arXiv:1612.06272v1 [math.GR] 19 Dec 2016

Cocompact cubulations of mixed 3-manifolds
Joseph Tidmore
Department of Mathematical Sciences
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
Milwaukee, WI 53201, USA
email: jtidmore@uwm.edu

Abstract
In this paper, we complete the classification of which compact 3manifolds have a virtually compact special fundamental group by addressing the case of mixed 3-manifolds. A compact aspherical 3-manifold M
is mixed if its JSJ decomposition has at least one JSJ torus and at least
one hyperbolic block. We show π1 M is virtually compact special iff M
is chargeless, i.e. each interior Seifert fibered block has a trivial Euler
number relative to the fibers of adjacent blocks.

1
1.1

Introduction
Statement of Main Result

The special cube complexes of Haglund-Wise [14] play a key role in the proof
of the virtual Haken and virtual fibering conjectures. An important step in
proving these conjectures is showing that the fundamental groups of hyperbolic
3-manifolds are virtually compact special i.e., virtually the fundamental group
of a compact special cube complex, proved by Wise [31] and Agol [1] in the
cusped hyperbolic and closed cases respectively. The main goal of this paper
is to answer Question 9.4 of Aschenbrenner, Friedl, and Wilton in [2] which we
state below.
Question 1.1. Let M be a compact, connected, aspherical 3-manifold. For
which M is π1 M virtually compact special?
For a geometric manifold M which is not hyperbolic, then π1 M is virtually
compact special if and only if M admits an E3 , H2 ×R, S 2 ×R, or S 3 geometry by
an observation of Hagen-Przytycki [13]. The main result of Hagen-Przytycki [13]
was answering Question 1.1 for graph manifolds, which left only the case when
M is a mixed manifold unresolved, with mixed defined as follows: Let M be a
compact, connected, orientable, irreducible 3-manifold with ∂M either empty or
1

a disjoint union of tori. Then M can be cut along tori called JSJ tori so that each
component is a hyperbolic 3-manifold or a Seifert fibered space. The 3-manifold
M is mixed if this decomposition has at least one hyperbolic component and
at least one JSJ torus. Each component of this JSJ decomposition is a block.
Przytycki-Wise proved mixed manifold groups are virtually special in [23] but
did not address the issue of compactness. In this paper, we completely answer
Question 1.1 by studying the mixed manifold case.
The answer to Question 1.1 for mixed manifolds is similar to Hagen-Przytycki’s
answer for graph manifolds. They showed the obstruction to virtually compact
special for nongeometric graph manifold groups is the charge. For a Seifert
fibered block B of a mixed manifold M which is interior, meaning B does contain a boundary torus and is not adjacent to a hyperbolic block, the charge of
B is its Euler number relatively to the S 1 -fibers of the adjacent blocks. The
3-manifold M is chargeless if all its interior Seifert fibered blocks are chargeless.
Main Theorem. Let M be a mixed manifold. The following are equivalent:
1. M is chargeless.
2. π1 M is virtually the fundamental group of a compact nonpositively curved
cube complex.
3. π1 M is virtually compact special.
Przytycki-Wise in [23] demonstrated that virtually special cubulations of the
hyperbolic blocks and maximal graph manifold components could be combined
using relatively hyperbolic techniques of Hruska-Wise [17] to produce virtually
special cubulations of mixed manifold groups (without addressing the issue of
cocompactness). For chargeless mixed manifolds, we follow a similar strategy
taking extra care to assure we preserve cocompactness. We combine the virtually compact special cubulations of Hagen-Przytycki [13] for the chargeless graph
manifold components with a more tightly constrained variation of Wise’s [31]
virtually compact special cubulations of the hyperbolic blocks to produce virtually compact special cubulations for chargeless mixed manifold groups.
Showing that the fundamental group of a 3-manifold is virtually compact
special has a number of consequences. Schreve in [29] proved that any virtually
compact special group G satisfies the Strong Atiyah Conjecture. For a torsion
e with
free group G, the Strong Atiyah Conjecture states that for any space X
e
a properly discontinuous and cocompact G-action, the L2 -Betti numbers of X
are integers.
Corollary 1.2. Let M be a chargeless mixed manifold. Then π1 M satisfies the
Strong Atiyah Conjecture.
Niblo and Reeves in [22] showed that cocompactly cubulated groups are
biautomatic.
Corollary 1.3. Let M be a chargeless mixed manifold. Then π1 M is biautomatic.
2

Corollary 1.3 could also be derived from the main result of Rebecchi’s thesis
[25] since π1 M is hyperbolic relative to chargeless graph manifold groups which
are biautomatic by Hagen-Przytycki [13] and Niblo-Reeves [22].
The fundamental group of a mixed manifold M has a natural relatively hyperbolic structure described in Section 2.3. Aschenbrenner, Friedl, and Wilton
make the following conjecture for fully relatively quasiconvex subgroups (definition 2.8) of π1 M :
Conjecture 1.4 (Conjecture 9.3 of [2]). Let M be a mixed manifold with π1 M
equipped with its natural relatively hyperbolic structure. If H is a fully relatively
quasiconvex subgroup of π1 M then H is a virtual retract. In particular, H is
separable.
Theorem 5.8 of Chesebro, DeBlois, and Wilton [8] states any fully relatively
quasiconvex subgroup of a relatively hyperbolic, virtually compact special group
is a virtual retract. Thus we can partially answer this conjecture.
Corollary 1.5. Let M be a chargeless mixed manifold. Any fully relatively
quasiconvex subgroup of π1 M is a virtual retract and, in particular, is separable.
Combining the main theorem with previously known results allows us to
completely answer Question 1.1.
Theorem 1.6. Let M be a compact, aspherical 3-manifold whose boundary is
empty or a disjoint union of tori. Then π1 M is virtually compact special iff
either of the following holds.
1. M is geometric and its interior admits one of the following five geometries:
H3 , E3 , H2 × R, S 2 × R, or S 3 .
2. M is nongeometric and chargeless.

1.2

Outline for the proof of the main theorem

In the main theorem, the implication (3) =⇒ (2) is obvious. That (2) =⇒ (1)
will be an application of Hagen-Przytycki [13] and Theorem 7.12 of HruskaWise [17]. Most of the work in this paper is proving (1) =⇒ (3). Our strategy
is to construct a collection of surfaces immersed in a chargeless mixed manifold
M and study the induced action of π1 M on the dual CAT (0) cube complex to
show that π1 M is virtually compact special. The construction of the dual cube
complex, due to the Sageev, takes as input a collection of immersed codimensione dual this
1 surfaces in a 3-manifold M and yields a CAT (0) cube complex X
e
collection of surfaces together with an action of π1 M on X. Combinatorial features of the collection of immersed surfaces lead to various finiteness properties
e such as proper, cocompact, special, etc.
of the action of π1 M on X
Przytycki-Wise [23] proved mixed manifold groups are virtually special (without addressing cocompactness) by combining collections of immersed surfaces
due to Przytycki-Wise [24] inducing virtually special cubulations of the graph
3

manifold components and surfaces due to Wise [31] inducing virtually compact
special cubulations of the hyperbolic blocks to produce a certain collection of
immersed surfaces in a mixed manifold. They then study the action on the dual
cube complex using a theorem of Hruska-Wise [17] to prove the action is proper
with a virtually special quotient.
In general, the surfaces constructed by Przytycki-Wise do not provide a
cocompact cubulation. One reason why is that a proper and cocompact actions requires additional constraints on how the surfaces intersect the JSJ and
boundary tori. To see this, first consider a well-known example of Sageev’s
construction: Suppose we have a collection of closed curves in a torus T . The
slope of a closed curve γ in T is the commensurablility class of hγi in π1 T . For
a collection of closed curves with n distinct slopes, the dual cube complex is
Rn tessellated by n-cubes. Thus π1 T = Z × Z acts properly when n ≥ 2 and
acts cocompactly when n ≤ 2. The action is proper and cocompact iff n = 2.
Prztycki-Wise [23] chose surfaces independently in the graph manifold components and hyperoblic blocks guaranteeing at least two slopes of curves in each
JSJ torus T , but not exactly two since the slopes contributed by each block
containing T might not match.
For a chargeless mixed manifold M , we use in each graph manifold component the surfaces used by Hagen-Przytycki [13] to obtain a virtually compact
special cubulation of a chargeless graph manifold. The surfaces in the graph
manifold components put a framing on each JSJ torus contained in a graph
manifold component, i.e. a choice of two slopes. We then add surfaces to the
hyperbolic blocks whose boundary curves intersect the JSJ tori in the slopes that
come from the framing. Our more tightly constriained variation of Wise’s virtually compact special cubulation for cusped hyperbolic 3-manifold groups [31]
provides a collection of surfaces that induces a virtually compact special cubulation and that is true to any given framing of the boundary tori.
Theorem 1.7. Let N be a hyperbolic 3-manifold whose boundary is nonempty
and a union of framed tori, ∂N = T1 ∪ · · · ∪ Tk . In each Ti choose simple closed
curves Ci and Di whose slopes are those given by the framing. There is a finite
collection S of surfaces properly immersed in N which are geometrically finite
and in general position so that π1 N acts freely, properly, and cocompactly on
e dual to S and X = X/π
e 1 N is virtually compact
the cube complex complex X
special. Further, if H ⊂ X is an immersed hyperplane of X and a conjugate
of π1 H ≤ π1 X = π1 N intersects some π1 Ti then that intersection lies in either
π1 Ci or π1 Di .
In Section 2 we define a frame efficient collection of surfaces reducing the
proof of the implication (1) =⇒ (3) in the main theorem to two steps.
Proposition 1.8. Let M be a chargeless mixed manifold. Then M admits a
frame efficient collection of surfaces.
Proposition 1.9. Let M be a mixed manifold admitting a frame efficient collection of surfaces S. Then π1 M is virtually compact special.
4

Organization. Section 2 establishes notation, gives an overview of the
cubulating techniques used in this paper, and gives a proof of the implication
(2) =⇒ (1) of the main theorem. Section 3 describe a collection of surfaces
immersed in a chargeless graph manifold constructed by Hagen-Przytycki [13],
called an efficient collection. Section 4 constructs the surfaces we use in the hyperbolic blocks and proves Theorem 1.7. Section 5 constructs a frame efficient
collection of surfaces in a chargeless mixed manifold proving Proposition 1.8.
Section 6 proves Proposition 1.9, completing the proof of the main theorem.
Section 7 proves Theorem 1.6, classifying virtually compact special 3-manifold
groups.
Acknowledgements. I would like to think my adviser Chris Hruska for all his
help and advice throughout this paper. I would also like to think Boris Okun
and Kevin Schreve for helpful clarifications on the Strong Atiyah conjecture.

2

Background

We need several tools to prove the main theorem. Section 2.1 provides some
background in 3-manifold theory. Section 2.2 defines a frame efficient collection
of surfaces in a mixed manifold. Section 2.3 describes a natural relatively hyperbolic structure of mixed manifold groups and a key result of [17] for cubulating
relatively hyperbolic groups.

2.1

3-Manifold Background

Here we describe two decompositions for mixed manifolds and present some
background in 3-manifold theory. A good reference for many of the results here
is [2].
Modified JSJ decomposition. We first describe the classical JSJ composition. Let M be a compact connected oriented irreducible 3-manifold whose
boundary is either empty or a disjoint union of tori. The 3-manifold M has a
unique, up to isotopy, minimal collection of incompressible tori which are not
∂-parallel called JSJ tori such that when M is cut open along these tori each
component of the cut-open space, called a block of M , is either atoroidal or
admits a Seifert fibered structure. The 3-manifold M is a mixed manifold if it
has at least one JSJ torus and at least one atoroidal block. When M has at
least one JSJ torus, Thurston’s hyperbolization tells us each atoroidal block of
M admits a hyperbolic structure. We refer to the blocks of our mixed manifold
as hyperbolic blocks and Seifert fibered blocks as appropriate.
Let M0 denote the space obtained by cutting M along all the JSJ tori. Each
JSJ torus T ⊂ M is the preimage of two distinct components T1 and T2 of ∂M0 .
If B1 and B2 are the blocks containing T1 and T2 respectively we say B1 and B2
each contain T . We also say B1 and B2 are adjacent via T . Note it is possible
that B1 = B2 so a block can be adjacent to itself via some JSJ torus.
As in [23] we modify the above the decomposition in a way that is useful for
mixed manifolds. Suppose T is either a JSJ or boundary torus of M and is not
5

contained in any Seifert fibered block. Choose a parallel copy of T in M and
call it a JSJ torus also. The product region T × I bounded T and this parallel
copy has many possible Seifert fibered structures and we call it a thin Seifert
fibered block. Throughout this paper when we consider a mixed manifold we
will refer to this modified decomposition as its JSJ decomposition.
Transitional decomposition. We also use another decomposition from
[23] for mixed manifolds. A JSJ torus T of a mixed manifold M is a transitional
torus if it is contained in at least one hyperbolic block. Cutting M along the
transitional tori gives us its transitional decomposition with each component
being either a hyperbolic block of M or a graph manifold which we call a graph
manifold cluster of M . If a graph manifold cluster N of M consists of just a thin
Seifert fibered block, N is thin. The other graph manifold clusters are thick.
We define adjacency for components of the transitional decomposition in an
analogous way to that of blocks of the JSJ decomposition. Note the transitional
decomposition is bipartite in that a hyperbolic block is only adjacent to graph
manifold clusters and vice versa.
Elevation. Let φ : N → M be a map between manifolds of any dimension
c → M a covering space. A map φb : N
b →M
c, with N
b a cover of N , is an
and M
b
elevation of φ if φ covers φ and does not factor through any intermediate cover
of N .
The elevations of the JSJ, boundary, and transitional tori of M to its univerf are JSJ, boundary, and transitional planes respectively. Similarly,
sal cover M
the elevations of the hyperbolic and Seifert fibered blocks are hyperbolic and
f respectively. The elevations of graph manifold clusSeifert fibered blocks of M
f
f. This last case is a slight abuse of
ters to M are graph manifold clusters of M
notation since these elevations are not compact. In our notation, a graph manf is a connected subspace of M
f which covers a graph manifold
ifold cluster of M
cluster of M .
Properties of Immersed Surfaces. An connected, immersed (embedded) surface φ : S → M in a 3-manifold M is properly immersed (embedded) if
φ−1 (∂M ) = ∂S. An immersed surface φ : S → M which is not a 2-sphere is
f.
immersed incompressible if φ is π1 -injective and elevates to an embedding in M
Pieces of Surfaces. If B is a hyperbolic (Seifert fibered) block of M , any
restriction of φ to a component of φ−1 (B) is a hyperbolic (Seifert fibered) piece
of S in B. For a graph manifold cluster N of M , we call a component of φ−1 (N )
a piece cluster.
Accidental parabolic. Let S → M be a properly immersed surface and C
a closed curve in S. Suppose the image of C in M is freely homotopic in M to
a curve lying in some transitional torus T . Then C is an accidental parabolic if
there is a homotopy of S → M so that both the following hold: The image of
C in M lies in the interior of a hyperbolic block, and C is not freely homotopic
in S to a curve that maps into T .
Chargeless. Rather than defining the notion of the charge of a Seifert
fibered block, we instead discuss only the notion of chargeless blocks. This
condition concerns interior Seifert fibered blocks of M , i.e. those that neither

6

contain a boundary torus of M nor are adjacent to a hyperbolic block.
Definition 2.1. Let M be a compact, oriented, irreducible 3-manifold with at
least one JSJ torus and whose boundary is either empty or a union of tori. An
interior Seifert fibered block B of M is chargeless if the following holds:
Let T1 , ... ,Tk be the JSJ tori contained in B. For each Ti , let Bi′ denote the
Seifert fibered block adjacent to B via Ti and Zi a circle in Ti which is a fiber
of Bi′ . Let [Zi ] denote class of Zi in H1 (B; Z). B is chargeless if we can assign
nonzero integers n1 , ... , nk so that
k
X

ni [Zi ] = 0 in H1 (B; Z).

i=1

We say M is chargeless if every interior Seifert fibered block of M is chargeless.
We will later see the cycle

k
P

ni [Zi ] = 0 in H1 (B; Z) bounds an embedded

i=1

horizontal surface in B. An analogous property holds for all hyperbolic blocks
as a consequence of Theorem 4.3 proved later. In the latter case the cycle
k
P
ni [Zi ] = 0 in H1 (B; Z) bounds a geometrically finite surface. This plays a
i=1

key role in the construction of a frame efficient collection of surfaces.
We need a few facts about hyperbolic 3-manifolds and Seifert fibered spaces.
Geometrically Finite. Suppose G is a Kleinian group i.e., a discrete
2
subgroup of P SL(2, C) = Isom+ (H3 ). Consider the spherical boundary S∞
3
3
of H . For any x ∈ H , the limit set of G, denoted by ΛG , is the set of all
2
. Note this is independent of the choice of
accumulation points of Gx in S∞
3
2
. Then G is
x ∈ H . Let C(ΛG ) denote the convex hull of ΛG in H3 ∪ S∞
3
geometrically finite if there is an ǫ > 0 so that Nǫ (C(ΛG ∩ H )/G has finite
volume. An immersed incompressible surface S in a hyperbolic 3-manifold N is
geometrically finite if π1 S ≤ π1 N ≤ Isom+ (H3 ) is geometrically finite.
Horizontal and Vertical. A surface immersed in a Seifert fibered space is
horizontal if it only has transverse intersections with the S 1 -fibers. It is vertical
if it a union of S 1 -fibers. Hass showed in [15] that every immersed (embedded)
surface in a Seifert fibered space is a homotopic to either a horizontal or vertical
immersion (embedding). Rubinstein and Wang applied this to show that a
surface immersed in a graph manifold can be homotoped so that each piece is
either horizontal or vertical in the Seifert fibered block it maps into. (Lemma
3.3 of [26].) We will assume the piece clusters of any surface we consider to be
homotoped into this form.

2.2

Frame Efficient Collection

The goal of this subsection is to define the notion of a frame efficient collection
of properly immersed surfaces. For this section, let M be a mixed manifold and
f its universal cover.
M
7

f the structure of a
First, we describe how a collection of surfaces gives M
wallspace in the sense of Haglund-Paulin. Suppose S is a collection of properly
e denote the
immersed incompressible surfaces in a mixed manifold M . Let S
f. Each Se ∈ S
e is a wall in
collection of all elevations of surfaces in S to M
f meaning that cutting M
f along Se decomposes it into two halfspaces U and
M
e endows M
f with a Haglund-Paulin wallspace structure (M
f, S).
e (We
V . Thus S
follow the more flexible treatment in [17] where U ∩ V can be nonempty.)
e dual to the wallspace (M
f, S)
e was first conThe CAT (0) cube complex X
f
structed by Sageev [27]. The action of π1 M on M preserves the wallspace
structure inducing an action of π1 M on the dual cube complex. We do not
describe Sageev’s construction here. For background see e.g. Hruska-Wise [17]
which gives a self-contained account similar to the treatment in this paper. We
need to highlight some key properties. A midcube of an n-cube [−1, 1]n is a
e of
subspace obtained by restricting one of its coordinates to 0. A hyperplane H
e
e
X is a connected subspace which intersects each cube of X in either a midcube
e is associated to a unique hyperplane H
e of
or the empty set. Each wall Se ∈ S
e
e
e
e
X and H has the property that stab(S) = stab(H) implying π1 S ≤ π1 M is a
e
finite index subgroup of stab(H).
The statement of Theorem 1.7 uses the notion of an immersed hyperplane
in a nonpositively curve cube complex X so we define this as well. Given a
e in X,
e the universal cover of X, with K = stab(H)
e ≤ π1 X, the
hyperplane H
e
induced map H = H/K → X is an immersed hyperplane of X. Note that
H → X is a local isometry and hence π1 -injective.
A cube in a cube complex is maximal if it is not a proper subset of another
e is finite-dimensional and we consider
cube. If the dual CAT (0) cube complex X
a maximal collection of pairwise crossing (i.e., intersecting) walls then the collection of hyperplanes associated to those walls is a maximal collection of pairwise
e corresponds to a unique
crossing hyperplanes. Further, each maximal cube of X
maximal collection of pairwise crossing hyperplanes. In fact, they cross in that
cube. Thus each maximal collection of pairwise crossing walls corresponds to
e A common strategy for proving a group acts
the unique maximal cube of X.
cocompactly on a dual cube complex is to show there are finitely many orbits
of collections of pairwise crossing walls.
To define a frame efficient collection of surfaces we need some terminology.
f is
Cut-surface. An axis for a nontrivial element g ∈ π1 M acting on M
f
a copy of R in M on which g acts by nontrivial translation. A cut-surface for
f such
g ∈ π1 M is an immersed incompressible surface S → M covered by Se ⊂ M
that there is an axis R for g satisfying Se ∩ R = {0}, where the intersection is
transverse.
The existence of cut-surfaces is important for proper actions. Suppose S
is a collection of properly immersed incompressible surfaces containing a cutsurface for every nontrivial element of π1 M . If the dual cube complex of S is
finite-dimensional, then π1 M acts freely and properly on it. (See Theorem 5.5
of [17].)
Strong Separation. Finally, we need to define the Strong Separation prop-

8

erty for a collection of properly immersed surfaces S, which is Definition 2.2
e be the
f. Let S
of [23]. Equip M with a Riemannian metric and lift it to M
f
collection of all elevations of surfaces in S to M . Then S satisfies the Strong
Separation property if there exists D > 0 so that the following hold:
e Se′ ∈ S
e both intersect a hyperbolic block N
e . If there is no JSJ
1. Suppose S,
′
e
e
e
e
e and Se′ ∩ N
e are
plane contained in N intersecting both S and S and S ∩ N
e
distance ≥ D from each other then there is a surface in S which separates
Se from Se′ .
e Se′ ∈ S
e both intersect a graph manifold cluster N
e ′ . If Se ∩ N
e′
2. Suppose S,
′
′
e
e
and S ∩ N are distance ≥ D from each other, then there is a surface from
e which separates Se from Se′ .
S

Note whether or not a collection of surfaces satisfies the Strong Separation
property is independent of the Riemannian metric we chose.
Definition 2.2. Let M be a mixed manifold and S a finite collection of properly
immersed incompressible surfaces in M which are in general position. Choose
any Seifert fibration of the thin graph manifold clusters of M . Then S is a frame
efficient collection if all of the following hold:
1. Each nontrivial element of π1 M has a cut-surface in S.
2. All JSJ tori belong to S.
3. For any piece cluster S0 ⊂ S, the map S0 → N into a graph manifold
cluster is a virtual embedding for all S ∈ S.
4. Each hyperbolic piece of S is geometrically finite for all S ∈ S.
5. The collection S satisfies the Strong Separation property.
6. Two horizontal Seifert fibered pieces of a surface S ∈ S cannot be directly
attached in the following sense: Suppose B is a Seifert fibered block of M
and a piece of S0 ⊂ S is immersed horizontally in B. If B ′ is a Seifert
block adjacent to B via a JSJ torus T , then each component of S0 ∩ T is
an S 1 -fiber of B ′ .
7. Let B be a Seifert fibered block. The images of pieces of surfaces immersed
horizontally in B do not intersect one another. Further, each piece immersed horizontally in B maps into B via the composition of a covering
map between surfaces and an embedding into B.
8. The accidental parabolics are all vertical in the following sense: Suppose
S ∈ S contains an accidental parabolic C ⊂ S freely homotopic into a
transitional torus T . Let B denote the Seifert fibered block adjacent to
T . Then the image of C is freely homotopic to a fiber of B.

9

Przytycki-Wise showed a mixed manifold M admits a collection of properly
immersed incompressible surfaces satisfying Definition 2.2(1)-(5) (Theorem 2.1
of [23]) and that π1 M acts freely on the dual CAT (0) cube complex of any such
collection with a virtually special quotient. Criteria (6) and (7) are motivated
by the collected of surfaces used by Hagen-Przytycki in [13], which they call
an efficient collection. They had embedded horizontal pieces, but for technical
reasons that emerge in Section 5 where we construct a frame efficient collection
we need our weaker criterion (7). The significance of criterion (8) emerges in
the following discussion.
Two slopes in each torus. Implicit in Definition 2.2 is that the surfaces
of a frame efficient intersect each JSJ and boundary torus T in a collection of
closed curves with exactly two slopes. Definition 2.2(1) implies there are at
least two slopes in order to provide cut-surfaces for the elements of these tori
subgroups. Definition 2.2(7) implies there are at most two since, if B is the
Seifert fibered block containing T , the pieces of surfaces immersed horizontally
in B all intersect T in curves of the same slope. The second slope is the slope
of an S 1 -fiber of B. When studying cocompactness of the action on the dual
cube complex, accidental parabolics homotopic into T behave similar to curves
in T . Definition 2.2(8) is stronger than necessary since we only need to ensure
the accidental parabolics do not add new slopes to T , but requiring that they
are vertical in B simplifies the proof of Proposition 1.9.
Being aware of the necessary condition that surfaces intersects the JSJ and
boundary tori in two slopes of curves is key to understanding our methods when
we later construct a frame efficient collection, but we never use this condition
explicitly when proving the main theorem. A full explanation of why this condition is necessary requires understanding how a subspace of M can be associated
to a convex subcomplex of the dual cube complex of a collection of surfaces,
which Hruska-Wise describe in [17]. Since we never need to explicitly use this
condition, we do not give the full explanation here.
Constructing a frame efficient collection. To construct a frame efficient collection we modify the strategy of Przytycki-Wise [23] for constructing
a collection of surfaces satisfying Definition 2.2(1)-(5). They first chose surfaces
immersed in the hyperbolic blocks and graph manifold clusters. These surfaces
were not all properly immersed in M , since some of them had boundary components lying in transtional tori. To extend these surfaces to be properly immersed
in M , they first added extra surfaces in the hyperbolic blocks and graph manifold clusters with the slopes of their boundary curves chosen so that they match
the slopes of boundary curves from surfaces in adjacent blocks. They then used
these extra surfaces to “cap off” the boundary curves of surfaces in adjacent
blocks and obtain surfaces properly immersed in their mixed manifold. The
result of this strategy is a virtually special cubulation but not, in general, a
cocompact cubulation since we could have as many as four slopes in a JSJ or
boundary torus.
To construct a frame efficient collection we first add to each graph manifold
cluster the efficient collection of surfaces used in Hagen-Przytycki [13], described
in Section 3. These surfaces add exactly two slopes to each transitional torus.
10

The boundary curves from surfaces in the efficient collections equip each hyperbolic block N with a framing in the sense defined below.
Definition 2.3. Let N be a compact 3-manifold whose boundary is a nonempty
union of tori ∂N = T1 · · · Tk . A framing of N is a choice in each Ti of two
nonhomotopic simple closed curves Ci and Di . (Alternatively, we could choose
a pair of slopes in each Ti .) If a framing for N is chosen, then N is framed.
A collection of properly immersed surfaces S in N is true to a {Ci , Di }framing (or true to the framing if the framing has already been specified) if, for
each S ∈ S and each Ti , every component of ∂S immersed in Ti has the same
slope as either Ci or Di .
In Section 4, we prove that a hyperbolic block N with any framing admits
a collection of geometrically finite surfaces that is true to the framing and that
provides a cut-surface for every nontrivial element of π1 N . To prove Proposition 1.8, we construct in Section 5 a frame efficient collection by attaching
surfaces from the efficient collections in the graph manifold clusters to surfaces
in the hyperbolic blocks that are true to the framings induced by the efficient
collections in the graph manifold clusters.

2.3

Relatively Hyperbolic Groups and Cube Complexes

In this section we describe a natural relatively hyperbolic structure on the fundamental group of a mixed manifold M and its role in finding cocompact cubulations. We also prove Theorem 2.14 which proves the implication in the main
theorem that π1 M being virtually cocompactly cubulated implies M is chargeless.
Gromov originally introduced the notion of a relatively hyperbolic group
in [12]. The definition we give here is due to Bowditch [5]. For finitely generated
groups, it is equivalent to Gromov’s definition. (See [18] for more on the various
definitions for relatively hyperbolic.)
Definition 2.4 (Definition 2 of [5]). Suppose G is a group acting on a connected
hyperbolic graph Γ. Suppose the following all hold.
1. Γ is δ-hyperbolic.
2. For any positive integer n, each edge of Γ lies in only finitely many circuits of length n, a circuit being a closed path which does not repeat any
vertices.
3. There are only finitely many G-orbits of edges and each edge stabilizer is
finite.
4. Each vertex stabilizer is finitely generated.
Let P be a collection of subgroups consisting on one representative from each
conjugacy class of infinite vertex stabilizers. We say G is hyperbolic relative to
P. The subgroups of P and their conjugates are the peripheral subgroups of G.
11

(In other words, the infinite vertex stabilizer of G are its peripheral subgroups.)
We call Γ a (G, P)-graph.
We will not appeal directly to the definition of relatively hyperbolic, but
we make use of a natural relatively hyperbolic structure on mixed manifold
groups first described by Druţu-Sapir in [10]. To prove mixed manifolds have
this relatively hyperbolic structure, Druţu-Sapir used highly intricate techniques
combining their results with a result of Kapovich-Leeb [19]. Kapovich-Leeb
showed the asymptotic cone of a mixed manifold group is tree-graded and DruţuSapir showed asymptotically tree graded groups are relatively hyperbolic. For
an elementary proof of the theorem below using the (G, P)-graph definition of
relatively hyperbolic, see [4].
Theorem 2.5 (Druţu-Sapir). Let M be a mixed manifold and let N1 , ..., Nk
denote the graph manifold clusters of M . For each Ni choose a conjugate Pi of
π1 Ni sitting inside π1 M . The group π1 M is hyperbolic relative to {Pi }.
We also describe the notion of a relatively quasiconvex subgroup. Introduced
by Dahmani in [9], relative quasiconvexity is also a rich property with many
equivalent definitions. We use a definition in the hyperbolic graph setting due
to Martı́nez-Pedroza and Wise [21]
Definition 2.6. Let G be hyperbolic relative to subgroups {P} and Γ a (G,
{P})-graph. Suppose H ≤ G is a subgroup. Then H is relatively quasiconvex
in G if there is a quasi-isometrically embedded subgraph K of Γ which is Hinvariant and has finitely many H-orbits of edges.
Surfaces in a frame efficient collection correspond to relatively quasiconvex
subgroups by the following application of results of Hruska [18] and BigdelyWise [4]:
Proposition 2.7 (Przytycki-Wise in [23]). Let M be a mixed manifold and
S → M a properly immersed incompressible surface. Suppose each piece of S
in a hyperbolic block is geometrically finite. Then π1 S maps into π1 M as a
relatively quasiconvex subgroup.
Proof. If N is a hyperbolic block and S0 → N is a geometrically finite piece of
S in N then π1 S0 is relatively quasiconvex in π1 N by Corollary 1.3 of [18]. It
then follows from Theorem 4.17 of [4] that π1 S is relatively hyperbolic in π1 M .
Corollary 1.5 deals with the notion of fully relatively quasiconvex subgroups,
a notion also introduced by Dahmani [9], so we give this definition as well.
Definition 2.8. Let G be a relatively hyperbolic group. A relatively quasiconvex subgroup H of G is fully relatively quasiconvex if each intersection of H
with a peripheral subgroup of G is either finite or finite index.

12

To motivate how we use relative hyperbolicity and relative quasiconvexity
and provide some necessary background, let us consider the word hyperbolic
case. Let G be a word hyperbolic group acting on a wallspace (Y, W). Sageev
proved in [28] that if there are finitely many G-orbits of hyperplanes and each
e Note
hyperplane stabilizer is quasiconvex in G, then G acts cocompactly on X.
Sageev worked in a different setting where G acts on its Cayley graph and instead
of walls we have codimension-1 subgroups with each codimension-1 subgroup H
associated to an H-almost invariant set. There are two steps to his proof. We
need both of these facts for our proof of Proposition 1.9 so we state them.
The first step, Lemma 2.9, appears implicitly in [28] where Sageev deduced
it from results in [11]. Our version is a slight modification of Lemma 7.3 of [17]
tailored to the wallspace setting.
Lemma 2.9 (Sageev). Suppose a group G acts properly and cocompactly by
isometries on a wallspace (Y, W) with Y a δ-hyperbolic space. Suppose there
are finitely many G-orbits of walls and each wall stabilizer is κ-quasiconvex in
G. Then for any D ≥ 0 there is a constant L = L(D, δ, κ) so that the following
holds: Let V ⊂ W be a collection of pairwise D-close walls in Y . There is a
point y0 ∈ Y which is distance ≤ L from each wall of V.
In particular, there are finitely many orbits of pairwise crossing walls.
Whenever the conclusion of Lemma 2.9 holds we say y0 is an L-center of V.
The second step is Lemma 2.10.
Lemma 2.10. Let G be a finitely generated group acting on a wallspace (Y, W).
Suppose G acts cocompactly on a subspace Z ⊂ Y . Suppose for any D > 0 there
exists a constant L = L(D) with the following property: If V ⊂ W is a collection
of pairwise D-close walls in Y then there is a point z0 ∈ Z so that each wall in
V is distance ≤ L from z0 . Then there are finitely many orbits of collections of
pairwise D-close walls. In particular, G acts cocompactly on the dual CAT (0)
e of (Y, W).
cube complex X
Proof. For each collection of pairwise D-close walls, choose an L-center in Z
for that collection. Since G acts cocompactly on Z we can assume, possibly
enlarging L, that we have finitely many G-orbits of L-centers. A closed ball of
radius D can only intersect finitely many walls. Since there are finitely many
orbits of D-centers, this puts an upper bound on the size of any collection of
pairwise D-close walls. In particular, there is an upper bound on the size of any
e is finite dimensional and each
collection of pairwise crossing walls. Therefore X
cube lies in a maximal cube.
Some of the points we chose might be a center for more than one collection,
but they can each only be a center for finitely many collections. Since there are
finitely many G-orbits of centers this implies W contains finitely many collections of pairwise D-close walls. In particular, there are finitely many collections
e
of pairwise crossing walls. Therefore G acts cocompactly on X.

13

When applying Lemma 2.10, we will consider the situation where G is a peripheral subgroup of a mixed manifold group and our wallspace is a Z-wallspace,
defined below:
Definition 2.11. Let (Y, W) be a wallspace with Y a metric space. Let Z ⊂ Y
be a subspace with diam(Z) = ∞. Let WZ ⊂ W consists of walls all W ∈ W
with the following property: There is r > 0 so that if W decomposes Y into
halfspaces U and V then diam(U ∩ Nr (Z)) = diam(V ∩ Nr (Z)) = ∞.
Then (Y, WZ ) is the Z-wallspace of (Y, WZ ).
e is the dual
Let C(Z) be the dual CAT (0) cube complex of (Y, WZ ). If X
cube complex of (Y, W), then there is a canonical embedding of C(Z) as a
e (See sections 3.4 and 7.2 of Hruska-Wise [17].) We
convex subcomplex of X.
call C(P ) the convex subcomplex associated to P .
The following is our main tool for verifying cocompactness.
Theorem 2.12 (Theorem 7.12 [17]). Let (Y, W) be a wallspace such that Y
is also a length space. Suppose a group G acts properly and cocompactly by
isometries on Y preserving its wallspace structure. Suppose the action on W
has finitely many G-orbits of walls. Suppose G is hyperbolic relative to a finite
collection of subgroups {Pi }. Suppose for each W ∈ W that H = Stab(W )
acts cocompactly on W and H is relatively quasiconvex in G. For each peripheral subgroup Pi ∈ {Pi }, let Zi be a nonempty, Pi -invariant, and Pi -cocompact
subspace.
e denote the dual CAT (0) cube complex of (X, W). For each Zi , let
Let X
C(Zi ) be the convex subcomplex associated to Zi . Then there exist a compact
subcomplex K ∈ C(X) such that
1. C(X) = GK ∪ (∪i GC(Zi )),
2. gC(Zi ) ∩ C(Zj ) ⊂ GK unless j = i and g ∈ Pi , and
3. Pi acts cocompactly on C(Zi ) ∩ GK.
e
For a group action in the setting above, we say G acts cocompactly on X
relative to {C(Zi )}.
The following Corollary is key to proving the implication (2) =⇒ (1) of the
main theorem.
Corollary 2.13. Let (G, {Pi }) be a relatively hyperbolic group. If G is cocompactly cubulated then so each peripheral subgroup of G.
Proof. Suppose G acts properly and cocompactly on a CAT (0) cube complex
e and let H denote the collection of hyperplanes of X.
e Cutting along any
X
e
hyperplane decomposes X into two components (e.g. Theorem 2.13(4)) of [30])
e H) is a wallspace. It is well-known that the dual cube complex of
thus (X,
e
e via an isomorphism that preserves the G-action, so
(X, H) is isomorphic to X
we can use the same for both of them.
14

e preserves the wallspace structure. For each H ∈ H, the
The action of G on X
subgroup K = stab(H) ≤ G acts cocompactly on H. Further, H is isometrically
e (e.g. Theorem 2.13(3) of [30]) implying K is quasi-isometrically
embedded in X
embedded in G. Thus K is relatively quasiconvex in G by Corollary 1.3 of
[18]. For each peripheral subgroup Pi , we can always find a Pi -invariant, Pi cocompact subspace. E. g., choose any point x0 and consider its Pi -orbit.
Thus our action satisfies the hypotheses of Theorem 2.12. Since G acts
e Theorem
cocompactly, we choose the compact subcomplex K so that GK = X.
2.12(3) then implies Pi acts cocompactly on the associated C(Zi ) = C(Zi )∩GK.
Therefore Pi is cocompactly cubulated.
We can now prove the implication (2) =⇒ (1) in the main theorem.
Theorem 2.14. Suppose M is a mixed manifold and π1 M is virtually cocompactly cubulated. Then M is chargeless.
Proof. By Theorem B of [23], it is sufficient to show that for any thick graph
manifold cluster N of M , its fundamental group π1 N is virtually cocompactly
c cocompactly cubuc is a finite-sheeted cover of M with π1 M
cubulated. If M
lated, then Corollary 2.13 implies the fundamental group of each graph manifold
c is cocompactly cubulated. This implies the fundamental group of
cluster of M
each graph manifold cluster of M is virtually cocompactly cubulated. Therefore
each graph manifold cluster of M is chargeless by Theorem B of [23] and hence
so is M .

3

Surfaces in Chargeless Graph Manifold Clusters

The goal of the next three sections is to prove Proposition 1.8 which states that
a chargeless mixed manifold M admits a frame efficient collection of surfaces.
This section contains preliminary results used in Section 5 to construct a frame
efficient collection. Recall from Section 2.2 our strategy for constructing the
properly immersed surfaces of a frame efficient collection is to attach surfaces
from efficient collections in graph manifold clusters to surfaces in hyperbolic
blocks true to the framing induced by the efficient collections together along
boundary curves. In this section we define an efficient collection and prove
Theorem 3.2 which shows that the graph manifold clusters of M admit efficient
collections.
Hagen-Przytycki [13] constructed in a chargeless graph manifold a collection
of surfaces they call an efficient collection. The definition below highlights the
key properties of the collection they constructed.
Definition 3.1. Let N be a graph a manifold. A finite collection S of surfaces
properly immersed imcompressible in N which are in general position is an
efficient collection if S has the following properties:
15

1. Each element of π1 N has a cut-surface in S.
2. All JSJ tori belong to S.
3. Each S ∈ S is virtually embedded in N .
4. Let B be a Seifert fibered block. The horizontal pieces in B are all embedded and do not intersect one another.
5. Two horizontal pieces of a surface S ∈ S cannot be directly attached in
the following sense: If S0 ⊂ S is a piece of S embedded horizontally in a
Seifert fibered block B and B ′ is a block adjacent to B via a JSJ torus T ,
then each component of S0 ∩ B ′ is a fiber of B ′ .
6. For a boundary torus T in a block B, there are exactly two surfaces
S, S ′ ∈ S intersecting T where S ∩ B is horizontal and S ′ ∩ B is vertical.
Theorem 3.2 is minor modification of a result of Hagen-Przytycki [13]. HagenPrzytycki worked in a setting where Seifert fibered spaces are not considered
graph manifolds. We extend their proof to cover a Seifert fibered space with
boundary using a trivial version of their argument. Note that although sol manifolds can be treated as graph manifolds, they are excluded from the statement
below since sol manifolds are not chargeless.
Theorem 3.2 (Hagen-Przytycki in [13]). Let N be either a chargeless graph
manifold or a Seifert fibered space with boundary. Then N admits an efficient
collection of surfaces.
The proof depends on the following Proposition.
Proposition 3.3. Suppose N is a chargeless graph manifold with at least one
JSJ torus. Let B be a Seifert fibered block of N and T1 , ..., Tk the JSJ tori of N
contained in B. For each Ti , let Bi′ denote the Seifert fibered block of N adjacent
to B via Ti . There is a properly embedded horizontal surface S ⊂ B with the
following property: For each Ti , every component of S ∩ Ti is an S 1 -fiber of Bi′ .
Proof. Obtain a Seifert fibered space B̄ from B using the following process: For
every Ti , perform a Dehn filling along a fiber of Bi′ .
First assume B is interior. In [20], Lueke and Wu define the Euler number
of B relative to the framing by the fibers of adjacent blocks to be the Euler
number of B̄. This relative Euler number differs from the charge by only a sign
(See Section 1.3 of [7] where they give a full definition of charge and observe this
fact.) and is therefore 0. Thus B̄ has Euler number 0. Proposition 2.2 of [16]
then implies B̄ contains an embedded horizontal surface S. Each component of
S ∩ Ti ⊂ B̄ bounds a disk in B̄ is therefore isotopic to a fiber of Bi′ since we
performed our Dehn filling along a fiber. It follows S ∩ B is the desired surface.
Assume now B intersects ∂N . Then B̄ has nonempty boundary, so Proposition 2.2 of [16] implies it contains an embedded horizontal surface S and we
get the desired surface from the argument as above.

16

We now prove Theorem 3.2.
Proof of Theorem 3.2. The proof is by construction. Most of the proof is found
in [13]. We summarize the key steps, with careful attention to the additional
case of a Seifert fibered space with boundary.
We consider thick and thin graph manifolds separately.
Thick graph manifold. We review Hagen-Przytycki’s construction in [13]
with an added detail for a thick graph manifold which is a Seifert fibered space
with boundary. Their collection of surfaces is built from smaller subcollections.
Turbine collection. First assume N contains at least one JSJ torus. For a
Seifert fibered block B of N , choose two copies of the embedded horizontal
surface S provided by Proposition 3.3. Let T be a JSJ torus intersecting B and
B ′ the block adjacent to B via T . Choose in B ′ an embedded, vertical, non-∂parallel annulus A with boundary contained in T . For each curve C ⊂ S ∩ T ,
cap off the two copies of C in the two copies of S using a copy of A. Do this for
every component of S ∩ T and every JSJ torus contained in B to obtain a new
surface S ′ . The turbine collection consists of one surface of this type for every
block of N .
If N is a Seifert space space, choose any embedded horizontal surface. The
turbine collection then consists of this one surface.
Vertical collection. For each block B, consider a finite cover F × S 1 → B
with F a compact hyperbolic surface with boundary of positive genus. In F ,
choose a family of geodesic simple closed curves C with the following property:
When F is cut along every curve of C, each component of the resulting space is
either a closed disc or an annulus which contains a component of ∂F . We say
C fills F .
Consider the family of vertical tori whose base curves in F corresponded to
the curves in C. If B intersects ∂N then for each component T of B ∩ ∂N add
a vertical non-∂-parallel annulus whose boundary curves lie in T . Map these
vertical surfaces down into B. Construct such a family of vertical surfaces in
every block of N to obtain the vertical collection.
Let S be the collection consisting of all the surfaces in the turbine and
vertical collections together with all the JSJ tori of N . As explained by HagenPrzytycki [13], S contains a cut surface for every nontrivial element of π1 N and
its surfaces are all virtually embedded so S is an efficient collection.
Thin graph manifold. For a thin graph manifold N = T × I, choose two
embedded annuli which are not homotopic to each other. N has many possible
Seifert fibrations. Fixing a fibration we may assume one of the annuli is vertical
and the other horizontal.

17

4

Virtually compact special cubulations of cusped
hyperbolic 3-manifolds with restricted boundary slopes

This section contains more preliminary results we use in Section 5 to construct
a frame efficient collection of surfaces in a chargeless mixed manifold. Recall
our strategy for constructing properly immersed surfaces in a frame efficient
collection is to glue surfaces from efficient collections in the graph manifold
clusters to surfaces true to the induced framing in the hyperbolic blocks together
along boundary curves. In the previous section we constructed the surfaces
used in the graph manifold clusters. The main goals of this section are to
prove Theorem 4.1 which establishes the existence of the surfaces used in the
hyperbolic blocks and then to prove Theorem 1.7 by showing that the surfaces
provided by Theorem 4.1 produce a virtually compact special cubulation of a
cusped hyperbolic 3-manifold group.
Przytycki-Wise [23] showed, using Wise’s virtually compact special cubulation for hyperbolic 3-manifolds [31], there exists a collection of properly immersed, geometrically finite surfaces in a hyperbolic 3-manifold N which provides a cut-surface for every nontrivial element of π1 N . Our Theorem 4.1
strengthens Theorem 4.1 of [23] by allowing these surfaces to be chosen to be
true to a given framing.
Theorem 4.1. Let N be a framed hyperbolic 3-manifold whose boundary is a
disjoint union of tori written ∂N = T1 ∪ · · · ∪ Tk . There is a finite collection S
of surfaces properly immersed incompressible in N which are in general position
and geometrically finite such that S is true to the framing and contains a cutsurface for all the nontrivial elements of π1 N . Moreover, the surfaces of S have
no accidental parabolics.
Before proving Theorem 4.1, we need to prove Theorem 4.2 which is our
more tightly constrained variation of Wise’s virtually compact special cubulation
in [31].
Theorem 4.2. Let N be a hyperbolic 3-manifold whose boundary is nonempty,
disjoin union of tori ∂N = T1 , ..., Tk . In each Ti , choose nonhomotopic simple
closed curves Ci and Di . Then π1 N is virtually the fundamental group of a
compact special cube complex X with the property that if H ⊂ X is an immersed
hyperplane of X and a conjugate of π1 H ≤ π1 X = π1 N intersects some π1 Ti ,
then that intersection lies in either π1 Ci or π1 Di .
We are not yet ready to prove Theorem 4.2 but can outline the two-step
b , Wise found a properly embedded, incomstrategy. Passing to a finite cover N
b which intersects each boundary
pressible, geometrically finite surface S in N
torus. This adds one slope to each Ti , the slope of each component of ∂S ∩ Ti .
Our first step is Proposition 4.3 which states that we can choose S so that it
intersects each Ti in curves with the same slope as the respective curve Ci . Cutb into a graph of spaces with corresponding
ting along this surface decomposes N
18

graph of groups satisfying the hypotheses of Theorem 16.28 in [31] where, in
particular, each vertex group is word hyperbolic and virtually compact special.
In the proof of Theorem 16.28 in [31], Wise constructs a virtually compact speb . This process involves choosing a second curve in each
cial cubulation of π1 N
Ti which adds a second slope. Our second step is showing we can choose that
second curve in each Ti to be Di respectively.
The following is a modification of Proposition 4.6 of [23].
b → N with a properly embedProposition 4.3. There is a finite index cover N
b where each component
ded incompressible, possibly disconnected surface S ⊂ N
is geometrically finite, and S has the following property: For each boundary
b covering Ti , the surface S has
torus Ti of N and each boundary torus Tbij of N
b
a nonempty intersection with Tij consisting of parallel copies of a curve in Tbij
covering Ci . Further, the components of S contain no accidental parabolics.
Proof. In the proof of Proposition 4.6 in [23], Przytycki-Wise find a finite cover
b and a properly embedded, possibly disconnected surface S ′ ⊂ N
b with the
N
′
following properties: Each component of S is incompressible and geometrically
b covering Ti , the interfinite. Further, for each Ti and each JSJ torus Tij of N
′
section S ∩ Tij is nonempty and consists of parallel copies of a curve covering
Ci .
The components of S ′ might contain accidental parabolics, but by Lemma
14.22 and Remark 14.23 of [31] there is a properly embedded surface S with
each component geometrically finite such that S has no accidental parabolics
and ∂S ′ ⊂ ∂S. If an embedded surface intersects a boundary torus in multiple
curves, they have to have the same slope, so the components of ∂S − ∂S ′ do not
add new slopes to the boundary tori.
We now show how to modify the proof of Theorem 16.28 in [31] to prove our
Theorem 4.2.
b and S be the finite cover and embedded surface
Proof of Theorem 4.2. Let N
guaranteed by Proposition 4.3 where we choose S so that for each boundary
b covering a boundary torus Ti of N , the intersection S ∩ Tij is
torus Tij of N
nonempty and consists of closed curves with the same slope as a curve covering
b = N . Passing to a further finite cover we
Ci . To simplify notation assume N
may assume that for each boundary torus Ti that Ci and Di form a basis for
π1 Ti .
As in the proof of Theorem 14.29 of [31], S splits π1 N as a graph of groups
where each vertex group is word hyperbolic and virtually compact special and
each edge group is quasi-isometrically embedded. The proof of Theorem 16.28
in [31] extends this splitting to a cubulation of π1 N . The proof involves a lot
of machinery, so we just explain how to modify this proof in order to make an
arbitrary choice for the second slope in each boundary torus.
Choose a component E of S and let Ti be a boundary torus intersecting E.
In step 3 of Wise’s proof, he gives the torus Ti a cubical structure with Ci as a
19

1-cube and attaches it to a cubulation of a subgroup of π1 N called the expanded
edge group π1 E + of π1 E. Obtain the extended edge space E + of E by taking
the union of E together with all the boundary tori intersecting E. The subgroup
π1 E + ≤ π1 N is the expanded edge group of π1 E. It consists of π1 E together
with multiple HNN extensions corresponding to the intersections of π1 E with
the tori subgroups of π1 N .
Equip Ti with a cubical structure that uses Ci and Di as 1-cubes. Choose
a compact cubulation B of E. The group π1 E is free so it’s well-known that
such cubulations exist. Attach Ti to B along a local isometry representing
π1 Ci → π1 E. This may require subdividing the cubical structure for Ti . (In
general, Wise passes to a further finite index subgroup π1 N before carrying out
this process.)
Doing this for every boundary torus interesting E yields cocompact cubulation π1 E + . Repeat this process for every component of S noting that each
boundary torus intersects some component of S. The rest of the proof in [31]
extends these cubulations to a virtually compact special cubulation of π1 N .
Having proved Theorem 4.2, we can now prove Theorem 4.1.
Proof of Theorem 4.1. Most of the proof is found as the proof of Theorem 4.1
of [23]. We outline the construction and explain how the slopes in the tori are
controlled.
In each boundary torus Ti choose simple closed curves Ci and Di . We may
assume, by passing to a finite cover and applying Theorem 4.2, that π1 N = π1 X
e and that any
for a compact special cube complex X with universal cover X
conjugate of an immersed hyperplane subgroup of π1 X only intersecting some
π1 Ti intersects in either π1 Ci or π1 Di .
e and a hyperplane H
e which intersects
Let g ∈ π1 N . Choose an axis for g in X
e
that axis transversally. Let K = stab(H) ≤ π1 N .
e cover of N .
e be the universal cover of N and let N
b → N be the π1 H
Let N
b and L
e an elevation of L to
Let L be the hyperbolic convex core of the cover N
e . Since N
e and X
e are quasi-isometric, any axis for g intersects L
e transversally.
N
e of a component S of ∂N which intersects
Thus there is an elevation Se ⊂ ∂ N
the axis transversally. Immersing S into N gives us a cut-surface for g. As
explained in the proof of Theorem 4.1 of [23], S is geometrically finite and can
be made to have no accidental parabolics.
We now prove Theorem 1.7 by showing that the collection of surfaces provided by Theorem 4.1 is dual to a virtually compact special cubulation.
Proof. Let S be the collection of surfaces provided by Theorem 4.1 that is true
e is free and proper since S contains
to the framing on N . The action of π1 M on X
a cut-surface for every non-trivial element of π1 N . Each hyperplane subgroup of
π1 X is commensurable to a conjugate of a surface subgroup π1 S with S ∈ S so
the interactions with tori subgroups are as desired. Since the surfaces intersect
20

each boundary torus in only two slopes of curves, it is a straightforward exercise
applying Theorem 2.12 to show the action is cocompact.
It remains to show X is special. Passing to finite-sheeted cover, we can
assume π1 X = π1 M is special. Since X is compact, the hyperplane subgroups
are quasi-isometrically embedded, so by Theorem 16.23 of [31] they are separable
in π1 X and satisfy double coset separability. Theorem 9.19 of [14] then implies
X is virtually special.
In Section 2.2 we mentioned that Przytycki-Wise used additional “capping
off” surfaces to construct a collection of surfaces satisfying Definition 2.2 (1)-(5).
When constructing a frame efficient collection, we use their capping off surfaces
in the hyperbolic blocks.
Proposition 4.4 (Prop. 4.6 of [23]). Let C1 , ... , Ck be essential closed curves
in the respective boundary tori T1 , ... , Tk of N . There exists a geometrically
finite immersed incompressible surface S → N with S ∩ ∂N covering C1 such
that all the parabolic elements of π1 S are conjugate into some π1 Ci .

5

Constructing a Frame Efficient Collection

In this section we prove Proposition 1.8, which states that a chargeless mixed
manifold M admits a frame efficient collection of surfaces. In the previous two
sections, we constructed an efficient collection of surfaces in the graph manifold
clusters of M and a collection of surfaces in each hyperbolic block true to the
framing induced by the efficient collections. We construct properly immersed
surfaces in a frame efficient collection by attaching surfaces from these collections
together along their boundary curves. To illustrate the two key challenges of this
process, suppose S and S ′ are both surfaces immersed in M with some of their
boundary components mapping into a transitional torus T . Suppose at least
some of those boundary components have the same slope. The first challenge
is that these boundary curves of S and S ′ might map onto their images with
different degrees. The second is that S and S ′ might have different numbers of
boundary components mapping into T with that particular slope.
We deal with matching the degrees in Lemma 5.1, which is a fact PrzytyckiWise [23] proved as part of the proof of their Theorem 2.1. A main part of the
proof of Proposition 1.8 involves matching the multiplicities.
Lemma 5.1 (Matching the degrees.). Let M be a 3-manifold with boundary
and S a collection of surfaces immersed in M , but not necessarily properly
immersed. There is a constant d > 0 with the following property: For every
S ∈ S and every boundary arc C ⊂ ∂S there is a finite cover Sb → S so that
b ⊂ ∂ Sb covering C, the map C
b → M obtained by restricting the
for any curve C
b
composition S → S → M maps onto it image with degree d.

The second challenge to constructing properly immersed surfaces in a frame
efficient is the main focus of the proof of Proposition 1.8. Before proving this
21

result, we prove the following which gathers all the surfaces we use in the graph
manifold clusters and hyperbolic blocks to construct a frame efficient collection.
Lemma 5.2 (Gathering materials in preparation for construction.). Let M be
a chargeless mixed manifold. There is a collection of surfaces S immersed in
M with the following properties:
1. Each S ∈ S is either properly immersed in a graph manifold cluster or
properly immersed in a hyperbolic block. Note they are not, in general,
properly immersed in M .
2. For each hyperbolic block or graph manifold cluster N of M and each
nontrivial element g ∈ π1 N , there is a surface S ∈ S immersed in N
which is a cut-surface for g.
3. All JSJ tori belong to S.
4. Each S ∈ S immersed in a graph manifold cluster is virtually embedded.
5. Each S ∈ S in a hyperbolic block is geometrically finite.
6. Two horizontal pieces cannot be directly attached in the following sense:
Let S ∈ S and B be a Seifert fibered block. Suppose S has a piece S0
immersed in B which is horizontal and B ′ is a Seifert block adjacent to B
via a JSJ torus T . Then each component of S0 ∩ T is an S 1 -fiber of B ′ .
7. Let B be a Seifert fibered block. The images of horizontal pieces immersed
in B are disjoint. Further, each horizontal piece is the composition of a
covering map between surfaces and an embedding into M .
8. The accidental parabolics are all vertical in the following sense: Suppose
S ∈ S contains an accidental parabolic C ⊂ S freely homotopic into a
transitional torus T . Let B denote the Seifert fibered block adjacent to T .
Then the image of C is freely homotopic to a fiber of B.
9. S includes “capping off ” surfaces. Suppose S ∈ S and a boundary curve
C ⊂ ∂S maps into a transitional torus T . Then there is another surface
S ′ ∈ S immersed in the hyperbolic block adjacent to T so that ∂S maps
only into T and the image consists of closed curves with the same slope as
C.
10. There is a uniform degree d so that for every surface S ∈ S, the immersion
S → M maps each boundary curve C ⊂ ∂S onto its image with degree d.
Further, if C maps into a transitional torus T , then there is exactly one
surface S ′ in the graph manifold cluster adjacent to T such that S ′ ∩ T is
nonempty consisting of curves homotopic to C.
Proof. Each graph manifold cluster of M is either a Seifert fibered space with
boundary or a chargeless graph manifold and therefore admits a collection of
surface satisfying Theorem 3.2 and hence criteria (1), (3), (5), and (6) of our
22

lemma. Let S1 denote the union of these collections over all the graph manifold
clusters of M . For each transitional torus T of M , there are exactly two surfaces
S, S ′ ∈ S1 which intersect T . Let αT and βT denote the slope of the components
of S ∩ T and S ′ ∩ T respectively.
The surfaces in S1 put a framing on every hyperbolic of M . By Theorem
4.1, we can choose in every hyperbolic block a collection of properly immersed
satisfying criteria (1) and (4) of our lemma which are true to the framing induced
by surfaces in S1 . Further, these surfaces have no accidental parabolics. Let S2
denote the union of these collections over all the hyperbolic blocks of M .
For each transitional torus T of M , Proposition 4.4 says the hyperbolic block
adjacent to T contains a properly immersed, geometrically finite surface S whose
boundary curves all map into T and have slope αT . Further, any accidental
parabolic of S is freely homotopic to an S 1 -fiber of an adjacent Seifert fibered
block. We can construct a capping off surface for the slope βT similarly.
Let S consists of all the surfaces in S1 and S2 together with the capping
off surfaces constructed above. By Lemma 5.1 we may replace each surface of
S with a finite cover as needed so that their boundary curves map onto their
images with a uniform degree. Note that after applying this process S still
satisfies criteria (7).
We are now ready to prove Proposition 1.8, which involves matching the
multiplicities.
Proof of Proposition 1.8. This proof is similar to the proof of Theorem 2.1 in
[23] but in order to ensure cocompactness we need to be more delicate in certain
places. Let S be the collection of surfaces guaranteed by Lemma 5.2. For each
transitional torus T of M , the boundary curves of the surfaces of S which map
into T form two families of curves with the same slope. Label these slopes αT
and βT respectively.
Let H and G denote the collections of all the hyperbolic blocks of M and
all the graph manifold clusters of M respectively. For each hyperbolic block
Q ∈ H, let SQ ⊂ S denote the subcollection of surfaces which map into Q. For
each N ∈ G, define SN similarly.
Choose Q ∈ H and S ∈ SQ . If T is a transitional torus with S ∩T nonempty,
let N be the graph manifold cluster containing T and S ′ , S ′′ ∈ SN the pair
of surfaces intersecting T in curves of slope αT and βT respectively. If S ∩
T contains components with slope αT then let m denote the number of such
components and n denote the number of components of S ′ ∩T . Choose k so that
kn ≤ m and add k copies of S ′ to N attaching them to S so that every boundary
component of S is attached to a copy of S ′ . If S ∩ T contains components with
slope βT follow the same process using S ′′ . Repeat this for every transitional
torus intersecting ∂S to obtain a new surface S ∗ .
We now attach “capping off” surfaces to S ∗ . Let T denote the collection of
transitional tori which intersect ∂S ∗ . For each T ∈ T , let SαT and SβT denote
the capping off surfaces in S which intersect T in curves with slope αT and βT

23

respectively. Further, let rT and sT denote the the number of components of
S ∗ ∩ T with slope αT and βT respectively. Let aT and bT denote the number of
components of ∂SαT and ∂SβT respectively. Note some rT and sT could be 0.
If every rT and sT were nonzero we could define ℓ to be the least common
multiple of all the constants given above; ie, define ℓ = lcm({rT , sT , aT , bT }T ∈T ).
(Yikes! That’s a lot of numbers.) In general, we define ℓ to be the lcm of the
ones that are nonzero.
Take ℓ copies of S ∗ , and, for each T ∈ T , take rT ℓ/aT of copies of SαT
and sT ℓ/bT copies of SβT . Attaching these surfaces together creates a surface
properly immersed in M . Repeat this process for every Q ∈ H and every S ∈ SQ
to obtain a collection S′ of surfaces properly immersed in M . If N ∈ G and
S ∈ SN intersects a transitional torus, then some surface of S′ has an piece
which is a copy of S, so we do not repeat this gluing process for surfaces in
the graph manifold clusters. Construct a frame efficient collection S from S′ by
adding the surfaces from S which were already properly immersed in M as well
as all the transitional tori of M . (The other JSJ tori were already in S.)
The surfaces of S are properly immersed incompressible, in general position,
and satisfy Definition 2.2(3)-(4) and (6)-(8) since the surfaces from Lemma
5.2 in have these properties. The collection S contains a cut-surface for every
nontrivial element of π1 M since it contains all the JSJ tori and the pieces of
surfaces in S provide cut-surfaces in all the blocks of M . The proof in [23] that
their collection of surfaces satisfies the strong separation goes through without
change for our collection S so we refer the reader there. From all this it follows
S is a frame efficient collection.

6

Dual Cube Complex of a Frame Efficient Collection

In Section 5 we constructed a frame efficient collection of surfaces in a chargeless
mixed manifold M . In this section we prove Proposition 1.9 which states that
for a mixed manifold M admitting a frame efficient collection, π1 M is virtually
compact special. Most of the work in the proof is verifying cocompactness. We
e is cocompact relative to
will use Theorem 2.12 to show the action of π1 M on X
a collection of convex subcomplexes associated to the graph manifold subgroups
described in Section 2.3. We will then show that each graph manifold subgroup
acts cocompactly on its associated convex subcomplex.
When studying the convex subcomplex associated to a graph manifold subgroup π1 N , the proof is simplest when every surface containing an accidental
parabolic homotopic into N actually intersects N . The following will allow us
to assume we are always in this case:
Proposition 6.1. Let M be a mixed manifold admitting a frame efficient collection of surfaces S. Then M also admits an efficient collection S′ with the
following property: If S ∈ S contains an accidental parabolic C ⊂ S then C is
24

homotopic in S to a curve that maps into a thin graph manifold block N . In
particular, the image of S intersects N .
Proof. Let S ∈ S and supposed C ⊂ S is an accidental parabolic. Apply the
accidental parabolic removal process described in the proof of Lemma 14.32 of
[31] to obtain a new surface S ′ with two new boundary components intersecting
T . Cap off these boundary components with a vertical annulus in B. If B is a
Seifert-fibered block of a thick graph manifold, then we can choose the annulus
so that it is not ∂-parallel and therefore eliminate the accidental parabolic.
To prove Proposition 1.9, we also need the following Lemma:
f. Let S be a
Lemma 6.2. Let M be a mixed manifold with universal cover M
e all the elevations of surfaces in S to M
f. There
frame efficient collection and S
e and let B
e Se′ ∈ S
e be a Seifert
exists R > 0 so that the following holds: Let S,
f. If both Se ∩ B
e and Se′ ∩ B
e are non-empty and are distance at
fibered block of M
f.
least R from each other, then Se and Se′ do not intersect in M

The proof of Lemma 6.2 uses the following two lemmas due to PrzytyckiWise [23]:

Lemma 6.3 (Lemma 2.5 of [23]). Let S be a finite family of geometrically finite
e
immersed incompressible surfaces in a compact hyperbolic 3-manifold N . Let N
e
e
denote the universal cover of N and S all the elevations of surfaces in S to N .
There exists R′ = R′ (N, S) such that if the stabilizer of an elevation Se ∈ Se
intersects the stabilizer of a boundary plane Te ⊂ ∂N along an infinite cyclic
e ∩ Te is nonempty.
group, then N = NR (S)
e Se′ of possibly distinct
Moreover, assume that we have two such elevations S,
′
e
e
e
e
surfaces. If S ∩ T and S ∩ T are nonempty and at distance ≥ R in the intrinsic
e ∩ Te and NR (Se′ ) ∩ Te are sufficiently far with respect
metric on Te (resp. NR (S)
e
to some r), then S and Se′ are disjoint. (resp. at distance ≥ r) and Te is the
e intersecting both Se and Se′ .
only boundary plane of N

Lemma 6.4 (Remark 3.6 of [23]). Let S be a finite family of immersed incompressible surfaces in a thick graph manifold N . There exists R′ = R′ (N, S)
with the following property: Let B ⊂ N be a Seifert fibered block with elevation
e⊂N
e and let S,
e Se′ be elevations to N
e of surfaces in S. Suppose Seo = Se ∩ B
e
B
′
′
e
e
e
e
e
and So = S ∩ B are both vertical and that there is JSJ-plane T ⊂ ∂ B intersecting both Seo and Seo′ . If the distance between the lines Seo ∩ Te and Seo′ ∩ Te is
≥ R in the intrinsic metric on Te, then Seo and Seo′ are disjoint and Te is the only
e intersecting both Se and Se′ .
JSJ-plane contained in B

Proof of Lemma 6.2. For each graph manifold cluster or hyperbolic block N of
M , let SN denote the collection of all pieces of surfaces in S which map into N .
Choose R′ satisfying Lemma 6.3 and Lemma 6.4 for every pair (N, SN ).
e both intersect B.
e be a Seifert fibered block of M
f. Suppose S,
e Se′ ∈ S
e
Let B
′
e
e
e
e
If there is no JSJ-plane contained in B which insersects both S and S then B
25

f intersecting both Se and Se′ . In this case, being far apart in
is only block of M
e clearly implies Se and Se′ do not intersect in M
f.
B
e intersects both Se and Se′ . Let B
e ′ be the
Now assume a JSJ-plane Te of B
e via Te. We will find R > 0 so that if Se ∩ Te and Se′ ∩ Te are
block adjacent to B
e ′ and
distance at least R from each other then Se and Se′ do not intersect in B
′
e
e
e
e
that T is the only JSJ-plane of B intersecting both S and S . It will follow that
f− B
e containing B
e ′ . Since
that Se and Se′ do not intersect in the component of M
′
e
e
T was chosen arbitrarily, it will then follow that S and S do not intersect in
f.
M
There are a few cases to consider. First, if one of these elevations has a
e and the other a vertical piece in B,
e then they cross in B.
e
horizontal piece in B
′
′
e
e
e
e
Therefore d(S ∩ B, S ∩ B) = 0 < R .
e and Se′ ∩ B
e are horizontal and that B
e ′ is a hyperbolic
Next assume both Se ∩ B
block. If Se ∩ Te and Se ∩ Te are both non-empty and at distance at least R′ from
e′
each other, then by Lemma 6.3 the elevations Se and Se′ do not intersect in B
′
e other than Te. Thus Se and
nor do they intersect any common JSJ planes of B
f − B.
e If B
e ′ is a Seifert fibered block,
Se′ do not intersect in this component of M
′
′
′
′
e and Se ∩ B
e are vertical in B
e and the same conclusion holds by
then Se ∩ B
applying Lemma 6.4.
e If B
e ′ is hyperbolic, R′ still suffices
Now assume they are both vertical in B.
e ′ is Seifert fibered
by the same argument as before. The trickier case is when B
′
′
e . The horizontal pieces in B
e′
since then Se and Se have pieces horizontal in B
′
e Thus,
do not intersect and it follows that only finite many can lie R -close to S.
there is some R ≥ R′ so that if Se ∩ Te and Se′ ∩ Te′ are at distance at least R,
e ′ and Se′ ∩ B
e ′ are at distance at least R′ and a previous case implies
then Se ∩ B
′
f. This choice of R depended only on R′ and the
Se and Se do not intersect in M
π1 M -orbit of Te. Therefore, we can choose R uniformly.
We now prove Proposition 1.9, completing the proof of the main theorem.
Proof of Proposition 1.9. Let M be a mixed manifold admitting a frame efficient
e the collection of all elevations of surfaces in S
collection of surfaces S. Let S
f, the universal cover of M . Choose a Riemannian metric for M and lift it
to M
f. Assume S is as in Proposition 6.1. Let X
e be the CAT (0) cube complex
to M
f
e
dual to the wallspace (M , S).
Let N1 , . . . , Nk denote the graph manifold clusters of M . For each graph
ei in M
f and let Pi = stab(N
ei ).
manifold cluster Ni , choose an elevation N
Przytycki-Wise have shown that Definition 2.2(1)-(5) imply that π1 M acts
e that X/π
e 1 M is virtually special, and that π1 M acts
freely and properly on X,
e
cocompactly relative to {C(Ni )}. (See Theorems 2.1 and 2.4 of [23].) Therefore,
ei ).
it remains only to show that each Pi acts cocompactly on its respective C(N
Let R > 0 be a constant satisfying Lemma 6.2 for M and S. Fix a choice of
ei ), we find L > 0 so that each collection of
i. To show Pi acts cocompactly C(N
e
ei . Since Pi acts cocompactly
pairwise crossing walls in Si has an L-center in N
e
on Ni , Lemma 2.10 will then imply there are finitely many Pi -orbits of pairwise
26

e i intersects N
ei . If Se ∈ S
e i , then
crossing walls. First we show each wall in S
e ∩ Pi is infinite. If S is the surface covered by S,
e this implies S either
stab(S)
intersects Ni or has an accidental parabolic homotopic into Ni . Since S satisfies
Proposition 6.1, S intersects Ni in the latter case.
e i be a collection of walls which pairwise cross in M
f. Now we
Let V ⊂ S
ei intersecting every surface of V. The
show there is a Seifert fibered block of N
f give it the structure of a tree of spaces. Let Γ denote the tree
JSJ-planes of M
f in which there is a vertex for each
dual to the collection of JSJ-planes of M
f
block of M and an edge whenever two blocks are adjacent via a JSJ-plane. For
each wall in W ∈ V consider the subtree of ΓW whose vertices corresponded
to blocks intersecting that wall and edges to JSJ-planes intersecting that wall.
These subtrees associated to walls in V pairwise intersect since the surfaces
f. Further, each of these subtrees intersects the subtree
pairwise intersect in M
ei . The Helly
ΓNei consisting of all the blocks and JSJ-planes contained in N
Property for trees states that if a collection of a subtrees in a tree pairwise
intersect, then the total intersection of the collection of subtrees is nonempty.
Therefore, (∩W ∈V ΓW ) ∩ ΓNei is nonempty which implies there is a Seifert fibered
e of N
ei intersecting every wall of V.
block B
′
e of walls in V. By our choice
Let V denote the collection of all pieces in B
′
of R > 0, the pieces in V are pairwise R-close.
e close to the vertical pieces of V ′ then a point on
We find an R-fiber of B
that fiber close to the horizontal pieces. Since B is a Seifert fibered space with
e has a product structure of the form E ×R respecting the R-fibering
boundary, B
e
e = N
ei and
of B. If Ni is thick, E is a convex subset of H2 . If Ni is thin, B
E is an infinite strip. In either case, E is δ-hyperbolic. Projecting the vertical
pieces of V ′ onto E yields a collection of pairwise-close quasigeodesics in E. By
Lemma 2.9, there is a constant L1 = L1 (B, S) and an L1 -center y0 ∈ E for
these quasigeodesics.
Let ℓ = {y0 } × R be the R-fiber L1 -close to the vertical pieces of V ′ . The
horizontal pieces are all disjoint so there is an upper bound K = K(B, S) on
the size of any collection of pairwise R-close horizontal pieces. Choose a point
x0 ∈ ℓ lying on any horizontal piece in V ′ . Let f be the length of a regular fiber
of B and let L2 = f K. Any horizontal piece in V ′ in B is L2 -close to x0 .
Thus, x0 is an L2 -center for V. The constants we chose depended only on B,
e and S, so we can choose them uniformly.
the Seifert fibered block covered by B,
ei ) by Lemma 2.10. This together with
Therefore, Pi acts cocompactly on C(N
e Therefore X = X/π
e 1 M is
Theorem 2.12 implies π1 M acts cocompactly on X.
virtually compact special.

27

7

Classification of virtually compact special 3manifold groups

We conclude by proving Theorem 1.6, which gives a classification of virtually
compact special 3-manifold groups in terms of their geometric structure.
Proof of Theorem 1.6. The case where M is nongeometric follows from the main
theorem and Theorems A and B of [13].
Wise proved π1 M is virtually compact special when M is a hyperbolic manifold with boundary in [31]. Agol, Groves, and Manning proved π1 M is virtually compact special when M is a closed hyperbolic 3-manifold in [1] building
on [31] and [3]. If M is a spherical manifold then π1 M is finite and hence virtually trivial implying it is virtually compact special. For M a sol manifold,
then Hagen-Przytycki observed π1 M is not virtually compact special. Indeed,
since π1 M is solvable but not virtually Abelian, the solvable subgroup theorem
(See e.g. Theorem 7.8 in part II of [6].) implies π1 M cannot act properly on a
CAT (0) cube complex and therefore is not virtually compact special. Technically, we could also consider sol manifolds as graph manifold with a nontrivial
JSJ decomposition. Hagen-Przytycki [13] exclude this case when studying graph
manifolds but their results still hold since sol manifolds are not chargeless.
For the remaining cases we study their Seifert fibered structure. These cases
are also discussed in [13]. The argument is straightforward so we include it here.
Suppose M is a Seifert fibered space with infinite fundamental group. If M is
closed and has a vanishing Euler number then it has a finite cover which is a
product F ×S 1 where F is a surface. It is well-known that the fundamental group
of a such a manifold is virtually compact special. The geometries corresponding
to a vanishing Euler number are E3 , H2 × R, and S 2 × R. (See e.g. Table 1
in [2].) If M has nonempty boundary then it is virtually the product of a surface
with boundary and a circle and admits one of the three geometries above.
If M is a closed Seifert fibered space with a non-vanishing Euler number,
then M does not have a finite cover which is the product of a surface and a
circle. Theorem 6.12 in Part II of [6] states that if π1 M were to act properly by
isometries on a CAT (0) space then there would be a finite index subgroup with
the fiber subgroup as a direct factor. This would then implies (by e.g. Theorem
3.9 of [?]) that M has a finite cover which is the product of a surface and a
circle. It follows that π1 M cannot properly on a CAT (0) cube complex if M
has non-vanishing Euler number. This excludes closed 3-manifolds which admit
f
a SL(2,
R) or nil geometric structure.

References
[1] I. Agol, The virtual Haken conjecture, Doc. Math. 18 (2013), 1045–1087. With an appendix by Agol, Daniel Groves, and Jason Manning. MR3104553

28

[2] M. Aschenbrenner, S. Friedl, and H. Wilton, 3-manifold groups (Apr. 24, 2013), available
at arXiv:1205.0202v3.
[3] N. Bergeron and D. T. Wise, A boundary criterion for cubulation, Amer. J. Math. 134
(2012), no. 3, 843–859. MR2931226
[4] H. Bigdely and D. T. Wise, Quasiconvexity and relatively hyperbolic groups that split,
Michigan Math. J. 62 (2013), no. 2, 387–406. MR3079269
[5] B. H. Bowditch, Relatively hyperbolic groups, Internat. J. Algebra Comput. 22 (2012),
no. 3, 1250016, 66. MR2922380
[6] M. R. Bridson and A. Haefliger, Metric spaces of non-positive curvature, Grundlehren
der Mathematischen Wissenschaften [Fundamental Principles of Mathematical Sciences],
vol. 319, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1999. MR1744486
[7] S. V. Buyalo and P. V. Svetlov, Topological and geometric properties of graph manifolds,
Algebra i Analiz 16 (2004), no. 2, 3–68. MR2068341
[8] E. Chesebro, J. DeBlois, and H. Wilton, Some virtually special hyperbolic 3-manifold
groups, Comment. Math. Helv. 87 (2012), no. 3, 727–787. MR2980525
[9] F. Dahmani, Combination of convergence groups, Geom. Topol. 7 (2003), 933–963 (electronic). MR2026551
[10] C. Druţu and M. Sapir, Tree-graded spaces and asymptotic cones of groups, Topology 44
(2005), no. 5, 959–1058. With an appendix by Denis Osin and Sapir. MR2153979
[11] R. Gitik, M. Mitra, E. Rips, and M. Sageev, Widths of subgroups, Trans. Amer. Math.
Soc. 350 (1998), no. 1, 321–329. MR1389776
[12] M. Gromov, Hyperbolic groups, Essays in group theory, 1987, pp. 75–263. MR919829
[13] M. F. Hagen and P. Przytycki, Cocompactly cubulated graph manifolds, Israel J. Math.
207 (2015), no. 1, 377–394. MR3358051
[14] F. Haglund and D. T. Wise, Special cube complexes, Geom. Funct. Anal. 17 (2008), no. 5,
1551–1620. MR2377497
[15] J. Hass, Minimal surfaces in Seifert fiber spaces, Topology Appl. 18 (1984), no. 2-3,
145–151. MR769287
[16] A.
Hatcher,
Notes on basic 3-manifold
http://www.math.cornell.edu/~ hatcher/.

topology,

2007.

available

at

[17] G. C. Hruska and D. T. Wise, Finiteness properties of cubulated groups, Compos. Math.
150 (2014), no. 3, 453–506. MR3187627
[18] G. C. Hruska, Relative hyperbolicity and relative quasiconvexity for countable groups,
Algebr. Geom. Topol. 10 (2010), no. 3, 1807–1856. MR2684983
[19] M. Kapovich and B. Leeb, On asymptotic cones and quasi-isometry classes of fundamental groups of 3-manifolds, Geom. Funct. Anal. 5 (1995), no. 3, 582–603. MR1339818
[20] J. Luecke and Y.-Q. Wu, Relative Euler number and finite covers of graph manifolds,
Geometric topology (Athens, GA, 1993), 1997, pp. 80–103. MR1470722
[21] E. Martı́nez-Pedroza and D. T. Wise, Relative quasiconvexity using fine hyperbolic graphs,
Algebr. Geom. Topol. 11 (2011), no. 1, 477–501. MR2783235
[22] G. Niblo and L. Reeves, Groups acting on CAT(0) cube complexes, Geom. Topol. 1
(1997), approx. 7 pp. (electronic). MR1432323
[23] P. Przytycki and D. T. Wise, Mixed 3-manifolds are virtually special (July 24, 2013),
available at arXiv:1205.6742v2.
[24] P. Przytycki and D. T. Wise, Graph manifolds with boundary are virtually special, J.
Topol. 7 (2014), no. 2, 419–435. MR3217626
[25] D. Y. Rebbechi, Algorithmic properties of relatively hyperbolic groups, ProQuest LLC,
Ann Arbor, MI, 2001. Thesis (Ph.D.)–Rutgers The State University of New Jersey Newark. MR2701979

29

[26] J. H. Rubinstein and S. Wang, π1 -injective surfaces in graph manifolds, Comment. Math.
Helv. 73 (1998), no. 4, 499–515. MR1639876
[27] M. Sageev, Ends of group pairs and non-positively curved cube complexes, Proc. London
Math. Soc. (3) 71 (1995), no. 3, 585–617. MR1347406
[28]

, Codimension-1 subgroups and splittings of groups, J. Algebra 189 (1997), no. 2,
377–389. MR1438181

[29] K. Schreve, The strong Atiyah conjecture for virtually cocompact special groups, Math.
Ann. 359 (2014), no. 3-4, 629–636. MR3231009
[30] D. T. Wise, From riches to raags: 3-manifolds, right-angled Artin groups, and cubical
geometry, CBMS Regional Conference Series in Mathematics, vol. 117, Published for
the Conference Board of the Mathematical Sciences, Washington, DC; by the American
Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2012. MR2986461
[31]

, The structure of groups with a quasiconvex hierarchy, 2012. available at
http://www.math.mcgill.ca/wise/papers.html.

30

