Amenable covers and relative bounded cohomology

Basic Information

• Paper ID: 2407.01140
• Title: Amenable covers and relative bounded cohomology
• Author: Pietro Capovilla (Scuola Normale Superiore, Pisa)
• Classification: math.AT (Algebraic Topology), math.GT (Geometric Topology)
• Publication Date: July 2024 (arXiv v3: November 19, 2025)
• Paper Link: https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.01140

Abstract

This paper establishes a relative version of Gromov's vanishing theorem under the condition that amenable covers of small multiplicity exist, generalizing results of Li, Löh, and Moraschini. The research methodology relies on Gromov's multicomplex theory.

Research Background and Motivation

Core Problem

This paper investigates when the comparison map between bounded cohomology and singular cohomology of topological spaces vanishes, particularly in the relative setting (i.e., for space pairs (X,A)).

Problem Significance

1. Theoretical Importance: Gromov's vanishing theorem is a foundational result in bounded cohomology theory, revealing deep connections between covering properties of topological spaces and their cohomological structures
2. Geometric Applications: Through duality arguments, the vanishing theorem directly yields vanishing results for simplicial volume, an important invariant in geometric topology
3. Generalization Needs: The relative version is crucial for studying geometric objects such as manifolds with boundary

Limitations of Existing Methods

1. Gromov's Original Result (1982) only addresses the absolute case, not involving space pairs
2. Li-Löh-Moraschini Results require stronger conditions:
   • Require A to be π₁-injective in X
   • Use boundedly-acyclic covers rather than amenable covers
   • Do not require covers to be locally finite
3. Diverse Technical Approaches: Existing proofs use sheaf theory, homotopy theory, and other tools, but Gromov's multicomplex method has not been fully developed in the relative setting

Innovations of This Paper

While maintaining Gromov's multicomplex method, the paper achieves generalization through two key improvements:

1. Weakens π₁-injectivity to "the kernel of π₁(A↪→X) is amenable"
2. In Theorem 2, local finiteness is required, but not in Theorem 1

Core Contributions

1. Theorem 1: For triangulable pairs (X,A), if the kernel of π₁(A↪→X) is amenable and there exists an amenable open cover U satisfying conditions (RC1) and (RC2), then the comparison map comp^n vanishes for all n≥mult(U)
2. Theorem 2: Under the same hypotheses, if U is locally finite:
   • (1) If U is weakly convex on A, then comp^n vanishes for n≥mult_A(U)
   • (2) If U is convex, there exists a map Θ^n such that a specific commutative diagram holds, connecting bounded cohomology with the cohomology of the nerve
3. Technical Innovations:
   • Develops relative bounded cohomology theory within the multicomplex framework
   • Introduces and proves an orbit-induced lemma for group actions in the relative setting (Lemma 2.2)
   • Establishes systematic constructions from space pairs to multicomplex pairs (Section 3)
4. Optimality Analysis: Through the example of a genus 1 surface with boundary (Remark 1.3), proves that conditions (RC1) and (RC2) are optimal

Detailed Methodology

Core Technical Strategy

The proof strategy of this paper is based on the following chain:

Topological space pair (X,A) → Multicomplex pair (A(X), A_X(A)) → Vanishing of bounded cohomology

Key Mathematical Objects

1. Multicomplexes

Multicomplexes are Gromov's generalization of simplicial complexes, allowing multiple simplices to share the same vertex set. Key constructions include:

• Singular Multicomplex K(X): Vertices are points in X, simplices are singular simplices in X (modulo affine parametrization)
• Reduced Multicomplex L(X): A subcomplex of K(X), homotopy equivalent but smaller in scale
• Acyclic Multicomplex A(X): A quotient of L(X), obtained by identifying simplices sharing the same 1-skeleton, serving as a model for the classifying space of π₁(X)

2. Algebraic n-Simplices

Formally σ = (Δ, (v₀,...,vₙ)), where:

• Δ is a k-simplex of K
• {v₀,...,vₙ} is the vertex set of Δ
• Repetitions of v_i are allowed, but {v₀,...,vₙ} as a set is exactly the vertex set of Δ

3. Group Π(X,X)

Defined as homotopy classes of path families {γ_x}_{x∈X}, satisfying:

• Each path γ_x: 0,1→X with γ_x(0)=x, γ_x(1)∈X
• All but finitely many γ_x are constant paths
• x↦γ_x(1) is a finitely supported bijection

Key Property: If U is an amenable subset, then Π_X(U,V)≤Π(X,X) is an amenable subgroup (Lemma 2.4)

Main Theorem Proof Architecture

Proof of Theorem 1 (Section 4)

Step 1: From Topological Pairs to Multicomplex Pairs

• Using triangulability, take a simplicial pair (T,S) such that (X,A)=(|T|,|S|)
• Construct embeddings of T and S in A(X): K_T(X)⊆L(X)⊆A(X)
• Key: The quotient map π: L(X)→A(X) is injective on K_T(X)

Step 2: Establish Isomorphism Using Proposition 3.2, obtain the isomorphism:

Ψ^n: H^n_b(A(X), A_X(A)) → H^n_b(X,A)

This requires the assumption that "the kernel of π₁(A↪→X) is amenable."

Step 3: Construct Group Action For cover U={U_i}, subdivide T so that the closed star of each vertex v is contained in some U_{i(v)}. Define:

G = ⊕_{i∈I} Π_X(U_i, V_i)

where V_i = {v∈V(T) | i(v)=i}. G acts on A(X).

Step 4: Existence of Invariant Cochains

• The subgroup H = ⊕_{i∈I} Π_X(U_i∩A, V_i∩A) acts on (A(X), A_X(A))
• Key Lemma (Lemma 4.2): Under conditions (RC1) and (RC2), the orbits of G in A_X(A) are induced by H
• By Lemma 2.2, one can choose G-invariant alternating cocycles z representing any cohomology class

Step 5: Vanishing Argument For n≥mult(U) and algebraic n-simplex (Δ,(x₀,...,xₙ))∈C_n(T):

• If some x_i are equal, z(Δ,(x₀,...,xₙ))=0 (by alternativity)
• If x₀,...,xₙ are distinct, since n≥mult(U), there exist h≠k with i(x_h)=i(x_k)
• Construct g∈G such that g·Δ=Δ but swaps x_h and x_k
• By G-invariance and alternativity: z(Δ,(x₀,...,xₙ))=-z(Δ,(x₀,...,xₙ))=0

Proof of Theorem 2 (Section 5)

Proof of (1): Using Weak Convexity

• For n≥mult_A(U), if U_{i₀}∩···∩U_{iₙ}∩A=∅, then mult_A(U)>n (contradiction)
• Therefore U_{i₀}∩···∩U_{iₙ}∩A≠∅
• Weak convexity ensures that the connected component of Δ intersects A non-trivially
• Construct a point x'∈A and paths, using (RC1) and (RC2) to find paths in A
• Transform Δ via group action to a simplex Δ' in A_X(A), where z vanishes on A_X(A)

Proof of (2): Constructing Commutative Diagrams

• Define chain map Ω^•_X: C^•b(A(X))^G → C^•_b(N(U))
• Define chain map Ω^•_A: C^•b(A_X(A))^H → C^•_b(N(U_A))
• Verify commutativity of diagram (5.2)
• The induced Θ^n makes diagram (5.1) commute

Technical Innovations

1. Orbit-Induced Conditions in the Relative Setting

Lemma 2.2 is a key innovation: For group action G↷K and subgroup H↷(K,L), if orbits of G in L are induced by H, then:

0 → C^•_b(K,L)^G → C^•_b(K)^G → C^•_b(L)^H → 0

is exact. This allows the use of invariant cochains in the relative setting.

2. Role of Regularity Conditions (RC1) and (RC2)

Via Lemma 2.1, U satisfies (RC1) and (RC2) if and only if for each path γ in U with endpoints in U∩A, there exists a path λ in U∩A homotopic to γ in X (relative to endpoints).

This ensures Lemma 4.2 holds, which is central to the proof.

3. Mapping Cone Technique

Using Park and Löh's mapping cone theory (Section 3.1), establish through a series of chain maps:

C^•_b(X,A) ≅ C^•_b(K(X),K(A)) ≅ C^•_b(jL: L(A)→L(X)) 
           ≅ C^•_b(jA: A(A)→A(X)) ≅ C^•_b(A(X),A_X(A))

Experimental Setup

Note: This is a pure theoretical mathematics paper with no numerical experiments. All results are rigorous mathematical proofs.

Verification Examples

Optimality Example (Remark 1.3)

• Object: Compact orientable surface S of genus 1 with one boundary component
• Known Fact: The relative simplicial volume ∥S,∂S∥>0, hence comp² is non-zero
• Verification: The two amenable covers (multiplicity 2) in Figure 1 show:
  • Left diagram satisfies (RC1) but not (RC2) → comp²≠0
  • Right diagram satisfies (RC2) but not (RC1) → comp²≠0
• Conclusion: Both conditions (RC1) and (RC2) are necessary

Experimental Results

Main Theoretical Results

Result 1: Generalization of the Absolute Case

Theorem 1 generalizes Gromov's absolute vanishing theorem to the relative setting, with the comparison map vanishing for n≥mult(U).

Result 2: Refined Results on Relative Multiplicity

Theorem 2(1) provides a finer vanishing degree n≥mult_A(U), where mult_A(U)≤mult(U).

Result 3: Connection to Nerve Complexes

Theorem 2(2) establishes an explicit relationship between bounded cohomology and the cohomology of nerve complexes.

Comparison with Existing Results

Advantages: More flexible π₁ condition, allowing amenable kernels of fundamental groups of A in X Trade-off: Theorem 2 requires local finiteness

Important Observations

Discussion in Remark 1.2

1. Cover Types: Amenable covers ⊂ Boundedly-acyclic covers, so this paper's results are stronger but may apply to narrower cases
2. Space Types: Triangulable pairs ⊂ CW-pairs (there exist non-triangulable CW-complexes)
3. π₁ Flexibility: The amenable kernel condition may be easier to satisfy than π₁-injectivity in some cases

Warning in Remark 4.4

Illustrates that conditions (RC1) and (RC2) are not merely technical:

• Ignoring these conditions would incorrectly imply all amenable covers lead to vanishing
• This would yield a contradiction: simplicial volumes of manifolds with boundary would always be zero (known to be false)

Related Work

Historical Development

Gromov's Original Work (1982)

• Established multicomplex theory
• Proved the absolute vanishing theorem
• Introduced the group Π(X,X) and its actions

Different Proof Methods

1. Multicomplex Method: Gromov (1982), Frigerio (2022), Frigerio-Moraschini (2023)
2. Sheaf-Theoretic Method: Ivanov (1987, 2017)
3. Equivariant Nerves and Classifying Spaces: Löh-Sauer (2020)
4. Homotopy-Theoretic Method: Raptis (2024)

Relative Versions

1. Park (2003): Mapping cone techniques
2. Löh (2008): Isomorphisms in ℓ¹-homology
3. Li-Löh-Moraschini (2022+): Relative vanishing theorems with boundedly-acyclic covers
4. Raptis (2024): Homotopy colimit methods

Related Concepts

Simplicial Volume

• Geometric invariant introduced by Gromov
• Vanishing theorems yield simplicial volume vanishing through duality arguments
• However, results of Löh-Moraschini-Raptis (2022) on non-compact manifolds are stronger

Bounded Cohomology

• Introduced by Gromov, studies large-scale properties of groups and spaces
• Related to quasi-homomorphisms, rigidity, and other geometric properties
• The kernel of the comparison map characterizes "ℓ¹-invisibility"

Conclusions and Discussion

Main Conclusions

1. Theoretical Generalization: Successfully extends Gromov's vanishing theorem to the relative setting, relaxing the π₁-injectivity assumption
2. Methodological Contribution: Develops systematic methods for handling relative bounded cohomology within the multicomplex framework
3. Optimality: Proves through examples that regularity conditions (RC1) and (RC2) are necessary

Limitations

1. Space Type Restrictions

• Requires triangulability, not all CW-pairs satisfy this
• Example: Non-triangulable CW-complexes exist (Fritsch-Piccinini, 1990)

2. Cover Types

• Only handles amenable covers, does not generalize to boundedly-acyclic covers
• The author acknowledges in Remark 1.2: "It is unclear whether our results can be extended to this case"

3. Local Finiteness

• Theorem 2 requires local finiteness, while Li-Löh-Moraschini do not
• This may be restrictive in certain applications

4. Limited Applications to Simplicial Volume

• As noted in Remark 1.2, applications to relative simplicial volume are strictly weaker than conclusions from Löh-Moraschini-Raptis (2022) based on non-compact manifold results

Future Directions

While not explicitly listed, plausible research directions include:

1. Generalization to Boundedly-Acyclic Covers: Can similar results be obtained for more general covers in the relative setting?
2. Removing Triangulation Assumptions: Can analogous results be established for general CW-pairs?
3. Removing Local Finiteness: Can Theorem 2 hold without the local finiteness assumption?
4. Computational Applications: Develop concrete computational techniques for bounded cohomology of specific space pairs

In-Depth Evaluation

Strengths

1. Technical Rigor

• Proofs are completely self-contained with sufficient detail
• Correctly handles technical complexities of the relative setting (e.g., Lemma 4.2's orbit-induced condition)
• Verifies necessity of conditions through examples (Remark 1.3)

2. Methodological Innovation

• Lemma 2.2 (orbit-induced lemma) is a key innovation for handling relative settings
• Systematically develops constructions from space pairs to multicomplex pairs (Section 3)
• Cleverly uses regularity conditions (RC1) and (RC2) to control group actions

3. Theoretical Depth

• Connects multiple mathematical branches: algebraic topology, geometric topology, group theory
• Proposition 3.2 bridges multicomplexes and bounded cohomology of topological spaces
• Reveals relationships between combinatorial properties of covers (multiplicity) and cohomological vanishing

4. Clarity of Exposition

• Well-structured: preliminaries (Section 2), constructions (Section 3), proofs (Sections 4-5)
• Extensive remarks discussing relationships with existing work
• Illustrations (Figure 1) enhance readability

Weaknesses

1. Limited Application Scope

• Triangulation Assumption excludes certain CW-pairs
• Amenable Covers are more special than boundedly-acyclic covers
• Applications to simplicial volume are not as strong as other methods (Remark 1.2)

2. Technical Dependencies

• Heavily relies on Frigerio-Moraschini (2023)'s multicomplex theory
• Proof of Proposition 3.2 depends on Capovilla's own preprint Cap
• Some constructions (e.g., Remark 3.1) require specific choices, affecting naturality

3. Refinement of Results

• Theorem 1 uses mult(U) rather than mult_A(U), less refined than Theorem 2
• Theorem 2 requires additional local finiteness assumption

4. Lack of Concrete Computational Examples

• Apart from the optimality example (Remark 1.3), lacks other concrete applications
• No guidance on how to verify conditions (RC1) and (RC2) in practice

Impact Assessment

Contribution to the Field

• Theoretical Completion: Fills a gap in relative bounded cohomology theory
• Method Development: Provides a template for applying multicomplex methods in relative settings
• Problem Clarification: Clarifies boundaries of necessary conditions through examples

Practical Value

• Indirect Applications: Influences simplicial volume theory through duality arguments
• Theoretical Tool: Provides tools for studying bounded cohomology of specific space pairs
• Limitations: Direct applications are constrained by assumptions

Reproducibility

• Pure theoretical results, no experimental reproduction needed
• Proofs are verifiable but require deep algebraic topology background
• All referenced lemmas and theorems have clear sources

Applicable Scenarios

Ideal Application Scenarios

1. Triangulable Geometric Objects: Such as simplicial pairs, smooth manifold pairs
2. Spaces with Amenable Covers: Such as non-positively curved spaces, spaces with amenable group actions
3. Configurations Satisfying Regularity Conditions: Requires careful verification of (RC1) and (RC2)

Inapplicable Scenarios

1. Non-triangulable CW-pairs
2. Spaces with only boundedly-acyclic covers but not amenable covers
3. Cases requiring non-locally-finite covers (Theorem 2)

Key References

1. Gro82 M. Gromov. Volume and bounded cohomology. 1982.
   • Foundational work introducing multicomplexes and vanishing theorem
2. FM23 R. Frigerio and M. Moraschini. Gromov's theory of multicomplexes with applications to bounded cohomology and simplicial volume. 2023.
   • Systematic exposition of modern multicomplex theory, main technical foundation of this paper
3. LLM K. Li, C. Löh, and M. Moraschini. Bounded acyclicity and relative simplicial volume. arXiv:2202.05606.
   • Directly generalized work
4. Fri17 R. Frigerio. Bounded cohomology of discrete groups. 2017.
   • Comprehensive reference on bounded cohomology
5. Cap P. Capovilla. On the (super)additivity of simplicial volume. arXiv:2306.13342.
   • Author's own work, source of Proposition 3.2's proof

Overall Assessment

This is a high-quality theoretical mathematics paper making solid contributions to bounded cohomology theory. Its main value lies in:

1. Theoretical Completeness: Successfully generalizes a classical result to the relative setting
2. Technical Innovation: Develops new techniques for handling relative settings (orbit-induced lemma)
3. Methodological Value: Provides new examples of applying multicomplex methods

Main limitations stem from restricted applicability due to assumptions, particularly triangulability and amenable covers. However, within its scope, the results are deep and useful.

For algebraic and geometric topologists, especially those studying bounded cohomology, simplicial volume, or related invariants, this is a paper worth careful study. It not only provides new results but demonstrates how to systematically extend techniques from absolute to relative settings.