arXiv:1803.04095v2 [math.GT] 4 Apr 2018

Action dimensions of some simple complexes
of groups
Michael W. Davis

Giang Le

Kevin Schreve

April 5, 2018
Abstract
The action dimension of a discrete group G is the minimum dimension
of contractible manifold that admits a proper G-action. We compute
the action dimension of the direct limit of a simple complex of groups
for several classes of examples including: 1) Artin groups, 2) graph
products of groups, and 3) fundamental groups of aspherical complements of arrangements of affine hyperplanes.
AMS classification numbers. Primary: 20F36, 20F55, 20F65,
57S30, 57Q35, Secondary: 20J06, 32S22
Keywords: action dimension, Artin group, Coxeter group, complex
of groups, graph product, hyperplane arrangement

Introduction
Suppose G is a discrete, torsion-free group with classifying space BG. Its
geometric dimension, gdim(G), is the smallest dimension of a model for its
classifying space BG by a CW complex. This number is equal to cd G, the
cohomological dimension of G (provided cd G 6= 2). Its action dimension,
actdim G, is the smallest dimension of a model for BG by a manifold. In other
words, actdim G is the minimum dimension of a thickening of a CW model
for BG to a manifold, possibly with boundary. It follows that gdim G ≤
actdim G with equality if and only if BG is homotopy equivalent to a closed
manifold. From general principles, actdim G ≤ 2 gdim G.
A common method of constructing groups and their classifying spaces
is to use the notion of a “complex of groups” (cf. [6]). Here we will only
1

use the easier notion of a simple complex of groups over a poset Q. By
definition, this means a functor, GQ, from Q to the category of groups
and monomorphisms. So, GQ is the following data: a collection of groups
{Gσ }σ∈Q and monomorphisms φστ : Gτ → Gσ , defined when τ < σ and
satisfying φστ φτ µ = φσµ when µ < τ < σ. Suppose we have models for the
BGσ and realizations for the homomorphisms φστ by maps φστ : BGτ →
BGσ . One then can glue together the {BGσ }σ∈Q (or more precisely iterated
mapping cylinders of the φστ ) to form a space BGQ called the aspherical
realization of GQ. If the geometric realization of Q is simply connected, then
it follows from van Kampen’s Theorem that π1 (BGQ) is the direct limit, G,
of the system of groups {Gσ , φστ }. The space BGQ may or may not be
aspherical. This is the “K(π, 1)-Question” for GQ. When the answer is
affirmative, BGQ is a model for BG. In this case, we get an upper bound for
gdim G in terms of the geometric dimensions of the Gσ . Similarly, if each BGσ
is modeled by a manifold with boundary, Mσ , and each φστ is homotopic to
an embedding fστ : Mτ → ∂Mσ , then we can glue together suitably thickened
versions of the Mσ to get a thickening of BGQ to a manifold with boundary
M. So, provided the K(π, 1)-Question for GQ has a positive answer, one
gets an upper bound for the action dimension of G in terms of the action
dimensions of the {Gσ }σ∈Q
In [4], Bestvina, Kapovich, and Kleiner define a number, obdim G, called
the “obstructor dimension” of G. It is a lower bound for the action dimension
of G. It is based on the classical van Kampen obstruction, vkn (K), for
embedding a finite simplicial complex K into Rn . This obstruction is a
cohomology class with Z2 coefficients in the configuration space of unordered
pairs of distinct points in K. Suppose EG denotes the universal cover of
BG. The idea of [4] is to find a complex K and a coarse embedding of
Cone∞ K into EG, where Cone∞ K means the cone of infinite radius on K.
It is proved in [4] that vkn (K) is also an obstruction to a coarse embedding
of Cone∞ K into any contractible (n + 1)-manifold; hence, when vkn (K) 6=
0, actdim G ≥ n + 2. In [4] the obstructor dimension of G is defined to
be n + 2, where n is the largest integer so that there exists a complex K
with vkn (K) 6= 0, together with a coarse embedding of Cone∞ K into EG.
We also shall have occasion to use a variation of this notion due to Yoon
[36], called the “proper obstructor dimension of G.” His idea is to consider
coarse embeddings T → EG where T is a contractible simplicial complex,
not necessarily of the form T = Cone∞ K.
In this paper we use the following two techniques to compute the action
2

dimension for certain groups which are direct limits of simple complexes of
groups.
(I) (Gluing). Construct a thickening of BGQ by gluing together manifolds
with boundary that are models for the BGσ , hence, establishing an
upper bound for actdim G. The pieces that are to be glued together
will have the form Mσ ×Dσ where Mσ ∼ BGσ and where Dσ is a “dual
disk.” Two such pieces will be glued together along a piece that is a
common codimension-0 submanifold of both boundaries. (The details
of this method are described in Section 2.)
(II) (Obstructors). Lower bounds for obdim G (and hence, for actdim G)
are established by finding obstructors for G. In most of our examples
the coarse obstructor will be a finite union of contractible manifolds,
containing a common basepoint, each of which is the universal cover
of some closed aspherical manifold. These contractible manifolds are
called sheets. When a sheet can be compactified to a disk, it is homeomorphic to the cone on a sphere and the coarse obstructor has the
form Cone∞ K where K is some configuration of spheres (K will often
be a “polyhedral join” of spheres, cf. Definition 4.6). So, such cases
reduce to calculating van Kampen obstructions vkn (K).
A necessary condition for BGQ to be aspherical is that the geometric
realization |Q| of the poset Q is contractible (see Remark 1.6). Often this will
be automatic, since if Q has a minimum element for which the corresponding
local group is the trivial group, then |Q| is a cone. If Q has such a minimum
element, then at the final stage of (I) we will need to glue a disk onto the
result of previous gluings. This will entail that each of previous manifolds
Mσ has nonempty boundary. However, if Q has no such minimum, then for
any minimal element σ of Q one can allow Mσ to be a closed manifold. We
shall return to this point later in the Introduction.
In most applications Q will be the poset S(L) of simplices in some simplicial complex L, including the empty simplex (so |S(L)| will be a cone).
A prototypical example is the case where G = AL , the right-angled Artin
group (or “RAAG”) associated to a d-dimensional flag complex L. Then
the simple complex of groups is the Artin complex, AS(L) = {Aσ }σ∈S(L) of
spherical Artin subgroups, BAL is the standard model for its classifying space
as a union of tori, and gdim AL = d + 1. It turns out that the appropriate
3

obstructor is the polyhedral join of 0-spheres O1 L, called the octahedralization
of L. The following two results are proved in [1, Theorems 5.1 and 5.2].
(i) If Hd (L, Z2 ) 6= 0, then vk2d (O1 L) 6= 0. Hence, actdim AL = obdim AL =
2d + 2.
(ii) If Hd (L, Z2 ) = 0 and d 6= 2, then actdim AL ≤ 2d + 1.
We discuss below three generalizations of RAAGs: 1) general Artin groups,
2) graph products of fundamental groups of closed aspherical manifolds, and
3) fundamental groups of aspherical complements of affine hyperplane arrangements. In each case we prove results similar to (i) and (ii) above. In all
three cases the relevant obstructor will be a polyhedral join Om L of (m − 1)spheres. Although we conjecture that a result similar to (ii) holds in both
cases 1) and 2), the proof of (ii) for RAAGs uses a special argument. (AL
is a subgroup of the right-angled Coxeter group corresponding to O1 L; if
vk2d (O1L) = 0, then O1 L embeds in a flag triangulation of S 2d and hence,
the Coxeter group is a subgroup of a Coxeter group that acts cocompactly
on a contractible (2d + 1)-manifold.) When the group is not a RAAG, we
instead use gluing methods to prove the analog of (ii) in the case where L
embeds in a contractible simplicial complex of the same dimension d. We
abbreviate this condition by saying that L is EDCE. (Note: if L is EDCE,
then Hd (L; Z2 ) = 0.)
1) (General Artin groups). Suppose AL is the Artin group, where the simplicial complex L is the nerve of the associated Coxeter system. The Artin
complex AS(L) is the simple complex of groups {Aσ }σ∈S(L) of spherical Artin
subgroups. The group AL is the direct limit of the system of groups defined
by AS(L). Conjecturally, the K(π, 1)-Question has an affirmative answer
for all Artin complexes. This is known in many cases (see [7]). When the
answer is affirmative, BAS(L) is covered by the “Salvetti complex” of AL
and gdim AL = dim BAS(L) = d + 1. The next result is proved in [15] and
[30]. We shall give the details of the arguments in Sections 2 and 4.
Theorem A (cf. [15] and Proposition 3.13). Suppose the K(π, 1)-Question
has a positive answer for AS(L).
(i) If Hd (L; Z2 ) 6= 0, then actdim AL = obdim AL = 2d + 2 = 2 gdim AL .
(ii) If L is EDCE, then actdim AL ≤ 2d + 1.
4

In [15] it is proved that the relevant obstructor for the Artin complex
is a polyhedral join of 0-spheres, O1 L⊘ , where L⊘ is a certain subdivision
of L whose simplices index the “standard free abelian subgroups” of AL .
As before, Cone(O1 L⊘ ) coarsely embeds in EAL . The calculation of the
van Kampen obstruction in part (i) of Theorem A is then the same as its
calculation for O1 L in the case of a RAAG.
2) (Graph products). Suppose {Gv }v∈V is a collection of groups indexed by
the vertex set V of a simplicial graph L1 . The graph product G is the quotient
of the free product of the Gv by the relations that Gv and Gw commute
whenever {v, w} is an edge of L1 . Let L be the flag complex associated to L1 .
For each simplex σ ∈ S(L), Gσ denotes the direct product of the Gv over the
vertex set of σ. The graph product complex GS(L) is the simple complex of
groups {Gσ }σ∈S(L) where the monomorphisms φστ are the natural inclusions.
Obviously, G is the direct limit of the Gσ . Moreover, the K(π, 1)-Question for
GS(L) always has a positive answer (see 1.3). One can essentially determine
actdim G in terms of the actdim Gv and we do so in Sections 2 and 4. The
most interesting case is when each Gv is the fundamental group of a closed
aspherical manifold Mv . A RAAG is the special case where each Mv = S 1 .
To simplify the statements of our results, assume each vertex manifold Mv
has the same dimension m. Then gdim G = m(d + 1). Using appropriate
thickenings of the Mσ we can use gluing technique (I) to construct a manifold
M of dimension (m + 1)(d + 1) which is a model for BG. By gluing together
standard lifts of the Mσ , we get a coarsely embedded Cone∞ (Om−1 L) in EG.
We then get the following analog of Theorem A.
Theorem B (cf. Corollaries 3.3, 4.25 and 3.15). Suppose, as above, that G
is the graph product of fundamental groups of closed, aspherical m-manifolds
Mv over a d-dimensional flag complex L.
(i) If Hd (L, Z2 ) 6= 0, then actdim G = obdim G = (m + 1)(d + 1).
(ii) If L is EDCE, then actdim G ≤ (m + 1)(d + 1) − 1.
A mild generalization of this is the case where each local group Gσ is
the fundamental group of a closed aspherical manifold Mσ of dimension
m(dim(σ)+1) and where the φστ are realized by embeddings fστ : Mτ ֒→ Mσ .
In Subsection 3.1, we call such a system {Mσ }σ∈S(L) a simple complex of
closed aspherical manifolds. When L is a flag complex, the K(π, 1)-Question

5

for GS(L) has a positive answer (cf. Theorem 1.19) and the conclusion of
Theorem B holds without change.
3) (Aspherical complements of hyperplane arrangements). Suppose A is an
arrangement
of affine hyperplanes in Cn . Let M(A) denote the complement
S
n
C − A. The relevant poset Q is the intersection poset of A. Its elements
are the proper subspaces σ of Cn which are intersections of hyperplanes in
A, ordered by reverse inclusion. The minimal elements of Q are a family of
parallel subspaces, and the arrangement is essential if these are zero dimensional. For each σ ∈ Q, there is a central arrangement Aσ in the subspace
normal to σ in Cn . Put G = π1 (M(A)) and Gσ = π1 (M(Aσ )). This is the
data for a simple complex of groups GQ. Of course, M(A) need not be aspherical; however, if it is, then so are the M(Aσ ). Let us assume that M(A)
is aspherical.
Since M(A) is a 2n-manifold, actdim G ≤ 2n. If A is central (meaning that the hyperplanes are linear), then M(A) deformation retracts onto
the complement of the hyperplane arrangement in the unit sphere S 2n−1 in
Cn and hence, actdim G ≤ 2n − 1. If A is not essential, then the parallel
subspaces can be deformation retracted, and again actdim G ≤ 2n − 1. On
the other hand, for essential aspherical arrangements we have the following
theorem.
Theorem C (cf. Theorem 5.11). Let A be an essential arrangement of affine
hyperplanes in Cn . Suppose M(A) is aspherical. Let G = π1 (M(A)). If A
does not decompose as a product with a factor equivalent to a nontrivial
central arrangement, then actdim G = obdim G = 2n.
This theorem implies that if A decomposes as a product of irreducibles
and k is the number of factors which are irreducible central arrangements,
then actdim G = 2n − k.
To understand why this is an analog of the previous theorems, two points
require explanation. First, |Q(A)| is homotopy equivalent to a wedge of
(n − 1)-spheres and, when A is not central, then there is at least one sphere
in the wedge. In particular, Hn−1 (|Q|, Z2 ) 6= 0. Secondly, there is a simplicial complex IQ(A), called the “irreducible complex,” such that IQ(A) is
homotopy equivalent to |Q(A)|, and so that the simplices of IQ(A) index
the standard free abelian subgroups in G. So, IQ(A) is the analog to L⊘ .
As before, the relevant obstructor is the polyhedral join O1 (IQ(A)).
The computations are evidence for the following conjecture connecting
action dimension to L2 -cohomology.
6

The Action Dimension Conjecture. (Davis-Okun [18]). If the ith L2 Betti number of G is nonzero, then actdim G ≥ 2i.
For example, if A is an irreducible, essential, affine hyperplane arrangement in Cn such that M(A) is aspherical, then the L2 -Betti number of
π1 (M(A)) are zero in degrees 6= n and if the arrangement is irreducible
and not central, then the nth L2 -Betti number of π1 (M(A)) is nonzero, cf.
[16].
In a forthcoming paper, we will determine the action dimensions for some
more examples of simple complexes of groups. These computations provide
further evidence for the Action Dimension Conjecture.
This paper is organized as follows. In Section 1, we review simple complexes of groups and explain our main examples. In Section 2, we discuss
thickenings of simplicial complexes and explain our method of gluing together
manifolds. In Section 3, we perform this operation to give upper bounds on
action dimension for Artin groups, graph products and hyperplane complements. In Section 4, we review the van Kampen obstruction, introduce our
main example of an obstructor complex, and use it to give lower bounds
for the action dimension of graph products and other simple complexes of
groups. In Section 5, we again use obstructor complexes to compute the
action dimension of fundamental groups of hyperplane complements.
Acknowledgements. This material is based upon work supported by the
National Science Foundation under Grant No. DMS-1440140 while the authors were in residence at the Mathematical Sciences Research Institute in
Berkeley, California, during the fall semester of 2016. The first author was
partially supported by an NSA grant and he received support in the spring
of 2017 as a Simons Fellow at the Isaac Newton Institute. The third author
is partially supported by NSF grant DMS-1045119. This material is based
upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Award No.
1704364.

1
1.1

Simple complexes of groups
The basic construction

We begin by reviewing the theory of simple complexes of groups as developed
in Bridson-Haefliger [6, II.12].
7

Let Q be a poset. As in the Introduction, a simple complex of groups GQ
over Q is a collection of groups {Gσ }σ∈Q and monomorphisms φστ : Gτ → Gσ
defined whenever τ < σ. The Gσ are the local groups. Furthermore, GQ must
be a functor from Q to the category of groups and monomorphisms in the
sense that φστ φτ µ = φσµ whenever µ < τ < σ. (In [6, II.12.11, p. 375] the
order relation on Q is reversed.) A simple morphism ψ = (ψσ ) from GQ
to a group G is a function which assigns to each σ ∈ Q a homomorphism
ψσ : Gσ → G such that ψτ = ψσ φστ whenever τ < σ. The simple morphism
ψ is injective on local groups if each ψσ is injective. Such a simple complex
of groups GQ = {Gσ , φστ }; has a direct limit, denoted lim GQ.
For each σ ∈ Q, there is a canonical homomorphism ισ : Gσ → lim GQ,
hence, a canonical simple morphism ι : GQ → lim GQ. The simple complex
of groups GQ is developable if ι is injective on local groups. The direct
limit has the universal property that for any group H and simple morphism
ψ : GQ → H, there is a unique homomorphism ψ̂ : lim GQ → H such that
ψσ = ψ̂ισ (see [6, II.12.13, p. 376]).
The order complex of a poset P is the simplicial complex whose simplices
are the totally ordered finite subsets {τ0 , . . . , τk } of elements of P (where τ0 <
· · · < τk ). The underlying topological space of order complex of P is denoted
|P| and is called the geometric realization of P. If P opp denotes the opposite
poset where the order relations are reversed, then |P opp | is isomorphic to |P|.
There are two natural stratifications of |P| both indexed by P:
|P|σ := |P≤σ | and |P|σ := |P≥σ |.

(1.1)

In the first stratification, inclusion of one stratum into another corresponds
to the original order relation on P; in the second one, the order relation
is reversed. So, we should regard {|P|σ } as being indexed by P opp . Given
x ∈ |P|, let σ(x) be the index of the smallest stratum |P|σ containing x.
Given a simple complex of groups GQ and a simple morphism ψ : GQ →
G that is injective on local groups, one can define a poset D(Q, ψ) equipped
with a G-action, as well as, a space D(|Q|,
`ψ) also equipped with a G-action.
The poset D(Q, ψ) is the disjoint union Q G/Gσ , i.e., it is the set of pairs
(gGσ , σ), where σ ∈ Q and g ∈ G. (Here we are identifying ψσ (Gσ ) with
Gσ .) The order relation is defined by inclusion of cosets, i.e.,
(gGσ , σ) < (g ′Gσ′ , σ ′ ) ⇐⇒ σ < σ ′ and (g ′)−1 g ∈ Gσ′
The space D(|Q|, ψ) is called the basic construction or the development of
(|Q|, ψ). It is the quotient of G × |Q| by the equivalence relation ∼ defined
8

by
(g, x) ∼ (g ′, x′ ) ⇐⇒ x = x′ and gGσ(x) = g ′Gσ(x) .

(1.2)

One checks that D(|Q|, ψ) is the geometric realization of D(Q, ψ). Let [g, x]
denote the equivalence class of (g, x). The natural G-action on D(|Q|, ψ)
is induced from the action of G on itself by left translation; the isotropy
subgroup at [g, x] is gGσ(x) g −1 , and projection onto the second factor identifies the orbit space with |Q|. The orbit projection D(|Q|, ψ) → |Q| has
a a section i : |Q| → D(|Q|, ψ) defined by i : x 7→ [1, x]. Thus, i(|Q|) is
a strict fundamental domain for the G-action on D(|Q|, ψ). (To say that a
closed subspace of a G-space is a strict fundamental domain means that it
intersects each orbit in exactly one point.) Note that this implies that |Q| is
a retract of D(|Q|, ψ) (the orbit projection is the retraction).
Remark 1.1. Suppose G acts on a space D with a strict fundamental domain
Y so that the stratification of Y by closures of points of the same orbit type
{Y σ }σ∈Q is indexed by some poset Qopp and so that for any point y ∈ Yσ , the
isotropy subgroup Gy contains Gσ . This gives the data for a simple complex
of groups GQ over Q, where the local group Gσ is the isotropy subgroup at
a generic point of Y σ . There is a canonical simple morphism ψ = (ψσ ) from
GQ to G corresponding to the inclusions Gσ ֒→ G. As before, one defines
the development of Y with respect to ψ by D(Y, ψ) = (G × Y )/ ∼, where
the equivalence relation ∼ is defined as in (1.2). Moreover, the inclusion
Y ֒→ D extends to a G-equivariant homeomorphism D(Y, ψ) → D (see
[6, Prop. 12.20 (1), II.12]). In other words, D is determined by the strict
fundamental domain Y , the group G and the simple morphism from GQ to
G. (In previous work of the first author, e.g., [13, §5.1], the basic construction
is denoted by U(G, Y ) rather than by D(Y, ψ).)
Next, we recall a basic lemma, which can be found as [6, Prop. 12.20 (4),
II.12] or [35, Thms. 6, 10, pp. 32, 39].
Lemma 1.2. Let GQ be a developable simple complex of groups over Q. Let
ψ be a simple morphism from GQ to a group G and let ψ̂ : lim GQ → G be the
induced homomorphism. Suppose |Q| is simply connected. Then D(|Q|, ψ)
is simply connected if and only if ψ̂ is an isomorphism. (In particular, if
G = lim GQ, then D(|Q|, ι) is simply connected.)
Remark 1.3. Although we will not define the concepts of the “universal
cover” or the “fundamental group” for a general complex of groups, we will
9

give definitions for simple complexes of groups which agree with the more
general definitions in [6]. Put G = lim GQ and let ι : GQ → G be the
canonical simple morphism. First suppose |Q| is simply connected. Then,
since D(|Q|, ι) is simply connected (by Lemma 1.2), D(|Q|, ι) is the universal
cover of GQ and π1 (GQ) = G (cf. bh [6, III.C.3.11(1), p. 551]). If |Q| is
not connected, then each component of |Q| gives its own simple complex of
groups and can be treated separately. So, suppose |Q| is connected, but not
necessarily simply connected. Put π = π1 (|Q|). The poset structure on |Q|
lifts to a poset structure P on the universal cover of |Q| (so that the universal
cover of |Q| is |P|). The group of deck transformations π acts on |P| and on
P. Let p : P → Q be the projection. We have a simple complex of groups
GP defined by Gσ̃ = Gσ where σ̃ ∈ P lies above σ. Put G̃ = lim GP and let
ι̃ : GP → G̃ be the canonical simple morphism. By Lemma 1.2, the basic
construction D(|P|, ι̃) is simply connected. The group π acts on GP and
hence, on G̃. So, the semidirect product G̃ ⋊ π acts on D(|P|, ι̃) with orbit
space |P|/π = |Q|. Therefore, D(|P|, ι̃) is the universal cover of GQ and
π1 (GQ) = G̃ ⋊ π.
Aspherical realizations. The classifying space of a discrete group H is
denoted BH. The universal cover of BH is denoted EH. A simple complex of
groups GQ gives the data for a poset of spaces {BGσ , φστ }, where τ < σ ∈ Q
and where φστ : BGτ → BGσ is the map induced by the monomorphism
φστ : G`
τ → Gσ . Using this data we can glue together the disjoint union of
spaces |Q|σ × BGσ by using iterated mapping cylinders. For each τ < σ,
|Q|σ is a subcomplex of |Q|τ and one glues the subspace |Q|σ × BGτ of
|Q|τ × BGτ to |Q|σ × BGσ via the map:
I × φστ : |Q|σ × BGτ → |Q|σ × BGσ ,

where I denotes the identity map on |Q|σ . The resulting space BGQ is the
aspherical realization of GQ. It is well-defined up to homotopy equivalence.
If |Q| is connected and simply connected, then it follows from van Kampen’s
Theorem that π1 (BGQ) = lim GQ. We note that
dim BGQ = sup{(dim BGσ + dim |Q|σ ) | σ ∈ Q}

(1.3)

Proposition 1.4. Suppose GQ is a simple complex of groups over Q with
|Q| simply connected. Let G = lim GQ and let D = D(|Q|, ι) be the basic
construction. When GQ is developable, BGQ is homotopy equivalent to the
Borel construction EG ×G D.
10

Proof. Projection on the second factor induces a projection p : EG ×G D →
D/G = |Q| so that the inverse image of the vertex σ is homotopy equivalent
to BGσ . This uses the fact that GQ → G is injective on local groups,
otherwise, p−1 (σ) is homotopy equivalent to BGσ , where Gσ means the image
of Gσ in G. It follows that EG ×G D is an aspherical realization of GQ.
Recall that the K(π, 1)-Question for GQ is the following.
The K(π, 1)-Question. Is BGQ aspherical?
Corollary 1.5. Suppose GQ is a developable simple complex of groups with
|Q| simply connected. Then the K(π, 1)-Question for GQ has a positive
answer if and only if D is contractible.
Proof. By Proposition 1.4, BGQ ∼ EG ×G D. Hence, BGQ is aspherical if
and only if the universal cover of EG ×G D is contractible. This universal
cover is EG × D, which yields the corollary.
Remark 1.6. Since |Q| is a retract of D, a necessary condition for D to be
contractible is that |Q| is contractible.
In the construction of BGQ we can assume that for each σ, dim BGσ =
gdim Gσ . There is a simple condition which implies that the maximum value
of the quantity dim BGσ + dim |Q|σ in (1.3) occurs when σ is a maximal
element of Q, i.e., when |Q|σ is a point. It is:
gdim Gσ > gdim Gτ ,

whenever σ > τ .

(1.4)

Since a k-simplex in |Q|τ corresponds to a chain τ = τ0 < · · · < τκ , condition
(1.4) implies gdim Gτk ≥ gdim Gτ +k ≥ gdim Gτ +dim |Q|τ ; so the maximum
value occurs when σ is maximal.
Proposition 1.7. Suppose GQ is a developable simple complex of groups
and that the K(π, 1)-Question for GQ has a positive answer. Then
gdim G ≤ dim BGQ = sup{gdim Gσ + dim |Q|σ }.
σ∈Q

If (1.4) holds, then gdim G = supσ∈Q {gdim Gσ }.
Proof. Since gdim G ≤ dim BGQ, the first formula follows from (1.3). So, if
condition (1.4) holds, gdim G ≤ sup{gdim Gσ | σ ∈ Q}. Since EG/Gσ is a
model for BGσ , gdim G ≥ gdim Gσ , so the previous inequality must be an
equality.
11

1.2

Examples where Q is a poset of simplices

Given a simplicial complex L, its poset of simplices (including the empty
simplex) is denoted by S(L). Its geometric realization |S(L)| is the cone on
the barycentric subdivision of L. (The vertex corresponding to the empty
simplex is the cone point.) Most of this paper concerns simple complexes
of groups over posets Q of the form S(L). Given such a simple complex
of groups GS(L), we often will write G for lim GS(L) and D for the basic
construction D(|S(L)|, ι). In this subsection we introduce examples of main
interest of such complexes of groups coming from Coxeter groups, Artin
groups, and graph products.
Example 1.8. (Coxeter groups) Suppose (W, S) is a Coxeter system (cf. [5]
or [13]). This means that W is a group, that S is a distinguished set of
generators and that W has a presentation of the form
W := hsi ∈ S|s2i = (si sj )mij = 1i
For any subset T of S, the subgroup generated by T is denoted WT and called
the special subgroup corresponding to T . It is a standard fact that (WT , T )
also is a Coxeter system (cf. [5, pp.12-13]). The subset T is spherical if WT is
finite, in this case WT is a spherical special subgroup. Let S(W, S) denote the
poset of spherical subsets of S. There is a simplicial complex L (= L(W, S)),
called the nerve of (W, S). Its vertex set is S and a subset T ≤ S spans a
simplex of L if and only if T is spherical. Thus, S(L) = S(W, S), the poset of
spherical subsets. This gives a simple complex of groups over S(L), denoted
W S(L), and called the complex of spherical Coxeter groups (or simply the
Coxeter complex ). The local group Wσ at a simplex σ ∈ S(L) is the spherical
subgroup generated by the vertices of σ. The direct limit of W S(L) is the
Coxeter group W .
Example 1.9. (Artin groups). Given a Coxeter system (W, S) there is an
associated Artin group A. This group has one generator xs for each s ∈ S;
its relations are the braid relations:
xs xt · · · = xt xs · · ·,
| {z } | {z }
mst terms

mst terms

where both sides of the equation are alternating words in xs and xt , where
{s, t} ranges over the edges of the nerve L, and where mst denotes the order
12

of st in W . The matrix (mst ) is called the Coxeter matrix. For any T ≤ S,
let AT denote the Artin group corresponding to the Coxeter system (WT , T ).
As with Coxeter groups, AT can be identified with the special subgroup of
A generated by {xt }t∈T . (When T is a spherical subset of S, this is proved
in [20, Thèoréme 4.13 (iii)] and in general in [29, Theorem 4.14].) The
Artin group AT is spherical if T is a spherical subset of S. As with Coxeter
groups, let S(L) be the poset of spherical subsets of S. The spherical special
subgroups of A give a simple complex of groups AS(L) called the Artin
complex. When σ is a simplex of L and T = Vert σ, we shall often write
Aσ instead of AT . It is clear that the direct limit lim AS(L) is A. Since Aσ
is isomorphic to a subgroup of A, AS(L) is developable. Note that if L′ is
any subcomplex of the full simplex on S with the same 1-skeleton as L, then
lim AS(L′ ) = A.
By Deligne’s Theorem in [20], any spherical Artin group Aσ has a classifying space BAσ which is a finite CW complex of dimension one greater
than dim σ. (There is a specific model for BAσ called the Salvetti complex,
see [8] or Subsection 3.2). The “K(π, 1)-Conjecture” for Artin groups is the
conjecture that the K(π, 1)-Question has a positive answer for any Artin
poset AS(L). By Proposition 1.5 this is equivalent to the conjecture that
D(|AS(L)|, A) is contractible. It is the most important unsolved problem
concerning general Artin groups. A detailed discussion can be found in [7],
where the conjecture is proved whenever L is a flag complex (we generalize
this in Theorem 1.19 below).
The discussion in Example 1.9 yields the following proposition.
Proposition 1.10. Let A be an Artin group such that the nerve L of its
associated Coxeter system is d-dimensional. If the K(π, 1)-Question for the
associated Artin poset has a positive answer, then gdim A = d + 1.
Proof. Since the aspherical realization BAS(L) is formed by gluing together
the BAσ × |S(L)|σ with σ ∈ S(L) and since dim BAσ = dim σ + 1, we have
dim BAS(L) = d + 1. Since BAS(L) is a model for BA, gdim A ≤ d + 1. On
the other hand, for any d-simplex σ ∈ S(L), the spherical Artin group Aσ
contains a free abelian subgroup of rank d+1 (e.g., see [15]). So, cd AL ≥ d+1.
Hence, d+1 ≥ gdim AL ≥ cd AL ≥ d+1; so all inequalities are equalities.
Definition 1.11. A simplicial complex L is a flag complex if it satisfies the
following: if T is any finite set of vertices of L which are pairwise connected
13

by edges, then T spans a simplex of L. A simplicial graph L1 determines a
flag complex L: the simplices of L are the cliques in L1 . (This is also called
the “clique complex” of L1 .)
Definition 1.12. Suppose L1 is a simplicial graph with vertex set V and
edge set E. Let {Gv }v∈V be aQcollection of groups indexed by V . The graph
product of the Gv , denoted L1 Gv , is the quotient of the free product of
the Gv , v ∈ V , by the normal subgroup generated by all commutators of the
form, [gv , gw ], where {v, w} ∈ E, gv ∈ Gv and gw ∈ Gw .
Q
Example 1.13. (The graph product complex ). Suppose L1 Gv is a graph
product and that L is the flag complex determined by L1 . There is a simple
complex of groups GS(L) over S(L) called the graph product complex. It is
defined by putting Gσ equal to the direct product,
Y
Gv ,
v∈Vert σ

for each simplex σ ∈ L and letting φστQ: Gτ → Gσ be the natural inclusion
whenever τ < σ. It is immediate that L1 Gv = lim GS(L).

Remark 1.14. Another approach to the graph product complex is given
in [12] or [14] using the notion of a “polyhedral product”. Suppose L is a
simplicial complex with vertex set V and that we are given a collection of
pairs of spacesQ(X, Y ) = {(Xv , Yv )}v∈V together with a choice of basepoint
∗v ∈ Yv . Let v∈V Xv denote the subspace of the Cartesian product consisting of all V -tuples (xv )v∈V such that xv = ∗v for all but finitely many v.
Given a V -tuple, x = (xv ), put σ(x) = {v Q
∈ V | xv ∈ Xv − Yv }. The polyL
hedral product (X, Y ) is the subspace of v∈V Xv consisting of all x such
that σ(x) is a simplex in L. (Usually, we only shall be concerned with the
case where each Yv equals the basepoint ∗v , in which case the notation will
be simplified to X L .) For any τ ∈ S(L),
Q the set of all x with σ(x) ≥ τ , can
be identified with the product, X τ := v∈Vert τ Xv . Thus, X L is the union of
the X τ , with τ ∈ S(L).
′
Next let L1 be any simplicial graph and LQ
any simplicial complex
with
Q
1
1-skeleton = L . Let G be the graph product L1 Gv and H = v∈V Gv be
the direct product. Let ι : GS(L1 ) → G and ψ : GS(L1 ) → G be the natural
simple morphisms. Consider the polyhedral product:
′

Z(L′ ) = (Cone Gv , Gv )L .
14

Then Z(L′ ) is locally isomorphic to a product of cones on discrete sets.
Moreover, Z(L′ ) can be identified with the development D(|S(L′ )|, ψ). The
fundamental group of Z(L′ ) can be identified with the kernel of the natural
epimorphism G → H. So, the H-action on Z(L′ ) lifts to a G-action on the
universal cover Z̃(L′ ) with the same strict fundamental domain. It follows
from Remark 1.1 that Z̃(L′ ) = D(|S(L′ )|, ι). When L′ = L, Z̃(L) can be
identified with the standard realization of a right-angled building (cf. [14,
§2.2]). Therefore, Z̃(L) has a CAT(0) structure and hence, is contractible.
A corollary to these observations is the following result.
Q
Proposition 1.15. (cf. [14, Theorem 2.22] and [17]). Suppose G = L1 Gv
is the graph product of nontrivial groups over a simplicial graph L1 , and let
L be the flag complex determined by L1 .. Then the K(π, 1)-Question for the
graph product complex GS(L) has a positive answer.
Since BG1 × BG2 is a model for B(G1 × G2 ), it is obvious that
gdim(G1 × G2 ) ≤ gdim G1 + gdim G2 .
On the other hand, by using certain torsion-free subgroups of RACGs, Dranishnikov [24] showed that there are groups G1 and G2 for
Q which the inequality
is strict (cf.P[13, Example 8.5.9]). Hence, for Gσ = v∈σ Gv , we have that
gdim Gσ ≤ v∈σ gdim Gv and the inequality can be strict.
A corollary to Proposition 1.15 is the following calculation of the geometric dimension of any graph product of groups.
Q
Corollary 1.16. Suppose G = L1 Gv is the graph product of nontrivial
groups over a simplicial graph L1 . Let L be the flag complex determined by
L1 . Then gdim G = sup{gdim Gσ | σ ∈ S(L)}.

1.3

Flag complexes and the K(π, 1)-Question

We will use the following result from [35].
Proposition 1.17. ([35, Prop. 3, p. 6]). Let Gi be a collection of groups
with common subgroup A and let A Gi denote the amalgamated product. Let
Hi ⊂ Gi be subgroups and suppose the intersection B = Hi ∩A is independent
of i. Then the natural homomorphism B Hi → A Gi is injective.

∗

∗

15

∗

As usual, GS(L) is a simple complex of groups. For any full subcomplex
L of L, put GL′ = lim GS(L′ ) and let GL′ denote the image of GL′ in GL .
For any σ ∈ S(L), let Gσ denote the image of Gσ in GL . (If GS(L) is
developable, then Gσ → Gσ is an isomorphism.) The intersection of local
groups condition for simplices σ and τ of L is the following:
′

Gσ ∩ Gτ = Gσ∩τ .

(1.5)

Lemma 1.18. Suppose GS(L) is developable and that (1.5) holds for all
σ, τ ∈ S(L). If L is a flag complex, then for any full subcomplex L′ of L, the
natural map GL′ → GL is an injection.
We first prove this in a special case where L is the cone on another flag
complex. We will use the notation St(u) for the cone and Lk(u) for the base
of the cone; regarding u as the cone vertex.
Special Case: We will prove the following:
(i) The natural map GLk(u) → GSt(u) is injective.
(ii) Suppose L0 , L1 are full subcomplexes of Lk(u) with L0 ⊂ L1 . Then
GL1 ∩ GL0 ∗u = GL0 .
Proof of the Special Case. The proof is by induction on the number of vertices of St(u). When St(u) is a simplex, (i) and (Ii) follow from (1.5). If
St(u) is not a simplex, then, since Lk(u) is a flag complex, there is a vertex
v in Lk(u) which is not connected by an edge to some other vertex of Lk(u).
Denote the star of v in St(u) simply by St(v). So, St(v) is a proper subcomplex of St(u). By induction on the number of vertices in the cone, (i) holds
for St(v), i.e., GLk(v) → GSt(v) is injective, where Lk(v) := Lk(v, St(v)). By
induction on the number of vertices, the natural maps,
GLk(u)−v → GSt(u)−v , GSt(v,Lk(u)) → GSt(v) , and GLk(v,Lk(u)) → GLk(v) ,
are injective. We have decompositions as amalgamated products:
GSt(u) = GSt(u)−v ∗GLk(v) GSt(v)

GLk(u) = GLk(u,St(u)−v) ∗GLk(v,Lk(u)) GLk(u,St(v))
By induction on the number of vertices, we have that (ii) holds in two cases:
first with L1 = Lk(u, St(u) − v) = Lk(u) − v and L0 = Lk(v, Lk(u)) and
16

Lk(u, Lk(v))
Lk(u)
Lk(u, St(v)) = St(v, Lk(u))

St(u)

u

v
St(v)

Figure 1: Setup for Lemma 1.19
second with L1 = St(v) and L0 = Lk(v, Lk(u)). This yields
GLk(u,St(u)−v) ∩ GLk(v,Lk(u))∗u = GLk(v,Lk(u)) ,
GSt(v) ∩ GLk(v,Lk(u))∗u = GLk(v,Lk(u)) .
Applying Proposition 1.17, we see that GLk(u) → GSt(u) is injective.
Completion of Proof. We can now complete the proof of Lemma 1.18. The
argument is again by induction on the number of vertices. Let L′ be a full
subcomplex of L. If L = L′ ∗ v, we are done by the special case. Otherwise,
there is a vertex v such that L 6= St(v) and v ∈
/ L′ . There is an amalgamated
product decomposition:
GL = GL−v ∗GLk(v) GSt(v) .
By inductive hypothesis for the proper subcomplexes L − v and St(v), we
have inclusions GLk(v) → GL−v and GLk(v) → GSt(v) . Since both factors inject
into the amalgamated product, GL−v → GL is an injection. Continuing by
deleting one vertex at a time, we see the same holds for GL′ .
Theorem 1.19. (cf. [7, Remark on p. 619]). Suppose L is a flag complex,
that GS(L) is developable, and that condition (1.5) holds for all τ , σ in S(L).
Then the K(π, 1)-Question for GS(L) has a positive answer.
17

Proof. The proof is by induction on the number of maximal simplices in
L. The base case is when L is a single simplex σ. Then Gσ = lim GS(σ)
and BGS(σ) ∼ BGσ . So, the answer to the K(π, 1)-Question for GS(σ) is
positive.
Suppose L is not a simplex. Since L is a flag complex, there are distinct
vertices v1 , v2 in V = Vert L so that v1 and v2 are not joined by an edge of L.
Let L1 , L2 and L0 be the full subcomplexes of L spanned by V −{v1 }, V −{v2 }
and V − {v1 , v2 }, respectively, and let G1 , G2 and G0 be the respective direct
limits. Since GL is a direct limit, it is the amalgamated product GL =
G1 ∗G0 G2 . By Lemma 1.18, the natural maps from G0 → Gi and Gi → GL
are injections for i = 1, 2. A lemma of Whitehead states that if two aspherical
complexes are glued together along an aspherical subcomplex so that the
fundamental group injects into either side, then the result of the gluing is
also aspherical (for example, see [13, Thm. E.1.15]). (This is a special case
of theorem that we are proving.) By inductive hypothesis, BGS(Li ) ∼ BGi
and, by its definition, BGS(L) is the union of BGS(L1 ) and BGS(L2 ) along
BGS(L0 ). Hence, Whitehead’s Lemma shows that BGS(L) ∼ BGL .
Remark 1.20. Theorem 1.19 shows that if GS(L) is developable, (1.5)
holds and L is a flag complex, then D(|S(L)|, GL ) is contractible. Moreover, D(|S(L′ )|, GL′ ) is contractible for any full subcomplex L′ ≤ L. For
graph product complexes, these developments are right-angled buildings and
hence, are CAT(0). This raises the question of nonpositive curvature in the
context of Theorem 1.19. This is equivalent to the question of whether the
link of each simplex in D(|S(L)|, GL ) is CAT(1), (see [6]). For bounded curvature to make sense, we should first put a piecewise spherical structure on L.
Since L is already assumed to be a flag complex we might as well assume that
each simplex in L is an all right spherical simplex so that D(|S(L)|, GL ) becomes a cube complex, see [13]. The link, Lkσ , corresponding to a nonempty
simplex σ in L is the development of the simplex of groups GS(∂σ) with
respect to the natural simple morphism ψ : GS(L) → Gσ , so the question
becomes whether Lkσ = D(|S(∂σ)|, ψ) is CAT(1). By Gromov’s Lemma (cf.
[13, Appendix I.6, pp.516-517]), this is equivalent to the question of whether
it is a flag complex. Note that this is implied by the condition that the development of the simplex of groups, D(|S(∂σ)|, G∂σ ), is a flag complex. (Here
G∂σ = lim GS(∂σ)).
Similar considerations led R. Charney and the first author to conjecture
in [7] that the development of any Artin complex in Example 1.9 can be
18

given CAT(0) structure. This would imply the K(π, 1)-Conjecture for all
Artin groups. The piecewise spherical structure on L should be the natural
one in which σ is isometric to a fundamental spherical simplex in the round
sphere on which Wσ acts as reflection group; in other words, the spherical
simplex which makes the spherical realization of the Coxeter complex for Wσ
into a round sphere. In the Artin complex, Lkσ is the Deligne complex for
Aσ . So, the conjecture of [7] is that the natural piecewise spherical metric
on the Deligne complex for Aσ is CAT(1).

1.4

Q is the poset of nonempty simplices in L

Suppose L is a full subcomplex of another simplicial complex L̄. Then every
simplex σ̄ ∈ S(L̄) can be decomposed as a join σ̄ = σ ∗ τ , where σ = σ̄ ∩ L
and τ is a simplex whose vertices lie in L̄ − L. Suppose GS(L) and GS(L̄)
are simple complexes of groups such that GS(L) is the restriction of GS(L̄)
to S(L). Then GS(L̄) is a trivial extension of GS(L) if Gσ̄ = Gσ , whenever
σ̄ = σ ∗ τ decomposes as a join as above.
When L is a subcomplex of L̄, we can replace L̄ by a subdivision relative
to L so that L becomes a full subcomplex of L̄. If L is a flag complex,
then the subdivision L̄ can be assumed to be flag. So, any simple complex
of groups GS(L) over S(L) has a trivial extension to a simple complex of
groups over S(L̄) as above. The following lemma is clear.
Lemma 1.21. Suppose GS(L̄) is a trivial extension of GS(L). Then
(i) lim GS(L̄) = lim GS(L).
(ii) GS(L̄) is developable if and only if GS(L) is developable.
(iii) BGS(L̄) is homotopy equivalent to BGS(L).
For a given simplicial complex L, let S o (L) denote its poset of nonempty
simplices, i.e., S o (L) = S(L)>∅ . The geometric realization of S o (L) is the
barycentric subdivision of L. Let GS(L) be a simple complex of groups
over S(L) and let GS o (L) denote its restriction to S o (L). For example,
S o (Cone L) can be identified with S(L) and any simple complex of groups
GS(L) can be identified with a simple complex of groups over S o (Cone L).
Since we shall always assume that the local group G∅ attached to the empty
simplex is the trivial group, then simple complexes of groups GS o (L) and
19

GS(L) have the same direct limit, which we denote by G. The next lemma
is immediate.
Lemma 1.22. The complex of groups GS o (L) is developable if and only if
GS(L) is developable.
Lemma 1.23. Suppose L is connected. Then the following statements are
equivalent
(i) L is contractible.
(ii) The inclusion D(|S o (L)|, G) ֒→ D(|S(L)|, G) of developments is a Gequivariant homotopy equivalence.
(iii) The inclusion BGS o (L) ֒→ BGS(L) of aspherical realizations is a homotopy equivalence.
(iv) The K(π, 1)-Questions for GS o (L) and for GS(L) have the same answers.
Proof. By Remark 1.3, the following three conditions are equivalent:
• L is simply connected.
• D(|S o (L)|, G) is simply connected.
• π1 (BGS o (L)) = G.
To simplify notation, put D = D(|S(L)|, G) and D o = D(|S o (L)|, G). Let
C = |S(L)| − |S o (L)| be the open dual cone of the vertex in |S(L)| corresponding to ∅. The inverse image of C in D(|S(L)|, G) consists of G copies
of C. Hence,
M
H∗ (Cone L, L), and
H∗ (D, D o) ∼
=
G

H∗ (EGS(L), EGS o (L)) ∼
=

M

H∗ (Cone L, L).

G

The equivalence of conditions (i), (ii) and (iii) follows. The equivalence of
condition (iv) follows from Corollary 1.5.

20

We will use the above lemma in the following way. Given GS(L), first
embed L as a full subcomplex of a contractible simplicial complex Lc and
then take a trivial extension of GS(L) to GS(Lc ). By Lemmas 1.21 and
1.23, there are homotopy equivalences BGS(L) ∼ BGS(Lc ) ∼ BGS o (Lc ),
i.e., BGS o (Lc ) is another model for BGS(L). If dim Lc = dim L, then
dim(|S o (L)|) = dim(|S o (L)|) − 1 and we will sometimes be able to use this
to reduce upper bounds on the action dimension or the geometric dimension
by 1.
Definition 1.24. A d-dimensional simplicial complex L is equidimensionally, contractibly embeddable (abbreviated EDCE) if it can be embedded in
a contractible complex Lc of the same dimension d.
Remark 1.25. For d 6= 2 the condition that L be EDCE is equivalent to
the following two conditions:
Hd−1 (L, Z) is free abelian and Hd (L, Z) = 0.
By the Universal Coefficient Theorem, the above conditions are equivalent
to the condition that H d (L, Z) = 0. Indeed, when these conditions hold, one
can use standard methods to attach cells of dimension ≤ d to kill all the
homology of L. When d = 2, we will only end up with an Lc which is acyclic.
A conjecture of Kervaire asserts that one cannot kill a nontrivial group by
adding the same number of generators and relations. So, in the many situations where Kervaire’s Conjecture is known to hold, it is not possible to
obtain a contractible complex by adding 1 and 2-cells to an acyclic complex.

2

Gluing

Suppose we are given a collection of manifolds with boundary {Mτ }τ ∈Q indexed by a poset Q. Further suppose that whenever τ < σ, we have an
embedding iτ σ : Mτ ֒→ ∂Mσ with trivial normal bundle. This means, in particular, that whenever σ is not a minimal element of the poset, ∂Mσ must be
nonempty. The poset of manifolds {Mτ }τ ∈Q is n-dimensional if for each maximal σ, dim Mσ = n. Henceforth, we assume this. Let c(τ ) = n − dim Mτ
and let Dτ be a disk of dimension c(τ ). The basic idea in this section is
that we can glue together the Mτ × Dτ along codimension-zero submanifolds of their boundaries to obtain M, an n-manifold with boundary. Let
21

Gτ := π1 (Mτ ). We assume each inclusion Mτ ֒→ Mσ is π1 -injective, and that
GQ = {Gτ }τ ∈Q is a simple complex of groups. If |Q| is simply connected,
then π1 (M) = lim GQ is the direct limit of the π1 (Mτ ). So, if each Mτ is
aspherical, M will be a model for BGQ. In practice Q will be S(L) or S o (L)
for some L.
The main work in Subsection 2.1 is to describe the “dual disk” Dµ , for
each µ ∈ S(L) and a decomposition of its boundary sphere into pieces Tµ (τ ).
For τ > µ, Mµ × Dµ will be glued onto Mτ × Dτ along Mµ × Tµ (τ ). The dual
disk is a thickening of the dual cone, Cone(Lµ ), where Lµ means the normal
link of µ ∈ L (i.e., Lµ is the geometric realization of S(L)>µ ). If Dµ is a
k-disk, then it should be attached to other pieces along a submanifold Tµ of
codimension 0 in ∂Dµ (= S k−1). The manifold Tµ is a thickening of Lµ in
S k−1 (Tµ is the “thick link”). The thick link Tµ is further decomposed into
pieces Tµ (τ ) on which the piece corresponding to τ is to be attached.
Here is a picture to keep in mind. Suppose L is a simplicial graph, so
that L embeds in S 3 . The dual disk D∅ is D 4 and T∅ is a thickening of L
in S 3 to a 3-manifold with boundary. For each vertex µ, T∅ (µ) is a 3-ball
neighborhood of µ and for each edge τ , T∅ (τ ) is a tubular neighborhood of
the edge as a solid cylinder. (See Figure 2.1.) The dual disk to a vertex µ
is a 2-disk. If the degree of µ is p, then Lµ consists of p points and Tµ is a
thickening to p intervals in S 1 . The dual cell to an edge (i.e. to a maximal
simplex) is a 0-disk.
The simplicial complex |S(L)| is equal to Cone L′ , where L′ means the
barycentric subdivision of L. So, a k-simplex in Cone L′ is a chain {τ0 , . . . , τk }
of length k + 1 in S(L). We denote the geometric realization of this simplex
by [τ0 , . . . , τk ]. (We will always write such chains in increasing order, i.e.,
τ0 < · · · < τk .) A chain of length 1, {τ }, is either the cone point [∅] or it
corresponds to a vertex [τ ] of L′ (thought of as the barycenter of τ ). Thus,
[τ0 , . . . , τk ] is the k-simplex in Cone L′ spanned by the vertices [τ0 ], . . . , [τk ].
Given a simplex α = [τ0 , . . . τk ] in Cone L′ , its minimum vertex is defined by
min α = τ0 .
To understand the decompositions of dual disks, one first needs to understand the stratification of |S(L)| into “dual cones.” In this section we shall
often use the notation K (or K∅ ) instead of |S(L)|. Similarly, Kσ is |S(L)|≥σ
and called the dual cone of σ. (Here we are reversing the use of superscripts
and subscripts from notation in (1.1).) We will use ∂Kσ or L′σ for |S(L)|>σ ,
the barycentric subdivision of the link of σ. Thus, a simplex α = [τ0 , . . . τk ]
of K lies in Kσ (resp., ∂Kσ ) if and only if min α ≤ σ (resp., min α < σ).
22

2.1

Thick links

Suppose L is a finite simplicial complex of dimension d. We recall a method
for thickening L to a manifold with boundary T . First, piecewise linearly
embed L into a sphere S n−1 , where n ≥ 2d + 2. Thus, L is a full subcomplex
of some PL triangulation S of S n−1 . Denote the barycentric subdivisions of L
and S by L′ and S ′ , respectively. Let T denote the first derived neighborhood
of L in S. In other words, T is the union of simplices in S ′ which have
nonempty intersection with L′ .
If ρ0 < · · · < ρk is a chain of simplices in S(S), then [ρ0 , . . . , ρk ] denotes
the simplex in S ′ spanned by their barycenters.
For each vertex ν in L, let T (ν) denote the closed star of [ν] in S ′ , i.e.,
[
T (ν) = {γ ∈ S ′ | ν ≤ min γ}.

S
Then T (ν) is an (n − 1)-disk. Moreover, T = T (ν), where the union is over
all vertices ν ∈ L. If τ is a simplex of L, then let T (τ ) denote the normal
star of τ in S, i.e.,
[
T (τ ) = {γ ∈ S ′ | τ ≤ min γ} = [τ ] ∗ Lk(τ, S)′ .

So, T (τ ) is the cone on Lk(τ, S)′. Since Lk(τ, S) is a sphere of dimension
n−k−2, where k = dim τ , we see that T (τ ) is PL homeomorphic to a (n−k−
1)-disk. Moreover, if Vert τ = {ν0 , . . . , νk }, then T (τ ) = T (ν0 ) ∩ · · · ∩ T (νk ).
So, T is an (n − 1)-manifold with boundary embedded in S n−1 = ∂D n
Next we want to apply this construction to links in L. For each simplex
µ ∈ S(L), let Lµ = Lk(µ, L). We want to thicken Lµ in a sphere Sµ := S c(µ)−1
of an appropriate dimension c(µ) − 1 to obtain a manifold with boundary
Tµ called a thick link, embedded in a disk Dµ = D c(µ) , called the dual disk.
Similarly, whenever µ < τ , we will have Tµ (τ ), the normal star of τ in Sµ .
Thus, Tµ (τ ) is a thickening of ∂Kµ (τ ). In particular, when µ is the empty
simplex we will have T∅ = T , D∅ = D n and T∅ (τ ) = T (τ ).
To specify the dimensions of the dual disks suppose we are given a function
c : S(L) → N so that
• For any maximal simplex σ of L, c(σ) = 0.

(2.1)

• If τ < σ, then c(τ ) − c(σ) ≥ 2 codim(τ, σ)

(2.2).

23

µ

τ

σ
T (µ)

Tµ (σ)

T (τ )

[µ]

[τ ]

[σ]
Figure 2: A thickening of a graph in S 3 , and some of the associated dual
disks.
Put n = c(∅). (If we are using S o (L) instead of S(L), then we don’t
require the second condition for τ = ∅.) Thus, the dual disk Dµ will be a
thickening of the dual cone Kµ and the thick link Tµ will be a thickening of
∂Kµ (= L′µ ).
The link L′µ naturally is a subcomplex of L′∅ and, in fact, whenever µ < τ ,
L′τ is a subcomplex of L′µ . Similarly, if Sµ′ means the barycentric subdivision
of S c(µ)−1 , then we want to arrange that Sτ′ is a subcomplex of Sµ′ . This
amounts to requiring that Sτ′ is PL embedded in Lk(τ, S c(µ)−1 )′ ⊂ Sµ′ . For
example, if µ = ∅ and L∅ is a graph with a vertex τ , then dim L′∅ = 1 and
dim L′τ = 0. We can thicken L′∅ in S 3 = S∅ , while L′τ should be thickened in
Sτ′ = S 1 , see Figure 2.
Next we want to explain how dual disks can be regarded as manifolds
with corners. Recall that an n-manifold with boundary, P , is a smooth
manifold with corners if it is locally differentiably modeled on the simplicial
cone [0, ∞)n . This can be extended to a definition for topological manifolds
by requiring that the overlap maps preserve the stratification of [0, ∞)n by
intersections with coordinate subspaces. The stratification of [0, ∞)n by its
faces then induces a stratification of P . A codimension-one stratum of P is
24

called a facet.
Lemma 2.1. For each µ ∈ S(L), the dual disk Dµ is a c(µ)-manifold with
corners. The facets are {Tµ (τ )} where µ is a codimension one face of τ (i.e.,
where [τ ] is a vertex of L′µ ) together with ∂Dµ − Tµ .
The facet ∂Dµ − Tµ is called a boundary piece; the other facets are ordinary facets.
Proof. If µ is a codimension one face of τ , then Tµ (τ ) ⊂ ∂Dµ is a disk
of codimension one in Dµ . In general, if µ is a codimension-k face of a
simplex σ in L and {[τ0 ], . . . , [τk ]} are the vertices of σ in L′µ , then Tµ (σ) =
Tµ (τ0 ) ∩ · · · ∩ Tµ (τ0 ) is a disk of codimension k in Dµ . Hence, the Tµ (τ )
intersect in the same fashion as the facets of the simplicial cone [0, ∞)c(µ) .

2.2

Gluing complexes of manifolds with boundary

A complex of manifolds with boundary over S(L) is a collection of manifolds
with boundary, {Mτ }τ ∈S(L) , together with embeddings iστ : Mτ ֒→ ∂Mσ defined whenever τ < σ. In particular, we must have that ∂Mσ is nonempty
whenever σ > ∅; however, the minimum manifold M∅ can have empty boundary, and we usually assume this. In other words, the manifolds are indexed by
the vertices of Cone(L′ ) (the cone on the barycentric subdivision of L), while
the embeddings iστ are indexed by the edges of Cone(L′ ). In addition, we
require that there are certain (k − 1)-parameter families of isotopies between
the iστ which are indexed by the k-simplices of Cone(L′ ). We eventually
will want to require that the codimension of Mτ in Mσ is c(τ ) − c(σ) where
c : S(L) → N is a function as in Subsection 2.1, and that the image of Mτ
in ∂Mσ has trivial normal bundle. Before giving the precise requirements let
us mention that we also will be using the notion of a complex of manifolds
over S 0 (L), where the empty simplex is not needed and where Cone(L′ ) is
replaced by L′ .
We want to describe how to glue together the Mτ × Dτ , where Dτ is the
dual disk defined in Subsection 2.1. It is easier to first describe how to glue
together the Mτ × Kτ where Kτ is the dual cone of τ (i.e., Kτ = [τ ] ∗ L′τ
is a subcomplex of the |S(L)| = [∅] ∗ L′ ). The gluing is accomplished using
various embeddings:
hα∗µ : Mµ × α ֒→ ∂Mmin α × α,
25

[σ]

Kτ
[τ ]

...

...

Kµ

[µ]
Figure 3: Neighborhoods in the barycentric subdivision of L, the link of ∅ in
S(L).
where α is a simplex in L′ and µ ∈ S(L) is a proper face of min α. The
embedding hα∗µ will be used to glue Mµ × (α ∗ [µ]) onto Mmin α × Kmin α .
For the gluing to be well-defined the hα∗µ must satisfy certain compatiblity
relations which we will now describe.
First suppose α is a vertex of L′ , i.e., α = [τ ], where τ is a simplex of
L. Then h[τ ]∗[µ] := iτ µ × I[τ ] : Mµ × [τ ] → ∂Mτ × [τ ]. Essentially, h[τ ]∗[µ]
is iτ µ . Next, suppose α = [τ, σ] is an edge in L′ so that h[τ,σ]∗[µ] : Mµ ×
[τ, σ] → Mτ × [τ, σ] is an isotopy. The restriction of this isotopy to Mµ × [τ ]
is h[τ ]∗[µ] : Mµ × [τ ] → Mτ × [τ ]. Its restriction to the other end when
precomposed with h[σ]∗[τ ] should equal h[σ]∗[µ] , that is,
(h[σ]∗[τ ] )(h[τ,σ]∗[µ] |Mµ ×[σ] ) = h[σ]∗[µ] .

(2.3)

In other words, the composition of the two gluing maps defined on the left
hand side of (2.3) is equal to the gluing map on the right hand side.
Given a k-simplex α = [τ0 , . . . , τk ] in L′ , let αi = [τ0 , . . . , τˆi , . . . , τk ] denote
the face opposite [τi ]. Then hα∗[µ] : Mµ × α → ∂Mτ0 × α is a k-parameter
isotopy. For i 6= 0, we require:
hα∗[µ] |Mµ ×αi = hαi ∗[µ] ,

(2.4)

(hα0 ∗[τ0 ] )(hα∗[µ] |Mµ ×α0 ) = hα0 ∗[µ]

(2.5)

while for i = 0,

26

There is one further condition which our isotopies should satisfy. If τ =
min α and if µ and µ′ are two faces of τ and ρ = µ ∩ µ′ , then we require that
Im(hα∗[µ] ) ∩ Im(hα∗[µ′ ] ) = Im(hα∗[ρ] )

(2.6)

In other words, on the complement of Im(hα∗[ρ] ), the embeddings hα∗[µ] :
Mµ → Mτ and hα∗[µ′ ] : Mµ′ → Mτ must have disjoint images.
Next we describe how to glue together {Mτ × Kτ }τ ∈S(L) to obtain a space
X
` together with a projection map p : X → K. Start with the disjoint union
Mτ × Kτ . We will construct X(0) ⊂ · · · ⊂ X(k) ⊂ · · · ⊂ X(d + 1) = X so
that X(k) will be the inverse image of `
the k-skeleton of K in X. The space
X(0) is defined to be the disjoint union Mσ ×[σ]. Next, given an edge [τ, σ]
in [∅] ∗ L′ , we glue Mτ × [τ, σ] to Mσ × [σ] via h[σ]∗[τ ] : Mτ × [σ] → ∂Mσ × [σ].
(Recall that h[σ]∗[τ ] = iστ .) After doing this gluing for each edge [τ, σ], we
′
obtain X(1). Notice that if τ is a (d−1)-simplex of L, then the
τ , is the
`link, LS
disjoint union of the vertices [σ] where τ < σ and Kτ = [τ ] ∗ [σ] = [τ, σ];
hence, after building X(1) we will have glued Mτ × Kτ onto X(0). Next,
consider a 2-simplex [µ, τ, σ]. Glue Mµ × [µ, τ, σ] onto Mτ × [τ, σ] using
h[τ,σ]∗[µ] : Mµ × [τ, σ] → ∂Mτ × [τ, σ]. By (2.3) this is compatible with the
previously defined gluing map Mµ × [σ] → ∂Mσ × [σ]. Hence, the union of
the two gluing maps gives a well-defined map Mµ × [τ, σ] → (∂Mτ × [τ, σ]) ∪
(∂Mσ × [σ]) which we can use to glue Mµ × [µ, τ, σ] onto X(1).
Continue by induction. Suppose X(k) has been defined over the kskeleton of K. For each k-simplex α in L′ and µ ∈ S(L) with µ < min α, we
have hα∗µ : Mµ × α → ∂Mmin α × α. By (2.4) and (2.5), this is compatible
with previously defined gluing maps hβ∗[µ] , where β is a face of α. So, for
α = [τ0 , . . . , τk ], we get a well-defined map from Mµ × α onto the image of
(∂Mτ0 × [τ0 , . . . , τk ]) ∪ (∂Mτ1 × [τ1 , . . . , τk ]) ∪ · · · ∪ (∂Mτk × [τk ])
in X(k).
We can summarize the above as follows. The union of the hα∗[µ] , with
min α = τ , define an embedding:
Hτ µ : Mµ × ∂Kµ (τ ) → ∂Mτ × Kτ .

(2.7)

(Recall ∂Kµ (τ ) = Kτ .) Formulas (2.3), (2.4) and (2.5) imply that whenever
µ < τ < σ:
(Hστ |∂Mτ ×∂Kτ (σ) )(Hτ µ |∂Kµ (σ) ) = Hσµ .
(2.8)
27

h[σ]∗[τ ] (Mτ × [σ])

Mσ
∂Mσ

Mτ

Mσ

Mτ
h[τ ]∗[µ] (Mµ × [τ ])

∂Mτ
Mµ

Mµ

X(0)

h[σ]∗[µ] (Mµ × [σ])

X(1)
Mσ
Mτ
h[τ,σ]∗[µ] (Mµ × [τ, σ])

Mµ
X(2)

Figure 4: The first stages of our gluing procedure before thickening
Hence, if X>µ = p−1 (∂Kµ ), then the union of the Hτ µ fit together to give
a well-defined map Hµ : Mµ × ∂Kµ → X>µ , that specifies the gluing of
Mµ × ∂Kµ onto X>µ . By (2.6) Hµ is an embedding.
Remark 2.2. If each Mτ is aspherical, then X is a model for the aspherical
realization BGS(L).
Next we want to replace dual cones by dual disks. We suppose that
(a) M∅ is a point.
(b) For all maximal simplices σ in L, the manifolds Mσ all have the same
dimension n.
(c) For each τ < σ, dim Mσ − dim Mτ ≥ 2 codim(τ, σ).
The conditions in (c) are called the codimension ≥ 2 conditions. The
dimensions of the Mτ give us the data for a function c : S(L) → N as in
Subsection 2.1, defined by
c(τ ) = n − dim Mτ .
28

As in Subsection 2.1, we can use the function c to define the thick link Tµ
for each µ ∈ S(L).
Whenever µ is a codimension-one face of τ , Tµ (τ ) is a regular neighborhood of [τ ] in Sµ′ .
Moreover, Tµ (τ ) is homeomorphic to E × Dτ where E is a disk of dimension equal to the codimension of Mµ in ∂Mτ . Since the normal bundle
of Mµ in ∂Mτ is trivial, Mµ × E can be embedded as a codimension-zero
submanifold of ∂Mτ and hence, the embedding Hτ µ defined by (2.7) extends
to an embedding:
Jτ µ : Mµ × Tµ (τ ) ֒→ ∂Mτ × Dτ .
(2.9)
When codim(µ, τ ) > 1, Tµ (τ ) remains a thickening of ∂Kµ (τ ) (as well as a
thickening of Dτ ) and the embedding Hτ µ again extends to an embedding
Jτ µ : Mµ × Tµ (τ ) → ∂Mτ × Dτ . Moreover, the Jτ µ satisfy the analogous
formulas to (2.8).
Finally, we build an n-manifold with boundary M in exactly the same
fashion we constucted the space X above, namely,


a
M := 
Mτ × Dτ  / ∼
(2.10)
τ ∈S(L)

where the equivalence relation ∼ is defined as before except that we use as
gluing maps the Jτ µ rather than the Hτ µ .
At this point we should explain why M is a n-manifold with boundary.
Since Dµ is a c(µ)-manifold with corners (cf. Lemma 2.1) and Mµ is a (n −
c(µ))-manifold with boundary, Mµ × Dµ is a n-manifold with corners. Each
facet is either the product of Mµ with a facet of Dµ or it has the form
∂Mµ × Dµ . If µ < τ is a codimension-one face, then Mµ × Dµ is glued onto
Mτ × Dτ by the embedding Jτ µ : Mµ × Tµ (τ ) → ∂Mτ × Dτ from a facet of
Mµ × Dµ to a facet of Mτ × Dτ . Similarly, if {[τ0 ], . . . , [τk ]} is the vertex set
of σ in L′µ , then Mµ × Dµ is glued onto Mσ × Dσ via a map from the stratum
Mµ × Tµ (σ) to an intersection of strata in ∂Mσ → Dσ .
Let {Mτ }τ ∈S(L) be a complex of manifolds with boundary over S(L). Let
Gτ = π1 (Mτ ). As usual suppose the induced homomorphisms φστ = (iστ )∗ :
Gτ → Gσ are injective and the system GS(L) = {Gτ }τ ∈S(L) is a simple
complex of groups. Let G = lim GS(L) be the direct limit. Also suppose
• GS(L) is developable, and
29

• each Mτ is homotopy equivalent to BGτ ,
Theorem 2.3. Suppose {Mτ }τ ∈S(L) is a complex of manifolds with boundary
over S(L) satisfying the above conditions and let M be the manifold with
boundary defined by (2.10). Then M is a thickening of BGS(L). If the
K(π, 1)-Question for GS(L) has a positive answer, then M ∼ BG, so
actdim G ≤ dim M.

2.3

Complexes of manifolds with boundary over S o (L)

We turn to the case where the manifolds Mv associated to the vertices v of L
are allowed to have empty boundary. When this happens our algorithm does
not tell us how to glue on the final disk M∅ × D∅ . (If ∂Mv = ∅, there is no
place to embed M∅ × T∅ .) One can still try to accomplish the gluings without
the final disk. For each higher-dimensional simplex τ , we still require ∂Mτ
to be nonempty. By excluding the empty simplex, we consider a complex of
manifolds with boundary over S o (L) where the embeddings iστ and gluing
maps Hτ µ , Jτ µ satisfy the same conditions as in the previous subsection.
We can glue together the pieces together as before; however, the resulting
manifold will usually not be a model for BG.
So, let us consider a complex of manifolds with boundary {Mτo }τ ∈S o (L) ,
where ∂Mvo is allowed to be empty for v ∈ Vert L, but ∂Mτo 6= ∅ if dim τ > 0.
The other conditions in the previous section are satisfied mutatis mutandis.
The complex is n-dimensional if dim Mσo = n for each maximal simplex σ.
As in (2.10), we can glue together the {Mτo × Dτ }τ ∈S o (L) to obtain an nmanifold with boundary M o . As before, M o will a model for BGS o (L);
however, as explained in Subsection 1.4, BGS o (L) will not be homotopy
equivalent to BG unless L is contractible (see Lemma 1.23). When L is
EDCE (see Definition 1.24), we can use the methods of Subsection 1.4 to
conclude that actdim G ≤ n.
Given the n-dimensional system {Mτo }τ ∈S o (L) over S o (L), there is an easy
way to extend it to an (n + 1)-dimensional system over S(L): simply take
the product of each manifold Mτo with the unit interval. In other words, put
Mτ = Mτo × [0, 1]. So, the vertex manifold Mvo is replaced by the manifold
with boundary Mv = Mvo × [0, 1]. Let M∅ be a point and iτ ∅ : M∅ → ∂Mτ an
appropriate embedding.
Since π1 (Mτo ) = π1 (Mτ ), the systems of fundamental groups {π1 (Mτ )}
and {π1 (Mτo )} define the same simple complex of groups GS(L) over S(L)
30

given by Gτ = π1 (Mτ ). Let G = lim GS(L). Let M o and M denote, respectively, the results of gluing together the systems {Mτo }τ ∈S o (L) and {Mτ }τ ∈S(L) .
We assume each Mτ is connected, so that π1 (M) = G. If L is simply connected, then π1 (M o ) is also equal to G. (In general, π1 (M o ) is the semidirect
product described in Remark 1.3.)
From Lemma 1.23 we get the following.
Lemma 2.4. The inclusion M o ֒→ M is a homotopy equivalence if and only
if L is contractible.
Suppose L is a full subcomplex of another simplicial complex L̄. In Subsection 1.4 we defined the notion of a trivial extension of a simple complex
of groups over S(L) to one over S(L̄). Similarly, we can define the notion of
a trivial extension of a complex of manifolds with boundary over S(L). Let
{Mτ }τ ∈S(L) be such a system. For simplicity, suppose that the dimension of
Mτ depends only on the dimension of the simplex τ , i.e., if dim Mτ = n(k)
for each k-simplex τ . Recall any simplex σ̄ can be decomposed as a join
σ̄ = σ ∗ τ , where σ ∈ S(L) and where vertices of τ lie in L̄ − L. A complex of manifolds with boundary {Nτ }τ ∈S(L̄) is called a trivial extension of
{Mτ }τ ∈S(L) if Nσ̄ = Mσ × D n(k) , whenever σ̄ = σ ∗ τ as above and D n(k) is
the disk Nτ . A trivial extension of a complex over S o (L) is defined similarly.
The next lemma follows immediately from Lemma 1.21.
Lemma 2.5. Suppose {Mσ }σ∈S(L) is a complex of manifolds and {Nσ̄ }σ̄∈S(L̄)
is a trivial extension of it over L̄. Let M and N be the result of gluing these
systems together. Then M is homotopy equivalent to N.
Proposition 2.6. Suppose L is a full subcomplex of a contractible complex Lc
of the same dimension as L. Let {Mτo }τ ∈S o (L) be an n-dimensional complex
of manifolds with boundary over S o (L) and {Nτo }τ ∈S o (Lc ) a trivial extension
of it to Lc . Let N o be the result of gluing together {Nτo } and let M and N
be the result of gluing the corresponding (n + 1)-dimensional complexes over
S(L) and S(Lc ), respectively. Then M is homotopy equivalent to N o
Proof. By Lemma 2.5, M is homotopy equivalent to N and by Lemma 2.4,
N is homotopy equivalent to N o .
For the next theorem we suppose that {Mσo } is a n-dimensional complex
of manifolds with boundary over S o (L) where the vertex manifolds Mvo are allowed to have empty boundary. Further suppose that the conditions for The31

orem 2.3 are satisfied, i.e., each Mσo is aspherical, the associated simple complex of groups GS(L) is developable and BGS(L) ∼ BG for G = lim GS(L)
(so the K(π, 1)-Question has a positive answer).
Theorem 2.7. Let {Mσo }σ∈S o (L) be an n-dimensional complex of aspherical
manifolds with boundary. Then, with hypotheses as above:
(i) actdim G ≤ n + 1.
(ii) If L is EDCE, then actdim G ≤ n.
Proof. Statement (i) follows from Theorem 2.3 applied to the (n+1)-dimensional
system {Mσ }, where Mσ = Mσo × [0, 1]. When L is EDCE, L embeds in a
contractible complex Lc of the same dimension; so, by Proposition 2.6, M is
homotopy equivalent to the n-manifold N o . Hence, actdim G ≤ n.
Remark 2.8. Most of the constructions in Subsections 2.2 and 2.3 work
if one replaces the poset of simplices S(L) by a more arbitrary poset Q.
Specifically, suppose Q is a poset with a minimum element m and that Qo =
Q − {m}. As before, one can define the notion of a posets of manifolds with
boundary over Q and Qo , respectively, and prove versions of Theorems 2.3
and 2.7.

3
3.1

Examples
Simple complexes of closed aspherical manifolds

We begin by discussing graph products. Notation is continued from Definition 1.12 and Example 1.13: L1 is a simplicial graph with vertex set
V , L is the associated
flag complex, {Gv }v∈V is a collection of groups of
Q
type FQ
, G = L1 Gv denotes their graph product and, for each σ ∈ S(L),
Gσ = v∈Vert σ Gv is the direct product. As in Example 1.13, this defines
a simple complex of groups, GS(L) = {Gσ }σ∈S(L) . By Corollary 1.16, the
K(π, 1)-Question has a positive answer for GS(L). For each v ∈ V , let Mv
be a modelQfor BGv by a manifold of minimum dimension mv = actdim Gv .
Let Mσ = v∈Vert σ Mv .
Suppose each Mv P
has nonempty boundary and has dimension at least 2.
Let mσ = dim Mσ = v∈Vert σ dim Mv and put
n = sup{mσ | σ ∈ S(L)}
32

(3.1)

By taking products with disks of suitable dimensions, we can assume that
for each maximal simplex σ of L, dim Mσ = n. It is straightforward to
give {Mσ }σ∈S(L) the structure of an n-dimensional complex of manifolds
with boundary satisfying the conditions in Subsection 2.2. Here are the
details. Choose basepoints xv ∈ ∂Mv . Whenever µ is a face of a simplex
τ ∈QS(L), put V (τ µ) = Vert τ − Vert µ and xτ µ = (xv )v∈V (τ µ) be a basepoint
in v∈V (τ µ) ∂Mv . This gives an inclusion
iτ µ : Mµ ֒→ Mµ × xτ µ ⊂ ∂Mτ

with trivial normal bundle. For a k-simplex α = [τ0 , τ1 , . . . , τk ] ∈ L′ , define
h[α∗τ0 ] : Mµ × α → ∂Mτ0 × α
by h[α∗τ0 ] (z, x) = (iτ µ (z), x). The h[α∗τ0 ] (z, x) obviously satisfy the conditions
in Subsection 2.2; so, {Mσ′ }σ∈S(L) is a complex of manifolds with boundary.
Using Theorem 2.3, we get an n-dimensional manifold M which is a model
for BG. This gives the following.
Proposition 3.1. (cf. Theorem 2.3 and Corollary 1.16). Suppose each Gv is
the fundamental
Q group of an aspherical manifold Mv with nonempty boundary. Let G = L1 Gv be the graph product. Then
actdim G ≤ sup{mσ | σ ∈ S(L)},

where mσ = dim Mσ .
We turn to the case where each Mv is a closed aspherical manifold not
equal to a point. (For example, when G is a RAAG each Mv is a circle.)
We can convert this case into the first case by the simple expedient of taking
the product of each Mv with [0, 1]. Then Mv′ = Mv × [0, 1] is a manifold
with boundary of dimension mv + 1. Proposition 3.1 then has the following
corollary.
Corollary 3.2. Suppose each G
Qv is the fundamental group of a closed aspherical manifold Mv . Let G = L1 Gv be the graph product. Then
actdim G ≤ sup{m′σ | σ ∈ S(L)},

where Mσ′ = Mσ × [0, 1]Vert σ and m′σ = dim Mσ′ = dim Mσ + dim σ + 1.
33

The argument in Proposition 3.1 and Corollary 3.2 is easily modified to
give a sharp upper bound for actdim G in the case when some Mv have empty
boundary and some do not.
When each Mv is closed and of the same dimension m, then Corollary 3.2
has the following corollary.
Corollary 3.3. Suppose each Gv is the fundamental group of a closed aspherical
Q m-manifold Mv , that the flag complex L has dimension d, and that
G = L1 Gv is the graph product.Then
actdim G ≤ (m + 1)(d + 1)

Proof. If σ is a d-simplex, then dim Mσ′ = (m + 1)(d + 1).
The arguments above for the graph product complex of fundamental
groups of closed aspherical m-manifolds can be generalized to a simple complex of fundamental groups of closed aspherical manifolds as defined below.
Definition 3.4. A simple complex of closed manifolds over S(L) is a collection of connected, closed manifolds {Mσ }σ∈S(L) and for each τ < σ a
π1 -injective embedding iστ : Mτ ֒→ Mσ as a submanifold. There are a few
more requirements:
• M∅ is a point.
• If Gσ = π1 (Mσ ) and φστ : Gτ → Gσ is the homomorphism defined by
iστ , then the system {Gσ , φστ } is a simple complex of groups GS(L).
• If τ1 , . . . , τk are faces of σ, then the Mτi intersect transversely in Mσ .
• If τ is a face of σ, then Mτ has trivial normal bundle in Mσ .
For Gσ = π1 (Mσ ), let GS(L) = {Gσ }σ∈S(L) be the associated simple complex
of groups. If each Mσ is a model for BGσ , then {Mσ }σ∈S(L) is a simple
complex of closed aspherical manifolds.
Definition 3.5. The system {Mσ , iστ } satisfies codimension-m conditions if
Mτ has codimension m in Mσ whenever τ is a codimension one face of σ.
(This implies that for any face τ of σ, codim(Mτ , Mσ ) = m codim(τ, σ).)

34

Note that since dim M∅ = 0, the codimension-m conditions imply that
dim Mσ = m(dim σ + 1).
For the graph product complex, if each vertex manifold Mv is a closed
aspherical m-manifold, then {Mσ }σ∈S(L) is a simple complex of closed aspherical manifolds satisfying the codimension-m conditions.
In the more general case of a complex of closed manifolds, follow the
same procedure as for graph products and replace each manifold Mσ by the
manifold with boundary Mσ′ = Mσ ×[0, 1]Vert σ . Then {Mσ′ }σ∈S(L) is a complex
of manifolds with boundary as in Subsection 2.2. Theorem 2.3 allows us glue
together the {Mσ′ } to get a manifold M ′ .
Suppose GS(L) is developable, that the intersection of local groups condition (1.5) holds and that L is a flag complex (so that the K(π, 1)-Question
for GS(L) has a positive answer). Then we get an upper bound for the action
dimension as follows.
Theorem 3.6. Suppose that {Mσ }σ∈S(L) is a simple complex of closed aspherical manifolds over S(L) satisfying the codimension-m conditions. Let
G = lim GS(L) be the direct limit of the π1 (Mσ ). Also suppose as above
that L is a d-dimensional flag complex and that the K(π, 1)-Question has a
positive answer for GS(L). Then
actdim(G) ≤ (m + 1)(d + 1).
In section 4, we will prove that if Hd (L, Z2 ) 6= 0, then actdim(G) =
(m + 1)(d + 1).
Intersecting submanifolds. One way to get examples of simple complexes of closed manifolds is to start with an ambient manifold M together
with a collection of connected, smooth submanifolds (e.g., hypersurfaces),
{M(i)}i∈I , so that the M(i) intersect
T transversely and so that for each subset J of I, the intersection M(J) = i∈J M(i) is nonempty. In order to make
the indexing compatible with previous notation we must replace subsets of I
by their complements. So, we will write v(i) for I − {i} and V for {v(i)}i∈I ,
the set of complements of singletons. A subset J ⊂ I corresponds to the
complementary subset σ(J) := {v(i)}i∈I−J of V . For example, in the case
of the Q
graph product complex, all
Q manifolds are subspaces of the manifold
M = v∈V Mv , while M(i) = j∈I−{i} Mv(j) . The case of a RAAG is a
further specialization: M is the T I , the torus on I, the T (i) are coordinate
35

subtori of codimension one, the Tv(i) are coordinate circles and the Tσ are
coordinate subtori.
To simplify the discussion, suppose that I = {1, . . . , p}, that dim M = mp
and that each M(i) has the same codimension m in M. Since the intersections
are transverse and nonempty, the intersection M(I) of all the M(i) is a
nonempty finite set of points. Choose one, x0 , as the basepoint. For each
σ = σ(J) ⊂ V , let Mσ be the component of M(J) containing x0 . Thus,
dim Mσ = m(dim σ + 1).
If M is locally CAT(0) and each M(i) is totally geodesic, then each
Mσ is aspherical with fundamental group Gσ := π1 (Mσ ). By uniqueness
of geodesics, for each τ < σ the inclusion Mτ → Mσ is π1 -injective. For the
same reason, the intersection of local subgroups condition (1.5) holds. Thus,
for any simplicial complex L, GS(L) is a simple complex of groups and when
L is a flag complex, the K(π, 1)-Question has a positive answer.
Example 3.7. (Complexes of hyperbolic manifolds). First we use the above
technique to construct a system√of hyperbolic manifolds satisfying the codimension1 conditions. Suppose K = Q( d) is a totally real quadratic extension of Q
and A is the ring of algebraic integers in K. Choose ε ∈ A so that ε > 0 and
ε < 0. Define a quadratic form ϕ : Ap+1 × Ap+1 → A by
(
δij , if (i, j) 6= (0, 0),
ϕ(ei , ej ) =
−ε, if (i, j) = (0, 0),
where {ei }0≤i≤p is the standard basis. Let O(ϕ) ⊂ GLp+1 (A) be the subgroup
which preserves the quadratic form ϕ. The signature of ϕ on Ap+1 ⊗A R ∼
=
p+1
R
is (p, 1); so, over R, the group of isometries of ϕ is identified with
O(p, 1) and O(ϕ) is a uniform lattice in O(p, 1). Let Γ be a normal torsionfree subgroup of O(ϕ) (for example, for almost any prime ideal, we could take
Γ to be the corresponding congruence subgroup of√O(ϕ)). Then M p = Hp /Γ
is a closed hyperbolic manifold. The image of ( ε, 0, . . . , 0) in M p is the
basepoint. For 1 ≤ i ≤ p, let ri ∈ O(ϕ) be the reflection which sends ei
to −ei . There is an induced involution of r i on M p . Its fixed point set
is a totally geodesic submanifold of codimension one and the component
containing the basepoint is the manifold M(i). If we require Γ to be a
subgroup of SO(ϕ), then M(i) will be orientable and have trivial normal
bundle in M. For any flag complex L with vertex set in V we then get
a simple complex of closed hyperbolic manifolds {Mσ }S(L) . This system
36

behaves similarly to a complex of coordinate tori in Tp . It is easy to modify
this construction to get a subsystem of {Mσ } satisfying the codimension-m
conditions. Let p = pm. Group the first m commuting involutions together
to get an involution s1 = r1 r2 . . . rm . Continue in this fashion, defining
sj = rm(j−1)+1 · · · rmj . The fixed set of sj on M is a hyperbolic submanifold
M(j) of codimension-m. If L is a flag complex with p vertices we can use the
intersections of the M(j) as above to get a system of hyperbolic manifolds
satisfying codimension-m
conditions.
S
We have that Mσ is a model for BGS(L). The union is a piecewise
hyperbolic space. Since L is a flag complex, its all right, piecewise spherical
metric is CAT(1). Since all intersections in M were orthogonal, the relevant
S
links of the Mσ in the union are full subcomplexes of L. It follows that Mσ
is a CAT(−1) space. Hence, G = lim GS(L) is word hyperbolic.

3.2

Models for spherical Artin groups

Suppose L is a nerve of a Coxeter system (W, S) and let AS(L) be the
associated Artin complex as in Example 1.9. For any simplex σ of L, there is
a corresponding spherical Coxeter group Wσ and a spherical Artin group Aσ .
In this subsection we construct a model for BAσ by a manifold with boundary.
The group Wσ is an orthogonal linear reflection group on Rd(σ)+1 , where
d(σ) = dim σ. By complexification, Wσ acts on Cd(σ)+1 . If Aσ denotes the
arrangement of reflecting hyperplanes in Cd(σ)+1 , then by Deligne’s Theorem
in [20], the arrangement complement M(Aσ ) is a manifold model for the
classifying space of the pure Artin group P Aσ (where P Aσ denotes the kernel
of Aσ → Wσ ). Hence, M(Aσ )/Wσ is a manifold model for BAσ . Similarly,
if S(Aσ ) := S 2d(σ)+1 ∩ M(Aσ ), where S 2d(σ)+1 denotes the unit sphere in
Cd(σ)+1 , then S(Aσ )/Wσ is a model for BAσ by a manifold of dimension
2d(σ) + 1. Our actual approach will be to define a certain Wσ -invariant
bordification of S(Aσ ) (which we will denote by the same symbol) and then
use Nσ := S(Aσ )/Wσ .
Hyperplane arrangements. A hyperplane arrangement A is a finite
T collection of affine hyperplanes in Cn . The arrangement is central if H∈A H
is nonempty. Its rank, rk(A) is the maximum codimension of any nonempty
intersection of hyperplanes in A. An arrangement is essential if its rank
is n. A subspace of A is either the ambient space Cn or a nonempty intersection of hyperplanes. The set of subspaces of A, partially ordered by
37

N?

reverse inclusion, is denoted Q(A) and is called the intersection poset. So, if
F, E ∈ Q(A), then F < E ⇐⇒ F ⊃ E.
′
′′
Suppose A′ and A′′ are arrangements in Cn and Cn , respectively. Define
′
′′
A′ × A′′ to be the arrangement in Cn × Cn consisting of all hyperplanes
′′
′
of the form H ′ × Cn or Cn × H ′′ for H ′ ∈ A, H ′′ ∈ A′′ . An arrangement
A is reducible if it is isomorphic to one which admits a nontrivial product
decomposition as above. Otherwise, it is irreducible. Note that the product
of two central arrangements is central.
The codimension c(E) of a subspace E in Q(A) is the complex dimension of a complementary subspace E ⊥ ⊂ Cn . Given E ∈ Q(A) its normal
arrangement AE is defined by
AE := {H | H ∈ A and H ≤ E}.
(Often we will identify AE with the essential, central arrangement in E ⊥
obtained by intersecting the hyperplanes with the orthogonal complement
E ⊥ of E in Cn .) There is also an arrangement AE in E, called the restriction
of A to E, defined by
AE := {H ∩ E | H ∩ E is a hyperplane in E}.
Arrangement complements and their bordifications. The arrangement complement is
[
M(A) := Cn −
A.

Suppose A is an essential, central arrangement in Cn with {0} the maximum
element of Q(A).
Put
S(A) := S 2n−1 ∩ M(A) and D(A) := D 2n ∩ M(A),

where S 2n−1 and D 2n denote the unit sphere and disk in Cn . Next we want
to attach boundaries to each of these manifolds to obtain a manifold with
corners. The idea is to remove a tubular neighborhood of each E ∈ Q(A),
starting with the E of smallest dimension. There is a canonical way to do
this which we describe below.
Suppose V → E is a vector bundle over a manifold E. If s : E → V
denotes the 0-section, define the associated sphere bundle S(V ) and cylinder
bundle C(V ) by
S(V ) := (V − s(E))/R+ ,

and C(V ) := (V − s(E)) ×R+ [0, ∞),
38

where R+ is the group of positive real numbers. So, if V → E has fiber Rm ,
then the fiber of C(V ) → E is the cylinder S m−1 × [0, ∞). Note that C(V ) is
a manifold with boundary with interior V − s(E). Next, suppose that X is
a manifold, that E ⊂ X is a submanifold and that VE is the normal bundle.
Let f : VE → X be a tubular neighborhood. Define X ⊙ E := C(V ) ∪ X − E
where C(V ) is glued onto X − E via the restriction of the tubular map to
the open subset VE − s(E). The manifold with boundary X ⊙ E is called the
blowup of X along E; it is formed from X − E by adding the sphere bundle
S(VE ) as boundary.
Next we define a bordification of M(A), called the blowup of Cn along
A. Start with Cn and then blowup the subspaces E of minimum dimension
to obtain a manifold with boundary. Each element of F ∈ Q(A)<E is also
blown up to a submanifold with boundary. We continue by blowing up
subspaces of increasing dimension to obtain a manifold with corners, which
we continue to denote by M(A). (A similar procedure is described in [11, Ch.
IV].) Bordifications of S(A) and D(A) are defined in the same fashion. The
boundary of M(A) is a union of manifolds with boundary, ∂E M(A), indexed
by the proper subspaces E ∈ Q(A), where ∂E M(A) means the part of the
boundary which results from blowing up E, i.e.,
∂E M(A) = S(AE ) × Ê,

(3.2)

where S(AE ) is the blowup of the normal arrangement in the unit sphere
of E ⊥ and Ê = M(AE ) is the blowup of E along AE . (Note that the right
hand side of (3.2) is a product since the normal bundle of E in Cn is trivial.)
Thus, S(AE ) is a submanifold of ∂M(A) and for each F < E, S(AF ) ∩ E is
also a submanifold of ∂F (Ê).
If the central arrangement A decomposes as A = A1 × · · · × Ak , then
there is an obvious homotopy equivalence S(A) ∼ S(A1) × · · · × S(Ak ).
Reflection arrangements. Now suppose (Wσ , Sσ ) is a spherical Coxeter
system, where Sσ = Vert(σ). Let ARσ be the associated real hyperplane
arrangement in Rd(σ)+1 and Aσ its complexification. The intersection posets
Q(ARσ ) and Q(A) are canonically identified. As usual, S(σ) denotes the
face poset of σ. Since σ is the dual of the fundamental simplex for Wσ on
S d(σ)+1 , each face τ ≤ σ is dual to a face which corresponds to a subspace
E R (τ ) ⊆ Rd(σ)+1 or equally well to E(τ ) ⊆ Cd(σ)+1 . This gives an orderpreserving injection τ 7→ E(τ ) from S(σ) to Q(Aσ ). The subspace E(τ ) is the
39

subspace of Cd(σ)+1 fixed by Wτ ; hence, Wτ acts as a reflection group on the
normal space E(τ )⊥ . By Deligne’s Theorem, S(Aσ )/Wσ is a model for BAσ
by a manifold with boundary of dimension 2d(σ) + 1. Hence, actdim Aσ ≤
2d(σ) + 1. When (Wσ , Sσ ) is reducible this estimate can be improved. So,
suppose its irreducible components are (Wi , Si ) = (Wσi , Sσi ), where 1 ≤ i ≤
k. Put Ai = Aσi and ni = dim σi + 1. Then W = W1 × · · · × Wk and
S(A1 )/W1 × · · · × S(Ak )/Wk is a manifold model for BAσ . This gives the
following.
Proposition 3.8. Suppose the decomposition of a spherical Coxeter group
Wσ into irreducibles is given by Wσ = W1 × · · · × P
Wk . Then the spherical
Artin group Aσ has action dimension ≤ 2n − k (= 2d(σi ) + 1).

The Artin complex. Consider an Artin complex AS(L) for which the
K(π, 1)-Question has a positive answer. Suppose the dimension of L is d. As
explained in Example 1.9, since the Salvetti complex for A is of dimension
d + 1, gdim A = d + 1. So, on general principles, actdim A ≤ 2d + 2. As we
explained below, one can use the gluing technique of Subsection 2.2 to obtain
the same estimate. To this end define a complex of aspherical manifolds with
boundary {Mσ }σ∈S(L) by putting
Mσ := M(Aσ )/Wσ .

(3.3)

It is a manifold with boundary of dimension 2d(σ) + 2 and a model for
BAσ . Next we need to define embeddings iστ : Mτ ֒→ ∂Mσ , whenever
τ < σ. For a fixed σ, Aσ is an arrangement in Cd(σ)+1 . If τ < σ, then
E(τ ) is a subspace of Aσ and its normal arrangement AE(τ ) (∼
= Aτ ) is an
⊥
arrangement in E(τ ) . Choose a basepoint x ∈ Ê(σ) and identify S(AE(τ ) )
with S(AE(τ ) ) × x ⊂ ∂E(τ ) S(Aσ ). (S(AE(τ ) ) is the fiber of the sphere bundle
of the normal bundle of S(Ê(τ )) in S(Aσ ).) Hence, we get an embedding
S(AE(τ ) ) ֒→ ∂S(Aσ ). Since M(Aτ ) = S(AE(τ ) ) × [0, ∞) and M(Aσ ) =
S(Aσ ) × [0, ∞) by taking the product with the identity map on [0, ∞), we
get the embedding M(Aτ ) ֒→ ∂M(Aσ ). Taking quotients by Wσ and Wτ (=
the stabilizer of E(τ ) in Wσ ), this induces an embedding iστ : Mτ ֒→ ∂Mσ .
Here a small remark is needed: if Wτ and Wτ ′ are conjugate subgroups of Wσ ,
then, as defined, Mτ and Mτ ′ are the same submanifold of ∂Mσ ; however,
if τ 6= τ ′ , we want their images to be disjoint. This is easily arranged by
picking a different point x′ ∈ Ê(τ ′ ) for τ ′ , so that Mτ and Mτ′ will be parallel
40

submanifolds in ∂Mσ . It is then straightforward to define the dual disk Dτ
to Mτ and isotopies as in (2.9) so that {Mτ }τ ∈S(L) becomes a complex of
manifolds with boundary. Applying Theorem 2.3 we get a manifold with
boundary M of dimension 2d + 2 which is a model for BA. This gives an
alternate proof for the following.
Proposition 3.9. Suppose the K(π, 1)-Question has a positive answer for
AS(L). Let A = lim AS(L) and d = dim L. Then actdim A ≤ 2d + 2.
Permutohedra. When L is EDCE and the manifolds over the vertices of
L are closed, it is necessary to use a trick with permutohedra in order to
apply the method of Subsection 2.3 to get sharp upper bounds for the action
dimensions. This trick is already needed in the case of Artin groups, indeed
for RAAGs. In the case of a RAAG, AL , our complex of groups is given by the
fundamental groups of a complex of tori {Mτ }τ ∈S(L) , where Mτ = (S 1 )Vert τ .
In Corollary 3.3 we produced a manifold model for AL of dimension 2d + 2
(where d = dim L) by using as a complex of manifolds with boundary Mτ′ :=
Mτ × I Vert τ . When L is EDCE the dimension can be decreased by one using
the complex of manifolds with boundary, Nτ = Mτ × P (τ ) where P (τ ) is a
certain d(τ )-dimensional polytope called a “permutohedron”. We shall see
in Subsection 3.3 below that the same trick works for any complex of closed
aspherical manifolds.
Definition 3.10. Suppose σ is a d-simplex. The permutohedron on σ, denoted by P (σ), is the d-dimensional convex simple polytope obtained by
truncating the proper nonempty faces of σ. The facets of P (σ) are indexed
by the elements of the interval (∅, σ) in S(σ). (A facet is a face of codimension
one). Denote the facet corresponding to τ by ∂τ P (σ). Alternatively, P (σ)
can be defined by blowing up the proper faces of σ by a procedure similar to
that described in the paragraph on bordifications in Subsection 3.2.
Whenever τ < σ, there is a natural inclusion iστ : P (τ ) → ∂τ P (σ).
Permutohedra arise naturally in blowups of hyperplane complements.
Example 3.11. Suppose A denotes the coordinate hyperplane arrangement
in Cd+1 , defined by zi = 0, 0 ≤ i ≤ d. Let ∆ be the spherical d-simplex
defined by ∆ = [0, ∞)d+1 ∩ S d and define p : S 2d+1 → ∆ by (z0 , . . . , zk ) 7→
(|z1 |2 , . . . , |zk |2 ). As in subsection 3.2, let S(A) denote the blowup of the
coordinate hyperplane arrangement in the unit sphere of Cd+1 . The map p
41

induces a map p̂ : S(A) → P (∆) which is the projection map of a trivial
bundle with fiber T d+1 . Hence, the coordinate hyperplane complement S(A)
is diffeomorphic as a manifold with corners to T d+1 × P (∆).
Example 3.12. More generally, suppose A is a central hyperplane arrangement in Cn and that A = A0 × · · · × Ak is its decomposition into irreducible
components. Since M(A) ∼
= M(A0 ) × · · · × M(Ak ), we see that S(A) is homotopy equivalent to S(A0 )×· · ·×S(Ak ). In fact, by using a permutahedron
we get a corresponding diffeomorphism of manifolds with corners,
∼
=

S(A) −→ [S(A0 ) × · · · × S(Ak )] × P (∆),

(3.4)

where P (∆) is a permutohedron of dimension k. If Ai is an arrangement in
Cn(i) , then Cn = Cn(0) ×· · ·×Cn(k) . A vector in Cn is given by (z(0), . . . , z(k)),
where z(i) ∈ Cn(i) . Define p : S 2n−1 → ∆ by (z(0), . . . , z(k)) 7→ (|z(0)|2 , . . . , |z(k)|2 ).
There is an induced map on blowups, p̂ : S(A) → P (∆). Using p̂ and the
various projections we get (3.4). For example, suppose Wσ is a spherical
Coxeter group and that Wσ = W0 × · · · × Wk is its decomposition into irreducibles. As in the paragraph above on reflection arrangements, let Ai be
the reflection arrangement corresponding to Wi and Aσ the arrangement for
W . As in (3.3), put Mσ = S(Aσ )/Wσ and Mi = S(Ai )/Wi . By (3.4) we have
a diffeomorphism of manifolds with corners:
∼
=

Mσ −→ [M0 × · · · × Mk ] × P (∆).

3.3

L is EDCE

When L is EDCE (cf. Definition 1.24) we can decrease by 1 our estimates
of upper bounds for the action dimension in Propositions 3.1 and 3.9, Theorem 3.6 and Corollaries 3.2 and 3.3. In each case we apply Theorem 2.7 of
Subsection 2.3. We assume throughout this subsection that dim L = d.
We first consider the Artin group case. When L is EDCE we can improve
the upper bound in Proposition 3.9 to get the following result, first proved
in [30].
Proposition 3.13. Suppose the K(π, 1)-Question has a positive answer for
AS(L). If L is EDCE, then actdim A ≤ 2d + 1 (= 2 gdim A − 1).
Sketch of Proof. To prove this we essentially use the same complex of manifolds with boundary as in the paragraph on the Artin complex in Subsection 3.2, except that M(Aσ )/Wσ is replaced by S(Aσ )/Wσ . So, we start with
42

the complex of aspherical manifolds {Mσo }σ∈S o (L) , where Mσo = S(Aσ )/Wσ .
By taking products with other disks, we can arrange that for all maximal
simplices σ, each Mσo has dimension 2d + 1. Next embed L in a contractible
simplicial complex Lc of the same dimension d. As in Proposition 2.6, there
is a trivial extension of this to a complex of manifolds with boundary over
S o (Lc ). Finally, apply Theorem 2.7 to get the result.
Essentially the same argument gives the following improvement of Theorem 3.6.
Theorem 3.14. Suppose that {Mσ }σ∈S(L) is a simple complex of closed aspherical manifolds over S(L) satisfying the codimension-m conditions. Let
G = lim GS(L) be the direct limit of the π1 (Mσ ). Also suppose as before that
L is a d-dimensional flag complex and that the K(π, 1)-Question for GS(L)
has a positive answer. If L is EDCE, then
actdim(G) ≤ (m + 1)(d + 1) − 1.
Sketch of Proof. For each σ ∈ S o (L), let Nσo = Mσ × P (σ), where P (σ) is
a permutohedron (cf. Definition 3.10). By taking products with other disks
we can arrange that for all maximal simplices σ the dimensions of the Nσo are
equal. Then the complex of manifolds with boundary {Nτo }τ ∈S o (L) is a complex of manifolds with boundary satisfying the conditions in Subsection 2.3.
The proof is finished exactly as in the proof of the previous proposition: embed L in a contractible simplicial complex Lc of the same dimension d; there
is a trivial extension of {Nσo } to a complex of manifolds with boundary over
S o (Lc ); then use Theorem 2.7 to complete the proof.
For the graph product complex of fundamental groups, Theorem 3.14 has
the following corollary (cf. Corollary 3.3), which gives part (ii) of Theorem
B in the Introduction.
Corollary 3.15. Suppose L is a flag complex, that for each v ∈ Vert L,
Gv isQthe fundamental group of a closed aspherical m-manifold Mv and that
G = L1 Gv is the graph product. If L is EDCE, then
actdim G ≤ (m + 1)(d + 1) − 1

The case of a RAAG is where m = 1. Then, it is proved in [1] that for
d 6= 2, the EDCE condition, can be replaced with the weaker condition that
Hd (L, Z2 ) = 0.
43

Remark 3.16. On the other hand, Corollaries 3.3 and 3.15 have advantages
over the results of [1]. For example, suppose dim L = d and that G is
the graph product over L1 of free abelian groups of rank m. Then gdim G =
m(d+1). The group G also is the RAAG associated to the simplicial complex
L̄, which is the polyhedral join over L of (m − 1)-simplices. (The notion of
a “polyhedral join” is defined in Definition 4.6 below.) So, dim L̄ = m(d +
1) − 1. Corollary 3.3 yields, actdim G ≤ (m + 1)(d + 1), while [1] only gives,
actdim G ≤ 2 dim L̄ + 2 = 2m(d + 1). (When L is EDCE both estimates can
be improved by 1: Corollary 3.15 gives actdim G ≤ (m + 1)(d + 1) − 1 while
[1] gives actdim G ≤ 2m(d + 1) − 1).

4

Obstructors

˜
The ordered 2-point configuration space C(X)
of a space X is the space of
ordered pairs of distinct points in X, i.e.,
˜
C(X)
= (X × X) − D,
where D denotes the diagonal (in many situations it will be better to remove
a neighborhood of the diagonal). The 2-point configuration space C(X) is
the space of unordered pairs of distinct points:
˜
C(X) := C(X)/Z
2,
˜
where Z2 acts by switching the factors. The double cover C(X)
→ C(X)
∞
is classified by a map c : C(X) → RP = BZ2 . Let w1 denote the nontrivial element of H 1 (RP ∞ , Z2 ), so that (w1 )n is the nontrivial element of
H n (RP ∞ , Z2 ).
Definition 4.1. The Z2 -valued van Kampen obstruction for X in dimension
n, vkn (X) ∈ H n (C(X); Z2 ), is defined by vkn (X) = c∗ (w1 )n .
If vkn (X) 6= 0, then we say X is an n-obstructor.
Remark. One can also define a Z-valued van Kampen obstruction by replacing w1 by the nontrivial element of H 1 (RP ∞ ; Z− ) where Z− means twisted
integer coefficients (cf. [1]). We will not use this refinement in this paper.

44

Definition 4.2. A map f : X → Y between metric spaces is a coarse
embedding if there exist two nondecreasing functions ρ+ , ρ− : R+ → R+ such
that limt→∞ ρ− (t) = ∞ and
ρ− (d(x, y)) ≤ d(f (x), f (y)) ≤ ρ+ (d(x, y)).
Given a finite simplicial complex K, let
Cone∞ K := K × [0, ∞)/K × {0}
denote the cone of infinite radius on K. Equip Cone∞ K with a proper metric
so that for each pair of disjoint simplices σ and τ , the distance between
σ × [t, ∞) and τ × [t, ∞) goes to infinity as t → ∞.
Suppose, for simplicity, that the group G is of type F . The method of [4]
consists of the following two steps.
(1) Find a coarse embedding Cone∞ K → EG for a suitable complex K.
(2) Compute the van Kampen obstruction of K in degree n. (By the Linking Lemma of [4, p. 223], this is an obstruction to coarsely embedding
Cone∞ K in a contractible (n + 1)-manifold).
Putting this together, we have the following definition from [4].
Definition 4.3. The obstructor dimension of G, denoted obdim G, is the
maximal n + 2 such that there exists a complex K with nonzero van Kampen
obstruction in degree n and a coarse embedding of Cone∞ (K) → EG.
Remarks 4.4. (i) Since Bestvina-Kapovich-Kleiner [4] want to define obstructors for a general group G, instead of using (1) they consider proper,
expanding, Lipschitz maps from the 0-skeleton of Cone∞ K to G. When
G acts cocompactly on EG this amounts to finding a coarse embedding
Cone∞ (K) → EG.
(ii) For a finite complex K, the cohomology class vkn (K) is the classical obstruction for finding a PL embedding of K into Rn . Indeed, if K
embeds in Rn , then C(K) embeds in C(Rn ) ∼ RP n−1, i.e., C(K) classifies
into RP n−1 and hence, vkn (K) = c∗ (w1 )n = 0. In the converse direction,
suppose F : K → Rn is a PL map in general position and that Σ is a mod
two n-cycle in C(K). Then the result of evaluating the cohomology class
on the cycle, hvkn (K), Σi, counts the self-intersections of F which lie in Σ.
45

(This is explained in [4, §2.1].) In Subsection 4.4 we will use this method
of calculating self-intersections of general position maps to prove certain van
Kampen obstructions are nonzero.
(iii) If G is a word-hyperbolic group or if EG is a CAT(0)-space, then EG
has a Z-set compactification EG. Put ∂G := EG − EG. If a finite simplicial
complex K is a subspace of ∂G, we get a coarse embedding Cone∞ K → EG
by choosing a basepoint in EG and coning off K.
The coarse van Kampen obstruction. A generalization of (1) is used by
Yoon in [36]. He considers instead coarse embeddings f : T → EG for some
contractible CW complex T with a proper metric into EG. We are assuming
BG is a finite complex and that EG has a length metric induced from a
length metric on BG. As in [4], Yoon considers the van Kampen obstruction
for embedding T in a contractible (n+1)-manifold. The 2-point configuration
space of a contractible (n + 1)-manifold W is homotopy equivalent to RP n .
˜ ) ⊂ C(W
˜ ) and hence, c : C(T ) → RP ∞ factors
If T embeds in W , then C(T
n+1
n
through RP . So, if vk (T ) 6= 0, then T does not embed in a contractible
(n + 1)-manifold. The following lemma of [4, Lemma 8] is important, at least
psychologically, to understanding the case T = Cone∞ K.
Lemma 4.5. (The Cone Lemma of [4]). If K is an n-obstructor, then
Cone K is a (n + 1)-obstructor, i.e., vkn+1 (Cone K) = vkn (K).
One actually needs to show the stronger result that T does not coarsely
embed in any contractible (n + 1)-manifold. For T = Cone∞ K this is proved
in [4] by using the Linking Lemma. In the case of a more general contractible
complex T , Yoon considers the “deleted configuration spaces” C˜r (T ) := [(T ×
T )−Nr (D)], where Nr (D) means a Z2 -stable r-neighborhood of the diagonal.
One then needs to show that the van Kampen obstruction remains nonzero
on the quotients, Cr (T ) := C˜r (T )/Z2 . So, we define the coarse van Kampen
obstruction to be the image of vkn+1 (T ) in limr→∞ H n+1 (Cr (T ); Z2 ). We
define the proper obstructor dimension of G, denoted pobdim(G), to be the
maximal n+1 such that there is a coarse embedding of a contractible complex
T into EG such that the coarse van Kampen obstruction of T in dimension
n is nonzero. Yoon shows that pobdim(G) ≤ actdim(G).

46

4.1

Configurations of subgroups and sheets

Definition 4.6. Suppose {Xv }v∈V is a collection of spaces indexed by the
vertex set V of a simplicial complex L. For σ ∈ S o (L), let X(σ) denote the
join v∈Vert σ Xv . Define the polyhedral join over L of the {Xv }v∈V by
[
X(σ).
(4.1)
L Xv :=

∗

∗

σ∈S o (L)

As in Subsection 1.1, suppose that GQ = {Gσ }σ∈Q is a developable complex of groups with |Q| simply connected, that BGQ is its aspherical realization and that G = π1 (BGQ) = lim GQ. Put
[
G :=
Gσ
(4.2)
σ∈Q

and call it a configuration of standard subgroups.
Suppose each finite subset
T
{σ1 , . . . σk } has a greatest lower bound, σi . With the word metrics, each
inclusion Gσ ֒→ G is a coarse embedding. Furthermore, given any two subgroups H1 and H2 of G, the coarse intersection of H1 and H2 in G is coarsely
equivalent to their actual intersection
T H1 ∩ H2 (see [32] for precise definitions
of the coarse intersection). Since Gσi = GT σi , this implies the inclusion of
the configuration G into G is also a coarse embedding.
Let EGQ denote the universal cover of BGQ. For each σ, choose a
basepoint b′σ ∈ BGσ and a path connecting it to the basepoint b′ ∈ BGQ
(BGσ is a subcomplex of BGQ). Choose a lift of b′ to a basepoint b ∈ EGQ.
The path from b′ to b′σ lifts to a path from b to a point bσ . Let EGσ denote
the component of the inverse image of BGσ in EGQ containing the basepoint
bσ (so, EGσ is a copy of the universal cover of BGσ ). Put
[
EG :=
EGσ
(4.3)
σ∈Q

and call it a standard configuration of sheets in EGQ. Identify the Gσ -orbit
of bσ with the group Gσ . If each Gσ is type F , then EG is quasi-isometric
to the union of orbits Gb. Hence, EG ֒→ EGQ also is a coarse embedding in
the type F case.
Example 4.7. (RAAGs). As in Example 1.9, suppose AL is the RAAG
associated to a flag complex L and that AS(L) is the Artin complex. For
47

each σ ∈ S(L), let Rσ denote the Euclidean space with basis Vert σ, let
Zσ ⊂ Rσ be the integer lattice and let T σ = Rσ /Zσ be the torus. The local
group Aσ is Zσ . The spaces BAσ and EAσ are identified with T σ and Rσ ,
respectively. Let d(σ) = dim σ. The octahedron on σ, denoted Oσ, is the
(d(σ) + 1)-fold join of S 0 ’s, where the copies of S 0 are indexed by Vert σ. So,
each standard sheet Rσ is identified with Cone∞ Oσ and the configuration of
standard sheets EG is identified with Cone∞ OL, where, as in Definition 4.6,
OL denotes the polyhedral join of 0-spheres, i.e.,
[
OL := L S 0 =
Oσ.
(4.4)

∗

σ∈S o (L)

Sometimes we shall consider finer configurations of subgroups. Suppose
each local group Gσ contains a simple complex of groups Q⊘ (σ), where the
poset Q⊘ (σ) has geometric realization homeomorphic to that of Q≤σ . Moreover, the union of these posets will be the poset of simplices in a simplicial
complex Q⊘ with the same geometric realization as Q. For each α ∈ QS
⊘ (σ),
the corresponding local group Hα is a subgroup of Gσ . S
Then H(σ) := Hα
is a configuration of subgroups in Gσ and EH(σ) := EHα is a configuration of sheets in EGσ . Taking
S the union over all σ ∈ Q, we get a configuration
S of subgroups H := H(σ) ⊂ G and a configuration of sheets
EH := EH(σ) ⊂ EG. The archetype is the case of a general Artin group
A considered in [15]. This is explained in the next example.
Example 4.8. (The configuration of standard free abelian subgroups in an
Artin group). As in Example 1.9, let AS(L) denote the Artin complex associated to a Coxeter system (W, S) with nerve L. Let AL be the associated
Artin group. For each σ ∈ S(L), Wσ is the corresponding spherical Coxeter
group and Dσ is its Coxeter diagram. As explained in [15], there is a subdivision σ⊘ of σ whose vertices correspond to the connected subdiagrams of
Dσ . In other words the vertices of σ⊘ are the irreducible special subgroups of
Wσ . Corresponding to each vertex we have the infinite cyclic group generated
by the element ∆2σ in the pure spherical Artin group P Aσ . So, the group
corresponding to a vertex s of L is the square of the corresponding Artin
generator xs . The simplices of σ⊘ index the standard free abelian subgroups
of Aσ . These subdivisions of simplices fit together to give a subdivision L⊘
of L. For example, the edge {s, t} of L is subdivided into two edges exactly
when 3 ≤ mst < ∞. This leads to the configuration of standard free abelian
48

subgroups in AL and a configuration of standard flats in AS(L):
[
[
Zα ⊂ AL and
Rα ⊂ EAS(L).
α∈S(L⊘ )

α∈S(L⊘ )

Moreover, the configuration of standard flats is isometric to Cone∞ OL⊘ ,
where, as in (4.4), OL⊘ , is a polyhedral join of 0-spheres. So, when the
K(π, 1)-Question for AS(L) has a positive answer, Cone∞ OL⊘ is coarsely
embedded in EAL .
It follows from [15] that the inclusion of standard infinite subgroups corresponding to the vertices of L⊘ defines a homomorphism Φ : AL⊘ → AL
from the RAAG AL⊘ to the Artin group AL . This leads us to the following.
Conjecture 4.9. The homomorphism Φ : AL⊘ → AL is injective.
Conjecture 4.9 is related to a conjecture of Tits which was proved by
proved by Paris and Crisp in [10]. Let Γ denote the subgraph of L1 consisting
of the edges labeled 2. Let AΓ be the RAAG defined by Γ. There is a
homomorphism AΓ → AL which sends each generator for AΓ to the square
of the corresponding generator for AL . Since the flag complex determined by
Γ is a full subcomplex of L⊘ , the Tits Conjecture amounts to the conjecture
that the homomorphism Φ in Conjecture 4.9 is injective. Conjecture 4.9 is
still open even for spherical Artin groups. For example, if A is the braid group
B4 , the Tits Conjecture states that there is an injective homomorphism from
Z2 ∗ Z into B4 , whereas our conjecture predicts an injective homomorphism
from the RAAG, ACone(C5 ) to B4 , where C5 is a five-cycle.
There are similar configurations of abelian subgroups for affine hyperplane
complements (cf. section 5). The configurations of free abelian and nilpotent
groups in [3] as well as the configurations of free abelian subgroups generated
by Dehn twists and“Mess subgroups” in the mapping class group in [23]
follow similar lines.

4.2

The complex Om L

Given a d-dimensional flag complex L, let Om L denote the polyhedral join
of (m − 1)-spheres, as in Definition 4.6, i.e.,
[
Om L := L S m−1 :=
Om σ,

∗

σ∈S o (L)

49

where Om σ denotes the (d(σ) + 1)-fold join of (m − 1)-spheres, Sv , indexed
by Vert σ (eventually each of these (m − 1)-spheres will be given a simplicial
structure). Thus, Om σ is a sphere of dimension m(d(σ) + 1) − 1. So, the
dimension of Om L is m(d + 1) − 1. We denote this dimension by δm (L) (or
simply by δ):
δ = δm (L) := dim Om L = m(d + 1) − 1
(4.5)
Let OL = O1 L. In [1] the van Kampen obstruction of OL was computed in
many cases.
Theorem 4.10. ([1]). Let L be any d-dimensional flag complex. If Hd (L; Z2 ) 6=
0, then vk2d (OL) 6= 0. Therefore, actdim AL = 2 gdim AL = 2d + 2.
The idea for the proof of this in [1] was to construct a specific 2d-cycle
Ω in the 2-point configuration space C(OL) so that vk2d (OL) evaluates nontrivially on Ω. In the following subsections, we will generalize this to Om L.
The main result in this section is the following.
Theorem 4.11. Suppose L is a d-dimensional flag complex and that δ =
dim Om L = m(d + 1) − 1. If Hd (L; Z2 ) 6= 0, then Om L is a (δ + d)-obstructor.
The proof of Theorem 4.11 will occupy Subsection 4.5. A similar result
holds for polyhedral joins of spheres over L when the spheres are allowed be
of different dimensions, and the proof is essentially the same as the proof of
Theorem 4.11. Note that δ + d = m(d + 1) − 1 + d = (m + 1)(d + 1) − 2.
Before proving Theorem 4.11, we note in the following proposition that
the vanishing of the van Kampen obstruction of Om L in degrees higher than
δ + d follows from the gluing constructions as in Corollaries 3.3 and 3.15.
Proposition 4.12. Suppose L is a d-dimensional flag complex and that δ =
dim Om L.
(i) vkδ+d+1 (Om L) = 0.
(ii) If L is EDCE, then vkδ+d (Om L) = 0.
Proof. For each v ∈ Vert L, choose
Q a closed, nonpositively curved m-manifold
Mv . Put Gv = π1 (Mv ) and let L Gv be the graph product of the {Gv }. As
before, BGS(L) is the polyhedral product of the Mv . Then Cone∞ Om L can
be identified with the configuration of standard sheets in EG. By Proposition 3.1, BG thickens to a manifold of dimension (m + 1)(d + 1) = δ + d + 2.
50

So, Cone∞ Om L coarsely embeds into a contractible (δ + d + 2)-manifold
and hence, vkn (Om L) = 0 for n ≥ δ + d + 1, giving statement (i). Similarly, if L is EDCE, then BG thickens to a (δ + d + 1)-manifold, so that
vkδ+d (Om L) = 0.
Remark 4.13. One can give a different argument for Proposition 4.12 (i)
by showing directly that Om L has an embedding of codimension (d + 1) in
Euclidean space and hence, that vkδ+d+1 (Om L) = 0.

4.3

Sheets of contractible manifolds

As in Definitions 3.4 and 3.5, suppose {Mσ }σ∈S(L) is a simple complex of
closed aspherical manifolds over S(L) satisfying the codimension-m conditions. Let GS(L) be the associated simple complex of groups. Put G =
lim GS(L). Assume the K(π, 1)-Question has a positive answer for GS(L).
fσ be the copy of
Each Mσ is a subspace of BG (= BGS(L)). Let M
S
fσ
its universal cover containing a given basepoint b ∈ EG. Let EG = M
fσ is CAT(0) and if its visual boundary,
be the union of sheets. If each M
fσ , is homeomorphic to the sphere Om σ, then M
fσ is homeomorphic to
∂∞ M
Cone∞ (Om σ) = Rm(d(σ)+1) . Hence, EG is homeomorphic to Cone∞ (Om L).
fτ intersect transversely; so that for
This uses the assumption that the M
fτ is identified with the standard subsphere
τ < σ, the visual sphere of M
Om τ ⊂ Om σ. By Theorem 4.11, if Hd (L; Z2 ) 6= 0, then vkδ+d (Om L) 6= 0 and
hence, obdim G ≥ δ + d + 2.
Our goal in this subsection is to show how to generalize this without the
fσ has a Z-set compactification with boundary a sphere. In
assumption that M
fσ is simply connected at infinity.
particular, we do not need to assume that M
So, assuming Theorem 4.11 (which will be proved in the next subsection),
we here prove the following.
Theorem 4.14. Suppose that {Mσ }σ∈S(L) is a simple complex of closed aspherical manifolds over S(L), where L is a d-dimensional flag complex. Take
hypotheses and notation as above. If Hd (L, Z2 ) 6= 0, then the coarse van
Kampen obstruction of EG in degree δ + d + 1 is nonzero. So, pobdim G ≥
δ + d + 2. Hence, actdim G = δ + d + 2.
This theorem applies, for example, when G is the graph product of fundamental groups of closed aspherical manifolds.
51

f
To simplify notation write
S Eσ instead ofSMσ and Cσ instead of Cone(Om σ).
Also, write E for EG = Eσ and C for Cσ . We can identify Cσ with an
open neighborhood of the basepoint in Eσ . Thus, C is an open neighborhood of the basepoint b in E and C × C is an open neighborhood of (b, b) in
E × E. The inclusion C × C ֒→ E × E takes the diagonal to the diagonal
˜
˜
so we have a Z2 -equivariant inclusion C(C)
֒→ C(E)
inducing an inclusion of
2-point configuration spaces, i : C(C) ֒→ C(E).
˜
˜
Lemma 4.15. The inclusions C(C)
֒→ C(E)
and i : C(C) ֒→ C(E) are both
homotopy equivalences.
We will assume that each Eσ comes with a proper Gσ -invariant metric
so that the inclusions Eτ ֒→ Eσ are isometries. Extend these metrics to a
metric on E by taking the induced path metric. This implies that if x and
y are points in E such that x ∈ Eσ , y ∈ Eτ , then there is a point z ∈ Eσ∩τ
with d(x, z) + d(y, z) = d(x, y). As in [36], let Nr be an r-neighborhood of
the diagonal D in E × E. Write C˜r (E) for (E × E) − Nr and Cr (E) for its
quotient by the free Z2 -action.
Lemma 4.16. The inclusions Cr (E) ֒→ C(E) induce an isomorphism on
cohomology:
∼
=
H ∗ (C(E))−→ lim H ∗ (Cr (E)),
r→∞

where lim means direct limit.
Both Lemmas 4.15
S and 4.16 have similar proofs.
Note that E = Eσ is a poset of contractible manifolds
over S(L). In
S
particular, that Eσ ∩ Eτ = Eσ∩τ . Similarly, E × E = (σ,τ ) Eσ × Eτ is a poset
of contractible manifolds over S(L)×S(L). The diagonal D(E) intersects the
terms in this decomposition as follows: (Eσ ×Eτ )∩D(E) = Dσ∩τ , where Dσ∩τ
denotes the diagonal in Eσ∩τ × Eσ∩τ . It is a properly embedded, contractible
submanifold with trivial normal bundle in the contractible manifold Eσ∩τ ×
Eσ∩τ . Thus,
[
˜
C(E)
:= (E × E) − D(E) =
(Eσ × Eτ ) − Dσ∩τ .
(σ,τ )

The manifold (Eσ × Eτ ) − Dσ∩τ is homotopy equivalent to a normal sphere
S c(σ,τ )−1 , where c(σ, τ ) is the codimension of Dσ∩τ in Eσ × Eτ . The normal
vector space of Dσ∩τ in Eσ ×Eτ decomposes as V a + V b + V d , where V a is the
52

normal space of Eσ∩τ in Eσ , V b is the normal space of Eσ∩τ in Eτ , and V d is
the normal space of Dσ∩τ in Eσ∩τ . Thus, S c(σ,τ )−1 has a join decomposition
as S a−1 ∗S b−1 ∗S d−1 . The involution (switching factors) maps V a and V b into
different factors and acts by the antipodal map on V d . It follows that the
image of the normal sphere to Dσ∩τ in (Eσ × Eτ ) in the 2-point configuration
space C(E) is homotopy equivalent to S a−1 ∗S b−1 ∗RP d−1 , i.e., to a suspension
of projective space.
The previous
S paragraph goes through, mutatis mutandis, for the union
of cones C = Cσ , as well as, for its ordered 2-point configuration space,
˜
C(C).
˜
˜
Proof of Lemma 4.15. Both C(C)
and C(E)
are posets of spaces over (S(L)×
S(L))>(∅,∅) . The geometric realization of this poset is the join, L ∗ L. The
˜
˜
relative homology groups of (C(E),
C(C))
can be computed from a spectral
sequence for the poset of spaces, e.g., see [19]. Its E 1 -page is
1
Epq
= Cp (L ∗ L; Hq ((Eσ × Eτ ) − D, (Cσ × Cτ ) − D)).

(The coefficients in this spectral sequence are not locally constant). Since
Cσ ×Cτ −D ֒→ Eσ ×Eτ −D is a homotopy equivalence, Hq (Eσ ×Eτ −D, Cσ ×
˜
˜
Cτ −D) = 0 for all q. Hence, H∗ (C(E),
C(C))
vanishes in all degrees. When L
˜
is connected, L ∗ L is simply connected; so, by van Kampen’s Theorem, C(C)
˜
˜
and C(E) are simply connected. Hence, by Whitehead’s Lemma, C(C) ֒→
˜
C(E)
is a homotopy equivalence. A more careful analysis yields the same
statement even when L is not connected. We shall not give the argument
since all we need is that the map induces an isomorphism on homology.
˜
˜
Since C(C)
֒→ C(E)
is Z2 -equivariant it induces a homotopy equivalence
C(C) → C(E).

To prove Lemma 4.16, first note that C˜r (E) also has a decomposition as
a poset of contractible manifolds:
[
C˜r (E) =
(Eσ × Eτ ) − Nr (Dσ∩τ ),
(σ,τ )

where Nr (Dσ∩τ ) means the r-neighborhood of Dσ∩τ in Eσ × Eτ . By coarse
Alexander duality (e.g., see [36]), (Eσ × Eτ ) − Nr (Dσ∩τ ) has the same prohomology type as (Eσ ×Eτ )−Dσ∩τ (which is homotopy equivalent to S c(σ,τ )−1 );
53

so, the inclusions induce an isomorphisms:
H ∗ (S c(σ,τ )−1 ) = H ∗ ((Eσ × Eτ ) − Dσ∩τ ) → lim H ∗ ((Eσ × Eτ ) − Nr (Dσ∩τ )).
r→∞

(4.6)

Proof of Lemma 4.16. The cohomology spectral sequences for the poset of
spaces give spectral sequences with E1 -pages:
E1pq = C p (L ∗ L; H q ((Eσ × Eτ ) − Dσ∩τ ))
E1pq (r) = C p (L ∗ L; H q ((Eσ × Eτ ) − Nr (Dσ∩τ )))
By (4.6), the inclusions induce an isomorphism, E1pq → lim E1pq (r) and hence,
by the comparison theorem for spectral sequences, an isomorphism,
∼
=

˜
−→ lim H ∗ (C˜r (E)).
H ∗ (C(E))
r→∞

There is a similar isomorphism for H ∗ (Cr (E)).
Proof of Theorem 4.14. By Theorem 4.11, vkδ+d (Om L) 6= 0. By Lemma 4.5,
this implies vkδ+d+1 (Cone(Om L)) 6= 0. By Lemma 4.15, its image vkδ+d+1 (E) ∈
H δ+d+1 (C(E)) also is not zero. Finally, by Lemma 4.16, the coarse van Kampen obstruction (i.e., the image of this class in lim H δ+d+1 (Cr (E))) is 6= 0.
Therefore, pobdim G ≥ δ + d + 2. Since, by Proposition 3.1, actdim G ≤
δ + d + 2, the last sentence of the theorem follows.

4.4

The van Kampen obstruction and general position

For a finite simplicial complex K there is an equivalent definition of the van
Kampen obstruction in terms of a general position map of K into Euclidean
space which we now describe. First, replace C(K) by the simplicial 2-point
configuration space of K:
C(K) = [(K × K) − D]/Z2 ,

(4.7)

where D = {(σ, τ ) ∈ K × K | σ ∩ τ 6= ∅} is a simplicial thickening of
the diagonal. Since the 2-point configuration space and the simplicial 2point configuration space are homotopy equivalent, we can denote both C(K)
without risking confusion.

54

Definition 4.17. Let K be a k-dimensional simplicial complex, and let f :
K → Rn be a general position map. This means, in particular, that if σ
and τ are two disjoint simplices of K with dim σ + dim τ = n, then the
images of σ and τ intersect in a finite number of points. The van Kampen
obstruction vkn (K) ∈ H n (C(K); Z2 ) is the cohomology class of the cocycle
νκ (= νκn (K)) defined by
hνκ, {σ, τ }i = |f (σ) ∩ f (τ )| mod 2,
where {σ, τ } means an unordered pair of disjoint simplices in K (we are using
|X| to denote the cardinality of a finite set X).
Generalizing [31, Appendix D], we give the following description of a
cocycle representing vkn (K). Given any total ordering of the vertices of K,
there is a general position map f from K to Rn defined by sending the ith
vertex in K to λ(i), where λ = (t, t2 , . . . , tn ) ∈ Rn is the moment curve,
and extending linearly. Suppose σ, τ ∈ K with dim σ + dim τ = n. The
convex hull of the union of vertices of f (σ) and f (τ ) is the cyclic polytope
C(n + 2, n). If σ and τ intersect, then neither of them can be contained
in faces of C(n + 2, n). The faces of C(n + 2, n) are completely determined
by Gale’s Evenness Condition, which in this case says that a set T of n
vertices of C(n + 2, 2) spans a face if and only if the two missing elements in
Vert(C(n + 2, n)) − T are separated by an even number of elements of T .
Two simplices σ and τ with dim(σ) + dim(τ ) = n are said to be meshed
if the order on their vertices is either
v0 < w0 < v1 < w1 < · · · < vn/2 < wn/2 , or
v0 < w0 < v1 < w1 < · · · < w(n−1)/2 < v(n+1)/2 .
Lemma 4.18. Two simplices σ and τ with dim(σ) + dim(τ ) = n intersect
under the map f if and only if they are meshed.
Proof. If σ and τ are not meshed, there are two vertices vi and vi+1 of σ with
no vertex of τ between them. In C(n + 2, n) the union of the vertices of f (τ )
and all other vertices of f (σ) except vi and vi+1 spans a face by the evenness
condition. Therefore, f (τ ) is contained in a face of the cyclic polytope and
so cannot intersect f (σ).
If σ and τ are meshed, then the evenness condition implies that f (σ) and
f (τ ) are not proper faces of C(n + 2, n).
55

Suppose that f (σ) and f (τ ) do not intersect. Let H be a hyperplane
separating f (σ) and f (τ ), so that H partitions the vertices of C(n + 2, n)
into Vert f (σ) and Vert f (τ ). If f (σ) (or f (τ )) is in the interior of C(n+2, n),
then another vertex of C(n + 2, n) is on the same side of H; hence, f (σ) ⊂
∂C(n + 2, n), a contradiction.
Note that if the difference between the dimensions of σ and τ is greater
than one, then f (σ) and f (τ ) are disjoint.

4.5

Proof of Theorem 4.11

We recall the construction in [1]. Suppose that L is a d-dimensional complex
with Hd (L; Z2 ) 6= 0, and suppose C is a d-cycle in L with coefficients in
Z2 . Identify C with its support. Choose a d-simplex ∆ ∈ C with vertices
v0 , . . . , vd . Let vi± denote the two vertices in OC lying above vi . Let D C (∆)
be the full subcomplex of OL containing C − and the vertices v0+ , . . . , vd+ of
∆+ . We say D C (∆) is C doubled over the simplex ∆. Suppose α, β are
disjoint d-simplices in D C (∆). Define a chain Ω ∈ C2d (C(D C (∆)); Z2 ) by
declaring the 2d-cell {α, β} of C(D C (∆)) to be in Ω if and only if
• α ∩ β = ∅, and
• Vert ∆ ⊂ p(Vert α) ∪ p(Vert β). (Here p : Vert OL → Vert L is the
natural projection.)
It is proved in [1] that Ω is a cycle and that νκ2d (D C (∆)) evaluates
nontrivially on Ω.
C
Next, we define a subcomplex Dm
(∆) of Om L. We assume that each
C
sphere in Om L is triangulated as the boundary of an m-simplex.
Let Dm
(∆)
S
be the full subcomplex of Om L containing Vert(C)×{1} Vert(∆)×{2, 3, . . . m}.
C
So, Dm
(∆) is constructed by replacing each vertex v ∈ ∆ with the boundary
of a m-simplex. As before, let δ = δm (L) denote the dimension of Om L.
Surprisingly, the above definition of Ω works in the case of Om L. Define
C
a chain Ωm in Cd+δ (C(Dm
(∆)); Z2 ) to be the union of all cells {σ, τ } such
that
• σ∩τ =∅
• Vert ∆ ⊂ p(Vert σ) ∪ p(Vert τ ).
56

It will be shown in Theorem 4.22 below that Ωm is a cycle. We first need
C
a few lemmas which restrict the possible (d + δ)-cells in C(Dm
(∆)).
Definition 4.19. For any w ∈ Vert ∆ and σ, τ ∈ Om L, let Mwστ be the
collection of missing vertices in p−1 (w), i.e., Mwστ is the set of vertices in
p−1 (w) that are not contained in σ ∪ τ .
Note that if p(σ) misses a vertex w in Vert ∆, then |Mwστ | ≥ 1 for any τ ,
since the preimage p−1 (w) does not span a simplex in Om (L).
Lemma 4.20. If {σ, τ } ∈ Ωm , then for any w ∈ Vert ∆, |Mwστ | ≤ 1.
Proof. The cardinality of Vert(σ ∪ τ ) is the same as that of Vert p−1 (∆).
Assume Vert(p(σ) ∪ p(τ )) includes l vertices not contained in ∆, so that
Vert(σ ∪ τ ) contains d + δ − l vertices in p−1 (∆). If Vert σ contains a vertex
outside∆, then p(σ) misses a vertex w of ∆, which implies that |Mwστ | ≥ 1.
Furthermore, if v and v ′ are distinct vertices in L − ∆ which are contained
in Vert σ ∪ τ , then there are distinct vertices w and w ′ so that |Mwστ | and
|Mwστ′ | are both ≥ 1. Otherwise, σ and τ would both miss a vertex w ∈ ∆
and {σ, τ } would not be contained in Ωm . Similarly, if there are l vertices
which are not contained in ∆, then there are l vertices w1 , . . . , wl of ∆ with
|Mwστi | ≥ 1. Therefore, if |Mwστ | > 1 for any w, the number of total missing
vertices in p−1 (∆) is greater than l, a contradiction.
Lemma 4.21. If {σ, τ } ∈ Ωm then p(σ) and p(τ ) are in L(d) .
Proof. Assume Vert(p(σ) ∪ p(τ )) includes l vertices not contained in ∆, so
that p(σ) ∪ p(τ ) contains d + l + 1 vertices. The proof of Lemma 4.20 implies
there are l vertices w1 , . . . , wl of ∆ such that |Mwστi | = 1. For the other
d + 1 − l vertices of Vert ∆, |Mwστ | = 0. Neither Vert σ nor Vert τ can contain
Vert p−1 (w), so each such w is contained in p(σ) and p(τ ). Thus, p(σ) ∩ p(τ )
contains at least d+1−l vertices. Since | Vert p(σ)| and | Vert p(τ )| is bounded
above by d + 1, the equality
| Vert p(σ) ∪ Vert p(τ )| = | Vert(p(σ) ∪ p(τ ))| + | Vert(p(σ) ∩ p(τ ))|
implies that | Vert p(σ)| and | Vert p(τ )| both equal d + 1.
The next two theorems are our computation of the van Kampen obstruction of Om L.
57

Theorem 4.22. Let L be a d-dimensional flag complex with Hd (L, Z2 ) 6= 0.
Let C be a d-dimensional cycle contained in L, and ∆ ⊂ C a d-simplex.
C
Then Ωm ∈ Cd+δ (C(Dm
(∆)); Z2 ) is a (d + δ)-cycle.
Proof. We assume that m > 1, since the m = 1 case was proved in [1] (this
C
slightly simplifies the argument). Let {σ, α} be a (d+δ−1)-cell in C(Dm
(∆)).
We claim the sum of the cardinality of the sets
C
V1 := {v ∈ Vert Dm
(∆)|{σ ∗ v, α} ∈ Ωm }
C
V2 := {v ∈ Vert Dm
(∆)|{σ, α ∗ v} ∈ Ωm }

C
is even. Note that some vertices of Dm
(∆) may be contained in both V1 and
V2 .
First, suppose p(σ) and p(α) are in C (d) . In this case, if v ∈ Vi , then
p(v) ∈ ∆. By Lemma 4.21, we can assume |Mwσα | = 0, 1 or 2 for all w ∈ ∆;
otherwise, V1 and V2 would be empty.
If Vert σ ∩Vert p−1 (w) 6= ∅ and Vert α ∩Vert p−1 (w) 6= ∅, then each vertex
of Mwσα is in V1 and V2 , hence w contributes an even number to the sum of
|V1 | and|V2 |. If Vert σ ∩ Vert p−1 (w) = ∅ and Vert α ∩ Vert p−1 (w) = ∅, then
V1 and V2 are empty.
Next, suppose that Vert σ ∩Vert p−1 (w) 6= ∅ and Vert α∩Vert p−1 (w) = ∅,
so that Mwσα makes no contribution to V2 . If |Mwσα | = 1, then the missing
vertex is not in V1 since p−1 (w) does not span a simplex in Om L. If |Mwσα | = 2,
then each vertex in Mwσα is contained in V1 , so again Mwσα contributes an even
number to |V1 |. The same argument works if Vert σ ∩ Vert p−1 (w) = ∅ and
Vert α ∩ Vert p−1 (w) 6= ∅.
Now, assume p(σ) is a d-simplex of L and p(α) is a (d − 1)-simplex of L.
In this case, V1 is empty by Lemma 4.21. Again, we consider the sets Mwσα
for w ∈ Vert ∆.
Note that |Mwσα | = 2 for at most one w ∈ Vert ∆ by Lemma 4.20, and
if |Mwσα | = 2 for some w ∈ ∆, then V2 is contained in p−1 (w). In this case,
there are 0 or 2 vertices in V2 , depending on whether or not w is in the link
6 2 for all w ∈ ∆. Since C is a cycle and p(α) is
of α. Suppose |Mwσα | =
(d − 1)-dimensional, the link LkC (p(α)) is an even number of vertices. For
each w ∈ LkC (p(α)) ∩ ∆, by assumption there is precisely one vertex in V2
which is in Mwασ (if there were zero vertices, then σ would contain all of
p−1 (w)).
Now, we claim that all the vertices in LkC (p(α)) − ∆ are in V2 . Such a
vertex v is not in V2 if and only if it is contained in σ. Since p(σ) ∪ p(α)

58

contains ∆, if v were in σ this would imply that ∆ ∪ v is a simplex in L,
which contradicts L being d-dimensional and flag. Therefore, each vertex in
LkC (p(α)) − ∆ is in V2 , and since |Mwασ | = 1 for all w ∈ LkC (p(α)) ∩ ∆,
the total cardinality of the set V2 is even (and equal to the cardinality of
LkC (p(α))).
C
Theorem 4.23. Let C be the support of a cycle in Hd (L; Z2 ), let Dm
(∆) be
C doubled over a d-simplex ∆ ⊂ C and let Ωm ∈ Zd+δ (C(Om L); Z2 ) be as
above. Then νκd+δ evaluates nontrivially on Ωm .

Proof. Order the vertices of ∆ so that v0 < · · · < vd+1 and then order the
other vertices of L so that each vertex of ∆ is < each vertex of L−∆. Extend
this to an ordering on the vertex set of Om L, by
1
m
v01 < v02 < · · · < v0m < v11 < v12 < · · · < v1m < · · · < vd+1
< · · · < vd+1
.

We have the following decomposition of the obstruction cocycle νκd+δ
evaluated on Ωm :
X
X
X
νκd+δ ({σ, τ }) =
νκd+δ ({σ, τ }).
{σ,τ }∈Ωm

{a,b}∈M
{σ,τ }∈Ωm
Vert ∆⊂a∪b p(σ)=a
p(τ )=b

If a = b = ∆, then there is exactly one meshed pair, because the union
of vertices of σ and τ is precisely the set of vertices of Om ∆, and for each
m-simplex in Dm (∆) there is a unique pair of meshed faces. Now, suppose
a 6= ∆. Let b such that Vert ∆ ⊂ a ∪ b, and let σ ∈ p−1 (a). If p(τ ) = b, then
{σ, τ } ∈ Ωm if and only if σ ∩ τ = ∅. For all w ∈ ∆ − p(σ), if τ contains
more than two vertices of p−1 (w), then σ and τ do not mesh by our choice of
ordering. On the other hand, the vertices of σ ∪ τ can omit at most 1 vertex
of p−1 (w) by Lemma 4.20; hence, no meshing can occur. Therefore, the only
contribution comes from the unique meshed pair with a = b = ∆, and hence,
νκd+δ evaluates nontrivially on Ωm .
Putting this all together, we get the following.
Theorem 4.24. Let L be a d-dimensional flag complex and let Om L be a
polyhedral join over L of (m − 1)-spheres. Let δ = dim Om L. If Hd (L; Z2 ) 6=
0, then vkd+δ (Om L) 6= 0.
Theorems 4.24 and 3.6 have the following corollary.
59

σ

Figure 5: D2 (∆) when L is a 1-cycle and each sphere is 1-dimensional.
Corollary 4.25. Suppose L is a d-dimensional flag complex, and G =
Q
L1 Gv is a graph product over L, where each Gv is the fundamental group
of a closed aspherical m-manifold. If Hd (L; Z2 ) 6= 0, then
obdim G = actdim G = (m + 1)(d + 1) = gdim G + (d + 1)
Combining this corollary with Theorem 3.14, gives Theorem B in the
Introduction.
Remark. It may be confusing why we chose to replace each vertex in Om L
with the boundary of an m-simplex. In fact, at first it seemed more natural
to us to replace each vertex with an (m − 1)-octahedron, as this would give
Om L a simple flag triangulation. However, we could not find a way to extend
the definition of [1] to this case. We’ll illustrate this with a simple example,
see Figure 5.
Suppose L is a 1-cycle, and replace two of the vertices with cellulated S 1 ’s.
We need to construct a 4-cycle β ∈ C4 (C(Dm (∆)); Z2 ). For this to be the case,
then for any 3-cell σ in C(D2 (∆)), the collection of 1-cells {τ |{σ, τ } ∈ β} must
form a 1-cycle. If we triangulate the S 1 ’s as the boundary of a 2-simplex,
then for each such σ there is a natural 1-cycle containing all the vertices
not contained in σ. On the other hand, if we replace each vertex with a
1-octahedron, then we have to make a choice of 1-cycle to pair with σ. We
could not find a way to do this consistently.
Remark 4.26. (Homology below the top dimension). In Section 5, we will
need a slight generalization of the previous arguments, where we consider
complexes with homology below the top dimension.
60

Suppose L is a d-dimensional flag complex, and let C be the support of a
cycle in Hk (L, Z2 ) for k < d. If C is a full subcomplex, then the arguments
in Theorem 4.22 and Theorem 4.23 generalize to show that vkk+δ (Om L) 6= 0.
If C is not full, then Ωm may not be a cycle if we choose ∆ incorrectly.
However, the argument generalizes if the following ∗-condition is satisfied,
see [1]:
For all σ, τ ∈ C with ∆0 ⊂ σ ∪ τ we have σ ∩ τ ⊂ ∆.

(∗)

We do not know an example of a d-dimensional complex L and a class
φ ∈ Hk (L; Z2 ) such that the ∗-condition fails for the support of every representative C for φ.
One instance where the ∗-condition is automatically satisfied is if the
cycle is in the top dimension.
Theorem 4.27. If L is a d-dimensional flag complex and Hd (L; Z2 ) 6= 0,
then vkd+δ (Om L) 6= 0.

5

Obstructors for hyperplane complements

In Subsection 4.1 we defined various configurations of standard subgroups
for simple complexes of groups. In this section, we will show that for any
finite arrangement A of affine hyperplanes in Cn there is a configuration of
abelian subgroups in the fundamental group of the complement π1 (M(A)),
indexed by the simplices in a certain simplicial complex, which is homeomorphic to the geometric realization |Q(A)| of the intersection poset. If A
satisfies certain conditions, this simplicial complex will satisfy the ∗-condition
in Remark 4.26 below. When these conditions hold, the obstructor dimension method will imply that if A is irreducible, essential, and not central,
then actdim(π1 (M(A))) ≥ 2n. In particular, when M(A) is aspherical,
actdim(π1 (M(A))) = 2n.

5.1

Free abelian subgroups

Many of the terms which we use in this subsection were defined earlier in
Subsection 3.2. Recall that the intersection poset Q(A) is ordered by reverse
inclusion. Given G ∈ Q(A), let AG := {H ∈ A | H ≤ G} be the induced
61

central subarrangement of hyperplanes containing G. We will use these central subarrangements to construct free abelian subgroups of π1 (M(A)). The
same construction of these free abelian groups is given in [22].
Lemma 5.1. For any H ≤ G ∈ Q(A), π1 (M(AH )) injects into π1 (M(AG )).
Proof. There is a natural inclusion j : M(AG ) → M(AH ). We define a
map f : M(AH ) → M(AG ) by first choosing a point x in H and a small
ball Bx that only intersects hyperplanes in M(AH ). We can deformation
retract M(AH ) to Bx and then compose with the inclusion Bx → M(AG ).
Clearly, j ◦ f is homotopic to the identity, and therefore f∗ : π1 (M(AH )) →
π1 (M(AG )) is injective.
Lemma 5.2. For any central arrangement A, π1 (M(A)) has an infinite
center.
Proof. There is a projectivization map p : Cn − {0} → CPn−1 with fiber C∗ .
The restriction to M(A) is a trivial bundle ([33, Proposition 5.1]). Then
γ = i(π1 (C∗ )) ⊂ M(A) is in the center of π1 (M(A)).
Of course, if the central arrangement A is reducible, then the center
of π1 (M(A)) has rank greater than one (take central elements from each
factor). If A is irreducible, central, and M(A) is aspherical, it turns out that
the center is infinite cyclic.
Next, suppose G ∈ Q(A) is such that AG is irreducible. By the previous
lemma, there is an element γG of infinite order in the center of π1 (M(AG )).
Furthermore, if G1 < G2 < · · · < Gn is a chain in Q(A) with each AGi
irreducible, then since
π1 (M(AG1 )) ⊂ π1 (M(AG2 )) ⊂ · · · ⊂ π1 (M(AGn )),
we obtain a free abelian group of rank n generated by γG1 , γG2 , . . . , γGn (its
rank is n by Theorem 5.6 below). On the other hand, suppose AG decomposes
as a product of irreducibles:
A(G) ∼
= A G1 × · · · × A Gk .
Then

M(AG ) ∼
= M(AG1 ) × M(AG2 ) × · · · × M(AGk )

and we obtain further free abelian groups as products of the free abelian
subgroups in the fundamental groups of the factors.
62

A

B

C
γD

D
γA

γB

γC

γA∩B∩C
Figure 6: A real line arrangement and an associated configuration of abelian
groups for its complexification.
We will produce a configuration of abelian groups based on a simplicial
complex with vertex set {G ∈ Q(A) | AG is irreducible}. Two elements G
and H of Q(A) are comparable if H < G or G < H. Distinct vertices vG and
vH are connected by an edge if and only if 1) G and H are comparable or 2)
AG ∩ H = AG × AH (see Figure 5.1).
To properly describe the simplicial complex and the corresponding configuration of abelian groups, we need the notion, introduced by De Concini
and Procesi [21], of a building set for Q(A).

5.2

Building sets

Given a collection of subspaces G in Q(A) and an element X ∈ Q(A), let
G≤X denote the set of elements in G that contain X. Let max G≤X be the set
of maximal elements of G≤X .
Definition 5.3. A collection G of subspaces in Q(A) is a building set if for
any X ∈ Q(A) such that max G≤X = {G1 , G2 , . . . Gk }, we have
AX ∼
= A G1 × A G2 × · · · × A Gk .

There are two canonical choices for a building set. Note that Q(A) is
itself a building set, since max Q(A)≤X = X. Also, note that the poset
V IQ(A) = {G ∈ Q(A) | AG is irreducible}
is a building set. The set V IQ(A) is called the set of irreducibles in Q(A);
eventually, V IQ(A) will be the vertex set of a simplicial complex IQ(A)
63

called the irreducible complex. In the case of V IQ(A), if we decompose AX
into irreducible components
AX ∼
= A G1 × A G2 × · · · × A Gk ,
then max V IQ(A)≤X = {G1 , G2 , . . . , Gk }. In fact, by considering X ∈ Q(A)
such that AX is irreducible, it is obvious that every building set must contain
V IQ(A).
Any building set determines a collection of “nested subsets”. These subsets will be the simplices of a simplicial complex on which our configuration
of abelian groups will be based.
Definition 5.4. Let G be a building set for an affine arrangement A. A
subset α ⊂ G is G-nested if for any subset {Xi } of α consisting of pairwise
incomparable elements Xi ∈ α, the intersection ∩Xi is nonempty and does
not belong to G.
Note that if X1 > X2 > · · · > Xn is any chain in G, then {X1 , . . . , Xn }
is a G-nested subset. It is also obvious from the definition that the nested
subsets form a simplicial complex, that is, if β ⊂ α and α is G-nested, then
β is G-nested. For example, if the building set is Q(A), then the nested
set complex is the barycentric subdivision |Q(A)|, as the nested subsets are
precisely chains in Q(A). Let IQ(A) denote the simplicial realization of the
V IQ(A)-nested subsets.
Lemma 5.5. Let α be a simplex in IQ(A). For each vertex of α corresponding to G ∈ V IQ(A), let γG denote the central element in π1 (M(AG ))
corresponding to the fiber of the Hopf fibration as defined in Lemma 5.1.
Then the subgroup generated by {γG }G∈Vert α is free abelian.
Proof. We claim if G and H are connected by an edge in V IQ(A), then
γG and γH commute. Two elements G and H of V IQ(A) are comparable if
G < H or H < G. A two element subset {G, H} with two elements is nested
if and only if H and G are comparable or if G ∩H 6= ∅ and G ∩H ∈
/ V IQ(A).
In the first case, γG and γH commute by Lemma 5.1. For the second case, we
have that AG∩H is reducible, hence AG∩H = AG1 ×AG2 ×· · ·×AGk . If AG and
AH are contained in a single AGi , this would imply that Gi ∈ G ∩ H, which
is a contradiction. This implies γG and γH commute. Since each γG ∼
= Z we
are done.
64

Theorem 5.6 ([22, Corollary 4.5]). For each G ∈ V IQ(A), the image γG of
γG in H1 (M(A), Z) satisfies the relation
X
γG =
γH .
H∈A
H≤G

Furthermore, for any simplex α of IQ(A), {γG | G ∈ Vert α} is linearly
independent.
Corollary 5.7. For any simplex α ∈ IQ(A), the free abelian subgroup constructed in Lemma 5.5 is free abelian of rank dim α + 1.
In general, the simplicial complex IQ(A) formed from the V IQ(A)-nested
subsets is not a flag complex. For example, if A is the complexification of
the real arrangement which consists of n general position lines in R2 , then
IQ(A) for the complexification is the one-skeleton of an n-simplex. Our
configuration of abelian groups will always be based on the flag completion
of IQ(A), where the flag completion is the unique flag complex with the
same one-skeleton as IQ(A).
Theorem 5.8. Let A be an affine arrangement, and let F IQ(A) be the flag
completion of IQ(A). Then π1 M(A) admits a configuration of free abelian
groups based on F IQ(A).
Proof. Assume that σ and τ are two simplices in F IQ(A), and Zσ and Zτ
the corresponding free abelian subgroups we have constructed. We have seen
above that the subgroups Zσ and Zτ have ranks equal to dim σ + 1 and
dim τ + 1, respectively. We must show that these subgroups intersect in the
subgroup corresponding to Zσ∩τ . Since each of these subgroups maps isomorphically onto its image in H1 (M(A), Z), it suffices to prove that the images
of the subgroups intersect correctly. However, this follows immediately from
Theorem 5.6: it is obvious that Zσ∩τ ⊂ Zσ ∩ Zτ and since each of the γG are
linearly independent we have Zσ ∩ Zτ ⊂ Zσ∩τ .
Remark 5.9. Note that the simplicial complex we construct does not capture all of the commuting relations between the standard abelian subgroups.
For example, for the arrangement depicted in Figure, 5.1, the elements γD
and γA∩B∩C commute, since γD commutes with γA , γB and γC . In this configuration of abelian groups it is only important that Zσ ∩ Zτ = Zσ∩τ .
65

5.3

The homotopy type of IQ(A)

Suppose A is a finite arrangement of affine hyperplanes in Cn of rank l. By a
theorem of Folkman [27], |Q(A)|, the geometric realization of the intersection
poset, is homotopy equivalent to a wedge of spheres, each of dimension (l−1).
The number of spheres in this wedge is an integer, βA . Alternatively, βA =
|χ(M(A))|, where χ(M(A)) is the Euler characterisitic of the complement
(see [33]). So, if
X
pA (t) =
bi (M(A))ti
i

is the Poincaré polynomial of M(A), then χ(M(A)) = pA (−1).
If A is central, then |Q(A)| is a cone and hence, βA = 0 and pA (t) has
(1 + t) as a factor. Conversely, by a theorem of Crapo [9], if βA = 0, then A
decomposes as A ∼
= A′ × A1 where A1 is a nontrivial central arrangement. It
follows that pA (t) has (1 + t)k as a factor if and only if A can be decomposed
as A′ × A1 × · · · × Ak , where Ai are nontrivial central arrangements.
Feichtner and Müller showed that if G and G ′ are two building sets
for a hyperplane arrangement, the simplicial complexes corresponding to
the nested subsets are homeomorphic via a series of stellar subdivisions
[26]. In particular, this implies that IQ(A) is a simplicial complex with
Hrk(A)−1 (IQ(A), Z2 ) 6= 0 if A is irreducible and has no central factor.
If A is a central arrangement, there is an affine arrangement d(A) ⊂ Cn−1 ,
called the “deconing” of A, which is obtained by projectivizing A and then
removing any projectivized hyperplane. The realization of the intersection
poset |Q(A)| is isomorphic to the cone on |Q(d(A))|, so therefore the Poincaré
polynomials satisfy pA (t) = (1 + t)pd(A) (t). If A is essential and irreducible,
this implies by Crapo’s theorem that d(A) is essential and has no central
factor.

5.4

Obstructor dimensions of arrangement complements

Suppose that A is an irreducible, essential, and noncentral arrangement in
Cn . We constructed a simplicial complex IQ(A) with Hn−1 (IQ(A), Z) 6= 0.
The configuration of abelian groups is obtained by taking the flag completion
F IQ(A). Since the dimension of |Q(A)| is always rk(A) − 1, it is a flag
simplicial complex with top dimensional homology if A is essential and has
no central factors.

66

Therefore, we can apply Theorem 4.11 if F IQ(A) is (n − 1)-dimensional.
We first show this holds for the case that M(A) is aspherical.
Lemma 5.10. Let A be a complex hyperplane arrangement such that M(A)
is aspherical. Then dim(F IQ(A)) ≤ n − 1.
Proof. It is a standard fact that M(A) is homotopy equivalent to an ndimensional complex. If M(A) is aspherical, then gdim(π1 (M(A))) ≤ n.
Therefore, the rank of any abelian subgroup of M is ≤ n, which implies
dim(F IQ(A)) ≤ n − 1.
This along with Theorem 4.11 and Theorem 5.8 immediately implies Theorem C from the introduction.
Theorem 5.11. If M(A) is an essential, aspherical arrangement with no
central factors, then actdim(π1 (M(A))) = 2n. In particular, M(A) is not
homotopy equivalent to a (2n − 1)-manifold.
A similar argument shows a general result for central arrangements.
Theorem 5.12. Let A be an aspherical, irreducible, essential, central arrangement in Cn . Then actdim(π1 (M(A))) = 2n − 1.
Proof. If A is essential and irreducible, then Theorem 5.16 implies that if
d(A) is the deconing of A, then obdim(π1 (M(d(A)))) = 2n − 2. Then since
M(A) ∼
= M(d(A)) × S 1 , we have π1 (M(A)) = Z × π1 (M(d(A))) and hence
obdim(π1 (M(d(A)))) = actdim(π1 (M(d(A)))) = 2n − 1.
The product formula for obstructor dimension gives the following corollary which is the general answer for the obstructor dimension of aspherical
hyperplane arrangements.
Corollary 5.13. Let A be an affine aspherical arrangement in Cn and suppose that
A∼
= A1 × A2 × · · · × Ak × A′

where each Ai is irreducible and central, and A′ has no central factor. Then
obdim(π1 (M(A))) = actdim(π1 (M(A))) = 2n − k.

Using Theorem 5.11, this gives the following computation of the action
dimension of any spherical Artin group (cf. Proposition 3.8).
67

Corollary 5.14 (Le [30]). Suppose Aσ is an irreducible spherical Artin group
of rank d + 1. Then obdim Aσ = actdim Aσ = 2d + 1. Therefore, the action
dimension of a spherical Artin group is the sum of the action dimensions of
its irreducible factors.
When M(A) is not aspherical, F IQ(A) could have much larger dimension than IQ(A). For example, we can take any arrangement and add new
hyperplanes in general position. Then IQ(A) for the new arrangement will
have arbitrarily high dimensional flag completion, as the new hyperplanes
themselves induce the 1-skeleton of a n-simplex in IQ(A). We now give
a condition on our arrangement that guarantees that F IQ(A) contains a
simplex which satisfies the ∗-condition from Subsection 4.26.
Definition 5.15. Let A be a complex hyperplane arrangement. A complete
chain of irreducibles is a chain of subspaces G0 > G1 > · · · > Gn such that
each AGi is irreducible.
We claim that the simplex σ := [G0 , G1 , . . . Gn ] in F IQ(A) satisfies the
∗-condition. Note that if a simplex does not satisfy the ∗-condition, then
there is a vertex in F IQ(A) that is connected to each of the vertices of that
simplex by an edge. So, suppose to the contrary that H is a subspace which
is connected to each Gi by an edge in F IQ(A). Now, since H is connected
to Gn in F IQ(A) and Gn is 0-dimensional, it must contain Gn . Let Gi be
the maximal subspace in the chain that is not contained in H. Since H and
Gi are connected by an edge in IQ(A), we must have AH∩Gi ∼
= A H × A Gi .
Since H contains Gi+1 we must have H ∩ Gi = Gi+1 . Therefore, the splitting
AH∩Gi ∼
= AH × AGi would contradict Gi ∈ V IQ(A).
Therefore, we have constructed a d-dimensional flag complex F IQ(A)
such that Hn−1 (F IQ(A), Z2 ) 6= 0. Since (F IQ(A), σ) satisfies the ∗-condition,
we can apply [1] to the complex O(F IQ(A)) to get the following:
Theorem 5.16. Let A be an arrangement in Cn that is essential and not
central. If A contains a complete chain of irreducibles, then
actdim(π1 (M(A))) ≥ obdim(π1 (M(A))) ≥ 2n.
If A is an inessential arrangement, then we can still compute lower bounds
for the action dimension. This is because M(A) splits as Ck × A′ , where
A′ is an essential arrangement in Cn−k , and if A is not central then A′
is not central. Conversely, our results say nothing about general position
68

hyperplane arrangements, though this is not very interesting in this context.
Hattori showed in [28] that the complement of a general position arrangement
has free abelian fundamental group and that the arrangement is homotopy
equivalent to a certain skeleton of a k-torus.
Example 5.17. We now describe another type of arrangement whose complement is always aspherical. First, an arrangement A is said to be strictly
linearly fibered over AG if G is a line and the restriction of the projection
πG : Cn → Cn /G to M(A) is a fiber bundle projection. A fiber-type arrangement is defined inductively: A ⊂ Cn is fiber-type if there is a line G
such that A is strictly linearly fibered over G and the induced arrangement
π(A) ⊂ Cn−1 is fiber-type. For example, the braid arrangement is fiber-type.
The action dimension of these examples was already known by work of Falk
and Randell in [25] and results in [4]. Indeed, Falk and Randell showed
that the fundamental group of the complement of a fiber-type arrangement
is an iterated semidirect product of free groups, so the computation of action
dimension followed from Corollary 27 in [4].
Example 5.18. A complex reflection is a periodic affine automorphism of
Cn whose fixed point set a complex hyperplane. A complex reflection group is
a finite group acting on Cn by complex reflections. For example, every finite
Coxeter group is a complex reflection group by complexification of the action
on Rn . There groups were completely classified by Shepard and Todd [34],
who showed that they fit into several infinite families depending on 3 parameters and 34 exceptional cases. The complement of the fixed hyperplanes is
a central arrangement, and the fundamental groups of such hyperplane complements can be thought of as generalizations of spherical Artin groups. It is
known that all such hyperplane complements are aspherical (the remaining
exceptional cases were resolved in [2]). Therefore, if the arrangement for a
finite reflection group is essential and irreducible, then the action dimension
of π1 (M(A)) is precisely 2n − 1.

6

Questions

Here are four questions that came up during our work. When the d-dimensional
flag complex L is EDCE and G is the fundamental group for graph product complex of closed aspherical m-manifolds (or more generally, the group
associated to a complex of closed aspherical manifolds), we showed that
69

actdim G ≤ (m + 1)(d + 1) − 1. On the other hand, in order to show that
the corresponding van Kampen obstruction is 0, we only need the weaker
assumption Hd (L, Z2 ) = 0.
Question 6.1. Is our upper bound for actdim G still valid when the hypothesis that L is EDCE is replaced by the hypothesis Hd (L, Z2 ) = 0?
Question 6.2. If OL piecewise linearly embeds in a sphere of codimension k,
does Om L piecewise linearly embed in a sphere of codimension k? Together
with the main theorem of [1] this would imply that if L is a flag complex with
Hn (L, Z2 ) = 0, then embdim(Om L) < d + δ. (Here embdim(Om L) means
the minimum dimension of a sphere into which there is a PL embedding of
Om L.)
Question 6.3. Let KL be a polyhedral join of simplicial complexes Ks over
L. Is there a formula for the van Kampen obstruction of KL in terms of the
van Kampen obstructions of the Ks and the homology of L?
Question 6.4. Suppose that A is an essential, noncentral arrangement which
admits a complete chain of irreducibles (see Definition 5.15). Is it possible
for M(A) to be homotopy equivalent to a (2n − 1)-manifold?

References
[1] G. Avramidi, M. W. Davis, B. Okun, and K. Schreve, Action dimension of right-angled
Artin groups, Bull. of the London Math. Society 48 (2015), no. 1, 115–126.
[2] D. Bessis, Finite complex reflection arrangements are K(π, 1)., Annals of Mathematics
181 (2015), no. 3, 809–904.
[3] M. Bestvina and M. Feighn, Proper actions of lattices on contractible manifolds, Invent. Math. 150 (2002), no. 2, 237–256.
[4] M. Bestvina, M. Kapovich, and B. Kleiner, Van Kampen’s embedding obstruction for
discrete groups, Invent. Math. 150 (2002), no. 2, 219–235.
[5] N. Bourbaki, Lie groups and Lie algebras. Chapters 4–6, Elements of Mathematics
(Berlin), Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2002. Translated from the 1968 French original by
Andrew Pressley. MR1890629
[6] M. R. Bridson and A. Haefliger, Metric spaces of non-positive curvature, Grundlehren
der Mathematischen Wissenschaften [Fundamental Principles of Mathematical Sciences], vol. 319, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1999. MR1744486

70

[7] R. Charney and M. W. Davis, The K(π, 1)-problem for hyperplane complements associated to infinite reflection groups, J. Amer. Math. Soc. 8 (1995), no. 3, 597–627,
DOI 10.2307/2152924. MR1303028
[8]

, Finite K(π, 1)s for Artin groups, Prospects in topology (Princeton, NJ, 1994),
Ann. of Math. Stud., vol. 138, Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ, 1995, pp. 110–
124. MR1368655

[9] H. Crapo, A Higher Invariant for Matroids, Journal of Combinatorial Theory 2
(1967), no. 2, 406-417.
[10] J. Crisp and L. Paris, The solution to a conjecture of Tits on the subgroup generated
by the squares of the generators of an Artin group, Inventiones 145 (2001), no. 1,
19-36.
[11] M. Davis, Smooth G-manifolds as collections of fiber bundles, Pacific J. Math. 77
(1978), no. 2, 315–363. MR510928
[12] M. W. Davis, Buildings are CAT(0), Geometry and cohomology in group theory (Durham, 1994), London Math. Soc. Lecture Note Ser., vol. 252, Cambridge
Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1998, pp. 108–123, DOI 10.1017/CBO9780511666131.009.
MR1709955
[13]

, The geometry and topology of Coxeter groups, London Mathematical Society Monographs Series, vol. 32, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 2008.
MR2360474

[14]

, Right-angularity, flag complexes, asphericity, Geom. Dedicata 159 (2012),
239–262, DOI 10.1007/s10711-011-9654-4. MR2944529

[15] M. W. Davis and J. Huang, Determining the action dimension of an Artin group by
using its complex of abelian subgroups, preprint, arXiv:1608.03572 (2016).
[16] M. W. Davis, T. Januszkiewicz, and I. J. Leary, The L2 -Cohomology of Hyperplane
Complements, Groups, Geometry and Dynamics 1 (2007), 301-309.
[17] M. W. Davis and P. H. Kropholler, Criteria for asphericity of polyhedral products:
corrigenda to “right-angularity, flag complexes, asphericity”, Geom. Dedicata 179
(2015), 39–44, DOI 10.1007/s10711-015-0066-8. MR3424656
[18] M. W. Davis and B. Okun, Vanishing theorems and conjectures for the ℓ2 -homology
of right-angled Coxeter groups, Geom. Topol. 5 (2001), 7–74.
[19]

, Cohomology computations for Artin groups, Bestvina-Brady groups, and
graph products, Groups Geom. Dyn. 6 (2012), no. 3, 485–531, DOI 10.4171/GGD/164.
MR2961283

[20] P. Deligne, Les immeubles des groupes de tresses généralisés, Invent. Math. 17 (1972),
273–302 (French). MR0422673
[21] C. De Concini and C. Procesi, Wonderful Models of Subspace Arrangements, Selecta
Mathematica 1 (1995), no. 3, 459–494.

71

[22] G. Denham, A. Suciu, and S. Yuzvinsky, Combinatorial Covers and Vanishing of
cohomology, Selecta Mathematica 22 (2016), no. 2, 561–594.
[23] Z. Despotovic, Action Dimension of Mapping Class Groups, Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Mathematics, University of Utah, 2006.
[24] A. N. Dranishnikov, On the virtual cohomological dimensions of Coxeter groups, Proc.
Amer. Math. Soc. 125 (1997), no. 7, 1885–1891, DOI 10.1090/S0002-9939-97-04106-3.
MR1422863
[25] M. Falk and R. Randall, The lower central series of a fiber-type arrangement, Invent.
Math. 82 (1985), 77–88.
[26] E. M. Feichtner and I. Müller, On the Topology of Nested Set Complexes, Proc. Amer.
Math. Soc. 131 (2003), 1695–1704.
[27] J. Folkman, The homology groups of a lattice, J. Math. Mech. 15 (1966), 631-636.
[28] A. Hattori, Topology of Cn minus a finite number of affine hyperplanes in general
position, J. Fac. Sci. Univ. Tokyo 22 (1975), 205-219.
[29] H. van der Lek, Extended Artin groups, Singularities, Part 2 (Arcata, Calif., 1981),
Proc. Sympos. Pure Math., vol. 40, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 1983, pp. 117–
121. MR713240
[30] G. Le, The Action Dimension of Artin Groups, Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Mathematics, Ohio State University, 2016.
[31] J. Matoušek, M. Tancer, and U. Wagner, Hardness of embedding simplicial complexes
in Rd , J. Eur.Math.Soc.(JEMS) 13 (2011), no. 2, 259–295.
[32] L. Mosher, M. Sageev, and K. Whyte, Quasi-actions on trees I. Bounded valence,
Annals of Mathematics 158 (2003), 115–164.
[33] P. Orlik and H. Terao, Arrangements of hyperplanes, Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg GmbH, 1992.
[34] G. C. Shepard and J. A. Todd, Finite Unitary Reflection Groups, Canadian Journal
of Mathematics 6 (1954), 274-304.
[35] J.-P. Serre, Trees, Springer-Verlag, Berlin-New York, 1980. Translated from the French
by John Stillwell. MR607504
[36] S. Y. Yoon, A lower bound to the action dimension of a group, Algebr. Geom. Topol.
4 (2004), 273–296, DOI 10.2140/agt.2004.4.273. MR2059192

Michael W. Davis, Department of Mathematics, The Ohio State University, 231 W. 18th Ave., Columbus, Ohio 43210, davis.12@osu.edu
Giang Le, Department of Mathematics, Oregon State University, 368 Kidder Hall, Corvallis, OR 97331, giangl@oregonstate.edu
Kevin Schreve, University of Michigan-Ann Arbor, Department of Mathematical Sciences, PO Box 413, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, schreve@umich.edu
72

