arXiv:1212.4791v3 [math.GR] 31 Mar 2016

Geometry & Topology XX (20XX) 1001–999

1001

Outer Space for Untwisted Automorphisms of Right-angled Artin
Groups
R. CHARNEY
N. STAMBAUGH
K. VOGTMANN
For a right-angled Artin group AΓ , the untwisted outer automorphism group U(AΓ ) is the
subgroup of Out(AΓ ) generated by all of the Laurence-Servatius generators except twists (where
a twist is an automorphisms of the form v 7→ vw with vw = wv). We define a space ΣΓ on
which U(AΓ ) acts properly and prove that ΣΓ is contractible, providing a geometric model for
U(AΓ ) and its subgroups. We also propose a geometric model for all of Out(AΓ ) defined by
allowing more general markings and metrics on points of ΣΓ .
20F65; 20F36, 20F28

1 Introduction
A free group is defined by giving a set of generators with no relations; in particular, none of
the generators commute. A free abelian group is defined by giving a set of generators which all
commute, and no other relations. Finitely-generated free and free abelian groups are examples of
right-angled Artin groups (RAAGs for short): a general RAAG is defined by giving a finite set
of generators, some of which commute, and no other relations. A convenient way of describing
a RAAG is by drawing a graph Γ with one vertex for each generator and an edge between each
pair of commuting generators; the resulting RAAG is denoted AΓ . RAAGs and their subgroups
are important sources of examples and counterexamples in geometric group theory (see [4] for a
survey) and have recently played a key role in the solution of Thurston’s conjectures on the structure
of hyperbolic 3-manifolds (see [1]).
Automorphism groups of RAAGs have received less attention, with the notable exception of
AΓ = Zn and AΓ = Fn . Since it is easy to determine the center of any AΓ the inner automorphisms
of AΓ are well-understood, so it remains to study the outer automorphism group Out(AΓ ). The
groups Out(Fn ) and Out(Zn ) = GL(n, Z) have been shown to have many features in common, and
it is natural to ask whether these features are in fact shared by all Out(AΓ ). On the other hand,
there are important differences between GL(n, Z) and Out(Fn ) (such as the fact that Out(Fn ) is not
linear!), so we are also interested in how the structure of Γ affects the group-theoretic properties of
Out(AΓ ).
Published: XX Xxxember 20XX

DOI: 10.2140/gt.20XX.XX.1001

1002

R. Charney, N. Stambaugh and K. Vogtmann

In previous work we have explored properties of Out(AΓ ) using inductive local-to-global ideas,
based ultimately on the fact that an outer automorphism of AΓ must send certain special subgroups
Ast[v] to conjugates of themselves [5, 6, 3, 7]. In this paper we take a more uniformly global
approach by introducing an “Outer space" for any AΓ which should play the role of the symmetric
space Qn = SL(n, R)/SO(n) in the study of SL(n, Z) or of Outer space On in the study of Out(Fn ),
i.e. it should be a contractible finite-dimensional space with a proper action of Out(AΓ ).
Among the many possible ways of defining Qn and On are as spaces of free cocompact actions
(of Zn on Rn or of Fn on simplicial trees) or as spaces of marked metric spaces (flat tori with
fundamental group Zn or metric graphs with fundamental group Fn , equipped with a homotopy
equivalence called a marking to a fixed torus or graph). All AΓ act freely and cocompactly on
CAT(0) cube complexes, so it is natural to try to define Outer space in general in the first way, as
a space of actions. In [5] we were motivated by this idea but were unable to prove contractiblity
of any appropriate space of CAT(0) actions; instead we looked at local data one would obtain from
such an action and defined a point of Outer space to be such a data set (whether or not it actually
comes from an action). This trick was successful for RAAGs defined by graphs which contain no
triangles (called 2-dimensional RAAGs), but the methods do not generalize to higher dimension.
In this paper we take the second approach, defining a space whose points are marked metric
spaces. For every RAAG AΓ there is a standard minimal non-positively curved cube complex with
fundamental group AΓ , called the Salvetti complex. We build our space out of somewhat more
general cube complexes called Γ-complexes; these are homotopy equivalent to Salvetti complexes
via an elementary operation called hyperplane collapse. For AΓ = Zn the only Γ-complex is the
Salvetti complex, which is an n-torus. For AΓ = Fn the Salvetti complex is a rose with n petals,
Γ-complexes are graphs with no univalent or bivalent vertices or separating edges and hyperplane
collapse amounts to collapsing a maximal tree.
We restrict attention to the subgroup U(AΓ ) of Out(AΓ ) generated by inversions, graph automorphisms, partial conjugations and transvections of the form v 7→ vw, where v and w are generators
of AΓ with vw 6= wv. By a theorem of Laurence and Servatius these generate Out(AΓ ) unless
there are vertices v and w with st(v) ⊆ st(w), in which case we must also add twists sending
v 7→ vw = wv. We refer to U(AΓ ) the untwisted subgroup of Out(AΓ ). One reason for interest in
this subgroup, even when it is not equal to all of Out(AΓ ), is that for any Γ the kernel IAΓ of the
natural map Out(AΓ ) → GL(n, Z) is contained in U(AΓ ).
We build a simplicial complex KΓ on which U(AΓ ) acts properly and cocompactly, so that KΓ
is quasi-isometric to U(AΓ ) by the Schwarz-Milnor lemma. The vertices of KΓ are marked Γcomplexes, where a marking is an “untwisted" homotopy equivalence to a fixed Salvetti complex.
Two vertices are joined by an edge if one is obtained from the other by a hyperplane collapse, and
the resulting graph is then completed to a flag complex to form KΓ . Our main theorem is
Theorem 6.24 For any right-angled Artin group AΓ , the complex KΓ is contractible.
Geometry & Topology XX (20XX)

Untwisted automorphisms of RAAGs

1003

As an immediate corollary we obtain
Corollary The dimension of KΓ is an upper bound for the virtual cohomological dimension of
the untwisted subgroup U(AΓ ) of Out(AΓ ) .
The dimension of KΓ is always finite. In Section 5 we compute this dimension for a few examples
of 2-dimensional RAAGs. Upper and lower bounds for the VCD of Out(AΓ ) when AΓ is 2dimensional were computed in [3] but these bounds seldom agree. Our computations of the
dimension of KΓ improve on the bounds given in [3] and in some cases, determine the exact VCD
of U(AΓ ).
We can obtain a larger space ΣΓ by equipping Γ-complexes with metrics in which the cubes are
rectilinear parallelepipeds. The simplicial complex KΓ then embeds as an equivariant deformation
retract of ΣΓ . For a free group, U(AΓ ) = Out(AΓ ), ΣΓ is the usual (reduced) Outer space On ,
and KΓ is the spine of Outer space. For a free abelian group of rank n, U(AΓ ) is the finite group
of signed permutation matrices, ΣΓ is the positive orthant in Rn−1 , and KΓ is a single point.
To get a space on which the entire group Out(AΓ ) acts, we allow the markings to be arbitrary
homotopy equivalences and the metrics on Γ-complexes to be “twisted" in certain restricted ways.
This is discussed briefly in the last section of the paper.
Our description of marked Γ-complexes and proof of contractibility of KΓ are modeled on Culler
and Vogtmann’s original proof that Outer space for a free group is contractible [9]. The idea is
that KΓ is the union of the simplicial stars of the marked Salvettis, and we assemble all of KΓ by
attaching these stars one at a time, making sure that at each stage we are gluing along a contractible
subcomplex. The order in which we attach the stars is determined by a Morse function which
measures the lengths of conjugacy classes of AΓ under the marking of the Salvetti. The proof
that the subcomplexes along which we glue are contractible requires understanding how this Morse
function changes under basic automorphisms; this depends on a generalization of the classical Peak
Reduction algorithm for free groups. A version of Peak Reduction for RAAGs was established
by M. Day in [10, 11]. We require a stronger version (see Theorems 6.18 and 6.19) and give an
independent proof.
We will make use of the standard notions of non-positively curved cube complexes and hyperplanes,
and we refer the reader to [12] for these concepts.
Charney and Vogtmann would like to thank the Mittag-Leffler Institute in Stockholm and the
Forschungsinstitut für Mathematik in Zurich for their hospitality during the development of this
paper. Charney was partially supported by NSF grant DMS-1106726.
Geometry & Topology XX (20XX)

1004

R. Charney, N. Stambaugh and K. Vogtmann

2 Whitehead automorphisms
In this section we recall some basic facts about right-angled Artin groups and their automorphisms.
Fix a right-angled Artin group AΓ with generating set V = vertices(Γ).

2.1 Partial orders
Recall from [6] that the relation lk(v) ⊆ st(w) for v, w vertices of Γ is denoted v ≤ w. Vertices are
called equivalent if v ≤ w and w ≤ v, and we write v ∼ w. (The justification for this notation is
that ≤ is a partial order on equivalence classes of vertices.) If v is adjacent to w then v ≤ w if and
only if st(v) ⊆ st(w), and if v is not adjacent to w then v ≤ w if and only if lk(v) ⊆ lk(w).
When considered as elements of AΓ , each element v ∈ V has an inverse v−1 , and we will often
work with the symmetric set V ± = {v, v−1 | v ∈ V}. For x, y ∈ V ± we say x ≤ y etc. if the
corresponding vertices of Γ satisfy the relation.

2.2 Generators for Out(AΓ )
Laurence and Servatius ([15, 17]) proved that the following simple types of automorphisms generate
all of Aut(AΓ ) (and hence their images generate Out(AΓ )):
(1) An automorphism of the graph Γ permutes the vertices V and induces an automorphism of
AΓ , called a graph automorphism.
(2) If v ∈ V , the map sending v 7→ v−1 and fixing all other generators is an automorphism of
AΓ , called an inversion.
(3) If v ≤ w, then the map sending v 7→ vw and fixing all other generators is an automorphism
of AΓ , called a transvection. If v is adjacent to w this is called a twist, and if not it is called
a fold.
(4) If C is a component of Γ \ st(v), then the map sending x → vxv−1 for every vertex x of C
and fixing all other generators is an automorphism of AΓ , called a partial conjugation.
Twists play a specialized role in the study of Out(AΓ ), and we define T(AΓ ) to be the subgroup
of Out(AΓ ) generated by these. We then define U(AΓ ) to be the subgroup generated by all other
types of generators, i.e. graph automorphisms, inversions, partial conjugations and folds. In the
terminology of [10], elements of U(AΓ ) are called long-range automorphisms. The subgroup
U(AΓ ) will be the focus of the rest of the paper.
Geometry & Topology XX (20XX)

Untwisted automorphisms of RAAGs

2.3

1005

Γ -Whitehead partitions

There is a larger generating set for U(AΓ ) which is more natural for our purposes. This larger
set includes simple combinations of folds and partial conjugations; it consists of automorphisms
of AΓ which are induced by Whitehead automorphisms of the free group F(V). We recall that a
Whitehead automorphism of F(V) is determined by a pair (P, m), where P ⊂ V ± has at least 2
elements, and m ∈ P with m−1 6∈ P. The automorphism ϕ = (P, m) is given by

−1

if v = m

m


−1

if v ∈ P and v−1 ∈
/P

vm
−1
ϕ(v) = mv
if v ∈ P and v 6∈ P



−1

mvm
if v, v−1 ∈ P



v
otherwise

We remark that it is more usual to define a Whitehead automorphism with ϕ(m) = m, but as we
will see in Lemma 3.2 below, setting ϕ(m) = m−1 corresponds more naturally with the geometric
version of a Whitehead move. (This was originally observed by Hoare in [13]). With this definition,
ϕ is an involution, so ϕ = ϕ−1 . Replacing P by its complement, P∗ and m by m−1 changes ϕ by
an inner automorphism (conjugation by m). Thus, (P, m) and (P∗ , m−1 ) determine the same outer
automorphism.
Not every Whitehead automorphism of F(V) induces an automorphism of AΓ , and even if it does
the induced automorphism may be trivial (e.g. conjugating v by an adjacent w). Both of these
problems are solved by the following definition.
Definition 2.1 Let P ⊂ V ± have at least 2 elements, including some m ∈ P with m−1 6∈ P. Then
(P, m) is a Γ-Whitehead pair if
(1) no element of P is adjacent to m,
(2) if x ∈ P and x−1 6∈ P, then x ≤ m, and
(3) if v, v−1 ∈ P then w, w−1 ∈ P for all w in the same component as v of Γ \ st(m).
Lemma 2.2 If (P, m) is a Γ -Whitehead pair, then the Whitehead automorphism of F(V) defined
by (P, m) induces a non-trivial automorphism of AΓ . The induced outer automorphism lies in
U(AΓ ) .
Proof Conditions (1)-(3) in the definition of a Γ-Whitehead pair guarantee that any relation
[v, w] = 1 is preserved by the Whitehead automorphism (P, m).
Geometry & Topology XX (20XX)

1006

R. Charney, N. Stambaugh and K. Vogtmann

m

u

v
lk(m)

x
y
C1

C2

P∗

C3

P
m

u

v

m−1

u−1

v−1

y

C3

x
C1

lk(P)

C2

y−1

x−1

Figure 1: A graph Γ and a Γ-Whitehead partition

If (P, m) is a Γ-Whitehead pair, we define
double(P) = {x ∈ P | x−1 is also in P}
single(P) = {x ∈ P | x−1 is not in P}
max(P) = {x ∈ single(P) | x ∼ m}
lk(P) = lk(m)±
Remark 2.3 Here are some elementary observations about Γ-Whitehead pairs. Since all elements
of max(P) are equivalent, lk(P) is independent of the choice of m ∈ max(P). For any m′ ∈ max(P),
the pair (P, m′ ) is also a Γ-Whitehead pair. The set max(P) can be recovered from P without
reference to m as the set of maximal elements in single(P). Since every v ∈ single(P) is ≤ m and
is not adjacent to m, no two elements of single(P) are adjacent to each other.
By condition (1) of Definition 2.1 lk(P) is disjoint from P. Let P∗ be the complement of P ∪ lk(P)
in V ± , i.e. we have a partition of V ± into three disjoint subsets
V ± = P + lk(P) + P∗
It is easy to verify that (P∗ , v−1 ) is also a Γ-Whitehead pair for any v ∈ max(P), that lk(P∗ ) = lk(P)
and that max(P∗ ) = max(P)−1 .
Definition 2.4 If (P, m) is a Γ-Whitehead pair, the triple P = {P, lk(P), P∗ } is called a ΓWhitehead partition of V ± , and P and P∗ are called the sides of P.
Geometry & Topology XX (20XX)

Untwisted automorphisms of RAAGs

1007

SL+D

em

eP

en

Slk(m) × I

SL × I

Slk(n) × I

SL+D∗

Figure 2: Blowup SP of S

We remark that a Γ-Whitehead partition is completely determined by either of its sides.
Notation We will often use P× to denote a choice of side of P. The following notation distinguishes
vertices of Γ (as opposed to elements of V ± ):
lk(P) = {v ∈ V | v, v−1 ∈ lk(P)} = {v ∈ V | v, v−1 ∈ lk(P∗ )}
single(P) = {v ∈ V | v and v−1 are in different sides of P}
double(P) = {v ∈ V | v and v−1 are both in the same side of P}
max(P) = {v ∈ V | v or v−1 is in max(P)}

3

Γ -complexes

3.1 Blowing up a single Γ -Whitehead partition
We begin by recalling the construction of the Salvetti complex S = SΓ . Let n be the cardinality
of V and let Tn denote an n-torus with edges labelled {ev | v ∈ V}. Then S is the subcomplex
Geometry & Topology XX (20XX)

1008

R. Charney, N. Stambaugh and K. Vogtmann

of Tn consisting of faces whose edges are labelled by mutually commuting sets of vertices. It is
easily verified that S is locally CAT(0) (hence aspherical) and has fundamental group AΓ . For any
subset U ⊂ V , let SU denote the subcomplex of S spanned by the edges labelled eu , u ∈ U . Note
that this is isomorphic to the Salvetti complex for the RAAG generated by U .
Let P = {P, lk(P), P∗ } be a Γ-Whitehead partition of V ± . We obtain a new cube complex SP by
blowing up S as follows. Let D denote the vertices represented in double(P), D∗ the vertices in
double(P∗ ) and L = lk(P). To construct SP :
• Start with a copy of SL × [0, 1]. Label the (unique) 1-cell eP .
• Attach a copy of SL+D by identifying the natural subcomplex SL ⊂ SL+D with SL × {1}.
• Attach a copy of SL+D∗ by identifying the natural subcomplex SL ⊂ SL+D∗ with SL × {0}.
• For each v ∈ single(P), attach a copy of Slk(v) × [0, 1] at its ends using the natural inclusions

Slk(v) × {1} ⊂ SL × {1} and Slk(v) × {0} ⊂ SL × {0}. Label the edge of Slk(v) × [0, 1] with
ev . Orient it from 0 to 1 if v ∈ P and from 1 to 0 if v−1 ∈ P.
Figure 2 may help the reader visualize this construction.
Remark 3.1 If v and w commute, then S contains a corresponding torus T(v, w), say with ev as
longitude and ew as meridian. This torus “blows up" to the following subcomplex of SP :
• If v ∈ double(P) then w must be in lk(P) or double(P). In either case T(v, w) gives rise to

a torus attached at the vertex of eP in SL × {1}, with ev as longitude and (the appropriate
copy of) ew as meridian. If v ∈ double(P∗ ) then the torus is attached at the vertex of eP in
SL × {0}.
• If v ∈ single(P) the longitude of T(v, w) is subdivided into two edges labeled eP and ev .

The meridian loop w ∈ lk(v) ⊂ lk(P) has two representatives, one at each end of eP , both
labeled ew .
• If v and w are both in lk(P), then T blows up to the product T(v, w) × eP ⊆ SP .

We note the following properties of the blowup:
(1) SP has exactly two vertices which correspond to the two sides of P.
(2) The edges emanating from the P-vertex are labelled by the elements of P ∪ lk(P) plus one
extra edge labelled eP . Similarly for the P∗ -vertex.
(3) Two edges at a vertex span a square if and only if they are labelled by commuting generators,
or by eP and an element of lk(P).
(4) The links of the vertices are flag, hence SP is non-positively curved.
Geometry & Topology XX (20XX)

Untwisted automorphisms of RAAGs

1009

Note that collapsing the cylinder SL ×[0, 1] down to SL ×{0} recovers S; we call this the canonical
collapse cP . For each m ∈ max(P), there is an isomorphism hm of SP which interchanges SL × eP
and SL × em . Let cm denote the composite map cP ◦ hm : SP → S.
Lemma 3.2 Let c−1
P be a homotopy inverse of the canonical collapse. Then the composition
−1
P
cm ◦ cP : S → S → S induces the Whitehead automorphism (P, m) on AΓ = π1 (S) .

3.2 Compatible and commuting Γ -Whitehead partitions
It is possible to build a connected graph with a proper cocompact action of U(AΓ ) using just Salvetti
complexes and single blowups SP , but to make a contractible complex we will need to do further
blowing up to “fill in the holes" in this graph. To this end, we make the following definitions.
Definition 3.3 Let P = {P, lk(P), P∗ } and Q = {Q, lk(Q), Q∗ } be two Γ-Whitehead partitions.
(1) Say P, Q commute if the equivalence classes of max(P) and max(Q) are distinct and commute
in AΓ .
(2) Say P, Q are compatible if either they commute, or P× ∩ Q× is empty for (at least) one
choice of sides P× ∈ {P, P∗ } and Q× ∈ {Q, Q∗ }.
Lemma 3.4 Let P and Q be non-commuting compatible Γ -Whitehead partitions. If P ∩ Q = ∅ ,
then P ∩ lk(Q) = ∅ , i.e., P ⊂ Q∗ and Q ⊂ P∗ .
Proof Suppose u ∈ P ∩ lk(Q), and let m ∈ max(Q). Then u ∈ lk(Q) = lk(m) implies that
m ∈ lk(u). If u ∈ single(P) then lk(u) ⊆ lk(P), so m ∈ lk(P), contradicting the assumption that
P and Q do not commute. If u ∈ double(P) then the fact that u and m are connected by an edge
implies that either m ∈ lk(P), or m lies in the same component of Γ − lk(P) as u. The former
contradicts the assumption that P and Q do not commute, and the latter implies that m ∈ P ∩ Q.
The last statement follows by symmetry.
Remark 3.5 Let P and Q be non-commuting compatible Γ-Whitehead partitions and suppose
that m ∈ max(P) ∩ max(Q). Then either P∗ ∩ Q or P ∩ Q∗ is empty, say P∗ ∩ Q = ∅. Then it
follows from the lemma that Q ⊂ P and setting R = (P \ Q) ∪ {m}, a straightforward exercise
shows that (R, m) is also a Γ-Whitehead pair and the corresponding Whitehead automorphisms
satisfy (P, m)◦(Q, m)−1 = (P, m)◦(Q, m) = (R, m)◦im where im is the inversion taking m 7→ m−1 .
Lemma 3.6 Let P and Q be distinct compatible Γ -Whitehead partitions. If P and Q do not
commute, then exactly one of P× ∩ Q× is empty.
Geometry & Topology XX (20XX)

1010

R. Charney, N. Stambaugh and K. Vogtmann

Proof Since P and Q are compatible at least one of the sets P× ∩ Q× is empty, so without loss
of generality we may assume P ∩ Q = ∅. By the previous lemma, it follows that P ∩ Q∗ = P and
P∗ ∩ Q = Q.
Suppose P∗ ∩ Q∗ = ∅. Then any m ∈ max(P) must have m−1 ∈ Q, so lk(P) ⊆ lk(Q) and
similarly lk(Q) ⊆ lk(P). Thus V ± = P ⊔ lk(P) ⊔ Q, i.e. Q = P∗ and P = Q, contradicting our
hypothesis.
It follows from the lemma that for non-commuting, compatible partitions P, Q with non-empty
intersection P× ∩ Q× , we can switch sides of either P or Q, but not necessarily both, and still get
a non-empty intersection.

3.3 Blowing up compatible collections of Γ -Whitehead partitions
Now let
Π = {P1 , . . . , Pk }
be a set of pairwise compatible Γ-Whitehead partitions. We want to simultaneously blow-up S
along all of the partitions in Π to obtain a non-positively curved cube complex SΠ .
The role played by the edge eP in the single blowup SP will now be played by a cubical subcomplex
of a k-dimensional cube, [0, 1]k . The vertices of this subcomplex will form the vertices of SΠ , and
to describe them we make the following definition:
∗
Definition 3.7 A region of Π is a choice of side P×
i ∈ {Pi , Pi } for each i such that for i 6= j,
×
either Pi , Pj commute, or P×
i ∩ Pj 6= ∅.
×
k
To each region R = (P×
1 , . . . , Pk ) of Π we associate a vertex xR = (a1 , . . . , ak ) of [0, 1] by the
rule
(
0 if P×
i = Pi ,
ai =
×
1 if Pi = P∗i .

Let EΠ denote the cubical subcomplex of [0, 1]k spanned by the xR , and label all edges parallel to
the i-th basis vector with the label ePi .
Example 3.8 Suppose Π = {P, Q}. If P and Q commute, then EΠ is the entire square [0, 1]2 ,
with two (parallel) edges labeled eP and the other two labeled eQ . If P and Q do not commute,
then by Lemma 3.6 exactly three of (P, Q), (P∗ , Q), (P, Q∗ ) and (P∗ , Q∗ ) are regions, so that EΠ
consists of two adjacent edges of the square, one labeled eP and one labeled eQ .
If Π contains three Γ-Whitehead partitions, the possibilities for EΠ are illustrated in Figure 3.
Geometry & Topology XX (20XX)

Untwisted automorphisms of RAAGs

1011

Figure 3: Possibilities for E{P,Q,R}

The following lemma guarantees that every set of pairwise compatible Γ-Whitehead partitions has
regions associated to it.
Lemma 3.9 Let Π = {P1 , . . . , Pk } be a set of pairwise compatible Γ -Whitehead partitions, and
×
(P×
1 , . . . , Pk ) a region for Π . If a Γ -Whitehead partition P is compatible with each Pi then for
×
×
some choice of sides P× ∈ {P, P∗ } , (P×
1 , . . . , Pk , P ) is a region for Π ∪ {P} .
Proof If P commutes with Pi for all i either choice of sides will do. So suppose P does not
commute with Pi for some i. By Lemma 3.4, if P×
i is not contained in either side of P, then either
×
choice of side works for this pair. If Pi is contained in one side of P, we must choose P× to be
×
that side. Thus, to prove the lemma, we must show that if P×
i and Pj are each contained in a side
of P, then they are contained in the same side.
×
×
∗
×
To see this, suppose that P×
i ⊂ P and Pj ⊂ P , so Pi ∩ Pj = ∅. By assumption, the choice of
sides for Pi and Pj defined a region, so they must commute. That is, max(Pi ) and max(Pj ) are
adjacent in Γ. Let v ∈ max(P×
i ). If v ∈ single(P), then max(Pj ) ⊆ lk(v) ⊆ lk(P), contradicting
the assumption that P does not commute with Pj . Thus, the elements of max(Pi ) appear as doubles
in P. Likewise, elements of max(Pj ) appear as doubles in P∗ . But since max(Pi ), max(Pj ) are
adjacent, they lie in the same component of Γ \ st(v), v ∈ max(P), hence they must appear on the
same side of P.

We continue building SΠ by attaching edges to EΠ for each element of V . We need the following
lemmas in order to explain how this is done.
×
±
Associated to a region R = (P×
1 , . . . , Pk ) is a subset of V defined by
×

×

I(R) = P1 ∩ · · · ∩ Pk
×

where Pi = P×
i ∪ lk(Pi ). As we will see below, the elements of I(R) will correspond to the directed
edges attached at the vertex xR
Note that if switching sides of Pi and leaving all other P×
j unchanged gives a valid region Ri , then
there is an edge in EΠ labelled ePi from xR to xRi .
Geometry & Topology XX (20XX)

1012

R. Charney, N. Stambaugh and K. Vogtmann

Lemma 3.10 Let Π = {P1 , . . . , Pk } be a set of pairwise compatible Γ -Whitehead partitions.
Then the regions of Π satisfy the following.
(1) For every element v in V ± , there exists a region R with v ∈ I(R) .
(2) If I(R) contains v , then switching sides of every Pi for which v is a singleton gives a region
Rv such that I(Rv ) contains v−1 . Moreover, if w ∈ I(R) commutes with v , then I(Rv ) also
contains w .
Proof We proceed by induction on k. For k = 1 this is obvious. Assume k > 1. If v ∈ lk(Pi ) for
all i, then for every region R, v ∈ I(R) and Rv = R, so we need only show that Π has at least one
region, which follows from Lemma 3.9.
Now suppose that v is not in the link of at least one of the partitions. Say v ∈
/ lk(Pi ) for 1 ≤ i < r.
×
For these partitions, choose Pi to be the side of Pi containing v. For r ≥ i ≤ k, choose any
×
×
collection of sides P×
i such that (Pr , . . . , Pk ) is a region for the partition (Pr , . . . , Pk ). (Such a
×
choice exists by induction.) We claim that R = (P×
1 , . . . , Pk ) is a valid region for Π . For this,
we must verify that the chosen sides for any two non-commuting partitions Pi , Pj intersect. This is
×
true by definition for i, j ≥ r. For i, j < r, v ∈ P×
i ∩ Pj so this intersection is non-empty, and for
i < r ≥ j, v ∈ P×
i ∩ lk(Pj ) so by Lemma 3.4, Pi , Pj commute. Thus R is a region.
If Rv is obtained from R by switching the sides of those Pi for which v is a singleton, then the
same argument, with v replaced by v−1 , shows that Rv is a region. Moreover, if v is a singleton in
Pi , then lk(v) ⊆ lk(Pi ), hence I(R) ∩ lk(v)± = I(Rv ) ∩ lk(v)± .
We can now explain how to attach edges to EΠ . For each v in I(R) we attach an edge labelled ev
joining xR and xRv , where Rv is obtained as in the lemma. (Note that we may have R = Rv if v
is not a singleton in any Pi , in which case we are attaching a loop.) The edge ev is oriented from
the region containing v−1 to the region containing v. The 1-skeleton of the resulting complex,
including edges labeled ev and ePi , will be the entire 1-skeleton of SΠ , so we denote it (SΠ )(1)
Note that while a given label occurs at most once at each vertex, it does not determine a unique edge
in (SΠ )(1) . For example, an edge labelled ev will occur at every vertex xR with v ∈ I(R). Indeed,
once the higher dimensional cells are added, we will see that two edges have the same label if and
only if they determine the same hyperplane in SΠ .
To complete the construction of SΠ we need to add higher-dimensional cubes which capture the
commutation relations in AΓ . Define two edges to have commuting labels if their labels are one of
the following.
(1) ev , ew with v, w distinct, commuting elements of V,
(2) ev , ePi with v ∈ lk(Pi ),
(3) ePi , ePj with Pi , Pj distinct, commuting partitions.
Geometry & Topology XX (20XX)

Untwisted automorphisms of RAAGs

1013

Lemma 3.11 Let ea and eb be edges at a vertex xR with commuting labels. Then ea , eb belong to
a 4-cycle in (SΠ )(1) with opposite edges having the same label.
Proof If the labels are both of the form ePi then they span a square in EΠ , and we are done.
If the labels are ev and ew , they terminate at xRv and xRw respectively. It follows from Lemma
3.10(2) that there is an edge labelled ev emanating from xRw and an edge labelled ew emanating
from xRv . These form a square with the vertex opposite xR corresponding to (Rv )w = (Rw )v .
A similar argument applies for edges labelled ev and ePi . Since v ∈ lk(Pi ), switching the side of
Pi does not affect v. So if R′ is the result of this switch, then there is an edge labelled ev emanating
from xR′ . The other end of this edge corresponds to a region R′v which differs from Rv only on Pi .
Thus, the vertices Rv and R′v are also connected by an edge labelled ePi , completing the square.
Corollary 3.12 If a collection of edges e1 , . . . em emanating from a vertex xR have pairwise
commuting labels, then these edges form a corner of the 1-skeleton of an m -cube in (SΠ )(1) , such
that parallel edges have the same labels.
Proof This follows from Lemma 3.11 by induction on m.
It follows that we can glue an m-cube into (SΠ )(1) whenever we have a set of m edges at a vertex with
commuting labels. The resulting cube complex is SΠ . Note that the subcomplex of SΠ spanned
by the edges labelled ePi is precisely the complex EΠ that we started with. By construction, the
link of the vertex xR has an (m − 1)–simplex for each set of m mutually commuting edge labels
emanating from xR , so by Gromov’s link condition SΠ is locally CAT(0).
Definition 3.13 A Γ-complex is any cube complex which is isomorphic to SΠ for some compatible
set Π of Γ-Whitehead partitions, including S = S∅ . A Γ-complex isomorphic to S is called simply
a Salvetti.
Theorem 3.14 Let Π be a compatible set of Γ -Whitehead partitions. Then the Γ -complex SΠ
has the following properties.
(1) Any two vertices, xR , xR′ are connected by a path with labels in the set
{ePi | R and R′ contain opposite sides of Pi }.
(2) Any two edges with the same label are dual to the same hyperplane.
(3) SΠ is connected and locally CAT(0).
Geometry & Topology XX (20XX)

1014

R. Charney, N. Stambaugh and K. Vogtmann

Proof (1) Let R and R′ be two regions of Π and (reordering if necessary) suppose they differ in
the choice of sides of P1 , . . . , Pl but agree on the remaining partitions. We will show by induction
on l that they are connected by a path with labels in {ePi }i=1,...,l . For l = 1, two regions which
differ on only one partition P are, by construction, connected by an edge labelled eP .
Suppose l > 1. For simplicity, write R = (P1 , . . . , Pk ). (It makes no difference which side we call
Pi and which side we call P∗i ). Choose i ≤ l such that Pi is minimal among the sets P1 , . . . , Pl .
That is, Pi does not contain any of the other sets in this collection. Then it follows from Lemma
3.4 that switching P∗i is also compatible with (i.e. commutes or intersects) the remaining Pj , j ≤ l.
For j > l, Pj must also be compatible with P∗i since they both appear in the region R′ . Thus,
setting Ri = (P1 , . . . , P∗i , . . . Pk ) we obtain a valid region which differs from R′ in l − 1 places.
The vertices corresponding to R and Ri are connected by an edge labelled ePi and by induction,
the vertices corresponding to Ri and R′ are connected with labels in {ePj }1≤j≤l,j6=i .
(2) We consider two cases. Suppose R and R′ are regions with v ∈ I(R) ∩ I(R′ ), so there is an edge
/ lk(Pi )
labelled ev emanating from both vertices xR and xR′ . Then for any partition Pi with v ∈
′
′
both R and R must contain the (unique) side of Pi containing v. That is, R and R differ only
on partitions containing v in their link. By part (1), it follows that xR and xR′ are connected by
a path labeled by ePi such that ePi commutes with ev and hence these two edges span a 2-cube.
Proceeding along this path gives a sequence of such cubes joining the ev edges at xR and xR′ . It
follows that they are dual to the same hyperplane.
For two edges labelled by ePi consider the four vertices contained in these edges. Say the regions for
these vertices are R, Ri and R′ , R′i . If R and R′ differ on some Pj then all possible combinations of
Pi , P∗i with Pj , P∗j occur in these four regions. But this is possible only if Pi and Pj are commuting
partitions. Thus, arguing as above, we can connect R to R′ with a path labelled by ePj ’s which
commute with ePi and conclude that there is a sequence of cubes between the ePi -edges at xR and
xR′ .
(3) It follows from (1) that SΠ is connected, and it was observed above that it is locally CAT(0) by
construction.

4 Collapsing along hyperplanes
In the case of a single blow-up SP , we observed in Lemma 3.2 that for any element m ∈ max(P)
there is a subcomplex containing the edge em which can be collapsed to give a Salvetti, i.e. a cube
complex isomorphic to S. Furthermore the map on S obtained by blowing-up followed by this
collapse corresponds to a Whitehead automorphism. In this section we identify all subcomplexes
of general Γ-complexes which can be collapsed to give a Salvetti.
Geometry & Topology XX (20XX)

Untwisted automorphisms of RAAGs

1015

Let X be a non-positively curved cubical complex and H a hyperplane of X . If e is an edge of X
then e and H are said to be dual if e intersects H . The carrier κ(H) of H is the subcomplex of X
formed by the closures of the cubes of all dimensions that intersect H .
Definition 4.1 Let H be a hyperplane of X . We say H is a carrier retract if κ(H) is isomorphic
to H × [0, 1]; in particular H is embedded in X and there are no identifications on the boundary of
κ(H). If H is a carrier retract, we define the collapse of X along H to be the cube complex formed
by collapsing κ(H) orthogonally onto H . Denote the resulting complex by XH , and note that there
is a canonical projection X ։ XH .
Example 4.2 In the blowup SP , there is one hyperplane dual to eP and one dual to ev for each
v ∈ V . The hyperplane dual to eP is isomorphic to Slk(P) , and for every v ∈ V the hyperplane dual
to ev is isomorphic to Slk(v) . The hyperplane dual to eP is a carrier retract. The hyperplane dual to
ev is a carrier retract if and only if v ∈ single(P).
Definition 4.3 Let H = {H1 , H2 , . . . , Hk } be a set of hyperplanes. We say that H has compatible
carriers if each Hi is a carrier retract and any loop in X consisting of edges dual to the Hi ’s is null
homotopic. Given such a set, define the collapse of X along H to be the complex XH obtained by
S
collapsing each cube C in κ(Hi ) to the intersection of the mid-planes of C lying in some Hi .
The proof of the following lemma is an easy exercise.

Lemma 4.4 Let H = {H1 , H2 , . . . , Hk } be set of hyperplanes in X with compatible carriers. Let
Y = XH1 and for i > 1 , let H i denote the image of Hi in Y . Then
(1) Y is a non-positively curved cube complex.
(2) H = {H 2 , . . . , H k } has compatible carriers in Y .
(3) YH = XH .
In particular, it follows that collapsing along the Hi ’s one at a time in any order results in the same
space XH .
Lemma 4.5 Let H be set of hyperplanes in X with compatible carriers and let c : X → XH be the
projection map. Then
(1) c is a homotopy equivalence,
(2) distinct hyperplanes in X not contained in H map to distinct hyperplanes in XH ,
(3) if g is a conjugacy class in π1 (X) and p is a minimal length edge path in X representing g ,
then c(p) is a minimal length edge path in XH representing g .
Geometry & Topology XX (20XX)

1016

R. Charney, N. Stambaugh and K. Vogtmann

Proof By the previous lemma, it suffices to consider the case where H consists of a single
hyperplane H which is a carrier retract. The first statement is clear: the homotopy equivalence
between κ(H) and H extends to a homotopy equivalence between X and XH since κ(H) is a strong
deformation retract of the open neighborhood consisting of points at distance < 12 from κ(H).
For the second statement, recall that a hyperplane can be identified with an equivalence class of
edges. Two edges in κ(H) that become identified under the collapse c are parallel edges in some
cube, hence they are already equivalent.
For the third statement, let g be a conjugacy class in π1 (X) and let p be an edge path in X
e and let p̃∞ denote the union of the
representing g. Lift p to a path p̃ in the universal cover X
e is a CAT(0) cube complex, it follows from [19] that p is
gk -translates of p̃, for k ∈ Z. Since X
∞
e more than once. The analogous statement
minimal if and only if p̃ crosses no hyperplane of X
holds for c(p).

e in the inverse
e by collapsing along all hyperplanes H
The universal cover of XH is obtained from X
∞
e →X
e e be the lift of c. Set q = c(p), and define q̃ as above. Then
image of H. Let c̃ : X
H
∞
∞
c̃(p̃ ) = q̃ , so by part (2) of the lemma, if p̃∞ crosses each hyperplane at most once, the same
holds for q̃∞ . Statement (3) follows.
We are now ready to apply these observations to the hyperplanes of a blowup SΠ .

Theorem 4.6 Let Π = {P1 , . . . , Pk } be a compatible set of Γ -Whitehead partitions for Γ . Then
the set of hyperplanes H = {H1 , . . . , Hk } dual to the edges ePi has compatible carriers. For
any subset J ⊆ {1, 2, . . . , k} , collapsing along the hyperplanes {Hi }i∈J gives a complex naturally
isomorphic to the blowup of S by the partitions {Pi }i∈J
/ . In particular, collapsing along all of H
gives a complex isomorphic to the Salvetti complex S .
Proof It is easy to check that the carrier of each Hi is isomorphic to Hi × [0, 1]. Thus to show
that H has compatible carriers, we need to show that any loop γ formed by edges labelled ePi is
null homotopic. We will induct on the number of Pi ’s appearing in this loop. Say the loop involves
only a single Pi . Since no two edges with the same label occur at a vertex, the loop would have to
consist of a single edge. But an ePi -edge switches the side of Pi , so it cannot be a loop.
Now suppose γ involves more than one Pi . Orient γ and say the initial vertex is xR with
R = (P1 , . . . , Pk ). Once γ crosses an ePi -edge, all of the regions it encounters will have P∗i in
the ith position until it crosses another ePi -edge. Thus, the labels must occur in pairs. Let α be a
segment of γ joining two consecutive ePi -edges, so γ decomposes as
γ = γ1 · e1 · α · e2 · γ2 .
where e1 , e2 are edges labeled by ePi . By Theorem 3.14(2), there exists a path β in the carrier
κ(Hi ) between the endpoints of α. Then αβ −1 forms a loop not involving Pi , so by induction α is
Geometry & Topology XX (20XX)

Untwisted automorphisms of RAAGs

1017

homotopic to β . Moreover, the path e1 βe2 can be slid across the hyperplane Hi to get a path β ′ with
no edges labelled ePi . Thus, γ is homotopic to γ ′ = γ1 β ′ γ2 . Repeating this process if necessary,
we can get rid of all ePi -edges in γ and apply induction to conclude that γ is null-homotopic.
For the second statement, it suffices to consider the case where J is a singleton, say J = {1}. So
consider the space obtained from SΠ by collapsing along H1 , the hyperplane dual to eP1 . This
collapse has the effect of identifying two vertices whose label differ only in the choice of side
for P1 . So letting Π ′ = {P2 , . . . , Pk }, we can map vertices of the quotient space injectively to
′
vertices of SΠ by forgetting P1 . By Lemma 3.9, this map is also surjective. The construction of
′
SΠ depends only on the vertex labels, so it is now easy to verify that this bijection extends to an
isomorphism of complexes.
We will call any collapse along hyperplanes dual to ePi -edges, i ∈ J ⊆ {1, . . . , k}, a canonical
collapse of SΠ . In particular, taking J = {1, . . . , k}, we have a canonical collapse from SΠ down
to the Salvetti complex S. However, one can obtain a Salvetti complex by collapsing along many
other sets of hyperplanes H in SΠ .
Example 4.7 Let P = {P, P∗ , lk(P)} be a single Γ-Whitehead partition and SP the associated
Γ-complex. As we saw in Lemma 3.2, collapsing along the hyperplane dual to the edge labelled ev
for any v ∈ max(P) gives a complex isomorphic to S.
Example 4.8 Let P and Q be compatible Γ-partitions with lk(P) = lk(Q) = L. In particular P
and Q do not commute, so S{P,Q} has one edge labeled eP and one edge labeled eQ . Let Θ denote
the graph formed by eP , eQ and all ev with lk(v) = L. The hyperplane dual to each edge in Θ is
isomorphic to the Salvetti complex SL . Thus the subcomplex spanned by the carriers of all of these
hyperplanes decomposes as a product Θ × SL . Now take any maximal tree T in Θ and let H be
the set of hyperplanes dual to the edges in T . Then collapsing S{P,Q} along H reduces Θ to a rose
and reduces S{P,Q} to a complex isomorphic to S.
Example 4.9 Example 4.8 generalizes to any set Π of compatible Γ-partitions which all have
the same link L. Since no two elements of Π commute, the 1-skeleton of SΠ has exactly one edge
labeled eP for each P ∈ Π and exactly one labeled ev for each v which is not in L. For every v
the hyperplane dual to ev is isomorphic to Slk(v) , and the hyperplane dual to each eP is isomorphic
to SL . If [m] denotes the set of all vertices v ∈ Γ with lk(v) = L, then the union of the carriers
of the hyperplanes dual to the edges eP for P ∈ Π and ev for v ∈ [m] decomposes as a product
Θ × SL . We will call Θ the base graph of Π . Collapsing SΠ along any set of hyperplanes dual
to a maximal tree in the base graph reduces SΠ to a complex isomorphic to the Salvetti complex S
for Γ.
Note that a hyperplane H of SΠ is a carrier retract if and only if the dual edge e to H is not a loop,
i.e. if and only if e = eP for some P or e = ev for v a singleton in some P. A set K = {He } of
hyperplanes has compatible carriers if and only if the dual edges form a forest in the 1-skeleton.
Geometry & Topology XX (20XX)

1018

R. Charney, N. Stambaugh and K. Vogtmann

Now let Π be any set of compatible Γ-Whitehead partitions. Subdivide Π into subsets Π =
Π 1 ∪ · · · ∪ Π s where each Π i is a maximal collection of Pj having the same link, Li . (For example,
if AΓ is a free group then all of the links are empty, hence s = 1 and Π = Π 1 .) Consider the
blow-ups SΠi . By the discussion above, each of these contains a subcomplex of the form Θi × SLi
where Θi is the base graph of Π i . The edges of Θi are labelled by eP and ev with P ∈ Π i and
lk(v) = Li . In particular, for i 6= j, the labels on the edges of Θi and Θj are disjoint.
Definition 4.10 Let Π be a set of compatible Γ-Whitehead partitions. If all of the partitions in
Π have the same link, call a set of hyperplanes H in SΠ tree-like if the edges dual to H form a
maximal tree in the base graph Θ. More generally, if Π = Π1 ∪ · · · ∪ Πs is the decomposition
into partitions with the same link, call H tree-like if H = H1 ∪ · · · ∪ Hs where Hi is the lift of a
tree-like set of hyperplanes in SΠi , that is, the edges dual to Hi form a maximal tree in Θi .
For example, the set of hyperplanes dual to the edges labelled ePi , 1 ≤ i ≤ k is always tree-like.
Theorem 4.11 Let H be a set of hyperplanes in SΠ . Then H is tree-like if and only if it has
compatible carriers and the collapse of SΠ along H is isomorphic to the Salvetti complex S .
Proof Suppose H = H1 ∪ . . . ∪ Hs is tree-like. We proceed by induction on s; the case s = 1 was
done in Example 4.9. For s > 1, reordering if necessary we may assume that the link L1 is maximal
among the Li ’s. Suppose v is a vertex of Γ with lk(v) = L1 . If v is a singleton in some P ∈ Π ,
then v ≤ max(P) implies that L1 ⊆ lk(P), so by our maximality assumption L1 = lk(P) and hence
P ∈ Π1 . It follows that edges labelled ev connect vertices of SΠ which differ only on partitions
in Π 1 , and hence the graph Θ1 lifts isomorphically to a graph with the same labels in SΠ . The
carriers of the hyperplanes dual to this graph in SΠ span a subcomplex Y = H × Θ1 ∼
= S L1 × Θ 1 .
Since H is tree-like, H1 consists of hyperplanes in Y dual to some maximal tree in Θ1 . In
particular, H1 has compatible carriers and the resulting collapse reduces the subcomplex Y to the
product of H with a rose and leaves everything else unchanged. The resulting complex is thus
′
′
isomorphic to SΠ where Π ′ = Π \ Π 1 . Let ρ : SΠ → SΠ be the collapsing map followed by this
isomorphism.
′

The image of the hyperplanes H′ = H \ H1 in SΠ is tree-like (since the canonical projection from
′
SΠ to SΠ i factors through SΠ ), so by induction, it has compatible carriers and the resulting space
is isomorphic to the Salvetti complex S. It now follows that the original set H has compatible
′
carriers in SΠ since if p is a loop of edges dual to H, then its image in SΠ is a loop dual to H′ .
This loop must be null-homotopic hence the same holds for p.
Conversely, suppose H is a set of hyperplanes in SΠ which has compatible carriers and collapses
SΠ down to S. We again proceed by induction on s. The case s = 1 is discussed in Example 4.9,
where it is observed that since H has compatible carriers, the dual edges {ei } form a forest in the
Geometry & Topology XX (20XX)

Untwisted automorphisms of RAAGs

1019

1-skeleton of SΠ . Since collapsing along H reduces SΠ to a complex isomorphic to S, which has
only one vertex, these edges must form a maximal tree T in the 1-skeleton. Since edges of T are
not loops, they correspond to the Pi or to singletons in the Pi , so the hyperplane dual to each edge
in T is isomorphic to a subcomplex of SL . An edge of T cannot correspond to a non-maximal
singleton v, since then lk(v) would be a proper subcomplex of L, the carrier of H would have
fewer cubes than the carrier of {HP }P∈Π
Π , and collapsing along H and along {HP }P∈Π
Π would not
result in isomorphic complexes. Therefore T is a maximal tree in the base graph, i.e. H is treelike.
Now suppose s > 1. As above, assume that the link L1 is maximal, so the graph Θ1 may be viewed
as a subcomplex of SΠ . Let H1 be the set of hyperplanes in H dual to some edge of Θ1 . We claim
that these edges form a maximal tree in Θ1 . Let Z = (SΠ )H be the collapse of SΠ along H and
cH : SΠ → Z the collapsing map. Let c : SΠ → S be the canonical collapse. By assumption, Z
is isomorphic to the Salvetti complex S, so the image of Θ1 under both c and cH is a rose. The
former generates a free subgroup of the fundamental group AΓ (namely the subgroup generated by
the vertices of Γ with link equal to L1 ). Since both collapsing maps are homotopy equivalences,
the same must be true of the latter. It follows that the edges dual to H1 must form a maximal tree
in Θ1 .
Now set X = (SΠ )H1 , and Π ′ = Π \ Π 1 . Then the images of Θ1 in SΠ and in X are isomorphic
′
roses and this isomorphism extends to an isomorphism of the whole complex SΠ ∼
= X . Collapsing
X along the image H′ of H \ H1 gives Z , hence by induction, it is tree-like (viewed as hyperplanes
′
in SΠ ). We conclude that that the original set of hyperplanes H was tree-like in SΠ .
′

Theorem 4.12 Let H and K be two tree-like sets of hyperplanes in SΠ . Given any K ∈ K , there
exists H ∈ H such that the set of hyperplanes obtained from H by replacing H by K is again
tree-like.
Proof Note that the label dual to a hyperplane in H (or K) appears in one and only one of the
graphs Θi since each Θi corresponds to a different link. Say K ∈ K is dual to an edge e in Θi .
Let Ti be the maximal tree in Θi formed by edges dual to H. If e lies in Ti , then K also lies in
H and we can take H = K . If not, let e′ be an edge in Ti on the minimal path between the two
vertices of e. Then replacing e′ by e gives another maximal tree Ti′ in Θi and has no effect on the
remaining Θj . Thus, replacing the hyperplane H dual to e′ by K gives another tree-like set.
Corollary 4.13 Let Π = {P1 , . . . , Pk } be a compatible collection of Γ -Whitehead partitions, let
Hi be the hyperplane in SΠ dual to the edges ePi , and let K be another a treelike set of hyperplanes
in SΠ . Then the automorphism of AΓ induced by S ← SΠ → (SΠ )K ∼
= S is an element of U(AΓ ) .
Proof By Theorem 4.12, we can order the elements of H as {H1 , . . . , Hk } so that for each
i = 0, . . . , k the set Hi = {H1 , . . . , Hi , Ki+1 , . . . , Kk } is treelike. If we now set
bi = {H1 , . . . , Hi−1 , Ki+1 , . . . , Kk } for i = 1, . . . , k
H

Geometry & Topology XX (20XX)

1020

R. Charney, N. Stambaugh and K. Vogtmann

then the blowup-collapse S ← SΠ → (SΠ )K factors into the sequence of single blowup-collapses
S = (SΠ )Hk ← (SΠ )Hbk → (SΠ )Hk−1 ← . . . (SΠ )Hk−1 ← (SΠ )Hbi → (SΠ )Hi . . . →
. . . → (SΠ )H1 ← (SΠ )Hb 1 → (SΠ )H0 = (SΠ )K
The statement of the corollary now follows from Lemmas 2.2 and 3.2.

4.1 Construction of KΓ
We are now ready to define the simplicial complex KΓ as the geometric realization of a partially
ordered set of Γ-complexes.
Definition 4.14 A marked Γ-complex σ is a pair, σ = (X, α) where
(1) X is a cube complex isomorphic to SΠ for some (possibly empty) compatible set Π of
Γ-Whitehead partitions.
−1

cΠ
α
(2) α : X → S is a homotopy equivalence and the composition S →
SΠ ∼
= X → S induces an
element of U(AΓ ).

Two marked Γ-complexes σ = (X, α) and σ ′ = (X ′ , α′ ) are equivalent if there is an isomorphism
of cube complexes h : X → X ′ with α′ ◦ h ≃ α. If X is isomorphic to S, the equivalence class of
(X, α) is called a marked Salvetti.
Note that the second condition in the definition of a marked Γ-complex is independent of the choice
of isomorphism X ∼
= SΠ or collapse cΠ by Corollary 4.13.
Examples 4.15 (1) For a Γ-Whitehead pair (P, m) we observed in the discussion preceding Lemma
3.2, that the collapsing maps cP and cm on SP differ by the isomorphism that interchanges the
hyperplanes dual to eP and em . It follows that (SP , cP ) ∼ (SP , cm ).
(2) If ϕ ∈ Out(AΓ ) is a product of symmetries and inversions, then it can be represented by an
isomorphism ϕ̂ : S → S, hence (S, id) ∼ (S, ϕ̂).
We now define a partial ordering on the set of marked Γ-complexes. If σ = (X, α), H is a set of
hyperplanes of X contained in some tree-like set, and c : X → XH is the collapsing map, we denote
by σH the marked Γ-complex (XH , α ◦ c−1 ). For two marked Γ-complexes σ, σ ′ , define
σ ′ < σ if σ ′ = σH for some H.
Definition 4.16 The Γ-spine KΓ is the simplicial complex associated to the partially ordered set
of equivalence classes of marked Γ-complexes.
Geometry & Topology XX (20XX)

Untwisted automorphisms of RAAGs

1021

We can identify Out(AΓ ) with the group of homotopy classes of maps S → S. Using this
identification, we define a left action of U(AΓ ) on KΓ by ϕ · (X, α) = (X, ϕ ◦ α).
Proposition 4.17 The action of U(AΓ ) on KΓ is proper.
Proof Since each marked blowup (X, α) can be collapsed to finitely many marked Salvettis, it
suffices to prove that the stabilizer of some (hence any) marked Salvetti is finite. This is true for
(S, id) since any isomorphism S → S takes the one skeleton to the one skeleton, hence induces a
permutation on V ± . Thus (S, id) ∼ (S, α) if and only if α lies in the (finite) group generated by
graph symmetries and inversions.
Let (P, m) be a Γ-Whitehead pair and α the corresponding Whitehead automorphism. By
P
Lemma 3.2, α is realized by the blow-up-collapse, α = cm ◦ c−1
P : S → S → S. If we start
at the Salvetti (S, id) this gives a path in KΓ which ends at (S, α):
(1)

(S, id) < (SP , cP ) ∼ (SP , cm ) = (SP , α ◦ cP ) > (S, α).

More generally, for any ϕ ∈ U(AΓ ), we can translate this path by ϕ to obtain a path from (S, ϕ) to
(S, ϕ ◦ α).
Definition 4.18 If σ = (S, ϕ), we call the ϕ-translate of path (1) above the Whitehead move at σ
associated to (P, m), and write σmP = (S, ϕ ◦ α).
Using this terminology, Corollary 4.13 can be restated in the following useful form:
Corollary 4.19 (Factorization Lemma) Let σ = (S, α) be a marked Salvetti, Π = {P1 , . . . , Pk }
a compatible collection of Γ -Whitehead partitions, σ Π = (SΠ , cΠ ◦ α) be the blow-up of σ with
respect to Π , and H a tree-like set of hyperplanes in SΠ . Then with a suitable ordering of the
Π such that each σ is connected to σ
elements of H there is a chain σ = σ0 , σ1 , . . . , σk = σH
i
i−1 by
a Whitehead move.
Our goal is show that KΓ is contractible. As a first step we have the following.
Proposition 4.20 KΓ is connected.
Proof By definition, every vertex of KΓ lies in the star of some marked Salvetti. It is straightforward to verify that the subgroup generated by Γ-Whitehead automorphisms is normal in U(AΓ ),
hence any ϕ ∈ U(AΓ ), can be factored as a product ϕ = ϕ1 ◦ϕ2 where ϕ1 is a product of symmetries
and inversions and ϕ2 is a product of Γ-Whitehead automorphisms. It follows from Example 4.15
and Corollary 4.19 that (S, id) = (S, ϕ1 ) is connected by a path in KΓ to (S, ϕ1 ◦ ϕ2 ) = (S, ϕ).
Geometry & Topology XX (20XX)

1022

R. Charney, N. Stambaugh and K. Vogtmann

5 Examples
In this section we pause to compute a few examples of the complexes KΓ . These complexes quickly
become very complicated and difficult to describe, but invariants such as dimension are relatively
easy to compute.
In the next section we will show that KΓ is contractible. Since the action is proper, the dimension
of KΓ gives an upper bound for the virtual cohomological dimension of U(AΓ ). We remark that
the kernel IAΓ of the natural map Out(AΓ ) → GL(n, Z) is a torsion-free subgroup of U(AΓ ) so
acts freely on KΓ and the dimension of KΓ is an upper bound for its cohomological dimension.
Since there are only finitely many ways to partition a finite set, and maximal simplices of KΓ
correspond to maximal sets of pairwise-compatible Γ-partitions, KΓ is always finite-dimensional.
In any explicit example the dimension of KΓ can be computed precisely by finding a maximal set
of pairwise-compatible Γ-partitions.

5.1 3-vertex graphs
We first consider graphs with 3 vertices.
For any n, if Γ has n vertices and no edges, then AΓ is the free group of rank n, the Salvetti complex
is a rose with n petals, and Γ-complexes are graphs of rank n without univalent or bivalent vertices
and with no separating edges; in other words KΓ is the spine Kn of (reduced) Outer space. For
n = 2 this can be identified with the usual tree for SL(2, Z), but for n = 3 this is already quite a
complicated space; for example the link of a rose is 2-dimensional and homotopy equivalent to a
wedge of eleven 2-spheres.
If Γ is a complete graph on n vertices then AΓ is the free abelian group of rank n and there are no
Γ-Whitehead partitions, so there are no Γ-complexes other than the Salvetti (which is a torus), and
KΓ is a single point.
If Γ has 3 vertices {a, b, c} and two edges, one joining a to c and one joining b to c, then AΓ is
the product F2 × Z = ha, bi × hci and the Salvetti is the product of a rose with a circle. Recall
that a Γ-Whitehead partition {P, P∗ , lk(P)} is completely determined by giving either of its sides
P or P∗ . The only Γ-Whitehead partitions in this case are those determined by P1 = {a, b} and
P2 = {a, b−1 }, so the only Γ complexes are products of a circle with a rank 2 graph (with no
separating edges), and KΓ can be identified with the spine K2 of Outer space for the rank 2 free
group ha, bi.
If Γ has just a single edge from a to b, then AΓ is the free product Z2 atZ = ha, bi ∗ hci, and
the Salvetti is a torus wedged with a circle. The only Γ-Whitehead partitions are those with sides
P1 = {a, c}, P2 = {b, c}, P3 = {a, c−1 } and P4 {b, c−1 }. The simplicial star in KΓ of a Salvetti is
Geometry & Topology XX (20XX)

Untwisted automorphisms of RAAGs

1023

a square with corners SΠ , where Π = {P1 , P2 }, {P2 , P3 }, {P3 , P4 } or {P4 , P1 }. The Γ-complex
associated to each corner is a torus cut into four squares, with an arc joining the two vertices. There
are exactly four hyperplanes in this Γ-complex which can be collapsed, so four stars of Salvettis fit
together at each corner, and KΓ is a plane tiled by these stars. The group U(AΓ ) is isomorphic to
Z2 and acts on KΓ by translations.

5.2 Trees
Recall that a RAAG AΓ is called 2-dimensional if Γ has no triangles, i.e. if the associated
Salvetti complex is 2-dimensional. In [3] we computed upper and lower bounds for the virtual
cohomological dimension of Out(AΓ ) for 2-dimensional RAAGs. For Γ a tree, these bounds agree,
and we get
VCD(Out(AΓ )) = e + 2ℓ − 3
where e is the number of edges and ℓ is the number of leaves.
In the case that Γ is a tree, the only twists, v 7→ vw, occur when v is a leaf attached at w. It follows
that the twist subgroup T(AΓ ) is free abelian of rank ℓ. It is easily checked that in this case, T(AΓ )
is a normal subgroup of U(AΓ ) and T(AΓ ) ∩ U(AΓ ) = {1}, so Out(AΓ ) is the semi-direct product
of these two subgroups. Since the cohomological dimension of T(AΓ ) = ℓ, we conclude that the
VCD(U(AΓ )) ≥ e + ℓ − 3. In many (but not all) examples, the dimension of KΓ is exactly e + ℓ − 3
and hence VCD(U(AΓ )) = dim(KΓ ) = e + ℓ − 3.
Consider, for example, the case in which Γ is a line made up of e edges. Label the vertices
v0 , v1 , . . . , ve . Note that the generators of U(AΓ ) are the partial conjugations by vi , 2 ≤ i ≤ e − 2,
±
and the folds v0 7→ v0 v±
2 and ve 7→ ve ve−2 . In particular, there are no Γ-Whitehead partitions with
v0 , v1 , ve−1 or ve as maximal element.
For 2 ≤ i ≤ e − 2, let (Ri , vi ) be the Γ-Whitehead pair corresponding to the partial conjugation by
±1
vi of all vertices to the right of vi , that is Ri = {vi , v±1
i+2 , . . . ve }. Similarly let (Li , vi ) be the pair
corresponding to the partial conjugation by vi of all vertices to the left of vi . Let P0 = {v0 , v2 } and
Pe = {ve , ve−2 }, so (P0 , v2 ) and (Pe , ve−2 ) are the Γ-Whitehead pairs corresponding to folds onto
v0 and ve . Then a typical maximal set of compatible partitions is of the form
P0 , L2 , . . . , Lj , Rj+1 , . . . , Re−2 , Pe
Thus, the dimension of KΓ is e − 1 = e + ℓ − 3.
On the other hand, there exist examples of trees for which this equality does not hold. We leave it as
an exercise for the reader to show that for the tree Γ pictured in Figure 4, dim(KΓ ) = e + ℓ − 2 = 9.
Thus for this tree, we can only conclude that 8 ≤ VCD(U(AΓ )) ≤ 9.
Geometry & Topology XX (20XX)

1024

R. Charney, N. Stambaugh and K. Vogtmann

a1
v0

v1

a2
a3

b1
b2
b3

Figure 4: An example for which dim(KΓ ) 6= e + ℓ − 3

a1
c0

c1
b1

c3

c2
b2

ad−1

a3

a2

cd−2

b3

bd−1

ad
cd−1

cd

bd

Figure 5: A string of d diamonds

5.3 Strings of diamonds
Let Γ be a “string of d diamonds," with d ≥ 3 (see Figure 5).
This defines a 2-dimensional RAAG which has no twist automorphisms, so U(AΓ ) = Out(AΓ ).
The upper and lower bounds from [3] in this case are
3d + 1 ≤ VCD(Out(AΓ )) ≤ 6d − 4.
We calculate the dimension of KΓ by finding the maximal possible size of a collection of compatible
Γ-Whitehead partitions.
Let (P, m) be a Γ-Whitehead pair with associated partition {P, P∗ , lk(m)}.
• There are no such pairs with m = c0 or m = cd .
• Suppose m = c1 . Removing the star of c1 separates Γ into a left and right component,

L1 = {c0 } and R1 . Since c0 ≤ c1 , either c0 or c−1
0 can be a singleton. The possibilities for
−1
−1
−1
−1
−1 −1
P are {c1 , c0 }, {c1 , c0 }, {c1 , c0 }, {c1 , c0 }, {c1 , c0 , c−1
0 } and {c1 , c0 , c0 }. At most
−1 −1
two of these are pairwise compatible, e.g. {c1 , c0 } and {c1 , c0 }. The case m = cd−1 is
symmetric.
• Suppose m = ci with 2 ≤ i ≤ d − 2. Removing the star of ci again separates Γ into two

components, Li and Ri . Now there are no other possible singletons, so P = {ci , L±
i } or
±
{ci , Ri } (which are not compatible.)
Geometry & Topology XX (20XX)

Untwisted automorphisms of RAAGs

1025

• If m = a1 the star separates Γ into {b1 } and another component C ; b1 can be a singleton,
−1
±
±
and the possibilities for P are {a1 , b1 } {a1 , b−1
1 } and {a1 , b1 , b1 }, {a1 , C }, {a1 , b1 , C }
±
and {a1 , b−1
1 , C }. At most two of these are pairwise compatible, e.g. {a1 , b1 } and
−1 ∗
{a1 , b1 , C± } = {a−1
1 , b1 } . The case of m = ad is similar.

• If m = ai for 2 ≤ i ≤ d − 1 the star separates Γ into three components, Ki {bi } and Si .
−1 ∗
Possibilities for P include {ai , bi }, {ai , bi , Ki± }, and {ai , bi , Ki± , Si± } = {a−1
i , bi } , which
is a maximal pairwise compatible collection with m = ai . The possibilities for m = bi are
symmetric.

One can check that the following sets determine a collection of pairwise compatible Γ-Whitehead
partitions:
−1
−1
−1
(1) {c0 , c1 }, {c−1
0 , c1 }, {cd−1 , cd }, {cd−1 , cd }

(2) {ci , L±
i } for 2 ≤ i ≤ d − 2
−1
(3) {ai , bi }, {a−1
i , bi }, for 1 ≤ i ≤ d.

(4) {ai , bi , Ki } for 2 ≤ i ≤ d − 1
By the remarks above, this is a maximal collection. There are 4 + (d − 3) + 2d + (d − 2) = 4d − 1
of them, so dim(KΓ ) = 4d − 1.

5.4 Butterflies
Let Γ be the “butterfly" graph shown in Figure 6 (which is a string of two diamonds if n = 2).
Again AΓ is 2-dimensional with no twists, so U(AΓ ) = Out(AΓ ). The bounds on the VCD from
[3] in this case are
4n − 1 ≤ VCD(Out(AΓ )) ≤ 4n.
The maximal size of a compatible set of Γ-Whitehead partitions is 4n − 1, realized for example by
the partitions determined by the following sets P:
−1
(1) {c1 , c0 }, {c−1
1 , c0 }, {c1 , c0 , c2 }
−1
−1
(2) {a1 , a2 , . . . ai }, {a−1
1 , a2 , . . . ai }, for 2 ≤ i ≤ n.
−1
−1
(3) {b1 , b2 , . . . bi }, {b−1
1 , b2 , . . . bi }, for 2 ≤ i ≤ n.

Thus the dimension of KΓ is 4n − 1. Since this matches the lower bound this is equal to the
of Out(AΓ ).
Geometry & Topology XX (20XX)

VCD

1026

R. Charney, N. Stambaugh and K. Vogtmann

a1

b1

a2

b2
c1

c0

c2

an−1

bn−1

an

bn

Figure 6: Butterfly graph

6 Contractibility of the Γ -spine
Our strategy for showing that KΓ is contractible is to view it as the union of stars of marked
Salvettis. We first define a norm which totally orders the marked Salvettis. We then construct the
space by starting with the star of the marked Salvetti of minimal norm, then attaching the stars of
the rest of the marked Salvettis in increasing order. We check at each stage that we are attaching
along a contractible subcomplex.

6.1 The norm of a marked Salvetti.
The norm is defined using lengths of conjugacy classes of elements of AΓ , and we begin with some
observations about these lengths. Let σ = (S, α) be a marked Salvetti. For any conjugacy class g,
define ℓσ (g) to be the minimal length of a word w in the free group F(V) representing an element
of the conjugacy class of α−1 (g) in AΓ . In particular, if σ = (S, id), then ℓσ (g) is the minimal
word length of an element of g.
Normal form for elements of AΓ (see, e.g., [4]) implies that ℓσ (g) is well-defined. Since the vertices
V of Γ can be identified with the edges in the 1-skeleton of S, ℓσ (g) can also be thought of as the
length of a minimal edge-path in the 1-skeleton of S representing α−1 (g). If α is an isometry of
S, then this is the same as the length of g, reflecting the fact that σ = (S, α) is equal to (S, id) as a
marked Salvetti.
Let G = (g1 , g2 , . . .) be a list of all conjugacy classes in AΓ , and let G0 be the set of conjugacy
classes which can be represented by words of length at most 2.
Definition 6.1 For a marked Salvetti σ = (X, α), the norm kσk = (kσk0 , kσk1 , kσk2 , . . .) ∈
Geometry & Topology XX (20XX)

Untwisted automorphisms of RAAGs

Z × ZG is defined by
kσk0 =

1027

X

ℓσ (g),

kσki = ℓσ (gi ) for i ≥ 1.

g∈G0

We consider Z × ZG as an ordered abelian group, with the lexicographical ordering. Denote the
identity element by 0 = (0, 0, . . . ). We say an element x = (x0 , x1 , . . .) ∈ Z × ZG is negative if
x < 0, and strongly negative if its first coordinate x0 is negative.
Lemma 6.2 The marked Salvetti (S, id) is the unique marked Salvetti of minimal norm. Indeed,
for any other marked Salvetti σ , k(S, id)k0 < kσk0 .
Proof An easy calculation shows that if |V| = m, the first coordinate k(S, id)k0 is equal to
2m2 + 2m, and that is the minimal possible value. It suffices to show that the first coordinate of the
norm of any other marked Salvetti is strictly larger.
Suppose σ = (S, α) is another marked Salvetti complex with kσk0 = 2m2 + 2m. Then α must
permute the conjugacy classes in G0 since otherwise, ℓσ (g) > 2 for some g ∈ G0 . In fact, a stronger
statement holds: α must permute the conjugacy classes of V ± ⊂ G0 , since if ℓσ (v) = 2 for some
v ∈ V , then ℓσ (v2 ) = 4. Thus, α induces a permutation of the directed edges of S. Moreover,
if two edges of S span a cube, then their images must also span a cube, since if v, w ∈ V do not
commute, then neither do any conjugates of v and w. Thus after composing with an isometry of S
we may assume α takes every element of V to a conjugate of itself.
Let V = {v1 , . . . vm } and choose an automorphism α1 ∈ Aut(AΓ ) representing α such that
−1 where a is of minimal length (i.e., av a−1 is a reduced word).
α1 (v1 ) = v1 . Say α−1
2
1 (v2 ) = av2 a
Then ℓσ (v1 v2 ) = 2 implies that the cyclic reduction of v1 av2 a−1 is a word of length 2. The only
way this can happen is if a lies in the centralizer of v1 . Thus, we can compose α1 with conjugation
by a−1 to get a new representative α2 which acts as the identity on both v1 and v2 .
−1
Now repeat with v3 . Say α−1
2 (v3 ) = bv3 b . Arguing as above, b must lie in the intersection of
the centralizers C(v1 ) ∩ C(v2 ), so composing α2 with conjugation by b−1 gives a representative
for α which acts as the identity on v1 , v2 and v3 . Continuing in this manner, we see that α has a
representative which is the identity on all of V , that is, α is homotopic to the identity map.

Corollary 6.3 Given a marked Salvetti σ = (S, α) there is a finite set of conjugacy classes
P
Gσ ⊂ AΓ such that σ is uniquely determined by g∈Gσ ℓσ (g) .
Proof Replace G0 in the proof of Lemma 6.2 by the set of g with ℓσ (g) ≤ 2.

In particular, no two marked Salvettis have the same norm. In section 6.5 we will show that the
norm induces a well-ordering of the set of marked Salvettis but we need some preparation first.
Geometry & Topology XX (20XX)

1028

R. Charney, N. Stambaugh and K. Vogtmann

6.2 Effect of a Whitehead move on the norm
We want to construct KΓ by adding stars of marked Salvettis to the star of (S, id) in order of
increasing norm. Since adjacent stars are connected by Γ-Whitehead moves, we will need to
understand how lengths of conjugacy classes change under these moves. We will do this first by
using the geometric interpretation of ℓσ (g).
Let σ = (S, α) be a marked Salvetti, P a Γ-Whitehead partition of V ± and v ∈ max(P). The length
ℓσ (g) is the length of the shortest edge path in the 1-skeleton of S representing the free homotopy
class of α−1 (g). To understand what happens to this length under the Whitehead automorphism
(P, v) we will find a minimal length edge path in SP representing α−1 (g) and apply Lemma 4.5.
Recall that SP has exactly two vertices, corresponding to the two sides of P, and an edge labelled
eP between them. For u ∈ lk(P), there is a loop labelled eu at each vertex. For u ∈
/ lk(P), there is a
unique edge labelled eu with initial vertex corresponding to the side of P containing u and terminal
vertex corresponding to the side containing u−1 . Let w be a cyclically reduced word for α−1 (g).
Identifying directed edges of S with V ± , let p be the edge path in S labelled by w. We can lift p
to a loop p̃ in SP as follows. If the support of w lies entirely in lk(P), p lifts to an edge path p̃ of
the same length at either vertex. Otherwise, cyclically permuting w if necessary, let w = u1 . . . uk
where ui ∈ V ± and u1 ∈
/ lk(P). Then u1 corresponds to a unique directed edge e1 in SP . If u1
∗
−1
and u2 both lie in P = P ∪ lk(P) or both in P = P∗ ∪ lk(P), then u2 lifts to a directed edge
e2 whose initial vertex equals the terminal vertex of e1 . Hence u1 u2 lifts to the path e1 e2 . If not,
insert the edge eP (appropriately oriented) to get a path e1 eP e2 which projects to u1 u2 . Now repeat
this process with each ui to obtain the loop p̃.
It is easy to see that p̃ is a minimal length lift of p. To see that it is a minimal length representative for
α−1 (g), note that any other minimal word w′ for α−1 (g) can be obtained from w by interchanging
commuting pairs ui ui+1 . But for such a pair, the edges eui and eui+1 span a square in SP , so they
can be traversed in either order without crossing eP . It follows that the length of p̃ is independent
of choice of w.
To keep track of the lengths of these paths, we introduce some new notation. Set
• |P|w = the number of times p̃ traverses the edge eP , or equivalently, the number of (cycli-

cally) adjacent letters ui ui+1 in w such that ui and u−1
i+1 do not both lie in P or both in
∗
P ,
• |v|w = the number of occurrences of v or v−1 in w.

Lemma 6.4 Let σ = (S, α) be a marked Salvetti, let ϕ = (P, v) be a Whitehead automorphism,
let g be a conjugacy class in AΓ and let w be a minimal length word representing α−1 (g) . Then
ℓσvP (g) = ℓσ (g) + |P|w − |v|w .
Geometry & Topology XX (20XX)

Untwisted automorphisms of RAAGs

1029

More generally, if σ ′ is obtained from σ by blowing up a compatible collection of Γ -Whitehead
partitions Π = {P1 , . . . , Pk } and collapsing a tree-like set of hyperplanes H = {H1 , . . . , Hk } dual
to edges labelled evi , then
ℓσ′ (g) = ℓσ (g) +

k
X
i=1

|Pi |w −

k
X

|vi |w .

i=1

Proof First consider the blow-up-collapse for a single Whitehead pair (P, v). Let p and p̃ be as
above. By construction, ℓσ (g) = length(p) = length(p̃) − |P|w . Collapsing the hyperplane in SP
dual to the edge labelled ev gives the marked Savetti σvP = (S, ϕα). Let p′ be the image of p̃
under this collapse. By Lemma 4.5, p′ is a minimal length representative for (ϕα)−1 (g). Hence
ℓσvP (g) = length(p′ ) = length(p̃) − |v|w . This proves the first statement.
For the second statement, let c : SΠ → S be the canonical projection and let cH be the collapsing
Π
−1
map onto SΠ
H . Let p̃ be a minimal edge path in S representing α (g). (Here we identify the
Π
′
fundamental group of S and S via c.) Let p = c(p̃) and p = cH (p̃). Then by Lemma 4.5, p and
p′ are minimal paths in their homotopy class. In particular, p corresponds to a minimal word w
representing α−1 (g) so the number of edges of p (and hence also of p̃) labelled evi equals |vi |w .
Collapsing SΠ to a single blow-up SPi maps p̃ to a minimal lift pi of p, hence by the discussion
above, the number of edges of pi (and hence also of p̃) labelled ePi equals |Pi |w . It now follows
that
X
ℓσ (g) = length(p) = length(p̃) −
|Pi |w
X
|vi |w
ℓσ′ (g) = length(p′ ) = length(p̃) −
Remark 6.5 The hypothesis that every hyperplane in H be dual to an edge labelled evi is crucial
in this lemma. In general, a tree-like set H = {H1 , . . . , Hk } in SΠ may contain hyperplanes dual
to edges labelled ePi . Collapsing these hyperplanes first to get a smaller Γ-complex, we see that
Π can be obtained from σ by a blow-up-collapse satisfying the conditions of the lemma.
σ ′ = σH
We put all of this information together for a marked Salvetti σ = (S, α) and a Whitehead automorphism ϕ = (P, v) by defining absolute values |P|σ and |v|σ in Z × ZG coordinate-wise,
i.e.
|P|σ = (|P|0 , |P|w1 , |P|w2 , . . .),
where
• wi is a minimal length word representing the conjugacy classe α−1 (gi ), and
• |P|0 =

P

w∈W0

|P|w for a set of words W0 representing the α−1 (g) for g ∈ G0 .

Geometry & Topology XX (20XX)

1030

R. Charney, N. Stambaugh and K. Vogtmann

Similarly, define
|v|σ = (|v|0 , |v|w1 , |v|w2 , . . .),
where |v|0 =

P

w∈W0

|v|w .

Lemma 6.4 can now be restated as
Corollary 6.6 Let Π , H be as in Lemma 6.4. Then
X
X
Π
kσH
k = kσk +
|Pi |σ −
|vi |σ .

Definition 6.7 A Γ-Whitehead partition P is reductive for a marked Salvetti σ if for some
v ∈ max(P) the Whitehead automorphism ϕ = (P, v) reduces kσk, that is, kσvP k < kσk, or
equivalently, |Pσ | < |vσ |. It is strongly reductive if the first coordinate kσvP k0 is less than kσk0 .
By Corollary 6.3, σ and σvP cannot have the same norm, since they are different marked Salvettis.
Π k < kσk , then some P ∈ Π is reductive for
Corollary 6.8 Let Π , H be as in Lemma 6.4. If kσH
i
Π is strongly reductive, then so is some P .
σ . If σH
i

Proof By Theorem 4.12, the elements of H can ordered such that if evi is the edge dual to Hi , then
Π k < kσk, then by the previous corollary, |P | − |v | < 0
(Pi , vi ) is a Γ-Whitehead pair. If kσH
i σ
i σ
P
for some i, so kσvii k < kσk. The same argument applied to the first coordinate of the norm shows
Π is strongly reductive, then so is some σ Pi .
that if σH
vi

6.3 Star graphs
There is a convenient combinatorial way to keep track of computations such as those we did in
Section 6.2 using a diagram called a star graph. Star graphs have been extensively used to study
free groups and their automorphisms (see, e.g., [13]). The star graph g(w) of a cyclically reduced
word w in a free group F(V) is defined by taking a vertex for each element of V ± and an edge
from x to y for every occurrence of xy−1 as a (cyclic) subword of w. If we consider F(V) as a
right-angled Artin group on the discrete graph Γ, then |v|w (as defined in the previous section) is
equal to the valence of a vertex v in g(w), and for any partition P of V ± , |P|w is equal to the
number of edges in the star graph with one vertex in P and one vertex in P∗ . Since the star graph
g(w) depends only on w in the case of a free group, it can be used to compute |P|w for any P.
We would like to imitate this construction for more general AΓ , but for a conjugacy class g of AΓ
and Γ-Whitehead partition P, to compute |P|w , we need to count how many times a minimal path
p̃ in the Γ-complex crosses an edge labelled eP . This involves counting not only when w crosses
Geometry & Topology XX (20XX)

Untwisted automorphisms of RAAGs

1031
∗

from P to P∗ , but when it is forced to cross from P = P ∪ lk(P) to P = P∗ ∪ lk(P∗ ). Since our star
graphs must take into account the link of P they cannot be defined independently of the partition.
Consequently, for a Γ-Whitehead partition P = {P, lk(P), P∗ } and a cyclically reduced word
w = u1 . . . uk we define the star graph gP (w) as follows. The vertices of gP (w) are the elements of
∗
the disjoint union of P = P ∪ lk(P) and P = P ∪ lk(P), i.e., we have two copies of lk(P) instead
of one. View w as a cyclic word and set uk+1 = u1 . Beginning with i = 1 draw an edge from ui
∗
to u−1
i+1 staying within P or P whenever possible. If every ui lies in lk(P), then the star graph can
∗
be drawn entirely in P (or in P ). Otherwise, we may cyclically permute w so that u1 does not lie
in lk(P), in which case there is no choice of where to start. See figure 7 for an example.
The quantities |v|w , for v ∈
/ lk(P), and |P|w can now be read off the star graph gP (w). Namely,
|v|w is equal to the valence of the vertex v, while |P|w equals the number of edges with one vertex
∗
in P and one vertex in P .
We will need to compare star graphs for the same word with respect to different partitions, but
the graph we have constructed depends on the partition P, not just on the word w. To solve this
problem, we will need to consider slightly more general decompositions of V ± , and a more general
definition of a star graph.
Fix a symmetric subset L ⊂ V ± , a decomposition A1 + . . . + Ak of the complement Lc . The star
graph gLA1 ,...,Ak (w) is constructed as follows. Take a copy Li of L for each Ai and let Ai = Ai ∪ Li .
The vertices of gLA1 ,...,Ak (w) are the elements of the (disjoint) union of the Ai . We draw the star
graph gLA1 ,...,Ak (w) by first drawing circles to isolate each Ai . The idea is then to draw the edges of
gLA1 ,...,Ak (w) in order, avoiding crossing circles whenever possible.
More precisely, we proceed as follows. If all letters of w are in L, we will draw the entire star
graph with vertices in L1 . Otherwise, list all of the 2-letter subwords xy of w in order (cyclically),
starting at a letter x ∈ Lc . Since {Ai } partitions Lc , x lies in a unique Ai . If y ∈ Lc , there are
unique vertices labelled y and y−1 , so we have no choice: we draw an edge from x to y−1 and start
the next edge at y. If y ∈ L, draw an edge from x to the copy of y−1 ∈ Li , and start the next edge at
y ∈ Li . We continue in this way, remaining inside each Aj -circle as long as possible. Note that if P
is a Γ-Whitehead partition and L = lk(P), then gLP,P∗ (w) is precisely the graph gP (w) constructed
above.
If v ∈ Ai , the valence of v in gLA1 ,...,Ak (w) is equal to the number of occurrences of v or v−1 in w,
and if v ∈ L, then the number of such occurrences is equal to the sum of the valences of the copies
of v in the Li .

6.4 Counting lemmas
This section contains several elementary counting lemmas related to star graphs which are at the
heart of the proofs in the next section.
Geometry & Topology XX (20XX)

1032

R. Charney, N. Stambaugh and K. Vogtmann

P∗

P

z−1

v
u

x

x−1

z

y

y−1

y

y−1

lk(P)

lk(P)

−1
Figure 7: gP (xy−1 xzy) = glk(P)
P,P∗ (xy xzy)

As above, let L be a symmetric subset of V ± . For a subset A ⊂ Lc , denote
A∗ = Ac \ L,

A = A ∪ LA ,

∗

A = A∗ ∪ LA∗

where LA and LA∗ are copies of L.
Definition 6.9 For a cyclically reduced word in w ∈ F(V) and disjoint subsets A and B of Lc ,
define the dot product (A.B)Lw to be the number of edges of gLA,B,(A+B)∗ (w) with one vertex in A and
one vertex in B.
The dot product (A.B)Lw can also be described as the number of cyclic subwords of w of the
form aub−1 or bua−1 for a ∈ A, b ∈ B and u a word in L. If B = A∗ , then A + B = Lc , so
∗
(A + B)∗ = ∅. In this case, no edge of the star graph enters the (A + B) -circle, so for the purposes
of our computations, we can identify gLA,B,(A+B)∗ (w) with gLA,A∗ (w).
Definition 6.10 For a cyclically reduced word w and a subset A ⊂ Lc , define the absolute value
of A by |A|Lw = (A.A∗ )Lw = the number of edges of gLA,A∗ (w) with one vertex in A and one vertex
∗
in A .
=
= |P|lk(P)
Example 6.11 Let P = {P, P∗ , lk(P)} be a Γ-Whitehead partition. Then (P.P∗ )lk(P)
w
w
lk(P)
∗
|P |w = |P|w .
Our justification for calling (A.B)Lw a “dot product" rests partly on the observation that (A.B)Lw =
(B.A)Lw . We also have the following linearity relation.
Lemma 6.12 Let L ⊂ V ± be a symmetric subset, and let A, B and C be disjoint subsets of Lc .
Then (A.(B + C))Lw = (A.B)Lw + (A.C)Lw .
Geometry & Topology XX (20XX)

Untwisted automorphisms of RAAGs

1033

Proof The star graph gLA,B+C,(A+B+C)∗ (w) is obtained from gLA,B,C,(A+B+C)∗ (w) by identifying the
vertices of LB and LC . Thus the number of edges between A and (B + C) is equal to the number
between A and B plus the number between A and C, as desired.
In the following three lemmas we fix w and omit it from the notation for simplicity.
Lemma 6.13 Let L be a symmetric subset of V ± . For any subsets A and B of Lc ,
|A ∩ B∗ |L + |A∗ ∩ B|L = |A|L + |B|L − 2((A ∩ B).(A∗ ∩ B∗ ))L .
Proof We set notation according to the figure below:
A

B
Z

X

W

Y
L
Thus X = A ∩ B, Z = A ∩ B∗ , W = A∗ ∩ B and Y = A∗ ∩ B∗ and we are trying to show
|Z|L + |W|L = |A|L + |B|L − 2(X.Y)L
We calculate
|A|L
|B|L
|Z|L
|W|L

=
=
=
=

((X + Z).(Y + W))L = (X.Y)L + (X.W)L + (Z.Y)L + (Z.W)L
((X + W).(Y + Z))L = (X.Y)L + (Y.W)L + (Z.X)L + (Z.W)L
(Z.(X + Y + W))L = (Z.X)L + (Z.Y)L + (Z.W)L
(W.(X + Z + Y)L = (W.X)L + (W.Z)L + (W.Y)L .

The result follows.
Lemma 6.14 Let L0 ⊂ L be symmetric subsets of V ± and let A ⊂ C ⊂ Lc . Then |A|L0 − |A|L ≤
|C|L0 − |C|L .
Proof |A|L counts the number of subwords of the form a.u.b−1 or b.u.a−1 , with a ∈ A, b ∈
(A + L)c and u a (possibly empty) word in elements of L. Notice that each such subword also
contributes exactly one to |A|L0 .
Let D be the set of all words in elements of L that use at least one letter which is not in L0 . The only
other contributions to |A|L0 come from subwords of the form a′ .u.a−1 for a, a′ ∈ A and u ∈ D;
Geometry & Topology XX (20XX)

1034

R. Charney, N. Stambaugh and K. Vogtmann

each of these subwords contributes 2. Thus the difference |A|L0 − |A|L is the number of subwords
a′ .u.a−1 with u ∈ D.
We now do the same computation for C . Since A ⊂ C , there are at least as many words of the form
c′ .u.c−1 with u ∈ D as words a′ .u.a−1 , and the lemma is proved.
Lemma 6.15 Let L1 , L2 be a symmetric subsets of V ± and let L = L1 ∪ L2 . Then for any subsets
A and B of Lc ,
|A ∩ B∗ |L1 + |A∗ ∩ B|L2 ≤ |A|L1 + |B|L2 .
Proof By Lemma 6.14 applied to (A ∩ B∗ ) ⊂ A ⊂ Lc , we have
|A ∩ B∗ |L1 + |A|L ≤ |A ∩ B∗ |L + |A|L1 .
By Lemma 6.14 applied to (A∗ ∩ B) ⊂ B ⊂ Lc ,
|A∗ ∩ B|L2 + |B|L ≤ |A∗ ∩ B|L + |B|L2 .
Adding these and applying Lemma 6.13 gives
|A ∩ B∗ |L1 + |A∗ ∩ B|L2 + |A|L + |B|L ≤ |A ∩ B∗ |L + |A∗ ∩ B|L + |A|L1 + |B|L2
≤ |A|L + |B|L + |A|L1 + |B|L2 .

6.5 Reductive Γ -Whitehead partitions
Recall that a Γ-Whitehead partition P of a marked Salvetti σ is reductive if for some v ∈ max(P)
the Whitehead automorphism ϕ = (P, v) reduces the norm of σ, i.e. kσvP k < kσk, and strongly
reductive if (P, v) reduces the first coordinate of the norm, i.e. kσvP k0 < kσk0 .
The strategy of our proof will require us to find reductive Γ-Whitehead partitions which are
compatible with each other, so our next task is to determine where we can look for such partitions.
We first consider a pair of non-compatible partitions, and show how to find a partition which is
compatible with both of them.
In our definition of Γ-Whitehead partition, we did not allow P to be a singleton. For convenience,
we now define a degenerate Γ-Whitehead partition to be one of the form P = (P, P∗ , lk(P)) where
P = {v}. In this case, the associated Whitehead automorphism (P, v) is the inversion ιv and
|P|σ = |v|σ for every σ . In particular, a reductive Γ-Whitehead partition cannot be degenerate.
Suppose P, Q are Γ-Whitehead partitions which are not compatible, i.e. they do not commute and
each of the sets P∩Q, P∗ ∩Q, P∩Q∗ , P∗ ∩Q∗ is non-empty. We will refer to these four intersections
as quadrants. Two quadrants are opposite if one is obtained from the other by switching sides of
both P and Q.
Geometry & Topology XX (20XX)

Untwisted automorphisms of RAAGs

1035

Lemma 6.16 For any non-compatible partitions P, Q , there is a pair of opposite quadrants, each of
which defines a (possibly degenerate) Γ -Whitehead partition with maximal element in {v± , w± } .
Proof Let v ∈ max(P) and w ∈ max(Q). Recall that x ∈ double(Q) means that x, x−1 both lie
on the same side of Q and x ∈ single(Q) means that x, x−1 lie on opposite sides of Q. We divide
the proof into three cases.
Case 1: v ∈ double(Q) and w ∈ double(P). In this case, some quadrant contains an element of
both {v± } and {w± }. Without loss of generality, we may assume that v, w ∈ P ∩ Q. We claim
that, in this case, (P ∩ Q∗ , w−1 ) is a Γ-Whitehead pair.
Let Cv denote the component of Γ \ st(w) which contains v. Then v ∈ Q implies Cv ⊂ Q.
Moreover, we have
(1) if lk(x) ⊆ lk(v) then either lk(x) ⊆ lk(w) or x ∈ Cv ⊂ Q,
(2) every component C of Γ \ st(w) with C 6= Cv lies entirely in some component of Γ \ st(v).
The first property follows from the fact that if lk(x) 6⊆ lk(w) then x is connected to v via some
vertex not in lk(w). Hence x and v lie in the same component of Γ \ st(w). The second property
follows from the fact that in order for st(v) to disconnect C , C must intersect st(v) and hence it
must contain v.
We can now verify that (P ∩ Q∗ , w−1 ) is Γ-Whitehead . For if x ∈ single(P ∩ Q∗ ) then either
x ∈ single(Q∗ ), so lk(x) ⊆ lk(w), or x ∈ single(P) ∩ Q∗ , so lk(x) ⊆ lk(v) and x ∈
/ Q. By (1), it
∗
∗
follows that lk(x) ⊆ lk(w). If x ∈ double(P ∩ Q ) = double(P) ∩ double(Q ), then by (2), so is the
component of x in Γ \ st(w). This proves that (P ∩ Q∗ , w−1 ) is a Γ-Whitehead pair. By symmetry,
(P∗ ∩ Q, v−1 ) is also a Γ-Whitehead pair.
Case 2: v ∈ double(Q), w ∈ single(P). In this case, w, w−1 lie in opposite quadrants while v, v−1
lie in adjacent quadrants. It follows that some quadrant contains an element of both {v, v−1 } and
{w, w−1 }. Without loss of generality, we may assume that v−1 , w ∈ P∗ ∩ Q. We claim that P∗ ∩ Q
and P ∩ Q∗ are Γ-Whitehead .
First consider P ∩ Q∗ . Let Cv be as above. By assumption, Cv ⊂ Q. Thus, the same argument as
in case (1) applies to show that (P ∩ Q∗ , w−1 ) is a Γ-Whitehead pair.
Next consider P∗ ∩ Q. Since w ∈ single(P), w ≤ v so any x in single(P∗ ∩ Q) satisfies x ≤ v. For
double(P∗ ∩ Q), note that lk(w) ⊆ lk(v) implies that every component of Γ \ st(v) (other than the
singleton {w}) is contained is some component of Γ \ st(w). It follows that double(P∗ ∩ Q) is a
union of components of Γ \ st(v). Hence (P∗ ∩ Q, v−1 ) is a Γ-Whitehead pair.
Case 3: v ∈ single(Q), w ∈ single(P). This is only possible if lk(v) = lk(w). Since v is a singleton
in both partitions, v and v−1 lie in opposite quadrants. Say v ∈ P ∩ Q and v−1 ∈ P∗ ∩ Q∗ . Then
it is easy to see that (P ∩ Q, v) and (P∗ ∩ Q∗ , v−1 ) are Γ-Whitehead pairs. Likewise, the opposite
quadrants containing w and w−1 also give Γ-Whitehead pairs.
Geometry & Topology XX (20XX)

1036

R. Charney, N. Stambaugh and K. Vogtmann

We next need to add the condition that our Γ-Whitehead partitions be reductive in certain situations.
Let σ be a marked Salvetti and P a Γ-Whitehead partition. For the purpose of this discussion, we
introduce a weaker notion of reductively: we say that P is 0-reductive for σ if for some v ∈ max(P),
kσvP k0 ≤ kσk0 .
Fix σ = (S, α) and let W0 be a set of cyclically reduced words representing {α−1 (g) | g ∈ G0 }.
P
P
Write |P|0 = w∈W0 |P|w and |v|0 = w∈W0 |v|w . Then P is
0-reductive if kσvP k0 − kσk0 = |P|0 − |v|0 ≤ 0

reductive if kσvP k − kσk = |P|σ − |v|σ < 0 ∈ Z × ZG
strongly reductive if kσvP k0 − kσk0 = |P|0 − |w|0 < 0.
In particular, strongly reductive ⇒ reductive ⇒ 0-reductive, but none of the converses hold.
Lemma 6.17 (Higgins-Lyndon Lemma) Let σ be a marked Salvetti and let P and Q be noncompatible Γ -Whitehead partitions. If P and Q are both σ -reductive then at least one of the
quadrants P ∩ Q∗ , P∗ ∩ Q , P ∩ Q or P∗ ∩ Q∗ determines a σ -reductive Γ -Whitehead partition
which is compatible with both P and Q . If P is strongly reductive and Q is 0-reductive, then one
of the quadrants is strongly reductive.
Proof Let σ = (S, α). By hypothesis, we can choose v ∈ max(P) and w ∈ max(Q) such that
either |P|σ − |v|σ < 0 and |Q|σ − |w|σ < 0 (case 1), or |P|0 − |v|0 < 0 and |Q|0 − |w|0 ≤ 0 (case
2).
Suppose first that there is exactly one quadrant which contains none of {v, v−1 , w, w−1 }. By
changing sides of P and Q if necessary, we may assume this is P ∩ Q. Then both (P ∩ Q∗ , v) and
(P∗ ∩ Q, w) are Γ-Whitehead by Lemma 6.16. Since P and P∗ ∩ Q are disjoint and v and w don’t
commute, Lemma 3.4 shows that P ∩ lk(Q) = ∅; similarly, Q ∩ lk(P) = ∅. Thus P and Q are both
in the complement of L = lk(P) ∪ lk(Q). So by Lemma 6.15, for every cyclically reduced word w,
lk(v)
lk(w)
lk(v)
lk(w)
|P ∩ Q∗ |w
+ |P∗ ∩ Q|w
≤ |P|w
+ |Q|w

Letting P∩Q∗ denote the Γ-Whitehead partition determined by P∩Q∗ and Q∩P∗ the Γ-Whitehead
partition determined by Q ∩ P∗ , it follows that
|P ∩ Q∗ |w − |v|w + |P∗ ∩ Q|w − |w|w ≤ |P|w − |v|w + |Q|w − |w|w .
In case 1, it follows that
|P ∩ Q∗ |σ − |v|σ + |P∗ ∩ Q|σ − |w|σ ≤ |P|σ − |v|σ + |Q|σ − |w|σ < 0,
so at least one of (P ∩ Q∗ , v) or (P∗ ∩ Q, w) is reductive. In case 2,
|P ∩ Q∗ |0 − |v|0 + |P∗ ∩ Q|0 − |w|0 ≤ |P|0 − |v|0 + |Q|0 − |w|0 < 0,
Geometry & Topology XX (20XX)

Untwisted automorphisms of RAAGs

1037

so one of (P ∩ Q∗ , v) or (P∗ ∩ Q, w) is strongly reductive.
Next suppose each quadrant contains an element of {v, v−1 , w, w−1 }, and say v ∈ P ∩ Q. This
forces w ∈ Q ∩ P∗ , w−1 ∈ P ∩ Q∗ and v−1 ∈ P∗ ∩ Q∗ . Since v is a singleton in Q, and w is a
singleton in P, we have lk(v) = lk(w) = L and by Lemma 6.16, all four quadrants are Γ-Whitehead
. Recall that |P|Lw = |P∗ |Lw , so applying Lemma 6.15 to both pairs of opposite quadrants gives
(|P ∩ Q∗ |Lw − |w|w + |P∗ ∩ Q|Lw − |w|w ) + (|P∗ ∩ Q∗ |Lw − |v|w + |P ∩ Q|Lw − |v|w )
≤ (|P|Lw + |Q|Lw − 2|w|w ) + (|P∗ |Lw + |Q|Lw − 2|v|w )
= 2(|P|Lw − |v|w ) + 2(|Q|Lw − |w|w )
In case 1 we obtain
(|P ∩ Q∗ |σ − |w|σ ) + (|P∗ ∩ Q|σ − |w|σ ) + (|P∗ ∩ Q∗ |σ − |v|σ ) + (|P ∩ Q|σ − |v|σ )
≤ 2(|P|σ − |v|σ ) + 2(|Q|σ − |w|σ ) < 0
so at least one of the quadrants is reductive. In case 2 we have
(|P ∩ Q∗ |0 − |w|0 ) + (|P∗ ∩ Q|0 − |w|0 ) + (|P∗ ∩ Q∗ |0 − |v|0 ) + (|P ∩ Q|0 − |v|0 )
≤ 2(|P|0 − |v|0 ) + 2(|Q|0 − |w|0 ) < 0
so one of the quadrants is strongly reductive.
The remaining possibility is that only two quadrants contain elements of {v, v−1 , w, w−1 }. In this
case, we may assume v, w ∈ P ∩ Q and v−1 , w−1 ∈ P∗ ∩ Q∗ . Here again lk(v) = lk(w) = L, and
(P ∩ Q, v) and (P∗ ∩ Q∗ , w−1 ) are both Γ-Whitehead by Lemma 6.16. Applying Lemma 6.15 gives
(|P ∩ Q|w − |v|w ) + (|P∗ ∩ Q∗ |w − |w|w ) ≤ (|P|w − |v|w ) + (|Q|w − |w|w )
and arguing as above we conclude that one of these quadrants is reductive (case 1) or strongly
reductive (case 2).
Finally, note that the requirement that the chosen quadrant define a partition compatible with both
P and Q is immediate from the fact that every quadrant is contained in one side of P and one side
of Q.
We have shown that any two marked Salvettis, σ, σ ′ , can be joined by a path in KΓ consisting of a
sequence of Whitehead moves. We call such a path a Γ-Whitehead path.
Theorem 6.18 (Peak Reduction). Let (P, v) and (Q, w) be two reductive Γ -Whitehead moves
from σ . Then there is a Γ -Whitehead path from σvP to σwQ which passes only through marked
Salvettis τ with kτ k < kσk .
Geometry & Topology XX (20XX)

1038

R. Charney, N. Stambaugh and K. Vogtmann

Proof First observe that in the case where P, Q are compatible and v = w, it follows from Remark
3.5 that σvP and σwQ differ by a single Γ-Whitehead move so there is nothing to prove.
Consider the case where P, Q are compatible and v 6= w. If the edges ev , ew in SP,Q do not join
the same two vertices, then the hyperplanes H = {Hv , Hw } through these edges form a tree-like
P,Q
set in SP,Q . In this case, setting τ = σH
, we obtain a Γ-Whitehead path σvP → τ → σwQ . Since
(P, v) and (Q, W) are both reductive, Lemma 6.6 gives
kτ k = kσk + (|P|σ − |v|σ ) + (|Q|σ − |w|σ ) < kσk.
The only situation in which ev , ew can join the same pair of vertices is if v, w are singletons in both
partitions, say v, w ∈ P ∩ Q and v−1 , w−1 ∈ P∗ ∩ Q∗ . In this case, (P, w) and (Q, v) are also
Γ-Whitehead pairs. Suppose |v|σ ≤ |w|σ . Then by Lemma 6.6,
kσwP k = kσk + (|P|σ − |w|σ ) ≤ kσk + (|P|σ − |v|σ ) < kσk
so σvP → σwP → σwQ is the desired path. If |v|σ > |w|σ , use σvP → σvQ → σwQ instead.
Next, suppose P and Q are not compatible. Apply the Higgins-Lyndon lemma to find R compatible
with both P and Q, with R reductive, i.e., kσuR k < kσk. Then by the discussion above, there are
Γ-Whitehead paths from σvP to σuR and from σuR to σwQ satisfying the required condition.
Theorem 6.19 (Strong Peak Reduction). Let (P, v) and (Q, w) be two Γ -Whitehead partitions
such that kσvP k0 < kσk0 and kσvQ k0 ≤ kσk0 . Then there is a Γ -Whitehead path from σvP to σwQ
which passes only through marked Salvettis τ with kτ k0 < kσk0 .
Proof Let W0 be a set of cyclically reduced words representing {α−1 (g) | g ∈ G0 }. Write
P
P
|P|0 = w∈W0 |P|w and |v|0 = w∈W0 |v|w . Then
kσvP k0 − kσk0 = |P|0 − |v|0 < 0

kσvQ k0 − kσk0 = |Q|0 − |w|0 ≤ 0.
We now proceed as in the proof of the previous theorem. In the case where P, Q are compatible
P,Q
and ev , ew join different vertices in SP,Q , set τ = σH
and note that
kτ k0 = kσk0 + (|P|0 − |v|0 ) + (|Q|0 − |w|0 ) < kσk0 .
If ev , ew join the same vertices and |v|0 ≤ |w|0 , then
kσwP k0 = kσk0 + (|P|0 − |w|0 ) ≤ kσk0 + (|P|0 − |v|0 ) < kσk0
If ev , ew join the same vertices and |v|0 > |w|0 , then
kσvQ k0 = kσk0 + (|Q|0 − |v|0 ) < kσk0 + (|Q|0 − |w|0 ) ≤ kσk0 .
Hence either σvP → σwP → σwQ , or σvP → σvQ → σwQ , gives the desired path.
Geometry & Topology XX (20XX)

Untwisted automorphisms of RAAGs

1039

Corollary 6.20 If kσk is not minimal, then there is a strongly reductive Γ -Whitehead move from
σ.
Proof As observed in the proof of Proposition 4.20, there is a path, σ = σ1 , σ2 , . . . σk = (S, id),
of Γ-Whitehead moves from σ to the unique marked Salvetti with minimal 0-norm, k(S, id)k0 .
Consider the sequence of 0-norms, kσk0 , kσ2 k0 , . . . kσk k0 . Using Theorem 6.19, we can reduce
peaks in this sequence to obtain a Γ-Whitehead path σ = τ0 , τ1 , . . . , τj = (S, id) which begins
downward, that is, with kσk0 > kτ1 k0
Corollary 6.21 Let N0 = k(S, id)k0 . For any N ≥ N0 , there are finitely many marked Salvettis σ
with kσk0 ≤ N .
Proof We observed in Lemma 6.2 that (S, id) is the unique marked Salvetti with minimal 0-norm.
By Corollary 6.20, if kσk0 ≤ N , there is a Γ-Whitehead path of length at most N − N0 to (S, id).
Since the number of Whitehead moves at any marked Salvetti is bounded, the Corollary follows.
Proposition 6.22 The set of marked Salvettis is well-ordered with respect to the norm k k .
Proof This follows immediately from Corollary 6.21. Let N = kσk0 . Since kτ k < kσk implies
kτ k0 ≤ kσk0 , there are only finitely many such τ . Hence there can be no infinite decreasing chain
of marked Salvettis.
For the proof of contractibility, we will also need the following stronger form of Lemma 6.17.
Lemma 6.23 (Pushing Lemma) Fix a marked Salvetti σ . Suppose that (M, m) is a reductive
Γ -Whitehead pair such that at σ ,
(1) lk(M) is maximal among links of reductive Γ -Whitehead partitions, and
(2) (M, m) is maximally reductive among Γ -Whitehead pairs (Q, w) with lk(Q) = lk(M) .

Let P be a reductive Γ -Whitehead partition that is not compatible with M . Choose sides so that
m ∈ M ∩ P . Then at least one of M ∩ P∗ or M ∗ ∩ P∗ determines a reductive Γ -Whitehead partition
whose link is equal to lk(P) (see Figure 8).
Proof P is reductive, so for some v ∈ max(P), |P|σ − |v|σ < 0. We will apply Lemma 6.16 to
P, M.
We first consider the case where m ∈ single(P) and v ∈ single(M). This corresponds to case (3) in
the proof of Lemma 6.16. In this case, lk(v) = lk(m) and the lemma produces opposite quadrants
Geometry & Topology XX (20XX)

1040

R. Charney, N. Stambaugh and K. Vogtmann

M
M ∩ P∗

P
m
M ∗ ∩ P∗

Figure 8: Setup for the Pushing Lemma

X, Y such that (X, v) and (Y, v−1 ) are Γ-Whitehead pairs, as well as and opposite quadrants X ′ , Y ′
such that (X ′ , m) and (Y ′ , m−1 ) are Γ-Whitehead pairs. Applying Lemma 6.15 to both pairs of
opposite quadrants gives
|X|σ + |Y|σ + |X′ |σ + |Y′ |σ ≤ 2(|P|σ + |M|σ )
Hence
(|X|σ − |v|σ ) + (|Y|σ − |v|σ ) + (|X′ |σ − |m|σ ) + (|Y′ |σ − |m|σ )
≤ 2(|P|σ − |v|σ ) + 2(|M|σ − |m|σ )
< 2(|M|σ − |m|σ )
Two of these quadrants, say Y and Y ′ , lie in P∗ . By hypothesis (2), (M, m) is maximally reductive,
so
2(|M|σ − |m|σ ) ≤ (|X|σ − |v|σ ) + (|X′ |σ − |m|σ )
and we conclude that
(|Y|σ − |v|σ ) + (|Y′ |σ − |m|σ ) < 0.
Thus one of the pairs (Y, v−1 ) or (Y ′ , m−1 ) is reductive and satisfies the requirements of the lemma.

In all other cases, Lemma 6.16 gives an opposite pair of quadrants X and Y , with maximal elements
x ∈ {v± }, y ∈ {m± }, that define (possibly degenerate) Γ-Whitehead partitions. By Lemma 6.15
we have
(|X|σ − |v|σ ) + (|Y|σ − |m|σ ) ≤ (|P|σ − |v|σ ) + (|M|σ − |m|σ ) < (|M|σ − |m|σ ).
By hypothesis (2), |M|σ − |m|σ ≤ |Y|σ − |m|σ , so we conclude that (X, x) is reductive. If X ⊂ P∗ ,
we are done. If X ⊂ P, then Y ⊂ P∗ , so P∗ contains y ∈ {m± } and we must have m ∈ single(P).
This implies that lk(m) ⊆ lk(v), so by hypothesis (1), lk(m) = lk(v). It then follows from hypothesis
(2) that |M|σ − |m|σ ≤ |X|σ − |v|σ , and we conclude that (Y, y) is also reductive.
Geometry & Topology XX (20XX)

Untwisted automorphisms of RAAGs

1041

6.6 Contractibility of the Γ -spine KΓ
In this section we prove our main theorem.
Theorem 6.24 For any right-angled Artin group AΓ , the Γ -spine KΓ is contractible.
The proof will make frequent use the following lemma, which is standard in the topology of posets,
and dates back to work of Quillen [16].
Lemma 6.25 (Poset Lemma) Let X be a poset and f : X → X a poset map with the property that
x ≤ f (x) for all x ∈ X (or x ≥ f (x) for all x ∈ X ). Then f induces a deformation retraction from
the geometric realization of X to the geometric realization of the image f (X).
Proof of Theorem 6.24 We view the spine KΓ as the union of stars of marked Salvettis. By
Lemma 6.2 there is a unique marked Salvetti (S, id) of minimal norm, and we start with its
(contractible) star. We build the entire spine by gluing on stars of marked Salvettis in increasing
order.
When we add a marked Salvetti, we need to check that we are gluing along something contractible.
So fix a marked Salvetti σ , and let K<σ be the union of stars of marked Salvettis τ with kτ k < kσk.
The intersection st(σ) ∩ K<σ consists of marked blowups σ Π which can be collapsed to a marked
Salvetti of smaller norm; here Π = {P1 , . . . Pk } is a set of compatible Γ-Whitehead partitions,
which we will refer to as an “ideal forest." We can identify st(σ)∩K<σ with the geometric realization
of the poset of such ideal forests, ordered by inclusion. To prove that st(σ) ∩ K<σ is contractible,
we will repeatedly apply the Poset Lemma to retract this poset to a single point.
First note that by Corollary 6.20, st(σ)∩K<σ is non-empty. By Corollary 6.8, if Π is in st(σ)∩K<σ ,
then Π contains a σ -reductive Γ-Whitehead partition. Therefore, the map that throws out the nonreductive Γ-Whitehead partitions from each Π in st(σ) ∩ K<σ is a poset map, and we can use the
Poset Lemma to retract st(σ) ∩ K<σ to its image, which is the subposet R spanned by ideal forests
all of whose Γ-Whitehead partitions are reductive.
Now choose a reductive pair (M, m) satisfying the maximality conditions of Lemma 6.23. We will
ultimately retract R to the ideal forest consisting of the single partition {M}.
If all of the ideal forests in R are compatible with M, then we can contract R to {M} via the poset
maps Π → Π ∪ {M} → {M}. If not, choose a reductive Γ-Whitehead partition P such that
(1) P and M are not compatible, and
(2) the side P containing m is maximal among sides of all such partitions, i.e., if Q is a reductive
Γ-Whitehead partition with P ⊂ Q, then Q is compatible with M.
Geometry & Topology XX (20XX)

1042

R. Charney, N. Stambaugh and K. Vogtmann

Note that if m ∈ P ⊂ Q, then m ∈
/ lk(Q), so M and Q do not commute. It follows that the only
way they can be compatible is if M ⊂ Q. Thus, the second condition can be restated as, (2′ ) if
P ⊂ Q, then M ⊂ Q.
By the Pushing Lemma, one of M ∩ P∗ or M ∗ ∩ P∗ determines a reductive Γ-Whitehead partition
whose link is equal to lk(P), call it P0 . We claim that
(
Π ∪ {P0 } if P ∈ Π
Π 7→
Π
if P 6∈ Π
is a poset map from R to itself. If P ∈ Π then Q ∈ Π implies that Q is compatible with P, so we
have to check that any such Q is also compatible with P0 .
If Q commutes with P, then it also commutes with P0 since they have the same link. Otherwise,
compatibility implies that some side Q of Q is either contained in P or contains P. If Q ⊂ P,
then Q ∩ P∗ = ∅, so Q is compatible with both M ∩ P∗ and M ∗ ∩ P∗ . If P ⊂ Q, then by (2′ ),
M ∪ P ⊂ Q. It follows that M ∩ P∗ ⊂ Q and Q∗ ⊂ (M ∗ ∩ P∗ ), so both of these quadrants are again
compatible with Q. This proves the claim.
This map clearly satisfies the hypotheses of the Poset lemma, so R retracts to the image, in which
every ideal forest that contains P also contains P0 . Now map this image to itself by the poset map
which throws P out of every Π that contains it. The Poset Lemma applies again, and the image is
now the subcomplex of R spanned by all reductive ideal forests which do not contain P.
Repeat this process until every Γ-Whitehead partition that is not compatible with M has been
eliminated. The resulting poset can be retracted to the single point {M} as described above.

7 Outer space for Out(AΓ )
In this final section we briefly discuss the problem of finding an outer space for the entire group
Out(AΓ ). If there are no vertices v, w in Γ with st(v) ⊆ st(w), then U(AΓ ) = Out(AΓ ) and the
spine KΓ is quasi-isometric to Out(AΓ ), so nothing more needs to be done.
In particular, if AΓ is a free group then KΓ is the spine of Culler-Vogtmann’s outer space On .
The complete space On is obtained by giving edges of marked graphs positive real lengths, then
taking projective classes of the resulting metric graphs. The spine Kn naturally embeds into On , by
sending vertices of Kn to metric graphs with all edges of equal length. We can do the same thing
for general KΓ by considering the cubes in a Γ-complex to be arbitrary rectilinear parallelepipeds,
i.e. giving each set of edges dual to a hyperplane the same positive real length, then taking the
projective class of the resulting metric space. We call the space we obtain in this way ΣΓ , and KΓ
embeds into it as in the free group case, as an equivariant deformation retract.
Geometry & Topology XX (20XX)

Untwisted automorphisms of RAAGs

1043

The opposite extreme from the free group is the free abelian group Zn . In this case Out(AΓ ) ∼
=
GL(n, Z) acts properly on the symmetric space SL(n, R)/SO(n), which we can regard as a space of
projective classes of flat tori. For general Γ, abelianization AΓ → Zn induces a map Out(AΓ ) →
GL(n, Z) which sends the twist subgroup TΓ injectively into SL(n, Z). There is a natural contractible
subspace DΓ of the symmetric space on which TΓ acts; this space DΓ can be regarded as a space of
projective classes of certain “flat Salvettis;" where we regard the Salvetti as a subcomplex of a flat
n-torus and take the induced path metric. This gives us a restricted class of allowable metrics on
Salvetti complexes, which can be extended to a restricted class of allowable metrics on Γ-complexes.
Cubes are no longer necessarily rectilinear; some are allowed to become parallelepipeds.
We can then define an outer space O(AΓ ) on which all of Out(AΓ ) acts as follows: A point in
O(AΓ ) is an equivalence class of triples (X, d, h) where
• X is a Γ-complex
• d is an allowable metric on X
• h : X → S is an arbitrary homotopy equivalence
• (X, d, h) ∼ (X ′ , d′ , h′ ) if there is an isometry f : X → X ′ with h′ ◦ f ≃ h.

The action of ϕ ∈ Out(AΓ ) on O(AΓ ) is by composition: realize ϕ by f : S → S, then ϕ(X, d, h) =
(X, d, f ◦ h).
Both ΣΓ and DΓ embed into this space O(AΓ ). In many cases it is easy to reduce the contractibility
of O(AΓ ) to the contractility of ΣΓ , proved in this paper. However the general case seems to be
quite subtle and not at all short, so this will form the contents of a second paper.

References
[1] Ian Agol, Daniel Groves, Jason Manning, The virtual Haken conjecture, Doc. Math. 18 (2013),
104–1087.
[2] Mladen Bestvina and Noel Brady, Morse theory and finiteness properties of groups, Invent. Math.
129 (1997), no. 3, 445–470.
[3] Kai-Uwe Bux, Ruth Charney and Karen Vogtmann, Automorphism groups of RAAGs and partially
symmetric automorphisms of free groups Groups Geom. Dyn. 3 (2009), no. 4, 541—554.
[4] Ruth Charney, An introduction to right-angled Artin groups, Geom. Dedicata 125 (2007), 141–158.
[5] Ruth Charney, John Crisp and Karen Vogtmann, Automorphisms of two-dimensional right-angled
Artin groups, Geom. Top. 11 (2007), 2227–2264.
[6] Ruth Charney and Karen Vogtmann, Finiteness properties of automorphism groups of right-angled
Artin groups, Bull. Lond. Math. Soc. 41 (2009), no. 1, 94–102.

Geometry & Topology XX (20XX)

1044

R. Charney, N. Stambaugh and K. Vogtmann

[7] Ruth Charney and Karen Vogtmann, Subgroups and quotients of automorphism groups of RAAGs
Low-dimensional and symplectic topology, 9–27, Proc. Sympos. Pure Math., 82, Amer. Math. Soc.,
Providence, RI, 2011.
[8] Christopher B. Croke and Bruce Kleiner, Spaces with nonpositive curvature and their ideal boundaries, Topology 39 (2000), no. 3, 549–556.
[9] Marc Culler and Karen Vogtmann, Moduli of graphs and automorphisms of free groups, Invent.
Math. 84 (1986), no. 1, 91–119.
[10] Matthew B. Day, Peak reduction and finite presentations for automorphism groups of right-angled
Artin groups, Geom. Topol. 13 (2009), no. 2, 817–855.
[11] Matthew B. Day, Full-featured peak reduction in right-angled Artin groups, Algebraic & Geometric
Topology 14 (2014) ,1677–1743.
[12] Frederic Haglund, Daniel T. Wise, Special cube complexes, Geom. Funct. Anal. 17 (2008), no. 5,
1551–1620.
[13] A. H. M. Hoare, Coinitial graphs and Whitehead automorphisms, Can J. Math 21 (1979), no. 1,
112–123.
[14] Sava Krstić and Karen Vogtmann, Equivariant outer space and automorphisms of free-by-finite
groups, Comment. Math. Helv. 68 (1993), no. 2, 216–262.
[15] Michael R. Laurence, A generating set for the automorphism group of a graph group, J. London
Math. Soc. (2) 52 (1995), no. 2, 318–334.
[16] Daniel Quillen, Higher Algebraic K-Theory, I, Lect. Notes Math. 341 (1974), 85–147.
[17] Herman Servatius, Automorphisms of graph groups, J. Algebra 126 (1989), no. 1, 34–60.
[18] Nate Stambaugh, Toward an Outer Space for Right Angled Artin Groups, Ph.D. Dissertation. Accepted by Brandeis University in August, 2011.
[19] Anna Vijayan, Compactifying the Space of Length Functions of a Right-angled Artin Group, preprint,
arXiv:1510.05729

Brandeis University, Waltham, MA 02453
Western Governors University, Salt Lake City, UT 84107
University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, United Kingdom
charney@brandeis.edu, nate.stambaugh@wgu.edu, k.vogtmann@warwick.ac.uk

http://people.brandeis.edu/~charney/, https://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/sci/maths/people/staff/karen_vogt

Geometry & Topology XX (20XX)

