Least dilatation of pure surface braids

arXiv:1801.10564v1 [math.GT] 31 Jan 2018

Marissa Loving
with an appendix by Marissa Loving and Hugo Parlier
Abstract
We study the minimal dilatation of pseudo-Anosov pure surface braids and provide upper and lower
bounds as a function of genus and the number of punctures. For a fixed number of punctures, these
bounds tend to infinity as the genus does. We also bound the dilatation of pseudo-Anosov pure surface
braids away from zero and give a constant upper bound in the case of a sufficient number of punctures.

1.

Introduction

Let Sg,n be a surface of genus g ≥ 2 with n ≥ 1 punctures and let Sg = Sg,0 . We define the mapping class
group of Sg,n , denoted by Mod(Sg,n ), to be the group of orientation preserving homeomorphisms of Sg,n up
to isotopy. The pure mapping class group of Sg,n , denoted PMod(Sg,n ), is the subgroup of Mod(Sg,n )
that fixes each puncture pointwise.
Consider the following short exact sequence
1 −→ ker(Forget) −→ PMod(Sg,n ) −→ Mod(Sg ) −→ 1,
where Forget : PMod(Sg,n ) → M od(Sg ) is the forgetful map obtained by “filling in” the n punctures of Sg,n .
The n-stranded pure braid group of a surface of genus g is defined as the kernel of this map Forget,
denoted PBn (Sg ). This is isomorphic to the fundamental group of the configuration space of ordered n-tuples
of points on Sg ; see Section 2.2 for further discussion.
Given a pseudo-Anosov mapping class f ∈ PBn (Sg ) we denote its dilatation by λ(f ) and its entropy
by log(λ(f )), which is indeed the topological entropy of the pseudo-Anosov representative of f . In particular,
we will be interested in the least entropy
L(PBn (Sg )) := inf{log(λ(f )) | f ∈ PBn (Sg ) is pseudo-Anosov}.
Main Theorem. For a surface Sg,n of genus g ≥ 2 with n ≥ 1 punctures there exist constants c, c0 > 0
such that,


l g m
log g
c log
+ c0 .
+ c ≤ L(PBn (Sg )) ≤ c0 log
n
n
Explicit values for c and c0 are obtained from the bounds given in Theorem 4.1, Theorem 5.1, and
Theorem 6.1.
To put the Main Theorem in context, we recall the results of Penner [30] and Tsai [37], which give bounds
on the least entropy in the whole mapping class group (Penner for closed surface and Tsai for punctured
surfaces). In particular, Penner’s result shows that L(Mod(Sg )) goes to 0 as g tends to infinity and Tsai’s
result shows that, for fixed genus g, L(Mod(Sg,n )) goes to 0 as n tends to infinity. These both contrast
sharply with the behavior of the least entropy in the pure surface braid group demonstrated by the Main
Theorem, which shows that, for a fixed number of punctures n, L(PBn (Sg )) goes to infinity as g tends to
infinity.
Theorem 1.1 (Penner). For a surface Sg of genus g ≥ 2,
log 11
log 2
≤ L(Mod(Sg )) ≤
.
12g − 12
g
1

Penner’s bounds have been improved by many authors; see Aaber–Dunfield [1], Bauer [6], Hironaka [17],
Hironaka–Kin [18], and Kin–Takasawa [23]. A version of Theorem 1.1 was proved for the case of punctured
surfaces by Tsai in [37].
Theorem 1.2 (Tsai). For any fixed g ≥ 2, there is a constant cg ≥ 1 depending on g such that
cg log n
log n
< L(Mod(Sg,n )) <
,
cg n
n
for all n ≥ 3.
The constants cg in Tsai’s result were improved from an exponential dependence on genus to a polynomial
one by Yazdi [38].
In addition to studying the least entropy of the mapping class group, many people have studied the least
entropy of various subgroups of the mapping class group. For example, Farb–Leininger–Margalit studied the
minimal entropy of the Torelli group, the Johnson kernel, and congruence subgroups in [11] and Hirose–Kin
studied the least entropy of hyperelliptic handlebody groups in [19]. The least entropy of classical pure braid
groups, that is the fundamental group of the configuration space of ordered n-tuples of points on a disc,
has also been an object of significant study. Song provided upper and lower bounds for the least entropy
of the classical braid groups in [32]. Specific values of the least entropy were found when n = 4 and n = 5
by Song–Ko–Los [33] and Ham–Song [16], respectively. More recently, Lanneau–Thiffeault [25] gave simple
constructions to realize the least entropy for n = 4, 5 and found the least entropy for braid groups of up to
8-strands.
The entropy of pseudo-Anosovs in the point pushing subgroup was also studied extensively by Dowdall in
[10]. Note that the point pushing subgroup coincides with the 1-stranded pure surface braid group PB1 (Sg ).
Combining the upper bound of Aougab and Taylor [5] and the lower bound of Dowdall [10] gives the following.
Theorem 1.3 (Aougab–Taylor, Dowdall). For the closed surface Sg of genus g ≥ 2,
1
log(2g) ≤ L(PB1 (Sg )) < 4 log(g) + 2 log(24).
5
For fixed genus, the upper bound in our Main Theorem interpolates between the log(g) upper bound
in Theorem 1.3 in the case of a single puncture and a constant upper bound of 4 log(6) when n > 2g; see
Theorem 4.1.
Dilatations of pseudo-Anosov mapping classes have been studied in a number of other situations; see
[28, 20, 26, 31, 29]. In fact, an analagous problem to ours on small dilatation pseudo-Anosovs has been
studied in the context of nonorientable surfaces by Strenner [34].

Outline of the Paper
Section 2 contains a brief introduction to surface homeomorphisms, surface braids, and Thurston’s construction for psuedo-Anosovs; it also recalls several important results from quasiconformal geometry. In Section
3 we give the details of a construction of Aougab–Taylor from [5] of a small dilatation psuedo-Anosov in the
point pushing subgroup. Section 4 outlines the construction of pseudo-Anosov pure surface braids realizing
the upper bounds given in the Main Theorem. Section 5 contains the proof of the constant lower bound implied by our Main Theorem. In Section 6 we prove our Main Theorem’s lower bound with explicit constants
computed. We end the paper with an appendix which provides a lower bound on the diameter of a “filling”
graph embedded in a surface, a result which is needed in Section 6.

Acknowledgment
This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship under Grant No. DGE 1144245. The author would like to thank her PhD advisor Christopher Leininger
for his guidance, insights, and endless encouragement.
2

2.

Preliminaries

Here we establish our notation for the remainder of the paper and recall the necessary notions, definitions,
and tools. In particular, we will give an overview of surface homeomorphisms, surface braids, some relevant
results from quasiconformal geometry, and the details of a construction of psuedo-Anosovs due to Thurston.

2.1

Surface Homeomorphisms

Let S be a connected, oriented surface of genus g possibly with a finite number of punctures and let f : S → S
be a homeomorphism. Throughout the rest of the paper we will assume any surface we discuss is as described
here.
The homeomorphism f is called pseudo-Anosov if there exists a pair of transverse measured foliations
(F s , µs ) and (F u , µu ) on S and a real number λ(f ) > 1 such that
f · (F s , µs ) = (F s , λ(f )−1 µs ) and f · (F u , µu ) = (F u , λ(f )µu ).
We call λ(f ) the stretch factor or dilatation of f .
If there is a collection C of disjoint, essential simple closed curves on S such that the homeomorphism f
preserves C, then f is said to be reducible. If there is some power of the homeomorphism f isotopic to the
identity, then f is called periodic or finite order.
A mapping class ϕ ∈ Mod(S) is said to be pseudo-Anosov, reducible, or periodic, respectively, if
there is a representative homeomorphism f ∈ ϕ such that f is pseudo-Anosov, reducible, or periodic,
respectively. Thurston proved the following classification of elements in Mod(S).
Theorem 2.1 (Nielsen–Thurston). A mapping class ϕ ∈ Mod(S) is pseudo-Anosov, reducible, or periodic.
In addition, ϕ is pseudo-Anosov if and only if it is neither reducible nor periodic.
A proof of this result can be found in [13], as well as a detailed discussion of the definitions above. The
interested reader can also find an introduction to these topics in [12].

2.2

Surface Braids

Let X be a topological space. We define the configuration space of n distinct ordered points in X to be
the subspace of X n given by
Conf(X, n) := {(x1 , x2 , . . . , xn ) : xi 6= xj for i 6= j}.
Note that the symmetric group, Σn , acts on Conf(X, n) on the left by
σ(x1 , . . . , xn ) = (xσ(1) , . . . xσ(n) ).
Definition 2.1. Let S be a surface. The braid group of S on n-strands is
Bn (S) := π1 (Conf(S, n)/Σn ).
The pure braid group of S on n-strands is
PBn (S) := π1 (Conf(S, n)).
Note that Bn = π1 (Conf(C, n)/Σn ) and PBn = π1 (Conf(C, n)) are the classical braid and pure braid
groups, respectively; see [12]. Although at first glance Definition 2.1 appears different from the definition of
PBn (Sg ) given in the introduction, Birman established that these definitions are equivalent in the following
theorem, which first appeared in [7].
Theorem 2.2 (Birman). For each pair of integers g, n ≥ 0 let Forget : PMod(Sg,n ) → Mod(Sg ) be the
forgetful map. If g ≥ 2, then ker(Forget) is isomorphic to π1 (Conf(Sg , n)).
3

The proof of this result appeals to a long exact sequence of homotopy groups and is not immediately
obvious, but the intuition is straightforward. Observe that for a homeomorphism representing a mapping
class in the n-stranded pure braid group the isotopy on the closed surface from the homeomorphism back to
the identity traces out a loop of n ordered point configurations and this defines the isomorphism. A further
discussion of braid groups can be found in [8].

2.3

Some Quasiconformal Results

A Teichmüller theoretic approach is employed in the proof of Theorem 6.1, which is part of the lower bound
in the Main Theorem. Consequently, we will need some results from quasiconformal geometry. We begin by
defining a quasiconformal map; see [3] for more on quasiconformal mappings.
Definition 2.2. Let f : Ω → f (Ω) be a homeomorphism between open sets Ω, f (Ω) ⊂ C. Suppose f has
|fz | + |fz̄ |
≥ 1. We say that f is quasiconformal if
locally integrable weak partial derivatives and let Df =
|fz | − |fz̄ |
kDf k∞ < ∞ and K-quasiconformal if kDf k∞ ≤ K. The quasiconformal dilatation is K(f ) = kDf k∞ .
An important component of our proof is a result of Teichmüller [35] and Gehring [15] which relates the
dilatation of a quasiconformal map f on the hyperbolic plane H2 to the maximum distance which any point
of H2 is moved by f . We give a version of the statement which can be found in Kra [24].
Theorem 2.3 (Kra). Consider H2 with Poincaré metric ρ. For x, y ∈ H2 there exists a unique self-mapping
f : H2 → H2 so that f is the identity on the boundary of H2 , f (x) = y, and f minimizes the quasiconformal
dilatation among all such mappings. Let K(x, y) be the quasiconformal dilatation of such an extremal f .
Then there exists a strictly increasing real-valued function κ : [0, ∞) → [0, ∞) such that
(i) log(1 + 2t ) ≤ κ(t), and
(ii)

1
2

log K(x, y) = κ(ρ(x, y)).

The second important component of the proof of Theorem 6.1 is Theorem 2.4 below. The statement and
proof of Theorem 2.4 in the case of n = 2 are due to Imayoshi–Ito–Yamamoto [21] with a weaker upper
bound on the quasiconformal dilatation. The proof of Imayoshi–Ito–Yamamoto holds in the case of n > 2
punctures without any modification so we will omit the full argument and will instead provide a sketch of
proof, namely the construction of Ft and a justification of our improved upper bound on Kt = K(Ft ).
Theorem 2.4 (Imayoshi–Ito-Yamamoto). Let ϕ : Sg,n → Sg,n be a pseudo-Anosov homeomorphism representing an element of PBn (Sg ) and let ϕ
b : Sg → Sg be the extension of ϕ to the surface with the punctures
filled in. There exists a conformal structure on Sg together with an isotopy Ft : Sg → Sg with t ∈ [0, 1],
through quasiconformal maps, between id : Sg → Sg and ϕ
b on the closed surface Sg . Furthermore, for each
t ∈ [0, 1] the quasiconformal dilatation Kt of Ft satisfies
log(Kt ) ≤ 3 log(λ(ϕ)).
Sketch of Proof. We will begin by constructing Ft . Let Sg be given a conformal structure so that [id] = [id :
Sg,n → Sg,n ] lies on the axis for ϕ and [0, 1] 3 t 7→ [ft ] ∈ T (Sg,n ) be the Teichmüller geodesic connecting
[id] and ϕ−1 ([id]). So for all t ∈ [0, 1], ft : Sg,n → ft (Sg,n ) is a Teichmüller mapping and
1
1
log(K(ft )) ≤ log(K(f1 )) = log(λ(ϕ−1 )) = log(λ(ϕ)).
2
2
By filling in the punctures, we can extend ft to fbt : Sg → fbt (Sg ). Denote by ϕ
ct the Teichmüller map of Sg
onto fbt (Sg ) isotopic to fbt on Sg . Then we define the map Ft : Sg × [0, 1] → Sg by
Ft (x) = ϕ
ct

−1

◦ fbt (x) for x ∈ Sg and t ∈ [0, 1].
4

The fact that Ft is an isotopy is proved in [21]. Note that
log(Kt ) = log(K(c
ϕt

−1

−1
◦ fbt )) ≤ log(K(c
ϕt )) + log(K(fbt )).

Furthermore, we have that t 7→ [fbt ] is a closed loop of length at most log(λ(ϕ)). So
1
1
−1
log(K(c
ϕt )) = dT (Sg ) ([fbt ], [id]) ≤ diamT (Sg ) ({[fbs ] | s ∈ [0, 1]}) ≤ log(λ(ϕ)).
2
2
Thus,
log(Kt ) ≤ 3 log(λ(ϕ)).

2.4

Thurston’s Construction

Here we will introduce a useful tool for constructing pseudo-Anosov mapping classes due to Thurston [36].
We say a collection C of essential simple closed curves fills our surface S = Sg,n if the curves intersect
transversely and minimally and the complement of C in S is a collection of disks and once-puncture disks.
Equivalently, we could say that C fills S if any essential simple closed curve on S has nonzero geometric
intersection number with at least one curve in our collection C.
Now suppose we have a collection C = {c1 , c2 , . . . , cm } of pairwise disjoint, essential simple closed curves
on S. We can define a multi-twist TC about C to be the product of positive Dehn twists about each ci ∈ C.
Theorem 2.5 (Thurston). Let A = {α1 , α2 , . . . , αm } and B = {β1 , β2 , . . . , βk } be collections of pairwise
disjoint, essential, simple closed curves on S such that A ∪ B fills S. There is a real number µ > 1 and
homomorphism
ρ : hTA , TB i → PSL(2, R) given by




1
0
1 −µ1/2
TA 7→
and TB 7→
.
0
1
µ1/2 1
Furthermore, for f ∈ hTA , TB i, f is pseudo-Anosov if its image ρ(f ) is hyperbolic, in which case the dilatation
of f is equal to the spectral radius of ρ(f ).
Consider a mapping class TA TB−1 ∈ hTA , TB i as given by Theorem 2.5. The image of TA TB−1 under ρ is
given by


−1 

1
0
µ + 1 −µ1/2
1 −µ1/2
=
.
0
1
µ1/2 1
−µ1/2
1
The trace of this matrix is 2 + µ. Thus, by Theorem 2.5, TA TB−1 is pseudo-Anosov and log(λ(TA TB−1 )) is
bounded above by log(2 + µ).
The real number µ in Theorem 2.5 is the Perron–Frobenius eigenvalue of N N T , where N is defined as
Ni,j = i(αi , βj ). If A = {α} and B = {β}, then µ = i(α, β)2 . This will be a useful fact to keep in mind for
the following section. In general, µ cannot be computed in such a straightforward manner. However, we can
bound µ from above by the maximum row sum of N N T ; see [14].
In order to compute the row sums of N N T we will follow the method used in [2], which we describe here.
Given N , we can build a labeled bipartite graph G with m red vertices and k blue vertices corresponding
to the multicurves A and B, respectively. An edge from the ith red vertex to the jth blue vertex exists if
Ni,j 6= 0, in which case it is labeled by Ni,j . We will define the weight of a path in G to be the product of
edge labels in that path. The (i, j) entry of N N T is equal to the sum of the weights of the paths of length
2 from the ith red vertex to the jth red vertex in G. To compute the row sum of N N T corresponding to a
particular curve we start at the vertex associated to that curve and sum the weights of all paths of length
two, possibly with backtracking, beginning at that vertex.

5

3.

The Point Pushing Subgroup

The construction given by Aougab–Taylor in [5] of point pushing homeomorphisms used to realize the upper
bound in Theorem 1.3 will play an important role in our proof of the Main Theorem so we will recall it here.
We also employ some further work of Aougab–Huang [4] to gain a more careful estimate of the upper bound
than that provided in [5]. In particular, we will prove the following.
Theorem 3.1 (Aougab–Taylor). For the closed surface Sg of genus g ≥ 2,
L(PB1 (Sg )) < 4 log(g) + 2 log(24).
Proof of Theorem 3.1. Let α and β be a minimally intersecting filling pair of curves on the closed surface
Sg . By [4], we have that i(α, β) = 2g − 1. Let β1 , β2 be the boundary components of a small tubular
neighborhood of β. Thus, β1 , β2 are homotopic to β on Sg . Now place a marked point z at some point of
β \ α. We can puncture Sg at z to form the surface Sg,1 .
Set fβ = Tβ31 ◦ Tβ−3
. This is a point pushing map in Sg,1 obtained by pushing the marked point z along
2
β three times. Our goal is to show that {α, fβ (α)} fills the punctured surface Sg,1 , and then apply Theorem
2.5 to obtain a pseudo-Anosov mapping class in PB1 (Sg ). We apply the following inequality of Ivanov found
in [22] to show that any essential simple closed curve on Sg,1 must intersect either α or fβ (α).
Lemma 3.1 (Ivanov). Let c1 , . . . cm be a collection of pairwise disjoint, pairwise non-homotopic simple
closed curves on a surface S with negative Euler characteristic and let (s1 , . . . , sm ) ∈ Zm . For any simple
closed curves γ, ρ,
m
X
(|si | − 2)i(ρ, ci )i(ci , γ) − i(ρ, γ) ≤ i(Tcs11 ◦ · · · ◦ Tcsmm (ρ), γ)
i=1

≤

m
X

|si | i(ρ, ci )i(ci , γ) + i(γ, ρ).

i=1

Suppose γ is an essential simple closed curve on Sg,1 such that i(γ, α) = 0. Now we can apply Lemma
3.1 with ρ = α, (s1 , s2 ) = (3, −3), and (c1 , c2 ) = (β1 , β2 ). Recall that α and β filled Sg , so {α, β1 , β2 } fill
Sg,1 . Thus, i(γ, βi ) 6= 0 for i = 1, 2, which implies that the lefthand side of the inequality in Lemma 3.1 is
nonzero. Hence, i(γ, fβ (α)) 6= 0, as desired. Furthermore, we can use the fact that i(α, β) = 2g − 1, together
with Lemma 3.1, to calculate that i(α, fβ (α)) ≤ 24g 2 − 24g + 6.
Since fβ is a point pushing map, we know that α and fβ (α) are homotopic on the closed surface Sg .
Thus, Tα Tf−1
∈ PB1 (Sg ) and, by Theorem 2.5, is also pseudo-Anosov. Recall that in the case of two filling
β (α)
curves Theorem 2.5 tells us that the λ(Tα Tf−1
) ≤ i(α, fβ (α))2 + 2. Thus, λ(Tα Tf−1
) < 242 g 4 and we
β (α)
β (α)
obtain the desired upper bound
L(PB1 (Sg )) < 4 log(g) + 2 log(24).
As we will need this construction in the next section, we will denote the curves α and fβ (α) which we
constructed above by α and τ , respectively, and call them an Aougab–Taylor pair. Note that we can
construct an Aougab–Taylor pair {α, τ } on a surface of genus g with a single boundary component with
the same bound of 24g 2 − 24g + 6 on intersection number, since on a surface of genus g > 2 with a single
boundary component there exists a pair of filling curves that intersect 2g − 1 times. In the case of a genus
two surface with a single boundary component a minimally intersecting pair of filling curves will intersect
4, not 3, times. However we can still construct an Aougab–Taylor pair {α, τ } with i(α, τ ) ≤ 24. When our
surface is a torus with a single boundary component, we can construct an Aougab–Taylor pair {α, τ } with
i(α, τ ) = 6.

6

4.

The Upper Bounds

We will begin by proving the Main Theorem’s upper bound which depends on the genus g and number of
punctures n of our surface. We state this upper bound with explicit constants in Theorem 4.1. To prove
the upper bound it suffices to construct a pseudo-Anosov pure braid satisfying the desired upper bound for
each g and n.
Theorem 4.1. For a surface Sg of genus g ≥ 2 with 1 ≤ n ≤ 2g, we have
 
2g
+ 4 log(7).
L(PBn (Sg )) ≤ 4 log
n
Fix a genus g ≥ 2. Our main tool throughout this section will be leveraging Thurston’s construction to
build our desired pseudo-Anosov pure surface braids by building pairs of filling multicurves.
Proof of Theorem 4.1. The main strategy of our proof is to divide our surface into subsurfaces with a single
boundary component, fill each of these subsurfaces with an Aougab–Taylor pair, and then add a few additional curves which bound twice punctured disks to combine these Aougab–Taylor pairs into a single pair of
filling multicurves. We will employ this strategy in each of our three cases: when n = 2, 3, when 4 ≤ n < 2g,
and when n ≥ 2g.
Case 1. We begin our construction in the case of n = 2. Let A and B denote the multicurves marked in
red and blue, respectively, in Figure 1 which are constructed in the following way. Consider two subsurfaces
of
 g Sg,n given by cutting along a separating curve that divides Sg,n into two subsurfaces of genus at most
2 each containing a single puncture. On each of these subsurfaces we can construct an Aougab–Taylor
pair as described in Section 3. We then add an additional curve bounding a twice-punctured disk containing
the pair of punctures. We illustrate this construction in Figure 1 for the case of a genus 2 surface. In this
situation our Aougab–Taylor pairs on each genus 1 subsurface intersect 6 times and our additional red curve,
which bounds a twice-punctured disk containing the pair of punctures, intersects each blue curve 8 times.
For n = 3 we can add an additional puncture, as shown on the right of Figure 1.

Figure 1: Construction of filling multicurves, A and B, for 2 and 3 punctures
Let f = TA TB−1 . Note that f is pseudo-Anosov by Thurston’s Construction, since A and B jointly fill
Sg,n . Furthermore, f ∈ PBn (Sg ), since the red curve bounding the twice punctured disk is trivial on the
closed surface and the pairs of curves which fill each subsurface will be homotopic to each other on the closed
surface. Thus, the composition of positive and negative multitwist about A and B is the trivial mapping class
on the closed surface. As discussed in Section 2.4, we can bound λ(f ) from above by the Perron–Frobenius
eigenvalue, µ, of N N T . Since there are only 5 curves in A ∪ B as shown in Figure 1, we can explicitly
compute µ. Note that the red curve which bounds a twice (or thrice) punctured disk intersects each blue
 2
 
 2
 
 4
curve at most 24 g2
− 24 g2 + 8 times. So we have that µ ≤ 3(24 g2
− 24 g2 + 8)2 < 74 g2
− 2,
where µ is the Perron–Frobenius eigenvalue of N N T as described in Theorem 2.5. Thus,
 l m 
l g m
g 4
log(λ(f )) ≤ log(µ + 2) ≤ log 74
= 4 log
+ 4 log(7).
2
2

7

Case 2. Now consider the case when 4 ≤ n < 2g. We will illustrate our construction in Figure 2 in the case of
a genus 4 surface. We will build our pair of filling multicurves on
 Sg,n in the following way. We will divide Sg
each with a single boundary component.
into a sphere with b n2 c holes and subsurfaces of genus at most 2g
n
Puncture each subsurface once, and as before, we fill each of these subsurfaces with an Aougab–Taylor pair
α and β, shown in red and blue, respectively, in Figure 2. We then add an additional puncture to each
subsurface so that it is near the boundary component of that subsurface. This is illustrated in Figure 2. Let
A be the union of the α curves and B be the union of the β curves from our Aougab–Taylor pairs. Now view
the subsurface as being arranged cyclically, as shown in Figure 2, and for consecutive pairs of punctures, one
coming from the Aougab–Taylor pair and one a puncture added near the subsurface boundary, add a red
curve to our multicurve A which bounds a twice punctured disc. We have now constructed a pair of filling
multicurves A and B which fill our surface Sg,n .
Note that these additional bounding pair curves will each intersect with two blue curves. They will
 
 2
− 24 2g
intersect with one blue curve twice and with the other blue curve at most 24 2g
n
n + 8 times.
The picture on the left of Figure 2 illustrates the case of an even number of punctures and the picture on
the right the case of an odd number of punctures.

Figure 2: Examples of filling multicurves, A and B, for 4 ≤ n < 2g
Let f = TA TB−1 . Note that f is a pseudo-Anosov pure braid for the same reasons given in Case 1. Thus,
we can proceed immediately to computing the maximum row sum of N N T in order to bound λ(f ). We
can compute the maximum row sum of N N T by considering the labeled bipartite graph in Figure 3 that
describes the intersection pattern of red and blue curves.

Figure 3: Bipartite graph for A and B when 4 ≤ n < 2g
Note that each blue vertex has valence 3 and each red vertex has valence at most 2. Furthermore, the
8

 2
 
dashed edges have label at most 24 2g
− 24 2g
n
n + 8 and the solid edges have label 2.
Thus, for the red vertices of valence 2 we have a corresponding row sum of at most

2 24

2g
n

2

!2
!
 

 2
2g
2g
2g
− 24
− 24
+ 8 + 6 24
+ 8 + 4.
n
n
n


For the red vertices of valence 1 we have a corresponding row sum of at most

2 24

2g
n

2

!2
!
 

 2
2g
2g
2g
− 24
− 24
+ 8 + 2 24
+8 .
n
n
n


 4
 4
Note that each of these is at most 1152 2g
− 2 < 64 2g
− 2. Thus, the maximum row sum of
n
n


4
N N T is bounded above by 64 2g
−
2
and
we
have
that
n
 
 4 !
2g
2g
4
= 4 log
log(λ(f )) ≤ log(µ + 2) ≤ log 6
+ 4 log(6).
n
n
Case 3. Note that when n ≥ 2g the inequality in Theorem 4.1 implies that we have a constant upper bound
on L(PBn (Sg )). The construction given above is for n < 2g, but can be extended to give a constant upper
bound as we add additional punctures. Suppose we have n ≥ 2g. We can divide Sg into subsurfaces of genus
1. We then puncture each of these subsurfaces and fill each one with an Aougab–Taylor pair, {α, τ }, such
that i(α, τ ) = 6 using the construction in Section 3 and continue to add punctures to the “central” portion
of Sg,n as shown in Figure 4 where the red curves belong to A and the blue curves belong to B. Note that
this manner of adding additional punctures does not increase the number of pairwise intersections between
red and blue curves nor does it introduce any curves that have nonzero intersection with more than two
other curves.

Figure 4: Examples of filling multicurves, A and B, for n ≥ 2g
Let f = TA TB−1 . Note that f is a pseudo-Anosov pure braid by the same reasoning used previously.
Thus, just as we did before, we can proceed directly to computing the maximum row sum of N N T in order
to bound λ(f ). We can compute the maximum row sum of N N T by considering the labeled bipartite graph
in Figure 5 which is constructed in the same way as the bipartite graph in Figure 3.

9

Figure 5: Bipartite graph for A and B when n > 2g
The dashed edges in Figure 5 are labeled by 8 and the solid edges are labeled by 2. Thus, we can compute
that the maximum row sum of N N T is 152 and we have that log(λ(f )) < 4 log(6).
Thus, we have addressed each of our three cases and shown that
 
2g
L(PBn (Sg )) ≤ 4 log
+ 4 log(7),
n
as desired.

5.

A Constant Lower Bound

In this section we provide a constant lower bound on L(PBn (Sg ).
Theorem 5.1. For a surface Sg of genus g ≥ 2 with n ≥ 1, we have
.000155 ≤ L(PBn (Sg )).
The proof of Theorem 5.1 relies on the following result of Agol–Leininger–Margalit which can be found
in [2].
Proposition 5.1. Let S be a surface and f ∈ Mod(S) pseudo-Anosov, then


κ(f ) + 1
.00031
≤ log(λ(f )),
|χ(S)|
where κ(f ) is the dimension of the subspace of H1 (S; R) fixed by f.
In order to make use of this result we must examine the action of a pure surface braid f ∈ PBn (Sg ) on
H1 (Sg,n ; R). We can place the following lower bound on κ(f ).
Lemma 5.1. If f ∈ PBn (Sg ), then
max{2g, n − 1} ≤ κ(f ).
Proof of Lemma 5.1. Let Mf denote the mapping torus of f and let b1 (Mf ) denote the first Betti number
of Mf with coefficients in R. Note that b1 (Mf ) = κ(f ) + 1. This can be obtained by an application of the
Mayer–Vietoris long exact sequence.
For n − 1 < 2g, we will show that b1 (Mf ) ≥ 2g + 1. Since fb : Sg → Sg , obtained by filling in the
punctures of Sg,n and extending f to Sg , is isotopic to the identity, then Mfb ∼
= Mid ∼
= Sg × S 1 . Thus, there
1
exists a map from Mf → Sg × S that induces a surjection on the fundamental groups. By the Hurewicz
Theorem, we know that H1 (Mf ; Z) is isomorphic to the abelianization of π1 (Mf ). Thus, we have that
dim(H1 (Mf ; R)) ≥ rank(π1 (Sg × S 1 )ab ) = 2g + 1. Thus, κ(f ) ≥ 2g.
For 2g ≤ n − 1, observe that f fixes the subspace, P, of H1 (Sg,n ) generated by the peripheral curves
bounding each puncture because f fixes each puncture. Thus, since P has dimension n − 1, then κ(f ) ≥
n − 1.
10

Proof of Theorem 5.1. By Lemma 5.1, for a pseudo-Anosov f ∈ PBn (Sg ), we have that

κ(f ) + 1
1
> . This,
|χ(Sg,n )|
2

together with Proposition 5.1, gives our desired lower bound
.000155 ≤ L(P Bn (Sg )).

6.

A Lower Bound for Fixed Number of Punctures

We conclude with a proof of the lower bound which, for fixed n, goes to infinity as g does.
Theorem 6.1. If f ∈ PBn (Sg ) is pseudo-Anosov and g > 5, then
!

+2
log g−2
1
3
log 1 +
≤ log(λ(f )).
3
160n
Proof of Theorem 6.1. By Theorem 2.4, we have a hyperbolic/conformal structure on Sg and an isotopy Ft
through quasiconformal maps from the identity to f such that for each t the quasiconformal constant, Kt ,
satisfies
log(Kt ) ≤ 3 log(λ(f )).
f0 is the identity. Therefore, Fet is the
Choose a lift, Fet , of Ft to the universal cover, H2 , of Sg so that F
identity on the circle at infinity. Thus, we can apply Theorem 2.3 and Theorem 2.4 to see that


3
1
κ max2 ρ(x, Fet (x)) ≤ log(Kt ) ≤ log(λ(f )).
2
2
x∈H
Since this holds for all t ∈ [0, 1], we have


3
e
κ max max2 ρ(x, Ft (x)) ≤ log(λ(f )).
2
t∈[0,1] x∈H
Note that when measuring distance on the surface we are using the hyperbolic metric, denoted dSg , and in
the hyperbolic plane we are using the Poincarè metric, denoted ρ, which is one-half the hyperbolic metric.
Thus, the covering map π : H2 → Sg is 2-Lipschitz and for all x ∈ H2 ,
dSg (π(x), Ft (π(x))) ≤ 2ρ(x, Fet (x)).
So we have that




κ

max max dSg (x, Ft (x))

t∈[0,1] x∈Sg

≤ 3 log(λ(f )).

If {z1 , . . . , zn } are the marked points of Sg such that Sg,n = Sg \ {z1 , . . . , zn }, then for each i, γi : t 7→ Ft (zi ),
with t ∈ [0, 1], is a closed curve. Since f is pseudo-Anosov, γ1 ∪ · · · ∪ γn fills Sg . These n curves define the
1-skeleton, Γ, of a cell decomposition of Sg . Thus, for some i,
diam(Γ)
≤ 2 max dSg (zi , Ft (zi )).
n
t∈[0,1]
By Theorem A.1,

log( g−2
3 )−2
40n

≤

diam(Γ)
.
n

By Theorem 2.3, κ is strictly increasing, so we have that




log 3 − 2
diam(Γ)
κ
≤κ
≤ κ max dSg (zi , Ft (zi )) ≤ 3 log(λ(f )).
80n
2n
t∈[0,1]




log( g−2
log( g−2
3 )−2
3 )−2
Since, by Theorem 2.3, log 1 +
≤
κ
, then we have that
160n
80n

g−2

!

!

log g−2
−
2
1
3
log 1 +
≤ log(λ(f )),
3
160n
as desired.
11

A.

Diameter of a Graph Embedded in a Surface

Let S be a closed genus g ≥ 2 hyperbolic surface and let Γ be the 1-skeleton of a cell decomposition of S.
Our goal in this appendix is to provide a lower bound on the diameter of Γ, which we define as
diam(Γ) = max dS (x, y).
x,y∈Γ

This lower bound is a crucial piece of the proof of Theorem 6.1. For a result related to Theorem A.1, see
[27].
Theorem A.1. Let Γ be an embedded graph in S such that S \ Γ is a collection of disks. If g > 5, then

−2
log g−2
3
≤ diam(Γ).
40
The first ingredient we will need for the proof of Theorem A.1 is a type of generalized triangulation of S
which consists of both geodesic triangles and a type of annular generalization of a triangle called a trigon
as defined by Buser; see [9].
Definition A.1. Let S be a compact Riemann surface of genus ≥ 2. A closed domain D ⊂ S is called a
trigon if it is a simply connected, embedded geodesic triangle or if it is a doubly connected, embedded domain,
with one boundary component a smooth closed geodesic and the other boundary component two geodesic arcs
as shown in Figure 6. The closed geodesic and the two arcs are the sides of D.

Figure 6: A trigon
Buser proved that S admits such a triangulation into trigons of controlled size.
Theorem A.2 (Buser [9] Theorem 4.5.2). Any compact Riemann surface of genus ≥ 2 admits a triangulation
such that all trigons have sides of length ≤ log 4 and area between 0.19 and 1.36. Furthemore, all geodesic
triangles have sides of length at least log(2).
Suppose we have a generalized triangulation T of S as in Theorem A.2. We will extend our generalized
triangulation to an even more general combinatorial model, T 0 , for S in the following way. First, we note that
a computation (which we omit) using equation (iii) of Theorem 2.3.1 in [9] shows that the width (i.e. minimal
distance between non-adjacent boundary components) of a doubly connected trigon which occurs in T is at
least 41 . Next, consider collars of closed geodesics in Sg formed by gluing together two doubly connected
trigons along their closed geodesic sides as in Figure 7. Now we divide each collar along appropriately chosen
simple closed curves (each an equidistant-curve to the closed geodesic) into annuli between simple closed
curves and two generalized trigons on the ends, so that each annulus or generalized trigon has width
between 14 and log(2) > 21 ; see the right-hand side of Figure 7. Our combinatorial model T 0 consists of three
types of pieces: geodesic triangles, generalized trigons, and annuli. Note that each of these pieces is of
bounded size.

Figure 7: A collar formed by two trigons
12

We can now define the combinatorial length of a geodesic between two points p, q ∈ S in terms of our
combinatorial model T 0 . For a geodesic segment pq ⊂ S between p and q we define the combinatorial length
of pq, denoted by `C (pq), as the minimum number of pieces of T 0 that pq passes through. The following
lemma establishes an explicit inequality between `C and the hyperbolic length `S .
Lemma A.1. Let p, q ∈ Sg , let pq be a geodesic segment between them, and let T 0 be the extended combinatorial model of S given above. Then `C (pq) ≤ 40 · `S (pq) + 2.
Proof of Lemma A.1. Note that pq can be subdivided into segments which each lie inside a single piece of
T 0 . Our proof of Lemma A.1 will consist mainly of analyzing which segments of pq are short and which are
good. We will then show that segments of pq cannot be short too many times in a row.
There are three types of short segments we will consider, one in each of the three types of pieces. In
order to define the first type, we add midpoints to each side of the geodesic triangles in T . A segment which
has endpoints on adjacent subdivided pieces of a single geodesic triangle is called short. The second type
of short segment occurs when pq enters and exits an annulus from a single side instead of passing through
the entire width of the annulus. In this situation, a segment which has both endpoints on a single boundary
component of an annulus will also be considered short. The third type of short segment occurs when a
segment without self intersections has endpoints on adjacent subdivided pieces of the geodesic boundary arcs
of a generalized trigon, cutting off a corner, as shown by the blue segment in Figure 8. If a segment is not
short, then we will call it good.

Figure 8: Short (blue) and good (red) segments in a generalized trigon
Recall the following formula for a geodesic triangle in the hyperbolic plane where a, b, c are the sides of
the triangle and α, β, γ are the respective opposite angles:
cos(γ) =

cosh(c) − cosh(a) cosh(b)
.
− sinh(a) sinh(b)

(1)

We can find a lower bound on the length of γ for a geodesic triangle in T 0 by maximizing the length of a
and b and minimizing the length of c. Taking a, b = log(4) and c = log(2), equation (1) implies that γ > π9 .
Thus, there is a lower bound of π9 on the interior angles of the triangles in T . So we conclude that pq has no
more than ππ/9 = 9 short segments of the first type in a row. Next, we note that there cannot be two short
segments of type two or three in a row. So we can assume that for every ten adjacent segments of pq, at
least one of them is good.
We now establish that good segments have length at least 41 . Once again we have three types of segments
to consider, the shortest possible good segments within each of our three types of pieces in T 0 . Within a
geodesic triangle in T 0 the shortest possible good segment is one that joins the midpoints of two sides of a
triangle. Once again using equation (1), we see that the length of a good segment is bounded below by

π
 1
cosh−1 − sinh(log(2)) sinh(log(2)) cos
+ cosh(log(2)) cosh(log(2)) ≥ .
9
4
Within a generalized trigon the shortest possible good segment is a perpendicular segment going from the
closed boundary component of the trigon to the midpoint of one of the geodesic arc boundary components.
A segment of this type has length at least 41 by our definition of T 0 . One might think that a shorter possible
good segment in a generalized trigon is one passing from one geodesic arc boundary to the other as shown
by the red arc in Figure 8. However, this red arc has length at least half of the length of the geodesic arc
13

boundary and so it has length at least log(2)
> 14 . Lastly we have that within an annulus the shortest possible
2
good segment is a perpendicular segment passing from one boundary component to the other, which has
length at least 41 since we defined our annuli to have width at least 14 .
≤ `S (pq), where the −2 comes from the fact that the initial and
Thus, at worst we have that 14 · `C (pq)−2
10
terminal segments of pq can be arbitrarily short depending on where they lie within a piece of T 0 , but still
add 2 to `C (pq). So we have that `C (pq) ≤ 40 · `S (pq) + 2, as desired.
We now define the combinatorial distance, denoted dC , between two points p, q ∈ Sg as
dC (p, q) = inf {`C (pq) : pq is a geodesic segment between p and q}.
Thus, by Lemma A.1, we have that dC (p, q) ≤ 40 · dS (p, q) + 2.
Let TΓ be the subset of T 0 that minimally covers Γ, where a piece t ∈ T 0 belongs to TΓ if Γ ∩ t 6= ∅. We
will denote by Γ0 the 1-skeleton of TΓ together with a geodesic arc for each generalized trigon and annulus
in T 0 as shown by the dotted arc in Figure 9, which ensures Γ0 is connected.

Figure 9: A generalized trigon’s contribution to Γ0
We will need one more fact relating the length of Γ0 to the genus of our surface before we continue to the
proof of our main result.
Lemma A.2. Let Γ0 be as above. Then
`(Γ0 ) =

X

`(e) > 2π(g − 1).

e∈Γ0

Proof of Lemma A.2. Note that if α is a simple closed curve that intersects Γ, then it must intersect Γ0 .
Thus, Γ0 fills Sg , since Γ does. Now because Γ0 fills, it cuts Sg into polygons. The sum of the lengths around
these polygons is 2`(Γ0 ), while the sum of their areas is 4π(g − 1).
Now recall that the maximum area A(p) enclosed by a loop of length p in the hyperbolic plane is at most
p
the area of a circle of radius r = sinh−1 2π
. Therefore,
!


−1 p

sinh
1
p
p2
2
2
2π
A(p) ≤ 4π sinh
≤ 4π sinh
log 1 +
< p.
=
2
2
π
p+π
Applying this inequality to each of the polygons and summing, we have 4π(g − 1) ≤ 2`(Γ0 ), as desired
Lemma A.2 implies that TΓ contains at least g − 1 pieces of T 0 , since each piece contributes a length of
at most 3 log(4) > 2π to `(Γ0 ). We are now in a position to prove Theorem A.1.
Proof of Theorem A.1. Let T 0 and TΓ be as described previously. Consider the graph G in Sg which is
dual to T 0 , that is the vertices of G each correspond to a piece of T 0 and edges in G correspond to shared
boundary components. Note that each vertex of G has valence at most 3. Thus, we if we take a base piece
∆0 ∈ TΓ ⊂ T 0 , then we know that at combinatorial distance d from ∆0 there are at most 3 · 2d−1 + 1 pieces
in T 0 . This is because a ball of radius d in G has size at most 3 · 2d−1 . So, unless g − 1 < 3 · 2d−1 + 1,
there is a piece of TΓ not in this ball. Hence, the combinatorial diameter of TΓ (within T 0 ) is at least
log g−2
< log2 g−2
< diamC (TΓ ) for g > 5 and we are done.
3
3
14

References
[1] John W. Aaber and Nathan Dunfield. Closed surface bundles of least volume. Algebraic and Geometric
Topology, 10(4):2315–2342, 2010.
[2] Ian Agol, Christopher Leininger, and Dan Margalit. Pseudo-Anosov stretch factors and homology of
mapping tori. Journal of the London Mathematical Society, 93(3):664–682, 2016.
[3] Lars Valerian Ahlfors. Lectures on quasiconformal mappings. University lecture series, 38, 2006.
[4] Tarik Aougab and Shinnyih Huang. Minimally intersecting filling pairs on closed surfaces. Algebraic
and Geometric Topology, 15:903–932, 2014.
[5] Tarik Aougab and Samuel Taylor. Pseudo-Anosovs optimizing the ratio of Teichmüller to curve graph
translation length. In the Tradition of Ahlfors-Bers, VII, Contemporary Mathematics, 696:17–28, 2017.
[6] M Bauer. An upper bound for the least dilatation. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 330:361–370, 1992.
[7] Joan S. Birman. Mapping class groups and their relationship to braid groups. Com. Pure and App.
Math, 22:213–238, 1969.
[8] Joan S. Birman. Braids, links, and mapping class groups. Annals of Mathematics Studies, 1974.
[9] Peter Buser. Geometry and spectra of compact Riemann surfaces. Birkhäuser, 1992.
[10] Spencer Dowdall. Dilatation versus self-intersection number for point-pushing pseudo-anosov homeomorphisms. Journal of Topology, 4(4):942–984, 2011.
[11] Benson Farb, Christopher Leininger, and Dan Margalit. The lower central series and pseudo-Anosov
dilatations. American Journal of Mathematics, 130(3):799–827, 2008.
[12] Benson Farb and Dan Margalit. A primer on mapping class groups. Princeton Mathematical Series,
2012.
[13] A. Fathi, F. Laudenbach, and V. Poenaru. Thurston’s work on surfaces. Mathematical Notes, 48, 2012.
[14] F.R. Gantmacher. The theory of matrices. Chelsea Publishing Company, 1, 1959.
[15] F. W. Gehring. Quasiconformal mappings which hold the real axis pointwise fixed. Mathematical Essays
dedicated to A. J. Macintyne, pages 145–148, 1970.
[16] H.-Y. Ham and W.T. Song. The minimum dilatation of pseudo-Anosov 5-braids. Experimental Mathematics, 16(2):167–179, 2007.
[17] Eriko Hironaka. Small dilatation mapping classes coming from the simplest hyperbolic braid. Algebraic
and Geometric Topology, 10(4):2041–2060, 2010.
[18] Eriko Hironaka and Eiko Kin. A family of pseudo-Anosov braids with small dilatation. Algebraic and
Geometric Topology, 6:699–738, 2006.
[19] Susumu Hirose and Eiko Kin. The asymptotic behavior of the minimal pseudo-Anosov dilatations in
the hyperelliptic handlebody groups. The Quarterly Journal of Mathematics, 2017.
[20] Chenxi Wu Hyungryul Bai, Ahmad Rafiqi. Construction pseudo-Anosovs maps with given dilatations.
Geometriae Dedicata, 180:39–48, 2016.
[21] Y. Imayoshi, M. Ito, and H. Yamamoto. On the Nielsen-Thurston-Bers type of some self-maps of
reimann surfaces with two specified points. Osaka Journal of Mathematics, 4:659–685, 2003.

15

[22] Nikolai V. Ivanov. Subgroups of Teichmüller modular groups. Translations of Mathematical Monographs,
115, 1992.
[23] Eiko Kin and Mitsuhiko Takasawa. Pseudo-Anosovs on closed surfaces having small entropy and the
Whitehead sister link exterior. Journal of the Mathematical Society of Japan, 65(2):411–446, 2013.
[24] Irwin Kra. On the Nielsen-Thurston-Bers type of some self-maps of Reimann surfaces. Acta Mathematica, 146:231–270, 81.
[25] E. Lanneau and J.-L. Thiffeault. On the minimum dilitation of braids on the punctured disc. Geometriae
Dedicata, 152(1):165–182, 2011.
[26] Justin Malestein and Andrew Putman. Pseudo-Anosov dilatations and the Johnson filtration. Groups,
Geometry, and Dynamics, 10:771–793, 2016.
[27] B. Martelli, M. Novaga, A. Pluda, and S. Riolo. Spines of minimal length. Ann. Sc. Norm. Super. Pisa
Cl. Sci, pages 1067–1090, 2017.
[28] Hiroyuki Minakawa. Examples of psuedo-Anosov homeomorphisms with small dilatations. J. Math.
Sci. Univ. Tokyo, 13:95–111, 2006.
[29] Joshua Pankau. Salem number stretch factors and totally real fields arising from Thurston’s construction.
arXiv:1711.06374, 2017.
[30] Robert C. Penner. Bounds on least dilatations. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., 113(2):443–450, 1991.
[31] Hyunshik Shin and Balázs Strenner. Pseudo-Anosov mapping classes not arising from Penner’s construction. Geometry & Topology, 19(6):3645–3656, 2015.
[32] W.T. Song. Upper and lower bounds for the minimal positive entropy of pure braids. Bulletin of the
London Mathematical Society, 37(2):224–229, 2005.
[33] W.T. Song, K.H. Ko, and J.E. Los. Entropies of braids. Journal of Knot Theory and its Ramifications,
11(4):647–666, 2002.
[34] Balázs Strenner. Small stretch factor pseudo-Anosov mapping classes on nonorientable surfaces. In
preparation, 2018.
[35] O. Teichmüller. Ein verschiebunssatz der quasikonformen abbidung. Deutsche Math., 7:336–343, 1942.
[36] William P. Thurston. The geometry and dynamics of diffeomorphisms of surfaces. Bulletin of the
American Mathematical Society (N.S.), 19(2):417–431, 1988.
[37] Chia-Yen Tsai. The asymptotic behavior of least pseudo-Anosov dilatations. Geometry & Topology,
13(4):2253–2278, 2009.
[38] Mehdi Yazdi. Lower bound for dilatations. arXiv:1610.04278, 2017.

16

