arXiv:1604.08267v1 [math.GT] 27 Apr 2016

RANK GRADIENTS OF INFINITE CYCLIC COVERS OF KÄHLER
MANIFOLDS
STEFAN FRIEDL AND STEFANO VIDUSSI
Abstract. Given a Kähler group G and a primitive class φ ∈ H 1 (G; Z), we show
that the rank gradient of (G, φ) is zero if and only if Ker φ ≤ G finitely generated.
Using this approach, we give a quick proof of the fact (originally due to Napier
and Ramachandran) that Kähler groups are not properly ascending or descending HNN extensions. Further investigation of the properties of Bieri–Neumann–
Strebel invariants of Kähler groups allows us to show that a large class of groups
of orientation–preserving PL homeomorphisms of an interval (customarily denoted
1
F (ℓ, Z[ n1 ···n
], hn1 , . . . , nk i)), which generalize Thompson’s group F , are not Kähler.
k

1. Introduction
In [Lac05 ] M. Lackenby introduced the notion of rank gradient rg (G, {Gi }) associated to a lattice {Gi } of finite index subgroups Gi ≤f G (i.e. a collection of subgroups
which is closed with respect to intersection). This rank gradient is defined as
(1)

rg (G, {Gi }) = lim inf
i→∞

rk(Gi )
,
[G : Gi ]

where given a group H we denote by rk(H) the rank of H, i.e. the minimal number
of generators. Lackenby computed the rank gradient for various classes of groups and
he illustrated its rôle in understanding properties of the lattice and, in turn, of the
group G itself. Successive work of many authors has related this notion with various
invariants of the group G.
The explicit calculation of the rank gradient appears rarely straightforward, and
usually requires some relatively sophisticated information on the group.
Here we will focus on the rank gradient defined by lattices associated to the infinite
cyclic quotients of G, namely collections of the type
φ

{Gi = Ker(G −
→ Z → Zi )}
determined by a primitive class φ ∈ H 1 (G; Z) = Hom(G, Z); this rank gradient will
be denoted, for simplicity, rg (G, φ).
Date: November 13, 2017.
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification. 53C55, 20F65.
Key words and phrases. Kähler groups, rank gradient, Thompson–type groups.
1

2

STEFAN FRIEDL AND STEFANO VIDUSSI

One example where this calculation can be carried out in some detail is that of the
fundamental group π = π1 (N) of a 3–manifold N with b1 (N) ≥ 1: in [DFV14] the
authors proved that rg (π, φ) vanishes if and only if φ is represented by a locally–trivial
fibration of N over S 1 with surface fibers. More precisely rg (π, φ) = 0 if and only if
Ker φ ≤ π is finitely generated, which is equivalent to what is stated above by virtue
of Stallings’ Fibration Theorem (see [Sta62]). While one direction of the proof is
straightforward, the other originates from some rather deep properties of 3–manifold
groups, which can be interpreted as a consequence of the separability results of Agol
[Ag13] and Wise [Wi12].
In this paper, we will show that a similar result holds for fundamental groups of
Kähler manifolds, or Kähler groups. (The standard reference for the study of this
class of groups is [ABCKT96]; more recent results are surveyed in [Bu11].) Much like
in the case of 3–manifold groups, the non–straightforward direction of the proof of
our main theorem will come from suitably exploiting nontrivial properties of Kähler
groups. Interestingly enough, the key tool here will also be separability, this time for
the fundamental groups of surfaces.
For sake of notation, we define a Kähler pair to be the pair (G, φ) where G is
a Kähler group and φ ∈ H 1 (G; Z) = Hom(G, Z) is a primitive (i.e. surjective)
cohomology class. Our main theorem is the following:
Theorem A. Let (G, φ) be a Kähler pair. Then rg (G, φ) = 0 if and only if Ker φ ≤ G
is finitely generated.
Note that for Kähler groups there is no analog (to the best of our understanding)
to Stallings’ Fibration Theorem, for a class with rg (G, φ) = 0; to start, there is no
reason to expect that the kernel Ker φ is finitely presented, as Kähler groups, in
general, are not coherent. Instead, in this case it is the classes φ ∈ Hom(G, Z) with
rg (G, φ) > 0 that admit a geometric interpretation; in fact, as we discuss in Section
2 (equation 2 and following remarks) these are the classes that (virtually) factorize
through the epimorphism induced, in homotopy, by a genus g ≥ 2 pencil on a Kähler
manifold X such that G = π1 (X). In fact, as we will see in the proof of Theorem A,
the existence of that pencil (at homotopy level) can be thought of as the very reason
why for these classes we have rg (G, φ) > 0.
As a corollary of this theorem, we will give a quick proof of a result of [NR08],
Theorem 0.3(ii):
Corollary B. Let G be a Kähler group; then G cannot be a properly ascending or
descending HNN extension of a finitely generated subgroup.
The latter result was originally proven by Napier and Ramachandran in order to
show that Thompson’s group F (and some of its generalizations) are not Kähler,
answering a question originally posed by Ross Geoghegan.
Several classes of generalizations of the group F have been studied. We will be interested here in a rather broad collection of finitely presented subgroups, usually denoted

RANK GRADIENTS OF INFINITE CYCLIC COVERS OF KÄHLER MANIFOLDS

3

1
as F (ℓ, Z[ n1 ···n
], hn1 , . . . , nk i), of the group of orientation–preserving PL homeomork
phisms of the interval [0, ℓ] that was first investigated by Brown in [Bro87a] (and in
unpublished work), and further discussed in [Ste92]; see Section 3 for the definition.
This collection of groups (which for notational simplicity will be referred to here as
generalized Thompson groups) include Thompson’s group F = F (1, Z[ 12 ], h2i). However, of relevance to us, for “most” of them Corollary B yields no information to
decide if they are Kähler. Using Delzant’s work [De10] on Bieri–Neumann–Strebel
invariants ([BNS87]) of Kähler groups, we prove the following:
1
], hn1 , . . . , nk i) be a generalized Thompson group;
Theorem C. Let G = F (ℓ, Z[ n1 ···n
k
then G is not Kähler.

The structure of the paper is the following. Section 2 is devoted to the proof of
Theorem A and Corollary B. In Section 3 we prove that the generalized Thompson
groups are not Kähler (Theorem C) and we also discuss the fact that for “most”
of these groups Corollary B (even applied to finite index subgroups) is inconclusive.
Finally in Section 4 we discuss some examples to illustrate the intricacy of the relation
between the rank gradient and the BNS invariant of groups in general. The Appendix
is devoted to the proof of some basic results on generalized Thompson groups used
in Section 3.
Acknowledgments. The authors would like to thank the referee for carefully reading the manuscript and providing us with useful comments. The first author was
supported by the SFB 1085 ‘higher invariants’ funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft DFG.
2. Rank Gradient of Kähler Groups
We start with two lemmata. The first is straightforward.
Lemma 2.1. Consider the short exact sequence of finitely generated groups
p

1→K→G−
→ Γ → 1.
Let ρ ∈ H 1 (Γ; Z) be a primitive class; then p∗ ρ ∈ H 1 (G; Z) is primitive and rg (G, p∗ ρ) =
rg (Γ, ρ).
Proof. The fact that p∗ ρ = ρ◦p is primitive is obvious from the fact that p is surjective,
hence so is p∗ ρ thought of as an element of Hom(G, Z). The rank gradients in question
are associated respectively to the lattices
p∗ ρ

ρ

{Gi = Ker(G −−→ Z → Zi )} and {Γi = Ker(Γ −
→ Z → Zi )}.
These groups are related, for each i ≥ 1, by a short exact sequence
p|G

i
1 → K → Gi −−→
Γi → 1

4

STEFAN FRIEDL AND STEFANO VIDUSSI

hence the inequalities
rk(Γi ) ≤ rk(Gi ) ≤ rk(Γi ) + rk(K).
As the second summand in the rightmost term is independent of i, a check of the
definition in (1) yields the desired equality.

The proof of the second lemma is more elaborate. Remember that a finitely presented group Γ is LERF if, given any finitely generated subgroup A ≤ Γ, and any
element γ ∈ Γ \ A, there exists an epimorphism α : Γ → Q to a finite group such that
α(γ) ∈
/ α(A).
Lemma 2.2. Let Γ be a finitely presented LERF group, and let ρ ∈ Hom(Γ, Z) =
H 1 (Γ; Z) be a primitive class. Then the following are equivalent:
(1) Ker ρ ≤ Γ is infinitely generated;
e ≤f Γ and an epimorphism qe: Γ
e→
(2) there exists a normal finite index subgroup Γ
e → Z factorizes through qe,
Fn to a free nonabelian group such that ρ|Γe : Γ
namely we have
1

/

e
Γ
❃

/
❃❃
❃❃
❃
qe ❃❃

/Q
❄❄
❄❄ρ
❄❄
❄
/ Z.

Γ❄

Fn

/

1

ψ

with Q a finite group.
Proof. Let Γ be a finitely presented group and ρ ∈ H 1 (Γ; Z) a primitive class. We
can write Γ as an HNN extension of a finitely generated base group B ≤ Ker ρ with
finitely generated associated subgroups A± ≤ B, namely we have
Γ = hB, t|t−1 A+ t = A− i,
with ρ(t) = 1 ∈ Z. Moreover, Ker ρ is finitely generated if and only if A± = B = Ker ρ
(see [BS78]).
Assume that Ker ρ is infinitely generated; then one (or both) of A± is a proper
subgroup of B, say A+ B. Since Γ is LERF, for any element b ∈ B \ A+ there exists
an epimorphism to a finite group α : Γ → S such that α(b) ∈
/ α(A+ ). In particular,
α(A+ ) is strictly contained in α(B). We can now define an epimorphism from Γ = B∗A
to the HNN extension α(B)∗α(A) of the finite base group α(B) with finite associated
(isomorphic) subgroups α(A± ) α(B). (We use here standard shorthand notation
for HNN extensions in terms of base and abstract associated subgroups.) Precisely,
we have a map
q : hB, t|t−1 A+ t = A− i −→ hα(B), t|t−1α(A+ )t = α(A− )i.
Clearly the map ρ : Γ → Z descends to α(B)∗α(A) . By [Se80, Prop 11 p. 120 and
Exercise 3 p. 123] this group admits a finite index free nonabelian normal subgroup,

RANK GRADIENTS OF INFINITE CYCLIC COVERS OF KÄHLER MANIFOLDS

5

and we get the commutative diagram
1
/
q̃

e
Γ


1
/

Fn

/Q
✺✺
✺
∼
q ✺✺
=
✺✺


✺✺ ρ
❚❚❚❚ / α(B)∗α(A) ✺✺ / Q
❚❚❚❚
■■ ✺✺
■
❚❚❚❚
✺
❚❚❚❚ ■■■■ ✺✺
❚
■
❚❚❚❚ ■■✺
ψ
❚❚$*
/

Γ✺

1
/

/

1

Z

which yields the virtual factorization of ρ ∈ Hom(Γ, Z).
To prove the other direction, assume that ρ admits a virtual factorization as in (2).
To show that (1) holds, it is enough to prove that Ker ρ|Γe is an infinitely generated
e as the latter is finite index in Γ. But the group Ker ρ|e surjects
subgroup of Γ,
Γ
to the kernel of a nontrivial homomorphism Fn → Z. This kernel must be infinitely
generated, as finitely generated normal subgroups of a free nonabelian group are finite
index (see e.g. [Ca03, Lemma 3.3]).

We are now in position to prove our main theorem, that we restate for sake of
convenience.
Theorem 2.3. Let (G, φ) be a Kähler pair. Then rg (G, φ) = 0 if and only if Ker φ ≤
G is finitely generated.
Proof. The proof of the “if” direction is straightforward: if φ : G → Z is an epimorphism with finitely generated kernel Ker φ, and we denote by {g1 , . . . , gk } a generating
set for Ker φ, then the group G is the semidirect product Ker φ ⋊ hti and admits the
generating set {g1 , . . . , gk , t}, so that the rank of G is bounded above by k + 1. It is
well–known that
φ
Gi := Ker(G −
→ Z → Z/i)
equals Ker φ ⋊ hti i, hence rk(Gi ) is uniformly bounded above by k + 1. This immediately entails the vanishing of rg (G, φ).
For the “only if” direction, we proceed as follows. Let φ : G → Z be an epimorphism
with infinitely generated kernel. By [NR01, Theorem 4.3], such an epimorphism
factorizes through an epimorphism p : G → Γ with finitely generated kernel K where
Γ is a cocompact Fuchsian group of positive first Betti number, which arises as the
fundamental group of a hyperbolic Riemann orbisurface Σorb of positive genus:
(2)

1
/

K
/

p
G ❖❖❖ / Γ ❄
❄
❖

/

❖❖❖ ❄❄ ρ
❖❖❖ ❄❄
❖❖❖❄❄
φ
❖'

1
Z

Although not strictly necessary for the proof, we can integrate this picture and interpret (following [Ca03, NR06]) the maps of the diagram in terms of induced maps

6

STEFAN FRIEDL AND STEFANO VIDUSSI

of an irrational pencil f : X → Σ, where X is a Kähler manifold with G = π1 (X)
and Σ a Riemann surface of positive genus. In the presence of multiple fibers, to
obtain a surjection of fundamental groups with finitely generated kernel, we promote
the fundamental group of Σ to the fundamental group Γ of the orbisurface Σorb with
orbifold points determined by the multiple fibers.
The proof now boils down to the use of the lemmata above and some basic results
from [Lac05 ]. By Lemma 2.1, rg (G, φ) = rg (G, p∗ρ) = rg (Γ, ρ). By definition, the
ρ
latter is the rank gradient rg (Γ, {Γi }) of the lattice {Γi = Ker(Γ −
→ Z → Zi )}. Rank
e ≤f Γ be a finite
gradients behave well under passing to finite index subgroup: let Γ
index subgroup; [Lac05 , Lemma 3.1] asserts that rg (Γ, {Γi }) is nonzero if and only if
e {Γ
e ∩ Γi }) is nonzero. We can now apply Lemma 2.2 to Γ, as the latter is LERF
rg (Γ,
by [Sc78] and for any ρ ∈ H 1 (Γ; Z), Ker ρ is infinitely generated (see e.g. [Ca03,
Lemma 3.4]). Keeping the notation from Lemma 2.2 we have
e
Γ
❄

/
❄❄
❄❄
❄
qe ❄❄

Γ❄
Fn

❄❄
❄❄ρ
❄❄
❄
/Z
ψ

ψ
e → Fn restricts to an epimorphism from Γ
e ∩ Γi to Ker(Fn −
so qe: Γ
→ Z → Zi )}. It
follows that we have the inequality

(3)

ψ

e ∩ Γi ) ≥ rk(Ker(Fn −
rk(Γ
→ Z → Zi )).

We endeavor now to compute the term on the right hand side. In general, the map
ψ : Fn → Z identified in Lemma 2.2 may fail to be surjective, when m is not primitive
and has some divisibility m ∈ Z. In that case the image of ψ is a subgroup mZ ⊂ Z.
ψ
.
A simple exercise shows that the index of Ker(Fn −
→ Z → Zi ) in Fn equals lcm(m,i)
m
The Reidemeister–Schreier formula gives then the rank of this free group:
(4)

ψ

rk(Ker(Fn −
→ Z → Zi )) =

lcm(m, i)
(n − 1) + 1.
m

Combining equations (3) and (4) in the calculation of the rank gradient we get

e ∩ Γi )
e ∩ Γi )
rk(Γ
rk(Γ
1  lcm(m, i)
1
1
≥
≥
(n − 1) + 1 ≥ (n − 1) +
e:Γ
e ∩ Γi ]
[Γ : Γi ]
i
m
m
i
[Γ

from which it follows that

e {Γ
e ∩ Γi }) ≥ 1 (n − 1) > 0.
rg (Γ,
m

As observed above, this entails rg (G, φ) > 0.



RANK GRADIENTS OF INFINITE CYCLIC COVERS OF KÄHLER MANIFOLDS

7

Remark. While there is no reason to expect that Kähler groups are LERF (or even
satisfy weaker forms of separability, that would be still sufficient for Lemma 2.2
to hold) we see that the presence of an irrational pencil, in the form of (2) yields
essentially the same consequences, using the fact that cocompact Fuchsian groups are
LERF. In that sense, the proof above and the proof for 3–manifold groups in [DFV14]
originate from similar ingredients.
We can now give a proof of Corollary B. Recall that a finitely presented G is an
ascending (respectively descending) HNN extension if it can be written as
G = hB, t|t−1 A+ t = A− i
where B is finitely generated and where A+ = B (respectively A− = B).
Proof. Let G be a Kähler group that can be written as an ascending or descending
HNN extension with stable letter t, and denote by φ : G → Z the homomorphism
sending t to the generator of Z and the base of the extension (a subgroup B ≤ G
with generating set {g1, . . . , gk }) to 0. We claim that rg (G, φ) vanishes. The proof is
almost verbatim the proof of the “if” direction of Theorem A, once we observe (using
φ

Schreier’s rewriting process) the well–known fact that Gi := Ker(G −
→ Z → Z/i) is
i
generated by {g1 , . . . , gk , t }, i.e. the rank of Gi is uniformly bounded. By Theorem
A it follows that Ker φ is finitely generated. But as already mentioned in the proof of
Lemma 2.2 this can occur if and only if the HNN extension is simultaneously ascending
and descending, i.e. both A± = B.

1
3. The Groups F (ℓ, Z[ n1 ···n
], hn1 , . . . , nk i) are not Kähler
k

As observed in [NR06, NR08] Corollary B implies that Thompson’s group F (and
some of its generalizations) is not Kähler, as that group is a properly ascending HNN
extension. There are several families of generalizations of Thompson’s group, that
arise as finitely presented subgroups of the group of orientation–preserving PL homeomorphisms of an interval, for which we can expect as well that they fail to be Kähler.
For “most” of them, however, Corollary B is not conclusive: there are examples for
which every class φ in the first integral cohomology group has the property that Ker φ
is finitely generated (see below).
We will be able to decide the problem above by determining, in more generality,
some constraints that groups with vanishing rank gradient function rg (G, φ) need to
satisfy in order to be Kähler.
In order to determine these constraints we will make use of the Bieri–Neumann–
Strebel invariant of G (for which we refer the reader to [BNS87]), together with the
generalization of [NR01, Theorem 4.3] due to Delzant.
Proposition 3.1. Let G be a Kähler group whose rank gradient function rg (G, φ)
vanishes identically for all φ ∈ H 1 (G; Z). Then the commutator subgroup [G, G] ≤ G
of G is finitely generated.

8

STEFAN FRIEDL AND STEFANO VIDUSSI

Proof. Let G be as in the statement and X a Kähler manifold with G = π1 (X).
Assume, by contradiction, that the commutator subgroup is not finitely generated.
By [BNS87, Theorem B1] there exists an exceptional character χ : G → R. But then
there exists an epimorphism p : G → Γ with finitely generated kernel (see [Ca03]) to
a cocompact Fuchsian group, induced by the irrational pencil f : X → Σ of [De10,
Théorème 1.1]. The induced map p∗ : H 1 (Γ; Z) → H 1 (G Z) is then injective, and
for all φ ∈ im(p∗ ) ⊂ H 1 (G; Z) we have rg (G, φ) > 0 by Lemma 2.1, which yields a
contradiction to our assumption on G.

There is a case where we can use a simple criterion to certify that a group has rank
gradient that vanishes identically for all φ ∈ H 1 (G; Z), and this will be sufficient to
apply Proposition 3.1 to Thompson’s group and its generalization.
Lemma 3.2. Let G be a finitely presented group which does not contain any F2
subgroup. Then the rank gradient function rg (G, φ) vanishes identically for all φ ∈
H 1 (G; Z).
Proof. Given any primitive class φ ∈ H 1 (G; Z), by [BS78] there exists a finitely
generated subgroup B ≤ Ker φ ≤ G and finitely generated associated subgroups
A± ≤ B so that G = hB, t|t−1 A+ t = A− i, so that φ(t) = 1. It is well–known (see e.g.
[BM07] for a detailed proof) that unless this extension is ascending or descending,
then G contains an F2 subgroup. If G does not contain any F2 subgroup, repeating
the argument of the proof of Corollary B for all primitive classes φ ∈ H 1(G; Z), we
deduce the vanishing of rg(G, φ).

Remark. In light of the results above, we can give a group-theoretic relic of the result
of Delzant ([De10, Théorème 1.1]): either a Kähler group G has finitely generated
commutator subgroup, or it can be written as a non–ascending and non–descending
HNN extension. This alternative is decided by the vanishing of the rank gradient
function. A straightforward (but not completely trivial) exercise in 3–manifold group
theory shows that this alternative is the same that occurs for a 3–manifold group π =
π1 (N). (The nontriviality comes from the need to use results on the Thurston norm
of N, that has no complete analog in the case of other groups.) For 3–manifolds with
b1 (π) ≥ 2, furthermore, the first case corresponds to N a nilmanifold or Euclidean.
For a general group, it is quite possible that the assumption that the rank gradient
function rg (G, φ) vanishes identically does not yield particularly strong consequences
(see e.g. the examples discussed in Section 4).
We are now in a position to show that a large class of generalizations of Thompson’s group are not Kähler. Omitting further generality, we will limit ourselves to
1
the groups of type F (ℓ, Z[ n1 ···n
], hn1 , . . . , nk i) discussed by Brown in [Bro87a] and
k
further elucidated by Stein in [Ste92]. These groups are finitely presented, and can
be described as follows: Given a nontrivial multiplicative subgroup
hn1 , . . . , nk i = {nj11 · · · njkk |ji ∈ Z} ≤ R+

RANK GRADIENTS OF INFINITE CYCLIC COVERS OF KÄHLER MANIFOLDS

9

(where we assume that {n1 , . . . , nk } is a positive integer basis of the multiplicative
group), this groups is defined as the group of orientation–preserving PL homeomor1
phism of the interval [0, ℓ], where 0 < ℓ ∈ Z[ n1 ···n
], with finitely many singularities
k
1
all in Z[ n1 ···nk ] and slopes in hn1 , . . . , nk i. In this notation, Thompson’s group F is
F (1, Z[ 21 ], h2i). The proof that these groups are not Kähler is a consequence of the
knowledge of the BNS invariants for the group in question, which follows from the
results of [BNS87, Section 8]:
1
Theorem 3.3. Let G = F (ℓ, Z[ n1 ···n
], hn1 , . . . , nk i); then G is not Kähler.
k
1
Proof. By [BrSq85, Theorem 3.1] the group G = F (ℓ, Z[ n1 ···n
], hn1 , . . . , nk i) does not
k
contain F2 subgroups, hence its rank gradient function rg (G, φ) identically vanishes.
On the other hand, as we show in detail in the Appendix, [BNS87, Theorem 8.1]
implies that it has exceptional characters, hence its commutator subgroup cannot be
finitely generated. By Proposition 3.1 G is not Kähler.


As observed in [BNS87, Section 8] “most” of the groups above have the property
that for all primitive classes φ ∈ H 1 (G; Z), Ker φ is finitely generated: an explicit
example is the group G = F (1, Z[ 16 ], h2, 3i) of homeomorphisms of the unit interval
with slopes in {2j 3k |j, k ∈ Z} and singularities in Z[1/6]; here H 1 (G; Z) = Z4 , as
computed in [Ste92]. It follows from this observation that for these groups Corollary
B is inconclusive. A less obvious fact is that we cannot even apply the “covering trick”
to use Corollary B, namely fish for a finite index subgroup H ≤f G that is a properly
ascending or descending HNN extension, hence fails to be Kähler by Corollary B:
1
Lemma 3.4. Let G = F (ℓ, Z[ n1 ···n
], hn1 , . . . , nk i), and assume that G cannot be
k
written as a properly ascending or descending HNN extension; then neither can any
of the finite index subgroups of G.

Proof. Let H ≤f G be a finite index subgroup, and denote by f : H → G the inclusion
map. We start by showing that f ∗ : H 1 (G; R) → H 1 (H; R) is an isomorphism. By
the existence of the transfer map, injectivity is clear, so we just need to show that
b1 (G) = b1 (H). As it suffices to prove this result for the normal core of H, we will
assume without loss of generality that H Ef G. Then [H, H] is a normal subgroup of
[G, G]. And as the latter is simple (see e.g. [Ste92, Theorem 5.1], based also on work
of Bieri and Strebel) we must have [H, H] = [G, G]. The map
H1 (H; Z) = H/[H, H] = H/[G, G] → G/[G, G] = H1 (G; Z)
is therefore injective, and the result follows. At this point an endless amount of
patience would allow a proof of the statement directly in terms of generators and
relations, but we can proceed in a simpler way using BNS invariants. In fact, if we
assume by contradiction that there exists a primitive class χ : H → Z that corresponds
to a properly ascending extension, then the (projective class) of χ must satisfy [χ] ∈

10

STEFAN FRIEDL AND STEFANO VIDUSSI

Σ(H) and [χ] ∈
/ −Σ(H), where
Σ(H) ⊂ S(H) := (H 1 (H; R) \ 0)/R∗
is the BNS invariant of H. Surjectivity of f ∗ : H 1 (G; R) → H 1 (H; R) entails that
[χ] ∈ S(H) is the image of some class [φ] ∈ S(G), where we can assume that φ
is a primitive class in H 1 (G; Z). But [BNS87, Theorem H] guarantees now that
f ∗ (S(G) \ Σ(G)) = S(H) \ Σ(H) (we are using here the fact that [H, H] = [G, G]). It
follows that [φ] ∈ Σ(G) and [φ] ∈
/ −Σ(G). These two conditions characterize properly
ascending HNN extensions (see e.g. [BGK10, Theorem 2.1]), hence G can be written
as an ascending HNN extension. (The proof in the descending case is verbatim.) This
contradicts the assumption.

4. Rank Gradient and BNS Invariant
While the rank gradient of infinite cyclic covers of 3–manifold groups and, now,
Kähler manifolds follow the dichotomy of Theorem A, this property should be counted
more of as a property of these very peculiar classes of groups than a common phenomenon. Stated otherwise, the vanishing of the rank gradient rg (G, φ) is a necessary
but, as we discuss below, not a sufficient condition to decide that φ belongs to the
BNS invariant of G.
The first example of this fact comes from Thompson’s group F . As discussed above
(cf. Lemma 3.2) this group has vanishing rank gradient for all classes φ ∈ H 1 (F ; Z),
but two pairs of classes {±φi , i = 1, 2} (corresponding to properly ascending HNN
extensions) fail to satisfy the statement of Theorem A. In this case, {φi , i = 1, 2}
belong to the BNS invariant of F , but {−φi , i = 1, 2} do not.
A second, more compelling example is the following, that shows that the discrepancy between the information contained in the rank gradient and in the BNS invariants is not limited to properly ascending or descending extensions. Consider the
group
(5)

π = ht, a, b | t−1at = a2 , t−1 b2 t = bi.

Here H1 (π; Z) = Z. We claim that π cannot be written as a properly ascending or
descending HNN extension. To prove this we need the following lemma. Here we
denote by ∆π,φ ∈ Z[t±1 ] the Alexander polynomial corresponding to a pair (π, φ), i.e.
the order of the Alexander Z[t±1 ]–module
H1 (π; Z[t±1 ]) = H1 (Ker(φ)).
Lemma 4.1. Let π be a group together with an epimorphism φ : π → Z. If the pair
(π, φ) corresponds to an ascending (resp. descending) HNN extension of a finitely
generated group, then the top (resp. bottom) coefficient of ∆π,φ equals ±1.
Proof. Let π be a group together with an epimorphism φ : π → Z = hti. We denote
by φ also the corresponding ring homomorphism Z[π] → Z[Z] = Z[t±1 ]. Assume π
can be written as an ascending HNN extension of a finitely generated group B. In

RANK GRADIENTS OF INFINITE CYCLIC COVERS OF KÄHLER MANIFOLDS

11

this case it is convenient to write π = ht, B | t−1 Bt = ϕ(B)i where ϕ : B → B is a
monomorphism, B = C and D = ϕ(B) ≤ B. Now let
B = hg1 , . . . , gk | r1 , r2 , . . .i
be a presentation for B with finitely many generators. We denote by n ∈ N ∪ {∞}
the number of relations. We can write
π = ht, g1 , . . . , gk | t−1 g1 t = ϕ(g1 ), . . . , t−1 gk t = ϕ(gk ), r1 , r2 , . . .i.
We continue with the following claim.
Claim. The matrix
φ



∂t−1 gi t
∂gj



i,j=1,...,k



∂ri
φ
∂gj



i=1,...,j=1,...,k

!

is a presentation matrix for H1 (π; Z[t±1 ]).
We denote by X the usual CW-complex corresponding to the presentation for π
and we denote by Y the CW-complex corresponding to the presentation hti. By Fox
calculus the chain complex C∗ (X; Z[t±1 ]) is given as follows.

 
 
∂t−1 gi t
∂ri
φ ∂g

φ
j

  ∂gj 





∂t−1 gi t
∂ri 
φ ∂t
φ
1−x1 ... 1−xk 1−t
∂t
Z[t±1 ]k ⊕Z[t±1 ]n −−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−→ Z[t±1 ]k ⊕Z[t±1 ] −−−−−−−−−−−−→ Z[t±1 ] → 0.
Here, for space reasons we left out the range of the indices i and j. The chain complex
1−t

C∗ (Y ; Z[t±1 ]) = 0 → Z[t±1 ] −−→ Z[t±1 ] → 0
is an obvious subcomplex of C∗ (X; Z[t±1 ]). It is now straightforward to see that the
matrix in the claim is a presentation matrix for the relative Alexander module


±1
±1
±1
H1 (π, hti; Z[t ]) = H1 C∗ (X; Z[t ])/C∗ (Y ; Z[t ]) .

But considering the long exact sequence in homology with Z[t±1 ]-coefficients of the
pair (π, hti) shows that H1 (π, hti; Z[t±1 ]) ∼
= H1 (π; Z[t±1 ]). This concludes the proof
of the claim.
We now recall that Z[t±1 ] is a Noetherian ring. This implies that every ascending
chain of submodules of a given finitely generated module stabilizes. This in turn
implies that every finitely generated module over Z[t±1 ] which is given by infinitely
many relations is already described by a finite subset of those relations. (We refer to
[Lan02, Chapter X.§1] for details.)
It thus follows that there exists an l ∈ N such that the following matrix is already
a presentation matrix for H1 (π; Z[t±1 ]).
!
 −1 


∂t gi t
∂ri
φ
φ
.
∂gj
∂gj i=1,...,l,j=1,...,k
i,j=1,...,k

12

STEFAN FRIEDL AND STEFANO VIDUSSI

The block matrix on the right is a matrix over Z, whereas the block matrix on the
left is a matrix of the form tidk − B where B is a matrix over Z. If we now take the
gcd of the k × k-minors of the matrix we see that the top coefficient is 1. The proof
for the descending case is identical.

We have now the following:
Proposition 4.2. Let π be the finitely presented group of Eq. (5) and let φ ∈
H 1 (π; Z) ∼
= Z be the generator given by the epimorphism of Hom(π, Z) determined
by φ(t) = 1 and φ(a) = φ(b) = 0. The pair (π, φ) has zero rank gradient but it cannot
be written as an ascending or descending HNN extension.
φ

Proof. We denote by πn the kernel of the epimorphism π −
→ Z → Z/n. It follows
from the Reidemeister-Schreier process, that πn has a presentation of the form
hs, a0 , . . . , an−1 , b0 , . . . , bn−1 | a1 = a20 , . . . , an−1 = a2n−2 , s−1 a0 s = a2n−1 ,
b21 = b0 , . . . , b2n−1 = bn−2 , s−1 b20 s = b2n−1 i
Here, the map πn → π is given by sending s to tn and sending ai 7→ t−i ati and
bi 7→ t−i bti . The fact that this is a correct presentation for πn can also be seen easily
by thinking of π as the fundamental group of a 2-complex with one 0-cell, three 1-cells
and two 2-cells.
Note that in the presentation of πn we can remove the generators a1 , . . . , an−1 and
b1 , . . . , bn−1 . We can thus find a presentation for πn with three generators. It is now
immediate that rg (π, φ) is zero.
A straightforward calculation using Fox calculus shows that the Alexander polynomial of (π, φ) is (t − 2)(2t − 1) = 2 − 5t + 2t2 . It now follows from Lemma 4.1 that the
pair (π, φ) corresponds neither to an ascending nor descending HNN extension. 
Appendix
We include in this appendix definitions and results needed in the proof of Theorem
3.3. The purpose is to show that the class of groups discussed in Section 3 satisfies the
assumptions of Theorem 8.1 of [BNS87], which thus determines their BNS invariant.
This is arguably standard fare for the practitioners of Thompson–type groups, but
may be less obvious for others, so we provide here the details.
Let G be a subgroup of the group of orientation–preserving PL homeomorphisms
of an interval [0, ℓ]. We say that such a group is irreducible if it has no fixed point
in (0, ℓ). Given such a group, we can define two homomorphisms λ, ρ : G → R+ with
values in the multiplicative group R+ as follows:
λ(g) :=

dg
dg
(0), ρ(g) := (ℓ),
dt
dt

RANK GRADIENTS OF INFINITE CYCLIC COVERS OF KÄHLER MANIFOLDS

13

which return the slope at the endpoints. We say that λ and ρ are independent if
λ(G) = λ(Kerρ) and ρ(G) = ρ(Kerλ). Equivalently,
(ρ,λ)

G −−→ λ(G) × ρ(G)
is an epimorphism. Then we have the following theorem (see [BNS87, Theorem 8.1],
as well as [Bro87b, Proposition 8.2]).
Theorem. (Bieri–Neumann–Strebel) Let G be a finitely generated, irreducible subgroup of the group of orientation–preserving PL homeomorphisms of an interval [0, ℓ].
Then if λ and ρ are independent, the set of exceptional characters of G is given by
[log(λ)], [log(ρ)] ∈ Hom(G, R) = H 1 (G; R).
(The statement in [BNS87] covers subgroups of the group of orientation–preserving
PL homeomorphisms of the unit interval [0, 1], but the proof applies with obvious
modifications to the case stated here.)
We will apply this result to the study of the BNS invariants for the case of the
1
generalized Thompson groups F (ℓ, Z[ n1 ...n
], hn1 , . . . , nk i) which, we recall, are defined
k
as follows. Given a nontrivial multiplicative subgroup
hn1 , . . . , nk i = {nj11 . . . njkk |ji ∈ Z} ≤ R+
(where {n1 , . . . , nk } is a positive integer basis of the multiplicative group), we de1
], hn1 , . . . , nk i) the group of orientation–preserving PL homeonote by F (ℓ, Z[ n1 ...n
k
1
morphism of the interval [0, ℓ], where 0 < ℓ ∈ Z[ n1 ...n
], with finitely many singularik
1
ties all in Z[ n1 ···nk ] and slopes in hn1 , . . . , nk i.
1
Corollary. Let G = F (ℓ, Z[ n1 ···n
], hn1 , . . . , nk i) be a generalized Thompson group;
k
then G admits exceptional characters.

Proof. The proof of the corollary consists in verifying that the assumptions of the
Bieri–Neumann-Strebel Theorem are satisfied. First, we show that the group G
is irreducible: we can do so by constructing an explicit element g ∈ G such that
g : [0, ℓ] → [0, ℓ] has no other fixed points but {0, ℓ}. To do so, choose an element
Q
ν ∈ hn1 , . . . , nk i such that ν > 1, and define n := ki=1 ni ≥ 2. Consider the pairs
(x1 , y1 ), (x2 , y2 ) ⊂ [0, ℓ] × [0, ℓ] with coordinates
1 ℓ ℓ 


ℓ
1ℓ
(x1 , y1 ) =
, (x2 , y2 ) = ℓ − , ℓ −
.
,
νn n

n

νn

then x1 < x2 ∈ (0, ℓ) ∩ Z[ n1 ]. The pieceIt is immediate to verify that as ℓ ∈
wise linear graph joining the four points (0, 0), (x1 , y1 ), (x2 , y2 ), (ℓ, ℓ) ∈ [0, ℓ] × [0, ℓ]
is composed of three segments of slope respectively ν, 1, ν1 ∈ hn1 , · · · , nk i. Therefore,
this represents the graph of an element g ∈ G that has no fixed points in the interval
(0, ℓ), hence the proof that G is irreducible. On the left hand side of Figure 1 we show
the graph of such an element for the generalized Thompson group F (1, Z[ 61 ], h2, 3i),
with ν = 2.
Z[ n1 ],

14

STEFAN FRIEDL AND STEFANO VIDUSSI

Next, let’s show that λ and ρ are independent. We will limit ourselves to show that
λ(G) = λ(Kerρ), the proof of the symmetric relation being identical. Namely, we will
show that for any element ν ∈ hn1 , . . . , nk i there exists an element h ∈ Kerρ (i.e. for
(l) = 1) such that dh
(0) = ν. The proof is based on a suitable scaled
which ρ(h) = dh
dt
dt
version of the construction above. Define ℓ̃ = ℓ − nℓ , and assume first ν > 1. We
consider now the pairs
(x1 , y1), (x2 , y2 ) ⊂ [0, ℓ̃] × [0, ℓ̃] ⊂ [0, ℓ] × [0, ℓ]
with coordinates
(x1 , y1 ) =

 1 ℓ̃ ℓ̃ 


1 ℓ̃
ℓ̃
,
, (x2 , y2 ) = ℓ̃ − , ℓ̃ −
.
νn n

n

νn

Similar to above, it is immediate to verify that x1 < x2 < ℓ̃ ∈ (0, ℓ) ∩ Z[ n1 ]. The
piecewise linear graph joining the five points (0, 0), (x1 , y1), (x2 , y2), (ℓ̃, ℓ̃), (ℓ, ℓ) ∈
[0, ℓ] ×[0, ℓ] is composed of four segments of slope respectively ν, 1, ν1 , 1 ∈ hn1 , . . . , nk i.
It follows that this represents the graph of an element h ∈ G such that λ(h) = ν and
ρ(h) = 1. The right hand side of Figure 1 show the graph of h for the generalized
Thompson group F (1, Z[ 61 ], h2, 3i), with ν = 2.
y

y

x

x

g ∈ F (1, Z[ 61 ], h2, 3i); λ(g) = 2, ρ(g) =

1
2

h ∈ F (1, Z[ 16 ], h2, 3i); λ(h) = 2, ρ(h) = 1

Figure 1
The proof for the case of ν < 1 is similar, defining this time


ℓ ℓ
ℓ
ℓ
, ν , (x2 , y2) = ℓ − ν , ℓ −
(x1 , y1 ) =
n

n

n

n

and performing similar elementary calculations. It now follows from the theorem of
Bieri–Neumann–Strebel that the set of exceptional characters is nonempty as claimed
in the statement.


RANK GRADIENTS OF INFINITE CYCLIC COVERS OF KÄHLER MANIFOLDS

15

References
[ABCKT96] J. Amorós, M. Burger, K. Corlette, D. Kotschick and D. Toledo, Fundamental groups of
compact Kähler manifolds, Mathematical Surveys and Monographs, 44. American Mathematical
Society, Providence, RI, 1996.
[Ag13] I. Agol, The virtual Haken conjecture, with an appendix by I. Agol, D. Groves and J. Manning, Documenta Math. 18 (2013) 1045–1087.
[BM07] G. Baumslag and C. F. Miller III, Finitely presented extensions by free groups, J. Group
Theory 10 (2007), 723–729.
[BNS87] R. Bieri, W. Neumann and R. Strebel, A geometric invariant of discrete groups, Invent.
Math. 90 (1987), no. 3, 451–477.
[BGK10] R. Bieri, R. Geoghegan and D. Kochloukova, The sigma invariant of Thompson’s group
F , Groups Geom. Dyn. 4 no 2 (2010), 263–273.
[BS78] R. Bieri and R. Strebel, Almost finitely presented soluble groups, Comment. Math. Helv. 53
(1978), 258–278.
[BrSq85] M. Brin and C. Squier, Groups of piecewise linear homeomorphisms of the real line, Invent.
Math. 79 (1985), no. 3, 485–498.
[Bro87a] K. S. Brown, Finiteness properties of groups, Proceedings of the Northwestern conference
on cohomology of groups (Evanston, Ill., 1985), J. Pure Appl. Algebra 44 (1987), no. 1-3, 45–75.
[Bro87b] K. S. Brown, Trees, valuations, and the Bieri–Neumann–Strebel invariant, Invent. Math.
90 (1987), no. 3, 479–504.
[Bu11] M. Burger, Fundamental groups of Kähler manifolds and geometric group theory, Séminaire
Bourbaki 62 (2009/2010). Exposé 1022. Astérisque No. 339 (2011)
[Ca03] F. Catanese, Fibred Kähler and quasi–projective groups, Special issue dedicated to Adriano
Barlotti, Adv. Geom. suppl. (2003), 13–27.
[De10] T. Delzant, L’invariant de Bieri Neumann Strebel des groupes fondamentaux des variétés
kähleriennes, Math. Annalen 348 (2010), 119–125.
[DFV14] J. DeBlois, S. Friedl, and S. Vidussi, Rank gradients of infinite cyclic covers of 3-manifolds,
Michigan Math. J. 63 (2014), no. 1, 65–81.
[Lan02] S. Lang, Algebra, third revised edition, Graduate Texts in Mathematics. 211. (2002)
[Lac05 ] M. Lackenby, Expanders, rank and graphs of groups, Israel J. Math., 146 (2005), 357–370.
[Lu96] A. Lubotzky, Free quotients and the first Betti number of some hyperbolic manifolds, Transform. Groups 1, no. 1-2 (1996), 71–82.
[NR01] T. Napier and M. Ramachandran, Hyperbolic Kähler manifolds and proper holomorphic
mappings to Riemann surfaces, Geom. Funct. Anal. 11, no 2 (2001), 382–406.
[NR06] T. Napier and M. Ramachandran, Thompson’s group F is not Kähler, Topological and
asymptotic aspects of group theory, 197–201, Contemp. Math., 394, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2006.
[NR08] T. Napier, and M. Ramachandran, Filtered ends, proper holomorphic mappings of Kähler
manifolds to Riemann surfaces, and Kähler groups, Geom. Funct. Anal. 17, no 5 (2008), 1621–
1654.
[Sc78] P. Scott, Subgroups of surface groups are almost geometric, J. London Math. Soc. (2) 17 no.
3 (1978), 555–565.
[Se80] J.-P. Serre, Trees, Springer-Verlag, Berlin-New York, 1980.
[Sta62] J. Stallings, On fibering certain 3–manifolds, 1962 Topology of 3–manifolds and related
topics (Proc. The Univ. of Georgia Institute, 1961) pp. 95–100 Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs,
N.J. (1962)
[Ste92] M. Stein, Groups of piecewise linear homeomorphisms, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 332 (1992),
no. 2, 477–514.

16

STEFAN FRIEDL AND STEFANO VIDUSSI

[Wi12] D. Wise, The structure of groups with a quasi-convex hierarchy, 189 pages, preprint (2012),
downloaded on October 29, 2012 from http://www.math.mcgill.ca/wise/papers.html
Fakultät für Mathematik, Universität Regensburg, Germany
E-mail address: sfriedl@gmail.com
Department of Mathematics, University of California, Riverside, CA 92521, USA
E-mail address: svidussi@ucr.edu

