On the stable Andreadakis problem
Jacques Darné
March 2, 2018

arXiv:1711.05991v2 [math.AT] 1 Mar 2018

Abstract
Let Fn be the free group on n generators. Consider the group IAn of automorphisms of Fn acting trivially on its abelianization. There are two canonical
filtrations on IAn : the first one is its lower central series Γ∗ ; the second one is
the Andreadakis filtration A∗ , defined from the action on Fn . In this paper, we
establish that the canonical morphism between the associated graded Lie rings
L(Γ∗ ) and L(A∗ ) is stably surjective. We then investigate a p-restricted version
of the Andreadakis problem. A calculation of the Lie algebra of the classical
congruence group is also included.

Introduction
Automorphisms of free groups have been widely studied over the years, from many
different points of view. They are linked to the mapping class groups of surfaces and
braid groups [FM12a]; they also act on a moduli space of graphs, called the outer
space, introduced in [CV86], which is still actively studied nowadays (see, for instance,
[BBM07], or [FM12b]). Recently, several results have also been obtained regarding the
stable homology of these groups [Gal11, RWW17, DV15, Dja16a].
One way to try and understand the structure of these automorphism groups is to
cut them into pieces, by considering a family of subgroups and studying how these
interact with each other. Such families of subgroups can arise from the action on
the free group Fn and related geometric objects, as is the case with the automorphisms
with boundaries (see for instance [JW04] or [DP12]), and for the Andreadakis subgroups,
which we now focus on.
The first Andreadakis subgroup of Aut(Fn ) is the IA-group. Precisely, we can first
look at how automorphisms act on Fnab ∼
= Zn . That is, we can consider the projection
from Aut(Fn ) onto GLn (Z). We then put aside this linear part by considering only IAn ,
the subgroup of automorphisms acting trivially on Zn , which is an algebraic analogue of
the Torelli subgroup of the mapping class group. An explicit finite set of generators of
IAn has been known for a long time [Nie24] – see also [BBM07, 5.6]. Nevertheless, the
structure of IAn remains largely mysterious. For instance, IA3 is not finitely presented
[KM97], and it is not known if IAn is finitely presented for n > 3. Recent results about
the IA-groups include the finite L-presentation of IAn given in [DP16], or finiteness
results on the lower central series of IAn obtained in [CP17].
The IA-group is the first step of the Andreadakis filtration IAn = A1 ⊇ A2 ⊇ · · · ,
in which Aj is the group of automorphisms acting trivially on Fn /Γj+1 (Fn ), where Fn
is filtered by its lower central series Fn = Γ1 (Fn ) ⊇ Γ2 (Fn ) ⊇ · · · . The Andreadakis
filtration is an N -series. As such, it contains the minimal N -series on IAn , its lower
1

central series: for all k, Ak ⊇ Γk (IAn ). We are thus led to the problem of comparing
these filtrations, that we call the Andreadakis problem.
Since the two filtrations are N -series, the associated graded objects are graded Lie
rings (that is, Lie algebras over Z), the Lie bracket being induced by the commutator
map (x, y) 7→ [x, y] = xyx−1 y −1 . The inclusion i : Γ∗ (IAn ) ⊆ A∗ induces a morphism
of Lie rings:
M
M
i∗ : L(Γ∗ (IAn )) =
Γj (IAn )/Γj+1 (IAn ) −→ L(A∗ ) =
Aj /Aj+1 .
(0.0.1)
j>1

j>1

Thus, the Andreadakis problem translates into the following question:
Problem 1 (Andreadakis). How close is the morphism (0.0.1) to be an isomorphism?
Andreadakis conjectured that the filtrations were the same [And65, p. 253]. In
[Bar13], Bartholdi disproved the conjecture, using computer calculations. He then tried
to prove that the two filtrations were the same up to finite index, but in the erratum
[Bar16], he showed that even this weaker statement cannot be true. His proof uses
the L-presentation of IAn given in [DP16], to which he applies algorithmic methods
described in [BEH08] to calculate (using the software GAP) the first degrees of the Lie
algebra associated to each filtration.
In this paper, we are interested in the difference between Ak (Fn ) and Γk (IAn ) for
n  k, that is, in the stable range. We thus ask the following question:
Problem 2 (Andreadakis - stable version). How close is the morphism
i∗ : Lk (Γ∗ (IAn )) = Γk (IAn )/Γk+1 (IAn ) −→ Lk (A∗ ) = Ak /Ak+1

(0.0.2)

to be an isomorphism when n  k?
Our main goal here is to show the following partial answer to this question.
Theorem 2.38 (Stable surjectivity). When n > k + 2, the morphism (0.0.2) is surjective.
A (weaker) rational version of this theorem has been obtained independently by
Massuyeau and Sakasai [MS17, th. 5.1]. Like them, we prove it by building on results
from [Sat12], but using quite different methods. These methods include a description
of Andreadakis-like filtrations via a categorical framework, allowing us to state and
study a p-restricted version of the problem. We answer the questions asked in [HM17]
about this problem, and use our answers to study the stable p-restricted Andreadakis
problem. Also, we solve the stable q-torsion Andreadakis problem for Zn , getting a
complete calculation of the Lie ring of the congruence group GLn (p Z) for n > 5.
Let us now describe in more detail the methods we use and the results contained
in the present paper. In section 1, we set up a general framework for understanding
N -series and their associated Lie algebras. We introduce a category SCF of N -series.
We remark that the categorical definition of an action of an object on another makes
sense in this category. This allows us to interpret an old construction of Kaloujnine
(see theorem 1.16) as the construction of universal actions in SCF. This category is
thus action-representative, a situation studied in [BJK05, BB07, Bou08]. Using this
language, we are able to recover and generalize several classical constructions:
2

• Taking the graded rings associated to N -series gives a functor L from SCF to the
category of Lie rings. This functor preserves actions, and the Johnson morphism
admits a nice generalisation as the classifying morphism associated to an action
between Lie rings obtained from an action in SCF.
• Lazard’s classical construction of N -series from algebra filtrations described in
[Laz54] is recovered as a particular case of Kaloujnine’s construction.
• We also obtain the filtrations on congruence groups studied in [Lop14].
In particular, we show that the filtration given by the last construction on the classical
congruence group GLn (q Z) coincides with its lower central series when n > 5. As a
consequence, we get an explicit calculation of this group’s Lie ring (generalizing [LS76,
Th. 1.1], which is the degree-one part):
Corollary 1.46. For all n > 5 and all q > 3, there is a canonical isomorphism of
graded Lie rings (in degrees at least one):
L(GLn (q Z)) ∼
= sln (Z /q)[t],
where the degree of t is 1, and the Lie bracket of M ti and N tj is [M, N ]ti+j .
Section 2 deals with the proof of our stable surjectivity result (Theorem 2.38). The
proof relies on the constructions of the first section, applied to Fox’s free differential
calculus. The Jacobian matrix map D : f 7→ Df turns out to be a derivation from
Aut(Fn ) to GLn (Z Fn ), sending the Andreadakis filtration to the congruence filtration
GLn ((IFn )∗ ) (the group algebra Z Fn being filtered by the powers of its augmentation
ideal IFn ). We then study such derivations, and the maps they induce on the graded
Lie rings associated to N -series they preserve. We thus show that the trace map defined
by Tr(f ) = Tr(Df − 1n ) induces a well-defined map:
Tr : L(A∗ ) −→ gr(Z Fn ).
The graded algebra gr(Z Fn ) is in fact the tensor algebra T V over V = Fnab . A result
from [BLGM90] implies that this trace map takes values in [T V, T V ]. Studying the
links between free differential calculus and differential calculus in T V , we show that
this trace map is exactly the one introduced by Morita [Mor93, Def. 6.4], getting
the explicit description in terms of contraction maps notably used by Satoh in [Sat12].
Denoting the Johnson morphisms by τ and τ 0 , we get a commutative diagram of graded
linear maps:
L(IAn )
τ0

i∗

L(A∗ )

τ

Der(LV )

TrM

T V,

where TrM ◦τ = Tr This gives the following inclusions of subspaces of Der(LV ):
Im(τ 0 ) ⊆ L(A∗ ) ⊆ Tr−1
M ([T V, T V ]).
We observe that calculations from [Sat12] work over Z. From this , we deduce that
the subspaces Im(τ 0 ) and Tr−1
M ([T V, T V ]) are stably the same, so these inclusions are
equalities in the stable range, and i∗ must be stably surjective. We close the section by
3

investigating some of the consequences of this result for automorphisms of free nilpotent
groups.
In section 3, we turn to the p-restricted version of the Andreadakis problem.
Precisely, we can do the same construction as above, replacing the lower central series
[p]
Γ∗ (Fn ) by the mod-p lower central series Γ∗ (Fn ), which is an Np -series:
[p]

[p]

(Γi )p ⊆ Γpi .
[p]

Kaloujnine’s construction gives an associated Andreadakis filtration A∗ on the group
IA[p] of automorphisms of Fn acting trivially on Fnab ⊗ Fp . This filtration was shown in
[p]
[HM17] to be an Np -series. It then contains the minimal Np -series Γ∗ (IA[p] ). Whence
the natural question:
Problem 3 (Andreadakis – p-restricted version). What is the difference between the
[p]
[p]
[p]
Np -series A∗ and Γ∗ (IAn ) ?
Answering to [HM17, rk. 8.6], we show that these two filtrations fit in the same kind
of nice machinery as their classical counterparts, but they turn out to always differ.
The paper ends on a quantification of the lack of stable surjectivity in this p-restricted
case (see Proposition 3.20).
Acknowledgements: This work is part of the author’s PhD thesis. The author
is indebted to his advisors, Antoine Touzé and Aurélien Djament, for their constant
support, countless helpful discussions, and numerous remarks and comments on earlier
versions of the present paper. He also thanks Gwenaël Massuyeau and Takao Satoh,
who kindly agreed to be the reviewers of his thesis, for their useful observations and
comments.

Contents
Introduction

1

1 Generalities on strongly central series
1.1 Notations and reminders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.2 Strongly central filtrations and Lie algebras . . . . . .
1.3 Actions in the category of strongly central filtrations .
1.4 Johnson’s morphisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.5 The Andreadakis problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.6 Lazard’s theorem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.7 Congruence groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.8 Comparison between filtrations obtained from an action
2 Traces and stable surjectivity
2.1 Free differential calculus . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.2 Derivations and strongly central filtrations . .
2.3 Algebras, actions and derivations . . . . . . .
2.4 Traces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.4.1 The induced map between Lie algebras
2.4.2 Introducing the contraction map . . . .
4

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

5
5
6
7
11
12
14
15
17

.
.
.
.
.
.

19
19
21
22
25
26
27

2.5

Stable surjectivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.5.1 Vanishing of the trace map . . . . . . . . .
2.5.2 Linear algebra . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.5.3 Stable cokernel of τ 0 and stable surjectivity
Automorphisms of free nilpotent groups . . . . .

2.6
3 The
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4

1

case of positive caracteristic
Dark’s theorem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
p-Restricted strongly central series . . . . .
The p-restricted Andreadakis problem . . . .
The stable p-restricted Andreadakis problem
3.4.1 Vanishing of the trace map . . . . . .
3.4.2 Linear algebra . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.4.3 Stable cokernel of i∗ . . . . . . . . .

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

28
28
30
30
31

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

33
33
34
35
37
37
38
39

Generalities on strongly central series

1.1

Notations and reminders

Throughout the paper, G will denote an arbitrary group, and k a commutative unitary
ring. The left and right action of G on itself by conjugation are denoted respectively
by xy = y −1 xy and yx = yxy −1 . The commutator of two elements x and y in G is
denoted by:
[x, y] := xyx−1 y −1 .
If A and B are subsets of G, we denote by [A, B] the subgroup generated by the
commutators [a, b] with (a, b) ∈ A×B. If A and B are stable by conjugation by elements
of G (resp. by all automorphisms of G), then [A, B] is a normal (resp. characteristic)
subgroup of G. For instance, [G, G] is a characteristic subgroup of G, called the derived
subgroup of G. The quotient Gab := G/[G, G] is the abelianization of G, its bigger
abelian quotient. The derived subgroup is the second step of a filtration of G by
characteristic subgroups:
Definition 1.1. The lower central series of G, denoted by Γ∗ (G), or shortly Γ∗ , is the
filtration of G defined by:
(
Γ1 := G,
Γk+1 := [G, Γk ].
Definition 1.2. A group G is said to be nilpotent if its lower central series stops. The
least integer c such that Γc+1 (G) = {1} is then G’s nilpotency class. More generally, G
is said to be residually nilpotent if its lower central series is separated, i.e. if:
\
Γi (G) = {1}.
i

One can easily check the following formulas:
Proposition 1.3. For all x, y, z ∈ G,
• [x, x] = 1,
• [x, y]−1 = [y, x],
• [x, yz] = [x, y] (y [x, z]) ,
5

• [[x, y], yz] · [[y, z], zx] · [[z, x], xy] = 1,
x
z
y
• [[x, y −1 ], z −1 ] · [[z, x−1 ], y −1 ] · [[y, z −1 ], x−1 ] = 1.
The last ones are two versions of the Witt-Hall identity, which implies the following:
Lemma 1.4 (3-subgroups lemma). Let A, B and C be three subgroups of a group G.
If two of the three following subgroups are trivial, then so is the third:
[A, [B, C]],

[B, [C, A]],

[C, [A, B]].

Equivalently, one of them is contained in the normal closure of the two others.

1.2

Strongly central filtrations and Lie algebras

The theory of strongly central series has notably been studied by M. Lazard [Laz54].
Definition 1.5. Let G be a group. A strongly central filtration of G (also called
strongly central series or N -series) is a filtration
G = G1 ⊇ · · · ⊇ Gi ⊇ · · ·
of G by subgroups, satisfying:
∀i, j > 1, [Gi , Gj ] ⊆ Gi+j .
Remark that indexation has to begin from G = G1 . In particular, [G, Ni ] ⊆ Ni+1 ⊆
Ni , which means exactly that the Ni are normal subgroups of G.
Proposition 1.6. Let G be a group. The lower central series Γ∗ (G) is a strongly
central series on G, and it is the minimal one.
Proof. The strong centrality is shown by induction, using the 3-subgroup lemma 1.4.
Given a strongly central filtration G∗ of G = G1 , a straightforward induction then
gives: Gi ⊇ Γi (G) for any i > 1.
Let G = G1 ⊇ · · · ⊇ Gk ⊇ · · · be any strongly central filtration of a group G. The
quotients Li (N∗ ) := Ni /Ni+1 are abelian (for any i > 1), since [Ni , Ni ] ⊆ N2i ⊆ Ni+1 .
The graded abelian group
M
L(N∗ ) :=
Li (N∗ ),
i>1

is endowed with a bracket induced by the commutator map (x, y) 7→ [x, y] of G. Using
the formulas 1.3, one easily checks that this defines a Lie bracket: L(G∗ ) is a Lie ring
(i.e. a Lie algebra over Z).
Notation 1.7. We denote L(Γ∗ (G)) by L(G) (that is, if we do not specify a strongly
central filtration on a group, it is understood to be filtered by its lower central series).
Example 1.8. If G is a free group, then L(G) is the free Lie algebra over the Z-module
Gab [Laz54, th. 4.2].
As products of commutators become sums of brackets inside the Lie algebra, the
following fundamental property follows from the definition of the lower central series:
Proposition 1.9. The Lie ring L(G) is generated in degree 1. Precisely, it is generated
(as a Lie ring) by L1 (G) = Gab . As a consequence, if G is of finite type, then each
Ln (G) is too.
6

1.3

Actions in the category of strongly central filtrations

Let SCF be the category whose objects are the strongly central filtrations, where
morphisms between G∗ and H∗ are the group morphisms from G1 to H1 preserving
filtrations. There is a forgetful functor ω1 : SCF −→ Grps defined by G∗ 7→ G1 . This
functor admits a left adjoint Γ : G 7→ Γ∗ (G) (see Proposition 1.6). It also admits a
right adjoint G 7→ (G, G, ...).
Proposition 1.10. The category SCF is complete and cocomplete, and is homological
(but not semi-abelian).
A general reference on homological categories is [BB04]. The reader can also consult
[HL11] for a simple version of the axioms defining homological cocomplete and semiabelian categories.
Proof of Proposition 1.10. The forgetful functor ω1 admits both a left and a right adjoint, so it has to commute to limits and colimits. It does not create either of them (in
the sense of [ML98], V.1), but it almost does.
Precisely, let F : D −→ SCF be a diagram. The colimit G∞ of the group diagram
ω1 F is in general endowed with several strongly central filtrations making ω1 F (d) −→
G∞ into filtration-preserving morphisms (for instance the trivial one). One checks
easily that the minimal such filtration (which is the intersection of all those) is the
colimit of F .
Similarly, the limit G∞ of the group diagram ω1 F is endowed with several strongly
central filtrations making ϕd : G∞ −→ ω1 F (d) into filtration-preserving morphisms
(for instance its lower central series). However, the maximal such filtration is the limit
of F . It is explicitly described as:
\
G∞
=
ϕ−1
∗
d (F (d)).
d

To check that SCF is homological, one can check the axioms given in [HL11]. It
is not semi-abelian, because there are equivalence relation R∗ ⊆ G2∗ for which R∗ is
not the induced filtration on R1 (like in topological groups – or more generally in the
categories of topological algebras considered in [BC05] – where an equivalence relation
does not have to be endowed with the induced topology).
In a homological category, we need to distinguish between usual epimorphisms (resp.
monomorphisms) and regular ones, that is, the ones obtained as coequalizers (resp.
equalizers). In SCF, the former are the u such that u1 = ω1 (u) is an epimorphism
(resp. a monomorphism), whereas the latter are surjections (resp. injections):
Definition 1.11. Let u : G∗ −→ H∗ be a morphism in SCF. It is called an injection
(resp. a surjection) when u1 is injective (resp. surjective) and u−1 (Hi ) = Gi (resp.
u(Gi ) = Hi ) for all i.
Examples of homological categories include abelian categories, the category Grps of
groups, or the category Lie of Lie algebras. The usual lemmas of homological algebra
(the nine lemma, the snake lemma, the five lemma...) are true in these categories.
Homological categories differ from abelian ones notably by the fact that in general,
two split extensions between the same objects are not isomorphic (by an isomorphism
preserving the splittings). This allows us to define an action of an object on another.
7

Definition 1.12. Let C be a homological category. If X and Z are two objects of C,
we define an action of Z on X as a split extension (with a given splitting):
X

Y

Z.

When such an action is given, we will say that Z acts on X, and write: Z  X.
This definition (which needs only the weaker setting of pointed protomodular categories to make sense) is motivated by the situation in Grps, where an action of a group
K on a group G is encoded by a semi-direct product structure G o K.
Remark 1.13. The choice of splitting is crucial here. For instance, the canonical
extension:
 
X
 
0
1

1
 
0

X ×X


0


1

X

 
1
1

can be split by
, or by the diagonal
. The first choice gives the trivial action,
whereas the second one gives the adjoint action, which is highly non-trivial: in Lie,
this gives the adjoint representation; in Grps, we get the action of a group on itself by
conjugation.
The set Act(Z, X) of actions of Z on X is a contravariant functor in Z: the restriction of an action along a morphism is defined via a pullback. In Grps, as in Lie,
this functor is representable, for any X. Indeed, an action of a group K on a group
G is given by a morphism K −→ Aut(G). Similarly, an action of a Lie algebra k on a
Lie algebra g is given by a morphism k −→ Der(g), where Der(g) is the Lie algebra of
derivations from g to itself. Recall that a derivation ∂ is a linear map satisfying:
∂([x, y]) = [∂x, y] + [x, ∂y].
The situation when actions are representable has notably been studied in [BJK05], and
in several subsequent papers [BB07, Bou08]. The following terminology was introduced
in [BB07, Def. 1.1]:
Definition 1.14. A homological category C is said to be action-representative when
the functor Act(−, X) is representable, for any object X ∈ C.
Our goal for the rest of this section is to construct universal actions in SCF, getting
in particular the following result:
Proposition 1.15. The category SCF is action-representative.
A representative for Act(−, X) is a universal action on X. Explicitly, it is an action
of an object A(X) on X such that any action Z  X is obtained by restriction along
a unique morphism Z → A(X). For instance, in Grps, the universal action on G is:
G

G o Aut(G)

Aut(G),

where the group G o Aut(G) is the holomorph of G. Its underlying set is G × Aut(G),
endowed with the product defined by (g, σ) · (h, τ ) := (gσ(h), στ ).
The construction of universal actions in SCF is given by a theorem of Kaloujnine
[Kal50a, Kal50b], quoted by Lazard in [Laz54, p. 117]:
8

Theorem 1.16 (Kaloujnine). Let G∗ be a strongly central series. Let j > 1 be an
integer. Let Aj (G∗ ) ⊆ Aut(G∗ ) be the subgroup of automorphisms acting trivially on
every quotient Gi /Gi+j . Then A∗ (G∗ ) is a strongly central series.
Notation 1.17. As for Lie rings (Notation 1.7) we abbreviate A∗ (Γ∗ (G)) to A∗ (G).
We can rewrite the definition of Aj (G∗ ) given in the theorem as:
!
Y
Aj (G∗ ) = ker Aut(G∗ ) −→
Aut (Gi /Gi+j ) .
i

Identifying G and Aut(G) to the subgroups G × 1 and 1 × Aut(G) of the holomorph
G o Aut(G), we can define the commutator of an automorphism with an element of G:
[σ, g] = σ(g)g −1 .
Note that [Aut(G), G] ⊆ G. Using this point of view, we can rephrase the previous
definition:
Aj (G∗ ) = { σ ∈ Aut(G∗ ) | ∀i > 1, [σ, Gi ] ⊆ Gi+j } ⊆ G1 o Aut(G∗ ).

(1.17.1)

Proof of Theorem 1.16. We abbreviate Aj (G∗ ) to Aj . Obviously, Aj+1 ⊆ Aj . We show
the strong centrality using the 3-subgroup lemma (Lemma 1.4). Precisely, let α, β > 1
be two integers. For all i > 1, the group Gi+α+β is normal in G o Aut(G∗ ) (it is normal
in G and Aut(G∗ )-stable). Lemma 1.4 thus implies:
[[Aα , Aβ ], Gi ] ⊆ Gi+α+β .
This says exactly that [Aα , Aβ ] ⊆ Aα+β , which is the desired conclusion.
Remark 1.18. The group A1 (G∗ ) is the group of automorphisms of G1 preserving G∗
and acting trivially on L(G∗ ).
Example 1.19. Let G∗ = Γ∗ (G). Then L(G∗ ) is generated in degree one as a Lie
algebra. As a consequence A1 (G∗ ) is the subgroup of automorphisms acting trivially
on the abelianization Gab = L1 (G), denoted by IAG .
In order to show that the filtration A∗ (G∗ ) acts universally on G∗ , we need to
investigate actions in SCF.
Proposition 1.20. An action K∗  G∗ in SFC consists of a group action of K = K1
on G = G1 such that :
∀i, j, [Ki , Gj ] ⊆ Gi+j .
Proof. Let an action of K∗ on G∗ be given:
G∗

H∗

K∗ .

The forgetful functor ω1 : G∗ 7→ G1 from SCF to groups has a left adjoint G 7→ Γ∗ G.
Hence, it commutes with kernels. Applying this functor to the given action, we get a
split extension of groups:
G1

H1
9

K1 .

The group H1 thus decomposes as a semi-direct product G1 o K1 of G1 by K1 .
In fact, there are other forgetful functors ωi : G∗ 7→ Gi , each one with a left adjoint
G 7→ Γd ∗i e G (where d−e is the usual ceiling function). We then get split extensions of
groups:
Gi

Hi

Ki .

The groups Hi thus decomposes as semi-direct products Gi o Ki of Gi by Ki .
As H∗ is a strongly central filtration, we can apply Lemma 1.21 below to get the
desired relation. Conversely, let a group action be given as in the statement of the
proposition. Using the same lemma, we see that H∗ = G∗ o K∗ is a strongly central
filtration on H = K o G, and the corresponding split sequence in SFC is exact.
Lemma 1.21. Let K  G be an action in Grps, encoded in a semi-direct product
structure H = G o K. Let G∗ and K∗ be given filtrations on G = G1 and K = K1
respectively. Then the Hi := Gi o Ki are subgroups of H defining a strongly central
filtration of H if and only if:

 K∗ is a strongly central series on K,
G∗ is a strongly central series on G,

∀i, j, [Kj , Gi ] ⊆ Gi+j .
Proof. Suppose first that (Gi o Ki )i is strongly central. Then its projection K∗ on K
also is. So is its intersection G∗ with G. Hence, the conclusion follows from:
[Kj , Gi ] ⊆ (Gi+j o Ki+j ) ∩ G = Gi+j .
Conversely, under the hypothesis listed above, Gi is stable under the action of Ki ,
so the Hi = Gi o Ki are subgroups of H. We then use the formulas 1.3 to compute
[kg, k 0 g 0 ] with k, g, k 0 , g 0 in Ki , Gi , Kj and Gj respectively:
0

[kg, k 0 g 0 ] = [kg, k 0 ] ·g [kg, g 0 ]
0

0

= k[g, k 0 ] · [k, k 0 ] · k k[g, g 0 ] · k [k, g 0 ]
∈ Gi+j · Ki+j · Gi+j · Gi+j = Gi+j o Ki+j .
This completes the proof.
We are now ready to show the result announced in Proposition 1.15:
Proposition 1.22. Let G∗ be a strongly central series. The strongly central series
A∗ (G∗ ) acts canonically on G∗ , and this action is universal.
Proof. That A∗ (G∗ ) acts on G∗ follows from the formula (1.17.1), Theorem 1.16 and
Proposition 1.20.
Given an action of a strongly central series K∗ on G∗ , the underlying group action
is described by a unique morphism from K1 to Aut(G1 ). From Proposition 1.20, we
deduce that this morphism sends Kj into Aj (G∗ ). Conversely, any morphism from K∗
to A∗ (G∗ ) in SCF gives a group action lifting to an action in SCF by Proposition
1.20.
Remark 1.23. If a group K acts on a group G, and G∗ is a strongly central filtration on
G = G1 , we can pull back the canonical filtration A∗ (G∗ ) by the associated morphism:
K −→ Aut(G).
10

This gives a strongly central filtration A∗ (K, G∗ ), maximal amongst strongly central
filtrations on subgroups of K which act on G∗ via the given action K  G. It can be
described explicitly as:
Aj (K, G∗ ) = { k ∈ K | ∀i > 1, [k, Gi ] ⊆ Gi+j } ⊆ K.

1.4

Johnson’s morphisms

The construction of the Johnson morphism associated with an action in SCF relies on
the following:
Proposition 1.24. The Lie functor L : SCF −→ LieZ is exact, i.e. it preserves short
exact sequences [BB04, Def 4.1.5].
Proof. The exactness of L is equivalent to the exactness of each Li : SCF −→ Ab.
Consider the forgetful functors ωi : G∗ 7→ Gi from SCF to Grps. Each ωi has a
left adjoint G 7→ Γd ∗i e G, so these functors preserve kernels. Moreover, they preserve
regular epimorphisms, which are surjections in SCF (cf. Definition 1.11). Hence, they
are exact. Since Li is the cokernel of the injection ωi+1 ,→ ωi , its exactness follows
from the nine lemma in Grpes. Precisely, if E is any short exact sequence in SCF,
apply the nine lemma to the diagram ωi+1 (E) ,→ ωi (E)  Li (E) to get the exactness
of Li (E) from that of ωi (E) and ωi+1 (E).
As a consequence of Proposition 1.24, the functor L preserves actions. Precisely,
from an action in SCF:
G∗

H∗

K∗ ,

we get an action in the category of graded Lie rings:
L(G∗ )

L(H∗ )

L(K∗ ).

Such an action is given by a morphism of graded Lie rings:
L(K∗ ) −→ Der∗ (L(G∗ )).

(1.24.1)

The target is the (graded) Lie algebra of graded derivations: a derivation is of degree
k when it raises degrees of homogeneous elements by k.
Definition 1.25. The morphism (1.24.1) is called the Johnson morphism associated
to the given action K∗  G∗ .
We can give an explicit description of this morphism: for k ∈ K, the derivation
associated to k̄ is induced by [k̄, −] inside L(G∗ oK∗ ) = L(G∗ )oL(K∗ ), so it is induced
by [k, −] inside G∗ o K∗ .
Example 1.26. The Johnson morphism associated to the universal action A∗ (G∗ ) 
G∗ is the Lie morphism:
τ : L(A∗ (G∗ )) −→ Der∗ (L(G∗ ))
induced by σ 7→ (x 7→ σ(x)x−1 ).
11

If K1 is in fact a normal subgroup of a group K0 , such that each Ki is normal in
K0 , and such that the action of K1 on G∗ can be extended to an action of K0 , then
K0 acts on L(G∗ o K∗ ) and this action factorizes through K0 /K1 . Moreover, as this
action is by automorphisms of the Lie ring:
Lemma 1.27. Let K0 .K1 be given as above. Then the Johnson morphism τ is K0 /K1 equivariant.
The action of K0 on derivations is by conjugation. Precisely:
τ (k · x) = [k · x, −] = k · [x, k −1 · −] = k ◦ τ (x) ◦ k −1 .
Lemma 1.28. Let K∗  H∗ be an action in SCF. The associated Johnson morphism
τ : L(K∗ ) −→ Der(L(G∗ )) is injective if and only if K∗ is the filtration A∗ (K, G∗ )
defined in Remark 1.23.
Proof. Every non-trivial element in ker(τj ) lifts to an element in Aj (K, G∗ ) − Kj .
Conversely, an element σ in Aj (K, G∗ ) − Kj is in Kk − Kk+1 for some k < j. Then
σ ∈ Kk /Kk+1 − {0} is a non-trivial element in ker(τ ).
Remark 1.29. The definition of Aj (K, G∗ ) makes sense for j = 0, giving a subgroup
K0 = A0 (K, G∗ ) of K acting as above. The morphism τ is then A0 (K, G∗ )-equivariant.
In fact, τ can then be extended to a morphism of extended Lie algebras, in the sense
of [HM17]. Ideed, their construction of an algebra of extended derivations is exactly
a construction of universal actions in the category of extended Lie algebras, and their
version of the Johnson morphism is exactly the one we find if we replace N -series and
Lie algebras by their extended version in the constructions above.

1.5

The Andreadakis problem

Let G be a group. To study the structure of Aut(G), we can consider first how automorphisms act on Gab . Then we can put aside this linear part by considering the kernel
of the projection from Aut(G) to GL(Gab ). This kernel IAG is (residually) nilpotent
when G is, and in endowed with two strongly central filtrations: its lower central series,
and the Andreadakis filtration A∗ (G). We are thus led to the problem of comparing
these filtrations, which we call the Andreadakis problem (Problem 1).
Recall from Theorem 1.16 and Example 1.19 that A∗ (G) is a strongly central filtration on A1 (G) = IAG . Since A1 (G) is the kernel of the canonical action of Aut(G) on
L(G), we get an induced faithful action of Aut(G)/IAG (6 GL(Gab )) on L(G). The
next lemma gives a similar concrete description of all the Aj (G):
Lemma 1.30. The group Aj (G) is the subgroup of automorphisms acting trivially on
G/Γj+1 (G), i.e. Aj (G) = { σ ∈ Aut(G) | [σ, G] ⊆ Γj+1 (G) } .
Proof. Let us denote by Kj the right-hand side of the equality. We only need to show
the inclusion Kj ⊆ Aj (G). The case j = 1 is given in Example 1.19. Suppose it true
for j − 1, and let σ ∈ Kj . In particular, σ is inside Kj−1 = Aj−1 (G), so it induces a
derivation [σ, −] of degree j − 1 of L(G), via the Johnson morphism. By definition,
[σ, G] ⊆ Γj+1 . This says exactly that the derivation [σ, −] is trivial on L1 (G). Since
L(G) is generated in degree one (Proposition 1.9), [σ, −] has to be trivial on all of
L(G): for all i, [σ, Γi ] ⊆ Γi+j , which is the desired conclusion.
12

The filtration A∗ (G) is strongly central on A1 (G) = IAG . As a consequence, Ak (G)
contains Γk (IAG ). A first consequence of this inclusion is that the (residual) nilpotency
of G implies the (residual) nilpotency of IAG . Precisely, let G be a c-nilpotent group.
Then Ac (G) = {1G }. Accordingly, Γc (IAG ) = {1G }, so IAG is (c − 1)-nilpotent. In a
similar fashion, one can check that IAG has to be residually nilpotent when G is.
The following question is crucial for trying to understand the structure of automorphism groups of residually nilpotent groups, in particular for trying to understand the
structure of Aut(Fn ):
Problem 1 (Andreadakis). What is the difference between A∗ (G) and Γ∗ (IAG ) ?
Example 1.31. Consider the alternating group An . When n 6= 2, 6, Aut(An ) = Σn
(acting by conjugation), as is easily deduced from [Rot95, cor. 7.5]. But if n > 5,
then An is perfect: [An , An ] = An . On the one hand, the Andreadakis filtration is
thus constant equal to IA(An ) = Aut(An ) = Σn . On the other hand, the lower central
series of Σn is Σn , An , An , ..., so the two filtrations differ in this case.
Recall from the Introduction that we are interested in a stable form of the problem
for G = Fn :
Problem 2 (Andreadakis - stable version). What is the difference between Ak (Fn ) and
Γk (IAn ) for n  k ?
The Johnson morphism turns out to be a powerful tool in the study of the Andreadakis filtration (which is the analogous of Johnson’s filtration on the mapping
class group, defined by Johnson in [Joh83]).
Recall the A∗ (G) acts on Γ∗ (G) (see Proposition 1.22). The associated Johnson
morphism τ is described in Example 1.26. The Γi (G) are characteristic subgroups of
G, so A0 (G) = Aut(G). Lemmas 1.27 and 1.28 then give:
Lemma 1.32. The morphism τ is injective and Aut(G)/IAG -equivariant.
The filtration Γ∗ (IAG ) also acts on Γ∗ (G), by pulling back the universal action along
the inclusion i : Γ∗ (IAG ) ⊆ A∗ (Fn ). The associated Johnson morphism is denoted by:
τ 0 = τ ◦ i∗ . The morphism τ 0 is still equivariant, but is injective if and only if G satisfies
Andreadakis’ conjecture (i.e. if i∗ = 1 ).
Example 1.33. If G is a free group, then L(Fn ) is the free Lie algebra LV on V = Gab .
If g  h is an action in Lie, then g also acts on ho , which is obtained by considering the
module h as an abelian Lie algebra. Derivations from g to h then identify with sections
of the projection ho o g  g. Hence, the free Lie algebra is also free with respect to
derivations. In particular:
Derk (LV ) ∼
= Homk (V, Lk V ) ∼
= V ∗ ⊗ Lk V.
The following result is well-known [Kaw06, th. 6.1]:
Proposition 1.34. In degree one, the Johnson morphism τ 0 is a GLn (Z)-equivariant
isomorphism:
2
∼ ∗
τ10 : IAab
n = V ⊗ Λ V.
Proof. The group IAn is generated by the following elements [Nie24] – see also [BBM07,
5.6]:
(
(
xj xi x−1
if
t
=
i
[xj , xk ]xi if t = i
j
and Kijk : xt 7−→
(1.34.1)
Kij : xt 7−→
xt
else
xt
else.
One can check by a direct calculation that these generators are sent to a basis of the
free abelian group V ∗ ⊗ Λ2 V .
13

1.6

Lazard’s theorem

Definition 1.35. A filtered algebra A∗ is an associative k-algebra A0 endowed with a
filtration by ideals: A = A0 ⊇ A1 ⊇ ... such that: ∀i, j, Ai Aj ⊆ Ai+j . We denote by
f Alg the category of filtered algebras (and filtration-preserving morphisms).
Example 1.36. Let kG be the group algebra of G with coefficients in the (commutative) ring k. We denote by ε : kG → k its canonical augmentation and by Ik G := ker(ε)
its augmentation ideal (we will sometimes write IG, or even I, for short). Then kG is
filtered by the powers I ∗ G of its augmentation ideal. If G is a free group, then gr(kG)
is the tensor algebra over Gab ⊗ k [Pas79, th. 6.2].
From Theorem 1.16, we can deduce the useful corollary [Laz54, th. 3.1]:
Theorem 1.37 (Lazard). Let A = A0 ⊃ A1 ⊇ · · · be a filtered algebra. Then A×
∗ :=
×
A× ∩ (1 + A∗ ) is a strongly central filtration on A×
⊆
A
,
and
(−)
−
1
induces
an
1
embedding of graded Lie algebras:
L(A×
∗ ) ,→ gr∗ (A1 ).
α

Remark 1.38. Fix a morphism G −→ A× . We can pull back the filtration given by
the theorem to get a strongly central filtration α−1 (1 + A∗ ) on G1 = α−1 (1 + A1 ).
Proof of Theorem 1.37. The filtration A = A0 ⊃ A1 ⊇ · · · can be seen as a filtration
of the abelian group A. As A is abelian, it has to be strongly central. Consider the
action by left multiplication:
ρ : A× −→ Aut(A, +).
Let a ∈ A× . One can easily check that ρ(a) ∈ Aj (A∗ ) (where Aj (A∗ ) is the filtration
defined in Kaloujnine’s theorem 1.16) if and only if a ∈ 1 + Aj . Thus, A× ∩ (1 + Ai ) =
ρ−1 (Aj (A∗ )) is a strongly central filtration, as announced. It remains to show that
∂ = α − 1 induces a morphism of Lie ring (necessarily injective). This can be checked
directly from the formula:
[g, h] − 1 = [g − 1, h − 1]g −1 h−1 .
We will give a slightly different proof later on, using the concept of derivations (see
Paragraph 2.2).
Example 1.39. Applying Remark 1.38 to the inclusion of G in kG filtered by the
powers of the augmentation algebra, we get the dimension series of G:
D∗k G = G ∩ (1 + Ik∗ G).
It is a strongly central series on G, so it contains Γ∗ G. The question of the equality
of D∗Z G and Γ∗ G was known as the dimension subgroup problem during a long time,
until an example of a group for which the two filtration differ was given in [Rip72]. See
[MP09, chap. 2] for more on this subject.
If G is a free group, then L(D∗Z G) is the sub-Lie ring generated in degree one in the
tensor algebra gr(Z G) ∼
= T V . Hence (by the PBW theorem), it is the free Lie ring. It
then has to coincide with L(G), so D∗Z G = Γ∗ G. Thus, free groups have the dimension
property.
14

Lazard’s theorem gives a construction of a strongly central filtration from a filtered
algebra. Conversely, we can define a filtered algebra from a strongly central filtration
G∗ on G = G1 . Indeed, let kG be filtered by:
Fi := kG · (Ni − 1) = ker(kG −→ k(G/Hi )).
This filtration does not make kG into a filtered algebra, but it generates a filtration
which does:
X
akj (N∗ ) :=
kG · (Ni1 − 1) · · · (Nin − 1).
i1 +···+in >j

One can easily check that these constructions are universal:
Proposition 1.40. The above constructions define an adjunction:
SCF

1.7

ak∗
(−)×
∗

f Algk .

Congruence groups

If I is an (associative) ring without unit, recall that its congruence group GLn (I) is
defined as:
GLn (I) := ker(GLn (A) −→ GLn (A/I)),
where A is any unitary (associative) ring containing I as a (two-sided) ideal, (e.g.
A = I o Z). This group depends only on I, as it is exactly (1 + Mn (I))× .
If A = A0 ⊇ A1 ⊇ · · · is a filtered algebra (see Definition 1.35), then so is the
matrix algebra Mn (A), endowed with the filtration Mn (A∗ ). Theorem 1.37 gives us a
strongly central filtration of the congruence group:
GLn (A1 ) = GLn (A) ∩ (1 + Mn (A1 )) = ker(GLn (A) −→ GLn (A/A1 )).
by congruence subgroups:
GLn (Aj ) = GLn (A) ∩ (1 + Mn (Aj )) = ker(GLn (A) −→ GLn (A/Aj )),
and an embedding of the associated Lie ring into a matrix algebra:
L(GLn (A∗ )) ,→ gr∗ (Mn (A∗ )) ∼
= Mn (gr∗ (A∗ )).
As in the proof of Theorem 1.37, this filtration can be interpreted as:
GLn (A∗ ) = A∗ (GLn (A), An∗ ).
We also can recover Lazard’s theorem as the case n = 1 of this construction.
Suppose that A∗ is commutative. Then the usual determinant defines a filtrationpreserving morphism:
det : GLn (A∗ ) −→ GL1 (A∗ ) = A×
∗.
Indeed, if M ∈ Mn (Aj ), then det(1 +M ) ∈ 1+Aj . The following proposition determines
the associated graded morphism:
15

Proposition 1.41. The following square commutes:
L(GLn (A∗ ))

(−)−1

Mn (gr(A∗ ))

det

L(A×
∗)

Tr
(−)−1

gr(A∗ ).

Moreover, it is Cartesian, that is:
L(GLn (A∗ )) ∼
= Tr−1 (L(A×
∗ ) − 1).
The kernels of det and Tr then coincide. We thus recover (an generalize slightly) a
result of [Lop14]:
Corollary 1.42. Let SLn (A∗ ) be the kernel of the determinant. Then:
L(SLn (A∗ )) ∼
= ker(Tr) = sln (gr(A∗ )).
Remark 1.43. If L(A×
∗ ) = 0, then L(GLn (A∗ )) = L(SLn (A∗ )), and this Lie ring
identifies to sln (gr(A∗ )). This happens for example when GL1 (A1 ) = {1} (implying
SLn (A∗ ) = GLn (A∗ )), which is verified for A∗ = q ∗ Z (if q > 2), or A∗ = t∗ k[t].
Proof of Proposition 1.41. Let M ∈ Mn (Aj ). Then:
det(1 + M ) ≡ 1 + Tr(M )

(mod A2j ).

When j > 1, then A2j ⊆ Aj+1 , so this formula gives the commutativity of the above
square. The module Tr−1 (Lj (A×
∗ ) − 1) is additively generated by the matrices:
āeαβ , ā(e11 − eαα ) and b̄e11 , for α 6= β, a ∈ Aj and 1 + b ∈ A×
j .
Replacing ā(e11 − eαα ) by ā(e11 + e1α − eα1 − eαα ), we can lift these to GLn (Aj ) as
follows:

lifts āeαβ ,
 1 + aeαβ
1 + a(e11 + e1α − eα1 − eαα ) lifts ā(e11 + e1α − eα1 − eαα ),

1 + be11
lifts b̄e11 .
This completes the proof.
Let n > 3. If A is a ”non-totally-imaginary Dedekind ring of arithmetic type” and q
is an ideal of A, then we have [BMS67, cor. 4.3 (b)] that SLn (q) is normally generated
in SLn (A) (in fact in En (A)) by the shear mappings 1 + teαβ with α 6= β and t ∈ q.
This applies for instance to A = Z and q = (q). From this we deduce:
Proposition 1.44. If n > 5, under the above hypothesis:
Γ∗ (SLn (q)) = SLn (q∗ ).
Proof. The filtration SLn (q∗ ) is strongly central on SLn (q), so it contains its lower
central series. Conversely, using that:

1 + (a + b)eαβ = (1 + aeαβ )(1 + beαβ ) if α 6= β,
1 + abeαβ = [1 + aeαγ , 1 + beγβ ]
if α, β and γ are pairwise distinct,
one can easily check that for any t in qk and any α 6= β, if n > 5:

1 + teαβ ∈ Γk (SLn (q)).
Using the result from [BMS67], we see that these generate SLn (qk ) as a normal subgroup of SLn (A). Hence SLn (qk ) ⊆ Γk (SLn (q)), as required.
16

Remark 1.45 (On the q-torsion Andreadakis problem for Zn ). Fix an integer q. A qtorsion strongly central filtration is a strongly central filtration G∗ such that Gqi ⊆ Gi+1
for every i > 1 (this means exactly that q L(G∗ ) = 0). On any group G, there is
(q)
a minimal q-torsion strongly central filtration Γ∗ (G). Moreover, A∗ (G∗ ) is q-torsion
whenever G∗ is, because L(A∗ (G∗ )) embeds into a q-torsion Lie algebra via the Johnson
(q)
(q)
(q)
morphism. Let us denote A∗ (Γ∗ (G)) by A∗ (G) and A1 (G) by IA(q) (G) (it is the
group of automorphisms acting trivially on Gab ⊗ (Z /q)). Thus we get an inclusion of
(q)
(q)
Γ∗ (IA(q) ) into A∗ and a corresponding q-torsion Andreadakis problem.
(q)
Apply this with G = Zn and q > 3. Then Γ∗ (G) = q ∗ Z, Aut(G) = GLn (Z),
(q)
and A∗ (G) = GLn (q ∗ Z) = SLn (q ∗ Z) Proposition 1.44 then gives an answer to the
(q)
q-torsion Andreadakis problem for Zn in the stable range (n > 5) : A∗ (Zn ) is the
lower central series of IA(q) (Zn ) = SLn (q Z).
When A = Z and q = (q), the graded ring gr(q ∗ Z) is (Z /q)[t]. Moreover,
GLn (q Z) = SLn (q Z) (see Remark 1.43). Proposition 1.44 and Corollary 1.42 thus
give:
Corollary 1.46. For all n > 5 and all q > 3, there is a canonical isomorphism of
graded Lie rings (in degrees at least one):
L(GLn (q Z)) ∼
= sln (Z /q)[t],
where the degree of t is 1, and the Lie bracket of M ti and N tj is [M, N ]ti+j .
Remark 1.47. This generalizes [LS76, Th. 1.1], which is the degree-one part.
Remark 1.48. For n = 2 and q > 5 a prime number, the group SL2 (q Z) is free
on 1 + q(q 2 − 1)/12 generators [Gro52, Fra33]. Its Lie ring is then a free Lie ring on
the same number of generators. The author does not know a complete calculation for
n = 3 or 4 : the above calculus does give the abelianization, but it fails to determine
the whole lower central series.

1.8

Comparison between filtrations obtained from an action

Let G be a group. Suppose that G acts on two strongly central series H∗ et K∗ (by
automorphisms in SCF). We then can ask what link exists between A∗ (G, H∗ ) and
A∗ (G, K∗ ) (as defined in Remark 1.23), depending on the links between H∗ an K∗ .
The next proposition describes the behaviour of the construction A∗ (G, −) with
respect to injections, surjections (see Definition 1.11) and semi-direct products in the
category G−SCF of strongly central series endowed with a G-action (where morphisms
respect this action):
Proposition 1.49. Let G be a group acting on strongly central series N∗ , H∗ and K∗ .
Let u : N∗ −→ H∗ and v : H∗ −→ K∗ be G-equivariant morphisms.
If u : N∗ −→ H∗ is an injection, then A∗ (G, H∗ ) ⊆ A∗ (G, N∗ ).
If v : H∗ −→ K∗ is a surjection, then A∗ (G, H∗ ) ⊆ A∗ (G, K∗ ).
If N∗

H∗

K∗ is a split exact sequence in G − SCF, then:
A∗ (G, H∗ ) = A∗ (G, K∗ ) ∩ A∗ (G, N∗ ).
17

Proof. In the first case, we identify N = N1 to a subgroup of H = H1 . Let g ∈
Aj (G, H∗ ). We write:
[g, Ni ] = [g, N ∩ Hi ] ⊆ [g, N ] ∩ [g, Hi ] ⊆ N ∩ Hi+j = Ni+j .
Similarly, to show the second assertion, let us take g ∈ Aj (G, H∗ ). We write:
[g, Ki ] = [g, v(Hi )] = ϕ([g, Hi ]) ⊆ v(Hi+j ) = Ki+j .
The third assertion’s hypothesis comes down to require that H∗ decompose as a semidirect product K∗ o N∗ , the action of G on H∗ being factor-wise. We then get Gequivariant isomorphisms:
Hi /Hi+j ∼
= Ki /Ki+j o Ni /Ni+j .
An element g of G acts trivially on the left hand side if and only if it does on the right
hand side. Whence the result.
Remark 1.50. Let 1
N∗ u H∗ v K∗
1 be a non-split short exact sequence in G − SCF, the first part of Proposition 1.49 gives:
A∗ (G, H∗ ) ⊆ A∗ (G, K∗ ) ∩ A∗ (G, N∗ ).
Nevertheless, equality is not true in general. Indeed, the sequences:
1

Ni /Ni+j

u

Hi /Hi+j

v

Ki /Ki+j

1

are exact, but g ∈ G can act trivially on the kernel and quotient without acting trivially
on the middle term. For instance, H 1 (G) = Ext1G (Ztriv , Ztriv ) is non-trivial in general.
We can get a little more about semi-direct products:
H
K be a split exact sequence in G − Grps. SupProposition 1.51. Let N
pose that N is filtered by a strongly central series N∗ . Then:
A∗ (G, N∗ ) ⊆ A∗ (G, A∗ (K, N∗ )) .
Proof. Let us denote by K∗ the filtration A∗ (K, N∗ ) and by G∗ the filtration A∗ (G, N∗ ).
A straightforward application of the 3-subgroup lemma (Lemma 1.4) in (N o K) o G
provides the inclusion:
[[Gα , Kβ ], Nγ ] ⊆ Nα+β+γ .
Thus [Gα , Kβ ] ⊆ Aα+β (K, N∗ ) = Kα+β , which means that Gα ⊆ Aα (G, K∗ ).
Corollary 1.52. Let G be a group acting on a filtered algebra A∗ by automorphisms
of filtered algebras. Then:
A∗ (G, A∗ ) ⊆ A∗ (G, A×
∗ ).
Proof. Apply Proposition 1.51 to the G-equivariant split exact sequence:
A

A o A×

A×

and the given filtration on A.
Here is an interesting case when the filtrations of Corollary 1.52 are equal:
18

Proposition 1.53. Let G be a group, and k a commutative ring. Then:

A∗ Aut(G), D∗k G = A∗ (Aut(G), Ik∗ G) .
Proof. The algebra Z G is filtered by Ik∗ G, the powers of its augmentation ideal. The
group Aut(G) acts on Z G by automorphisms of filtered algebras. As A∗ (G, Ik∗ G) =
D∗k G, Proposition 1.51, applied to the action of Aut(G) on kG o G, gives an inclusion:
A∗ (Aut(G), Ik∗ G) ⊆ A∗ (Aut(G), D∗k G).
To show that it is in fact an equality, take ϕ ∈ A∗ (Aut(G), D∗k G). Then:
∀g ∈ G = D1 G, [ϕ, g] = (ϕ(g)g −1 − 1)g ∈ (Dj+1 − 1)G ⊆ I j+1 .
We then show that [ϕ, I i ] ⊆ I i+j by induction on i > 1, using the formula:
[ϕ, uv] = [ϕ, u]ϕ(v) + u[ϕ, v] (= (ϕ(u) − u) · ϕ(v) + u · (ϕ(v) − v)) .
Let us remark that, in the language of paragraph 2.3, the last formula states that [ϕ, −]
is a (1 , ϕ)-derivation, so we have in fact used lemma 2.18.

2

Traces and stable surjectivity

2.1

Free differential calculus

We recall some basic concepts of free differential calculus. A detailed account can be
found in [Fox53].
Definition 2.1. Let G be a group, and M a kG-module. A derivation from G to M
is a map ∂ : G −→ M such that:
∀g, h ∈ G, ∂(gh) = ∂g + g · ∂h.
It can be extended to a linear map ∂ : kG −→ M , which verifies:
∀u, v ∈ kG, ∂(uv) = ∂(u)ε(v) + u · ∂(v).
We denote by Der(G, M ) or Der(kG, M ) the space of derivations from G to M . We
will often write Der(kG) for Der(kG, kG).
Remark 2.2. Let G = FS be the free group over a set S. As derivations identify with
sections of M o G  G, we get: Der(kFS , M ) ∼
= M S for any kG-module M .
Definition 2.3. Let S = (xi )i be a chosen basis of a free group F . The following
requirement defines a derivation of kF :
(
1 if t = i,
∂
: xt 7−→
∂xi
0 else.
Let us give a first version of the chainrule:
Proposition 2.4. Let λ : FY −→ G a group morphism, where FY is the free group on
a set Y = {yj }. Then, for u in kY and ∂ in Der(kG):
X  ∂u 
∂(λu) =
λ
∂(λyj ).
∂y
j
j
19

Remark 2.5. The sums involved here are finite, because only a finite number of letters
appear in a given element u.
Proof of proposition 2.4. One can check that each member of this equality defines a
derivation from kFY to kG, where kFY acts on kG by y · g = λ(y)g. As these formulas give the same result when evaluated at elements of the basis, the corresponding
derivations are equal.
If G = FX = hxi i is free too, we can apply proposition 2.4 with ∂ =


∂u ∂(λyj )
∂(λu) X
=
λ
.
∂xi
∂y
∂x
j
i
j

∂
∂xi

to get:

For X = Y and λ = 1FX , this gives a change-of-base formula similar to the usual one.
The following definition keeps on with our analogy with classical differential calculus:
Definition 2.6. Let FY = hyj i and FX = hxi i be free groups as above. Let f be a
morphism from FY to FX . We define its Jacobian matrix (with respect to the chosen
basis) by:


∂f (yj )
D(f ) :=
∈ MY X (kX).
∂xi
ji
Remark 2.7. The morphism f is determined by Df . Indeed, proposition 2.4, applied
with λ = 1, ∂ : v 7−→ v − ε(v) and u = f (xi ), gives:
f (xi ) − 1 =

X ∂f (xi )
∂xj

j

(xj − 1).
g

f

Let FZ = hzk i, FY = hyj i and FX = hxi i be free groups, and let FZ −→ FY −→ FX
be morphisms between them. We can use proposition 2.4 to get a chainrule for Jacobian
matrices:


∂g(zk ) ∂f (yj )
∂f (g(zk )) X
=
f
.
∂xi
∂yj
∂xi
j
This can be restated as:
g

f

Corollary 2.8. Let FZ −→ FY −→ FX be morphisms between free groups with fixed
basis, as above. Then:
D(f g) = f (Dg)D(f ).
Remark 2.9. The reader may have noticed that this formula seems to come ”in the
wrong way”. This can be explained as follows: a morphism f : FY −→ FX is in fact
a r-tuple of monomials f (yj ) = fj (xi ) ∈ kFX , and should as such be considered as a
”polynomial function from FX to FY ”, whose coordinates would be the fj s. From this
point of view, f g would be a ”polynomial function from FX to FZ ”, whose coordinates
would be given by f g(zk ) = gk (fj (xi )): it looks more like ”g ◦ f ” !
This seems to be completely analogous to the classical setting of algebraic geometry.
To get more accurate statements, one would have to interpret kFX as an algebra of
functions over a geometric object associated to FX . Which should look like a one-point
object with some local structure (as Df determines f ).
20

2.2

Derivations and strongly central filtrations

We introduce the notion of a derivation from a group G to a group H on which it
acts. Our aim here is to describe a general framework which will be useful to study
Jacobian matrices and their interactions with Lie brackets: the chainrule formula 2.8
tells us that D is a derivation. We will also get back to Lazard’s theorem 1.37 in this
framework.
Definition 2.10. Let H be a group, on which another group G acts. A map ∂ : G −→
H is a derivation if:
∀ x, y ∈ G, ∂(xy) = ∂x · x∂y.
Remark 2.11. If H = M is an abelian group, i.e. a representation of G, then we
recover the usual definition of a derivation from G to M (see Definition 2.1).
To give a derivation ∂ : G −→ H is exactly the same as giving a section σ = (∂, 1G )
of the canonical projection:
σ

H oG

p

G.

Keeping this in mind, the following lemma follows immediately:
Lemma 2.12. Let ∂ be a derivation from G to H. Then ∂ −1 sends G-stable subgroups
of H on subgroups of G.
Let H∗ be strongly central filtration on a subgroup H1 of H. Let G∗ be a strongly
central filtration on a subgroup G1 of G, which acts on H∗ through the given action of
G on H (see Proposition 1.20). A derivation ∂ from G to H being given, we can use
the morphism σ = (∂, 1G ) to pull back the filtration H∗ o G∗ . We thus get a strongly
central filtration on G1 ∩ ∂ −1 (H1 ):
σ −1 (Hi o Gi ) = Gi ∩ ∂ −1 (Hi ).
Remark 2.13. For instance, if H∗ is given, we can let G∗ be A∗ (G, H∗ ), the maximal
filtration acting on H∗ , as described in Remark 1.23. The above construction then
gives a strongly central filtration on A1 ∩ ∂ −1 (H1 ). This subgroup is all of G if and
only if:

 G stabilises H∗ ,
G acts trivially on L(H∗ ),
(2.13.1)

∂(G) ⊆ H1 .
Under these conditions, A∗ ∩ ∂ −1 (H∗ ) is a strongly central series on G. In particular,
it then contains Γ∗ (G).
Keeping the above notations, the morphism σ = (∂, 1G ) induces a Lie ring morphism (which is injective by definition of the filtration on the domain):
σ̄ : L(G∗ ∩ ∂ −1 (H∗ )) ,−→ L(H∗ ) o L(G∗ ).
This ensures that ∂ induces a well-defined linear map ∂¯ between the Lie algebras.
¯ 1̄ ) : x 7−→ ∂x
¯ + x preserves Lie brackets, hence:
Moreover, the map σ̄ = (∂,
¯
¯ y] + [x, ∂y]
¯ + [∂x,
¯ ∂y].
¯
∂([x,
y]) = [∂x,
If L(H∗ ) is an abelian Lie algebra, then the last term is zero, and ∂¯ is a Lie derivation.
This happens in particular when H is an abelian group.
21

Back to the proof of Lazard’s theorem 1.37. Take the filtered (abelian) group (A, +) as
H, and the group A× as G acting by left multiplication ρ. We already know that:
×
Aj (A× , A∗ ) = A×
∗ = A ∩ (1 + Aj ).

Let ∂ be the derivation from A× to A defined by g 7−→ g −1. Obviously, ∂ −1 (Aj ) = A×
j ,
×
×
−1
which is exactly Aj (A , A∗ ). It is then equal to Aj (A , A∗ ) ∩ ∂ (Aj ).
The Lie ring L(A∗ ) is abelian (because A is an abelian group). Hence, the induced
map ∂¯ is a derivation (with respect to the canonical action of L(A×
∗ ) on L(A∗ )):
∂¯ : L(A×
∗ ) −→ L(A∗ ).
Let us remark that the Lie algebra L(A∗ ) is quite different from gr(A∗ ): the associative
structure of A has been completely forgotten. Nevertheless, some part of this structures
is encoded by the action of L(A×
∗ ), which is inherited from left multiplication. The
¯
map ∂ is a derivation with respect to this action, that is:
¯
¯ y] + [x, ∂y].
¯
∂([x,
y]) = [∂x,
These brackets are described through the action of L(A×
∗ ) on L(A∗ ), as induced by
commutators in A o A× :
∀g ∈ A×
1 , ∀x ∈ A, [g, x] = gx − x.
As a consequence:
¯
∂([x,
y]) = −(y(x − 1) − (x − 1)) + (x(y − 1) − (y − 1)) = xy − yx,
so ∂¯ is in fact a Lie morphism to gr(A∗ ).

2.3

Algebras, actions and derivations

We now turn to studying derivations of algebras. In particular, we get a precise link
between free differential calculus and differential calculus in the tensor algebra (see
Proposition 2.25). We will use this in Paragraph 2.4.2 to get an explicit description of
the trace map.
Let Alg− be the category of associative non-unitary algebras over a fixed commutative ring k. This category is pointed (by 0) and protomodular. We can define actions
there, as in paragraph 1.3. Actions in Alg− turn out to be representable. Precisely, for
any algebra I, let Endr (I) (resp. Endl (I)) be the algebra of right (resp. left) I-linear
endomorphisms of I, i.e. k-linear maps u from I to I satisfying:
∀x, y ∈ I, u(xy) = u(x)y (resp. u(xy) = xu(y)).
Define Endr,l (I) as the kernel of :

Endr (I) × Endl (I) −→
Endk (I)
α:
(u, v)
7−→ u ◦ v − v ◦ u.
Proposition 2.14. An action A  I in Alg− can be represented by a (unique) morphism:
(λ,ρ)

A −→ Endr,l (I).
22

Proof. If an action
I

B

A

is given, λ(a) and ρ(a) are obtained from left and right multiplications by a in B.
Conversely, a morphism (λ, ρ) as above can be used to define an (associative) algebra
structure on I × A defining an action of A on I.
Let us remark that if I 2 = 0 (that is, I is endowed with a trivial algebra structure),
then an action of A on I is just a A-bimodule structure.
Remark 2.15. The same construction works in the category of (non-unitary) filtered
algebras f Alg− , where we also get a representation of actions. The algebras Endr (I)
and Endl (I) are then filtered by the usual requirement: a morphism u is of degree at
least j if u(Ii ) ⊆ Ii+j for all i. The same requirement will be used to define a filtration
on any module of morphisms between filtered modules or algebras.
Definition 2.16. Let A act on I as above. A derivation from A to I is a k-linear map
∂ : A −→ I satisfying:
∂(ab) = ∂a · b + a · ∂b.
The k-module of derivations from A to I is denoted by Der(A, I).
Remark 2.17. The relation defining derivations depends only on the A-bimodule
structure on I. We are thus led to consider I o , the algebra obtained by taking the
same underlying k-module as I, endowed with the trivial product. The action of A on
I induces an action of A on I o in the obvious manner, and a derivation from A to I is
then the same as a section of the projection:
Io o A  A
in the category of algebras.
When we work in the category of filtered algebras, Der(A, I) is a filtered module,
a derivation ∂ being of degree at least j if ∂(Ai ) ⊆ Ii+j for all i. If A is filtered by its
powers Ai , we just have to check this in degree one:
Lemma 2.18. Let A be an algebra, filtered by its powers Ai := Ai , acting on a filtered
algebra I∗ . Let ∂ ∈ Der(A, I). Then ∂ is of degree at least j if and only if:
∂(A) ⊆ Ij+1 .
Proof. An action of A∗ on I∗ is given by a left and a right multiplication which are
filtered, meaning that Ai Ij ⊆ Ii+j and Ij Ai ⊆ Ii+j . Use the formula:
X
∂(a1 · · · ai ) =
a1 · · · ak−1 ∂(ak )ak+1 · · · ai
k

to get the desired result.
We can get examples of actions from algebras acting on themselves. Precisely, the
adjoint action of A on itself is just the obvious A-bimodule structure on A. Derivations
are then the usual ones.
Given an action of A on I represented by (ρ, λ), we can twist it by choosing endomorphisms ϕ and ψ of A and letting A act on I through (ρ ◦ ϕ, λ ◦ ψ). This means
that we let a ∈ A act on I by ϕ(a) · − on the left, and by − · ψ(a) on the right. We
give a name to derivations from A to the the twisted A-bimodule I.
23

Definition 2.19. Let ϕ and ψ be endomorphisms of A. A (ϕ, ψ)-derivation is a linear
map ∂ : A −→ I satisfying:
∂(ab) = ∂a · ψb + ϕa · ∂b.
We denote by Der(ϕ,ψ) (A, I) the k-module of such derivations.
Example 2.20. Let A be a group algebra kG and M a kG-module. We can make M
into a bimodule by making kG act trivially on the right (that is, through ε). Then,
Der(kG, M ) is exactly the usual module of derivations (see Definition 2.1). If M = kG,
it is already a bimodule, but the above structure can be obtained through twisting the
right action by ηε : g 7→ ε(g) · 1. Then Der(kG) (defined in Definition 2.1) is exactly
Der(id,ηε) (kG, kG).
We can apply Lemma 2.18 to A = I = IG, to get:
Corollary 2.21. Let ∂ be a derivation of Z G such that ∂(Z G) ⊆ (IG)l+1 (which is
always true for l = −1). For all integer k, we have:
∂((IG)k ) ⊂ (IG)k+l .
Remark 2.22. Let us stress that the proof given here is fairly direct. In fact, it gets
even shorter in this case, the result following from: ∀v ∈ I, ∂(uv) = u · ∂v.
Remark 2.23. The classical inclusion of Γk − 1 into IGk can be shown by a direct
induction, or follows from Lazard’s theorem (as D∗ (G) is a strongly central series, it
contains Γ∗ G). Under the hypothesis of Proposition 2.21, it implies ∂(Γk ) ⊆ (IG)k+l ,
using that ∂(1) = 0.
Remark 2.24. Some sets of derivations obtained from actions of A on itself can have
more structure than just a module structure. Precisely, if we twist the adjoint action of
A by some (ϕ, ψ) as above, and if we add the requirement that ϕ and ψ are idempotents,
then the set of (ϕ, ψ)-derivations from A to A commuting to ϕ and ψ is a sub-Lie algebra
of Endk (A):
[∂, ∂ 0 ](ab) = ∂∂ 0 a · ψ 2 b + ϕ∂ 0 a · ∂ψb + ∂ϕa · ψ∂ 0 b + ϕ2 a · ∂∂ 0 b
− ∂ 0 ∂a · ψ 2 b − ϕ∂a · ∂ 0 ψb − ∂ 0 ϕa · ψ∂b − ϕ2 a · ∂ 0 ∂b
= [∂, ∂ 0 ](a) · ψ(b) + ϕ(a) · [∂, ∂ 0 ](b).
In particular, if (ϕ, ψ) = (1 , 1 ), we get that Der(A) is a sub-Lie algebra of Endk (A).
Another example is given by A = kG and (ϕ, ψ) = (1 , ηε). But more is true is this last
case. Let kG be filtered by the powers of the augmentation ideal. If ∂, ∂ 0 ∈ Der(kG)
are such that ∂ 0 has degree at least 0, then ∂ ◦ ∂ 0 ∈ Der(kG), because ε(∂ 0 v) = 0 for
any v.
Let A∗  I∗ be an action of filtered algebras. Since the functor gr : f Alg −→ grAlg
from filtered algebras to graded ones is exact (the same proof as that of Proposition 1.24
works), this action is sent to an action gr(A∗ )  gr(I∗ ) of graded algebras. Moreover,
gr also commutes with (−)o (the definition of (−)o being extended to graded algebras
in the obvious way), so we get a morphism:
gr(Der(A∗ , I∗ )) ,→ Der∗ (gr(A∗ ), gr(I∗ )),
24

where the target is the graded module of graded derivations. This morphism is obviously injective. It is in fact a restriction of the natural injection:
gr(Homk (M∗ , N∗ )) ,→ Hom∗ (gr(M∗ ), gr(N∗ ))
between bifunctors on graded modules. As such, it preserves all algebraic structure
inherited from the additive bifunctor structure (see Remark 2.24).
When A∗ is kG, filtered by the powers of IG, acting on itself, we thus get a morphism
preserving the structure induced by composition:
gr(Der(kG)) ,→ Der∗ (gr(kG)).
Proposition 2.25. If G is a free group, and M∗ is a filtered kG-module (considered
as a bimodule with trivial right action), the canonical map:
gr(Der(kG, M∗ )) ,→ Der∗ (gr(kG), gr(M∗ ))
is an isomorphism. Here, by derivations, we mean (id, ε)-ones.
Proof. Let S be a free set of generators for G. Then V = Gab is free abelian on S, and
gr(kG) ∼
= T V is the tensor algebra. Identifying derivations with sections as above (see
Remark 2.17), we see that a derivation is completely determined by the choice of its
values on S:
Der∗ (T V, N∗ ) = F∗ (S, N∗ ),
for any graded T V -bimodule N∗ , where F∗ (S, N∗ ) is the set of graded maps from S
(concentrated in degree 0) to N∗ . The same is true for the other side. Indeed, a
derivation from kG to M is a section of the projection M o G  G, so is determined
by a map S → M :
Der(kG, M∗ ) = Der(G, M∗ ) ∼
= M∗S .
The second member is the set of maps from S to M , with the filtration inherited from
the one on M . The desired isomorphism is then exactly: gr(M∗S ) ∼
= F∗ (S, gr(M∗ )).
Remark 2.26. If M is a G-module, we can endow it with the universal kG-filtration
(IG)∗ · M .
Remark 2.27. The isomorphism gr(Der(kG)) ∼
= Der∗ (T V ) thus obtained preserves
the algebraic structure obtained from the composition of derivations.

2.4

Traces

In [Bar13], Bartholdi defines the trace of an automorphism ϕ of Fn by:
Tr(ϕ) := Tr(Dϕ − 1 ) ∈ Z Fn ,
where Dϕ denotes ϕ’s Jacobian matrix. We will show that Tr induces a well-defined
map between the graded Lie algebras, which we still call Tr:
Tr : L(A∗ (Fn )) −→ gr(Z Fn ) ∼
= T V.
The aim of this paragraph is to show that this map is indeed well-defined, to investigate
its behaviour with respect to Lie structures, and to get Morita’s algebraic description
[Mor93], used by Satoh in [Sat12].
25

2.4.1

The induced map between Lie algebras

Let ϕ ∈ Ak (Fn ). By definition, ϕi := x−1
i ϕ(xi ) ∈ Γk+1 . The Jacobian matrix of ϕ can
be described explicitly:
∂(xi ϕi )
∂xi
∂(ϕi )
=
.
+xi
∂xj
∂xj
∂xj
|{z}

(Dϕ)ij =

δij

Hence:
Dϕ − 1 =



∂ϕi
xi
∂xj


.
ij

Using Remark 2.23, we see that this matrix is in fact in Mn (I k ) (to shorten notations,
we write I for IFn in the sequel). Moreover, xi acts trivially on I k /I k+1 . We thus get
an explicit formula for the trace map:
Tr(Dϕ − 1 ) =

X
i

xi

∂ϕi X ∂ϕi
≡
∂xi
∂xi
i

(mod I k+1 ).

Let G be any group. We can apply the construction of Paragraph 1.7 to A = kG,
filtered by the powers of the augmentation ideal. This gives a strongly central filtration
GLn (I ∗ G) on GLn (IG), which comes with an embedding of Lie algebras:
L(GLn (I ∗ G)) ,→ gr(Mn (kG)) ∼
= Mn (gr(kG)).
The next proposition replaces a formula from [Bar13, section 6]:
Proposition 2.28. The Jacobian matrix D induces a morphism between graded modules:
D : L(A∗ (Fn )) −→ L(GLn (I ∗ Fn )),
satisfying:
D([f, g]) = [g, Df ] + [Dg, f ] + [Dg, Df ] .
In order to address the issue raised in Remark 2.9, let us introduce some notations
before proving the proposition. If G is any group, we denote by Gop the opposite group,
where multiplication is defined by: g ·op h = hg. Let G∗ be a strongly central filtration
op
on G. Then Gop
and one easily checks that:
∗ is such a filtration on G
op
L(Gop
∗ ) = L(G∗ ) ,

where the bracket in L(G∗ )op is L(G∗ )’s additive inverse: [x, y]op = [y, x].
Proof of Proposition 2.28. Corollary 2.8 states exactly that D is a derivation from
Aut(Fn ) to GLn (I)op ⊂ Mn (Z Fn )op , where Mn (Z Fn ) is endowed with the obvious
Aut(Fn )-action. We thus can apply the results from 2.2 with ∂ = D, G = Aut(Fn ),
H = GLn (I)op , and H∗ = GLn (I ∗ )op .
The strongly central filtration A∗ (G, H∗ ) is in fact the Andreadakis filtration A∗ =
A∗ (Fn ) on A1 = IAn ⊂ Aut(Fn ). Indeed, there is a series of inclusions:
A∗ (G, D∗ Fn ) ⊇ A∗ (G, GLn (I ∗ )) ⊇ A∗ (G, Mn (Z Fn )) = A∗ (G, Z Fn ) .
26

The first one comes from 1.49 applied to the injection of D∗ Fn into GLn (I ∗ ) defined
by w 7−→ w · 1 . The second one is a particular case of 1.52. The last equality comes
from the fact that G acts component-wise on matrices:
[g, (mij )] = g · (mij ) − (mij ) = ([g, mij ]).
According to proposition 1.53, these inclusions are in fact equalities.
Moreover, we have seen at the beginning of the present paragraph that D sends A∗
to GLn (I ∗ )op . The filtration A∗ ∩ ∂ −1 (H∗ ) is thus only A∗ . The work already done in
2.2 allows us to get the desired result.
The map given by Proposition 2.28 can be composed with the morphism:
(−)−1
L(GLn (I ∗ )) −→ gr(Mn (Z Fn )) ∼
= Mn (gr(Z Fn )) = Mn (T V ).

Thus, for ϕ an element of Ak /Ak+1 , Dϕ − 1 is well-defined modulo Mn (I k+1 ). Composing with the usual trace, we get the announced well-defined linear map induced by
ϕ 7−→ Tr(Dϕ − 1 ):
Tr : L(A) −→ T V.
Remark 2.29. That the map D− 1 (hence Tr) induces a well-defined map between the
Lie algebras can be seen through explicit calculation, but the behaviour with respect
to the Lie bracket is much less obvious from this point of view. Indeed, let ϕ ∈ Ak . If
ϕ = ψχ, with χ ∈ Ak+1 , then:
ψ(xi ) = ϕ(xi χi ) = xi ϕi ϕ(χi ).
As χi stands inside Γk+2 , its image by ϕ does too. Thus:
∂ϕi
∂ϕ(χi )
∂ϕi
∂ψi
=
+ ϕi
≡
∂xj
∂xj
∂x
∂xj
| {zj }

(mod I k+1 ).

∈I k+1

2.4.2

Introducing the contraction map

Consider the evaluation map:
ev : Der(1 ,ε) (T V ) ⊗ T V −→ T V.
Using the universal property of T V , as in the proof of 2.25, we get a linear isomorphism:
Der(1 ,ε) (T V ) ∼
= Hom(V, T V ) ∼
= V ∗ ⊗ T V.
The evaluation map then is:
 ∗
V ⊗ TV ⊗ TV
ω⊗u⊗v

−→ T V
7−→ Φ(ω ⊗ v)u,

where Φ is the contraction map:
 ∗
V ⊗ V ⊗k+1
−→ V ⊗k
Φ:
α ⊗ Xi1 · · · Xik+1 7−→ Xi1 · · · Xik α(Xik+1 ),
extended by zero on k·1. This follows from the fact that any (1 , ε)-derivation ∂ verifies:
∂(uv) = u · ∂v,
when the degree of v is at least 1 (that is, when ε(v) = 0), and ∂(1) = 0.
We sum this up in the following:
27

Proposition 2.30. Let ∂ ∈ Der(1 ,ε) (T V ). Then:
∂ = Φ(∂|V ⊗ −).
Let us consider the derivation ∂x∂ i of Z Fn . It induces a (1 , ε)-derivation of degree
−1 of T V , denoted by ∂i (any derivation of kG is of degree at least −1, by Corollary
2.21). As ∂i |V = Xi∗ , we get the following:
Corollary 2.31. The (1 , ε)-derivation of T V induced by ∂x∂ i ∈ Der(Z Fn ) is represented
as:
∂
= ∂i = Φ(Xi∗ ⊗ −) : T V −→ T V.
∂xi
We can use these results to interpret the trace map in a way more suited to explicit
calculations:
Proposition 2.32. The trace map can be described as:
Tr = Φ ◦ ι ◦ τ,
where τ is the Johnson morphism (see Definition 1.26), ι denotes the inclusion of
Derk (LV ) ∼
= V ∗ ⊗ Lk+1 V into Derk (T V ) ∼
= V ∗ ⊗ V ⊗k+1 , and Φ is the contraction map.
Proof. Let ϕ ∈ Ak . Then τ (ϕ) is defined by:
∼
τ (ϕ)(Xi ) = x−1
i ϕ(xi ) = ϕi ∈ Γk+1 /Γk+2 = Lk+1 V.
We have seen at the beginning of Paragraph 2.4.1 that the trace map is given by:
Tr(Dϕ − 1 ) =

X ∂ϕi
i

∂xi

.

The formula of the proposition is then equivalent to:
!
X
X ∂ϕi
∗
Φ
.
Xi ⊗ ϕi =
∂xi
i
i
To get this formula, we evaluate the equality given by Corollary 2.31 to the elements
ϕi − 1 (keeping in mind that the inclusion of Lk+1 V into Tk+1 V is given by w 7→
w − 1).

2.5
2.5.1

Stable surjectivity
Vanishing of the trace map

Here, we show that the trace map takes values in brackets inside T V . This result can
also be found in [MS17, Prop. 5.3], where rational methods are used to get it.
Proposition 2.33 ([BLGM90, Th. 2.1], quoted in [Bar13, Th. 6.2]). Let k > 2, and
let J ∈ GLm (IZk Fn ). Denote by V the abelianization V = Fnab ∼
= Zn . Then:
Tr (J − 1 ) ∈ [T V, T V ]k ⊂ V ⊗k ∼
= I k /I k+1 .
This result relies on the following criterion:
28

Proposition 2.34 ([BLGM90, prop. 2.2]). Let f (X1 , ..., Xn ) ∈ V ⊗k . Let C ⊂ Mk (Z)
be the sub-Z-module generated by the ei,i+1 . Suppose:
∀Ci ∈ C, Tr(f (C1 , ..., Cn )) = 0.
Then f ∈ [T V, T V ]k .
The proof can be found in [BLGM90]. The reader is also referred to the proof of
Proposition 3.16, which is the same proof, adapted to the case of positive carateristic.
Proof of Proposition 2.33. The main idea is to use evaluations into commutative algebras to be able to use Proposition 1.41, and to then get back to the non-commutative
setting by using the above criterion.
Let 1 + tAi ∈ GLk (tk[t]). There is an evaluation morphism xi 7→ 1 + tAi from Fn to
GLk (t Z[t]), extending to a morphism from kFn to Mk (tk[t]) sending I ∗ to t∗ Mk (k[t]).
Taking congruence groups, we get an evaluation morphism:
ev1 +tAi : GLm (I ∗ Fn ) −→ GLm (t∗ Mk (k[t])) = GLmk (t∗ k[t]).
There is a commutative diagram:
L(GLm (I ∗ Fn ))

(−)−1

Mm (T V )

ev1 +tAi

L(GLmk (t∗ k[t]))

(−)−1

Mmk (k[t])

TV
evtAi

evtAi

det

L(k[t]×
∗) = 0

Tr

T rm

Mm (k[t])

Tr
Tr

(−)−1

k[t]

Here, we identify gr(I ∗ Fn ) with T V by xi 7→ 1 + Xi . We also identify gr(t∗ k[t]) with
k[t]. The evaluation xi 7→ 1 + tAi thus induces Xi 7→ tAi between the associated
graded. The bottom-left square is just the one in Proposition 1.41. The map T rm is
the usual trace when the base algebra is Mm (k[t]).
Let k = Z and f = Tr(J − 1 ) ∈ V ⊗k . The commutativity of the above diagram
gives:
0 = Tr(f (tAi )) = tk Tr(f (Ai )).
As a consequence, Tr(f (Ai )) = 0, for any 1 + tAi ∈ GLk (t Z[t]). We can then evaluate
this at t = 0 to get: Tr(f (πAi )) = 0. This evaluation π is the map:

π : L1 (GLk (t∗ Z[t]) ,→ Mk t Z[t]/t2 Z[t] ∼
= Mk (Z).
Using Proposition 1.42 and Remark 1.43, we see that its image is exactly sln (Z), so
the conclusion follows from the above criterion (2.34).
Because of Proposition 2.33, we will consider the trace map as taking values in the
abelianization T V ab = T V /[T V, T V ]. As [T V, T V ]k is generated by the elements:
[Xi1 ⊗ · · · ⊗ Xip , Xip+1 ⊗ · · · ⊗ Xik ] = Xi1 ⊗ · ⊗ Xik − tp · Xi1 ⊗ · ⊗ Xik ,
where t = 1̄ ∈ Z /k, the module T V ab is the module of cyclic powers C∗ V :
(T V ab )k = Ck V := V ⊗k /(Z /k).
The conclusion of Proposition 2.33 becomes, in this context: Tr (J − 1 ) = 0 ∈ C∗ V.
29

2.5.2

Linear algebra

Consider the Johnson morphism τ 0 : L (ΓIAn ) −→ Der∗ (L(Fn )) (cf. 1.5). The morphism τ10 is an isomorphism (see Proposition 1.34). Moreover, L (ΓIAn ) is generated
in degree 1 (cf. 1.9). As a consequence, the image of τ 0 is exactly the sub-Lie ring
generated in degree 1 inside Der (L(Fn )). As L(Fn ) is the free Lie ring LV , the study
of coker(τ 0 ) is solely a problem of linear algebra.
Recall from Proposition 2.32 that the trace map can be seen as the composite of
the Johnson morphism τ : Lk (A∗ (Fn )) → Derk (LV ) ∼
= V ∗ ⊗ Lk+1 V with:
ι

Φ

π

TrM : V ∗ ⊗ Lk+1 V −→ V ∗ ⊗ V ⊗k+1 −→ V ⊗k −→ Ck V := V ⊗k /(Z /(k)),
where ι and π denote the canonical maps. All these morphisms are obviously GLn (Z)equivariant (with respect to the canonical actions).
Notation 2.35. Let I denote the image of τ 0 , which is the sub-Lie ring generated in
degree 1 inside Der(LV ).
The following proposition can be seen as a consequence of Proposition 2.33. Precisely, I = Im(τ 0 ) ⊆ Im(τ ), and Proposition 2.33 implies that TrM ◦τ = Tr vanishes.
Proposition 2.36. For every k > 2, TrM (Ik ) = {0}.
2.5.3

Stable cokernel of τ 0 and stable surjectivity

Let k > 2. Using Proposition 2.36, we get a commutative diagram with exact rows:
Ik

V ∗ ⊗ Lk+1 V

φ

coker(τk0 )

Φ

V ⊗k

[T V, T V ]k

Φ
π

Ck V.

In [Sat12], Satoh shows:

 For n > k + 1, Φ is surjective, (lemma 3.2)
For n > k + 2, φ is surjective, (prop. 3.2)

For n > k + 2, ker Φ ⊆ I.
(Prop. 3.3)
His Theorem 3.1 is still true over Z:
Proposition 2.37. Let k > 2 and n > k + 2 be integers. Then Φ is a GLn (Z)equivariant isomorphism:
coker(τk0 ) ∼
= Ck V.
Proof. Let us denote by K (resp. L) the kernel of Φ (resp. its cokernel). There is a
commutative diagram in GLn (Z) − ModZ :
ker Φ
Ik
φ

0

V ∗ ⊗ Lk+1 V

coker(τ 0 )

Φ

[T V, T V ]k

V ⊗k

0

0
30

K

Φ
π

Ck V
L.

The snake lemma ensures that K and L are zero: Φ is an isomorphism.
We can now state our main result:
Theorem 2.38. Let k + 2 6 n. Then the canonical morphism
Lk (IAn ) −→ Lk (A∗ (Fn ))
is surjective, and τ induces an isomorphism: Lk (A∗ (Fn )) ∼
= Ik .
Remark 2.39. Basis being chosen, there is an injection of Fn in Fn+1 ∼
= Fn ∗ Z. An
automorphism ϕ of Fn can be extended to an automorphism ϕ∗ 1 of Fn+1 . This induces
injections IAn ,→ IAn+1 which in turn induce morphisms L(A∗ (Fn )) → L(A∗ (Fn+1 )).
Taking the colimit over n, we can define a Lie ring Lst (A∗ ). In the same way, we can
ab
define injections from Der(L(Fnab )) into Der(L(Fn+1
)) and take the colimit Ist of the
sub-algebras generated in degree one. With this point of view, the isomorphisms of
Theorem 2.38 give an isomorphism between graded Lie algebras:
τ st : Lst (A∗ ) ∼
= Ist ,
meaning exactly that Lst (A) is generated in degree one.
In fact, all the constructions appearing here are functors on the category denoted
by S(Z) in [Dja16b, section 7], where it is shown (using methods similar to the ones
of [CEFN14]) that these functors are finitely supported. This implies the equivalence
between τkst being an isomorphism and τk being one for n big enough.
Proof of theorem 2.38. Consider the commutative diagram:
i∗

L(IAn )

L(A∗ )
τ

τ0

Der(LV ).
The image I of τ 0 is the sub-Lie ring generated in degree one inside Der(LV ). Using
the results quoted in Paragraph 2.5.3, we see that in degrees k 6 n − 2, it also is the
kernel of the trace map. Proposition (2.33) tells us exactly that Tr ◦τ = 0, so that
Im τk ⊆ ker Trk = Im τk0 when k > n − 2. As a consequence, Im τ = Im τ 0 . As τ is
injective (1.32), it is an isomorphism onto its image, hence the result.

2.6

Automorphisms of free nilpotent groups

Automorphisms of nilpotent groups are easy to deal with, due to the following classical
fact:
Lemma 2.40. Let G be a finite-type nilpotent group. An endomorphism ϕ ∈ End(G)
is an automorphism if and only if the induced morphism ϕab ∈ End(Gab ) is.
Proof. If ϕ is an automorphism then ϕab has to be, with (ϕab )−1 = (ϕ−1 )ab . Conversely,
suppose that ϕab is an automorphism. This means that L1 (ϕ) is. Since L(G) is
generated in degree one, L(ϕ) is surjective. But each Lk (G) is abelian of finite type, so
each Lk (ϕ), being surjective, has to be bijective (it is obviously the case on the torsion
31

part, which is finite, and it also is on the free abelian part, for reasons of rank). The
lemma then follows by induction from the five-lemma applied to:
Lk (G)
Lk (ϕ)

Lk (G)

G/Γk+1 G

G/Γk G

ϕ̄

G/Γk+1 G

ϕ̄

G/Γk G.

This induction process stops since there is a c such that G = G/Γc+1 G.
b := lim (G/Γk G) .
Definition 2.41. The pro-nilpotent completion of a group G is: G
←−
b is canonically filtered by the Γ̄j G := lim (Γj G/Γk G). This filtraThe completion G
←−
tion is its closed lower central series, defined as the closure of the lower central series.
b An endomorphism of G
b
It is minimal amongst closed strongly central filtrations on G.
is continuous if and only if it preserve this filtration.
b is an automorLemma 2.42. Let G be a group. A continuous endomorphism ϕ of G
ab
ab
phism if and only if the induced morphism ϕ ∈ End(G ) is.
Proof. Such an endomorphism is an automorphism if and only if the associated morphism between projective system is. These are the induced endomorphisms of the
G/Γk G, which are nilpotent groups. This condition amounts to ϕ inducing an isomorphism on Ĝ/Γ̄2 = Gab , by Lemma 2.40.
b
In fact, we can readily deduce the following explicit description of the group AutC 0 (G)
b
of continuous automorphisms of G:
Proposition 2.43. The canonical map is an isomorphism:
b ∼
AutC 0 (G)
(Aut(G/Γk G)) .
= lim
←−
Let G = Fn be a free group of finite type. It is residually nilpotent, so it embeds
into its completion Fbn . A continuous endomorphism of Fbn is uniquely determined by
its (arbitrary) values on the topological generators xi .
Let us denote by Fn,c the free c-nilpotent group Fn /Γc+1 Fn . Using Lemmas 2.40 and
2.42, we can show two surjectivity results for automorphisms of free nilpotent groups:
Proposition 2.44. The canonical morphisms Aut(Fn,c ) → Aut(Fn,c−1 ) are surjective.
Proof. Let (xi ) be a free basis of Fn . Let ϕ ∈ Aut(Fn /Γc (Fn )). Lift the elements ϕ(x̄i )
to elements ti of Fn /Γc+1 (Fn ). Then define the endomorphism ϕ̃ of Fn /Γc+1 (Fn ) by
x̄i 7→ ti . Since ϕ and ϕ̃ induce the same endomorphism of Fnab , Lemma 2.40 implies
that ϕ̃ is an isomorphism.
Proposition 2.45 ([Bar13, th. 5.1]). The Johnson morphism associated to the universal action on Γ̄∗ (Fn ) is an isomorphism:
τ : L(A∗ (Γ̄∗ Fn )) ∼
= Der(LV ).
Proof. Because of Lemma 1.28, we know that τ is injective. We need to show that it is
surjective. Let us first remark that L(Γ̄∗ (Fn )) = L(Γ∗ (Fn )) ∼
= LV . Let ∂ ∈ Derk (LV ).
∼
Lift each ∂(Xi ) ∈ Γk /Γk+1 = Γ̄k /Γ̄k+1 to an element ti ∈ Γ̄k . We can define a continuous
endomorphism of Fbn by ϕ : xi 7→ ti xi . Then ϕ acts trivially on Fnab , so it is an
isomorphism by Lemma 2.42. As a consequence, ϕ ∈ Ak (Γ̄∗ (Fn )) satisfies τ (ϕ̄) = ∂.
This concludes the proof.
32

We can translate this last result into a statement about automorphisms of free
nilpotent groups : because of Propositions 2.43 and 2.44, Aut(Fn,c ) is a quotient of
AutC 0 (Fbn ). Moreover, the kernel of the canonical surjection is Ac (Γ̄∗ Fn ), by definition.
Thus, this projection induces the c-truncations at the level of the associated graded
objects :
Corollary 2.46. The Johnson morphism associated to the universal action on Γ∗ (Fn,c )
is an isomorphism:
τ : L(A∗ (Fn,c )) ∼
= Der(L6c V ).
Consider the Johnson morphism τ 0 : L(Γ∗ (IAFn,c )) → Der(L6c V ). Using the identification of corollary 2.46, we see that τ 0 identifies with the Andreadakis morphism
i∗ : L(Γ∗ (IAFn,c )) → L(A∗ (Fn,c )). Its image is the subalgebra generated in degree one
inside Der(L6c V ), as was the case in paragraph 2.5.2. This subalgebra is exactly the
truncation I<c , so is inside (and stably equal to) the kernel of the trace map. As a
consequence, the Andreadakis equality never holds for free nilpotent groups.
Moreover, in this context, our stable surjectivity result translates as :
Corollary 2.47. The following sequence always is a complex, and is exact for n > c+1:
i∗
Tr
L(Γ∗ (IAFn,c )) −→
L(A∗ (Fn,c )) ∼
= Der(L6c V ) −→ C<c V −→ 0.

Remark 2.48 (Non-tame automorphisms). The canonical morphism p : Aut(Fn ) →
Aut(Fn,c ) is in general not surjective: some basis of the free nilpotent group do not
lift to basis of the free group via Fn  Fn,c . Automorphisms of Fn,c induced by
automorphisms of Fn are called tame. This was the original motivation of [BLGM90]
for considering the trace map. In this regard, our stable surjectivity result could be
re-stated as follows : in the stable range, the trace is the only obstruction for an
automorphism to be tame.

3

The case of positive caracteristic

3.1

Dark’s theorem

Let w be a word in a free group FS . Let w(r) be the word obtained from w by
replacing each generator s ∈ S by some power srs . Dark’s theorem [Dar68] describes
how to decompose w(r) as a product of commutators. This gives very useful universal
formulas, that can then be evaluated in any group. The reader is referred to [Pas79,
chap. IV, Th. 1.11] for a precise statement and a proof of the theorem. Here we recall
two corollaries, obtained by taking w = [x, y] and w = xy in F{x,y} .
The case w = [x, y] is [Pas79, IV, cor. 1.16]:
Corollary 3.1. There exists a unique map θ : (N∗ )2 −→ F2 = hx, yi verifying:
Y
α
β
∀α, β ∈ N, [xα , y β ] =
θ(r, s)( r )( s ) .
r,s>1

Each θ(r, s) is a product of {x±1 , y ±1 }-commutators such that x±1 appears at least r
times and y ±1 at least s times in each factor.
The case w = xy has been known for a long time (quoted in [Pas85, chap. 11, Th.
1.14], it already appears for instance in [Hal34]):
33

Corollary 3.2. There exists a unique map θ : N −→ F2 = hx, yi such that:
Y
α
∀α ∈ N, xα y α =
θ(r)( r ) ,
r>0

Each θ(r) is a product of {x±1 , y ±1 }-commutators of length at least r.
Remark 3.3. In both cases, uniqueness of the map θ is obvious: it can be defined by
induction.

3.2

p-Restricted strongly central series

Definition 3.4. Let p be a prime number. A strongly central series G∗ is said to be
p-restricted if:
∀i, Gpi ⊆ Gip .
Let G∗ be a p-restricted strongly central series. Using [Pas79, Th. III.1.7], we see
that the morphism:
L(G∗ ) −→ gr(aF∗ p (G∗ ))
induced by g 7−→ g − 1 (see Theorem 1.37 and Proposition 1.40) is injective. We
can identify L(G∗ ) with its image, which is stable by the p-th power operation in the
F
associative Fp -algebra gr(a∗ p (G∗ )), since (g − 1)p = g p − 1. From this we deduce that
L(G∗ ) is a p-restricted Lie algebra with p-th power operation induced by g 7−→ g p in G1 .
The reader is referred to the classical [Jac41] for a discussion of p-restricted Lie algebras.
We also can deduce from [Pas79, Th. III.1.7] that any p-restricted strongly central series
F
F
has to contain the dimension series D∗ p G defined in Example 1.39 (because a∗ p (G∗ )
contains IF∗p G):
F

Proposition 3.5. The filtration D∗ p G is the minimal p-restricted strongly central series, on any group G.
[p]

The filtration DFp , also denoted by Γ∗ also admits a description by induction, or
the more explicit description:
Y
j
[p]
Γk G =
(Γi G)p .
ipj >n

These can be found in [Laz54, Th. 5.6] or [Pas79, Th. IV.1.9]. We also refer to [CE16]
for a nice discussion of filtrations defined by induction. This description has a nice
[p]
consequence, similar to Proposition 1.9 (we abbreviate L(Γ∗ G) to L[p] (G)):
Proposition 3.6. The p-restricted Lie ring L[p] (G) is generated in degree 1. Precisely,
[p]
it is generated (as a p-restricted Lie ring) by L1 (G) = Gab ⊗ Fp .
Example 3.7. If G is a free group, then L[p] (G) = L(D∗ p G) is the p-restricted Lie
algebra generated by the degree-one part inside gr(Fp G) ∼
= TFp (Gab ) so, using PBW
over Fp [Jac41, Th. 1] it is the free p-restricted Lie algebra over the Fp -module Gab ⊗ Fp
[Laz54, Th. 6.5].
F

[p]

Remark 3.8. The filtration Γ∗ G (already defined in [Zas39]) is to be distinguished
(p)
from Stallings’ filtration Γ∗ G, defined in [Sta65]. The latter is the minimal p-torsion
strongly central filtration on a group G, where a strongly central filtration is p-torsion
when Gpi ⊆ Gi+1 (for all i). See remark 3.14 for more on q-torsion strongly central
series.
34

3.3

The p-restricted Andreadakis problem
[p]

[p]

[p]

[p]

Let us denote A∗ (Γ∗ G) by A∗ (G). Remark that A1 (G) is the group IAG of auto[p]
[p]
morphisms acting trivially on L1 (Γ∗ G) = Gab ⊗Fp , hence on all of L(Γ∗ G) (because of
[p]
Proposition 3.6). If we show that A∗ (G) is p-restricted (and we will – see Proposition
3.10) then we get an inclusion:


[p]
[p]
Γ∗ IAG ⊆ A∗[p] (G).
We are thus led to consider a p-restricted version of the Andreadakis problem:
Problem 3 (Andreadakis – p-restricted version). What is the difference between the
[p]
[p]
[p]
p-restricted strongly central series A∗ (G) and Γ∗ (IAG ) ?
[p]

Remark 3.9. The group IAG contains IAG as a normal subgroup. Moreover, the
[p]
quotient IAG /IAG is a subgroup of Aut(G)/IAG , hence of GL(Gab ). In fact, by
[p]
definition of IAG , it is contained in the congruence group:
GL(pGab ) = ker(GL(Gab ) → GL(Gab ⊗ Fp )).
When G = Fn is a free group of finite type, then Aut(G)/IAG ∼
= GLn (Z), and
[p]
IAG /IAG is exactly GLn (p Z).
Proposition 3.10 ([HM17], Prop. 8.5). Let G∗ be a p-restricted strongly central filtration, and K be a group acting on G∗ . Then A∗ (K, G∗ ) is a p-restricted strongly central
filtration.
Proof. Let κ ∈ Aj (K, G∗ ) and g ∈ Gi . Using Corollary 3.1, we get:
p

[κ , g] =

p
Y

p

θ(k, 1)(k) ,

k=1
p
with θ(k, 1) ∈ Gi+kj , for all k. If k < p, then θ(k, 1)(k) ∈ Gp(i+kj) ⊆ Gi+pj+1 . As θ(p, 1)
also is in Gi+pj , we have:
[κp , g] ∈ Gi+pj .

This is true for every g ∈ Gi , for all i. Hence κp ∈ Apj (K, G∗ ), which completes the
proof.
Proposition 3.10 can be refined:
Proposition 3.11. Under the same hypothesis as Proposition 3.10, A∗ (K, G∗ ) n G∗
is a p-restricted strongly central series.
Proof. Denote A∗ (K, G∗ ) n G∗ by K∗ . An element of Kj = Aj n Gj is a product κ · g,
with κ ∈ Aj and g ∈ Gj . Using Corollary 3.2, we get:
p p

κg =

p
Y

p
p
θ(k)(k) = (κg)p · θ(2)(2) · · · θ(p − 1)p · θ(p),

(3.11.1)

k=1

with θ(1) = κg and θ(k) ∈ Kkj for any k, as K∗ is strongly central. We use this formula
to show, by induction on d 6 p, the following result:
∀j, Kjp ⊆ Kdj .
35

This is true for d = 1, obviously. Let us assume that it holds for d − 1. Let κg ∈ Kj .
For the sake of clarity, let us rewrite the formula (3.11.1):
p

p p

−1

(κg) = κ g · θ(p)

·

2
Y

p

θ(k)−(k) .

k=p−1

Using, respectively, that A∗ is p-restricted (Proposition 3.10), that G∗ is (by definition)
and that K∗ = A∗ n G∗ is strongly central, we get:
κp , g p , θ(p) ∈ Kpj ⊆ Kdj ,
where the inclusion
comes from the inequality d 6 p. If 2 6 k < p, then θ(k) ∈ Kkj .

As p divides kp , the induction hypothesis implies:
p

p
⊆ K(d−1)kj ⊆ Kdj ,
θ(k)(k) ∈ Kkj

because (d − 1)kj > dj. Finally, we get what we were looking for:
(κg)p ∈ Kdj ,
which completes the induction step, and the proof of the proposition.
Let SCF p be the full subcategory of SCF given by p-restricted strongly central
series. As a consequence of Propositions 3.10 and 3.11, we get:
Corollary 3.12. The category SCF p is action-representative, the universal action on
G∗ being A∗ (G∗ )  G∗ .
This allows us to answer [HM17, rk. 8.6]. Indeed, the Lie functor restricts to
a functor L : SCF p −→ pLie with values in the category pLie of p-restricted Lie
algebras (over Fp ). Actions in pLie are represented by p-restricted derivations, in the
sense of Jacobson [Jac41]. As in Paragraph 1.4, an action K∗  G∗ in SCF p induces,
by exactness of the Lie functor, an action L(K∗ )  L(G∗ ) in pLie, which is encoded
by a morphism between p-restricted Lie algebras:
τ : L(K∗ ) −→ Der[p] (L(G∗ )),
where Der[p] ⊆ Der is the p-restricted sub-algebra of p-restricted derivations, i.e. derivations ∂ satisfying:
∂(ap ) = adp−1
a (∂a).
Let us stress that for g ∈ pLie, the Lie algebra Der(g) is indeed a p-restricted subalgebra of EndFp (g), but is does not act on g in pLie: the Lie algebra g o Der(g) bears
no natural p-restricted structure.
Remark 3.13. Using Proposition 3.6 instead of 1.9, and replacing derivations by p[p]
restricted ones in the proof, we can get an analogous of Lemma 1.30 for A∗ (G):
n
o
[p]
[p]
Aj (G) = σ ∈ Aut(G) [σ, G] ⊆ Γj+1 (G) .
[p]

[p]

In other words A∗ (G) in the subgroup of automorphisms acting trivially on G/Γj+1 (G).
This is exactly the definition used by Cooper [Coo15, def 3.2].
36

Remark 3.14 (On the q-torsion case). The same statements are true when considering
q-torsion strongly central filtrations (q does not have to be a prime number here), except
that they are easier to show, because the condition Gqi ⊆ Gi+1 is equivalent to the fact
that L(G∗ ) is q-torsion. Precisely, if L(G∗ ) is q-torsion, then Der(L(G∗ )) is too, and the
injectivity of the Johnson morphism L(A∗ (G∗ )) ,→ Der(L(G∗ )) implies that L(A∗ (G∗ ))
also is. Hence A∗ (G∗ ), and A∗ (G∗ ) n G∗ are q-torsion, so that these give a universal
action on G∗ in the category of q-torsion strongly central series.
Moreover, L(G∗ ) also gets some kind of q-th power operation, induced by q-th
(q)
powers in G = G1 . If G∗ = Γ∗ G is Stallings’ filtration on G, then these operations,
together with the Lie algebra structure, generate L(G∗ ) from its degree one part, which
(q)
allow us to get an analogue of Lemma 1.30: Aj (Γ∗ G) is the subgroup of automor(p)
phisms acting trivially on G/Γj+1 (G). Using only this definition, Cooper managed
to get the above results on the q-torsion case [Coo15]. However, his claim that the
p-restricted case worked similarly [Coo15, Lem. 3.7] seems flawed, and we do not see
how to get it without the technical work done above (Proposition 3.10).
The minimality of Stallings’ filtration also gives an inclusion:



[q]
(q)
G
,
Γ∗ IAG ⊆ A∗ Γ(q)
∗
and a corresponding Andreadakis problem. Nevertheless, our methods in studying
the Andreadakis problems so far rely heavily on algebraic structures associated to the
F
[p]
dimension subgroups D∗Z (Fn ) = Γ∗ (Fn ) and D∗ p (Fn ) = Γ∗ (Fn ), so they are not suited
to the study of this particular problem.

3.4
3.4.1

The stable p-restricted Andreadakis problem
Vanishing of the trace map

In the p-restricted context, Proposition 2.33 is replaced by:
Proposition 3.15. Let k > 2, and let J ∈ GLm (IFkp Fn ). Then:
Tr (J − 1 ) ∈ [T V, T V ]k + (T V )p ⊂ V ⊗k ∼
= I k /I k+1 ,
Where V = Fnab ⊗ Fp ∼
= Fnp .
The proof is exactly the same as the proof of proposition 2.33, over Fp instead of
Z, Proposition 2.34 being replaced by:
Proposition 3.16. Let f (X1 , ..., Xn ) ∈ V ⊗k . Let C ⊂ Mk (Fp ) be the sub-Z-module
generated by the ei,i+1 . Suppose:
∀Ci ∈ C, Tr(f (C1 , ..., Cn )) = 0.
Then f ∈ [T V, T V ]k + (T V )p .
Proof. We say that two elements u and u0 of V ⊗k are cyclically equivalent, and we
write u ∼ u0 if they are conjugate under the action of Z /p. We want to show that f is
cyclically equivalent to a p-th power. Let us decompose f , up toP
cyclical equivalence,
as a sum of pairwise non-cyclically equivalent monomials: f ∼
µg g, where each g
is of the form g = Xi1 · · · Xik . If g is such that the iα are pairwise distinct, evaluate
each Xiα as Ciα = eα,α+1 , and all Xi not appearing in g as Ci = 0. Then µg =
37

Tr(f (C1 , ..., Cn )) = 0. As a consequence, no such g can appear in our decomposition
of f .
P
Let λ be the algebra morphism from T V to T (V ⊗ V ) sending Xi to j Xij (where
Xij = Xi ⊗ Xj ). Take a monomial g = Xi1 · · · Xik as above. Its image is λ(g) =
P
k
j Xi1 j1 · · · Xik jk , the sum being taken over every j = (j1 , ..., jk ) ∈ {1, ..., k} . Let r be
the number of monomials cyclically equivalent to h = Xi1 1 · · · Xik k in this sum. Then r
is exactly the number of elements of Z /k stabilizing g. It is a multiple of p if and only
if g is a p-th power. If we decompose λ(f ) up to cyclic equivalence, as we did earlier
for f , the only occurrences of h must come from λ(g), hence the coefficient of h must
be rµg . Note that λ(f ) satisfies the same hypothesis as f , because C is stable under
addition. Since the Xiα α are pairwise distinct, we can apply the above argument and
find that rµg = 0. Thus, µg = 0 or g is a p-th power. Whence the result.
Remark 3.17. Any bracket and any p-th power satisfies the condition of Proposition
3.16. For brackets, it follows from the fact that the
P trace of a bracket is itself a sum
of brackets. For p-th power, remark that if M Q
=
mi ei,i+1 ∈ Mn (R), where R is an
p
associative ring of caracteristic p, then M = ( mi ) · 1p , and Tr(1p ) = p · 1 = 0 in k.
If k = pl and f = (Xi1 · · · Xil )p , apply this to M = Ci1 · · · Cil (where the Ciα are in C),
seen as a p × p-matrix with coefficients in Ml (k).
Because of Proposition 3.15, in characteristic p, we will consider the trace map
[p]
as taking values in C∗ V = T V /([T V, T V ] + (T V )p ), which is the quotient of the
cyclic power C∗ V by p-th powers. The conclusion of Proposition 3.15 then becomes:
[p]
Tr (J − 1 ) = 0 ∈ C∗ V.
3.4.2

Linear algebra

Consider the Johnson morphism



[p]
[p]
∼
(τ [p] )0 : L[p] IA[p]
−→
Der
L
(F
)
= V ∗ ⊗ L[p] V,
n
n
∗
the last isomorphism being obtained as in Example 1.33, using Example 3.7 instead of
Example 1.8, and replacing derivations by p-restricted ones. When p 6= 2, the morphism
[p]
(τ1 )0 is surjective. Indeed, the free Fp -Lie algebra LV is a sub-algebra of the free prestricted algebra L[p] V , and this inclusion is an isomorphism in degrees prime to p, in
particular in degree 2; thus we can lift the generators of V ∗ ⊗ Λ2 V by the generators of
IAn used in the proof of Proposition 1.34. Moreover, L[p] (IAn ) is generated in degree
1 as a p-restricted Lie algebra (cf. 3.6). As a consequence, the image of τ 0 is exactly
[p]
the p-restricted Lie algebra generated in degree 1 inside Der[p]
∗ (L V ).
The reader can easily check that the obvious p-restricted version of Proposition 2.32
does hold: the trace map obtained from free differential calculus can be seen as the
[p]
[p]
[p]
composite of the Johnson morphism τ : Lk (A∗ (Fn )) → Derk (L[p] V ) ∼
= V ∗ ⊗ Lk+1 V
with:
Φ
π
ι
[p]
[p]
TrM : V ∗ ⊗ Lk+1 V −→ V ∗ ⊗ V ⊗k+1 −→ V ⊗k −→ Ck V,
where ι and π again denote the canonical maps.
Notation 3.18. Let I[p] denote the image of (τ [p] )0 , the p-restricted Lie algebra generated in degree 1 inside Der(LV ).
The following proposition can be seen as a direct consequence of Proposition 3.15.
38

[p]

Proposition 3.19. For every k > 2, TrM (Ik ) = {0}.
Consider be the subspace of p-restricted derivations stabilizing the free Fp -Lie algebra LV ⊂ L[p] V . It is a p-restricted Lie sub-algebra of Der[p] (L[p] V ). Since each
derivation of LV extends to a unique p-restricted derivation of L[p] V , this sub-algebra
is isomorphic to Der(LV ). Under the identification with the graded module V ∗ ⊗L[p] V ,
it corresponds exactly to V ∗ ⊗ LV . As a consequence, if p 6= 2, the degree one part is
the same. Hence:
[p]
I[p] ⊆ DerLV (L[p] V ).
This implies that there is no stable surjectivity here: we can easily easily produce
examples of automorphisms whose associated derivation does not preserve LV . For
instance, take any world in Γk (Fn ) not containing any occurrence of x1 . Then the
[p]
automorphism ϕ defined by x1 7→ wp x1 and xi 7→ xi when i 6= 1 is obviously in Apk−1 ,
but τ (ϕ) = X1∗ ⊗ (w − 1)p sends X1 outside of LV .
3.4.3

Stable cokernel of i∗

We close the present paper with a quantification of the lack of stable surjectivity in
the p-restricted case.
Let k > 2. Like in paragraph 2.5.3, we get a commutative diagram with exact rows:
Īk

V ∗ ⊗ Lk+1 V

φ

[T V, T V ]k

Xk

Φ

Φ
π

V ⊗k

Ck V.

Here, V denotes Fnab ⊗ Fp , and Ī∗ = I∗ ⊗ Fp is the sub-Lie algebra generated in degree
one inside Der(LV ). The space Xk is just the quotient of V ∗ ⊗ Lk+1 V by Īk .
We will be interested in a slightly different diagram, though:
[p]

Ik

V ∗ ⊗ Lk+1 V

Xk0

Φ

φ

Φ
[p]

π

V ⊗k

[T V, T V ]k + (T V )p

Ck V.

We can still apply the calculations from [Sat12] to show that if n > k + 2, then Φ is
[p]
surjective and ker Φ ⊆ Īk ⊆ Ik . Only, now φ could have a cokernel. From [Sat12],
we only get that brackets are in its image, so this cokernel can only come from p-th
powers. In particular, it is concentrated in degrees divisible by p. We denote it by K.
The same application of the snake lemma as in the proof of Proposition 2.37 gives that
K is also the kernel of Φ, and that Φ is surjective.
Now consider the diagram:
[p]

Ik

V ∗ ⊗ Lk+1 V

Xk0

ι

ker(TrM )k

Φ
[p]

V ∗ ⊗ Lk+1 V
39

TrM

[p]

Ck V.

[p]

Denote by L the cokernel of the middle inclusion, then L = V ∗ ⊗ (Lk+1 V /Lk+1 V ) is
concentrated in degrees k = pl − 1 (with l > 1). The snake lemma gives a short exact
sequence:
0
K
coker(ι)
L
0.
Since the trace map TrM ◦τ vanishes, we have a commutative diagram:
i∗

[p]

L(IAn )
τ0

[p]

L(A∗ )
τ

ker(TrM ).
This implies that the cokernel of i∗ injects into the cokernel of ι. Thus, we have proved:
Proposition 3.20. Fix n an integer, and consider only degrees k 6 n−2. The cokernel
of the canonical morphism
i∗ : L(IAn[p] ) → L(A∗[p] (Fn ))
is concentrated in degrees k = pl − 1 and k = pl (for l > 1). If k = pl − 1, then
[p]
coker((i∗ )k ) injects into V ∗ ⊗ (Lk+1 V /Lk+1 V ). If k = pl, it is a sub-quotient of V ⊗l .
Remark 3.21. The tensor power V ⊗l appearing in the proposition is in fact the Frobenius twist of V ⊗l . This has no consequence here, as the Frobenius map is trivial on Fp ,
but it should be kept in mind for any functorial study of this situation.

References
[And65]

Stylianos Andreadakis. On the automorphisms of free groups and free
nilpotent groups. Proc. London Math. Soc. (3), 15:239–268, 1965. 2

[Bar13]

Laurent Bartholdi. Automorphisms of free groups. I. New York J. Math.,
19:395–421, 2013. 2, 25, 26, 28, 32

[Bar16]

Laurent Bartholdi.
Automorphisms of free groups. I—erratum [
MR3084710]. New York J. Math., 22:1135–1137, 2016. 2

[BB04]

Francis Borceux and Dominique Bourn. Mal’cev, protomodular, homological
and semi-abelian categories, volume 566 of Mathematics and its Applications. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 2004. 7, 11

[BB07]

Francis Borceux and Dominique Bourn. Split extension classifier and centrality. In Categories in algebra, geometry and mathematical physics, volume 431 of Contemp. Math., pages 85–104. Amer. Math. Soc., Providence,
RI, 2007. 2, 8

[BBM07]

Mladen Bestvina, Kai-Uwe Bux, and Dan Margalit. Dimension of the
Torelli group for Out(Fn ). Invent. Math., 170(1):1–32, 2007. 1, 13

[BC05]

F. Borceux and Maria Manuel Clementino. Topological semi-abelian algebras. Adv. Math., 190(2):425–453, 2005. 7
40

[BEH08]

Laurent Bartholdi, Bettina Eick, and René Hartung. A nilpotent quotient
algorithm for certain infinitely presented groups and its applications. Internat. J. Algebra Comput., 18(8):1321–1344, 2008. 2

[BJK05]

Francis Borceux, George Janelidze, and Gregory M. Kelly. On the representability of actions in a semi-abelian category. Theory Appl. Categ.,
14:No. 11, 244–286, 2005. 2, 8

[BLGM90] Roger M. Bryant, Frank Levin, Chander K. Gupta, and Horace Y.
Mochizuki. Nontame automorphisms of free nilpotent groups. Comm.
Algebra, 18(11):3619–3631, 1990. 3, 28, 29, 33
[BMS67]

Hyman Bass, John Milnor, and Jean-Pierre Serre. Solution of the congruence subgroup problem for SLn (n > 3) and Sp2n (n > 2). Inst. Hautes
Études Sci. Publ. Math., 33:59–137, 1967. 16

[Bou08]

Dominique Bourn. Commutator theory, action groupoids, and an intrinsic
Schreier-Mac Lane extension theorem. Adv. Math., 217(6):2700–2735, 2008.
2, 8

[CE16]

Michael Chapman and Ido Efrat. Filtrations of free groups arising from
the lower central series. J. Group Theory, 19(3):405–433, 2016. 34

[CEFN14] Thomas Church, Jordan S. Ellenberg, Benson Farb, and Rohit Nagpal.
FI-modules over Noetherian rings. Geom. Topol., 18(5):2951–2984, 2014.
31
[Coo15]

James Cooper. Two mod-p Johnson filtrations. J. Topol. Anal., 7(2):309–
343, 2015. 36, 37

[CP17]

Thomas Church and Andrew Putamn. Generating the johnson filtration ii:
finite generation. arXiv:1704.01529, 2017. 1

[CV86]

Marc Culler and Karen Vogtmann. Moduli of graphs and automorphisms
of free groups. Invent. Math., 84(1):91–119, 1986. 1

[Dar68]

Rex S. Dark. On nilpotent products of groups of prime order. PhD thesis,
University of Cambridge, 1968. 33

[Dja16a]

Aurélien Djament. Décomposition de hodge pour l’homologie stable des
groupes d’automorphismes des groupes libres. arXiv:1510.03546, 2016. 1

[Dja16b]

Aurélien Djament. Des propriétés de finitude des foncteurs polynomiaux.
Fund. Math., 233(3):197–256, 2016. 31

[DP12]

Matthew Day and Andrew Putman. A Birman exact sequence for Aut(Fn ).
Adv. Math., 231(1):243–275, 2012. 1

[DP16]

Matthew B. Day and Andrew Putamn. On the second homology group of
the torelli subgroup of aut(fn ). arXiv:1408.6242v3, 2016. 1, 2

[DV15]

Aurélien Djament and Christine Vespa. Sur l’homologie des groupes
d’automorphismes des groupes libres à coefficients polynomiaux. Comment.
Math. Helv., 90(1):33–58, 2015. 1
41

[FM12a]

Benson Farb and Dan Margalit. A primer on mapping class groups, volume 49 of Princeton Mathematical Series. Princeton University Press,
Princeton, NJ, 2012. 1

[FM12b]

Stefano Francaviglia and Armando Martino. The isometry group of outer
space. Adv. Math., 231(3-4):1940–1973, 2012. 1

[Fox53]

Ralph H. Fox. Free differential calculus. I. Derivation in the free group ring.
Ann. of Math. (2), 57:547–560, 1953. 19

[Fra33]

Hermann Frasch. Die Erzeugenden der Hauptkongruenzgruppen für
Primzahlstufen. Math. Ann., 108(1):229–252, 1933. 17

[Gal11]

Søren Galatius. Stable homology of automorphism groups of free groups.
Ann. of Math. (2), 173(2):705–768, 2011. 1

[Gro52]

Emil Grosswald. On the parabolic generators of the principal congruence
subgroups of the modular group. Amer. J. Math., 74:435–443, 1952. 17

[Hal34]

Philip Hall. A contribution to the theory of groups of prime-power order.
Proc. London Math. Soc. (2), 36:29–95, 1934. 33

[HL11]

Manfred Hartl and Bruno Loiseau. A characterization of finite cocomplete
homological and of semi-abelian categories. Cah. Topol. Géom. Différ.
Catég., 52(1):77–80, 2011. 7

[HM17]

Kazuo Habiro and Gwenael Massuyeau. Generalized johnson homomorphisms for extended n-series. arXiv:1707.07428, 2017. 2, 4, 12, 35, 36

[Jac41]

Nathan Jacobson. Restricted Lie algebras of characteristic p. Trans. Amer.
Math. Soc., 50:15–25, 1941. 34, 36

[Joh83]

Dennis Johnson. A survey of the Torelli group. In Low-dimensional topology
(San Francisco, Calif., 1981), volume 20 of Contemp. Math., pages 165–
179. Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 1983. 13

[JW04]

Craig A. Jensen and Nathalie Wahl. Automorphisms of free groups with
boundaries. Algebr. Geom. Topol., 4:543–569, 2004. 1

[Kal50a]

Léo Kaloujnine. Sur quelques propriétés des groupes d’automorphismes
d’un groupe abstrait. C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris, 230:2067–2069, 1950. 8

[Kal50b]

Léo Kaloujnine. Sur quelques propriétés des groupes d’automorphismes
d’un groupe abstrait. (Généralisation d’un theorème de M. Ph. Hall). C.
R. Acad. Sci. Paris, 231:400–402, 1950. 8

[Kaw06]

Nariya Kawazumi.
Cohomological aspects of magnus expansions.
arXiv:math/0505497, 2006. 13

[KM97]

Sava Krstić and James McCool. The non-finite presentability of IA(F3 )
and GL2 (Z[t, t−1 ]). Invent. Math., 129(3):595–606, 1997. 1

[Laz54]

Michel Lazard. Sur les groupes nilpotents et les anneaux de Lie. Ann. Sci.
Ecole Norm. Sup. (3), 71:101–190, 1954. 3, 6, 8, 14, 34
42

[Lop14]

Jonathan Lopez. Lie algebras and cohomology of congruence subgroups for
SLn (R). J. Pure Appl. Algebra, 218(2):256–268, 2014. 3, 16

[LS76]

Ronnie Lee and Robert H. Szczarba. On the homology and cohomology of
congruence subgroups. Invent. Math., 33(1):15–53, 1976. 3, 17

[ML98]

Saunders Mac Lane. Categories for the working mathematician, volume 5
of Graduate Texts in Mathematics. Springer-Verlag, New York, second
edition, 1998. 7

[Mor93]

Shigeyuki Morita. Abelian quotients of subgroups of the mapping class
group of surfaces. Duke Math. J., 70(3):699–726, 1993. 3, 25

[MP09]

Roman Mikhailov and Inder Bir Singh Passi. Lower central and dimension
series of groups, volume 1952 of Lecture Notes in Mathematics. SpringerVerlag, Berlin, 2009. 14

[MS17]

Gwenael Massuyeau and Takuya Sakasai. Morita’s trace maps on the group
of homology cobordisms. arXiv:1606.08244, 2017. 2, 28

[Nie24]

Jakob Nielsen. Die Isomorphismengruppe der freien Gruppen. Math. Ann.,
91(3-4):169–209, 1924. 1, 13

[Pas79]

Inder Bir S. Passi. Group rings and their augmentation ideals, volume 715
of Lecture Notes in Mathematics. Springer, Berlin, 1979. 14, 33, 34

[Pas85]

Donald S. Passman. The algebraic structure of group rings. Robert E.
Krieger Publishing Co., Inc., Melbourne, FL, 1985. Reprint of the 1977
original. 33

[Rip72]

Eliyahu Rips. On the fourth integer dimension subgroup. Israel J. Math.,
12:342–346, 1972. 14

[Rot95]

Joseph J. Rotman. An introduction to the theory of groups, volume 148 of
Graduate Texts in Mathematics. Springer-Verlag, New York, fourth edition,
1995. 13

[RWW17] Oscar Randal-Williams and Nathalie Wahl. Homological stability for automorphism groups. Adv. Math., 318:534–626, 2017. 1
[Sat12]

Takao Satoh. On the lower central series of the IA-automorphism group of
a free group. J. Pure Appl. Algebra, 216(3):709–717, 2012. 2, 3, 25, 30, 39

[Sta65]

John Stallings. Homology and central series of groups. J. Algebra, 2:170–
181, 1965. 34

[Zas39]

Hans Zassenhaus. Ein Verfahren, jeder endlichen p-Gruppe einen Lie-Ring
mit der Charakteristik p zuzuordnen. Abh. Math. Sem. Univ. Hamburg,
13(1):200–207, 1939. 34

43

