NORTH-SOUTH DYNAMICS OF HYPERBOLIC FREE GROUP
AUTOMORPHISMS ON THE SPACE OF CURRENTS

arXiv:1509.05443v3 [] 29 Jun 2017

MARTIN LUSTIG AND CAGLAR UYANIK
Abstract. Let ϕ be a hyperbolic outer automorphism of a non-abelian free group FN
such that ϕ and ϕ−1 admit absolute train track representatives. We prove that ϕ acts on
the space of projectivized geodesic currents on FN with generalized uniform North-South
dynamics.

1. Introduction
Thurston’s groundbreaking work on the classification of surface homeomorphisms (NielsenThurston classification) has triggered much of the progress on the mapping class group and on
the Teichmüller space in the past 30 years. This theory has inspired important developments
for several related groups; most notably for the group Out(FN ) of outer automorphisms of
a non-abelian free group FN of finite rank N ≥ 2.
Two rather different spaces on which Out(FN ) acts serve as analogues to Teichmüller
space: One is Culler-Vogtmann’s Outer space CVN [CV86], the other is the space of projectivized geodesic currents PCurr(FN ) [Bon91]. An intersection form, generalizing Thurston’s
celebrated intersection form for measured laminations [Thu88], intimately intertwines the
two spaces [KL09].
The space CVN is finite dimensional, and the action of Out(FN ) on CVN is properly
discontinuous. Moreover, CVN has a natural “Thurston boundary”, which gives rise to a
compactification CVN . The Out(FN )-action extends to this compactification, which mimics
closely Thurston’s compactification of the Teichmüller space via projective measured laminations [BF93], [CL95], [CV86], [Thu88].
On the other hand, the space of projectivized geodesic currents PCurr(FN ) is infinite
dimensional, but it is already compact, and has a projective structure. There is a natural
“interior” of PCurr(FN ) on which Out(FN ) acts properly discontinuously [KL10a].
The space CVN has received more attention in recent years than PCurr(FN ), due to the
connections with various curve complex analogues (see e.g. [BF14], [HM13]). Nevertheless,
for several purposes, including some rather fundamental ones, the space PCurr(FN ) seems to
have an advantage over CVN . In order get a deeper understanding one often needs to utilize
the action of Out(FN ) on both spaces simultaneously, see for instance [BR15], [Ham12].
February 12, 2018.
The authors gratefully acknowledge support from U.S. National Science Foundation grants DMS 1107452,
1107263, 1107367 “RNMS: GEometric structures And Representation varieties” (the GEAR Network).” The
first author was partially supported by the French research grant ANR-2010-BLAN-116-01 GGAA. The
second author was partially supported by the NSF grants of Ilya Kapovich (DMS 1405146 and DMS 1710868)
and Christopher J. Leininger (DMS 1510034).
1

2

MARTIN LUSTIG AND CAGLAR UYANIK

This paper concerns one of the fundamental features prominently present in NielsenThurston theory: the dynamics of the action of individual elements ϕ ∈ Out(FN ) on
PCurr(FN ), and the study of the relationship between aspects of this dynamics and the
algebraic structure of ϕ. More precisely, the paper aims to generalize Thurston’s result that
any pseudo-Anosov mapping class acts on compactified Teichmüller space with North-South
dynamics [Thu88, Iva92]
An important result in this direction is already known for both of the above mentioned
Out(FN )-analogues of Teichmüller space: If the automorphism ϕ ∈ Out(FN ) is fully irreducible, also known as iwip (“irreducible with irreducible powers”), then the ϕ-action
on both, CVN and PCurr(FN ), has uniform North-South dynamics, see [LL03], [Mar95],
[Uya14] and [Uya15]. The pairs of poles of these two actions are strongly related to each
other through the above mentioned intersection form, see [CHL08], [KL10b], [Uya15].
In this paper we concentrate on the following class of automorphisms: An element ϕ ∈
Out(FN ) is called hyperbolic if the length of any non-trivial conjugacy class grows exponentially under iteration of ϕ. This condition turns out to be equivalent to requiring that ϕ is
atoroidal, i.e. ϕ has no non-trivial periodic conjugacy class in FN .
Recall that both classes, fully irreducible and hyperbolic automorphisms, can be viewed as
natural analogues of pseudo-Anosov mapping classes. In a probabilistic sense, both of these
notions are “generic” in Out(FN )[Riv08], as is the case for pseudo-Anosov homeomorphisms
in mapping class groups [Riv08, Mah11]. Hyperbolic automorphisms have the advantage that
their mapping torus groups FN oϕ Z are Gromov hyperbolic, see [BF92], [Bri00]. However,
hyperbolic automorphisms can admit invariant free factors and hence these automorphisms
are harder to study than fully irreducible automorphisms. As a consequence of the more
complicated algebraic structure, one can not expect a classical North-South dynamics for
hyperbolic automorphisms. Counterexamples for both, CVN and PCurr(FN ) are easy to
construct.
Nevertheless, it turns out that there are still strong North-South dynamical features in the
action of any hyperbolic ϕ ∈ Out(FN ) on the space of currents. This paper aims to make
this statement precise: We define “generalized North and South poles” in PCurr(FN ), which
are finite dimensional simplexes ∆+ (ϕ) and ∆− (ϕ), and show:
Theorem 1.1. Let ϕ ∈ Out(FN ) be a hyperbolic outer automorphism with the property that
both ϕ and ϕ−1 admit (absolute) train track representatives. Then ϕ acts on PCurr(FN ) with
“generalized uniform North-South dynamics from ∆− (ϕ) to ∆+ (ϕ)” in the following sense:
Given a neighborhood U of ∆+ (ϕ) and a compact set K ⊂ PCurr(FN ) r ∆− (ϕ), there
exists an integer M ≥ 1 such that ϕn (K) ⊂ U for all n ≥ M .
Similarly, given a neighborhood V of ∆− (ϕ) and a compact set K 0 ⊂ PCurr(FN ) r ∆+ (ϕ),
there exists an integer M 0 ≥ 1 such that ϕ−n (K 0 ) ⊂ V for all n ≥ M 0 .
Although there exist hyperbolic automorphisms that do not admit (absolute) train track
representatives (see Sections 2.3 and 2.4), the train track assumption in the above theorem
turns out to be not really restrictive (see Remark 2.6). Our train track technology (see
Section 4) has been purposefully set up in a way that it also applies to more general kind
of train track maps. Since the paper is already technically rather loaded, we have refrained
from adding such generalizations here.

DYNAMICS OF HYPERBOLIC AUTOMORPHISMS OF FN

3

The second dynamics result obtained here concerns single orbits of rational currents, that
is, currents given by non-trivial conjugacy classes in FN , which form a dense subset of
PCurr(FN ), see Section 2.5:
Theorem 1.2. Let ϕ be as in Theorem 1.1, and let µ ∈ Curr(FN ) be a non-zero rational
current.
Then, after possibly replacing ϕ by a positive power, there are [µ∞ ] ∈ ∆+ (ϕ) and [µ−∞ ] ∈
∆− (ϕ) such that
lim ϕn [µ] = [µ∞ ]
n→∞

and
lim ϕ−n [µ] = [µ−∞ ].

n→∞

It is important to point out that this pointwise convergence is in general not uniform: On
the contrary, it is possible to construct examples of hyperbolic ϕ for which there exist rational
currents that linger for an arbitrary long iteration time in an arbitrary close neighborhood
of a (fixed) current that is different from the eventual limit current.
We now give a brief outline of the paper. We’d like to point out immediately that the
sections 3, 4 and 5 are written independently of each other and can be read in arbitrary
order.
• In Section 2 we recall some background information and set up notation that is
needed in the sections to follow.
• In Section 3 we define several versions of North-South dynamics (in a general context without reference to Out(FN ) or currents) and derive the main criterion (Propositions
3.3 and 3.4) used in the proof of Theorem 1.1.
• Section 4 is entirely devoted to train track technology, addressing issues such as indivisible Nielsen paths (INPs), exponential growth of the number of illegal turns under
backwards iteration, etc. Moreover, we recall and investigate the notion of “goodness” which plays a key role in our analysis. We conclude Section 4 with Proposition
4.20 (see also Remark 4.21). This proposition is a crucial tool in our approach,
since it permits the restriction of our attention in the convergence approximation to
conjugacy classes with large goodness.
• In Section 5 we present some standard notions from symbolic dynamics and use the
main result from our previous paper [LU17] on limit frequencies of substitutions in
order to define the limit simplexes ∆+ (ϕ) and ∆− (ϕ) and show their ϕ-invariance
(Corollary 5.12).
• In Section 6 the crucial convergence approximation is calculated for conjugacy classes
with large goodness (Lemma 6.1), done carefully over several pages. The main results
are derived from “putting together the pieces” derived previously. We finish this
section with a particular “free products” example of hyperbolic outer automorphisms
which are not fully irreducible.
Acknowledgements: We would heartfully like to thank Ilya Kapovich for his constant
encouragement and support, as well as for many helpful mathematical and organizational
suggestions. We would also like to thank Arnaud Hilion and Matt Clay for useful exchanges
and helpful comments. We thank the anonymous referee who provided detailed feedback,

4

MARTIN LUSTIG AND CAGLAR UYANIK

and prompted us to clarify several points and improve the exposition. The second author is
grateful to Chris Leininger for useful discussions, support, and helpful comments.
2. Preliminaries
We first recall facts about graphs, paths, and maps between graphs. For an even more
detailed discussion of these notions we refer reader to Section 2 of [DKL15]. For a streamlined
version which uses the standard conventions the reader is referred to [LU16].
2.1. Graphs. A topological graph Γ is a 1-dimensional finite cell complex. The 0-cells of
Γ are called vertices and the set of vertices is denoted by V Γ. The 1-cells of Γ are called
topological edges and the set of topological edges is denoted by Etop Γ. Each topological edge
admits exactly two orientations, and we call a topological edge with a choice of orientation
an oriented edge. The set of all oriented edges is denoted by EΓ. Given e ∈ EΓ, we denote
the edge with the opposite orientation by e. Given a finite set of points in a topological graph
Γ, one obtains a topological graph Γ0 as the subdivision, in which the vertex set contains the
original vertex set, together with the finite set of points.
Let Γ be a topological graph. We choose an orientation for each edge, and denote the
set of positively (resp. negatively) oriented edges by E + Γ ( resp. E − Γ). Given an edge
e ∈ E + Γ, the initial vertex of e is denoted by o(e) and the terminal vertex of e is denoted
by t(e).
The graph Γ is equipped with a natural metric called the simplicial metric which is
obtained by identifying each edge e of Γ with the interval [0, 1] via a characteristic map
αe : [0, 1] → e, meaning that α is continuous on [0, 1] and the restriction to (0, 1) is an
orientation preserving homeomorphism onto the interior of e.
2.2. Paths. A combinatorial edge path γ of simplicial length n ≥ 1 is a concatenation
e1 e2 . . . en of oriented edges of Γ where t(ei ) = o(ei+1 ). The simplicial length of an edge path
γ in Γ is denoted by |γ|Γ , and if it is clear from the context, we suppress Γ and write |γ|.
A topological edge path of simplicial length n ≥ 1 is a continuous map p : [a, b] → Γ such
that there exists a combinatorial edge path γp = e1 e2 . . . en and a subdivision a = c0 < c1 <
c2 < . . . < cn = b such that for each 1 ≤ i ≤ n we have p(ci−1 ) = o(ei ), and p(ci ) = t(ei ) and
the restriction of p to (ci−1 , ci ) is an orientation preserving homeomorphism onto the interior
of ei . We say that γp is the combinatorial edge path associated to p.
Let Γ be equipped with the simplicial metric as above. A topological edge path p : [a, b] →
Γ is a PL edge path if for every edge ei in the combinatorial edge path γp the composition
αe−1
◦ p : (ci−1 , ci ) → (0, 1) is the unique orientation preserving affine homeomorphism from
i
(ci−1 , ci ) to (0, 1). By not requiring that p(a) and p(b) are vertices in Γ, the concept of PL
edge paths easily extend to PL paths.
A combinatorial edge path of simplicial length 0 consists of a vertex in Γ. A (degenerate)
edge path γ that consists of a vertex is called trivial. A combinatorial edge path γ is called
reduced if ei 6= ei+1 for all i = 1, . . . , n − 1. A reduced edge path is called cyclically reduced
if t(en ) = o(e1 ) and en 6= e1 . A topological or PL edge path is called reduced (resp. trivial) if
the corresponding combinatorial edge path is reduced (resp. trivial). More generally, a PL
path is called reduced if p : [a, b] → Γ is locally injective.

DYNAMICS OF HYPERBOLIC AUTOMORPHISMS OF FN

5

2.3. Graph maps. A topological graph map f : Γ → Γ is a continuous map that sends
vertices to vertices, and edges to topological edge paths. The latter means that for any edge
e and a characteristic map αe : [0, 1] → Γ, the composition f ◦ αe : [0, 1] → Γ is a topological
edge path as above.
A linear graph map is a topological graph map f : Γ → Γ as above which, in addition,
satisfies the following condition: For every e ∈ Γ, the restriction of f to e is a PL edge path
from f (o(e)) to f (t(e)).
Note that given a topological graph map f : Γ → Γ there is a linear graph map from Γ to
itself that is homotopic to f relative to vertices.
Definition 2.1. We say that a topological graph map f : Γ → Γ is regular if for all e ∈ EΓ
the (combinatorial) edge path (associated to) f (e) is non-trivial and reduced. The map f is
called expanding if for every edge e ∈ EΓ there is an exponent t ≥ 1 such that the edge path
f t (e) has simplicial length |f t (e)| ≥ 2.
A turn in Γ is a pair (e1 , e2 ) where o(e1 ) = o(e2 ). A turn is called non-degenerate if
e1 6= e2 , otherwise it is called degenerate. A regular graph map f : Γ → Γ induces a
derivative map Df : EΓ → EΓ where Df (e) is the first edge of the combinatorial edge
path associated to f (e). The derivative map induces a map T f on the set of turns defined
as T f ((e1 , e2 )) := (Df (e1 ), Df (e2 )). A turn (e1 , e2 ) is called legal if T f n ((e1 , e2 )) is nondegenerate for all n ≥ 0. An edge path γ = e1 e2 . . . en is called legal if every turn (ei , ei+1 )
in γ is legal.
Remark-Convention 2.2. (1) For the rest of this paper, a path means a PL path. Also note
that, given a combinatorial edge path γ in Γ there is always a PL edge path p : [a, b] → Γ such
that γp = γ. Hence, by an edge path we will either mean a PL edge path or a combinatorial
edge path and won’t make a distinction unless it is not clear from the context.
(2) Similarly, from now on, unless otherwise stated, a graph map means a linear graph map
as defined above.
Definition 2.3. A graph map f : Γ → Γ is called a train track map if for every edge e and
any t ≥ 1 the edge path f t (e) is legal.
2.4. Markings and topological representatives. Let FN denote a free group of finite
rank N ≥ 2 which we fix once and for all. A graph Γ is said to be marked, if it is equipped
∼
=
with a marking isomorphism θ : FN −→ π1 Γ. Markings are well defined only up to inner
automorphisms, which is why we suppress the choice of a base point in Γ.
A homotopy equivalence f : Γ → Γ is a topological representative of an automorphism
∼
=
ϕ ∈ Out(FN ) with respect to the marking θ : FN −→ π1 Γ if one has ϕ = θ−1 f∗ θ. A graph
map f : Γ → Γ is called a train track representative for ϕ if f is a topological representative
for ϕ and f is a train track map.
Remark 2.4. If a topological graph map f : Γ → Γ represents a hyperbolic outer automorphism ϕ of FN , then the hypothesis that f be expanding is easy to satisfy: It suffices to
contract all edges which are not expanded by any iterate f t to an edge path of length ≥ 2:
The contracted subgraph must be a forest, as otherwise some f t would fix a non-contractible
loop and hence ϕt would fix a non-trivial conjugacy class of π1 (Γ) ∼
= FN , contradicting the

6

MARTIN LUSTIG AND CAGLAR UYANIK

assumption that ϕ is hyperbolic. It is easy to see that, if f is a train track map, then this
property is inherited by the above “quotient map”.
Given an (not necessarily reduced) edge path γ ∈ Γ, let [γ] denote the reduced edge path
which is homotopic to γ relative to endpoints. The following is a classical fact for free group
automorphisms:
Lemma 2.5 (Bounded Cancellation Lemma). [Coo87] Let f : Γ → Γ be topological graph
map that is a homotopy equivalence. There exist a constant Cf , depending only on f , such
that for any reduced edge path ρ = ρ1 ρ2 in Γ one has
|[f (ρ)]| ≥ |[f (ρ1 )]| + |[f (ρ2 )]| − 2Cf .
That is, at most Cf terminal edges of [f (ρ1 )] are cancelled against Cf initial edges of [f (ρ2 )]
when we concatenate them to obtain [f (ρ)].
Remark 2.6. In Section 4 of this paper we will consider train track maps f : Γ → Γ that
are not assumed to be homotopy equivalences. We do, however, assume that f possesses
a cancellation bound: there is an integer C ≥ 0 such that for any two legal edge paths γ
and γ 0 with common initial vertex but distinct initial edges the backtracking path γ 00 at the
image of the concatenation point of the non-reduced path f (γ ◦ γ 0 ) has combinatorial length
|γ 00 | ≤ C. The smallest such integer C is denoted by C(f ).
The reason for not imposing the homotopy equivalence condition is to make the results and
techniques of this paper available for the study of free group endomorphisms, as well as for
the use of more general type of train track maps in the context of free group automorphisms.
Definition 2.7. A path η in Γ which crosses over precisely one illegal turn is called a periodic
indivisible Nielsen path (or INP, for short), if for some exponent t ≥ 1 one has [f t (η)] = η.
The smallest such t is called the period of η. A path γ is called pre-INP if its image under
f t0 is an INP for some t0 ≥ 1. The illegal turn on η = γ 0 ◦ γ is called the tip of η, while the
two maximal initial legal subpaths γ 0 and γ, of η and η respectively, are called the branches
of η. A multi-INP or a Nielsen path is a legal concatenation of finitely many INP’s.
If f is an expanding train track map, then any non-trivial reduced path η, such that f t (η)
is homotopic to η relative to endpoints for some t ≥ 1, can be written as a legal concatenation
of finitely many INP’s. This can be seen by a direct elementary argument; alternatively it
follows from Proposition 4.12.
The reader should be aware of the fact that a priori the endpoints of an INP may not be
vertices of Γ (compare with Convention 4.7 below).
2.5. Geodesic Currents on Free Groups. Let FN be the free group of finite rank N ≥ 2,
and denote by ∂FN the Gromov boundary of FN . The double boundary of FN is defined by
∂ 2 FN := (∂FN × ∂FN ) r ∆,
where ∆ denotes the diagonal. The flip map on ∂ 2 FN is defined by
(ξ, ζ) 7→ (ζ, ξ).
A geodesic current µ on FN is a locally finite, Borel measure on ∂ 2 FN which is flip and
FN -invariant. The set of all geodesic currents on FN is denoted by Curr(FN ). The space of

DYNAMICS OF HYPERBOLIC AUTOMORPHISMS OF FN

7

currents is naturally equipped with the weak*-topology. In particular, a sequence of currents
µn ∈ Curr(FN ) satisfies
lim µn = µ iff

n→∞

lim µn (S1 × S2 ) = µ(S1 × S2 )

n→∞

for any two disjoint Borel subsets S1 , S2 ⊂ ∂FN .
An immediate example of a geodesic current is given by any non-trivial conjugacy class
in FN : For an element g ∈ FN which is not a proper power (i.e. g 6= hk for any h ∈ FN
and any k ≥ 2) define the counting current ηg as follows: for any Borel set S ⊂ ∂ 2 FN the
value ηg (S) is the number of FN -translates of (g −∞ , g ∞ ) or of (g ∞ , g −∞ ) that are contained
in S. For an arbitrary element h ∈ FN r {1} write h = g k , where g is not a proper power,
and define ηh := kηg . It is easy to see that this definition is independent of the particular
representative of the conjugacy class of h, so that ηh depends only on [h] ⊂ FN . The set of
all non-negative real multiples of a counting current is called rational currents, and it is an
important fact that rational currents are dense in Curr(FN ), see [Kap05], [Kap06].
Let Φ ∈ Aut(FN ) be an automorphism of FN . Since Φ induces homeomorphisms on
∂FN and on ∂ 2 FN , there is a natural action of Aut(FN ) on the space of currents: For any
Φ ∈ Aut(FN ), µ ∈ Curr(FN ) and any Borel subset S ⊂ ∂ 2 FN one has
Φµ(S) := µ(Φ−1 (S)).
Note that any inner automorphism of FN acts trivially, so that the above action factors
through the quotient of Aut(FN ) by all inner automorphisms to give a well defined action of
Out(FN ) on Curr(FN ).
The space of projectivized geodesic currents is defined as the quotient

PCurr(FN ) =: Curr(FN ) ∼
where µ1 ∼ µ2 in Curr(FN ) if and only µ1 = λµ2 for some λ > 0. We denote the projective
class of the current µ by [µ].
We derive from the above stated facts:
Proposition 2.8. (1) The space PCurr(FN ) is a compact metric space, and the above actions
of Aut(FN ) and Out(FN ) on Curr(FN ) descend to well defined actions on PCurr(FN ) by
setting
ϕ[µ] := [ϕµ].
(2) The subset of PCurr(FN ) defined by all rational currents is dense in PCurr(FN ).
For any marked graph Γ the marking isomorphism θ : FN → π1 Γ gives rise to canonical
FN -equivariant homeomorphisms between the Gromov boundaries and double boundaries of
e which for simplicity we also denote by θ.
the group FN and of the universal cover Γ,
e We define the cylinder set associated to γ
Let γ
e be a reduced edge path in Γ.
e as follows:
Cyl(e
γ ) := {(ξ, ζ) ∈ ∂FN | γ
e is a subpath of [∂θ(ξ), ∂θ(ζ)]}
where [∂θ(ξ), ∂θ(ζ)] denotes the biinfinite reduced edge path that joins the end ∂θ(ξ) to the
e
end ∂θ(ζ) of Γ.

8

MARTIN LUSTIG AND CAGLAR UYANIK

e We
Let γ be a reduced edge path in Γ and let µ ∈ Curr(FN ). Let γ
e be a lift of γ to Γ.
define
hγ, µi := µ(Cyl(e
γ ))
and note that the FN -equivariance for geodesic currents implies that the value µ(Cylα (e
γ ))
does not depend on the particular lift γ
e we chose, so we have a well defined quantity hγ, µi.
Note also that in case of a rational current µ = ηg the quantity hγ, µi is given by the
number of occurrences of γ or of γ in the reduced loop [γ] which represents the conjugacy
class [g]. Moreover, the action of Out(FN ) on rational currents is given explicitly by the
formula
(2.1)

ϕηg = ηϕ(g) .

An important fact about cylinder sets is that they form a basis for the topology on ∂ 2 FN , so
that a geodesic current µ is uniquely determined by the set of values hγ, µi for all non-trivial
reduced edge paths γ in Γ, see [Kap06].
In particular, we have lim µn = µ if and only if lim hγ, µn i = hγ, µi for all reduced edge
n→∞
n→∞
paths γ in Γ.
Moreover, if we denote by P(Γ) the set of reduced edge paths in Γ, then the function
µΓ : P(Γ) → R≥0 , γ 7→ hγ, µi
satisfies for all γ ∈ P(Γ):
P
(1) µΓ (γ) =
µΓ (γ 0 ) =
γ 0 ∈E+ (γ)

P

µΓ (γ 00 ), and

γ 0 ∈E− (γ)

(2) µΓ (γ) = µΓ (γ),
where E+ (γ) ⊂ P(Γ) and E− (γ) ⊂ P(Γ) denote the set of reduced edge paths obtained from
γ by adding a further edge at the beginning or at the end respectively.
Any function µ0Γ : P(Γ) → R≥0 which satisfies (1) and (2) above is called a Kolmogorov
function, and it is well known (see [Kap05, Kap06]) that any such µ0Γ defines uniquely a
geodesic current µ on FN which satisfies µΓ = µ0Γ .
Let Γ be a marked graph as above. Given a geodesic current µ ∈ Curr(FN ), define the
weight of µ with respect to Γ as
X
(2.2)
kµkΓ :=
he, µi.
e∈E + Γ

The following criterion given in [Kap06] plays a key role in our convergence estimates in
Section 6.
Lemma 2.9. Let ([µn ])n∈N be a sequence of currents in PCurr(FN ). Then one has lim [µn ] =
n→∞

[µ] in PCurr(FN ) if and only if
hγ, µn i
hγ, µi
=
n→∞ kµn kΓ
kµkΓ
lim

holds for all reduced edge paths γ in Γ.

DYNAMICS OF HYPERBOLIC AUTOMORPHISMS OF FN

9

3. North-South dynamics
In this section we describe some general considerations for maps with North-South dynamics. We will keep the notation simple and general; at no point we will refer to the specifics of
currents on free groups. However, in this section we will prove the main criteria used in the
remainder of the paper to establish the North-South dynamics result in our main theorem.
Definition 3.1. Let f : X → X be homeomorphism of a topological space X.
(a) The map f is said to have (pointwise) North-South dynamics if f has two distinct fixed
points P+ and P− , called attractor and repeller, such that for every x ∈ X r {P+ , P− } one
has:
lim f t (x) = P+
and
lim f t (x) = P− .
t→∞

t→−∞

(b) The map f is said to have uniform North-South dynamics if the following holds: There
exist two distinct fixed points P− and P+ of f , such that for every compact set K ⊂ X r{P− }
and every neighborhood U+ of P+ there exists an integer t+ ≥ 0 such that for every t ≥ t+
one has:
f t (K) ⊂ U+ .
Similarly, for every compact set K ⊂ X r {P+ } and every neighborhood U− of P− there
exists an integer t− ≤ 0 such that for every t ≤ t− one has:
f t (K) ⊂ U− .
It is easy to see that uniform North-South dynamics implies pointwise North-South dynamics.
Definition 3.2. A homeomorphism f : X → X of a topological space X has generalized
uniform North-South dynamics if there exist two disjoint compact f -invariant sets ∆+ and
∆− in X, such that the following hold:
(i) For every compact set K ⊂ X r ∆− and every neighborhood U+ of ∆+ there exists
an integer t+ ≥ 0 such that for every t ≥ t+ one has:
f t (K) ⊂ U+
(ii) For every compact set K ⊂ X r ∆+ and every neighborhood U− of ∆− there exists
an integer t− ≤ 0 such that for every t ≤ t− one has:
f t (K) ⊂ U−
More precisely, we say that the map f has generalized uniform North-South dynamics
from ∆− to ∆+ . Note that we interpret the phrase “f -invariant” in its strong meaning, i.e.
f (∆+ ) = ∆+ and f (∆− ) = ∆− .
Proposition 3.3. Let f : X → X be a homeomorphism of a compact metrizable space X.
Let Y ⊂ X be dense subset of X, and let ∆+ and ∆− be two f -invariant sets in X that are
disjoint. Assume that the following criterion holds:
For every neighborhood U of ∆+ and every neighborhood V of ∆− there exists an integer
m0 ≥ 1 such that for any m ≥ m0 and any y ∈ Y one has either f m (y) ∈ U or f −m (y) ∈ V .
Then f 2 has generalized uniform North-South dynamics from ∆− to ∆+ .

10

MARTIN LUSTIG AND CAGLAR UYANIK

Proof. Let K ⊂ X r ∆− be compact, and let U and V be neighborhoods of ∆+ and ∆−
respectively. See Figure 1.

X
V

U
U0

∆−

∆+
W
K

Figure 1.
Let W be an open neighborhood of K such that W ∩ V = ∅. Since X is compact, the
closure W is compact. Then V1 := V r W is again an open neighborhood of ∆− , moreover it
is disjoint from W . Let U1 be a neighborhood of ∆+ which has the property that its closure
is contained in the interior of U . Such a neighborhood exists because X is a metrizable
space.
Let m0 be as postulated in the criterion, applied to the neighborhoods U1 and V1 , and
pick any m ≥ m0 . Consider any y ∈ Y ∩ f m (W ). Notice that f −m (y) is contained in W ,
which is disjoint from V1 . Thus, by the assumed criterion, f m (y) must be contained in U1 .
Since W is open and f is a homeomorphism, any dense subset of X must intersect f m (W )
in a subset that is dense in f m (W ). This implies that f m (f m (W )) ⊆ U1 ⊂ U . Since K ⊂ W ,
this shows that f 2m (K) ⊂ U .
Using the analogous argument for the inverse iteration we see that f 2 has generalized
uniform North-South dynamics from ∆− to ∆+ .
u
t
Proposition 3.4. Let f : X → X be a homeomorphism of a compact space X, and let ∆+
and ∆− be disjoint f -invariant sets. Assume that some power f s with s ≥ 1 has generalized
uniform North-South dynamics from ∆− to ∆+ .
Then the map f , too, has generalized uniform North-South dynamics from ∆− to ∆+ .
Proof. Let K ⊂ X r ∆− be compact, and let U be an open neighborhood of ∆+ .
Set K 0 := K ∪ f (K) ∪ . . . ∪ f s−1 (K), which is again compact. Note that the fact that
K ⊂ X r ∆− and f −1 (∆− ) = ∆− implies that K 0 ⊂ X r ∆− . Indeed, x ∈ K 0 implies that
x = f t (y) for some y ∈ K and for some 0 ≤ t ≤ s − 1.
Thus x ∈ ∆− would imply that y = f −t (x) ∈ f −1 (∆− ) = ∆− , contradicting the assumption K ∩ ∆− = ∅.

DYNAMICS OF HYPERBOLIC AUTOMORPHISMS OF FN

11

From the hypothesis that f s has generalized uniform North-South dynamics from ∆− to
0
∆+ it follows that there is a bound t0 such that for all t0 ≥ t0 one has f t s (K 0 ) ⊂ U .
Hence, for any point x ∈ K and any integer t ≥ st0 , we can write t = k + st0 with t0 ≥ t0
and 0 ≤ k ≤ s − 1 to obtain the desired fact
0

0

f t (x) = f k+st (x) = f st f k (x) ∈ f st (K 0 ) ⊂ U.
The analogous argument for f −1 finishes the proof of the Lemma.

u
t

4. Train-Tracks
In this section we will consider train track maps which satisfy the following properties:
Convention 4.1. Let Γ be a finite connected graph, and let f : Γ → Γ be an expanding train
track map which possesses a cancellation bound Cf ≥ 0 as defined in Remark 2.6. We also
assume that f has been replaced by a positive power so that for some integers λ00 ≥ λ0 > 1
we have, for any edge e of Γ:
λ00 ≥ |f (e)| ≥ λ0

(4.1)
and λ0 , λ00 is attained for some edges.

4.1. Goodness.
The following terminology was introduced by R. Martin in his thesis [Mar95].
Definition 4.2. Let f : Γ → Γ, Cf and λ0 be as in Convention 4.1. Define the critical
Cf
constant C for f as C := 0
. Let γ be a reduced edge path in Γ. Any edge e in γ that is
λ −1
at least C edges away from an illegal turn on γ is called good, where the distance (= number
of edges traversed) is measured on γ. An edge is called bad if it is not good. Edge paths or
loops, in particular subpaths of a given edge path, which consist entirely of good (or entirely
of bad) edges are themselves called good (or bad).
For any edge path or a loop γ in Γ we define the goodness of γ as the following quotient:
#{good edges of γ}
g(γ) :=
∈ [0, 1]
|γ|
We will now discuss some basic properties of the goodness of paths and loops. We first
consider any legal edge path γ in Γ of length |γ| = C and compute:
(4.2)

|f (γ)| ≥ λ0 |γ| = λ0 C = Cf + C

Lemma 4.3. Let f : Γ → Γ and λ0 be as in Convention 4.1. Let γ be a reduced edge path or
a cyclically reduced loop in Γ. Then any good subpath γ 0 of γ has the property that no edge
of f (γ 0 ) = [f (γ 0 )] is cancelled when f (γ) is reduced, and that it consists entirely of edges that
are good in [f (γ)]. Hence, for any reduced loop γ in Γ we have:
#{good edges in [f (γ)]} ≥ λ0 · #{good edges in γ}
Proof. If γ is legal, then every edge is good, and the lemma follows directly from the definition
of λ0 in Convention 4.1. Now assume that the path γ has at least one illegal turn. Let
γ = γ1 B1 γ2 B2 . . . γn Bn

12

MARTIN LUSTIG AND CAGLAR UYANIK

b2
a1

γ1

a2

Figure 2. ai ’s are legal ends of maximal bad segments, γ is a good (legal) segment
be a decomposition of γ into maximal good edge paths γi and maximal bad edge paths Bi .
Note that each maximal bad segment Bi can be written as an illegal concatenation Bi =
ai bi ai+1 where ai is a legal segment of length C and bi is an edge path that (possibly) contains
some illegal turns.
Note that since |f (ai )| ≥ λ0 |ai | ≥ λ0 C = Cf +C, Lemma 2.5 implies that [f (Bi )] is an edge
path of the from [f (Bi )] = a0i b0i c0i where a0i , c0i are legal edge paths such that |a0i |, |c0i | ≥ C.
Moreover, the turn at f (γi )a0i is legal. Since by Convention 4.1 every edge grows at least by
a factor of λ0 , this implies the required result.
u
t
On the other hand, for any cyclically reduced loop γ the number of bad edges is related
to the number of illegal turns on γ, which we denote by ILT (γ), via:
(4.3)

ILT (γ) ≤ #{bad edges in γ} ≤ 2C · ILT (γ)

Since the number of illegal turns on γ can only stay constant or decrease under iteration of
the train track map, we obtain directly
(4.4)

#{bad edges in [f t (γ)]} ≤ 2C · ILT (γ) ≤ 2C · #{bad edges in γ}

for all positive iterates f t of f .
Notice however that the number of bad edges may actually grow (slightly) faster than the
number of good edges under iteration of f , so that the goodness of γ does not necessarily
grow monotonically under iteration of f . Nevertheless up to passing to powers one can
overcome this issue:
Proposition 4.4. Let f : Γ → Γ be as in Convention 4.1.
(a) There exists an integer s ≥ 1 such that for every reduced loop γ in Γ one has:
g([f s (γ)]) ≥ g(γ)
In particular, for any integer t ≥ 0 one has
g([(f s )t (γ)]) ≥ g(γ)
(b) If 0 < g(γ) < 1, then for any integer s0 > s we have
0

g([f s (γ)]) > g(γ)

DYNAMICS OF HYPERBOLIC AUTOMORPHISMS OF FN

13

and thus, for any t ≥ 0:
0

g([(f s )t (γ)]) > g(γ)
Proof. (a) We set s ≥ 1 so that λ0 s ≥ 2C and obtain from Lemma 4.3 for the number g 0 of
good edges in [f s (γ)] and the number g of good edges in γ that:
s

g 0 ≥ λ0 g
For the number b0 of bad edges in [f s (γ)] and the number b of bad edges in γ we have from
equation (4.4) that:
b0 ≤ 2Cb
Thus we get
g0
g
g0
λ0s g
g
≥
and
hence
≥
≥
0
0
0
b
2C b
b
g +b
g+b
s
which proves g([f (γ)]) ≥ g(γ). The second inequality in the statement of the lemma follows
directly from an iterative application of the first.
(b) The proof of part (b) follows from the above given proof of part (a), since λ0 s > 2C
unless there is no good edge at all in γ, which is excluded by our hypothesis 0 < g(γ). Since
the hypothesis g(γ) < 1 implies that there is at least one illegal turn in γ, in the above proof
we get b ≥ 1, which suffices to show
g0
g
> ,
0
b
b
s
and thus g([f (γ)]) > g(γ).
u
t
From the inequalities at the end of part (a) of the above proof one derives directly, for
g > 0, the inequality
1
g([f s (γ)]) ≥
.
2C
1
1 + λ0s ( g(γ)
− 1)
Hence we obtain:
Corollary 4.5. Let f : Γ → Γ be as in Convention 4.1, and let δ > 0 and ε > 0 be given.
Then there exist an integer M 0 = M 0 (δ, ε) ≥ 0 such that for any loop γ in Γ with g(γ) ≥ δ
we have g([f m (γ)]) ≥ 1 − ε for all m ≥ M 0 .
u
t

4.2. Illegal turns and iteration of the train track map.
The following lemma (and also other statements of this subsection) are already known in
differing train track dialects (compare for example Lemma 4.2.5 in [BFH00]); for convenience
of the reader we include here a short proof. Recall the definition of an INP and a pre-INP
from Definition 2.7.
Lemma 4.6. Let f : Γ → Γ be as in Convention 4.1. Then there are only finitely many
INP’s and pre-INP’s in Γ for f . Furthermore, there is an efficient method to determine
them.

14

MARTIN LUSTIG AND CAGLAR UYANIK

Proof. We consider the set V of all pairs (γ1 , γ2 ) of legal edge paths γ1 , γ2 with common
initial vertex but distinct first edges, which have combinatorial length |γ1 | = |γ2 | = C. Note
that V is finite.
From the definition of the cancellation bound and the inequalities (4.1) it follows directly
that every INP or every pre-INP η must be a subpath of some path γ 1 ◦ γ2 with (γ1 , γ2 ) ∈ V.
Furthermore, we define for i = 1 and i = 2 the initial subpath γi∗ of γi to consist of all points
x of γi that are mapped by some positive iterate f t into the backtracking subpath at the
tip of the unreduced path f t (γ 1 ◦ γ2 ). We observe that the interior of any INP-subpath or
pre-INP-subpath η of γ 1 ◦ γ2 must agree with the subpath γ ∗1 ◦ γ2∗ . Thus any pair (γ1 , γ2 ) ∈ V
can define at most one INP-subpath of γ 1 ◦ γ2 . Since V is finite and easily computable, we
obtain directly the claim of the lemma.
u
t
In light of Lemma 4.6, we obtain a subdivision Γ0 of Γ by adding the endpoints of all the
finitely many INP’s or pre-INP’s, while keeping the property that f maps vertices to vertices.
This gives a train track map f 0 : Γ0 → Γ0 which represents the same outer automorphism
as f : Γ → Γ, thus justifying that from now on we concentrate on train track maps which
satisfy the following:
Convention 4.7. Let f : Γ → Γ be a train track map as in Convention 4.1. We assume in
addition that every endpoint of an INP or a pre-INP is a vertex.
Lemma 4.8. Let f : Γ → Γ be as in Convention 4.7. Then, there exists an exponent M1 ≥ 1
with the following property: Let γ be a path in Γ, and assume that it contains precisely two
illegal turns, which are the tips of INP-subpaths or pre-INP-subpaths η1 and η2 of γ. If η1
and η2 overlap in a non-trivial subpath γ 0 , then f M1 (γ) reduces to a path [f M1 (γ)] which has
at most one illegal turn.
Proof. For any point x1 in the interior of one of the two legal branches of an INP or a pre-INP
η there exists a point x2 on the other legal branch such that for a suitable positive power
of f one has f t (x1 ) = f t (x2 ). Hence, if we pick a point x in the interior of γ 0 , there are
points x0 on the other legal branch of η1 and x00 on the other legal branch of η2 such that for
some positive iterate of f one has f t (x0 ) = f t (x) = f t (x00 ). It follows that the decomposition
γ = γ1 ◦ γ2 ◦ γ3 , which uses x0 and x00 as concatenation points, defines legal subpaths γ1 and
γ3 which yield [f t (γ)] = [f t (γ1 ) ◦ f t (γ3 )], which has at most one illegal turn.
Since by Convention 4.7 the overlap γ 0 is an edge path, it follows from the finiteness result
proved in Lemma 4.6 that there are only finitely many constellations for η1 and η2 . This
shows that there must be a bound M1 as claimed.
u
t
Lemma 4.9. For every train track map f : Γ → Γ as in Convention 4.7 there exists a
constant M2 = M2 (Γ) ≥ 0 such that every path γ with precisely 1 illegal turn satisfies the
following:
Either γ contains an INP or pre-INP as a subpath, or else [f M2 (γ)] is legal.
Proof. Similar to the set V in the proof of Lemma 4.6 we define the set V+ be the set of all
pairs (γ1 , γ2 ) of legal edge paths γ1 , γ2 in Γ which have combinatorial length 0 ≤ |γ1 | ≤ C
and 0 ≤ |γ2 | ≤ C, and which satisfy:
The paths γ1 and γ2 have common initial point, and, unless one of them (or both) are
trivial, they have distinct first edges. Note that V+ is finite and contains V as subset.

DYNAMICS OF HYPERBOLIC AUTOMORPHISMS OF FN

15

Following ideas from [CL15] we define a map
f# : V+ → V+
induced by f through declaring the f# -image of a pair (γ1 , γ2 ) ∈ V+ to be the pair f# (γ1 , γ2 ) :=
(γ100 , γ200 ) ∈ V+ which is defined by setting for i ∈ {1, 2}
f (γi ) =: γi0 ◦ γi00 ◦ γi000 ,
where γi0 is the maximal common initial subpath of f (γ1 ) and f (γ2 ), where |γi00 | ≤ C, and
where γi000 is non-trivial only if |γi00 | = C.
Then for any (γ1 , γ2 ) ∈ V+ we see as in the proof of Lemma 4.6 that there exists an
exponent t ≥ 0 such that the iterate f#t (γ1 , γ2 ) =: (γ3 , γ4 ) ∈ V+ satisfies one of the following:
(1) One of γ3 or γ4 (or both) are trivial.
(2) The turn defined by the two initial edges of γ3 and γ4 is legal.
(3) The path γ 3 ◦ γ4 contains an INP as subpath.
From the finiteness of V+ it follows directly that there is an upper bound M2 ≥ 0 such that
for t ≥ M2 one of the above three alternatives must be true for f#t (γ1 , γ2 ) =: (γ3 , γ4 ).
Consider now the given path γ, and write it as illegal concatenation of two legal paths
γ = γ10 ◦ γ20 . Then the maximal initial subpaths γ1 of γ 01 and γ2 of γ20 of γ2 of length |γi | ≤ C
form a pair (γ1 , γ2 ) in V+ . In the above cases (1) or (2) it follows directly that f t (γ) is a
(possibly trivial) legal path. In alternative (3) the path f t (γ) contains an INP.
u
t
Proposition 4.10. For any train track map as in Convention 4.7 there exists an exponent
r = r(f ) ≥ 0 such that every finite path γ in Γ with ILT(γ) ≥ 1 satisfies
ILT([f r (γ)]) < ILT(γ) ,
unless every illegal turn on γ is the tip of an INP or pre-INP subpath ηi of γ, where any two
ηi are either disjoint subpaths on γ, or they overlap precisely in a common endpoint.
Proof. Through considering maximal subpaths with precisely one illegal turn we obtain the
claim as direct consequence of Lemma 4.9 and Lemma 4.8.
u
t
Definition 4.11. A path γ in Γ is called pseudo-legal if it is a legal concatenation of legal
paths and INP’s.
From the same arguments as in the last proof we also deduce the following:
Proposition 4.12. Let f : Γ → Γ be as in Convention 4.7. Then for any finite edge path γ
in Γ there is a positive iterate f t (γ) which reduces to a path γ 0 := [f t (γ)] that is pseudo-legal.
The analogous statement also holds for loops instead of paths. The exponent t needed in
either case depends only on the number of illegal turns in γ.
Proof. Since the number of illegal turns in [f t (γ)] non-strictly decreases for increasing t, we
can assume that for sufficiently large t it stays constant. It follows from Lemma 4.9 (after
possibly passing to a further power of f ) that every illegal turn of [f t (γ)] is the tip of some
INP-subpath ηi of [f t (γ)]. From Lemma 4.8 we obtain furthermore that any two such ηi and
ηj that are adjacent on [f t (γ)] can not overlap non-trivially.
u
t

16

MARTIN LUSTIG AND CAGLAR UYANIK

In the next subsection we also need the following lemma, where illegal (cyclic) concatenation means that the path (loop) is a concatenation of subpaths where all concatenation
points are illegal turns.
Lemma 4.13. Let f : Γ → Γ be an expanding train track map. Let γ be a reduced loop in Γ
and let γ 0 = [f (γ)] be its reduced image loop. Assume that for some t ≥ 1 a decomposition
γ 0 = γ10 ◦γ20 ◦. . .◦γt0 as illegal cyclic concatenation is given. Then there exists a decomposition
as illegal cyclic concatenation γ = γ1 ◦ γ2 ◦ . . . ◦ γt with the property that the reduced image
paths [f (γi )] contain the paths γi0 as subpaths, for i = 1, 2, . . . , t.
Proof. We cut the loop γ at some illegal turn to get a (closed) path γ = e1 e2 . . . eq . We
consider the initial subpaths γ(k) = e1 e2 . . . ek of γ for k = 1, 2, . . .. Let k 0 be the smallest
positive integer such that the reduced image path [f (γ(k 0 ))] contains the path γ10 as a subpath.
Since k 0 is the smallest such integer, it follows that the path f (ek0 ) passes through the last
edge of γ10 . Note that f (ek0 ) is a legal path and that γi0 terminates at an illegal turn, so
that the endpoint of f (ek0 ) must lie somewhere in the backtracking subpath of the possibly
unreduced path [f (e1 e2 . . . ek0 ) ] ◦ [f (ek0 +1 ek0 +2 . . . eq )]. It follows that the reduced image path
[f (ek0 +1 ek0 +2 . . . eq )] contains the path γ20 ◦ . . . ◦ γt0 as subpath.
Thus we define γ1 := γ(k 0 ), and proceed iteratively in precisely the same fashion, thus
finding iteratively γ2 , γ3 , . . . γt−1 . As above, it follows that the “left-over” terminal subpath
of γ has the property that its reduced image contains γt0 as subpath, so that we can define
this left-over subpath to be the final factor path γt .
u
t
4.3. Goodness versus illegal turns. We recall from Definition 2.7 that a multi-INP is a
legal concatenation of finitely many INPs along their endpoints. For the remainder of this
section we will concentrate on graph maps f : Γ → Γ which satisfy the following:
Convention 4.14. Let f : Γ → Γ be an expanding train track map as in Convention 4.7.
We assume furthermore that there is an upper bound A(f ) to the number of INP factor
paths in any multi-INP path γ ∈ Γ. Note that this condition implies in particular that in Γ
there can not be a non-trivial loop which is a cyclic legal concatenation of INPs.
The next lemma shows in particular that an expanding train track map which represents
a hyperbolic outer automorphism naturally satisfies the conditions given in Convention 4.14.
Lemma 4.15. For any expanding train track map f : Γ → Γ, which has the property that no
positive power of f fixes the homotopy class of any non-trivial loop in Γ, there is an upper
bound to the number of INP factors on any multi-INP path.
Proof. There is an upper bound A ≥ 0 for number of INPs in Γ, see Lemma 4.6. Hence, any
multi-INP with more than A(f ) := 2A factors would have to run over the same INP twice
in the same direction. Thus we obtain as subpath a non-trivial loop which is fixed by some
positive power of f , violating the given assumption.
u
t
Lemma 4.16. For any train track map f : Γ → Γ as in Convention 4.14 there exists an
exponent s ≥ 1 such that for any reduced path γ ∈ Γ with reduced image path γ 0 = [f s (γ)]
the following holds: If g(γ 0 ) = 0 and satisfies ILT (γ 0 ) ≥ A(f ) + 1, then
ILT (γ) > ILT (γ 0 ).

DYNAMICS OF HYPERBOLIC AUTOMORPHISMS OF FN

17

Proof. Since the map f is expanding, for the critical constant C ≥ 0 given in Definition 4.2
there exists an integer s ≥ 1 such that |f s (e)| ≥ 2C + 1 for every edge e ∈ Γ. We can
furthermore assume s ≥ r, where r = r(f ) is given by Lemma 4.10. Thus, by Lemma 4.10
we have
ILT (γ) > ILT (γ 0 ) ,
unless every illegal turn on γ is the tip of an INP or pre-INP ηi , and any two such subpaths
ηi are disjoint or they overlap precisely at a common endpoint.
The case where two such paths are disjoint can be excluded as follows: If there is an edge
e in γ which doesn’t belong to any of the ηi , then f s (e) is a legal subpath of [f s (γ)] = γ 0 of
length greater than 2C + 1, contradicting the assumption that g(γ 0 ) = 0.
Thus we can assume that any two of the subpaths ηi overlap precisely in a common
endpoint, and that there is no non-trivial initial of final subpath of γ outside of the con0
catenation of all the ηi . Therefore, for some s0 ≥ 0, the iterate f s (γ 0 ) is a multi-INP with
ILT (γ 0 ) ≥ A(f ) + 1 factors, which contradicts Convention 4.14. Hence the conclusion of the
Lemma follows.
u
t
Lemma 4.17. Let f : Γ → Γ and A(f ) be as in Convention 4.14. Then there exists a
constant δ with 0 < δ ≤ 1 so that the following holds: Every reduced loop γ in Γ with
ILT (γ) ≥ A(f ) + 1 can be written as cyclic illegal concatenation
γ = γ1 ◦ γ2 . . . ◦ γ2m
such that for every odd index j, the subpath γj is either trivial or satisfies
g(γj ) ≥ δ .
For every even index k the subpath γk is non-trivial and satisfies g(γk ) = 0; moreover, we
have:
A(f ) + 1 ≤ ILT (γk ) ≤ 2A(f ) + 1
Proof. Let Lγ be the collection of maximal legal subpaths γi0 of γ of length |γi0 | ≥ 2C + 1, for
C ≥ 0 as given in Definition 4.2. Note that any two distinct elements γi0 , γj0 in this collection
are either disjoint or overlap at at single point. In the latter case the turn at the overlap
point is illegal, as otherwise they would merge into a longer legal subpath, which violates
0
the maximality of the γi0 . For any two (on γ) consecutive paths γi0 and γi+1
in Lγ , if the path
0
0
βi between them is trivial or satisfies ILT (βi ) ≤ A(f ), then we erase γi and γi+1
from the
0
0
collection Lγ and add in the new path γi βi γi+1 . We continue this process iteratively until
all the complementary subpaths βi between any two consecutive elements in our collection
satisfies ILT (βi ) ≥ A(f ) + 1. We call the obtained collection of subpaths Cγ .
We now pick a path γj in the collection Cγ and consider its “history” as being obtained
iteratively through joining what amounts to ` paths γi0 from Lγ . Thus γj can be written as
illegal concatenation
0
γj = γ10 ◦ β1 ◦ γ20 ◦ . . . ◦ γ`−1
◦ β`−1 ◦ γ`0 ,
where each γi0 is legal and of length |γi0 | ≥ 2C + 1. Each βi has at most A(f ) illegal turns,
and the legal subpaths of βi between these illegal turns have length ≤ 2C, so that we get
|βi | ≤ (A(f ) + 1)2C. Thus the set of good edges on γj is given precisely as disjoint union

18

MARTIN LUSTIG AND CAGLAR UYANIK

over all the γi0 of the sets of the |γi0 | − 2C edges of γi0 that are not on the two boundary
subpaths of length C of γi0 . Hence we compute for the goodness:
P`
P`
0
(|γ 0 | − 2C)
i=1 (|γi | − 2C)
g(γj ) =
= P` i=1 0 i P`−1
|γj |
i=1 |γi | +
i=1 |βi |
`
1
=
(2C + 1) · ` + (A(f ) + 1)2C · `
2C(A(f ) + 2) + 1
We finally add to the collection Cγ a suitable set of trivial subpaths at illegal turns to get
a collection Cγ0 , where these trivial paths are chosen as to get as complementary subpaths of
Cγ0 only subpaths γk which satisfy:
≥

A(f ) + 1 ≤ ILT (γk ) ≤ 2A(f ) + 1
Thus setting
δ=

1
2C(A(f ) + 2) + 1
u
t

finishes the proof.

Proposition 4.18. Let f : Γ → Γ be a train track map as in Convention 4.14, and let s ≥ 1
be the integer given by Lemma 4.16 and δ > 0 be the constant given by Lemma 4.17. Then
there exists a constant R > 1 such that for any reduced loop γ in Γ one has either
(1) g([f s (γ)]) ≥

δ
2

or
(2) ILT (γ) ≥ R · ILT ([f s (γ)]).
Proof. By 4.12 there is an exponent t ≥ 0 such that for any loop γ with less than A(f ) + 1
illegal turns the loop γ 0 = [f t (γ)] is pseudo-legal. From the assumption that f satisfies
Convention 4.14 it follows that γ 0 is not a legal concatenation of INPs, so that it must have
at least one good edge. Since iteration of f only decreases the number of illegal turns, we
obtain from equality (4.3) that
g(γ) ≥

1
.
2C(A(f ) + 1) + 1

Thus the first inequality from our assertion follows for a suitable choice of s from Proposition
4.4.
0
Thus we can now assume that ILT (γ) ≥ A(f ) + 1, and thus that [f s (γ)] = γ10 ◦ . . . ◦ γ2m
is a decomposition as given by Lemma 4.17. There are two cases to consider: Assume that
X
X
|γj0 | ≥
|γk0 |.
j odd

k even

For any odd index j the non-trivial path γj0 has g(γj0 ) ≥ δ, which together with the last
inequality implies:
δ
g([f s (γ)]) ≥
2

DYNAMICS OF HYPERBOLIC AUTOMORPHISMS OF FN

19

Now, assume that:
X

X

|γj0 | ≤

j odd

|γk0 |

k even

Let γ = γ1 ◦ . . . ◦ γ2m be an illegal cyclic concatenation given by Lemma 4.13 so that, for
each i = 1, . . . , 2m, the reduced image [f s (γi )] contains γi0 as a subpath. Hence, for every
even index, we apply Lemma 4.16 to see that
ILT (γk ) > ILT ([f s (γk )]) ≥ ILT (γk0 ).
Since the number if illegal turns never increases when applying a train track map, for each
odd index j, we have
ILT (γj ) ≥ ILT ([f s (γj )]) ≥ ILT (γj0 ).
Combining last two inequalities we obtain:
ILT (γ) > ILT ([f s (γ)]) + m.

(4.5)

We also observe that the number of illegal turns in [f s (γ)] is equal to the sum of the
number of illegal turns in the odd indexed subpaths, the number of illegal turns in the even
indexed subpaths, and the number of illegal turns at concatenation points:
X
X
ILT (γk0 ) + 2m
ILT (γj0 ) +
(4.6)
ILT ([f s (γ)]) ≤
k even

j odd

Now, note that
(4.7)

X

ILT (γj0 ) ≤

X
j odd

j odd

|γj0 | ≤

X

|γk0 |,

k even

by assumption.
For each γk0 (with even index k), since Lemma 4.17 assures g(γk0 ) = 0 and ILT (γk0 ) ≤
2(A(f ) + 1), we have
|γk0 | ≤ 2C(2(A(f ) + 1) + 1),
which together with (4.7) implies that:
X
(4.8)
ILT (γj0 ) ≤ 2mC(2(A(f ) + 1) + 1)
j odd

Furthermore, from ILT (γk0 ) ≤ 2(A(f ) + 1) for even index k we deduce
X
(4.9)
ILT (γk0 ) ≤ 2m(A(f ) + 1)
k even

Using (4.6), (4.8) and (4.9) we obtain:
(4.10)

ILT ([f s (γ)]) ≤ 2mC(2(A(f ) + 1) + 1) + 2m(A(f ) + 1) + 2m

20

MARTIN LUSTIG AND CAGLAR UYANIK

Using (4.5) and (4.10), we have:
ILT (γ)
m
≥
1
+
ILT ([f s (γ)])
ILT ([f s (γ)])
m
2mC(2(A(f ) + 1) + 1) + 2m(A(f ) + 1) + 2m
1
≥1+
2C(2(A(f ) + 1) + 1) + 2(A(f ) + 1) + 2

≥1+

Therefore, the conclusion of the lemma holds for:
R=1+

1
2C(2(A(f ) + 1) + 1) + 2(A(f ) + 1) + 2
u
t

4.4. Uniform goodness in the future or the past. For the convenience of the reader
we first prove a mild generalization of Proposition 4.18, which will be a crucial ingredient in
the proof of the next proposition.
Proposition 4.19. Let f : Γ → Γ be as in Convention 4.14. Given any constants 0 < δ1 < 1
and R1 > 1, there exist an integer s1 > 0 so that for any reduced loops γ and γ 0 in Γ with
[f s1 (γ 0 )] = γ one has either
(i) g([f s1 (γ)]) ≥ δ1
or
(ii) ILT (γ 0 ) ≥ R1 · |γ|Γ .
Proof. We first replace f by a positive power (say f r , cited at the end of the proof) as given
by Proposition 4.4 so that for the rest of the proof we can assume that goodness is monotone.
Let s, δ and R be as in Lemma 4.18 and let γ be any reduced loop in Γ. Assume that for γ
that alternative (1) of Lemma 4.18 holds, i.e. g([f s (γ)]) ≥ 2δ . Then by Corollary 4.5 there is
an exponent M ≥ 1 such that
g([(f s )m (γ)]) ≥ δ1
for all m ≥ M . On the other hand, if g([f s (γ)]) < 2δ , then Lemma 4.18 assures that
ILT (γ) ≥ R · ILT ([f s (γ)]).
We now claim that
ILT (γ1 ) ≥ R · ILT (γ)
s

for any reduced loop γ1 with [f (γ1 )] = γ. To see this, apply Lemma 4.18 to the loop γ1 . If
one had
δ
g([f s (γ1 )]) = g(γ) ≥ ,
2
then by monotonicity of goodness this would also imply g([f s (γ)]) ≥ 2δ , which contradicts
with our assumption. Hence for γ1 alternative (2) of Lemma 4.18 holds, giving indeed
ILT (γ1 ) ≥ R · ILT (γ).

DYNAMICS OF HYPERBOLIC AUTOMORPHISMS OF FN

21

Repeating the same argument iteratively shows that for any sequence of reduced loops γM 0 ,
defined iteratively through [f s (γM 0 )] = γM 0 −1 for any M 0 ≥ 2, the inequality
0

γM 0 ≥ RM · ILT (γ).
holds. Also, notice that since g(γ) <

δ
2

we have

#{bad edges in γ}
δ
≥1− ,
|γ|Γ
2
and by the inequalities (4.3) we have furthermore
#{bad edges in γ} ≤ 2C · ILT (γ).
Hence we obtain
0

ILT (γM 0 ) ≥ RM · ILT (γ)
0

#{bad edges in γ}
2C
δ 1
· (1 − ) |γ|Γ
2 2C

≥ RM ·
≥ RM

0

0

1
≥ R1 . Then s1 = max{M, M 0 } satisfies the
Let M 0 ≥ 1 be such that RM · (1 − 2δ ) 2C
requirements of the statement of Proposition 4.19 up to replacing f by the power f r as done
at the beginning of the proof.
u
t

In addition to the train track map f we now consider a second train track map f 0 : Γ0 → Γ0 ,
which also satisfies the requirements of Convention 4.14 and which is related to f via maps
h : Γ → Γ0 and h0 : Γ0 → Γ such that f and h0 f 0 h are homotopy inverses. We also assume
that the lifts of h and h0 to the universal coverings are quasi-isometries (with respect to the
simplicial metrics), so that there exists a bi-Lipschitz constant B > 0 which satisfies for any
two “corresponding” reduced loops γ in Γ and γ 0 := [h(γ)] the inequalities
(4.11)

1 0
|γ |Γ0 ≤ |γ|Γ ≤ B |γ 0 |Γ0
B

We denote the goodness for the map f 0 by g0 , and the critical constant for f 0 from Definition
4.2 by C 0 .
Proposition 4.20. Let f : Γ → Γ and f 0 : Γ0 → Γ0 be as specified in the last paragraph.
Given a real number δ so that 0 < δ < 1, there exist a bound M > 0 such that (up to
replacing f and f 0 by a common power) for any pair of corresponding reduced loops γ in Γ
and γ 0 in Γ0 , either
(a) g([f n (γ)]) ≥ δ
or
(b) g0 ([(f 0 )n (γ 0 )]) ≥ δ
holds for all n ≥ M .

22

MARTIN LUSTIG AND CAGLAR UYANIK

Proof. Let B be a bi-Lipschitz constant for the transition from Γ to Γ0 as in (4.11) above.
Set R1 = 4C 0 B 2 , and apply Proposition 4.19 to the loop γ. Assume first that alternative (i)
of this proposition holds. Then Corollary 4.5, applied to f s1 , gives a bound L ≥ 0 so that
inequality (a) holds for all n ≥ L (after having replaced f by f s1 ).
Now assume that for γ alternative (ii) of Proposition 4.19 holds. Then we have the
following inequalities, where γ 00 denotes the reduced loop in Γ corresponding to f 0s1 (γ 0 )
(which implies [f s1 (γ 00 )] = γ):
1 00
1
|γ |Γ ≥ ILT (γ 00 )
B
B
1
≥ R1 · |γ|Γ = 4C 0 B · |γ|Γ
B
= 4C 0 · |γ 0 |Γ0

|f 0s1 (γ 0 )|Γ0 ≥

This however implies that g0 (f 0s1 (γ 0 )) ≥ 1/2, since for any t ≥ 0 the number of bad edges in
f 0t (γ 0 ) is bounded above by
2C 0 · ILT (f 0t (γ 0 )) ≤ 2C 0 · ILT (γ 0 ) ≤ 2C 0 · |γ 0 |Γ0 .
Thus, by invoking Corollary 4.5 again, there exist L0 such that
0

g0 (f 0s1 L (γ 0 )) ≥ δ.
Hence for M 0 = max{L, L0 } the conclusion of the Lemma follows.

u
t

Remark 4.21. From the next section on we will restrict our attention to expanding train
track maps which are homotopy equivalences. For any such train track representative f of
some ϕ ∈ Out(FN ) and f 0 of ϕ−1 , which both satisfy Convention 4.14, the conditions stated
before Proposition 4.20 are satisfied, so that this proposition is valid for them.
5. Perron Frobenius Theorem for reducible substitutions and
automorphisms
The purpose of this section is to define the simplex of attraction ∆+ and the simplex of
repulsion ∆− explicitly by exhibiting the coordinate values for the defining currents. For
this purpose we crucially need the main result from our earlier paper [LU17]; details of how
to use this quote are given below.
5.1. Symbolic dynamics, substitutions and quotes from [LU17]. In this subsection
we recall some terminology, well known definitions and basic facts from symbolic dynamics.
Given any finite set of symbols A = {a1 , . . . , am }, called an alphabet, one considers the
free monoid A∗ over A, which is given by all finite words in A (without inverses), including
the empty word 1. The length |w| of a word w ∈ A∗ denotes the number of letters in w.
Furthermore one considers the full shift AZ , the set of all biinfinite words in A, which is
canonically equipped with the product topology and with the shift-operator. The latter
maps x = . . . xi−1 xi xi+1 . . . ∈ AZ to y = . . . yi−1 yi yi+1 . . . ∈ AZ , with yi = xi+1 ∈ A for any
i ∈ Z. A subset Σ ⊂ AZ is called a subshift if it is non-empty, closed and shift-invariant.
The language of Σ is the collection of all finite words occurring in elements of Σ. For any

DYNAMICS OF HYPERBOLIC AUTOMORPHISMS OF FN

23

w = x1 . . . xn ∈ A∗ we denote by Cylw the set of all y = . . . yi−1 yi yi+1 . . . ∈ AZ which satisfy
y1 = x1 , y2 = x2 , . . . , yn = xn .
An invariant measure µ on a subshift Σ is a finite Borel measure on Σ which is invariant
under the shift map. It extends canonically to an invariant measure on all of AZ by setting
µ(B) := µ(B ∩ Σ) for any measurable set B ⊂ AZ . For any invariant measure µ on AZ
obtained this way we say that µ has support in Σ.
Remark 5.1. (1) Any invariant measure µ defines a function
µA : A∗ → R≥0 , w 7→ µ(Cylw )
which satisfies for any w ∈ A∗ the following Kirchhoff conditions:
X
X
µA (w) =
µA (xw) =
µA (wx)
x∈A

x∈A
∗

∗

Conversely, for every such weight function µ : A → R≥0 (i.e. µ∗ satisfies the Kirchhoff
conditions) there exists a well defined invariant measure µ on AZ with µA = µ∗ , see [FM10].
(2) The measure µ has support in a subshift Σ ⊂ AZ if and only if µA (w) = 0 for any w ∈ A∗
with Cylw ∩ Σ = ∅.
A substitution ζ on the finite alphabet A = {a1 , . . . am } is a monoid morphism ζ : A∗ → A∗ .
It is well defined by knowing all ζ(ai ), and conversely, any map A → A∗ defines a substitution.
A substitution ζ : A → A∗ is called expanding if for each ai ∈ A, |ζ k (ai )| ≥ 2 for some k ≥ 1.
For any two words w1 , w2 ∈ A∗ , let us denote the number of occurrences of the word w1 in
w2 by |w2 |w1 . By proving a generalized version of the classical Perron–Frobenius Theorem
for reducible matrices, in [LU17] we obtain the following result.
Proposition 5.2 (Corollary 1.3 and Remark 3.14 of [LU17]). For any expanding substitution
ζ : A∗ → A∗ and any letter ai ∈ A there is a well defined invariant measure µai on AZ . For
any non-empty w ∈ A∗ and the associated cylinder Cylw the value of µai is given, after
possibly raising ζ to a suitable power (which does not depend on w), by the limit frequency
|ζ t (ai )|w
.
t→∞ |ζ t (ai )|

µai (Cylw ) = lim

Remark 5.3. (1) We note that in [LU17] the measure µai is defined on the substitution
subshift Σζ , while in the above quote we denote by µai the canonical extension to all of AZ .
Accordingly, in [LU17] the set Cylw denotes set Cylw ∩ Σζ . However, as explained in Remark
3.13 of [LU17], these differences are only superficial: the statement quoted above and the
one in [LU17] are indeed equivalent.
(2) It can be derived from [LU17] that the positive power to which ζ has to be raised in order
to get the frequency equality in Proposition 5.2 is not just independent of w but actually
independent of ζ. It only depends on the size of the alphabet A.
In the next subsection we also need the following:
Lemma 5.4 (Remark 3.3 of [LU17]). Let ζ : A∗ → A∗ be an expanding substitution. Then
(up to replacing ζ by a positive power) there exists a constant λai > 1 for each ai ∈ A such

24

MARTIN LUSTIG AND CAGLAR UYANIK

that:
|ζ t+1 (ai )|
= λai
t→∞ |ζ t (ai )|
lim

u
t
5.2. Train track maps reinterpreted as substitutions. We now apply the material
from the previous subsection to a particular substitution ζf which we construct from an
expanding train track map f : Γ → Γ as in the section 4. We first set up the following
general definitions:
For any graph Γ we recall (see section 2.1) that the set EΓ of oriented edges of Γ is
equipped with a fixed point free involution
ι : EΓ → EΓ, e 7→ e
where e denotes as before the edge e with reversed orientation.
We now use EΓ as alphabet, and consider the free monoid EΓ∗ and the both-sided full
shift EΓZ . The latter contains the subshift (of “finite type”) ΣΓ ⊂ EΓZ , which consists of
all biinfinite reduced edge paths in Γ. We denote the language of ΣΓ by P(Γ), it is the set
of all finite reduced edge paths in Γ. We observe that the involution ι induces an involution
on EΓ∗ which for convenience will be denoted also by ι. On EΓZ this involution induces the
flip involution which is given by
ι(. . . xi xi+1 xi+2 . . .) = . . . yi yi+1 yi+2 . . .
with yn = x−n+1 for all n ∈ Z. The subshift ΣΓ is clearly flip-invariant.
A shift-invariant measure µ∗ on ΣΓ is called flip-invariant if for any measurable subset
Σ0 ⊂ ΣΓ one has µ∗ (ι(Σ0 )) = µ∗ (Σ0 ). From Remark 5.1 we see that this is equivalent to
requiring that the weight function µ∗EΓ associated to µ∗ satisfies
µ∗EΓ (γ) = µ∗EΓ (γ)
for any γ ∈ P(Γ). We now observe:
Lemma 5.5. Let Γ be a graph provided with a marking θ : FN → π1 Γ. Then any shiftinvariant and flip-invariant measure µ∗ on ΣΓ defines a current µ on FN and conversely.
This canonical 1-1 correspondence is given by the fact that the Kolmogorov function µEΓ
associated to µ (see section 2.5) and the weight function µ∗EΓ associated to µ∗ satisfy
µEΓ (γ) = µ∗EΓ (γ)
for any finite reduced path γ in Γ.
Proof. It is well known that a current and the associated Kolmogorov function determine each
other vice versa (see section 2.5), and similarly for a shift-invariant measure and its weight
function (see Remark 5.1). Hence the statement of the lemma is a direct consequence of the
observation that any flip-invariant weight function on EΓ∗ , which is zero on EΓ∗ r P(Γ),
restricts on P(Γ) to a Kolmogorov function, and conversely, any Kolmogorov function on
P(Γ) gives canonically rise to a flip-invariant weight function on EΓ by setting it equal to 0
for any element of on EΓ∗ r P(Γ).
u
t

DYNAMICS OF HYPERBOLIC AUTOMORPHISMS OF FN

25

We now consider the occurrences of a path γ as subpath in a path γ 0 . As before, the
number of such occurrences is denoted by |γ 0 |γ . We denote the number of occurrences of γ
or of γ as subpath in a path γ 0 by hγ, γ 0 i and obtain:
hγ, γ 0 i = |γ 0 |γ + |γ 0 |γ

(5.1)

Let now f : Γ → Γ be any graph self-map. Then f induces a substitution ζf : EΓ∗ → EΓ∗ ,
but in general ζf -iterates of reduced paths in Γ will be mapped to non-reduced paths. An
exception is given if f is a train track map and if the path γ 0 is legal: In this case all f t (γ 0 )
will be reduced as well:
[f t (γ 0 )] = f t (γ 0 )
where [ρ] denotes as in section 2.1 the path obtained from an edge path ρ via reduction
relative to its endpoints. Hence the occurrences of any path γ or of γ in [f t (γ 0 )] are given by
(5.2)

hγ, [f t (γ 0 )]i = |f t (γ 0 )|γ + |f t (γ 0 )|γ

for any integer t ≥ 0.
We are now ready to prove:
Proposition 5.6. Let f : Γ → Γ be an expanding train-track map, and let e ∈ EΓ. Then,
after possibly replacing f by a positive power, for any reduced edge path γ in Γ the limit
hγ, f t (e)i
= aγ
n→∞ |f t (e)|
lim

exists, and the set of these limit values defines a unique geodesic current µ+ (e) on FN through
setting hγ, µ+ (e)i = aγ for any γ ∈ P(Γ).
Proof. Since every edge e of Γ is legal, we obtain for any γ ∈ P(Γ) from equation (5.2) above
that hγ, f t (e)i = hγ, [f t (e)]i = |f t (e)|γ + |f t (e)|γ for all exponents t ≥ 0. On the other hand,
for any element ω ∈ EΓ∗ r P(Γ) one has |f t (e)|ω + |f t (e)|ω = 0.
Furthermore the assumption that f is expanding implies directly that the substitution ζf
associated to f is also expanding.
Hence we can apply Proposition 5.2 to the substitution ζf to obtain that, after possibly
t (e)i
replacing f and ζf by a suitable positive power, the limit of the hγ,f
exists indeed, and
|f t (e)|
∗
∗
∗
that it is equal to µe (Cylγ ) + µe (Cylγ ), where µe is a shift-invariant measure on EΓ∗ with
support in the subshift ΣΓ . Hence γ 7→ µ∗e (Cylγ ) defines a weight function on EΓ∗ which
is zero outside P(Γ), and thus similarly γ 7→ µ∗e (Cylγ ). Their sum is thus also a weight
function with support in P(Γ), and furthermore it is flip invariant, so that we obtain from
Lemma 5.5 a Kolmogorov function. This in turn defines the current µ+ (e), as stated in our
proposition.
u
t
We now want to show that the currents µ+ (e) are projectively ϕ-invariant. For this purpose
we start by stating two lemmas; the first one is an elementary exercise:
Lemma 5.7. For any graph Γ without valence 1 vertices there exists a constant K ≥ 0 such
that for any finite reduced edge path γ in Γ there exists an edge path γ 0 of length |γ 0 | ≤ K
such that the concatenation γ ◦ γ 0 exists and is a reduced loop.
u
t

26

MARTIN LUSTIG AND CAGLAR UYANIK

Lemma 5.8. Let f : Γ → Γ as in Proposition 5.6, and let K1 ≥ 0 be any constant. For all
integers t ≥ 0 let γt0 ∈ EΓ∗ be any element with |γt0 | ≤ K1 . Set γt := f t (e)∗ γt0 , where f t (e)∗ is
obtained from f t (e) by erasing an initial and a terminal subpath of length at most K1 . Then
for any reduced path γ in Γ one has
hγ, γt i
lim
= hγ, µ+ (e)i
t→∞ |γt |
Proof. From the hypotheses |γt0 | ≤ K1 and |f t (e)∗ | ≥ |f t (e)| − 2K1 , and from the fact that
hγ,γt i
f is expanding and hence |f t (e)| → ∞ for t → ∞, we obtain directly lim hγ,f
t (e)i = 1 and
t→∞

t|
lim |f|γt (e)|
= 1. Hence the claim follows directly from Proposition 5.6.

t→∞

u
t

Proposition 5.9. Let ϕ ∈ Out(FN ) be an automorphism which is represented by an expanding train-track map f : Γ → Γ. We assume that ϕ and f have been replaced by positive
powers according to Proposition 5.6.
Then there exist a constant λe > 1 such that ϕ(µ+ (e)) = λe µ+ (e).
Proof. For the given graph Γ let K ≥ 0 be the constant given by Lemma 5.7, and for
any integer t ≥ 0 let γt0 ∈ P(Γ) with |γt0 | ≤ K be the path given by Lemma 5.7 so that
γt =: f t (e)γt0 ∈ P(Γ) is a reduced loop. Let [wt ] ⊂ FN ∼
= π1 Γ be the conjugacy class
represented by γt , and note that the rational current η[wt ] satisfies kη[wt ] k = |γt |, by equality
(2.2) from section 2.5.
Similarly, consider f (γn ) = f t+1 (e)f (γt0 ), and notice that |f (γt0 )| is bounded above by the
constant K0 = K max{|f (e)| | e ∈ EΓ}. Since f is a train track map, the path f t+1 (e) is
reduced. Hence the reduced loop γt00 := [f (γn )] = [f t+1 (e)f (γt0 )] can be written as product
f t+1 (e)∗ γt00 with |γt00 | ≤ K1 and |f t+1 (e)∗ | ≥ |f t+1 (e)| − 2K1 , where f t+1 (e)∗ is a subpath of
f t+1 (e) and K1 is the maximum of K0 and the cancellation bound Cf of f (see Lemma 2.5).
Thus we can apply Lemma 5.8 twice to obtain for any reduced path γ in Γ that
hγ, γt i
lim
= hγ, µ+ (e)i
t→∞ |γt |
and
hγ, γt00 i
lim
= hγ, µ+ (e)i .
t→∞ |γt00 |
The first equality implies that the rational currents η[wt ] satisfy
η[wt ]
lim
= µ+ (e).
t→∞ kη[wt ] k
From the continuity of the Out(FN )-action on current space and from ϕη[wt ] = ηϕ[wt ] (see
equality (2.1) from section 2.5) we thus deduce
ηϕ[wt ]
= ϕµ+ (e).
lim
t→∞ kη[wt ] k
However, since the reduced loops γt00 represent the conjugacy classes ϕ[wt ], the second of
the above equalities implies that
ηϕ[wt ]
lim
= µ+ (e).
t→∞ kηϕ[wt ] k

DYNAMICS OF HYPERBOLIC AUTOMORPHISMS OF FN

27

|γ 00 |

t|
Since lim |f|γt (e)|
= 1 and lim |f t+1t (e)| = 1, with |γt | = kη[wt ] k and |γt00 | = kηϕ[wt ] k, the conclusion
t→∞
t→∞
follows from Lemma 5.10 below.
u
t

Lemma 5.10. For every edge e of Γ there exists a real number λe > 1 which satisfies:
|f t+1 (e)|
= λe
t→∞ |f t (e)|
lim

Proof. This is a direct consequence of Lemma 5.4 and of the definition of ζf .

u
t

We now define ∆− (ϕ) and ∆+ (ϕ) that are used in the next section:
Definition 5.11. Let ϕ ∈ Out(FN ) be an outer automorphism. Assume that ϕ is replaced
by a positive power such that both, ϕ and ϕ−1 are represented by expanding train-track
maps as in Proposition 5.6. Let f : Γ → Γ be the representative of ϕ. Then the simplex of
attraction is defined as follows:
X
X
∆+ (ϕ) = {[
ai µ+ (ei )] | ai ≥ 0,
ai > 0}.
ei ∈E + Γ

Analogously, we define the simplex of repulsion as ∆− (ϕ) = ∆+ (ϕ−1 ).
It should be pointed out here that distinct edges ei of Γ may well give the same limit
current µ+ (ei ). Furthermore, even if a subset of currents µ+ (ei ) which define pairwise different vertices of the “simplex” ∆+ (ϕ), this subset may a priori not be linearly independent.
However, it follows from general results in dynamics (see for instance [FM10]) that the
extremal points of ∆+ (ϕ) correspond to ergodic currents, and that pairwise projectively distinct ergodic currents are linearly independent, so that ∆+ (ϕ) is indeed a finite dimensional
simplex.
From Proposition 5.9 we obtain directly:
Corollary 5.12. Let ϕ ∈ Out(FN ) be as in Definition 5.11. Then the simplexes ∆+ (ϕ) and
∆− (ϕ) are ϕ-invariant:
ϕ(∆+ (ϕ)) = ∆+ (ϕ)

and

ϕ(∆− (ϕ)) = ∆− (ϕ)
u
t

Remark 5.13. There seems to be an interesting question as to what the maximal possible
dimension of the limit simplexes ∆+ (ϕ) (or ∆− (ϕ) = δ+ (ϕ−1 )) can be. It has been shown
by G. Levitt [Lev09] that for any ϕ ∈ Out(FN ) the number of exponentially growing strata
in any train track representative of ϕ is bounded above by 3N4−2 (and that this bound is
attained, by certain geometric automorphisms). This gives:
3N − 6
4
We do not know whether there are hyperbolic automorphisms which realize this bound.
Preliminary considerations have lead us to construct for any integer k ≥ 1 a family of
k+1
hyperbolic automorphisms ϕk with rank(ϕk ) = 2 · 3k + 3 and dim(∆+ (ϕk )) = 3 2 −1 .
dim(∆+ (ϕ)) ≤

28

MARTIN LUSTIG AND CAGLAR UYANIK

In the next section we will specify the automorphism in question to be hyperbolic. Recall
that ϕ ∈ Out(FN ) is hyperbolic if there is no non-trivial ϕ-periodic conjugacy class in FN .
Let f : Γ → Γ be an absolute train track representative of ϕ. By Remark 2.4 we can assume
that f is expanding. We then replace ϕ and f by a positive power so that Convention 4.1
is satisfied, and furthermore subdivide edges in accordance to Convention 4.7. Furthermore
we have:
Lemma 5.14. Any expanding train track representative f : Γ → Γ of a hyperbolic automorphism ϕ ∈ Out(FN ) which satisfies Convention 4.7 also satisfies the hypotheses of
Convention 4.14.
Proof. This is a direct consequence of Lemma 4.15.

u
t

Convention 5.15. A hyperbolic automorphism ϕ ∈ Out(FN ) is said to have a properly
expanding train track representative f : Γ → Γ if f satisfies Conventions 4.1, 4.7 and 4.14,
and if both have been raised to a suitable positive power according to Propositions 5.6 and
5.9.
Remark 5.16. From Lemma 5.14 one obtains directly that every hyperbolic automorphism
ϕ which possesses an absolute train track representative has a positive power ϕt which
possesses a properly expanding train track representative.
6. Hyperbolic automorphisms
Let ϕ ∈ Out(FN ) be a hyperbolic automorphism which possesses a properly expanding
train track representative f : Γ → Γ as in Convention 5.15. Let [w] be a conjugacy class in
FN . Represent [w] by a reduced loop γ in Γ. Then the goodness of w, denoted by g([w]), is
defined by:
g([w]) := g(γ)
Lemma 6.1. Given a neighborhood U of the simplex of attraction ∆+ (ϕ) ∈ PCurr(FN ),
there exist a bound δ > 0 and an integer M = M (U ) ≥ 1 such that, for any [w] ∈ FN with
g([w]) ≥ δ, we have
(ϕM )n [ηw ] ∈ U
for all n ≥ 1.
Proof. We first replace ϕ by a positive power as in Proposition 4.4 so that the goodness
function for the train-track map f : Γ → Γ becomes monotone.
Recall from Section 2.5 that [ν] ∈ PCurr(FN ) is close to [ν 0 ] ∈ PCurr(FN ) if there exists
ε > 0 and R >> 0 such that for all reduced edge paths γ with |γ| ≤ R we have
hγ, νi hγ, ν 0 i
−
< ε.
kνkΓ
kν 0 kΓ
Thus, since ∆+ (ϕ) is compact, there exist ε > 0 and R ∈ R such that the above inequalities
imply for ν 0 ∈ ∆+ (ϕ) that ν ∈ U .

DYNAMICS OF HYPERBOLIC AUTOMORPHISMS OF FN

29

We proved the pointwise convergence for edges in Proposition 5.6. Since there are only
finitely many edges and finitely many edge paths γ in Γ with |γ| ≤ R, we can pick an integer
M0 ≥ 0 such that
(6.1)

hγ, f n (e)i
− hγ, µ+ (e)i < ε/4
|f n (e)|

for all n ≥ M0 , for all γ with |γ| ≤ R and for all edges e of Γ.
Let λ0 , λ00 > 1 be the minimal and the maximal expansion factors respectively as given in
1
Convention 4.1. For any reduced loop c in Γ with g(c) ≥ 1+ε/4
iterative application of the
fact, that f maps any good edge in c to to a path in [f (c)] which consists entirely of good
edges and has length at least λ0 , implies:
|f n (c)| ≥

1
|c|(λ0 )n .
1 + ε/4

Thus for any integer M1 > logλ0 R(1 + 4ε ) and all n ≥ M1 we get the following inequalities:
(6.2)

R|c|
R|c|Γ (1 + ε/4)
R(1 + ε/4)
ε
R(1 + ε/4)
≤
≤
=
≤
|f n (c)|
|c|(λ0 )n
(λ0 )M1
R(1 + 4/ε)
4

We note that for any integer m ≥ 1 and for each edge the minimum expansion factor for
f m is at least (λ0 )m and the maximum expansion factor for f m is at most (λ00 )m .
For the rest of the proof set
M = max{M0 , M1 }
and
δ := max{

1
1
},
,
0
λ
1 + ε/4 1 + ( λ00 )M ε/4

and let c be a reduced loop in Γ which represents a conjugacy class w with g(w) ≥ δ.
The assertion of Lemma 6.1 now follows if we show that for all integers n ≥ 1 the current
(ϕM )n ([ηw ]) is (ε, R)-close (in the above sense) to some point in ∆+ (ϕ). Indeed, since by the
first paragraph of the proof the goodness function is monotone, it suffices to assume n = 1
and apply the resulting statement iteratively.
For simplicity we denote from now on f M by f . Another auxiliary computation gives:
(6.3)




(λ00 )M · #{bad edges in c}
(λ00 )M (1 − g(w))|c|
λ00 M
1
λ00 M 1
ε
=
=( 0)
−1 ≤( 0)
−1 ≤ .
0
M
0
M
(λ ) · #{good edges in c}
(λ ) g(w)|c|
λ
g(w)
λ
δ
4
We now write c = c1 c2 . . . b1 . . . cp cp+1 . . . cr b2 cr+1 . . . bk . . . cs−1 cs , where the ci denote good
edges and the bj denote maximal bad subpaths of c. Note for the second of the inequalities
below that the definition of “good” implies that there can be no cancellation in f (c) between
adjacent f (ci ) and f (ci+1 ) nor between adjacent f (ci ) and f (bj ), see Lemma 4.3.

30

MARTIN LUSTIG AND CAGLAR UYANIK

Then we calculate:

hγ, f (c)i hγ, |f (c1 )|µ+ (c1 ) + . . . + |f (cs )|µ+ (cs )i
Ps
−
|f (c)|
i=1 |f (ci )|
s
hγ, f (c)i X hγ, f (ci )i
≤
−
|f (c)|
|f (c)|
i=1
P
s
s
X
hγ, f (ci )i
hγ, f (ci )i
P
− i=1
+
s
|f (c)|
i=1 |f (ci )|
i=1
P
s
hγ, |f (c1 )|µ+ (c1 ) + . . . + |f (cs )|µ+ (cs )i
i=1 hγ, f (ci )i
Ps
+ P
−
s
i=1 |f (ci )|
i=1 |f (ci )|
k

2R|c| X hγ, [f (bj )]i
+
|f (c)| j=1 |f (c)|
Ps
Ps
hγ,
f
(c
)i
i
i=1 hγ, f (ci )i
i=1
− P
+ Ps
Pk
s
i=1 |f (ci )|
j=1 |[f (bj )]|
i=1 |f (ci )| +
Ps
hγ, |f (c1 )|µ+ (c1 ) + . . . + |f (cs )|µ+ (cs )i
i=1 hγ, f (ci )i
Ps
+ P
−
s
i=1 |f (ci )|
i=1 |f (ci )|
< ε/4 + ε/4 + ε/4 + ε/4 = ε.
≤

Here the first inequality is just a triangle inequality. In the second inequality the last two
terms are unchanged, and first two terms come from the first term in the previous quantity
and follows from counting frequencies as follows: An occurrence of an edge path γ or its
inverse can occur either inside the image of a good edge f (ci ) or inside of the image of a bad
segment [f (bj )], or it might cross over the concatenation points. This observation gives the
claimed inequality. In the final inequality, the first ε/4 follows from the equation (6.2). The
second one follows from the equation (6.3) as follows:

k
X
hγ, [f (bj )]i
j=1

|f (c)|

≤

k
X
|[f (bj )]|
j=1

|f (c)|

≤

k
X
j=1

(λ0 )M

|bj |(λ00 )M
ε
≤ .
4
· #{good edges in c}

DYNAMICS OF HYPERBOLIC AUTOMORPHISMS OF FN

31

The third ε/4 comes from the following observation:
Ps
Ps
i=1 hγ, f (ci )i
i=1 hγ, f (ci )i
− P
Ps
Pk
s
i=1 |f (ci )|
i=1 |f (ci )| +
j=1 |[f (bj )]|
 Pk

Ps
i=1 hγ, f (ci )i
j=1 |[f (bj )]|
= Ps
 Ps

Pk
i=1 |f (ci )|
i=1 |f (ci )| +
j=1 |[f (bj )]|
Pk
Ps
hγ,
f
(c
)i
i
j=1 |[f (bj )]|
i=1
· Ps
≤ P
s
i=1 |f (ci )|
i=1 |f (ci )|
P
(λ00 )M kj=1 |bj |
P
≤
≤ ε/4
(λ0 )M si=1 |ci |
by (6.3).
Finally, the last ε/4 can be verified using (6.1) as follows:
Ps
hγ, |f (c1 )|µ+ (c1 ) + . . . + |f (cs )|µ+ (cs )i
i=1 hγ, f (ci )i
P
Ps
−
s
i=1 |f (ci )|
i=1 |f (ci )|
Ps
hγ, f (ci )i
− hγ, µ+ (ci )i)
i=1 |f (ci )|(
|f (ci )|
Ps
=
i=1 |f (ci )|
Ps
i=1 |f (ci )|ε/4
≤ P
= ε/4
s
i=1 |f (ci )|
Since after applying ϕM to a conjugacy class with g(w) ≥ δ we still have g(ϕM (w)) ≥ δ
we get (ϕM )n ([ηw ]) ∈ U for all n ≥ 1.
u
t
Lemma 6.2. For any δ > 0 and any neighborhood U of ∆+ (ϕ) there exists an integer
M (δ, U ) > 0 such that (up to replacing ϕ by a positive power) for any conjugacy class w with
goodness g(w) > δ we have
ϕn [ηw ] ∈ U
for all n ≥ M .
Proof. This is a direct consequence of Corollary 4.5 and Lemma 6.1.

u
t

Proposition 6.3. Let ϕ ∈ Out(FN ) be a hyperbolic outer automorphism such that ϕ and
ϕ−1 both admit properly expanding train-track representatives.
Given neighborhoods U of the simplex of attraction ∆+ (ϕ) and V of the simplex of repulsion
∆− (ϕ) in PCurr(FN ), then (up to replacing ϕ by a positive power) there exist an integer
M ≥ 0 such that for any conjugacy class w ∈ FN we have
ϕn [ηw ] ∈ U
for all n ≥ M .

or

ϕ−n [ηw ] ∈ V

32

MARTIN LUSTIG AND CAGLAR UYANIK

Proof. This is a direct consequence of Proposition 4.20 (see Remark 4.21) and Lemma 6.2.
u
t
The following result also proves Theorem 1.1 from the Introduction:
Theorem 6.4. Let ϕ ∈ Out(FN ) be a hyperbolic outer automorphism such that ϕ and ϕ−1
admit absolute train-track representatives. Then, ϕ acts on PCurr(FN ) with uniform NorthSouth dynamics from ∆− (ϕ) to ∆+ (ϕ):
Given an open neighborhood U of the simplex of attraction ∆+ (ϕ) and a compact set
K ⊂ PCurr(FN ) r ∆− (ϕ) there exists an integer M > 0 such that ϕn (K) ⊂ U for all
n ≥ M.
Proof. According to Remark 5.16 we can pass to common positive powers of ϕ and ϕ−1 that
have a properly expanding train track representatives as in Convention 5.15. We can then
combine Propositions 2.8, 3.3, 3.4 and 6.3 to obtain directly the required result. For the
application of Proposition 3.3 we need that ∆+ (ϕ) and ∆− (ϕ) are disjoint, which is shown
in Remark 6.5 below. We also need for Proposition 3.3 that both, ∆+ (ϕ) and ∆− (ϕ), are
ϕ-invariant, which is shown in Corollary 5.12.
u
t
Remark 6.5 (Dynamics within ∆+ (ϕ)). (1) It is proved in Proposition 5.6 that every
vertex of the simplex ∆+ = ∆+ (ϕ) is an expanding ϕ-invariant current, i.e. a projectivized
current [µ] for which there exist λ > 1 and t ≥ 1 such that ϕt (µ) = λµ.
For the rest of this remark we replace ϕ by a suitable positive power so that every vertex
current of ∆+ is projectively fixed by ϕ. Of course, this implies that ϕ fixes also every face
∆0 of ∆+ (but not necessarily pointwise).
(2) A uniform face ∆0 is a face of ∆+ which is spanned by vertices [µ1+ ], . . . , [µk+ ] that all
have the same stretch factor λ > 1, i.e. ϕ(µj+ ) = λµj+ for all 1 ≤ j ≤ k.
(3) Since the action of ϕ on Curr(FN ) is linear, all the uniform faces of ∆+ are pointwise
fixed. Any non-vertex current [µ] is always contained in the interior of some face ∆0 ⊂ ∆+ .
Then the sequence of ϕn ([µ]) converges towards a point in the uniform face ∆0+ of ∆0 which
is spanned by all vertices that have maximal stretch factor among all vertices of ∆0 .
(4) Similarly, under backwards iteration n → −∞ the sequence of ϕn ([µ]) converges towards
a point in the uniform face ∆0− of ∆0 ⊂ ∆+ which is spanned by all vertices that have minimal
stretch factor among all vertices of ∆0 .
(5) As a consequence, it follows that a current [µ] can not belong to both, ∆+ (ϕ) and
∆− (ϕ): By symmetry in the previous paragraph, any [µ] ∈ ∆− (ϕ) converges under backwards
iteration of ϕ−1 to an expanding ϕ−1 -invariant current. But backwards iteration of ϕ−1 is the
same as forward iteration of ϕ, and the limit current can not be simultaneously expanding
ϕ-invariant and expanding ϕ−1 -invariant.
Remark 6.6. As recalled in Remark 6.5, every vertex of the convex cell ∆+ = ∆+ (ϕ) is an
expanding ϕ-invariant current. Furthermore, any point in a uniform face of ∆+ is also an
expanding ϕ-invariant current, and these are the only such in ∆+ . It follows from Theorem
6.4 and from Remark 6.5 (applied to ϕ−1 ) that there are no other expanding ϕ-invariant
currents in PCurr(FN ) r ∆+ .

DYNAMICS OF HYPERBOLIC AUTOMORPHISMS OF FN

33

It has been shown in [BHL15] in a slightly more general context that expanding fixed
currents (i.e. currents µ with ϕµ = λϕ for some λ > 1) are in 1-1 relation with the nonnegative eigenvectors with eigenvalue > 1 for the transition matrix M (f ) of any expanding
train track representative f : Γ → Γ of ϕ. It seems likely that a similar result can be obtained
by extending the methods of Section 5.
Moreover, pointwise dynamics for a dense subset follows from our machinery:
Theorem 6.7. Let ηg be a rational current in Curr(FN ). Then, there exist [µ∞ ] ∈ ∆+ such
that
lim ϕt [ηg ] = [µ∞ ].
t→∞

Proof. Let γ be a reduced loop representing the conjugacy class g. Apply a sufficiently large
power ϕk to g, hence [f k (γ)], the reduced edge path representing ϕk (g) is a pseudo-legal loop,
see Proposition 4.12. Then the arguments in in the proof of Lemma 6.1 give the pointwise
convergence by looking at the set of non-INP edges in [f k (γ)].
u
t
Remark 6.8. From the proof of Theorem 6.7 and from the results of our previous paper
[LU17] one can also derive a precise description of the limit current µ∞ for any given rational
current ηg : Let [f k (γ)] be the pseudo-legal loop representing the conjugacy class ϕk (g), and
assume without loss of generality that the initial point doesn’t lie on any INP-subpath. Let
[f k (γ)] = c1 c1 . . . cp ρ1 cp+1 cp+1 . . . ρ2 cr cr+1 . . . cs−1 cs
be a legal concatenation of edges ci and of INP’s ρj . Then the limit current µ∞ is given by
X
µ+ (ci )] ,
[µ∞ ] = [
ci ∈EΓ0

where Γ0 is the (possibly non-connected) subgraph of Γ consisting precisely of those strata Hi
of Γ which satisfy one of the following two conditions, where  denotes the natural partial
order on strata defined by the non-zero off-diagonal coefficients of the transition matrix M (f )
(see [LU17]):
(1) There exists a chain Hi = Hd  Hd−1  . . .  H1 of pairwise distinct strata,
all with maximal Perron-Frobenius eigenvalue among the diagonal blocks of M (f ).
Furthermore d is the maximal length of any such chain.
(2) Hi  Hj for some Hj as in (1).
The analogue of Theorem 6.7 for non-rational currents is delicate, but the authors expect
that it is actually true. However, as already cautioned in the Introduction, in general the
pointwise convergence on PCurr(FN ) will not be uniform.
To finish the paper, we would like to illustrate our main result by considering the particular
case of a hyperbolic ϕ ∈ Out(FN ) which is given as a “free product” of fully irreducible hyperbolic outer automorphisms: Theorem 6.4 then shows that such a free product automorphism
acts on the space of projectivized geodesic currents with generalized uniform North-South
dynamics, and the simplex of attraction is spanned by the forward limit currents for each of
the fully irreducible factors. More precisely:

34

MARTIN LUSTIG AND CAGLAR UYANIK

Example 6.9. Let ϕi ∈ Out(FNi ) (with Ni ≥ 3) be a finite family of hyperbolic fully
irreducible outer automorphisms, where each ϕi : FNi → FNi is represented by an absolute
train-track map fi : Γi → Γi .
For simplicity we now assume (for example by passing to a positive power) that every fi has
a fixed vertex vi in Γi , and we consider the lift Φi ∈ Aut(FN ) represented by fi on π1 (Γi , vi ).
We then get a global absolute train-track map f by wedging together the Γi at the fixed
points vi , and f represents the outer automorphism ϕ given by Φ = Φ1 ∗ . . . ∗ Φk ∈ Aut(FN ),
for FN := FN1 ∗ . . . ∗ FNk .
Then the Bestvina-Feighn Combination Theorem implies that the “free product” ϕ is
hyperbolic. We consider for any i the embedding κi : Curr(FNi ) ,→ Curr(FN ) as described
in [KL10c].
In [Uya14] it was proven that for each factor graph Γi the current µ+ (e) defined in Proposition 5.6 is the same for every edge e of Γi . Hence the simplex of attraction for ϕ is spanned
by k currents µ+ (ei ), each of which is given by an edge ei from a different Γi . In fact, each
µ+ (ei ) is the κi -image of the well defined forward limit current for ϕi in Curr(FN ). Analogously, the simplex of repulsion is equal to the linear span of the images in Curr(FN ) of the
backwards limit currents for all ϕ.

References
[BF92]
[BF93]
[BF14]
[BFH00]
[BHL15]
[Bon91]
[BR15]
[Bri00]
[CHL08]
[CL95]
[CL15]
[Coo87]
[CV86]
[DKL15]

M. Bestvina and M. Feighn. A combination theorem for negatively curved groups. J. Differential
Geom., 35(1):85–101, 1992.
Mladen Bestvina and Mark Feighn. Outer limits. 1993. http://andromeda.rutgers.edu/ feighn/papers/outer.pdf.
Mladen Bestvina and Mark Feighn. Hyperbolicity of the complex of free factors. Adv. Math.,
256:104–155, 2014.
Mladen Bestvina, Mark Feighn, and Michael Handel. The Tits alternative for Out(Fn ). I. Dynamics
of exponentially-growing automorphisms. Ann. of Math. (2), 151(2):517–623, 2000.
Nicolas Bédaride, Arnaud Hilion, and Martin Lustig. Invariant measures for train track towers.
arXiv preprint arXiv:1503.08000, 2015.
Francis Bonahon. Geodesic currents on negatively curved groups. In Arboreal group theory, pages
143–168. Springer, 1991.
Mladen Bestvina and Patrick Reynolds. The boundary of the complex of free factors. Duke Math.
J., 164(11):2213–2251, 2015.
P. Brinkmann. Hyperbolic automorphisms of free groups. Geom. Funct. Anal., 10(5):1071–1089,
2000.
Thierry Coulbois, Arnaud Hilion, and Martin Lustig. R-trees and laminations for free groups. III.
Currents and dual R-tree metrics. J. Lond. Math. Soc. (2), 78(3):755–766, 2008.
Marshall M. Cohen and Martin Lustig. Very small group actions on R-trees and Dehn twist automorphisms. Topology, 34(3):575–617, 1995.
Thierry Coulbois and Martin Lustig. Long turns, INP’s and indices for free group automorphisms.
Illinois J. Math., 59(4):1087–1109, 2015.
Daryl Cooper. Automorphisms of free groups have finitely generated fixed point sets. J. Algebra,
111(2):453–456, 1987.
Marc Culler and Karen Vogtmann. Moduli of graphs and automorphisms of free groups. Invent.
Math., 84(1):91–119, 1986.
Spencer Dowdall, Ilya Kapovich, and Christopher J Leininger. Dynamics on free-by-cyclic groups.
Geom. Topol, 19(5):2801–2899, 2015.

DYNAMICS OF HYPERBOLIC AUTOMORPHISMS OF FN

[FM10]

[Ham12]
[HM13]
[Iva92]
[Kap05]
[Kap06]
[KL09]
[KL10a]
[KL10b]
[KL10c]
[Lev09]
[LL03]
[LU16]
[LU17]
[Mah11]
[Mar95]

[Riv08]
[Thu88]
[Uya14]
[Uya15]

35

Sébastien Ferenczi and Thierry Monteil. Infinite words with uniform frequencies, and invariant
measures. In Combinatorics, automata and number theory, volume 135 of Encyclopedia Math.
Appl., pages 373–409. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2010.
Ursula Hamenstaedt. The boundary of the free splitting graph and the free factor graph. arXiv
preprint arXiv:1211.1630, 2012.
Michael Handel and Lee Mosher. The free splitting complex of a free group, I: hyperbolicity. Geom.
Topol., 17(3):1581–1672, 2013.
Nikolai V Ivanov. Subgroups of Teichmuller modular groups, volume 115. American Mathematical
Soc., 1992.
Ilya Kapovich. The frequency space of a free group. Internat. J. Algebra Comput., 15(5-6):939–969,
2005.
Ilya Kapovich. Currents on free groups. In Topological and asymptotic aspects of group theory,
volume 394 of Contemp. Math., pages 149–176. Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2006.
Ilya Kapovich and Martin Lustig. Geometric intersection number and analogues of the curve complex for free groups. Geom. Topol., 13(3):1805–1833, 2009.
Ilya Kapovich and Martin Lustig. Domains of proper discontinuity on the boundary of outer space.
Illinois J. Math., 54(1):89–108, 2010.
Ilya Kapovich and Martin Lustig. Intersection form, laminations and currents on free groups. Geom.
Funct. Anal., 19(5):1426–1467, 2010.
Ilya Kapovich and Martin Lustig. Ping-pong and outer space. J. Topol. Anal., 2(2):173–201, 2010.
Gilbert Levitt. Counting growth types of automorphisms of free groups. Geometric and Functional
Analysis, 19(4):1119–1146, 2009.
Gilbert Levitt and Martin Lustig. Irreducible automorphisms of Fn have north-south dynamics on
compactified outer space. J. Inst. Math. Jussieu, 2(1):59–72, 2003.
Martin Lustig and Caglar Uyanik. North-south dynamics of hyperbolic free group automorphisms
on the space of currents. arXiv preprint arXiv:1509.05443v2, 2016.
Martin Lustig and Caglar Uyanik. Perron-Frobenius theory and frequency convergence for reducible
substitutions. Discrete and Continuous Dynamical Systems, 37(1):355–385, 2017.
Joseph Maher. Random walks on the mapping class group. Duke Mathematical Journal, 156(3):429–
468, 2011.
Reiner Martin. Non-uniquely ergodic foliations of thin-type, measured currents and automorphisms
of free groups. ProQuest LLC, Ann Arbor, MI, 1995. Thesis (Ph.D.)–University of California, Los
Angeles.
Igor Rivin. Walks on groups, counting reducible matrices, polynomials, and surface and free group
automorphisms. Duke Mathematical Journal, 142(2):353–379, 2008.
William P. Thurston. On the geometry and dynamics of diffeomorphisms of surfaces. Bull. Amer.
Math. Soc. (N.S.), 19(2):417–431, 1988.
Caglar Uyanik. Dynamics of hyperbolic iwips. Conformal Geometry and Dynamics of the American
Mathematical Society, 18(11):192–216, 2014.
Caglar Uyanik. Generalized north-south dynamics on the space of geodesic currents. Geometriae
Dedicata, 177(1):129–148, 2015.

Aix Marseille Université, CNRS, Centrale Marseille, I2M UMR 7373 13453, Marseille, France
E-mail address: Martin.Lustig@univ-amu.fr
Department of Mathematics, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1409 West Green Street,
Urbana, IL 61801, USA, http://www.math.uiuc.edu/~cuyanik2
E-mail address: cuyanik2@illinois.edu

