Barely CAT(-1) groups are acylindrically hyperbolic
Anthony Genevois and Arnaud Stocker
December 14, 2017

arXiv:1712.04736v1 [] 13 Dec 2017

Abstract
In this paper, we show that, if a group G acts geometrically on a geodesically complete
CAT(0) space X which contains at least one point with a CAT(-1) neighborhood, then G
must be either virtually cyclic or acylindrically hyperbolic. As a consequence, the fundamental group of a compact Riemannian manifold whose sectional curvature is nonpositive
everywhere and negative in at least one point is either virtually cyclic or acylindrically hyperbolic. This statement provides a precise interpretation of an idea expressed by Gromov
in his paper Asymptotic invariants of infinite groups.

Contents
1 Introduction

1

2 Preliminaries

3

3 Barely CAT(-1) groups

4

4 Cubical case

11

5 A non relatively hyperbolic barely CAT(-1) group

12

References

13

1

Introduction

A key concept in geometric group theory is the notion of “curvature”. Usually, exhibiting
some negative curvature in the geometry of a given group provides interesting information on the algebraic properties of our group. The first instance of such a geometry
in group theory was small cancellation (see [LS77], or [MW02] for a more geometric
approach), next generalised by Gromov with the seminal concept of hyperbolic groups
[Gro87]. There, Gromov also suggests the definition of relatively hyperbolic groups, allowing some non hyperbolic subspaces but concentrating them into a controlled collection of
subgroups. We refer to the survey [Hru10] and references therein for more information
on relatively hyperbolic groups and their historical development. More recently, Osin
introduced acylindrically hyperbolic groups [Osi16] in order to unify several classes of
groups considered as “negatively-curved”.
Although acylindrically hyperbolic groups generalise relatively hyperbolic groups,
many arguments used in the context of relatively hyperbolic groups turn out to hold in
the context of acylindrically hyperbolic groups as well [DGO17]. One of the most impressive algebraic consequence is that acylindrically hyperbolic groups are SQ-universal. The
first motivating examples of such groups were mapping class groups [BF02] and outer

1

automorphism groups of free groups [BF10]. However, since then a large amount of articles have been dedicated to the recognition of acylindrically hyperbolic groups among
familiar classes of groups, including graph products [MO15], 3-manifold groups [MO15],
Cremona groups [Lon15], small cancellation groups [GS14, AH16, Gen16b], groups of
deficiency at least two [Osi15], Artin groups [CW16, CM16], diagram groups [Gen16c]
and graph braid groups [Gen17a]. So far, acylindrical hyperbolicity is the most general
convincing notion of groups admitting some “negatively-curved behaviour”.
In this paper, we are interested in some “nonpositively-curved” groups, namely
CAT(0) groups, ie., groups acting geometrically on CAT(0) spaces. These spaces generalise Riemannian manifolds whose curvature is everywhere nonpositive, also known as
Hadamard manifolds. Loosely speaking, what we show is that a CAT(0) group which is
“barely hyperbolic” turns out to be acylindrically hyperbolic. More precisely, the main
result of the article is:
Theorem 1.1. Let G be a group acting geometrically on some geodesically complete
proper CAT(0) space X. Suppose that X contains at least one point with a CAT(-1)
neighborhood. Then G must be either virtually cyclic or acylindrically hyperbolic.
As a consequence of this criterion, one immediately gets the following statement:
Corollary 1.2. The fundamental group of a compact Riemannian manifold whose sectional curvature is nonpositive everywhere and negative in at least one point is either
virtually cyclic or acylindrically hyperbolic.
In fact, this statement has motivated the present work, following a remark made by
Gromov in his article Asymptotic invariants of infinite groups [Gro93].
“In fact, the fundamental groups Γ of manifolds V with K ≤ 0, such
that K < 0 at some point v ∈ V generalize in a certain way the hyperbolic
groups”. ([Gro93], page 147.)
Our strategy to prove Theorem 1.1 is to show the existence of a contracting (or
equivalently, rank-one) geodesic ray in our CAT(0) space, which implies the existence of
a contracting (or equivalently, rank-one) isometry in our group, and which finally implies
that our group must be either virtually cyclic or acylindrically hyperbolic. Consequently,
Theorem 1.1 is related to the
Rank Rigidity Conjecture. Let X be a proper geodesically complete CAT(0) space
and G an infinite group acting geometrically on X. If X is irreducible, then X is a
higher rank symmetric space, or a Euclidean building of dimension at least two, or G
contains a rank-one isometry.
In one direction, our theorem is a consequence of the conjecture. And in the oppositive direction, our theorem may be applied to verify the conjecture in particular cases.
However, we do not know examples where our criterion applies and where the Rank
Rigidity Conjecture remains unknown.
The article is organised as follows. In Section 2, we recall briefly several known characterisations of acylindrical hyperbolicity among CAT(0) groups, including the criterion
which we will use to prove Theorem 1.1 in Section 3. In Section 4, we state and prove a
combinatorial version of Theorem 1.1 in the context of CAT(0) cube complexes, under
more general assumptions. Finally, in Section 5, we give an example of a barely CAT(-1)
group which is not relatively hyperbolic, showing that the conclusion of Theorem 1.1
cannot be strengthened to get some relative hyperbolicity.

2

2

Preliminaries

CAT(κ) spaces. In this paragraph, we briefly recall the definition of CAT(κ) spaces
for κ ≤ 0 and the notion of angle in these spaces which will be used in the paper; we refer
to [BH99] for more information and proofs of the statements of this section. For κ ≤ 0
let (Mκ2 , dκ ) be the simply connected Riemannian 2-manifold of constant curvature equal
to κ. That is
(

Mκ2

=

√1 H2
−κ
E2

if κ < 0
if κ = 0.

A triangle in a geodesic metric space X consists of three points p, q, r ∈ X (the vertices)
together with a choice of geodesics segments [p, q], [q, r] and [r, p]. Such a triangle will
be denoted ∆(p, q, r) (this notation is not accurate because the geodesic segments are, in
general, not unique). A comparison triangle in Mκ2 for ∆(p, q, r) is a triangle ∆(p̄, q̄, r̄) in
Mκ2 such that dκ (p̄, q̄) = d(p, q), dκ (q̄, r̄) = d(q, r) and dκ (r̄, p̄) = d(r, p). Such a triangle
always exists and is unique up to isometry. A point x̄ ∈ [p̄, q̄] is called a comparison
point for x ∈ [p, q] if d(p, x) = dκ (p̄, x̄). Similarly, we can define comparison points on
[q̄, r̄] and [p̄, r̄].
Definition 2.1. Let (X, d) be a geodesic metric space and κ ≤ 0.
• A triangle ∆(p, q, r) in X satisfies the CAT(κ) inequality if for all x, y ∈ ∆(p, q, r)
and all comparison points x̄, ȳ ∈ ∆(p̄, q̄, r̄),
d(x, y) ≤ dκ (x̄, ȳ).
• X is a CAT(κ) space if all triangles satisfies the CAT(κ) inequality.
Basic examples of CAT(κ) spaces, which motivated the above definition, are the
simply connected Riemannian manifolds of sectionnal curvature ≤ κ.
In CAT(κ) spaces, κ ≤ 0, one can define a notion of angle:
Definition 2.2. Let (X, d) be a CAT(κ) space, κ ≤ 0 and p, x, y three distinct points
in X. Let cx , cy be geodesic paths from p to x and y respectively. Then the limit
lim ∠(0)
p (cx (t), cy (t)),

t→0
(0)

exists, where ∠p (cx (t), cy (t)) is the angle at p̄ in a comparison triangle for ∆(p, cx (t), cy (t))
in M02 . This limit is called the Alexandrov angle ∠p (x, y) at p between x and y.
The Alexandrov angle ∠p (x, y) is always smaller than the angle ∠κp (x, y) at p̄ in a
comparison triangle ∆(p̄, x̄, ȳ) ⊂ Mκ2 and satisfies the triangular inequality.
Acylindrically hyperbolic CAT(0) groups. We do not define acylindrically hyperbolic groups here, and refer to [Osi16] and references therein for more information
on this class of groups. We only mention the following characterisation of acylindrical
hyperbolicity in the context of CAT(0) groups (see [Gen17b, Theorem 6.40] and the
references mentioned there).
Theorem 2.3. Let G be a non virtually cyclic group acting geometrically on a CAT(0)
space. Then G is acylindrically hyperbolic if and only if X contains a contracting
geodesic ray.

3

Recall that, given a metric space (S, d), a subspace Y ⊂ S is contracting if there exists
some B ≥ 0 such that the nearest-point projection onto Y of any ball which is disjoint
from Y has diameter at most B. The strategy to prove our main theorem will be to
construct a contracting geodesic line. To be precise, we will construct a slim geodesic
line, as define in [CS15].
Definition 2.4. Let X be a CAT(0) space. A geodesic line γ ⊂ X is slim if there
exists some δ ≥ 0 such that, for every x ∈ X and every y ∈ γ, the distance between the
projection of x onto γ and the geodesic [x, y] is at most δ.
According to [CS15, Theorem 2.4], being contracting and being slim for a geodesic line
in a CAT(0) space are equivalent.

3

Barely CAT(-1) groups

In this section, we prove the main result of our article. Namely:
Theorem 3.1. Let G be a group acting geometrically on some geodesically complete
proper CAT(0) space X. Suppose that X contains at least one point with a CAT(-1)
neighborhood. Then G must be either virtually cyclic or acylindrically hyperbolic.
For convenience, from now on we will refer to points admitting CAT(-1) neighborhoods
as CAT(-1) points. Our theorem will be a consequence of Propositions 3.2 and 3.6
below. The first proposition shows that X must contain some geodesic line passing
through infinitely many CAT(-1) points in such a way that the distance between any
two consecutive such points is uniformly bounded. Next, our second proposition states
that such a line must be slim, or equivalently, contracting. The conclusion finally follows
from Theorem 2.3.
Proposition 3.2. Let X be a geodesically complete, cocompact and proper CAT(0)
space which contains at least one point with a CAT(-1) neighborhood. Then there exists
some geodesic ray r : [0, +∞) → X and an increasing sequence (tn ) of nonnegative reals
tending to +∞ such that r(tn ) has a CAT(-1) neighborhood for every n ≥ 0 and such
that the auxiliary sequence (tn+1 − tn ) is bounded.
The proposition will follow from the following two lemmas:
Lemma 3.3. Let X be a CAT(0) space and R, δ,  > 0 some fixed constants. Set
k = δ + 1. For every geodesic ray r, the segment [r(0), x] intersects B(r(t), ) for any
t ∈ [0, δ] and x ∈ B(r(t + kR), R).
Proof. We note o = r(0), z = r(t), y = r(t + kR). Consider x ∈ B(y, R) and a
comparison triangle ∆(ō, ȳ, x̄) in E2 for the geodesic triangle ∆(o, y, x). Let ω̄ be the
intersection between [ō, x̄] and the parallel line to (ȳ, x̄) passing through z̄ and let ω be
the corresponding point on [0, x]. Then, Thales theorem gives
d(ō, z̄)
d(ω̄, z̄)
=
,
d(ō, ȳ)
d(x̄, ȳ)
and with the CAT(0) inequality we get
d(ω, z) ≤ d(ω̄, z̄) =

δR
d(ō, z̄)
d(x̄, ȳ) ≤
< .
d(ō, ȳ)
t + kR

4

Lemma 3.4. Let X be a cocompact proper CAT(0) space which contains at least one
point with a CAT(-1) neighborhood and R, , c > 0 some fixed constants. There exists
some k = k(R, , c) such that, if o, z, y, x ∈ X are points satisfying:
1. o, z, y are aligned in this order;
2. d(x, y) ≤ R and d(z, y) ≥ k;
3. B(z, c) is a CAT(-1) neighborhood of z;
then the segment [o, x] intersects the ball B(z, ).
Proof. By contradiction, assume that, for all n ∈ N, there exist on , xn , yn , zn ∈ X such
that:
• on , zn , yn are aligned in this order;
• d(xn , yn ) ≤ R and d(zn , yn ) ≥ n;
• B(zn , c) is a CAT(-1) neighborhood of zn ;
• [on , xn ] ∩ B(zn , ) = ∅.
This last assumption, together with the previous lemma, implies that


n ≤ d(zn , yn ) ≤

d(on , zn )
+1 ·R
ε


so d(on , zn ) −−−−−→ +∞. Since X is cocompact, up to translation, we may assume
n→+∞

that the sequence (zn ) stays in a compact K ⊂ X; and since d(on , zn ) and d(zn , yn )
both tend to +∞, we deduce from Arzelà-Ascoli theorem that, up to subsequence, the
segments [on , yn ] tend to a geodesic line l. Similarly, because [on , xn ] is included into
the R-neighborhood of [on , yn ] as a consequence of the convexity of the distance, up to
a subsequence the segments [on , xn ] converge to a geodesic line l0 parallel to l. These
lines are distinct since d(zn , [on , xn ]) ≥  for all n. The contradiction comes from the
Flat Strip Theorem [BH99, Theorem II.2.13] and the following fact, stating that a limit
of CAT(-1) points must be CAT(-1) as well:
Fact 3.5. Let (zn ) be a sequence of points converging to some z ∈ X such that B(zn , c)
is CAT(-1) for all n. Then B(z, 2c ) is a CAT(-1) neighborhood of z.
Indeed, for n large enough, B(z, 2c ) ⊂ B(zn , c). The conclusion follows from the convexity of balls.
Now we are ready to prove Proposition 3.2. For o, z ∈ X and R > 0 we define the
shadow Oo (z, R) to be the set of y ∈ X such that the segment [o, y] meets the ball
centered at z of radius R.
Proof of Proposition 3.2. Let Y = X/G be a compact quotient of X where G < Isom(X)
and z ∈ X a point such that B(z, 2) is a CAT(-1) neighborhood for some  > 0. Choose
R ≥ 2 + diam(Y ) and K ≥ max(R + 2, k(R, , 2)) where k(R, , 2) is the constant
from Lemma 3.4. Finally, we fix a base point o ∈ X.
We now construct by induction a sequence of points (zn ) in the G-orbit of z such that
for all n ≥ 1:
1. Oo (zn , ) ⊂ · · · ⊂ Oo (z1 , );
2. there exist zn1 , . . . , znn ∈ [o, zn ] such that znk ∈ B(zk , ),  ≤ d(znk , znk+1 ) ≤ K + R + 
and znn = zn .
5

Figure 1

Step n = 1. Simply take z = z1 .
From step n to step n + 1. Assume that z1 , . . . , zn are constructed. Since X is
geodesically complete, we can extend the segment [o, zn ] to a geodesic ray rn and consider
the point yn on rn such that d(yn , zn ) = K. By the choice of K and Lemma 3.4, we
have
Oo (yn , R) ⊂ Oo (zn , ).
Moreover, since the orbit of z is diam(Y )-dense, by choice of R, there is some zn+1 ∈ G·z
such that B(zn+1 , ) ⊂ B(yn , R). It follows that
Oo (zn+1 , ) ⊂ Oo (yn , R) ⊂ Oo (zn , ),
and so, [o, zn+1 ] meets every ball B(zk , ), k = 1, . . . , n. Finally, if one fixes some
k
zn+1
∈ B(zk , ) ∩ [o, zn+1 ], then for k ≤ n − 1 we have
k+1
k+1
k
k
d(zn+1
, zn+1
) ≤ d(zn+1
, zk ) + d(zk , yk+1 ) + d(yk+1 , zn+1
) ≤  + K + R,

and
k+1
k+1
k
k
d(zn+1
, zn+1
) ≥ d(zk , yk+1 ) − d(zn+1
, zk ) − d(yk+1 , zn+1
) ≥ K − R −  ≥ .

By Arzelà-Ascoli theorem, up to subsequence, the sequence of segments [z1 , zn ] converges
to some geodesic ray r uniformly on compact sets. By construction, r meets each
closed ball B̄(zn , ) at some point r(tn ) such that  ≤ tn+1 − tn ≤ R + K +  and
B(r(tn ), ) ⊂ B(zn , 2) is a CAT(-1) neighborhood.
Now, we focus on the second step of the proof of Theorem 3.1. Namely:
Proposition 3.6. Let X be a CAT(0) space and γ : R → X a geodesic line passing
through infinitely many CAT(-1) points in such a way that the distance between any two
consecutive such points is uniformly bounded from above and from zero. Then γ is a
slim geodesic.
Inspired from [KL95], our proof is based on the Gauss-Bonnet formula. We begin by
recalling a few definitions.
Definition 3.7. Let X be a polygonal complex. A corner (v, C) is the data of a vertex
v ∈ X and a polygon C ⊂ X containing v. Given a vertex v ∈ X (resp. a polygon
R ⊂ X), we denote by corner(v) (resp. corner(R)) the set of corners based at v (resp.
the set of corners supported by R).
6

Definition 3.8. An angled polygonal complex (X, ∠) is the data of a polygonal complex
X and a map
∠ : {corners of X} → R.
The curvature of a vertex v ∈ X is defined as
κ(v) = 2π − π · χ (link(v)) −

X

∠(v),

c∈corner(v)

and the curvature of a polygon R ⊂ X as
X

κ(R) =

∠(c) − π · |∂R| + 2π.

c∈corner(R)

It is worth noticing that, if R is a triangle, then its curvature coincides with minus its
deficiency, denoted by def(R), ie., the difference between π and the sum of its angles.
As proved in [MW02, Theorem 4.6], this formalism allows us to recover a combinatorial
version of the well-known Gauss-Bonnet formula.
Combinatorial Gauss-Bonnet formula. Let (X, ∠) be an angled polygonal complex.
Then
X
X
κ(R) = 2π · χ(X).
κ(v) +
v vertex

R polygon

Now we are ready to prove Proposition 3.6.
Proof of Proposition 3.6. Let x ∈
/ γ and y ∈ γ be two points, and let z ∈ γ denote
the projection of x onto γ. Fix some constants , L, R > 0 such that a ball of radius
 centered at some CAT(-1) point is CAT(-1) and such that the distance between any
two consecutive CAT(-1) points along γ is at most L and at least R. Without loss
of generality, we may suppose that R > 2. Suppose that there exist N consecutive
CAT(-1) points x1 , . . . , xN ∈ γ between z and y such that B(xi , ) ∩ [x, y] = ∅ for every
1 ≤ i ≤ N . For every 1 ≤ i ≤ N , fix a point yi ∈ [z, x] ∪ [x, y] whose projection onto
γ is xi ; notice that, because the projection of [x, z] is reduced to the singleton {z},
necessarily yi ∈ [x, y]. Finally, for every 1 ≤ i ≤ N , let ai ∈ [xi−1 , xi ], bi ∈ [xi , yi ] and
ci ∈ [xi , xi+1 ] be the unique points of the corresponding segments at distance  from xi
(for convenience, we set x0 = z and xN +1 = y). The configuration is summarised by
Figure 2.
Denote by ∆ the union of the geodesics
• [x, y], [y, z] and [x, z];
• [yi , bi ] for every 1 ≤ i ≤ N ;
• [bi , ai ] and [bi , ci ] for every 1 ≤ i ≤ N ;
• [yi , ci ], [yi , ai+1 ] and [yi , bi+1 ] for every 0 ≤ i ≤ N − 1 (setting y0 = x and x0 = z).
Roughly speaking, ∆ is a triangulation of the geodesic triangle T (x, y, z). Now, consider
a comparison triangle T (x̄, ȳ, z̄) of T (x, y, z). For every 1 ≤ i ≤ N , let xi , yi , ai , ci denote
the preimages of xi , yi , ai , ci respectively under the map T (x̄, ȳ, z̄) → T (x, y, z). This
map has a natural extension
T (x̄, ȳ, z̄) ∪

N
[

[y i , xi ] → T (x, y, z) ∪

i=1

N
[

[yi , xi ],

i=1

7

Figure 2

sending each segment [y i , xi ] to the geodesic [yi , xi ] by an affine map. We denote by bi
the preimage of bi under this map, for every 1 ≤ i ≤ N . By triangulating T (x̄, ȳ, z̄) as
T (x, y, z), one gets a planar triangle complex ∆, and a map f : ∆ → ∆ extending the
comparison map T (x̄, ȳ, z̄) → T (x, y, z).
From now on, the triangles (ci , ai , bi ) for 1 ≤ i ≤ N , and their images under f , will be
referred to as CAT(-1) triangles. Notice that a CAT(-1) triangle in ∆ is contained into
a ball of radius  centered at a CAT(-1) point, so it lies in a CAT(-1) subspace. For
every triangle δ of ∆, we assign angles to its corners by the following rules:
• for non CAT(-1) triangles, we assign the angles of a comparison triangle in E2 ;
• for the CAT(-1) triangle (āi , b̄i , c̄i ) we assign to the vertex āi (respectively c̄i ) the
corresponding angle in a comparison triangle in H2 for (ai , bi , xi ) (respectively
(ci , bi , xi )) and to the vertex b̄i the corresponding angle in a comparison triangle
in H2 for (ai , bi , ci ).




We emphasize that the angle ∠c̄i āi , b̄i , for instance, denotes the angle as defined
above, and not the corresponding angle in the Euclidean triangulation ∆.
The plan is to apply the Gauss-Bonnet formula in order to bound the number N . So
we need to investigate the curvatures of the vertices and triangles of ∆.
Claim 3.9. The curvature of any vertex of ∆, different from x̄, ȳ, z̄ or the b̄i for 1 ≤
i ≤ N , is nonpositive.
Fix some 1 ≤ i ≤ N . We want to compute the curvature of c̄i . Notice that
∠ci (ai , bi ) + ∠ci (bi , y i ) + ∠ci (y i , ai+1 )
is at least
∠ci (ai , bi ) + ∠ci (bi , yi ) + ∠ci (yi , ai+1 ) ≥ ∠ci (ai , ai+1 ) = π.
Consequently, κ(ci ) ≤ 0. The same argument implies that κ(ȳi ) and κ(āi ) are nonpositive. This concludes the proof of our claim.
Let (a0i , b0i , x0i ) and (c00i , b00i , x00i ) be comparison triangles in H2 of (ai , bi , xi ) and (ci , bi , xi )
respectively. These are isosceles triangles with angles at least π2 at x0i and x00i respectively.
¯
In particular, by definition of the angles in ∆,
∠āi (b̄i , c̄i ) = ∠a0i (b0i , x0i ) = ∠b0i (a0i , x0i ),
8

∠c̄i (b̄i , āi ) = ∠c00i (b00i , x00i ) = ∠b00i (c00i , x00i ),
where ∠a0i (b0i , x0i ), ∠b0i (a0i , x0i ), ∠c00i (b00i , x00i ), ∠b00i (c00i , x00i ) are the angles measured in H2 .
Claim 3.10. For 1 ≤ i ≤ N , we have κ(b̄i ) ≤ ∠b0i (a0i , x0i ) + ∠b00i (x00i , c00i ) − ∠b̄i (āi , c̄i ).
Fix some 1 ≤ i ≤ N . The same argument as before shows that
u := ∠bi (y i , y i−1 ) + ∠bi (y i−1 , ai ) + ∠b0i (a0i , x0i ) + ∠bi (y i , ci ) + ∠b00i (c00i , x00i )
is at least 2π. Since
κ(b̄i ) = 2π − (u − ∠b0i (a0i , x0i ) − ∠b00i (x00i , c00i ) + ∠b̄i (āi , c̄i )),
this proves the claim.
Next, notice that the curvature of a triangle of ∆ which is not CAT(-1) is zero, since its
angles come from a Euclidean triangle. Therefore,
X

κ(δ) =

δ triangle

X

κ(δ).

δ CAT(-1)

¯ Recall that the deficiency def(δi ) of δi is the
Let δi be the triangle (āi , b̄i , c̄i ) in ∆.
difference between π and the sum of its angles, that is
def(δi ) = π − (∠āi (b̄i , c̄i ) + ∠c̄i (āi , b̄i ) + ∠b̄i (āi , c̄i ))
= π − (∠a0i (b0i , x0i ) + ∠c00i (b00i , x00i ) + ∠b̄i (āi , c̄i ))
= π − (∠b0i (a0i , x0i ) + ∠b00i (c00i , x00i ) + ∠b̄i (āi , c̄i )).
Claim 3.11.

s

N
X

(κ(b̄i ) − def(δi )) ≤ −N π − 4 arccos

i=1

cosh()
cosh() + 1

!!

.

We will use the following hyperbolic trigonometry formula:
Lemma 3.12. [Bus10, Theorem 2.2.1(ii)] Let ∆ be a geodesic triangle in H2 with sides
of length a, b, c and respective opposite angles α, β, γ. Then
cos(γ) = sin(α) sin(β) cosh(c) − cos(α) cos(β).
As a consequence of Claim 3.10,
κ(b̄i ) − def(δi ) ≤ ∠b0i (a0i , x0i ) + ∠b00i (x00i , c00i ) − ∠b̄i (āi , c̄i ) + ∠b0i (a0i , x0i ) + ∠b00i (c00i , x00i )
+ ∠b̄i (āi , c̄i ) − π
≤ 2(∠b0i (a0i , x0i ) + ∠b00i (x00i , c00i )) − π.
By applying Lemma 3.12 to the triangle (a0i , b0i , x0i ), we deduce that
0 ≥ cos ∠x0i (a0i , b0i )
≥ sin ∠a0i (b0i , x0i ) sin ∠b0i (a0i , x0i ) cosh(d(a0i , b0i )) − cos ∠a0i (b0i , x0i ) cos ∠b0i (a0i , x0i )
≥





1 − cos2 ∠b0i (a0i , x0i ) cosh(d(ai , bi )) − cos2 ∠b0i (a0i , x0i )

So we get, since ∠b0i (a0i , x0i ) ≤ π2 , that
s

cos ∠b0i (a0i , x0i )

≥

cosh(d(ai , bi ))
.
1 + cosh(d(ai , bi ))

9

Notice that d(ai , bi ) is greater than  since the triangle (a0i , b0i , x0i ) is isoscele with angle at
cosh(x)
is increasing. Therefore,
least π2 at x0i and d(x0i , a0i ) = . Also notice that x 7→ cosh(x)+1
since cosinus is a decreasing function on [0, π], we obtain that
s

∠b0i (a0i , x0i ) ≤ arccos

!

cosh()
.
1 + cosh()

Similarly, one has
s

∠b00i (c00i , x00i )

≤ arccos

!

cosh()
.
1 + cosh()

Thus,
s

κ(b̄i ) − def(δi ) ≤ 4 arccos

cosh()
1 + cosh()

!

− π.

This concludes the proof of the claim.
Finally, by applying the Gauss-Bonnet formula to ∆, one deduces that
s

2π =

X

κ(v) +

v vertex

X

κ(δ) ≤ 3π − N π − 4 arccos

δ triangle

hence

s

N π − 4 arccos
r

Notice that π − 4 arccos
strictly greater than
Hence,

1
2)

cosh()
cosh()+1

since x 7→

cosh()
cosh() + 1

cosh()
cosh() + 1

≤ π.

is strictly positive (or equivalently,
is increasing and takes value
π

N ≤ η() :=

r

π − 4 arccos

,

!!


cosh(x)
cosh(x)+1

!!

cosh()
cosh()+1

cosh()
cosh()+1
1
2

is

at zero.

.

So far, we have proved that, given our points x ∈
/ γ and y ∈ γ, there exist at most η()
CAT(-1) points along γ separating y and the projection z of x onto γ such that the balls
of radii  centered at these points are all disjoint from the geodesic [x, y]. Therefore,
either [z, y] contains at most η() consecutive CAT(-1) points, so that
d(z, [x, y]) ≤ d(z, y) ≤ (η() + 1) · L,
or there exist more than η() consecutive CAT(-1) points in [z, y], so that, if c ∈ [z, y]
denotes the (η() + 1)-th CAT(-1) point (starting from z to y), then
d(z, [x, y]) ≤ d(z, c) +  ≤ η() · L + 
since [x, y] must intersect the ball B(c, ). Consequently, the geodesic γ is K-slim where
K = (η() + 1) · L + .
Proof of Theorem 3.1. According to Proposition 3.2, there exists a geodesic ray r and
an increasing sequence (tn ) of nonnegative reals tending to +∞ such that the point r(tn )
has a CAT(-1) neighborhood for every n ≥ 0 and such that the sequence (tn+1 − tn )
is bounded. For every n ≥ 0, let gn ∈ G be an isometry translating r(tn ) into some
fixed compact fundamental domain. Because X is proper, we deduce from Arzelà-Ascoli
theorem that the sequence of rays (gn · rn ) subconverges to a geodesic line γ. Moreover,
since the limit of a sequence of CAT(-1) points must be a CAT(-1) point according to
10

Fact 3.5, we know that γ passes through infinitely many CAT(-1) points in such a way
that the distance between any two consecutive such points is uniformly bounded from
above and from zero. According to Proposition 3.6, this geodesic must be slim, and
finally contracting according to [CS15, Theorem 2.4]. The desired conclusion follows
from Theorem 2.3.
Let us conclude this section with an open question. Define barely CAT(-1) groups as
groups acting geometrically on geodesically complete proper CAT(0) spaces containing
points with CAT(-1) neighborhoods. It would be interesting to determine if barely
CAT(-1) groups satisfy stronger hyperbolic properties than just being acylindrically
hyperbolic. Notice that, in Section 5, an example of a barely CAT(-1) group which is
not relatively hyperbolic is given. A naive question is:
Question 3.13. Must an acylindrically hyperbolic CAT(0) group be barely CAT(-1)?
For instance, when is a right-angled Artin group barely CAT(-1)?

4

Cubical case

In this section, one restricts our attention to CAT(0) cube complexes. It is worth
noticing that, endowed with its usual CAT(0) metric, a CAT(0) cube complex cannot
contain a point admitting a CAT(-1) neighborhood, as each cube is isometric to a (flat)
Euclidean cube. A fortiori, Theorem 3.1 does not apply. A naive attempt to get more
hyperbolicity would be to identify each cube with a fixed hyperbolic cube, but the cube
complex one obtains in that way may be no longer CAT(0). Nevertheless, in [Gro87,
Section 4.2.C], Gromov notices that, by endowing each cube of a given CAT(0) cube
complex with the metric of a hyperbolic cube, the geodesic metric space thus obtained
turns out to be CAT(-1) provided the vertices of our cube complex have no cycles of
length four in their links. This observation motivates our next definition.
Definition 4.1. In a CAT(0) cube complex, a CAT(-1) vertex is a vertex without cycles
of length four in its link.
Now, thanks to Caprace and Sageev’s work on the Rank Rigidity Conjecture [CS11],
we are able to find a cubical analogue of Theorem 3.1. Before stating our result, let us
recall a few definitions.
• If a group G acts on some CAT(0) cube complex X, the action is essential if, for
every halfspace D ⊂ X and every vertex x ∈ X, the orbit G · x does not lie in any
neighborhood of D.
• If a group G acts on some metric space X, the action is non-uniformly weakly
acylindrical if there exists some constant L ≥ 0 such that, for any pair of points
x, y ∈ X at distance at least L apart, the intersection stab(x) ∩ stab(y) is finite.
Notice that, for instance, any proper action is non-uniformly weakly acylindrical. Also,
most of the time, assuming that an action on a CAT(0) cube complex is essential is not
really restrictive; see [CS11, Proposition 3.5].
Proposition 4.2. Let G be a group acting essentially and non-uniformly weakly acylindrically on some finite-dimensional CAT(0) cube complex X. Suppose that one the
following two conditions holds:
• G does not fix a point in X ∪ ∂∞ X;
• or X is locally finite and G acts cocompactly on X.
11

If X contains a CAT(-1) vertex, then G must be either virtually cyclic or acylindrically
hyperbolic.
Proof. If X contains a CAT(-1) vertex, then it cannot split as a Cartesian product of two
cube complexes. Therefore, [CS11, Theorem 6.3] implies that G contains a contracting
isometry, say g ∈ G. As the action G y X is non-uniformly weakly acylindrical, it
follows from [Gen16c, Theorem 3.13] and [Gen16a, Theorem 17] that such an isometry
is necessarily WPD, ie., for every d ≥ 0 and every x ∈ X, there exists some constant
N ≥ 0 such that the set
n





o

h ∈ G | d(x, hx), d g N x, hg N x ≤ d

is finite. It follows from [BBF15, Theorems H and I] that G must be either virtually
cyclic or acylindrically hyperbolic.
As a particular case of the previous proposition, one gets the following statement:
Corollary 4.3. A group acting geometrically and essentially on a CAT(0) cube complex which contains a CAT(-1) vertex must be either virtually cyclic or acylindrically
hyperbolic.
Example 4.4. Let Σg be a compact orientable surface of genus g ≥ 2. We think of Σg
as obtained from a hyperbolic regular right-angled 4g-gon by identifying parallel sides
in the usual way. Each side of this polygon defines a loop in Σg , which we refer to as a
canonical loop. Similarly, we think of the torus Σ1 as obtained from a Euclidean square
by identifying parallel sides in the usual way; and we refer to the image in Σ1 of any side
of our square as a canonical loop. Up to rescaling our metrics, we may suppose without
loss of generality that any canonical loop in any of our surfaces has a fixed length. Now,
let S be a space obtained by gluing compact orientable surfaces along canonical loops
by isometries; let Σ denote the underlying collection of surfaces. The universal cover Se
of S is naturally a polygonal complex. Moreover, if one adds a central vertex to each
polygon which is not a square and if one links this new vertex to half of the vertices of
the corresponding polygon, one obtain a square complex, which turns out to be CAT(0)
provided that the graph underlying our graph of spaces is triangle-free. By noticing
that each of our central vertices are CAT(-1), it follows from Proposition 4.2 that the
fundamental group π1 (S) must be acylindrically hyperbolic, if the collection Σ contains
at least one surface of genus at least two.

5

A non relatively hyperbolic barely CAT(-1) group

Let Σ denote the graph of spaces given by Figure 3. More explicitely, let S be a compact
orientable surface of genus two and T1 , T2 , T3 , T4 , T12 , T23 , T34 seven tori. We denote by
a1 , a2 , a3 , a4 the canonical loops of S (ordered by following a fixed cyclic order on the
boundary of the polygon corresponding to S); by aii , bii the canonical loops of the torus
Ti ; and by bi,i+1
, bi,i+1
i
i+1 the canonical loops of the torus Ti,i+1 . The space Σ is obtained
from these eight surfaces by gluing each Ti to S by identifying ai and aii , and by gluing
i
i
Ti,i+1 to Ti and Ti+1 by identifying bii,i+1 and bi,i+1
i+1 respectively to bi and bi+1 .
It follows from [BH99, Proposition II.11.6] that Σ is locally CAT(0). Moreover, each
subsurface is locally isometrically embedded, so that any point on the surface of genus
two which does not belong to any torus admits a CAT(-1) neighborhood. Next, notice
e of Σ is geodesically complete, as a union of Euclidean and
that the universal cover Σ
e Consequently, the fundamental group G of
hyperbolic planes (which are convex in Σ).
Σ is barely CAT(-1).
12

Figure 3: A non relatively hyperbolic barely CAT(-1) group.

Fact 5.1. The group G is not relatively hyperbolic.
First of all, notice that G admits the following presentation:
*

a1 , a2 , a3 , a4
b1 , b2 , b3 , b4

[a1 , a2 ][a3 , a4 ] = [b1 , b2 ] = [b2 , b3 ] = [b3 , b4 ] = 1
[a1 , b1 ] = [a2 , b2 ] = [a3 , b3 ] = [a4 , b4 ] = 1

+

Suppose that our group G is hyperbolic relatively to some finite collection of subgroups.
As a consequence of [Osi06, Theorems 4.16 and 4.19], every non cyclic free abelian
subgroup of G must be contained into some peripheral subgroup, so, for every 1 ≤ i ≤ 4
(resp. 1 ≤ j ≤ 3), there exists some peripheral subgroup Hi (resp. Kj ) containing both
ai and bi (resp. bj and bj+1 ). Notice that
bi ∈ Hi ∩ Ki for every 1 ≤ i ≤ 4, and bi ∈ Ki ∩ Ki+1 for every 1 ≤ i ≤ 3.
Since the collection of peripheral subgroups must be malnormal according to [Osi06,
Theorems 1.4 and 1.5], it follows that H1 = H2 = H3 = H4 = K1 = K2 = K3 .
Let H denote this common peripheral subgroup. Since H contains all the generators,
necessarily G = H. This proves our fact.

References
[AH16]

G. Arzhantseva and M. Hagen. Acylindrical hyperbolicity of cubical smallcancellation groups. arXiv:1603.05725, 2016.

[BBF15] Mladen Bestvina, Ken Bromberg, and Koji Fujiwara. Constructing group
actions on quasi-trees and applications to mapping class groups. Publications
mathématiques de l’IHÉS, 122(1):1–64, 2015.
[BF02]

M. Bestvina and K. Fujiwara. Bounded cohomology of subgroups of mapping
class groups. Geometry and Topology, 6:69–89, 2002.
13

[BF10]

Mladen Bestvina and Mark Feighn. A hyperbolic Out(Fn )-complex. Groups,
Geometry, and Dynamics, 4(1):31–58, 2010.

[BH99]

Martin R. Bridson and André Haefliger. Metric spaces of non-positive curvature, volume 319 of Grundlehren der Mathematischen Wissenschaften [Fundamental Principles of Mathematical Sciences]. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1999.

[Bus10]

Peter Buser. Geometry and spectra of compact Riemann surfaces. Springer
Science & Business Media, 2010.

[CM16]

I. Chatterji and A. Martin. A note on the acylindrical hyperbolicity of groups
acting on CAT(0) cube complexes. arXiv:1610.06864, 2016.

[CS11]

Pierre-Emmanuel Caprace and Michah Sageev. Rank rigidity for CAT(0) cube
complexes. Geom. Funct. Anal., 21(4):851–891, 2011.

[CS15]

Ruth Charney and Harold Sultan. Contracting boundaries of CAT(0) spaces.
J. Topol., 8(1):93–117, 2015.

[CW16]

M. Calvez and B. Wiest. Acylindrical hyperbolicity and Artin-Tits groups of
spherical type. arXiv:1606.07778, 2016.

[DGO17] François Dahmani, Vincent Guirardel, and Denis Osin. Hyperbolically embedded subgroups and rotating families in groups acting on hyperbolic spaces,
volume 245. American Mathematical Society, 2017.
[Gen16a] A. Genevois. Acylindrical action on the hyperplanes of a CAT(0) cube complex. arXiv:1610.08759, 2016.
[Gen16b] A. Genevois. Coning-off CAT(0) cube complexes. arXiv:1603.06513, 2016.
[Gen16c] A. Genevois. Contracting isometries of CAT(0) cube complexes and acylindricaly hyperbolicity of diagram groups. arXiv:1610.07791, 2016.
[Gen17a] A. Genevois. Algebraic characterisations of negatively-curved special groups
and applications to graph braid groups. arXiv:1709.01258, 2017.
[Gen17b] A. Genevois. Hyperbolicities in cat(0) cube complexes. arXiv:1709.08843,
2017.
[Gro87]

M. Gromov. Hyperbolic groups. Essays in group theory, 8(75-263):2, 1987.

[Gro93]

M. Gromov. Asymptotic invariants of infinite groups. In Geometric group
theory, Vol. 2 (Sussex, 1991), volume 182 of London Math. Soc. Lecture Note
Ser., pages 1–295. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1993.

[GS14]

D. Gruber and A. Sisto. Infinitely presented graphical small cancellation
groups are acylindrically hyperbolic. arXiv:1408.4488, 2014.

[Hru10]

G Christopher Hruska. Relative hyperbolicity and relative quasiconvexity for
countable groups. Algebraic & Geometric Topology, 10(3):1807–1856, 2010.

[KL95]

M. Kapovich and B. Leeb. On asymptotic cones and quasi-isometry classes
of fundamental groups of 3-manifolds. Geometric and Functional Analysis,
5(3):582–603, 1995.

[Lon15]

A. Lonjou.
Non simplicité du groupe de cremona sur tout corps.
arXiv:1503.03731, 2015.
14

[LS77]

C. Lyndon and P. E. Schupp. Combinatorial group theory. Ergebnisse der
Mathematik und ihrer Grenzgebiete 89. Springer, Berlin, 1977.

[MO15]

Ashot Minasyan and Denis Osin. Acylindrical hyperbolicity of groups acting
on trees. Mathematische Annalen, 362(3):1055–1105, 2015.

[MW02] J. McCammond and D. Wise. Fans and ladders in small cancellation theory.
Proc. London Math. Soc., 84(3):599–644, 2002.
[Osi06]

D. Osin. Relatively hyperbolic groups: intrinsic geometry, algebraic properties, and algorithmic problems. Mem. Amer. Math. Soc., 179(843):vi–100,
2006.

[Osi15]

D. Osin. On acylindrical hyperbolicity of groups with positive first `2 -Betti
number. Bulletin of the London Mathematical Society, 47(5):725, 2015.

[Osi16]

D. Osin. Acylindrically hyperbolic groups. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 368:851–
888, 2016.

15

