Constructing reducibly geometrically finite subgroups of the mapping class group

Brandis Whitfield; Hannah Hoganson; Harrison Bray; Sara Maloni; Spencer Dowdall; Tarik Aougab

REVIEW 1 major objections 3 minor 39 references

Constructing reducibly geometrically finite subgroups of the mapping class group

T0 review · 1 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read High powers of mapping classes generate reducibly geometrically finite subgroups when their supports are separated in the curve graph.

desk verdict Solid, useful paper with real generalizations; the flagged duplicate-support gap in Theorem A dissolves when you read the statement as requiring distinct supports. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.13234 v2 pith:VVAPLKFV submitted 2025-01-22 math.GT math.GR

Tarik Aougab , Harrison Bray , Spencer Dowdall , Hannah Hoganson , Sara Maloni , Brandis Whitfield This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.GTmath.GR MSC 20F6557K2020F67

keywords mappingclassgroupreduciblygeometricallyfiniteright-angledArtinsubgroupcurvegraphfreeproductrelativehyperbolicitycanonicalreducingsystemsubsurfaceprojection

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper establishes combination theorems that produce reducibly geometrically finite (RGF) subgroups of the mapping class group: subgroups that are hyperbolic relative to a family of reducible subgroups while their coned-off Cayley graph quasi-isometrically embeds into the curve graph. In one theorem, mapping classes fully supported on an admissible family of subsurfaces, with supports split into separated subgraphs of the realization graph, generate, after passing to sufficiently high powers, a subgroup isomorphic to a free product of right-angled Artin subgroups that is RGF relative to those factors. In another, any sufficiently separated and misaligned family of torsion-free reducible subgroups generates their free product and is RGF with no powering. A third theorem shows that merely 5-separated reducible subgroups can be made RGF by passing to finite-index subgroups. Together these supply many new examples and clarify exactly which separation hypotheses are needed.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the Bass–Serre tree T of the abstract free product H_1 ∗ ... ∗ H_m, together with the equivariant coarse map ϕ: T → C(S) that sends a coset vertex gH_i to the translated canonical reducing system g·∂H_i. The map is a quasi-isometric embedding exactly when the factors are sufficiently separated in the curve graph; the proofs verify this by applying the Behrstock inequality and the bounded geodesic image theorem to sequences of translated support subsurfaces, and use the local-to-global principle for hyperbolic spaces to convert pointwise Gromov-product bounds into linear lower bounds on distance. For Theorem A, the normal form of a word in the right-angled Artin group is matched with a sequence of translated supports whose consecutive distances are at least 3, forcing the total distance in the curve graph to grow linearly.

What would settle it

To test the sharpness of Theorem A, build an admissible family with two supports lying in different subgraphs but with curve-graph distance exactly 2, and choose fully supported partial pseudo-Anosovs f_1, f_2. If for all large p, q the product f_1^p f_2^q is reducible, with bounded orbit in the curve graph, then the conclusion fails, since RGF requires every element outside the peripheral factors to be pseudo-Anosov. The paper's Section 9 examples exhibit exactly such behavior when separation drops to 2.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is that relative geometric finiteness in the mapping class group Mod(S) is governed by how far apart supports, or canonical reducing systems, are in the curve graph. Theorem A states that if mapping classes f_i are fully supported on an admissible family of subsurfaces whose realization graph Γ splits as a disjoint union Γ_1 ⊔ ... ⊔ Γ_m with m ≥ 2, each cluster generating a reducible subgroup, and supports in distinct subgraphs are at least 3-separated in the curve graph, then for all sufficiently large exponents p_i the subgroup generated by $f_i^{{p_i}}$ is isomorphic to the free product Ψ(A(Γ_1)) ∗ ... ∗ Ψ(A(Γ_m)) and is RGF relative to these factors. Theorem B gives constants D, A such that any D-separated and A-misaligned family of torsion-free reducible subgroups generates their free product and is RGF relative to the family. Theorem C shows that any 5-separated family of infinite reducible subgroups admits finite-index subgroups whose further infinite subgroups generate an RGF free product. The examples in the final section confirm that the separation, misalignment, and torsion-free hypotheses are necessary.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is the admissibility condition that distinct supporting subsurfaces are pairwise non-nested; without it, the proof that non-overlapping supports are either disjoint or equal (Claim 7.2) fails, and with it the normal-form spelling and the quasi-isometric embedding bound collapse.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The right-angled Artin subgroups constructed by Koberda and by Clay–Leininger–Mangahas are RGF whenever the defining graph splits into at least two components whose supports are 3-separated, and the embedding can be made injective and undistorted (Corollary 1.1).
Free products of arbitrary torsion-free reducible subgroups are RGF once the family is sufficiently far apart and misaligned, generalizing Loa's theorem for multitwist groups to families of any size.
Even without large separation, 5-separated reducible subgroups can be made RGF after passing to finite-index subgroups, so raising elements to high powers is closely analogous to passing to finite-index subgroups.
Every element of the constructed subgroup that is not conjugate into a peripheral factor is pseudo-Anosov.
The separation constants are sharp: the distance-3 condition in Theorem A cannot be weakened to distance 2, and the misalignment and torsion-free assumptions in Theorem B are necessary.

Reading between the lines

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

Theorem A's combination of RGF, freeness, and undistortion suggests these right-angled Artin subgroups could serve as building blocks for further combination theorems, for instance in constructing relatively hyperbolic surface group extensions of Mod(S).
Theorem C indicates that the only real obstruction to relative hyperbolicity in a finite family of reducible subgroups is local proximity of their reducing systems; once separated by distance 5, finite-index passage removes all other obstructions, so a similar phenomenon may hold for other hierarchically hyperbolic groups.
A testable extension is to relax the pairwise non-nested admissibility condition to allow nesting with a uniform depth bound; the normal-form and separation argument might survive if nested supports are controlled by an explicit constant.
The 3-separation threshold in Theorem A is exactly what forces products of generators from different clusters to be pseudo-Anosov, so analogous thresholds are likely to appear in other relative hyperbolicity results for mapping class groups.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Quick take: this paper is worth a serious referee. It delivers new RGF examples via three combination theorems that genuinely extend the literature. Theorem B generalizes Loa's free-product result from two multitwist groups to arbitrary torsion-free reducible subgroups and to any finite number of factors; Theorem C shows that 5-separation is enough after passing to finite-index subgroups; Theorem A gives the first RGF analysis of the Koberda/CLM RAAG construction. The canonical reducing system for subgroups (Section 3) is a useful tool in its own right.

The proofs are careful and use established machinery (curve graph hyperbolicity, Behrstock inequality, BGIT, distance formula) as black boxes. The examples in Section 9 are not filler: they show that the separating, misaligned, and torsion-free hypotheses in Theorem B are necessary. The paper is also honest about its limitations: boundary surfaces are excluded because of the center, and the constants D and A in Theorem B are ineffective.

I checked the stress-test worry about Claim 7.2 — distinct generators sharing the same support subsurface. It does not hold up. The theorem's map Ψ sends each vertex x_i of Γ to f_i^{p_i}; if two different indices had the same support, they would be the same vertex, and the map would be ill-defined unless the f_i were equal. So the intended assumption is that the S_i are pairwise distinct, and under that reading the proof's inference 'if S_{ν(j)} = S_{ν(t)} then they are the same generator' is valid. The admissibility wording could be clearer, but the gap is not real.

Minor quibbles: the paper uses 'irredundant' without defining it (relying on Koberda), and the proof of Lemma 3.6 could be more explicit, but these are not problems.

Who this is for: geometric group theorists working on mapping class groups, relative hyperbolicity, and RAAG subgroups. It would be a good reading group paper. I'd cite it in my own work. Send it to a serious referee.

Referee Report

1 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper develops a theory of reducibly geometrically finite (RGF) subgroups of mapping class groups and contributes several construction theorems. Theorem A asserts that, under an admissibility condition on a family of fully supported mapping classes whose realization graph splits into at least two subgraphs, with each subgraph generating a reducible subgroup and with 3-separation between supports in distinct subgraphs, sufficiently high powers generate a free product of right-angled Artin subgroups and are RGF relative to those factors. Theorem C states that pairwise 5-separated infinite reducible subgroups admit finite-index subgroups with the property that every further infinite subgroup generates an RGF free product. Theorem B gives a combination theorem for D-separated and A-misaligned torsion-free reducible subgroups. The paper also contains examples showing that several hypotheses in the theorems are necessary.

Significance. If the main construction is sound, the paper substantially enlarges the supply of RGF subgroups of mapping class groups and ties together RAAG subgroups, combination theorems, and the newer geometric finiteness notions in a useful way. The proofs are detailed and largely use established machinery as black boxes, including curve-graph hyperbolicity, the Bounded Geodesic Image Theorem, the Behrstock inequality, the distance formula, and Bass-Serre trees; the paper does not circularly rely on its own conclusions. The examples in Section 9 that probe necessity of the hypotheses are a valuable feature. The main caveat is a missing case in the proof of Theorem A, discussed below, which requires either a strengthened hypothesis or an additional argument.

major comments (1)

[Section 7, Claim 7.2 and Claim 7.3] The proof of Theorem A does not cover the case of duplicate support surfaces, a case that the admissibility hypothesis explicitly permits. The admissibility condition only restricts nesting when S_i ≠ S_j, so two distinct indices i and t may have S_i = S_t = Y. If f_i and f_t are independent pseudo-Anosovs on the same Y, the inference in Claim 7.2 that equality of S_{\nu(j)} and S_{\nu(t)} forces g_j and g_t to be powers of the same generator f_{\nu(j)} = f_{\nu(t)} is false unless \nu(j) = \nu(t). In the duplicate case, g_j and g_t need not commute, \beta_t need not preserve Y_j, and the equality d_{Y_j}(Y_{\iota(j)},Y_{\tau(j)}) = d_{S_{\nu(j)}}(S_{\nu(\iota(j))}, g_j S_{\nu(\tau(j))}) in Claim 7.3 is not justified. Since Theorem A's statement does not rule out S_i = S_j for distinct indices, the proof as written has a genuine missing case. Please either add the hypothesis that the supports S_i are pairwise distinct, or supply an argument that handles equal supports, for instance by treating \Psi(A(\Gamma_k)) as a reducible peripheral subgroup rather than spelling its internal RAAG structure in the curve-graph estimate.

minor comments (3)

[Section 1, after Question 1.3] The sentence 'In answering Proposition 1.3 we will formulate our conditions...' should refer to Question 1.3, not Proposition 1.3.
[Remark 2.3] The text says 'In Proposition 2.2 it is not hard to see...' but the relevant item is Definition 2.2, the Bowditch definition of relative hyperbolicity.
[Example 9.4] The assertion that G satisfies the bounded coset penetration property is stated without proof or reference; since this example is used to justify the torsion-free assumption in Theorem B, please provide an argument or a precise citation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper derives new RGF subgroups via a self-contained Bass–Serre argument against standard external theorems.

full rationale

The derivation chain for Theorems A, B, and C is self-contained: the authors prove the needed relative hyperbolicity and quasi-isometric embedding lemmas (Lemmas 5.1, 6.4, 8.4–8.5) directly from curve-graph hyperbolicity (Masur–Minsky), the Bounded Geodesic Image Theorem, Behrstock's inequality, and the distance formula, all of which are external black boxes not established by this paper's conclusions. The notion of RGF is taken as a definition (following DDLS24 and Uda25), not derived from the new results. The paper's own earlier work appears only as context. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem from the authors is invoked to force a choice. A separate correctness concern exists: Claim 7.2 assumes that equal supports imply equal underlying mapping-class indices, which may fail if the list S_1,...,S_n contains duplicates; however, this is a proof gap, not a circular reduction, and it does not affect the circularity score.

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

All unproved inputs are deep, established theorems about curve graphs and mapping class groups; the paper does not fit any constants or introduce new postulates beyond the definitions of canonical reducing systems and displacing families. The constants M, B, c, δ are external and fixed once the surface S is fixed.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption The curve graph C(S) is Gromov hyperbolic (Masur-Minsky, Theorem 2.4).
Used to define thin triangles, Gromov products, and the local-to-global Lemma 2.1.
domain assumption Bounded Geodesic Image Theorem (Theorem 2.5) gives a constant M depending only on S for subsurface projections along geodesics.
Fundamental for lower bounds on curve graph distances in Theorems A, B, C.
domain assumption Behrstock inequality (Theorem 2.6) with constant B=10.
Used in Lemma 2.7 and the displacing threshold in Theorem 6.4.
domain assumption Distance Formula of Masur-Minsky (Theorem 2.11) estimates word length by subsurface projection distances.
Needed in Lemma 6.5 to find finite-index subgroups generating large projection distances.
standard math Mod(S) is residually finite (Grossman).
Used in Lemma 6.5 to pass to finite-index subgroups with long word length.
domain assumption Nielsen-Thurston classification and Ivanov's subgroup classification (Ivanov).
Basis for defining reducible subgroups and their canonical reducing systems.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Constructing reducibly geometrically finite subgroups of the mapping class group." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VVAPLKFV

@misc{pith2026250113234,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Constructing reducibly geometrically finite subgroups of the mapping class group},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VVAPLKFV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.13234}
}

read the original abstract

In this article, we consider qualified notions of geometric finiteness in mapping class groups called parabolically geometrically finite (PGF) and reducibly geometrically finite (RGF). We examine several constructions of subgroups and determine when they produce a PGF or RGF subgroup. These results provide a variety of new examples of PGF and RGF subgroups. Firstly, we consider the right-angled Artin subgroups constructed by Koberda and Clay--Leininger--Mangahas, which are generated by high powers of given elements of the mapping class group. We give conditions on the supports of these elements that imply the resulting right-angled Artin subgroup is RGF. Secondly, we prove combination theorems which provide conditions for when a collection of reducible subgroups, or sufficiently deep finite-index subgroups thereof, generate an RGF subgroup.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.13234 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** In a hyperbolic metric space, the geodesic triangle pictured here has inner triangle with vertices a, b, c within distance 4δ of each other. The Gromov product (x | y)z approximates the distance from z to any geodesic from x to y within 4δ. vertex. So in hyperbolic spaces we can see this as a geometric interpretation of the quantity. Precisely, if X is δ-hyperbolic, then for all x, y, z ∈ X one has: (2.3) d(z, [x, … view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** A disjoint union Y = Y1 ⊔ Y2 ⊔ Y3 of essential subsurfaces [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** A graph of groups decomposition for H = H1∗H2∗H3. On the left, we see the star graph T0; on the right, the Bass– Serre T associated to the free product. Each black type–1 vertex corresponds to an element of the group with the identity element v(1) labeled in the center. Each red (resp. blue, yellow) type–2 vertex corresponds to a coset of the form v(gH1) (resp. v(gH2), v(gH3)). Observe that the action of the free pr… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (6 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: The notation for a path in the Bass–Serre tree from the proof of Proposition 6.4. To that end, choose any type–1 vertices v, v′ ∈ T and consider the geodesic between them: If dT (v, v′ ) = 2r this is an alternating sequence v = a0, b0, a1, b1, . . . , br−1, ar = v ′ o…

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: The configuration of reducing multicurves in C for a misaligned triple H1, H2, H3. Each ∂Hi is roughly distance at least A from a geodesic ∂Hj to ∂Hk, hence the triple of multicurves forms a tripod. Remark 8.3. We note that A–misaligned implies (2A − 4 − 16δ)–separated…

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: The arrangement of curves in C(S) for Proposition 8.5. Applying Proposition 8.4 to the curve x, we now find that dS(x, ∂H) − 3 K ≤ dS(x, gx) ≤ 12δ + 3. Therefore dS(x, γ) ≤ dS(x, ∂H) ≤ (12δ + 3)K + 3. Hence by the triangle inequality dS(γ, z) ≤ 4δ + (12δ + 3)K + 3. Fin…

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: The convex-hull of the boundaries of the D– separating, D–misaligned collection {HkN }k∈Z in C(S). Proof. Since dS(α, ∂Y ) > 2, we have that πY (g kα) ̸= ∅ for all k. Fixing a component α0 ∈ α, choose N (using Proposition 2.10) such that for all |n| ≥ N, we have dY (α…

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: The curves αi , βj , T βj in Proposition 9.2 are designed so that there exists a ξ ∈ [βj , T βj ] distance 1 from αi , hence H is only 1-misaligned. We note that this does not rule out that that G is RGF relative to H—in fact, the group is RGF relative to a different c…

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: The curves αi , βj , T γk in Proposition 9.3 are designed so that there exists a ξ ∈ [βj , T γk] distance 1 from αi , hence H is only 1-misaligned. 9.3. The torsion-free assumption for Theorem B. Here we’ll demonstrate the necessity of the the torsion-free assumption i…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages

[1]

The virtual H aken conjecture

Ian Agol. The virtual H aken conjecture. Doc. Math. , 18:1045--1087, 2013. With an appendix by Agol, Daniel Groves, and Jason Manning

2013
[2]

Acylindrical actions on projection complexes

Mladen Bestvina, Ken Bromberg, Koji Fujiwara, and Alessandro Sisto. Acylindrical actions on projection complexes. Enseign. Math. , 65(1-2):1--32, 2019

work page 2019
[3]

Kent, and Christopher J

Mladen Bestvina, Kenneth Bromberg, Autumn E. Kent, and Christopher J. Leininger. Undistorted purely pseudo- A nosov groups. J. Reine Angew. Math. , 760:213--227, 2020

work page 2020
[4]

Thick metric spaces, relative hyperbolicity, and quasi-isometric rigidity

Jason Behrstock, Cornelia Dru t u, and Lee Mosher. Thick metric spaces, relative hyperbolicity, and quasi-isometric rigidity. Mathematische Annalen , 344:543--595, 2009

work page 2009
[5]

Behrstock

Jason A. Behrstock. Asymptotic geometry of the mapping class group and T eichm\"uller space. Geom. Topol. , 10:1523--1578, 2006

work page 2006
[6]

Bridson and Andr\' e Haefliger

Martin R. Bridson and Andr\' e Haefliger. Metric spaces of non-positive curvature , volume 319 of Grundlehren der Mathematischen Wissenschaften [Fundamental Principles of Mathematical Sciences] . Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1999

1999
[7]

Geometry and rigidity of mapping class groups

Jason Behrstock, Bruce Kleiner, Yair Minsky, and Lee Mosher. Geometry and rigidity of mapping class groups. Geom. Topol. , 16(2):781--888, 2012

work page 2012
[8]

Birman, Alex Lubotzky, and John McCarthy

Joan S. Birman, Alex Lubotzky, and John McCarthy. Abelian and solvable subgroups of the mapping class groups. Duke Math. J. , 50(4):1107--1120, 1983

work page 1983

Show all 39 references

[9]

Extensions of finitely generated V eech groups

Eliot Bongiovanni. Extensions of finitely generated V eech groups. Preprint, arXiv:2406.11090 https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.11090, 2024

2024 arXiv
[10]

B. H. Bowditch. Relatively hyperbolic groups. Internat. J. Algebra Comput. , 22(3):1250016, 66, 2012

2012
[11]

Coornaert, T

M. Coornaert, T. Delzant, and A. Papadopoulos. G\' e om\' e trie et th\' e orie des groupes , volume 1441 of Lecture Notes in Mathematics . Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1990. Les groupes hyperboliques de Gromov. [Gromov hyperbolic groups], With an English summary

1990
[12]

An introduction to right-angled A rtin groups

Ruth Charney. An introduction to right-angled A rtin groups. Geom. Dedicata , 125:141--158, 2007

2007
[13]

Clay, Christopher J

Matt T. Clay, Christopher J. Leininger, and Johanna Mangahas. The geometry of right-angled A rtin subgroups of mapping class groups. Groups Geom. Dyn. , 6(2):249--278, 2012

2012
[14]

Quasi-isometrically embedded subgroups of braid and diffeomorphism groups

John Crisp and Bert Wiest. Quasi-isometrically embedded subgroups of braid and diffeomorphism groups. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. , 359(11):5485--5503, 2007

2007
[15]

Durham, Christopher J

Spencer Dowdall, Matthew G. Durham, Christopher J. Leininger, and Alessandro Sisto. Extensions of V eech groups II : H ierarchical hyperbolicity and quasi-isometric rigidity. Comment. Math. Helv. , 99(1):149--228, 2024

2024
[16]

Matthew Gentry Durham and Samuel J. Taylor. Convex cocompactness and stability in mapping class groups. Algebr. Geom. Topol. , 15(5):2839--2859, 2015

2015
[17]

B. Farb. Relatively hyperbolic groups. Geom. Funct. Anal. , 8(5):810--840, 1998

1998
[18]

Convex cocompact subgroups of mapping class groups

Benson Farb and Lee Mosher. Convex cocompact subgroups of mapping class groups. Geom. Topol. , 6:91--152, 2002

2002
[19]

A primer on mapping class groups , volume 49 of Princeton Mathematical Series

Benson Farb and Dan Margalit. A primer on mapping class groups , volume 49 of Princeton Mathematical Series . Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 2012

2012
[20]

Grossman

Edna K. Grossman. On the residual finiteness of certain mapping class groups. J. London Math. Soc. (2) , 9:160--164, 1974/75

1974
[21]

Word hyperbolic extensions of surface groups, 2005

Ursula Hamenst\"adt. Word hyperbolic extensions of surface groups, 2005. Preprint arXiv:math/0505244

2005 arXiv
[22]

Algorithms and geometry for graph products of groups

Susan Hermiller and John Meier. Algorithms and geometry for graph products of groups. J. Algebra , 171(1):230--257, 1995

1995
[23]

Thurston

Michael Handel and William P. Thurston. New proofs of some results of N ielsen. Adv. in Math. , 56(2):173--191, 1985

1985
[24]

Nikolai V. Ivanov. Subgroups of T eichm\" u ller modular groups , volume 115 of Translations of Mathematical Monographs . American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 1992. Translated from the Russian by E. J. F. Primrose and revised by the author

1992
[25]

Kent and Christopher J

Autumn E. Kent and Christopher J. Leininger. Shadows of mapping class groups: capturing convex cocompactness. Geom. Funct. Anal. , 18(4):1270--1325, 2008

2008
[26]

Kent and Christopher J

Autumn E. Kent and Christopher J. Leininger. Atoroidal surface bundles. Preprint, arXiv:2405.12067 https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.12067, 2024

2024 arXiv
[27]

Right-angled A rtin groups and a generalized isomorphism problem for finitely generated subgroups of mapping class groups

Thomas Koberda. Right-angled A rtin groups and a generalized isomorphism problem for finitely generated subgroups of mapping class groups. Geom. Funct. Anal. , 22(6):1541--1590, 2012

2012
[28]

Free products of abelian groups in mapping class groups

Christopher Loa. Free products of abelian groups in mapping class groups. Preprint, arXiv:2103.05144 https://arxiv.org/abs/2103.05144, 2021

2021 arXiv
[29]

C. J. Leininger and A. W. Reid. A combination theorem for V eech subgroups of the mapping class group. Geom. Funct. Anal. , 16(2):403--436, 2006

2006
[30]

A recipe for short-word pseudo- A nosovs

Johanna Mangahas. A recipe for short-word pseudo- A nosovs. Amer. J. Math. , 135(4):1087--1116, 2013

2013
[31]

Masur and Yair N

Howard A. Masur and Yair N. Minsky. Geometry of the complex of curves. I . H yperbolicity. Invent. Math. , 138(1):103--149, 1999

1999
[32]

H. A. Masur and Y. N. Minsky. Geometry of the complex of curves. II . H ierarchical structure. Geom. Funct. Anal. , 10(4):902--974, 2000

2000
[33]

Problems in the geometry of surface group extensions

Lee Mosher. Problems in the geometry of surface group extensions. In Problems on mapping class groups and related topics , volume 74 of Proc. Sympos. Pure Math. , pages 245--256. Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2006

2006
[34]

Robert C. Penner. A construction of pseudo- A nosov homeomorphisms. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. , 310(1):179--197, 1988

1988
[35]

Effective generation of right-angled A rtin groups in mapping class groups

Ian Runnels. Effective generation of right-angled A rtin groups in mapping class groups. Geom. Dedicata , 214:277--294, 2021

2021
[36]

Topological methods in group theory

Peter Scott and Terry Wall. Topological methods in group theory. In Homological group theory ( P roc. S ympos., D urham, 1977) , volume 36 of London Math. Soc. Lecture Note Ser. , pages 137--203. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge-New York, 1979

1977
[37]

Affine diffeomorphism groups are undistorted

Robert Tang. Affine diffeomorphism groups are undistorted. J. Lond. Math. Soc. (2) , 104(2):747--769, 2021

2021
[38]

Combinations of parabolically geometrically finite groups and their geometry

Brian Udall. Combinations of parabolically geometrically finite groups and their geometry. Groups Geom. Dyn. , (published online first), 2025

2025
[39]

Daniel T. Wise. From riches to raags: 3-manifolds, right-angled A rtin groups, and cubical geometry , volume 117 of CBMS Regional Conference Series in Mathematics . Conference Board of the Mathematical Sciences, Washington, DC; by the American Mathematical Society, Providence,...

2012

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

The virtual H aken conjecture

Ian Agol. The virtual H aken conjecture. Doc. Math. , 18:1045--1087, 2013. With an appendix by Agol, Daniel Groves, and Jason Manning

2013

[2] [2]

Acylindrical actions on projection complexes

Mladen Bestvina, Ken Bromberg, Koji Fujiwara, and Alessandro Sisto. Acylindrical actions on projection complexes. Enseign. Math. , 65(1-2):1--32, 2019

work page 2019

[3] [3]

Kent, and Christopher J

Mladen Bestvina, Kenneth Bromberg, Autumn E. Kent, and Christopher J. Leininger. Undistorted purely pseudo- A nosov groups. J. Reine Angew. Math. , 760:213--227, 2020

work page 2020

[4] [4]

Thick metric spaces, relative hyperbolicity, and quasi-isometric rigidity

Jason Behrstock, Cornelia Dru t u, and Lee Mosher. Thick metric spaces, relative hyperbolicity, and quasi-isometric rigidity. Mathematische Annalen , 344:543--595, 2009

work page 2009

[5] [5]

Behrstock

Jason A. Behrstock. Asymptotic geometry of the mapping class group and T eichm\"uller space. Geom. Topol. , 10:1523--1578, 2006

work page 2006

[6] [6]

Bridson and Andr\' e Haefliger

Martin R. Bridson and Andr\' e Haefliger. Metric spaces of non-positive curvature , volume 319 of Grundlehren der Mathematischen Wissenschaften [Fundamental Principles of Mathematical Sciences] . Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1999

1999

[7] [7]

Geometry and rigidity of mapping class groups

Jason Behrstock, Bruce Kleiner, Yair Minsky, and Lee Mosher. Geometry and rigidity of mapping class groups. Geom. Topol. , 16(2):781--888, 2012

work page 2012

[8] [8]

Birman, Alex Lubotzky, and John McCarthy

Joan S. Birman, Alex Lubotzky, and John McCarthy. Abelian and solvable subgroups of the mapping class groups. Duke Math. J. , 50(4):1107--1120, 1983

work page 1983