Automorphisms of fine curve graphs of planar surfaces

Arthur Wang; Roberta Shapiro; Rohan Wadhwa; Yuchong Zhang

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 14 references

Automorphisms of fine curve graphs of planar surfaces

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The automorphism group of the fine curve graph of a boundaryless punctured sphere is exactly the sphere's homeomorphism group when there are at least seven punctures.

desk verdict Solid new rigidity result for punctured spheres, but the sharing-pair preservation proof needs referee attention: figure-based cases and a possible gap for attaching arcs bounding fewer than two punctures. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.06142 v1 pith:M3AXLPNX submitted 2025-06-06 math.GT

Roberta Shapiro , Rohan Wadhwa , Arthur Wang , Yuchong Zhang This is my paper

classification math.GT MSC 57K20

keywords finecurvegraphautomorphismgrouphomeomorphismpuncturedsphererigiditybigonpairsextended

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 tries to establish that for a boundaryless orientable sphere with at least seven punctures, every graph-theoretic symmetry of the fine curve graph is genuinely induced by a homeomorphism of the surface. Because the fine curve graph uses individual essential curves as vertices, its automorphism group could in principle be much larger than the homeomorphism group; the theorem says the natural map from homeomorphisms to graph automorphisms is a bijection. If true, this gives a purely combinatorial object that completely encodes the surface's homeomorphism group, extending classical curve-graph rigidity results to this finer setting. The proof shows that any fine-graph automorphism must preserve enough curve configurations to extend to the extended fine curve graph, where inessential curves are also vertices, and where the homeomorphism group is already known to be the full automorphism group.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the encoding of inessential curves by bigon pairs. Given two homotopic essential curves $a, b$ whose intersection is a nontrivial interval, the closure of $a \cup b \setminus (a \cap b)$ is the inessential curve the pair encodes; two bigon pairs encoding the same inessential curve form a sharing pair. The proof first shows automorphisms preserve quasi-homotopy, homotopy, and pants pairs, then proves preservation of bigon pairs and sharing pairs. To pass from standard sharing pairs to all sharing pairs, the authors introduce an arc graph $\mathcal{A}_{\partial,\ge 2\times}(D_n)$ on a punctured disk, whose vertices are isotopy classes of boundary arcs bounding at least two punctures, and prove it is connected using a standard connectivity criterion for arc complexes. That connectivity supplies chains of standard sharing pairs, making the extension of an automorphism to inessential curves well-defined.

What would settle it

The claim would be settled by finding one automorphism of $\mathcal{C}^{\dagger}(S_0^7)$ that is not induced by a homeomorphism; the most direct place to look is Lemma 2.10's configuration list, because an automorphism that preserved disjointness but mapped a non-quasi-homotopic standard sharing pair to curves failing one of the five listed intersection conditions would contradict Proposition 2.9 and break the construction of $\Psi$. Alternatively, constructing two homotopic boundary arcs in the punctured disk $D_7$ that cannot be connected by a chain of pairwise homotopic arcs would falsify the borrowed arc-homotopy step.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In the paper's own terms, Theorem 1.1 asserts that for every boundaryless orientable sphere $S = S_0^n$ with $n \ge 7$, the natural map $\Phi: \operatorname{Homeo}(S) \to \operatorname{Aut} \mathcal{C}^{\dagger}(S)$ is an isomorphism. Equivalently, every automorphism of the fine curve graph is induced by exactly one homeomorphism of $S$. The proof extends any fine-graph automorphism to an automorphism of the extended fine curve graph $\mathcal{EC}^{\dagger}(S)$, whose vertices include inessential simple closed curves. This extension is possible because the authors prove that automorphisms preserve bigon pairs, pairs of homotopic essential curves whose intersection is a nontrivial interval encoding a specific inessential curve, and preserve whether two bigon pairs encode the same inessential curve. With the extension in hand, the result follows from the paper's Theorem 2.2, which states that automorphisms of the extended fine curve graph are naturally isomorphic to the homeomorphism group.

Load-bearing premise

The whole proof depends on Proposition 2.9, the claim that an automorphism of the fine curve graph sends any two bigon pairs encoding the same inessential curve to two bigon pairs encoding the same inessential curve; that proposition is established through a connectivity result for a specially defined arc graph and a configuration analysis, so if either of those steps fails, the extension to inessential curves collapses and the main theorem does not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For every boundaryless orientable sphere with $n \ge 7$ punctures, the natural map $\operatorname{Homeo}(S) \to \operatorname{Aut} \mathcal{C}^{\dagger}(S)$ is a bijection, so each graph automorphism is induced by exactly one homeomorphism.
No information is lost by discarding inessential curves from the vertex set, because inessential curves are combinatorially recoverable as bigon pairs of essential curves.
The result adds planar surfaces to the family of surfaces whose fine curve graph has no exotic automorphisms, alongside earlier genus-at-least-two and nonorientable cases.
The extension map constructed in the proof gives a route from a fine-graph automorphism to a homeomorphism: extend to inessential curves, apply the extended-graph rigidity theorem, and read off the homeomorphism.
The authors note that the bound $n \ge 7$ is not claimed to be sharp and that intermediate lemmas carry the tightest bounds for which their proofs work, leaving open the possibility that the theorem holds for $n = 5, 6$ by another argument.

Reading between the lines

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

If Theorem 1.1 is correct, the bigon-pair encoding is likely reusable for other fine graph variants on planar surfaces: any graph whose vertices are essential curves and whose edges detect disjointness should inherit the same encoding, so automorphism rigidity may extend to those variants.
A natural next test is whether $\operatorname{Aut} \mathcal{C}^{\dagger}(S_0^5)$ or $\operatorname{Aut} \mathcal{C}^{\dagger}(S_0^6)$ still equals $\operatorname{Homeo}(S)$; the authors' non-sharp bound makes this plausible but unproven here.
A sharper connectivity theorem for an arc graph defined with weaker puncture bounds could lower the main theorem's threshold, while an explicit disconnection of such a graph would explain why the present method stops at seven punctures.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Here's my take on arXiv:2506.06142. The main theorem is genuinely new: fine curve graph rigidity for planar surfaces with at least 7 punctures, extending LMPVY (genus ≥2) and Kimura–Kuno (nonorientable). The planar case forces new machinery—pants pairs, bigon pairs, sharing pairs, plus a connectivity result for an arc graph—and that's real work, not a translation. The authors are transparent about n≥7 and mark the tightest bounds in each lemma, which I appreciate.

The overall strategy is coherent: factor through the extended fine curve graph, show automorphisms preserve enough structure to extend, then invoke the known rigidity there. The new arc graph A∂,≥2×(Dn) and the Putman trick proof of its connectivity are a nice contribution.

The soft spot is Proposition 2.9, the preservation of sharing pairs. This is load-bearing because it makes the extension Ψ well-defined. The stress-test's claimed circularity—that the borrowed homotopic-arc claim fails because homotopies can cross punctures—doesn't hold. In a punctured disk, an arc homotopy cannot pass through a puncture, so the number of punctures on each side is invariant. That particular worry is unfounded.

But there are two real issues. First, Lemma 2.10's proof relies heavily on figures and 'by observation' for the five conditions; a referee should ask for written casework. Second, the proof of Prop 2.9 uses connectivity of A∂,≥2×(Dn), but it never checks that the attaching arcs of an arbitrary sharing pair actually belong to that graph. Those arcs may bound only one puncture (e.g., when the two bigon curves encircle a single puncture), and then they are not vertices of A∂,≥2×(Dn). The paper does not handle that case. This looks fixable—extend the arc graph or add a separate argument—but as written it's a gap, not a stylistic omission.

Who gets value: people working on curve graphs, homeomorphism groups, and rigidity of mapping class groups. It deserves a serious referee; the result is worth having and the proof is close, but Prop 2.9 needs a rigorous rewrite before I'd trust it fully. Recommend sending to a good topology journal with a referee who will dig into the configurations.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proves (Theorem 1.1) that for a boundaryless orientable surface with at least 7 punctures, the natural map from the homeomorphism group to the automorphism group of the fine curve graph is an isomorphism. The proof factors through the extended fine curve graph: any automorphism of the fine curve graph is extended to an automorphism of the extended fine curve graph using bigon pairs that encode inessential curves, and then a theorem of Long–Margalit–Pham–Verberne–Yao (Theorem 2.2) is invoked to identify the resulting automorphism with a homeomorphism. The core of the paper is a detailed study of curve configurations (sides, hulls, pants pairs, bigon pairs, sharing pairs) adapted to the planar setting, concluding in Proposition 2.9 that sharing pairs are preserved by automorphisms, which makes the extension well-defined.

Significance. If the result holds, it is a meaningful extension of fine curve graph rigidity from compact higher-genus surfaces to non-compact planar surfaces with enough punctures. The paper introduces several new combinatorial tools—pants pairs, bigon pairs, sharing pairs, and an arc graph variant—that are likely to be useful in further work on fine curve graphs and related complexes. The authors are explicit about the restriction n ≥ 7 and note that the bound is probably not sharp. The proof is not circular: the input Theorem 2.2 is external to the paper, and the intermediate propositions are derived from the structure of the fine curve graph rather than from the claimed isomorphism.

major comments (3)

[§2.3, proof of Proposition 2.9] The chain of standard sharing pairs between two arbitrary sharing pairs is justified by the connectivity of the arc graph A∂,≥2×(D_n) together with the assertion that two arcs in the same isotopy class in the punctured disk D_n with endpoints on ∂D_n can be connected by a sequence of arcs that are all pairwise homotopic, with the proof said to be identical to [9, Prop 3.1]. The cited statement concerns surfaces without punctures, and the authors themselves note a failure of such connectivity for arcs ending at punctures. Since Proposition 2.9 is the load-bearing well-definedness step for the extension map Ψ, the paper needs a self-contained proof, or at least a precise statement and explanation, that the punctured disk does not obstruct the required connectivity (for instance, by observing that homotopies of arcs with endpoints on ∂D_n cannot cross the punctures, so the number of surrounded punctures is invariant). As written, the existence of the chain is not fully established.
[§2.3, Lemmas 2.10 and 2.11] The proofs of Lemmas 2.10 and 2.11 are conducted by informal case analysis that relies heavily on Figures 2 and 3, with phrases such as 'satisfied by observation' and 'we can then sort the punctures into three categories.' In particular, the verification of condition (5) in Lemma 2.10 and the construction of the intermediate bigon pairs C and D in Lemma 2.11 are not presented with sufficient precision for the reader to verify all the cases. Because these lemmas directly support Proposition 2.9, which is essential for the main theorem, the authors are asked to provide a more formal geometric argument (for example, explicit coordinates or a clearly enumerated list of configurations) so that the case analysis is checkable without relying on the figures.
[§2.2, Proposition 2.8] In the first direction of the proof, the authors state that 'at least one side of a and b has at least 4 punctures' and therefore a curve c with the required properties exists. This step is not fully justified. A short argument showing why the hypothesis n ≥ 7 guarantees such a side, and why the curve c can be chosen to intersect a and b exactly in a ∩ b while forming a pants pair with both, would make the proof complete. This is a local gap, but Proposition 2.8 is used in the sequel and should be made rigorous.

minor comments (5)

[Theorem 2.2] The statement of Theorem 2.2 writes the natural map as ν : Homeo(S) → EC†(S); the codomain should be Aut EC†(S).
[Introduction, 'Distinctions from the non-planar cases'] The sentence 'Although we do not consider such curves as vertices in the extended fine curve graph...' appears to contradict the definition of EC†(S) in Section 2, where the vertex set is all simple closed curves. Presumably 'fine curve graph' was intended.
[Proof of Proposition 2.1] The phrase 'the connected component of S \ A that contains A \ a' is likely a typo; it should read 'the connected component of S \ A that contains a \ A.'
[Proof of Lemma 2.3] The claim that every essential curve in the annulus or pair of pants cobounded by x and y is homotopic to either x or y is not accurate for the core curve of an annulus. The intended conclusion (that such curves separate x and y) is true, but it should be justified directly rather than through this erroneous statement.
[Figure 4 and notation] The captions of Figure 4 refer to 'nested' and 'unnested endpoints of attaching arcs,' but the right panel appears to illustrate the action of σ2; please clarify the captions. Also, the adjacency notation x−y is used without explicit definition in Section 2.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the main isomorphism is supported by external theorems and internally proved lemmas.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained and non-circular. The central isomorphism is obtained by factoring Aut C†(S) through Aut EC†(S) using the external theorem of Long–Margalit–Pham–Verberne–Yao (Theorem 2.2, a result by non-overlapping authors), and the intermediate devices—pants pairs, bigon pairs, sharing pairs—are defined and proved inside the paper rather than assumed. The one passage that invites scrutiny is in the proof of Proposition 2.9, where the authors say 'This proof is identical to the proof of Proposition 3.1 of Long–Margalit–Pham–Verberne–Yao [9]' and immediately note that 'the reason their proof does not work for surfaces with punctures is due to arcs whose endpoints are at punctures.' That note is a correctness caveat, not a circularity: the arcs in question have endpoints on ∂D_n, not at punctures, and the cited claim is external to this paper, so no load-bearing step reduces to this paper's own target result. Likewise, the well-definedness of the extension Ψ in Step 1 of Theorem 1.1 depends on Proposition 2.9, but Proposition 2.9 is proved by combinatorial characterizations and an arc-graph connectivity argument that are presented here, not imported from the conclusion. There is no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction and no uniqueness theorem imported from the present authors' prior work. Accordingly, no circularity is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 4 invented entities

No empirical free parameters appear. The proof rests on standard topology, on the external extended curve graph theorem, and on the correctness of figure-based configuration lemmas involving pants pairs, bigon pairs, sharing pairs, and the arc graph.

assumptions (4)

standard math Standard point-set and algebraic topology of surfaces: Jordan curve theorem, classification of surfaces, existence of essential curves in components with at least two punctures.
Used throughout, for example in Proposition 2.1 on sides of curves and Proposition 2.7 on hulls and pants pairs.
domain assumption Theorem 2.2: Homeo(S) is isomorphic to Aut EC†(S) for every boundaryless surface S, cited from [9] and attributed to an unpublished note [5].
The entire proof factors through this isomorphism, and the paper does not reprove it.
domain assumption Essential curves in C†(S) exclude curves homotopic to a single puncture, so every essential separating curve has at least two punctures on each side.
Used to guarantee components with at least two punctures in Lemma 2.3 and in the essential-inessential edge case in Section 3.
domain assumption Two arcs in the same isotopy class in a punctured disk with endpoints on the boundary can be connected by a sequence of pairwise homotopic arcs, taken from Proposition 3.1 of [9].
Used in the proof of Proposition 2.9 to turn a path in the arc graph into a path of standard sharing pairs.

invented entities (4)

Pants pairs
purpose: Detect non-disjoint, noncrossing curves whose intersection is a nontrivial interval; used in the characterization of bigon pairs.
Defined in Section 2.1 as an internal combinatorial device; no external falsifiable handle.
Bigon pairs
purpose: Encode an inessential curve as the closure of the symmetric difference of two homotopic essential curves.
Defined in Section 2.2; preservation by automorphisms is Proposition 2.8, a proof-internal claim.
Sharing pairs
purpose: Capture the relation of two bigon pairs encoding the same inessential curve, making the extension map Psi well-defined.
Defined in Section 2.3; preservation is Proposition 2.9, the load-bearing technical result.
Arc graph A∂,≥2×(D_n)
purpose: Prove connectivity needed to connect arbitrary sharing pairs through standard sharing pairs.
Introduced in Section 2.3 and proved connected via Putman's trick; an internal proof device.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Automorphisms of fine curve graphs of planar surfaces." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/M3AXLPNX

@misc{pith2026250606142,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Automorphisms of fine curve graphs of planar surfaces},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/M3AXLPNX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.06142}
}

read the original abstract

The fine curve graph of a surface is the graph whose vertices are simple closed essential curves in the surface and whose edges connect disjoint curves. In this paper, we prove that the automorphism group of the fine curve graph of a surface is naturally isomorphic to the homeomorphism group of the surface for boundaryless planar surfaces with at least 7 punctures.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.06142 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Left: an example of a bigon pair. Center: a curve c that forms a pants pair with both a and b, as required by the proof of Proposition 2.8. Right: a curve d as in the proof of Proposition 2.8 . 2.2. Bigon pairs. Our goal in this section is to prove Proposition 2.8, which states that bigon pairs are preserved by automorphisms of C † (S). Curves a and b form a bigon pair if they are homotopic and a ∩ b is a nontrivial… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Left and center: Examples of two equivalent ways to picture sharing pairs. Right: Construction of a curve c that intersects exactly one of a1, a2, b1, and b2 if the attaching arc of a does not attach in ea ∩ eb [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Left: case (1) in the proof of Lemma 2.11. Right: case (2) in the proof of Lemma 2.11. for Bn consisting of n−1 half-twists, as shown in the left of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Left: nested endpoints of attaching arcs. Right: unnested endpoints of attaching arcs. We must now check that the two conditions for Putman’s trick hold. Let v ∈ V (A∂,≥2×(Dn)) be an arc that surrounds k ≤ n 2 punctures. We wish to show that there is an element of the …

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

14 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages

[1]

Automorphisms of smooth fine curve graphs

Katherine Williams Booth. Automorphisms of smooth fine curve graphs . 2024. url: https: //arxiv.org/abs/2410.21463

arXiv 2024
[2]

Homeomorphisms of surfaces that preserve continuously differen- tiable curves

Katherine Williams Booth. Homeomorphisms of surfaces that preserve continuously differen- tiable curves . 2024. url: https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.21460

arXiv 2024
[3]

Automorphisms of the fine 1-curve graph

Katherine Williams Booth, Daniel Minahan, and Roberta Shapiro. Automorphisms of the fine 1-curve graph. 2023. url: https://arxiv.org/abs/2309.16041

arXiv 2023
[4]

Quasi-morphisms on sur- face diffeomorphism groups

Jonathan Bowden, Sebastian Wolfgang Hensel, and Richard Webb. “Quasi-morphisms on sur- face diffeomorphism groups”. In: Journal of the American Mathematical Society 35.1 (2021), pp. 211–231. doi: 10.1090/jams/981

doi:10.1090/jams/981 2021
[5]

Some synthetic characterizations of homeomorphisms of manifolds

Benson Farb and Dan Margalit. “Some synthetic characterizations of homeomorphisms of manifolds”. 2017

work page 2017
[6]

Automorphism of complexes of curves and of Teichm¨ uller spaces

Nikolai V. Ivanov. “Automorphism of complexes of curves and of Teichm¨ uller spaces”. In:Inter- nat. Math. Res. Notices 14 (1997), pp. 651–666.issn: 1073-7928. doi: 10.1155/S1073792897000433. url: https://doi.org/10.1155/S1073792897000433

doi:10.1155/s1073792897000433 1997
[7]

Automorphisms of fine curve graphs for nonorientable surfaces

Mitsuaki Kimura and Erika Kuno. “Automorphisms of fine curve graphs for nonorientable surfaces”. In: Glasgow Math. J. 67.2 (2025), pp. 232–244. url: https://www.cambridge. org/core/journals/glasgow-mathematical-journal/article/automorphisms-of-fine- curve-graphs-for-nonorientable-surfaces/2A1F58B9F584C3A302118CC77E0D5BDD

work page 2025
[8]

Automorphisms of complexes of curves on punctured spheres and on punctured tori

Mustafa Korkmaz. “Automorphisms of complexes of curves on punctured spheres and on punctured tori”. In: Topology Appl. 95.2 (1999), pp. 85–111. issn: 0166-8641,1879-3207. doi: 10.1016/S0166- 8641(97)00278- 2. url: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166- 8641(97) 00278-2

doi:10.1016/s0166- 1999

Show all 14 references

[9]

Automorphisms of the fine curve graph

Adele Long et al. “Automorphisms of the fine curve graph”. In: Transactions of the AMS To appear (2023). REFERENCES 11

2023
[10]

Automorphisms of the complex of curves

Feng Luo. “Automorphisms of the complex of curves”. In: Topology 39.2 (2000), pp. 283–298. issn: 0040-9383. doi: 10.1016/S0040-9383(99)00008-7 . url: https://doi.org/10.1016/ S0040-9383(99)00008-7

2000 doi
[11]

A note on the connectivity of certain complexes associated to surfaces

Andrew Putman. “A note on the connectivity of certain complexes associated to surfaces”. In: Enseign. Math. (2) 54.3-4 (2008), pp. 287–301. issn: 0013-8584

2008
[12]

Fr´ ed´ eric Le Roux and Maxime Wolff.Automorphisms of some variants of fine graphs . 2022. doi: 10.48550/ARXIV.2210.05460. url: https://arxiv.org/abs/2210.05460

2022 doi arXiv
[13]

Hyperbolicity, topology, and combinatorics of fine curve graphs and variants

Roberta Shapiro. Hyperbolicity, topology, and combinatorics of fine curve graphs and variants
[2025]

url: https://www.arxiv.org/abs/2501.18705

arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Automorphisms of smooth fine curve graphs

Katherine Williams Booth. Automorphisms of smooth fine curve graphs . 2024. url: https: //arxiv.org/abs/2410.21463

arXiv 2024

[2] [2]

Homeomorphisms of surfaces that preserve continuously differen- tiable curves

Katherine Williams Booth. Homeomorphisms of surfaces that preserve continuously differen- tiable curves . 2024. url: https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.21460

arXiv 2024

[3] [3]

Automorphisms of the fine 1-curve graph

Katherine Williams Booth, Daniel Minahan, and Roberta Shapiro. Automorphisms of the fine 1-curve graph. 2023. url: https://arxiv.org/abs/2309.16041

arXiv 2023

[4] [4]

Quasi-morphisms on sur- face diffeomorphism groups

Jonathan Bowden, Sebastian Wolfgang Hensel, and Richard Webb. “Quasi-morphisms on sur- face diffeomorphism groups”. In: Journal of the American Mathematical Society 35.1 (2021), pp. 211–231. doi: 10.1090/jams/981

doi:10.1090/jams/981 2021

[5] [5]

Some synthetic characterizations of homeomorphisms of manifolds

Benson Farb and Dan Margalit. “Some synthetic characterizations of homeomorphisms of manifolds”. 2017

work page 2017

[6] [6]

Automorphism of complexes of curves and of Teichm¨ uller spaces

Nikolai V. Ivanov. “Automorphism of complexes of curves and of Teichm¨ uller spaces”. In:Inter- nat. Math. Res. Notices 14 (1997), pp. 651–666.issn: 1073-7928. doi: 10.1155/S1073792897000433. url: https://doi.org/10.1155/S1073792897000433

doi:10.1155/s1073792897000433 1997

[7] [7]

Automorphisms of fine curve graphs for nonorientable surfaces

Mitsuaki Kimura and Erika Kuno. “Automorphisms of fine curve graphs for nonorientable surfaces”. In: Glasgow Math. J. 67.2 (2025), pp. 232–244. url: https://www.cambridge. org/core/journals/glasgow-mathematical-journal/article/automorphisms-of-fine- curve-graphs-for-nonorientable-surfaces/2A1F58B9F584C3A302118CC77E0D5BDD

work page 2025

[8] [8]

Automorphisms of complexes of curves on punctured spheres and on punctured tori

Mustafa Korkmaz. “Automorphisms of complexes of curves on punctured spheres and on punctured tori”. In: Topology Appl. 95.2 (1999), pp. 85–111. issn: 0166-8641,1879-3207. doi: 10.1016/S0166- 8641(97)00278- 2. url: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166- 8641(97) 00278-2

doi:10.1016/s0166- 1999