Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 8 minor 27 references

Handlebody groups may have no infinite abelian quotients

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · glm-5.2

2026-07-09 05:59 UTC pith:KNFOXOIU

load-bearing objection Solid partial results on handlebody group abelianizations; proofs are sound with one checkable computation as the main risk. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.07587 v1 pith:KNFOXOIU submitted 2026-07-08 math.GT math.AT

Abelianizations of finite-index subgroups of the handlebody group

Annie Holden This is my paper
classification math.GT math.AT MSC 57K2020F6520J05
keywords handlebody groupmapping class groupabelianizationDehn twistsgroup homologyProperty (T)Torelli groupJohnson kernel
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The handlebody group is the group of symmetries of a 3-dimensional handlebody, as seen from its boundary surface. A long-standing question asks whether this group admits a finite-index subgroup with nontrivial rational abelianization — that is, a subgroup that has a genuinely new way to map to the integers. This paper provides evidence that no such subgroup exists for genus at least 4. The central result is that meridian multitwists (products of Dehn twists along curves that bound disks inside the handlebody) always vanish in the rational first homology of any finite-index subgroup. This vanishing result is then used as a lever: combined with the known Property (T) of Out(F_g) and representation-theoretic arguments about how the handlebody group acts on homology, the author proves that the rational abelianization is trivial for finite-index subgroups that contain the handlebody Torelli group, large pieces of the twist group, or large pieces of the handlebody Johnson kernel.

Core claim

The key mechanism is that meridian multitwists vanish in H_1(Gamma; Q) for any finite-index subgroup Gamma of the handlebody group. This is proved by embedding the twist into a lower-genus handlebody group with at most two boundary components, where the rational abelianization is already known to vanish (Proposition 3.1), and then using a five-term exact sequence argument with a transfer map to lift the vanishing back to Gamma. Once this vanishing is established, it serves as the input for three separate theorems: Theorem B uses it to kill the coinvariants of the twist group, relying on the fact that Out(F_g) has Property (T); Theorem C uses it (via bounding pair annulus twists) togetherwith

What carries the argument

Five-term exact sequence in group homology, transfer maps for finite-index subgroups, Property (T) of Out(F_g), representation theory of SL_g(Q) on symmetric and exterior powers, and the Birman exact sequence for handlebody groups.

Load-bearing premise

The proof of Proposition 3.1 for the case of two boundary components (b=2) involves a detailed manual computation showing that each generator of the coinvariant group vanishes. If any generator is mishandled in this computation, the surjectivity argument for the five-term exact sequence breaks, which would invalidate the main theorems.

What would settle it

Find a finite-index subgroup Gamma of H_g (for some g >= 4) and a meridian multitwist M in Gamma such that the class of M is nonzero in H_1(Gamma; Q). Alternatively, find an error in the coinvariant computation of Proposition 3.1 for b=2.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If the vanishing of meridian multitwists could be extended to all nontrivial elements of the handlebody group (not just multitwists), it would directly resolve the open question for the full handlebody group.
  • The conjecture that the handlebody Johnson kernel is generated by separating meridian twists (Conjecture 7.1) would immediately strengthen Theorem D to cover all finite-index subgroups containing the Johnson kernel.
  • The strategy of combining twist-vanishing with Property (T) of the quotient could be attempted for other groups that sit in extensions where the quotient has Property (T) but the kernel is not fully understood.
  • The representation-theoretic technique using Lemma 6.2 (Zariski density forcing coinvariants to vanish) could be applied to other Johnson-type filtrations in related mapping class groups.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper's approach suggests that the obstruction to a full resolution of Hensel's question is understanding whether all elements of the handlebody group can be related to meridian twists in a way that forces their homology classes to vanish — the current results handle specific natural subgroups but not arbitrary finite-index subgroups.
  • The reliance on the specific structure of SL_g(Q) representations suggests that the genus threshold g >= 4 may be sharp, since the representation-theoretic arguments (irreducibility of Sym^2, decomposition of U) depend on g being large enough.
  • If the handlebody group itself were eventually shown to have Property (T) for g >= 4, all of these results would follow immediately; the paper's approach provides a partial substitute that avoids needing the full Property (T) conclusion.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 8 minor

Summary. The paper studies the rational abelianizations of finite-index subgroups of the handlebody group $H_g$ for $g$-geq-4. The main results are: (Theorem A) meridian multitwists vanish in $H_1(Γ; Q)$ for any finite-index $Γ$-le-H_g$; (Theorem B) $H_1(Γ; Q) = 0$ if $Γ$ contains a large piece of the twist group $T_g$; (Theorem C) $H_1(Γ; Q) = 0$ if $Γ$ contains the handlebody Torelli group $HI_g$; and (Theorem D) $H_1(Γ; Q) = 0$ if $Γ$ contains a large piece of the handlebody Johnson kernel $HK_g$. The proofs use the five-term exact sequence, transfer maps for finite-index subgroups, Property (T) for $Out(F_g)$ and $GL_g(Z)$, and representation-theoretic vanishing of coinvariants (Zariski density arguments). The structure follows the analogous results of Putman for the mapping class group.

Significance. The paper addresses a well-known open question (Hensel's Question 8.7) about whether $H_g$ admits a finite-index subgroup with nontrivial rational abelianization. The results provide strong evidence that no such subgroup exists, analogous to the Putman-Bridson results for $Mod(Σ_g)$. The paper is self-contained, clearly written, and the proofs follow a coherent and verifiable strategy. The representation-theoretic computations (Proposition 7.4, verified via LiE) and the explicit coinvariant computation in Proposition 3.1 are concrete and checkable. The paper makes a solid contribution to the theory of handlebody groups.

major comments (3)
  1. Proposition 4.1, proof: The five-lemma argument for $f_4$ being an isomorphism is stated somewhat tersely. The text says '$f_3$ is a surjection' (since $H_1(H(overline{S}); Q) = 0$ by Proposition 3.1), and then concludes '$f_4$ is an isomorphism.' Since the target of $f_3$ is the zero group, $f_3$ is in fact an isomorphism (both surjective and injective). The five-lemma with $f_1$ surjective and $f_3$ an isomorphism does yield $f_4$ an isomorphism. The argument is correct, but the authors should clarify that $f_3$ is an isomorphism, not merely a surjection, to make the five-lemma application transparent.
  2. Proposition 3.1, proof (b=2 case): The coinvariant computation for $H_1(UΣ^1_g; Z)_{H^1_g}$ is the computational backbone of Proposition 4.1 and hence Theorems A, B, and D. The computation checks that each generator $tilde{a}_i, tilde{b}_i, z$ vanishes. The argument for $tilde{a}_g$ uses an element $f in H^1_g$ swapping handles 1 and $g$, giving $f(tilde{a}_1) = tilde{a}_g + nz$ for some $n in Z$. Since $tilde{a}_1$ and $z$ already vanish, $tilde{a}_g$ vanishes. This is correct, but the integer $n$ is left unspecified. While its value is irrelevant to the conclusion, specifying it (or noting it is irrelevant) would strengthen the verification.
  3. Lemma 6.3, proof: The claim that $Γ_{overline{T}}$ contains $π_1(UΣ_h)$ uses the assumption that $Γ$ contains $HI_g$, which 'contains $π_1(UΣ_g)$.' This needs clarification. The Birman exact sequence gives $π_1(UΣ_g)$ as a subgroup of $H^{b+1}_g$, not directly of $H_g$. The authors should explain how $HI_g$ containing $π_1(UΣ_h)$ follows, presumably via the inclusion $H(T) hookrightarrow H_g$ and the fact that $HI_g$ contains the relevant point-pushing subgroup when restricted to the subsurface $T$.
minor comments (8)
  1. Abstract: 'ABELIANIZA TIONS' should be 'ABELIANIZATIONS' in the title line.
  2. Section 5, proof of Theorem B: The garbled text '/leftr⫯g⊸tl⫯ne' appears in the five-term exact sequence display. This should be cleaned up to standard notation.
  3. Section 6.3, proof of Theorem C: The same garbled text '/leftr⫯g⊸tl⫯ne' appears again.
  4. Section 7.4, proof of Theorem D: The same garbled text '/leftr⫯g⊸tl⫯ne' appears again.
  5. Figure 1 and Figure 2: The caption text contains repeated '<' symbols that appear to be formatting artifacts. These should be cleaned up.
  6. Section 6.2, proof of Lemma 6.3: The text says 'for some $2 < h < g$' but the subsurface $T ≅ Σ^1_h$ is described as containing $S ≅ Σ^2_h$. The relationship between the genus of $S$ and $T$ should be stated more precisely.
  7. Appendix A, Lemma A.2: The five-lemma is invoked but the diagram is not explicitly drawn. Adding the diagram or stating the five-lemma application more explicitly would help the reader.
  8. Proposition 7.4: The decomposition of $U ⊗ Q$ into irreducible $SL_g(Q)$-representations is stated as checkable via LiE. It would be helpful to briefly indicate the highest weights or the decomposition logic for the reader who wishes to verify without software.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for a careful reading and for identifying three points where the exposition can be clarified. All three comments are well-taken and concern matters of precision and transparency rather than correctness. We will revise the manuscript accordingly.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Proposition 4.1, proof: The five-lemma argument for f_4 being an isomorphism is stated somewhat tersely. The text says 'f_3 is a surjection' (since H_1(H(S̄); Q) = 0 by Proposition 3.1), and then concludes 'f_4 is an isomorphism.' Since the target of f_3 is the zero group, f_3 is in fact an isomorphism (both surjective and injective). The five-lemma with f_1 surjective and f_3 an isomorphism does yield f_4 an isomorphism. The argument is correct, but the authors should clarify that f_3 is an isomorphism, not merely a surjection, to make the five-lemma application transparent.

    Authors: The referee is correct. Since H_1(H(S̄); Q) = 0 by Proposition 3.1, the map f_3 has zero target and is therefore an isomorphism, not merely a surjection. The five-lemma application requires f_3 to be an isomorphism, so the current phrasing understates what is needed and what holds. We will revise the proof to state explicitly that f_3 is an isomorphism, making the five-lemma application transparent. revision: yes

  2. Referee: Proposition 3.1, proof (b=2 case): The coinvariant computation for H_1(UΣ^1_g; Z)_{H^1_g} is the computational backbone of Proposition 4.1 and hence Theorems A, B, and D. The computation checks that each generator ã_i, b̃_i, z vanishes. The argument for ã_g uses an element f ∈ H^1_g swapping handles 1 and g, giving f(ã_1) = ã_g + nz for some n ∈ Z. Since ã_1 and z already vanish, ã_g vanishes. This is correct, but the integer n is left unspecified. While its value is irrelevant to the conclusion, specifying it (or noting it is irrelevant) would strengthen the verification.

    Authors: The referee's observation is correct: the integer n is irrelevant to the conclusion since ã_1 and z have already been shown to vanish in the coinvariants, so f(ã_1) = ã_g + nz immediately gives ã_g = 0 regardless of the value of n. We will add a remark in the proof noting that the value of n is immaterial to the argument, as the referee suggests. revision: yes

  3. Referee: Lemma 6.3, proof: The claim that Γ_T̄ contains π_1(UΣ_h) uses the assumption that Γ contains HI_g, which 'contains π_1(UΣ_g).' This needs clarification. The Birman exact sequence gives π_1(UΣ_g) as a subgroup of H^{b+1}_g, not directly of H_g. The authors should explain how HI_g containing π_1(UΣ_h) follows, presumably via the inclusion H(T) ↪ H_g and the fact that HI_g contains the relevant point-pushing subgroup when restricted to the subsurface T.

    Authors: The referee correctly identifies a gap in the exposition. The Birman exact sequence gives π_1(UΣ_g) as a subgroup of H^{b+1}_g, not H_g directly, so the statement that HI_g 'contains π_1(UΣ_g)' is imprecise as written. What we need is that π_1(UΣ_h) lies in Γ_T̄, and the argument should proceed as follows. The subsurface T ≅ Σ^1_h bounds a subhandlebody of V_g, giving an inclusion H(T) ↪ H_g. The point-pushing subgroup π_1(UΣ_h) lies in H(T) and acts trivially on H_1(Σ_g; Z), hence lies in HI_g. Since Γ contains HI_g, the preimage Γ_T̄ = i^{-1}(Γ) contains π_1(UΣ_h). We will revise the proof to spell out this inclusion chain and remove the imprecise statement about HI_g containing π_1(UΣ_g). revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity found: the derivation is self-contained with external benchmarks

full rationale

The paper is a self-contained mathematical derivation. The main results (Theorems A–D) are proven from established external results: Property (T) for Out(F_g) (Kaluba–Kielak–Nowak, Nitsche), Morita's computation of HI_g/HK_g, Omori's generating set for HI_g, and standard group homology machinery (Brown). Proposition 3.1 extends a known result (Ishida–Sato) to b=2 via an explicit coinvariant computation following the method of [10, Lemma 2.1]. Proposition 4.1's five-lemma argument is checked: H_1(H(S̄);Q)=0 makes f_3 an isomorphism to the zero group, so f_1 surjective + f_3 isomorphism → f_4 isomorphism via the five-lemma. No result is defined in terms of its own conclusion, no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no self-citation chain is load-bearing. Conjecture 7.1 is clearly flagged as unproven. The derivation chain is independent of its outputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 7 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new mathematical objects, particles, forces, or postulated entities. All groups and maps used (handlebody group, Torelli group, Johnson kernel, twist group, symplectic representation) are standard in the literature. The subgroup U ⊂ (⋀³ H)/H is defined by Morita [18] and used here as an established object. Conjecture 7.1 is a stated conjecture, not a postulated entity.

axioms (7)
  • domain assumption Out(F_g) has Kazhdan's Property (T) for g ≥ 4
    Used in Theorem B proof (Section 5) to conclude H_1(Γ/(Γ∩T_g); Q) = 0. Cited from Kaluba–Kielak–Nowak [13], Kaluba–Nowak–Ozawa [12], Nitsche [19].
  • domain assumption GL_g(Z) has Property (T) for g ≥ 3
    Used in Proposition 6.1 (Section 6.1) to conclude H_1(G; Q) = 0. Standard result in geometric group theory.
  • domain assumption HI_g is generated by bounding pair annulus twists (Omori [21])
    Used in Theorem C proof (Section 6.3) to reduce to showing bounding pair annulus twists vanish. Cited from Omori's Theorem 1.2.
  • domain assumption HI_g/HK_g ≅ U (Morita [18, Lemma 2.5])
    Used in Proposition 7.3 (Section 7.1) to identify the kernel in the five-term exact sequence for Theorem D.
  • standard math The five-term exact sequence for group extensions (Brown [2, Corollary VII.6.4])
    Used throughout the paper (Sections 3.1, 4, 5, 6.3, 7.4) as the primary computational tool.
  • domain assumption Finite-index subgroups of SL_g(Z) are Zariski dense in SL_g(Q) (Putman [24, Lemma 2.2])
    Used in Lemma 6.2 (Section 6.1) to prove coinvariants of irreducible representations vanish.
  • standard math The transfer map ι* is surjective for finite-index inclusions over Q (Brown [2, Proposition 9.5(iii)])
    Used in Lemma 3.2 (Section 3.3), invoked in Theorems B and D proofs.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-glm · 17732 in / 3311 out tokens · 317051 ms · 2026-07-09T05:59:40.328689+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

For genus $\geq 4$, it is an open question whether the mapping class group of a handlebody contains a finite-index subgroup with nontrivial rational abelianization. In this paper, we provide evidence that no such subgroup exists. First, we prove that, for all such finite-index subgroups $\Gamma$, meridian multitwists vanish in $H_1(\Gamma; \mathbb{Q})$. Next, we show that $H_1(\Gamma; \mathbb{Q}) = 0$ for finite-index subgroups $\Gamma$ containing the handlebody Torelli group, or large enough subgroups of the twist group or the handlebody Johnson kernel.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.07587 by Annie Holden.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: A basis for H1(Σ 1 g ;Z) A basis for H1(Σ 1 g ;Z) is {a1, . . . , ag, b1, . . . , bg}, where [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The curves involved in the map hi Now consider the curves shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: A basis for H1(Σg;Z) The group Mod(Σg) acts on H1(Σg;Z) by automorphisms that fix its symplectic form, and the Torelli group Ig is the kernel of this action. Letting Ψ ∶ Mod(Σg) → Sp2g (Z) be the symplectic representation, this is encoded in the short exact sequence 1 → Ig → Mod(Σg) Ψ Ð→ Sp2g (Z) → 1. This action restricts to Hg and Hirose [9] proved that the image in Sp2g (Z) is Ψ(Hg) ≅ {[A 0 B (A t ) −1]… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Bounding pair annulus twist and subsurface T In particular, since z bounds a disk in Vg, the subsurface T bounds a handlebody homeo￾morphic to V 1 h . We have an inclusion i ∶ H(T) → Hg and we let ΓT ∶= i −1 (Γ). It suffices to show that [TxT −1 y ] = 0 in H1(ΓT ;Q). Note that x and y become homotopic in T ≅ Σh after capping off the boundary with a disk, so TxT −1 y dies in H(T). Recalling the Birman exact… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

27 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages · 11 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    M. Bridson. Semisimple actions of mapping class groups on CAT(0) spaces. Geometry of Riemann surfaces, 368:1–14, 2010.arXiv:0908.0685(Cited on page 1.)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  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]

    (Cited on pages 4 and 6.)

    work page

  4. [4]

    On finiteness properties of the Johnson filtrations

    M. Ershov & S. He. On finiteness properties of the Johnson filtrations,Duke Math. J.167 (2018), no. 9, 1713–1759.arXiv:1703.04190(Cited on page 3.)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  5. [5]

    Farb & D

    B. Farb & D. Margalit.A primer on mapping class groups, Princeton Mathematical Series, 49, Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ, 2012. (Cited on page 11.)

    work page 2012

  6. [6]

    Fulton & J

    W. Fulton & J. Harris.Representation theory, Graduate Texts in Mathematics Readings in Mathematics, 129, Springer, New York, 1991. (Cited on page 13.)

    work page 1991

  7. [7]

    H. B. Griffiths. Automorphisms of a 3-dimensional handlebody. Abh. Math. Sem. Univ. Hamburg, 26:191–210, 1963/1964. (Cited on page 4.)

    work page 1963

  8. [8]

    R. Hain. Torelli groups and geometry of moduli spaces of curves. InCurrent topics in complex algebraic geometry (Berkeley, CA, 1992/93), volume 28 ofMath. Sci. Res. Inst. Publ., pages 97-143. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1995. (Cited on page 2.)

    work page 1992

  9. [9]

    S. Hensel. A primer on handlebody groups, Handbook of group actions (Vol. V), ALM 48, Ch. 4 pp. 143-177 (2020). (Cited on pages 1, 3, and 4.)

    work page 2020

  10. [10]

    S. Hirose. The action of the handlebody group on the first homology group of the surface, Kyungpook Math. J. 46 (2006), no. 3, 399–408. (Cited on page 9.)

    work page 2006

  11. [11]

    A twisted first homology group of the handlebody mapping class group

    T. Ishida & M. Sato. A twisted first homology group of the handlebody mapping class group. Osaka J. Math., 54(3):587–619, 07 2017.arXiv:1502.07048(Cited on page 5.)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  12. [12]

    N. V. Ivanov. Fifteen problems about the mapping class groups, inProblems on mapping class groups and related topics, 71–80, Proc. Sympos. Pure Math., 74, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI (2006). arXiv:math/0608325(Cited on page 1.)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  13. [13]

    $\operatorname{Aut}(\mathbb{F}_5)$ has property $(T)$

    M. Kaluba, P. W. Nowak, & N. Ozawa. Aut(F 5)has property (T), Math. Ann. 375 (2019), no. 3-4, 1169–1191. MR4023374.arXiv:1712.07167(Cited on page 1.)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  14. [14]

    On property (T) for $\operatorname{Aut}(F_n)$ and $\operatorname{SL}_n(\mathbb{Z})$

    M. Kaluba, D. Kielak, & P. W. Nowak. On property (T) for Aut(Fn) and SLn(Z), Ann. of Math. (2) 193 (2021), no. 2, 539–562.arXiv:1812.03456(Cited on page 1.)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  15. [15]

    R. Kirby. Problems in low-dimensional topology. Ed. by Rob Kirby. AMS/IP Stud. Adv. Math., V. 2.2, Geometric topology (Athens, GA, 1993), 35-473, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, (1997). (Cited on page 1.)

    work page 1993

  16. [16]

    E. Luft. Actions of the homeotopy group of an orientable 3-dimensional handlebody, Math. Ann., 234 (1978), 279-292. (Cited on page 4.)

    work page 1978

  17. [17]

    McCarthy

    J. McCarthy. On the first cohomology group of cofinite subgroups in surface mapping class groups. Topology, 40(2):401–418, 2001. (Cited on page 2.)

    work page 2001

  18. [18]

    Homeomorphisms which are Dehn twists on the boundary

    D McCullough. Homeomorphisms which are Dehn twists on the boundary. Algebr. Geom. Topol., 6:1331–1340 (2006).arXiv:math/0604358(Cited on page 4.)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  19. [19]

    S. Morita. Casson’s invariant for homology 3-spheres and characteristic classes of surface bundles I, Topology, 28 (1989), 305-323. (Cited on page 12.)

    work page 1989

  20. [20]

    M. Nitsche. Computer proofs for property (T), and SDP duality (2020), arXiv:2009.05134 (Cited on page 1.)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  21. [21]

    Automorphisms of three-dimensional handlebodies

    U Oertel. Automorphisms of three-dimensional handlebodies. Topology, 41(2):363–410 (2002). (Cited on page 4.)

    work page 2002

  22. [22]

    G. Omori. A small normal generating set for the handlebody subgroup of the Torelli group, Geometriae Dedicata, 201(1):353-367 (2019).arXiv:1607.06553(Cited on page 10.)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  23. [23]

    Abelian quotients of subgroups of the mapping class group and higher Prym representations

    A. Putman & B. Wieland. Abelian quotients of subgroups of the mapping class group and higher Prym representations. Journal of the London Mathematical Society, 88(1):79–96, 2013. arXiv:1106.2747(Cited on pages 1, 3, and 7.)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  24. [24]

    A. Putman. A note on the abelianizations of finite-index subgroups of the mapping class group. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., 138(2):753–758, 2010.arXiv:0812.0017(Cited on pages 1, 2, and 6.) 16 ANNIE HOLDEN

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  25. [25]

    A. Putman. The representation theory of SL n(Z), https://www3.nd.edu/~andyp/notes/RepTheorySLnZ.pdf(Cited on page 10.)

    work page

  26. [26]

    S. Suzuki. On homeomorphisms of a 3-dimensional handlebody, Can. J. Math. 29 (1977), 111-124. (Cited on page 6.)

    work page 1977

  27. [27]

    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 13.) Department of Mathematics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA Email address:holdena@sas.upenn.edu

    work page 1992