Pith. sign in

REVIEW 6 minor 41 references

Quasi-isometry classification of certain graph $2$-braid groups and its applications

T0 review · 0 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper proves that 2-braid groups over bunches of grapes are quasi-isometric exactly when their quasi-minimal representatives are isometric, and that the comparison is algorithmic.

desk verdict A genuine advance in quasi-isometry classification of graph 2-braid groups; the invariant-completeness proof holds up, and the paper deserves serious refereeing. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.10366 v1 pith:HDHGCE25 submitted 2025-02-14 math.GR math.GT

Byung Hee An , Sangrok Oh This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.GRmath.GT MSC 20F6520F3620F6757M60
keywords graphbraidgroupsquasi-isometryclassificationintersectioncomplexbunchesofgrapescircumferenceonegraphsspecialcubecomplexesright-angledArtindiscreteconfigurationspaces
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 aims to give a complete algorithmic classification of $2$-braid groups over "bunches of grapes" — graphs of circumference at most one, obtained from a tree by attaching $3$-cycles at vertices. Its central claim is that two such groups are quasi-isometric exactly when the quasi-minimal representatives of the defining graphs are isometric, and equivalently when the reduced intersection complexes of the universal covers of their configuration spaces are isomorphic. This matters because it converts a coarse geometric equivalence relation into a finite combinatorial decision problem, and because the same mechanism produces algorithms for comparing $2$-braid groups with right-angled Artin groups and for deciding quasi-isometry of $4$-braid groups over trees. The proof works by showing that the intersection complex is a complete invariant on quasi-minimal inputs, and that every bunch of grapes reduces to a unique quasi-minimal one by operations that preserve the quasi-isometry type of its $2$-braid group.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the intersection complex, a labelled almost-simplicial complex whose vertices are maximal product subcomplexes of the universal cover (top-dimensional flats), whose simplices record which finite families of such subcomplexes intersect, and whose labels record the product domains of the intersections. For bunches of grapes the paper proves a Helly-type colinearity lemma: any finite family of pairwise-intersecting maximal product subcomplexes of $\widetilde{UP}_2(\Gamma)$ has a common intersection that is itself a standard product subcomplex, corresponding to a colinear set of twigs (path substems of the stem tree). That lemma makes $I(\widetilde{UP}_2(\Gamma))$ a connected, simply connected flag complex and makes the reduced complex $RI(UP_2(\Gamma))$ developable as a complex of groups. The quasi-minimal representative is produced by four operations that induce isomorphisms of intersection complexes and therefore quasi-isometries of the corresponding braid groups.

What would settle it

Build an explicit bunch of grapes and examine the universal cover of $UP_2(\Gamma)$: if one finds a finite family of maximal product subcomplexes that meet pairwise but whose total intersection is empty, or a reduced intersection complex whose universal cover is not simply connected and flag, then the colinearity lemmas are false and the completeness proof of the main rigidity theorem breaks. The paper predicts that no such configuration exists for bunches of grapes; locating one would settle the central claim negatively.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is Corollary 6.6: for large bunches of grapes $\Gamma,\Gamma'$, the groups $B_2(\Gamma)$ and $B_2(\Gamma')$ are quasi-isometric if and only if the intersection complexes $I(\widetilde{UP}_2(\Gamma))$ and $I(\widetilde{UP}_2(\Gamma'))$ are isomorphic, if and only if the quasi-minimal representatives $\Gamma_{\min}$ and $\Gamma'_{\min}$ are isometric. Here $\widetilde{UP}_2(\Gamma)$ is the universal cover of the union of all maximal product subcomplexes of the unordered discrete $2$-configuration space of $\Gamma$, and $\Gamma_{\min}$ is obtained by pruning empty twigs, smoothing twigs, picking over-grown grapes, and pruning over-grown substems. The paper further proves that $\Gamma_{\min}$ exists, is unique up to isometry, and is computable in finite time, yielding an algorithm that decides quasi-isometry between any two $2$-braid groups over bunches of grapes.

Load-bearing premise

The classification rests on the claim that pairwise-intersecting maximal product regions in the universal cover always have a common intersection of the same standard product type; this Helly-type behavior fails for general weakly special square complexes, so if it ever failed for bunches of grapes the completeness proof would collapse.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any two bunches of grapes can be fed to a finite algorithm that outputs whether their $2$-braid groups are quasi-isometric.
  • Within this class, $2$-braid groups have quasi-isometric rigidity: coarse equivalence is exactly isometry of the quasi-minimal representative.
  • The known families of circumference-one graphs whose $2$-braid groups are or are not quasi-isometric to right-angled Artin groups are both strictly enlarged.
  • Two $4$-braid groups over trees are decided by the same machinery, because each $B_4$ of a tree is isomorphic up to free factors to $B_2$ of a canonically grown bunch of grapes.
  • On quasi-minimal inputs the intersection complex is complete, not just invariant: isomorphic intersection complexes force isometric defining graphs.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the same Helly-type colinearity lemma holds for wider graph classes such as cacti, the identical scheme would likely give quasi-isometry algorithms there; a single counterexample would delimit the method sharply.
  • The paper's sufficient condition comparing $2$-braid groups to right-angled Artin groups invites the conjecture that, within this class, quasi-isometry to a RAAG is characterized by the shape of the quasi-minimal stem; its negative examples suggest the exact obstruction is a four-branched substem.
  • The construction of a quasi-isometry from an isomorphism between complexes of groups is a transferable technique: the paper's open Question 2 asks exactly how widely it holds among special square complexes satisfying the flat-intersection hypothesis.
  • The tree $4$-braid algorithm could plausibly be iterated, via the same edge-stabilization pattern, to compare $n$-braid groups over trees with $2$-braid groups over larger grape-like graphs; the paper stops at $n=4$.
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

0 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper studies the quasi-isometry classification of 2-braid groups over 'bunches of grapes' (graphs of topological circumference at most one). The main result (Corollary 6.6, Theorems 6.5 and 6.7) is an algorithmic classification: for two bunches of grapes Γ, Λ, the groups B2(Γ) and B2(Λ) are quasi-isometric if and only if the quasi-minimal representatives Γ_min and Λ_min are isometric, if and only if the intersection complexes I(UP2(Γ)) and I(UP2(Λ)) are isomorphic. The proof combines the quasi-isometry invariant introduced by the second author in [Oh22], new graph operations (pruning/smoothing twigs, picking over-grown grapes, pruning over-grown substems) that preserve the quasi-isometry type, and a completeness theorem showing that the intersection complex is a complete invariant on quasi-minimal representatives. Applications include new infinite families of graph 2-braid groups that are / are not quasi-isometric to RAAGs, and an algorithm deciding quasi-isometry of 4-braid groups over trees.

Significance. If correct, this is a significant step in the quasi-isometric classification of graph braid groups. The completeness of the intersection complex invariant for a natural class of 2-dimensional special groups is new and nontrivial, and the algorithmic nature of the classification is a strength. The paper is carefully structured, with explicit algorithms and numerous examples. The main theorems are supported by detailed arguments; the most delicate steps, namely the Helly-type colinearity Lemmas 4.9–4.10 and the iterative gluing in Theorems 5.5 and 5.15, are sound as written, though some auxiliary lemmas (e.g., Lemma 4.18) are stated without proof. The application to 4-braid groups over trees is elegant and gives a new quasi-isometry classification for that class.

minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 6.2, first paragraph] The sentence 'we assume that Γ = (T,ℓ) and Γ' = (T',ℓ') are in Grapelarge_min but both have two grapes at each vertex which is not a leaf of the stems' is confusing and appears to contradict the definition of Grapelarge_min, where val_T(v) ≥ 2 forces ℓ(v) = 1. Please rephrase the normalization being made.
  2. [Proof of Theorem 5.5] The statement 'Since N_{n+1}(v)\N_n(v) is countably infinite' is inaccurate: the sphere of radius n+1 in the locally finite complex I(UP2(Γ)) is finite. The induction still works with finite spheres; please correct the sentence.
  3. [Lemma 4.10] The invocation of the Helly property requires that the p-lifts M(t_i) be convex in UP2(Γ); this follows because they are images of local isometries from products of trees, but the justification should be stated explicitly.
  4. [Lemma 4.18] This lemma is load-bearing for the proof of Theorem 6.5 (via Lemma 6.12 and Lemma 6.15) but is stated without proof; please provide a proof or a detailed argument that canonical order is preserved by semi-isomorphisms.
  5. [Section 5.1 and Appendix A] Lemmas 5.2 and 5.7 and the algorithms in Appendix A would benefit from explicit termination and correctness arguments; currently they are stated as obvious.
  6. [Algorithm 3] The notation 'T_min ← T_min \ T_{v,3}\···\T_{v,m}' is ambiguous; use a union symbol or set-builder notation to indicate removal of the union of the specified stems.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the classification is proved from structural lemmas, and the cited Oh22 invariant is independent prior work, not equivalent to the conclusion.

full rationale

Walking the derivation chain: the paper's new results (Main Theorems A, B, C, and E) are proved in Sections 4-7 from structural lemmas such as Lemma 4.6, Lemmas 4.9-4.10, Theorem 4.13, Lemma 4.15, and from explicit quasi-isometry constructions for the graph operations in Theorems 5.3, 5.5, and 5.15. The quasi-isometry invariance of the intersection complex is imported from [Oh22] via Theorem 2.23; this is a genuine prior theorem whose proof is not re-derived here and whose content is not equivalent to the classification being proved. No parameter is fitted to data, and no 'prediction' is a renamed input: the completeness direction (c) implies (b) is established by reconstructing the quasi-minimal bunch of grapes from the labelled intersection complex using the canonical order and deformation retraction argument in Section 6.2. The delicate step Lemma 4.10 uses the CAT(0) Helly property to force common intersections of lifts; if this lemma failed, the flag-complex/developability step (Theorem 4.13) and hence the completeness proof would collapse, but a possible mathematical gap is not circularity. No circular step satisfying the quoted-evidence standard was found.

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

No free parameters are fitted; this is a pure mathematics paper. The central objects, bunches of grapes and intersection complexes, are existing mathematical structures; the operations (pruning, picking grapes) are new but not new entities. The axioms are standard background theory plus the domain restriction to circumference-one graphs. The local convexity of UP_2(Γ) is a proved but delicate property, explicitly flagged as open in general by the authors.

assumptions (6)
  • standard math Standard CAT(0) cube complex theory: universal covers of compact special cube complexes are CAT(0), and quasi-isometries map top-dimensional flats to flats (Huang, Theorem 2.10).
    Used throughout Section 2.1 to justify the quasi-isometry invariance of intersection complexes and the geometry of flats.
  • standard math The intersection complex I(Y) is a quasi-isometry invariant for universal covers of compact weakly special square complexes (Oh22, Theorem C, quoted as Theorem 2.23).
    This is the main imported tool, cited from the second author's prior work; used in Corollary 6.6 and throughout the paper.
  • standard math Quasi-isometric invariance of free products with finite-end splitting: for one-ended G1, G2, G1*F_m and G2*F_n are quasi-isometric iff G1 and G2 are (Papasoglu-Whyte, Theorem 2.33).
    Used to reduce B2(Γ) to π1(UP_2(Γ)) via Proposition 4.7 and Corollary 4.8, and in Theorems 5.3 and 5.15.
  • standard math The discrete configuration space UD_2(Γ) is a special cube complex and is homotopy equivalent to the continuous unordered configuration space UC_2(Γ) when Γ is simple (Abrams, Theorem 3.1, 3.2).
    Foundational for defining graph 2-braid groups via discrete configuration spaces; invoked in Section 3.1.
  • domain assumption Restriction to graphs of circumference at most 1, i.e., bunches of grapes, where all cycles are leaf-like loops attached to a tree.
    The algorithmic classification is proved only for this class; extending to cacti or higher circumference graphs is left as Question 5 and Question 6.
  • domain assumption Local convexity of UP_2(Γ) in UD_2(Γ) for bunches of grapes (Proposition 4.7), giving B2(Γ) ≅ π1(UP_2(Γ)) * F_n.
    This is proved in the paper for Grapelarge_normal, but the general statement is explicitly left open in Question 1. It is load-bearing for reducing the QI problem to π1(UP_2(Γ)).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quasi-isometry classification of certain graph $2$-braid groups and its applications." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HDHGCE25

@misc{pith2026250210366,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quasi-isometry classification of certain graph $2$-braid groups and its applications},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HDHGCE25}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.10366}
}
abstract

In \cite{Oh22}, the second author defined a complex of groups decomposition of the fundamental group of a finitely generated 2-dimensional special group, called an \emph{intersection complex}, which is a quasi-isometry invariant. In this paper, using the theory of intersection complexes, we classify the class of 2-braid groups over graphs with circumference $\leq 1$ up to quasi-isometry. Moreover, we find a sufficient condition when such a graph 2-braid group is quasi-isometric to a right-angled Artin group or not. Finally, by applying the same method, we also find that there is an algorithm to determine whether two 4-braid groups over trees are quasi-isometric or not.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.10366 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Examples of a bunch of graphs and its stem number of induced cycles (called grapes) attached to each vertex v ∈ V(TΓ). The set of all bunches of grapes is denoted by Grape. We also define subclasses of Grape Grapelarge = {Γ ∈ Grape | ∃v, w ∈ V(TΓ), (v 6= w) ∧ (ℓΓ(v) > 0) ∧ (ℓΓ(w) > 0)}, Grape large normal = {Γ ∈ Grapelarge | ∀v ∈ V(TΓ), (valTΓ (v) ≤ 2 ⇒ ℓΓ(v) ≥ 1)}, Grape large rich = {Γ ∈ Grape large normal | ∀v ∈ … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. A part of ∗ 5 i=1{(Γi , vi)}; at each vertex, the small bar indicates the universal cover Γi . Convention. By a pair (X, A) of a metric space X with its subspace A, we always mean that the inclusion map A ֒→ X is a (1, C)-quasi-isometry, where the C-neighborhood of A contains X. And we denote (X, p−1 (A)) by (X, A). We caution the reader that the definition of ‘relative’ maps defined below is specifically designed t… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Free product of graphs as an m-ary operation and as a composition of binary operations. The following two lemmas are obvious and we omit the proof. Lemma 2.36. Suppose that there are relative L-quasi-isometries φi : (Xi , Ai) → (Yi , Bi) for i = 0, 1, 2 and relative isometric embeddings (X0, A0) ֒→ (Xj , Aj ) and (Y0, B0) ֒→ (Yj , Yj ) for j = 1, 2. Then there is a relative L-quasi-isometry φ1 ∪φ0 φ2 : (X1 ∪X0 X2, A… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (21 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Examples of UD2(Γ). On the other hand, for finite disjoint subgraphs Γ1, . . . , Γm of a sufficiently subdivided graph Γ in the sense of Theorem 3.2 and nonnegative integers n1, . . . , nm, there is a locally isometric embedding UDn1 (Γ1) × · · · × UDnm(Γm) ֒→ UDn1+···…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: An example of graph-of-groups decompositions G(B2(Γ, v)) and G(π1(UP2(Γ, v))). On the other hand, the Bass-Serre tree T (B2(Γ, v)) can be inductively constructed as follows: (1) Start with I(UP2(Γ, v)). At each vertex labelled by B1,1(Γi , Γ c i ) in I(UP2(Γ, v)), we a…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: A bunch of grapes, its stem and twigs. the interior of the edge in T, viewed as topological spaces.) Similarly, ˚P-components of Γ are defined as ΓT˚P,i , or simply Γ˚P,i. See [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: ˚P-components of a bunch of grapes Γ. We define several adjectives to refer to a specific bunch of grapes as follows: (1) large if there are at least two distinct vertices v1, v2 of T with ℓ(vi) > 0, and small otherwise; (2) normal if valΓ(v) ≥ 3 for all v ∈ V(T), and …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Normal and rich bunches of grapes (1) Γ is small, (2) Γ is in F (defined in the paragraph below Theorem 3.13), and (3) UP2(Γ) (Definition 3.17) is empty. Proof. The equivalence [(1)⇔(2)] and the implication [(2)⇒(3)] are obvious from the defini￾tions of F and UP2(Γ). I…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: A bunch of grapes Γ′ obtained from Γ by picking over-grown grapes. Definition 5.4 (Picking over-grown grapes). Let Γ = (T, ℓ) ∈ Grape large normal. We say that a grape C at v ∈ T is over-grown if ℓ(v) + valT(v) ≥ 4. We say that a bunch of grapes Γ′ is obtained from Γ b…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Picking non-over-grown grapes changes the quasi-isometry type. Lemma 5.7. Let Γ = (T, ℓ) ∈ Grape large normal. Then there exists a uniquely determined large and rich bunch of grapes Γrich = (T, ℓ′ ) ∈ Grape large rich such that (1) it has no over-grown grapes and (2) …
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The rich representative Γ′ of Γ. Corollary 5.8. Let Γ ∈ Grape large normal and Γ ′ ∈ Grape large rich the rich representative of Γ. Then B2(Γ) and B2(Γ′ ) are quasi-isometric. Proof. Based on Algorithm 2, we have bunches of grapes Γ = Γ0, . . . , Γn = Γ′ such that Γi+…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: A universal property of the embedding of the intersection of max￾imal product subcomplexes. For a pair of a vertex v ∈ I(UP2(Γ)) and a vertex v ′ ∈ I(UP2(Γ′)) with Φ ◦ ρ(v) = ρ ′ (v ′ ), we have a relative L 2 -quasi-isometry φv : Mv → M ′ v ′ such that the diagram in…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: A relative quasi-isometry between maximal product subcom￾plexes is induced from an element in Set (5.12). commutative diagrams in Figures 12 and 13, we have the diagram represented by solid arrows in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p045_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: The commutative diagram describing how to glue two relative quasi-isometries sharing the domains. Let u ′ ∈ I(UP2(Γ′)) be the vertex corresponding to ι ′ (M ′ b ). It follows that u ′ is adjacent to v ′ and ρ ′ (u ′ ) = Φ(ρ(u)). Then using the diagram in [PITH_FULL_I…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Pruning over-grown substems; at v, there is at least one grape. Throughout the remaining of this subsection, we assume that Λ is obtained from Γ by pruning an over-grown substem Γ+ n at v ∈ T and Γ+ 1 , . . . , Γ + n−1 are the remaining extended vˆ-components of Γ in …
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Gluing of two relative L 2 -quasi-isometries Consider the commutative diagram in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p048_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Pruning over-grown substems whose scopes are disjoint or inter￾sect at one vertex; at v (v ′ , resp.), there is at least one grape. Suppose that Λ′ ( Λ. Then there are distinct copies Λ′(0) = Λ′ ,Λ ′(1) , · · · ,Λ ′(k) of Λ′ in Λ, where k + 1 is the number of (extende…
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Pruning over-grown substems whose scopes are nested Theorem 6.4. For each Γ ∈ Grapelarge , B2(Γ) is quasi-isometric to B2(Γmin). Proof. This is a consequence of Theorems 5.3, 5.5, and 5.15 and Algorithm 3. Therefore we have the following commutative diagram. Grapelarg…
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Examples of sphere decompositions; the left stem is when D is odd and the right stem is when D is even. For each stem, ST(i) consists of twigs ti,j , and the unlabelled blue edges in the left stem belong to T(0). Let VΓ(k) be the set of vertices in I(UP2(Γ)) induced f…
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: For a k-tuple v ∈ BT, let Tv be the union of extended ˆv-components of T except one containing BT(k) if k ≥ 1 (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p056_19.png]
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: An example of a non-ray substem of Tv0 where v0 is a prefix of v1. The blue subgraph is the union of ray substems of Tv1 and the red subgraph is a non-ray substem of Tv1 . Lemma 6.15. For a k-tuple v ∈ T with k ≥ 1, suppose that w ∈ T ′ is a k-tuple obtained in Lemma …
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: An example and a non-example of bunches of grapes, whose 2- braid group is quasi-isometric to a RAAG In this subsection, we will slightly extend both classes of the 2-braid groups over bunches of grapes. Throughout this subsection, let Γ = (T, ℓ) ∈ Grape. Let us first…
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: for example. Λ = Γ(Λ) = [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p063_22.png]
Figure 23
Figure 23. Figure 23: Changing basepoints As a direct consequence of the previous proposition, we have the following theorem. Theorem 7.9. Let Λ be a tree and Γ = Γ(Λ) be a bunch of grapes grown from Λ. Then the braid groups B4(Λ) and B2(Γ) are isomorphic up to free groups. Namely, B4(Λ) ∗…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Aaron D. Abrams. Configuration spaces and braid groups of graphs . Ph.D thesis, University of California, Berkeley , 2000

    work page 2000

  2. [2]

    Drummond-Cole, and Ben Knudsen

    Byung Hee An, Gabriel C. Drummond-Cole, and Ben Knudsen. Edge stabilization in the homology of graph braid groups. Geom. Topol. , 24(1):421--469, 2020

    2020

  3. [3]

    Geometric presentations of braid groups for particles on a graph

    Byung Hee An and Tomaszt Maciazek. Geometric presentations of braid groups for particles on a graph. Communications in Mathematical Physics , 384:1109--1140, 2021

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    Divergence, thick groups, and short conjugators

    Jason Behrstock and Cornelia Druţu. Divergence, thick groups, and short conjugators . Illinois Journal of Mathematics , 58(4):939 -- 980, 2014

    work page 2014

  5. [5]

    Thick metric spaces, relative hyperbolicity, and quasi-isometric rigidity

    Jason Behrstock, Cornelia Druţu, and Lee Mosher. Thick metric spaces, relative hyperbolicity, and quasi-isometric rigidity. Mathematische Annalen , 344(543), 2008

    work page 2008

  6. [6]

    Hierarchical hyperbolicity of graph products and graph braid groups

    Daniel James Solomon Berlyne. Hierarchical hyperbolicity of graph products and graph braid groups. CUNY Academic Works , 2021

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    Metric Spaces of Non-Positive Curvature

    Martin Bridson and Andr\'e Haefliger. Metric Spaces of Non-Positive Curvature . Grundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften 319, Springer, 1999

    1999

  8. [8]

    Quasi-hyperbolic planes in hyperbolic groups

    Mario Bonk and Bruce Kleiner. Quasi-hyperbolic planes in hyperbolic groups. Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society , 133(9):2491--2494, 2005

    work page 2005

Show all 41 references
  1. [9]

    The asymptotic geometry of right-angled Artin groups, I

    Mladen Bestvina, Bruce Kleiner, and Michah Sageev. The asymptotic geometry of right-angled Artin groups, I . Geometry & Topology , 12(3):1653–1699, 2008

    2008

  2. [10]

    Behrstock and Walter D

    Jason A. Behrstock and Walter D. Neumann. Quasi-isometric classification of graph manifold groups . Duke Mathematical Journal , 141(2):217 -- 240, 2008

    2008

  3. [11]

    Quasi-isometric rigidity of a class of right-angled Coxeter groups

    Jordan Bounds and Xiangdong Xie. Quasi-isometric rigidity of a class of right-angled Coxeter groups . Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. , 148:553--568, 2020

    2020

  4. [12]

    On braid groups and right-angled Artin groups

    Francis Connolly and Margaret Doig. On braid groups and right-angled Artin groups . Geometriae Dedicata , 172:179--190, 2014

    2014

  5. [13]

    An introduction to right-angled Artin groups

    Ruth Charney. An introduction to right-angled Artin groups . Geometriae Dedicata , 125(1):141 -- 158, 2007

    2007

  6. [14]

    Cashen and Alexandre Martin

    Christopher H. Cashen and Alexandre Martin. Quasi-isometries between groups with two-ended splittings. Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society , 162(2):249–291, 2017

    2017

  7. [15]

    Embeddings of graph braid and surface groups in right-angled Artin groups and braid groups

    John Crisp and Bert Wiest. Embeddings of graph braid and surface groups in right-angled Artin groups and braid groups . Algebraic & Geometric Topology , 4:439 -- 472, 2004

    2004

  8. [16]

    Bowditch's JSJ tree and the quasi-isometry classification of certain Coxeter groups

    Pallavi Dani and Anne Thomas. Bowditch's JSJ tree and the quasi-isometry classification of certain Coxeter groups . Journal of Topology , 10(4):1066--1106, 2017

    2017

  9. [17]

    Quasi-isometries for certain right-angled Coxeter groups

    Alexandra Edletzberger. Quasi-isometries for certain right-angled Coxeter groups . Groups Geom. Dyn. , 18(3):1037 -- 1098, 2024

    2024

  10. [18]

    Quasi-isometric properties of graph braid groups

    Praphat Xavier Fernandes. Quasi-isometric properties of graph braid groups. Ph.D. thesis, Emory Univ. , 2012

    2012

  11. [19]

    Discrete Morse theory and graph braid groups

    Daniel Farley and Lucas Sabalka. Discrete Morse theory and graph braid groups . Algebraic & Geometric Topology , 5(3):1075--1109, 2005

    2005

  12. [20]

    On the cohomology rings of tree braid groups

    Daniel Farley and Lucas Sabalka. On the cohomology rings of tree braid groups. Journal of Pure and Applied Algebra , 212(1):53--71, 2008

    2008

  13. [21]

    Presentations of graph braid groups

    Daniel Farley and Lucas Sabalka. Presentations of graph braid groups. Forum Mathematicum , 24(4):827--859, 2012

    2012

  14. [22]

    Negative curvature in graph braid groups

    Anthony Genevois. Negative curvature in graph braid groups. International Journal of Algebra and Computation , 31(01):81--116, 2021

    2021

  15. [23]

    Hyperbolic groups

    Misha Gromov. Hyperbolic groups. In Gersten S.M., editor, Essays in Group Theory . Mathematical Sciences Research Institute Publications, Springer, 1987

    1987

  16. [24]

    Quasi-isometric classification of right-angled A rtin groups, I : The finite out case

    Jingyin Huang. Quasi-isometric classification of right-angled A rtin groups, I : The finite out case. Geometry & Topology , 21(6):3467--3537, 2017

    2017

  17. [25]

    Top dimensional quasiflats in CAT(0) cube complexes

    Jingyin Huang. Top dimensional quasiflats in CAT(0) cube complexes. Geometry & Topology , 21(4):2281--2352, 2017

    2017

  18. [26]

    Quasi-isometry classification of right-angled Artin groups II: several infinite out cases

    Jingyin Huang. Quasi-isometry classification of right-angled Artin groups II: several infinite out cases . arxiv.org/abs/1603.02372 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Fr\'ed\'eric Haglund and Daniel T. Wise. Special cube complexes. Geometric and Functional Analysis , 17(5):1551--1620, 2008

    2008

  20. [28]

    Graph braid groups and right-angled A rtin groups

    Jee Hyoun Kim, Ki Hyoung Ko, and Hyo Won Park. Graph braid groups and right-angled A rtin groups. Transactions of the American Mathematical Society , 364(1):309--360, 2012

    2012

  21. [29]

    Graph 4-braid groups and Massey products

    Ki Hyoung Ko, Joon Hyun La, and Hyo Won Park. Graph 4-braid groups and Massey products . Topology and its Applications , 197(1):133--153, 2016

    2016

  22. [30]

    Characteristics of graph braid groups

    Ki Hyoung Ko and Hyo Won Park. Characteristics of graph braid groups. Discrete and Computational Geometry , 48(4):915--963, 2012

    2012

  23. [31]

    Ian J. Leary. A metric Kan–Thurston theorem . Journal of Topology , 6(1):251--284, 2013

    2013

  24. [32]

    On graphs not containing independent circuits

    L\' a szl\' o Lov\' a sz. On graphs not containing independent circuits . Mat. Lapok , 16:289--299, 1965

    1965

  25. [33]

    Quasi-isometry classification of right-angled Artin groups that split over cyclic subgroups

    Alexander Margolis. Quasi-isometry classification of right-angled Artin groups that split over cyclic subgroups . Groups Geom. Dyn. , 14(4):1351--1417, 2020

    2020

  26. [34]

    On the coarse geometry of certain right-angled Coxeter groups

    Hoang Thanh Nguyen and Hung Cong Tran. On the coarse geometry of certain right-angled Coxeter groups . Algebraic & Geometric Topology , 19(6):3075–--3118, 2019

    2019

  27. [35]

    Quasi-isometry invariants of weakly special square complexes

    Sangrok Oh. Quasi-isometry invariants of weakly special square complexes. Topology and its Applications , 307, 2022

    2022

  28. [36]

    Homogeneous trees are bilipschitz equivalent

    Panos Papazoglu. Homogeneous trees are bilipschitz equivalent. Geometriae Dedicata , 54(3):301--306, 2002

    2002

  29. [37]

    Abrams's stable equivalence for graph braid groups

    Paul Prue and Travis Scrimshaw. Abrams's stable equivalence for graph braid groups. Topology and its Applications , 178:136--145, 2014

    2014

  30. [38]

    Quasi-isometries between groups with infinitely many ends

    Panos Papazoglu and Kevin Whyte. Quasi-isometries between groups with infinitely many ends. Commentarii Mathematici Helvetici , 77(1):133--144, 2002

    2002

  31. [39]

    Embedding right-angled A rtin groups into graph braid groups

    Lucas Sabalka. Embedding right-angled A rtin groups into graph braid groups. Geometriae Dedicata , 124(1):191 -- 198, 2007

    2007

  32. [40]

    On rigidity and the isomorphism problem for tree braid groups

    Lucas Sabalka. On rigidity and the isomorphism problem for tree braid groups. Groups Geom. Dyn. , 3(3):469--523, 2009

    2009

  33. [41]

    D.T. Wise. From Riches to Raags: 3-Manifolds, Right-Angled Artin Groups, and Cubical Geometry: 3-manifolds, Right-angled Artin Groups, and Cubical Geometry . Conference board of the Mathematical Sciences. Regional conference series in mathematics. Conference Board of the Mathe...

    2012

Pith tools

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