Hyperbolic HHS I: Factor Systems and Quasi-convex
subgroups

arXiv:1711.10931v1 [math.GR] 29 Nov 2017

Davide Spriano
November 29, 2017
Abstract
In this paper we provide a procedure to obtain a non-trivial HHS structure on a hyperbolic space. In particular, we prove that given a finite collection F of quasi-convex subgroups
of a hyperbolic group G, there is an HHG structure on G that is compatible with F. We
will use this to provide explicit descriptions of the Gromov Boundary of hyperbolic HHS
and HHG, and we recover results from Hamenstädt, Manning, Trang for the case when G
is hyperbolic relative to F. Further applications in the construction of new HHG will be
presented in a subsequent paper.

Contents
1 Introduction
2 Introductory tools
2.1 Approximating metric spaces
2.2 Basics on hyperbolic spaces .
2.3 Behrstock’s inequalities . . .
2.4 Coning-off . . . . . . . . . . .

2
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

4
4
6
7
8

3 Hierarchically hyperbolic spaces
15
3.1 Factor Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.2 Hierarchical structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4 Obtaining a factor system
20
4.1 The case of a general metric space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
4.2 The case of a graph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
5 Groups with quasi-convex subgroups
25
5.1 Hierarchically hyperbolic group structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
5.2 Finding a factor system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
6 Boundaries
6.1 Fixing notations: The Gromov boundary of a hyperbolic
6.2 The HHS-boundary of a hyperbolic space . . . . . . . .
6.3 Explicit description when the HHS structure comes from
6.4 Bowditch Boundary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1

space . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
a factor system
. . . . . . . . .

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

29
30
31
32
33

1

Introduction

The study of hierarchically hyperbolic spaces and groups (respectively HHS and HHG) was
introduced by Behrstock, Hagen and Sisto in [BHS17c], and led to a number of remarkable
results explored, for instance, in [BHS15, BHS17b, BHS17a, DHS17, HS16]. Hierarchically hyperbolic spaces and groups form a very large class of spaces which contains several examples of interest including mapping class groups, right-angled Artin groups, proper
cocompact CAT(0) cube complexes, most 3-manifold groups, Teichmüller space (in any
of the standard metrics), etc. Important properties of HHG include that, for example,
any HHG admits an acylindrical action on a hyperbolic space that depends on the HHG
strucutre ([BHS17c]). This recovers the result that Mapping Class Groups of non-sporadic
surfaces, and non-cyclic, non directly indecomposable RAAGs are acylindrically hyperbolic
([MM99, Bow08, Sis11, KK14, Osi16]). Another remarkable result that was unknown before
is that, under very mild conditions, every top-dimensional quasi-flat in an HHS lies within
finite distance of a union of standard orthants. This proves open conjectures of Farb in the
case of Mapping Class Group, and Brock in the case of Teichmüller space.
Work of Bowditch and Osin ([Bow12, Osi06]) shows that given a hyperbolic group G
and a collection F of proper subgroups, G is hyperbolic relative to F if and only if F is an
almost malnormal collection of quasi-convex subgroups.
The extra structure on G given by the family F provides useful information on G. An
example of this can be found in the Appendix of [Ago13], where Dehn fillings in hyperbolic
relatively hyperbolic groups are used in a step of the proof of the virtual Haken conjecture.
Moreover, independent works of Manning and Trang ([Man15, Tra13]) provide an explicit
decomposition of the boundary of G in terms of F. We will elaborate on this result later.
The natural question that arises is: What happens if the malnormality condition is weakened (or removed)? The theory of hierarchically hyperbolic spaces provides some answers
in these cases. We recall that an HHS structure on a quasi-geodesic space X consists of
a collection of hyperbolic spaces {CU | U ∈ S} indexed by a set S, and projections that
relate them, satisfying some axioms and relations (see Section 3 for more details). An HHG
is a group that acts on an HHS in a compatible way. The key example is when a Cayley
graph of a group G admits an HHS structure and G preserves the set {CU }.
It is showed in [BHS15] that a space G which is hyperbolic relative to a (uniform) family
F of HHS is itself an HHS. In particular, the result of Bowditch implies that given an
almost malnormal family F of quasi-convex subgroups of G, the family F provides an HHS
structure on the Cayley graph of G, where each element CU is either a coset of an element
of F, or the cone-off of G with respect to F.
In this paper, we show that the malnormality condition can be completely dropped if we
are looking for an HHS structure.
Theorem 1 (5.23). Let G be a hyperbolic group and let F = {F1 , . . . , FN } be a finite family
of infinite quasi-convex subgroups. Let ∼ be the equivalence relation between subset of G
given by having finite Hausdorff distance in Cay(G). Then there exists a finite family of
′
quasi-convex subgroups F ′ that contains F such that if Fcos
is the set of cosets of F ′ , then
′
(G, Fcos /∼ ) is a hierarchically hyperbolic structure on G, and each CU is a cone-off of a
coset of an element F ∈ (F ′ ∪ G).
The family F ′ of the Theorem is obtained from the family F by considering an appropriate set of intersections of conjugates of the elements of F.
The key ingredient in the above result is the concept of weak factor system. A weak
factor system consists of a family F of uniformly quasi-convex subspaces such that there
exist constants c, q, ξ, B, D such that the following hold:
1. Every chain of proper coarse inclusions Hn  · · ·  H1 of elements of F has length at
most c.
2. Given V, W ∈ F, then either diamV (pV (W )) < ξ, or there exists U ∈ F such that
dHaus (U, pV (W )) ≤ B.

2

3. For each V ∈ F and every v ∈ V there is an arbitrarily long q-quasi-geodesic segment
with endpoints on V whose midpoint lies at distance at most D from v.
The first two condition can be reinterpreted as: the closure process given by coarse
projection terminates, and the third is always true in an infinite quasi-convex subgroup of
a hyperbolic group.
The first three sections of this paper will investigate the geometry of cone-offs of hyperbolic spaces. If Xb is the cone-off of X with respect to a family F, given a path γ
b of Xb, we
can obtain a path γ of X substituting each connected component of γ − X with a geodesic
of X connecting the endpoints of such connected component. Such a path γ is called a
de-electrification of γ
b.
We show (2.28) that if the family F satisfies some mild hypotheses, which are implied by
the fact that F consists of uniformly-quasi-convex subsets of X , then for every pair of points
x, y of X, there is a τ1 -quasi-geodesic b
γ of Xb connecting them, such that its de-electrification
is a τ2 -quasi-geodesic of X. An analogous result was previously established by Hamenstädt
in the case where X is hyperbolic relative to F ([Ham16]).
Using this result (although we will need it in full generality only in a subsequent paper),
and other considerations, we will pin down a handful of properties that the family F needs
to satisfy in order for (X , F) to be an HHS. In this case we say that F is a factor system.
In Section 4, we will show that such properties can be weakened to a weak-factor system,
adding the extra cost of an equivalence relation, as can be seen in Theorem 1.
As an application, in the last section we provide an explicit description of the Gromov
boundary for a hyperbolic HHS. It was proved in [DHS17] that for a hyperbolic HHS (X , S)
the following holds:
[
∂CU,
∂X =
U ∈S

where ∂Z denotes the Gromov boundary of Z, for a hyperbolic space Z. Combining this
with our construction, we get a very explicit description of the Gromov boundary in a
variety of cases. Indeed, given a (weak) factor system F on a hyperbolic space X , we can
decompose the boundary of X as the union of boundaries of the various cone-offs with
respect to elements of F.
Theorem 2 (6.13). Let G be a hyperbolic group and let F be a finite family of quasi-convex
subgroups of G. Then there is a family F ′ such that
[
∂CU,
∂G =
U ∈S

where each CU is as in Theorem 1.
This recovers two results of Hamenstädt ([Ham16]), namely the case when X is hyperbolic
relative to F, and the case of the disk graph of a handlebody. Indeed, the proof of the latter
implies that the family of electrified disk graphs of a certain class of subsurfaces of the
boundary handlebody is a factor system for the disk graph of the handlebody.
In the case where X is hyperbolic relative to F, we also recover a result proved independently by Manning and Tran (respectively, [Man15, Theorem 1.3], [Tra13, Section 6]).
Namely, in this case the Bowditch boundary of (X , F) can be expressed as the quotient
∂(X , F) = ∂X /∼ ,
where x ∼ y if there is U ∈ F such that x, y ∈ ∂CU .
In a follow-up paper, we will use Theorem 1 to prove a combination Theorem for HHG.
Indeed, the flexibility coming from the mild hypotheses on the family F allows to turn a
large class of graphs of groups into graphs of HHG. Roughly speaking, given a graph G of
HHG, we can add a new vertex v with vertex group a hyperbolic group G. Then, the HHG
structure on G will be the one induced choosing F to be the set of images of the edge groups
adjacent to G. As an application we get that if H is a quasi-convex subgroup of a hyperbolic

3

group G, and if, moreover, H is hyperbolically embedded in the Mapping Class Group of a
surface Σ, then G ∗H MCG(Σ) is an HHG.

Outline
Subsections 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3, contain some background on hyperbolic spaces and approximating graphs, subsection 2.4 contains the bulk of the theory on the cone-off procedure that
is going to be used in Sections 3 and 4. Section 3 contains the definition of factor system
(3.1) and the proof of the fact that a factor system on a hyperbolic space determines a
non-trivial HHS structure (Theorem 3.14). Section 4 provides some coarser conditions (4.2)
that are sufficient to obtain an HHS structure (Theorem 4.7). In Section 5, we prove that a
finite family of infinite quasi-convex subgroups induces a weak factor system for a hyperbolic
group, providing a variety of new HHG structures on hyperbolic groups (Corollary 5.23). In
Section 6, we use the HHS structure to give an explicit description of the Gromov boundary
of X, where X is a hyperbolic space equipped with a factor system (Proposition 6.11). We
use this result to give an explicit description of the Bowditch boundary of a hyperbolic
relative hyperbolic space (Theorem 6.17).

Acknowledgments
The author would like to thank Alessandro Sisto for suggesting the topic and for very helpful
comments and suggestions.

2

Introductory tools

2.1

Approximating metric spaces

It is a well known fact that every quasi-geodesic metric space (Definition 2.3) is quasiisometric to a geodesic one. Geodesic spaces are significantly better behaved than quasigeodesic ones. In this subsection we will show how to approximate a quasi-geodesic space
with a geodesic one.
Notation. Let X be a metric space. For a subset Y of X, we define pY : X → 2Y to be
the shortest distance projection from X to Y .
Note that for a general subspace Y , the projection pY (x) of a point may be empty. In
order to avoid this, we will abuse notation and denote in the same way the ε-projection pY
which is defined as pY (x) = {y ∈ Y | d(y, x) − d(Y, x) < ε} for some very small ε. From now
on, with an abuse, we will implicitly assume that all projections are, in fact, ε-projections.
Definition 2.1 (Quasi-isometric embedding, quasi-isometry). Let (X, dX ) and Y, dY ) be
geodesic metric spaces. A (C, ε)-quasi-isometric embedding is a map f : X → Y such that
for each pair of points x, y ∈ X, the following holds:
1
dY (f (x), f (y)) − ε ≤ dX (x, y) ≤ CdY (f (x), f (y)) + ε.
C
A (C, ε) quasi-isometric embedding f : X → Y is a (C, ε)-quasi-isometry if Nε (f (X)) =
Y.
We say that a map f is a quasi-isometric embedding (respectively quasi-isometry) if
there exist (C, ε) such that f is a (C, ε)-quasi-isometric embedding (respectively (C, ε)quasi-isometry).
Definition 2.2 (Quasi-geodesic). A (C, ε)-quasi-geodesic (respectively ray, segment) of a
metric space X is a (C, ε)-quasi-isometric embedding of R (respectively [0, ∞), [a, b] for
some a, b ∈ R). We say that a map f is a quasi-geodesic if there exist (C, ε) such that f is
a (C, ε)-quasi-geodesic.

4

Definition 2.3 (Quasi-geodesic metric space). A metric space X is (C, ε)-quasi-geodesic if
any two points can be joined by a (C, ε)-quasi-geodesic. A metric space X is a quasi-geodesic
metric space if there exists (C, ε) such that X is a (C, ε)-quasi-geodesic metric space.
Definition 2.4 (Maximal nets and approximation graphs). Let X be a metric space, and
let ζ > 0. A ζ-net for X is a collection N of points of x such that for each pair of elements
x, y of N , we have d(x, y) ≥ k. A ζ-net is maximal if it is not possible to add more points
to it.
Given a metric space X, a ζ-net N and λ > 0, the (ζ, λ)-approximation graph on N
is the graph Ω(X) whose vertex set is the set N with the condition that two vertices are
connected if and only if their distance as points of X is at most λ.
Let ω : X → 2Ω(X) be the map that associates to each point of X its closest point
projection on N , seen as the set of vertices of Ω(X). For each subspace Y ⊆ X, we denote
by Ω(Y ) the subgraph of Ω(X) induced by ω(Y ).
The approximation graph will be the geodesic space that approximates a quasi-geodesic
one.
Definition 2.5. Let X be a q-quasi-geodesic metric space and Y a subspace of X. We say
that Y is K quasi-convex if for every pair of points x, y ∈ Y and q-quasi-geodesic γ between
them, we have that γ is contained in the K-neighborhood of Y .
Lemma 2.6. Let q = (C, ε) and X be a q-quasi-geodesic space and let F be a family of
K-quasi-convex subspaces of X. Let ζ = max{C + ε, K}, N be a ζ-maximal net for X and
Ω(X) be a (ζ, 5ζ)-approximation graph for X obtained from N . Then for each W ∈ F ∪ {X}
and x, y ∈ W , we have:
1
dX (x, y) − 5ζ ≤ dΩ(W ) (ω(x), ω(y)) ≤ CdX (x, y) + ε.
5ζ
Proof. We note that all the above is implied by the following: for each W ∈ F ∪ {X},
x, y ∈ W and x′ ∈ ω(x), y ′ ∈ ω(y), there is a path γ ⊆ Ω(W ) between x′ and y ′ such that
dX (x, y) − ζ ≤ L(γ) ≤ 5dX (x, y) + 5ζ.
Let η : [a, b] → X be a (C, ε) quasi-geodesic in X between x and y. We observe that
η([a, b]) ⊆ N2ζ (pN (W )), where pN(W ) represents the closest point projection of W on the
net N . Indeed, by quasi-convexity, each point of η([a, b]) lies at distance at most K from a
point of W , and every point of W lies at distance at most ζ from N , since N is a maximal
ζ-net.
Let 0 = t0 < · · · ts = b be a partition of [a, b] such that for each i < s, we have
|ti − ti+1 | ≤ 1. Then for each i we have d(η(ti ), η(ti+1 )) ≤ C + ε ≤ ζ. For each 0 < i < s,
choose a representative vi ∈ ω(η(ti )) and set v0 = x′ , vs = y ′ . Then for each i < s, we have
dX (vi , vi+1 ) ≤ 5ζ. Thus, v0 · · · vs is a path in Ω(W ) joining x′ and y ′ . This implies that
there is path of length at most s in Ω(W ) ⊆ Ω(X) joining x′ and y ′ . Since s ≥ b − a and
η : [a, b] → X is a (C, ε)-quasi-geodesic, we get dΩ(W ) (ω(x), ω(y)) ≤ CdX (x, y) + ε. On the
other hand, by triangular inequality we have dX (x, y) ≤ 5ζdΩ(W ) (χ(x), χ(y)) + 5ζ.
Corollary 2.7. If we equip the family F of Lemma 2.6 with the induced metric coming
from X, we obtain that each element W ∈ F ∪ {X} is uniformly quasi-isometric to Ω(W ).
In particular, since the spaces W with the induced metric are isometrically embedded in X,
we obtain that the graphs Ω(W ) are uniformly quasi-isometrically embedded in Ω(X), with
respect to the path metric.
We will now prove a technical fact that will be useful in future, but before we recall the,
so called, Morse Lemma for hyperbolic spaces.

5

Lemma 2.8 (Morse Lemma). Let X be a geodesic Gromov hyperbolic space. Then there
exists a function H : R2 → R such that for each geodesic α and (C, ε)-quasi-geodesic γ with
the same endpoints of α, we have:
dHaus (γ, α) ≤ H(C, ε).
We recall that the midpoint of a (quasi) geodesic γ : [0, a] → X is defined as γ

a
2


.

Lemma 2.9. Let X be a Gromov hyperbolic (C, ε)-quasi-geodesic space, and let V be a
quasi-convex subspace of X such that the following holds. There is D ≥ 0 such that for each
v ∈ V there is an arbitrarily long (C, ε)-quasi-geodesic segment with endpoints on V whose
midpoint lies at distance at most D from v.
Suppose that Y is a geodesic metric space and φ : X → Y is a quasi-isometry. Then
there exists D′ such that for each w ∈ φ(V ) there is an arbitrarily long geodesic segment
with endpoints on V , whose midpoint lies at distance at most D′ from w.
Proof. Considering a preimage of w in X, we can find a quasi-geodesic that satisfies the
requirements, and we can map it on Y using φ. The Morse Lemma (Lemma 2.8) allows
to uniformly bound the distance between w and a geodesic with endpoints on φ(V ). Using quasi-convexity, we can modify the geodesic obtained to uniformly bound the distance
between w and the midpoint of such a geodesic.

2.2

Basics on hyperbolic spaces

Convention. From now on, we will always assume that
· spaces are geodesic (see Subsection 2.1);
· quasi-geodesic are continuous (see [BH99, Lemma 1.11, Chapter III.H]);
In particular, this allows to define the length of quasi-geodesic regardless of the parametrization. Or equivalently, we always assume that quasi-geodesics are parametrized by arc length.
Moreover, we will freely identify (quasi) geodesics with their image. Given a (quasi) geodesic
γ and points a, b of γ, we denote by γ|[a,b] the restriction of γ from a to b. Given two points
x, y in X, we denote by [x, y] a geodesic segment connecting them.
Definition 2.10 (Projection geodesics). Let X be a geodesic metric space and Y ⊆ X be
a subspace of X. We say that a geodesic γ with endpoints x, y is a projection geodesic for
Y if y ∈ pY (x).
The following lemma is well-known. We recall it as it will be used extensively.
Lemma 2.11 (Quadrilateral argument). Let X be a geodesic δ-hyperbolic space, and let
H be a K-quasi-convex subspace. Let γ, γ ′ be projection geodesics for H and let a, b, a′ , b′
be the endpoints. Up to changing names, we may assume b, b′ ∈ H. Consider geodesic
quadrilateral γ[b, b′ ]γ ′ [a′ , a], and let I be the set of points in the image of [b, b′ ] consisting
of points at distance at least 4δ + K from {b ∪ b′ }. Then for each s ∈ I, we have that
d(s, [a, a′ ]) < 2δ.
Proof. We may assume that I is non empty, otherwise the lemma is trivially true. Let s ∈ I
and consider the diagonal [b, a′ ]. By hyperbolicity, d(s, [b, a′ ] ∪ [a, a′ ]) < δ. If d(s, [a, a′ ]) < δ,
then we would get a contradiction. In fact, let m be a point in the image of [a, a′ ] witnessing
the distance. Then, by triangular inequality, d(m, a′ ) ≥ d(s, a′ ) − d(a′ , m) > 3δ + K. But
since H is K-quasi-convex, there is a point t ∈ H at distance less than K from s. Then
d(m, t) < d(m, a′ ) contradicting γ ′ being a projection geodesic. Hence there is a point
q ∈ [b, a′ ] with d(q, s) < δ. The same argument on the triangle γ[b, a′ ][a′ a] shows that
d(q, [a′ , a]) < δ, and hence d(s, [a′ , a]) < 2δ.

6

Lemma 2.12 (Closest point projections are quasi-Lipschitz). Let X be a δ-hyperbolic space
and H a K-quasi-convex subspace. Then there exists ρ = ρ(K, δ) such that the map pH is
(1, ρ)-quasi-Lipschitz.
Proof. Consider x, y in X, and their projections pW (x), pW (y) on W . Pick points p ∈
pW (x), q ∈ pW (y) realizing d(pW (x), pW (y)). Consider the sub-interval I of a geodesic [p, q]
consisting of points that have distance at least 4δ + K from both p and q. A hyperbolic
quadrilateral argument (Lemma 2.11) shows that for each s ∈ I, d(s, [x, y]) < 2δ. In
particular, if we consider the endpoints of I and choose points u, v ∈ [x, y] realizing the
minimal distance, we get |L(I) − d(u, v)| ≤ 4δ. In particular d(pW (x), pW (y)) ≤ d(x, y) +
12δ + 2K.
Corollary 2.13. Let X be δ-hyperbolic and H ⊂ X be K-quasi-convex. Then for each R
there exists S = S(R, K, δ) such that for each quasi-convex Y ⊆ X, we have pH (NR (Y )) ⊆
NS (pH (Y )).
Proof. This is a easy consequence of the fact that the map pH is quasi-Lipschitz. In fact, let
x ∈ NR (Y ), and let y ∈ Y such that d(x, y) < R. Then, by Lemma 2.12, d(pH (x), pH (y)) <
R + 12δ + 2K. Since diam(pH (x)) is uniformly bounded, we get the claim.

2.3

Behrstock’s inequalities

Proposition 2.14. Let X be a δ-hyperbolic space and V, W be K-quasi-convex subspaces of
X. Then there exists κ1 = κ1 (K, δ) such that for each x in X
min{d(pV (x), pV (W )), d(pW (x), pW (V ))} ≤ κ1 .
Proof. Suppose that d(pW (x), pW (V )) > 8δ + 2K. We claim that this will imply an uniform
bound on d(pV (x), pV (W )). Choose points a ∈ pV (x), b ∈ pW (a) ⊆ pW (V ) and c ∈ pW (x).
By assumption, d(b, c) > 8δ + 2K. Consider a geodesic quadrilateral between x, a, b, c.
Observe that [x, a], [x, c] and [a, b] are projection geodesics. Since L([b, c]) > 8δ + 2K, a
quadrilateral argument (Lemma 2.11) gives that there exists a (non-empty) sub-interval I of
[b, c] with d(I, [x, a]) < 2δ. Quasi-convexity of W gives [x, a] ∩ NK+2δ+1 (W ) 6= ∅. Since [x, a]
is a projection geodesic for V , we have that pV (x) ∩ (NK+2δ+1 (W )) 6= ∅. Lemma 2.13 gives
an uniform κ′ = κ′ (K + 2δ + 1, K, δ) = κ′ (K, δ) such that pV (NK+2δ+1 (W )) ⊆ Nκ (pV (W )).
In particular, pV (x) ∩ Nκ (pV (W )) 6= ∅. Since κ1 = max{κ′ , 8δ + 2K} depends only on K
and δ, we get the claim.
Proposition 2.15. Let X be a δ-hyperbolic space and V ⊆ W be K-quasi-convex subspaces
of X. Then
diam(pV (x) ∪ pV (pW (x))) ≤ 12δ + 4K.
Proof. Let a, b ∈ pV (x) ∪ pV (pW (x)) be witnessing the diameter. We can assume that
a ∈ pV (x) and b ∈ pV (pW (x)), otherwise we would have a uniform bound since projections
are quasi-Lipschitz. We claim that d(a, b) ≤ 12δ + 4K. Suppose that it is not the case.
Let c ∈ pW (x) be such that b ∈ pV (c). Consider the quadrilateral a, b, c, x. By assumption,
there is a point s ∈ [a, b] such that d(s, a) > 4δ + K and d(s, b) > 8δ + 3K. Since [x, a] and
[c, b] are projection geodesics onto V , we have that d(s, [x, c]) < 2δ. Let m be a point on
[x, c] witnessing the distance. Since V ⊆ W and c ∈ pW (m), we have that d(m, c) < 2δ + K.
By triangular inequality, d(c, b) < 4δ + 2K. Again by triangular inequality, we get that
d(b, s) < 8δ + 3K, obtaining a contradiction.

7

2.4

Coning-off

Definition 2.16 (Coning-off). Let Γ be a graph, H a connected subgraph of Γ. We define
b as the graph obtained from Γ adding
the cone-off of Γ with respect to H, and denote it by Γ,
an edge connecting each pair of vertices in (H × H) − ∆H×H , where ∆H×H denotes the
diagonal. We call the edges added in such a way H-components. Similarly, the cone-off with
respect to a family of connected subgraphs H = {Hi } is obtained adding the Hi -components
for each Hi ∈ H. An edge is an H-component if it is a Hi -component for some Hi ∈ H.
b with respect to some family H, we have that V (Γ) =
Given a graph Γ and its cone-off Γ
b
b as metric spaces, this implies that there is a
V (Γ).
In particular, if we regard Γ and Γ
b such that for each pair of points x, y ∈ Γ, we have that dΓ (x, y) ≥
bijection i : Γ → Γ
b d b (x′ , y ′ ) ≤ dΓ (i−1 (x), i−1 (y)). To
dΓb (i(x), i(y)) and for each pair of points x′ , y ′ ∈ Γ,
Γ
b and simply write d(x, y)Γ ≥ d b (x, y).
simplify notation, we will identify points of Γ and Γ
Γ
Note, however, that the map i does not induce an isomorphism of graphs. In fact, in
b In particular, it
general i will only induce an inclusion of the edges of Γ into the edges of Γ.
b but the converse is not true. In what follows,
is clear that each path in Γ is still a path in Γ,
b
we will define a way to obtain a path in Γ from a path in Γ.
b is the cone-off of Γ, we use the notation [x, y] for a geodesic of Γ between
Notation. If Γ
x and y.
Definition 2.17 (Pieces). Let η = η1 ∗ · · · ∗ ηn be a concatenation of geodesic segments.
Then we call each of the non-trivial ηi a piece of η.
Note that the subdivision is part of the data.
b be the cone-off of a graph Γ with respect to
Definition 2.18 (De-electrifications). Let Γ
b where the ei are
a family of subgraphs H. Let γ = u1 ∗ e1 ∗ · · · ∗ en ∗ un+1 be a path of Γ,
H-components and the ui are (possibly trivial) segments of Γ. The total de-electrification
(or simply de-electrification) γ
e of γ is the concatenation u1 ∗ η1 ∗ · · · ∗ ηn ∗ un+1 where each
ηi is a geodesic segment of Γ connecting the endpoints of ei . If ei was an H-component, we
say that ηi is an H-piece. A piece of e
γ is an H-piece if it is an H-piece for some H ∈ H.

Even though the definition of de-electrification makes formal sense for any family of
subgraphs H, in practice we will be interested in the case of the elements of H being quasiconvex. Indeed, this will guarantee that for each H-component e, the corresponding geodesic
segment η will be coarsely contained in H. Without this property (or maybe some different
property of the same flavor), there is almost no relation between the original path and the
de-electrification of it. However, it is possible to establish at least some mild result about
the combinatorial properties of de-electrifications.
b be the cone off with respect
Lemma 2.19 (Pigeonhole for cone offs). Let Γ be a graph and Γ
to a family of graphs H. Then for each θ there exists a T = T (θ) such that if d(x, y)Γ ≥ T ,
b
then for each Γ-path
γ connecting x and y, either LΓb (γ) ≥ θ or γ
e has a H-piece that has
Γ-length greater or equal θ.
Proof. We can assume that θ > 1. We claim that T = 2θ2 does the job. Consider x, y
b
with d(x, y)Γ = T0 ≥ T , and fix a Γ-path
γ between them. Assume that LΓb (γ) = ε < θ,
and let
P
be
the
number
of
H-components
of
γ. Consider a de-electrification e
γ of γ and let
P
A = P L(ui )Γ , where the ui are the H-pieces of γ
e and B = L(e
γ ) − A. Then we have that
A + B = T0 and B + P = ε. Hence A = P + T0 − ε. Since A is the sum of P terms, we have
that there is at lest one that has value greater or equal 1 + P1 (T0 − ε). Since P ≤ ε < θ, we
get
1+

1
2θ2 − θ
1
(T0 − ε) ≥ 1 + (2θ2 − ε) ≥ 1 +
≥ θ.
P
P
θ

8

b
It is easily seen that de-electrification of geodesics of Γconsist
of concatenations of
geodesic segments in Γ. We will now record a basic fact about concatenations of geodesic
segments.
Lemma 2.20. Let X be a δ-hyperbolic space, η be a geodesic segment of X and σ the
concatenation of n geodesic segments. If σ ∩ N(n+1)δ (η) = ∅, then diam(pη (σ)) < 8δ.
Proof. Let a, b ∈ pη (σ) be two points realizing the diameter, and let a′ , b′ be preimages in
σ. Then σ|[a′ ,b′ ] ∗ [a′ , b′ ] is an m-gon, with m ≤ n + 1. In particular, we get that [a′ , b′ ] is
contained in the (n − 1)δ-neighborhood of σ, and hence N2δ ∩ [a′ , b′ ] = ∅. A quadrilateral
argument gives the claim.
Proposition 2.21. Let Γ be a δ-hyperbolic graph, H a family of connected subgraphs and
b the cone-off of Γ with respect to H. Then there exist D′ , p depending only on δ such that
Γ
b connecting x
the following holds. For each pair of points x, y of Γ, for each geodesic γ of Γ
and y and for each geodesic [x, y] of Γ connecting x and y, every connected component of
Γ
γ − ND
e
′ ([x, y]) has at most p pieces.

Proof. To simplify notation, throughout this proof we will drop the superscript Γ and assume
that ND (Y ) denotes the D-neighborhood of Y with respect to the metric of Γ. Let ξ = 8δ+1,
D′ = δ(ξ + 1), and suppose that e
γ leaves the D′ -neighborhood of [x, y]. Let a, b be the
endpoints of one of the connected components of γ
e − ND ′ ([x, y]). To simplify notation let
σ=γ
e|[a,b] . Let P be the number of pieces of σ, and let q be the maximal integer such that
P = qξ + r, for some r < ξ. We subdivide the concatenation σ into sub-concatenations σi
such that:
· each σi is the concatenation of consecutive pieces of σ;
· each σi contains at most ξ pieces of σ;
· the subdivision is chosen in such a way that the number of σi is minimal (in fact, it is
at most q + 1).
To simplify notation, let q ≤ Q ≤ q + 1 be the number of the sub-concatenations σi . Our
goal is to give a uniform bound on Q and hence on the number of pieces. Let a′ , b′ be
closest point projections in Γ of a and b on [x, y]. We want to argue that L([a, a′ ] ∗ [a′ , b′ ] ∗
[b′ , b])Γ < L(γ|[a,b] )Γb . In particular, this will imply that [a, a′ ] ∗ [a′ , b′ ] ∗ [b′ , b] is a short
b Note that L([a, a′ ])Γ ≤ D′ and L([b, b′ ])Γ ≤ D′ . Moreover, L([a′ , b′ ])Γ ≤
cut for γ in Γ.
P
Q
i=1 diamΓ (p[x,y] (σi )). Note, however, that Lemma 2.20 guarantees that for each i ≤ Q,
diamΓ (p[x,y](σi )) < 8δ < ξ − 1. Hence we have that L([a, a′ ] ∗ [a′ , b′ ] ∗ [b′ , b])Γ < 2δ(ξ + 1) +
Q(ξ − 1). On the other hand, since σ has P pieces, we have that L(σ)Γb ≥ P = Qξ + r ≥ Qξ.
But it is clear that for a large enough Q0 , the following holds: 2δ(ξ + 1) + Q0 (ξ − 1) < Q0 ξ.
That is, for large enough values of Q, we get a short-cut. Hence we get the desired bound
on Q, and thus a bound on the maximum number of pieces that σ can have.
Remark 2.22. In the above proof, the quantities D′ , p depends on ξ, which, ultimately,
only needs to satisfy ξ − 1 > 8δ. In particular, the bounds on p and Q of the above proof are
surely not optimal, and it is possible to minimize and explicitly compute them via varying
ξ.
The proof of Proposition 2.21, gives us two important corollaries:
Corollary 2.23. In the hypotheses and notations of Proposition 2.21, we have the following:
There exist D = D(δ) such that for each connected component σ of γ − ND ([x, y]), the
distance in Γ between the endpoints of σ is uniformly bounded by 2D + 8δ.
Proof. Set D = max{δ(p + 1), D′ }, where p, D′ are as in Proposition 2.21. Then we have
that each connected component σ of γ − ND ([x, y]) has at most p pieces. But then Lemma
2.20 gives that the projection of σ on [x, y] has diameter at most 8δ. Hence, by triangular
inequality, the distance between the endpoints of σ is at most 2D + 8δ.

9

Corollary 2.24. In the hypotheses and notations of the proof of Proposition 2.21, we have
that there exists D = D(δ) such that [x, y] ⊆ N10δ+D (e
γ ).
Proof. Let z be a point of [x, y]. It is a well known fact of δ-hyperbolic spaces that, if η is
a geodesic and γ a path with the same endpoints of η, then the projection of γ onto η is
2δ-dense. Thus, there is a point z ′ ∈ [x, y], with d(z, z ′ )Γ < 2δ that is contained p[x,y] (γ).
If there is a preimage of z ′ in ND ([x, y]) ∩ γ, then we are done. So suppose this is not the
case, and let a be a preimage of z ′ in γ. Let σ be the connected component of γ − ND ([x, y])
that contains a. Let D as in Corollary 2.23, that is D = max{δ(p + 1), D′ }, where p, D′
are as in Proposition 2.21. Since σ has at most p components, Lemma 2.20 gives that that
diam(p[x,y] (σ)) < 8δ. Let σ ± be the endpoints of σ. Since both p[x,y] (σ ± ), z ′ are contained
in the projection p[x,y] (σ), it follows that d(z ′ , p[x,y] (σ ± )) < 8δ. By triangular inequality, we
get that d(z, σ ± ) < 10δ + D, which proves the claim.
Now we would like to prove the other inclusion, namely that there is a constant D′ such
that e
γ ⊆ ND ′ ([x, y]). Without further assumptions on the family H, this is easily seen to
be hopeless. This motivates to consider a family H with more structure, in particular, we
will require the elements of H to satisfy a slightly more general version of uniform-quasiconvexity.
Definition 2.25 (Cone-off quasi-convexity). Let Γ be a connected graph, H a family of
b the cone-off of Γ with respect to H. We say that a subset S ⊆ Γ is
subgraphs of Γ and Γ
K-cone-off quasi-convex with respect to (Γ, H) if the following holds. For each two points
s, t of S, each geodesic [s, t] of Γ between them and each point z ∈ [s, t], we have:
dΓb (z, S) ≤ K.
Similarly, we say that the family H is K-cone-off quasi-convex (K-COQC) if for each H in
H, H is K-COQC with respect to (Γ, H).
We emphasize that a K-quasi-convex subset is also K-COQC, regardless of the coning-off
family.
We will now introduce the definition of interruption. The idea is the following: consider
b and assume that e is an H-component (for simplicity assume the
a path γ = u1 eu2 of Γ
only one) of γ, for some K-quasi-convex H. If x, y are the endpoints of the edge e, then
γ = u1 [x, y]u2 is a de-electrification for γ, for some geodesic [x, y] between x, y in Γ. It
e
may happen that we are interested in some point z ∈ [x, y]. In general, such a z will be
an element of γ
e, but not of γ. In order to solve this, we will modify γ into a path whose
b
Γ-length
is comparable to the one of γ, but contains z. A pictorial illustration of this can
be found in Figure 1.
b be the cone-off of Γ with respect to
Definition 2.26 (Interruption). Let Γ be a graph, Γ
b Suppose that γ = u1 eu2 , where e is a
a K-COQC family H and let γ be a path of Γ.
H-component for some H ∈ H, and let u1 ηu2 be a de-electrification for u1 eu2 . Let z be
a point in η. We define the interruption of γ in z to be the path u1 e1 [z ′ , z]Γ [z, z ′ ]Γ e2 u2 of
b where z ′ realizes the shortest distance projection of z on H and e1 , e2 are defined as the
Γ,
edges (e− , z), (z, e+ ) respectively. If γ
e is a de-electrification of γ and S is a set of points
belonging to H-pieces of γ
e, we similarly define the interruption of γ in S.

Remark 2.27. Let S be as in Definition 2.26. If γ S is the interruption of γ with respect
to S, we have that L γ S Γb ≤ L (γ)Γb + |S|(2K + 1). This is easily seen because, in the
notation of Definition 2.26, we substitute H components e with concatenations of the form
e1 [z ′ , z]Γ [z, z ′ ]Γ e2 . By definition of K-COQC, LΓb ([z, z ′ ]) ≤ K.
It is quite remarkable that the estimate of Remark 2.27 is the only step of the proof or
Proposition 2.28 that uses quasi-convexity.
We recall that given a graph Γ, a point p ∈ Γ and a number R ∈ R, the ball of center p
and radius R, is the set {x ∈ Γ | d(x, p) < R}, and the sphere of center p and radius R is
the set {x ∈ Γ | d(x, p) = ⌈R⌉}.

10

e

e2

H

e1

z′

y

≤K

u2

[x, y]
x

z

u1

Figure 1: The point z is an element of the de-electrification, but not of the original path. To
solve this, we substitute e with the concatenation e1 [z ′ , z][z, z ′]e2 (blue in the picture). Since
the space H is K-quasi-convex, the geodesic [z, z ′] has length smaller or equal K. Thus we have
that the total length of e1 [z ′ , z][z, z ′]e2 is bounded above by 2 + 2K.
Proposition 2.28. Let Γ be a δ-hyperbolic graph, H a family of K-COQC subgraphs and
b the cone-off of Γ with respect to H. Then there exist τ1 = τ1 (δ, K) and τ2 = τ2 (δ, K) such
Γ
b with the property
that for each pair of points x, y ∈ Γ there exists a τ1 -quasi-geodesic γ ′ of Γ
that for each de-electrification e
γ ′ of γ ′ , γ
e′ is a τ2 -quasi-geodesic of Γ.

b between x and y and fix a de-electrification γ
Proof. Consider a geodesic γ of Γ
e. We will
stick to the convention that [x, y] denotes a (fixed once and for all) geodesic segment of Γ
between x and y.
Our goal is to modify γ into a τ1 -quasi-geodesic γ ′ with the same endpoints of γ such
that each de-electrification of γ ′ is a τ2 -quasi-geodesic, where τ1 and τ2 do not depend on
b if γ
x, y. Since γ is a geodesic of Γ,
e was already uniformly a quasi-geodesic of Γ, then
this will conclude the proof. However, it is easily seen that the de-electrification e
γ can,
in general, be arbitrarily far away in Γ from [x, y]. Since Γ is δ-hyperbolic, this clearly
constitutes an obstruction for e
γ to be uniformly a quasi-geodesic. So, our first step will be
to modify γ to some quasi-geodesic γ ′′ such that each de-electrification of γ ′′ is contained in
a uniform Γ-neighborhood of [x, y]. After this step, it is indeed possible to show that each
de-electrification of γ ′′ is a τ3 -quasi-geodesic of Γ, but τ3 will be depending on the distance
between the points x and y. This is because the de-electrifications may have backtracking,
which, in general, can only be estimated in terms of dΓ (x, y). So, the second step will be
to further modify γ ′′ into a new path γ ′ such that the de-electrifications will (coarsely) not
backtrack. The path γ ′ will be the desired one. The last two steps will consist in showing
b and that the de-electrifications are uniformly
that γ ′ is still uniformly a quasi-geodesic of Γ,
quasi-geodesics of Γ.
Step 1: Obtain that γ
e ⊆ N⌈D+4δ⌉ ([x, y]).
If γ
e ⊆ ND ([x, y]), this step is trivial. So suppose γ
e exits the D-neighborhood of [x, y],
and let Σ = {σκ } be the set of connected components of γ
e −ND ([x, y]) that have at least two
pieces. We can restrict to such components because if a connected component σ consists of
only one piece, then it is easy to see that σ ⊆ ND+4δ ([x, y]). In order to simplify notation,
let ∆ = ⌈D + 4δ⌉ ∈ Z. Suppose, then, that Σ is non empty. Let S be the set of endpoints of
elements of Σ that are not contained in γ. That is, the set of endpoints that are contained in
H-pieces of e
γ . We note that |S| ≤ 2P ≤ 2LΓb (γ), where P is the number of H-components of

11

x

s−
1

s+
1

γ
e

η1

y

[x, y]

∆

Figure 2: The de-electrification γ
e may exit the ∆-neighborhood of [x, y]. In this case we will
”cut-off” the parts that exits the ∆-neighborhood with more than two pieces, and replace them
with a geodesic segment Γ. In the picture, there is only one such connected component, which
is replaced by the segment η1 .
γ. Let γ S be the interruption of γ with respect to S. Note that L(γ S )Γb ≤ LΓb (γ)+|S|(2K+1).
+
For each σκ ∈ Σ, let s±
κ be the endpoints of σκ , and let ηκ be a geodesic in Γ connecting sκ
−
±
and sκ . Applying Corollary 2.23 to the endpoints sκ , we get:
L (ηκ )Γ ≤ 2∆ − 2.
b obtained from γ S substituting each γ|S
Let γ ′′ be the path in Γ
+

−
[sκ ,sκ ]

with ηκ , and let γ
e′′

be the path in Γ obtained from γ
e substituting all the σκ with ηκ . It is clear from the
construction that γ
e′′ ⊆ N∆ ([x, y]), and that it is a de-electrification of γ ′′ .
b Consider a subpath χ of γ ′′ . We
We want now to show that γ ′′ is a quasi-geodesic of Γ.
want produce a uniform estimate of the length of χ. Since χ is arbitrary, this will guarantee
that γ ′′ is a quasi-geodesic. First, suppose that the endpoints of χ are contained in γ S , that
is, they are not part of the geodesic segments ηκ . Note that this implies that s+
κ is a point
S
of χ if and only if s−
is.
Finally
S
=
S
∩
χ,
and
let
χ
be
the
restriction
of
γ S between
χ
κ
the endpoints of χ.

 
X
L (ηκ )Γb − L χS | + −
L(χ)Γb = L(χS )Γb +
≤
[sκ ,sκ ]

κ

S

≤ L(χ )Γb +

X



b
Γ

L (ηκ )Γb ≤

κ

≤ dΓb (χ− , χ+ ) + |Sχ |(2K + 1) +

X
κ


L (ηκ )Γ ≤

≤ dΓb (χ− , χ+ ) + |Sχ |(2K + 1) + |Sχ |(2∆ − 2) =
= dΓb (χ− , χ+ ) + |Sχ |(2∆ + 2K − 1).
Since |Sχ | ≤ 2L(χ)Γb , we have the desired estimate. Since, by Corollary 2.23, we can uniformly bound the length of the segments ηκ , up to increasing the additive constant, we get
the estimate for general endpoints of χ.
Step 2: Removing backtracking.
The general strategy will be similar to the one of Step 1. First we remark that there is a
natural order on a geodesic induced by the choice of an order on the endpoints. From now
on, we will always consider the order on the geodesics induced by the choice x ≤ y.
We want now to further modify γ ′′ and e
γ ′′ . We will do this inductively, obtaining a
m
′′
b
sequence {ti }i=1 of points in γ
e , a sequence {γt′i }m
γt′i }m
i=1 of paths in Γ, and a sequence {e
i=1
′
′′
′
of de-electrifications in Γ. We start the process setting t0 = x, γt−1 = γ and γ
e−1 = γ
e′′ .
Suppose that ti , γt′i−1 and γ
et′i−1 are defined, and that ti ∈ γt′i−1 . Let B be the ball
of center ti and radius 3∆ in Γ. For the rest of Step 2, we will consider only connected
components of γ
et′i−1 − B that:

12

3∆
ti
x

b
y

[x, y]
a

Figure 3: In order to remove backtracking, we connect with a geodesic of Γ the first and the last
point that intersects the sphere of radius 3∆ around ti .
· have at least two pieces or contain y,
· come after the point ti in e
γt′i−1 .

Let Ti be the set of points obtained intersecting each connected component as above with
the sphere of same radius and center as B. If the set Ti is empty or contains only one
element, then no action is performed. Otherwise, let a and b be the first and the last points
of Ti . Then we obtain e
γt′i from γ
et′i−1 by removing e
γ|′′[a,b] and adding a geodesic [a, b] of Γ
connecting a and b. We modify γt′i−1 accordingly (namely, interrupting it on {a, b} and
then substituting γ|′′[a,b] with [a, b]). Note that e
γt′i is a de-electrification of γt′i , and that


≤ 2∆ − 2. If y ∈ B, then we stop. Otherwise, we repeat the whole
L([a, b])Γb − L γt′′i |
[a,b]

b
Γ

procedure with ti+1 = b. Note that if y 6∈ B, then Ti is not empty and γ
e|′[b,y] ∩ B = ∅. This
implies that y and b lie on the same connected component of N∆ ([x, y]) − B. This, and the
fact that the radius of B is 3∆, implies the following two:
dΓ (p[x,y] (a), p[x,y] (b)) ≥ ∆,

(1)

dΓ (p[x,y] (a), y) ≥ dΓ (p[x,y] (b), y) + ∆,

(2)

where p[x,y](a), p[x,y] (b) denote the shortest distance projections of a and b on [x, y]. In
particular, there is m < ∞ such that y is contained in the ball of radius 3∆ around tm ,
namely, the process stops after finitely many steps. We set γ ′ = γt′m and e
γ′ = γ
et′m . We
m
′
remark that the sequence {ti }i+1 , may contain points that are not elements of γ . In fact, in
the cases where the set Ti is empty, no action is performed, and in particular no interruption
on γ ′′ .
Step 3: γ
e′ is a quasi-geodesic in Γ.
We claim that the sequence t0 , . . . , tm provides a quasi-isometric embedding of {0, . . . , m}
into Γ. For each i < m, since ti+1 is on the sphere of radius 3∆ around ti , clearly
dΓ (ti , ti+1 ) = 3∆. Hence, we get the bound dΓ (ti , tj ) ≤ 3∆|i−j|. We want to provide a lower
bound. Given ti , tj , and applying inequality (2) to the sequence p[x,y](ti ), p[x,y] (ti+1 ), . . . , p[x,y] (tj ),
we get that dΓ (p[x,y] (ti ), y) ≥ dΓ (p[x,y] (tj ), y) + |i − j|∆. Since all the points considered are
on a geodesic, we have that dΓ (p[x,y](ti ), p[x,y] (tj )) ≥ |i − j|∆. The fact that the distances
dΓ (ti , p[x,y] (ti )) are uniformly bounded, provides the desired bound. Now we claim that
′
for each i, the path e
γ[t
is uniformly a quasi-geodesic. Note that it consists of a coni ,ti+1 ]
catenation of pieces contained in a ball of radius ∆. Hence each piece has length at most
′
′′
2∆. Moreover, it is clear by construction that γ
e[t
=e
γ[t
∗ [a, ti+1 ], where a is as in
i ,ti+1 ]
i ,a]
′′
′′
b γ
Step 2. Let q1 , q2 be any two points on e
γ[ti ,a] . Since: γ is a quasi-geodesic of Γ,
e′′ is a
′′
′
′′
de-electrification for γ , and γ
e[q1 ,q2 ] = γ
e[q1 ,q2 ] , arguing as in Step 1, we get that the number
of pieces between them can be bounded by a linear function of the distance between q1 and

′
q2 . In particular, the bound on the length of each piece gives an upper bound on L γ
e[q
.
1 ,q2 ]
Now consider the case of general endpoints: since the length of [a, ti+1 ] is uniformly bounded
by 2∆, up to increasing the additive constant by 4∆, we get the desired bound. Hence, we

13

get the claim. But a concatenation obtained joining a set of quasi-isometrically embedded
points with uniform quasi-geodesic is a quasi-geodesic.
We remark that our construction of γ ′ depends on the choice of de-electrification e
γ of γ,
and in order to perform the construction, we used the auxiliary sequence {e
γt′i } of paths in
Γ. This gave us a particular choice for the de-electrification of γ ′ . However, we remark that
after γ ′ is constructed, the argument of Step 3 applies to any de-electrification of γ ′ , and
not only to the de-electrification obtained during the construction.
b
Step 4: γ ′ is a quasi-geodesic in Γ.
′
Consider the set X = {ti }m
∩
γ
.
As remarked in Step 2, it may happen that X ( {ti }.
i=1
Note that it is not possible that two elements ti , tj of X belong to the same H-piece of γ
e′ .
′′
Indeed, suppose that this holds for ti and tj , with j > i. Then, since e
γti−1 restricted to
ti , ti+1 is a geodesic segment, it follows that the set Ti contains only one element. Hence no
action is performed. Since the point ti+1 is on an H-piece and no interruption is performed,
it follows that ti+1 6∈ γ ′ . Repeating the above reasoning for ti+1 , . . . , tj−1 gives the claim.
Since the number P of H-components of γ is greater of equal to the number of H-components
of γ ′ , we have that |X| ≤ P ≤ LΓb (γ) = dΓb (x, y). Consider a restriction χ of γ ′ with endpoints
q1 , q2 and suppose that q1 , q2 ∈ γ ′′ . If Xχ = X ∩ χ, we similarly have that |Xχ | ≤ dΓb (q1 , q2 ).
For each element of Xχ , let ai and bi be the endpoints of the corresponding H-component.
′′
Finally, we observe that
 by Step
 2, γ is uniformly a quasi-geodesic. In particular, there
′′
exists C such that L γ|[q ,q ]
≤ CdΓb (q1 , q2 ) + C. Then we have:
1

L(χ)Γb = L(γ|′′[q

2

) +

b
1 ,q2 ] Γ

b
Γ

X
Xχ

≤ L(γ|′[q


L ([ai , bi ]))Γb − L γ ′′ |[a

i ,bi ]

) + |Xχ |(2K + 1) +

b
1 ,q2 ] Γ

X
Xχ

≤ CdΓb (q1 , q2 ) + C + |Xχ |(2K + 1) +

 
b
Γ

≤


L ([ai , bi ])Γ − L γ ′′ |[a

X

i ,bi ]

 
b
Γ

≤

(2∆dΓ (q1 , q2 ) + 2∆) =

Xχ


= CdΓb (q1 , q2 ) + C + |Xχ | 12∆2 + 2∆ + 2K + 1 ≤


≤ CdΓb (q1 , q2 ) + C + dΓb (q1 , q2 ) 12∆2 + 2∆ + 2K + 1 =

= dΓb (q1 , q2 )(C + 12∆2 + 2∆ + 2K + 1) + C.

b we get that, up
Since the Γ-geodesic segments [ai , bi ] have uniformly bounded length in Γ,
to uniformly increase the additive constant, we can bound the length of each subsegment of
b
γ ′ . Hence, γ ′ is uniformly a quasi geodesic of Γ.

b is the cone-off of Γ with respect to a general family of uniformly quasiSuppose that Γ
isometrically embedded subgraphs H. Sometimes it may be useful to consider a slightly
different definition of de-electrification.
b be the cone-off of a graph Γ with respect to a family of uniformly
Definition 2.29. Let Γ
b
quasi-isometrically embedded subgraphs H. Let γ = u1 ∗ e1 ∗ · · · ∗ en ∗ un+1 be a path of Γ,
where each ei is an Hi -component for some Hi ∈ H, and the ui are (possibly trivial) segments
of Γ. The embedded-de-electrification e
γ e of γ is the concatenation u1 ∗ η1 ∗ · · · ∗ ηn ∗ un+1
where each ηi is a geodesic segment of Hi connecting the endpoints of ei . We define H-pieces
and H-pieces as in the case of de-electrifications.
Note that if Γ is δ-hyperbolic and the elements of H are uniformly quasi-isometrically
b it is easy
embedded, the two definitions are coarsely the same. Indeed, given a path γ of Γ
to see that γ
e is a quasi-geodesic of Γ if and only if e
γ e is.
As a corollary, we get the following version of Proposition 2.28.

Corollary 2.30. Let Γ be a δ-hyperbolic graph, H a family of uniformly quasi-isometrically
b the cone-off of Γ with respect to H. Then there exist τ1 = τ1 (δ, K)
embedded subgraphs and Γ

14

and τ2 = τ2 (δ, K) such that for each pair of points x, y ∈ Γ there exists a τ1 -quasi-geodesic
b with the property that for each embedded-de-electrification γ
γ ′ of Γ
e′ of γ ′ , γ
e′ is a τ2 -quasigeodesic of Γ.

3

Hierarchically hyperbolic spaces

3.1

Factor Systems

Definition 3.1 (Factor System). Let Γ be a connected graph. We say that a family H of
connected subgraphs of Γ is a factor system for Γ if there are constants K, c, ξ, B such that
the following are satisfied.
1. Each H ∈ H is K-quasi-isometrically embedded in Γ.
2. Given H1 , H2 ∈ H, either diam(pH1 (H2 )) ≤ ξ, or there is U ∈ H with such that
U ⊆ H1 and dHaus (pH1 (H2 ), U ) ≤ B.
3. Given H1 , H2 ∈ H, if dHaus (pH1 (H2 ), H1 ) ≤ B, then H1 ⊆ H2 .
4. Every ascending chain of inclusions H1 ( H2 ( · · · ( Hn has length bounded above
by c.
5. Given H1 , H2 ∈ H, if dHaus (H1 , H2 ) < ∞, then H1 = H2 .
We remark that if Γ is hyperbolic, then being uniformly quasi-isometrically embedded
implies being uniformly quasi-convex. Note that the inclusion induces a partial order on
H ∪ {Γ} with unique maximal element Γ.
Definition 3.2. Let Γ be a connected graph, let H be a factor system for Γ and let G ∈ H.
b the cone off of G with respect to
We define HG = {H ∈ H | H ( G}. We denote with G
b ⊆ Γ,
b where Γ
b is the cone-off of Γ.
HG . Note that G
Remark 3.3. If Γ is a graph, H is a factor system for Γ and G ∈ H, then HG is a factor
system for G with constants K ′ , c − 1, ξ ′ , where K ′ = K ′ (K), ξ ′ = ξ ′ (K, ξ).

In the setting of factor systems, we want to introduce a finer version of de-electrification.
Definition 3.4 (Partial de-electrification). Let H be a factor system for a connected graph
b where the ei are Gi -components, for
Γ. Let γ = u1 ∗ e1 ∗ · · · ∗ en ∗ un+1 be a path of Γ,
Gi ∈ H and the ui are (possibly trivial) segments of Γ. The C-partial de-electrification of
γ is the concatenation u1 ∗ η1 ∗ · · · ∗ ηn ∗ un+1 where each ηi is a C-quasi-geodesic segment
(1)
ci connecting the endpoints of ei . We denote it by γ
of G
eC .We denote the partial C-de(1)
(2)
electrification of γ
eC by γ
eC , and so on. For simplicity, we denote γ
e(0) = γ.

Note that a partially de-electrified path still contains H components. We gained that if e
is a G-component for a partially de-electrified geodesic, then necessarily there exists H ∈ H
with G ( H.

Lemma 3.5 (Partial pigeonhole for cone-offs). Let Γ be a δ-hyperbolic graph and H be a
factor system for Γ. Then for each θ there exists a T = T (K, c) and τ = τ (δ, H) such that
b a number n and
for any pair of points x, y satisfying d(x, y)Γ ≥ T , there is a path γ of Γ,
H ∈ H ∪ {Γ} such that:
· the de-electrification γ
e is uniformly a quasi-geodesic of Γ,
(n)
b
· the path e
γτ ∩ H is uniformly a quasi-geodesic of H,
(n)
· L(e
γτ ∩ H)Hb ≥ θ.
Proof. We induct on the complexity of H. So suppose now that the claim holds for c ≤ m−1.
Let γ be the path provided by Proposition 2.28. Lemma 2.19 guarantees that for each T ,
there exists T ′ = T ′ (T ) such that if d(x, y) ≥ T ′ , then either there is a G-piece σ of γ
e
with L(σ)G ≥ T , or LΓb (γ) ≥ T . In the second case, we are done choosing n = 0, because

15

γ (0) = γ is uniformly a quasi-geodesic and, by the choice of γ, every de-electrification is
uniformly a quasi-geodesic. So suppose that there is G ∈ H with L(e
γ ∩ G)G ≥ T . Let a, b
be the endpoints γ
e ∩ G. By Remark 3.3 G is a hyperbolic graph with a factor system HG of
complexity strictly less than the complexity of H. Since G is uniformly quasi-isometrically
embedded in Γ, we can control the G distance between a, b. In particular, we get a path η
b as in the statement of the Lemma. We claim that the path obtained substituting η
of G
to γ|[a,b] satisfies the original requirements. This is because η is uniformly a quasi-geodesic
of Γ, and thus there is a uniform τ such that η is part of a τ -partial de-electrification of γ.
Since the original complexity was finite, and at each step all the constants can be chosen
uniformly, this proves the claim.

3.2

Hierarchical structure

In this section, we will prove that given a δ-hyperbolic graph Γ and a factor system H, that
the pair (Γ, H) provides a hierarchically hyperbolic structure for Γ. We emphasize that the
non trivial part of the claim is the one concerning the indexing set. In fact, every hyperbolic
space X admits (X, {X}) as a hierarchically hyperbolic structure.
First, we recall the definition of hierarchically hyperbolic space.
Definition 3.6 (Hierarchically hyperbolic space, [BHS15]).
The q-quasigeodesic space (X , dX ) is a hierarchically hyperbolic space if there exists δ ≥ 0,
an index set S, and a set {CW : W ∈ S} of δ–hyperbolic spaces (CU, dU ), such that the
following conditions are satisfied:
1. (Projections.) There is a set {πW : X → 2CW | W ∈ S} of projections sending points
in X to sets of diameter bounded by some ξ ≥ 0 in the various CW ∈ S. Moreover,
there exists K so that each πW is (K, K)–coarsely Lipschitz.
2. (Nesting.) S is equipped with a partial order ⊑, and either S = ∅ or S contains
a unique ⊑–maximal element; when V ⊑ W , we say V is nested in W . We require
that W ⊑ W for all W ∈ S. For each W ∈ S, we denote by SW the set of V ∈ S
such that V ⊑ W . Moreover, for all V, W ∈ S with V properly nested in W there
is a specified subset ρVW ⊂ CW with diamCW (ρVW ) ≤ ξ. There is also a projection
CV
ρW
. (The similarity in notation is justified by viewing ρVW as a coarsely
V : CW → 2
constant map CV → 2CW .)
3. (Orthogonality.) S has a symmetric and anti-reflexive relation called orthogonality:
we write V ⊥ W when V, W are orthogonal. Also, whenever V ⊑ W and W ⊥ U , we
require that V ⊥ U . Finally, we require that for each T ∈ S and each U ∈ ST for
which {V ∈ ST | V ⊥ U } 6= ∅, there exists W ∈ ST − {T }, so that whenever V ⊥ U
and V ⊑ T , we have V ⊑ W . Finally, if V ⊥ W , then V, W are not ⊑–comparable.
4. (Transversality and consistency.) If V, W ∈ S are not orthogonal and neither is
nested in the other, then we say V, W are transverse, denoted V ⋔ W . There exists
κ0 ≥ 0 such that if V ⋔ W , then there are sets ρVW ⊆ CW and ρW
V ⊆ CV each of
diameter at most ξ and satisfying:
o
n
min dW (πW (x), ρVW ), dV (πV (x), ρW
V ) ≤ κ0
for all x ∈ X .
For V, W ∈ S satisfying V ⊑ W and for all x ∈ X , we have:
n
o
min dW (πW (x), ρVW ), diamCV (πV (x) ∪ ρW
V (πW (x))) ≤ κ0 .
The preceding two inequalities are the consistency inequalities for points in X .
V
Finally, if U ⊑ V , then dW (ρU
W , ρW ) ≤ κ0 whenever W ∈ S satisfies either V ⊑ W
and V 6= W or V ⋔ W and W 6⊥ U .

16

5. (Finite complexity.) There exists n ≥ 0, the complexity of X (with respect to S),
so that any set of pairwise–⊑–comparable elements has cardinality at most n.
6. (Large links.) There exist λ ≥ 1 and E ≥ max{ξ, κ0 } such that the following holds.
Let W ∈ S and let x, x′ ∈ X . Let N = λdW (πW (x), πW (x′ )) + λ. Then there exists
{Ti }i=1,...,⌊N⌋ ⊆ SW − {W } such that for all T ∈ SW − {W }, either T ∈ STi for some
i, or dT (πT (x), πT (x′ )) < E. Also, dW (πW (x), ρTWi ) ≤ N for each i.
7. (Bounded geodesic image.) For all W ∈ S, all V ∈ SW − {W }, and all geodesics
V
γ of CW , either diamCV (ρW
V (γ)) ≤ E or γ ∩ NE (ρW ) 6= ∅.
8. (Partial Realization.) There exists a constant α with the following property. Let
{Vj } be a family of pairwise orthogonal elements of S, and let pj ∈ πVj (X ) ⊆ CVj .
Then there exists x ∈ X so that:
• dVj (x, pj ) ≤ α for all j,
V

• for each j and each V ∈ S with Vj ⊑ V , we have dV (x, ρVj ) ≤ α, and
V

• if W ⋔ Vj for some j, then dW (x, ρWj ) ≤ α.
9. (Uniqueness.) For each κ ≥ 0, there exists θu = θu (κ) such that if x, y ∈ X and
d(x, y) ≥ θu , then there exists V ∈ S such that dV (x, y) ≥ κ.
We often refer to S, together with the nesting and orthogonality relations, the projections,
and the hierarchy paths, as a hierarchically hyperbolic structure for the space X .
Convention. As before, we will assume that a hyperbolic graph Γ and a factor system H
for Γ are fixed.
b be the cone-off of Γ with respect to H, and let iΓ : Γ → Γ
b be the
Definition 3.7. Let Γ
bijection on the vertex set. As remarked before, iΓ is distance-non-increasing, and i−1
is
Γ
distance-non-decreasing.
c be the cone-off of W with respect to the family HW = {H ∈
1. For each W ∈ H, let W
c ⊆ Γ,
b the maps iΓ and i−1 restrict to maps iW , i−1 . As before,
H | H ( W }. Since W
Γ
W
the maps iW are distance-non-increasing and i−1
W distance-non-decreasing. Note that
c = iW (W ).
W
c

2. We denote with πW : Γ → 2W the map iW ◦ pW , where pW denotes the shortest
distance projection in Γ.

3. For V, W ∈ H such that V 6⊆ W , we define ρW
V to be pV (W ). Condition 2 of the
definition of factor system yields that the sets ρW
V have uniformly bounded diameter.
b
−1
V
c
4. For V, W ∈ H such that V ⊆ W , we define a map ρW
as ρW
V : W → 2
V = πV ◦ iW .

The following result is proved in [KR14, Proposition 2.6]. It is an application of the
Bowditch criterion for hyperbolicity ([Bow06]).
Proposition 3.8 (Kapovich-Rafi, Bowditch). Let Γ be a connected graph with simplicial
metric dΓ such that (X, dX ) is δ-hyperbolic. Let K > 0 and H be a family of K-quasib be the cone-off of Γ with respect to the family H. Then Γ
b is
convex subgraphs of Γ. Let Γ
δ ′ -hyperbolic (with respect to the path metric) for some constant δ ′ > 0 depending only on
K and δ. Moreover there exists H = H(K, δ) > 0 such that whenever x, y ∈ V (Γ), [x, y]Γ is
b then [x, y]Γ and
a dΓ -geodesic from x to y in Γ and [x, y]Γb is a dΓb -geodesic from x to y in Γ
b d b ).
[x, y]Γb are H-Hausdorff close in (Γ,
Γ
c , for W ∈ H ∪ {X} are
Corollary 3.9. There is a uniform δ ′ such that the spaces W
δ ′ -hyperbolic.

Proposition 3.10 (Bounded projections). There exists Θ such that for each pair F, W ∈ H,
one of the following holds:
c
· diam b (ρΓ
F (W )) ≤ Θ:
F

17

· F ⊆ W.
Proof. Let Θ = 2B + ξ + 2 and suppose that the first does not hold. Unraveling the
definitions, we get:
−1
c
ρΓ
F (W ) = πF ◦ iΓ (iW (W )) = πF (W ) = iF (pF (W )).

Since iF is distance-non-increasing, we get that diamF (pF (W )) > Θ > ξ. By definition of
factor system, this implies that there is U ∈ H such that U ⊆ F and dHaus (pF (W ), U ) ≤ B.
Since Θ = 2B + ξ + 2, we have that diamFb (U ) ≥ 2, thus U is not coned-off in Fb . Since
each element of HF is coned-off in Fb, we have that U 6∈ HF and hence U = F . Thus,
dHaus (F, pF (W )) ≤ B. The definition of factor system then implies that F ⊆ W .
Lemma 3.11 (Bounded geodesic image). There exists B such that for all W ∈ H and
V
c , either diam b (ρW
V ∈ HW and all geodesics γ of W
V (γ)) < B, or γ ∩ NB (ρW ) 6= ∅.
V

Proof. Suppose that diam(ρW
V (γ)) > 8δ + K, where K is the uniform quasi-convexity constant of the elements of H. We claim that this implies that γ ∩ N2δ+K+H (ρVW ) 6= ∅, where
H is the constant of Proposition 3.8. Fix a, b ∈ Vb witnessing diam(ρW
V (γ)) and let x, y ∈ γ
be in the preimage under ρW
b (a, b) = 8δ + K. Then a
V of a, b. Note that dΓ (a, b) ≥ dV
quadrilateral argument gives that dΓ (V, [x, y]) < 2δ + K, where [x, y] is a geodesic in Γ. But
since, by Proposition 3.8, dHaus ([x, y], γ|[x,y] ) ≤ H, we get the claim.
Proposition 3.12 (Large link Lemma). There exist λ ≥ 1 and E such that the following
holds. Let W ∈ H ∪ {Γ} and x, y ∈ Γ. Let N = λd(πW (x), πW (y)) + λ. Then there
exists {T1 , . . . , T⌈N⌉ } ⊆ HW such that for each V ∈ HW , either V ∈ HTi ∪ {Ti } for some
i ∈ {1, . . . , ⌈N ⌉}, or dV (πV (x), πV (y)) < E. Also, dW (πW (x), ρTWi ) ≤ N for each i.
Proof. We will show that if E is chosen large enough, the proposition holds. We will give
a more precise characterization of large during the proof. For now, just assume it is much
larger than δ, K and Θ, where K is the quasi-convexity constant of the family H, and Θ is
as in Proposition 3.10. Since W is uniformly quasi-isometrically embedded in Γ, and since
HW is uniformly a factor system, to simplify notation we can assume that W = Γ. In fact,
for each U ⊆ W and x ∈ Γ, we have that pU (x) and pU (pW (x)) (and hence πU (x) and
πU (πW (x))) coarsely coincide (see Proposition 2.15). Thus we can substitute x and y with
πW (x) and πW (y).
b between x and y, such that for every de-electrification
Let γ be a τ1 -quasi-geodesic of Γ
γ , we have γ
b
b ⊆ N∆ ([x, y]). Proposition 2.28 guarantees that such a quasi-geodesic exists and
that τ1 , ∆ can be chosen uniformly. Suppose that there is F with dFb (πF (x), πF (y)) ≥ E.
We claim that if γ
b does not have a F -piece, then there is U ∈ H such that γ
b has a U -piece
and F ⊆ U . Note that the number of H-pieces of γ
b is at most LΓb (γ) ≤ τ1 dΓb (x, y) + τ1 .
Then the spaces Ti of the statement are precisely the elements T of H such that γ has a T
component. Since γ is uniformly a quasi-geodesic, up to increase λ, we get that the second
claim translates as dΓb (x, Ti ) ≤ LΓb (γ). Since the spaces Ti have, by construction, non empty
intersection with γi , the second claim follows.
Since dFb (πF (x), πF (y)) ≥ E, we get that diamFb (ρΓ
F ([x, y]) ≥ E. If E is large enough, a
quadrilateral argument gives that there are points a′ , b′ of [x, y] such that:
· dΓ (a′ , F ) ≤ 2δ + K and dΓ (b′ , F ) ≤ 2δ + K, where K is the quasi-convexity constant of
F.
· dΓ (pF (a′ ), pF (x)) ≤ 4δ + 2K, and dΓ (pF (b′ ), pF (y)) ≤ 4δ + 2K.
Since γ
e ⊆ N∆ ([x, y]), we can find points a, b of γ
e such that:

· dΓ (a, F ) ≤ 2δ + K + ∆ and dΓ (b, F ) ≤ 2δ + K + ∆.
· dΓ (pF (a), pF (x)) ≤ 2(4δ + 2K + ∆) and dΓ (pF (b), pF (y)) ≤ 2(2K + 4δ + ∆).

18

Since F is uniformly quasi-isometrically embedded in Γ, and since distances in F are
larger than distances in Fb , the last set of inequalities gives that we can find a uniform ρ
such that dFb (πF (a), πF (x)) ≤ ρ, and similarly dFb (πF (b), πF (y)) ≤ ρ. Since, by assumption,
dFb (πF (x), πF (y)) ≥ E, we obtain that dFb (πF (a), πF (b)) ≤ E − 2ρ. We would like to
assume that a and b are points of γ. Since this is not true in general, replace γ with its
a, b-interruption γ
b. Note that γ
b is a (1, 4K + 2δ)-quasi geodesic of CX. We want now to
b we have that
estimate L(b
γ|[a,b] )Γb . Since F is coned-off in Γ,
dΓb (a, b) ≤ dΓb (a, F ) + dΓb (b, F ) + 1 ≤ 2(2δ + K + ∆) + 1.

Thus, L(b
γ|[a,b] )Γb ≤ 2(3δ + 2K + ∆) + 1 = B. In particular, b
γ|[a,b] has at most B pieces.
Choosing E > BΘ + 2ρ, we get that there is at least one U -piece η of b
γ|[a,b] , for some U ∈ H,
such that diamFb (ρΓ
F (η)) > Θ. But then by proposition 3.10, we have that F ⊆ U , which
proves the claim.
Proposition 3.13 (Uniqueness). For each θ there exists Tθ such that if x, y ∈ Γ and
dΓ (x, y) ≥ Tθ , then there exists V ∈ H such that dVb (πV (x), πV (y)) ≥ θ.
Proof. We stick to the convention that [x, y] indicates a geodesic in Γ between x and y. We
will proceed by induction on the complexity of H. If the complexity is 0 or 1, the result
is respectively trivial or follows from Lemma 2.19. Suppose the result holds for complexity
n − 1. Applying Lemma 3.5, we have that there exists TC such that if dΓ (x, y) ≥ TC , then
there is V ∈ H, a quasi-geodesic e
γ of Γ and points s, t in V , such that:
·
·
·
·

s, t ∈ γ
e,
there is a quasi-geodesic σ of Vb connecting s and t,
LVb (σ) ≥ C, in particular we can estimate dVb (s, t),
γ|[s,t] = σ
e
e is a de-electrification of σ.

Since γ
e is a quasi-geodesic of Γ, there is E such that γ
e ⊆ NEΓ ([x, y]).
′
′
Let s ∈ πV (x), t ∈ πV (y) realizing the distance dVb (πV (x), πV (y)). Let qs (resp qt ) be
witnessing the closest point projection in Γ of s (resp t) on [x, y]. Since dΓ (qs , s) ≤ E and
dΓ (qt , t) ≤ E, triangular inequality gives that
dΓ (x, s) + dΓ (s, t) + dΓ (t, y) − 4E ≤ dΓ (x, y).
Moreover, by the choice of s′ , t′ , we have that dΓ (x, s′ ) ≤ dΓ (x, s) and dΓ (t′ , y) ≤ dΓ (t, y).
Thus, we get that the left-hand-side of the above inequality is bounded below by dΓ (x, s′ ) +
dΓ (s, t) + dΓ (t′ , y) − 4E. Moreover, by triangular inequality, the right-hand-side is bounded
above by dΓ (x, s′ ) + dΓ (s′ , t′ ) + dΓ (t′ , y). Thus we get
dΓ (s, t) − 4E ≤ dΓ (s′ , t′ ).
In particular, up to increasing dΓ (x, y), we can arbitrarily increase dV (s′ , t′ ). Since HV is a
factor system for V , of complexity n−1, we can apply the induction hypothesis on s′ , t′ . Thus
we will find a space U ⊆ V such that dUb (πU (s′ ), πU (t′ )) = dUb (πU (πV (x)), πU (πV (y))) ≤ θ.
Since, by Proposition 2.15, the projection πU (πV (x)) and πU (x) coarsely coincide, for U ⊆ V ,
up to further increasing dΓ (x, y), we get the claim. We remark that, in order to get uniform
bound on the constants, it is crucial for the complexity of H to be finite.

Verifying the axioms
We will now verify that given a δ-hyperbolic graph Γ and a factor system H of Γ, the set
H ∪ {Γ} provides and hierarchically hyperbolic structure on Γ. In particular, we have:
Theorem 3.14. Let Γ be a δ-hyperbolic graph and H a factor system for Γ. Then there is
a hierarchically hyperbolic space structure on Γ with indexing set H ∪ {Γ}.

19

c | W ∈ H ∪ {Γ}} satisfies the required conditions. Clearly
Proof. We claim that the set {W
c for W ∈ H ∪ {Γ} are uniformly
the set is indexed by H ∪ {Γ}. First note that the spaces W
δ ′ -hyperbolic metric spaces (Corollary 3.9). Then we have:
c

1. There is a set of projections {πW : Γ → 2W } (definition 3.7) that are uniformly coarsely
Lipschitz. In fact, by definition, πW = iW ◦ pW which is the composition of a coarsely
Lipschitz map (Lemma 2.12) with a distance-non-increasing map (Definition 3.7).
2. The set H∪{Γ} is naturally equipped with the partial order ⊆ induced by inclusion with
maximal element Γ. The sets and projections ρW
V are defined in Definition 3.7. Since,
W
W
for V 6⊆ W , ρW
V ∈ HV , we get that ρV is coned-off in V , and thus diamV (ρV ) = 2.
3. There are no orthogonality relations.
4. · If W 6⊆ V 6⊆ W , then there exists a uniform κ0 such that, for each x ∈ Γ,
V
min{dVb (πV (x), ρW
c (πW (x), ρW ) ≤ κ0 .
V ), dW

This is guaranteed by Lemma 2.14 and the fact that the maps iW are distancenon-increasing.
· If V ⊆ W , then for all x ∈ Γ:
V
W
min{dW
b (πV (x) ∪ ρV (πV (x))} ≤ κ0 .
c (πW (x), ρW ), diamV

This is guaranteed by Lemma 2.15 and again the distance-non-increasingness.
W
b ⊆W
c , we get that for each V , ρU
· Since if U ⊆ W , then U
V ⊆ ρV .

5. Finite complexity is clear by the definition of factor system.
6. The large link lemma is proved in Proposition 3.12.

7. The bounded geodesic image property is proved in Proposition 3.11.
8. The partial realization is trivial since there are no orthogonality relations, hence every
family of pairwise orthogonal elements consists of a single element.
9. The uniqueness property is proved in Proposition 3.13.

4

Obtaining a factor system

4.1

The case of a general metric space

The definition of factor system of Section 3 is not coarse and, as stated, works only for graphs.
The goal of this section is to address this issue, namely, to provide weaker conditions that
a metric space needs to satisfy in order to be quasi-isometric to a graph equipped with a
factor system.
The first ingredient that we will need is a coarse definition of inclusion.
Definition 4.1 (Coarse inclusion). Let X be a metric space and V, W be two subspaces.
We say that V is coarsely contained in W , and denote it by V - W , if there exists R such
that V ⊆ NR (W ). We say that V is properly coarsely contained in W , and denote it by
V  W , if V - W and for each R, W 6⊆ NR (V ). The relation - will be called coarse
inclusion.
Definition 4.2 (Weak Factor System). Let X be a quasi-geodesic Gromov-hyperbolic space.
A weak factor system for X is a family F of J-quasi-convex subspaces such that there exist
constants c, ξ ′ , D′ , B ′ , q such that the following holds:
1. Every chain of proper coarse inclusions Hn  · · ·  H1 of elements of F has length at
most c.

20

2. Given V, W ∈ F, then either diamV (pV (W )) < ξ ′ , or there exists U ∈ F such that
dHaus (U, pV (W )) ≤ B ′ .
3. For each V ∈ F and every v ∈ V there is an arbitrarily long q-quasi-geodesic segment
with endpoints on V whose midpoint lies at distance at most D′ from v.
If, in addition, the elements of F are uniformly quasi-isometrically embedded in X and the
following stronger condition is satisfied:
3’. For each V ∈ F and every v ∈ V there is an arbitrarily long geodesic segment with
endpoints on V whose midpoint lies at distance at most D′ from v,
we say that F is a geodesic factor system for X.
Remark 4.3 (Up to quasi-isometry, all weak factor systems are geodesic.). Let X be a
(C, ε)-quasi-geodesic metric space and F be a weak factor system for X . Then Corollary 2.7
and Lemma2.9 provide a uniform quasi-isometry ω : X → Ω(X) to a geodesic metric space
Ω(X) such that the images ω(F ) of the elements of F constitute a geodesic weak factor
system for Ω(X).
If the space X is already a geodesic space, it is easily seen that condition (3) implies
condition (3’). However, the elements F ∈ F may not be quasi-isometrically embedded.
Thus in order to obtain a geodesic weak factor system, it may still be necessary to pass to
an appropriate approximation graph as above.
Remark 4.4. The condition (3) of the definition of weak factor system is more restrictive
than necessary. Indeed, Example 4.5 shows a space X and a factor system for X that does
not satisfy condition (3). However, condition (3) can be easily verified for a large class of
natural examples, such as infinite quasi-convex subgroups of hyperbolic groups.
Example 4.5. Let m ∈ N ∪ ∞, and for each 0 ≤ i ≤ m let Ii be a copy of the ray [0, ∞)
indexed by i. Let X be the space obtained identifying together the point 0 of each of the
rays Ii . It is clear that we can regard X as a graph, in particular as a tree. For each n > 0,
let Fn be the union I0 ∪ In . Then {Fn | n > 0} ∪ I0 is a factor system for X, but the space
I0 does not satisfy condition (3) of the definition of weak factor system.
Lemma 4.6 (Main consequence of condition (3’)). Given a geodesic α-hyperbolic space X
and a geodesic weak factor system F for X, there exists ζ = ζ(α, H) such that for each
V, W ∈ F, if V - W , then V ⊆ Nζ (W ).
Proof. Let ζ = 2α + D′ + J and v ∈ V . Then there exists v ′ ∈ V with d(v, v ′ ) ≤ D′
and a geodesic segment γ with endpoints in V such that γ has length 2R + 4α + 1 and
v ′ is the midpoint of γ. Let a, b be the endpoints of γ and a′ , b′ points in W satisfying
d(a, a′ ) ≤ R, and d(b, b′ ) ≤ R. By hyperbolicity, v ′ ⊆ N2α ([a, a′ ] ∪ [a′ , b′ ] ∪ [b′ , b]). We claim
that v ′ ⊆ N2α ([a′ , b′ ]). Then, by J-quasi-convexity of W , the first property follows. So
suppose that the claim does not hold, and assume that d(v ′ , [a, a′ ]) < 2α. Let m ∈ [a, a′ ] be
a point realizing the distance. Since d(v ′ , a) = R + 2α + 1 and d(m, a′ ) ≤ d(a, a′ ) ≤ R, we
get a contradiction.
We consider the following equivalence relation on F: we say that V is in relation with
W if V - W - V , that is, if V and W have bounded Hausdorff distance. Let H(F) be the
set of equivalence classes of F. It is easily checked that if V - W , then for each V ′ ∈ [V ]
and W ′ ∈ [W ], one has V ′ - W ′ . Thus, the relation - descends to a partial order on the
set H that we will denote by ⊑. The goal of this section is to prove the following:
Theorem 4.7. Let X be a Gromov hyperbolic quasi-geodesic space space and F a weak
factor system for X. Then (X, {X} ∪ H(F)) is a hierarchically hyperbolic structure for X.
The proof of Theorem 4.7 will a corollary of Proposition 4.15, Remark 4.3 and the fact
that hierarchically hyperbolic structures are invariant under quasi-isometry. The rest of this
section is devolved in proving Proposition 4.15.

21

Convention. For the rest of the section, we will use Remark 4.3 to assume that a geodesic
α-hyperbolic space X with a geodesic weak factor system F is fixed. In particular, since no
confusion is possible, we will simply denote H = H(F).
Our goal is to replace a weak factor system with a factor system, in order to be able to
apply the results from Section 3. Roughly speaking, we want to associate a single subspace
to an equivalence class [W ] ∈ H, in such a way that the requirements of factor system
holds. The strategy is going to be the follow: first we will substitute X with an appropriate
approximation graph Ω(X). Then we will modify the subgraphs Ω(W ), for W ∈ H, in order
to associate a subgraph CW to the equivalence [W ] ∈ H. Finally, we will show that the
family obtained in such a way is indeed a factor system for Ω(X).
So, let ζ = 2α + J + D′ and let Ω(X) be a (ζ, 5ζ) approximation graph for X. Lemma
4.12 provides that for each W ∈ F, the spaces W (seen with the induced metric) and Ω(W )
are uniformly quasi-isometric. As a consequence of Lemma 4.6 we have the following.
Lemma 4.8. Given V, W ∈ F, the following hold:
· V - W if and only if Ω(V ) - Ω(W ).
· If Ω(V ) - Ω(W ), then Ω(V ) ⊆ N1 (Ω(W )).
Proof. Since X and Ω(X) are quasi-isometric, the first condition clearly holds. So suppose
that Ω(V ) - Ω(W ). By the first condition we get that V - W . In particular, by Lemma
4.6, we get that V ⊆ Nζ (W ). Let x be a point of Ω(V ). Seeing it as a point of X,
since N is a maximal ζ-net, we get that there is v ∈ V that has distance at most ζ from
x. But since V ⊆ Nζ (W ), there is a point w ∈ W that has distance at most ζ from v.
Again by the properties of N , there exists y ∈ Ω(W ) such that d(y, w) ≤ ζ. In particular,
d(x, y) ≤ 2ζ + ζ < 5ζ, thus they are connected by an edge in Ω(X).
For a class [V ] ∈ H, define the set [- V ] = {U ∈ F | U - V }. It is easily checked that
the definition does not depend on representatives. For [V ] ∈ H, we define:
[
Ω(U ),
CV =
U ∈[≺V ]

and we also define CX = Ω(X).
As a consequence of Lemma 4.8, we have that for each V ∈ [V ],
dHaus (Ω(V ), CV ) ≤ 1.
Lemma 4.9. The spaces CW equipped with the induced path metric are uniformly quasiisometrically embedded in CX.
Proof. This is because for each W ∈ [W ], we have that CW ⊆ N1 (Ω(W )). Since the spaces
Ω(W ) are uniformly quasi-isometrically embedded in Ω(W ) (see Corollary 2.7), the claim
follows.
Corollary 4.10. The spaces CW are uniformly quasi-convex and Gromov hyperbolic.
Lemma 4.11. The following are equivalent:
· CV - CW ,
· [V ] ⊑ [W ],
· CV ⊆ CW .
Proof. Since CV is the union of sets that have Hausdorff distance at most 1, it is clear that
the first condition implies that for each V ′ ∈ [V ] and W ′ ∈ [W ], we have V ′ ≺ W ′ , which is
the definition of the second condition. The second implies the third because of the definition
of the spaces CV . The third trivially implies the first.

22

Lemma 4.12. Given CV and CW , if CV - pCV (CW ), then [V ] ⊑ [W ].
Proof. We will show that CV - CW , which implies the claim. Let x ∈ pCV (CW ) be any
point. By definition of CV , there is V ′ ∈ [V ] and v ∈ V ′ such that dX (x, v) ≤ ζ. By
condition (3’) of geodesic weak factor system, there is an arbitrarily long geodesic segment
γ with endpoints in V ′ and midpoint v ′ such that d(v, v ′ ) ≤ D′ , where D′ is an uniform
constant. Since the map χ is a quasi-isometry, we get that there is a quasi-geodesic segment
χ(γ) with endpoints in CV , such that x is uniformly close to the midpoint of χ(γ). Since
the length of γ was arbitrary, so it is the length of χ(γ). Since CV - pCV (CW ), up to
increasing the quasi-geodesic additive constant, we can assume that it has endpoints in
pCV (CW ). By hyperbolicity, we we get a geodesic segment η with endpoints in pCV (CW ),
such that x has uniformly bounded distance from η. Note that the closest point projection
of x on η is not going to be the midpoint anymore, but, up to increase the length of η,
can be chosen arbitrarily far away from the endpoints of η. Note that, in general, all the
above estimates will depend on CV and CW , but not on x. Since the endpoints of η ′ are
contained in pCV (CW ), a quadrilateral argument gives that, if the length of η is big enough,
we can uniformly the distance between x and CW . Since the estimate does not depend on
the chosen point x, we get pCV (CW ) - CW . Since - is transitive, we get the claim.
Lemma 4.13 (Coarse commutativity of projections and quasi-isometries). Let f : X → Y
be a C-quasi-isometry. Let H, J be K-quasi-convex
subspaces of X. Then there exists M

such that dHaus f (pH (J)) , pf (H) (f (J)) ≤ M .

Proof. Let δX be the hyperbolicity constant of X and δY the one of Y . We claim there exists
M1 = M1 (δX , (δY ), C) such that for any x ∈ J, d f (pH (x)) , pf (H) (f (x)) ≤ M1 . In order
to simplify notation we put y = f (pH (x)) and z = pf (H) (f (x)). Consider a geodesic triangle
between f (x), y and z. Since [f (x), z] is a projection geodesic, it is easily seen that there is
a point m ∈ [f (x), y] that has distance at most 2δY from f (H). However, 
since geodesics
−1
are uniformly near to quasi-geodesics,
m
is
uniformly
close
to
f
x,
f
(y)
. Thus, there

is a point m′ ∈ f x, f −1 (y) such
that itis possible to uniformly estimate the distances

d(m′ , z) and d(m′ , H). Since f x, f −1 (y) is uniformly a quasi-geodesic, this proves the
claim.

Lemma 4.14. There exists ξ, B such that if diam(pCV (CW )) ≥ ξ, then there is U ∈ F
such that [U ] ⊑ [V ] and dHaus (CU, pCV (CW )) ≤ B.
Proof. Since projections are quasi-Lipschitz and since, for each V ′ ∈ [V ], dHaus (χ(V ′ ), CV ) ≤
1, it is easily seen
S that is possible to uniformly bound the Hausdorff distance between
pCV (CW ) and V ′ ∈[V ],W ′ ∈[W ] pχ(V ′ ) (χ(W ′ )). Thus it suffices to show that there exists β
such that for each V ∈ [V ] and W ∈ [W ], there exists U ∈ F with dHaus (χ(U ), pχ(V ) (χ(W )) ≤
β. But this is an easy consequence of Lemma 4.13.
Proposition 4.15. The family {CH | [H] ∈ H} is a factor system for CX.
Proof. We will show that all the items of Definition 3.1 are satisfied.
1. Lemma 4.9 gives that the spaces CH are quasi-isometrically embedded in CX, with
constants that can be chosen uniformly.
2. The second condition follows from Corollary 2.7 and Lemma 4.14.
3. The third follows from Lemma 4.12.
4. The fourth follows form the requirement of weak factor system and Lemma 4.8.
5. The fifth follows from Corollary 2.7 and Lemma 4.6.

As a corollary, we get a version of Remark 3.3 for weak factor systems.

23

Corollary 4.16. Let X be a Gromov hyperbolic space, F be a weak factor system for X
and let F ∈ F. Let H(F)F = {[G] ∈ F | [G] ⊑ [F ]}. Then (CF, {CG | [G] ∈ H(F )F }) is a
hierarchically hyperbolic space.
Proof. This is because, by Remark 3.3, {GC | [G] ∈ H(F )F } − CF is a factor system for
CF .

4.2

The case of a graph

The construction described before can be simplified when X is already a graph and F is a
family of uniformly quasi-isometrically embedded subgraphs that satisfy the requirements
of Definition 4.2. The hierarchy result is going to be unchanged, but we will introduce a
construction that allows to choose CX = X and consequently CW ⊆ CX. This is helpful
for instance in the case when a group is acting on the space X, such as in the case when
X = Cay(G), for some group G. Indeed, this will produce an action on the ⊑-maximal space
of the hierarchy, instead of just a quasi-action. This will simplify some of the constructions
in the next sections.
Convention. For the rest of this section, we will assume that an α-hyperbolic graph X
and a family of connected, uniformly quasi-isometrically embedded subgraphs F that form
a geodesic weak factor system (Definition 4.2) is fixed.
As before, let H(F) denote the quotient of F by the equivalence relation given by finite
Hausdorff distance. Recall that for a class [V ] ∈ H, we have [- V ] = {U ∈ F | U - V }. For
[V ] ∈ H, we define:
[
g=
U.
CV
U ∈[≺V ]

g ⊆ X.
The key property we gained is that for each class [V ], we have that CV

g are uniformly k-quasi-convex.
Lemma 4.17. There exists k such that the spaces CV

Proof. Using Lemma 4.6, we obtain that each space CV has uniformly bounded distance
form a uniformly quasi-convex subgraph V .

g will not be connected, which is an obstruction to
However, in general the spaces CV
quasi-isometric embeddedness. In order to solve this issue, we introduce the following definition:
Definition 4.18. Let Γ be a graph and Q be a subgraph of Γ. For r > 0 let Pr (Q) to be
the set of Γ-geodesic segments of length at most r connecting two points in Q. Define
[
γ.
Approxr (Q) =
γ∈Pr (Q)

The reader should think of Approxr (Q) as the graph-version of the approximation graph.
Given [V ] ∈ H(F), we set
g ).
CW = Approxζ+k (CW
g we have that CW ⊆ NK (CW
g ).
Note that by quasi-convexity of the spaces CW

Lemma 4.19. The spaces CW equipped with the path metric are quasi-isometrically embedded in X.
Proof. Let x, y be two points of CW . Since they lie on a geodesic segment with endpoints
g , k-quasi-convexity of CW
g gives that x, y ⊂ Nk (CW
g ). In particular, by Lemma 4.6,
in CW
there is W ∈ [W ] such that x, y ⊂ Nk+ζ (W ). Then the same reasoning of Lemma 4.17
and the fact that the space W is uniformly quasi-isometrically embedded in X gives the
claim.

24

It is easy to see that Lemmas 4.11, 4.12 and 4.14 still hold in this setting.
As before, we have the following proposition.
Proposition 4.20. The family {CH | [H] ∈ H} is a factor system for X.
Proof. The proof follows as before by verifying the axioms. Alternatively, one can show that
the spaces CW obtained with the two constructions are uniformly quasi-isometric.

5

Groups with quasi-convex subgroups

The goal of this section is to prove that given a hyperbolic group G and a family of infinite
quasi-convex subgroups F = {F1 , . . . , Fn } of G, there is an HHS structure on G that contains
the elements of the family F in the indexing set. In particular, we will show that we can
extend the family F to a weak factor system for G. The key idea is the following: we will
consider a ”closure of F under projection”. However, in this way we will only obtain a weak
factor system, the main obstruction being the fact that there can be two distinct elements
that have finite Hausdorff distance. Thus, we will proceed as in the case of a weak factor
system, namely identifying such elements. Since the action of G on itself is compatible
with the HHS structure, we can equip G with an HHG structure. We will start this section
recalling the definition of HHG and then we will proceed in finding a weak factor system.

5.1

Hierarchically hyperbolic group structure

We recall the definition of hierarchically hyperbolic group.
Definition 5.1 (Hieromorphism, [BHS15], Definition 1.19). Let (X , S) and (X ′ , S′ ) be
hierarchically hyperbolic structures on the spaces X , X ′ respectively. A hieromorphism,
consists of a map f : X → X ′ , an injective map f : S → S′ preserving nesting, transversality, and orthogonality, and maps f ∗ (U ) : CU → C(f (U )), for each U ∈ S, which are
uniformly quasi-isometric embeddings. The three maps should preserve the structure of the
hierarchically hyperbolic space, that is, they coarsely commute with the maps πU and ρU
V,
for U, V in either S or S ′ , associated to the hierarchical structures.
Definition 5.2 (Automorphism, hierarchically hyperbolic group, [BHS15], Definition 1.20).
An automorphism of the hierarchically hyperbolic space (X, S) is a hieromorphism f : (X , S) →
(X , S) such that f is bijective and each f ∗ (U ) is an isometry.
The finitely generated group Q is hierarchically hyperbolic if there exists a hierarchically
hyperbolic space (X , S) on which Q acts by automorphisms of hierarchically hyperbolic
spaces, so that the uniform quasi-action of G on X is metrically proper and cobounded and
S contains finitely many Q–orbits. Note that if Q is hierarchically hyperbolic by virtue
of its action on the hierarchically hyperbolic space (X , S), then (Q, S) is a hierarchically
hyperbolic structure with respect to any word-metric on Q; for any U ∈ S the projection is
the composition of the projection X → CU with a Q–equivariant quasi-isometry Q → X .
In this case, (Q, S) (with the implicit hyperbolic spaces and projections) is a hierarchically
hyperbolic group structure.
In what follows, we will construct a weak factor system for the Cayley graph of a hyperbolic group G. The weak factor system will be G equivariant, indeed, it will consists of
cosets of subgroups of G. Thus, the HHS structure on the Cayley graph of G will induce a
HHG structure on G.

5.2

Finding a factor system

In order to have a metric on a group G, we need to fix a finite set of generators. In what
follows, we always consider a fixed generating set. It is clear that all the following results
are quasi-isometric invariant and hence holds for all finite sets of generators. We start by

25

recalling some well known properties of quasi-convex subgroups of hyperbolic groups. All
the following facts and lemmas are proven in [BH99].
Lemma 5.3. If G is a hyperbolic group and H, J are K-quasi-convex subgroups, then H ∩ J
is quasi-convex, with quasi-convexity constant depending on G and K.
Lemma 5.4. If G is a hyperbolic group and H is a K-quasi-convex subgroup, then, for each
c ∈ G, cHc−1 is quasi-convex, with quasi-convexity constant depending on G, K and c.
Proposition 5.5. An infinite hyperbolic group contains an infinite order element.
Lemma 5.6. If G is a hyperbolic group and g is an infinite-order element of G, then (g n )n∈Z
is a quasi-geodesic.
Remark 5.7. As a consequence of Proposition 5.5 and Lemma 5.6 we have that given
a hyperbolic group G, and H1 , H2 E-quasi-isometrically embedded subgroups of G, there
exists R = R(δ, E) such that if dHauss (H1 , H2 ) < ∞, then dHauss (H1 , H2 ) ≤ R.
Lemma 5.8. Let G be a group and H, J be two subgroups. Then for any g ∈ G, we have
that H ∩ gJg −1 ⊆ N2|g| (pH (gJ)).
Proof. Let gyg −1 ∈ H ∩ gJg −1 . Then d(gyg −1, gy) ≤ |g|. Thus, d(gy, H) ≤ |g|. Thus there
is a point x ∈ pH (gJ) with d(x, gy) ≤ |g|. By triangular inequality, d(gyg −1 , x) ≤ 2|g|.
We want now to establish some relations between conjugates and cosets.
Lemma 5.9. Let G be a δ-hyperbolic group with respect to a fixed generating set. Let H, J
be K-quasi-convex subgroups. Then there exists D = D(δ, K) such that the following holds.
For each a, b ∈ G for which diam (paH (bJ)) ≥ 2(8δ + 2K) + 1, then

dHaus paH (bJ), a H ∩ a−1 bJb−1 a ≤ D.
Proof. Since left multiplication by a−1 is an isometry, the above is equivalent to showing
that for each c ∈ G such that diam(pH (cJ)) ≥ 2(8δ + 2K) + 1, we have:

dHaus pH (cJ), ND H ∩ cJc−1 ≤ D.

By a quadrilateral argument, if d(H, cJ) > 2δ + 2K, we get that diam (pH (cJ) ≤ 8δ + 2K).
Thus d(H, cJ) ≤ 2δ + 2K and hence |c| ≤ 2δ + 2K. By Lemma 5.8, we get that H ∩ cHc−1 ⊆
N2|c| (pH (cJ)). Now we want to show that there is a uniform D1 such that pH (cJ) ⊆
ND1 (H ∩ cJc−1 ). This will prove the Lemma. Let a ∈ pH (cJ). By the assumptions on the
diameter, there is a′ ∈ pH (cJ) with d(a, a′ ) > 8δ + 2K. Let C = 4δ + K. A quadrilateral
argument shows that there is a point x ∈ H with d(a, x) ≤ C and d(x, cJ) ≤ 2δ + 2K. That
is:
pH (cJ) ⊆ NC (PH (N2δ+2K (H) ∩ cJ)).
We want to show that there is R such that N2δ+2K (H) ∩ cJ ⊆ NR (H ∩ cJc−1 ). Since
projections are quasi-Lipschitz (see Lemma 2.13), this will imply the claim.
S Let B = B2δ+2K (1) be the ball of radius 2δ around the identity. Note that Nδ+2K (H) =
g∈B Hg. For each g ∈ B such that Hg ∩ cJ 6= ∅, choose once and for all an element
yg ∈ Hg ∩ cJ. Let R = max{|yg | | g ∈ B}. This is well defined since B is finite. Consider
x ∈ Nδ+2K (H) ∩ cJ. Then there exists g ∈ B, h ∈ H and j ∈ J such that x = hg = cj.
Similarly there are h′ ∈ H and j ′ ∈ J such that yg = h′ g = cj ′ . Then it is easily seen that
xyg−1 ∈ H ∩ cJc−1 , and thus
x ∈ (H ∩ cJc−1 )yg = N|yg | (H ∩ cJc−1 ).
Maximizing over B yields Nδ+2K (H) ∩ cJ ⊆ NR (H ∩ cJc−1 ).
We recall the following Theorem.

26

Theorem 5.10 ([Bra00]). Let G be a group that is δ-hyperbolic with respect to a fixed
finite set of generators. Then there exists R = R(δ) such that every finite subgroup can be
conjugated to lie in the R-ball around the identity.
Corollary 5.11. Given a hyperbolic group G, there is ∆ such that every finite subgroup of
G has at most ∆ elements.
Given two quasi-convex subgroups H and J, there are only finitely many cosets cJ such
that 8δ + 2K < diam(pH (cJ)) < ∞, and this extends to any finite family. In particular, the
next Lemma is trivially satisfied whenever it is applied to a finite family, which will turn
out to be the case in our situation. However, we record it because the result is slightly more
general and the proof does not rely on the above fact.
Lemma 5.12. Let G be a δ-hyperbolic group, and let H, J be K-quasi-convex subgroups of
G. Then there exists ξ = ξ(δ, K, G) such that for each c ∈ G, if diam(pH (cJ)) ≥ ξ, then
diam(pH (cJ)) = ∞.
Proof. Let B be the ball of radius 2δ + 2K around the identity. Consider
the elements
S
of cJ that are at distance at most 2δ + 2K from H, that is the set g∈B cJg ∩ H. By
hyperbolicity, increasing ξ we can assume that this set is arbitrarily large. Note that for
every g ∈ B and every pair of elements x, y ∈ cJg ∩ H, one has that xy −1 ∈ cJc−1 ∩ H.
Since the ball B contains only finitely many elements, by the pigeonhole principle we can
assume that there is g ∈ B such that |cJg ∩ H| > ∆ + 1, where ∆ is the constant provided
by Corollary 5.11. In particular, we can find x, y ∈ cJg ∩ H such that xy −1 has infinite
order. Thus |H ∩ cJc−1 | = ∞ and then diam(pH (cJ)) = ∞.
We want to establish how subgroups relates with coarse inclusion.
Lemma 5.13. Let H, J be infinite quasi-convex subgroups of a δ-hyperbolic group G and let
a, b be elements of G. Then if aH - bJ, then |aHa−1 ∩ bJb−1 | = ∞.
Proof. Let h be an infinite order element of H. By Lemma 5.6, (hn )n is a quasi-geodesic
of H, and thus (ahn )n is a quasi-geodesic of aH. By hypothesis, (ahn )n is contained in a
uniform neighborhood of bJ. In particular, there is C = C(G, H) such that for each n ∈ Z,
there is an element g ∈ BC (1) such that ahn g ∈ bJ. Since there are only finitely many such
g, we get that there exist different numbers n, m and g0 ∈ BC (1) such that ahn g0 ∈ bJ and
ahm g0 ∈ bJ. Thus ahn g0 g0−1 h−m a−1 ∈ aHa−1 ∩ bJb−1 is an element of the intersection
that has infinite order.
Definition 5.14 (Proximal pair). Let F = {F1 , . . . , Fn } be a finite family of subgroups
of

a group G. Let Fi , Fj be elements of F, and let g ∈ G. We say that Fi , gFj g −1 form
a proximal pair if Fi ∩ gFj g −1 = ∞. We define Prox(F) to be the set of intersections of
proximal pairs, namely:
Prox(F) = {Fi ∩ gFj g −1 | Fi ∩ gFj g −1 = ∞}
Let (Fi , gFj g −1 ) be
 a proximal pair. It is clear that for each f ∈ Fi − 1, we have
that Fi , f gFJ (f g)−1 is also a proximal pair, thus the set Prox(F) is, in general, infinite.
However, it contains only finitely many conjugacy classes.
Lemma 5.15. Let G be a hyperbolic group and F = {F1 , . . . , Fn } be a finite family of
quasi-convex subgroups of G. Then Prox(F) contains finitely many conjugacy classes.
Proof. Fix a finite set of generators on G, and let δ be the hyperbolicity constant.
We recall that for any two Fi , Fj , we have Fi ∩ gFj g −1 ⊆ N2|g| (pFi (gFj )). Then we will
show that, up to left multiplication by an element of Fi , there are only finitely many choices
for gFj such that diam(pFi (gFj )) = ∞, which implies the result.
So let gyg −1 ∈ Fi ∩ gFj g −1 . Then d(gyg −1 , gy) ≤ |g|. Thus, d(gy, Fi ) ≤ |g|. Thus there
is a point x ∈ pFi (Fj ) with d(x, gy) ≤ |g|. By triangular inequality, d(gyg −1, x) ≤ 2|g|,

27

which proves the first claim. Let K be such that both Fi and Fj are K-quasi-convex. By
a quadrilateral argument, if d(Fi , gFj ) > 2δ + 2K, we get that diam (pFi (gFj )) ≤ 8δ + 2K.
Thus, up to left multiplication by an element of Fi , there are only finitely many gFj such
that diampFi (gFj ) is infinite, and thus finitely many conjugacy classes.
This motivates the following definition:
Definition 5.16. For each conjugacy class [H] of elements of Prox(F), choose once and
for a representative whose quasi-convexity constant is minimal among the elements of the
class. Then we define Prox(F) to be the set of such representatives.
Note that by Lemma 5.15, if F is a finite family, so is Prox(F).
In what follows, we will describe an inductive ”closure process” for the family F.
Definition 5.17. Given a finite family of infinite quasi-convex subgroups F = {F1 , . . . , Fn },
we will inductively describe a sequence of families as follows:
b) Set F (0) = F.
i) Given F (i) , define F (i+1) as Prox(F (i) ).
Remark 5.18. Since F consisted of only infinite elements, it is easy to see that for each
i, F (i) ⊆ F (i+1) . Moreover, by Lemma 5.15, we have that if F (i) is finite, so is F (i+1) . In
particular, for each finite set of generators of G, there exists K = K(i) such that all the
elements of the family F (i) are K-quasi-convex.
The motivating property of the above definition is the following.
Lemma 5.19. Let F (i) be constructed as in 5.17. There exists D = D(F (i) ) such that the
following holds. For every a, b ∈ G and H, J ∈ F (i) satisfying |paH (bJ)| = ∞, there exists
c ∈ G and E ∈ F (i+1) such that
dHaus (paH (bJ), cE) ≤ D.
Proof. As previously remarked, there is K such that all elements of F (i) are K-quasi-convex.
In particular, we can apply Lemma 5.9 to get that there is a uniform D such that

dHaus paH (bJ), a H ∩ a−1 bJb−1 a ≤ D.
In particular, |H ∩ a−1 bJb−1 a| = ∞, thus (H, a−1 bJb−1 a) is a proximal pair for the family
F (i) . In particular, there exists a representative E = H ∩ gJg −1 ∈ Prox(F (i) ) = F (i+1) and
an element h ∈ G such that
H ∩ a−1 bJb−1 a = hEh−1 .

Thus, we have an uniform estimate of the Hausdorff between paH (bJ) and a conjugate
of an element of F (i+1) . Since dHaus (hE, hEh−1 ) ≤ |h|, by Remark 5.7 we get that there
exists an uniform R such that dHaus (hE, hEh−1 ) ≤ R. Setting c = ah, we get the claim.
Theorem 5.20 ([GMRS98]). Let G be a hyperbolic group, and {F1 , . . . , Fn } be a finite fam}c
ily of quasi-convex subgroups. Then there exists c such that for each collection {gαi Fαi gα−1
i i=1
of c distinct conjugates, the intersection
c
\

gαi Fαi gα−1
i

i=1

is finite.
Corollary 5.21. Given a hyperbolic group G and a family {F1 , . . . , Fn } of quasi-convex
subgroups, there is M ∈ N such that for each n > M , F (n) = F (M ) .

28

Theorem 5.22. Let G be a δ-hyperbolic space, and let {F1 , . . . , Fn } be a family of quasiconvex subgroups. Let M be the constant of Corollary 5.21, and let Fcos be set of all left-cosets
of the family F (M ) . Then Fcos is a weak-factor system for G with respect to each finite set
of generators of G. Moreover, the natural action of G on itself extend to an action on Fcos
with finitely many orbits.
Proof. As remarked, for each choice of generators of G, the elements of the family F (M ) are
uniformly quasi-convex. In particular, this is preserved by left-multiplication. Thus Fcos is
a family of uniformly quasi-convex subspaces of G. It is clear that the G action preserves
Fcos . Moreover, since F (M ) is finite, there are only finitely many G-orbits.
−1
−1
1. By Lemma 5.13 we have that |a1 F1 a−1
1 ∩a2 F2 a2 | = ∞. Since a1 F1 a1  ⊆ N|a1 | (a1 F1 ),
−1
−1
and since - is a transitive relation, we get that a1 F1 a1 ∩ a2 F2 a2
 a3 F3 . Proceeding in this way, we get that
−1
a1 F1 a−1
= ∞.
1 ∩ · · · ∩ an Fn an

Since we require the coarse inclusions to be proper, all the conjugates are distinct.
Hence, by Theorem 5.20, we get that the length of every such chain is uniformly
bounded.
2. Lemma 5.12 and Lemma 5.19 give that there are ξ and B depending on the choice
of generators such that given H, J ∈ Fcos , either diam(pH (J)) < ξ, or there exists
L ∈ Fcos such that dHaus (L, pH (J)) ≤ B.
3. For each coset aH ∈ Fcos and element x ∈ aH, if h is a generator of H that is not a
torsion element, then xan is a quasi-geodesic that contains x. Since the elements of
F (M ) are finite, one can uniformly estimate the distance between x and an arbitrarily
long geodesic segments with endpoints in aH.

As a corollary we get the main result of this section.
Corollary 5.23. Let G be a hyperbolic group and let F = {F1 , . . . , FN } be a finite family of
infinite quasi-convex subgroups. Let ∼ be the equivalence relation between subset of G given
by having finite distance in Cay(G) (note that does not depend on the choice of generators).
Then there exists a finite family of quasi-convex subgroups F (M ) that contains F such that
if Fcos is the set of cosets of F (M ) , then (G, Fcos /∼ ) is a hierarchically hyperbolic group
structure on G.
Proof. By Theorem 5.22, Fcos is a weak factor system for the Cayley graph of G on which G
acts equivariantly. Proposition 4.20, yields an HHS structure on the Cayley graph of G on
which G acts equivariantly, with indexing set Fcos /∼ . Thus (G, Fcos /∼ ) is a hierarchically
hyperbolic group.

6

Boundaries

Let X be a hyperbolic space and let F be a factor system for X . We will exploit the HHS
structure on X induced by F to get a more precise description of the boundary of X .
This result was established by Hamenstädt in [Ham16] for the case when the space X
is relatively hyperbolic with respect to a set of uniformly hyperbolic spaces F. Indeed, in
this case the space X has to be hyperbolic (Theorem 2.4 of [Ham16]) and, due to a result
of Sisto ([Sis12]), the Hausdorff distance between any two elements of F which have infinite
diameter must be infinite. Thus, up to discarding those elements of F that are bounded,
we have that F is a factor system for X . Since the Gromov boundary of a bounded set is
empty, our result recovers the previous result in this case.

29

Moreover, in the case when X is hyperbolic with respect to F, the explicit description of
the Gromov boundary allows us to obtain an explicit description of the Bowditch boundary
(under the mild hypothesis of X being a proper metric space). In the case when X is a
hyperbolic group and F a family of peripheral subgoups, this recovers a well known result,
proved by Tran in [Tra13] and, independently, by Manning in [Man15]. The former points
out that a proof of this result can also be obtained from [Ger12, GP13] or [MOY12].

6.1 Fixing notations: The Gromov boundary of a hyperbolic
space
It is a well known fact that the Gromov boundary of a hyperbolic space has several different
characterizations. We will briefly recall the definitions and conventions used. For the proofs
of the statements and a more precise exposition, we refer to [BH99, Chapter III.H], or to
the survey [KB02].
Firstly, however, we will recall the definition of hierarchy path for an HHS.
Definition 6.1 (Coarse map, unparametrized quasi-geodesic). Let X be a metric space.
A coarse map f from Y to X is a map f : Y → 2X such that the image of each point
has uniformly bounded diameter. A coarse f : [0, l] → X is an unparametrized (D, D)quasi-geodesic if there exists an increasing function g : [0, L] → [0, l] such that f ◦ g is a
(D, D)-quasi-isometric embedding, and for each x, y ∈ [0, L] with |x − y| ≤ 1, we have
diam(f (g({x, y})) ≤ D.
Definition 6.2 (Hierarchy path, [BHS15], Definition 4.2). Let (X , S) be a hierarchically
hyperbolic space. A path γ of X is a D-hierarchy path if
1. γ is a (D, D)-quasi-geodesic of X ;
2. for each U ∈ S the projection πU (γ) is an unparametrized (D, D)-quasi-geodesic.
Theorem 6.3 (Existence of hierarchy paths, [BHS15], Theorem 4.4). Let X be a hierarchically hyperbolic space. Then there exists D0 so that any x, y ∈ X are joined by a D0 -hierarchy
path.
Let X be a δ-hyperbolic HHS and let γ1 , γ2 be two quasi-geodesic rays of X . We say that
γ1 and γ2 are equivalent if their Hausdorff distance is finite. Let D be such that any two
points of X can be joined by a D-hierarchy path. Since X is hyperbolic, there is a constant
HD such that given two D-quasi-geodesic segments that share the same endpoints, their
Hausdorff distance is at most HD . If γ, η are quasi geodesic rays that represent the same
point in the Gromov boundary, then there is n = n(d(γ(0), η(0)) such that the Hausdorff
distance between γ and η outside the ball of radius n around γ(0) is at most HD . Let
k = D + HD , and let Hk be such that if the Hausdorff distance between 2 k-hierarchy
ray is finite, then it is at most Hk . We can identify the Gromov boundary with the set of
equivalence classes of k-hierarchy rays. The reason why we choose k to be larger than D
is that in this way we are allowed to ”perturb hierarchy rays”. Given a point x ∈ X and
p ∈ ∂∞ X , there is always a D-hierarchy ray γ ∈ p such that γ(0) = x. In that case we say
that γ connects x and p.
Let X ∞ be the union ∂∞ X ∪ X . There is a natural topology on X ∞ such that X is
embedded in X ∞ , and the latter is compact in case X is proper. We will briefly recall how
the topology of X ∞ is defined via prescribing a neighborhood base for each point. If x ∈ X ,
then we consider the standard base obtained by the metric of X . For a point at infinity, we
recall the following lemma, that can be taken as a definition.
Lemma 6.4 (Neighborhoods at infinity [BH99] Chapter III.H: Theorem 1.7, Lemma 3.6).
Let X be a δ-hyperbolic space and x0 be a point of X. Let r > 2Hk . Let η be a k-quasigeodesic ray representing a point p ∈ ∂∞ X and for each positive integer n let Vn (η) be the
set of points q ∈ X ∞ such that for all k-quasi-geodesic rays γ connecting x0 and q there is
a point x on η such that d(x, η(0)) ≥ n and γ ∩ Br (x) 6= ∅. Then {Vn (η) | n ∈ N} is a
fundamental system of neighborhoods for p in ∂∞ X ∪ X.

30

6.2

The HHS-boundary of a hyperbolic space

We recall the definition of HHS-boundary of a space introduced in [DHS17] and some important results.
Definition 6.5 (Support set, boundary point, HHS-boundary; [DHS17]). Let (X , S) be a
hierarchically hyperbolic spaces. A support set U ⊆ S is a set with Ui ⊥ Uj for all distinct
Ui , Uj ∈ U . A boundary point with support U is a formal sum
X
p=
aU p U ,
U ∈U

where pU ∈ ∂∞ CU and aU > 0, with the requirement that
∂X of (X , S) is the set of all boundary points.

P

U

aU = 1. The HHS-boundary

It is a well-known fact that, in a hierarchically hyperbolic space (X , S), each family of
pairwise orthogonal elements has uniformly bounded size. See for instance [DHS17, Lemma
1.4]. In particular, the boundary points consist of uniformly finite sums.
Theorem 6.6 ([DHS17]). There is a topology on ∂X such that the following holds:
• For each U ∈ S, the inclusion ∂∞ CU ֒→ ∂X is an embedding.
• The boundary ∂X is closed in X .
• The space X = ∂X ∪ X is
· Hausdorff,
· separable, in case X is separable,
· compact, in case X is proper.
There is an explicit description for the topology of the HHS-boundary of a general hierarchically hyperbolic space, and we refer to [DHS17] for the precise definition.
In the case of hyperbolic HHS, however, the HHS-boundary and its topology admit a
significantly simpler description. This is because, under the mild assumption that for all
U ∈ S, CU has infinite diameter, there are no pairwise orthogonal elements (see [DHS17,
Lemma 4.1], or [BHS15, Subsection 5.1]). In this case, Definition 6.5 translates as:
[
∂∞ CU.
∂X =
U ∈S

We will describe the topology of ∂X via prescribing neighborhood basis at each point.
Definition 6.7 (Boundary projections, [DHS17]). Let (X , S) be a hyperbolic HHS and let
U ∈ S. Let x be a point of X . We define the projection ∂πU : X → ∂∞ CU ∪ CU as:
1. The projection πU if x ∈ X .
2. The identity map if x ∈ ∂∞ CU .
3. The set ρVU if x ∈ ∂∞ CV and either V is properly nested in U or V ⋔ U .
CU
4. The coarse map ρ∂V
defined as follows in all the other cases. Consider
U : ∂CV → 2
a D-hierarchy ray γ connecting ρU
of the
V with q ∈ ∂CV . Let E be the constant

V
U
bounded geodesic image property. We set ρ∂V
U (q) = ρU γ − NE+1 (ρV ) , which, by
the bounded geodesic image property, has uniformly bounded diameter.

Definition 6.8 (Neighborhood basis for the topology, [DHS17]). Let p be a point in ∂∞ CU ,
and let Op be an open neighborhood for p in the cone-topology for CU ∪ ∂∞ CU . We define
NOp (p) ⊆ ∂X to be the set:
NOp (p) = {q ∈ ∂∞ X | ∂πU (q) ∩ Op 6= ∅}.
We declare the sets NOp (p) to be a neighborhood basis at p, and this topology coincides
(indeed, it is just a special case of the definition) with the topology of the HHS-boundary.
However, in this case much more it is true:

31

Theorem 6.9 ([DHS17], Theorem 4.3). Let (X , S) be a hyperbolic HHS and let X ∞ be
the union ∂∞ X ∪ X . Then the identity map X → X extends uniquely to a homeomorphism
X∞ → X.

6.3 Explicit description when the HHS structure comes from
a factor system
If (X , S) is the hierarchically hyperbolic space structure obtained applying Theorem 3.14,
we have a very explicit description of the projections πU and the spaces ρU
V . This allows us
to give a more explicit description of the HHS boundary, and thus of the Gromov boundary.
Unraveling the construction of Theorem 3.14, we have that if F is a factor system for X ,
then the elements of the set S are in bijection with F ∪{X }. In particular, each index U ∈ S
is naturally associated to a subspace FU ∈ F ∪ {X } of X and the associated δ-hyperbolic
space CU is an appropriate cone-off of FU . We also recall that the maps πU and ρVU are
defined as closest point projection in X on the subspace FU . Indeed, this defines a map with
image in 2CU since
S CU is the cone-off of FU .
Since ∂X = U ∈S ∂∞ CU , each point p ∈ ∂X corresponds to an equivalence class of hierarchy rays in some CU and viceversa. Given a point q ∈ ∂∞ CV , and U ∈ S, we observe that
the projection pFU (q) is coarsely well defined, in the sense that for each pair of representatives

γ, η of q, there is N such that, for each n > N , we have dHaus pFU (γ[n, ∞)), pFU η([n, ∞)) ≤
c for some uniform c.
It is easy to see that for each point p ∈ ∂∞ CU , the Hausdorff distance between pFV (p)
and ∂πV (p) is uniformly bounded, where ∂πV (x) is as in Definition 6.7.
We claim that substituting the projections ∂πV with the shortest distance projections
pFV in Definition 6.8 does not change the resulting topology. This will allow to give a non
trivial decomposition of the Gromov boundary as the union of the boundaries of the various
CU , with U ∈ S.
For brevity, given q ∈ ∂∞ CV , U ∈ S and a set O ∈ CU , we say that pFU (q) ∩ O 6= ∅
if there exists a representative γ ∈ q and N ∈ N such that for each n > N , the projection
pFU (γ([n, ∞)) intersects O.
Definition 6.10 (Alternative neighbourhood basis for the topology). Let p be a point in
∂∞ CU , and let Op be an open neighborhood for p in the cone-topology for CU ∪ ∂∞ CU .
We define MOp (p) ⊆ ∂X to be the set:
MOp (p) = {q ∈ ∂∞ X | pFU (q) ∩ Op 6= ∅}.
The main result of this section is the following.
Proposition 6.11. Let X be a hyperbolic space and let F be a factor system for X. For
each element U ∈ F ∪ {X} let CU be the cone-off of U with respect to all the elements
V ∈ F that are strictly contained in U . Then the Gromov boundary of X decomposes as
[
∂∞ CU,
∂∞ X =
U ∈F ∪{X}

with the topology described in Definition 6.10.
The proof of Proposition 6.11 is an easy consequence of Theorem 6.9 and the following
proposition.
Proposition 6.12. The topologies for X of Definition 6.8 and Definition 6.10 agree.
Before proving Proposition 6.12, we present one useful application.
Corollary 6.13. Let G be a hyperbolic group and let F be a finite family of quasi-convex
subgroups of G. Let (G, S) be the HHG structure on G induced by F (Corollary 5.23). Then
[
∂∞ CU.
∂∞ G =
U ∈S

32

Proof of Proposition 6.12. We need to show that every neighborhood of one of the two basis
contains a neighborhood of the other.
For all p and Op , there exist Op′ such that MOp′ (p) ⊆ NOp (p).
Set Op′ = Op and let q ∈ MOp . Suppose that p ∈ ∂∞ CU . If q ∈ ∂∞ CU , then the
conclusion follows. So suppose that q ∈ ∂∞ CV for some V 6= U . If V ⋔ U , then, since
q ∈ MOp (p), we have that there is N and γ ∈ q such that for each n ≥ N , we have
pFU (γ[n, ∞)) ∩ Op 6= ∅. In particular, (pFU (FV ) = ρVU ) ∩ Op 6= ∅, thus q ∈ NOp .
So suppose that U ⊑ V , that is FU ⊆ FV . Since q ∈ MOp (p), there is γ ∈ q and N
such that for each n > N one has pFU (γ([n, ∞))) ∩ Op 6= ∅. Let η ∈ q be a D-hierarchy
ray connecting ρU
V with q. There is n such that outside a ball of radius n around η(0), the
Hausdorff distance between γ and η is at most HD . Thus there is a (D + HD )-hierarchy
ray η ′ ∈ q such that η ′ (0) = η(0) and η ′ and γ coincide outside a ball around η ′ (0). In
particular, this implies that ∂πU (q) ∩ Op 6= ∅, and hence that q is an element of ⊆ NOp (p).
For all p and Op , there exist Op′ such that NOp′ (p) ⊆ MOp (p).
We recall that there are constants ξ and E such that for each pair of transverse U and
V , one has diam(ρU
V ) ≤ ξ, and for each pair of nested U ⊑ V and k-hierarchy path γ of CV ,
V
one has that if γ ∩ NE (ρU
V ) = ∅, then diam(ρU (γ) ≤ E) (See Definition 3.6). Let s be much
larger than ξ and E, for instance s = 10(2ξ + 2E + 20δ).
Note that Op ∩ CU is an open set in CU , that we will still denote Op .
b be the s-neighborhood in CU of the complementary of Op , that is L
b=S
Let L
x∈CU −Op Bs (x).
b is open in CU . We claim that L = L
b ∪ (Op ∩ ∂∞ CU ) is an open neighborhood
Note that L
of p in CU ∞ . In order to show this, we will prove that L contains a neighborhood of each
b is open, there is an open
of its points. Let x in L and suppose that x ∈ CU . Then, since L
b
neighborhood of x contained in L and thus in L. So let q be a point in L ∩ ∂∞ CU . Since
Op is open, there is m and a representative η of q such that Vm (η) ⊆ Op , where Vm (η) is
defined as in 6.4.
We claim that there exists n large enough such that Vn (η) ⊆ L, which implies the claim.
In what follows, we will often use the following fact. Let α and β be k-quasi-geodesic starting
at a point β(0). Suppose that there is a point b of β at distance more than n from β(0),
such that d(b, α) ≤ s. Then, inside a ball of radius approximately n − s around β(0), the
Hausdorff distance between α and β is at most Hk .
Suppose that the claim does not hold, that is, suppose that there is y ∈ Vn (η) that does
not belong to L. Since L and Op coincide on the boundary, we must have that y ∈ CU .
This means that there is a point z ∈ CU such that d(y, z) < s and z 6∈ Op . In particular,
z 6∈ Vm (η).
Let α be a k-hierarchy path joining η(0) and y, and β a k-hierarchy path joining η(0)
and z. Since y and z are s-near, α and β are Hk near approximately inside a ball of radius
d(η(0), y) − s ≥ n − s, since d(η(0), y) ≥ n. But, since y ∈ Vn (η), inside a ball of radius n − r,
α is Hk near to η. Choosing n large enough such that both n − s and n − r are much larger
than m + r, we get that in a ball of radius m + r, β and η are 2Hk near. Thus z ∈ Vm (η),
which is a contradiction.
Thus L is an open set. We claim that NL (p) ⊆ MOp . As before, let q ∈ NL and suppose
that q ∈ ∂∞ CV . If V = U , the conclusion follows since L ⊆ Op . If V ⋔ U , then ρVU ∩ L 6= ∅.
Since L ⊆ Op and diam(ρVU ) ≤ s, we have that ρVU ⊆ Op . In particular, πFU (q) ⊆ Op and
thus q ∈ MOp .
Finally, suppose that U ⊑ V . The fact that q is an element of NL implies that there is γ ∈
q with endpoint on ρU
V such that pFU (γ([E, ∞)))∩L 6= ∅. Since diam (pFU (γ([E, ∞)))) ≤ E,
we get that pFU (γ([E, ∞))) ⊆ Op . In particular, q ∈ MOp .

6.4

Bowditch Boundary

Definition 6.14. Let F be a connected graph. The combinatorial horoball associated to F
is the graph Γ(F ) with vertices V (F ) × N and the following edges:

33

· For each v ∈ V (F ) and n ∈ N, there is an edge between (v, n) and (v, n + 1).
· For each pair of vertices v, w ∈ V (F ) such that dF (v, w) ≤ 2n , there is an edge between
(v, n) and (w, n).
It is easily seen that vertical rays in Γ(F ) are infinite geodesic rays, and it is not hard
to see that they are the only ones. In particular, for each F the Gromov boundary of Γ(F )
consists of a single point that we denote ∗F .
Definition 6.15. Let X be a hyperbolic geodesic space, and let F be a family of subspaces
of X. For each F ∈ F, let Ω(F ) be a connected approximation graph for F , with constants
chosen uniformly for all elements of F. The Bowditch space Γ(X, F) (or simply Γ(X)) is
defined as the space obtained from X attaching to it the combinatorial horoballs Γ(Ω(F ))
under the identification (x, 0) ∼ x.
Definition 6.16. A space X is said to be hyperbolic relative to the family F if the Bowditch
space Γ(X, F) is Gromov hyperbolic.
Convention. From now, let X be a proper geodesic space hyperbolic relative to a family
F, where all the elements of F have infinite diameter, and suppose that, in addition, X is
hyperbolic.
The request that the elements of F to have infinite diameter is because, for an F of finite
diameter, we would have ∂F = ∅, but ∂Γ(F ) = {∗F }. There are several ways to fix this,
but they all boil down to considering only the elements of F that have infinite diameter.
It is an easy consequence of [Sis12] that the family F forms a factor system for X and,
for any two different F1 , F2 ∈ F, we have F1 6- F2 6- F1 , where - denote the coarse inclusion
(Definition 4.1). It is not hard to see that this implies that Γ(F) = {Γ(F ) | F ∈ F} is a
factor system for Γ(X). Note, moreover, that the cone-off of X with respect to F is quasiisometric to the cone-off of Γ(X) with respect to Γ(F). Thus, we will identify the latter
with CX.
In particular, applying Proposition 6.11 we obtain the following decomposition of the
Gromov boundary of Γ(X):
∂Γ(X) = ∂CX ∪F ∈F ∂Γ(F ) = ∂CX ∪F ∈F ∗F ,
where the topology is as in Definition 6.8. Let ∂F X be the quotient of ∂X = ∂CX ∪F ∈F ∂CF
obtained collapsing each ∂CF to a point, equipped with the quotient topology. We claim
that
∂F X = ∂Γ(X),
which amounts to saying that the Bowditch boundary of X can be easily described as the
quotient of ∂X by a suitable set of subspaces.
It is clear by the above description that there is a bijection φ : ∂F X → ∂Γ(X). We want
now to show that φ is a homeomorphism. Since X is proper, so is Γ(X). In particular, X,
X ∪ ∂F (X) and Γ(X) are compact, and so are ∂F X and ∂Γ(X). Thus, it suffices to show
that φ is continuous.
Theorem 6.17. Let X be a proper hyperbolic space, which is hyperbolic relative to a family
F, where all the elements of F have infinite diameter. Let CX be the cone-off of X with
respect to F. Then ∂X = ∂CX ∪F ∈F ∂F and the Bowditch boundary ∂Γ(X, F) is obtained
from ∂X collapsing each ∂F to a point.
Proof. This is an immediate consequence of the Lemmas 6.18 and 6.19, which describe the
behavior of the fundamental neighborhoods under the map φ.
Notation. We fix notations as follows: let ψ : ∂X → ∂F X be the quotient map. Given
X
a point p ∈ ∂CX and an open set Op ⊆ CX, that contains p, we denote by NO
the
p
Γ(X)

neighborhood of p defined by Op in ∂X, and by NOp

34

the neighborhood in ∂Γ(X).

Lemma
Let p ∈ ∂CX. Then 
for each open set Op ∈ CX that contains p, one has
 6.18.

Γ(X)
Γ(X)
X
−1
−1
X
φ ◦ ψ NOp = NOp and ψ ◦ φ
NOp
.
= NO
p
Proof. It is clear that φ ◦ ψ is a bijection on ∂CX. Thus it is easy to see that a point
Γ(X)
X
if and only if φ(ψ(x)) belongs to NOp . So, consider the point
q ∈ ∂CX belongs to NO
p
Γ(X)

∗F ∈ ∂Γ(F ) for some F ∈ F. We have that ∗F belongs to NOp if ρF
X intersects Op , where
F
ρX is defined to be the projection of Γ(F ) on CX. But this projection coincides with the
Γ(X)
projection of CF on CX. Thus ∗F belongs to NOp if and only if ∂CF = ψ −1 ◦ φ−1 (∗F )
X
belongs to NOp .
X
Lemma 6.19. Let F ∈ F. For each OF ∈ Γ(F ) there is OF′ ∈ CF such that NO
⊆
′
F


Γ(X)
−1
−1
X
ψ ◦φ
NOF
and ∂CF ⊆ NO ′ .
F

Proof. Let OF be open in Γ(F ). Then, there is a representative η of ∗F and a number n
such that Vn (η) ⊆ OF , where Vn (η) is defined as in Lemma 6.4. Let η(0) be the starting
point of η. Without loss of generality we can assume that η(0) is a point of CF .
Let Vn (η)c be the complement of Vn (η) in Γ(F ). It is easy to see that Vn (η)c is contained
in a closed ball of finite radius around η(0). Let K be such a ball. Thus we have K c ⊆ OF .
The image of K in CF has also finite diameter. Thus we have that K c is an open of
X
CF . Since K has finite diameter, it is easy to see that ∂CF ⊆ NK
c . Moreover, since by
construction K c ⊆ OF , we have that for each point q ∈ ∂CX, if theprojection
 of q on CF
Γ(X)
c
X
−1
−1
intersects K , then it intersects OF , which shows NO ′ ⊆ ψ ◦ φ
NOF
.
F

References
[Ago13]

Ian Agol. The virtual Haken conjecture. Doc. Math., 18:1045–1087, 2013. With
an appendix by Agol, Daniel Groves, and Jason Manning.

[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.

[BHS15]

Jason Behrstock, Mark F. Hagen, and Alessandro Sisto. Hierarchically hyperbolic spaces II: Combination theorems and the distance formula. ArXiv e-prints,
February 2015.

[BHS17a]

J. Behrstock, M. F Hagen, and A. Sisto. Quasiflats in hierarchically hyperbolic
spaces. ArXiv e-prints, April 2017.

[BHS17b] Jason Behrstock, Mark F. Hagen, and Alessandro Sisto. Asymptotic dimension
and small-cancellation for hierarchically hyperbolic spaces and groups. Proc.
Lond. Math. Soc. (3), 114(5):890–926, 2017.
[BHS17c]

Jason Behrstock, Mark F. Hagen, and Alessandro Sisto. Hierarchically hyperbolic spaces, I: Curve complexes for cubical groups. Geom. Topol., 21(3):1731–
1804, 2017.

[Bow06]

Brian H Bowditch. Intersection numbers and the hyperbolicity of the curve
complex. Journal für die reine und angewandte Mathematik (Crelles Journal),
2006(598):105–129, 2006.

[Bow08]

Brian H. Bowditch. Tight geodesics in the curve complex.
171(2):281–300, 2008.

[Bow12]

B. H. Bowditch. Relatively hyperbolic groups. Internat. J. Algebra Comput.,
22(3):1250016, 66, 2012.

35

Invent. Math.,

[Bra00]

Noel Brady. Finite subgroups of hyperbolic groups. International Journal of
Algebra and Computation, 10(04):399–405, 2000.

[DHS17]

Matthew Gentry Durham, Mark F. Hagen, and Alessandro Sisto. Boundaries and automorphisms of hierarchically hyperbolic spaces. Geom. Topol.,
21(6):3659–3758, 2017.

[Ger12]

Victor Gerasimov. Floyd maps for relatively hyperbolic groups. Geom. Funct.
Anal., 22(5):1361–1399, 2012.

[GMRS98] Rita Gitik, Mahan Mitra, Eliyahu Rips, and Michah Sageev. Widths of subgroups. Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, 350(1):321–329,
1998.
[GP13]

Victor Gerasimov and Leonid Potyagailo. Quasi-isometric maps and Floyd
boundaries of relatively hyperbolic groups. J. Eur. Math. Soc. (JEMS),
15(6):2115–2137, 2013.

[Ham16]

Ursula Hamenstädt. Hyperbolic relatively hyperbolic graphs and disk graphs.
Groups Geom. Dyn., 10(1):365–405, 2016.

[HS16]

M. F Hagen and T. Susse. Hierarchical hyperbolicity of all cubical groups. To
appear in Bull. Lond. Math. Soc., September 2016.

[KB02]

Ilya Kapovich and Nadia Benakli. Boundaries of hyperbolic groups. In Combinatorial and geometric group theory (New York, 2000/Hoboken, NJ, 2001),
volume 296 of Contemp. Math., pages 39–93. Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI,
2002.

[KK14]

Sang-Hyun Kim and Thomas Koberda. The geometry of the curve graph of a
right-angled Artin group. Internat. J. Algebra Comput., 24(2):121–169, 2014.

[KR14]

Ilya Kapovich and Kasra Rafi. On hyperbolicity of free splitting and free factor
complexes. Groups, Geometry and Dynamics, 8(2):391–414, November 2014.

[Man15]

J. F. Manning. The Bowditch boundary of (G, H) when G is hyperbolic. ArXiv
e-prints, April 2015.

[MM99]

Howard A. Masur and Yair N. Minsky. Geometry of the complex of curves. I.
Hyperbolicity. Invent. Math., 138(1):103–149, 1999.

[MOY12]

Y. Matsuda, S.-i. Oguni, and S. Yamagata. Blowing up and down compacta
with geometrically finite convergence actions of a group. ArXiv e-prints, January
2012.

[Osi06]

Denis V. Osin. Relatively hyperbolic groups: intrinsic geometry, algebraic properties, and algorithmic problems. Mem. Amer. Math. Soc., 179(843):vi+100,
2006.

[Osi16]

D. Osin. Acylindrically hyperbolic groups. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 368(2):851–
888, 2016.

[Sis11]

A. Sisto. Contracting elements and random walks. Accepted in Journal für die
reine und angewandte Mathematik, December 2011.

[Sis12]

A. Sisto. On metric relative hyperbolicity. ArXiv e-prints, October 2012.

[Tra13]

Hung Cong Tran. Relations between various boundaries of relatively hyperbolic
groups. Internat. J. Algebra Comput., 23(7):1551–1572, 2013.

36

