Extensions of multicurve stabilizers are hierarchically hyperbolic

DOI10.2140/GT.2025.29.3187MaRDI QIDQ6917034zbMATH OpenFDO

Publication date 14 October 2025

Published in Geometry \& Topology (Search for Journal in Brave)

Full work available at URL https://doi.org/10.2140/GT.2025.29.3187

geometric finiteness hierarchically hyperbolic groups mapping class groups

Geometric group theory (20F65) Hyperbolic groups and nonpositively curved groups (20F67) 2-dimensional topology (including mapping class groups of surfaces, Teichmüller theory, curve complexes, etc.) (57K20)

Review text

Let \(S\) be a closed orientable surface of genus at least \(2\). The paper under review explores hyperbolicity of \(\pi_1(S)\)-extensions of stabilizers of multicurves on \(S\) in the mapping class group \(\mathrm{MCG}(S)\) of \(S\). Topologically, \(\pi_1(S)\)-extension arises as the fundamental group of surface bundles. A \(\pi_1(S)\)-extension is determined uniquely up to isomorphism by the monodromy into \(\mathrm{MCG}(S)\). Thus, understanding how properties of monodromy influence the properties of the \(\pi_1(S)\)-extensions is an important problem in the theory of mapping class groups of surfaces. A well-known result of Thurston is that a \(3\)-manifold fibering over a circle admits a hyperbolic structure if and only if the image of the monodromy is generated by a pseudo-Anosov element in \(\mathrm{MCG}(S)\). Generalizing this work, \textit{B. Farb} and \textit{L. Mosher} [Geom. Topol. 6, 91--152 (2002; Zbl 1021.20034)] and \textit{U. Hamenstaedt} [``Word hyperbolic extensions of surface groups, Preprint, \url{arXiv:math/0505244}] poves that a subgroup \(G\) of \(\mathrm{MCG}(S)\) is convex cocomapct if and only if its full preimage under the map \(\operatorname{forget}:\mathrm{MCG}(S;z)\to \mathrm{MCG}(S)\) is Gromov hyperbolic, where \(z\) is a marked point on \(S\). Formulating a robust notion of geometric finiteness for subgroups of \(\mathrm{MCG}(S)\) is another long-standing problem. There are some subgroups of \(\mathrm{MCG}(S)\) that one naturally considers candidates of geometrically finite subgroups, e.g., Veech groups, all of \(\mathrm{MCG}(S)\) itself and the stabilizers of multicurves. \textit{S. Dowdall} et al. [Comment. Math. Helv. 99, No. 1, 149--228 (2024; Zbl 1556.20069)] proposed that geometric finiteness in \(\mathrm{MCG}(S)\) should be characterized by some sort of hyperbolicity of the \(\pi_1(S)\)-extension group, which includes Gromov hyperbolicity in the convex cocompact case. They proved that the \(\pi_1(S)\)-extension of a lattice Veech group is hierarchically hyperbolic. It is also well-known that mapping class groups are hierarchically hyperbolic. This work settles the case of \(\pi_1(S)\)-extension \(E_{\alpha}\) of the stabilizer of a multicurve \(\alpha\) on \(S\) by proving that they are indeed hierarchically hyperbolic. As a consequence of hierarchical hyperbolicity of \(E_{\alpha}\), one has the following consequences:\N\begin{itemize}\N\item[1.] \(E_{\alpha}\) has quadratic Dehn function.\N\item[2.] \(E_{\alpha}\) has finitely many conjugacy classes of finite-order subgroups.\N\item[3.] \(E_{\alpha}\) is semihyperbolic and has solvable conjugacy problem.\N\end{itemize}

Cites work

Cited in

(2)

This page was built for publication: Extensions of multicurve stabilizers are hierarchically hyperbolic

Report a bug (only for logged in users!)Click here to report a bug for this page (MaRDI item Q6917034)