text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Face centered cubic (fcc) iron-based alloys are widely used for developing of stainless austenitic steels especially for using in critical temperature ranges, aggressive environment and other severe external conditions. Doping of these steels with light interstitial impurities (C,N) influence mechanics and kinetics of structure phase transitions in Fe-based alloys. Distribution of carbon and nitrogen atoms in solid solutions influence electrical and mechanical properties of alloys. Nitrogen doping enables to solve the problem of the strengthening of stainless steels.

Investigation of the influence of nitrogen on physical properties of multicomponent systems is a complicated problem. The solution of this problem should be made in several stages. On the first stage it seems important to study electronic structure of iron nitride Fe4N, because binary $`\gamma `$-FeNx alloy can be modeled by non-stoichiometric nitride $`\gamma `$-Fe4N1-x.

There are a lot of experimental data about atomic and electronic structure of Fe4N. We believe that Mössbauer spectroscopy gives most interesting information about impurity distribution, electronic structure and magnetic interactions in alloys. Studying of hyperfine structure of the energy spectra of nuclei is a powerful tool for investigation of interactions of atomic nucleus with local electric and magnetic fields. These interactions cause shifts and splittings of nuclear energy levels and enable us to obtain information about symmetry of charge distribution around the nucleus, about electronic configurations of atoms and ions, as well as about peculiarities of atomic structure of solids.

A number of experimental papers show substantial differences in Mössbauer spectra of binary Fe-N and Fe-C alloys. These differences are believed to be connected with different C and N distribution in Fe fcc alloys . In this paper we present calculation results of hyperfine interaction parameters for iron nitride Fe4N as well as for hypothetical Fe4N structure with another distribution of nitrogen atoms. This allows us to determine changes in Mössbauer spectra caused by redistribution on nitrogen atoms.

## 2 Calculation details

WIEN97 programme package , employing Full-potential Linearized Augmented Plane Wave (FLAPW) method was used for calculations. As far as FLAPW is an all-electron method (unlike pseudopotential methods), it allows to perform calculations of hyperfine interaction parameters from first principles. Obtained theoretical parameters of interaction of a nucleus with electric and magnetic fields can be successfully compared with parameters of experimental Mössbauer spectra.

Generalized gradient approximation (GGA) according to Perdew-Burke-Ernzerhof  model was used for exchange-correlation potential. The radii of atomic spheres were chosen as 1.9 a.u. and 1.68 a.u for Fe and N atoms respectively. The accuracy of calculation results depends on several basic parameters: number of $`K`$-points in Brillouin zone, number of $`LM`$-components and Fourier coefficients in charge density and potential decomposition and number of plane waves in interstitial region. The choice of the values of these parameters was based on convergence condition. Convergence tests gave the value $`R_{min}\times K_{max}=8.8`$, which corresponds to 205 plane waves per atom in the basis set. Inside atomic spheres the wave function was decomposed up to $`l_{max}=12`$. Charge density and potential was decomposed inside atomic spheres using lattice harmonics basis up to $`L_{max}=6`$. In the interstitial region Fourier expansion was used with 850 coefficients. Calculations were performed for 3000 K-points in the Brillouin zone (84 K-points in the irreducible part). The values of all parameters ensure accuracy of 0.1 mRy in total energy of the system. Due to ferromagnetic nature of iron nitride all calculations were performed using spin-polarized approximation.

## 3 Atomic structure

The unit cell of iron nitride Fe4N is a unit cell of $`\gamma `$-Fe with a nitrogen atom introduced in the centre of the cube (figure 1a). The structure has two symmetry types of Fe atoms: Fe2 type forms octahedron around impurity atom and has two impurity atoms in the first coordination sphere located at $`180^o`$; Fe0 type is located in the corners of the cell and has no impurity atoms in the first coordination sphere.

In order to find the value of lattice parameter, corresponding to the minimum total energy of the system we performed calculations for five different values of lattice parameter. The results were approximated by second-order polynomial using least square fit method. Then the value of lattice parameter was obtained analytically. Calculated value of lattice parameter C=7.164 a.u. is in good agreement with experimental value C=7.17 a.u. . Calculations of electronic structure and hyperfine interaction parameters were performed using obtained optimized value of lattice parameter.

Optimization procedure was also performed for another two systems: $`\gamma `$-Fe (Fe-fcc) and hypothetical Fe4N structure (figure 1b). Both calculations were also performed in spin-polarized approximation. Calculation of $`\gamma `$-Fe seems interesting because it allows us to determine the influence of introducing of nitrogen atom on electronic structure and hyperfine interaction parameters of Fe-fcc. Optimization of hypothetical Fe4N structure (figure 1b) was performed including variation of interatomic Fe-N distance. This structure has two types of iron atoms: Fe1 and Fe2, having one and two N atoms in the nearest neighbourhood respectively. We found out that with this type of ordering the total energy of the structure is 18 mRy larger, than the total energy of iron nitride. This shows that the formation of Fe-N-Fe-N chains (Fe2 configuration) without Fe-N pairs (Fe1 configuration) is energetically favourable.

From the point of view of atomic structure of Fe-N alloys iron nitride Fe4N is the simplest structure where Fe-N chains are combined with Fe-Fe chains. This makes possible to perform detailed analysis of the influence of nitrogen on electronic structure and hyperfine interaction parameters and to use obtained information later for analyzing more complicated Fe-N alloys. This step-by-step approach, based on application of up-to-date ab initio calculation method, appears to be most accurate for solving the problem of the influence of impurity atoms on the properties of Fe-based alloys.

## 4 Hyperfine interactions

Ferromagnetic nature of iron nitride Fe4N makes Mössbauer spectrum of this compound much more complicated. The presence of magnetic field leads to combined magnetic and electric hyperfine interactions. The Hamiltonian of the system, including these interactions is given by

$$\widehat{}=(\stackrel{}{\mu }\times \stackrel{}{H})+e\underset{ij}{}Q_{ij}V_{ij},$$
(1)
where $`\stackrel{}{\mu }`$ \- magnetic moment of the nucleus, $`\stackrel{}{H}`$ \- magnetic field, $`Q_{ij}`$ \- tensor of the nuclear quadrupole moment, $`V_{ij}`$ \- tensor of electric field gradient (EFG). The principal EFG axis and magnetization axis may be non-collinear, which makes finding of Hamiltonian eigenvalues much more complicated. Using $`eQ/\mu H1`$ approximation and taking into account that $`I=3/2`$ for excited state of 57Fe nucleus, the energy levels of the system are given by

$`E=g\mu _nHm_I+(1)^{|m_I|+1/2}{\displaystyle \frac{eQV_{zz}}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{3\mathrm{cos}^2\theta 1}{2}}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\eta ^2}{3}}\right)^{1/2}`$ (2)
$`m_I=I,I+1,\mathrm{},I1,I`$
In this expression $`m_I`$ \- magnetic quantum number, $`V_{zz}`$ \- the principal component of EFG tensor, $`\eta `$ \- asymmetry parameter, $`\theta `$ \- angle between the principal axis of EFG tensor and the direction of magnetic field $`\stackrel{}{H}`$.

The presence of magnetic field reduces the symmetry of the system. In iron nitride Fe atoms, located in the centre of the cube faces are now divided into two types: Fe2, for which principal EFG axis is parallel to magnetic field, and Fe$`{}_{}{}^{}{}_{2}{}^{}`$, for which this axis is perpendicular to magnetic field (figure 1a). Mössbauer spectra of these two types of Fe atoms will have different quadrupole splitting. So, due to magnetic field, we have three different types of iron atoms in iron nitride structure. The total Mössbauer spectrum of this compound will consist of eighteen peaks. Twelve of these peaks, which belong to Fe2 and Fe$`{}_{}{}^{}{}_{2}{}^{}`$ atoms, will have different shifts due to different quadrupole interactions. The ratio of the number of these atomic types in iron nitride unit cell is Fe0:Fe2:Fe$`{}_{}{}^{}{}_{2}{}^{}`$=1:1:2, which leads to the same ratio of intensities of respective Mössbauer peaks. All described features of the spectrum are totally approved by experimental data .

Quadrupole splitting, expressed in $`mm/s`$, is given by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_v[mm/s]=0.5205\times Q[b]V_{zz}[10^{21}v/m^2]\frac{3\mathrm{cos}^2\theta 1}{2}\left(1+\frac{\eta ^2}{3}\right)^{1/2},$$
(3)
In our calculations we used the value of nuclear quadrupole moment Q57Fe =0.16$`b`$. This value was determined by Dufek, Blaha and Schwarz  by comparing experimental quadrupole splitting and theoretical EFG values, calculated by FLAPW method, for fourteen different Fe compounds.

For temperatures above the Curie point ($`T_c`$) the system becomes paramagnetic, and Fe0 atoms will not contribute to Mössbauer spectrum. Fe2 and Fe$`{}_{}{}^{}{}_{2}{}^{}`$ atomic types become totally identical, and Mössbauer spectrum in this case is a doublet with quadrupole splitting

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_v[mm/s]=1.041\times Q[b]V_{zz}[10^{21}v/m^2]\left(1+\frac{\eta ^2}{3}\right)^{1/2}.$$
(4)
In this paper electric field gradient was calculated according to method, developed by Blaha et al . According to this approach EFG is calculated on ab-initio basis directly from electronic density distribution. We obtain EFG contributions from charge density inside atomic spheres (valence EFG) and outside the spheres (lattice EFG). Valence EFG is calculated as an integral of the value $`\rho _{2M}(r)/r`$ over the atomic sphere . The values $`\rho _{LM}`$ originate from two radial wave functions with $`l`$ and $`l^{}`$:

$$\rho _{LM}(r)=\underset{E<E_F}{}\underset{l,m}{}\underset{l^{},m^{}}{}R_{lm}(r)R_{l^{}m^{}}(r)G_{Lll^{}}^{Mmm^{}},$$
(5)
where $`R_{lm}(r)`$ \- LAPW radial wave functions, $`G_{Lll^{}}^{Mmm^{}}`$ \- Gaunt integrals.

Table 2 presents calculated principal values of EFG tensor and obtained according to (3) values of quadrupole splitting (QS) for Fe2 and Fe$`{}_{}{}^{}{}_{2}{}^{}`$ atoms. The table shows that our results are in perfect agreement with experimental data, obtained by Foct et al  for the sample at T=4K. Excellent agreement with experiment also shows that chosen direction of magnetic axis (001) is a direction of real magnetic field in iron nitride Fe4N.

Using (4) we also calculated quadrupole splitting at $`T>T_c`$. Our value $`\mathrm{\Delta }_v`$=0.50 mm/s is also in excellent agreement with experimental data of Foct (0.50 mm/s), obtained at T=763K .

Table 2 also presents calculation results for model Fe4N structure. Magnetization axis is assumed to be directed along one of Fe-N-Fe-N chains. Redistribution of nitrogen atoms leads to substantial changes of EFG values. The quadrupole splitting of Fe2 atoms is reduced by 1/3 of the previous value when Fe1 configuration appears in the structure. The same effect we observe at T$`>`$Tc: quadrupole splitting becomes now 0.33 mm/s. We see that quadrupole splitting is very sensitive to redistribution of impurity atoms in Fe-fcc. This fact can be used for interpretation of Mössbauer spectra of real fcc-alloys with different distribution of interstitial impurity.

## 5 Charge density and electric field gradient

We performed detailed analysis of EFG formation in iron nitride Fe4N. Table 2 shows that valence component makes 90% contribution to the total value. So, we can focus on this component for understanding of EFG origin.

According to our approach the valent band of the compound (Fe-$`3s3p3d`$, N-$`2s2p`$) was divided to four energy regions according to table 3. These energy intervals are formed mostly by different electronic shells of iron and nitrogen atoms. We also analyzed EFG contributions from wavefunctions of different symmetry (according to (5)) for each of energy regions.

First of all let us analyze the electric field gradient, caused by the whole valent band (valence EFG). Table 3 shows that $`sd`$ contribution is negligibly small for all energy regions. EFG is practically formed by $`pp`$ and $`dd`$ contributions, which have different signs. We see that negative $`pp`$ contribution is dominating, although it is greatly canceled by positive $`dd`$ contribution.

The analysis of table 3 data allows us to conclude that main contribution to EFG formation is made by $`2p`$ and $`2s`$ nitrogen states, and contribution from $`2p`$ states is dominant. It should be noted that we are now talking about electrons, which have energy of nitrogen $`2p`$ states, but spatially are located in Fe2 sphere. Substantial asymmetry of spatial distribution of these electrons (figure 2a) gives main negative contribution to total EFG. The interesting fact is that more than 70% of charge, formed by these electrons, have $`p`$symmetry, and 30% - $`d`$symmetry relative to the centre of Fe2 sphere. This follows from analysis of $`pp`$ and $`dd`$ contributions for N-$`2p`$ interval (table 3). The same situation is observed for $`2s`$electrons of nitrogen, but their total EFG contribution is 2.5 times smaller than $`2p`$electrons contribution. The EFG contribution of N-$`2s`$electrons is practically caused only by electrons of $`p`$symmetry relative to the centre of Fe2 sphere.

Substantial negative EFG, caused by described asymmetry of nitrogen electrons, is greatly canceled by positive gradient, caused by own Fe electrons (figure 2b). These are first of all Fe-$`3d`$electrons, which density is distributed in such a way, that greatly cancels asymmetry of $`2s`$ and $`2p`$ electrons of nitrogen. Comparative analysis of $`pp`$ and $`dd`$ contributions shows that more than 60% of asymmetrically distributed electrons of Fe-$`3d`$ energy region have $`d`$symmetry, and less than 40% - $`p`$symmetry (table 3) relative to the centre of Fe2 sphere. Redistribution of rather localized Fe-$`3s3p`$ states also gives positive EFG contribution, but this contribution is almost 5 times smaller than contribution of $`3d`$states.

It should be noted that quadrupole splitting was calculated using total EFG value, given in table 2, and for calculation of valence EFG contribution summation in (5) was done up to $`l_{max}=12`$. On the other hand, for analysis of partial EFG contributions we limited the summation only up to $`l_{max}=2`$ (due to the absence of ”chemical” $`f`$-states). This is the reason for small differences of valence EFG values in tables 2 and 3.

The values of local magnetic moments play an important role in EFG formation in iron nitride Fe4N. The calculations show that the upper edge of Fe-$`3d`$ spin down states is located 2 eV above the Fermi level. Substantial difference in population of states with different spin orientation greatly influence EFG formation. Table 3 gives EFG contributions from states with different spin orientation for N-$`2p`$ and Fe-$`3d`$ energy regions. We notice considerable difference in EFG values, caused by spin up and down electrons of Fe-$`3d`$ interval. This effect mostly influence the value of $`dd`$ contribution of this energy region. This contribution is mainly formed by density distribution of own $`3d`$electrons of iron. Spin up contribution is more than 3 times larger than spin down contribution for $`dd`$ component of Fe-$`3d`$region.

The fact that spin down states are partially ”pulled” above the Fermi level considerably decreases compensating positive component, and leads to increasing of absolute value of total (negative) EFG. In the absence of this effect we would have considerably larger compensating component, which would lead to decreasing of total EFG value and, as a consequence, to decreasing of quadrupole splitting in Mössbauer spectra.

## 6 Summary

We performed ab initio band structure calculations of iron nitride Fe4N. All our results are in very good agreement with experimental data. Structure characteristics as well as magnetic properties are well reproduced. We also performed calculations of hypothetical Fe4N disordered structure. Comparative analysis of these two calculations showed that the formation of Fe-N pairs in Fe4N compound is energetically unfavourable.

We also calculated hyperfine interaction parameters for both Fe4N structures taking into account the presence of magnetic field. For iron nitride structure we obtained perfect agreement of quadrupole splitting values with experimental data. For disordered Fe4N structure we observe considerable decreasing of quadrupole splitting for Fe-N-Fe-N chains, and very small quadrupole splitting for Fe-N pairs.

Detailed analysis of EFG formation in iron nitride Fe4N allows us to conclude that EFG is mainly formed by space distribution of nitrogen $`2s`$ and $`2p`$ electrons, although it is greatly canceled by Fe$`3d`$electrons. Magnetization reduces this cancellation effect and increases the value of total EFG in iron nitride structure.


format: text

text:
# The Weil-Petersson Isometry Group

## 1 Introduction

Let $`F=F_{g,n}`$ be a surface of genus $`g`$ with $`n`$ punctures. We assume $`3g3+n>1`$ and that $`(g,n)(1,2)`$. The purpose of this paper is to prove, for the Weil-Petersson metric on Teichmuller space $`T_{g,n}`$, the analogue of Royden’s famous result  that every complex analytic isometry of $`T_{g,0}`$ with respect to the Teichmuller metric is induced by an element of the mapping class group. His proof involved a study of the local geometry of the cotangent bundle to Teichmuller space. Royden’s result was extended to general $`T_{g,n}`$ by Earle-Kra , without any smoothness assumption on the isometry and with a stronger local result. They showed that if $`2g+n>4`$ and $`2g^{}+n^{}>4`$, and if $`f`$ is an isometry from an open set $`UT_{g,n}`$ to $`T_{g^{},n^{}}`$, then $`T_{g,n}=T_{g^{},n^{}}`$ and $`f`$ is the restriction of an isometry induced by an element of the extended mapping class group. Later Ivanov  gave an alternative proof of Royden’s theorem based upon the asymptotic geometry of Teichmuller space and the result that the group of automorphisms of the curve complex $`C(F)`$ (see below) coincides with the mapping class group. The automorphism result was later extended to the cases of punctured surfaces of genus $`g1`$ (with $`(g,n)(1,2)`$) by Korkmaz , and at the same time proved for general $`(g,n)(1,2)`$ by Luo .

We prove

###### Theorem A.

For $`3g3+n>1`$ and $`(g,n)(1,2)`$, every Weil-Petersson isometry of Teichmüller space $`T_{g,n}`$ is induced by an element of the extended mapping class group $`Mod^{}(g,n)`$.

Our proof of this result is modelled somewhat on Ivanov’s proof. We outline the ideas here. It is well-known that the Weil-Petersson metric is not complete ( and ). To complete the metric one adds a frontier $`A_{g,n}`$ to $`T_{g,n}`$; this frontier consists of a union of lower dimensional Teichmuller spaces. Each such space consists of Riemann surfaces with nodes or punctures. These surfaces are obtained by pinching nontrivial curves of $`F`$. Each Teichmuller space on the frontier carries its own Weil-Petersson metric and with this Weil-Petersson metric, this Teichmuller space on the frontier is isometrically embedded in the completion. We extend the isometry to the completion and show that each Teichmuller space on the frontier is preserved by the isometry. This self-map of the frontier then induces an automorphism of the complex of curves, $`C(F)`$. By Ivanov’s result (and the extensions   by Korkmaz and Luo to low genus) the automorphism is induced by an element of the extended mapping class group. (Ivanov’s theorem is known not to hold for $`(g,n)=(1,2)`$: see Luo . Luo showed that $`C(F_{1,2})`$ is isomorphic to $`C(F_{0,5})`$; the automorphism group of this curve complex is the extended mapping class group $`Mod^{}(0,5)`$ and yet $`Mod^{}(1,2)`$ is a subgroup of index $`5`$ in $`Mod^{}(0,5)`$).

Thus our isometry induces an extended mapping class group element at “infinity”. We then show that the given isometry and the isometry induced by the corresponding element of the extended mapping class group act identically on Teichmuller space. The main tool, as in Ivanov, is to study geodesics in the space. In particular, after some formalities, we find that it is enough to assume that the isometry acts as the identity on the frontier $`A_{g,n}`$, and we study the (totally geodesic submanifold) $`Fix`$ which is fixed by the isometry. General facts about fixed-point (proper) subsets of isometries in CAT(0) spaces yield points in $`T_{g,n}`$ at arbitrary distance from $`Fix`$. Yet, since Teichmüller space is a space of Riemann surfaces, additional estimates come from considering the functions $`l_c(x):T_{g,n}`$, defined as the hyperbolic length of the curve $`c`$ on the hyperbolic surface $`xT_{g,n}`$. A very strong such estimate is due to Wolpert , who shows that such functions are convex along Weil-Petersson geodesics. This allows us, following Wolpert, to give a center-of-mass argument that shows that $`Fix`$ is non-empty. Combining this with the proof of Wolpert’s result  that the Weil-Petersson metric is not complete, we find that $`Fix`$, along with all points in $`T_{g,n}`$, is uniformly close to a special set of frontier points. This contradiction with the general fact above about fixed-point proper subsets in CAT(0) spaces shows that $`Fix`$ is all of $`T_{g,n}`$, proving the theorem.

We would like to thank the referees for many helpful suggestions and for pointing out a gap in the original proof. We would like to thank Cliff Earle and Sumio Yamada for bringing this problem to our attention and to Cliff Earle, Jeff Brock, and Amie Wilkinson for helpful suggestions. We also appreciate some helpful remarks by Feng Luo about his paper.

### 1.1 Teichmuller space, mapping class group and the Weil-Petersson metric

Denote by $``$ the set of all smooth Riemannian metrics on $`F`$. Choose an orientation for $`F`$, and define the set of all similarly oriented complete hyperbolic structures on $`F`$ by $`_1`$: here $`_1`$ naturally includes in $``$. By the uniformization theorem, $`_1`$ can be identified with the set of all conformal structures on $`F`$, with the given orientation. Equivalently, this is the same as the set of all complex structures or Riemann surface structures on $`F`$ with the given orientation. The group of orientation preserving diffeomorphisms $`Diff^+(F)`$ acts on $`_1`$ by pull-back. Let $`Diff_0(F)`$ the subgroup of diffeomorphisms isotopic to the identity. The Teichmuller space $`T_{g,n}`$ is defined to be

$$T_{g,n}=_1/Diff_0(F).$$

We can equivalently define $`T_{g,n}`$ by fixing a complex structure $`S_0`$ on $`F`$ and defining $`T_{g,n}`$ as the set of equivalence classes of pairs $`(S,f)`$ where $`f:S_0S`$ is a sense-preserving quasiconformal map from $`S_0`$ to $`S`$. Two pairs $`(S,f)`$ and $`(S^{},f^{})`$ are equivalent if there is a conformal map $`h:SS^{}`$ such that $`hf`$ is homotopic to $`f^{}`$.

The mapping class group $`Mod(g,n)`$ is defined to be

$$Mod(g,n)=Diff^+(F)/Diff_0(F)$$

and the extended mapping class group is defined by

$$Mod^{}(g,n)=Diff(F))/Diff_0(F).$$

The group $`Mod^{}(g,n)`$ acts on $`T_{g,n}`$ as follows. We may choose $`S_0`$ so that it admits an antiholomorphic reflection $`j:S_0S_0`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Psi }Mod(g,n)`$ be represented by $`\psi :S_0S_0`$. For $`\psi :S_0S_0`$ orientation preserving, $`\psi (S,f)=(S,f\psi ^1)`$. Any orientation reversing diffeomorphism of $`S_0`$ can be expressed as $`\psi j`$ for some orientation preserving $`\psi `$. Then $`(\psi j)(S,f)`$ is the point $`(S^{},fj\psi ^1)`$, where $`S^{}`$ is the conjugate Riemann surface to $`S`$; that is, the coordinate charts of $`S^{}`$ are those of $`S`$ followed by complex conjugation.

The Moduli space $`_{g,n}`$ is defined to be $`_{g,n}=T_{g,n}/Mod_{g,n}`$.

It is well-known (see ) that $`T_{g,n}`$ has a complex structure. The cotangent space at a point $`XT_{g,n}`$ is the space of holomorphic quadratic differentials $`\varphi (z)dz^2`$ on the Riemann surface $`X`$. On $`X`$ there is a pairing of quadratic differentials and Beltrami differentials $`\mu (z)\frac{d\overline{z}}{dz}`$ (i.e. tensors of type $`(1,1)`$) on $`X`$. The pairing is given by

$$<\mu ,\varphi >=Re_X\mu (z)\varphi (z)𝑑zd\overline{z}.$$

Infinitesimally trivial Beltrami differentials $`\mu `$ are ones such that

$$<\mu ,\varphi >=0$$

for all holomorphic $`\varphi `$. The tangent space at $`X`$ is the space of Beltrami differentials modulo the infinitesimally trivial ones (see ).

The Weil-Petersson co-metric on $`T_{g,n}`$ is defined by the $`L^2`$-product on the cotangent bundle

$$<\varphi _1(z)dz^2,\varphi _2(z)dz^2>=\frac{\sqrt{1}}{2}_\mathrm{\Sigma }\frac{\varphi _1(z)\overline{\varphi }_2(z)}{\lambda (z)}𝑑zd\overline{z},$$

where $`\lambda (z)|dz|^2`$ is the hyperbolic metric on $`F`$. The metric is then defined on the tangent space by duality; alternatively, the metric is induced from the natural inner product on the tangent bundle $`T`$ to $``$ along $`_1`$, after projecting to $`T_{g,n}`$ (see ). The metric is Kahler . The major properties that we will use are that the metric has negative sectional curvature (, , ) and Wolpert’s remarkable result  that even though the metric is not complete, (see below) it is geodesically convex: there is a geodesic joining any two points, unique because of the negative curvature. We also note that the action of $`Mod^{}(g,n)`$ on $`T_{g,n}`$ is isometric with respect to the Weil-Petersson metric.

### 1.2 The complex of curves, Ivanov’s theorem, and the frontier of Teichmuller space

We define a complex $`C(F)`$ as follows. The vertices of $`C(F)`$ are homotopy classes of homotopically nontrivial, nonperipheral simple closed curves on $`F`$. An edge of $`C(F)`$ consists of a pair of homotopy classes of disjoint simple closed curves. More generally, a $`k`$-simplex consists of $`k+1`$ homotopy classes of mutually disjoint simple closed curves. The maximal number of mutually disjoint simple closed curves is $`3g3+n`$ so that $`C(F)`$ is a $`3g4+n`$ dimensional simplicial complex. The extended mapping class group $`Mod^{}(g,n)`$ clearly acts on $`C(F)`$ by simplicial automorphisms. Namely for $`\psi Mod^{}(g,n)`$ and $`v_k=\{\beta _1,\mathrm{},\beta _{k+1}\}`$ a $`k`$-simplex, the image $`\psi (v_k)`$ is the $`k`$-simplex $`\{\psi (\beta _1),\mathrm{},\psi (\beta _{k+1})\}`$. Ivanov proved  that in all but a few low genus cases, every simplicial automorphism of $`C(F)`$ is induced by some $`gMod^{}(g,n)`$ in the extended mapping class group. This was later extended by Korkmaz  to all cases except $`(g,n)=(1,2)`$. At the same time, Luo  gave an independent proof of all cases $`(g,n)(1,2)`$ (with the explanation of the case $`(g,n)=(1,2)`$).

It is well-known that $`T_{g,n}`$ is not compact. For a simple closed curve $`\beta `$ we can define a function $`l_\beta :T_{g,n}R`$ by setting $`l_\beta (x)`$ to be the length, in the hyperbolic metric on $`x`$, of the geodesic in the homotopy class of $`\beta `$. For a collection of curves $`C=\beta _1,\mathrm{},\beta _N`$, let

$$l_C=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}l_{\beta _i}$$

One way to leave all compacta in $`T_{g,n}`$ is to choose a simplex $`v_k`$ in $`C(F)`$, that is a set of disjoint simple closed curves $`\beta _1,\mathrm{},\beta _{k+1}`$, and form a sequence of Riemann surfaces along which the $`l_{\beta _i}`$ go to $`0`$. This motivates the definition of the augmented Teichmuller space (,).

Specifically, associate to $`v_k`$ the (possibly disconnected) surface $`S\{\beta _1,\mathrm{},\beta _{k+1}\}`$ whose components are punctured surfaces $`S_1,\mathrm{},S_p`$. Each $`S_i`$ has its own Teichmuller space $`T(S_i)`$ and we let $`𝒪(v_k)`$ be the product $`T(S_1)\times \mathrm{}\times T(S_p)`$ of Teichmuller spaces $`T(S_i)`$.

An alternative description is given in terms of surfaces with nodes (i.e. complex spaces in which each point has a neighborhood homeomorphic to either $`\{|z|<ϵ\}`$ (regular points) or $`\{(z,w)^2|zw=0,|z|<ϵ,|w|<ϵ\}`$ (the nodes)). We identify each of those curves $`\beta _i`$ to a point; the resulting space, say $`S(v_k)`$, is homeomorphic to a surface with nodes and we set $`𝒪(v_k)=T(S(v_k))`$. Here $`T(S(v_k))`$ is defined to be the product Teichmüller space of the punctured surfaces obtained by removing the nodal points from $`S(v_k)`$.

Thus, for each simplex $`v_k`$ in $`C(F)`$ we consider a frontier Teichmuller space $`𝒪(v_k)`$ which is of complex dimension $`3g4+nk`$. We denote by $`A_{g,n}`$ the union of all these frontier Teichmuller spaces at infinity and by $`\overline{T}_{g,n}=T_{g,n}A_{g,n}`$. There is a standard way (see ,) to topologize this union, sometimes referred to as the augmented Teichmüller space.

In this topology $`\overline{T}_{g,n}`$ is not compact, nor is it locally compact near a frontier point in $`𝒪(v_k)`$: take $`\beta v_k`$, and let $`\tau `$ be the Dehn twist about $`\beta `$. Then the $`\tau `$ orbit of a point $`xT_{g,n}`$ does not have a convergent subsequence.

By way of contrast, the action of the mapping class group extends to an action on $`\overline{T}_{g,n}`$ and the quotient is a compactification $`\overline{}_{g,n}`$ of the moduli space $`_{g,n}`$, commonly called the Deligne-Mumford compactification (see , ).

We may think of $`\overline{T}_{g,n}`$ as a stratified space, because if $`v_l`$ is a subsimplex of $`v_k`$, then the Teichmuller space $`𝒪(v_k)`$ is on the frontier of the Teichmuller space $`𝒪(v_l)`$. This is because $`kl`$ curves of the surfaces in $`𝒪(v_l)`$ have lengths that have become $`0`$, or equivalently, the surfaces have acquired an additional $`kl`$ nodes. All of these spaces lie in $`A_{g,n}`$, the union of the frontier spaces of $`T_{g,n}`$. For each $`𝒪(v_k)`$ we will denote by $`Fr(𝒪(v_k))`$ the union of its frontier spaces. Now the frontier $`A_{g,n}`$ is connected, although if we fix $`k`$, then each $`𝒪(v_k)`$ is a component of the union over all frontier Teichmuller spaces of that dimension.

The case of a maximal simplex $`v_{3g4+n}`$ is especially important, for in that case the resulting surface with punctures is a union of thrice-punctured spheres. Since the conformal structure (or equivalently, hyperbolic structure) on a three times punctured sphere is unique, the corresponding frontier Teichmuller space $`𝒪(v_{3g4+n})`$ are singletons. We call these maximally pinched frontier spaces. They will play a crucial role in the sequel.

### 1.3 Incompleteness of Weil-Petersson metric and extension of isometries

Wolpert  and Chu  proved that the Weil-Petersson metric is not complete on $`T_{g,n}`$. In fact they showed that the Weil-Petersson distance in Teichmuller space to any frontier space $`𝒪(v_k)`$ is finite. Thus we can complete the metric by adding $`A_{g,n}`$, inducing a metric $`dist_{v_k}`$ on each frontier Teichmuller space $`𝒪(v_k)`$. Of course, each frontier Teichmuller space $`𝒪(v_k)`$ already has its own Weil-Petersson metric, written $`d_{v_k}(,)`$.

###### Lemma 1.3.1.

For two points $`p_0,p_1`$ in the same frontier space $`𝒪(v_k)`$, we have $`d_{v_k}(p_0,p_1)=dist_{v_k}(p_0,p_1)`$.

###### Proof.

The Weil-Petersson metric tensor in $`T_{g,n}`$ extends continuously to the Weil-Petersson metric tensor in $`𝒪(v_k)`$. () This implies that $`d_{v_k}(p_0,p_1)dist_{v_k}(p_0,p_1)`$. On the other hand, suppose a length-minimizing path in the completion metric joining $`p_0`$ and $`p_1`$ enters $`T_{g,n}`$, and is thus a Weil-Petersson geodesic $`\sigma `$ there. Without loss of generality we can assume $`\sigma `$ lies inside $`T_{g,n}`$ except for its endpoints. Then $`l_{v_k}`$ tends to zero near its endpoints, but is positive somewhere in its interior. This contradicts Wolpert’s convexity result  which says that the functions $`l_\beta `$ are strictly convex along Weil- Petersson geodesics. Thus $`d_{v_k}(p_0,p_1)dist_{v_k}(p_0,p_1)`$, completing the proof. ∎

We will refer to $`d_{WP}(,)`$ as the completed metric on $`\overline{T}_{g,n}`$. We emphasize that the restriction of $`d_{WP}`$ to any space $`𝒪(v_k)`$ is the Weil-Petersson metric on $`𝒪(v_k)`$.

Remarks. (i) Slightly stronger conclusions may also be drawn about this situation with additional use of Wolpert’s convexity result (). In particular, we see that each frontier space $`𝒪(v_k)`$, with the metric $`d_{v_k}`$, is geodesically embedded in $`\overline{T}_{g,n}`$, in the sense that any geodesic connecting a pair of points in $`𝒪(v_k)`$ lies entirely in that component $`𝒪(v_k)`$. To see this fact (to our knowledge, first written down in ), note first that such a geodesic, say $`\sigma `$, cannot meet a higher dimensional component $`𝒪(v_{kj})`$, for $`v_{kj}v_k`$; as above, this is because the length of any curve in $`v_kv_{kj}`$ is a non-negative convex function which vanishes at its endpoints, hence vanishes identically. On the other hand, since $`𝒪(v_k)`$ is a product of Teichmuller spaces (with the Weil-Petersson metric) of punctured surfaces, we see that on the geodesic $`\sigma `$, the length functions are bounded by the maximum of their values at their endpoints, and hence $`\sigma `$ meets no frontier spaces $`𝒪(v_{k+l})`$ on the frontier of $`𝒪(v_k)`$.

(ii) We note that since the Weil-Petersson metric has negative curvature and is geodesic convex, $`T_{g,n}`$ is a $`CAT(0)`$ space with this metric. It is a general fact (, Corollary II.3.11) that the metric completion of a geodesically convex $`CAT(0)`$ space is $`CAT(0)`$. Thus in particular $`\overline{T}_{g,n}`$ is $`CAT(0)`$ and thus between any two points there is a unique geodesic. We however will not need to use this last fact.

We will need the following lemmas.

###### Lemma 1.3.2.

Fix a frontier space $`𝒪(v_k)`$ (which may be $`T_{g,n}`$ itself). Then, for all $`ϵ`$ sufficiently small, there exists $`L=L(ϵ)`$, depending only on $`ϵ`$ with the following property. If $`𝒪(v_{3g4+n})`$ is any maximally pinched frontier point on the frontier of $`𝒪(v_k)`$, and $`C`$ is the collection of curves in $`v_{3g4+n}v_k`$, then if $`d_{WP}(x,𝒪(v_{3g4+n}))ϵ`$, we have $`l_C(x)L`$.

###### Proof.

If not, there exists a sequence $`\{x_j\}𝒪(v_k)`$ and a sequence $`\{𝒪(v_{3g4+n,j})\}`$ of maximally pinched frontier points on the frontier of $`𝒪(v_k)`$ with $`d_{WP}(x_j,𝒪(v_{3g4+n,j}))0`$ and $`l_{C_j}(x_j)\mathrm{}`$; here, $`C_j`$ of course refers to the curves $`v_{3g4+n,j}v_k`$. Since there are but a finite number of homotopy classes of maximally pinched surfaces, we can find subsequences, again called $`\{x_j\}`$ and $`\{𝒪(v_{3g4+n,j})\}`$ and a sequence $`\{f_j\}Mod(g,n)`$ so that $`f_j𝒪(v_{3g4+n,j})=𝒪(w_{3g4+n})`$, where $`𝒪(w_{3g4+n})`$ is some single maximally pinched frontier point on the frontier of $`𝒪(v_k)`$. Then let $`C`$ denote the curve system $`C=w_{3g4+n}v_k`$, so that $`C=f_jC_j`$, and set $`y_j=f_jx_j`$. Then, since $`f_j`$ induces a Weil-Petersson isometry, we have $`d(y_j,𝒪(w_{3g4+n}))=d(f_jx_j,f_j𝒪(v_{3g4+n,j}))=d(x_j,𝒪(v_{3g4+n,j}))0`$, while $`l_C(y_j)=l_{f_jC_j}(f_jx_j)=l_{C_j}(x_j)\mathrm{}`$: this last equality follows from $`f_j`$ amounting to but a consistent relabelling of curves and hyperbolic surfaces. But then the first limit implies that the sequence $`\{y_j\}`$ converges to $`𝒪(w_{3g4+n})`$. However this implies $`l_C(y_j)0`$ and we have a contradiction with the second limit statement. ∎

###### Lemma 1.3.3.

Fix a simplex $`v_kC(F)`$. Given $`\rho >0`$ and $`M>0`$ there is a $`\delta =\delta (\rho ,M)`$ with the following property. Let $`C`$ be a collection of curves on the surface $`S=Fv_k`$. If $`x𝒪(v_k)`$ satisfies $`l_C(x)M`$ and $`d_{WP}(x,Fr(𝒪(v_k))\rho `$, then any $`y`$ in the Weil-Petersson $`\delta `$ ball about $`x`$ satisfies $`l_C(y)2M`$

Here $`Fr(𝒪(v_k)`$ denotes the frontier of $`𝒪(v_k)`$.

Note there must be some condition on the location of $`x`$ for the conclusion to hold. Take a frontier space $`𝒪(w)`$ of $`𝒪(v_k)`$ obtained by pinching along a curve $`\beta `$ not in $`C`$, but which intersects some curve in $`C`$. In any $`\delta `$ neighborhood of a point in $`𝒪(w)`$ there are points $`x,y𝒪(v_k)`$ which differ by arbitrarily large powers of the Dehn twist about $`\beta `$. But then the ratio of $`l_C(x)`$ to $`l_C(y)`$ can be made arbitrarily large.

###### Proof.

If the lemma were not true, there would be sequences $`\{x_j\},\{x_j^{}\}𝒪(v_k)`$ and a sequence $`\{C_j\}`$ of curve families such that $`d_{WP}(x_j,x_j^{})0`$, $`d_{WP}(x_j,Fr(𝒪(v_k))\rho `$, and $`l_{C_j}(x_j)M`$, while $`l_{C_j}(x_j^{})>2M`$. ¿From the first two conditions we can find subsequences again denoted $`\{x_j\},\{x_j^{}\}`$ and a sequence $`\{f_j\}Mod(g,n)`$ such that $`\{y_j=f_j(x_j)\}`$ and $`\{y_j^{}=f_j(x_j^{})\}`$ converge to the same point $`y_0𝒪(v_k)`$. Fix $`K`$ a compact subset of $`𝒪(v_k)`$ containing $`y_j,y_j^{}`$ for $`j`$ large. Now $`\{C_j^{}=f_j(C_j)\}`$ is a sequence of curve families such that $`l_{C_j^{}}(y_j)=l_{f_j(C_j)}(f_j(x_j))=l_{C_j}(x_j)M`$, while $`l_{C_j^{}}(y_j^{})>2M`$. Since $`K`$ is compact, there are only finitely many curves $`\beta `$ such that $`l_\beta (z)M`$ for some $`zK`$. Thus $`_jC_j^{}`$ is actually a finite set of curves, and by passing to subsequences we can assume the sequence $`\{C_j^{}\}`$ is a fixed set $`C_0`$. But now the length functions $`l_\beta ()`$ are continuous on $`𝒪(v_k)`$ and we have contradicted the fact that both $`\{y_j\}`$ and $`\{y_j^{}\}`$ converge to $`y_0`$. ∎

Now suppose $`I`$ is an isometry of $`T_{g,n}`$ into itself in the Weil-Petersson metric. Since we do not a priori assume that the isometry $`I`$ is surjective, we first show

###### Lemma 1.3.4.

$`I:T_{g,n}T_{g,n}`$ is surjective.

###### Proof.

Since $`I`$ is an open map, we need to show that $`I`$ is proper. Suppose on the contrary that there is a sequence $`\{x_j\}`$ leaving every compact set in $`T_{g,n}`$ such that $`\{I(x_j)\}`$ lies in a compact set $`K`$ of $`T_{g,n}`$. We first show that no subsequence of $`\{x_j\}`$ can project to a precompact open set $`M`$ in the moduli space $`_{g,n}`$. For as the compact set $`K`$ has finite Weil-Petersson diameter, so does $`I^1(K)T_{g,n}`$; since a set of finite diameter can intersect only finitely many disjoint balls of fixed diameter, $`I^1(K)`$ could intersect but a finite number of preimages of the precompact open set $`M_{g,n}`$ under the projection map $`T_{g,n}_{g,n}`$. Thus the subsequence $`\{x_j=I^1I(x_j)\}`$ would be contained in the closure of the union of those finite number of precompact preimages, and hence would be contained in a compact set in $`T_{g,n}`$, contrary to hypothesis.

We conclude that the entire sequence projects to a sequence that leaves every compact subset of $`_{g,n}`$. However along such a sequence $`\{x_j\}`$ the infimum of the scalar curvature of the Weil-Petersson metric is $`\mathrm{}`$ , while bounded in the compact set $`K`$. But this is a contradiction to the fact that an isometry preserves scalar curvature. Thus $`I`$ is in fact surjective. ∎

It is immediate that $`I`$ is therefore also invertible.

We discuss next how $`I`$ extends to an isometry $`\overline{I}:\overline{T}_{g,n}\overline{T}_{g,n}`$ and that this extension preserves each frontier space $`𝒪(v_k)`$.

###### Lemma 1.3.5.

The isometry $`I`$ extends to an isometry $`\overline{I}:\overline{T}_{g,n}\overline{T}_{g,n}`$ of $`\overline{T}_{g,n}`$ which is surjective. For each $`k=0,\mathrm{},3g4+n`$, the isometry $`\overline{I}`$ sends each frontier space $`𝒪(v_k)`$ determined by a $`k`$-simplex $`v_k`$ onto a frontier space $`𝒪(w_k)`$, where $`w_k`$ is another $`k`$-simplex.

We have the immediate corollary.

###### Corollary 1.3.6.

$`I`$ induces an automorphism $`\widehat{I}`$ of the curve complex $`C(F)`$.

We prove Lemma 1.3.5. The statement that $`I`$ extends is immediate, holding for any isometry of the completion of a metric space. Denote the extension again by $`I`$. The proof of Lemma 1.3.4 shows that the frontier $`A_{g,n}`$ must be mapped to itself. Since every point of $`A_{g,n}`$ is a limit of points of $`T_{g,n}`$ it follows immediately that the extension $`I`$ must map $`A_{g,n}`$ isometrically onto itself.

Now we wish to show the second statement; that each point in $`𝒪(v_k)`$ is mapped to $`𝒪(w_k)`$ for some $`k`$-simplex $`w_k`$. We first show inductively that it is not possible for either $`I`$ or $`I^1`$ to map a point in $`𝒪(v_k)`$ to a point in $`𝒪(w_l)`$ for a simplex $`w_l`$ with $`l<k`$. Since $`A_{g,n}`$ is mapped to itself, the induction statement is true for $`k=0`$. (Here $`k=1`$ corresponds to $`T_{g,n}`$) Suppose the induction step for both $`I`$ and $`I^1`$ is true for all $`l<k`$ but a point $`x_0𝒪(v_k)`$ is mapped by $`I`$ to $`y_0𝒪(w_l)`$ for $`l<k`$. For some $`l`$-simplex $`v_l`$, the point $`x_0`$ is in the frontier of $`𝒪(v_l)`$. Let $`U`$ be the intersection of a neighborhood of $`x_0`$ in $`\overline{T}_{g,n}`$ with $`𝒪(v_l)`$. By the induction hypothesis, the points in $`U`$ must map into a neighborhood $`V`$ of $`y_0`$ in $`𝒪(w_l)`$ (and not to to points in a higher dimensional space corresponding to a lower dimensional simplex).

But now $`I`$ is an isometry of Weil-Petersson metrics from $`U`$ to $`V`$; consider a sequence in $`U`$ going to the frontier point $`x_0`$ whose image sequence converges to a point in $`V`$. This again contradicts the fact that the scalar curvature goes to $`\mathrm{}`$ along the sequence in the domain and stays bounded on the image sequence. Thus the induction step holds for $`I`$. The argument for $`I^1`$ is identical. We conclude each point in $`𝒪(v_k)`$ goes to a point in $`𝒪(w_k)`$. Now since each $`𝒪(v_k)`$ is a connected component in the union (over all $`k`$-simplices $`w_k`$) of $`𝒪(w_k)`$, and $`I`$ is a continuous map of $`A_{g,n}`$, we conclude that $`𝒪(v_k)`$ must map to a single $`𝒪(w_k)`$.

## 2 Proof of Theorem A

By Corollary 1.3.6, the isometry $`I`$ induces an automorphism $`\widehat{I}`$ of the curve complex $`C(F)`$. By Ivanov’s theorem (as extended by Korkmaz and Luo), for $`(g,n)(1,2)`$, the automorphism $`\widehat{I}`$ agrees with the automorphism of $`C(F)`$ induced by a mapping class, say $`\phi :FF`$, which may be orientation reversing. As we have seen, the automorphism $`\phi `$ induces a Weil-Petersson isometry $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ of $`T_{g,n}`$; then $`I\mathrm{\Phi }^1`$ is a Weil-Petersson isometry of $`T_{g,n}`$ extending to an isometry of $`\overline{T}_{g,n}`$ and preserving each frontier space $`𝒪(k)`$. Thus the isometry $`I\mathrm{\Phi }^1`$ induces the identity on $`C(F)`$. At this point then we lose no generality in the argument while simplifying the notation if we assume that $`I=\mathrm{\Phi }`$ preserves each $`𝒪(v_k)`$ (inducing the identity on $`C(F)`$) and we are seeking to prove that $`I`$ is also the identity map on Teichmüller space. Roughly then, our goal is to move from rough knowledge of $`I:\overline{T}_{g,n}\overline{T}_{g,n}`$ on the frontier $`A_{g,n}`$ to precise control on $`I:T_{g,n}T_{g,n}`$ on the interior $`T_{g,n}`$ of $`\overline{T}_{g,n}`$. In fact we prove, by induction on the dimension of the frontier spaces, that $`I`$ is the identity on each space $`𝒪(v_k)`$ and hence on $`T_{g,n}`$.

The induction hypothesis holds for the lowest dimensional frontier spaces, namely the maximally pinched frontier spaces corresponding to the maximal simplices in $`C(F)`$, since the maximally pinched frontier spaces are singletons and are fixed by $`I`$. Our induction hypothesis is then that for all $`l>k`$, the isometry $`I`$ is the identity for all frontier Teichmuller spaces $`𝒪(v_l)`$ of dimension $`3g4+nl`$ and $`𝒪(v_k)`$ is a frontier space of dimension $`3g4+nk`$ (which is $`T_{g,n}`$ itself, if $`k=1`$) Consider now $`I`$ restricted to $`𝒪(v_k)`$. The space $`𝒪(v_k)=T(S)`$ is the Teichmuller space $`T(S)`$ of some surface $`S`$.

Let $`Fix=Fix(𝒪(v_k))`$ denote the fixed-point set of $`I`$ acting on $`𝒪(v_k)`$. It is a general fact that the fixed-point set of an isometry of a Riemannian CAT(0) space is a totally geodesic submanifold. (To see this in our setting, note that Wolpert’s result  says that there is a geodesic between any two points of $`𝒪(v_k)`$ and the negative sectional curvature of $`𝒪(v_k)`$ says that this geodesic is unique. Consequently, the geodesic joining any two points of $`Fix`$ is also fixed by $`I`$ and $`Fix`$ is a convex subspace of $`𝒪(v_k)`$. Next consider the action of $`dI`$ on the tangent space $`T_zT(S)`$ for $`zFix`$. We see that $`dI`$ fixes the initial tangent vector $`V_\zeta `$ to any geodesic from $`z`$ to any other point in $`Fix`$. Thus a neighborhood of $`z`$ in $`Fix`$ is given by the exponentiated image of the kernel of $`dI`$. This shows that $`Fix`$ is a submanifold. Thus $`Fix`$ is a totally geodesic submanifold of $`𝒪(v_k)`$.)

Now suppose $`Fix`$ is a proper subset of $`𝒪(v_k)`$. Let $`N^1(Fix)TT(S)`$ be the unit normal bundle to $`Fix`$, thought of as a subbundle to the tangent bundle to $`𝒪(v_k)`$.

We postpone the proof that $`Fix\mathrm{}`$, while we discuss properties of $`Fix`$ that follow directly from $`d_{WP}|_{𝒪(v_k)}`$ being $`CAT(0)`$.

We say that a vector $`vN_p^1(Fix)`$ “exponentiates” to the frontier if the geodesic $`\{exp_psv|s[0,L]\}`$ determined by $`v`$ joins $`p`$ to a frontier point $`y=exp_pLv`$. We claim that in fact no vectors exponentiate to the frontier. For again by the induction hypothesis, if such a geodesic would exist, the isometry $`I`$ would fix $`y`$ and $`p`$ and so would fix the geodesic. However, the geodesic is normal to $`Fix`$, hence not contained in $`Fix`$, and we have a contradiction.

Therefore let $`v_0N^1(Fix)`$ be any vector tangent to say $`p_0Fix`$, i.e. $`v_0T_{p_0}T(S)`$. Let $`\gamma _0`$ the exponentiated image of $`v_0`$ and let $`p_s=\mathrm{exp}_{p_0}sv_0`$ be a point at distance $`s`$ along $`\gamma _0`$. We claim that

###### Claim 2.0.1.

$`d_{WP}(p_s,Fix)=s`$

This claim of course follows if we know that the distance from $`p_s`$ to $`Fix`$ is minimized at $`p_0`$. To see this, let $`qFix`$ be any point in $`Fix`$ other than $`p_0`$. The triple $`p_s,p_0,q`$ of points form a right triangle in the CAT(0) space $`T(S)`$. (See , Chapter II.1 for a discussion of CAT(0) and Riemannian angles, and their equivalence in this case.) But then the distance $`d_{WP}(q,p_s)`$ is at least as large as the comparison Euclidean distance $`d_{𝔼^2}(\overline{q},\overline{p_s})`$ (in the obvious notation) and $`d_{𝔼^2}(\overline{q},\overline{p_s})>d_{𝔼^2}(\overline{p_0},\overline{p_s})=d_{WP}(p_0,p_s)`$: here the inequality follows because $`\overline{q}\overline{p_s}`$ is the hypotenuse of a Euclidean right triangle, and the equality follows by construction of the Euclidean comparison triangle. ∎

Note the claim says that there are points in $`𝒪(v_k)`$ arbitrarily far from $`Fix`$. However we will now also show that

###### Claim 2.0.2.

There is some $`M`$ such that every point in $`𝒪(v_k)`$ is within distance $`M`$ of $`Fix`$.

This contradiction between the claims will then show that $`Fix=𝒪(v_k)`$, completing the proof of the induction step.

To show that every point of $`𝒪(v_k)`$ is within some distance $`M`$ of $`Fix`$, we first note that every point of $`𝒪(v_k)`$ is within some universally bounded distance $`d_0`$ of some maximally pinched frontier point. That statement follows from two others. The first (, Theorem XV) is that for any hyperbolic surface there is a maximal set of disjoint curves with universally bounded hyperbolic lengths. Such a surface is then of universally bounded distance from the corresponding maximally pinched frontier point by the proof in . (Specifically, by  there exists a holomorphic quadratic differential $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ with closed horizontal trajectories homotopic to the elements of a maximal set of disjoint curves such that the corresponding cylinders have equal moduli. Now our upper bound for the hyperbolic lengths implies an upper bound for the extremal lengths; it is then easy to check that these conditions imply a lower bound on the moduli of those cylinders. Wolpert’s proof in  then gives a uniform upper bound on the Weil-Petersson length of the Teichmuller geodesic, corresponding to $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ and tending to the maximally pinched frontier point corresponding to the surface pinched along each of the specified curves in the maximal family.)

We are reduced to showing the following proposition.

###### Proposition 2.0.3.

There exists $`M^{}`$ such that the $`M^{}`$-neighborhood of any maximally pinched frontier point $`𝒪(v_{3g4+n})`$ of $`𝒪(v_k)`$ contains points of $`Fix`$.

Remark. This claim would follow immediately, if we knew that the interiors of geodesics between maximally pinched frontier points lay in a single component of $`\overline{𝒪(v_k)}`$. For if so, then consider a maximally pinched frontier point $`𝒪(v_{3g4+n})`$ of $`𝒪(v_k)`$, and choose another maximally pinched frontier point $`𝒪(v_{3g4+n}^{})`$ of $`𝒪(v_k)`$ so that the curves in $`v_{3g4+n}`$ together with those in $`v_{3g4+n}^{}`$ fill the surface $`S`$. Then a geodesic between $`𝒪(v_{3g4+n})`$ and $`𝒪(v_{3g4+n}^{})`$ is in $`𝒪(v_k)`$ as well as in $`Fix`$, the latter because geodesics in $`CAT(0)`$ spaces like $`\overline{𝒪(v_k)}`$ are unique. As the geodesic obviously limits on $`𝒪(v_{3g4+n})`$, the Proposition follows.

###### Proof.

For each $`x𝒪(v_k)`$ we are interested in its $`I`$ orbit. Let

$$Orb(x)=\{I^j(x)\}_{j=\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}$$

Since $`I`$ is an isometry and fixes the frontier of $`𝒪(v_k)`$ by the induction hypothesis, each point of $`Orb(x)`$ is the same distance from the frontier of $`𝒪(v_k)`$ as $`x`$ is.

Fix a small $`\rho >0`$ and let

$$𝒪(v_k,\rho )=\{x𝒪(v_k):d_{WP}(x,Fr(𝒪(v_k))>\rho \}$$

It is easy to see $`𝒪(v_k,\rho )`$ is open and connected. Let $`C=C(v_{3g4+n})`$ denote the curves in $`v_{3g4+n}v_k`$. Now let

$$\mathrm{\Omega }(C,\rho )=\{x𝒪(v_k,\rho ):\underset{yOrb(x)}{sup}l_C(y)<\mathrm{}\}$$

That is, $`\mathrm{\Omega }(C,\rho )`$ consists of those points such that the lengths of the curves in $`C`$ are bounded on the entire orbit.

We begin by claiming that

###### Claim 2.0.4.

$`\mathrm{\Omega }(C,\rho )=𝒪(v_k,\rho )`$.

We prove the claim by showing that $`\mathrm{\Omega }(C,\rho )`$ is non-empty, open and closed in the connected set $`𝒪(v_k,\rho )`$.

We first show that $`\mathrm{\Omega }(C,\rho )`$ is nonempty. Using the isometric action of the mapping class group there exists $`ϵ>0`$ and $`\rho >0`$ and $`x_0`$ so that $`d_{WP}(x_0,𝒪(v_{3g4+n}))=ϵ`$ and $`d_{WP}(x_0,Fr(𝒪(v_k))=2\rho `$. We may choose $`ϵ`$ (and $`\rho `$) small enough so that the hypothesis of Lemma 1.3.2 holds. Then since the orbit of $`I`$ remains within $`ϵ`$ of $`𝒪(v_{3g4+n})`$, Lemma 1.3.2 says that $`x_0\mathrm{\Omega }(C,\rho )`$.

We now show that $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{\Omega }(C,\rho )`$ is open. Let $`x\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and let $`L=L(x)=sup_{yOrb(x)}l_C(y)`$. By Lemma 1.3.3, there exists $`\delta =\delta (\rho ,L)`$ such that for all $`yOrb(x)`$ and all $`\zeta `$ in the $`\delta `$ ball about $`y`$,

$$l_C(\zeta )2L$$

Since $`I`$ is an isometry, the $`I`$ orbit of a $`\delta `$ ball about $`x`$ is the union of the $`\delta `$ balls about the points in $`Orb(x)`$. Since $`𝒪(v_k,\rho )`$ is open, if we take $`\delta `$ small enough we can insure the $`\delta `$ ball about $`x`$ remains in $`𝒪(v_k,\rho )`$ and the inequality above says that it is then contained in $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, proving $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is open.

Finally, we show $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is closed. Let $`z_0`$ be a limit of points $`z_i\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and assume $`z_0\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Then there exists a sequence $`\{y_j=I^j(z_0)\}Orb(z_0)`$ such that $`l_C(y_j)\mathrm{}`$. Since $`y_j𝒪(v_k,\rho )`$ there is a compact set $`K𝒪(v_k,\rho )`$ and a sequence $`\{f_j\}Mod(g,n)`$ such that $`\zeta _j=f_j(y_j)K`$. Let $`C_j=f_j(C)`$ be the collection of image curves. We have

$$l_{C_j}(\zeta _j)=l_{f_j(C)}(f_j(y_j))=l_C(y_j)\mathrm{}$$

Since $`I`$ is an isometry and $`f_j`$ induces an isometry, we have that for $`i`$ large enough, the points $`\zeta _{j,i}=f_j(I^j(z_i))`$ lie in $`K`$. Fix such an index $`i`$ and consider the sequence $`\{\zeta _{j,i}\}`$. Now we have

$$\underset{j}{sup}l_{C_j}(\zeta _{j,i})<\mathrm{}$$

However, given a compact set $`K`$, there exists a constant $`L_0`$ (depending only on $`K`$) such that for any two points $`x,yK`$ and any curve $`\beta `$ we have $`\frac{l_\beta (x)}{l_\beta (y)}L_0`$. This contradicts the previous assertions that the ratio of $`l_{C_j}(\zeta _j)`$ and $`l_{C_j}(\zeta _{j,i})`$ have no bound; thus $`z_0`$ must in fact lie in $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is closed in $`𝒪(v_k,\rho )`$. This concludes the proof of the claim.

We now conclude the proof of the Proposition. Now let $`𝒪(w_{3g4+n})`$ be another maximally pinched frontier point of $`𝒪(v_k)`$ such that the curves in $`C=v_{3g4+n}v_k`$ together with those in $`C^{}=w_{3g4+n}v_k`$ fill the surface $`S`$, which means that if we remove the curves in $`CC^{}`$ from $`S`$, the result is a union of simply connected domains.

We form the corresponding $`\mathrm{\Omega }(C^{},\rho )`$, and again the claim above shows that this coincides with $`𝒪(v_k,\rho )`$. Thus every point in $`𝒪(v_k,\rho )`$ lies in $`\mathrm{\Omega }(C,\rho )\mathrm{\Omega }(C^{},\rho )`$.

Let $`x_0`$ be a point at distance $`2\rho `$ from the frontier and $`ϵ`$ from $`𝒪(v_{3g4+n})`$. Applying Lemma 1.3.3 again, there is a ball $`B`$ of radius $`\delta `$ about $`x_0`$ such that if we set

$$B_0=_{j=\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}I^j(B)$$

then there exists $`M_1`$ such that $`l_{CC^{}}(x)<M_1`$ for all $`xB_0`$. We may take $`\delta <\rho `$. Clearly $`B_0`$ is $`I`$ invariant.

Now we adapt an argument of Wolpert’s  in his proof of the Nielsen Realization Problem that every finite subgroup of the mapping class group has a fixed point to find a fixed point in the current situation.

Consider the subset

$$W=W(CC^{})=\{x𝒪(v_k):l_{CC^{}}(x)M_1\}$$

By , since the set of curves $`CC^{}`$ fills $`S`$, the set $`W`$ is a compact subset of $`𝒪(v_k)`$; also the set $`W`$ is a cell, its boundary is $`C^1`$, and it contains $`B_0`$ in its interior.

Now define a function $`D`$ on $`𝒪(v_k)`$ by

$$D(x)=\frac{1}{\mu (B_0)}_{B_0}d_{WP}(x,y)𝑑\mu (y),$$

where $`\mu `$ is Weil-Petersson volume element. As $`B_0`$ is a subset of the compact set $`W`$, the set $`B_0`$ has finite total measure. Further, as $`d_{WP}(x,)`$ is bounded on $`WB_0`$, we see that $`D(x)`$ is a finite integral for each $`x`$.

Since $`B_0`$ is $`I`$-invariant, so is $`D`$. Since $`l_C(x)>l_C(y)`$ for $`x`$ in the boundary of $`W`$ and $`yB_0`$, the strict convexity of $`l_C(x)`$ along Weil-Petersson geodesics says that the vector $`\mathrm{grad}_{WP}d_{WP}(,y)`$ points out at each point on the boundary of $`W`$. Thus as an average of such vectors, $`\mathrm{grad}_{WP}D()`$ points out at each such boundary point. By the Poincare-Hopf index theorem, we see that there is some $`y_0W`$ for which $`\mathrm{grad}_{WP}D(y_0)=0`$. By the negative curvature and the geodesic convexity of the metric, the distance from a point to a geodesic is a strictly convex function of the parameter along the geodesic. Consequently as an average of such functions, $`D`$ is also strictly convex. This implies that $`y_0`$ is the unique minimum for $`D_0`$. It follows that $`I(y_0)=y_0`$.

Now we wish to estimate $`d_{WP}(y_0,𝒪(v_{3g4+n}))`$. Each point of $`B_0`$ is distance at most $`ϵ+\delta ϵ+\rho `$ from $`𝒪(v_{3g4+n})`$. Let $`y_1𝒪(v_k)`$ be any point within distance $`\rho `$ of $`𝒪(v_{3g4+n})`$ and thus $`y_1`$ is at most $`ϵ+2\rho `$ from any point of $`B_0`$. Since $`D`$ is the average of such distances, $`D(y_1)ϵ+2\rho `$. Since $`y_0`$ is the point that minimizes $`D`$,

$$D(y_0)D(y_1)ϵ+2\rho $$

Since $`D(y_0)`$ is the average of distances frm $`y_0`$ to points in $`B_0`$,

$$\underset{yB_0}{\mathrm{min}}d_{WP}(y_0,y)ϵ+2\rho .$$

Since we have the bound $`ϵ+\rho `$ on the distance from any point of $`B_0`$ to $`𝒪(v_{3g4+n})`$,

$$d_{WP}(y_0,𝒪(v_{3g4+n}))2ϵ+3\rho $$

We have thus found a point of $`Fix`$ within uniform distance $`M^{}=2ϵ+3\rho `$ of every maximally pinched frontier of $`𝒪(v_k)`$. ∎

The proof of the main Theorem A is now complete.

Howard Masur:
Dept. of Mathematics, University of Illinois, Chicago
851 S. Morgan
Chicago, Il 60607
E-mail: masur@math.uic.edu

Michael Wolf:
Dept. of Mathematics, Rice University
Houston, TX 77251
E-mail: mwolf@math.rice.edu