Surjectivity of the Cannon--Thurston map in metric (graph) bundles

Rakesh Halder

REVIEW 1 major objections 4 minor 42 references

Surjectivity of the Cannon--Thurston map in metric (graph) bundles

T0 review · 1 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read For hyperbolic metric bundles, fiber inclusions extend continuously to boundary maps, and this paper proves those boundary maps are surjective whenever the fibers are one-ended or have uniformly bounded valence.

desk verdict Genuinely useful results and a mostly clean proof of Theorem 1.6(A), but Theorem 1.6(B) has a real gap in Claim 2 that needs fixing before publication. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.07076 v2 pith:ZJJRC7KX submitted 2025-07-09 math.GT math.MG

Rakesh Halder This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.GTmath.MG MSC 20F6520F67

keywords Cannon–ThurstonmapmetricgraphbundlesGromovboundarybarycenterexponentialgrowthone-endedhyperbolicspacescontrolledfibers

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper proves that, in a metric graph bundle with hyperbolic fibers over [0,∞), when the total space is hyperbolic, the Cannon–Thurston map from a fiber's Gromov boundary to the total space's boundary hits every boundary point, provided either the fibers have uniformly bounded valence or the fibers are one-ended proper metric spaces. This answers a question posed in [LMM24] and generalizes the fiber-hyperbolic-plane result of [Bow13]. The result matters because surjectivity of the Cannon–Thurston map says the whole boundary of the bundle is visible from a single fiber, a strong constraint on the geometry of hyperbolic group extensions and their boundaries.

What carries the argument

The central object is a metric (graph) bundle with controlled hyperbolic fibers: each fiber is δ-hyperbolic and its barycenter map ∂³F_i→F_i, sending an ideal triangle in the boundary to a point near all three sides, is L-coarsely surjective. Through every point of the bundle there is a good qi section, obtained by fixing an ideal triangle in one fiber and taking barycenters of its images in every other fiber; the boundary of the total space splits as the fiber limit set plus the endpoints of such good sections. In case (A), a key theorem (Theorem 3.10) shows that a hyperbolic metric graph with bounded valence and coarsely surjective barycenter map has exponential growth, and the resulting uniform exponential growth is combined with a flow-counting estimate to force every good section endpoint to be a limit of the initial fiber. In case (B), one-endedness gives paths in the initial fiber that stay outside arbitrarily large balls, and flowing these paths while controlling their length against exponential divergence yields the same conclusion.

What would settle it

A concrete falsifier would be an f-metric graph bundle π:X→[0,∞) satisfying all hypotheses of Theorem 1.6(A) or (B) whose good qi section endpoints are not all limits of F_0-sequences: by Lemma 2.15 this is exactly a point of ∂good X outside Λ_X(F_0), so the Cannon–Thurston map misses it and surjectivity fails. The flow estimates in Theorem 5.1 make this checkable numerically: in a counterexample, the number of vertices in Fl_1(A)∩F_i would have to violate the upper bound ||A||c^i while the flaring lower bound grows doubly exponentially.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For an f-metric graph bundle π:X→[0,∞) with δ-hyperbolic fibers, L-coarsely surjective barycenter maps ∂³F_i→F_i, and δ-hperbolic total space, the Cannon–Thurston map ∂$π^{{-1}}$(0)→∂X is surjective under either (A) uniformly bounded vertex valence in every fiber or (B) one-ended proper fibers. In particular, if all fibers are uniformly quasiisometric to a fixed nonelementary hyperbolic group and have bounded valence, the Cannon–Thurston map is surjective (Corollary 1.2). The proof describes ∂X as Λ_X(F_0) ∪ ∂good X and then shows each endpoint of a good qi section over [0,∞) is a limit point of F_0—in case (B) by flowing curves that avoid large balls in one-ended fibers, in case (A) by using uniform exponential growth of fibers and a flow-counting estimate. This answers Question 1.5 of [LMM24].

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the fibers' barycenter maps are uniformly coarsely surjective—every point of every fiber lies within a fixed distance of the barycenter of some ideal triangle—because without it the Cannon–Thurston map can fail to be surjective, as an example cited in the paper shows.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For any metric graph bundle over a hyperbolic base with controlled hyperbolic fibers satisfying either of the two assumptions, the Cannon–Thurston map from a fiber into any qi-embedded sub-bundle is surjective (Theorem 6.1).
When the fibers are uniformly quasiisometric to a fixed nonelementary hyperbolic group and have bounded valence, the surjective Cannon–Thurston map is not injective, so the Cannon–Thurston lamination is nonempty (Theorem 6.11).
The same surjectivity holds for metric bundles, not just metric graph bundles, when the fibers are uniformly strongly proper or one-ended proper (Theorem 7.8).
The combinatorial horoball example shows that surjectivity can hold even when the fibers are not uniformly quasiisometric to a fixed hyperbolic space and the barycenter maps are not uniformly coarsely surjective, so the paper's hypotheses are sufficient but not necessary.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Beyond the paper, the flow-counting mechanism suggests that the bounded-valence hypothesis in case (A) could be weakened to uniform exponential growth of the fibers; Theorem 5.1 already isolates that condition, and the paper leaves open whether it is also necessary.
Beyond the paper, the boundary description ∂X = Λ_X(F_0) ∪ ∂good X may give a direct way to construct Cannon–Thurston laminations from pairs of good sections, so the non-injectivity statements in Section 6.3 could be proved without first passing through fiber boundary pairs.
Beyond the paper, the same coarse-geometric strategy may transfer to other families of hyperbolic spaces with uniformly coarsely surjective barycenter maps, such as strongly proper actions, yielding surjectivity of Cannon–Thurston maps for commensurated subgroups beyond the examples listed in Section 6.2.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Main point: this paper gives a real positive answer to LMM's Question 1.5, and the standalone tools are worth having. The embedding of the trivalent tree under coarse barycenter surjectivity (Theorem 3.2) and the exponential growth criterion (Theorem 3.10) are new and clean. The proof of Theorem 1.6(A) and Corollary 1.2 is solid: reduce to uniform exponential growth of the fibers, then use the flow argument. The boundary description via good qi-sections (Proposition 4.21) is carefully laid out, and I see no circularity or fitted parameters. The soft spot is in the proof of Theorem 1.6(B), specifically Claim 2 in Section 5.1. The contradiction aims for doubly exponential growth of the flowed paths alpha_{n,i}. It applies Lemma 2.6 to the point x_i in beta_i, using d_i(x_i, alpha_{n,i}) >= a b^i - K. But Lemma 2.6 only gives a length lower bound for paths that stay outside a ball centered at a point lying on a geodesic joining the path's two endpoints. The proof never establishes that x_i lies between the endpoints of alpha_{n,i} on beta_i. The initial path alpha_{n,0} is chosen as any path outside the n-ball around Sigma(0); such a path can have both endpoints on the same side of Sigma(0). In H^2, take endpoints at distances n+1 and n+2 from the center on the same ray, joined by the geodesic segment; that path stays outside the n-ball and has length 1. One-endedness does allow choosing the initial endpoints on opposite sides, but the paper doesn't make that choice, and the inductive transfer via Lemma 2.12 doesn't track the side information. So as written, the doubly exponential lower bound does not follow. This is an essential gap: without it, Claim 2 fails and the contradiction with Note 1 collapses. Minor issues worth mentioning: Lemma 3.7 has a typo in the exponent (b^{-3} should replace b^{-3k} in the definition of a_{3.7}); the quantifiers in Claim 2 are loose; and the one-ended path construction would be easier to follow if the projection of Sigma(i) to beta_i were introduced explicitly. Overall, the main theorems are likely true, and the new tools justify a serious look. I would send this to a careful referee. The author should be asked to fix the gap in Claim 2, choosing alpha_{n,0} with endpoints on opposite sides of the projected center and tracking the sides through the induction. Once that is done, the paper deserves publication. This is for people working on Cannon-Thurston maps and metric bundles; Theorems 3.2 and 3.10 are worth citing independently.

Referee Report

1 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proves surjectivity of the Cannon–Thurston map for the inclusion of a fiber into a hyperbolic metric (graph) bundle, in two settings: (A) fibers have uniformly bounded valence and controlled hyperbolic fibers, and (B) fibers are one-ended proper hyperbolic spaces. The main results are Theorem 1.6, Corollary 1.2 (fibers uniformly quasiisometric to a fixed nonelementary hyperbolic group), and Theorem 6.1 for arbitrary hyperbolic base, with applications to metric bundles in the appendix. The paper also proves a standalone growth result (Theorem 3.10): a hyperbolic metric graph with bounded valence and coarsely surjective barycenter map has exponential growth, via a quasiisometric embedding of the trivalent tree (Theorem 3.2).

Significance. If the proofs are completed, the paper would answer Question 3.15 of Lazarovich–Margolis–Mj and generalize Bowditch's theorem for hyperbolic-plane fibers to one-ended hyperbolic fibers and to bounded-valence controlled hyperbolic fibers. The growth theorem for metric graphs is of independent interest and the constants in the arguments are explicit. The paper is not circular: the surjectivity statement is derived from hyperbolicity, barycenter coarse surjectivity, bounded valence, or one-endedness, and the acknowledgements and references are appropriate. However, the proof of the one-ended case, which is one of the two main theorems, contains a gap in the key length-growth contradiction; the claim is likely repairable, but the manuscript as written does not establish it.

major comments (1)

[5.1, Claim 2 (proof of Theorem 1.6(B))] The lower bound (∗∗), length(α_{n,i}) ≥ b^{ab^i−K−1}, does not follow from Lemma 2.6 as stated. Lemma 2.6 applies to a path γ joining two points p,q when the chosen point x lies on a geodesic segment [p,q] and γ lies outside the n-radius ball centered at x. In the proof, α_{n,i} is only known to join two points on the geodesic line β_i, and the point x_i ∈ β_i satisfying d_i(x_i, α_{n,i}) ≥ ab^i − K is not shown to lie between the endpoints of α_{n,i} on β_i. If the endpoints lie on the same side of x_i, the geodesic segment between them can lie outside the ball and have length O(1), so no doubly exponential lower bound holds for that path. The one-endedness assumption does provide paths connecting points on opposite sides of the ball around Σ(i), but such a choice is not made for α_{n,0} and the inductive transfer via Lemma 2.12 does not record or propagate an 'opposite sides' condition. Consequently the contradiction with Note 1 is not established, and the proof of Theorem 1.6(B) is incomplete as written; the same gap affects Theorems 6.1(B) and 7.8(B), which rely on Theorem 1.6(B). This is a local but load-bearing gap, and the argument appears repairable by explicitly choosing endpoints on opposite sides and proving this property is preserved by the flow.

minor comments (4)

[3.2, Lemma 3.7 proof] In the display after the inequality ab^n ≤ ||A||D^{d+1}, the expression (aD^{-([k^2]+2)}b^{-3k})(b^{1/k})^n does not follow from the preceding line; the exponent calculation yields b^{m/k−3} = b^{-3}(b^{1/k})^m, so the constant b^{-3k} appears to be a typo for b^{-3} (with the small-t case handled separately by b^{-3k}). The lemma is still true with corrected constants, but the displayed arithmetic should be fixed.
[5.1, Claim 2 statement] The quantifiers in Claim 2 are imprecise: 'There is a subsequence {n_k} ⊆ N such that d_l(x_l, Σ(l)) ≤ M for some l ∈ N and x_l ∈ α_{n_k,l} where M ≥ 0' does not specify whether M is chosen first or may depend on the subsequence, and it does not state that l may depend on k. The subsequent application to Lemma 4.22 needs: there exists M ≥ 0 and infinitely many n such that for some l and some x_l ∈ α_{n,l}, d_l(x_l, Σ(l)) ≤ M. The current wording should be corrected.
[5.1, Claim 1 proof] The inductive construction of Σ_1 in Claim 1 conflates Σ and Σ_1 in several places (e.g., 'Suppose Σ(j) ∈ α_{n,j}' should read 'Suppose Σ_1(j) ∈ α_{n,j}'), and the indices in the backward/forward extension step, involving ϕ_j(α_{n,j−1}) versus ϕ_{j+1}(α_{n,j+1}), are written in a confusing way. The intended construction is clear but should be rewritten carefully.
[5.1, text after Claim 1] The constant K is used both for the good-section constant from Corollary 4.13 and for the qi-section constant K' in the proof of Theorem 1.6(B); this overloads notation and makes the line 'K'' = max{K', K}' hard to parse. Renaming one of the constants would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the proof derives CT-map surjectivity from explicit hyperbolicity, barycenter coarse-surjectivity, and growth/one-endedness hypotheses, with the load carried by external results rather than self-citation.

full rationale

The paper is not circular. The main theorems (Theorem 1.6(A), Theorem 1.6(B), Corollary 1.2) take as hypotheses controlled hyperbolic fibers, hyperbolicity of the total space, and either bounded valence or one-endedness, and then prove surjectivity of the Cannon–Thurston map. The key assumption, L-coarse surjectivity of the fiber barycenter maps, is an input borrowed from LMM24, not a consequence of the target conclusion; the paper explicitly cites [LMM24, Example 3.14] showing that without this condition the CT map can fail to be surjective, so the assumption has independent content. The proof reduces surjectivity to showing that every good qi section endpoint lies in the limit set of F0, using the boundary decomposition of Proposition 4.21 (following KS20) and Lemma 2.15 (KS20). This reduction is a genuine sufficient condition, not a restatement of the conclusion. Theorem 1.6(A) flows through Theorem 3.10, which derives exponential growth from coarse-surjective barycenter maps plus bounded valence; Theorem 5.1 then converts uniform exponential growth into surjectivity. Theorem 1.6(B) follows Bowditch's one-ended path argument. The cited external results — BH99, MS12, KS20, Bow13, Koubi, Mitra — are not by the present author and are not equivalent to the paper's conclusion. The only self-citations, [Hal22], [HS], and [HMS25], appear in remarks, comparisons of definitions, and literature surveys, and are not load-bearing for the theorems. The skeptic's objection about Claim 2 in Section 5.1 concerns whether Lemma 2.6 applies as written to the flowed paths; that is a possible gap in the proof's correctness, not a circular reduction or an input fitted to the conclusion. Hence no circularity is present, and the appropriate score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no fitted parameters or new physical entities. All constants are universal quantifiers in the hypotheses. The defined objects, such as good qi sections and flow, are mathematical constructions rather than postulated entities. The assumptions listed above are the load-bearing premises of the main theorems.

assumptions (8)

domain assumption Fibers F_i are uniformly δ-hyperbolic geodesic metric graphs
Part of Definition 4.6 (controlled hyperbolic fibers); used throughout to apply hyperbolic geometry tools.
domain assumption Barycenter maps ∂³F_i → F_i are L-coarsely surjective for a uniform L
Central hypothesis; enables T3 embedding (Theorem 3.2), good qi sections (Corollary 4.13), and boundary description (Proposition 4.21).
domain assumption Total space X is δ-hyperbolic
Required for existence of the CT map and for exponential divergence and flaring arguments.
domain assumption Fibers have uniformly bounded valence (assumption (A))
Used in Theorem 3.10 (exponential growth) and Lemma 4.24 (flow bound).
domain assumption Fibers are one-ended proper metric spaces (assumption (B))
Used to construct paths outside large balls, following Bowditch's argument.
standard math Koubi's theorem: nonelementary hyperbolic groups have exponential growth (Theorem 3.9)
Used in Corollary 1.2 to establish exponential growth of fibers quasiisometric to a nonelementary hyperbolic group.
standard math Mj-Sardar's results on metric graph bundles, including existence of CT maps and flaring (MS12)
Foundational cited results used throughout, especially Theorem 4.8 and Proposition 4.21.
standard math Krishna-Sardar's reduction theorem (KS20, Theorem 6.2)
Used to extend the main results from base [0,∞) to an arbitrary hyperbolic base.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Surjectivity of the Cannon--Thurston map in metric (graph) bundles." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZJJRC7KX

@misc{pith2026250707076,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Surjectivity of the Cannon--Thurston map in metric (graph) bundles},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZJJRC7KX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.07076}
}

abstract

Metric (graph) bundles generalize the notion of fiber bundles to the context of geometric group theory and were introduced by Mj and Sardar. Suppose $X$ is a metric (graph) bundle over $B$ such that the fibers are (uniformly) hyperbolic, and the total space $X$ is also hyperbolic. In this generality, Mj--Sardar proved that the inclusion of a fiber into $X$ admits a continuous extension to the (Gromov) boundary. In this article, we prove that such a continuous extension map between boundaries is surjective in the following two key settings. $(1)$ The fibers are uniformly quasiisometric to a nonelementary hyperbolic group. $(2)$ The fibers are one-ended hyperbolic metric spaces. Our result generalizes a theorem of Bowditch in which the fibers were assumed to be the hyperbolic plane, and it answers a question posed by Lazarovich, Margolis and Mj.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages

[1]

J. M. Alonso, T. Brady, D. Cooper, V. Ferlini, M. Lustig, M. Mihalik, M. Shapiro, and H. Short, Notes on word hyperbolic groups, Group theory from a geometrical viewpoint ( T rieste, 1990), World Sci. Publ., River Edge, NJ, 1991, Edited by Short, pp. 3--63. 1170363

work page 1990
[2]

Mladen Bestvina, Geometric group theory problem list, https://www.math.utah.edu/ bestvina/eprints/questions.pdf (2000)

work page 2000
[3]

Differential Geom

Mladen Bestvina and Mark Feighn, A combination theorem for negatively curved groups, J. Differential Geom. 35 (1992), no. 1, 85--101. 1152226

work page 1992
[4]

Feighn, and Michael Handel, Laminations, trees, and irreducible automorphisms of free groups, Geom

Mladen Bestvina, Mark E. Feighn, and Michael Handel, Laminations, trees, and irreducible automorphisms of free groups, Geom. Funct. Anal. 7 (1997), no. 2, 215--244. 1445386

work page 1997
[5]

Bridson and Andr\'e Haefliger, Metric spaces of non-positive curvature, Grundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften [Fundamental Principles of Mathematical Sciences], vol

Martin R. Bridson and Andr\'e Haefliger, Metric spaces of non-positive curvature, Grundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften [Fundamental Principles of Mathematical Sciences], vol. 319, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1999. 1744486

1999
[6]

Bowditch, Stacks of hyperbolic spaces and ends of 3-manifolds, Geometry and topology down under, Contemp

Brian H. Bowditch, Stacks of hyperbolic spaces and ends of 3-manifolds, Geometry and topology down under, Contemp. Math., vol. 597, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2013, pp. 65--138. 3186670

work page 2013
[7]

, Uniform hyperbolicity of the curve graphs, Pacific J. Math. 269 (2014), no. 2, 269--280. 3238474

work page 2014
[8]

Sigma 1 (2013), Paper No

Owen Baker and Timothy Riley, Cannon- T hurston maps do not always exist , Forum Math. Sigma 1 (2013), Paper No. e3, 11. 3143716

work page 2013

Show all 42 references

[9]

, Cannon- T hurston maps, subgroup distortion, and hyperbolic hydra , Groups Geom. Dyn. 14 (2020), no. 1, 255--282. 4077662

2020
[10]

1441, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1990, Les groupes hyperboliques de Gromov

Michel Coornaert, Thomas Delzant, and Athanase Papadopoulos, G\' e om\' e trie et th\' e orie des groupes , Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 1441, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1990, Les groupes hyperboliques de Gromov. [Gromov hyperbolic groups], With an English summary. 1075994

1990
[11]

Cannon and W

J. Cannon and W. P. Thurston, Group I nvariant P eano C urves , preprint, Princeton (1985)

1985
[12]

, Group I nvariant P eano C urves , Geom. Topol. 11 (2007), 1315--1355

2007
[13]

Taylor, Cannon- T hurston maps for hyperbolic free group extensions , Israel J

Spencer Dowdall, Ilya Kapovich, and Samuel J. Taylor, Cannon- T hurston maps for hyperbolic free group extensions , Israel J. Math. 216 (2016), no. 2, 753--797. 3557464

2016
[14]

Benson Farb and Lee Mosher, Convex cocompact subgroups of mapping class groups, Geom. Topol. 6 (2002), 91--152. 1914566

2002
[15]

83, Birkh\" a user Boston, Inc., Boston, MA, 1990, Papers from the Swiss Seminar on Hyperbolic Groups held in Bern, 1988

\' E tienne Ghys and Pierre de la Harpe (eds.), Sur les groupes hyperboliques d'apr\`es M ikhael G romov , Progress in Mathematics, vol. 83, Birkh\" a user Boston, Inc., Boston, MA, 1990, Papers from the Swiss Seminar on Hyperbolic Groups held in Bern, 1988. 1086648

1990
[16]

Pritam Ghosh and Funda Gültepe, Geometry of extensions of free groups via automorphisms with fixed points on the complex of free factors, arXiv, preprint, 2404.1905 https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.19058 (2024)

2024
[17]

Daniel Groves and Jason Fox Manning, Dehn filling in relatively hyperbolic groups, Israel J. Math. 168 (2008), 317--429. 2448064

2008
[18]

Pritam Ghosh and Mahan Mj, Regluing graphs of free groups, Algebr. Geom. Topol. 22 (2022), no. 4, 1969--2006. 4495672

2022
[19]

Rostislav Grigorchuk and Igor Pak, Groups of intermediate growth: an introduction, Enseign. Math. (2) 54 (2008), no. 3-4, 251--272. 2478087

2008
[20]

Gromov, Hyperbolic G roups , in Essays in Group Theory, ed

M. Gromov, Hyperbolic G roups , in Essays in Group Theory, ed. Gersten, MSRI Publ.,vol.8, Springer Verlag (1987), 75--263

1987
[21]

Ramanujan Math

Rakesh Halder, A combination theorem for trees of metric bundles, To appear in J. Ramanujan Math. Soc., https://arxiv.org/abs/2206.14692 (2022)

2022
[22]

Ursula Hamenst\" a dt, Word hyperbolic extensions of surface groups, https://arxiv.org/abs/math/0505244, https://arxiv.org/abs/math/0505244 (2005)

2005 arXiv
[23]

Rakesh Halder, Mahan Mj, and Pranab Sardar, Landing rays and ray cannon-thurston maps, https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.17815, https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.17815 (2025)

2025 arXiv
[24]

Halder and P

R. Halder and P. Sardar, Cannon- T hurston M aps for M orphisms of T rees of H yperbolic S paces , in preparation
[25]

Woojin Jeon, Ilya Kapovich, Christopher Leininger, and Ken'ichi Ohshika, Conical limit points and the C annon- T hurston map , Conform. Geom. Dyn. 20 (2016), 58--80. 3488025

2016
[26]

Ilya Kapovich and Martin Lustig, Cannon- T hurston fibers for iwip automorphisms of F_N , J. Lond. Math. Soc. (2) 91 (2015), no. 1, 203--224. 3335244

2015
[27]

Malik Koubi, Croissance uniforme dans les groupes hyperboliques, Ann. Inst. Fourier (Grenoble) 48 (1998), no. 5, 1441--1453. 1662255

1998
[28]

Swathi Krishna and Pranab Sardar, Pullbacks of M etric B undles and C annon- T hurston M aps , To appear in Algebr. Geom. Topol. https://arxiv.org/abs/2007.13109 (2020)

2020
[29]

282, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, [2024] 2024

Michael Kapovich and Pranab Sardar, Trees of hyperbolic spaces, Mathematical Surveys and Monographs, vol. 282, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, [2024] 2024. 4783431

2024
[30]

Nir Lazarovich, Alex Margolis, and Mahan Mj, Commensurated hyperbolic subgroups, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 377 (2024), no. 10, 7377--7402. 4855339

2024
[31]

Leininger and Saul Schleimer, Hyperbolic spaces in T eichm\"uller spaces , J

Christopher J. Leininger and Saul Schleimer, Hyperbolic spaces in T eichm\"uller spaces , J. Eur. Math. Soc. (JEMS) 16 (2014), no. 12, 2669--2692. 3293806

2014
[32]

395, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2012

Avinoam Mann, How groups grow, London Mathematical Society Lecture Note Series, vol. 395, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2012. 2894945

2012
[33]

Alexander Margolis, The geometry of groups containing almost normal subgroups, Geom. Topol. 25 (2021), no. 5, 2405--2468. 4310893

2021
[34]

Honglin Min, Hyperbolic graphs of surface groups, Algebr. Geom. Topol. 11 (2011), no. 1, 449--476. 2783234

2011
[35]

Mahan Mitra, Ending laminations for hyperbolic group extensions, Geom. Funct. Anal. 7 (1997), no. 2, 379--402. 1445392

1997
[36]

Mitra, Cannon- T hurston M aps for H yperbolic G roup E xtensions , Topology 37 (1998), 527--538

M. Mitra, Cannon- T hurston M aps for H yperbolic G roup E xtensions , Topology 37 (1998), 527--538

1998
[37]

Differential Geom

Mahan Mitra, Cannon- T hurston maps for trees of hyperbolic metric spaces , J. Differential Geom. 48 (1998), no. 1, 135--164. 1622603

1998
[38]

Mahan Mj, Cannon- T hurston maps , Proceedings of the I nternational C ongress of M athematicians--- R io de J aneiro 2018. V ol. II . I nvited lectures, World Sci. Publ., Hackensack, NJ, 2018, pp. 885--917. 3966793

2018
[39]

Group Theory 17 (2014), no

Yoshifumi Matsuda and Shin-ichi Oguni, On C annon- T hurston maps for relatively hyperbolic groups , J. Group Theory 17 (2014), no. 1, 41--47. 3176651

2014
[40]

Lee Mosher, A hyperbolic-by-hyperbolic hyperbolic group, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 125 (1997), no. 12, 3447--3455. 1443845

1997
[41]

Mahan Mj and Pranab Sardar, A combination theorem for metric bundles, Geom. Funct. Anal. 22 (2012), no. 6, 1636--1707. 3000500

2012
[42]

John Roe, Hyperbolic groups have finite asymptotic dimension, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 133 (2005), no. 9, 2489--2490. 2146189

2005

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

J. M. Alonso, T. Brady, D. Cooper, V. Ferlini, M. Lustig, M. Mihalik, M. Shapiro, and H. Short, Notes on word hyperbolic groups, Group theory from a geometrical viewpoint ( T rieste, 1990), World Sci. Publ., River Edge, NJ, 1991, Edited by Short, pp. 3--63. 1170363

work page 1990

[2] [2]

Mladen Bestvina, Geometric group theory problem list, https://www.math.utah.edu/ bestvina/eprints/questions.pdf (2000)

work page 2000

[3] [3]

Differential Geom

Mladen Bestvina and Mark Feighn, A combination theorem for negatively curved groups, J. Differential Geom. 35 (1992), no. 1, 85--101. 1152226

work page 1992

[4] [4]

Feighn, and Michael Handel, Laminations, trees, and irreducible automorphisms of free groups, Geom

Mladen Bestvina, Mark E. Feighn, and Michael Handel, Laminations, trees, and irreducible automorphisms of free groups, Geom. Funct. Anal. 7 (1997), no. 2, 215--244. 1445386

work page 1997

[5] [5]

Bridson and Andr\'e Haefliger, Metric spaces of non-positive curvature, Grundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften [Fundamental Principles of Mathematical Sciences], vol

Martin R. Bridson and Andr\'e Haefliger, Metric spaces of non-positive curvature, Grundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften [Fundamental Principles of Mathematical Sciences], vol. 319, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1999. 1744486

1999

[6] [6]

Bowditch, Stacks of hyperbolic spaces and ends of 3-manifolds, Geometry and topology down under, Contemp

Brian H. Bowditch, Stacks of hyperbolic spaces and ends of 3-manifolds, Geometry and topology down under, Contemp. Math., vol. 597, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2013, pp. 65--138. 3186670

work page 2013

[7] [7]

, Uniform hyperbolicity of the curve graphs, Pacific J. Math. 269 (2014), no. 2, 269--280. 3238474

work page 2014

[8] [8]

Sigma 1 (2013), Paper No

Owen Baker and Timothy Riley, Cannon- T hurston maps do not always exist , Forum Math. Sigma 1 (2013), Paper No. e3, 11. 3143716

work page 2013