Stability and the Morse boundary
Matthew Cordes∗1 and David Hume†2

arXiv:1606.00129v2 [math.MG] 24 Feb 2017

1

2

Department of Mathematics, The Technion, Haifa, Israel
Mathematical Institute, University of Oxford, Woodstock Road, Oxford, UK
February 27, 2017

Abstract
Stable subgroups and the Morse boundary are two systematic approaches to collect
and study the hyperbolic aspects of finitely generated groups. In this paper we unify and
generalise these strategies by viewing any geodesic metric space as a countable union of
stable subspaces: we show that every stable subgroup is a quasi–convex subset of a set in
this collection and that the Morse boundary is recovered as the direct limit of the usual
Gromov boundaries of these hyperbolic subspaces.
We use this approach, together with results of Leininger–Schleimer, to deduce that
there is no purely geometric obstruction to the existence of a non-virtually–free convex
cocompact subgroup of a mapping class group.
In addition, we define two new quasi–isometry invariant notions of dimension: the stable dimension, which measures the maximal asymptotic dimension of a stable subset; and
the Morse capacity dimension, which naturally generalises Buyalo’s capacity dimension
for boundaries of hyperbolic spaces.
We prove that every stable subset of a right–angled Artin group is quasi–isometric to
a tree; and that the stable dimension of a mapping class group is bounded from above by
a multiple of the complexity of the surface. In the case of relatively hyperbolic groups we
show that finite stable dimension is inherited from peripheral subgroups.
Finally, we show that all classical small cancellation groups and certain graphical small
cancellation groups - including some Gromov monster groups - have stable dimension at
most 2.

1

Introduction

A subset Y of a geodesic metric space X is Morse if for every K ≥ 1, C ≥ 0 there is some
N = N (K, C) such that every (K, C)-quasi–geodesic with endpoints on Y is contained in the
N –neighborhood of Y . We call the function N a Morse gauge. This definition has its roots
in a classical paper of Morse [Mor24].
Morse geodesics and quasi–geodesics are a recurring theme in the study of groups admitting some sort of large–scale negative curvature.
∗

The author was partially supported by NSF grant DMS-1106726
During this work the author was supported by the ERC grant no. 278469 and the grant ANR-14-CE25-0004
“GAMME”
†

1

The Morse lemma, which states that every quasi–geodesic in a hyperbolic space is Morse,
is a vital ingredient in the proof that hyperbolicity is preserved by quasi–isometry. Moreover,
any point in an asymptotic cone which is contained in the limit of a Morse quasi–geodesic is
necessarily a cut–point. This plays a crucial role in the proof that metric relative hyperbolicity
is also preserved by quasi–isometry [DS05]. More generally, every acylindrically hyperbolic
group has Morse bi-infinite geodesics [Sis16]. This class of groups, recently unified by Osin in
[Osi16], encompasses many groups of significant interest in geometric group theory: hyperbolic and relatively hyperbolic groups, non-directly decomposable right-angled Artin groups,
mapping class groups, and Out(Fn ).
Morse geodesics in geodesic metric spaces can be classified by their contraction and
divergence properties [ACGH16a, DMS10, ADT]. Furthermore, there are classifications of
Morse quasi–geodesics for CAT(0)–spaces [CS15], relatively hyperbolic groups and spaces
[DS05, Osi06] and graphical small cancellation groups [ACGH16b].
There have been several attempts at understanding groups and spaces by considering
subgroups/subspaces which are strongly quasi–convex in the ambient group/space.
We say that a quasi–convex subspace Y of a geodesic metric space X is N –stable if every
pair of points in Y can be connected by a geodesic which is N –Morse in X. We say that a
subgroup is stable if it is stable as a subspace. It is important to note that this is not the
original definition of stability given in [DT15]. Our definition detects the same collection of
stable subsets up to quasi–isometry, and the two definitions coincide for subgroups of finitely
generated groups (cf. Lemma 3.8).
Durham–Taylor prove that the collection of stable subgroups of mapping class groups
are precisely those which are convex–cocompact in the sense of Farb–Mosher [FM02, DT15].
Convex–cocompact subgroups of the mapping class group are all purely pseudo–Anosov, i.e.,
all infinite order elements are pseudo–Anosov. Farb–Mosher show if there is a purely pseudo–
Anosov subgroup of Mod(Σ) that is not convex cocompact, then this subgroup would be a
counterexample to Gromov’s conjecture that every group with a finite Eilenberg–Mac Lane
space and no Baumslag–Solitar subgroups is hyperbolic [Bes].
In an effort to identify examples of convex–cocompact subgroups of the mapping class
group, Koberda, Manghas, and Taylor classify the stable subgroups of all right–angled Artin
groups [KMT14]. They show that these subgroups are always free.
A very different approach to collecting Morse geodesics is to consider a boundary of Morse
directions. The Morse boundary of a proper geodesic metric space was introduced by the first
author in [Cor], generalising the construction of the contracting boundary of a CAT(0)–space
by Charney–Sultan [CS15]. Both boundaries consist of equivalence classes of geodesic rays
that travel in “hyperbolic directions” in the space (where one ray is equivalent to another if
they fellow travel).
The purpose of both constructions is to generalise the Gromov boundary of a hyperbolic
space [Gro87] to other classes of spaces in a quasi–isometrically rigid way; that is, a quasi–
isometry of spaces defines a homeomorphism between their boundaries. In general, this is not
the case for the usual visual boundary of a CAT(0)–space as a striking example of Croke–
Kleiner proves [CK00].
However, Gromov boundaries of hyperbolic spaces enjoy a much stronger form of rigidity.
They are metrisable and a quasi–isometry of spaces yields a quasi–symmetry of their boundaries. Even in simple cases the Morse boundary is not metrisable: for example, there is no
countable local basis for the topology on the Morse boundary of (Z ∗ Z2 ), in particular it is
2

not metrisable [Mur15].
Our goal in this paper is to unite and generalise both these approaches by viewing any
geodesic metric space as a union of stable subsets. These subsets will be indexed by Morse
gauges N and will be hyperbolic, with hyperbolicity constant depending only on N .
(N )
Given a geodesic metric space X, a point e ∈ X, and a Morse gauge N we define Xe to
be the set of all points in X which can be connected to e by an N –Morse geodesic.
Our key technical result is the following.
(N )

Theorem A. Let X, Y be geodesic metric spaces and let e ∈ X. The family of subsets Xe
of X indexed by functions N : N2 → N enjoys the following properties:
S
(N )
I (Covering) X = N Xe .
(N )

II (Partial order) If N ≤ N ′ , then Xe
(N )

III (Hyperbolicity) Each Xe
(N )

IV (Stability) Each Xe

(N ′ )

⊆ Xe

.

is hyperbolic.

is N ′ –stable, where N ′ depends only on N .
(N )

V (Universality) Every stable subset of X is a quasi–convex subset of some Xe

.

(N )

VI (Boundary) The sequential boundary ∂s Xe can be equipped with a visual metric which
(N )
(N ′ )
(N )
is unique up to quasi–symmetry. An inclusion Xe ⊆ Xe
induces a map ∂s Xe →
′
(N )
∂s Xe
which is a quasi–symmetry onto its image.
(N )

VII (Generalising the Gromov boundary) If X is hyperbolic, then X = Xe
for all N
(N )
sufficiently large, and ∂s Xe is quasi–symmetric to the Gromov boundary of X.
VIII (Generalising the Morse boundary) If X is proper, then its Morse boundary is equal to
(N )
the direct limit of the ∂s Xe as topological spaces.
IX (Behaviour under quasi–isometry) If q : X → Y is a quasi–isometry then for every
(N )
(N ′ )
N there exists an N ′ such that q(Xe ) ⊆ Yq(e) and there is an induced embedding
(N )

∂q : ∂s Xe

(N ′ )

→ ∂s Yq(e) which is a quasi–symmetry onto its image.

This approach of passing to strata indexed by Morse gauges is necessary. Consider the
boundary of all Morse rays in a geodesic metric space topologised with the Gromov product.
Cashen shows that when the space is not hyperbolic, quasi–isometries do not necessarily
induce homeomorphisms of this boundary [Cas16].
We will prove a stronger version of A.IX for which we require some additional terminology.
Let X, Y be geodesic metric spaces, let x ∈ X and y ∈ Y . We say X is stably subsumed
by Y (denoted X ֒→s Y ) if, for every N there exists some N ′ and a quasi–isometric embedding
(N )
(N ′ )
Xx → Yy . By A.IX, this property is independent of the choice of x, y. We say X and Y
are stably equivalent (denoted X ∼s Y ) if they stably subsume each other. It is easy to
see that two spaces are stably equivalent if and only if they have the same collection of stable
subsets up to quasi–isometry.


(N )
Given a geodesic metric space X, we will consider the collection of boundaries ∂s Xe
equipped with visual metrics as the metric Morse boundary of X.
3

We say that one collection of spaces (Ai )i∈I is quasi–symmetrically subsumed by
another (Bj )j∈J (denoted (Ai ) ֒→qs (Bj )) if, for every i there exists a j and an embedding Ai → Bj which is a quasi–symmetry onto its image. Two collections are quasi–
symmetrically equivalent (denoted (Ai ) ∼qs (Bj )) if (Ai ) ֒→qs (Bj ) and (Ai ) ֒→qs (Ai )).
Theorem A.IX’.
Let X, Y be geodesic
 metric spaces, let x ∈ X and y ∈ Y . Then X ֒→s Y

(N )
(N )
.
֒→qs ∂Yy
if and only if ∂Xx
The forward implication is our goal. The reverse implication essentially follows from
techniques introduced in [BS00].
Corollary B. Quasi–isometric geodesic metric spaces are stably equivalent and have quasi–
symmetrically equivalent metric Morse boundaries. In particular, the metric Morse boundary
is invariant under change of basepoint.
Stable equivalence is a much weaker notion than quasi–isometry: virtually solvable groups,
and more generally groups satisfying a non-trivial law have no Morse geodesic rays [DS05],
consequently they are stably equivalent to a point. We will present more interesting examples
later in the paper.
Using the above theorem we can define two stable equivalence invariants for geodesic
metric spaces. We define the stable asymptotic dimension of X (asdims (X)) to be the
maximal asymptotic dimension of a stable subset of X, which by universality, is the maximal
(N )
asymptotic dimension of the Xe . One obvious but useful bound is that the stable asymptotic
dimension is bounded from above by the asymptotic dimension.
Similarly, we define the Morse capacity dimension of X (cdim∂M (X)) to be the maximal capacity dimension of spaces in the metric Morse boundary. This is clearly an invariant
of equivalent metric Morse boundaries. To make the next result easier to state we adopt the
convention that the empty set has capacity dimension −1.
Corollary C. Let X be a geodesic metric space. Then
asdims (X) − 1 ≤ cdim∂M (X) ≤ asdims (X).
This follows from bounds proved in the hyperbolic setting: [Buy05, Theorem 1.1] and
[MS13, Proposition 3.6].
By Theorem A.VII, the stable dimension of a hyperbolic space is precisely its asymptotic
dimension and the Morse capacity dimension of a hyperbolic space is the capacity dimension
of its boundary equipped with some visual metric.
We note that Gruber has a method of constructing finitely generated groups which admit
an infinite family of stable subgroups with unbounded asymptotic dimension, consequently
they have infinite stable dimension [Gru]. We are not aware of any other examples or constructions of finitely generated groups with infinite stable dimension.
The remainder of the paper is devoted to studying these new notions in the context of
finitely generated groups in which Morse geodesics have been classified.
We begin with mapping class groups, throughout the paper we will only consider orientable
surfaces.

4

Theorem D. Let Σ be a surface of genus g with p punctures. Let X be a Cayley graph of
the mapping class group Mod(Σ) and let T (Σ) be the Teichmüller space of Σ. The spaces X
and T (Σ) are stably equivalent.
(N )
Moreover, each Xe
quasi–isometrically embeds into the curve complex C(Σ). Consequently,
asdims (X) = asdims (T (Σ)) ≤ 4g + p − 3 if p > 0
≤ 4g − 4 if p = 0.

An upper bound on the stable dimension of mapping class groups can be obtained via the
bounds on asymptotic dimension for mapping class groups obtained by Bestvina–Bromberg–
Fujiwara in [BBF15] or by Behrstock–Hagen–Sisto in [BHS15] which are exponential or
quadratic in the Euler characteristic of the surface respectively. Here we show that each
(N )
Mod(Σ)e quasi–isometrically embeds into the curve graph and use the bound found by
Bestvina–Bromberg on the asymptotic dimension of the curve graph [BB15].
Leininger and Schleimer prove that for every n there is a surface Σ such that the Teichmüller space T (Σ) contains a stable subset quasi–isometric to Hn . This gives a lower
bound on the stable dimension, but it is at best logarithmic in the complexity [LS14].
Since T (Σ) is stably equivalent to Mod(Σ), we see that Mod(Σ) contains a stable subset
quasi–isometric to Hn . The only known explicit examples of convex cocompact groups are
virtually free groups [DKL14, KLS09, KMT14, Min11]. Although the results of Leininger–
Schleimer do not provide any non-virtually–free convex cocompact subgroups, the fact that
asdims (Mod(Σ)) > 1 for some surfaces shows that there is no purely geometric obstruction
to the existence of a non-free convex cocompact subgroup of Mod(Σ).
In an effort to identify examples of convex–cocompact subgroups of the mapping class
group, Koberda, Manghas, and Taylor classify the stable subgroups of all right–angled Artin
groups [KMT14]. They show that these subgroups are always free. Here we prove the natural
analogue for stable subspaces.
Theorem E. Let X be a Cayley graph of a right–angled Artin group. Every stable subset of
X is quasi–isometric to a proper tree. In particular, X is stably equivalent to a line if the
group is abelian of rank 1, a point if it is abelian of rank 6= 1 and a regular trivalent tree
otherwise.
(N )

To prove this we will show that each Xe quasi–isometrically embeds into the contact
(N )
graph defined by Hagen [Hag14]. As a result, each Xe is quasi–isometric to a proper tree;
to complete the proof we use the universality condition in Theorem A. By universality of
stable subsets (Theorem A.V), we know that any stable subgroup of a right–angled Artin
group is quasi–isometric to a tree. Thus since groups which are quasi–isometric to trees are
virtually free [GdlH90, Corollary 7.19], we recover one result of [KMT14]: stable subgroups
of right–angled Artin groups are free. Using this same map to the contact graph, we also
classify when quasi–convex subsets of right–angled Artin groups are stable:
Theorem F. Let Γ be a finite graph, let AΓ be the corresponding right–angled Artin group.
Let S̃Γ be the universal cover of the Salvetti complex and let CG Γ be the contact graph of S̃Γ .
There is a map q : AΓ → CG Γ such that if Y ⊆ AΓ is quasi–convex, then Y is stable in AΓ if
and only if q|Y is a quasi–isometric embedding.
5

Morse geodesics in graphical small cancellation groups were classified in [ACGH16b]. Classical small cancellation theory covers a variety of techniques in combinatorial group theory to
ensure that a presentation yields a group which is large in some sense; or easily understandable, for instance with solvable word and conjugacy problems. An excellent introduction
to the theory is the book of Lyndon–Schupp [LS01]. Graphical small cancellation theory
is a generalization introduced by Gromov [Gro03] in order to construct groups whose Cayley graphs contain certain prescribed subgraphs, in particular one can construct “Gromov
monster” groups, those with a Cayley graph which coarsely contains expanders [AD, Osa14].
These monster groups cannot be coarsely embedded into a Hilbert space, and they are the
only known counterexamples to the Baum–Connes conjecture with coefficients [HLS02].
Theorem G. Let X be the Cayley graph of a classical C ′ (1/6) small cancellation group.
Then asdims (X) ≤ 2 and cdim∂M (X) ≤ 1.
Note that this is optimal as fundamental groups of higher genus surfaces are hyperbolic
with asymptotic dimension 2 and admit C ′ ( 16 ) graphical small cancellation presentations.
(N )

Again we work with the spaces Xe . Each of these embeds quasi–isometrically into
a finitely presented classical C ′ (1/6) small cancellation group. These are hyperbolic with
asymptotic dimension at most 2 and the capacity dimension of their Gromov boundaries is
at most 1.
Our method in proving the above theorem allows for some interesting generalisations.
Theorem H. There exist graphical small cancellation groups with stable dimension at most
2 admitting a Cayley graph which isometrically contains an expander.
The final goal is to show that, as for asymptotic dimension [Osi06], relatively hyperbolic
group inherit finite stable dimension from their maximal parabolic subgroups.
Theorem I. Let G be a finitely generated group which is hyperbolic relative to H. Then
asdims (G) < ∞ if and only if asdims (H) < ∞ for all H ∈ H.
Many classes of groups are already known to have finite stable dimension: virtually solvable groups—and more generally any unconstricted groups, for instance those satisfying a
non-trivial law—have no infinite Morse rays [DS05], and any group with finite asymptotic
dimension. As yet there is no example of an amenable (not virtually cyclic) group admitting
a Morse ray.
Variations of the constructions in this paper are ideally suited to the study of relatively
hyperbolic groups. These constructions will be the focus of a future paper [CH16]; the main
result of which states that given any finite collection of non-relatively hyperbolic groups H,
there are infinitely many 1–ended groups which are hyperbolic relative to H. In the specific
case where each H ∈ H has finite stable dimension, one can find a family of such relatively
hyperbolic groups with unbounded stable dimension.

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Jason Behrstock, Ruth Charney, Matthew Gentry Durham
and Dominik Gruber for interesting conversations. We are also grateful to the referee for
many comments which improved the clarity of the paper.

6

2

Preliminaries

2.1

Morse geodesics and the Morse boundary

Definition 2.1 (Quasi–geodesics). A map f : (X, dX ) → (Y, dY ) is a quasi–isometric
embedding if there exist constants K ≥ 1 and C ≥ 0 such that
K −1 dX (x, y) − C ≤ dY (f (x), f (y)) ≤ KdX (x, y) + C
holds for all x, y ∈ X. In this case we call f a (K, C)-quasi–isometric embedding. If X is a
connected subset of R then we call f a (K, C)-quasi–geodesic.
When we describe a quasi–geodesic as a subset of a space, we are implicitly referring to
the image of the map.
Definition 2.2 (Morse geodesics). A geodesic γ in a metric space is called Morse if there
exists a function N = N (K, C) such that for any (K, C)-quasi–geodesic σ with endpoints on
γ, we have that σ ⊂ NN (γ), the N -neighborhood of γ. We call the function N a Morse
gauge and say that γ is N –Morse.
Definition 2.3. The Morse boundary
Let X be a proper geodesic space and fix a basepoint p ∈ X. The Morse boundary of
X, ∂M X, is the set of all Morse geodesic rays in X (with basepoint p) up to asymptotic
equivalence. To topologise the boundary, first fix a Morse gauge N and consider the subset
of the Morse boundary that consists of all rays in X with Morse gauge at most N :
N
∂M
Xp = {[α] | ∃β ∈ [α] that is an N –Morse geodesic ray with β(0) = p}.

We topologise this set with the compact-open topology. This topology is equivalent to one
N X . The sets
defined by a system of neighbourhoods, {Vn (α) | n ∈ N}, at a point α in ∂M
p
Vn (α) are defined to be the set of geodesic rays γ with basepoint p and d(α(t), γ(t)) < δN for
all t < n where δN is a constant that depends only on N .
Let M be the set of all Morse gauges. We put a partial ordering on M so that for two
Morse gauges N, N ′ ∈ M, we say N ≤ N ′ if and only if N (K, C) ≤ N ′ (K, C) for all K, C.
We define the Morse boundary of X to be
N
Xp
∂M Xp = lim ∂M
−→
M

NX
with the induced direct limit topology, i.e., a set U is open in ∂M Xp if and only if U ∩ ∂M
p
is open for all N .

Theorem 2.4 ([Cor]). Given a proper geodesic space X, the Morse boundary, ∂M X =
N X , equipped with the direct limit topology, is
lim ∂M
p
−→
(1) basepoint independent;
(2) a quasi–isometry invariant; and
(3) homeomorphic to the visual boundary if X is hyperbolic and to the contracting boundary
if X is CAT(0).
For more details on the Morse boundary see [Cor].
7

2.2

Boundaries of hyperbolic spaces

Here we will quickly recall the construction of a sequential boundary with a visual metric for
a hyperbolic space, this can all be found in [BH99, Chapter III.H] or [GdlH90].
Definition 2.5. [BH99, Definition 1.20] Let X be a (not necessarily geodesic) metric space.
We say X is δ–hyperbolic if for all w, x, y, z we have
(x · y)w ≥ min {(x · z)w , (z · y)w } − δ.
Definition 2.6. Let X be a δ–hyperbolic metric space and let x, y, z ∈ X. The Gromov
product of x and y with respect to z is defined as
(x · y)z =

1
(d(z, x) + d(z, y) − d(x, y)) .
2

Let (xn ) be a sequence in X. We say (xi ) converges at infinity if (xi · xj )e → ∞ as i, j → ∞.
Two convergent sequences (xn ), (ym ) are said to be equivalent if (xi · yj ) → ∞ as i, j → ∞.
We denote the equivalence class of (xn ) by lim xn .
The sequential boundary of X, ∂s X is defined to be the set of convergent sequences
considered up to equivalence.
As all boundaries of hyperbolic spaces considered in this paper will be sequential, we drop
the subscript s from the notation. We may extend the Gromov product to ∂X in the following
way:


(x · y)e = sup lim inf {(xn · ym )e } .
m,n→∞

where the supremum is taken over all sequences (xi ) and (yj ) in X such that x = lim xi and
y = lim yj .
This Gromov product satisfies the following key properties:
Lemma 2.7. Let X be a δ–hyperbolic metric space and fix e ∈ X.
(1) (x · y)e = ∞ if and only if x = y ∈ ∂X.
(2) For all x, y ∈ ∂X ∪ X there exist sequences (xn ) and (yn ) in X such that x = lim xn ,
y = lim yn and (x · y)e = limn (xn · yn )e .
(3) For all x, y ∈ ∂X and all sequences (x′i ) and (yj′ ) in X with x = lim x′i and y = lim yj′ ,
(x · y)e − 2δ ≤ lim inf (x′i · yj′ )e ≤ (x · y)e .
i,j

(4) For all x, y, z ∈ ∂X ∪ X we have (x · z)e ≥ min{(x · y)e , (z · y)e } − 2δ.
Recall that a metric d on ∂X is said to be visual (with parameter ε > 0) if there exist
k1 , k2 > 0 such that k1 exp(−ε(x · y)e ) ≤ d(x, y) ≤ k2 exp(−ε(x · y)e ), for all x, y ∈ ∂X.
Let x, y ∈ ∂X. As a shorthand we define ρǫ (x, y) := exp (−ε(x · y)e ).
Theorem
2.8. [GdlH90, Section 7.3] Let X be a δ–hyperbolic space. If ε′ = exp(2δε) − 1 ≤
√
2 − 1 then we can construct a visual metric d on ∂X such that
(1 − 2ε′ )ρε (x, x′ ) ≤ d(x, x′ ) ≤ ρε (x, x′ ).
8

Visual metrics on a hyperbolic space are all quasi–symmetric.
Definition 2.9. A homeomorphism f : (X, d) → (Y, d′ ) is said to be quasi–symmetric if there
exists a homeomorphism η : R → R such that for all distinct x, y, z ∈ X,


d′ (f (x), f (y))
d(x, y)
.
≤η
d(x, z)
d′ (f (x), f (z))
One natural invariant of the boundary of a hyperbolic space is its capacity dimension,
introduced by Buyalo in [Buy05].
Let U be an open covering of a metric space X. Given x ∈ X, we let
L(U , x) = sup {d(x, X\U ) | U ∈ U }
be the Lebesgue number of U at x and L(U ) = inf x∈X L(U , x) the Lebesgue number of
U . The multiplicity of U , m(U ), is the maximal number of members of U with non-empty
intersection.
Definition 2.10 ([BS07]). The capacity dimension of a metric space X (cdim(X)) is the
minimal integer m with the following property:
There exists some δ ∈ (0, 1) such that for every sufficiently small r > 0 there is an open
covering U of X by sets of diameter at most r with L(U ) ≥ δr and m(U ) ≤ m + 1.
By Corollary 4.2 of [Buy05] the capacity dimension of a metric space is a quasi–symmetry
invariant.

3

Metric Morse boundary

The goal of this section is to prove Theorem A.
(N )
Let X be a geodesic metric space, let e ∈ X and let N be a Morse gauge. We define Xe
to be the set of all y ∈ X such that there exists a N –Morse geodesic [e, y] in X.
Theorem A.I is trivial.
(N )

Lemma 3.1. Let x ∈ X. There exists some N such that x ∈ Xe

.

Proof. Let d = d(e, x) and define N (K, C) = Kd + C. Any geodesic from e to x is N –Morse,
since any (K, C)-quasi–geodesic from e to x is contained in the closed ball of radius Kd + C
centred at e.
(N )

Theorem A.II follows immediately from the definition of the spaces Xe

3.1

.

Hyperbolicity and Stability (A.III and A.IV)

Our first goal is the following proposition.
(N )

Proposition 3.2. Xe

is 8N (3, 0)–hyperbolic in the sense of Definition 2.5.

We will prove this as a consequence of the next three lemmas, the latter two will also be
useful in the rest of the section.

9

Lemma 3.3. Let (X, d) be a geodesic metric space and let ℓ1 , ℓ2 be two geodesics in X with
ℓ1 (0) = ℓ2 (0) = e. Let xi ∈ ℓi , let P be a geodesic from x1 to x2 such that d(e, P ) is minimal
at some z ∈ P and let γ be any geodesic from z to e. Then the concatenations x1 →P z →γ e
and x2 →P z →γ e are (3, 0)-quasi–geodesics.
If ℓ1 , ℓ2 are N –Morse then d(z, ℓi ) is uniformly bounded by N (3, 0).
Proof. Let w ∈ γ with d(w, z) = s1 and w′ ∈ P (x1 → z) with d(w′ , z) = s2 . It suffices to
show that d(w, w′ ) ≥ 13 (s1 + s2 ).
Firstly, notice that d(w, w′ ) ≥ s1 , as z is a closest point to e on P . Secondly, d(w, w′ ) ≥
s2 − s1 by the triangle inequality.
Combining these we see that if 2s1 ≥ s2 then d(w, w′ ) ≥ s1 ≥ 31 (s1 + s2 ), and if 2s1 ≤ s2
then d(w, w′ ) ≥ s2 − s1 ≥ 13 (s1 + s2 ).
Lemma 3.4. Let ℓ1 , ℓ2 be two N –Morse geodesics with ℓ1 (0) = ℓ2 (0) = e. Suppose there
exists some t0 so that d(ℓ1 (t), ℓ2 (t)) > 4N (3, 0) for all t ≥ t0 . Fix t0 with this property such
that d(ℓ1 (t0 ), ℓ2 (t0 )) ≤ 6N (3, 0).
Let t1 , t2 ≥ t0 and define xi = ℓi (t0 ), yi = ℓi (ti ). Let P be the path obtained from following
ℓ1 from y1 to x1 , taking any geodesic ℓ to x2 then taking ℓ2 to y2 . The path P is a (1, 12N (3, 0))
quasi–geodesic. In particular, we have
d = d(y1 , y2 ) ≥ d(y1 , x1 ) + d(x1 , x2 ) + d(x2 , y2 ) − 12N (3, 0).
Proof. For brevity set N = N (3, 0). By Lemma 3.3 every geodesic from y1 to y2 is contained
in the N neighbourhood of ℓ1 ∪ ℓ2 . Fix such a geodesic γ : [0, d] → X with γ(0) = y1 ,
γ(d) = y2 . There exists a point z ∈ γ such that d(z, ℓ1 (s)), d(z, ℓ2 (s′ )) ≤ N . Hence
max d(ℓ1 (y), ℓ2 (y)) ≤ d(ℓ1 (s), ℓ2 (s′ )) + s − s′ ≤ 2d(ℓ1 (s), ℓ2 (s′ )) ≤ 4N,

y=s,s′

so s ≤ t0 . Similarly, s′ ≤ t0 .
If we choose r1 ∈ [0, d] maximal and r2 ∈ [0, d] minimal such that d(γ(ri ), ℓi ) ≤ N we
see that d(γ(ri ), e) ≤ t0 + N . By assumption γ([0, r2 ]) and γ([r1 , d]) are contained in the N
neighbourhoods of ℓ1 , ℓ2 respectively. Moreover, there exists some z1 ∈ γ([0, r2 ], z2 ∈ γ([r1 , d])
with d(zi , e) = t0 + N . Set xi = ℓi (t0 ). We claim that d(xi , zi ) < 3N . To verify this, let
vi be the closest point on ℓi to zi . Now d(vi , zi ) < N so d(e, vi ) ∈ (t0 , t0 + 2N ), thus
d(xi , zi ) ≤ d(xi , vi ) + d(vi , zi ) < 3N .
Hence, d(γ, ℓi (t0 )) ≤ 3N . We now verify that the path P is a (1, 12N )-quasi–geodesic.
Let a, b ∈ P . Firstly, suppose a ∈ ℓ1 [x1 , y1 ] and b ∈ ℓ2 [x2 , y2 ]. Then any geodesic γ ′ from a
to b contains points ui such that d(ui , ℓi (t0 )) ≤ 3N by the above argument. It follows that
|P [a, b]| = d(a, x1 ) + d(x1 , x2 ) + d(x2 , b) ≤ d(a, u1 ) + d(u1 , u2 ) + d(u2 , b) + 12N ≤ d(a, b) + 12N.
Secondly, suppose a ∈ ℓ1 [x1 , y1 ] and b ∈ ℓ. By the above, every geodesic from a to x2 contains
a point u1 with d(u1 , x1 ) ≤ 3N . Now
d(a, x1 ) + d(x1 , b) + d(b, x2 ) ≤ d(a, u1 ) + d(u1 , x2 ) + 6N ≤ d(a, b) + d(b, x2 ) ≤ d(a, b) + 12N.
Recall that a geodesic triangle γ1 ∪ γ2 ∪ γ3 is said to be slim if there is a constant D such
that each side of the triangle is contained in the union of the D–neighbourhoods of the other
two sides. In this case we say the triangle is D–slim.
10

Lemma 3.5. Let ℓ1 and ℓ2 be N –Morse geodesics such that ℓ1 (0) = ℓ(0) = e and let x1 =
ℓ1 (v1 ), x2 = ℓ2 (v2 ) be points on ℓ1 and ℓ2 respectively. Let γ : [0, s] → x be a geodesic between
x1 and x2 . Then the geodesic triangle ℓ1 ([0, v1 ]) ∪ γ ∪ ℓ2 ([0, v2 ]) is 4N (3, 0)-slim.
Proof. Choose γ(x) so that it is a nearest point on γ to e and let η be a geodesic connecting
γ(x) and e. By Lemma 3.3, the concatenation φ1 = γ([0, x]) ∪ η and φ2 = η̄ ∪ γ([x, s]) are
(3, 0)-quasi–geodesics, where η̄ is the geodesic η with its orientation reversed.
Using Lemma 2.1 from [Cor], we know that the Hausdorff distance between φi and ℓi
is less than 2N (3, 0) for i = 1, 2. Thus for every t ∈ [0, v1 ] either d(ℓ1 (t), γ) < 4N (3, 0)
or d(ℓ1 (t), ℓ2 ([0, v2 ])) < 4N (3, 0). So ℓ1 ⊂ N4N (3,0) (ℓ2 ∪ γ). The final containment follows
identically.
(N )

Proof of Proposition 3.2. Since each geodesic triangle with vertices e, x, y ∈ Xe is 4N (3, 0)–
(N )
slim, [BH99, III.H.1.22] states that for all x, y, z ∈ Xe , (x · y)e ≥ min {(x · z)e , (z · y)e } −
(N )
4N (3, 0). Then by [Gro87, 1.1B], Xe
is 8N (3, 0)–hyperbolic in the sense of Definition
2.5.
Stability follows by applying the argument in [Cor, Lemma 2.3].
Lemma 3.6. Let X be a geodesic metric space with basepoint e. For every N there exists
(N )
some N ′ such that given any a, b ∈ Xe , there is an N ′ –Morse geodesic from a to b.
The definition of stability given in the introduction is not exactly the one stated in
Durham–Taylor. We now recall their definition and compare the two statements.
Definition 3.7 (Stability [DT15]). Let f : Y → X be a quasi–isometric embedding between
geodesic metric spaces. We say Y is stable in X if, for all K, C ≥ 0 there exists an R =
R(K, C) ≥ 0 so that if γ : [a, b] → X and γ ′ : [a′ , b′ ] → X are (K, C)-quasi–geodesics with
γ(a) = γ ′ (a′ ) ∈ f (Y ) and γ(b) = γ ′ (b′ ) ∈ f (Y ), then the Hausdorff distance between γ and
γ ′ is less than R.
To obtain an equivalent statement to the definition of stability we are using we must relax
the condition that Y is a geodesic metric space and instead assume only that it is quasi–
geodesic: there exist K ≥ 1, C ≥ 0 such that every pair of points in Y can be connected by
a (K, C)-quasi–geodesic.
Lemma 3.8. A quasi-geodesic space Y is stable in a geodesic space X in the sense of Durham–
Taylor if and only if f (Y ) is N –stable as a subspace of X for some Morse gauge N .
Proof. Let Y be a Durham–Taylor stable in X. Let a, b ∈ f (Y ) and let γ be a geodesic
between a and b. By definition of Durham–Taylor stable, we know that γ is R–Morse. Also,
since Y is quasi–isometrically embedded we know that there exists a (K ′ , C ′ )-quasi–geodesic
between a and b in X whose image lies in Y ⊂ X, where K ′ , C ′ are independent of the choice
of a, b. Therefore we can also conclude that Y is R-quasi–convex. Thus f (Y ) is R–stable as
a subspace of X.
Now assume that Y is N –stable in X and define f : Y → X to be the natural injection.
By definition, f is an isometric embedding and, since it is quasi–convex and X is geodesic,
Y is quasi–geodesic. To see this, let y, y ′ ∈ Y and let γ be a geodesic connecting them in
X. For each suitable i ∈ N set xi to be the point on γ satisfying dX (y, xi ) = i. Since Y is
11

quasi–convex, there exists a constant B and points yi ∈ Y such that dX (xi , yi ) ≤ B. The
points y = y0 , y1 , y2 , . . . , yn , y ′ define a (K, C)-quasi–geodesic (where K and C depend only
on B) from y to y ′ in Y .
Let a, b ∈ Y . Then by definition of N –stable we know that we can join a and b by a
N –Morse geodesic γ in X. Any two (K, C)-quasi–geodesics σ1 , σ2 with endpoints a and b
will be in the N (K, C)–neighbourhood of γ. Thus the σi will be within Hausdorff distance
2N (K, C) of γ and therefore in the 4N (K, C)–neighbourhood of each other. Hence, Y is
Durham–Taylor stable.
Since f (Y ) is quasi–isometric to Y , the two definitions of stability yield the same collection
of stable subspaces up to quasi–isometry.

3.2

Universality (A.V)
(N )

Let Y ⊂ X be N –stable and let y ∈ Y . By construction Y ⊆ Xy so universality follows
from the next lemma which we express in a far more general context as it will be useful later.
(N ′ )

(N )

Lemma 3.9. Let x ∈ Xe and let q : X → Y be a (K, C)-quasi–isometry. Then q(x) ∈ Yq(e)
for some N ′ depending only on N, K and C.

Proof. Let ℓ be a N –Morse geodesic joining e and x. We know by Lemma 2.5 [CS15] that q(ℓ)
is bounded Hausdorff distance from an N ′ –Morse geodesic α : [0, d] → Y with α(0) = q(e)
and α(d) = q(x).
Here a quasi–isometry is essential. Every space X quasi–isometrically embeds into X × R2
but the latter has no Morse geodesic rays.

3.3

Boundaries of stable subsets
(N )

(N )

Now applying the results in Section 2.2 we obtain a sequential boundary ∂Xe for each Xe
equipped with a visual metric d(N ) (chosen up to quasi–symmetry) with visibility parameter
(N )

ε(N ) . Given N ′ ≥ N the natural inclusion of Xe
(N )
∂Xe

(N ′ )

into Xe

defines an injective map

(N ′ )
∂Xe .

֒→
(N )
Notice that the Gromov product of x, y ∈ ∂Xe depends on N . For this reason we make
the following definition.
(N )

Definition 3.10. Let x, y ∈ ∂Xe . We define the N –Gromov product of x and y, (x ·N y)e
(N )
to be the supremum of lim inf m,n→∞ {(xn · ym )e } over all pairs of sequences (xn ), (ym ) ⊆ Xe
with lim xn = x and lim ym = y.
These Gromov products differ by at most an additive error.
(N )

Lemma 3.11. Let x, y ∈ ∂Xe

and suppose N ≤ N ′ . Then

(x ·N y)e ≤ (x ·N ′ y)e ≤ (x ·N y)e + 32N ′ (3, 0).
Proof. Note that the convergence of a sequence does not depend on N , so the first inequality
(N )
(N ′ )
follows because convergent sequences in Xe are contained, and converge, in Xe .

12

By Lemma 2.7(2) we know that there exist sequences (xn ), (yn ) such that x = limn xn
and y = limn yn and (x ·N y)e = limn (xn · yn )e .
(N ′ )
Since N ≤ N ′ we note that (xn ) and (yn ) are in Xe
and by Lemma 2.7(3) we know
(x ·N ′ y)e − 32N ′ (3, 0) ≤ lim inf(xn · yn ) = (x ·N y)e ,
where the final equality follows from our choice of (xn ) and (yn ).
From this we can deduce Theorem A.VI.
Proposition 3.12. Let X be a geodesic metric space and let N, N ′ be Morse gauges such
that N ≤ N ′ .
(N )
(N ′ )
(N )
(N ′ )
The injection ι : ∂Xe
→ ∂Xe
induced by the inclusion Xe
⊆ Xe
is quasi–
symmetric onto its image.
Proof. Firstly it is clear from Lemma 3.4 that ι is injective. The bounds on the metric in
Theorem 2.8 prove that it is a homeomorphism onto its image.
(N )
Fix N, N ′ , and choose ε, ε′ using Theorem 2.8 such that we obtain metrics dε on ∂Xe
′
(N )
and dε′ on ∂Xe .
For the comparison it is sufficient to use ρε and ρε′ via the inequality proved in Theorem
2.8.
Fix x, y, z distinct. Now
ρε′ (ι(x), ι(y))
= exp(−ε′ ((x ·N ′ y)e − (x ·N ′ z)e )),
ρε′ (ι(x), ι(z))
while ρε (x, y)/ρε (x, z) = exp(−ε((x ·N y)e − (x ·N z)e )). By Lemma 3.11 we know
′

exp(−ε′ ((x ·N ′ y)e − (x ·N ′ z)e )) ≤ exp(−ε((x ·N y)e − (x ·N z)e ))ε /ε · exp(32N ′ (3, 0)ε′ ).
′

Setting η(r) = r ε /ε · exp(−32N ′ (3, 0)ε′ ) we see that this injection is quasi–symmetric.
One immediate consequence of this is that our boundaries generalise hyperbolic boundaries
(Theorem A.VII).
Theorem 3.13. Let X be a hyperbolic geodesic metric space and let ∂∞ (X) be the usual
Gromov boundary of X equipped with a visual metric. For all Morse gauges N , there is a
(N )
map ∂Xe → ∂∞ (X) which is a quasi–symmetry onto its image. As geodesics in a hyperbolic
space are uniformly Morse, for any sufficiently large N , this map is a quasi–symmetry.
Proof. It follows immediately from Lemma 3.5 that a geodesic metric space X is hyperbolic
if and only if there exists some e ∈ X and a constant C such that every (3, 0)-quasi–geodesic
from e to any x ∈ X is contained in the C-neighbourhood of some geodesic from e to x.
In particular, if N (3, 0) ≥ C then the Gromov product and the N –Gromov product
N (X) → ∂ (X) is a quasi–symmetry. The general case then follows
coincide, so the map ∂M
∞
from Proposition 3.12.
(N )

N X is equal as a set to ∂X
If X is proper then ∂M
and the topology defined by the
e
e
metric is exactly the convergence topology on the Morse boundary presented in [Cor]. Note
that in [Cor] the Morse boundary is only defined for proper geodesic spaces.

13

Theorem 3.14. If X is a proper geodesic metric space then there is a homeomorphism
(N )
NX .
between ∂Xe and ∂M
e
Proof. Firstly we define a bijection.
For every geodesic ray ℓ : R≥0 → X with ℓ(0) = e we can associate a sequence (ℓ(n))n∈N .
It is clear that (ℓ(i) · ℓ(j)) → ∞ as i, j → ∞ and if we have two equivalent rays ℓ1 and ℓ2 then
(ℓ1 (i) · ℓ2 (j))e → ∞ as i, j → ∞.
Let (xi ) be a sequence which converges at infinity. For every i let αi be an N –Morse
geodesic from e to xi . Since X is proper we know that there exists a subsequence (αk(i) ) of
(αi ) which converges uniformly to a geodesic ray ℓ with basepoint e. By [Cor, Lemma 2.8] ℓ
is N –Morse. Now assume (xi ) and (yj ) are equivalent sequences converging at infinity and let
(αk ) and (βl ) be the subsequences of geodesics that converge to the N –Morse geodesic rays
ℓ1 and ℓ2 respectively.
Since (αk ) and (βl ) converge uniformly on compact sets, we know that given an ǫ > 0
and s ∈ [0, ∞) there exists a K ∈ N such that the Hausdorff distances between ℓ1 ([0, s] and
αk ([0, s]) and between ℓ2 ([0, s] and αl ([0, s]) are less than ǫ for all k, l ≥ K. We can choose
(N )
a K which also satisfies s < (xK ·N yK )e = D. Since Xe is 4N (3, 0)–hyperbolic we know
that the Hausdorff distance between the geodesic segments αk ([e, D]) and βl ([e, D]) is less
than 28N (3, 0) [DK, Lemma 9.51]. Thus we deduce that for any s ∈ [0, ∞), the Hausdorff
distance between ℓ1 ([0, s]) and ℓ2 ([0, s]) is less than 28N (3, 0) + 2ǫ. Letting ǫ → 0 we see that
the Hausdorff distance between ℓ1 and ℓ2 is at most 28N (3, 0), so ℓ1 and ℓ2 are equivalent.
To see that this bijection is a homeomorphism it suffices to show that, given a sequence
N X, then ℓ → ℓ in the sense of the topology on the Morse boundary defined in
(ℓn ) in ∂M
n
[Cor] if and only if (ℓn ·N ℓ)e → ∞ as n → ∞.
The proof of this follows from [BH99, III.H.3.17] using Lemma 2.7 for the estimates.
From this we immediately deduce A.VIII.

3.4

Invariance of the metric Morse boundary

It only remains to prove Theorem A.IX. Our method will allow us to prove the stronger result
stated in the introduction as Theorem A.IX’, which we prove at the end of the section.
Given a geodesic metric space X and a basepoint e we have associated a collection of
(N )
(quasi–symmetry classes of) metric spaces (∂Xe , d(N ) )N indexed by Morse gauges N . We
call this collection of spaces the metric Morse boundary of X based at e.
We now place an equivalence relation on collections of metric spaces (Z (N ) , d(N ) )N indexed
by Morse gauges.
We say (Z (N ) , d(N ) )N is subsumed by (W (N ) , d′(N ) )N if, for every N there exists some
′

N ′ and an injection ι : Z (N ) → W (N ) which is quasi–symmetric onto its image.
Two collections are equivalent if they subsume each other.
Proposition 3.15. Let X be a geodesic metric space and let e, f ∈ X. For every Morse
(N )
(N ′ )
gauge N there exists a Morse gauge N ′ such that there is an injection ι : ∂Xe → ∂Xf
which is quasi–symmetric onto its image. In particular, change of basepoint is an equivalence
of metric Morse boundaries.
(N )

Proof. By universality (see Lemma 3.9) for every N , Xe
(N ′ )

which depends only on N and d(e, f ). Likewise, Xf
14

(N ′ )

is a subset of Xf
(N ′′ )

⊆ Xe

for some N ′

for some N ′′ , so by Lemma

(N )

3.11 there exists some constant D such that for all x, y ∈ ∂Xe

,

(x ·N ′ y)f − D ≤ (x ·N y)e ≤ (x ·N ′ y)f + D.
(N )

(N ′ )

The fact that the map ι : ∂Xe → ∂Xf
is quasi–symmetric onto its image now follows
immediately from the proof of Proposition 3.12.
The rest of the section is devoted to the most important theorem. Our goal is to show
that a quasi–isometry of geodesic spaces q : X → Y defines a collection of quasi–symmetries
′
(cf. Definition 2.9) ∂ (N ) q : ∂X (N ) → ∂Y (N ) .
Theorem 3.16. Let q : X → Y be a (K, C) quasi–isometry between geodesic metric spaces
(N )
and let N be a Morse gauge. There is some N ′ (K, C, N ) such that the injection ∂qN : ∂Xe →
(N ′ )
∂Yq(e) is a quasi–symmetry onto its image. In particular, a quasi–isometry of spaces defines
an equivalence of metric Morse boundaries.
The starting point is to adapt the following proposition to our setting.
Proposition 3.17. [GdlH90, Proposition 5.15(2)] Given K ≥ 1, C, δ ≥ 0, there is a constant
A = A(K, C, δ) such that the following holds.
Let X, Y be two geodesic δ–hyperbolic metric spaces and let q : X → Y be a (K, C)-quasi–
isometric embedding. If w, x, y, z ∈ X, then
K −1 |(x · y)w − (x · z)w | − A ≤ (q(x) · q(y))q(w) − (q(x) · q(z))q(w)
≤ K |(x · y)w − (x · z)w | + A.
The original statement includes the hypothesis that q is coarsely onto but this is not used
in the proof.
(N )

We would like to apply this to the restriction of q to each Xe . Lemma 3.9 allows us to
(N ′ )
restrict the image of the quasi–isometry to a stable subset Yq(e) .
(N )

This still leaves one obstruction. The spaces Xe

(N ′ )

, Yq(e) are not geodesic. It easily follows

(N )

from Lemma 3.4 that every pair of points in Xe can be connected by a (1, 12N (3, 0))-quasi–
(N )
geodesic q ⊂ Xe .
However, the proof of 3.17 only relies on the fact that geodesic triangles in X with vertices
(N )
w, x, y ∈ Xe are uniformly slim, but this follows directly from Lemma 3.5 in the case where
w = e. Hence we have
Proposition 3.18. Given a Morse gauge N and constants K ≥ 1, C, δ ≥ 0, there is a
constant A = A(N, K, C, δ) such that the following holds.
Let X, Y be two geodesic metric spaces and let q : X → Y be a (K, C)-quasi–isometry. Let
(N )
(N ′ )
x, y, z ∈ Xe , then there exists some Morse gauge N ′ such that q(x), q(y), q(z) ∈ Yq(e) and
K −1 |(x · y)e − (x · z)e | − A ≤ (q(x) · q(y))q(e) − (q(x) · q(z))q(e)
≤ K |(x · y)e − (x · z)e | + A.

(N )

In particular, there exists some A′ such that for any x, y, z ∈ ∂Xe

we have

K −1 |(x ·N y)e − (x ·N z)e | − A′ ≤ (q(x) ·N ′ q(y))q(e) − (q(x) ·N ′ q(z))q(e)
≤ K |(x ·N y)e − (x ·N z)e | + A′ .
15

Proof. The first pair of inequalities follow from 3.17 and the discussion above. For the final
(N )
part choose sequences (xn ), (yn ), (zn ) ⊂ Xe
such that lim(xn ) = x, lim(yn ) = y, and
lim(zn ) = z. Using the first part we see that
K −1 |(xn · yn )e − (xn · zn )e | − A ≤ (q(xn ) · q(yn ))q(e) − (q(xn ) · q(zn ))q(e)
≤ K |(xn · yn )e − (xn · zn )e | + A.

Next, observe that by Lemma 2.7(3)

lim inf (xn · ym )e ∈ [(x · y)e − 2δ, (x · y)e ] and
n,m

lim inf (xn · zm )e ∈ [(x · z)e − 2δ, (x · z)e ],
n,m

(N ′ )

so the above bounds pass to the limit inferior, with A replaced by A + 4Kδ. Since Yq(e) is
8N ′ (3, 0)–hyperbolic,
(q(x) ·N ′ q(y))q(e) − (q(x) ·N ′ q(z))q(e) − 16N ′ (3, 0)
≤ lim inf (q(xn ) · q(yn ))q(e) − (q(xn ) · q(zn ))q(e) ≤ (q(x) ·N ′ q(y))q(e) − (q(x) ·N ′ q(z))q(e) .
This completes the proof.
(N )

Remark 3.19. By Lemma 3.4 the spaces Xe are (1, 12N (3, 0))-quasi–geodesic, so Proposition 3.18 also follows from [BS00, Proposition 5.5].
(N )

Proof of Theorem 3.16. We will work with appropriate pseudo–metrics ρε on ∂Xe
(N ′ )
on ∂Yq(e) .
(N )

Fix x, y, z ∈ ∂Xe

and ρε′

distinct. Recall that ρε (x, y) = exp(−ε (x ·N y)e ), so
ρε (x, y)
= exp(−ε((x ·N y)e − (x ·N z)e )).
ρε (x, z)

In the first case we assume (x ·N y)e − (x ·N z)e ≥ 0. Now applying Proposition 3.18 we see
that


ρε (x, y)
≤ exp −ε(K −1 ((q(x) ·N ′ q(y))q(e) − (q(x) ·N ′ q(z))q(e) ) − A′ )
ρε (x, z)
K −1 ε/ε′

.
≤ exp(A′ ε) exp −ε′ ((q(x) ·N ′ q(y))q(e) − (q(x) ·N ′ q(z))q(e) )

Hence ∂ (N ) q is a quasi–symmetry onto its image.
If, however, (x ·N y)e − (x ·N z)e < 0 then we use the other bound in Proposition 3.18 and
conclude similarly.
Remark 3.20. The only time that a quasi–isometry is required in the the proof of Theorem
3.16 is in Lemma 3.9. The proof of Theorem 3.16 follows if for each Morse gauge N there exist
(N )
(N )
(N ′ )
Morse gauges N ′ , N ′′ and quasi–isometric embeddings f (N ) : Xe → Yf (e) and g(N ) : Yp →
(N ′′ )

Xg(p) .
Proof of Theorem A.IX′ . One implication follows from the remark above.
The other implication is an immediate consequence of [BS00, Theorems 7.4 and 8.2]. In
the paper, they assume that the quasi–symmetry is onto, but this is only used in the proof
to show that the quasi–isometric embedding they construct is coarsely onto.
16

4

Stable and Morse capacity dimensions

We assign two notions of dimension to a geodesic metric space.
The first controls the behaviour of stable subsets, the second controls terms in the metric
Morse boundary. We first recall the definition of asymptotic dimension.
Definition 4.1. A metric space X has asymptotic dimension at most n (asdim(X) ≤ n),
if for every R > 0 there exists a cover of X by uniformly bounded sets such that every metric
R–ball in X intersects at most n + 1 elements of the cover. We say X has asymptotic
dimension n if asdim(X) ≤ n but asdim(X)  n − 1.
Definition 4.2. Let X be a geodesic metric space. The stable asymptotic dimension of
X (asdims (X)) is the supremum of the asymptotic dimensions of all stable subsets of X.
By universality (Theorem A.IV) this is equal to the supremum of the asymptotic dimen(N )
sions of the sets Xe .
Definition 4.3. Let X be a geodesic metric space. The Morse boundary capacity dimension of X (cdim∂M (X)) is defined to be the supremum of the capacity dimensions of the
(N )
spaces ∂Xe considered with their visual metrics.
The following four results follow immediately from work in the previous section.
(N )

Proposition 4.4. Let X be a geodesic metric space. If N ≤ N ′ then cdim(∂Xe
(N ′ )
cdim(∂Xe ).
(N )

) ≤

(N ′ )

Proof. By Proposition 3.12 there is a map ι(N, N ′ ) : ∂Xe
→ ∂Xe
which is a quasi–
symmetry onto its image.
(N ′ )
Any quasi–symmetry of ∂Xe
induces a quasi–symmetry on the image of ι(N, N ′ ), so
′
(N )
(N )
cdim(∂Xe ) ≥ cdim(imι) = cdim(∂Xe ).
Theorem 4.5. The Morse boundary capacity dimension is basepoint independent.
Theorem 4.6. The stable dimension and Morse boundary capacity dimension are quasi–
isometry invariants of geodesic metric spaces.
Theorem 4.7. Let X be a hyperbolic geodesic metric space. Then asdims (X) is equal to the
asymptotic dimension of X and cdim∂M (X) is equal to the capacity dimension of the Gromov
boundary of X.
Theorem 4.8. Let X be a geodesic metric space. Then cdim∂M (X) is equal to the supremum
of the capacity dimensions of the sequential boundaries of all stable subsets Y of X.
(N )

Proof. One inequality is clear as each Xe is stable by Lemma 3.5.
(N )
Let Y ⊆ X be stable and let y ∈ Y . By assumption Y ⊆ Xy and by Lemma 2.7(3)
(N )
the Gromov product of two points x, y ∈ ∂Y in Y differs from that in Xy by a uniform
(N )
constant. Applying the proof of Proposition 3.12 ∂Y quasi–symmetrically embeds in ∂Xy .
(N )
Therefore cdim(∂Y ) ≤ cdim(∂Xy ) ≤ cdim∂M (X).

17

Remark 4.9. Since the conformal dimension (introduced by Pansu in [Pan89]) is also a quasi–
symmetry invariant, one could also define a conformal dimension of the Morse boundary in
the same manner and derive the properties listed above.
We now look at methods of controlling the stable asymptotic dimension and the Morse
boundary capacity dimension. The first bound is an immediate application of [MS13, Proposition 3.6].
Proposition 4.10. Let X be a geodesic metric space. Then cdim∂M (X) ≤ asdims (X).
Proposition 4.11. Let X be a geodesic metric space. Then cdim∂M (X) + 1 ≥ asdims (X).
(N )

Proof. Each ∂Xe
(N )
asdim(Xe ).

(N )

is visual by construction, so by [Buy05, Theorem 1.1], cdim(∂Xe

)+1 ≥

Corollary C follows immediately from the above two propositions.

5

Right–angled Artin groups

The goal of this section is to prove Theorem E.
Let Γ be a finite, simplicial graph with vertex set V . The right–angled Artin group
associated to Γ is the group AΓ with presentation
oE
D n
.
AΓ = V vi vj vi−1 vj−1 | vi , vj ∈ V are connected by an edge in Γ
One useful cube complex associated to a right–angled Artin group AΓ is the Salvetti
complex SΓ . To form the Salvetti complex, start with a wedge of |V | = n oriented circles
and label the edges with the verticies. Call the basepoint x0 . For each edge in Γ, take a
square and glue the edges of the square along the commutation relation of the two generators
corresponding to the endpoints of the edge, i.e., glue in a 2–torus. For each triangle in Γ,
attach a 3–torus with faces that correspond to the tori of the three edges. We continue
by attaching a k–torus for each set of k mutually commuting generators in the same way.
(Equivalently, we glue in a k–torus for each complete graph with k vertices in Γ.) It is easy
to verify that SΓ has fundamental group AΓ and the link of x0 is flag. Thus, the universal
cover, S̃Γ , is a CAT(0) cube complex.
A hyperplane or wall in a CAT(0) cube complex is an equivalence class of midplanes of
cubes where the equivalence relation is generated by the rule that two midplanes are related
if they share a face. We say two hyperplanes H1 , H2 in a CAT(0) cube complex are strongly
separated if H1 ∩ H2 = ∅ and no hyperplane intersects both H1 and H2 .
If Γ1 and Γ2 are two graphs, their join is the graph obtained by connecting every vertex
of Γ1 to every vertex of Γ2 by an edge. A join subgroup of a right–angled Artin group AΓ
is subgroup induced by a join subgraph of Γ.
Another useful tool we will use is the contact graph, CG, which was defined by Hagen
in [Hag14]. The vertices of the contact graph are the set W of hyperplanes of a CAT(0)
cube complex. We connect two hyperplanes if they have the contact relation: distinct
hyperplanes H1 , H2 ∈ W contact if they have dual 1-cubes c1 , c2 that have a common 0-cube
or if H1 and H2 cross. In the same paper, Hagen proves that CG is quasi–isometric to an
R-tree.
18

(1)

Consider the 1–skeleton of S̃Γ , S̃Γ , with the path metric d(1) . If we choose a vertex e
(1)

(1)

in S̃Γ as a basepoint, then S̃Γ is a Cayley graph of AΓ where the vertices are labeled by
elements of AΓ and edges by elements in the standard generating set of AΓ (i.e., the vertices
of Γ). For a generator v, let ev denote the edge from the basepoint e to the vertex v. Any edge
in S̃Γ determines a unique wall that is dual to that edge (the wall containing the midpoint of
the edge). We denote the wall dual to ev by Hv .
For a cube in S̃Γ , all of the parallel edges are labelled by the same generator v. Thus it
follows that all of the edges crossing a wall H have the same label v, we call this a wall of
type v. Since AΓ acts transitively on edges labeled v, a wall is of type v if and only if it is a
translate of the standard wall Hv .
Theorem 5.1. Let AΓ be a right–angled Artin group. If Γ is a single vertex then AΓ is
stably equivalent to a line, if Γ is a complete graph with at least 2 vertices then AΓ is stably
equivalent to a point. In all other cases AΓ is stably equivalent to a regular 3-valent tree.
As a result, asdims (AΓ ) ≤ 1, with equality unless AΓ is abelian of rank at least 2.
If AΓ is free or abelian, then we are done. Assume AΓ is not free and not abelian.
We will use the d(1) metric instead of the CAT(0) metric, i.e., all paths will be edge paths
(1)

in S̃Γ . Since the CAT(0) metric is bounded above and below by linear functions of the d(1)
metric, depending only on the number of generators in AΓ , the result will follow.
(N )
Let x ∈ S̃Γ . By definition that means there exits an N –Morse geodesic ℓ : [a, b] →
(1)
S̃Γ such that ℓ(a) = e and ℓ(b) = x. Associated to ℓ is a sequence {H1 , H2 , . . . , Hm } of
(N )
hyperplanes dual to each edge in ℓ. We define a map q : S̃Γ → CG by q(x) = Hm . This
map is well defined up to one edge in CG, so we are left to show that this a quasi–isometric
embedding.
We first show that if ℓ : [a, b] → S̃Γ is an N –Morse geodesic, then ℓ quasi–isometrically
embeds into CG. Let x, y ∈ ℓ. From the definition of the contact graph we see that
dCG (q(x), q(y)) ≤ d(x, y).
To prove an inequality in the other direction we appeal to the following claim about Morse
geodesics in S̃Γ : Let ℓ be an N –Morse geodesic segment. Then there exists a r ≥ 0 (depending
only on N ) such that ℓ crosses a sequence of strongly separated hyperplanes {Fi }si=1 such that
d(Fi ∩ ℓ, Fi+1 ∩ ℓ) < r for all i. We note this claim is a stronger version of the more general
claim in Theorem 4.2 in [CS15].
Proof of claim: Fix a minimal word for ℓ and let H be the sequence of walls crossed by
the corresponding edge path. We build a subsequence, F ⊂ H, inductively starting with
the hyperplane dual to the first edge of ℓ, F1 = Hv1 , and given Fk = gi Hvi+1 , we choose
Fk+1 = gj Hvj+1 to be the next wall in H strongly separated from Fk . Following the proof
of Lemma 3.3 in [BC12] we see that gi −1 gj lies in the product of three join subgroups. By
construction, consecutive hyperplanes in F are strongly separated. By Theorem 2.5 of [BC12]
we know that F is in fact a sequence of pairwise strongly separated hyperplanes. We also
know that since ℓ is N –Morse that the distance ℓ spends in a join subgroup is bounded above
by a constant r ′ > 0 depending only N (because join subgroups create geodesically convex
product spaces in S̃Γ ). We set r = 3r ′ and the claim follows.
With the claim proved we now prove the other inequality. Let x, y ∈ ℓ and let {Fi }ki=1
< k. Next observe
be the hyperplanes in F between x and y. We first observe that d(x,y)−2r
r
that no two non-consecutive hyperplanes in {Fi } can have the contact relation, and if two
19

non-consecutive hyperplanes Fi , Fj share a contact relation with a third hyperplane H then
Ft crosses H for i < t < j. But, if j > i + 1 it would violate the fact that the sequence {Fi }si=1
are strongly separating hyperplanes. Thus dCG (q(x), q(y)) ≥ k2 . We put the two inequalities
1
· d(x, y) − 1 ≤ dCG (q(x), q(y)).
together to get 2r
(N )

We know by Lemma 3.5 that given two points x, y ∈ S̃Γ , any geodesic ℓ′ from x to y is
′
N –Morse where N ′ depends only on N . Thus we can follow the same argument as above and
deduce that 2r1 ′ · d(x, y) − 1 ≤ dCG (q(x), q(y)) ≤ d(x, y) for some r ′ depending on N ′ . Setting
(N )

K = 2 max{r, r ′ } we conclude that q : S̃Γ → CG is a (K, 1)-quasi–isometric embedding.
(N )
It follows that the image of S̃Γ under q is quasi–convex and the number of points
contained in the intersection of this image with a ball of radius R is bounded from above by
(N )
a function which is at most exponential in R. It follows that the convex hull of S̃Γ is quasi–
(N )
isometric to a proper simplicial tree. Thus S̃Γ is quasi–isometric to the same simplicial
tree.
Corollary 5.2. Let AΓ be a non-abelian right–angled Artin group. For each Morse gauge N ,
(N )
the boundary ∂(AΓ )e is quasi–symmetric to a Cantor set and possibly a finite number of
isolated points. Consequently, cdim∂M (A(Γ)) = 0.
(N )

Proof. By the preceding theorem, we know AΓ is quasi–isometric to a proper tree and thus
(N )
∂(AΓ )e must be a Cantor space, C, possibly with a finite number of isolated points {xi }ni=1
added. Let r ′ = minxi {inf y∈C {d(xi , y)}}. This number will be positive, since there are only
finitely many xi . Since Cantor spaces are locally self similar, their capacity dimension is equal
to their topological dimension (which is 0) [BL07]. So, we know there exists some δ ∈ (0, 1)
such that for every sufficiently small r > 0 there is an open cover U of C of sets with diameter
less than r with m(U ) = 0 and L(U ) ≥ δr. Without loss we may assume r < r ′ , so we may
cover the xi by balls of radius r/2 and add those balls to U . By definition of r ′ we know our
(N )
new cover has multiplicity 0, so cdim∂M (AΓ ) = 0. The result follows.
Corollary 5.3. Any stable subgroup of a right–angled Artin group is virtually free.
(N )

Proof. Since each AΓ is quasi–isometric to a proper tree, we know by universality of stable
subsets (Theorem A.V) that any stable subgroup of a right–angled Artin group is quasi–
isometric to a proper tree. Groups which are quasi–isometric to proper trees are virtually
free [GdlH90, Corollary 7.19].
Proposition 5.4. Let q : S̃Γ → CG be the map defined in Theorem 5.1. Suppose Y is a
quasi–convex subset of S̃Γ and q|Y is a (K, C)-quasi–isometric embedding. Then Y is N –
stable where N depends on K, C.
Proof. Let Y be a quasi–convex subset of S̃Γ and q|Y is a (K, C)-quasi–isometric embedding.
Since Y is quasi-convex, at the cost of increasing C, we can assume that all geodesics in
S̃Γ between points in x, y ∈ Y are also also (K, C)-quasi–isometrically embedded in CG. Let
x, y ∈ Y and let H be the sequence of hyperplanes associated to the geodesic segment [x, y] by
q. We know that if a, b ∈ Y and d(a, b) = K(C +3) then dCG (q(a), q(b)) ≥ 3. Two hyperplanes
which are at least distance 3 in the contact graph strongly separated. Thus we can choose a
subsequence of F ⊂ H such that consecutive hyperplanes Fi , Fi+1 ∈ F are strongly separated
and d(Fi ∩ [x, y], Fi+1 ∩ [x, y]) < K(C + 3) + 1. By Theorem 4.2 in [CS15] [x, y] is N –Morse
where N depends only on K(C + 3) + 1. Thus Y is stable.
20

With this proposition we have a classification of quasi–convex subspaces of the universal
cover of the Salvetti complex, S̃Γ .
Corollary 5.5. A quasi–convex subspace Y of S̃Γ is stable if and only if q|Y is a quasi–
isometric embedding.

6

Teichmüller Space and Mapping Class Groups

The goal of this section is to prove Theorem D.
Let Σ be a surface of finite type of genus g ≥ 0 and p ≥ 0 punctures such that 3g−3+p ≥ 1.
The curve graph, C(Σ), is a graph whose vertices are isotopy classes of essential simple closed
curves on S and two curves are joined by an edge if they can be realized disjointly on S. A
celebrated theorem of Masur and Minsky shows that C(Σ) is a δ–hyperbolic space [MM99].
A complete clean marking on Σ is a set µ = {(α1 , β1 ), . . . , (αm , βm )} where {α1 , . . . , αm }
is a pants decomposition of Σ (i.e., a simplex in C(Σ)), and each βi is (an isotopy class of)
a simple closed curve disjoint from αj for i 6= j and intersects αi once (twice) if the surface
filled by αi and βi is a once-punctured torus (four-times-punctured sphere). We call {αi }
the base of µ and for every i, βi is called the transverse curve to αi in µ. The marking
graph, M(Σ), is a graph whose vertices are (complete clean) markings and two markings
µ1 , µ2 ∈ V(M(Σ)) are joined by an edge if they differ by an elementary move. There is a
coarsely well defined map projS : M(Σ) → C(Σ), which is defined by mapping the base of
a marking µ to the (1-skeleton of the) simplex it defines in C(Σ). For more information see
[MM00].
Theorem 6.1. Let S be a surface of finite type. Then Mod(Σ) and T (Σ) are stably equivalent.
In particular, asdims (Mod(Σ)) = asdims (T (Σ)).
Proof. First note that by a theorem of Masur and Minsky [MM00] Mod(Σ) is quasi–isometric
to M(Σ) and therefore they are stably equivalent, so we will use M(Σ) for the remainder of
the proof. Recall that by Lemma 3.6, any geodesic between points in M(Σ)(N ) is N ′ –Morse
where N ′ depends only on N . By Lemma 4.9 in [Cor] we know that M(Σ)(N ) is quasi–
′′
isometrically embedded in T (Σ)(N ) where N ′′ and the quasi–isometry constants depend
only on N . Using the same logic and Lemma 4.10 in [Cor], we conclude that T (Σ)(N ) quasi–
′′′
isometrically embeds into M(Σ)(N ) for some N ′′′ . We now invoke Remark 3.20 to finish the
proof.
Theorem 6.2. Let Σ be a surface of finite type of genus g with p punctures. Then
cdim∂M (Mod(Σ)) = cdim∂M (T (Σ)) ≤ 4g + p − 4 if p > 0
≤ 4g − 5 if p = 0.

Proof. Again we will use M(Σ) instead of Mod(Σ). Recall that by Lemma 3.5 that any
geodesic between points in M(Σ)(N ) is N ′ –Morse where N ′ depends on N . As above, Lemma
4.9 in [Cor] gives us M(Σ)(N ) is quasi–isometrically embedded in C(Σ). Thus by Theorem
3.16 we conclude that cdim(∂M(Σ)(N ) ) ≤ cdim(∂C(Σ)). Since this is true for all Morse
gauges N , we conclude that cdim∂M (M(Σ)) ≤ cdim(∂C(Σ)). Given a surface Σ of genus g
with p punctures, Bestvina–Bromberg show that cdim(∂C(Σ)) ≤ 4g + p − 4 if p > 0 and
cdim(∂C(Σ)) ≤ 4g − 5 if p = 0 [BB15]. The conclusion follows.
The T (Σ) case follows from 6.1.
21

Corollary 6.3. For every n there is a surface Σ of finite type such that Mod(Σ) admits a
stable subset quasi–isometric to Hn .
Proof. This follows from [LS14], [Cor, Proposition 4.3] and Theorem 6.1.

7

Small cancellation groups

The goal of this section is to prove Theorems G and H
We will need a few preliminaries on small cancellation groups.
Definition 7.1. Let Γ be a directed edge–labelled graph. A piece is a labelled path p
admitting two distinct label–preserving graph homomorphisms p → Γ.
Let λ > 0. The graph Γ satisfies the C ′ (λ) graphical small cancellation condition if
any piece p contained in a simple closed path C in Γ satisfies |p| < λ |C|.
Definition 7.2. A diagram D is a finite, simply connected 2-complex with a fixed embedding
into the plane such that the image of every 1–cell, called an edge, has an orientation and a
label from a fixed set S. A disc diagram is a diagram homeomorphic to the 2–disc. The
boundary of a disc diagram D, denoted ∂D, is its topological boundary inside R2 .
A disc component of a diagram D is a subdiagram homeomorphic to the 2–disc whose
boundary is contained in ∂D.
Definition 7.3. Let Γ be a finite directed graph whose edges are labelled by a finite set S. A
Γ–diagram is a diagram with directed edges labelled by elements of S in which the boundary
of every 2-cell, called a face is isomorphic (as a directed graph with labelled edges) to a simple
cycle in Γ.
A Γ–diagram is reduced if no vertex is the end vertex of two different edges with the
same direction and label.
Any simple closed path C in a reduced Γ–diagram defines an element (called the label of
C) of the free group F (S ⊔ S −1 ) by choosing a starting vertex on C and an orientation and
writing the generator s when an edge labelled by s is traversed with its direction and s−1 if
it is traversed against its orientation. Note that the label of C is unique up to inversion and
a choice of cyclically reduced conjugate.
We define the group G(Γ) to be the quotient of F (S ⊔ S −1 ) by the normal subgroup
generated by all words which can be obtained as the labels of simple closed paths in Γ.
A subpath P of a diagram D is said to be an interior arc if every interior vertex of P
has degree 2 and P intersects ∂D in at most 2 points (which, if such intersections exist, are
necessarily endpoints of P ).
Lemma 7.4 ([Gru15, Lemma 2.13]). Let Γ be a C ′ ( 16 )–labelled graph, and let w be a word
in the free monoid generated by S ⊔ S −1 which represents the identity in G(Γ). Then, there
exists an Γ–diagram with boundary word w in which every interior arc is a piece.
Theorem 7.5 (Strebel’s classification [Str90]). Let Γ be a directed graph whose edges are
labelled by a fixed set S which satisfies the C ′ (1/6) graphical small cancellation condition. Let
X be the Cayley graph of G(Γ) with respect to the generating set S ⊔ S −1 .
If B is a geodesic bigon in X then there is a reduced Γ–diagram DB with boundary B and
any such diagram satisfies the following: every disc component of DB is either a single face
or of type I1 below.
22

If T is a geodesic triangle in X then there is a reduced Γ–diagram DT with boundary T
and any such diagram satisfies the following: every disc component of DT is either a single
face or of one of the types in the figure below. Moreover, at most one of these disc components
is not of type I1 .

I1

II

I2

III

I3

IV

V

Figure 1: Minimal disc diagrams whose boundary is a locally geodesic triangle
In particular, in the above diagrams, the intersection of the boundary of a face Π with a
geodesic has length at most |∂Π| /2 and the intersection of the boundaries of any two distinct
faces Π, Π′ has length strictly less than |∂Π| /6.
With these basics established we now focus on proving Theorems G and H.
Theorem 7.6. Let X be the Cayley graph of a C ′ ( 61 ) graphical small cancellation presentation
G = hS |Γ i where Γ is finite. Then asdims (X) − 1 = cdim∂M (X) ≤ 1.
Proof. By [Gru15, Theorem 2.16] the group G has cohomological dimension at most 2, and
is hyperbolic by [Oll06]. The result then follows by [BM91].
The girth of a graph Γ is the length of its shortest simple cycle of positive length; we
denote it by g(Γ).
Theorem 7.7. LetFX be the Cayley graph of a C ′ ( 61 ) graphical small cancellation presentation
hS |Γ i where Γ = Γi , each of the graphs Γi is finite and there exists some δ > 0 such that
g(Γi ) ≥ δdiam(Γi ).
For each Morse gauge N there is a finite subgraph ΓN ⊂ Γ and an isometric embedding
(N )
Xe ֒→ XN where XN is the Cayley graph of the presentation hS |ΓN i.
Without loss of generality we assume that (|Γi |)i is a non–decreasing sequence. It follows
that g(Γi ) → ∞ as i → ∞.
Before proceeding with the proof we present one lemma.
Lemma 7.8. Let Γ be a finite graph and suppose g(Γ) ≥ δdiam(Γ) for some δ > 0.
There exist constants λ, c, ǫ depending only on δ such that: for any simple cycle C in Γ
which is a concatenation of at most six geodesics γ1 , γ2 , . . . , γl with |γ1 | ≥ 16 |C| there is a (λ, c)quasi–geodesic q ⊂ Γ connecting the endpoints of γ1 with the property that q 6⊂ Ng(Γ)/12 (γ1 ).
23

Proof. Our goal is to apply [ACGH16b, Proposition 5.10]. To do this we need to ensure that
there is a path P connecting the endpoints of γ1 of length at most κdiam(Γ) such that there
exists a point x ∈ γ1 satisfying d(x, P ) ≥ αdiam(Γ) for some α, κ depending only on δ.
By assumption the path P = γl−1 ◦ · · · ◦ γ2−1 connecting the endpoints of γ1 on C has
length at most 5diam(Γ), since it is the concatenation of at most 5 geodesics.
1
g(Γ). Let x1 , x2
Suppose for a contradiction that every point x ∈ γ1 satisfies d(x, P ) < 12
1
be points on γ1 satisfying d(x1 , x2 ) = 6 g(Γ) and let Qi be a geodesic from xi to P of length
1
g(Γ). Now, Q1 ∩ Q2 = ∅, so there is a simple cycle in Γ contained in Q1 ∪ Q2 plus the
< 12
subgeodesic of γ1 connecting x1 to x2 , and the subpath of P connecting the endpoints of Q1
1
1
and Q2 . Such a simple cycle has length < 12
g(Γ) + 16 g(Γ) + 12
g(Γ) + 13 g(Γ) < g(Γ) which
contradicts the assumption on the girth of Γ.
(N )

Proof of Theorem 7.7. Fix some Morse gauge N , and choose N ′ so that Xe is N ′ –stable
′
using Lemma 3.6.
F Choose g so that εg > N (λ, c) where ε, λ, c are the constants from Lemma
7.8. Set ΓN = {Γi | g(Γi ) ≤ g }. It is clear that ΓN is a finite graph.
For ease of notation we denote the S–word metric in X by d and the S–word metric in
hS |Γ(N ) i by d.
(N )
Consider the map · : Xe → hS |ΓN i, defined so that x is the endpoint of the path γx in
hS |ΓN i starting at e = 1hS|ΓN i which is equal to γx as an oriented S–labelled path.
(N )

It is clear that d(e, x) = d(e, x) for all x ∈ Xe
and that d(x, y) ≤ d(x, y) for all
(N )
x, y ∈ Xe .
(N )
Suppose for a contradiction that there exist points x, y ∈ Xe such that d(x, y) < d(x, y)
and let D be a diagram in X with vertices e, x, y whose geodesics sides are all N ′ –Morse.
Now D is not a diagram in hS |ΓN i so there is some face Π in D which is a translate of
a cycle in Γ \ ΓN . By Strebel’s classification 7.5, ∂Π can be written as a concatenation of at
most 6 geodesics γ1 , . . . , γl , in such a way that γ1 has length at least 61 |∂Π| and is contained
in the boundary of D.
(N )
By Lemma 7.8 γ1 is not N ′ –Morse which contradicts that fact that Xe is N ′ –stable.
Theorems G and H follow from Theorems 7.6 and 7.7, together with Osajda’s small
cancellation labelling of high girth expanders [Osa14]. It follows immediately from [Hum14]
that there are 2ℵ0 different quasi–isometry classes of finitely generated groups with stable
dimension at most 2 with Cayley graphs which quasi–isometrically contain an expander.

8

Relatively hyperbolic groups

In this section we prove Theorem I.
Definition 8.1. Let G be a finitely generated group and let H be a finite collection of
subgroups of G. A coned–off graph Γ̂ of G with respect to H is a graph obtained from a
Cayley graph Γ of G by attaching an additional vertex vgH for every left coset of each H ∈ H
and adding an edge (vgH , g′ ) whenever g′ ∈ gH.
We say G is hyperbolic relative to H if the following two conditions are satisfied:
• A coned–off graph of G is hyperbolic.
• (Bounded Coset Penetration Property) Let α, β be geodesics in Γ̂ with the same endpoints and let H ∈ H. Then there exists a constant c such that:
24

(1) if α ∩ gH 6= ∅ but β ∩ gH = ∅ for some g ∈ G, then the Γ-distance between the
vertex at which α enters gH and the vertex at which α exits gH is at most c, and
(2) If α ∩ gH 6= ∅ and β ∩ gH 6= ∅, and α (resp. β) first enters gH at α1 (resp. β1 )
and last exits gHi at α2 (resp. β2 ), then αj and βj are at a Γ-distance of at most
c from each other, for j = 1, 2.
Theorem 8.2. [DS05, Lemma 4.15] Let G be hyperbolic relative to H. Fix Cayley graphs XG
of G and XH of H for each H ∈ H. For every Morse gauge N there exists a Morse gauge N ′
such that
If x, y ∈ H can be connected by an N –Morse geodesic in XH , then they can be connected
by an N ′ –Morse geodesic in XG .
We now proceed with the proof of Theorem I.
Theorem 8.3. Let G be a group which is hyperbolic relative to H. If asdims (H) < ∞ for all
H ∈ H then maxH∈H asdims (H) ≤ asdims (G) < ∞.
In the case where asdim(H) < ∞ for all H ∈ H, asdim(G) < ∞ by [Osi06], so the upper
bound follows from the simple observation asdims (G) ≤ asdim(G).
Proof. We begin by proving the lower bound on asdims (G). Let x, y ∈ H, let γ ′ be an N –
Morse geodesic from x to y in XH and let γ be any geodesic from x to y in XG . We will
show that γ is N ′ –Morse, where N ′ does not depend on x, y. Denote the vertices of γ by
x0 = x, x1 , . . . , xd = y in order. Let q be any (K, C)-quasi–geodesic in G with endpoints x, y
and denote the vertices of q by y0 = x, y1 , . . . , yl = y in order.
By [DS05, Lemma 4.15] there exist constants A, B = B(K, C) such that γ ⊂ NA (H) and
q ⊂ NB (H). For each vertex xi ∈ γ (respectively yi ∈ q) let hi ∈ H satisfy d(xi , hi ) = d(xi , H)
(respectively h′i satisfy d(yi , h′i ) = d(yi , H)).
Now as each XH is undistorted in XG , h0 , h1 , . . . , hd is a (λ, c)-quasi–geodesic in H and
h′0 , h′1 , . . . , h′l is a (λ′ , c′ )-quasi–geodesic in H. Here λ, λ′ , c, c′ depend on K, C, G, H but not
on x, y.
As there is an N –Morse geodesic from x to y in XH we conclude that there exists a
D such that {h0 , . . . , hd } ⊂ ND ({h′0 , . . . , h′l }) and {h′0 , . . . , h′l } ⊂ ND ({h0 , . . . , hd }). Thus
q ⊂ NA+B+D (γ) as required.
Therefore each H is a stable subset of XG .
The goal for the upper bound is to determine a uniform bound on the asymptotic dimen(N )
sion of Ge .
We recall that by [Hum12] G quasi–isometrically embeds into the product of the coned-off
graph Ĝ and a tree-graded space T with pieces uniformly quasi–isometric to Hi .
Let φ denote the map from G to T . We claim that for each N there exists some N ′ such
(N )
(N ′ )
that φ(Ge ) ⊆ Tφ(e) .
(N )

Given the claim, it is easy to see that φ(Ge ) is contained in a subset T (N ) of T which
(N ′ )
is tree-graded and the pieces are uniformly quasi–isometric to He . By assumption, the
(N ′ )
asymptotic dimension of the He
is bounded independent of N ′ .
(N
)
Thus the spaces T
have uniformly bounded asymptotic dimension. Since the coned-off
graph Ĝ has finite asymptotic dimension [BF08] we have a uniform bound on the asymptotic
(N )
dimension of the Ge , as required.
25

(N )

To prove the claim it suffices to show that if y ∈ Ge and a geodesic g = [φ(e), φ(y)]
spends sufficiently long in a piece P , then the restriction γ of this geodesic to the piece is
N ′′ –Morse for some uniform N ′′ . This follows from the simple fact that a geodesic γ in a
tree–graded space X is Morse if and only if there is some Morse gauge N such that the
intersection of γ with each piece is N –Morse, in which case γ is N ′ –Morse, where N ′ depends
only on N and X.
As the natural map from P to G is a quasi–isometric embedding, γ defines a (K, C)-quasi–
geodesic qγ where the constants K and C depend on G but not on P or γ.
The piece P corresponds to a coset gHi , and if γ is sufficiently long then any geodesic [e, y]
spends a long time within a fixed neighbourhood of gHi [DS05, Theorem 4.1]. In particular,
[e, y] passes within a fixed distance of each of the endpoints of qγ by BCP. By assumption
there is some is N –Morse geodesic [e, y], and therefore qγ (and any geodesic with the same
endpoints) is contained within a uniformly bounded neighbourhood of [e, y]. Thus, such
geodesics are N ′′ –Morse for some N ′′ which does not depend on γ. This concludes the proof
of the claim.

References
[ADT] Tarik Aougab, Matthew Gentry Durham, and Samuel J. Taylor, Contents of a preprint announced
in arXiv:1609.06698.
[ACGH16a] Goulnara N. Arzhantseva, Christopher H. Cashen, Dominik Gruber, and David Hume, Characterization of Morse quasi–geodesics via superlinear divergence and sublinear contraction, ArXiv
e-prints (2016), available at 1601.01879.
[ACGH16b]

, Contracting geodesics in infinitely presented graphical small cancellation groups, ArXiv
e-prints (2016), available at 1602.03767.

[AD] Goulnara Arzhantseva and Thomas Delzant, Examples of Random Groups, available at
http://www.mat.univie.ac.at/~ arjantseva/Abs/random.pdf.
[BC12] Jason Behrstock and Ruth Charney, Divergence and quasimorphisms of right–angled Artin groups,
Math. Ann. 352 (2012), no. 2, 339–356, DOI 10.1007/s00208-011-0641-8.
[BHS15] Jason Behrstock, Mark Hagen, and Alessandro Sisto, Asymptotic dimension and small-cancellation
for hierarchically hyperbolic spaces and groups, ArXiv e-prints (2015), available at 1512.06071.
[BF08] Gregory Bell and Koji Fujiwara, The asymptotic dimension of a curve graph is finite, J. Lond.
Math. Soc. (2) 77 (2008), no. 1, 33–50.
[Bes] Mladen
Bestvina,
Questions
in
Geometric
Group
Theory,
available
at
http://www.math.utah.edu/~ bestvina/eprints/questions-updated.pdf.
[BB15] Mladen Bestvina and Ken Bromberg, On the asymptotic dimension of the curve complex, ArXiv
e-prints (2015), available at 1508.04832.
[BBF15] Mladen Bestvina, Ken Bromberg, and Koji Fujiwara, Constructing group actions on quasi-trees
and applications to mapping class groups, Publ. Math. Inst. Hautes Études Sci. 122 (2015), 1–64,
DOI 10.1007/s10240-014-0067-4.
[BM91] Mladen Bestvina and Geoffrey Mess, The boundary of negatively curved groups, J. Amer. Math.
Soc. 4 (1991), no. 3, 469–481.
[BS00] Mario Bonk and Oded Schramm, Embeddings of Gromov hyperbolic spaces, Geom. Funct. Anal.
10 (2000), no. 2, 266–306.
[BH99] Martin R. Bridson and André Haefliger, Metric spaces of non-positive curvature, Grundlehren der
Mathematischen Wissenschaften [Fundamental Principles of Mathematical Sciences], vol. 319,
Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1999.
[Buy05] Sergei V. Buyalo, Asymptotic dimension of a hyperbolic space and the capacity dimension of its
boundary at infinity, Algebra i Analiz 17 (2005), no. 2, 70–95.

26

[BL07] Sergei V. Buyalo and Nina D. Lebedeva, Dimensions of locally and asymptotically self-similar
spaces, Algebra i Analiz 19 (2007), no. 1, 60–92.
[BS07] Sergei Buyalo and Viktor Schroeder, Elements of asymptotic geometry, EMS Monographs in Mathematics, European Mathematical Society (EMS), Zürich, 2007.
[Cas16] Christopher H. Cashen, Quasi-isometries need not induce homeomorphisms of contracting boundaries with the Gromov product topology, Anal. Geom. Metr. Spaces 4 (2016), 278–281.
[CS15] Ruth Charney and Harold Sultan, Contracting boundaries of CAT(0) spaces, J. Topol. 8 (2015),
no. 1, 93–117.
[Cor] Matthew Cordes, Morse boundaries of proper geodesic metric spaces, To appear in Groups, Geometry, and Dynamics.
[CH16] Matthew Cordes and David Hume, Relatively hyperbolic groups with fixed peripherals, ArXiv eprints (2016), available at 1609.05154.
[CK00] Christopher B. Croke and Bruce Kleiner, Spaces with nonpositive curvature and their ideal boundaries, Topology 39 (2000), no. 3, 549–556.
[DKL14] Spencer Dowdall, Richard P. Kent IV, and Christopher J. Leininger, Pseudo-Anosov subgroups of
fibered 3-manifold groups, Groups Geom. Dyn. 8 (2014), no. 4, 1247–1282.
[DK] Cornelia Druţu and Michael Kapovich, Lectures on Geometric Group Theory, preprint.
[DMS10] Cornelia Druţu, Shahar Mozes, and Mark Sapir, Divergence in lattices in semisimple Lie groups
and graphs of groups, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 362 (2010), no. 5, 2451–2505, DOI 10.1090/S00029947-09-04882-X.
[DS05] Cornelia Druţu and Mark Sapir, Tree-graded spaces and asymptotic cones of groups, Topology
44(5) (2005), 959–1058. With an appendix by Denis Osin and Mark Sapir.
[DT15] Matthew Gentry Durham and Samuel J. Taylor, Convex cocompactness and stability in mapping
class groups, Algebr. Geom. Topol. 15 (2015), no. 5, 2839–2859.
[FM02] Benson Farb and Lee Mosher, Convex cocompact subgroups of mapping class groups, Geom. Topol.
6 (2002), 91–152 (electronic).
[GdlH90] Étienne Ghys and Pierre de la Harpe, quasi–isométries et quasi-géodésiques, Sur les groupes
hyperboliques d’après Mikhael Gromov (Bern, 1988), 1990, pp. 79–102.
[Gro87] Misha Gromov, Hyperbolic groups, Essays in group theory, 1987, pp. 75–263.
[Gro03]

, Random walk in random groups, Geom. Funct. Anal. 13 (2003), no. 1, 73–146, DOI
10.1007/s000390300002.

[Gru15] Dominik Gruber, Groups with graphical C(6) and C(7) small cancellation presentations, Trans.
Amer. Math. Soc. 367 (2015), no. 3, 2051–2078.
[Gru]

, Personal communication.

[Hag14] Mark F. Hagen, Weak hyperbolicity of cube complexes and quasi-arboreal groups, J. Topol. 7
(2014), no. 2, 385–418, DOI 10.1112/jtopol/jtt027.
[HLS02] Nigel Higson, Vincent Lafforgue, and Georges Skandalis, Counterexamples to the Baum-Connes
conjecture, Geom. Funct. Anal. 12 (2002), no. 2, 330–354.
[Hum12] David Hume, Embedding Mapping Class Groups into a finite product of trees, To appear in Groups
Geom. Dyn. ArXiv e-prints (2012), available at 1207.2132.
[Hum14]

, A continuum of expanders, To appear in Fund. Math. ArXiv e-prints (2014), available at
1410.0246.

[KLS09] Richard P. Kent IV, Christopher J. Leininger, and Saul Schleimer, Trees and mapping class groups,
J. Reine Angew. Math. 637 (2009), 1–21, DOI 10.1515/CRELLE.2009.087.
[KMT14] Thomas Koberda, Johanna Mangahas, and Samuel J. Taylor, The geometry of purely loxodromic
subgroups of right–angled Artin groups, ArXiv e-prints (2014), available at 1412.3663.
[LS14] Christopher Leininger and Saul Schleimer, Hyperbolic spaces in Teichmüller spaces, J. Eur. Math.
Soc. (JEMS) 16 (2014), no. 12, 2669–2692, DOI 10.4171/JEMS/495.
[LS01] Roger C. Lyndon and Paul E. Schupp, Combinatorial group theory, Classics in Mathematics,
Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2001. Reprint of the 1977 edition.

27

[MS13] John M. Mackay and Alessandro Sisto, Embedding relatively hyperbolic groups in products of trees,
Algebr. Geom. Topol. 13 (2013), no. 4, 2261–2282.
[MM99] Howard A. Masur and Yair N. Minsky, Geometry of the complex of curves. I. Hyperbolicity, Invent.
Math. 138 (1999), no. 1, 103–149.
[MM00]

, Geometry of the complex of curves. II. Hierarchical structure, Geom. Funct. Anal. 10
(2000), no. 4, 902–974.

[Min11] Honglin Min, Hyperbolic graphs of surface groups, Algebr. Geom. Topol. 11 (2011), no. 1, 449–476,
DOI 10.2140/agt.2011.11.449.
[Mor24] Harold Marston Morse, A fundamental class of geodesics on any closed surface of genus greater
than one, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 26 (1924), no. 1, 25–60.
[Mur15] Devin Murray, Topology and Dynamics of the Contracting Boundary of Cocompact CAT(0) Spaces,
ArXiv e-prints (2015), available at 1509.09314.
[Oll06] Yann Ollivier, On a small cancellation theorem of Gromov, Bull. Belg. Math. Soc. Simon Stevin
13 (2006), no. 1, 75–89.
[Osa14] Damian Osajda, Small cancellation labellings of some infinite graphs and applications, ArXiv
e-prints (2014), available at 1406.5015.
[Osi06] Denis V. Osin, Relatively hyperbolic groups: intrinsic geometry, algebraic properties, and algorithmic problems, Mem. Amer. Math. Soc. 179 (2006), no. 843, vi+100.
[Osi16]

, Acylindrically hyperbolic groups, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 368 (2016), no. 2, 851–888.

[Pan89] Pierre Pansu, Dimension conforme et sphère à l’infini des variétés à courbure négative, Ann.
Acad. Sci. Fenn. Ser. A I Math. 14 (1989), no. 2, 177–212.
[Sis16] Alessandro Sisto, Quasi–convexity of hyperbolically embedded subgroups, Mathematische Zeitschrift
(2016), 1–10.
[Str90] Ralph Strebel, Appendix. Small cancellation groups, Sur les groupes hyperboliques d’après Mikhael
Gromov (Bern, 1988), 1990, pp. 227–273.

28

