QUASI-MOBIUS HOMEOMORPHISMS OF MORSE BOUNDARIES

arXiv:1801.05315v1 [math.GT] 14 Jan 2018

RUTH CHARNEY, MATTHEW CORDES AND DEVIN MURRAY
Abstract. The Morse boundary of a proper geodesic metric space is designed to encode
hypberbolic-like behavior in the space. A key property of this boundary is that a quasiisometry between two such spaces induces a homeomorphism on their Morse boundaries.
In this paper we investigate when the converse holds. We prove that for X, Y proper,
cocompact spaces, a homeomorphism between their Morse boundaries is induced by a
quasi-isometry if and only if the homeomorphism is quasi-mobius and 2-stable.

1. Introduction
Boundaries of hyperbolic spaces have played a major role in the study of hyperbolic geometry and hyperbolic groups. In particular, they provide a fundamental tool for studying
the dynamics of isometries and rigidity properties of hyperbolic groups.
The effectiveness of this tool depends on a few key properties. The first, is quasi-isometry
invariance: a quasi-isometry between two hyperbolic metric spaces induces a homeomorphism on their boundaries. In particular, this allows us to talk about the boundary of a
hyperbolic group. Moreover, these homeomorphisms satisfy some particularly nice properties; they are quasi-mobius and quasi-conformal. Quasi-mobius is a condition that bounds
the distortion of cross-ratios while quasi-conformal bounds the distortion of metric spheres.
These conditions have been studied in a variety of contexts by Otal, Pansu, Tukia, and
Vaisala, [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6] among others. One of the most general theorems can be found
in a 1996 paper of Paulin [7] where he proves that if f : ∂X → ∂Y is a homeomorphism
between the boundaries of two proper, cocompact hyperbolic spaces, then the following are
equivalent
(1) f is induced by a quasi-isometry h : X → Y ,
(2) f is quasi-mobius,
(3) f is quasi-conformal.
We remark that Paulin’s definition of quasi-conformal is different from the one used by
Tukia and others. In this paper, we will focus on the quasi-mobius condition.
Boundaries can be defined for a variety of other spaces. In particular, one can define
a boundary for any CAT(0) space in a similar manner to hyperbolic spaces. Unfortunately, many of the nice properties of hyperbolic boundaries fail in this context. First,
quasi-isometries of CAT(0) spaces do not, in general, induce homeomorphisms on their
Charney was partially supported by NSF grant DMS-1607616. Cordes was supported by a Zuckerman
STEM Leadership Postdoctoral Fellowship.
1

2

RUTH CHARNEY, MATTHEW CORDES AND DEVIN MURRAY

boundaries. A well-known example of Croke and Kleiner [8] exhibits a group acting geometrically on two CAT(0) spaces with non-homeomorphic boundaries. The missing property that leads to the failure of quasi-isometry invariance, is that in hyperbolic spaces,
quasi-geodesics stay bounded distance from geodesics (with the bound depending only on
the quasi-constants) while in CAT(0) spaces, this need not hold. This property is known
as the Morse property.
In [9] the first author and H. Sultan introduced a new type of boundary for CAT(0)
spaces by restricting to only those geodesic rays satisfying the Morse property. For CAT(0)
spaces, the Morse property is equivalent to the contracting property and the authors originally called their boundary the “contracting boundary”. Subsequently, their construction
was generalized to arbitrary proper geodesic metric spaces by M. Cordes [10] using the
Morse property. These boundaries have thus come to be known as Morse boundaries. We
denote the Morse boundary of X by ∂∗ X. The key property of this boundary is quasiisometry invariance; a quasi-isometry between two proper geodesic metric spaces induces
a homeomorphism on their Morse boundaries [9, 10]. Thus the Morse boundary is welldefined for any finitely generated group (though it may be empty if the group has no Morse
geodesics). The Morse boundary is designed to behave like boundaries of hyperbolic groups
and, hopefully, to have similar applications to more general groups. Evidence of this may
be found in several papers including [9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16]. For an overview of what
is currently known about Morse boundaries, see Cordes’ survey paper [17].
In the current paper, we will investigate the question of when a homeomorphism of
Morse boundaries is induced by a quasi-isometry of the underlying groups. We prove the
following analogue of Paulin’s theorem.
Main Theorem. Let X and Y be proper, cocompact geodesic metric spaces and assume
that ∂∗ X contains at least 3 points. Then a homeomorphism f : ∂∗ X → ∂∗ Y is induced by
a quasi-isometry h : X → Y if and only if f is 2-stable and quasi-mobius.
We refer the reader to Section 3.1 for the definitions of quasi-mobius and 2-stable.
In particular, consider the case of a CAT(0) group. In [16], building on work of Ballman
and Buyalo [18], the second author showed that if G acts geometrically on a CAT(0) space
X, then ∂∗ X contains at least 3 points if and only if G is rank one and not virtually cyclic.
Thus we have,
Corollary. Let G be a rank one CAT(0) group and H any finitely generated group. Then
H is quasi-isometric to G if and only if there exists a homeomorphism f : ∂∗ G → ∂∗ H
which is quasi-mobius and 2-stable.
One might ask if there is also an equivalent quasi-conformality condition as in Paulin’s
theorem. In general, however, the Morse boundary is neither metrizable nor compact, so
it is not even clear what quasi-conformal should mean in this context. However, a recent
paper of Cashen and Mackey [13] introduces a metrizable topology on the Morse boundary
which could potentially be used to define quasi-conformal. It would be interesting to know
whether a full analogue of Paulin’s theorem holds for this modified Morse boundary.

QUASI-MOBIUS HOMEOMORPHISMS OF MORSE BOUNDARIES

3

An earlier version of this paper, dealing only with CAT(0) spaces, is available on the
arXiv [19]. The proofs in that setting are somewhat easier. We have also recently learned
that Sarah Mousley and Jacob Russel have proved an analogous result for Hierarchically
Hyperbolic Groups (HHGs) [20].
The first author would like to thank the Mathematical Sciences Research Institute in
Berkeley and the Isaac Newton Institute for Mathematical Sciences in Cambridge for their
support and hospitality during the writing of this paper. Work at the Newton Institute
was supported by EPSRC grant no EP/K032208/1.
2. Preliminaries
We assume throughout the paper that X is a proper geodesic metric space.
2.1. Morse triangles. In this section we review some basic facts about Morse geodesics
and define the Morse boundary. The reader is referred to [10, 21, 9, 22] for more details.
Definition 2.1. A geodesic α in X is Morse if there exists a function N : R+ × R+ → R+
such that any (λ, ǫ)-quasi-geodesic with endpoints on α, lies in the N (λ, ǫ)-neighborhood
of α. The function N is called a Morse gauge for α and we say that α is N -Morse.
It is well known that if X is hyperbolic, then there exists a Morse gauge N such that
every geodesic in X is N -Morse. At the other extreme, there are spaces X, such as the
Euclidean plane, where no infinite geodesic is Morse. In general, one has a mixture: some
infinite geodesics in X are Morse and others not. For example, if X is the universal cover
of the wedge of two tori, T 2 ∨ T 2 , then a geodesic α in X is Morse if and only if there is a
uniform bound on the amount of time α spends in any given flat. That bound determines
the Morse guage, the longer α spends in a flat, the larger the Morse guage N .
Morse geodesics in a proper geodesic metric space X behave much like geodesics in a
hyperbolic metric space, as indicated in the next few lemmas.
Lemma 2.2 (Equivalent Geodesics). Let α and β be bi-infinite geodesics based at a point
p. Suppose α is N -Morse and the Hausdorff distance between α and β is finite. Then there
exists a constant CN and a Morse gauge N ′ , depending only on N , such that β is N ′ -Morse
and the Hausdorff distance between α and β is at most CN .
Proof. This follows from the proof of Proposition 2.4 in [10].



Recall that a triangle is δ-slim if each side is contained in the δ-neighborhood of the
other two sides.
Lemma 2.3 (Slim Triangles). Let T (a, b, c) be a triangle with vertices a, b, c ∈ X ∪ ∂∗ X
and suppose that all three edges of the triangle are N -Morse. Then there exists a constant
δN depending only on N so that T (a, b, c) is δN -slim.
Proof. For triangles with vertices in X, this follows from Lemma 2.3 of [10]. That is,
there exists DN , depending only on N , such that interior triangles with N -Morse sides are
DN -slim.

4

RUTH CHARNEY, MATTHEW CORDES AND DEVIN MURRAY

Following Kent and Leininger’s argument in Theorem 4.4 of [23], we can extend this
to ideal triangles by truncating the triangle at each ideal vertex. For simplicity we will
describe the argument in the case where all three vertices are on the boundary. The same
idea works when only some of the vertices are on the boundary.
It follows from the proof of Proposition 2.4 in [10] that for two N -Morse geodesic rays
α and β asymptotic to the same point on the boundary, there exists L, depending only on
N , such that α and β eventually lie within L of each other, that is, for some T1 , T2 , the
Hausdorff distance from α([T1 , ∞)) to β([T2 , ∞)) is at most L.
Thus at each point {a, b, c}, we can truncate the triangle T (a, b, c) by adding an edge
of length at most L to get a geodesic hexagon P in X. Then choose 3 vertices a′ , b′ , c′ of
P that form a central triangle R(a′ , b′ , c′ ) and three other peripheral triangles which share
two sides with P (see Figure 1). Each of these peripheral triangles contains one edge that
is a segment of a side of T , one edge in R, and a third edge of length at most L. By an
elementary argument, subsegments of N -Morse geodesics are N ′ -Morse where N ′ depends
only on N , so the first of these edges is N ′ -Morse. The union of the other two edges is a
(1, L)-quasi-geodesic and is hence contained in the N ′ (1, L)-neighborhood of the first edge,
in fact, by Lemma 2.1 of [10] they have Hausdorff distance 2N ′ (1, L). By Lemma 2.5 of [9]
this implies that the sides of R are N ′′ -Morse where N ′′ depends only on N ′ , L.
Since R has vertices in X, it is DN ′′ -slim, and the sides of P that are contained in T , lie
in the 2N ′ (1, L)-neighborhood of R. Thus,taking δN = DN ′′ + 4N ′ (1, L) + L, we conclude
that T is δN -slim.

Lemma 2.4 (Morse Triangles). Given N and a triangle T (a, b, c) with vertices in X ∪∂∗ X,
there exists N ′ such that if two sides [a, b], [a, c] are N -Morse, then the third side [b, c] is
N ′ -Morse.
Proof. For triangles with vertices in X, this is proved in Lemma 2.3 of [10]. For an ideal
triangle, following the proof of the Slim Triangle property above, we can truncate T to
form the triangle R with vertices a′ , b′ , c′ and show that [a′ , b′ ] and [a′ , c′ ] are N1 -Morse.
Hence by Lemma 2.3 of [10], [b′ , c′ ] is N2 -Morse, where N1 , N2 depend only on N .
Now apply Lemma 2.3 of [10] to the peripheral triangle formed by b′ , c′ , c′′ . Since [b′ , c′ ]
is N2 -Morse and [c′ , c′′ ] is length at most L, there exists N3 depending only on N2 and L,
such that [b′ , c′′ ], the side contained in [b, c], is N3 -Morse. Since b′ and c′′ can be chosen to
be arbitrarily far out toward b and c, it follows that [b, c] is N3 -Morse.

2.2. The Morse boundary. We are now ready to define the Morse boundary.
For two Morse rays α, β in X, say α ∼ β if they have bounded Hausdorff distance
and denote the equivalence class by [α]. The Morse boundary of X consists of the set of
equivalence classes of Morse rays. To topologize this set, first choose a basepoint p ∈ X
and let N be a Morse guage. Set
∂∗N X p = {[α] | ∃β ∈ [α] that is an N –Morse geodesic ray with β(0) = p}
with the compact-open topology. These spaces are compact. This topology is equivalent
to one defined by a system of neighborhoods, {Vn (α) | n ∈ N}, defined as follows: Vn (α) is

QUASI-MOBIUS HOMEOMORPHISMS OF MORSE BOUNDARIES

5

b

b′

b′′

R

c′

a′′
c′′

a′

c
a
Figure 1. Ideal N -morse triangles are slim
the set of [γ] ∈ ∂∗N X p such that d(α(t), γ(t)) < CN for all t < n, where CN is the constant
from Lemma 2.2.
Let M be the set of all Morse gauges. Put a partial ordering on M so that for two
Morse gauges N, N ′ ∈ M, we say N ≤ N ′ if and only if N (λ, ǫ) ≤ N ′ (λ, ǫ) for all λ, ǫ ∈ N.
Define the Morse boundary of X to be
∂∗ X p = lim ∂∗N X p
−→
M

with the induced direct limit topology, i.e., a set U is open in ∂∗ X if and only if U ∩ ∂∗N X p
is open for all N . It is shown in [10] that a change in basepoint results in a homeomorphic
boundary, thus we normally omit the basepoint from the notation and denote the Morse
boundary by ∂∗ X.
An alternate construction of the Morse boundary is given by the second author and Hume
(N )
in [11]. Define Xp to be the set of all y ∈ X such that there exists a N –Morse geodesic
(N )
[p, y] in X. By Proposition 3.2 in [11], we know Xp is 8N (3, 0)–hyperbolic in the Gromov
(N )
4-point definition of hyperbolicity. Hence, we may consider its Gromov boundary, ∂Xp ,

6

RUTH CHARNEY, MATTHEW CORDES AND DEVIN MURRAY



(N )
and the associated visual metric d(N ) . We call the collection of boundaries ∂Xp , d(N )
the metric Morse boundary of X. (The reader is referred to [24, Section 2.2] for a careful
treatment of the sequential boundary of a δ–hyperbolic space which is not necessarily
(N )
geodesic.) It is shown in [11] that there is a natural homeomorphism between ∂Xp and
∂∗N X p . In particular, ∂∗N X p is compact. Thus the Morse boundary can also be defined as
(N )

the direct limit of the metric spaces ∂Xp .
It follows from Lemma 2.4, the Morse Triangle property, that for any two points a, b
on ∂∗N X p , there is a bi-infinite N ′ -Morse geodesic γ connecting a and b. While the Morse
guage N depends on a choice of basepoint p, the Morse guage of the bi-infinite geodesic
γ does not. In this paper we will primarily be concerned with the Morse guage for such
bi-infinite geodesics.
Denote by ∂∗ X (n,N ) , n-tuples of distinct points. (a1 , a2 , . . . an ) in ∂∗ X such that every
bi-infinite geodesic from ai to aj is N -Morse. Let (a, b, c) ∈ ∂∗ X (3,N ) . By the Slim Triangle
Property, for any ideal triangle T (a, b, c), there exist points that lie within δN of all three
sides of T . While these points are by no means unique, we will show in the next Lemma
that they form a bounded set.
Lemma 2.5. Let (a, b, c) ∈ ∂∗ X (3,N ) . Set
EK (a, b, c) = {x ∈ X | x lies within K of all three sides of some T (a, b, c)}.
For any K ≥ δN , the following hold:
(1) EK (a, b, c) is non-empty
(2) EK (a, b, c) has bounded diameter L depending only on N and K.
(3) For each vertex v of T (a, b, c), there exists points p and q on the two sides of T
emanating from v such that p, q ∈ EK (a, b, c), d(p, q) ≤ δN , and the Hausdorff
distance from [p, v] to [q, v] is at most δN .
Proof. (1): This follows from the Slim Triangle Property.
(2): Lemma 3.1.5 of [25] proves this statement for triangles which are δN -slim and have
finite edge lengths. So what is left to show is that this holds for ideal δN -slim triangles.
Let p, q ∈ EK (a, b, c). By Lemma 2.3 we can assume that T (a, b, c) is δN -slim. As in the
proof of that lemma, we form the triangle R with vertices a′ , b′ , c′ in X. The sides of R are
bounded distance from the sides of T with the bound K ′ depending only on N . It follows
that p and q are within K + K ′ of all three sides of R. Thus, since the edge lengths of R
are finite, by Lemma 3.1.5 of [25] we know that the d(p, q) is bounded where the bound
depends only on N and K. This completes the proof.
(3): This follows from the continuity of the distance function and the fact that T (a, b, c)
is δN -slim.

We will refer to a point in EK (a, b, c) as a K-center of (a, b, c), or a coarse center if K
is understood.

QUASI-MOBIUS HOMEOMORPHISMS OF MORSE BOUNDARIES

7

3. Homeomorphisms induced by quasi-isometries
Let h : X → Y be a quasi-isometry between proper geodesic spaces. For a Morse ray
α in X, the Morse property guarantees that the quasi-ray h(α) in Y can be straightened
to a Morse ray β at bounded Hausdorff distance from h(α). In [19] and [10] the authors
showed that the resulting map ∂∗ h : ∂∗ X → ∂∗ Y is a homeomorphism. In this section we
will show that these homeomorphisms satisfy some additional properties.
3.1. Two-stable maps. Recall that ∂∗N X was defined in terms of a fixed basepoint p.
While changing the basepoint does not change the set of points on the Morse boundary,
it does change the Morse guage associated to any given point. In this paper, on the other
hand, we are concerned primarily with bi-infinite geodesics, rather than geodesic rays at a
basepoint. Let α be a bi-infinte, N -Morse geodesic in X. While its endpoints α+ and α−
are in ∂∗ X, the rays from x0 to these points may require much larger Morse guages, so α+
and α− need not lie in ∂∗N X.
Since ∂∗ X has at least 3 points and the bi-infinite geodesic between any two of these is
Morse, ∂∗ X (3,N ) is non-empty for N sufficiently large.
Definition 3.1. Let X and Y be proper, geodesic metric spaces. A map f : ∂∗ X → ∂∗ Y
is 2-stable if for every Morse gauge N , there exists a Morse gauge N ′ such that f maps
′
′
∂∗ X (2,N ) into ∂∗ Y (2,N ) . Note that it follows that f maps ∂∗ X (n,N ) into ∂∗ Y (n,N ) for all
n ≥ 2.
In the setting of CAT(0) spaces, one can instead use the contracting property to define
2-stable. Recall that a geodesic α is D-contracting if the projection on α of any metric ball
B, with B ∩ α = ∅, has diameter at most D. It is shown in [9] that in a CAT(0) space,
given D, there exists N such that if α is D-contracting, then it is N -Morse, and conversely,
given N there exists D ′ such that if α is N -Morse then it is D ′ contracting. It follows that
for X, Y CAT(0), f : ∂∗ X → ∂∗ Y is 2-stable if and only if for each D there exists D ′ such
that f maps bi-infinite D-contracting geodesics to bi-infinite D ′ -contracting geodesics.
Now suppose f : ∂∗ X → ∂∗ Y is a homeomorphism. Since a closed set in ∂∗ X is compact
if and only if it is contained in ∂∗N X, for some N (see Lemma 4.1 of [12]), it must be the
′
case that for each N , there exists a N ′ such that f maps ∂∗N X into ∂∗N Y . On the other
hand, this is does not guarantee that f is 2-stable as the following example shows.
Example 3.2. Let X be the Euclidean plane R2 with a ray rm,n attached at each lattice
point (m, n) ∈ Z2 ⊂ R2 . View the plane as horizontal and the attached rays as vertical. It
is easy to see that the Morse boundary is the discrete set of the vertical rays.
Since X is CAT(0), we can use the contracting property in place of the Morse property.
For a bi-infinite geodesic between two boundary points rm,n and rs,t, the optimal contracting constant for the bi-infinite geodesic connecting them is given by the distance in the
plane from (m, n) to (s, t).
Consider the homeomorphism f : ∂∗ X → ∂∗ X which interchanges rn,0 and r−n,0 and
leaves all other points on the boundary fixed. Let αn be the bi-infinite geodesic from rn,0 to
rn,1 . Then for all n, αn is 1-contracting, whereas after applying f , the bi-infinite geodesic

8

RUTH CHARNEY, MATTHEW CORDES AND DEVIN MURRAY

between the resulting points, r−n,0 and rn,1 is worse than 2n-contracting. Thus, f is not
2-stable.
One can promote this example to a space with a cocompact group action. Namely, let X
be the universal cover of a torus wedge a circle, T 2 ∨ S 1 . View the flats in X as horizontal
and the edges covering the circle as vertical. Choose a base flat F and identify it with R2 .
Let e(n, m) denote the upward edge attached at (n, m) ∈ F . Define f : ∂∗ X → ∂∗ X by
interchanging any ray from the origin passing through e(n, 0) with the corresponding ray
passing through e(−n, 0), and leaving the rest of the boundary fixed. This again defines a
homeomorphism on the boundary which, by the same argument as above, is not 2-stable.
3.2. Cross-ratios. We begin by reviewing Paulin’s definition of the cross-ratio. For four
points a, b, c, d in a δ-hyperbolic space X, Paulin defines the cross-ratio to be [a, b, c, d] =
1
2 (d(a, d) + d(b, c) − d(a, b) − d(c, d)). He then extends this definition to ∂X by taking
limits over sequences of points approaching the boundary. We will use a slightly different
definition of the cross-ratio motivated by the following observation. Since triangles in X
are δ-slim, there exist points p and q lying within δ all three sides of the triangles (a, b, c)
and (a, c, d) respectively. It is easy to see that (the absolute value of) Paulin’s cross-ratio
is approximately equal to d(p, q); they differ by at most 4δ. Analogous points also exist for
ideal triangles, namely course centers of (a, b, c) and (a, c, d), and give rise to a definition
of the cross-ratio in ∂∗ X that is intrinsic to the boundary and easier to work with.
b

−

c

+

+
−

p
q

−
a

+
+

−

d
Figure 2. Distance between centers is coarsely equal to Paulin’s cross-ratio

QUASI-MOBIUS HOMEOMORPHISMS OF MORSE BOUNDARIES

9

By the Slim Triangle Property (Lemma 2.3), ideal triangles with vertices (a, b, c) ∈
∂∗ X (3,N ) are δN -slim, thus they contain points p that lie within δN of all three sides. By
Lemma 2.5, the set EδN (a, b, c) of all such points is bounded.
Definition 3.3. Fix a Morse gauge N and set K = δN . The cross-ratio of a four-tuple
(a, b, c, d) ∈ ∂∗ X (4,N ) is defined to be
[a, b, c, d] = ± sup{d(p, q) | p ∈ EK (a, b, c), q ∈ EK (a, c, d)}
Since we will only be concerned with the absolute value of the cross-ratio, we will not
bother to specify the sign. (Intuitively, the sign should depend on whether p lies to the
left or right of q in Figure 2, but making this precise is messy and of no use to us here.)
Note that interchanging a with c, or b with d, does not change the absolute value of the
cross-ratio. Indeed, up to a uniform bound depending only on N , |[a, b, c, d]| depends only
on the pairing of a with c, and b with d. To see this, approximate (a, b, c, d) by points in the
interior of X, and note that for interior points, Paulin’s original formula for the cross-ratio
differs from ours by at most 4δN .
Lemma 3.4. Let (a, b, c, d) ∈ ∂∗ X (4,N ) and K ≥ δN . Then there exists a constant L =
L(N, K), such that for any choice of p ∈ EK (a, b, c) and q ∈ EK (a, c, d),
d(p, q) ≤ |[a, b, c, d]| ≤ d(p, q) + 2L
Proof. This follows immediately from Lemma 2.5(2).



Remark 3.5. As the reader may have noticed, δN , and hence the definition of the crossratio, depends on the choice of N . If one increases the Morse gauge to N ′ > N , then any
choice of coarse centers p and q for K = δN , are also coarse centers for K ′ = δN ′ , hence
by the lemma, the cross-ratio will change by at most a bounded amount. Since we will
primarily be concerned with bounding cross-ratios of 4-tuples (a, b, c, d) ∈ ∂∗ X (4,N ) for a
fixed N , and most arguments will be done using a choice of coarse centers, this ambiguity
will be of no concern.
It is possible to modify our definition of the cross-ratio to make it independent of N by
choosing a K for each triple of vertices that depends on the vertices, but not on N . For
example, we could set
K(a, b, c) = 1 + inf{k | Ek (a, b, c) 6= ∅},
and then define the cross-ratio as the supremum of d(p, q) where p is a K(a, b, c)-center
and q is a K(a, c, d)-center. For (a, b, c, d) ∈ ∂∗ X (4,N ) , EδN is always non-empty, so this
definition of the cross-ratio would differ from the one above by a bounded amount with
the bound depending only on N .
In an earlier version of this paper [19], where we restricted our attention to CAT(0)
spaces, we took p and q to be projections of b and d on a geodesic [a, c], rather than
coarse centers, and used these to define the cross-ratio. These projections, and hence
this definition of the cross-ratio, are independent of N . This works since in a CAT(0)
space, Morse geodesics are (strongly) contracting and projections are well-defined (see

10

RUTH CHARNEY, MATTHEW CORDES AND DEVIN MURRAY

[16]). Unfortunately, this approach does not generalize to Morse geodesics in more general
geodesic metric spaces.
Definition 3.6. Let X and Y be geodesic metric spaces. A homeomorphism f : ∂∗ X →
∂∗ Y is N -quasi-mobius if there exists a continuous map ψN : [0, ∞) → [0, ∞) such that for
all 4-tuples (α, α′ , β, β ′ ) in ∂∗ X (4,N ) ,
|[f (α), f (α′ ), f (β), f (β ′ )]| ≤ ψN (|[α, α′ , β, β ′ ]|).
We say that f is quasi-mobius if it is N -quasi-mobius for every N .
We remark that one can always choose the functions ψN to be non-decreasing.
Theorem 3.7. Let h : X → Y be a (λ, ǫ)-quasi-isometry between two proper geodesic
metric spaces. Then the induced map ∂∗ h : ∂∗ X → ∂∗ Y is a 2-stable, quasi-mobius homeomorphism. Moreover, the functions ψN in the definition of quasi-mobius can all be taken
to be linear with multiplicative constant λ.
Proof. The fact that ∂∗ h is a homeomorphism was proved by the first author and H. Sultan
for CAT(0) spaces in [9] and then generalized to arbitrary proper geodesic metric spaces by
the second author in [10]. The proof involves showing that for each Morse guage N , there
exists a Morse guage N ′ such that the image of an N -Morse ray under the quasi-isometry
h can be “straightened” to an N ′ -Morse ray in Y . The same proof applies to bi-infinite
geodesics to show that ∂∗ h is 2-stable.
Suppose h is a (λ, ǫ)-quasi-isometry. To prove that ∂∗ h is quasi-mobius, first consider
′
a triple (a, b, c) ∈ ∂∗ X (3,N ) and let (a′ , b′ , c′ ) ∈ ∂∗ Y (3,N ) be its image under ∂∗ h. Let
T = T (a, b, c) be a representative triangle. Applying h to T gives a quasi-triangle (a triangle
whose sides are quasi-geodesic) in Y . The sides can be straightened to geodesics to obtain
a triangle T ′ = T ′ (a′ , b′ , c′ ) with N ′ -Morse sides. The Morse property guarantees that there
is a constant C, depending only on N ′ , λ, ǫ, such that h(T ) lies in the C-neighborhood of
T ′.
Set K = δN and consider the image of EK (a, b, c) under h. For any x ∈ EK (a, b, c), h(x)
lies within λK + ǫ of all three sides of h(T ) for some T and hence within λK + ǫ + C of
all three sides of T ′ . Taking K ′ = max{δN ′ , λK + ǫ + C}, we conclude that the image of
EK (a, b, c) under h lies in EK ′ (a′ , b′ , c′ ). By Lemma 2.5(2), the diameter of EK (a, b, c) is
bounded by a constant L = L(N, K) and the diameter of EK ′ (a′ , b′ , c′ ) is bounded by a
constant L′ = L′ (N ′ , K ′ ).
′
Now consider a 4-tuple (a, b, c, d) ∈ X (4,D) and let (a′ , b′ , c′ , d′ ) ∈ Y (4,D ) be its image
under ∂∗ h. Let p and q be K-centers of (a, b, c) and (a, c, d) respectively. Likewise, let
p′ , q ′ be K ′ -centers of (a′ , b′ , c′ ) and (a′ , c′ , d′ ). By Lemma 3.4, |[a, b, c, d]| and d(p, q) differ
by at most 2L and |[a′ , b′ , c′ , d′ ]| and d(p′ , q ′ ) differ by at most 2L′ . Hence to prove ∂∗ h is
quasi-mobius, it suffices to bound d(p′ , q ′ ) as a function of d(p, q).
As observed above, h(p) ∈ EK ′ (a′ , b′ , c′ ), so d(p′ , h(p)) < L′ , and likewise, d(q ′ , h(q)) <
′
L . Thus,
d(p′ , q ′ ) < d(h(p), h(q)) + 2L′ ≤ λd(p, q) + ǫ + 2L′ .

QUASI-MOBIUS HOMEOMORPHISMS OF MORSE BOUNDARIES

11

It follows that ∂∗ h is quasi-mobius with linear bounding functions with multiplicative
constant λ.

4. Quasi-isometries induced by homeomorphisms
The goal of this section is to prove a converse of Theorem 3.7. Namely, if f : ∂∗ X → ∂∗ Y
is a homeomorphism such that f and f −1 are both 2-stable and quasi-mobius, then f is
induced by a quasi-isometry h : X → Y . We continue to assume that ∂∗ X (and hence
∂∗ Y ) contains at least three points. In addition, to prove the converse statement we will
need to assume that both X and Y are cocompact, that is, there exists a group G acting
cocompactly on X and a group H acting cocompactly on Y .
4.1. Extending f to the interior. Given a homeomorphism f : ∂∗ X → ∂∗ Y , we need
to extend it to a map h : X → Y . Let us outline the steps involved in defining such an h.
Choose N such that ∂∗ X (3,N ) is non-empty. We begin by defining a map
N
πX
: ∂∗ X (3,N ) → X.
N (a, b, c) = p where p is a choice of K-center for (a, b, c), that is,
Fix K = δN . Define πX
p ∈ EK (a, b, c). When N is fixed, we will generally omit it from the notation and denote
the map by πX . We will refer to πX (a, b, c) as the projection of (a, b, c).
If G is a group acting cocompactly by isometries on X, then the induced action of G
on ∂∗ X preserves the Morse constants of bi-inifinte geodesics and we can choose πX to
be equivariant with respect to the induced action. Choose a basepoint x0 that lies in the
image of πX . Since the action of G on X is cocompact, there is a ball B(x0 , R) whose
G-translates cover X, so every point in X lies within R of πX (a, b, c) for some (a, b, c).
Now assume that f : ∂∗ X → ∂∗ Y is a 2-stable homeomorphism and say f (∂∗ X (2,N ) ) ⊆
′
′
∂∗ Y (2,N ) . As observed above, it follows that f (∂∗ X (n,N ) ) ⊆ ∂∗ Y (n,N ) for all n ≥ 2. Set
′
N and let π = π N ′ : ∂ Y (N ,3) → Y be the analogous map for Y . We will define
πX = πX
Y
∗
Y
h(x) to be a point in the set
−1
(B(x, R)) ⊂ Y.
Π(x) = πY ◦ f ◦ πX

To have any control on this function h, we must first prove that for any x, Π(x) has
bounded diameter, depending only on N .
Lemma 4.1. There exists a constant C1 depending only on N such that for any (a, b, c, d) ∈
∂∗ X (4,N ) , the absolute value of one of the three cross-ratios [a, b, c, d], [a, c, b, d], [c, a, b, d]
is less than C1 .
Proof. Let K = δN . Let L be the bound on diam(EK ) given by Lemma 2.5(2) and L′ the
bound on diam(EL+2K ). We may assume L′ > L (otherwise replace L′ by L + 1). Note
that since L depends only on N , L′ also only depends only on N . Set C1 = 2L′ .
If |[a, b, c, d]| < C1 then we are done. For the rest of the proof, suppose that |[a, b, c, d]| ≥
C1 . Note that in this case EK (a, b, c) ∩ EK (a, c, d) is empty since for any p ∈ EK (a, b, c)
and q ∈ EK (a, c, d),
d(p, q) ≥ |[a, b, c, d]| − 2L ≥ C1 − 2L > 0.

12

RUTH CHARNEY, MATTHEW CORDES AND DEVIN MURRAY

b

c

p′
p′′

a

q

r′
p
r

q′

d
Figure 3. At least one cross-ratio is “small”.

Interchanging a and c if necessary, we may assume that EK (a, b, c) lies “closer” to a than
EK (a, c, d). That is, for any points p ∈ EK (a, b, c) ∩ [a, c] and q ∈ EK (a, c, d) ∩ [a, c], p lies
on the ray [a, q]. See Figure 3.
By Lemma 2.5(3), there exist points p, p′ ∈ EK (a, b, c) with p ∈ [a, c] and p′ ∈ [b, c],
such that [p, c] and [p′ , c] have Hausdorff distance at most K. Likewise, there are points
q, q ′ ∈ EK (a, c, d) with q ∈ [a, c] and q ′ ∈ [a, d] such that [a, q] and [a, q ′ ] have Hausdorff
distance at most K. In particular, since p ∈ [a, q], there exists a point r ∈ [a, q ′ ] ⊂ [a, d]
with d(p, r) ≤ K.
Now consider the triangle (b, c, d). By the slim triangle property, p′ ∈ [b, c] lies within
K of a point r ′ on one of the other two sides. Say r ′ ∈ [c, d]. Since d(p, p′ ) ≤ L, the points
p, r, r ′ all lie within L + 2K of each other, hence they lie in EL+2K (a, c, d). Since p also
lies in EK (a, b, c), Lemma 3.4 implies that |[a, b, c, d]| ≤ 2L′ = C1 . But this contradicts our
original assumption.
Thus we must have r ′ ∈ [b, d]. Choose a point p′′ ∈ [a, b] ∩ EK (a, b, c). Then p′′ , r, r ′
all lie within L + 2K of each other, hence they lie in EL+2K (a, b, d). Since p′′ also lies in
EK (a, b, c), this implies that |[a, c, b, d]| ≤ 2L′ = C1 .
Recalling that we initially allowed a, c to be interchanged if necessary, we have thus
shown that one of |[a, b, c, d]|, |[a, c, b, d]|, or |[c, a, b, d]| is less than C1 .


QUASI-MOBIUS HOMEOMORPHISMS OF MORSE BOUNDARIES

13

By Lemma 3.4, we see that if |[a, b, c, d]| is small, then any pair of K-centers of the
triangles (a, b, c) and (a, c, d) are close. Thus, the lemma above says that for (a, b, c, d) ∈
∂∗ X (4,N ) , replacing one of the vertices of the triangle (a, b, c) by d, causes only a small
change in πX (a, b, c).
Proposition 4.2. Let f : ∂∗ X → ∂∗ Y be a 2-stable, quasi-mobius homeomorphism.
Then for any Morse guage N , there exists a function CN : R+ → R+ such that for all
(a, b, c), (u, v, w) in ∂∗ X (3,N ) ,
dX (πX (a, b, c), πX (u, v, w)) ≤ R =⇒ dY (πY (f (a), f (b), f (c)), πY (f (u), f (v), f (w)) ≤ CN (R).
Proof. Let T1 = (a, b, c) and T2 = (u, v, w) and set x = πX (a, b, c) and y = πX (u, v, w). Fix
a constant M ≥ 0. We first show that there exists a Morse gauge N ′ , depending only on N
and M , such that if d(x, y) ≤ M , then any geodesic from a vertex of T1 to a vertex of T2 is
N ′ -Morse. Say, for example, that γ ∈ (a, u) is such a geodesic. By Lemma 2.5, x (resp. y)
is uniformly bounded distance, say distance C, from the sides of any triangle representing
T1 (resp. T2 ). It follows that (a, x) is in the C-neighborhood of any geodesic in (a, b), and
(u, y) is in the C-neighborhood of any geodesic in (u, v). Assuming d(x, y) ≤ R this also
implies that (u, x) is in the (C + R)-neighborhood of (u, v). It follows that there is a Morse
gauge N1 , depending only on C and R, such that (a, x) and (u, x) are N1 -Morse, and hence
by the Morse Triangles Property, a Morse gauge N ′ such that [a, u] is N ′ -Morse. The same
′
argument applied to other pairs of vertices shows that (a, b, c, u, v, w) ∈ ∂∗ X (N ,6) .
′
By Lemma 4.1, there is a constant C1 such that for any (p, q, r, s) ∈ ∂∗ X (N ,4) , some
permutation of the first three points p, q, r results in a cross-ratio with absolute value
bounded by C1 . We will say that such a cross-ratio is “small”. It follows from Lemma
3.4, that if |[p, q, r, s]| is small, then πX (p, q, r) and πX (p, s, r) are uniformly close, say at
distance < C2 . In this case, we call the move from (p, q, r) to (p, s, r) a “small flip”. So for
′
any (p, q, r, s) ∈ ∂∗ X (N ,4) , there exists a small flip that replaces one vertex of the triangle
(p, q, r) by s.
To prove the proposition, we begin by showing that applying at most 3 small flips to the
triangles T1 = (a, b, c) and T2 = (u, v, w), we obtain a pair of triangles that share an edge.
We first do a flip that replaces a vertex of (a, b, c) by v. Permuting (a, b, c) if necessary,
we get a small flip from (a, b, c) to (a, v, c). Next, we replace a vertex of (a, v, c) by w. If
the flip to either (w, v, c) or (a, v, w) is small, we are done since these share an edge with
(u, v, w).
So suppose only the flip from (a, v, c) to (a, w, c) is small. In this case, consider the flips
of (u, v, w) obtained by replacing a vertex by a. All of the resulting triangles (a, v, w),
(u, a, w), (u, v, a) share an edge with either (a, v, c) or (a, w, c), so whichever one of these
flips is small, we arrive at the desired pair of adjacent triangles.
Since the projections x, y of T1 , T2 are at distance at most R, the projections of the
resulting pair of adjacent triangles are at distance at most R′ = R + 3C2 . In summary,
there is a sequence of at most 5 triangles with vertices in {a, b, c, u, v, w}, beginning with
T1 and ending with T2 such that consecutive triangles share an edge and have projections
at distance at most R′ .

14

RUTH CHARNEY, MATTHEW CORDES AND DEVIN MURRAY

Now apply f to this sequence of triangles. Since f is 2-stable, f (a, b, c, u, v, w) lies in
′′
∂∗ Y (N ,6) for some Morse gauge N ′′ . Using Lemma 3.4 and the quasi-mobius function ΨN ′ ,
one gets a bound on the distance between the projections in Y of consecutive triangles, and
hence a bound on the distance between the projections of f (T1 ) and f (T2 ). This proves
the proposition.

−1
(B(x, R)))) ⊂ Y has
In particular, it follows that for any x ∈ X, the set πY (f (πX
bounded diameter with the bound, say M , depending only on the choice of N, N ′ and R.
Set
−1
(B(x, R))))
Π(x) = πY (f (πX
and define a map h : X → Y by choosing a point

h(x) ∈ Π(x).
We call such an h an extension of f to X. While the definition of Π depends on a choice
of N, N ′ and R, increasing any of these constants just increases the size of Π, so the same
choice of h(x) works for these larger constants.
Proposition 4.3. Fix N, N ′ , and R as above. Then for any Q ≥ 0, there exists C3 such
that
dX (x, y) ≤ Q =⇒ dY (h(x), h(y)) ≤ C3 .
Proof. Let (a, b, c) and (u, v, w) be points in ∂∗ X (3,N ) and whose projections πX (a, b, c)
and πX (u, v, w) lie in B(x, R) and B(y, R) respectively. Suppose dX (x, y) ≤ Q and hence
dX (πX (a, b, c), πX (u, v, w)) ≤ Q + 2R. Then by Proposition 4.2, there exists C = CN (Q +
2R) such that
dY (πY (f (a), f (b), f (c)), πY (f (u), f (v), f (w)) ≤ C.
Now πY (f (a), f (b), f (c)) is an element of Π(x) which is a set of diameter at most M , so h(x)
lies within M of πY (f (a), f (b), f (c)). Similarly, h(y) lies within M of πY (f (u), f (v), f (w)).
We conlude that dY (h(x), h(y)) ≤ C + 2M .

4.2. Main Theorem. We are now ready to prove our main theorem.
Theorem 4.4. Let X and Y be proper, cocompact, geodesic metric spaces and assume ∂∗ X
has at least 3 points. Suppose f : ∂∗ X → ∂∗ Y is a 2-stable, quasi-mobius homeomorphism,
and likewise for f −1 . Then there exists a quasi-isometry h : X → Y with ∂∗ h = f .
′

′

Proof. Choose N ′ so that f (∂∗ X (2,N ) ) ⊆ ∂∗ Y (2,N ) and f −1 (∂∗ Y (2,N ) ) ⊆ ∂∗ X (2,N ) . Say
G y X and H y Y are cocompact group actions and choose R > 0 so that both X and Y
are covered by the R-neighborhood of an orbit. Choose projection maps πX and πY that
are equivariant with respect to the actions of G and H respectively.
Let h be an extension of f to X and let h−1 to be an extension of f −1 to Y compatible
with these constants. That is, h(x) ∈ Π(x) and h−1 (y) ∈ Π(y), where
−1
(B(x, R))))
Π(x) = πY (f (πX

Π(y) = πX (f −1 (πY−1 (B(y, R))))
To prove that h is a quasi-isometry, it suffices to show,

QUASI-MOBIUS HOMEOMORPHISMS OF MORSE BOUNDARIES

15

(i) for all x, y ∈ X and p, q ∈ Y there are linear bounds dY (h(x), h(y)) ≤ A dX (x, y)+B
and dY (h−1 (p), h−1 (q)) ≤ A′ dY (p, q) + B ′ , and
(ii) h and h−1 are quasi-inverses.
For (i), let S be a finite generating set for G. Choose a base point x0 ∈ X. Approximate
the geodesic from x to y by a sequence of orbit points x, g0 x0 , g1 x0 , . . . gn x0 , y such that
gi+1 = gi si for some generator si ∈ S. Now map this sequence by h into Y . Since the
distance between consecutive points is bounded, Proposition 4.3 implies that there exists
C3 such that dY (h(x), h(y)) ≤ C3 (n + 2). Since the inclusion of G into X as the orbit of
x0 is a quasi-isometry, there exists λ, ǫ such that n = dG (g0 , gn ) ≤ λdX (x, y) + ǫ, so
dY (h(x), h(y)) ≤ C3 λ dX (x, y) + C3 (ǫ + 2).
An analogous argument for h−1 gives an upper bound on dX (h−1 (p), h−1 (q)) as a linear
function of dY (p, q).
Next we prove that h and h−1 are quasi-inverses. Let M denote an upper bound on
′
′′
the diameter of Π(x). Say N ′′ is such that f −1 (∂∗ Y (2,N ) ) ⊆ ∂∗ X (2,N ) . Choose R′ ≥
′′
′ = π N and set
max{R, M } and note that Π(x) ⊂ B(h(x), R′ ) for all x. Let πX
X
′
(f −1 (πY−1 (B(y, R′ )))).
Π′ (y) = πX

Since Π′ is obtained from Π simply by increasing the constants, Π(y) ⊆ Π′ (y) for all y, and
Π′ (y) has uniformly bounded diameter, say bounded by M ′ .
Now suppose y = h(x). Then for any (a, b, c) ∈ ∂∗ X (3,N ) whose projection z = πX (a, b, c)
lies in B(x, R), we have πY (f (a, b, c)) ∈ Π(x) ⊂ B(y, R′ ), and hence z and h−1 (y) both lie
in Π′ (y). Thus,
d(x, h−1 ◦ h(x)) = d(x, h−1 (y)) ≤ d(x, z) + d(z, h−1 (y)) ≤ R + M ′ .
An analogous argument shows that h−1 ◦ h is also bounded distance from the identity map.
It remains to show that ∂∗ h = f . Choose a basepoint x ∈ X such that x = πX (a, b, c) for
some triple (a, b, c) ∈ ∂∗ X (N,3) . Let p be a point in ∂∗ X and let α be a geodesic ray from x
to p, so α is N ′ -Morse for some N ′ ≥ N . Approximate α by a sequence of orbit points {gi x}
converging to p. Set xi = gi x, so xi is the projection of the triple (ai , bi , ci ) = (gi a, gi b, gi c).
Note that there exists N ′′ such that the geodesic ray from x to any vertex in any one
of these ideal triangles is N ′′ -contracting. This follows from the Morse Triangle Property
since the triangle T (x, xi , ai ) has two sides, [x, xi ] and [xi , ai ], which stay close to N ′ -Morse
rays, and similarly for bi and ci .
′′
Consider the sequences (ai ), (bi ) and (ci ). Since ∂∗ X N is compact, passing to a subsequence if necessary, all three sequences converge. Say they converge to points A, B, C
respectively. We claim that two of these points must be equal. If not, then (A, B, C)
′′
lies in ∂∗ X (N ,3) , and the sequence (xi ) converges to a point in EK (A, B, C). But this is
impossible since (xi ) converges to the point p on the boundary. So suppose A = B. Since
all of the xi lie uniformly bounded distance from some geodesics from ai to bi , the sequence
(xi ) must also converge to this same point and we conclude that p = A = B.

16

RUTH CHARNEY, MATTHEW CORDES AND DEVIN MURRAY

Since f : ∂∗ X → ∂∗ Y is a homeomorphism, it follows that two of the sequences
{f (ai )}, {f (bi )}, {f (ci )} converge to f (p) and hence the projections {yi } of these triangles also converge to f (p). The point p is represented by the geodesic ray α, so ∂∗ h(p) is
represented by a geodesic straightening of h(α). Since yi lies uniformly bounded distance
from h(xi ), and hence also from h(α), we conclude that ∂∗ h(p) = lim yi = f (p).

Combining Theorems 3.7 and 4.4 we thus have
Theorem 4.5. Let X and Y be proper, cocompact geodesic metric spaces with at least
3 points in their Morse boundaries. A homeomorphism f : ∂∗ X → ∂∗ Y is induced by a
quasi-isometry h : X → Y if and only if f and f −1 are 2-stable and quasi-mobius.
Remark 4.6. In [13], Cashen and Mackay define an alternate topology on the Morse
boundary that has the advantage that it is metrizable. Denote this boundary by ∂CM X.
We claim that any continuous map f : ∂CM X → ∂CM Y that is 1-stable (i.e., for each
′
N there exists N ′ such that f (∂∗N X) ⊆ ∂∗N Y ) is also continuous when viewed as a map
from ∂∗ X to ∂∗ Y . This follows from the fact that the inclusion of ∂∗N X into ∂CM X is a
′
topological embedding, by Corollary 6.2 of [13], and hence f : ∂∗N X → ∂∗N Y is continuous
for each N . Thus, Theorem 4.5 also applies to any homeomorphism f : ∂CM X → ∂CM Y
for which both f and f −1 are 1-stable.
We conclude by noting that the homeomorphisms described in Example 3.2 that are not
2-stable, also fail to be quasi-mobius. For example, setting m = n + 1, the cross-ratio
|[rn,0 , rm,0 , rn,1 , rm,1 ]| = 1
whereas after applying f we get a cross-ratio of
|[r−n,0 , r−m,0 , rn,1 , rm,1 ]| > 2n − 1
It seems reasonable ask to whether this is always the case, at least in the CAT(0) setting.
Question 4.7. Let X, Y be as in the theorem and f : ∂∗ X → ∂∗ Y a homeomorphism.
Does f quasi-mobius imply that f is 2-stable?
References
[1] J. Otal, “Sur la géometrie symplectique de l’espace des géodésiques d’une variété à courbure
négative,” Revista Matemática Iberoamericana 8 (1992) 441–456.
[2] P. Pansu, “Dimension conforme et sphère à l’infini des variétés à courbure négative.,” Annales
Academiæ Scientiarum Fennicæ 14 (1989) 177–212.
http://www.acadsci.fi/mathematica/Vol14/vol14pp177-212.pdf.
[3] P. Tukia, “On quasiconformal groups,”
Journal d’Analyse Mathématique 46 no. 1, (Dec, 1986) 318–346.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02796595.
[4] P. Tukia and J. Väisälä, “Quasiconformal extension from dimension n to n + 1,” Annals of
Mathematics 115 no. 2, (1982) 331–348. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1971394.
[5] P. Tukia and J. Väisälä, “Bilipschitz extensions of maps having quasiconformal extensions,”
Mathematische Annalen 269 no. 4, (Nov, 1984) 561–572. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01450765.
[6] J. Väisälä, Lectures on n-Dimensional Quasiconformal Mappings. Lecture Notes in Mathematics.
Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

QUASI-MOBIUS HOMEOMORPHISMS OF MORSE BOUNDARIES

17

[7] F. Paulin, “Un groupe hyperbolique est déterminé par son bord,”
Journal of the London Mathematical Society 54 (1996) 50–74.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1112/jlms/54.1.50.
[8] C. Croke and B. Kleiner, “Spaces with nonpositive curvature and their ideal boundaries,” Topology
39 no. 3, (2000) 549–556.
[9] R. Charney and H. Sultan, “Contracting boundaries of CAT(0) spaces,” Journal of Topology 8 (2013)
93–117.
[10] M. Cordes, “Morse boundaries of proper geodesic metric spaces,” Groups Geom. Dyn. 11 no. 4,
(2017) 1281–1306. https://doi.org/10.4171/GGD/429.
[11] M. Cordes and D. Hume, “Stability and the Morse boundary,” J. Lond. Math. Soc. (2) 95 no. 3,
(2017) 963–988.
[12] M. Cordes and M. G. Durham, “Boundary convex cocompactness and stability of subgroups of
finitely generated groups,” International Mathematics Research Notices (2017) rnx166.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/imrn/rnx166.
[13] C. H. Cashen and J. M. Mackay, “A Metrizable Topology on the Contracting Boundary of a Group,”
ArXiv e-prints (Mar., 2017) , arXiv:1703.01482 [math.MG].
[14] Y. Antolı́n, M. Mj, A. Sisto, and S. J. Taylor, “Intersection properties of stable subgroups and
bounded cohomology,” ArXiv e-prints (Dec., 2016) , arXiv:1612.07227 [math.GT].
[15] H. C. Tran, “On strongly quasi-convex subgroups,” ArXiv e-prints (2017) , arXiv:1707.05581.
[16] D. Murray, “Topology and Dynamics of the Contracting Boundary of Cocompact CAT(0) Spaces,”
ArXiv e-prints (Sept., 2015) , arXiv:1509.09314 [math.GT].
[17] M. Cordes, “A survey on Morse boundaries and stability,” ArXiv e-prints (Apr., 2017) ,
arXiv:1704.07598 [math.MG].
[18] W. Ballmann and S. Buyalo, “Periodic rank one geodesics in Hadamard spaces,” in Geometric and
Probabilistic Structures in Dynamics, vol. 469 of Contemporary Math. 2008.
[19] R. Charney and D. Murray, “A rank-one CAT(0) group is determined by its Morse boundary,”
ArXiv e-prints (July, 2017) , arXiv:1707.07028 [math.GT].
[20] J. Russell and S. Mousley, “Hierarchically hyperbolic groups are determined by their morse
boundary,” preprint .
[21] M. Bestvina and K. Fujiwara, “A characterization of higher rank symmetric spaces via bounded
cohomology,” Geometric and Functional Analysis 19 (2009) 11–40.
[22] H. Sultan, “Hyperbolic quasi-geodesics in CAT(0) spaces,”
Geometriae Dedicata 169 no. 1, (Apr, 2014) 209–224.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10711-013-9851-4.
[23] A. Kent and C. J. Leininger, “Shadows of mapping class groups: capturing convex cocompactness,”
Geom. Funct. Anal. 18 no. 4, (2008) 1270–1325. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00039-008-0680-9.
[24] S. Buyalo and V. Schroeder, Elements of asymptotic geometry. EMS Monographs in Mathematics.
European Mathematical Society (EMS), Zürich, 2007. http://dx.doi.org/10.4171/036.
[25] B. H. Bowditch, “Notes on Gromov’s hyperbolicity criterion for path-metric spaces,” in Group theory
from a geometrical viewpoint (Trieste, 1990), pp. 64–167. World Sci. Publ., River Edge, NJ, 1991.

