DEHN FILLINGS AND ELEMENTARY SPLITTINGS

arXiv:1506.03831v3 [math.GR] 12 Jul 2016

DANIEL GROVES AND JASON FOX MANNING
Abstract. We consider conditions on relatively hyperbolic groups
about the non-existence of certain kinds of splittings, and show
these properties persist in long Dehn fillings. We deduce that certain connectivity properties of the Bowditch boundary persist under long fillings.

1. Introduction
Thurston’s Hyperbolic Dehn Filling Theorem [Thu80, Section 5.8]
shows that sufficiently long (topological) Dehn fillings of a 1–cusped
hyperbolic manifold are closed hyperbolic manifolds. In particular the
fundamental groups of these fillings are one-ended and word hyperbolic. Thurston’s argument is to deform the hyperbolic structure on the
cusped manifold to one whose completion is the filled manifold. Gromov and Thurston’s 2π-Theorem [BH96] makes the hypothesis of “sufficiently long” more quantitative, concluding that the filled manifold
is negatively curved. Agol and Lackenby’s 6-Theorem [Ago00, Lac00]
shows that the group-theoretic conclusions can be obtained by a softer,
more combinatorial argument. This work was part of the inspiration
for results about purely group-theoretic Dehn filling obtained by Osin
[Osi07] and the authors [GM08], and generalized still further in the
work of Dahmani–Guirardel–Osin [DGO11]. These results all have a
“hyperbolic-like” conclusion analogous to that of the 6-Theorem. However, none say anything about one-endedness of the quotient. The
following result remedies this.
Theorem 1.1. Suppose that (G, P) is relatively hyperbolic, with P
consisting of virtually polycyclic subgroups. If G does not admit any
nontrivial elementary splittings then sufficiently long Dehn fillings of
G do not admit any nontrivial elementary splittings.
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification. 20F65, 20F67, 57M50.
The results in this paper were instigated at the Mathematisches Forschungsinstitut Oberwolfach in June, 2011, and we thank the MFO for its hospitality. Both
authors were supported in part by the NSF (under grants DMS-0953794 and DMS1462263), who we thank for their support.
1

DEHN FILLINGS AND SPLITTINGS

2

Let us clarify some terminology. In this paper, when we say that
(G, P) is relatively hyperbolic (Definition 2.1), we always assume G is
finitely generated, and that no P ∈ P is equal to G. We do not assume
that the elements of P are infinite or non-relatively hyperbolic. An
elementary subgroup (Definition 2.4) is one which is either virtually
cyclic or parabolic. For sufficiently long Dehn fillings see Definition
1.3.
In Subsection 1.2 we spell out the connection between Theorem 1.1
and Thurston’s Hyperbolic Dehn Filling Theorem. In particular we
can deduce the one-endedness of fundamental groups of sufficiently
long classical fillings of a hyperbolic 3–manifold without using the fact
they are nonpositively curved manifolds.
Example 1.13 shows that in our more general setting it is not enough
to assume that G is one-ended in order to infer that long fillings are
one-ended (even when the elements of P are abelian). Theorem 1.1
follows from a much more general result, Theorem 1.6, which we state
in Subsection 1.1 below.
Another of our motivations is to understand the relationship between the Bowditch boundary of a relatively hyperbolic group and the
Bowditch boundary of long Dehn fillings (or, in case the filled group is
hyperbolic, the Gromov boundary). In the case of classical Dehn filling,
the Bowditch boundary of the original group is S 2 , as is the Gromov
boundary of the filled group. In Section 7, we review work of Bowditch
and others on the close relationship between connectedness properties
of the boundary of a relatively hyperbolic group and (non-)existence
of elementary splittings of the group. Using these results, we prove:
Theorem 1.2. Suppose that (G, P) is relatively hyperbolic, with P
consisting of virtually polycyclic groups. Suppose that ∂(G, P red ) is
connected with no local cut points.
Then for all sufficiently long fillings (Ḡ, P̄), we have ∂(Ḡ, P̄ red ) connected with no local cut points.
The peripheral structure P red is found by discarding the hyperbolic
subgroups of P. This can be done without affecting the relative hyperbolicity of the group pair. In the case of classical Dehn filling, it
corresponds to considering the filled group as a hyperbolic group, and
considering its Gromov boundary. See Section 7 for more details.
1.1. Main results. We now proceed to give a description of the more
technical Theorem 1.6 and show why it suffices to prove Theorem 1.1.
We also state a related result, Theorem 1.8, and give another application to the Bowditch boundary.

DEHN FILLINGS AND SPLITTINGS

3

Definition 1.3. Suppose that G is a group and P = {P1 , . . . , Pn } is
a collection of subgroups. A Dehn filling (or just filling) of (G, P) is a
quotient map: φ : G → G/K, where K is the normal closure in G of
some collection Ki  Pi . We write
G/K = G(K1 , . . . , Kn )
for this quotient. The subgroups K1 , . . . , Kn are called the filling kernels. We also write φ : (G, P) → (Ḡ, P̄), where P is the collection of
images of the P ∈ P.
We say that a property holds for all sufficiently long fillings of (G, P)
if there is a finite set B ∈ G r {1} so that whenever Ki ∩ B = ∅ for all
i, the group G/K has the property.
See Subsection 2.2 for more details. See Definition 2.1 for the definition of what it means for (G, P) to be a relatively hyperbolic group
pair, and see Theorem 2.17 for the main result of relatively hyperbolic
Dehn filling.
Definition 1.4. A group H is small if H has no subgroup isomorphic
to a nonabelian free group.
A group H is slender if every subgroup of H is finitely generated.
Definition 1.5. Let (G, P) be a group pair and let M be the class of
all finitely generated groups with more than one end. We say that a
filling of (G, P) is M-finite if for all P ∈ M ∩ P, the associated filling
kernel K  P has finite index in P .
We say that a filling of (G, P) is co-slender if for each P ∈ P with
associated filling kernel K, the group P/K is slender.
The following is the first main result of this paper.
Theorem 1.6. Let G be a group which is hyperbolic relative to a finite
collection P of subgroups, and suppose that all small subgroups of G are
finitely generated. Furthermore, suppose that G admits no nontrivial
elementary splittings. Then all sufficiently long M–finite co-slender
fillings (G, P) → (Ḡ, P̄) have the property that Ḡ admits no nontrivial
elementary splittings.
Remark 1.7. For G hyperbolic, or (G, P) relatively hyperbolic with
P consisting of slender groups, the hypothesis that small subgroups are
finitely generated holds (see Lemma 2.11 below).
Proof of 1.1 from 1.6. By Lemma 2.11 below, if all elements of P are
virtually polycyclic (or more generally slender) and (G, P) is relatively
hyperbolic, then all small subgroups of G are finitely generated. Moreover, in this case the multi-ended elements of P are all two-ended.

DEHN FILLINGS AND SPLITTINGS

4

Suppose some Pi ∈ P is two-ended. Then for all sufficiently long fillings G(K1 , . . . , Kn ), the corresponding filling kernel Ki is either trivial
or finite index. Letting P 0 = P r{Pi }, the pair (G, P 0 ) is also relatively
hyperbolic, and has an elementary splitting if and only if (G, P) does.
Thus all sufficiently long fillings of (G, P) are M–finite fillings of some
(G, P 0 ) with P 0 ⊆ P. Moreover, any quotient of a virtually polycyclic
group is slender, so the assumption of the filling being co-slender is also
satisfied. Thus, Theorem 1.1 follows from Theorem 1.6.

Theorem 1.6 concerns groups which do not admit any elementary
splittings. However, many one-ended relatively hyperbolic groups admit some elementary splittings over virtually cyclic groups, but no splittings over parabolic subgroups. It is natural to ask if the non-existence
of splittings over parabolic subgroups persists under long fillings. In
this direction, the second main result of this paper is the following.
Theorem 1.8. Let G be a group which is hyperbolic relative to a finite
collection P of subgroups, and suppose that all small subgroups of G
are finitely generated. Furthermore, suppose that G is one-ended and
admits no proper peripheral splittings. Then all sufficiently long M–
finite co-slender fillings (G, P) → (Ḡ, P̄) have the property that Ḡ is
one-ended and admits no splittings over parabolic subgroups.
See Subsection 2.3 for the definition of a proper peripheral splitting.
We note here that if the filled groups in the conclusion admit no splittings over parabolic subgroups then they admit no proper peripheral
splittings.
Like Theorem 1.6, Theorem 1.8 has consequences for the Bowditch
boundary. Again the result is easiest to state for (G, P) with P consisting of virtually polycyclic groups.
Theorem 1.9. Suppose that (G, P) is relatively hyperbolic, with P consisting of virtually polycyclic groups. Suppose further that the Bowditch
boundary ∂(G, P) is connected with no cut point.
Then for all sufficiently long M–finite fillings (G, P)  (Ḡ, P̄), the
resulting boundary ∂(Ḡ, P̄ ∞ ) is connected and has no cut points.
Note that having Ḡ one-ended is a stronger condition than having
the (reduced) Bowditch boundary of (Ḡ, P̄) connected. For example,
consider the relatively hyperbolic pair (F, {C}) where F is the fundamental group of a once-punctured torus and C is the cyclic group
corresponding to the puncture.
Question 1. For (G, P) relatively hyperbolic with ∂(G, P) connected
without cut points, is it true that ∂(Ḡ, P̄ ∞ ) is connected without cut

DEHN FILLINGS AND SPLITTINGS

5

points, for all sufficiently long fillings? If not, what hypotheses weaker
than slenderness and tameness are required?1
Question 2. Our proofs are by contradiction, using limiting arguments. Are there “effective” versions of our results?
1.2. Classical Dehn filling.
Definition 1.10. Let M n be a manifold without boundary whose ends
are all homeomorphic to T n−1 × R. Remove neighborhoods of the
ends E1 , . . . , Ek , leaving a manifold M̄ with boundary homeomorphic
to a disjoint union of k manifolds, each homeomorphic to T n−1 . To
each of these boundary components Bi glue a copy of D2 × T n−2 by
some homeomorphism φi : ∂(D2 × T n−2 ) → Bi . We’ll call the result a
classical Dehn filling of M .
The following corollary of Theorem 1.1 makes explicit the connection to classical Dehn filling and the 6-Theorem. (This corollary also
follows from the fact that the fillings support Riemannian metrics of
nonpositive curvature [Sch89], so the universal cover is Rn .)
Corollary 1.11. Let n ≥ 3. All sufficiently long classical Dehn fillings
of a finite-volume hyperbolic n–manifold have one-ended fundamental
group.
Proof. Let M be such a manifold, G = π1 M , and let P be the collection of fundamental groups of ends. The elements of P are free
abelian of rank at least 2. In particular they are one-ended and virtually polycyclic. The Bowditch boundary of (G, P) can be identified
with S n−2 , so it is connected and has no local or global cut point.
Work of Bowditch (see Corollary 7.9) then implies that G has no elementary splitting. Theorem 1.1 implies that sufficiently long fillings
are 1-ended.

Another group-theoretic consequence of Thurston’s Hyperbolic Dehn
Filling Theorem is that long fillings are torsion-free. In Section 4 we
analyze how torsion behaves under Dehn filling. In particular, Theorem 4.1 implies that for torsion-free relatively hyperbolic groups, long
enough fillings where each Pi /Ki is torsion-free are torsion-free. It follows that fundamental groups of sufficiently long classical Dehn fillings
of finite-volume hyperbolic manifolds are torsion-free. (This result also
follows from the above-cited result of Schroeder.)
1See

Section 7 for the definition of tame.

DEHN FILLINGS AND SPLITTINGS

6

1.3. Cautionary Examples. We collect here some examples to illustrate the importance of the hypotheses in Theorem 1.8.
Example 1.12. Except in this example, when (G, P) is relatively hyperbolic, we assume no P ∈ P is equal to G (in some sources, the pair
is then said to be properly relatively hyperbolic). The following shows
the necessity of this assumption in Theorem 1.8.
The group G = Z ⊕ Z (considered as a relatively hyperbolic group
pair (G, {G})) admits longer and longer fillings onto Z, which admits
a free splitting. But in this case G is one-ended and admits no proper
peripheral splitting.
Example 1.13. This example shows that the hypothesis of M–finiteness is necessary in Theorem 1.8.
Let S be a closed orientable surface of genus 2 and let G = π1 (S).
Let γ be a waist curve of S and let P1 be cyclic, generated by γ. Any
nontrivial filling of G along the peripheral structure P = {P1 } gives a
group which splits nontrivially over a finite group.
Of course the pair (G, P) admits a proper peripheral splitting
G = F2 ∗P1 P1 ∗P1 F2 .
However, let γ 0 be another simple closed curve so that γ ∪ γ 0 fills S,
and let P2 be the cyclic subgroup generated by γ 0 . Let P 0 = {P1 , P2 }.
It is not hard to see that (G, P 0 ) has no proper peripheral splitting.
The fillings G(hγ k i, {1}) all split nontrivially over finite groups.
Note that this example shows that
(1) The condition that the filling is M-finite is required; and
(2) It is not enough to assume that G is one-ended for Theorem
1.8; the hypothesis of having no nontrivial peripheral splittings
is also needed.
Example 1.14. The following example shows that the hypotheses of
M–finite and co-slender can’t be weakened just to every filling kernel
being infinite. Let G = π1 Σ as above, and consider two simple closed
curves α, β which fill Σ. Choose a crossing point p ∈ α ∩ β at which to
base the fundamental group. Then P = hα, βi is the π1 –image of some
immersed torus T with a single boundary component. We claim:
(1) There are α and β so that P is malnormal in G.
(2) For any action of G on a tree T without global fixed point, some
element (either α or β) of P acts hyperbolically on T .
The first condition ensures (G, {P }) is relatively hyperbolic [Bow12,
Theorem 7.11]. The second implies there is no proper peripheral splitting. But by choosing fillings Kn  P with Kn normally generated by

DEHN FILLINGS AND SPLITTINGS

7

αn , we obtain arbitrarily long fillings of (G, {P }) which split over finite
groups.
In order to obtain malnormality of hα, βi, one can choose α and β
such that there is a negatively curved cone metric on Σ so that α and β
are represented by (local) geodesics which meet at a point p with four
angles of π. This defines an immersion from the rose with two petals
into Σ which is locally convex. Any elevation to the universal cover is
therefore convex. Different elevations meet at single points, from which
it easily follows that the subgroup P is malnormal. See Figure 1 for a
3

3

2

1
∗

1

1

2

2

∗

1

∗

3

3

∗

2

Figure 1. Gluing up the Euclidean polygons as shown
gives a genus 2 surface with a non-positively curved metric. The polygons can be made slightly hyperbolic (preserving the angles of π and π2 ) to get a negatively curved
metric. The black and grey loops based at the vertex (∗)
generate a malnormal free subgroup of rank 2.
specific example.
This shows that Theorem 1.8 does not hold without the hypothesis
the fillings are M-finite and/or co-slender. However, in that example,
the boundaries of the filled groups are still connected with no cut points
(though there are local cut points before and after filling).
We do not have an example where all the hypotheses of Theorem
1.8 hold except for the fillings being co-slender and the conclusion does
not hold, but we use the assumption that the fillings are co-slender
in various places in our proofs. We do not know if this assumption is
necessary.

DEHN FILLINGS AND SPLITTINGS

8

Question 3. Is the assumption that the fillings be co-slender required
in Theorems 1.6 and 1.8?
Question 4. Does Theorem 1.6 hold for all sufficiently long fillings,
without assuming M–finite and co-slender?
1.4. Outline. In Section 2, we recall the relevant definitions about
Dehn filling, peripheral splittings. In Section 3, we recall some results
of Bowditch about elementary splittings, and begin to study how they
behave under filling.
Section 4 contains a result which may be of independent interest,
on finite subgroups of relatively hyperbolic groups obtained via Dehn
filling.
In Section 5 we prove Theorem 1.6 by contradiction: If arbitrarily
long fillings of (G, P) have elementary splittings, the Bass-Serre trees of
those splittings limit to an R–tree, from which we deduce the existence
of an elementary splitting of (G, P). This also gives the setup for the
proof of Theorem 1.8, which we then prove using the Rips theory of
groups acting on trees (see [Gui08]) and a version of Sela’s “shortening
argument”.
In Section 6, we give a result about Fuchsian fillings of a relatively
hyperbolic group.
Finally in Section 7 we relate our results to the structure of the
Bowditch boundary.
1.5. Acknowledgments. Thanks to John MacKay for pointing out a
typo, and to the referee(s) for useful comments and corrections.
2. Preliminaries
In this section we record the definitions and results that we need in
the proof of the main results.
Suppose that G is a finitely generated group and P = {P1 , . . . , Pk }
is a collection of proper, finitely generated subgroups. In [GM08, §3]
the construction of a cusped space is given, by gluing combinatorial
horoballs onto the left cosets of the Pi in a Cayley graph for G. We
denote such a cusped space by X(G, P) (ignoring for the moment the
generating sets of G and of the Pi ). This space is a locally finite graph,
on which G acts properly.
Definition 2.1. [GM08] The pair (G, P) is relatively hyperbolic if the
cusped space X(G, P) is δ-hyperbolic for some δ.
In case (G, P) is relatively hyperbolic, the cusped space X(G, P)
has a Gromov boundary, which we refer to as the Bowditch Boundary.

DEHN FILLINGS AND SPLITTINGS

9

Since our peripheral structure P is not assumed to be minimal, this may
be different from what some other authors call the Bowditch boundary.
For more on this see Section 7.
In [GM08, Theorem 3.25] it is proved that Definition 2.1 agrees with
the other notions of relatively hyperbolicity for finitely generated G.
(In [Hru10] an extension to the case where G is not finitely generated
is given, and this definition still agrees with the standard ones in this
setting. We consider only the finitely generated case in this paper.)
Remark 2.2. If (G, P) is relatively hyperbolic, the family P is almost
malnormal, in the sense that if P, P 0 ∈ P and P g ∩ P 0 is infinite for
some g ∈ G then P = P 0 and g ∈ P (see [Far98, Example 1, p.819]).
In particular, each P ∈ P is almost malnormal. We use this property
of P frequently, often without explicit mention.
Terminology 2.3. In this paper, we consider relatively hyperbolic
groups acting on trees. Both relatively hyperbolic groups and groups
acting on trees have ‘hyperbolic’ elements, and these are different notions.
When we talk about an element being hyperbolic in the sense of relatively hyperbolic groups, we call it an RH-hyperbolic element. These
RH-hyperbolic elements are defined in the following subsection.
When talking about a group element being hyperbolic when acting
on a tree, we mention the tree.
2.1. Small, slender, and elementary subgroups. The contents of
this section are well known, but we have been unable to find some of
the exact statements that we require in the literature.
Definition 2.4. For a relatively hyperbolic pair (G, P), a subgroup
E < G is elementary if it is either virtually cyclic or parabolic, ie
conjugate into some P ∈ P.
It is more convenient to think about the action of (subgroups of) G
on the cusped space X(G, P) so we record the following.
Lemma 2.5. Let (G, P) be relatively hyperbolic. A subgroup H ≤ G is
elementary if and only if H preserves a finite set in X(G, P)∪∂(G, P).
The action of a relatively hyperbolic group (G, P) on its Bowditch
boundary is geometrically finite [Bow12, Proposition 6.15], meaning
that every point is either a conical limit point or a bounded parabolic
point. (A converse to this statement was proved by Yaman [Yam04,
Theorem 0.1].) The stabilizers of the parabolic points are exactly the
conjugates of the elements of P.

DEHN FILLINGS AND SPLITTINGS

10

An element of a relatively hyperbolic group (G, P) is either finite
order, infinite order parabolic (in which case it fixes a unique point in
∂(G, P)) or else RH-hyperbolic, in which case it fixes a pair of points
in ∂(G, P), preserves a quasi-geodesic axis between these points in the
cusped space X(G, P), and acts via North-South dynamics on ∂(G, P).2
Definition 2.6. Let (G, P) be relatively hyperbolic, and ∂(G, P) the
Bowditch boundary. Suppose that H ≤ G is infinite. The limit set of
H, denoted ΛH, is the minimal closed nonempty H-invariant subset of
∂(G, P).
Definition 2.7. Let (G, P) be relatively hyperbolic. A pair of RHhyperbolic elements g, h ∈ G are independent if their fixed sets in
∂(G, P) are disjoint.
The following theorem is due to Tukia.
Theorem 2.8. [Tuk94, Theorem 2U] Suppose that H ≤ G has the
property that |ΛH| > 2. Then H is non-elementary. Every nonelementary subgroup contains a nonabelian free subgroup generated by
two independent RH-hyperbolic elements.
Proposition 2.9. Let (G, P) be relatively hyperbolic, and let H ≤ G.
Then H is elementary if and only if exactly one of the following occurs:
(1) H is finite;
(2) H is parabolic (conjugate into some element of P) and |ΛH| =
1; or
(3) H is virtually infinite cyclic, and contains an RH hyperbolic
element. In this case |ΛH| = 2.
Proof. It is straightforward to see that each of the three types listed
are elementary, which proves one direction of the theorem.
Conversely, suppose that H is infinite and elementary. The action
of H on X(G, P) is properly discontinuous, so the finite set preserved
by H must be contained in ∂(G, P). Since ΛH is the minimal closed
H-invariant set, we see that ΛH is finite.
If ΛH contains more than 2 points, then H contains a nonabelian
free group and ΛH is infinite, by [Tuk94, Theorem 2U]. Therefore, we
are concerned with the cases where |ΛH| has size 1 or 2.
Suppose first that ΛH = {p}. If p is a bounded parabolic point, then
H is parabolic, as required.
Suppose then that ΛH = {p} and that p is a conical limit point. We
know that elements of G are either finite order, infinite order parabolic
2Note

that some finite order elements of (G, P) may be parabolic, and others
may be non-parabolic.

DEHN FILLINGS AND SPLITTINGS

11

or RH-hyperbolic (which are also infinite order). An infinite cyclic
subgroup generated by an RH-hyperbolic element has a pair of limit
points, so if |ΛH| = 1 then H can contain no RH-hyperbolic elements.
On the other hand, if H contains an infinite-order parabolic element,
then it would have to fix p, which contradicts the assumption that p is
not a parabolic limit point. Thus, every element of H is finite-order,
and hence elliptic. Therefore (since p is H-invariant) each h ∈ H
coarsely preserves the level sets of a Busemann function βx based at
p (with the same implicit constant behind the word ‘coarse’ for each
element of H). Let D be the maximal difference βp (x) − βp (h.x) over
x ∈ X and h ∈ H. Let x ∈ X be a base point, and γ a geodesic ray
from x to p. Since p is not parabolic, γ must intersect the Cayley graph
of G in X infinitely many times. Let K be a bound on the size of the
number of vertices in a ball of radius D + 10δ in X which meets the
Cayley graph of G. We claim that (in case p is H-invariant) |H| ≤ K,
contradicting the hypothesis that H is infinite. Indeed, suppose that
H has distinct elements h1 , . . . , hK+1 . Then the geodesics hi .γ are all
eventually within 2δ of each other, which implies that at a point y on
γ near the Cayley graph the points hi .y are all within D + 2δ of each
other. However, this means that there are i and j (with i 6= j) so that
hi .y = hj .y. Since G acts freely on X, this is a contradiction.
We are left with the case that |ΛH| = 2. Suppose that ΛH = {p, q}.
Suppose further that H contains no RH-hyperbolic elements. In this
case, given the basepoint x ∈ X(G, P), there are elliptic or parabolic
elements h1 , h2 ∈ H with the property that d(h1 .x, x) and d(h2 .x, x) are
as large as we like, but the Gromov product (h1 .x, h2 .x)x is bounded.
In particular, by taking h1 .x approximating p and h2 .x approximating
q, we can ensure that
min{d(h1 .x, x), d(h2 .x, x)} ≥ 100(h1 .x, h2 .x)x + 100δ.
A standard argument (see, eg [CDP90, Chapitre 9, Lemme 2.3]) shows
that h1 h2 is an RH-hyperbolic element. This contradicts the assumption that H has no RH-hyperbolic elements.
Therefore, in case |ΛH| = 2, we see that H contains an RH-hyperbolic
element. Since H preserves a pair of points in ∂(G, P), it is virtually
cyclic. (For example, this can be seen by noting that the action of G
on the cusped space is proper and then applying the classification of
isometries of δ-hyperbolic spaces [CDP90, Chapitre 9]).

We immediately deduce the following:

DEHN FILLINGS AND SPLITTINGS

12

Lemma 2.10. If (G, P) is relatively hyperbolic and each element of
P is slender then every elementary subgroup of G is slender, and in
particular finitely generated.
Lemma 2.11. Let (G, P) be relatively hyperbolic, where the elements
of P are slender. Then every small subgroup of G is finitely generated.
Proof. Let H < G be small. If H is elementary then H is finitely
generated by Lemma 2.10.
However, if H is non-elementary then it contains a nonabelian free
group by Theorem 2.8, and so it cannot be small.

Note that a slender group is small but a small group may not be
slender. Slender groups have the following useful characterization due
to Dunwoody and Sageev.
Lemma 2.12. [DS99, Lemma 1.1] A group H is slender if and only if
for every subgroup K ≤ H, every action of K on a tree either has a
fixed point or has a (setwise) invariant axis.
A general principle of relatively hyperbolic groups is that extreme
pathology is usually confined to the parabolic subgroups. The following
is a well-known example of that principle.
Lemma 2.13. Let (G, P) be relatively hyperbolic. If H < G is infinite
torsion, then H is parabolic.
Proof. Since H is torsion, it contains no nonabelian free subgroup, so
H must be elementary by Theorem 2.8. However, the only possibility
from the list of elementary subgroups given by Proposition 2.9 for an
infinite torsion group is if H is parabolic.

The following lemma will be used to show certain extensions of elementary groups coming from the Rips machine are still elementary.
Lemma 2.14. Suppose that (G, P) is relatively hyperbolic.
Any elementary-by-(virtually abelian) subgroup of G is elementary.
Any (infinite parabolic)-by-(virtually abelian) subgroup of G is parabolic.
Proof. Let H be elementary-by-(virtually abelian). There is a short
exact sequence
1 → K → H → A → 1,
where A is virtually abelian. There are a number of cases.

DEHN FILLINGS AND SPLITTINGS

13

Suppose first that K is infinite parabolic. If K is contained in a
maximal parabolic subgroup P , then since P is almost malnormal, all
of H is contained in P . In particular H is parabolic, hence elementary.
Suppose then that K is virtually cyclic with an RH-hyperbolic element. Then the limit set of K has two elements. Moreover, since K is
normal in H, the limit set of K is H-invariant, and so the limit set of
H also has two elements and H is virtually cyclic, by Proposition 2.9.
Suppose next that K is finite. If A is infinite torsion, then so is
H. Any infinite torsion subgroup of a relatively hyperbolic group is
parabolic by Lemma 2.13, so we can suppose that A has an infinite
order element a. Let ã ∈ H map to a. The subgroup H0 = hK, ãi is
virtually infinite cyclic. We argue differently, depending on whether ã
is parabolic or loxodromic. If parabolic, H0 fixes a unique p ∈ ∂(G, P);
if loxodromic, H0 fixes two points p, q in ∂(G, P). (No element can
exchange them because H0 maps homomorphically onto Z.)
Suppose ã is parabolic, fixing p ∈ ∂(G, P). Note that p is the unique
fixed point for ã. Let h ∈ H. The commutators of h and ãn are in the
finite subgroup K, so we have, for some k ∈ K and some 0 < i < j,
[h, ãi ] = [h, ãj ] = k. Thus
hp = hãi p = kãi hp, and
hp = hãj p = kãj hp.
So both kãi and kãj fix q = hp. It follows that ãi q = k −1 q = ãj q, so
ãj−i fixes q. We deduce q = p so h fixes p and lies in the same parabolic
subgroup as H0 .
Finally, suppose that ã is loxodromic with fixed points {p, q} ⊆
∂(G, P). If h ∈ H, we see that h preserves the pair {p, q} by an
argument similar to that in the last paragraph. Since H preserves a
pair of points in ∂(G, P), it is virtually cyclic, by Proposition 2.9. 
2.2. Dehn filling of groups.
Definition 2.15. Suppose that G is a group and P = {P1 , . . . , Pn } is
a collection of subgroups. A filling (sometimes Dehn filling) of (G, P)
is determined by a collection of subgroups Ki  Pi and is given by the
quotient map (called the filling map)
φ : G → G(K1 , . . . , Kn ),
where the group G(K1 , . . . , Kn ) denotes G/K where K is the normal
closure in G of ∪Ki , and φ is the natural quotient map. The subgroups
K1 , . . . , Kn are called the filling kernels.

DEHN FILLINGS AND SPLITTINGS

14

Definition 2.16. Suppose that (G, P) is as in Definition 2.15. We
say that a property S of groups holds for all sufficiently long fillings
of (G, P) if there is a finite set B ∈ G r {1} so that for any choice of
filling kernels K1 , . . . , Kn so that Ki ∩ B = ∅ the group G(K1 , . . . , Kn )
satisfies S.
The following is the main result of relatively hyperbolic Dehn filling.
Theorem 2.17. [Osi07], cf. [GM08] Let (G, P) be relatively hyperbolic
and let F ⊂ G be finite. For sufficiently long fillings
φ : G → G(K1 , . . . , Kn )
of (G, P) the following properties hold:
(1) For each i, the natural map Pi /Ki → G(K1 , . . . , Kn ) is injective;
(2) The pair (G(K1 , . . . , Kn ), {P1 /K1 , . . . , Pn /Kn }) is relatively hyperbolic; and
(3) φ is injective on F.
Notation 2.18. We’ll also sometimes indicate a filling map by
φ : (G, P) → (Ḡ, P̄)
to emphasize the peripheral structure. Here P̄ is the collection {φ(P ) |
P ∈ P}.
In fact, there is uniform control on the geometry of the cusped spaces
of the quotients. Once generating sets are fixed for G and the Pi , we
can use the images of these generating sets to build the cusped spaces
for the quotients after filling. The cusped spaces are then determined
completely. In particular, the cusped space for a quotient (Ḡ, P̄) is an
isometrically embedded subgraph of the quotient of X(G, P) by the
action of the kernel of the filling map K. (The only difference between
the two graphs is that the quotient by the action of K may contain
doubled edges and self-loops not present in X(Ḡ, P̄).)
Theorem 2.19. [Ago13, Theorem A.43(1)] Using the cusped spaces
just described, if (G, P) is relatively hyperbolic, then:
(1) There is a δ > 0 so that for all sufficiently long fillings (G, P) →
(Ḡ, P̄), the cusped space of (Ḡ, P̄) is δ–hyperbolic, and
(2) Fix any (finite) ball B ⊆ X(G, P). For all sufficiently long
fillings, the map X(G, P) → X(Ḡ, P̄) restricts to an embedding
of B whose image is a metric ball in X(Ḡ, P̄).
Definition 2.20. A sequence {ηi : G → Ḡi } of fillings is stably faithful
if ηi is faithful on the ball of radius i about 1 in G.

DEHN FILLINGS AND SPLITTINGS

15

Corollary 2.21. If Q is a property of groups and it is not the case that
all sufficiently long fillings of a relatively hyperbolic pair (G, P) satisfy
Q then there is a stably faithful sequence of fillings {ηi : G → Ḡi } so
that for each i the group Ḡi does not satisfy Q.
Lemma 2.22. Suppose that (G, P) is relatively hyperbolic and that
g ∈ G is an RH-hyperbolic element. Then for sufficiently long fillings
G  Ḡ the image of g is RH-hyperbolic in (Ḡ, P̄).
Proof. Let δ be so that cusped spaces of sufficiently long fillings of
(G, P) are all δ–hyperbolic. The existence of such a δ is the first part
of Theorem 2.19, and we assume that the cusped space for (G, P) is
δ-hyperbolic also.
Let g be an RH-hyperbolic element of G. Then for some λ, , g
preserves a (λ, )–quasigeodesic axis γ, moving every point on γ a distance of |g|, the translation length of g. By [CDP90, Proposition 3.1.4]
there are k, λ0 , 0 (depending only on δ, λ, ) so that every k–local (λ, )–
quasigeodesic is a global (λ0 , 0 )–quasigeodesic. By quasigeodesic stability [CDP90, Théorème 3.1.2] any such quasigeodesic lies in an R0 –
neighborhood of a geodesic with the same endpoints, where R0 depends
only on δ, λ0 , 0 .
Let R = 2k + |g| + 2R0 , and let B be an R–ball centered on some
point of γ. For sufficiently long fillings B embeds in the cusped space
of the filling, by the second part of Theorem 2.19. Let γ̄ be the image
of γ. We claim that γ̄ is a k–local (λ, )–quasigeodesic. Indeed, let
σ be a subsegment of γ̄ of length k. There is a k–neighborhood of σ
contained in the image of g i B for some i, so σ is the isometric image
of a subsegment of the (λ, )–quasigeodesic γ.
If γ̄ were a loop, it would be a (λ0 , 0 )–quasigeodesic loop, which by
quasigeodesic stability would have length at most R0 . Since R > 2R0 ,
this is not the case.
It follows that γ̄ is an infinite quasigeodesic, preserved by the image
of g, so the image of g is RH-hyperbolic.

Remark 2.23. We sketch another, almost formal proof of Lemma
2.22: Let E(g) be the maximal elementary subgroup containing the
RH-hyperbolic element g and note that (G, P ∪ {E(g)}) is relatively
hyperbolic [Osi06, Corollary 1.7]. Extend the filling of (G, P) by a
trivial filling of E(g). Then use almost malnormality in the quotient.
2.3. Peripheral splittings.
Definition 2.24 (Peripheral splitting). Suppose that (G, P) is a relatively hyperbolic group. A peripheral splitting of (G, P) is a bipartite

DEHN FILLINGS AND SPLITTINGS

16

graph of groups with fundamental group G where the vertex groups of
one color are precisely the peripheral subgroups P.
Proposition 2.25. [Bow01, Proposition 5.1] The relatively hyperbolic
pair (G, P) has a nontrivial peripheral splitting if and only if it has a
nontrivial splitting over a (not necessarily maximal) parabolic subgroup
in which all peripheral subgroups are elliptic.
2.4. Automorphisms. The following notion is required in the proof
of Theorem 1.8.
Definition 2.26. Suppose that G is a group and P is a collection of
subgroups. Let Inn(G) be the set of inner automorphisms of G, and
let
AutP (G) = {φ ∈ Aut(G) | ∀P ∈ P, ∃ψ ∈ Inn(G) so φ|P = ψ|P } .
Thus elements of AutP (G) are those automorphisms which restrict to
an inner automorphism on each P ∈ P (a different inner automorphism
for each P , possibly).
The following is a key example of an automorphism in AutP (G).
Example 2.27. Suppose that (G, P) is relatively hyperbolic and that
C is a two-ended subgroup whose center contains an RH-hyperbolic
element c. Suppose that G = A ∗C B and that each element of P is
elliptic in this splitting (i.e. conjugate into A or into B). Let τc : G →
G be the Dehn twist about c, defined as τc (a) = a if a ∈ A and τc (b) = bc
if b ∈ B. Then τc ∈ AutP (G).
Since the kernel of a filling map is the normal closure in G of subgroups of elements of P, the following is clear.
Lemma 2.28. Suppose that (G, P) is a group pair, and that φ ∈
AutP (G). If
η : G → G(N1 , . . . , Nm )
is a Dehn filling of (G, P) then ker(η ◦ φ) = ker(η).
In particular, if {ηi : G → Ḡi } is a stably faithful sequence of fillings
and {φi } is any sequence from AutP (G) then {ηi ◦φi } is a stably faithful
sequence of fillings.
3. Elementary splittings
Let (G, P) be relatively hyperbolic. Recall that a subgroup H ≤ G
is elementary if it is either finite, conjugate into some element of P or
two-ended. In this section, we are interested in splittings of relatively
hyperbolic groups over elementary subgroups. We call such splittings

DEHN FILLINGS AND SPLITTINGS

17

elementary splittings. We are also interested in elementary splittings
of quotients (under Dehn fillings).
Bowditch [Bow01, Proposition 5.2] proves that certain splittings over
parabolic subgroups can be improved to splittings in which all parabolic
subgroups act elliptically (See also [Sel01, Lemma 2.1]). We need a
slightly different statement, but the proof we give below is essentially
Bowditch’s.
Lemma 3.1. Let (G, P) be relatively hyperbolic, and suppose that G
admits a splitting over a parabolic or abelian subgroup so that every
multi-ended element of P is elliptic. Then G admits a splitting over a
parabolic or abelian subgroup so that every element of P is elliptic.
If the original splitting was over a parabolic subgroup, then so is the
P–elliptic splitting.
Proof. Let T be the Bass-Serre tree for a one-edge splitting of G over a
parabolic or abelian subgroup, so that every multi-ended element of P
is elliptic. If every P ∈ P is elliptic in this tree, then there is nothing
to prove.
So assume that some (necessarily one-ended) P0 ∈ P fixes no vertex
of T , and let T0 be a minimal P0 –invariant tree. Fix some edge e of T0 ,
and let H be the stabilizer of e in G. Since P0 is one-ended, H ∩ P0
must be infinite. Since H is an edge stabilizer, it is either parabolic or
abelian.
Claim 3.1.1. H < P0 .
Proof. Suppose that H is parabolic. Since H ∩ P0 is infinite, and P is
almost malnormal, H < P0 .
Suppose that H is abelian. Let H0 = H ∩P0 , which we have observed
is infinite. Note that H0 is contained in hP0 h−1 ∩ P0 for any h ∈ H.
But then h ∈ P0 , by almost malnormality of P0 .

Claim 3.1.2. Let P 6= P0 be an element of P. Then P fixes a point
in T .
Proof. If P didn’t fix a point, P would split over some H 0 = P ∩ H g <
P ∩ P0g . By almost malnormality of P, this group H 0 would have to
be finite, implying that P was not one-ended. But we are assuming
multi-ended peripheral groups act elliptically.

Claim 3.1.3. P0 is the setwise stabilizer of T0 . In other words, P0 =
{g ∈ G | gT0 = T0 }. Moreover, if g 6∈ P0 then |gT0 ∩ T0 | ≤ 1.
Proof. Let g ∈ G, and suppose that e is an edge in T0 ∩ gT0 . We
proved above that if H is the stabilizer of e then H < P0 . We want

DEHN FILLINGS AND SPLITTINGS

18

to show g ∈ P0 . The stabilizer of g −1 e is g −1 Hg. Some edge of the
graph of groups P0 \T0 is labeled by a P0 -conjugate of the edge stabilizer
g −1 Hg ∩ P0 . Since T0 is minimal, the corresponding one-edge splitting
is nontrivial. Since P0 is one-ended, g −1 Hg ∩ P0 is infinite, and so
g ∈ P0 by almost malnormality of P0 .

Now every edge in T is in exactly one translate of T0 , so we have
a partition of the edges of T to which we can apply the construction
from [Bow01, Lemma 3.5]. Namely, we let S be a bipartite tree with
red vertices equal to the set A of translates of T0 , and black vertices
equal to the vertex set V (T ) of T . Connect v ∈ V (T ) to gT0 ∈ A if
and only if v ∈ gT0 . Edge stabilizers are conjugate into P0 , so they are
parabolic.
Finally, we explain why all elements P ∈ P fix points in S. It is
clear that P0 fixes the vertex of S corresponding to T0 . On the other
hand, if P ∈ P is not P0 then it fixes a vertex of T , which is still a
vertex of S.

We next want to prove a result (Lemma 3.6 below) saying that we
can improve splittings of fillings to (2, C)–acylindrical splittings. We’ll
need a result about uniformity of almost malnormality in fillings.
Definition 3.2. A collection of subgroups P of G is C–almost malnormal if there is a constant C so that
#(P1 ∩ gP2 g −1 ) > C for g ∈ G and P1 , P2 ∈ P
implies P2 = P1 and g ∈ P1 .
The following is well-known.
Lemma 3.3. Suppose (G, P) is relatively hyperbolic. Then P is C–
almost malnormal for some C.
Proof. Let P1 and P2 be distinct conjugates of elements of P. Let
F = P1 ∩ P2 . We use the action on the (combinatorial) cusped space
X(G, P) with respect to some fixed generating set for G. Since (G, P)
is relatively hyperbolic, this space is δ–hyperbolic for some δ > 0. For
each i, the subgroup Pi preserves a combinatorial horoball Hi whose
center ei ∈ ∂X is the parabolic fixed point of Pi . Choose a biinfinite
geodesic γ from e1 to e2 which is vertical inside H1 and H2 . We parametrize γ so that γ(0) is in the frontier of H1 ; in particular γ(0) is
in the Cayley graph of G.
For f ∈ F \ {1} the geodesics γ and f γ form an ideal bigon. Moreover, deep inside H1 and H2 , the geodesics pass through vertices which
are distance 1 from one another. In particular, we may choose large

DEHN FILLINGS AND SPLITTINGS

19

subsegments γ([−N, R]) and f γ([−N, R0 ]) whose endpoints are distance 1 from one another. From this it is easy to deduce d(γ(0), f γ(0)) ≤
2δ + 1. Thus F acts freely on a subset of the Cayley graph of G of
diameter at most 2δ + 1. We can bound the cardinality of this set in
terms of δ and the size of the generating set for G.

The following is proved by a straightforward adaptation of the methods for analyzing height discussed in the Appendix to [Ago13].
Proposition 3.4. [GM] If (G, P) is relatively hyperbolic, and P is
C–almost malnormal, then for all sufficiently long fillings (Ḡ, P̄) of
(G, P), the collection P̄ is C–almost malnormal.
Definition 3.5. An action G y T on a tree is (k, C)–acylindrical if
the stabilizer of any segment of length at least k + 1 has cardinality at
most C.
The proof of the following result is similar to that of Lemma 3.1.
Lemma 3.6. Suppose that (G, P) is relatively hyperbolic, where P is
a C–almost malnormal collection of slender subgroups. If G admits a
nontrivial splitting over a parabolic group, then G admits a nontrivial
(2, C)–acylindrical splitting over a parabolic group.
Proof. Let G y T be the Bass-Serre tree for a one-edge splitting of G
over a parabolic subgroup E. We may suppose that E < P for some
P ∈ P. If #E ≤ C, there is nothing to prove, so we suppose that
#E > C. There are two cases, depending on whether or not P acts
elliptically on T .
Suppose first that P fixes a point of T . If P fixes an edge, then in
fact P = E, and each edge stabilizer is equal to P g for some g ∈ G.
Since P is C–almost malnormal, any segment of length at least 2 has
stabilizer of size at most C, so G y T is actually (1, C)–acylindrical.
If P fixes a vertex, but no edge of T , and σ is a segment in T of length
at least 3, then the stabilizer of σ is again contained in the intersection
of a pair of conjugates of P , and so has size bounded above by C. Thus
G y T is (2, C)–acylindrical.
Suppose now P is not elliptic. Since P is slender, Lemma 2.12 implies that P preserves some line lP ⊆ T on which P acts either by
translations or as an infinite dihedral group. In either case every edge
in lP has the same stabilizer, namely E.
We claim that for any g 6∈ P we have |g.lP ∩ lP | ≤ 1. If not, there is
an edge e in this intersection. Then the stabilizer of e is contained in
the intersection of two distinct conjugates of P , which has size at most
C. This contradicts the assumption that #E > C.

DEHN FILLINGS AND SPLITTINGS

20

We can now form a simplicial G-tree T̂ as follows: The vertices are
the G-translates of lP along with the vertices of T and we join g.lP
and v when v ∈ g.lP . It is easy to see that this is a tree (see [Bow01,
Lemma 3.5]) upon which G acts. The edge stabilizers are subgroups of
P which are either E or else have E as an index 2 subgroup (depending
on whether P acts by translations or dihedrally on lP ). In particular
they are parabolic.
Moreover, if we take three consecutive edges in T̂ and an γ element
of G which stabilizes them, then γ stabilizes two different lines g.lP
and h.lP . This implies that γ ∈ P g ∩ P h which has size at most
C. Therefore the G-action on T̂ has parabolic edge stabilizers and is
(2, C)-acylindrical.

Proposition 3.7. Suppose that (G, P) is a relatively hyperbolic group,
so that P is C–almost malnormal. For all sufficiently long co-slender
fillings (G, P) → (Ḡ, P̄), if Ḡ admits a nontrivial splitting over a parabolic group then Ḡ admits a nontrivial (2, C)-acylindrical splitting over
a parabolic group.
Proof. We suppose that the filling (Ḡ, P̄) is long enough to apply
Proposition 3.4, and then apply Lemma 3.6.

4. Torsion in fillings
The main result of this section is the following, which should be of
independent interest. 3
Theorem 4.1. Suppose that (G, P) is a relatively hyperbolic pair. For
all sufficiently long fillings
η : (G, P) → (Ḡ, P̄)
any finite subgroup of Ḡ is either
(1) Conjugate into some element of P̄; or
(2) The isomorphic image (under η) of some finite subgroup of G.
We’ll need the following lemma, which is used again in Section 4.1.
Lemma 4.2. Let F be a finite group acting on a δ–hyperbolic space X.
Then F has an orbit of diameter at most 4δ + 2.
Proof. Choose some x0 ∈ X. Then F x0 is a nonempty bounded set,
which has some radius r (the radius is the infimum of those R so that
3A

similar result about hyperbolically embedded subgroups (but about only
elements of finite order rather than finite subgroups) is proved in [DGO11, Theorem
7.19].

DEHN FILLINGS AND SPLITTINGS

21

F x0 is contained in an R–ball about some point). An –quasicenter for
F x0 is a point c so that F x0 ⊆ {x | d(x, c) ≤ r + }. Setting  = 1, it is
clear that there is at least one 1–quasicenter c for F x0 , and that f c is
a 1–quasicenter for F x0 , for any f ∈ F . By [BH99, Lemma III.Γ.3.3],
the set of 1–quasicenters has diameter at most 4δ + 2.

Proof of Theorem 4.1. By Theorem 2.19, there is a constant δ so that
(i) The cusped space for (G, P) is δ-hyperbolic; and (ii) For all sufficiently long fillings the cusped space of the quotient is δ-hyperbolic.
We may assume that all fillings we consider satisfy this condition, and
we fix such a δ ≥ 1. Let X be the cusped space for (G, P) and for a
filling (Ḡ, P̄) we let the associated cusped space be X̄.
Now take a filling which is long in the sense of the above paragraph
and which also induces a bijection between the ball of radius 40δ about
1 in X and the ball of radius 40δ about 1 in X̄.
Suppose that Q ≤ Ḡ is a finite subgroup. Lemma 4.2 implies that
there is a Q–orbit B ⊆ X̄ of diameter at most 4δ + 2.
Case 1: Suppose that B does not intersect the (4δ+2)–neighborhood
of the Cayley graph of Ḡ in X̄. Then since the diameter of B is at most
4δ + 2, B is entirely contained in a single horoball of X̄, which implies
that Q is conjugate into some P̄ ∈ P̄.
Case 2: Now suppose that some x ∈ B lies in the (4δ + 2)–
neighborhood of the Cayley graph. We recall from [GM08] that vertices
of the cusped space but not in the Cayley graph correspond to triples
(gP, g, n), where P ∈ P̄ and n ∈ N = {1, 2, . . .}. We extend this labeling scheme to the Cayley graph by referring to g ∈ Ḡ using the (not
uniquely defined) triple (gP, g, 0). (The number n is the distance from
the Cayley graph.) A single combinatorial horoball is spanned by the
vertices of the form (hP, g, n) for hP fixed.
By assumption our x = (gP, g, k) with k ≤ 4δ + 2. Since the action
of Ḡ on X̄ is depth-preserving, we may assume that all other elements
of B have the form (g 0 P, g 0 , k) for the same k. Consider the set
B0 = {h | (hP, h, k) ∈ B}
(where we consider an element g of Ḡ to be contained in X̄ via the
embedding g 7→ (gP, g, 0)). Then Q · B0 = B0 and the diameter of B0
is less than 20δ.
Moreover, Qg stabilizes g −1 B0 , and 1 = g −1 g ∈ g −1 B0 . This means
that Qg = Qg · 1 ⊂ g −1 B0 , which puts the subgroup Qg in the ball of
radius 20δ about 1 in X̄.
The filling induces a bijection between the 40δ balls about the identity in X and X̄. Let Q̂ be the preimage of Qg under this bijection.

DEHN FILLINGS AND SPLITTINGS

22

We claim that Q̂ is a finite subgroup. Indeed, for any h1 , h2 ∈ Qg , let
h3 = h1 h2 . For i ∈ {1, 2, 3}, let h̃i be the unique element of Q̂ projecting to hi . Note that h̃1 h̃2 lies in the 40δ ball about 1, and projects to
h3 ∈ Qg . Since h̃3 also projects to h3 , and the projection is injective
on the ball of radius 40δ, we have h̃1 h̃2 = h̃3 . Since h1 and h2 were
arbitrary, Q̂ is a subgroup.
Letting h be any element of G which maps to g under the filling, we
−1
see that Q̂h maps isomorphically to Q under the filling, as required.

4.1. Controlling splittings over finite and two-ended subgroups.
Definition 4.3. For (G, P) relatively hyperbolic, let F be the set of
subgroups of G which are either finite non-parabolic, or contained in
the intersection of two distinct maximal parabolic subgroups. Define
C(G, P) = max{#F | F ∈ F}.
Lemma 4.4. For (G, P) relatively hyperbolic, C(G, P) < ∞.
Proof. Let F < G be finite and non-parabolic. By Lemma 4.2, there
is an F –orbit B of diameter at most 4δ + 2 in the cusped space. Since
F is non-parabolic, B is not contained entirely in a single horoball. In
particular B contains a point within 4δ + 2 of the Cayley graph, and
so its size can be bounded above in terms of δ and the valence of the
Cayley graph. Since #F = #B, the size of such a group is bounded
uniformly.
If F is in the intersection of two parabolics, the size of F is bounded
by Lemma 3.3.

We note the following corollary of Theorem 4.1 and Proposition 3.4.
Corollary 4.5. Let (G, P) be relatively hyperbolic. For all sufficiently
long fillings (Ḡ, P̄), we have C(Ḡ, P̄) ≤ C(G, P).
In particular there is a bound on the size of non-parabolic finite
subgroups of sufficiently long fillings, which we use in the following.
Corollary 4.6. Suppose that (G, P) is relatively hyperbolic. For all
sufficiently long co-slender fillings (G, P) → (Ḡ, P̄), if Ḡ admits a
nontrivial splitting over a finite group, then Ḡ admits a nontrivial
(2, C)–acylindrical splitting over a finite or parabolic group, where C =
C(G, P).
Proof. Let (G, P) → (Ḡ, P̄) be long enough that both Proposition 3.7
and Corollary 4.5 apply, and suppose that Ḡ splits nontrivially over a

DEHN FILLINGS AND SPLITTINGS

23

finite group F . If F is non-parabolic, then Corollary 4.5 implies that
|F | ≤ C, so the Bass-Serre tree corresponding to the splitting over F
is already (0, C)–acylindrical.
If F is parabolic, then 3.7 implies there is a (2, C)–acylindrical splitting over some parabolic group.

We next examine two-ended non-parabolic subgroups.
Lemma 4.7. Let (G, P) be relatively hyperbolic, let E < G be twoended and non-parabolic, and let F < E be finite. Then #F ≤ 2C(G, P).
Proof. The two-ended group E preserves a pair of points E ±∞ in ∂(G, P).
Let E0 < E be the subgroup which fixes these points. (If E maps onto
an infinite dihedral group E0 is index two; otherwise E = E0 .) Let
F0 = F ∩ E0 , and let α ∈ E be an infinite order element which centralizes F0 . If F0 is non-parabolic, then we know |F0 | ≤ C(G, P) by
definition. Suppose then that F0 is parabolic, and contained in gP g −1 ,
for P ∈ P. Let p be the parabolic fixed point for gP g −1 . Then for any
f ∈ F0 we have f αp = αf p = αp, so that f fixes both p and αp. Note
that we know α is not parabolic, since E is not parabolic, so we know
that αp 6= p. Thus F0 is in the intersection of two distinct maximal
parabolic subgroups and #F0 ≤ C(G, P). The result follows.

If E is a maximal two-ended subgroup of G, where (G, P) is relatively
hyperbolic, and E is not already parabolic, then (G, P t {E}) is also
relatively hyperbolic [Osi06, Corollary 1.7]. The next lemma tells us
how C(G, P) changes after augmenting the peripheral structure in this
way.
Lemma 4.8. Suppose that (G, P) is relatively hyperbolic and E < G
is a maximal two-ended subgroup of G which is not parabolic. Then
C(G, P t {E}) ≤ 2C(G, P).
Proof. Let P 0 = P t {E}. Let F be a finite subgroup of G which is not
parabolic with respect to P 0 . Then F is not parabolic with respect to
P either, so #F ≤ C(G, P). Likewise, if F is in the intersection of two
P–parabolic subgroups, then #F ≤ C(G, P).
It remains to consider intersections of conjugates of E with each
other or with other parabolics. But Lemma 4.7 bounds the size of
finite subgroups of E by 2C(G, P).

Lemma 4.9. Let (G, P) be relatively hyperbolic, where each element of
P is slender, and let C = 2C(G, P). If G admits a nontrivial splitting
over a two-ended non-parabolic subgroup, then G admits a nontrivial
(2, C)–acylindrical splitting over an elementary subgroup.

DEHN FILLINGS AND SPLITTINGS

24

Proof. Suppose G splits over a two-ended non-parabolic subgroup E,
and let Ê be the maximal two-ended subgroup of G containing E. Let
P 0 = P t {Ê} As we remarked before Lemma 4.8, (G, P 0 ) is relatively
hyperbolic. By Lemma 4.8, C(G, P 0 ) ≤ C = 2C(G, P). Lemma 3.6 implies that G admits a (2, C)–acylindrical splitting over a P 0 –parabolic
subgroup S. If S is not P–parabolic, then it must be conjugate to a
subgroup of E, so it is either finite or 2–ended.

Proposition 4.10. Suppose that (G, P) is relatively hyperbolic, and
let C = 2C(G, P). For all sufficiently long co-slender fillings (G, P) →
(Ḡ, P̄), if Ḡ admits a nontrivial splitting over a two-ended non-parabolic
subgroup then Ḡ admits a nontrivial (2, C)–acylindrical splitting over
an elementary subgroup.
Proof. By Corollary 4.5, C(Ḡ, P̄) = C(G, P) for sufficiently long fillings. Apply Lemma 4.9.

5. Limiting actions on R-trees
In this section, we give the proofs of the main Theorems 1.6 and
1.8. In each case we assume that the theorem is false and investigate
a sequence of longer and longer fillings contradicting the conclusion.
Lemma 5.1. Suppose that (G, P) is relatively hyperbolic and a counterexample either to Theorem 1.6 or to Theorem 1.8.
Let C = 2C(G, P). There is a stably faithful sequence of M–finite
co-slender fillings ηi : (G, P) → (Ḡi , P̄i ) so that for each i the group
Ḡi admits a nontrivial (2, C)-acylindrical elementary splitting. In case
(G, P) is a counterexample to Theorem 1.8, we may assume these splittings are over parabolic or finite subgroups.
Proof. Suppose first that (G, P) is a counterexample to Theorem 1.6.
Then there is a stably faithful sequence of M–finite co-slender fillings
(G, P) → (Ḡi , P̄i ) so that each Ḡi admits a nontrivial elementary splitting. By Corollary 4.6, Proposition 3.7, and Proposition 4.10 these
splittings can be modified to (2, C)–acylindrical elementary splittings,
for all sufficiently large i.
Now suppose that (G, P) is a counterexample to Theorem 1.8. In this
case, there is a stably faithful sequence of M–finite co-slender fillings
ηi : (G, P) → (Ḡi , P̄i ) so that each Ḡi admits a nontrivial splitting
over either a finite or a parabolic subgroup. By Corollary 4.6 and
Proposition 3.7, these splittings can be modified to (2, C)–acylindrical
splittings over finite or parabolic subgroups, for all sufficiently large
i.


DEHN FILLINGS AND SPLITTINGS

25

We now suppose that we have a relatively hyperbolic pair (G, P),
and that we have a stably faithful sequence of M–finite co-slender
fillings ηi : (G, P) → (Ḡi , P̄i ) so that each Ḡi admits a nontrivial (2, C)acylindrical elementary splitting.
Choose a finite generating set A for G. Each Ḡi acts (2, C)–acylindrically on the Bass-Serre tree Ti of its splitting, and the map ηi induces
an action of G on Ti . Choose a base vertex xi ∈ Ti which is centrally
located in the sense that it minimizes the function x 7→ max dT (x, ax)
a∈A

on Ti .
Given any action λ : G → Isom(T ) (for some tree T with centrally
located basepoint x) define a length (with respect to A)
kλk = max dT (x, λ(a).x).
a∈A

Thus by choosing a (2, C)–acylindrical Bass-Serre tree Ti and centrally
located point xi ∈ Ti as above, we obtain a length. Abusing notation
slightly, we call this number kηi k; we’ll use it as a scaling factor.
Definition 5.2. Let (T, x) be a basepointed tree, and let (G, P) be
relatively hyperbolic, and generated by A. An action η : G → Isom(T )
is shortest (with respect to P and A) if, for every φ ∈ AutP (G), we
have
(1)

kη ◦ φk ≥ kηk

We summarize the assumptions we’ll make for the remainder of this
section.
Standing Assumption 5.3. (G, P) is a counterexample to either
Theorem 1.6 or Theorem 1.8. Let C = 2C(G, P).
(1) Small subgroups of G are finitely generated.
(2) G is one-ended and admits no proper peripheral splitting.
(3) (Ḡi , P̄i ) is a stably faithful sequence of M–finite co-slender fillings of (G, P) exhibiting the fact that (G, P) is a counterexample; for each i, there is a (2, C)–acylindrical splitting of Ḡi as
in the conclusion of Lemma 5.1.
(4) For each i, the action ηi on the associated Bass-Serre tree is
shortest (with respect to P and A).
Lemma 2.28 implies that we can arrange Assumption 5.3.(4) without
disturbing Assumption 5.3.(3).
Assumption (4) is only required in the proof of Theorem 1.8, not in
the proof of Theorem 1.6. However, making this assumption in both
cases causes no harm.

DEHN FILLINGS AND SPLITTINGS

26

We let Di = kηi k, and note that Di > 0, or the tree Ti would have a
global fixed point.
We thus obtain a sequence of actions of G on simplicial trees. In
case the sequence {Di } is bounded, we obtain a limiting action on a
simplicial tree T∞ by noting that the Lyndon length functions on some
subsequence converge to a Z–valued Lyndon length function. This
implies there is an invariant simplicial subtree by [Chi76, AM85]. If
on the other hand the sequence {Di } is unbounded, then by rescaling
the metrics by D1i we obtain a limiting action of G on an R-tree T∞
(see [Bes02, Theorem 3.3]). We assume in either case that the R-tree
T∞ has no proper G-invariant subtree (by passing to such a subtree if
necessary). This minimal subtree contains the basepoint x∞ which is
a limit of the basepoints xi ∈ Ti .
Lemma 5.4. The action of G on T∞ has no global fixed point.
Proof. Suppose first that the stretching factors {Di } diverge. Note that
by construction the basepoint x∞ is not a global fixed point, since some
generator in A moves x∞ distance 1. Because the inner automorphisms
of G are in AutP (G), from a global fixed point we could conjugate to
find a homomorphism which moves xi a shorter distance for sufficiently
large i, contradicting Assumption 5.3.
In case the stretching factors don’t diverge, the limiting R-tree T∞ is
simplicial, so we obtain a graph of groups decomposition of G coming
from a limit of actions on the Bass-Serre trees of the Ḡi . If there were
a global fixed point for the G-action on T∞ , this splitting would be
trivial. However, if the splitting of G induced by T∞ is trivial it is
easy to see that for sufficiently large i the splitting of Ḡi is trivial, in
contradiction to the choice of the Ḡi .

Lemma 5.5. Suppose that P ∈ P is multi-ended. Then P acts elliptically on T∞ .
Proof. For any multi-ended P ∈ P, the M–finiteness assumption implies that the image of P in each Ḡi is finite, and so P acts elliptically
on each Ti . On the other hand, a generator for P has some word length
in A, which means that this generator moves the basepoint xi a distance which is a bounded multiple of Di . This implies that a fixed
point for P in Ti is distance a bounded multiple of Di from xi , which
in turn implies that these fixed points persist in the limit, so P fixes a
point in T∞ .

Lemma 5.6. The scaling factors Di are unbounded.
Proof. Suppose not. Then the limiting tree T∞ is a (minimal) simplicial
tree. Let E be an edge stabilizer for this tree. Since G is one-ended, E

DEHN FILLINGS AND SPLITTINGS

27

is infinite. We claim that E cannot be parabolic. Indeed, by Lemma
5.5, any multi-ended peripheral subgroup of P acts elliptically on T∞ .
So by Lemma 3.1, if E were parabolic there would be a nontrivial
splitting of G in which all elements of P were elliptic. By Proposition
2.25, G would admit a proper peripheral splitting.
Since E is infinite non-parabolic, it contains an RH-hyperbolic element g. (Either it is non-elementary, in which case we can apply
Theorem 2.8, or it is elementary, and we are in case (3) of Proposition
2.9.)
By Lemma 2.22, the image of g in Ḡi is RH-hyperbolic for large i.
This means that the elementary splitting of Ḡi giving rise to Ti is not
over a parabolic subgroup or a finite subgroup, and so must be over a
two-ended non-parabolic subgroup.
Here the argument diverges depending on whether G is a counterexample to Theorem 1.6 or 1.8.
In case G is a counterexample to Theorem 1.8, we have already
reached a contradiction, since the Ti are assumed to come from parabolic or finite splittings.
In case G is a counterexample to Theorem 1.6, we conclude that E
is nonelementary. In particular E contains a nonabelian free subgroup.
The bound in Lemma 4.7 implies that infinitely many edge groups
Ei < Ḡi are isomorphic. Note that the edge groups Ei are all quotients
of E < G. But since every two-ended group satisfies a law, there is no
stably faithful sequence of homomorphisms from a group containing a
nonabelian free group to a fixed two-ended group. Thus in this case
we have also reached a contradiction.

Since the scaling factors Di are unbounded, the limiting R-tree T∞
may not be simplicial. In order to obtain our contradiction to prove
Theorem 1.6, we apply the Rips machine (in its version from [Gui08])
to find an elementary splitting of G. For the contradiction for Theorem 1.8, we have to undertake a more refined analysis of the limiting
R-tree (still using the results from [Gui08]) and then use Sela’s ‘Shortening Argument’ to argue that for large i the action ηi is not shortest,
contrary to Assumption 5.3.
We start by analyzing the arc stabilizers of the G-action on T∞ .
Lemma 5.7. Let I be a nondegenerate arc in T∞ . The stabilizer of I
fits into a short exact sequence
1 → N → Stab(I) → A → 1,
where A is abelian, and N is finite of order at most C.

DEHN FILLINGS AND SPLITTINGS

28

Proof. This argument is very similar to the argument from the proof
of [Sel97, Proposition 1.2(i), page 531]. We show that the commutator
subgroup of Stab(I) has cardinality bounded above by C.
Indeed, let γ1 , . . . , γn be distinct elements of the commutator subgroup of Stab(I). For large i the set {γ1 , . . . , γn } embeds in Ḡi , since
the
Qnjsequence is stably faithful. For each γj fix some expression of γj as
k=1 [αj,k , βj,k ], a product of commutators of elements of Stab(I); let
F be the set of αj,k , βj,k which occur in one of these expressions.
The endpoints p and q of I are limits of sequences {pi }, {qi } of
vertices in the approximating Bass-Serre trees, so the distances d(pDi ,qi i )
tend to d(p, q). The elements of F all stabilize I, so for sufficiently large
Di
i we have max{d(pi , f pi ), d(qi , f qi )} < 100
for all f ∈ F , and Di > 1000.
It follows that there is a large subsegment of [pi , qi ] on which all the
elements of F act like translations (or act trivially). It follows that all
the elements γ1 , . . . , γn lie in the stabilizer of this segment. Since the
action of Ḡi on Ti is (2, C)–acylindrical, n ≤ C, as required.

Recall that a group is small if it has no nonabelian free subgroup.
Finite-by-abelian groups are clearly small.
Corollary 5.8. The action G y T∞ has small arc stabilizers.
Lemma 5.9. Let Y be a nontrivial tripod in T∞ . The stabilizer of Y
is finite of order at most C.
Proof. This argument is very similar to one in Sela [Sel97, Proposition 1.2(ii), page 531], but modified slightly to deal with torsion. Let
g1 , . . . , gn ⊆ Stab(Y ), let p, q, r be the leaves of Y , and let z be its center. There are sequences of points pi , qi , ri ∈ Ti approximating p, q, r,
and it is not hard to see that if zi is the center of the tripod spanned by
{pi , qi , ri }, then the sequence {zi } tends to z. For sufficiently large i,
the distances d(pi , gj pi ), d(qi , gj pi ), d(ri , gj ri ) are all much smaller than
d(pi , zi ), d(qi , zi ), d(ri , zi ), and these latter three distances are large. It
follows that, for large i, all the gj fix a large tripod centered at zi ∈ Ti ;
in particular they lie in the stabilizer of some segment of length at least
three.
Since the splittings giving rise to the trees Ti are (2, C)–acylindrical,
and the sequence Ḡi is stably faithful, we have n ≤ C for sufficiently
large i.

An arc I of a G–tree T is unstable if it contains a nondegenerate
subarc J with strictly larger stabilizer. The following result follows
easily from the last two lemmas, see [RS94, Proposition 4.2], and says
that the action is “almost superstable”.

DEHN FILLINGS AND SPLITTINGS

29

Lemma 5.10. The stabilizer in G of an unstable arc in T∞ has order
at most C.
The following is an immediate corollary of Theorem 2.8.
Lemma 5.11. Let (G, P) be relatively hyperbolic. Then all small subgroups of G are elementary.
We now complete the proof of Theorem 1.6, by appealing to a result
of Guirardel. Recall that Corollary 5.8 tells us that T∞ has small arc
stabilizers.
Theorem 5.12. (simplified version of [Gui08, Corollary 5.3]) Let G
be a finitely generated group for which any small subgroup is finitely
generated, and suppose G y T where T is an R–tree with small arc
stabilizers. Then G splits over a small subgroup.
Recall that we are assuming (see Assumption 5.3.(1)) that small
subgroups of G are finitely generated, so this assumption in Theorem
5.12 is satisfied.
Recall the statement of Theorem 1.6.
Theorem 1.6. Let G be a group which is hyperbolic relative to a finite
collection P of subgroups, and suppose that all small subgroups of G are
finitely generated. Furthermore, suppose that G admits no nontrivial
elementary splittings. Then all sufficiently long M–finite co-slender
fillings (G, P) → (Ḡ, P̄) have the property that Ḡ admits no nontrivial
elementary splittings.
Proof. If (G, P) is a counterexample to this theorem, we have shown in
this section how to build a fixed-point free minimal action of G on an
R–tree T∞ from a sequence of Bass-Serre trees of (2, C)–acylindrical
splittings of a stably faithful sequence of fillings G → Ḡi . Corollary
5.8 says that arc stabilizers for this R–tree are small. Since small
subgroups of G are finitely generated, we can apply Theorem 5.12 to
conclude that G splits over a small, and hence elementary subgroup,
which is a contradiction.

In order to conclude the proof of Theorem 1.8, we need to get into
more details of the Rips machine and then apply (a version of) Sela’s
‘Shortening Argument’.
5.1. Proof of Theorem 1.8. Recall the statement:
Theorem 1.8. Let G be a group which is hyperbolic relative to a finite
collection P of subgroups, and suppose that all small subgroups of G
are finitely generated. Furthermore, suppose that G is one-ended and

DEHN FILLINGS AND SPLITTINGS

30

admits no proper peripheral splittings. Then all sufficiently long M–
finite co-slender fillings (G, P) → (Ḡ, P̄) have the property that Ḡ is
one-ended and admits no splittings over parabolic subgroups.
The argument given above to prove Theorem 1.6 produces an elementary splitting. Such a splitting contradicts the hypotheses of Theorem
1.6, but in case the splitting is over a non-parabolic (and hence twoended) subgroup, it does not contradict the hypotheses of Theorem 1.8.
To prove Theorem 1.8 we must work harder to obtain a contradiction,
further analyzing the limiting action on the R-tree T∞ and using this
analysis to argue that for large enough i the action ηi can be shortened
using an automorphism in AutP (G). This will contradict the Standing
Assumption 5.3.(4). We now give more details.
We’ll use a result of Guirardel (Theorem 5.17 below) to show that
the action of G on T∞ can be decomposed into a ‘transverse covering’:
Definition 5.13. [Gui08, Definition 1.4] A transverse covering of an
R-tree T is a covering of T by a family of subtrees Y = (Yv )v∈V such
that
• every Yv is a closed subtree of T ;
• every arc of T is covered by finitely many subtrees of Y;
• for v1 6= v2 ∈ V , Yv1 ∩ Yv2 contains at most one point.
When T comes equipped with an isometric action of a group G, we
always require the family Y to be G-invariant.
Given a transverse covering Y of T , one can define a bipartite simplicial tree by taking one family of vertices V1 (Y) to be the set of subtrees
Y ∈ Y and V0 (S) to be the set of points x ∈ T which lie in at least two
distinct subtrees from Y. Join an edge from x ∈ V0 (S) to Y ∈ V1 (S)
when x ∈ Y . This builds a simplicial tree S, called the skeleton of Y.
If there is a group G acting on T and Y then G naturally acts on the
skeleton S.
The data of a G-equivariant transverse covering and skeleton S give
a graph of actions decomposition for the G-action on T .
Two types of tree actions which do not decompose in this way are
surface type and axial, which we now define.
Definition 5.14. A G–tree T is of surface type if there is an epimorphism G → π1 Σ, where Σ is a hyperbolic 2–orbifold (possibly with
boundary) and T is the R–tree dual to a filling measured lamination on
Σ with no closed leaves. (Here π1 Σ refers to the orbifold fundamental
group of Σ.)

DEHN FILLINGS AND SPLITTINGS

31

Remark 5.15. Consider a surface-type tree T with the group π1 Σ
acting as in Definition 5.14 above, and let I be a nontrivial arc in T .
The stabilizer of I in π1 Σ is trivial.
Definition 5.16. A G–tree T is axial if T ∼
= R and G acts as a finitely
generated indiscrete subgroup of Isom(R).
See [Gui08] and [Gui04] for more details. The key result we need is
the following:
Theorem 5.17. [Gui08, Corollary 5.3] Suppose G is a finitely generated group for which any small subgroup is finitely generated, and
suppose G y T where T is an R–tree with small arc stabilizers. Suppose further that G does not split over any tripod stabilizer or over the
stabilizer of an unstable arc. Then T has a transverse covering giving
a graph of actions in which every vertex action is either
(1) simplicial;
(2) of surface type; or
(3) axial.
Corollary 5.18. The tree G y T∞ constructed above has a decomposition as a graph of actions where each vertex action is either simplicial,
of surface type, or axial. Moreover elements of G which act elliptically
on T∞ also act elliptically on the skeleton, S, of this graph of actions.
Proof. Corollary 5.8 says that the arc stabilizers of G y T∞ are small.
Lemmas 5.9 and 5.10 imply that stabilizers of tripods and of unstable
arcs are always finite. By Assumption 5.3.(2), G is one-ended, and in
particular G doesn’t split over one of these stabilizers. Theorem 5.17
therefore gives us a graph of actions as specified.
By [Gui08, Lemma 1.15], elements of G which act elliptically on T∞
also act elliptically on S.

For the remainder of the section, we fix this graph of actions decomposition just obtained. The vertex trees Yv are subtrees of T∞ and we
also refer to them as components of the action G y T∞ .
Lemma 5.19. G y T∞ has no axial components.
Proof. Suppose that G y T∞ has an axial component, Tv . Then the
associated vertex group Gv admits a short exact sequence
1 → K → Gv → A → 1,
where K acts trivially on Tv and A is an indiscrete subgroup of Isom(R).
Since Tv contains an arc, K is small by Corollary 5.8 and hence elementary by Lemma 5.11. By Lemma 2.14 this implies that Gv is elementary.

DEHN FILLINGS AND SPLITTINGS

32

However, A is an indiscrete subgroup of Isom(R), and so Gv cannot be
finite or two-ended, so Gv is parabolic. Since no P ∈ P can equal G,
we have Gv 6= G, and so Tv 6= T∞ .
In particular, there is some point x ∈ Tv where another tree is attached. Let e be the edge in the skeleton S between the vertex corresponding to x and the one corresponding to Tv , and let E be the
stabilizer of e. Note that E contains K as a subgroup of index at
most two, and that G splits over E. Since G is one-ended (Assumption
5.3.(2)), K (and hence E) must be infinite parabolic.
By contracting edges of S not in the orbit of e to points, we obtain a
Bass-Serre tree S̄ for the splitting of G over E. By Lemma 5.5, multiended elements of P act elliptically on T∞ , hence on S (see Corollary
5.18), and hence on S̄. By Lemma 3.1, there is a splitting of G over a
parabolic subgroup in which all elements of P are elliptic. Therefore
by Proposition 2.25 there is a proper peripheral splitting, in contradiction to Assumption 5.3.(2). This implies that G y T∞ has no axial
components, as required.

Thus, every component of the decomposition of G y T∞ is simplicial
or of surface type.
Given the finite generating set A for G and the basepoint x∞ of T∞ ,
we consider the arcs in T∞ of the form [x∞ , a.x∞ ] for a ∈ A. Since
there is no global fixed point, these arcs are not all trivial.
There are two cases. The first is when at least one of these arcs
intersects a surface type component. The second is when all of the arcs
are contained in (unions of) simplicial components.
We deal with surface-type components first.
Lemma 5.20. Suppose that Yv is a surface-type component of the graph
of actions decomposition of T∞ , and that Gv is the stabilizer in G of
Yv . The kernel Nv of the action of Gv on Yv has order at most C.
Proof. Any such Yv contains a nontrivial tripod, so any element of Nv
must fix a tripod. Thus Nv has order at most C by Lemma 5.9.

The following lemma describes the structure of the splitting of G induced by a surface-type vertex tree in the decomposition of Yv , and is
important for proving below that the shortening automorphisms constructed are in AutP (G).
Lemma 5.21. Suppose that the graph of actions decomposition of G
acting on T∞ contains a surface-type vertex tree Yv and vertex group
Gv , with corresponding 2-orbifold Σ. Then
(1) Each attaching point for Yv (to other sub-trees in the decomposition) corresponds to a boundary component of the universal

DEHN FILLINGS AND SPLITTINGS

33

cover Σ̃, yielding a splitting of G with edge group the subgroup
corresponding to this boundary component;
(2) Each boundary component of Σ arises in this way.
(3) Each two-ended subgroup of Gv corresponding to a boundary
component contains an RH-hyperbolic element of G.
(4) Any nontrivial parabolic element contained in Gv has finite order and either corresponds to an orbifold point or is in the kernel
of the action of Gv on Tv .
Proof. By Lemma 5.20 the map from Gv to π1 Σ has kernel of order
at most C. If there is an attaching point for Yv that corresponds to a
point other than a boundary component, the stabilizer in π1 Σ is finite,
and this would lead to a splitting of G over a finite subgroup, contrary
to Assumption 5.3.(2).
If there is an ‘unused’ boundary component, an essential arc from
this component back to itself would also yield a splitting of G over a
finite subgroup.
Suppose that B is a two-ended subgroup of Gv corresponding to a
boundary component of Σ, and suppose that b ∈ B is infinite order.
We have to prove that b is RH-hyperbolic. Suppose instead that b
is parabolic. Since parabolic subgroups are almost malnormal, this
implies that in fact B is parabolic. However, the graph of actions of
G y T∞ gives a splitting of G over B. Now, every multi-ended P ∈ P
acts elliptically by Lemma 5.5. Lemma 3.1 says there is a splitting over
a parabolic subgroup where all P ∈ P are elliptic. Finally Proposition
2.25 gives a proper peripheral splitting, which contradicts Assumption
5.3.(2). Thus b must be RH-hyperbolic.
Finally, suppose that p is a nontrivial parabolic element contained
in Gv . Since the only torsion elements of Gv are in the kernel of the
Gv -action on Tv or else correspond to orbifold points, we need only
rule out the case where p has infinite order. Suppose that there is
such an infinite order parabolic element p contained in Gv , and let P
be the maximal parabolic subgroup containing p. First note that we
have already proved that the (two-ended) boundary subgroups of Gv
contain RH-hyperbolic elements, which means that p is not contained
in such a subgroup, and also the intersection of such a subgroup with
P is finite.
Theorem 5.17 gives an action of G on the simplicial skeleton S of
the tree T∞ . If P is not contained in Gv , then the action of P on S
gives a nontrivial splitting of P over a finite group (the intersection of
P with some boundary subgroup of Gv ), which implies that P is multiended. However, the multi-ended subgroups of P act elliptically on T∞

DEHN FILLINGS AND SPLITTINGS

34

by Lemma 5.5, and so on S by Corollary 5.18. This implies that P is
entirely contained in Gv . However, Gv is a virtually free group, so this
implies that P is also virtually free, and so again we know that P acts
elliptically on T∞ . But the only subgroups of Gv that act elliptically
on Gv correspond to orbifold points or boundary components, and p is
not in either kind of subgroup. This contradiction implies that there
are no infinite order parabolic elements in Gv , as required.

Suppose that an arc of the form [x∞ , a.x∞ ] intersects a surface vertex
tree (for some a ∈ A). In the case that G is torsion-free, Rips–Sela
[RS94] explain how to obtain an automorphism of G which shortens the
action on T∞ , and therefore shortens all but finitely many of the approximating actions. In [RW14, Theorem 4.15], Reinfeldt–Weidmann
adapt this argument in the presence of torsion. One of the subtleties
they must deal with is that not all automorphisms of π1 (Σ) need induce
automorphisms of Gv because the map from Gv to π1 (Σ) may have finite kernel. We have the additional requirement that our shortening
automorphisms must lie in AutP (G). Both these issues are dealt with
in the following slight strengthening of [RW14, Lemma 4.17].
Lemma 5.22. Let Γ be a finitely presented group and H = {H1 , . . . , Hk }
a finite collection of cyclic, malnormal subgroups of Γ. Suppose that
there is a short exact sequence
π

1 → E → Γ̃ → Γ → 1
where E is finite. Let H̃ = {π −1 (Hi )}. Let A0 be the group of automorphisms σ ∈ AutH (Γ) that (i) lift to AutH̃ (Γ̃) and (ii) such a lift acts as
the identity on E. Then A0 has finite index in AutH (Γ).
Proof. Let A be the subgroup of AutH (Γ) that lift to AutH̃ (Γ̃). Then
[RW14, Lemma 4.17] states that A has finite index in AutH (Γ). However, each element of A lifts to an element of AutH̃ (Γ̃) which preserves
E, so we get a homomorphism from A to Aut(E), which is finite. Then
A0 is the kernel of this homomorphism.

(We apply the lemma with Γ̃ = Gv , Γ = π1 (Σ), and H the boundary
subgroups of π1 (Σ) and finite cyclic subgroups corresponding to cone
points of π1 Σ. Since E may contain parabolic elements, we need our
automorphisms to act as the identity on E.)
We can now follow the proof of [RW14, Proposition 4.16] exactly as
written, except using A0 in place of their subgroup S (which is A in
Lemma 5.22 above), to find the shortening automorphism of Gv , and
then extend it to an automorphism of G as in [RW14, §4] (cf. [RS94,
Proposition 5.4]).

DEHN FILLINGS AND SPLITTINGS

35

The extension is most naturally described in terms of a coarsening
of the graph of groups decomposition of G coming from G y S. Let Λ
be the quotient of S by the action of G, let π : S → Λ be the natural
quotient map, and let st(v) be the open star of v in Λ. Let S̄ be the tree
obtained from S by smashing connected components of π −1 (Λ r st(v))
to points. This gives a new graph of groups decomposition for G,
with underlying graph Λ̄, which still contains the vertex v, and has
one additional vertex for each component of Λ r {v}. The edge groups
incident to v are the same as those in the original graph of groups. The
following is a consequence of the description of the extension given in
[RS94].
Lemma 5.23. The extension ᾱ : Gv → Gv of a shortening automorphism α to G satisfies:
(1) ᾱ|Gv = α, and
(2) For each w 6= v in Λ̄, the restriction ᾱ|Gw = adg for some
g ∈ Gv .
Though we don’t know that parabolics are elliptic on S, the next
lemma shows they are elliptic on S̄.
Lemma 5.24. Let P ∈ P. Then P fixes a point of S̄.
Proof. If not, S̄ would give a splitting of P over some P0 contained in
boundary subgroup of Gv . By Lemma 5.21.(3), P0 must be finite. But
then P is multi-ended, so it fixes a point of T∞ , hence (Corollary 5.18)
fixes a point of S, hence fixes a point of S̄.

Now let P ∈ P, and consider a shortening automorphism α chosen to
lie in the subgroup A0 of AutH̃ (Gv ) as in the conclusion of Lemma 5.22.
Let ᾱ ∈ Aut(G) be the extension satisfying the conclusions of Lemma
5.23. Since P fixes a point of S̄, it is conjugate into a vertex group
of the graph of groups Λ̄. If the corresponding vertex is not v, then
Lemma 5.23 implies that ᾱ|P is adg for some g. If the corresponding
vertex is v, then P must actually be finite and project to a finite cyclic
group in π1 Σ. Lemma 5.22 implies that ᾱ restricts to the identity on P .
Thus ᾱ ∈ AutP (G), as required, providing the required contradiction
in this case. To summarize, we have the following:
Lemma 5.25. The arcs [x∞ , a.x∞ ] never intersect a surface component
in a non-degenerate arc.
Therefore, we are left with the case that all of the arcs [x∞ , a.x∞ ]
are covered by arcs from simplicial subtrees. Since T∞ is a minimal
G-tree, this implies that T∞ is in fact simplicial. In this case, the proof

DEHN FILLINGS AND SPLITTINGS

36

that for sufficiently large i the action ηi can be shortened is very similar
to the argument in [Sel97, Theorem 2.5]. Once again, see [RW14, §4]
for details in the presence of torsion. As in the case the arcs intersect
surface-type pieces, the key is to check that the automorphisms used
to shorten are in AutP (G). It is also important that the two-ended
subgroups found as edge groups in the splitting induced by T∞ have
infinite center, since then there are many Dehn twists with which to
shorten.
Lemma 5.26. In case T∞ is simplicial, edge stabilizers are two-ended
subgroups which contain (infinite order) RH-hyperbolic elements. These
two-ended subgroups have infinite center.
Proof. We know that edge stabilizers are small by Corollary 5.8, and
hence elementary. Since the action is simplicial, G splits over its edge
stabilizers. Therefore, the edge stabilizers are not finite, since G is
one-ended. Also, since multi-ended subgroups of P are elliptic in T∞
by Lemma 5.5, and since G admits no proper peripheral splittings, by
Assumption 5.3.(2), we know that the edge stabilizers are not parabolic.
Hence, they are two-ended and contain infinite order RH-hyperbolic
elements.
It remains to see that these two-ended subgroups must have infinite center. However, this is immediate from the structure of the arc
stabilizers in Lemma 5.7.

In the simplicial case, the automorphisms are Dehn twists in twoended subgroups which arise as edge groups in the (simplicial) tree T∞ .
By Lemma 5.26 such an edge group must contain an RH-hyperbolic
element and have infinite center. That such automorphisms are in
AutP (G) is the content of Example 2.27, in the case of an amalgam,
and is similar in the case of an HNN extension.
This implies that in fact the action ηi arising from the fillings G → Ḡi
are not shortest for large i, in contradiction to Assumption 5.3.(4).
Thus, we arrive at the required contradiction, and Theorem 1.8 is
proved.
6. Fuchsian fillings
This short section deals with the possibility of Dehn fillings which
are Fuchsian. Theorem 6.1 below is needed to make certain of the
statements in the next section cleaner, and may be interesting in its own
right. We say a group is Fuchsian if it is equal to the fundamental group
of a hyperbolic orbifold, which is to say it is isomorphic to a discrete
subgroup of Isom(H2 ) < O(2, 1). It is a consequence of the Convergence

DEHN FILLINGS AND SPLITTINGS

37

Group Theorem [CJ94, Gab92] that every virtually Fuchsian group G
fits into a short exact sequence
1→F →G→Γ→1
so that Γ is Fuchsian and F is finite.
Theorem 6.1. Suppose that (G, P) is relatively hyperbolic, and every
small subgroup of G is finitely generated. Further suppose that G is
not virtually Fuchsian, and admits no small splittings. Then for all
sufficiently long fillings (Ḡ, P̄) of (G, P), the quotient Ḡ is not virtually
Fuchsian.
Proof. Consider a longer and longer sequence of fillings (Ḡi , P̄i ) which
are virtually Fuchsian, so that each Ḡi fits into a short exact sequence:
1 → Fi → Ḡi → Γi → 1
where Fi is finite and Γi is Fuchsian. Note that Fi must be contained in
every parabolic of (Ḡi , P̄i ), so by Corollary 4.5 the size of Fi is uniformly
bounded. By passing to a subsequence, we can suppose that Fi is the
isomorphic image of a fixed finite F < G. This F is the stable kernel
of the sequence of fillings G → Ḡi . Let Γ = G/F .
Each Γi has a faithful representation as a discrete subgroup of O(2, 1).
Each such representation gives a point in the O(2, 1)–character variety
of G. If some subsequence converges, then Γ is Fuchsian, contradicting
the assumption that G is not virtually Fuchsian.
The characters therefore diverge. Picking particular representations
ρi : Γ → Isom(H2 ) < O(2, 1), and rescaling appropriately (by some
constants λi → 0), these representations limit to an action on an R–
tree T . (We make sure to conjugate these representations to always
have the same, centrally located basepoint.)
Claim 6.1.1. Arc stabilizers in T are small.
Claim 6.1.2. T is a stable G–tree.
From these two claims, it follows from [BF95, Theorem 9.5] that
G splits over a small-by-abelian (hence small) subgroup, contradicting
the hypothesis of no small splitting. We finish by proving the claims.
Proof of Claim 6.1.1. Let I = [p, q] be a nondegenerate arc of T . Let
pi ∈ H2 approximate p, and let qi ∈ H2 approximate q. We have
λi d(pi , qi ) −−−→ d(p, q), but for each g ∈ Stab(I),
i→∞

max{λi d(pi , gpi ), λi d(qi , gqi )} −−−→ 0.
i→∞

DEHN FILLINGS AND SPLITTINGS

38

One can then show using an elementary hyperbolic geometry argument
that for any a, b, c, d in Γ, the elements c1 = [a, b] and c2 = [c, d] satisfy
lim ρi (ci ) = lim ρi (c2 ) = I ∈ O(2, 1). To see this, note that, for large i,
i→∞

i→∞

the discrete group ρi (hc1 , c2 i) is generated by elements of a Zassenhaus
neighborhood of the identity in O(2, 1), and must therefore be abelian
(cf. [Bea83, 11.6.14]). Since the ρi are stably faithful, we deduce that
the stabilizer of I in Γ is metabelian. Thus the stabilizer of I in G is
finite-by-metabelian. In particular it is small.

Proof of Claim 6.1.2. By Claim 6.1.1, arc stabilizers are small. Since
small subgroups of G are finitely generated, arc stabilizers satisfy the
ascending chain condition. In particular, the action is stable (see
[BF95, Proposition 3.2.(2)]).


7. Behavior of the Bowditch boundary under filling
In this section we apply the main results about splittings and fillings to deduce certain consequences about connectivity properties of
the boundary under fillings, in particular Theorems 1.2 and 1.9. The
statements of results are cleanest if we restrict to virtually polycyclic
parabolics, though the alert reader will see that the hypotheses can be
weakened in various ways.
7.1. Literature review of boundaries and splittings. In this subsection we recall different results about topological properties of boundaries of relatively hyperbolic groups and splittings.
Connectedness was understood first. Note that finite maximal parabolics give rise to isolated points in the Bowditch boundary.
Theorem 7.1. [Bow12, Proposition 10.1] Let (G, P) be relatively hyperbolic, and suppose every element of P is infinite. Then ∂(G, P) is
disconnected if and only if G splits non-trivially over a finite subgroup
relative to P.
If ∂(G, P) is connected, then Bowditch showed that (global) cut
points correspond to peripheral splittings, given some mild conditions
on the parabolic subgroups.
Definition 7.2. Say a group is tame if it is finitely presented and
contains no infinite torsion subgroup.
Theorem 7.3. Let (G, P) be relatively hyperbolic, where the elements
of P are tame and one or two-ended. Suppose that ∂(G, P) is connected.

DEHN FILLINGS AND SPLITTINGS

39

Then ∂(G, P) has a cut point if and only if (G, P) has a nontrivial
peripheral splitting.
Proof. Suppose first that (G, P) has a nontrivial peripheral splitting.
Then [Bow01, Theorem 1.2] implies that ∂(G, P) has a cut point. (Note
that this direction only requires connectedness of the boundary, and not
the extra hypotheses on the parabolics.)
Conversely, suppose that ∂(G, P) has a cut point. Theorem 0.2 of
[Bow99b] implies that, under the hypotheses, every cut point of ∂(G, P)
is a parabolic fixed point. Theorem 1.2 of [Bow99a] then implies that
(G, P) admits a proper peripheral splitting.

Finally local cut points are connected to splittings over 2–ended
groups. Recall that a continuum is a connected compact Hausdorff
space. To have a reasonable notion of local cut point, we must restrict
attention to locally connected spaces.
Theorem 7.4. [Bow01, Theorem 1.5] Let (G, P) be relatively hyperbolic, where the elements of P are tame and one or two-ended, and
suppose that ∂(G, P) is connected. Then ∂(G, P) is locally connected.
Definition 7.5. Let p ∈ M where M is a locally connected continuum.
The valence Val(p) is the cardinality of Ends(M r {p}). The point p
is called a local cut point if Val(p) > 1.
Lemma 7.6. Suppose (G, P) is relatively hyperbolic and that ∂(G, P)
is a locally connected continuum. If p is a parabolic fixed point which
is not a cut point, then Val(p) is equal to the number of ends of Fix(p).
Proof. Recall that the action of a relatively hyperbolic group on its
Bowditch boundary is geometrically finite [Bow12, Proposition 6.15],
meaning that every point is either a conical limit point or a bounded
parabolic point. Since p is a parabolic fixed point, it is a bounded
parabolic point, which means that Fix(p) acts properly discontinuously
and cocompactly on ∂(G, P)r{p}. Since p is not a cut point, ∂(G, P)r
{p} is connected. It follows that Ends(Fix(p)) = Ends(∂(G, P) r {p}).

Lemma 7.7. Suppose (G, P) is relatively hyperbolic and that ∂(G, P)
is a locally connected continuum. There is an N < ∞ so that if p ∈
∂(G, P) is not a parabolic fixed point, then Val(p) < N .
Proof. Bowditch proved this in the absolute case P = ∅ [Bow98, Proposition 5.5]. Guralnik [Gur05, Proposition 4.2] points out that essentially
the same proof works in the relatively hyperbolic setting.


DEHN FILLINGS AND SPLITTINGS

40

Theorem 7.8. Let (G, P) be relatively hyperbolic, where the elements
of P are tame and one-ended, and suppose that ∂(G, P) is connected
and has no cut point. Suppose further that (G, P) is not virtually Fuchsian.
Then (G, P) has a local cut point if and only if G splits relative to
P over a non-parabolic 2–ended subgroup.
Proof. Suppose that (G, P) splits relative to P over a 2–ended subgroup H. Then ∂H is a two point set which separates ∂(G, P). To
see this, note that H is quasi-isometrically embedded in the cusped
space because it is two-ended and not parabolic. Considering a cusped
graph of spaces realizing the splitting of G, we see that H coarsely
separates the cusped space for (G, P) into at least two distinct (deep)
components. From this, it is clear that the pair of fixed points for H
separates the boundary ∂(G, P).
Conversely, suppose that (G, P) satisfies the hypotheses of the theorem, and ∂(G, P) has a local cut point. Theorem 7.4 implies that
∂(G, P) is locally connected, so we may apply Lemmas 7.6 and 7.7 to
conclude there is no infinite valence point in ∂(G, P). It follows that
∂(G, P) is cut-rigid in the sense of Guralnik’s paper [Gur05]. Propositions 4.7 and 4.8 of [Gur05] can then be used to conclude that ∂(G, P)
has a cut pair.
The work of Papasoglu–Swenson in [PS06, PS11] encodes the cutpair structure of the boundary in a pre-tree which canonically (and
therefore G–equivariantly) embeds in a simplicial tree T . Groff [Gro13,
Theorem 5.1] shows this tree is a JSJ tree for elementary splittings of
(G, P), relative to P.4 Since ∂(G, P) is connected, there is no splitting
over a finite group relative to P (Theorem 7.1); since ∂(G, P) has no
cut point, and there are no multi-ended elements of P, there is no
splitting over a parabolic subgroups (Lemma 3.1 and Theorem 7.3).
Thus every edge stabilizer comes from a splitting over a non-parabolic
2–ended subgroup relative to P.
It remains to establish that the action of G on T has no global
fixed point. Here we use Groff’s explicit description of the tree [Gro13,
Section 4]: vertices correspond to
(1) cut points (we do not have any of these),
(2) inseparable cut pairs,
(3) necklaces, or
4Groff

requires that the elements of P are not themselves properly relatively
hyperbolic, but does not use this hypothesis for this result. This assumption is
needed at other points in [Gro13].

DEHN FILLINGS AND SPLITTINGS

41

(4) equivalence classes of points not separated by any cut point or
cut pair.
See [Gro13] for the definition of these terms. Edges correspond to
intersection of closures. If there is a global fixed point in T , one quickly
sees it must correspond to a necklace, which equals ∂(G, P). But in
this case ∂(G, P) = S 1 and the pair (G, P) is virtually Fuchsian, by
the Convergence Group Theorem [CJ94, Gab92].

Corollary 7.9. Let (G, P) be relatively hyperbolic, so elements of P are
tame and one-ended. Suppose either P is nonempty or G is hyperbolic
but not virtually Fuchsian. The following are equivalent:
(1) ∂(G, P) is connected and has no (local or global) cut point.
(2) (G, P) has no elementary splitting.
Proof. This is immediate from Theorems 7.1, 7.3, and 7.8.



7.2. Connectedness properties of the boundary after filling.
Now we prove the statements about fillings and boundaries from the
introduction, first recalling some notation. For (G, P) a relatively hyperbolic group, let P ∞ ⊆ P be the collection of infinite peripheral
subgroups, and let P red be the collection of non-hyperbolic subgroups.
Then (G, P ∞ ) and (G, P red ) are still relatively hyperbolic, but the
Bowditch boundaries may be different. For example, if (G, P red ) is connected, but P r P red contains an infinite cyclic subgroup, then ∂(G, P)
has a local cut point. The Bowditch boundary of (G, P ∞ ) is equal to
∂(G, P) with its isolated points removed.
Also recall the inductive definition of polycyclic groups: Cyclic groups
are polycyclic. Moreover a group E is polycyclic whenever it fits into
a short exact sequence
1→P →E→C→1
with C cyclic and P polycyclic. In particular, finitely generated nilpotent groups are polycyclic. To apply our results in this setting we need
a couple of observations about this class of groups.
Lemma 7.10. Let P be virtually polycyclic. Then P is tame, slender, and one or two–ended. Moreover every quotient of P is virtually
polycyclic.
Recall the statement of Theorem 1.9.
Theorem 1.9. Suppose that (G, P) is relatively hyperbolic, with P consisting of virtually polycyclic groups. Suppose further that the Bowditch
boundary ∂(G, P) is connected with no cut point.

DEHN FILLINGS AND SPLITTINGS

42

Then for all sufficiently long M–finite fillings (G, P)  (Ḡ, P̄), the
resulting boundary ∂(Ḡ, P̄ ∞ ) is connected and has no cut points.
Proof. By Lemma 7.10, the peripheral subgroups P satisfy the hypotheses of Bowditch’s Theorem 7.3. There is no cut point in ∂(G, P),
so (G, P) has no proper peripheral splitting.
Let (Ḡ, P̄) be sufficiently long that we can apply Theorem 1.8, so
that Ḡ is one-ended, and (Ḡ, P̄) has no proper peripheral splittings.
It may be the case that ∂(Ḡ, P̄) is disconnected, but this can only
be because some elements of P̄ are finite. All the elements of P̄ ∞ are
infinite, so Theorem 7.1 implies that ∂(Ḡ, P̄ ∞ ) is connected. Since
there is no nontrivial peripheral splitting of (Ḡ, P̄), it is easy to see
there is also no nontrivial peripheral splitting of (Ḡ, P̄ ∞ ). Theorem 7.3
then implies that ∂(Ḡ, P̄ ∞ ) has no cut point.

We now prove Theorem 1.2.
Theorem 1.2. Suppose that (G, P) is relatively hyperbolic, with P
consisting of virtually polycyclic groups. Suppose that ∂(G, P red ) is
connected with no local cut points.
Then for all sufficiently long fillings (Ḡ, P̄), we have ∂(Ḡ, P̄ red ) connected with no local cut points.
Proof. The hypothesis implies G is not Fuchsian, since then ∂(G, P red )
would either be a Cantor set or S 1 . Note that since P consists of virtually polycyclic groups, P red consists of one-ended groups. Corollary
7.9 implies that (G, P red ) has no elementary splittings. It follows that
(G, P) has no elementary splittings, since the elementary subgroups
of (G, P) and (G, P red ) coincide. Now let (Ḡ, P̄) be a filling which is
sufficiently long that Theorems 1.6 and 6.1 apply. Since (Ḡ, P̄) has no
elementary splittings, neither does (Ḡ, P̄ red ). Moreover Theorem 6.1
implies Ḡ is not Fuchsian. Corollary 7.9 then implies that ∂(Ḡ, P̄ red )
is connected with no local cut points.

References
[Ago00]
[Ago13]
[AM85]
[Bea83]
[Bes02]

Ian Agol. Bounds on exceptional Dehn filling. Geom. Topol., 4:431–449
(electronic), 2000.
Ian Agol. The virtual Haken conjecture. Doc. Math., 18:1045–1087, 2013.
With an appendix by Agol, Daniel Groves, and Jason Manning.
Roger C. Alperin and Kenneth N. Moss. Complete trees for groups with a
real-valued length function. J. London Math. Soc. (2), 31(1):55–68, 1985.
Alan F. Beardon. The geometry of discrete groups, volume 91 of Graduate
Texts in Mathematics. Springer-Verlag, New York, 1983.
Mladen Bestvina. R-trees in topology, geometry, and group theory. In
Handbook of geometric topology, pages 55–91. North-Holland, Amsterdam, 2002.

DEHN FILLINGS AND SPLITTINGS

[BF95]
[BH96]
[BH99]

[Bow98]
[Bow99a]
[Bow99b]
[Bow01]
[Bow12]
[CDP90]

[Chi76]
[CJ94]
[DGO11]

[DS99]
[Far98]
[Gab92]
[GM]
[GM08]
[Gro13]
[Gui04]
[Gui08]
[Gur05]

43

Mladen Bestvina and Mark Feighn. Stable actions of groups on real trees.
Invent. Math., 121(2):287–321, 1995.
Steven A. Bleiler and Craig D. Hodgson. Spherical space forms and Dehn
filling. Topology, 35:809–833, 1996.
Martin R. Bridson and André Haefliger. Metric Spaces of Non–
Positive Curvature, volume 319 of Grundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften. Springer–Verlag, Berlin, 1999.
Brian H. Bowditch. Cut points and canonical splittings of hyperbolic
groups. Acta Math., 180(2):145–186, 1998.
Brian H. Bowditch. Boundaries of geometrically finite groups. Math. Z.,
230(3):509–527, 1999.
Brian H. Bowditch. Connectedness properties of limit sets. Trans. Amer.
Math. Soc., 351(9):3673–3686, 1999.
Brian H. Bowditch. Peripheral splittings of groups. Trans. Amer. Math.
Soc., 353(10):4057–4082 (electronic), 2001.
Brian H. Bowditch. Relatively hyperbolic groups. Internat. J. Algebra
Comput., 22(3):1250016, 66, 2012.
Michael Coornaert, Thomas Delzant, and Athanase Papadopoulos.
Géométrie et théorie des groupes: Les groupes hyperboliques de Gromov,
volume 1441 of Lecture Notes in Mathematics. Springer-Verlag, Berlin,
1990.
Ian M. Chiswell. Abstract length functions in groups. Math. Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc., 80(3):451–463, 1976.
Andrew Casson and Douglas Jungreis. Convergence groups and Seifert
fibered 3-manifolds. Invent. Math., 118(3):441–456, 1994.
François Dahmani, Vincent Guirardel, and Denis Osin. Hyperbolically
embedded subgroups and rotating families in groups acting on hyperbolic
spaces. Preprint, available at http://front.math.ucdavis.edu/1111.
7048, 2011.
Martin J. Dunwoody and Michah Sageev. JSJ-splittings for finitely presented groups over slender groups. Invent. Math., 135(1):25–44, 1999.
Benson Farb. Relatively hyperbolic groups. Geom. Funct. Anal.,
8(5):810–840, 1998.
David Gabai. Convergence groups are Fuchsian groups. Ann. of Math.
(2), 136(3):447–510, 1992.
Daniel Groves and Jason Fox Manning. Quasiconvexity and Dehn filling.
in preparation.
Daniel Groves and Jason Fox Manning. Dehn filling in relatively hyperbolic groups. Israel Journal of Mathematics, 168:317–429, 2008.
Bradley W. Groff. Quasi-isometries, boundaries and JSJ-decompositions
of relatively hyperbolic groups. J. Topol. Anal., 5(4):451–475, 2013.
Vincent Guirardel. Limit groups and groups acting freely on Rn -trees.
Geom. Topol., 8:1427–1470 (electronic), 2004.
Vincent Guirardel. Actions of finitely generated groups on R-trees. Ann.
Inst. Fourier (Grenoble), 58(1):159–211, 2008.
Dan P. Guralnik. Ends of cusp-uniform groups of locally connected continua. I. Internat. J. Algebra Comput., 15(4):765–798, 2005.

DEHN FILLINGS AND SPLITTINGS

44

[Hru10]

G. Christopher Hruska. Relative hyperbolicity and relative quasiconvexity for countable groups. Algebr. Geom. Topol., 10(3):1807–1856, 2010.
[Lac00] Mark Lackenby. Word hyperbolic Dehn surgery. Inventiones Mathematicae, 140(2):243–282, 2000.
[Osi06]
Denis V. Osin. Elementary subgroups of relatively hyperbolic groups and
bounded generation. Internat. J. Algebra Comput., 16(1):99–118, 2006.
[Osi07]
Denis V. Osin. Peripheral fillings of relatively hyperbolic groups. Invent.
Math., 167(2):295–326, 2007.
[PS06]
Panos Papasoglu and Eric Swenson. From continua to R-trees. Algebr.
Geom. Topol., 6:1759–1784 (electronic), 2006.
[PS11]
Panos Papasoglu and Eric Swenson. The cactus tree of a metric space.
Algebr. Geom. Topol., 11(5):2547–2578, 2011.
[RS94]
Eliyahu Rips and Zlil Sela. Structure and rigidity in hyperbolic groups.
I. Geom. Funct. Anal., 4(3):337–371, 1994.
[RW14] Cornelius Reinfeldt and Richard Weidmann. Makanin-Razborov diagrams for hyperbolic groups. preprint, 2014.
[Sch89] Viktor Schroeder. A cusp closing theorem. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc.,
106(3):797–802, 1989.
[Sel97]
Zlil Sela. Acylindrical accessibility for groups. Invent. Math., 129(3):527–
565, 1997.
[Sel01]
Zlil Sela. Diophantine geometry over groups. I. Makanin-Razborov diagrams. Publ. Math. Inst. Hautes Études Sci., 93:31–105, 2001.
[Thu80] William P. Thurston. Geometry and topology of three-manifolds. Princeton lecture notes available at http://www.msri.org/publications/
books/gt3m/, 1980.
[Tuk94] Pekka Tukia. Convergence groups and Gromov’s metric hyperbolic
spaces. New Zealand J. Math., 23(2):157–187, 1994.
[Yam04] AslıYaman. A topological characterisation of relatively hyperbolic
groups. J. Reine Angew. Math., 566:41–89, 2004.
Department of Mathematics, Statistics, and Computer Science, University of Illinois at Chicago, 322 Science and Engineering Offices
(M/C 249), 851 S. Morgan St., Chicago, IL 60607-7045
E-mail address: groves@math.uic.edu
Department of Mathematics, 310 Malott Hall, Cornell University,
Ithaca, NY 14853
E-mail address: jfmanning@math.cornell.edu

