arXiv:1712.08418v2 [] 8 Jan 2018

ON ELEMENTARY AMENABLE BOUNDED AUTOMATA
GROUPS
KATE JUSCHENKO, BENJAMIN STEINBERG, AND PHILLIP WESOLEK
Abstract. There are several natural families of groups acting on rooted
trees for which every member is known to be amenable. It is, however, unclear what the elementary amenable members of these families
look like. Towards clarifying this situation, we here study elementary
amenable bounded automata groups. We are able to isolate the elementary amenable bounded automata groups in three natural subclasses of
bounded automata groups. In particular, we show that iterated monodromy groups of post-critically finite polynomials are either virtually
abelian or not elementary amenable.

Contents
1. Introduction
2. Preliminaries
3. Reduced form
4. Technical results
5. Groups containing odometers
6. Kneading automata groups
7. Generalized basilica groups
8. Groups of abelian wreath type
9. Examples
References

1
5
8
11
15
21
28
35
41
45

1. Introduction
A group G is amenable if there exists a finitely additive translation invariant probability measure on all subsets of G. This definition was given
by J. von Neumann, [23], in response to the Banach-Tarski and Hausdorff
paradoxes. He singled out the property of a group which forbids paradoxical
actions.
The class of elementary amenable groups, denoted by EG, was introduced
by M. Day in [6] and is defined to be the smallest class of groups that
contains the finite groups and the abelian groups and is closed under taking
Date: January 9, 2018.
The second author was supported by NSA MSP #H98230-16-1-0047.
1

2

KATE JUSCHENKO, BENJAMIN STEINBERG, AND PHILLIP WESOLEK

subgroups, quotients, extensions, and directed unions. The fact that the
class of amenable groups is closed under these operations was already known
to von Neumann, [23], who noted at that at that time there was no known
amenable group which did not belong to EG.
No substantial progress in understanding the class of elementary amenable
groups was made until the 80s. C. Chou, [5], showed that all elementary
amenable groups have either polynomial or exponential growth. Shortly
thereafter, R. Grigorchuk, [9], gave an example of a group with intermediate
growth, and such groups are necessarily amenable but by Chou’s work are
not elementary amenable. Grigorchuk’s group served as a starting point in
developing the theory of groups with intermediate growth.
In the same paper, Chou showed that every infinite finitely generated
simple group is not elementary amenable. In [14], it was shown that the
topological full group of a Cantor minimal system is amenable, and by the
results of H. Matui, [16], this group has a simple and finitely generated
commutator subgroup, in particular, it is not elementary amenable. This
was the first example of an infinite finitely generated simple amenable group.
The strategy of Matui has been extended in [4] and [17] to minimal actions of
Zd and groupoids, respectively. This has produced more examples of finitely
generated simple amenable groups in combination with results of [13], where
it is demonstrated that there are minimal actions of Z2 on the Cantor set
with amenable topological full groups.
Groups of automorphisms of rooted trees were the only source of groups
of intermediate growth until a recent result of V. Nekrashevych, [20], who
found finitely generated, torsion subgroups of the topological full group of
intermediate growth. These groups cannot act on rooted tree, since they
are simple.
Summarizing the above, the currently known sources of non-elementary
amenable groups are groups acting on rooted trees and topological full
groups of Cantor minimal systems.
There has been considerable progress in establishing amenability of groups
acting on rooted trees. L. Bartholdi, V. Kaimanovich, and Nekrashevych
in [2] proved that groups acting on rooted trees with bounded activity are
amenable; these are the so-called bounded automata groups. This was extended to groups of linear activity by G. Amir, O. Angel, and B. Virág in
[1], and in [15], Nekrashevych, M. de la Salle, and the first named author
extended this result further to groups of quadratic activity. These results
produce large families of amenable groups, but they do not identify the
non-elementary amenable members of the families. The first named author established what seems to be the first results studying the elementary
amenable groups that act on rooted trees in [12]. The present article picks
up this thread of research again. We here consider the elementary amenable
bounded automata groups.

ON ELEMENTARY AMENABLE BOUNDED AUTOMATA GROUPS

3

Question 1.1. What do elementary amenable bounded automata groups
look like? How close are they to abelian?
Question 1.1 in full generality seems out of reach at the moment. We answer here the question for three large classes of bounded automata groups,
which contain many of the hitherto studied examples. Two of these classes
are new, and they appear to be interesting in their own right. We additionally present several examples which place restrictions on how one might
specify “close to abelian.”
1.1. Iterated monodromy groups. The iterated monodromy groups of
post-critically finite polynomials, see [18, Chapter 5], form a compelling and
natural class of bounded automata groups. The study of these groups has
generated a significant body of research in both dynamics and group theory.
See, for example, [8, 19].
For this class of groups, we answer the motivating question completely.
Theorem 1.2 (See Corollary 6.11). Every iterated monodromy group of a
post-critically finite polynomial is either virtually abelian or not elementary
amenable.
1.2. Generalized basilica groups. For a finite set X, let X ∗ be the free
monoid on X. By identification with its Cayley graph, X ∗ is naturally a
rooted tree. For g ∈ Aut(X ∗ ) and v ∈ X ∗ , the section of g at v is denoted
by gv ; see Section 2 for the relevant definitions.
Definition 1.3. We say that G ≤ Aut(X ∗ ) is a generalized basilica
group if G admits a finite generating set Y such that for every g ∈ Y either
gx = 1 for all x ∈ X or gx ∈ {1, g} for all x ∈ X with exactly one x such
that gx = g.
Remark 1.4. The classical basilica group can be represented as a generalized basilica group. The representation is given by considering the natural
action of the basilica group on [4]∗ , the 4-regular rooted tree, by restricting
the action on the binary tree to even levels; see Example 3.11.
A key feature of generalized basilica groups is a reduction theorem, Theorem 7.7, which reduces the analysis to self-replicating groups. Using this
reduction, we answer the motivating question for a class of generalized basilica groups for which we have some control over the “cycle structure” of the
generators.
Definition 1.5. Let G = hY i ≤ Aut(X ∗ ) be a generalized basilica group.
We say that G is balanced if for each g ∈ Y such that there is x ∈ X for
which gx = g, the least n ≥ 1 for which g n fixes x is also such that gn fixes
X.
Note that the basilica group acting on [4]∗ is balanced.
Theorem 1.6 (See Corollary 7.18). Every balanced generalized basilica group
is either (locally finite)-by-(virtually abelian) or not elementary amenable.

4

KATE JUSCHENKO, BENJAMIN STEINBERG, AND PHILLIP WESOLEK

Examples 9.1 show our theorem for balanced groups cannot be sharpened.
While a proof eludes us, we expect the following conjecture to hold.
Conjecture 1.7. Every generalized basilica group is either (locally finite)by-(virtually abelian) or not elementary amenable
The class of generalized basilica groups encompasses the torsion-free bounded
automata groups, suggesting it is a natural class.
Proposition 1.8 (See Corollary 3.9). If G ≤ Aut(X ∗ ) is a torsion-free
bounded automata group, then there is a torsion-free generalized basilica
group H and k ≥ 1 such that H is isomorphic to a subgroup of G and
k

G ֒→ Sym(X k ) ⋉ H X .
Proposition 1.9 (See Corollary 3.10). Every torsion-free self-replicating
bounded automata group admits a faithful representation as a generalized
basilica group.
We also exhibit countably many non-isomorphic balanced generalized
basilica groups; see Examples 9.1. The class of balanced generalized basilica
groups, and hence the class of generalized basilica groups, is thus as large as
it can be, since there are only countably many bounded automata groups.
1.3. Groups of abelian wreath type. Let π1 : Aut(X ∗ ) → Sym(X)
be the homomorphism induced by the action of Aut(X ∗ ) on X. Under the
natural identification with finitary elements, we regard Sym(X) ≤ Aut(X ∗ ),
when convenient.
Definition 1.10. We say that G ≤ Aut(X ∗ ) is of abelian wreath type if
π1 (G) ≤ Sym(X) is abelian and G admits a finite self-similar generating set
Y such that for every g ∈ Y either gx = 1 for all x ∈ X or gx ∈ {g} ∪ π1 (G)
for all x ∈ X with exactly one x such that gx = g.
Remark 1.11. The Gupta-Sidki groups and the more general GGS groups
are of abelian wreath type.
A group G ≤ Aut(X ∗ ) of abelian wreath type embeds into the inverse
limit (· · ·≀X A≀X A) where A is the abelian group π1 (G). This class of bounded
automata groups seems to be among the simplest such groups, because the
structure of these groups is minimally complicated by permutation-grouptheoretic phenomena.
We answer the motivating question completely for self-replicating groups
of abelian wreath type.
Theorem 1.12 (See Theorem 8.13). Every self-replicating group of abelian
wreath type is either virtually abelian or not elementary amenable.
The infinite dihedral group shows that Theorem 8.13 is sharp; see Example 9.2. The GSS groups are self-replicating as soon as they are infinite, so
Theorem 1.12 applies to these groups. Additionally, as there are countably
many self-replicating GGS groups, there are countably many isomorphism
types of self-replicating groups of abelian wreath type.

ON ELEMENTARY AMENABLE BOUNDED AUTOMATA GROUPS

5

1.4. Groups containing odometers. An element d ∈ Aut(X ∗ ) is said to
be an odometer if hdi acts transitively on X and dx ∈ {1, d} for all x ∈ X
with exactly one x ∈ X such that dx = d. Odometers arise somewhat naturally in bounded automata groups. For instance some iterated monodromy
groups will contain these; see Example 5.9. On the other hand, our theorem for groups with odometers plays an important technical role in other
arguments, so one is welcome to regard this theorem as a useful technical
tool.
Theorem 1.13 (See Theorem 5.14). Every bounded automata group that
contains an odometer is either virtually abelian or not elementary amenable.
Let G be a bounded automata group containing a level transitive element
d. The element d is well-known to be conjugate in the full automorphism
group of the rooted tree to an odometer, but the conjugator need not preserve the property of G being a bounded automata group. In Theorem 1.13,
we need the element to be an odometer in the bounded representation of G.
2. Preliminaries
For a group G acting on a set X and Y ⊆ X, we write G(Y ) for the pointwise stabilizer of Y in G. For g, h ∈ G, the commutator [g, h] is ghg −1 h−1 .
2.1. Bounded automata groups. For a finite set X of size at least 2, let
X ∗ be the free monoid on X; the identity is the empty word. By identification with its Cayley graph, X ∗ is naturally a rooted tree, but in practice
and in the work at hand, it is often more useful to think of X ∗ as words.
We write X k to denote the words of length k. An automorphism g of X ∗
is a bijection such preserves the prefix relation. That is, a is a prefix of b if
and only if g(a) is a prefix of g(b). Automorphisms of X ∗ act on X ∗ from
the left, and we denote the group of automorphisms by Aut(X ∗ ).
For each k ≥ 1, the group Aut(X ∗ ) acts on the set of words of length k.
We let πk : Aut(X ∗ ) → Sym(X k ) denote the induced homomorphism. It is
sometimes convenient to see πk (Aut(X ∗ )) ≤ Aut(X ∗ ), and this is achieved
as follows: Say σ ∈ πk (Aut(X ∗ )) and v ∈ X l with l ≥ k. Writing v = xw
with x ∈ X k and w ∈ X ∗ , we define σ(v) := σ(x)w. One verifies that this
identification gives that πk (Aut(X ∗ )) ≤ Aut(X ∗ ).
For a word w ∈ X ∗ , the words with prefix w, wX ∗ , are isomorphic to X ∗
by the map ψw : X ∗ → wX ∗ defined by ψw : x 7→ wx. For g ∈ Aut(X ∗ ) and
w ∈ X ∗ , the element g induces an automorphism gw ∈ Aut(X ∗ ) defined by
−1
◦ g ◦ ψw .
gw := ψg(w)

The automorphism gw is called the section of g at w. A straightforward
computation shows the operation of taking sections enjoys two fundamental
properties.
Lemma 2.1. Let X be a non-empty finite set, g, h, and k be elements of
Aut(X ∗ ), and v1 and v2 be elements of X ∗ . Then,

6

KATE JUSCHENKO, BENJAMIN STEINBERG, AND PHILLIP WESOLEK

(a) gv1 v2 = (gv1 )v2
(b) (hk)v = hk(v) kv
Remark 2.2. The previous lemma ensures that map Aut(X ∗ ) × X ∗ →
Aut(X ∗ ) by (g, v) 7→ gv is a cocycle.
An automorphism g ∈ Aut(X ∗ ) is called finitary if there is some k ≥ 1
such that gv = 1 for all v ∈ X k . The least k such that gv = 1 for all v ∈ X k is
called the depth of the finitary element g. An automorphism g ∈ Aut(X ∗ )
is called directed if there is some k ≥ 1 and w ∈ X k such that gw = g and
gv is finitary for all v ∈ X k \ {w}. The least such k is called the period
of g, and the vertex w ∈ X k is called the active vertex of g on X k and is
denoted by v g . We say that g is strongly active if g(v g ) 6= v g . We say g
is strongly directed if there exists k ≥ 1 and w ∈ X k such that gw = g
and gu = 1 for all u ∈ X k \ {w}. An element d ∈ Aut(X ∗ ) is said to be an
odometer if hdi acts transitively on X and dx ∈ {1, d} for all x ∈ X with
exactly one x ∈ X such that dx = d.
For the work at hand, the following features of automorphisms of rooted
trees play an integral role.
Definition 2.3. An automorphism g ∈ Aut(X ∗ ) is finite state if S(g) :=
{gv | v ∈ X ∗ } is finite. The element g is bounded if there is N ≥ 0 such
that for all n ≥ 1,
|{v ∈ X v | gv 6= 1}| ≤ N.
Finitary automorphisms and directed automorphisms are clearly bounded
and finite state. A partial converse also holds.
Proposition 2.4 ([2, Proposition 2.7]). An automorphism g ∈ Aut(X ∗ ) is
bounded and finite state if and only if there exists m ≥ 1 such that each
section gv for v ∈ X m is either finitary or directed.
We are now prepared to define the bounded automata groups.
Definition 2.5. A (set) group G ≤ Aut(X ∗ ) is self-similar if gw ∈ G for
all w ∈ X ∗ and g ∈ G.
Definition 2.6. A group G ≤ Aut(X ∗ ) is said to be a bounded automata
group if G is finitely generated and self-similar and every element g ∈ G is
bounded and finite state.
Remark 2.7. Bounded automata groups are named as such, because they
are exactly the groups such that the generators are given by a bounded
automaton; see [18, Chapter 1.5].
2.2. Self-replicating groups. Letting Aut(X ∗ )(w) be the stabilizer of w
in Aut(X ∗ ), the map
φw : Aut(X ∗ )(w) → Aut(X ∗ )
by g 7→ gw is a homomorphism. We call φw the section homomorphism
at w. For a group G ≤ Aut(X ∗ ), we denote the image φw (G(w) ) by secG (w),
and secG (w) is called the group of sections of G at w.

ON ELEMENTARY AMENABLE BOUNDED AUTOMATA GROUPS

7

Definition 2.8. A group G ≤ Aut(X ∗ ) is called self-replicating if G is
self-similar, acts transitively on X and secG (x) = G for all x ∈ X.
Remark 2.9. The terms “fractal” and “recurrent” have previously appeared in the literature in place of “self-replicating.” We understand that
“self-replicating” is the currently accepted term.
For a self-replicating group G ≤ Aut(X ∗ ), it follows by induction on the
length of v ∈ X ∗ that secG (v) = G for all v ∈ X ∗ . Self-replicating groups
additionally act transitively on X k for every k, not just on X. Groups
that act transitively on X k for all k ≥ 1 are called level transitive. For
g ∈ Aut(X ∗ ) an odometer, hgi is level transitive.
In the present work, weak forms of self-similarity and self-replication arise
frequently.
Definition 2.10. We say G ≤ Aut(X ∗ ) is weakly self-similar if secG (v) ≤
G for every v ∈ X ∗ . We say that G weakly self-replicating if secG (v) = G
for every v ∈ X ∗ .
A weakly self-similar (weakly self-replicating) group need not be selfsimilar (self-replicating). This holds even in the case that G acts transitively
on X. See Example 9.4
Remark 2.11. In the work at hand, we will need to analyze subgroups of a
bounded automata group which are weakly self-similar, but not self-similar.
The expert will note that one can conjugate a weakly self-similar group to
obtain a self-similar group. However, if one conjugates the supergroup to
make the subgroup in question self-similar, the conjugate often fails to be a
bounded automata group.
2.3. Elementary amenable groups.
Definition 2.12. The class of elementary amenable groups, denoted
by EG, is the smallest class of groups such that the following hold.
(1) EG contains all abelian groups and finite groups.
(2) EG is closed under taking subgroups, group extensions, quotients,
and direct limits.
By work of D. Osin, [21], the class EG admits a simpler description. Let
us define recursively classes EGα for α an ordinal as follows.
• EG0 is the class of abelian groups and finite groups.
• Given EGα , let EGeα be the class of EGα -by-EG0 groups and let EGlα be
the groups given by a direct limit of groups in EGα . We define EGα+1 :=
EGeα ∪ EGlα .
S
• For λ a limit ordinal, we define EGλ := β<λ EGβ .
S
Theorem 2.13 (Osin, [21, Theorem 2.1]). EG = α∈ORD EGα .
In view of Osin’s theorem, the class of elementary amenable groups admits
a well-behaved ordinal-valued rank.

8

KATE JUSCHENKO, BENJAMIN STEINBERG, AND PHILLIP WESOLEK

Definition 2.14. For G ∈ EG, we define
rk(G) := min{α | G ∈ EGα }
and call rk(G) the construction rank of G.
Corollary 2.15. If G ∈ EG is finitely generated and neither finite nor
abelian, then there is L E G such that G/L is finite or abelian and rk(G) =
rk(L) + 1.
Proposition 2.16. Let G ∈ EG.
(1) If H ≤ G, then rk(H) ≤ rk(G). ([21, Lemma 3.1])
(2) If L E G, then rk(G/L) ≤ rk(G). ([21, Lemma 3.1])
(3) If {1} → K → G → Q → {1} is a short exact sequence, then
rk(G) ≤ rk(K) + rk(Q).([21, cf. Lemma 3.2])
(4) rk(G × G) = rk(G). (folklore)
3. Reduced form
A given representation of a bounded automata group may not always be
optimal. The reduction developed herein produces a canonical representation of a bounded automata group which often makes arguments simpler.
This technique appears to be folklore.
Given a tree X ∗ and k ≥ 1, the group Aut(X ∗ ) acts faithfully on (X k )∗ ,
giving an embedding rk : Aut(X ∗ ) ֒→ Aut((X k )∗ ). The map rk is just the
restriction of the action of Aut(X ∗ ) to (X k )∗ ⊂ X ∗ (which is a free monoid
on X k and hence an |X|k -regular tree).
Lemma 3.1. Suppose that g ∈ Aut(X ∗ ) and k ≥ 1.
(1) For any w ∈ (X k )∗ and g ∈ G, rk (gw ) = (rk (g))w .
(2) If g is finitary, then rk (g) is finitary.
(3) If g is directed, then rk (g) is directed.
(4) If g is strongly directed, then rk (g) is strongly directed.
Proof. Set O := X k and take w ∈ O ∗ . By definition, the section of g at w
−1
◦ g ◦ ψw where ψv : X ∗ → vX ∗ by x 7→ vx. The map rk
in X ∗ is gw = ψg(w)
is restriction to O ∗ , so we see that
−1
↾O∗ ◦g ↾O∗ ◦ψw ↾O∗ = (rk (g))w .
rk (gw ) = (gw ) ↾O∗ = ψg(w)

Hence, (1) holds.
If g is finitary, then we can find some n ≥ 1 such that gw = 1 for all
w ∈ O n . Claim (1) shows that (rk (g))w = 1 for all w ∈ On , so rk (g) is
finitary, verifying (2).
If g is (strongly) directed, we can find some n ≥ 1 such that for all w ∈ On
either gw = g or gw is finitary (trivial). If gw is finitary (trivial), then claims
(1) and (2) ensure that (rk (g))w is finitary (trivial). If gw = g, then (1)
implies that rk (g) = rk (gw ) = (rk (g))w . We conclude that for every w ∈ O n
either (rk (g))w = rk (g) or rk (g)w is finitary (trivial). Hence, rk (g) is a
(strongly) directed element of Aut(O∗ ), establishing (3) and (4).


ON ELEMENTARY AMENABLE BOUNDED AUTOMATA GROUPS

9

Corollary 3.2. If G ≤ Aut(X ∗ ) is a bounded automata group and k ≥ 1,
then rk (G) ≤ Aut((X k )∗ ) is a bounded automata group.
Proof. This is immediate from Proposition 2.4 and Lemma 3.1.



Recall that for each k ≥ 1, there is a homomorphism from Aut(X ∗ ) into
Sym(X k ) denoted by πk : Aut(X ∗ ) → Sym(X k ). The functions πk and rk
enjoy the following relationship:
π1 ◦ rk = πk .
Recall also that we may see πk (Aut(X ∗ )) ≤ Aut(X ∗ ) whenever necessary.
Definition 3.3. For G ≤ Aut(X ∗ ) a bounded automata group, we say that
G is in reduced form if G admits a finite generating Y such that for every
g ∈ Y either gx = 1 for all x ∈ X or gx ∈ {g} ∪ π1 (G) for all x ∈ X
with exactly one x such that gx = g. We say that Y is a distinguished
generating set for G. We write G = hY i ≤ Aut(X ∗ ) to indicate that Y is
a distinguished generating set for G.
Note that one may always assume that Y is a self-similar set by adding
each section from π1 (G) of a directed element of Y to Y . Neither the reduced
form nor the distinguished generating set for a given reduced form are unique
in general. However, all bounded automata groups can essentially be put in
reduced form. Establishing this requires a result from the literature.
Theorem 3.4 ([18, Theorem 3.9.12]). For G ≤ Aut(X ∗ ) a bounded automata group, there is a finite self-similar set Z ⊆ G consisting of finitary
and directed elements such that for all g ∈ G there is N for which gv ∈ Z
for all v ∈ X k and k ≥ N .
The directed elements of the set Z in Theorem 3.4 are all strongly directed
if and only if in the automaton with state set Z (and the obvious transitions),
each non-trivial state belonging to a cycle cannot reach any state off that
cycle except for the trivial state.
Theorem 3.5. For G ≤ Aut(X ∗ ) a bounded automata group, there are a
finite set Z ⊆ G and k ≥ 1 such that the following hold:
(1) rk (G) ≤ Aut((X k )∗ ) is a bounded automata group.
(2) Setting H := rk (hZi), H ≤ Aut((X k )∗ ) is a bounded automata group
in reduced form with distinguished generating set rk (Z). Moreover,
if the directed elements of the set from Theorem 3.4 are strongly
directed, then H is generalized basilica.
k
(3) There is an injective homomorphism G → Sym(X k ) ⋉ H X .
Proof. Let W be a finite generating set for G and let Z ⊂ G be as given by
Theorem 3.4; in particular, Z is closed under taking sections. By taking a
common multiple of the periods of directed d ∈ Z, we may find m such that
for each directed d ∈ Z and x ∈ X m the section dx is either finitary or equal

10

KATE JUSCHENKO, BENJAMIN STEINBERG, AND PHILLIP WESOLEK

to d. Taking n large enough, we may assume that fx = 1 for all x ∈ X n and
finitary f ∈ Z.
Let k be a sufficiently large multiple of m so that k ≥ n and gv ∈ Z for
all g ∈ W and v ∈ X k . For every directed d ∈ Z and x ∈ X k , either dx
is finitary and in πk (G) or dx = d. For every finitary f ∈ Z and x ∈ X k ,
fx = 1. Set O := X k and let rk : Aut(X ∗ ) → Aut(O∗ ) be the canonical
inclusion. Corollary 3.2 ensures that rk (G) is again a bounded automata
group, verifying (1). It is easy to verify that hZi ≤ Aut(X ∗ ) is a bounded
automata group using that Z is closed under taking section, so H = rk (hZi)
is a bounded automata group by a second application of Corollary 3.2.
Let us now argue that H ≤ Aut(O∗ ) is in reduced form. Set Y := rk (Z);
note that Y is closed under takings sections by Lemma 3.1 as Z is closed
under taking sections. Via Lemma 3.1, Y consists of finitary elements and
directed elements, since Z consists of such elements. Say that rk (f ) ∈ Y
is finitary. Lemma 3.1 ensures that f ∈ Z must also be finitary. For each
x ∈ O, fx = 1, so in view of Lemma 3.1, (rk (f ))x = 1 for all x ∈ O. Say that
rk (d) ∈ Y is directed. It follows that d ∈ Z must be directed. For x ∈ O
such that dx is finitary, we have that dx ∈ Z. Applying again Lemma 3.1,
we deduce that (rk (d))x is finitary and an element of π1 (H). For x ∈ O such
that dx = d, we likewise deduce that (rk (d))x = rk (d). For all x ∈ O, it is
thus the case that (rk (d))x ∈ {rk (d)} ∪ π1 (H). Moreover, if d is strongly
directed, then so is rk (d) by Lemma 3.1. We conclude that H is in reduced
form and that if each directed element of Z is strongly directed, then H is
generalized basilica. Claim (2) thus holds.
For claim (3), each g ∈ W is such that gx ∈ Z for any x ∈ X k by
choice of k. From Lemma 3.1, we deduce that for each rk (g) ∈ rk (G)
and o ∈ O, (rk (g))o ∈ rk (hZi) = H. We define G → Sym(O) ⋉ H O by
g 7→ π1 (rk (g))(rk (g)o )o∈O . One easily verifies that this is a well-defined
monomorphism.

Using a second fact from the literature, we obtain a useful corollary.
Proposition 3.6 ([18, Proposition 2.11.3]). If G is a self-replicating bounded
automata group, then Z as in Theorem 3.4 is a generating set for G.
Corollary 3.7. If G ≤ Aut(X ∗ ) is a self-replicating bounded automata
group, then there is k ≥ 1 such that rk (G) ≤ Aut((X k )∗ ) is a self-replicating
bounded automata group in reduced form. In particular, G has a faithful
representation as a self-replicating bounded automata group in reduced form.
Remark 3.8. Theorem 3.5 motivates the form of our definitions of generalized basilica groups and abelian wreath type groups. Our definitions assume
the group is in reduced form to avoid cumbersome reduction steps.
We deduce two further corollaries of Theorem 3.5, which elucidate the
connection between torsion-free bounded automata groups and generalized
basilica groups. In a torsion-free bounded automata group, every finitary

ON ELEMENTARY AMENABLE BOUNDED AUTOMATA GROUPS

11

element is trivial and hence every directed element is strongly directed.
Theorem 3.5 thus implies the following consequence.
Corollary 3.9. If G ≤ Aut(X ∗ ) is a torsion-free bounded automata group,
then there are a torsion-free generalized basilica group H such that H is
isomorphic to a subgroup of G and k ≥ 1 such that
k

G ֒→ Sym(X k ) ⋉ H X .
Corollary 3.10. If G ≤ Aut(X ∗ ) is a self-replicating torsion-free bounded
automata group, then G admits a faithful representation as a generalized
basilica group.
Let us conclude this section by working out the reduced form of the classical basilica group.
Example 3.11. Let a, b ∈ Aut([2]∗ ) be defined recursively by
(
(
iv
i=0
1v
i=0
a(iv) :=
and b(iv) :=
ib(v) i = 1
0a(v) i = 1.
The group G := ha, bi ≤ Aut([2]∗ ) is called the basilica group; see [10].
There is a convenient notation for the generators, representing them as elements of Sym([2]) ⋉ G2 , called wreath recursion: the wreath recursion of a
is a = (1, b), and that of b is b = (01)(1, a).
We see that a1 = b and b1 = a, so G is not in reduced form. Consider
r2 (G). Set ã := r2 (a) and b̃ := r2 (b). In view of Lemma 3.1, ã11 = r2 (a11 ) =
r2 (a) = ã, and b̃11 = b̃. One further checks that all other sections of ã
and b̃ on [2]2 are trivial. In wreath recursion, e
a = (23)(1, 1, 1, e
a ) and eb =
(02)(13)(1, 1, 1, eb). Hence, r2 (G) is in reduced form, and furthermore, the
group is a generalized basilica group. In fact, r2 (G) is a balanced generalized
basilica group.
4. Technical results
This section establishes the key technical result of this work, Lemma 4.2,
as well as several general technical observations for later use.
4.1. Elementary amenable self-replicating groups. Let γ(x1 , . . . , xn )
be a word in the free group on n generators. For a group G, the verbal
subgroup of G given by γ(x1 , . . . , xn ) is
γ(G) := hγ(g1 , . . . , gn ) | gi ∈ Gi.
Note that verbal subgroups are always characteristic subgroups of G.
A group is called max-n if every increasing chain of normal subgroups
eventually stabilizes. We will only require that all finitely generated virtually
abelian groups are max-n, but the class of max-n groups is in fact large and
complicated.
Recall that rk(G) denotes the construction rank of an elementary amenable
group G.

12

KATE JUSCHENKO, BENJAMIN STEINBERG, AND PHILLIP WESOLEK

Lemma 4.1. Suppose that G ≤ Aut(X ∗ ) is an elementary amenable selfreplicating group. Let γ and β be words such that G/β(γ(G)) is a max-n
group. Then there are weakly self-replicating normal subgroups M and N of
G with
(1) N ≤ M , γ(G) ≤ M , and β(γ(G)) ≤ N ;
(2) rk(M ) = rk(γ(G)) and rk(N ) = rk(β(γ(G))); and
(3) β(M/N ) = 1.
Proof. Fix x ∈ X and let φx : G(x) → G be the section homomorphism at
x. Clearly γ(G(x) ) ≤ γ(G)(x) ≤ G(x) , and as φx is onto, we have
γ(G) = φx (γ(G(x) )) ≤ φx (γ(G)(x) ) ≤ φx (G(x) ) = G.
Similarly, we have
β(γ(G)) = φx (β(γ(G(x) ))) ≤ φx (β(γ(G))(x) ) ≤ φx (G(x) ) = G.
We now define two sequences of normal subgroups of G: Set K0 := γ(G),
H0 := β(γ(G)) and Kn+1 := φx ((Kn )(x) ), Hn+1 := φx ((Hn )(x) ). Trivially,
H0 ≤ K0 , so Hn ≤ Kn for all n ≥ 0 by induction. The previous paragraph
ensures that K0 ≤ K1 and H0 ≤ H1 , so Kn ≤ Kn+1 , Hn ≤ Hn+1 for
all n ≥ 0, again by induction. Normality follows by induction because φx
is onto. We claim that β(Kn /Hn ) = 1 for all n ≥ 0. This is trivial for
n = 0. Assume that β(Kn /Hn ) = 1. Note that (Kn )(x) ∩ Hn = (Hn )(x) and
so β((Kn )(x) /(Hn )(x) ) ≤ β(Kn /Hn ) = 1. As Kn+1 /Hn+1 is a quotient of
(Kn )(x) /(Hn )(x) , we deduce that β(Kn+1 /Hn+1 ) = 1.
Since G/β(γ(G)) is a max-n group, there is L such that KL = KL+1 and
HL = HL+1 . We claim M := KL and N := HL for such an L satisfy the
lemma. The previous paragraph ensures that M and N are normal in G.
We see that secM (x) = KL+1 = KL = M , and since the section subgroups
are conjugate to each other, secM (y) = M for all y ∈ X. The obvious
induction argument now gives that secM (v) = M for all v ∈ X ∗ , so M is
weakly self-replicating. The same argument shows that N is weakly selfreplicating. Claims (1) and (3) follow from the previous paragraph. In view
of Proposition 2.16, induction shows rk(Kj ) = rk(K0 ) = rk(γ(G)) for all
j. The group M is thus such that rk(M ) = rk(γ(G)). A similar argument
shows rk(N ) = rk(β(γ(G))), completing the proof of (2).

By considering the special case that β is a letter, we obtain the following.
Lemma 4.2. Suppose that G ≤ Aut(X ∗ ) is an elementary amenable selfreplicating group. Let γ be a word such that G/γ(G) is a max-n group.
Then there is a weakly self-replicating M E G such that γ(G) ≤ M and
rk(M ) = rk(γ(G)).
There are a couple of important corollaries of Lemma 4.2. We say a word
w(x1 , . . . , xn ) is d-locally finite if every d-generated group G such that
w(G) = {1} is finite.

ON ELEMENTARY AMENABLE BOUNDED AUTOMATA GROUPS

13

Lemma 4.3 (cf. [7, p. 517]). For every d-generated finite group A, there is
a d-locally finite word w such that w(A) = 1.
Corollary 4.4. Suppose that G ≤ Aut(X ∗ ) is a finitely generated elementary amenable self-replicating group. If G is non-abelian, then there is a
weakly self-replicating M E G such that G/M is either finite or abelian
and rk(M ) + 1 = rk(G). Furthermore, if rk(G) is witnessed (in the sense
of Corollary 2.15) by a normal subgroup N , then G/M is finite if G/N is
finite and G/M is abelian if G/N is abelian.
Proof. That G is self-replicating ensures that G is not finite. Since G is
non-abelian, Corollary 2.15 supplies N E G such that G/N is either finite
or abelian and rk(N ) + 1 = rk(G).
If G/N is abelian, Lemma 4.2 applied to the verbal subgroup [G, G] supplies the desired subgroup M . Let us suppose that N is of finite index in
G. Say that G is d-generated and let γ be a d-locally finite word such that
γ(A) = 1 where A := G/N , whose existence is given by Lemma 4.3. We
thus have that γ(G) ≤ N . It is also that case that G/γ(G) is finite, since
G/γ(G) is a d-generated group and γ(G/γ(G)) = 1, so rk(γ(G))+1 = rk(G).
Applying Lemma 4.2 to γ(G) supplies the desired subgroup M .

In the case of a self-replicating elementary amenable group for which the
rank is given by a finite index subgroup, we can say a bit more.
Corollary 4.5. Suppose that G ≤ Aut(X ∗ ) is a finitely generated elementary amenable self-replicating group. If G is not virtually abelian and admits
M E G with finite index such that rk(M ) + 1 = rk(G), then there are weakly
self-replicating subgroups A E G and F E G such that
(1) A ≤ F , F/A is abelian, and G/F is finite; and
(2) rk(F ) + 1 = rk(A) + 2 = rk(G).
Proof. Since M is finitely generated and neither finite nor abelian, as G is
not virtually abelian, Corollary 2.15 supplies a normal subgroup N E M
such that M/N is either finite or abelian and rk(N ) + 1 = rk(M ). It cannot
be the case that M/N is finite, since this contradicts the rank of G, so M/N
is abelian. Say that G is d-generated and let γ be a d-locally finite word such
that γ(A) = 1 where A := G/M , whose existence is given by Lemma 4.3.
It follows that γ(G) ≤ M and G/γ(G) is finite. Since M/N is abelian, it
follows that [γ(G), γ(G)] ≤ N . Thus
rk(G) ≤ rk(γ(G)) + 1 ≤ rk(M ) + 1 = rk(G),
and
rk(γ(G)) ≤ rk([γ(G), γ(G)]) + 1 ≤ rk(N ) + 1 = rk(M ) = rk(γ(G)).
We conclude that rk(γ(G))+1 = rk(G) and rk([γ(G), γ(G)])+2 = rk(γ(G))+
1 = rk(G).
The group G/[γ(G), γ(G)] is a finitely generated virtually abelian (as
G/γ(G) is finite) and hence a max-n group. Applying Lemma 4.1 with

14

KATE JUSCHENKO, BENJAMIN STEINBERG, AND PHILLIP WESOLEK

β = [x, y], we can find weakly self-replicating F and A normal in G such that
A ≤ F , F/A is abelian, γ(G) ≤ F (and so G/F is finite), rk(F ) = rk(γ(G))
and rk(A) = rk([γ(G), γ(G)]). This completes the proof.

4.2. Generalities on self-similar groups. The results here are primarily
for the reader’s convenience, as these results are easy consequences of the
definitions. We will appeal to these results throughout this work and often without explicit reference. The reader already comfortable with groups
acting on rooted trees can safely skip this subsection.
Lemma 4.6. Suppose that G ≤ Aut(X ∗ ), G acts level transitively on X ∗ ,
and H E G is weakly self-similar. If H fixes x ∈ X k for some k ≥ 1, then
H is trivial.
Proof. That H is normal ensures that H fixes X k . That H contains secH (v)
for all v ∈ X ∗ implies that H in fact fixes (X k )n for all n ≥ 1. Hence, H
acts trivially on X ∗ .

Lemma 4.7. Suppose that G ≤ Aut(X ∗ ) acts transitively on X and suppose
that there is a weakly self-similar M E G such that G/M is abelian or M
acts transitively on X. If g ∈ G fixes y and x in X and gx = 1, then gy ∈ M .
Proof. Take f ∈ G such that f (x) = y. If M acts transitively on X, we take
f ∈ M . The commutator [f, g−1 ] is an element of M , and [f, g−1 ]y ∈ M
since [f, g−1 ] fixes y and M is weakly self-replicating. Noting that (f −1 )y =
(fx )−1 , we see
[f, g−1 ]y = (f g−1 f −1 g)y = fx · 1 · (fx )−1 · gy = gy .
Hence, gy ∈ M .



Lemma 4.8. Suppose that G ≤ Aut(X ∗ ) acts transitively on X and is
weakly self-replicating. If H E G is weakly self-similar and of finite index in
G, then H acts transitively on X.
Proof. Fix x ∈ X and let φx : G(x) → G be the section homomorphism,
which is surjective because G is weakly self-replicating. Since H is weakly
self-similar, the surjective homomorphism φ̃x : G(x) H/H → G/H by gH 7→
φx (g)H is well-defined. The group G(x) H/H is thus a subgroup of G/H that
surjects onto G/H. As G/H is finite, we deduce that G/H = G(x) H/H.
Hence, H acts transitively on X.

4.3. Example: the basilica group. We close our technical discussion by
exhibiting how these results are applied to prove the basilica group is nonelementary amenable. The basic strategy applied here is used throughout
this work.
Let G := he
a, ebi ≤ Aut([4]∗ ) be the basilica group in the reduced form
as given in Example 3.11. The group G is self-replicating; one can verify
this directly or see [10]. The elements e
a and eb in wreath recursion are
e
e
a = (23)(1, 1, 1, e
a ) and b = (02)(13)(1, 1, 1, e
b).

ON ELEMENTARY AMENABLE BOUNDED AUTOMATA GROUPS

15

Let us suppose toward a contradiction that G is elementary amenable.
One easily verifies that G is not abelian. Corollary 4.4 thus produces a
weakly self-replicating subgroup M E G such that rk(M ) + 1 = rk(G) and
G/M is either finite or abelian. We see that e
a2 = (1, 1, e
a, e
a) and eb2 =
(1, eb, 1, eb). Lemmas 4.7 and 4.8 imply that e
a ∈ M and eb ∈ M , so M = G.
This contradicts the rank of G. We conclude that G is not elementary
amenable.
Remark 4.9. The general strategy to show a given self-replicating bounded
automata group is not elementary amenable is to contradict the rank of the
group via the weakly self-replicating subgroups provided by either Corollary 4.4 or Corollary 4.5. In the case of the basilica group, the squares e
a2
2
and e
b act trivially on [4] and have some trivial sections, so we may apply
Lemmas 4.7 and 4.8 to deduce that M = G, which contradicts the rank. In
general, we must work much harder.
5. Groups containing odometers
It is convenient to begin with our theorems on bounded automata groups
containing odometers.
Definition 5.1. An element d ∈ Aut(X ∗ ) is said to be an odometer if hdi
acts transitively on X and dx ∈ {1, d} for all x ∈ X with exactly one x ∈ X
such that dx = d.
In the course of proving these results, we upgrade Corollary 4.5, and the
resulting more powerful statement, Corollary 5.11, will be used frequently
in later sections.
5.1. Self-replicating groups. This preliminary section shows that bounded
automata groups containing an odometer are close to being self-replicating.
We begin by characterizing self-replication for generalized basilica groups.
Lemma 5.2. Suppose that h ∈ Aut(X ∗ ) is such that hx ∈ {1, h} for all
x ∈ X with at most one x such that hx = h. For any w, v ∈ X and j ∈ Z
for which hj (v) = w, there is i such that hi (v) = w and (hi )v = 1 and
0 ≤ |i| < |X|.
Proof. If no x ∈ X is such that hx = h, then the lemma is immediate.
Suppose there is a unique x ∈ X with hx = h. Choose j with |j| ≥ 0 least
such that hj (v) = w. If (hj )v = 1, we are done. Otherwise, it is the case
that (hj )v = h±1 , since we chose |j| least. As that cases are similar, let us
suppose that (hj )v = h (i.e., j > 0).
Let O be the orbit of x under hhi. The word x is the unique element of
X for which h has a non-trivial section, so (hk )z = 1 for all z ∈ X \ O and
k ∈ Z. We deduce that v ∈ O. Take m ≥ 1 least such that hm fixes x and
observe that (hm )y = h for all y ∈ O. The element h−m hj = hj−m is thus
such that hj−m (v) = w and (hj−m )v = h−1 h = 1 and |j − m| < |X|.


16

KATE JUSCHENKO, BENJAMIN STEINBERG, AND PHILLIP WESOLEK

Lemma 5.3. Suppose that G = hY i ≤ Aut(X ∗ ) is a generalized basilica
group and let O be an orbit of G on X. For all x ∈ O, it is then the case
that secG (x) = hY ′ i where Y ′ is the collection of directed g ∈ Y such that
v g ∈ O.
Proof. Take d ∈ Y and let W1 , . . . , Wl list the orbits of hdi on O, for some
1 ≤ k ≤ n. For w, v ∈ Wj , there is some power i such that di (v) = w and
(di )v = 1 by Lemma 5.2. Plainly, di G(v) d−i = G(w) , and we deduce that
secG (w) = (di )v secG (v)((di )v )−1 .
Hence, secG (w) = secG (v), since (di )v = 1. We conclude that secG (w) =
secG (v) for all w, v ∈ Wj and 1 ≤ j ≤ l. Since G = hY i and acts transitively
on O, it follows that secG (v) = secG (w) for all v, w ∈ O.
For x ∈ O and h ∈ Y , the section hx is an element of hY ′ i. Inducting
on the word length, one sees that gx ∈ hY ′ i for all g ∈ G, so a fortiori
secG (x) ≤ hY ′ i. On the other hand, for d ∈ Y ′ , take n ≥ 1 least such that
dn fixes v d . The section of dn at v d is d, so d ∈ secG (v d ) = secG (x). We
conclude that hY ′ i = secG (x) for all x ∈ O, verifying the lemma.

Proposition 5.4. For G = hY i ≤ Aut(X ∗ ) a generalized basilica group, G
is self-replicating if and only if G is generated by the directed elements of Y
and G acts transitively on X.
Proof. Suppose first that G is self-replicating. By definition, G acts transitively on X. Fix x ∈ X and let Z ⊆ Y be the directed elements. An easy
induction argument shows that gx ∈ hZi for all g ∈ G. We deduce that
G = secG (x) ≤ hZi ≤ G, and thus, G is generated by Z.
For the converse, let Z be the directed elements of Y . Since G acts
transitively on X, secG (x) = hZi for all x ∈ X by Lemma 5.3. As hZi = G,
we deduce that secG (x) = G.

A version of Proposition 5.4 holds for bounded automata groups with
odometers.
Proposition 5.5. Suppose that G = hY i ≤ Aut(X ∗ ) is a bounded automata
group in reduced form. If G is self-replicating, then G is generated by
Z := {dx | d ∈ Y is directed and x ∈ X}.
The converse holds if G contains an odometer.
Proof. Suppose first that G is self-replicating. Fix x ∈ X. An easy induction
argument shows that gx ∈ hZi for all g ∈ G. We deduce that G = secG (x) ≤
hZi ≤ G, and thus, G is generated by Z.
For the converse, let h ∈ G be an odometer. Immediately, we see that G
acts transitively on X. For each x and y ∈ X distinct, Lemma 5.2 supplies
i such that hi (x) = y and (hi )x = 1. Fixing x ∈ X, for any g ∈ G and
y ∈ X, there are i and j such that hj ghi fixes x and (hj ahi )x = gy . The
image of the section homomorphism secG (x) = φx (G(x) ) therefore contains

ON ELEMENTARY AMENABLE BOUNDED AUTOMATA GROUPS

17

all sections gy for g ∈ G and y ∈ X. In particular, secG (x) contains Z, so
secG (x) = G. We conclude that G is self-replicating.

Our final preliminary lemma shows that one can easily reduce to the group
generated by the set Z.
Lemma 5.6. Suppose that G = hY i ≤ Aut(X ∗ ) is a bounded automata
group in reduced form. Letting Z := {dx | d ∈ Y is directed and x ∈ X},
the group hZi is a bounded automata group in reduced form, and
G ֒→ Sym(X) ⋉ hZiX .
Proof. That hZi is a bounded automata group in reduced form is immediate.
For each x ∈ X and h ∈ Y , it follows the section hx is an element of
Z. Inducting on the word length, one sees that gx ∈ hZi for all g ∈ G and
x ∈ X. The map
G → Sym(X) ⋉ hZiX
given by g 7→ π1 (g)((gx )x∈X ) is thus well-defined. One verifies that this map
is also a monomorphism.

5.2. Generalized basilica groups.
Lemma 5.7. Suppose that G = hY i ≤ Aut(X ∗ ) is a self-replicating generalized basilica group that is non-abelian. If H E G is weakly self-replicating
and G/H is abelian, then G/H is finite.
Proof. In view of Proposition 5.4, we may assume that Y consists of directed
elements.
Suppose first that k ∈ Y does not act transitively on X and let n ≥ 1 be
least such that kn fixes X. There is some x ∈ X such that (kn )x = 1, and
there is y ∈ X such that (kn )y = ki for some i ≥ 1. Applying Lemma 4.7,
we conclude that (kn )y = ki ∈ H. Hence, k is torsion in G/H.
We next consider h ∈ Y that acts transitively on X. Suppose toward a
contradiction that hi ∈
/ H for all i ≥ 1. Fix k ∈ Y \ {h−1 } and fix y ∈ X
such that k(y) 6= y and ky = 1. By Lemma 5.2, there is |X| > |i| ≥ 1 such
that hi k(y) = y and (hi )k(y) = 1. The element hi k has non-trivial sections
exactly at some x1 , . . . , xl in X where l ∈ {|i|, |i| + 1}, since hi has |i| many
non-trivial sections (all equal to h or h−1 ) and k has one non-trivial section.
Say that x1 is the element of X at which the section of hi k is of the form
ak for a ∈ {1, h±1 }.
Suppose there is some xj such that xj and x1 lie in different orbits of the
cyclic group hhi ki acting on X. Let m ≥ 1 be least such that (hi k)m fixes xj .
The section ((hi k)m )xj is of the form hr for some 1 ≤ |r| ≤ i. The element
(hi k)m also fixes y and has a trivial section at y. Applying Lemma 4.7, we
deduce that hr ∈ H, which is absurd. It is thus the case that all xj lie in
the same orbit of hhi ki acting on X. Take m ≥ 1 least such that (hi k)m
fixes x1 and observe that ((hi k)m )x1 = hi k. Applying again Lemma 4.7, we
conclude that hi k ∈ H.

18

KATE JUSCHENKO, BENJAMIN STEINBERG, AND PHILLIP WESOLEK

For any other y ′ ∈ X such that k(y ′ ) 6= y ′ and ky′ = 1, the same argument
gives |X| > |j| ≥ 1 such that hj k(y ′ ) = y ′ and hj k ∈ H. Thus, hj−i =
hj kk−1 h−i ∈ H. In view of our reductio assumption, we conclude that
i = j. Therefore, hi k fixes all y ∈ X such that k(y) 6= y and ky = 1.
Say that k fixes x and kx = 1. Letting l ≥ 1 be least such that kl fixes
v k , Lemma 4.7 implies that k ∈ H. Since hi k is also in H, hi ∈ H, which is
absurd. We conclude that k fixes no x such that kx = 1. The element hi k
must then fix all y ∈ X \ {v k }, so hi k fixes X. The subgroup H contains
all sections of hi k, since it is weakly self-similar, so if i > 1 or i = 1 and
vh 6= k(vk ), then h ∈ H, which we assume to be false. The element hk
therefore fixes X, and (hk)vk = hk. It follows that hk = 1. This concludes
the reductio argument, since k 6= h−1 .
We have now established that every element k ∈ Y is such that ki ∈ H
for some i, hence G/H is finite.

Theorem 5.8. Suppose that G = hY i ≤ Aut(X ∗ ) is a generalized basilica
group. If G contains an odometer, then either G is virtually abelian or G is
not elementary amenable.
Proof. Without loss of generality, we may assume that Y contains π1 (G)∩G.
Let K be the subgroup generated by the directed members of Y . The subgroup K equals hZi where Z is as in Lemma 5.6, so in view of Lemma 5.6, K
is virtually abelian if and only if G is virtually abelian. By replacing G with
K if needed, we assume that each element of Y is directed. Proposition 5.4
now ensures that G is self-replicating.
Let us suppose toward a contradiction that G is elementary amenable but
not virtually abelian. Applying Corollary 4.4, there is H E G such that H
is weakly self-replicating, rk(H) + 1 = rk(G), and G/H is either finite or
abelian. In the case that G/H is abelian, Lemma 5.7 ensures that G/H is
in fact finite. The group G thus admits a weakly self-replicating H E G
such that rk(H) + 1 = rk(G) and G/H is finite. Since H E G is of finite
index, Corollary 4.5 supplies a weakly self-replicating A E G such that G/A
is virtually abelian and rk(A) + 2 = rk(G).
Fix h ∈ G such that h is an odometer and form L := Ahhi. For each x and
y ∈ X distinct, Lemma 5.2 supplies i such that hi (x) = y and (hi )x = 1.
Fixing x ∈ X, for any a ∈ A and y ∈ X, there are i and j such that
hj ahi fixes x and (hj ahi )x = ay . The image of the section homomorphism
secL (x) = φx (L(x) ) therefore contains all sections of A.
For any k ∈ Y , there is some a ∈ A such that a(k(v k )) 6= k(v k ), by
Lemma 4.6. The element k−1 ak is a member of A, and (k−1 ak)vk = ak(vk ) k.
The group secL (x) thus contains ak(vk ) k and ak(vk ) . Hence, k ∈ secL (x), and
we deduce that secL (x) = G. On the other hand, A(x) E L(x) , and L(x) /A(x)
is abelian. Thus, A = secA (x) E secL (x) = G, so G/A is abelian. This
implies that rk(G) = rk(A) + 1 which is absurd.


ON ELEMENTARY AMENABLE BOUNDED AUTOMATA GROUPS

19

Example 5.9. Let G := he
a, ebi ≤ Aut([4]∗ ) be the basilica group in the reduced form as given in Example 3.11. The elements e
a and eb in wreath recursion have the following form: e
a = (23)(1, 1, 1, e
a ) and eb = (02)(13)(1, 1, 1, eb).
We now see that
e
aeb−1 = (23)(1, 1, 1, e
a )(02)(13)(1, eb−1 , 1, 1) = (0312)(1, e
ae
b−1 , 1, 1).

Hence, e
ae
b−1 is an odometer, so G contains an odometer. Theorem 5.8 now
gives a second proof that G is not elementary amenable.
5.3. Technical results revisited.

Lemma 5.10. Suppose that G = hY i ≤ Aut(X ∗ ) is a self-replicating
bounded automata group in reduced form. If G is elementary amenable but
not virtually abelian, then there is a weakly self-replicating M E G such that
G/M is finite and rk(M ) + 1 = rk(G)
Proof. In view of Lemma 3.1, if G is in reduced form, then rk (G) ≤ Aut((X k )∗ )
is again in reduced form for any k ≥ 1. By passing to r2 (G), we may thus
assume that |X| > 2.
By Corollary 4.4, there is a weakly self-replicating N E G such that G/N
is either finite or abelian and rk(N ) + 1 = rk(G). Suppose that G/N is
abelian. We will argue that G/N is finite. Letting F be the collection of
finitary elements of G, we will in fact show that F N is of finite index in G.
This suffices to prove the theorem as F is locally finite, and hence G/N will
have a locally finite subgroup of finite index, and hence is finite.
Fix d ∈ Y directed and suppose first that hdi does not act transitively
on X. Let x ∈ X be such that dx = d and y ∈ X be such that y is not in
the orbit of x under hdi. Taking m ≥ 1 to be least such that dm fixes X, it
follows that (dm )x = (f d)i for some i ≥ 1 and f finitary and (dm )y = r for r
some finitary. Since G is self-replicating, there is h ∈ G such that h(y) = x
and hy = 1. The commutator [h, d−m ] is an element of N , and
[h, d−m ]x = r −1 (f d)i ,
which is an element of N as N is weakly self-replicating. Since G/N is
abelian, it follows that di ∈ F N .
Now suppose that d ∈ Y acts transitively on X. In view of Theorem 5.8,
there must be a non-trivial finitary element f ∈ Y . We may find a power
n := |X| > i ≥ 1 such that di f fixes some x ∈ X. This presents two cases:
(di f )x is finitary or (di f )x = rdr ′ for r and r ′ finitary. The cases are similar,
so we only consider the latter. Recall that n > 2. If i = n − 1, then d−1 f
fixes x, so we replace d with d−1 . We may thus assume that n − 1 > i.
Replace di with dj where j := i − n and note that 1 < |j|. The sections of
j
d f have three possible forms: finitary, rdr ′ d−1 r ′′ with r, r ′ , and r ′′ finitary,
or rd−1 r ′ with r and r ′ finitary. The section (dj f )x is of the form rdr ′ d−1 r ′′ ,
and since i < n − 1, there is some y ∈ X such that (dj f )y = sd−1 s′ with s
and s′ finitary elements.

20

KATE JUSCHENKO, BENJAMIN STEINBERG, AND PHILLIP WESOLEK

Let k be least such that (dj f )k fixes y. Since G is self-replicating, there
is h ∈ G such that h(x) = y and hx = 1. The commutator [(dj f )k , h] is an
element of N , and
[(dj f )k , h]y = ak . . . a1 ((dj f )x )−k ,
where each ai has one of aforementioned forms, (dj f )x has the form rdr ′ d−1 r ′′
and a1 = ((dj f )k )y is of the form sd−1 s′ .
Since G/N is abelian, the ai of the form rdr ′ d−1 r ′′ are equal to a finitary modulo N . We may thus write [(dj f )k , h]y mod N = b1 . . . bm mod N
where each bi is either finitary or of the form sd−1 s′ . Commuting the finitaries to the left modulo N , we see that [(dj f )k , h]y mod N = f ′ d−l mod N
for f a finitary and l non-zero. On the other hand, [(dj f )k , h]y ∈ N since
N is weakly self-replicating. It now follows that dl ∈ F N .
We have now demonstrated that every z ∈ Y admits l such that z l ∈ F N .
Hence, F N is of finite index in G as G/N is finitely generated abelian. 
In view of Corollary 4.5, Lemma 5.10 yields the following consequence.
Corollary 5.11. Suppose that G ≤ Aut(X ∗ ) is a self-replicating bounded
automata group. If G is elementary amenable but not virtually abelian, then
there are weakly self-replicating subgroups N E G and M E G such that
(1) N ≤ M , M/N is abelian, and G/M is finite; and
(2) rk(M ) + 1 = rk(N ) + 2 = rk(G).
Corollary 5.11 ensures that various examples of elementary amenable
groups do not have faithful representations as self-replicating bounded automata groups.
Proposition 5.12. Suppose that G is an elementary amenable group that is
not virtually abelian. If every finite index subgroup has the same rank as G,
then G has no faithful representation as a self-replicating bounded automata
group.
Proof. Suppose for contradiction G has a faithful representation as a selfreplicating bounded automata group. Appealing to Corollary 3.7, we may
assume that G ≤ Aut(X ∗ ) is a representation of G as a bounded automata
group in reduced form. Lemma 5.10 now implies that G has a finite index
subgroup of lower rank. This contradicts our hypotheses.

Corollary 5.13. The groups A ≀ Z where A is a non-trivial abelian group do
not have faithful representations as self-replicating bounded automata groups.
Corollary 5.13 is rather interesting because the classical lamplighter group
Z/2Z ≀ Z does have representations as a self-replicating group [18, cf. Proposition 1.9.1] (see also [22] where Z/2Z is replaced by an arbitrary finite
abelian group), and on the other hand, Example 9.3 below shows it has
representations as a bounded automata group. However, one can never find
a representation which is simultaneously as a self-replicating group and as
a bounded automata group

ON ELEMENTARY AMENABLE BOUNDED AUTOMATA GROUPS

21

5.4. The general case.
Theorem 5.14. Suppose that G ≤ Aut(X ∗ ) is a bounded automata group.
If G contains an odometer, then either G is virtually abelian or G is not
elementary amenable.
Proof. Suppose toward a contradiction that G is elementary amenable but
not virtually abelian. Via Theorem 3.5, it is enough to consider G = hY i ≤
Aut(X ∗ ) to be in reduced form. Without loss of generality, we may assume
that Y contains an odometer h.
Setting Z := {dx | d ∈ Y is directed and x ∈ X}, Lemma 5.6 implies that H := hZi is a bounded automata group in reduced form, and
G ֒→ Sym(X) ⋉ H X . Moreover, h ∈ Z, so H contains an odometer and
is elementary amenable but not virtually abelian. Proposition 5.5 further
implies that H is self-replicating.
Applying Corollary 5.11, there is a weakly self-replicating M E H such
that H/M is virtually abelian and rk(M ) + 2 = rk(H). Using the odometer
h ∈ H, set L := M hhi. For each u and w ∈ X 2 distinct, Lemma 5.2 supplies
i such that hi (u) = w and (hi )u = 1. Fixing v ∈ X 2 , for any m ∈ M and
w ∈ X 2 , there are i and j such that hj mhi fixes v and (hj mhi )v = mw . The
image of the section homomorphism secL (v) = φv (L(v) ) therefore contains
mw for every m ∈ M and w ∈ X 2 .
For any directed k ∈ Y and x ∈ X the active vertex of k, there is some
a ∈ M such that ak(x) 6= k(x), by Lemma 4.6. The section (k−1 )ak(x) is
finitary of depth one, so
(k−1 )ak(x)x′ = ((k−1 )ak(x) )x′ = 1
for any x′ ∈ X. The element k −1 ak is a member of M , and for any y ∈ X,
(k−1 ak)xy = (k−1 )ak(x)ak(x) (k(y)) ak(x)k(y) ky = ak(x)k(y) ky
The group secL (v) thus contains ak(x)k(y) ky and ak(x)k(y) . Hence, ky ∈
secL (v). We deduce that Z ⊆ secL (v), so secL (v) = H. On the other hand,
M(v) E L(v) , and L(v) /M(v) is abelian. Since M = secM (v) E secL (v) = H,
we deduce that H/M is abelian. Therefore, rk(H) = rk(M ) + 1 which is
absurd.

6. Kneading automata groups
6.1. Preliminaries. For a permutation σ ∈ Sym(X), a complete cycle
decomposition of σ is a cycle decomposition including all length one cycles.
Definition 6.1. Let X be a finite set and α = (σ1 , . . . , σn ) be a sequence
of permutations of X. Say that each σi has complete cycle decomposition
ci,1 . . . ci,ki . We define the cycle graph of α, denoted by Γα , as follows:
V Γα := X ⊔ {(i, j) | 1 ≤ i ≤ n and 1 ≤ j ≤ ki }
and
EΓα := {{(i, j), x} | x appears in ci,j } .

22

KATE JUSCHENKO, BENJAMIN STEINBERG, AND PHILLIP WESOLEK

The graph Γ is a bipartite graph with bipartition consisting of X and
C := {(i, j) | 1 ≤ i ≤ n and 1 ≤ j ≤ ki }. Some authors define the cycle
graph using only non-trivial cycles. We allow trivial cycles to make our
discussion more streamlined later. Allowing for trivial cycles only adds
leaves to the graph. In particular, these leaves to do affect whether or not
the cycle graph is a tree.
Definition 6.2. For X a finite set, a finite sequence α of elements of Sym(X)
is called tree-like if the cycle graph is a tree.
We will find tree-like sequences in the definition of kneading automata
groups. Let us note several facts for later use.
Lemma 6.3. If (σ1 , . . . , σn ) is a tree-like sequence of permutations of a
finite set X, then H := hσ1 , . . . , σn i acts transitively on X.
Proof. First note that if x, x′ ∈ X are connected by a path of length 2, then
they belong to a cycle of some σi and are hence in the same orbit of H.
Since the cycle graph Γ is bipartite, and hence any path between elements
of X decomposes as a composition of length two paths of the above sort, H
is transitive by the connectivity of Γ.

For a permutation σ ∈ Sym(X), we denote the collection of fixed points
in X of σ by fix(σ).
Lemma 6.4 ([11, Lemma 6.5]). Let X be a finite set and α = (σ1 , . . . , σn )
be a tree-like sequence of permutations of X. Then
(1) For any i 6= j, |fix(σi )| + |fix(σj )| ≥ 2.
(2) If |fix(σi )| + |fix(σj )| ≤ 3 for some i 6= j, then σk = 1 for all k ∈
/
{i, j}.
6.2. Kneading automata. A set Y ⊆ Aut(X ∗ ) is called self-similar if
gx ∈ Y for every x ∈ X and g ∈ Y .
Definition 6.5. We say that G ≤ Aut(X ∗ ) is a kneading automata
group if G admits a finite self-similar generating set Y such that the following hold:
(1) For each non-trivial h ∈ Y , there is a unique g ∈ Y and x ∈ X such
that gx = h.
(2) For each h ∈ Y and each cycle (x1 . . . xn ) of π1 (h), possibly of length
one, there is at most one 1 ≤ i ≤ n such that hxi 6= 1.
(3) The sequence (π1 (h))h∈Y \{1} is tree-like.
We call Y a distinguished generating set and write G = hY i ≤ Aut(X ∗ )
to indicate that Y is a distinguished generating set for G.
A straightforward verification shows that a kneading automata group is
a bounded automata group. Furthermore, kneading automata groups naturally arise in the study of iterated monodromy groups.

ON ELEMENTARY AMENABLE BOUNDED AUTOMATA GROUPS

23

Theorem 6.6 (Nekrashevych, [18, Theorem 6.10.8]). Every iterated monodromy group of a post-critically finite polynomial has a faithful representation as a kneading automata group
Kneading automata groups enjoy several useful properties.
Lemma 6.7. If G = hY i ≤ Aut(X ∗ ) is a kneading automata group, then
G ≤ Aut(X ∗ ) is a self-replicating bounded automata group
Proof. To see that G is self-replicating, we must verify that G acts transitively on X and the section homomorphisms are onto for every x ∈ X.
Since (π1 (y))g∈Y \{1} is tree-like, π1 (G) acts transitively on X, so G acts on
X transitively.
To see that the section homomorphisms are onto, we first argue that for
each v, w ∈ X, there is k ∈ G such that k(v) = w with kv = 1. Fix g ∈ Y
and say that {O1 , . . . , On } lists the orbits of hgi on X. Take v, w ∈ Oi and
fix |j| ≥ 1 least such that g j (v) = w. If (g j )v = 1, we are done, so let us
suppose that (g j )v is non-trivial. By the definition of a kneading automata
group, there is a most one z ∈ Oi such that gz is non-trivial. Say that gz = h
and let m ≥ 1 be least such that gm fixes z. The element g m fixes Oi and
(gm )u = h for every u ∈ Oi . On the other hand, (gj )v = h±1 , since we chose
j with |j| least. Either gj−m or gj+m , depending on the sign of (gj )v , then
sends v to w with trivial section at v.
For an arbitrary v, w ∈ X, there is a word γ = gnin . . . g1i1 with gk 6=
gk+1 ∈ Y such that γ(v) = w. We may further assume that Σnj=1 |ij | is least
among all such words γ. The image g1i1 (v) lies in the orbit of v under hg1 i.
Appealing to the previous paragraph, we may replace g1i1 , if necessary, with
g1i1 ±mi for some mi such that that g1i1 ±mi (v) = g1i1 (v) and (g1i1 ±mi )v = 1.
Doing this for each gj as necessary, we produce a new word γ ′ such that
γ ′ (v) = w and (γ ′ )v = 1.
Fix x ∈ X and let g ∈ Y . By the definition of a kneading automata
group, there is h ∈ Y and z ∈ X such that hz = g. The previous paragraph
supplies γ and δ such that γ(x) = z with γx = 1 and δ(h(z)) = x with
δh(z) = 1. The element δhγ fixes x, and
(δhγ)x = δh(z) hz γx = hz = g.
The image φx (G(x) ) of the section homomorphism at x thus contains Y . We
conclude that φx (G(x) ) = G, and G is self-replicating.

In addition to self-replication, kneading automata groups enjoy a robustness property. Specifically, the representation rk (G) is again a kneading
automata group, for any k ≥ 1. This was proved in [18, Proposition 6.7.5]
using the dual automaton and a topological argument; here we provide a
simple counting argument.
Lemma 6.8 ([18, Proposition 6.7.5]). If G = hY i ≤ Aut(X ∗ ) is a kneading
automata group, then

24

KATE JUSCHENKO, BENJAMIN STEINBERG, AND PHILLIP WESOLEK

(1) for all k ≥ 1, rk (G) = hrk (Y )i ≤ Aut((X k )∗ ) is a kneading automata
group;
(2) there is k ≥ 1 such that rk (G) = hrk (Y )i ≤ Aut((X k )∗ ) is a kneading
automata group in reduced form.
In particular, every kneading automata group has a faithful representation
as a kneading automata group in reduced form.
Proof. For any k, conditions (1) and (2) of the definition of a kneading
automata group are easily verified to hold for rk (G). To prove (3), we show
that (πk (y))y∈Y \{1} is a tree-like sequence in Sym(X k ) for any k ≥ 1. We use
that a finite connected graph is a tree if and only if it has Euler characteristic
1. Set Z := Y \ {1}
Let us begin by making several observations. Let Γi be the cycle graph
of (πi (y))y∈Z . Define li : Z → N by setting li (g) to be the number of orbits
of hgi on X i . For g ∈ Z, let Yg,i := {gx | x ∈ X i } \ {1}. As G is a kneading
automata group, it follows that Z = ⊔g∈Z Yg,i .
We observe that the functions li+1 are defined in terms of l1 and li . Fix
g ∈ Z. The difference li (g) − |Yg,i | is the number of orbits O of hgi on X i
such that gx = 1 for every x ∈ O. For each such orbit O and x ∈ X, the
set of words Ox is an orbit of hgi on X i+1 . There are thus |X|(li (g) − |Yg,i |)
many orbits of hgi on X i+1 of this type. For any other orbit O, let h ∈ Yg,i
be the non-trivial section of g for some x ∈ O; the orbit O for a given h is
unique. For any W an orbit of hhi acting on X, the argument in the second
paragraph of the proof of Lemma 6.7 (which only uses conditions (1) and
(2) of a kneading automata group) shows that OW is an orbit of hgi acting
on X i+1 . We conclude that
X
li+1 (g) = |X| (li (g) − |Yg,i |) +
l1 (h).
h∈Yg,i

Note further that Γi is connected for every i, since G acts transitively on
X i . Additionally,
X
li (g) and |EΓi | = |Z||X|i .
|V Γi | = |X|i +
g∈Z

We now argue by strong induction on i ≥ 1 for the claim that (πi (y))y∈Z is
a tree-like sequence. The base case holds by definition. Suppose (πi (y))y∈Z
is a tree-like sequence for all i ≤ k. To verify the inductive claim, it suffices
to show that |V Γk+1 | − |EΓk+1 | = 1.
The inductive hypothesis ensures that
X
li (g) = |Z||X|i − |X|i + 1
g∈Z

for any i ≤ k. For k + 1, we have
|V Γk+1 | = |X|k+1 +

X

g∈Z

lk+1 (g).

ON ELEMENTARY AMENABLE BOUNDED AUTOMATA GROUPS

25

In view of the relationship between the functions li , we substitute to obtain


P
P
|V Γk+1 | = |X|k+1 + g∈Z |X| (lk (g) − |Yg,k |) + h∈Yg,k l1 (h)
P
P
= |X|k+1 + |X| g∈Z lk (g) − |X||Z| + g∈Z l1 (g)
= |X|k+1 + |X|k+1 |Z| − |X|k+1 + |X| − |X||Z| + |Z||X| − |X| + 1
= |X|k+1 |Z| + 1.
Hence, |V Γk+1 | − |EΓk+1 | = 1, as required. Therefore, rk (G) is kneading
automata group.
Lemma 6.7 ensures that G is a self-replicating bounded automata group,
and by Corollary 3.7, there is k such that rk (G) is in reduced form. Hence,
rk (G) is a kneading automata group in reduced form.

6.3. Elementary amenable kneading automata groups. We begin by
extracting a result from the proof of [11, Theorem 8.2]. For g ∈ Aut(X ∗ ),
let fixk (g) be the collection of fixed points of hgi acting on X k .
Lemma 6.9. Let G = hY i ≤ Aut(X ∗ ) be a kneading automata group in
reduced form with |X| > 3. If there are distinct g and h in Y such that
|fix1 (g)| + |fix1 (h)| = 2, then either
(1) |fix2 (g ′ )| + |fix2 (h′ )| > 3 for all distinct, non-trivial g′ and h′ in Y ,
or
(2) G is the infinite dihedral group.
Proof. Since G is self-replicating, it is infinite. Suppose that (1) fails. Say
that g ′ and h′ in Y are such that |fix2 (g′ )| + |fix2 (h′ )| ≤ 3. Lemma 6.8 tells
us that r2 (G) is a kneading automata group, so Lemma 6.4 implies that
π2 (d) acts trivially on X 2 for all d ∈ Y \ {g′ , h′ }. If h or g is an element of
Y \ {g ′ , h′ }, then h or g fixes X, which contradicts that |fix1 (g)| + |fix1 (h)| =
2. We conclude that {g, h} = {g ′ , h′ }. In particular, |fix2 (g)| ≤ 3 and
|fix2 (h)| ≤ 3.
As G is in reduced form, all finitary elements of Y have depth one, so
there are no non-trivial finitary elements in Y \ {g, h}, since all elements of
Y \ {g, h} act trivially on X. If d ∈ Y \ {g, h} is directed, then the previous
paragraph ensures that it fixes X 2 . Every section dx for x ∈ X \ {v d } is
trivial where v d is the active vertex for d on level one, as d fixes X 2 . The
element d therefore acts trivially on X ∗ , and d = 1. Hence, Y = {g, h, 1}.
Take Γ the cycle graph for (π1 (g), π1 (h)) and set n := |X|. Let Kg and
Kh be the number of non-trivial cycles in g and h, respectively, and Fg and
Fh be the number of trivial cycles in g and h, respective. Euler’s formula
for trees implies that |V Γ| − |EΓ| = 1. In view of the definition of Γ, we see
that
|V Γ| = n + Kg + Fg + Kh + Fh
and |EΓ| = 2n. Therefore, Kg +Kh = n−1. Observe that |fix1 (g)∪fix1 (h)| =
2, as G = hg, hi acts transitively on X and hence g, h do not have a common
fixed point. If fix1 (g)∪fix1 (h) = {x, x′ }, then it follows that every element of
X \{x, x′ } belongs to both a non-trivial cycle of π1 (g) and a non-trivial cycle

26

KATE JUSCHENKO, BENJAMIN STEINBERG, AND PHILLIP WESOLEK

of π1 (h) and x, x′ each belong to a non-trivial cycle of exactly one of π1 (g)
or π1 (h). It follows that 2n − 2 ≥ 2Kg + 2Kh with equality if and only if
π1 (g), π1 (h) are both products of disjoint two-cycles in their respective cycle
decompositions (omitting trivial cycles). As Kg +Kh = n−1, we deduce that
π1 (g) and π1 (h) are products of disjoint two-cycles, so |π1 (g)| = |π1 (h)| = 2.
We now have two cases: (a) Y contains a non-trivial finitary element, and
(b) Y contains no non-trivial finitary element. For case (a), suppose that g is
finitary. The element g therefore has order two, since G is in reduced form.
If g fixes a point u ∈ X, then g must fix pointwise uX in X 2 , since gu = 1.
This implies that |fix2 (g)| > 3, which is absurd. We conclude that g acts
fixed point freely on X, so h fixes two points v1 , v2 of X. If some hvi = 1,
then h fixes vi X contradicting that |fix2 (h)| ≤ 3. Since G is a kneading
automata group with self-similar generating set Y = {g, h, 1}, we deduce
that, up to relabelling, hv1 = h, hv2 = g and all other sections of h are
trivial. Since π1 (h) is a product of disjoint two-cycles and g is an involution,
it now follows that h2 = 1. Hence, G is an infinite dihedral group.
For case (b), both g and h are directed, and as Y is self-similar, neither g
nor h has non-trivial finitary sections. Take u ∈ X \ {v g }. If g fixes u, then
|fix2 (g)| > 3, since gu = 1; this is absurd. The only possible fixed point of g
in X is its active vertex v g . Likewise, the only possible fixed point of h in
X is its active vertex v h . Therefore, g fixes v g , and h fixes v h . We conclude
that g and h are torsion with |g| = |h| = 2. The group G is thus infinite
and generated by two involutions, so G is an infinite dihedral group.

We are now ready to prove the desired theorem.
Theorem 6.10. Suppose that G = hY i ≤ Aut(X ∗ ) is a kneading automata
group. If G is elementary amenable, then G is virtually abelian.
Proof. Suppose toward a contradiction that G is not virtually abelian. We
begin with several reductions. In view of Lemma 6.7, G is a self-replicating
bounded automata group, and by Lemma 6.8, we may assume that G is in
reduced form. By passing to r2 (G), where r2 : Aut(X ∗ ) → Aut((X 2 )∗ ) is the
canonical inclusion, we may assume that |X| > 3. If g, h ∈ Y are distinct
elements such that |fix1 (g)| + |fix1 (h)| = 2, then Lemma 6.9 ensures that
|fix2 (g′ )|+|fix2 (h′ )| > 3 for all distinct, non-trivial g′ and h′ in Y . Passing to
r2 (G) a second time, we may additionally assume that |fix1 (g)|+|fix1 (h)| > 3
for all distinct, non-trivial g and h in Y .
Applying Corollary 5.11, we obtain weakly self-replicating M E G and
F E G such that rk(M ) + 2 = rk(G) = rk(F ) + 1, M ≤ F , F/M is abelian,
and G/F is finite. By Lemma 4.8, F also acts transitively on X. We now
have two cases (1) every g ∈ Y fixes at least two points on X, and (2) some
unique g ∈ Y fixes one or fewer points on X.
Let us suppose first that every g ∈ Y has at least two fixed points. Fix
h ∈ Y directed. Since h fixes at least two points, we may find x ∈ X such
that h fixes x and hx =: σ is finitary. The section σ is again an element
of Y , so it fixes some x′ ∈ X, as it also fixes two points. The element h

ON ELEMENTARY AMENABLE BOUNDED AUTOMATA GROUPS

27

therefore fixes xx′ , and hxx′ = σx′ = 1, since G is in reduced form. Let v h
be the active vertex of h in X 2 and d ≥ 1 be least such that hd fixes v h . For
O the orbit of v h under hhi, that G is a kneading automata group ensures
that v h is the only element of O for which h has a non-trivial section. It
follows that (hd )vh = h. Since (hd ) also fixes xx′ , Lemma 4.7 implies that
h ∈ F.
For any non-trivial section hz of h, the definition of the kneading automata
ensures that hz is the only non-trivial section of h on the orbit for z under
hhi. Taking k ≥ 1 least such that hk fixes z, it follows that (hk )z = hz .
Recalling that F is weakly self-similar, we conclude that hz ∈ F . It now
follows from Proposition 5.5 (as G is self-replicating) that F = G, which
contradicts the rank of G.
Suppose next that there is a unique g ∈ Y that has at most one fixed
point on X. Fix h ∈ Y \ {g} directed. The element h has at least three
fixed points in X, so there is x ∈ X such that h fixes x, hx is finitary, and
hx 6= g. The section hx fixes some x′ ∈ X, as it differs from g. Hence, h fixes
xx′ , and hxx′ = 1. Just as in the previous case, it now follows that h ∈ F .
The quotient F/M is abelian, and F acts on X transitively. As Lemma 4.7
also applies in this setting, we can run the argument again to deduce that
h ∈ M , and as in the previous case, hx ∈ M for all x ∈ X. We conclude
that hx ∈ M for all x ∈ X and h ∈ Y \ {g}. The subgroup M therefore
contains Y \ ({gx | x ∈ X} ∪ {g}).
Let us now consider the element g. The quotient G/M cannot be abelian
because rk(G) = rk(M ) + 2 and so {gx | x ∈ X} ∪ {g} is not equal to
{1, g}. The element g thereby admits non-trivial finitary sections and, in
particular, is not, itself, finitary. Fix x ∈ X such that gx is a non-trivial
finitary element σ and note that σ ∈ Y \ {g} fixes a point x′ ∈ X.
Let d ≥ 1 be least such that gd fixes v := v g and let m ≥ 1 be least
such that gm fixes x. Since G is a kneading automaton group, and hence
each orbit of g has at most one non-trivial section, (g d )v = g and (gm )x =
2
2
σ. Observe that gd fixes vv, g m fixes xx′ (gm )xx′ = 1 and (gd )vv = g.
2
2
The element g d m thus fixes vv and xx′ . Moreover, (g d m )xx′ = 1 and
2
(gd m )vv = gm . Applying Lemma 4.7, we deduce that gm ∈ F . The element
2
gd m is therefore also in F , and since F/M is abelian, a second application of
Lemma 4.7 ensures that gm ∈ M . The element gm fixes x, and (g m )x = σ.
Therefore, σ ∈ M , since M is weakly self-similar. We conclude that M
contains every finitary section of g and hence Y \ {g}. The quotient G/M
is thus abelian, which contradicts the rank of G.


Theorems 6.6 and 6.10 yield an immediate corollary.
Corollary 6.11. Every iterated monodromy group of a post-critically finite
polynomial is either virtually abelian or not elementary amenable.

28

KATE JUSCHENKO, BENJAMIN STEINBERG, AND PHILLIP WESOLEK

7. Generalized basilica groups
Definition 7.1. We say that G ≤ Aut(X ∗ ) is a generalized basilica
group if G admits a finite generating set Y such that for every g ∈ Y
either gx = 1 for all x ∈ X or gx ∈ {1, g} for all x ∈ X with exactly one x
such that gx = g. We call Y a distinguished generating set and write
G = hY i ≤ Aut(X ∗ ) to indicate that Y is a distinguished generating set for
G.
A straightforward verification shows that a generalized basilica group is
a bounded automata group.
7.1. A reduction theorem. The reduction result established herein reduces many questions for generalized basilica groups to the self-replicating
case. It follows by induction on the number of directed elements of a distinguished generating set.
Our first lemma gives a tool to reduce to groups with possibly fewer
number of directed generators, based on the orbits of the group on the first
level of the tree.
Lemma 7.2. Suppose that G = hY i ≤ Aut(X ∗ ) is a generalized basilica
group, let O1 , . . . , On list the orbits of G on X, and let Yi ⊆ Y be the
collection of g ∈ Y such that v g ∈ Oi . For each i, hYi i ≤ Aut(X ∗ ) is a
generalized basilica group generated by directed elements, and
G ֒→

n
Y

Sym(Oi ) ⋉

n
Y

hYi iOi .

i=1

i=1

Aut(X ∗ )

Proof. That each hYi i ≤
is a generalized basilica group generated
by directed elements is immediate.
For each x ∈ Oi and h ∈ Y , the section hx is an element of hYi i. Inducting
on the word length, one sees that gx ∈ hYi i for all g ∈ G and x ∈ Oi .
Letting πQ
1 : G → Sym(X) be the induced homomorphism, we see that
π1 (G) ≤ n1=1 Sym(Oi ). We may now define
G→

n
Y
i=1

Sym(Oi ) ⋉

n
Y
hYi iOi .
i=1

by g 7→ π1 (g)((gx )x∈Oi )ni=1 . One verifies that this function is a monomorphism.

Our next lemmas address the case in which Lemma 7.2 does not reduce
the number of directed elements.
Lemma 7.3. Suppose that G = hY i ≤ Aut(X ∗ ) is a generalized basilica
group. If O ⊆ X is setwise preserved by the action of G on X, then O∗ is
setwise preserved by G, and the induced homomorphism φ : G → Aut(O ∗ ) is
such that φ(G) is a generalized basilica group with distinguished generating
set φ(Y ).

ON ELEMENTARY AMENABLE BOUNDED AUTOMATA GROUPS

29

Proof. That G is self-similar ensures that O ∗ is setwise preserved by G. Take
−1
◦ g ◦ ψw where ψv : X ∗ → vX ∗
g ∈ G and w ∈ O∗ . By definition, gw = ψg(w)
by x 7→ vx. The map φ is nothing but restriction to O ∗ , so we see that
−1
↾O∗ ◦g ↾O∗ ◦ψw ↾O∗ = φ(g)w .
φ(gw ) = (gw ) ↾O∗ = ψg(w)

It now follows that φ(G) ≤ Aut(O∗ ) is a generalized basilica group with
generating set φ(Y ).

We call the action of G on O ∗ a sub-basilica action of G induced from
X ∗.
Lemma 7.4. Let O ⊆ X and let G be the subgroup of Aut(X ∗ ) consisting
of those elements that fix O∗ pointwise and have trivial sections outside of
∗
O ∗ . Then G ∼
= Sym(X \ O)O and hence is locally finite.
Proof. It is clear that G is a subgroup of Aut(X ∗ ) since if f, g ∈ G and
w∈
/ O∗ , we have (f g)w = fg(w) gw = 1 as g(w) ∈
/ O ∗ . There is a well-known
∗
∗
set-theoretic bijection of Aut(X ) with Sym(X)X sending an element g to
∗
its ‘portrait’ (π1 (gw ))w∈X ∗ ∈ Sym(X)X . Put Y := X \ O. An element
g ∈ Aut(X ∗ ) belongs to G if and only if gw = 1 for w ∈
/ O∗ and π1 (gw ) ∈
∗
Sym(Y ) for w ∈ O (where Sym(Y ) is viewed as a subgroup of Sym(X)
∗
in the usual way). There is thus a bijection π : G → Sym(Y )O given by
π(g) = (π1 (gw ))w∈O∗ . The mapping π is a homomorphism because if f, g ∈
G and w ∈ O ∗ , then (f g)w = fg(w) gw = fw gw as g fixes O ∗ pointwise. This
proves the first statement. Since the variety of groups generated by any
∗

finite group is locally finite, it follows that Sym(Y )O is locally finite.
Lemma 7.5. Suppose that G = hY i ≤ Aut(X ∗ ) is a generalized basilica
group generated by directed elements. If there is an orbit O ⊆ X of G such
that v g ∈ O for all g ∈ Y , then the homomorphism φ : G → Aut(O ∗ ) induced
by the action G y O ∗ enjoys the following properties:
(1) φ(G) is a self-replicating generalized basilica group with generating
set φ(Y ), and
(2) ker(φ) is locally finite.
Proof. For (1), Lemma 7.3 ensures that φ(G) ≤ Aut(O∗ ) is a generalized
basilica group with generating set φ(Y ). Lemma 5.3 implies that secG (v) =
G for all v ∈ O, so secφ(G) (v) = φ(G) for all v ∈ O. Since G acts transitively
on O, φ(G) is self-replicating.
For (2), clearly ker(φ) fixes O∗ pointwise. Since v g ∈ O for all g ∈ Y ,
it follows that fv = 1 for all v ∈ X \ O and f ∈ G. As G is self-similar,
it follows that fw = 1 for all f ∈ G and w ∈
/ O∗ . Indeed, we may write
∗
∗
w = uav with u ∈ O , a ∈ X \ O, and v ∈ X , so fw = ((fu )a )v = 1v = 1.
∗
Thus, ker(φ) is isomorphic to a subgroup of Sym(X \ O)O , and hence is
locally finite, by Lemma 7.4.

Bringing together our lemmas produces the desired reduction theorem.
To state our main theorem in full generality requires a definition.

30

KATE JUSCHENKO, BENJAMIN STEINBERG, AND PHILLIP WESOLEK

Definition 7.6. Suppose that Q is a property of generalized basilica groups.
We say that Q is a sub-basilica stable property if for every generalized
basilica group G = hY i ≤ Aut(X ∗ ) with property Q, the following holds: For
every generalized basilica group of the form hY ′ i ≤ Aut(X ∗ ) with Y ′ ⊂ Y ,
g′ i induced by a sub-basilica action of hY ′ i
any generalized basilica group hY
has property Q. In particular, hY ′ i has Q.

Observe that any property of groups stable under passing to subgroups
and quotients is sub-basilica stable.
Theorem 7.7. Let Q be a sub-basilica stable property and suppose that P is
a property of groups enjoyed by abelian groups and stable under taking subgroups, finite direct products, and P -by-finite groups. If every self-replicating
generalized basilica group with property Q has property P , then every generalized basilica group with property Q is (locally finite)-by-P .
Proof. Suppose that G = hY i ≤ Aut(X ∗ ) is a generalized basilica group with
property Q. We argue by induction on the number of directed elements in Y ,
denoted by δ(Y ), for the theorem. If δ(Y ) ≤ 1, then G is virtually abelian
by Lemma 5.6, and we are done. Suppose the theorem holds up to n and
say that δ(Y ) = n + 1. Let O1 , . . . , Ol list the orbits of G on X and let
Yi ⊆ Y be the collection of directed d ∈ Y such that v d ∈ Oi . Lemma 7.2
supplies an injection
G ֒→

l
Y
i=1

Sym(Oi ) ⋉

l
Y

HiOi .

i=1

It is enough to show that each Hi is (locally finite)-by-P
Each Hi ≤ Aut(X ∗ ) is again a generalized basilica group with property
Q, since Q is sub-basilica stable. If no Oi contains v d for every directed
d ∈ Y , each Hi is such that δ(Yi ) < n + 1. The inductive hypothesis then
ensures that each Hi is (locally finite)-by-P .
Suppose some Oi contains v d for every directed d ∈ Y . Without loss
of generality, i = 1, so Hj = {1} for j > 1. Clearly each Hj with j > 1
is (locally finite)-by-P . We apply Lemma 7.5 to the group H1 . Letting
K := ker(H1 y O1∗ ), Lemma 7.5 ensures that H1 /K ≤ Aut(O1∗ ) is a selfreplicating generalized basilica group, and K is locally finite. Since H1 /K
is the group induced by a sub-basilica action, H1 /K has property Q, hence
H1 /K has property P . We conclude that H1 is (locally finite)-by-P .

We can do better for torsion-free bounded automata groups. The proof
is essentially the same as that of Theorem 7.7, so we leave it to the reader.
Theorem 7.8. Suppose that P is a property of groups enjoyed by abelian
groups and stable under taking subgroups, finite direct products, and P -byfinite groups. If every self-replicating torsion-free bounded automata group
has property P , then every torsion-free bounded automata group has P .

ON ELEMENTARY AMENABLE BOUNDED AUTOMATA GROUPS

31

7.2. Groups with center. A system of imprimitivity for a group action
G y X is a G-equivariant equivalence relation on X. That is, x ∼ y if and
only if g(x) ∼ g(y). The equivalence classes of a system of imprimitivity are
called blocks of imprimitivity. A block B is called trivial if it equals
either X or a singleton set.
Lemma 7.9. Suppose that h ∈ Aut(X ∗ ) is a directed automorphism such
that hx ∈ {1, h} for all x ∈ X. Let B ⊆ X be a non-trivial block of imprimitivity for the action of hhi on X and O be the orbit of v h under the action
of hhi on X. If |O ∩ B| ≥ 2, then there is j ∈ Z and w ∈ B such that hj
stabilizes B setwise, (hj )w = h±1 , and (h−j )w = 1.
Proof. Let i ≥ 0 be least such that hi (v h ) ∈ B.
Suppose first that i = 0, so v h ∈ B. Set w := v h . Let j > 0 be least such
that hj (w) ∈ B and observe that hj (w) 6= w since |O ∩ B| ≥ 2. The element
hj stabilizes B setwise, and it is clear that (hj )w = h. On the other hand,
(h−j ) has non-trivial sections at {h(w), . . . , hj (w)}, and this set excludes w.
We conclude that (h−j )w = 1, establishing the lemma in this case.
Suppose next that i > 0 and set w := hi (v h ). Let j > 0 be least such
that hj+i (v h ) ∈ B. The element h−j setwise stabilizes the block B, so
h−j (w) = hi−j (v h ) ∈ B. If j ≤ i, then we contradict the choice of i, so j > i.
It now follows that (h−j )w = h−1 . On the other hand, hj (w) = hj+i (v h ). As
j + i > j, h−j has a trivial section at hj (w). We deduce that (hj )w = 1. 
Lemma 7.10. Let G ≤ Aut(X ∗ ) be self-similar, 1 6= d ∈ G be directed such
that dx ∈ {1, d} for all x ∈ X, and O be the orbit of v d ∈ X under the
action of hdi. Then, O is setwise stabilized by CG (d), and gv ∈ CG (d) for
all g ∈ CG (d) and v ∈ O .
Proof. Take n ≥ 1 least such that dn fixes O. The element dn is such that
(
d if v ∈ O
(dn )v =
1 else.
For any v ∈ O and z ∈ CG (d), we see that
(d−n )z(v) zv d = (d−n zdn )v = zv .
The sections of d−n are either d−1 or 1, and the non-trivial sections occur
for exactly the v ∈ O. It is therefore the case that z(v) ∈ O and d commutes
with zv . The group CG (d) thus setwise stabilizes O, and gv ∈ CG (d) for all
g ∈ CG (d) and v ∈ O.

Lemma 7.11. For G ≤ Aut(X ∗ ), if v ∈ X ∗ is such that secG (v) = G, then
secZ(G) (v) ≤ Z(G). In particular, if G is weakly self-replicating, then Z(G)
is weakly self-similar.
Proof. We see that Z(G)(v) ≤ Z(G(v) ) ≤ G(v) . Therefore,
secZ(G) (v) = φv (Z(G)(v) ) ≤ φv (Z(G(v) )) ≤ Z(φv (G(v) )) = Z(G).
The lemma now follows.



32

KATE JUSCHENKO, BENJAMIN STEINBERG, AND PHILLIP WESOLEK

Theorem 7.12. Suppose that G = hY i ≤ Aut(X ∗ ) is a self-replicating
generalized basilica group. If Z(G) is non-trivial, then G is abelian.
Proof. By Proposition 5.4, we may assume that Y consists of directed elements. Set Z := Z(G) and for O ⊆ X, define
SO := {zv | z ∈ Z and v ∈ O} ∪ Z.
Fix d ∈ Y and let Od be the orbit of hdi on X such that v d ∈ Od .
Lemma 7.10 ensures that CG (d) contains SOd , so d ∈ CG (SOd ). Let W ⊆ X
be maximal such that Od ⊆ W and d ∈ CG (SW ). We argue that W = X.
Let us first see that W is invariant under the action of Z. Take v ∈ W
and z ∈ Z. For g ∈ Z, we see that (gz)v = gz(v) zv . Since d commutes with
(gz)v and zv , it follows that d commutes with gz(v) . The element d thus
commutes with gz(v) for every g ∈ Z, hence z(v) ∈ W , since W is maximal.
We next argue that W is invariant under each c ∈ Y . Fixing c ∈ Y , we
have two cases. For the first case, suppose that Oc ∩ W = ∅, where Oc ⊆ X
is the orbit of v c under hci. Take g ∈ Z and fix v ∈ W . We see that
gv = (c−1 gc)v = (c−1 )gc(v) gc(v) cv = (c−1 )cg(v) gc(v)
Since W is invariant under Z, g(v) ∈ W . The element cg(v) is thus not in
Oc , so (c−1 )cg(v) = 1. We conclude that gv = gc(v) , hence d commutes with
gc(v) . Therefore, c(v) ∈ W by maximality, and W is invariant under the
action of c.
For the second case, suppose that Oc ∩ W 6= ∅. Applying Lemma 7.10,
Oc is Z-invariant. The intersection Oc ∩ W is then also Z-invariant, so
|Oc ∩ W | ≥ 2, since Z cannot fix any vertex of X by Lemmas 4.6 and 7.11.
The orbits of Z on Oc form a non-trivial system of imprimitivity for hci, so
there is a non-trivial block of imprimitivity B ⊆ Oc ∩ W for the action of hci
on X. Via Lemma 7.9, we may find w ∈ B and j ∈ Z such that (cj )w = c±1 ,
(c−j )w = 1, and cj setwise fixes B.
Let z ∈ Z be such that z(cj (w)) = w. The element c−j zcj is an element
of Z, and w ∈ W . The element d thus commutes with (c−j zcj )w . On the
other hand,
(c−j zcj )w = (c−j )w zcj (w) (cj )w = zcj (w) c±1 ,
so d commutes with zcj (w) c±1 . Furthermore, d commutes with zcj (w) since
cj (w) ∈ B ⊆ W . We deduce that d commutes with c.
For any vertex u ∈ W and g ∈ Z, d commutes with (c−1 gc)u . On the
other hand,
(c−1 gc)u = (c−1 )g(c(u)) gc(u) cu
Since the sections of c are either equal c or trivial, d commutes with cu and
(c−1 )g(c(u)) . We conclude that d commutes with gc(u) , so c(u) ∈ W by the
choice of W . The set W is thus setwise fixed by every c ∈ Y . Our group
G = hY i acts transitively on X, so it is the case that W = X.
For any c ∈ Y , there is z ∈ Z such that z(c(v c )) 6= c(v c ) by Lemma 4.6.
Taking such a z, c−1 zc ∈ Z, and we have that d commutes with (c−1 zc)vc ,

ON ELEMENTARY AMENABLE BOUNDED AUTOMATA GROUPS

33

by our work above. Furthermore,
(c−1 zc)vc = zc(vc ) c,
and d commutes with zc(vc ) . We infer that d commutes with c.
Since d is arbitrary, it now follows that all elements of Y commute, hence
G is abelian.

We can now upgrade Theorem 5.8 in the self-replicating case. We note
that Theorem 5.8 cannot be upgraded itself since one can always add finitary
elements.
Corollary 7.13. Suppose that G = hY i ≤ Aut(X ∗ ) is a self-replicating
generalized basilica group. If G contains an odometer, then either G is
abelian or G is not elementary amenable.
Proof. Suppose that G is elementary amenable. By Theorem 5.8, G is virtually abelian. Suppose for contradiction that G is not abelian. Applying Corollary 4.4, there is H E G such that H is weakly self-replicating,
rk(H) + 1 = rk(G), and G/H is finite. Observe that H is abelian, since it
must be infinite with rank 0.
Take h ∈ G an odometer. Since G/H is finite, there is i > 0 such that
hi ∈ H. Set m := |X|i. The element hm is in H, and (hm )x = hi for all
x ∈ X. Since H is abelian, f −1 hm f = hm for any f ∈ H. For any x ∈ X,
it is then the case that (fx )−1 hi fx = hi . We conclude that CG (hi ) contains
H along with fx for all f ∈ H and x ∈ X.
Take d ∈ Y . In view of Lemma 4.8, there is f ∈ H such that f (d(v d ))) 6=
d(v d ). The element d−1 f d is in H, and (d−1 f d)vd = fd(vd ) d. The centralizer
CG (hi ) therefore contains fd(vd ) d. Since CG (hi ) also contains fd(vd ) , we infer
that d ∈ CG (hi ). The element hi is therefore central in G.
The group G thus has non-trivial center. Applying Theorem 7.12, we
conclude that G is abelian, which is absurd.

Theorem 7.12 and Theorem 7.7 together imply all nilpotent generalized
basilica groups are virtually abelian.
Corollary 7.14. Every nilpotent generalized basilica group is virtually abelian.
Proof. Nilpotent groups have non-trivial centers. Theorem 7.12 thus implies
that every self-replicating nilpotent generalized basilica group is virtually
abelian.
The property Q of being nilpotent is closed under subgroups and quotients, so a fortiori it is a sub-basilica stable property. The property P of
being virtually abelian is enjoyed by abelian groups and stable under taking
subgroups, finite direct products, and forming P -by-finite groups. We may
thus apply Theorem 7.7 to conclude that every nilpotent generalized basilica
group is (locally finite)-by-virtually abelian.
Every subgroup of a finitely generated nilpotent group is finitly generated. Hence, every nilpotent generalized basilica group is finite-by-virtually

34

KATE JUSCHENKO, BENJAMIN STEINBERG, AND PHILLIP WESOLEK

abelian. Since generalized basilica groups are residually finite, it follows that
every nilpotent generalized basilica group is virtually abelian.

Corollary 7.15. Every torsion-free nilpotent bounded automata group is
virtually abelian.
7.3. Balanced groups.
Definition 7.16. Let G = hY i ≤ Aut(X ∗ ) be a generalized basilica group.
We say that G is balanced if for each directed g ∈ Y , the least n ≥ 1 for
which gn fixes v g ∈ X is also such that g n fixes X pointwise.
For G = hY i ≤ Aut(X ∗ ) balanced, take g ∈ Y directed and let c1 . . . cn be
the cycle deomposition of π1 (g) ∈ Sym(X). That G is balanced ensures that
for ci such that v g appears in ci , the order |cj | divides |ci | for all 1 ≤ j ≤ n.
This condition gives us control over the generators analogous to how the
tree-like condition did for kneading automata groups.
Theorem 7.17. Suppose that G = hY i ≤ Aut(X ∗ ) is a self-replicating
generalized basilica group. If G is balanced, then either G is abelian or G is
not elementary amenable.
Proof. By Proposition 5.4, we may assume that Y consists of directed elements.
Suppose that G is elementary amenable. If Y contains an element that
acts transitively, i.e., an odometer, then Corollary 7.13 implies that G is
abelian, and we are done.
Let us suppose that each element of Y does not act transitively and suppose toward a contradiction that G is not abelian. Applying Corollary 4.4,
there is H E G such that H is weakly self-replicating, rk(H) + 1 = rk(G),
and G/H is either finite or abelian.
For each d ∈ Y , let n be least such that dn fixes v d . Since G is balanced,
n
d fixes X, and as hdi does not at transitively on X, there is x ∈ Y such
that (dn )x = 1. In view of Lemma 4.7, we deduce that d ∈ H. As d is
arbitrary, we conclude that H = G which is absurd since rk(H) < rk(G).
The group G is thus abelian.

Corollary 7.18. Every balanced generalized basilica group is either (locally
finite)-by-(virtually abelian) or not elementary amenable.
Proof. Theorem 7.17 ensures that every self-replicating generalized basilica
group that is balanced and elementary amenable is virtually abelian.
The property Q of being balanced and elementary amenable is a subbasilica stable property. The property P of being virtually abelian is enjoyed
by abelian groups and stable under taking subgroups, finite direct products,
and forming P -by-finite groups. We may thus apply Theorem 7.7 to conclude
that every balanced and elementary amenable generalized basilica group is
(locally finite)-by-virtually abelian.

Remark 7.19. Example 9.1 below shows that Theorem 7.18 is sharp.

ON ELEMENTARY AMENABLE BOUNDED AUTOMATA GROUPS

35

We conclude this section with a sufficient condition to be a balanced
generalized basilica group.
Proposition 7.20. Suppose that G = hY i ≤ Aut(X ∗ ) is a generalized
basilica group that acts transitively on X. If π1 (G) ≤ Sym(X) is abelian,
then G is balanced.
Proof. Let d ∈ Y be directed. The image π1 (hdi) is a normal subgroup of
π1 (G), so the orbits of hπ1 (d)i form a system of imprimitivity for the action
of π1 (G) on X. Since π1 (G) is transitive, all orbits of hπ1 (d)i have the same
size, and it follows that d is balanced.

8. Groups of abelian wreath type
Definition 8.1. We say that G ≤ Aut(X ∗ ) is of abelian wreath type if
π1 (G) ≤ Sym(X) is abelian and G admits a finite self-similar generating set
Y such that for every g ∈ Y either gx = 1 for all x ∈ X or gx ∈ {g}∪π1 (G) for
all x ∈ X with exactly one x such that gx = g. We call Y a distinguished
generating set and write G = hY i ≤ Aut(X ∗ ) to indicate that Y is a
distinguished generating set for G.
A straightforward verification shows that a group of abelian wreath type
is a bounded automata group. Let us note several immediate consequences
of abelian wreath type; the proofs are elementary and so are left to the
reader.
Observation 8.2. Let G ≤ Aut(X ∗ ) be a self-replicating group of abelian
wreath type.
(1) For all non-trivial f ∈ Sym(X) ∩ G and v ∈ X, f (v) 6= v.
(2) For all v ∈ X, G(v) = G(X) .
(3) For all g, h ∈ G, [g, h] ∈ G(X)
8.1. The case of the binary tree. We here consider the bounded automata groups G that have a faithful representation in reduced form on
[2]∗ . Any faithful representation G = hY i ≤ Aut([2]∗ ) in reduced form is
necessarily of abelian wreath type.
Let us first list all possible non-trivial automorphisms of [2]∗ that can
appear as the distinguished generators of a bounded automata group G =
hY i ≤ Aut([2]∗ ) in reduced form. We give the automorphisms in wreath
recursion.
Observation 8.3. Letting σ ∈ Sym(2) be the non-trivial element, any nontrivial generator g of a bounded automata group G = hY i ≤ Aut([2]∗ ) in
reduced form has one of the following types, up to taking an inverse:
(I) g = σ,
(II) g = (σ, g) or g = (g, σ),
(III) g = σ(1, g), or
(IV) g = σ(σ, g).

36

KATE JUSCHENKO, BENJAMIN STEINBERG, AND PHILLIP WESOLEK

Lemma 8.4. If G = hY i ≤ Aut([2]∗ ) is a bounded automata group in
reduced form and G contains an element of type (IV ), then G is not elementary amenable.
Proof. The group G must contain σ, since it is self similar and contains an
element of type (IV ). Say that g = σ(σ, g) is an element of type (IV ) in G.
It suffices to show H := hσ, gi is not elementary amenable.
Let us suppose toward a contradiction that H is elementary amenable.
The group H is a self-replicating and clearly non-abelian, so we apply Corollary 4.4 to find a weakly self-replicating M E G such that rk(M )+1 = rk(G).
In view of Lemma 4.6, we infer that M acts transitively on [2].
We see that σg = (σ, g), so (σg)2 = (1, g2 ). Taking m ∈ M such that
m(0) = 1, we have that [(1, g2 ), m] ∈ M , and as M is weakly self-similar,
[(1, g2 ), m]1 = g2 ∈ M . The square g2 equals (gσ, σg), so σg = (σ, g) ∈ M ,
using again that M is weakly self-similar. A final application of weak selfsimilarity implies that σ and g are elements of M . This is absurd, since M
must be a proper subgroup.

Lemma 8.5. If G ≤ Aut([2]∗ ) is a bounded automata group of abelian
wreath type and G contains elements of type (II) and (III), then G is not
elementary amenable.
Proof. The group G must contain σ, since it is self similar and contains
an element of type (II). As the proofs are the same, let us assume that
G contains g = (σ, g). Let us also assume that the type (III) element
is h = σ(1, h). It now suffices to show H := hσ, g, hi is not elementary
amenable.
Let us suppose toward a contradiction that H is elementary amenable.
The group H is a self-replicating and clearly non-abelian, so we apply Corollary 4.4 to find a weakly self-replicating M E G such that rk(M )+1 = rk(G).
In view of Lemma 4.6, we infer that M acts transitively on [2].
We see that σh = (1, h). Taking m ∈ M such that m(0) = 1, we have
that [(1, h), m] ∈ M , and as M is weakly self-similar, [(1, h), m]1 = h ∈ M .
The commutator [g, h] is then also an element of M . Moreover,
[g, h] = ghg −1 h−1 = (σ, g)σ(1, h)(σ, g −1 )σ(h−1 , 1) = (σhg −1 h−1 , gσ)
we conclude that gσ ∈ M , since M is weakly self-replicating. As h =
σ(1, h) ∈ M , it is then the case that gσh = (σ, g)(1, h) = (σ, gh) ∈ M . From
a second application of weak self-similarity, it follows that σ, g, and h are
elements of M . This is absurd as M is a proper subgroup of H.

Remark 8.6. The groups H arising in the proofs of Lemma 8.4 and 8.5 seem
like they may be of independent interest. They appear to be the “smallest”
non-elementary amenable bounded automata groups.
Theorem 8.7. If G = hY i ≤ Aut([2]∗ ) is a bounded automata group in
reduced form, then either G is virtually abelian or G is not elementary
amenable.

ON ELEMENTARY AMENABLE BOUNDED AUTOMATA GROUPS

37

Proof. Suppose that G is elementary amenable. In view of Lemma 8.4, Y
contains no element of type (IV ). We now have two cases.
Suppose first that Y contains one or two elements of type (II). The
case of one element is an easy adaptation of the proof for the case of two
elements, so we only consider the latter. In view of Lemma 8.5, Y does not
contain an element of type (III). It now follows that Y has three non-trivial
elements: Y = {σ, (g, σ), (σ, h)}. Seeing as σ(σ, g)σ = (h, σ), the group G
is generated by two involutions, σ, (σ, g), so G is either finite or the infinite
dihedral group.
Suppose next that Y contains an element of type (III). As in the previous
case, Y does not contain an element of type (II). The non-trivial elements of
Y then consist of either a single type (III) element or a type (III) element
and a type (I) element. In the former case, G is abelian, and in the latter
case, G is virtually abelian.

8.2. Elementary amenable groups. We are now prepared to prove our
main theorem of this section.
Lemma 8.8. Suppose that G = hY i ≤ Aut(X ∗ ) is a self-replicating group
of abelian wreath type that is elementary amenable. If G is non-abelian, then
there is some directed d ∈ Y and x ∈ X such that dx is a non-trivial finitary
element.
Proof. We prove the contrapositive. If every directed d ∈ Y is such that
dx ∈ {1, d} for all x ∈ X, then G is a generalized basilica group, and in view
of Proposition 7.20, G is furthermore balanced. Theorem 7.17 thus implies
that G is abelian.

Suppose that G = hY i ≤ Aut(X ∗ ) is a self-replicating group of abelian
wreath type with |X| > 2 and suppose that G is elementary amenable
but not virtually abelian. Corollary 5.11 supplies a weakly self-replicating
M E G such that rk(M ) + 1 = rk(G) and G/M is finite. Recall that M
acts transitively on X by Lemma 4.8. Setting F := π1 (G) ∩ G, Lemma 8.12
below claims that G = F M ; by Lemma 8.8, F contains non-trivial elements.
To prove this requires three preliminary lemmas, that amount to checking
three cases.
Fix c ∈ Y some directed element, let v ∈ X be the active vertex of c on
X, and say that O ⊆ X is the orbit of v under the action of hci on X.
Lemma 8.9. If there is l ∈ F such that lc fixes some x ∈ X, then there is
k ∈ F such that kc ∈ M .
Proof. Set d := lc. Since G has abelian wreath structure, d fixes X. If
dw = 1 for some w ∈ X, then c ∈ M by Lemma 4.7, since dv = c. We thus
suppose that dw 6= 1 for all w ∈ X. In view of Lemma 8.8, we may fix a nontrivial f ∈ F , and we may also fix m ∈ M such that m(v) ∈ X \ {v, f (v)}.
Such an m exists since |X| > 2 and M is weakly self-replicating and of finite
index. Set y := mv .

38

KATE JUSCHENKO, BENJAMIN STEINBERG, AND PHILLIP WESOLEK

The commutator [m−1 , d−1 ] is in M , so
[m−1 , d−1 ]v = (m−1 d−1 md)v = y −1 hyc
is in M for some h ∈ F . On the other hand, [m−1 , f d−1 f −1 ] is also an
element of M , so
[m−1 , f d−1 f −1 ]v = y −1 h′ ydf −1 (v)
is in M for some h′ ∈ F . The element k := df −1 (v) is also a non-trivial
finitary element.
We now have that c and a non-trivial finitary element k are elements of
y −1 F yM . The quotient y −1 F yM/M is abelian, so [k, c−1 ] ∈ M . As k−1
moves c(v), it follows that [k, c−1 ]v = k′ c for some k′ ∈ F . Thus, k′ c ∈ M ,
completing the proof.

Lemma 8.10. If some non-trivial element of F setwise stabilizes O, then
there is k ∈ F such that kc ∈ M .
Proof. Fix a non-trivial f ∈ F such that f stabilizes O. If |O| ≤ 2, then
f c fixes pointwise O, and Lemma 8.9 implies that there is k ∈ F such that
kc ∈ M . We thus assume that |O| > 2.
Let j > 1 be least such that cj fixes O and take i < j least such that
f ci fixes O pointwise. If i = j − 1, then f c−1 fixes O pointwise, and there
is k ∈ F such that kc−1 ∈ M by Lemma 8.9. In this case, ck−1 ∈ M ,
so conjugating by k−1 , we see that k−1 c ∈ M . We may thus assume that
i < j − 1. If f ci has a trivial section at some z ∈ X, then as in the previous
lemma, Lemma 4.7 implies that kc ∈ M for some k ∈ F . We may thus also
assume that all sections of f ci at z ∈ X are non-trivial.
The element f ci has non-finitary sections at
Ω := {v, c−1 (v), . . . , c−i+1 (v)}.
Note that |O \ Ω| ≥ 2, since |Ω| = i while |O| = j. We may find m ∈ M
such that
m(v) ∈ O \ (Ω ∪ c−1 (Ω)),
since Ω ∪ c−1 (Ω) is only one element larger than Ω. Set y := mv .
The commutator [m−1 , (f ci )−1 ] is in M , so
[m−1 , (f ci )−1 ]v = y −1 h1 yh0 c
is in M for some h1 , h0 ∈ F . On the other hand, c−1 f ci+1 has non-finitary
sections exactly at Ω ∪ c−1 (Ω). In particular, (c−1 f ci+1 )v = c−1 k0 c for some
non-trivial k0 ∈ F , since we assume that f ci has no trivial sections. The
commutator [m−1 , (c−1 f ci+1 )−1 ] is in M , so
[m−1 , (c−1 f ci+1 )−1 ]v = y −1 k1 yc−1 k0 c
is in M , for some k1 ∈ F .
We now have that h0 c and c−1 k0 c are elements of y −1 F yM , hence h0 c
and k0 are elements of y −1 F yM , since F is an abelian group. The quotient
y −1 F yM/M is abelian, so [k0 , (h0 c)−1 ] ∈ M . As k0−1 moves c(v), it follows

ON ELEMENTARY AMENABLE BOUNDED AUTOMATA GROUPS

39

that [k0 , (h0 c)−1 ]v = k′ c where k′ ∈ F . Thus, k′ c ∈ M , completing the
proof.

Lemma 8.11. If c strongly active and no non-trivial element of F setwise
stabilizes O, then there is k ∈ F such that kc ∈ M .
Proof. Suppose first that hci has only two orbits O1 = O and O2 on X. The
group F therefore has exponent two. Take i > 1 least such that ci fixes O1 .
Let m ∈ M be such that m(v) ∈ O2 and set y := mv . We now see that
[m−1 , c−i ]v = y −1 h1 yhc is in M , where h1 , h ∈ F . The group M is normal,
so hcy −1 h1 y ∈ M . Hence,
hcy −1 h1 yy −1 h1 yhc = (hc)2 ∈ M.
If h = 1, then considering the section [f, c−2 ]v for f ∈ F non-trivial shows
that kc ∈ M for some k ∈ F , since f −1 (O1 ) = O2 and c2 is not trivial. Let
us thus suppose that h is non-trivial, so h(O1 ) = O2 . The element (hc)2 has
non-finitary sections exactly at v and c−1 h(v). The inverse (hc)−2 therefore
has non-finitary sections exactly at c2 (v) and ch(v). We compute:
[c−1 , (hc)−2 ]c−1 h(v) = (c−1 )h(v) ((hc)−2 )c2 h(v) cch(v) ((hc)2 )c−1 h(v) .
It now follows that [c−1 , (hc)−2 ]c−1 h(v) = l1 cl0 for l1 , l0 ∈ F . Conjugating by
l0 , we see that there is k ∈ F such that kc ∈ M .
Let us suppose finally that hci has at least three orbits O1 , O2 , and O3
and let i be least such that ci fixes O1 . If ci has a trivial section, then
Lemma 4.7 ensures that kc ∈ M for some k ∈ F . We may thus assume that
every section of ci is non-trivial. Fix f ∈ F non-trivial, and without loss
of generality, f (O1 ) = O2 . Let m ∈ M be such that m(v) ∈ O3 and set
y := mv . The commutator [m−1 , c−i ] is in M , so
[m−1 , c−i ]v = y −1 h1 yh0 c
is in M , where h1 , h0 ∈ F . The commutator [m−1 , f c−i f −1 ] is also in M , so
[m−1 , f c−i f −1 ]v = y −1 k1 yk0
is in M where k1 , k0 ∈ F , since f ci f −1 has non-finitary sections only on O2 .
Note also that k0 is non-trivial since ci has every section non-trivial.
We now have that h0 c and a non-trivial finitary element k0 are elements
of y −1 F yM . The quotient y −1 F yM/M is abelian, so [k0 , (h0 c)−1 ] ∈ M .
As k0 moves v, it follows that [k0 , (h0 c)−1 ]v = k′ c where k′ ∈ hF i. Thus,
k′ c ∈ M .

Bringing together the previous three lemmas, we obtain the desired result.
Lemma 8.12. Suppose that G = hY i ≤ Aut(X ∗ ) with |X| > 2 is a selfreplicating group of abelian wreath type. If G is elementary amenable but
not virtually abelian, then the weakly self-replicating M E G supplied by
Corollary 5.11 is such that (π1 (G) ∩ G)M = G and rk(M ) + 1 = rk(G). In
particular, G/M is finite and abelian.

40

KATE JUSCHENKO, BENJAMIN STEINBERG, AND PHILLIP WESOLEK

Proof. Let M E G be the finite index subgroup given by Corollary 5.11 and
take d ∈ Y directed. If d is not strongly active, then f := 1 ∈ F := π1 (G)∩G
is such that f d fixes a vertex in X. Lemma 8.9 thus gives k ∈ F such that
kd ∈ M . If d is strongly active, then either there is some non-trivial f ∈ F
such that f setwise stabilizes the orbit of v d ∈ X under the action of hdi
acting on X or there is not. In the former case, Lemma 8.10 supplies k ∈ F
such that kd ∈ M and in the latter, Lemma 8.11 gives k ∈ F such that
kd ∈ M .
It now follows that F M = G, and the lemma is verified.

The desired theorem is now in hand.
Theorem 8.13. If G = hY i ≤ Aut(X ∗ ) is a self-replicating group of
abelian wreath type, then either G is virtually abelian, or G is not elementary
amenable.
Proof. The case that |X| = 2 is settled by Theorem 8.7. We thus assume
that |X| > 2. Set F := π1 (G) ∩ G. We suppose toward a contradiction that
G is elementary amenable but not virtually abelian.
Applying Corollary 5.11, we obtain non-trivial weakly self-replicating L E
G and M E G such that L ≤ M , G/M is finite, M/L is abelian, and
rk(L) + 2 = rk(M ) + 1 = rk(G). Lemma 8.12 ensures further that F M = G.
We now argue that G/L is abelian, which contradicts the rank of G.
We have two cases: (1) M ∩ F 6= {1}, and (2) M ∩ F = {1}. For case
(1), fix a non-trivial f ∈ F ∩ M . By Lemma 8.12, each d ∈ Y directed
admits h ∈ F such that hd ∈ M . Taking hd ∈ M , [f, (hd)−1 ] ∈ L, so
[f, (hd)−1 ]vd = kd is an element of L where k ∈ F . We conclude that for
each directed d ∈ Y there is h ∈ F such that hd ∈ L. It is thus the case
that F L = G, so G/L is abelian, giving the desired contradiction.
For case (2), fix d ∈ Y directed and let h ∈ F be such that hd ∈ M . If
hd fixes v d , then (hd)vd = d ∈ M . Hence h ∈ F ∩ M = {1}. The element d
must be strongly active since else since d 6= 1, it has a finitary section that
belongs to M and so M contains a non-trivial element of F . We conclude
that d does not fix v d . We may thus assume that hd does not fix v d . Set
d˜ := hd and observe that d˜ has exactly one non-finitary section, namely
d˜vd = d.
˜ acts intransitively on X, let i be least such that d˜i fixes X. Since
If hdi
M intersects F trivially, it must be the case that d˜i has trivial sections at
˜ The group M acts transitively on
all w outside the orbit of v d under hdi.
′
X, so Lemma 4.7 implies that h d ∈ L for some h′ ∈ F .
˜ acts transitively on X. Fix f ∈ F that is non-trivial;
Suppose that hdi
˜ d ), then f acts like
such an element exists by Lemma 8.8. If f (v d ) = d(v
a |X|-cycle on X, since π1 (G) is abelian. Since |X| > 2, f 2 is non-trivial,
˜ d ). By possibly replacing f with f 2 , we may assume that
and f 2 (v d ) 6= d(v
d
d
˜
f (v ) 6= d(v ). The elements f d˜−1 f −1 and d˜ are in M , so [f d̃−1 f −1 , d˜−1 ] ∈

ON ELEMENTARY AMENABLE BOUNDED AUTOMATA GROUPS

L. Moreover,
[f d˜−1 f −1 , d˜−1 ]

vd

41

˜−1
˜ ˜ d d = h′ d,
= (d˜−1 )f −1 d(v
˜ d ) (d )d˜2 (vd ) df −1 d(v
)

where h′ ∈ F .
We now conclude that for all d ∈ D, there is h ∈ F such that hd ∈ L.
Hence, F L = G, and so G/L is abelian, giving the desired contradiction. 
The infinite dihedral group shows that virtually abelian groups indeed
arise as self-replicating groups of abelian wreath type; see Example 9.2.
8.3. GGS groups. We pause here to recall the GGS groups and observe
that Theorem 8.13 applies to these groups. See [3] for more information on
these groups.
For p an odd prime, form the p-regular rooted tree [p]∗ . Let a ∈ Aut([p]∗ )
be such that a(iz) = ((i + 1) mod p)z for word iz ∈ [p]∗ , where i ∈ [p].
The automorphism a cyclically permutes the first level of the tree and acts
rigidly below the first level. Take a p − 1-tuple α := (e0 , . . . , ep−2 ) where
ei ∈ {0, . . . , p − 1} for each 0 ≤ i ≤ p − 2. Using wreath recursion, we define
bα ∈ Aut([p]∗ ) by bα := (ae1 , . . . , aep−2 , b).
Definition 8.14. For α = (e1 , . . . , ep−1 ) a p − 1-tuple where ei ∈ {0, . . . , p −
1} for each 1 ≤ i ≤ p − 1, the GGS group associated to α is the group
Gα := ha, bα i ≤ Aut([p]∗ ).
Proposition 8.15. If some coordinate of α is non-zero, then the GGS group
Gα is a self-replicating group of abelian wreath type.
Proof. We see that π1 (Gα ) = hai = Cp . Thus, Gα is of abelian wreath type.
That Gα is self-replicating is also clear, and well-known.

Corollary 8.16. The only elementary amenable GGS groups are the cyclic
groups Cp .
9. Examples
9.1. Balanced generalized basilica groups. Define a, b ∈ Aut([5]∗ ) by
wreath recursion:
a := (01)(34)(1, 1, 1, 1, a) and b := (12)(34)(1, 1, 1, b, 1).
The group G := ha, bi ≤ Aut([5]∗ ] is a balanced generalized basilica group.
On [5], G has two orbits U := {0, 1, 2} and V := {3, 4}, and v a , v b are
elements of V .
Setting c := ab, an easy computation shows that c = (012)(1, 1, 1, c, 1).
The element c fixes V , and it follows that c ∈ K := ker(G y V ∗ ). In view
of Lemma 7.5, K is locally finite, and since G is two generated, it follows
that G/K ≃ Z. The group G is thus elementary amenable.
Claim. The set {b−n cbn | n ≥ 0} consists of pairwise distinct elements of
K.

42

KATE JUSCHENKO, BENJAMIN STEINBERG, AND PHILLIP WESOLEK

Proof. Noting that b2 = (1, 1, 1, b, b), it is immediate that
b−2n cb2n = (012)(1, 1, 1, b−n cbn , 1).
An easy calculation shows that
b−2n−1 cb2n+1 = (021)(1, 1, 1, 1, b−n cbn ).
Arguing by induction on i for the claim that {b−n cbn | i ≥ n ≥ 0} consists
of pairwise distinct elements proves the claim.

The claim implies the kernel K is infinite. Since all subgroups of a finitely
generated virtually abelian group are finitely generated, we deduce that G
is not virtually abelian. This example shows that Corollary 7.18 is sharp.
We next exhibit a large family of generalized basilica groups.
Definition 9.1. For a prime p ≥ 3, let c be the cycle (0 . . . p − 1) and define
gp , hp ∈ Aut([p]∗ ) by gp := c(gp , 1, . . . , 1) and hp := c(1, hp , 1, . . . , 1). We
define Gp := hgp , hp i.
Proposition 9.2. For each prime p ≥ 3, Gp is a self-replicating balanced
generalized basilica group, weakly branch, and not elementary amenable.
Proof. It is immediate that G := Gp is a balanced generalized basilica group,
since g := gp and h := hp act transitively on [p]. The elements g p and hp
are such that (gp )x = g and (hp )x = h for all x ∈ X. It follows that Gp
is self-replicating. In view of Corollary 7.13, we need only to check that
G is not abelian to conclude that G is not elementary amenable. This is
immediate by considering sections:
(gh)0 = 1 and (hg)0 = hg.
It is clear that hg is non-trivial, so g and h do not commmute.
Let us finally verify that G is weakly branch. The commutator [g p , h]
fixes X and
(
[g, h] i = 2
p
[g , h]i =
1
else
The rigid stabilizer ristG (2) is non-trivial, and it follows that ristG (i) is
i
non-trivial for all i ∈ X. One verifies that [gp , h] lies in ristG (2i ) and
i
[gp , h]2i = [g, h], where 2i is the word in [p]∗ consisting of i many 2’s. We
infer that all rigid stabilizers are infinite. Since G acts transitively on each
level, G is weakly branch.

To distinguish the Gp requires a result from the literature on weakly
branch groups. For a tree X ∗ , the boundary of X ∗ , denoted by ∂X ∗ , is
the collection of infinite words X ω with the product topology. The group
Aut(X ∗ ) has an action on ∂X ∗ by homeomorphisms which is induced from
the action Aut(X ∗ ) y X ∗ . The product measure on ∂X ∗ arising from the
uniform measure on X is preserved by Aut(X ∗ ). This measure is called the
Bernoulli measure.

ON ELEMENTARY AMENABLE BOUNDED AUTOMATA GROUPS

43

Theorem 9.3 (See [18, Theorem 2.10.1]). Suppose that G ≤ Aut(X ∗ ) and
H ≤ Aut(Y ∗ ) are weakly branch groups. If φ : G → H is an isomorphism of
groups, then there is a measure preserving homeomorphism F : ∂X ∗ → ∂Y ∗
such that φ(g)(F (α)) = F (g(α)) for all α ∈ ∂X ∗ , where ∂X ∗ and ∂Y ∗ are
equipped with the respective Bernoulli measures
Theorem 9.4. For p 6= q with p, q ≥ 3, Gp and Gq are not isomorphic.
Proof. Suppose for contradiction there are p 6= q such that Gp is isomorphic
to Gq . Appealing to Theorem 9.3, there is a measure preserving homeomorphism F : ∂[p]∗ → ∂[q]∗ .
Fix O ⊆ ∂[p]∗ clopen with measure p1 . The image F (O) is a clopen
set in ∂[q]∗ with measure p1 . We may then find disjoint basic clopen sets
W1 , . . . , Wn of ∂[q]∗ such that F (O) = ⊔ni=1 Wi . The sets Wi are basic, so
for each 1 ≤ i ≤ n there is ki ≥ 1 such that µ(Wi ) = q1ki . We deduce that
n

1 X 1
=
.
p
q ki
i=1

Letting m := max{ki | 1 ≤ i ≤ n}, we see that
n

q m X m−ki
q
,
=
p
i=1

and the right hand side is an integer. This implies that p divides q which is
absurd.

9.2. The infinite dihedral group.
Example 9.5. Let X := [3] and via wreath recursion, define a, b ∈ Aut(X ∗ )
by a := (01)(1, 1, a) and b := (02)(1, b, 1). The group G := ha, bi is a
self-replicating generalized basilica group isomorphic to the infinite dihedral
group.
In regards to Question 1.1, Example 9.5 shows that virtually abelian is
the best one can hope for in the case of self-replicating generalized basilica
groups.
Example 9.6. Let X := [2] and via wreath recursion, define a, b ∈ Aut(X ∗ )
by a := (01)(1, 1) and b := (a, b). The group G := ha, bi is a self-replicating
bounded automata group of abelian wreath type and is isomorphic to the
infinite dihedral group.
Example 9.6 shows that Theorem 8.13 is sharp. One naturally wonders
if the infinite dihedral group is the only possible non-abelian, but virtually
abelian example.

44

KATE JUSCHENKO, BENJAMIN STEINBERG, AND PHILLIP WESOLEK

9.3. The lamplighter group. Let X := [4] and form Aut(X ∗ ). Define
elements of Aut(X ∗ ) by a := (02)(13)(1, 1, 1, a) and b := (02)(1, b, 1, 1). One
easily verifies that G := ha, bi ≤ Aut(X ∗ ) is a bounded automata group. In
fact G is a bounded automata group that is both a generalized basilica group
and of abelian wreath type.
The element b has order 2, and a simple calculation shows the following:
a2n ba−2n = (02)(1, an ba−n , 1, 1) and a2n+1 ba−2n−1 = (02)(1, 1, 1, an ba−n )
for all n ≥ Z.
We now argue that C2 ≀Z is isomorphic to G; recall that C2 denotes Z/2Z.
This requires two claims.
Claim. For any n 6= m in Z, an ba−n and am ba−m commute
Proof. It suffices to show that an ba−n and am ba−m commute for all n, m ≥
0. Set Ωn := {ai ba−i | 0 ≤ i ≤ n}. We argue by induction on n that
an+1 ba−n−1 commutes with every g ∈ Ωn . For the base case, n = 0, we see
baba−1 =
=
=
=

(02)(1, b, 1, 1)(02)(1, 1, 1, b)
(1, b, 1, b)
(02)(1, 1, 1, b)(02)(1, b, 1, 1)
aba−1 b,

and thus b and aba−1 commute.
Suppose the inductive claim holds for n and take am ba−m ∈ Ωn+1 . The
cases that m is odd while n + 1 is even and m is even while n + 1 odd follow
as the base case. Let us now suppose that m and n + 1 are both even; the
case where they are both odd is similar. We then have that an+2 ba−n−2 =
(1, ak ba−k , 1, 1) where k < n + 2 and that am ba−m = (02)(1, al ba−l , 1, 1)
where l < n + 2. We see that
an+2 ba−n−2 am ba−m = (1, ak ba−k al ba−l , 1, 1)
and
am ba−m an+2 ba−n−2 = (1, al ba−l ak ba−k , 1, 1).
The inductive hypothesis ensures that ak ba−k al ba−l = al ba−l ak ba−k . Therefore, am ba−m and an+2 ba−n−2 commute, completing the induction.

Qn
Claim. For any distinct i1 , . . . , in in Z, the product j=1 aij ba−ij is not 1.
Proof. Suppose for a contradiction that the claim is false,
Q and let n be least
such that there are distinct i1 , . . . , in for which g := nj=1 aij ba−ij = 1. By
conjugating with an appropriate power of a, we may assume
Pn that all ij are
positive. We may also take the i1 , . . . , in to be such that j=1 ij is least.
Q
The section of g at 1 must have the form sj=1 akj ba−kj . Likewise, the
Q
section of g at 3 must have the form rj=1 alj ba−lj . These two sections
must also be trivial, and since n ≥ 2, it cannot be the case that r = 0 =
s. We may thus assume without loss of generality that s ≥ 1. Since we
choose n to be least, it is indeed the case that s = n. However, lj < ij , so

ON ELEMENTARY AMENABLE BOUNDED AUTOMATA GROUPS

45

Pn

P
< nj=1 ij . This contradicts out choice of i1 , . . . , ij . This completes
the reductio.

j=1 lj

Proposition 9.7. The lamplighter group C2 ≀ Z is isomorphic to G.
L
L
Proof. We have that C2 ≀ Z = Z C2 ⋊ Z. We define Φ : Z C2 ⋊ Z → G by


Y
(f, n) 7→ 
ai ba−i  an
i∈Supp(f )

where Supp(f ) := {i ∈ Z | f (i) 6= 0}.
Let us verify Φ is a homomorphism:

Φ((f, n)(g, m)) = Φ((f
Q + n.g, n + m)) 
=
ai ba−i an+m
Qi∈Supp(f +n.g) Q

i ba−i
i ba−i an+m
=
a
a
i∈Supp(n.g)
Qi∈Supp(f )

Q
i
−i
i+n ba−i−n an+m
=
a
ba
a
Qi∈Supp(f )
 i∈Supp(g)
Q

i
−i
n
i ba−i am
=
a
ba
a
a
i∈Supp(f )
i∈Supp(g)
= Φ((f, n))Φ((g, m)).
The third equality uses that the conjugates of b by powers of a commute
and that b has order two.

Q
i ba−i an =
a
It is clear that Φ is surjective. For injectivity, if
i∈Supp(f )
Q
1, then n = 0, and i∈Supp(f ) ai ba−i = 1. The second claim ensures that
Q
i −i = 1 exactly when the product is trivial. It follows that Φ
i∈Supp(f ) a ba
is injective.

9.4. Weak self-replication. Let X := [2] and form Aut(X ∗ ). Let σ be
the cycle (01) and define a := σ(σ, σa). The group G := hai is isomorphic
to Z, so it cannot contain the section σ. On the other hand, one checks
that σaσ = a−1 , so a2 = (a, a−1 ). The section homomorphism φx : G(x) →
Aut(X ∗ ) thus has image G. The group G is weakly self-replicating but not
self-similar, so it is not self-replicating.
References
1. G. Amir, O. Angel, and B. Virág, Amenability of linear-activity automaton groups.,
J. Eur. Math. Soc. (JEMS) 15 (2013), no. 3, 705–730. 2
2. L. Bartholdi, V. Kaimanovich, and V. Nekrashevych, On amenability of automata
groups, Duke Math. J. 154 (2010), no. 3, 575–598. MR 2730578 (2011k:20048) 2, 6
3. G. Baumslag, Topics in combinatorial group theory, Lectures in mathematics ETH
Zrich, Birkhuser, Basel ; Boston, 1993 (eng). 41
4. M. Chornyi, K. Juschenko, and V. Nekrashevych, On topological full groups of Zd actions, arXiv:1602.04255. 2
5. C. Chou, Elementary amenable groups, Illinois J. Math. 3 (1980), 396–407. 2
6. M. Day, Amenable semigroups, Illinois J. Math. 1 (1957), 509–544. 1

46

KATE JUSCHENKO, BENJAMIN STEINBERG, AND PHILLIP WESOLEK

7. M.D. Fried and M. Jarden, Field arithmetic, third ed., Ergebnisse der Mathematik
und ihrer Grenzgebiete. 3. Folge. A Series of Modern Surveys in Mathematics [Results in Mathematics and Related Areas. 3rd Series. A Series of Modern Surveys in
Mathematics], vol. 11, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2008, Revised by Jarden. MR 2445111
(2009j:12007) 13
8. S. Godillon, Introduction to iterated monodromy groups, Ann. Fac. Sci. Toulouse Math.
(6) 21 (2012), no. 5, 1069–1118. MR 3088267 3
9. R. Grigorchuk, Milnor’s problem on the growth of groups, Sov. Math., Dokl 28 (1983),
23–26. 2
10. R. I. Grigorchuk and A. Żuk, On a torsion-free weakly branch group defined by a
three state automaton, Internat. J. Algebra Comput. 12 (2002), no. 1-2, 223–246,
International Conference on Geometric and Combinatorial Methods in Group Theory
and Semigroup Theory (Lincoln, NE, 2000). MR 1902367 11, 14
11. R. Jones, Fixed-point-free elements of iterated monodromy groups, Trans. Amer. Math.
Soc. 367 (2015), no. 3, 2023–2049. MR 3286507 22, 25
12. K. Juschenko, Non-elementary amenable subgroups of automata groups, Journal of
Topology and Analysis 10 (2018), no. 01, 35–45. 2
13. K. Juschenko, N. Matte Bon, N. Monod, and M. de la Salle, Extensive amenability
and an application to interval exchanges., Ergodic Theory and Dynamical Systems
(2016), 1–25. 2
14. K. Juschenko and N. Monod, Cantor systems, piecewise translations and simple
amenable groups, Annals of Mathematics 178 (2013), 775 – 787. 2
15. K. Juschenko, V. Nekrashevych, and M. de la Salle, Extensions of amenable groups
by recurrent groupoids, Inventiones mathematicae 206.3 (2016), 837–867. 2
16. H. Matui, Some remarks on topological full groups of cantor minimal systems,, Internat. J. Math. 17 (2006), 231–251. 2
17. V. Nekrashevych, Simple groups of dynamical origin, preprint arXiv:1511.08241. 2
18.
, Self-similar groups, Mathematical Surveys and Monographs, vol. 117, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2005. MR 2162164 (2006e:20047) 3, 6, 9,
10, 20, 23, 43
19.
, Iterated monodromy groups, Groups St Andrews 2009 in Bath. Volume 1,
London Math. Soc. Lecture Note Ser., vol. 387, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge,
2011, pp. 41–93. MR 2858850 3
20.
, Palindromic subshifts and simple periodic groups of intermediate growth,
preprint arXiv:1601.01033 (2016). 2
21. D. V. Osin, Elementary classes of groups, Mat. Zametki 72 (2002), no. 1, 84–93.
MR 1942584 (2003h:20062) 7, 8
22. P. V. Silva and B. Steinberg, On a class of automata groups generalizing lamplighter
groups, Internat. J. Algebra Comput. 15 (2005), no. 5-6, 1213–1234. MR MR2197829
20
23. J. von Neumann, Zur allgemeinen theorie des masses, Fund. Math. 13 (1929), 73–116.
1, 2

