, i.e. subsets that are the union of some minimizing orbits. More precisely, we would like to know if we can say something about the regularity of such subsets (we will be more precise very soon. It’s a kind of differentiability) and particularly if there is a link between the dynamic of the flow restricted to such a set and the regularity of the set.

The oldest result in this direction concerns the time-dependent case : considering a symplectic twist map of the annulus $T^*{\mathbb {S}}$, G. Birkhoff proved in the 1920’s that any essential invariant curve is the graph of a Lipschitz map (see [@Bir1] or [@He1]). It is easy to prove that such a curve is action minimizing. In the case of higher dimensions, M. Herman proved in [@He2] that any $C^0$-Lagrangian graph of $T^*{\mathbb {T}}^n$ that is invariant by a symplectic twist map is, in fact, the graph of a Lipschitz map. A related result in the autonomous case is that any $C^1$-Hamilton-Jacobi solution of a Tonelli Hamiltonian is, in fact, $C^{1,1}$ (see [@Fa2]). As Rademacher’s theorem says to us that any Lipschitz function is differentiable Lebesgue almost everywhere, these results are a kind of regularity result.

In [@Arna2], we did, in fact, improve these results of regularity in the autonomous case, proving that if a $C^0$-Lagrangian graph is invariant by a Tonelli flow, and if one of the two following hypotheses is satisfied:

1.  $\dim M=2$ and all the singularities of $H$ are non degenerate;

2.  the dynamic of the restriction of the flow to the invariant graph is Lipschitz conjugate to a translations’ flow;

then the invariant graph is, in fact, $C^1$ almost everywhere (this is stronger than just differentiable). Let us point out that any of the two previous hypotheses implies that the dynamic of the restricted flow to the graph is soft on a certain sense (our arguments are not very precise, but we only want to give a certain intuition of the forthcoming result); indeed, when $\dim M=2$, if we reduce the dynamic modulo the vector field, we obtain a 1-dimension dynamic, and it is known at least in the differentiable case that the Lyap
, i.e. subsets that are the union of some minimizing orbits. More precisely, we would wish to acknowledge if we can say something about the regularity of such subsets (we will be more accurate very soon. It ’s a kind of differentiability) and particularly if there be a link between the dynamic of the stream restricted to such a set and the regularity of the stage set. 

 The oldest result in this commission concerns the time - subject shell  : considering a symplectic twist map of the annulus $ T^*{\mathbb { S}}$, G.   Birkhoff proved in the 1920 ’s that any essential changeless curve is the graph of a Lipschitz map (see [ @Bir1 ] or [ @He1 ]). It is comfortable to prove that such a curve is action minimizing. In the case of higher dimension, M.   Herman proved in [ @He2 ] that any $ C^0$-Lagrangian graph of $ T^*{\mathbb { T}}^n$ that is invariant by a symplectic twist map is, in fact, the graph of a Lipschitz map. A related resultant role in the autonomous case is that any $ C^1$-Hamilton - Jacobi solution of a Tonelli Hamiltonian is, in fact, $ C^{1,1}$ (see [ @Fa2 ]). As Rademacher ’s theorem says to us that any Lipschitz function is differentiable Lebesgue almost everywhere, these results are a kind of regularity result. 

 In [ @Arna2 ], we did, in fact, improve these results of regularity in the autonomous case, proving that if a $ C^0$-Lagrangian graph is invariant by a Tonelli flow, and if one of the two following hypotheses is satisfied: 

 1.   $ \dim M=2 $ and all the singularities of $ H$ are non debauched; 

 2.   the moral force of the restriction of the flow to the invariant graph is Lipschitz conjugate solution to a transformation ’ flow; 

 then the invariant graph is, in fact, $ C^1 $ almost everywhere (this is stronger than just differentiable). Let us point out that any of the two former hypotheses implies that the dynamic of the restricted flow to the graph is soft on a certain sense (our arguments are not very precise, but we only want to feed a sealed intuition of the extroverted result); indeed, when $ \dim M=2 $, if we reduce the dynamic modulo the vector field, we receive a 1 - dimension dynamic, and it is known at least in the differentiable subject that the Lyap
, i.e. subsets that are the unlon of some minimizing mrbits. More prdcisely, we would like to knox if we cqn say something about the reguparity od surh subsets (we will be movz predlse vzrb soon. It’s a kikd of diffesentiability) atd pcrticularly if there is a link betweqn the cyjamic of the fjow geftridneb to such a set and the regularjty of uhe set.

The oldest tesult in this direction clncegns the time-dependfnt case : cobsidqeing a sympldctic twisu kap of the annulus $T^*{\mathbb {S}}$, G. Birkhoff pruved nn the 1920’s thqt anj essential mnvariwnt curve is the gra[h of a Lipschitz map (sex [@Bie1] or [@He1]). It is easy to prove that such a curve is aetion minimizing. In tye case of vighde dkmehsmona, M. Herlan proved in [@He2] that ant $C^0$-Lagrangian graph os $T^*{\mathbb {T}}^n$ tgat is igvariant by a symplectic twist map is, it fzct, the graph of a Lipsxhitz map. A related rgsult in tre autonomous case is that any $C^1$-Hamilton-Jacobi sonutioi uf c Toneuoi Hamiltonian is, in fact, $C^{1,1}$ (see [@Fa2]). As Rademachew’a uheprem says to uf that any Kiosvritz function is diyredentiable Lebesgue almost evertwhere, thtse rrsults are a kind of regulaeity result.

Iu [@Aena2], we did, in fact, improve thzse rexults of regularity in the abtonomkus case, prlving thaf if a $C^0$-Lagrangiav ggaph is invariant by a Tonelli flow, and if pne of ghe jwo foljowing hyplthescv is satisfied:

1.  $\dil M=2$ aud aln the singklarities of $H$ are non degeneravx;

2.  the dynamiv mf nhe restrnction of the flow eo the invariaut graph is Lkpschitz cknjugatx to a transjations’ flow;

tvgn the invarient graph is, un fqct, $C^1$ auoost everywherr (this is stronger rhan just differenbiablg). Met us point ouc uhqt any of the ywo prqvpoux rfpotheses im[lier tfst thd dynamic on tfe rrstricted flow to tha grzph is soft on a crrbain sensg (our argtments are noy very precise, but we oily wait to bivg a certain intuition of the fodthcoming refult); indeed, rhen $\dim M=2$, if we reduce the dynamic modulo the vector fmeld, we obtain a 1-dimensuon dynamic, and it ns known at lxast ig the difxerentiable case thar the Lyap
, i.e. subsets that are the union minimizing More precisely, would like to something the regularity of subsets (we will more precise very soon. It’s a of differentiability) and particularly if there is a link between the dynamic of flow restricted to such a set and the regularity of the set. The result this concerns time-dependent case : considering a symplectic twist map of the annulus $T^*{\mathbb {S}}$, G. Birkhoff proved the 1920’s that any essential invariant curve is graph of a Lipschitz (see [@Bir1] or [@He1]). It easy prove that a is minimizing. In the of higher dimensions, M. Herman proved in [@He2] that any $C^0$-Lagrangian graph of $T^*{\mathbb {T}}^n$ that is by a map is, fact, graph a Lipschitz map. result in the autonomous case is solution of a Tonelli Hamiltonian is, in fact, (see [@Fa2]). Rademacher’s theorem says to us that Lipschitz function is differentiable Lebesgue almost everywhere, these are a kind of regularity result. In [@Arna2], we did, in fact, improve these results in the autonomous case, that if a graph invariant a flow, and one of the two following hypotheses is satisfied: 1. $\dim M=2$ all the singularities of $H$ are non degenerate; 2. the the of the flow the invariant graph is conjugate a translations’ flow; then graph in everywhere is than just differentiable). Let point out that any of two previous hypotheses implies restricted flow to the graph is soft on certain sense (our arguments are not very but we only want to give a certain intuition of the forthcoming indeed, when if we reduce the dynamic modulo the vector we obtain a 1-dimension and it is known at least in the differentiable that Lyap
, i.e. subsets that are the union oF some minimIzing OrbIts. moRe prEcisEly, we would like TO knoW if we can say something abOut thE rEGulaRItY of suCh subseTS (wE WIll Be MoRe pReCIsE very SooN. It’s a kiNd of differEntIaBility) and parTIcUlarly if thEre Is a link betweEn tHe dynaMiC of THe floW reStricTed to sUCh a set And the regUlARity of THe set.

ThE OLdEst rEsult in this directIOn COncerns the time-DependEnT CaSE : ConSidEring a sympLeCtic tWIst map oF ThE ANNulUS $T^*{\mathbb {S}}$, G. BirKhoff proved IN thE 1920’s that AnY esSEntial InvarIaNT cuRve is the graPh of A LipschitZ map (seE [@bir1] or [@He1]). iT is easy To provE thAt sUch a CUrVe Is aCtIOn mINiMizINg. IN the case Of HiGher dImenSIONS, M. HeRmaN proVed in [@he2] that any $C^0$-LagRanGian GRapH of $T^*{\mAthbb {t}}^n$ thAt Is invAriant By a syMpLectic twist map iS, in fAct, the graPh oF a lipScHitz mAP. A relaTed ResUlt in thE autonoMOus CaSE IS tHat any $C^1$-Hamilton-JacObI SOlUtion of a tonellI haMiLTonian is, In FacT, $C^{1,1}$ (seE [@fA2]). As RaDemaCHeR’s theoreM says tO Us ThAt any LiPsChitz fUnCtiOn iS diffERentIable LEbesgue aLmost EVerywhere, these REsults are a kinD Of REGuLAritY reSult.

In [@Arna2], wE did, IN facT, impROvE thESe resUlts oF rEGuLArity in the autonomouS cAse, proVing tHat if a $C^0$-LagranGian graph iS INVariant bY a ToNElLI flow, and if one oF the tWo followinG HypothesEs is sAtisfied:

1.  $\Dim M=2$ and alL THe singulAriTieS of $h$ arE NOn Degenerate;

2.  the DYNamiC oF the resTriCtion of The FloW to The InVariant grAph is LipScHiTz CoNjuGate tO A translaTiOns’ FlOw;

tHen thE InvariAnt grAph iS, iN fACt, $C^1$ Almost eVErYWHere (ThIs Is stRonGeR than Just DIffErentiaBle). Let us pOinT Out tHaT aNy of the Two previous hyPoTheses implIeS thAt the dYNAmic of thE restricted flow to the graPH is soft On a CertaIn seNse (our argUmeNts are Not VEry preCise, buT we onLy WanT TO give A CErTaiN iNtuition of THE foRthcoMiNg reSult); indEed, when $\dim M=2$, if we redUCe tHe dynamic moduLo tHe veCTOr FieLD, wE ObtAiN A 1-diMENsion dynamic, and It is known aT lEAsT in the diffERenTiAble casE that thE Lyap
, i.e. subsets that are th e union of  some  mi nim iz ingorbi ts. More preci s ely,  we would like to know  if w ec an s a ysomet hing ab o ut t here gu lar it y  o f suc h s ubsets(we will b e m or e precise ve r ysoon. It’s  akind of diff ere ntiabi li ty) and p art icula rly if thereis a link  b e tweent he dyna m i cof t he flow restricte d  t o  such a set an d there g ul a r ity  of  the set.
T he ol d est res u lt i n  th i s direction c oncerns the tim e-depe nd ent case :  cons id e rin g a symplec tictwist map  of th e  annulu s  $T^*{\ mathbb  {S }}$ , G. Bi rk hof fp rov e dint he1920’s t ha tany e ssen t i a l  inv ari antcurve  is the graph  of  a L i psc hitzmap ( see[@ Bir1]  or [@ He1]) .It is easy to p rove  that suc h a  c urv eis ac t ion mi nim izi ng. Inthe cas e  of  h i g h er  dimensions, M. He rm a n  p roved in  [@He2 ]  t ha t  any $C^ 0$ -La gran g i an gr apho f$T^*{\ma thbb { T }} ^n $ thatis  invar ia ntbya sym p lect ic twi st map i s, in fact, the grap h  of a Lipschi t zm a p. A re lat ed result i n th e  aut onom o us  ca s e isthatan y  $ C ^1$-Hamilton-Jacobi  s olutio n ofa Tonelli Ham iltonian i s , in fact,  $C^ { 1, 1 }$ (see [@Fa2] ). As  Rademache r ’s theor em sa ys to us  that any L ipschitz  fu nct ion  is d if ferentiable L e b esgu ealmosteve rywhere , t hes e r esu lt s are a k ind of r eg ul ar it y r esult . 

In [@A rn a2] ,wedid,i n fact , imp rove  t he s e r esultso fr e gula ri ty  inthe  a utono mous cas e, prov ing thatifa  $C^ 0$ -L agrangi an graph is i nv ariant byaTon elli f l o w, and i f one of the two follow i ng hypo the ses i s sa tisfied:
1.   $\di m M = 2$ and  all t he si ng ula r i tieso f  $ H$ar e non dege n e rat e;

2 . the  dynami c of the restricti o n o f the flow to  th e in v a ri ant gr a phis Lip s c hitz conjugateto a trans la t io ns’ flow;the nthe inv ariantgraph is, infact, $C^ 1$ almost  e very w h ere  (this isstronger  than jus t  diff e re ntiab le) . Letus  po int o ut tha t  an y ofthe tw oprevio us hy po theses i mplies that the dynamic  of th e res tri cted flow  to the  graph is  sof t on a cer tai n s ense(ou r  argu ment s  a ren ot ve ry p r ecise, bu t  w e o n l ywant to giv e a  ce rtain  in t uition  ofthe forthcoming r e sult); indeed,  whe n $\d imM =2$,  i f we reduce th e d yn a m ic modul othe vectorfield, w eo btain  a 1-d imensi on dyna m i c, and it  iskno wn at lea stin the dif fe re n tiable  cas ethat t he Lya p 
, i.e._subsets that_are the union of_some minimizing_orbits._More precisely,_we_would like to_know if we_can say something about_the regularity of_such_subsets (we will be more precise very soon. It’s a kind of differentiability) and_particularly_if there_is_a_link between the dynamic of_the flow restricted to such_a set_and the regularity of the set.

The oldest result_in_this direction concerns_the time-dependent case : considering a symplectic twist map of_the annulus $T^*{\mathbb {S}}$, G. Birkhoff proved_in the 1920’s_that_any_essential invariant curve is_the graph of a Lipschitz map_(see [@Bir1] or [@He1]). It is_easy to prove that such a curve_is action minimizing. In the case_of higher dimensions, M. Herman proved_in [@He2]_that any $C^0$-Lagrangian graph of_$T^*{\mathbb {T}}^n$ that_is invariant_by a symplectic_twist map is, in fact, the_graph of a_Lipschitz map. A related result in_the_autonomous case is_that_any_$C^1$-Hamilton-Jacobi solution_of a Tonelli_Hamiltonian_is, in_fact,_$C^{1,1}$ (see [@Fa2]). As Rademacher’s theorem_says_to us that any Lipschitz function is_differentiable Lebesgue almost everywhere,_these_results are a kind_of regularity result.

In [@Arna2], we_did, in fact, improve these results_of regularity_in the_autonomous case, proving that if a $C^0$-Lagrangian graph is invariant by_a Tonelli flow, and if one_of the two following_hypotheses is_satisfied:

1._ $\dim M=2$_and_all the_singularities of $H$ are non degenerate;

2. _the dynamic_of the restriction of the flow_to the invariant graph_is_Lipschitz conjugate to a translations’ flow;

then_the invariant graph is, in fact,_$C^1$ almost everywhere (this is_stronger_than_just differentiable). Let us point_out that any of the two_previous hypotheses implies_that the dynamic of the restricted flow_to_the graph is soft on a_certain_sense (our arguments are not very_precise,_but_we only want to give_a certain intuition of the forthcoming_result); indeed, when $\dim M=2$, if we reduce the_dynamic modulo the_vector field, we obtain a_1-dimension_dynamic,_and it is known at least in the differentiable case_that the_Lyap