Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Bounded cohomology, quotient extensions, and hierarchical hyperbolicity

T0 review · 1 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Boundedness of the Euler class exactly controls hierarchical hyperbolicity of central extensions.

desk verdict The converse direction of the central-extension characterization is new and elegant, but Step 4 of the clean-containers quotient proof has a K-vs-Z slip that blocks the induction, and the abstract oversells the braid-group theorem. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.20462 v4 pith:6XS35TMO submitted 2025-05-26 math.GR

Francesco Fournier-Facio , Giorgio Mangioni , Alessandro Sisto This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.GR MSC 20F6520J0657K20
keywords boundedcohomologycentralextensionshierarchicallyhyperbolicgroupsquasimorphismsEulerclassmappingbraidquotients
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

This paper proves that a central extension of a hierarchically hyperbolic group (HHG) is itself an HHG precisely when the extension is bounded, meaning its Euler class is represented by a bounded cocycle. It also shows that if a central extension is an HHG, then the extension is bounded, and that under a clean-containers assumption the quotient by the kernel is virtually an HHG. The payoff is that questions about whether a group extension is geometrically hyperbolic can be answered by bounded cohomology, and the paper applies this to show that quotients of the four-strand braid group by powers of a pseudo-Anosov element are HHG. A sympathetic reader should care because this identifies a single cohomological obstruction that controls a large-scale geometric property.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Euler class of the extension, a class in $H^{2}$(G;K); the extension is bounded exactly when this class lies in the image of the comparison map from bounded cohomology $H^{2}$_b(G;K). Equivalently (Proposition 2.9), the extension admits a quasihomomorphism E->K that extends the identity on K, or a quasihomomorphic section G->E. The HHG side is carried by the machinery of hierarchically hyperbolic structures: a collection of hyperbolic coordinate spaces with nesting, orthogonality, projections and realization axioms; the proofs build a new structure for E by adjoining a quasiline constructed from the quasimorphism, and for the quotient by deleting the big domain after arranging that the centre acts loxodromically on a single coordinate space and elliptically on all others.

What would settle it

Exhibit an HHG structure on the integral Heisenberg group H_3(Z), the central extension of $Z^{2}$ by Z with unbounded Euler class; by the 'only if' direction of Theorem 3.12 this cannot exist, so finding one would refute the theorem.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes that boundedness of the Euler class is the exact invariant controlling hierarchical hyperbolicity through central extensions. Theorem 3.12 states: if G is an HHG, then a central extension 1->K->E->G->1 with finitely generated kernel has E an HHG if and only if the extension is bounded. Theorem 3.15 states a converse without assuming G is an HHG: if E is an HHG, then the extension is bounded, and if E has an HHG structure with clean containers, then some finite-index subgroup E' containing K has E'/K an HHG. The boundedness is witnessed by a quasihomomorphism E->K that restricts to the identity on K, which the paper constructs from Busemann quasimorphisms of the coordinate quasilines on which the centre acts loxodromically.

Load-bearing premise

The main theorems assume the kernel is finitely generated; the additional conclusion that the quotient is virtually HHG assumes the HHG structure on the extension has clean containers, a technical condition used to control how nesting and orthogonality survive the quotient.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If G is an HHG with finitely generated abelian central kernel, the HHG property of extensions of G is equivalent to a bounded-cohomology condition, so the property can be checked by computing Euler classes.
  • Every bounded central extension of an HHG admits an HHG structure whose extra quasiline is built from a quasimorphism, making the extension geometrically a coarse direct product.
  • Under the clean-containers assumption, central quotients of HHGs are virtually HHG, so the HHG property is closed under such quotients up to finite index.
  • Boundedness of a quotient central extension is equivalent to extending a specific quasimorphism from the image of the kernel to the whole group, linking the quotient problem to quasimorphism extendability.
  • For the four-strand braid group, quotients by high powers of a pseudo-Anosov element are bounded central extensions of HHGs, hence themselves HHG, giving a new proof of hierarchical hyperbolicity for these quotients.

Reading between the lines

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

  • One could test whether the clean-containers condition is automatic for HHG structures arising from CAT(0) cube complexes or median geometries; if so, Theorem 3.15 would imply that central quotients of all such HHGs are virtually HHG.
  • The same boundedness criterion suggests that for mapping class groups, the remaining open quotient questions (for example quotients by powers of a single Dehn twist) reduce to checking boundedness of a single Euler class, so a negative answer would require a genuinely unbounded class.
  • The paper's Lemma 2.21 on extending quasimorphisms from increasing unions may apply to normal subgroups generated by infinite families of elements, potentially proving boundedness of quotient extensions where the kernel is a union of small-cancellation subgroups.
  • If HHGs satisfy QITB (quasi-isometrically trivial implies bounded), then Theorem 3.12 would imply that quasi-isometrically trivial central extensions of HHGs are automatically HHG, making the geometric and cohomological criteria coincide.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

1 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies central extensions 1->K->E->G->1 with finitely generated kernel K, calling such an extension bounded when its Euler class is represented by a bounded cocycle. The main results are: Theorem 1.3 (Theorem 3.12) states that if G is a hierarchically hyperbolic group (HHG), then E is a HHG if and only if the extension is bounded; Theorem 1.4 (Theorem 3.15) states that if E is a HHG then the extension is bounded, and under an additional clean-containers assumption there is a finite-index subgroup E' containing K such that E'/K is a HHG. The paper also characterises bounded quotient extensions in terms of extendability of quasimorphisms (Proposition 2.16), proves a new lemma on extending quasimorphisms from directed unions (Lemma 2.21), and sketches an application to pseudo-Anosov quotients of the 4-strand braid group (Theorem 4.3). The exposition is careful and the proofs of Theorems 3.12 and 3.15 are detailed, although they rely on several heavy cited results.

Significance. If the results are correct, Theorem 1.3 provides a clean cohomological characterisation of when central extensions preserve hierarchical hyperbolicity, linking bounded cohomology to geometric group theory in a useful way. The paper also contributes a workable dictionary between bounded quotient extensions and extendable quasimorphisms (Proposition 2.16) and a new extension lemma (Lemma 2.21) that may find further applications. The proofs of the main theorems verify the HHG axioms explicitly rather than invoking black-box closure results, which is a genuine strength. The auxiliary Theorem 4.3 is only a proof sketch, and the authors transparently acknowledge that a full proof has been superseded by Tao's work; as stated, its status as a theorem is questionable.

major comments (1)
  1. [Section 3.3, Theorem 3.15, Step 4] The quotient coordinate spaces are defined as C_[W] = (union_{W in [W]} C_W)/K, with q_W: C_W -> C_[W] the quotient by K, and it is claimed that q_W is a uniform quasi-isometry because K-orbits are uniformly bounded in C_W by Lemma 3.11. This is not correct at this stage. The space being constructed is Y = X/Z, so the quotient should be by Z rather than by the full kernel K. After Step 3, the set rS = S2 - {U_z} still contains the domains Big(z_i) for i >= 2, and on any such domain z_i acts loxodromically, so K-orbits are unbounded and Lemma 3.11(2) does not apply. The map q_W is therefore not a quasi-isometry on those domains, and the verification of the HHG axioms for E1/Z (and hence the induction to E1/K) is unsupported. If the quotient by K was intentional, then the images of z_2,...,z_n in E1/Z would act trivially on every quotient coordinate space, contradicting the fact that an infinite-order element of a HHG must have a nonempty big set. The repair is local: replace K by Z in the definition of C_[W] and q_W throughout Step 4, and apply Lemma 3.11(2) to the cyclic subgroup <z>, whose big set is exactly {U_z} after Step 3. As written, however, the proof of the second part of Theorem 3.15 is not valid.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 4, Theorem 4.3] Theorem 4.3 is stated as a theorem, but only a proof idea is given, and the key steps (the intersection K ∩ Z being trivial, and the hyperbolicity of G/ZK) are delegated to [Dah18] and [MS26, Man24]. The text explicitly says the proof has been superseded by Tao's theorem. Please either provide a complete proof or present the statement as a conjecture/proof sketch rather than as a theorem, and adjust the abstract accordingly.
  2. [Section 2, Proposition 2.16] In the proof of the second bullet, the computation with b(g) gives b(g1) + b(g2) - b(g1g2) = -omega(pi(g1), pi(g2)), so the displayed equality should be delta(chi pi^{-1}) = -omega|_{pi(N)}, not +omega. The sign error does not affect the boundedness equivalence in the third bullet, but it should be corrected for internal consistency with Definition 2.2.
  3. [Section 3.3, Theorem 3.15, Step 3] In the verification of partial realisation, the sentence 'If U_1 appears in V then let g_1 be the coordinate q_1 in L_1' appears to conflate a group element with a point in L_1. It should say that g_1 is chosen in E^1 such that psi_1(g_1) is uniformly close to q_1, or similar.
  4. [Section 3, Remark 3.16] The argument that the group E = <S,G> acts geometrically on the standard cubulation of R^3 is quite compressed, especially the verification that the action is cocompact and that the resulting HHG structure has clean containers. A short explanation or reference for why a geometric action on a CAT(0) cube complex gives a HHG with clean containers would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the main theorems do not assume their conclusions, and the cited prior results are external, published, and independently checkable.

full rationale

The central equivalence (Theorem 1.3) is split into two genuinely independent directions. The forward direction, that a bounded central extension of an HHG is an HHG, is delegated to [AHPZ25, Proposition 5.14], itself a refinement of [HRSS25, Corollary 4.3]. Although one of these prior papers shares an author with the present paper, the cited results are published, parameter-free statements about arbitrary HHGs and bounded central extensions; they do not assume the conclusion of Theorem 1.3, and the present paper does not redefine boundedness in terms of hierarchical hyperbolicity. The converse direction, that an HHG central extension is bounded, is proved here directly: it uses Proposition 2.9's quasihomomorphism characterization, the Busemann quasimorphism construction from Example 2.7, and Lemma 3.11, none of which is the target claim. Theorem 3.15's quotient statement uses the clean-containers assumption as a stated structural hypothesis, not as a hidden way of importing the conclusion. Proposition 2.16, the extendability characterization of bounded quotient extensions, is derived from Proposition 2.9 and Lemma 2.15 by explicit cocycle manipulations rather than by equivocation. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem from the authors' prior work is invoked to forbid alternatives. The skeptic's Step 4 concern in Theorem 3.15 -- that C_[W] is defined modulo K while Y = X/Z, and that Lemma 3.11(2) only bounds K-orbits outside all Big(z_i) while only U_z is removed -- is a potential correctness gap in a proof of a conditional statement, not a circularity: it does not make the theorem's conclusion one of its inputs. Similarly, the proof sketch of Theorem 4.3 relies on prior work [MS26, Theorem 4.1] and [Man24], but this is ordinary dependence on earlier results, not a self-referential reduction. For these reasons the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters were fitted to data. The paper's claims rest on standard cohomological and HHS machinery, on several cited theorems about bounded cohomology and hierarchical hyperbolicity, and on the clean-containers hypothesis for the quotient half of Theorem 1.4. It introduces no new objects or entities.

assumptions (6)
  • standard math Comparison-map surjectivity H_b^2(H;R) -> H^2(H;R) for word-hyperbolic groups (Neumann-Reeves, Mineyev).
    Used in the proof idea of Theorem 4.3 to conclude that a quotient central extension with hyperbolic base is bounded.
  • standard math Quasimorphism-to-quasiline lemma [ABO19, Lemma 4.15]: a real quasimorphism on a group produces a Cayley graph quasi-isometric to R on which the group acts loxodromically.
    Used in Theorems 3.12 and 3.15 to build the quasiline that detects the central Z-factor.
  • standard math [AHPZ25, Proposition 5.14]: a bounded Z-central extension of an HHG is an HHG.
    The main input for the (<=) direction of Theorem 3.12 after reduction to cyclic kernel.
  • standard math Big-domain facts for HHGs: Big(z) is nonempty for infinite-order z and consists of finitely many pairwise orthogonal domains [DHS17]; central subgroups fix every unbounded domain (Lemma 3.11, proved in the text).
    This underpins the Busemann-quasimorphism construction and the control of K-orbits needed for the quotient.
  • ad hoc to paper The HHG structure on E in Theorem 1.4 has clean containers (Definition 3.6).
    This is an extra technical hypothesis not known to hold for every HHG; it is used in Step 4 to show that E1/K is an HHG.
  • standard math HHS distance formula [BHS19, Theorem 4.5].
    Used to embed K quasi-isometrically into a product of quasilines in the proof of Theorem 3.12.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Bounded cohomology, quotient extensions, and hierarchical hyperbolicity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6XS35TMO

@misc{pith2026250520462,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Bounded cohomology, quotient extensions, and hierarchical hyperbolicity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6XS35TMO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.20462}
}
read the original abstract

We call a central extension bounded if its Euler class is represented by a bounded cocycle. We prove that a bounded central extension of a hierarchically hyperbolic group (HHG) is still a HHG; conversely if a central extension is a HHG, then the extension is bounded, and under a further mild assumption the quotient is commensurable to a HHG. Motivated by questions on hierarchical hyperbolicity of quotients of mapping class groups, we therefore consider the general problem of determining when a quotient of a bounded central extension is still bounded, which we prove to be equivalent to an extendability problem for quasihomomorphisms. Finally, we show that quotients of the 4-strands braid group by suitable powers of a pseudo-Anosov are HHG, and in fact bounded central extensions of some HHG. We also speculate on how to extend the previous result to all mapping class groups.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Central extensions and proper actions on products of hyperbolic spaces

    math.GR 2025-06 accept novelty 8.0 of 10

    A central extension preserves property (PH) or (QT) exactly when its Euler class is bounded.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Largest acylindrical actions and stability in hierarchically hyperbolic groups

    Carolyn Abbott, Jason Behrstock, and Matthew Gentry Durham. Largest acylindrical actions and stability in hierarchically hyperbolic groups. Trans. Am. Math. Soc., Ser. B , 8:66--104, 2021

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    Abbott, D

    C. Abbott, D. Berlyne, G. Mangioni, T. Ng, and A. Rasmussen. S pinning and random quotients preserve hierarchical hyperbolicity. In preparation, 2025

    work page 2025

  3. [3]

    Balasubramanya, and Denis Osin

    Carolyn Abbott, Sahana H. Balasubramanya, and Denis Osin. Hyperbolic structures on groups. Algebr. Geom. Topol. , 19(4):1747--1835, 2019

    2019

  4. [4]

    Uniform undistortion from barycentres, and applications to hierarchically hyperbolic groups

    Carolyn Abbott, Mark F. Hagen, Harry Petyt, and Abdul Zalloum. Uniform undistortion from barycentres, and applications to hierarchically hyperbolic groups. Preprint, arXiv :2305.09742 [math. GT ] (2023), 2023

    work page Pith review arXiv 2023

  5. [5]

    Weakly bounded cohomology classes and a counterexample to a conjecture of G romov

    Dario Ascari and Francesco Milizia. Weakly bounded cohomology classes and a counterexample to a conjecture of G romov. Geom. Funct. Anal. , 34(3):631--658, 2024

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Abbott, Thomas Ng, Davide Spriano, Radhika Gupta, and Harry Petyt

    Carolyn R. Abbott, Thomas Ng, Davide Spriano, Radhika Gupta, and Harry Petyt. Hierarchically hyperbolic groups and uniform exponential growth. Math. Z. , 306(1):33, 2024. Id/No 18

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    Longueur stable des commutateurs

    Christophe Bavard. Longueur stable des commutateurs. Enseign. Math. (2) , 37(1-2):109--150, 1991

    1991

  8. [8]

    A combinatorial take on hierarchical hyperbolicity and applications to quotients of mapping class groups

    Jason Behrstock, Mark Hagen, Alexandre Martin, and Alessandro Sisto. A combinatorial take on hierarchical hyperbolicity and applications to quotients of mapping class groups. J. Topol. , 17(3):Paper No. e12351, 94, 2024

    work page 2024

Show all 48 references
  1. [9]

    Hagen, and Alessandro Sisto

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

    2017

  2. [10]

    Hagen, and Alessandro Sisto

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

    2017

  3. [11]

    Hierarchically hyperbolic spaces II : C ombination theorems and the distance formula

    Jason Behrstock, Mark Hagen, and Alessandro Sisto. Hierarchically hyperbolic spaces II : C ombination theorems and the distance formula. Pacific J. Math. , 299(2):257--338, 2019

    2019

  4. [12]

    Hagen, and Alessandro Sisto

    Jason Behrstock, Mark F. Hagen, and Alessandro Sisto. Quasiflats in hierarchically hyperbolic spaces. Duke Math. J. , 170(5):909--996, 2021

    2021

  5. [13]

    A refined combination theorem for hierarchically hyperbolic groups

    Federico Berlai and Bruno Robbio. A refined combination theorem for hierarchically hyperbolic groups. Groups Geom. Dyn. , 14(4):1127--1203, 2020

    2020

  6. [14]

    Hierarchical hyperbolicity of graph products

    Daniel Berlyne and Jacob Russell. Hierarchical hyperbolicity of graph products. Groups Geom. Dyn. , 16(2):523--580, 2022

    2022

  7. [15]

    Kenneth S. Brown. Cohomology of groups , volume 87 of Graduate Texts in Mathematics . Springer-Verlag, New York, 1994. Corrected reprint of the 1982 original

    1994

  8. [16]

    scl , volume 20 of MSJ Memoirs

    Danny Calegari. scl , volume 20 of MSJ Memoirs . Mathematical Society of Japan, Tokyo, 2009

    2009

  9. [17]

    The normal closure of big D ehn twists and plate spinning with rotating families

    Fran c ois Dahmani. The normal closure of big D ehn twists and plate spinning with rotating families. Geom. Topol. , 22(7):4113--4144, 2018

    2018

  10. [18]

    Dahmani, V

    F. Dahmani, V. Guirardel, and D. Osin. Hyperbolically embedded subgroups and rotating families in groups acting on hyperbolic spaces. Mem. Amer. Math. Soc. , 245(1156):v+152, 2017

    2017

  11. [19]

    Hagen, and Alessandro Sisto

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

    2017

  12. [20]

    Durham, Yair N

    Matthew G. Durham, Yair N. Minsky, and Alessandro Sisto. Stable cubulations, bicombings, and barycenters. Geom. Topol. , 27(6):2383--2478, 2023

    2023

  13. [21]

    Asymptotically CAT (0) metrics, Z -structures, and the Farrell - Jones Conjecture

    Matthew Gentry Durham, Yair Minsky, and Alessandro Sisto. Asymptotically CAT (0) metrics, Z -structures, and the Farrell - Jones Conjecture . Preprint, arXiv :2504.17048 [math. GT ] (2025), 2025

    2025 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Cubulating Infinity in Hierarchically Hyperbolic Spaces

    Matthew Gentry Durham. Cubulating Infinity in Hierarchically Hyperbolic Spaces . Preprint, arXiv :2308.13689 [math. GR ] (2023), 2023

    2023 arXiv

  15. [23]

    On quasihomomorphisms with noncommutative targets

    Koji Fujiwara and Michael Kapovich. On quasihomomorphisms with noncommutative targets. Geom. Funct. Anal. , 26(2):478--519, 2016

    2016

  16. [24]

    Frigerio, M

    R. Frigerio, M. B. Pozzetti, and A. Sisto. Extending higher-dimensional quasi-cocycles. J. Topol. , 8(4):1123--1155, 2015

    2015

  17. [25]

    Bounded cohomology of discrete groups , volume 227 of Mathematical Surveys and Monographs

    Roberto Frigerio. Bounded cohomology of discrete groups , volume 227 of Mathematical Surveys and Monographs . American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2017

    2017

  18. [26]

    Central extensions and bounded cohomology

    Roberto Frigerio and Alessandro Sisto. Central extensions and bounded cohomology. Ann. Henri Lebesgue , 6:225--258, 2023

    2023

  19. [27]

    S. M. Gersten. Bounded cocycles and combings of groups. Int. J. Algebra Comput. , 2(3):307--326, 1992

    1992

  20. [28]

    Low-dimensional bounded cohomology and extensions of groups

    Nicolaus Heuer. Low-dimensional bounded cohomology and extensions of groups. Math. Scand. , 126(1):5--31, 2020

    2020

  21. [29]

    Proper proximality in non-positive curvature

    Camille Horbez, Jingyin Huang, and Jean L \'e cureux. Proper proximality in non-positive curvature. Am. J. Math. , 145(5):1327--1364, 2023

    2023

  22. [30]

    Coarse injectivity, hierarchical hyperbolicity and semihyperbolicity

    Thomas Haettel, Nima Hoda, and Harry Petyt. Coarse injectivity, hierarchical hyperbolicity and semihyperbolicity. Geom. Topol. , 27(4):1587--1633, 2023

    2023

  23. [31]

    Extra-large type Artin groups are hierarchically hyperbolic

    Mark Hagen, Alexandre Martin, and Alessandro Sisto. Extra-large type Artin groups are hierarchically hyperbolic. Math. Ann. , 388(1):867--938, 2024

    2024

  24. [32]

    Induced quasicocycles on groups with hyperbolically embedded subgroups

    Michael Hull and Denis Osin. Induced quasicocycles on groups with hyperbolically embedded subgroups. Algebr. Geom. Topol. , 13(5):2635--2665, 2013

    2013

  25. [33]

    Equivariant hierarchically hyperbolic structures for 3-manifold groups via quasimorphisms

    Mark Hagen, Jacob Russell, Alessandro Sisto, and Davide Spriano. Equivariant hierarchically hyperbolic structures for 3-manifold groups via quasimorphisms. To appear in Ann. Inst. Fourier. arXiv:2206.12244, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Hagen and Tim Susse

    Mark F. Hagen and Tim Susse. On hierarchical hyperbolicity of cubical groups. Isr. J. Math. , 236(1):45--89, 2020

    2020

  27. [35]

    The space of non-extendable quasimorphisms

    Morimichi Kawasaki, Mitsuaki Kimura, Shuhei Maruyama, Takahiro Matsushita, and Masato Mimura. The space of non-extendable quasimorphisms. To appear in Algebr. Geom. Topol. arXiv:2107.08571, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Survey on invariant quasimorphisms and stable mixed commutator length

    Morimichi Kawasaki, Mitsuaki Kimura, Shuhei Maruyama, Takahiro Matsushita, and Masato Mimura. Survey on invariant quasimorphisms and stable mixed commutator length. Topology Proc. , 64:129--174, 2024

    2024

  29. [37]

    Bavard's duality theorem for mixed commutator length

    Morimichi Kawasaki, Mitsuaki Kimura, Takahiro Matsushita, and Masato Mimura. Bavard's duality theorem for mixed commutator length. Enseign. Math. , 68(3-4):441--481, 2022

    2022

  30. [38]

    Bounded cohomology of classifying spaces for families of subgroups

    Kevin Li. Bounded cohomology of classifying spaces for families of subgroups. Algebr. Geom. Topol. , 23(2):933--962, 2023

    2023

  31. [39]

    Actions of certain arithmetic groups on G romov hyperbolic spaces

    Jason Fox Manning. Actions of certain arithmetic groups on G romov hyperbolic spaces. Algebr. Geom. Topol. , 8(3):1371--1402, 2008

    2008

  32. [40]

    Short hierarchically hyperbolic groups I : uncountably many coarse median structures

    Giorgio Mangioni. Short hierarchically hyperbolic groups I : uncountably many coarse median structures. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.09232, 2024

    2024

  33. [41]

    Infinite groups whose proper quotient groups are finite, i

    Donald McCarthy. Infinite groups whose proper quotient groups are finite, i. Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics , 21(6):545--562, 1968

    1968

  34. [42]

    I. Mineyev. Straightening and bounded cohomology of hyperbolic groups. Geom. Funct. Anal. , 11(4):807--839, 2001

    2001

  35. [43]

    Masur and Yair N

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

    1999

  36. [44]

    H. A. Masur and Y. N. Minsky. Geometry of the complex of curves. II : Hierarchical structure. Geom. Funct. Anal. , 10(4):902--974, 2000

    2000

  37. [45]

    Short hierarchically hyperbolic groups II : quotients and the Hopf property for Artin groups

    Giorgio Mangioni and Alessandro Sisto. Short hierarchically hyperbolic groups II : quotients and the Hopf property for Artin groups. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.04364, 2024

    2024

  38. [46]

    Rigidity of mapping class groups mod powers of twists

    Giorgio Mangioni and Alessandro Sisto. Rigidity of mapping class groups mod powers of twists. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh: Section A Mathematics , pages 1--71, 2025

    2025

  39. [47]

    Neumann and Lawrence Reeves

    Walter D. Neumann and Lawrence Reeves. Central extensions of word hyperbolic groups. Ann. of Math. (2) , 145(1):183--192, 1997

    1997

  40. [48]

    Unbounded domains in hierarchically hyperbolic groups

    Harry Petyt and Davide Spriano. Unbounded domains in hierarchically hyperbolic groups. Groups Geom. Dyn. , 17(2):479--500, 2023

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.