Submitted exclusively to the London Mathematical Society
doi:10.1112/0000/000000

arXiv:1409.3427v2 [math.GT] 5 Apr 2016

Coxeter groups, quiver mutations and geometric manifolds
Anna Felikson and Pavel Tumarkin
Abstract
We construct finite volume hyperbolic manifolds with large symmetry groups. The construction makes use
of the presentations of finite Coxeter groups provided by Barot and Marsh and involves mutations of quivers
and diagrams defined in the theory of cluster algebras. We generalize our construction by assigning to every
quiver or diagram of finite or affine type a CW-complex with a proper action of a finite (or affine) Coxeter
group. These CW-complexes undergo mutations agreeing with mutations of quivers and diagrams. We also
generalize the construction to quivers and diagrams originating from unpunctured surfaces and orbifolds.

Contents
1. Introduction .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2. Quiver mutations and presentations of Coxeter groups
.
.
3. Presentations of Coxeter groups arising from quiver mutations
4. Construction of various actions of W
.
.
.
.
.
.
5. Examples of manifolds constructed via quiver mutations
.
6. Actions on quotients of Davis complex .
.
.
.
.
.
7. General case .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
8. Infinite groups
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
References
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

1
3
5
5
6
13
17
20
21

1. Introduction
In [1] Barot and Marsh provided presentations of finite Weyl groups in terms of arbitrary quivers
or diagrams of finite type. In brief, the construction works as follows: one needs to consider the
underlying unoriented labeled graph of a quiver (or diagram) as a Coxeter diagram of a (usually infinite)
Coxeter group, and then impose some additional relations on this group that can be read off from
the quiver/diagram. It is proved in [1] that the resulting group depends on the mutation class of a
quiver/diagram only, see Section 3 for the details.
The goal of this paper is to use these presentations to construct hyperbolic manifolds, in particular
ones of small volume. The most common way to construct hyperbolic manifolds is by considering finite
index torsion-free subgroups of cofinite hyperbolic reflection groups (see e.g. [2, 5, 7, 31]). The approach
used in the present paper is completely different: we start with a symmetry group of a manifold, more
precisely, we are looking for a manifold whose symmetry group contains a given finite Weyl group. In [6]
Everitt and Maclachlan describe an algebraic framework for this approach, and in [24] Kolpakov and
Slavich explicitly construct an arithmetic hyperbolic 4-manifold with given finite isometry group. We use
quite different techniques based on mutations of quivers and diagrams defined by Fomin and Zelevinsky
in the context of cluster algebras. This technique allows us to obtain manifolds having large symmetry
groups and, at the same time, relatively small volume, i.e. two properties of quite opposite nature.
Mutation classes of quivers and diagrams of finite type are indexed by finite Weyl groups. Our
interpretation of the result of [1] is that, starting from a quiver or diagram G of finite type, one can

2010 Mathematics Subject Classification 20F55, 13F60, 51F15.

Page 2 of 22

ANNA FELIKSON AND PAVEL TUMARKIN

present the corresponding finite Weyl group W as a quotient of some (usually infinite) Coxeter group
W0 (G) by the normal closure WC (G) of additional relations. If this Coxeter group W0 (G) is hyperbolic,
then the Weyl group W acts properly on the quotient of the hyperbolic space by the group WC (G).
A priori, this quotient may have singular points. However, this is not the case.

Theorem 6.2 (Manifold Property). The group WC (G) is torsion-free.

As a corollary, if the Coxeter group W0 (G) is hyperbolic and cofinite, we obtain a hyperbolic manifold
of finite volume, and the symmetry group of this manifold contains W . We list the manifolds that we
found in this way in Tables 5.1 and 7.1. In dimension 4 we construct a manifold with Euler characteristic
2, i.e. it has the second minimal volume amongst all 4-dimensional manifolds. The symmetry group of
this manifold contains the group Sym5 ⋊ Z2 as a subgroup. We note that, since this manifold has small
volume and large symmetry group at the same time, it does not appear in [24].
In [14] we generalized the results of [1] to quivers and diagrams of affine type and certain other
mutation-finite quivers and diagrams. In particular, every affine Weyl group also admits presentations of
a similar type with slightly more complicated groups WC (G). Using this result, in Section 8.2 we provide
the following theorem.

Theorem 8.1. The manifold property holds for quivers and diagrams of affine type.

For quivers and diagrams originating from unpunctured surfaces or orbifolds [15, 11], as well as for
exceptional mutation-finite quivers and diagrams [9, 10], the construction in [14] also provides a group
assigned to a mutation class. In contrast to the finite and affine cases, this group is not a Coxeter group,
however, it also has presentations as a quotient of a Coxeter group W0 (with more types of generators
for WC required).
Using these presentations, for every quiver or diagram G of all types discussed above, we construct a
CW-complex (actually being a quotient of the Davis complex of a Coxeter group W0 (G)) with a proper
action of the group W (G) = W0 (G)/WC (G), where the group W (G) depends on the mutation class of
G only. We also define mutations of these complexes, the mutations agree with quiver (or diagram)
mutations. All the manifolds discussed above are partial cases of these complexes.

The paper is organized as follows. Section 2 contains basic definitions and some essential facts on
Coxeter groups and quiver mutations. In Section 3 we recall the construction from [1] assigning to a
quiver of finite type a presentation of the corresponding Weyl group. For simplicity, in Sections 3–6 we
restrict ourselves to simply-laced Weyl groups (and thus, we work with quivers rather than diagrams), we
then consider the general case in Section 7. In Section 4 we describe the construction highlighted above
of various actions of a given finite Weyl group. In section 5 we first treat in full details our construction
applied to the group A3 ; then we list other geometric manifolds with Weyl group actions resulted from
the algorithm described in Section 4. In particular, Table 5.1 contains the list of hyperbolic manifolds we
obtain. In Section 6, after defining the Davis complex of a Coxeter group, we prove the Manifold Property.
We also define mutations of quotients of Davis complexes agreeing with quiver mutations. Section 7 is
devoted to generalizations of the results to all finite Weyl groups. Finally, in Section 8 we describe how
the construction generalizes to affine Weyl groups and some other infinite groups related to quivers and
diagrams of finite mutation type.

COXETER GROUPS, MUTATIONS AND MANIFOLDS

Page 3 of 22

2. Quiver mutations and presentations of Coxeter groups
2.1. Coxeter groups
We briefly remind some basic properties of Coxeter groups. For the details see [4].
2.1.1. Definitions
of the form

A group W is called a (finitely generated) Coxeter group if it has a presentation
W = hs1 . . . sn | s2i = (si sj )mij = ei

where mii = 1 and mij ∈ N>1 ∪ ∞ for all i 6= j. Here mij = ∞ means that there is no relation on si sj . A
pair (W, S) of a Coxeter group W and its set of generators S = {s1 , . . . , sn } is called a Coxeter system.
The cardinality n of S is a rank of the Coxeter system.
An element of W is said to be a reflection if it is conjugated in W to an element of S.
A Coxeter system (W, S) may be depicted by its Coxeter diagram:
– the vertices of the Coxeter diagram correspond to the generators si ;
– i-th vertex is connected to j-th by an edge labeled mij with the following exceptions:
∗ if mij = 2 then there is no edge connecting i to j;
∗ if mij = 3 then the label 3 is usually omitted;
∗ if mij = ∞ the edge is drawn bold.
Given a Coxeter system (W, S), one can write a symmetric n × n matrix M (W, S) = {Mij } as follows:

if i = j;

1
π
Mij = − cos mij if i 6= j and mij 6= ∞;


−1
if mij = ∞.

An n × n matrix aij is decomposable if there is a non-trivial partition of the index set as {1, . . . , n} =
I ∪ J, so that aij = aji = 0 whenever i ∈ I, j ∈ J. A matrix is indecomposable if it is not decomposable.

2.1.2. Actions by reflections For some Coxeter systems (W, S) the group W has a natural discrete
action by reflections on a space of constant curvature (here by an action by reflections we mean an action
where the reflections of W are represented by orthogonal reflections with respect to hyperplanes).
More precisely, there are three cases of interest:
– M (W, S) is positive definite: then W is a finite group and W acts on a sphere S n−1 ;
– M (W, S) is indecomposable and has signature (n − 1, 0, 1): then W acts cocompactly on Euclidean
space En−1 ;
– M (W, S) is indecomposable and has signature (n − 1, 1): then W acts on an (n − 1)-dimensional
hyperbolic space Hn−1 .
See [34] for the details.
A fundamental domain of such an action is a connected component of the complement to the set
of all hyperplanes fixed pointwise by reflections of the group. This fundamental domain is a polytope
(which may be of infinite volume) with facets indexed by generators {si }i=1,...,n and all dihedral angles
equal to π/mij (if mij = ∞ the corresponding facets do not intersect). Such polytopes are called Coxeter
polytopes.
Remark 2.1. If a Coxeter group W is a finite or affine Weyl group, then the outer normal vectors to
the facets of the fundamental polytope can be identified with the simple roots of the corresponding root
system.

Page 4 of 22

ANNA FELIKSON AND PAVEL TUMARKIN

In the three cases listed above the group W is called geometric (note that our class of geometric
Coxeter groups is wider than in [4, Chapter 6]). In fact, every Coxeter group acts properly cocompactly
by reflections on some specially constructed space [3], we will discuss this action in Section 6.
2.2. Quiver mutations
Let Q be a quiver (i.e. a finite oriented multi-graph) containing no loops and no 2-cycles. If there are
q arrows pointing from i-th vertex to the j-th, then we draw one arrow with a weight wij = q.
2.2.1. Definition of a quiver mutation For every vertex k of the quiver Q one can define an involutive
operation µk called mutation of Q in direction k. This operation produces a new quiver denoted by µk (Q)
which can be obtained from Q in the following way (see [16]):
– orientations of all arrows incident to the vertex k are reversed;
– for every pair of vertices (i, j) such that Q contains arrows directed from i to k and from k to j the
weight of the arrow joining i and j changes as described in Figure 2.1.
k

PSfrag replacements

a

k
µk

b

b

a

c

d
±c ± d = ab

Figure 2.1. Mutations of quivers. The sign before c (resp., d) is positive if the three vertices form an
oriented cycle, and negative otherwise. Either c or d may vanish. If ab is equal to zero then neither the
value of c nor orientation of the corresponding arrow changes.
Given a quiver Q, its mutation class is a set of all quivers obtained from Q by all sequences of iterated
mutations. All quivers from one mutation class are called mutation-equivalent.
Quivers without loops and 2-cycles are in one-to-one correspondence with integer skew-symmetric
matrices B = {bij }, where bij is the number of arrows from i-th vertex to j-th one. In terms of the matrix
B the mutation µk can be written as µk (B) = B ′ , where

−bij ,
if i = k or j = k;
b′ij =
|b |b +b |b |
bij + ik kj 2 ik kj , otherwise.
This transformation is called a matrix mutation.
Remark 2.2. The procedure of matrix mutation is well-defined for more general case of skewsymmetrizable integer matrices. Matrix mutations for non-skew-symmetric matrices correspond to
diagram mutations (see Section 7 for the definitions and generalizations of the results to the case of
diagram mutations).
2.2.2. Finite type A quiver is of finite type if it is mutation-equivalent to an orientation of a simplylaced Dynkin diagram. All orientations of a given Dynkin diagram are mutation-equivalent, so any quiver
of finite type is of one of the following mutation types: An , Dn , E6 , E7 , E8 .
2.2.3. Finite mutation type A quiver Q is of finite mutation type (or mutation-finite) if there are
finitely many quivers mutation-equivalent to Q. It is shown in [9] that each quiver of finite mutation type

COXETER GROUPS, MUTATIONS AND MANIFOLDS

Page 5 of 22

is either of order 2, or a quiver arising from a triangulated surface (see [15] for details), or mutationequivalent to one of the 11 exceptional quivers.
In this paper we deal with quivers of finite mutation type only.

3. Presentations of Coxeter groups arising from quiver mutations
In [1] Barot and Marsh show that for each quiver of finite type there is a way to explicitly construct
the corresponding Weyl group.
3.1. Construction of the group by a quiver
Let Q be an orientation of a simply-laced Dynkin diagram with n nodes, let W be the corresponding
finite Coxeter group, and Q1 be any quiver mutation-equivalent to Q. Denote by W (Q1 ) the group
generated by n generators si with the following relations:
(R1) s2i = e for all i = 1, . . . , n;
(R2) (si sj )mij = e for all i, j, where
(
2 if i and j are not connected;
mij =
3 if i and j are connected by an arrow.
(R3) (cycle relations) for every chordless oriented cycle C given by
i0 → i1 → · · · → id−1 → i0
we take the relation
(si0 si1 . . . sid−2 sid−1 sid−2 . . . si1 )2 = e,
Note that for a cycle of length d we have a choice of d relations of type (R3), we take any one of them.
It is shown in [1, Theorem A] that the group W (Q1 ) does not depend on the choice of a quiver in the
mutation class of Q. In particular, it is isomorphic to the initial Coxeter group W .
Remark 3.1. The results of [1] are proved in more general settings, we come to the general case in
Section 7.
3.2. Generators of W (Q1 )
Generators of W (Q1 ) satisfying relations (R1)–(R3) can be expressed in terms of standard generators
of W . It is shown in [1] that these generators of W (Q1 ) can be found inductively in the following way:
1. for Q1 = Q the generators {si } are standard Coxeter generators (indeed, Dynkin diagrams contain
no cycles, so, we will get no cycle relations and obtain standard presentation of the Coxeter group).
2. Let {si } be the generators of W (Q1 ), and let Q2 = µk (Q1 ). Then the generators {ti } of W (Q2 )
satisfying relations (R1)–(R3) are
(
sk si sk if there is an arrow from i to k in Q1 ;
ti =
si
otherwise.
4. Construction of various actions of W
As before, let Q be an orientation of a Dynkin diagram, and let W be the corresponding Weyl group.
Choose any quiver Q1 mutation-equivalent to Q, and denote by W0 (Q1 ) the group defined by relations
of type (R1) and (R2) only (note that W0 (Q1 ) is a Coxeter group).

Page 6 of 22

ANNA FELIKSON AND PAVEL TUMARKIN

Let C1 , . . . , Cp be a collection of all cycle relations for Q1 (we take one relation for each chordless
oriented cycle). Denote by WC (Q1 ) the normal closure of the union of the elements C1 , . . . , Cp in W0 (Q1 ).
By the definition of W (Q1 ) we have W (Q1 ) = W0 (Q1 )/WC (Q1 ). Theorem A from [1] says that W (Q1 )
is isomorphic to W = W (Q) which, in particular, means that WC (Q1 ) has finite index in W0 (Q1 ).
The group W0 (Q1 ) depends on the quiver Q1 chosen in the mutation class of Q. Moreover, depending
on the choice of Q1 , the group W0 (Q1 ) may be finite or infinite. As a consequence, it may act naturally by
reflections on different spaces (sphere, Euclidean space, hyperbolic space or, in general, the Davis complex
of the group W0 (Q1 ), see Section 6). Since W = W (Q1 ) = W0 (Q1 )/WC (Q1 ), this results in actions of the
initial Coxeter group W on different spaces.
In Section 6 we show that the group WC (Q1 ) is torsion-free (we call this Manifold Property). In
particular, this implies that if the Coxeter group W0 (Q1 ) acts properly on a space X = En or Hn by
isometries with a fundamental domain of finite volume, then the quotient X/WC (Q1 ) is a finite volume
manifold with a symmetry group containing W . In the next section we show examples of the construction
of hyperbolic manifolds in this way, as well as of actions of Weyl groups of type D on flat tori.

5. Examples of manifolds constructed via quiver mutations
5.1. Action of A3 on the flat 2-torus
We now present the first (and the easiest) example showing how different actions of the same Coxeter
group may by produced via mutations of quivers.
5.1.1. Action on the sphere We start with the quiver Q of type A3 (see Fig. 5.1(a),(b)). The
corresponding Dynkin diagram of type A3 determines a finite Coxeter group W acting on the
2-dimensional sphere by reflections:
W = hs1 , s2 , s3 | s2i = (s1 s2 )3 = (s2 s3 )3 = (s1 s3 )2 = ei

The fundamental domain of this action is a spherical triangle with angles ( π3 , π3 , π2 ), see Fig. 5.1(c) for
the stereographic projection image of the action and the fundamental domain.
5.1.2. Action on the flat 2-torus Applying the mutation µ2 to the quiver Q, we obtain a quiver Q1
(see Fig. 5.2(a)). The group
W0 (Q1 ) = ht1 , t2 , t3 | t2i = (ti tj )3 = ei
is the group generated by reflections in the sides of a regular triangle in the Euclidean plane (the
e2 ), see Fig. 5.2(b). Note that the plane is tessellated by
corresponding Dynkin diagram is of type A
infinitely many copies of the fundamental domain, each copy Fg labeled by an element g ∈ W0 (Q1 ). To
see the action of the initial group A3 = W = W (Q1 ) we need to take a quotient by the cycle relation
(t1 t2 t3 t2 )2 = e,
which means that in the tessellated plane we identify Fe with the fundamental triangle labeled by the
(t1 t2 t3 t2 )2 .
Now, let us see what the transformation T1 = (t1 t2 t3 t2 )2 means geometrically. The element t1 acts on
the plane as the reflection in the side l1 of Fe , t2 t3 t2 is the reflection with respect to the line l232 parallel
to l1 and passing through the vertex of Fe not contained in l1 . Denote by d the distance between l1 and
l232 . Then the transformation (t1 t2 t3 t2 ) is a translation of the plane by the distance 2d in the direction
orthogonal to l1 . Hence, the element T1 = (t1 t2 t3 t2 )2 is a translation by 4d in the direction orthogonal
to l1 .
Clearly, e = t2 (t1 t2 t3 t2 )2 t2 = (t2 t1 t2 t3 )2 in W , and e = t3 (t1 t2 t3 t2 )2 t3 = t3 (t1 t3 t2 t3 )2 t3 = (t3 t1 t3 t2 )2
in W . This implies that we also need to take a quotient of the plane by the actions of the elements

COXETER GROUPS, MUTATIONS AND MANIFOLDS

2

1

Page 7 of 22

3

(a)

PSfrag replacements

eplacements

(b)

(c)

Figure 5.1. (a) A quiver of type A3 ; (b) Dynkin diagram of type A3 ; (c) action of A3 on the sphere (in
stereographic projection): a sphere is tiled by 24 copies of (spherical) triangles with angles ( π2 , π3 , π3 ).

1

2

F(t1

3

t2 t3 t2 )

Q
µ2
l232
2

l3

l2
Fe

Q1
(a)

1

3

l1

(b)

(c)

e2 on the plane; (c) action of W = W (Q1 ) = A3
Figure 5.2. (a) mutation µ2 ; (b) action of W0 (Q1 ) = A
on the torus: 24 regular triangles tile the hexagon whose opposite sides are identified.
T3 = (t2 t1 t2 t3 )2 and T2 = (t3 t1 t3 t2 )2 , i.e. by the translations by 4d in directions orthogonal to the lines
l2 and l3 .
The quotient of the plane by the group WC (Q1 ) generated by three translations T1 , T2 and T3 is a flat
torus, see Fig. 5.2(c). Thus, we obtain an action of the quotient group A3 = W = W (Q1 ) on the torus:
the fundamental domain of this action is a regular triangle, 24 copies of this triangle tile the torus (as 24
copies tile the hexagon).
Remark 5.1. The action described above is not an action by (topological) reflections: the fixed sets
of the generators ti are connected, so they do not divide the torus into two connected components (cf. [4,
Chapter 10]).
5.1.3. From the sphere to the torus: ramified covering Now, we will show how the action of A3 on
the torus is related to the initial action on the sphere.

Page 8 of 22

ANNA FELIKSON AND PAVEL TUMARKIN

Recall from Section 3.2 that the presentation for W (Q1 ) is obtained from the presentation for W (Q)
by the following change of generators
(s1 , s2 , s3 ) → (t1 , t2 , t3 )

where

t1 = s 2 s 1 s 2 , t2 = s 2 , t3 = s 3 .

In the above sections we considered the action of the s-generators on the sphere and of the t-generators
on the plane and the torus. However, the t-generators may be also considered directly on the sphere.
Namely, let s1 , s2 , s3 be the reflections with respect to the corresponding sides l1 , l2 , l3 of the
fundamental spherical triangle ∆s , see Fig. 5.3(a). Then the elements t2 and t3 are reflections with
respect to l2 and l3 respectively. The element t1 is also a reflection as it is conjugate to the reflection s1 ;
more precisely, t1 is a reflection with respect to the (spherical) line l212 (see Fig. 5.3(b)).

l212
l2
l1

l1

∆s

l2
∆t

l3

l3

eplacements

(a)

(b)

Figure 5.3. Construction of the ramified covering
Consider the triangle ∆t bounded by l212 , l2 , and l3 (there are 8 possibilities to choose such a triangle,
see Remark 5.2 for the justification of our choice).
In contrast to the triangle ∆s bounded by l1 , l2 , l3 , the triangle ∆t is not a fundamental triangle for
the action: ∆t has angles ( π3 , π3 , 2π
3 ), and the group generated by t2 and t3 has order 6, but the whole
neighborhood of the vertex p ∈ l2 ∩ l3 is tiled by 3 copies of ∆t only.
To resolve this inconsistency we consider a 2-sheet covering of the sphere branched in p and in all
W -images of p (the four bold points in Fig. 5.3(b)). Clearly, the covering space is a torus (moreover, one
can easily see that the covering is given by Weierstrass ℘-function). It is also not difficult to see that the
action of A3 on this covering torus is exactly the same as its action on the torus in Section 5.1.2: the
covering torus consists of 24 triangles, and every vertex is incident to exactly six triangles.
Remark 5.2 On the choice of the triangle ∆t . Consider the outer normals v1 , v2 , v3 to the sides of
∆s (cf. Remark 2.1). To get the outer normals u1 , u2 , u3 to the sides of ∆t we use the following rule:


if i = k;
−vi
ui = sk (vi ) if there is an arrow from i to k in Q;


vi
otherwise.
Here sk (vi ) is the vector obtained from vi by the reflection sk .

Page 9 of 22

COXETER GROUPS, MUTATIONS AND MANIFOLDS

5.1.4. Back from the torus to the sphere Now we will obtain the action of A3 on the sphere from its
action on the torus.
Let ∆t be the fundamental triangle for the action of A3 on the flat torus (see Fig. 5.4(a)). Let π be the
canonical projection from Euclidean plane to the torus (corresponding to the action of WC (Q1 ) on the
e t any preimage of ∆t under π. The generators t1 , t2 , t3 can be thought as reflections
plane), denote by ∆
e t . The generators si can be obtained from the generators ti as follows:
with respect to the sides of ∆
s 1 = t2 t1 t2 , s 2 = t2 , s 3 = t3 .

e s (see Fig. 5.4(b)), where ∆
e s is an
These are reflections with respect to the sides of the dashed domain ∆
unbounded strip on the Euclidean plane.

l3
es
∆

eplacements

l2

et
∆

l3

l212

l2

l1

(b)

(a)

Figure 5.4. Back from the flat torus to the sphere
We now glue a manifold from 24 copies of the strip (according to the group action, as we glued 24
triangles above), denote by X the space obtained via this gluing. Note that due to the cycle relations four
strips attached one to another along the “long” (unbounded) sides will result in an (unbounded) cylinder.
The manifold X consists of exactly 6 = 24 : 4 cylinders. Compactifying X by adding a limit point at the
end of each of the 6 cylinders, we get exactly the tiling shown in Fig. 5.1(c).
5.2. Actions of Dn on the flat (n − 1)-torus
The next series of examples is provided by the finite Coxeter group W = Dn , n > 3 (see Fig. 5.5(a) for
the Dynkin diagram), which naturally acts on (n − 1)-dimensional sphere (for n = 3 the Dynkin diagram
and Weyl group D3 coincides with A3 , so the example from the previous section can be considered as a
partial case). It is easy to check that the quiver Q of type Dn (see Fig. 5.5(b)) is mutation-equivalent to
the oriented cycle Q1 shown in Fig. 5.5(c) (in contrast to A3 -example, one needs more than one mutation
for this).
Note that the group W0 (Q1 ) (i.e. Coxeter group without cycle relations) is the affine Coxeter group
en−1 , thus, a group acting on the Euclidean space En−1 . A fundamental domain of this action is a Coxeter
A
en−1 . The generators for this action are the reflections t1 , . . . , tn
simplex ∆ with the Coxeter diagram A
with respect to the facets Π1 . . . , Πn of this fundamental simplex.
Our next aim is to take a quotient by the cycle relation
(t1 t2 t3 . . . tn−1 tn tn−1 . . . t3 t2 )2 = e.

Page 10 of 22

ANNA FELIKSON AND PAVEL TUMARKIN

1

PSfrag replacements

n

(a)
n−1
1

2

n−1

2

3

4

3

(b)

n

(c)

Figure 5.5. Type Dn : (a) Dynkin diagram; (b) acyclic quiver of type Dn ; (c) oriented cycle.

The element (t2 t3 . . . tn−1 tn tn−1 . . . t3 t2 ) is a conjugate of tn , so it is a reflection with respect to the
hyperplane Π parallel to Π1 and passing though the vertex of ∆ opposite to Π1 . If d is the distance
between the hyperplanes Π and Π1 , then the element (t1 t2 t3 . . . tn−1 tn tn−1 . . . t3 t2 ) is a translation by
2d in the direction orthogonal to Π1 , and its square T1 = (t1 t2 t3 . . . tn−1 tn tn−1 . . . t3 t2 )2 is a translation
by 4d. So, we need to take the quotient by the action of this translation.
The element T1 has n − 1 conjugates of type Tk = (tk tk+1 . . . tn t1 . . . tk−2 tk−1 tk−2 . . . t1 tn . . . tk+1 )2 ,
(k = 2, . . . , n). They all are translations by 4d in the direction orthogonal to Πk . The group generated
by T1 , . . . , Tn is a free abelian group of rank n − 1. Hence, taking a quotient of E n−1 by the translations
T1 , . . . , Tn we get an (n − 1)-dimensional torus Tn−1 . The action of W0 (Q1 ) on En−1 turns into a faithful
action of Dn = W (Q1 ) on the torus Tn−1 .
en is the unique affine Dynkin diagram containing a cycle. This
Remark 5.3. The Coxeter diagram A
implies that our construction gives no further examples of actions on non-trivial quotients of Euclidean
space.
5.3. Actions on hyperbolic manifolds
We now consider the case when the group W0 (Q1 ) acts on a hyperbolic space, and hence, the group
W = W (Q1 ) acts on its quotient X = Hn /WC (Q1 ) (recall that WC (Q1 ) is the normal closure of all cycle
relations). As it is shown below (Theorem 6.2, Corollary 6.3), in this case X is always a manifold. In this
section we list all known actions on hyperbolic manifolds obtained in this way (Table 5.1).
Notation. In Table 5.1 we omit orientations of arrows of quivers Q and Q1 . Here arrows of Q may
be oriented in arbitrary way, and the only requirement on the orientations of arrows of Q1 is that all
chordless cycles are oriented.
The underlying graphs of Q and Q1 are the Coxeter diagrams of fundamental polytopes of the action
of W and W0 (Q1 ) on the sphere and the hyperbolic space respectively. All the volumes except the last
two are computed in [20], the Euler characteristic (and thus the volume) of the fundamental polytope
of the action of D8 was computed by the program CoxIter written by Rafael Guglielmetti. The volume
of the fundamental polytope of the action of A7 is not known to the authors. The Euler characteristic is
computed for all even-dimensional manifolds. The precise value of the volume of X for four-dimensional
X is equal to 4π 2 χ(X)/3, and for six-dimensional X equals −8π 3 χ(X)/15.

Table 5.1. Actions on hyperbolic manifolds.
dim X

approx.

number
of cusps

A4

5!

3

|W | · 0.084578

5

D4

23 · 4!

3

|W | · 0.422892

16

D5

24 · 5!

4

|W | · 0.013707

10

E6

27 · 34 · 5

5

|W | · 0.002074

27

E7

210 · 34 · 5 · 7

6

|W | · 2.962092 × 10−4

126

E8

214 · 35 · 52 · 7

7

|W | · 4.110677 × 10−5

2160

A7

8!

5

D8

27 · 8!

6

Q

Q1

vol X

χ(X)

2

-52

COXETER GROUPS, MUTATIONS AND MANIFOLDS

|W |

W

70

1120

-832

Page 11 of 22

|W | · 0.002665

Page 12 of 22

ANNA FELIKSON AND PAVEL TUMARKIN

Remark 5.4. The manifold X obtained in the case W = A4 is the manifold M5 studied in [25], it
has minimal known volume amongst 5-cusped hyperbolic 3-manifolds. It can be obtained via a ramified
2-fold covering over the 3-sphere S3 branching along 1-skeleton of a 4-simplex. This manifold can be also
obtained as the complement of the five-chain link in the 3-sphere.
Remark 5.5. The symmetry group of X always contains W . Further, if the underlying graph of the
quiver Q1 has symmetries, then the fundamental polytope of the action of W (Q1 ) on X also has these
symmetries, and thus the symmetry group of X also contains a semidirect product of W and the group
of symmetries of the graph. In particular, one can note from Table 5.1 that the underlying graph of Q1
always has an additional symmetry of order 2, therefore we actually get the group W ⋊ Z2 acting on X.
Moreover, in the cases W = D4 , A7 or D8 the symmetry group of the fundamental polytope is Z2 × Z2 ,
which results in the action of the group W ⋊ (Z2 × Z2 ) on the manifold X.
Remark 5.6.
1. In all cases the fundamental domain of the action W (Q1 ) on X is a non-compact hyperbolic polytope,
i.e. the manifold X has cusps.
2. The combinatorial type of the fundamental domain in all but the last two cases is a simplex. In the
last two cases it is a pyramid over a product of two simplices.
3. We do not know how to compute the volume of the 5-dimensional hyperbolic pyramid which is used
to construct the manifold whose symmetry group contains A7 ⋊ (Z2 × Z2 ) (the second last line of
Table 5.1). At the same time, one can note that this pyramid consists of four copies of a pyramid
with Coxeter diagram shown on Figure 5.6 (the pyramid in the Table 5.1 can be obtained from one
on Fig. 5.6 by two consequent reflections in the facets corresponding to the leaves of the diagram).
This smaller pyramid belongs to Napier cycles, a class of polytopes classified by Im Hof [19]. In
particular, it is a simply truncated orthoscheme, and thus there is a hope to compute its volume
using the technique developed by Kellerhals [23].

Figure 5.6. A 5-dimensional hyperbolic Coxeter pyramid tesselating the manifold with symmetry
group containing A7 ⋊ (Z2 × Z2 ) (see Table 5.1 and Remark 5.6)

Remark 5.7. The list in Table 5.1 is complete in the following sense. Any two nodes of any quiver
of finite type are connected by at most one arrow, therefore all dihedral angles of the corresponding
fundamental polytope of the group action are either π/2 or π/3. All hyperbolic Coxeter polytopes
satisfying such property are classified by Prokhorov in [30]. One can see that the only Coxeter diagrams
whose orientations are quivers of finite type are those listed in Table 5.1.
On the other hand, our approach allows to construct more hyperbolic manifolds. In [28, 29], Parsons
introduced a notion of a companion basis of a finite root system. In our terms, all companion bases
(where every vector is considered up to plus/minus sign) can be described as follows. Take a quiver
Q1 of finite type, construct the corresponding group W0 (Q1 ), and construct the isomorphism between
W0 (Q1 ) and the Weyl group W = W (Q1 ) by iterated changes of generators (see Section 3.2). Denote by
g1 , . . . , gn the images of generating reflections of W0 (Q1 ) in W (Q1 ). Now, take the root system of W , and
an n-tuple of roots corresponding to reflections g1 , . . . , gn . This n-tuple forms a companion basis. Thus,
all the manifolds constructed above originate from companion bases. Below we present an example of a
hyperbolic manifold obtained from a generating set which does not correspond to a companion basis.

COXETER GROUPS, MUTATIONS AND MANIFOLDS

Page 13 of 22

As is mentioned in [1], not every generating set of reflections of W corresponds to a companion basis.
The easiest example is the quadruple of generators (t1 , t2 , t3 , t4 ) of W = A4 given by roots e1 − e5 , e2 −
e5 , e3 − e5 , e4 − e5 respectively, where the root system A4 consists of vectors {ei − ej }1≤i,j≤5 in R5 with
standard basis {ei }1≤i≤5 . The reason is the following: every two of these four roots form an angle 2π/3,
so if there were a corresponding quiver, then its underlying graph should have been the complete graph
on four vertices. However, it is easy to see that any such quiver is mutation-infinite, so it cannot be
mutation-equivalent to any orientation of Dynkin diagram A4 .
Now we may note that the Coxeter group
W0 = hu1 , u2 , u3 , u4 | u2i = (ui uj )3 = ei
with Coxeter diagram shawn on Fig. 5.7 is generated by reflections in the facets of an ideal hyperbolic
3-dimensional simplex. Further, since {t1 , t2 , t3 , t4 } generate W = A4 and satisfy the same relations
as {ui } above, we can write W as a quotient of W0 by a normal subgroup WC which is the normal
closure of additional relations. It is easy to see that we can take WC as the normal closure of elements
(u1 u2 u3 u2 )2 , (u1 u3 u4 u3 )2 and (u2 u3 u4 u3 )2 . Now, one can check that WC is torsion-free, so the quotient
of H3 by the action of WC will be a finite volume hyperbolic manifold (it has 20 cusps and symmetry
group containing A5 ⋊ A4 , where A4 is the symmetry group of the Coxeter diagram).
1

2

3

4

PSfrag replacements

Figure 5.7. A 3-dimensional ideal hyperbolic simplex

6. Actions on quotients of Davis complex
In this section we first recall the construction of Davis complex Σ (W, S) for each Coxeter system
(W, S).
Then, given a Dynkin quiver Q and a quiver Q1 from the same mutation class, we consider the Davis
complex Σ(W0 (Q1 )) for the group W0 (Q1 ) together with the action of the Coxeter group W = W (Q)
on the corresponding quotient space X = Σ(W0 (Q1 ))/WC (Q1 ) and prove the Manifold Property for X
(which states that WC (Q1 ) is torsion-free). In particular, we prove that all quotients listed in Table 5.1
are hyperbolic manifolds.
6.1. Davis complex
For any Coxeter system (W, S) there exists a contractible piecewise Euclidean cell complex Σ (W, S)
(called Davis complex) on which W acts discretely, properly and cocompactly. The construction (based
on results of Vinberg [33]) was introduced by Davis [3]. In [26] Moussong proved that this complex yields
a natural complete piecewise Euclidean metric which is CAT (0). We first give a brief description of this
complex following [27], and then follow [13] to define convex polytopes in Σ (W, S).
6.1.1. Construction of Σ (W, S). For a finite group W the complex Σ (W, S) is just one cell, which
is obtained as a convex hull K of the W -orbit of a suitable point p in the standard linear representation
of W as a group generated by reflections. The point p is chosen in such a way that its stabilizer in W is

Page 14 of 22

ANNA FELIKSON AND PAVEL TUMARKIN

trivial and all the edges of K are of length 1. The faces of K are naturally identified with Davis complexes
of the subgroups of W conjugate to standard parabolic subgroups.
If W is infinite, the complex Σ (W, S) is built up of the Davis complexes of maximal finite subgroups of
W glued together along their faces corresponding to common finite subgroups. The 1-skeleton of Σ (W, S)
considered as a combinatorial graph is isomorphic to the Cayley graph of W with respect to the generating
set S.
The action of W on Σ (W, S) is generated by reflections. The walls in Σ (W, S) are the fixed points sets
of reflections in W . The intersection of a wall α with cells of Σ (W, S) supplies α with a structure of a
piecewise Euclidean cell complex with finitely many isometry types of cells. Walls are totally geodesic:
any geodesic joining two points of α lies entirely in α. Since Σ is contractible and CAT (0), any two points
of Σ can be joined by a unique geodesic.
Any wall divides Σ (W, S) into two connected components. All the walls decompose Σ (W, S) into
connected components which are compact sets called chambers. Any chamber is a fundamental domain
of the W -action on Σ (W, S). The set of all chambers with appropriate adjacency relation is isomorphic
to the Cayley graph of W with respect to S.
In what follows, if W and S are fixed, we write Σ(W ) or Σ instead of Σ (W, S).
Remark 6.1. If the group W acts cocompactly by reflections on spherical, Euclidean or hyperbolic
space X, then the Davis complex Σ is quasi-isometric to X.
6.1.2. Convex polytopes in Σ For any wall α of Σ we denote by α+ and α− the closures of the
connected components of Σ \ α, we call these components halfspaces.
n
T
α+
A convex polytope P ⊂ Σ is an intersection of finitely many halfspaces P =
i , such that P is not
i=1

contained in any wall. Clearly, any convex polytope P ⊂ Σ is a union of closed chambers.
n
T
α+
In what follows by writing P =
i we assume that the collection of walls αi is minimal: for any j =
i=1
T +
αi . A facet of P is an intersection P ∩ αi for some i ≤ n. For any I ⊂ {1, . . . , n}
1, . . . , n we have P 6=
i6=j
T
αi ∩ P is called a face of P if it is not empty.
a set f =
i∈I

We can easily define a dihedral angle formed by two walls: if αi ∩ αj 6= ∅ there exists a maximal cell
C of Σ intersecting αi ∩ αj . We define the angle ∠ (αi , αj ) to be equal to the corresponding Euclidean
angle formed by αi ∩ C and αj ∩ C. Clearly, any dihedral angle formed by two intersecting walls in Σ is
equal to kπ/m for some positive integers k and m. A convex polytope P is called acute-angled if each of
the dihedral angles of P does not exceed π/2.
A convex polytope P is called a Coxeter polytope if all its dihedral angles are integer submultiples
of π. In particular, a fundamental domain of any reflection subgroup of W is a Coxeter polytope in Σ.
Conversely, any Coxeter polytope in Σ is a fundamental chamber for the subgroup of W generated by
reflections in its walls (see e.g. [4, Theorem 4.9.2]).
6.2. Manifold Property
Let us briefly recall the procedure described in Section 4:
1. Start with a Dynkin quiver Q with corresponding Weyl group W . Let Q1 be any quiver mutationequivalent to Q.
2. Consider the Coxeter group W0 (Q1 ) defined by the relations (R1) and (R2) (its Coxeter diagram
coincides with the underlying graph of the quiver Q1 ).
3. Let Σ(W0 (Q1 )) be the Davis complex of the group W0 (Q1 ). By construction, W0 (Q1 ) acts on
Σ(W0 (Q1 )) by reflections.

COXETER GROUPS, MUTATIONS AND MANIFOLDS

Page 15 of 22

4. Let C1 , . . . Cp be the collection of all defining cycle relations for Q1 , define WC (Q1 ) to be the normal
closure of all these relations in W0 (Q1 ).
5. Define W (Q1 ) = W0 (Q1 )/WC (Q1 ). As is shown in [1], W (Q1 ) is isomorphic to W .
6. Since WC (Q1 ) ⊂ W0 (Q1 ), WC (Q1 ) acts on Σ(W0 (Q1 )). Consider X(Q1 ) = Σ(W0 (Q1 ))/WC (Q1 ).
Then W = W (Q1 ) acts properly on X(Q1 ).
So, for each quiver in the mutation class we have assigned an action of W on the space X(Q1 ) (the
latter heavily depends on the quiver Q1 ).
Theorem 6.2 (Manifold property). The group WC (Q1 ) is torsion-free.
Corollary 6.3. If Σ(W0 (Q1 )) is a manifold then X(Q1 ) is also a manifold.
Let F be a fundamental domain for the action of W (Q1 ) on Σ(W0 (Q1 )). A star Star (f ) of a face f
of F is the union of all fundamental domains Fi of Σ containing f :
[
Fi .
Star (f ) =
f ∈Fi

We will prove the following statement which is equivalent to the Manifold Property (cf. [6, Corollary 2]).
Theorem 6.4. Let F be a fundamental domain for the action of W (Q1 ) on Σ(W0 (Q1 )). Then for
any face f of F the interior ( Star (f ))0 of the star of f in X(Q1 ) is isometric to the interior of the star
of f in Σ(W0 (Q1 )).
Equivalently, if a face f of F is contained in q fundamental domains of the action of W0 (Q1 ) on
Σ(W0 (Q1 )), then f is also contained in q fundamental domains of the action of W (Q1 ) on X(Q1 ).
To prove the Manifold Property we will use the following observation.
Lemma 6.5. Let t̃i and t̃j be two generating reflections of W0 (Q1 ), and let ti and tj be their images
in W = W (Q1 ) under the canonical projection W0 (Q1 ) → W (Q1 ) = W0 (Q1 )/WC (Q1 ). Then the orders
of the elements t̃i t̃j and ti tj coincide.
Proof. The dihedral group generated by ti and tj is a quotient of the dihedral group generated by
t̃i and t̃j . The order of the latter group equals 6 or 4, therefore, if we assume that the two groups are
distinct, the order of the former equals two, i.e. ti = tj , which is impossible since a Coxeter group W of
rank n cannot be generated by less than n reflections (see e.g. [13, Lemma 2.1]).

Proof of Theorem 6.4. Let f be a face of F . Denote by I ⊂ {1, . . . , n} the index set such that f is
the intersection of the walls fixed by {t̃i }i∈I . To prove Theorem 6.4 (and thus the Manifold Property) it
is sufficient to prove that the group TeI ⊂ W0 (Q1 ) generated by {t̃i }i∈I has the same order as the group
TI ⊂ W (Q1 ) = W generated by {ti }i∈I .
Denote k = |I|. The group TeI can be considered as a group generated by reflections in the facets
of a spherical Coxeter (k − 1)-simplex Pe with dihedral angles π/mij , where mij is the order of t̃i t̃j .
Furthermore, since every ti ∈ W = W (Q) is a reflection on the X(Q) = Sn−1 , the group TI can also be
considered as a group generated by reflections in the facets of a spherical (k − 1)-simplex P . The simplex
P may not be Coxeter, however, by Lemma 6.5, its dihedral angles are equal to πpij /mij for some pij

Page 16 of 22

ANNA FELIKSON AND PAVEL TUMARKIN

being coprime with mij . Since mij = 2 or 3, this implies that either pij = 1, or pij /mij = 2/3. According
to [8], this means that reflections in the facets of Pe and P generate isomorphic groups.
6.3. Mutation of complexes
In this section we describe how to obtain X(Q2 ) from X(Q1 ), where Q2 = µk (Q1 ). The construction
generalizes the examples shown in Sections 5.1.2 and 5.1.4.
Step 1. Let s1 , . . . , sn be the generators of W corresponding to Q1 (i.e., if {si } with relations (R1) and (R2)
are generating reflections of W0 (Q1 ) composing a Coxeter system, and the {si } with relations (R1)–
(R3) are their images under canonical homomorphism W0 (Q1 ) → W0 (Q1 )/WC (Q1 )), let t1 , . . . , tn
be the generators corresponding to Q2 . As it is shown in [1], ti can be obtained from si as follows
(
sk si sk if there is an arrow from i to k in Q1 ;
ti =
si
otherwise.
Denote by πj , j = 1, 2, the canonical projection Σ(W0 (Qj )) → X(Q(j)). According to the construction, a fundamental chamber Fj ⊂ X(Qj ) of the action of W on X(Qj ) is an image of a fundamental
chamber Fej ⊂ Σ(W0 (Qj )) under the projection. The elements si act on Σ(W0 (Q1 )) by reflections
in the facets of Fe1 , let walls α̃1 , . . . , α̃n ⊂ Σ(W0 (Q1 )) be the mirrors of the reflections s1 , . . . , sn .
Similarly, the elements ti are reflections in the facets of Fe2 , let walls β̃1 , . . . , β̃n ⊂ Σ(W0 (Q2 )) be the
mirrors of the reflections t1 , . . . , tn .
Step 2. Consider the action of the element ti on Σ(W0 (Q1 )). It is a reflection with respect to a wall γ̃i
satisfying
(
sk (α̃i ) if there is an arrow from i to k in Q1 ;
γ̃i =
α̃i
otherwise.
e
Step 3. The fundamental chamber F
T1 is an intersection of n halfspaces bounded by walls {α̃i }. Denote these
e1 = α̃+ . Note that the dihedral angles of a polytope Fe1 equal π/mij , where
halfspaces by α̃+
,
i.e.
F
i
i
mij is the order of si sj in W0 (Q1 ). In particular, as all mij = 2 or 3, every two facets of Fe1 have a
non-empty intersection.
Step 4. Consider the domain H ⊂ Σ(W0 (Q1 )) defined as follows:
n
T
γ̃i+ , where the walls γ̃i are defined in Step 2 and the
H is the intersection of n halfspaces H =
half-spaces γ̃i+ , i 6= k, are chosen by

−

α̃k
γ̃i+ = sk (α̃+
i ),

 +
α̃i

i=1

if i = k,
if there is an arrow from i to k in Q,
otherwise

(cf. Remark 5.2).
Note that H is well-defined, i.e. H indeed has exactly n facets. This follows from the fact that
the facet α̃k ∩ Fe1 of Fe1 (which is also a facet of H) has exactly n − 1 facets α̃k ∩ α̃i ∩ Fe1 , and by
construction of H all these faces of Fe1 are also faces of H.
Step 5. The domain H is a convex (possibly, non-compact) polytope in Σ(W0 (Q1 )) with n facets. The
reflections with respect to the facets of H are precisely ti , they generate the group W0 (Q1 ), however,
in general, H is not a fundamental domain of the action of W0 (Q1 ) on Σ(W0 (Q1 )).
Step 6. Now, we will use H to construct a new cell complex Y (such that the group W acts on Y with
fundamental chamber H).
Consider |W | copies of the polytope H, labeled by the elements of W (denote by Hw the polytope
corresponding to w ∈ W ).

COXETER GROUPS, MUTATIONS AND MANIFOLDS

Page 17 of 22

Glue the polytope Hw to the polytope Hwti along the facets γ̃i of Hw and Hwti so that the reflection
in the common facet swaps the polytopes (and takes the facet γ̃j of Hw to the facet of Hwti having
the same number). Denote by Y the space obtained by the gluing. Note that by “reflection” here we
mean a map from one polytope to another, this may not extend to a reflection on the whole Y (cf.
Remark 5.1).
Step 7. Denote by mij the order of the subgroup hti , tj i ⊂ W (note that the Coxeter group
ht1 , . . . tn | (ti tj )mij = ei
is the group W0 (Q2 )). Consider the following completion Y ′ of Y .
∗ First, we complete the fundamental domain H (obtaining a completed fundamental chamber H ′ )
in the following way. For every pair {i, j} ⊂ {1, . . . n} we add an (n − 2)-dimensional face γ̃i ∩ γ̃j
if it is not a face of H yet; we define the dihedral angle composed by facets γ̃i ∩ H and γ̃j ∩ H
of H ′ as π/mij . Then, for each finite subgroup T
hti | i ∈ Ii ⊂ W0 (Q2 ) (where I ⊂ {1, . . . , n} is an
index set) we add an (n − |I|)-dimensional face i∈I γ̃i if it is not a face of H yet. The procedure
is well-defined since any subgroup of a finite group is finite. The resulting polytope H ′ can be
identified with a fundamental chamber of Σ(W0 (Q2 )), i.e. with Fe2 .
T
∗ Now, we do this for each Hw , w ∈ W (a new face i∈I γ̃i of Hw is identified with the similar face
of Hwtj if j ∈ I). The procedure results in a new complex Y ′ .
Step 8. As H ′ can be identified with Fe2 , and Y ′ is obtained from copies of H ′ by gluings along the action of
W (see Step 6), the complex Y ′ can be identified with X(Q2 ) = Σ(W0 (Q2 ))/WC (Q2 ).

7. General case
In all the considerations above we started with a Dynkin quiver Q. In this section we consider mutations
of diagrams instead of quivers, which allows us to deal with non-simply-laced Dynkin diagrams.
7.1. Mutations of diagrams
Recall that quivers are in one-to-one correspondence with skew-symmetric integer matrices. An integer
n × n matrix B is skew-symmetrizable if there exists a diagonal n × n matrix D = {d1 , . . . , dn } with
positive integer entries such that the product BD is skew-symmetric, i.e., bij dj = −bji di .
Given a skew-symmetrizable matrix B one obtains a diagram G = G(B) in the following way: G is
an oriented labeled graph with vertex set 1, . . . , n, where vertex i is connected to vertex j by an arrow
labeled by |bij bji | if bij 6= 0.
One diagram may correspond to several distinct matrices. Any diagram G constructed by a skewsymmetrizable matrix satisfies the following property: for any chordless cycle in G the product of labels
along this cycle is a perfect square (cf. [21, Exercise 2.1]).
Since skew-symmetric matrices are also skew-symmetrizable, we may understand quivers as a partial
case of diagrams: to make a diagram out of a quiver one needs to square all the labels.
A mutation µk of a diagram G is defined similarly to the mutation of quivers [17]:
– orientations of all arrows incident to a vertex k are reversed;
– for every pair of vertices (i, j) such that G contains arrows directed from i to k and from k to j the
weight of the arrow joining i and j changes as described in Figure 7.1.
As for quivers, a diagram is of finite type if it is mutation-equivalent to an orientation of a Dynkin
diagram.

Page 18 of 22

ANNA FELIKSON AND PAVEL TUMARKIN

k

PSfrag replacements

a

k
µk

b

b

a

c

d
√

± c±

√

d=

√

ab

√
√
Figure 7.1. Mutations of diagrams. The sign before c (resp., d) is positive if the three vertices form
an oriented cycle, and negative otherwise. Either c or d may vanish. If ab is equal to zero then neither
value of c nor orientation of the corresponding arrow does change.
7.2. Generalization of the construction to non-simply-laced diagrams of finite type
The construction is generalized straightforwardly, but the definition of the group defined by a diagram
is a bit longer than the one in the simply-laced case.
Let G be an orientation of a Dynkin diagram with n nodes, let W be the corresponding finite Weyl
group, and let G1 be any diagram mutation-equivalent to G. Denote by W (G1 ) the group generated by n
generators si with the following relations:
(R1) s2i = e for all i = 1, . . . , n;
(R2) (si sj )mij = e for all i, j, not joined by an edge labeled by 4, where


2 if i and j are not connected;

3 if i and j are connected by an edge.
mij =
4 if i and j are connected by an edge labeled by 2;



6 if i and j are connected by an edge labeled by 3.

(R3) (cycle relation) for every chordless oriented cycle C given by
wi

i

wi

i

1 2
0 1
···
i1 →
i0 →

wid−2 id−1

and for every l = 0, . . . , d − 1 we compute t(l) =

→

id−1

wid−1 i0

→

i0

l+d−2
Q
j=l

√
√
wij ij+1 − wil+d−1 il

!2

, where the indices

are considered modulo d; now for every l such that t(l) < 4, we take the relation
(sil sil+1 . . . sil+d−2 sil+d−1 sil+d−2 . . . sil+1 )m(l) = e,
where


2



3
m(l) =

4



6

if
if
if
if

t(l) = 0;
t(l) = 1;
t(l) = 2;
t(l) = 3

(this form of cycle relations was introduced by Seven in [32]).
According to [1], all the cycle relations for a given chordless cycle follow from one with m(l) = 2 (such
a relation always exists). Thus, as for quivers, we may take exactly one defining relation per cycle.
It is shown in [1] that the group W (G1 ) does not depend on the choice of a diagram in the mutation
class of G. In particular, it is isomorphic to the initial Coxeter group W .
The further part of the construction generalizes to the diagram settings verbatim. We obtain three
manifolds, see Table 7.1

Page 19 of 22

COXETER GROUPS, MUTATIONS AND MANIFOLDS

Table 7.1. Actions on hyperbolic manifolds, non-simply-laced case.
W

G

G1

PSfrag replacements
PSfrag
2 replacements 2
B3
PSfrag replacements 2
B4 PSfrag replacements

2

2

PSfrag replacements
PSfrag 2replacements 2
F4

2

|W |

dim (X)

approx.

vol X

number
of cusps

χ(X)
( dim X even)

23 · 3!

2

8π

compact

-4

24 · 4!

3

|W | · 0.211446

16

27 · 32

3

|W | · 0.222228

compact

Remark 7.1. The manifold X constructed for the group B4 coincides with the manifold constructed
in Section 5.3 for the group D4 (see Table 5.1).
Remark 7.2. In contrast to the simply-laced case, we do not know whether the list of hyperbolic
manifolds (Table 7.1) that can be obtain by our construction is complete: there is no known classification
of finite volume hyperbolic Coxeter polytopes with angles π/2, π/3, π/4, so potentially the construction
may provide other examples of finite volume hyperbolic manifolds.
Remark 7.3. The proof of the Manifold Property works for diagrams, but we need to update the
proof of Lemma 6.5.
Let us proceed by induction on the number of mutations required to obtain G1 from G. Assume that
the lemma holds for a diagram G2 mutation-equivalent to G, and we want to deduce the lemma for
G1 = µk (G2 ). In the notation of Lemma 6.5 (after substituting Q by G) this means the following: if
we denote by ũi , ũj , ũk ∈ W0 (G2 ) the reflections corresponding to nodes i, j, k of G2 and by ui , uj , uk ∈
W (G2 ) = W their projections to W , we want to deduce the equality of orders of elements t̃i t̃j ∈ W0 (G1 )
and ti tj ∈ W (G1 ) = W from the equality of the orders of ũi ũj ∈ W0 (G2 ) and ui uj ∈ W (G2 ) = W .
If one of i, j (say, i) equals k the statement is obvious: in this case the label of the arrow between i and
j is the same in G1 and G2 (and thus the orders of t̃i t̃j ∈ W0 (G1 ) and ũi ũj ∈ W0 (G2 ) are the same), and
ti tj = (ui uj )±1 (since either tj = uj or tj = ui uj ui ), so the orders of ti tj and ui uj are also the same.
If the other case we can restrict our consideration to the subdiagrams of G1 and G2 spanned by three
vertices i, j, k. A subdiagram of a diagram of finite type also has finite type [17], so if it is not simply-laced
then G1 (and G2 ) is mutation-equivalent to one of the three diagrams B3 , B2 + A1 and G2 + A1 . Now, a
short straightforward check verifies the lemma.
7.3. Example: action of B3 on the 2-sphere and a hyperbolic surface of genus 3.
Consider the diagram G = B3 (see Fig. 7.3(a)). The corresponding Dynkin diagram of type B3
determines a finite Coxeter group W acting on the 2-dimensional sphere by reflections:
W = hs1 , s2 , s3 | s2i = (s1 s2 )3 = (s2 s3 )4 = (s1 s3 )2 = ei
The fundamental domain of this action is a spherical triangle with angles ( π3 , π4 , π2 ), see Fig. 7.3(b) for
the action and a fundamental domain in stereographic projection.

Page 20 of 22

ANNA FELIKSON AND PAVEL TUMARKIN

2
1

3

2

µ2

replacements
2

2
1

(a)

2

3

(b)

(c)

Figure 7.2. (a) A diagram of type B3 and its mutation µ2 ; (b) action of B3 on the sphere, in
s-generators (stereographic projection); (c) action of B3 on the sphere in t-generators: bold points are
the branching points for the covering (one more branching point at infinity)

Now, apply the mutation µ2 to the diagram G obtaining the diagram G1 (see Fig. 7.3(a)). The
corresponding group
W0 (G1 ) = ht1 , t2 , t3 | t2i = (t1 t2 )3 = (t2 t3 )4 = (t1 t3)4 = ei
acts on the hyperbolic plane by reflections, and the fundamental domain of this action is a triangle F
with angles ( π3 , π4 , π4 ). We need to take a quotient of this action by the normal closure of the element
(t1 t2 t3 t2 )2 ∈ W0 (G1 ). As we expect from Manifold Property, we will get some finite volume hyperbolic
surface S tiled by 48 images of the triangle F . It is easy to see that S is a genus 3 surface.
Similarly to Section 5.1.3 describing A3 case, one can see that S can be obtained as a ramified degree 4
covering of the sphere branching at six points composing the orbit of the “central point” (see Fig. 7.3(c)).

8. Infinite groups
8.1. Group constructed by a diagram
The result of [14] allows to generalize the construction to infinite groups. More precisely, it is shown
in [14] that to a diagram G of finite mutation type that either is exceptional (see [9, 10]) or arises from
a triangulation of a unpunctured surface or orbifold (see [15, 11]) one can assign a Coxeter group W0 (G)
(using exactly the same rule as above).
Then one takes a quotient group imposing relations of the following types:
(R3) cycle relations;
(R4) additional affine relations;
(R5) additional handle relations;
(R6) additional X5 -relations.
All these relations are of the type (ri rj )m = e, where ri and rj are some conjugates of the generating
reflections, see [14] for details.
As before, we define WC (G) as the normal closure of all relations of types (R3)-(R6). It is shown in [14]
that the group W (G) = W0 (G)/WC (G) does not depend on the choice of G in a given mutation class.

COXETER GROUPS, MUTATIONS AND MANIFOLDS

Page 21 of 22

This implies that we can repeat verbatim the construction of actions on factors of the Davis complex
Σ(W0 (G)), so that we get an action of an (infinite) group W = W0 (G)/WC (G) on the quotient space
X(G) = Σ(W0 (G))/WC (G). Furthermore, as before, a mutation of G induces a mutation of X(G).
8.2. Diagrams of affine type
A diagram G is called a diagram of affine type if G is mutation-equivalent to an orientation of an affine
Dynkin diagram different from an oriented cycle. In particular, if G is of affine type, the group W = W (G)
is an affine Coxeter group.
Mutation classes of diagrams of affine type may be rather complicated (see [18] for the detailed
description of mutation classes of non-exceptional diagrams of finite and affine type). In particular, a
diagram G in the mutation class may contain one arrow labeled by 4 (this corresponds to two reflections in
a Coxeter system of W0 (G) generating an infinite dihedral group, or, equivalently, to two non-intersecting
facets of a fundamental chamber of Σ(W0 (G)).
Nevertheless, applying considerations from Section 6.3 and Remark 7.3, we obtain the Manifold
Property for diagrams of affine type.
Theorem 8.1. If G is a diagram of affine type then the group WC (G) is torsion-free.
Remark 8.2. We are currently unable to drop the assumption that G is of affine type. Our proof
of Manifold Property uses an induction on the number of mutations one needs to perform to obtain a
diagram without oriented cycles (such diagrams are called acyclic, and diagrams from their mutation
classes are mutation-acyclic). If G is not of finite or affine type, then either G is not mutation-acyclic, or
it is not mutation-finite (see [15, 9, 10]).
Acknowledgments
We are grateful to V. Emery, M. Feigin, A. King, R. Marsh, R. Kellerhals and M. Shapiro for helpful
discussions. We also thank R. Guglielmetti for computing the volume of one of the hyperbolic pyramids.
The work was initiated during the program on cluster algebras at MSRI in the Fall of 2012. We would
like to thank the organizers of the program for invitation, and the Institute for hospitality and excellent
research atmosphere.

References
1. M. Barot and R. J. Marsh, ’Reflection group presentations arising from cluster algebras’, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.
367 (2015), 1945–1967.
2. M. Conder and C. Maclachlan, ’Compact hyperbolic 4-manifolds of small volume’, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 133
(2005), 2469–2476.
3. M. Davis, ’Groups generated by reflections and aspherical manifolds not covered by Euclidean space’, Ann. Math. 117
(1983), 293–325.
4. M. Davis, The geometry and topology of Coxeter groups (Princeton University Press, 2008).
5. B. Everitt, ’Coxeter Groups and Hyperbolic Manifolds’, Math. Ann. 330 (2004), 127–150.
6. B. Everitt and C. Maclachlan, ’Constructing hyperbolic manifolds’, Computational and geometric aspects of
modern algebra (Edinburgh, 1998), 78–86, London Math. Soc. Lecture Note Ser., 275, Cambridge Univ. Press,
Cambridge, 2000.
7. B. Everitt, J. Ratcliffe and S. Tschantz, ’Right-angled Coxeter polytopes, hyperbolic 6-manifolds, and a problem
of Siegel’, Math. Ann. 354 (2012), 871–905.
8. A. Felikson, ’Spherical simplices generating discrete reflection groups’, Sb. Math. 195 (2004), 585–598.
9. A. Felikson, M. Shapiro and P. Tumarkin, ’Skew-symmetric cluster algebras of finite mutation type’, J. Eur. Math.
Soc. 14 (2012), 1135–1180.
10. A. Felikson, M. Shapiro and P. Tumarkin, ’Cluster algebras of finite mutation type via unfoldings’, Int. Math. Res.
Notices (2012), 1768–1804.

Page 22 of 22

COXETER GROUPS, MUTATIONS AND MANIFOLDS

11. A. Felikson, M. Shapiro and P. Tumarkin, ’Cluster algebras and triangulated orbifolds’, Adv. Math. 231 (2012),
2953–3002
12. A. Felikson and P. Tumarkin, ’On Coxeter polytopes with mutually intersecting facets’, J. Combin. Theory A 115
(2008), 121–146.
13. A. Felikson and P. Tumarkin, ’Reflection subgroups of Coxeter groups’, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 362 (2010),
847–858.
14. A. Felikson and P. Tumarkin, ’Coxeter groups and their quotients arising from cluster algebras’, arXiv:1307.0672.
15. S. Fomin, M. Shapiro and D. Thurston, ’Cluster algebras and triangulated surfaces. Part I: Cluster complexes’,
Acta Math. 201 (2008), 83–146.
16. S. Fomin and A. Zelevinsky, ’Cluster algebras I: Foundations’, J. Amer. Math. Soc. 15 (2002), 497–529.
17. S. Fomin and A. Zelevinsky, ’Cluster algebras II: Finite type classification’, Invent. Math. 154 (2003), 63–121.
18. T. Henrich, ’Mutation-classes of diagrams via infinite graphs’, Math. Nachr. 284 (2011), 2184–2205.
19. H.-C. Im Hof, ’A class of hyperbolic Coxeter groups’, Expo. Math. 3 (1985), 179–186.
20. N. Johnson, R. Kellerhals, J. Ratcliffe and S. Tschantz, ’The size of a hyperbolic Coxeter simplex’, Transform.
Groups 4 (1999), 329–353.
21. V. Kac, Infinite-dimensional Lie algebras (Cambridge Univ. Press, London, 1985).
22. B. Keller, Quiver mutation in Java, www.math.jussieu.fr/~ keller/quivermutation
23. R. Kellerhals, ’On the volume of hyperbolic polyhedra’, Math. Ann. 285 (1989), 541–569. (1989)
24. A. Kolpakov and L. Slavich, ’Symmetries of hyperbolic 4-manifolds’, arXiv:1409.1910
25. B. Martelli, C. Petronio and F. Roukema, ’Exceptional Dehn surgery on the minimally twisted five-chain link’,
Comm. Anal. Geom. 22 (2014), 689–735.
26. G. Moussong, Hyperbolic Coxeter groups (PhD thesis, The Ohio State University, 1988).
27. G. A. Noskov and E. B. Vinberg, ’Strong Tits alternative for subgroups of Coxeter groups’, J. Lie Theory 12 (2002),
259–264.
28. M. J. Parsons, On indecomposable modules over cluster-tilted algebras of type A, (PhD Thesis, University of Leicester,
2007).
29. M. J. Parsons, ’Companion bases for cluster-tilted algebras’, Algebr. Represent. Theory 17 (2014), 775–808.
30. M. Prokhorov, ’On polyhedra of finite volume in the Lobachevskii space with dihedral angles π/2 and π/3’ (Russian),
Lectures in mathematics and its applications, Vol. 2, No. 2 (Russian), 151–187, Ross. Akad. Nauk, Inst. Mat. im.
Steklova, Moscow, 1988.
31. J. Ratcliffe and S. Tschantz, ’The volume spectrum of hyperbolic 4-manifolds’, Experiment. Math. 9 (2000),
101–125.
32. A. Seven, ’Reflection groups relations arising from cluster algebras’, arXiv:1210.6217
33. E. Vinberg, ’Discrete linear groups generated by reflections’, Math. USSR Izv. 5 (1971), 1083–1119.
34. E. Vinberg, Hyperbolic reflection groups, Russian Math. Surveys 40 (1985), 31–75.

Anna Felikson and Pavel Tumarkin
Department of Mathematical Sciences,
Durham University, Science
Laboratories, South Road, Durham,
DH1 3LE
UK
anna.felikson@durham.ac.uk
pavel.tumarkin@durham.ac.uk

