Acylindrical action on the hyperplanes of a CAT(0) cube
complex
Anthony Genevois
October 28, 2016

arXiv:1610.08759v1 [math.GR] 27 Oct 2016

Abstract
We prove that if a group acts essentially and acylindrically on the hyperplanes of
a finite-dimensional CAT(0) cube complex then it is either acylindrically hyperbolic or
virtually cyclic. An action on a CAT(0) cube complex is acylindrical on the hyperplanes if
the intersection of the stabilisers of two hyperplanes which are sufficiently far away from
each other has its cardinality uniformly bounded.

1

Introduction

A group G is acylindrically hyperbolic [Osi13] if it admits an action on a Gromovhyperbolic space X which is non-elementary (ie., with a infinite limit set) and acylindrical, ie., for every d ≥ 0, there exist some R, N ≥ 0 such that, for all x, y ∈ X,
d(x, y) ≥ R ⇒ #{g ∈ G | d(x, gx), d(y, gy) ≤ d} ≤ N .
This definition, due to Bowditch (see [Bow06]), essentially generalises the acylindrical
actions on trees introduced by Sela [Sel97]. In this context, the acylindricity reduces to
the weak acylindricity: there exist some constants R, N ≥ 0 such that, for all x, y ∈ X,
d(x, y) ≥ R ⇒ |stab(x) ∩ stab(y)| ≤ N .
Generalising [Mar15, Theorem A], we proved in [Gen16a, Theorem 8.33] that a similar equivalence holds for (hyperbolic) CAT(0) cube complexes, usually considered as
generalised trees in higher dimensions.
Theorem 1. [Gen16a] An action on a hyperbolic CAT(0) cube complex is acylindrical
if and only if it is weakly acylindrical.
As a consequence, a group acting weakly acylindrically on a hyperbolic CAT(0) cube
complex is acylindrically hyperbolic (or virtually cyclic). Recently, Chatterji and Martin
improved this corollary:
Theorem 2. [CM16] A group acting essentially, without fixed point at infinity and
(non-uniformly) weakly acylindrically on a finite-dimensional irreducible CAT(0) cube
complex is either acylindrically hyperbolic or virtually cyclic.
Recall that an action on a CAT(0) cube complex is essential whenever the orbit of
any vertex does not lie in the neighborhood of some hyperplane, and that a CAT(0)
cube complex is irreducible if it does not split as a cartesian product of two unbounded
factors. As suggested by the work of Caprace and Sageev [CS11], irreducible CAT(0)
cube complexes may be thought of as cube complexes with a hyperbolic behaviour,
justifying the previous result.

1

In fact, we gave in [Gen16a] another equivalent condition to the acylindricity of an action
on a hyperbolic CAT(0) cube complex. Let us say that a group acts acylindrically on
the hyperplanes of a CAT(0) cube complex if there exist R, N ≥ 1 such that, for every
hyperplanes J1 , J2 separated by at least R other hyperplanes, |stab(J1 ) ∩ stab(J2 )| ≤ N .
Theorem 3. [Gen16a] An action on a hyperbolic CAT(0) cube complex is acylindrical
if and only if it is acylindrical on the hyperplanes.
In general, being acylindrical on the hyperplanes is stronger than being weakly acylindrical (see Lemma 27), but this hypothesis allows us to simplify the assumptions of
Theorem 2:
Theorem 4. Let G be a group acting essentially on a finite-dimensional CAT(0) cube
complex. If the action is acylindrical on the hyperplanes, then G is either acylindrically
hyperbolic or virtually cyclic.
This is the main result of this paper. For convenience, we introduce the following
terminology. An action is
• non-uniformly acylindrical on the hyperplanes if there exists some constant R ≥ 1
such that, for every hyperplanes J1 , J2 separated by at least R other hyperplanes,
stab(J1 ) ∩ stab(J2 ) is finite;
• non-uniformly weakly acylindrical if there exists R ≥ 0 such that, for all x, y ∈ X,
d(x, y) ≥ R implies |stab(x) ∩ stab(y)| < +∞;
• non-uniformly acylindrical if, for every d ≥ 0, there exists some constant R ≥ 0
such that, for all x, y ∈ X,
d(x, y) ≥ R ⇒ #{g ∈ G | d(x, gx), d(y, gy) ≤ d} < +∞.
In fact, Theorem 2 is the first step of our proof of Theorem 4. We will give two different
alternative proofs of this result, which we think to be of independent interest. As a
consequence of Theorem 4, we deduce (see Section 6 for precise definitions):
Proposition 5. If a finitely-generated group contains a finitely-generated codimensionone subgroup which has uniformly finite height and which satisfies the bounded packing
property, then G is either acylindrically hyperbolic or virtually cyclic.
Corollary 6. Let G be a finitely-generated group acting essentially on a uniformly locally
finite CAT(0) cube complex X. If X contains a hyperplane whose stabiliser is finitelygenerated and has uniformly finite height then G is either acylindrically hyperbolic or
virtually cyclic.
The paper is organised as follows. In Section 2, we begin by giving some preliminaries
on CAT(0) cube complexes, needed in the sequel. Then, we study WPD contracting
isometries in Section 3, and give the first proof of Theorem 2. It is worth noticing that
the main result of this section produces also an alternative proof of [CM16, Theorem
1.1]; see Remark 21. The second proof of Theorem 2 is given in Section 4, thanks to a
non-uniformly acylindrical action on the contact graph. Finally, Section 5 is dedicated to
the proof of Theorem 4, and its consequences on codimension-one subgroups are studied
in Section 6.

2

2

Preliminaries

A cube complex is a CW complex constructed by gluing together cubes of arbitrary
(finite) dimension by isometries along their faces. Furthermore, it is nonpositively curved
if the link of any of its vertices is a simplicial flag complex (ie., n + 1 vertices span a
n-simplex if and only if they are pairwise adjacent), and CAT(0) if it is nonpositively
curved and simply-connected. See [BH99, page 111] for more information.
A fundamental feature of cube complexes is the notion of hyperplane. Let X be a
nonpositively curved cube complex. Formally, a hyperplane J is an equivalence class of
edges, where two edges e and f are equivalent whenever there exists a sequence of edges
e = e0 , e1 , . . . , en−1 , en = f where ei and ei+1 are parallel sides of some square in X.
Notice that a hyperplane is uniquely determined by one of its edges, so if e ∈ J we say
that J is the hyperplane dual to e. Geometrically, a hyperplane J is rather thought of
as the union of the midcubes transverse to the edges belonging to J.

The neighborhood N (J) of a hyperplane J is the smallest subcomplex of X containing
J, i.e., the union of the cubes intersecting J. In the following, ∂N (J) will denote
the union of the cubes of X contained in N (J) but not intersecting J, and X\\J =
(X\N (J)) ∪ ∂N (J). Notice that N (J) and X\\J are subcomplexes of X.
Theorem 7. [Sag95, Theorem 4.10] Let X be a CAT(0) cube complex and J a hyperplane. Then X\\J has exactly two connected components.
The two connected components of X\\J will be referred to as the halfspaces associated
to the hyperplane J.
Distances `p . There exist several natural metrics on a CAT(0) cube complex. For
example, for any p ∈ (0, +∞), the `p -norm defined on each cube can be extended to a
distance defined on the whole complex, the `p -metric. Usually, the `1 -metric is referred
to as the combinatorial distance and the `2 -metric as the CAT(0) distance. Indeed, a
CAT(0) cube complex endowed with its CAT(0) distance turns out to be a CAT(0) space
[Lea13, Theorem C.9], and the combinatorial distance between two vertices corresponds
to the graph metric associated to the 1-skeleton X (1) . In particular, combinatorial
geodesics are edge-paths of minimal length, and a subcomplex is combinatorially convex
if it contains any combinatorial geodesic between two of its points.
In fact, the combinatorial metric and the hyperplanes are strongly linked together:
the combinatorial distance between two vertices corresponds exactly to the number of
hyperplanes separating them [Hag08, Theorem 2.7], and
Theorem 8. [Hag08, Corollary 2.16] Let X be a CAT(0) cube complex and J a hyperplane. The two components of X\\J are combinatorially convex, as well as the
components of ∂N (J).

3

The `∞ -metric, denoted by d∞ , is also of particular interest. Alternatively, given
a CAT(0) cube complex X, the distance d∞ between two vertices corresponds to the
distance associated to the graph obtained from X (1) by adding an edge between two
vertices whenever they belong to a common cube. Nevertheless, the distance we obtain
stays strongly related to the combinatorial structure of X:
Proposition 9. [BvdV91, Corollary 2.5] Let X be a CAT(0) cube complex and x, y ∈ X
two vertices. Then d∞ (x, y) is the maximal number of pairwise disjoint hyperplanes
separating x and y.
Combinatorial projection In CAT(0) spaces, and so in particular in CAT(0) cube
complexes with respect to the CAT(0) distance, the existence of a well-defined projection
onto a given convex subspace provides a useful tool. Similarly, with respect to the
combinatorial distance, it is possible to introduce a combinatorial projection onto a
combinatorially convex subcomplex, defined by the following result.
Proposition 10. [Gen15, Lemma 1.2.3] Let X be a CAT(0) cube complex, C ⊂ X be a
combinatorially convex subspace and x ∈ X\C be a vertex. Then there exists a unique
vertex y ∈ C minimizing the distance to x. Moreover, for any vertex of C, there exists
a combinatorial geodesic from it to x passing through y.
The following proposition will be especially useful:
Proposition 11. [Gen16b, Proposition 2.6] Let X be a CAT(0) cube complex, C a
combinatorially convex subspace, p : X → C the combinatorial projection onto C and
x, y ∈ X two vertices. The hyperplanes separating p(x) and p(y) are precisely the hyperplanes separating x and y which intersect C.
Definition 12. Let L ≥ 0. Two hyperplanes are L-well-separated if any collection
of hyperplanes intersecting both our two hyperplanes, and which does not contain any
facing triple (ie., three hyperplanes such that each one does not separate the two others),
has cardinality at most L. Moreover, they are
• well-separated if they are L-well-separated for some L ≥ 0;
• strongly separated if they are 0-well-separated.
Now, it is possible to characterize the well-separation thanks to the combinatorial projection:
Proposition 13. Let J, H be two hyperplanes and let p : X → N (J) denote the combinatorial projections onto N (J). Then J and H are L-well-separated if and only if
p(N (H)) has diameter at most L.
Proof. Suppose first that J and H are L-well-separated. Let x, y ∈ N (H) be two vertices
and let H denote the set of the hyperplanes separating them. According to Proposition
11, any hyperplanes separating p(x) and p(y) separates x and y. Therefore, H defines
a family of hyperplanes intersecting both J and H which does not contain any facing
triple, hence
d(x, y) = #H ≤ L.
We have proved that p(N (H)) has diameter at most L.
Conversely, suppose that p(N (H)) has diameter at most L, and let H be a finite family
of hyperplanes intersecting both J and H which does not contain any facing triple.
If x, y ∈ N (H) are two vertices separated by each hyperplane of H, it follows from
Proposition 11 that each hyperplane of H separates p(x) and p(y), hence
4

#H ≤ d(p(x), p(y)) ≤ diam(p(N (H))) ≤ L.
We have proved that J and H are L-well-separated.
Combinatorial isometries of CAT(0) cube complexes. Let X be a CAT(0) cube
complex and g ∈ Isom(X) an isometry. As a consequence of [Hag07], we know that
exactly one the following possibilities must happen:
• g is elliptic, ie., g stabilises a cube of X;
• g is loxodromic, ie., there exists a bi-infinite combinatorial geodesic on which hgi
acts by translations.
Naturally, if g is loxodromic, we call an axis of g a bi-infinite combinatorial geodesic
γ on which hgi acts by translations. We denote by H(γ) the set of the hyperplanes
intersecting γ.
We will say that an isometry is quasiconvex if it admits a quasiconvex combinatorial
axis. Recall from [Gen16b, Proposition 3.3] that:
Proposition 14. [Gen16b] A bi-infinite combinatorial geodesic γ is quasiconvex if and
only if the join of hyperplanes in H(γ) are uniformly thin.
A join of hyperplanes (H, V) is the data of two collections of hyperplanes which do not
contain any facing triple so that any hyperplane of H is transverse to any hyperplane of
V. It is C-thin if min(#H, #V) ≤ C.

3

WPD contracting isometries

If a group G acts on a metric space (S, d), and if g ∈ G, we say that g is WPD if, for
every d ≥ 0 and x ∈ S, there exists some m ≥ 1 such that
{h ∈ G | d(x, hx), d(g m x, hg m x) ≤ d}
is finite. In [Osi13, Theorem 1.2], Osin proves that a group is acylindrically hyperbolic
if and only if it not virtually cyclic and it acts on a Gromov-hyperbolic space with a
WPD loxodromic isometry. This caracterization was generalised in [BBF14, Theorem
H] by Bestvina, Bromberg and Fujiwara as:
Theorem 15. [BBF14] If a group acts on a metric space with a contracting isometry,
then it is either virtually cyclic or acylindrically hyperbolic.
Recall that, given a metric space X, an isometry g ∈ X is contracting if
• g is loxodromic, ie., there exists x0 ∈ X such that n 7→ g n · x0 defines a quasiisometric embedding Z → X;
• if Cg = {g n · x0 | n ∈ Z}, then the diameter of the nearest-point projection of any
ball disjoint from Cg onto Cg is uniformly bounded.
For instance, any loxodromic isometry of a Gromov-hyperbolic space is contracting.
In [Gen16b, Theorem 3.13], we characterized contracting isometries of CAT(0) cube
complexes. In particular,
Theorem 16. [Gen16b] An isometry of a CAT(0) cube complex is contracting if and
only if it skewers a pair of well-separated hyperplanes.

5

Recall that an isometry g skewers a pair of hyperplanes (J1 , J2 ) if there exist halfspaces
J1+ , J2+ delimited by J1 , J2 respectively such that g n J1+ ( J2+ for some n ≥ 1.
The main result of this section is:
Theorem 17. Let G be a group acting on a CAT(0) cube complex. Then g ∈ G is
a WPD contracting isometry if and only if it skewers a pair (J1 , J2 ) of well-separated
hyperplanes such that the intersection stab(J1 ) ∩ stab(J2 ) is finite.
To prove this theorem, the following result will be needed.
Proposition 18. If a group G acts on a CAT(0) cube complex X with a quasiconvex
WPD element g ∈ G, then, for every n ≥ 1, g n is a WPD element as well.
We begin with a probably well-known lemma; we include a proof here because no reference could be found.
Lemma 19. Let G be a group acting on a metric space (S, d) and g ∈ G. Then g is
WPD if and only if there exists some x ∈ S such that, for every d ≥ 0, there exists some
m ≥ 1 such that {h ∈ G | d(x, hx), d(g m x, hg m x) ≤ d} is finite.
Proof. The implication is clear. Conversely, fix some d ≥ 0 and some y ∈ S. By
assumption, there exist x ∈ S and m ≥ 1 such that
{h ∈ G | d(x, hx), d(g m x, hg m x) ≤ 2d(x, y) + d}
is finite. Noticing that, for every h ∈ G,
d(x, hx) ≤ d(x, y) + d(y, hy) + d(hy, hx) = 2d(x, y) + d(y, hy)
and similarly
d(g m x, hg m x) ≤ d(g m x, g m y) + d(g m y, hg m y) + d(hg m y, hg m x)
≤ 2d(x, y) + d(g m y, hg m y),
we deduce that {h ∈ G | d(y, hy), d(g m y, hg m y) ≤ d} is finite. Therefore, g is WPD.
Lemma 20. Let X be a CAT(0) cube complex and γ be combinatorial geodesic between
two vertices x, y such that every join of hyperplanes in H(γ) are C-thin. If g ∈ Isom(X)
satisfies d(x, gx), d(y, gy) ≤ d, then d(z, gz) ≤ C + 6d for every z ∈ γ.
Proof. First, fix two combinatorial geodesics [x, gx] and [y, gy], and denote by
• H1 the set of the hyperplanes separating {gx, z} and {gz, y};
• H2 the set of the hyperplanes separating {x, gz} and {z, gy};
• H3 the set of the hyperplanes separating {x, gx} and {z, gz}.
Now, notice that a hyperplane separating x and z either belongs to H2 or H3 , or separates
x and gx or y and gy. Because d(x, gx), d(y, gy) ≤ d, we deduce that
|d(x, z) − #H2 − #H3 | ≤ 2d.
Similarly, a hyperplane separating gx and gz either belongs to H1 or H3 , or separates
x and gx or y and gy, hence
|d(gx, gz) − #H1 − #H3 | ≤ 2d.
Consequently,
|#H1 − #H2 | = |#H1 + #H3 − d(gx, gz) + d(x, z) − #H2 − #H3 |
≤ |d(gx, gz) − #H1 − #H3 | + |d(x, z) − #H2 − #H3 |
≤ 2d + 2d = 4d.
6

Then, since a hyperplane separating z and gz either belongs to H1 or H2 , or separates
x and gx or y and gy, we deduce that
d(z, gz) ≤ #H1 + #H2 + 2d ≤ min(#H1 , #H2 ) + 6d.
To conclude, it is sufficient to notice that any hyperplane of H1 is transverse to any
hyperplane of H2 , so that (H1 , H2 ) defines a join of hyperplanes in H(γ), which has to
be C-thin, ie., min(#H1 , #H2 ) ≤ C.
Proof of Proposition 18. Let γ be a quasiconvex combinatorial axis for g; according to
Proposition 14, we know that there exists some C ≥ 1 such that any join of hyperplanes
in H(γ) is C-thin. We fix some vertex x ∈ γ and some d ≥ 0. Because g is WPD, there
exists some m ≥ 1 such that
{h ∈ G | d(x, hx), d(g m x, hg m x) ≤ C + 6d}
is finite. Now, let h ∈ G satisfy d(x, hx), d(g mn x, hg mn x) ≤ d. Because g m x is a vertex of
γ between x and g mn x, it follows from the previous lemma that d(g m x, hg m x) ≤ C + 6d.
We conclude that
{h ∈ G | d(x, hx), d(g mn x, hg mn x) ≤ d}
is finite, so that g n is WPD according to Lemma 19.
Proof of Theorem 17. First, suppose that g skewers a pair (J1 , J2 ) of well-separated
hyperplanes such that the intersection stab(J1 ) ∩ stab(J2 ) is finite. We already know
that g is contracting thanks to Theorem 16.
If J1+ , J2+ are halfspaces delimited by J1 , J2 respectively such that g n J1+ ( J2+ for some
n ≥ 1, notice that H = stab(J1 ) ∩ stab(g n J1 ) is finite. Indeed, because there exist only
finitely-many hyperplanes separating J1 and g n J1 , H contains a finite-index subgroup
H0 stabilising each of these hyperplanes; since J2 separates J1 and g n J1 , we deduce that
H0 is a subgroup of stab(J1 ) ∩ stab(J2 ), which is finite. A fortiori, H must be finite.
Therefore, if we fix a combinatorial axis γ of g, there exists a hyperplane J ∈ H(γ) and
n ≥ 1 such that J and g n J are disjoint and stab(J) ∩ stab(g n J) is finite. Fix some
vertex x ∈ γ ∩ N (J) and some d ≥ 0. If we set
F = {h ∈ G | d(x, hx), d(g n+2d x, hg n+2d x) ≤ d},
according to Lemma 19, it is sufficient to prove that F is finite to conclude that g is a
WPD element of G.
Let W = {g k J | 0 ≤ k ≤ n + 2d}. We claim that for all but at most 2d elements of F ,
an element of W is sent to a hyperplane separating x and g n+2d x; for convenience, let
H(x, g n+2d x) denote the set of the hyperplanes separating x and g n+2d x. Let f ∈ F and
H ∈ W. Because H separates x and g n+2d x, necessarily f H separates f x and f g n+2d x.
Now, if f H does not separate x and g n+2d x, necessarily f H must separate either x and
f x or g n+2d x and f g n+2d x. On the other hand, d(x, hx), d(g n+2d x, hg n+2d x) ≤ d, so we
know that there can exist at most 2d such hyperplanes.
Thus, if L denotes the set of functions (S ⊂ W) → H(x, g n+2d x), where S has cocardinality at most 2d in W, any element of F induces an element of L. If F is infinite,
since L is finite, there exist infinitely many pairwise distinct elements g0 , g1 , g2 , . . . ∈ F
inducing the same function of L. In particular, g0−1 g1 , g0−1 g2 , . . . stabilise each hyperplane of a subset S ⊂ W of cocardinality at most 2d. We deduce that there exists some
0 ≤ k ≤ 2d such that
stab(g k J) ∩ stab(g k+n J) = (stab(J) ∩ stab(g n J))g

7

k

is infinite, which contradicts our assumption.
Conversely, suppose that g is a WPD contracting isometry. According to Theorem 16,
g skewers a pair of well-separated hyperplanes, so there exist some hyperplane J and
some constant n ≥ 1 such that J and g n J are L-well-separated. Let C denote the
combinatorial projection of N (g n J) onto N (J). According to Proposition 13, C has
diameter at most L.
Now, fix some vertex z ∈ C. Because g n is WPD as well, since any contracting contracting isometry is quasi convex (see for example [Gen16b, Lemma 2.20]) so that Proposition
18 applies, there exists some m ≥ 1 such that
{h ∈ G | d(z, hz), d(g nm z, hg nm z) ≤ L}
is finite. First, we want to prove that H =

m+1
T

stab(g ni J) is finite. Because H stabilises

i=0

J and g n J, a fortiori H stabilises C, whose diameter is at most L; similarly, because
H stabilises g nm J and g n(m+1) J, H must stabilise g nm C, which is the combinatorial
projection of N (g n(m+1) J) onto N (g nm J), and so has diameter at most L. Therefore,
z ∈ C and g nm z ∈ g nm C implies
d(z, hz) ≤ L and d(g nm z, hg nm z) ≤ L
for every h ∈ H. We conclude that H is finite. On the other hand, because there
exist only finitely many hyperplanes separating J and g n(m+1) J, we know that H is
a finite-index subgroup of stab(J) ∩ stab(g n(m+1) J). Consequently, we have proved
that g skewers the pair (J, g n(m+1) J) of well-separated hyperplanes where stab(J) ∩
stab(g n(m+1) J) is finite.
Remark 21. Theorem 17 provides also an alternative proof of [CM16, Theorem 1.1],
which states that if a group G acts essentially without fixed point at infinity on an irreducible finite dimensional CAT(0) cube complex such that there exist two hyperplanes
whose stabilisers intersect along a finite subgroup, then G must be acylindrically hyperbolic or virtually cyclic. The beginning of the argument remains unchanged: finding
two strongly separated hyperplanes J1 , J2 such that stab(J1 ) ∩ stab(J2 ) is finite. Next,
instead of constructing an über-contraction, we deduce from [CS11, Double Skewering
Lemma] that there exists an isometry g ∈ G skewering the pair (J1 , J2 ). According
to Theorem 17, g turns out to be a WPD contracting isometry, so that G must be
acylindrically hyperbolic or virtually cyclic as a consequence of Theorem 15.
First proof of Theorem 2. According to [CS11, Proposition 5.1], X contains a pair (J1 , J2 )
of strongly separated hyperplanes. Then, it follows from [CS11, Double Skewering
Lemma] that there exists an element g ∈ G skewering this pair. This proves that
there exist a hyperplane J and an integer n ≥ 1 such that J and g kn J are strongly
separated for every k ≥ 1. If we prove that stab(J) ∩ stab(g kn J) is finite for some k ≥ 1,
then we will be able to conclude that g is a WPD contracting isometry according to
Theorem 17, so that the conclusion will follow from Theorem 15.
Since the combinatorial projection of N (J) onto N (g kn J) is a vertex according to Proposition 13, and conversely, we deduce that stab(J)∩stab(g kn J) fixes two vertices x ∈ N (J)
and xk ∈ N (g kn J). If we choose k sufficiently large so that the distance between x and
xk turns out to be sufficiently large, we deduce from the non-uniform weak acylindricity
of the action that stab(J) ∩ stab(g kn J) is finite.

8

4

Action on the contact graph

In [Hag14], Hagen associated to any CAT(0) cube complex X a hyperbolic graph, namely
the contact graph ΓX. This is the graph whose vertices are the hyperplanes of X and
whose edges link two hyperplanes J1 , J2 whenever N (J1 ) ∩ N (J2 ) 6= ∅. In [BHS14,
Corollary 14.5], Behrstock, Hagen and Sisto proved that, if a group acts geometrically
on a CAT(0) cube complex, which admits an invariant factor system, then the induced
action on the contact graph is acylindrical. The question of whether this action is
acylindrical without additional assumption on the cube complex remains open. The
main result of this section suggests a positive answer. It is worth noticing that, although
we are not able to deduce a complete acylindricity of the action on the contact graph,
no assumption is made on the cube complex and the action of our group is not supposed
to be geometric but only to satisfy some weak acylindrical condition.
Theorem 22. Let G be a group acting on a CAT(0) cube complex X. If G y X is nonuniformly weakly acylindrical, the induced action G y ΓX is non-uniformly acylindrical.
In particular, any loxodromic isometry of G turns out to be WPD.
Given two hyperplanes J and H, let ∆(J, H) denote the maximal length of a chain of
pairwise strongly separated hyperplanes V1 , . . . , Vn separating J and H, ie., for every
2 ≤ i ≤ n − 1 the hyperplane Vi separates Vi−1 and Vi+1 . Our first result will be a direct
consequence of Lemma 25 and Lemma 26 proved below.
Proposition 23. For every hyperplanes J and H, we have
∆(J, H) ≤ dΓX (J, H) ≤ 5∆(J, H).
To prove our lemmas, the following result proved in [Hag12, Chapter 3] will be needed.
Lemma 24. Let V1 , . . . , Vn be the successive vertices of a geodesic in ΓX and let
H1 , . . . , Hm denote the hyperplanes separating V1 and Vn in X.
(i) For every 2 ≤ i ≤ n − 1, there exists some 1 ≤ j ≤ m such that dΓX (Vi , Hj ) ≤ 1.
(ii) For every 1 ≤ j ≤ m, there exists som 2 ≤ i ≤ n − 1 such that dΓX (Vi , Hj ) ≤ 1.
Lemma 25. If J, H are two hyperplanes satisfying dΓX (J, H) ≥ 5n, there exist at least
n pairwise strongly separated hyperplanes separating J and H in X.
Proof. Let J = V0 , V1 , . . . , Vr−1 , Vr = H be a geodesic in ΓX between J and H. According to Lemma 24, for every 1 ≤ k ≤ r − 1, there exists a hyperplane Sk separating J and
H such that dΓX (Vk , Sk ) ≤ 1. For every 1 ≤ k ≤ (r−1)/5 and every 1 ≤ j ≤ (r−1)/5−k,
we have
dΓX (S5k , S5(k+j) ) ≥ dΓX (V5k , V5(k+j) ) − dΓX (V5k , S5k ) − dΓX (V5(k+j) , S5(k+j) )
≥ 5j − 1 − 1 ≥ 3
Therefore, S5k and S5(k+j) are strongly separated.
Lemma 26. Let J and H be two hyperplanes. If they are separated in X by n pairwise
strongly separated hyperplanes V1 , . . . , Vn such that Vi separates Vi−1 and Vi+1 in X for
all 2 ≤ i ≤ n − 1, then dΓX (J, H) ≥ n.
Proof. Let J = S0 , S1 , . . . , Sr−1 , Sr = H be a geodesic in ΓX between J and H. According to Lemma 24, for every 1 ≤ k ≤ n, there exists some 1 ≤ nk ≤ r − 1 such that
dΓX (Vk , Snk ) ≤ 1. Notice that, for every 1 ≤ i < j ≤ n, because Vi and Vj are strongly
separated, necessarily ni 6= nj . Let ϕ be a permutation so that the sequence (nϕ(k) ) be
increasing. We have
9

dΓX (J, H) =

n
X

dΓX (Snϕ(k) , Snϕ(k+1) )

k=1

≥

n 
X


dΓX (Vϕ(k) , Vϕ(k+1) ) − d(Vϕ(k) , Snϕ(k) ) − d(Vϕ(k+1) , Snϕ(k+1) )

k=1
n
X
≥
(3 − 1 − 1) = n,
k=1

where we used the inequality dΓX (Vϕ(k) , Vϕ(k+1) ) ≥ 3, which precisely means that Vϕ(k)
and Vϕ(k+1) are strongly separated. This completes the proof.
Proof of Theorem 22. Let R0 be the constant given by the non-uniform weak acylindricity of the action G y X. Let  > 0 and R ≥ 5(R0 + 4( + 4δ) + 6). Now, fix two
hyperplanes J and H satisfying dΓX (J, H) ≥ R and let
F = {g ∈ G | dΓX (J, gJ), dΓX (H, gH) ≤ }.
According to Proposition 23, there exist m ≥ R0 + 4( + 4δ) + 6 pairwise strongly
separated hyperplanes V1 , . . . , Vm separating J and H and such that Vi separates Vi−1
and Vi+1 for every 2 ≤ i ≤ m − 1. In particular, there exist 1 ≤ p < r < s < q ≤ m such
that

 |r − p|, |q − s| ≥  + 2 + 8δ
r, |m − s| > 

|p − q| ≥ R0
We claim that, for every g ∈ F and every hyperplane W separating Vp and Vq , gW
separates Vr and Vs .
First notice that dΓX (W, gW ) ≤  + 8δ + 2, where δ is the hyperbolicity constant of ΓX.
Indeed, if S0 = J, S1 , . . . , Sr−1 , Sr = H is a geodesic in ΓX between J and H, according
to Proposition 23, there exists 1 ≤ j ≤ r − 1 such that dΓX (W, Sj ) ≤ 1. On the other
hand, because dΓX is 8δ-convex [CDP90, Corollaire 5.3] and dΓX (J, gJ), dΓX (H, gH) ≤ 1
by our hypotheses, we have dΓX (Sj , gSj ) ≤  + 8δ. Therefore,
dΓX (W, gW ) ≤ dΓX (W, Sj ) + dΓX (Sj , gSj ) + dΓX (gSj , gW ) ≤  + 8δ + 2.
For convenience, for every 1 ≤ i ≤ m, let Vi+ (resp. Vi− ) denote the half-space delimited
−
by Vi containing H (resp. J). If gW ⊂ Vr+1
, then Vr+1 , . . . , Vp separate W and gW ,
hence dΓX (W, gW ) > |r − p| ≥  + 2 + 8δ according to Proposition 23, which contradicts
+
what we have noticed. Therefore, gW ⊂ Vr+ : otherwise, gW must intersect Vr+1
and
−
Vr , and a fortiori Vr+1 and Vr , but this is impossible since they are strongly separated.
Thus, gW ⊂ Vr+ . Similarly, we prove that gW ⊂ Vs− . Finally, gW ⊂ Vr+ ∩ Vs− .
Now, if gW does not separate Vr and Vs , then gW + ⊂ Vr+ ∩ Vs− for some half-space
W + delimited by W . In particular, because W + contains J or H, we deduce that either
V1 , . . . , Vr separate J and gJ or Vs , . . . , Vm separate H and gH. Thus, it follows from
Proposition 23 that either dΓX (J, gJ) ≥ r >  or dΓX (H, gH) ≥ |m − s| > , which is a
contradiction. Therefore, gW separates Vr and Vs .
Let H(a, b) denote the set of the hyperplanes separating Va and Vb , and let L denote
the set of functions H(p, q) → H(r, s). We have proved that any element of F induces a
function of L. If F is infinite, there exist g0 , g1 , g2 , . . .T∈ F inducing the same function of
L. In particular, g0−1 g1 , g0−1 g2 , . . . belong to I :=
stab(W ). On the other hand,
W ∈H(p,q)

any element of I stabilizes Vp+1 and Vq−1 , and a fortiori the combinatorial projections

10

of N (Vp+1 ) onto N (Vq−1 ) and of N (Vq−1 ) onto N (Vp+1 ). So, by applying Proposition
13, we find two vertices x ∈ N (Vp+1 ) and y ∈ N (Vq−1 ) fixed by I. Now, x and y
are separated by Vp+2 , . . . , Vq−2 , hence d(x, y) ≥ |p − q| + 4 > R0 . The non-uniform
weak acylindricility of the action G y X implies that I must be finite, a contradiction.
Therefore, F is necessarily finite. We conclude that the induced action G y ΓX is
non-uniform acylindrical.
Second proof of Theorem 2. According to [CS11, Proposition 5.1], X contains a pair
(J1 , J2 ) of strongly separated hyperplanes. Then, it follows from [CS11, Double Skewering Lemma] that there exists an element g ∈ G skewering this pair. On the other
hand, we know that an isometry which skewers a pair of strongly separated hyperplanes
induces a loxodromic isometry on the contact graph ΓX. This is essentially a consequence of Proposition 23; otherwise see [Hag12, Theorem 6.1.1]. Furthermore, g is WPD
according to Theorem 22. Therefore, we have proved that G acts on a hyperbolic space
with a WPD isometry. The conclusion follows.

5

Proof of the main theorem

We begin by noticing that an non-uniformly acylindrical action on the hyperplanes is
non-uniformly weakly acylindrical, so that Theorem 2 applies under the former hypothesis.
Lemma 27. Let G be a group acting on a finite-dimensional CAT(0) cube complex X.
If the action is non-uniformly acylindrical on the hyperplanes, then it is non-uniformly
weakly acylindrical.
Proof. Let R ≥ 1 be such that, for any hyperplanes J1 and J2 separated by at least R
hyperplanes, stab(J1 ) ∩ stab(J2 ) is finite. Without loss of generality, we may suppose
that R ≥ dim(X). Now, let L be the Ramsey number Ram(R + 2); by definition, if
you color the vertices of the complete graph containing at least L vertices, so that two
adjacent vertices have different colors, then there exists a monochromatic set with at
least R + 2 vertices. If x, y ∈ X are two vertices satisfying d(x, y) ≥ L, then stab(x) ∩
stab(y) contains a finite-index subgroup H which stabilises each hyperplane separating
x and y. On the other hand, because d(x, y) ≥ L and that X does not contain R +
2 pairwise transverse hyperplanes, we know that there exist at least R + 2 pairwise
disjoint hyperplanes separating x and y. Therefore, H stabilises two hyperplanes which
are separated by at least R other hyperplanes. We conclude that H, and a fortiori
stab(x) ∩ stab(y), is finite.
Proof of Theorem 4. According to [CS11, Proposition 2.6], it is possible to write H =
H1 t · · · t Hr such that X is isomorphic to the cartesian product of the restriction
quotients X(H1 ) × · · · × X(Hr ), where each factor is irreducible, and G contains a
finite-index subgroup Ġ such that this decomposition is Ġ-invariant. Notice that, for
each 1 ≤ i ≤ r, the induced action Ġ y X(Hi ) is again essential and acylindrical
on the hyperplanes, because these properties are preserved under taking a restriction
quotient (see [CS11, Proposition 3.2] for essential actions). Therefore, G contains a
finite-index subgroup Ġ acting essentially and acylindrically on the hyperplanes on a
finite-dimensional irreducible CAT(0) cube complex Y .
If Ġ y Y has no fixed point at infinity, then Theorem 2 implies that Ġ, and a fortiori
G, is acylindrically hyperbolic or virtually cyclic. Otherwise, [CFI16, Proposition 2.26]
implies that two cases may happen: either Ġ has a finite orbit in the Roller boundary
of Y , or Ġ contains a finite-index subgroup G̈ and Y admits a G̈-invariant restriction
quotient Z such that the induced action G̈ y Z has no fixed point at infinity. In
11

the latter case, we can apply Theorem 2 to deduce that G̈, and a fortiori G, is either
acylindrically hyperbolic or virtually cyclic.
From now on, suppose that the action Ġ y Y has a finite orbit in the Roller boundary
of Y . In particular, Ġ contains a finite-index subgroup G̈ fixing an ultrafilter α in the
Roller boundary of Y . It follows from [CFI16, Theorem B.1] that G̈ contains a normal
subgroup F , which is locally elliptic in the sense that any finitely-generated subgroup
of F fixes a point of Y , such that the quotient G̈/F is a finitely-generated free abelian
group.
Claim 28. There exists a constant K such that any elliptic subgroup H of G̈ has cardinality at most K.
Because the action G̈ y Y is acylindrical on the hyperplanes, there exist two constants
L, N such that, for any hyperplane J1 and J2 of Y separated by at least L hyperplanes,
the intersection stab(J1 ) ∩ stab(J2 ) has cardinality at most N . Let x ∈ Y be a point
fixed by H. Let us denote
U (x, α) = {J hyperplane | x(J) 6= α(J)},
where x is thought of as a principal ultrafilter. Alternatively, U (x, α) can be interpreted
as the set of the hyperplanes intersecting a combinatorial ray starting from x and pointing to α. Because H fixes x and α, U (x, α) is H-invariant. If Hi denotes the set of the
hyperplanes J of U (x, α) satisyfing d∞ (x, N (J)) = i, then
U (x, α) = H0 t H1 t H2 t · · · .
Notice that, because H fixes x and stabilises U (x, α), each Hi is H-invariant. On the
other hand, according to [Gen16b, Claim 4.9], for each i ≥ 0, Hi is a collection of pairwise
transverse hyperplanes, hence #Hi ≤ dim(X). Consequently, if H has cardinality at
least (N + 2) · (dim(X)!)2 , then there exist at least N + 2 pairwise distinct elements
h0 , . . . , hN +1 ∈ H which induce the same permutation on H0 and HL+1 ; in particular,
−1
h−1
0 h1 , . . . , h0 hN +1 define N + 1 pairwise distinct elements fixing the hyperplanes of
H0 and HL+1 . But, according to [Gen16b, Claim 4.10], there exist two hyperplanes
J1 ∈ H0 and J2 ∈ HL+1 separated by at least L hyperplanes, so we have proved that
stab(J1 ) ∩ stab(J2 ) has cardinality at least N + 1, contradicting the acylindricity on the
hyperplanes. Therefore, H has cardinality at most (N + 2) · (dim(X)!)2 , proving our
claim.
Suppose now by contradiction that the subgroup F C G̈ is infinite. In particular, F
contains an infinite countable subgroup C = {g1 , g2 , . . .}. For every i ≥ 1, let Ci denote
the subgroup hg1 , . . . , gi i. We have
S
C1 ⊂ C2 ⊂ C3 ⊂ · · · ⊂
Ci = C.
i≥1

Because F is locally elliptic, each Ci has to be elliptic and the previous claim implies that
its cardinality is bounded above by a constant which does not depend on i. Therefore, the
sequence C1 ⊂ C2 ⊂ · · · must be eventually constant, and in particular C is necessarily
finite, a contradiction. We conclude that F is finite.
So we know that there exists an exact sequence 1 → F → G̈ → Zk → 1 for some k ≥ 0,
where F is finite. If k ≤ 1, then G̈ is either finite or virtually infinite cyclic. From now
on, suppose that k ≥ 2. Let a, b ∈ G̈ be the lifts of two independent elements of Zk . In
particular, for every p ≥ 1, the commutator [a, bp ] belongs to the subgroup F ; because
F is finite, we deduce that there exist two integers n 6= m such that [a, bn ] = [a, bm ],
which implies [a, bm−n ] = 1. Let A denote the subgroup of G̈ generated by a and bm−n :
this is a free abelian subgroup of rank two.

12

We know from Fact 28 that the induced action A y Y has no global fixed point, so,
by a result proved by Sageev (see [CFI16, Proposition B.8]), there exist a hyperplane
J of Y and an element g ∈ A such that gJ + ( J + for some half-space J + delimited
by J. In particular, for every n ≥ 1, the hyperplanes J and g n J are separated by
n − 1 hyperplanes, namely gJ, g 2 J, . . . , g n−1 J. Therefore, because the action A y Y is
also acylindrical on the hyperplanes, for some sufficiently large n ≥ 1, the intersection
stabA (J) ∩ stabA (g n J) is finite, and a fortiori trivial since A is torsion-free. Thus,
because A is abelian,
n

stabA (J) = stabA (J) ∩ stabA (J)g = stabA (J) ∩ stabA (g n J) = {1}.
It follows from [Sag95, § 3.3] that {1} is a codimension-one subgroup of A (see the next
section for a precise definition), or equivalently, that A has at least two ends. We get a
contradiction, since we know that A is a free abelian group of rank two.
We conclude that G is necessarily virtually cyclic.
Remark 29. In the statement of Theorem 4, acylindrical on the hyperplanes cannot be
replaced with non-uniformly acylindrical on the hyperplanes. Indeed, it is a consequence
of the construction given in the proof of [Ser03, Theorem I.6.15] that any countable
locally finite group acts essentially and non-uniformly acylindrically on the hyperplanes
on a tree. Explicitly, let G be a countable locally finite group. Because it is countable,
it can be written as a union of finitely-generated subgroups G1 ⊂ G2 ⊂ · · · , which are
finite since G is locally finite; for a specific example, you may consider
L
Z2 ⊂ Z2 ⊕ Z2 ⊂ Z2 ⊕ Z2 ⊕ Z2 ⊂ · · · ⊂
Z2 .
i≥1

Now, let T be the graph whose vertices are the cosets gGn , where g ∈ G and n ≥ 1, and
whose edges link two cosets gGn and hGn+1 if their images in G/Gn+1 coincide. This is
a tree, the action is essential and non-uniformly acylindrical on the hyperplanes. Notice
that the action is non-uniformly weakly acylindrical (but not weakly acylindrical). This
does not contradict Theorem 2 because G fixes the point at infinity corresponding to
the geodesic ray (G1 , G2 , G3 , . . .).
Question 30. Let G be a group acting essentially on a finite-dimensional CAT(0) cube
complex. If the action is non-uniformly acylindrical on the hyperplanes, is G either
acylindrically hyperbolic or (locally finite)-by-cyclic?

6

An application to codimension-one subgroups

Given a finitely-generated group G and a subgroup H ≤ G, we can define the relative
number of ends e(G, H) as the number of ends of the quotient of a Cayley graph of
G (with respect to a finite generating set) by the action of H by left-multiplication;
this definition does not depend on the choice of the generating set. See [Sco77] for
more information. If e(G, H) ≥ 2, we say that H is a codimension-one subgroup. The
main result of [Sag95] states that to any codimension-one subgroup is associated an
essential action of G on a CAT(0) cube complex, transitive on the hyperplanes, so
that the hyperplane-stabilisers contain a conjugate of our codimension-one subgroup
as a finite-index subgroup. Unfortunately, this complex may be infinite-dimensional.
Nevertheless, the CAT(0) cube complex we construct turns out to be finite-dimensional
if our codimension-one subgroup H ≤ G is finitely-generated and satisfies the bounded
packing property: fixing a Cayley graph of G (with respect to a finite generating set),
for every D ≥ 1, there is a number N so that, for any collection of N distinct cosets
of H in G, at least two are separated by a distance at least D. Although not stated
explicitely, this idea goes back to [Sag97]; see [HW08] for more information. Therefore,
13

Theorem 31. Let G be a finitely-generated group and H a finitely-generated codimensionone subgroup. Suppose that H satisfies the bounded packing property. Then G acts essentially on a finite-dimensional CAT(0) cube complex, transitively on the hyperplanes,
so that its hyperplane stabilisers contain a conjugate of H as a finite-index subgroup.
The combination of the previous result with Theorem 4 essentially proves Proposition 5.
First, recall a subgroup H ≤ G has (uniformly) finite height if there exists some n ≥ 1
such that, for every collection of n distinct cosets g1 H, . . . , gn H, the cardinality of the
n
T
gi Hgi−1 is (uniformly) finite.
intersection
i=1

Proof of Proposition 5. It follows from Theorem 31 that G acts essentially on a finitedimensional CAT(0) cube complex X, transitively on the hyperplanes, so that its
hyperplane-stabilisers contain a conjugate of H as a finite-index subgroup. Since there
is only one orbit of hyperplanes, there exists some M ≥ 0 such that any hyperplanestabiliser contains a conjugate of H as subgroup of index at most M . Then, since H
has uniformly finite height, we can fix some n, N ≥ 1 such that, for every collection of
n
T
n distinct cosets g1 H, . . . , gn H, the intersection
gi Hgi−1 has cardinality at most N .
i=1

Let J1 , J2 be two hyperplanes separated by at least n · dim(X) other hyperplanes. Let
H be the set of the hyperplanes separating J1 and J2 . For i ≥ 0, let Hi denote the set
of the hyperplanes J of H such that d∞ (N (J), N (J1 )) = i, ie., the maximal number of
pairwise disjoint hyperplanes separating J1 and J is i; it is not difficult to notice that the
hyperplanes of Hi are pairwise transverse, hence #Hi ≤ dim(X) (see for instance the
proof of [Gen16b, Claim 4.9]). In particular, because J1 and J2 are separated by at least
n · dim(X) hyperplanes, we know that H0 , . . . , Hn−1 are non-empty. Moreover, K =
stab(J1 ) ∩ stab(J2 ) contains a subgroup K0 of index at most (dim(X)!)n which stabilises
each hyperplane of H0 , . . . , Hn−1 . Therefore, K0 is contained in the intersection I of
the stabilisers of n distinct hyperplanes. On the other hand, according to the group
theoretical lemma below, I contains the intersection of n conjugates of H, corresponding
to n distinct cosets, as a subgroup of index at most M n !. We conclude that #K0 ≤
#I ≤ M n ! · N , and finally that #K ≤ (dim(X)!)n · #K0 ≤ M n ! · (dim(X)!)n · N .
We have proved that, for any pair of hyperplanes separated by at least n · dim(X) other
hyperplanes, the intersection of their stabilisers has cardinality at most M n !·(dim(X)!)n ·
N . Thus, the action G y X is acylindrical on the hyperplanes. It follows from Theorem
4 that G is either acylindrically hyperbolic or virtually cyclic.
Lemma 32. Let G be a group and G1 , H1 , . . . , Gk , Hk ≤ G a collection of subgroups.
Suppose that, for every 1 ≤ i ≤ k, Hi is a subgroup of Gi of index at most ni . Then
k
k
T
T
Hi has index at most (n1 · · · nk )! in
Gi .
i=1

i=1

Proof. Let

k
T

Gi act by diagonal left multiplication on G1 /H1 × · · · × Gk /Hk . This

i=1

defines a homomorphism
ϕ:

k
\

Gi → Sym(G1 /H1 × · · · × Gk /Hk ).

i=1

We clearly have ker(ϕ) ⊂

k
T

Hi , hence

i=1
k
\
i=1

Gi /

k
\
i=1

Hi ≤

k
\

Gi /ker(ϕ) ≤ #Sym(G1 /H1 × · · · × Gk /Hk ) = (n1 · · · nk )!.

i=1

14

This proves our lemma.
Proof of Corollary 6. Let J be a hyperplane whose stabiliser is finitely-generated and
has uniformly finite height. Because the action is essential, H = stab(J) is a codimensionone subgroup according to [Sag95, § 3.3], and we know that H satisfies the bounded
packing property according to [HW08, Theorem 3.2]. Thus, the conclusion follows directly from Proposition 5.
Question 33. If the subgroup of Proposition 5 does not satisfy the bounded packing
property, does the conclusion still hold?

References
[BBF14] M. Bestvina, K. Bromberg, and K. Fujiwara. Constructing group actions on
quasi-trees and applications to mapping class groups. arXiv:1006.1939, 2014.
[BH99]

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

[BHS14]

J. Behrstock, M. Hagen, and Sisto. Hierarchically hyperbolic spaces I: curve
complexes for cubical groups. arXiv:1412.2171, 2014.

[Bow06]

Brian Bowditch. Intersection numbers and the hyperbolicity of the curve
complex. J. Reine Angew. Math., 598:105–129, 2006.

[BvdV91] H.-J. Bandelt and M. van de Vel. Superextensions and the depth of median
graphs. Journal of Combinatorial Theory, Series A, 57:187–202, 1991.
[CDP90] M. Coornaert, T. Delzant, and A. Papadopoulos. Géométrie et théorie des
groupes. Les groupes hyperboliques de Gromov, volume 1441 of Lecture Note
in Maths. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1990.
[CFI16]

I. Chatterji, T. Fernos, and A. Iozzi. The median class and superrigidity of
actions on CAT(0) cube complexes. Journal of Topology, 2016.

[CM16]

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

[CS11]

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

[Gen15]

A. Genevois. Hyperbolic diagram groups are free. arXiv:1505.02053, 2015.

[Gen16a] A. Genevois. Coning-off CAT(0) cube complexes. arXiv:1603.06513, 2016.
[Gen16b] A. Genevois. Contracting isometries in CAT(0) cube complexes and application to the acylindrical hyperbolicity of diagram groups. In preparation,
2016.
[Hag07]

F. Haglund.
Isometries of CAT(0) cube complexes are semi-simple.
arXiv:0705.3386, 2007.

[Hag08]

Frédéric Haglund. Finite index subgroups of graph products. Geom. Dedicata,
135:167–209, 2008.

15

[Hag12]

Mark F. Hagen. Geometry and combinatorics of cube complexes. Thesis,
2012.

[Hag14]

Mark F. Hagen. Weak hyperbolicity of cube complexes and quasi-arboreal
groups. J. Topol., 7(2):385–418, 2014.

[HW08]

G. Hruska and D. Wise. Packing subgroups in relatively hyperbolic groups.
Geometry and Topology, 13:1945–1988, 2008.

[Lea13]

Ian J. Leary. A metric Kan-Thurston theorem. Journal of Topology, 6(1):251–
284, 2013.

[Mar15]

A. Martin. CAT(0) square complexes and acylindricity. arXiv:1509.03131,
2015.

[Osi13]

D. Osin. Acylindrically hyperbolic groups. arXiv:1304.1246, 2013.

[Sag95]

Michah Sageev. Ends of group pairs and non-positively curved cube complexes. Proc. London Math. Soc. (3), 71(3):585–617, 1995.

[Sag97]

Michah Sageev. Codimension-1 subgroups and splittings of groups. J. Algebra,
189(2):377–389, 1997.

[Sco77]

P. Scott. Ends of pairs of groups. Journal of Pure and Applied Algebra,
11(11):179–198, 1977.

[Sel97]

Z. Sela. Acylindrical accessibility for groups. Invent. Math., 129(3):527–565,
1997.

[Ser03]

Jean-Pierre Serre. Trees. Springer Monographs in Mathematics. SpringerVerlag, Berlin, 2003. Translated from the French original by John Stillwell,
Corrected 2nd printing of the 1980 English translation.

16

