Johnson homomorphisms and the second rational cohomology of handlebody Torelli groups

Annie Holden

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Johnson homomorphisms and the second rational cohomology of handlebody Torelli groups

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Kernel of the Johnson cup-product map is exactly eight modules for genus at least 6.

desk verdict A solid, honestly delimited computation in the Hain–Morita tradition that deserves refereeing, but the posted text garbles exactly the steps a referee needs to check. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.03742 v1 pith:QAKMBYII submitted 2025-09-03 math.GT math.AT

Annie Holden This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.GTmath.AT MSC 57K2020J0617B10

keywords handlebodygroupTorelliJohnsonhomomorphismcupproductcohomologySL_grepresentationsabeliancyclesmappingclass

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

Two Torelli subgroups of the handlebody group are introduced: HI, whose elements act trivially on the boundary surface's first homology, and HBI, whose elements act trivially on the handlebody's first homology. The paper restricts the classical Johnson homomorphisms to these subgroups and studies the induced cup-product maps from the second exterior power of the Johnson-image abelian quotient into second rational cohomology. Theorem A shows that for genus at least 6 the kernel of tau* for HI_g, HI_{g,1}, and HI^1_g is exactly the direct sum of eight explicit irreducible SL_g(Q)-modules, with only small decoration-dependent multiplicities. Theorem B shows that for genus at least 3 the kernel of Theta* for HBI is the short list in Table 2, with at most one further module whose membership remains conjectural. If the paper's two conjectural H^1 identifications hold, these tables describe the full rational cup product structure, not just the Johnson-detected part.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the cup-product map viewed as an SL_g(Q)-equivariant map out of the second exterior power of the dual Johnson image: tau*: H^2(U;Q) -> H^2(HI;Q) and Theta*: H^2(W;Q) -> H^2(HBI;Q). Because SL_g(Q) representations decompose into irreducibles Phi_{w_1,...,w_{g-1}}, the kernel is a subrepresentation, so the problem reduces to deciding module by module whether the dual module lies in the cokernel. The cokernel is computed from the five-term exact sequence of 1 -> ker(Johnson) -> G -> image -> 1, whose boundary map b sends x wedge y to a commutator class; then the second Johnson homomorphism and the bracket map on Johnson images detect modules in the cokernel, while exp

What would settle it

Recompute Tables 3-10 and the vector identities in Sections 7.4 and 12.4 with an independent computer algebra system for g=6, and for g=3,4,5 where Theorem B applies, checking each claimed highest-weight vector against the action of tau* or Theta*. If any module asserted to lie in the image of tau* or Theta* actually has zero image, or if an imported orbit statement omits a module, the exact kernel descriptions fail. For Theorem B, evaluate the second Johnson homomorphism on the commutator of the two normal generators of HBI; the resulting module decides which of the two alternatives holds.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the Johnson-detected part of the second rational cohomology of handlebody Torelli groups is governed by the representation theory of SL_g(Q). Restricting the Johnson homomorphisms of the mapping class group and of Aut(F_g) to the two handlebody Torelli groups gives abelian quotients U and W, and the induced cohomology maps factor through the second exterior powers of their duals. Theorem A (g >= 6) states that ker(tau*) is exactly Q + Phi_{0,1,0,...,0,1,0} + Phi_{0,2,0,...,0} + Phi_{1,0,...,0,1} + Phi_{1,0,...,0,1,1} + Phi_{1,1,0,...,0,1} + Phi_{2,0,...,0} + Phi_{2,0,...,0,2}, equivalently Lambda^2 Ubar*_Q intersect (Gamma_{0,2} + Q). Theorem B (g >= 3) stat

Load-bearing premise

The computation that each listed highest-weight vector really lies in the claimed SL_g(Q)-orbit, together with the imported orbit statements for the second Johnson map, is the load-bearing step; a single wrong vector identity could place a module inside a kernel where the theorem puts it outside.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For genus at least 6, the eight-module list in Theorem A is complete for HI_g, HI_{g,1}, and HI^1_g, so every degree-2 class whose Johnson wedge is not one of those modules survives nontrivially in cohomology.
For HBI in genus at least 3, the kernel is pinned down except for one possible module; settling the conjectured membership of Phi_{0,2} or Phi_{0,1,0,...,0,1} would make Theorem B unconditional.
Under Conjectures 1.1 and 1.2, the entire cup product on first rational cohomology of these groups is determined by the tables, not only the Johnson-detected part.
The new SL_g(Q)-module decomposition of the second Johnson image of the handlebody Johnson kernel gives a conceptual reformulation of that image for all p+b at most 1.
The decoration cases differ only by known multiplicities of a few low-weight modules, so the high-genus structure is stable across closed, once-punctured, and once-bordered surfaces.

Reading between the lines

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

I would audit Sections 7.4 and 12.4 first: the theorems are exactly as strong as the vector identities there, and the posted text corrupts several of those computations into unreadable glyph sequences, so an independent recomputation is the quickest way to test the upper bounds.
The unresolved extra module in Theorem B should be checkable directly: evaluate the second Johnson homomorphism on the commutator of the two normal generators supplied for HBI; whichever module appears decides between the two alternatives.
The mixed summand ((Lambda^2 V_Q) tensor V*_Q) tensor Sym^2(V*_Q) is the genuinely new source of modules in Theorem B, since other Torelli-type groups do not have a symmetric-square piece from the symplectic image; these tables indicate what changes when an abelian radical is present.
If the stabilised decompositions hold for all larger genera, the same five-term-sequence plus abelian-cycle method should produce finite, genus-independent presentations for higher Johnson-image cohomology of these 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

I read Holden's paper on Johnson homomorphisms and the second rational cohomology of handlebody Torelli groups. Short version: this is a real piece of work, but as posted it is not checkable in its load-bearing sections, and the gap is exactly where the upper-bound arguments live.

What's new: the groups HI^b and HBI^b are clearly defined, and Theorems A and B give precise SL_g(Q)-decompositions of ker(tau*) and ker(Theta*) — exact for HI_g when g>=6, two-possibility for HBI_g when g>=3. That is a genuine extension of the Hain–Morita–Pettet–Sakasai program to handlebody Torelli groups. The paper is honest: it separates proved results from Conjectures 1.1–1.3, and it benchmarks against Hain's Γ_{0,2}+Q description rather than adjusting definitions to fit. The lower-bound arguments are written out in detail, and the evaluation of tau and J on explicit bounding pair maps in Sections 6.2 and 6.3 is the kind of concrete computation that makes the paper useful.

Soft spots, in proportion. The stress-test note is on target: the upper-bound halves of Theorems A and B hinge on Section 12.4's highest-weight-vector constructions and Lemma 7.4's Type 3/4 vectors, and in the posted text those passages are corrupted into unreadable glyph sequences. Lemma 12.2's "N terms" is undefined as printed. No LiE scripts or character certificates back Tables 3–10 or the module orbit claims. If any of those displayed vectors is not a highest weight vector of the stated weight, or not in the claimed orbit, a module currently declared to lie in im(tau*) would actually belong to ker(tau*), overcounting the kernel and invalidating the exact equality. That is a real verification gap. I want to be clear: it is not an observed contradiction. The strategy is coherent and the external check against Hain's theorem is reassuring; but a referee cannot, as things stand, certify the upper bound.

Also minor but real: Theorem B is genuinely two-valued. The deciding containment of Φ_{0,1,0,...,0,1} (g>=4) or Φ_{0,2} (g=3) in ker(Theta*) is flagged as conjectural, so the headline cup-product statement for HBI is incomplete by the authors' own admission. Sections 13–15 were outside my review budget, so the decorated cases rest on the stated spectral sequence structure rather than checked details.

Who is this for: anyone working on Torelli groups, Johnson homomorphisms, or low-dimensional cohomology of mapping-class-like groups. It deserves a serious referee, but the referee report should be conditional: repair the corrupted formulas, supply the LiE inputs and certificates, and if possible resolve the undecided module. I would not desk-reject it.

Recommendation: send to peer review, with the expectation of revision. Cite it if you work in this area, but only after the computations are checkable.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper introduces two handlebody Torelli subgroups, HI^b_{g,p} (acting trivially on boundary homology) and HBI^b_{g,p} (acting trivially on handlebody homology), and studies the cup-product maps induced by the Johnson homomorphisms on their first rational cohomology. The main results are Theorem A, which gives an exact SL_g(Q)-module decomposition of ker(τ*: H^2(U;Q)→H^2(HI;Q)) for g≥6, and Theorem B, which gives an almost exact decomposition of ker(Θ*) for g≥3 up to one unresolved module. The proofs use five-term exact sequences, the Morita bracket, abelian cycles, and extensive highest-weight-vector computations in SL_g(Q) representations, with the HI_g result reformulated as ker(τ*) = Λ²Ubar*_Q ∩ (Γ_{0,2}+Q) in Remark 11.5.

Significance. If the computations are correct, this is a substantial contribution to the rational cohomology of handlebody Torelli groups, extending the Johnson–Hain–Morita–Pettet framework to these subgroups. The explicit lower-bound computations (e.g., evaluations of τ and J on bounding pair maps in Sections 6.2 and 6.3) are concrete and the comparison with Hain's theorem is a useful sanity check. However, the upper-bound arguments, which are load-bearing for the exact statements, are currently not verifiable from the posted text: several key vector definitions are corrupted and no computational certificates are supplied.

major comments (4)

[§12.4 / Lemma 12.2] The proof of Proposition 12.1 depends on vectors x_ij, y_i, z_i, x_i, y claimed to be highest weight vectors for modules such as Φ_{0,...,0,1,0}, Φ_{0,...,0,1,0,1}, and Φ_{0,1,0,...,0,2}. In the posted text these definitions are corrupted into unreadable glyph sequences, and the 'N terms' expression in Lemma 12.2 is undefined. A single misidentified highest weight vector would change the kernel in Theorem A. The author must restore these definitions and provide an independent check (e.g., a LiE script or explicit character computation).
[§7.4 / Lemma 7.4] Lemma 7.4 is the key input for the upper bound in Theorem B: Types 3 and 4 vectors are used in Proposition 7.3 to show that all but two modules in the ((Λ²V_Q)⊗V*_Q)⊗Sym²(V*_Q) summand lie in im(Θ*). The proof of Lemma 7.4 is garbled after the first displayed calculation, so the claimed sl_g(Q) actions producing Type 3 and Type 4 vectors cannot be checked. This affects the exactness of the two-alternative description in Theorem B.
[Tables 3–10 and §12.4] The module decompositions in Tables 3–10 and the branching computations in §12.4 are load-bearing but are asserted without reproducible scripts. The text refers to LiE in Appendix D, but no scripts, log files, or character certificates are included. Without these, a referee cannot independently confirm the multiplicities or the claimed highest weight vectors. Please provide the computational certificates or a fully explicit verification.
[Theorem B / Conjecture 1.2] The membership of Φ_{0,1,0,...,0,1} (g≥4) or Φ_{0,2} (g=3) in ker(Θ*) is left undecided, and the theorem is stated as a disjunction. This is honest, but it means the description of ker(Θ*) is not complete. If this is the intended contribution, the unresolved case should be highlighted as an explicit open problem in the introduction and again in the conclusion.

minor comments (4)

[Abstract and §1.4] The abstract says the paper 'describes cup products' in H^2, but the theorems only determine the kernels of τ* and Θ*. The full cup product description is conditional on Conjectures 1.1 and 1.2. The wording should be sharpened to avoid overstatement.
[§10.1] The claim that Table 10 'stabilizes when g≥6' is not justified beyond the table. A sentence indicating the Weyl character formula or a character computation would help.
[§6.5 and §7.2] The orbit statements of Lemmas 6.5 and 7.2 are quoted from Pettet. Since they are essential for the upper bounds, the text should give precise references to the corresponding statements, and ideally reproduce the arguments in an appendix if they are not easily accessible.
[Notation] The notation p+b=1 and the separate cases p=1,b=0 and p=0,b=1 are used interchangeably in places (e.g., 'p=1 and b=1' in §1.7). Please standardize this.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the derivation is self-contained and cross-checked against external results.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are not circular. Theorem A and Theorem B are proved by decomposing ⋀²Ubar* or ⋀²W* into irreducible SL_g(Q)-modules, then separately establishing lower bounds (modules in the kernel via the five-term sequence, Morita's bracket map, and the second Johnson homomorphism) and upper bounds (modules in the image via abelian cycles and explicit highest-weight-vector computations). The key imported inputs are external: Hain's theorem for I_g (Theorem 11.3), Pettet's orbit lemmas (6.5 and 7.2), Omori's normal generation (Theorem 5.1), Faes's determination of τ₂(HK¹_g), and Morita's bracket map. None of these are defined in terms of the target kernel, and none are self-citations by the present author. The restatement in Remark 11.5, ker(τ*) = ⋀²Ubar* ∩ (Γ_{0,2} ⊕ Q), is a consequence of Hain's independent theorem plus the paper's own upper-bound proof, not an input. The unreadable/garbled computations in Sections 7.4 and 12.4, and the absence of LiE certificates for Tables 3–10, are verification gaps and correctness risks, not circularity: the claimed vectors are asserted to be in im(τ*) or im(Θ*) by explicit Lie algebra actions on abelian cycles, and if the computations are wrong the theorem could overcount the kernel, but the argument does not assume what it proves. The only self-referential passage is the note 'Work in progress by the author' in Section 1.8, which is not load-bearing for Theorems A or B. Conjectures 1.1 and 1.2 are explicitly conjectural and do not affect the unconditional kernel statements. Overall, the claimed reductions are not equivalent to their inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 2 invented entities

This is a pure mathematics paper: there are no fitted constants, no empirical data, and no numerical parameters tuned to outputs. The 'inputs' the central claims rest on are imported theorems (Johnson, Omori, Pettet, Hain, Morita, Faes, Hirose), three modeling conventions (restriction to SL_g(Q), the specific handlebody where the b_i curves bound disks, working over Q), and one genuinely open case (the conjectured module in Theorem B). The heaviest unverified load is the pencil-and-paper highest-weight-vector machinery behind Tables 3-10 and the abelian-cycle evaluations, which the posted text does not make machine-checkable and parts of which are corrupted.

assumptions (8)

standard math Johnson's theorem: the first Johnson homomorphism tau (resp. J) captures the rational abelianization of the Torelli group I^b_{g,p} for g >= 3 (resp. of IA_g).
Invoked in Sections 1.1-1.2 and 3 to justify that U*_Q embeds in H^1(HI^b_{g,p}) and W*_Q embeds in H^1(HBI^b_{g,p}) as the Johnson-detected subspaces.
standard math Omori's normal generation of HI^1_g and HBI^1_g (Theorem 5.1).
External result [29] giving generators; used to establish surjectivity of Theta and the five-term exact sequence setup in Section 6.1.
standard math Pettet's orbit lemmas (Lemma 6.5 and Lemma 7.2): specific SL_g(Q)-orbit facts for vectors in Lambda^2((Lambda^2 V_Q) tensor V*_Q).
Imported from [30]; Lemma 7.2 carries the exclusion of modules in Section 7.3. If mis-stated or misapplied, Proposition 7.1 fails.
standard math Hain's theorem: ker(tau*) for the full Torelli group I_g is the Sp_{2g}(Q)-module Gamma_{0,2} + Q (Theorem 11.3).
External benchmark; the HI_g result is the restriction Lambda^2 Ubar*_Q intersect (Gamma_{0,2} + Q) per Remark 11.5.
domain assumption Morita's bracket map detects all of coker(tau*) for HI_g, and the Casson invariant vanishes on HK_g (lambda*(HK_g) = 0).
Section 11.1: lambda*(HK_g) = 0 is asserted so the Casson invariant contributes no additional module; if wrong, the lower bound on ker(tau*) could be incomplete.
domain assumption Morita's description of U = tau(HI^b_{g,p}) (Proposition 9.1) and surjectivity of tau on HI^b_{g,p}.
Section 9; needed for the exact module decomposition of U_Q and Ubar_Q in Section 10.
domain assumption Reduction from the non-semisimple Zariski closure Psi(Hbar^b_{g,p}) to its SL_g(Q) subgroup is sufficient for the kernel arguments.
Sections 1.4 and 9: the action is restricted to the SL_g(Q) subgroup; all module-inclusion conclusions are drawn from SL_g(Q)-equivariance only.
ad hoc to paper Membership of Phi_{0,1,0,...,0,1} (g >= 4) or Phi_{0,2} (g = 3) in ker(Theta*).
Unproved; Theorem B's two alternatives differ by exactly this module. The authors conjecture the containment explicitly in Section 1.5 ('we cannot prove it').

invented entities (2)

Handlebody Torelli subgroups HI^b_{g,p} and HBI^b_{g,p} independent evidence
purpose: Principal objects of study: subgroups of the handlebody group acting trivially on boundary-surface homology (HI) or on handlebody homology (HBI).
Not speculative postulates: they are explicit subgroups defined by the stated trivial-action conditions; their normal generation is supplied by an external theorem (Omori), and they relate to known groups (HI is contained in I^b_{g,p}; HBI is the preimage of IA_g or OA_g).
Abelian quotient map Theta = (J, Psi) with target W independent evidence
purpose: Combines the Johnson homomorphism and the symplectic representation into one surjective abelian quotient whose dual classes span the detected part of H^1(HBI).
Defined concretely on explicit generators (bounding pair annulus twists, disk twists) and proved surjective in Section 5.3; a mathematical construction, not a speculative entity.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Johnson homomorphisms and the second rational cohomology of handlebody Torelli groups." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QAKMBYII

@misc{pith2026250903742,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Johnson homomorphisms and the second rational cohomology of handlebody Torelli groups},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QAKMBYII}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.03742}
}

abstract

We introduce two Torelli subgroups of the handlebody group. The group $HI_{g,p}^b$ is the subgroup of the handlebody group acting trivially on the first homology of the boundary surface, and $H_B I_{g,p}^b$ is the subgroup of the handlebody group acting trivially on the first homology of the handlebody. Using the symplectic representation and the Johnson homomorphisms for the Torelli subgroups of the mapping class group and of $\operatorname{Aut}(F_g)$, we define abelian quotients of these handlebody Torelli groups. In terms of the representation theory of the special linear group, we describe cup products of two classes in the first rational cohomology groups of $HI_{g,p}^b$ and $H_B I_{g,p}^b$ obtained by the rational duals of these abelian quotients.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

The Birman--Craggs--Johnson homomorphism and the handlebody Torelli group
math.GT 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

For genus at least 3, the BCJ image of the handlebody Torelli group is an explicit monomial subspace B^bi_3, and of the Johnson kernel is B^bi_2; cup-product lower bounds of order g^6 and g^4 follow.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

The Birman-Craggs-Johnson homomorphism and abelian cycles in the Torelli group

T. Brendle & B. Farb, The Birman-Craggs-Johnson homomorphism and abelian cycles in the Torelli group, Math. Ann. 338 (2007), no. 1, 33–53. arXiv:math/0601163 (Cited on pages 5, 6, and 19.)

work page Pith review arXiv 2007
[2]

Brown, Cohomology of groups, Graduate Texts in Mathematics, 87, Springer-Verlag, New York,

K. Brown, Cohomology of groups, Graduate Texts in Mathematics, 87, Springer-Verlag, New York,

work page
[3]

Cohen & J

F. Cohen & J. Pakianathan, On automorphism groups of free groups and their nilpotent quotients, in preparation. (Cited on page 2.)

work page
[4]

Dimca & S

A. Dimca & S. Papadima. Arithmetic group symmetry and finiteness properties of Torelli groups. Ann. of Math. (2), 177(2):395–423, 2013. (Not cited.)

work page 2013
[5]

The handlebody group and the images of the second Johnson homomorphism

Q. Faes, The handlebody group and the images of the second Johnson homomorphism, Algebr. Geom. Topol. 23:1, 243–293 (2023). arXiv:2010.16268 (Cited on pages 5, 10, and 53.)

work page Pith review arXiv 2023
[6]

Farb, Automorphisms of Fg which act trivially on homology, in preparation

B. Farb, Automorphisms of Fg which act trivially on homology, in preparation. (Cited on page 2.)

work page
[7]

Farb & D

B. Farb & D. Margalit, A primer on mapping class groups, Princeton Mathematical Series, 49, Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ, 2012. (Cited on pages 6, 18, and 50.)

work page 2012
[8]

Fulton & J

W. Fulton & J. Harris, Representation theory, Graduate Texts in Mathematics Readings in Mathematics, 129, Springer, New York, 1991. (Cited on pages 10 and 30.)

work page 1991

Show all 39 references

[9]

H. B. Griffiths. Automorphisms of a 3-dimensional handlebody. Abh. Math. Sem. Univ. Hamburg, 26:191–210, 1963/1964. (Cited on page 8.)

1963
[10]

B.C. Hall. Lie Groups, Lie Algebras, and Representations: An Elementary Introduction.Vol. 222. Springer, 2015. (Cited on page 54.)

2015
[11]

Johnson, An abelian quotient of the mapping class group Ig, Math

D. Johnson, An abelian quotient of the mapping class group Ig, Math. Ann. 249 (1980), no. 3, 225–242. (Cited on page 1.) 13For example, when g = 8, the modules Φ 1,0,0,1,0,...,0,1 and Φ 1,0,...,0,1,0,0,1 both have highest weight (1, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 1) so LiE does not differenti...

1980
[12]

Johnson, Conjugacy relations in subgroups of the mapping class group and a group-theoretic description of the Rochlin invariant, Math

D. Johnson, Conjugacy relations in subgroups of the mapping class group and a group-theoretic description of the Rochlin invariant, Math. Ann. 249 (1980), no. 3, 243–263. (Cited on pages 49 and 50.)

1980
[13]

Johnson, The structure of the Torelli group

D. Johnson, The structure of the Torelli group. I. A finite set of generators for I, Ann. of Math. (2) 118 (1983), no. 3, 423–442. (Cited on page 1.)

1983
[14]

Johnson, The structure of the Torelli group

D. Johnson, The structure of the Torelli group. II. A characterization of the group generated by twists on bounding curves. Topology, 24(2):113–126, 1985. (Cited on page 1.)

1985
[15]

Johnson, The structure of the Torelli group

D. Johnson, The structure of the Torelli group. III. The abelianization of T , Topology 24 (1985), no. 2, 127–144. (Cited on pages 1 and 49.)

1985
[16]

Kawazumi, Cohomological aspects of Magnus expansions, preprint 2005

N. Kawazumi, Cohomological aspects of Magnus expansions, preprint 2005. arXiv:math/0505497 (Cited on page 2.)

2005 arXiv
[17]

Habegger & C

N. Habegger & C. Sorger, An infinitesimal presentation of the Torelli group of a surface with boundary, preprint 2002. (Cited on pages 1, 5, and 49.)

2002
[18]

Hain, Infinitesimal presentations of the Torelli groups, J

R. Hain, Infinitesimal presentations of the Torelli groups, J. Amer. Math. Soc. 10 (1997), no. 3, 597–651. arXiv:alg-geom/9512001 (Cited on pages 1, 5, 19, 28, and 33.)

1997 arXiv
[19]

Hensel, A primer on handlebody groups, Handbook of group actions (Vol

S. Hensel, A primer on handlebody groups, Handbook of group actions (Vol. V), ALM 48, Ch. 4 pp. 143-177 (2020). (Cited on pages 2 and 8.)

2020
[20]

Hirose, The action of the handlebody group on the first homology group of the surface, Kyungpook Math

S. Hirose, The action of the handlebody group on the first homology group of the surface, Kyungpook Math. J. 46 (3) (2006) 399–408. (Cited on pages 7 and 12.)

2006
[21]

van Leeuwen, A

M. van Leeuwen, A. Cohen, & B. Lisser, LiE, A Package for Lie Group Computations, Computer Algebra Nederland, Amsterdam, ISBN 90-74116-02-7, 1992. (Cited on page 58.)

1992
[22]

Luft, Actions of the homeotopy group of an orientable 3-dimensional handlebody, Math

E. Luft, Actions of the homeotopy group of an orientable 3-dimensional handlebody, Math. Ann., 234 (1978), 279-292. (Cited on page 8.)

1978
[23]

Magnus, ¨Uber n-dimensionale Gittertransformationen, Acta Math

W. Magnus, ¨Uber n-dimensionale Gittertransformationen, Acta Math. 64 (1934), 353–367. (Cited on page 7.)

1934
[24]

Morita, Abelian quotients of subgroups of the mapping class group of surfaces, Duke Math

S. Morita, Abelian quotients of subgroups of the mapping class group of surfaces, Duke Math. J. 70 (1993) 699–726 (Cited on pages 5 and 10.)

1993
[25]

Morita, Casson’s invariant for homology 3-spheres and characteristic classes of surface bundles I, Topology, 28 (1989), 305-323

S. Morita, Casson’s invariant for homology 3-spheres and characteristic classes of surface bundles I, Topology, 28 (1989), 305-323. (Cited on pages 26 and 33.)

1989
[26]

Morita, Characteristic classes of surface bundles, Invent

S. Morita, Characteristic classes of surface bundles, Invent. Math. 90 (1987) 551–577 (Cited on page 46.)

1987
[27]

Morita, The extension of Johnson’s homomorphism from the Torelli group to the mapping class group, Invent

S. Morita, The extension of Johnson’s homomorphism from the Torelli group to the mapping class group, Invent. Math. 111 (1993), no. 1, 197– 224. (Cited on page 9.)

1993
[28]

S. Morita, A linear representation of the mapping class group of orientable surfaces and characteristic classes of surface bundles, Proceeding of the Taniguchi Symposium on Topology and Teichm¨ uller Spaces, Finland, July 1995, World Scientific, 1996, pp. 159-186. (Cited on pa...

1995
[29]

Omori, A small normal generating set for the handlebody subgroup of the Torelli group, Geom

G. Omori, A small normal generating set for the handlebody subgroup of the Torelli group, Geom. Dedicata, 201(1):353-367 (2019). arXiv:1607.06553 (Cited on pages 8, 12, and 13.)

2019 arXiv
[30]

Pettet, The Johnson homomorphism and the second cohomology of IA g, Algebr

A. Pettet, The Johnson homomorphism and the second cohomology of IA g, Algebr. Geom. Topol. 5 (2005) 725-740. arXiv:math/0501053 (Cited on pages 2, 4, 5, 8, 13, 15, 16, and 20.)

2005 arXiv
[31]

Putman, The Johnson homomorphism and its kernel, J

A. Putman, The Johnson homomorphism and its kernel, J. Reine Angew. Math. 735 (2018), 109–141. arXiv:0904.0467 (Cited on page 50.)

2018 arXiv
[32]

T. Sakasai. Lagrangian mapping class groups from a group homological point of view. Algebr. Geom. Topol., 12(1):267–291, 2012. arXiv:0910.5262 (Cited on page 12.)

2012 arXiv
[33]

Sakasai, The Johnson homomorphism and the third rational cohomology group of the Torelli group, Topology Appl., 148 (2005), 83-111

T. Sakasai, The Johnson homomorphism and the third rational cohomology group of the Torelli group, Topology Appl., 148 (2005), 83-111. (Cited on pages 1, 5, 19, and 27.)

2005
[34]

Sakasai, The second Johnson homomorphism and the second rational cohomology of the Johnson kernel, Math

T. Sakasai, The second Johnson homomorphism and the second rational cohomology of the Johnson kernel, Math. Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc., 143 (2007), 627-648. arXiv:math/0601314 (Cited on pages 5 and 53.)

2007 arXiv
[35]

Satoh, A survey of the Johnson homomorphisms of the automorphism groups of free groups and related topics, In Handbook of Teichm¨ uller theory

T. Satoh, A survey of the Johnson homomorphisms of the automorphism groups of free groups and related topics, In Handbook of Teichm¨ uller theory. Vol. V, IRMA Lect. Math. Theor. Phys., Vol. 26 (Eur. Math. Soc., Z¨ urich, 2016), 167–209.arXiv:1204.0876 (Cited on page 8.)

2016 arXiv
[36]

Serre, Lie algebras and Lie groups, Lectures given at Harvard University, Vol

J.P. Serre, Lie algebras and Lie groups, Lectures given at Harvard University, Vol. 1964, W. A. Benjamin, Inc., New York-Amsterdam, (1965). (Cited on page 45.)

1964
[37]

Stallings, Homology and central series of groups, J

J. Stallings, Homology and central series of groups, J. Algebra 2, 170-181 (1965). (Cited on page 15.)

1965
[38]

Sullivan, On the intersection ring of compact three manifolds, Topology, 14 (1975), 275-277

D. Sullivan, On the intersection ring of compact three manifolds, Topology, 14 (1975), 275-277. (Not cited.) 60 ANNIE HOLDEN

1975
[39]

Suzuki, On homeomorphisms of a 3-dimensional handlebody, Can

S. Suzuki, On homeomorphisms of a 3-dimensional handlebody, Can. J. Math. 29 (1977), 111-124. (Cited on page 10.) Dept of Mathematics; University of Notre Dame; 255 Hurley Hall; Notre Dame, IN 46556 Email address: aholden2@nd.edu

1977

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

The Birman-Craggs-Johnson homomorphism and abelian cycles in the Torelli group

T. Brendle & B. Farb, The Birman-Craggs-Johnson homomorphism and abelian cycles in the Torelli group, Math. Ann. 338 (2007), no. 1, 33–53. arXiv:math/0601163 (Cited on pages 5, 6, and 19.)

work page Pith review arXiv 2007

[2] [2]

Brown, Cohomology of groups, Graduate Texts in Mathematics, 87, Springer-Verlag, New York,

K. Brown, Cohomology of groups, Graduate Texts in Mathematics, 87, Springer-Verlag, New York,

work page

[3] [3]

Cohen & J

F. Cohen & J. Pakianathan, On automorphism groups of free groups and their nilpotent quotients, in preparation. (Cited on page 2.)

work page

[4] [4]

Dimca & S

A. Dimca & S. Papadima. Arithmetic group symmetry and finiteness properties of Torelli groups. Ann. of Math. (2), 177(2):395–423, 2013. (Not cited.)

work page 2013

[5] [5]

The handlebody group and the images of the second Johnson homomorphism

Q. Faes, The handlebody group and the images of the second Johnson homomorphism, Algebr. Geom. Topol. 23:1, 243–293 (2023). arXiv:2010.16268 (Cited on pages 5, 10, and 53.)

work page Pith review arXiv 2023

[6] [6]

Farb, Automorphisms of Fg which act trivially on homology, in preparation

B. Farb, Automorphisms of Fg which act trivially on homology, in preparation. (Cited on page 2.)

work page

[7] [7]

Farb & D

B. Farb & D. Margalit, A primer on mapping class groups, Princeton Mathematical Series, 49, Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ, 2012. (Cited on pages 6, 18, and 50.)

work page 2012

[8] [8]

Fulton & J

W. Fulton & J. Harris, Representation theory, Graduate Texts in Mathematics Readings in Mathematics, 129, Springer, New York, 1991. (Cited on pages 10 and 30.)

work page 1991