Expansion joints in hyperbolic manifolds

Alex Elzenaar

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 49 references

Expansion joints in hyperbolic manifolds

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper proves that a hyperbolic 3-manifold containing a concave lens of ideal octahedra admits a smooth path of cone-manifold structures in which rank-2 cusps open into cone arcs, interpolating continuously between cusped manifolds and m

desk verdict Genuinely new idea for cone-deforming rank-1 cusps, but the proof of the main theorem skips the edge-cycle check it needs, and the text even contradicts itself on cusp shapes; still worth a serious referee. read the letter →

arxiv 2512.00879 v2 pith:TSPWXYNO submitted 2025-11-30 math.GT math.MG

Alex Elzenaar This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.GTmath.MG MSC 57K3520H1052B7057K1057K3257M5058H15

keywords hyperbolicconemanifoldsexpansionjointsconcavelensstackedBorromeanringsunknottingtunnels2-bridgelinksidealoctahedracone-manifoldpolyhedrontheorem

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper introduces a geometric mechanism called an expansion joint: a local polyhedral substructure inside a hyperbolic 3-manifold that lets the metric be fractured in a controlled way so that a rank-2 cusp opens up into an ideal cone arc of adjustable angle. The paper proves (Main Theorem A) that the complements of the stacked Borromean rings admit such an expansion joint, giving a smooth path of cone-manifold holonomy groups from the complete hyperbolic structure to a hyperbolic cone manifold with a single singular arc, and at angle zero to the complete hyperbolic manifold obtained by drilling that arc. The same idea is formalised as an embedded concave lens of ideal octahedra (Main Theorem B): whenever such a lens occurs in a manifold, a family of rank-2 cusps can be cone-deformed into thrice-punctured spheres while the hyperbolic structure outside the lens is unchanged. A sympathetic reader should care because this gives explicit, controllable deformations of hyperbolic manifolds by direct manipulation of fundamental polyhedra, bypassing the hard analytic estimates of general cone-deformation theory, and it yields a new proof that upper unknotting tunnels of highly twisted 2-bridge links are geodesic.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the concave lens: a cycle of ideal right-angled octahedra (all vertices at infinity, dihedral angles π/2) sharing one ideal vertex v, the lift of a rank-2 cusp. Consecutive octahedra meet along 2-faces that intersect only at v; the outer vertices are lifts of distinct rank-2 cusps and rim faces pair only with other rim faces. The deformation is done in a fundamental polyhedron: cut along the vertical plane of symmetry through v and pull the two halves apart, increasing one translation length of the cusp lattice. This creates new quadrilateral ideal faces whose edge cycle has dihedral angle θ, while all other edge cycles remain at 2π. The cone-manifold polyhedron th

What would settle it

For n=2 or n=3, take the fundamental polyhedron produced by Construction 3.4, perform the cut-and-pull at a midrange angle such as θ=π, and compute the dihedral angle sum around every edge cycle of the resulting 4n−2 octahedron complex; if any cycle other than the one corresponding to the new singular arc has sum different from 2π, the path is not a cone manifold. The same check can be done algebraically by verifying that the side-pairing transformations satisfy the surface-group relator with the stated traces.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Main Theorem A constructs, for every n, a smooth path p:[0,2π]→Hom(F_{2n+2},PSL(2,C)) such that for θ>0 the group p(θ) is the holonomy of a hyperbolic cone manifold supported on the n-stacked Borromean rings complement with one singular ideal arc of cone angle θ, and p(0) is the holonomy of the complete hyperbolic manifold obtained by drilling that arc. This turns the topological operation of gluing a singular 2-handle into a rank-1 cusp into a continuous geometric deformation: as the angle runs from 2π to 0 the arc shrinks to a cusp and neighbouring cusps bubble into punctured surfaces on the conformal boundary. Main Theorem B isolates the responsible substructure, an embedded concave lens

Load-bearing premise

The construction's proof asserts, without enumerating every edge, that cutting the fundamental polyhedron along its symmetry line and translating the halves apart leaves all edge cycles other than the intended one at exactly 2π; if that local claim fails, the resulting object is not a cone manifold.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For every n, the complement of the n-stacked Borromean rings decomposes into 4n−2 ideal right-angled octahedra; cusp shapes are 4n−2 for the central cusp, 2 for two outer cusps, and 1 for the rest.
The cone deformation of Main Theorem A preserves all cusp shapes except one; in the limit the cusp α1 has normalised longitude 2n−1.
For 2-bridge knots with continued fraction coefficients satisfying the stated lower bounds, there is a continuous family of cone manifolds supported on the knot complement with singular locus exactly the upper unknotting tunnel, and that tunnel is isotopic to a geodesic in the complete hyperbolic metric.
Any hyperbolic 3-manifold containing an embedded concave lens satisfying the four conditions of Theorem 4.2 admits a cone deformation; fully augmented links with a planar cusp satisfying conditions (i)–(ii) of Theorem 4.5 are examples.
At θ=0 the construction reaches maximal cusp points on the boundary of genus-2 Schottky space, giving explicit paths that end on the boundary of a nontrivial quasiconformal deformation space.

Reading between the lines

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

The concave-lens conditions are local and checkable from a polyhedral decomposition, so the same proof would produce cone deformations for any link complement whose ideal triangulation contains an embedded concave lens; this suggests a searchable criterion rather than a one-off construction.
Because the side-pairing transformations are written down explicitly, the resulting holonomy path could be used to test numerical conjectures about critical angles in cone deformations, where general existence theory does not provide explicit models.
The fact that the deformation changes only the length of one lattice direction while preserving all other cusp shapes suggests a possible converse: congruence of cusp shapes along a deformation may force the existence of an isolating polyhedral substructure, making geometric isolation a polyhedral phenomenon rather than an analytic accident.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Punchline: this paper has a genuinely new deformation mechanism — gluing singular 2-handles into rank-1 cusps rather than solid tori into rank-2 cusps — but the proof of the main theorem has a real, load-bearing gap. The decisive edge-cycle verification is asserted, not done, and the proof text contradicts the theorem statement. It is still a paper I would send to peer review, because the construction and examples are interesting enough that a referee should push for the missing details rather than reject the whole enterprise.

What is new and good: the idea of the "expansion joint" or "concave lens" as a polyhedral substructure that isolates a family of rank-2 cusps and allows a controlled cone deformation is not something I have seen before. The treatment of stacked Borromean rings is concrete: an octahedral decomposition, cusp shape computations, arithmeticity, and a volume formula all hang together plausibly. The application to fully augmented links is a nice general source of examples, and the paper is honest about prior art, explicitly noting that the geodesicity of unknotting tunnels was already known to Adams and Reid. The appendix restating a cone-manifold Poincaré polyhedron theorem is useful and makes the paper more self-contained.

Soft spots, in proportion: the proof of Theorem 3.5 cuts the fundamental polyhedron along a vertical symmetry line and "pulls the two halves apart," then says "the geometry around no other edge is affected." That is exactly the check the cone-manifold Poincaré theorem requires in condition (v). The cut changes the side-pairing combinatorics, so edge cycles are not automatically inherited; edges incident to the new faces can acquire new angle sums. Without an enumeration of the edge cycles and their dihedral sums, the existence of the cone metric for θ in (0, 2π] is not proved. The proof also says "all cusp shapes remain the same," while the theorem itself says α1 has normalized longitude 2n−1 in the limit — that inconsistency is a red flag. Theorem 4.2 inherits the same gap, since it uses the same pulling-apart argument. Separately, Proposition 2.1 relies on a Mathematica computation with no code or certificate, so it is not reproducible from the manuscript.

These are real problems, but I want to stress that I did not find a fatal internal contradiction in the construction as a whole. The idea is plausible, and the paper reads like a serious early draft rather than a hollow claim. If the missing edge-cycle checks are supplied, the main theorems could well stand.

Who this is for: people working on cone deformations, Kleinian groups, cusp shape changes, and fully augmented links. I would bring it to a reading group, mainly to test the expansion-joint idea and to see where the polyhedron theorem needs more care.

Recommendation: send it to peer review. A good referee can either verify the missing edge-cycle computation or find a counterexample. Before acceptance, I would require a full edge-cycle enumeration, or a formalized proof, plus code or certificates for the computational step.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper introduces 'expansion joints' as local polyhedral substructures that allow a continuous cone deformation changing the cone angle around an ideal arc from 2π to 0, interpolating between a link complement and a manifold with a rank-1 cusp. It constructs hyperbolic structures on the n-stacked Borromean rings B_n as unions of 4n−2 ideal right-angled octahedra (Theorem 3.2), states Main Theorem A (Theorem 3.5) giving a smooth path of cone-manifold holonomy groups with a single singular arc of angle θ, and applies this to unknotting tunnels of highly twisted 2-bridge links (Theorem 3.7). Main Theorem B (Theorem 4.2) gives a general criterion for a 'concave lens' to act as an expansion joint, with applications to fully augmented links (Theorem 4.5). Appendix A states and proves a cone-manifold version of the Poincaré polyhedron theorem.

Significance. If the main existence theorems hold, this is a genuinely new constructive method: most cone-deformation results require analytic estimates or global rigidity, whereas the author proposes a direct polyhedral manipulation preserving all geometry away from the joint. The paper is explicit and self-contained, and the Appendix is a useful reference. The octahedral decompositions, cusp-shape computations, and the applications to unknotting tunnels and fully augmented links are concrete and checkable. However, the proofs of Theorems 3.5 and 4.2 do not verify the edge-cycle condition required by the Appendix; until that gap is closed, the central claims are not established.

major comments (3)

[Theorem 3.5, proof; Appendix A] The proof of Theorem 3.5 cuts the fundamental polyhedron of B_n along its vertical line of symmetry and 'pulls the two halves apart', asserting that 'the geometry around no other edge is affected'. To apply the cone-manifold Poincaré theorem (Appendix A, condition (v)), every edge cycle in the new complex must be checked: the cycle transformation must be a rotation through the sum of the dihedral angles, and all sums must equal 2π except the new arc's cycle. The cut changes the side-pairing pattern and introduces new quadrilateral faces, so edge cycles are not automatically inherited. The proof does not enumerate the edge cycles of the 4n−2 octahedra before/after the cut or compute any dihedral angle sums. Without this check, the existence of the hyperbolic cone metric for θ∈(0,2π] is not established. The same 'exercise in checking' is also delegated in Proposition 2.4.
[Theorem 3.5, statement vs proof] The theorem states that the deformation 'preserves all cusp shapes except for that of the cusp α1 which, in the limit, has normalised longitude 2n−1', while the proof concludes 'all cusp shapes remain the same'. These are incompatible unless the cusp shape of α1 changes discontinuously at θ=0, which is not explained and is inconsistent with a smooth path. Moreover, the α1 cusp shape is used in Theorem 3.7 to compute the Euclidean lengths of filling slopes; the apparent contradiction needs to be resolved and the actual cusp-shape family proved.
[Theorem 4.2, proof] Theorem 4.2 (Main Theorem B) repeats the same pattern: the proof says 'we may horizontally pull apart the two halves ... in particular, we preserve all angle sums away from the lift of the lens' and 'All cusp shapes remain constant except for the shape of the cusp at ∞'. As in Theorem 3.5, no edge-cycle verification is supplied for the new polyhedron. Since the theorem is stated in full generality for any manifold containing a concave lens, the conditions (1)–(4) should permit an explicit check of every edge cycle; without that, the existence of the cone-manifold path is not proved beyond the examples.

minor comments (4)

[Theorem 3.7] State explicitly the cusp shapes and Euclidean slope lengths used in the Dehn-filling argument; the current reference to 'cusp shapes computed in Theorem 3.5' is not self-contained because Theorem 3.5 gives only the α1 limit value.
[Proposition 2.4] The formula r_θ = (1/4) sec^2(θ/2) is asserted after an 'elementary trigonometric calculation'; please include the computation or a derivation.
[Construction 3.4] 'glue these pieces along the inverts of the green circles' should probably be 'inversions' or 'inverses'; also the resulting aspect ratio 2:1 is stated without calculation.
[General] Typographical slips: 'Hodgson and Kerchoff' (pp. 1, 14) should be 'Kerckhoff'; 'Blieler' in the proof of Theorem 3.7 should be 'Bleiler'; in Remark 3.6, 'M∞ and M∞' should presumably be 'B∞ and M∞'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: cone deformations are constructed explicitly; minor self-citations are not load-bearing, though Theorem 3.5 omits the edge-cycle verification.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained rather than circular. Theorem 3.2 builds B_n as an explicit union of 4n−2 right-angled ideal octahedra and checks that every edge is surrounded by four octahedra, so angle sums are 2π; Corollary 3.3 computes cusp shapes by counting walls, a combinatorial count independent of any target. Theorem 3.5 then constructs the cone deformation by cutting a fundamental polyhedron and re-pairing, with side-pairing transformations determined by the combinatorial pattern; the claimed verification against the cone-manifold Poincaré theorem (Appendix A) is not a fit of parameters to the desired statement. The two self-citations to [15] occur only in Appendix A ('used implicitly in Elzenaar [15]' and 'As mentioned in Elzenaar [15]'), and the needed polyhedron theorem is restated in the same appendix, so no load-bearing claim reduces to an unverified self-citation. What I do flag, as a correctness risk rather than circularity, is that the proof of Theorem 3.5 asserts 'The geometry around no other edge is affected' without enumerating the new edge cycles and computing their angle sums; since the cut introduces new quadrilateral faces and changes side pairings, the conclusion that all non-singular edge sums remain 2π is not demonstrated. Theorem 4.2 inherits the same unverified local-global step. This is an omitted proof check, not an equation-level reduction of output to input, and it does not make the derivation circular. No fitted quantity is relabelled as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 2 invented entities

No parameters are fitted to data; the only numerical inputs are cusp-shape computations derived from the octahedral combinatorics. The main axioms are standard (Poincaré polyhedron theorem, 2π-theorem) plus domain assumptions about the octahedral decompositions and the CAS verification. New entities are the 'expansion joint' and 'concave lens' structures, defined and proved to exist in examples rather than empirically evidenced.

assumptions (4)

standard math Cone-manifold version of the Poincaré polyhedron theorem, including parabolic cycle conditions (Appendix A).
Used to verify that the deformed fundamental polyhedra define cone manifolds; the paper supplies a proof sketch following Maskit.
domain assumption The Bleiler–Hodgson Gromov–Thurston 2π-theorem extends unchanged to hyperbolic cone manifolds with singular arcs.
Asserted in the proof of Theorem 3.7 ('works without change') without proof; it is load-bearing for the Dehn-filling application.
domain assumption The n-stacked Borromean rings complement B_n admits an ideal right-angled octahedral decomposition with every edge surrounded by four octahedra.
Theorem 3.2 is established by a combinatorial construction with the edge-cycle condition stated as 'It can be checked'; no formal verification is supplied.
domain assumption The polynomial system in Proposition 2.1 has exactly 16 nondegenerate solutions, verified by Mathematica's Reduce command.
The proof of Proposition 2.1 relies on a computer algebra computation whose code and output are not included in the paper.

invented entities (2)

Concave lens
purpose: A polyhedral complex of ideal octahedra around a central vertex that acts as the local mechanism for the expansion-joint cone deformation (Definition 4.1, Theorem 4.2).
New mathematical object introduced and defined in the paper; its existence is proved in specific examples rather than evidenced outside the paper.
Expansion joint
purpose: Conceptual substructure that isolates rank-2 cusps and allows cone-deforming ideal arcs without changing geometry away from the substructure.
Introduced in the introduction and formalized via concave lenses; a mathematical construction rather than an entity with external empirical handle.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Expansion joints in hyperbolic manifolds." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TSPWXYNO

@misc{pith2026251200879,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Expansion joints in hyperbolic manifolds},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TSPWXYNO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2512.00879}
}

abstract

Deformations of hyperbolic manifolds through metrics with cone singularities along closed loops were first studied by Thurston as continuous realisations of Dehn fillings. Instead of gluing singular solid tori into rank $2$ cusps, we glue singular $2$-handles into rank $1$ cusps. To do this we find substructures within which the hyperbolic metric can be `fractured' in a controlled way by direct manipulation of a fundamental polyhedron, changing the cone angle around an ideal arc to interpolate between cusped hyperbolic manifolds and hyperbolic manifolds with conformal surfaces on the visual boundary. As an application, we use cone deformations of a family of arithmetic manifolds derived from the Borromean rings to show that the upper unknotting tunnels of highly twisted $2$-bridge links can be drilled out by cone deformations through pinched negatively curved metrics. Finally we show that our structures arise naturally in fully augmented links, providing a large family of examples.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages

[1]

Unknotting tunnels in hyperbolic3-manifolds

Colin Adams. “Unknotting tunnels in hyperbolic3-manifolds”. In:Math. Ann. 302(1995), pp.177–195.doi:10.1007/BF01444492(cit. on p.14)

work page doi:10.1007/bf01444492(cit 1995
[2]

Unknotting tunnels in two-bridge knot and link complements

Colin C. Adams and Alan W. Reid. “Unknotting tunnels in two-bridge knot and link complements”. In:Comment. Math. Helv.71(1996), pp.617–627. doi:10.1007/BF02566439(cit. on p.13)

work page doi:10.1007/bf02566439(cit 1996
[3]

Bounds on exceptional Dehn filling

Ian Agol. “Bounds on exceptional Dehn filling”. In:Geom. Topol.4(2000), pp.431–449.doi: 10.2140/gt.2000.4.431. arXiv:math/9906183[math.GT] (cit. on p.14)

arXiv 2000
[4]

Thin representations for the one-cone torus group

Hirotaka Akiyoshi. “Thin representations for the one-cone torus group”. In: Topology Appl.264(2019), pp.115–144.doi: 10.1016/j.topol.2019.06.025 (cit. on p.2)

work page doi:10.1016/j.topol.2019.06.025 2019
[5]

Spherical space forms and Dehn filling

Steven A. Bleiler and Craig D. Hodgson. “Spherical space forms and Dehn filling”. In:Topology35(1996), pp.809–833.doi: 10.1016/0040-9383(95) 00040-2(cit. on p.13)

work page doi:10.1016/0040-9383(95 1996
[6]

Geometrization of3- dimensional orbifolds

Michel Boileau, Bernhard Leeb, and Joan Porti. “Geometrization of3- dimensional orbifolds”. In:Ann. of Math. (2)162(2005), pp.195–290.doi: 10.4007/annals.2005.162.195 . arXiv: math/0010184[math.GT] (cit. on pp.1,14)

arXiv 2005
[7]

Bridson and André Haefliger.Metric spaces of non-positive curva- ture

Martin R. Bridson and André Haefliger.Metric spaces of non-positive curva- ture. Grundlehren Math. Wiss.319. Springer,1999(cit. on pp.23,24)

1999
[8]

On the density of geometrically finite Kleinian groups

Jeffrey F. Brock and Kenneth W. Bromberg. “On the density of geometrically finite Kleinian groups”. In:Acta. Math.192(2004), pp.33–93.doi: 10.1007/ BF02441085. arXiv:math/0212189[math.GT](cit. on p.1)

arXiv 2004

Show all 49 references

[9]

Hyperbolic cone-manifolds, short geodesics, and Schwarzian derivatives

K. Bromberg. “Hyperbolic cone-manifolds, short geodesics, and Schwarzian derivatives”. In:J. Amer. Math. Soc.17(2004), pp.783–826.doi: 10.1090/ S0894-0347-04-00462-X. arXiv:math/0211401[math.GT](cit. on p.1)

2004 arXiv
[10]

A note on strong geometric isolation in3-orbifolds

Danny Calegari. “A note on strong geometric isolation in3-orbifolds”. In:Bull. Aust. Math. Soc.53(1996), pp.271–280.doi: 10.1017/S0004972700016993. arXiv:math/0011126[math.GT](cit. on p.2)

1996 arXiv
[11]

Napoleon in isolation

Danny Calegari. “Napoleon in isolation”. In:Proc. Amer. Math. Soc.129 (2001), pp.3109–3119.doi: 10.1090/ S0002-9939-01-05915-9 . arXiv: math/9909106[math.GT](cit. on p.2)

2001 arXiv
[12]

Some virtually special hyperbolic 3-manifold groups

Eric Chesebro, Jason DeBlois, and Henry Wilton. “Some virtually special hyperbolic 3-manifold groups”. In:Comment. Math. Helv.87(2012), pp.727– 787.doi:10.4171/CMH/267. arXiv:0903.5288[math.GT](cit. on p.21)

2012 arXiv
[13]

Limits of geometries

Daryl Cooper, Jeffrey Danciger, and Anna Wienhard. “Limits of geometries”. In:Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.370(2018), pp.6585–6627.doi: 10.1090/tran/

2018 doi
[14]

Dunfield, Matthias Goerner, and Jeffrey R

Marc Culler, Nathan M. Dunfield, Matthias Goerner, and Jeffrey R. Weeks. SnapPy, a computer program for studying the geometry and topology of3- manifolds. Version3.2.url: http://snappy.computop.org (cit. on pp.3, 4). REFERENCES25
[15]

arXiv:2411.17940[math.GT](cit

Alex Elzenaar.Changing topological type of compression bodies through cone manifolds.2024. arXiv:2411.17940[math.GT](cit. on pp.2,23)

2024
[16]

An exposition of Poincaré’s polyhe- dron theorem

David B. A. Epstein and Carlo Petronio. “An exposition of Poincaré’s polyhe- dron theorem”. In:Enseign. Math. (2)40(1994), pp.113–170.doi: 10.5169/ seals-61108(cit. on p.23)

1994
[17]

Princeton Math

Benson Farb and Dan Margalit.A primer on mapping class groups. Princeton Math. Ser. Princeton University Press,2012(cit. on pp.3,13)

2012
[18]

Links with no exceptional surgeries

David Futer and Jessica S. Purcell. “Links with no exceptional surgeries”. In:Comment. Math. Helv.82(2007), pp.629–664.doi: 10.4171/CMH/105. arXiv:math/0412307[math.GT](cit. on pp.11,17)

2007 arXiv
[19]

Effective bilipschitz bounds on drilling and filling

David Futer, Jessica S. Purcell, and Saul Schleimer. “Effective bilipschitz bounds on drilling and filling”. In:Geom. Topol.26(2022), pp.1077–1188. doi:10.2140/gt.2022.26.1077. arXiv:1907.13502[math.GT](cit. on p.1)

2022 arXiv
[20]

Effective drilling and filling of tame hyperbolic3-manifolds

David Futer, Jessica S. Purcell, and Saul Schleimer. “Effective drilling and filling of tame hyperbolic3-manifolds”. In:Comment. Math. Helv.97(2022), pp.457–512.doi: 10.4171/CMH/536. arXiv:2104.09983[math.GT] (cit. on p.1)

2022 arXiv
[21]

Geometric triangulations and highly twisted links

Sophie L. Ham and Jessica S. Purcell. “Geometric triangulations and highly twisted links”. In:Alg. Geom. Topol.23(2023), pp.1399–1462.doi: 10.2140/ agt.2023.23.1399. arXiv:2005.11899[math.GT](cit. on p.17)

2023 arXiv
[22]

Regenerating singular hyper- bolic structures from Sol

Michael Heusener, Joan Porti, and Eva Suárez. “Regenerating singular hyper- bolic structures from Sol”. In:J. Diff. Geom.59(2001), pp.439–478.doi: 10.4310/jdg/1090349448(cit. on p.2)

2001
[23]

Degeneration and regeneration of geometric structures on three-manifolds

Craig D. Hodgson. “Degeneration and regeneration of geometric structures on three-manifolds”. Doctoral thesis. Princeton University,1986(cit. on p.2)

1986
[24]

Rigidity of hyperbolic cone- manifolds and hyperbolic Dehn surgery

Craig D. Hodgson and Steven P. Kerckhoff. “Rigidity of hyperbolic cone- manifolds and hyperbolic Dehn surgery”. In:J. Diff. Geom.48(1998), pp.1– 59.doi:10.4310/jdg/1214460606(cit. on pp.2,14)

1998
[25]

Universal bounds for hyperbolic Dehn surgery

Craig D. Hodgson and Steven P. Kerckhoff. “Universal bounds for hyperbolic Dehn surgery”. In:Ann. of Math. (2)162(2005), pp.367–421.doi: 10.4007/ annals.2005.162.367(cit. on p.1)

2005
[26]

McQuire, and Jessica S

Dionne Ibarra, Emma N. McQuire, and Jessica S. Purcell.Augmented links, shadow links, and the TV volume conjecture: A geometric perspective.2025. arXiv:2506.09296[math.GT](cit. on pp.3,17)

2025 arXiv
[27]

MSRI Preprint.1992

Michael Kapovich.Eisenstein series and Dehn surgery. MSRI Preprint.1992. url: https://www.math.ucdavis.edu/~kapovich/EPR/eis.pdf (cit. on p.2)

1992
[28]

Deformations of hyperbolic3-cone-manifolds

Sadayoshi Kojima. “Deformations of hyperbolic3-cone-manifolds”. In:J. Diff. Geom.49(1998), pp.469–516.doi:10.4310/jdg/1214461108(cit. on p.2)

1998
[29]

The volume of hyperbolic alternating link complements

Marc Lackenby. “The volume of hyperbolic alternating link complements”. In:Proc. London Math. Soc. (3)88(2004). Appendix by Ian Agol and Dylan Thurston, pp.204–224.doi: 10.1112/ S0024611503014291 . arXiv: math/0012185[math.GT](cit. on p.17)

2004 arXiv
[30]

Word hyperbolic Dehn surgery

Marc Lackenby. “Word hyperbolic Dehn surgery”. In:Invent. Math.140 (2000), pp.243–282.doi: 10.1007/s002220000047. arXiv: math/9808120 [math.GT](cit. on p.14)

2000 arXiv
[31]

Grundlehren Math

Bernard Maskit.Kleinian groups. Grundlehren Math. Wiss.287. Springer- Verlag,1987(cit. on p.23)

1987
[32]

Deformations of hyperbolic convex polyhedra and cone-3-manifolds

Grégoire Montcouquiol. “Deformations of hyperbolic convex polyhedra and cone-3-manifolds”. In:Geom. Dedicata166(2013), pp.163–183.doi: 10.1007/ s10711-012-9790-5(cit. on p.2). 26REFERENCES

2013
[33]

Amalgamation and the invariant trace field of a Kleinian group

Walter D. Neumann and Alan W. Reid. “Amalgamation and the invariant trace field of a Kleinian group”. In:Math. Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc.109 (1991), pp.509–515.doi:10.1017/S0305004100069942(cit. on p.2)

1991 doi
[34]

Rigidity of cusps in deformations of hyperbolic 3-orbifolds

Walter D. Neumann and Alan W. Reid. “Rigidity of cusps in deformations of hyperbolic 3-orbifolds”. In:Math. Ann.295(1993), pp.223–237.doi: 10.1007/BF01444885(cit. on p.2)

1993 doi
[35]

arXiv: math/0303109[math.DG](cit

Grisha Perelman.Ricci flow with surgery on three-manifolds.2003. arXiv: math/0303109[math.DG](cit. on p.14)

2003 arXiv
[36]

arXiv:math/0211159[math.DG](cit

Grisha Perelman.The entropy formula for the Ricci flow and its geometric applications.2002. arXiv:math/0211159[math.DG](cit. on p.14)

2002 arXiv
[37]

Arith- metic modular links

Tali Pinsky, Jessica S. Purcell, and José Andrés Rodríguez-Migueles. “Arith- metic modular links”. In:Pacific J. Math.327(2023), pp.337–358.doi: 10.2140/pjm.2023.327.337. arXiv: 2307.09409[math.GT] (cit. on pp.3, 11)

2023 arXiv
[38]

Regenerating hyperbolic and spherical cone structures from Euclidean ones

Joan Porti. “Regenerating hyperbolic and spherical cone structures from Euclidean ones”. In:Topology37(1998), pp.365–392.doi: 10.1016/S0040- 9383(97)00025-6(cit. on p.2)

1998 doi
[39]

Regenerating hyperbolic cone structures from Nil

Joan Porti. “Regenerating hyperbolic cone structures from Nil”. In:Geom. Topol.6(2002), pp.815–852.doi: 10.2140/gt.2002.6.815 . arXiv: math/ 0212298[math.GT](cit. on p.2)

2002 doi
[40]

An introduction to fully augmented links

Jessica S. Purcell. “An introduction to fully augmented links”. In:Interactions between hyperbolic geometry, quantum topology and number theory. Proceed- ings of a workshop, June3–13,2009and a conference, June15–19,2009, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA.Ed. by Abhijit Ch...

2009
[41]

Cuspshapesunderconedeformation

JessicaS.Purcell.“Cuspshapesunderconedeformation”.In:J. Diff. Geom.80 (2008), pp.453–500.doi: 10.4310/jdg/1226090484. arXiv: math/0410233 [math.GT](cit. on p.2)

2008
[42]

How to see3-manifolds

William P. Thurston. “How to see3-manifolds”. In:Classical Quantum Gravity 15(1998), pp.2545–2571.doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/15/9/004 (cit. on pp.1, 3)

1998 doi
[43]

Thurston.The geometry and topology of three-manifolds

William P. Thurston.The geometry and topology of three-manifolds. Ed. by Steven P. Kerckhoff. Vol. IV of collected works; originally published c.1979. American Mathematical Society,2022(cit. on pp.1,3,11)

1979
[44]

Global rigidity of3-dimensional cone-manifolds

Hartmut Weiß. “Global rigidity of3-dimensional cone-manifolds”. In:J. Diff. Geom.76(2007), pp.495–523.doi: 10.4310/jdg/1180135696 (cit. on p.2)

2007
[45]

Local rigidity of3-dimensional cone-manifolds

Hartmut Weiß. “Local rigidity of3-dimensional cone-manifolds”. In:J. Diff. Geom.71(2005), pp.437–506.doi:10.4310/jdg/1143571990(cit. on p.2)

2005
[46]

The deformation theory of hyperbolic cone-3-manifolds with cone-angles less than 2π

Hartmut Weiß. “The deformation theory of hyperbolic cone-3-manifolds with cone-angles less than 2π”. In:Geom. Topol.17(2013), pp.329–367.doi: 10.2140/gt.2013.17.329(cit. on p.2)

2013 doi
[47]

The structure of certain subgroups of the Picard group

Norbert Wielenberg. “The structure of certain subgroups of the Picard group”. In:Math. Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc.84(1978), pp.427–436.doi: 10.1017/ s0305004100055250(cit. on pp.3,6)

1978
[48]

Degeneration of3-dimensional hyperbolic cone structures with decreasing cone angles

Ken’ichi Yoshida. “Degeneration of3-dimensional hyperbolic cone structures with decreasing cone angles”. In:Conform. Geom. Dyn.26(2022), pp.182– 193.doi:10.1090/ecgd/375. arXiv:1909.06622[math.GT](cit. on p.2)

2022 arXiv
[7174]

arXiv:1408.4109[math.GT](cit. on p.2)

arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Unknotting tunnels in hyperbolic3-manifolds

Colin Adams. “Unknotting tunnels in hyperbolic3-manifolds”. In:Math. Ann. 302(1995), pp.177–195.doi:10.1007/BF01444492(cit. on p.14)

work page doi:10.1007/bf01444492(cit 1995

[2] [2]

Unknotting tunnels in two-bridge knot and link complements

Colin C. Adams and Alan W. Reid. “Unknotting tunnels in two-bridge knot and link complements”. In:Comment. Math. Helv.71(1996), pp.617–627. doi:10.1007/BF02566439(cit. on p.13)

work page doi:10.1007/bf02566439(cit 1996

[3] [3]

Bounds on exceptional Dehn filling

Ian Agol. “Bounds on exceptional Dehn filling”. In:Geom. Topol.4(2000), pp.431–449.doi: 10.2140/gt.2000.4.431. arXiv:math/9906183[math.GT] (cit. on p.14)

arXiv 2000

[4] [4]

Thin representations for the one-cone torus group

Hirotaka Akiyoshi. “Thin representations for the one-cone torus group”. In: Topology Appl.264(2019), pp.115–144.doi: 10.1016/j.topol.2019.06.025 (cit. on p.2)

work page doi:10.1016/j.topol.2019.06.025 2019

[5] [5]

Spherical space forms and Dehn filling

Steven A. Bleiler and Craig D. Hodgson. “Spherical space forms and Dehn filling”. In:Topology35(1996), pp.809–833.doi: 10.1016/0040-9383(95) 00040-2(cit. on p.13)

work page doi:10.1016/0040-9383(95 1996

[6] [6]

Geometrization of3- dimensional orbifolds

Michel Boileau, Bernhard Leeb, and Joan Porti. “Geometrization of3- dimensional orbifolds”. In:Ann. of Math. (2)162(2005), pp.195–290.doi: 10.4007/annals.2005.162.195 . arXiv: math/0010184[math.GT] (cit. on pp.1,14)

arXiv 2005

[7] [7]

Bridson and André Haefliger.Metric spaces of non-positive curva- ture

Martin R. Bridson and André Haefliger.Metric spaces of non-positive curva- ture. Grundlehren Math. Wiss.319. Springer,1999(cit. on pp.23,24)

1999

[8] [8]

On the density of geometrically finite Kleinian groups

Jeffrey F. Brock and Kenneth W. Bromberg. “On the density of geometrically finite Kleinian groups”. In:Acta. Math.192(2004), pp.33–93.doi: 10.1007/ BF02441085. arXiv:math/0212189[math.GT](cit. on p.1)

arXiv 2004