Relative hyperbolicity of Free-by-cyclic
extensions
arXiv:1802.08570v2 [] 26 Mar 2018

Pritam Ghosh

Given a finitely generated free group F of rank(F) ≥ 3, we show that the
mapping torus of φ is (strongly) relatively hyperbolic if φ is exponentially
growing. As a corollary of our work, we give a new proof of Brinkmann’s
theorem which proves that the mapping torus of an atoroidal outer automorphism is hyperbolic.
We combine our result with [7] to answer a question asked by MinasyanOsin: the mapping torus of an outer autmomorphism is not acylindrically
hyperbolic if and only if φ has finite order. Also an an application of our work
we construct free-by-free hyperbolic extensions where it is not necessary for
all elements in the quotient group to be fully irreducible.

1 Introduction
Fix a finitely generated free group F with rank(F) ≥ 3. Any element φ ∈ Out(F) (the
outer automorphism group of F) gives us a short exact sequence
1 → F → Γ → hφi → 1
where the extension group Γ is referred to as the mapping torus of φ. Significant work
has been done in understanding geometry of Γ. Bestvina-Feighn-Handel first proved
that the mapping torus is hyperbolic if φ is fully irreducible and atoroidal [3, Theorem
5.1]. It follows from work of Bestvina-Feighn [2] and Brinkmann [6] that Γ is hyperbolic
if and only if φ does not have any periodic conjugacy classes (i.e. φ is atoroidal ). We
contribute to this study by showing
Theorem 2.11. If φ ∈ Out(F), then the extension group Γ in the sequence 1 → F →
Γ → hφi → 1 is strongly relatively hyperbolic if and only if φ is exponentially growing.
One interesting observation that comes out of this result is connected to the mapping
class group theory of surfaces with boundaries. It is well known that pseudo-Anosov
maps of such surfaces give us (strongly) relatively hyperbolic extension groups. Our work

1

here implies that pseudo-Anosov’s are not the only type of maps which give relatively
hyperbolic extensions.
The “only if” direction follows from the work of Makura [16]. The “if” direction is
our main contribution to the above theorem. This is proven in Proposition 2.9 where
we show that Γ will be (strongly) hyperbolic relative to a collection of subgroups which
correspond to lifts of the mapping torus of components of the nonattracting subgroup
system of some attracting lamination of φ. As a corollary of this, we give a new proof
of Brinkmann’s result:
Corollary 2.10. φ ∈ Out(F) is atoroidal if and only if the extension group Γ, in the
short exact sequence 1 → F → Γ → hφi → 1, is a hyperbolic group.
We then combine our work with a result of Button-Kropholler [7] to answer a question
asked by Minasyan and Osin in [17, Problem 8.2].
Corollary 3.2. If φ ∈ Out(F), then the extension group Γ in the sequence 1 → F →
Γ → hφi → 1 is not acylindrically hyperbolic if and only if φ has finite order.
The proof of Theorem 2.11 uses the completely split train track theory from FeighnHandel’s Recognition theorem work [8] and the weak attraction theory from HandelMosher’s Subgroup decomposition for Out(F) body of work [15].
Idea of proof: Given an exponentially growing φ, one always has an attracting
lamination Λ+ associated to it. The nonattracting subgroup system Ana (Λ+ ) is a malnormal subgroup system that carries all conjugacy classes which are not attracted to Λ+
under iterations of φ (see section 2.1).
We perform a partial electrocution of Γ with respect to a collection of certain lifts of
b | · | ). After this we use the
the components of Ana (Λ+ ) and form a new metric space (Γ,
el
weak attraction theorem to show the under iteration of either φ or φ−1 , we gain enough
legality 2.4 to proceed (primarily following the technique in Bestvina-Feighn-Handel’s
work in [3]) to prove that we have flaring 2.7. This combined with the Mj-Reeves
strong combination theorem 2.8 proves that Γ will be strongly relatively hyperbolic in
Proposition 2.9.
When φ is atoroidal, a simple inductive argument by repeatedly applying Proposition
2.9 on the peripheral subgroups which are being electrocuted to form the coned-off graph,
shows that Γ will be hyperbolic thus giving a new proof of Brinkmann’s theorem.
In the last section we show a very interesting application of our work which appears
in form of the following theorem:
Theorem 4.5. Let φ, ψ be outer automorphisms which satisfy the standing assumptions
4. Then there exists some M > 0 such that for every m, n ≥ M the group Q := hφm , ψ n i
e is hyperbolic for any lift Q
e of Q.
is a free group of rank 2 and the extension group F ⋊ Q
The proof of this theorem proceeds by proving a version of Mosher’s 3-of-4 stretch
lemma 4.4 in this context and using it together with the Bestvina-Feighn combination
theorem.

2

The fact which makes this result so interesting is that so far in the study of Out(F), the
only examples of free-by-free hyperbolic extensions which are known; necessarily assume
that every element of Q is fully irreducible. So Theorem 4.5 , in a way, gives a completely
new class of examples of free-by-free hyperbolic extensions and we hope that this will be
useful in the future when further research is done to give even more weaker conditions on
Q so that the extension group is hyperbolic. This result is a significant generalization of
a theorem of Bestvina-Feighn-Handel [3, Theorem 5.2] where they prove a similar result
by assuming φ, ψ to be fully irreducible and atoroidal.
Acknowledgement: The author would like to sincerely thank Pranab Sardar for
several helpful discussions, feedback and for pointing out Makura’s work to the author.
Also a big thanks to Derrik Wigglesworth for pointing out a flaw in the proof of conjugacy
flaring and other helpful comments from the first draft of this paper. Thanks to Jason
Behrstock and Mark Hagen for their feedback and many helpful discussions.
The author was supported by SERB N-PDF grant PDF/2015/000038 during this
project.

2 Exponential growth case
We begin this section by recalling the construction of the nonattracting subgroup system
and list few of the properties we will be using. Most of it is lifted from the “subgroup
decomposition for Out(F) ” body of work by Handel-Mosher [15]. We refer the reader
to [14, Section 1] for a quick recap of the notions of free factor systems, rotationless
powers, completely split relative train track maps, weak attraction and properties of
attracting laminations. These concepts have become very standard today in the study
of Out(F) and for purposes of keeping the paper short, we refer to the above paper for
the definitions. The full details of these topics are also contained in the Recognition
theorem work of Feighn-Handel [8]. We however give the definitions and some results
about the two key concepts from the subgroup decomposition work which are central to
the proofs in this paper.
Recall from [8] that there exists some K > 0 such that given any φ ∈ Out(F), φK is
rotationless. Hence given any φ we may pass on to a rotationless power to make use of
the rich CT structure. Since mapping torus for φK is a finite index subgroup of mapping
torus of φ, no information is lost for our purposes.

2.1 Nonattracting subgroup system
The nonattracting subgroup system of an attracting lamination contains information
about lines and circuits which are not attracted to the lamination. The construction of
the nonattracting subgraph is as following:
Suppose φ ∈ Out(F) is rotationless and f : G → G is a CT representing φ such that
Λ+
φ is an invariant attracting lamination which corresponds to the EG stratum Hs ∈ G.
The nonattracting subgraph Z of G is defined as a union of irreducible stratas Hi of G
such that no edge in Hi is weakly attracted to Λ+
φ . This is equivalent to saying that a

3

strata Hr ⊂ G \ Z if and only if there exists k ≥ 0 some term in the complete splitting
of f#k (Er ) is an edge in Hs . Define the path ρbs to be trivial path at any chosen vertex if
there does not exist any indivisible Nielsen path of height s, otherwise ρbs is the unique
closed indivisible path of height s (from definition of stable train track maps).
The groupoid hZ, ρbs i - Let hZ, ρbs i be the set of lines, rays, circuits and finite paths
in G which can be written as a concatenation of subpaths, each of which is an edge in
Z, the path ρbs or its inverse. Under the operation of tightened concatenation of paths
in G, this set forms a groupoid (Lemma 5.6, [[15]]).
Define the graph K by setting K = Z if ρbs is trivial and let h : K → G be the
inclusion map. Otherwise define an edge Eρ representing the domain of the Nielsen
path ρs : Eρ → Gs , and let K be the disjoint union of Z and Eρ with the following
identification. Given an endpoint x ∈ Eρ , if ρs (x) ∈ Z then identify x ∼ ρs (x).Given
distinct endpoints x, y ∈ Eρ , if ρs (x) = ρs (y) ∈
/ Z then identify x ∼ y. In this case define
h : K → G to be the inclusion map on K and the map ρs on Eρ . It is not difficult to see
that the map h is an immersion. Hence restricting h to each component of K, we get an
injection at the level of fundamental groups. The nonattracting subgroup system
Ana (Λ+
φ ) is defined to be the subgroup system defined by this immersion.
We will leave it to the reader to look it up in [15] where it is explored in details. We
however list some key properties which we will be using and justifies the importance of
this subgroup system.
Lemma 2.1. ([15]- Lemma 1.5, 1.6)
1. The set of lines carried by Ana (Λ+
φ ) is closed in the weak topology.
+
2. A conjugacy class [c] is not attracted to Λ+
φ if and only if it is carried by Ana (Λφ ).

3. Ana (Λ+
φ ) does not depend on the choice of the CT representing φ.
4. Given φ, φ−1 ∈ Out(F) both rotationless elements and a dual lamination pair Λ±
φ
−
we have Ana (Λ+
)
=
A
(Λ
)
na
φ
φ
5. Ana (Λ+
φ ) is a free factor system if and only if the stratum Hr is not geometric.
6. Ana (Λ+
φ ) is malnormal.

2.2 Weak attraction theorem
Lemma 2.2 ([15] Corollary 2.17). Let φ ∈ Out(F) be a rotationless and exponentially
growing. Let Λ±
φ be a dual lamination pair for φ. Then for any line γ ∈ B not carried
±
by Ana (Λφ ) at least one of the following hold:
1. γ is attracted to Λ+
φ under iterations of φ.
−1
2. γ is attracted to Λ−
φ under iterations of φ .

4

−
Moreover, if Vφ+ and Vφ− are attracting neighborhoods for the laminations Λ+
φ and Λφ
respectively, there exists an integer l ≥ 0 such that at least one of the following holds:

• γ ∈ Vφ− .
• φl (γ) ∈ Vφ+
• γ is carried by Ana (Λ±
φ ).

2.3 Free-by-cyclic extensions for exponentially growing φ
For the rest of the section we will assume that φ ∈ Out(F) is an exponentially growing
and rotationless outer automorphism. Let Λ±
φ be a dual lamination pair associated to
this automorphism. Also let f : G → G be a CT map representing φ and Hr be the
+
unique exponentially growing strata associated to Λ+
φ and Ana (Λφ ) be the nonattracting
subgroup system of Λ+
φ . Recall that by construction, any conjugacy class is not weakly
under
iterates of φ if and only if it is carried by Ana (Λ+
attracted to Λ+
φ ). Similarly
φ
′
′
′
−1
′
let f : G → G be a CT representing φ and Hs be the unique exponentially growing
strata in G′ that is associated to Λ−
φ.
We recall the notion of critical constant from [3].
Critical Constant: Let f : G → G be a stable relative train track representative
for some exponentially growing φ ∈ Out(F) with Hr being an exponentially growing
strata with associated Perron-Frobenius eigenvalue λ. If BCC(f ) denotes the bounded
)
cancellation constant for f , then the number 2BCC(f
is called the critical constant for
λ−1
f . It can be easily seen that for every number C > 0 that exceeds the critical constant,
there is some µ > 0 such that if α · β · γ is a concatenation of r-legal paths where β
is some r-legal segment of length ≥ C, then the r-legal leaf segment of f#k (α · β · γ)
corresponding to β has length ≥ µλk |β|Hr . To summarize, if we have a path in G which
has some r-legal “central” subsegment of length greater than the critical constant, then
this segment is protected by the bounded cancellation lemma and under iteration, length
of this segment grows exponentially.
Following the work of Bestvina-Feighn-Handel [3] we define the following notion of
legality for any number C > 0 which exceeds the critical constant for f .
Notation: For any path α in G let |α|Hrσ denote the edge length of α in Hr not
counting the copies of σ (or it’s inverse) inside α, where σ is the unique indivisible
Nielsen path of height r (if it exists). If σ is trivial then |α|Hrσ is simply |α|Hr (i.e. the
Hr -edge length of α). In what follows ρ will denote the unique indivisible Nielsen path
of height s in the CT map f ′ : G′ → G′ for φ−1 . From train track theory we know that
the conjugacy classes of ρ and σ are same upto reversal, since the laminations associated
to the strata Hr and Hs′ are dual to each other. Also recall from Bestvina-Feighn-Handel
train track theory that σ has exactly one illegal turn in Hr and hence does not occur as
a subpath of any generic leaf of Λ+
φ.

5

Definition 2.3. For any circuit α in G, the Hr -legality of α is defined as the ratio
LEGHrσ (α) :=

sum of lengths of r-legal generic leaf segments of α of length ≥ C
|α|Hrσ

if |α|Hrσ 6= 0. Otherwise, if |α|Hrσ = 0, define LEGHrσ (α) = 0.
For the rest of the paper, fix some C greater than the critical constants of f, f ′ .
Now we choose a long generic leaf segment γ + of some generic leaf of Λ+
φ , we may
assume that |γ + |Hrσ ≫ C, to define a weak attracting neighborhood Vφ+ for Λ+
φ . Similarly
−
− ′
choose a long generic leaf segment γ such that |γ |H ρ ≫ C and define an attracting
s
neighborhood Vφ− . The weak attraction theorem tells us that for any conjugacy class α
−
that is not carried by Ana (Λ±
φ ), there exists some M > 0 such that either α ∈ Vφ or
+
φm
# (α) ∈ Vφ for every m ≥ M. The following lemma shows that such an M gives us
enough legality to eventually supersede |α|Hrσ .
Lemma 2.4. Suppose φ ∈ Out(F) is rotationless and exponentially growing with a lamination pair Λ±
φ . Then there exists ǫ > 0 and some M > 0 such that for every conjugacy
−m
m
′
class α not carried by Ana (Λ±
φ ), either LEGHrσ (φ# (α)) ≥ ǫ or LEGHsρ (φ# (α)) ≥ ǫ for
every m ≥ M.
Proof. Let M be the constant from the weak attraction theory discussed above (right
before the statement of the lemma). Suppose there does not exist any such ǫ > 0 which
staisfies the conclusion of our statement. We argue to a contradiction.
Let {αi } be a sequence of conjugacy classes, none of which are carried by Ana (Λ±
φ ),
−M
M
such that both LEGHrσ (φ# (αi )) → 0 and LEGH ′ ρ (φ# (αi )) → 0. Now arguing as
s
in [12, Lemma 4.6], one can use the bounded cancellation lemma to find subpaths βi
contained in αi such that |βi |Hrσ → ∞ and φM
# (βi ) does not contain any legal generic
leaf segment of length ≥ C in Hr except perhaps at the endpoints, i.e. φM
# (βi ) does not
have any central generic leaf segment of length ≥ C in Hr . Passing to a subsequence if
necessary, we may assume similarly that φ−M
# (βi ) does not contain any central generic
−
′
leaf segment (of Λφ ) of length ≥ C in Hs . But βi ’s (by construction) are not carried by
Ana (Λ±
φ ) and have arbitrarily long lengths (not counting copies of the unique indivisible
Nielsen paths) in Hr and Hs′ . After passing to a further subsequence if necessary we may
assume that there is common (sufficiently long) subpath τ in Hr which is crossed by all
the βi ’s and τ is not carried by the nonattracting subgraph that is used to construct
Ana (Λ±
φ ). This implies that some weak limit of some subsequence of βi ’s is a line l which
contains the path τ .
−M
Now observe that φM
# (l) (respc. φ# (l)) does not contain any subsegment of a generic
−
′
leaf of Λ+
φ (respc. Λφ ) of length ≥ C in Hr (respc. Hs ). Using the weak attraction
±
theorem again, this implies that l is carried by Ana (Λφ ) and hence contained in the
nonattracting subgraph. But this contradicts that l contains the subpath τ .
Hence such an ǫ > 0 does indeed exist.

6

Given a conjugacy class α not carried by Ana (Λ±
φ ), the following lemma compares the
growth of legal segments of α relative to the size of α, when both are being measured in
terms of the metric of G restricted to Hr , i.e. | · |Hrσ .
Lemma 2.5. For every ǫ > 0 and A > 0, there is M1 depending only on ǫ, A such that
if LEGHrσ (α) ≥ ǫ for some circuit α then
|f#m (α)|H σ ≥ A|α|Hrσ
r

for every m > M1 .
Proof. From the description of critical constant we can see that
|f#m (α)|H σ ≥ µλm {sum of r-legal generic leaf segments of length ≥ C}
r

≥ µλm ǫ|α|Hrσ
Choose m to be large enough so that µλm ǫ ≥ A.
1
2
k
Recall the nonattracting subgroup system Ana (Λ±
φ ) = {[F ], [F ], ..., [F ]} is a mutually malnormal subgroup system of finitely generated subgroups of F (hence quasiconb with respect to the collection {F i } and
vex). Hence one can form the coned-off space F
b | · | ). The group F is then strongly
form a electrocuted metric space denoted by (F,
el
b is still true if
hyperbolic relative to the collection {F i }. Notice that this property of F
we replace any of the F i ’s with a conjugate of itself. Hence we may choose any representative (abusing the notation) F i for each [F i ] and a lift Φi , such that Φi (F i ) = F i
and assume that F is (strongly) relatively hyperbolic with respect to this collection of
subgroups. We stress the fact here that Ana (Λ±
φ ) is not necessarily a free factor system.
By ||α||el we denote the length of the shortest representative of the conjugacy class α in
this electrocuted metric.

Proposition 2.6 (Conjugacy flaring). Suppose φ ∈ Out(F) is rotationless and exponentially growing with a lamination pair Λ±
φ . There exists some M0 > 0 such that for every
conjugacy class α not carried by Ana (Λ±
φ ), we have
−M
3||α||el ≤ max{||φM
# (α)||el , ||φ# (α)||el }

for every M ≥ M0 .
Proof. Let M be as in Lemma 2.4 and choose some number D > 0 such that |φM
# (α)|H σ ≥
r

′
|α|Hrσ /D and |φ−M
# (α)|H ′ ρ ≥ |α|H ρ /D. By applying Lemma 2.4 again there exists some
s

s

−M
ǫ > 0 such that either LEGHrσ (φM
# (α)) ≥ ǫ or LEGHs′ ρ (φ# (α)) ≥ ǫ.
Next choose some constant K such that for every conjugacy class α not carried by
Ana (Λ±
φ ) we have by applying the weak attraction theorem (by increasing M if neces−M
−M
1
1
M
sary) either K ≥ |φM
# (α)|H σ /||φ# (α)||el ≥ K or K ≥ |φ# (α)|H ′ ρ /||φ# (α)||el ≥ K
s

r

−m
depending on whether LEGHrσ (φm
# (α)) ≥ ǫ or LEGHs′ (φ# (α)) ≥ ǫ.

7

For concreteness assume that LEGHrσ (φm
# (α)) ≥ ǫ. Then by applying Lemma 2.5
2
with ǫ and A = 3DK we get that there exists some M1 such that for all m ≥ M0 :=
max{M, M1 } we have
1 m
|φ (α)|H σ
r
K #
1
1
≥ 3DK 2 |φM
# |H σ
r
K
1
≥ 3DK |α|Hrσ = 3K|α|Hrσ
D
1
≥ 3K ||α||el = 3||α||el
K

||φm
# (α)||el ≥

(1)

The following lemma proves that conjugacy flaring implies the Mj-Reeves cone-bounded
hallways strictly flaring condition (see [18, Definition 3.6]). The technique used in the
proof is a generalization of the one used by Bestvina-Feighn-Handel in [3, Theorem 5.1].
Recall that we are working with an exponentially growing outer automorphism with a
±
1
2
k
dual lamination pair Λ±
φ such that Ana (Λφ ) = {[F ], [F ], ..., [F ]}.
Proposition 2.7 (Strictly flaring). Suppose φ ∈ Out(F) is rotationless and exponentially
growing with a lamination pair Λ±
φ . There exists some N > 0 such that for every word
i
w ∈ F \ ∪F and any lift Φ of φ, we have
2|w|el ≤ max{|Φn# (w)|el , |Φ−n
# (w)|el }
for every n ≥ N.
Proof. Recall that for any subgraph H ⊂ G we can use the fundamental groups of the
noncontractible components of H to form a free factor system. First observe that from
the construction of Ana (Λ±
φ ) we know that the strata Hr is not a part of the nonattracting
subgraph Z that is used to define Ana (Λ±
φ ). Hence we can always find a free factor system
F , defined by the noncontractible components of Hr , with one component [K i ] for each
noncontractible component of Hr . Without loss, assume that K 1 ∗ K 2 ∗ ... ∗ K p ∗ B = F,
where B is perhaps trivial.
Let L = max{|Φi# (kj )|el |i = 0, ±1, ±2, ..., ±M0 } where kj ∈ K j varies over all the
basis elements of K j for some chosen basis of F, and M0 is the constant from Lemma
2.6. By increasing L if necessary assume that |Φs#i (kj )|el ≥ 1/L for all i, j as described
above.
Case 1: Assume w ∈ F \ ∪F i and |w|el ≥ L − 3.
The proof is by induction. For the base case let n = M0 .
If w is a cyclically reduced word then conjugacy class of w is not carried by Ana (Λ±
φ)
and so by using Lemma 2.6 we have
max{|Φn# (w)|el , |Φ−n (w)|el } ≥ 3|w|el ≥ 2|w|el

8

If w is not cyclically reduced then we can choose a basis element k ∈ K j , for some j,
such that kw ∈ F \ ∪F i is a cyclically reduced word. Hence we get the same inequality
as above, but with w being substituted by kw.
For sake of concreteness suppose that |Φn# (kw)|el ≥ 3|kw|el . Then we have 3|kw|el ≤
n
|Φ# (kw)|el ≤ |Φn# (w)|el + |Φn# (k)|el ≤ |Φn# (w)|el + L. This implies that 3 + 3|w|el − L ≤
3|kw|el − L ≤ |Φn# (w)|el since |k|el = 1 and there is no cancellation between k and w.
Since we have |w|el ≥ L − 3, the above inequality then implies 2|w|el ≤ |Φn# (w)|el and
we are done with the base case for our inductive argument.
Now assume that M0 < n for the inductive step. First observe that from what
s
0
we have proven so far, given any integer s > 0 we have either |ΦsM
# (w)|el ≥ 2 |w|el
0
or |Φ−sM
(w)|el ≥ 2s |w|el . Fix some positive integer s0 such that 2s0 > 2L. Any
#
integer n > s0 M0 can be written as n = sM0 + t where 0 ≤ t < M0 and s0 ≤ s. If
s
0
|ΦsM
# (w)|el ≥ 2 |w|el then we can deduce
sM0 +t
(w)|el ≥ 2s |w|el /L ≥ 2|w|el
|Φn# (w)|el = |Φ#
0
Similarly when |Φ−sM
(w)|el ≥ 2s |w|el one proves by a symmetric argument that |Φ−n
#
# (w)|el ≥
2|w|el .
Case 2: Assume w ∈ F \ ∪F i and |w|el < L − 3.
Firstly we note that w ∈
/ ∪F i implies that 0 < |w|el . If w is not conjugate to some
element of F i , then we can argue as in the beginning of Case 1 to show that that either
|Φn# (w)|el ≥ 2|w|el or |Φ−n
# (w)|el ≥ 2|w|el for all n ≥ M0 .
If w is conjugate to some element of F i then we can write w = ugu−1 for some
generator u ∈ K j such that u is not conjugate to any word in any of the F j ’s and
g ∈ F i . |w|el < L − 3 implies that

|w|el ≤ |u|el + |u−1 |el = 2|u|el < L − 3
Now observe that under iteration of Φ, the reduced word g has polynomial growth in the
electrocuted metric since it’s conjugacy class is carried by the nonattracting subgroup
system F , whereas the word u grows exponentially under iteration of φ. Hence we can
conclude that |Φs# (w)|el ≥ |Φs# (u)|el for all s > 0 and thus w has exponential growth in
w
the electrocuted metric. Now choose some Nw such that |ΦN
# (u)|el ≥ 4|u|el ≥ 2|w|el .
Observe that the bounded cancellation lemma tells us that Nw ’s obtained from this
subcase depend only on the conjugating word u and not on g. Hence they are only
finitely many Nw ’s.
Finally we let N be max of M0 from Case 1 and all the Nw ’s from case 2 and we have
the desired conclusion.
The main theorem of [18, Theorem 4.6] is a very general and powerful result and can
be stated as the following lemma, which is a special case of that theorem, and suffices
for our purposes. For definitions of hallway flaring and cone-bounded hallways strictly
flare condition see [18, Definition 3.5, 3.6].

9

Lemma 2.8. [18, Theorem 4.6] Let H < Out(F) be infinite cyclic or a free group of
rank 2. Suppose {Hα } is a mutually malnormal collection of quasiconvex subgroups of F
such that the conjugacy classes of each Hα is invariant under H. If the hallways flare
condition is satisfied for the induced tree of coned-off spaces defined by this collection
and the cone-bounded hallways strictly flare condition is also satisfied then the extension
group Γ defined by the short exact sequence
1→F→Γ→H→1
f′ α } where H
f′ α
is strongly hyperbolic relative to the the collection of subgroups {Hα ⋊ H
is a lift that preserves Hα .
Recall the discussion before the statement of 2.6 where we defined the partially elecb The Cayley graph of Γ may be regarded as a tree of hyperbolic spaces
trocuted space Γ.
where the tree structure is induced by the quotient group. Proposition 2.7 shows that
b is hyperbolic.
induced tree of coned-off spaces (Γ)
Proposition 2.9. Let φ ∈ Out(F) be rotationless and exponentially growing outer auto±
1
2
k
morphism equipped with a dual lamination pair Λ±
φ and let Ana (Λφ ) = {[F ], [F ], ...., [F ]}
i
i
denote the nonattracting subgroup system for Λ±
φ . If F ’s denote representatives of [F ]
such that Φi (F i ) = F i for some lift Φi , then the extension group Γ in the short exact
sequence
1 → F → Γ → hφi → 1
is strongly hyperbolic relative to the collection of subgroups {F i ⋊Φi Z}.
Proof. We perform a partial electrocution of the extension group Γ
1 → F → Γ → hφi → 1
b We also perform an
with respect the collection of subgroups {F i } and denoted it by Γ.
i
b | · | , and since
electrocution of F with respect to the collection {F }, denoted by (F,
el
±
Ana (Λφ ) is a malnormal subgroup system, F is (strongly) relatively hyperbolic with
respect to the collection {F i }. The Cayley graph of the quotient group hφi being a
tree, gives us a tree of (strongly) relatively hyperbolic spaces with vertex spaces being
identified with cosets of F. Thus we may regard the Cayley graph of Γ as a tree of
b is the induced tree of coned-off spaces
(strongly) relatively hyperbolic spaces and then Γ
in the statement of the Mj-Reeves strong combination theorem 2.8. Proposition 2.7
proves that the hallway flare condition and the cone-bounded hallways strictly flare
condition are satisfied for this induced tree of coned-off spaces.
Thus applying the Mj-Reeves strong combination theorem, Lemma 2.8, we have the
conclusion.
We would like to point out that one could have also used the Combination theorem
due to Gautero [9] to deduce the same result, since Proposition 2.6 essentially shows
that the automorphism φ is “relatively hyperbolic” in the sense of Gautero-Lustig [10].

10

2.4 Atoroidal case
Observe that if φ is atoroidal (i.e. does not have any periodic conjugacy class) then φ
is necessarily exponentially growing (see [11, Lemma 3.1]). This can also be seen by
using the Bestvina-Feighn-Handel theorem developed in in [5] which implies that any
polynomially growing outer automorphism necessarily has a periodic conjugacy class.
Thus we can use Proposition 2.9 to set up a recursion on each mapping tori {F i ⋊Φi Z}
by inducting on rank of F i in the following way:
1. If the mapping tori {F i ⋊Φi Z} is hyperbolic, we stop.
2. If the restriction of φi to F j is polynomially growing then using the Kolchin-type
theorem of Bestvina-Feighn-Handel [5] we know that φ must fix some conjugacy
class in F j and therefore φ cannot be atoroidal. Hence this case is not possible.
3. If F i is infinite cyclic, then again this implies φ fixes some conjugacy class and
therefore cannot be atoroidal. Hence this case is not possible.
4. If none of the above cases happen, then we may continue recursively by considering
the restriction φi ∈ Out(F i ) and applying proposition 2.9. Since each subsequent
component, say F i,j , obtained from F i in this process is a proper free factor of
F by itself (due to item (5) in 2.1), the rank of such F i,j drops at each step of
recursion. Therefore this process must stop when we have rank(F i,j,k,..,s) = 3 and
the mapping tori corresponding to this invariant subgroup must be hyperbolic (any
outer automorphism of a free group of rank 2 always fixes some conjugacy class).
This shows that for an atoroidal φ, the collection of parabolic subgroups obtained in
Proposition 2.9 can be made finer (in finitely many steps) until eventually we have that
each subgroup in the collection is a hyperbolic group. Now using two well known facts
in the theory of hyperbolic groups, namely:
• If Γ is (strongly) hyperbolic relative to the finite collection {Hi }i and each Hi is
(strongly) hyperbolic relative to the finite collection {Kji }j , then Γ is (strongly)
hyperbolic relative to the finite collection {Kji }i,j .
• If Γ is (strongly) hyperbolic relative to the finite collection {Hi }i and each Hi is
hyperbolic, then Γ is hyperbolic.
we can conclude that Γ itself must be hyperbolic when φ is atoroidal. Thus, as a corollary
of Proposition 2.9, we have obtained a new proof of Brinkmann’s theorem:
Corollary 2.10. φ ∈ Out(F) is atoroidal if and only if the extension group Γ, in the
short exact sequence 1 → F → Γ → hφi → 1, is a hyperbolic group.
The converse of Proposition 2.9 has already been proven, and is present implicitly in
the work of Makura [16] as was first pointed out in the work of Hagen-Wise [13]. In
[16] the author studies the divergence function for the free-by-cyclic extensions induced

11

by polynomially growing outer automorphisms and proves that the divergence function
for an extension induced by an outer automorphism of growth order r, is approximately
xr+1 . In that paper it is implicit that for a polynomially growing outer automorphism
φ, the induced mapping torus group F ⋊Φ Z is a thick metric space of order r (in the
sense of [1]) for any lift Φ of φ and hence F ⋊Φ Z cannot be relatively hyperbolic with
respect to any finite collection of subgroups.
Thus we conclude this section with the following theorem:
Theorem 2.11. If φ ∈ Out(F), then the extension group Γ in the short exact sequence
1 → F → Γ → hφi → 1
is relatively hyperbolic if and only if φ is exponentially growing.
Proof. If φ is exponentially growing, then there exists some exponentially growing strata
in any CT map representing a rotationless power of φ. Bestvina-Feighn-Handel train
track theory associates a unique attracting lamination to any such EG strata. Now apply
proposition 2.9 to get that the mapping torus of φ is (strongly) relatively hyperbolic.
If the mapping torus is relatively hyperbolic then the discussion before the statement
of the theorem ensures that φ is exponentially growing.
Before we move on to the polynomially growing case we would like to remark that a
somewhat similar looking result as in Proposition 2.9 was claimed in an yet unpublished
paper of Gautero-Lustig [10]. What they show is that the mapping torus of any outer
automorphism is (strongly) hyperbolic relative to the collection of “canonical” subgroups
which contain all the polynomially growing conjugacy classes. The Gautero-Lustig theorem can be easily deduced by a repeated application of Proposition 2.9 on the parabolic
subgroups given in the conclusion of that proposition (similar to the argument we gave
for the atoroidal case 2.10). However, our method of proof is very different and possibly
gives more concrete information about the subgroups which are coned-off.
Remark: After the first version of the paper was uploaded on the arxiv, it was
communicated to the author by Derrik Wigglesworth that he is working on proving the
Gautero-Lustig version by using the CT theory.

3 Polynomial growth case
If φ ∈ Out(F) has at most polynomial growth, then we have the following result due to
Button-Kropholler:
Lemma 3.1. [7, Corollary 4.3]
If φ ∈ Out(F) is a polynomially growing outer automorphism then the mapping torus
F⋊Φ Z is acylindrically hyperbolic for any lift Φ of φ, unless φ has finite order in Out(F).
Combining the above lemma with Theorem 2.11 we conclude that

12

Corollary 3.2. If φ ∈ Out(F) then the extension group F⋊Φ Z is acylindrically hyperbolic
but not relatively hyperbolic if and only if φ is polynomially growing and has infinite
order.
In conclusion of this section we would like to point out that this completely answers
a question asked by Minasyan-Osin [17, Problem 8.2]. We now know that F ⋊Φ Z is not
acylindrically hyperbolic if and only if φ has finite order in Out(F).

4 Applications: Free-by-Free hyperbolic extensions
Consider the short exact sequence
1→F→Γ→Q→1
where Q is a free subgroup of Out(F). In this section we shall give the construction of
a free-by-free hyperbolic extension Γ where the elements of quotient group Q are not
necessarily fully irreducible. So far in the study of Out(F), the only examples of free-byfree hyperbolic extensions which are known; necessarily assume that every element of Q
is fully irreducible. So Theorem 4.5 , in a way, gives a completely new class of examples
of free-by-free hyperbolic extensions.
Standing assumptions: We let φ, ψ be outer automorphisms equipped with dual
±
lamination pairs Λ±
φ and Λψ such that the following hold:
−
+
−
1. {Λ+
φ , Λφ } ∩ {Λψ , Λψ } = ∅
±
2. Ana (Λ±
φ ) and Ana (Λψ ) are both trivial.
−
−1
−1
3. Λ+
φ is invariant under φ and Λφ is invariant under φ . Similarly for ψ, ψ .

Lemma 4.1. If φ, ψ are outer automorphisms which satisfy the standing assumptions
sbove, then we have the following:
1. φ, ψ are both atoroidal.
−
+
2. Generic leaves of Λ+
φ , Λφ are attracted to Λψ under action of ψ. Similarly, with
roles of φ, ψ reversed.
−
−
−1
3. Generic leaves of Λ+
φ , Λφ are attracted to Λψ under action of ψ . Similarly, with
roles of φ, ψ reversed.
+
Proof. Proof of (1): Since Ana (Λ±
φ ) = ∅, every conjugacy class is attracted to Λφ under
the action of φ. Hence φ cannot have periodic conjugacy classes. Similar argument
works for ψ.
+
Proof of (2): Let γφ+ denote a generic leaf of Λ+
φ . We claim that γφ cannot be
+
−
a leaf of Λ−
φ . It is clear that γφ cannot be a generic leaf of Λψ , since otherwise the
−
weak closure would be equal to both Λ+
φ and Λψ , which would violate item (1) in the

13

standing assumption. Also, if Hr is the EG strata associated to Λ−
ψ for some relative
+
train track map f : G → G and if γφ does not have height r, then by construction of
the nonattracting subgraph we see that it is carried by Ana (Λ±
ψ ), but this is not possible
+
±
since Ana (Λψ ) = ∅. Hence γφ cannot be nongeneric leaf of Λ−
ψ of height less than r. If
+
γφ is a nongeneric leaf of height r, then [4, Lemma 3.1.15] closure of γφ+ is all of Λ−
ψ which
+
again contradicts item (1) of the standing assumption. Thus γφ cannot be a nongeneric
+
−
leaf of Λ−
ψ and consequently γφ cannot be a leaf of Λψ .
−
Choose attracting neighborhoods Vψ+ and Vψ− of Λ+
ψ and Λψ , respectively, defined by
long generic leaf segments of the respective laminations such that γφ+ ∈
/ Vψ− .
By using the weak attraction theorem 2.2 together with the standing assumption we
know that either γφ+ ∈ Vψ− or γφ+ is weakly attracted to Λ+
ψ under iteration by ψ. But
since we have ruled out the first possibility, γφ+ is necessarily attracted to Λ+
ψ . This
+
+
implies that generic leaves of Λφ are attracted to Λψ .
The proof of other conclusions in item (2) and (3) follow from symmetric arguments.
Definition 4.2. A sequence of conjugacy classes {αi } is said to approximate Λ+
φ if for
any L > 0, the ratio
m(x ∈ Si1 |the L-nbd of x is a generic leaf segment of Λ+
φ)
1
m(Si )
converges to 1 as i → ∞, where m is the scaled Lebesgue measure and τi : Si1 → G
denotes the immersion that gives the circuit in G representing αi .
Lemma 4.3. Let φ, ψ be outer automorphisms of F which satisfy the standing assumptions above. Then for any sequence of conjugacy classes {αi }, the sequence cannot
−
approximate both Λ−
φ and Λψ .
Proof. Suppose that {αi } approximates Λ−
ψ . Since our standing assumptions imply (by
±
using Lemma 4.1) that generic leaves of Λψ are weakly attracted to Λ−
φ under iterations
−
−1
of φ , we claim that we may choose an attracting neighborhood Vφ of Λ−
φ defined by
±
−
a long generic leaf segment of Λ−
such
that
Λ
∈
/
V
.
If
such
a
leaf
segment
does not
φ
ψ
φ
−
+
exist then it would imply that some generic leaf of Λφ is a leaf of either Λψ or Λ−
ψ . This
−
+
−
−
−
implies that either Λφ ⊂ Λψ or Λφ ⊂ Λψ . For concreteness suppose that Λφ ⊂ Λ+
ψ.
−
−
This implies that generic leaves of Λφ cannot be attracted to Λψ , since otherewise the
+
+
−
inclusion Λ−
φ ⊂ Λψ implies that generic leaves of Λψ would get attracted to Λψ , which is
not possible. But then this would violate that generic leaves of Λ−
φ is weakly attracted
+
−
to both Λψ and Λψ as in the conclusion of Lemma 4.1.
Now notice that under this setup, Λ−
/ Vφ− and generic leaves of Λ−
ψ ∈
ψ are not carried by
±
Ana (Λφ ). Hence by applying the uniformity part of the weak attraction theorem, we get
−
+
−
−
an M ≥ 1 such that φm
# (γψ ) ∈ Vφ for all m ≥ M for every generic leaf γψ ∈ Λψ . Since
+
Vφ+ is an open set we can find an I ≥ 1 such that φm
# (αi ) ∈ Vφ for all m ≥ M, i ≥ I.

14

−
This implies that {αi } cannot approximate Λ−
φ , since otherwise generic leaves of Λφ
would get attracted to Λ+
φ.

Now we are ready to prove a version of Mosher’s 3-of-4 stretch lemma [19] and give a
new example of a hyperbolic-by-hyperbolic hyperbolic group !
Proposition 4.4 (3-of-4 stretch). Let φ, ψ be outer automorphisms which satisfy the
standing assumptions above. Then we have the following:
1. There exists some M ≥ 0 such that for any conjugacy class α, at least three of the
four numbers
−ni
ni
−ni
||φn#i (α)||el , ||φ#
(α)||el , ||ψ#
(α)||el , ||ψ#
(α)||el

are greater an or equal to 3||α||el , for all ni ≥ M.
2. There exists some N ≥ 0 such that for any word w ∈ F, at least three of the four
numbers
−ni
−ni
(w)|el
(w)|el , |Ψn#i (w)|el , |Ψ#
|Φn#i (w)|el , |Φ#

are greater than 3|w|el , for all ni ≥ N.
Proof. Proof of (1): Suppose there does not exist any such M0 . We argue to a contradiction by using the weak attraction theorem. By our supposition we get a sequence of
−ni
conjugacy classes αi such that at least two of the four numbers ||φn#i (αi )||el , ||φ#
(αi )||el ,
ni
−ni
||ψ# (αi )||el , ||ψ# (αi )||el are less than 3||αi ||el and ni > i. Proposition 2.6 tells us that
−ni
(αi )||el } is ≥ 3||αi ||el and at least one of
at least one of {||φn#i (αi )||el , ||φ#
ni
−ni
{||ψ# (αi )||el , ||ψ# (αi )||el } is ≥ 3||αi ||el for all sufficiently large i.
ni
(αi )||el ≤ 3||αi ||el
For sake of concreteness suppose that ||φn#i (αi )||el ≤ 3||αi ||el and ||ψ#
for all ni .
(∗)
Using Lemma 4.3 we know that the sequence {αi } cannot approximate both Λ−
and
φ
−
and Λ−
.
For
concreteness
suppose
that
{α
}
does
not
approximate
Λ
.
Then
we
can
i
ψ
φ
−
−
choose some attracting neighborhood Vφ of Λφ which is defined by some long generic leaf
segment and after passing to a subsequence if necessary we may assume that αi ∈
/ Vφ−
for all i. Also since Ana (Λ±
φ ) = ∅ by using the uniformity part of the weak attraction
+
theorem, there exists some M such that φm
# (αi ) ∈ Vφ for all m ≥ M. Choosing i to
be sufficiently large we may assume that ni ≥ M and so by using Lemma 2.4 we have
LEGHrσ (φn#i (αi )) ≥ ǫ for some ǫ > 0. By using Lemma 2.5 we obtain that for any A > 0
there exists some M1 such that
|φm
# (αi )|H σ ≥ A|αi |Hrσ
r

for every m > M1 . This implies that for all sufficiently large i, |φn#i (αi )|Hrσ ≥ A|αi |Hrσ .
Choosing a sequence Ai → ∞ and after passing to a subsequence of {ni } we may assume
that |φn#i (αi )|Hrσ ≥ Ai |αi |Hrσ . But this implies that the ratio |φn#i (αi )|Hrσ /|αi |Hrσ → ∞ as
i → ∞. This contradicts (∗).
Proof of (2) is similar to proof of Proposition 2.7.

15

Theorem 4.5. Let φ, ψ be outer automorphisms which satisfy the standing assumptions
above. Then there exists some M > 0 such that for every m, n ≥ M the group Q :=
e is hyperbolic for any
hφm , ψ n i is a free group of rank 2 and the extension group F ⋊ Q
e
lift Q of Q.
Proof. The conclusion about free groups follows directly from 3-of-4 stretch result in
Proposition 4.4. The hyperbolicity of the extension group follows by using the BestvinaFeighn Combination theorem [2] since item (2) of Proposition 4.4 implies that the annuli
flare condition is satisfied.
It is worth pointing out that it is very easy to construct examples of φ, ψ such that
no element of Q will be fully irreducible.
Corollary 4.6. [3, Theorem 5.2] Suppose φ, ψ are fully irreducible and atoroidal which
do not have common powers. Then there exists some M > 0 such that for every m, n ≥
e is
M the group Q := hφm , ψ n i is a free group of rank 2 and the extension group F ⋊ Q
e of Q.
hyperbolic for any lift Q
Proof. Since φ, ψ are fully irreducible, atoroidal, our standing assumptions are automatically satisfied. Now apply Theorem 4.5.
Address: Department of Mathematical Sciences, IISER Mohali, Punjab, India.
Contact: pritam@scarletmail.rutgers.edu

References
[1] J. Behrstock, C. Drutu, and L. Mosher. Thick metric spaces, Relative hyperbolicity
and Quasi-isometric rigidity. math. Annalen, 344:543–595, 2009.
[2] M. Bestvina and M. Feighn. A combination theorem for negetively curved groups.
J. Differential Geom., 43(4):85–101, 1992.
[3] M. Bestvina, M. Handel, and M. Feighn. Laminations, Trees, and irreducible automorphisms of free groups. Geom. Func. Anal., 7:215–244, 1997.
[4] M. Bestvina, M. Feighn, and M. Handel. Tits alternative in Out(Fn )-I: Dynamics
of Exponentially-growing Automorphisms. Ann. of Math., 151:517–623, 2000.
[5] M. Bestvina, M. Feighn, and M. Handel. The Tits alternative for Out(Fn) II: A
Kolchin type theorem. Ann. of Math., 161(2):1–59, 2005.
[6] P. Brinkmann. Hyperbolic Automorphisms of Free Groups. Geom. Funct. Anal.,
10(5):1071–1089, 2000.
[7] J. Button and R. Kropholler. Nonhyperbolic free-by-cyclic and one-relator groups.
NewYork Journal of mathematics, 22:755–774, 2016.

16

[8] M. Feighn and M. Handel. The recognition theorem for Out(Fn ). Groups Geom.
Dyn, 5:39–106, 2011.
[9] F. Gautero. Geodesics in Trees of Hyperbolic and Relatively Hyperbolic Spaces.
Proceedings of the Edinburgh Mathematical Society, 59:701–740, 2016.
[10] F. Gautero and M. Lustig. The mapping torus group of a free group automorphism
is hyperbolic relative to the canonical subgroups of polynomial growth. Preprint,
Preprint, 2007.
[11] P. Ghosh. Limits of conjugacy classes under iterates of hyperbolic elements of
Out(F). arXiv, 2017. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1709.09024.
[12] P. Ghosh. Relatively irreducible free subgroups of Out(F). arXiv, 2018.
[13] M. Hagen and D. Wise. Cubulating mapping tori of polynomial growth free group
automorphisms. arXiv:1605.07879, 2016.
[14] M. Handel and L. Mosher.
Subgroup decomposition in Out(Fn ), Part
I: Geometric Models.
Mem. Amer. Math. Soc, (accepted), 2017.
URL
http://arxiv.org/abs/1302.2378.
[15] M. Handel and L. Mosher. Subgroup decomposition in Out(Fn ), Part III:
Weak Attraction theory. Mem. Amer. Math. Soc., (accepted), 2017. URL
https://arxiv.org/abs/1306.4712.
[16] N Makura. Detour functions and quasi-isometries. Quat. J. of Math., 53:207–239,
2002.
[17] A. Minasyan and D. Osin. Acylindrical hyperbolicity of groups acting on trees.
math. Annalen, 362:1055–1105, 2015.
[18] M. Mj and L. Reeves. A combination theorem for strong relative hyperolicity.
Geom. Topol., 12:1777–1798, 2008.
[19] L. Mosher. A hyperbolic-by-hyperbolic hyperbolic group. Proc. Ams, 125:3447–
3455, 1997.

17

