arXiv:1505.04465v2 [] 7 Nov 2016

A CHARACTERIZATION OF RELATIVELY HYPERBOLIC
GROUPS VIA BOUNDED COHOMOLOGY
FEDERICO FRANCESCHINI
Abstract. It was proved by Mineyev and Yaman that, if (Γ, Γ′ ) is a
relatively hyperbolic pair, the comparison map
Hbk (Γ, Γ′ ; V ) → H k (Γ, Γ′ ; V )
is surjective for every k ≥ 2, and any bounded Γ–module V . By exploiting results of Groves and Manning, we give another proof of this result.
Moreover, we prove the opposite implication under weaker hypotheses
than the ones required by Mineyev and Yaman.

1. Introduction
The relations between bounded cohomology and geometric group theory
have been proved to be fruitful on several occasions. For instance, the second bounded cohomology with real coefficients of most hyperbolic groups
has uncountable dimension ([EF97]). This results generalizes an analogous
fact for free non-abelian groups (see [Bro81], or [Rol] for a simpler proof)
and was in turn extended by considering groups acting properly discontinuously on Gromov hyperbolic spaces ([Fuj98]). The proper discontinuity
condition was weakened in order to include other interesting classes of group
actions on Gromov hyperbolic spaces where a Brook’s type argument could
be applied. For example, the WPD (weakly properly discontinuous) property and the acylindrical hyperbolicity were introduced by Bestvina and
Fujiwara ([BF02]) and Bowditch ([Bow08]) respectively in order to study
actions of mapping class groups on curve complexes. The second bounded
cohomology for more complicated coefficients of (most) acylindrically hyperbolic groups was shown to be infinite-dimensional in [HO13] and [BBF].
Two other cases somehow opposite to each other are the characterization
of amenability in terms of the vanishing of bounded cohomology ([Joh72])
and the characterization of Gromov hyperbolicity of groups in term of the
surjectivity of the comparison map in higher degrees ([Min02]). The last
two examples could be exploited to prove that the simplicial volume of
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification. 20F67, 20F65, 55N35.
Key words and phrases. Relative bounded cohomology, relatively hyperbolic groups,
Rips complex, comparison map, straightening.
1

BOUNDED COHOMOLOGY AND RELATIVE HYPERBOLICITY

2

connected closed (and aspherical of dimension at least 2) oriented manifolds with amenable (Gromov hyperbolic) fundamental group vanishes (is
nonzero).
In the present paper we will consider a generalization of Mineyev’s result to the relative setting. The absolute case was considered by Mineyev
in [Min01] and [Min02]. He proved that, if Γ is hyperbolic, the comparison
map Hbk (Γ, V ) → H k (Γ, V ) is surjective for every k ≥ 2 and every bounded
Γ–module V . Viceversa, if Γ is finitely presented and the comparison map
Hb2 (Γ, V ) → H 2 (Γ, V ) is surjective for every bounded Γ–module V , then
Γ is hyperbolic (actually, it was proven by Gromov and Rips that hyperbolic groups are finitely presented: see [Gro87, Corollary 2.2.A] or [CDP90,
Théorème 2.2]).
In this work we consider a relative version of the results of [Min01] and
[Min02] which holds for group-pairs, i.e. couples (Γ, Γ′ ) where Γ is a group
and Γ′ is a finite family of subgroups of Γ. The following is our main result
(see Section 2 for the definitions of the terms involved).
Theorem 1.1. Let (Γ, Γ′ ) be a group-pair.
(a) If (Γ, Γ′ ) is relatively hyperbolic the comparison map
Hbk (Γ, Γ′ ; V ) → H k (Γ, Γ′ ; V )
is surjective for every bounded Γ–module V and k ≥ 2.
(b) Conversely, if (Γ, Γ′ ) is a finitely presented group-pair such that Γ
is finitely generated and the comparison map is surjective in degree
2 for any bounded Γ–module V , then (Γ, Γ′ ) is relatively hyperbolic.
Roughly speaking, the group-pair F
(Γ, Γ′ ) is finitely presented if there is
a presentation for Γ in the alphabet i∈I Γi ⊔ A – where A ⊂ Γ is a finite
set – such that only finitely many relations involve elements of A . See
Definition 8.7 for more details.
Mineyev and Yaman proved in [MY] a similar theorem. In particular,
they proved (a), while the opposite implication was proved only under
stronger hypotheses than (b) above (see [MY, Theorem 59]).
In an article of Groves and Manning ([GM08]) written shortly thereafter, several useful results are proved which seem to provide an alternative
strategy to prove (a) of Theorem 1.1. Indeed, quoting from [GM08, p. 4]:
“ In particular, in [GM], we define a homological bicombing
on the coned-off Cayley graph of a relatively relatively hyperbolic group (using the bicombing from this paper in an
essential way) in order to investigate relative bounded cohomology and relatively hyperbolic groups, in analogy with
[Min01] and [Min02]. ”
The article [GM] was referred to as “in preparation”, and has never appeared. It was our aim to provide such a proof. We take a small detour

BOUNDED COHOMOLOGY AND RELATIVE HYPERBOLICITY

3

from the strategy outlined in the quotation above, since we will use the
cusped-graph defined in [GM08] instead of the coned-off Cayley graph.
In [MY] a weaker version of (b) is also considered. However, such implication was proved under additional finiteness hypotheses about the action
of Γ on a graph or complex, which seem to be far more restricting than the
finite presentability in the absolute case. By making use of recent results
in a paper of Pedroza [MP], we will be able to prove this implication with
a proof similar to the one in [MY], but without mentioning Γ–actions in
the statement.
In Section 7 we give two applications. The first one is a straightforward
consequence of Theorem 1.1 (a) and was already proved in [MY]: if the
topological pair (X, Y ) is a classifying-pair for (Γ, Γ′ ), then the Gromov
norm on Hk (X, Y ) – which in general is merely a semi-norm – is actually
a norm, for k ≥ 2. This implies in particular interesting non-vanishing
results for some classes of compact manifolds with boundary. The second
application easily follows from our Rips complex construction, and can be
obtained in the same way from an analogous construction in [MY, Section
2.9]. It states that, for a hyperbolic pair (Γ, Γ′ ), there is n ∈ N such that,
for any Γ–module V , the relative (non-bounded) cohomology of (Γ, Γ′ ) with
coefficients in V vanishes in dimensions at least n.
The plan of the paper is as follows. In sections 2 and 3 we recall some
definitions and results from [MY] and [GM08] (some technicalities pertaining to Section 2 are addressed later in the first addendum). In sections 3,
4 and 5 we introduce a Rips complex construction as our main tool, and
prove some filling-inequalities of its simplicial chain complex, which will
allow us to prove Theorem 1.1 (a) in Section 6. In the following section we
give the applications already mentioned. In Section 8 we recall some results
in [MP] and prove Theorem 1.1 (b). In the second addendum we show that
the definitions of relative bounded cohomology given in [MY] and [Bla14]
respectively are isometric.
Acknowledgements. This work is part of a Ph.D. project that I am developing under the supervision of Roberto Frigerio. I would like to thank
him for several conversations on this problem, and for having carefully read
previous versions of the present work. I am also grateful to Matthias Blank
and Clara Löh for a pleasant time I spent in Regensburg, where some of
the contents of this article were discussed.

2. Preliminaries
Several definitions and results in this section are taken from [MY].

BOUNDED COHOMOLOGY AND RELATIVE HYPERBOLICITY

4

Given a set S, let RS be the vector space with basis S. Then S induces
a natural ℓ1 –norm k · k on RS
X
X
|λs |
λs s :=
s∈S

s∈S

(where almost all coefficients λs are null). We denote by C∗ (S) the complex
defined by
Ck (S) = {0}

Ck (S) = RS k+1

if k ≤ −1

if k ≥ 0,

with boundary operator given by
∂k (s0 , . . . , sk ) :=

k
X
(−1)k (s0 , . . . , ŝj , . . . , sk ).
j=0

Notice that ∂k is a bounded linear operator for every k. If Γ is a group
acting on S, then Γ also acts diagonally on Ck (S) via isometries, and ∂k is
Γ–equivariant with respect to this action. The complex C∗ (S) admits an
exact augmentation given by
X
X
C0 (S) → R
λi si 7→
λi .
i

i

The following definition of relative bounded cohomology is taken from
[MY] and is modelled on the analogous one for the non-bounded version in
[BE78]. Our notation is slightly different from that of [MY].

>

Definition 2.1. A Γ–module is a real vector space equipped with a linear Γ–action. A Γ–module P is projective if, given Γ–equivariant maps
ϕ : V → W and f : P → W , with ϕ surjective, there exists a Γ–equivariant
map f˜ : P → V making the following diagram commute
V
(1)

f˜
f

ϕ
∨

P −→ W.
Given a module M , a Γ–resolution for M is an exact Γ–complex
· · · Ek → · · · → E0 → M → 0.
A Γ–projective resolution of M is a Γ–resolution where all the Ei are
Γ–projective.
The following lemma, (similar to [MY, Lemma 52]) will be useful.
Lemma 2.2. Let P be a Γ–module generated as a vector space by a basis S.
Suppose that the action of Γ on P is such that, for every s ∈ S and γ ∈ Γ,
there is t ∈ S such that γs = ±t. Moreover, suppose that |Stab Γ (s)| < ∞
for every s ∈ S. Then P is a Γ–projective module.

BOUNDED COHOMOLOGY AND RELATIVE HYPERBOLICITY

5

Proof. Let ϕ : V → W and f : P → W be Γ–equivariant maps, and suppose
that ϕ is surjective. If a ∈ P , let Stab − (a) := {γ ∈ Γ : γa = −a}. Notice
that |Stab − (s)| is null or equals |Stab (s)|, hence in particular it is finite,
if s ∈ S. Fix s ∈ S and b ∈ V such that f (s) = ϕ(b). Put
P
P
γαb − γ∈Stab − (s) γαb
γ∈Stab
(s)
∀α ∈ Γ
f˜(±αs) := ±
Stab (s) ∪ Stab − (s)
The definition above gives rise to a well defined R–linear and Γ–equivariant
map RΓs → V . Since P is a direct sum of spaces of type RΓ, s ∈ S,
we obtain a Γ–equivariant map f˜ : P → V . Finally, it is easy to see that
ϕ ◦ f˜ = f .

In particular, if Γ acts freely on S, then C∗ (S) → R → 0 is a Γ–projective
resolution of the trivial Γ–module R.
We also have a normed version of projectivity.
Definition 2.3. Let Γ be a discrete group. A bounded Γ-module V is
an R–normed space equipped with a (left) Γ-action of equibounded automorphisms, i.e. there exists L > 0 such that
kγ · vk ≤ Lkvk

∀v ∈ V, γ ∈ Γ.

A bounded Γ–complex is a complex of bounded Γ–modules with Γ–
equivariant bounded boundary operators.
Definition 2.4. A map ϕ : V → W between normed spaces is undistorted
if there exists K > 0 such that, for every w ∈ W in the image of ϕ, there
exists v ∈ V such that
kvk ≤ Kkwk.

ϕ(v) = w,

>

Definition 2.5. A Γ–module P is b–projective if, given any surjective
undistorted bounded Γ–map ϕ : V → W and any bounded Γ–map f : P →
W , there exists a bounded Γ–map f˜ : P → V making the following diagram
commute
V
(2)

f˜
f

ϕ
∨

P −→ W.
Given a module M , a bounded Γ–resolution for M is an exact bounded
Γ–complex
· · · Ek → · · · → E0 → M → 0.
A b–projective resolution of M is a bounded Γ–resolution of M where
all the Ei are b–projective and all maps are undistorted.

BOUNDED COHOMOLOGY AND RELATIVE HYPERBOLICITY

6

Given (bounded) Γ–modules V and W , we denote by Hom (b) (V, W ) the
space of all (bounded) R–linear homomorphisms from V to W , and we
denote by Hom Γ(b) (V, W ) the subspace of Hom (b) (V, W ) whose elements
are Γ–equivariant.
The following lemma is a simple exercise in homological algebra:
′ of the
Lemma 2.6. Given two (b–)projective Γ–resolutions EM and EM
′
same module M , there exists a (bounded) chain Γ–map ϕ∗ : EM → EM
which extends the identity on M . This map is unique up to (bounded)
Γ–homotopy.
′ are as
Dually, if V is any (bounded) Γ–module and ϕ1 , ϕ2 : EM → EM
∗
′ ,V ) →
above, there is a (bounded) Γ–homotopy between ϕ∗1 and ϕ∗2 : Hom (b) (EM
∗
Hom (b) (EM , V ).

Notice that, for every Γ–set S, the space RS is a bounded Γ–module and
C∗ (S) is a bounded Γ–complex, whose augmentation is a Γ–projective and
Γ–b–projective resolution of R, if Γ acts on S as in Lemma 2.2.
Definition 2.7. Let Γ be a group, and let Γ′ := {Γi }i∈I be a finite nonempty parametrized family of subgroups (this means that we allow repetitions among the Γi ). We call such (Γ, Γ′ ) a group-pair.
F
Definition 2.8. Given a group-pair (Γ, Γ′ ), let IΓ be the Γ–set i∈I Γ ∼
Γ×I (where Γ acts on IΓ by left translation of each copy of Γ). We consider
the complex
St = St ∗ (IΓ) := C∗ (Γ × I).
′
Let St be the Γ-subcomplex of St with basis given by the tuples (x0 , . . . , xk ) ∈
(Γ × I)k+1 for which there exists i ∈ I such that xj ∈ Γ × {i} for all
′
0 ≤ j ≤ k and xj ∈ x0 Γi for every 1 ≤ j ≤ k. Finally, let St rel
∗ := St ∗ / St ∗
be the quotient Γ–complex. If V is a (bounded) Γ–module, the (bounded)
cohomology of the group-pair (Γ, Γ′ ) with coefficients in V is the
cohomology of the cocomplex
∗
′
Γ
rel
St rel
(b) (Γ, Γ ; V ) := Hom (b) ( St ∗ , V ),
∗ (Γ, Γ′ ; V ).
and it is denoted by H(b)
′
The complex St rel
∗ (Γ, Γ ) is provided with a natural norm, hence we can
rel
∗
′
equip St (b) (Γ, Γ ; V ) with the corresponding ℓ∞ norm, which descends to
∗ (Γ, Γ′ ; V ).
a semi-norm on H(b)
′
By Lemma 2.2 it is easily seen that St rel
∗ (Γ, Γ ) induces a Γ–projective
′
resolution of the Γ–module ∆ := ker (R(Γ/Γ ) → R). Moreover, Lemma
′
2.2 could be easily adapted to the normed setting, proving that St rel
k (Γ, Γ )
is b–projective for all k ≥ 2. Mineyev and Yaman also proved that the
boundaries of the complex St rel
∗ → ∆ → 0 are undistorted, hence the

BOUNDED COHOMOLOGY AND RELATIVE HYPERBOLICITY

7

resolution Strel
∗ is b–projective (see [MY, Section 8.3]). It follows by Lemma
2.6 that the relative (bounded) cohomology of (Γ, Γ′ ) is computed by any
Γ–equivariant (b-)projective resolution of ∆ up to canonical (bilipschitz)
isomorphism. Even if we don’t actually use the fact that St rel
∗ provides a
b–Γ–projective resolution of ∆, we will use the following result (proven in
[MY, Section 10]). For completeness we provide a proof of it in Addendum
8.1.
Proposition 2.9. [MY, The relative cone] Fix y ∈ IΓ. There is a (nonR–linear) map:
rel
[y, ·]rel : St rel
1 → St 2
called the relative cone, such that k[y, b]rel k ≤ 3kbk for all b ∈ St rel
1 and
∂[y, z] = z for any cycle z ∈ St rel
with
respect
to
the
augmentation
map:
1
St rel
→
∆.
1
It follows in particular that
Corollary 2.10. [MY, Equation (29), p. 38] Fix y ∈ IΓ. Let β ∈
rel
St rel
2 (Γ, Γ; V ). Then: β − [y, ∂β]rel ∈ St 2 (Γ, Γ; V ) is a cycle, and therefore
rel
also a boundary by the exactness of St ∗ . Hence, if α ∈ St 2b (Γ, Γ′ ; V ) is a
cocycle, we have
(3)

hα, βi = hα, [y, ∂β]rel i

Remark 2.11. A more general notion of relative bounded cohomology for
pairs of groupoids is developed in [Bla14]. By unravelling the definition of
relative bounded cohomology given in [Bla14, Definition 3.5.1 and 3.5.12],
it is possible to see that those definitions are isometrically isomorphic. We
refer the reader to Proposition 8.18 in Addendum 8.2 for a proof of this
fact.
3. Hyperbolic group-pairs and cusped-graph construction
Given a graph G, we denote by d := dG the graph-metric on G. This is
the path-metric on G induced by giving length 1 to every edge in G. Now,
let Y be a simplicial complex, with 1–skeleton Y (1) = G. Given a vertex
v0 ∈ Y (0) and a number R ≥ 0, we define the ball BR (v0 ) with radius R
centered in v0 as the full subgraph of Y whose vertex set is {v ∈ Y (0) =
G(0) : dG (v, v0 ) ≤ R}. Notice that this definition is slightly in contrast with
the usual notion of balls in metric spaces, since we do not equip the whole
Y with a metric if dim Y ≥ 2 and, even if Y = G, there could be a point p
in the middle of an edge e such that p ∈ BR (v0 ), but dG (p, v0 ) > R. More
generally, if A ⊆ Y (0) and r ∈ N, we denote by Nr (A) the full subcomplex
of Y whose vertex set is v ∈ Y (0) : dG (v, A) ≤ r .
Let S 6∋ 1 be a symmetric finite generating set of a group Γ, and consider
the associated simplicial Cayley graph Gsimp (Γ, S). This is the simplicial

BOUNDED COHOMOLOGY AND RELATIVE HYPERBOLICITY

8

graph (i.e. no double edges allowed) whose vertex set is Γ, and with a single
edge connecting γ1 with γ2 in Γ if and only if γ1 γ2−1 ∈ S. In Section 8 we
will consider a non-simplicial version of that graph.
There are many equivalent definitions of relative hyperbolicity for a
group-pair (Γ, Γ′ ). We choose the one introduced in [GM08, p. 21, Definition 3.12; p. 25, Theorem 3.25(5)] which is based on the following cuspedgraph construction. In particular, we will restrict our attention to the case
when Γ is finitely generated and Γ′ is a finite family of finitely generated
subgroups of Γ. A (combinatorial) horoball H = H (G) on a graph
G is the graph whose vertex set is parametrized by G0 × N, and with the
following edges:
• the full subgraph of H whose vertex set is G(0) × {0} is a copy of
G;
• there is a single edge between (g, n) and (g, n + 1), for every (g, n) ∈
G × N;
• there is a single edge between (g, n) and (h, n) if and only dG (g, h) ≤
2n .
Definition 3.1 (Cusped-graph). Let (Γ, Γ′ = {Γi }i∈I ) be a group-pair of
finitely generated groups, and consider a symmetric finite generating set
S 6∋ 1 of Γ such that S ∩ Γi is a finite generating set of Γi for every i
(i.e. S is compatible). For every i ∈ I and left coset gΓi of Γi in Γ we
consider the combinatorial horoball on the subgraph g Gsimp (Γi , S ∩ Γi ) of
Gsimp (Γ, S). We glue those horoballs to Gsimp (Γ, S) in the obvious way (see
[GM08, p. 18] for more details). We obtain in this way the cusped-graph
X.
We denote by the triple (g, i, n) ∈ Γ × I × N a vertex of the cusped-graph.
Notice that (g, i, 0) and (g, j, 0) denote the same vertex for all i, j ∈ I. We
call the parameter n in (g, i, n) the height of the vertex (g, i, n). Given a
natural number n and a horoball H , the n–horoball associated with H
is the full subgraph Hn of X whose vertices are the ones contained in H
with height at least n.
We will need the following result from [GM08].
Proposition 3.2. [GM08, Lemma 3.26] If the cusped-graph X constructed
in Definition 3.1 is δ–hyperbolic and C > δ, then the C–horoballs are convex
in X.
Remark 3.3. From now on we fix some constant C > δ, C ≥ 1.
Remark 3.4. Notice that, by our definition, a cusped-graph is necessarily
simplicial. Groves and Manning explicitely allow multiple edges in their
definition of cusped-graph. We avoid double edges because we want to
consider a cusped-graph as contained in every Rips complex over it (see

BOUNDED COHOMOLOGY AND RELATIVE HYPERBOLICITY

9

the next section). By Remark 6.4, we can apply all relevant results of
[GM08] also in our setting.

Definition 3.5. ([GM08, Definition 3.12; Theorem 3.25(5)]) Let (Γ, Γ′ ) be
a group-pair of finitely generated groups. The pair (Γ, Γ′ ) is (relatively)
hyperbolic if the cusped-graph of (Γ, Γ′ ) is a Gromov hyperbolic metric
space (with the graph metric).
4. Rips complexes on cusped graphs
Definition 4.1. Given a graph G and a parameter 1 ≤ κ ∈ N, the Rips
complex Rκ (G) on G is the simplicial complex with the same 0–skeleton
as G, and an n–dimensional simplex for every set of n + 1 vertices whose
diameter (with respect to the metric of G) is at most κ.
Notice that, since k ≥ 1, G is naturally a subcomplex of Rκ (G). We
need the following fundamental result about Rips complexes over Gromov
hyperbolic graphs.
Lemma 4.2. Let G be a δ–hyperbolic graph. Then Rκ (G) is contractible
for every κ ≥ 4δ + 6.
By considering the proof of Lemma 4.2 given in [BH99, Proposition 3.23],
it is possible to derive a more precise version of this lemma (see Corollary
4.8).
Notation 4.3. Let G be a graph, and let R = Rκ (G) be a Rips complex
over G. Then G and R induce two metrics dG and dR on G(0) = R (0) . For
R ≥ 0 and a vertex v0 , we denote the full subcomplex of R whose vertex
G (v ), and refer to it as a G–ball.
set is {x ∈ G(0) : dG (x, x0 ) ≤ R} by BR
0
Given a Rips complex Rκ (G) over G, we have, for every l ∈ N and every
vertex v, the equality
(4)

G
(v) = Bl (v).
Blκ

Definition 4.4. Given a topological space Z and two subspaces W1 and
W2 , we say that there is a homotopy from W1 to W2 if the inclusion W1 ֒→ Z
is homotopic to a map f : W1 → Z whose image is W2 .
A (geometric) simplex in a simplicial complex Z is determined by the set
of its vertices. If x0 , . . . , xn are non-necessarily distinct vertices in Z, we
denote by [x0 , . . . , xn ] the corresponding simplex (if there is one). Notice
that the dimension of [x0 , . . . , xn ] could be less than n.
Definition 4.5. If Z is a simplicial complex, W1 and W2 are subcomplexes
of Z, and w1 ∈ W1 and w2 ∈ W2 are vertices, we say that W2 is obtained
from W1 by pushing w1 toward w2 if the following conditions hold:

BOUNDED COHOMOLOGY AND RELATIVE HYPERBOLICITY

10

(1) for every set of vertices {x0 , . . . , xn } ∈ Z (0) \ {w1 }, [x0 , . . . , xn , w1 ]
is a simplex in W1 if and only if [x0 , . . . , xn , w2 ] is a simplex in W2 ;
(2) in that case, [x0 , . . . , xn , w1 , w2 ] is a simplex in Z.


(0)
(0)
Notice that it follows that W2 = W1 \ {w1 } ∪ {w2 }. Under the
conditions of Definition 4.5, there is an obvious simplicial homotopy from
W1 to W2 .
Lemma 4.6. [BH99, Proposition 3.23] Let G and Rκ = Rκ (G) be as in
(0)
Lemma 4.2. Let K be a compact subcomplex of Rκ , and let v0 ∈ Rκ be
a vertex. Then, it is possible to inductively homotope the complex K into
a sequence of subcomplexes K0 = K, K1 , . . . , Km = {v0 } in such a way
that:
(0)
(1) there is a sequence of vertices xi ∈ Ki such that
(0)

dG (v0 , xi ) = max{dG (v0 , y) : y ∈ Ki },
(2) Ki+1 is obtained from Ki by pushing xi toward some vertex yi such
that dG (v0 , yi ) < dG (v0 , xi ).
Corollary 4.7. Let G be a δ–hyperbolic locally compact graph and let κ ≥
G (v ) ⊆ R (G) is a contractible topological
4δ + 6. Then every G–ball BR
0
κ
space.
Proof. In the notations of Lemma 4.6 simply note that, by point (2), the
G (v ).
Ki are contained in BR

0
Given a Rips complex Rκ (X) over some cusped space X, an (n–)horoball
of Rκ (X) is the full subcomplex of Rκ (X) having the same vertices of an
(n–)horoball of X. Recall that we have fixed a constant C > δ (Remark
3.3).
Corollary 4.8. Let X be the cusped space of a relatively hyperbolic grouppair (Γ, Γ′ ) (with respect to some finite generating set S as described above)
and let δ be a hyperbolicity constant of X, which we can assume to be an
integer. Then, for κ ≥ 4δ + 6, the Rips complex R = Rκ (X) is contractible, with contractible C–horoballs. Moreover, the balls of Rκ (X) are
also contractible.
Proof. The last assertion follows from Corollary 4.3 and Equation (4). Now,
let K be a compact subcomplex contained in some C–horoball HC (recall
that HC is convex). Let vL = (g, i, n) be the lowest vertex of K, and let
D := max{dX (vL , v) : v ∈ K (0) }. Then, it is easy to see that K is contained
X (g, i, n + D). Put r := D + 1 and v := (g, i, n + D).
in the X–ball BD+1
0
Then, the X–ball BrX (v0 ) contains K and is contained in HC−1 .
With the notation as in Lemma 4.6, consider the sequence of compact
sets K1 , . . . , Km which collapses to the point v0 . Those Ki are contained in

BOUNDED COHOMOLOGY AND RELATIVE HYPERBOLICITY

11

BrX (v0 ) ⊆ HC−1 . We now prove that the Ki are actually contained in HC .
Indeed, K1 ⊆ HC by hypothesis. Suppose by induction that Ki contains no
vertices of height C − 1, and suppose that the vertex wi+1 ∈ Ki+1 \ Ki has
height C − 1. Let wi ∈ Ki be a vertex such that dX (wi+1 , v0 ) < dX (wi , v0 ).
Then we get a contradiction, because dX (wi+1 , v0 ) ≥ height(v0 )− (C − 1) ≥
r, and dX (wi , v0 ) ≤ r because Ki ⊆ BrX (v0 ).
Hence K is contractible in HC . By the arbitrariness of the compact
subcomplex K, it follows that all homotopy groups of HC are trivial and
the conclusion follows by Whitehead’s Theorem.

Notice that, in order to prove that C–horoballs are contractible, we have
actually proved the following more precise statement.
Proposition 4.9. Every compact complex K in some C–horoball HC is
contained in a contractible space BrX (v0 ) ∩ HC , for some r > 0, whose
diameter in Rκ is linearly bounded by the diameter of K.
5. Filling inequalities on Rκ (X)
If Y is a CW -complex, by C∗ (Y ) we mean the real cellular chain complex
of Y , i.e. the complex H∗ (Y (∗) , Y (∗−1) ) with real coefficients. We denote
by Zk (Y ) the subspace of cycles of Ck (Y ). There will be no confusion
with the notation of Section 2. Notice that, if Y is a simplicial complex,
the cellular chain complex · · · C2 (Y ) → C1 (Y ) → C0 (Y ) → R → 0 is
identifiable with the simplicial chain complex of oriented simplices. This
is the chain complex whose k–th module is the real vector space generated
by tuples (y0 , . . . , yn ) up to the identification
(y0 , . . . , yi , . . . , yj , . . . , yn ) = −(y0 , . . . , yj , . . . , yi , . . . , yn )
(see [Mun84, Chapter 1, paragraph 5] for more details).
We see a simplicial chain c ∈ Ck (Y ) as a finitely supported map from
the set of n–dimensional oriented simplices of Y to R, and we define the
support Supp (c) of c as the set of unoriented n–dimensional simplices ∆
of Y such that c(σ) 6= 0, where σ is one of the two oriented simplices over
∆. By maxh c (minh c) we mean the height of the highest (lowest) vertex
of simplices in Supp (c). We denote by Supp (0) (c) the set of vertices
P that
belong to some simplex in Supp (c). If A is a subset of Y and c = i λi σi
is a simplicial k–chain, we define the restriction of c to A as the chain
X
c :=
λi σi .
A

(0)

i : σi ⊆A

BOUNDED COHOMOLOGY AND RELATIVE HYPERBOLICITY

12

5.1. A local lemma. From now on we assume that Rκ = Rκ (X) satisfies
the hypotheses of Corollary 4.8. Recall that C is a fixed constant greater
than δ.
Lemma 5.1 (Local lemma). For every i ≥ 0, there are non–decreasing
functions:
R:N → N
Mloc : N × N → R≥0
(0)

such that, for every D ∈ N≥1 , v0 ∈ Rκ and z ∈ Zi (Rκ ) such that Supp z ⊆
BD (v0 ), there is a ∈ Ci+1 (Rκ ) such that:
(1) ∂a = z;
(2) Supp a ⊆ BR(D) (v0 );
(3) kak ≤ Mloc (D, maxh(z))kzk;
(4) if z is contained in some C–horoball, then a is contained in the
same C–horoball (C as in Remark 3.3).
Proof. Fix integers h, D and j ∈ I. Let c1 , . . . , cn be the collection of
the i–dimensional simplices contained in BD ((1, j, h)). Let z1 , . . . , zm be a
basis of the subspace of cycles in hc1 , . . . , cn iR , which extends bases of the
spaces of cycles contained in the C–horoballs. We choose a1 , . . . , am so
that ∂a1 = z1 , . . . , ∂am = zm . If zk is not contained in any C–horoball,
the chain ak may be chosen in BD ((1, j, h)), since this is contractible by
Corollary 4.8. Otherwise, if zk is contained in some C–horoball, we take
ak in the subcomplex BrX (v0 ) contained in that horoball, as described in
Proposition 4.9.
We extend the map zk 7→ ak by linearity, obtaining a linear map θ h,j,D
between normed spaces, where the first one is finite dimensional. Therefore
θ h,j,D is bounded.
Let now z be a cycle in Ci (Rκ ) with diam( Supp z) ≤ D, and maxh(z) ≤
H. Up to Γ–action, we may suppose that z contains a vertex of the
form (1, j, h) for some h ≤ H, and j ∈ I. It follows that Supp z ⊆
BD ((1, j, h)). Then we put a := θ h,j,D (z). Since (h, j) is an element of
the finite set {1, 2, . . . , H} × I, we may bound the norm of a uniformly, and
put Mloc (D, H) := max{kθ h,j,D k : h ≤ H, j ∈ I}.

5.2. Finite sets of geodesic segments in hyperbolic spaces and filling inequalities. The results we are going to present are inspired by the
well-known fact that geodesics in hyperbolic spaces can be approximated
by embedded trees (see [GdlH90, Chapter 2]). The idea is that a set of n
geodesic segments resembles a simplicial tree where all pairs of edges having
a point in common diverge very rapidly from that point. In other words,
the vertices of the tree are the only points near which two edges may be
close to each other. Moreover, this tree is finite, and the number of vertices
and edges depends only on n. Hence, we can split this tree into a set of

BOUNDED COHOMOLOGY AND RELATIVE HYPERBOLICITY

13

balls of fixed diameter and a set of subedges that are very far from each
other.
Let k ≥ 1 and let z be a k–dimensional cycle. If Supp z is contained
in an L–neighborhood of a set of n geodesic segments, we will be able to
express it as a sum of edge-cycles and vertex-cycles, that we can fill using
the Local Lemma 5.1 and Corollary 5.3 respectively. Therefore we will be
able to fill z with some control of its norm, as described in Theorem 5.6.
Some of the methods of this section are inspired by the proof of [Min99,
Lemma 5.9].
Let [0, |γ|] ∋ t 7→ γ(t) be an arc-length parametrization of a geodesic
segment γ (where |γ| is the length of γ) in some metric space W . Let
x = γ(t), for some t ∈ [0, |γ|], and let s ∈ R. By “γ(x + s)” we mean the
point γ(t + s), if this is defined. Otherwise, if t + s > |γ| (t + s < 0) we put
we
γ(x + s) := γ(|γ|) (γ(x + s) := γ(0)). If t < r and y = γ(r), by γ
[x,y]

mean the restriction of γ to the interval [t, r] (or its image in W ).
Lemma 5.2. Let i ≥ 1. Then there are functions R : N → N, D : N → N
and L : N × N → R which satisfy the following properties: let z ∈ Zi (Rκ ) be
such that Supp z ⊆ NS (γ), for some geodesic segment γ and S ∈ N. Then,
for R = R(S) and D = D(S) there is an expression
X
z=
zk
k

where the zk are cycles such that
(1) P
Supp zk ⊆ BR (xk ), where xk := γ(kD + D/2);
(2)
k kzk k ≤ L(S, maxh(z))kzk;
(3) if Supp z ⊆ HC for a C–horoball HC , then the same is true for
every zk .

Proof. Take D ≥ 2S + 3. Let yk := γ(kD). We put
z k := z

B(k+1)D (y0 )

−z

BkD (y0 )

.

In other words, z k is the restriction of z to the set of simplices contained
in B(k+1)D
P(y0 ) that are not contained in BkD (y0 ). It follows immediately
that z = k z k . Let us put:
R := D/2 + 2S

r := S + 1.

Notice that D > 2S + 2 = 2r. We have:
(5)

Supp z k ⊆ NS (γ) ∩ B(k+1)D (y0 ) \ BkD−1 (y0 ) ⊆ BD/2+2S (xk ) = BR (xk ).

In fact, let v be a vertex in NS (γ) ∩ B(k+1)D (y0 ) \ BkD−1 (y0 ) . Let x ∈ γ
be such that d(v, x) ≤ S. Notice that x ∈ B(k+1)D+S (y0 ) \ BkD−1−S (y0 ),

BOUNDED COHOMOLOGY AND RELATIVE HYPERBOLICITY

14

i.e. kD − S ≤ d(y0 , x) ≤ (k + 1)D + S. Hence d(x, xk ) ≤ D/2 + S, and
d(v, xk ) ≤ d(v, x) + d(x, xk ) ≤ D/2 + 2S, whence the second inclusion in
(5) follows. It follows from (5) that
kz k k ≤ kz

(6)

BR (xk )

k.

Now, from the first inclusion of (5) we get
Supp (0) (∂z k ) ⊆

n
o
NS (γ) ∩ x ∈ Rκ(0) (X) : kD ≤ d(y0 , x) ≤ kD + 1 ⊔
n
o
⊔ x ∈ Rκ(0) (X) : (k + 1)D − 1 ≤ d(y0 , x) ≤ (k + 1)D
⊆

⊆ BS+1 (γ(kD)) ⊔ BS+1 (γ((k + 1)D)) = Br (yk ) ⊔ Br (yk+1 ).
Therefore, since the last two subcomplexes are disjoint, we can put
Supp b′k ⊆ Br (yk ),

∂z k = b′k + bk

Supp bk ⊆ Br (yk+1 ).

Notice that kb′k k + kbk k = kb′k + bk k ≤ (i + 1)kz k k ≤ (i + 1)kz
have
0 = ∂z =

X
k

∂z k =

X

bk + b′k =

k

X

BR (xk )

k. We

bk + b′k+1 .

k

By looking at supports, we note that it follows that bk = −b′k+1 . Since
b′k + bk is a cycle (in the augmented simplicial chain complex of Rκ ) and
bk and b′k have disjoint supports, it follows that bk and b′k are cycles too, if
(′ )
their dimension is at least 1. The same is true if the bk are 0–dimensional.
Indeed, it is easy to see that b′0 = 0, hence b0 = b′1 is a cycle. By induction,
(′ )
if b′k is a cycle, it follows that bk = b′k+1 is a cycle too. Hence all the bk
are cycles.
We fill bk and b′k by a′k and ak using the local lemma, and we also require
that a′k = −ak−1 . Since bk and b′k have diameter bounded by 2r, by the
local lemma we have a function L(S, ·) := Mloc (2r, ·) = Mloc (2(S + 1), ·)
such that kak k ≤ L(S, maxh(bk ))kbk k. If H = maxh(z), then
(7)

kak k ≤ L(S, maxh(bk ))kbk k ≤ L(S, H)(i + 1)kz

BR (xk )

k.

Hence also
(8)

ka′k k = kak−1 k ≤ L(S, H)(i + 1)kz

BR (xk−1 )

k.

We put
zk := z k − a′k − ak .
By (6), (7) and (8), there is a function L′ : N × N → R such that
kzk k ≤ L′ (S, H)kz

BR+D (xk )

k.

BOUNDED COHOMOLOGY AND RELATIVE HYPERBOLICITY

15

We have ∂zk = bk + b′k − b′k − bk = 0, and
X
X
X
X
X
z k − a′k − ak =
zk −
a′k + ak = z −
a′k + ak−1 = z.
zk =
k

k

k

k

k

Finally, since the balls BR+D (xk ) and BR+D (xk+5 ) have disjoint supports
(because 4S < 2D ⇒ 2R = D + 4S ≤ 3D ⇒ 2(R + D) ≤ 5D), we have
X
k

kz

BR+D (xk )

k=

4
X
j=0

X

z

k=j mod 5

BR+D (xk )

≤ 5kzk.

Therefore, Condition (2) in the statement holds with L(S, H) = 5L′ (S, H).
Finally, (3) follows from the local lemma.

Corollary 5.3. For every i ∈ N there are functions S ′ : N → N and
Mthin : N × N → R such that, for every geodesic segment γ and every cycle
z ∈ Zi (Rκ ) with Supp z ⊆ NS (γ) for some S ≥ 0, there is a filling a of z
with Supp a ⊆ NS ′ (γ) and such that
kak ≤ Mthin (S, maxh(z))kzk.
Moreover, we may impose that a is contained in a C–horoball HC , if the
same is true for z (C is as in Remark 3.3).
Proof. Split z as the sum of the cycles zk be as in the previous lemma. Now,
let R = R(S) as in the previous lemma. If Supp z ∩ BR (xk ) 6= ∅, we have
maxh(zk ) ≤ maxh(BR (xk )); otherwise it is clear from the construction of
zk that zk = 0. In any case we have maxh(zk ) ≤ Supp (z) + 2R. Moreover,
by (1) of the previous lemma,
P max diam(zk ) ≤ 2R. Fill zk with ak as in the
local lemma, and put a = k ak . Let Mloc : N × N → R be as in the local
lemma. Hence
X
kak ≤
kak k ≤
k

≤ Mloc (maxdiam(zk ), maxh(z) + 2R)

X

kzk k ≤

k

≤ Mloc (2R, maxh(z) + 2R) L(S, maxh(z))kzk.
So we can put Mthin (S, h) := Mloc (2R, h + 2R)L(S, h).



The next lemma holds for every δ–hyperbolic space X.
Lemma 5.4. Let α1 , . . . , αn be n geodesic segments. Then, for every
S ∈ N, there exist constants R = R(S, n), p = p(n), q = q(n), points x1 ,
. . . , xp ∈ X and geodesic segments γ1 , . . . , γq such that
n
[

k=1

αk ⊆

p
[

BR (xi ) ∪

i=1

where the γj are S–far from each other.

q
G

j=1

N2δ (γj )

BOUNDED COHOMOLOGY AND RELATIVE HYPERBOLICITY

16

Proof. We prove the statement by induction on n. The case n = 1 is
obvious. Suppose that the statement is proved for n − 1 segments, and put
p = p(n − 1),

q = q(n − 1).

Hence we have balls BR (x1 ), . . . , BR (xp ) and geodesic segments γ1 , . . . , γq
associated with α1 , . . . , αn−1 as in the statement. We fix an orientation
on αn and for every 1 ≤ j ≤ q such that d(γj , αn ) ≤ S (here d denotes the
distance between sets) we denote by xj (resp. yj ) the first (resp. the last)
point on αn such that d(xj , γj ) ≤ S, d(yj , γj ) ≤ S. By hyperbolicity, it is
easy to see that
αn
⊆ N2δ (γj )
[xj +S+δ,yj −S−δ]

(some of these intervals may be empty). Since the γj are (2S + 6δ + 1)–far
from each other, we claim that, up to reindexing, we have
x1 ≤ y 1 ≤ x2 ≤ y 2 ≤ · · · ≤ xk ≤ y k
for k ≤ q. Indeed, xj ≤ yj by definition. Moreover, the points between xj
and yj are (S + 3δ)–close to γj . Since there cannot be points in X that are
(S + 3δ)–close to two different γj , we have [xj , yj ] ∩ [xk , yk ] = ∅, for j 6= k,
whence the claim.
The segments of type αn
(where by y0 and xk+1 we
[yj +S+δ, xj+1 −S−δ]

mean the left and right extreme of αn respectively) are S–far from all the
γj and (2S + 2δ)–far from each other. Adding to the γj the segments of
type αn [y +S+δ,x −S−δ] and to the BR (xi ) the balls of type BS+δ (xj ),
j

j+1

BS+δ (yj ) we complete the inductive step.



We need in Theorem 5.6 a stronger version of the lemma above in order
to deal with 1–dimensional cycles. In the notation of Lemma 5.4, we say
that two distinct balls B1 and B2 are linked if there is a γj such that
d(γj , B1 ) ≤ S, d(γj , B2 ) ≤ S and, if v1 , v2 ∈ γj are such that d(v1 , B1 ) ≤ S,
d(v2 , B2 ) ≤ S, there is no point v3 ∈ γj between v1 and v2 such that
d(v3 , B3 ) ≤ S, for some ball B3 distinct from B1 and B2 . We thus get a
graph structure on the balls of Lemma 5.4.
For any r ∈ N, we call r–cycle a sequence {Bu }u∈Z/rZ of r distinct balls,
with Bu linked to Bu+1 for all u ∈ Z/rZ. In the following lemma we prove
that, if the balls are sufficiently far apart, there are no r–cycles for r ≥ 3.
Hence the graph is a forest, i.e. a graph which is a disjoint union of trees. In
particular, we will be able to talk about leaf-balls, i.e. balls that correspond
to vertices that are ends of at most one edge. Notice that, in the conditions
of Lemma 5.5, for any pair of balls B1 and B2 , there is at most one γj such
that d(γj , B1 ) ≤ S and d(γj , B2 ) ≤ S.

BOUNDED COHOMOLOGY AND RELATIVE HYPERBOLICITY

17

Lemma 5.5. Suppose that we have an inclusion
q
p
n
G
[
[
N2δ (γj )
BR (xu ) ∪
αk ⊆
u=1

k=1

j=1

where the αk and γj are geodesic segments, and the γj are S–far apart, for
some S > (p + 6)δ.
Moreover, suppose that the xu are 2p(R + S)-far apart. Then there are
no r–cycles, for any r ≥ 3.

Proof. Up to reindexing, we may suppose that the balls BR (x1 ), .., BR (xr )
constitute an r–cycle. Put Bu := BR (xu ). We slightly abuse notation by
identifying the natural numbers 1, .., r with the corresponding elements of
Z/rZ. Let lu be the minimal subsegment of some γj such that the ends of
lu are S–close to Bu and Bu+1 respectively.
In the following, we denote by [xu , xu+1 ]′ the subsegment of [xu , xu+1 ]
which is outside the balls BR+S (xu ) and BR+S (xu+1 ). By δ–hyperbolicity,
the Hausdorff distance between lu and [xu , xu+1 ]′ is at most 4δ. For a
geodesic r–agon in a δ–hyperbolic space, any edge is contained in the (r −
2)δ–neighborhood
of the union of the other edges. Hence [xu , xu+1 ] ⊂
S
N
([x
,
x
k
k+1 ]), therefore
(r−2)δ
k6=u
[
[
[xu , xu+1 ]′ ⊂
N(r−2)δ ([xk , xk+1 ]′ ) ∪
BR+S+(r−2)δ (xk )
k6=u

k6=u

]′

Since the length of [xu , xu+1 is at least 2p(R + S) − 2(R + S) (r − 1)(R +
S +(r−2)δ), it follows that the r−1 balls BR+S+(r−2)δ (xk ) can’t cover all of
[xu , xu+1 ]′ . Hence there is some k 6= u such that d([xu , xu+1 ]′ , [xk , xk+1 ]′ ) ≤
(r − 2)δ. Since the Hausdorff distance between lu and [xu , xu+1 ]′ (lk and
[xk , xk+1 ]′ ) is at most 4δ, it follows that the distance between lu and lk is
less than (r + 6)δ ≤ (p + 6)δ < S, whence the contradiction.

We now consider the problem of filling cycles whose supports are close
to geodesic segments.

Theorem 5.6. Let n, i, L ∈ N, i ≥ 1, and let C ∈ N be as in Remark
3.3. Then there exists L′ = L′ (n, i, L) ∈ N such that, for every cycle
z ∈ Zi (Rκ ) and every family of geodesic segments α1 , . . . , αn such that
Supp z ⊆ NL (α1 ∪ . . . ∪ αn ), there exists a ∈ Ci+1 (Rκ ) with ∂a = z and
(9)

Supp a ⊂ NL′ ( Supp z).

In particular, up to increasing L′ , we have Supp a ⊆ NL′ (α1 ∪ . . . ∪ αn ),
and maxh(a) ≤ maxh(z) + L′ . Moreover, there exists a function M =
M (n, i, L) : N → N such that
(10)

kak ≤ M(maxh(z))kzk.

BOUNDED COHOMOLOGY AND RELATIVE HYPERBOLICITY

18

Finally, we can require that, if z is contained in some C–horoball, a is
contained in the same C–horoball.
Proof. Let N ∋ S = 2L + 4δ + 1. Let R = R(S, n), p = p(n) and q = q(n)
be as in Lemma 5.4, in such a way that for some vertices xu and geodesic
segments γj which are S–far from each other
[

(11)

αk ⊆

p
[

BR (xu ) ∪

u=1

k

q
G

N2δ (γj ).

j=1

Let z be a cycle whose support is contained in an L–neighborhood of the
αu . Hence

Supp z ⊆

(12)

p
[

BR+L (xu ) ∪

u=1

q
G

N2δ+L (γj ).

j=1

The fact that the N2δ+L (γj ) are pairwise disjoint is a consequence of our
requirements on S.
By suitably choosing a subset I of {1, . . . , p}, we get that there exists
R + S + 1 ≤ R′ ≤ (2p +S1)p (R + S + 1) suchFthat the xu , u ∈ I, are
2p(R′ + S) far apart, and pu=1 BR+S+1 (xu ) ⊆ u∈I BR′ (xu ). Indeed, the
case p = 1 is trivial. Otherwise, if two balls BR+S+1 (xu1 ) and BR+S+1 (xu2 )
are not 2p(R + S) far apart, we consider the balls B(2p+1)(R+S+1) (xu ), for
all u 6= u2 . We have that BR+S+1 (xu1 ) ∪ BR+S+1 (xu2 ) ⊆ B2p(R+S+1) (xu1 ).
Then we continue by reverse induction on p.
We have
(13)
q
q
p
G
G
G
[
N2δ+L (γj ).
BR′ (xu ) ∪
N2δ+L (γj ) ⊆
BR+L+1 (xu ) ∪
Supp z ⊆
u=1

j=1

j=1

u∈I

Put
z ′ := z

FN

j=1

N2δ+L (γj )

.

There is a unique expression
′

z =

q
X

zγj

where Supp zγj ⊆ N2δ+L (γj ).

j=1

By (13) and the definition of z ′ and
get

Sp

Supp ∂zγj ⊆

u=1 BR+L+1 (xu )

G

u∈I

BR′ (xu ).

⊆

F

u∈I

BR′ (xu ) we

BOUNDED COHOMOLOGY AND RELATIVE HYPERBOLICITY

19

Hence we can put:
(14)

∂zγj =

X

buj

Supp buj ⊆ BR′ (xu )

u∈I

(this expression being unique).
Suppose that i ≥ 2. Then, by (14) and the disjointness of the BR′ (xu ),
u ∈ I, the buj must all be cycles.
The same is true if i = 1. Indeed, let BR′ (xu ) be a leaf-ball as in Lemma
5.5. Fix a γj . There are three possibilities. If d(γj , BR′ (xu )) > S then
buj = 0. If d(γj , BR′ (xu )) ≤ S and d(γj , BR′ (xk )) > S for every k 6= u, then
buj = ∂zγj . In both cases buj is a cycle. Suppose now that there is some
ball BR′ (xk ), k 6= u such that d(γj , BR′ (xk )) ≤ S, d(γj , BR′ (xu )) ≤ S. By
definition
P of leaf-ball, there is at most one such j. For any u, the sum
buj + r6=j bur is a cycle. Since the bur in the sum are all cycles, it follows
that buj is a cycle too. Hence in any case, if u corresponds to a leaf-ball,
all buj are cycles. By an inductive argument, we can apply the same line of
reasoning to the balls that are connected to leaf-balls. It follows that all buj
are cycles.
Let auj , u ∈ I, be such that ∂auj = buj as in the local lemma. By definition
of z ′ ,
G
Supp (z − z ′ ) ⊆
BR′ (xu ).
u∈I

For u ∈ I, let zu be the restriction of z − z ′ to BR′ (xu ). Then
X
zu
z − z′ =
u∈I

and
0 = ∂z = ∂(z − z ′ ) + ∂z ′ =

X
u∈I



⇒ ∂ zu +



∂zu +

q
X
j=1



q
X
j=1

auj  = 0



buj  =

X
u∈I



∂ zu +

q
X
j=1



auj 

∀u ∈ I,

The chain
the implication
true because the BR′ (xu ) are disjoint.
P being
P
u
z γj = zγj − u∈I aj is a cycle (by (14)), and zu = zu + qj=1 auj , for u ∈ I,
is also a cycle by the equality above. By summing, we get


!
q
q
q
X
X
X
X
X
X
zu +
auj  =
zγj −
auj +
z γj +
zu =
j=1

u∈I

j=1

u∈I

u∈I

j=1

BOUNDED COHOMOLOGY AND RELATIVE HYPERBOLICITY

=

q
X

zγj +

j=1

X

zu −

u∈I

S

q X
X

auj +

j=1 u∈I

j
j Supp bu

q
XX

auj =

q
X

zγj +

j=1

u∈I j=1

X

20

zu = z.

u∈I

For all u, Supp zu ∪
⊆ BR′ (xu ). By the local lemma, there is a
S
′′
′′
′
constant R = R (R ) such that j Supp aju ⊆ BR′′ (xu ), hence Supp z u ⊆
S
BR′′ (xu ) too. Analogously, we have Supp zγj ∪ u buj ⊆ N2δ+L (γj ), hence
S
also Supp z γj ⊆ Supp zγj ∪ u auj ⊆ NS ′ (γj ), where we can put S ′ =
max {2δ + L, R′′ }.
We fill the z u and the z γj by au and aγj as in the local lemma and
Corollary 5.3 respectively, and put
q
X
X
aγj .
a :=
au +
j=1

u∈I

By the local lemma again, the filling au of z u has support contained in some
BR′′′ (xu ), where R′′′ only depends on R′′ . Finally, by Lemma 5.3, we get
that Supp aγj ⊆ NS ′′ (γj ), for some S ′′ which only depends on S ′ . Hence
Condition (9) is easily verified, and we can put L′ = max{S ′′ , R′′′ }.
In order to check the condition about the horoballs note that, if z is
contained in some C–horoball, then all the zγj and zu are contained in the
same C–horoball. Hence, by (4) in the local lemma and (3) in Corollary
5.3, the same is true for the au and the aγj .
We are finally left to prove (10). Let
K := max{Mthin (S ′′ , maxh(z) + S ′′ ), Mloc (2R′′ , maxh(z))},

where Mthin is the function of Corollary 5.3 and Mloc : N × N → R is the
function of Point (3) of the local lemma. Then


q
q
X
X
X
X
kz u k +
kaγj k ≤ K 
kz γj k ,
kak ≤
kau k +
j=1

u∈I

X

kz u k ≤

u

X

kzu k +

u

X

j=1

u∈I

X

kauj k,

uj

kz γj k ≤

j

X
j

kzγj k +

X

kauj k.

uj

By disjointness of the supports of the zu and the z γj we get
X
X
X
X
z γj k ≤ kzk.
kzu k = k
zu k ≤ kzk
kz γj k = k
u

u

j

j

buj ,

Now, from the construction of the
we get maxh(buj ) ≤ maxh(z). Since
the auj fill the buj as in the local lemma, we get
X
X
kauj k ≤ Mloc (R′ , maxh(z))
kbuj k,
uj

ju

because the buj are contained in balls of radius R′ .



BOUNDED COHOMOLOGY AND RELATIVE HYPERBOLICITY

21

6. Proof of part (a) of Theorem 1.1
The following homological lemma helps us to outline the strategy we
intend to pursue in order to prove Theorem 1.1 (a).
Lemma 6.1 (Homological lemma). Let (Γ, Γ′ ) be a group-pair. Let St ∗ and
St ′∗ be as in Definition 2.8. The augmented complexes St +
∗ : = St ∗ → R →
′ ) → 0 are Γ–projective resolutions of R and
:
=
St
→
R(Γ/Γ
0 and St ′+
∗
∗
R(Γ/Γ′ ). In general, by a map between resolutions of the same Γ–module
M we mean a chain Γ–map that extends the identity of M . Let ϕi : St ∗ →
St ∗ , i = 1, 2 be chain Γ–maps which satisfy the following hypotheses:
+
+
(1) ϕi extends to a map between resolutions ϕ+
i : St ∗ → St ∗ ;
′
′
′
(2) ϕi restricts to a map ϕi : St ∗ → St ∗ ;
′+
′+
(3) ϕ′i extends to a map between resolutions ϕ′+
i : St ∗ → St ∗ .
+
Then there is a Γ–equivariant homotopy T between ϕ+
1 and ϕ2 that restricts
′+
′+
′
to a homotopy between ϕ1 and ϕ2 (in St ∗ ). Given a Γ–module V , the dual
maps ϕ1 and ϕ2 of ϕ1 and ϕ2 induce homotopically equivalent maps on the
complex Hom Γ ( St ∗ / St ′∗ , V ) =: St rel ∗ (Γ, Γ′ ; V ), for every Γ–module V .

We will apply the homological lemma to the diagram
..
.

y

(15)

ψ2

..
.

y

ϕ2

St 
2 (Γ) −→ C2 (R
 κ ) −→


y
y
ψ1

ϕ1

ψ0

ϕ0

St 
1 (Γ) −→ C1 (R
 κ ) −→


y
y

St 
0 (Γ) −→ C0 (R
 κ ) −→


y
y
R


y
0

Id

−→

R


y
0

Id

−→

..
.

y

St 
2 (Γ)

y

St 
1 (Γ)

y

St 
0 (Γ)

y
R


y
0,

where Rκ = Rκ (X) and κ ≥ 4δ + 6 as in Corollary 4.8.
We wish to prove that the composition ϕ∗ ◦ ψ∗ satisfies the hypotheses
of the homological lemma, and that ψ n ◦ ϕn (f ) = f ◦ ϕn ◦ ψn is a bounded
cocycle for every n ≥ 2 and for every cocycle f ∈ Hom Γ ( St n ; V ). This
will prove the surjectivity of the comparison map since, by Lemma 6.1, for
any given cocycle f , the cocycle f ◦ ϕn ◦ ψn is cobordant to f and bounded.

BOUNDED COHOMOLOGY AND RELATIVE HYPERBOLICITY

22

In order to fulfill conditions (1), (2), (3) of the homological lemma it is
sufficient to find Γ–equivariant chain maps ϕ∗ and ψ∗ such that ψ∗ maps
simplices in St ′ into simplices in the corresponding C–horoballs of Rκ , and
vice versa for ψ∗ .
We now define ϕ∗ .PIf i ≥ 1 we put ϕ0 (g, i, n) := (g, i). Otherwise, we
1
define ϕ0 (g, 0) := |I|
i∈I (g, i). For i ≥ 1 and an i–dimensional simplex
[x0 , . . . , xi ] of Rκ (X) we put
(16)

ϕi ([x0 , . . . , xi ]) :=

X
1
ε(π)(ϕ0 (xπ(0) ), . . . , ϕ0 (xπ(i) )),
(1 + i)!
π∈Si+1

where Si+1 is the group of permutations of {0, . . . , i}, and ε(π) = ±1 is
the sign of π. The apparently cumbersome definition of the map ϕ∗ follows
from the fact that in C∗ (Rκ ) we have oriented simplices, whereas in St ∗ we
have ordered ones, and that the action of Γ on Rκ (X) may map a simplex
to itself, changing the order of the vertices.
Much more effort will be needed for the definition of ψ∗ , to which the
rest of this section is dedicated. The fundamental tool that we will use is
the bicombing defined in [GM08].
Definition 6.2. [Min01, Section 3] Given a group Γ acting on a graph G
through simplicial automorphisms, a homological bicombing is a function
q : G(0) × G(0) → C1 (G)
such that ∂q(a, b) = b − a for all (a, b) ∈ G(0) × G(0) . We say that q is
antisymmetric if q(a, b) = −q(b, a) for all a, b ∈ G(0) , and Γ–equivariant
if γq(a, b) = q(γa, γb) for all γ ∈ Γ and a, b ∈ G(0) . Moreover, q is quasi–
geodesic if there is a constant D > 0 such that, for all a, b ∈ G(0) :
(1) kq(a, b)k ≤ Dd(a, b);
(2) Supp q(a, b) ⊆ ND ([a, b]).
We note that, if G is a hyperbolic graph, the precise choice of a geodesic
[a, b] between a and b is, up to increasing the constant D, irrelevant.
The homological bicombing Q in the following theorem is based on the
bicombing constructed by Mineyev in [Min01]. The relevant properties of
Q are described in [GM08, Section 5] and [GM08, Theorem 6.10].
Theorem 6.3. If (Γ, Γ′ ) is a relatively hyperbolic pair, there is a bicombing
Q on the associated cusped space X such that:
(1) Q is quasi-geodesic
(2) Q is Γ–equivariant;
(3) Q is antisymmetric;

BOUNDED COHOMOLOGY AND RELATIVE HYPERBOLICITY

23

(4) there is K > 0 such that, for all a, b, c ∈ X (0) , there are 1–cycles
z = z(a, b, c) and w = w(a, b, c) such that
• Q(∂(a, b, c)) = z + w
• minh(w) ≥ C > δ;
• kzk ≤ K;
• maxh(z) ≤ K;
• for all γ ∈ Γ, z(γa, γb, γc) = γz(a, b, c) and w(γa, γb, γc) =
γw(a, b, c);
• z and w are contained in the K–neighborhood of [a, b] ∪ [b, c] ∪
[c, a].
Remark 6.4. Groves and Manning allow multiple edges in their definition
of cusped graph (as already noted in Remark 3.4). However, it is easy to see
that, if X is the simplicial graph obtained by identifying edges of X with
the same endpoints, the obvious bicombing induced by Q on X satisfies all
of the properties of Theorem 6.3. See also [GM08, Remark 6.12]
We want to find a decomposition {ψk = zk + wk }k≥2 : St ∗ (Γ) → C∗ (Rκ )
of ψk into Γ–equivariant chain maps: {zk }k≥2 and {wk }k≥2 such that
(A) kzk (∆)k is uniformly bounded independently of ∆ ∈ St k ;
(B) maxh(zk (∆)) is uniformly bounded independently of ∆ ∈ St k ;
(C) minh(wk (∆)) ≥ C for every ∆ ∈ St k ;
(D) z∗ and w∗ map elements in the basis of St ′ into C–horoballs.
We now show how the conclusion follows from the existence of a map ψ∗
satisfying the four conditions above, and then we construct such a ψ∗ . It is
easy to see that, if an i–dimensional simplex s of Rκ (X) is not contained
in a single C–horoball, it must satisfy maxh(s) ≤ 2κ + 2. For i ≥ 2, let
f : St i / St ′i → V be a Γ–equivariant map, that we see as a map defined on
St i which is null on St ′i . Then f ◦ ϕi : Ci (Rκ (X)) → V is a bounded map:
in fact,
sup{kf ◦ ϕi (s)k : s is an i–dimensional simplex in Rκ (X)} =
= sup{kf ◦ ϕi (s)k : maxh(s) ≤ 2κ + 2} < ∞,
because, up to the Γ–action, there is only a finite number of simplices s
with maxh(s) ≤ 2κ. Moreover, f ◦ ϕi ◦ ψi is also bounded since, for every
simplex ∆ ∈ St (k) ,
kf ◦ ϕi ◦ ψi (∆)k = kf ◦ ϕi ◦ zi (∆)k,
and zi is a bounded map.
We now construct ψ∗ , inductively verifying that it satisfies conditions
(A), . . . , (D) above. Recall that, by our hypotheses, X is a subcomplex of
Rκ (X). Let Q be the bicombing of Theorem 6.3. Since Q is quasi-geodesic
and C–horoballs are convex, it follows that Q(a, b) is completely contained

BOUNDED COHOMOLOGY AND RELATIVE HYPERBOLICITY

24

in a C–horoball HC if a and b lie in HL , for L sufficiently large. Therefore
for such an L we put
ψ0 (g, i) := (g, i, L)
ψ1 ((g, i), (h, j)) := Q(ψ0 (g, i), ψ0 (h, j)) ∈ C1 (X) ⊂ C1 (Rκ (X)).
In order to simplify our notation, we denote by ∆i a generic i–dimensional
simplex in St . If ∆2 = (p0 , p1 , p2 ), we write
ψ1 (∂∆2 ) = z(∆2 ) + w(∆2 ),
where z(∆2 ) := z(ψ0 (p0 ), ψ0 (p1 ), ψ0 (p2 )) as in the notation of Theorem 6.3,
and w(∆2 ) = ψ1 (∂∆2 ) − z(∆2 ).
Notice that the cycles z(∆2 ) fulfill the conditions of Theorem 5.6 for a
uniform constant L and with maxh(z(∆2 )) uniformly bounded. Therefore
we can fill z(∆2 ) with a chain z2 (∆2 ), where maxh(z2 (∆2 )) and its norm
kz2 (∆2 )k are uniformly bounded (i.e. independently of ∆2 ), and moreover
Supp (z2 (∆2 )) is contained in some C–horoball, if the same is true for
Supp (z(∆2 )). We extend z and z2 by linearity. In what follows, all fillings
are required to satisfy the conditions of Theorem 5.6. We have
z(∂∆3 ) + w(∂∆3 ) = 0
hence −z(∂∆3 ) = w(∂∆3 ) is a 1–dimensional cycle with bounded norm and
minimun height at least C. Hence Supp (w(∂∆3 )) is contained in the union
of some C–horoballs. Since the C–horoballs of X are disjoint complexes
and because of (4) of Lemma 5.1, we have that w(∂∆3 )
is a cycle for
HC

every C–horoball HC .
Let ω2 (∆3 ) be a filling of w(∂∆3 ) as in Theorem 5.6, i.e.
∂ω2 (∆3 ) = −z(∂∆3 ) = w(∂∆3 ).
Applying Theorem 5.6 we find a chain z3 such that:
∂(z3 (∆3 )) = z2 (∂(∆3 )) + ω2 (∆3 ).
Fix i ≥ 4, and suppose by induction that, for any i–symplex in Sti
∂(zi (∆i )) = zi−1 (∂∆i ) + ωi−1 (∆i ),
with zi , zi−1 and ωi−1 of uniformly bounded maximum height and ℓ1 –norm,
and such that minh(ωi−1 ) ≥ C. Moreover, suppose that the geometric
conditions of Theorem 5.6 for zi , zi−1 and ωi−1 are also satisfied, where n
and L in the statement of Theorem 5.6 that only depends on the dimension
i. Then
∂(zi (∂∆i+1 )) = zi−1 (∂(∂∆i+1 )) + ωi−1 (∆i+1 ) = ωi−1 (∂∆i+1 ),
hence we can find a filling ωi (∆i+1 ) of the cycle −ωi−1 (∂∆i+1 ). Finally, we
define zi+1 in such a way that
∂(zi+1 (p0 , . . . , pi+1 )) = zi (∂(p0 , . . . , pi+1 )) + ωi (p0 , . . . , pi+1 ).

BOUNDED COHOMOLOGY AND RELATIVE HYPERBOLICITY

25

All inductive conditions are satisfied.
Now we consider the construction of w∗ . Similarly as before, by Theorem
6.3, minh(w(∆2 )) ≥ C. Hence w(∆2 )
is a cycle for every C–horoball
HC

HC . By the contractibility of the C–horoballs (Corollary 4.8), we can fill
every w(∆2 )
in HC . Let w2 (∆2 ) be a filling of w(∆2 ) given by filling
HC

any w(∆2 )

HC

in the same C–horoball. Note that we have defined ω∗ in

such a way that ∂ω2 (∆3 ) = w(∂∆3 ), and ∂ωi+1 (∆i+2 ) = −ωi (∂∆i+2 ) for
i ≥ 2. We have that
∂w2 (∂∆3 ) = w(∂∆3 ) = ∂ω2 (∆3 ).
Hence we can define w3 (∆3 ) in such a way that
∂w3 (∆3 ) = w2 (∂∆3 ) − ω2 (∆3 ).
Now, fix i ≥ 4, and suppose by induction that
∂wi (∆i ) = wi−1 (∂∆i ) − ωi−1 (∆i ).
Then ∂wi (∂∆i+1 ) = −ωi−1 (∂∆i+1 ) = ∂ωi (∆i+1 ), hence wi (∂∆i+1 )−ωi (∆i+1 )
is a cycle, which we can fill by wi+1 (∆i+1 ).
This concludes the construction of ψ∗ , whence the proof of Theorem 1.1
(a).
7. Applications
Let (X, A) be a topological pair. Let S∗ (X) be the singular complex of
X with real coefficients. In other words, Sk (X) is the real vector space
whose basis is the set C 0 (∆k , X) of singular k–dimensional simplices in X,
and we take the usual boundary operator ∂k : Sk (X) → Sk−1 (X), for k ≥ 1.
The natural inclusion of complexes S∗ (A) ֒→ S∗ (X) allows us to define the
relative singular complex S∗ (X, A) := S∗ (X)/S∗ (A). Dually, we define the
relative singular cocomplex as
S ∗ (X, A) = Hom (S∗ (X, A), R),
where Hom (S∗ (X, A), R) denotes the set of real linear maps on S∗ (X, A).
We put S ∗ (X, ∅) =: S ∗ (X). We will often identify S ∗ (X, A) with the subspace of S ∗ (X) whose elements are null on S∗ (A). We put an ℓ1 –norm on
S∗ (X, A) through the identification:
S∗ (X, A) ∼ R(C 0 (∆i , X) \ C 0 (∆i , A)).
Given a cochain f ∈ S ∗ (X, A), the (possibly infinite) ℓ∞ –norm of f is
kf k∞ := sup{|f (c)| : c ∈ S∗ (X, A), kck ≤ 1}.
We denote by Sb∗ (X, A) the subcocomplex of S ∗ (X, A) whose elements
have finite ℓ∞ –norm. Since the boundary operator ∂∗ : S∗ (X, A) → S∗−1 (X, A)

BOUNDED COHOMOLOGY AND RELATIVE HYPERBOLICITY

26

is bounded with respect to the ℓ1 –norms, its dual maps bounded cochains
into bounded cochains (and is bounded with respect to the ℓ∞ –norm).
Therefore Sb∗ (X, A) is indeed a cocomplex.
The following definition appeared for the first time in [Gro82, Section
4.1].
Definition 7.1. Given a topological pair (X, A), the relative bounded
cohomology Hb∗ (X, A) is the cohomology of the cocomplex Sb∗ (X, A).
Definition 7.2. Let S∗ (X, A) be the real singular chain complex of a topological pair. The norm on S∗ (X, A) descends to a natural semi-norm on
homology, called Gromov norm: for every α ∈ H∗ (X, A),
kαk = inf {kck : c ∈ S∗ (X, A), [c] = α} .
If M is an n–dimensional oriented compact manifold with boundary, the
simplicial volume of M is the Gromov norm of the fundamental class in
Hn (M, ∂M ).
Definition 7.3. A topological pair (X, Y ) is a classifying space for the
group-pair (Γ, {Γi }i∈I ) if
F
(1) X is path-connected, and Y = i∈I Yi is a disjoint union of pathconnected subspaces Yi of X parametrized by I;
(2) there are basepoints x ∈ X and yi ∈ Yi , and isomorphisms π1 (X, x) ∼
Γ and π1 (Yi , yi ) ∼ Γi ;
(3) the Yi are π1 –injective in X, and there are paths γi from x to yi
such that the induced injections
π1 (Yi , yi ) ֒→ π1 (X, x)
correspond to the inclusions Γi ֒→ Γ under the isomorphisms above;
(4) X and Y are aspherical.
The following theorem applies in particular to negatively curved compact
manifolds with totally geodesic boundary.
Theorem 7.4. Let (X, Y ) be a classifying space of a relatively hyperbolic
pair (Γ, Γ′ ). Then the Gromov norm on Hk (X, Y ) is a norm for any k ≥ 2.
Proof. Let H ∗ (Γ, Γ′ ) be the relative cohomology of (Γ, Γ′ ) as defined in
[BE78] (the definition of Bieri and Eckmann is completely analogous to the
one of Mineyev and Yaman, but without any reference on the norm). It is
possible to define natural maps
(17)

Hb∗ (X, Y ) → Hb∗ (Γ, Γ′ ) → H ∗ (Γ, Γ′ ) → H ∗ (X, Y )

such that the first map is an isometric isomorphism, the third one is an
isomorphism, and the compositions of all maps in (17) is the comparison
map from singular bounded cohomology to singular cohomology (the fact

BOUNDED COHOMOLOGY AND RELATIVE HYPERBOLICITY

27

that the first map is an isometry also follows from weaker hypotheses:
see [Bla14, Theorem 5.3.11]). By hypothesis, the second map in (17) is
surjective. Hence the conclusion follows from the following proposition
([MY, Proposition 54]), which is the relative version of an observation by
Gromov ([Gro82, p. 17]) and could be generalized for any normed chain
complex (see [Löh07, Theorem 3.8]).
Proposition 7.5. For any z ∈ Hk (Y, Y ′ ; R),

n
o
1
k
′
: β ∈ Hb (Y, Y ; R) : hβ, zi = 1 ∪ {0} .
kzk = sup
kβk∞

Now we consider our second application: a relatively hyperbolic grouppair has finite cohomological dimension. More precisely
Theorem 7.6. Let (Γ, Γ′ ) be a relatively hyperbolic pair. Then there is n ∈
N such that, for every m > n and every bounded Γ–module V , H m (Γ, Γ′ ; V ) =
0.
We note that this theorem admits a straightforward proof in the case
of a torsion-free hyperbolic group Γ. Indeed, consider a contractible Rips
complex Y over the Cayley-graph X of Γ. The complex Y is finite dimensional by the uniform local compactness of X. Since Y is contractible and
Γ acts freely on it, the cohomology of Γ is isomorphic to the (simplicial)
cohomology of Y , whence the conclusion.
Let Rκ := Rκ (X) be the Rips complex associated to a cusped space X
of the relatively hyperbolic pair (Γ, Γ′ ), as described in Corollary 4.8. Then
Lemma 7.7. For every C > 0 there exists n ∈ N such that, for every
m ≥ n and for every m–simplex ∆ of Rκ (X), we have minh(∆) > C.
Proof. For m sufficiently large, every subset A ⊆ Rκ (X)(0) of cardinality m
and such that minh(A) ≤ C has X–diameter greater than κ. This follows
easily from the fact that, up to Γ-action, there are only finitely many such
sets A. Therefore, by definition of Rips complex, the conclusion follows. 
We can now prove Theorem 7.6.
Proof. Let V be a bounded Γ–module, and let f be a cochain in Hom Γ ( St rel
k , V ),
which we can see as a Γ–equivariant map which is null on St ′k ⊂ St k . By
Lemma 7.7, f ◦ ϕk ◦ ψk = 0, for k sufficiently big and independent of f . If
f is a cocycle, by Lemma 6.1, f is cohomologous to the null map, hence
H k (Γ, Γ′ ; V ) = 0 by the arbitrariness of f .


BOUNDED COHOMOLOGY AND RELATIVE HYPERBOLICITY

28

8. Proof of part (b) of Theorem 1.1
In the following we will work in the category of combinatorial cell complexes (see [BH99, 8A.1]). We are particularly interested in the 2–skeleton
of a combinatorial complex X. This is described as follows: X (1) is any
graph, and the 2–cells are l–polygons eλ , l ≥ 2, such that the attaching
map ∂eλ → X (1) is a loop whose restriction to any open cell of ∂eλ (i.e.:
open edge or point) is a homeomorphism to some open cell of X (1) .
The following characterization of relative hyperbolicity was proved by
Bowditch in [Bow, Definition 2].
Definition 8.1. Let G be a graph. A circuit in G is a closed path that
meets any vertex at most once. We say that G is fine if, for any edge, the
set of circuits which contain e is finite. A group Γ is hyperbolic relative
to a finite collection of subgroups Γ′ if Γ acts on a connected, fine,
δ–hyperbolic graph G with finite edge stabilizers, finitely many orbits of
edges, and Γ′ is a set of representatives of distinct conjugacy classes of
vertex stabilizers (such that each infinite stabilizer is represented).
Definition 8.2. [MP, Definition 1.2] Let K ∈ {Z, Q, R} and let X be a
combinatorial cell complex. The homological Dehn function of X over
K is the map F VX,K : N → R defined by
F VX,K (k) := sup{kγkf,K : γ ∈ Z1 (X, Z), kγk ≤ k}
where:
kγkf,K := inf{kµk : µ ∈ C2 (X, K), ∂µ = γ}.
By a result given in [Min02] (which generalizes [AG99, Theorem 3.3])
the linearity of F VX,K is equivalent to the undistortedness of the boundary ∂2 : C2 (X, K) → C1 (X, K), if K ∈ {Q, R}. Indeed,
P given a cycle
z ∈ Z1 (X, K), we can express it as a sumPof circuits z = c ac c in such a
way that K ∋ ac ≥ 0 for all c, and kzk = c ac kck (see [Min02, Theorem 6
(b)], with T = ∅). Suppose that kckf,K ≤ Kkck for some constant K ≥ 0
and any circuit c. Then
X
X
kzkf,K ≤
g(c)kckf,K ≤ K
g(c)kck = Kkzk.
c

c

Moreover, we have

Proposition 8.3. Let X be a simply connected combinatorial cell complex.
Then
F VX,Q = F VX,R .
Proof. We have to prove that F VX,Q ≤ F VP
X,R , since the opposite inequality
is clear. Let γ ∈ Z1 (X, Z), and let a = i λi σi ∈ C2 (X, R) be such that
∂a = γ. We approximate the λi with rational coefficients λ′i , in such a

BOUNDED COHOMOLOGY AND RELATIVE HYPERBOLICITY

29

P
way that, if a′ = i λ′i σi , then k∂(a − a′ )k ≤ ε. Let W be the normed
subspace of Z1 (X, Q) whose elements are Q–linear combinations of faces
of the σi . Let θ : W → C2 (X, Q) be a Q–linear map such that ∂θ(w) = w
for all w ∈ W . Since W is finite-dimensional, θ is bounded. Moreover,
∂(a − a′ ) ∈ W . Hence
∂(a′ + θ∂(a − a′ )) = γ
and

ka′ + θ∂(a − a′ )k ≤ ka′ k + kθk∞ ε
from which the conclusion follows immediately by the arbitrariness of ε.



The following lemma is stated as such in [MP], but is proven in [GM08,
Theorem 2.30] with a different notation.
Lemma 8.4. [MP, Theorem 3.4] Let X be a simply connected complex such
that there is a bound on the length of attaching maps of 2–cells. If F VX,Q
is bounded by a linear function, then the 1–skeleton of X is a hyperbolic
graph.
The following theorem is a slight modification of the “if part” of [MP,
Theorem 1.8]: we require the complex to be simply connected instead of
1–acyclic, and we write F VX,Q instead of F VX,Z in (2).
Theorem 8.5. Let (Γ, Γ′ ) be a group-pair. Then (Γ, Γ′ ) is hyperbolic if
there is a simply connected combinatorial complex X such that
(1) Γ acts cocompactly on X (2) ;
(2) F VX,Q (k) ≤ Ck for every k ∈ N;
(3) the stabilizers in Γ of edges are finite;
(4) Γ′ is a set of representatives of (distinct) conjugacy classes of stabilizers of 0–cells such that each infinite stabilizer is represented.
This means that there is an injection
Γ′ → {[Stab (v)] : v ∈ X (0) }

Γi 7→ [Γi ]

(where [H] denotes the conjugacy class of a subgroup H of Γ) whose
image contains all conjugacy classes of infinite stabilizers in Γ of
vertices in X (0) .
Proof. Points (1) and (2) imply the hyperbolicity of the graph by Lemma
8.4. Hence, in order to apply Bowditch’s characterization of relative hyperbolicity it remains to prove that X (1) is fine.
Condition (1) in the statement implies that there is a bound on the
number of edges on the boundary of 2–cells. Moreover, conditions (1) and
(3) imply that any edge belongs to just a finite number of 2–cells (because
edge-stabilizers act cocompactly on the 2–cells adjacent to the edge).
We conclude by mean of the following lemma, which is proven in [MP,
Theorem 1.6 (2)].

BOUNDED COHOMOLOGY AND RELATIVE HYPERBOLICITY

30

Lemma 8.6. Let X be a simply connected combinatorial cell complex such
that each 1–cell is adjacent to finitely many 2–cells and there is a bound on
the length of attaching maps of 2–cells. Suppose that there is C ≥ 0 such
that
F VX,Q (k) ≤ Ck
∀k ∈ N.
Then X (1) is fine.

(Γ, Γ′ )

Definition 8.7. [?, Definition 2.1] Let
be a group-pair. We say that
′
Γ is finitely presented relative to Γ if:
S
(1) Γ is generated by i∈I Γi and a finite subset A of Γ;
(2) the kernel of the natural projection
F (A ) ∗ (∗i∈I Γi ) → Γ

is generated – as a normal subgroup of F (A ) ∗ (∗i∈I Γi ) – by a finite
set R ⊆ F (A ) ∗ (∗i∈I Γi ) of relations.
In this case, the datum of hA , Γ′ |Ri is a finite presentation of (Γ, Γ′ ).
Notation 8.8. From now on, we will assume that (Γ, Γ′ = {Γi }i∈I={1,...,n} )
is a finitely presented group-pair, and that Γ is finitely generated. By a
result in [?, Proposition 2.29], it follows that the groups in Γ′ are finitely
generated too.
Since there exist slightly different definitions of Cayley-graph in the literature, from now on we will rely on the following one. Let S be a (nonnecessarily symmetric) generating set of a group Γ. The Cayley graph
G = G(Γ, S) of Γ w.r.t. S is the graph whose 0–skeleton is Γ and with
an edge connecting x and xs labelled by (x, s), for any (x, s) ∈ Γ × S.
Notice that Γ acts freely and isometrically on G(Γ, S) by mapping the
vertex x to γx and the edge (x, s) to the edge (γx, s).
Definition 8.9. [GM08, Relative Cayley complex] Let G := G(Γ, S) be
the Cayley graph of Γ, with respect to some compatible generating set S.
Consider the graph GI constructed as follows:
(1) (GI )(0) = G(0) × I;
(2) for any i ∈ I, Gi := G × {i}. For all v ∈ G(0) and i 6= j there is a
single edge connecting (v, i) and (v, j).
We call the edges contained in some Gi horizontal, and the other ones
vertical.
By writing elements of R with the alphabet S, we can, for every i, (nonuniquely) associate them to loops in Gi based in 1. We add Γ–equivariantly
2–cells to those loops and their Γ–translates. Let i 6= j ∈ I. If ei is an
edge in Gi we have a corresponding edge ej in Gj , and two vertical edges

BOUNDED COHOMOLOGY AND RELATIVE HYPERBOLICITY

31

connecting the initial and final points of ei and ej . We add a rectangular
2–cell to this quadrilateral. We denote by Cay(Γ, Γ′ ) the 2–dimensional
combinatorial cell complex obtained in this way, and call it the relative
Cayley-complex of (Γ, Γ′ ) (w.r.t. S).
The group Γ naturally acts on Cay(Γ, Γ′ ).
b = X(Γ,
b
Definition 8.10. The 2–dimensional quotient complex X
Γ′ )
is the CW-complex obtained by collapsing to points the full subcomplexes
of Cay(Γ, Γ′ ) whose vertices are contained in the same left coset of Γi × {i},
i ∈ I.
Remark 8.11. This means that, if Yi is the full subcomplex of Cay(Γ, Γ′ )
whose vertices correspond to Γi × {i}, then all (left) Γ-translates of Yi are
b could be given the structure of
collapsed to points. It is easily seen that X
a combinatorial complex.
At the 0–dimensional level, we have a natural Γ–isomorphism Γ/Γ′ :=
F
b (0) . We use it to label the vertices of X
b (0) by Γ/Γ′ . Given
i∈I Γ/Γi → X
i
′
an horizontal edge (x, s) in G ⊆ Cay(Γ, Γ ), this is either collapsed to a
b if s ∈ Γi , or is left unchanged. Hence the horizontal edges of
point in X
F
b
X are naturally labelled by the set i∈I Γ × (S \ Γi ). Notice that vertical
edges are never collapsed.
b carries a natural Γ–action. The action on the 0–skeleton
The complex X
b corresponds
has already been described. A cell of dimension at least 1 in X
′
to exactly one cell of the same dimension in Cay(Γ, Γ ), hence the action
b is defined accordingly. Notice that, since the action of Γ on the
of Γ on X
Cayley complex is free, the same is true for the action of Γ on the 1–skeleton
b In particular Condition (3) of Theorem 8.5 holds.
of X.
b is simply connected.
Proposition 8.12. X

Proof. Let Yi be the full subcomplex of Cay(Γ, Γ′ ) whose vertices are labelled by Γi × {i}. For all i ∈ I, we add Γ–equivariantly 2–cells to Yi and
to its Γ–translates, in order to obtain a simply connected combinatorial
complex Z.
The complex obtained by collapsing to points the full subcomplex of Z
containing Yi , i ∈ I, and its Γ–translates is simply connected by an easy
application of van-Kampen Theorem. Moreover, it is obviously homeomorb
phic to X.

b in order to make
We add Γ–equivariantly higher dimensional cells to X
b and call
it a contractible combinatorial complex, that we also denote by X,
it the quotient complex. Consider the exact cellular sequence
b → C0 (X)
b → R → 0.
· · · → C1 (X)

BOUNDED COHOMOLOGY AND RELATIVE HYPERBOLICITY

32

b (0) and Γ/Γ′ .
Recall that we have a Γ–isomorphism between the Γ–sets X
Therefore, if ∆ is the kernel of the augmentation map R(Γ/Γ′ ) → R we
also have the exact sequence
(18)

b → ∆ → 0.
C∗ (X)

By the following lemma, the sequence (18) provides a Γ–projective resolution of ∆ (i.e., all the Γ–modules except ∆ are Γ–projective).
Lemma 8.13. Let X be a contractible CW-complex, and let Γ act on X
through cellular homeomorphisms. Suppose that the stabilizers in Γ of 1–
cells are finite. Then Ck (X) is a Γ–projective module for every k ≥ 1.
Proof. For k ≥ 1, the stabilizer of any k–dimensional cell is finite. By
(arbitrarily) choosing an orientation for every k–cell of X, we get a basis
of Ck (X). Then we conclude by applying Lemma 2.2 to such a basis. 
We are now ready to prove Theorem 1.1 (b). Most of the proof follows almost verbatim [MY, Theorem 57]. We note however that the existence of a
combinatorial isoperimetric function required in the statement of Theorem
57 is never actually exploited in its proof.
b satisfies conditions (1), . . . , (4) of Theorem
Proof. We will prove that X
b (2) is a quotient of the relative Cayley
8.5. Condition (4) is obvious. Since X
complex, the Γ–action on it is obviously cocompact, whence (1). Condition
(3) was already proved in Remark 8.11.
b k · kf ), where B1 (X)
b ⊂ C1 (X)
b is the set of
Now, let V := (B1 (X);
boundaries and k · kf is the filling norm
b ∂a = c}.
kckf := inf{kak : a ∈ C2 (X),

This is actually a norm (and not just a semi-norm) because, by Condition
b → C1 (X)
b is bounded, with respect to
(1), the boundary map ∂2 : C2 (X)
1
the ℓ –norms.
′
b
We have already seen that St rel
∗ (Γ, Γ ) and C∗ (X) provide Γ–projective
resolutions of ∆. Hence by Lemma 2.6 there are, up to (non-bounded)
Γ–homotopy, unique chain maps
′
b
ϕ∗ : St rel
∗ (Γ, Γ ) → C∗ (X)

that extend the identity on ∆. Put

b → St rel (Γ, Γ′ )
ψ∗ : C∗ (X)
∗

b → V.
u := ∂2 : C2 (X)

The cochain u is a cocycle. Since ψ 2 ◦ ϕ2 induces the identity in ordinary
cohomology, there is v ∈ C 1 (X, V ) such that
u = ψ 2 (ϕ2 (u)) + δv.

BOUNDED COHOMOLOGY AND RELATIVE HYPERBOLICITY

33

From the surjectivity hypothesis we get
ϕ2 (u) = u′ + δv ′ ,
1 (Γ, Γ′ ). Let
for some bounded cocycle u′ ∈ St 2rel (Γ, Γ′ ; V ) and v ′ ∈ Crel
b be a cycle, and let a ∈ C2 (X)
b be a filling of b. Then
b ∈ C1 (X)

(19) b = ∂a = hu, ai = (ψ 2 ◦ ϕ2 )(u) + δv, a = (ψ 2 ◦ ϕ2 )(u), a + hv, bi .

By Corollary 2.10 we have
(ψ 2 ◦ ϕ2 )(u), a = ϕ2 (u), ψ2 (a) = ϕ2 (u), [y, ∂(ψ2 (a))]rel = ϕ2 (u), [y, ψ1 (b)]rel =
= u′ + δv ′ , [y, ψ1 (b)]rel = u′ , [y, ψ1 (b)]rel + v ′ , ∂[y, ψ1 (b)]rel =
= u′ , [y, ψ1 (b)]rel + v ′ , ψ1 (b) = u′ , [y, ψ1 (b)]rel + ψ 1 (v ′ ), b .
Summarizing,
b = u′ , [y, ψ1 (b)]rel + ψ 1 (v ′ ) + v, b .
Hence
|b|f ≤

u′ , [y, ψ1 (b)]rel

f

+ ψ 1 (v ′ ) + v, b

f

≤ |u′ |∞ [y, ψ1 (b)]rel + ψ 1 (v ′ )+v



kbk.
kbk ≤ 3|u′ |∞ |ψ1 |∞ + ψ 1 (v ′ ) + v
∞

 ∞
Hence it remains to prove that 3|u′ |∞ |ψ1 |∞ + ψ 1 (v ′ ) + v
is bounded.

≤ 3|u′ |∞ kψ1 (b)k + ψ 1 (v ′ ) + v

∞

b → St rel (Γ, Γ′ )
The cocycle u′ is bounded by definition. Moreover ψ1 : C1 (X)
1
b → V are Γ–equivariant, hence also bounded by the
and ψ 1 (v ′ ) + v : C1 (X)
b (2) .
cocompactness of the action of Γ over X
It follows that ∂ : C2 (X, R) → C1 (X, R) is undistorted, hence F VX,R =
F VX,Q is linearly bounded.

Remark 8.14. The proof of part (b) of Theorem 1.1 could be adapted,
as in [MY], by weakening the hypotheses in the statement by requiring the
surjectivity only for Banach coefficients (that is: Banach spaces equipped
with an isometric Γ–action).
8.1. Addendum I: the relative cone of [MY]. We recall the definition
and properties of the relative cone given in [MY, 10.1,. . . , 10.5].
Consider the (non-linear) map: Φ : St 0 (Γ) → St 1 (Γ)
X
1
+
α−
Φ(c) := P
x αy [x, y],
+
α
x∈IΓ x x,y∈IΓ
P −
P
+
where c ∈ St 0 is written as: c = x α+
xx−
x αx x with all the αx and
−
+
−
αx non-negative and, for any x ∈ IΓ, αx = 0 or αx = 0. The following
fact is immediate.

∞

kbk ≤

BOUNDED COHOMOLOGY AND RELATIVE HYPERBOLICITY

34

Proposition 8.15. For every c ∈ St 0 , kΦ(c)k ≤ kck. If c is contained in
the kernel of the map St 0 → R, then
(20)

∂Φ(c) = c.

Definition 8.16. [MY, The absolute cone] Fix y ∈ IΓ and k ≥ 0. The
k–dimensional cone (associated to y) is the map [y, ·] : St k → St k+1
given by
∀γ0 , . . . , γk ∈ IΓ

[y, (γ0 , . . . , γk )] := (y, γ0 , . . . , γk )
and extended over the whole St k by linearity.

It is trivialy seen that [y, ·] is a linear map of norm 1 for every k. Moreover,
(21)

∂[y, z] = z,

for any k–dimensional cycle z, k ≥ 0.
rel
Let pr∗ : St ∗ → St rel
∗ be the projection, and let j∗ : St ∗ → St ∗ be the
obvious right inverse of pr∗ . This map has norm 1. For any left coset
s ∈ Γ/Γ′ and a ∈ St ∗ , let ∂ s (a) be the restriction of ∂a to s.
Definition 8.17. [MY, The relative cone] Fix y ∈ IΓ. The 1–dimensional
relative cone (associated to y) is the (non-linear!) map


X
rel
[y, ·]rel : St rel
[y, b]rel := pr2 y, j(b) −
∀b ∈ St rel
Φ[∂ s (j(b))]
1 → St 2
1 (Γ).
s∈Γ/Γ′

We prove Proposition 2.9. Let b ∈ St rel
1 .




X
X
k[y, b]rel k = pr y, j(b) −
Φ[∂ s (j(b))] ≤ y, j(b) −
Φ[∂ s (j(b))] =
s∈Γ/Γ′



= j(b) −
≤ kbk+

X

s∈Γ/Γ′

X



s∈Γ/Γ′

Φ[∂ s (j(b))] ≤ kj(b)k+

X

kΦ[∂ s (j(b))]k ≤ kbk+

s∈Γ/Γ′

k∂ s (j(b))]k ≤

s∈Γ/Γ′

∂ s (j(b))] = kbk+k∂(j(b))]k ≤ kbk+2kj(b)k ≤ kbk+2kbk = 3kbk.

s∈Γ/Γ′

Now, let b ∈ St rel
1 be a cycle with respect to the augmentation map
St rel
1 →∆

pr2 (x, y) 7→ [y] − [x]

(where [·] refers to the class in Γ/Γ′ ). We prove that
(22)

X

∂ rel [y, b]rel = b.

BOUNDED COHOMOLOGY AND RELATIVE HYPERBOLICITY

Write
b=

X

35

λi [xi , yi ]

i

(if [xi , yi ] ∈
/ Γ′ we will identify [xi , yi ] and pr([xi , yi ])). By hypothesis:
X
λi ([yi ] − [xi ]) = 0 ∈ ∆ ⊆ R(Γ/Γ′ ).
i

P
P
Equivalently, for any s ∈ Γ/Γ′ :
λi − xj ∈s λj = 0. Hence: ∂ s j(b) =
y
∈s
i
P
P
yi ∈s λi yi −
xj ∈s λj xj is a cycle with respect to the augmentation map:
′
St 0 (Γ, Γ ) → R → 0. Therefore we get
X
X
X
∂
Φ (∂ s (j(b))) =
∂Φ (∂ s (j(b))) =
∂ s (j(b)),
s∈Γ/Γ′

s∈Γ/Γ′

because of 20. Moreover


∂ rel [y, b]rel := ∂ rel pr2 y, j(b) −


X

s∈Γ/Γ′

= pr2 j(b) −

s∈Γ/Γ′





Φ[∂ s (j(b))] = pr2 ∂ y, j(b) −

X

s∈Γ/Γ′



X

s∈Γ/Γ′



Φ[∂ s (j(b))] =

Φ[∂ s (j(b))] = b

because Φ[∂ s (j(b))] ∈ St ′2 for every s ∈ Γ/Γ′ .

8.2. Addendum II: coincidence between Mineyev-Yaman and Blank
definitions of relative bounded cohomology. We prove that Blank’s
definition of relative bounded cohomology for pair of groupoids, when restricted to group-pairs, coincides with the one of Mineyev and Yaman, up
to isometry.
First we briefly sketch Blank’s definition of relative bounded cohomology
for groupoids. For more details, see [Bla14, Chapter 3]. If G is a groupoid,
we write “g ∈ G” if g ∈ Hom (e, f ), i.e. if g is a morphism between two
objects e and f of G. In that case we also put s(g) = e, t(g) = b. A
bounded G–module V is a set of normed vector spaces = {Ve }e∈ obj (G)
which carries a bounded groupoid G–action. This means that to any g ∈ G
an operator ρg : Vs(e) → Vt(e) is assigned whose norm is bounded independently of g ∈ G, and the composition rule: ρg◦h = ρg ◦ ρh is respected when
defined (our definition of bounded groupoid module is slightly more general
than that of normed G–module in [Bla14, Chapter 3.3.1] in that we consider actions by uniformly bounded operators on normed spaces, instead
of isometries on Banach spaces). If V and W are bounded G–modules, by
Hom bG (V, W ) we mean the space of bounded maps (fe : Ve → We )e∈ obj (G)
such that ρg ◦ fs(g) = ft(g) ◦ ρg and kfe k ≤ L for some L independent of
e ∈ obj (G).

BOUNDED COHOMOLOGY AND RELATIVE HYPERBOLICITY

36

To G we associate the Bar resolution {Cn (G)}n∈N defined as follows.
For n ∈ N put Cn (G) := {Cn (G)}e∈ obj (G) , where (Ck (G))e is the normed
space generated by the n + 1–tuples (g0 , . . . , gn ) such that s(g0 ) = e and
s(gj ) = t(gj−1 ), for 1 ≤ j ≤ n, with the corresponding ℓ1 –norm. The
module Cn (G) is equipped with the G–action
g 7→ ρg : Cs(e) (G) → Ct(e) (G)

ρg (g0 , g1 , . . . , gn ) := (gg0 , g1 , . . . , gn ).

For n ≥ 1 we define the boundary map: Cn (G) → Cn−1 (G) by the formula
∂(g0 , . . . , gn ) :=

n−1
X

(−1)j (g0 , . . . , gi · gi+1 , gn ) + (−1)n (g0 , . . . , gn−1 ).

j=0

We also have an augmentation
C0 (G) → RG

g 7→ t(g) · 1,

where RG is the groupoid {Re }e∈ obj (G) , where G acts on RG by mapping
g to the map: Id R : Gs(e) → Gt(e) (see [Bla14, Definition 3.2.4]). Notice
that we have equipped Ck (G) with a structure of bounded G–module, and
that the boundary maps are G–linear.
If (G, A) is a pair of groupoids (i.e. if A is a subgroupoid of G) we
have an inclusion of complexes: C∗ (A) ֒→ C∗ (G). The relative bounded
cohomology of (G, A) with coefficients in V is then given by the cocomplex




Cb∗ (G, A; V ) := f ∈ Hom bG (C∗ (G), V ) : fe
= 0 ∀e ∈ obj (G)


C∗ (A)e
and is denoted by Hb∗ (G, A; V ) (see [Bla14, Definition 3.5.1(iii), (iv)]).
Let (Γ, Γ′ = {Γi }i∈I ) be a group-pair. Let ΓI be the groupoid with
obj (G) = I, and Hom (i, j) = G, for all i, j ∈ obj (G). If V is a bounded
Γ–module, then VI denotes the bounded ΓI –module (Vi )i∈ obj (ΓI ) with
F ΓI –
action given by ρg (v) = gv,Fwhere v ∈ Vs(g) and gv ∈ Vt(g) . Let i∈I Γi
be the groupoid with obj ( i∈I Γi ) = I and Hom (i, j) = G if i = j,
and Hom (i, j) = ∅ otherwise (see [Bla14, Definitions 3.1.10, 3.5.11, Examples 3.1.3(iii)]). The relative bounded cohomology of the group-pair
(Γ, Γ′ ) with coefficients in V is defined to be the
F relative bounded cohomology of the corresponding groupoid-pair (ΓI , i∈I Γi ), i.e.
G
Γi ; V )
Hb∗ (Γ, Γ′ ; V ) := Hb∗ (ΓI ,
i∈I

(see [Bla14, Definition 3.5.12]).

Proposition 8.18. Let (Γ, Γ′ ) be a group-pair, and let V be a bounded
Γ–module. There is a natural isometric chain isomorphism Cb∗ (Γ, Γ′ ; V ) →
St ∗b (Γ, Γ′ ; V ).

BOUNDED COHOMOLOGY AND RELATIVE HYPERBOLICITY

37

Γ
k
′
rel
Proof. We see an element in St rel
(b) (Γ, Γ ; V ) := Hom (b) ( St k , V ) as a
Γ–linear map f : R(Γ × I)k+1 → V which is null on St′k , i.e. on tuples
(x0 , . . . , xn ) for which there exists i ∈ I such that xj ∈ Γ × {i} for all
0 ≤ j ≤ k and xj ∈ x0 Γi for every 1 ≤ j ≤ k. If i, j ∈ I and g ∈ Γ,
we write gi→j for the corresponding element in Hom (i, j), and g i for the
corresponding element in Γ × {i} ⊂ IΓ.
Fix i ∈ I and consider the maps

ϕk : Cbk (ΓI ; V ) → Stk (Γ, Γ′ ; V )

ψ k : Stkrel (Γ, Γ′ ; V ) → Cbk (Γ, Γ′ ; V )

defined as follows: if f ∈ Cbk (Γ, Γ′ ; V ) we put
−1
ϕk (f ) (g0i0 , . . . , gnin ) := f (g0i0 →i , (g0−1 g1 )i1 →i0 , . . . , (gn−1
gn )in →in−1 ).

If h ∈ Stkrel (Γ, Γ′ ; V ) we put
ψ k (h) (g0i0 →i , g1i1 →i0 , . . . , gnin →in−1 ) = h(g0i0 , (g0 g1 )i1 , . . . (g0 · · · gn )in ).
The computations that show that ϕ∗ and ψ ∗ are mutually inverse chain
maps are similar to the ones that prove that the bar-resolution and the
homogeneous bar-resolution are isomorphic. Indeed, they resemble dual
versions of the ones in [HS71, Chapter VI 13 (b)]. We simply note that
those maps are well-defined, i.e. the restrictions of ϕk (f ) on St′k and of
F
ψ k (h) on R ( i Γi )n+1 are null. Indeed, if g0i , . . . , gni ∈ (Γi × {i})n+1 , then
(g0i→i , (g0−1 g1 )i→i , . . . , (gn−1 gn )i→i ) is an (n + 1)–tuple of elements in a Γ–
translate of Γi ⊂ Hom (i, i), and therefore f is null on it. Conversely,
if (g0i→i , g1i→i , . . . , gni→i ) is a tuple of elements in Γi ⊂ Hom (i, i), then

(g0i , (g0 g1 )i , . . . (g0 · · · gn )i ) ∈ (Γi × {i})n+1 , hence h is null over it.
References
[AG99]
[BBF]
[BE78]
[BF02]
[BH99]

[Bla14]
[Bow]
[Bow08]

F. J. Allcock and S. M. Gersten, A homological characterization of hyperbolic
groups, Invent. Math. 135 (1999), no. 3, 723–742.
M. Bestvina, K. Bromberg, and K. Fujiwara, Bounded cohomology with coefficients in uniformly convex banach spaces, arXiv:1306.1542v2.
Robert Bieri and Beno Eckmann, Relative cohomology and poincarè duality for
group-pairs, Journal of Pure and Applied Algebra 13 (1978), 277–319.
Mladen Bestvina and Koji Fujiwara, Bounded cohomology of subgroups of mapping class groups, Geometry and Topology 6 (2002), no. 1, 69–89.
Martin R. Bridson and André Haefliger, Metric spaces of non-positive curvature, vol. 319, Springer Science & Business Media, Berlin, Heidelberg, New
York, 1999.
Matthias Blank, Relative bounded cohomology for groupoids, Ph.D. thesis, 2014,
epub.uni-regensburg.de/31298/1/thesis.pdf.
Brian
H.
Bowditch,
Relatively
hyperbolic
groups,
preprint,
http://www.warwick.ac.uk/ masgak/papers/rhg.pdf.
Brian H. Bowditch, Tight geodesics in the curve complex, Invent. Math. 171
(2008), no. 2, 281–300.

BOUNDED COHOMOLOGY AND RELATIVE HYPERBOLICITY

38

[Bro81]

R. Brooks, Some remarks on bounded cohomology, Riemann surfaces and related topics: Proceedings of the 1978 Stony Brook Conference (State Univ.
New York, Stony Brook, N.Y., 1978) (Princeton, N.J.) (Princeton Univ. Press,
ed.), vol. 97 of Ann. of Math. Stud., 1981, pp. 53–63.
[CDP90] M. Coornaert, T. Delzant, and A. Papadopoulos, Géometrie et théorie des
groupes (les groupes hyperboliques de gromov), Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg, 1990.
[EF97]
David B. A. Epstein and Koji Fujiwara, The second bounded cohomology of
word-hyperbolic groups, Topology 36 (1997), no. 6, 1275–1289.
[Fuj98] Koji Fujiwara, The second bounded cohomology of a group acting on a gromovhyperbolic space, Proc. London Math. Soc. 76 (1998), no. 1, 70–94.
[GdlH90] E. Ghys and P. de la Harpe, Sur les groupes hyperboliques d’après mikhael
gromov, Birkhäuser, Boston, 1990.
[GM]
Daniel Groves and Jason Fox Manning, Relative bounded cohomology and relatively hyperbolic groups, (in preparation).
[GM08]
, Dehn filling in relatively hyperbolic groups, Israel Journal of Mathematics 168 (2008), 317–429.
[Gro82] M. Gromov, Volume and bounded cohomology, Ins. Hautes Études Sci. Publ.
Math. 56 (1982), 5–99.
[Gro87]
, Hyperbolic groups, MSRI Publications 8 (1987), 75–265.
[HO13] M. Hull and D. Osin, Induced quasi-cocycles on groups with hyperbolically embedded subgroups, Algebr. & Geom. Topol. 13 (2013), no. 5, 2635–2665.
[HS71]
Peter John Hilton and Urs Stammbach, A course in homological algebra, BerlinHeidelberg-New York: Springer, Berlin-Heidelberg-New York, 1971.
[Joh72] Barry Edward Johnson, Cohomology in banach algebras (memoirs of the american mathematical society), vol. 127, American Mathematical Society, Providence, 1972.
[Löh07] Clara Löh, ℓ1 -homology and simplicial volume, Ph.D. thesis, Ph. D. thesis, Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster, 2007, www.mathematik.uniregensburg.de/loeh/theses/thesis.pdf.
[Min99] Igor Mineyev, ℓ∞ –cohomology and metabolicity of negatively curved complexes,
International Journal of Algebra and Computation 9, No. 1 (1999), 51–77.
[Min01]
, Straightening and bounded cohomology of hyperbolic groups, GAFA 11
(2001), 807–839.
[Min02]
, Bounded cohomology characterizes hyperbolic groups, Quart. J. Math.
Oxford Ser. 53 (2002), 59–73.
[MP]
Eduardo Martinez-Pedroza, A note on fine graphs and homological isoperimetric inequalities, arXiv:1501.01259.
[Mun84] James R. Munkres, Elements of algebraic topology, vol. 2, Addison-Wesley
Publishing Company, Inc., Redwood City, Calitornia Menlo Pari., California
Reading, Massachusetts Amsterdam Don Mills, Ontario Mexico City Syrlney
Bonn Madrid Singanore Tokyo Bogota Santiago San Juan Wokingham, United
Kingdont, 1984.
[MY]
Igor Mineyev and Asli Yaman, Relative hyperbolicity and bounded cohomology,
preprint, www.math.uiuc.edu/ mineyev/math/art/rel-hyp.pdf.
[Rol]
Pascal Rolli, Quasi-morphisms on free groups, arXiv:0911.4234v2.
Dipartimento di Matematica, Università di Pisa, Largo B. Pontecorvo 5,
56127 Pisa, Italy
E-mail address: franceschini@mail.dm.unipi.it

