arXiv:1703.03752v1 [math.GR] 10 Mar 2017

THE ZERO NORM SUBSPACE OF BOUNDED
COHOMOLOGY OF ACYLINDRICALLY HYPERBOLIC
GROUPS
F. FRANCESCHINI, R. FRIGERIO, M. B. POZZETTI, AND A. SISTO
Abstract. We construct combinatorial volume forms of hyperbolic three
manifolds fibering over the circle. These forms define non-trivial classes
in bounded cohomology. After introducing a new seminorm on exact
bounded cohomology, we use these combinatorial classes to show that,
in degree 3, the zero norm subspace of the bounded cohomology of an
acylindrically hyperbolic group is infinite dimensional. In the appendix
we use the same techniques to give a cohomological proof of a lower
bound, originally due to Brock, on the volume of the mapping torus of a
cobounded pseudo-Anosov homeomorphism of a closed surface in terms
of its Teichmüller translation distance.

Even for very well-studied groups such as non-abelian free groups, the task
of computing the bounded cohomology in higher degrees is still challenging.
In degree 2, the technology of quasimorphisms has been extensively exploited
to construct non-trivial bounded cohomology classes (see e.g. [Bro81, EF97,
Fuj98, BF02, Fuj00] for the case of trivial coefficients, and [HO13, BBF16,
CFI16] for more general coefficient modules). On the other hand, in higher
degrees both constructing bounded cocycles and showing that such cocycles
define non-trivial bounded cohomology classes is definitely non-trivial. For
example, as far as the authors know, in the case of non-abelian free groups,
non-trivial bounded classes in degree 3 have been constructed only with the
help of hyperbolic geometry (see e.g. [Som97a, Som97b, Som97c]), and it
is still a major open question whether the fourth bounded cohomology of
non-abelian free groups vanishes or not.
The purpose of this paper is twofold. First, we construct a discrete 3dimensional volume form on a class of free-by-cyclic groups. Then, building
on results from [FPS15], we exploit our construction to show that, for every
acylindrically hyperbolic group, the space of bounded classes with vanishing
seminorm is infinite dimensional in degree 3.
Following a suggestion by Mladen Bestvina, our construction is based on a
suitable relative version of Mineyev’s bicombing on hyperbolic groups [Min01],
which is due to Groves and Manning [GM08] and Franceschini [Fra]. Dealing
with a discrete volume form rather than with differential forms allows us to
provide a somewhat unified version of the arguments developed in [Som97c],
where some essential estimates make use of a careful comparison between
Date: March 13, 2017.
1

THE ZERO NORM SUBSPACE FOR ACYLINDRICALLY HYPERBOLIC GROUPS

2

the volume forms arising from the hyperbolic and the singular Sol structure
supported by hyperbolic 3-manifolds that fiber over the circle. We hope that
our combinatorial arguments, although clearly inspired by their differential
counterpart, could be more easily extended to wider classes of groups and,
maybe, even to higher degrees.
Bounded cohomology of discrete groups. Let Γ be a group. We briefly
recall the definition of bounded cohomology of Γ (with trivial real coefficients), referring the reader to Section 1 for more details. We denote by
C n (Γ) the set of real-valued homogeneous n-cochains on Γ, and for every
ϕ ∈ C n (Γ) we set
kϕk∞ = sup{|ϕ(g0 , . . . , gn )| | (g0 , . . . , gn ) ∈ Γn+1 } ∈ [0, ∞] .
We denote by Cbn (Γ) ⊆ C n (Γ) the subspace of bounded cochains, and by
C n (Γ)Γ , Cbn (Γ)Γ the subspaces of invariant (bounded) cochains. The cohomology of the complex Cb∗ (Γ)Γ is the bounded cohomology Hb∗ (Γ) of Γ. The
norm k · k∞ on Cbn (Γ) induces a seminorm on Hbn (Γ) that is usually called
the Gromov seminorm.
The inclusion of (invariant) bounded cochains into ordinary cochains induces the comparison map cn : Hbn (Γ) → H n (Γ). The kernel of cn is the set
of bounded cohomology classes whose representatives are exact, and it is
denoted by EHbn (Γ). By definition, a class α ∈ EHbn+1 (Γ) is represented by
a bounded cocycle z = δϕ ∈ Cbn+1 (Γ)Γ , where ϕ ∈ C n (Γ)Γ is a (possibly unbounded) cochain. In other words, if we define the space QZn (Γ) ⊆ C n (Γ)
of n-quasi-cocycles as the subset of cochains having bounded differential,
then the differential induces a surjection QZn (Γ)Γ −→ EHbn+1 (Γ).
We denote by N n (Γ) the subspace of Hbn (Γ) given by elements with vanishing Gromov seminorm. It is easy to show that N n (Γ) ⊆ EHbn (Γ) for every
n ∈ N (see Lemma 1.2). It was proved by Matsumoto and Morita [MM85]
and independently by Ivanov [Iva90] that N 2 (Γ) = 0 for every group Γ.
On the other hand, Soma proved that N 3 (F2 ) 6= 0 [Som98], and that the
dimension of N 3 (Γg ) has the cardinality of the continuum [Som97c], where
F2 and Γg denote respectively the free group on two generators and the
fundamental group of a closed orientable surface of genus g ≥ 2.
Main results. In this paper we extend Soma’s results as follows:
Theorem 1. Suppose that Γ is acylindrically hyperbolic. Then the dimension of N 3 (Γ) has the cardinality of the continuum.
A group Γ is acylindrically hyperbolic if it admits a non-elementary acylindrical action on a Gromov hyperbolic space [Osi13]. The class of acylindrically hyperbolic groups includes many examples of interest: non-elementary
hyperbolic and relatively hyperbolic groups [DGO16], the mapping class
group of all but finitely many surfaces of finite type [DGO16, Theorem 2.19],
Out(Fn ) for n ≥ 2 [DGO16, Theorem 2.20], groups acting geometrically on
a proper CAT(0) space with a rank one isometry ([Sis11] and [DGO16,

THE ZERO NORM SUBSPACE FOR ACYLINDRICALLY HYPERBOLIC GROUPS

3

Theorem 2.22]), fundamental groups of several graphs of groups [MO13],
small cancellation groups [GS14], finitely presented residually finite groups
with positive first ℓ2 -Betti number as well as groups of deficiency at least
2 [Osi15], and many more. In particular, Theorem 1 widely generalizes
Soma’s previously mentioned results.
In order to prove Theorem 1 we proceed as follows. We introduce a
new seminorm k · k∞,0 on exact bounded cohomology, which satisfies the
inequality k · k∞,0 ≥ k · k∞ : for every finite subset S of Γ and class α ∈
EHbn (Γ) we set
kαkS = inf{kδϕk∞ | ϕ ∈ C n−1 (Γ)Γ , [δϕ] = α, ϕ|S n = 0} ,
and we define
kαk∞,0 = sup{kαkS , S ⊆ Γ, S finite} ∈ [0, +∞] .
We denote by N0n (Γ) the subspace of elements α ∈ EHbn (Γ) such that
kαk∞,0 = 0, so that N0n (Γ) ⊆ N n (Γ) for every n ∈ N. The key step in our
proof of Theorem 1 is then provided by the following:
Theorem 2. The dimension of N03 (F2 ) has the cardinality of the continuum.
This already implies Theorem 1 for non-abelian free groups (and, therefore, for all groups that admit an epimorphism on F2 , e.g. for surface
groups). We then exploit results from [FPS15] to reduce the general case
to the case of free groups. In fact, an acylindrically hyperbolic group Γ
contains a hyperbolically embedded subgroup H which is virtually freenon-abelian [DGO16, Osi13] (in fact, random subgroups satisfy this property [MS17]). Moreover, [FPS15, Corollary 1.2] implies that the inclusion
H ֒→ Γ induces a surjection of EHb3 (Γ) onto EHb3 (H), which we know to
be infinite-dimensional from Theorem 2. This does not quite suffice to conclude, since we do not know whether the surjection EHb3 (Γ) → EHb3 (H)
does restrict to a surjection N 3 (Γ) → N 3 (H). This last fact would be true
provided that the map EHb3 (Γ) → EHb3 (H) is undistorted, according to the
following:
Definition 3. A map f : V → W between seminormed vector spaces is
undistorted if there exists k ≥ 0 such that for every α ∈ f (V ) there exists
β ∈ V with f (β) = α and kβk ≤ k · kαk.
Unfortunately, we are not able to show that the surjection EHb3 (Γ) →
EHb3 (H) is undistorted with respect to Gromov seminorms. In fact, Remark 2.8 says that this cannot be achieved at the level of quasi-cocycles, and
therefore undistortion is a rather delicate matter related to coboundaries,
which makes it far from clear that this should even be true. Nevertheless,
in Section 2 we prove the following:
Theorem 4. Let H be hyperbolically embedded in Γ, let n ≥ 2 and suppose
that H n−1 (H) is finite-dimensional. If we endow both EHbn (Γ) and EHbn (H)

THE ZERO NORM SUBSPACE FOR ACYLINDRICALLY HYPERBOLIC GROUPS

4

with the seminorm k·k∞,0 , then the inclusion H ֒→ Γ induces an undistorted
surjection
EHbn (Γ) −→ EHbn (H) .
This immediately implies that dim N 3 (Γ) ≥ dim N03 (Γ) ≥ dim N03 (H),
thus allowing us to deduce Theorem 1 from Theorem 2. Indeed, much more
is true: due to the definition of k · k∞,0 , the fact that dim N03 (Γ) is infinitedimensional implies that there are many non-trivial classes in EHb3 (Γ) with
vanishing seminorm, each of which can be represented by cocycles that vanish on arbitrarily big subsets of Γ. This quite counterintuitive phenomenon
vividly illustrates the failing of excision for bounded cohomology.
Quasi-cocycles. Bounded cohomology is often computed via suitable resolutions, that allow to better exploit the geometry of the group under consideration. For example, suppose that Γ acts on a set X. Then we denote
by C n (Γ y X) (resp. Cbn (Γ y X)) the space of maps (resp. bounded maps)
from X n+1 to R, endowed with the Γ-action defined by
g · ϕ(x0 , . . . , xn ) = ϕ(g −1 x0 , . . . , g −1 xn ) .
The obvious differential δ : C n (Γ y X) → C n+1 (Γ y X) preserves both
Γ-invariance and boundedness of cochains, so one can define the bounded
cohomology Hb∗ (Γ y X) as the cohomology of the complex Cb∗ (Γ y X)Γ of
invariant bounded cochains.
The ℓ∞ -norm k · k∞ on Cbn (Γ y X) induces an ℓ∞ -seminorm on Hbn (Γ y
X), which is still denoted by k·k∞ . Moreover, if the action of Γ on X is free,
then Hbn (Γ y X) is canonically isometrically isomorphic to Hbn (Γ) for every
n ∈ N (see Lemma 1.1). In particular, N 3 (Γ) is canonically isomorphic to
the subspace of elements of Hb3 (Γ y X) with vanishing seminorms. Every
element with vanishing seminorm is exact (see Lemma 1.2), so it can be
represented by a quasi-cocycle. We are thus lead to investigate the space
QZn (Γ y X) = {ϕ ∈ C n (Γ y X) | kδϕk∞ < ∞}
of quasi-cocycles defined on X: namely, in order to prove that Hb3 (Γ) contains many elements with vanishing seminorm, we will construct an uncountable family of invariant 2-quasi-cocycles whose differential defines linearly
independent bounded cohomology classes.
A crucial notion that keeps track of the seminorm of classes induced by
quasi-cocycles is the defect: just as in the case of quasi-morphisms, the defect
of a quasi-cocycle ϕ ∈ QZn (Γ y X) is given by
def(ϕ) = kδϕk∞ .
A combinatorial volume form on hyperbolic 3-manifolds fibering
over the circle. Let us now look more closely at the case we are interested
in. Let Γ0 = F2 be the free group generated by the elements a, b, and let
us identify Γ0 with the fundamental group of the punctured torus Σ, in
such a way that the conjugacy class of the commutator [a, b] = a−1 b−1 ab

THE ZERO NORM SUBSPACE FOR ACYLINDRICALLY HYPERBOLIC GROUPS

5

corresponds to the isotopy class of a simple closed curve winding around
the puncture. We fix a group automorphism ψ : Γ0 → Γ0 induced by a
pseudo-Anosov homeomorphism f : Σ → Σ. The automorphism ψ preserves
the conjugacy class of the commutator [a, b], so, up to conjugacy, we may
suppose that ψ([a, b]) = [a, b]. The mapping torus

M = Σ × [0, 1] ∼ ,
(x, 0) ∼ (f (x), 1)

has fundamental group isomorphic to the semidirect product Γ = Γ0 ⋊ψ Z,
where the generator t of Z acts on Γ0 as follows: tgt−1 = ψ(g) for every
g ∈ Γ0 . The (cusp) subgroup H of Γ is the subgroup generated by t and
(the image of) [a, b] ∈ Γ0 , and it is isomorphic to Z ⊕ Z.
Recall that the pair (Γ, H) is relatively hyperbolic, either by Thurston’s
hyperbolization for manifolds fibering over the circle [Ota96] and a fundamental result by Farb [Far98], or just by a combination theorem for relative
hyperbolicity [MR08, Theorem 4.9].
Starting from a Cayley graph of Γ, one can construct a cusped graph X
by gluing a copy of a combinatorial horoball based on H to each left coset
of H in Γ; we outline the construction in Section 3. It was first described
by Groves and Manning in [GM08], and a similar construction is described
in [Bow12].
The group Γ acts freely on X by isometries, therefore the bounded cohomology of Γ0 can be isometrically computed by the complex Cb∗ (Γ0 y X)Γ0 .
Moreover, being obtained by adding horoballs to (the Cayley graph of) a
relatively hyperbolic group, the graph X is Gromov hyperbolic, and supports a quasi-geodesic homological bicombing with useful filling properties
(see Section 3). Indeed, X is quasi-isometric to the hyperbolic 3-space, and
the bicombing may be exploited to construct a combinatorial version of the
hyperbolic volume form. In fact, since the cochains arising in our argument
must all be Γ0 -invariant, the combinatorial cocycles we construct should be
thought of as volume forms on the differential counterpart of X/Γ0 , that is
the infinite cyclic covering M0 of M associated to Γ0 < Γ = π1 (M ).
As it is customary when dealing with “quasifications” of algebraic or differential notions, the direct construction of a volume cocycle on X runs into
difficulties, due to the fact that the coarse version of a cocycle needs not be
a cocycle. Therefore, in Section 4 we rather construct a Γ0 -invariant primitive of a volume form. Such primitive is a quasi-cocycle, and its differential
(which is automatically closed) provides a combinatorial version of the volume form on M0 ∼
= Σ × R. Following Soma’s strategy, in order to construct
an infinite-dimensional subspace of EH 3 (Γ0 ) out of this primitive, we just
consider the suitably chosen collection of quasi-cocycles obtained by taking
the product of the original primitive with a collection of real functions on
M0 ∼
= Σ × R. These functions are themselves constructed by composing the
projection Σ × R → R with Lipschitz maps of R into itself. The outcome
of this procedure is summarized by the following result, which provides the
key ingredient for the proof of Theorem 2:

THE ZERO NORM SUBSPACE FOR ACYLINDRICALLY HYPERBOLIC GROUPS

6

Theorem 5. Let L(Z, R) be the space of Lipschitz real functions on Z.
There exist a constant C > 0 and a linear map
α : L(Z, R) → QZ2alt (Γ0 y X)Γ0
such that the following conditions hold:
(1) kδα(f ))k∞ ≤ C · Lip(f ) for every f ∈ L(Z, R);
(2) [δα(f )] = 0 in Hb3 (Γ0 y X) ∼
= Hb3 (Γ0 ) if and only if f is bounded.
Volumes of mapping tori. We believe that the techniques developed in
this paper, and especially the combinatorial description of a volume form,
will have application in other contexts as well. As a first example in this
direction, in the appendix we give a cohomological proof of a volume estimate
for hyperbolic 3–manifolds fibering over the circle, under a coboundedness
assumption. Recall that a pseudo-Anosov homeomorphism ψ : Σg → Σg is
ǫ-cobounded if, denoting by l its axis in the Teichmüller space endowed with
the Teichmüller metric, the projection of l is contained in the ǫ-thick part
Mǫg of the moduli space. We denote by τ (ψ) the translation length of ψ on
the Teichmüller space endowed with the Teichmüller metric.
Theorem 6. There exists a constant C > 0 depending only on ǫ and g such
that, for any ǫ-cobounded pseudo-Anosov ψ : Σg → Σg , we have
vol(Mψ ) ≥ Cτ (ψ).
This result was originally proven by Brock with completely different techniques [Bro03b]. In fact, we emphasize that our proof actually gives an
estimate on the simplicial volume of Mψ , and we then deduce the volume
estimate from the well-known proportionality between volume and simplicial volume for hyperbolic manifolds. However, in no other part of the proof
we use the fact that Mψ is hyperbolic.
We decided to include such a result only in an appendix because the
setting is slightly different from the rest of the paper. Since we only deal with
compact manifolds, many of the technicalities involved in the main paper
are not needed for this application. For this reason, a reader interested only
in the construction of a combinatorial cocycle representing the volume form
might want to read the appendix first.
Tl;dr: the definition of the quasi-cocycles. For future reference and to
help the reader find the relevant definitions, we list here all notions involved
in the construction of our quasi-cocycles, and we give the definition of the
quasi-cocycles themselves.
• Γ0 is the free group on two generators, a, b.
• ψ : Γ0 → Γ0 is an automorphism induced by a pseudo-Anosov, and
it preserves the commutator [a, b].
• Γ is the semidirect product Γ0 ⋊ψ Z, and H < Γ is the subgroup
generated by [a, b] and the stable letter t.
• X is the cusped graph of (Γ, H) (Definition 3.1), which is δ-hyperbolic.
Vertices of X are pairs (g, n) with g ∈ G, n ∈ N.

THE ZERO NORM SUBSPACE FOR ACYLINDRICALLY HYPERBOLIC GROUPS

7

• p : X (0) → Γ0 is defined by ψ(g0 tk , n) = g0 , where g0 ∈ Γ0 . Also,
θ : X (0) → Z is defined by θ(g0 tk , n) = k, where g0 ∈ Γ0 .
• ρ : Γ0 → Isom+ (H2 ) is a hyperbolization, and [a, b] fixes q ∈ ∂H2 .
For x0 , x1 , x2 vertices of X, the sign ǫ(x0 , x1 , x2 ) is 1, −1 or 0 depending on the orientation of the ideal triangle of H2 with vertices
ρ(p(xi ))q (Subsection 4.2).
• X is the Rips complex on X with constant κ ≥ 4δ + 6 (Definition
3.6).
• ϕ is a relative filling map, i.e. a map from X 3 to 2-cochains of X
(Proposition 3.11).
Let now f : Z → R be Lipschitz.
• The simplicial 2–cochain Ff on X (Definition 4.3) is the one such
that, if σ is a 2-simplex in X with vertices (x0 , x1 , x2 ) ∈ X 3 , then
P2
f (θ(xi ))
Ff (σ) = ε(x0 , x1 , x2 ) i=0
.
3

• Finally, the quasi-cocycle αf : X 3 → R is defined by
αf (x0 , x1 , x2 ) = Ff (ϕ(x0 , x1 , x2 )).

Proposition 4.3 says that αf is indeed a quasi-cocycle, and that its defect
is bounded by a universal constant times the Lipschitz constant of f . Proposition 4.6 says that the coboundary δαf is trivial in bounded cohomology if
and only if f is bounded.
Open questions and directions for further research. Is quasification
indeed essential in order to prove Theorem 2? Surprisingly enough, it seems
that studying genuine differential forms on hyperbolic manifolds is much
harder than working with quasi-cocycles on discrete models for F2 . For example, if M0 ∼
= Σ × R is the hyperbolic manifold introduced above, where
Σ is a punctured torus, integration over straight simplices induces a map
from the space of pointwise bounded differential 3-forms on M0 to bounded
group cochains of degree 3. Understanding the kernel of this map is unexpectedly difficult, and this implies that it is not trivial to detect when
distinct differential forms represent the same bounded class, i.e. how much
freedom one can enjoy in varying the differential representatives of a fixed
bounded class. We refer the reader to [BI07, Wie12] for a discussion of this
topic. In [KK15] Kim and Kim proved, for example, that if M is a complete, connected, oriented, locally symmetric space of infinite volume, then
the Cheeger isoperimetric constant of M is positive if and only if the Riemannian volume form on M admits a bounded primitive. They also showed
that if M is a complete, connected, oriented, R-rank one locally symmetric
space of infinite volume with dimension at least 3, then the volume form of
M defines a non-trivial bounded cohomology class if and only if the Cheeger
constant of M vanishes. We pose here the following:

THE ZERO NORM SUBSPACE FOR ACYLINDRICALLY HYPERBOLIC GROUPS

8

Question 7. Let n ≥ 3 and let M be a hyperbolic n-manifold of infinite
volume with vanishing Cheeger constant. Is it possible to characterize the
space of n-forms on M admitting a bounded primitive? For example, is it
true that a compactly supported n-form on M admits a bounded primitive?
This question is tacitly faced in [Som97c] in the case when M is the cyclic
covering of a 3-manifold fibering over the circle with fiber a closed surface.
Soma’s analysis involves a careful study of the relationship between the
hyperbolic and the singular Sol volume forms supported by such a manifold.
Adapting his arguments to the case when the fiber is a punctured surface
seems very delicate.
Monod and Shalom showed the importance of bounded cohomology with
coefficients in ℓ2 (Γ) in the study of rigidity of Γ [NM04, MS06], and proposed
the condition Hb2 (Γ, ℓ2 (Γ)) 6= 0 as a cohomological definition of negative
curvature for groups. More in general, bounded cohomology with coefficients
in ℓp (Γ), 1 ≤ p < ∞ has been widely studied as a powerful tool to prove
(super)rigidity results (see e.g. [Ham08, CFI16]). It is still unknown whether
Hb3 (F2 , ℓ2 (F2 )) vanishes or not. We hope that our combinatorial approach
to the construction of non-trivial classes (with trivial real coefficients) could
be of use in the context of more general coefficient modules.
Plan of the paper. In Section 1 we recall some basic facts on bounded
cohomology, and introduce the various (co)homological complexes we will
need in the paper. In Section 2 we introduce the seminorm k·k∞,0 and prove
Theorem 4 building on results from [FPS15]. We also show how Theorem 1
may be reduced to Theorem 2. Following [GM08] and [Fra], in Section 3 we
describe a combinatorial bicombing with good filling properties on a suitably
chosen Rips complex associated to a relatively hyperbolic pair. In Section 4
we construct a family of 3-dimensional combinatorial volume forms on the
free group on two generators, and we prove Theorems 5 and 2. Finally, in
the appendix, we discuss applications of our techniques to obtain bounds on
the volume of compact hyperbolic manifolds and prove Theorem 6.
Acknowledgements. We thank Mladen Bestvina for an important suggestion that made it possible to construct a combinatorial version of Soma’s
classes, and Ken Bromberg for very useful discussions. Part of this work was
carried out during the conference ”Ventotene 2015 – Manifolds and Groups”.
Beatrice Pozzetti was partially supported by the SNF grant P2EZP2 159117.
This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. DMS-1440140 while the fourth author was in residence
at the Mathematical Sciences Research Institute in Berkeley, California, during the Fall 2016 semester. The third and fourth author would like to thank
the Isaac Newton Institute for Mathematical Sciences, Cambridge, for support and hospitality during the programme “Non-Positive Curvature Group
Actions and Cohomology” where work on this paper was undertaken. This
work was supported by EPSRC grant no EP/K032208/1.

THE ZERO NORM SUBSPACE FOR ACYLINDRICALLY HYPERBOLIC GROUPS

9

1. Preliminaries on bounded cohomology
Let Γ be a group and let X be a set on which Γ acts on the left. We set
C n (Γ y X) = {ϕ : X n+1 → R} ,
and we endow C n (Γ y X) with the left Γ-action defined by
g · ϕ(x0 , . . . , xn ) = ϕ(g −1 x0 , . . . , g −1 xn ) .
For every n ∈ N we also define the differential δ : C n (Γ y X) → C n+1 (Γ y
X) by setting
δϕ(x0 , . . . , xn+1 ) =

n+1
X
i=0

and we put on

C n (Γ

(−1)i ϕ(x0 , . . . , x
bi , . . . , xn+1 ) ,

y X) the norm defined by

kϕk∞ = sup{|ϕ(x0 , . . . , xn )| , (x0 , . . . , xn ) ∈ X n+1 } ∈ [0, +∞] .
We denote by Cbn (Γ y X) ⊆ C n (Γ y X) the subspace of bounded cochains,
and we observe that k · k∞ restricts to a finite norm on Cbn (Γ y X).
If V is a vector space endowed with a linear Γ-action, we denote by
V Γ ⊂ V the subspace of elements that are fixed by every element of Γ. The
differential defined above commutes with the action of Γ and sends bounded
cochains to bounded cochains. Therefore, we can consider the cohomology of
the complexes C n (Γ y X)Γ and Cbn (Γ y X)Γ , which we denote respectively
by H n (Γ y X) and Hbn (Γ y X). If X = Γ, endowed with the left action by
∗ (Γ) of Γ.
translations, one gets back the usual (bounded) cohomology H(b)
For every basepoint x ∈ X, we consider the Γ-equivariant chain map
wx∗ : Cb∗ (Γ y X) → Cb∗ (Γ) ,
wxn (ϕ)(g0 , . . . , gn ) = ϕ(g0 x, . . . , gn x) .
With a slight abuse, we denote by wxn also the induced map wxn : Hbn (Γ y
X) → Hbn (Γ) on bounded cohomology.
Lemma 1.1. Suppose that the action of Γ on X is free. Then for every x ∈
X the map wxn : Hbn (Γ y X) → Hbn (Γ) is a natural isometric isomorphism.
Proof. Free actions are very special instances of amenable actions, so the
conclusion follows e.g. from [Mon01, Theorem 7.5.3].

1.1. The predual chain complex. In order to show that the cocycles we
are going to construct are non-trivial, we will need to evaluate them on
appropriate chains. Let us fix an action of a group Γ on a set X as in
the previous section. For every n ≥ 0 we denote by Cn (X) the real vector
space with basis X n+1 . Elements of X n+1 will be often called n-simplices,
since they are the n-simplices of the full simplicial complex with vertices in
X. As usual, we say that an n-simplex is supported on a subset S ⊆ X if
all its vertices lie in S, and the subspace of Cn (X) generated by simplices

THE ZERO NORM SUBSPACE FOR ACYLINDRICALLY HYPERBOLIC GROUPS 10

supported on S is denoted by Cn (S). We also endow Cn (X) with the ℓ1 norm defined by
X
X
ax x =
|ax | .
x∈X n+1

1

x∈X n+1

∂j x = (x0 , . . . , xbj , . . . , xn ) ∈
If x = (x0 , . . . , xn ) ∈ Cn (X), we denote by P
Cn−1 (X) the j-th face of x, and we set ∂x = nj=0 (−1)j ∂j x. Observe that
it readily follows from the definitions that the diagonal Γ-action on X n+1
induces an isometric Γ-action on Cn (X). We denote by Cn (Γ y X) the
normed space Cn (X) equipped with this action.
The dual notion to cochain invariance is chain coinvariance. We define
the space of coinvariants of Cn (Γ y X) as the quotient space

Cn (Γ y X)Γ = Cn (Γ y X) W
where W is the subspace of Cn (Γ y X) spanned by the elements of the
form g · c − c, as c varies in Cn (Γ y X) and g varies in Γ. We endow
Cn (Γ y X)Γ with the quotient seminorm (which is a norm). Since the Γaction on Cn (Γ y X) commutes with the boundary operator, C∗ (Γ y X)Γ
is naturally a chain complex, whose homology will be denoted by
H∗ (Γ y X) .
The ℓ1 -norm on Cn (Γ y X)Γ induces a seminorm on H∗ (Γ y X), which
will still be denoted by k · k1 .
Since invariant cochains vanish on the subspace W previously defined,
evaluation of cochains on chains induces a pairing
h·, ·i : C n (Γ y X)Γ × Cn (Γ y X)Γ → R ,
which in turn induces pairings
h·, ·i : H n (Γ y X) × Hn (Γ y X) → R ,
h·, ·i : Hbn (Γ y X) × Hn (Γ y X) → R .
It readily follows from the definitions that
hα, βi ≤ kαk∞ · kβk1
Hbn (Γ

y X), β ∈ Hn (Γ y X). As a first application of the
for every α ∈
pairing between homology and cohomology, we show that bounded coclasses
with vanishing seminorm are exact:
Lemma 1.2. We have N n (Γ) ⊆ EHbn (Γ).
Proof. By the Universal Coefficient Theorem, the pairing h·, ·i : H n (Γ) ×
Hn (Γ) → R induces an isomorphism between H n (Γ) and the dual of Hn (Γ).
Therefore, in order to conclude it is sufficient to observe that, if cn : Hbn (Γ) →
H n (Γ) is the comparison map, then
|hcn (α), βi| = |hα, βi| ≤ kαk∞ kβk1 = 0
for every α ∈ N n (Γ), β ∈ Hn (Γ).



THE ZERO NORM SUBSPACE FOR ACYLINDRICALLY HYPERBOLIC GROUPS 11

1.2. Degenerate chains and alternating cochains. In later computations it will be convenient to neglect degenerate simplices (i.e. simplices with
non-pairwise distinct vertices). To this aim, let us denote by Sn+1 the group
of permutations of the set {0, . . . , n}, and by sgn(σ) = ±1 the sign of σ, for
every σ ∈ Sn+1 .
Then we may define an alternating linear operator altn : Cn (Γ y X) →
Cn (Γ y X) by setting, for every x = (x0 , . . . , xn ) ∈ X n+1 ,
X
1
altn (x) =
sgn(σ)(xσ(0) , . . . , xσ(n) ) .
(n + 1)!
σ∈Sn+1

We say that a chain c ∈ Cn (Γ y X) is degenerate if altn (c) = 0, and we
denote by Dn (Γ y X) the subspace of degenerate chains. We observe that
Dn (Γ y X) contains (strictly, unless X is a point) the space spanned by
degenerate simplices.
It is immediate to check that alt∗ commutes with the boundary operator and with the action of Γ. Therefore, it descends to a chain map
alt∗ : C∗ (Γ y X)Γ → C∗ (Γ y X)Γ , which will still be denoted by alt∗ . If
Dn (Γ y X)Γ denotes the image of Dn (Γ y X) in Cn (Γ y X)Γ , we then
define reduced chains by setting
C∗ (Γ y X)red = C∗ (Γ y X)/D∗ (Γ y X),
C∗ (Γ y X)red,Γ = C∗ (Γ y X)Γ /D∗ (Γ y X)Γ .
It is well known that the homology of the complex C∗ (Γ y X)red,Γ , endowed with the obvious quotient seminorm, is isometrically isomorphic to
Hn (Γ y X): indeed, this easily follows from the fact that alternation is
homotopic to the identity (on any complex where it is defined), and norm
non-increasing (see e.g. [FM11, Appendix B]).
Dually, one may define alternating cochains by setting, for every ϕ ∈
C n (Γ y X),
altn (ϕ)(x) = ϕ(altn (x))
for every x ∈ X n+1 . The map altn commutes with the differential and with
the action of Γ, thus defining a norm non-increasing chain self-map of the
complex C ∗ (Γ y X). We denote by
∗
(Γ y X) = alt∗ (C ∗ (Γ y X))
Calt

the space of alternating cochains, and we set
∗
∗
Cb,alt
(Γ y X) = Calt
(Γ y X) ∩ Cb∗ (Γ y X) .

Again, the inclusion of alternating cochains into generic cochains induces an isometric isomorphism between the cohomology of the complex
∗ (Γ y X) and H ∗ (Γ y X). Moreover, since alternating cochains vanCb,alt
b
ish on degenerate chains, there is a well-defined pairing
n
(Γ y X)Γ × Cn (Γ y X)red,Γ → R ,
h·, ·i : Cb,alt

THE ZERO NORM SUBSPACE FOR ACYLINDRICALLY HYPERBOLIC GROUPS 12

which, under the identifications previously mentioned, induces the pairing
between Hbn (Γ y X) and Hn (Γ y X) introduced above.
We will denote by QZnalt (Γ y X) the space of alternating quasi-cocycles
on X, i.e. the set of alternating cochains with bounded differential.
1.3. Simplicial (co)chains. In this paper we will study the cochain modules C ∗ (Γ y X), Cb∗ (Γ y X) in the case when X is the set of vertices
of a suitably augmented Cayley graph of Γ (see Section 3). A key step
in our arguments will be based on the fact that Γ is relatively hyperbolic,
which implies that Γ satisfies (relative) isoperimetric inequalities in every
degree. In order to deal with higher dimensional fillings, it will be convenient, rather than considering cochains in C n (Γ y X) (or Cbn (Γ y X)), to
consider simplicial cochains on suitably defined simplicial complexes related
to X (like the augmented Cayley graph having X as set of vertices, or some
Rips complex over X).
For every simplicial complex Y , we denote by (C∗∆ (Y ), ∂) the chain complex of real simplicial chains on Y , endowed with the ℓ1 -norm k · k1 such
that
X
X
|ai |
ai σi =
for every reduced sum
vector space with basis

P

i∈I

i∈I

ai σ i ∈

i∈I
1
∆
C∗ (Y ). The

module Cn∆ (Y ) is the real

{(y0 , . . . , yn ) | {y0 , . . . , yn } is a simplex of Y }
(in particular, every n-simplex of Y gives rise to (n+1)! simplices in Cn∆ (Y ),
and to many other degenerate ones in degree bigger than n). As it is customary in the literature, we denote by [y0 , . . . , yn ] (rather than by (y0 , . . . , yn ))
the elements of the canonical basis of Cn∆ (Y ). If [y0 , . . . , yn ] is any such
element, then we set Supp([y0 , . . . , yn ]) = {y0 , . . . , yn } ⊆ Y (0)
P
S , and if c =
a
σ
is
a
chain
in
reduced
form,
then
we
set
Supp(c)
=
i
i
i∈I
i∈I Supp(σi ).
Just as above, we define a chain map altn : Cn∆ (Y ) → Cn∆ (Y ) by setting
X
1
sgn(σ)([yσ(0) , . . . , yσ(n) ])
altn ([y0 , . . . , yn ]) =
(n + 1)!
σ∈Sn+1

for every [y0 , . . . , yn ] ∈ Cn∆ (Y ).
A chain c ∈ Cn (Y ) is degenerate if altn (c) = 0, and one may define the
complex C∗∆ (Y )red of reduced simplicial chains as the quotient of C∗ (Y ) by
the subspace of degenerate chains. We will simply denote by [y0 , . . . , yn ]
(and call it a “simplex”) also the class of [y0 , . . . , yn ] in Cn∆ (Y )red , so that,
for example, we will be allowed to write that [y0 , y1 ] = −[y1 , y0 ] in C1∆ (Y )red .
If one fixes a total ordering < on the set of vertices of Y , then a basis of
Cn∆ (Y )red is given by the classes of the non-degenerate elements [y0 , . . . , yn ] ∈
Cn∆ (Y ) such that y0 < . . . < yn . We say that a simplex {y0 , . . . , yn } appears
in a reduced chain c ∈ Cn∆ (Y )red if, when writing c as a linear combination of

THE ZERO NORM SUBSPACE FOR ACYLINDRICALLY HYPERBOLIC GROUPS 13

the elements of the above basis, the coefficient of the unique element corresponding to {y0 , . . . , yn } is not null. We then define the support Supp(c) of c
as the union of the sets of vertices of all the simplices appearing in c. Equivalently, Supp(c) is the smallest possible support of any chain c ∈ Cn∆ (Y )
projecting to c.
Also observe that the ℓ1 -norm on Cn∆ (Y ) induces an ℓ1 -norm on Cn∆ (Y )red ,
that will still be denoted by k · k1 .
If Γ acts on Y via simplicial automorphisms, then we denote by C∗∆ (Y )Γ
the complex of coinvariants of C∗∆ (Y ). Just as before, C∗∆ (Y )Γ is the quotient of C∗∆ (Y ) by the submodule generated by the chains of the form
(c − g · c), c ∈ C∗∆ (Y ), g ∈ Γ. The chain map alt∗ commutes with the
action of Γ, thus descending to a map alt∗ : C∗∆ (Y )Γ → C∗∆ (Y )Γ , which will
still be denoted by alt∗ . We will denote by C∗∆ (Y )red (resp. C∗∆ (Y )red,Γ )
the complex of reduced (resp. reduced and coinvariant) cochains, i.e. the
quotient of C∗∆ (Y ) (resp. of C∗∆ (Y )Γ ) by the kernel of the alternation map.
It is well known that, if Y is contractible and Γ acts freely on Y , the homology of the complexes C∗∆ (Y )Γ , C∗∆ (Y )red,Γ is (not isometrically!) isomorphic
to the homology of Γ. One may wonder whether also the computation of
bounded cohomology could take place in the context of simplicial cochains.
However, this is almost never the case: for example, if Y /Γ is compact,
then every invariant simplicial cochain on Y is bounded, while there may
well exist cohomology classes in H n (Γ) which do not admit any bounded
representative.
2. Controlled extensions of quasi-cocycles
This section is devoted to the description of some elementary properties
of the norm k · k∞,0 defined in the introduction, and to the proof of Theorem
4. We fix a group Γ, and we work with the standard resolution (Cbn (Γ), δ)
computing Hbn (Γ).
2.1. The seminorm k · k∞,0 . Recall from the introduction that, for every
class α ∈ EHbn+1 (Γ), we have set
kαk∞,0 = sup{kαkS , S ⊆ Γ, S finite} ∈ [0, +∞] ,
where

kαkS = inf{kδϕk∞ | ϕ ∈ C n (Γ)Γ , [δϕ] = α, ϕ|S = 0} .
In [Gro99, Section 5.34], Gromov called functorial any seminorm (on singular homology of topological spaces) with respect to which every continuous
map induces a norm non-increasing morphism. The following result ensures
that k · k∞,0 satisfies the obvious analogous of functoriality for seminorms
on bounded cohomology of groups:
Lemma 2.1. Let ψ : Γ → Γ′ be a homomorphism. Then the induced map
ψ ∗ : (EHbn (Γ′ ), k · k∞,0 ) → (EHbn (Γ), k · k∞,0 )
is norm non-increasing for every n ∈ N.

THE ZERO NORM SUBSPACE FOR ACYLINDRICALLY HYPERBOLIC GROUPS 14

Proof. Take α ∈ EHbn (Γ′ ), and let ε > 0 be given. Let also S ⊆ Γ be an
arbitrary finite set. Of course the set S ′ = ψ(S) is finite, so we can find
′
an element ϕ′ ∈ C n−1 (Γ′ )Γ such that [δϕ′ ] = α in EHbn (Γ′ ), ϕ′ |S ′ = 0, and
kδϕ′ k∞ ≤ kαk∞,0 + ε. Let now ϕ = ψ ∗ ϕ′ . By construction we have ϕ|S = 0,
[δϕ] = [δψ ∗ ϕ′ ] = [ψ ∗ δϕ′ ] = ψ ∗ (α), and kδϕk∞ ≤ kδϕ′ k∞ ≤ kαk∞,0 + ε.
Hence kψ ∗ (α)kS ≤ kαk∞,0 + ε. Due to arbitrariness of S we then have
kψ ∗ (α)k∞,0 ≤ kαk∞,0 + ε, whence the conclusion since ε is arbitrary.

Corollary 2.2. Let ψ : Γ → Γ′ be a surjective homomorphism with amenable
kernel. Then ψ ∗ : Hbn (Γ′ ) → Hbn (Γ) induces an injection
N0n (Γ′ ) ֒→ N0n (Γ)
for every n ∈ N.
Proof. It is well known that an epimorphism with amenable kernel induces
an isomorphism in bounded cohomology (see e.g. [Gro82, Iva87]), so the
conclusion follows from Lemma 2.1.

Question 2.3. Let ψ : Γ → Γ′ be a surjective homomorphism with amenable
kernel. Then the isomorphism ψ ∗ induced by ψ on bounded cohomology
is isometric with respect to Gromov’s seminorm (see e.g. [Gro82, Iva87]).
Is it true that ψ ∗ also preserves the seminorm k · k∞,0 on exact bounded
cohomology? Or could the seminorm k · k∞,0 be used to distinguish the
(exact) bounded cohomology of Γ from the (exact) bounded cohomology of
Γ′ (as seminormed spaces)?
The norm k · k∞,0 is only interesting in degrees strictly bigger than 2:
Lemma 2.4. For each non-zero α in Hb2 (Γ), kαk∞,0 = ∞.
1

Proof. Let Cnℓ (Γ)Γ be the metric completion of Cn (Γ)Γ with respect to the
ℓ1 -norm. Being bounded, the differential ∂n : Cn (Γ)Γ → Cn−1 (Γ)Γ extends
to ℓ1 -chains, thus defining a complex whose homology is denoted by H∗ℓ1 (Γ).
The pairing between Hbn (Γ) and Hn (Γ) extends to a pairing between Hbn (Γ)
and Hnℓ1 (Γ). By [MM85, Theorem 2.3 and Corollary 2.7], this pairing induces
an isomorphism between Hb2 (Γ) and the dual of H2ℓ1 (Γ). Therefore, it is
sufficient to show that if α ∈ Hb2 (Γ) is any element with kαk∞,0 = M < ∞,
then α vanishes on every class in H2ℓ1 (Γ). So let β ∈ C2ℓ1 (Γ) be an ℓ1 -cycle,
and let ε be given. We can find a decomposition β = β1 + β2 such that
kβ2 k1 < ε and β1 is supported on a finite set S ⊆ Γ. Since kαk∞,0 ≥ kαkS ,
we can find a representative a of α vanishing on S with Gromov norm smaller
than M + 1. This implies
hα, [β]i = ha, β1 + β2 i = ha, β2 i ≤ ε(M + 1) .
By the arbitrariness of ε, this implies that hα, [β]i = 0, as desired.



The rest of the section is devoted to the proof of Theorem 4. We first
describe an easy characterization of the seminorm k · k∞,0 defined in the
introduction.

THE ZERO NORM SUBSPACE FOR ACYLINDRICALLY HYPERBOLIC GROUPS 15

Definition 2.5. An exhaustion of Γ is a sequence
S (Si )i∈N of finite subsets
Si ⊆ Γ such that Si ⊆ Si+1 for every i ∈ N and i∈N Si = Γ.
The following criterion is easily verified and very useful in the applications:

Lemma 2.6. Let α ∈ EHbn+1 (Γ), and let (Si )i∈N be a fixed exhaustion of
Γ. Then for every sequence of elements ϕi ∈ QZn (Γ)Γ , i ∈ N, such that
(1) [δϕi ] = α for every i ∈ N,
(2) ϕi |Si = 0 for every i ∈ N,
we have
kαk∞,0 ≤ lim inf kδϕi k∞ .
i→∞

Moreover, one can choose elements ϕi ∈ QZn (Γ)Γ , i ∈ N, satisfying conditions (1) and (2) in such a way that
kαk∞,0 = lim kδϕi k∞ .
i→∞

2.2. Extension of quasi-cocycles from hyperbolically embedded subgroups. Let us now suppose that H is a hyperbolically embedded subgroup
of Γ, and recall that
r ∗ : Hb∗ (Γ) → Hb∗ (H)
is the restriction map induced by the inclusion of H in Γ. We can now
proceed with the proof of Theorem 4, which states that r n+1 is an undistorted surjection for every n ≥ 1, provided that we endow both EHbn+1 (Γ)
and EHbn+1 (H) with the k · k∞,0 -seminorm (and that H n (H) is finitedimensional). The key ingredient for our argument will be an extension
result for quasi-cocycles proved in [FPS15].
We first need to introduce the notion of small simplex in H. Such notion
depends on the geometry of the embedding of H in Γ. However, for our
purposes it is sufficient to know that we can single out a particular finite
subset S 0 of H with the property that an element h ∈ H n+1 is small if and
n+1
⊆ H n+1 (see [FPS15, Definition 4.7]). In particular, the
only if h ∈ S 0
number of small simplices in H is finite, so for every cochain ϕ ∈ C n (H) the
finite number
K(ϕ) = max{|ϕ(h)| , h ⊆ H n+1 small}
is well defined.
Now we have the following extension operator for quasi-cocycles on H:
Theorem 2.7 ([FPS15, Theorem 4.1]). There exists a linear map
n
n
Θn : Calt
(H)H → Calt
(Γ)Γ
n (H)H :
such that the following conditions hold for every ϕ ∈ Calt

(1) suph∈H n+1 |Θn (ϕ)(h) − ϕ(h)| ≤ K(ϕ) ;
(2) if n ≥ 2 then kΘn (ϕ)k∞ ≤ n(n + 1) · kϕk∞ ;
(3) kδΘn (ϕ) − Θn+1 (δϕ)k∞ ≤ 2(n + 1)(n + 2)K(ϕ) .

THE ZERO NORM SUBSPACE FOR ACYLINDRICALLY HYPERBOLIC GROUPS 16

Theorem 4 would readily follow from Theorem 2.7 if we could get rid of
the additive error 2(n + 1)(n + 2)K(ϕ) described in (3) when estimating the
defect of the extension in terms of the defect of the original quasi-cocycle.
The following remark shows that this is not possible in general.
Remark 2.8. Let M be an orientable complete finite-volume hyperbolic
3-manifold with one cusp C. If Γ = π1 (M ) and H < Γ is the subgroup corresponding to C, then the pair (Γ, H) is relatively hyperbolic. In particular,
H is hyperbolically embedded in Γ. Moreover, H is isomorphic to Z ⊕ Z,
whence amenable, and the inclusion C ֒→ M induces a non-injective map
H2 (C) → H2 (M ) in homology. Therefore, [FPS15, Proposition 7.3] shows
that there is a genuine cocycle ϕ ∈ Z 2 (H)H such that [δΘn (ϕ)] is not null
in EHb3 (Γ). In particular, the defect of Θ2 (ϕ) cannot be zero, whereas the
defect of ϕ vanishes. This shows that there cannot be any linear bound of
the defect of Θ2 (ϕ) in terms of the defect of ϕ.
2.3. Proof of Theorem 4. We are now ready to prove Theorem 4. Since
in degree 2 the norm k · k∞,0 is infinite on every non-trivial element (see
Lemma 2.4), the map r 2 : EHb2 (G) → EHb2 (H) is obviously undistorted.
Therefore, Theorem 4 follows from the following:
Theorem 2.9. Let n ≥ 2 and assume that H n (H) is finite dimensional. For
every α ∈ EHbn+1 (H) there exists β ∈ EHbn+1 (Γ) such that r n+1 (β) = α
and
kβk∞,0 ≤ n(n + 1)kαk∞,0 .
The difficulty in the proof arises from the fact that Theorem 2.7 does not
actually give a map EHbn (H) → EHbn (Γ), but just a map at the level of
quasi-cocycles.
Proof. Of course if α = 0 there is nothing to prove, so we may suppose
α 6= 0.
Let (Si′ )i∈N be any exhaustion of Γ. It readily follows from the construction of the map Θn in [FPS15] that, for every i ∈ N, there exists a finite
subset Si′′ of H such that Θn (ϕ) vanishes on Si′ whenever ϕ vanishes on
(Si′′ )n+1 . Indeed, if g ∈ Γn+1 , then
X
Θn (ϕ)(g) =
ϕ′B (trB
n (g)) ,
B∈B

where B varies over all the left cosets of H in Γ, trB
n (g) is a sort of weighted
projection of g into B (see [FPS15, Definition 4.5]), and ϕ′ is obtained from
ϕ via the left translation by an element of B (after setting ϕ = 0 on small
simplices contained in H). It is proved in [FPS15, Theorem 5.1] that the
sum in the above definition is finite (i.e. ϕ′B (trB
n (g)) = 0 for all but a finite
number of cosets B), and it readily follows from the definition of trB
n that
B
trn (g) is supported on a finite number of simplices in B for every g ∈ Γn+1 ,
B ∈ B. Therefore, we can choose as Si′′ the finite set given by the union of

THE ZERO NORM SUBSPACE FOR ACYLINDRICALLY HYPERBOLIC GROUPS 17

the translates in H of the simplices in the support of trB
n (g), as g varies in
Si′ and B varies among the cosets such that trB
(g)
=
6
0.
n
′′ ⊆ S ′′
Moreover,
we
can
suppose
that
S
for every i ∈ N and that
i
i+1
S
′′ = H. We now define an exhaustion (S )
S
i
i∈N of H by setting
i∈N i
Si = Si′′ ∪ S 0 ,

i∈N,

(recall that S 0 is the set of vertices of small simplices in H).
By Lemma 2.6, there exists a sequence ϕi of invariant quasi-cocycles on
H such that the following conditions hold: for every i ∈ N, [δϕi ] = α and
ϕi (s) = 0 for every s ∈ Sin+1 ; moreover,
lim def(ϕi ) = kαk∞,0 .

i→∞

Since alternation does not increase the defect of a quasi-cocycle and does
not alter the bounded class of its differential, we can also assume that each
ϕi belongs to QZnalt (H)H .
n (Γ)Γ . Since S ⊆ S , for every i ∈ N
Let us now set ψi = Θn (ϕi ) ∈ Calt
0
i
we have K(ϕi ) = 0, so Theorem 2.7 implies that
kδψi k∞ = kδΘn (ϕi ))k∞ = kΘn+1 (δϕi )k∞ ≤ n(n+1)·kδϕi k∞ = n(n+1) def(ϕi ) .
In particular, ψi is an alternating quasi-cocycle with def(ψi ) ≤ n(n +
1) def(ϕi ). By construction we have ψi |Si′ = 0, so the differential of ψi
defines a class βi ∈ EHbn+1 (Γ) such that
kβi kSi′ ≤ n(n + 1) def(ϕi ) .
Moreover, since K(ϕi ) = 0, from Theorem 2.7 (1) we deduce that the restriction of ψi to H n+1 coincides with ϕi , so that r n+1 (βi ) = α for every
i ∈ N.
We are now going to prove the following:
Claim: The βi all belong to a finite-dimensional affine subspace of EHbn+1 (Γ).
n−1
To this aim observe that, since δ ◦ δ = 0, for every element c ∈ Calt
(H)H
we have
δ(Θn (δc)) = δ(Θn (δc) − δΘn−1 (c)) .
Therefore, by Theorem 2.7 (3), the cochain δ(Θn (δc)) is the coboundary
of an invariant bounded cochain, so that it defines the trivial element of
EHbn+1 (Γ). In other words, the map
n
(H)H → EHbn+1 (Γ) ,
Zalt

z 7→ [δ(Θn (z))]

induces a well-defined map
j : H n (H) → EHbn+1 (Γ) .
Since H n (H) is a finite-dimensional vector space, in order to prove the
claim it suffices to show that βi − βj ∈ j(H n (H)) for every i, j ∈ N. Indeed,
since [δϕi ] = [δϕj ] in EHbn+1 (H), we have ϕi − ϕj = b + z, where b ∈

THE ZERO NORM SUBSPACE FOR ACYLINDRICALLY HYPERBOLIC GROUPS 18
n (H)H is bounded and z ∈ Z n (H)H is a genuine cocycle. Since n ≥ 2,
Cb,alt
alt
by Theorem 2.7 (2) the cochain Θn (b) is bounded, hence

βi − βj = [δΘn (ϕi ) − δΘn (ϕj )] = [δΘn (b) + δΘn (z)] = [δΘn (z)] ∈ j(H n (H)) ,
and this proves our claim.
Let now V be the subspace of EHbn+1 (Γ) generated by the βi , i ∈ N, and
let us set W = r n+1 (V ) = Spanhαi ⊆ EHbn+1 (H). Assume first that there
exists β ∈ V ∩ N0n+1 (Γ) such that r n+1 (β) 6= 0. In this case r n+1 (β) is a
non-zero multiple of α, so up to rescaling we may suppose r n+1 (β) = α. We
have thus found an element β in the preimage of α with vanishing k · k∞,0 seminorm, and this certainly implies that kβk∞,0 ≤ n(n + 1)kαk∞,0 , whence
the conclusion.
We may then suppose that V ∩ N0n+1 (Γ) is contained in ker r n+1 . In this
′
case we first observe that, since k · kSi′ ≤ k · kSi+1
and k · k∞,0 = supi∈N k · kSi′ ,
T
the subspaces Mi = {β ∈ V | kβkSi′ = 0} satisfy Mi ⊇ Mi+1 and i∈N Mi =
V ∩ N0n+1 (Γ). Since V is finite-dimensional, this implies in turn that there
is i0 ∈ N such that V ∩ N0n+1 (Γ) = Mi for every i ≥ i0 . Moreover, if we
denote by Bi the subspace of V spanned by {βj , j ≥ i}, then Bi 6= {0} and
Bi+1 ⊆ Bi for every i ∈ N. Using again that V is finite-dimensional, we
obtain that, up to increasing i0 , we may suppose that Bi = Bi+1 = B for
every i ≥ i0 . By definition, for every i ≥ i0 the subspace B is spanned by
elements with finite k · kSi′ -seminorm, and this implies that the seminorm
k · kSi′ is finite on B for every i ≥ i0 .
Let us now define the quotient space V = V /(V ∩ N0n+1 (Γ)) and let us set
B = B/(B ∩ N0n+1 (Γ)) ⊆ V . For every i ≥ i0 , the seminorm k · kSi′ induces
a genuine finite and non-degenerate norm on B, which will still be denoted
by k · kSi′ . Let us denote by β i the image of βi in V . Then β i ∈ B for every
i ≥ i0 , and for every j ≥ i0 we have
(1)
lim sup kβ i kSj′ ≤ lim sup kβi kSj′ ≤ n(n + 1) lim def(ϕi ) = n(n + 1)kαk∞,0 .
i→∞

i→∞

i→∞

In particular, the β i are definitively contained in a bounded subset in the
finite-dimensional normed space (B, k · kSi′ ), and up to passing to a subse0

quence we can suppose that limi→∞ β i = β in (B, k · kSi′ ) for some β ∈ B.
0
Observe now that, being genuine norms on the same finite-dimensional space
B, the norms k·kSj′ , j ≥ i0 , are all equivalent, so limi→∞ β i = β with respect
to any norm k · kSj′ , j ≥ i0 . Therefore, thanks to (1) we have
kβkSj′ ≤ n(n + 1)kαk∞,0
for every j ≥ i0 , hence for every j ∈ N.
Let now β ∈ V be any representative of β. Using (1) we may deduce that
kβkSj′ = kβkSj′ ≤ n(n + 1)kαk∞,0

THE ZERO NORM SUBSPACE FOR ACYLINDRICALLY HYPERBOLIC GROUPS 19

for every j ≥ i0 , and this implies in turn that kβk∞,0 ≤ n(n + 1)kαk∞,0
thanks to Lemma 2.6. Therefore, in order to conclude it suffices to show
that r n+1 (β) = α. By construction, the map r n+1 induces a map rn+1 : V →
W such that r n+1 (β) = r n+1 (β). If we endow W with its natural Euclidean topology (recall that W is linearly isomorphic to R), then the map
rn+1 : V → W , begin linear with a finite-dimensional domain, is continuous
with respect to any norm on V . We thus get


n+1
n+1
n+1
r
(β) = r
(β) = r
lim β i = lim r n+1 (βi ) = lim α = α .
i→∞

This concludes the proof.

i→∞

i→∞



2.4. Zero-norm subspaces for acylindrically hyperbolic group. We
will now make use of the following fundamental result about acylindrically
hyperbolic groups:
Theorem 2.10 (Theorem 2.24 of [DGO16]). Let Γ be an acylindrically
hyperbolic group. Then there exists a hyperbolically embedded subgroup H of
Γ such that H is isomorphic to F2 × K, where K is finite.
The following result shows that Theorem 1 can now be reduced to Theorem 4 and Theorem 2:
Corollary 2.11. Let Γ be an acylindrically hyperbolic group. Then dim N0n (Γ) ≥
dim N0n (F2 ) for every n ∈ N.
Proof. Let H be the hyperbolically embedded subgroup of Γ provided by
Theorem 2.10, and observe that H surjects onto F2 via an epimorphism with
finite (whence, amenable) kernel. By Corollary 2.2 we have dim N0n (F2 ) ≤
dim N0n (H), while Theorem 4 ensures that dim N0n (H) ≤ dim N0n (Γ). The
conclusion follows.

3. Relatively hyperbolic groups, cusped spaces and bicombings
In this section we collect some results about relatively hyperbolic groups
that will be useful in the sequel. As described in the introduction, we are going to exhibit non-trivial quasi-cocycles on the free group F2 by constructing
a combinatorial version of (the primitive) of the volume form on a suitably
chosen hyperbolic 3-manifold. By Milnor-Svarc Lemma, the fundamental
group of any closed hyperbolic 3-manifold provides a discrete approximation
of hyperbolic 3-space. On the other hand, in order to get a quasi-isometric
copy of hyperbolic 3-space out of the fundamental group Γ of a cusped 3manifold we need to glue to the Cayley graph of Γ an equivariant collection of
horoballs. We now briefly describe this procedure, closely following [GM08].
We will only consider simplicial graphs, i.e. graphs without loops and
without multiple edges between the same endpoints. Every graph G will be
endowed with the path-metric dG induced by giving unitary length to every
edge. The set of vertices of G will be denoted by G(0) . Following [GM08,

THE ZERO NORM SUBSPACE FOR ACYLINDRICALLY HYPERBOLIC GROUPS 20

Definition 3.12], we define the (combinatorial) horoball H(G) based on G
as follows. The vertex set of H(G) is given by G(0) × N, and two vertices
(g, n) and (g ′ , n′ ) are joined by an edge if and only if one of the following
conditions holds:
• either |n − n′ | = 1 and g = g ′ ,
• or n = n′ , g 6= g ′ and dG (g, g′ ) ≤ 2n .
Let us now fix a finitely generated group Γ with a distinguished1 finitely
generated subgroup H. We choose a symmetric finite generating set S for Γ
containing a generating set for H, and we denote by Cay(Γ, S) the associated
Cayley graph, i.e. the graph having Γ as the set of vertices, and such that
two elements g, g′ ∈ Γ = Cay(Γ, S)(0) are joined by a single edge if and
only if g −1 g′ ∈ S. Observe that the full subgraph of Cay(Γ, S) with vertices
in H coincides with the Cayley graph of H with respect to the generating
set S ∩ H. The left translation by g ∈ Γ induces an isomorphism between
Cay(H, S ∩H) and the full subgraph of Cay(Γ, S) with vertices in gH, which,
in particular, is connected. We denote by HgH the combinatorial horoball
based on such subgraph, and we identify the full subgraph of HgH with
vertices in gH × {0} with the full subgraph of Cay(Γ, S) with vertices in
gH.
Definition 3.1 ([GM08]). The cusped graph X associated to the pair (Γ, H)
(and to a finite generating set S as above) is the graph obtained by gluing
a combinatorial horoball HgH to Cay(Γ, S) for every left coset gH of H, via
the identification of the full subgraph of HgH with vertices in gH × {0} with
the full subgraph of Cay(Γ, S) with vertices in gH.
Remark 3.2. For ease of notation, we often do not distinguish between X
and its vertex set.
The relative hyperbolicity of the pair (Γ, H) is encoded by the geometry
of the cusped graph X as follows:
Theorem 3.3 ([GM08, Theorem 3.25]). The pair (Γ, H) is relatively hyperbolic if and only if the cusped graph X is Gromov hyperbolic.
Remark 3.4. Indeed, there is a slight difference between our definition
of cusped graph and Groves-Manning’s one, in that our cusped graphs are
necessarily simplicial, whereas Groves and Manning explicitly allow multiple
edges in their definition. We avoid double edges because it will be convenient
to consider a cusped graph as contained in every Rips complex over it.
However, in our applications we will be dealing only with torsion-free groups,
for which our definitions precisely coincide with the ones in [GM08].
We have that X (0) is in canonical one-to-one correspondence with Γ × N:
this holds because we are dealing with the simple case of a pair (Γ, H)
1The constructions and the results that we are going to recall below also hold for groups
with a family of distinguished subgroups, but the case of a single subgroup is slightly easier
and sufficient to our purposes.

THE ZERO NORM SUBSPACE FOR ACYLINDRICALLY HYPERBOLIC GROUPS 21

where H is a single subgroup. Henceforth we will tacitly make use of this
identification, and denote vertices of X by pairs in Γ×N. Following [GM08],
we define the depth function
D : X (0) → N ,

D(g, n) = n .

For every horoball H ⊆ X and every n ∈ N, we define the n–horoball
Hn ⊆ X associated with H as the full subgraph of X with vertices in
Hn = D −1 ([n, +∞)) ∩ H. If a cusped graph X is δ–hyperbolic and C > δ,
then C–horoballs are convex in X [GM08, Lemma 3.26].
3.1. A quasi-geodesic bicombing. We keep notation from the previous
section, so that X is the cusped graph associated to a relatively hyperbolic
pair (Γ, H). Recall from Section 2 that Ci∆ (X)red denotes the space of
reduced simplicial i-chains over X. A (homological) bicombing Q : X ×X →
C1∆ (X)red is a map such that
∂Q(x0 , x1 ) = x1 − x0 .
A bicombing is antisymmetric if Q(x0 , x1 ) = −Q(x1 , x0 ) for every (x0 , x1 ) ∈
X 2 , and S-quasi-geodesic if there exists S > 0 such that Supp(Q(x0 , x1 )) is
contained in the S-neighborhood NS (γ) of any geodesic γ joining x0 with x1
(in [GM08] there is the additional requirement that the norm of Q(x0 , x1 )
be bounded above by S · d(x0 , x1 ); we will never need this in our argument). Moreover, Q is equivariant if Q(g(x0 ), g(x1 )) = g · Q(x0 , x1 ) for
every (x0 , x1 ) ∈ X 2 , g ∈ Γ.
Let σ be a 1-simplex in X. We define the maximal and the minimal depth
of σ as follows: max D(σ) = max{D(v), v ∈ Supp(σ)}, while min D(σ) =
min{D(v), v ∈ Supp(σ)} if there exists a horoball containing all the vertices
of σ, and min D(σ) = −∞ otherwise. Then for any given chain c ∈ C1∆ (X)red
we set
max D(c) = max{D(σ), σ appears in c} = max{D(v), v ∈ Supp(c)} ∈ N,
min D(c) = min{D(σ), σ appears in c} ∈ N ∪ {−∞} .
The existence of a quasi-geodesic bicombing with good filling properties, as stated in Theorem 3.5, is essentially due to Groves and Manning
([GM08, Section 5] and [GM08, Theorem 6.10]). We fix the same notation
as in [GM08], i.e. we suppose δ ≥ 1 and we set
K = 10δ,

L1 = 100k,

L2 = 3L1 .

As a quick guide, in the theorem below properties 1,2,4,5 are just convenient hypotheses to work with small simplices. Property 3, combined with
properties 7 and 8, says that a bicombing triangle split into a “shallow”
part, z, and a part that lies deep into the horoballs, w. Both w and z are
supported near a corresponding geodesic triangle by 6, and the shallow part
has bounded norm by 9 (implying that the bicombing chains cancel out
nicely in the shallow part). Also, z is alternating by 10.

THE ZERO NORM SUBSPACE FOR ACYLINDRICALLY HYPERBOLIC GROUPS 22

Theorem 3.5. [GM08] If (Γ, H) is a relatively hyperbolic pair, then there
are positive constants T1 , S1 , an S1 -quasi-geodesic antisymmetric Γ-equivariant
bicombing Q on X, and Γ-equivariant maps z, w : X 3 → Z1∆ (X)red with the
following properties:
(1) Q(x0 , x1 ) = [x0 , x1 ], if [x0 , x1 ] is an edge of X;
(2) if x0 , x1 belong to the same 0-horoball H and dH (x0 , x1 ) = 2, where
dH is the intrinsic distance on H, then Q(x0 , x1 ) = [x0 , y] + [y, x1 ],
where y is a vertex in H; in particular, Supp(Q(x0 , x1 )) ⊆ H;
(3) Q(x0 , x1 ) + Q(x1 , x2 ) + Q(x2 , x0 ) = z(x0 , x1 , x2 ) + w(x0 , x1 , x2 );
(4) if [xi , xj ] is an edge of X and D(xi ) = 0 for every i, j ∈ {0, 1, 2},
then z(x0 , x1 , x2 ) = [x0 , x1 ] + [x1 , x2 ] + [x2 , x0 ] and w(x0 , x1 , x2 ) = 0;
(5) if x0 , x1 , x2 belong to a 0-horoball H of X and dH (xi , xj ) ≤ 2 for
every i, j ∈ {0, 1, 2}, then Supp(z(x0 , x1 , x2 )) is contained in H ∩
B(x0 , 3), where B(x0 , 3) is the ball in X of radius 3 centered at x0 ;
(6) Supp(z(x0 , x1 , x2 ))∪Supp(w(x0 , x1 , x2 )) ⊆ NS1 (γ(x0 , x1 )∪γ(x1 , x2 )∪
γ(x2 , x0 )), where γ(xi , xj ) is any geodesic joining xi with xj ;
(7) min D(w(x0 , x1 , x2 )) ≥ L2 ;
(8) max D(z(x0 , x1 , x2 )) ≤ 2L2 ;
(9) kz(x0 , x1 , x2 )k1 ≤ T1 ;
(10) z(xτ (0) , xτ (1) , xτ (2) ) = sgn(τ )z(x0 , x1 , x2 ) and w(xτ (0) , xτ (1) , xτ (2) ) =
sgn(τ )w(x0 , x1 , x2 ) for every permutation τ of {0, 1, 2}.
Proof. We just define Q(x, y) as the projection of qx,y in C1∆ (X)red , where
qx,y ∈ C1∆ (X) is constructed in [GM08] as follows. In [GM08, Lemma 3.27]
the authors choose an antisymmetric, Γ-equivariant geodesic bicombing γ
with the property that if x and y lie in the same L-horoball, where L > 2δ,
then γ(x, y) consists of at most two vertical paths (of arbitrary length) and a
horizontal path of length at most 3. Clearly if d(x, y) = 1 then γ(x, y) is the
edge between x and y. Moreover, if x and y belong to the same 0-horoball H
and dH (x, y) = 2, then it is readily seen that also d(x0 , x1 ) = 2, so that the
geodesic γ(x, y) may be chosen to be equal to a concatenation [x0 , y] ∗ [y, x1 ]
for some vertex y ∈ H.
For each pair of points x, y Groves and Manning select an ordered subK of L -horoballs intersecting the K-neighborhood of
set Hx,y of the set Cx,y
1
γ(x, y) [GM08, Remark 4.2, Theorem 4.12], and they define a preferred path
px,y joining x to y, in such a way that px,y decomposes into the concatenation of minimizing geodesics between the horoballs in Hx,y and one suitably
chosen path in each Hx,y [GM08, Definition 5.7].
The homological bicombing qx,y is then obtained as follows [GM08, Definition 6.4]: one decomposes px,y as a concatenation of segments in D −1 [0, L2 ]
and in D −1 [L2 , ∞) where each segment in D −1 [L2 , ∞) is contained in one
element of Hx,y ; then, each segment with endpoints x1 , x2 in D −1 [0, L2 ] is
replaced by the antisymmetric bicombing Q′x1 ,x2 constructed by Mineyev in
[Min01], and each segment contained in an L2 -horoball HL2 , where H ∈

THE ZERO NORM SUBSPACE FOR ACYLINDRICALLY HYPERBOLIC GROUPS 23

Hx,y , is replaced by a path in the same L2 -horoball consisting of at most
two vertical paths and a horizontal path of length 1 [GM08, Definition
6.4]. Finally, qx,y is antisymmetrized. Conditions (1) and (2) now follow from the explicit description of Q inside L2 -horoballs, together with
the fact that Mineyev’s bicombing Q′x1 ,x2 is obtained by antisymmetrizing
px1 ,x2 = γ(x1 , x2 ) if d(x1 , x2 ) ≤ 10δ. Moreover, [GM08, Proposition 6.5]
implies that Q is S1 -geodesic.
Henceforth we denote by Q also the obvious linear extension of Q to linear
combinations of pairs, so that
Q(∂(x0 , x1 , x2 )) = Q(x0 , x1 ) + Q(x1 , x2 ) + Q(x2 , x0 ) .
We first define the cycles z(x0 , x1 , x2 ) and w(x0 , x1 , x2 ) in the particular
cases described in items (4) and (5). We first suppose that [xi , xj ] is an edge
of X and D(xi ) = 0 for every i, j ∈ {0, 1, 2}. Then we set z(x0 , x1 , x2 ) =
Q(∂(x0 , x1 , x2 )) = [x0 , x1 ] + [x1 , x2 ] + [x2 , x3 ] and w(x0 , x1 , x2 ) = 0, and
it is immediate to check that this choice fulfills all the requirements of the
statement.
Suppose now x0 , x1 , x2 belong to a 0-horoball H of X and dH (xi , xj ) ≤ 2
for every i, j ∈ {0, 1, 2}. By claims (1) and (2), the cycle Q(∂(x0 , x1 , x2 ))
is the sum of at most 6 consecutive edges of H, and x0 is an endpoint
of one of these edges. Therefore, the support of Q(∂(x0 , x1 , x2 )) is contained in H ∩ B(x0 , 3). Let us now distinguish two cases: if D(xi ) ≥
L2 + 3 for every i = 0, 1, 2, then min D(Supp(Q(∂(x0 , x1 , x2 )))) ≥ L2 ,
and we set z(x0 , x1 , x2 ) = 0, w(x0 , x1 , x2 ) = Q(∂(x0 , x1 , x2 )). Otherwise,
max D(Supp(Q(∂(x0 , x1 , x2 )))) ≤ 2L2 , and we set z(x0 , x1 , x2 ) = Q(∂(x0 , x1 , x2 ))
and w(x0 , x1 , x2 ) = 0.
Let us now suppose that the triple (x0 , x1 , x2 ) does not fall into the cases
described in items (4) and (5). We denote by z(x0 , x1 , x2 ) the reduced cycle
associated to the cycle cx0 x1 x2 defined in [GM08, Definition 6.8], and we set
w(x0 , x1 , x2 ) = Q(∂(x0 , x1 , x2 )) − z(x0 , x1 , x2 ) ,
and

1 X
z(xτ (0) , xτ (1) , xτ (2) ) ,
6
τ ∈S3
1 X
w(xτ (0) , xτ (1) , xτ (2) ).
w(x0 , x1 , x2 ) =
6
z(x0 , x1 , x2 ) =

τ ∈S3

Since z is a cycle, then so are w, z and w. Conditions (3) and (10) follow
from the definitions and from the fact that Q is antisymmetric.
Since z, w are obtained from z, w via alternation, in the proof of items
(6), (7), (8), (9) we can replace z, w with z, w, respectively.
The fact that z, w satisfy properties (7) and (9) is proved in [GM08,
Theorem 6.10].
In order to show (6) and (8) we need to describe the construction of
z(x0 , x1 , x2 ) in more detail. For any triple (x0 , x1 , x2 ) of vertices of X, a

THE ZERO NORM SUBSPACE FOR ACYLINDRICALLY HYPERBOLIC GROUPS 24

preferred triangle with vertices x0 , x1 , x2 is a map ψ : ∂∆2 → X which takes
the vertices and the sides of ∆2 respectively to x0 , x1 , x2 and to the preferred
paths px0 ,x1 , px1 ,x2 , px2 ,x0 [GM08, Definition 5.28]. A skeletal filling of ψ is a
map ψ̈ : Skel(ψ) → X of ψ, where Skel(ψ) is a 1-complex containing suitable
subdivisions of the sides of ∆2 , and ψ̈ is a continuous map extending ψ
[GM08, Definition 5.26]. A thick subpicture of Skel(ψ) is (the quotient of) a
subgraph of Skel(ψ) which is taken by (the map induced by) ψ̈ into the thick
part D −1 ([0, L2 ]) of X (and which enjoys several additional properties that
we do not describe here, see [GM08, Definition 5.42]). Finally, cx0 ,x1 ,x2 is a
finite sum of terms of the form Q(ψ̈(v), ψ̈(w)), where v, w are consecutive
vertices of a thick subpicture of Skel(ψ) (see [GM08, Definition 6.8]).
Let us now prove (8). The explicit description of z(x0 , x1 , x2 ) implies that,
in order to bound max D(Supp(z(x0 , x1 , x2 ))) = max D(Supp(cx0 ,x1,x2 )), it
is sufficient to bound max D(Supp(Q(ψ̈(v), ψ̈(w)))), where v, w are consecutive vertices of a thick subpicture. However, [GM08, Proposition 5.43]
implies that, if γ is any geodesic joining ψ̈(v), ψ̈(w), then γ does not intersect any (L1 + L2 )-horoball. Moreover, [GM08, Proposition 6.5] implies that
Supp(Q(ψ̈(v), ψ̈(w))) is contained in the (K + 25δ + 9)-neighborhood of γ,
so that max D(Supp(Q(ψ̈(v), ψ̈(w)))) ≤ L1 + L2 + K + 25δ + 9 ≤ 2L2 . This
implies (8).
We are finally left to prove (6). We first show that
Supp(z(x0 , x1 , x2 )) ⊆ NS1 (γ(x0 , x1 ) ∪ γ(x1 , x2 ) ∪ γ(x2 , x0 ))
for a suitably chosen universal constant S1 . Indeed, as observed in the first
paragraph of the proof of [GM08, Proposition 5.43], if v, w are two consecutive vertices of a thick subpicture of Skel(ψ), then either d(ψ̈(v), ψ̈(w)) = 1
or v, w both lie on the same side of ∂∆2 . In the former case Q(ψ̈(v), ψ̈(w)) =
[v, w], which is supported in the 1-neighborhood of px0 ,x1 ∪ px1 ,x2 ∪ px2 ,x0 ,
which in turn is supported in the (K + 12δ + 9)-neighborhood of γ(x0 , x1 ) ∪
γ(x1 , x2 )∪γ(x2 , x0 ) for any geodesic γ(xi , xj ) between xi and xj (see [GM08,
Corollary 5.12]). In the latter case, suppose that ψ̈(u), ψ̈(v) lie on the preferred path pxi ,xj . Let p(ψ̈(v), ψ̈(w)) be the subpath of pxi ,xj with endpoints ψ̈(v), ψ̈(w), and let γ(ψ̈(v), ψ̈(w)) be any geodesic with the same endpoints. Finally, let γ(xi , xj ) be any geodesic joining xi with xj . By [GM08,
Proposition 6.5], the chain Q(ψ̈(v), ψ̈(w)) is supported in the (K + 25δ + 9)neighborhood of γ(ψ̈(v), ψ̈(w)). By [GM08, Corollary 5.13], p(ψ̈(v), ψ̈(w)) is
a quasi-geodesic with uniformly bounded quasi-geodesicity constants, so by
hyperbolicity of X there exists a universal constant S ′ such that the Hausdorff distance between γ(ψ̈(v), ψ̈(w)) and p(ψ̈(v), ψ̈(w)) is bounded by S ′ .
Finally, [GM08, Corollary 5.12] ensures that pxi ,xj , whence p(ψ̈(v), ψ̈(w)), is
contained in the (K + 12δ + 9)-neighborhood of γ(xi , xj ). Summing up, we
have that the support of Q(ψ̈(v), ψ̈(w)) is contained in the S1 -neighborhood
of γ(x0 , x1 ) ∪ γ(x1 , x2 ) ∪ γ(x2 , x0 ), where S1 = S ′ + 2K + 37δ + 18. This

THE ZERO NORM SUBSPACE FOR ACYLINDRICALLY HYPERBOLIC GROUPS 25

concludes the proof that
Supp(z(x0 , x1 , x2 )) ⊆ NS1 (γ(x0 , x1 ) ∪ γ(x1 , x2 ) ∪ γ(x2 , x0 )) .
Recall now from [GM08, Proposition 6.5] that
Supp(Q(∂(x0 , x1 , x2 ))) ⊆ NK+25δ+9 (γ(x0 , x1 ) ∪ γ(x1 , x2 ) ∪ γ(x2 , x0 ))
⊆ NS1 (γ(x0 , x1 ) ∪ γ(x1 , x2 ) ∪ γ(x2 , x0 )) ,
so from
w(x0 , x1 , x2 ) = Q(∂(x0 , x1 , x2 )) − z(x0 , x1 , x2 )
we now readily deduce that also
Supp(w(x0 , x1 , x2 )) ⊆ NS1 (γ(x0 , x1 ) ∪ γ(x1 , x2 ) ∪ γ(x2 , x0 )) .
This concludes the proof of item (6).



3.2. Rips complexes on cusped graphs. We are now interested in proving some results about fillings of cycles in relatively hyperbolic groups. It
is well known that hyperbolic groups may be characterized as those groups
which satisfy a linear isoperimetric inequality, and an analogous characterization also holds for relatively hyperbolic groups, provided that fillings
are replaced by suitably defined relative fillings. Classical isoperimetric inequalities usually deal with fillings of 1-cycles via 2-chains, and in order to
provide group-theoretic definitions of length and area it is usually sufficient
to take generators and relations as unitary segments and as tiles of unitary
area, respectively. However, in our argument we also need higher dimensional isoperimetric inequalities, which are better stated in the context of
higher dimensional complexes. To this aim it is often useful to consider Rips
complexes (over augmented Cayley graphs, in our case of interest).
Definition 3.6. Given a graph G and a parameter 1 ≤ κ ∈ N, the Rips complex Rκ (G) on G is the simplicial complex having G(0) as set of vertices, and
an n–dimensional simplex for every (n + 1)-tuple of vertices whose diameter
in G is at most κ.
Let now X be the cusped graph associated to the relative hyperbolic pair
(Γ, H), as in the previous subsections. We fix a constant κ ≥ 4δ + 6, where
δ ∈ N is a hyperbolicity constant for X, and we set
X = Rκ (X) .
It is well known that, for κ ≥ 4δ + 6, the Rips complex Rκ (G) of a δhyperbolic graph is contractible (see for example [BH99a, 3.Γ.3.23]). Therefore, we have the following:
Proposition 3.7. The simplicial complex X is contractible.
The notion of horoball easily carries over to X as follows:
Definition 3.8. An (n–)horoball of X is a full subcomplex of X having the
same vertices as an (n–)horoball of X.

THE ZERO NORM SUBSPACE FOR ACYLINDRICALLY HYPERBOLIC GROUPS 26

The maximal and the minimal depth of a chain c ∈ Cn∆ (X )red are defined
exactly as we did for X.
Observe that, since κ ≥ 1, the graph X is naturally a subcomplex of X .
We stress the fact that, when we refer to the distance in X , we will always
refer to the restriction of the distance of X to the vertices of X : we will be
never interested in defining a metric on the internal part of i-simplices of X ,
i ≥ 1, or in understanding the path metric associated to the structure of X
as a simplicial complex. In particular, if A is any subcomplex of X , then we
denote by NS (A) the full subcomplex of X whose vertices lie at distance (in
X) at most S from the set of vertices of A.
The isometric action of Γ on X induces a simplicial action of Γ on X . As
a consequence, each Cn∆ (X )red , n ∈ N, is endowed with the structure of a
normed Γ-module (i.e. a normed space equipped with an isometric Γ–action).
The first author constructed in [Fra] fillings of cycles in Zk (X ) with good
properties:
Theorem 3.9 ([Fra, Theorem 5.6]). Let n, k, S ∈ N, k ≥ 1. Then there
exists S ′ = S ′ (n, k, S) ∈ N such that, for every cycle a ∈ Zk∆ (X )red and
every family of geodesic segments α1 , . . . , αn such that Supp(a) ⊆ NS (α1 ∪
∆ (X )
. . . ∪ αn ), there exists b ∈ Ck+1
red with ∂b = a such that
(1) Supp(b) ⊆ NS ′ (Supp(a)) (in particular, Supp(b) ⊆ NS+S ′ (α1 ∪ . . . ∪
αn )),
(2) kbk1 ≤ M (n, k, S, max D(z))kak1 ,
(3) if Supp(a) is contained in a (2δ)–horoball, then Supp(b) is contained
in the same (2δ)–horoball.
∆ (X )
Definition 3.10. Take z ∈ Ck∆ (X )red . We say that a chain a ∈ Ck+1
red
is a relative filling of z if

z = ∂a + c ,
Ck∆ (X )red

with min D(c) ≥ 0 (i.e. each simplex appearwhere c is a chain in
ing in c is contained in some 0-horoball).
We will now use Franceschini’s result to construct a relative filling of the
bicombing Q described above.
Proposition 3.11. There exist constants T2 , T3 ∈ R and a Γ–equivariant
map ϕ : X 3 → C2∆ (X )red such that, for any triple (x0 , x1 , x2 ) of vertices in
X:
(1) if [xi , xj ] is an edge of X and D(xi ) = 0 for every i, j ∈ {0, 1, 2},
then ϕ(x0 , x1 , x2 ) = [x0 , x1 , x2 ],
(2) if x0 , x1 , x2 belong to a 0-horoball H of X and dH (xi , xj ) ≤ 2 for
every i, j ∈ {0, 1, 2}, then Supp(ϕ(x0 , x1 , x2 )) ⊆ H,
(3) kϕ(x0 , x1 , x2 )k1 ≤ T2 ,
(4) the chain ϕ(∂(x0 , x1 , x2 , x3 )) admits a relative filling B ∈ C3∆ (X )red
such that kBk1 ≤ T3 .

THE ZERO NORM SUBSPACE FOR ACYLINDRICALLY HYPERBOLIC GROUPS 27

Proof. In order to get an equivariant map, we first define ϕ on a set of representatives for the action of Γ on X 3 , and then we extend ϕ equivariantly.
Since Γ acts by isometries on X and leaves the depth of points invariant,
it is clear that this choice is coherent with requirements (1) and (2) of the
statement.
Let us fix an element (x0 , x1 , x2 ) in the fixed set of representatives. We
set
z = z(x0 , x1 , x2 ) , w = w(x0 , x1 , x2 ) ,
where z(x0 , x1 , x2 ) and w(x0 , x1 , x2 ) are the cycles provided by Theorem 3.5.
We will define ϕ(x0 , x1 , x2 ) as a suitably chosen filling of z.
We first take care of the cases described in items (1) and (2). Suppose
that [xi , xj ] is an edge of X and D(xi ) = 0 for every i, j ∈ {0, 1, 2}. By
Theorem 3.5 (1), we have z = [x0 , x1 ] + [x1 , x2 ] + [x2 , x0 ], and we just set
ϕ(x0 , x1 , x2 ) = [x0 , x1 , x2 ].
Suppose now x0 , x1 , x2 belong to a 0-horoball H of X and dP
H (xi , xj ) ≤ 2
for every i, j ∈ {0, 1, 2}. By claim (5) of Theorem 3.5, if z = i λi [x′i , x′′i ],
then x′i , x′′i ∈ B(x0 , 3) ∩ H for every i. Since X = Rκ (X) and κ ≥ 4, this
implies that {x0 , x′i , x′′i } isP
the set of vertices of a simplex of X . Therefore,
′
′′
∆
the sum ϕ(x0 , x1 , x2 ) =
i λi [x0 , xi , xi ] defines an element in C2 (X )red
supported on H such that ∂ϕ(x0 , x1 , x2 ) = z and kϕ(x0 , x1 , x2 )k1 = kzk1 ≤
T1 .
Suppose now that the triple (x0 , x1 , x2 ) does not satisfy the conditions described in items (1) and (2). By Theorem 3.5 (6), Supp(z) is contained in the
S1 –neighborhood of the union γ(x0 , x1 )∪γ(x1 , x2 )∪γ(x2 , x0 ), where γ(xi , xj )
is any geodesic joining xi with xj (and S1 does not depend on (x0 , x1 , x2 )).
Moreover, max D(z) ≤ 2L2 and kzk1 ≤ T1 because of (8) and (9) of
Theorem 3.5. Hence by Theorem 3.9 there exists a chain ϕ(x0 , x1 , x2 ) ∈
C2∆ (X )red such that ∂ϕ(x0 , x1 , x2 ) = z and kϕ(x0 , x1 , x2 )k1 ≤ T2 , where
T2 = M (3, 1, S1 , 2L2 ) · T1 . This concludes the proof of (1), (2) and (3). Also
observe that, if S1′ = S ′ (3, 1, S1 ) + S1 , then by Theorem 3.9 (1)
Supp(ϕ(x0 , x1 , x2 )) ⊆ NS1′ (γ(x0 , x1 ) ∪ γ(x1 , x2 ) ∪ γ(x2 , x0 )) ,
where γ(xi , xj ) is any geodesic joining xi with xj .
We now construct the relative filling B of ϕ(∂(x0 , x1 , x2 , x3 )) required to
prove claim (4). Since ϕ(∂(x0 , x1 , x2 , x3 )) is not a cycle, we need to find first
a chain c supported in the horoballs and satisfying ∂c = ∂ϕ(∂(x0 , x1 , x2 , x3 )).
For the sake of conciseness, we will denote by z and w also the linear
extensions of z and w over linear
of triples in X 3 , so that,
P3combinations
i
for example, z(∂(x0 , . . . , x3 )) = i=0 (−1) z(x0 , . . . , x
bi , . . . , x3 ). Let us fix
(x0 , . . . , x3 ) ∈ X 4 . Since Q ◦ ∂ = z + w and Q ◦ ∂ ◦ ∂ = 0, we have
z(∂(x0 , . . . , x3 )) = −w(∂(x0 , . . . , x3 )) .

Therefore, claims (7) and (8) of Theorem 3.5 imply that
max D(z(∂(x0 , . . . , x3 ))) ≤ 2L2 ,

THE ZERO NORM SUBSPACE FOR ACYLINDRICALLY HYPERBOLIC GROUPS 28

min D(z(∂(x0 , . . . , x3 ))) = min D(w(∂(x0 , . . . , x3 ))) ≥ L2 .
Moreover, by Theorem 3.5 (9) we have
kz(∂(x0 , . . . , x3 ))k1 =

3
X
(−1)i z(x0 , . . . , x
bi , . . . , x3 )
i=0

≤ 4T1 .
1

Also observe that, by Theorem 3.5 (6), we have


3
[
Supp(z(∂(x0 , . . . , x3 )) ⊆ NS1 
γ(xi , xj ) ,
i,j=0

where γ(xi , xj ) is any fixed geodesic joining xi with xj . Since L2 ≥ 2δ, Theorem 3.9 implies that there exists a chain c such that, if T1′ = 4M (6, 1, S1 , 2L2 )T1
and S1′′ = S ′ (6, 1, S1 ) + S1 , then
∂c = z(∂(x0 , . . . , x3 )) ,


3
[
γ(xi , xj )
Supp(c) ⊆ NS1′′ 
i,j=0

kck1 ≤ M (6, 1, S1 , 2L2 ) · kz(∂(x0 , . . . , x3 ))k1 ≤ T1′ ,
min D(c) ≥ 2δ
(in particular, each simplex appearing in c is contained in some horoball).
Moreover, since Supp(c) ⊆ NS1′′ (Supp(z(∂(x0 , . . . , x3 )))), we also have
max D(c) ≤ max D(z(∂(x0 , . . . , x3 ))) + S1′′ ≤ 2L2 + S1′′ .
Let us now consider the chain
a = ϕ(∂(x0 , x1 , x2 , x3 )) − c .
By construction, ∂a = 0, i.e. a is a cycle. If S1′′′ = max{S1′ , S1′′ }, then


3
[
γ(xi , xj ) .
Supp(a) ⊆ NS1′′′ 
i,j=0

Moreover,

max D(a) ≤ max{D(c), D(z(∂(x0 , . . . , x3 )))} ≤ 2L2 + S1′′ .
Let B be the filling of a provided by Theorem 3.9. By construction, ∂B =
a = ϕ(∂(x0 , x1 , x2 , x3 )) − c, so B is a relative filling of ϕ(∂(x0 , x1 , x2 , x3 )).
Moreover,
kBk1 ≤ M (6, 2, S1′′′ , 2L2 + S1′′ )kak1
≤ M (6, 2, S1′′′ , 2L2 + S1′′ ) (kϕ(∂(x0 , x1 , x2 , x3 ))k1 + kck1 )
≤ M (6, 2, S1′′′ , 2L2 + S1′′ )(4T2 + T1′ ) .
This concludes the proof.



THE ZERO NORM SUBSPACE FOR ACYLINDRICALLY HYPERBOLIC GROUPS 29

4. Combinatorial volume forms
Before going into the proof of Theorem 5, let us fix some notation. Let
Γ0 = F (a, b) be a free group of rank 2, and let ψ : Γ0 → Γ0 be a group
automorphism induced by a pseudo-Anosov orientation-preserving homeomorphism of a punctured torus. Up to conjugating ψ, we may suppose that
ψ([a, b]) = [a, b]. Let Γ = Γ0 ⋊ψ Z, and denote by t the generator of Z < Γ,
in such a way that tgt−1 = ψ(g) for every g ∈ Γ0 . Let H < Γ be the subgroup generated by [a, b] and t, and recall that the pair (Γ, H) is relatively
hyperbolic. We denote by X the cusped graph associated to the pair (Γ, H)
and the generating set S = {a, b, [a, b], t}, and by X the contractible Rips
complex over X defined in the previous section. In fact, we will completely
forget the structure of X as a graph, and we will denote again by X its
set of vertices (while we will make use of the structure of X as a simplicial
complex).
Recall that Γ (hence, Γ0 ) acts freely on X, so the bounded cohomology
of Γ0 may be isometrically computed via the complex
Cbn (Γ0 y X) := {ϕ : X n+1 → R, kϕk∞ < ∞}
introduced in Section 1. For every Lipschitz map f : Z → R we are going
to construct a 2-quasi-cocycle αf ∈ QZ2alt (Γ0 y X)Γ0 . The quasi-cocycle αf
should be understood as a discrete approximation of a primitive of a volume
form on the infinite cyclic covering M0 = H3 /Γ0 of the cusped hyperbolic
manifold M = H3 /Γ (here we are identifying Γ with its realization as a
non-uniform lattice in the isometry group of H3 ).
Recall that M0 is diffeomorphic to Σ × R, where Σ is a once-punctured
torus. If σ is any 2-simplex in M0 , then the evaluation on σ of the primitive
of a volume form on M0 is equal to the volume of the prism spanned by
σ and by the projection of σ on Σ × {0}. Our construction in inspired by
this remark, yet it is completely independent from the differential geometric
situation just recalled. We define a projection p : X → Γ0 as follows: every
element X admits a unique expression as a pair (g0 tk , n) with g0 ∈ Γ0 , and
we then set
p : X → Γ0 ,
p(g0 tk , n) = g0 .
4.1. Heuristic. In this subsection we just discuss the geometric meaning
of p, the reader may safely skip ahead if the point is clear already.
The projection p : X → Γ0 plays the role of the retraction of M0 onto
Σ. When considering Γ as a non-uniform hyperbolic lattice, the action of t
f∼
e × R corresponds to the product of the lift of the pseudo-Anosov
on M
=Σ
e with the translation by 1 (on
homeomorphism corresponding to ψ (on Σ)
f, this action
R). Via the quasi-isometric identification between X and M
translates into the left action of Γ on X. Observe now that the the group Γ
acts on X also on the right as follows:
(g, n) · g ′ = (gg ′ , n) .

THE ZERO NORM SUBSPACE FOR ACYLINDRICALLY HYPERBOLIC GROUPS 30

This action is not by isometries, and it does not extend to a simplicial action
over X and neither over X . However, from the equality tgt−1 = ψ(g), g ∈ Γ0 ,
we deduce that the right action of t on X should correspond to the unitary
e × R. Whence, the definition of p.
translation on Σ

4.2. The combinatorial area form. In order to compute (signed) volumes, we need to introduce an orientation on triples in X 3 . Let us fix
a finite-area hyperbolization of Γ0 , i.e. a discrete faithful representation
ρ : Γ0 → Isom+ (H2 ) such that H2 /ρ(Γ0 ) is isometric to a finite-volume oncepunctured torus, and denote by · the action of Γ on ∂H2 induced by ρ. We
identify ∂H2 with the topological boundary of the Poincaré disk, and we
say that a triple of pairwise distinct points (a0 , a1 , a2 ) in ∂H2 is positive
(resp. negative) if (a0 , a1 , a2 ) are anti-clockwise (resp. clockwise) oriented
on ∂H2 . Finally, if the points in the triple (a0 , a1 , a2 ) ∈ (∂H2 )3 are not
pairwise distinct, we say that the triple is degenerate. The element ρ([a, b])
is parabolic, so it has a unique fixed point q ∈ ∂H2 . We then define a map
ε : Γ30 → {−1, 0, 1} as follows:

 1 if (g0 · q, g1 · q, g2 · q) is positive
0 if (g0 · q, g1 · q, g2 · q) is degenerate
ε(g0 , g1 , g2 ) =

−1 if (g0 · q, g1 · q, g2 · q) is negative.
We extend ε to a map defined on X 3 by setting:

ε(x0 , x1 , x2 ) = ε(p(x0 ), p(x1 ), p(x2 )) .
The following result states that ε is a Γ-invariant bounded cocycle:
Proposition 4.1. We have
ε ∈ Zb2 (Γ y X)Γ .
Moreover, if x0 , x1 , x2 all lie in a 0-horoball H of X , then ε(x0 , x1 , x2 ) = 0.
Proof. The fact that ε is a cocycle is easily checked. In order to prove that ε
is Γ-invariant it suffices to check that g · ε = ε for every g ∈ Γ0 , and t · ε = ε.
Let us fix g ∈ Γ0 . It readily follows from the definition of p that p(gx) =
gp(x) for every x ∈ X. Therefore, for every triple (x0 , x1 , x2 ) ∈ X 3 we have
(p(gx0 ) · q, p(gx1 ) · q, p(gx2 ) · q) = (gp(x0 ) · q, gp(x1 ) · q, gp(x2 ) · q) ,
and the conclusion easily follows from the fact that ρ(g) acts on ∂H2 as an
orientation-preserving homeomorphism.
In order to prove invariance with respect to t, first observe that the
pseudo-Anosov homeomorphism h : Σ → Σ lifts to a quasi-isometry e
h : H2 →
H2 such that
e
(2)
h ◦ ρ(g) = ρ(ψ(g)) ◦ e
h

for every g ∈ Γ0 . The quasi-isometry e
h continuously extends to ∂H2 , and
equation (2) also holds when considering the actions of e
h and of Γ0 on ∂H2 .

THE ZERO NORM SUBSPACE FOR ACYLINDRICALLY HYPERBOLIC GROUPS 31

In particular, if we set g = [a, b] and we evaluate at q we obtain
e
h(q) = e
h(g · q) = ψ(g) · (e
h(q)) = g · (e
h(q)) ,
so e
h(q) is fixed by g, and
e
h(q) = q .
Now, for every x = (g0 tk , n) ∈ X with g0 ∈ Γ0 , we have

p(tx) = p(t(g0 tk , n)) = p(tg0 tk , n) = p(ψ(g0 )tk+1 , n) = ψ(g0 ) = ψ(p(x)) ,

hence
(3)

p(tx) · q = ψ(p(x)) · q = ψ(p(x)) · e
h(q) = e
h(p(x) · q) .

Let us now consider a triple (x0 , x1 , x2 ) ∈ X 3 . Observe that the trace of e
h
2
on ∂H is an orientation-preserving homeomorphism. Therefore, the triple
(p(x0 )·q, p(x1 )·q, p(x2 )·q) is positive (resp. negative, degenerate) if and only
h(p(x1 ) · q), e
h(p(x2 ) · q)) is so. Thanks to (3), this concludes
if (e
h(p(x0 ) · q), e
the proof that ε is t-invariant, whence Γ-invariant.
Suppose now that x0 , x1 , x2 all lie in the same horoball H of X. Then
p(x0 ), p(x1 ), p(x2 ) all lie in the same left coset of h[a, b]i in Γ0 . Using again
that q is fixed by ρ([a, b]), this implies that p(x0 ) · q = p(x1 ) · q = p(x2 ) · q,
so ε(x0 , x1 , x2 ) = 0.

4.3. The quasi-cocycle associated to a Lipschitz function. Let us
now fix a Lipschitz function
f: Z→R .
We are going to define the quasi-cocycle αf = α(f ) ∈ QZ2alt (Γ y X)Γ0
required in Theorem 5. The decomposition Γ = Γ0 ⋊ψ Z of Γ as a semidirect
product defines an epimorphism θ : Γ → Z given by θ(g) = k, where g = g0 tk
is the unique expression of g such that g0 ∈ Γ0 . We extend θ to the whole
of X by setting θ(g, n) = θ(g).
2
(X ) such that, if σ is a
We first define the simplicial cochain Ff ∈ C∆,alt
3
2-simplex in X with vertices (x0 , x1 , x2 ) ∈ X , then
P2
f (θ(xi ))
.
Ff (σ) = ε(x0 , x1 , x2 ) i=0
3
2
(X )Γ0 . Moreover:
Lemma 4.2. We have Ff ∈ C∆,alt

(1) Ff (τ ) = 0 for every 2-simplex τ contained in a horoball,
(2) |Ff (∂σ)| ≤ R · Lip(f ) for every 3-simplex σ of X .
Proof. The fact that Ff is alternating (resp. Γ0 -invariant) follows from the
fact that ε is (resp. that ε and θ are). Moreover, if the 2-simplex τ =
(x0 , x1 , x2 ) is contained in a horoball, then Proposition 4.1 implies ε(x0 , x1 , x2 ) =
0, so Ff (τ ) = 0.
Let now (x0 , . . . , x3 ) be the vertices of a 3-simplex σ. Recall that X =
Rκ (X), where κ = 4δ + 6 and δ is a hyperbolicity constant for X. Since
xi and xj are the vertices of a simplex in X we have d(xi , xj ) ≤ κ. If

THE ZERO NORM SUBSPACE FOR ACYLINDRICALLY HYPERBOLIC GROUPS 32

max D(σ) ≥ κ + 1, then σ is contained in a horoball H, and hence Ff (∂σ) =
0. In particular we can assume max D(σ) ≤ κ. By definition, if m =
P3
j=0 f (xj ), then
Ff (∂i σ) =
so, using that

P3

ε(x0 , . . . , xbi , . . . , x3 )
(m − f (θ(xi ))) ,
3

i
bi , . . . x3 )
i=0 (−1) ε(x0 , . . . , x

= 0, we get:



3
X
bi , . . . , x3 )
i ε(x0 , . . . , x
(−1)
(m − f (θ(xi )))
Ff (∂σ) =
3
i=0

=−

3
X

(−1)i

i=0

ε(x0 , . . . , xbi , . . . , x3 )
f (θ(xi )) .
3

Using again that ε is a cocycle with values in {−1, 0, 1} we obtain that, up
to a suitable permutation of (x0 , x1 , x2 , x3 ), either Ff (∂σ) = 0, or Ff (∂σ) =
f (θ(x2 )) − f (θ(x3 )), or Ff (∂σ) = f (θ(x0 )) − f (θ(x1 )) + f (θ(x2 )) − f (θ(x3 )).
In any case, in order to conclude it is sufficient to show that |f (θ(xi )) −
f (θ(xj ))| ≤ R/2 for a universal constant R for every fixed pair of indices
i, j ∈ {0, . . . , 3}.
First observe that, being a homomorphism, the restriction of θ to Γ is
h-Lipschitz for some h > 0. Recall that d denotes the distance on X, and
denote by dΓ the distance on the Cayley graph of Γ with respect to the
fixed generating set S. If xi = (gi , ni ), xj = (gj , nj ), with ni , nj ≤ κ, we
claim that dΓ (gi , gj ) ≤ κ22κ : indeed since d(x1 , x2 ) ≤ κ, any vertex in a
geodesic in X between x1 and x2 has depth at most 2κ, hence a geodesic in
X between x1 and x2 projects to a path in Γ of length at most κ22κ . The
conclusion follows if we set R/2 = hκ22κ .

We are now ready to define the quasi-cocycle αf . For every triple (x0 , x1 , x2 ) ∈
we set

X3

αf (x0 , x1 , x2 ) = Ff (ϕ(x0 , x1 , x2 )),
where ϕ is the relative filling from Proposition 3.11.
Proposition 4.3. We have
(1) αf ∈ QZ2alt (Γ0 y X)Γ0 ,
(2) def(αf ) ≤ K · Lip(f ) for a universal constant K.
Proof. The Γ0 -invariance of αf follows from the Γ0 -invariance of ϕ (which,
indeed, is even Γ-invariant) and of Ff . Moreover, αf is alternating, since
both Ff and ϕ are.

THE ZERO NORM SUBSPACE FOR ACYLINDRICALLY HYPERBOLIC GROUPS 33

In order to bound the defect of αf , let us fix a quadruple (x0 , . . . , x3 ) ∈
X 4 , and estimate the value
δαf (x0 , x1 , x2 , x3 ) =

3
X
(−1)i αf (x0 , . . . , xbi , . . . , x3 )
i=0

3
X
(−1)i Ff (ϕ(x0 , . . . , xbi , . . . , x3 ))
=
i=0

= Ff

!
3
X
i
(−1) ϕ(x0 , . . . , xbi , . . . , x3 ) .
i=0

3.11 ensures the existence of a relative filling of the chain
P3Proposition
i
bi , . . . , x3 ): we can choose a 3-chain B ∈ C3∆ (X )red with
i=0 (−1) ϕ(x0 , . . . , x
P
kBk1 ≤ T3 and such that the difference ∂B − 3i=0 (−1)i ϕ(x0 , . . . , xbi , . . . , x3 )
is a sum
P of simplices
P of X contained in a union of 0-horoballs. We write
B = j λj σj , with j |λj | ≤ T3 . Since Ff (σ) = 0 if σ is a simplex contained
in a 0-horoball H, we have:
!
3
X
i
(−1) ϕ(x0 , . . . , xbi , . . . , x3 )
|δαf ((x0 , x1 , x2 , x3 ))| = Ff (∂B) − Ff ∂B −
i=0

= |Ff (∂B)| =

X

λj Ff (∂σj ) ≤

j

≤ R · Lip(f ) ·

X

X

|λj | · |Ff (∂σj )|

j

|λj | ≤ R · T3 · Lip(f ) ,

j

where R is the constant provided by Lemma 4.2. The conclusion follows.



4.4. The 2–cycle Am . Purpose of this section is to construct, for each
m ∈ N, a cycle Am ∈ C2 (Γ0 y X)red,Γ0 on which we will evaluate our
cocycles αf .
In what follows we will omit, for ease of notation, to distinguish a chain
in Cn (Γ0 y X, R)Γ0 from its reduced image in Cn (Γ0 y X, R)red,Γ0 . For
example, we will simply write (x, y) = −(y, x) for every (x, y) ∈ X 2 . We
will construct the cycle Am as a union of different combinatorial analogues
of geometric pieces.
Let e ∈ Γ denote the identity element. The combinatorial analogue of a
relative fundamental class for Γ0 ⊆ X is
c := ((e, 0), (b, 0), (ba, 0)) + ((e, 0), (ba, 0), (ab, 0)) + ((e, 0), (ab, 0), (a, 0)) .
An easy computation in C2 (Γ0 y X)red,Γ0 gives
∂c = ((e, 0), ([a, b], 0)) = ((ba, 0), (ab, 0)).

THE ZERO NORM SUBSPACE FOR ACYLINDRICALLY HYPERBOLIC GROUPS 34

em
dm

tm dm

c

tm c

Figure 1. The 2–cycle Am

e
a

b

ba

ab

Figure 2. The relative fundamental class c

The second building block of our cycle Am is the combinatorial counterpart of a small annulus going deep enough into the horoball. We will need
this to be able to join the boundaries of two combinatorial fundamental
classes with two simplices. We will prove 
that, for each K ∈ N,
 the 1-cycle
K
1
2
∂c is homologous to the 1-cycle aK := 2K (e, K), ([a, b] , K) .
We choose Km := ⌊log2 m⌋+1 big enough, so that d((e, Km ), (tm , Km )) =
1, and consider the chain

dm :=

KX
m −1
i=0


1 
2i
,
i)
+
(e,
i),
(e,
i
+
1),
([a,
b]
2i+1


i+1
i
+ ([a, b]2 , i), (e, i + 1), ([a, b]2 , i + 1) +


i+1
i+1
i
+ ([a, b]2 , i), ([a, b]2 , i + 1), ([a, b]2 , i) .

In C2 (X, R)red,Γ0 , we have

∂dm = −∂c + aKm ,
which, in particular, proves that ∂c and aKm are homologous.

THE ZERO NORM SUBSPACE FOR ACYLINDRICALLY HYPERBOLIC GROUPS 35



(e, i + 1)

(e, i)



i+1

[a, b]2


,i + 1



i+1
i
[a, b]2 , i [a, b]2 , i

Figure 3. A portion of the annulus dm

Our third and last building block is an annulus supported deep in the
horoball with boundary aKm − tm aKm . We will call it em :

1 
Km
(e, Km ), (tm [a, b]2 , Km ), (tm , Km )
em := Km
2


Km

+ (e, K), ([a, b]2

Km

, Km ), (tm [a, b]2

, Km )

.

In order to verify that ∂em = aKm −tm aKm , we use that the pseudo-Anosov ψ
Km
Km
= [a, b]2 tm .
fixes the commutator [a, b] and hence in particular tm [a, b]2


Km
[a, b]2 , Km



Km
tm [a, b]2 , Km

(e, Km )

(tm , Km )

Figure 4. The annulus em

We can now define
Am := tm · (c + dm ) − (c + dm ) + em .
Lemma 4.4. Let m ≥ 0. Then
(1) kAm k1 ≤ 9;
(2) the chain Am is a boundary in C2 (Γ0 y X)red,Γ0 .
Proof. (1): We have
kAm k1 ≤ 2kck1 + 2kdm k1 + kem k1
≤6+3

KX
m −1
i=0

2−i−1 + 2 · 2−Km ≤ 6 + 3

∞
X
i=0

2−i−1 = 9 .

THE ZERO NORM SUBSPACE FOR ACYLINDRICALLY HYPERBOLIC GROUPS 36

(2): We already verified that ∂Am = 0. Observe that each simplex involved
in the definition of Am exists in the Rips complex X and hence Am also
defines a cycle as a simplicial chain in C2∆ (X )red,Γ0 = C2∆ (X /Γ0 )red . Since
the Rips complex X is contractible, the simplicial homology of X /Γ0 is
canonically isomorphic to the homology of Γ0 ∼
= F2 , which of course vanishes
in degree 2. Therefore, there exist a simplicial 3-chain Bm ∈ C3∆ (X )red,Γ0
with ∂Bm = Am . The chain Bm also defines an element of C3 (Γ0 y X)red,Γ0
with ∂Bm = Am .

4.5. Proof of Theorem 5. We now turn to the proof of Theorem 5 that
we recall for the reader’s convenience:
Theorem 4.5. Let L(Z, R) be the space of Lipschitz real functions on Z.
There exist a constant C > 0 and a linear map
α : L(Z, R) → QZ2alt (Γ0 y X)Γ0
such that the following conditions hold:
(1) def(α(f )) = kδα(f ))k∞ ≤ C · Lip(f ) for every f ∈ L(Z, R);
(2) [δα(f )] = 0 in Hb3 (Γ0 y X) ∼
= Hb3 (Γ0 ) if and only if f is bounded.
Of course the map
α : L(Z, R) → QZ2alt (Γ0 y X)Γ0
f
7→
αf
defined in Section 4.3 is linear, and we proved (1) in Proposition 4.3. The
last missing step in the proof of Theorem 5 is:
Proposition 4.6. δαf represents 0 in Hb3 (Γ0 y X) if and only if the Lipschitz function f is bounded.
In order to prove Proposition 4.6 we need to compute the value of αf on
Am . We begin with a preliminary lemma:
Lemma 4.7. Let a, b be the generators of Γ0 . We have ε(e, ab, a) = ε(e, b, ba) =
±1 and ε(e, ba, ab) = 0.
Proof. Recall that, in order to define ε, we chose a finite area hyperbolization
ρ of Γ0 , and we denoted by q ∈ ∂H2 the unique fixed point of ρ([a, b]) =
ρ(a−1 b−1 ab). By definition, πε(g0 , g1 , g2 ) is the area of the ideal triangle in
H2 with vertices (g0 · q, g1 · q, g2 · q).
Since ba · q = ba · ([a, b] · q) = ab · q, the ideal triangle with vertices
(q, ba · q, ab · q) is degenerate, and hence ε(e, ba, ab) = 0. Moreover the union
of the two triangles (q, ab · q, a · q) and (q, b · q, ba · q) is a fundamental domain
for the Γ0 action on H2 , and hence ε(e, ab, a) = ε(e, b, ba) are non-zero. The
common sign depends on the choice of the generators a, b.

The next lemma shows that the cycle Am encloses a volume proportional
to m:
Lemma 4.8. |αf (Am )| = 2|f (m) − f (0)|.

THE ZERO NORM SUBSPACE FOR ACYLINDRICALLY HYPERBOLIC GROUPS 37

Proof. We evaluate αf (Am ) term by term. Observe that every simplex in
the support of Am has vertices at distance at most 2, and there exists a
horoball H such that
Supp(dm + em + tm dm ) ⊂ H.
It then follows from Proposition 3.11 (2) that, for each simplex σ in the
support of tm dm + em − dm , we have ϕ(σ) ⊂ H and hence
αf (tm dm + em − dm ) = Ff (ϕ(tm dm + em − dm )) = 0
by Lemma 4.2 (1). Therefore αf (Am ) = αf (tm c − c).
We know from Lemma 4.7 that ε(e, ab, a) = ε(e, b, ba) = ±1 and ε(e, ba, ab) =
0. Since ε is Γ-invariant (Proposition 4.1), and hence in particular t-invariant,
we also deduce ε(tm , tm ab, tm a) = ε(e, ab, a). Moreover, since all simplices
involved in the definition of c and tm c have vertices at distance at most 1,
Proposition 3.11 (1) implies that ϕ is the identity on each of them. We
now have θ(v) = m for every vertex v in Supp(tm c), and θ(v) = 0 for every
vertex v in Supp(c), so αf (tm c) − αf (c) = 2ε(e, ab, a)(f (m) − f (0)), and this
concludes the proof.

Proof of Proposition 4.6 . Suppose that f is bounded. For every (x0 , x1 , x2 ) ∈
X 3 , we write
X
ϕ(x0 , x1 , x2 ) =
λσ σ
with

P

σ

σ

|λσ | ≤ T2 (see Proposition 3.11 (3)). Then

|αf (x0 , x1 , x2 )| = |Ff (ϕ(x0 , x1 , x2 ))|
2

≤

X
1X
|f (θ(σ (i) ))|
|λσ |
3 σ
i=0

≤ T2 kf k∞ .

This shows that δαf is the coboundary of a bounded 2–cochain and hence
represents 0 in Hb3 (Γ0 y X).
Vice versa, suppose that f is a Lipschitz function such that δαf = δβ for
some bounded Γ0 -invariant cochain β ∈ Cb2 (Γ0 y X)Γ0 . By Lemma 4.4,
there exists a 3–chain Bm ∈ C3 (X, R)red,Γ0 with ∂Bm = Am . Recall from
Lemma 4.4 that kAm k1 ≤ 9, so
|αf (Am )| = |αf (∂Bm )| = |(δαf )(Bm )| = |(δβ)(Bm )|
= |β(∂Bm )| = |β(Am )| ≤ kβk∞ · kAm k ≤ 9kβk∞ .
Therefore, |αf (Am )| is uniformly bounded. By Lemma 4.8, this implies
that |f (m)| ≤ 21 αf (Am ) + |f (0)| is also uniformly bounded, i.e. that f is
bounded, as desired.


THE ZERO NORM SUBSPACE FOR ACYLINDRICALLY HYPERBOLIC GROUPS 38

4.6. Proof of Theorem 2. In order to conclude the proof of Theorem 2 we
are now left to construct an uncountable set of linearly independent elements
in N03 (F2 ) ⊆ Hb3 (F2 ). For every f ∈ L(Z, R) we set

 f (x) − f (−n) if x ≤ −n
0
if − n ≤ x ≤ n
fn (x) :=

f (x) − f (n)
if x ≥ n

and

n
o
L0 (Z, R) = f ∈ L(Z, R) | lim Lip(fn ) = 0 .
n→∞

We choose the basepoint x = (e, 0) ∈ X and we set
η : L(Z, R) → Hb3 (Γ0 ) ,

η(f ) = wx3 ([δαf ]) ,

where wx3 : Hb3 (Γ0 y X) → Hb3 (Γ0 ) is the map described in Lemma 1.1.
∗ (Γ y X)Γ0 isometriRecall from Lemma 1.1 that the complex Cb,alt
0
cally computes the bounded cohomology of Γ0 , so by Proposition 4.6 the
map η induces an isomorphism between L0 (Z, R)/(L0 (Z, R) ∩ ℓ∞ (Z)) and
η(L0 (Z, R)) ⊆ Hb3 (Γ0 ). It is immediate to realize that the dimension of the
real vector space L0 (Z, R)/(L0 (Z, R) ∩ ℓ∞ (Z)) is equal to the cardinality of
the continuum: for example, the classes of the maps n 7→ nα , α ∈ (0, 1), define linear independent elements in L0 (Z, R)/(L0 (Z, R) ∩ ℓ∞ (Z)). Therefore,
Theorem 2 is now reduced to the following:
Proposition 4.9. For every function f ∈ L0 (Z, R) we have η(f ) ∈ N03 (Γ0 ).

Proof. For every n ∈ N we have kf − fn k∞ = max f |[−n,n] < ∞, hence
by Proposition 4.6 we have η(fn ) = η(f ) for every n ∈ N. Therefore, for
every n ∈ N the cochain wx2 (αfn ) ∈ C 2 (Γ0 ) is a primitive of η(f ).
Let us fix the exhaustion (Si )i∈N of Γ0 given by
Si = {γ ∈ Γ0 | dΓ0 (γ, e) ≤ i}.
For every i, we can choose ni big enough so that wx2 (αfni )|S 3 = 0: indeed
i
the set Si is finite, and for each triple (s0 , s1 , s2 ) ∈ Si3 , the simplicial 2chain ϕ((s0 , 0), (s1 , 0), (s2 , 0)) involves only a finite number of simplices. In
particular we can find ni such that |θ(Supp ϕ((s0 , 0), (s1 , 0), (s2 , 0)))| ≤ ni
for every (s0 , s1 , s2 ) ∈ Si3 , and for such ni we have wx2 (αfni )|S 3 = 0. Clearly
i
we can also suppose that the sequence {ni }i∈N is monotonically diverging
to ∞.
Recall now that Proposition 4.3 ensures that kδαfni k∞ ≤ K Lip(fni ), so
since f ∈ L0 (Z, R) we have limi→∞ kδαfni k∞ = 0. Therefore, since wxn is
norm non-increasing, by Lemma 2.6 we finally get
kη(f )k∞,0 ≤ lim inf kδwx2 (αfni )k∞ ≤ lim inf kδαfni k∞ = 0 .
i→∞

i→∞



THE ZERO NORM SUBSPACE FOR ACYLINDRICALLY HYPERBOLIC GROUPS 39

5. Appendix: volumes of mapping tori
We use the techniques introduced in the paper to give a cohomological
proof of (some particular cases) of an inequality due to Brock [Bro03b,
Theorem 1.1].
Let Σg be the closed oriented surface of genus g, g ≥ 2. If ψ : Σg → Σg is
a pseudo-Anosov homeomorphism, we denote by Mψ the mapping torus
Mψ := Σ × [0, 1]/(x, 0) ≡ (ψ(x), 1).
Recall that a pseudo-Anosov homeomorphism ψ : Σg → Σg is ǫ-cobounded
if the image of its Teichmüller axis in the moduli space Mg stays in the
ǫ-thick part Mǫg [FM02, Section 2.1]. We denote by τ (ψ) the translation
length of ψ on the Teichmüller space endowed with the Teichmüller metric, which is well known to be equal to its maximal dilatation λ [Ber78].
For ψ ǫ-cobounded, it is well known that the Teichmüller translation length
is also uniformly bi-Lipschitz equivalent to the Weil-Petersson translation
length. This can be seen as follows. Distances in both the Teichmüller
and the Weil-Petersson metric can be computed, up to bounded multiplicative and additive error, in terms of the so-called subsurface projections to
curve complexes of subsurfaces; this is known as the distance formula, see
[MM00, Theorem 6.12][Bro03a, Theorem 4.4] for the Weil-Petersson case
and [Raf07, Theorem 1.1] for the Teichmüller case. The difference between
the distance formulas is that annular subsurfaces do not contribute in the
Weil-Petersson case, while they do in the Teichmüller case. As observed in,
e.g., [KL07, Theorem 3.1], it follows from [Raf05] that in the ǫ-cobounded
case all subsurface projections to curve complexes of proper subsurfaces are
bounded, so that both in the Teichmüller and in the Weil-Petersson case
the distance formula only has one non-zero term, the one corresponding to
the whole surface, easily implying the desired relation between translation
distances.
The purpose of the appendix is to give a different proof of the lower bound
of the volume of Mψ in terms of the dilation of ψ, when ψ is an ǫ-cobounded
pseudo-Anosov.
Theorem 5.1. There exists a constant C > 0 depending only on ǫ and g
such that, for any ǫ-cobounded pseudo-Anosov ψ : Σg → Σg , we have
vol(Mψ ) ≥ Cτ (ψ).
Remark 5.2. Brock proves [Bro03b, Theorem 1.1] that there is a constant
K depending only on the genus of the surface such that
1
kψkW P ≤ vol(Mψ ) ≤ KkψkW P
K
for every pseudo-Anosov homeomorphism ψ : Σg → Σg , where k · kW P denotes the translation length of ψ with respect to the Weil-Petersson metric.
The lower bound is deduced from the fact that in Mψ there are at least

THE ZERO NORM SUBSPACE FOR ACYLINDRICALLY HYPERBOLIC GROUPS 40

kψkW P short curves with disjoint Margulis tubes, each of which gives a
definite contribution to the volume.
Upper bounds on the volume in terms of different translation lengths and
with an explicit dependence on the genus are known: for any pseudo-Anosov
ψ : Σ → Σ, Kojima and McShane [KM14, Theorem 2 and Proposition 12]
prove the inequality
3π|χ(Σ)|τ (ψ) ≥ vol(Mψ ) ,
while Brock and Bromberg [BB16] prove that
p
3π/2(2g − 2 + n)kψkW P ≥ vol(Mψ ) .

Proof summary. Denote by Γ the fundamental group of Mψ , and set
Γ0 = π1 (Σg ) so that Γ = Γ0 ∗ψ∗ , where ψ∗ denotes the automorphism of Γ0
induced by ψ. The strategy of our proof of Theorem 5.1 is based on the
ideas developed in the main paper: we construct an explicit combinatorial
cocycle representing some multiple of the volume form of the three manifold
Mψ and we compute its value on a suitable fundamental class.
In order to define our cocycle, we will first construct, as in Section 4,
g
a graph X which is a discrete approximation of M
ψ . As in the case of
the graph considered in Section 4, X admits a Γ-action, a Γ0 -equivariant
projection p : X → Γ0 , a Γ-equivariant, 1-Lipschitz projection θ : X → R.
Furthermore X is uniformly δ hyperbolic and has uniformly bounded degree.
Therefore, as a consequence of Mineyev’s Theorem, a suitable Rips complex
X over it admits a homological filling ϕ : X 3 → C2∆ (X ) with uniformly
bounded norm, and uniformly bounded filling (Lemma 5.5).
Using the same ideas as in Section 3 we use ϕ to construct a combinatorial
primitive of the volume form: a Γ-invariant quasi-cocycle α ∈ QZ2 (Γ y X).
In Section 5.3 we will use α to give a lower bound on the simplicial volume
of Mψ and therefore on its hyperbolic volume.

5.1. The graph X, a combinatorial approximation of Mψ . We assume
(up to raising ψ to a suitable power) that τ (ψ) is at least one. Let λ be the
sub-multiple of τ (ψ) in the interval (0.5, 1], set k = τ (ψ)/λ.
We denote by l the Teichmüller axis of ψ and choose a basepoint 0 on
l ∼
= R. The group Γ acts on the canonical H2 -bundle over l [FM02, page
107] and in particular, for each s, the subgroup Γ0 acts by isometries on the
fiber at time s, that we denote by H2s . We also choose a basepoint b0 on
H20 . The unique isometric lift of l through b0 allows us to choose coherent
basepoints bs for each fiber.
Lemma 5.3. There is a constant C, depending on g and ǫ only, such that
for any s ∈ R we have
diam(H2s /Γ0 ) ≤ C.
Proof. The homomorphism ψ is ǫ-cobounded, so every geodesic loop in Σs =
H2s /Γ0 has length at least ǫ. This readily implies that the ǫ/4-neighborhood

THE ZERO NORM SUBSPACE FOR ACYLINDRICALLY HYPERBOLIC GROUPS 41

of any length-minimizing geodesic of Σs is isometric to the ǫ/4-neighborhood
of a geodesic of length L in H2 .
Since the area of the ǫ-neighborhood of a geodesic of length L grows
linearly with L, and the area of Σs is equal to 2πχ(Σ), this provides the
desired upper bound on the lengths of minimizing geodesics in Σs , i.e. on
the diameter of H2s /Γ0 .

For each n ∈ Z denote by Xn the graph whose vertex set is Γ0 × {n}
and with the property that two vertices (g, n), (h, n) are joined by an edge
if and only if d(gbλn , hbλn ) ≤ 6C. By Milnor-Svarc Lemma Xn is (6C, 1)quasi-isometric to H2λn (see, for example, the proof in [BH99b, Proposition
I.8.19]). Moreover Xn has valency bounded above by D(ǫ, C). The graph
X is the union of the Xn with horizontal edges of type ((g, n), (g, n + 1)).
Observe that there are a natural Γ-action on X, a natural projection
p : X (0) = Γ0 × Z → Γ0 and a natural 1-Lipschitz map θ : X (0) → R defined
by θ(g, n) = nλ.
The graph X is uniformly quasi-isometric to the canonical H2 -bundle
over l. Farb-Mosher [FM02, page 145] use Bestvina-Feighn’s combination
theorem to show:
Proposition 5.4. There exists δ = δ(g, ǫ) such that X is δ-hyperbolic.
Denote by X the Rips complex over X with constant κ ≥ 4δ + 6. Since
the graph X is hyperbolic and has bounded valency, it admits a homological
bicombing with a good filling ϕ:
Lemma 5.5. There exist a constant T3 ∈ R depending on ǫ and g only, and
a Γ-equivariant map ϕ : X 3 → C2∆ (X )red such that
(1) ϕ(x0 , x1 , x2 ) = [x0 , x1 , x2 ] if d(xi , xi ) ≤ κ;
(2) for any 4-tuple (x0 , x1 , x2 , x3 ) of vertices of X there exists B ∈
C3∆ (X ) with ϕ(∂(x0 , x1 , x2 , x3 )) = ∂B and kBk1 ≤ T3 .
Proof. Since X is δ-hyperbolic and has uniformly bounded degree, Mineyev’s
construction gives a Γ-equivariant, anti-symmetric homological bicombing
ϕ1 : X 2 → C1∆ (X ) with the property that for each triple (x0 , x1 , x2 ),
kϕ1 (∂(x0 , x1 , x2 ))k1 ≤ T1 (g, ǫ) [Min01, Theorem 10] (cfr. also [GM08, Theorem 6.2] where it is observed that the constant T1 in Mineyev’s construction
only depends on the valency of the 1-skeleton of X and its hyperbolicity
constant). By [Min01, Proposition 12] there exists a filling ϕ := ϕ2 : X 3 →
C2∆ (X )red so that ∂ϕ(x0 , x1 , x2 ) = ϕ1 (x0 , x1 )+ϕ1 (x1 , x2 )+ϕ1 (x2 , x0 ). Again
by [Min01], property (2) holds with a constant T3 depending only on the
hyperbolicity constant δ and the valency. We are free to modify ϕ on small
simplices to ensure (1), because the norm of ϕ1 (x0 , x1 ) is bounded by a
function of the distance of x0 , x1 (this is part of Mineyev’s definition of
quasi-geodesic bicombing).


THE ZERO NORM SUBSPACE FOR ACYLINDRICALLY HYPERBOLIC GROUPS 42

5.2. The primitive of the volume form α. Just as we did in Section 4,
in order to define a primitive α of a combinatorial volume form, we need to
define a suitable sign ǫ for every triple of vertices of X.
Fix a hyperbolization ρ : Γ0 → Isom(H2 ), and a lift e
h : H2 → H2 of the
pseudo-Anosov homeomorphism ψ with a fixed point q in ∂H2 . (Such a lift
exists: consider a singular point x ∈ H2 for the lift of the singular foliation
preserved by ψ. If we choose the lift e
h with the property that e
h(x) = x, we
get that the endpoints at infinity of the singular leaves through x are fixed
by e
h.)
For a triple (x0 , x1 , x2 ) of vertices of X, the sign ǫ(x0 , x1 , x2 ) is 1, −1
or 0 depending on the orientation of the ideal triangle of H2 with vertices ρ(p(xi ))q (just as in Subsection 4.2). Proposition 4.1 ensures that
ǫ ∈ Zb2 (Γ y X)Γ .
Let t ∈ Γ be the stable letter of the HNN extension Γ = Γ0 ∗ψ∗ . As in
Section 4.3 we can define a simplicial cochain F by setting
2

X
1
F ([x0 , x1 , x2 ]) = ǫ(x0 , x1 , x2 )
θ(xi ).
3
i=0

In this context we have the following:

Lemma 5.6. The simplicial cochain F satisfies:
(1) |F (∂[x0 , x1 , x2 , x3 ])| ≤ 2κ for any 3-simplex [x0 , x1 , x2 , x3 ] ∈ X ;
(2) δF is Γ-invariant.
Proof. The same computation as in Lemma 4.2 gives that, up to reordering the vertices xi , either F (∂[x0 , x1 , x2 , x3 ]) = 0 or F (∂[x0 , x1 , x2 , x3 ]) =
θ(x2 ) − θ(x3 ), or F (∂[x0 , x1 , x2 , x3 ]) = (θ(x0 ) − θ(x1 )) + (θ(x2 ) − θ(x3 )).
Since θ is 1-Lipschitz and d(xi , xj ) ≤ κ, (1) follows.
(2) follows from the description of F (∂[x0 , x1 , x2 , x3 ]) we have just given,
and from the fact that ǫ is Γ-invariant and θ(t · x) = θ(x) + τ (ψ).

The Γ0 -invariant primitive of the volume form is the evaluation of F on
fillings of simplices:
α(x0 , x1 , x2 ) = F (ϕ(x0 , x1 , x2 )).
An immediate consequence of Lemma 5.5 (2) and Lemma 5.6 (1) is:
Lemma 5.7. The defect of α is uniformly bounded:
kδαk∞ ≤ 2κT3 .
5.3. The volume estimate. In order to estimate the simplicial volume,
recall that the Rips complex X is contractible, in particular we can choose
a simplicial chain S ∈ C2∆ (X )red,Γ0 representing the fundamental class of a
fiber.
P
Lemma 5.8. If S =
c(σ)σ then
X
c(σ)ǫ(σ) = −2χ(Σ) .
σ

THE ZERO NORM SUBSPACE FOR ACYLINDRICALLY HYPERBOLIC GROUPS 43

Proof. The oriented area of a hyperbolic triangle is π times the orientation
cocycle ǫ. Using Gauss-Bonnet this implies that the pairing of ǫ with a
fundamental class S of the surface Σ is equal to −2|χ(Σ)|, that is the volume
of the surface divided by π.

Lemma 5.9. There exists a simplicial chain M ∈ C3 (Γ0 y X)red,Γ0 with
∂M = t · S − S. The image of M in C3 (Γ y X)red,Γ represents the fundamental class [Mψ ] ∈ H3 (Mψ , R).
Proof. Denote by M ψ the infinite cyclic cover of Mψ . Since X is contractible, the orbit maps define maps C∗ (Γ0 )red,Γ0 → C∗ (Γ0 y X)red,Γ0
and C∗ (Γ0 )red,Γ0 → C∗ (M ψ )red inducing isomorphisms in homology. Each
complex is endowed with a Z-action (with the positive generators of Z acting
as ψ∗ on C∗ (Γ0 )red,Γ0 , and as the positive generator of the deck transformation group of M ψ on C∗ (M ψ )red ) and the isomorphisms are equivariant with
respect to these actions.
Using these isomorphisms the lemma follows from the corresponding statement for the topological counterpart, namely that if [Σ] ∈ H2 (M ψ , R) is
represented by a fiber and t is a generator of the deck group, then t[Σ] − [Σ]
is the boundary of a 3-cycle projecting to the fundamental class of Mψ . 
Recall that the simplicial volume kN k of a closed oriented manifold N
is the ℓ1 -seminorm of its real fundamental class. A fundamental result by
Gromov and Thurston (see e.g. [Thu79]) states that there exists a positive constant vn only depending on n such that vol(N ) = vn kN k for every
closed orientable hyperbolic n-manifold N . Therefore, Theorem 5.1 is an
immediate consequence of the following:
Proposition 5.10.
kMψ k ≥

−2τ (ψ)χ(Σg )
.
κT3

Proof. Since M represents [Mψ ], we have
(4)

|δα(M )| ≤ k[Mψ ]k1 · k[δα]k∞ = kMψ k · k[δα]k∞ ≤ 2κT3 kMψ k .

By construction, for any x ∈ X we have θ(t · x) = τ (ψ) + θ(x). In
particular, for any 3-simplex σ = [x0 , x1 , x2 ] ∈ X we get α(t · σ) − α(σ) =
ǫ(σ)τ (ψ). This implies
X
(5)
δα(M ) = α(∂M ) = τ (ψ)
c(σ)ǫ(σ) = −2χ(Σg )τ (ψ) .
σ

The conclusion now follows from (4) and (5).



References
[BB16] Jeffrey F. Brock and Kenneth W. Bromberg. Inflexibility, Weil-Peterson distance,
and volumes of fibered 3-manifolds. Math. Res. Lett., 23(3):649–674, 2016.
[BBF16] M. Bestvina, K. Bromberg, and K. Fujiwara. Bounded cohomology with coefficients in uniformly convex Banach spaces. Comment. Math. Helv., 91:203–218,
2016.

THE ZERO NORM SUBSPACE FOR ACYLINDRICALLY HYPERBOLIC GROUPS 44

[Ber78] Lipman Bers. An extremal problem for quasiconformal mappings and a theorem
by Thurston. Acta Math., 141(1-2):73–98, 1978.
[BF02] M. Bestvina and K. Fujiwara. Bounded cohomology of subgroups of mapping class
groups. Geom. Topol., 6:69–89 (electronic), 2002.
[BH99a] M. R. Bridson and A. Haefliger. Metric spaces of non-positive curvature, volume
319 of Grundlehren der Mathematischen Wissenschaften. Springer-Verlag, Berlin,
1999.
[BH99b] Martin R. Bridson and André Haefliger. Metric spaces of non-positive curvature,
volume 319 of Grundlehren der Mathematischen Wissenschaften [Fundamental
Principles of Mathematical Sciences]. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1999.
[BI07] M. Burger and A. Iozzi. Bounded differential forms, generalized Milnor-Wood
inequality and an application to deformation rigidity. Geom. Dedicata, 125:1–23,
2007.
[Bow12] B. H. Bowditch. Relatively hyperbolic groups. Internat. J. Algebra Comput.,
22(3):1250016, 66, 2012.
[Bro81] R. Brooks. Some remarks on bounded cohomology. In Princeton Univ. Press,
editor, Riemann surfaces and related topics: Proceedings of the 1978 Stony Brook
Conference (State Univ. New York, Stony Brook, N.Y., 1978), volume 97 of Ann.
of Math. Stud., Princeton, N.J., 1981.
[Bro03a] Jeffrey F. Brock. The Weil-Petersson metric and volumes of 3-dimensional hyperbolic convex cores. J. Amer. Math. Soc., 16(3):495–535, 2003.
[Bro03b] Jeffrey F. Brock. Weil-Petersson translation distance and volumes of mapping
tori. Comm. Anal. Geom., 11(5):987–999, 2003.
[CFI16] Indira Chatterji, Talia Fernós, and Alessandra Iozzi. The median class and superrigidity of actions on CAT(0) cube complexes. J. Topol., 9(2):349–400, 2016.
With an appendix by Pierre-Emmanuel Caprace.
[DGO16] F. Dahmani, V. Guirardel, and D. Osin. Hyperbolically embedded subgroups
and rotating families in groups acting on hyperbolic spaces. Mem. Amer. Math.
Soc., 245(1156), 2016.
[EF97] D. Epstein and K. Fujiwara. The second bounded cohomology of word-hyperbolic
groups. Topology, 36:1275–1289, 1997.
[Far98] B. Farb. Relatively hyperbolic groups. Geom. Funct. Anal., 8:810–840, 1998.
[FM02] B. Farb and L. Mosher. The geometry of surface-by-free groups. Geom. Funct.
Anal., 12(5):915–963, 2002.
[FM11] K. Fujiwara and J. F. Manning. Simplicial volume and fillings of hyperbolic manifolds. Algebr. Geom. Topol., 11:2237–2264, 2011.
[FPS15] R. Frigerio, M. B. Pozzetti, and A. Sisto. Extending higher-dimensional quasicocycles. J. Topol., 8:1123–1155, 2015.
[Fra]
F. Franceschini. A characterization of relatively hyperbolic groups via bounded
cohomology. arXiv:1505.04465.
[Fuj98] K. Fujiwara. The second bounded cohomology of a group acting on a Gromovhyperbolic space. Proc. London Math. Soc., 76:70–94, 1998.
[Fuj00] K. Fujiwara. The second bounded cohomology of an amalgamated free product of
groups. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 352:1113–1129, 2000.
[GM08] D. Groves and J. F. Manning. Dehn filling in relatively hyperbolic groups. Israel
J. Math., 168:317–429, 2008.
[Gro82] M. Gromov. Volume and bounded cohomology. Inst. Hautes Études Sci. Publ.
Math., 56:5–99, 1982.
[Gro99] M. Gromov. Metric structures for Riemannian and non-Riemannian spaces, volume 152 of Progress in Mathematics. Birkhäuser, 1999. with appendices by M.
Katz, P. Pansu, and S. Semmes, translated by S.M. Bates.
[GS14] Dominik Gruber and Alessandro Sisto. Infinitely presented graphical small cancellation groups are acylindrically hyperbolic. 2014.

THE ZERO NORM SUBSPACE FOR ACYLINDRICALLY HYPERBOLIC GROUPS 45

[Ham08] U. Hamenstädt. Bounded cohomology and isometry groups of hyperbolic spaces.
J. Eur. Math. Soc., 10:315–349, 2008.
[HO13] M. Hull and D. Osin. Induced quasicocycles on groups with hyperbolically embedded subgroups. Algebr. Geom. Topol., 13:2635–2665, 2013.
[Iva87] N. V. Ivanov. Foundation of the theory of bounded cohomology. J. Soviet. Math.,
37:1090–1114, 1987.
[Iva90] N. V. Ivanov. The second bounded cohomology group. J. Soviet Math., 52:2822–
2824, 1990.
[KK15] S. Kim and I. Kim. Bounded cohomology and the cheeger isoperimetric constant.
Geom. Dedicata, 179:1–20, 2015.
[KL07] Richard P. Kent, IV and Christopher J. Leininger. Subgroups of mapping class
groups from the geometrical viewpoint. In In the tradition of Ahlfors-Bers. IV,
volume 432 of Contemp. Math., pages 119–141. Amer. Math. Soc., Providence,
RI, 2007.
[KM14] S. Kojima and G. McShane. Normalized Entropy versus Volume. ArXiv e-prints,
November 2014.
[Min01] I. Mineyev. Straightening and bounded cohomology of hyperbolic groups. Geom.
Funct. Anal., 11:807–839, 2001.
[MM85] S. Matsumoto and S. Morita. Bounded cohomology of certain groups of homeomorphisms. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., 94:539–544, 1985.
[MM00] H. A. Masur and Y. N. Minsky. Geometry of the complex of curves. II. Hierarchical structure. Geom. Funct. Anal., 10(4):902–974, 2000.
[MO13] A. Minasyan and D. Osin. Acylindrical hyperbolicity of groups acting on trees.
ArXiv:1310.6289, October 2013.
[Mon01] N. Monod. Continuous bounded cohomology of locally compact groups. Number
1758 in Lecture notes in Mathematics. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2001.
[MR08] Mahan Mj and Lawrence Reeves. A combination theorem for strong relative hyperbolicity. Geom. Topol., 12(3):1777–1798, 2008.
[MS06] N. Monod and Y. Shalom. Orbit equivalence rigidity and bounded cohomology.
Ann. of Math. (2), 164:825–878, 2006.
[MS17] J. Maher and A. Sisto. Random subgroups of acylindrically hyperbolic groups and
hyperbolic embeddings. 2017.
[NM04] Y. Shalom N. Monod. Cocycle superrigidity and bounded cohomology for negatively curved spaces. J. Differential Geom., 67:395–455, 2004.
[Osi13] D. Osin. Acylindrically hyperbolic groups. ArXiv:1304.1246, April 2013.
[Osi15] D. Osin. On acylindrical hyperbolicity of groups with positive first ℓ2 -Betti number. Bull. Lond. Math. Soc., 47:725–730, 2015.
[Ota96] J. P. Otal. Le théorème d’hyperbolisation pour les variétés fibrées de dimension
3. Astérisque, 235:x+159 pp., 1996.
[Raf05] Kasra Rafi. A characterization of short curves of a Teichmüller geodesic. Geom.
Topol., 9:179–202, 2005.
[Raf07] Kasra Rafi. A combinatorial model for the Teichmüller metric. Geom. Funct.
Anal., 17(3):936–959, 2007.
[Sis11] A. Sisto. Contracting elements and random walks. ArXiv:1112.2666, December
2011.
[Som97a] T. Soma. Bounded cohomology and topologically tame Kleinian groups. Duke
Math. J., 88:357–370, 1997.
[Som97b] T. Soma. Bounded cohomology of closed surfaces. Topology, 36:1221–1246, 1997.
[Som97c] T. Soma. The zero-norm subspace of bounded cohomology. Comment. Math.
Helv., 72:582–592, 1997.
[Som98] T. Soma. Existence of non-Banach bounded cohomology. Topology, 37:179–193,
1998.

THE ZERO NORM SUBSPACE FOR ACYLINDRICALLY HYPERBOLIC GROUPS 46

[Thu79] W. P. Thurston. The geometry and topology of 3-manifolds. Princeton, 1979.
mimeographed notes.
[Wie12] A. Wienhard. Remarks on and around bounded differential forms. Pure Appl.
Math. Q., 8:479–496, 2012.
Karlsruher Institut für Technologie (KIT), Fakultät für Mathematik, Institut für Algebra und Geometrie Englerstraße. 2, 76131 Karlsruhe, Deutschland
E-mail address: federico.franceschini@kit.edu
Dipartimento di Matematica, Università di Pisa, Largo B. Pontecorvo 5,
56127 Pisa, Italy
E-mail address: frigerio@dm.unipi.it
Mathematics Institute, Zeeman Building, University of Warwick, Coventry
CV4 7AL United Kingdom
E-mail address: B.Pozzetti@Warwick.ac.uk
Department Mathematik, ETH Zürich, Rämistrasse 101, CH-8092 Zürich,
Switzerland
E-mail address: sisto@math.ethz.ch

