PANEL COLLAPSE AND ITS APPLICATIONS

arXiv:1712.06553v2 [] 9 Jan 2018

MARK F. HAGEN AND NICHOLAS W.M. TOUIKAN

Abstract. We describe a procedure called panel collapse for replacing a CAT(0) cube
complex Ψ by a “lower complexity” CAT(0) cube complex Ψ• whenever Ψ contains a
codimension–2 hyperplane that is extremal in one of the codimension–1 hyperplanes containing it. Although Ψ• is not in general a subcomplex of Ψ, it is a subspace consisting of
a subcomplex together with some cubes that sit inside Ψ “diagonally”. The hyperplanes
of Ψ• extend to hyperplanes of Ψ. Applying this procedure, we prove: if a group G acts
cocompactly on a CAT(0) cube complex Ψ, then there is a CAT(0) cube complex Ω so
that G acts cocompactly on Ω and for each hyperplane H of Ω, the stabiliser in G of H
acts on H essentially.
Using panel collapse, we obtain a new proof of Stallings’s theorem on groups with more
than one end. As another illustrative example, we show that panel collapse applies to the
exotic cubulations of free groups constructed by Wise in [Wis12b]. Next, we show that
the CAT(0) cube complexes constructed by Cashen-Macura in [CM11] can be collapsed to
trees while preserving all of the necessary group actions. (It also illustrates that our result
applies to actions of some non-discrete groups.) We also discuss possible applications to
quasi-isometric rigidity for certain classes of graphs of free groups with cyclic edge groups.
Panel collapse is also used in forthcoming work of the first-named author and Wilton
to study fixed-point sets of finite subgroups of Out(Fn ) on the free splitting complex.
Finally, we apply panel collapse to a conjecture of Kropholler, obtaining a short proof
under a natural extra hypothesis.

Contents
Introduction
1. Ingredients
2. Panel collapse for single cubes
3. Collapsing Ψ along extremal panels
4. Applications
References

1
6
10
21
24
29

Introduction
CAT(0) cube complexes, which generalise simplicial trees in several ways, have wide utility
in geometric group theory; making a group act by isometries on a CAT(0) cube complex
can reveal considerable information about the structure of the group. The nature of this
information depends on where the action lies along a “niceness spectrum”, with (merely)
fixed-point freely at one end, and properly and cocompactly at the other.
In this paper, we focus on cocompact (but not necessarily proper) actions on (finitedimensional but not necessarily locally finite) CAT(0) cube complexes. Examples include
Date: January 10, 2018.
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification. Primary: 20F65; Secondary: 20E08.
Key words and phrases. ends of groups, CAT(0) cube complex, Stallings’s ends theorem, line pattern.
1

PANEL COLLAPSE

2

actions on Bass-Serre trees associated to finite graphs of groups, but this class also encompasses the large array of groups known to act on higher-dimensional CAT(0) cube complexes
satisfying these conditions, e.g. [NR03, CD95, Wis04, OW11, HP15, HW15, LW13, Mar17,
Wis14, BW12, Sag97].
This paper highlights a new property of actions on CAT(0) cube complexes: if G acts on
the CAT(0) cube complex Ψ, we say that G acts hyperplane-essentially if for each hyperplane
H of Ψ, the stabiliser StabG (H) of H acts essentially on the CAT(0) cube complex H.
(Recall that G acts essentially on Ψ if, for each halfspace in Ψ, any G–orbit contains points
of that halfspace arbitrarily far from its bounding hyperplane.) Work of Caprace-Sageev
shows that, under reasonable conditions on the G–action, one can always pass to a convex
subcomplex of Ψ on which G acts essentially, but simple examples (where G = Z) show that
passing to a convex subcomplex may never yield a hyperplane-essential action.
There are numerous reasons to be interested in hyperplane-essentiality, which is a weak
version of “no free faces”. For example, hyperplane-essentiality enables one to apply results
guaranteeing that intersections of halfspaces in CAT(0) cube complexes contain hyperplanes
(again, under mild conditions on the complex), strengthening the very useful [CS11, Lemma
5.2]. Access to these lemmas has various useful consequences; for instance, hyperplaneessentiality is used in the forthcoming [HW17] to generalise Guirardel’s core of a pair of
splittings of a group G to a core of multiple cubulations of G.
Other consequences of hyperplane-essentiality arise from one of the typical ways in which
it can fail. First, note that if Ψ is compact and G acts on Ψ, then the action is essential
if and only if Ψ has no halfspaces, i.e. Ψ is a single point. Hence, if Ψ is a CAT(0) cube
complex with compact hyperplanes, then a G–action on Ψ is hyperplane-essential if and
only if Ψ is a tree.
More generally, suppose that G acts cocompactly on Ψ, but there is some hyperplane
H so that the action of StabG (H) on H is not essential. Then, since StabG (H) must act
cocompactly on H, there exists a hyperplane E that crosses H and is extremal in H, in the
sense that, for some halfspace E + associated to E, the halfspace E + ∩ H of H lies entirely
in the cubical neighbourhood of E ∩ H. This leaves the G–action on Ψ open to the main
technique introduced in this paper, panel collapse, which is inspired by an idea in [Tou15], in
which certain square complexes are equivariantly collapsed to simpler ones. This procedure
enables a G–equivariant deformation retraction from Ψ to a lower–complexity CAT(0) cube
complex Ψ• . Although Ψ• need not be a subcomplex of Ψ, it is a G–invariant subspace
with a natural cubical structure inherited from Ψ, whose hyperplanes extend to those of Ψ.
Specifically:
Theorem A (Panel collapse, Corollary 3.3). Let G act cocompactly and without inversions
in hyperplanes on the CAT(0) cube complex Ψ. Suppose that for some hyperplane H, the
stabiliser of H fails to act essentially on H (i.e. H contains a StabG (H)–shallow halfspace;
equivalently, a shallow halfspace). Then there is a CAT(0) cube complex Ψ• such that:
(1) Ψ• ⊂ Ψ, and each hyperplane of Ψ• is a component of a subspace of the form K ∩Ψ• ,
where K is a hyperplane of Ψ.
(2) Ψ• is G–invariant and the action of G on Ψ• is cocompact.
(3) The action of G on Ψ• is without inversions in hyperplanes.
(4) Ψ• has strictly lower complexity than Ψ.
(5) Each g ∈ G is hyperbolic on Ψ if and only if it is hyperbolic on Ψ• .
(6) If Ψ is locally finite, then so is Ψ• .
The complexity of Ψ is just the number of G–orbits of cubes of each dimension > 1,
taken in lexicographic order. So, when the complexity vanishes, Ψ is a tree. A halfspace in
a CAT(0) cube complex Y is shallow if it is contained in some finite neighbourhood of its

PANEL COLLAPSE

3

bounding hyperplane, and, given a G–action on Y , a halfspace is G–shallow if some G–orbit
intersects the halfspace in a subset contained in a finite neighbourhood of the bounding
hyperplane.
From Theorem A, induction on complexity then shows that, if G acts cocompactly on
a CAT(0) cube complex Ψ, then G acts cocompactly and hyperplane-essentially on
some other CAT(0) cube complex Ω ⊂ Ψ. Moreover, at each stage in the induction, one
can also pass to the Caprace-Sageev essential core, as in [CS11, §3], to obtain a cocompact,
essential, hyperplane-essential action of G on a CAT(0) cube complex Ω.
In particular, if the hyperplanes of Ψ were all compact, then the hyperplanes of Ω are all
single points, i.e. Ω is a tree on which G acts minimally. In other words, we find a nontrivial
splitting of G as a finite graph of groups.
The main technical difficulty is that hyperplanes can intersect their G–translates (indeed,
in our application to Stallings’s theorem, discussed below, this is the whole source of the
problem). So, naive approaches involving collapsing free faces cannot work, and this is why
our procedure gives a subspace which is not in general a subcomplex.
We now turn to consequences of Theorem A.
Stallings’s theorem. Stallings’s 1968 theorem on groups with more than one end is one
of the most significant results of geometric group theory:
Theorem B ([Dun82] Stallings’s theorem, modern formulation). If G is a finitely generated
group, X a Cayley graph corresponding to a finite generating set, and K a compact subgraph
such that X \ K has a at least two distinct unbounded connected components, then G acts
nontrivially and with finite edge stabilizers on a tree T .
Theorem B is proved as Corollary 4.1 below. The essence of the proof is the fact that
if G acts on a cocompactly on a CAT(0) cube complex with compact hyperplanes then,
successively applying Theorem A, we can make G act on a tree.
There are numerous proofs of Theorem B. Our proof avoids certain combinatorial arguments (e.g. [DK15, EP14]) and analysis (see [Kap14]). Ours is not the first proof of
Stallings’s theorem using CAT(0) cube complexes. In fact, the ideas involved in the original
proof anticipate CAT(0) cube complexes to some extent.
Stallings’s original proof (for the finitely presented case) [Sta68, Sta71] precedes the development of Bass-Serre theory. Instead, Stallings developed so-called bipolar structures.
Equipped with Bass-Serre theory, the problem boils down to dealing with a finite separating
subset K that intersects some of its G-translates.
Dunwoody, in [Dun85], while proving accessibility, gave a beautiful geometric proof of
Stallings’s theorem using the methods of patterns in polygonal complexes. It is relatively
easy to turn the separating set K into a track. Using a minimality argument, he shows that
it is possible to cut and paste tracks until they become disjoint, preserving finiteness and
separation properties.
CAT(0) cube complexes became available via work of Gerasimov and Sageev [Sag95,
Ger97], employing the notion of codimension-1 subgroups. (More generally, one can cubulate
a wallspace [Nic04, CN05].) Cube complexes are a very natural platform for addressing the
intersecting cut-set problem.
Niblo, in [Nib04], gave a proof of Stallings’s theorem using CAT(0) cube complexes, in
fact proving something more general about codimension–1 subgroups. His method is to
cubulate, and then use the cube complex to get a 2-dimensional complex (the 2-skeleton of
the cube complex), on which he is then able to use a minimality argument for tracks to get
disjoint cut-sets. So, Niblo’s proof uses the CAT(0) cubical action as a way to get an action
on a 2–complex with a ready-made system of tracks, namely the traces of the hyperplanes
on the 2–skeleton.

PANEL COLLAPSE

4

Our proof of Theorem B, based on panel collapse, is fundamentally different. Rather than
performing surgery on Dunwoody tracks in the 2–skeleton of the cube complex, we collapse
the entire complex down to an essential tree with finite edge stabilizers.
Cube complexes associated to line patterns: an example when G is not finitely
generated. Cashen and Macura, in [CM11], prove a remarkable rigidity theorem which
states that to any free group equipped with a rigid line pattern, there is a pattern preserving
quasi-isometry to a CAT(0) cube complex, the Cashen-Macura complex, equipped with a line
pattern (X, L) so that any line pattern preserving quasi-isometry between two free groups
is conjugate to an isometry between the Cashen-Macura complexes.
In their paper the authors ask whether the cut sets of the decomposition used to construct
X can be chosen so that X is a tree. While not answering this question directly, we show
how panel collapse can bring X to a tree. This gives:
Theorem C (Theorem 4.6, c.f. [CM11, Theorem 5.5]). Let Fi , Li , i = 0, 1, be free groups
equipped with a rigid line patterns. Then there are locally finite trees Ti with line patterns
Li and embeddings
ιi

Fi ,→ Isom(Ti )

(1)

inducing cocompact isometric actions Fi  Ti , which in turn induce equivariant line pattern
preserving quasi-isometries
φi : Fi → Ti .
Furthermore for any line pattern preserving quasi-isometry q : F0 → F1 there is a line
pattern preserving isometry αq such that the following diagram of line pattern preserving
quasi-isometries commutes up to bounded distance:
αq
(T0 , L0 )
(T1 , L1 )
φ0
(F0 , L0 )

φ1
q

(F1 , L1 )

.

We note that the actions of Fi on Ti are free since the quasi-isometries φi : Fi → Ti are
equivariant.
This is proved in Section 4.3. By passing to trees, tree lattice methods can be brought to
bear and the authors suspect that this result could play an important role in the description
of quasi-isometric rigidity in the class of graphs of free groups with cyclic edge groups.
This application illustrates that in Theorem A, we are not requiring G to be finitely
generated. The result holds even when dealing with an uncountable totally disconnected
locally compact group of isometries of some cube complex X.
The Kropholler conjecture. Around 1988, Kropholler made the following conjecture:
given a finitely generated group G and a subgroup H ≤ G, then the existence of a proper
H–almost invariant subset A of G with AH = A ensures that G splits nontrivially over a
subgroup commensurable with a subgroup of H. This conjecture has been verified under
various additional hypotheses [KN11, Kro90, DR93, Nib04] before being resolved by Dunwoody in [DUN17] (using a different approach to the one taken here). Niblo and Sageev have
observed that the Kropholler conjecture can be rephrased in terms of actions on CAT(0)
cube complexes [NS08]. In cubical language, the conjecture states that if G acts essentially
on a CAT(0) cube complex with a single G–orbit of hyperplanes, and H is a hyperplane
stabilizer acting with a global fixed point on its hyperplane, then G splits over a subgroup
commensurable with a subgroup of H. In Section 4.4, we prove this under the additional

PANEL COLLAPSE

5

hypothesis that G acts cocompactly on the CAT(0) cube complex in question (making no
properness assumptions on either the action or the cube complex). Specifically, we use panel
collapse to obtain a very short proof of:
Corollary D (Corollary 4.9). Let G be a finitely generated group and H ≤ G a finitely
generated subgroup with e(G, H) ≥ 2. Let Ψ be the dual cube complex associated to the
pair (G, H), so that Ψ has one G–orbit of hyperplanes and each hyperplane stabiliser is a
conjugate of H. Suppose that:
• G acts on Ψ cocompactly;
• H acts with a global fixed point on the associated hyperplane.
Then G admits a nontrivial splitting over a subgroup commensurable with a subgroup of H.
In the case where G is word-hyperbolic and H a quasiconvex codimension–1 subgroup,
this follows from work of Sageev [Sag97], but the above does not rely on hyperbolicity, only
cocompactness. We hope that a future generalisation of panel collapse will enable a CAT(0)
cubical proof of the Kropholler conjecture that does not require a cocompact action on the
cube complex.
Other examples and applications. Theorem A has other applications in group theory.
For example, Theorem A is used in a forthcoming paper of Hagen-Wilton to study subsets
of outer space and the free splitting complex fixed by finite subgroups of the outer automorphism group of a free group [HW17]. In that paper, the authors construct, given a group
G acting cocompactly, essentially, and hyperplane-essentially on finitely many CAT(0) cube
complexes, an analogue of the Guirardel core for those actions. Among other applications,
this core can be used to give a new proof of the Nielsen realisation theorem for Out(Fn ),
which is done in [HW17] using Theorem A (without using Stallings’s theorem). Since the
original proof relies on Stallings’s theorem [Cul84], it is nice to see that in fact Stallings’s
theorem and Nielsen realisation for Out(Fn ) in fact follow independently from the same
concrete cubical phenomenon.
Theorem A thus expands the arena in which the techniques from [HW17] will be applicable, by showing that the hyperplane-essentiality condition can always be arranged to hold.
This is of particular interest because of ongoing efforts to define a “space of cubical actions”
for a given group. Even for free groups, it’s not completely clear what this space should be,
i.e. which cubical actions count as points in this space. However, since known arguments
giving e.g. connectedness depend on the aforementioned version of the Guirardel core, one
should certainly restrict attention to cubical actions where the hyperplane stabilisers act
essentially on hyperplanes. This is what we mean in asserting that Theorem A is aimed at
future applications. We investigate this very slightly in the present paper, in Section 4.2,
where we show that the exotic cubulations of free groups constructed by Wise in [Wis12b]
do not have essentially-acting hyperplane stabilisers, and are thus subject to panel collapse.
Outline of the paper. Throughout the paper, we assume familiarity with basic concepts
from the theory of group actions on CAT(0) cube complexes; see e.g. [Sag14, Wis12a]. In
Section 1, we define panels in a CAT(0) cube complex and discuss the important notion of
an extremal panel. In Section 2, we describe panel collapse within a single cube, leading to
the proof of Theorem A in Section 3. Section 4 contains applications.
Acknowledgements. We thank the organisers of the conference Geometric and Asymptotic
Group Theory with Applications 2017, at which we first discussed the ideas in this work.
MFH thanks Henry Wilton for discussions which piqued his interest in mutilating CAT(0)
cube complexes, and Vincent Guirardel for discussion about possible future generalizations
of panel collapse. The authors are also grateful to Mladen Bestvina and Brian Bowditch for

PANEL COLLAPSE

6

bringing up ideas related to the collapse of CAT(0) cube complexes, and to Michah Sageev
for encouraging us to apply panel collapse to the Kropholler conjecture. MFH was initially
supported by Henry Wilton’s EPSRC grant EP/L026481/1.
1. Ingredients
1.1. Blocks and panels. Throughout this section, Ψ is an arbitrary CAT(0) cube complex
and all hyperplanes, subcomplexes, etc. lie in Ψ. Recall that a codimension–n hyperplane in
Ψ is the (necessarily nonempty) intersection of n distinct, pairwise intersecting hyperplanes.
We will endow Ψ with the usual CAT(0) metric d2 (which we refer to as the `2 –metric)
in which all cubes are Euclidean unit cubes. There is also an `1 –metric d1 , which extends
the usual graph-metric on the 1–skeleton. Recall from [Hag07] that a subcomplex is convex
with respect to d2 if and only if it is convex with respect to d1 (equivalently, it is equal to the
intersection of the combinatorial halfspaces containing it), but we will work with `2 –convex
subspaces that are not subcomplexes.
Recall that convex subcomplexes of CAT(0) cube complexes T
have the Helly property: if
C1 , . . . , Cn are pairwise-intersecting convex subcomplexes, then ni=1 Ci 6= ∅.
Given A ⊂ Ψ, the convex hull of A is the intersection of all convex subcomplexes containing A. In particular, if A is a set of 0–cubes in some cube c, then the convex hull of A
is just the smallest subcube of c containing all the 0–cubes in A.
The word “hyperplane”, unless stated otherwise, means “codimension–1 hyperplane”.
Definition 1.1 (Codimension–n carrier). The carrier N (H) of a codimension n hyperplane
H is the union of closed cubes containing H. We have, by results in [Sag95],


1 1 n
.
N (H) = H × − ,
2 2
T
If H is a codimension–n hyperplane, then H = ni=1
 Ei , where each Ei is a hyperplane,
Tn
and N (H) = i=1 N (Ei ), where each N (Ei ) ∼
= Ei × − 12 , 12 .
Definition 1.2 (Blocks, panels, parallel). Let H be a codimension 2 hyperplane. Then the
2

carrier B (H) = H × − 12 , 21 is called a block. The four closed faces

  
  

1 1
1
1
1 1
H× − ,
× ±
,H × ±
× − ,
2 2
2
2
2 2
are called panels. Panels are parallel if they have empty intersection. Equivalently, panels
are parallel if they intersect exactly the same hyperplanes. (More generally, two convex
subcomplexes are said to be parallel if they intersect the same hyperplanes; parallel subcomplexes are isomorphic, see [BHS17].) Since carriers of codimension–1 hyperplanes are
convex subcomplexes, and each carrier of a codimension–n hyperplane is the intersection
of carriers of n mutually intersecting codimension–1 hyperplanes, codimension–n carriers
are also convex. From this and the product structure, it follows that panels are convex
(justifying the term
“parallel”).

 
If P = H × − 21 , 12 × 12 ⊂ B (H) is a panel,
 1 and 1e is a 1–cube of P , we say that e is
internal (to P ) if it is not contained in H × ± 2 × 2 . The interior of B (H) is


1 1 2
,
H× − ,
2 2

 
 
and the inside of P = H × − 12 , 21 × 21 is Int(P ) = H × − 21 , 21 × 12 .
We emphasise that a subcomplex can be a panel in multiple ways, with different inside,
according to which hyperplane is playing the role of H. When we talk about a specific panel,

PANEL COLLAPSE

7

it is with a fixed choice of H in mind. The choice of H determines the inside of the panel
uniquely.
1.2. Extremal panels.
Definition 1.3 (Extremal side, extremal panel). Let H, E ⊂ Ψ be distinct intersecting
hyperplanes. H ∩ E is extremal in H if the carrier NH (H ∩ E) of E ∩ H in H contains one
~ of H (here E
~ is one of the components of the complement of E in
of the halfspaces H ∩ E
~ is called the extremal side H + of H with
Ψ). The union of cubes of H contained in H ∩ E
E
+
respect to E. The extremal panel P (HE ) is the minimal subcomplex of Ψ containing all
cubes intersecting HE+ .
If H∩E is extremal in H, then P (HE+ ) is a panel of B (H ∩ E) in the sense of Definition 1.2.
We say H abuts P (HE+ ) and E extremalises P (HE+ ). Given an extremal panel P each
maximal cube c of P is contained in a unique maximal cube of Ψ and c has codimension–1
in that cube.
Lemma 1.4 (Finding extremal hyperplanes). Let H be a bounded CAT(0) cube complex.
Then either H is a single 0–cube, or H contains an extremal hyperplane.
Proof. Let x ∈ H be a 0–cube and let K be a hyperplane so that d = d(x, N (K)) is maximal
as K varies over all hyperplanes; such a K exists because d ∈ N and H is bounded. By
construction, K cannot separate a hyperplane of H from x, and thus K is extremal in H. 
Lemma 1.4 immediately yields:
Corollary 1.5. Let Ψ be a CAT(0) cube complex with a compact hyperplane that is not a
single point. Then Ψ contains an extremal panel.
1.3. The no facing panels property.
Definition 1.6 (No facing panels property). We say that Ψ (respectively, Ψ and a particular
collection P of extremal panels) satisfies the no facing panels property if the following holds.
Let B (E ∩ H) and B E 1 ∩ H 1 be distinct blocks so that P = P (HE+ ) and P 1 ((H 1 )+
E)
are extremal panels (respectively, in P). Suppose that P ∩ P 1 = ∅. Then B (E ∩ H) and
B E 1 ∩ H 1 do not have a common maximal cube.
Remark 1.7. The maximal cubes of B (E ∩ H) have theform f × [− 21 , 12 ]2 , where f is a
maximal cube of E ∩ H. Hence, if B (E ∩ H) , B E 1 ∩ H 1 have a common maximal cube,
it has the form f × [− 21 , 12 ]2 = f 1 × [− 12 , 12 ]2 , where f ⊂ E ∩ H, f 1 ⊂ E 1 ∩ H 1 .
Recall that G ≤ Aut(Ψ) acts without inversions if, for all g ∈ G and all hyperplanes H,
if gH = H then g preserves both of the complementary components of H.
Lemma 1.8. Let G ≤ Aut(Ψ) act without inversions across hyperplanes, let P be an extremal panel, and let P = G · P . Then P has the no facing panels property.

Proof. Suppose that B (E ∩ H) and B E 1 ∩ H 1 have a common maximal cube c. Let P̄ , P̄ 1
be parallel copies of P, P 1 in B (E ∩ H) , B E 1 ∩ H 1 respectively, so that P̄ , P are parallel
and separated by E (and no other hyperplanes) and P̄ 1 , P 1 are parallel and separated only
by E 1 .
If P ∩ P 1 = ∅, then P̄ ∩ P 1 contains a codimension–1 face c̄0 of c, whose opposite in c,
denoted c0 , lies in P . The unique hyperplane separating c̄0 , c0 is E.
By hypothesis,
P 1 = gP for some g ∈ G, and extremality of P 1 implies that gB (E ∩ H) =

B E 1 ∩ H 1 . Hence either gE = E 1 and gH = H 1 or gE = H 1 and gH = E 1 . But gH

PANEL COLLAPSE

8

intersects P 1 since H intersects P , while E is disjoint from P , so gE is disjoint from P 1 .
Hence gE = E 1 and gH = H 1 .

Now, since B E 1 ∩ H 1 contains c as a maximal cube, E intersects B E 1 ∩ H 1 . On
the other hand, c̄0 is parallel to a subcomplex of E (since c̄0 is a cube of P̄ ) while c̄0 is
also parallel into E 1 (since c̄0 is a cube of P 1 ). But, by the definition of an H 1 –panel in
B E 1 ∩ H 1 , each maximal cube of P 1 (i.e. codimension–1 face of the maximal
cube of

1
1
the block) is parallel to a subcomplex of a unique hyperplane of B E ∩ H , namely E 1 .
Hence E = E 1 , so gE = E. But since P and gP = P 1 are separated by E, the element g
acts as an inversion across E, a contradiction.

1.4. Motivating examples. The original motivation for our main construction was the
following: knowing that compact CAT(0) cube complexes are collapsible to points, how can
one modify an ambient cube complex with compact hyperplanes so as to realize a collapse
of the hyperplanes, while keeping the ambient space a CAT(0) cube complex?
First consider a single 3–cube c. If we were to collapse a free face, i.e. to delete an open
square in the boundary and the open 3–cube within c, we would have a union of 5 squares
giving an “open box”, which is not CAT(0). To preserve CAT(0)ness, we need to “collapse
an entire panel”, as follows.
~
Let H, E be two distinct hyperplanes in c and pick a halfspace E∩H.
Then the intersection
~
of E ∩ H with the 1–skeleton of c is a pair of 1–cube midpoints. These open 1–cubes will
be called internal and the maximal codimension–1 face containing all these is a panel. H is
the abutting hyperplane and E is the extremalising hyperplane. We obtain a deletion D(c)
be removing all open cubes containing the these internal 1-cubes. This amounts to applying
Theorem 3.1 once, in the case where Ψ is the single cube c and P consists of a single panel
P . Passage from c to D(c) can be realised by a strong deformation retraction. See Figure 1.

H
P
E
c
D(c)
Figure 1. Collapsing the panel P of the cube c to obtain D(c). The extremalising hyperplane is E and the abutting hyperplane is H.
The resulting cube complex is again CAT(0). By repeatedly choosing abutting and externalizing hyperplanes, and applying Theorem 3.1 several times in succession, we can collapse
the cube down to a tree, as in Figure 2. In this tree, the edge-midpoints arise as intersections
of this tree sitting inside c and the original hyperplanes of c.
Now suppose we wanted to collapse many panels simultaneously (instead of by applying
Theorem 3.1 to a single panel, choosing a panel in the resulting complex, and iterating).
The most serious conflict between panels that could arise involves two panels intersecting a
common cube in opposite faces, but this is ruled out by the requirement that we draw our
panels from a collection with the no facing panels property. The other issue involves two
panels that intersect a common cube, which cannot be so easily hypothesised away. This
brings us to our second basic example, the situation where Φ is an infinite CAT(0) square
complex with compact hyperplanes that admits a cocompact action by some group G.
In this case, hyperplanes are trees and panels are free faces of squares (corresponding to
leaves of the hyperplane-trees). Although we will require that the action does not invert
hyperplanes (not a real restriction because one can subdivide), it may very well be that

PANEL COLLAPSE

9

Figure 2. Reducing c to a tree via a sequence of panel collapses. In this picture, at each stage a new panel (shaded) is chosen in the current subcomplex
of c. In all but the first step, the panel in question is a 1–cube. At the final
stage, we have a subcomplex of c, so the midpoints of edges are contained in
hyperplanes of c. The bold 1–cubes are dual to the abutting hyperplanes of
the panels being collapsed.

some element of G maps a square c to itself, so that c contains two distinct panels P and
gP . By the no facing panels property, these panels must touch at some corner of c. If we
wish to G-equivariantly modify Φ, then we must collapse both P and gP . The resulting
D(c) obtained by deleting all the open cubes of c whose interiors lie in the interior of P or
gP is disconnected (one of the components is a 0–cube). However, if h(c) is the 0–cube of
c in D(c) diagonally opposite the isolated 0–cube, then it can be connected to its opposite
h̄(c) = w by a diagonal S(h̄(c)). The cubes h(c), h̄(c) are the persistent and salient cubes
defined below (in general, they need not be 0–cubes). The resulting subspace F(c) replaces
c in the new complex, and we can make these replacements equivariantly. See Figure 3.
h̄(c)
gP
S(h̄(c))

P

h(c)
Figure 3. Passing from c to F(c) when the given collection of panels contains two that conflict. Note that F(c) is no longer a subcomplex of c, but
it is a CAT(0) cube complex, embedded in c, whose 0–skeleton is the same
as that of c.
The panel collapse construction, described formally in the next section, just generalises
these procedures.

PANEL COLLAPSE

10

2. Panel collapse for single cubes
Let Ψ be a finite-dimensional CAT(0) cube complex and let P be a collection of extremal
panels with the no facing panels property. Recall that the inside of P is the union of open
cubes of P that intersect the abutting hyperplane. When we refer to the interior of a cube
[− 21 , 12 ]n , we just mean (− 12 , 12 )n . If c is a (closed) cube of Ψ and P ∈ P, then P ∩ c is either
∅ or a sub-cube of c, by convexity of P .
The first goal of this section is define the fundament F(c) of a cube c, which is a subspace
obtained from c given the intersections {c ∩ P | P ∈ P}, which are panels of c that must
be collapsed. This construction of F(c) must be compatible with the induced collapses and
fundaments F(c0 ) of the subcubes c0 of c. The second goal of this section is to prove the
existence of a strong deformation retraction of c onto F(c), compatible with deformation
retractions on the codimension–1 faces, and to show that F(c) is again a CAT(0) cube
complex.
Lemma 2.1. Let c be a cube, let P ∈ P, and let e be a 1–cube of c that is internal to P .
Then c has a codimension–1 face f so that every 1–cube of f that is parallel to e is internal
to P .
In other words, if c is a cube and P ∈ P, then exactly one of the following holds:
• c ∩ P = ∅;
• the interior of c is contained in the inside of P ;
• c ∩ P is a codimension–1 face f of c, and moreover, if e is an edge of f dual to the
abutting hyperplane of P , then any edge of f parallel to e is in the inside of P .
Proof. Let E, H be hyperplanes so that B (P ) = B (E ∩ H), with H dual to the internal
1–cubes of P , so e is dual to H. By extremality of P , we must have that c ⊂ B (P ). If the
interior of c is contained in the inside of P , we’re done. Otherwise, E ∩ c 6= ∅, and c has two
codimension–1 faces, f, f 0 , that are separated by E, with f ⊂ P . Thus every 1–cube of f
dual to H (i.e. parallel to e) is internal to P , as required.

The next lemma is immediate from the definition of a panel:
Lemma 2.2. Let c be a cube of Ψ. If the interior of c lies in the inside of some P ∈ P,
then there is some 1–cube e of c such that e0 is internal for P for all 1–cubes e0 of c parallel
to e.
Conversely, if c is a cube, and for some 1–cube e of c, every 1–cube parallel to e is internal
to P , then the interior of c is contained in the inside of P .
From Lemma 2.2 and convexity of panels, we obtain:
Lemma 2.3. Let c be a cube and let P ∈ P. Let e, e0 be 1–cubes of c that are internal to
P . Suppose that e, e0 do not lie in a common proper sub-cube of c. Then the interior of c is
contained in the inside of P .
Hence, if the interior of c is not contained in the inside of P , then all of the 1–cubes of c
internal to P are contained in a common codimension–1 face of c.
Definition 2.4 (Internal, external, completely external). A subcube c of Ψ is internal
[resp., internal to P ∈ P] if its interior lies in the inside of some panel in P [resp., P ].
Otherwise, c is external. If c contains no 1–cube that is internal, then c is completely
external. Completely external cubes are external, but external cubes are not in general
completely external. Specifically, c is external but not completely external exactly when c has
a codimension–1 face that is internal. (The notions of externality and complete externality
coincide for 1–cubes, and every 0–cube is completely external.)

PANEL COLLAPSE

11

So far we have not used that P has the no facing panels property; now it is crucial.
Lemma 2.5. Let c be a cube of Ψ. Let f, f 0 be a pair of parallel codimension–1 faces of c
so that there are panels P, P 0 ∈ P with the interiors of f, f 0 respectively contained in P, P 0 .
Then c is internal.
Proof. Let m be a maximal cube containing c. Let H be the hyperplane that crosses c (and
thus m) and separates f, f 0 . Let n, n0 be the codimension–1 faces of m that respectively
contain f, f 0 and are separated by H.
If P = P 0 , then we are done, by Lemma 2.3. Hence suppose that P 6= P 0 and f 0 is not
internal to P and f is not internal to P 0 . Then, since P, P 0 must intersect m in codimension–
1 faces, we have that the interior of n lies in the inside of P , and the interior of n0 lies in
the inside of P 0 , and this contradicts the no facing panels property.

Lemma 2.6 (External cubes have persistent corners). Let c be an external cube of Ψ. Then
there exists a 0–cube v of c, and 1–cubes e1 , . . . , edim c , contained in c and incident to v, so
that each ei is external.
A 0–cube v as in the lemma is a persistent corner of c.
Proof. For each P ∈ P, Lemma 2.3 implies that P ∩ c is either empty or confined to a
codimension–1 face fP of c. Identifying c with fP × [− 21 , 21 ] and fP with fP × { 12 }, let
bP = fP × {− 21 }, which is a codimension–1 face of c. For each P, P 0 as above, Lemma
2.5
T
shows that bP ∩ bP 0 6= ∅, so by the Helly property for convex subcomplexes, P bP is a
nonempty sub-cube c0 of c (the intersection is taken over all panels in P contributing an
internal 1–cube to c).
Let v be a 0–cube of c0 . By construction, any 1–cube e of c0 incident to v is external.
Next, suppose that e is a 1–cube of c incident to v that joins c0 to a 1–cube not in c0 . If e
is internal to some panel P , then e is separated from bP by a hyperplane of c. Since v ∈ e,
we have v 6∈ bP , a contradiction. Hence e is external.

Definition 2.7 (Persistent subcube, salient subcube). Let c be an external cube of Ψ.
Lemma 2.6 implies that c has at least one persistent corner. Let h(c) be the convex hull of
the persistent corners of c, i.e. the smallest sub-cube of c containing all of the persistent
corners. We call h(c) the persistent subcube of c. Let h̄(c) be the subcube of c with the
following properties:
• h̄(c) is parallel to h(c), i.e. h̄(c) and h(c) intersect exactly the same hyperplanes;
• the hyperplane H of c separates h(c) from h̄(c) if and only if H does not cross h(c)
and H is dual to some internal 1–cube of c.
We call h̄(c) the salient subcube of c. Note that h(c) and h̄(c) are either equal or disjoint,
and have the same dimension. Also, if c0 is a sub-cube of c, and h(c)∩c0 6= ∅, then c0 contains
a persistent corner of c, by minimality of h(c).
2.1. Building the subspace F(c). Let c be a (closed) cube of Ψ. We define a subspace
F(c) of c as follows. First, let D(c) be the union of all completely external cubes of c. In
other words, D(c) is obtained from c by deleting exactly those open sub-cubes whose closures
contain internal 1–cubes.
Observe that D(c) ∩ c0 = D(c0 ) for all sub-cubes c0 of c.
Definition 2.8 (F(c) for internal c). Let c be an internal cube. Then F(c) = D(c). (Note
that in this case, D(c) is disconnected by the abutting hyperplane for each panel in P in
which c is internal.)
The definition of F(c) when c is external is more complicated.

PANEL COLLAPSE

12

Definition 2.9 (F(c) for external c, connected case). Let c be an external cube for which
D(c) is connected. Then F(c) = D(c). This includes the case where c is completely external,
in which case F(c) = D(c) = c.
Now let c be an external cube that is not completely external. Lemma 2.6 provides
a persistent corner v ∈ c. Let h(c) = h be the persistent subcube of c. Note that h
has no codimension–1 face in which an entire parallelism class of 1–cubes are internal, so
Lemma 2.1 implies that h is completely external. Since c is not completely external, h is a
proper sub-cube of c. Let h̄ = h̄(c) be the salient subcube of c.
We now consider two cases, according to the codimension of h in c. If h is a codimension–1
face of c, suppose h 6= h̄ and let E be the hyperplane separating h from h̄, and let e be a
1–cube of c dual to E. Then, since c is external, Lemma 2.3 implies that e can be chosen
to be external. Moreover, there exist p, q ≤ ` so that vp , vq are diagonally opposite in h, so
that e can be chosen so that there is some e0 that is external, dual to E, and separated from
e by all hyperplanes in c except E. Hence each codimension–1 face of c not parallel to h
contains a 1–cube parallel to e that is external. Thus, by Lemma 2.1, all 1–cubes parallel
to e in c are external. Hence D(c) is connected, so F(c) = D(c).
If h = h̄, then every 1–cube emanating from h is external, so every 0–cube is connected to
h by an external 1–cube, so D(c) is again connected. Hence suppose that the codimension
of h in c is at least 2. Suppose, moreover, that D(c) is disconnected (for otherwise we know
how to define F(c)).
For each codimension–1 face c0 of c containing some persistent corner vi , the cube c0 is
spanned by a set of external 1–cubes, so c0 is external. By induction on dimension, we have
defined F(c0 ) to be a contractible subspace of c0 that contains D(c0 ) and also contains the
convex hull in c0 of all persistent corners of c0 (in particular, F(c0 ) contains h ∩ c0 ). The base
case is where c is a 0–cube, which is necessarily completely external, so F(c) = c.
F0 (c): Assembling pieces from codimension–1 faces. Now let Faces0 (c) be the
set
sub-cubes c0 of c containing a persistent corner vi . Let F0 (c) =
S of codimension–1
0
0
0
0
c0 ∈Faces0 (c) F(c ). Since h is connected and intersects F(c ) for each c ∈ Faces (c), the
subspace F0 (c) is connected. Recall that h̄ is the parallel copy of h in c that is separated
from h by exactly those hyperplanes H so that:
• H does not cross h;
• at least one 1–cube dual to H is internal.
Let κ ≤ d − dim h be the number of hyperplanes separating h, h̄. For each completely
external cube w ⊆ h̄, let S(w) be the `2 –convex hull of w and the cube w̄ (a sub-cube of h)
parallel to w and separated from w by the above hyperplanes.
h √ √ i
Equivalently, c has an `2 –convex subspace h × − 2κ , 2κ , intersecting exactly those
hyperplanes that separate √
the persistent and salient
and for each completely external
h cubes,
√
√ i
subcube w of h̄ = h × { 2κ }, let S(w) = w × − 2κ , 2κ . Also note that dim S(w) =
dim w + 1 ≤ d − 1 since dim h ≤ d − 2 and w ⊆ h.
F1 (c): Connecting subcubes of h to their opposites in h̄. We form F1 (c) from
F0 (c) by adding the subspace S(w) of c for each completely external cube w of h̄.
F(c): Adding the missing cubes from D(c). To complete the definition of F(c), we
have to ensure that it contains D(c), in order to support the above inductive part of the
definition. In other words, we need to add to F1 (c) any completely external sub-cube of c
that does not already appear in F1 (c). Hence let F(c) be the union of F1 (c) and any totally
external cube of c not already contained in F1 (c). Some examples are shown in Figure 4.
Also, observe that by definition, F(c) contains every 0–cube of c, since 0–cubes are completely external.

PANEL COLLAPSE

h

13

h̄

c

D(c) = F(c)

c

D(c)

F0 (c)

F1 (c) = F(c)

h
h̄
D(c) F0 (c) = F1 (c) F(c)
Figure 4. Three examples of the construction of F(c) from a set of panels
on c, in the case dim c = 3. In each case, the faces of c belonging to panels
in P are shaded, and the internal 1–cubes of c are bold. The remaining
pictures show how D(c), F0 (c), F1 (c), and F(c) sit inside c. The 1–cubes of
F(c) (which are either 1–cubes of c or diagonals in c or its faces) are bold. In
the first and last cases, h, h̄ are labelled; in the middle case, h is the unique
0–cube with 3 incident external 1–cubes, and h̄ is diagonally opposite h in c.
c

It will generally be simpler to work with F1 (c) below, so we need a lemma relating the
two. In particular item (3) below gives a precise description of how F(c) is constructed:
it states that all new cubes added to F1 (c) are completely external and contain the salient
subcube h̄, which must itself be completely external in this case (in general, it can happen
that F(c) = F1 (c) and h̄ is not completely external).
Lemma 2.10 (F1 (c) versus F(c)). When c is external, all of the following hold:
(1) D(c) ⊂ F(c).
(2) If f is a completely external cube of F(c) that is not contained in F0 (c), then f has
codimension at least 2 in c.
(3) If f is a maximal completely external subcube of c lying in F(c), then either f ⊂ F1 (c)
or f contains h̄. In the latter case, h̄ must be completely external.
(4) Let f1 , . . . , fk be the maximal completely external cubes of c that do not lie in F1 (c).
Then there exists l ∈ Faces0 (c) so that fi ∩ F1 (c) is a subcube of l lying in F(l).
Moreover, for any c0 ∈ Faces0 (c), and each i, we have fi ∩ c0 = fi ∩ c0 ∩ l.
(5) If D(c) is disconnected, then either F1 (c) = F(c), or h̄ is completely external and
h ∪ h̄ is contained in a codimension–1 face of c. If D(c) is connected, then either
h ∪ h̄ is contained in a codimension–1 face of c, or any maximal completely external
cube of c not in F0 (c) is equal to h̄.
In particular, if D(c) is disconnected
 S (i.e. F(c)6=SD(c)), then there is a strong deformation
S
0
0
0
retraction from
c0 ∈Faces0 (c) c ∪ i fi ∪ S to
c0 ∈Faces0 (c) c ∪ S, fixing each c , where S
is the union of the S(w) over the completely external cubes w of h̄.
Moreover, if c, b are distinct external cubes, then F(c) ∩ F(b) = F1 (c) ∩ F1 (b).

PANEL COLLAPSE

14

Proof. By definition, D(c) is the union of all completely external cubes of c. Each such f ⊂ c
either lies in some element of Faces0 (c), and hence in F1 (c) (by the inductive definition), or
is added to F1 (c) when constructing F(c). This proves assertion (1).
Suppose that the completely external subcube f of c is not contained in any c0 ∈ Faces0 (c).
If f is codimension–1, this amounts to saying that f has no persistent corners. Let E be the
hyperplane of c not crossing f . Now, since f is completely external, each of its 0–cubes is a
persistent corner of f , so each 1–cube dual to E is internal (for otherwise f would contain
a persistent corner of c). Hence c is internal, a contradiction. This proves assertion (2).
Hence suppose that f has codimension at least 2. As above, let h = h(c) and let h̄ = h̄(c).
For each c0 ∈ Faces0 (c), let c̄0 be the opposite face. Let t be a codimension–1 face containing f . Then t = c̄0 for some c0 ∈ Faces0 (c). Let E be the hyperplane separating c0 , c̄0 . Let
E1 , . . . , E` be the hyperplanes crossing c̄ but not f (there is at least one). Then E separates
f from every persistent corner, because otherwise c̄0 would contain f and have a persistent
corner. Similarly, each Ei separates f from all persistent corners. Hence f is separated from
h by every hyperplane of c that does not cross f .
On the other hand, suppose that f is a maximal completely external cube not contained
in any element of Faces0 (c). Let v, v 0 be persistent corners, and let H be a hyperplane
separating them. Let k, k 0 ∈ Faces0 (c) be the codimension–1 faces of c, containing v, v 0
respectively, that are separated by H. If H ∩ f = ∅, then f must lie in k or k 0 , contradicting
our assumption about f . Hence H must cross f . Thus the cube h spanned by all persistent
corners of c is parallel to a sub-cube of f . This combines with our previous conclusion to
show that h̄ ⊆ f . Since subcubes of completely external cubes are completely external, this
shows that, if such an f exists, h̄ is completely external, completing the proof of assertion (3).
Now let f1 , . . . , fk be the maximal completely external cubes of c that do not lie in F1 (c),
i.e. they do not lie in any element of ∈ Faces0 (c). If k = 0, there is nothing to prove, so
suppose k ≥ 1. We have seen above that this implies that h̄ is a completely external cube
of c and h̄ ⊆ fi for all i.
In particular, if D(c) is disconnected, then F1 (c) contains S(h̄). So, if F1 (c) 6= F(c),
there exists a totally external cube fi of c properly containing h̄. If D(c) is connected, then
either any maximal completely external cube not in F0 (c), or there exists some such cube
fi properly containing h̄. So, in either case, we now assume that some fi properly contains
h̄.
We now claim that there is a codimension–1 face l containing h ∪ h̄. Indeed, for each i
let Di be a hyperplane of c crossing fi but not crossing h̄ (and hence not crossing h). Any
1–cube ei dual to Di and lying in the same codimension–1 face as a 1–cube of fi cannot be
internal, since fi is completely external. On the other hand, since Di does not cross h, each
persistent corner has an incident external 1–cube dual to Di and not lying in h. Hence, by
Lemma 2.1, every 1–cube dual to Di is external. But Di separates h, h̄ only if it is dual
to at least one internal 1–cube, by definition. Hence Di does not cross h ∪ h̄ and does not
separate h, h̄. Hence some codimension–1 subcube of c not crossed by Di must contain h, h̄;
this codimension–1 cube is our l.
For each i, the intersection fi ∩ l is a proper subcube of l containing h̄. Moreover, fi ∩ l
is completely external, since fi is. Hence fi ∩ l ⊂ F(l) since D(l) ⊆ F(l) by induction.
We now S
check that F1 (c) ∩ fi ⊂ l for all i, to complete the proof of (4). Recall that F1 (c)
consists of c0 ∈Faces0 (c) F(c0 ) together with various subspaces S(w), where w varies over the
completely external cubes of h̄. Each S(w) is necessarily contained in l, since h∪ h̄ and hence
w ∪ w̄ lies in l and l is convex. Hence it suffices to show that fi ∩ c0 = ∅ if c0 ∈ Faces0 (c) − {l}.
So, suppose that c0 6= l is a codimension–1 subcube for which fi ∩ c0 is a nonempty subcube disjoint from l. Let D be a hyperplane separating fi ∩ l from fi ∩ c0 . Then D crosses
fi and does not cross h̄, so D does not cross h, since h, h̄ are parallel. Also, D cannot cross

PANEL COLLAPSE

15

c0 . It follows that the component of c − D containing fi ∩ c0 contains no persistent corner of
c, so c0 6∈ Faces0 (c), as required. This completes the proof of assertion (4) and assertion (5).
The deformation retraction: If k = 0, then there is nothing to prove, so suppose that
k ≥ 1. It follows from theabove discussion
S = S(h̄)
 that
S⊂ l, so we only
 need to exhibit a
S
S
0
0
deformation retraction of
c0 ∈Faces0 (c) c ∪ i fi ∪ S to
c0 ∈Faces0 (c) c ∪ S that fixes each
c0 ∈ Faces0 (c). But assertion (4) and induction on k allows us to collapse the fi successively
to fi ∩ l, fixing the faces in Faces0 (c), as required.
Intersections: The claim about intersections also follows from assertion (4). Indeed,
clearly F1 (c) ∩ F1 (b) ⊆ F(c) ∩ F(b), just by definition. Conversely, we will see in the proof of
Lemma 2.13 below that each external codimension–1 subcube of c, b lies in Faces0 (c), Faces0 (b).
Now, F(c)∩F(b) must lie in an external codimension–1 face of c and an external codimension–
1 face of b, whence the claim follows from assertion (4).

Each F(c) was defined in terms of P (and the set of 1–cubes internal to panels in P), i.e.:
Lemma 2.11. For each cube c, the subspace F(c) is uniquely determined by the set of
internal 1–cubes of c. In particular, if g ∈ Aut(Ψ) preserves P (taking insides to insides),
then F(gc) = gF(c) for all cubes c.
Lemma 2.12. If c is an external cube and c0 an external sub-cube of c, then D(c0 ) is
connected provided D(c) is connected.
Proof. Let k = dim c − dim c0 . We will argue by induction on k.
Base case: In the case where k = 0, the claim is clear. Suppose k = 1. Let π : c → c0 be
the canonical projection (where each cube is given the obvious product structure). We will
show that π restricts on D(c) to a surjection D(c) → D(c0 ). Since D(c) is connected and π
is continuous, it will then follow that D(c0 ) is connected.
Since D(c0 ) ⊂ D(c) and π restricts to the identity on c0 , we have D(c0 ) = π(D(c0 )) ⊆
π(D(c)). Hence it suffices to show that π(D(c)) ⊂ D(c0 ). In other words, we must show that
each completely external cube f of c has the property that π(f ) (which is a cube of c0 ) is
completely external.
If f ∩c0 6= ∅, then f ∩c0 is a completely external cube of c0 . On the other hand, π(f ) = f ∩c0 ,
so π(f ) is completely external.
Otherwise, f is separated from c0 by some unique hyperplane E, and π(f ) is a cube of c0
crossing exactly those hyperplanes that cross f and c0 and separated from f by E. If π(f )
is not completely external, then there is a 1–cube π(e) of π(f ) that is internal. Now, since
f is completely external, every 1–cube e of f parallel to π(e) is external.
For each codimension–1 face c00 containing e, there is no panel P so that P ∩ c = c00 and
the abutting hyperplane for P is dual to e. By Lemma 2.1,2.3, there is a codimension–1
face c000 and a panel P so that P ∩ c = c000 and π(e) itself is internal to P . Since E is the
only hyperplane separating f from π(f ), the face c000 cannot cross E, for otherwise it would
contain e. Hence c000 = c0 . Hence every 1–cube of c0 parallel to e is internal, so c0 is internal,
a contradiction.
Inductive step: If k ≥ 2, let c00 be a codimension–1 face of c containing c0 . Suppose
00
c is external. Suppose that D(c0 ) is disconnected. Then, by induction on k, we have that
D(c00 ) is disconnected. By the case k = 1, this in turn implies that D(c) is disconnected, a
contradiction.
It remains to consider the case where the set {c001 , . . . , c00k } of codimension–1 faces containing
0
c consists entirely of internal faces. For each i, there is a nonempty set of panels Pij ∈ P
so that Pij ∩ c = c00i . For each Pij , let eij be an internal 1–cube of Pij , so that the internal
1–cubes of c parallel to eij are exactly the 1–cubes parallel to eij and lying in Pij . Hence,

PANEL COLLAPSE

16

for each i, since c0 ⊂ Pij and c0 is not internal, c0 does not contain a 1–cube parallel to eij
for any j. It follows that c0 is completely external, whence D(c0 ) is connected.

Crucially:
Lemma 2.13. Let c be an external cube. If c0 is a codimension–1 external face of c, then
c0 ∈ Faces0 (c). For each external sub-cube c0 of c, F(c) ∩ c0 = F(c0 ).
Proof. We first prove the first claim by contradiction. Suppose that c0 6∈ Faces0 (c) and c0
has codimension 1. Since Faces0 (c) contains a maximal collection of pairwise-intersecting
codimension–1 sub-cubes of c (namely, all the faces containing any given persistent corner
vi ), there exists c̄0 ∈ Faces0 (c) so that c̄0 and c0 are parallel. Now, if some persistent corner
vi ∈ c0 , then c0 ∈ Faces0 (c), a contradiction. So each vi ∈ c̄0 , whence h = h(c) ⊂ c̄0 .
Let v 0 ∈ c0 be a 0–cube connected by a 1–cube to some vi (this exists since c0 is
codimension–1). The 1–cube joining vi , v 0 is external, by the defining property of vi . Hence,
since c0 6∈ Faces0 (c), there exists a 1–cube e of c0 that is incident to v 0 and internal to some
P ∈ P.
Lemma 2.1 provides a codimension–1 face c00 of c so that e ⊂ c00 and every 1–cube of
00
c parallel to e is internal to P . Now, c00 cannot contain the 1–cube ē parallel to e and
incident to vi , by the defining property of vi . Hence c00 is disjoint from c̄0 . (Because any
codimension–1 face containing e and intersecting c̄0 must contain ē.) Thus c00 = c0 , so c0 is
internal, a contradiction. Thus c0 ∈ Faces0 (c).
We now prove the second claim. We first prove the claim in the case where c0 is
codimension–1.
If c is completely external, then so is c0 , so F(c) ∩ c0 = c ∩ c0 = c0 = F(c0 ).
Now suppose that c is not completely external. If D(c) is connected, then by definition,
F(c) = D(c). Lemma 2.12 implies that D(c0 ) is connected, so F(c0 ) = D(c0 ). It follows
immediately from the definition that D(c0 ) = D(c) ∩ c0 , so F(c) ∩ c0 = F(c0 ).
It remains to consider the case where D(c) is disconnected. By the first part of the lemma,
0
c ∈ Faces0 (c). By definition, F(c) ∩ c0 ⊇ F(c0 ). Lemma 2.14 below implies that for any
0
completely external cube w in h̄ = h̄(c) so that S(w) intersects c0 , we have S(w)∩c
S ⊆ S(w0 ∩
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
c ) ⊆ F(c ). Now, either F(c)∩c = D(c)∩c = D(c ) or F(c)∩c = (D(c)∩c )∪( w S(w)∩c ),
so in either case F(c) ∩ c0 ⊆ F(c0 ), as required.
Now we complete the proof by arguing by induction on k = dim c − dim c0 . The case
k = 1 was done above. Let k ≥ 1. If c0 is not contained in some element of Faces0 (c), then
c0 is completely external, and we argue exactly as above. Indeed, F(c) is the union of F0 (c)
together with some completely external cubes and some subspaces of the form Int(S(w)),
and the latter are disjoint from c0 unless c0 is contained in an element of Faces0 (c). So, if c0
is external and does not lie in an element of Faces0 (c), then F(c0 ) = c0 ⊃ F(c) ∩ c0 .
Otherwise, c0 is a subcube of some l ∈ Faces0 (c). Note that dim l − dim c0 < k and l is
external, so by induction on codimension, F(l) ∩ c0 = F(c0 ). But by the case k = 1, we have
F(c) ∩ l = F(l). So F(c) ∩ c0 = F(c) ∩ (l ∩ c0 ) = F(l) ∩ c0 = F(c0 ), as required.

Lemma 2.14. Let c be an external cube and let Faces0 (c), h, h̄, be as above. Let w be a
completely external cube of h̄, and let c0 ∈ Faces0 (c). Then S(w) ∩ c0 ⊆ F(c0 ).
Proof. Since c0 is external, Lemma 2.6 provides a nonempty persistent subcube h0 = h(c0 ) of
c0 . As before, let h̄0 = h̄(c0 ) be the salient subcube of c0 . (Recall that h̄0 is separated from h0
by those hyperplanes that do not cross h0 and which have at least one dual internal 1–cube
in c0 .)
Note that h(c) ∩ c0 ⊂ h0 and h̄(c) ∩ c0 ⊂ h̄0 . Also, each hyperplane in c0 separating h0 , h̄0
extends to a hyperplane of c separating h(c), h̄(c).

PANEL COLLAPSE

17

If h̄(c) ∩ c0 = ∅, then h(c) ⊂ c0 , so S(w) ∩ c0 = w̄, the completely external subcube of h(c)
diagonally opposite w. On the other hand, w̄ ⊂ h(c) ∩ c0 ⊆ h0 ⊂ F(c0 ), so the lemma holds
in this case.
Otherwise, if h̄(c) ∩ c0 6= ∅, then h(c) ∩ c0 and h̄(c) ∩ c0 are diagonally opposite in c0 in the
above sense, and S(w) ∩ c0 = S(w ∩ c0 ) ⊂ F(c0 ).

2.2. CAT(0)ness and compatible collapse for the F(c). We now describe how to
deformation retract c to F(c) compatibly with the corresponding deformation retractions of
the other cubes.
Lemma 2.15. For each cube c and each P ∈ P, we have F(c) ∩ Int(P ) = ∅.
Proof. By definition, D(c) is disjoint from Int(P ). On the other hand, any cube of Ψ
containing some S(w) is external. Thus the lemma follows from the definition of F(c). 
Lemma 2.16. Let c be an external cube for which D(c) is connected and let f be a completely
external proper subcube of c. Then f lies in a codimension–1 external subcube of c.
Proof. If c is completely external, the claim is obvious, so suppose there is an internal 1–cube.
If f is a codimension–1 subcube, then we’re done.
As before, let h = h(c) be persistent subcube of c, and let h̄ = h̄(c) be salient subcube of
c. (It is possible that h = h̄.)
Suppose that f is a maximal completely external cube and has codimension at least 2, and
that f does not lie in any codimension–1 external sub-cube. By Lemma 2.10, we have that
h̄ ⊂ f and either h ∪ h̄ ⊂ l for some external codimension–1 face l containing a persistent
corner, or h̄ = f .
Suppose first that f 6= h̄, so h, h̄ lie in some l as above. Since h̄ ⊆ f is completely external,
h̄ ⊂ D(l). If f ⊆ l, we have contradicted that f does not lie in any codimension–1 external
face. Hence, since f ∩ l 6= ∅ (it contains h̄), we have that f ∩ l is a codimension–1 face of f .
Now, since D(c) is connected and l is external, Lemma 2.12 implies that D(l) is connected.
Let D be the unique hyperplane of c not crossing l. Since f intersects l but does not lie
in l, we have that f intersects D. Now, since D does not separate h, h̄, and does not cross
h or h̄, every 1–cube dual to D is external. By induction on dimension and connectedness
of D(l), the completely external cube f ∩ l is contained in an external codimension–1 face t
of l; recall that t contains a persistent corner v of l. Let e be the 1–cube of c dual to D and
emanating from v. Then e is external, so t × e is a codimension–1 face of c with a persistent
corner, v, and f = (f ∩ l) × e lies in t × e.
Now suppose that f = h̄. Every hyperplane separating h̄ from h (of which there is at least
one) is dual to some an internal 1–cube e, and each 1–cube parallel to e and intersecting h̄
is internal. Since h, h̄ ⊂ D(c), this contradicts that D(c) is connected.

Lemma 2.17. Let c be an external cube. Then there is a strong deformation retraction
∆c : c × [0, 1] → c so that ∆c (−, 0) is the identity and ∆c (−, 1) is a retraction c → F(c).
Moreover, if c0 is a sub-cube of c which is external, then the restriction of ∆c to c0 × [0, 1]
coincides with ∆c0 .
Proof. Let Faces0 (c), h = h(c), h̄ = h̄(c), {S(w)} and F(c) be as in the definition of F(c).
We will argue by induction on d = dim c. In the base case, d ≤ 1, then c is external
only if c is completely external, in which case c = F(c) and we are done. More generally,
whenever c is completely external, we take ∆c : c × [0, 1] → c to be projection onto the c
factor. Lemma 2.13 implies that F(c0 ) = c0 for each face c0 of c, whence the “moreover”
statement also holds.
Hence suppose that the lemma holds for external cubes of dimension ≤ d − 1. The
inductive step has two parts.

PANEL COLLAPSE

18

The first collapse: Suppose that c is external but not completely external (since the
completely external case was handled above).
Recall that Faces0 (c) denotes the set of external codimension–1 faces c0 of c such that
c contains a 0–cube v, all of whose incident 1–cubes in c are external. By Lemma 2.13,
Faces0 (c) is exactly the set of all codimension–1 external sub-cubes of c. Let G 0 (c) be the
union of the elements of Faces0 (c).
Now, Faces0 (c) is a proper subset of the set of codimension–1 faces of c. Otherwise,
Lemma 2.1 would imply that c is completely external, a contradiction. On the other
hand, G 0 (c) is connected, since Faces0 (c) contains a set c01 , . . . , c0d of pairwise-intersecting
S
codimension–1 sub-cubes with one in each parallelism class. Note that di=1 c0i is contractible.
For each i ≤ d, let c̄0i be the codimension–1 face parallel to c0i . Let I be the set of
i ≤ d for which c̄0i ∈ Faces0 (c). Without loss of generality, I = {1, . . . , `} for some ` < d.
Hence G 0 (c) is obtained from c by removing the interior of c together with each open cube
S
S
that is not contained in di=1 c0i ∪ `i=1 c̄0i . The cubes c̄i , i > ` all contain h̄, and G 0 (c) is
obtained by removing Int(c) together with a nonempty, connected subspace of the star of h̄
which is obtained from a subcomplex of that star by removing its boundary. Hence G 0 (c) is
contractible.
Let S(c) be the following subspace of c. First, if D(c) is connected, let S(c) = ∅. Otherwise, let h, h̄ ⊂ c be the sub-cubes defined above, so that F1 (c) is obtained by adding S(w)
to F0 (c) for each completely external sub-cube w of h̄. Let S1 , . . . , St be the set of all such
S
S(w), and let S = ti=0 Si . Let G(c) = G 0 (c) ∪ S(c).
We claim that G(c) is contractible. First, note that S(c) ∪ h is contractible and that
h ⊂ G 0 (c). To show that G(c) = G 0 (c) ∪ S(c) is contractible, it thus suffices to show that
G 0 (c) ∩ (S(c) ∪ h) is contractible.
For each c0 ∈ Faces0 (c), let V(c0 ) be the (nonempty) set of 0–cubes, each of whose incident
1–cubes in c0 is external, and let h(c0 ) be the convex hull of the elements of V(c0 ). Let h̄(c0 )
be its diagonal opposite in c0 . Note that h ∩ c0 ⊆ h(c0 ). Indeed, each 0–cube of c0 , all of
whose incident 1–cubes in c is external, certainly belongs to V(c0 ), and the convex hull of
all such 0–cubes is h ∩ c0 .
(1) For any codimension–1 face c0 of c, if h ⊂ c0 , then c0 is external. Moreover, either
(S(c) ∪ h) ∩ c0 = h or S(c) ∪ h ⊂ c0 . Indeed, if the hyperplane of c not crossing c0
does not abut a panel, then the latter holds because h and h̄ are both on the same
side of this hyperplane in c0 ; otherwise, the former holds.
(2) If c0 is a codimension–1 face and h ∩ c0 6= ∅ but h 6⊂ c0 , then again c0 is external, and
(S(c) ∪ h) ∩ c0 = S(c) ∩ c0 is a sub-cube of S(c0 ) (where the latter is regarded as a
cube complex because of its product structure.)
(3) If h̄ ⊆ c0 , then either h ⊂ c0 or h ∩ c0 = ∅, in which case c0 is not external. Indeed, if
the hyperplane H parallel to c0 separates h, h̄, then it separates c0 from h, in which
case c0 is not external since external faces contain persistent corners.
From the first two statements, any codimension–1 face c0 of c intersecting S(c)∪h is either
external or disjoint from h. In the latter case, c0 must contain h̄, so the third statement
implies that c0 6∈ Faces0 (c). It follows that (S(c) ∪ h) ∩ G 0 (c) is contractible: just collapse
h to a point and observe that (S(c) ∪ h) ∩ G 0 (c) becomes the cone on the disjoint union of
some of the completely external cubes of h̄.
Now, G(c) is a contractible subcomplex of a finite subdivision of c, which is a contractible
CW complex. Let G 00 (c) consist of G(c), together with any completely external subcube f
of c that is not contained in any element of Faces0 (c). By Lemma 2.10, G(c) is a strong
deformation retract of G 00 (c), so G 00 (c) is contractible.

PANEL COLLAPSE

19

Hence G 00 (c) is a strong deformation retract of c, by Whitehead’s theorem [Whi49a,
Whi49b]. Let ωc : c × [0, 1] → c be a strong deformation retraction from c to G 00 (c).
The second collapse: By induction on d, for each c0 ∈ Faces0 (c), we have strong
deformation retractions ∆c0 : c0 ×[0, 1] → c0 with ∆c0 (−, 1) a retraction c0 → F(c0 ). Moreover,
for all such c0 , c00 , c0 ∩ c00 is an external proper sub-cube of c0 and c00 , so by induction, the
retractions ∆c0 , ∆c00 restrict on (c0 ∩ c00 ) × {1} to ∆c0 ∩c00 (−, 1).
Pasting thus provides
a deformation retraction αc : G 0 (c)×[0, 1] → G 0 (c) so that αc (−, 1) is
S
a retraction G 0 (c) → c0 ∈Faces0 (c) F(c0 ). We now show how to extend αc from a deformation
retraction collapsing G(c) to one collapsing G 00 (c).
0
0
If D(c) is connected (so that F(c) = D(c)), then S
by Lemma 2.12, we have
S F(c ) = D(c0 ) =
0
0
0
0
c ∩ F(c) for each c ∈ Faces (c). We also have c0 ∈Faces0 (c) F(c ) = c0 ∈Faces0 (c) D(c ) =
D(c) = F(c). Indeed, if f is a completely external cube of c, then either f is a codimension–
1 sub-cube (in which case f ∈ Faces0 (c) and D(f ) = f ), or f is properly contained in
some codimension–1 external cube, by Lemma 2.16. Hence, in the connected case, αc is a
deformation retraction of G(c) = G 0 (c) = G 00 (c) onto F(c).
If D(c) is disconnected, then S(c) 6= ∅. Now, for each Si , and each c0 ∈ Faces0 (c), we
have Si ∩ c0 ⊆ F(c0 ), by Lemma 2.14. Hence we can extend the deformation retraction
αc to a strong deformation retraction αc : [G 0 (c) ∪ S(c)] × [0, 1] = G(c) × [0, 1] → G(c)
with αc (−, 1) a retraction G(c) → F1 (c). Indeed, we just extend each αc (−, t) over each
Si ∩ (c − G 0 (c)) by declaring it to be the identity. Lemma 2.10 ensures that G 00 (c) differs
from G 0 (c) by adding a (possibly empty) set of cubes f that intersect G 0 (c) in cubes of the
various F(c0 ), c0 ∈ Faces(c). Hence we can extend αc to a strong deformation retraction
αc : [G 00 (c) ∩ S] × [0, 1] = G 00 (c) × [0, 1] → G 00 (c) by declaring it to be the identity on each
new cube f ; this gives the desired deformation retraction from G 00 (c) onto F(c).
The composition: Now let ∆c : c × [0, 1] → c be given by
(
ωc (x, 2t),
t ∈ [0, 21 ]
∆c (x, t) =
αc (ωc (x, 1), 2(t − 21 )), t ∈ [ 21 , 1].
This gives the desired strong deformation retraction.
Compatibility: Let c0 ⊂ c be an external sub-cube of c. To prove the “moreover”
statement, it suffices to handle the case where c0 is codimension–1; the other cases follow
by induction on dimension. We saw above that externality of c0 implies that c0 ∈ Faces0 (c).
Hence, by definition, ∆c restricts on c0 × [0, 1] to ∆c0 , as required.

Corollary 2.18. For each external cube c, the subspace F(c) is contractible.
Proof. By Lemma 2.17, F(c) is a deformation retract of c and is thus contractible.



Our goal is to prove that replacing each external cube c by F(c) creates a new CAT(0)
cube complex. First, we need:
Lemma 2.19. Let c be an external cube. Then F(c) is a locally CAT(0) cube complex whose
hyperplanes are components of intersection of F(c) with hyperplanes of c.
Proof. There are two things to check.
Cubical structure and hyperplanes: The cubes of F(c) are of two types: sub-cubes
of c belonging to F(c), or cubes of the form S(w), where w is a completely external cube
of c (recall from the definition of F(c) the specific sub-cubes w for which S(w) appears in
F(c)). To see that this set of cubes makes F(c) a cube complex, we must check that if d, d0
are cubes of the above two types, then d ∩ d0 is a cube of one of the above two types.
For each d as above, we define an associated sub-cube f of c as follows. If d is a sub-cube
of c, then d is completely external, by Lemma 2.15. In this case, define f = d. Otherwise,

PANEL COLLAPSE

20

if d = S(w) for some w, let f be the smallest sub-cube of c containing the two parallel
copies of w of whose union S(w) is the `2 –convex hull. Again, f is external because, by the
definition of F(c), the subspace S(w) contains a persistent corner of c.
Define f 0 analogously for d0 . Then d is a cube of F(f ) and d0 is a cube of F(f 0 ), by
Lemma 2.13. If f 6= f 0 , Lemma 2.20 implies that d ∩ d0 is a cube of F(f ) = F(c) ∩ f , and
is thus a cube of F(c).
To conclude, we have to check:
Claim 1. If f = f 0 , then d = d0 .
Proof of Claim 1. If d, d0 are both sub-cubes of c, this is clear. Otherwise, suppose d = S(w).
This means that, letting h, h̄ ⊂ c be as above, w is a completely external cube of h̄, w̄ ⊂ h̄
is the parallel copy of w separated from w by exactly those abutting hyperplanes of c not
crossing h, and S(w) is the `2 –convex hull of w∪ w̄, and f is the `1 convex hull of w∪ w̄. Now,
f ∩ h = w̄ and f ∩ h̄ = w, so any “diagonal” cube S(w0 ) intersecting f has S(w0 ) ∩ f ⊆ S(w).
So, if d0 = S(w0 ) for some w0 , then d0 ⊆ d and, by symmetry, d ⊆ d0 , i.e. d = d0 .
On the other hand, if f = f 0 = d0 , then d0 ⊂ F(c), so d0 is completely external. Since w
and w̄ are completely external, and the convex hull of d0 ∪ w is all of c, by the choice of d0 ,
we have that w contains a 0–cube, all of whose incident 1–cubes in c are external. But this
0–cube must be in h, so h ∩ h̄ 6= ∅, contradicting the definition of h̄.

This completes the proof that F(c) is a cube complex. The statement about hyperplanes
is immediate from the definition of the cubes of F(c).
Link condition: We now complete the proof that F(c) is CAT(0), by verifying that the
given cubical structure has the property that each vertex-link is a flag complex.
Let v be a vertex of c. Consider a clique in the link of v in F(c). Then v is contained in
e1 , . . . , ek , which are (necessarily external) 1–cubes of F(c) that are 1–cubes of c, and v is
contained in f1 , . . . , fr , which are 1–cubes of F(c) that are “diagonal” (i.e. 1–cubes of F(c)
but not of c). Suppose that, for all i, j, we have that ei , ej span a 2–cube of F(c), and the
same is true for fi , fj and ei , fj .
Since c is CAT(0), the 1–cubes e1 , . . . , ek span a k–dimensional sub-cube c0 of c that
contains a collection of k2 intersecting completely external 2–cubes sij , with sij spanned
by ei , ej . Then for each ` ≤ k, the union of the sij contains k 1–cubes parallel to e` , all
of which are external. Let f be a codimension–1 face of c0 containing 1–cubes parallel to
e` . For each hyperplane H crossing c0 , there is a 1–cube e0` (H) parallel to e` and separated
from e` by H. In particular, f contains an external 1–cube parallel to e` . It follows from
Lemma 2.1 that c0 is completely external, and hence c0 ⊂ F(c).
Next, note that r ≤ 1. Indeed, by construction, each 2–cube of F(c) that is not a sub-cube
of c has the form d × I, where d is a 1–cube of c and I is a diagonal interval. Hence fi , fj
cannot span a 2–cube of F(c), so r ≤ 1.
If r = 0, the flag condition holds since c0 ⊂ F(c). Otherwise, if r = 1, then there is a
subcube c00 of c (possibly equal to c) so that each ei belongs to h(c00 ) or to h̄(c00 ). This is
because ei , f1 span diagonal a 2–cube of F(c).
Convexity of h(c00 ), h̄(c00 ) imply that c0 is a completely external cube of h(c00 ) or of h̄(c00 ),
whence S(c0 ) ∼
= c0 × f1 lies in F(c). Indeed, if c0 belongs to h̄(c00 ), then this holds by the
definition of S(c0 ). Otherwise, c0 belongs to h(c00 ), and the parallel copy of c0 in h̄(c00 ) is
completely external since each of its 1–cubes (parallel to some ei ) spans a diagonal 2–cube
with f1 .
Hence the vertices of the link of v in F(c) corresponding to f1 , e1 , . . . , ek span a (k + 1)–
simplex, as required.

Lemma 2.20.

PANEL COLLAPSE

21

(1) Let c be an external cube of Ψ. Let c00 be an external sub-cube of c. Let d be a cube
of F(c). Then d ∩ c00 is either empty or a cube of F(c00 ).
(2) Let c, c0 be distinct external cubes of Ψ. Let d, d0 be cubes of F(c), F(c0 ) respectively.
Then d ∩ d0 is either empty or is a cube of F(c) and F(c0 ).
Proof. Recall that d ⊂ F(c) is a cube of F(c) if and only if either d is a completely external
sub-cube of c, or d = S(w) for some completely external sub-cube w of the salient sub-cube
of some sub-cube of c.
Proof of assertion (1): Suppose that d ∩ c00 6= ∅. Then F(c00 ) = F(c) ∩ c00 . Hence the
cubes of F(c00 ) are the cubes of F(c) that lie in c00 . Thus it suffices to check that d ∩ c00 is a
subcube of d.
If d is a completely external cube of Ψ, then d ∩ c00 is a completely external cube of c00 ,
and is thus a cube of D(c00 ) ⊂ F(c00 ), as required.
Next, suppose that d = S(w), where w is some completely external cube of some salient
cube h̄. Let w̄ be the cube of the corresponding persistent cube h with the property that S(w)
is the `2 –convex hull of w ∪ w̄. If w, w̄ both intersect c00 , then S(w ∩ c00 ) = S(w) ∩ c00 = d ∩ c00
is a subcube of d. Otherwise, since c00 is external, S(w) ∩ c00 = w ∩ c00 is again a subcube of
d. This proves the first assertion.
Deducing assertion (2) from (1): Let c00 = c ∩ c0 , which (if nonempty) is an external
sub-cube of c and c0 (it is external since c 6= c0 are both external and panels in P are
extremal). By Lemma 2.13, F(c) ∩ F(c0 ) = F(c00 ). Hence d ∩ d0 = (d ∩ F(c00 )) ∩ (d0 ∩ F(c00 )).
By assertion (1), d ∩ F(c00 ) and d0 ∩ F(c00 ) are subcubes of F(c00 ). Let t, t0 be the subcubes
of c00 that are the `1 –convex hulls of d ∩ F(c00 ), d0 ∩ F(c00 ) respectively. Note that t, t0 are
external. So, by assertion (1), d ∩ F(c00 ) and d0 ∩ F(c00 ) are cubes of F(t), F(t0 ) respectively.
Note that t, t0 are proper subcubes of c, c0 , since they are contained in c00 .
So, if t 6= t0 , then by induction on dimension, (d ∩ F(c00 )) ∩ (d0 ∩ F(c00 )) is a cube of
F(t) ∩ F(t0 ) (and hence of F(c) ∩ F(c0 )). If t = t0 , then it follows from Claim 1 above
that d ∩ F(c00 ) = d0 ∩ F(c00 ). (To enable the induction, note that max{dim t, dim t0 } <
max{dim c, dim c0 }.)

3. Collapsing Ψ along extremal panels
We can now prove the main theorem about panel collapse.
Theorem 3.1 (Collapsing extremal panels). Let Ψ be a finite-dimensional CAT(0) cube
complex and let P be a collection of extremal panels with the no facing panels property.
Then there is a CAT(0) cube complex Ψ• ⊂ Ψ so that:
⊃

• there is a deformation retraction Ψ  Ψ• ;
• for each hyperplane K of Ψ, the subspace K ∩ Ψ• is the disjoint union of hyperplanes
of Ψ• ;
• each hyperplane of Ψ• is a component of Ψ ∩ K for some hyperplane K of Ψ;
• for each P ∈ P, the inside of P is disjoint from Ψ• .
Proof. Let Ψ• be the union over all maximal cubes c of Ψ of the subspaces F(c).
By Lemma 2.15, Ψ• is disjoint from the inside of each panel in P, i.e. Ψ• is disjoint from
the interior of any cube of Ψ that is internal to a panel in P.
By Corollary 2.18 and Lemma 2.19, each F(c) is a CAT(0) cube complex whose hyperplanes are components of intersection of F(c) with hhyperplanes
of Ψ. The cubes of F(c)
√ i
√
κ
κ
are either sub-cubes of c or cubes of the form w × − 2 , 2 (where w is a sub-cube of
c), which has dimension at most d − 1. By Lemma 2.13, if c, c0 are intersecting external
cubes, then they intersect along a common external face c00 , and F(c) ∩ F(c0 ) = F(c00 ). (The
intersection of distinct external cubes is external since panels in P are extremal.)

PANEL COLLAPSE

22

Moreover, if d, d0 ⊂ F(c), F(c0 ) are cubes (including diagonal cubes), the intersection
d ∩ d0 is either empty or a cube of F(c) and F(c0 ), by Lemma 2.20, so Ψ• is a cube complex.
The definition of a hyperplane in a cube complex (a connected union of hyperplanes of
cubes that intersects each cube in ∅ or a hyperplane of that cube), together with the above
characterisation of hyperplanes in F(c), establishes the statements about hyperplanes of Ψ• .
To see that Ψ• is a CAT(0) cube complex, we must first verify that it is simply con⊃

nected, which we will do by constructing the claimed deformation retraction Ψ  Ψ• . For
each maximal cube c, any codimension–1 face c0 that is not external has the property, by
definition, that Int(c) is contained in the inside of some panel P ∈ P. Since P is an extremal
panel, c0 is contained in a unique maximal cube of Ψ, namely c. Hence the deformation re⊃

traction c  F(c) from Lemma 2.17 induces a deformation retraction Ψ × [0, 1] → Ψ which
is the identity outside of c and agrees on c with ∆c . Lemma 2.17 also implies that these
deformation retractions are compatible with intersections of external (and hence maximal)
⊃

cubes, so the pasting lemma produces the desired deformation retraction Ψ  Ψ• .
It remains to check that Ψ• is locally CAT(0), i.e. that the link of each 0–cube is a flag
complex. Let v ∈ Ψ• be a 0–cube, so that v is also a 0–cube of Ψ. Let e1 , . . . , ek be 1–cubes
of Ψ incident to v and lying in Ψ• , and let f1 , . . . , fr be “diagonal” 1–cubes of Ψ incident to
v. Suppose that for all i, j, the 1–cubes ei , ej , and ei , fj , and fi , fj span a 2–cube of Ψ• .
For i 6= j, since fi , fj span a 2–cube of Ψ, they must lie in a common external cube, but
this was shown in the proof of Lemma 2.19 to be impossible. Hence r ≤ 1.
By CAT(0)ness of Ψ, the ei span a k–cube c0 of Ψ, which is necessarily external, since
it contains a persistent corner. So Lemma 2.19 implies that c0 is completely external (and
hence in Ψ• ). So, if r = 0, then we are done.
If r = 1, then let d be the `1 convex hull of f1 , which is a cube. Then for any i ≤ k, the
fact that ei , f1 span a 2–cube of Ψ• implies that Ψ contains the cube ei × d. Hence there
is a cube c = c0 × d that contains f1 and all of the ei . But Ψ• ∩ c = F(c), so Lemma 2.19
implies that F(c), and hence Ψ• , contains a cube spanned by f1 , e1 , . . . , ek . This completes
the proof that Ψ• is CAT(0).

3.1. Equivariant panel collapse. Let Ψ be a finite-dimensional CAT(0) cube complex
and let G ≤ Aut(Ψ) act cocompactly. (We do not assume that Ψ is locally finite or that the
G–action is proper.) We also require that G acts on Ψ without inversions in hyperplanes, i.e.
for each hyperplane H, the stabiliser in G of H stabilises both associated halfspaces. This
can always be assumed to hold by passing to the first cubical subdivision (see e.g. [Hag07,
Lemma 4.2]).
Ψ−2
Definition 3.2 (Complexity). The complexity #(Ψ) of Ψ is the tuple (#i (Ψ))dim
, where
i=0
#i (Ψ) is the number of G–orbits of (dim Ψ − i)–cubes in Ψ. Observe that Ψ is a tree if and
only if #(Ψ) = ~0. Complexity is ordered lexicographically.

Corollary 3.3. Suppose that Ψ contains a hyperplane H and a hyperplane E so that E ∩ H
is extremal in H. Then Ψ contains a G–invariant, G–cocompact subspace Ψ• such that:
• Ψ• is a CAT(0) cube complex;
• for each hyperplane K of Ψ, the subspace K ∩ Ψ• is the disjoint union of hyperplanes
of Ψ• ;
• each hyperplane of Ψ• is a component of Ψ• ∩ K for some hyperplane K of Ψ;
• #(Ψ• ) < #(Ψ) in the lexicographic order on Ndim Ψ−2 ;
• the action of G on Ψ• is without inversions;
• each g ∈ G is a hyperbolic [resp. elliptic] isometry of Ψ• if and only if it is a
hyperbolic [resp. elliptic] isometry of Ψ.

PANEL COLLAPSE

23

This holds in particular if G is a group acting cocompactly and without inversions on a
CAT(0) cube complex Ψ under either of the following conditions:
• some hyperplane of Ψ is compact and contains more than one point;
• Ψ contains a hyperplane H so that StabG (H) does not act essentially on H.
Finally if Ψ is locally finite then so is Ψ• .
Proof. The hypotheses provide an extremal panel P ; let P = G · P . Since the action is
without inversions, Lemma 1.8 implies that P has the no facing panels property. Since P
is G–invariant, for each cube c and each g ∈ G, Lemma 2.11 implies F(gc) = gF(c), so the
CAT(0) cube complex Ψ• from Theorem 3.1 is a G–invariant subspace of Ψ. Theorem 3.1
also says that the hyperplanes of Ψ• have the desired form.
Since G acts without inversions on Ψ and hyperplanes of Ψ• extend to hyperplanes of Ψ,
the action of G on Ψ• is without inversions. Indeed, let C be a hyperplane of Ψ• . Then C
is a component of the intersection of Ψ• with pairwise-crossing hyperplanes H1 , . . . , Hk of
Ψ, for some k ≤ dim Ψ. Hence StabG (C) permutes the hyperplanes Hk .
T
Let B = ki=1 N (Hi ), and observe that StabG (C) acts on B, preserving the collection
of extremal panels from P in B. The no facing panels property implies that these panels
have nonempty intersection, which must be preserved by StabG (C). Hence StabG (C) staT →
−
→
−
bilizes i H i , where H i is the halfspace of B associated to Hi that contains a panel in P
T →
−
extremalised by Hi . Since i H i is one of the halfspaces of B ∩ Ψ• associated to C, we see
that no element of StabG (C) acts as an inversion across C.
Since there are finitely many G–orbits of cubes in Ψ, and each contributes a bounded
number of cubes to Ψ• , the action of G on Ψ• is cocompact. Finally, let c be a maximal
cube of Ψ that intersects the inside of some panel in P. Then Theorem 3.1 implies that F(c)
has dimension strictly lower than that of c, so #(Ψ• ) < #(Ψ). Finally, suppose that g ∈ G.
By [Hag07, Theorem 1.4], since Ψ is finite-dimensional, either g is hyperbolic (in the `1 and
`2 metrics) or g fixes a 0–cube (since the action is without inversions). Now, each 0–cube
of Ψ lies in Ψ• , by construction, and the inclusion Ψ• → Ψ is G–equivariant, so stabilisers
of 0–cubes in Ψ do not change on passing to Ψ• . Hence g is hyperbolic or elliptic on Ψ•
according only to whether it was hyperbolic or elliptic on Ψ. This proves the first part of
the claim.
Now, let G act cocompactly and without inversions on a CAT(0) cube complex Ψ. If H
is a hyperplane of Ψ that is compact and contains more than one point, then Corollary 1.5
shows that Ψ has an extremal panel, and we can argue as above. Similarly, suppose that Ψ
contains a hyperplane H so that StabG (H) does not act on H essentially. Then there is a
~ ∩ H in H so that E
~ ∩ H and (Ψ − E)
~ ∩ H are both
hyperplane E bounding a halfspace E
StabG (H)–shallow. Since G acts cocompactly on Ψ, the stabilizer of H acts cocompactly on
~ ∩ H and (Ψ − E)
~ ∩ H must be contained in a uniform neighbourhood of
H. Hence one of E
E ∩ H. Hence E could be chosen so that E ∩ H is extremal in H. Thus Ψ has an extremal
panel, and we can conclude as above.
The final assertion follows since for each cube c, F(c) has finitely many cubes.

Remark 3.4 (Effect of panel collapse on hyperplanes). Let Ψ, G, and P be as in Corollary 3.3. Let H, E be hyperplanes of Ψ so that E ∩H is extremal in H. Let P be the extremal
panel in N (E ∩ H) abutted by H and extremalised by E. Then E ∩ Ψ• is contained in the
closure of [E − (E ∩ N (E ∩ H))] ∪ (E ∩ H) (that is to say, E is replaced by the halfspaces
of E induced by N (E ∩ H), except that E ∩ H might be added back in the event that there
were diagonal cubes in Ψ• ). This can be seen by inspecting the construction of Ψ• at the
level of individual cubes.

PANEL COLLAPSE

24

4. Applications
4.1. Stallings’s theorem. We now prove Theorem B.
Corollary 4.1. Let G be a finitely generated group with more than one end. Then G splits
nontrivially as a finite graph of groups with finite edge groups.
Proof. Fix a locally finite Cayley graph X of G. Since G has more than one end, there is a
ball K so that X − K has at least two components containing points arbitrarily far from K.
Applying [Sag95], we obtain an action of G on a CAT(0) cube complex Ψ0 whose hyperplanes
correspond to K and its translates; moreover, G has no global fixed point in Ψ0 . For any
r ≥ 0, there exists d = d(r) so that if g1 , . . . , gk are such that dX (gi K, gj K) ≤ r for all i, j,
then there exists y ∈ X so that each gi K intersects Bd (y). It follows that Ψ0 has finitely
many G–orbits of cubes, i.e. G acts cocompactly (and with a single orbit of hyperplanes)
on Ψ0 . Moreover, the hyperplane-stabilisers are commensurable with the conjugates of the
stabiliser of K, so they are finite. Hence the hyperplanes of Ψ0 are compact. By passing to
the first cubical subdivision, we can assume that G acts without inversions. (Up to here,
our argument does not essentially differ from that in [Nib04]; the arguments diverge at the
next step.)
Hence, by Corollary 3.3, there is a sequence . . . ( Ψn ( Ψn−1 ( . . . ( Ψ0 of G–CAT(0)
cube complexes, so that #(Ψn ) < #(Ψn−1 ) for all n ≥ 1 for which Ψn is not a tree.
Since #(Ψ0 ) is finite, there exists n so that #(Ψn ) = ~0, i.e. Ψn is a tree. Moreover,
by Corollary 3.3, the stabiliser of a hyperplane in Ψn (i.e. an edge stabiliser) is virtually
contained in the stabiliser of a hyperplane of Ψ0 , and is thus finite. Since Ψn is contained
in Ψ0 , and G did not fix a point in Ψ0 , there is no point in Ψn fixed by G, i.e. the splitting
is nontrivial.

4.2. Antenna cubulations of free groups. In [Wis12b], Wise proved the following remarkable theorem. Let F be a finite-rank free group, and let H ≤ F be an arbitrary
finitely-generated subgroup of infinite index. Then F acts freely and cocompactly on a
CAT(0) cube complex Ψ, and Ψ contains a single F –orbit of hyperplanes, with each hyperplane stabiliser conjugate to H. This gives a profusion of cubulations of F beyond the
obvious 1–dimensional ones. In fact, the hyperplanes of Ψ are necessarily non-compact when
H is infinite, so Ψ can be a bit hard to picture: on one hand, it is quasi-isometric to a tree;
on the other hand, the separating compact sets one sees cannot be hyperplanes. To illustrate
Theorem A, we will explain how to perform panel collapse on these exotic cubulations of F .
We say a CAT(0) cube complex Ψ with a free, cocompact F –action is an antenna cubulation of F if it is of the type constructed in [Wis12b] (which we discuss in more detail
below).
Proposition 4.2. Let Ψ be an antenna cubulation of F . Then Ψ has a hyperplane D such
that StabD (Ψ) does not act essentially on D, so Ψ has an extremal panel P .
From Corollary 3.3, we can then apply panel collapse. The interesting thing about Proposition 4.2 is that it provides an example of panel collapse when the hyperplanes are noncompact but the group is not too complicated.
Proof of Proposition 4.2. First we recall the construction of antenna cubulations. Then we
apply Theorem A and prove the two statements.
Antenna cubulations: Let C be a wedge of finitely many oriented circles, labelled by
b → C be the based cover
the generators of F , so that F is identified with π1 C. Let C
b
corresponding to H ,→ F , and let C̄ be the core of C, which is compact since C is finitely
generated. Since [F : H] = ∞, there is a vertex v of C̄ at which the immersion C̄ → C is
not locally surjective.

PANEL COLLAPSE

25

S
An antenna is a tree A = P ∪ i Ti , where P ∼
= [0, n] is a tree with n edges and exactly two
leaves, Ti is a path of length 2 for 1 ≤ i ≤ n, and A is formed by identifying the midpoint of
each Ti to the vertex i of P . We also orient the edges of A and label them by the generators
of F in such a way as to obtain an immersion A → C. We also do this labelling so that:
• the edge [0, 1] of P is labelled in such a way that attaching P to C̄ by identifying v
with 0 ∈ P yields an immersion P ∪0=v C̄ → C given by the labels and orientations;
• every reduced word of length 2 in the generators of F appears as the labelling of
some Ti (thus n is bounded below in terms of the rank of F ). Let W = P ∪0=v C̄.
Now add (infinite) trees to W where necessary to obtain an infinite-sheeted cover C̃ → C
homotopy equivalent to W . For each of these finitely many trees, assign it a + or −, and
e into two halfspaces (points mapping
declare W itself to be −. This induces a partition of C
into + and points mapping into −), and with some care this can be done so that H is the
stabiliser of this wall. At this point, Wise applies Sageev’s construction and, because of the
e for an element of F is cut
above properties of antennas, is able to show that any axis in C
f . Hence the action on the dual cube complex Ψ is proper, and it is
by some translate of W
cocompact for general reasons [Sag97]. It is also not hard to see that the action of F on Ψ
is essential.
Let D be a hyperplane of Ψ, which, by construction, has stabiliser H. Since H stabilised
f , the action of F on Ψ is without inversions in
the two halfspaces associated to the wall W
hyperplanes (there is no need to subdivide).
Finding an extremal panel in Ψ: We can and shall insist that the + and − were
assigned so that each tree attached to C̄ (as opposed to the antenna), if any, is assigned +.
We will prove that H does not act essentially on D; the proof of Corollary 3.3 will then
show that Ψ has an extremal panel and panel collapse is in play.
ē together with
f⊂C
e be a lift of the universal cover of W , so that W
f consists of C
Let W
ē
an antenna hA based at hṽ, for each h ∈ H, where ṽ is a lift of v in C and A is the lift of
the antenna at that point.
The construction of A ensures that there exists g ∈ F − H so that the distinct walls
f, gW
f intersect in the following way:
W
f ∩ gW
f = A ∩ gA;
• W
• gA ∩ A = gTi for some i, and gTi ⊂ P .
f+, W
f − denote the subtrees of C
e projecting to the subgraphs of C̃ labelled + and
Let W
ē and g C,
ē while W
f+ ∩ gW
f + contains C
f+ ∩ gW
f−,
− respectively. Then (up to relabelling), W
−
−
−
+
f ∩ gW
f are nonempty and bounded.
f ∩ gW
f ,W
W
e determined by W
f, gW
f cross (i.e. all four possible intersections of
Hence the walls in C
associated halfspaces are nonempty), so, in the dual cube complex Ψ, the hyperplanes D, gD
corresponding to these walls also cross. On the other hand, each of D, gD is extremal in the
other. Indeed, if gD ∩ D were an essential hyperplane of D and vice versa, then all four of
f±, gW
f ± would be unbounded. Hence H does
the possible intersections of the halfspaces W
not act essentially on D and, as explained in the proof of Corollary 3.3, Ψ has an extremal
panel P .

In fact Wise’s antenna construction allows us to perform a finite sequence of panel collapses that reduces the original cubulation to a free action on a tree. In contrast to Proposition 4.2, using multiple hyperplanes, it seems one can construct geometric actions of F
on a CAT(0) cube complex Ψ so that Ψ has no compact hyperplanes and every hyperplane
stabiliser acts essentially on its hyperplane.
4.3. The Cashen-Macura complexes.

PANEL COLLAPSE

26

Definition 4.3. Let X be a Gromov hyperbolic space. A line pattern L in X is a collection
of quasi-isometry classes of bi-infinite quasi-geodesics in X. Given spaces Xi , Li , equipped
with line patterns, for i = 1, 2 we say that a quasi-isometry φ : X1 → X2 respects the line
patterns if for any representative l ∈ L1 the mapping l 7→ φ(l) is to a representative of an
∼
element of L2 and induces a bijection L1 → L2 .
Two elements h, g of a hyperbolic group Γ are commensurable if there is some k ∈ Γ such
that [hgi : hk −1 hki] ≤ ∞.
Definition 4.4. If Γ is a hyperbolic group and {g1 , . . . , gm } is a tuple of non-commensurable
hyperbolic elements, then the line pattern L generated by {g1 , . . . , gm } is the collection of
quasi-isometry classes of quasi-lines
L = {h · hgi i | h ∈ Γ, 1 ≤ i ≤ m}/(bounded distance).
A line pattern is called rigid if Γ admits no virtually cyclic splittings relative to {g1 , . . . , gm };
equivalently, if for every cut pair c, c0 ⊂ ∂Γ there is some l ∈ L with endpoints l+ , l− ∈ ∂Γ
such that l+ is in one connected component of ∂Γ \ {c, c0 } and l− is in a different component,
or finally the virtually cyclic JSJ decomposition relative to {g1 , . . . , gm } is trivial.
In [CM11] the following remarkable pattern rigidity theorem, which promotes certain
quasi isometries to action by isometries on a common space, is proved.
Theorem 4.5 (Pattern rigidity, see [CM11, Theorem 5.5]). Let Fi , Li , i = 0, 1, be free
groups equipped with a rigid line patterns. Then there are CAT(0) cube complexes Xi with
line patterns Li and embeddings
ιi

Fi ,→ Isom(Xi )

(2)

inducing cocompact isometric actions Fi  Xi , which in turn induce equivariant line pattern
preserving quasi-isometries
φi : Fi → Xi .
Furthermore for any line pattern preserving quasi-isometry q : F0 → F1 there is a line
pattern preserving isometry αq such that the following diagram of line pattern preserving
quasi-isometries commutes up to bounded distance:
(X0 , L0 )

αq

φ0
(F0 , L0 )

(X1 , L1 )
φ1

q

(F1 , L1 )

.

We note that the actions of Fi on Xi are free since the quasi-isometries φi : Fi → Xi are
equivariant.
In [CM11, §6.4] the authors give an example where the Cashen-Macura complex X given
in Theorem 4.5 is not a tree, but observe that it is possible in this example to construct
another complex X 0 satisfying the requirement of the theorem that is a tree. They ask if
this can always be done. While not precisely answering their question, which is about a
choice of topologically distinguished cut sets, we have the following.
Theorem 4.6. Given a free group equipped with a line pattern F0 , L0 , there exists a locally
finite tree equipped with line pattern T, LT which satisfies the requirements of the CashenMacura complex X, L given in Theorem 4.5. Furthermore LT can be represented by geodesics.

PANEL COLLAPSE

27

Proof. In [CM11, §5.2.2] it is shown that in the CAT(0) cube complex X constructed in
Theorem 4.5 there is a uniform bound on the number of hyperplanes a given hyperplane
H crosses and X is shown to be locally finite. It follows that X has compact hyperplanes.
Let G = Isom(X). By repeatedly applying Corollary 3.3 there a G-equivariant deformation
retraction from X to a tree T . We can take LT to be the collection of geodesic representatives
of the quasi-lines of L in T . (T, LT ), by definition, satisfy the necessary requirements. 
Ultimately, given a line pattern preserving quasi-isometry q : (F0 , L0 ) → (F1 , L1 ), we
would like to construct a virtual isomorphism between F0 and F1 that induces a line pattern
preserving quasi-isometry. The appropriate machinery to obtain this result appears to be
commensurability of tree lattices: let T be a tree equipped with a line pattern L and denote
G = Isom(T ) and GL the subgroup of isometries of T that preserve L. Then the existence
of such a virtual isomorphism reduces to asking whether the images of F0 and F1 in G are
commensurable within the subgroup GL of line pattern preserving isometries.
There are examples when GL is a discrete group (see [CM11, §6.2]) and therefore finitely
generated. In this case the embeddings given in (2) of Theorem 4.5 would give virtual
isomorphisms, i.e. isomorphisms between finite index subgroups, between F0 and F1 that
preserve line patterns. However in [CM11, §6.3] an example shows that even if L is a rigid
line pattern, GL may not be a discrete group of automorphisms of T . In this case, even if
F0 and F1 act cocompactly on T , their intersections in GL could be trivial.
If H is a closed subgroup of Aut(T), then a discrete subgroup Γ ⊂ H with the same
orbits as H, i.e. with H\T = Γ\T is called a discrete grouping. Discrete groupings are
hard to obtain, which is why being able to make Cashen-Macura complexes into trees is
advantageous: we are now able to apply the tree lattice techniques in [BK90]. We finish
with an observation that may be useful, in constructing virtual isomorphisms.
Proposition 4.7 (GL is closed and admits a discrete grouping.). Let F0 , L0 be a free group
equipped with a rigid line pattern. Then the group GL of automorphisms which preserve the
line pattern L of the Cashen-Macura tree T, L, given in Proposition 4.6, is a closed subgroup
of Aut(T ) and admits a finitely generated, discrete grouping Φ0 ≤ GL .
Unfortunately we are currently unable to obtain a commensurability result as we do not
know if there is a discrepancy between GL and GGL (see [BK90, Theorem 4.7 (iv)] or [LT08,
Theorem 3].)
Proof. Given F0 , L0 , let T, L be the Cashen-Macura tree constructed in Proposition 4.6. Let
G = Aut(T ) and let GL denote the subgroup that preserves the geodesics in L.
GL is a closed subgroup of G. Equip G with the compact open topology. Let γ ∈
G \ GL . Suppose first that there is some line l ∈ L such that γ · l 6∈ L. γ · l is still a geodesic
in T . Because there is a uniform bound on the intersection of any two distinct lines in L,
it must follow that there is some finite subset l0 ⊂ l such that γ · l0 is not contained within
any l0 ∈ L. Let B ⊂ T be a metric ball containing l0 . Then the set U of isometries that
coincide with γ on B give an open neighbourhood γ ∈ U ⊂ (G \ GL ) separating γ from GL .
Next suppose that for every l ∈ L, γ · l ∈ L but that γ · L ( L. Let l ∈ L \ γ · L, then
γ −1 · l 6∈ L. By the argument of the previous paragraph there is an open set γ −1 ∈ U ⊂
(G \ GL ) separating γ −1 from GL . Since G is a topological group, the inversion operation
is a homeomorphism −−1 : G → G that maps GL to itself, since the latter is a subgroup.
The image U −1 of U gives a open neighbourhood γ ∈ U −1 ⊂ (G \ GL ) separating γ from
GL . It follows that GL is closed in G.
Applying tree lattice techniques. For any subgroup of G there is a well defined
homomorphism to Z2 whose kernel does not invert any edges (see [BK90, §3] or [Bas93,
§6.3].) If necessary we therefore pass to index 2 subgroups that do not invert edges of T , but

PANEL COLLAPSE

28

keep our notation. By Theorem 4.5 the group F0 acts freely on T . By hypothesis the action
is also cocompact. F0 \T is therefore a finite graph. It follows that F0 ⊂ GL is a uniform
lattice in the sense of [BK90, Definition 4.3]. Because GL is closed, [BK90, Proposition 4.5]
then implies that GL is unimodular and [BK90, Theorem 4.7] implies the existence of a
discrete subgroup Φ0 ⊂ GL with Φ0 \T = GL \T .
Since GL contains F0 , and F0 acts cocompactly on T , it follows that GL , and hence
Φ0 , acts cocompactly on T . Since Φ0 is discrete, stabilisers in Φ0 of points in the locally
finite tree T are finite, so Φ0 acts on T properly. Hence Φ0 is finitely generated, by the
Milnor-Švarc lemma.

We end this section with a question that we hope would be of interest to tree lattice
experts.
Question 4.8. Let L be a rigid line pattern in a tree T and suppose that GL ≤ Aut(T ) is
closed and unimodular. Can there be a proper inclusion
GL

GGL ,

where GGL ≤ Aut(T ) is the maximal group with
GL \T = GGL \T ?
4.4. The Kropholler conjecture. We now apply Corollary 3.3 to the following special
case of the Kropholler conjecture.
Corollary 4.9 (Kropholler conjecture, cocompact case). Let G be a finitely generated group
and H ≤ G a subgroup with e(G, H) ≥ 2. Let Ψ be the dual cube complex associated to the
pair (G, H), so that Ψ has one G–orbit of hyperplanes and each hyperplane stabiliser is a
conjugate of H. Suppose that:
• G acts on Ψ cocompactly;
• H acts with a global fixed point on the associated hyperplane.
Then G admits a nontrivial splitting over a subgroup commensurable with a subgroup of H.
Proof. Let D be a hyperplane of Ψ with StabG (D) = H.
Bounded hyperplanes: The fixed-point hypothesis guarantees that the action of H
on D is non-essential, so we could apply Corollary 3.3 immediately. In fact, since H acts
cocompactly on D, and also fixes a point in D, we have that D has finite diameter.
Applying Corollary 3.3: Since D is bounded, Corollary 1.5 provides an extremal panel
in Ψ. At this point, we can subdivide Ψ once if necessary to ensure that the action of G is
without inversions. This has the effect of replacing StabG (D) with a subgroup of index at
most 2, which will not affect the conclusion. (As usual, we will not subdivide at later stages
in the induction, but instead use that the no inversions property of the action persists under
panel collapse.)
Corollary 3.3 provides a cocompact, inversion-free G–action on a CAT(0) cube complex
Ψ• with #(Ψ• ) < #(Ψ), unless Ψ was already a tree. Moreover, the hyperplanes of Ψ• are
components of Ψ• ∩ gD for g ∈ G, and are thus bounded. Furthermore this intersection
property implies that, since G acts by permuting the hyperplanes in Ψ, a Ψ• –hyperplane
stabilizer must lie in the stabilizer of an intersection of Ψ–hyperplanes. It follows that each
stabiliser of a hyperplane in Ψ• is virtually contained in a stabiliser of a hyperplane in Ψ and
the index is bounded by the dimension of Ψ. It thus follows by induction on complexity that
G acts on a simplicial tree all of whose edges has stabiliser commensurable with a subgroup
of H, as required.


PANEL COLLAPSE

29

References
[Bas93] Hyman Bass. Covering theory for graphs of groups. J. Pure Appl. Algebra, 89(1-2):3–47, 1993.
[BHS17] Jason Behrstock, Mark Hagen, and Alessandro Sisto. Hierarchically hyperbolic spaces, I: Curve
complexes for cubical groups. Geometry & Topology, 21(3):1731–1804, 2017.
[BK90] Hyman Bass and Ravi Kulkarni. Uniform tree lattices. Journal of the American Mathematical
Society, 3(4):843–902, 1990.
[BW12] Nicolas Bergeron and Daniel T Wise. A boundary criterion for cubulation. American Journal of
Mathematics, 134(3):843–859, 2012.
[CD95] Ruth Charney and Michael W Davis. Finite K(π, 1)s for Artin groups. Prospects in Topology
(Princeton, NJ, 1994), Princeton University Press, Princeton, pages 110–124, 1995.
[CM11] Christopher H. Cashen and Nataša Macura. Line patterns in free groups. Geometry & Topology,
15(3):1419–1475, 2011.
[CN05] Indira Chatterji and Graham Niblo. From wall spaces to CAT(0) cube complexes. International
Journal of Algebra and Computation, 15(05n06):875–885, 2005.
[CS11]
Pierre-Emmanuel Caprace and Michah Sageev. Rank rigidity for CAT(0) cube complexes. Geometric and functional analysis, 21(4):851–891, 2011.
[Cul84] Marc Culler. Finite groups of outer automorphisms of a free group. Contributions to group theory,
33:197–207, 1984.
[DK15] MJ Dunwoody and B Krön. Vertex cuts. Journal of Graph Theory, 80(2):136–171, 2015.
[DR93] MJ Dunwoody and MA Roller. Splitting groups over polycyclic-by-finite subgroups. Bulletin of
the London Mathematical Society, 25(1):29–36, 1993.
[Dun82] Martin J Dunwoody. Cutting up graphs. Combinatorica, 2(1):15–23, 1982.
[Dun85] M. J. Dunwoody. The accessibility of finitely presented groups. Invent. Math., 81(3):449–457, 1985.
[DUN17] MARTIN J DUNWOODY. Structure trees, networks and almost invariant sets. Groups, Graphs
and Random Walks, 436:137, 2017.
[EP14]
Anastasia Evangelidou and Panos Papasoglu. A cactus theorem for end cuts. International Journal
of Algebra and Computation, 24(01):95–112, 2014.
[Ger97] Victor N Gerasimov. Semi-splittings of groups and actions on cubings. Algebra, geometry, analysis
and mathematical physics (Russian)(Novosibirsk, 1996), pages 91–109, 1997.
[Hag07] Frédéric Haglund. Isometries of CAT(0) cube complexes are semi-simple. arXiv preprint
arXiv:0705.3386, 2007.
[HP15]
Mark F Hagen and Piotr Przytycki. Cocompactly cubulated graph manifolds. Israel Journal of
Mathematics, 207(1):377–394, 2015.
[HW15] Mark F Hagen and Daniel T Wise. Cubulating hyperbolic free-by-cyclic groups: the general case.
Geometric and Functional Analysis, 25(1):134–179, 2015.
[HW17] Mark F Hagen and Henry Wilton. Guirardel cores for multiple cube complex actions. In preparation, 2017.
[Kap14] Michael Kapovich. Energy of harmonic functions and Gromov’s proof of Stallings’ theorem. Georgian Mathematical Journal, 21(3):281–296, 2014.
[KN11] Aditi Kar and Graham A Niblo. Relative ends, `2 -invariants and property (T). Journal of Algebra,
333(1):232–240, 2011.
[Kro90] PH Kropholler. An analogue of the torus decomposition theorem for certain poincaré duality
groups. Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society, 3(3):503–529, 1990.
[LT08]
Seonhee Lim and Anne Thomas. Covering theory for complexes of groups. Journal of Pure and
Applied Algebra, 212(7):1632–1663, July 2008.
[LW13] Joseph Lauer and Daniel T Wise. Cubulating one-relator groups with torsion. In Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, volume 155, pages 411–429. Cambridge
University Press, 2013.
[Mar17] Alexandre Martin. On the cubical geometry of Higman’s group. Duke Mathematical Journal,
166(4):707–738, 2017.
[Nib04] Graham A Niblo. A geometric proof of Stallings’ theorem on groups with more than one end.
Geometriae Dedicata, 105(1):61–76, 2004.
[Nic04] Bogdan Nica. Cubulating spaces with walls. Algebr. Geom. Topol, 4:297–309, 2004.
[NR03] Graham A Niblo and Lawrence D Reeves. Coxeter groups act on CAT(0) cube complexes. Journal
of Group Theory, 6(3):399, 2003.
[NS08]
Graham A Niblo and Michah Sageev. On the Kropholler conjecture. In Guido’s book of conjectures.
volume 40 of Monographies de L’Enseignement Mathématique [Monographs of L’Enseignement

PANEL COLLAPSE

[OW11]
[Sag95]
[Sag97]
[Sag14]
[Sta68]
[Sta71]
[Tou15]
[Whi49a]
[Whi49b]
[Wis04]
[Wis12a]
[Wis12b]
[Wis14]

30

Mathématique], page 189. L’Enseignement Mathématique, Geneva, 2008. A gift to Guido Mislin
on the occasion of his retirement from ETHZ June 2006, Collected by Indira Chatterji.
Yann Ollivier and Daniel Wise. Cubulating random groups at density less than 1/6. Transactions
of the American Mathematical Society, 363(9):4701–4733, 2011.
Michah Sageev. Ends of group pairs and non-positively curved cube complexes. Proceedings of the
London Mathematical Society, 3(3):585–617, 1995.
Michah Sageev. Codimension-1 subgroups and splittings of groups. Journal of Algebra, 189(2):377–
389, 1997.
Michah Sageev. CAT(0) cube complexes and groups. In Geometric group theory, volume 21 of
IAS/Park City Math. Ser., pages 7–54. Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2014.
John R Stallings. On torsion-free groups with infinitely many ends. Annals of Mathematics, pages
312–334, 1968.
John R. Stallings. Group theory and three-dimensional manifolds. Yale University Press New
Haven, 1971.
Nicholas Touikan. On the one-endedness of graphs of groups. Pacific Journal of Mathematics,
278(2):463–478, 2015.
John Henry Constantine Whitehead. Combinatorial homotopy. I. Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society, 55(3):213–245, 1949.
John Henry Constantine Whitehead. Combinatorial homotopy. II. Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society, 55(5):453–496, 1949.
Daniel T Wise. Cubulating small cancellation groups. Geometric & Functional Analysis GAFA,
14(1):150–214, 2004.
Daniel T Wise. From riches to RAAGS: 3-manifolds, right-angled Artin groups, and cubical geometry, volume 117. American Mathematical Soc., 2012.
Daniel T Wise. Recubulating free groups. Israel Journal of Mathematics, 191(1):337–345, 2012.
Daniel Wise. Cubular tubular groups. Transactions of the American Mathematical Society,
366(10):5503–5521, 2014.

School of Mathematics, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
E-mail address: markfhagen@gmail.com
Stevens Institute of Technology, Dept. of Mathematical Sciences, Hoboken, NJ, USA
E-mail address: nicholas.touikan@gmail.com

