CONJUGACY GROWTH OF FINITELY GENERATED GROUPS

arXiv:1107.1826v4 [math.GR] 30 Jan 2017

MICHAEL HULL AND DENIS OSIN

Abstract. The conjugacy growth function of a finitely generated group measures the number of
conjugacy classes in balls with respect to a word metric. We study the following natural question:
Which functions can occur as conjugacy growth function of finitely generated groups? Our main
result answers the question completely. Namely we prove that a function f : N → N can be realized
(up to a natural equivalence) as the conjugacy growth function of a finitely generated group if and
only if f is non-decreasing and bounded from above by an for some a ≥ 1. We also construct a
finitely generated group G and a subgroup H ≤ G of index 2 such that H has only 2 conjugacy
classes while the conjugacy growth of G is exponential. In particular, conjugacy growth is not a
quasi-isometry invariant.

1. Introduction
Let G be a group generated by a set X. Recall that the word length of an element g ∈ G with
respect to the generating set X, denoted by |g|X , is the length of a shortest word in X ∪ X −1
representing g in the group G. If X is finite one can consider the growth function of G, γG : N → N,
defined by
γG (n) = |BG,X (n)|,
where
BG,X (n) = {g ∈ G | |g|X ≤ n}.
It was first introduced by Efremovic [17] and Svarč [43] in the 50’s, rediscovered by Milnor [34] in
the 60’s, and served as the starting point and a source of motivating examples for contemporary
geometric group theory. In this paper we focus on a similar function ξG,X : N → N called the
conjugacy growth function of G with respect to X. By definition ξG,X (n) is the number of conjugacy
classes in the ball BG,X (n).
It is straightforward to verify that γG,X and ξG,X are independent of the choice of a particular
finite generating set X of G up to the following equivalence relation. Given f, g : N → N, we write
f  g if there exists C ∈ N such that f (n) ≤ g(Cn) for all n ∈ N. Further f and g are equivalent
(we write f ∼ g) if f  g and g  f . In what follows we always consider growth functions up to
this equivalence relation and omit X from the notation.
The conjugacy growth function was introduced by Babenko [2] in order to study geodesic growth
of Riemannian manifolds. Obviously free homotopy classes of loops in a manifold M are in 1-to1 correspondence with conjugacy classes of π1 (M ). If M is a closed Riemannian manifold, the
proposition known as the Svarč–Milnor Lemma (and first proved by Efremovic in [17]) then implies
2000 Mathematics Subject Classification. 20F69, 20E45, 20F65, 20F67.
Key words and phrases. Conjugacy growth function, small cancellation theory, relatively hyperbolic group, quasiisometry.
The research was supported by the NSF grant DMS-1006345. The second author was also supported by the RFBR
grant 11-01-00945.
1

2

MICHAEL HULL AND DENIS OSIN

that ξπ1 (M ) is equivalent to the function counting free homotopy classes of loops of given length
in M . The later function serves as a lower bound for the geodesic growth function of M , which
counts the number of geometrically distinct closed geodesics of given length on M . Moreover if M
has negative sectional curvature, then all these functions are equivalent.
Geodesic growth of compact Riemannian manifolds has been studied extensively since late 60’s
(see, e.g., [3, 4, 30, 32]). The most successful results were obtained in the case of negatively curved
manifolds by Margulis [32, 33]. He proved that the number of primitive closed geodesics of length
at most n on a closed manifold of negative sectional curvature is approximately equal to ehn /(hn),
where h is the topological entropy of the geodesic flow on the unit tangent bundle of the manifold.
Coornaert and Knieper [11, 12] proved a group theoretic analogue of this result and found an
asymptotic estimate for the number of primitive conjugacy classes in a hyperbolic group similar to
that from Margulis’ papers.
Recall that a conjugacy class of a group G is called primitive if some (or, equivalently, any)
element g from the class is not a proper power, i.e., hn = g implies n = ±1. For a group G
generated by a finite set X, let πG (n) denote the function counting primitive conjugacy classes in
BG,X (n). It is not hard to show that πG and ξG are equivalent and grow exponentially for many
‘hyperbolic-like’ groups. Indeed we prove the following.
Theorem 1.1 (Theorem 3.6). Let G be a finitely generated group with a non-degenerate hyperbolically embedded subgroup. Then ξG ∼ πG ∼ 2n .
The notion of a hyperbolically embedded subgroup was introduced in [14]. The condition that
the subgroup is non-degenerate simply means that it is proper and infinite. Groups containing
non-degenerate hyperbolically embedded subgroups include non-elementary hyperbolic and, more
generally, relatively hyperbolic groups with proper parabolic subgroups, all but finitely many mapping class groups of closed orientable surfaces (possibly with punctures), Out(Fn ) for n ≥ 2, the
Cremona group Bir(P2C ) (i.e., the group of birational automorphism of the complex projective
plane), and many other examples [14]. Theorem 1.1 can be used to completely classify conjugacy
growth functions of subgroups in mapping class groups (see Section 3).
On the other hand, counting primitive conjugacy classes does not make much sense for general
groups. For instance if the group G is torsion without involutions, then there are no primitive
conjugacy classes in G at all. Moreover this can happen even for torsion free groups. The simplest
(but not finitely generated) example is the group Q. Finitely generated examples of torsion free
groups G where every element g ∈ G is a proper power (and, moreover, for every n ∈ Z \ {0} the
equation xn = g has a solution in G) were first constructed by Guba in [22]. Thus in the context
of abstract group theory it seems more natural to consider the conjugacy growth function ξG .
The algebraic study of the conjugacy growth function is strongly motivated by its similarity to the
ordinary growth function. Recall that a function f is exponential if f ∼ 2n , polynomial if f ∼ nd for
some d ∈ N, and polynomially bounded if f  nd for some d ∈ N. In [34], Milnor conjectured that γG
is always either exponential or polynomial. Counterexamples to this conjecture were constructed by
Grigorchuk in [20]. It turns out, however, that Milnor’s dichotomy does hold for some important
classes of groups including solvable and linear ones [35, 44, 45]. Gromov [25] proved that any
group with polynomially bounded growth function contains a nilpotent subgroup of finite index.
Combining this with a result of Bass [5] saying that every nilpotent group has a polynomial growth
function, one can easily derive that if the growth function of a group is polynomially bounded, then
it is in fact polynomial. Despite these advances, it is still far from being clear which functions can
occur as growth functions of finitely generated groups. For instance it is unknown whether there

CONJUGACY GROWTH OF FINITELY GENERATED GROUPS

exists a group G with non-polynomial growth function satisfying γG  2
survey we refer the interested reader to [21].

√

n.

3

For a comprehensive

Recently some similar results were proved for the conjugacy growth function. Breuillard and
Cornulier [8] showed that for a finitely generated solvable group G, the conjugacy growth function
is either polynomially bounded or exponential and, furthermore, ξG is polynomially bounded if
and only if G is virtually nilpotent. (For polycyclic groups this result was proved independently
and simultaneously by the first author in [29].) This dichotomy was also proved for finitely generated linear groups by Breuillard, Cornulier, Lubotzky, and Meiri [7]. Motivated by the Milnor
conjecture, Guba and Sapir [26] suggested that ‘natural’ groups have either polynomially bounded
or exponential conjugacy growth. They proved that many HN N -extensions and diagram groups,
including the R. Thompson group F , have exponential conjugacy growth.
Note however that the ordinary and conjugacy growth functions can behave differently. For
instance, the conjugacy growth of a nilpotent group is not necessary polynomial. Indeed let H be
the Heisenberg group
H = UT3 (Z) ∼
= ha, b, c | [a, b] = c, [a, c] = [b, c] = 1i.
Then it is fairly easy to compute that ξH (n) ∼ n2 log(n) (this example can be found in [2] and
[26]). Note also that there exist finitely generated groups of exponential growth with finitely many
conjugacy classes [37, Theorem 41.2] and even with 2 conjugacy classes [42]. Thus γG and ξG can
be very far apart, actually on the opposite sides of the spectrum.
The main goal of this paper is to address the following realization problem: Which functions can
be realized (up to equivalence) as conjugacy growth functions of finitely generated groups? Unlike
in the case of ordinary growth, the realization problem for conjugacy growth admits a complete
solution.
Theorem 1.2 (Theorem 6.6). Let G be a group generated by a finite set X, f the conjugacy growth
function of G with respect to X. Then the following conditions hold.
(a) f is non-decreasing.
(b) There exists a ≥ 1 such that f (n) ≤ an for every n ∈ N.
Conversely, suppose that a function f : N → N satisfies the above conditions (a) and (b). Then
there exists an infinite finitely generated group G such that ξG ∼ f .
The first claim of the theorem is essentially trivial. Note, however, that even realizing simplest
growth functions, e.g., f (n) = log n, is nontrivial; moreover, we are not aware of any groups other
than the ones constructed in this paper that have unbounded conjugacy growth functions satisfying
f (n) = o(n).
When speaking about asymptotic invariants of groups it is customary to ask whether these
invariants are geometric, i.e. invariant under quasi-isometry. (Recall that quasi-isometry is a coarse
analogue of the notion of isometry between metric spaces; for details and motivation we refer to
[23]). Many asymptotic invariants of groups are invariant under quasi-isometry up to suitable
equivalence relations, e.g., the ordinary growth function, the Dehn function, and the asymptotic
dimension growth function, just to name a few. However it turns out that the conjugacy growth
function is not a geometric invariant in the strongest possible sense. More precisely, we construct
the following example.
Theorem 1.3 (Theorem7.2). There exists a finitely generated group G and a finite index subgroup
H ≤ G such that H has 2 conjugacy classes while G is of exponential conjugacy growth.

4

MICHAEL HULL AND DENIS OSIN

Since every (non-trivial) group has at least two conjugacy classes and at most exponential conjugacy growth, this theorem shows that the conjugacy growth of two quasi-isometric groups can be
as far apart as possible. Note also that it is fairly easy to prove that for every finitely generated
group G and a finite index subgroup H ≤ G, one has ξH  ξG .
The proofs of Theorems 1.2 and 1.3 will be accomplished by constructing groups which are
direct limits of relatively hyperbolic groups. The main tool in this procedure will be the theory
of small cancellation over relatively hyperbolic groups. The idea of generalizing small cancellation
theory to groups acting on hyperbolic spaces goes back to Gromov’s paper [24]. In the case of
hyperbolic groups, it was formalized by Champetier [10], Delzant [15], Olshanskii [36], and others.
Olshanskii’s approach was generalized to relatively hyperbolic groups by the second author in [42]
and this generalization will be used in our paper. Some difficulties occurring in the proof of Theorem
1.2 are discussed in Section 6. To overcome these difficulties, we obtain new results about conjugate
elements and elementary subgroups in small cancellation quotients of relatively hyperbolic groups,
which can be useful elsewhere.
The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 we collect necessary definitions and facts about
relatively hyperbolic groups. Section 3 contains the proof of Theorem 1.1 and some related results.
Sections 4 and 5 focus on small cancellation quotients of relatively hyperbolic groups and provide
us with necessary tools for the rest of the paper. Sections 6 and 7 contain the proofs of Theorem
1.2 and Theorem 1.3, respectively.
2. Preliminaries
Notation. We begin by standardizing the notation that will be used for the remainder of the
paper. Given a group G generated by a subset S ⊆ G, we denote by Γ(G, S) the Cayley graph
of G with respect to S. That is, Γ(G, S) is the graph with vertex set G and an edge labeled by s
between each pair of vertices of the form (g, gs), where s ∈ S. We will assume all generating sets
are symmetric, that is S = S ∪ S −1 . If p is a (combinatorial) path in Γ(G, S), Lab(p) denotes its
label, `(p) denotes its length, p− and p+ denote its starting and ending vertex.
For a word W in an alphabet S, kW k denotes its length. For two words U and V we write U ≡ V
to denote the letter-by-letter equality between them. Clearly there is a one to one correspondence
between words W and paths p such that p− = 1 and Lab(p) ≡ W .
The normal closure of a subset K ⊆ G in a group G (i.e., the minimal normal subgroup of G
containing K) is denoted by hhKiiG , or simply by hhKii if omitting G does not lead to a confusion.
For group elements g and t, g t denotes t−1 gt. We write g ∼ h if g is conjugate to h, that is there
exists t ∈ G such that g t = h.
Van Kampen Diagrams. Recall that a van Kampen diagram ∆ over a presentation
(1)

G = hA | Oi

is a finite, oriented, connected, simply–connected, planar 2–complex endowed with a labeling
function Lab : E(∆) → A, where E(∆) denotes the set of oriented edges of ∆, such that
Lab(e−1 ) ≡ (Lab(e))−1 . Labels and lengths of paths are defined as in the case of Cayley graphs.
Given a cell Π of ∆, we denote by ∂Π the boundary of Π; similarly, ∂∆ denotes the boundary of
∆. The labels of ∂Π and ∂∆ are defined up to a cyclic permutation. An additional requirement is
that for any cell Π of ∆, the boundary label Lab(∂Π) is equal to a cyclic permutation of a word
P ±1 , where P ∈ O. The van Kampen Lemma states that a word W over the alphabet A represents

CONJUGACY GROWTH OF FINITELY GENERATED GROUPS

5

the identity in the group given by (1) if and only if there exists a diagram ∆ over (1) such that
Lab(∂∆) ≡ W [31, Ch. 5, Theorem 1.1].
Remark 2.1. For every van Kampen diagram ∆ over (1) and any fixed vertex o of ∆, there is a
(unique) combinatorial map γ : Sk (1) (∆) → Γ(G, A) (where Sk (1) (∆) denotes the 1-skeleton of ∆)
that preserves labels and orientation of edges and maps o to the vertex 1 of Γ(G, A).
Relatively hyperbolic groups. The notion of a relatively hyperbolic group was originally suggested by Gromov in [24]. In [6] this idea was elaborated on by Bowditch, who suggested a definition
in terms of the dynamics of properly discontinuous isometric group actions on hyperbolic spaces.
Alternatively, another definition was suggested by Farb in [18] who looked at the hyperbolicity of
a certain graph associated to a group and a collection of subgroups, called the coset graph. These
definitions are not equivalent, but Farb also considered another property called bounded coset penetration, or BCP. It turns out that being relatively hyperbolic in the sense of Bowditch is equivalent
to being relatively hyperbolic in the sense of Farb and satisfying BCP (see, for example [6]). In [38],
the second author gave an isoperimetric characterization of relative hyperbolicity which generalizes
these definitions to the case of non-finitely generated groups. We will present the definition found
there and refer the reader to [28, 38] for more details.
Definition 2.2. Let G be a group, {Hλ }λ∈Λ a collection of subgroups of G, X a subset of G. We
say that X is a relative generating set of G with respect to {Hλ }λ∈Λ if G is generated by X together
with the union of all Hλ . In this situation the group G can be regarded as a quotient group of the
free product
(2)

F = (∗λ∈Λ Hλ ) ∗ F (X),

where F (X) is the free group with the basis X. Let N denote the kernel of the natural homomorphism F → G. If N is the normal closure of a subset Q ⊆ N in the group F , we say that G has
relative presentation
(3)

hX, Hλ , λ ∈ Λ | Qi.

If |X| < ∞ and |Q| < ∞, the relative presentation (3) is said to be finite and the group G is said
to be finitely presented relative to the collection of subgroups {Hλ }λ∈Λ .
Set
(4)

H=

G

(Hλ \ {1}).

λ∈Λ

Given a word W in the alphabet X ∪ H such that W represents 1 in G, there exists an expression
(5)

W =F

k
Y

fi−1 Q±1
i fi

i=1

with the equality in the group F , where Qi ∈ Q and fi ∈ F for i = 1, . . . , k. The smallest possible
number k in a representation of the form (5) is called the relative area of W and is denoted by
Arearel (W ).
Definition 2.3. A group G is hyperbolic relative to a collection of subgroups {Hλ }λ∈Λ if G is finitely
presented relative to {Hλ }λ∈Λ and there is a constant L > 0 such that for any word W in X ∪ H
representing the identity in G, we have Arearel (W ) ≤ LkW k.

6

MICHAEL HULL AND DENIS OSIN

If G is hyperbolic relative to {Hλ }λ∈Λ , then the subgroups in {Hλ }λ∈Λ are called parabolic
subgroups. Observe also that the relative area of a word W representing 1 in G can be defined
geometrically via van Kampen diagrams. Let G be a group given by the relative presentation (3)
with respect to a collection of subgroups {Hλ }λ∈Λ . We denote by S the set of all words in the
alphabet H representing the identity in the group F defined by (2). Then G has the ordinary
(non–relative) presentation
(6)

G = hX ∪ H | S ∪ Qi.

A cell in van Kampen diagram ∆ over (6) is called a Q–cell if its boundary is labeled by a word
from Q. We denote by NQ (∆) the number of Q–cells of ∆. Obviously given a word W in X ∪ H
that represents 1 in G, we have
Arearel (W ) =

min
Lab(∂∆)≡W

{NQ (∆)},

where the minimum is taken over all van Kampen diagrams with boundary label W . Thus, a group
G is hyperbolic relative to {Hλ }λ∈Λ if it is finitely presented with respect to {Hλ }λ∈Λ and all van
Kampen diagrams over (6) satisfy a linear relative isoperimetric inequality.
In particular, a group G is an ordinary (Gromov) hyperbolic group if G is hyperbolic relative
to the trivial subgroup. Another example (which is important for our purposes) is that any free
product of groups is hyperbolic relative to the factors, since in this case X = Q = ∅. More examples
of relatively hyperbolic groups can be found in [41].
The following useful result can be easily derived from the definition.
Lemma 2.4 ([38], Theorem 1.4). Let G be a group hyperbolic relative to a collection of subgroups
{Hλ }λ∈Λ . Then for every λ ∈ Λ and g ∈ G \ Hλ , we have |Hλ ∩ Hλg | < ∞. Also, if µ 6= λ, then
|Hµ ∩ Hλg | < ∞ for all g ∈ G. In particular, if G is torsion free, then every parabolic subgroup is
malnormal, and any two elements in distinct parabolic subgroups are non-conjugate.
[16] gives a characterization of the asymptotic cones of relatively hyperbolic groups, and an
immediate consequence of this is the following.
Lemma 2.5 ([16], Corollary 1.14). If a group G is hyperbolic relative to {H1 , ..., Hm }, and each
Hi is hyperbolic relative to a collection of subgroups {H1i , ..., Hni i }, then G is hyperbolic relative to
{Hji | 1 ≤ i ≤ m, 1 ≤ j ≤ ni }.
The next lemma is a particular case of [38, Theorem 2.40].
Lemma 2.6. Suppose that a group G is hyperbolic relative to a collection of subgroups {Hλ }λ∈Λ ∪
{S1 , . . . , Sm }, where S1 , . . . , Sm are finitely generated and hyperbolic in the ordinary (non–relative)
sense. Then G is hyperbolic relative to {Hλ }λ∈Λ .
Recall that a metric space M is δ–hyperbolic for some δ ≥ 0 (or simply hyperbolic) if for any
geodesic triangle T in M , any side of T belongs to the union of the closed δ–neighborhoods of the
other two sides. As mentioned above, G is an ordinary hyperbolic group if G is hyperbolic relative
to the trivial subgroup. An equivalent definition says that G is hyperbolic if it is generated by a
finite set X and the Cayley graph Γ(G, X) is a hyperbolic metric space. In the relative case these
approaches are not equivalent, but we still have the following, which will provide one of the main
tools for looking at small cancellation quotients of relatively hyperbolic groups.

CONJUGACY GROWTH OF FINITELY GENERATED GROUPS

7

Theorem 2.7 ([38], Theorem 1.7). Let G be a group hyperbolic relative to a collection of subgroups
{Hλ }λ∈Λ , X a finite relative generating set for G. Then the Cayley graph Γ(G, X ∪H) is a hyperbolic
metric space.
This theorem will allow us to apply the following useful lemma, which appears in [42, Corollary
3.3] and can be derived from basic properties of hyperbolic spaces (see, for example, [9]). A path
p in a metric space is called (λ, c)–quasi–geodesic for some λ > 0, c ≥ 0, if
dist(q− , q+ ) ≥ λl(q) − c
for any subpath q of p.
Lemma 2.8. For any δ ≥ 0, λ > 0, c ≥ 0, there exists a constant K = K(δ, λ, c) with the following
property. Let Q be a quadrangle in a δ–hyperbolic space whose sides are (λ, c)–quasi–geodesic. Then
each side of Q belongs to the closed K–neighborhood of the union of the other three sides.
Loxodromic elements and elementary subgroups. We call an element g ∈ G parabolic if it
is conjugate to an element of one of the parabolic subgroups. A non-parabolic elements of infinite
order are called loxodromic. Broadly speaking, most algebraic properties of elements in hyperbolic
groups also hold for loxodromic elements of relatively hyperbolic groups. An example of this is the
following lemma; recall that a group is elementary if it contains a cyclic subgroup of finite index.
Lemma 2.9 ([39]). Suppose a group G is hyperbolic relative to a collection of subgroups {Hλ }λ∈Λ .
Let g be a loxodromic element of G. Then the following conditions hold:
(a) There is a unique maximal elementary subgroup EG (g) ≤ G containing g.
(b) EG (g) = {h ∈ G | ∃ m ∈ N such that h−1 g m h = g ±m }.
(c) The group G is hyperbolic relative to the collection {Hλ }λ∈Λ ∪ {EG (g)}.
The following is an immediate consequence of Lemma 2.9. Recall that elements f, g ∈ G are
called commensurable if there exist k, l ∈ Z \ {0} such that f k ∼ g l .
Lemma 2.10. Let f and g be primitive loxodromic elements in a torsion free relatively hyperbolic
group. Then f is commensurable with g if and only if f ±1 ∼ g.
Proof. If f k = (g l )x , then hf i = EG (f ) = EG (g x ) = hg x i, thus f ±1 = g x .



Since any group will be hyperbolic relative to itself, we will need some non-trivial structure
outside of the parabolic subgroups. This will be accomplished with the notion of suitable subgroups.
Definition 2.11. A subgroup S ≤ G is called suitable if there exist two non–commensurable
loxodromic elements s1 , s2 ∈ S such that EG (s1 ) ∩ EG (s2 ) = 1.
The next lemma is a combination of [42, Lemma 2.3] and [1, Proposition 3.4].
Lemma 2.12. Let G be a group hyperbolic relative to a collection of subgroups {Hλ }λ∈Λ .
(1) If S is a suitable subgroup of G, then there exist infinitely many pairwise non–commensurable
loxodromic elements s1 , s2 , . . . ∈ S such that for all i = 1, 2, . . ., EG (si ) = hsi i. In particular,
EG (si ) ∩ EG (sj ) = {1} whenever i 6= j.
(2) If G is torsion free, then any non-elementary subgroup containing at least one loxodromic
element is suitable.

8

MICHAEL HULL AND DENIS OSIN

HNN-extensions and relative hyperbolicity. Given a group G containing two isomorphic
subgroups A and B, the HNN-extension G∗At =B is the group given by
G∗At =B = hG, t | t−1 at = ϕ(a), a ∈ Ai
where ϕ : A → B is an isomorphism. Recall that for a word W in the alphabet {G \ {1}, t}, a pinch
(in the HNN-extension G∗At =B ) is a subword of the form t−1 at with a ∈ A or tbt−1 with b ∈ B. a
word g0 tε0 g1 tε1 ...gn−1 tεn−1 gn , where each gi ∈ G and each εi = ±1, is called reduced if there are no
pinches. Given such a word, we define its t-length as the number of occurrences of the letters t and
t−1 . In G∗At =B , any pinch can be replaced by a single element of G. It follows that each element
w ∈ G∗At =B is equal to a reduced word. The converse to this statement is known as the Britton
Lemma (see [31, Ch. 4, Sec.2]).
Lemma 2.13 (Britton Lemma). Let W be a word in {G \ {1}, t} with t-length at least 1 and no
pinches. Then W 6= 1 in G∗At =B .
An immediate consequence of this lemma is the well-known fact that G naturally embeds in the
HNN-extension G∗At =B . When dealing with HNN-extensions of relatively hyperbolic groups we
will often use the following corollary of the Britton Lemma. A reduced word W is called cyclicly
reduced if it is not conjugate to an element of shorter t-length, or equivalently, no cyclic shift
contains a pinch.
Lemma 2.14. Let G be a group, A, B isomorphic subgroups of G. Suppose that some f ∈ G is not
conjugate to any elements of A ∪ B in G. Then in the corresponding HNN-extension G∗At =B ,
(1) f is conjugate to another element g ∈ G in G∗At =B if and only if f and g are conjugate in
G.
(2) If f is primitive in G, then f is primitive in G∗At =B .
Proof. Since f is not in A or B, if W is any reduced word then W −1 f W g −1 contains no pinches.
Thus, f is not conjugate to g. The second assertion will immediately follow if we can show that
if w ∈ G∗At =B such that wn ∈ G, then either w ∈ G or wn is conjugate to an element of A or
an element of B (here we identify G with its image in G∗At =B ). To show this we induct on the
t-length of the reduced form of w. If a reduced word representing w contains no t letters, then
w ∈ G. Clearly wn ∈ G implies that w has even t-length, since the sum of the exponents of t
letters must be 0. Suppose w has t-length 2. Then for some g0 , g1 , g2 , ε ∈ {0, 1}, we have that
w = g0 tε g1 t−ε g2 . The Britton Lemma implies that t−ε g2 g0 tε must be a pinch or freely trivial, that
is t−ε g2 g0 tε = h for some (possibly trivial) h in A or B. Without loss of generality, let h ∈ A, and
note that this implies that g2 g0 ∈ B. Then wn = g0 tε (g1 hg1 )n t−ε g2 . Again, by the Britton Lemma
tε (g1 hg1 )n t−ε must be a pinch or trivial, and since the orientation of the t is reversed, we get that
tε (g1 hg1 )n t−ε = h0 for some h0 ∈ B. Finally, observe that wn = g0 h0 g2 g0 g0−1 , thus wn ∼ h0 g2 g0 ∈ B.
Now suppose we have shown the above claim for all elements of G∗At =B with shorter t-length then
w. As before, w = g0 tε0 ...t−ε0 gn , and t−ε0 gn g0 tε0 = h, for some h ∈ A ∪ B. Let u0 = g1 tε1 ...gn−1 h.
Now let u be a conjugate of u0 which is cyclicly reduced. Since u ∼ u0 = t−ε0 g0−1 wg0 tε0 , we have
that u ∼ w and so un ∼ wn ∈ G. Since u is cyclicly reduced, un is cyclicly reduced, hence un ∈ G.
Since u has fewer t letters then w, by the inductive hypothesis, un (and thus wn ) is conjugate to
an element of A or an element of B.

The following result was first proved by Dahmani in [13] for finitely generated groups and then
in [40] in the full generality. It is worth noting that we will use it for infinitely generated groups in
this paper.

CONJUGACY GROWTH OF FINITELY GENERATED GROUPS

9

Lemma 2.15. Suppose that a group G is hyperbolic relative to a collection of subgroups {Hλ }λ∈Λ ∪
{K} and for some ν ∈ Λ, there exists a monomorphism ι : K → Hν . Then the HNN-extension
hG, t | t−1 kt = ι(k), k ∈ Ki

(7)
is hyperbolic relative to {Hλ }λ∈Λ .

Corollary 2.16. Let G be a torsion free group hyperbolic relative to {Hλ }λ∈Λ , S a suitable
subgroup of G, and g a loxodromic element of G. Then for any h ∈ H, there is an isomorphism ι : EG (g) → hhi and the corresponding HNN-extension G∗EG (g)t =hhi is hyperbolic relative to
{Hλ }λ∈Λ . Furthermore, S is a suitable subgroup of G∗EG (g)t =hhi .
Proof. The existence of ι follows from the fact that since G is torsion free, EG (g) and hhi are
both infinite cyclic. The relative hyperbolicity of G∗EG (g)t =hhi follows immediately from Lemma
2.9 and Lemma 2.15. Since S is suitable in G, Lemma 2.12 yields the existence of infinitely many
pairwise non–commensurable loxodromic (in G) elements of S. At most one of these elements is
commensurable with g in G. Therefore, by Lemma 2.14 S, considered as a subgroup of G∗EG (g)t =hhi ,
will still contain loxodromic elements. Thus S is suitable in G∗EG (g)t =hhi by Lemma 2.12.

3. Conjugacy growth in groups with hyperbolically embedded subgroups
Let G be a group, H ≤ G, X ⊆ G. We assume that G = hX ∪ Hi and denote by Γ(G, X ∪ H)
the Cayley graph of G with respect to the generating set X ∪ H and by ΓH the Cayley graph of H
with respect to the generating set H. Clearly ΓH is a complete subgraph of Γ(G, X ∪ H).
b 1 , h2 ) to be the length of a shortest path p in
Given two elements h1 , h2 ∈ H, we define d(h
Γ(G, X ∪ H) that connects h1 to h2 and does not contain edges of ΓH . If no such path exists we
b 1 , h2 ) = ∞. Clearly db: H × H → [0, ∞] is a metric on H.
set d(h
Definition 3.1. We say that H is hyperbolically embedded in G with respect to X ⊆ G (and write
H ,→h (G, X)) if the following conditions hold:
(a) G = hX ∪ Hi and Γ(G, X ∪ H) is hyperbolic.
b is a locally finite metric space, i.e., every ball (of finite radius) is finite.
(b) (H, d)
We also say that H is hyperbolically embedded in G (and write H ,→h G) if H ,→h (G, X) for some
X ⊆ G.
Note that for any group G, we have G ,→h (G, X) for X = ∅. Indeed then the Cayley graph
Γ(G, X ∪H) has diameter 1 and d(h1 , h2 ) = ∞ whenever h1 6= h2 . Further, if H is a finite subgroup
of a group G, then H ,→h (G, X) for X = G. These cases are referred to as degenerate.
Definition 3.2. A hyperbolically embedded subgroup H ,→h G is called non-degenerate if it is
infinite and proper (i.e., H 6= G).
One may wonder if the case when H is of finite index in G should also be considered degenerate.
In fact, a proper finite index subgroup of an infinite group is never hyperbolically embedded (see
Lemma 3.4).
Let us consider two elementary examples to illustrate the definition.
Example 3.3.
(1) Let G = H × Z, X = {x}, where x is a generator of Z. Then Γ(G, X ∪ H)
is quasi-isometric to a line and hence it is hyperbolic. However d(h1 , h2 ) ≤ 3 for every

10

MICHAEL HULL AND DENIS OSIN

h1 , h2 ∈ H. If H is infinite, then H 6,→h (G, X). Moreover, generalizing this argument, one
can show that H 6,→h G.
(2) Let G = H ∗ Z, X = {x}, where x is a generator of Z. In this case Γ(G, X ∪ H) is
quasi-isometric to a tree and d(h1 , h2 ) = ∞ unless h1 = h2 . Thus H ,→h (G, X).
A group G is hyperbolic relative to a subgroup H if and only if H ,→h (G, X) for some finite
set X [14]. This provides us with a rich source of examples. For instance, the following groups
contain non-degenerate hyperbolically embedded subgroups: non-elementary hyperbolic groups,
fundamental groups of complete finite-volume manifolds of pinched negative sectional curvature,
free products of groups other than Z2 ∗ Z2 and their small cancellation quotients as defined in [31],
groups with infinitely many ends, non-abelian finitely generated groups acting freely on Rn -trees,
including non-abelian limit groups, etc.
On the other hand, there are many examples of non-relatively hyperbolic groups that contain nondegenerate hyperbolically embedded subgroups. Examples include all but finitely many mapping
class groups, Out(Fn ) for n ≥ 2, the Cremona group Bir(P2C ) (i.e., the group of birational automorphism of the complex projective plane), directly indecomposable right angled Artin groups, and
many groups acting on trees. For details we refer to [14].
The following two results can be found in [14].
Lemma 3.4. Let G be a group, H a hyperbolically embedded subgroup. Then for every g ∈ G \ H,
the intersection H ∩ H g is finite.
Lemma 3.5. Let G be a group with a non-degenerate hyperbolically embedded subgroup. Then for
every n ∈ N, there exists a hyperbolically embedded subgroup Kn ≤ G such that Kn ∼
= Z × Fn , where
Z is finite and Fn is the free group of rank n.
We are now ready to prove our first result.
Theorem 3.6. Let G be a finitely generated group with a non-degenerate hyperbolically embedded
subgroup. Then ξG ∼ πG ∼ 2n .
Proof. Let K = K2 ≤ G be the subgroup provided by Lemma 3.5. We think of F2 as a subgroup of
K. Note first that if g m = f for some g ∈ G, f ∈ K, and m ∈ Z \ {0}, then the intersection K g ∩ K
contains the subgroup hf i. Hence if f has infinite order, g ∈ K by Lemma 3.4. Thus every element
of K of infinite order that is primitive in K is also primitive in G. Furthermore, if two elements of
K of infinite order are conjugate in G, then they are conjugate in K for the same reason. Thus we
obtain πG  πK and the later function is obviously exponential (this also follows from the results
of [11] as K is non-elementary hyperbolic). Since πG  ξG  2n for every finitely generated group
G, we are done.

Theorem 3.6 can be used to completely classify conjugacy growth functions of subgroups of
certain groups, e.g., mapping class groups.
Corollary 3.7. Let Σ be a (possibly punctured) closed orientable surface, G a subgroup of the
mapping class group of Σ. Then either G is virtually abelian (in which case ξG is polynomial), or
ξG is exponential.
Proof. By Theorem 2.21 from [14], G is either virtually abelian, or has a finite index subgroup
G0 which surjects on a group with a non-degenerate hyperbolically embedded subgroup. In the

CONJUGACY GROWTH OF FINITELY GENERATED GROUPS

11

later case ξG0 is exponential by Theorem 3.6. It is straightforward to prove that one has ξG0  ξG
whenever [G : G0 ] < ∞ (see, e.g., [29]). Hence the claim.

4. Small cancellation conditions
Given a set of words R in an alphabet A, we say that R is symmetrized if for any R ∈ R,
R contains all cyclic shifts of R±1 . Further, if G is a group generated by a set A, we say that
a word R is (λ, c)–quasi–geodesic in G if any path in the Cayley graph Γ(G, A) labeled by R is
(λ, c)–quasi–geodesic.
We begin by giving the small cancellation conditions introduced by Olshanskii in [36] and also
used in [42].
Definition 4.1. Let G be a group generated by a set A, R a symmetrized set of words in A. For
ε > 0, a subword U of a word R ∈ R is called an ε–piece if there exists a word R0 ∈ R such that:
(1) R ≡ U V , R0 ≡ U 0 V 0 , for some V, U 0 , V 0 ;
(2) U 0 = Y U Z in G for some words Y, Z in A such that max{kY k, kZk} ≤ ε;
(3) Y RY −1 6= R0 in the group G.
Similarly, a subword U of R ∈ R is called an ε0 –piece if:
(10 ) R ≡ U V U 0 V 0 for some V, U 0 , V 0 ;
(20 ) U 0 = Y U ±1 Z in the group G for some Y, Z satisfying max{kY k, kZk} ≤ ε.
Definition 4.2. We say that the set R satisfies the C(ε, µ, λ, c, ρ)–condition for some ε ≥ 0, µ > 0,
λ > 0, c ≥ 0, ρ > 0, if
(1) kRk ≥ ρ for any R ∈ R;
(2) any word R ∈ R is (λ, c)–quasi–geodesic;
(3) for any ε–piece of any word R ∈ R, the inequality max{kU k, kU 0 k} < µkRk holds (using
the notation of Definition 4.1).
Further the set R satisfies the C1 (ε, µ, λ, c, ρ)–condition if in addition the condition (3) holds for
any ε0 –piece of any word R ∈ R.
Suppose that G is a group defined by
(8)

G = hA | Oi.

Given a set of words R, we consider the quotient group of G represented by
(9)

G1 = hA | O ∪ Ri.

A cell in a van Kampen diagram over (9) is called an R–cell if its boundary label is a word from
R. Let ∆ be a van Kampen diagram over (9), q a subpath of ∂∆, and Π an R–cell of ∆. Suppose
that there is a simple closed path
(10)

p = s1 q1 s2 q2

in ∆, where q1 is a subpath of ∂Π, q2 is a subpath of q, and
(11)

max{l(s1 ), l(s2 )} ≤ ε

for some constant ε > 0. By Γ we denote the subdiagram of ∆ bounded by p. If Γ contains no
R–cells, we say that Γ is an ε–contiguity subdiagram (or simply a contiguity subdiagram if ε is

12

MICHAEL HULL AND DENIS OSIN

∆

Π
s1

q1

s2

Γ
q2
p
Figure 1. Contiguity subdiagram.
fixed) of Π to the subpath q of ∂∆ and q1 is the contiguity arc of Π to q. The ratio l(q1 )/l(∂Π) is
called the contiguity degree of Π to q and is denoted by (Π, Γ, q). In case q = ∂∆, we talk about
contiguity subdiagrams, etc., of Π to ∂∆. Since Γ contains no R–cells, it can be considered a
diagram over (8).
A van Kampen diagram ∆ over (9) is said to be reduced if ∆ has minimal number of R–cells
among all diagrams over (9) having the same boundary label. When dealing with a diagram ∆ over
(9), it is convenient to consider the following transformations. Let Σ be a subdiagram of ∆ which
contains no R-cells, Σ0 another diagram over (8) with Lab(∂Σ) ≡ Lab(∂Σ0 ). Then we can remove
Σ and fill the obtained hole with Σ0 . Note that this transformation does not affect Lab(∂∆) and
the number of R-cells in ∆. If two diagrams over (9) can be obtained from each other by a sequence
of such transformations, we call them O-equivalent. [42, Lemma 4.4] provides an analogue to the
well-known Greendlinger Lemma for small cancellation over relatively hyperbolic groups. In this
paper, we will make use of the more general version of this lemma appearing in the appendix of
[42].
Lemma 4.3 ([42], Lemma 9.7). Let G be a group with presentation (8). Suppose that the Cayley
graph Γ(G, A) of G is hyperbolic. Then for any λ ∈ (0, 1], c ≥ 0, there exists ε ≥ 0 such that for all
µ ∈ (0, 1/16], there exists ρ > 0 with the following property. Let R be a symmetrized set of words in
A satisfying the C(ε, µ, λ, c, ρ)–condition, ∆ a reduced van Kampen diagram over the presentation
(9) such that ∂∆ = q1 · · · qr for some 1 ≤ r ≤ 4, where q1 , . . . , qr are (λ, c)-quasi-geodesic. Assume
that ∆ has at least one R–cell. Then up to passing to an O-equivalent diagram, then there is an
R-cell Π of ∆ and disjoint ε-contiguity subdiagrams Γj of Π to sections qj , j = 1, . . . , r, of ∂∆
r
P
(some of them may be absent) such that
(Π, Γj , qj ) > 1 − 13µ.
j=1

This is actually a slight restatement of [42, Lemma 9.7], since we will need to choose ε independent
of µ. However, this follows immediately from the choice of ε in the proof of this lemma (see [42,
equation 36]). In fact, aside from the inductive proof of this lemma, [42] only makes use of the
special case when r = 1; we will need the more general statement for the proof of Lemma 5.5.
5. Conjugacy and elementary subgroups in small cancellation quotients
Throughout this section, let G and G1 be groups defined by (8) and (9), respectively. We suppose
G is hyperbolic relative to {Hλ }λ∈Λ , and A = X ∪ H, where X is a finite relative generating set

CONJUGACY GROWTH OF FINITELY GENERATED GROUPS

13

of G with respect to {Hλ }λ∈Λ and H is defined by (4). Let δ denote the hyperbolicity constant of
Γ(G, A) provided by Theorem 2.7.
The following lemma is a combination of Lemma 5.1 and Lemma 6.3 from [42].
Lemma 5.1. For any λ ∈ (0, 1], c ≥ 0, N > 0, there exist µ > 0, ε ≥ 0, and ρ > 0 such that for
any finite symmetrized set of words R satisfying the C1 (ε, µ, λ, c, ρ)–condition, the following hold.
(a) The group G1 is hyperbolic relative to the collection of images of subgroups Hλ , λ ∈ Λ, under
the natural homomorphism G → G1 .
(b) The restriction of the natural homomorphism G → G1 to the subset of elements of length
at most N with respect to the generating set A is injective.
(c) Every element of finite order in G1 is the image of an element of finite order of G.
For an element g ∈ G, the translation number of g with respect to A is defined to be
|g n |A
.
n→∞
n
This limit always exists and is equal to inf (|g n |A/n) [19]. The lemma below can be found in [38,
τA (g) = lim
n

Theorem 4.43].
Lemma 5.2. There exists d > 0 such that for any loxodromic element g ∈ G we have τX∪H (g) ≥ d.
Given a word W in A, we say that a word U is W -periodic if it is a subword of W n for some
n ∈ Z \ {0}. In what follows, when speaking about Cayley graphs or van Kampen diagrams, we
denote by dist the natural metric induced by identifying each edge with the segment [0, 1].
Corollary 5.3. Suppose that W is a word in A representing a loxodromic element g ∈ G such
that |g|A = kW k ≤ C for some C > 0. Then any path in Γ(G, A) labeled by a W -periodic word is
( Cd , 2(C + d)) quasi-geodesic.
Proof. First observe that for any n ∈ N,
(12)



n

|g |A ≥ n inf
i

1 i
|g |A
i


≥ nd ≥

d
n|g|A
C

where d is the constant from Lemma 5.2. Now suppose p is a path labeled by a W -periodic word.
Let q be a maximal (maybe empty) subpath of p, labeled by W n for some n ∈ Z (we identify
W 0 with the empty word). Then, `(p) ≤ n|g|A + 2C. Combining this with (12) and the triangle
inequality, we get
d
d
n|g|A − 2C ≥ `(p) − 2C − 2d.
C
C
Since a subword of a W -periodic word is also W -periodic, we are done.
dist(p− , p+ ) ≥ dist(q− , q+ ) − 2C = |g n |A − 2C ≥



The next lemma provides a bound on contiguity degrees of R-cells to paths with periodic labels
and on a possible overlap between two contiguity subdiagrams to a geodesic if R satisfies a small
cancellation condition.
Lemma 5.4. For any λ ∈ (0, 1], c ≥ 0, ε > 0, and N ∈ N, there exist constants D = D(ε, λ, c, δ, N )
and ε1 ≥ ε such that for all µ > 0 and ρ > 0 and any set of words R satisfying the C1 (ε1 , µ, λ, c, ρ)
condition, the following holds.

14

MICHAEL HULL AND DENIS OSIN

t2

r2

t1
+
≤K

r1

ε

s1
s2

v2

u2

v1

u1

Figure 2. Decompositions of q1 and q2 in the proof of Lemma 5.4 (a).
(a) Let W be a word in A representing a loxodromic g ∈ G such that |g|A = kW k ≤ N . Then
for any R ∈ R and any quadrangle Q = s1 q1 s2 q2 in Γ(G, A), where `(si ) ≤ ε for i = 1, 2,
Lab(q1 ) is a subword of R, and Lab(q2 ) is W -periodic, we have `(q1 ) ≤ DµkRk + D.
(b) Let U and V ±1 be disjoint subwords of some R ∈ R, and let r be a geodesic path in
Γ(G, A). Suppose q1 s1 r1 t1 and q2 s2 r2 t2 are quadrangles in Γ(G, A) such that Lab(q1 ) ≡ U ,
Lab(q2 ) ≡ V , r1 , r2 are subpaths of r±1 , and `(si ), `(ti ) ≤ ε for i = 1, 2. Then the overlap
between r1 and r2 is at most µkRk + ε1 .
Proof. Without loss of generality we can assume that s1 , s2 are geodesic. Since the C1 condition
becomes stronger as λ increases and c decreases, it suffices to assume that λ ≤ Nd and c ≥ 2N + 2d.
Thus Q is a (λ, c)-quasi-geodesic quadrangle by Corollary 5.3. Choose
ε1 = 2(K + ε),
where K = K(λ, c, δ) is the constant provided by Lemma 2.8.
Our proof of part (a) will closely follow the ideas from the proof of [42, Lemma 6.3]. Passing
to a cyclic shift of W ±1 , we can assume q2 is labeled by a prefix of W n for some n ∈ N. We will
derive a contradiction under the assumption that q1 is sufficiently long; the exact constant D can
be easily extracted from the proof. First, note that the triangle inequality gives
(13)

`(q1 ) ≤

1
1
(dist((q1 )− , (q1 )+ ) + c) ≤ (`(q2 ) + 2ε + c).
λ
λ

Now, if `(q2 ) ≤ 34 kW k we have
1
`(q1 ) ≤
λ




4
N + 2ε + c.
3

Thus, it suffices to assume `(q2 ) > 43 kW k. Then we can decompose Lab(q2 ) as Lab(q2 ) ≡ U V1 U V2 ,
where
(14)

λ2 `(q2 )
λ2 `(q2 )
≤ kU k ≤
5
4

and
(15)

kV1 k >

`(q2 )
.
3

CONJUGACY GROWTH OF FINITELY GENERATED GROUPS

x1

15

x2

p1
K+
≤ 2(

ε)

t1

s1

r1
r0
r2

s2
t2
y1

p2

y2

Figure 3. The proof of Lemma 5.4 (b).
Let q2 = u1 v1 u2 v2 be the corresponding decomposition of the path q2 (see Fig. 2). Then by
Lemma 2.8, we can find an initial subpath r1 of q1−1 and a subpath r2 of q1±1 such that
dist((ri )± , (ui )± ) ≤ K + ε

(16)

for i = 1, 2. Now, we claim that for sufficiently long q1 , r1 and r2 will be disjoint. Indeed using
(14) we obtain
1
1
λ`(q2 ) 2ε + 2K + c
(dist((r1 )− , (r1 )+ ) + c) ≤ (`(u1 ) + 2ε + 2K + c) ≤
+
.
λ
λ
4
λ
However, if r1 contains (r2 )− , then by (15) we have
`(r1 ) ≤

λ`(q2 )
− c − 2ε − 2K.
3
These inequalities contradict each other for sufficiently large `(q2 ), which can be ensured if q1 is
long enough by (13).
`(r1 ) ≥ dist((r1 )− , (r2 )− ) ≥ λ`(u1 v1 ) − c − 2ε − 2K ≥

Thus, we can decompose q1−1 = r1 t1 r2ξ t2 , for some ξ = ±1 and t1 , t2 where at least t1 is nonempty. Let Lab(q1 )−1 ≡ R1 T1 R2 T2 be the corresponding decomposition of the label of q1−1 . Then
by (16) we have R1 = Y1 U Z1 and R2 = Y2 U ±1 Z2 in G, where kYi k, kZi k ≤ K + ε for i = 1, 2. Thus,
there exist Y , Z such that kY k, kZk ≤ 2(K +ε) = ε1 and R1 = Y R2±1 Z in G. Now, since R satisfies
the C1 (ε1 , µ, λ, c, ρ)–condition and R1 , R2 are disjoint subwords of R, we have that kR1 k ≤ µkRk.
Finally, using (14) we obtain
5
5
kU k ≤ 3 (dist((u1 )− , (u1 )+ ) + c)
2
λ
λ
5
5
≤ 3 (`(r1 ) + 2ε + 2K + c) ≤ 3 (µkRk + 2ε + 2K + c).
λ
λ
Combining this with (13) produces a contradiction for sufficiently long q1 . This completes the proof
of (a).
`(q2 ) ≤

16

MICHAEL HULL AND DENIS OSIN

To prove (b) let r0 denote the overlap of r1 and r2 with arbitrary orientation (see Fig. 3). By
Lemma 2.8, we can choose points x1 , x2 on q1 such that dist((r0 )− , x1 ) ≤ K +ε and dist((r0 )+ , x2 ) ≤
K + ε. Similarly we choose y1 and y2 on q2 satisfying the same conditions. Now, if x1 = x2 or
y1 = y2 , then
`(r0 ) = dist((r0 )− , (r0 )+ ) ≤ 2(K + ε) = ε1 .
Otherwise, we take p1 to be the subpath of q1±1 with endpoints x1 , x2 , and p2 the subpath of q2±1
with endpoints y1 , y2 . Then dist((p1 )± , (p2 )± ) ≤ 2(K + ε). Thus, by the C1 (ε1 , µ, λ, c, ρ)–condition,
we have that l(p1 ) ≤ µkRk. Thus,
`(r0 ) = dist((r0 )− , (r0 )+ ) ≤ µkRk + 2(K + ε) = µkRk + ε1 .

The next lemma will allow us to describe maximal elementary subgroups corresponding to loxodromic elements of small length in small cancellation quotients of relatively hyperbolic groups (see
the corollary after the lemma).
Lemma 5.5. For any λ ∈ (0, 1], c ≥ 0, and N ∈ N, there exist ε1 > 0, µ > 0, and ρ > 0 such
that the following holds. Suppose R satisfies the C1 (ε1 , µ, λ, c, ρ)–condition. Let α : G → G1 be the
natural epimorphism. Let g, h be elements of G such that |g|A , |h|A ≤ N . Let x ∈ G such that
α(x−1 g n xhn ) = 1 in G1 but x−1 g n xhn 6= 1 in G for some n ∈ N; if n 6= 1, we further assume that
g and h are loxodromic. Then there exists y such that |y|A < |x|A , and α(y −1 g n yhn ) = 1 in G1 .
Furthermore, α(x) ∈ α(hg, yi).
Proof. As in the proof of Lemma 5.4, it is sufficient to assume λ ≤ Nd , c ≥ 2N + 2d. Let ε be chosen
according to Lemma 4.3. Now choose D and ε1 according to Lemma 5.4; increasing D if necessary,
we also assume that
2ε + N + c
.
D≥
λ
Note that D is independent of µ and ρ. We will show that the conclusion of the lemma holds for
sufficiently small µ and sufficiently large ρ.
Let W , V , and X be shortest words in A representing g, h, and x respectively. Let ∆ be a reduced
van Kampen diagram over (9) with ∂∆ = p1 p2 p3 p4 , Lab(p1 )−1 ≡ Lab(p3 ) ≡ X, Lab(p2 ) ≡ W n ,
and Lab(p4 ) ≡ V n , where either n = 1 or both g and h are loxodromic. Then p2 and p4 are (λ, c)
quasi-geodesics; this is obvious when n = 1 and follows from Corollary 5.3 otherwise. Also p1 and
p3 are geodesic paths by our choice of X. Since x−1 g n xhn 6= 1 in G, ∆ must contain an R-cell.
Since ε1 ≥ ε, R also satisfies C1 (ε, µ, λ, c, ρ), hence we can apply Lemma 4.3 for µ ∈ (0, 1/16] and
large enough ρ. That is, passing to an O-equivalent diagram if necessary, we can find an R-cell
Π of ∆ and disjoint ε-contiguity subdiagrams Γj of Π to pj , j = 1, . . . , 4, (some of which may be
empty) such that
(17)

4
X
(Π, Γj , pj ) > 1 − 13µ.
j=1

We will now show that
(18)


(Π, Γ2 , p2 ) + (Π, Γ4 , p4 ) ≤ 2 Dµ +

D
`(∂Π)


.

CONJUGACY GROWTH OF FINITELY GENERATED GROUPS

u1

v1

r1
s1

Γ1

∆

17

t1
q1

Π

p4

p2
z

p3
Figure 4. Case 1 in the proof of Lemma 5.5.
If g and h are loxodromic, this follows from Lemma 5.4. When n = 1, we let ∂Γ2 = sptr, where
p is a subpath of p2 , r is a subpath of ∂Π, and max{`(s), `(t)} < ε. By the definition of the
C1 (ε, µ, λ, c, ρ) the path r is (λ, c)-quasi-geodesic. Therefore,
`(r) ≤

1
1
1
(dist(r− , r+ ) + c) ≤ (`(s) + `(p) + `(r) + c) ≤ (2ε + N + c) ≤ D.
λ
λ
λ

Consequently, (Π, Γ2 , p2 ) = `(r)/`(∂Π) ≤ D/`(∂Π). The analogous inequality holds true for
(Π, Γ4 , p2 ) and we obtain
2D
(Π, Γ2 , p2 ) + (Π, Γ4 , p4 ) ≤
.
`(∂Π)
Hence the inequality (18) holds in both cases.
Combining (17) and (18) gives that for at least one of i = 1, 3, we have


1
2D
(19)
(Π, Γi , pi ) >
1 − (13 + 2D)µ −
.
2
`(∂Π)
Without loss of generality, we assume this holds for i = 1. Let ∂Γ1 = s1 r1 t1 q1 , where `(si ) ≤ ε
for i = 1, 2, q1 is a subpath of ∂Π, r1 is a subpath of p1 . There are two cases to consider.
Case 1. First suppose Γ3 is empty. Then (Π, Γ1 , q1 ) >



1 − (13 + 2D)µ −

(1 − (13 + 2D)µ)`(∂Π) − 2D. Let ∂Π = q1 z (see Fig. 4). Then the path
and end vertices as r1 . However,

−1
s−1
1 zt1

2D
`(∂Π)



, so `(q1 ) >

has the same start

−1
`(s−1
1 zt1 ) ≤ `(∂Π) − `(q1 ) + 2ε < `(∂Π) − (1 − (13 + 2D)µ)`(∂Π) + 2D + 2ε

= (13 + 2D)µ`(∂Π) + 2D + 2ε

18

MICHAEL HULL AND DENIS OSIN

u1

v1

r1
s1

Γ1

∆

t1
q1

z1
Π

p4

p2

z2
q2
t2
v2

s2

Γ3

r2

u2
j

u01

s01

r10

∆0

t01

v10

q10

z10
p04

z20

p02

q20
t02

v20

s02

r20

u02

Figure 5. Case 2 in the proof of Lemma 5.5.
while
`(r1 ) ≥ dist((q1 )− , (q1 )+ ) − 2ε ≥ λ`(q1 ) − c − 2ε
> λ((1 − (13 + 2D)µ)`(∂Π) − 2D) − c − 2ε.
Thus, for sufficiently small µ and suffiently large `(∂Π) (which can be ensured by choosing large
enough ρ), we will get that `(r1 ) > `(t1 zs1 ). However, this contradicts the fact that r1 is a subpath
of a geodesic p1 . Thus, we can assume that Γ3 is non-empty.
Case 2. Let ∂Γ3 = s2 r2 t2 q2 , where `(t2 ), `(s2 ) ≤ ε, q2 is a subpath of ∂Π, and r2 is a subpath
of p3 . Also, let ∂Π = q1 z1 q2 z2 . Now, we decompose p1 = u1 r1 v1 and p3 = u2 r2 v2 . For definiteness
we suppose that `(v2 ) ≤ `(u1 ) (in the case `(v2 ) ≥ `(u1 ) the proof is similar). Let ∆0 be a copy
of ∆. Given a path a in ∆, we denote its copy by a0 . Let us glue ∆ and ∆0 by identifying p3 to
(p01 )−1 (see Fig. 5). Let j denote the (possibly empty) intersection of r10 and r2−1 . Consider the path

CONJUGACY GROWTH OF FINITELY GENERATED GROUPS

19

−1
p = v2−1 r2−1 s−1
2 z2 t1 v1 . We want to show that

`(p) < kXk = `(p1 ).

(20)

−1
Observe that `(p) = `(p1 ) − `(r1 ) + `(j) + `(s−1
2 z2 t1 ). Thus, we only need to show that `(r1 ) >
−1
−1
`(j) + `(s2 z2 t1 ). By Lemma 5.4, `(j) ≤ µ`(∂Π) + ε1 . Also,

`(z2 ) ≤ `(∂Π) − `(q1 ) − `(q3 ) ≤ (13 + 2D)µ`(∂Π) + 2D
by (17) and (18). Thus,
−1
`(j) + `(s−1
2 z2 t1 ) ≤ µ`(∂Π) + ε1 + (13 + 2D)µ`(∂Π) + 2D + 2ε

= (14 + 2D)µ`(∂Π) + ε1 + 2D + 2ε.
However, by (19)
`(r1 ) ≥ dist((q1 )− , (q1 )+ ) − 2ε ≥ λ`(q1 ) − c − 2ε >
λ
(1 − (13 + 2D)µ)`(∂Π) − λD − c − 2ε.
2
−1
Thus, we will have `(r1 ) > `(j)+`(s−1
2 z2 t1 ) as long as µ is sufficiently small and `(∂Π) is sufficiently
large; the later condition can be guaranteed by choosing sufficiently large ρ. This completes the
proof of (20).

Now let y be the element of G1 represented by Lab(p). By (20), we have |y|A < |x|A . Observe
that pp2 (p0 )−1 p04 is a closed path (it is represented by the bold line on Fig. 5), hence yg n y −1 hn =
Lab(p)Lab(p2 )Lab((p0 )−1 )Lab(p04 ) = 1 in G1 . Observe that pp2 p3 is also a closed path, so yg n x =
1 in G1 , therefore α(x) ∈ α(hg, yi).

The main result of this section is the following.
Corollary 5.6. For all λ ∈ (0, 1], c ≥ 0 and N ∈ N, there exist ε1 > 0, µ > 0, and ρ > 0 such
that if R satisfies the C1 (ε1 , µ, λ, c, ρ) and α is the natural epimorphism from G to G1 , then the
following conditions are satisfied:
(a) If g, h ∈ BG,A (N ), then α(g) ∼ α(h) if and only if g ∼ h.
(b) If g ∈ BG,A (N ) is loxodromic, then EG1 (α(g)) = α(EG (g)).
Proof. First, choose ε1 , µ, ρ satisfying the conditions of Lemma 5.5. Suppose g and h are nonconjugate elements of G which become conjugate in G1 , and g, h ∈ BG,A (N ). Suppose x is the
shortest element in G satisfying α(x−1 gxh−1 ) = 1. But then by Lemma 5.5 there exists a strictly
shorter element y such that α(y −1 gyh−1 ) = 1, contradicting our choice of x. This proves (a).
Now suppose g ∈ BG,A (N ) is a loxodromic element such that α(EG (g)) 6= EG1 (α(g)). Clearly,
α(EG (g)) ⊂ EG1 (α(g)). Let x be a shortest element of G such that α(x) ∈ EG1 (α(g)) \ α(EG (g)).
Then by Lemma 2.9 there exists some n ∈ N such that α(x−1 g n xg ±n ) = 1 in G1 . Since x ∈
/ EG (g),
−1
n
±n
x g xg
6= 1 in G, so we can apply Lemma 5.5 to find a strictly shorter element y satisfying
α(y −1 g n yg ±n ) = 1 in G1 . Then α(y) ∈ EG1 (g), and by our choice of x we get that α(y) ∈ α(EG (g)).
However, then α(x) ∈ α(hg, yi) ≤ α(EG (g)), a contradiction.


20

MICHAEL HULL AND DENIS OSIN

6. Constructing groups with specified conjugacy growth
To prove our main result, we will need some special words satisfying sufficiently strong small
cancellation conditions. These words were constructed in [42]. More precisely, let G be a group
hyperbolic relative to a collection of subgroups {Hλ }λ∈Λ , X a finite relative generating set of G
with respect to {Hλ }λ∈Λ . Let δ be the hyperbolicity constant of Γ(G, X ∪ H) provided by Theorem
2.7. Consider words W satisfying the following conditions:
(W1 ) W ≡ xa1 b1 . . . an bn for some n ≥ 1, where:
(W2 ) x ∈ X ∪ {1};
(W3 ) a1 , . . . , an (respectively b1 , . . . , bn ) are elements of a parabolic subgroup Hα (respectively
Hβ ), where Hα ∩ Hβ = {1};
Theorem 6.1 (Theorem 7.5 [42]). There exists a constant L = L(ε, δ) > 0 and a finite set Ω ⊂ G
such that the following is satisfied. Suppose that W is a word in X ∪ H satisfying the conditions
±1
−1
−1
(W1 )–(W3 ) and ai 6= a±1
j , bi 6= bj whenever i 6= j, and ai 6= ai , bi 6= bi , i, j ∈ {1, . . . , n}. Also,
suppose the elements a1 , . . . , an , b1 , . . . , bn do not belong to the set {g ∈ hΩi : |g|Ω ≤ L}. Then the
1
set W of all cyclic shifts of W ±1 satisfies the C1 (ε, 3ε+11
n , 3 , 2, 2n + 1) small cancellation condition.
Theorem 6.2. Let G be a group hyperbolic relative to a collection of subgroups {Hλ }λ∈Λ , S a
suitable subgroup of G, and t1 , . . . , tm arbitrary elements of G. Let N ∈ N, and X be a finite
relative generating set of G. Then there exists a group G and an epimorphism α : G → G such that:
The group G is hyperbolic relative to {α(Hλ )}λ∈Λ .
For any i = 1, . . . , m, we have α(ti ) ∈ α(S).
S
α is injective on BG,X∪H (N ). In particular, the restriction of α to λ∈Λ Hλ is injective.
α(S) is a suitable subgroup of G.
An element of G has finite order only if it is an image of an element of finite order in G.
In particular, if G is torsion free, then so is G.
(f ) If g, h ∈ BG,X∪H (N ), then α(g) ∼ α(h) if and only if g ∼ h.
(g) If g ∈ BG,X∪H (N ) is loxodromic, then EG (α(g)) = α(EG (g)).

(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)

Remark 6.3. It is easy to see from the proof of Theorem 6.2 that
G = G/hht1 w1 , . . . , tm wm ii
for some elements w1 , . . . , wm ∈ S. Moreover, we can assume that w1 , . . . , wm ∈ [S, S] by choosing
the exponents m1 , . . . , mn in the proof so that m1 + · · · + mn = 0.
Conditions (a) − (e) of the theorem are proved in [42] using the theory of small cancellation
over relatively hyperbolic groups. Additional lemmas proved in the previous section will allow us
to prove the remaining conditions (f),(g) and to show that these conditions and (a)-(e) can be
achieved simultaneously.
Proof of Theorem 6.2. We consider only the case m = 1, since the general case will follow by
induction from repeated applications of this case. We set A = X ∪ H and let O = S ∪ Q as defined
in (6).
Let µ, ε1 ≥ ε, ρ be constants such that the conclusions of Lemma 5.1 and Corollary 5.6 hold
for λ = 1/3, c = 2, and N . By Lemma 2.12, there are non-commensurable loxodromic elements
s1 , s2 ∈ S such that EG (s1 ) = hs1 i and EG (s2 ) = hs2 i. Lemma 2.9 gives that G is hyperbolic

CONJUGACY GROWTH OF FINITELY GENERATED GROUPS

21

relative to the collection {Hλ }λ∈Λ ∪ EG (s1 ) ∪ EG (s2 ). Then by Theorem 6.1, there are n and
m1 , . . . , mn such that the set R of all cyclic shifts and their inverses of the word
mn mn
1 m1
R ≡ tsm
1 s2 . . . s1 s2

satisfies the C1 (ε1 , µ, 1/3, 2, ρ)–condition (and hence the C1 (ε, µ, 1/3, 2, ρ)-condition as ε1 ≥ ε).
Indeed it suffices to choose large enough n and m1 , . . . , mn satisfying mi 6= ±mj whenever i 6= j.
Let G be the quotient of G obtained by imposing the relation R = 1 and α the corresponding
natural epimorphism.
Lemma 5.1 gives us assertions (a), (c), and (e). Note that in G, the equality R = 1 implies
mn mn
1 m1
α(t−1 ) = α(sm
1 s2 . . . s1 s2 ), hence α(t) ∈ α(S). Assertions (f) and (g) follow from Corollary
5.6. It remains to prove (d). Without loss of generality we can assume that s1 , s2 ∈ BG,X∪H (N ).
Hence EG (α(s1 )) ∩ EG (α(s2 )) = {1} by (g). This means that the image of S is a suitable subgroup

of G.
We will also need the following result which provides the building blocks for the groups constructed in the proof of Theorem 6.6.
Theorem 6.4 (Corollary 1.2 [42]). There exists a torsion free 2-generated group with exactly 2
conjugacy classes.
Remark 6.5. Note that every torsion free group G with 2 conjugacy classes has exponential growth.
Indeed every element g ∈ G is conjugate to its square. If g 6= 1, this easily implies that the
intersection of the cyclic subgroup hgi with a ball of radius n with respect to a fixed finite generating
set of G has exponentially many elements.
Groups with 2 conjugacy classes are constructed in [42] as direct limits of relatively hyperbolic
groups. The proof of Theorem 6.6 is based on the same idea; however its implementation is not
automatic. Before proceeding to the proof of Theorem 6.6, we give a sketch of the construction
used in [42] and indicate the main difficulties which occur in the proof of our main result.
Let R be a countable torsion free group in which all non-trivial elements are conjugate. This
group can be easily constructed using successive HNN-extensions (see [27] or Theorem 3.3 in [31,
Chapter 4]). Let F = F (x, y) be the free group on two generators, and consider the free product
G(0) = R ∗ F , which is hyperbolic relative to R. Enumerate all elements of G(0) as {1 = g0 , g1 , ...}
and all elements of R as {1 = r0 , r1 , ...}. Now we inductively create a sequence of groups and
epimorphisms G(0) → G(1) → ... as follows. After we have constructed a group G(i), which is
assumed to be hyperbolic relative to the image of R, we take an HNN-extension with a stable letter
t which conjugates gi+1 to some non-trivial element of R (unless gi+1 is already parabolic and then
we skip this step). Then we apply parts (a)-(e) of Theorem 6.2 to this group with the image of F
as a suitable subgroup and {ri , t} as the finite set of elements. The resulting group is G(i + 1), and
since the image of t is inside the image of F , there is a natural quotient map from G(i) to G(i + 1).
Thus, the direct limit of this sequence will be a quotient of G(0), and since G(0) is generated by
{x, y, r1 , ...} and the image of each ri is inside the image of F in G(i + 1), the limit group will
be generated by {x, y}. Since each gi is conjugate to an element of R in G(i + 1), all non-trivial
elements will be conjugate in the limit group.
To prove Theorem 6.6, instead of trying to make all elements conjugate we want to control the
number of conjugacy classes inside each ball with respect to a fixed finite generating set. So at the
ith step of our construction we fix the desired number of conjugacy classes on the sphere of radius
i (up to some constants), making all other elements of the sphere conjugate. The main problem,

22

MICHAEL HULL AND DENIS OSIN

however, is that the conjugacy relations which we want to add may also produce “unwanted”
conjugacy relations between elements we want to keep unconjugate. For instance conjugating
two elements x and y, we also make xn conjugate to y n for all n. Induced conjugations of this
particular type can be controlled by working with primitive conjugacy classes and making all
elements in our group conjugate to all their nontrivial powers. However this does not solve the
problem completely as “unwanted” conjugations can occur even between primitive elements. More
precisely, the problem splits into two parts. When dealing with the sphere of radius i at step i, we
have to make sure that
1) “Unwanted” conjugations do not occur inside the ball of radius (i − 1).
2) We keep enough non-conjugate primitive elements on spheres of radii > i to continue the
construction.
To overcome the first difficulty we “attach” a new parabolic subgroup with 2 conjugacy classes
to a representative of each conjugacy class which we want to keep inside the ball of radius (i − 1).
Then Lemma 2.4 together with part (a) of Theorem 6.2 guarantee that such classes remain different
at all steps of the inductive construction, and hence in the limit group.
The second part of the problem is more complicated and is typical for such inductive proofs. It
is, in fact, the main obstacle in implementing the ideas from [42] in the proof of Theorem 6.6 and
is the reason why we need to go deep in small cancellation theory and add new parts (f) and (g)
to Theorem 6.2. To guarantee 2) we construct sets Ui of elements with ordinary word length i but
relative length at most 4. Then parts (f) and (g) of Theorem 6.2 come into play and allow us to
control these elements during the small cancellation substep of each step; Lemma 2.14 is used to
control them during the HNN-extension substep.
Theorem 6.6. Let G be a group generated by a finite set X, f the conjugacy growth function of
G with respect to X. Then the following conditions hold.
(a) f is non-decreasing.
(b) There exists a ≥ 1 such that f (n) ≤ an for every n ∈ N.
Conversely, suppose that a function f : N → N satisfies the above conditions (a) and (b). Then
there exists an infinite finitely generated group G such that ξG ∼ f .
Proof. The ‘only if’ part of the theorem is obvious. Let us prove the other one. Suppose f : N → N
is a non-decreasing function such that f ≤ an for some a > 1. If f ≡ 1, the statement is obvious.
Otherwise passing to an equivalent function if necessary, we can assume that f (n) ≥ 2 for all n.
Let f¯ denote the function defined by f¯(n) = f (n) − f (n − 1).
Let A be a finitely generated torsion free group with two conjugacy classes. Clearly, it suffices
to assume that f (n) ≤ γA (n), since γA is exponential by Remark 6.5. Set G(1) = A ∗ hhi, where
h generates an infinite cyclic group. Let X 0 be a finite generating set for A. Then we take
X = X 0 ∪ h−1 X 0 h ∪ {h} as a finite generating set for G(1). Let B = h−1 Ah, and fix a0 ∈ A and
b0 ∈ B such that |a0 |X = |b0 |X = 1.
Further for each i ≥ 2, we create S
a collection of subsets Ui = {ab : a ∈ A\{1}, b ∈ B \{1}, |ab|X =
i}. Note that all elements of U = ∞
i=1 Ui ∪ {a0 } have word length at most 4 with respect to the
generators A ∪ {h}. Clearly |Un |  γA (n), and since γA is exponential, there exists a constant L
such that
(21)

|ULn | ≥ (γG(1) (n − 1))(γG(1) (n − 1) + 1) + f¯(n).

CONJUGACY GROWTH OF FINITELY GENERATED GROUPS

23

Suppose we have constructed a group G(k), an epimorphism ϕk : G(1) → G(k), and a collection
of subsets {a0 } = W1 ⊂ ... ⊂ Wk ⊂ U , such that the following conditions are satisfied.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)

ϕk is injective on X, A, and U (so we identify these sets with their images in G(k)).
G(k) is hyperbolic relative to a collection Ck of proper subgroups with two conjugacy classes.
G(k) is a suitable subgroup of itself.
G(k) is torsion free.
Every g ∈ BG(k),X (k − 1) is parabolic in G(k).
Each element of Wk is parabolic, and there is exactly one element of Wk inside each parabolic
conjugacy class. In particular, distinct elements of Wk are non-conjugate.
(g) For all 1 ≤ n ≤ k, |Wn | = f (n) − 1, and for all w ∈ Wn , |w|X ≤ Ln.
(h) if u, v are two different elements of U ±1 and u ∼ v in G(k), then u ∼ v ∼ a0 in G(k).
Furthermore at most γG(1) (k − 1) elements of U are conjugate to a0 in G(k).
(i) For all u ∈ U such that u is loxodromic in G(k), u is also primitive in G(k). In particular,
EG(k) (u) = hui.
Obviously (a)-(f) hold for G(1) with ϕ1 the identity map and C1 = {A} (see Lemma 2.12 for (c)).
Passing to an equivalent function, we can assume that f (1) = 2 without loss of generality. This
gives (g) for G(1). It is clear (e.g. from [31, Chapt. IV, Theorem 1.4]) that all elements of U are
pairwise non-conjugate in G(1). If u ∈ U is loxodromic in G(1), then u 6= a0 and so u = a1 h−1 a2 h
for some a1 , a2 ∈ A \ {1}. The normal form theorem for free products [31, Chapt. IV, Theorem
1.2] implies that u is primitive in G(1). Thus (h) and (i) also hold for G(1).
Now we construct G(k + 1) in a sequence of four steps. The intermediate groups constructed in
each step will be denoted as follows.
ι1

α1

ι2

α2

G(k) ,→ G0 (k)  G00 (k) ,→ G000 (k)  G(k + 1).
Here ι1 will be the natural embedding into an HNN-extension of the previous group, while ι2 will be
the natural embedding into an HNN-extension of a a free product, where the previous group is one
of the factors. α1 and α2 will be epimorphisms which will correspond to taking a small cancellation
quotient of the previous group. We will first show how to construct the group G(k + 1), and then
verify that it satisfies all the inductive conditions.
Step 1. Let g1 , ..., gn be the list of all elements in G(k) such that |gi |X = k and gi is loxodromic
in G(k) for each 1 ≤ i ≤ n. Note that n ≤ γ̄G(1) (k). Since G(k) is torsion free, for each i there
exists some hi such that EG(k) (gi ) = hhi i. Now we define G0 (k) as the multiple HNN-extension
G0 (k) = hG(k), t1 , ..., tn | htii = a0 i.
Let ι1 : G(k) ,→ G0 (k) be the natural embedding; for convenience we identify G(k) with its image
in G0 (k). Suppose u, v ∈ U ±1 such that u ∼ v in G0 (k). If u ∼ v in G(k), then by (h) u ∼ v ∼ a0 in
G(k) and hence also in G0 (k). Otherwise, by Lemma 2.14 either u or v is conjugate to some element
m
m
0
hm
i in G(k). If this holds for u, we have u ∼ hi ∼ a0 ∼ a0 in G (k), and similiarly if it holds for
±1
0
v. Thus, two elements of U are either non-conjugate in G (k) or they are both conjugate to a0 .
Further if u ∼ a0 in G0 (k) but not in G(k), then u must be conjugate to a power of some hi in
G(k) by Lemma 2.14. For each hi , u ∼ hm
i in G(k) implies that m = ±1 since u is primitive in G(k)
by (i). By (h), for each 1 ≤ i ≤ n, there is at most one element u ∈ U conjugate to h±1
in G(k).
i
Thus, the number of elements of U conjugate to a0 in G0 (k) is at most γG(1) (k − 1) + n ≤ γG(1) (k).
By Lemma 2.14 and (i), all elements u ∈ U which are loxodromic in G0 (k) are primitive in G0 (k).
Corollary 2.16 gives that G0 (k) will be hyperbolic relative to Ck and G(k) is suitable in G0 (k).

24

MICHAEL HULL AND DENIS OSIN

Step 2. Let G00 (k) be the quotient group of G0 (k) provided by applying Theorem 6.2 to G0 (k)
with {t1 , ..., tn } as our finite set, G(k) as our suitable subgroup, and N = 4. Let α1 : G0 (k)  G00 (k)
be the corresponding epimorphism.
Since elements of U ∪ X all have relative length at most 4, α1 will be injective on U ∪ X, so we
identify these sets with their images. The final two assertions of Theorem 6.2 give that two elements
of U ±1 are conjugate in G00 (k) if and only if they were conjugate in G0 (k), and for each loxodromic
u ∈ U , hui = EG0 (k) (u) = EG00 (k) (u). Hence, all loxodromic elements of U are still primitive in
G00 (k). Let us prove that α1 ◦ ι1 is surjective. Since G0 (k) is generated by G(k) ∪ {t1 , ..., tn } and
for each 1 ≤ i ≤ n, α1 (ti ) ⊂ α1 (G(k)), we have that G00 (k) is generated by α1 (G(k)). Thus, α1 ◦ ι1
will be surjective, and G00 (k) will be finitely generated by (the image of) X. Theorem 6.2 also gives
that α1 (G(k)) = G00 (k) will be a suitable subgroup of G00 (k).
0
0
Now let UL(k+1)
be the set of u ∈ U such that |u|X = L(k + 1) in G00 (k). Then |UL(k+1)
| ≥
00
|UL(k+1) |; this follows from the fact that for each u ∈ UL(k+1) , we have |u|X ≤ L(k + 1) in G (k),
0
so we can choose j ∈ N such that |ubj0 |X = L(k + 1). An element u ∈ UL(k+1)
will be called good
00
if for all elements v conjugate to u in G (k), we have |v|X ≥ k + 1; otherwise it will be called bad.
0
We want to show that UL(k+1)
contains at least f¯(k + 1) good elements.
0
Indeed otherwise by (21), UL(k+1)
must contain (γG(1) (k))(γG(1) (k) + 1) bad elements, each of
which is conjugate to some element of X-length at most k. Since there are at most γG(1) (k) such
0
elements in G00 (k), there exists V ⊂ UL(k+1)
such that V contains (γG(1) (k) + 1) pairwise conjugate
elements. Then all elements of V must be pairwise conjugate in G0 (k), and thus all elements of V
are conjugate to a0 in G0 (k). But this contradicts the fact that there are at most γG(1) (k) elements
0
of U conjugate to a0 in G0 (k). Thus UL(k+1)
contains at least f¯(k + 1) good elements.
0
0
= {w1 , ..., ws } be a subset of the good elements of UL(k+1)
such that s =
Step 3. Let Wk+1
0
|Wk+1 | = f¯(k + 1). Note that if u is a good element, then u is not conjugate to a0 , hence u is
0
are loxodromic and hence
not conjugate to any other element of U ±1 . Thus all elements of Wk+1
primitive; furthermore, they are pairwise non-commensurable by Lemma 2.10. Then we define
0
. Now, for each 1 ≤ i ≤ s, let Ci be a torsion free group with two conjugacy
Wk+1 = Wk ∪ Wk+1
classes, generated by {xi , yi }. Consider the group G00 (k) ∗ (∗si=1 Ci ), which naturally contains an
isometrically embedded copy of G00 (k). By Lemma 2.5, this group will be hyperbolic relative to
Ck+1 , where Ck+1 = Ck ∪ (∪si=1 Ci ). Also, clearly primitive elements of G00 (k) remain primitive in
G00 (k) ∗ (∗si=1 Ci ), and any two non-conjugate elements of G00 (k) remain non-conjugate. Since each
wi is primitive and loxodromic, we get that EG00 (k)∗(∗si=1 Ci ) (wi ) = hwi i. Now we take a multiple
HNN-extension and form the group

G000 (k) = hG00 (k) ∗ (∗si=1 Ci ), d1 , ..., ds |widi = xi i.
Let ι2 : G00 (k) ,→ G000 (k) denote the natural embedding, and again we identify G00 (k) with its image.
Since the elements wi are pairwise non-commensurable, by Lemma 2.14 we can inductively apply
Corollary 2.16 to get that G000 (k) is hyperbolic relative to Ck+1 and contains G00 (k) as a suitable
subgroup.
Step 4. Finally, we obtain G(k + 1) as the quotient group of G000 (k) by applying Theorem 6.2 to
the finite set {di , xi , yi : 1 ≤ i ≤ s}, suitable subgroup G00 (k), and N = 4. Let α2 : G000 (k)  G(k+1)
be the corresponding epimorphism, and define ϕk+1 = α2 ◦ ι2 ◦ α1 ◦ ι1 ◦ ϕk . Let us prove that ϕk+1
is surjective. We have shown that α1 ◦ ι1 is surjective. Similarly, since G000 (k) is generated by
G00 (k) ∪ {di , xi , yi : 1 ≤ i ≤ s} and α2 ({di , xi , yi : 1 ≤ i ≤ s}) ⊂ α2 (G00 (k)), we get that G(k + 1) is

CONJUGACY GROWTH OF FINITELY GENERATED GROUPS

25

generated by α2 (G00 (k)), hence α2 ◦ ι2 is surjective. Thus, ϕk+1 is surjective being the composition
of surjective maps.
Let us now prove that G(k) satisfies all the inductive assumptions. First, Theorem 6.2 gives that
α1 and α2 are injective on all elements of relative length at most 4, which includes all elements in U ,
X and Ck+1 . Hence ϕk+1 will be injective on these sets being the composition of these maps and the
injective maps ι1 and ι2 . G000 (k) is hyperbolic relative to Ck+1 , and Theorem 6.2 gives that G(k + 1)
will be hyperbolic relative to Ck+1 and α2 (G00 (k)) = G(k +1) is a suitable subgroup of itself. Taking
HNN-extensions and free products of torsion free groups gives torsion free groups, and combining
this with Theorem 6.2 gives that G(k+1) will be torsion free. Clearly, every element of BG(k),X (k−1)
is parabolic in G0 (k), thus they are also parabolic in G(k + 1). By construction, each w ∈ Wk+1 is
parabolic in G000 (k) and the conjugacy class of w corresponds to a unique parabolic subgroup. The
definition of Wk+1 gives that |Wk+1 | = f (k + 1) − 1, and for all w ∈ Wk+1 , |w|X ≤ L(k + 1); clearly
this also holds for all 1 ≤ n ≤ k as passing to quotient groups can only decrease word length. We
have shown that in G0 (k), two elements of U ±1 are conjugate if and only if they are both conjugate
to a0 , and furthermore at most γG(1) (k − 1) elements of U are conjugate to a0 in G0 (k). At all other
steps non-conjugate elements of U ±1 remain non-conjugate, so this also holds in G(k + 1). Finally,
loxodromic elements of U are primitive in G00 (k) ∗ (∗si=1 Ci ), and Lemma 2.14 gives that they are
primitive in G000 (k). Hence for all loxodromic u ∈ U , hui = EG000 (k) (u) = EG(k+1) (u) by Theorem
6.2, so u is still primitive in G(k + 1). Thus, G(k + 1) satisfies all the inductive conditions.
Now,
, where
S∞we take G to be the limit of this sequence of groups; that is, let G = G(1)/N
S∞
N = i=1 Ker ϕi . We will show that every conjugacy class in G has a representative in k=1 Wk .
Suppose g ∈ BG,X (n), and let g0 be a pre-image of g in G(1) such that |g0 |X ≤ n. Then g0 is
parabolic in the group G(n + 1) by condition (e), so g0 is conjugate to an element of Wn+1 in
G(n + 1) by (f). Hence g is conjugate to an element of Wn+1 in G. Thus we have
ξG (n) ≤ |Wn+1 | + 1 = f (n + 1) ≤ f (2n).
On the other hand, all elements of Wn are pairwise non-conjugate, and for each w ∈ Wn , |w|X ≤ Ln.
Hence f (n) = |Wn | + 1 ≤ ξG (Ln). Therefore ξG ∼ f .

7. Conjugacy growth and subgroups of finite index
We now move to the proof of Theorem 7.2. We start with an ‘infinitely generated version’ of
Theorem 7.2.
Lemma 7.1. There exists a short exact sequence
1 → N → C → Z2 → 1
such that the following hold.
(a) The group C is countable and torsion free.
(b) The subgroup N has exactly 2 conjugacy classes.
(c) There is a free subgroup F ≤ N of rank 2 and an element a ∈ C such that for any two
distinct elements f1 , f2 ∈ F , af1 and af2 are not conjugate in C.
Proof. We proceed by induction. Let A0 = ha, b, ci be the free group of rank 3 and let ε0 : A0 →
ha | a2 = 1i ∼
= Z2 be the natural epimorphism. Assume that An is already constructed together
with an epimorphism
εn : An → Z2 .

26

MICHAEL HULL AND DENIS OSIN

Let Kn denote the kernel of εn . We enumerate all elements of Kn = {1, k0 , k1 , . . .} and let An+1 be
the multiple HNN-extension
hAn , {ti }i∈N | kiti = k0 i.
The map sending Kn and all stable letters to 1 (here 1 denotes the identity element of Z2 ) extends
to a homomorphism εn+1 : An+1 → Z2 .
∞
∞
S
S
Let C =
An and N =
Kn . Clearly N is a normal subgroup of index 2 in C. Since all
n=0

n=0

nontrivial elements of Kn are conjugate in Kn+1 , N has exactly 2 conjugacy classes. On the other
hand, Lemma 2.14 implies by induction that for any distinct f1 , f2 ∈ hb, ci, the elements af1 and
af2 are not conjugate in An . Hence the same holds true in C.

Theorem 7.2. There exists a finitely generated group G and a finite index subgroup H ≤ G such
that H has 2 conjugacy classes while G is of exponential conjugacy growth.
Proof. Let
ε

1 → N → C → Z2 → 1
be the short exact sequence provided by Lemma 7.1. The desired group G is constructed as an
inductive limit of relatively hyperbolic groups as follows. Let
G(0) = C ∗ F (x, y),
where F (x, y) is the free group of rank 2 generated by x and y. We enumerate all elements of
C = {1 = c0 , c1 , c2 , . . .}
and
G(0) = {1 = g0 , g1 , g2 , . . .}.
Without loss of generality we may assume that
(22)

ε(c1 ) = 1.

Here we use multiplicative notation and 1 denotes the trivial element of Z2 .
Suppose that for some i ≥ 0, the group G(i) has already been constructed together with an
epimorphism ϕi : G(0) → G(i) and an epimorphism αi : G(i) → Z2 . We use the same notation
for elements x, y, c0 , c1 , . . . , g0 , g1 , . . . and their images in G(i). Assume that G(i) satisfies the
following conditions. It is straightforward to check these conditions for G(0), the identity map
ϕ0 : G(0) → G(0), and the epimorphism α0 : G(0) → Z2 which is induced by ε and the map sending
x and y to the non-trivial element of Z2 .
(a) The restriction of ϕi to the subgroup C is injective. In what follows we identify C with its
image in G(i).
(b) G(i) is hyperbolic relative to C.
(c) The elements x and y generate a suitable subgroup of G(i).
(d) G(i) is torsion free.
(e) In G(i), the elements c0 , . . . , ci are contained in the subgroup generated by x and y.
(f) The diagram
α0
G(0) −−−−
→ Z2




ϕi y
yid
α

i
G(i) −−−−
→ Z2

is commutative.

CONJUGACY GROWTH OF FINITELY GENERATED GROUPS

27

(g) In G(i), for every j = 1, . . . , i, if αi (gj ) = 1 then the element gj is conjugate to c1 by an
element of Ker αi .
The group G(i + 1) is obtained from G(i) in two steps.
Step 1. If gi+1 is a parabolic element of G(i) or αi (gi+1 ) 6= 1, we set G0 (i) = G(i). Otherwise,
since G(i) is torsion free, there is an isomorphism ι : EG(i) (gi+1 ) → hc1 i. Now we define G0 (i) to be
the corresponding HNN–extension
G0 (i) = hG(i), t | et = ι(e), e ∈ EG(i) (gi+1 )i.
Then G0 (i) is hyperbolic relative to C and hx, yi is suitable in G0 (i) by Lemma 2.16. Note also that
G0 (i) is torsion free being an HNN-extension of a torsion free group.
Step 2. We now apply Theorem 6.2 to the group G0 (i), the subgroup S = hx, yi ≤ G0 (i), and
the set of elements {t, ci+1 } (or just {ci+1 } if G0 (i) = G(i)). Let G(i + 1) = G, where G is the
quotient group provided by Theorem 6.2. Since t becomes an element of hx, yi in G(i + 1), there
is a naturally defined epimorphism ϕi+1 : G(0) → G(i + 1). Using Theorem 6.2 and the inductive
assumption it is straightforward to verify properties (a)–(e) for G(i + 1).
Observe that the group G0 (i) admits an epimorphism βi to Z2 which sends the stable letter and
Ker (αi ) to 1. Indeed this follows immediately from the inductive assumption and our construction
of G0 (i). By Remark 6.3 and part (f) of the inductive assumption, the kernel of the natural
epimorphism G0 (i) → G(i+1) is contained in Ker βi . Hence βi induces an epimorphism αi+1 : G(i+
1) → Z2 . Obviously (f) and (g) hold for G(i + 1).
S
Let G = G(0)/M , where M = ∞
i=1 Ker ϕi . By (d) G is torsion free. It is also easy to see that
G is 2–generated. Indeed, G(0) is generated by x, y, c1 , c2 , . . . and hence condition (e) implies that
G is generated by x and y.
Further notice that M ≤ Ker α0 by (f). Let H = (Ker α0 )/M . Then G/H is isomorphic to
G(0)/Ker α0 , so |G/H| = 2. Let h be a nontrivial element of H. We take an arbitrary preimage
g ∈ G(0) of h. Observe that αi (g) = 1 for every i by (f). Hence (the image of) the element g
becomes conjugate to c1 by an element Ker αi at a certain step according to (g). Therefore, all
non-trivial elements of H are conjugate in H.
Finally let F and a be the free subgroup and the element of C provided by Lemma 7.1, respectively. By part (c) of Lemma 7.1, parts (a), (b), (d) of the inductive assumption, and Lemma 2.4,
for any two distinct elements f1 , f2 ∈ F , af1 and af2 are not conjugate in G(i). Hence the same
holds true in G. Since the natural map from C to G is injective by (a) and the (ordinary) growth
function of F is exponential, the conjugacy growth function of G is exponential as well.

References
[1] G. Arzhantseva, A. Minasyan, D.V. Osin, The SQ–universality and residual properties of relatively hyperbolic
groups, J. Algebra 315 (2007), no. 1, 165-177.
[2] I. K. Babenko, Closed geodesics, asymptotic volume, and characteristics of group growth, Izv. Akad. Nauk SSSR,
Ser. Mat. 52 (1988), 675-711.
[3] W. Ballmann, G. Thorbergsson, W. Ziller, Closed geodesics and the fundamental group, Duke Math. J. 48
(1981), no. 3, 585-588.
[4] V. Bangert, N. Hingston, Closed geodesies on manifolds with infinite abelian fundamental group, J. Differential
Geometry 19 (1984), 277-282.
[5] H. Bass, The degree of polynomial growth of finitely generated nilpotent groups, Proc. London Math. Soc. (3)
25 (1972), 603-614.
[6] B.H. Bowditch, Relatively hyperbolic groups, preprint, 1999.

28

MICHAEL HULL AND DENIS OSIN

[7] E. Breuillard, Y. de Cornulier, A. Lubotzky, C. Meiri, On conjugacy growth of linear groups, preprint, 2011.
[8] E. Breuillard, Y. de Cornulier, On conjugacy growth for solvable groups, Illinois J. Math. 54 (2010), no. 1,
389-395.
[9] M. Bridson, A. Haefliger, Metric spaces of non–positive curvature, Springer, 1999.
[10] C. Champetier, Petite simplification dans les groupes hyperboliques, Ann. Fac. Sci. Toulouse Math. 3 (1994),
no. 2, 161–221.
[11] M. Coornaert and G. Knieper, Growth of conjugacy classes in Gromov hyperbolic groups, Geom. Funct. Anal.
12 (2002), 464-478.
[12] M. Coornaert, G. Knieper, An upper bound for the growth of conjugacy classes in torsion- free word hyperbolic
groups, Int. J. Algebra Comput. 14 (2004), 395-401.
[13] F. Dahmani, Combination of convergence groups, Geom. Topol. 7 (2003), 933–963.
[14] F. Dahmani, V. Guirardel, D. Osin, Hyperbolically embedded subgroups and rotating families in groups acting
on hyperbolic spaces, arXiv:1111.7048.
[15] T. Delzant, Sous-groupes distingués et quotients des groupes hyperboliques, Duke Math. J. 83 (1996), no. 3,
661–682.
[16] C. Drutu, M. Sapir, Tree-graded spaces and asymptotic cones of groups (with an appendix by M. Sapir and D.
Osin), Topology 44 (2005), no. 5, 959-1058.
[17] V.A. Efremovich, The proximity geometry of Riemannian manifolds (Russian), Uspekhi Mat. Nauk 8 (1953),
189.
[18] B. Farb, Relatively hyperbolic groups, Geom. Funct. Anal. 8 (1998), 810-840.
[19] S.M. Gersten, H. Short, Rational subgroups of biautomatic groups, Ann. of Math. (2) 134 (1991), 125–158.
[20] R. Grigorchuk, The Growth Degrees of Finitely Generated Groups and the Theory of Invariant Means, Math.
USSR Izv. 48 (1984), no. 5, 939-985.
[21] R.I. Grigorchuk, On growth in group theory, Proceedings of the International Congress of Mathematicians, Vol.
I, II (Kyoto, 1990), 325338, Math. Soc. Japan, Tokyo, 1991.
[22] V.S. Guba, A finitely generated complete group (Russian), Izv. Akad. Nauk SSSR Ser. Mat. 50 (1986), no. 5,
883–924; English translation: Math. USSR-Izv. 29 (1987), no. 2, 233–277.
[23] M.Gromov, Asymptotic invariants of infinite groups, Geometric Group Theory. Vol. 2 (G.A.Niblo and M.A.Roller,
eds.), London Math. Soc. Lecture Notes Ser., 182 (1993), 1–295.
[24] M. Gromov, Hyperbolic groups, Essays in Group Theory, MSRI Series, Vol.8, (S.M. Gersten, ed.), Springer,
1987, 75–263.
[25] M. Gromov, Groups of polynomial growth and expanding maps, Publ. Math. IHES 53(1981), 53-73.
[26] V.Guba, M.Sapir, On the Conjugacy Growth Function of Groups, arXiv:1003.1293v2.
[27] G. Higman, B.H. Neumann, H. Neumann, Embedding theorems for groups, J. London Math. Soc., 24 (1949),
247-254.
[28] C. Hruska, Relative hyperbolicity and relative quasiconvexity for countable groups, Alg. & Geom. Topology 10
(2010), 1807-1856.
[29] M. Hull, Conjugacy growth in polycyclic groups, Arch. Math. 96 (2011), no.2, 131-134.
[30] A. Katok, Entropy and closed geodesics, Ergodic Theory Dynam. Systems 2 (1982), no. 3-4, 339-365.
[31] R.C. Lyndon, P.E. Shupp, Combinatorial Group Theory, Springer-Verlag, 1977.
[32] G. A. Margulis, Applications of ergodic theory to the investigation of manifolds of negative curvature, Funct.
Anal. Appl. 3 (1969), 335-336.
[33] G. A. Margulis, R. Sharp, On Some Aspects of the Theory of Anosov Systems, Springer, 2003.
[34] J. Milnor, A note on the fundamental group, J. Diff. Geom, 2(1968), 1–7.
[35] J. Milnor, Growth of finitely generated solvable groups, J. Diff. Geom., 2(1968), 447–449.
[36] A.Yu. Olshanskii, On residualing homomorphisms and G–subgroups of hyperbolic groups, Internat. J. Algebra
Comput. 3 (1993), 4, 365–409.
[37] A. Yu. Olshanskii, Geometry of defining relations in groups, Mathematics and its Applications (Soviet Series),
70. Kluwer Academic Publishers Group, Dordrecht, 1991.
[38] D. Osin, Relatively hyperbolic groups: Intrinsic geometry, algebraic properties, and algorithmic problems, Memoirs Amer. Math. Soc. 179 (2006), no. 843.
[39] D. Osin, Elementary subgroups of relatively hyperbolic groups and bounded generation, Internat. J. Algebra
Comput. 16 (2006), no. 1, 99–118.
[40] D. Osin, Relative Dehn functions of HNN–extensions and amalgamated products, Contemp. Math. 394 (2006),
209–220.

CONJUGACY GROWTH OF FINITELY GENERATED GROUPS

29

[41] D. Osin, Peripheral fillings of relatively hyperbolic groups, Invent. Math. 167 (2007), no. 2, 295–326.
[42] D. Osin, Small cancellations over relatively hyperbolic groups and embedding theorems, Annals of Math. 172
(2010), no. 1, 1-39.
[43] A. S. Svarč, Volume invariants of coverings (Russian), Dokl. Akad. Nauk. 105 (1955), 32-34.
[44] J. Tits, Free subgroup in linear groups, J. Alg. 20 (1979), 250–270.
[45] Wolf J.A., Growth of finitely generated solvable groups and curvature of Riemannian manifolds, J. Diff. Geom.,
2 (1968), 421–446.
(Michael Hull) Department of Mathematics, Vanderbilt University, Nashville TN 37240, USA.
E-mail address: michael.b.hull@vanderbilt.edu
(Denis Osin) Department of Mathematics, Vanderbilt University, Nashville TN 37240, USA.
E-mail address: denis.osin@gmail.com

