Boundary amenability of Out(FN )
Mladen Bestvina, Vincent Guirardel and Camille Horbez

arXiv:1705.07017v1 [math.GR] 19 May 2017

May 22, 2017
Kaum nennt man die Dinge beim richtigen Namen, so verlieren sie ihren gefährlichen
Zauber.
Elias Canetti
What’s in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.
William Shakespeare
Mal nommer un objet, c’est ajouter au malheur de ce monde.
Albert Camus
Abstract
We prove that Out(FN ) is boundary amenable. This also holds more generally
for Out(G), where G is either a toral relatively hyperbolic group or a right-angled
Artin group. As a consequence, all these groups satisfy the Novikov conjecture on
higher signatures.

Contents
1 Introduction

2

2 Background
2.1 General background on free products
2.2 Arational trees . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.3 Geometric and nongeometric trees .
2.4 Boundary amenability . . . . . . . .

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

8
. 8
. 10
. 12
. 14

3 Scheme of the proof
3.1 Turning classes and the factorization lemma . .
3.2 Probability measures associated to a morphism
3.3 Measurability considerations . . . . . . . . . . .
3.4 Namable turning classes . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

18
18
21
26
29

4 Arational trees have namable turning classes.
31
4.1 Non-geometric arational trees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
4.2 Geometric arational trees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
1

5 Proof of the main theorem and applications
5.1 Proof of the main theorem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.2 Automorphisms of relatively hyperbolic groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.3 Automorphisms of right-angled Artin groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

40
40
42
43

6 Complements
44
6.1 An explicit compact space with an amenable action of Out(FN ) . . . . . . 44
6.2 On the amenability of the Out(G, F (t) )-action on AT . . . . . . . . . . . 45

1

Introduction

Definition 1.1 (Boundary amenability). A group Γ is boundary amenable (or exact)
if there exist a compact Hausdorff space X equipped with a continuous Γ-action and a
sequence of continuous maps
µn : X → Prob(Γ)
such that for all γ ∈ Γ, one has
sup ||µn (γ.x) − γ.µn (x)||1 → 0

x∈X

as n goes to +∞.
The topology on the space P rob(Γ) of probability measures on Γ is that of pointwise
convergence, or equivalently, subspace topology from ℓ1 (Γ). An action Γ y X as in
Definition 1.1 is called topologically amenable.
Boundary amenability has already been established for several important classes of
groups. Guentner, Higson and Weinberger proved in [13] that all linear groups are exact.
Campbell and Niblo proved in [7] that every group acting properly and cocompactly on
a CAT(0) cube complex is exact. Boundary amenability is also known for many groups
satisfying ‘hyperbolic-like’ properties: this was established by Adams [1] for hyperbolic
groups and extended by Ozawa [41] to the case of relatively hyperbolic groups with exact
parabolics. It was then established for mapping class groups of orientable surfaces of
finite type by Kida [29] and Hamenstädt [21]. On the other hand, Gromov’s monster
containing a properly embedded expander is not exact [12, 38].
The goal of this paper is to establish exactness of Out(FN ), and more generally of
various outer automorphism groups.
Theorem 1.2. Let G be either
1. a free group,
2. a torsion-free Gromov hyperbolic group,
3. a torsion-free toral relatively hyperbolic group,
4. a right-angled Artin group.
2

Then Out(G) is exact.
Since exactness passes to subgroups, this gives a new proof of exactness of mapping
class groups of surfaces with non-empty boundary.
Applications. A key motivation behind the study of exactness comes from a theorem
that follows from work of Yu [46], Higson–Roe [23] and Higson [22], stating that exactness
of Γ implies the injectivity of the Baum–Connes assembly map, which in turn implies
the Novikov conjecture on higher signatures for Γ (this theorem builds on the fact that
exactness of Γ is equivalent to Γ satisfying Yu’s property A, which implies in turn that
Γ admits a uniform embedding in a Hilbert space). Since exactness passes to subgroups
[40], we get the following corollary to Theorem 1.2.
Corollary 1.3. Let G be either
1. a free group,
2. a torsion-free Gromov hyperbolic group,
3. a torsion-free toral relatively hyperbolic group,
4. a right-angled Artin group.
Then Out(G) and any of its subgroups satisfy the Novikov conjecture.
Another application of the exactness of a group Γ comes from the study of certain
operator algebras associated to Γ: for example, exactness of a group is equivalent to the
exactness of its reduced C ∗ -algebra, see [2, 39]. We refer to [40] for a general survey of
applications of boundary amenability.
Boundary amenability of the automorphism group of a free product. In order
to establish Theorem 1.2, we actually work in the more general setting of groups that
split as free products. Let {G1 , . . . , Gk } be a finite collection of countable groups, and
let
G := G1 ∗ · · · ∗ Gk ∗ FN ,
where FN is a free group of rank N . We call F := {G1 , . . . , Gk } a free factor system of G;
subgroups that are conjugate into F are called peripheral. We denote by Out(G, F) the
subgroup of Out(G) made of all automorphisms which preserve the conjugacy classes of
all the subgroups Gi , and by Out(G, F (t) ) the subgroup made of all automorphisms that
act as the conjugation by an element gi ∈ G on each subgroup Gi . Our main theorem is
the following.
Theorem 1.4. Let {G1 , . . . , Gk } be a finite collection of countable groups, and let
G := G1 ∗ · · · ∗ Gk ∗ FN ,
where FN is a free group of rank N .
Assume that for all i ∈ {1, . . . , k}, the group Gi is exact.
Then Out(G, {Gi }(t) ) is exact.
3

We would now like to make a few comments on the statement. First, the same
statement also holds for the larger group Out(G, {Gi }) (instead of Out(G, {Gi }(t) )) if
we make the additional assumption that Out(Gi ) is exact for each i ∈ {1, . . . , k} (see
Corollary 5.3). Second, we mention that (unless the given decomposition of G is trivial,
i.e. G = G1 ), our assumption that Gi be exact is necessary: indeed, the group Gi /Z(Gi )
embeds into Out(G, {Gi }(t) ) as the subgroup of all partial conjugations of the Gi factor,
and exactness of Gi is equivalent to that of Gi /Z(Gi ) (see Section 2.4).
We briefly explain the strategy to derive Theorem 1.2 from Theorem 1.4. The particular case where k = 0 shows that Out(FN ) is exact. If G is torsion-free and hyperbolic
or toral relatively hyperbolic, then Theorem 1.4 basically reduces the proof of Theorem 1.2 to the case where G is one-ended, in which case JSJ theory implies that Out(G)
is virtually built from mapping class groups of surfaces and free abelian groups [18] (see
Section 5.2). The case where G is a right-angled Artin group is proved by induction on
the number of vertices of the underlying graph, using work of Charney–Vogtmann [8]
(see Section 5.3).
General strategy of the proof: the inductive argument. In the rest of the
introduction, we sketch our proof of Theorem 1.4.
The group Out(G, F) has a natural action on a compact space, namely the compactified outer space PO for the free product (G, F). Points in this space correspond to
certain actions of G on R-trees. Unfortunately, except in a few exceptional cases, the
Out(G, F)-action on PO is not topologically amenable. Indeed, some points in PO have
a non-amenable stabilizer which is a general obstruction for an action to be topologically
amenable (see Corollary 2.12 for instance). For example, every tree in the boundary of
Culler–Vogtmann’s outer space which is dual to a non-filling measured lamination on
a surface with boundary is stabilized by every automorphism coming from a mapping
class supported on the subsurface that avoids the lamination.
Because of this, we use the following inductive argument inspired from Kida’s proof
of exactness of mapping class groups [29]. We use the decomposition of PO into arational
and non-arational trees introduced by Reynolds [44]: a tree T in PO is arational if for
every proper free factor A of G relative to F, the restriction of the A-action to its minimal
subtree in T is relatively free and simplicial.
In the particular case where G = FN and F = ∅, we prove that the action of Out(FN )
on the set PAT of arational trees is amenable. On the other hand, to any tree T which
is not arational, one can canonically associate a finite set of free factors [44]. In this
situation, a theorem by Ozawa says that it is enough to prove that the stabilizers of free
factors are exact ([41, 29], see Corollary 2.8). This allows to argue by induction on the
complexity of the free product decomposition. But in order to carry out this inductive
strategy, we need to understand the more difficult case where F =
6 ∅. Here, we would
like to notice that when F =
6 ∅, the case G = FN is as difficult as the general setting of
Theorem 1.4.
When F =
6 ∅, one can still associate a finite set of relative free factors to any nonarational tree [25]. We also construct sequences of probability measures indexed by
4

arational trees, but instead of being supported on Out(G, F), they live on the (countable)
set Simp of simplices of outer space.
Theorem 1.5. Let G be a countable group, and let F be a free factor system of G.
Then there exists a sequence of Borel maps
µn : PAT → Prob(Simp)
such that for all Φ ∈ Out(G, F) and all T ∈ PAT , one has
||Φ.µn (T ) − µn (Φ.T )||1 → 0
as n goes to +∞.
Using an additional argument, we actually prove that the Out(G, F (t) )-action on AT
is Borel amenable (see Definition 2.7) under the (necessary) additional assumption that
nontrivial peripheral elements have amenable centralizers (see Theorem 6.4).
Since stabilizers of simplices have smaller complexity, Ozawa’s theorem still allows
for an inductive argument. The base cases of the induction correspond to either
• G = G1 ∗ G2 and F = {G1 , G2 }, in which case Out(G, F (t) ) is isomorphic to
G1 /Z(G1 ) × G2 /Z(G2 ), or
• G = G1 ∗ Z and F = {G1 }, in which case Out(G, F (t) ) has an index 2 subgroup
isomorphic to (G1 × G1 )/Z(G1 ).
On the proof of Theorem 1.5. The key geometric feature used in the classical proof
of boundary amenability of a free group FN (more precisely, in the proof that the FN action on its boundary ∂∞ FN is topologically amenable) is that any two rays converging
to a common point in ∂∞ FN have the same tail. The key observation in our proof of
Theorem 1.5 is inspired by this phenomenon. Let T ∈ AT , and let S be a simplicial
(G, F)-tree coming with a morphism f : S → T (see Section 2.1 for definitions). We
define the turning class of f as the set of turns (i.e. pairs of directions) at branch points
in T which lift to S. Our key observation is the following.
Lemma 1.6 (Factorization lemma). Let T ∈ O, let S, S ′ ∈ O, and let f : S → T and
f ′ : S ′ → T be two optimal morphisms having the same turning class.
Then there exists ε > 0 such that if U ∈ O is a tree of covolume at most ε and f factors
through U , then f ′ also factors through U .
The idea of turning classes and its consequences on factorization appear in an unpublished paper by Los–Lustig [35] (where these were called blowup classes).
It is noticeable that here, factorization occurs “on the nose”, while in the proofs of
boundary amenability of hyperbolic groups [41] or mapping class groups [21, 29], one
appeals to averaging arguments on finite collections of rays going to the same boundary
point (in the case of mapping class groups, Kida uses tight geodesics to get this finiteness).
Nevertheless, in our context, we still need a “finite width” statement about the collection
5

of rays going to a given boundary point. This is given by the following important fact,
established in Section 3.2: given t ∈ R, the set St (f ) of all simplices in Simp that contain
a tree of covolume e−t through which the morphism f factors is finite.
Given t ∈ R, we define νt (f ) to be the uniform probability measure on the finite set
St (f ), and we then let
Z
1 2n
νt (f )dLeb(t).
µn (f ) :=
n n
The factorization lemma shows that as long as f and f ′ have the same turning class, we
have µn (f ) = µn (f ′ ) for all sufficiently large n ∈ N.
In the special case where G = FN and F = ∅, and T is an arational FN -tree equipped
with a free action of the free group, there are finitely many directions at branch points in
T , and therefore there are only finitely many possible turning classes for the morphisms
with target T . In this case, we are done by letting µn (T ) be the average of the measures
µn (f ) taken over a finite set of morphisms representing all possible turning classes.
A main difficulty in the paper is that this averaging argument does not work in
general because there are infinitely many turning classes. The rough idea to bypass this
difficulty is to enumerate the possible turning classes in T by giving them “names” in an
Out(G, F)-invariant way. Only finitely many turning classes should share a given name.
We then define µn (T ) by averaging µn (f ) over a finite set of morphisms f whose turning
classes coincide with the set of turning classes having the first possible name.
Our enumeration of turning classes is made differently for geometric and nongeometric trees in AT . If T ∈ AT is nongeometric (in the sense of Levitt–Paulin [34]), then
it can be strongly approximated by trees in O. It follows that there exists a morphism
f : S → T with S ∈ O, such that every turn in T lifts to S. The turning class of f (which
contains all turns) is then our preferred turning class, i.e. the first from the enumeration.
When T is geometric, the band complex that resolves T enables us to analyze a very
particular set of turns that we call ubiquitous. These are defined as turns (d, d′ ) such that
for every nondegenerate segment I ⊆ T , there exists g ∈ G such that gI contains (d, d′ ).
We show in particular that each direction is contained in only finitely many ubiquitous
turns. These turns can therefore be used to define an angle between two directions d, d′
at x by counting the number of overlapping ubiquitous turns at x needed to go from d
to d′ (see Definition 4.16). Using a Whitehead graph argument, we also prove that there
are sufficiently many turns so that the angle between any pair of directions coming from
the same minimal component of the band complex is finite. The “name” of a turning
class is then defined from the angles of the turns it contains.
The above discussion is made formal in the following technical statement, which
is key in our proof of Theorem 1.5. Here AT turn is the set of all turning classes on
arational trees (this space is equipped with a σ-algebra). The symbol ⊥ is a special
name for turning classes that we want to ignore.
Proposition 1.7. There exists a measurable map
Name : AT turn → N ∪ {⊥}
such that
6

• if B is a turning class on a tree T , and λB is the turning class on the tree λT for
some λ > 0 containing the same turns as B, then Name(λB) = Name(B),
• Name is Out(G, F)-invariant, i.e. Name(Φ.B) = Name(B) for all B ∈ AT turn and
all Φ ∈ Out(G, F),
• for all T ∈ AT and all n ∈ N, there are only finitely many turning classes on T
whose name is n, and
• for all T ∈ AT , there exists an optimal morphism with range T whose turning
class with respect to T has a name different from ⊥.
We finish by mentioning that Theorem 1.4 does not yield a concrete compact space
equipped with a topologically amenable action of Out(G, F (t) ). However, in the case
where G is a free group, we describe an explicit such space by unraveling our inductive
argument. This is a metrizable compact space obtained as a product space involving in
particular all boundaries of the relative outer spaces associated to all free factors A ⊆ FN
and all free factor systems of A, and all Gromov boundaries of free factors of FN (see
Section 6.1).
Structure of the paper. The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we review
necessary background on free products and their outer spaces, arational trees, geometric
and nongeometric trees, and general facts concerning boundary amenability of groups.
In Section 3, we prove the factorization lemma (Lemma 1.6). We then define the
probability measures associated to any arational tree, and explain the argument to derive
Theorem 1.5 from Proposition 1.7.
In Section 4, we give names to turning classes on arational trees to prove Proposition 1.7; we treat nongeometric and geometric trees separately.
In Section 5, we complete the proof of our main theorem (Theorem 1.4), and we
explain how to derive boundary amenability of Out(G) when G is either a toral relatively
hyperbolic group or a right-angled Artin group.
In Section 6, we establish two complementary results to our main theorem. First, we
unravel the inductive argument to build an explicit compact metrizable space equipped
with a topologically amenable action of Out(FN ). Second, we prove that if the centralizer
of every nontrivial peripheral element is amenable, then the Out(G, F (t) )-action on AT
is Borel amenable.
Acknowledgments. The second and third author would like to thank Martin Lustig
for explaining to us how turning classes can be used to get factorization results during a
conference held in Carcassonne in Fall 2014, supported by the ANR LAM. All three authors were supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. DMS-1440140
while the authors were in residence at the Mathematical Sciences Research Institute in
Berkeley, California, during the Fall 2016 semester. The first author was supported by
the NSF under Grant No. DMS-1607236. The second author acknowledges support

7

from the Institut Universitaire de France and from the Centre Henri Lebesgue ANR11-LABX-0020 LEBESGUE. The third author acknowledges support from the Agence
Nationale de la Recherche under Grant ANR-16-CE40-0006.

2
2.1

Background
General background on free products

Generalities on free products. Let F := {G1 , . . . , Gk } be a finite collection of
countable groups, and let
G := G1 ∗ · · · ∗ Gk ∗ FN ,
where FN is a free group of rank N . Elements or subgroups of G that are conjugate into
one of the subgroups in F are called peripheral. We define the complexity of (G, F) as
the pair ξ(G, F) := (N + k − 1, N ). We say that (G, F) is sporadic if ξ(G, F) ≤ (1, 1)
which happens exactly if G = G1 , G = Z, G = G1 ∗ G2 , or G = G1 ∗ Z.
A (G, F)-tree is an R-tree T equipped with a G-action, such that every subgroup in
F acts elliptically on T (i.e. it fixes a point in T ). A (G, F)-free splitting is a simplicial
(G, F)-tree with trivial edge stabilizers. A (G, F)-free factor is a subgroup of G that
arises as a point stabilizer in some (G, F)-free splitting. A proper (G, F)-free factor
is a free factor distinct from G and non-peripheral. A (G, F)-free factor system is the
collection of all conjugacy classes of point stabilizers in some (G, F)-free splitting.
A theorem of Kurosh [31] asserts that every subgroup A ⊆ G decomposes as ∗j Hj ∗F ,
where each Hj is conjugate into one of the peripheral subgroups Gi , and F is a free group.
We denote by F|A the collection of all A-conjugacy classes of the subgroups Hj from the
above decomposition of A.
Directions and branch points in trees. A direction d at x in a (G, F)-tree T is a
germ of isometric maps η : [0, ε]R → T with η(0) = x. We say that a subtree Y ⊂ T
contains the direction d if it is represented by a map η whose image is contained in Y .
A turn at a point x ∈ T is a pair (d, d′ ) where d, d′ are two distinct directions at
x (a turn is formally defined an ordered pair, but the ordering will not be important).
The point x is an inversion point if there are exactly two directions at x, and there
exists g ∈ G fixing x and swapping the two directions at x. A branch point x ∈ T is a
point such that T \ {x} has at least 3 connected components. A point that is either a
branch point or an inversion point is called a generalized branch point. Note that in this
paper, inversion points will occur only if one of the factors in F is isomorphic to Z/2Z.
A branch direction in T is a direction based at a branch point.
Outer space and its closure. A (G, F)-tree T is relatively free if every element of
G elliptic in T is conjugate into one of the subgroups in F. A Grushko (G, F)-tree is a
simplicial metric relatively free (G, F)-tree. We note that (G, F) is non-sporadic if and
only if every Grushko tree has at least 2 orbits of edges. The unprojectivized relative

8

outer space O is the space of all G-equivariant isometry classes of Grushko (G, F)trees. We denote by PO the projectivized outer space, where trees are considered up
to homothety instead of isometry. Given a tree S ∈ O, the set of all trees S ′ obtained
by keeping the same underlying simplicial structure but varying the metrics (keeping
all edge lengths positive) projects to an open simplex in PO. We denote by Simp the
countable collection of all these open simplices. Given an open simplex ∆ ∈ Simp, we
˜ the preimage of ∆ in O.
denote by ∆
The closure O of O in the space of all (G, F)-trees (equipped with the Gromov–
Hausdorff topology introduced in [42]) was identified in [24] with the space of all very
small (G, F)-trees, i.e. those trees T for which tripod stabilizers are trivial, and arc
stabilizers are either trivial, or maximally cyclic and nonperipheral (see [9, 4] for free
groups). We will let ∂O := O \ O.
Levitt decomposition of a very small tree. Very small trees with dense G-orbits
have trivial arc stabilizers, see [24, Proposition 4.17]. By [33] (see also [24, Theorem 4.16]
for free products), every tree T ∈ O splits in a unique way as a graph of actions (in the
sense of [33]), such that vertices of this decomposition correspond to orbits of connected
components of the closure of the set of generalized branch points. Edges of this decomposition correspond to orbits of maximal arcs whose interiors contain no generalized
branch points. In particular, vertex groups act with dense orbits on the corresponding
subtree (maybe a point). The Bass—Serre tree of the underlying graph of groups is very
small (maybe trivial). This decomposition is called the Levitt decomposition of T .
Morphisms. Given two trees S, T ∈ O, a morphism f : S → T is a G-equivariant map
such that every segment in S can be subdivided into finitely many subsegments, in such
a way that f is an isometry when restricted to any of these subsegments. We denote by
Mor the space of all morphisms between trees in O, equipped with the Gromov–Hausdorff
topology (see [16, Section 3.2] for a definition of the Gromov–Hausdorff topology on the
set of morphisms). A morphism is optimal if every point x ∈ S is contained in the
interior of a nondegenerate segment Ix such that f|Ix is injective. We denote by Opt the
subspace of Mor consisting of all optimal morphisms. Given subsets σ ⊆ O and τ ⊆ O,
we will denote respectively by Optσ , Opt→τ and Optσ→τ the set of optimal morphisms
whose source tree lies in σ, or whose range tree lies in τ , or both. Given T ∈ O, we will
also use the notation Opt→T for the set of optimal morphisms whose range tree is T .
Lemma 2.1. Let σ ⊆ O and τ ⊆ O be Borel subsets. Then Optσ→τ is a Borel subset of
Mor.
Proof. Since the source and range maps from Mor to O are continuous, it is enough
to check that Opt is a Borel subset of Mor. Since Simp is countable, it is enough to
show that for all ∆ ∈ Simp, letting F∆ ⊆ O be the closure of the subset made of
all trees projecting to ∆, the space OptF∆ is a closed subset of Mor. Let S ∈ F∆ ,
let T ∈ O, let f : S → T be a morphism, and let (fn )n∈N ∈ OptN be a sequence of
optimal morphisms converging to f , with sources in F∆ ; we will prove that f is optimal.
9

Assume not. Then there exists a vertex v ∈ S such that any two segments [v, v1 ] and
[v, v2 ] in S with extremity v have initial subsegments that are identified by f . Since arc
stabilizers in T are either trivial or nonperipheral, this implies that the stabilizer Gv of
v is trivial because S ∈ O. So v has finite valence. In particular, there exists ε > 0
such that we can find subsegments [v, xi ] of length ε on each of the edges ei incident
on v, which are all identified by f . For all n ∈ N, the source Sn of fn is in F∆ . Up
to passing to a subsequence, we can assume that all trees Sn have the same underlying
simplicial tree, and one passes from Sn to S by slightly changing the edge lengths and
collapsing a G-invariant forest. Let Fn be the preimage of v in Sn under the collapse
map. The edges eni incident on Fn in Sn are in natural bijection with the edges ei in S.
For all n ∈ N sufficiently large, any approximation xni of the point xi in Sn given by the
equivariant Gromov–Hausdorff topology lies on the edge eni , any approximation vn of v
lies at distance at most ε/100 from the forest F , and all images fn (xni ) lie in the same
connected component of T \ {fn (vn )}. This implies that there exists a point yn in the
ε/100-neighborhood of Fn such that all directions at yn in Sn are mapped to the same
direction in T by fn . In other words fn is non-optimal, a contradiction.

2.2

Arational trees

A tree T ∈ ∂O is arational if for every proper (G, F)-free factor A, the A-action on
its minimal subtree TA is equivariantly isometric to a Grushko (A, F|A )-tree ([44, 25]).
We denote by AT the subspace of O made of arational trees; we mention that it is
a Borel subset of O, see [25, Lemma 5.5]. Notice that all arational trees have dense
G-orbits. Indeed, a tree T without dense orbits has a nontrivial Levitt decomposition Λ.
Assume first that all edge stabilizers of Λ are trivial. Then if all the vertex stabilizers
of the Levitt decomposition are peripheral, then T is a Grushko tree, contrary to the
assumption T ∈ ∂O. Otherwise, some vertex stabilizer of the Levitt decomposition is
a proper free factor, and its action on its minimal subtree (maybe a point) has dense
orbits, so T is not arational. Finally, if some edge stabilizer of Λ is non-trivial, then some
edge stabilizer of Λ is contained in a proper (G, F)-free factor by [24, Lemma 5.11], so
T is not arational.
Arational surface trees. One can construct examples of arational (G, F)-trees coming from trees that are dual to arational laminations on certain 2-orbifolds. In the
context of free products, arational surface trees were introduced in [25, Section 4.1], and
are defined in the following way (see Figure 1 for an illustration of the construction).
Let Σ be a 2-orbifold with only conical singularities, having s + 1 boundary components c0 , . . . , cs and q conical points cs+1 , . . . , cs+q . Let Γ be a graph of groups having a
central vertex with vertex group isomorphic to π1 (Σ), and k other vertices with vertex
groups isomorphic to the peripheral subgroups Gi . For all j ∈ {1, . . . , s + q}, we choose
a peripheral subgroup Gij , and we amalgamate it with the cyclic subgroup of π1 (Σ)
generated by cj , identifying cj with an element of Gij having the same order (notice that
we allow the case where cj generates Gij , in this case the Bass–Serre tree of Γ may fail

10

c0

c1 = g1

Σ

G1

Gj

Gk
Figure 1: The underlying graph of groups of an arational surface tree.

to be minimal). The boundary curve c0 is left unused. Choices are made so that the
graph Γ is connected, i.e. every peripheral subgroup is joined to the central vertex by an
edge. We assume that the fundamental group of Γ is isomorphic to G, and we choose
such an isomorphism. We now build an action of G on an R-tree from a graph of actions
on Γ as defined in [32] (except that edges are given length 0): choose a π1 (Σ)-action
on an R-tree dual to an arational lamination on Σ; then take a copy Yv of this tree for
each vertex v of the Bass–Serre tree SΓ of Γ that projects to the central vertex of Γ, and
take a point xu for each vertex u of SΓ that does not project to the central vertex; then
for each edge uv of SΓ , glue the point xu to the unique point in Yv that is fixed by the
stabilizer of uv. Every tree obtained by this construction is called an arational surface
tree.
It was proved in [25, Section 4.1] that arational surface trees are indeed arational.
In addition, every arational (G, F)-tree is either relatively free or arational surface: this
was first proved by Reynolds [44] for free groups, and extended to free products in [25,
Lemma 4.6].
Maps towards arational trees. Given T, T ′ ∈ O, the bounded backtracking constant
BBT (f ) of a Lipschitz map f : T → T ′ is the supremum of dT ′ (f (y), [f (x), f (z)]) over
all points x, y, z ∈ T aligned in this order. By [5, Lemma 3.1], [26, Proposition 3.12], if
T ′ is very small and T is a Grushko tree, then for every Lipschitz map f : T → T ′ , we
have BBT (f ) ≤ Lip(f )covol(T ). The following fact extends [27, Corollary 3.9] to the
case of free products.
Lemma 2.2. Let T, T ′ ∈ O, and assume that T ′ has dense orbits.
Then every 1-Lipschitz map f : T ′ → T preserves alignment.
Proof. Assume by contradiction that it does not: there exist x, y, z ∈ T ′ aligned in
this order so that f (y) is at positive distance (which we denote by ε) from [f (x), f (z)].
Since T ′ has dense orbits, it has trivial arc stabilizers, and therefore we can find a
11

sequence of trees Sn ∈ O converging to T ′ and coming with 1-Lipschitz morphisms
fn : Sn → T ′ , see [24, Theorem 5.3]. By postcomposing fn by the map f : T ′ → T , we
get 1-Lipschitz maps gn : Sn → T . The covolumes of the trees Sn converge to 0; since
BBT (gn ) ≤ covol(Sn ), we deduce that BBT (gn ) converges to 0. For all n ∈ N, let xn
(resp. zn ) be an fn -preimage of x (resp. z) in Sn . Then there exists yn ∈ [xn , zn ] such
that fn (yn ) = y. Now we have dT (gn (yn ), [gn (xn ), gn (zn )]) = dT (f (y), [f (x), f (z)]) = ε.
Therefore BBT (gn ) ≥ ε, which contradicts the fact that BBT (gn ) converges to 0.
Lemma 2.3. Let S ∈ O be a tree without dense orbits, let T ∈ AT . If there exists a
1-Lipschitz map from S to T , then S ∈ O.
Proof. Let Λ be the Levitt decomposition of S. If Λ contains an edge with nontrivial
(whence nonperipheral) stabilizer, then there exists an edge e ⊆ Λ whose stabilizer is
a cyclic subgroup Ge which is contained in a proper (G, F)-free factor A. Then Ge is
elliptic in T , so the minimal A-tree in T is not Grushko, contradicting arationality of
T . Therefore Λ only has edges with trivial stabilizer. If Λ has a nonperipheral vertex
stabilizer Gv , then Gv is a proper (G, F)-free factor and acts with dense orbits on its
minimal subtree in S (which can be a point). Since f is 1-Lipschitz, the free factor
Gv acts with dense orbits on its minimal subtree in T (which can be a point), again
contradicting arationality of T . Therefore all vertex stabilizers of Λ are peripheral, in
other words S is a Grushko tree.
Corollary 2.4. Let T ∈ AT , and let T ′ ∈ ∂O. If T ′ 6= T , then there is no morphism
from T ′ to T .
Proof. Assume that there exists a morphism f : T ′ → T . Lemma 2.3 implies that T ′
has dense orbits, and Lemma 2.2 then implies that f preserves alignment. Since every
alignment-preserving morphism is an isometry, we have T ′ = T .

2.3

Geometric and nongeometric trees

Definition of geometric trees. Geometric trees were first defined by Levitt–Paulin
[34], see also [24] for the case of free products. Fix R ∈ O a Grushko tree. Let T ∈ O, let
K ⊆ T be a finite subtree. We construct a band complex ΣK (T, R) in the following way.
Let K = (Kv )v∈R be an equivariant family of subtrees Kv ⊂ T (called base trees) indexed
by vertices v ∈ R, such that for each vertex v, we have Kv = Gv .K ′ for some finite subtree
K ′ ⊂ Kv . We assume that for each edge vv ′ of R, the intersection Kv ∩Kv′ is non-empty.
Starting from the disjoint union of the base trees, the foliated band complex ΣK (T, R)
is obtained by gluing for each edge vv ′ of R a band foliated by vertical segments, joining
the copy of Kv ∩ Kv′ in Kv to its copy in Kv′ . The space of leaves of ΣK (T, R) has a
natural structure of an R-tree TK , see [34]. Notice that since ΣK (T, R) is modeled on
the Grushko tree R, all leaves of ΣK (T, R) are trees. A tree T ∈ O is geometric if there
exists a finite subtree K ⊆ T such that T = TK .
The quotient ΣK (T, R)/G is a compact foliated 2-complex. Indeed, each Kv /Gv is
a finite tree by assumption, there are only finitely many orbits of bands in ΣK (T, R),
12

and each band B in ΣK (T, R) is a product KB × [0, 1] of a finite tree by an interval,
and KB × (0, 1) embeds in the quotient because edges of R have trivial stabilizer (the
quotient map may however fold KB × {0} or KB × {1}). One can then associate to this
foliated 2-complex a system of partial isometries on a finite tree (see [24, Section 3.3]).
This will allow us to apply standard results such as [11].
Characterization using strong limits. Geometric trees can be characterized as
those that do not occur as nonstationary strong limits of trees in O. Precisely, a sequence
of trees Sn ∈ O is a direct system if it comes with a collection of morphisms fnn′ : Sn →
Sn′ (for all n ≤ n′ ) and morphisms fn : Sn → T (for all n ∈ N) making the following
diagram commute:
22
❡❡❡❤❡❤❡❤❡❤q8833 T
❡❡❤❡❤❡❤❡❤❡❤❤❤qqqq
❡
❡
❡
❡
❡
❤
❡
q
❡❡❡❡❡❡ f ❤❤ qqqq
❡❡❡❡❡❡ ❤❤❤❤❤❤❤ n′
q
❡
f
❡
′′
❡
q
❡
n
❡
❤❤
❡❡
qq
❤❤❤❤f
❡❡❡❡f❡❡′
❡
/
/
/
/
′
′′
Sn
Sn′
33 Sn′′
nn
n n
fn

fnn′′

The direct system (Sn )n∈N converges strongly to T if for every finite subtree X ⊆ Sn ,
there exists n′ > n such that fn′ is isometric when restricted to fnn′ (X).
It was proved in [34] that a tree T ∈ O is nongeometric if and only if it is a nonstationary strong limit of a direct system of trees in O (this is proved for finitely presented
groups in [34], but this generalizes without difficulty to any finite free product when the
factors are elliptic). If additionally T is arational, then Corollary 2.4 enables us to add
the requirement that Sn ∈ O, as opposed to being in the boundary of outer space. We
record this in form of the following lemma.
Lemma 2.5. For all T ∈ AT , the following statements are equivalent.
• The tree T is nongeometric.
• There exists a nonstationary direct system of trees (Sn )n∈N ∈ ON that converges
strongly to T .
• For every finite subset F ⊆ G, there exists S ∈ O \ {T } with a morphism S → T
such that ||g||S = ||g||T for all g ∈ F .
Proof. The equivalence between the first two statements follows from [34] as mentioned
above. The second assertion easily implies the third.
Assume that the third assertion holds. We are first going to construct trees with
morphisms S1 → S2 → S3 . . . and morphisms fj : Sj → T without any commutation
requirement. We choose an exhaustion of G by finite subsets B1 ⊂ B2 ⊂ . . . . We
start with S1 ∈ O with any morphism f1 : S1 → T . Assuming that Si has already be
constructed, consider Fi a finite subset of G containing Bi and a finite set of candidates
for Si ; this means that there is a morphism Si → S ′ if and only if ||g||Si ≥ ||g||S ′ for all
13

g ∈ Fi . By assumption, there exist Si+1 with a morphism fi+1 : Si+1 → T such that
||g||Si+1 = ||g||T for all g ∈ Fi . Since ||g||Si ≥ ||g||T = ||g||Si+1 for all g ∈ Fi , there exists
a morphism Si → Si+1 , and our inductive construction is complete.
In order to make the diagram commutative, define fij : Si → T for i ≤ j as the
composition of the map Si → Sj with fj : Sj → T . For every j, the following diagram
commutes by construction:
// Sj
S1 ❯❯❯❯ // S2 PPP // · · ·
❯❯❯❯
❯❯❯❯PPPP j
❯❯❯❯f2 PP
fjj
❯❯❯❯PPP
f1j
❯❯❯P❯P(( 
** T

By diagonal extraction, one can
to fi∞ (in the topology on the
commutes:
S1 ❯❯❯❯

find a subsequence such that for every i, fij converges
set of morphisms) and the following infinite diagram

// · · ·
// Si
// S
❯❯❯❯2 PPPPP
❯❯❯❯ P ∞
❯❯❯f❯2 PP
f∞
❯❯❯P❯PP  i
f1∞
❯❯P❯P**((

// · · ·

T

This gives us a direct system of trees (Si )i∈N with morphisms to T such that for every
finite subset F ⊂ G, there exists i such that ||g||Si = ||g||T for all g ∈ F . It easily follows
that Si converges strongly to T .
Skeleton of a geometric tree. Recall that a transverse family Y in a tree T ∈ O is
a G-invariant collection of nondegenerate subtrees such that any two distinct subtrees in
the collection intersect in at most one point. A tree T ∈ O is indecomposable if it does
not admit any transverse family of non-degenerate subtrees apart from the trivial one
(i.e. Y = {T }). A transverse family in T is a transverse covering if in addition, every
segment in T is covered by finitely many subtrees Y1 , . . . , Yn in Y with Yi ∩ Yi+1 6= ∅ (see
[14, Definition 4.6]). The skeleton of a transverse covering of T is the bipartite simplicial
G-tree S having one vertex vY for each subtree Y in the family (the stabilizer of vY in
S is the stabilizer of Y in T ), and one vertex vx for each point x ∈ T belonging to at
least two subtrees of the family (the stabilizer of vx in S is the stabilizer of x in T ); the
vertex vx is joined to vY by an edge if and only if x ∈ Y .
Every geometric tree with dense orbits has a unique transverse covering by a family
Y of non-degenerate indecomposable subtrees with finitely generated stabilizers, see e.g.
[15, Proposition 1.25]. Moreover, each Y ∈ Y is itself dual to a band complex ΣY such
that ΣY /GY is a finite band complex where every leaf is dense. The skeleton of T is
the skeleton of this transverse covering. The band complexes ΣY are called the minimal
components of Σ.

2.4

Boundary amenability

We now review a construction, due to Ozawa, that allows for an inductive argument to
prove that a discrete countable group Γ is boundary amenable. We first recall the defini14

tion of topological amenability of a group action on a compact space. The space Prob(Γ)
of probability measures on Γ is equipped with the topology of pointwise convergence, or
equivalently, the subspace topology from ℓ1 (Γ).
Definition 2.6 (Topologically amenable action). Let Γ be a group. A continuous Γaction on a compact Hausdorff space X is topologically amenable if there exists a sequence of continuous maps
µn : X → Prob(Γ)
such that for all γ ∈ Γ, one has
sup ||µn (γ.x) − γ.µn (x)||1 → 0

x∈X

as n goes to +∞.
The group Γ is boundary amenable (or exact) if it admits a topologically amenable
action on a compact Hausdorff space.
In particular, the trivial action of Γ on a point is topologically amenable if and only
if Γ is amenable. There is a similar notion in the Borel category, see [28, Definition 2.11].
Definition 2.7 (Borel amenable action). A Γ-action on a Borel space X is Borel
amenable if there exists a sequence of Borel maps
µn : X → Prob(Γ)
such that for all γ ∈ Γ and all x ∈ X, one has
||µn (γ.x) − γ.µn (x)||1 → 0
as n goes to +∞.
For a continuous action on a compact Hausdorff space, the two definitions are equivalent (see [43] or Remark 2.9 below).
The inductive procedure for proving that a group is exact.
Proposition 2.8. (Ozawa [41, Proposition 11]) Let Γ be a countable group, let X, Y
be two compact Hausdorff spaces equipped with continuous Γ-actions, and let K be a
countable discrete space equipped with a Γ-action. Assume that there exists a sequence
of Borel maps
µn : X → Prob(K)
such that for all γ ∈ Γ and all x ∈ X, one has
||µn (γ.x) − γ.µn (x)||1 → 0
as n goes to +∞. Assume in addition that for all k ∈ K, the restriction of the Γ-action
on Y to the stabilizer Stab(k) ⊆ Γ is a topologically amenable Stab(k)-action.
Then the Γ-action on the compact space X × Y is topologically amenable, in particular
Γ is exact.
15

Remark 2.9. The proposition implies that if X is compact Hausdorff, and Γ y X is
Borel amenable then it is topologically amenable by taking K = Γ and Y a point.
Proof of Proposition 2.8. The statement given in [41, Proposition 11] requires the convergence
||µn (γ.x) − γ.µn (x)||1 → 0
to be uniform in x, but the proof only requires that
Z
||µn (γ.x) − γ.µn (x)||1 dm(x) → 0
X

for all probability measures m on X and all γ ∈ Γ, see also [6, Proposition 5.2.1]. By
noticing that ||µn (γ.x) − γ.µn (x)||1 ≤ 2 and using Lebesgue’s dominated convergence
theorem, this hypothesis can be replaced by pointwise convergence.
The following consequence of Proposition 2.8 is established in [29, Proposition C.1],
by noticing that the restricted action of any exact subgroup of Γ on the Stone–Čech
compactification βΓ is topologically amenable.
Corollary 2.10. (Ozawa, Kida [29, Proposition C.1]) Let Γ be a countable group, let
X be a compact Hausdorff space equipped with a continuous Γ-action, and let K be a
countable space equipped with a Γ-action. Assume that there exists a sequence of Borel
maps
µn : X → Prob(K)
such that for all γ ∈ Γ and all x ∈ X, one has
||µn (γ.x) − γ.µn (x)||1 → 0
as n goes to +∞. Assume in addition that for all k ∈ K, the stabilizer Stab(k) ⊆ Γ is
exact.
Then Γ is exact.
Arguing as in [41, Proposition 11] without the hypothesis that X is compact, one also
gets that the analogous statement holds in the context of Borel actions. In particular,
we get the following.
Proposition 2.11. Let Γ be a countable group, let X be a space equipped with a continuous Γ-action, and let K be a countable space equipped with a Γ-action. Assume that
there exists a sequence of Borel maps
µn : X → Prob(K)
such that for all γ ∈ Γ and all x ∈ X, one has
||µn (γ.x) − γ.µn (x)||1 → 0
as n goes to +∞. Assume in addition that for all k ∈ K, the stabilizer Stab(k) ⊆ Γ is
amenable.
Then the Γ-action on X is Borel amenable.
16

Stability under subgroups. The following well-known fact says that boundary amenability is stable under passing to subgroups. It can be viewed as a consequence of Ozawa’s
result (Proposition 2.8), applied with K = Γ and Y a point.
Corollary 2.12. Let Γ be a countable group, let ∆ ⊆ Γ be a subgroup, and let X be a
compact Hausdorff space equipped with a topologically amenable Γ-action.
Then the ∆-action on X obtained by restriction of the Γ-action is topologically amenable,
so in particular ∆ is exact.
In particular, every point stabilizer for the Γ-action on X is amenable.
Remark 2.13. The same statement applies in the Borel category. In particular, if the
Γ-action on X is Borel amenable, then every point stabilizer in Γ is amenable.
Stability under extensions.

This was proved by Kirchberg–Wassermann in [30].

Proposition 2.14 (Kirchberg–Wassermann [30]). Any extension of two countable exact
groups is exact.
If one wants to keep track of spaces, one can use Ozawa’s result to prove the following.
Corollary 2.15. Let
1→H→Γ→Q→1
be a short exact sequence of countable groups. Let X be a compact Hausdorff space
equipped with a continuous Q-action, and Y be a compact Hausdorff space equipped with
a continuous Γ-action. Assume that the action Q y X and the restricted action H y Y
are topologically amenable.
Then the Γ-action on X × Y is topologically amenable (where the Γ-action on X is the
one factoring through Q).
Proof. Since the Q-action on X is topologically amenable, there exists a sequence of
Borel maps
µn : X → Prob(Q)
such that for all x ∈ X and all γ ∈ Γ, we have
||µn (γ.x) − γ.µn (x)||1 → 0
as n goes to +∞. The corollary then follows from Proposition 2.8 applied to K = Q.
Stability under finite-index overgroups. The following well-known easy fact implies that boundary amenability is a commensurability invariant; its proof is left to the
reader.
Proposition 2.16. Let Γ be a group, and let X be a compact Hausdorff space equipped
with a continuous Γ-action. Let Γ0 be a finite index subgroup of Γ, such that the Γ0 action on X is topologically amenable.
Then the Γ-action on X is topologically amenable.
17

Quotient by an amenable subgroup.
Proposition 2.17 (Nowak [37]). Let G be a countable group, and N ⊳ G an amenable
normal subgroup. Then G is exact if and only if G/N is exact.
In particular, G is exact if and only if G/Z(G) is exact.
Proof. One implication follows from stability under extension. The other implication
was proved in [37]. This is stated for G finitely generated but extends to the general
case since exactness is closed under increasing unions.

3
3.1

Scheme of the proof
Turning classes and the factorization lemma

The following definition, which is central in the present work, was inspired by a preprint
of Los–Lustig [35] (where it is called a blow-up class). Recall that a turn at a point x in
a tree T is a pair (d, d′ ) where d, d′ are two distinct directions at x.
Definition 3.1 (Turning class). Let T ∈ O. A turning class in T is a G-invariant
collection of turns at the branch points of T .
An important example of turning classes is the following. Given a morphism f : S →
T , recall that a subtree Y ⊆ S is legal if f is an isometry when restricted to Y . A turn
(d, d′ ) in S based at x ∈ S is legal if there exist small intervals [x, y], [x, y ′ ] representing
respectively the directions d, d′ such that the interval [y, x] ∪ [x, y ′ ] is legal.
Definition 3.2 (Turning class of a morphism). Let S ∈ O, let T ∈ O, and let f : S → T
be an optimal morphism.
The turning class of f is the collection of all orbits of turns (d, d′ ) at branch points of T
such that there exists a legal segment I ⊆ S whose f -image crosses the turn (d, d′ ).
The first important ingredient in our proof of boundary amenability of Out(G, F (t) )
is the following factorization lemma.
Lemma 3.3 (Factorization lemma). Let S, S ′ ∈ O, let T ∈ O with trivial arc stabilizers,
and let f : S → T and f ′ : S ′ → T be optimal morphisms. Assume that f and f ′ have
the same turning class.
Then there exists ε > 0 such that whenever U ∈ O is a tree such that f ′ factors through
U , and such that the induced morphism fU′ : U → T has BBT smaller than ε, then f
also factors through U .
Remark 3.4. It is actually enough to assume that the turning class of f is contained in
the turning class of f ′ .
Remark 3.5. The hypothesis BBT (fU′ ) < ε can be replaced by the assumption that the
volume of the quotient graph U/G is at most ε: indeed, the Lipschitz constant of the
morphism fU′ is equal to 1, so we have BBT (fU′ ) ≤ vol(U/G) by [5, Lemma 3.1] or [26,
Proposition 3.12].
18

Proof. We say that a nondegenerate legal segment I ⊆ S is S ′ -liftable if its image
in T lifts isometrically to S ′ , i.e. there exists an f ′ -legal segment I ′ ⊆ S ′ such that
f (I) = f ′ (I ′ ).
Claim 1: There exists ε0 > 0 such that
• every point in S is the midpoint of an S ′ -liftable legal segment of length 2ε0 ,
• for every vertex v of finite valence in S, every legal segment of length 2ε0 centered
at v is S ′ -liftable,
• for every vertex v of infinite valence in S and every legal interval I of length ε0 with
endpoint v, there exists a nontrivial element g ∈ Gv such that I ∪ gI is S ′ -liftable
(here Gv is the stabilizer of the vertex v).
Proof: We first observe that for every x ∈ S, every nondegenerate legal segment I in
S centered at x contains a nondegenerate S ′ -liftable subsegment centered at x. Indeed,
the turn in T defined by the image of the two directions at x in I is either based at a
point of valence 2 in T , or else it is contained in the turning class of f , hence of f ′ . So
there exists a neighborhood Vx ⊆ I of x in I whose image in T lifts isometrically to S ′ .
The second assertion of the claim follows immediately since there are only finitely
many turns involved. To prove the third, let e be an edge incident on a vertex v of
infinite valence in S. Let g 6= 1 be an arbitrary element of Gv . The turn (e, ge) is legal
because T has trivial arc stabilizers. Applying the above observation shows that there
exists ε0 > 0 such that the ε0 -neighborhood of v in the segment e ∪ ge is S ′ -liftable. The
third assertion follows because there are only finitely many orbits of edges.
We now prove the first assertion. Let l be the minimal length of an edge in S.
Since f is optimal, we can find legal segments J1 , . . . , Jk obtained by concatenation of
two edges of S such that the orbit of every point in S intersects some Ji in a point at
distance at least l/10 from ∂Ji . We are going to use a compactness argument in the
disjoint union J1 ⊔ . . . ⊔ Jk . For every i ∈ {1, . . . , k} and every x ∈ Ji , the observation
made in the first paragraph of the proof provides a neighborhood Vx of x in Ji that is
S ′ -liftable. Let ε1 be a Lebesgue number for this open covering of J1 ⊔ . . . ⊔ Jk . Without
loss of generality, we can assume that ε1 < l/10. Since every orbit meets one of the segments Ji at distance at most l/10 from ∂Ji , this proves the first assertion with ε0 = ε1 /2.
fU′

Let now U ∈ O be a tree such that there exist morphisms fS′ ′ U : S ′ → U and
: U → T , with BBT (fU′ ) ≤ ε0 /100, such that the following diagram commutes:
S′

fS′ ′ U

// U

′
fU

//66 T.

f′

We are going to define a map fSU from S to U in the following way. We first note
that any S ′ -liftable segment is U -liftable. Now given x ∈ S, choose I a U -liftable legal
19

segment of length 2ε0 centered at x, and choose a lift I˜ of f (I) in U (which naturally
˜ we want to map x to the midpoint of I.
˜ We will
comes with an isometry j : I → I);
prove that this definition is independent of choices, and that this defines an optimal
morphism from S to U . It will then be obvious that f factors through this map.
Claim 2: If I ⊆ S is an S ′ -liftable segment of length greater than 2ε0 /100, and if
I˜1 and I˜2 are two lifts of f (I) in U , then the isometries j1 : I → I˜1 and j2 : I → I˜2
coincide on the complement of the ε0 /100-neighborhood of the endpoints of I.
Proof: Note that for all x ∈ I, the points j1 (x) and j2 (x) have the same fU′ -image in
T . Write I = [a, b]. Let x ∈ I be a point at distance greater than ε0 /100 from ∂I. For
all i ∈ {1, 2}, we denote by ai , bi , xi the ji -images of a, b, x. Let us prove that x1 = x2 .
If x1 6= x2 , then x1 ∈
/ I˜2 and x2 ∈
/ I˜1 because x1 and x2 have the same image in T , and
˜
both segments Ii embed in T . It follows that x1 lies in [a1 , a2 ] or [b1 , b2 ] (say [a1 , a2 ]):
indeed, if [a1 , a2 ] ∪ [b1 , b2 ] differs from K = Hull(a1 , a2 , b1 , b2 ), then the complement of
[a1 , a2 ] ∪ [b1 , b2 ] in K is contained in [a1 , b1 ] ∩ [a2 , b2 ], which cannot contain x1 . However
fU′ (a1 ) = fU′ (a2 ), while dT (fU′ (x1 ), fU′ (a1 )) = dU (x1 , a1 ) > BBT (fU′ ) by assumption,
contradicting the definition of the BBT.
Claim 3: Let v be a vertex of infinite valence in S, and let ṽ be the point fixed by
Gv in U . Let I ⊆ S be a legal segment that contains v, and such that v is at distance
at least 2ε0 /100 from ∂I. Then any lift of I to U passes through ṽ.
Proof: Write I = I1 ∪ I2 , where I1 and I2 are two segments of length at least 2ε0 /100
with endpoint v. By Claim 1, there exists an element g1 6= 1 in Gv such that I1 ∪ g1 I1 is
S ′ -liftable (hence U -liftable); let I1∗ := g1 I1 , and J˜1 be a lift of I1 ∪ I1∗ in U with an isometry j1 : I1 ∪ I1∗ → J˜1 , and let I˜1 = j1 (I1 ), I˜1∗ = j1 (I1∗ ). Denote by m the midpoint of I˜1 .
Notice that g1 I˜1 is also a lift of I1∗ = g1 I1 in U , so by Claim 2 it has the same midpoint
as I˜1∗ . In other words g1 sends the midpoint of I˜1 to the midpoint of I˜1∗ . Therefore, the
common endpoint of I˜1 and I˜1∗ (which is also the midpoint of [m, g1 m]) is equal to ṽ.
This shows that I1 has a lift in U with endpoint ṽ, and by symmetry I2 also has a lift
in U with endpoint ṽ. Their concatenation gives a lift I˜ of I in U that contains ṽ, and
˜ Claim 2 then implies that all lifts of
such that ṽ is at distance at least 2ε0 /100 from ∂ I.
I in U pass through ṽ, so Claim 3 is proved.
Let now x ∈ S, and let I1 and I2 be two segments of length ε0 centered at x.
We are left showing that if j1 : I1 → I˜1 and j2 : I2 → I˜2 are lifts of I1 and I2 in U , then
j1 (x) = j2 (x). The fact that fSU is locally isometric when restricted to legal segments,
hence an optimal morphism, will then follow from Claim 2. From now on, we will assume
that ε0 has been chosen smaller than the lengths of the edges of S and small enough
so that if two directions d1 , d2 form an illegal turn at a vertex v ∈ S, then there are
subsegments [v, x1 ] ⊆ d1 and [v, x2 ] ⊆ d2 of length at least ε0 that have the same image
in T : this is possible because there are only finitely many orbits of illegal turns in S,
otherwise T would have nontrivial arc stabilizers.
If x is at distance at least ε0 /100 from all branch points of S, then I1 and I2 contain

20

a common subsegment of length 2ε0 /100 centered at x, and it follows from Claim 2 that
all lifts j1 : I1 → I˜1 and j2 : I2 → I˜2 in U have the same midpoint.
We can thus assume that x is at distance at most ε0 /100 from some branch point
v of S. We write I1 = J1 ∪ J1∗ with J1 ∩ J1∗ = {v}, and x ∈ J1 . Similarly, we write
I2 = J2 ∪ J2∗ with J2 ∩ J2∗ = {v}, and x ∈ J2 (in particular J1 = J2 ). If the tripod
formed by J1 , J1∗ and J2∗ is illegal, then the hypothesis we made on ε0 ensures that I1
and I2 have the same image in T , and hence they have common lifts in U . The result
then follows as above from Claim 2. We now assume that this tripod is legal.
For all i ∈ {1, 2}, denote by mi , m∗i the midpoints of Ji , Ji∗ respectively, and let m̃i , m̃∗i
be their images in I˜i . Since all three segments J1 , J1∗ and J2∗ have length at least 2ε0 /100,
Claim 2 implies that for all i ∈ {1, 2}, the lifts m̃i and m̃∗i do not depend on the choice of
a lift I˜i of Ii , and in addition m̃1 = m̃2 . Denote by c̃ the center of the tripod [m̃1 , m̃∗1 , m̃∗2 ]
in U . To complete the proof, it is enough to check that dU (m̃1 , c̃) ≥ dS (m1 , v), because
this implies that the images of x in I˜1 and in I˜2 are the same. If v has finite valence, this
follows from the second assertion of Claim 1 which implies that J1∗ ∪ J2∗ is also U -liftable
and contains [m∗1 , m∗2 ], so that (m̃1 , m̃∗1 , m̃∗2 ) is an isometric lift of (m1 , m∗1 , m∗2 ). If v
has infinite valence, then this is a consequence of Claim 3, showing that I˜1 and I˜2 both
contain the point ṽ of U fixed by Gv so ṽ ∈ [m̃1 , c̃].

3.2

Probability measures associated to a morphism

Given a morphism f : S → T from a simplicial metric tree S ∈ O to an R-tree T ∈ AT ,
and a real number t, we let St (f ) be the collection of all simplices ∆ ∈ Simp such
that there exists a tree U ∈ O of covolume e−t , whose image in PO is contained in ∆,
such that f factors through U . The goal of the present section is to associate to the
morphism f a sequence of probability measures µn (f ) on Simp, obtained by averaging
uniform measures on the sets St (f ). The key proposition we need to establish is the
following.
Proposition 3.6. Let T ∈ AT , let S ∈ O, and let f : S → T be a morphism.
Then for all t ∈ R, the set St (f ) is finite.
Before proving the proposition, we will prove two preliminary lemmas. Given a tree
S ∈ O, we define the systole of S as the smallest translation length in S of a nonperipheral
element of G.
Lemma 3.7. Let T ∈ O be a tree with trivial arc stabilizers. Let f : S → T be a
morphism, and let (Ui )i∈N ∈ ON be a sequence of trees of systole at least λ such that f
factors through all trees Ui .
Then the set of simplices in Simp to which the trees Ui project is finite.
Proof. Assume by contradiction that the set of simplices spanned by {Ui }i∈N is infinite.
Let fi : S → Ui be such that f factors through fi . Consider the fi -preimage Vi ⊂ S of
the set of vertices of Ui .
We claim that for each edge e of S, #(e ∩ Vi ) is bounded. Otherwise, there exists
oriented subedges I, J ⊂ e (bounded by points in Vi ) that are at distance at most λ/2
21

from one another and whose images in Ui are two oriented edges in the same orbit under
some element gi . Since fi is an isometry when restricted to e, the translation length of gi
in Ui is positive and at most λ/2, contradicting our the hypothesis on the systole. This
proves the claim.
Up to passing to a subsequence, we can therefore assume that the combinatorics of
the subdivision defined by Vi does not depend on i. We denote by S 0 this combinatorial
tree.
For each i ∈ N, choose a pair of adjacent edgelets folded by fi , and let Si1 be the
combinatorial tree obtained by folding these two edgelets together. We claim that only
finitely many combinatorial trees Si1 appear. Otherwise, there exist two edgelets e, e′ ⊂ S
sharing a vertex v, and infinitely many elements gi ∈ Gv such that e is identified with
gi e′ . Note that the precise (metric) subsegment of S corresponding to e depends on i.
We denote by E, E ′ the edges of S (for its natural set of vertices) containing e and e′
respectively (E and E ′ do not depend on i). Then f (E) and f (gi E ′ ) share a common
subsegment, so for all i, j ∈ N, the element gi gj−1 fixes an arc in T , a contradiction.
Thus, up to extracting a subsequence, we can assume that Si1 = S 1 does not depend
on i (as a combinatorial tree). We now assume that we have constructed by induction
combinatorial trees S 1 , S 2 , . . . , S k such that for all j < k, the tree S j+1 is obtained
from S j by folding two edgelets, and such that for each i, fi factors through these folds.
A coherent set of metrics on S 0 , S 1 , . . . , S k is a metric for each S j such that S 0 becomes
isometric to S, and each S j → S j+1 is a morphism. By induction we will also have that
for each i there exists a coherent set of metrics such that fi : S → Ui factors through
S 1 , . . . , S k , hence so does f : S → T .
To construct S k+1 , for each i ∈ N, choose a pair of adjacent edgelets of S k folded by
fi (they exist for infinitely many i because we assume that the set of simplices spanned
by {Ui }i∈N is infinite). For each i, let Sik+1 be the combinatorial tree obtained by folding
these two edgelets together. As above, we claim that only finitely many combinatorial
trees Sik+1 appear. Indeed, if not, there exist two edgelets e, e′ ⊂ S k sharing a vertex
v, and infinitely many elements gi ∈ Gv such that e is identified with gi e′ . Let Ẽ, Ẽ ′
be natural edges of S containing a preimage of e and e′ respectively. Then f (Ẽ) and
f (gi Ẽ ′ ) share a common subsegment. Since gi ∈ Gv and arc stabilizers of T are trivial,
there are at most 4 indices i such that f (Ẽ) ∩ gi f (Ẽ ′ ) is non-degenerate, a contradiction.
This proves the claim and allows to construct S k+1 .
This allows to construct an infinite sequence of trees S 1 , . . . , S k , . . . . Since S j has
fewer orbits of edgelets than S j−1 , this is a contradiction. This completes the proof of
the lemma.
Lemma 3.8. There exist K, K ′ > 0 such that for every λ > 0, the following holds.
Let U ∈ O be a tree of systole at least λ > 0, and let f : U → U ′ be a morphism with
λ
vol(U ′ /G) ≥ vol(U/G) − K
.
′
Then the systole of U is at least λ/K ′ .
Proof. Let g ∈ G be an element which is hyperbolic in U ′ . Its axis l in U contains an
edge of length at least λ/4N , where N is the number of orbits of edges of U . Otherwise, l
22

would contain two oriented edges in the same orbit, and separated by at most 2N edges,
so S would have a hyperbolic element of translation length at most λ/2, a contradiction.
Let e be an edge in l of length at least λ/4N , and let K = 16N , and K ′ = 8N . Let
[u, v] ⊂ e be the central subsegment of length λ/8N , oriented so that u, v, gu are in this
λ
order. Since vol(U ′ /G) ≥ vol(U/G) − 16N
, no point in [u, v] is identified with any other
point in U . In particular, f ([v, gu]) ∩ f ([u, v]) = {f (v)} and f ([g −1 v, u]) ∩ f ([u, v]) =
{f (u)}. This implies that g −1 f (v), f (u), f (v), gf (u) are aligned in this order in U ′ .
Therefore [f (u), f (v)] is contained in a fundamental domain of the axis of g in U ′ , so
||g||U ′ ≥ λ/8N .
Proof of Proposition 3.6. Assume towards a contradiction that St (f ) is infinite for some
t ∈ R. Given a set of trees U ⊂ O, we denote by Simp(U ) ⊂ Simp the set of simplices
obtained by forgetting the metric on the trees in U .
Let U0 be the set of trees of covolume e−t through which f factors. By assumption,
the set Simp(U0 ) is infinite. We denote by ∆0 the simplex containing S. For each U ∈ U0 ,
we let SU,0 := S, and we choose a morphism fU,0 : S → U through which f factors.
For every i ∈ N, we are going to define inductively (see Figure 2) a simplex ∆i , real
numbers vi > e−t , λi > 0, a set of trees Ui ⊆ Ui−1 , and for each U ∈ Ui , a tree SU,i
projecting to ∆i and a morphism fU,i : SU,i → U such that the following holds:
• Simp(Ui ) is infinite,
• vol(SU,i /G) ≤ vi and systole(SU,i ) ∈ [λi , 2λi ] for all U ∈ Ui ,
• fU,i−1 : SU,i−1 → U factors through fU,i : SU,i → U .
We take for v0 and λ0 the covolume and the systole of S.
Let vi+1 = vi − λKi , where K is the integer from Lemma 3.8. If e−t ≥ vi+1 , then
Lemma 3.8 implies that the systole of the trees in Ui is bounded from below. Thus
Lemma 3.7 implies that Simp(Ui ) is finite, a contradiction.
Thus e−t < vi+1 , so for each U ∈ Ui , one can choose a tree SU,i+1 of covolume
vi+1 through which fU,i factors, and let fU,i+1 : SU,i+1 → U be the induced morphism.
Lemma 3.8 implies that the systole of the trees SU,i+1 is bounded from below as U
varies in Ui . Lemma 3.7 shows that Simp(SU,i+1 ) is finite. Let ∆i+1 be a simplex such
˜ i+1 for all trees U in a set U ′ ⊂ Ui with Simp(U ′ ) infinite. By the
that SU,i+1 ∈ ∆
i+1
i+1
′
pigeonhole principle, there exists λi+1 > 0 such that the set Ui+1 of trees U ∈ Ui+1
such
that systole(SU,i+1 ) ∈ [λi+1 , 2λi+1 ] is such that Simp(Ui+1 ) is infinite. This concludes
our inductive construction.
Since vi+1 = vi − λi /K and vi ≥ e−t for all i, we have λi → 0. Consider for each
i ∈ N, Ui ∈ Ui . The tree SUi ,j is defined for i ≥ j. Its length function is bounded from
below by the length function of T , and bounded from above because vol(SUi ,j /G) ≤ vj .
Therefore, up to diagonal extraction of a subsequence, we can assume that for each j,
SUi ,j converges to a tree S∞,j ∈ O. By continuity of the systole and the covolume on
˜ j , we have systole(S∞,j ) ≤ 2λj , and vol(S∞,j /G) ≥ e−t . There are
the closure of ∆
1-Lipschitz maps S∞,j → S∞,j+1 and S∞,j → T . The trees S∞,j converge to some
23

fU ′ ,i−1

U′

SU ′ ,i−1
S
SU,i−1

SU,i

∆i−1

∆i

fU,i
U
Ui
Ui−1
T

St (f )

Figure 2: The construction from the proof of Proposition 3.6. The corners in the simplices are drawn to represent the subspace made of trees with a systole bounded from
below.

tree S∞,∞ as j → ∞ and there is a 1-Lipschitz map S∞,∞ → T . By semi-continuity
of the volume, we have vol(S∞,∞ /G) ≥ e−t , so Lemma 2.3 implies that S∞,∞ is a
Grushko tree. In particular, the systole of S∞,∞ is positive and bounds 2λj from below,
a contradiction.
Remark 3.9. Notice that the same proof would also have worked if in the definition of
St (f ), we had replaced the condition that the covolume of U is equal to e−t by the
condition that this covolume is at least e−t .
Notice also that for all t sufficiently large (so that the source of f has covolume at
least e−t ), the set St (f ) is nonempty.
Fix an arational tree T ∈ AT and f ∈ Opt→T an optimal morphism with range
T . For all t > 0 such that St (f ) is nonempty, we let νt (f ) be the uniform probability
measure on the finite set St (f ). For all n ∈ N, we then define a probability measure
µn (f ) by letting
Z
1 2n
µn (f ) :=
νt (f )dLeb(t)
n n
if Se−n (f ) 6= ∅, and otherwise we just let µn (f ) be some fixed probability measure µ0 on
Simp. As a consequence of the factorization lemma (Lemma 3.3, see also Remark 3.5),
if f, g ∈ Opt→T have the same turning class, then St (f ) = St (g) for all sufficiently large
t, and therefore we obtain the following fact.

24

Corollary 3.10. Let T ∈ AT be an arational tree. Let f, g ∈ Opt→T be two optimal
morphisms with range T and having the same turning class.
Then µn (f ) = µn (g) for all sufficiently large n ∈ N.
In the sequel, in order to have an action of Out(G, F) on a compact space, we will
need to work with projective classes of trees instead of isometry classes of trees. The
next lemma will ensure that the measures µn do not depend too strongly on a choice
of representative in a projective class. Given a tree T ∈ O and λ > 0, we denote by
λ.T the tree obtained from T by dilating the metric by λ. Given an optimal morphism
f : S → T , we let λf : λ.S → λ.T be the corresponding morphism.
Lemma 3.11. Let T ∈ AT , f ∈ Opt→T , and let λ > 0.
Then ||µn (f ) − µn (λ.f )||1 → 0 as n goes to +∞.
Proof. We have
µn (λ.f ) =
=

Z
1 2n
νt (λ.f )dLeb(t)
n n
Z
1 2n
νt+log λ (f )dLeb(t).
n n

Therefore
1
µn (λ.f ) − µn (f ) =
n

Z

2n+log λ

2n

1
ν (f )dLeb(t ) −
n
′

t′

so
||µn (f ) − µn (λ.f )||1 ≤

Z

n+log λ

νt′ (f )dLeb(t′ ),

n

2| log λ|
n

and the conclusion follows.
As a consequence of Corollary 3.10 and Lemma 3.11, we obtain the following fact.
Corollary 3.12. Let T ∈ AT and consider f, g ∈ Opt→T two morphisms having the
same turning class, and let λ > 0.
Then ||µn (f ) − µn (λ.g)||1 → 0 as n goes to +∞.
Lemma 3.13. For every n ∈ N, the map µn : Opt→AT → Prob(Simp) is Borel.
Proof. Given τ ∈ Simp, let Zτ ⊂ R × Opt→AT be defined by
Zτ = {(t, f ) ∈ R × Opt→AT | τ ∈ St (f )}.
It suffices to prove that Zτ is Borel since this implies that the map
ν : R × (Opt→AT ) → Prob(Simp)
sending (t, f ) to νt (f ) is Borel, and the lemma follows.
25

Given a simplex σ ∈ Simp and ε, v > 0, denote by σ̃v,ε the subset of unprojectivized
outer space O defined as the closure of the set of trees projecting to σ, with covolume at
most v, and systole at least ε. This is a compact set and the space Optσ̃v,ε of all optimal
morphisms f : S → T with S ∈ σ̃v,ε and T arbitrary is compact. Indeed, the bound on
the covolume bounds the length functions of S and T from above, and it suffices to check
that the length function of T cannot accumulate to 0. Now there is a finite set F ⊂ G of
non-peripheral elements such that for all f ∈ Optσ̃v,ε , there exists some element g ∈ F
whose axis in S is legal (see the proof of [26, Theorem 4.7]), so lT (g) = lS (g) is bounded
from below by the systole of S which is at least ε.
Let us now prove that Zτ is Borel. Since there are countably many simplices, it
suffices to prove that for each n ∈ N and every v, ε > 0, the set
 n
o

Z ′ = Zτ ∩ [−n, n] × Optσ̃v,ε →AT = (t, f ) ∈ [−n, n] × Optσ̃v,ε →AT | τ ∈ St (f )
is Borel. Let τ̃ ⊂ O be the set of trees whose projective class lies in τ . Given δ > 0, let
Xτ,δ be the subset of [−n, n] × Optσ̃v,ε × Optσ̃v,ε →τ̃ × Optτ̃ made of all tuples (t, f, g, h)
such that f = h ◦ g, the covolume of the source of h equals e−t , and the systole of the
source of h is equal to or larger than δ. We note that f, g, h belong to the compact
spaces Optσ̃v,ε , Optσ̃v,ε →τ̃ and Optτ̃e−t ,δ , respectively. Since composition is continuous,
and since the covolume and systole are continuous functions on τ̃ , the set Xτ,δ is compact.
′ be the projection of X
Let Xτ,δ
τ,δ to the first two coordinates. Then
Z′ =

[

k∈N

′
Xτ,
1 ∩ ([−n, n] × Opt→AT ),
k

and therefore Z ′ is Borel.
Remark 3.14. In the case where G = FN and F = ∅, if T is an arational tree equipped
with a free action of FN , then there are only finitely many possible turning classes in
T . By averaging the measures µn associated to a finite set of morphisms representing
all possible turning classes of T achieved by morphisms, we get a sequence of measures
showing that the action of Out(FN ) on the space of free arational FN -trees is amenable.
The goal of the rest of the paper is to understand the general case where some vertices
in the trees T we consider have infinite valence, which implies that T has infinitely many
turning classes.

3.3

Measurability considerations

This technical section gives tools to prove some measurability properties. It can be
omitted in a first reading if the reader wishes to ignore all measurability considerations.
3.3.1

Measurable enumeration of directions in trees

Let {(g, h)i }i∈N be an enumeration of G2 . Given T ∈ O, we say that (g, h) ∈ G2 is
a disjoint pair for T if g and h are both hyperbolic in T , and their axes are disjoint.
26

Given n ∈ N and T ∈ O, we let (gn (T ), hn (T )) be the nth pair of elements in the above
enumeration that is a disjoint pair for T .
Lemma 3.15. For all n ∈ N and all (g, h) ∈ G2 , the set
Bn,g,h := {T ∈ O|(gn (T ), hn (T )) = (g, h)}
is a Borel subset of O.
Proof. It is well-known (see [10, 1.8]) that (g, h) is a disjoint pair for T if and only if
||g||T , ||h||T > 0 and ||gh||T > ||g||T + ||h||T , an open condition. The fact that (g, h) is
the nth disjoint pair in the enumeration can be expressed a boolean combination of such
open sets. Therefore Bn,g,h is a Borel set.
Given g ∈ G and T ∈ O such that g is hyperbolic in T , we denote by Cg (T ) the axis
of g in T . Given a disjoint pair (g, h) ∈ G2 for T , we define v(g,h) (T ) as the endpoint
in Cg (T ) of the bridge joining Cg (T ) to Ch (T ). We also define d(g,h) (T ) as the branch
direction at v(g,h) (T ) pointing towards Ch (T ). Given n ∈ N, we then let vn (T ) :=
v(gn (T ),hn (T )) (T ) and dn (T ) := d(gn (T ),hn (T )) (T ), and we let vn′ (T ) := v(hn (T ),gn (T )) (T ).
In particular dn (T ) is the direction based at vn (T ) pointing towards vn′ (T ). Notice that
for any branch direction d in T , there exists n ∈ N such that d = dn (T ). Similarly, any
branch point arises as vn (T ) for some n ∈ N, see [42].
Lemma 3.16. For all n, m ∈ N, and g ∈ G, the maps T 7→ dT (vn (T ), gvm (T )) and
T 7→ dT (vn (T ), Cg (T )) are Borel.
Proof. Let Xn (T ) := {gn (T ), gn (T )hn (T ), hn (T )gn (T )}. The branch point vn (T ) can be
defined as the unique point in the intersection of the axes of the elements in Xn (T ). It
follows that
dT (vn (T ), gvm (T )) = max{dT (Cα (T ), Cβ (T ))|α ∈ Xn (T ), β ∈ Xm (T )g }
and that
dT (vn (T ), Cg (T )) = max{dT (Cα (T ), Cg (T ))|α ∈ Xn (T )}.
Since dT (Cα (T ), Cβ (T )) =

1
2

max{0, ||αβ||T − ||α||T − ||β||T }, the lemma follows.

Lemma 3.17. For all n, m, p, k, l ∈ N and all g ∈ G, the following sets are Borel subsets
of O:
1. {T ∈ O|vn (T ) = gvm (T )},
2. {T ∈ O|vn (T ), vm (T ), vp (T ) are pairwise distinct and aligned in this order},
3. {T ∈ O|dn (T ) points towards g.vm (T )},
4. {T ∈ O|dn (T ) = gdm (T )},
5. {T ∈ O|g(dn (T ), dm (T )) is a turn lying in the segment [vk (T ), vl (T )]}.
27

Proof. The first two assertions follow from Lemma 3.16. For the third one, we note that
dn (T ) fails to point towards gvm (T ) if and only if either gvm (T ) = vn (T ), or else the
points vn′ (T ), vn (T ), gvm (T ) are pairwise distinct and aligned in this order. The fourth
assertion follows from the third because dn (T ) = gdm (T ) if and only if vn (T ) = gvm (T )
′ (T ). The last assertion also follows g(d (T ), d (T )) is a
and dn (T ) points towards gvm
n
m
turn lying in the segment [vk (T ), vl (T )] if and only if vn (T ) = vm (T ), and either
• dn (T ) points towards g−1 vk (T ), and dm (T ) points towards g−1 vl (T ), or
• dm (T ) points towards g−1 vk (T ), and dn (T ) points towards g−1 vl (T ).

3.3.2

Enumerating morphisms

˜ is obtained by assigning positive
For every open simplex ∆ ∈ Simp, every tree in ∆
∆
of
lengths to the edges of some combinatorial tree S∆ . Choose a collection v1∆ , . . . , vk(∆)
representatives of the orbits of vertices in S∆ and view them as vertices in any S in the
˜
closure of ∆.
We define a decorated simplex as a pair (∆, θ), where ∆ ∈ Simp, and where θ :
{1, . . . , k(∆)} → N is a map. We denote by Simp∗ the countable collection of all decorated simplices. Given a tree T ∈ O and a decorated simplex (∆, θ), there is a unique S
˜ and a unique G-equivariant morphism f : S → T which is isometric
in the closure of ∆,
on edges of S, and maps the vertex vi∆ ∈ S to the branch point vθ(i) (T ) in T for all i.
We denote this unique morphism f by f(∆,θ),T .
Lemma 3.18. The map

Simp∗ × O →
Mor
((∆, θ), T ) 7→ f(∆,θ),T

is Borel. Its image consists of all morphisms that are isometric on edges, and send
vertices to branch points.
Proof. The last statement in the lemma follows from the observation that every branch
point in T arises as vn (T ) for some n ∈ N, and a morphism which is isometric on edges
∆ . To show that the
is completely determined by the images of the vertices v1∆ , . . . , vk(∆)
map in the lemma is Borel, it is enough to show that for each decorated simplex (∆, θ),
the map
O →
Mor
T 7→ f(∆,θ),T
is Borel. This is because it is continuous when restricted to each of the countably many
fibers of the map
O →
(G2 )k(∆)
T 7→ (gθ(n) (T ), hθ(n) (T ))1≤n≤k(∆)
and these fibers are Borel in view of Lemma 3.17.
28

Remark 3.19. Given an enumeration of the set of decorated simplices, we obtain for each
T ∈ O an enumeration of all morphisms Fn,T : Sn,T → T from all simplicial trees to
T that send vertices to branch points, and are isometric on edges. Moreover, the maps
T 7→ Sn,T and T 7→ Fn,T are Borel for every n.
Given S ∈ O and T ∈ O, we say that a morphism f : S → T is very optimal if f is
optimal and sends vertices of S to branch points in T . We denote by VOpt the subspace
of Opt made of very optimal morphisms.
Lemma 3.20. The preimage of VOpt in Simp∗ × O is Borel.
Proof. It is a consequence of Lemma 3.17 that given a finite set E of edges of the
quotient graph S∆ /G, the collection of all ((∆, θ), T ) ∈ Simp∗ × O such that the edges
projecting to E are collapsed in the source of f(∆,θ),T is Borel. By restricting to each
of these finitely many subsets, we can assume that no edge in S∆ is collapsed. Then
f(∆,θ),T is very optimal if and only if for every n ∈ {1, . . . , k(∆)}, there exist p, q ∈
{1, . . . , k(∆)} and g, h ∈ G such that gvp∆ and hvq∆ are adjacent to vn∆ in ∆, and the
points gvθ(p) (T ), vθ(n) (T ), hvθ(q) (T ) are aligned in this order in T . The conclusion thus
follows from Lemma 3.17.
3.3.3

A σ-algebra on the set of turning classes
turn

the collection of all turning classes on trees in O. There is an
We denote by O
2
turn
embedding Φ : O
֒→ O × {0, 1}N sending (T, T ) to {(n, m) ∈ N2 |(dn (T ), dm (T )) ∈
turn
T }. This defines a σ-algebra on O
by pulling back the standard Borel σ-algebra.
turn
, defined as follows. Let B be a
The group Out(G, F) has a natural action on O
turning class of finite type on a tree T ∈ O, and let Φ ∈ Out(G, F). Then the tree Φ.T
is the same metric space as T (equipped with a twisted G-action), and we let Φ.B be
the turning class on Φ.T consisting of the same turns as B. One easily checks that this
action is measurable.

3.4

Namable turning classes
turn

denotes the collection of all turning classes on trees in O. More
Recall that O
generally, given X ⊆ O, we denote by X turn the collection of all turning classes on trees
in X. Given a turning class B on a tree T ∈ O, and λ > 0, we denote by λB the turning
class on λT consisting of the same turns.
Definition 3.21 (Having namable turning classes). An Out(G, F)-invariant Borel subset X ⊆ O has namable turning classes if there exists a map
Name : X turn → N ∪ {⊥}
such that
• Name is measurable,
29

• for all λ ∈ R∗+ and all turning classes B ∈ X turn , we have Name(λB) = Name(B),
• Name is Out(G, F)-invariant, i.e. Name(Φ.B) = Name(B) for all B ∈ X turn and
all Φ ∈ Out(G, F),
• for all T ∈ X and all n ∈ N, there are only finitely many turning classes on T
whose name is n, and
• for all T ∈ X, there exists a very optimal morphism with range T whose turning
class has a name different from ⊥.
Proposition 3.22. Let X ⊆ O be an Out(G, F)-invariant Borel subset which has namable turning classes.
Then there exists a sequence of Borel maps
PX → Prob(Simp)
T 7→
µTn
such that for all Φ ∈ Out(G, F) and all T ∈ PX, one has
||Φ.µTn − µΦ.T
n ||1 → 0
as n goes to +∞.
Proof. Fix a continuous section α : PO → O. To any T ∈ PX, we are going to associate
a finite set of very optimal morphisms fiT with range α(T ) as follows. Let i0 (T ) be
the smallest integer i ∈ N for which there exists a very optimal morphism with range
α(T ), whose turning class with respect to T has name i: this exists in view of the
T
last hypothesis from Definition 3.21. Let f1T , . . . , fk(T
) be a collection of very optimal
T
morphisms fiT : SiT → α(T ) such that the turning classes of f1T , . . . , fk(T
) are exactly
the turning classes named i0 (T ) (without repetition). We choose this collection that is
smallest for the lexicographic order, relative to a measurable enumeration of morphisms
with range T as in Remark 3.19. We claim that the probability measures
µTn

k(T )
1 X
µn (fi (T ))
:=
k(T )
i=1

satisfy the desired conclusion.
Notice that Out(G, F)-invariance of Name implies that for all T ∈ PX and all Φ ∈
Out(G, F), we have i0 (Φ.T ) = i0 (T ) and k(Φ.T ) = k(T ). Applying Φ−1 to the morphism
fiΦ.T : SiΦ.T → α(Φ.T ), we get a morphism fi′ : Si′ → λα(T ) with Si′ = Φ−1 .SiΦ.T , and
λ > 0 such that Φ−1 α(Φ.T ) = λα(T ). The morphism fi′ has the same turning class as
T for some permutation σ of {1, . . . , k(T )}. Since the two target trees are homothetic,
fσ(i)
Corollary 3.12 implies that for all i ∈ {1, . . . , k(T )}, we have
||µn (fiT ) − µn (fi′ )||1 → 0
30

as n goes to +∞. Averaging over i ∈ {1, . . . , k(T )}, it then follows that
||µTn − Φ−1 .µΦ.T
n ||1 → 0
as n goes to +∞.
We finally check that the maps T 7→ µTn are Borel. Let Fn,T be a Borel enumeration
of morphisms as in Remark 3.19. Then
i0 (T ) = min{i ∈ N|∃n ∈ N, Fn,α(T ) is optimal and its turning class has name i}.
Since optimality is a Borel condition (Lemma 3.20) and the map Name is Borel, we
deduce that the map T 7→ i0 (T ) is Borel. Similarly, the maps T 7→ k(T ) and T 7→ fiT
are Borel. In view of Lemma 3.13, we thus get that T 7→ µTn is Borel.

4

Arational trees have namable turning classes.

We will prove separately that the sets Geom and N Geom made of geometric and nongeometric arational trees have namable turning classes. We start with the following
observation.
Lemma 4.1. The sets Geom and N Geom are Borel subsets of AT .
Proof. It suffices to show that N Geom is a Borel subset of AT . Let {gi }i∈N be an
enumeration of G.
Using the third characterization of non-geometric trees given in Lemma 2.5, a tree
T ∈ AT is non-geometric if and only if for every finite subset F ⊂ G, there exists S ∈ O
with a morphism S → T such that the length functions of T and S agree on F . Given
˜ Q the set of trees in ∆
˜ with rational edge lengths. It
a simplex ∆ ∈ Simp, denote by ∆
clearly follows that T ∈ AT is non geometric if and only if for all finite subsets F ⊂ G,
˜ Q such that
there exists a simplex ∆ ∈ Simp such that for all k ≥ 1, there exists S ∈ ∆
• ∀g ∈ G, ||g||S ≥ ||g||T and
• ∀g ∈ F , ||g||S ≤ ||g||T + k1 .
This expresses N Geom as countable intersections and unions of Borel sets.

4.1

Non-geometric arational trees

Given a tree T ∈ O, the full turning class in T is the turning class consisting of all turns
at all branch points in T .
Proposition 4.2. For all T ∈ N Geom, there exists a tree S ∈ O and a very optimal
morphism f : S → T whose turning class with respect to T is the full turning class of T .
Proof. Since T is nongeometric, it is not an arational surface tree, and therefore it is
relatively free. Let X ⊆ T be a finite subtree that contains
31

• a set of representatives V = {v1 , . . . , vl } of the orbits of branch points of T ,
• for each branch point vi ∈ V, a set of representatives of the orbits of directions at
vi .
Since T is nongeometric, Lemma 2.5 ensures that there exists a nonstationary direct
system of trees (Sn )n∈N ∈ ON that converges strongly to T , coming with morphisms
fn : Sn → T and fnm : Sn → Sm for all m ≥ n (these morphisms can be chosen
optimal). Let X0 ⊆ S0 be a finite subtree of S0 whose f0 -image contains X, and such
that for every vi ∈ V with nontrivial stabilizer in T , the vertex of S0 with stabilizer Gvi
is contained in X0 . By definition of strong convergence, there exists n ∈ N such that fn
is isometric when restricted to Xn := f0n (X0 ). In particular Xn contains an isometric
copy of X, and the preimage in Xn of every vertex v of X with non-trivial stabilizer in
T , is the vertex of Sn having the same peripheral point stabilizer Gv . Let now (d, d′ ) be
a turn based at a vertex vi in T (up to translating we can assume that vi ∈ V). If v has
trivial stabilizer in T , then the assumptions made on X ensure that (d, d′ ) lifts to Sn . If
v has non-trivial stabilizer in T , then there exist g, g ′ ∈ Gv such that (gd, g′ d′ ) lifts at
the vertex of Sn with stabilizer Gv , and therefore (d, d′ ) also lifts. Therefore, every turn
in T lifts to a turn in S, so the turning class of fn is the full turning class of T . Notice
that by slightly folding if needed, we can always arrange that fn maps vertices of Sn to
branch points of T , i.e. fn is very optimal.
Corollary 4.3. The subset N Geom ⊆ O has namable turning classes.
Proof. In view of Proposition 4.2, the map Name that sends the full turning class of any
tree T ∈ N Geom to 0, and any other turning class to ⊥, satisfies the assumptions in
Definition 3.21.

4.2

Geometric arational trees

The goal of the present section is to prove the following fact.
Proposition 4.4. The subset Geom ⊆ O has namable turning classes.
4.2.1

Ubiquitous turns

Definition 4.5 (Ubiquitous turns). Let T ∈ O. A turn U in T is ubiquitous if for
every interval I, there exists g ∈ G such that gU is contained in I.
Let T ∈ O be a geometric tree, and let G y Σ be a band complex as in Section 2.3
to which T is dual. We denote by V the set of vertices of Σ, i.e. points in Σ belonging
to a base tree Kv which are either extremal in one of the bands they belong to, or are
at least trivalent in Kv . Recall that all leaves of Σ are trees. A leaf of Σ is singular if it
contains a vertex of Σ. Notice that if x ∈ T is a branch point, then the leaf of Σ that
projects to x in T is singular. Given a singular leaf l of Σ projecting to a point x ∈ T ,
we denote by l0 ⊆ l the union of the convex hull of l ∩ V in l together with all finite
32

connected components of l \ V . Notice that since the set V is G-finite, the intersection
l ∩ V is Gl -finite (where Gl denotes the stabilizer of the leaf l). Since there are only
finitely many Gl -orbits of finite components in l \ V , we deduce that l0 /Gl is compact
(it is a finite graph). We call a turn at x in T regular if it comes from a turn in a base
tree at a point in l \ l0 , and singular otherwise.
Lemma 4.6. Let T be a geometric tree which is mixing (i.e. dual to a band complex
with a single orbit of minimal components), and let x ∈ T be a branch point.
A turn at x is ubiquitous if and only if it is regular.
Every segment in T contains only finitely many singular turns based at a point in G.x.
Proof. Let l ⊂ Σ be the leaf representing x. Since l0 is Gl -cocompact, for each band
B, the orbit G.l0 intersects B in a finite set of leaf segments (otherwise B would have
nontrivial stabilizer). This shows that singular turns at x are non-ubiquitous. Moreover,
it implies that for each segment I˜ ⊂ Kv contained in a band, only finitely many turns
in the projection I of I˜ to T are singular turns based at a point in G.x. This obviously
also holds if the interior of I˜ intersects no band (which in fact cannot happen since T is
mixing). Since every arc in T is contained in a finite union of such segments I, it also
follows that every arc in T contains only finitely many singular turns based at a point
in G.x.
We will now prove that every regular turn U at x is ubiquitous. Since U is regular,
there exist a base tree Kv intersecting l \ l0 and a point z ∈ Kv ∩ (l \ l0 ) having the
following property: denoting by lz ⊂ l the connected component of l \ l0 containing z,
for every transverse interval I ⊂ Σ intersecting lz , the two directions at the point I ∩ lz
define the turn U . Since the band complex Σ/G has a unique minimal component, by
[11, Theorem 3.1] the orbit of lz intersects each transverse tree Kv ⊂ Σ in a dense set.
Since every arc in T is a finite concatenation of arcs that are the image of intervals
contained in base trees, it follows that U is ubiquitous. This completes the proof of the
lemma.
Using the fact that there are only finitely many G-orbits of singular leaves and l0 /Gl
is a finite graph, we get the following as a consequence of Lemma 4.6.
Corollary 4.7. Let T be a geometric tree which is mixing (i.e. dual to a band complex
with a single orbit of minimal components).
Then there are only finitely many orbits of ubiquitous turns at branch points.
Every interval contains only finitely many non-ubiquitous turns.
Given a branch point x ∈ T and a collection T of turns at x, the Whitehead graph
at x defined by T is the graph having one vertex for each direction at x, and an edge
between two directions if the turn they form belongs to T .
Lemma 4.8. Let T ∈ Geom. Let x ∈ T be a branch point. If the Whitehead graph at x
defined by the collection of all ubiquitous turns is disconnected, then T is not indecomposable.

33

Proof. Since the Whitehead graph defined by ubiquitous turns at x is not connected,
we have an equivariant partition of the directions at x such that every ubiquitous turn
joins two equivalent directions. We say that a turn at a point in the orbit of x is allowed
if it is a translate of a turn joining two equivalent directions at x. We now construct a
transverse covering of T : say that a subtree Y is allowed if all its turns at points in the
orbit of x are allowed. Let Y be the set of all nondegenerate maximal allowed subtrees.
The last assertion from Corollary 4.7 implies that Y is nonempty (and actually covers
T ): any arc I can be covered by finitely many subarcs that only contain ubiquitous
turns. In addition, is not the trivial covering (i.e. Y 6= {T }) because there are at least
two equivalence classes at x.
We claim that the family Y is transverse; this will show that T is not indecomposable
and complete the proof of the lemma. Otherwise, we can find Y, Y ′ ∈ Y two distinct
subtrees with nondegenerate intersection. By maximality, there exists a turn (d, d′ ) in
Y ∪ Y ′ which is not allowed. Since Y and Y ′ are allowed, up to exchanging d and d′
we can assume that d ⊂ Y \ Y ′ and d′ ⊂ Y ′ \ Y . Let b ∈ Y ∩ Y ′ be the common base
point of these directions, and let d′′ be a direction at b in Y ∩ Y ′ : this exists because
Y ∩ Y ′ is nondegenerate. Then (d, d′′ ) and (d′ , d′′ ) are allowed, hence so is (d, d′ ), a
contradiction.
We finish this section by proving measurability of the ubiquity property (we recall
the definition of the directions dn (T ) from Section 3.3.1).
Lemma 4.9. For all n, m ∈ N, the set
Unm := {T ∈ O|(dn (T ), dm (T )) is an ubiquitous turn}
is a Borel subset of O.
Proof. By Lemma 3.17, the set


• vk (T ) 6= vl (T ) and
Dk,l,m,n,g := T ∈ O
• g(dn (T ), dm (T )) is a turn lying in the segment [vk (T ), vl (T )]
is a Borel subset of O. Since
Unm =

\ [

Dk,l,m,n,g ,

k,l∈N g∈G

the result follows.
4.2.2

Surface arational trees

We denote by SAT the subspace of AT made of surface arational trees. We recall
from Section 2.2 that this coincides with the subspace of AT made of non relatively free
trees: in other words, a tree T ∈ AT is in SAT if and only if there exists a nonperipheral
element g ∈ G such that ||g||T = 0. This shows that SAT is a Borel subset of AT .
34

G1

Gj

Gk
Figure 3: The tree T from the proof of Proposition 4.10 is the arational surface tree
dual to the foliation on the orbifold. The tree St is obtained by cutting a segment of
size t along each of the red slits, and considering the simplicial tree dual to the foliation
obtained in the cut surface.

Proposition 4.10. The subset SAT has namable turning classes.
Proof. Let T ∈ SAT . The tree T splits as a graph of actions where the only nontrivial
vertex action is dual to a foliation on a 2-orbifold with a single unused boundary component (see Section 2.2). Up performing Whitehead moves on the foliation (which does
not change the dual tree), we can assume that half-leaves starting at the unused boundary curve do not contain singularities of the foliation, and that all singularities on the
boundary are 3-pronged. By putting slits of sufficiently small length t > 0 between any
two half-leaves of the foliation defining T starting at the unused boundary component
(see Figure 3), and cutting along these slits, all leaves of the obtained foliation are now
compact and the dual tree provides a simplicial approximation St of T , which naturally
comes with a morphism ft : St → T . We observe that all morphisms ft with t > 0
sufficiently small have the same turning class Bslit (T ): indeed, any turn defined by two
directions not based at the vertex corresponding to the unused boundary component is
in Bslit (T ), and a turn based at the vertex corresponding to the boundary component
is in Bslit(T ) if and only if it is made of two directions that are separated by only one
singular leaf of the foliation. Using Lemma 4.6, we see that Bslit (T ) is nothing but the
collection of all ubiquitous turns in T based at a point corresponding to the unused
boundary component. The map Name sending the turning class Bslit (T ) to 0, and any
other turning class to ⊥, satisfies the conditions from Definition 3.21 (the fact that it is
measurable follows from Lemma 4.9).
4.2.3

The turning class is of finite type.

We are now left understanding relatively free geometric arational trees. We will now
prove that turning classes of morphisms with such a tree as their target satisfy some
finiteness properties. We make the following definition.
35

Definition 4.11 (The set B[d],[d′ ] ). Let T ∈ O, and let B be a turning class in T . Let
x ∈ T be a branch point, and let [d], [d′ ] be two Gx -orbits of directions based at x.
We denote by B[d],[d′ ] ⊆ B the set of turns (δ, δ′ ) ∈ B with δ ∈ [d] and δ′ ∈ [d′ ].
We say that B[d],[d′ ] is full if it is equal to [d] × [d′ ] minus the diagonal.
Notice that the set B[d],[d′ ] is Gx -invariant.
Definition 4.12 (Turning class of finite type). A turning class B of a tree T ∈ O is of
finite type if for each branch point x ∈ T and for each pair of Gx -orbits of directions
[d], [d′ ] at x, the set B[d],[d′ ] is either full or finite modulo Gx .
Notice that the set of all turning classes of finite type on trees in O forms a measurable
turn
of all turning classes (see Section 3.3.3).
subset of the set O
Lemma 4.13. Let T ∈ O be geometric, with trivial arc stabilizers. Assume that T is
relatively free.
Then for any S ∈ O and any morphism f : S → T , the turning class of f is of finite
type.
Proof. Let d, d′ be a turn based at a branch point x ∈ T . We aim to show that B[d],[d′ ]
is either Gx -cofinite or full.
We first claim that all but finitely many Gx -orbits of turns in B[d],[d′ ] lift at a vertex
of S with non-trivial stabilizer. To prove this claim, we first note that if two (ordered)
turns (δ, δ1′ ), (δ, δ2′ ) at x are in the same Gx -orbit, then they have to coincide since the
stabilizer of any direction is trivial. It follows that B[d],[d′ ] contains at most finitely many
Gx -orbits of ubiquitous turns since there are only finitely many orbits of ubiquitous turns
at branch points in T . Now for each edge e of S, the segment f (e) crosses only finitely
many non-ubiquitous turns. It follows that turns taken by the images of the edges of S
contribute only finitely many orbits of turns in B[d],[d′ ] . Since S has only finitely many
G-orbits of turns at vertices with trivial stabilizer, the claim follows.
If no turn in B[d],[d′ ] lifts at a vertex of S with nontrivial stabilizer, then our claim
shows that B[d],[d′ ] is Gx -cofinite. So consider a vertex s ∈ f −1 (x) with nontrivial stabilizer, and a turn (δ̃1 , δ̃2 ) at s that maps to some (δ1 , δ2 ) ∈ B[d],[d′ ] . Since T is relatively
free, s is the unique vertex with nontrivial stabilizer in f −1 (x), and Gs = Gx . Then for
all g1 , g2 ∈ Gs = Gx , the turn (g1 δ̃1 , g2 δ̃2 ) is mapped to (g1 δ1 , g2 δ2 ) so B[d],[d′ ] is full.
4.2.4

Definition of Name in the indecomposable case

We denote by FGeom the collection of all geometric, relatively free arational trees. This
is a Borel subset of AT , being the complement of the union N Geom ∪ SAT . Every tree
T ∈ FGeom has a natural decomposition given by a transverse covering by indecomposable trees [15]. Since T is arational, it has to be mixing (see [44, Proposition 8.3] for free
groups and [25, Lemma 4.9] in general), i.e. there is exactly one orbit of indecomposable
trees in the transverse covering. The skeleton of this transverse covering is a bipartite simplicial tree which has one orbit of vertices corresponding to the indecomposable
36

pieces, whose stabilizer is finitely generated, while the stabilizer of every other vertex in
S is a peripheral group (because T is relatively free). Edge stabilizers of this skeleton are
finitely generated. In particular, the set Sk of all possible skeleta of trees in FGeom is
countable. We denote by GI the subset of FGeom made of all indecomposable geometric
relatively free arational trees in O.
Lemma 4.14. Let S be a simplicial G-tree. Then the set of all trees in O that are
compatible with S is a Borel subset of O.
Proof. This is because a tree T is compatible with S if and only if the sum of the
translation length functions of T and S is a translation length function of some G-tree
[19, Theorem A.10], and the space of translation length functions of G-trees is closed
(hence a Borel subset) in RG , see [10].
Corollary 4.15. The set GI is a Borel subset of Geom.
Proof. This is a consequence of Lemma 4.14 because a geometric tree is indecomposable
if and only if it is not compatible with any simplicial tree in Sk, and Sk is countable.
In addition, as already observed in the previous section, being relatively free is a Borel
condition.
The map Name will be defined in terms of the following notion of angle.
Definition 4.16. Let T ∈ GI, and d, d′ be two directions in T based at the same branch
point x ∈ T .
The angle ∠(d, d′ ) between d and d′ is the minimal number k of ubiquitous turns U1 , . . . , Uk
such that d is a direction in U1 , d′ is a direction in Uk , and for all i ∈ {1, . . . , k − 1},
the turns Ui and Ui+1 have a direction in common.
The angle can be interpreted as a distance in the Whithead graph at x defined by
ubiquitous turns. It is finite because this Whitehead graph is connected (Lemma 4.8).
Obviously, the angle is G-invariant. Moreover, since by Corollary 4.7 any direction is
part of only finitely many ubiquitous turns, the Whitehead graph is locally finite. In
other words, for any direction d, and k ∈ N, there are only finitely many directions d′
based at the same point as d such that ∠(d, d′ ) ≤ k.
We now define the name of a turning class B on T as follows. If B is not of finite
type, we define its name as ⊥. We now assume that B is of finite type. Given a branch
point x ∈ T and a pair ([d], [d′ ]) of Gx -orbits of directions based at x, we let N[d],[d′ ] = 0
if B[d],[d′ ] is full, and otherwise we let
N[d],[d′ ] =

max

(δ,δ′ )∈B[d],[d′ ]

∠(δ, δ′ ).

This is well defined because B is of finite type. We then let
N ame(B) = max (N[d],[d′ ] ),
([d],[d′ ])

where the maximum is taken over all pairs of orbits of directions at branch points.
37

Proposition 4.17. The set GI has namable turning classes: the map
Name : GI turn → N ∪ {⊥}
satisfies
1. Name is measurable,
2. for all B ∈ GI turn and all λ > 0, we have Name(λB) = Name(B),
3. Name is Out(G, F)-invariant, i.e. Name(Φ.B) = Name(B) for all B ∈ GI turn and
all Φ ∈ Out(G, F),
4. for all T ∈ GI, the set of turning classes on T having a given name n 6=⊥ is finite,
5. for all T ∈ GI, there exists a very optimal morphism with range T whose turning
class has a name different from ⊥.
Proof. The fact that Name is measurable can easily be checked using Lemmas 3.17
and 4.9 (representatives of the pairs of orbits of directions in T can be chosen in a
measurable way). The second and third assertions are clear from the definition of Name.
The fourth assertion follows from the fact that there are only finitely many orbits of
pairs of directions making a given angle, and there are finitely many possibilites for the
pairs of orbits of directions for which B[d],[d′ ] is full. The fifth assertion follows from
Lemma 4.13.
4.2.5

Definition of Name in the decomposable case

The goal of the present section is to prove that the set of all geometric trees in AT has
namable turning classes, without restricting to the indecomposable ones.
We start by defining a map Name on the set FGeomturn of turning classes on relatively
free, arational, geometric trees. Let T ∈ FGeom, and let B be a turning class on T . Let
Y be the transverse covering of T by its maximal indecomposable subtrees (recall that
all trees in Y are in the same orbit because T is mixing). We say that a turn (d, d′ ) in
T crosses Y if it is not contained in any Y ∈ Y. We say that the turning class B is
acceptable if given any turn (d, d′ ) ∈ B based at x ∈ T and g ∈ Gx such that both (d, d′ )
and (d, gd′ ) cross Y, then (d, d′ ) ∈ B if and only if (d, gd′ ) ∈ B. We then say that B
˜ d˜′ ) ∈ B with d˜ ∈ [d], and d˜′ ∈ [d′ ]
crosses Y along ([d], [d′ ]) when there exists a turn (d,
˜ d˜′ ) crosses Y (in which case, all turns in [d] × [d′ ] crossing Y are in B if B
such that (d,
is acceptable).
If B is not acceptable or is not of finite type, we define its name as ⊥. Otherwise,
choose Y ∈ Y and let B|Y be the turning class of Y obtained by restriction of B. We
then define Name(B) = Name(B|Y ). Since Name(B|Y ) is defined as an angle when not
full this name does not depend on the choice of Y ∈ Y.
Proposition 4.18. The set FGeom has namable turning classes: the map
Name : FGeomturn → N ∪ {⊥}
satisfies
38

1. Name is measurable,
2. for all B ∈ FGeomturn and all λ > 0, we have Name(λB) = Name(B),
3. Name is Out(G, F)-invariant, i.e. Name(Φ.B) = Name(B) for all B ∈ FGeomturn
and all Φ ∈ Out(G, F),
4. for all T ∈ FGeom, the set of turning classes on T having a given name n 6=⊥ is
finite,
5. for all T ∈ FGeom, there exists a very optimal morphism with range T whose
turning class has a name different from ⊥.
Proof. The map Name clearly satisfies the second and third conditions.
Let us check that Name satisfies Assertion 4. Given n 6=⊥, and a turning class B on
T with name n, B is acceptable, so B is completely determined by B|Y and by the (finite)
collection of all pairs ([d], [d′ ]) of orbits of directions along which B crosses Y (with the
above notations). Finiteness thus follows from finiteness in the indecomposable case
(Proposition 4.17).
We now prove Assertion 5. Given T ∈ FGeom, and Y ∈ Y as above, let GY y R be
any Grushko tree for (GY , F|GY ) with a very optimal morphism fY : R → Y . Let S be
the skeleton of Y. It has a vertex vY whose stabilizer is GY . Blow-up in an equivariant
way the vertex vY of S into R and attach each edge e incident on vY to the unique point
fixed by Ge (recall that Ge is non-trivial because T is arational, and peripheral because
T is relatively free). Let Ŝ be the obtained blown-up tree, and let S0 be the tree obtained
from Ŝ by collapsing all the edges coming from S. The tree S0 lies in O, and we denote
by R the transverse covering of S0 by the translates of R. The morphism fY : R → Y
extends uniquely to a map Ŝ → T which is constant on all edges coming from S. This
yields a morphism f : S0 → T which is optimal and very optimal because fY is. The
turning class B of f is of finite type by Lemma 4.13.
To ensure that Name(B) 6=⊥, we now check that B is acceptable. Let (d1 , d2 ) be
a turn in B that crosses Y. Let x be the base point of this turn, and Y1 , Y2 ∈ Y the
subtrees containing d1 and d2 respectively. Let R1 , R2 ⊂ S0 be the preimages of Y1 , Y2
in S0 (these are translates of R ⊂ S0 ). These two subtrees intersect in a single vertex
v coming from the copy of the point x in the skeleton, so Gx = Gv and f (v) = x. Let
(d˜1 , d˜2 ) be a lift of (d1 , d2 ) in S0 . Since d˜i is contained in Ri , d˜1 and d˜2 are necessarily
˜ g d˜′ ) is a lift of (d, gd′ ). In particular,
based at v. Then for all g ∈ Gx = Gv , the turn (d,
all turns (d, gd′ ) (and in particular all which cross Y) are in B.
We finally establish that Name is measurable. We claim that crossing is a Borel
condition, i.e. for all n, m ∈ N, the set
{T ∈ FGeomS |(dn (T ), dm (T )) defines a turn that crosses Y}
is a Borel subset of FGeomS . Indeed, if dn (T ), dm (T ) are based at the same point,
then (dn (T ), dm (T )) does not cross if and only if for every arc I ⊂ T , there exists
g1 , . . . , gN ∈ G such that dn (T ) is contained in g1 .I, dm (T ) is contained in gN .I, and
39

gi I ∩ gi+1 I is non-degenerate for all i < N . This condition does not change if we
impose that the endpoints of I are branch points of T . The above characterization can
therefore be expressed using the measurable enumeration of branch points, thus proving
the claim. Since the name of a turning class is expressed in terms of angles of such turns,
the measurability of Name easily follows.

5

Proof of the main theorem and applications

5.1

Proof of the main theorem

We start by establishing the following result.
Theorem 5.1. Let G be a countable group, and let F be a free factor system of G.
Then there exists a sequence of Borel maps
µn : PAT → Prob(Simp)
such that for all Φ ∈ Out(G, F) and all T ∈ PAT , one has
||Φ.µn (T ) − µn (Φ.T )||1 → 0
as n goes to +∞.
Proof. The subsets SAT , FGeom and N Geom are Out(G, F)-invariant Borel subsets of
AT which together partition AT , and they have namable turning classes (Corollary 4.3,
Proposition 4.10 and Proposition 4.18). Theorem 1.5 thus follows from Proposition 3.22.
We are now in position to complete the proof of our main theorem.
Theorem 5.2. Let {G1 , . . . , Gk } be a finite collection of countable groups, and let
G := G1 ∗ · · · ∗ Gk ∗ FN ,
where FN is a free group of rank N .
Assume that for all i ∈ {1, . . . , k}, the group Gi is exact.
Then Out(G, {Gi }(t) ) is exact.
Proof of Theorem 5.2. As usual, we denote by F the finite collection of the G-conjugacy
classes of the subgroups Gi . The proof is by induction on the complexity ξ(G, F) =
(N + k − 1, N ), where complexities are ordered with respect to the lexicographic order.
We start with the sporadic cases.
• The result is obvious if either F = {[G]} (i.e. ξ(G, F) = (0, 0)) or G = Z (i.e.
ξ(G, F) = (0, 1)).
• If G = G1 ∗ G2 and F = {[G1 ], [G2 ]} (i.e. ξ(G, F) = (1, 0)), then the group
Out(G, F (t) ) is isomorphic to G1 /Z(G1 ) × G2 /Z(G2 ) (see [33]), which is exact,
being a direct product of two groups that are exact by Proposition 2.17.
40

• If G = G1 ∗ Z and F = {[G1 ]} (i.e. ξ(G, F) = (1, 1)), then Out(G, F (t) ) has an
index 2 subgroup which is isomorphic to (G1 × G1 )/Z(G1 ), where Z(G1 ) embeds
diagonally in G1 × G1 (see [33]). The group (G1 × G1 )/Z(G1 ) maps to G1 /Z(G1 ) ×
G1 /Z(G1 ) with central kernel, and is therefore exact by Propositions 2.14 and 2.17.
We now assume that (G, F) is non-sporadic. It was proved in [44, 25] that to any (projective class of) non-arational tree, one can associate a canonical finite set of conjugacy
classes of free factors: this means that there exists an Out(G, F)-equivariant map from
PO \ PAT to the countable collection F(F F ) of finite sets of proper (G, F)-free factors.
Notice also that there exists an Out(G, F)-equivariant map π : Simp → F(F F ), sending
a simplex ∆ to the collection of all proper free factors that are elliptic in some tree
obtained by collapsing some edges in the underlying tree of ∆. Combining these facts
with Theorem 5.1, we get a sequence of Borel maps
µn : PO → Prob(F F )
such that for all Φ ∈ Out(G, F) and all T ∈ PO, one has
||Φ.µn (T ) − µn (Φ.T )||1 → 0
as n goes to +∞. This holds in particular for every Φ ∈ Out(G, F (t) ). Since PO
is compact and F F is countable, using Corollary 2.10, it is enough to prove that the
stabilizer in Out(G, F (t) ) of any proper (G, F)-free factor is exact. Let A be a proper
(G, F)-free factor, and let F ′ be the smallest (G, F)-free factor system that contains
(t)
A. Then there is a morphism from the stabilizer of A in Out(G, F (t) ) to Out(A, F|A ),
whose kernel is contained in Out(G, F ′(t) ). An easy computation shows that ξ(A, F|A ) <
ξ(G, F) and ξ(G, F ′ ) < ξ(G, F), so arguing by induction on the complexity (and using
the fact that extensions of countable exact groups are exact), we get that the stabilizer
of A in Out(G, F (t) ) is exact.
Corollary 5.3. Let {G1 , . . . , Gk } be a finite collection of countable groups, and let
G := G1 ∗ · · · ∗ Gk ∗ FN ,
where FN is a free group of rank N .
Assume that for all i ∈ {1, . . . , k}, the groups Gi and Out(Gi ) are exact.
Then Out(G, {Gi }) is exact.
Proof. This follows from the fact that there is a short exact sequence
1 → Out(G, F

(t)

) → Out(G, F) →

k
Y

Out(Gi ) → 1,

i=1

and exactness is stable under extensions (Proposition 2.14).

41

5.2

Automorphisms of relatively hyperbolic groups

Corollary 5.4. Let G be a torsion-free group which is hyperbolic relative to a finite
collection of finitely generated groups P := {P1 , . . . , Pk }.
Assume that for all i ∈ {1, . . . , k}, the group Pi is exact.
Then Out(G, P (t) ) is exact.
Before proving Corollary 5.4, we establish the following consequence.
Corollary 5.5. Let G be a torsion-free group which is hyperbolic relative to a finite
collection of finitely generated groups P := {P1 , . . . , Pk }.
Assume that for all i ∈ {1, . . . , k}, the groups Pi and Out(Pi ) are exact.
Then Out(G, P) is exact.
In particular, the outer automorphism group of any torsion-free Gromov hyperbolic group
(or more generally any toral relatively hyperbolic group) is exact.
Proof. The first statement follows from Corollary 5.4 as in Corollary 5.3. The application
to torsion-free hyperbolic groups is immediate. The case of toral relatively hyperbolic
groups follows from the fact that if some parabolic subgroup is isomorphic to Zn , then
its outer automorphism group is linear, whence exact by [13]; in addition, every automorphism of a toral relatively hyperbolic group permutes the conjugacy classes of all
non-cyclic parabolic subgroups.
Proof of Corollary 5.4. First assume that G is freely indecomposable relative to the
parabolic subgroups. This case follows easily from exactness of mapping class groups
[29, 21] and JSJ theory [45, 33, 18] as we now explain. By [18], the group Out(G, P (t) )
has a finite index subgroup that maps onto a product of mapping class groups of surfaces, with kernel contained in the group T of twists of the canonical elementary JSJ
decomposition of G. The group T maps with abelian kernel to a direct product of copies
of Pi /Z(Pi ) [20, Appendix, Lemma 5], so T is exact. By [29, 21], the mapping class
group of an orientable surface S is exact. This also holds if S is non-orientable because
MCG(S) is commensurable to a subgroup of MCG(S̃) where S̃ is the orientation cover
of S. Therefore, Out(G, P (t) ) is exact.
We now assume that G splits as a free product of the form
G = G1 ∗ · · · ∗ Gk ∗ FN
relative to the parabolic subgroups, with Gi freely indecomposable relative to P|Gi . Then
the group Out(G, P (t) ) has a finite index subgroup Out0 (G, P (t) ) which does not permute
the conjugacy classes of the factors Gi . There is a morphism
Out0 (G, P (t) ) →

k
Y

(t)

Out(Gi , P|Gi ),

i=1

whose kernel is equal to Out(G, {Gi }(t) ). The above paragraph shows that each group
(t)
Out(Gi , P|Gi ) is exact, and therefore their direct product is exact. It is thus enough to
42

check that the kernel Out(G, {Gi }(t) ) is exact. Since each Gi is hyperbolic relative to
P|Gi and relatively hyperbolic groups with exact parabolics are exact [41], we deduce
that each Gi is exact. Therefore, Theorem 5.2 shows that Out(G, {Gi }(t) ) is exact, which
concludes the proof.

5.3

Automorphisms of right-angled Artin groups

We recall that given a finite simplicial graph X, the right-angled Artin group AX is
the group whose generators are the vertices of X, in which the relations are given by
commutation of any two generators corresponding to vertices of X that are joined by an
edge. Using Theorem 5.2 and previous work of Charney–Vogtmann [8], we will derive
the following statement.
Corollary 5.6. For any right-angled Artin group A, the group Out(A) is exact.
Proof. The proof is by induction on the number of vertices of the defining graph X of
A.
If A has nontrivial center, then by [8, Proposition 4.4], there exists an equivalence
class [v] of vertices in X (with the terminology from [8]), and a finite index subgroup
Out0 (A) of Out(A), such that there is a morphism
Out0 (A) → Out(A[v] ) × Out(Alk([v]) )
with abelian kernel. If A is abelian, then Out(A) is linear, whence exact [13]. Otherwise
both [v] and lk([v]) are proper subgraphs of X, so we can apply our induction hypothesis
to deduce that Out(A) is exact.
If X is connected, and the center of A is trivial, then by [8, Corollary 3.3], the group
Out(A) has a finite index subgroup Out0 (A) that admits a morphism
Y
Out0 (A) →
Out(Alk([v]) )
whose kernel is abelian [8, Theorem 4.2], where the product is taken over all maximal
abelian equivalence classes of vertices in X. Again the result follows from our induction
hypothesis.
We finally assume that X is disconnected. Then A splits as a free product
A = AX1 ∗ · · · ∗ AXk ∗ FN ,
where X1 , . . . , Xk are the connected components of X that are not reduced to a point,
and X has N connected components reduced to a point. The group AXi is exact [7], and
Out(AXi ) is exact by induction hypothesis. Corollary 5.3 implies that Out(A, {AXi }) is
exact. Since it has finite index in Out(A), the group Out(A) is exact.

43

6
6.1

Complements
An explicit compact space with an amenable action of Out(FN )

We will now give an explicit compact space with a topologically amenable Out(FN )action. This could also be generalized to any free product given compact spaces on
which the groups Gi /Z(Gi ) and Out(Gi ) act amenably.
Define a subfactor system in FN as the conjugacy class of a pair (A, F) where A ⊆ FN
is a non-trivial free factor (possibly A = FN ), and F is a proper free factor system of
A (possibly empty, but F =
6 {A}). We denote by SF the set of all subfactor systems of
FN .
To each subfactor system (A, F) we associate a compact space Ω(A,F ) . These spaces
will depend naturally on (A, F) in the following sense: for each Φ ∈ Out(FN ), there will
be a natural homeomorphism hΦ : Ω(A,F ) → ΩΦ(A,F ) such that hΦ◦Ψ = hΦ ◦ hΨ for all
Φ, Ψ ∈ Out(FN ). The space we consider is then the product space
Y
Ω(A,F ) ,
Ω :=
(A,F )∈SF

on which the Out(FN )-action is defined by
Φ.(ω(A,F ) )(A,F )∈SF = (hΦ (ωΦ−1 (A,F ) ))(A,F )∈SF .
The spaces Ω(A,F ) are defined as follows. For non-sporadic subfactor systems (A, F),
we define Ω(A,F ) as the projectivization PO(A, F) of the closure of the associated outer
space. When A = Z, we let Ω(A,F ) be a point. If A = A1 ∗ A2 and F = {[A1 ], [A2 ]},
then we let Ω(A,F ) := ∂∞ A1 × ∂∞ A2 . Finally, if A = A1 ∗ and F = {[A1 ]}, we let
Ω(A,F ) := (∂∞ A1 )2 .
The naturality is obvious in the first two cases, let us make it explicit in the last two
cases. We will only construct hΦ when Φ belongs to the stabilizer of (A, F), since this
allows to compute hΦ in general.
If A = A1 ∗ A2 and F = {[A1 ], [A2 ]} then Out(A, F) is isomorphic to Aut(A1 ) ×
Aut(A2 ): this is shown by observing that every element Φ ∈ Out(A, F) has a unique
representative φ ∈ Aut(A) that fixes both subgroups A1 and A2 (as opposed to just
fixing the conjugacy classes of these two subgroups); the isomorphism from Out(A, F)
to Aut(A1 )×Aut(A2 ) then maps Φ to the pair (φ1 , φ2 ) made of the restrictions of φ to A1
and A2 . Therefore, the group Out(A, F) acts by homeomorphisms on ∂∞ A1 × ∂∞ A2 =
Ω(A, F).
If A = A1 ∗ with F = {[A1 ]}, let T be the Bass–Serre tree of the splitting A = A1 ∗.
We choose a base edge e = uv where the stabilizer of u is A1 , and we let t be an element
of A sending u to v (thus t is a stable letter of the HNN extension). The group Aut(A, F)
of (not outer) automorphisms of A preserving the conjugacy class of A1 acts on T . Any
outer automorphism Φ ∈ Out(A, F) has a unique representative φ ∈ Aut(A, F) that
preserves the edge e (it might exchange its endpoints). Looking at the restriction of φ
to Gu = A1 and Gv = tA1 t−1 , we get a map Out(A, F) → (Aut(A1 ) × Aut(A1 )) ⋊ Z/2Z.
This group acts by homeomorphisms on ∂∞ A1 × ∂∞ A1 = Ω(A, F).
44

Theorem 6.1. The Out(FN )-action on Ω is topologically amenable.
The proof is similar to the proof of Theorem 5.2, keeping track of the spaces when
using Ozawa’s inductive procedure (Proposition 2.8 and Corollary 2.15). The base case
of the induction follows from the fact that when (A, F) is sporadic, the Out(A, F (t) )action on Ω(A,F ) is topologically amenable, because the natural action of a hyperbolic
group on its boundary is topologically amenable. We leave the details to the reader.
Remark 6.2. If one takes for Ω′ the product of outer spaces of all non-elementary subgroups of FN , the natural action on this space (and even on the closure of the diagonal
embedding of the projectivized outer space) is not topologically amenable for N ≥ 3.
Indeed, consider a decomposition FN = A∗B with A not cyclic. Let T be the Bass–Serre
tree of this action, and TA , TB be two free simplicial actions of A and B respectively.
This defines a point in Ω′ as follows: let H < FN be a non-elementary subgroup; if the
action of H on T is non-trivial, we take the minimal H-invariant subtree for this action
as the H-coordinate. If not, then up to conjugating, we can assume that H is contained
in A or B, and we take as H-coordinate the action of H on the corresponding tree TA or
TB . We now note that the stabilizer of this point of Ω′ contains a subgroup isomorphic
to A, hence is non-amenable. Indeed, for all a ∈ A, the automorphism φ of FN that
restricts to ada on A and to the identity on B fixes this point.
Question 6.3. In [21], Hamenstädt describes a compact space equipped with a topologically amenable action of the mapping class group of a surface, in terms of complete
geodesic laminations on the surface. A possible analogue for Out(FN ) might be to consider free actions on general Λ-trees, instead of just actions on R-trees; the space Ω′
in the above remark can be viewed as a baby model for this space of Λ-trees. Is the
Out(FN )-action on this space topologically amenable?

6.2

On the amenability of the Out(G, F (t) )-action on AT

In Remark 3.14, we noticed that the action of Out(FN ) on the set of free arational trees
is Borel amenable (this is the case where F = ∅). In fact Theorem 5.1 implies that
the action of Out(FN ) on the set of all arational trees in PO(FN , ∅) is Borel amenable
because the stabilizer of every simplex in PO(FN , ∅) is finite.
We now explain how to refine the proof of Theorem 5.1 in order to show that the
action of Out(G, F (t) ) on AT is amenable even though the stabilizer of a simplex may
be non-amenable. It is important here to restrict to the subgroup Out(G, F (t) ) (whereas
Theorem 1.5 applies to Out(G, F)): indeed, there are arational trees whose stabilizer
in Out(G, F) is non-amenable (one easily constructs examples where T is an arational
surface tree). For similar reasons, this will also require further assumptions on the
peripheral groups Gi (see Remark 6.5). The idea of the proof is to replace simplices in O
by larger collections of simplices whose common stabilizer in Out(G, F (t) ) is amenable.
Theorem 6.4. Let {G1 , . . . , Gk } be a finite collection of countable groups, and let G =
G1 ∗· · ·∗Gk ∗FN with (G, {Gi }) non-sporadic. Assume that in each group Gi , centralizers
of non-trivial elements are amenable.
Then the Out(G, {Gi }(t) )-action on AT is Borel amenable.
45

Remark 6.5. The hypothesis on centralizers is necessary. Indeed, assume that one of
the groups Gi and contains an element a whose centralizer ZGi (a) is non-amenable. Let
T be an arational surface (G, F)-tree where Gi is amalgamated to one of the boundary
curves (or conical points) along a. Then the stabilizer of T contains a subgroup of
twists isomorphic to ZGi (a)/Z(Gi ). It is therefore non-amenable, which prevents the
Out(G, F (t) )-action on AT from being Borel amenable, as noticed in Remark 2.13. This
construction requires to write G as in Figure 1 in which the surface (or orbifold) holds
an arational foliation. This can be achieved by taking a sphere with k ≥ 4 punctures or
conical points, or a projective plane with 3 punctures or conical points [3].
Stabilizers of pairs of Grushko trees.
use of the following proposition.

In the proof of Theorem 6.4, we will make

Proposition 6.6. Let G be a countable group, and let F be a free factor system of G,
such that (G, F) is non-sporadic. Assume that in each peripheral group Gi , centralizers
of non-trivial elements are amenable.
Let S, S ′ ∈ O be two trees, such that there is no (G, F)-free splitting that is compatible
with both S and S ′ .
Then the common stabilizer of S and S ′ in Out(G, F (t) ) is amenable.
Notice that in the case where G = FN and F = ∅, the stabilizer of any point in Culler–
Vogtmann’s outer space is finite, so the conclusion is obvious. From now on, we will
assume that F =
6 ∅. We denote by Aut(G, F (t) ) the preimage in Aut(G) of Out(G, F (t) ),
by AS , AS ′ ⊆ Aut(G, F (t) ) the preimage of the stabilizer of S and S ′ respectively, and
we let AS,S ′ := AS ∩ AS ′ . Given g ∈ G, we denote by adg the automorphism of G given
by the conjugation by g, i.e. adg (h) = ghg −1 for all h ∈ G.
Lemma 6.7. For all φ ∈ AS , there exists a unique isometry Hφ of S which is φequivariant, i.e. such that Hφ (gx) = φ(g)Hφ (x) for all g ∈ G.
The map
H : AS → Isom(S)
φ 7→
Hφ
is an injective group morphism, which sends adg to the isometry x 7→ gx.
Proof. Let φ ∈ AS , and let Hφ be a φ-equivariant isometry of S. Let v ∈ S be a vertex
with nontrivial stabilizer. Then for all g ∈ Gv , we have Hφ (v) = Hφ (gv) = φ(g)Hφ (v),
so Hφ (v) is the only vertex of S which is fixed by φ(g). Therefore the Hφ -images of all
vertices of S with nontrivial stabilizer are completely determined. In addition, for every
point x ∈ S, there exist three vertices v1 , v2 , v3 of S with nontrivial stabilizer so that x
belongs to the tripod spanned by v1 , v2 , v3 . Therefore, the Hφ -image of every point in
S is determined. This shows that Hφ is unique. The fact that H is a group morphism
then follows from the observation that
Hφ ◦ Hψ (gv) = φ ◦ ψ(g)Hφ ◦ Hψ (v)

46

for all φ, ψ ∈ AS , all g ∈ G and all v ∈ S. Injectivity follows from the observation that
if Hφ is the identity, then φ(g)x = gx for all g ∈ G and all x ∈ S, so φ is the identity.
The last statement of the lemma also follows because x 7→ gx is adg -equivariant.
For φ ∈ AS,S ′ , we will denote by Hφ (resp. Hφ′ ) the isometry of S (resp. S ′ )
representing φ. Then AS,S ′ acts on S (resp. S ′ ) by φ.x = Hφ (x) (resp. φ.x = Hφ′ (x));
these actions are denoted with a dot. We let A ⊆ AS,S ′ be the finite index subgroup
made of all automorphisms acting as the identity on the quotient graphs S/G and S ′ /G.
Given a vertex v of S or S ′ , we denote by Gv its stabilizer in G, and by Av its stabilizer
for the A-action. Similarly, we denote by Ae the stabilizer of an edge e for the A-action.
Lemma 6.8. The actions A y S and A y S ′ belong to the same deformation space,
i.e. there exist A-equivariant maps from S to S ′ and from S ′ to S.
Proof. By symmetry of roles of S and S ′ , it is enough to show that every point stabilizer
for the actions A y S fixes a point in S ′ . If v ∈ S is a vertex with Gv 6= {1}, then
Av = {φ ∈ A|φ(Gv ) = Gv }, and Av fixes the unique point v ′ fixed by Gv in S ′ . Let now
w ∈ S be a vertex with Gw = {1}. Let v ∈ S be a point with Gv 6= {1} such that the
segment [w, v] does not meet any other point with nontrivial G-stabilizer. Since every
automorphism in A acts as the identity on the quotient graph S/G, for every φ ∈ Aw ,
the isometry Hφ fixes [v, w] pointwise. Therefore Aw ⊂ Av so Aw fixes a point in S ′ .
Lemma 6.9. Let e, e′ ⊆ S be two edges. If Ae ⊆ Ae′ , then Ae = Ae′ .
Proof. Let φ ∈ Ae′ . Since φ acts trivially on S/G, there exists g ∈ G such that φ.e = ge,
i.e. φ.e = adg .e. Then (adg−1 ◦ φ).e = e, so by assumption (adg−1 ◦ φ).e′ = e′ , so
ge′ = φ.e′ = e′ . Since S has trivial arc stabilizers for the G-action, it follows that g = 1,
so φ.e = e, i.e. φ ∈ Ae .
Corollary 6.10. The actions A y S and A y S ′ have the same edge stabilizers.
Proof. By Lemma 6.8, there exists an A-equivariant map from S to S ′ . Therefore, for
every edge e′ ⊆ S ′ , there exists an edge e ⊆ S such that Ae ⊆ Ae′ . By symmetry, there
also exists an edge e′2 ⊆ S ′ such that Ae′2 ⊆ Ae . We thus have Ae′2 ⊆ Ae ⊆ Ae′ , and
Lemma 6.9 implies that these subgroups are all equal.
Let v ∈ S be a vertex, and e ⊆ S be an edge incident on v. Then every automorphism
in Ae preserves Gv , and since A ⊂ Aut(G, F (t) , there is a restriction map ρv,e : Ae →
Inn(Gv ). In the following statement, we denote by A the image of A in Out(G, F (t) ).
Lemma 6.11. Assume that A is non-amenable. Then there exist a vertex v ∈ S and
an edge e incident on v so that ρv,e (Ae ) is non-amenable.
Proof. Given a vertex v ∈ S, we let E(v) be a set of representatives of the Gv -orbits of
edges incident on v. We denote by Z(Gv ) the center of Gv , which we diagonally embed
E(v)
into Gv . There is an injective morphism

Y
GvE(v) /Z(Gv ) ,
θ:A→
v

47

where the product is taken over a set of representatives of the G-orbits of vertices of
S, defined as follows: if Φ ∈ A and φ ∈ A is a representative fixing v and acting as
the identity on Gv , then to any incident edge e, one associates the element gv,e ∈ Gv
such that φ.e = gv,e e; since φ is well defined modulo conjugation by an element of
E(v)
Z(Gv ), the tuple (gv,e )e∈E(v) is well defined modulo Z(Gv ). Since Gv /Z(Gv ) maps to
(Gv /Z(Gv ))E(v) with central kernel, we get a map
Y
Inn(Gv )E(v)
θ′ : A →
v

Q Q
with central kernel. The image of this map is contained in v e∈E(v) ρv,e (Ae ): indeed,
if the representative φ of Φ acting as the identity on Gv sends e to gv,e e, then Φ has a
representative that fixes e and acts by conjugation by gv,e on Gv . Since A is nonamenable,
there exists a pair (v, e) with e ∈ E(v), such that ρv,e (Ae ) is nonamenable.
Proof of Proposition 6.6. We assume that A is nonamenable, and we will prove that
there exists a (G, F)-free splitting which is compatible with both S and S ′ .
Denote by E the collection of edge stabilizers for the action A y S (equivalently
A y S ′ , in view of Corollary 6.10). By Lemma 6.9, the trivial equivalence relation on E
is admissible in the sense of [17, Definition 3.1]. Cylinders of S are defined by
[
e′ ,
Cyle =
Ae′ =Ae

and the tree of cylinders S c is the bipartite simplicial tree having one vertex for each
cylinder C, one vertex for each point x ∈ S belonging to at least two cylinders, and an
edge joining x to C whenever x ∈ C. Since S and S ′ belong to the same deformation
space (Lemma 6.8), it follows from [17, Theorem 1] that S c = (S ′ )c . From now on,
we let U := S c . By [17, Proposition 8.1], the tree U is compatible with both S and
S ′ . Moreover, U is a minimal A-tree by [14, Lemma 4.9], hence a minimal G-tree (the
minimal G-tree is A-invariant because Inn(G) is normal in A). Thus, it suffices to show
that some edge of U has trivial stabilizer in G.
Let (v, e) be a pair as in Lemma 6.11, so that ρv,e (Ae ) is non-amenable. We claim
that Cyle ∩ Gv .e = {e}. Indeed, let e′ = ge for some g ∈ Gv , with Ae′ = Ae . Then for
all φ ∈ Ae , one has ge = e′ = φ.e′ = φ.(ge) = φ(g)φ.e = φ(g)e. Since edge stabilizers of
the G-action on S are trivial, we deduce that φ(g) = g. Therefore g is fixed by all the
inner automorphisms in ρv,e (Ae ). Since every non-trivial element of Gv has an amenable
centralizer, and ρv,e (Ae ) is non-amenable, g = 1 and e′ = e. This proves the claim.
Let now ε = (v, Cyle ) be the corresponding edge of S c . The above claim shows that
any element g ∈ G that fixes ε must fix e, so g = 1. This proves that ε has trivial
stabilizer for the G-action on U , which concludes the proof of the proposition.
End of the proof of Theorem 6.4.
the assumptions from Theorem 6.4.

From now on, we assume that (G, F) satisfies

48

Recall that a Z-splitting of (G, F) is a minimal, simplicial (G, F)-tree whose edge
stabilizers are either trivial, or cyclic and nonperipheral. The Z-splitting graph F Z is
the simplicial graph whose vertices are the Z-splittings of (G, F), where two splittings
are joined by an edge if they are compatible. Its hyperbolicity was proved by Mann [36]
for free groups, and extended to the context of free products in [26]. Since every optimal
folding path projects to an unparameterized quasigeodesic in F Z, there exists R > 0
such that if St is an optimal folding path and t1 < t2 < t3 < t4 and dF Z (St2 , St3 ) > R,
then St1 and St4 are not compatible with any common free splitting.
Given an arational tree T , an optimal morphism f : S → T and positive real numbers
t < t′ , we let [t, t′ ]f be the collection of all simplices ∆ ∈ Simp such that there exists a
˜ through which f factors, with e−t′ ≤ vol(S ′ /G) ≤ e−t . By Proposition 3.6
tree S ′ ∈ ∆
and Remark 3.9, the set [t, t′ ]f is finite. Given n ∈ N, we let mn (f ) be the smallest
integer such that the projection to F Z of the set [n, n + mn (f )]f has diameter at least
R. Existence of mn (f ) is justified by the following lemma.
Lemma 6.12. For all n ∈ N, we have mn (f ) < +∞.
Proof. Since the range of f is arational, it follows from the description of the Gromov
boundary of F Z in terms of Z-averse trees given in [26], together with the fact that
arational trees are Z-averse [25, Proposition 4.7], that every folding path guided by f
projects to an infinite unparameterized quasigeodesic ray in F Z. Therefore, by choosing m sufficiently large, we can ensure that [k, k + m]f contains two simplices whose
projections to F Z are at distance larger than R from one another, as required.
Let Mn (f ) := maxn≤k≤2n mk (f ). By definition of R and Proposition 6.6, this implies
that for all t ∈ [n, 2n], the set [t, t + Mn (f )]f contains two simplices whose common
stabilizer is amenable.
Proof of Theorem 6.4. The same argument as in the proof of Lemma 3.13 shows that for
all n, m, the set [n, n+m]f depends measurably on f ∈ Opt. Therefore, for all n ∈ N, the
integers mn (f ) and Mn (f ) depend measurably on f . Let F amen (Simp) be the countable
collection of all finite sets in Simp whose stabilizer in Out(G, F (t) ) is amenable. For all
n ∈ N and all f ∈ Opt, we then let µn (f ) be the probability measure on F amen (Simp)
defined as
Z
1 2n
µn (f ) :=
δ
dLeb(t),
n n [t,t+Mn (f )]f
where δ[t,t+Mn (f )]f is the Dirac measure on the set [t, t + Mn (f )]f . Then the map f 7→
µn (f ) is Borel. Arguing as in the proof of Proposition 3.22, we can then associate to
every tree T ∈ AT a sequence of probability measures µn (T ) on F amen (Simp), depending
measurably on T , so that for all n ∈ N and all Φ ∈ Out(G, F (t) ), we have
||µn (Φ.T ) − Φ.µn (T )||1 → 0
as n goes to +∞. Since the stabilizer of every point in F amen (Simp) is amenable, one
can apply Proposition 2.11 with K := F amen (Simp), and deduce that the Out(G, F (t) )action on AT is Borel amenable.
49

References
[1] S. Adams, Boundary amenability for word hyperbolic groups and an application to
smooth dynamics of simple groups, Topology 33 (1994), no. 4, 765–783.
[2] C. Anantharaman-Delaroche, Amenability and exactness for dynamical systems and
their C ∗ -algebras, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 354 (2002), no. 10, 4153–4178.
[3] P. Arnoux and J.-C. Yoccoz, Construction de difféomorphismes pseudo-Anosov, C.
R. Acad. Sci. Paris Sér. I Math. 292 (1981), no. 1, 75–78.
[4] M. Bestvina and M. Feighn, Outer limits, (1994), preprint, available at
http://andromeda.rutgers.edu/ feighn/papers/outer.pdf.
[5] M. Bestvina, M. Feighn, and M. Handel, Laminations, trees, and irreducible automorphisms of free groups, Geom. Funct. Anal. 7 (1997), no. 2, 215–244.
[6] N.P. Brown and N. Ozawa, C ∗ -Algebras and Finite-Dimensional Approximations,
Graduate Studies in Mathematics, vol. 88, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2008.
[7] S.J. Campbell and G.A. Niblo, Hilbert space compression and exactness for discrete
groups, J. Funct. Anal. 222 (2005), no. 2, 292–305.
[8] R. Charney and K. Vogtmann, Finiteness properties of automorphism groups of
right-angled Artin groups, Bull. London Math. Soc. 41 (2009), no. 1, 94–102.
[9] M.M. Cohen and M. Lustig, Very small group actions on R-trees and Dehn twist
automorphisms, Topol. 34 (1995), no. 3, 575–617.
[10] M. Culler and J.W. Morgan, Groups actions on R-trees, Proc. London Math. Soc.
55 (1987), no. 3, 571–604.
[11] D. Gaboriau, G. Levitt, and F. Paulin, Pseudogroups of isometries of R and Rips’
theorem on free actions on R-trees, Israel J. Math. 87 (1994), 403–428.
[12] M. Gromov, Random walk in random groups, Geom. Funct. Anal. 13 (2003), no. 1,
73–146.
[13] E. Guentner, N. Higson, and S. Weinberger, The Novikov conjecture for linear
groups, Publ. math. IHÉS 101 (2005), no. 1, 243–268.
[14] V. Guirardel, Limit groups and groups acting freely on Rn -trees, Geom. Topol. 8
(2004), no. 3, 1427–1470.
[15]

, Actions of finitely generated groups on R-trees, Ann. Inst. Fourier 58 (2008),
no. 1, 159–211.

[16] V. Guirardel and G. Levitt, The outer space of a free product, Proc. London Math.
Soc. 94 (2007), no. 3, 695–714.
50

[17]

, Trees of cylinders and canonical splittings, Geom. Topol. 15 (2011), no. 2,
977–1012.

[18]

, Splittings and automorphisms of relatively hyperbolic groups, Groups Geom.
Dyn. 9 (2015), no. 2, 599–663.

[19]

, JSJ decompositions of groups, arXiv:1602.05139 (2016).

[20] T. Haettel, Hyperbolic rigidity of higher-rank lattices, arXiv:1607.02004 (2016).
[21] U. Hamenstädt, Geometry of the mapping class group I: Boundary amenability,
Invent. math. 175 (2009), no. 3, 545–609.
[22] N. Higson, Bivariant K-theory and the Novikov conjecture, Geom. Funct. Anal. 10
(2000), no. 3, 563–581.
[23] N. Higson and J. Roe, Amenable group actions and the Novikov conjecture, J. reine
angew. Math. 519 (2000), 143–153.
[24] C. Horbez, The boundary of the outer space of a free product, to appear in Israel J.
Math.
[25]

, The Tits alternative for the automorphism group of a free product,
arXiv:1408.0546 (2014).

[26]

, Hyperbolic graphs for free products, and the Gromov boundary of the graph
of cyclic splittings, J. Topol. 9 (2016), no. 2, 401–450.

[27]

, Spectral rigidity for primitive elements of FN , J. Group Theory 19 (2016),
no. 1, 55–123.

[28] S. Jackson, A.S. Kechris, and A. Louveau, Countable Borel equivalence relations, J.
Math. Log. 2 (2002), no. 1, 1–80.
[29] Y. Kida, The mapping class group from the viewpoint of measure equivalence theory,
Mem. Amer. Math. Soc. 916 (2008).
[30] E. Kirchberg and S. Wassermann, Permanence properties of C ∗ -exact groups, Doc.
Math. 4 (1999), 513–558.
[31] A.G. Kurosh, Die Untergruppen der freien Produkte von beliebigen Gruppen, Math.
Ann. 109 (1934), no. 1, 647–660.
[32] G. Levitt, Graphs of actions on R-trees, Comment. Math. Helv. 69 (1994), no. 1,
28–38.
[33]

, Automorphisms of hyperbolic groups and graphs of groups, Geom. Dedic.
114 (2005), 49–70.

51

[34] G. Levitt and F. Paulin, Geometric group actions on trees, Amer. J. Math. 119
(1997), no. 1, 83–102.
[35] J. Los and M. Lustig, The set of train-track representatives of an irreducible free
group automorphism is contractible., preprint, 2004.
[36] B. Mann, Hyperbolicity of the cyclic splitting graph, Geom. Dedic. 173 (2014), no. 1,
271–280.
[37] P.W. Nowak, Zero-in-the-spectrum conjecture on regular covers of compact manifolds, Comment. Math. Helv. 84 (2009), no. 1, 213–222.
[38] D. Osajda, Small cancellation labellings of some infinite graphs and applications,
2014.
[39] N. Ozawa, Amenable actions and exactness for discrete groups, C.R. Acad. Sci.
Paris Sér. I Math. 330 (2000), no. 8, 691–695.
[40]

, Amenable actions and applications, Proceedings of the ICM (Madrid,
Spain) (Zürich), vol. 2, Eur. Math. soc., 2006, pp. 1563–1580.

[41]

, Boundary amenability of relatively hyperbolic groups, Topol. Appl. 153
(2006), no. 14, 2624–2630.

[42] F. Paulin, Topologie de Gromov équivariante, structures hyperboliques et arbres
réels, Invent. math. 94 (1988), no. 1, 53–80.
[43] J. Renault, Topological amenability is a Borel property, Math. Scand. 117 (2015),
no. 1, 5–30.
[44] P. Reynolds, Reducing systems for very small trees, arXiv:1211.3378 (2012).
[45] Z. Sela, Structure and rigidity in (Gromov) hyperbolic groups and discrete groups in
rank 1 Lie groups. II, Geom. Funct. Anal. 7 (1997), no. 3, 561–593.
[46] G. Yu, The coarse Baum–Connes conjecture for spaces which admit a uniform embedding into a Hilbert space, Invent. math. 139 (2000), no. 1, 201–240.
Mladen Bestvina
Department of Mathematics
University of Utah
155 South 1400 East, JWB 233
Salt Lake City, Utah 84112-0090, United States
e-mail:bestvina@math.utah.edu

52

Vincent Guirardel
Institut de Recherche Mathématique de Rennes
Université de Rennes 1 et CNRS (UMR 6625)
263 avenue du Général Leclerc, CS 74205
F-35042 RENNES Cédex
e-mail:vincent.guirardel@univ-rennes1.fr
Camille Horbez
CNRS
Laboratoire de Mathématique d’Orsay
Université Paris-Sud, Université Paris-Saclay
F-91405 ORSAY
e-mail:camille.horbez@math.u-psud.fr

53

