\stackrel{~}{\omega _t})_q^1\right|_{\text{op}}\left|\alpha _q\right|1.45d(q,N)+374ϵ.$$

Let $`\gamma (t)`$ be an integral curve of the time-dependent vector field $`v_t`$ on $`\text{tub}^ϵ`$ such that $`p:=\gamma (0)N`$. Where $`d(,p)`$ is differentiable, its gradient has unit length. So $`\frac{d}{dt}d(\gamma (t),p)|\dot{\gamma }(t)|`$.
By Proposition 7.3 we have $`|\dot{\gamma }(t)|1.45d(\gamma (t),p)+374ϵ`$. So altogether

$$\frac{d}{dt}d(\gamma (t),p)1.45d(\gamma (t),p)+374ϵ.$$

The solution of the ODE $`\dot{s}(t)=As(t)+B`$ satisfying $`s(0)=0`$ is $`\frac{B}{A}(e^{At}1)`$. Hence, if the integral curve $`\gamma `$ is well defined at time 1, we have

$$d(\gamma (1),N)d(\gamma (1),p)\frac{374ϵ}{1.45}\left(e^{1.45}1\right)842ϵ.$$

Let us denote by $`\rho _1`$ the time-1 flow of the time dependent vector field $`v_t`$, so that $`\rho _1^1`$ is the time-1 flow of $`v_{1t}`$. Since by definition $`\text{tub}^ϵ:=\mathrm{exp}_N(\nu N)_{R_{L^ϵ}^ϵ}`$ the submanifold $`L:=\rho _1^1(N)`$ will surely be well defined if

$$842ϵ<R_{L^ϵ}^ϵ.$$

This is always the case since $`ϵ<\frac{1}{70000}`$.

Graphs of $`842ϵ`$ (increasing) and $`R_{L^ϵ}^ϵ`$ (decreasing).
The estimate for $`d_0(N_g,L)`$ is obtained using $`d_0(N,L)<842ϵ`$ and $`d_0(N_g,N)<100ϵ`$. The proof of the Main Theorem is now complete.

Remark:  In the Main Theorem we assumed that $`|\omega |<1`$. Let us now consider the case that $`|\omega |`$ is bigger than one. Then the statement of the Main Theorem still holds verbatim if one makes the bound on $`ϵ`$ smaller, as follows. The bound on $`|\omega |`$ enters our proof directly only in Lemma 7.2; if $`|\omega |`$ is bigger than one, the right hand side of that lemma should read $`|(\omega _g\omega )(X,Y)|\frac{D_L^ϵ}{1D_L^ϵ}\left(\frac{D_L^ϵ}{1D_L^ϵ}+2\right)+|\omega |(2L+100ϵ)`$ instead. Similarly, the quantity “$`2L+100ϵ`$” appearing in Corollary 7.1, Corollary 7.4 and Proposition 7.2 should be multiplied by $`|\omega |`$. Now let us assume that $`ϵ<\frac{1}{|\omega |}\frac{1}{70000}`$ and let us replace $`L^ϵ`$ everywhere by $`\stackrel{~}{L}^ϵ:=\frac{\frac{0.1}{|\omega |}4100ϵ}{4}.`$ Then the bounds on $`\left|(\stackrel{~}{\omega _t})_q^1\right|_{\text{op}}`$ and $`|(v_t)_q|`$ given in Corollary 7.5 and Proposition 7.3 still hold, and our isotropic average $`L`$ will be well defined if $`842ϵ<R_{\stackrel{~}{L}^ϵ}^ϵ`$. This is satisfied for $`ϵ`$ small enough, since $`R_{\stackrel{~}{L}^ϵ}^ϵ`$ is a continuous function and $`R_{\stackrel{~}{L}^0}^0`$ is positive.

## 8 Remarks on the Main Theorem

Remark 1:  Is the isotropic average $`L`$ $`C^1`$ close to the $`N_g`$’s?
The main shortcoming in our Main Theorem is surely the lack of an estimate on the $`C^1`$ distance $`d_1(N_g,L)`$.
To bound $`d_1(N_g,L)`$ it is enough to estimate the distance between tangent spaces $`T_pL`$ and $`T_{\rho _1(p)}N`$. Indeed, this would allow us to estimate the distance between $`T_pL`$ and $`T_{\pi _{N_g}(p)}N_g`$, using which - when $`ϵ`$ is small enough - one can conclude that $`\pi _{N_g}:LN_g`$ is a diffeomorphism and give the desired bound on the $`C^1`$ distance.
Using local coordinates and standard theorems about ODEs it is possible to estimate the distance between tangent spaces $`T_pL`$ and $`T_{\rho _1(p)}N`$ provided one has a bound on the covariant derivative of the Moser vector field, for which one would have to estimate $`(\stackrel{~}{\omega _t})^1`$. To do so one should be able to bound expressions like $`_Y((\phi _g^1)_{}X)`$ for parallel vector fields $`X`$ along some curve.
This does not seem to be possible without more information on the extrinsic geometry of $`N`$. We recall that it is not known whether the average $`N`$ forms a gentle pair with $`M`$, see Remark 6.1 in \[We\]. We are currently trying to improve Weinstein’s theorem so that one obtains a gentle average.
Remark 2:  The case of isotropic $`N`$.
Unfortunately, if the Weinstein average $`N`$ happens to be already isotropic with respect to $`\omega `$, our construction will generally provide an isotropic average $`L`$ different from $`N`$. Indeed, while Step I of Section 7.2 always gives a one-form vanishing on points of $`N`$, Step II does not, even if $`N`$ is isotropic for $`\omega `$.
The procedure outlined in Remark 3, on the other hand, would produce $`N`$ as the isotropic average, but in that case the upper bound for $`ϵ`$ would depend on the geometry of $`N`$.
Remark 3:  Averaging of symplectic and coisotropic submanifolds.
The averaging of $`C^1`$-close gentle symplectic submanifolds of an almost-Kähler manifold is a much simpler task than for isotropic submanifolds. The reason is that $`C^1`$-small perturbations of symplectic manifolds are symplectic again and one can simply apply Weinstein’s averaging procedure (\[We, Thm. 2.3\]).
Unfortunately our construction does not allow to average coisotropic submanifolds. In our proof we were able to canonically construct a primitive of $`_g\omega _g\omega `$ using the fact that the $`N_g`$’s are isotropic with respect to $`\omega `$. In the case that the $`N_g`$ are not isotropic it is still possible to construct canonically a primitive, following Step I of our construction and making use of the primitive $`d^{}(\mathrm{}^1i_N^{}(\omega _g\omega ))`$ of $`i_N^{}(\omega _g\omega )`$ (but the upper bound on its norm would depend on the geometry of $`N`$).
Nevertheless, our construction fails in the coisotropic case, since the fact that $`N`$ is coisotropic for all $`\omega _g`$’s does not imply that it is for their average $`_g\omega _g`$.

## 9 An application to Hamiltonian actions

As a simple application of our Main Theorem we apply Theorem 2 to almost invariant isotropic submanifolds of a Hamiltonian G-space and deduce some information about their images under the moment map.

We start by recalling some basic definitions (see \[Ca\]): consider an action of a Lie group $`G`$ on a symplectic manifold $`(M,\omega )`$ by symplectomorphisms. A moment map for the action is a map $`J:M𝔤^{}`$ such that for all $`v𝔤`$ we have $`\omega (v_M,)=dJ,v`$ and which is equivariant with respect to the $`G`$ action on $`M`$ and the coadjoint action of $`G`$ on $`𝔤`$. Here $`v_M`$ is the vector field on $`M`$ given by $`v`$ via the infinitesimal action. An action admitting a moment map is called Hamiltonian action.

This simple lemma is a counterpart to (\[Ch\], Prop 1.3).

###### Lemma 9.1

Let the compact connected Lie group $`G`$ act on the symplectic manifold $`(M,\omega )`$ with moment map $`J`$. Let $`L`$ be a connected isotropic submanifold of $`(M,\omega )`$ which is invariant under the group action. Then $`LJ^1(\mu )`$ where $`\mu `$ is a fixed point of the coadjoint action.

Proof:  Let $`XT_xL`$. For each $`v𝔤`$ we have

$$d_xJ,vX=\omega (v_M(x),X)=0,$$

since both $`v_M(x)`$ and $`X`$ are tangent to the isotropic submanifold $`L`$. Therefore every component of the moment map is constant along $`L`$, so $`LJ^1(\mu )`$ for some $`\mu 𝔤^{}`$.
Now let $`x_0L`$ and $`Gx_0L`$ the orbit through $`x_0`$. Then from the equivariance of $`J`$ it follows that for all $`g`$ we have $`\mu =J(gx_0)=gJ(x_0)=g\mu `$, so $`\mu `$ is a fixed point of the coadjoint action. $``$

Now we apply the lemma above to the case where $`L`$ is almost invariant.

###### Corollary 9.1

Let the compact Lie group $`G`$ act on the symplectic manifold $`(M,\omega )`$ with moment map $`J:M𝔤^{}`$. Suppose $`M`$ is endowed with a $`G`$-invariant compatible Riemannian metric so that the Levi-Civita connection satisfies $`|\omega |<1`$. If a connected isotropic submanifold $`LM`$ satisfies:
i) $`(M,L)`$ is a gentle pair
ii) $`d_1(L,gL)<ϵ<\frac{1}{70000}`$ for all $`gG`$
then $`J(L)`$ lies the ball of radius $`1000ϵC`$ about a fixed point $`\mu `$ of the coadjoint action. Here $`𝔤^{}`$ is endowed with any inner product and $`C:=Max\{|v_M|:v𝔤\text{ has unit length}\}`$.

Proof:  By Theorem 2 there exists an isotropic submanifold $`L^{}`$ invariant under the $`G`$ action with $`d_0(L,L^{})<1000ϵ`$. By Lemma 9.1 $`L`$ lies the some fiber $`J^1(\mu )`$ of the moment map, where $`\mu `$ is a fixed point of the coadjoint action. We will show that $`|J(p)\mu |<1000ϵC`$ for all $`pL`$.
Let $`p^{}`$ a closest point to $`p`$ in $`L^{}`$. The shortest geodesic $`\gamma `$ from $`p`$ to $`p^{}`$, which we choose to be defined on the interval $`[0,1]`$, has length $`<1000ϵ`$. Therefore for any unit-length $`v𝔤`$ (with respect to the inner product induced on $`𝔤`$ by its dual) we have

$`J(p)\mu ,v`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^1}dJ(\gamma (t))\dot{\gamma }(t),v𝑑t`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^1}dJ,v\dot{\gamma }(t)𝑑t`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^1}\omega (v_M,\dot{\gamma }(t))𝑑t.`$
Since for all $`t`$ we have $`|\omega (v_M,\dot{\gamma }(t))||v_M||\dot{\gamma }(t)|1000ϵC`$ we are done. $``$

## Appendix A The estimates of Proposition 4.1

Here we will prove the estimates used in the proof of the Proposition 4.1. See Section 4 for the notation.
Applying a series of lemmas we will show first that

$$\mathrm{}(P0,P^{}0)2d(C,A).$$

Then we will show

$$\mathrm{}((\mathrm{exp}_A^1)_{}\dot{CB},\stackrel{~}{B}\stackrel{~}{C})<3d(A,C),$$

from which very easily it will follow that

$$\mathrm{}(_{CA}\backslash \backslash \dot{CB},Q0)<4d(C,A).$$

This will conclude the proof of claim 2 in the proof of Proposition 4.1.
Finally using standard arguments we will obtain the estimate used in claim 3, namely

$$|\stackrel{~}{B}\stackrel{~}{C}|\frac{11}{10}d(C,B).$$

We begin by stating an easy result without proof:
Fact   Let $`c:[0,1]^n`$ is a differentiable curve such that $`|\dot{c}(s)\dot{c}(0)|\epsilon `$ for all $`s[0,1]`$. Then

$$\left|[c(1)c(0)]\dot{c}(0)\right|\epsilon .$$

If in addition $`𝒞|\dot{c}(s)|𝒟`$ for all $`s[0,1]`$, then

$$\mathrm{cos}\left(\mathrm{}[c(1)c(0),\dot{c}(0)]\right)\frac{𝒞^2\frac{\epsilon ^2}{2}}{𝒟^2}.$$

Now we introduce the following notation: $`\sigma (s)`$ will be the shortest geodesic from $`C`$ to $`B`$, defined on $`[0,1]`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }(s)`$ will be its lift to $`T_AM`$ via $`\mathrm{exp}_A`$. For any $`s[0,1]`$, $`f_s(t)=\mathrm{exp}_A(t\stackrel{~}{\sigma }(s))`$ will be the shortest geodesic from $`A`$ to $`\sigma (s)`$. Notice that, since $`d(A,C)+d(C,B)0.7`$, we have $`|\stackrel{~}{\sigma }(s)|0.7`$.
For a fixed $`s`$, consider the geodesic triangle $`A\sigma (s)C`$ in $`M`$, and denote by $`\alpha ,\beta _s`$ and $`\gamma `$ the angles at $`A,\sigma (s)`$ and $`C`$ respectively.

###### Lemma A.1

$$\text{If }\frac{8}{7}\frac{d(C,A)}{\mathrm{sin}(70^{})}|\stackrel{~}{\sigma }(s)|\text{, then }\mathrm{sin}(\beta _s)\frac{8}{7}\frac{d(C,A)}{|\stackrel{~}{\sigma }(s)|}\mathrm{sin}(70^{}).$$

Remark: The lemma says that if $`\sigma (s)`$ is far enough from $`A`$, the direction of the geodesic $`\sigma `$ there does not deviate too much from being radial with respect to $`A`$. This will allow us to estimate the radial and orthogonal-to-radial components of $`\dot{\sigma }(s)`$ in Lemma A.3 and Lemma A.5.
Proof: Consider the Alexandrov triangle in $`S^2`$ corresponding to $`A\sigma (s)C`$, i.e. a triangle in $`S^2`$ with the same side lengths as $`A\sigma (s)C`$ and denote its angles by $`\alpha ^{},\beta _s^{}`$ and $`\gamma ^{}`$. Consider also the corresponding triangle in standard hyperbolic space $`H^2`$ and denote its angles by $`\alpha ^{\prime \prime },\beta _s^{\prime \prime }`$ and $`\gamma ^{\prime \prime }`$. The sum of the angles of the triangle in $`S^2`$ deviates from $`180^{}`$ by the area of the triangle, which is bounded by $`0.70.15<10^{}`$ (see \[BK\] 6.7 and 6.7.1.), so that the sum is at most $`190^{}`$. For the same reason the sum of the angles of the triangle in $`H^2`$ is at least $`170^{}`$. Since for the sectional curvature $`\kappa `$ we have $`|\kappa |1`$, by Toponogov’s Theorem (see Thm. 2.7.6 and Thm. 2.7.12 in \[Kl\]) we have $`\beta _s^{\prime \prime }\beta _s\beta _s^{}`$ (and similarly for $`\alpha ,\gamma `$) and by the above $`\beta _s^{}\beta _s^{\prime \prime }<20^{}`$.
Case 1: $`\beta _s90^{}`$.
By the law of sines (see \[Kl, Remark 2.7.5\]) we have

$$\mathrm{sin}\beta _s^{}=\mathrm{sin}(d(A,C))\frac{\mathrm{sin}\gamma ^{}}{\mathrm{sin}d(\sigma (s),A)}\frac{d(A,C)}{\mathrm{sin}d(\sigma (s),A)}\frac{8}{7}\frac{d(A,C)}{d(\sigma (s),A)},$$

where we used $`\frac{sinx}{x}>\frac{7}{8}`$ for $`x[0,0.8]`$. By our assumption this quantity is bounded above by $`\mathrm{sin}(70^{})`$, so $`\beta _s^{}[0,70^{}]`$ or $`\beta _s^{}[110^{},180^{}].`$ Since $`\beta _s^{}\beta _s<20^{}`$ and $`\beta _s90^{}`$, we must have $`\beta _s^{}[0,70^{}]`$. Therefore $`\beta _s\beta _s^{}`$ implies $`\mathrm{sin}\beta _s\mathrm{sin}\beta _s^{}`$, which we already bounded above.
Case 2: $`\beta _s>90^{}`$.
One has to proceed analogously, but comparing with triangles in $`H^2`$. $``$
We now state a general fact about the exponential map:

###### Lemma A.2

If $`\gamma `$ is a geodesic parametrized to arc-length and $`WT_{\gamma (0)}M`$, then for $`t<0.7`$

$$|{}_{\gamma }{}^{}\backslash \backslash (d_{t\dot{\gamma }(0)}\mathrm{exp}_{\gamma (0)})WW|\frac{\mathrm{sinh}(t)t}{t}|W|\frac{t^2}{5}$$

and

$$\left(1\frac{t^2}{5}\right)|W||\mathrm{exp}_{}W|\left(1+\frac{t^2}{5}\right)|W|.$$

Proof: The unique Jacobi-field along $`\gamma `$ such that $`J(0)=0,J^{}(0)=W`$ is given by $`J(t)=(d_{t\dot{\gamma }(0)}\mathrm{exp}_{\gamma (0)})(tW)`$ (see \[Jo, Cor. 4.2.2\]). The estimate $`\frac{\mathrm{sinh}(t)t}{t}`$ follows from \[BK 6.3.8iii\]. This expression is bounded above by $`\frac{t^2}{5}`$ when $`t<0.7`$. The second estimate follows trivially from the first one. We prefer to use these estimates rather than more standard ones (see \[BK 6.4.1\]) in order to keep the form of later estimates more concise. $``$
Using Lemma A.1 we obtain a refinement of Lemma A.2 for $`\dot{\sigma }(s)=(d_{\stackrel{~}{\sigma }(s)}\mathrm{exp}_A)\dot{\stackrel{~}{\sigma }}(s)`$:

###### Lemma A.3

For all $`s[0,1]`$

$$|_{f_s}\backslash \backslash \dot{\sigma }(s)\dot{\stackrel{~}{\sigma }}(s)|\frac{1}{5}d(C,A)|\dot{\sigma }(s)|.$$

Proof: By the Gauss Lemma, the decomposition into radial (denoted by R) and orthogonal-to-radial (denoted by ) components of $`\dot{\sigma }(s)=(d_{\stackrel{~}{\sigma }(s)}\mathrm{exp}_A)\dot{\stackrel{~}{\sigma }}(s)T_{\sigma (s)}M`$ and $`\dot{\stackrel{~}{\sigma }}(s)T_{\stackrel{~}{\sigma }(s)}(T_AM)`$ is preserved by $`d_{\stackrel{~}{\sigma }(s)}\mathrm{exp}_A`$. Hence $`{}_{f_s}{}^{}\backslash \backslash \dot{\sigma }(s)^R=_{f_s}\backslash \backslash (d_{\stackrel{~}{\sigma }(s)}\mathrm{exp}_A)[\dot{\stackrel{~}{\sigma }}(s)^R]=\dot{\stackrel{~}{\sigma }}(s)^RT_AM`$. Introducing the notation $`D:=|\stackrel{~}{\sigma }(s)|<0.7`$ this implies

$$|_{f_s}\backslash \backslash \dot{\sigma }(s)\dot{\stackrel{~}{\sigma }}(s)|=|_{f_s}\backslash \backslash \dot{\sigma }(s)^{}\dot{\stackrel{~}{\sigma }}(s)^{}|\frac{D^2}{5}|\dot{\stackrel{~}{\sigma }}(s)^{}|$$

by Lemma A.2. From this we obtain $`|\dot{\stackrel{~}{\sigma }}(s)^{}|\frac{|\dot{\sigma }(s)^{}|}{1\frac{D^2}{5}}\frac{5}{4}|\dot{\sigma }^{}(s)|`$. So $`|_{f_s}\backslash \backslash \dot{\sigma }(s)\dot{\stackrel{~}{\sigma }}(s)|\frac{D^2}{4}|\dot{\sigma }^{}(s)|`$.
Case 1:  $`\frac{8}{7}\frac{d(C,A)}{\mathrm{sin}(70^{})}D`$.
Using the notation of Lemma A.1 we have $`|\dot{\sigma }(s)^R|=|\mathrm{cos}\beta _s||\sigma (s)|`$, so $`|\dot{\sigma }(s)^{}|=\mathrm{sin}(\beta _s)|\dot{\sigma }(s)|`$. Applying the same lemma we obtain $`|\dot{\sigma }(s)^{}|\frac{8}{7}\frac{d(C,A)}{D}|\dot{\sigma }(s)|`$. Therefore $`\frac{D^2}{4}|\dot{\sigma }(s)^{}|\frac{D^2}{4}\frac{8}{7}\frac{d(C,A)}{D}|\dot{\sigma }(s)|\frac{1}{5}d(C,A)|\dot{\sigma }(s)|`$.
Case 2:  $`\frac{8}{7}\frac{d(C,A)}{\mathrm{sin}(70^{})}>D`$.
We simply use $`|\dot{\sigma }(s)^{}||\dot{\sigma }(s)|`$ to estimate

$$\frac{D^2}{5}|\dot{\sigma }(s)^{}|\left(\frac{8}{7}\frac{d(C,A)}{\mathrm{sin}(70^{})}\right)^2\frac{1}{5}|\dot{\sigma }(s)|\frac{3}{10}d(C,A)^2|\dot{\sigma }(s)|,$$

which is less than the estimate of Case 1 since $`d(C,A)0.15`$. $``$
We want to apply the above Fact to the curve $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }:[0,1]T_AM`$. We begin by determining the constant $`\epsilon `$.

###### Lemma A.4

For all $`s[0,1]`$

$$|\dot{\stackrel{~}{\sigma }}(s)\dot{\stackrel{~}{\sigma }}(0)|d(C,A)d(C,B).$$

Proof: We will show that $`\dot{\stackrel{~}{\sigma }}(s)_{f_s}\backslash \backslash \dot{\sigma }(s)_{f_0}\backslash \backslash \dot{\sigma }(0)\dot{\stackrel{~}{\sigma }}(0)`$, where in the first and last relation tangent spaces are identified by parallel translation along $`f_s`$ and $`f_0`$ respectively.
The estimates needed for the first and last relation are given by Lemma A.3 since $`|\dot{\sigma }(s)|=d(C,B)`$ for all $`s`$.
For the second relation we use the fact that $`\sigma `$ is a geodesic and \[BK, 6.2.1\]. We see that $`|_{f_s}\backslash \backslash \dot{\sigma }(s)_{f_0}\backslash \backslash \dot{\sigma }(0)|`$ is bounded above by the product of $`|\dot{\sigma }(0)|=d(C,B)`$ and of the area spanned by the triangle $`\sigma (s)AC`$ \- which is surely less than $`0.6d(C,A)`$ by \[BK, 6.7.1\] - and we are done. $``$
Now we determine the constants $`𝒞`$ and $`𝒟`$. Recall that $`|\dot{\sigma }(s)|=d(C,B)`$, so that the constants we obtain are really independent of $`s`$.

###### Lemma A.5

For all $`s[0,1]`$

$$\frac{|\dot{\sigma }(s)|}{\sqrt{1+d(C,A)^2}}|\dot{\stackrel{~}{\sigma }}(s)|\frac{|\dot{\sigma }(s)|}{\sqrt{1d(C,A)^2}}.$$

Remark: Since we need estimates involving $`d(C,A)`$, the classical Jacobi-field estimate $`|\dot{\stackrel{~}{\sigma }}(s)|\frac{D}{\mathrm{sin}(D)}|\dot{\sigma }(s)|`$ or $`|\dot{\stackrel{~}{\sigma }}(s)|(1\frac{D^2}{5})^1|\dot{\sigma }(s)|`$ (given by Lemma A.2) are not good enough for us. Here $`D:=d(\sigma (s),A)`$. Furthermore, making use of Lemma A.1, in Lemma A.3 we bounded above $`|_{f_s}\backslash \backslash \dot{\sigma }(s)\dot{\stackrel{~}{\sigma }}(s)|`$, which at once implies $`|\dot{\stackrel{~}{\sigma }}(s)|(1+\frac{d(C,A)}{5})|\dot{\sigma }(s)|`$. This however is also not sufficient, because it would only allow us to bound the left hand side of Corollary A.2 by a multiple of $`\sqrt{d(C,A)}`$. Instead, we will use Lemma A.1 to bound directly $`\frac{|\dot{\sigma }(s)|}{|\dot{\stackrel{~}{\sigma }}(s)|}`$ in order to obtain a bound of the form $`[1+o(d(C,A)^2)]|\dot{\sigma }(s)|`$ in Lemma A.5.
Proof: We fix $`s`$ and adopt the notation $`D:=|\stackrel{~}{\sigma }(s)|=d(\sigma (s),A)<0.7`$.
Case 1:  $`D<\frac{8}{7}\frac{d(C,A)}{\mathrm{sin}(70^{})}`$.
In Case 2 of the proof of Lemma A.3 we showed that $`|_{f_s}\backslash \backslash \dot{\sigma }(s)\dot{\stackrel{~}{\sigma }}(s)|\frac{3}{10}d(C,A)^2|\dot{\sigma }(s)|.`$ So

$$|\dot{\sigma }(s)|\left(1\frac{3}{10}d(C,A)^2\right)|\dot{\stackrel{~}{\sigma }}(s)||\dot{\sigma }(s)|\left(1+\frac{3}{10}d(C,A)^2\right).$$

Case 2:  $`D\frac{8}{7}\frac{d(C,A)}{\mathrm{sin}(70^{})}`$.
In view of the remark above we will use simple Jacobi field estimates only for the orthogonal-to-radial components of $`\dot{\sigma }(s)`$ and $`\dot{\stackrel{~}{\sigma }}(s)`$, which we can bound above using Lemma A.1, whereas for the radial components we just have to notice that they have the same length.
Recall that $`f_s(t)=\mathrm{exp}_A(t\stackrel{~}{\sigma }(s))`$ is a variation of geodesics emanating from $`A`$. We denote by $`\stackrel{~}{f}_s(t)=t\stackrel{~}{\sigma }(s)`$ its lift to $`T_AM`$. Fixing $`s[0,1]`$, we denote by $`J(t)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{J}(t)`$ the Jacobi-fields along $`f_s`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{f}_s`$ arising from the variations $`f_s(t)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{f}_s(t)`$. So $`J(t)=(d_{t\stackrel{~}{\sigma }(s)}\mathrm{exp}_A)t\dot{\stackrel{~}{\sigma }}(s)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{J}(t)=t\dot{\stackrel{~}{\sigma }}(s)`$ have the same initial covariant derivative $`E:=\dot{\stackrel{~}{\sigma }}(s)`$.
We decompose $`ET_AM`$ into its components parallel and orthogonal to $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }(s)`$ as $`E=E^R+E^{}`$. $`J^R(t):=(d_{t\stackrel{~}{\sigma }(s)}\mathrm{exp}_A)tE^R`$ and $`J^{}(t):=(d_{t\stackrel{~}{\sigma }(s)}\mathrm{exp}_A)tE^{}`$ are Jacobi fields, since $`\mathrm{exp}_A`$ maps lines through $`0T_AM`$ to geodesics through $`AM`$. They both vanish at zero and their initial covariant derivatives are $`E^R`$ and $`E^{}`$ respectively, so by the uniqueness of Jacobi fields to given initial data we have $`J=J^R+J^{}`$. The Gauss Lemma implies that this is the decomposition of $`J`$ into radial and orthogonal-to-radial components.
To show the second inequality in the statement of the lemma we want to bound below

$$\frac{|\dot{\sigma }(s)|^2}{|\dot{\stackrel{~}{\sigma }}(s)|^2}=\frac{|J(1)|^2}{|\stackrel{~}{J}(1)|^2}=\frac{|E^R|^2+|J^{}(1)|^2}{|E|^2}.$$

Applying Lemma A.2 to $`J(1)^{}=(d_{\sigma (s)}\mathrm{exp}_A)\dot{\stackrel{~}{\sigma }}(s)^{}`$ we obtain $`|J(1)^{}|(1\frac{D^2}{5})|E^{}|`$, so

$$\frac{|\dot{\sigma }(s)|^2}{|\dot{\stackrel{~}{\sigma }}(s)|^2}\frac{|E^R|^2+(1\frac{D^2}{5})^2|E^{}|^2}{|E|^2}=1+\left(\frac{2}{5}\frac{D^2}{3}+\frac{D^4}{25}\right)\frac{|E^{}|^2}{|E|^2}.(\mathrm{})$$

Now we bound from above $`\frac{|E^{}|^2}{|E|^2}`$. We already saw that $`|E^{}|\frac{|J^{}(1)|}{1\frac{D^2}{5}}`$, and by Lemma A.2 $`|\dot{\sigma }(s)|(1+\frac{D^2}{5})|\dot{\stackrel{~}{\sigma }}(s)|`$. Both $`\frac{1}{1\frac{D^2}{5}}`$ and $`1+\frac{D^2}{5}`$ are bounded by $`\frac{8}{7}`$ since $`D<0.7`$. Now Lemma A.1 allows us to relate $`|J^{}(1)|`$ and $`|\dot{\sigma }(s)|T_{\sigma (s)}M`$. Namely, we have $`|J^{}(1)|=\mathrm{sin}(\beta _s)|\dot{\sigma }(s)|\frac{8}{7}\frac{d(C,A)}{D}|\dot{\sigma }(s)|.`$ The last three estimates give $`|E^{}|(\frac{8}{7})^3\frac{d(C,A)}{D}|E|.`$ Substituting into $`(\mathrm{})`$ gives

$$\frac{|\dot{\sigma }(s)|^2}{|\dot{\stackrel{~}{\sigma }}(s)|^2}1+\left(\frac{8}{7}\right)^6\left(\frac{2}{5}\frac{D^2}{3}+\frac{D^4}{25}\right)\frac{d(C,A)^2}{D^2}1\left(\frac{8}{7}\right)^6\frac{2}{5}d(C,A)^2.$$

To take care of the first inequality in the statement of the lemma we show that

$$\frac{|\dot{\sigma }(s)|^2}{|\dot{\stackrel{~}{\sigma }}(s)|^2}1+\left(\frac{8}{7}\right)^6\frac{3}{7}d(C,A)^2$$

by repeating the above proof and using the estimate $`|J^{}(1)|(1+\frac{D^2}{5})|E^{}|`$.
To finish the proof we have to compare the estimates obtained in Case 1 and Case 2. To do so notice that $`(\frac{8}{7})^6\frac{3}{7}<1`$, that $`(1+\frac{3}{10}d(C,A)^2)\frac{1}{\sqrt{1d(A,C)^2}}`$ and $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+d(A,C)^2}}(1\frac{3}{10}d(C,A)^2)`$. $``$
Now finally we can apply the above Fact to the curve $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }:[0,1]T_AM`$. The first statement of the Fact allows us to prove

###### Corollary A.1

$$\mathrm{}(P0,P^{}0)2d(C,A).$$

Proof: We first want to bound $`|P^{}P|`$ from above and $`|P^{}0|`$ from below.
Since $`P^{}`$ and $`P`$ are the closest points in $`P_A`$ to $`{}_{CA}{}^{}\backslash \backslash \dot{CB}`$ and $`Q`$ respectively,

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \left|PP^{}\right|& |(Q0)_{CA}\backslash \backslash \dot{CB}|\hfill \\ \hfill & |(Q0)(\mathrm{exp}_A^1)_{}\dot{CB}|+|(\mathrm{exp}_A^1)_{}\dot{CB}_{CA}\backslash \backslash \dot{CB}|\hfill \\ \hfill & d(C,A)|\dot{CB}|+\frac{d(C,A)^2}{5}|\dot{CB}|.\hfill \end{array}$$

In the last inequality we used $`Q0=\stackrel{~}{B}\stackrel{~}{C}=\stackrel{~}{\sigma }(1)\stackrel{~}{\sigma }(0)`$ and $`(\mathrm{exp}_A^1)_{}\dot{CB}=\dot{\stackrel{~}{\sigma }}(0)`$ to apply the first statement of the above Fact (with $`\epsilon `$ given by Lemma A.4) for the first term and Lemma A.2 for the second term.
On the other hand we have

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill |P^{}0|=& |\dot{CB}|\mathrm{cos}\left(\mathrm{}(_{CA}\backslash \backslash \dot{CB},P_A)\right)\hfill \\ \hfill & |\dot{CB}|\mathrm{cos}(\theta )\hfill \\ \hfill & |\dot{CB}|\sqrt{1\theta ^2}\hfill \\ \hfill & |\dot{CB}|\sqrt{1𝒞^2d(C,A)^2}.\hfill \end{array}$$

Therefore we have

$$\mathrm{sin}\left(\mathrm{}(P^{}0,P0)\right)\frac{|P^{}P|}{|P^{}0|}\frac{\frac{d(C,A)}{5}+1}{\sqrt{1𝒞^2d(C,A)^2}}d(C,A).$$

So, using the restrictions $`𝒞2`$ and $`d(C,A)<0.15`$, and using $`\frac{\mathrm{sin}x}{x}\frac{7}{8}`$ for $`x[0,0.8]`$, we obtain

$$\mathrm{}(P^{}0,P^{}P)\frac{8}{7}\mathrm{sin}\left(\mathrm{}(P^{}0,P^{}P)\right)2d(C,A).$$

$``$
The second statement of the above Fact delivers

###### Corollary A.2

$$\mathrm{}((\mathrm{exp}_A^1)_{}\dot{CB},\stackrel{~}{B}\stackrel{~}{C})<3d(C,A).$$

Proof: Applying again the above Fact to the curve $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }:[0,1]T_AM`$ we want to obtain an estimate for $`\alpha :=\mathrm{}(\stackrel{~}{\sigma }(1)\stackrel{~}{\sigma }(0),\dot{\stackrel{~}{\sigma }}(0))=\mathrm{}(\stackrel{~}{B}\stackrel{~}{C},(\mathrm{exp}_A^1)_{}\dot{CB}).`$ Lemma A.4 and Lemma A.5 deliver the estimates

$$\epsilon =d(C,A)d(C,B),𝒞=\frac{d(C,B)}{\sqrt{1+d(C,A)^2}}\text{ and }𝒟=\frac{d(C,B)}{\sqrt{1d(C,A)^2}}.$$

Therefore, using the abbreviation $`d:=d(C,A)`$, we have

$$\mathrm{cos}(\alpha )\frac{𝒞^2\frac{\epsilon ^2}{2}}{𝒟^2}=1d^2\frac{5d^4}{2(1+d^2)}.$$

So

$$\mathrm{sin}^2(\alpha )d^2\left[\frac{5d^4}{1+d^2}d^2\left(\frac{5d^4}{2(1+d^2)}\right)^2\right].$$

Notice that due to the restriction $`d<0.15`$ we have $`\mathrm{cos}(\alpha )>\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}`$, so that $`|\alpha |<\frac{\pi }{6}<0.8`$. So

$$|\alpha |\frac{8}{7}|\mathrm{sin}(\alpha )|\frac{8}{7}d\sqrt{\frac{5d^4}{1+d^2}d^2\left(\frac{5d^4}{2(1+d^2)}\right)^2}3d.$$

$``$
The above corollary estimates the angle of two vectors based at $`\stackrel{~}{C}=\mathrm{exp}_A^1(C)`$. Now we will estimate the angle of certain vectors based at $`0T_AM`$.

###### Corollary A.3

$$\mathrm{}(Q0,_{CA}\backslash \backslash \dot{CB})<4d(C,A).$$

Proof: Since $`\stackrel{~}{B}\stackrel{~}{C}=Q0`$ we just have to estimate

$$\mathrm{}({}_{CA}{}^{}\backslash \backslash \dot{CB},(\mathrm{exp}_A^1)_{}\dot{CB})=\mathrm{}({}_{f_0}{}^{}\backslash \backslash \dot{\sigma }(0),\dot{\stackrel{~}{\sigma }}(0))$$

and apply the triangle inequality together with Corollary A.2.
Denoting by $`L`$ the distance from $`{}_{f_0}{}^{}\backslash \backslash \dot{\sigma }(0)T_AM`$ to the line spanned by $`\dot{\stackrel{~}{\sigma }}(0)`$, we have $`L|_{f_0}\backslash \backslash \dot{\sigma }(0)\dot{\stackrel{~}{\sigma }}(0)|\frac{1}{5}d(C,A)d(C,B)`$, where we used Lemma A.3 in the second inequality. Hence

$$\frac{7}{8}\mathrm{}({}_{f_0}{}^{}\backslash \backslash \dot{\sigma }(0),\dot{\stackrel{~}{\sigma }}(0))<\mathrm{sin}\left(\mathrm{}({}_{f_0}{}^{}\backslash \backslash \dot{\sigma }(0),\dot{\stackrel{~}{\sigma }}(0))\right)=\frac{L}{|\dot{\sigma }(0)|}\frac{1}{5}d(C,A)$$

where we used $`\frac{\mathrm{sin}(x)}{x}>\frac{7}{8}`$ for $`x[0,0.8]`$.
Combining this with Corollary A.2 gives

$$\mathrm{}({}_{CA}{}^{}\backslash \backslash \dot{CB},\stackrel{~}{B}\stackrel{~}{C})<3d(A,C)+\frac{8}{35}d(A,C)<4d(A,C).$$

$``$
We conclude this appendix by deriving the estimate need in Claim 3 of Proposition 4.1.

###### Corollary A.4

$$|\stackrel{~}{B}\stackrel{~}{C}|<\frac{11}{10}d(C,B).$$

Proof: This follows easily from Lemma A.2 since

$$|\stackrel{~}{B}\stackrel{~}{C}|_0^1|\dot{\stackrel{~}{\sigma }}(s)|𝑑s\frac{11}{10}d(C,B).$$

$``$

## Appendix B An upper bound for $`\alpha `$ using the curve $`c`$

Here we will prove Proposition 5.1, namely the estimate

$$|\mathrm{exp}_{N_g}^1C_{\pi ^b}^{}\backslash \backslash (\mathrm{exp}_{N_g}^1A)|L(\gamma )\frac{3150ϵ}{f(r)}.$$

To do so we will use the fact that $`N`$ is $`C^1`$-close to $`N_g`$, see Lemma B.3.
In addition to the notation introduced in Section 5 to state the proposition, we will use the following.

We will denote by $`\pi _c(t)`$ the curve $`\pi _{N_g}c(t)`$, so $`\pi _c`$ is just a reparametrization of $`\pi `$.
We will use $`\mathrm{exp}`$ as a short-hand notation for the normal exponential map $`\mathrm{exp}_{N_g}:(\nu N_g)_1\mathrm{exp}_{N_g}(\nu N_g)_1`$. Therefore $`\stackrel{~}{c}(t):=\mathrm{exp}^1(c(t))`$ will be a section of $`\nu N_g`$ along $`\pi _c`$.
The image under $`\mathrm{exp}_{}`$ of the Ehresmann connection corresponding to $`^{}`$ will be the subbundle $`\text{LC}^g`$ of $`TM|_{\mathrm{exp}_{N_g}(\nu N_g)_1}`$.
To simplify notation we will denote by $`pr_{\dot{\gamma }(t)}Hor^g`$ the projection of $`\dot{\gamma }(t)T_{\gamma (t)}M`$ onto $`Vert_{\gamma (t)}^g`$ along $`Hor_{\gamma (t)}^g`$ . We will also use $`pr_{\dot{\gamma }(t)}aHor^g`$ and $`pr_{\dot{\gamma }(t)}LC^g`$ to denote projections onto $`aVert_{\gamma (t)}^g`$ along $`aHor_{\gamma (t)}^g`$ and $`LC_{\gamma (t)}^g`$ respectively.
Our strategy will be to bound above $`|\frac{^{}}{dt}\stackrel{~}{c}(t)|=|\mathrm{exp}_{}^1(pr_{\dot{c}(t)}LC^g)|`$ (see Lemma B.3) using

$$TNHor^gaHor^gLC^g.$$

Integration along $`\pi _c`$ will deliver the desired estimate.

The estimates to make precise $`TNHor^g`$ and $`Hor^gaHor^g`$ were derived in \[We\]. In the next two lemmata we will do the same for $`aHor^gLC^g`$.

###### Lemma B.1

If $`L<0.08`$ and $`p`$ is a point in $`\mathrm{exp}_{N_g}(\nu N_g)_L`$, then

$$d(aHor_p^g,LC_p^g)\mathrm{arcsin}\left(\frac{9}{5}L\right).$$

Proof: It is enough to show that, if $`YLC_p^g`$ is a unit vector, $`|pr_YaHor^g|\frac{9}{5}L`$.
Let $`\beta (s)`$ be a curve tangent to the distribution $`LC^g`$ such that $`\beta (0)=p`$,$`\dot{\beta }(0)=Y`$. Then $`\mathrm{exp}^1(\beta (s))=L\xi (s)`$ for a unit length parallel section $`\xi `$ of $`\nu N_g`$ along the curve $`\gamma (s):=\pi _{N_g}(\beta (s))`$. If we denote by $`K`$ the $`N_g`$ Jacobi-field arising from the variation $`f_s(t)=\mathrm{exp}(t\xi (s))`$, then clearly $`K(L)=Y`$ and $`K(0)=\dot{\gamma }(0)`$.
We claim that $`\xi `$ is a strong Jacobi-field (see the remark in Section 3.2): we have $`\frac{}{t}|_0f_s(t)=\xi (s)`$, so

$$K^{}(0)=\frac{}{dt}|_0\frac{}{s}|_0f_s(t)=\frac{}{ds}|_0\xi (s)=\frac{^{}}{ds}|_0\xi (s)A_{\xi (0)}\dot{\gamma }(0)=A_{\xi (0)}K(0).$$

The claim follows since $`\xi (0)=\dot{\gamma }_p(0)`$, where $`\gamma _p`$ denotes the unique geodesic parametrized to arc-length connecting $`\pi _{N_g}(p)`$ to $`p`$.
Now let us denote by $`J`$ the $`N_g`$ Jacobi-field along $`\gamma _p`$ vanishing at $`0`$ such that $`J(L)=pr_YaHor^gaVert_p^g`$. By Lemma 3.9, using the fact that $`Y`$ is a unit vector, we have

$$|pr_YaHor^g|^2=pr_YaHor^g,Y=|J(L),K(L)|\frac{9}{5}L|pr_YaHor^g|$$

and we are done. $``$

###### Lemma B.2

Let $`L<0.08`$. For any point $`p`$ in $`\mathrm{exp}_{N_g}(\nu N_g)_L`$ the projections $`T_pMaVert_p^g`$ along $`aHor_p^g`$ and $`LC_p^g`$ differ at most by $`2L`$ in the operator norm.

Proof: Let $`\varphi :aHor_p^gaVert_p^g`$ be the linear map whose graph is $`LC_p^g`$. Let $`XT_pM`$ a unit vector and write $`X=X_{ah}+X_{av}`$ for the decomposition of $`X`$ into almost horizontal and almost vertical vectors. Then $`X=(X_{ah}+\varphi (X_{ah}))+(X_{av}\varphi (X_{ah}))`$ is the decomposition with respect to the subspaces $`LC_p^g`$ and $`aVert_p^g`$. The difference of the two projections onto $`aVert_p^g`$ maps $`X`$ to $`\varphi (X_{ah})`$. Now

$$|\varphi (X_{ah})||\varphi |_{op}\mathrm{tan}(d(aHor_p^g,LC_p^g))\frac{\frac{9}{5}L}{\sqrt{1(\frac{9}{5}L)^2}}<2L,$$

where we used \[We, Cor. A.5\] in the second inequality and Lemma B.1 in the third one. $``$

Now we are ready to bound the covariant derivative of $`\stackrel{~}{c}(t)`$:

###### Lemma B.3

For all $`t`$

$$\left|\frac{^{}}{dt}\stackrel{~}{c}(t)\right|2702ϵ.$$

Proof: Let $`\widehat{\frac{^{}}{dt}\stackrel{~}{c}(t)}`$ denote $`\frac{^{}}{dt}\stackrel{~}{c}(t)\nu _{\pi _c(t)}N_g`$ but considered as an element of $`T_{\stackrel{~}{c}(t)}(\nu _{\pi _c(t)}N_g)`$. First notice that, by definition, $`\widehat{\frac{^{}}{dt}\stackrel{~}{c}(t)}`$ is the image of $`\dot{\stackrel{~}{c}}(t)`$ under the projection $`T_{\stackrel{~}{c}(t)}(\nu N_g)T_{\stackrel{~}{c}(t)}(\nu _{\pi _c(t)}N_g)`$ along the Ehresmann connection on $`\nu N_g`$ corresponding to $`^{}`$. Therefore, since $`\mathrm{exp}_{}`$ maps the this Ehresmann connection to $`LC^g`$ and tangent spaces to the fibers of $`\nu N_g`$ to $`aVert^g`$, we have

$$\mathrm{exp}_{}\left(\widehat{\frac{^{}}{dt}\stackrel{~}{c}(t)}\right)=pr_{\dot{c}(t)}LC^g.$$

Notice that here $`\mathrm{exp}_{}`$ denotes $`d_{\stackrel{~}{c}(t)}\mathrm{exp}_{N_g}`$.
The fact that $`N`$ is $`C^1`$-close the $`N_g`$ (see Theorem 4), since $`\dot{c}(t)T_{c(t)}N`$ implies that $`\mathrm{}(\dot{c}(t),Hor_{c(t)}^g)2500ϵ`$. By \[We, Prop. 3.7\] $`d(Hor_{c(t)}^g,aHor_{c(t)}^g)\frac{ϵ}{4}`$ since $`d(c(t),N_g)100ϵ`$.
Therefore $`\mathrm{}(\dot{c}(t),aHor_{c(t)}^g)2501ϵ`$ and $`|pr_{\dot{c}(t)}aHor^g|\mathrm{sin}(2501ϵ)2501ϵ.`$
On the other hand, by Lemma B.2, $`|pr_{\dot{c}(t)}aHor^gpr_{\dot{c}(t)}LC^g|200ϵ`$. The triangle inequality therefore gives $`|pr_{\dot{c}(t)}LC^g|\mathrm{sin}(2701ϵ)`$. Therefore, using Lemma A.2 and $`ϵ<\frac{1}{20000}`$,

$$|\mathrm{exp}_{}^1(pr_{\dot{c}(t)}LC^g)|\frac{1}{1\frac{ϵ}{5}}\left|pr_{\dot{c}(t)}LC^g\right|2702ϵ.$$

$``$
Lemma B.3 allows us to bound $`|\mathrm{exp}^1C_{\pi ^b}^{}\backslash \backslash \left(\mathrm{exp}^1A\right)|`$ in terms of $`L(c)`$. However we want a bound in terms of $`L(\gamma )`$, so now we will now compare the lengths the two curves.
Recall that $`f(x)=\mathrm{cos}(x)\frac{3}{2}\mathrm{sin}(x)`$ and $`r:=100ϵ+\frac{L(\gamma )}{2}`$. Notice also that $`r<0.08`$ due to our restrictions on $`ϵ`$ and $`d(C,A)`$.

###### Lemma B.4

$$L(c)\frac{1+3200ϵ}{f(r)}L(\gamma ).$$

Proof: Since $`\phi _{g}^{}{}_{}{}^{}(\pi _{N_g}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\dot{c}(t))=\dot{c}(t)`$, by Proposition 3.1 we have $`|\dot{c}(t)\backslash \backslash (\pi _{N_g}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\dot{c}(t))|3200ϵ|\pi _{N_g}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\dot{c}(t)|`$, so

$$|\dot{c}(t)|(1+3200ϵ)|\pi _{N_g}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\dot{c}(t)|.$$

Since $`L(\pi _{N_g}c)=L(\pi )`$, from this follows $`L(c)(1+3200ϵ)L(\pi )`$. By \[We, Lemma 3.3\] we have $`f(r)L(\pi )L(\gamma )`$ and we are done. $``$
Proof of Proposition 5.1:  We have

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill |\mathrm{exp}^1C_{\pi ^b}^{}\backslash \backslash \left(\mathrm{exp}^1A\right)|=& |_0^{L(c)}\frac{d}{dt}_{\pi _c^b}^{}\backslash \backslash \stackrel{~}{c}(t)\text{dt}|\hfill \\ \hfill =& |_0^{L(c)}{}_{\pi _c^b}{}^{}\backslash \backslash \frac{^{}}{dt}\stackrel{~}{c}(t)\text{dt}|\hfill \\ \hfill & 2702ϵL(c)\hfill \\ \hfill & 2702ϵ\frac{(1+3200ϵ)}{f(r)}L(\gamma )\hfill \end{array}$$

where we used Lemma B.3 and lemma B.4 in the last two inequalities. The proposition follows using the bound $`ϵ<\frac{1}{20000}`$. $``$

## Appendix C A lower bound for $`\alpha `$ using the curve $`\gamma `$

Here we will prove Proposition 5.2, i.e. the estimate

$$|\mathrm{exp}_{N_g}^1(C)_{\pi ^b}^{}\backslash \backslash \mathrm{exp}_{N_g}^1(A)|L(\gamma )[\frac{99}{100}\mathrm{sin}(\alpha \frac{ϵ}{4})500ϵ3r\frac{8}{3}L(\gamma )(r+\frac{r+\frac{3}{2}}{f(r)})].$$

We will use the fact that $`N_g`$ has bounded second fundamental form (see the first statement of Lemma C.3) and that $`\gamma `$ is a geodesic (see the second statement of the same Lemma).
We will use the notation introduced in Section 5 and at the beginning of Appendix B. Recall that $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }(t):=\mathrm{exp}_{N_g}^1(\gamma (t))`$ is a section of $`\nu N_g`$ along $`\pi `$.
First we will set a lower bound on the initial derivative of $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }`$.

###### Lemma C.1

We have

$$\left|\frac{^{}}{dt}\stackrel{~}{\gamma }(0)\right|\frac{99}{100}\left[\mathrm{sin}\left(\alpha \frac{ϵ}{4}\right)200ϵ\right].$$

Proof: Analogously to the proof of Lemma B.3 we have $`\mathrm{exp}_{}(\widehat{\frac{^{}}{dt}\stackrel{~}{\gamma }(0)})=pr_{\dot{\gamma }(0)}LC^g`$, where $`\widehat{\frac{^{}}{dt}\stackrel{~}{\gamma }(0)}`$ is an element of $`T_{\stackrel{~}{\gamma }(0)}\nu _{\pi (0)}N_g`$.
By \[We, Prop 3.7\] we have $`d(Hor_C^g,aHor_C^g)\frac{ϵ}{4}`$. So

$$\mathrm{}(\dot{\gamma }(0),aHor_C^g)\mathrm{}(\dot{\gamma }(0),Hor_C^g)d(Hor_C^g,aHor_C^g)\alpha \frac{ϵ}{4}.$$

Therefore $`|pr_{\dot{\gamma }(0)}aHor^g|\mathrm{sin}(\alpha \frac{ϵ}{4}).`$
On the other hand, by Lemma B.2, $`|pr_{\dot{\gamma }(0)}aHor^gpr_{\dot{\gamma }(0)}LC^g|200ϵ`$. The inverse triangle inequality gives

$$|pr_{\dot{\gamma }(0)}LC^g|\mathrm{sin}(\alpha \frac{ϵ}{4})200ϵ.$$

Applying $`\mathrm{exp}_{}^1`$, by Lemma A.2 we have $`|\mathrm{exp}_{}^1(pr_{\dot{\gamma }(0)}LC^g)|\frac{1}{1+\frac{ϵ}{5}}|pr_{\dot{\gamma }(0)}LC^g|`$, and since $`\frac{1}{1+\frac{ϵ}{5}}\frac{99}{100}`$ we are done. $``$
Our next goal is to show that $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }(t)`$ “grows at a nearly constant rate”. This will be achieved in Corollary C.3. Together with Lemma C.1 and integration along $`\pi `$ this will deliver the estimate of Proposition 5.2.
The next two lemmas will be used to prove Corollary C.1, where we will show that $`\frac{^{}}{dt}\stackrel{~}{\gamma }(0)`$ and $`\mathrm{exp}_{}^1_{\gamma ^b}\backslash \backslash \mathrm{exp}_{}(\widehat{\frac{^{}}{dt}\stackrel{~}{\gamma }(t)})`$ \- i.e. the parallel translate of $`\frac{^{}}{dt}\stackrel{~}{\gamma }(t)`$ “along $`\gamma `$” - are close for all $`t`$. Here $`\widehat{\frac{^{}}{dt}\stackrel{~}{\gamma }(t)}`$ denotes the vector $`\frac{^{}}{dt}\stackrel{~}{\gamma }(t)`$ regarded as an element of $`T_{\stackrel{~}{\gamma }(t)}(\nu _{\pi (t)}N_g)`$. To this aim we show that

$$\text{pr}_{\dot{\gamma }(0)}LC^g\text{pr}_{\dot{\gamma }(0)}Hor^g\text{pr}_{\dot{\gamma }(t)}Hor^g\text{pr}_{\dot{\gamma }(t)}LC^g,$$

where we identify tangent spaces by parallel translation along $`\gamma `$. The crucial step is the second “$``$”, where we use that fact that $`\gamma `$ is a geodesic. Applying $`\mathrm{exp}_{}^1`$ will easily imply Corollary C.1 since $`\mathrm{exp}_{}^1(\text{pr}_{\dot{\gamma }(t)}LC^g)=\widehat{\frac{^{}}{dt}\stackrel{~}{\gamma }(t)}`$.

###### Lemma C.2

For any $`L<1`$ and any point $`p\mathrm{exp}_{N_g}(\nu N_g)_L`$ the orthogonal projections $`T_pMaHor_p^g`$ and $`T_pMHor_p^g`$ differ at most by $`\frac{L^2}{5}`$ in the operator norm.

Proof: This follows immediately from \[We, Prop. 3.7\]. $``$

###### Lemma C.3

For all $`t`$

$$d(Vert_C^g,_{\gamma ^b}\backslash \backslash Vert_{\gamma (t)}^g)\mathrm{arcsin}\left[t(r+\frac{r+\frac{3}{2}}{f(r)})\right].$$

Furthermore,

$$|pr_{\dot{\gamma }(0)}Hor^g_{\gamma ^b}\backslash \backslash pr_{\dot{\gamma }(t)}Hor^g|t(r+\frac{r+\frac{3}{2}}{f(r)}).$$

Proof: We first want to estimate $`d(Vert_C^g,_{\gamma ^b}\backslash \backslash Vert_{\gamma (t)}^g)`$. Let $`v\nu _CN_g`$ be a normal unit vector.
First of all, for the $``$ and $`^{}`$ parallel translations along $`\pi `$ from $`C`$ to $`\pi (t)`$ we have

$$|{}_{\pi }{}^{}\backslash \backslash v_\pi ^{}\backslash \backslash v|\frac{3}{2}L(\pi |_{[0,t]})\frac{3}{2}\frac{t}{f(r)}.$$

The first inequality follows from a simple computation involving the second fundamental form of $`N_g`$, which is bounded in norm by $`\frac{3}{2}`$ (see \[We, Cor. 3.2\]). The second inequality is due to $`f(r)L(\pi |_{[0,t]})L(\gamma |_{[0,t]})`$, which follows from \[We, Lemma 3.3\].
Secondly, denoting by $`\tau _t`$ the unit speed geodesic from $`\pi (t)`$ to $`\gamma (t)`$, we have

$$|{}_{\tau _0}{}^{}\backslash \backslash v_{\gamma ^b}\backslash \backslash _{\tau _t}\backslash \backslash _\pi \backslash \backslash v|rt(1+\frac{1}{f(r)}).$$

Indeed, the above expression just measures the holonomy as one goes once around the polygonal loop given by the geodesics $`\tau _0^b,\pi ,\tau _t`$ and $`\gamma ^b`$. Using the bounds on curvature we know that this is bounded by the area of a surface spanned by the polygon (see \[BK, 6.2.1\]). The estimate given above surely holds since $`L(\tau _t),L(\tau _0)r`$, $`L(\gamma |_{[0,t]})=t`$ and, as we just saw, $`L(\pi |_{[0,t]})\frac{t}{f(r)}`$.
Together this gives

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill |{}_{\tau _0}{}^{}\backslash \backslash v_{\gamma ^b}\backslash \backslash _{\tau _t}\backslash \backslash _\pi ^{}\backslash \backslash v|& |{}_{\tau _0}{}^{}\backslash \backslash v_{\gamma ^b}\backslash \backslash _{\tau _t}\backslash \backslash _\pi \backslash \backslash v|+|{}_{\gamma ^b}{}^{}\backslash \backslash _{\tau _t}\backslash \backslash [{}_{\pi }{}^{}\backslash \backslash v_\pi ^{}\backslash \backslash v]|\hfill \\ \hfill & t\left(r+\frac{r+\frac{3}{2}}{f(r)}\right).\hfill \end{array}$$

So we obtain a bound on the distance from $`{}_{\tau _0}{}^{}\backslash \backslash vVert_C^g`$ to a unit vector in $`{}_{\gamma ^b}{}^{}\backslash \backslash Vert_{\gamma (t)}^g`$. This delivers the first statement of the lemma. The second statement follows using \[We, Prop. A.4\], since $`{}_{\gamma ^b}{}^{}\backslash \backslash pr_{\dot{\gamma }(t)}Hor^g=pr_{\dot{\gamma }(0)}(_{\gamma ^b}\backslash \backslash Hor_{\gamma (t)}^g)`$ because $`\gamma `$ is a geodesic. $``$

###### Corollary C.1

For all $`t`$

$$|\mathrm{exp}_{}^1_{\gamma ^b}\backslash \backslash \mathrm{exp}_{}\left(\widehat{\frac{^{}}{dt}\stackrel{~}{\gamma }(t)}\right)\frac{^{}}{dt}\stackrel{~}{\gamma }(0)|\frac{51}{50}[2.1(100ϵ+r)+t(r+\frac{r+\frac{3}{2}}{f(r)})].$$

Proof: From Lemma C.2 and Lemma B.2 we have for all $`t`$

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \left|pr_{\dot{\gamma }(t)}Hor^gpr_{\dot{\gamma }(t)}LC^g\right|& \left|pr_{\dot{\gamma }(t)}Hor^gpr_{\dot{\gamma }(t)}aHor^g\right|+\left|pr_{\dot{\gamma }(t)}aHor^gpr_{\dot{\gamma }(t)}LC^g\right|\hfill \\ & \frac{r^2}{5}+2r\hfill \\ & 2.1r.\hfill \end{array}$$

For $`t=0`$, since $`d(C,N_g)<100ϵ`$, we have the better estimate

$$\left|pr_{\dot{\gamma }(0)}Hor^gpr_{\dot{\gamma }(0)}LC^g\right|210ϵ.$$

Combining this with the second statement of Lemma C.3 gives

$$|pr_{\dot{\gamma }(0)}LC^g_{\gamma ^b}\backslash \backslash pr_{\dot{\gamma }(t)}LC^g|2.1(100ϵ+r)+t(r+\frac{r+\frac{3}{2}}{f(r)}).$$

Recall that $`pr_{\dot{\gamma }(t)}LC^g=\mathrm{exp}_{}(\widehat{\frac{^{}}{dt}\stackrel{~}{\gamma }(t)})`$, as in the proof of Lemma B.3. Also, for any vector $`XT_CM`$ we have $`|\mathrm{exp}_{}^1X|\frac{|X|}{1\frac{ϵ}{5}}`$ by Lemma A.2. So applying $`(\mathrm{exp}^1)_{}`$ to $`pr_{\dot{\gamma }(0)}LC^g_{\gamma ^b}\backslash \backslash pr_{\dot{\gamma }(t)}LC^g`$ we get

$$|\frac{^{}}{dt}\stackrel{~}{\gamma }(0)\mathrm{exp}_{}^1_{\gamma ^b}\backslash \backslash \mathrm{exp}_{}\left(\widehat{\frac{^{}}{dt}\stackrel{~}{\gamma }(t)}\right)|[2.1(100ϵ+r)+t(r+\frac{r+\frac{3}{2}}{f(r)})]\frac{1}{1\frac{ϵ}{5}}.$$

$``$
Now let $`\xi `$ be a unit vector in $`\nu _{\pi (t)}N_g`$. Denote by $`\widehat{\xi }`$ the same vector thought of as an element of $`T_{\stackrel{~}{\gamma }(t)}(\nu _{\pi (t)}N_g)`$.
In the next two lemmas we want to show that $`{}_{\pi ^b}{}^{}\backslash \backslash \xi `$ and $`\mathrm{exp}_{}^1_{\gamma ^b}\backslash \backslash \mathrm{exp}_{}\widehat{\xi }T_CM`$ are close to each other, i.e. that under the identification by $`\mathrm{exp}`$ the $`^{}`$-parallel translation along $`\pi `$ and the $``$-parallel translation along $`\gamma `$ do not differ too much. Here we also make use of the fact that $`N`$ has bounded second fundamental form (see Lemma C.5). In Corollary C.2 we will apply this to the vector $`\frac{^{}}{dt}\stackrel{~}{\gamma }(t)`$.

###### Lemma C.4

Denoting by $`\tau _t`$ the unit speed geodesic from $`\pi (t)`$ to $`\gamma (t)`$,

$$|{}_{\tau _0^b}{}^{}\backslash \backslash _{\gamma ^b}\backslash \backslash _{\tau _t}\backslash \backslash \xi \mathrm{exp}_{}^1_{\gamma ^b}\backslash \backslash \mathrm{exp}_{}\widehat{\xi }|<\frac{r^2}{2}.$$

Proof: First let us notice that applying Lemma A.2 three times we get

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill |{}_{\tau _0^b}{}^{}\backslash \backslash [{}_{\gamma ^b}{}^{}\backslash \backslash \mathrm{exp}_{}\widehat{\xi }]\mathrm{exp}_{}^1[{}_{\gamma ^b}{}^{}\backslash \backslash \mathrm{exp}_{}\widehat{\xi }]|& \frac{r^2}{5}\left|\mathrm{exp}_{}^1[{}_{\gamma ^b}{}^{}\backslash \backslash \mathrm{exp}_{}\widehat{\xi }]\right|\hfill \\ \hfill & \frac{r^2}{5}\frac{1}{1\frac{r^2}{5}}|{}_{\gamma ^b}{}^{}\backslash \backslash \mathrm{exp}_{}\widehat{\xi }|\hfill \\ \hfill & \frac{r^2}{5}\frac{1+\frac{r^2}{5}}{1\frac{r^2}{5}}.\hfill \end{array}$$

Therefore, applying Lemma A.2 to $`\xi `$, the left hand side of the statement of this lemma is bounded above by

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill |{}_{\tau _0^b}{}^{}\backslash \backslash _{\gamma ^b}\backslash \backslash [_{\tau _t}\backslash \backslash \xi ]_{\tau _0^b}\backslash \backslash _{\gamma ^b}\backslash \backslash \left[\mathrm{exp}_{}\widehat{\xi }\right]|+& |{}_{\tau _0^b}{}^{}\backslash \backslash [{}_{\gamma ^b}{}^{}\backslash \backslash \mathrm{exp}_{}\widehat{\xi }]\mathrm{exp}_{}^1[{}_{\gamma ^b}{}^{}\backslash \backslash \mathrm{exp}_{}\widehat{\xi }]|\hfill \\ \hfill & \frac{r^2}{5}+\frac{r^2}{5}\frac{1+\frac{r^2}{5}}{1\frac{r^2}{5}}\hfill \\ \hfill & r^2\frac{2}{5(1\frac{r^2}{5})}.\hfill \end{array}$$

$``$

###### Lemma C.5

$$|\mathrm{exp}_{}^1_{\gamma ^b}\backslash \backslash \mathrm{exp}_{}\widehat{\xi }_{\pi ^b}^{}\backslash \backslash \xi |\frac{r^2}{2}+t(r+\frac{r+\frac{3}{2}}{f(r)}).$$

Proof: The left hand side in the statement of the lemma is bounded above by

$$\begin{array}{cc}& |\mathrm{exp}_{}^1_{\gamma ^b}\backslash \backslash \mathrm{exp}_{}\widehat{\xi }_{\tau _0^b}\backslash \backslash _{\gamma ^b}\backslash \backslash _{\tau _t}\backslash \backslash \xi |\hfill \\ \hfill +& |{}_{\tau _0^b}{}^{}\backslash \backslash _{\gamma ^b}\backslash \backslash _{\tau _t}\backslash \backslash \xi _{\pi ^b}\backslash \backslash \xi |\hfill \\ \hfill +& |{}_{\pi ^b}{}^{}\backslash \backslash \xi _{\pi ^b}^{}\backslash \backslash \xi |\hfill \\ \hfill & \frac{r^2}{2}+rt\left(1+\frac{1}{f(r)}\right)+\frac{3}{2}\frac{t}{f(r)}.\hfill \end{array}$$

The first term is estimated by Lemma C.4.
The second one is just the holonomy as once goes around the loop given by $`\tau _t,\gamma ^b,\tau _0^b`$ and $`\pi `$, which was bounded above in the proof of Lemma C.3.
The third and last term is estimated in the proof of Lemma C.3 as well. $``$

###### Corollary C.2

The section $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }`$ satisfies

$$|\mathrm{exp}_{}^1_{\gamma ^b}\backslash \backslash \mathrm{exp}_{}\left(\widehat{\frac{^{}}{dt}\stackrel{~}{\gamma }(t)}\right)_{\pi ^b}^{}\backslash \backslash \frac{^{}}{dt}\stackrel{~}{\gamma }(t)|\frac{2}{3}r^2+\frac{4}{3}t(r+\frac{r+\frac{3}{2}}{f(r)}).$$

Proof: We apply Lemma C.5 to $`\widehat{\frac{^{}}{dt}\stackrel{~}{\gamma }(t)}`$, where now we have to take into consideration the length of $`\widehat{\frac{^{}}{dt}\stackrel{~}{\gamma }(t)}`$ in our estimate.
We have $`|\widehat{\frac{^{}}{dt}\stackrel{~}{\gamma }(t)}|=|\mathrm{exp}_{}^1(pr_{\dot{\gamma }(t)}LC^g)|\frac{1}{1\frac{r^2}{5}}|pr_{\dot{\gamma }(t)}LC^g|`$ by Lemma A.2, and

$$|pr_{\dot{\gamma }(t)}LC^g||pr_{\dot{\gamma }(t)}LC^gpr_{\dot{\gamma }(t)}aHor^g|+|pr_{\dot{\gamma }(t)}aHor^g|2r+1$$

by Lemma B.2. Since $`\frac{2r+1}{1\frac{r^2}{5}}\frac{4}{3}`$ for $`r0.08`$ we are done. $``$
Now Corollary C.1 and Corollary C.2 immediately imply that $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }(t)`$ “grows at a nearly constant rate”:

###### Corollary C.3

The section $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }`$ satisfies

$$|\frac{^{}}{dt}\stackrel{~}{\gamma }(0)_{\pi ^b}^{}\backslash \backslash \frac{^{}}{dt}\stackrel{~}{\gamma }(t)|3(100ϵ+r)+\frac{8}{3}t(r+\frac{r+\frac{3}{2}}{f(r)}).$$

Proof of Proposition 5.2:  The estimate of Proposition 5.2 follows from

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill |\mathrm{exp}^1(C)_{\pi ^b}^{}\backslash \backslash \mathrm{exp}^1(A)|=& |_0^{L(\gamma )}{}_{\pi ^b}{}^{}\backslash \backslash \frac{^{}}{dt}\stackrel{~}{\gamma }(t)dt|\hfill \\ \hfill & \left|_0^{L(\gamma )}\frac{^{}}{dt}\stackrel{~}{\gamma }(0)dt\right|\left|_0^{L(\gamma )}(\frac{^{}}{dt}\stackrel{~}{\gamma }(0)_{\pi ^b}^{}\backslash \backslash \frac{^{}}{dt}\stackrel{~}{\gamma }(t))dt\right|\hfill \\ \hfill & L(\gamma )\left|\frac{^{}}{dt}\stackrel{~}{\gamma }(0)\right|_0^{L(\gamma )}|\frac{^{}}{dt}\stackrel{~}{\gamma }(0)_{\pi ^b}^{}\backslash \backslash \frac{^{}}{dt}\stackrel{~}{\gamma }(t)|dt\hfill \end{array}$$

using Lemma C.1 and Corollary C.3. $``$