arxiv: v1 [math.sg] 27 Nov 2017

Transcription

1 On some examples and constructions of contact manifolds Fabio Gironella arxiv: v1 [math.sg] 27 Nov 2017 Abstract The first goal of this paper is to construct examples of higher dimensional contact manifolds with specific properties. Our main results in this direction are the existence of tight virtually overtwisted closed contact manifolds in all dimensions and the fact that every closed contact 3 manifold embeds with trivial normal bundle inside a tight closed contact 5 manifold. This uses known construction procedures by Bourgeois (on products with tori) and Geiges (on branched covering spaces). We pass from these procedures to definitions; this allows to prove a uniqueness statement in the case of contact branched coverings, and to study the global properties (such as tightness and fillability) of the results of both constructions without relying on any specific choice in the procedures. A second goal allowed by these definitions is to study relations between these constructions and the notions of supporting open book, as introduced by Giroux, and of contact fiber bundle, as introduced by Lerman. For instance, we give a definition of Bourgeois contact structures on flat contact fiber bundles which is local, (strictly) includes the results of Bourgeois construction, and allows to recover an isotopy class of supporting open books on the fibers. This last point relies on a reinterpretation, inspired by an idea by Giroux, of supporting open books in terms of pairs of contact vector fields. 1 Introduction The papers [Gei97] by Geiges and [Bou02] by Bourgeois provide some explicit constructions of contact structures on high dimensional manifolds. More precisely, in the first article, developing ideas from [Gro86], the author transposes some constructions from the symplectic world to the contact setting, defining in particular the notions of contact branched coverings and contact fiber sums. Contact reductions are also defined, but we will not deal with them in the following. In the second paper, taking inspiration from [Lut79], the author proves that, given a closed contact manifold (M 2n 1, ξ) and an open book decomposition (B, ϕ) of M supporting ξ, there is a contact structure η on M T 2 that is invariant under the natural T 2 action, that restricts to ξ on each submanifold M {pt} and that naturally deforms to the hyperplane field ξ T T 2 on M T 2. We point out that the open book (B, ϕ) always exists by [Gir02]. The main motivation behind both [Gei97, Bou02] was the problem of the existence of contact structures, i.e. the question of which high dimensional 1

2 manifolds admit a contact structure. This (big) problem in contact topology has now been solved in [BEM15], where it is shown to be equivalent to the problem of the existence of the corresponding formal objects, i.e. almost contact structures. As a consequence, the aim has now shifted from providing examples to providing interesting examples of contact structures. The papers [Gei97, Bou02] fit well in this perspective because they actually give rather explicit contact manifolds, which can be studied in some detail and which (under the right conditions) manifest interesting properties of tightness, fillability, overtwistedness, etc. For instance, these two papers provided the first explicit methods of building PS-overtwisted (hence overtwisted, according to the posterior [CMP, Hua17]) contact manifolds in high dimensions. The interested reader can consult [Pre07] for the case of the construction in [Bou02], [NP10, page 724] for the case of contact branched coverings and [Nie13, Theorem I.5.1], attributed to Presas, for the case of fiber sums. Compare also with Claim 7.11 in Section 7.2 below. The aim of this article is hence to construct contact manifolds with particular properties starting from [Gei97, Bou02]. In order to do this, we need to pass from the construction procedures by Geiges and Bourgeois to definitions; then, we can study the properties of these contact structures, without the need to rely on any specific choice made in their actual constructions in [Gei97, Bou02]. As far as contact branched coverings and contact fiber sums are concerned, we point out that the uniqueness problem is not explicitly addressed in [Gei97], i.e. it is not shown that the objects obtained are independent of the choices made to build them. We hence propose in this paper a definition of contact branched coverings and contact fiber sums that allows to naturally obtain a uniqueness (up to isotopy) statement. We remark that in the literature there is already a definition of contact branched coverings that goes in this direction. Indeed, in [ON07] the authors define this notion in terms of contact deformations verifying an additional condition at the branching locus. Removing this further constraint, we show here the following: Proposition A. Let (V 2n 1, η) be a contact manifold and π : V V be a smooth branched covering map with downstairs branching locus M. Suppose that η T M is a contact structure on M. Then: 1. there is a [0, 1] family of hyperplane fields η t on V, invariant under deck transformations of π, such that η 0 = π η and η t is a contact structure for all t (0, 1]; 2. if η t and η t are as in point 1, then η r is isotopic (through contact structures invariant under deck transformations) to η s for all r, s (0, 1]. We will hence call contact branched covering a contact structure η on V that is the endpoint of any path η t as above. Notice that Proposition A tells exactly that this object exists and is well defined up to isotopy. At this point, we are able to give precise statements about the properties of contact branched coverings. For instance, we prove the following: Theorem B. Consider a smooth branched covering π : V V and a contact structure ξ on V and let η be a contact branched covering of η. Suppose that 2

3 (V, η) is weakly filled by (W, Ω) in such a way that the downstairs branching locus M of π is filled by a symplectic submanifold X of (W, Ω). Suppose also that π extends to a smooth branched covering π : Ŵ W branched over X. Then, there is a symplectic structure Ω on Ŵ weakly filling η on V = Ŵ. We then devote a part of the paper to the analysis of Bourgeois construction from different perspectives. Firstly, we analyze in detail the links between [Bou02] and the paper [Lut79] by Lutz, from which the first one takes inspiration. In particular, we recall part of Lutz work in [Lut79], where he defines a map T 2 invariant contact structures on the trivial T 2 bundle M T 2 M (ξ, B, ϕ) ξ singular hyperplane field on M and (B, ϕ) open book decompositions of M Then, we point out that, using the notion of adapted open books introduced by Giroux, the computations in [Lut79] show (modulo a lemma on adapted open books due to Giroux) that the image (ξ η, B η, ϕ η ) of η via the above map is such that (B η, ϕ η ) supports ξ η, whenever the latter is a contact structure on M. Using this point of view of T 2 invariant contact structures on the T 2 fiber bundle M T 2 M, we will then show how, starting from a contact manifold (M, ξ) equipped with an adapted open book (B, ϕ), the application of Lutz construction after Bourgeois one gives back the original data (M, ξ) and (B, ϕ). We will also analyze the opposite concatenation of the two constructions and show that, under some conditions, it gives back the initial data as well. In a second part, we adopt a perspective which is in a certain sense orthogonal to the one above, looking at the projection M T 2 T 2 instead of M T 2 M. Thanks to the notion of contact fiber bundle introduced by Lerman in [Ler04], we can indeed see the contact structures constructed by Bourgeois as contact fiber bundle structures on the fiber bundle M T 2 T 2, which admits a natural flat contact connection. We point out that this contact bundle structure on the examples from [Bou02] has already been exploited successfully in [Pre07, vkn07, NP10, EP11] to obtain high dimensional contact manifolds with remarkable properties. In this paper we then use the theory of contact fiber bundles from [Ler04] in order to generalize Bourgeois construction and define the notion of Bourgeois contact structures. More precisely, on a fiber bundle π : V 2n+1 Σ 2 equipped with a reference contact fiber bundle η 0, every contact fiber bundle η admits a potential form A with respect to η 0, with a well defined curvature form R A ; in the case where the reference contact bundle η 0 is flat, we call Bourgeois contact structure any contact fiber bundle structure on π : V Σ that is also a contact structure on V and verifies 1 ɛ R ɛa 0 for ɛ 0. Beside the need to pass from the construction procedure in [Bou02] to a definition, another motivation behind the introduction of this notion is the following: the condition on the curvature is, on one hand, general enough to be satisfied by the construction in [Bou02] and, on the other hand, strong enough to ensure some nice properties from the point of view of weak fillings and adapted open book decompositions, for instance; more properties will then be analyzed in Section 6.4. As far as the weak fillability is concerned, we prove the following: 3

4 Proposition C. Let (M, 2n 1 ξ) be a contact manifold and η be a Bourgeois contact structure on the trivial fiber bundle M T 2 T 2, that restricts to ξ on M {pt} = M. If (M, ξ) is weakly filled by (X 2n, ω), then (M T 2, η) is weakly filled by (X T 2, ω + ω T 2), where ω T 2 is an area form on T 2. We point out that the statement and the idea of proof of the above result, in the particular case of the contact structures obtained from the construction in [Bou02], already appeared in [MNW13, Page 294]. From the point of view of adapted open books, Bourgeois contact structures implicitly carry some information on open book decompositions supporting the contact structures on each fiber: Proposition D. Let η be a Bourgeois contact structure on π : V Σ. Then, there is a map ψ η that associate to each point b Σ an isotopy class of adapted open book decompositions on (M b, ξ b ) := ( π 1 (b), η T ( π 1 (b) )). Moreover, if γ(t), with t ( ɛ, ɛ), is a path in an open set U of Σ over which π is trivialized, i.e. over which π becomes the projection on the first factor pr U : U M U, then the path of isotopy classes ψ η γ(t) comes from a path of open books (B t, ϕ t ) of {γ(t)} M such that its image via pr M : U M M is an isotopy of open books on M. In the case of the examples from [Bou02], via the global projection pr M : M T 2 M, the map ψ η gives the isotopy class of the open book (B, ϕ) used in the construction. In other words, if on one hand Lutz construction gives a converse to Bourgeois construction from the point of view of T 2 invariant contact structures on the principal bundle M T 2 M, on the other hand this statement gives a converse to it from the point of view of contact fiber bundles on M T 2 T 2. In order to prove Proposition D, we give a reinterpretation of adapted open books in terms of pairs of contact vector fields: Theorem E. On a contact manifold (M 2n 1, ξ), each couple of contact vector fields X, Y, such that [X, Y ] is everywhere transverse to ξ, determines an explicit open book decomposition on M supporting ξ. Viceversa, an open book supporting ξ allows to recover a couple X, Y as above. The second part of this result has been stated by Giroux in talks for the Yashafest in June 2007 and for the AIM workshop of May 2012 (see [Gir12, Claim on page 19]). A more detailed version and a detailed proof of Theorem E are given in Section 4. We point out that this result does not only serve to prove Proposition D but also gives another point of view on adapted open book decompositions, which is of independent interest. These reinterpretations and generalizations of [Gei97, Bou02] lead us to examples of high dimensional contact manifolds with interesting tightness, fillability or overtwistedness properties. As a byproduct, we obtain two new results, one concerning tight virtually overtwisted contact structures and one concerning codimension 2 embeddings with trivial normal bundle of contact 3 manifolds. As far as the first result is concerned, we recall that a tight contact structure ξ on M is called virtually overtwisted if its pullback ξ on a finite cover M of M is overtwisted. In this paper, we prove the following: 4

5 Theorem F. Tight virtually overtwisted structures exist in all dimensions 3. The proof of this result is by induction on the dimension. As far as the initialization step is concerned, the existence of tight virtually overtwisted contact structures is known in dimension 3 since [Gom98]; the reader can also consult [Gir00, Hon00], which present a classification result for this type of contact structures on particular 3 manifolds. The inductive step relies on the existence of supporting open books proven by Giroux [Gir02], on Bourgeois construction [Bou02] and on the large neighborhood criterion for overtwistedness proven in [CMP, Theorem 3.1]. Two other ingredients are also necessary, namely the fact that both the construction in [Bou02] and contact branched coverings preserve the weak fillability condition; this is the content of Propositions C and A above. Another question we address in this paper is the following: for a given contact manifold (M, ξ = ker α), is there an ɛ > 0 such that ( M Dɛ 2, ker ( α + r 2 dϕ )) is tight? Here, Dɛ 2 is the disk of radius ɛ and centered at the origin in R 2, and (r, ϕ) are its polar coordinates. This is linked to the problem of finding codimension 2 contact-embeddings with trivial normal bundle in tight ambient manifolds. Indeed, having trivial normal bundle and trivial conformal symplectic normal bundle is equivalent in codimension 2. Hence, according to the contact neighborhood theorem [Gei08, Theorem ], if (M 2n 1, ξ = ker α) embeds into (V 2n+1, η) with trivial normal bundle then it admits a neighborhood ( M Dr 2 0, ker ( α + r 2 dϕ )), for a certain r 0 > 0. In particular, if (V, η) is tight, so is this neighborhood. Historically, the first motivation for addressing the above question on the size of the neighborhood of a codimension 2 submanifold is given by [NP10], where it is shown that big neighborhoods of contact overtwisted submanifolds obstruct fillability of the ambient manifold. As reported in [Nie13], this led Niederkrüger and Presas to conjecture that the presence of a chart contactomorphic to a product of an overtwisted R 3 and a large neighborhood in R 2n with the standard Liouville form could be the correct generalization of overtwistedness to dimensions greater than 3. After the introduction in [BEM15] of a definition of overtwisted structures in all dimensions, [CMP] confirmed this conjecture, proving that the presence of such a chart in a contact manifold is indeed equivalent to it being overtwisted. More precisely, this follows from the already cited [CMP, Theorem 3.1], which states that, if (M, ξ = ker α) is overtwisted, then ( M DR 2, ker ( α + r 2 dϕ )) is also overtwisted, provided that R > 0 is sufficiently large. In particular, this motivates the above question on the ( existence, for a given contact manifold (M, ξ = ker α), of an ɛ > 0 such that M D 2 ɛ, ker ( α + r 2 dϕ )) is tight. The problem of finding codimension 2 embeddings in tight manifolds has already been explicitly addressed in [CPS16]. In particular, [CPS16, Proposition 11] states that each 3 dimensional overtwisted manifold can be contactembedded with trivial normal bundle into an exact symplectically fillable closed contact 5 manifold. In this paper, we prove the following result: Theorem G. Each 3 dimensional contact manifold (M, ξ) with π 1 (M) { } embeds with trivial normal bundle in a (hyper)tight closed (V 5, η). Corollary H. For each (M 3, ξ = ker α) with π 1 (M) { }, there is ɛ > 0 such that ( M D 2 ɛ, ker ( α + r 2 dϕ )) is tight. 5

6 We recall that a contact structure is called hypertight if it admits a defining form with no contractible closed Reeb orbit. Notice that each hypertight contact manifold is in particular tight, according to [Hof93, AH09, CMP]. We also point out that, according to Perelman s proof of Poincaré s conjecture, the condition π 1 (M) { } is equivalent to the fact that M is not diffeomorphic to S 3. Now, the case M = S 3 is actually already known. Indeed, the case of overtwisted 3 spheres is covered in [CPS16, Proposition 11], already cited above, while the standard tight 3 sphere, which is the unique tight contact structure on S 3 up to isotopy according to [Eli92], naturally embeds in the standard tight 5 sphere with trivial normal bundle. The main ingredients we use in the proof of Theorem G are the existence of adapted open book decompositions for contact 3 manifolds, due to Giroux, and a detailed study of the dynamics of the Reeb flow of the contact forms constructed in [Bou02]. Indeed, under the assumption that π 1 (M) { }, we will show that, up to positive stabilizations, each open book decomposition (B, ϕ) of M can be supposed to have homotopically non trivial (in M) binding components. We will then show that this allows us to get hypertight contact forms on M T 2 using [Bou02]. Lastly, (M, ξ) naturally embeds in the contact manifold constructed by Bourgeois as a fiber of the fibration M T 2 T 2 given by the projection on the second factor. Outline In Section 2, we give the announced new approaches to contact branched coverings and contact fiber sums introduced in [Gei97], thus proving in particular Proposition A. In Section 3 we prove Theorem B on branched coverings and weak fillability. Section 4 describes the equivalent formulation, based on an idea by Giroux [Gir12], of open book decompositions supporting contact structures in terms of pairs of contact vector fields and it contains the proof of Theorem E. Section 5 recalls the construction by Bourgeois in [Bou02] and describes the study of invariant contact structures on principal T 2 bundles made in [Lut79]. Then, we rephrase and generalize in Section 6 the construction by Bourgeois using the notion of contact fiber bundle introduced in [Ler04]. In particular, we give the definition of Bourgeois contact structures and prove Proposition D. Section 7 contains the study of the weak fillability of Bourgeois contact structures, hence the proof of Proposition C, and the proof of Theorem F. Lastly, in Section 8 we analyze the Reeb dynamics of the contact forms in [Bou02] and we prove Theorem G and Corollary H. Acknowledgements We would like to thank P.Massot, who encouraged us to look at known constructions from different perspectives and greatly improved this text with many suggestions and discussions. 6

7 2 Contact branched coverings and fiber sums The goal of this section is to give definitions of contact branched coverings and contact fiber sums that allow to naturally obtain uniqueness statements. We will in particular prove Proposition A stated in the introduction. We point out that the proofs in this section are mainly a reformulation of those in [Gei97]. 2.1 The smooth case Branched covers Let Ŵ m, W m be smooth manifolds with (possibly empty) boundary. Definition 2.1. A map π : Ŵ W is a branched covering if each point p W admits a neighborhood U such that for each connected component Û of π 1 (U) we have the following commutative diagram D 2 Ω π k D 2 Ω ψ ψ Û U π Û where Ω is either R m 2 or R m 3 [0, + ) (depending on whether p W is respectively in the interior or on the boundary of W ), D 2 is the disk of radius 1 and center 0 in R 2, ψ and ψ are diffeomorphisms, with ψ(0, 0) = p, and π k is the map (z, q) (z k, q) for all z D 2 and all q Ω. Let p Ŵ and Û as in Definition 2.1, with p Û. Then, we call k the branching index at the point p. Remark that it is well defined, i.e. it does not depend on any choice beside p. Indeed, π Û induces a (non branched) covering map Û \ ψ ({0} Ω) U \ψ ({0} Ω) and k is its degree, which is independent of the choice of the trivializations. We denote X m 2, and call it upstairs branching set the codimension 2 submanifold of Ŵ made of the points ˆp Ŵ such that the branching index is > 1, i.e. such that the associated local form π k has a k > 1. We also denote X, and call it downstairs branching set, the codimension 2 submanifold of W given by the image of X via π. The following properties follow directly from the definition: (a) X and X are proper submanifolds of Ŵ and W respectively, i.e. X Ŵ, X W and X Ŵ, X W ; (b) π induces regular coverings π Ŵ \ X : Ŵ \ X W \ X and π X : X X; (c) if we denote V m 1 := W and V m 1 = Ŵ, then π := π is a branched Ŵ covering π : V V with branching set M := X V ; we then denote M the set of points in V where π has associated local index k > 1. 7

8 Fiber sums Let V, M be two oriented smooth manifolds of dimensions dim V = m + 1 and dim M = m 1, with M connected. We point out that we do not suppose V connected here. Let also j 1 : M V and j 2 : M V be two disjoint orientation-preserving embeddings such that there is a fiber-orientation-reversing isomorphism Φ over M between their normal bundles: N 1 := j 1 ( T V / (j 1 ) T M ) Φ N 2 := j 2 ( / ) T V (j 2 ) T M For notational convenience, denote by j : M V the disjoint union j 1 j 2. M Definition 2.2. A fiber sum of V along j 1, j 2 via Φ is the data (W, H, ϕ) of a smooth oriented manifold W m+1, a cooriented hypersurface H in W and an orientation-preserving diffeomorphism ϕ: V \ j(m) W \ H for which there exist (oriented) tubular neighborhoods ρ 1 : N 1 V of j 1 (M), ρ 2 : N 2 V of j 2 (M) and ρ: N V of H, where N := T W /T H is the normal bundle of H in W, verifying the following conditions: i. ρ 1 and ρ 2 have disjoint images; ii. for i = 1, 2 and p M = 0 M N i, the differential d p ρ i : T p N i T ji(p)v, which can be seen as a map d p ρ i : T p M (N i ) p T ji(p)v if we naturally split T p N i as T p 0 M (N i ) p, is such that the composition T ji(p)v ( / ) pr ji d pρ i (Ni ) Tji(p)V p (j i ) T p M = (N i ) p Tji(p)V is exactly Id : T ji(p)v T ji(p)v (here, pr is just the natural projection); iii. if N 1, N 2 and N denote respectively the bundles N 1, N 2 and N deprived of their zero sections, ϕ induces a diffeomorphism between the image of ρ 1 ρ 2 in V \ j(m) and the image of ρ in W \ H, and the composition f : N 1 N 2 ρ 1 ρ 2 ϕ V \ j(m) Im (ϕ (ρ1 ρ 2 )) ρ 1 N is a diffeomorphism which is R >0 equivariant for the natural actions by multiplication of R >0 on N 1, N 2 and N, and sends N 1 on the positive part of N (H is a cooriented hypersurface, hence N is divided by the zero section in two connected components, one positive and one negative thanks to the coorientation); iv. if σ : N N is the involution given by σ(v) = v for each v N, the composition g : N1 f N 1 σ f N N 1 N2 coincides with Φ N 1 8

9 Remark 2.3. It is a direct consequence of the above definition that if (W, H, ϕ) is a fiber sum of V along j 1, j 2 via Φ, then we have two diffeomorphisms f 1 and f 2 such that the following diagram is commutative: f 1 N 1 / R >0 H f 2 φ N 2 / R >0 where the quotients N1 / R >0 and N2 / R >0 are taken with respect to the natural action by multiplication by a positive real on N1 and N2 respectively and φ is the diffeomorphism induced by Φ. The following result shows that the above definition is non-empty: Proposition 2.4. Fiber sums of V along j 1, j 2 via Φ exist. Proof (Proposition 2.4). If we fix an auxiliary Riemannian metric on V, Φ induces an isomorphism Φ S : S N 1 S N 2 v Φ (v) Φ (v) (1) between the two sub bundles of N 1 and N 2 made of the vectors of norm 1. For i = 1, 2, consider an embedding ρ i : N i V which identifies the normal bundle N i with a regular tubular neighborhood of j i (M) inside V, in such a way that their images are disjoint. Now, there is a natural isomorphism Ni S N i (0, + ) of oriented bundles over M, for i = 1, 2. We hence obtain embeddings τ i : S N i (0, + ) V thanks to ρ i, for i = 1, 2. Consider then the set R := R \ {0} and the embedding Ψ S N 1 R V \ (j 1 (M) j 2 (M)) { τ1 (t v) for t > 0 (v, t) τ 2 ( t Φ S (v)) for t < 0 (2) Let W is the smooth manifold obtained as the quotient of the disjoint union (V \ j (M)) S N 1 R by the relation Ψ defined as follows: p Ψ (v, t) if p V \j (M), (v, t) S N 1 R and p = Ψ (v, t). Define also by H the hypersurface S N 1 {0} S N 1 R inside W and by ϕ the diffeomorhism V \ j(m) W \ H given by the natural identification W \ H = V \ j(m). Then, (W, H, ϕ) is a fiber sum of V along j(m) via Φ. The notion of fiber sum in Definition 2.2 also verifies the following uniqueness property: 9

10 Proposition 2.5. If (W, H, ϕ) and (W, H, ϕ) are two fiber sums of V along j 1, j 2 via Φ, then there is a diffeomorphism Θ: W W such that: i. Θ H : H H is a coorientation preserving diffeomorphism; ii. θ := ϕ 1 Θ ϕ: V \ j(m) V \ j(m) smoothly extends to θ : V V that is isotopic to the identity, via an isotopy fixing j(m) pointwise. Proposition 2.5 is an immediate consequence of the following: Lemma 2.6. If (W, H, ϕ) and (W, H, ϕ) are two fiber sums of V along j 1, j 2 via Φ, then there is Θ: W W, with Θ(H) = H, and an isotopy F t : V V starting at F 0 = Id V, fixing j(m) pointwise, and such that the following diagram is commutative: V \ j(m) ϕ W \ H F 1 V \ j(m) ϕ Θ W \ H Proof (Lemma 2.6). Denote by ρ 1, ρ 2, ρ, N and by ρ 1, ρ 2, ρ, N the embeddings and normal bundle given by Definition 2.2 for (W, H, ϕ) and (W, H, ϕ). According to the uniqueness theorem for tubular neighborhoods (see for instance [Lan99, Theorem 6.2]), there are vector bundle automorphisms ν 1, ν 2, of respectively N 1, N 2, and an isotopy F t : V V starting at F 0 = Id V, fixing j(m) pointwise and such that ρ 1 = F 1 ρ 1 ν 1 and ρ 2 = F 1 ρ 2 ν 2. In other words, the following diagram commutes: N 1 N 2 ρ 1 ρ 2 V ν 1 ν 2 F 1 N 1 N 2 ρ 1 ρ 2 Notice moreover that, by condition ii. in Definition 2.2, we can chose F 1 so that ν 1 and ν 2 are actually the identity isomorphisms of N 1 and N 2 respectively. Consider now the composition Θ : W \ H ϕ 1 V \ j(m) F1 V \ j(m) ϕ W \ H. At this point, it s enough to show that such a Θ extends on all W to a diffeomorphism Θ: W W as in the statement. Let X := Im (ϕ (ρ 1 ρ 2 )), X := Im (ϕ (ρ 1 ρ 2 )) and µ := ρ 1 Θ X ρ. We then have the following commutative diagram: N 1 N 2 V \ j (M) X N Id ρ 1 ρ 2 F 1 N 1 N 2 V \ j (M) X N V ϕ Θ X ρ 1 ρ 1 ρ 2 ϕ ρ 1 Now, by Definition 2.2, the upper and the lower rows give two R >0 equivariant diffeomorphisms. Hence, µ is R >0 equivariant too. Because N and N are vector spaces of real dimension 1 over H and H, this means that µ actually extends to a vector bundle isomorphism µ : N N. By the commutativity of the above diagram, this implies that Θ can be extended to a diffeomorphism Θ: W W, as wanted. µ 10

11 2.2 Branched coverings of contact manifolds Suppose π : V 2n+1 V 2n+1 is a branched covering map of manifolds without boundary, branched along the codimension 2 submanifold M 2n 1 V. We denote, like in the previous section, M 2n 1 the locus of points of V with branching index > 1. Be careful, though, that here V, V, M, M play, respectively, the roles of Ŵ, W, X, X of Section 2.1, and they all have no boundary. In this section we also suppose that we are dealing with (V, η) and (M, ξ) contact manifolds, where ξ is the sub bundle η T M of T V M. The pullback π η is a well defined hyperplane field on V, because if we fix a contact form α for η then π α, which defines π η, is nowhere vanishing. Though, it is not a contact form, because at each point p of M we have π (α dα n ) p = 0. We point out that, nonetheless, the restriction of π η to M is a honest contact structure on M. We then want to show that π η gives a natural way to construct contact structures on V. We start by considering a more general setting. Let Y 2n+1 be a smooth manifold, Z 2n 1 a codimension-2 submanifold and η an hyperplane field on Y. Definition 2.7. We say that η is adjusted to Z if it is a contact structure away from Z and η T Z is a contact structure on Z. If that s the case, we also call contactization of η a contact structure ξ such that there is a smooth path {η s } s [0,1] of hyperplane fields, all adjusted to Z, which starts at η 0 = η, ends at η 1 = ξ and such that η s is a contact structure for all s (0, 1]. We then have the following general result: Proposition 2.8. Let η be an hyperplane field on Y adjusted to Z. Contactizations of η exist and are all isotopic. We recall from [ET98, Section 1.1.6] that a confoliation on a manifold V is an hyperplane field ζ = ker α on V that admits a complex structure J : ζ ζ tamed by dα ζ, i.e. such that dα(x, JX) 0 for all vector fields X tangent to ζ. In our situation, if η is an hyperplane field on Y adjusted to a codimension 2 submanifold Z, then η is a confoliation. Indeed, we have the following: Fact 2.9. Let (η n ) n N be a sequence of contact structures on a manifold Y 2n+1 which C 1 converges to an hyperplane field η on Y. Then, η = ker α admits a complex structure J tamed by dα η. From now on, we will hence talk directly about confoliations adjusted to a certain codimension 2 submanifold. Proof (Fact 2.9). A first idea could be to take, for each n N, a complex structure J n on η n = ker α n tamed by dα n ηn (which exists because η n is a contact structure) and to define J as the limit of the sequence (J n ) n N. However, such a limit does not necessarily exist for any choice of J n. The solution is to assure the orthogonality of each of the J n with respect to an auxiliary riemannian metric g using the polar decomposition of matrices, as follows. Let ξ = ker β be a contact structure on Y and fix an auxiliary riemannian metric g on Y. Then, by the contact condition, dβ induces an isomorphism 11

12 dβ : ξ ξ, where ξ is the vector bundle dual of ξ over M. Now, g also induces an isomorphism g : ξ ξ. We can hence consider A: ξ ξ given by A := g dβ; in other words, dβ(x, Y ) = g(ax, Y ) for each couple of sections (X, Y ) of ξ. Consider then the (left) polar decomposition RJ of A, i.e. the unique couple of vector bundle-isomorphisms R, J : ξ ξ with R positive definite and J orthogonal with respect to g. More explicitly, R is the positive definite square root of the symmetric and positive definite AA, where A is the g dual of A, and J is the g orthogonal endomorphism of ξ given by R 1 A. The positive definiteness of R implies that J is dβ ξ tamed. Moreover, by definition, A is skew symmetric, i.e. A = A. This and the fact that J is g orthogonal imply that J 2 = Id, i.e. that J is a complex structure on ξ. This being said, let s go back to the setting of Fact 2.9. Once fixed a sequence of 1 forms (α n ) n N with α n defining η n and that C 1 converges to a 1 form α defining η, consider an auxiliary riemannian metric g on M. Then, according to what we just said, we can define a sequence (J n ) n N such that, for all n N, J n : η n η n is a complex structure on η n and is orthogonal with respect to g. Then, after obtaining from each J n an orthogonal B n : T M T M that sends the vector of norm 1 positively orthogonal to η n to itself, by compactness of the space of orthogonal linear maps T M T M, we get that there is a sequence of naturals (n k ) k N diverging to + such that B nk converges (in C 1 topology) C to a limit B : T M T M. Now, we recall that η 1 n η, that Jn 2 = Id ηn for t > 0 and that dα n (X, JX) > 0 for each X section of η n. Hence, B restricts to a well defined J : η η such that J 2 = Id η and dα(x, JX) 0 for all X section of η, as wanted. Proposition 2.8 is a consequence of the following lemma, which deals with the more general situation of any number of parameters: Lemma Given K a compact set and (η k ) k K a smooth K family of confoliations on V adjusted to M, there is a smooth family of confoliations (ηk s) s [0,1], k K such that (ηs k ) s [0,1] is contactization of η k, for each k K. Moreover, if η k is contact for all k in a closed subset H K, then ηk s can be chosen so that ηk s = η k for all k H and s [0, 1]. In the above statement, by a smooth K family of hyperplane fields we mean the following. Let X be a closed smooth manifold and K X a compact subset. Then, we say that (η k ) k K is a smooth K family if there is an open set U X containing K and a differential form α Ω 1 (V U) such, that for all k K, η k = ker (i k α), where i k : V V U is the inclusion i k (p) = (p, k). Proof (Proposition 2.8). The existence of contactizations follows directly from Lemma 2.10 with K a point. Given two contactizations ξ, ξ of η, we have by definition two associated paths of adjusted confoliations η t, η t, with t [0, 1], such that η 0 = η 0 = η, η 1 = ξ, η 1 = ξ and η t, η t contact for t (0, 1]. Then, the path { η 1 2t if t [0, t η t := 1 /2] η 2t 1 (3) if t [ 1 /2, 1] is a continuous path of adjusted confoliations from η 0 = ξ to η 1 = ξ. Moreover, up to perturbing it smoothly at t = 1 /2, we can suppose that η t is smooth in 12

13 t. Then, applying Lemma 2.10 to η t, with K = [0, 1] and H = {0, 1}, we get a family ( η t s ) s [0,1], t [0,1] of adjusted confoliations such that η 0 s = ξ, η 1 s = ξ for all s [0, 1] and such that η t s is contact for s > 0. The subfamily η t 1 is then a path of contact structures from ξ to ξ, and it can be turned into an isotopy by Gray s theorem. Proof (Lemma 2.10). This proof follows almost step by step the construction and the computations made in [Gei97, Section 2]. Because the contact condition is an open condition in the space of 1 forms (with the C 1 topology), there is an open subset U of K which contains H and such that ξ k is contact for all k U. We consider then a smooth cut-off function ρ : K [0, 1], equal to 0 on H and equal to 1 on the complement of U. Take now an auxiliary Riemannian metric on V and consider the circle bundle S (N M) given by the vectors of norm 1 in the normal bundle N M of M inside V. Let γ be a connection form on S (N M), i.e. a nowhere vanishing 1 form defining an hyperplane field which is transversal to the fibers of the fibration S (N M) M. Then, thanks to the natural retraction R 2 \ {0} S 1, γ can also be seen as a 1 form on N M \ M. Moreover, the form r 2 γ, where r is the radial coordinate in N M \ M, smoothly extends over the zero section M to all N M. We consider then a non-increasing cut-off smooth function g = g(r) which is 1 near r = 0 and vanishes for r > 1 and we identify N M with a neighborhood of M inside V. If α k is a smooth K-family of 1-forms defining ξ k, set α s k := α k + sɛρ(k)g(r)r 2 γ. Here ɛ is a positive real constant which will be chosen very small later. Suppose, without loss of generality, that ɛ 1. Remark that ξk s := αs k is a well defined hyperplane field. Moreover, it is adjusted to M, for all values of s, k. We now want to show that, for an ɛ small enough, ξk s is actually a contact structure on V for all s > 0, k K. We can compute α s k (dα s k) n = α k (dα k ) n + + nsɛ [rg (r) + 2g (r)] ρ (k) α k (dα k ) n 1 rdr γ + + sɛr 2 g (r) ρ (k) h vol where vol is the Riemannian volume form on V and h is a function of p V, k K, s [0, 1], ɛ R >0 and is polynomial in ɛ. Define now P k, Q k : V R by the identities α k (dα k ) n = P k vol and n [rg (r) + 2g (r)] α k (dα k ) n 1 rdr γ = Q k vol. Also, define R k (ɛ) := r 2 g (r) h(ɛ, k). Then, α s k (dα s k) n = {P k + sɛρ (k) [Q k + R k (ɛ)]} vol. Now, Q k > 0 and R k (ɛ) = 0 along M, for all k K and ɛ [0, 1] (remark we allow here ɛ = 0). Hence, by compactness of M and [0, 1], there is an open neighborhood O of M inside V such that Q k + R k (ɛ) > 0 on O for all ɛ [0, 1]. 13

14 P k is independent of ɛ, s and is non-negative everywhere on V for all k. Moreover, P k is strictly positive on the complement of O for all k K, and even on all V if k U K (remember ξ k is contact if k U). Then, P k + sɛρ (k) [Q k + R k (ɛ)] > 0 on O, for all k K and all ɛ (0, 1]. Lastly, for ɛ very small, P k dominates sɛρ(k) [Q k + R k (ɛ)] wherever it is strictly positive, because the latter is bounded above in norm (recall we are working with ɛ 1). Hence, by compactness of V \O, P k +sɛρ (k) [Q k + R k (ɛ)] is also positive on the complement of O for all k K, for ɛ > 0 small enough. Coming back to the specific case of branched coverings, the hyperplane field π η on V is adjusted to M (hence is in particular a confoliation). We can thus redefine branched coverings in contact topology as follows: Definition We say that a contact structure on V is a contact branched covering of η if it is a contactization of π η and it is invariant under all the diffeomorphisms of V lifting the identity of V. We point out that, by definition of contactization, if η is a contact branched covering of η, the upstairs branching locus M is naturally a contact submanifold in ( V, η). Then, Proposition 2.8 easily implies the following: Proposition Let V V be a smooth branched covering and η a contact structure on V. Then, contact branched coverings of η on V exist and are all isotopic (among contact branched coverings). We point out that, in order to deduce this result from Proposition 2.8, the contactization in the statement Proposition 2.8 has to be invariant under deck transformations of π, as requested in Definition 2.11, and the isotopy has to be among invariant contactizations. From the explicit formula in the proof of Lemma 2.10 above, it s clear that both these conditions can be easily arranged. We finally remark that Proposition A stated in the introduction is a simple consequence of Gray s theorem and the fact that contact branched coverings exist and are unique up to isotopy. Indeed, the [0, 1] families of hyperplane fields in points 1 and 2 in the statement of Proposition A are automatically adjusted to the upstairs branching locus for small parameters t Fiber sums of contact manifolds Let s start here with some general definitions and results. Let V 2n+1 be a smooth manifold and (M 2n 1, ξ) be a contact manifold. Consider now an oriented circle bundle π : S M and suppose that there is a smooth embedding S V. Definition A smooth hyperplane field η on V is adjusted to S if η is a contact structure away from S and η T S = π ξ as bundles over S. If that s the case, we call contactization of η a smooth path of hyperplane fields (η s ) s [0,1] such that η 0 = η and such that η s is a contact structure for all s (0, 1]. As in Section 2.2, we have the following: Proposition Let η be a hyperplane field adjusted to S. Contactizations of η exist and are all isotopic. 14

15 We point out that exactly as remarked in Fact 2.9 for the case of hyperplane fields adapted to a codimension 2 submanifold, η is automatically a confoliation on V. We will hence talk directly of confoliation adjusted to S in the following. In order to prove Proposition 2.14, analogously as in the proof of Proposition 2.8, we use the following: Lemma Given K a compact set and (η k ) k K a smooth family of confoliations on V adjusted to S, there is a smooth family of adjusted confoliations (ηk s) s [0,1], k K such that, for all k K, η0 k = η k and ηk s is contact for s (0, 1]. Moreover, if η k is contact for all k in a closed subset H K, then the ηk s can be chosen so that ηk s = η k for all k H and s [0, 1]. Proof (Lemma 2.15). Take an open subset U of K which contains H and such that ξ k is contact for all k U. Consider a smooth cut-off function ρ : K [0, 1], equal to 0 exactly on H and equal to 1 on the complement of U. Now take an auxiliary Riemannian metric on V and consider a connection form γ on the circle bundle π : S M. The hypothesis of S being an oriented circle bundle (together with the fact that M, V are oriented by ξ, η respectively) tells that S is orientable as smooth manifold, and that its normal bundle N S inside V is trivial. In other words, S has a neighborhood of the form S R inside V. Denote by r a coordinate on the R factor. Take now a non-increasing cut-off smooth function g = g(r) which is 1 near r = 0 and vanishes for r > 1. Consider then a smooth K-family of 1-forms α k defining ξ k and let α s k := α k + sɛρ(k)g(r)rγ. Here ɛ is a positive real constant which will be chosen very small later. We can in particular set once and for all ɛ < 1. We claim that αk s defines a contact structure ξs k on V for all s > 0. Indeed, α s k (dα s k) n = α k (dα k ) n + + nsɛ [rg (r) + 2g (r)] ρ (k) α k (dα k ) n 1 dr γ + + sɛrg (r) ρ (k) hvol where vol is the Riemannian volume form on V and h is a function of p V, k K, s [0, 1], ɛ R >0, and is polynomial in ɛ. At this point, the same arguments as in the proof of Lemma 2.10 show that, for ɛ small enough, the above (2n + 1) form is a volume form on all V. Let s now consider the case of fiber sums. Exactly as we did in the case of branched coverings, once showed that there is a natural (in the sense of Definition 2.2) notion of smooth fiber sum (W, H, ϕ), we want to define on it a natural confoliation adapted to H. Let (V 2n+1, η), (M 2n 1, ξ) be two contact manifolds and consider two contact embeddings j 1 : (M, ξ) (V, η) and j 2 : (M, ξ) (V, η) such that there is a fiber-orientation-reversing isomorphism Φ : N 1 N 2 of vector bundles over M between the normal bundle N 1 of j 1 (M) and the normal bundle N 2 of j 2 (M). Again, let j := j 1 j 2 for notational convenience. Definition We call confoliated fiber sum of (V, η) along the contact embeddings j 1, j 2 via Φ the data (W, H, ϕ, ζ) of a smooth fiber sum (W, H, ϕ) of 15

16 V along j 1, j 2 via Φ and a smooth hyperplane field ζ on W that coincides with ϕ η on W \ H and is adjusted to H. Here, according to Remark 2.3, H can naturally be seen as the total space of the circle bundle S N 1 M. Hence, ζ is adjusted to H is in the sense of Definition In particular, η is a confoliation on V, which explains the nomenclature confoliated fiber sum. Remark If such a confoliation ζ exists, it is uniquely determined by ϕ η, because H is a hypersurface in W, hence W \ H is dense in W. The following result guarantees that the above definition is non empty: Proposition Confoliated fiber sums of (V, η) along contact embeddings j 1, j 2 via Φ exist. Proof (Proposition 2.18). Let α be a contact form defining ξ on M. Denote also by γ 2 a connection form on the bundle S N 2 and γ 1 the connection Φ S γ 2 on S N 1, where Φ S is as in Equation (1). Lemma There are ɛ > 0 and embeddings ρ 1 : N 1 V and ρ 2 : N 2 V with disjoint images and such that ρ 1 (η) = ker ( π 1α + ɛ arctan ( r 2) γ 1 ) and ρ 2 (η) = ker ( π 2α + ɛ arctan ( r 2) γ 2 ), where πi : N i M is the projection of the vector bundle N i onto its base space M. Proof (Lemma 2.19). This follows directly from the standard neighborhood theorem for contact submanifolds [Gei08, Theorem ], together with the fact that a pair of codimension 2 embeddings of the same contact submanifold have isomorphic conformal symplectic normal bundles if and only if they have isomorphic smooth normal bundles. We now call τ i : S N i (0, + ) V the embedding induced by ρ i, for i = 1, 2, and we define and embedding Ψ as follows: Ψ S N 1 R V \ j (M) ( tan ) τ 1 (t3 ) v (v, t) ( tan ) τ 2 ( t3 ) Φ S (v) for t > 0 for t < 0 (4) We point out that Ψ is an embedding that preserves the orientation (recall N 1 is oriented, hence S N 1 too). Using Lemma 2.19 and the fact that Φ S γ 2 = γ 1, a direct computation gives that Ψ η = ker ( π 1α + ɛt 3 γ 1 ) on S N1 R. Now, the 1-form γ := π 1α +ɛt 3 γ 1 on the domain of Ψ naturally extends to a smooth differential form on S N 1 R, which we will still denote by γ. Moreover, this extension is clearly positively contact away from the submanifold S N 1 {0} and defines a smooth confoliation on all S N 1 R. Then, denote by W the smooth manifold obtained as the quotient of the disjoint union (V \ j (M)) (S N 1 R) by the relation Ψ defined as follows: p Ψ (v, t) if p V \ j (M), (v, t) S N 1 R and p = Ψ (v, t). Let also H be the hypersurface S N 1 {0} S N 1 R inside W, and ϕ the diffeomorhism V \j(m) W \H given by the identification W \H = V \j(m). 16

17 Finally, let ζ be the smooth hyperplane (and confoliation) induced by η and ker γ respectively on the subsets V \ j (M) and S N 1 R of W. Then, (W, H, ϕ, ζ) is a confoliated fiber sum of V along j(m) via Φ. We also have the following uniqueness property: Proposition If (W, H, ϕ, ζ) and (W, H, ϕ, ζ) are two confoliated fiber sums of V along the contact embeddings j 1, j 2 via Φ, then there is a diffeomorphism Θ: W W such that: i. Θ H : H H is a coorientation preserving diffeomorphism; ii. θ := ϕ 1 Θ ϕ: (V \ j(m), η) (V \ j(m), η) is a contactomorphism ant it smoothly extends to a contactomorphism θ : (V, η) (V, η) that is contact-isotopic to the identity, via an isotopy fixing j(m) pointwisely; iii. Θ ζ = ζ. We deduce Proposition 2.20 from the following: Lemma If (W, H, ϕ) and (W, H, ϕ) are two fiber sums of V along j 1 j 2 via Φ, then there is Θ: W W, with Θ(H) = H, and a contact isotopy F t : (V, η) (V, η) starting at F 0 = Id V, fixing j(m) pointwise, such that the following diagram is commutative: V \ j(m) W \ H, F 1 V \j(m) Θ W \H ϕ V \ j(m) ϕ W \ H Proof (Proposition 2.20). This follows directly from Lemma 2.21, once noticed that the commutativity of the square in the lemma tells that ( Θ W \H ) (ϕ η) = ϕ η and that, according to Remark 2.17, ζ and ζ are determined, respectively, by ϕ η and ϕ η. Proof (Lemma 2.21). As in the proof of Lemma 2.6, denote by ρ 1, ρ 2, ρ, N and by ρ 1, ρ 2, ρ, N the embeddings and normal bundle given by Definition 2.2 for respectively (W, H, ϕ) and (W, H, ϕ). Again according to the uniqueness theorem for tubular neighborhoods (see [Lan99, Theorem 6.2]), there is an isotopy G t : V V, with t [0, 1], starting at G 0 = Id V, fixing j(m) pointwise and such that ρ 1 = G 1 ρ 1 and ρ 2 = G 1 ρ 2. Define then ρ t i := G t ρ i for i = 1, 2 and t [0, 1], and denote R t := ρ t 1 ρ t 2. Then, as explained in the proof of [Gei08, Theorem ], we can find a family of embeddings H t : N 1 N 2 N 1 N 2, defined on N 1, N 2 neighborhoods of the zero section in N 1, N 2 respectively, such that H 0 is the inclusion i: N 1 N 2 N 1 N 2 and (R t H t ) η = (H t ) (Rt η) = i (ρ 1 ρ 2 ) η on N 1 N 2 N 1 N 2. More precisely, such a H t corresponds in the proof of [Gei08, Theorem ] to the ϕ t obtained from φ t := R t. In particular, R t H t : N 1 N 2 V pulls back η to (ρ 1 ρ 2 ) η and R t H t : ( N1 N 2, (ρ 1 ρ 2 ) η ) (V, η) is a path of contact embeddings starting at R 0 H 0 = (ρ 1 ρ 2 ) i and ending at R 1 H 1 = (ρ 1 ρ 2 ) H 1. 17

18 Then, using a cut-off of contact hamiltonians, we can then obtain a contact isotopy F t : (V, η) (V, η) such that, for smaller neighborhoods U 1, U 2 of the zero section of N 1, N 2 compactly contained in N 1, N 2, the following diagram is commutative: H 0=i R 0=ρ 1 ρ 2 U 1 U 2 N 1 N 2 V Id F 1 Now, consider the composition H 1 R 1=ρ 1 ρ 2 U 1 U 2 N 1 N 2 V Θ : W \ H ϕ 1 V \ j(m) F1 V \ j(m) ϕ W \ H. It s enough to show that such a Θ extends on all W to a diffeomorphism Θ: W W as in the statement. We have the following commutative diagram: U 1 U 2 N 1 N 2 V \ j (M) X ρ 1 (X) Id H 0=i ρ 1 ρ 2 ϕ F 1 V \j(m) Θ X U1 U2 H N1 N2 V \ j (M) X ρ ( 1 X ) 1 ρ 1 ρ 2 ϕ ρ 1 where X := Im (ϕ (ρ 1 ρ 2 ) i), X := Im (ϕ (ρ 1 ρ 2 ) H 1 ) and µ := ρ 1 Θ X ρ is defined only on the subset ρ 1 (X) of N and has values in ρ 1 ( X ) N. Now, by Definition 2.2, the compositions ρ 1 ϕ (ρ 1 ρ 2 ) and ρ 1 ϕ (ρ 1 ρ 2 ) are R >0 equivariant maps. Moreover, we can see from the explicit proof of [Gei08, Theorem ], that for i {1, 2} and all p M U i, d p H 1 : T p (N i ) T p (N i ) is of the form Id TpM L p : T p M N p T p M N p, where L : N N is an isomorphism of vector bundles over M. Here, we used the natural splitting T p (N i ) = T p M N p for p M N i. By commutativity of the above diagrams, this implies that µ smoothly extends over H, in such a way that µ(h) = H. Hence, Θ extends to a diffeomorphism Θ: W W such that Θ (H) = H, which concludes the proof of Lemma Once showed that we have a natural (and unique, in the sense of Proposition 2.20) confoliation ζ adjusted to the hypersurface H on smooth fiber sum (W, H, ϕ), we can now define the contact fiber sum in terms of deformations of this confoliation: Definition A contact fiber sum on the confoliated fiber sum (W, H, ϕ, ζ) is a contactization of ζ. Analogously to Section 2.2, the existence and uniqueness up to isotopy of the contact fiber sum is a direct consequence of Proposition ρ 1 µ 18

19 3 Weak fillings of contact branched coverings We start by recalling the notion of weak filling of a contact (2n+1) dimensional manifolds introduced in [MNW13]. We then show B stated in the introduction, i.e. that, under some natural assumptions, the contact branched covering of a weakly fillable contact manifold is also weakly fillable. 3.1 Weak fillings in high dimensions Let (V 2n+1, η) be a contact manifold and (W 2n+2, ω) a symplectic manifold such that V = W. Denote by ω η the restriction of ω to η and by CS η the standard conformal symplectic structure on η, i.e. the conformal class of dα η, for an arbitrary 1 form α defining η. We point out that CS η is well defined because independent of such a choice of α. Definition 3.1 ([MNW13, Definition 4]). We say that (W, ω) weakly fills (V, η), or that ω weakly dominates ξ, if ω η is symplectic on η and ω η + CS η is a ray of symplectic structures on η. More explicitly, ω weakly dominates η if, for all choices of 1 form α defining η, α ω n η and α (ω η + dα) n are positive volume forms on V. Another way to formulate this condition is the following: if we fix a 1 form α defining η, α (ω η + τdα) n > 0 for all τ 0. In the following sections we will use this formulation for our computations. 3.2 Effects of branched coverings on weak fillings In this section we work with a branched covering π : Ŵ 2n+2 W 2n+2 of 2n+1 even dimensional manifolds with non-empty boundaries V = Ŵ and V 2n+1 = W. We also use the same notations as in Section 2.1. In particular, we denote by X 2n the upstairs branching set, by X the downstairs branch set, by M, M the boundaries of X, X respectively and by π the restriction π V : V V. Here s a more detailed version of Theorem B from Section 1: Theorem 3.2. Let s suppose we are in the following situation: (a) η is a contact structure on V and ξ := η T M is contact on M; (b) η on V is a contact branched covering of (V, η); (c) ω on W weakly dominates η on V ; (d) X is a symplectic submanifold of (W, ω) and it weakly fills (M, ξ). Then, Ŵ admits a symplectic form ω that weakly dominates η on V. Notice that, because π : M M M is a (unbranched) covering map, ξ := ( ) π M ξ = η T M is a contact structure on M. 19