Quasi-isometries Between Groups with Two-Ended
Splittings
Christopher H. Cashen and Alexandre Martin

arXiv:1601.07147v1 [math.GR] 26 Jan 2016

April 10, 2018
Abstract
We construct ‘structure invariants’ of a one-ended, finitely presented group that
describe the way in which the factors of its JSJ decomposition over two-ended subgroups fit together.
For groups satisfying two technical conditions, these invariants reduce the problem of quasi-isometry classification of such groups to the problem of relative quasiisometry classification of the factors of their JSJ decompositions. The first condition
is that their JSJ decompositions have two-ended cylinder stabilizers. The second
is that every factor in their JSJ decompositions is either ‘relatively rigid’ or ‘hanging’. Hyperbolic groups always satisfy the first condition, and it is an open question
whether they always satisfy the second.
The same methods also produce invariants that reduce the problem of classification of one-ended hyperbolic groups up to homeomorphism of their Gromov boundaries to the problem of classification of the factors of their JSJ decompositions up
to relative boundary homeomorphism type.

1

Introduction

Gromov proposed a program of classifying finitely generated groups up to the geometric
equivalence relation of quasi-isometry [20]. A natural approach to this problem is to
first try to decompose the group into “smaller” pieces by means of a graph of groups
decomposition, and then reduce the quasi-isometry classification problem to the problem
of understanding the quasi-isometry types of the various vertex groups and the way these
subgroups fit together.
The simplest such decomposition is the decomposition of a group as a graph of groups
over finite subgroups. Stallings’s Theorem [42, 43] asserts that a finitely generated group
splits as an amalgamated product or an HNN extension over a finite group if and only if
it has more than one end. In particular, the existence of a splitting as a graph of groups
with finite edge groups is a quasi-isometry invariant. Finitely presented groups admit a
maximal splitting over finite subgroups [16], and a theorem of Papasoglu and Whyte [37]
says that the collection of quasi-isometry types of one-ended vertex groups of a maximal
decomposition of an infinite-ended, finitely presented group is a complete quasi-isometry
invariant. This reduces the quasi-isometry classification problem to one-ended groups.
1

We push this program to its next logical step, which is to decompose one-ended groups
over two-ended subgroups. Papasoglu [36] shows that the existence of a splitting of a
finitely presented one-ended group over two-ended subgroups is quasi-isometry invariant,
provided that the group is not commensurable to a surface group. Moreover, such a
group admits a maximal decomposition as a graph of groups over two-ended subgroups,
known as a JSJ decomposition, and Papasoglu’s results imply that quasi-isometries respect (in a certain sense that will be made precise in Section 2.3.2) the JSJ decomposition. In particular, the quasi-isometry types of the non-elementary vertex groups of the
JSJ decomposition are invariant under quasi-isometries. Even more is true: In a nonelementary vertex group of the JSJ we see the collection of conjugates of the two-ended
subgroups corresponding to incident edges of the JSJ decomposition. Quasi-isometries
of the group must preserve the vertex groups together with their patterns of conjugates
of incident edge subgroups. We say a quasi-isometry must preserve the relative quasiisometry type of the vertex. Such patterns have been exploited before [5, 13, 32, 33] to
produce quasi-isometry invariants from various ‘pattern rigidity’ phenomena. However,
the quasi-isometry types, or relative quasi-isometry types, of the vertex groups alone
do not give complete quasi-isometry invariants, because not all vertex groups have the
same coarse intersections: Vertices that are adjacent in the Bass-Serre tree of the decomposition have vertex groups that intersect in two-ended subgroups, while the coarse
intersection of non-adjacent vertices may or may not be bounded.
In this paper, we produce further quasi-isometry invariants of a finitely presented
one-ended group from an appropriate JSJ decomposition over two-ended subgroups. Under a mild technical restriction, which is known to hold for large classes of groups (see
Section 5.2 for a discussion), we show that our invariants give complete quasi-isometry
invariants, and thus reduce the quasi-isometry classification problem for such groups to
relative versions of these problems in the vertex groups of their JSJ decomposition.
In the case of one-ended hyperbolic groups, a weaker classification is possible, namely
the classification up to homeomorphisms of Gromov boundaries. Indeed, recall that
quasi-isometric hyperbolic groups have homeomorphic Gromov boundaries at infinity,
but there are examples of hyperbolic groups with homeomorphic boundary that are
not quasi-isometric. For a hyperbolic group, the existence of a splitting over a finite
subgroup amounts to having a disconnected Gromov boundary, and is thus detected
by the homeomorphism type of the boundary. Paralleling the results of Papasoglu and
Whyte for quasi-isometries, Martin and Świątkowski [31] show that hyperbolic groups
with infinitely many ends have homeomorphic boundaries if and only if they have the
same sets of homeomorphism types of boundaries of one-ended factors, reducing the
classification problem to the case of one-ended hyperbolic groups.
For a one-ended hyperbolic group G whose boundary is not a circle, Bowditch shows
that the there exists a splitting over a two-ended subgroup if and only if there exists
a cut pair in the boundary [9]. From the structure of cut pairs in the boundary, he
deduces the existence of a simplicial tree on which Homeo(∂G) acts by isomorphisms.
Paralleling the quasi-isometry case, the action of Homeo(∂G) on this tree preserves the
2

relative boundary homeomorphism types of vertex stabilizers in G.
Using the same approach as for our quasi-isometry classification, we construct a
complete system of invariants of the homeomorphism type of the Gromov boundary of
a hyperbolic group, which completely reduces the classification problem for hyperbolic
groups to relative versions of this problem in the vertex groups of their JSJ decomposition.
Our results rely heavily on the existence of a canonical choice of tree that is preserved
by quasi-isometries, respectively, homeomorphisms of the boundary, with the additional
property that any such map induces maps of the same nature at the level of the vertex
groups.
In the case of hyperbolic groups, the tree is Bowditch’s canonical JSJ tree constructed
from cut pairs in the boundary. For a more general finitely presented one-ended group
G, let Γ be a JSJ decomposition over two-ended subgroups. Let T := T (Γ) be the
Bass-Serre tree of Γ. Commensurability of stabilizers defines an equivalence relation on
edges of T whose equivalence classes are called cylinders. Guirardel and Levitt [23] show
that the dual tree to the covering of T by cylinders defines a new tree Cyl(T ), the tree
of cylinders of T , with a cocompact G–action, and, in fact, this tree is independent of
Γ, so it makes sense to call it the tree of cylinders of G, and denote it Cyl(G). It follows
from Papasoglu’s results, see Theorem 2.9, that a quasi-isometry between finitely presented one-ended groups induces an isomorphism between their trees of cylinders, and
restricts to give a quasi-isometry of each vertex group Gv of the tree of cylinders that
coarsely preserves the pattern Pv of edge groups Ge , for edges e incident to v. When the
edge stabilizer of Cyl(G) in G are two-ended then the quotient graph of groups gives a
canonical decomposition of G over two-ended subgroups. Our results are strongest when
additionally the cylinder stabilizers are two-ended. This is the case, in particular, when
G is hyperbolic, in which case Cyl(G) is equivariantly isomorphic to Bowditch’s tree.
Before giving more details about the ideas behind our classifications, we restrict to
the case that G is a one-ended hyperbolic group, and we adopt some notation that will
allow us to to discuss simultaneously the quasi-isometry and boundary homeomorphism
cases. Let Map((X, P X ), (Y, P Y )) denote alternately:
• The set of quasi-isometries from X to Y taking the collection of coarse equivalence
classes of subsets P X to the collection of coarse equivalence classes of subsets P Y .
• The set of boundary homeomorphisms from ∂X to ∂Y taking the collection of
subsets ∂P X to the collection of subsets ∂P Y .
Similarly, Map(G) is either QI(G) or Homeo(∂G). An element of Map(· · · ) will be
referred to as a Map–equivalence.
The idea behind our classification result is the following. First remark that a finitely
presented one-ended group is quasi-isometric to a complex of spaces over the JSJ tree
of cylinders (this will be recalled in Section 2.4). Moreover, such a decomposition as
a complex of spaces is compatible with Map-equivalences, in that a Map-equivalence
3

between two finitely presented one-ended groups coarsely preserves the structure of complex of spaces, as follows from the aforementioned results of Papasoglu and Bowditch.
To determine whether two groups are Map-equivalent, we thus want to decide whether
their JSJ trees of cylinders are isomorphic and then try to promote such an isomorphism
to a Map-equivalence between the complexes of spaces, hence, between the groups. In
full generality, a Map-equivalence not only induces a simplicial isomorphism between the
trees of cylinders, but also preserves extra information about the vertex groups that we
want to take into account: Map–class of vertex groups, relative Map–class with respect to
incident edge groups, etc. In other words, we decorate the vertices of the trees of cylinders
with these additional pieces of information. What we then want is to understand when
there exists a decoration-preserving isomorphism between the tree of cylinders of two
groups. We want to add enough additional information so that a decoration-preserving
isomorphism between the trees of cylinders can be promoted to a Map–equivalence between the associated groups. Moreover, we would like to have an algorithm telling us
when two such decorated trees of cylinders are isomorphic.
This latter point will be dealt with by generalizing to cocompact decorated trees a
theorem from graph theory giving a necessary and sufficient condition for the universal
covers of two graphs to be isomorphic [27], see Section 4.2. To such a decorated tree we
will associate a structure invariant that completely determines the tree up to decorationpreserving isomorphism.
To now get an intuition of the decorations we consider in this article, let us start
from the decoration of the tree of cylinders that associates to each vertex v the relative
Map-equivalence Map(Gv , Pv ) mentioned earlier, where Pv is the peripheral structure
coming from the incident edge groups, and let us try to promote a decoration-preserving
isomorphism χ between trees of cylinders to a Map-equivalence between groups. The
goal is to choose, for each vertex v, a Map–equivalence between v and χ(v), and piece
them together to get Map-equivalence between groups.
The first potential problem is a realization problem. We know that v and χ(v) are
Map–equivalent, but we also need to know that there is such a Map–equivalence that
matches up peripheral subsets in the same way that χ matches up edges incident to v
and χ(v).
The second potential problem is that the vertex Map–equivalences must agree when
their domains overlap. For boundary homeomorphisms the overlap is just the boundary
of an edge space, which is a pair of points, so this a matter of choosing consistent
orientations on the edge spaces.
Roughly, this is the phenomenon underlying the fact that two HNN extensions of the
form
G+ := hG, t|tut̄ = vi and G− := hG, t|tut̄ = v̄i
might not be Map-equivalent in general, for a group G and elements u, v of G.
It is worth noting that the orientation obstruction automatically disappears if all the
edge groups contain an infinite dihedral group.
For the classification up to boundary homeomorphisms, these three obstructions,
4

relative type, realizability, and orientation, are essentially the only obstructions to constructing a Map–equivalence between the groups. We use these considerations to produce
a finer decoration that yields a structure invariant that is a complete invariant for boundary homeomorphism type, see Theorem 7.1.
In the case of quasi-isometries, orientation of the edge spaces is not enough; we must
choose Map–equivalence of the vertex spaces that agree all along the length of shared
edge spaces. There are two cases in which we can decide if this is possible. The first
is that vertex spaces are extremely flexible so that we have a lot of freedom to choose
Map–equivalences and make them agree on edge spaces. This is the case for the socalled ‘hanging’ vertices. The other case is the opposite one, in which the vertex space
is extremely ‘rigid’ and we have very little choice about how to choose the maps. In
this case we define an invariant called a stretch factor that we then incorporate into
the decoration. If all vertices are either rigid or hanging then the decoration that takes
into account vertex relative quasi-isometry type, realizability, orientation, and stretch
factors yields a complete quasi-isometry invariant, see Theorem 8.5. This notion of relative quasi-isometric rigidity is known to hold for many classes of groups, see Section 5.2.
The classifications we provide are inherently more technical than the classifications for
splittings over finite subgroups by Papasoglu and Whyte and Martin and Świątkowski.
Underlying those theorems is the fact that in splittings over finite groups the vertex
groups of the canonical decomposition are essentially independent of one another, so
only the pieces of the decomposition matter. Our classification must handle not just the
pieces, but also their complex interactions.

1.1

Applications

Our main results give invariants that reduce classification problems for finitely presented,
one-ended groups to a relative version of the classification problem on the vertex groups
of a JSJ decomposition.
Note that vertex groups of a two-ended JSJ decomposition of a one-ended group
are not necessarily one-ended, but we really have achieved a significant reduction of
the classification problem because the problem of classification of relative quasi-isometry
types is far more constrained than the general problem. The most striking example of
this phenomenon is a theorem of Cashen and Macura [14] that says that if a free group
appears as a vertex group of a JSJ decomposition then it is either hanging or it is quasiisometrically rigid relative to the peripheral structure induced by incident edge groups.
Moreover, in the rigid case the relative quasi-isometry question reduces to a relative
isometry question in certain associated cube complexes, which seems far more tractable.
A sample application of our main results is a complete description, in terms of [14], of
the quasi-isometry and boundary homeomorphism types of one-ended hyperbolic groups
that split as graphs of groups1 with free vertex groups and cyclic edge groups.
Consider the following example:
1

Such a decomposition can be algorithmically improved to a JSJ decomposition of the same type [12].

5

Example 1.1. Let Gi = a, b, t | tui t = vi , where ui and vi are words in ha, bi given
below. In each case Gi should be thought of as an HNN extension of ha, bi over Z with
stable letter t.
Let u0 := a, v0 := abab2 , u1 := ab, v1 := a2 b2 , u2 := ab2 , and v2 := a2 b.
Then G0 , G1 , and G2 are pairwise non-quasi-isometric, but have homeomorphic Gromov boundaries.
The quasi-isometry claim follows because the vertex groups in each case are quasiisometrically rigid relative to the incident edge groups, and the stretch factor for Gi is
the ratio of the word lengths of ui and vi , which are different for each i; see see Section 3
and Section 5.7. The groups have homeomorphic boundaries because the stretch factors
are the only difference, and boundary homeomorphism is not sensitive to stretch factors;
see Section 3 and Example 7.2.
Our methods produce interesting invariants even in cases that the groups are not
hyperbolic or that the relative problems for the vertex groups is not be completely understood:
Example 1.2. Let M be the mapping class group of a non-sporadic hyperbolic surface,
with a fixed finite generating set. Let g0 , g1 , g00 , g10 ∈ M be pseudo-Anosov elements
that are not proper powers. Let G := M ∗Z M and G0 := M ∗Z M be the amalgamated
product groups obtained by identifying g0 with g1 and g00 with g10 , respectively. Then G
and G0 are not quasi-isometric if the ratio of translation lengths of g0 and g1 is different,
up to inversion, from the ratio of translation lengths of g00 and g10 .
This follows because mapping class groups are quasi-isometrically rigid and the ratios
of the translation lengths in this example are the stretch factors; see Section 5.2 and
Section 5.

Acknowledgements
The first author thanks Mladen Bestvina, Jason Behrstock, and Gilbert Levitt for interesting conversations related to this work. In particular, the idea that a version of
Leighton’s Theorem would provide a concise description of our structure invariants was
suggested by Bestvina, and Example 1.2 was suggested by Behrstock.
Both authors were supported by the European Research Council (ERC) grant of
Goulnara Arzhantseva, grant agreement #259527 and the Erwin Schrödinger Institute
workshop “Geometry of Computation in Groups”. The first author is partially supported
by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF):M1717-N25. The second author is partially supported by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF):M1810-N25.

2

Preliminaries

We assume familiarity with standard concepts such as Cayley graphs, ends of spaces,
and (Gromov) hyperbolic geometry. See [10] for background.

6

A group is virtually cyclic if it has an infinite cyclic subgroup of finite index. A group
is non-elementary is it is neither finite nor virtually cyclic. A standard exercise is to
show that a finitely generated, two-ended group is virtually cyclic.

2.1

Coarse geometry

Throughout the paper the qualifier ‘coarse’ is used to indicate ‘up to additive error’.
Let (X, dX ) and (Y, dY ) be metric spaces. Subsets of X are coarsely equivalent if they
are bounded Hausdorff distance from one another. A subset A is coarsely contained in B
if A is coarsely equivalent to a subset of B. Two maps φ and φ0 from X to Y are said to be
coarsely equivalent or bounded distance from each other if supx∈X dY (φ(x), φ0 (x)) < ∞.
A map φ : X → Y is coarsely surjective if its image is coarsely equivalent to Y .
A map φ : X → Y is a controlled embedding 2 if there exist unbounded, non-decreasing
real functions ρ0 and ρ1 such that for all x and x0 in X we have:
ρ0 (dX (x, x0 )) ≤ dY (φ(x), φ(x0 )) ≤ ρ1 (dX (x, x0 ))
There are several classes of controlled embeddings that have special names. If ρi (r) :=
Mi r for i ∈ {0, 1} then φ is
• an isometric embedding if M0 = 1 = M1 ,
• an M –similitude if M0 = M = M1 ,
• an M –biLipschitz embedding if M0−1 = M = M1 .
If such a map is surjective then it is called, respectively, an isometry, similarity, or
biLipschitz equivalence.
For each of these, we can add the qualifier ‘coarse’ and allow an additive error, so that
ρ0 (r) := M0 r − A and ρ1 (r) := M1 r + A. For instance, φ is an (M, A)–coarse biLipschitz
embedding if ρi is as above with M0 = M −1 and M1 = M . In the ‘coarse’ cases we drop
the term ‘embedding’ if the map is coarsely surjective.
An (M, A)–coarse biLipschitz embedding is more commonly called an (M, A)–quasiisometric embedding.
Let QIsom(X, Y ) denote the set of quasi-isometries from X to Y , and let CIsom(X, Y )
denote the set of coarse isometries from X to Y . For a coarsely surjective map φ : X → Y ,
a coarse inverse is a map φ : Y → X such that φ ◦ φ is coarsely equivalent to IdX and
φ ◦ φ is coarsely equivalent to IdY . If φ ∈ QIsom(X, Y ) then all coarse inverses of φ are
coarsely equivalent and belong to QIsom(Y, X). If φ ∈ CIsom(X, Y ) then every coarse
inverse of φ belongs to CIsom(Y, X).
Let I(X, Y ), CI(X, Y ), and QI(X, Y ) denote, respectively, the sets Isom(X, Y ),
CIsom(X, Y ), and QIsom(X, Y ), modulo coarse equivalence. When Y = X we shorten
the notation to I(X), CI(X), QI(X), and each of these form a group under composition.
2

This is more commonly called a ‘coarse embedding’.

7

A subset of CI(X, Y ) or QI(X, Y ) is said to be uniform if there exists a C such
that every element of the subset is an equivalence class of maps containing a C–coarse
isometry or a (C, C)–quasi-isometry, respectively.
Quasi-isometries respect coarse equivalence of subsets. If P is a set of coarse equivalence classes of subsets of X, and P 0 is a set of coarse equivalence classes of subsets of
Y , let QI((X, P), (Y, P 0 )) be the subset of QI(X, Y ) consisting of quasi-isometries that
induce bijections between P and P 0 . Similarly, QI((X, P)) := QI((X, P), (X, P)) is a
subgroup of QI(X).
If φ : X → Y is a quasi-isometry, define φ∗ : QI(X) → QI(Y ) by φ∗ (ψ) := φ ◦ ψ ◦ φ.
A subset Y ⊂ X is coarsely connected if there exists some A such that for every y
and y 0 ∈ Y there is, for some k, a chain y0 := y, y1 , . . . , yk := y 0 of (k + 1) points yi ∈ Y
such that d(yi , yi+1 ) ≤ A.
A geodesic is an isometric embedding of a connected subset of R. A coarse geodesic
is a coarse geodesic embedding of a coarsely connected subset of R. A quasi-geodesic is
a quasi-isometric embedding of a coarsely connected subset of R.
The space X is said to be geodesic, A–coarse geodesic, or (M, A)–quasi-geodesic if
for every pair of points in X there exists, respectively, a geodesic, A–coarse geodesic, or
(M, A)–quasi-geodesic connecting them.
Let JXK denote the set of proper geodesic metric spaces quasi-isometric to X. If P
is a set of coarse equivalence classes of subsets of X, let J(X, P)K denote the set of pairs
(Y, P 0 ) where Y is a geodesic metric space and P 0 is a collection of coarse equivalence
classes of subsets of Y such that there exists a quasi-isometry from X to Y that induces
a bijection from P to P 0 . We call JXK the quasi-isometry type of X and J(X, P)K the
relative quasi-isometry type of (X, P).
If L is a path connected subset of a geodesic metric space (X, dX ), let dL denote
the induced length metric on L. A quasi-line in X is a path connected subset L such
that (L, dL ) is quasi-isometric to R and the inclusion map of L into X is a controlled
embedding.
We define a peripheral structure P on geodesic metric space X to be a collection of
coarse equivalence classes of quasi-lines. In particular, if G is a finitely generated group
and H is a finite collection of two-ended subgroups of G, then H induces a peripheral
structure consisting of distinct coarse equivalence classes of conjugates of elements of H.

2.2

Graphs of groups

Let Γ be a finite oriented graph. Let VΓ be the set of vertices of Γ, and let E + Γ be the set
of oriented edges. For e ∈ E + Γ, let ι(e) be its initial vertex, and let τ (e) be its terminal
vertex. For each e ∈ E + Γ formally define e to be an inverse edge to e with ι(v) := τ (e),
τ (e) := ι(e), and ē¯ := e. The inverse edge e should be thought of as e traversed against
its given orientation. Let E − Γ denote the set of inverse edges, and EΓ := E + Γ ∪ E − Γ.
A graph of groups Γ := (Γ, {Gγ }γ∈VΓ∪E + Γ , {εe }e∈E + Γ ) consists of a finite directed
graph Γ, groups Gγ for γ ∈ VΓ ∪ E + Γ such that Ge < Gι(e) for e ∈ E + Γ, and injections
εe : Ge ,→ Gτ (e) for e ∈ E + Γ.

8

For symmetry in the notation it is convenient to define Gē := Ge for each e ∈ E − Γ
and let εē denote the inclusion of Gē := Ge into Gτ (ē) := Gι(e) .
A graph of groups Γ has an associated fundamental group G = G(Γ) obtained by
amalgamating the vertex groups over the edge groups [41]. We say that Γ is a graph of
groups decomposition of G.
The Bass-Serre tree T := T (Γ) of Γ is the tree on which G acts without edge inversions, such that G\T = Γ and such that the stabilizer Gt of t ∈ VT ∪ ET is a conjugate
in G of the group Gt , where t is the image of t under the quotient map T → Γ.
Throughout we use the notation t to denote the image of t in Γ. Conversely, for each
γ ∈ VΓ ∪ EΓ we choose some lift γ
e of γ to T . Given a maximal subtree in Γ we can, and
do, choose lifts of vertices and edge in the subtree to get a subtree in T .
Definition 2.1. Given a vertex group Gv of Γ, the peripheral structure coming from
incident edge groups, Pv , is the set of distinct coarse equivalence classes in Gv of Gv –
conjugates of the images of the edge injections εe : Ge ,→ Gv for edges e ∈ EΓ with
τ (e) = v.
Definition 2.2. Given a vertex v of T (Γ), the peripheral structure coming from incident
edge groups, Pv , is the set of distinct coarse equivalence classes in the stabilizer subgroup
Gv of v of stabilizers of incident edge groups.
It is immediate from the definitions that the quotient by the G–action identifies
(Gv , Pv ) and (Gv , Pv ).
We are interested in graphs of groups in which the edge groups are two-ended, hence
virtually cyclic. Commensurability of edge stabilizers defines an equivalence relation on
the edges of the Bass-Serre tree T of such a splitting. The equivalence classes of edges
are called cylinders. Every cylinder is a subtree of T [23, Lemma 4.2]. It follows that we
get another tree Cyl(T ), called the tree of cylinders of T , by taking the dual tree to the
covering of T by cylinders.
Definition 2.3. A graph of groups with two-ended edge groups is k–acylindrical if the
cylinders of its Bass-Serre tree have diameter at most k. It is acylindrical if there exists
k such that it is k–acylindrical.
Let C be a cylinder in T and let Stab(C) be the stabilizer of C in G. Choose an
infinite order element z in Ge for some edge e ∈ C. For any element g ∈ Stab(C), Ge and
Gge are commensurable, virtually cyclic groups. Since hzi is a finite index subgroup of
Ge , there exist non-zero a and b such that gz a g −1 = z b . Define ∆(g) = ab . This defines
a homomorphism ∆ : Stab(C) → Q∗ , called the modular homomorphism of C, that is
independent of the choice of z.
Definition 2.4. A cylinder is called unimodular if the image of its modular homomorphism is in {−1, 1}.
A graph of groups with two-ended edge groups is unimodular if all of its cylinders
are unimodular.
9

ˆ on pairs of edges of a cylinder C:
We also define a modulus ∆
Definition 2.5. Let e0 and e1 be edges in C. Let hz0 i < Ge0 and hz1 i < Ge1 be infinite
ˆ 0 , e1 ) = [hz1 i:hz0 i∩hz1 i] .
cyclic subgroups of minimal index. Define ∆(e
[hz0 i:hz0 i∩hz1 i]
ˆ does not depend on the choice of minimal index infinite
It is easy to check that ∆
ˆ ge) = |∆(g)|.
cyclic subgroups, and that ∆(e,

2.3
2.3.1

The JSJ tree of cylinders
Definitions

A JSJ decomposition of a finitely presented, one-ended group G over two-ended subgroups
is a graph of groups with two-ended edge groups that encodes all splittings of G over twoended subgroups. Equivalent descriptions of such decompositions appear in Dunwoody
and Sageev [17], Fujiwara and Papasoglu [19], and Guirardel and Levitt [22]. See also
Rips and Sela [39].
Following Papasoglu [36], we will give a geometric description of JSJ decompositions.
First, we need some terminology.
A quasi-line L is separating if its complement has at least two essential components,
that is, components that are not contained in any finite neighborhood of L. In particular,
if G splits over a two-ended subgroup then that two-ended subgroup is bounded distance
from a separating quasi-line. Separating quasi-lines cross if each travels arbitrarily deeply
into two different essential complementary components of the other.
Let Gv be a vertex group in a graph of groups decomposition. Let Pv be the peripheral
structure on Gv coming from incident edge groups. Let Σ be a hyperbolic pair of pants.
Let P∂Σ be the peripheral structure on the universal cover Σ̃ of Σ consisting of the coarse
equivalence classes of the components of the preimages of the boundary curves.
Definition 2.6. We say v is hanging 3 if (Gv , Pv ) is quasi-isometric to (Σ̃, P∂Σ ). We
say v is rigid if it is not two-ended, not hanging, and does not split over a two-ended
subgroup relative to its incident edge groups.
The rigid and hanging terminology extends to vertices in T (Γ) in the obvious way.
Definition 2.7. Let G be a finitely presented one-ended group that is not commensurable
to a surface group. A JSJ decomposition of G is a (possibly trivial) graph of groups
decomposition Γ with two-ended edge groups satisfying the following conditions:
(a) Every vertex group is either two-ended, hanging, or rigid.
(b) If v is a valence one vertex with two-ended vertex group then the incident edge group
does not surject onto Gv .
(c) Every cylinder in the Bass-Serre tree of Γ that contains exactly two hanging vertices
also contains a rigid vertex.
3

After the ‘quadratically hanging’ vertex groups of Rips and Sela [38].

10

This definition is equivalent to those cited above. The essential facts are that:
1. Hanging vertices contain crossing pairs of separating quasi-lines.
2. Every pair of crossing separating quasi-lines is coarsely contained in a conjugate of
a hanging vertex group.
3. A separating quasi-line that is not crossed by any other separating quasi-line is
coarsely equivalent to a conjugate of an edge group.
4. Every edge group is coarsely equivalent to a separating quasi-line that is not crossed
by any other separating quasi-line.
Remark. Condition (c) implies that the hanging vertex groups are maximal hanging,
which is necessary for item 4.
Remark. The case that a vertex group is the fundamental group of a pair of pants and
the incident edge groups glue on to the boundary curves is called ‘rigid’ in the usual
JSJ terminology because there are no splittings of the pair of pants group relative to
the boundary subgroups. Algebraically, such a vertex behaves like our rigid vertices, but
geometrically this is a hanging vertex.
In general a group does not have a unique JSJ decomposition, but rather a deformation space of JSJ decompositions [18, 22]. Furthermore, all JSJ decompositions are in
the same deformation space, which means any one can be transformed into any other by
meas of a finite sequence of moves of a prescribed type. The tree of cylinders of a decomposition depends only on the deformation space [23, Theorem 1], up to G–equivariant
isomorphism, so there is a unique JSJ tree of cylinders.
Definition 2.8. Let G be a finitely presented one-ended group. The JSJ tree of cylinders
Cyl(G) of G is the tree of cylinders of the Bass-Serre tree of any JSJ decomposition of
G over two-ended subgroups.
The quotient graph of groups G\Cyl(G) gives a canonical decomposition of G. It is
canonical in the sense that its Bass-Serre tree is G–equivariantly isomorphic to the tree
of cylinders of any JSJ decomposition of G over two-ended subgroups. However, such
a graph of cylinders is not necessarily a JSJ decomposition, and it does not even have
two-ended edge groups, in general. We return to this issue in Section 2.3.4.
2.3.2

Quasi-isometry invariance of the JSJ tree of cylinders

Since quasi-isometries coarsely preserve quasi-lines, and preserve the crossing and separating properties of quasi-lines, the following version of quasi-isometry invariance of JSJ
decompositions follows from Papasoglu’s work:
Theorem 2.9 (cf [36, Theorem 7.1]). Let G and G0 be finitely presented one-ended
groups. Suppose φ : G → G0 is a quasi-isometry. Then there is a constant C such that φ
induces an isomorphism φ∗ : Cyl(G) → Cyl(G0 ) that preserves vertex type — cylinder,
hanging, or rigid — and for v ∈ V Cyl(G) takes Gv to within distance C of G0φ∗ (v) .
11

Proof. Two-ended subgroups of G are bounded distance from each other if and only if
they are commensurable, so cylinders are coarse equivalence classes of edge and twoended vertex stabilizers. These are exactly the coarse equivalence classes of separating
quasi-lines that are not crossed by other separating quasi-lines, so quasi-isometries induce
a bijection between cylinders. The remaining statements are from Papasoglu [36, Theorem 7.1] for the rigid and hanging vertex stabilizers and Vavrichek [45] for the cylinder
stabilizers.
Corollary 2.10. If v is a rigid or hanging vertex in Cyl(G) then
φv := πφ∗ (v) ◦ φ|Gv ∈ QI((Gv , Pv ), (G0φ∗ (v) , Pφ∗ (v) ))
where πφ∗ (v) takes the image of φ|Gv to G0φ∗ (v) by closest point projection.
Remark. πφ∗ (v) is coarsely well defined since φ(Gv ) is within distance C of G0φ∗ (v) .
2.3.3

Boundary homeomorphism invariance of the JSJ tree of cylinders

In the case of a one-ended hyperbolic group that is not cocompact Fuchsian, Bowditch
constructed a canonical JSJ splitting of the group directly from the combinatorics of the
local cut points of the Gromov boundary of the group [9]. In this case, he proves that
the JSJ tree is unique, and such a tree is thus equivariantly isomorphic to the JSJ tree
of cylinders of the group. As a homeomorphism between the Gromov boundaries of two
hyperbolic groups preserves the topology, we get the following:
Theorem 2.11 (cf [9]). Let G and G0 be one-ended hyperbolic groups that are not cocompact Fuchsian. Suppose ρ : ∂G → ∂G0 is a homeomorphism between their Gromov
boundaries. Then ρ induces an isomorphism ρ∗ : Cyl(G) → Cyl(G0 ) that preserves vertex type — cylinder, hanging, or rigid — and for v ∈ V Cyl(G) the homeomorphism ρ
restricts to a homeomorphism ρ|∂Gv : ∂Gv → ∂G0ρ∗ (v) .
Corollary 2.12. For every vertex v ∈ Cyl(G):
ρv := ρ|∂Gv ∈ Homeo((∂Gv , ∂Pv ), (∂G0ρ∗ (v) , ∂Pρ0 ∗ (v) ))
2.3.4

Improved invariants from restrictions on the JSJ tree of cylinders

The JSJ tree of cylinders Cyl(G) of a finitely presented one-ended group G suffices for
the definition of the basic quasi-isometry invariants of Section 4. These are far from
complete invariants, however.
We can refine the invariants in restricted classes of groups. For instance, if the edges of
Cyl(G) have two-ended stabilizers in G then we can define stretch factors as in Section 5.
When the cylinder stabilizers are two-ended then the full power of Section 6 can be
brought to bear. In this case the graph of cylinders is a canonical JSJ decomposition of
G over two-ended subgroups. This is the case of chief interest for this paper, and this is
always the case if G is hyperbolic.
12

If the cylindrical vertices of Cyl(G) have two-ended stabilizers then they are all finite valence in Cyl(G). Furthermore, if Γ is a JSJ decomposition of G over two-ended
subgroups and v ∈ T (Γ) is a vertex whose stabilizer is rigid or hanging then v belongs
to more than one cylinder, so Cyl(G) has a vertex corresponding to v with the same
stabilizer subgroup in G. Thus, Cyl(G) is bipartite, with one part, VC , consisting of
finite valence cylindrical vertices, one for each cylinder of T (Γ), and the other part consisting of the sets of vertices VH and VR , which are all of infinite valence, corresponding
to hanging and rigid vertices of T (Γ), respectively.
See [23, Proposition 5.2] for a general result about when the tree of cylinders gives a
JSJ decomposition.

2.4

Trees of spaces

Let T be an oriented simplicial tree. For each vertex v ∈ T let Xv be a metric space. For
each edge e ∈ E + T let Xe be a subspace of Xι(e) , and let αe : Xe → Xτ (e) be a map such
that for Xē := αe (Xe ) there exists a map αē : Xē → Xι(e) such that αē ◦ αe is bounded
distance from IdXe and αe ◦ αē is bounded distance from IdXē .
Let X be the quotient of the set
a
a a
Xv t
{x} × e
v∈VT

e∈E + T x∈Xe

by the identifications x ∼ (x, ι(e)) and αe (x) ∼ (x, τ (e)). We call
X := X(T, {Xt }t∈VT ∪ET , {αe }e∈ET )
a tree of spaces over T . The Xv are called vertex spaces and the Xe are called edge
spaces. The sets {x} × e we call rungs, and metrize them as unit intervals. The maps αe
are called attaching maps.
We say X has locally finite edge patterns if for every vertex v, every x ∈ Xv , and
v
every R ≥ 0, there are finitely many e ∈ ET such that Xe intersects B R (x) := {y ∈ Xv |
dXv (x, y) ≤ R}.
A k–chain is a sequence of points x0 , x00 , x1 , . . . , x0k such that xi and x0i are contained
in a common vertex space or rung for all 0 ≤ i ≤ k and x0i and xi+1 are contained in
0
aPcommon vertex space or rung
 for 0 ≤ i < k. The length of a k–chain is d(x0 , x0 ) +
0
0
0<i≤k d(xi−1 , xi ) + d(xi , xi ) , where the distance terms are interpreted in the vertex
space or rung containing the pair. The quotient pseudo-metric on X defines the distance
between two points to be the infinum of lengths of chains joining them. When x and x0
are points in vertex spaces then for a k–chain joining them we have that x0i and xi+1 are
the endpoints of a rung for each 0 ≤ i < k, so the length of the chain is at least k. The
following properties follow easily from this observation.
Lemma 2.13. For a tree of spaces X:
• The quotient pseudo-metric is a metric.
13

• A ball of radius at most 1 in a vertex space is isometrically embedded in X.
• The rungs are isometrically embedded.
Lemma 2.14. If X is a tree of spaces over T such that each vertex space is proper and
geodesic, each edge space is closed and discrete, and edge patterns are locally finite in
each vertex space, then X is a proper geodesic space.
Proof. For properness it suffices to show a closed ball centered at a point in a vertex
space is compact, since a ball centered at an interior point in a rung is contained in the
union of balls of radius 1 larger centered at the endpoints of the rung.
v
Take R > 0 and a point x ∈ Xv for some vertex v. Let N0 := B R (x). Since edge
v
patterns are locally finite, there are finitely many edges e such that Xe intersects B R (x).
v
v
For Xe ∩ B R (x) 6= ∅, the set Xe ∩ B R (x) is finite, since Xe is closed and discrete and
v
τ (e)
v
B R (x) is compact, so B R−1 (αe (Xe ∩ B R (x))) is compact.
Let N1,1 , . . . , N1,k1 be these finitely many compact sets. For each N1,i there are finitely
many e such that Xe intersects N1,i . Let N1,i,1 , . . . , N1,i,k1,i be the finitely many closed
R − 2 balls about the sets αe (Xe ∩ N1,i ) in their respective vertex spaces. Continue in
this way for R steps. Let N be the union of the finitely many N∗ , along with the finitely
many rungs connecting them. This is a finite union of compact sets, so it is compact,
and it contains B R (x), since it contains every chain of length less than or equal to R
starting from x. Thus, X is proper.
To see that X is geodesic, first consider two points x and x0 contained in vertex
spaces. By definition of the metric, there exists a sequence of chains joining x and x0
with length decreasing to d(x, x0 ). Since x and x0 are in vertex spaces, the length of a
k–chain joining them is at least k, so there is a subsequence of approximating chains
that are all k–chains for some fixed k ≤ d(x, x0 ). Let x0,i := x, x00,i , . . . , x0k,i := x0 be
the i–th k–chain in the sequence. Set x0 := x. Now, (x00,i ) is a bounded sequence in
Xv0 . Since edge spaces are closed and discrete and edge patterns are locally finite, (x00,1 )
contains a constant subsequence. Pass to a subsequence of chains such that (x00,i ) is
constant and define x00 to be its value. Since edge patterns are locally finite, x00 belongs
to finitely many Xe . Since attaching maps are coarsely invertible and edge spaces are
closed and discrete, there are only finitely many rungs with x00 as an endpoint. Therefore,
the sequence (x1,i ) takes only finitely many values. Choose one, define it to be x1 , and
pass to the subsequence with x1,i = x1 . Repeat this process k − 1 times, passing each
time to a subsequence of chains with one additional constant coordinate. We are left with
a constant sequence of chains with length decreasing to d(x, x0 ), so the length is equal to
d(x, x0 ). Each vertex space and rung are geodesic spaces, so we connect successive points
in the chain by geodesics in the vertex space or rung containing them to get a path with
length equal to length of the chain, which is therefore a geodesic from x to x0 .
If x0 is an interior point of a rung and x is in a vertex space then find geodesics from
x to the two endpoints of the rung and concatenate with the subsegment of the rung
leading to x0 . The shorter of these two paths is a geodesic. A similar argument works if
both x and x0 are interior points of rungs.
14

2.5

Algebraic trees of spaces

Let Γ be a graph of finitely generated groups. In this section we construct a tree of spaces
over T := T (Γ) that is quasi-isometric to G := G(Γ). The idea is to take the vertex
spaces to be Cayley graphs of the vertex stabilizers and use the edge injections of Γ to
define the attaching maps. The construction is standard, but there is some bookkeeping
involved that will be useful in Section 8.2.
For each v ∈ VΓ, choose a finite generating set for Gv and coset representatives h(v,i)
for G/Gv . For each e ∈ EΓ choose coset representatives g(e,i) of Gι(e) /Ge .
For each v ∈ VΓ, choose a lift ve ∈ VT . For each edge e ∈ EΓ, choose a lift ee ∈ ET
g Define fe := h
¯e = ē
with ι(e
e) = ι(e).
e. Given a maximal
(ι(e),j) g(e,i) for i and j such that fe e
subtree of Γ it is possible to choose lifts so that fe = 1 for all edges e such that e or e
belongs to the maximal subtree.
For t ∈ VT ∪ ET , let t ∈ Γ denote the image of t under the quotient by the G–action.
e ∈ T.
Let v be a vertex of T . There is a representative h(v,i) such that v = h(v,i) v
Define Yv to be a copy of the Cayley graph of Gv with respect to the chosen generating
set, which we identify with the coset h(v,i) Gv via left multiplication by h(v,i) .
Take the edge spaces to be cosets of the edge stabilizers of Γ, and define attaching
maps via containment. Specifically, for an edge e = h(v,i) g(e,j) ee ∈ T with ι(e) = v we
define Ye := h(v,i) g(e,j) Ge ⊂ h(v,i) Gv = Yv with attaching map:
−1
αe (x) := h(v,i) g(e,j) fe εe (g(e,j)
h−1
(v,i) x) ⊂ Yτ (e)

Let Y := Y (T, {Yt }, {αe }) be the resulting tree of spaces over T , which we call an
algebraic tree of spaces for Γ.
Lemma 2.15. An algebraic tree of spaces Y for Γ is quasi-isometric to G(Γ).
Proof. By Lemma 2.14, Y is a proper geodesic metric space. The group G(Γ) acts by left
multiplication, properly discontinuously and cocompactly by isometries on Y , so they are
quasi-isometric, by the Milnor-Švarc Lemma.

2.6
2.6.1

Trees of maps
Trees of quasi-isometries

Proposition 2.16. Suppose X and X 0 are trees of spaces over T and T 0 , respectively.
Suppose that χ : T → T 0 is an isomorphism. Suppose there exists M ≥ 1 and A ≥ 0 such
that:
0
• For each v ∈ VT there is an (M, A)–quasi-isometry φv : Xv → Xχ(v)
and a quasi0
isometry inverse φ̄v : Xχ(v) → Xv .
0
0
• For every e ∈ ET , the space φι(e) (Xe ) is A–coarsely equivalent to Xχ(e)
in Xχ(ι(e))
,
0
and the space φ̄ι(e) (Xχ(e) ) is A–coarsely equivalent to Xe in Xι(e) .

15

0
• For every e ∈ ET and every x ∈ Xe there exists a point x0 ∈ Xχ(e)
such that
0
0
0
d(φι(e) (x), x ) ≤ A and d(φτ (e) (αe (x)), αe (x )) ≤ A.
0
• For every e ∈ ET and every x0 ∈ Xχ(e)
there exists a point x ∈ Xe such that
0
0
0
d(φ̄ι(e) (x ), x) ≤ A and d(φ̄τ (e) (αχ(e) (x )), αe (x)) ≤ A.

Then there is a quasi-isometry φ : X → X 0 with φ|Xv = φv for each vertex v ∈ T .
Definition 2.17. A collection of quasi-isometries (φv ) satisfying the conditions given in
Proposition 2.16 is called a tree of quasi-isometries over χ compatible with X and X 0 .
Proof of Proposition 2.16. It suffices to consider the unions of the vertex spaces, which
form coarsely dense subsets of X and X 0 , and define φ by φ|Xv := φv . Define a coarse
inverse φ̄ to φ by φ̄|X 0 := φ̄v .
χ(v)
Suppose x and x0 are points in vertex spaces of X, and let x0 , x00 , x1 , . . . , x0k be a
k–chain joining them with length at most d(x, x0 ) + 1. Let Xvi be the vertex space
containing xi and x0i , and let ei be the edge such that x0i−1 and xi are endpoints of a
rung over ei .
Let y0 := φv0 (x0 ) and yk0 := φvk (x0k ). By hypothesis, for each x0i there exists a
0
0
yi ∈ Xχ(e
such that d(φι(e) (x0i ), yi0 ) ≤ A and d(φτ (e) (xi+1 ), yi+1 ) ≤ A, where yi+1 :=
i)
0
αχ(e)
(yi0 ). This gives a k–chain y0 , y00 , . . . , yk0 joining φ(x) and φ(x0 ) whose length is:
dX 0

χ(v0 )

(y0 , y00 ) +

X

0
d(yi−1
, yi ) + dX 0

χ(vi )

0<i≤k

(yi , yi0 )



≤ dX 0
(φv0 (x0 ), φv0 (x00 )) + A+
χ(v0 )
X

1 + 2A + dX 0 (φvi (xi ), φvi (x0i ))
χ(vi )

0<i≤k

≤ M dXv0 (x0 , x00 ) + 2A +

X


1 + 3A + M dXvi (xi , x0i )

0<i≤k

= 2A + k(1 + 3A) + M

X

dXvi (xi , x0i )

0≤i≤k

X

≤ 2A + max{1 + 3A, M } k +

dXvi (xi , x0i )



0≤i≤k

≤ 2A+




max{1 + 3A, M } dXv0 (x0 , x00 ) +

X 



d(x0i−1 , xi ) + dXvi (xi , x0i ) 

0<i≤k
0

≤ 2A + max{1 + 3A, M }(d(x, x ) + 1)
Therefore, d(φ(x), φ(x0 )) ≤ max{1 + 3A, M }d(x, x0 ) + (2A + max{1 + 3A, M }), so φ
is coarsely Lipschitz. A similar computation shows φ̄ is coarsely Lipschitz, so φ is a
quasi-isometry.
16

Xι(e)

φι(e)

O

?

Xe

φe

?
/ X0

χ(e)
α0χ(e)

αe



Xτ (e)

/ X0
ι(χ(e))
O

φτ (e)


/ X0
τ (χ(e))

Figure 1: Commuting diagram for Corollary 2.18.
Corollary 2.18. Suppose χ : T → T 0 is an isomorphism of trees and X and X 0 are trees
of spaces over T and T 0 , respectively. Suppose there are M ≥ 1 and A ≥ 0 and (M, A)–
0
0
quasi-isometries φv : Xv → Xχ(v)
for each vertex and φe : Xe → Xχ(e)
for each edge such
that the diagram in Figure 1 commutes up to uniformly bounded error. Then (φv ) is a
tree of quasi-isometries over χ compatible with X and X 0 , so X is quasi-isometric to X 0 .
2.6.2

Gromov boundaries and trees of homeomorphisms

In this section, let X be a proper geodesic hyperbolic tree of spaces over a tree T ,
such that the vertex spaces are proper geodesic hyperbolic spaces, the edge spaces are
uniformly quasi-convex in X, and the attaching maps are uniform quasi-isometries.
For example, if Γ is a finite acylindrical graph of hyperbolic groups such that the
edge injections are quasi-isometric embeddings then the algebraic tree of spaces has this
structure [4, 24]. If, moreover, the edge groups are two-ended then the edge injections
are automatically quasi-isometric embeddings.
Quasi-convexity of edge spaces implies quasi-convexity of vertex spaces, so the Gromov boundary of each vertex space and
` edge space embeds into the boundary of X.
Consider the space ∂X := ∂T t v∈VT ∂Xv modulo identifying ∂X
` e ⊂ ∂Xι(e) with
∂Xē ⊂ ∂Xτ (e) via ∂ψe for each edge e. Let ∂Stab denote the image of v∈VT ∂Xv in ∂X.
Lemma 2.19. The inclusion of ∂X into the Gromov boundary of X is a surjection.
Proof. Pick a basepoint p ∈ X and let ζ : [0, ∞] → X̄ be a geodesic ray based at p.
Consider the projection π(p) of p to T .
If π ◦ζ crosses some edge e infinitely many times then there is an unbounded sequence
of times t1 , t2 , . . . such that ζ(ti ) ∈ Xe . Since the edge space is quasi-convex, ζ stays
bounded distance from Xe , so converges to a point in ∂Xe .
A similar argument shows that if π ◦ ζ visits a vertex v infinitely many times or is
eventually constant at v then ζ converges to a point in ∂Xv .
The remaining possibility is that π ◦ ζ limits to a point of ∂T . We claim there is a
unique asymptotic class of geodesic rays in X with π ◦ζ → η ∈ ∂T . Suppose ζ 0 is another
17

such ray. Let v0 be the vertex such that p ∈ Xv0 . Let e be an edge in T on the geodesic
from v0 to η. Let e0 be another edge on the geodesic from v0 to η that is distance at least
δ + Q from e, where δ is the hyperbolicity constant for X and Q is the quasi-convexity
constant for edge spaces. Let x be a point of ζ ∩ Xe and y a point of ζ ∩ Xe0 . Let x0 be
a point of ζ 0 ∩ Xe and y 0 a point of ζ 0 ∩ Xe0 . Consider a geodesic triangle whose sides
are ζ|[p,y] , ζ 0 |[p,y0 ] , and a geodesic ζ 00 from y to y 0 . By quasi-convexity, d(x, ζ 00 ) > δ and
d(x0 , ζ 00 ) > δ. Therefore, hyperbolicity implies d(x, ζ 0 ) ≤ δ and d(x0 , ζ) ≤ δ. This implies
ζ and ζ 0 are asymptotic.
Now we define a topology on ∂X and show it is equivalent to the Gromov topology.
Definition 2.20 (domains). The domain D(η) of a point η ∈ ∂T is the singleton {η}.
The domain D(ξ) of a point ξ of ∂Stab X is the subtree of T spanned by those vertices v
of T such that ∂Xv contains a point in the equivalence class ξ.
Remark 2.21. It can be proved that domains of points of ∂Stab X have a uniformly
bounded number of edges, see [30].
We can now define neighborhoods of points of ∂X, starting with points of ∂T .
Definition 2.22 (neighborhoods of points of ∂T ). Let η be a point of ∂T , and U be a
neighborhood of η in T ∪ ∂T . We define the neighborhood VU (η) as the set of points of
∂X whose domain is contained in U .
Before moving to neighborhoods of points of ∂Stab X, we need a definition.
Definition 2.23 (ξ-family, cone). Let ξ be a point of ∂Stab X. For every vertex v of D(ξ),
choose a neighborhood Uv of ξ in Xv ∪ ∂Xv . Let U be the collection of sets Uv , v ∈ D(ξ),
which we call a ξ-family. We define the set ConeU (ξ), called a cone, as the set of points
w ∈ (T ∪ ∂T ) \ D(ξ) such that if e is the last edge of the geodesic from w to D(ξ) in T ,
we have ∂αe (∂Xe ) ⊂ Uτ (e) .
Definition 2.24 (neighborhoods of points of ∂Stab X). Let ξ be a point of ∂Stab X, and
U be a ξ-family. We define the neighborhood VU (ξ) as the set of points η of ∂X such
that the following holds:
• D(η) \ D(ξ) is contained in ConeU (ξ),
• for every vertex v of D(ξ) ∩ D(η), we have η ∈ Uv .
Theorem 2.25 ( [30, Corollary 9.19]). With the topology described above, the inclusion
of ∂X into the Gromov boundary of X is a homeomorphism.
Definition 2.26. Let X and X 0 be proper geodesic hyperbolic trees of quasi-convex
spaces over a trees T and T 0 , respectively. A tree of boundary homeomorphisms compatible
with X and X 0 over an isomorphism χ : T → T 0 consists of homeomorphisms ρv : ∂Xv →
0
∂Xχ(v)
for every vertex v ∈ T such that for ξ ∈ ∂Xv ∩ ∂Xw we have ρv (ξ) = ρw (ξ) ∈
0
0
−1
∂Xχ(v) ∩∂Xχ(w)
, and for ξ ∈ ∂Xv0 ∩∂Xw0 we have ρ−1
v (ξ) = ρw (ξ) ∈ ∂Xχ−1 (v) ∩∂Xχ−1 (w) .
18

Proposition 2.27. Let X and X 0 be proper geodesic hyperbolic trees of quasi-convex
spaces over trees T and T 0 , respectively, with a compatible tree of boundary homeomorphisms (ρv ) over χ ∈ Isom(T, T 0 ). Then there is a homeomorphism ρ : ∂X → ∂Y defined
by ρ|∂Xv := ρv and ρ|∂T := ∂χ.
Proof. We have a well defined map ρ and its inverse ρ−1 is defined by ρ−1 |∂Xv0 := ρ−1
χ−1 (v)
and ρ−1 |∂T := ∂χ−1 . It clear that ρ and ρ−1 are continuous with respect to the topology
given in Definition 2.22 and Definition 2.24, which is equivalent to the standard topology
by Theorem 2.25.
Theorem 2.28. Let G and G0 be one-ended hyperbolic groups with non-trivial two-ended
JSJ decompositions. Let X and X 0 be algebraic trees of spaces over the respective JSJ
trees of cylinders T := Cyl(G) and T 0 := Cyl(G0 ). Every homeomorphism ρ : ∂X → ∂X 0
splits as a tree of compatible boundary homeomorphisms over the isomorphism ρ∗ : T →
T 0 . Every tree of boundary homeomorphisms (ρv ) compatible with X and X 0 over an
isomorphism χ : T → T 0 patches together to give a homeomorphism ρ : ∂X → ∂X 0 with
ρ∗ = χ and ρ|∂Xv = ρv .
Proof. Since the edge groups are two-ended they are virtually cyclic, hence quasi-convex.
Therefore, the boundary of each vertex space embeds into the boundary of its tree of
spaces. By Theorem 2.11, ρ induces an isomorphism ρ∗ : T → T 0 and ρ(∂Xv ) = ∂Xρ0 ∗ (v) .
Since these spaces are embedded, ρ|∂Xv ∈ Homeo((∂Xv , ∂Pv ), (∂Xρ0 ∗ (v) , ∂Pρ0 ∗ (v) )), so ρ
splits as a tree of boundary homeomorphisms over ρ∗ .
The converse is Proposition 2.27.

3

Distinguishing orbits: Basic examples

Given a group G, a common strategy in understanding groups quasi-isometric to G is
to first understand self-quasi-isometries of G. We explained in the previous section that
QI(G) acts on Cyl(G), preserving the relative quasi-isometry types of vertices. A first
step towards understanding QI(G) is to understand its action on Cyl(G). In particular,
we would like to determine the QI(G)–orbits of vertices in Cyl(G). We know that there
are finitely many G–orbits of vertices in Cyl(G), and that QI(G)–orbits are unions of
G–orbits, so the problem reduces to distinguishing G–orbits that are not contained in a
common QI(G)–orbit.
In this section we show on some particular examples how one may distinguish G–
orbits. These examples motivate the technical machinery of the following sections, in
which we combine and iterate the considerations presented here.
Our examples are hyperbolic, so, as usual, we consider the cases of quasi-isometry
and boundary homeomorphism simultaneously by letting Map(G) mean either QI(G) or
Homeo(∂G), as appropriate.
In general our techniques reduce questions about graphs of groups to questions about
the vertex groups, so our results are strongest, and the examples are most illuminating,

19

when the vertex groups are well understood. First we establish such a well understood
vertex group, and then we use it to construct graph of group examples.
Consider the free group F2 = ha, bi. Let X be the Cayley graph of F2 with respect to
the generating set {a, b}. Recall that if H is a finite collection of two-ended subgroups
of F2 then there is a corresponding peripheral structure P on X consisting of distinct
coarse equivalence classes of conjugates of elements of H. Since X is a tree, the coarse
equivalence class of a two-ended subgroup contains a unique bi-infinite geodesic, so we
can think of P as an F2 –invariant collection of bi-infinite geodesics.
We claim that J(X, Pi )K = J(X, Pj )K for all i and j where Pi is the peripheral structure
induced by Hi defined as follows:
• H0 = {ha2 b2 abi}

• H3 = {hai, habab2 i}

• H1 = {hab2 i, ha2 bi}

• H4 = {hai, hbi, hababi}

• H2 = {habi, ha2 b2 i}

• H5 = {hai, hbi, habi, habi}

This follows from [14, Theorem 6.3]. The reason is that the Whitehead graph for
each of these examples is the complete graph on four vertices. For each i, there are
exactly 6 bi-infinite geodesics representing elements of Pi passing through the vertex of X
corresponding to the identity element of F2 . Given i and j, any choice of bijection between
these six elements of Pi and the six corresponding elements of Pj extends uniquely to an
element of QI((X, Pi ), (X, Pj )). Conversely, every element of QI((X, Pi ), (X, Pj )) is of
this form, up to pre- and post-composition with the F2 –action.
When F2 is a vertex group of a graph of groups and the peripheral structure coming
from incident edge groups is one of the Pi above then the vertex is rigid.
For variety, we give two more rigid examples.
• F3 = ha, b, ci relative to the peripheral structure induced by ha2 b2 c2 acbi. The
Whitehead graph for this example is the complete bipartite graph with parts of
three vertices each. This peripheral structure is not quasi-isometrically equivalent
to the Pi given above.
• π1 (M ), for M a closed hyperbolic 3–manifold, relative to the peripheral structure
induced by hgi, where g is a non-trivial, indivisible element of π1 (M ).

3.1

First example: wrong type, bad neighbors, stretch factors

Consider the graph of groups Γ shown in Figure 2. It is the graph of cylinders for the
one-ended hyperbolic group G := G(Γ), so T := T (Γ) = Cyl(G). The label below a
vertex is its name, and the label above a vertex is the associated vertex group. All of the
edge groups are infinite cyclic. Suppose that we have chosen a generator for each infinite
cyclic vertex and edge group. Each end of an edge is labelled to indicate the image of
this generator in the incident vertex group. For cyclic vertices we give a non-zero integer
indicating that the image of the edge generator is that power of the vertex generator.
20

2

ab

ab2

Z

a2 b̄2

F2 ab̄2

Z

r1

c2

F2 ab̄2

Z

r2

c3

F2 ab

Z

r3

c1

ab2

ab2

g

a2 b2 āb̄

F2 ab̄2

Z

a2 b2 āb̄

F2 ab̄2

Z
c6

F2
r8

abāb̄

c5

r5

F2
r7

c4

r4

π1 (M )
r6

F2
h

a2 b2 c2 acb

F3
r9

Figure 2: First example Γ
This label is omitted when it is equal to 1, which is the case for all edges in this particular
graph of groups.
For non-cyclic vertices we indicate the element that is the image of the chosen generator of the edge group. For economy of notation we reuse a and b as generators of all
the F2 vertex groups. These are distinct subgroups of G, so more properly we would say,
for instance, that Gr1 = ha1 , b1 i and the two incident edge injections send the generators
of their respective edge groups to a1 b21 and a1 b21 .
In this section we describe the Map(G)–orbits of vertices in T .
3.1.1

Wrong type

The vertex h is the only hanging vertex, so Ge
h is a Map(G)–orbit.
The vertices labelled ci are cylindrical, while the vertices labelled ri are rigid, so there
are no i and j such that rei and cej are in the same Map(G)–orbit.
The vertex group of r6 is not quasi-isometric or boundary homeomorphic to any of
the other vertex groups, so Gre6 is a Map(G)–orbit.
The vertex group of r9 relative to the peripheral structure induced by the incident
edge is not the same relative quasi-isometry or boundary homeomorphism type of any
other vertex, so Gre9 is a Map(G)–orbit.
3.1.2

Bad neighbors

The cylindrical vertices have finite valence in T . The valence of vertices in Gce1 is 5, while
for all other cylindrical vertices it is 2. Thus, Gce1 is a Map(G)–orbit.
Vertices in Gce2 are the only ones adjacent to vertices in the Map(G)–orbit Gre6 , so
Gce2 is a Map(G)–orbit.
21

Vertices in Gce2 are adjacent only to vertices in Gre1 and Gre6 , but we already know
that Gre6 is a Map(G)–orbit, so Gre1 is a Map(G)–orbit as well.
By the same sort of argument, we quickly conclude that Gce5 , Gre4 , Gce6 , and Gre5 are
distinct Map(G)–orbits.
Such arguments based on distinguishing vertices by their neighbors are the contents
of Section 4.
3.1.3

Stretch factors

It remains to differentiate the second and third branches of Γ. This is more subtle, as the
only difference is at vertices r2 and r3 , which do have the same relative quasi-isometry
type.
Notices that the generator of Gc3 is identified with an element of word length 6 in
Gr7 , and length 3 in Gr2 , whereas the generator of Gc4 is identified with elements of
word lengths 6 and 2. It is not at all obvious that these lengths are preserved by quasiisometries. Nevertheless, we will show that in this particular example ce3 and ce4 can be
distinguished up to quasi-isometry by the fact that the ratios 63 and 62 are not equal.
These ratios correspond to an invariant called the ‘stretch factor’, which is developed in
Section 5.
By neighbor arguments as above we can then conclude that QI(G)–orbits of T are
the same as G–orbits.
The stretch factor is only an invariant for quasi-isometries, not boundary homeomorphism. In this example we cannot, in fact, distinguish the second and third branch of Γ
up to boundary homeomorphism, which is to say, Gre2 ∪Gre3 is a single Homeo(∂G)–orbit,
as are Gce3 ∪ Gce4 and Gre7 ∪ Gre8 .

3.2

Second example: unbalanced cylinders

In general, if L is an element of a peripheral structure P on X, there is no reason to believe
that there is an element of Map((X, P)) that preserves L and reverses its orientation.
We briefly give an idea how one may construct such an example. Consider the genus
7 surface Σ in Figure 3, with a hyperbolic metric.
Let f ∈ π1 (Σ) be the element represented by the curve running around the central
e = H2 . The figure shows
hole. Let L be a component of the preimage of this curve in Σ
three curves the separate Σ into subsurfaces Σ1 , Σ2 , and Σ3 , each of which is a genus
two surface with two boundary components. Suppose each Σi contains a collection of
curves that is complicated enough so that all the complementary components are discs,
and different enough so that there does not exist a crossing-preserving bijection between
the components of the preimages of the curves of Σi contained in one component of the
e and the components of the preimages of the curves of Σj contained in
preimage of Σi in Σ
e induced by
one component of the preimage of Σj . Let P be the peripheral structure on Σ
all of the above curves in Σ, which is to say, each element of P is the coarse equivalence
e of one of the curves in Σ.
class of a component of the preimage in Σ

22

Figure 3: The surface Σ
Then there is no element of Map(π1 (Σ), P) that reverses L. The reason is that L
passes through components of the preimages of Σ1 , Σ2 , and Σ3 in order. If this order
were reversible by an element of Map((π1 (Σ), P)) we would contradict the restriction
that the pattern of curves in Σ1 , Σ2 , and Σ3 were chosen to be ‘different’.
Now consider the graph of groups Γ of Figure 4, where Σ and f are as above, and
g is a non-trivial, indecomposable element of a closed hyperbolic 3–manifold M . Then
G := G(Γ) is a one-ended hyperbolic group with T := T (Γ) = Cyl(G).
r4

π1 (M )
g

c2

r1

Z
π1 (Σ)
f

Z
−1

r3

c1

π1 (Σ)
f

r2

f

π1 (Σ)

Figure 4: Second example Γ
The graph of groups Γ has a central cylindrical vertex c1 that attaches to three rigid
vertices r1 , r2 , and r3 , each of which has local group π1 (Σ), with each attachment along a
copy of f . For each ri there are some number of other incident edges, each corresponding
to one of the curves in Σ described above, so that the peripheral structure on Gri induced
e Each of these
by edge inclusions is the peripheral structure P described above for Σ.
edges we attach to another cylindrical vertex, and then to a rigid vertex carrying a copy
of π1 (M ).
23

We consider a kind of ‘f –parity’ by counting the number of vertices adjacent to ce1
for which the generator of Gce1 is identified with f minus the number of vertices adjacent
to ce1 for which the generator of Gce1 is identified with f . Since ce1 has non-zero f –parity,
we call it an unbalanced cylinder. We claim that there is not an element of Map(G) that
reverses the orientation of an unbalanced cylinder. In this example, we then conclude
that Gre3 is a Map(G)–orbit and Gre1 ∪ Gre2 is a different Map(G)–orbit.
The proof is as follows. Since Gce1 is the only G–orbit of cylindrical vertices in T of
valence 3, if there were an element of Map(G) taking re3 to, say, re1 , then it would fix
ce1 . There is clearly an element of Map((Gr3 , Pr3 ), (Gr1 , Pr1 )) taking f to f , but, since f
is not reversible, if such a map extended to an element of Map(G) it would necessarily
reverse the orientation of Gce1 . Since f is not reversible, this would mean that every
vertex in which f is identified with the generator of Gce1 must be sent to a vertex in
which f is identified with the generator of Gce1 . This means that both re1 and re2 are sent
to re3 , contradicting the fact that Map(G) acts by isomorphisms on T .
Dealing with issues of orientation and unbalanced cylinders is the focus of Section 6.2.

4

Decorated trees and structure invariants

Let G be a group and let T be a simplicial tree of countable valence upon which G
acts cocompactly and without inverting an edge. In this section, we explain how to
associate to T an invariant, the structure invariant, that completely characterizes it up
to decoration-preserving isomorphism. The construction of this invariant generalizes the
‘degree refinement’ invariant of graph theory, which is an invariant that determines when
two finite graphs have isomorphic universal covers.
Definition 4.1. A decoration is a G–invariant map δ : T → O that assigns to each
vertex of T an ornament o ∈ O.
For simplicity, in this section we decorate only vertices. In the next section we will
also decorate edges, with the condition that δ(e) = δ(ē) for every edge. Formally, this
can be accomplished by subdividing each edge of T and decorating
` the new vertices.
Corresponding to a decoration there is a partition of T as o∈O δ −1 (o). We say
that a decoration δ 0 : T → O0 is a refinement of δ if the δ 0 –partition is finer than the
δ–partition. Equivalently, a decoration δ 0 : T → O0 is a refinement of δ : T → O if there
exists a surjective map π : Im δ 0 → Im δ such that π ◦ δ 0 = δ. We say δ 0 is a strict
refinement if the δ 0 –partition is strictly finer than the δ–partition. A refinement that is
not strict is a trivial refinement.
In this section, we will define a structure invariant for a decorated tree, such that we
can reconstruct the tree, up to decoration-preserving tree automorphism, from the data
of the structure invariant. In order to do so, we want to identify orbits in T under the
action of the group Aut(T, δ) := {χ ∈ Aut(T ) | δ ◦ χ = δ}, and then to say how they fit
together. In a nutshell, the idea is as follows.
Suppose v and w are two vertices. If there is a χ ∈ Aut(T, δ) with χ(v) = w, then,
of course, δ(v) = δ(w). Additionally, χ gives a decoration-preserving bijection from the
24

neighbors of v to the neighbors of w. Thus, for each ornament o, the number of neighbors
of v bearing o must be equal to the number of neighbors of w bearing o.
Conversely, if δ(v) = δ(w), but for some ornament o there are differing numbers
of neighbors of v bearing o and neighbors of w bearing o, then there is no decorationpreserving automorphism taking v to w, so we ought refine the decoration to distinguish
v from w. We then repeat this refinement process until vertices with the same ornament
can no longer be distinguished by the ornaments of their neighbors. This happens after
finitely many steps because G\T is compact, see Proposition 4.3. Section 4.1 formalizes
this process, which we call neighbor refinement.

4.1

Neighbor refinement

Let N := N ∪ {0, ∞}. Call O0 := O and δ0 := δ the ‘initial set of ornaments’ and the
‘initial decoration’, respectively. Beginning with i = 0, for each v ∈ VT define:
fv,i : Oi → N : o 7→ #{w ∈ δi−1 (o) | w is adjacent to v}
O

Define Oi+1 := O0 × N i , and define δi+1 (v) := (δ0 (v), fv,i ).
Lemma 4.2. For all i, the map δi+1 : T → Oi+1 is a decoration that refines δi : T → Oi .
Proof. Let v be a vertex, and let g ∈ G. Suppose δi is G–invariant. Then, δi+1 (gv) =
(δi (gv), fgv,i ) = (δi (v), fv,i ) = δi+1 (v). Since δ0 is G–invariant, all the δi are decorations
by induction.
For each i, let N (v, i, o) denote the number of neighbors of v in δi−1 (o).
Clearly, δ1 refines δ0 , since δ0 is the composition of δ1 with projection to the first
coordinate of theP
image. Suppose that δi refines δi−1 . Then for every o0 ∈ Oi−1 , we have
0
N (v, i − 1, o ) = o∈δi ◦δ−1 (o0 ) N (v, i, o).
i−1
If δi+1 (v) = δi+1 (w) then δ0 (v) = δ0 (w) and N (v, i, o) = N (w, i, o) for each o ∈ Oi .
Thus, for all o0 ∈ Oi−1 ,
X
X
N (v, i − 1, o0 ) =
N (v, i, o) =
N (w, i, o) = N (w, i − 1, o0 ),
−1
o∈δi ◦δi−1
(o0 )

−1
o∈δi ◦δi−1
(o0 )

so δi (v) = δi (w). Hence δi+1 refines δi . The lemma follows by induction.
Proposition 4.3. There exists an s ≥ 0 such that δi+1 is a strict refinement of δi for
all i + 1 ≤ s and δi+1 is a trivial refinement of δi for all i ≥ s.
−1
: Im δi+1 ⊂ Oi+1 → Oi . The
Proof. Since δi+1 refines δi there is a function δi ◦ δi+1
refinement is trivial precisely when this function is injective.
Suppose there exists an s such that δs+1 is a trivial refinement of δs . For every
−1
o ∈ Im δs+1 ⊂ Os+1 we have fv,s+1 (o) = fv,s ◦ δs ◦ δs+1
(o), and fv,s+1 (o) = 0 otherwise.
Therefore, δs+1 (v) = δs+1 (w) implies fv,s = fw,s , which implies fv,s+1 = fw,s+1 , which
implies δs+2 (v) = δs+2 (w). Thus, once one refinement in the sequence is trivial so are all
further refinements.

25

To see that eventually some refinement`is trivial, note that G–invariance implies that
for all i we have a partition of T by T = o∈Oi δi−1 (o) in which each part is a union of
G–orbits. A refinement is strict if and only if the new partition has strictly more parts
than the previous one. However, the number of parts is bounded above by the number
of G–orbits, which is finite.
Definition 4.4. The neighbor refinement of δ is the decoration δs : T → Os at which
the neighbor refinement process stabilizes.
Proposition 4.5. Let δ 0 : T → O0 be the neighbor refinement of δ : T → O. The δ 0 –
partition of T is equal to the partition into Aut(T, δ)–orbits and to the partition into
Aut(T, δ 0 )–orbits.
Proof. The partition into Aut(T, δ)–orbits is finer than the δ 0 –partition because each
refinement step is Aut(T, δ)–equivariant. The Aut(T, δ 0 )–orbit partition is finer than
the Aut(T, δ)–orbit partition since δ 0 is a refinement of δ. We show the δ 0 –partition
is finer than the Aut(T, δ 0 )–orbit partition by supposing δ 0 (v) = δ 0 (w) and producing
χ ∈ Aut(T, δ 0 ) with χ(v) = w.
The automorphism χ is constructed inductively. Start by defining χ(v) := w. Since
0
δ is stable under neighbor refinement, for every o ∈ O0 we have # lk(v) ∩ (δ 0 )−1 (o) =
# lk(w)∩(δ 0 )−1 (o). Extend χ by choosing any bijection between these sets. This extends
χ to the 1–neighborhood of v.
Now suppose χ is defined on a subtree T 0 of T such that for every v 0 ∈ VT 0 , either v 0 is
a leaf or T 0 contains every edge incident to v 0 . Let v 0 be a leaf, and let u be the vertex of
T 0 adjacent to v 0 . For δ 0 (u)
χ via a bijection between lk(v) \ {u} ∩ (δ 0 )−1 (δ 0 (u))
 extend
0
0
−1
and lk(χ(v )) \ {χ(u)} ∩ (δ ) (δ 0 (u)). For o 6= δ 0 (u) extend χ just as in the base
case.

4.2

Structure invariants

Let δs : T → Os be a neighbor refinement of δ as in Proposition 4.3. As defined, δs
actually encodes the history of the refinement process, not just the structure of T . We
define the structure invariant by forgetting this extraneous history. Let π0 : Os → O be
projection to the first coordinate. Choose an ordering of Im δ and let O[j] denote the
j–th ornament in the image. Similarly, for each 1 ≤ j ≤ # Im δ, choose an ordering of
π0−1 (O[j]) ∩ Im δs . Order Im δs lexicographically, and let Os [i] denote the i–th ornament.
Definition 4.6. The structure invariant S(T, δ, O) is the # Im δs ×# Im δs matrix whose
j, k–entry is the tuple consisting of the number of vertices in δs−1 (Os [j]) adjacent to each
vertex of δs−1 (Os [k]), the O–ornament π0 (Os [j]) and the O–ornament π0 (Os [k]). The
last two coordinates are called respectively the row and column ornament of the entry.
S(T, δ, O) can be seen as a block matrix, with blocks consisting of entries with the
same row ornaments and the same column ornaments. The structure invariant is well
defined up to permuting the O–blocks and permuting rows and columns within O–blocks,
ie, up to the choice of orderings of O and the π0−1 (O[j]).
26

Proposition 4.7. Let δ : T → O be a G–invariant decoration of a cocompact G–tree.
Let δ 0 : T 0 → O be a G0 –invariant decoration of a cocompact G0 –tree. There exists a
decoration-preserving isomorphism φ : T → T 0 if and only if S(T, δ, O) = S(T 0, δ 0, O), up
to permuting rows and columns within O–blocks.
In particular, with the above notations, T and T 0 must have the same sets of ornaments for a decoration-preserving isomorphism φ to exist.
Proof. It is clear that isomorphic decorated trees have the same structure invariants,
up to choosing the orderings of the ornaments. For the converse, assume that we have
reordered within O–blocks so that S(T, δ, O) = S(T 0, δ 0, O) = S. Construct a decorationpreserving tree isomorphism exactly as in the proof of Proposition 4.5.
Remark. When T is the universal cover of a finite graph Γ and the initial set of ornaments
is trivial then the structure invariant we have defined is just the well known degree
refinement of Γ. The lemma says that two graphs have the same degree refinement if
and only if they have isomorphic universal covers. A theorem of Leighton [27] says that
such graphs in fact have a common finite cover. There are also decorated versions of
Leighton’s Theorem, eg [34].
Observation. We get a quasi-isometry invariant of a group G by taking the structure
invariant of a cocompact QI(G)-tree with a QI(G)–invariant decoration.
This is a simple observation, but it does not seem to have appeared in the literature
in this generality.
Behrstock and Neumann [2, 3] have used special cases of this type of invariant, in a
different guise, to classify fundamental groups of some families of compact irreducible
3–manifolds of zero Euler characteristic. In both papers the tree is the Bass-Serre tree
for the geometric decomposition of such a 3–manifold along tori and Klein bottles, which
is the higher dimensional antecedent of the JSJ decompositions considered in this paper.
When the geometric decomposition has only Seifert fibered pieces the vertices are
decorated by the quasi-isometry type of the universal cover of the corresponding Seifert
fibered manifold. There are only two possible quasi-isometry types, according to whether
or not the Seifert fibered piece has boundary. Every vertex in the Bass-Serre tree has
infinite valence, so each entry of the structure invariant is either 0 or ∞.
Behrstock and Neumann [2] state their result in terms of ‘bi-similarity’4 classes of
bi-colored graphs. They show that each bi-similarity class is represented by a unique
minimal graph, and that two such 3–manifolds are quasi-isometric if and only if the bicolored Bass-Serre tree of their geometric decompositions have the same representative
minimal graph. Their minimal bi-colored graphs carry exactly the same information as
the structure invariant of the decorated Bass-Serre tree. One can construct their graph
by taking the vertex set to be the stable decoration set Os and connecting vertex Os [j]
to vertex Os [k] by an edge if and only if the j, k–entry of S is ∞. The vertices of the
graph are ‘bi-colored’ by the projection π0 : Os → O. Conversely, S can be recovered by
4

Their meaning of ‘similarity’ is different than in this paper.

27

replacing each edge in the graph by infinitely many edges, lifting the bi-coloring to the
universal covering tree, and calculating the structure invariant.
The second paper [3] extends their results to cases where the decomposition involves
some hyperbolic pieces. The decorations there are more complex.

4.3

Structure invariants for the JSJ tree of cylinders

Combining Proposition 4.7 with Theorem 2.9 and Corollary 2.10 proves:
Theorem 4.8. If G is a finitely presented one-ended group not commensurable to a
surface group, then the structure invariant for the JSJ tree of cylinders is a quasi-isometry
invariant of G, with respect to any of the following initial decorations:
1. Vertex type: rigid, hanging, or cylinder.
2. Vertex type and, if v is rigid, JGv K.

3. Vertex type and, if v is rigid, J(Gv , Pv )K.

Theorem 4.9. If G is hyperbolic and the JSJ decomposition of G has no rigid vertices
then the invariant of Theorem 4.8 is a complete quasi-isometry invariant.
Later we will prove a more general result, Theorem 8.5, that includes Theorem 4.9
as a special case. A brief sketch of a direct proof of Theorem 4.9 goes like this: Given
two hyperbolic groups as in Theorem 4.9, the structure invariants of Theorem 4.8 are
equivalent if and only if the groups have isomorphic decorated JSJ trees of cylinders.
Since all non-cylindrical vertices are hanging, it follows, using techniques of of Behrstock
and Neumann [2], that the groups are quasi-isometric if and only if they have isomorphic
decorated JSJ trees of cylinders. Details of the last claim can be found in Dani and
Thomas [15, Section 4]. The torsion-free case was previously written up in the thesis of
Malone [28].

4.4
4.4.1

Examples
An example with symmetry

Consider the graph of groups Γ in Figure 5, for which T (Γ) = Cyl(G(Γ)). Let G := G(Γ)
and T := T (Γ).
ha, bi
r0

a2 b2 āb̄

Z
c0

xy x̄z̄

hx, y, zi zy
h

Z
c

a2 b2 āb̄

ha, bi
r

Figure 5: Symmetric example
Take the initial decoration be vertex type, so δ0 (r), δ0 (r0 ) := ‘rigid’; δ0 (c), δ0 (c0 ) :=
‘cylindrical’; and δ0 (h) := ‘hanging’.
Let us compute the first neighbor refinement: The image of an edge injection into
a rigid vertex group is an infinite index subgroup, so rigid vertices of T are infinite
28

valence, and adjacent only to cylindrical vertices. Since δ0 does not distinguish between
cylindrical vertices, we have:


‘cylindrical’ 7→ ∞
fre,0 , fre0 ,0 := ‘rigid’
7→ 0


‘hanging’
7→ 0
In this example each edge group surjects onto its adjacent cylindrical vertex group,
so cylindrical vertices of T have valence 2. One neighbor is rigid and one is hanging, and
δ0 does not distinguish between the rigid vertices, so we have:


‘cylindrical’ 7→ 0
fec,0 , fce0 ,0 := ‘rigid’
7→ 1


‘hanging’
7→ 1
Finally, the image of an edge injection into a hanging vertex group is an infinite index
subgroup, so hanging vertices of T are infinite valence, and adjacent only to cylindrical
vertices. Since δ0 does not distinguish between cylindrical vertices, we have:


‘cylindrical’ 7→ ∞
:=
feh,0
‘rigid’
7→ 0


‘hanging’
7→ 0
The first refinement is therefore:
δ1 (e
r), δ1 (re0 ) := (‘rigid’, fre,0 )
δ1 (e
c), δ1 (ce0 ) := (‘cylindrical’, fec,0 )
δ1 (e
h) := (‘hanging’, feh,0 )
This is a trivial refinement, so δ0 is stable, and the structure invariant is given in Table 1.

‘cylindrical’ ‘rigid’ ‘hanging’
‘cylindrical’
0
1
1
‘rigid’
∞
0
0
‘hanging’
∞
0
0
Table 1: Structure invariant for symmetric example
Notice that we get the same structure invariant for the group G0 := G(Γ0 ) defined by
the graph of groups in Figure 6. This is expected, as the groups are quasi-isometric. In
fact, G is isomorphic to an index 2 subgroup of G0 .
29

hp, qi

Z

pq p̄q̄

h

Figure 6:
4.4.2

a2 b2 āb̄

c

ha, bi
r

Γ0

The example of Section 3.1

Let Γ be the graph of groups of Figure 2, for which T (Γ) = Cyl(G(Γ)). Let G := G(Γ)
and T := T (Γ). In this example we take the initial decoration to be by vertex type and
quasi-isometry type of vertex stabilizer. The vertices of T carry four possible ornaments,
(r, Jπ1 (M )K), (r, JF2 K), (h, JF2 K), and (c, JZK), where in the first coordinate r, h, and c
stand for ‘rigid’, hanging’, and ‘cylindrical’, respectively.
In the first refinement step, observe that each rigid and hanging vertex of T is adjacent
to infinitely many cylindrical vertices. The initial decoration does not distinguish any of
the cylindrical vertices, so δ1 does not give any new information about rigid and hanging
vertices.
On the other hand, we do distinguish some of the cylindrical vertices. This is because
δ0 does distinguish between three different kinds of rigid and hanging vertex, so we can
distinguish cylindrical vertices according to the number and kind of their neighbors.

re6
re1 , re2 , re3 , re4 , re5 , re7 , re8 , re9
e
h
ce1
ce2
ce3 , ce4 , ce6
ce5

(r, Jπ1 (M )K) (r, JF2 K) (h, JF2 K) (c, JZK)
(r, Jπ1 (M )K)
0
0
0
∞
(r, JF2 K)
0
0
0
∞
(h, JF2 K)
0
0
0
∞
0
5
0
0
1
1
0
0
(c, JZK)
0
2
0
0
0
1
1
0
Table 2: First refinement

Table 2 shows δ1 . In the first column, for convenience, we give representatives of
G–orbits of vertex v in T with a given ornament in O1 . The second column contains
δ0 (v). The remaining columns in each row give a row vector encoding fv,0 . For instance,
the last row says that a vertex v ∈ Gce5 has δ0 (v) = (c, JZK) and is adjacent to one vertex
in δ0−1 ((r, JF2 K)) and one vertex in δ0−1 ((h, JF2 K)).
Table 3 shows δ2 . The (c, JZK) columns are listed in the same order as the (c, JZK)
rows of Table 2. For instance, the fourth row says that for any given vertex in Gre2 , Gre3 ,
or Gre5 in T , it has infinitely many neighbors in Gce1 and infinitely many neighbors in
Gce3 ∪ Gce4 ∪ Gce6 and no other neighbors.
We can again count neighbors according to the new decoration, but we see in Table 4
that this does not distinguish any additional vertices. Thus, the refinement process has
stabilized, and Table 4 is the structure invariant. Up to permuting the ordering on O0
and the ordering of rows and columns within each O0 –block, this structure invariant
30

re6
re1
re4
re2 , re3 , re5
re7 , re8 , re9
e
h
ce1
ce2
ce3 , ce4 , ce6
ce5

(r, Jπ1 (M )K) (r, JF2 K) (h, JF2 K)
(c, JZK)
(r, Jπ1 (M )K)
0
0
0
0 ∞ 0 0
0
0
0
∞ ∞ 0 0
0
0
0
∞ 0 0 ∞
(r, JF2 K)
0
0
0
∞ 0 ∞ 0
0
0
0
0 0 ∞ 0
(h, JF2 K)
0
0
0
0 0 0 ∞
0
5
0
0 0 0 0
1
1
0
0 0 0 0
(c, JZK)
0
2
0
0 0 0 0
0
1
1
0 0 0 0
Table 3: Second refinement

re6
re1
re4
re2 , re3 , re5
re7 , re8 , re9
e
h
ce1
ce2
ce3 , ce4 , ce6
ce5

(r, Jπ1 (M )K)
(r, Jπ1 (M )K)
0
0
0
(r, JF2 K)
0
0
0
(h, JF2 K)
0
1
(c, JZK)
0
0

(r, JF2 K)
(h, JF2 K)
(c, JZK)
0 0 0 0
0
0 ∞ 0 0
0 0 0 0
0
∞ ∞ 0 0
0 0 0 0
0
∞ 0 0 ∞
0 0 0 0
0
∞ 0 ∞ 0
0 0 0 0
0
0 0 ∞ 0
0 0 0 0
0
0 0 0 ∞
1 1 3 0
0
0 0 0 0
1 0 0 0
0
0 0 0 0
0 0 1 1
0
0 0 0 0
0 1 0 0
1
0 0 0 0

Table 4: Structure invariant
completely determines T up to δ0 –preserving tree isomorphism.

5
5.1

A new decoration: Stretch factors
Relative quasi-isometric rigidity

In this section, we associate to the JSJ tree of a cylinders of a group new quasi-isometry
invariants that take into account the metric information carried by the various two-ended
edge groups. Indeed, consider an infinite order element of an edge stabilizer. Its image
in each of the adjacent vertex groups has some translation length, and the ratio of these
translation lengths gives a stretch factor that describes how the amalgamation distorts
distance as measured in the vertex groups. This stretch factor clearly depends on the
31

choice of metrics of the vertex groups, so it is not an intrinsic invariant of the group,
and, in general, it is not preserved by quasi-isometries. However, we show that when
the vertex groups satisfy an appropriate notion of quasi-isometric rigidity—a notion that
is satisfied by many interesting classes of groups—then such stretch factors are indeed
quasi-isometry invariants.
Definition 5.1. A finitely generated group G is quasi-isometrically rigid relative to the
peripheral structure P, or (G, P) is quasi-isometrically rigid, if there exists a proper
geodesic metric space X with peripheral structure P 0 and a quasi-isometry µ : (G, P) →
(X, P 0 ) such that
1. µ∗ (QI(G, P)) is a uniform subgroup of CI((X, µ(P))).
2. If g ∈ G is an infinite order element fixing an element of P then i 7→ µ(g i ) is a
coarse similitude.
The pair (X, P 0 ) is called a rigid model for (G, P).
Remark. In Proposition 5.7 we prove that 1 implies 2 if G is hyperbolic.
Lemma 5.2. If (X, P 0 ) is a rigid model for (G, P) then µ0 ◦ µ ∈ CIsom((X, P 0 )) for any
µ, µ0 ∈ QIsom((G, P), (X, P 0 )).
This fact motivates the terminology ‘rigid’.
Proof. For µ, µ0 ∈ QIsom((G, P), (X, P 0 )) we have µ0 ◦ µ ∈ QIsom((X, P 0 ), (X, P 0 )). For
any µ ∈ QIsom((G, P), (X, P 0 )) we have CI((X, P 0 )) < QI((X, P 0 )) = µ∗ (QI((G, P))),
so if µ∗ (QI((G, P))) < CI((X, P 0 )) then QI((X, P 0 )) = CI((X, P 0 )).
Definition 5.3. Let (X, P 0 ) be a rigid model for (G, P), and let g be an infinite order
element of G that fixes an element of P. Define the X–length of g, `X (g), to be the
multiplicative constant of the coarse similitude from Z to X defined by i 7→ µ(g i ), where
µ ∈ QIsom((G, P), (X, P 0 )).
If a positive power g k of an infinite order element g fixes an element of P define
`X (g) := k1 `X (g k ).
Lemma 5.2 implies that `X (g) is independent of the choice of quasi-isometry µ ∈
QIsom((G, P), (X, P 0 )).
We remark in the second case that if π : Z → kZ is a closest point projection then
i 7→ µ(g π(i) ) is a coarse similitude from Z to X with multiplicative constant k1 `X (g k ), so
this is a sensible definition for `X (g).

5.2

Examples of relative quasi-isometric rigidity

Let G be a finitely presented group. Let H be a finite collection of two-ended subgroups
of G. Let P be the peripheral structure consisting of distinct coarse equivalence classes
of conjugates of elements of H.
32

1. If G is quasi-isometric to a space X such that I(X) = QI(X) then (G, P) is rigid.
The peripheral structure plays no role in this case. Examples include:
(a) Irreducible symmetric spaces other than real or complex hyperbolic space;
thick Euclidean buildings; and products of such [26, 35].
(b) The ‘topologically rigid’ hyperbolic groups of Kapovich and Kleiner [25].
(c) Certain Fuchsian buildings [7, 46].
(d) Mapping class groups of non-sporadic hyperbolic surfaces [1].
2. If G is quasi-isometric to a space X such that CI(X) = QI(X) then (G, P) is rigid.
Again, the peripheral structure plays no role in this case. Xie gives an example of
a certain solvable Lie group with this property [47].
3. If X is a real or complex hyperbolic space of dimension at least 3 and G is quasiisometric to X then (G, P) is quasi-isometrically rigid whenever H is non-empty,
by a theorem of Schwartz [40].
4. If X 0 is the 3-valent tree, G is quasi-isometric to X 0 (so G is virtually free), and
G does not virtually split over 0 or 2–ended subgroups relative to H, then (G, P)
is quasi-isometrically rigid [12, 14]. In this case the model space X depends on P,
and is not necessarily isometric to X 0 .
5. If X = H2 , φ : G → X is a quasi-isometry, and G does not virtually split over 2–
ended subgroups relative to H, then (G, P) is quasi-isometrically rigid, as follows.
A result of Kapovich and Kleiner [25] shows that G has finite index in QI((G, P)).
Therefore, QI((G, P)) is a finitely generated group quasi-isometric to X. This
quasi-isometry induces a cobounded quasi-action of QI((G, P)) on X. Such a
quasi-action is quasi-isometrically conjugate to an isometric action on X, by a
theorem of Markovic [29].
The first four cases actually satisfy the following stronger version of quasi-isometric
rigidity:
Definition 5.4. We say G is strongly quasi-isometrically rigid relative to P, or (G, P)
is strongly quasi-isometrically rigid, if there is a proper geodesic space X such that if
(X, P 0 ) and (X, P 00 ) are rigid models for (G, P), then there is a coarse isometry φ of X
such that φ(P 0 ) = P 00 .
By contrast, the last case only satisfies the weaker version of rigidity.
For a non-example, consider G := Zn and X := Rn . For any H the group QI((G, P))
contains maps conjugate to homotheties of Rn . This implies that the multiplicative
constants in QI((G, P)) are unbounded, so QI((G, P)) cannot be conjugate into some
coarse isometry group.
It is also easy to find non-examples of relative rigidity via splittings: If G virtually
splits over a zero or two-ended group relative to H then (G, P) is not quasi-isometrically
33

rigid. In such an example there are generalized Dehn twist quasi-isometries preserving
P, powers of which again produce unbounded multiplicative constants in QI((G, P)).
The previous examples and non-examples naturally lead to the following question:
Question 1. If G is a hyperbolic group that is not quasi-isometric to H2 and does not virtually split over a zero or two-ended subgroup relative to H, is (G, P) quasi-isometrically
rigid? Strongly quasi-isometrically rigid?

5.3

Relative quasi-isometric rigidity for hyperbolic groups

In Theorem 5.6 we give a characterization of relative quasi-isometric rigidity for hyperbolic groups. This combines with Proposition 5.7 to show that the first condition of
Definition 5.1 implies the second for hyperbolic groups. Theorem 5.6 also provides an
alternative viewpoint that may be useful for resolving Question 1.
A space X is called visual if there exists an A ≥ 0 and x ∈ X such that for every
y ∈ X there exists an A–coarse-geodesic ray starting at x and passing within distance A
of y. It follows from [6, Proposition 5.2 and Proposition 5.6] that if X is quasi-isometric
to a visual hyperbolic space then X is a visual hyperbolic space.
Definition 5.5. A map φ : X → Y is an (α, M )–power-quasi-symmetric embedding if
for all distinct x, y, z ∈ X


dY (φ(x), φ(z))
dX (x, z)
≤η
,
dY (φ(x), φ(y))
dX (x, y)
where

(
M r1/α
η(r) =
M rα

for 0 < r < 1,
for 1 ≤ r.

Let PQS((X, dX ), (Y, dY )) denote the set of power-quasi-symmetric homeomorphisms,
and abbreviate PQS(X, dX ) := PQS((X, dX ), (X, dX )), which is a group. If Z is a collection of subsets of X, define:
PQS(X, d, Z) := {φ ∈ PQS((X, d)) | ∀Z ∈ Z, φ(Z) ∈ Z and ∃!Z 0 ∈ Z, φ(Z 0 ) = Z}
Theorem 5.6. Let G be a non-elementary hyperbolic group with a peripheral structure
P consisting of coarse equivalence classes of conjugates of finitely many two-ended subgroups. Fix, arbitrarily, a word metric d on G, a basepoint p ∈ G, and a visual metric
d∞ on ∂G. The following are equivalent:
1. (G, P) is quasi-isometrically rigid.
2. There exists a proper, geodesic, visual hyperbolic space X and a quasi-isometry
µ : G → X such that µ∗ (QI((G, P))) is a uniform subgroup of CI((X, µ(P))).
3. There exists a visual metric d0∞ on ∂G such that PQS(∂G, d∞ , ∂P) is power-quasisymmetrically conjugate to a uniform subgroup of BiLip(∂G, d0∞ ).
34

Proof. Since G is a visual hyperbolic space, so is X. Thus, equivalence of 1 and 2 is
immediate from the definition of relative rigidity.
Item 2 implies item 3 by taking d0∞ to be a visual metric on ∂X = ∂G and applying [6,
Theorem 6.5], which shows that µ extends to a power-quasi-symmetry of ∂G, and a
uniform subgroup of CI(X) extends to a uniform subgroup of BiLip(∂G, d0∞ ).
Conversely, there are several ‘hyperbolic cone’ constructions in the literature [6,8,11,
21] that take a metric space Z and produce a hyperbolic metric space Con(Z) such that
a visual metric on ∂ Con(Z) recovers Z with the given metric. We take Conr (Z) be the
‘truncated hyperbolic approximation with parameter r’ of Buyalo and Schroeder [11].
Item 3 implies item 2 by taking X to be the hyperbolic cone Conr (∂G, d0∞ ) for r
sufficiently small.
Let g be an infinite order element of a hyperbolic group G with a fixed word metric.
The isometry Lg defined by left multiplication by g has a well defined translation length,
which is positive. If µ : G → X is a quasi-isometry such that µ∗ (Lg ) is a coarse isometry,
it is not true in general that µ∗ (Lg ) has a well defined translation length. The next
proposition shows that we do still get a positive translation length for µ∗ (Lg ) in the
special case of relative rigidity.
Proposition 5.7. Let G be a hyperbolic group and P a peripheral structure such that
there exists a proper geodesic space X and a quasi-isometry µ : G → X such that
µ∗ (QI((G, P))) is a uniform subgroup of CI((X, µ(P))). For every infinite order element g ∈ G the map i 7→ µ(g i ) is a coarse similitude.
Before proving the proposition we need a few lemmas.
Lemma 5.8. Let X be proper geodesic space quasi-isometric to a non-elementary hyperbolic group. For i ∈ {0, 1}, let φi be a quasi-isometry of X, with [φ0 ] = [φ1 ] ∈ QI(X).
The distance between φ0 and φ1 is bounded in terms of the quasi-isometry constants of
φ0 and φ1 and the constants of X.
Proof. The following argument is standard, see for instance [44]. We briefly outline the
proof.
Since X is quasi-isometric to a visual hyperbolic space, it is a visual hyperbolic space.
Furthermore, every point x ∈ X can be realized as a quasi-center of an ideal geodesic
triangle ∆. Since φ0 and φ1 are coarsely equivalent, ∂φ0 = ∂φ1 , so φ0 (∆) and φ1 (∆) are
ideal quasi-geodesic triangles with the same ideal vertices, and quasi-geodesic constants
depending on those of φ0 and φ1 , respectively. The set of quasi-centers of uniformly
quasi-geodesic triangles with the same vertices is bounded in terms of the quasi-geodesic
constants and the hyperbolicity constant of X, and φ0 (x) and φ1 (x) both lie in this
set.
Corollary 5.9. If φ is an (M, A)–quasi-isometry and ψ is an A0 –coarse isometry with
[φ] = [ψ] ∈ QI(X) then there is an A00 depending only on M , A, A0 and X such that φ
is an A00 –coarse isometry.
35

Lemma 5.10. Let µ : Y → X be a quasi-isometry between visual hyperbolic spaces.
Suppose that φ is a loxodromic isometry of Y with translation length τ . Let y0 be a
point on an axis of φ, and set yi = φi (y0 ) and xi = µ(yi ). Suppose that {µ∗ (φi )}i∈Z are
uniform coarse isometries. Then
d(x0 , xi )
i→∞
i

L := lim

exists, and there exists an A such that i 7→ µ(φi (y0 )) is an (L, 2A)–coarse similitude.
Proof. The fact that {µ∗ (φi )}i∈Z are uniform coarse isometries implies that the difference
|d(xi , xj )−d(x0 , xj−i )| is uniformly bounded. Quasi-geodesic stability further implies that
|d(x0 , xi+j ) − d(x0 , xi ) − d(x0 , xj )| is uniformly bounded. Let A be the greater of these
two bounds.
Suppose L+ := lim sup d(x0 , xi )/i and L− := lim inf d(x0 , xi )/i are different. Note L− >
−
)/3. Choose some i such that
0 since i 7→ xi is a quasi-geodesic. Take  := (L+ − Lq
d(x0 , xi )/i

< L− +  and such that α :=

d(x0 ,xi )+2A
d(x0 ,xi )

q

+

<

2L+ +L−
.
L+ +2L−

Choose some j such

−

2L +L
, where q is the integer such that
that d(x0 , xi )/i > L+ −  and such that q+1
q <
L+ +2L−
qi ≤ j < (q + 1)i.
The previous inequalities, together with the triangle inequality to decompose d(x0 , xj )
along x0 , xi , . . . , xqi , xj , yields:

L+ −  <

d(x0 , xj )
d(x0 , xj )
(q + 1)(d(x0 , xi ) + 2A)
≤
≤
j
qi
qi
α(q + 1)d(x0 , xi )
α(q + 1)
=
≤
· (L− + )
qi
q
2L+ + L− L+ + 2L−
·
= L+ − 
< +
L + 2L−
3

This is a contradiction, so L+ = L− = L.
Suppose there exists an i such that d(x0 , xi ) < Li − 2A. Then L = limj→∞

d(x0 ,xij )
ij

<

limj→∞ Lij
ij

= L, which is a contradiction.
If there exists an i such that d(x0 , xi ) > Li + 2A, then a similar computation leads
to a contradiction. Therefore, |d(x0 , xi ) − Li| ≤ 2A, which means i 7→ xi = µ(φi (y0 )) is
an (L, 2A)–coarse similitude.
Proof of Proposition 5.7. Let Lg be left multiplication on G by an infinite order element.
For all n ∈ Z the map Lng is an isometry, so µ∗ (Lng ) is a quasi-isometry whose constants
depend only on those of µ. By hypothesis, there exists an A such that for each n there
exists an A–coarse isometry cn ∈ CI(X) with [cn ] = [µ∗ (Lng )]. By Corollary 5.9, there
exists an A0 independent of n such that µ∗ (Lng ) is an A0 –coarse isometry. Now apply
Lemma 5.10.

36

5.4

Stretch factors

Let G be a finitely presented, one-ended group such that T := Cyl(G) has two-ended
edge stabilizers. Let Γ := G\Cyl(G). Let Y be an algebraic tree of spaces for G over T .
Vertices v0 and v1 of T that belong to a common cylinder have stabilizer groups that
intersect in a virtually cyclic subgroup.
ˆ denotes the modulus of Definition 2.5.
Recall that ∆
Definition 5.11. Let v0 and v1 be distinct quasi-isometrically rigid vertices of T contained in a common cylinder c. For i ∈ {0, 1}, choose a rigid model (Xvi , Pvi ) for
(Gvi , PvΓi ). Let hzi be an infinite cyclic subgroup of Gv0 ∩ Gv1 , and define the relative
stretch from v0 to v1 to be:
relStr(v0 , v1 , (Xv0 , Pv0 ), (Xv1 , Pv1 )) :=

`Xv1 (z)
`Xv0 (z)

Clearly, relStr(v0 , v1 , (Xv0 , Pv0 ), (Xv1 , Pv1 )) depends on the choices of (Xvi , Pvi ). Recall, by Lemma 5.2, it does not depend on the choice of quasi-isometries (Gv0 , PvΓ0 ) →
(Xv0 , Pv0 ) and (Gv1 , PvΓ1 ) → (Xv1 , Pv1 ).
Lemma 5.12. relStr(v0 , v1 , (Xv0 , Pv0 ), (Xv1 , Pv1 )) does not depend on the choice of hzi <
Gv0 ∩ Gv1 .
Proof. For i ∈ {0, 1}, let ei be an edge on the geodesic in T between v0 and v1 , with
ι(ei ) = vi . Let hz0 i < Ge0 and hz1 i < Ge1 be infinite cyclic subgroups of minimal index.
Since Ge0 and Ge1 are virtually cyclic, hzi has finite index in each of them.
`Xv1 (z1 ) ·
`Xv1 (z)
=
`Xv0 (z)
`Xv0 (z0 ) ·

[hz1 i:hz1 i∩hzi]
[hzi:hz1 i∩hzi]
[hz0 i:hz0 i∩hzi]
[hzi:hz0 i∩hzi]

=

`Xv1 (z1 ) [hz1 i : hz0 i ∩ hz1 i]
`Xv1 (z1 )
ˆ 0 , e1 )
·
=
· ∆(e
`Xv0 (z0 ) [hz0 i : hz0 i ∩ hz1 i]
`Xv0 (z0 )

The right-hand side is independent of the choice of z0 and z1 , since if, say, hz00 i is another
infinite cyclic subgroup of minimal index in Ge0 then:
`Xv0 (z00 ) = `Xv0 (z0 ) ·

[hz0 i : hz0 i ∩ hz00 i]
= `Xv0 (z0 )
[hz00 i : hz0 i ∩ hz00 i]

Corollary 5.13. If v0 , v1 , and v2 are quasi-isometrically rigid vertices in a common
cylinder then:
relStr(v0 , v1 , (Xv0 , Pv0 ), (Xv1 , Pv1 )) · relStr(v1 , v2 , (Xv1 , Pv1 ), (Xv2 , Pv2 ))
= relStr(v0 , v2 , (Xv0 , Pv0 ), (Xv2 , Pv2 ))
Proposition 5.14. Let φ be a quasi-isometry between finitely presented, one-ended groups
G and G0 whose JSJ trees of cylinders have two-ended edge stabilizers. Let Γ := G\Cyl(G)
and Γ0 := G0 \Cyl(G0 ). Suppose that v0 and v1 are distinct quasi-isometrically rigid vertices of T (Γ) contained in a cylinder c. Choose rigid models (Xv0 , Pv0 ) and (Xv1 , Pv1 )
for (Gv0 , PvΓ0 ) and (Gv1 , PvΓ1 ), respectively. Then:
relStr(v0 , v1 , (Xv0 , Pv0 ), (Xv1 , Pv1 )) = relStr(φ∗ (v0 ), φ∗ (v1 ), (Xv0 , Pv0 ), (Xv1 , Pv1 ))
37

Proof. Let Y be an algebraic tree of spaces for Γ, and let Y 0 be an algebraic tree of
spaces for Γ0 . For v ∈ {v0 , v1 } choose µv ∈ QIsom((Yv , PvΓ ), (Xv , Pv )). Note that
0
µv ◦ φv ∈ QIsom((Yφ0∗ (v) , PφΓ∗ (v) ), (Xv , Pv )). Define:
R := relStr(v0 , v1 , (Xv0 , Pv0 ), (Xv1 , Pv1 ))
R0 := relStr(φ∗ (v0 ), φ∗ (v1 ), (Xv0 , Pv0 ), (Xv1 , Pv1 ))
Choose two points x0 and x1 in µv0 (Ye0 ) such that dXv0 (x0 , x1 )  0. The idea of the
proof is to approximate R by a quantity Q(x0 , x1 ) depending on x0 and x1 , and similarly
approximate R0 by Q0 (x0 , x1 ), and then show:
R=

lim
d(x0 ,x1 )→∞

Q(x0 , x1 ) =

lim
d(x0 ,x1 )→∞

Q0 (x0 , x1 ) = R0

In the following, quantities are ‘coarsely well defined’ if they are well defined up to
additive error independent of the choice of x0 and x1 .
By construction, Ye0 is a coset of Ge0 , and hze0 i is an infinite cyclic subgroup of
minimal index in Ge0 . Let g0 ∈ G such that Ye0 = g0 Ge0 . Since g0 hze0 i is coarsely dense
in Ye0 , there exist integers ki such that dYv0 (µ−1 (xi ), g0 zek0i ) is small.
Ye0 and Ye1 are coarsely equivalent, so closest point projection π : Ye0 → Ye1 is
coarsely well defined. Moreover, since Ge0 and Ge1 are commensurable, there exist
ˆ 0 ,e1 )+l
j ∆(e

 ∈ {±1} and l ∈ Z such that π(g0 zej 0 ) is bounded distance from g1 ze1
ˆ
j ∆(e
,e )+l
ze1 0 1

, where

is to be interpreted as ze1 raised to the greatest integer less than or equal to
ˆ
j ∆(e0 , e1 ) + l. Now we have the following string of relations, where ∼ indicates equality
up to additive error in the numerator and denominator, independent of x0 and x1 .

R=

`Xv1 (g1 ze1 g1−1 )
`Xv0 (g0 ze0 g0−1 )

ˆ 0 , e1 )
· ∆(e

ˆ
k ∆(e
,e )+l

ˆ
k ∆(e
,e1 )+l

0 1
0
),µv1 (g1 ze11
dXv (µv1 (g1 ze10
1
ˆ 0 ,e1 )+l)−(k0 ∆(e
ˆ 0 ,e1 )+l)|
|(k1 ∆(e

∼



k

k

dXv (µv0 (g0 ze00 ),µv0 (g0 ze01 ))
0
|k1 −k0 |
ˆ 0 ,e1 )+l
k ∆(e

!



ˆ 0 ,e1 )+l
k ∆(e

=

dXv1 (µv1 (g1 ze10

∼

dXv1 (µv1 (π(g0 zek00 )), µv1 (π(g0 zek01 )))

∼

))

), µv1 (g1 ze11

ˆ 0 , e1 )
· ∆(e

))

dXv0 (µv0 (g0 zek00 ), µv0 (g0 zek01 ))
dXv0 (µv0 (g0 zek00 ), µv0 (g0 zek01 ))
−1
dXv1 (µv1 ◦ π ◦ µ−1
v0 (x0 ), µv1 ◦ π ◦ µv0 (x1 ))
=: Q(x0 , x1 )
dXv0 (x0 , x1 )

We conclude R = limd(x0 ,x1 )→∞ Q(x0 , x1 ).
38

Similarly, if π 0 is closest point projection from φ(Ye0 ) to φ(Ye1 ) define:
Q0 (x0 , x1 ) :=

0
−1
dXv1 (µv1 ◦ φ ◦ π 0 ◦ φ ◦ µ−1
v0 (x0 ), µv1 ◦ φ ◦ π ◦ φ ◦ µv0 (x1 ))
dXv0 (x0 , x1 )

We have R0 = limd(x0 ,x1 )→∞ Q0 (x0 , x1 ). However, since Ye0 and Ye1 are coarsely equivalent, φ ◦ π 0 ◦ φ is coarsely equivalent to π, so Q(x0 , x1 ) ∼ Q0 (x0 , x1 ). We conclude:
R=

lim
d(x0 ,x1 )→∞

5.5

Q(x0 , x1 ) =

lim
d(x0 ,x1 )→∞

Q0 (x0 , x1 ) = R0

Uniformization

The stretch factors defined in the previous section depend on the choice of rigid model
for the vertex groups. We suppress this dependence by choosing models uniformly:
Definition 5.15. Let QItypes := {J(G, P)K} be the set of quasi-isometry classes of
finitely presented groups relative to peripheral structures. For each Q ∈ QItypes choose
a proper, geodesic space ZQ with peripheral structure PQ such that Q = J(ZQ , PQ )K.
Define Model(Q) := (ZQ , PQ ). If (ZQ , PQ ) is quasi-isometrically rigid then we choose
(ZQ , PQ ) to be a rigid model as in Section 5.1. We choose ZJR,RK = R.
Definition 5.16. If v0 and v1 are quasi-isometrically rigid vertices in a cylinder, define:
relStr(v0 , v1 ) = relStr(v0 , v1 , Model(Gv0 , PvΓ0 ), Model(Gv1 , PvΓ1 ))

5.6

Normalization for unimodular graphs of groups

Suppose that T := Cyl(G) has two-ended edge stabilizers and c is a unimodular cylinder
in T . Suppose that c contains some quasi-isometrically rigid vertices. Unimodularity
implies {relStr(v0 , v1 ) | v0 , v1 ∈ c are qi rigid} is bounded. Since stretch factors multiply
by Corollary 5.13, there exists a quasi-isometrically rigid v0 such that for every other
quasi-isometrically rigid vertex v1 in c we have relStr(v0 , v1 ) ≥ 1. Define relStr(c, v1 ) :=
relStr(v0 , v1 ).
Definition 5.17. Suppose that T := Cyl(G) has two-ended edge stabilizers. Let e be an
edge of T connecting a cylindrical vertex c to a quasi-isometrically rigid vertex v. Define
relStr(e) := relStr(c, v).

5.7

An example

Recall Example 1.1: Let Gi := a, b, t | tui t = vi , where ui and vi are words in ha, bi
given below. In each case Gi should be thought of as an HNN extension of ha, bi over Z
with stable letter t. Subdividing the edge gives a unimodular JSJ decomposition Γi of
Gi whose Bass-Serre Ti is equal to its tree of cylinders.
Let u0 := a, v0 := abab2 , u1 := ab, v1 := a2 b2 , u2 := ab2 , and v2 := a2 b.
39

The methods of [14] show that for each i, the pair {ui , vi } is Whitehead minimal,
with Whitehead graph equal to the complete graph on 4 vertices, so ha, bi is quasiisometrically rigid relative to the peripheral structure Pi coming from incident edge
groups, and the rigid model space is just the Cayley graph for ha, bi with respect to
{a, b}, ie, the 4–valent tree. Furthermore, QI((ha, bi , Pi )) is transitive on Pi , and
J(ha, bi , P1 )K = J(ha, bi , P2 )K = J(ha, bi , P3 )K. Therefore, Theorem 4.8 cannot distinguish G1 , G2 , and G3 .
In Ti , VC is a single orbit, and each vertex c ∈ VC has valence two. Fix some c ∈ VC ,
and suppose Rig(c) = {e, e0 }. Let us assume that e is an edge that attaches to Xτ (e)
along the image of a conjugate of hvi i and e0 is an edge that attaches to Xτ (e0 ) along
the image of a conjugate of hui i. The stabilizers of e and e0 are equal to the stabilizer
of c, which is infinite cyclic. This, together with the fact that the rigid model vertex
space is the Cayley graph (tree) for ha, bi with respect to {a, b}, and the fact that each ui
and vi is cyclically reduced with respect to {a, b}, means that Str(e) is the word length
of vi in ha, bi, and Str(e0 ) is the word length of ui in ha, bi. Thus, relStr(e0 ) = 1 and
relStr(e) = |vi |/|ui | = 5, 2, or 1, as i = 0, 1 or 2, respectively. By Proposition 5.14, no
one of these groups is quasi-isometric to the other.

6

Vertex constraints

In this section we assume that G is a one-ended, finitely presented group such that
T := Cyl(G) has two-ended cylinder stabilizers. Let Γ be the quotient graph of cylinders,
which is therefore a canonical JSJ decomposition of G over two-ended subgroups; recall
Section 2.3.4.
We suppose that X is a tree of spaces over T , quasi-isometric to G.
In Section 4 we saw how to decide if two vertices of T are in the same Aut(T, δ)–
orbit. In this section we would like to restrict further to subgroups of Aut(T, δ) induced
by QI(X), or, in the case that G is hyperbolic, by Homeo(∂X). We will actually do
something that is weaker in the quasi-isometry case, but has the advantage that the same
approach works for both quasi-isometries and boundary homeomorphisms. What we do
is restrict to elements of Aut(T, δ) that at each vertex look like they are induced by a
quasi-isometry or boundary homeomorphism of the appropriate vertex space. We also
add a compatibility condition below. First we explain the notation.
For [φ] ∈ QI(X) we can choose a representative φ that induces an automorphism φ∗
of T and splits as a tree of quasi-isometries φv := φ|Xv ∈ QI((Xv , Pv ), (Xφ∗ (v) , Pφ∗ (v) ))
over T .
Similarly, if G is hyperbolic, then X is hyperbolic and φ ∈ Homeo(∂X) induces an
automorphism φ∗ of T and splits as a tree of boundary homeomorphisms φv := φ|∂Xv ∈
Homeo((∂Xv , ∂Pv ), (∂Xφ∗ (v) , ∂Pφ∗ (v) )) over T .
Since cylinders are two-ended, each edge space is a quasi-line L in its respective
vertex space. Recall this means that there is a controlled embedding Ξ of R with image
L. In the hyperbolic case Ξ is actually a quasi-isometric embedding, and L has distinct
endpoints at infinity in the boundary of the vertex space containing it. In this case we
40

define an orientation of L to be a choice of one of these boundary points, and a boundary
homeomorphism of the vertex space that preserves ∂L is said to be orientation preserving
if it fixes ∂L and orientation reversing if it exchanges the two points of ∂L.
In the quasi-isometry case we know that Ξ([0, ∞)) and Ξ([0, −∞)) are not coarsely
equivalent. We define an orientation of L to be a choice of coarse equivalence class of
either Ξ([0, ∞)) or Ξ([0, −∞)). A quasi-isometry that coarsely preserves L is said to
be orientation preserving on L if it fixes the coarse equivalence classes of Ξ([0, ∞)) and
Ξ([0, −∞)), and orientation reversing if it exchanges them.
We seek χ ∈ Aut(T, δ) such that for every v ∈ VT there exists an element φv ∈
Map((Xv , Pv ), (Xχ(v) , Pχ(v) )) such that (φv )∗ = χ|lk(v) , subject to the following compatibility condition. In the quasi-isometry case we require that (αχ(e) ◦ φι(e) ) ◦ (φτ (e) ◦ αe )−1
is orientation preserving on Xχ(e) . In the boundary homeomorphism case we require that
(∂αχ(e) ◦ φι(e) ) ◦ (φτ (e) ◦ ∂αe )−1 is the identity on ∂Xχ(e) for every edge e. For brevity,
we say “(αχ(e) ◦ φι(e) ) ◦ (φτ (e) ◦ αe )−1 is orientation preserving on Xχ(e) ” in both cases.
In the boundary homeomorphism case we conclude, in Theorem 7.1, that such a
collection of φv patch together to give φ ∈ Homeo(∂X) with φ∗ = χ.
The analogous statement is not true for quasi-isometries. To patch together quasiisometries we need αχ(e) ◦φι(e) and φτ (e) ◦αe to be coarsely equivalent as maps, but we have
only assumed that they have coarsely equivalent image sets with the same orientations.
We also need to know that the φv have uniform quasi-isometry constants. These points
will be addressed in subsequent sections.

6.1

Partial Orientations

A partial orientation ζ of X assigns to each cylindrical vertex space and to each peripheral
set in each non-elementary vertex space either an orientation of that space or the value
‘NULL’.
A cylindrical vertex space or peripheral set is said to be ζ–oriented if its ζ value is
not ‘NULL’, and ζ–unoriented otherwise.
A cylindrical vertex is said to be ζ–oriented or ζ–unoriented if its vertex space is.
An edge e ∈ T is said to be ζ–oriented or ζ–unoriented if the corresponding edge
space in its incident non-elementary vertex is.
The sign of a map φ that takes an oriented space A to an oriented space B is 1
if the map is orientation preserving and −1 if it is orientation reversing. For a partial
orientation ζ we define signζ φ as usual when A and B are both ζ–oriented, and we define
signζ φ := 0 if either of them is ζ–unoriented.
One partial orientation, ζ 0 , extends another, ζ, if they agree on all ζ–oriented sets.

6.2

Cylindrical vertices

Definition 6.1. Let ζ be a partial orientation. Let c be a cylindrical vertex. The orientation imbalance at c with respect to a decoration δ : T → O and a partial orientation ζ is
O
the function Ωδ,ζ
c : O → Z /{−1, 1}, with the action by coordinate-wise multiplication,
defined as follows. Choose an orientation of Xc and for each e ∈ lk(c) let sign αe denote
41

the sign of αe with respect to the chosen orientation of Xc and the ζ–orientation of Xē ,
which we take to be 0 if e is ζ–unoriented. Define:
X

Ωδ,ζ
c (o) := [

sign αe ]

e∈lk(c)∩δ −1 (o)

If Ωδ,ζ
c is non-zero we call c an unbalanced cylinder.
Taking an equivalence class of function in the definition eliminates the dependence
on the arbitrary choice of orientation of Xc .
Proposition 6.2. Suppose δ and ζ are Map(X)–invariant. If there exists φ ∈ Map(X)
such that φ∗ fixes a cylindrical vertex c and reverses the orientation of Xc then Ωδ,ζ
c is
identically zero.
Proof. Suppose o ∈ O is such that there exists a ζ–oriented edge e ∈ lk(c) ∩ δ −1 (o). Let
v := τ (e). By Map(X)–invariance, ζ(Xφ∗ (e) ) = φv (ζ(Xē )) = αφ∗ (e) ◦ φc ◦ αe−1 (ζ(Xē )).
Since φc is orientation reversing, αe and αφ∗ (e) have opposite signs. Therefore, (φ)∗ |lk(c)
gives a bijection between edges in lk(c) ∩ δ −1 (o) whose attaching map have positive sign
and edges in lk(c) ∩ δ −1 (o) whose attaching map have negative sign. Since this is true
for every o ∈ O such that lk(c) ∩ δ −1 (o) is non-empty, Ωδ,ζ
c is identically zero.
Corollary 6.3. Suppose δ and ζ are Map(X)–invariant. If Gc contains an infinite
dihedral group then Ωδ,ζ
c is identically zero.
Proposition 6.4. Suppose δ and ζ are Map(X)–invariant. For every φ ∈ Map(X) we
δ,ζ
have Ωδ,ζ
c = Ωφ∗ (c) .
Proof. Choose some orientation on Xc and Xφ∗ (c) .
If no edge in lk(c)∩δ −1 (o) is ζ–oriented then Ωδ,ζ
c (o) = 0, and, by Map(X)–invariance,
the same are true for φ∗ (c).
Now consider o ∈ O such that there exists an edge e ∈ lk(c) ∩ δ −1 (o) such that e
is ζ–oriented. Let v := τ (e). By Map(X)–invariance, φ∗ (e) ∈ lk(φ∗ (c)) ∩ δ −1 (o) with
ζ(Xφ∗ (e) ) = φv (ζ(Xē )) = αφ∗ (e) ◦ φc ◦ αe−1 (ζ(Xē )). If φc is orientation reversing then αe
and αφ∗ (e) have opposite signs, so that:


X
X
sign αφ (e) = − 
sign αe 
∗

φ∗ (e)∈lk(φ∗ (c))∩δ −1 (o)

e∈lk(c)∩δ −1 (o)

If φc is orientation preserving then αe and αφ∗ (e) have the same signs, so that:
X
X
sign αφ∗ (e) =
sign αe
φ∗ (e)∈lk(φ∗ (c))∩δ −1 (o)

e∈lk(c)∩δ −1 (o)

The previous proposition shows we can use cylinder imbalances to distinguish different
cylinders. The following lemma shows this holds up under refinement of the decoration.
42

Lemma 6.5. Suppose δ 0 : T → O0 is a refinement of δ and ζ 0 is an extension of ζ.
Suppose that the δ–partition of edges of T is finer than the partition into ζ–oriented
δ 0 ,ζ 0
edges and ζ–unoriented edges. Let c be a cylindrical vertex. If Ωδ,ζ
c is non-zero then Ωc
is non-zero.
Let c0 be a cylindrical vertex distinct from c. If for every o ∈ O there exist ζ–oriented
edges in lk(c) ∩ δ −1 (o) if and only if there exist ζ–oriented edges in lk(c0 ) ∩ δ −1 (o) then
0 0
δ,ζ
δ 0 ,ζ 0
Ωδ,ζ
6= Ωδc0 ,ζ .
c 6= Ωc0 implies Ωc
Proof. If c is unbalanced then there exists an o ∈ O such that Ωδ,ζ
c (o) 6= 0, which implies
that there are ζ–oriented edges in lk(c) ∩ δ −1 (o). Since the δ–partition of edges of T
is finer than the partition into ζ–oriented edges and ζ–unoriented edges, all edges in
lk(c) ∩ δ −1 (o) are ζ–oriented. Since ζ 0 extends ζ, all edges in lk(c) ∩ δ −1 (o) are ζ 0 –
oriented, and since δ 0 refines δ, we have, with respect to ζ 0 and some fixed orientation of
Xc , that:
X
X
X
sign αe
sign αe =
o0 ∈δ 0 ◦δ −1 (o) e∈lk(c)∩δ −1 (o0 )

e∈lk(c)∩δ −1 (o)

The left hand side is non-zero, so one of the terms of the outer sum on the right hand
0 0
side must be non-zero. Thus, Ωδc ,ζ is not identically zero.
0 0
0 0
For the second statement, suppose, for contraposition, that Ωδc ,ζ = Ωδc0 ,ζ . Having
chosen orientations on Xc and Xc0 , there is an  ∈ ±1 such that for all o0 ∈ O0 :


X
X
sign αe =  
sign αe 
e∈lk(c)∩(δ 0 )−1 (o0 )

e∈lk(c0 )∩(δ 0 )−1 (o0 )

If o ∈ O is such that there are no ζ–oriented edges in either lk(c) ∩ δ −1 (o) or lk(c0 ) ∩
δ −1 (o) then:


X
X
sign αe = 0 =  
sign αe 
e∈lk(c)∩δ −1 (o)

e∈lk(c0 )∩δ −1 (o)

Otherwise, by hypothesis, there are ζ–oriented edges in both lk(c)∩δ −1 (o) and lk(c0 )∩
δ,ζ
δ −1 (o). We conclude that Ωδ,ζ
c = Ωc0 from the following computation, in which the first
and third equalities are from the facts that the δ–partition of edges of T is finer than
the partition into ζ–oriented edges and ζ–unoriented edges and that δ 0 refines δ, and the
0 0
0 0
second equality is from the hypothesis that Ωδc ,ζ = Ωδc0 ,ζ .
X

X

X

o0 ∈δ 0 ◦δ −1 (o)

e∈lk(c)∩(δ 0 )−1 (o0 )

sign αe =

e∈lk(c)∩δ −1 (o)

sign αe


=

X
o0 ∈δ 0 ◦δ −1 (o)




X



sign αe  =  

e∈lk(c0 )∩(δ 0 )−1 (o0 )


X

sign αe 

e∈lk(c0 )∩δ −1 (o)

Given δ and ζ that are both Map(X)–invariant we define the process of cylinder
refinement as follows.
43

1. By passing to the coarsest common refinement, we may assume that the δ–partition
of edges of T is finer than the partition into ζ–oriented edges and ζ–unoriented
edges. The refined δ is still Map(X)–invariant.
2. Consider the ζ–unoriented, unbalanced cylinders. It is possible to choose orientaδ,ζ
tions of their vertex spaces P
so that if c and c0 are twoP
such cylinders with Ωδ,ζ
c = Ωc0
then for all o ∈ O we have e∈lk(c)∩δ−1 (o) sign αe = e∈lk(c0 )∩δ−1 (o) sign αe . Extend
ζ to ζ 0 by taking these orientations of the unbalanced cylindrical vertex spaces.
3. If e is a ζ–unoriented edge such that c := ι(e) is cylindrical and ζ 0 –oriented, define
ζ 0 (Xē ) = αe (ζ 0 (Xc )).
4. Define O0 := O × {−1, 0, 1}. Define δ 0 (e) := (δ(e), signζ 0 (e)) for each edge and
δ 0 (v) := (δ(v), 0) for each vertex.
Lemma 6.6. Suppose that δ and ζ are both Map(X)–invariant and that the δ–partition
of edges of T is finer than the partition into ζ–oriented edges and ζ–unoriented edges.
Let δ 0 and ζ 0 be constructed via cylinder refinement, as above. Then δ 0 is a Map(X)–
invariant refinement of δ and ζ 0 is a Map(X)–invariant extension of ζ. Moreover, the
δ 0 –partition on edges is finer than the partition into ζ 0 –oriented and ζ 0 –unoriented edges.
Proof. Suppose e is a ζ–unoriented edge with ι(e) := c cylindrical and unbalanced. Then
e is ζ 0 –oriented and signζ 0 αe = 1, so δ 0 (e) = (δ(e), 1).
By invariance of δ and ζ, Proposition 6.4, and our choice of orientation on Xc and
Xφ∗ (c) , if φ ∈ Map(X) then φ∗ (c) is unbalanced, and φ∗ (e) is ζ–unoriented but ζ 0 oriented
with signζ 0 αφ∗ (e0 ) = 1. Moreover, φc is orientation preserving, so φ(ζ 0 (Xē )) = ζ 0 (Xφ∗ (e) ).
It also means that δ 0 (φ∗ (e)) = (δ(φ∗ (e)), 1) = (δ(e), 1) = δ 0 (e).
Now suppose e is ζ–oriented and ι(e) := c is cylindrical and unbalanced. Invariance
of ζ 0 on e is inherited from invariance of ζ. From the proof of Proposition 6.4, since φc
is orientation preserving, signζ 0 αe = signζ 0 αφ∗ (e) . Along with invariance of δ, this gives
us δ 0 (e) = δ 0 (φ∗ (e)).
For vertices and remaining edges, δ 0 (t) = (δ(t), 0) = (δ(φ∗ (t)), 0) = δ 0 (φ∗ (t)).
For the final claim, suppose e is ζ 0 –oriented and e0 is ζ 0 –unoriented. Since ζ 0 extends
ζ, e0 is also ζ–unoriented. If e is ζ–oriented then δ(e) 6= δ(e0 ) because the δ–partition
of edges of T is finer than the partition into ζ–oriented edges and ζ–unoriented edges.
Thus, δ 0 (e) 6= δ 0 (e0 ), since δ 0 refines δ.
If e is ζ–unoriented then δ 0 (e) = (δ(e), signζ 0 αe ) and δ 0 (e0 ) = (δ(e0 ), 0) differ in the
second coordinate.
Lemma 6.7. Suppose that δ and ζ are Map(X)–invariant and stable under cylinder
refinement. If c is an unbalanced cylindrical vertex and o ∈ O such that δ −1 (o)∩lk(c) 6= ∅
then either every edge in δ −1 (o) ∩ lk(c) has orientation preserving attaching map or every
edge in δ −1 (o) ∩ lk(c) has orientation reversing attaching map.
Proof. Cylinder refinement orients every edge in an unbalanced cylinder and distinguishes
edges with orientation preserving attaching map from those with orientation reversing
attaching map.
44

6.3

Non-elementary vertices

Given a tree of spaces whose underlying tree is decorated δ : T → O, we get a decoration
on the peripheral structure of each vertex space via mapping to the tree and composing
with δ.
Throughout this subsection we assume that δ : T → O is a Map(X)–invariant decoration and ζ is a Map(X)–invariant partial orientation.
Define:
a
PQ
PQ
O0 = O×
Map(ZQ , PQ )\(O × (∪x∈∂PQ x q {‘NULL’}) × (PQ q {‘NULL’}))
Q∈Maptypes

The left action of Map(ZQ , PQ ) is given by φ.(χ, ζ, e) := (χ ◦ φ−1 , ζ ◦ φ−1 , φ∗ (e)).
If e ∈ T is an edge with non-elementary terminus v := τ (e), Q = J(Xv , Pv )K, µv ∈
Map((Xv , Pv ), (ZQ , PQ )), and ζv is a partial orientation on Pv , define:

−1
δ 0 (v) := δ(v), Map(ZQ , PQ ).(δ|Pv ◦ µ−1
v , ζv ◦ µv , ‘NULL’)

−1
δ 0 (e) := δ(e), Map(ZQ , PQ ).(δ|Pv ◦ µ−1
v , ζv ◦ µv , (µv )∗ (e))
Note that the image is independent of the choice of µv ∈ Map((Xv , Pv ), (ZQ , PQ )).
Composition of δ 0 with projection to the first factor of O0 recovers δ, so δ 0 is a
refinement of δ.
Proposition 6.8. The refinement δ 0 of δ defined above is Map(X)–invariant.
Proof. Take φ ∈ Map(X). If e is an edge with v := τ (e) non-elementary, Q := JXv , Pv K,
and χ := µφ∗ (v) ◦ φv ◦ µ−1
v ∈ Map(ZQ , PQ ), then:


−1
δ 0 (φ∗ (e)) = δ(φ∗ (e)), Map(ZQ , PQ ).(δ|Pφ∗ (v) ◦ µ−1
,
ζ
◦
µ
,
(µ
)
(φ
(e)))
∗
∗
φ
(v)
φ
(v)
∗
∗
φ∗ (v)
φ∗ (v)


−1
−1
−1
= δ(e), Map(ZQ , PQ ).(δ|Pv ◦ φv ◦ µφ∗ (v) , ζv ◦ φv ◦ µ−1
,
(µ
)
(φ
(e)))
φ∗ (v) ∗ ∗
φ∗ (v)

−1
−1
−1
= δ(e), Map(ZQ , PQ ).(δ|Pv ◦ µ−1
v ◦ χ , ζv ◦ µv ◦ χ , (χ ◦ µv )∗ (e))

−1
= δ(e), Map(ZQ , PQ ).(δ|Pv ◦ µ−1
v , ζv ◦ µv , (µv )∗ (e))
= δ 0 (e)
Thus, δ 0 is Map(X)–invariant.
Proposition 6.9. For vertices v, w ∈ T , δ 0 (v) = δ 0 (w) if and only if there exists φ ∈
Map((Xv , Pv , δ, ζ), (Xw , Pw , δ, ζ)).
For edges e, f ∈ T with v := τ (e) and w := τ (f ) both non-elementary, δ 0 (e) = δ 0 (f )
if and only if there exists φ ∈ Map((Xv , Pv , δ, ζ), (Xw , Pw , δ, ζ)) with φ∗ (e) = f .
Proof. We give the proof for edges. The proof for vertices is similar.
Let Q = JXv , Pv K. By definition, δ 0 (e) = δ 0 (f ) if and only if δ(e) = δ(f ) and there
exists χ ∈ Map(ZQ , PQ ) such that
45

−1 = δ|
−1
1. δ|Pv ◦ µ−1
Pw ◦ µw
v ◦χ
−1 = ζ ◦ µ−1
2. ζv ◦ µ−1
w
v ◦χ
w

3. (χ ◦ µv )∗ (e) = (µw )∗ (f )
Define φ := µ−1
w ◦ χ ◦ µv ∈ Map((Xv , Pv ), (Xw , Pw )). Item 1 is equivalent to δ|Pv ◦
−1
φ = δ|Pw . Item 2 is equivalent to ζv ◦ φ−1 = ζw . Item 3 is equivalent to φ∗ (e) = f .
Corollary 6.10. There exists a Map(X)–invariant extension ζ 0 of ζ such that for any
edge e with v := τ (e) non-elementary, e is ζ 0 –unoriented if and only if the stabilizer of
Xē in Map(Xv , Pv , δ, ζ) contains an infinite dihedral group.
Proof. If e ζ–unoriented and the stabilizer of Xē in Map(Xv , Pv , δ, ζ) does not contain
an infinite dihedral group then define an extension ζ 0 of ζ on (δ 0 )−1 (δ 0 (e)) as follows.
Choose an orientation of Xē . If f is an edge with δ 0 (f ) = δ 0 (e) then, by Proposition 6.9,
there exists φ ∈ Map((Xv , Pv , δ, ζ), (Xw , Pw , δ, ζ)) with φ∗ (e) = f . This means that f is
ζ–unoriented, so we extend ζ by defining ζ 0 (Xf¯) := φ(ζ 0 (Xē )).
The orientation of Xf¯ is independent of the choice of φ because of the stabilizer
condition on Xē .
Definition 6.11. Given Map(X)–invariant decoration δ and partial orientation ζ, the
process of vertex refinement produces the Map(X)–invariant δ 0 and partial orientation
ζ 0 defined above.

6.4

Combining the local restrictions

In this section we have our main technical tools. Theorem 6.12 identifies Aut(T, δ)
orbits. Theorem 6.13 leverages this information to understand decoration preserving
isomorphisms between two different trees. Theorem 6.13 provides a blueprint for the
main classification theorems in the next two sections.
Theorem 6.12. Suppose δ : T → O is a Map(X)-invariant decoration and ζ is a
Map(X)-invariant partial orientation. Suppose δ and ζ are stable under neighbor, cylinder, and vertex refinement.
For edges e, f ∈ T we have δ(e) = δ(f ) if and only if there exists χ ∈ Aut(T, δ) such
that
• χ(e) = f
• For every u ∈ T there exists φu ∈ Map((Xu , Pu , δ, ζ), (Xχ(u) , Pχ(u) , δ, ζ)), such that
χ|lk(u) = (φu )∗ .
• For every edge e0 the map (αχ(e0 ) ◦ φι(e0 ) ) ◦ (φτ (e0 ) ◦ αe0 )−1 is orientation preserving
on Xχ(e0 ) .

46

Proof. If there exists χ ∈ Aut(T, δ) such that χ(e) = f then δ(e) = δ(f ). Conversely,
supposing δ(e) = δ(f ), we construct χ.
Define χ(e) := f .
By Proposition 6.9, there exists φτ (e) ∈ Map((Xτ (e) , Pτ (e) , δ, ζ), (Xτ (f ) , Pτ (f ) , δ, ζ))
with (φτ (e) )∗ (e) = f . Define χ|lk(τ (e)) := (φτ (e) )∗ .
Now, suppose that we have χ satisfying the desired properties defined on a subtree
0
T of T such that every leaf is non-elementary and T 0 contains every edge incident to
every non-leaf. Given an edge e0 with c := ι(e0 ) ∈
/ T 0 and τ (e0 ) ∈ T 0 , we show how to
extend χ to lk(c0 ), satisfying the desired properties. Then, by induction, we can extend
χ to all of T .
−1
Let χ(e0 ) := (φτ (e0 ) )∗ (e0 ). Define φc := αχ(e
◦ φτ (e0 ) ◦ αe0 so that (αχ(e0 ) ◦ φc ) ◦
0)
−1
(φτ (e0 ) ◦ αe0 ) is orientation preserving on Xχ(e0 ) .
Case 1: c is unbalanced. Extend χ to lk(c) by choosing a bijection between lk(c) \
{e0 }∩δ −1 (o) and lk(χ(c))\{χ(e0 )}∩δ −1 (o) for each o ∈ O. For each o these sets have the
same cardinality by neighbor stability. Since c is unbalanced, cylindrical stability implies
that c and all edges in lk(c) are ζ–oriented, and, for each o ∈ O, all edges in δ −1 (o) have
attaching maps with the same sign; recall Lemma 6.7. By Map(X)–invariance, the same
is true for χ(c), and for each e1 ∈ lk(c) we have signζ αe1 = signζ αχ(e1 ) .
By Proposition 6.9, there exists
φτ (e1 ) ∈ Map((Xτ (e1 ) , Pτ (e1 ) , δ, ζ), (Xτ (χ(e1 )) , Pτ (χ(e1 )) , δ, ζ))
with (φτ (e1 ) )∗ (e1 ) = χ(e1 ). Define φ|Xτ (e1 ) := φτ (e1 ) and χ|lk(τ (e1 )) := (φτ (e1 ) )∗ . By
construction, (αχ(e1 ) ◦ φc ) ◦ (φτ (e1 ) ◦ αe1 )−1 is orientation preserving on Xχ(e1 ) .
In the balanced cases, choose some orientation of Xc and Xχ(c) .
Case 2: c is balanced and o ∈ O is such that δ −1 (o) ∩ lk(c) 6= ∅ consists of ζ–
oriented edges. By neighbor stability, the total number, n, of edges in lk(c) ∩ δ −1 (o)
is equal to the total number of edges in lk(χ(c)) ∩ δ −1 (o). Since c is balanced, the
number of edges in lk(c) ∩ δ −1 (o) with orientation preserving attaching map is equal to
the number of edges in lk(c) ∩ δ −1 (o) with orientation reversing attaching map, so there
are n/2 of each. Cylinder stability implies χ(c) is also balanced, so there are n/2 edges
in lk(χ(c)) ∩ δ −1 (o) with orientation preserving attaching map and n/2 with orientation
reversing attaching map.
If sign αe0 = sign αχ(e0 ) then φc is orientation preserving. Define χ on δ −1 (o) ∩ lk(c) \
{e0 } by choosing any bijection with δ −1 (o) ∩ lk(χ(c)) \ {e0 } that preserves the signs of
the attaching maps.
If sign αe0 6= sign αχ(e0 ) then φc is orientation reversing. Define χ on δ −1 (o) ∩ lk(c) \
{e0 } by choosing any bijection with δ −1 (o) ∩ lk(χ(c)) \ {e0 } that exchanges the signs of
the attaching maps.
Extend φ and χ as in the previous case.

47

Case 3: c is balanced and o ∈ O is such that δ −1 (o) ∩ lk(c) 6= ∅ consists
of ζ–unoriented edges. By neighbor stability, lk(c) \ {e0 } ∩ δ −1 (o) and lk(χ(c)) \
{e0 } ∩ δ −1 (o) have the same cardinality, and we extend χ by an arbitrary bijection
between them. Take e1 ∈ δ −1 (o) ∩ lk(c) \ {e0 }. By Proposition 6.9, there exists
φ0τ (e1 ) ∈ Map((Xτ (e1 ) , Pτ (e1 ) , δ, ζ), (Xτ (χ(e1 )) , Pτ (χ(e1 )) , δ, ζ)) with (φ0τ (e1 ) )∗ (e1 ) = χ(e1 ).
Since e1 is ζ–unoriented and ζ is stable under vertex refinement, by Corollary 6.10 there
exists an element of Map(Xτ (e1 ) , Pτ (e1 ) , δ, ζ) reversing Xē1 . Define φτ (e1 ) := φ0τ (e1 ) if
(αχ(e1 ) ◦ φc ) ◦ (φ0τ (e1 ) ◦ αe1 )−1 is orientation preserving on Xχ(e1 ) , and define φτ (e1 ) to be
φ0τ (e1 ) precomposed with a Xτ (e1 ) –flip otherwise. Extend χ to lk(τ (e1 )) by (φτ (e1 ) )∗ .
Let ζ0 be the trivial partial orientation on X with constant value ‘NULL’. Let
δ0 : T → O0 be any Map(X)–invariant decoration of T . Perform neighbor, cylinder,
and vertex refinement repeatedly until all three stabilize, and let δ : T → O be the
resulting decoration and ζ the resulting partial orientation.
Now suppose X 0 is a tree of spaces over T 0 with finite cylinders and such that every
φ ∈ Map(X 0 ) splits as a tree of maps over T 0 . Let ζ00 be the trivial partial orientation,
and let δ00 : T 0 → O0 be a Map(X 0 )–invariant decoration of T 0 . (Note that δ0 and δ00
map to the same set of ornaments!) Let ζ 0 and δ 0 be the partial orientation extending ζ00
and the decoration refining δ00 that result from performing neighbor, cylinder, and vertex
refinement repeatedly until all three stabilize.
Recall that the process of cylinder refinement involved choosing Map(X)–invariant
orientations. We will need to account for the fact that these choices can be made differently in X and X 0 . Let ξ ∈ {−1, 1}O . Define ξ · ζ to be the partial orientation:


if ζ(Xt ) = ‘NULL’
‘NULL’
ξ · ζ(Xt ) = ζ(Xt )
if ξ(δ(t)) = 1


opposite of ζ(Xt ) if ξ(δ(t)) = −1
Theorem 6.13. With the above notation, the following are equivalent:
1. There exists χ ∈ Isom((T, δ0 ), (T 0 , δ00 )) such that:
0
0
(a) For every vertex v ∈ T there exists φv ∈ Map((Xv , Pv ), (Xχ(v)
, Pχ(v)
)), such
that χ|lk(v) = (φv )∗ .
(b) For every edge e ∈ T we have (αχ(e) ◦ φι(e) ) ◦ (φτ (e) ◦ αe )−1 is orientation
preserving on X 0 .
χ(e)

2. There exists a bijection β : Im δ → Im δ 0 and ξ ∈ {−1, 1}O such that:
(a) δ0 ◦ δ −1 = δ00 ◦ (δ 0 )−1 ◦ β
(b) When the rows and columns of S(T 0 , δ 0 , O0 ) are given the β–induced ordering
from S(T, δ, O), we have S(T, δ, O) = S(T 0 , δ 0 , O0 ).
(c) For every o ∈ Im δ such that δ −1 (o) consists of non-elementary vertices there
exists (equivalently, for every) v ∈ δ −1 (o) and v 0 ∈ (δ 0 )−1 (β(o)) so that
Map((Xv , Pv , β ◦ δ, ξ · ζ), (Xv0 0 , Pv0 0 , δ 0 , ζ 0 )) is nonempty.
48

(d) For every o ∈ Im δ such that δ −1 (o) consists of cylindrical vertices there exists
(equivalently, for every) c ∈ δ −1 (o) and χ(c) ∈ (δ 0 )−1 (β(o)) so that Ωδ,ξ·ζ
=
c
δ 0 ,ζ 0
Ωχ(c) ◦ β.
Proof. If item 1 is true then δ0 = δ00 ◦ χ and ζ0 = ζ00 ◦ χ. Perform the same sequence of
refinements on δ0 and δ00 . Each time the partial orientation on X is extended by choosing
some orientation, push that choice forward to X 0 using the appropriate φc or φv . We get
the claims of item 2 with β the identity and ξ the constant map sending O to 1.
We complete the proof by showing that the hypotheses of item 2 allow us to build
a isomorphism χ ∈ Isom((T, β ◦ δ), (T 0 , δ 0 )) and a collection of maps φv satisfying the
conditions of item 1. Condition 2a implies χ ∈ Isom(T, δ0 ), (T 0 , δ00 )). The construction
is along the lines of that in the proof of Theorem 6.12: we inductively construct χ and
0
0
maps φv ∈ Map((Xv , Pv , β ◦ δ, ξ · ζ), (Xχ(v)
, Pχ(v)
, δ 0 , ζ)) with χ|lk(v) = (φv )∗ .
To begin, pick a non-elementary vertex v0 ∈ T and a vertex v00 ∈ (δ 0 )−1 (β ◦ δ(v0 )).
Define χ(v0 ) := v00 . By 2c and Theorem 6.12, there exists:
φv0 ∈ Map((Xv0 , Pv0 , β ◦ δ, ξ · ζ), (Xv0 0 , Pv0 0 , δ 0 , ζ 0 ))
0

0

Define φ|Xv0 := φv0 and χ|lk(v0 ) := (φv0 )∗ .
Let e0 be an edge in lk(v0 ) with cylindrical initial vertex c := ι(e0 ). Define φc :=
(αe00 )−1 ◦ φv0 ◦ αe0 .
For the induction step we extend χ to lk(c). When c is balanced the construction is
virtually the same as that of Theorem 6.12, so we omit those cases. The remaining case
is that c is unbalanced.
Extend χ to lk(c) by choosing a bijection between lk(c) \ {e0 } ∩ δ −1 (o) and lk(χ(c)) \
{χ(e0 )} ∩ δ −1 (β(o)) for each o ∈ O. These sets have the same cardinality by condition
2b. Since c is unbalanced, cylindrical stability implies that c and all edges in lk(c) are
ζ–oriented, and, for each o ∈ O, all edges in δ −1 (o) have attaching maps with the same
sign; recall Lemma 6.7. This implies that for each o ∈ O, Ωδ,ξ·ζ
(o) = ±Ωδ,ζ
c
c (o), so, in
is
not
identically
zero.
Condition
2d
then
implies
χ(c)
is
unbalanced,
so
particular Ωδ,ξ·ζ
c
0
χ(c) and all of the edges in lk(χ(c)) are ζ –oriented, and edges with the same ornament
have attaching maps with the same sign.
0
We may choose the orientations on Xc and Xχ(c)
to be those given by ξ · ζ and ζ 0 ,
respectively. Together with condition 2d, this implies there exists  ∈ ±1 such that for
all o ∈ O:


X
X
signξ·ζ αe =  
signζ 0 αe0 0 
e∈lk(c)∩δ −1 (o)

e0 ∈lk(χ(c))∩(δ 0 )−1 (β(o))

Since all the edges with a particular ornament have attaching maps of the same sign, this
0
means that for all e1 ∈ lk(c) we have signξ·ζ αe1 =  signζ 0 αχ(e
. Therefore, the sign of
1)
0
0
0
αχ(e
◦ φc ◦ αe−1
= αχ(e
◦ (αχ(e
)−1 ◦ φv0 ◦ αe0 ◦ αe−1
1
1
1)
1)
0)

on Xē1 with respect to ξ · ζ and ζ 0 is ( · signξ·ζ αe0 · signξ·ζ αe1 )2 = +1.
49

By Proposition 6.9 and condition 2c, there exists
φτ (e1 ) ∈ Map((Xτ (e1 ) , Pτ (e1 ) , β ◦ δ, ξ · ζ), (Xτ0 (χ(e1 )) , Pτ0 (χ(e1 )) , δ 0 , ζ 0 ))
with (φτ (e1 ) )∗ (e1 ) = χ(e1 ). Define φ|Xτ (e1 ) := φτ (e1 ) and χ|lk(τ (e1 )) := (φτ (e1 ) )∗ . We know
(αχ(e1 ) ◦ φc ) ◦ (φτ (e1 ) ◦ αe1 )−1 is orientation preserving on X 0
because:
χ(e1 )

0
0
◦ φc ◦ αe−1
(ξ · ζ(Xē1 )) = ζ 0 (Xχ(e
αχ(e
) = φτ (e1 ) (ξ · ζ(Xē1 ))
1
1)
)
1

0
We remark that it is not required that φc (ξ · ζ(Xc )) = ζ 0 (Xχ(c)
), but this can easily
be arranged by redefining ξ(δ(c)) to be  · ξ(δ(c)).

7

Classification of hyperbolic groups up to boundary homeomorphism from their two-ended JSJ splittings

We are now ready to prove our first classification theorem, characterizing the homeomorphism type of the Gromov boundary of a one-ended hyperbolic group from its JSJ tree
of cylinders.
Theorem 7.1. Let G be a one-ended hyperbolic group with non-trivial JSJ decomposition
over two-ended subgroups, with T := Cyl(G). Let X be an algebraic tree of spaces for
G over T . Let ζ0 be the trivial partial orientation on X. Take the initial decoration
δ0 on T to be by vertex type (‘cylindrical’, ‘rigid’, or ‘hanging’) and relative boundary
homeomorphism type. Perform neighbor, cylinder, and vertex refinement until all three
stabilize to give a decoration δ : T → O and a partial orientation ζ of X.
Let G0 be another one-ended hyperbolic group with non-trivial JSJ decomposition over
two-ended subgroups. Define T 0 , X 0 , δ00 , ζ00 , δ 0 : T 0 → O0 , and ζ 0 as we did for G. Then
∂G is homeomorphic to ∂G0 if and only if there exists a bijection β : Im δ → Im δ 0 and a
ξ ∈ {−1, 1}O such that:
1. δ0 ◦ δ −1 = δ00 ◦ (δ 0 )−1 ◦ β
2. When the rows and columns of S(T 0 , δ 0 , O0 ) are given the β–induced ordering from
S(T, δ, O), we have S(T, δ, O) = S(T 0 , δ 0 , O0 ).
3. For every o ∈ Im δ such that δ −1 (o) consists of non-elementary vertices there exists
(equivalently, for every) v ∈ δ −1 (o) and v 0 ∈ (δ 0 )−1 (β(o)) so that
Homeo((∂Xv , ∂Pv , β ◦ δ, ξ · ζ), (∂Xv0 0 , ∂Pv0 0 , δ 0 , ζ 0 ))
is nonempty.
4. For every o ∈ Im δ such that δ −1 (o) consists of cylindrical vertices there exists
0 0
(equivalently, for every) c ∈ δ −1 (o) and c0 ∈ (δ 0 )−1 (β(o)) such that Ωδ,ξ·ζ
= Ωδc0 ,ζ ◦β.
c

50

Proof. Since the initial decorations δ0 and δ00 are trivial, the given conditions are equivalent, by Theorem 6.13 for boundary homeomorphism, to the existence of χ ∈ Isom(T, T 0 )
such that:
0
0
1. For every vertex v ∈ T there exists φv ∈ Homeo((∂Xv , ∂Pv ), (∂Xχ(v)
, ∂Pχ(v)
)),
such that χ|lk(v) = (φv )∗ .

2. For every edge e ∈ T we have ∂αχ(e) ◦ φι(e) = φτ (e) ◦ ∂αe .
These conditions say there exists an isomorphism χ : T → T 0 and a tree of boundary
homeomorphisms over χ compatible with X and X 0 . By Theorem 2.28, this is equivalent
to the existence of a boundary homeomorphism between ∂X and ∂X 0 , hence between
∂G and ∂G0 .
Example 7.2. Recall the example of Section 5.7. The trees of cylinders of these groups
are isomorphic: they are bipartite with one orbit of valence 2 cylindrical vertex and one
orbit of infinite valence relatively rigid vertex. Recall also that the rigid vertices were discussed in Section 3, and the relative quasi-isometry (hence, boundary homeomorphism)
types of these three examples are the same.
There are two Gi –orbits of edge in Cyl(Gi ), so the only remaining question about
Homeo(∂Gi )–orbits is whether there are one or two orbits of edges. For boundary homeomorphism we do not care about stretch factors on the edges, so the edges have trivial
initial decoration.
The quasi-isometry group of the vertex stabilizer preserving the peripheral structure
coming from incident edge groups is transitive on peripheral sets, so the vertex refinement
is a trivial refinement of the initial decoration.
Moreover, the quasi-isometry group of the vertex stabilizer preserving the peripheral structure coming from incident edge groups contains and infinite dihedral group in
the stabilizer of each peripheral subset, so all cylinders are balanced, and the cylinder
refinement is a trivial refinement of the initial decoration.
We conclude there is only one Homeo(∂Gi ) orbit of edges in Cyl(Gi ), so the initial decoration and initial (trivial) partial orientation are stable. Since the structure
invariants are the same for the three Gi , they have homeomorphic boundaries.

8

Quasi-isometry classification of groups from their twoended JSJ splittings

We are now almost ready to prove our second main theorem, characterizing the quasiisometry type of a finitely presented one-ended group from its JSJ tree of cylinders.
Before doing so, we explain the extreme flexibity provided by the hanging vertices of the
tree.

51

8.1

Quasi-isometric flexibility of hanging spaces

Recall that the fixed model space for hanging vertices is the universal cover of a fixed
hyperbolic pair of pants Σ, with peripheral structure consisting of the coarse equivalence
classes of the boundary components of Σ̃.
Proposition 8.1 (cf [2, Theorem 1.2]). Let G be a finitely presented, one-ended group
admitting a JSJ decomposition over two-ended subgroups with two-ended cylinder stabilizers. Let Γ := G\Cyl(G) and T := Cyl(G) = T (Γ). Let X be an algebraic tree of spaces
for G over T . Let v be a hanging vertex in Γ. Let δ : T → O be a QI(X)–invariant decoration and let ζ be a QI(X)–invariant partial orientation. For each edge e ∈ Γ incident
to v, choose a positive real parameter σe . Let δ 0 : ∂ Σ̃ → O be a decoration of the peripheral structure of Σ̃ and let ζ 0 be a partial orientation of ∂Σ such that QI(Σ̃, ∂ Σ̃, δ 0 , ζ 0 )
acts coboundedly on Σ̃.
Suppose that for some e0 ∈ lk(e
v ) we are given a coarse similitude φ|Xe0 from Xe0 to a
component B0 of ∂ Σ̃ that respects the decoration and partial orientations. Suppose further
that there exists a φ0 ∈ QIsom((Xv , Pv , δ, ζ), (Σ̃, ∂ Σ̃, δ 0 , ζ 0 )) such that φ0 (Xe ) = B0 . Then
there exists φ ∈ QIsom((Xv , Pv , δ, ζ), (Σ̃, ∂ Σ̃, δ 0 , ζ)) extending φ|Xe0 that, for each edge
e ∈ lk(v) \ {e0 }, restricts to be a coarse similitude with multiplicative constant σe on Xe .
The quasi-isometry constants of φ can be bounded in terms of Gv , Pv , the coboundedness constant for QI(Σ̃, ∂ Σ̃, δ 0 , ζ 0 ) y Σ̃, the constants of φ|Xe0 , and the σv .
Sketch. The proof follows the same argument as [2, Theorem 1.2]. The idea is to build
φ inductively, peripheral set by peripheral set. We start with φXe0 . Let σ0 be the
multiplicative constant of φXe0 . Then we want to extend φ to peripheral sets that come
close to Xe0 in Xv , sending these to components of ∂ Σ̃ that come close to φ(Xe0 ).
For another peripheral set Xe , the number of peripheral sets in the QI(Xv , Pv , δ, ζ)–
orbit of Xe that come within some fixed distance K of a subsegment of Xe0 of length l
is coarsely dl for some d > 0.
Let d0r be such that there are coarsely d0r l peripheral sets in the QI(Σ̃, ∂ Σ̃, δ 0 , ζ 0 )–
orbit of φ0 (Xe ) that come within r of a subsegment of B0 of length l. The fact that
QI(Σ̃, ∂ Σ̃, δ 0 , ζ 0 ) y Σ̃ is C–cobounded for some C says that d0C > 0, and, in fact, d0r
grows exponentially in r. This means that there is a logarithmically growing function
whose value R at σd0 is such that d0R ≥ σd0 . Thus, for any l there is a way to send the
dl elements in the QI(Xv , Pv , δ, ζ)–orbit of Xe that come within distance K of a length
l subsegment S of Xe0 injectively to the peripheral sets in the QI(Σ̃, ∂ Σ̃, δ 0 , ζ 0 )–orbit of
φ0 (Xe ) that come within R of the length approximately σ0 l subsegment φ|Xe (S) of B0 .
In this way one builds a matching between the peripheral sets that come close to
Xe0 and the peripheral sets that come close to B0 , respecting decorations and partial
orientations. Then φ is defined along such a matched pair to be a coarse similarity with
the appropriate σe as multiplicative constant, and the neighbor-matching is repeated for
each such pair.

52

8.2

Geometric trees of spaces for groups with two-ended cylinders stabilizers

Let G be a finitely presented, one-ended group admitting a JSJ decomposition over twoended subgroups with two-ended cylinder stabilizers. Let Γ := G\Cyl(G) and T :=
Cyl(G) = T (Γ).
Recall that in Section 2.5 we built an algebraic tree of spaces Y quasi-isometric to
G, and gave conditions for a collection of quasi-isometries of the vertex spaces to patch
together to give a quasi-isometry of Y . Now we will construct a geometric tree of spaces
X by uniformizing the vertex spaces, that is, replacing each vertex space by its uniform
model from Section 5.5. The quasi-isometries between vertex spaces and their uniform
models will patch together to give a quasi-isometry from Y to X. Therefore, X will
be quasi-isometric to G. The price to pay for uniformizing the vertex spaces is that in
general G only admits a cobounded quasi-action on X, not a cocompact action, but this
will not affect us.
We use the same notation as in Section 2.5. Let Y be the algebraic tree of spaces
constructed there. For a relatively rigid vertex v ∈ Γ, fix a quasi-isometry νv : (Gv , Pv ) →
(ZJ(Gv ,Pv )K , PJ(Gv ,Pv )K ) from Gv to the chosen model space for the relative quasi-isometry
type of (Gv , Pv ).
If Gv is virtually cyclic choose a cyclic subgroup hzv i < Gv of minimal index. Define
νv by sending Gv onto hzv i by closest point projection and sending zvk to kσv ∈ R, where
σv is a positive real parameter chosen as follows. If v is not adjacent to any quasiisometrically rigid vertices then choose σv := 1. Otherwise, choose σv := min `Xw (zv ),
where the minimum is taken over quasi-isometrically rigid vertices w adjacent to v.
Remark 8.2. This choice of σv ’s is convenient because it will imply, for an edge e with
ι(e) cylindrical and τ (e) rigid, that the attaching map αeX constructed below is a coarse
similitude whose multiplicative constant is equal to the stretch factor relStr(e) defined
in Section 5.6.
For a hanging vertex v ∈ Γ we define νv as follows. For each edge e ∈ lk(v) choose a
cyclic subgroup hze i < Ge of minimal index. Define
νv : (Gv , Pv ) → (ZJ(Gv ,Pv )K , PJ(Gv ,Pv )K )
to be a quasi-isometry such that for each e ∈ lk(v), each coset of Ge , which is a peripheral
set in Pv , is sent to a peripheral set in PJ(Gv ,Pv )K by a coarse similitude with multiplicative
constant:
[hzτ (e) i:hzτ (e) i∩hze i]
[hze i:hz
i∩hze i] · στ (e)
τ (e)

`Gv (ze )
Here, `Gv (ze ) is the translation length of ze in the Cayley graph of Gv , which is non-zero
since Gv is hyperbolic, and στ (e) is the parameter for Gτ (e) chosen above. Such a quasiisometry can be constructed using Proposition 8.1. These particular values are chosen
to make Lemma 8.3, below, true.

53

Now, for each vertex v ∈ VT define Xv to be a copy of ZJ(Gv ,Pv )K with isometry
−1
µv : Xv → ZJ(Gv ,Pv )K . Define φv : Yv → Xv by x 7→ µ−1
v ◦ νv (h(v,i) x).
We define edge spaces and attaching maps in X to be compatible with those of Y ,
as follows. Consider an edge e with v := ι(e) and w := τ (e). There are h(v,i) and g(e,j)
e and e = h(v,i) g(e,j) ee. Define αeX := φw ◦ αeY ◦ πYe ◦ φ−1
such that v = h(v,i) v
v , where πYe
denotes closest point projection to Ye . The map αeX is coarsely well defined, since πYe
X
Y
−1
moves points of φ−1
v (Xe ) bounded distance. Define αē := φv ◦ αē ◦ πYē ◦ φw , where
πYē is closest point projection from Yw to the coarsely dense subset Yē . This map is well
defined, and is a quasi-isometry inverse to αeX , since πYē moves points bounded distance.
Chasing through these definitions on easily demonstrates:
Lemma 8.3. If c = ι(e) is cylindrical and v = τ (e) is hanging then αeX : Xc → Xv is a
coarse isometric embedding.
Proposition 8.4. With notation as above, G, X, and Y are quasi-isometric to one
another.
Proof. G is quasi-isometric to Y by Lemma 2.15. Proposition 2.16 implies X and Y are
quasi-isometric, since (φv ) is a tree of quasi-isometries over the identity on T compatible
with X and Y .

8.3

Quasi-isometries

Let G be a finitely presented, one-ended group with non-trivial JSJ decomposition over
two-ended subgroups such that:
• Every non-elementary vertex is either hanging or quasi-isometrically rigid relative
to the peripheral structure coming from incident edge groups.
• Cylinder stabilizers are two-ended.
If Question 1 has positive answer then every one-ended hyperbolic group with a nontrivial JSJ decomposition is of this form.
Theorem 8.5. Let G and G0 be finitely presented, one-ended groups with non-trivial JSJ
decompositions over two-ended subgroups with two-ended cylinder stabilizers.
Let T := Cyl(G). Let X be a geometric tree of spaces for G over T , as in Section 8.2.
Let ζ0 be the trivial partial orientation on X. Let δ0 the decoration on T that sends an
edge e incident to a rigid vertex to its relative stretch factor relStr(e) as in Definition 5.17,
sends other edges to ‘NULL’, and sends vertices to their vertex type (‘cylindrical’, ‘rigid’,
or ‘hanging’) and relative quasi-isometry type. Let ζ0 be the trivial partial orientation on
X. Perform neighbor, cylinder, and vertex refinement until all three stabilize to give a
decoration δ : T → O and a partial orientation ζ of X.
Define T 0 , X 0 , δ00 , ζ00 , δ 0 : T 0 → O0 , and ζ 0 for G0 as we did for G. In particular, X 0
is uniformized with respect to the same choice of model spaces from Definition 5.15.
Then G and G0 are quasi-isometric if and only if there exists a bijection β : Im δ →
Im δ 0 and ξ ∈ {−1, 1}O such that:
54

1. δ0 ◦ δ −1 = δ00 ◦ (δ 0 )−1 ◦ β
2. When the rows and columns of S(T 0 , δ 0 , O0 ) are given the β–induced ordering from
S(T, δ, O), we have S(T, δ, O) = S(T 0 , δ 0 , O0 ).
3. For every o ∈ Im δ such that δ −1 (o) consists of non-elementary vertices there exists
(equivalently, for every) v ∈ δ −1 (o) and v 0 ∈ (δ 0 )−1 (β(o)) so that
QIsom((Xv , Pv , β ◦ δ, ξ · ζ), (Xv0 0 , Pv0 0 , δ 0 , ζ 0 ))
is nonempty.
4. For every o ∈ Im δ such that δ −1 (o) consists of cylindrical vertices, there exists
0 0
(equivalently, for every) c ∈ δ −1 (o) and c0 ∈ (δ 0 )−1 (β(o)) such that Ωδ,ξ·ζ
= Ωδc0 ,ζ ◦β.
c
The construction is a modification of the proof of Theorem 6.13. Recall in that case
we inductively built χ ∈ Isom((T, δ), (T, δ 0 )) and quasi-isometries
0
0
, δ 0 , ζ 0 ))
, Pχ(v)
φv ∈ QIsom((Xv , Pv , β ◦ δ, ξ · ζ), (Xχ(v)

such that (φv )∗ = χ|lk(v) . The proof of Theorem 6.13 mainly focuses on the inductive
step in the link of a cylindrical vertex, and chooses any φv as above such that (φv )∗
agrees with χ on the incoming edge to v.
In the present context we must be more careful about the choices of the φv . The proof
in Theorem 6.13 gives us a collection of quasi-isometries (φv ) such that for every edge e ∈
T with ι(e) cylindrical we have that (αχ(e) ◦ φι(e) ) ◦ (φτ (e) ◦ αe )−1 is orientation preserving
on X 0 , but now we require it to be coarsely the identity on X 0 . Furthermore, we
χ(e)
χ(e)
need the quasi-isometry constants of the φv to be uniformly bounded.
Here is how we achieve these requirements. Hanging vertices present no obstacles,
since by Proposition 8.1 they are so flexible. The real work is in dealing with the rigid
vertices. For these we choose in advance a finite number of quasi-isometries to use as
building blocks. Since the collection is finite, the constants are uniformly bounded. We
will choose the maps on cylinder spaces to be coarse isometries. It then remains to see that
if e ∈ ET is an edge with c := ι(e) cylindrical and v := τ (e) relatively rigid, that we can
make φc agree with a map φv constructed from the pre-chosen building blocks. We assume
we have chosen enough building blocks so that we can make (φv )∗ (e) = (φc )∗ (e), with the
correct orientation on Xē . This is handled by the same considerations as Theorem 6.13.
Additionally, we have set up the geometric tree of spaces so that the edge inclusion into
a rigid vertex is a coarse similitude whose multiplicative constant is the stretch factor
of the edge. Since we have incorporated the stretch factors into the decorations, we are
guaranteed that the stretch factor on e matches the stretch factor on χ(e). It follows
that (αχ(e) ◦ φc ) ◦ (φv ◦ αe )−1 is a coarse isometry that is orientation preserving. Finally,
we make it coarsely the identity by adjusting φv using the group action.
Proof of Theorem 8.5. By Theorem 2.9, Corollary 2.10, Proposition 2.16, and Proposition 5.14, X and X 0 are quasi-isometric if and only if there exists a tree of quasi-isometries
over an element of Isom((T, δ0 ), (T 0 , δ00 )) compatible with X and X 0 .
55

The existence of a tree of quasi-isometries over an element of Isom((T, δ0 ), (T 0 , δ00 ))
compatible with X and X 0 implies the above conditions. Our goal is to show the converse.
Suppose o ∈ O is an ornament such that δ −1 (o) consists of vertices that are relatively
quasi-isometrically rigid. Choose representatives vo,1 , . . . , vo,io of the G–orbits contained
in δ −1 (o). Suppose o0 ∈ O is an ornament such that δ −1 (o0 ) consists of edges incident
to v ∈ δ −1 (o). For each 1 ≤ i ≤ io choose representatives eo,i,o0 ,1 , . . . , eo,i,o0 ,jo0 of the
Gvo,i –orbits in δ −1 (o0 ) ∩ lk(vo,i ). For each i and j choose
Φo,i,o0 ,j ∈ QIsom((Xvo,i , Pvo,i , δ, ξ · ζ), (Xvo,1 , Pvo,1 , δ, ξ · ζ))
such that (Φo,i,o0 ,j )∗ (eo,i,o0 ,j ) = eo,1,o0 ,1 . Such quasi-isometries exist by Proposition 6.9.
0
0
Similarly choose representatives vβ(o),1
, . . . , vβ(o),i
of the G0 –orbits contained in
0
β(o)

(δ 0 )−1 (β(o)) and representatives e0β(o),i,β(o0 ),1 , . . . , e0β(o),i,β(o0 ),j 0

β(o0 )

of the G0vβ(o),i –orbits in

0
(δ 0 )−1 (β(o0 )) ∩ lk(vβ(o),i
) and quasi-isometries Φ0β(o),i,β(o0 ),j .
Choose a quasi-isometry Φo,o0 ∈ QIsom((Xvo,1 , Pvo,1 , δ, ξ · ζ), (Xv0 0

β(o),1

, Pv0 0

, δ 0 , ζ 0 ))

β(o),1

that takes eo,1,o0 ,1 to e0β(o),1,β(o0 ),1 . Such a quasi-isometry exists by condition 3 and Proposition 6.9. If eo,1,o0 ,1 is ζ–unoriented then we also choose
0
Φ−
o,o0 ∈ QIsom((Xvo,1 , Pvo,1 , δ, ξ · ζ), (Xv 0

β(o),1

, Pv0 0

, δ 0 , ζ 0 ))

β(o),1

−1 orientation reversing on
0
that takes eo,1,o0 ,1 to e0β(o),1,β(o0 ),1 such that Φ−
o,o0 ◦ (Φo,o )
Xē0 0
. Such a quasi-isometry exists by Corollary 6.10.
β(o),1,β(o0 ),1

We have chosen finitely many quasi-isometries Φ, so they have uniformly bounded
quasi-isometry constants.
Induction base case Begin the induction by choosing a cylindrical vertex c ∈ T and
a cylindrical vertex c0 ∈ (δ 0 )−1 (β(δ(c))). Define χ(c) := c0 . By construction Xc and Xc0 0
are copies of R. Define φc : Xc → Xc0 0 to be an isometry. If c is ζ–oriented we choose φc
so that φc (ξ · ζ(Xc )) = ζ 0 (Xc0 0 ). Extend χ to lk(c) as in Theorem 6.13.
Inductive steps for non-elementary vertices Suppose v = τ (e) is a non-elementary
0
vertex such that for c = ι(e) we have already defined a coarse isometry φc : Xc → Xχ(c)
0
0
and χ|lk(c) . Suppose further that if c is ζ–oriented then φc (ξ · ζ(Xc )) = ζ (Xχ(c) ). Let
c0 := χ(c) and e0 := χ(e).
Suppose v is rigid. Now gv = vδ(v0 ),i for some g ∈ G and some i, and hge =
eδ(v),i,δ(e),j for some j and some h ∈ Gvδ(v),i . Similarly, there are g 0 ∈ G0 and i0 such that
0
0
0
0
g 0 v 0 = vβ(δ(v)),i
such that h0 g 0 e0 = e0β(δ(v)),i0 ,β(δ(e)),j 0 .
0 , and j and h ∈ Gv 0
The map

β(δ(v)),i0

(h0 g 0 )−1 ◦ (Φ0β(δ(v0 )),i0 ,β(δ(e)),j 0 )−1 ◦ Φδ(v0 ),δ(e) ◦ Φδ(v0 ),i,δ(e),j ◦ hg
56

is an element of QIsom(Xv0 , Pv0 , β ◦ δ, ξ · ζ), (Xv0 0 , Pv0 0 , δ 0 , ζ 0 )) taking e to e0 .
0
0
If e is ζ–unoriented then we also have that the map
(h0 g 0 )−1 ◦ (Φ0β(δ(v0 )),i0 ,β(δ(e)),j 0 )−1 ◦ Φ−
δ(v0 ),δ(e) ◦ Φδ(v0 ),i,δ(e),j ◦ hg
is an element of QIsom(Xv0 , Pv0 , β ◦ δ, ξ · ζ), (Xv0 0 , Pv0 0 , δ 0 , ζ 0 )) taking e to e0 . For one of
0

0

these two, the composition with αe ◦ (φc )−1 ◦ (αe0 0 )−1 is orientation preserving on Xē .
Choose this one as φ0v .
Finally, choose a point x ∈ Xē . Since edge stabilizers act uniformly coboundedly on
their corresponding peripheral sets, we can choose an element k ∈ G0ē0 that is orientation
preserving on Xē0 0 and such that kφ0v (x) is boundedly close to αe0 0 ◦ φc ◦ (αe )−1 (x). Define
φv := kφ0v .
We have:
• φv ∈ QIsom((Xv0 , Pv0 , β ◦ δ, ξ · ζ), (Xv0 0 , Pv0 0 , δ 0 , ζ 0 ))
0

0

• (φv )∗ (e) = e0
• φv (x) is boundedly close to αe0 0 ◦ φc ◦ (αe )−1 (x).
• φv ◦ (αe0 0 ◦ φc ◦ (αe )−1 )−1 is orientation preserving on Xē0 0 .
• φv is a composition of three of the pre-chosen Φ with multiplication by five group
elements, so the quasi-isometry constants of φv are bounded in terms of those of
the Φ and the constants for the group action.
By relative quasi-isometric rigidity, φv is a coarse isometry.
We also claim that αe0 0 ◦ φc ◦ (αe )−1 is a coarse isometry. This is because φc is a
coarse isometry, by the induction hypothesis, and αe and αe0 0 are, by construction (recall
Remark 8.2), coarse similitudes with multiplicative constants relStr(e) and relStr(e0 ),
which are equal, since:
relStr(e) = δ0 ◦ δ −1 (δ(e)) = δ00 ◦ (δ 0 )−1 ◦ β(δ(e)) = δ00 ◦ (δ 0 )−1 (δ 0 (e0 )) = δ00 (e0 ) = relStr(e0 )
Thus, φv ◦ (αe0 0 ◦ φc ◦ (αe )−1 )−1 is orientation preserving coarse isometry on Xē0 0 that
coarsely fixes a point. It follows that φv |X ē and αe0 0 ◦ φc ◦ (αe )−1 are coarsely equivalent.
Define χ|lk(v) := (φv )∗ .
0
−1 . Since φ is a
For each edge e00 ∈ lk(v) \ {ē} define φτ (e00 ) := αχ(e
00 ) ◦ φv ◦ (αe00 )
v
0
coarse isometry and αe00 and αχ(e00 ) are coarse similitudes with the same multiplicative
constant, as above, we have that φτ (e00 ) is a coarse isometry.
Suppose v is hanging. The map αe0 0 ◦ φc ◦ (αe )−1 : Xē → Xē0 0 is a coarse isometry,
since attaching maps to hanging vertex spaces are coarse isometries by Lemma 8.3 and
φc is a coarse isometry by the induction hypothesis.
Use condition 3 and Proposition 8.1 to produce a quasi-isometry
φv ∈ QIsom((Xv , Pv , β ◦ δ, ξ · ζ), (Xv0 0 , Pv0 0 , δ 0 , ζ 0 ))
57

that is a coarse isometry along each peripheral subset and that coarsely agrees with
αe0 0 ◦ φc ◦ (αe )−1 on Xē .
Define χ|lk(v) := (φv )∗ .
0
−1 is a coarse isometry,
For each e00 ∈ lk(v) \ {ē} the map φτ (e00 ) := αχ(e
00 ) ◦ φv ◦ (αe00 )
since attaching maps to hanging vertex spaces are coarse isometries by Lemma 8.3, and
φv is a coarse isometry along peripheral sets by construction.
Inductive step for cylindrical vertices Suppose c = ι(e) is cylindrical, χ is defined
on e, φτ (e) is defined, and φc is a coarse isometry such that φc is coarsely equivalent to
0
(αχ(e)
)−1 ◦ φτ (e) ◦ αe . Extend χ to lk(c) \ {e} as in Theorem 6.13.
This completes the induction. The result is χ ∈ Isom((T, δ), (T 0 , δ 0 )) and uniform
quasi-isometries (φv ) satisfying the conditions of Corollary 2.18, so (φv ) is a tree of
quasi-isometries over χ compatible with X and X 0 , as desired.

References
[1] Jason A. Behrstock, Bruce Kleiner, Yair N. Minsky, and Lee Mosher, Geometry and
rigidity of mapping class groups, Geom. Topol. 16 (2012), no. 2, 781–888.
[2] Jason A. Behrstock and Walter D. Neumann, Quasi-isometric classification of graph
manifold groups, Duke Math. J. 141 (2008), no. 2, 217–240.
[3] Jason A. Behrstock and Walter D. Neumann, Quasi-isometric classification of nongeometric 3-manifold groups, J. Reine Angew. Math. 669 (2012), 101–120.
[4] M. Bestvina and M. Feighn, A combination theorem for negatively curved groups, J.
Differential Geom. 35 (1992), no. 1, 85–101.
[5] Kingshook Biswas and Mahan Mj, Pattern rigidity in hyperbolic spaces: duality and
PD subgroups, Groups Geom. Dyn. 6 (2012), no. 1, 97–123.
[6] M. Bonk and O. Schramm, Embeddings of Gromov hyperbolic spaces, Geom. Funct.
Anal. 10 (2000), no. 2, 266–306.
[7] Marc Bourdon and Hervé Pajot, Rigidity of quasi-isometries for some hyperbolic
buildings, Comment. Math. Helv. 75 (2000), no. 4, 701–736.
[8] Marc Bourdon and Hervé Pajot, Cohomologie lp et espaces de Besov, J. Reine
Angew. Math. 558 (2003), 85–108.
[9] Brian H. Bowditch, Cut points and canonical splittings of hyperbolic groups, Acta
Math. 180 (1998), no. 2, 145–186.
[10] Martin R. Bridson and André Haefliger, Metric spaces of non-positive curvature,
Grundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften, vol. 319, Springer, Berlin, 1999.
58

[11] Sergei Buyalo and Viktor Schroeder, Elements of asymptotic geometry, EMS Monographs in Mathematics, European Mathematical Society (EMS), Zürich, 2007.
[12] Christopher H. Cashen, Splitting line patterns in free groups, Algebr. Geom. Topol.,
in press, arXiv:1009.2492.
[13] Christopher H. Cashen, Quasi-isometries between tubular groups, Groups Geom.
Dyn. 4 (2010), no. 3, 473–516.
[14] Christopher H. Cashen and Nataša Macura, Line patterns in free groups, Geom.
Topol. 15 (2011), no. 3, 1419–1475.
[15] Pallavi Dani and Anne Thomas, Quasi-isometry classification of certain right-angled
coxeter groups, preprint (2014), arXiv:1402.6224v4.
[16] Martin J. Dunwoody, The accessibility of finitely presented groups, Invent. Math. 81
(1985), no. 3, 449–457.
[17] Martin J. Dunwoody and Michah E. Sageev, JSJ-splittings for finitely presented
groups over slender groups, Invent. Math. 135 (1999), no. 1, 25–44.
[18] Max Forester, On uniqueness of JSJ decompositions of finitely generated groups,
Comment. Math. Helv. 78 (2003), no. 4, 740–751.
[19] Koji Fujiwara and Panos Papasoglu, JSJ-decompositions of finitely presented groups
and complexes of groups, Geom. Funct. Anal. 16 (2006), 70–125.
[20] Mikhael Gromov, Infinite groups as geometric objects, Proceedings of the International Congress of Mathematicians, Vol. 1, 2 (Warsaw, 1983) (Warsaw), PWN, 1984,
pp. 385–392.
[21] Mikhael Gromov, Hyperbolic groups, Essays in group theory, Math. Sci. Res. Inst.
Publ., vol. 8, Springer, New York, 1987, pp. 75–263.
[22] Vincent Guirardel and Gilbert Levitt, JSJ decompositions: definitions, existence,
uniqueness. I: The JSJ deformation space, preprint (2009), arXiv:0911.3173.
[23] Vincent Guirardel and Gilbert Levitt, Trees of cylinders and canonical splittings,
Geom. Topol. 15 (2011), no. 2, 977–1012.
[24] Ilya Kapovich, The combination theorem and quasiconvexity, Internat. J. Algebra
Comput. 11 (2001), no. 2, 185–216.
[25] Michael Kapovich and Bruce Kleiner, Hyperbolic groups with low-dimensional boundary, Ann. Sci. École Norm. Sup. (4) 33 (2000), no. 5, 647–669.
[26] Bruce Kleiner and Bernhard Leeb, Rigidity of quasi-isometries for symmetric spaces
and Euclidean buildings, Inst. Hautes Études Sci. Publ. Math. (1997), no. 86, 115–
197 (1998).
59

[27] Frank Thomson Leighton, Finite common coverings of graphs, J. Combin. Theory
Ser. B 33 (1982), no. 3, 231–238.
[28] William Malone, Topics in geometric group theory, Ph.D. thesis, University of Utah,
Salt Lake City, UT, 2010.
[29] Vladimir Markovic, Quasisymmetric groups, J. Amer. Math. Soc. 19 (2006), no. 3,
673–715.
[30] Alexandre Martin, Non-positively curved complexes of groups and boundaries, Geom.
Topol. 18 (2014), no. 1, 31–102.
[31] Alexandre Martin and Jacek Świątkowski, Infinitely-ended hyperbolic groups with
homeomorphic Gromov boundaries, J. Group Theory 18 (2015), no. 2, 273–289.
[32] Mahan Mj, Pattern rigidity and the Hilbert-Smith conjecture, Geom. Topol. 16
(2012), no. 2, 1205–1246.
[33] Lee Mosher, Michah Sageev, and Kevin Whyte, Quasi-actions on trees II: Finite
depth Bass-Serre trees, Mem. Amer. Math. Soc. 214 (2011), no. 1008, vi+105.
[34] Walter D. Neumann, On Leighton’s graph covering theorem, Groups Geom. Dyn. 4
(2010), no. 4, 863–872.
[35] Pierre Pansu, Métriques de Carnot-Carathéodory et quasiisométries des espaces
symétriques de rang un, Ann. of Math. (2) 129 (1989), no. 1, 1–60.
[36] Panos Papasoglu, Quasi-isometry invariance of group splittings, Ann. of Math. (2)
161 (2005), no. 2, 759–830.
[37] Panos Papasoglu and Kevin Whyte, Quasi-isometries between groups with infinitely
many ends, Comment. Math. Helv. 77 (2002), no. 1, 133–144.
[38] E. Rips and Z. Sela, Structure and rigidity in hyperbolic groups. I, Geom. Funct.
Anal. 4 (1994), no. 3, 337–371.
[39] E. Rips and Z. Sela, Cyclic splittings of finitely presented groups and the canonical
JSJ decomposition, Ann. of Math. (2) 146 (1997), no. 1, 53–109.
[40] Richard Evan Schwartz, Symmetric patterns of geodesics and automorphisms of surface groups, Invent. Math. 128 (1997), no. 1, 177–199.
[41] Jean-Pierre Serre, Trees, Springer Monographs in Mathematics, Springer-Verlag,
Berlin, 2003, Translated from the French original by John Stillwell, Corrected 2nd
printing of the 1980 English translation.
[42] John R. Stallings, On torsion-free groups with infinitely many ends, Ann. of Math.
(2) 88 (1968), 312–334.
60

[43] John R. Stallings, Group theory and three-dimensional manifolds, Yale University
Press, New Haven, Conn., 1971, A James K. Whittemore Lecture in Mathematics
given at Yale University, 1969, Yale Mathematical Monographs, 4.
[44] Pekka Tukia, Quasiconformal extension of quasisymmetric mappings compatible with
a Möbius group, Acta Math. 154 (1985), no. 3-4, 153–193.
[45] Diane M. Vavrichek, The quasi-isometry invariance of commensurizer subgroups,
Groups Geom. Dyn. 7 (2013), no. 1, 205–261.
[46] Xiangdong Xie, Quasi-isometric rigidity of Fuchsian buildings, Topology 45 (2006),
no. 1, 101–169.
[47] Xiangdong Xie, Quasisymmetric maps on the boundary of a negatively curved solvable Lie group, Math. Ann. 353 (2012), no. 3, 727–746.
Fakultät für Mathematik, Universität Wien, Oskar-Morgenstern-Platz 1, 1090 Wien,
Österreich
christopher.cashen@univie.ac.at
alexandre.martin@univie.ac.at

61

