UBIQUITOUS QUASI-FUCHSIAN SURFACES
IN CUSPED HYPERBOLIC 3–MANIFOLDS

arXiv:1705.02890v2 [math.GT] 15 May 2017

DARYL COOPER AND DAVID FUTER

Abstract. This paper proves that every finite volume hyperbolic 3–manifold M contains a ubiquitous collection of closed, immersed, quasi-Fuchsian surfaces. These surfaces are ubiquitous in
the sense that their preimages in the universal cover separate any pair of disjoint, non-asymptotic
geodesic planes. The proof relies in a crucial way on the corresponding theorem of Kahn and
Markovic for closed 3–manifolds. As a corollary of this result and a companion statement about
surfaces with cusps, we recover Wise’s theorem that the fundamental group of M acts freely and
cocompactly on a CAT(0) cube complex.

1. Introduction
A collection of immersed surfaces in a hyperbolic 3–manifold M = H3 /Γ is called ubiquitous if,
for any pair of hyperbolic planes Π, Π0 ⊂ H3 whose distance is d(Π, Π0 ) > 0, there is some surface S
in the collection with an embedded preimage Se ⊂ H3 that separates Π from Π0 . The main result of
this paper is the following.
Theorem 1.1. Let M = H3 /Γ be a complete, finite volume hyperbolic 3–manifold. Then the set of
closed immersed quasi-Fuchsian surfaces in M is ubiquitous.
We refer the reader to Section 2.2 for the definition of a quasi-Fuchsian surface (abbreviated QF).
Informally, a quasi-Fuchsian subgroup of isometries of H3 preserves a small deformation of a totally
geodesic hyperbolic plane.
Theorem 1.1 resolves a question posed by Agol [16, Problem 3.5]. Kahn and Markovic proved
exactly the same statement under the additional hypothesis that M is closed [25]. Their theorem
is a crucial ingredient in our proof of Theorem 1.1. Very recently, Kahn and Wright have outlined
an independent proof of Theorem 1.1 by modifying the dynamical methods of Kahn and Markovic
[25], including the good pants homology [26].
A slope on a torus T is an isotopy class of essential simple closed curves on T , or equivalently
a primitive homology class (up to sign) in H1 (T ). When M is a cusped hyperbolic 3–manifold —
that is, non-compact with finite volume — it follows from the work of Culler and Shalen [15] that
M contains at least two embedded QF surfaces with cusps, and furthermore that the boundaries of
these surfaces have distinct slopes on each cusp torus of M . Masters and Zhang [29, 30], as well as
Baker and Cooper [6], found ways to glue together covers of these cusped QF surfaces to produce
a closed, immersed QF surface. However, it is not clear whether these constructions can produce a
ubiquitous collection of QF surfaces.
If an embedded essential surface S ⊂ M has all components of ∂S homotopic to the same slope
α ⊂ M , we say that α is an embedded boundary slope. An immersed boundary slope in M is a slope
α in a cusp torus of M , for which there is an integer m > 0 and an essential immersed surface S
Date: May 17, 2017.
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification. 57M50, 30F40, 20H10, 20F65.
Cooper was partially supported by NSF grants DMS–1065939, 1207068 and 1045292. Futer was partially supported
by NSF grant DMS–1408682. Both authors acknowledge support from NSF grants DMS–1107452, 1107263, 1107367
“RNMS: GEometric structures And Representation varieties” (the GEAR Network). Both authors also acknowledge
support from the Institute for Advanced Study.
1

2

DARYL COOPER AND DAVID FUTER

whose boundary maps to loops each homotopic to ±m · α. Such a surface S is said to have immersed
slope α. We prove the following.
Theorem 1.2. Let M = H3 /Γ be a cusped hyperbolic 3–manifold, and let α be a slope on a cusp
of M . Then the set of cusped quasi-Fuchsian surfaces immersed in M with immersed slope α is
ubiquitous.
Hatcher showed that a compact manifold bounded by a torus has only finitely many embedded
boundary slopes [20]. Hass, Rubinstein, and Wang [19] (refined by Zhang [44]) showed that there
are only finitely many immersed boundary slopes whose surfaces have bounded Euler characteristic.
Baker [2] gave the first example of a hyperbolic manifold with infinitely many immersed boundary
slopes, while Baker and Cooper [3] showed that all slopes of even numerator in the figure-eight knot
complement are virtual boundary slopes. Oertel [31] found a manifold with one cusp so that all
slopes are immersed boundary slopes. Maher [28] gave many families, including all 2–bridge knots,
for which every slope is an immersed boundary slope. Subsequently, Baker and Cooper [4, Theorem
9.4] showed that all slopes of one-cusped manifolds are immersed boundary slopes. Przytycki and
Wise [33, Proposition 4.6] proved the same result for all slopes of multi-cusped hyperbolic manifolds.
The surfaces constructed in those papers are not necessarily quasi-Fuchsian, because they may
contain annuli parallel to the boundary. By contrast, Theorem 1.2 produces a ubiquitous collection
of QF surfaces realizing every slope as an immersed boundary slope.
Theorems 1.1 and 1.2, combined with results of Bergeron and Wise [7] and Hruska and Wise [23],
have the following immediate consequence. (See Section 8 for definitions related to cube complexes.)
Corollary 1.3. Let M be a complete, finite volume hyperbolic 3–manifold. If M has cusps, choose
a pair of distinct slopes α(V ), β(V ) for every cusp V ⊂ M .
Then π1 (M ) acts freely and cocompactly on a CAT(0) cube complex dual to finitely many immersed
quasi-Fuchsian surfaces S1 , . . . , Sk . Every surface Si is either closed or has immersed slope α(V ) or
β(V ) for one cusp V ⊂ M .
Corollary 1.3 is not new. When M is closed, the result is due to Bergeron and Wise [7, Theorem
1.5], using the closed case of Theorem 1.1 proved by Kahn and Markovic [25]. When M is cusped,
the statement that π1 M acts freely and cocompactly on a cube complex is due to Wise [42, Theorem
16.28], and occurs in the last step of his construction of a virtual quasiconvex hierarchy for π1 M .
The final statement of Corollary 1.3, that the surfaces used to cubulate π1 M can be chosen to have
prescribed immersed slopes, is a very recent theorem of Tidmore [40, Theorem 1.7]. His proof uses
the full strength of Wise’s work [42], including the virtual specialness of π1 M and a relative version
of the special quotient theorem [42, Lemma 16.13]. These strong tools enable Tidmore to settle
some open questions about fundamental groups of mixed 3–manifolds, including biautomaticity and
integrality of L2 betti numbers.
Our proof of the cusped case of Corollary 1.3 using Theorem 1.2 and [7, 23] is substantially easier
and more direct than Wise’s hierarchical argument. This also provides an easier and more direct
route to Tidmore’s results.
1.1. Proof outline and organization. This paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we review
QF manifolds, convex thickenings, and geometric estimates during Dehn filling. We also extend the
prior work of Baker and Cooper [4, 6] to prove the asymmetric combination theorem, Theorem 2.5,
which roughly says that the convex hull of a union of convex pieces stays very close to one of
the pieces. In Section 3, we prove several useful lemmas and characterize ubiquitous collections of
surfaces using the notion of a compact pancake (see Definition 3.7). In Section 4, we assemble these
ingredients to prove the following weaker version of Theorems 1.1 and 1.2.
Theorem 1.4. Let M = H3 /Γ be a cusped hyperbolic 3–manifold. Let α1 , . . . , αn be a collection of
slopes on cusps of M . Then there is a ubiquitous set of cusped QF surfaces immersed in M , with
the property that for each αi , at least one cusp of each surface is mapped to a multiple ki αi .

UBIQUITOUS QUASI-FUCHSIAN SURFACES IN CUSPED HYPERBOLIC 3–MANIFOLDS

3

It is worth observing that Theorem 1.4 already implies a weak version of Corollary 1.3, namely
co-sparse cubulation. See Corollary 8.2 for a precise statement.
Here is the idea of the proof of Theorem 1.4. First, we perform a large Dehn filling on the cusps
of M to produce a closed hyperbolic 3–manifold N . Then, by results of Kahn and Markovic [25]
and Agol [1], there is a finite cover N̂ of N that contains a closed, embedded, almost geodesic QF
surface. (See Remark 4.11 for a way to avoid relying on Agol [1].) A small convex neighborhood
of this surface is a compact QF manifold Q ⊂ N̂ , with strictly convex boundary. The preimages of
the filled cusps form a collection W of solid tori in N̂ . Gluing these onto Q and thickening gives a
compact convex manifold Z ⊂ N̂ with strictly convex boundary that is far from the core geodesics
∆ ⊂ W. Deleting ∆ gives a finite cover M̂ of M , with the property that the hyperbolic metric on
M̂ r W is very close to the hyperbolic metric on N̂ r W. It follows that ∂Z is also locally convex in
M̂ , so Y = Z r∆ is a convex submanifold of M̂ . One now surgers ∂Y inside Y along disks and annuli
in Y running out into the cusps of M̂ to produce an embedded, geometrically finite incompressible
surface F ⊂ Y without accidental parabolics. It follows that F is quasi-Fuchsian, and the projection
of F into M is an immersed QF surface with cusps. This use of the convex envelope Z is similar to
the method used by Cooper and Long [12] to show that most Dehn fillings of a hyperbolic manifold
contain a surface subgroup.
To derive Theorem 1.1 from Theorem 1.4, we need to call upon several results and techniques
developed by Baker and Cooper [6]. We review these results in Section 5. Given enough cusped
surfaces, one can glue together finite covers of copies of convex thickenings of these surfaces, together
with some finite covers of the cusps of M , to create a convex manifold Z called a prefabricated
manifold (see Definition 5.5). This prefabricated manifold is immersed in M by a local isometry,
and each component of ∂Z is closed and quasi-Fuchsian. Projecting ∂Z down to M yields a closed,
immersed QF surface. A mild variation of this technique proves Theorem 1.2 in Section 7.
Finally, in Section 8, we explain how to combine Theorems 1.1 and 1.2 with results of Bergeron
and Wise [7] and Hruska and Wise [23] to show that π1 (M ) acts freely and cocompactly on a CAT(0)
cube complex.
1.2. Acknowledgements. We thank Ian Agol, Daniel Groves, Chris Hruska, Jason Manning, and
Matthew Stover for a number of helpful suggestions. We also thank the Institute for Advanced Study
for hosting both authors during the period when this work was conceived and outlined. Particular
thanks are due to Chef Michel Reymond for nurturing the lunchtime conversation that led to this
work.
2. Background
This section lays out the definitions, conventions, and background material that are used in
subsequent arguments. Almost all of the results stated here are widely known and appear elsewhere
in the literature. The one result with any novelty is Theorem 2.5, the asymmetric combination
theorem. This is a mild generalization of the convex combination theorem of Baker and Cooper
[4, 6]. The generalized statement described here may be of some independent interest.
2.1. Convex and complete manifolds. A hyperbolic n–manifold is a smooth n–manifold, possibly
with boundary, equipped with a metric so that every point has a neighborhood that is isometric to
a subset of hyperbolic space, Hn . A connected hyperbolic n–manifold M is convex if every pair of
f is connected by a geodesic. It is complete if the universal cover is
points in the universal cover M
n
isometric to H .
We emphasize that the hyperbolic manifolds considered in this paper are not necessarily complete.
On the other hand, all manifolds in this paper are presumed connected and orientable, unless noted
otherwise. As we describe at the start of Section 4.1, disconnected manifolds are typically denoted
with calligraphic letters.
The following facts are straightforward; see [4, Propositions 2.1 and 2.3].

4

DARYL COOPER AND DAVID FUTER

f
Lemma 2.1. Let M be a convex hyperbolic n–manifold. Then the developing map embeds M
n
f
isometrically into H , and the covering transformations of M extend to give a group Γ ⊂ Isom Hn .
Consequently, M is isometric to a submanifold of N = Hn /Γ, where N is unique up to isometry.
If M is convex and f : M → N is a local isometry into a hyperbolic n–manifold N , then f is
π1 –injective.
n

The geodesic compactification of Hn is the closed ball H = Hn t ∂Hn . In the main case of
2
interest, n = 3, we write ∂H3 = S∞
. The limit set of a subset A ⊂ Hn is Λ(A) = A ∩ ∂Hn . If
n
Γ ⊂ Isom(H ) is a discrete group, then Λ(Γ) is the limit set of an orbit Γx, for an arbitrary x ∈ Hn .
n
The convex hull of a set A ⊂ H , denoted CH(A), is the intersection of Hn and all the convex
subsets containing A. If M is a convex hyperbolic manifold, then by Lemma 2.1, M isometrically
embeds into a complete manifold N = Hn /Γ. We define the convex core of M to be Core(M ) =
CH(Λ(Γ))/Γ. Then Core(M ) = Core(N ), and Core(M ) ⊂ M ⊂ N .
A convex hyperbolic n–manifold is geometrically finite if some (any) –neighborhood of Core(M )
has finite volume. We focus our attention on two special kinds of geometrically finite hyperbolic
3–manifolds.
2.2. Quasi-Fuchsian basics. A Fuchsian group is a discrete, torsion-free, orientation-preserving
subgroup Γ ⊂ Isom(H2 ), such that the quotient S = H2 /Γ has finite area. We call S a finite area
hyperbolic surface. A Fuchsian group Γ stabilizing a hyperbolic plane H2 ⊂ H3 can also be considered
a subgroup of Isom(H3 ). Note that the convex core of a Fuchsian group is Core(H3 /Γ) = H2 /Γ = S,
which has 3–dimensional volume 0.
A convex hyperbolic 3–manifold M is called quasi-Fuchsian (or QF for short) if there is a finitearea hyperbolic surface S such that Core(M ) has finite volume and is homeomorphic S × I or to
S. To overcome this mild technical irritation, we define a convex 3–manifold by Q(S) = Core(M )
unless S is Fuchsian, in which case Q(S) is a small convex neighborhood of S. Thus Q(S) ∼
=S×I
in all cases.
By Lemma 2.1, every quasi-Fuchsian 3–manifold Q isometrically embeds into a complete 3–
manifold N ∼
= S × R. We call N the universal thickening of Q (compare Section 2.3). We call
S × {0} ⊂ N a quasi-Fuchsian surface. If f : N → M is a covering map of complete hyperbolic
3–manifolds, and N is quasi-Fuchsian, the restriction f : S × {0} → M gives an immersed quasiFuchsian surface in M . Note that immersed QF surfaces are automatically π1 –injective.
Let S be a finite-area hyperbolic surface. A representation ρ : π1 S → Isom(H3 ) is called typepreserving if ρ(γ) is parabolic for any loop γ encircling a puncture of S. If a loop γ ∈ π1 S is not
homotopic into a puncture but ρ(γ) is parabolic, we say that γ is an accidental parabolic for ρ.
Theorem 2.2. Let Y be a convex, finite volume hyperbolic 3–manifold with ∂Y 6= ∅. Let f : S → Y
be an immersion from a hyperbolic surface S, such that f∗ : π1 S → π1 Y is type-preserving without
accidental parabolics. Then S is quasi-Fuchsian.
Proof. By Lemma 2.1, Y has an isometric embedding into a complete 3–manifold M . Let MS be
the cover of M corresponding to f∗ (π1 S) ⊂ π1 M . We claim that MS is geometrically finite.
Suppose MS is geometrically infinite. Then Canary’s covering theorem [10] (first proved by
Thurston and Bonahon [8] in the special case of surface groups) says that M must have finite volume
2
and f∗ (π1 S) must be a virtual fiber subgroup of π1 M . In this case Λ(π1 M ) = Λ(f∗ (π1 S)) = S∞
,
hence Core(M ) = M . But Core(M ) ⊂ Y by the convexity of Y , hence ∂Y = ∅, a contradiction.
Since MS is geometrically finite and has no accidental parabolics, it is a standard fact that it is
quasi-Fuchsian. Thus S is an immersed QF surface in Y . u
t
2.3. Convex thickenings. Let M and N be (possibly disconnected) hyperbolic 3–manifolds with
M ⊂ N . We say N is a thickening of M if the inclusion ι : M ,→ N is a homotopy equivalence. If,
in addition, each component of N is convex, then N is called a convex thickening of M . If M is
f)/Γ where Γ
connected and has a convex thickening, then the convex hull of M is CH(M ) = CH(M
is the holonomy of M .

UBIQUITOUS QUASI-FUCHSIAN SURFACES IN CUSPED HYPERBOLIC 3–MANIFOLDS

5

Convex thickenings only change the boundary of a 3–manifold by isotopy.
Lemma 2.3. Let Y be a (connected) hyperbolic 3–manifold. Let Z be a convex thickening of Y with
finite volume and incompressible boundary. Suppose that every non-compact end of Z is a rank–1
or rank–2 cusp that contains a corresponding cusp of Y . Then ∂Y is isotopic in Z to ∂Z.
Proof. We construct a compact manifold Z − ⊂ Z by cutting off the non-compact ends of Z along a
union of horospherical tori T and a union of horospherical annuli A. Set Y − = Z − ∩ Y . Let N be
the 3–manifold obtained by taking two copies of Z − and gluing them by the identity map along A.
Let M ⊂ N be the corresponding double of Y − along A. Let Σ ⊂ ∂N be a component that is not
in the double of T . Then Σ is the double of part of the boundary of Z − .
Let P be the closure of the component of N r M that contains Σ. Since ∂Z is incompressible,
Σ is a closed surface that is incompressible in both N and P . Since Z is convex, it is irreducible,
hence so is P . The inclusions Y ,→ Z and M ,→ N are homotopy equivalences by the definition of
“thickening.” By Waldhausen’s theorem [41], P ∼
= Σ × I. The components of A ∩ P can be isotoped
to be vertical in this product. Thus Σ ∩ N is properly isotopic into ∂Y . u
t
If M is a subset of a metric space N , the (closed) r–neighborhood of M in N is
Nr (M ; N ) = {x ∈ N : d(x, M ) ≤ r}.
We will omit the second argument of Nr (· , ·) when it is clear from context, for instance when
the ambient set is Hn . If M his a convex hyperbolic n–manifold, recall from Lemma 2.1 that the
f → Hn , and identifies π1 M with a discrete subgroup
developing map gives an isometric embedding M
n
Γ ⊂ Isom(H ). We define the r–thickening of M to be
[

f; Hn /Γ,
and set
Th∞ (M ) =
T hr (M ) = Hn /Γ.
Thr (M ) = Nr M
r>0

By construction, the universal thickening Th∞ (M ) is complete.
Given κ ≥ 0, a surface S in a hyperbolic 3–manifold M is κ-convex if for each x ∈ S there is
a smooth surface D ⊂ M of constant extrinsic curvature κ, such such that D ∩ S = x and S is
locally on the convex side of D. This is sometimes called κ–convex in the barrier sense. When
κ = 0, then D is totally geodesic, and we say S is locally convex at x. Thus κ–convexity implies
local convexity. Observe that if Π ⊂ H3 is a totally geodesic copy of H2 , then ∂Nr (Π) has constant
curvature κ = κ(r) > 0. This implies
Lemma 2.4. There is a continuous, monotonically increasing function κ : R+ → (0, 1) such that if
X ⊂ H3 is a closed convex set and r > 0, then ∂ Thr (X) is κ(r)–convex. u
t
The point of using barrier surfaces in the definition of κ–convexity is that in most cases, ∂ Core(M )
and ∂ Thr (Core(M )) are not smooth. However, Lemma 2.4 still applies to these surfaces.
The next result is a variant of the convex combination theorem of Baker and Cooper [4, 6].
Theorem 2.5 (Asymmetric combination theorem). For every  > 0, there is R = R() > 8 such
that the following holds. Suppose that
(1) Y = Y0 ∪ . . . ∪ Ym and M = M0 ∪ . . . ∪ Mm are connected hyperbolic 3–manifolds.
(2) Mi and Yi are convex hyperbolic 3–manifolds, such that Yi is a thickening of Mi .
(3) Yi ⊃ Th8 (Mi ).
(4) If Yi ∩ Yj 6= ∅, then i = j or i = 0.
(5) Every component of Yi ∩ Yj contains a point of Mi ∩ Mj .
Then CH(M ) ⊂ N (M0 ; Y ) ∪ NR (M1 ∪ . . . ∪ Mm ; Y ).
Theorem 2.5 strengthens [6, Theorem 1.3] in two small but useful ways. First, it allows a larger
number of convex pieces to combine. Second, it records the conclusion that, far away from the pieces
M1 , . . . , Mm , the convex hull of M is –close to M0 .

6

DARYL COOPER AND DAVID FUTER

Proof. First, we verify that
CH(M ) ⊂ Th8 (M0 ) ∪ . . . ∪ Th8 (Mm ) ⊂ Y.
When m = 1, this is a special case of [6, Theorem 1.3]. (In that theorem, the pair M0 , M1 are denoted
M1 , M2 .) Indeed, hypotheses (C1), (C2) of that theorem are restated in (1), (2). Hypotheses (C3),
(C4), (C5) of that theorem are all implied by (2) and (3). Hypothesis (C6) of that theorem is
restated in (5). Thus the desired conclusion holds when m = 1.
The proof of [6, Theorem 1.3] combines a lemma about thin triangles with [4, Theorem 2.9] to
conclude that r = 8 is a sufficient thickening constant. Thus almost all of the work is performed in
[4, Theorem 2.9].
For m > 1, we observe that the proof of [4, Theorem 2.9] goes through verbatim when M1 is
replaced by the disjoint union M1 t . . . t Mm . Note that condition (4) guarantees that Y1 , . . . , Ym
are pairwise disjoint, hence M1 , . . . , Mm are as well. This concludes the proof that CH(M ) ⊂ Y .
To prove the stronger containment claimed in the theorem, we need the following easy lemma.
Lemma 2.6. For every  > 0, there is R̂ = R̂() ≥ 1 such that the following properties hold.
(1) For every triangle in H3 with vertices a, b, c, the geodesic [a, c] satisfies
[a, c] ⊂ NR̂ ([a, b]) ∪ N/4 ([b, c]).
(2) Every (skew) quadrilateral in H3 with vertices a1 , b1 , b2 , a2 satisfies
[a1 , a2 ] ⊂ NR̂ ([a1 , b1 ]) ∪ NR̂ ([a2 , b2 ]) ∪ N/2 ([b1 , b2 ]).
√
Proof. For (1), let δ = ln(1 + 2) < 1 be the hyperbolicity constant of H3 . Thus, by the δ–thin
triangles property, we have [a, c] r N1 ([a, b]) ⊂ Nδ ([b, c]). For larger values R̂ ≥ 1, the geodesic
sub-segment [a, c] r NR̂ ([a, b]) must be contained in a smaller and smaller neighborhood of [b, c].
Thus some R̂ = R̂() satisfies (1).
Conclusion (2) follows from (1) by triangle inequalities. u
t
We now return to the proof of Theorem 2.5. For any  > 0, let R = R() = R̂() + 16, where
R̂() is the function of Lemma 2.6. For every r > 0, let Zr = Nr (M1 ∪ . . . ∪ Mm ; Y ). Then we have
already shown
CH(M ) ⊂ Th8 (M0 ) ∪ . . . ∪ Th8 (Mm ) = Th8 (M0 ) ∪ Z8 .
Since R > 8, this implies

CH(M ) r ZR ⊂ CH(M ) r Z8 ⊂ CH M0 ∪ (Z8 ∩ Th8 (M0 )) ,
where Z8 ∩ Th8 (M0 ) = Th8 (M0 ∩ M1 ) ∪ . . . ∪ Th8 (M0 ∩ Mm ) is the thickened intersection.
Let x ∈ CH(M ) r ZR . Our goal is to show that x ∈ N (M0 ). The above characterization of
CH(M ) r ZR , combined with a theorem of Carathéodory [32, Proposition 5.2.3], implies that x lies
in a geodesic 3–simplex ∆ whose vertices a0 , . . . , a3 are in M0 ∪ (Z8 ∩ Th8 (M0 )). Let bi be the point
of M0 closest to ai . Then d(ai , bi ) ≤ 8. In fact, if ai 6= bi , then ai ∈
/ M0 , hence ai ∈ Z8 , which means
that [ai , bi ] ⊂ Z16 .
Consider how far the segment [bi , bj ] can be from [ai , aj ]. If ai 6= bi but aj = bj = c, Lemma 2.6(1)
gives
[ai , aj ] ⊂ NR̂ ([ai , bi ]) ∪ N/4 (bi , bj ) ⊂ NR̂ (Z16 ) ∪ N/4 ([bi , bj ]) = ZR ∪ N/2 ([bi , bj ]).
Similarly, if ai 6= bi and aj 6= bj , Lemma 2.6(2) gives
[ai , aj ] ⊂ NR̂ ([ai , bi ]) ∪ NR̂ ([aj , bj ]) ∪ N/2 ([bi , bj ])
⊂ NR̂ (Z16 )
= ZR

∪ NR̂ (Z16 )
∪

∪ N/2 ([bi , bj ])
N/2 ([bi , bj ]).

UBIQUITOUS QUASI-FUCHSIAN SURFACES IN CUSPED HYPERBOLIC 3–MANIFOLDS

7

Let ∆0 be the simplex in M0 with vertices b0 , . . . , b3 . Then the corresponding sides of ∆ and ∆0
either lie in ZR or are /2 fellow-travelers. Since x ∈ ∆ r ZR , it follows that d(x, ∆0 ) < . But the
convex manifold M0 contains ∆0 , hence x ∈ N (M0 ) as desired. u
t
2.4. Cusps, tubes, and Dehn filling. A cusped hyperbolic 3–manifold is one that is complete,
non-compact, and with finite volume. Every cusped manifold M can be decomposed into a compact
submanifold A and a disjoint union of horocusps. Here, a (3–dimensional, rank–2) horocusp is
C = B/Γ, where B ⊂ H3 is a horoball and Γ ∼
= Z × Z is a discrete group of parabolic isometries
that preserve B. The boundary ∂C = ∂B/Γ is called a horotorus.
A tube is a compact, convex hyperbolic solid torus. Any tube W contains exactly one closed
geodesic, called the core curve and denoted δ(W ). A round tube is a uniform r–neighborhood about
its core curve.
Given a hyperbolic manifold M and  > 0, the –thick part M ≥ is the set of all points whose
injectivity radius is at least /2. The –thin part is M ≤ = M r M ≥ . A famous consequence of the
Margulis lemma is that there is a uniform constant µ3 such that for every  ≤ µ3 and every complete
hyperbolic 3–manifold M , the thin part M ≤ is a disjoint union of horocusps and round tubes.
Let M be a cusped hyperbolic 3–manifold. Given a horocusp C ⊂ M , and a slope α on ∂C,
the length of α, denoted `(α), is the length
p of a Euclidean geodesic representative. The normalized
length of α is the quantity L(α) = `(α)/ area(∂C), which is left unchanged when C is expanded
or contracted. The definitions of `(α) and L(α) extend linearly to non-primitive homology classes
in H1 (∂C).
For a slope α on ∂C, Dehn filling M along α is the process of removing a horocusp C and gluing
in a solid torus W so that the meridian disk is mapped to α. The resulting 3–manifold is denoted
M (α). For an integer k > 1, Dehn filling M along kα produces a 3–orbifold with base space M (α)
and singular locus of order k along the core curve of the added solid torus W . The same definition
applies to Dehn fillings of M along multiple horocusps.
Thurston showed that the change in geometry under Dehn filling is controlled by the length of a
filling slope [39]. Hodgson and Kerckhoff made this control much more quantitative [21, 22]. The
following theorem, building on their work, is essentially due to Brock and Bromberg [9].
Theorem 2.7. Let  > 0, κ > 0, and J > 1 be constants, where  ≤ µ3 . Then there exists a number
K = K(, κ, J) such that the following holds for every cusped hyperbolic 3–manifold M .
Let C1 ,S. . . Cn be a disjoint collection of horocusps, where each Ci is a component of M ≤ . Let
A = M r Ci . Let α1 , . . . , αn be (possibly non-primitive) √
homology classes on ∂C1 , . . . , ∂Cn . Then,
for any Dehn filling in which each αi satisfies L(αi ) ≥ K n, we have the following.
(1) N = M (α1 , . . . , αn ) has a complete hyperbolic metric, in which the cores δ1 , . . . , δn of the
added solid tori are closed geodesics.
(2) There is a diffeomorphism ϕ : M → N r(δ1 ∪. . .∪δn ), whose restriction to A is J–bilipschitz.
(3) Let S ⊂ A be a surface. If S is κ–convex, then the image ϕ(S) is κ/2–convex. Conversely,
if ϕ(S) is κ–convex, then S is κ/2–convex.
Proof. Brock and Bromberg proved the same result under hypotheses on N rather than M (one
needs to assume that the total length of the cores δ1 , . . . , δn ⊂ N is sufficiently small). See [9,
Theorem 1.3] for the J–bilipschitz diffeomorphism and [9, Corollary 6.10] for the control of geodesic
curvature. Using estimates by Hodgson and Kerckhoff [21], Magid translated their result into hypotheses on normalized length in M [27, Theorem 1.2]. As Hodgson and Kerckhoff clarify in [22],
the methods apply equally well to a √
simultaneous orbifold filling of multiple cusps, so long as each
αi has normalized length L(αi ) ≥ K n. See the Remark containing [22, Equation (37)]. u
t
We remark that the length cutoff K = K(, κ, J) in Theorem 2.7 is independent of the manifold
M . The dependence of K on the constants , κ, J is made explicit in forthcoming work of Futer,
Purcell, and Schleimer [17]. We will not need this here. In fact, Theorem 2.7 is already stronger
than what we need; see Remark 4.10.

8

DARYL COOPER AND DAVID FUTER

2.5. Covers, lifts, and elevations. Throughout the paper, we deal with immersed objects in
hyperbolic 3–manifolds, as well as their preimages in (finite or infinite) covering spaces. This requires
some careful terminology.
Suppose that X and M are manifolds, p : M̂ → M is a covering map, and f : X → M is an
immersion. If f∗ (π1 X) ⊂ p∗ (π1 M̂ ), the map f lifts to fˆ: X → M̂ . Such a lift is determined by a
local inverse to p at a point of f (X). We call fˆ the lift of f and the image fˆ(X) the lift of X in M̂ .
e → X is the universal covering map, then f ◦π always has a lift fe: X
e → M̂ .
More generally, if π : X
e an
Again, the lift is determined by a local inverse to p at a point of f (X). We call the image fe(X)
elevation of X in M̂ . If p : M̂ → M is a finite cover, an elevation of X in M̂ is a lift of some finite
cover of X. However, if f is not 1–1, an elevation of X may fail to be a component of p−1 (X).
A subgroup H ⊂ G is called separable if H is the intersection of finite index subgroups of G. The
group G is called residually finite if {1} is separable, and subgroup separable if all finitely generated
subgroups are separable. A deep observation of Scott [37] is that if X is compact and f : X → M
is an immersion that lifts to an embedding in some infinite cover of M , and f∗ (π1 X) is separable in
π1 (M ), then f also lifts to an embedding fˆ: X → M̂ into a finite cover M̂ .
Hyperbolic manifold groups are residually finite by Selberg’s lemma. Scott showed that the
fundamental groups of surfaces are subgroup separable [37]. Agol [1] showed that the fundamental
groups of closed hyperbolic 3–manifolds are subgroup separable, completing a program developed
by Wise [42, 43]. Our argument in Section 4 uses Agol’s theorem, although this is mainly a matter
of convenience; see Remark 4.11. The argument in Section 7 uses subgroup separability in surfaces,
and draws on the previous work of Baker and Cooper that does the same.
3. Fat tubes, thin surfaces, and pancakes
This section lays out some elementary results that are needed in the proof of Theorem 1.4. In
Section 3.1, we explore the notion of quasi-Fuchsian manifolds with nice product structures, and show
that collared geodesics in such manifolds are naturally classified into three types (Definition 3.5). In
Section 3.2, we characterize ubiquitous collections of surfaces in a 3–manifold using the notion of a
pancake (Definition 3.7). The advantage of this point of view is that pancakes are compact objects,
hence are well-behaved under Dehn filling.
3.1. Nice product structures. A product structure on a quasi-Fuchsian manifold Q ∼
= S × I is a
diffeomorphism f : S × [−1, 1] → Q. The two boundary components of Q are ∂± Q = f (S × {±1}).
The arc f (x × [−1, 1]) is called vertical. A product structure determines a map πh : Q → S called
horizontal projection. The midsurface of Q is f (S × 0). The mid-surface is only well-defined up to
isotopy, because it depends on the choice of product structure.
The constants in the following definition are convenient but somewhat arbitrary.
Definition 3.1. A properly embedded geodesic α in a convex hyperbolic manifold M has a fat collar
if any path γ that starts and ends on α and has `(γ) ≤ 0.01 is homotopic into α. In particular, α
must be length–minimizing on a scale up to 0.01.
A product structure on Q ∼
= S × I is nice if every vertical arc β has length and curvature at most
0.01, and if the endpoints of β meet ∂Q almost orthogonally. Here, “almost orthogonal” means that
unit tangent vectors to β and ∂Q have inner product less than 0.01.
The thickness of a convex QF manifold Q with boundary ∂− Q t ∂+ Q is
t(Q) = max{d(x− , ∂+ Q), d(x+ , ∂− Q) : x± ∈ ∂± Q}.
Lemma 3.2 (Almost flat implies thin). For every τ > 0, there is a constant κ = κ(τ ) > 0, such
that if S is a QF surface with extrinsic curvature everywhere less than κ, then t(Q(S)) < τ .
Proof. If κ is small enough, every geodesic in the universal cover Se is very close to a geodesic in H3
with the same endpoints. By Carathéodory [32, Proposition 5.2.3], the convex hull of Se is the union

UBIQUITOUS QUASI-FUCHSIAN SURFACES IN CUSPED HYPERBOLIC 3–MANIFOLDS

9

] is very close to S.
e Hence every point in Q(S)
e This implies Q(S) is
of tetrahedra with vertices in S.
thin. u
t
Lemma 3.3. There exists τ > 0 such that every convex QF manifold Q with t(Q) < τ has a nice
product structure.
Proof. A product structure can be constructed on Q by using a partition of unity to combine unit
vector fields whose integral curves are geodesics and that are defined in balls of radius .001 that
cover Q and are almost orthogonal to ∂Q. The flow defined by this combined vector field can be
reparameterized to give a nice product structure. Further details are left to the reader. u
t
A 1–manifold α ⊂ Q is called unknotted if there is a product structure on Q such that πh |α is
injective. Because any two product structures on Q are isotopic, a closed curve α ⊂ Q is unknotted
if and only if it is isotopic to a simple closed curve in ∂Q. An arc α properly embedded in Q is
unknotted if and only if it properly isotopic to either a vertical arc, or to an arc in ∂Q. Geodesics in
general QF manifolds can be knotted, but nice product structures preclude this for geodesics with
a fat collar:
Lemma 3.4 (Unknottedness). Suppose Q is a QF manifold with a nice product structure. Let
α ⊂ Q be a geodesic with a fat collar. Then α is compact and unknotted in Q.
Proof. The fat collar about α prevents it from accumulating on itself inside Q or traveling too deep
into any cusps of Q. Thus α is compact.
Let F be the union of all vertical arcs (with respect to the nice product structure) that contain
a point of α. If some vertical arc β contains two points of α, the niceness of the product structure
and the fat collar about α imply that α is almost vertical. Thus α is isotopic to a vertical arc, hence
unknotted. Otherwise, if every vertical line in F contains a single point of α, then πh |α is injective,
hence α is unknotted by definition. u
t
As a consequence, we have the following classification of geodesics in thin QF manifolds.
∼ S × I be a QF manifold with a nice product structure, and let Th∞ (Q)
Definition 3.5. Let Q =
be the universal thickening of Q. Let δ ⊂ Th∞ (Q) be an embedded geodesic with a fat collar, and
let α = δ ∩ Q. We say that δ is
• skirting if α = ∅ or an interval whose endpoints are on the same component of ∂Q.
• meridional if α is an interval whose endpoints are on different components of ∂Q.
• longitudinal if α = δ is a closed, unknotted geodesic in Q.
The terminology can be explained as follows. In the meridional case, ∂+ Q r δ has a puncture
that is a meridian of δ. In the longitudinal case, δ is isotopic into ∂+ Q, hence removing it creates a
pair of loops in ∂+ Q that are longitudes of δ.
Lemma 3.6. Let R = H3 /Γ ∼
= S × R be a complete QF manifold, and let δ ⊂ R be an embedded
geodesic with a fat collar. Suppose that some convex thickening Q of Core(S) has a nice product
structure. Then α = δ ∩ Q is either empty or connected. Furthermore, δ is one of the three types
enumerated in Definition 3.5. The type of δ is independent of the choice of thickening of Core(S).
Proof. Note that if α 6= ∅, it must be connected by convexity of Q. In addition, α is compact and
unknotted by Lemma 3.4. Thus one of the above three possibilities must always hold.
e = H3 . This is a bi-infinite geodesic with endpoints x± . Let
Let δe be an elevation of δ to R
2
Λ = Λ(Γ) ⊂ S∞ be the limit set of Γ. Then δ is skirting if and only if x± lie in the same component
2
2
of S∞
r Λ; meridional if and only if x± lie in different components of S∞
r Λ; and longitudinal if
and only if x± ∈ Λ. This classification depends only on Γ, hence is independent of the choice of
thickening of Core(S). u
t

10

DARYL COOPER AND DAVID FUTER

∂Π+
Π+

C
y

∂+ P
∂V P

Π−
∂Π−
Figure 1. The construction of a pancake P = P (η, r) in Lemma 3.8.
3.2. Pancakes ensure ubiquity.
Definition 3.7. For 0 < η < r, a pancake is
P (η, r) = Nη (Dr ; H3 ),
where Dr is a closed disk of radius r in a totally geodesic hyperbolic plane in H3 . The points
of ∂P (η, r) that are distance η from ∂Dr form an annulus called the vertical boundary, denoted
∂V P (η, r). Meanwhile, ∂P (η, r)r∂V P (η, r) consists of two disks, called the upper and lower boundary, and denoted ∂± P (η, r).
Let X be a submanifold of H3 . We say that X separates P if ∂− P and ∂+ P are contained in
different path-components of P r X, and X strongly separates P if ∂− P and ∂+ P are contained in
different path-components of H3 r X.
Lemma 3.8. Let Π− , Π+ ⊂ H3 be hyperbolic planes, such that d(Π− , Π+ ) = 2η > 0. Then there is
a radius r = r(η) > 0 and a pancake P = P (η, r(η)) contained between Π− and Π+ , such that every
convex submanifold X ⊂ H3 that strongly separates P also separates Π− from Π+ .
Proof. The pancake P = P (η, r) is constructed as follows. Let γ be the unique geodesic segment of
length 2η connecting Π− to Π+ , and let y be the midpoint of γ. Let C ⊂ H3 be the double cone
constructed by coning y to ∂Π± .
The disk Dr lies in the plane perpendicular to γ at y. We choose a radius r = r(η) large enough
to ensure that the vertical boundary of P (η, r) = Nη (Dr ) lies entirely outside C. See Figure 1.
Let X ⊂ H3 be a convex submanifold that strongly separates P . In particular, X is disjoint
from ∂± P . Suppose, for a contradiction, that there is a point x ∈ X ∩ Π+ . The geodesic line β
through x, y must meet both ∂− P and ∂+ P , hence contains points of X between ∂− P and ∂+ P . By
convexity, the interval β ∩ X must intersect ∂+ P , since x ∈ β ∩ X is above ∂+ P . This contradicts
the hypothesis that X is disjoint from ∂± P . Thus X must be disjoint from Π± .
To show that X separates Π− from Π+ , consider a path β ⊂ H3 from Π− to Π+ . Suppose, for a
contradiction, that β is disjoint from X. The geodesic segment α with the same endpoints as β must
intersect P in an interval I, with ∂I ⊂ ∂± P . Furthermore, X ∩ α ⊂ P ∩ α = I. By concatenating β
with the two components of α r int (I), we obtain a path from ∂− P to ∂+ P through H3 r X. This
contradicts the hypothesis that X strongly separates P . u
t

UBIQUITOUS QUASI-FUCHSIAN SURFACES IN CUSPED HYPERBOLIC 3–MANIFOLDS

11

The point of Lemma 3.8 is the following. If M = H3 /Γ is a cusped hyperbolic manifold, and
Π ⊂ H3 is a generic hyperbolic plane, the image of Π is dense in M , and in particular makes
arbitrarily deep excursions into the cusps [34, 38]. When we Dehn fill M , we can control geometry
using Theorem 2.7, but this control only works in regions of M that stay out of the very thin parts
of the horocusps. Thus, in proving ubiquity, we cannot directly control what happens to Π± in Dehn
fillings. By contrast, the image of a pancake P (η, r) in M is compact, hence lies in M ≥ for some
. Thus we can use Theorem 2.7 to understand what happens to the pancake during Dehn filling.
This is used in the proof of Theorem 4.1.
We will need to work with pancakes embedded in manifolds. If f : H3 → M is a local isometry
and P ⊂ H3 is a pancake such that f |P is an embedding, we refer to the image PM = f (P ) ⊂ M
as a pancake in M . The upper and lower boundary ∂+ PM and ∂− PM are well-defined via f . A
e of X and PeM of
submanifold X ⊂ M is said to (strongly) separate PM in M if there are elevations X
f
e
e
e
PM to the universal cover M , such that X (strongly) separates ∂− PM from ∂+ PM . Since universal
e
coverings are regular, one may first choose a lift PeM and then find an appropriate elevation X.
4. Drilling Kahn–Markovic surfaces
The main goal of this section is to prove Theorem 1.4. That result follows immediately from the
following reformulated statement.
Theorem 4.1. Let M = H3 /Γ be a cusped hyperbolic 3–manifold. Let α1 , . . . , αn be a collection of
slopes on cusps of M . In addition, let P = P (η, r) be a pancake in H3 . Then there are constants
ki ∈ N and an immersed QF surface F → M , such that the following hold:
(1) For every i, at least one boundary component of F is mapped to a multiple ki αi .
(2) There is an elevation of Core(F ) to H3 that strongly separates P .
Proof of Theorem 1.4, assuming Theorem 4.1. For any pair of disjoint planes Π± , whose distance
is 2η, construct a pancake P = P (η, r) as in Lemma 3.8. Let F be a QF surface produced by
] ) ⊂ H3 that strongly separates P is a convex set, hence Core(F
] )
Theorem 4.1. The elevation Core(F
also separates Π− from Π+ . Thus the surfaces produced using Theorem 4.1 are ubiquitous. u
t
It is worth recalling that Theorem 4.1 and its consequence in Theorem 1.4 already implies a weak
form of cubulation for π1 (M ). See Corollary 8.2 below for details.
The proof of Theorem 4.1 consists of two halves: filling and drilling. After passing to a cover
where distinct slopes αi lie on distinct cusps, we perform a long Dehn filling on M along multiples
of α1 , . . . , αn . The result is a closed hyperbolic 3–orbifold N . For the sake of this outline, it helps to
imagine that N is a manifold. The Kahn–Markovic theorem gives a very thin immersed QF surface
S → N . We study the intersection of a convex thickening of Core(S) with the union of Dehn filling
tubes to build a convex envelope Z = Q ∪ V, where V consists of a subset of the tubes. This convex
envelope is embedded in some cover of N ; for now it helps to imagine that no cover is needed.
In the second half of the proof, we surger the midsurface S of Q, while taking care to stay within
the convex envelope Z. We then drill out the Dehn filling cores, recovering M = N r ∆. This
produces a (possibly disconnected) surface F ⊂ Z r ∆. The convexity of ∂Z ensures that the
components of F have convex cores contained in Z r ∆, which implies they are quasi-Fuchsian.
We begin the proof in Section 4.1 by laying out the drilling portion of the argument. See Proposition 4.2 for a self-contained if somewhat lengthy statement. In Section 4.2, we lay out the Dehn
filling argument, including repeated passage to covers, and incorporate Proposition 4.2 to complete
the proof of Theorem 4.1. In Section 4.3, we sketch how the proof of Theorem 4.1 can be modified
to avoid using several large hammers.
4.1. Drilling a quasi-Fuchsian surface. We employ the following convention introduced by Baker
and Cooper [6]. From now until the start of Section 8, calligraphic letters always denote disjoint
unions of objects (typically finitely many objects). The corresponding Roman letters denote the

12

DARYL COOPER AND DAVID FUTER

individual components. For instance, in the following proposition, V denotes a disjoint union of
tubes in a manifold N , whereas V is a single tube forming a component of V.
Proposition 4.2. Suppose that N is a complete hyperbolic 3–manifold and Q ⊂ N is a compact,
embedded QF submanifold with a nice product structure. Suppose that V ⊂ N is a disjoint union of
tubes, such that every tube V ⊂ V intersects Q in a single component of intersection and Q ∩ δ(V )
is empty or has a fat collar. Let Z = Q ∪ V. Suppose ∆ ⊂ N is a geodesic 1–manifold such that
∆ ∩ Z is the disjoint union of the cores of V.
Suppose that M is a complete hyperbolic manifold with a diffeomorphism ϕ : M → N r ∆, such
that Y = ϕ−1 (Z r ∆) is convex and has finite volume in the hyperbolic metric on M .
Then M contains a (possibly disconnected) embedded surface F. Each component F ⊂ F is
quasi-Fuchsian, with Core(F ) ⊂ Y . The cusps of F correspond to the components of ∆ meeting
Q, as follows. For each meridional geodesic δ ⊂ ∆, one cusp of F is a meridian of δ. For each
longitudinal geodesic δ ⊂ ∆, two cusps of F are longitudes of δ. Skirting geodesics do not contribute
cusps of F.
Finally, suppose that PM ⊂ M is an embedded pancake, such that V ∩ ϕ(PM ) = ∅ and Q strongly
separates ϕ(PM ) in N . Then there is a component F ⊂ F whose convex core strongly separates PM .
In the statement of the proposition, ϕ(PM ) ⊂ N is diffeomorphic but not necessarily isometric
to a pancake. Since the definition of (strongly) separating a pancake is purely topological, the
statement that Q strongly separates ϕ(PM ) is unambiguous.
The surface F in the statement of Proposition 4.2 is constructed as follows. The tubes of V can
be subdivided into three types, according to how their cores intersect Q. (See Definition 3.5.) For
each type of tube, we perform a local isotopy of the midsurface S of Q ∼
= S × I. After this isotopy,
we let F = S r ∆. Most of the proof is devoted to verifying that F has all the desired properties;
this verification is broken up into a number of claims.
Proof of Proposition 4.2. Let V be a tube component of V, let δ = δ(V ) be the core of V , and
let α = δ ∩ Q. If H = Q ∩ V is non-empty, then it is connected and convex, hence Lemma 2.1
implies π1 H is isomorphic to a subgroup of π1 V ∼
= Z. If π1 H ∼
= Z, then H is a (convex) tube, hence
∼
δ ⊂ H ⊂ Q. Otherwise, π1 H = {1} and H is a convex ball, hence α = δ ∩ H is empty or an arc. In
every case where α 6= ∅, it is compact and unknotted in Q by Lemma 3.4.
The universal thickening Th∞ (Q) is a cover of N . If α = δ ∩ Q is non-empty, the isometric
inclusion Q ,→ Th∞ (Q) determines a unique complete geodesic δ̂ ⊂ Th∞ (Q) extending α. Following
Definition 3.5, we call V ⊂ N a skirting tube, meridian tube, or longitude tube according to the type
of α = δ̂ ∩ Q.
Let S be the midsurface of Q with respect to the chosen nice product structure. For each type of
tube, we perform an isotopy of S in H. This can be done independently for each tube V ⊂ V.
Skirting tube: If α 6= ∅, then it has both endpoints on the same component of ∂Q. Isotop S inside
H so it is disjoint from α. If α = ∅, no isotopy is needed. In either case, Q ∪ V is homeomorphic to
Q with V glued onto the boundary along a disk.
There is a disk Σ(V ) ⊂ Q ∩ V , with ∂Σ(V ) ⊂ ∂Q ∩ ∂V , and with α ∩ Σ(V ) = ∅ that separates α
from S. For future usage, we isotop each of Q and V to its own side of Σ(V ). (After this isotopy, Q
and V may no longer be convex. However, the topological setup where V is glued to Q along Σ(V )
is helpful below.)
Meridian tube: In this case, H ∩∂Q contains two disks D± (V ) ⊂ ∂± Q, each containing an endpoint
of α, and each serving as a compressing disk for V . Thus, after an isotopy of S inside H, we may
assume S ∩δ consists of one transverse intersection point. In this case, Q∪V is homeomorphic to the
manifold obtained by attaching a 1–handle to Q along D± (V ). Define Σ(V ) = (D− (V )∪D+ (V ))rδ.
Longitude tube: In this case, H is a tube that contains the unknotted circle α = δ(V ). As in
the proof of Lemma 3.4, the vertical arcs in Q meeting α form an embedded annulus A(V ) ⊂ H,

UBIQUITOUS QUASI-FUCHSIAN SURFACES IN CUSPED HYPERBOLIC 3–MANIFOLDS

13

which is properly embedded in Q and contains α. This annulus has one boundary component in
each component of ∂± Q. After a vertical isotopy of S in H, we may assume that S contains α.
In the longitudinal case, Q ∪ V is homeomorphic to Q. For future usage, we take two parallel
copies of A(V ), denoted A0 (V ) and A1 (V ), and isotop the solid torus V inward, until H = Q ∩ V
is the portion of Q contained between A0 (V ) and A1 (V ). After this isotopy, V or H may no longer
be convex, but H still contains the closed geodesic δ. Define Σ(V ) = A0 (V ) ∪ A1 (V ).
After performing the above isotopy of S for each component of V, the midsurface S ⊂ Q has the
following properties. If δ is the core of a longitude tube, then δ ⊂ S. If δ is the core of a meridian
tube, then δ intersects S once transversely. If δ is the core of a skirting tube, then δ ∩ S = ∅.
Set M = N r ∆. Then F = S r ∆ is a surface properly embedded in M , which is disconnected
if and only if the union of the longitude tubes separates S.
Observe that F has punctures of two kinds. Each meridian tube gives rise to one puncture of F,
whose slope is a meridian of a component of ∆. Each longitude tube gives rise to two punctures of F,
whose slopes are longitudes of a component of ∆. The skirting tubes do not contribute punctures.
From now on, we focus attention on a component F ⊂ F. The following sequence of claims shows
that F has all the required properties.
Claim 4.3. F is incompressible in M . Consequently, the inclusion–induced map ρ : π1 F → π1 M is
a faithful, type-preserving representation.
Suppose otherwise. Then there is a compressing disk D ⊂ M , with D ∩ F = ∂D = α, an essential
simple closed curve on F . Since F ⊂ S and S is incompressible in N , there must be a disk D0 ⊂ S
with ∂D0 = α. This disk D0 ⊂ S cannot contain any component of ∆, because each component
is a geodesic in N . Thus D0 meets each component of ∆ transversely in at most one point. Since
D ⊂ N r ∆ is disjoint from ∆ by hypothesis, the 2–sphere E = D ∪ D0 must meet each component
δ ⊂ ∆ transversely in at most one point. But the hyperbolic manifold N is irreducible, so E is
separating, hence E ∩ δ = ∅. It follows that D0 = E ∩ S is disjoint from ∆, hence D0 ⊂ F , and so α
is not essential in F . This contradiction proves the claim.
Recall that Z = Q ∪ V. By hypothesis, Y = ϕ−1 (Z r ∆) is a convex submanifold of M .
Claim 4.4. F has no accidental parabolics in M .
Suppose, for a contradiction, that a non-peripheral loop in F is a parabolic in M . By Jaco’s
Annulus Theorem ([24, Theorem VIII.13]; see also [12, Lemma 2.1]), there is an embedded annulus
B ⊂ M with one boundary component an essential loop α ⊂ F and the other boundary component
β ⊂ T , where T ⊂ M is a horotorus. Since α ⊂ F ⊂ Y , and Y is convex, T must bound a
neighborhood of some core curve δ of some tube of V ⊂ Z. Thus, after an isotopy, we may take B
and T to be embedded in Y , with α ⊂ F r V.
For each tube V ⊂ V, we have constructed a planar surface Σ(V ): this is a disk for skirting tubes,
a pair ofSonce-punctured disks for a meridian tube, and a pair of annuli for a longitude tube. Define
Σ(V) = V ⊂V Σ(V ) to be the disjoint union of these planar surfaces. A small isotopy of B ensures
that it intersects Σ(V) transversely. Since B and every component of Σ(V) are incompressible in
Y , a further isotopy ensures that B ∩ Σ(V) consists of closed curves γ1 , . . . , γk that are essential in
both B and Σ(V). We order these curves from α ⊂ ∂B to β ⊂ ∂B. Observe that k > 0, because
α ⊂ F r V whereas β ⊂ V.
It follows that B cannot enter a skirting tube V , because for such a tube Σ(V ) = D(V ) is a disk,
which contains no essential closed curves.
We now focus on γ1 , the curve of B ∩ Σ(V) that is closest to α. Then γ1 is the core curve of some
annulus belonging to Σ(V ). If V is a meridian tube, then γ1 is the meridian of δ = δ(V ). Since α is
isotopic to γ1 through B, it follows that α is a meridian of δ, hence peripheral in F .
If V is a longitude tube, then γ1 is isotopic to a longitude of δ = δ(V ). In addition, γ1 is isotopic
to α ⊂ F through B and to the closed curve F ∩ Σ(V ) through Σ(V ). Again, we conclude that α is
peripheral in F . Thus, in all cases, α is not actually accidental.

14

DARYL COOPER AND DAVID FUTER

Claim 4.5. F is a quasi-Fuchsian surface in M , such that Core(F ) ⊂ Y = ϕ−1 (Z r ∆).
Recall that Y ⊂ M is convex by hypothesis, and F ⊂ Y by construction. Thus Core(F ) ⊂ Y .
Since F is is incompressible with no accidental parabolics by Claims 4.3 and 4.4, Theorem 2.2 says
that F is quasi-Fuchsian.
Claim 4.6. Let PM ⊂ M be an embedded pancake, such that V ∩ϕ(PM ) = ∅ and Q strongly separates
ϕ(PM ) in N . Let F be the unique component of F = S r ∆ that intersects ϕ(PM ). Then each of F
and Core(F ) strongly separates PM .
As in Claim 4.5, let MF be the cover of M corresponding to π1 F . Then F has an isometric lift
F̂ ⊂ MF . This determines an isometric lift P̂M ⊂ MF , such that F̂ ∩ P̂M 6= ∅. We will show that the
two components of ∂± P̂M are contained in different path components of MF r F̂ , and in different
path components of MF r Core(F̂ ). This implies strong separation in the universal cover H3 .
Let β̂ ⊂ MF be a path from ∂− P̂M to ∂+ P̂M . Projecting down to M , we obtain a path β from
∂− PM to ∂+ PM . Mapping over to N , we obtain a path ϕ(β) from ϕ(∂− PM ) to ϕ(∂+ PM ). Since Q
strongly separates ϕ(PM ), we have Q ∩ ϕ(∂± PM ) = ∅. In addition, V ∩ ϕ(∂± PM ) = ∅. Thus ϕ(β)
starts and ends outside Z = Q ∪ V.
Recall that Q has an isometric lift Q̂ ⊂ R = Th∞ (Q), where R → N is the quasi-Fuchsian cover
ˆ determines an image ϕ̂(P̂M ) ⊂ R
of N corresponding to Q. The covering projection MF → (R r ∆)
that is an isometric lift of ϕ(PM ) ⊂ N . It also determines a unique image ϕ̂(β̂), which runs from
ϕ̂(∂− PM ) to ϕ̂(∂+ PM ). Since Q strongly separates ϕ(PM ), the path ϕ̂(β̂) ⊂ R must have an essential
intersection with Q̂. Consequently, ϕ(β) has an essential intersection with Q, with the midsurface
S of Q, and with F = S r ∆.
Observe that ϕ(β) cannot have an essential intersection with any component surface of F besides
F . If such an intersection was to occur, the pullback of ϕ(β) to MY would start on ∂− P̂M and end
somewhere other than ∂+ P̂M , which means it would not agree with β̂. Thus ϕ(β) must have an
essential intersection with F .
This means β̂ intersects F̂ ⊂ MF . Since β̂ was an arbitrary path in MF from ∂− P̂M to ∂+ P̂M , it
follows that the two components of ∂± P̂M are contained in different path components of MF r F̂ .
Hence F̂ strongly separates P̂M , and F strongly separates PM .
To show that Core(F ) strongly separates PM , it remains to check that Core(F ) ∩ ∂± PM = ∅.
Recall that the endpoints of ϕ(β) lie outside Z = Q ∪ V. Thus the endpoints of β lie outside
Y = ϕ−1 (Z r ∆). On the other hand, the convex set Core(F ) is contained in Y . Thus β starts and
ends outside Core(F ). In the cover MF , the path β̂ starts and ends outside Core(F̂ ). Since β̂ was
an arbitrary path in MF from ∂− P̂M to ∂+ P̂M , the conclusion follows.
This completes the proof of Proposition 4.2. u
t
4.2. Dehn filling and covers. Here are the main steps of the proof of Theorem 4.1.
1. Replace M by a finite cover where (elevations of) the slopes α1 , . . . , αn lie on distinct cusps.
2. Perform a long Dehn filling, resulting in a hyperbolic orbifold N = M (kα1 , . . . , kαn ). The integer
k is chosen large enough so that Theorem 2.7 preserves much of the geometry of M in the filling.
The cusps of M get replaced by a union of tubes W. See properties (F1)–(F5) for details.
3. Map the pancake P ⊂ H3 into M , and then into N via the bilipschitz map ϕ. The result is a
pancake PN . Then, find a very large immersed disk D → N that separates PN , and that has a
transverse intersection with each core geodesic. See Claim 4.7 for details.
4. Apply the Kahn–Markovic theorem [25] to find an immersed QF surface S → M that closely
fellow-travels the disk D. This surface has transverse, meridional intersections with each core
curve, and also strongly separates PN .

UBIQUITOUS QUASI-FUCHSIAN SURFACES IN CUSPED HYPERBOLIC 3–MANIFOLDS

15

5. Pass to a cover N̂ of N where a certain thickening Q0 of Core(S) is embedded, and where Q0
intersects each tube of Ŵ at most once. A finite cover with these properties exists by Agol’s work
[1]; see also Remark 4.11.
6. Working in the cover N̂ , apply Theorem 2.5 to show that the union of Q0 and the tubes that
intersect it has a convex thickening Z, such that ∂Z closely fellow-travels Core(S) on the regions
of interest. In particular, Z still separates the pancake PN .
7. Apply Proposition 4.2 to the convex envelope Z ⊂ N̂ , recovering a disconnected QF surface F.
This surface is embedded in the cover M̂ of M corresponding to the cover N̂ of N . By construction, one component F ⊂ F fellow-travels the disk D, hence contains at least one meridional cusp
projecting to a multiple of each αi . It also separates the pancake.
The above outline deliberately omits any mention of quantitative constants that control thickness,
embedded collars, and geodesic curvature. We now proceed to the full proof, with constants.
Proof of Theorem 4.1. Let P = P (η, r) be a pancake in H3 . Without loss of generality, assume that
5η/4 is smaller than the constant τ from Lemma 3.3. (Otherwise, make the pancake P thinner and
apply the same proof.) Let κ = κ(η/4) be as in Lemma 2.4. Then, for every convex set X ⊂ H3 , the
boundary ∂ Thη/4 (X) is κ–convex. In particular, the pancake P = P (η, r) = Thη/4 (Th3η/4 (Dr ))
has κ–convex boundary.
By residual finiteness, there is a finite regular cover of M where the pancake P embeds, and
where elevations of the peripheral curves α1 , . . . , αn lie on distinct cusp tori. (See [13, Lemma 2.1]
for an explicit recipe ensuring that a cusp torus T ⊂ M has many preimages in a cover.) Observe
that any QF surface in a cover M → M , satisfying the desired conditions (1) and (2), projects to a
QF surface in M with the same properties. Thus no generality is lost by assuming that every cusp
of M contains exactly one slope αi .
After the above reduction, we can consider the embedded pancake PM ⊂ M that lifts to P ⊂ H3 .
Thus ∂+ PM and ∂− PM are κ–convex, embedded surfaces in M .
Let  < µ3 be small enough to ensure that PM ⊂ M ≥ and that d(PM , ∂M ≥ ) ≥ 1. Let
R = R(η/4) be as in Theorem 2.5. Then there is a constant 0 = e−(R+2)  with the property that in
every horocusp C ⊂ M , the 0 –thin part of C is at least distance R + 1 away from M ≥ .
Let C1 , . . . , Cn denote the horocusp components of M ≤ , and let Ci0 ⊂ Ci be the corresponding
0
horocusp components of M ≤ . By the above choice of 0 , we have d(∂Ci0 , ∂Ci ) ≥ R + 1. The horotori
∂Ci and ∂Ci0 are 1–convex.
S
S
Let A = M r Ci and A0 = M r Ci0 . Then we may think of αi as a slope on either ∂Ci or
∂Ci0 , with the same normalized length. For a large integer k, let N = M (kα1 , . . . , kαn ) be a closed
hyperbolic orbifold obtained by Dehn filling on M . More precisely, k ≥ 1 needs to be large enough
so that Theorem 2.7 ensures a diffeomorphic embedding ϕ : A0 → N with the following properties.
(F1) If S ⊂ A0 is a κ–convex surface, then ϕ(S) is κ/2–convex. If ϕ(S) ⊂ ϕ(A0 ) is a κ–convex
surface, then S is κ/2–convex.
(F2) The image ϕ(PM ) is a convex ball in N , with κ/2–convex boundary.
(F3) There is a thinner pancake PN = P (3η/4, rN ) isometrically embedded in ϕ(A0 ), so that PN
separates ϕ(∂− PM ) from ϕ(∂+ PM ).
(F4) For every i ≤ n, the tori ϕ(∂Ci ) and ϕ(∂Ci0 ) are κ/2–convex. As a consequence, there is a
nested pair of (convex) tubes Wi0 ⊂ Wi , with ∂Wi0 = ϕ(∂Ci0 ) and ∂Wi = ϕ(∂Ci ).
(F5) The lipschitz constants on ϕ give d(∂Wi0 , ∂Wi ) ≥ R + η and d(∂Wi , ∂PN ) ≥ η.
Each of the above statements is ensured by conclusions (2) and (3) of Theorem 2.7.
Let δi be the core of Wi . We define W = W1 ∪ . . . ∪ Wn and W 0 = W10 ∪ . . . ∪ Wn0 . Then each of
W and W 0 is a disjoint union of convex tubes, with cores along ∆ = δ1 ∪ . . . ∪ δn .
ˆ = p−1 (∆) and Ŵ = p−1 (W). This defines a
Consider a covering map p : N̂ → N . Let ∆
ˆ
corresponding cover M̂ = N̂ r ∆, whose hyperbolic metric is lifted from M . The pancake PM ⊂ M
has a lift P̂M ⊂ M̂ , namely the image of the pancake P ⊂ H3 stipulated in the hypotheses. Then the

16

DARYL COOPER AND DAVID FUTER

ˆ
∆

ˆ
∆

ˆ
∆
P̂N0

P̂N
ϕ̂(P̂M )
Figure 2. A cross-sectional view of the nested pancakes appearing in the proof of
Theorem 4.1. All of these objects are embedded in a finite cover N̂ of N .
diffeomorphic image ϕ̂(P̂M ) ⊂ N̂ defines an isometric lift P̂N ⊂ N̂ , which still separates ϕ̂ ∂− P̂M

from ϕ̂ ∂+ P̂M , as in condition (F3). We call P̂N ⊂ N̂ the preferred lift of PN to N̂ .
e = H3 gives a preferred lift PeN ⊂ H3 .
Applying the above construction to N



Claim 4.7. There is a totally geodesic disk D ⊂ H3 with the following properties:
(D1) The disk D intersects at least one elevation of each δi ⊂ N .
(D2) Every intersection of D with an elevation of δi is transverse.
e = H3 .
(D3) There is a number ζ > 0 such that Nζ+η/2 (D) separates the preferred lift PeN ⊂ N
This follows as a corollary of a result by Shah [38] and Ratner [34]: almost every geodesic plane
Π ⊂ H3 has dense image in N . Hence, an arbitrarily small perturbation of the midplane of PeN
contains a disk with the desired properties.
Define a pancake Pe0 = Nζ (D) ⊂ H3 . Then, by (D3), the thicker pancake Thη/2 (Pe0 ) = Nζ+η/2 (D)
separates PeN ⊂ H3 . This thickened pancake Thη/2 (Pe0 ) maps to N by a local isometry.
So far, N is a closed hyperbolic orbifold, with singular locus of order k along the core of every
tube Wi ⊂ W. By Selberg’s lemma, a finite regular cover N̂ of N is a closed hyperbolic manifold.
The preimage of W in this cover, denoted Ŵ ⊂ N̂ , is a disjoint union of tubes with non-singular
ˆ of ∆. Then N̂ is a Dehn filling of M̂ = N̂ r ∆.
ˆ Note that the meridian
core along the preimage ∆
ˆ
of every component of ∆ is a primitive slope in M̂ , which maps to kαi ⊂ M for some i.
By residual finiteness, we may select N̂ so that the locally isometric immersion Thη/2 (Pe0 ) → N
lifts to an embedding in N̂ , with image an embedded pancake Thη/2 (P̂N0 ).
We will pass to finite covers of N several more times, keeping the name N̂ . Each newly constructed
N̂ is a cover of the previously constructed covers of N . Each time we pass to a cover, we keep the
ˆ ⊂ Ŵ 0 ⊂ Ŵ, respectively. Each time,
complete preimage of the nested sets ∆ ⊂ W 0 ⊂ W, denoted ∆
ˆ is a finite cover of M . In contrast with the complete preimage Ŵ, we
the manifold M̂ = N̂ r ∆
keep only the preferred lift of the pancakes PM and PN , denoted P̂M and P̂N respectively. Each
ˆ continues to satisfy (F1)–(F5). Combining (F3)
time, the lifted diffeomorphism ϕ̂ : M̂ → N̂ r ∆
0
with (D3), we have an embedded pancake P̂N ⊂ N̂ , with an embedded thickening Thη/2 (P̂N0 ) that


separates ϕ̂ ∂− P̂M from ϕ̂ ∂+ P̂M . See Figure 2.
By the Kahn–Markovic theorem [25], there is a ubiquitous collection of immersed QF surfaces in
N̂ , with arbitrarily small extrinsic curvature. By Lemma 3.2, a surface with small extrinsic curvature
has a convex core with very small thickness. Thus their theorem implies
Claim 4.8. There is a quasi-Fuchsian covering π : S × R → N̂ , such that Core(S) has a convex
thickening Q0 = Q(S) ∼
= S × I with the following properties.
(KM1) t(Q0 ) < η/4.
e0 ⊂ N
e = H3 , which strongly separates the preferred lift Pe0 .
(KM2) π : Q0 → N̂ has an elevation Q
N
−1 ˆ
(KM3) Every component of π (∆) that intersects π −1 (P̂N0 ) is meridional in Q0 (see Definition 3.5).
Property (KM1) holds by Lemma 3.2, because Kahn–Markovic surfaces are almost geodesic.
Property (KM2) holds because these surfaces are ubiquitous. Property (KM3) holds because S can

UBIQUITOUS QUASI-FUCHSIAN SURFACES IN CUSPED HYPERBOLIC 3–MANIFOLDS

17

e 0 = Q(S)
e
be chosen so that an elevation Q
lies arbitrarily close to the disk D of Claim 4.7, whose
intersections with the elevations of ∆ are transverse.
By Agol’s theorem [1, Theorem 9.2], π1 (N̂ ) is subgroup separable, hence we may pass to a finite
cover of N̂ in which Th8 (Q0 ) is an embedded submanifold. We replace N̂ by this cover, retaining
the name N̂ . As described above, we keep the complete preimage of the unions of tubes W and W 0 ,
and the single preferred lift of each pancake.
Applying subgroup separability again, we pass to a finite cover of N̂ such that Thη (Q0 ) lifts to
the cover, and Ŵ ∩ Thη (Q0 ) is empty or connected for every component Ŵ ⊂ Ŵ. By convexity,
this means Ŵ 0 ∩ Thη (Q0 ) is empty or connected for every component Ŵ 0 ⊂ Ŵ 0 .
0
Let Ŵ10 , . . . , Ŵm
be the components of Ŵ 0 with the property that Thη/2 (Ŵj0 ) ∩ Q0 6= ∅. Let
Ŵ1 , . . . , Ŵm be the corresponding components of Ŵ. We apply Theorem 2.5 to Q0 and these tubes.
That is, Q0 and Th8 (Q0 ) play the roles of M0 and Y0 , respectively. For 1 ≤ j ≤ m, the nested
tubes Thη/2 (Ŵj0 ) and Ŵj play the roles of Mj and Yj , respectively. Note that each of the above
submanifolds of N̂ is convex. The tubes Ŵj are disjointly embedded by the Dehn filling construction
of N . Furthermore, condition (F5) gives Ŵj ⊃ ThR+η (Ŵj0 ). Thus all the hypotheses of Theorem 2.5
hold for R = R(η/4), and we have


0
Z := Thη/4 CH Q0 ∪ Thη/2 (Ŵ10 ) ∪ . . . ∪ Thη/2 (Ŵm
)


0
⊂ Thη/4 Thη/4 (Q0 ) ∪ ThR+η/2 (Ŵ10 ) ∪ . . . ∪ ThR+η/2 (Ŵm
)
0
= Thη/2 (Q0 ) ∪ ThR+3η/4 (Ŵ10 ) ∪ . . . ∪ ThR+3η/4 (Ŵm
)

⊂ Thη/2 (Q0 ) ∪ Ŵ1 ∪ . . . ∪ Ŵm .
Here, the first containment is by Theorem 2.5 and the second containment is by condition (F5).
Define Q = Z ∩ Thη/2 (Q0 ) and V = Z ∩ (Ŵ1 ∪ . . . ∪ Ŵm ). Then V is a disjoint union of tubes,
each of which has connected intersection with Q. Since t(Q0 ) < η/4, and the thickening adds η/2 to
each side, we have t(Q) < 5η/4. Thus, by the choice of η at the beginning of the proof, Lemma 3.3
implies Q has a nice product structure.
Recall that Z is the (η/4) thickening of a convex set in N̂ . Thus, by the definition of κ at the
beginning of the proof, ∂Z = ∂(Q ∪ V) is κ–convex. By construction, every component of Ŵ 0 ∩ V is
0
⊂ V, every tube of Ŵ 0 r V is disjoint
properly contained inside Z. By the definition of Ŵ10 , . . . , Ŵm
from Thη/2 (Q0 ), which means that these tubes lie entirely outside Z. Thus ∂Z ⊂ N̂ r Ŵ 0 = ϕ̂(Â0 ),
where Â0 ⊂ M̂ is the region outside the horocusps on which ϕ̂ has the desired metric properties.
Therefore, by property (F1), it follows that ϕ̂−1 (∂Z) ⊂ M̂ is κ/2–convex.
ˆ ⊂ M̂ . Then the (finitely many) tubes of Ŵ 0 that lie inside Z are replaced
Let Y = ϕ̂−1 (Z r ∆)
by (finite volume) horocusps in Y . Thus Y has finite volume. Furthermore, ∂Y = ϕ̂−1 (∂Z) is
f is a closed, connected
κ/2–convex in the hyperbolic metric on M̂ . Then an elevation of Y to M
3
subset of H with locally convex boundary, which means it is convex. Thus Y is convex as well.
ˆ ⊂ N̂ and Y ⊂ M̂ satisfy all the hypotheses
We have now checked that the submanifolds Q, V, ∆
required by Proposition 4.2. That proposition performs an isotopy of S inside Q, after which every
ˆ is quasi-Fuchsian in the metric on M̂ . To complete the proof of the
component of F = S r ∆
theorem, we claim that one component F ⊂ F has all the desired properties.
Claim 4.9. There is a unique component F ⊂ F such that F ∩ P̂M 6= ∅. Furthermore,
(1) For every slope αi ⊂ M , at least one cusp of F maps to some multiple ki αi .
(2) There is an elevation of Core(F ) to H3 that strongly separates P = PeM .
Recall that by property (KM2), Q0 strongly separates P̂N0 , hence Q ⊂ Thη/2 (Q0 ) strongly sep
arates Nη/2 P̂N0 . Combining (F3) with (D3), as above, we conclude that Q strongly separates



ϕ̂ P̂M . In particular, Q ∩ ϕ̂ P̂M 6= ∅ and Q0 ∩ ϕ̂ P̂M 6= ∅. See Figure 2.

18

DARYL COOPER AND DAVID FUTER

ˆ that intersects P̂ 0 is meridional in Q0 . By Lemma 3.6,
By property (KM3), every component of ∆
N
0
ˆ
ˆ ∩ P̂ 0 does not
every component of ∆ that intersects P̂N is also meridional in Q. In particular, ∆
N
disconnect the midsurface S of Q. Thus there is exactly one component F ⊂ F such that F ∩ P̂M 6= ∅.
ˆ that is meridional in Q gives rise to a cusp of F that
By Proposition 4.2, every component of ∆
ˆ ∩ P̂ 0 include geodesics that project to
is a meridian of ∆. By property (D2), the components of ∆
N
every core δi ⊂ N . Thus, for every slope αi on M , the component F ⊂ F contains at least one cusp
projecting to ki αi . (The multiple ki incorporates the regular cover of M constructed at the very
beginning of the proof, as well as the manifold cover of the orbifold N constructed using Selberg’s
lemma.)


Finally, since Q strongly separates ϕ̂ P̂M , and Ŵ ∩ ϕ̂ P̂M = ∅ by property (F5), Proposition 4.2
implies that Core(F ) strongly separates PM . Thus some elevation of Core(F ) to H3 strongly separates P = PeM . u
t
4.3. Making do with less. In this section, we outline how the proof of Theorem 4.1 can be
modified to avoid appealing to Shah’s theorem [38], Agol’s theorem [1], or the work of Brock and
Bromberg [9]. The upshot of Remarks 4.10–4.12 is that almost all of the technical work in the proof
of Theorem 1.4 can be handled by soft classical arguments. The one “major hammer” needed for
the proof is the Kahn–Markovic theorem [25].
Remark 4.10. In the proof of Theorem 4.1, our use of Brock and Bromberg’s Theorem 2.7 can
be replaced by a softer appeal to Thurston’s results on geometric convergence under Dehn filling.
Suppose M is a finite volume hyperbolic manifold and X ⊂ M is a compact submanifold obtained
by removing a set of horocusps. Then the map Dev(X) → Hom(π1 X, PSL(2, C)) that sends the
developing map for an incomplete hyperbolic metric on X to its holonomy is open. See Thurston [39,
Theorem 5.8.2], Goldman [18], and Choi [11]; compare Cooper, Long, and Tillmann [14, Proposition
1.2]. It follows that for any sufficiently large Dehn filling N of all the cusps of M , there is a
diffeomorphic embedding of X into N that is close in the smooth topology to an isometry. In
particular, such a map is (1 + )–bilipschitz and the second derivative is close to 0. The control of
second derivatives ensures that κ–convex surfaces stay convex.
Remark 4.11. In the proof of Theorem 4.1, our appeal to Agol’s theorem on subgroup separability
[1] is convenient but not actually necessary.
Picking up the proof after Claim 4.8, suppose we have found an immersed QF surface S → N̂ ,
with immersed convex thickening Q0 . Then we may pass to an infinite cover N → N̂ , where Th8 (Q0 )
embeds and Ŵ ⊂ N̂ pulls back to a non-compact submanifold W with the following properties. For
every component W ⊂ W such that Thη (Q0 ) ∩ W 6= ∅, the intersection must be connected and
W must be a compact tube. For concreteness, one could take N to be the cover corresponding
to π1 (Q0 ) amalgamated with one extra loop (about some power of a core) for every skirting or
meridional intersection Thη (Q0 ) ∩ Ŵ. The compactness of Q0 ensures that only finitely many tubes
intersect Thη (Q0 ), hence π1 (N ) is finitely generated. In fact, the virtual amalgamation theorem of
Baker and Cooper [4, Theorem 5.3] ensures that N is geometrically finite.
With this setup, Theorem 2.5 applies exactly as above to give a compact, convex manifold Z =
Q ∪ V. Let ∆ be the union of all the cores of W, which may have non-compact components
and infinitely many components. Then Proposition 4.2 applies to give an embedded QF surface
in M = M r ∆. Since Z ∩ ∆ consists of finitely many closed geodesics, it still the case that
Y = ϕ−1 (Z r ∆) has finite volume. Note that M inherits its hyperbolic metric from M , and that
Proposition 4.2 does not require any manifold except Y to have finite volume. The surface F ⊂ M
projects to an immersed QF surface in M , and Claim 4.9 verifies that F has all the desired properties.
Remark 4.12. In the proof of Theorem 4.1, we use Claim 4.7 (which follows from the work of Shah
[38] and Ratner [34]) to ensure that a certain region of a Kahn–Markovic surface hits all the Dehn
filling cores transversely. This is used in Proposition 4.2 to produce a single component F ⊂ F with

UBIQUITOUS QUASI-FUCHSIAN SURFACES IN CUSPED HYPERBOLIC 3–MANIFOLDS

19

cusps along some multiple of every slope αi . However, even without Claim 4.7, we could focus on
one slope αi and apply Proposition 4.2 to find a connected QF surface Fi with at least one cusp
mapping to a multiple of αi . Moreover, the set of surfaces with this property is ubiquitous.
Given surfaces F1 , . . . , Fn realizing slopes α1 , . . . , αn , one could use the techniques of Baker and
Cooper [4] to build a single surface F immersed in M , such that every cusp of Fi is covered by a
cusp in F . As we explain in Section 5 below, such a surface F can be obtained by gluing together
subsurfaces of finite covers of the Fi . By the argument in Sections 6 and 7, the set of such surfaces
is ubiquitous. This line or argument recovers Theorem 4.1 and proves Theorems 1.2 and 1.4 without
relying on Claim 4.7.
5. Gluing and prefabrication
This section summarizes without proof some of the results of Baker and Cooper [6]. In what
follows, M is a complete finite volume hyperbolic 3–manifold and Q is a finite volume QF manifold.
When working with 3–manifolds that contain surfaces with cusps, it is convenient to isotop
everything so the cusps have compatible product structures. Suppose B ⊂ Hn is a horoball centered
on a point x ∈ ∂Hn bounded by the horosphere H = ∂B. A vertical ray is a ray in B that starts
on H and limits on x. Given P ⊂ H, the set lying above P is called a vertical set and is the union,
V (P ), of the vertical rays starting on P . If P ⊂ H is convex, V (P ) is called a thorn and P is called
the base of the thorn. If P = I × R is an infinite strip, V (P ) is a slab.
A hyperbolic n–manifold E is an excellent end if it has finite volume and is isometric to V /Γ
for some vertical set V ⊂ B and discrete group Γ ⊂ Isom(Hn ) preserving V . The horospherical
boundary of E is ∂H E = (V ∩ H)/Γ. An excellent rank–1 cusp is a 3–manifold V /Γ where V is a
slab and Γ is a cyclic group of parabolics preserving V .
A (possibly disconnected) hyperbolic manifold M is excellent if M = M c ∪ VM where M c is
compact, each component of VM is an excellent end, and M c ∩ VM = ∂H VM . The pair (M c , VM )
is called an excellent decomposition of M . For example, an ideal convex polytope is an excellent
manifold whose ends are thorns. In addition, a complete hyperbolic manifold with finite volume is
excellent, since any ends of M are horocusps. It is routine to show that if S is a QF surface then
Q(S) has ends that are excellent rank–1 cusps, hence Q(S) is excellent.
A compact, orientable surface properly embedded in a compact orientable 3–manifold is essential
if it is incompressible and ∂–incompressible.
Definition 5.1. A surface S embedded in an excellent 3–manifold M = M c ∪V is excellently essential
if each component of S ∩ V is an excellent annulus in the induced metric on S, and S c = S ∩ M c is
a compact essential surface in M c with ∂S c ⊂ ∂M c .
For example, if Q(S) is embedded in M , then both components of ∂Q(S) are excellently essential.
Recall that a slope on a torus is an isotopy class of essential simple closed curves. In view of the
preceding, it makes sense to talk about the slope of a excellently essential surface S in a cusp of M ,
and the slope of a rank–1 cusp embedded in a rank–2 cusp.
Definition 5.2. An ideal spider is an excellent convex hyperbolic 3–manifold X with simply connected ends. Thus there is an excellent decomposition X = B ∪ L such that B is compact and
convex, and each component of L is a thorn. The components of L are called legs and B is called
the body.
The definition implies that the holonomy of an ideal spider has no parabolics. A special case of
an ideal spider with k legs is a convex polytope with k ideal vertices. In general, the body of a spider
need not be simply connected. The following is immediate:
Proposition 5.3 (Proposition 3.3 in [6]). Suppose M is a complete hyperbolic 3–manifold and
Q1 , Q2 ⊂ M are excellent QF submanifolds. Then Q1 ∩ Q2 is excellent. If Q1 and Q2 have different
slopes in every cusp of M , then each component of Q1 ∩ Q2 is an ideal spider.

20

DARYL COOPER AND DAVID FUTER

If M and N are excellent hyperbolic manifolds, a map f : M → N is excellent if it is a local
isometry and there are excellent decompositions with f −1 (N c ) = M c . After a homotopy leaving
f |N c invariant, one can ensure that each vertical ray in VM maps to a vertical ray in VN .
An immersed QF manifold is a triple (M, Q, f ), where f : Q → M is an excellent map between
excellent hyperbolic 3–manifolds and Q is quasi-Fuchsian. An immersed ideal spider is (M, R, p)
where M is an excellent 3–manifold, R is an ideal spider, and p : R → M is an excellent map.
If N is a submanifold of a cover of a hyperbolic manifold M , the restriction of the covering
projection gives a local isometry p : N → M , called the natural projection. If S is an immersed
QF surface in M , the natural projection Q(S) → M is excellent. The following result generalizes
Proposition 5.3 to immersed QF manifolds.
Theorem 5.4 (Theorem 3.4 in [6]). Suppose that (M, Q1 , f1 ) and (M, Q2 , f2 ) are immersed QF
manifolds. Whenever rank–1 cusps V1 ⊂ Q1 and V2 ⊂ Q2 map to the same cusp of C ⊂ M , suppose
f1 (V1 ) and f2 (V2 ) represent linearly independent homology classes in H1 (C). Suppose there are
basepoints qi ∈ Qi , such that the basepoint m = f1 (q1 ) = f2 (q2 ) is located in an excellent end of M .
Then there is a connected hyperbolic 3–manifold P = Q̂1 ∪ Q̂2 , where pi : Q̂i → Qi is a finite
covering and R = Q̂1 ∩ Q̂2 is an ideal spider with at least 2 legs. Thus (Qi , R, pi |R ) is an immersed
ideal spider.
The holonomy provides an identification of π1 (M, m) with a Kleinian group Γ ⊂ Isom(H3 ). Then
the QF manifolds Qi have holonomy Γi = (fi )∗ (π1 (Qi , qi )) ⊂ Γ and the holonomy of R is Γ1 ∩ Γ2 .
Part of the point of Proposition 5.3 and Theorem 5.4 is that the spider R = Q̂1 ∩ Q̂2 retains
all the information for gluing Q̂1 to Q̂2 . More evocatively, spiders know how to sew a web. This is
useful in our constructions, where we want to glue further covers of Q̂1 and Q̂2 . If the spiders lift
to the covers, they retain all the necessary gluing instructions.
The goal in our proof of Theorem 1.1 is to take several immersed QF submanifolds of M and some
rank–2 cusps of M , and glue copies of finite covers of these manifolds to create a geometrically finite
hyperbolic manifold Z that has a convex thickening, such that ∂Z consists of closed QF surfaces.
Definition 5.5 (Definition 1.1 in [6]). A prefabricated manifold is a connected, metrically complete,
finite-volume, hyperbolic 3–manifold
Z = C ∪ Q1 ∪ Q2 .
Each component of Qi and of C is a convex hyperbolic 3–manifold called a piece. Each component
of Qi is a quasi-Fuchsian 3–manifold with at least one cusp. Each component of C is a horocusp.
These pieces satisfy the following conditions for i ∈ {1, 2}, and for each component C of C:
(P1) Qi ∩ C is the disjoint union of all the cusps in Qi ,
(P2) Qi ∩ ∂C is an annulus with core curve αi (C),
(P3) α1 (C) intersects α2 (C) once transversely,
(P4) Each component of Q1 ∩ Q2 intersects C.
Note that by Proposition 5.3, each component of Q1 ∩ Q2 is an ideal spider.
If pieces of a prefrabricated manifold Z are sufficiently far apart, it has a convex thickening.
Corollary 5.6 (Corollary 1.4 in [6]). Suppose r ≥ 8k where k = (|C| + |Q1 | + |Q2 | − 1), and suppose
(Z1) Z r = C r ∪ Qr1 ∪ Qr2 is a prefabricated manifold,
(Z2) Z = C ∪ Q1 ∪ Q2 is a prefabricated manifold contained in Z r ,
(Z3) Qri is a thickening of Qi ,
(Z4) C r = T hr (C),
(Z5) Qri contains an r-neighborhood of Qi r C,
(Z6) Every component of Qr1 ∩ Qr2 contains a point of Q1 ∩ Q2 .
Then Z has a convex thickening that is a submanifold of Z r . Moreover, every component of ∂Z is
compact and quasi-Fuchsian.

UBIQUITOUS QUASI-FUCHSIAN SURFACES IN CUSPED HYPERBOLIC 3–MANIFOLDS

21

To achieve the metric separation needed for Corollary 5.6, one starts with a prefabricated manifold
Z and replaces it by another prefabricated manifold Z 0 , constructed from large finite covers of the
pieces of Z with the property that all spiders used for the gluing lift. (Compare Section 2.5.) Choices
of lifts of the spiders then determine Z 0 . If the cover of each piece is regular (e.g. cyclic) and large
enough, then one can choose lifts that are far apart.
Since a QF manifold is the product of a surface and an interval, constructing such covers reduces
to questions about coverings of surfaces that contain various immersed surfaces (corresponding to
the spiders). [6, Theorem 2.8] shows the corresponding covering spaces for these surfaces exist. The
argument makes heavy use of subgroup separability arguments in surface groups [37].
A covering space p : F̂ → F is called conservative if the surfaces F and F̂ have the same number
of boundary components. We frequently wish to take large conservative covers of surfaces with the
property that certain immersed spiders lift to embedded spiders that are far apart. This is done
using
Theorem 5.7 (Theorem 0.1 of [5]; compare Theorem 9.1 of [29]). Let F be a compact, connected
surface with ∂F 6= ∅ and H ⊂ π1 F a finitely generated subgroup. Assume that no loop representing
an element of H is freely homotopic into ∂F . Given a finite subset B ⊂ π1 F r H, there exists a
finite-sheeted conservative cover p : F̂ → F and a compact, connected, π1 -injective subsurface S ⊂ F̂
such that p∗ (π1 S) = H and p∗ (π1 F̂ ) ∩ B = ∅ and F r S is connected.
The crucial ingredient for constructing a prefabricated manifold is a supply of QF surface subgroups with the property that for every cusp V of M , there are (at least) two cusps of this collection
that are contained in V and have different slopes. This is used to ensure property (P3). In turn,
(P3) implies that ∂Z contains no accidental parabolics; see Corollary 5.6 and Proposition 7.2.
6. Ubiquitous closed surfaces
In this section, we prove Theorem 1.1. The proof is a modification of the proof of [6, Theorem 4.2].
In that proof, Baker and Cooper construct a QF surface Σ from a pair of (possibly disconnected)
cusped surfaces J1 , J2 , with all components quasi-Fuchsian. The surface Σ is the boundary of a
prefabricated manifold Z, and is obtained by gluing together subsurfaces of the components of J1
and J2 , together with subsets of horotori. In [6] the components of J1 and J2 are produced from
ideal points of character varieties and group actions on trees, via the work of Culler and Shalen [15].
In our setting, J1 and J2 will be cusped surfaces produced by Theorem 4.1. Given a pancake
P ⊂ H3 , Theorem 4.1 allows us to assume that S = J1 has an elevation to H3 that strongly separates
e ⊂ H3
P . Thus S has a finite cover containing a very large embedded disk G, whose elevation G
also separates P . By a slight modification of the proof of [6, Theorem 4.2], we may ensure Σ lies
extremely close to G, hence Q(Σ) also has an elevation that separates a slightly thicker pancake
N (P ). This ensures the ubiquitous condition in Theorem 1.1.
Immersed curves α, β in a torus T have an essential intersection if they map to multiples of
distinct slopes, or equivalently if the homology classes [α], [β] are linearly independent in H1 (T ).
The definition extends to cusps of surfaces mapping to a rank–2 cusp of a 3–manifold M .
Theorem 6.1. Suppose M is a cusped hyperbolic 3–manifold and S is a finite set of QF surfaces
immersed in M . Suppose that for each cusp V of M , there are two cusps of surfaces in S that both
map into V and have an essential intersection in V .
Suppose P = P (η, r) is a pancake in H3 , and S is a surface in S, such that an elevation of Q(S)
to H3 strongly separates P . Then, for any  > 0, there is a closed QF surface Σ immersed in M
and an elevation of Core(Σ) that strongly separates N (P ). Furthermore, Σ ⊂ ∂Z, where Z is a
prefabricated manifold whose quasi-Fuchsian pieces are thickenings of covers of surfaces in S.
Proof. For most of the proof, we restrict attention to the following special case. Suppose that S
consists of exactly two immersed QF surfaces, f1 : J1 → M and f2 : J2 → M . Moreover, suppose

22

DARYL COOPER AND DAVID FUTER

that every cusp of J1 has an essential intersection with some cusp of J2 , and vice versa. Finally,
suppose that S = J1 .
At the end of the proof, we will briefly describe the (purely notational) changes needed to address
the general case. For now, we reassure the reader that the special case described above is all that is
needed in the proof of Theorems 1.1 and 1.2.
The maps fi : Ji → M extend to locally isometric immersions fi : Qi → M , where Qi = Q(Ji ).
There is a decomposition of M into a compact set K and a union of horocusps V, such that for each
component V ⊂ V and for each i ∈ {1, 2}, the preimage fi−1 (V ) is a non-empty union of vertical
rank–1 cusps in Qi . Moreover, each component of Ji ∩ fi−1 (V ) is an excellent annulus. By a small
isotopy, we may arrange that f1 |J1 is transverse to f2 |J2 .
Then Di = Ji ∩fi−1 (∂V) is a finite set of disjoint, horocyclic simple closed curves. These horocyclic
curves cut off the cusps of Ji . Moreover M = f1 (D1 )∩f2 (D2 ) ⊂ ∂V is a finite set and |fi−1 (x)∩Di | =
1 for each x ∈ M. The hypotheses imply that that fi−1 (M) contains at least one point in every
component of Di . This ensures the ample spiders condition formulated in [6, Definition 3.6, part
(W4)], which is crucial for the proof of [6, Theorem 4.2].
From here, we follow the proof of [6, Theorem 4.2], starting at the second paragraph, with
Ji consisting of the single connected surface Ji . That proof constructs a prefabricated manifold
Z = C ∪ Q1 ∪ Q2 , where each component of Qi is a finite cover of Qi , and each component of C has
a thickening that is a finite cover of a component of V. That proof ends by verifying the hypotheses
of Corollary 5.6, which implies that Z has a convex thickening Z + .
This construction of [6, Theorem 4.2] involves a parameter δ > 0 with the following meaning.
For i ∈ {1, 2} the distance in Z between distinct components of Qi is at least δ. Moreover, the
conservative separability Theorem 5.7 ensures that increasing δ does not change the number of
pieces k + 1 = |C| + |Q1 | + |Q2 | in the construction. (More precisely, this follows from the spider
pattern theorem [6, Theorem 2.8].) As a result, one eventually achieves δ > 8k, hence Corollary 5.6
ensures that Z has a convex thickening Z + with ∂Z + consisting of closed QF surfaces.
For our purposes, we modify the construction slightly to ensure the pancake condition in the statement of the theorem. This requires increasing δ even further than what is needed for Corollary 5.6,
but again without increasing the number of pieces in Z.
] that strongly separates
Recall that S = J1 has a convex thickening Q(S), with an elevation Q(S)
] ∩ A. Let x ∈ ∂Q(S) be
a pancake P = P (η, r). Let A be the rotational axis of P , and let x
e ∈ ∂ Q(S)
the projection of x
e. For the value  > 0 in the statement of the theorem, fix Rbig = R() + r, where
R() is as in Theorem 2.5 and r is the radius of the pancake.
Now, we construct a prefabricated manifold Z exactly as above, with the same number of pieces.
Recall that Q1 is a disjoint union of finite covers of Q(S) = Q(J1 ). By increasing δ, we ensure that in
some component Q̂ of Q1 , the point x has a preimage x̂ whose distance in Z from every component
of Q2 and Q1 r Q̂ is larger than Rbig . By shrinking the cusps C, we may also ensure the distance
(in Z) from x̂ to every component of C is larger than Rbig . In short, x̂ lies further than Rbig from
every piece of Z except its own.
By Corollary 5.6, Z has a convex thickening Y , which may be taken to contain Th8 (Z). Applying
Theorem 2.5 to Z, with Q̂ playing the role of M0 , gives

Z + := CH(Z) ⊂ N (Q̂; Y ) ∪ NR() (Q1 r Q̂) ∪ Q2 ∪ C; Y .
Since x̂ has distance greater than Rbig = R() + r to any other piece of Z besides Q̂, it follows that
Nr (x̂; Z + ) ⊂ N (Q̂; Y ) ⊂ Th (Q̂).
Let Σ be a component of ∂Z + that passes –close to x̂. Then Core(Σ) ⊂ Z + = CH(Z), hence
Core(Σ) ∩ Nr (x̂) ⊂ Th (Q̂).
+

Now, the projection Z → M immerses Core(Σ) in M , sending x̂ to x. Choose an elevation of
Core(Σ) to H3 so that x̂ lifts to x
e. Recall that x
e lies on the axis A of P = P (η, r). By the above

UBIQUITOUS QUASI-FUCHSIAN SURFACES IN CUSPED HYPERBOLIC 3–MANIFOLDS

23

equation,
]
]
Core(Σ)
∩ Nr (e
x) ⊂ Th (Q(S)).
e
]
Since Q(S)
strongly separates P = P (η, r), it follows that Core(Σ)
strongly separates N (P ).
Finally, we discuss how to prove the theorem in the general case. The proof is exactly the same,
except that the connected surfaces J1 and J2 are replaced by J1 and J2 , where each Ji is a (separate)
copy of the the finite set of immersed surfaces S. Then Ji satisfies the ample spiders condition, and
can be inserted into the proof of [6, Theorem 4.2] exactly as above. In fact, the proof of [6, Theorem
4.2] is already adapted to finite collections of surfaces, and contains all the necessary book-keeping
notation for keeping track of components of Ji . At the end of the construction of [6, Theorem 4.2],
one needs to define Rbig exactly as above, and argue in the same way that a surface Σ ⊂ ∂Z + lies
very close to S on a disk of big radius. u
t
Proof of Theorem 1.1. By the Kahn–Markovic theorem [25], it suffices to treat the case where M has
cusps. Let Π, Π0 ⊂ H3 be a pair of planes whose distance is 4η. Let P + = P (2η, r) = N2η (Dr ) be a
pancake as in Lemma 3.8. Let P = P (η, r) = Nη (Dr ) be a thinner pancake, such that P + = Nη (P ).
Let M = H3 /Γ be a cusped hyperbolic 3–manifold. For every cusp V ⊂ M , select a pair of slopes
α(V ) 6= β(V ). By Theorem 4.1, there are immersed QF surfaces J1 → M and J2 → M , such that
each Ji has an elevation that strongly separates P , and each has a cusp mapping to a multiple of
every α(V ) and every β(V ). Since every slope on ∂V intersects either α(V ) or β(V ) or both, it
follows that every cusp of J1 has an essential intersection with some cusp of J2 , and vice versa.
Now, apply Theorem 6.1 with S = {J1 , J2 } and with  = η. That theorem produces a closed QF
surface Σ such that an elevation of Core(Σ) strongly separates P + = N (P ). By Lemma 3.8, this
elevation also separates Π from Π0 . u
t
7. Ubiquitous surfaces with prescribed immersed slope
In this section, we prove Theorem 1.2, producing a ubiquitous collection of surfaces with prescribed
immersed slope. The argument proceeds in two stages. We begin by proving Theorem 7.3, which
says that given a slope α in some cusp of M , there is a QF surface F immersed in M and an integer
m > 0 such that all the cusps of F have slope m · α.
In the special case where M has one cusp, Theorem 7.3 follows from a result of Przytycki and Wise
[33, Proposition 4.6]. If M has multiple cusps, the result appears to be new. We wonder whether
Theorem 7.3 can be proved without appealing to the Kahn–Markovic theorem [25], by using only
the gluing idea behind prefabricated manifolds [6].
Next, we prove Theorem 1.2 by another analogue of the argument of Theorem 6.1. We take the
single QF surface F produced by Theorem 7.3 and the ubiquitous collection of closed QF surfaces
produced by Theorem 1.1. Then, we apply the convex combination theorem to glue together a large
regular cover of F with some large cover of a closed surface splitting a desired pancake.
7.1. One surface with prescribed immersed slope. The idea of of Theorem 7.3 is to build
a variant of a prefabricated manifold, whose boundary has cusps. This entails a generalization of
prefabricated manifolds.
Definition 7.1. A modified prefabricated manifold is a connected, metrically complete, finitevolume, hyperbolic 3–manifold
Z = C ∪ Q1 ∪ Q2 .
Each component of Qi and of C is a convex hyperbolic 3–manifold called a piece. Each component
of Qi is a QF 3–manifold with at least one cusp. Each component of C is a horocusp. There is a
component Q ⊂ Q1 called the special component. One or more rank–1 cusps of Q are called the
special cusps. These pieces satisfy the following conditions for i ∈ {1, 2}, and for each component C
of C:
(M1) Qi ∩ C is the disjoint union of all the cusps in Qi that are not special,

24

DARYL COOPER AND DAVID FUTER

(M2) Qi ∩ ∂C is an annulus with core curve αi (C),
(M3) α1 (C) intersects α2 (C) once transversely,
(M4) Each component of Q1 ∩ Q2 intersects C.
Thus each component of C contains one cusp of Q1 and one cusp of Q2 . In addition to some
number of rank–2 cusps (the components of C), Z also has some rank–1 cusps, namely the special
cusps of Q. The next result is a minor modifications of [6, Proposition 1.6].
Proposition 7.2. Let Z = Q1 ∪Q2 ∪C be a modified prefabricated manifold with a convex thickening.
Then ∂Z 6= ∅, and each component of ∂Z is an incompressible surface. Moreover, every loop in ∂Z
with parabolic holonomy is homotopic into a special cusp.
Proof. Let F be a surface with non-empty boundary and χ(F ) < 0. Following [4, Section 7], a tubed
surface is a 2–complex formed by gluing each component of ∂F to an essential simple closed curve
in a torus. Distinct components of ∂F are glued to distinct tori.
Given Z = C ∪ Q1 ∪ Q2 , as in Definition 7.1, let C + = C t C 0 where C 0 has one horocusp for each
special cusp of Q1 . Let Z + = Z ∪ C 0 be the manifold obtained by obtained by isometrically gluing
each special cusp of Q1 into a distinct cusp in C 0 . It is clear that ∂Z 6= ∅.
+
+
+
+
Set Q+
and Q+
= Q+
1 = Q1 ∪ C
2 = Q2 ∪ C. Then Z
1 ∪ Q2 . Each component of Qi is
a geometrically finite manifold that retracts to a tubed surface. Thus Z + is the union of convex
submanifolds, each of which retracts to a tubed surface. The proof that ∂Z + is incompressible is
now the same as that of [6, Proposition 1.6]. Since ∂Z with the cusps truncated is an incompressible
subsurface of ∂Z + , it follows that ∂Z is incompressible in Z.
Suppose that a loop γ ⊂ ∂Z has parabolic holonomy. Since Z has a convex thickening, γ must be
homotopic into some cusp of ∂Z. Suppose, for a contradiction, that γ is homotopic to a loop β ⊂ ∂C
for a cusp C ⊂ C. By property (M2), the intersection Qi ∩ ∂C is an annulus, and by property (M3)
the core curves α1 (C) and α2 (C) of these annuli have intersection number 1. It follows that β has
intersection number n 6= 0 with at least one of α1 (C) and α2 (C). Furthermore, n depends only on
the homology class [β] = [γ] ∈ H1 (Z). Since γ is disjoint from the mid-surfaces of Q1 and Q2 , it
follows that n = 0, which contradicts the hypothesis that C ∈ C.
Since γ ⊂ ∂Z cannot be homotopic into C, it must be homotopic into a special cusp. u
t
Theorem 7.3. Suppose M = H3 /Γ is a cusped hyperbolic 3–manifold and α is a slope on a cusp of
M . Then there is a cusped quasi-Fuchsian surface immersed in M with immersed slope α.
As mentioned above, the 1–cusped case of Theorem 7.3 is due to Przytycki and Wise [33, Proposition 4.6]. Before giving the full proof of the theorem, we outline the main steps:
1. Construct a prefabricated manifold Z = C ∪ Q1 ∪ Q2 , with a convex thickening and a local
isometry into M . We arrange things so that Q1 contains a piece Q with a cusp mapping to mα.
2. Modify some of the pieces of Z. We replace Q ⊂ Q1 by a 3–fold cyclic cover Q̂. We also replace
some of the rank–2 cusps in C by cyclic 3–fold covers. The result is a modified prefabricated
manifold Z 0 = C 0 ∪ Q01 ∪ Q2 , whose special cusps map to mα.
3. Pick a cusped component F ⊂ ∂Z 0 , and surger it until has the right properties. Proposition 7.2
gives a way to remove accidental parabolics by surgery, and Theorem 2.2 ensures the resulting
surface is quasi-Fuchsian.
Proof of Theorem 7.3. By Theorem 4.1, there is a pair of immersed QF surfaces f1 : J1 → M and
f2 : J2 → M , such that every cusp of J1 has an essential intersection with some cusp of J2 , and vice
versa. Furthermore, Theorem 4.1 ensures that some cusp of J1 is mapped to m · α for some m 6= 0.
By Theorem 6.1, there is a prefabricated manifold Z = Q1 ∪ Q2 ∪ C, with a convex thickening and
a local isometry into M . The quasi-Fuchsian pieces of Qi are thickenings of covers of Ji . (In fact,
the existence of Z follows from the original, unmodified prof of [6, Theorem 4.2].) By [6, Theorem
2.16], we may build Z to have the following properties. Every quasi-Fuchsian piece Qi ⊂ Qi has an
even number of cusps, with |∂Qi | ≥ 4. In addition, the spiders meeting Qi do not disconnect Qi .

UBIQUITOUS QUASI-FUCHSIAN SURFACES IN CUSPED HYPERBOLIC 3–MANIFOLDS

25

Next, we modify the pieces of Z = Q1 ∪ Q2 ∪ C to create a modified prefabricated manifold
Z 0 = Q01 ∪ Q2 ∪ C 0 .
By construction, Z contains a quasi-Fuchsian piece Q ⊂ Q1 , with a cusp W ⊂ Q mapping to
m · α for some m 6= 0. (This manifold Q is a convex thickening of some cover of J1 .) There is
a connected cyclic 3–fold cover p : Q̂ → Q with the following properties. First, the cusp W ⊂ Q
has a disconnected preimage p−1 (W ) = Ŵ t Ŵ 0 t Ŵ 00 consisting of three isometric lifts of W .
Every other cusp V ⊂ (Q r W ) has a connected preimage V̂ = p−1 (V ) that is a 3–fold cyclic cover
of V . In addition, each component X ⊂ Q ∩ Q2 lifts to Q̂. (By Definition 5.5, each component
X ⊂ Q ∩ Q2 is an ideal spider.) The cover Q̂ can be constructed by cutting the mid-surface S of
Q along some carefully chosen arcs that avoid the spiders, taking three copies of the cut-up surface,
and reassembling. Since |∂Q| ≥ 4 and is even, the existence of the arcs with the desired properties
and the cover Q̂ → Q is explained in the proof of Case 2 of [6, Theorem 2.16]. See [6, Page 1215].
For each spider X ⊂ Q, we choose one lift X̂ ⊂ Q̂. Since each cusp of Q1 contains exactly one
spider leg by Definition 5.5, it follows that exactly one of Ŵ , Ŵ 0 and Ŵ 00 contains a leg of the chosen
lift of some spider. Label the lifts of W so that Ŵ is the component that contains a spider leg.
We can now describe the QF pieces of Z 0 , as well as how to glue them. Define Q01 = (Q1 r Q) ∪ Q̂.
Every component X ⊂ Q1 ∩ Q2 is a spider that corresponds to an isometric spider X̂ ⊂ Q01 . If
X ⊂ Q, the lift X̂ ⊂ Q̂ was chosen in the previous paragraph. Otherwise, a spider X ⊂ (Q1 r Q)
corresponds to itself (but is also labeled X̂). Now glue Q01 to Q2 by isometrically identifying each
spider X ⊂ Q2 with the corresponding spider X̂ ⊂ Q01 to obtain a manifold Z ∗ .
It remains to construct a union of cusps C 0 , and to glue these rank–2 cusps onto Z ∗ to obtain
0
Z . Every leg of every spider X̂ ⊂ Q01 ∩ Q2 will run into exactly one rank–2 cusp Ĉ ⊂ C 0 , with
distinct legs terminating on distinct cusps. Furthermore, every component Ĉ ⊂ C 0 will correspond
to a rank–2 cusp C ⊂ C, and is a 1–fold or 3–fold cover of C. There are three cases, as follows.
First, if X ⊂ (Q1 r Q) ∩ Q2 , then every leg of X lands on a cusp C ⊂ C disjoint from Q. For every
such cusp C meeting a leg of X, we take an isometric copy Ĉ and glue it onto the corresponding leg
of X̂. Second, if X ⊂ Q ∩ Q2 has a leg on W , there is a unique rank–2 cusp CW ∈ C with W ⊂ CW .
Construct an isometric lift ĈW , and embed Ŵ into it. By construction, the above-chosen lift X̂ has
a leg on Ŵ ⊂ ĈW . This specifies a way to glue ĈW onto Z ∗ = Q01 ∪ Q2 .
Third, let CQ be the union of all other cusps of C (which meet Q but are disjoint from W ). For
every C ⊂ CQ , Definition 5.5 says that ∂C contains two simple closed curves α1 (C) and α2 (C) that
are the cores of Qi ∩ ∂C. These curves form a basis for π1 (C). Construct a connected 3–fold cyclic
cover Ĉ → C corresponding to the subgroup h3α1 (C), α2 (C)i ⊂ π1 (C). Then we may glue Ĉ onto
Q̂ ⊂ Q01 along a neighborhood of 3α1 (C) and onto Q2 along a neighborhood of α2 (C).
We have now constructed a modified prefabricated manifold Z 0 = C 0 ∪ Q01 ∪ Q2 . The special
component is Q̂ and the special cusps are Ŵ 0 and Ŵ 00 .
Since Z has a convex thickening, then so does Z 0 . In fact, one choice of convex thickening of
0
Z is obtained by doing the corresponding modifications to the thickened pieces of Z. We rename
Z 0 to be this convex thickening. The local isometries Qi → M and C → M define local isometries
Q01 → M and Q2 → M and C 0 → M , which agree on the overlaps. Thus Z 0 has a local isometry
into M . Note that the special cusps Ŵ 0 and Ŵ 00 both map to mα.
Let F be a component of ∂Z 0 that contains a (rank–1) cusp. By Proposition 7.2, F is incompressible and every parabolic in F is homotopic to a special slope. Any accidental parabolics in F
can be removed by surgery, as follows. If there is an accidental parabolic in F , then Jaco’s theorem
[24, Theorem VIII.13] provides an annulus A embedded in Z, with one end an essential simple nonperipheral loop γ ⊂ F and the other end a simple closed curve that is a special slope in a special
cusp. Surgering F using A produces a new surface F 0 with χ(F 0 ) < 0, isotopic to a subsurface F ,
and with fewer accidental parabolics. After a finite number of steps one obtains from F a surface E

26

DARYL COOPER AND DAVID FUTER

without accidental parabolics that is (isotopic to) a subsurface of F and has at least one cusp. By
Proposition 7.2, the cusps of E all project to the slope m · α in M .
The modified prefabricated manifold Z 0 is convex, has finite volume, and has ∂Z 0 6= ∅. Since
E ⊂ Z 0 has no accidental parabolics, Theorem 2.2 implies it is quasi-Fuchsian. u
t
7.2. Intersecting and gluing ubiquitous surfaces. In the remainder of this section, we employ
another cut-and-paste construction to derive Theorem 1.2 from Theorem 7.3. Before proceeding,
we note that only Theorem 1.1 and Theorem 7.3, both of which have already been established, are
needed to derive the cubulation statement of Corollary 1.3 in the next section.
The proof of Theorem 1.2 requires a topological lemma that ensures our surface will not have
accidental parabolics.
Lemma 7.4. Suppose F and G are compact, connected, orientable surfaces with negative Euler
characteristic and non-empty boundary. In addition, suppose Y = P ∪ Q is a compact 3–manifold,
where P = F × I and Q = G × I. Suppose P and Q intersect along a collection of annuli A =
P ∩Q = ∂G×I ⊂ int (F )×∂I. Let Σ be a component of ∂Y rint (∂F ×I). Suppose every component
X ⊂ Σ r A has χ(X) < 0.
Then Σ is incompressible in Y . If γ ⊂ Σ is a loop that is freely homotopic into ∂Σ through Y ,
then γ is freely homotopic into ∂Σ through Σ.
Proof. This is a standard topological argument in the same spirit as Claim 4.4. One needs to
consider the intersections between A and an annulus B ⊂ Y realizing a homotopy of γ into ∂Σ. The
hypothesis χ(X) < 0 for every component X ⊂ Σ r A ensures that intersections B ∩ A must indeed
occur. u
t
We also need a geometric lemma about convex hulls. If Q and N are convex subsets in R3 , then
Q ∩ N is convex, but ∂Q can undulate in and out of N , so that N ∩ ∂Q might be an arbitrary
planar surface. For example, consider how a concentric ball and cube might intersect. The same
phenomenon happens if Q and N are convex submanifolds of a hyperbolic 3–manifold. In particular,
N ∩ ∂Q might be compressible in ∂Q. The situation is better when Q is equal to its convex core.
Lemma 7.5. Suppose that Q and N are convex 3–dimensional submanifolds of a complete hyperbolic
3–manifold Y , where Q ∩ N is compact and Q = Core(Q). If X is a component of ∂Q r int (N ),
then χ(X) < 0.
e is the convex hull of its limit set
Proof. The hypothesis Q = Core(Q) can be rephrased to say that Q
e By Carathéodory’s theorem [32, Proposition 5.2.3], every point of Q
e is contained in an ideal
Λ(Q).
e
e
e
simplex with vertices in Λ(Q). It follows that each x ∈ ∂ Q is contained in an ideal triangle ∆ ⊂ ∂ Q.
2
2
e
Thus ∂Q cannot have any S or T components, because an elevation of such a component to Q
cannot contain an ideal triangle. In particular, this implies X is not a sphere or torus.
If X is a disk or an annulus, we claim that X is contained in the convex hull of ∂X. Since N is
convex and ∂X ⊂ N , it follows that X ⊂ N , which is a contradiction.
Let ρ : π1 X → π1 Q be the inclusion–induced homomorphism. If ρ(π1 X) = {1}, then X has an
e ⊂ ∂ Q.
e Each point x ∈ X
e lies in some ideal triangle ∆ ⊂ ∂ Q.
e Since X
e = X is
isometric lift X
e so x is in
compact, each geodesic ray from x to an ideal vertex of ∆ must cross a component of ∂ X,
e This proves the claim when ρ(π1 X) = {1}.
the convex hull of these crossing points in ∂ X.
If ρ(π1 X) is generated by a parabolic, then a component γ of ∂X ⊂ N is homotopic to a horocycle.
But then the convex hull of γ ⊂ Q ∩ N is non-compact, contradicting the hypothesis that Q ∩ N is
convex and compact.
In the remaining case, ρ(π1 X) is generated by a hyperbolic element, hence the core curve of X
e ⊂ Q,
e which lies within a
is homotopic to a closed geodesic γ ⊂ Q. Then X has an elevation X
3
e to a vertex
bounded neighborhood of a geodesic γ
e ⊂ H covering γ. Each geodesic ray from x ∈ X
e
e it
of ∆ either crosses ∂ X, or else limits on an endpoint z of γ
e. Since z is in the limit set of ∂ X,
follows that X is contained in the convex hull of ∂X. This proves the claim and the lemma. u
t

UBIQUITOUS QUASI-FUCHSIAN SURFACES IN CUSPED HYPERBOLIC 3–MANIFOLDS

27

Remark 7.6. A version of Lemma 7.5 also holds if Q ⊂ Y is a totally geodesic surface (hence
Q = Core(Q)) and N ⊂ Y is a compact, convex submanifold of any dimension. Under these
hypotheses, any component X of Q r int (N ) has χ(X) < 0. The proof is easier than Lemma 7.5,
because a totally geodesic annulus always lies in the convex hull of its boundary.
A map f : A → B is conjugacy injective if the induced homomorphism f∗ sends distinct conjugacy
classes in π1 A to distinct conjugacy classes in π1 B. The inclusion of a subsurface A into a surface
B is conjugacy injective if and only if χ(X) < 0 for any non-peripheral component X ⊂ B r A.
A pair of QF manifolds Q1 and Q2 that are isometrically immersed in a complete hyperbolic
e1 , Q
e 2 ⊂ H3 such that the limit
3-manifold M have an essential intersection if there are elevations Q
2
e
e
set Λ(Q1 ) intersects both components of S∞ r Λ(Q2 ). It is easy to see this condition is symmetric
e 2 contains points
in Q1 and Q2 , and is equivalent to the statement that both components of H3 r Q
e 1 at unbounded distance from Q
e2 .
in Q
If Q is a quasi-Fuchsian 3–manifold, then a finite covering Q̂ → Q is conservative if Q and Q̂ have
the same number of cusps. The next result says one can glue together large conservative covers of
two QF manifolds to obtain a geometrically finite manifold with connected QF boundary containing
large parts of covers of the two surfaces.
Proposition 7.7. For i ∈ {1, 2} suppose fi : Qi → M is an isometric immersion of a QF manifold
Qi into a complete hyperbolic 3–manifold M . Suppose that Q1 and Q2 have an essential intersection
in M , and that one of the Qi is compact.
Fix K > 0. Then there exist conservative covers pi : Q̂i → Qi and a hyperbolic 3-manifold
Ŷ = Q̂1 ∪ Q̂2 , with an isometric immersion g : Ŷ → M such that g|Q̂i = fi ◦ pi . Moreover, Ŷ has a
convex thickening such that NK (Q̂1 ∩ Q̂2 ; Th∞ (Ŷ )) = ThK (Q̂1 ∩ Q̂2 ). Finally, ∂ Ŷ has at most two
components, each of which is quasi-Fuchsian and meets every cusp of Ŷ .
Proof. The hypotheses of the proposition are symmetric in Q1 and Q2 , hence every statement below
applies with the roles of Q1 and Q2 interchanged. For most of the proof, we will work under the
additional hypothesis that each Qi is not Fuchisan. In this case, by Lemma 2.3, no additional
generality is lost by assuming Qi = Core(Qi ). The Fuchsian case is explained at the end.
e i ⊂ H3 whose limit sets intersect as required, and define N
e = Q
e1 ∩ Q
e 2 . The
Fix elevations Q
virtual convex combination theorem [4, Theorem 5.4] implies that, after replacing each Qi by a
certain finite cover, there is a connected, geometrically finite hyperbolic 3–manifold Y = Q1 ∪ Q2
and a local isometric immersion g : Y → M such that g|Qi = fi , and moreover Y has a convex
thickening. Since one of the Qi is compact, it follows that N = Q1 ∩ Q2 is compact and convex.
The essential intersection hypothesis implies that Q1 meets both boundary components of Q2 . By
Theorem 5.7, we may assume these covers are conservative.
The subgroup π1 N is finitely generated (because N is compact), free (because it is an infinite
index subgroup of a surface group), and contains no parabolics (because N is compact and convex).
Since N is irreducible, it must be a handlebody. If A is a path connected subspace of B, and the
map π1 A → π1 B induced by inclusion is injective, then we will regard π1 A as a subgroup of π1 B.
Next, we pass to further conservative covers Q̂i → Qi that satisfy several conditions.
Claim 7.8. Given K > 8, there is a hyperbolic 3-manifold Ŷ = Q̂1 ∪ Q̂2 such that
(Y1) Q̂i → Qi is a conservative cover,
(Y2) N̂ = Q̂1 ∩ Q̂2 is an isometric lift of N ,
(Y3) the inclusion N̂ ,→ Q̂i extends to an isometric embedding ThK (N̂ ) ,→ Th∞ (Q̂i ),
(Y4) π1 N̂ is conjugate in π1 Q̂i to π1 Fi,± for some connected incompressible subsurface Fi,± ⊂ ∂± Q̂i ,
(Y5) Fi,± is compact, and ∂± Q̂i r Fi,± is connected,
(Y6) Ŷ has a convex thickening Th∞ (Ŷ ).
Indeed, conclusions (Y1)–(Y5) follow by applying Theorem 5.7. Meanwhile, once we set K > 8,
condition (Y6) follows from the convex combination theorem [6, Theorem 1.3].

28

DARYL COOPER AND DAVID FUTER

Next, we show that each component of ∂ Ŷ is QF. To do this, we will replace Ŷ by a certain
+
+
+
thickening. Define Q̂+
= Q̂1 ∩ Q̂+
= Q̂1 ∪ Q̂+
have
2 = ThK (Q̂2 ) and N̂
2 and Ŷ
2 . Since Ŷ and Ŷ
a common thickening, it follows from Lemma 2.3 that they have isotopic boundaries.
0
By (Y5), we know that ∂± Q̂1 r F1,± is connected. Set F1,±
= ∂± Q1 ∩ Q+
2 . We may assume
0
0
that K is large enough to ensure that F1,± ⊂ F1,± and F1,± is connected. Since Q̂1 = Core(Q̂1 ), it
0
0
follows from Lemma 7.5 that no component of ∂± Q̂1 r F1,±
is a disk or annulus. Thus F1,±
is just
0
F1,± with collars added onto the boundary components. We now replace F1,± by F1,± . Since F1,±
is conjugacy injective in ∂± Q̂1 , it follows that N̂ is conjugacy injective in Q̂1 . The same argument,
interchanging the roles of Q1 and Q2 , shows that N̂ is conjugacy injective in Q̂2 .
+
For notational simplicity, we now replace Q̂2 by Q̂+
and Ŷ by Ŷ + . Since N̂ is
2 and N̂ by N̂
a handlebody, it is irreducible, and it follows from the h–cobordism theorem for 3–manifolds that
there is a homeomorphism h : F × [−1, 1] → N̂ with h(F × (±1)) = F1,± . The vertical boundary of
N̂ is ∂v N̂ = h(∂F × [−1, 1]). Observe that ∂v N̂ ⊂ ∂ Q̂1 ∪ ∂ Q̂2 .
If ∂v N̂ is not entirely contained in ∂ Q̂2 , then ∂v N̂ ∩ ∂ Q̂1 6= ∅ and we can isotop ∂ Q̂2 , shrinking
Q̂2 , and keeping Q̂2 convex, until ∂v N̂ ⊂ ∂ Q̂2 . Let X be a component of ∂ Q̂2 r int (∂v N̂ ). Since
N̂ is conjugacy injective in Q̂2 , it follows that either χ(X) < 0 or X is peripheral in ∂ Q̂2 . But X
cannot be peripheral because ∂X ⊂ N̂ cannot be parabolic. Thus χ(X) < 0.
Define A± = cl(∂± Q̂1 r F1,± ), and set P := cl(Q̂1 r N̂ ) ∼
= A+ × I. We apply Lemma 7.4 with
with Q = Q̂2 and P as above to deduce that ∂ Ŷ + (and hence ∂ Ŷ ) is incompressible and contains
no accidental parabolics. It follows from Theorem 2.2 that every component of ∂Y is QF.
Observe that ∂ Ŷ + = A+ ∪ A− ∪ B, where B ⊂ ∂ Q̂2 . Each of A± is connected by (Y5), and each
component of B intersects at least one component of A± . Hence ∂ Ŷ + (and so ∂ Ŷ ) has at most two
components. Finally, if Y contains cusps, we may relabel the Qi so that Q1 contains cusps. Since
F1,± is compact, each of A± meets every cusp of Ŷ , hence every component of ∂ Ŷ meets every cusp
of Ŷ .
If some Qi is Fuchsian, we merely need to modify the argument that establishes the conjugacy
injectivity of N̂ in Q̂i . The argument stays the same up to the construction of Q̂i in Claim 7.8.
If Jˆ1 = Core(Q̂1 ) is Fuchsian, then N̂ = Q̂1 ∩ Q̂2 deformation retracts onto the compact Fuchsian
surface Jˆ1 ∩Q̂2 = Jˆ1 ∩N̂ . By Remark 7.6, every component of Jˆ1 rN̂ has negative Euler characteristic.
Thus N̂ ∩ Jˆ1 is conjugacy injective in Jˆ1 , implying that N̂ is conjugacy injective in Q̂1 . The rest of
the proof is the same. u
t
We can now complete the proof of Theorem 1.2.
Proof of Theorem 1.2. Let M = H3 /Γ be a cusped byperbolic 3–manifold, and let α be a slope
on one cusp of M . Let Π− and Π+ be a pair of planes in H3 whose distance is 4η > 0. Let
P + = P (2η, r) = N2η (Dr ) be a pancake as in Lemma 3.8. Set  = η and let P = P (η, r) be a
thinner pancake, so that P + = N (P ). Let R = R() be the constant of Theorem 2.5.
By Theorem 7.3, there is an immersed QF surface f1 : J1 → M with immersed slope α. Let
Q1 = Q(J1 ). By the work of Shah [38] and Ratner [34], there is a hyperbolic plane Π0 ⊂ H3 that
e 1 . We also require that
strongly separates P , and has an essential intersection with some elevation Q
e
e
Q1 lies very far from the pancake P ; specifically, d(P, Q1 ) > R. Observe that any small perturbation
e1 .
of Π0 also separates P and has an essential intersection with the same elevation Q
By Theorem 1.1, closed quasi-Fuchsian surfaces are ubiquitous in M . Thus there is an immersed
closed QF surface f2 : J2 → M with an elevation that lies arbitrarily close to Π0 . In particular,
e 2 that strongly separates the pancake P and has limit points in both
Q2 = Q(J2 ) has an elevation Q
2
e1 .
components of S∞
rQ
e 1 ) > R, to obtain a
Apply Proposition 7.7 with Q1 and Q2 as above, and with K = d(P, Q
+
hyperbolic 3–manifold Ŷ = Q̂1 ∪ Q̂2 whose convex thickening Ŷ has QF boundary. By Theorem 2.5,

UBIQUITOUS QUASI-FUCHSIAN SURFACES IN CUSPED HYPERBOLIC 3–MANIFOLDS

29

the portion of Ŷ + = CH(Ŷ ) that is R–far from Q̂1 must lie –close to Q̂2 . Thus there is a component
e that lies –close to ∂ Q
e 2 on a region that includes the pancake P .
Σ ⊂ ∂ Ŷ + with an elevation Σ
+
]
Therefore, Core(Σ)
strongly separates P = N (P ).
By Proposition 7.7, Σ contains cusps, all of which are cusps of ∂ Q̂1 . Since the cover Q̂1 → Q1
used to construct Ŷ is conservative, all cusps of Σ map to the same multiple of α. u
t
8. Cubulating the fundamental group
In this section, we explain how Corollary 1.3 follows from the preceding theorems and [7, 23]. We
begin by briefly reviewing the terminology associated to cube complexes and the groups that act on
them. The references [23, 36, 43] give an excellent and detailed description of this material.
For 0 ≤ n < ∞, an n–cube is [−1, 1]n . A cube complex is the union of a number of cubes, possibly
of different dimensions, glued by isometry along their faces. A cube complex X is called CAT(0) if
it is simply connected, and if the link of every vertex is a flag simplicial complex. By a theorem of
Gromov, this combinatorial definition is equivalent to the CAT(0) inequality for geodesic triangles.
A midcube of an n–cube is the (n − 1) cube obtained by restricting one coordinate to 0. A
e is a connected union of midcubes, with the property that H intersects every
hyperplane H ⊂ X
e in a midcube or in the empty set. Hyperplanes in a CAT(0) cube complex X
e are embedded
cube of X
e
and two-sided, hence they can be used to inductively cut X (and its quotients) into smaller pieces.
This endows cube complexes and the groups that act on them with a hierarchical structure. See
Wise [43], where this philosophy is extensively fleshed out.
Following Sageev [35], group actions on cube complexes can be constructed in the following way.
Suppose that G = π1 Y , where Y is a compact cell complex. Then G acts by deck transformations
on Ye , and is quasi-isometric to Ye . Suppose that H1 , . . . , Hk are codimension–1 subgroups of G,
meaning that some metric thickening of an orbit (Hi )y separates Ye into non-compact components.
e whose hyperplanes are in
Sageev uses this data to build a G–action on a dual cube complex X,
bijective correspondence with cosets of the Hi . See Hruska and Wise [23] or Sageev [36] for detailed,
self-contained expositions.
In our application, Y is the compact part of a hyperbolic 3–manifold M . The codimension–1
subgroups of G = π1 Y = π1 M are QF surface groups. The quasi-isometry G → Ye identifies the
e
cosets of π1 S with the elevations of S in Ye . These elevations give rise to hyperplanes in X.
e
The G–action on X is called proper if the stabilizer of every cube is finite. If G is a torsion-free
e by deck
group, then proper actions are free, i.e. point stabilizers are trivial, hence G acts on X
e
e
transformations. The G–action on X is called cocompact if the quotient X = X/G is compact.
The following is a special case of a theorem of Bergeron and Wise [7, Theorem 5.1].
Theorem 8.1. Let M = H3 /Γ be a cusped hyperbolic 3–manifold. Suppose that M contains an
ubiquitous collection S of quasi-Fuchsian surfaces, with the property that for every cusp V ⊂ M , the
cusps of surfaces in S map to at least two distinct immersed slopes in V . Then there are finitely
e dual
many surfaces S1 , . . . , Sk ∈ S such that Γ = π1 M acts freely on the CAT(0) cube complex X
3
to all elevations of S1 , . . . , Sk to H .
Combining Theorem 8.1 with Theorem 1.4 gives
Corollary 8.2. Let M = H3 /Γ be a cusped hyperbolic 3–manifold. Let S be the collection of surfaces
guaranteed by Theorem 1.4. Then Γ = π1 M acts freely on a finite dimensional CAT(0) cube complex
e with finitely many Γ–orbits of hyperplanes. Each (immersed) hyperplane in X = X/Γ
e corresponds
X,
to an immersed, cusped quasi-Fuchsian surface in S.
e
We emphasize that in Corollary 8.2, the quotient X = X/Γ
need not be compact. However,
this quotient has finitely many immersed hyperplanes. Such a cubulation of Γ is called co-sparse.
While weaker than the cocompact cubulation described below, a co-sparse cubulation is nonetheless
sufficient for many applications such as virtual specialness. See [7, Proposition 3.3].

30

DARYL COOPER AND DAVID FUTER

e is cocompact. The following result is
Stronger hypotheses on S guarantee that the action on X
implicit in Hruska and Wise [23, Theorem 1.1].
Theorem 8.3. Let M = H3 /Γ be a cusped hyperbolic 3–manifold. Suppose that M contains an
ubiquitous collection S of quasi-Fuchsian surfaces, with the property that for every cusp V ⊂ M , the
cusps of surfaces in S map to exactly two distinct immersed slopes α(V ) and β(V ). Then there are
finitely many surfaces S1 , . . . , Sk ∈ S such that Γ = π1 M acts freely and cocompactly on the CAT(0)
e dual to all elevations of S1 , . . . , Sk to H3 .
cube complex X
Proof. Let S1 , . . . , Sk be the finite collection of surfaces guaranteed by Theorem 8.1. Then Γ acts
e dual to these surfaces. Let V1 , . . . , Vn be the horocusps of M .
freely on the cube complex X
e is
Hruska and Wise [23, Theorem 1.1] show that the Γ–action on the dual cube complex X
e
relatively cocompact. This means that the quotient X = X/Γ decomposes into a compact cube
complex K and cube complexes C1 , . . . , Cn corresponding to the cusps V1 , . . . , Vn . Each Cj is the
fj ⊂ X.
e Furthermore, C
fj ⊂ X
e is exactly the dual
quotient under π1 (Vj ) ∼
= Z2 of a cube complex C
fj .
cube complex constructed from the parabolic subgroups π1 (Si ) ∩ π1 (Vj ) acting on V
2
∼
In the case at hand, every peripheral group π1 (Vj ) = Z can intersect a conjugate of π1 (Si ) in
one of two parabolic subgroups, namely hα(Vj )i or hβ(Vj )i. The slopes α(Vj ) and β(Vj ) are distinct.
fj is quasi-isometric to the standard cubulation of R2 , constructed from two families of parallel
Thus C
fj /Z2 is a quasi-isometric to a
lines in the plane. See [43, Figure 6.4]. It follows that every Cj = C
e
compact torus, hence X = X/Γ is compact as well. u
t
Proof of Corollary 1.3. Let M be a complete hyperbolic 3–manifold. If M is closed, then [7, Theorem
e dual to the elevations of finitely
1.5] says that π1 M acts freely and cocompactly on a cube complex X
many Kahn–Markovic surfaces.
If M is non-compact, let V1 , . . . , Vn be its cusps. For every Vj , choose two distinct slopes α(Vj )
and β(Vj ). For each Vj , let Sα,j and Sβ,j be two quasi-Fuchsian surfaces produced by Theorem 7.3,
whose immersed boundary slopes are α(Vj ) and β(Vj ) respectively. Let S be the (infinite) collection
of QF surfaces consisting of {Sα,1 , . . . , Sα,n , Sβ,1 , . . . , Sβ,n } and the ubiquitous collection of closed
QF surfaces guaranteed by Theorem 1.1. In particular, every S ∈ S is either closed or has all cusps
mapping to exactly one multiple of α(Vj ) or β(Vj ), for one Vj .
e u
Now, Theorem 8.3 applied to S gives a free and cocompact action on a dual cube complex X.
t
References
[1] Ian Agol, The virtual Haken conjecture, Doc. Math. 18 (2013), 1045–1087, With an appendix by Agol, Daniel
Groves, and Jason Manning. MR 3104553 [3, 8, 15, 17, 18]
[2] Mark D. Baker, On boundary slopes of immersed incompressible surfaces, Ann. Inst. Fourier (Grenoble) 46
(1996), no. 5, 1443–1449. MR 1427132 (98a:57023) [2]
[3] Mark D. Baker and Daryl Cooper, Immersed, virtually-embedded, boundary slopes, Topology Appl. 102 (2000),
no. 3, 239–252. MR 1745446 (2000m:57006) [2]
, A combination theorem for convex hyperbolic manifolds, with applications to surfaces in 3-manifolds,
[4]
J. Topol. 1 (2008), no. 3, 603–642. MR 2417445 (2009i:57035) [2, 3, 5, 6, 18, 19, 24, 27]
[5]
, Conservative subgroup separability for surfaces with boundary, Algebr. Geom. Topol. 13 (2013), no. 1,
115–125. MR 3031638 [21]
[6]
, Finite-volume hyperbolic 3-manifolds contain immersed quasi-Fuchsian surfaces, Algebr. Geom. Topol.
15 (2015), no. 2, 1199–1228. MR 3342690 [1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 11, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27]
[7] Nicolas Bergeron and Daniel T. Wise, A boundary criterion for cubulation, Amer. J. Math. 134 (2012), no. 3,
843–859. MR 2931226 [2, 3, 29, 30]
[8] Francis Bonahon, Bouts des variétés hyperboliques de dimension 3, Ann. of Math. (2) 124 (1986), no. 1, 71–158.
MR MR847953 (88c:57013) [4]
[9] Jeffrey F. Brock and Kenneth W. Bromberg, On the density of geometrically finite Kleinian groups, Acta Math.
192 (2004), no. 1, 33–93. MR MR2079598 (2005e:57046) [7, 18]
[10] Richard D. Canary, A covering theorem for hyperbolic 3–manifolds and its applications, Topology 35 (1996),
no. 3, 751–778. [4]

UBIQUITOUS QUASI-FUCHSIAN SURFACES IN CUSPED HYPERBOLIC 3–MANIFOLDS

31

[11] Suhyoung Choi, Geometric structures on orbifolds and holonomy representations, Geom. Dedicata 104 (2004),
161–199. MR 2043960 (2005b:57031) [18]
[12] Daryl Cooper and Darren D. Long, Some surface subgroups survive surgery, Geom. Topol. 5 (2001), 347–367
(electronic). MR 1825666 (2002g:57031) [3, 13]
[13] Daryl Cooper, Darren D. Long, and Alan W. Reid, Essential closed surfaces in bounded 3-manifolds, J. Amer.
Math. Soc. 10 (1997), no. 3, 553–563. MR 1431827 [15]
[14] Daryl Cooper, Darren D. Long, and Stephan Tillmann, Deforming convex projective manifolds, arXiv:1511.06206,
November 2015. [18]
[15] Marc Culler and Peter B. Shalen, Varieties of group representations and splittings of 3-manifolds, Ann. of Math.
(2) 117 (1983), no. 1, 109–146. MR 683804 (84k:57005) [1, 21]
[16] Kelly Delp, Diane Hoffoss, and Jason Fox Manning, Problems in groups, geometry, and three-manifolds, 2015,
arXiv:1512.04620. [1]
[17] David Futer, Jessica S. Purcell, and Saul Schleimer, Effective bilipschitz bounds on drilling and filling, In preparation. [7]
[18] William M. Goldman, Geometric structures on manifolds and varieties of representations, Geometry of group
representations (Boulder, CO, 1987), Contemp. Math., vol. 74, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 1988, pp. 169–
198. MR 957518 (90i:57024) [18]
[19] Joel Hass, J. Hyam Rubinstein, and Shicheng Wang, Boundary slopes of immersed surfaces in 3-manifolds, J.
Differential Geom. 52 (1999), no. 2, 303–325. MR 1758298 (2001h:57023) [2]
[20] Allen E. Hatcher, On the boundary curves of incompressible surfaces, Pacific J. Math. 99 (1982), no. 2, 373–377.
MR 658066 (83h:57016) [2]
[21] Craig D. Hodgson and Steven P. Kerckhoff, Universal bounds for hyperbolic Dehn surgery, Ann. of Math. (2)
162 (2005), no. 1, 367–421. MR 2178964 (2006g:57031) [7]
[22]
, The shape of hyperbolic Dehn surgery space, Geom. Topol. 12 (2008), no. 2, 1033–1090. MR 2403805
(2010b:57021) [7]
[23] G. Christopher Hruska and Daniel T. Wise, Finiteness properties of cubulated groups, Compos. Math. 150 (2014),
no. 3, 453–506. MR 3187627 [2, 3, 29, 30]
[24] William Jaco, Lectures on three-manifold topology, CBMS Regional Conference Series in Mathematics, vol. 43,
American Mathematical Society, Providence, R.I., 1980. MR 565450 (81k:57009) [13, 25]
[25] Jeremy Kahn and Vladimir Markovic, Immersing almost geodesic surfaces in a closed hyperbolic three manifold,
Ann. of Math. (2) 175 (2012), no. 3, 1127–1190. MR 2912704 [1, 2, 3, 14, 16, 18, 23]
, The good pants homology and the Ehrenpreis Conjecture, Ann. of Math. (2) 182 (2015), no. 1, 1–72.
[26]
MR 3374956 [1]
[27] Aaron D. Magid, Deformation spaces of Kleinian surface groups are not locally connected, Geom. Top. 16 (2012),
1247–1320. [7]
[28] Joseph Maher, Virtually embedded boundary slopes, Topology Appl. 95 (1999), no. 1, 63–74. MR 1691932
(2000d:57003) [2]
[29] Joseph D. Masters and Xingru Zhang, Closed quasi-Fuchsian surfaces in hyperbolic knot complements, Geom.
Topol. 12 (2008), no. 4, 2095–2171. MR 2431017 (2009g:57029) [1, 21]
, Quasi-Fuchsian surfaces in hyperbolic link complements, arXiv:0909.4501, September 2009. [1]
[30]
[31] Ulrich Oertel, Boundaries of π1 -injective surfaces, Topology Appl. 78 (1997), no. 3, 215–234. MR 1454601
(98f:57029) [2]
[32] Athanase Papadopoulos, Metric spaces, convexity and nonpositive curvature, IRMA Lectures in Mathematics
and Theoretical Physics, vol. 6, European Mathematical Society (EMS), Zürich, 2005. MR 2132506 [6, 8, 26]
[33] Piotr Przytycki and Daniel T. Wise, Mixed 3–manifolds are virtually special, arXiv:1205.6742, 2012. [2, 23, 24]
[34] Marina Ratner, Raghunathan’s topological conjecture and distributions of unipotent flows, Duke Math. J. 63
(1991), no. 1, 235–280. MR 1106945 [11, 16, 18, 28]
[35] Michah Sageev, Ends of group pairs and non-positively curved cube complexes, Proc. London Math. Soc. (3) 71
(1995), no. 3, 585–617. MR 1347406 [29]
[36]
, CAT(0) cube complexes and groups, Geometric group theory, IAS/Park City Math. Ser., vol. 21, Amer.
Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2014, pp. 7–54. MR 3329724 [29]
[37] Peter Scott, Subgroups of surface groups are almost geometric, J. London Math. Soc. (2) 17 (1978), no. 3,
555–565. MR 0494062 [8, 21]
[38] Nimish A. Shah, Closures of totally geodesic immersions in manifolds of constant negative curvature, Group
theory from a geometrical viewpoint (Trieste, 1990), World Sci. Publ., River Edge, NJ, 1991, pp. 718–732.
MR 1170382 [11, 16, 18, 28]
[39] William P. Thurston, The geometry and topology of three-manifolds, Available from http://msri.org/publications/
books/gt3m/, 1979. [7, 18]
[40] Joseph Tidmore, Cocompact cubulations of mixed 3-manifolds, arXiv:1612.06272, 2016. [2]
[41] Friedhelm Waldhausen, On irreducible 3-manifolds which are sufficiently large, Ann. of Math. (2) 87 (1968),
56–88. MR MR0224099 (36 #7146) [5]

32

DARYL COOPER AND DAVID FUTER

[42] Daniel T. Wise, The structure of groups with a quasiconvex hierarchy, 2011, Preprint. [2, 8]
[43]
, From riches to raags: 3-manifolds, right-angled Artin groups, and cubical geometry, CBMS Regional
Conference Series in Mathematics, vol. 117, Published for the Conference Board of the Mathematical Sciences,
Washington, DC, 2012. MR 2986461 [8, 29, 30]
[44] Qiang Zhang, Boundary slopes of immersed surfaces in Haken manifolds, J. Knot Theory Ramifications 18
(2009), no. 5, 591–603. MR 2527678 (2010j:57030) [2]
Department of Mathematics, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106
E-mail address: cooper@math.ucsb.edu
Department of Mathematics, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA 19122
E-mail address: dfuter@temple.edu

