arXiv:1610.06864v3 [math.GR] 30 Jan 2018

A NOTE ON THE ACYLINDRICAL HYPERBOLICITY OF
GROUPS ACTING ON CAT(0) CUBE COMPLEXES
INDIRA CHATTERJI AND ALEXANDRE MARTIN
Abstract. We study the acylindrical hyperbolicity of groups acting
by isometries on CAT(0) cube complexes, and obtain simple criteria
formulated in terms of stabilisers for the action. Namely, we show that
a group acting essentially and non-elementarily on a finite dimensional
irreducible CAT(0) cube complex is acylindrically hyperbolic if there
exist two hyperplanes whose stabilisers intersect along a finite subgroup.
We also give further conditions on the geometry of the complex so that
the result holds if we only require the existence of a single pair of points
whose stabilisers intersect along a finite subgroup.

1. Introduction
A group is called acylindrically hyperbolic if it is not virtually cyclic and
admits an acylindrical action with unbounded orbits on a hyperbolic geodesic metric space. Acylindrically hyperbolic groups form a large class
of groups, introduced by Osin [Osi16], displaying strong hyperbolic-like
features: They encompass mapping class groups of hyperbolic surfaces
[Bow08], relatively hyperbolic groups [Osi06], the plane Cremona group
[CL13, Lon16], and many more. The notion of acylindrical hyperbolicity
has gathered a lot of interest in recent years due to the strong algebraic
and analytical consequences it implies for the group (we refer to [Osi16] and
details therein).
In this article, we study the acylindrical hyperbolicity of groups acting
by isometries on CAT(0) cube complexes. Our goal is to obtain simple
acylindrical hyperbolicity criteria for such groups. Recall that an action on
a CAT(0) cube X complex is called essential if no orbit remains at bounded
distance from a half-space of X, and that it is called non-elementary if it
does not admit a finite orbit in X ∪ ∂∞ X.
Our first criterion is formulated in terms of hyperplanes stabilisers, and
generalises to finite dimensional CAT(0) cube complexes a criterion due to
Minasyan–Osin for actions on simplicial trees [MO15]:
Theorem 1.1. Let G be a group acting essentially and non-elementarily
on an irreducible finite-dimensional CAT(0) cube complex. If there exist
two hyperplanes whose stabilisers intersect along a finite subgroup, then G
is acylindrically hyperbolic.
1

2

INDIRA CHATTERJI AND ALEXANDRE MARTIN

In the previous theorem, we do not require the two hyperplanes to be
disjoint, or even distinct. In particular, the conclusion holds if there exists
a hyperplane of X whose stabiliser is weakly malnormal, i.e. it intersects
some conjugate along a finite subgroup.
It should be noted that the above theorem does not reduce to the aforementioned criterion of Minasyan–Osin, as groups acting on CAT(0) cube
complexes do not virtually act on a simplicial tree a priori.
Anthony Genevois has also obtained criteria for acylindrical hyperbolicity
of a similar flavour, using different tools. In particular, his approach can be
used to recover Theorem 1.1, see [Gen16b, Remark 21].
We give an application of Theorem 1.1 to Artin groups of FC type, suggested to us by Ruth Charney. Artin groups span a large range of groups,
and include for instance free groups, braid groups, free abelian groups, as
well as many more exotic groups. Artin groups and their subgroups are a
rich source of examples and counterexamples of interesting phenomena in
geometry and group theory.
Theorem 1.2. Non-virtually cyclic Artin groups of FC type whose underlying Coxeter graphs have diameter at least 3 are acylindrically hyperbolic.
Artin groups of FC type and the proof of the above theorem will be
discussed in Section 5. In the case of Artin groups of FC type whose Coxeter
graphs have diameter 1, i.e. Artin groups of finite type, Calvez and Wiest
[CW16] showed, using different techniques, that the quotient of such groups
by their centre is acylindrically hyperbolic.
As a corollary of Theorem 1.1, we obtain the following results for actions
satisfying a weak notion of acylindricity or properness:
Corollary 1.3. Let G be a group acting essentially and non-elementarily on
an irreducible finite-dimensional CAT(0) cube complex X. Assume that the
action is non-uniformly weakly acylindrical, that is, there exists a constant
L ≥ 0 such that only finitely many elements of G fix two points of X at
distance at least L. Then G is acylindrically hyperbolic.
Corollary 1.4. A group acting essentially, non-elementarily, and with finite
vertex stabilisers on a finite dimensional irreducible CAT(0) cube complex
is acylindrically hyperbolic.
Corollary 1.3 was already known if the complex is in addition assumed
to be hyperbolic (see [Mar15] for the proof in dimension 2 and [Gen16a]
for the general case). Corollary 1.4 was already known if in addition the
action is assumed to be metrically proper, by work of Caprace–Sageev on the
existence of rank one isometries of CAT(0) cube complexes [CS11]. Anthony
Genevois informed us that he found independently similar results, using
different techniques [Gen16b].
In Theorem 1.1 and its corollaries, the essentiality assumption could
be weakened to the assumption that the essential core is irreducible, a
condition that is a priori non-trivial to check. Notice however that the

ACYLINDRICAL HYPERBOLICITY AND CAT(0) CUBE COMPLEXES

3

other assumptions cannot be removed. The non-acylindrically hyperbolic
group Z acts properly and essentially, but elementarily, on the real line
with its standard simplicial structure. The groups of Burger–Mozes provide
examples of cocompact lattices in the product of two trees whose associated
actions are essential, non-elementary, and without fixed point at infinity, yet
these groups are not acylindrically hyperbolic as they are simple [BM00].
Thompson’s groups V and T act properly, non-elementarily, and without
fixed point at infinity on an infinite dimensional irreducible CAT(0) cube
complex [Far08], but are not acylindrically hyperbolic as they are simple.
We also obtain stronger criteria, that allow us to deduce the acylindrical
hyperbolicity of a group from information on the stabilisers of a single pair
of points (see Theorem 4.2 for the general statement). For this, we impose
further conditions on the complex: We say that a CAT(0) cube complex is
cocompact if its automorphism group acts cocompactly on it, and we say
that it has no free face if every non-maximal cube is contained in at least
two maximal cubes. We prove the following:
Theorem 1.5. Let G be a group acting essentially and non-elementarily on
an irreducible finite-dimensional cocompact CAT(0) cube complex with no
free face. If there exist two points whose stabilisers intersect along a finite
subgroup, then G is acylindrically hyperbolic.
To show the acylindrical hyperbolicity of a group G through its action
on a geodesic metric space X, a useful criterion introduced by BestvinaBromberg-Fujiwara [BBF14, Theorem H] is to find an infinite order element
of the group whose orbits are strongly contracting and which satisfies the
so-called WPD condition. However, this condition, formulated in terms of
coarse stabilisers of pairs of points, is generally cumbersome to check for
actions on non-locally finite spaces. In [Mar16a], the second author introduced a different criterion involving a weakening of this condition formulated purely in terms of stabilisers of pairs of points, making it much more
tractable (see Theorem 2.3 for the exact formulation). The price to pay
is to find group elements satisfying a strengthened notion of contraction of
their orbits, called über-contractions. The second author showed that such
contractions abound for actions on non-locally compact spaces under mild
assumptions on the stabilisers of vertices, and used it to show the acylindrical hyperbolicity of the tame automorphism group of an affine quadric
threefold, a subgroup of the Cremona group Bir(P3 (C)). In this article, we
provide a different way to construct über-contractions for groups acting on
CAT(0) cube complexes, this time using the very rich combinatorial geometry of their hyperplanes. This construction relies heavily on the existence
of hyperplanes with strong separation properties, called über-separated hyperplanes, and introduced by Chatterji–Fernós–Iozzi [CFI16]. Such hyperplanes were used to prove a superrigidity phenomenon for groups acting
non-elementarily on CAT(0) cube complexes.

4

INDIRA CHATTERJI AND ALEXANDRE MARTIN

Acknowledgement. The authors warmly thank Talia Fernós for producing the example in Remark 4.4, Michah Sageev for discussions related to
Proposition 4.3, Carolyn Abbott for noticing Theorem 1.2 and Ruth Charney for pointing it out to us, along with the explanations of Section 5. We
also thank Anthony Genevois for remarks on an early version of this article,
Ruth Charney and Rose Morris-Wright for spotting a gap in the proof of
Theorem 1.2, and the anonymous referee for their interesting comments.
The first author is partially supported by the Institut Universitaire de
France (IUF) and the ANR GAMME. The second author is partially supported by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) grant M1810-N25. This work
was completed while the two authors were in residence at MSRI during the
Fall 2016 “Geometric Group Theory” research program, NSF Grant DMS1440140. They thank the organisers for the opportunity to work in such a
stimulating environment.
2. Über-contractions and acylindrical hyperbolicity
Recall that, given a group G acting on a geodesic metric space X,
the action is called acylindrical if for every r ≥ 0 there exist constants
L(r), N (r) ≥ 0 such that for every points x, y of X at distance at least L(r),
|{g ∈ G|d(x, gx) ≤ r, d(y, gy) ≤ r}| ≤ N (r).
A group is acylindrically hyperbolic if it is not virtually cyclic and admits an
acylindrical action with unbounded orbits on a hyperbolic geodesic metric
space. Given a group action on an arbitrary geodesic space, the following criterion was introduced by Bestvina–Bromberg–Fujiwara to prove the
acylindrical hyperbolicity of the group:
Theorem 2.1 ([BBF14, Theorem H]). Let G be a group acting by isometries
on a geodesic metric space X. Let g be a group element of infinite order with
quasi-isometrically embedded orbits, and assume that the following holds:
• the group element g is strongly contracting, that is, there exists a
point x of X such that the closest-point projections on the hgi-orbit
of x of the balls of X that are disjoint from hgix have uniformly
bounded diameter,
• the group element g satisfies the WPD condition, that is, for every
r ≥ 0 and every point x of X, there exists an integer m such that only
finitely many elements h of G satisfy d(x, hx), d(g m x, hg m x) ≤ r.
Then G is either virtually cyclic or acylindrically hyperbolic.

The following notion, introduced in [Mar16a], provides an easier way to
prove the acylindrical hyperbolicity of a group.
Definition 2.2. Let X be a geodesic metric space and let h be an isometry
of X with quasi-isometrically embedded orbits. A system of checkpoints for
h is the data of a finite subset S of X, the checkpoint, as well as an error

ACYLINDRICAL HYPERBOLICITY AND CAT(0) CUBE COMPLEXES

5

S
constant L ≥ 0 and a quasi-isometry f : Λ := i∈Z hi S → R such that we
have the following:
Let x, y be points of X and let x′ , y ′ be closest-point projections on Λ of
x, y respectively. For every checkpoint Si := hi S, i ∈ Z, such that:
• Si coarsely separates x′ and y ′ , i.e. f (x′ ) and f (y ′ ) lie in different
unbounded connected components of R \ f (Si ),
• Si is at distance at least L from both x′ and y ′ ,
then every geodesic between x and y meets Si .
A hyperbolic isometry h of X is über-contracting, or is an über-contraction,
if it admits such a system of checkpoints.
We will be using the following criterion for acylindrical hyperbolicity:
Theorem 2.3 (Theorem 1.2 of [Mar16a]). Let G be a group acting by isometries on a geodesic metric space X. Let g ∈ G be an infinite order element
such that the following holds:
(i) the group element g is über-contracting with respect to a system of
checkpoints (gi S)i∈Z,
(ii) There exists a constant m0 such that for every point s ∈ S and every
m ≥ m0 , only finitely many elements of G fix pointwise s and g m s.
Then G is either virtually cyclic or acylindrically hyperbolic.

Note that condition (ii) of the previous theorem is a considerable weakening of the WPD condition for g.
This weaker condition has the advantage of involving only stabilisers of
pairs of points, which makes it much easier to use.
3. Über-separated hyperplanes and the proof of Theorem 1.1
We now recall a few basic facts concerning CAT(0) cube complexes, and
more precisely the notions of bridges and über-separated pairs, which are
crucial to prove Theorems 1.1 and 1.5. The missing details and proofs can
be found in [CFI16].
By a slight abuse of notation, we will identify a CAT(0) cube complex
with its vertex set endowed with the graph metric coming from its 1-skeleton.
Each hyperplane separates the vertex set into two disjoint components,
which we refer to as halfspaces.
The following notion was introduced by Behrstock–Charney in [BC12]:
Definition 3.1. Two parallel hyperplanes of a CAT(0) cube complex are
said to be strongly separated if no hyperplane is transverse to both. By the
usual abuse of terminology, we say that two halfspaces are strongly separated
if the corresponding hyperplanes are.
We will need tools introduced by Caprace–Sageev [CS11]. Recall that a
family of n pairwise crossing hyperplanes divides a CAT(0) cube complex
into 2n regions called sectors.

6

INDIRA CHATTERJI AND ALEXANDRE MARTIN

Lemma 3.2 (Caprace–Sageev [CS11, Proposition 5.1, Double-Skewering
Lemma, Lemma 5.2]). Let X be a finite dimensional irreducible CAT(0)
cube complex and let G → Aut(X) be a group acting essentially and without
fixed points in X ∪ ∂∞ X.
• (Strong Separation Lemma) Let h1 be a halfspace of X. Then there
exists a halfspace h2 such that h1 ⊂ h2 and such that h1 and h2 are
strongly separated.
• (Double-Skewering Lemma) Let h1 ⊂ h2 be two nested halfspaces.
Then there exists an element g ∈ G that double-skewers h1 and h2 ,
that is, such that h1 ⊂ h2 ⊂ gh1 .
• (Sector Lemma) Let ĥ1 , ĥ2 be two transverse hyperplanes. Then we
can choose two disjoint hyperplanes ĥ3 and ĥ4 that are contained in
opposite sectors determined by ĥ1 and ĥ2 .

We will need a finer notion of strong separation of halfspaces, which is
less standard but will be key to our work.
Definition 3.3. Two strongly separated halfspaces h1 and h2 are said to be
an über-separated pair if for any two halfspaces k1 , k2 with the property that
hi and ki are transverse for i = 1, 2, then k1 and k2 are parallel. We say that
two strongly separated hyperplanes are über-separated if their halfspaces are.
Note that pairs of über-separated hyperplanes correspond exactly to pairs
of hyperplanes at distance at least 4 in the intersection graph.
Remark 3.4. If h ⊂ k ⊂ ℓ are pairwise strongly separated halfspaces, then
h and ℓ are über-separated.
Notice that über-separated pairs are in particular strongly separated and
hence they do not exist in the reducible case by [CS11, Proposition 5.1].
The existence of über-separated hyperplanes is a consequence of the DoubleSkewering Lemma 3.2. We will need the following lemma, which is a direct
consequence of the Double-Skewering Lemma 3.2 and [CFI16, Lemma 2.14]:
Lemma 3.5. Let X be a finite dimensional irreducible CAT(0) cube complex
and G → Aut(X) a group acting essentially and non-elementarily. Given
any two parallel hyperplanes ĥ1 and ĥ2 , there exists g ∈ G that doubleskewers ĥ1 and ĥ2 and such that ĥ1 and g ĥ1 are über-separated.

For two points x, y of X, we denote by I(x, y) the interval between x
and y, that is, the union of all the geodesics between x and y. Recall that
intervals are finite, as they only depend on the (finite) set of hyperplanes
separating the given pair of points.
Definition 3.6. Let h1 ⊂ h2 be a nested pair of halfspaces. The (combinatorial) bridge between ĥ1 and ĥ2 , denoted b(ĥ1 , ĥ2 ), is the union of all
the geodesics between points x1 ∈ h1 and x2 ∈ h∗2 minimizing the distance
between h1 and h∗2 .

ACYLINDRICAL HYPERBOLICITY AND CAT(0) CUBE COMPLEXES

7

Lemma 3.7 (Lemma 2.18 and 2.24 [CFI16]). If h1 ⊂ h2 be a pair of nested
halfspaces, strongly separated, there exists a unique pair of points of h1 × h∗2 ,
called the gates of the bridge, that minimizes the distance between h1 and
h∗2 , i.e. there exist points x1 ∈ h1 and x2 ∈ h∗2 such that
b(ĥ1 , ĥ2 ) = I(x1 , x2 ).
In particular, the bridge between two strongly separated hyperplanes is finite.
Moreover, the following holds true for any y1 ∈ h1 and y2 ∈ h∗2 .
d(y1 , y2 ) = d(y1 , x1 ) + d(x1 , x2 ) + d(x2 , y2 ).

The following is a very important feature of über-separated pairs.
Lemma 3.8 (Proof of Lemma 3.5 of [CFI16]). Let h1 ⊂ h2 be an überseparated pair of halfspaces, x ∈ h1 and y ∈ h∗2 . Then every geodesic between
x and y meets the bridge b(ĥ1 , ĥ2 ).

The following lemma explains the relationship between über-separated
pairs and über-contractions.
Lemma 3.9. Let h1 ⊂ h2 be an über-separated pair of halfspaces, and g ∈ G
an element that double-skewers h1 and h2 . Then g is an über-contraction.
Proof. Let B denote the bridge between h1 and gh1 . We will show that the
collection of the g-translates of B forms a system of checkpoints. Notice
that since the bridge is an interval, it is finite even though the complex is
not assumed to S
be locally finite, hence all the checkpoints Sn := gn B are
finite. Set Λ := n∈Z Sn . Let Y := h∗1 ∩ gh1 and Yn := g n Y for every n ∈ Z.
For every point x ∈ Yn , we have that its closest-point projections on Λ
are in Sn−1 ∪ Sn ∪ Sn+1 : Indeed, since h1 and gh1 are über-separated, it
follows from Lemma 3.8 that a geodesic between x and a point x′ ∈ Yn′ with
n′ ≥ n+2 (n′ ≤ n−2 respectively) meets the bridge Sn+1 (Sn−1 respectively).
Moreover, for every x ∈ X which projects on Λ to a point of Sn , we have
that x ∈ Yn−1 ∪ Yn ∪ Yn+1 for the same reasons. Thus, for x, y ∈ X which
project on Λ to points x′ ∈ Sn and y ′ ∈ Sm respectively with m ≥ n + 4, it
follows that x and y are separated by the hyperplanes gn+2 ĥ1 , . . . , g m−1 ĥ1 ,
hence every geodesic between x and y meets each checkpoint Sn+2 , . . . , Sm−2
by Lemma 3.8.
By a result of Haglund [Hag07, Theorem 1.4], g admits a combinatorial
axis Λg . As Λ and Λg stay at bounded distance from one another, it follows
easily from the discussion of the previous paragraph that Λg is contained
in Λ. Since B is finite, the closest-point projection Λ → Λg yields a quasiisometry Λ → R, and it is now straightforward to check that g is an übercontraction.

Proof of Theorem 1.1. Let G be a group acting essentially and nonelementarily on an irreducible finite-dimensional CAT(0) cube complex X

8

INDIRA CHATTERJI AND ALEXANDRE MARTIN

and assume that there exist two hyperplanes whose stabilisers intersect along
a finite subgroup. By Proposition 2.3, it is enough to construct an element
of G satisfying conditions (i) and (ii) of Proposition 2.3.
Let ĥ1 and ĥ2 be two hyperplanes whose stabilisers intersect along a
finite subgroup. We start by showing that we can assume that ĥ1 and ĥ2
are disjoint. By the Sector Lemma 3.2, we choose two disjoint hyperplanes
ĥ3 and ĥ4 that are contained in opposite sectors determined by ĥ1 and ĥ2 .
Up to applying the Strong Separation Lemma 3.2, we can further assume
that ĥ3 and ĥ4 are strongly separated. Let H := Stab(ĥ3 ) ∩ Stab(ĥ4 ). Then
H stabilises the bridge between ĥ3 and ĥ4 , which is a single interval by
Lemma 3.7 since ĥ3 and ĥ4 are strongly separated. As intervals are finite,
H virtually fixes a geodesic between ĥ3 and ĥ4 . As ĥ3 and ĥ4 are in opposite
sectors determined by ĥ1 and ĥ2 , such a geodesic crosses both ĥ1 and ĥ2 .
Thus, H is virtually contained in Stab(ĥ1 ) ∩ Stab(ĥ2 ), hence H is finite,
which is what we wanted.
Thus, let ĥ1 and ĥ2 be two disjoint hyperplanes whose stabilisers intersect
along a finite subgroup. By Lemma 3.5, we choose an element g of G that
double-skewers ĥ1 and ĥ2 , and such that ĥ1 and gĥ1 are über-separated.
Then according to Lemma 3.9 the element g is an über-contraction, proving
(i). Let x be a point of the bridge between ĥ1 and ĥ2 , and choose a geodesic
γ between x and g 2 x. We have that γ crosses g ĥ1 and gĥ2 . Since intervals in
a finite dimensional CAT(0) cube complex are finite, a subgroup fixing both
x and g 2 x virtually fixes γ pointwise. It follows that Stab(x) ∩ Stab(g2 x) is
virtually contained in a conjugate of Stab(ĥ1 )∩Stab(ĥ2 ), which is finite. This
proves (ii) , and Proposition 2.3 implies that G is either virtually cyclic or
acylindrically hyperbolic. The action being non-elementarily, the virtually
cyclic case is automatically ruled out, which concludes the proof.

Proof of Corollaries 1.3 and 1.4. Since Corollary 1.4 is a direct consequence
of Corollary 1.3, let us assume that the group G acts essentially, nonelementarily, and non-uniformly weakly acylindrically (with a constant L as
in the statement) on the irreducible finite-dimensional CAT(0) cube complex
X. By the Strong Separation Lemma 3.2, choose two disjoint hyperplanes
ĥ1 and ĥ2 . This implies that the combinatorial bridge between ĥ1 and ĥ2
is not reduced to a point. Moreover, the subgroup Stab(ĥ1 ) ∩ Stab(ĥ2 ) is
virtually contained in the pointwise stabiliser of the finite bridge between
ĥ1 and ĥ2 by Lemma 3.7.
By the Double-Skewering Lemma 3.2, choose a group element g that
skewers both ĥ1 and ĥ2 . For n large enough, ĥ1 and gn ĥ1 are über-separated,
and the distance between ĥ1 and gn ĥ1 becomes greater than L by Lemma
3.7. In particular, Stab(ĥ1 ) ∩ Stab(g n ĥ1 ) virtually fixes a path of length L,
hence Stab(ĥ1 ) ∩ Stab(gn ĥ1 ) is finite by weak acylindricity. Corollary 1.3
now follows from Theorem 1.1.


ACYLINDRICAL HYPERBOLICITY AND CAT(0) CUBE COMPLEXES

9

Theorem 1.1 allows for a very simple geometric proof of the acylindrical
hyperbolicity of certain groups:
Example 3.10. The Higman group on n ≥ 4 generators, defined by the
following presentation:
2
Hn := hai , i ∈ Z/nZ | ai ai+1 a−1
i = ai+1 , i ∈ Z/nZi,

was proved to be acylindrically hyperbolic by Minasyan–Osin [MO15], by
means of its action on the Bass–Serre tree associated to some splitting.
The Higman also acts cocompactly, essentially, and non-elementarily on
a CAT(0) square complex associated to its standard presentation. That
CAT(0) square complex is irreducible, as links of vertices are easily shown
not to be complete bipartite graphs (see [Mar16b, Corollary 4.6]). Since
square stabilisers are trivial by construction, the stabilisers of two crossing hyperplanes intersect along a finite (actually, trivial) subgroup. Thus,
Theorem 1.1 applies.
4. Proof of Theorem 1.5
Definition 4.1. Let X be CAT(0) cube complex and C, C ′ two cubes of
X. We say that C and C ′ separate a pair of hyperplanes if there exist two
hyperplanes ĥ, ĥ′ of X such that each hyperplane defined by an edge of
C ∪ C ′ separates ĥ and ĥ′ .
Theorem 1.5 will be a consequence of the following more general result:
Theorem 4.2. Let G be a group acting essentially and non-elementarily on
a finite dimensional irreducible CAT(0) cube complex. Assume that there
exist two maximal cubes C, C ′ of X whose stabilisers intersect along a finite
subgroup, and such that C and C ′ separate a pair of hyperplanes. Then G
is acylindrically hyperbolic.
Proof. Let HC,C ′ be the set of hyperplanes defined by the edges of C ∪
T
C ′ . Since C and C ′ are maximal cubes, we have that k̂∈H ′ Stab(k̂) is
C,C
T
contained in Stab(C) ∩ Stab(C ′ ), and it follows that k̂∈H ′ Stab(k̂) is
C,C
finite.
By assumption, choose two disjoint halfspaces h, h′ separated by each
hyperplane of HC,C ′ . Up to applying the Strong Separation Lemma 3.2,
we can further assume that h and h′ are strongly separated. In particular,
since the bridge between h and h′ is finite by Lemma 3.7, it follows that
Stab(ĥ) ∩ Stab(ĥ′ ) is virtually contained in the pointwise stabiliser of a
geodesic between the two gates of the bridge b(ĥ, ĥ′ ). As such a geodesic
crosses each hyperplane of HC,C ′ by construction of h, h′ , it follows that
T
Stab(ĥ) ∩ Stab(ĥ′ ) is virtually contained in k̂∈H ′ Stab(k̂), which is finite
C,C

by the above argument. Thus, Stab(h) ∩ Stab(h′ ) is finite, and we conclude
with Theorem 1.1.


10

INDIRA CHATTERJI AND ALEXANDRE MARTIN

The following proposition gives a class of examples of CAT(0) cube complexes where each pair of cubes separates a pair of hyperplanes:
Proposition 4.3. Let X be an irreducible CAT(0) cube complex without
free face, and such that Aut(X) acts cocompactly on X. Then each pair of
cubes separates a pair of hyperplanes.
Remark 4.4. The following example, due to Talia Fernós, shows that
the no-free-face assumption is necessary in Proposition 4.3. Take a
3-dimensional cube [0, 1]3 and glue an edge to each of the vertices
(1, 0, 0), (0, 1, 0), (0, 0, 1) and (1, 1, 1) to get a spiked cube. Then glue infinitely many of these spiked cubes in a tree-like way, to obtain a cocompact
CAT(0) cube complex X which is quasi-isometric to a tree. Then none of
the 3-cubes of that complex is separating a pair of hyperplanes. Indeed,
each 3-cube has three hyperplanes defining it, hence it defines eight sectors,
out of which four contain hyperplanes and four are reduced to a single point,
but among the sectors containing hyperplanes, no two are opposite.
Before proving Proposition 4.3, we start by a simple observation:
Lemma 4.5. A CAT(0) cube complex with no free face is geodesically complete, that is, every finite geodesic can be extended to a bi-infinite geodesic.
Proof. Let γ be a finite geodesic defined by a sequence e1 , . . . , en of edges
of X and let v be the terminal vertex of that finite geodesic. We will show
that we can extend it by one edge. Let E denote the set of edges of X,
containing v and such that γ followed by e ∈ E is not a geodesic. Then,
every e ∈ E has to be parallel to one of the edges ei defining γ, that is, every
e ∈ E defines a hyperplane ĥe crossed by γ. Moreover, the map e 7→ ĥe is
injective as two adjacent edges cannot belong to the same hyperplane, and
any two ĥe , ĥe′ intersect. Indeed, for an edge e to belong to E it means
that γ has been traveling on the carrier of the hyperplane defined by some
ei after having crossed ei , and that can be done simultaneously for several
hyperplanes only when they cross each other. Hence E defines a cube in X,
and since there are no free faces there is an edge e containing v and that
does not belong to E, allowing us to extend by one edge the geodesic γ. 
We will also need the following strengthening of the Sector Lemma:
Lemma 4.6 (Strong Sector Lemma). Let X be a CAT(0) cube complex with
no free face, and assume that the automorphism group of X acts cocompactly
on X. Then each sector determined by a finite family of pairwise crossing
hyperplanes contains a hyperplane.
Proof. We prove the result by induction on the number n ≥ 2 of pairwise
crossing hyperplanes. For n = 2, the result follows from [Sag14, Proposition
3.3], since a CAT(0) cube complex with no free face is geodesically complete
by Lemma 4.5. Let ĥ1 , . . . , ĥn be a family of pairwise crossing hyperplanes,

ACYLINDRICAL HYPERBOLICITY AND CAT(0) CUBE COMPLEXES

11

and let hi be a halfspace associated
to ĥi for every i. We want to construct
T
a hyperplane contained in i hi .
By Helly’s theorem, the family (ĥi ∩ ĥ1 )i6=1 defines a family of pairwise
crossing hyperplanes of ĥ1 . Note that ĥ1 also satisfies the property of having
no free face, and the action of Stab(ĥ1 ) on ĥ1 is cocompact, as the same holds
for the action of Aut(X) on X. Thus, one can apply the induction hypothesis
T
to find a hyperplane ĥ′ of ĥ1 contained in the sector i6=1 (ĥ1 ∩ hi ). This
defines a hyperplane of X, which we denote ĥ. Since ĥ′ is disjoint from the
ĥ1 ∩ ĥi for i 6= 1, it follows from Helly’s theorem that ĥ is disjoint
from the
T
ĥi for i 6= 1. Thus, let h be the halfspace of ĥ contained in i6=1 hi . Since
ĥ and ĥ1 cross, we can choose by the induction
hypothesis a hyperplane
T
contained in the sector h ∩ h1 , hence in i hi .


Proof of Proposition 4.3. It is enough to prove the proposition when C and
C ′ are maximal. Choose x and x′ vertices of C, C ′ respectively that maximize the distance between vertices of C and C ′ . Let HC , HC ′ be the family
of hyperplanes defined by an edge of C, C ′ respectively. By the Strong
Sector Lemma 4.6, each sector determined by HC or HC ′ contains a hyperplane. Thus, choose a hyperplane ĥ (ĥ′ respectively) in the unique sector
determined by HC (HC ′ respectively) that contains x (x′ respectively). By
construction of x and x′ , we have that x and x′ are in opposite sectors
defined by HC , and in opposite sectors determined by HC ′ . In particular,
every hyperplane of HC,C ′ separates x and x′ , hence separates ĥ and ĥ′ . 
Proof of Theorem 1.5. Theorem 1.5 is a direct consequence of Theorem 4.2
and Proposition 4.3.

Theorem 1.5 allows for a very simple geometric proof of the acylindrical
hyperbolicity of certain groups:
Example 4.7. The group of tame automorphisms of an affine quadric threefold, a subgroup of the 3-dimensional Cremona group Bir(P3 (C)), acts cocompactly, essentially and non-elementarily on a hyperbolic CAT(0) cube
complex without free face [BFL14]. The second author showed that there
exist two cubes whose stabilisers intersect along a finite subgroup [Mar16a,
Proof of Theorem 3.1], hence Theorem 1.5 applies.
5. Artin groups of type FC

We now give an application of our results to the class of Artin groups of
FC type, studied by Charney and Davis in [CD95] and that we now describe.
Recall that a Coxeter graph is a finite, simplicial graph Γ with vertex set S
and edges labeled by integers greater or equal to 2. The label of the edge
connecting two vertices s and t is denoted m(s, t), and we set m(s, t) = ∞
if s and t are not connected by an edge. The Artin group associated to a

12

INDIRA CHATTERJI AND ALEXANDRE MARTIN

Coxeter graph Γ is the group given by the presentation:
*
A=

+

S| sts
| {z. .}. |s, t connected by an edge with label m(s, t) .
| {z. .}. = tst
m(s,t)

m(s,t)

Adding the extra relations s2 = 1 for all s ∈ S, we obtain a Coxeter group
W as a quotient of A. We say that A is finite type if the associated Coxeter
group W is finite. It was shown in [vdL83] that, if T ⊆ S, the subgroup
AT generated by T is isomorphic to the Artin group associated to the full
subgraph of Γ spanned by T . Such subgroups are called special subgroups
of A. Following Charney–Davis, we say that an Artin group is of FC type if
every complete subgraph of the Coxeter graph Γ generates a special subgroup
of finite type.
Given an Artin group A, the Deligne complex DA is the cubical complex
defined as follows: Vertices of DA correspond to cosets aAT , where a ∈ A
and T ⊆ S. Note that we allow T = ∅, in which case aAT = {a}. The
1 of D is obtained by putting an edge between cosets of the
1-skeleton DA
A
form aAT and aAT ′ , when T ′ = T ∪ {t′ } for some t′ ∈ S \ T . In particular,
each edge of DA is labeled by an element of S. Finally, DA is obtained by
1 contains a
“filling the cubes”, that is, by glueing a k-cube whenever DA
subgraph isomorphic to the 1-skeleton of a k-cube.
In [CD95] Theorem 4.3.5 Charney and Davis show that the Deligne complex DA of an Artin group A is a CAT(0) cube complex if and only if A is of
FC type. Edges and hyperplanes in this CAT(0) cube complex are labeled
by elements of S. Moreover, each hyperplane is a translate of a hyperplane
ĥs for some s ∈ S, where ĥs denotes the hyperplane defined by the edge
between {1} and A{s} . It is straightforward to check that the stabiliser of
ĥs is the special subgroup Alk(s) of A determined by the link of the vertex
s in Γ.
The dimension of an Artin group is the maximum cardinality of a subset
T ⊆ S such that AT is finite type, and it is equal to the dimension of DA .
In particular, DA is finite dimensional since the graph Γ is finite. The Artin
group A acts by left multiplication on the aforementioned cosets, and hence
acts by isometries on DA . Since Γ is finite, the action is cocompact. The
stabilizer of a vertex aAT of DA is the subgroup aAT a−1 . In particular, the
action is not proper if Γ is non-empty.
The action satisfies the following:
Proposition 5.1. Let A be an Artin group of type FC associated to a Coxeter graph Γ of diameter at least 3. Then the Deligne complex DA is irreducible and the action of A on DA is essential and non-elementary.
The proof will take most of this section. We can assume that Γ is connected for otherwise A is a free product, DA has a structure of a tree of
spaces, and the result follows. We check separately the irreducibility of the

ACYLINDRICAL HYPERBOLICITY AND CAT(0) CUBE COMPLEXES

13

Deligne complex, the essentiality of the action, and the non-elementarity of
the action.
Lemma 5.2. The CAT(0) cube complex DA is irreducible.
Proof. Consider the vertex {1} of DA , where 1 denotes the identity element.
The labeling of the edges of DA yields a surjective map lk({1}) → Γ. As Γ
has diameter at least 3, so does lk({1}), and it follows that lk({1}) is not a
join, hence DA is an irreducible CAT(0) cube complex.

Lemma 5.3. The action of A on DA is essential.
Proof. Since the action is cocompact, it is enough to show that each hyperplane is essential, that is, no half-space is contained in a neighbourhood
of the other halfspace. As each hyperplane is a translate of some ĥs , it is
enough to show that this is the case for hyperplanes of the form ĥs , where
s ∈ S. Let s0 be a vertex of Γ. Since Γ is connected and has diameter
at least 3, we can find two distinct vertices s1 , s2 of Γ such that s0 , s1 , s2
defines a geodesic of Γ. Then the hyperplane ĥs1 is in particular stabilized
by A{s0 ,s2 } . Thus, to show that ĥs0 is essential, it is enough to show that
ĥs1 is unbounded and crosses ĥs0 . Let Cs0 ,s1 , Cs1 ,s2 be the squares of DA
containing the vertices {1}, A{s0 } , A{s1 } and {1}, A{s1 } , A{s2 } respectively.
Notice that the edge between A{s0 } and A{s0 ,s1 } has stabiliser A{s0 } , and
the edge between A{s2 } and A{s1 ,s2 } has stabiliser A{s2 } . Thus, the A{s0 ,s2 } orbit Y of Cs0 ,s1 ∪ Cs1 ,s2 defines a subcomplex of DA that is convex for the
CAT(0) metric and quasi-isometric to a tree. Moreover, every point of Y
contained in a half-space of ĥs0 projects on the other half-space to a point
of Cs0 ,s1 ∪ Cs1 ,s2 . In particular, each half-space of ĥs0 contains points of Y
arbitrarily far away from the other half-space, hence ĥs0 is essential.

Lemma 5.4. The action of A on DA is non-elementary.
The proof of this lemma requires some preliminary work. Since Γ has
diameter at least 3, let s0 , s1 , s2 , s3 be a geodesic of Γ.
Lemma 5.5. Let g := s0 s3 . Then g is a hyperbolic element and admits an
axis Λg (for the CAT(0) metric) that is a reunion of geodesic segments such
that two consecutive segments make an angle strictly greater than π (for the
angular distance on the link).
Proof. For i = 0 or 3, we denote by ei the edge between the vertices
{1} and
S
−1
A{si } of DA . Let Y := s0 e0 ∪ e0 ∪ e3 ∪ s3 e3 . Then Λg := n∈Z gn Y is a
CAT(0) geodesic, and an axis for g. Indeed, we have the following properties
of angles between consecutive edges:
• The angle (for the angular distance on the link) between e0 and e3
is 3π/2 > π by construction of s0 , s1 , s2 , s3 .
• The angle between e0 and s−1
0 e0 (between e3 and s3 e3 respectively)
is π: Indeed, the angle is at most π by construction, and if the angle

14

INDIRA CHATTERJI AND ALEXANDRE MARTIN

were π/2, then since DA is a CAT(0) cube complex ei and si ei would
be two adjacent edges of a 3-cube with label ei , which is impossible
by construction of DA .
Thus, Λg is a local geodesic, hence a global geodesic. Moreover, Λg is clearly
invariant under the action of hgi, and the angle made by Λg at every hgitranslate of the vertex {1} ∈ DA is 3π/2.

To show that g is a rank-one element, we need the following modified
version of the Flat Strip Theorem:
Lemma 5.6 (Flat “Half-strip” Theorem). Let Y be a CAT(0) space, let Λ be
a geodesic line, and let h be an isometry of Y preserving Λ. Let y ∈ ∂Y \ ∂Λ
and let γ be a geodesic ray from a point x of Λ to y, which meets Λ in
exactly one point. If γ and hγ are asymptotic, then the convex hull of γ ∪ hγ
isometrically embeds in R2 with its standard CAT(0) metric.
Proof. Let us construct a ‘double’ of Y as follows. Let o ∈ Λ be the midpoint
between x and hx. Such a choice allows to define (uniquely) a reflection ψ
of Λ across o which is an isometry of Λ. We then define
Y ′ = (Y ⊔ Y )/ψ,
i.e. the space obtained from two copies of Y by identifying the two copies
of Λ using the reflection ψ. As a convention, we denote by Y1 and Y2 these
copies, we use the subscript · · ·i to indicate to which copy of Y the object
belongs, and we identify Y with the subspace Y1 of Y ′ . The space Y ′ is
again a CAT(0) space (as obtained from two CAT(0) spaces by identifying
two convex subspaces along an isometry). Note that γ ⊂ Y is a subray
of γ1 ∪ (hγ)2 and hγ ⊂ Y is a subray of (hγ)1 ∪ γ2 . Moreover, we have
constructed Y ′ so that γ1 ∪ (hγ)2 and (hγ)1 ∪ γ2 are local geodesics of Y ′ ,
hence global geodesics of Y ′ . As these geodesic lines are asymptotic by
construction, it follows that their geodesic hull is a flat strip, by the Flat
Strip Theorem [BH99, Theorem II.2.13]. In particular, the geodesic hull of
γ ∪ hγ in Y isometrically embeds in R2 .

We can now prove:
Lemma 5.7. The only points of ∂DA fixed by g are its two limit points
g+∞ , g −∞ ∈ ∂Λg .
Proof. Let z ∈ ∂DA \ {g+∞ , g−∞ } and let γ ′ be a geodesic ray from Λg
to z that meets Λg in exactly one point. If gz = z, then γ ′ and g2 γ ′ are
asymptotic geodesic rays, hence the convex hull H of γ ′ ∪ g2 γ ′ isometrically
embeds in R2 by the Flat Half-strip Theorem 5.6. But γ and g2 γ ′ both
meet Λg in exactly one point, and by construction H contains two geodesic
subsegments of Λg which make an angle 3π/2 for the angular distance on
the link. This yields the desired contradiction.

Proof of Lemma 5.4. First notice that one could have proved the above
lemma for the element h := s20 s3 by applying exactly the same reasoning. If

ACYLINDRICAL HYPERBOLICITY AND CAT(0) CUBE COMPLEXES

15

A were to admit a finite orbit at infinity, then some power of g and some
power of h would fix a common point at infinity. But the axes of g and h
cannot be asymptotic for otherwise, being already distinct, Λg and Λh would
bound a flat strip of positive width by the Flat Strip Theorem 5.6, and the
same reasoning as above would yield a contradiction.

Proof of Proposition 5.1. This is a direct consequences of Lemmas 5.2, 5.3,
and 5.4.

We are now ready to apply Theorem 1.1 to the action of A on DA in order
to complete the proof of Theorem 1.2.
Proof of Theorem 1.2. It is enough to consider the case where Γ is connected, for otherwise the group is a free product. According to the previous
lemma, the action of A on its Deligne complex DA is essential and nonelementary. In order to apply Theorem 1.1 to the action of A on DA , we
choose two vertices s, t of S with disjoint links, which is possible since Γ has
diameter at least 3. It follows from the aforementioned result of [vdL83] that
Alk(s) ∩ Alk(t) = A∅ = {1}. Thus, the hyperplanes ĥs and ĥt have stabilisers
which intersect trivially, hence Theorem 1.1 applies and A is acylindrically
hyperbolic.

References
[BBF14] M. Bestvina, K. Bromberg, and K. Fujiwara. Constructing group actions on
quasi-trees and applications to mapping class groups. Publ. Math. Inst. Hautes
Études Sci., in press, 2014.
[BC12] J. Behrstock and R. Charney. Divergence and quasimorphisms of right-angled
Artin groups. Math. Ann., 352(2):339–356, 2012.
[BFL14] C. Bisi, J.-P. Furter, and S. Lamy. The tame automorphism group of an affine
quadric threefold acting on a square complex. Journal de l’Ecole Polytechnique,
1:161–223, 2014.
[BH99] M. R. Bridson and A. Haefliger. Metric spaces of non-positive curvature, volume
319 of Grundlehren der Mathematischen Wissenschaften [Fundamental Principles of Mathematical Sciences]. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1999.
[BM00] M. Burger and S. Mozes. Lattices in product of trees. Inst. Hautes Études Sci.
Publ. Math., (92):151–194 (2001), 2000.
[Bow08] B. H. Bowditch. Tight geodesics in the curve complex. Invent. Math.,
171(2):281–300, 2008.
[CD95] R. Charney and M. W. Davis. The K(π, 1)-problem for hyperplane complements
associated to infinite reflection groups. J. Amer. Math. Soc., 8(3):597–627, 1995.
[CFI16] I. Chatterji, T. Fernós, and A. Iozzi. The median class and superrigidity of
actions on CAT(0) cube complexes. J. Topol., 9(2):349–400, 2016.
[CL13]
S. Cantat and S. Lamy. Normal subgroups in the Cremona group. Acta Math.,
210(1):31–94, 2013. With an appendix by Yves de Cornulier.
[CS11]
P.-E. Caprace and M. Sageev. Rank rigidity for CAT(0) cube complexes. Geom.
Funct. Anal., 21(4):851–891, 2011.
[CW16] M. Calvez and B. Wiest. Acylindrical hyperbolicity and Artin-Tits groups of
spherical type. arXiv:1606.07778, 2016.
[Far08] D. Farley. The action of Thompson’s group on a CAT(0) boundary. Groups
Geom. Dyn., 2(2):185–222, 2008.

16

INDIRA CHATTERJI AND ALEXANDRE MARTIN

[Gen16a] A. Genevois. Coning-off CAT(0) cube complexes. arXiv:1603.06513, 2016.
[Gen16b] A. Genevois. Acylindrical action on the hyperplanes of a CAT(0) cube complex.
arXiv:1610.08759, 2016.
[Hag07] F. Haglund. Isometries of CAT(0) cube complexes are semi-simple. available at
https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00148515v1, 2007.
[Lon16] A. Lonjou. Non simplicité du groupe de Cremona sur tout corps. Ann. Inst.
Fourier (Grenoble), 66(5):2021–2046, 2016.
[Mar15] A. Martin. Acylindrical actions on CAT(0) square complexes. arXiv:
1509.03131, 2015.
[Mar16a] A. Martin. On the acylindrical hyperbolicity of the tame automorphism group
of SL2 (C). arXiv:1512.07526 , 2016.
[Mar16b] A. Martin. On the cubical geometry of Higman’s group. Duke. Math. J., in
press, 2016.
[MO15] A. Minasyan and D. Osin. Acylindrical hyperbolicity of groups acting on trees.
Math. Ann., 362(3-4):1055–1105, 2015.
[Osi06] D. V. Osin. Relatively hyperbolic groups: intrinsic geometry, algebraic properties, and algorithmic problems. Mem. Amer. Math. Soc., 179(843):vi+100,
2006.
[Osi16] D. Osin. Acylindrically hyperbolic groups. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 368(2):851–
888, 2016.
[Sag14] M. Sageev. CAT(0) cube complexes and groups. In Geometric group theory, volume 21 of IAS/Park City Math. Ser., pages 7–54. Amer. Math. Soc., Providence,
RI, 2014.
[vdL83] H. van der Lek. The homotopy type of complex hyperplane complements. Ph.D.
Thesis, University of Nijmegen, 1983.
Laboratoire de Mathématiques J.A. Dieudonné, Université de Nice Sophia
Antipolis, Parc Valrose, 06108 Nice Cedex 02, France
indira.chatterji@math.cnrs.fr
Department of Mathematics and the Maxwell Institute for Mathematical
Sciences, Heriot-Watt University, Riccarton, EH14 4AS Edinburgh, United
Kingdom
alexandre.martin@hw.ac.uk

