Finite groups with a large automorphism orbit
Alexander Bors∗

arXiv:1802.09215v1 [math.GR] 26 Feb 2018

February 27, 2018

Abstract
We study the nonabelian composition factors of a finite group G assumed to
admit an Aut(G)-orbit of length at least ρ|G|, for a given ρ ∈ (0, 1]. Our main
results are the following: The orders of the nonabelian composition factors of G are
18
then bounded in terms of ρ, and if ρ > 19
, then G is solvable. On the other hand, for
each nonabelian finite simple group S, there is a constant c(S) ∈ (0, 1] such that S
occurs with arbitrarily large multiplicity as a composition factor in some finite group
G having an Aut(G)-orbit of length at least c(S)|G|.

1
1.1

Introduction
Motivation and main results

The notion of an automorphism as a formalization of a “symmetry” of an object is
ubiquitous in mathematics, and quite a bit of research across mathematical disciplines
is concerned with studying “highly symmetric” objects X, which usually means at
least that the natural action of the automorphism group Aut(X) on X is transitive,
though often, even more than that is assumed. As examples, we mention vertextransitive graphs [2, Definition 4.2.2, p. 85] and Cayley graphs [2, Definition 5.3.1
and Theorem 5.3.2, pp. 115f.] from graph theory, block-transitive [5, 6] and flagtransitive [14] designs from combinatorics, and flag-transitive finite projective planes
[18] from geometry.
In trying to adapt these studies of “highly symmetric” objects X to the case
where X is a finite group G, one encounters the fundamental problem that unless G
is trivial, the action of Aut(G) on G is intransitive. It is therefore necessary to weaken
the symmetry condition on G, and a natural way to do so is by only assuming that
School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Western Australia, Crawley 6009, WA, Australia.
E-mail: alexander.bors@uwa.edu.au
The author is supported by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF), project J4072-N32 “Affine maps on finite
groups”.
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification: Primary: 20D45. Secondary: 20D05, 20D60, 60C05.
Key words and phrases: Finite groups, Automorphism orbits, Composition factors.
∗

1

Alexander Bors

Large automorphism orbits

a certain positive proportion of the elements of G (instead of all of G) is contained
in an Aut(G)-orbit. This motivates the study of the following concepts:
Definition 1.1.1. Let G be a finite group.
1. We set MAOL(G) := maxg∈G |gAut(G) |, the (absolute) maximum automorphism
orbit length of G.
1
MAOL(G) ∈ (0, 1], the relative maximum automorphism
2. We set maol(G) := |G|
orbit length of G, or the maximum automorphism orbit proportion of G.

Our main results, listed in Theorem 1.1.2 below, are concerned with the nonabelian composition factors of finite groups G which satisfy maol(G) ≥ ρ for some
given ρ ∈ (0, 1].
Theorem 1.1.2. The following hold:
1. A finite group G with maol(G) >

18
19

is solvable.

2. There is a function f : (0, 1] → (0, ∞) such that for all ρ ∈ (0, 1] and each finite
group G with maol(G) ≥ ρ, the orders of the nonabelian composition factors of
G are at most f (ρ).
3. For each nonabelian finite simple group S, there is a constant c(S) ∈ (0, 1] such
that for each positive integer N , there is a finite group G with maol(G) ≥ ρ and
such that S occurs as a composition factor of G with multiplicity at least N .
Remark 1.1.3. Some remarks concerning Theorem 1.1.2:
18
in Theorem 1.1.2(1) is probably not optimal; see the conclud1. The constant 19
ing remarks (Section 4, Proposition 4.1 and Question 4.2) for the conjectured
optimal value.

2. By Theorem 1.1.2(3), in general, the multiplicities of the nonabelian composition factors S of a finite group G satisfying maol(G) ≥ ρ cannot be bounded
in terms of ρ, even if the bound is allowed to depend on S as well. This is in
sharp contrast to [4, Theorem 1.1.1(3)], which implies that if there is a cyclic
subgroup of Aut(G) admitting an orbit on G of length at least ρ|G|, then the
index [G : Rad(G)], where Rad(G) is the solvable radical of G (the largest solvable normal subgroup of G), is bounded in terms of ρ (which is equivalent to
having a bound in terms of ρ on both the orders and the multiplicities of the
nonabelian composition factors of G).
3. We also note that in contrast to [4, Theorem 1.1.1(1)], there is no ρ ∈ (0, 1)
such that a finite group G with maol(G) > ρ is necessarily abelian, since (as
can be easily checked) for each prime p > 2, the nonabelian group of order p3
and exponent p admits an automorphism orbit of proportion 1 − 1p .

1.2

Overview of the paper

Each subsection of Section 2 is dedicated to the proof of one of four lemmas that
will be used for proving Theorem 1.1.2. Lemma 2.1.1 from Subsection 2.1 serves to

2

Alexander Bors

Large automorphism orbits

essentially reduce the problem to bounding automorphism orbit proportions in finite
groups H such that S n ≤ H ≤ Aut(S n ) for some nonabelian finite simple group S
and some positive integer n. Such bounds are then obtained in Lemma 2.2.5 from
Subsection 2.2. They are products of values of the probability mass functions of
certain multinomial distributions, and Lemma 2.3.1 from Subsection 2.3 provides an
upper bound on these factors, which in turn reduces the proof of Theorem 1.1.2(1)
and of most of Theorem 1.1.2(2) to bounding, for each nonabelian finite simple group
S, the maximum proportion h(S) (see also Notation 2.4.1) of an Aut(S)-conjugacy
class in one of the cosets of S in Aut(S). Using the classification of the finite simple
groups, such bounds are obtained in Lemma 2.4.2 from Subsection 2.4.
Section 3 then consists of the actual proof of Theorem 1.1.2, and in Section 4, we
conclude the paper with some interesting open questions and problems for further
research.

1.3

Notation and terminology

We denote by N the set of natural numbers (including 0) and by N+ the set of positive
integers. The element-wise image of a set M under a function f is denoted by f [M ],
and the identity funtion on M by idM . The symbol φ denotes Euler’s totient function,
e denotes Euler’s constant, and for a ring R, R∗ denotes the group of units of R. For
a prime power q, the finite field with q elements is denoted by Fq , and its algebraic
closure by Fq . The greatest common divisor of a, b ∈ N+ is denoted by gcd(a, b)
or simply by (a, b) if there is no risk of confusing it with the ordered pair of a and
b (such as in the formulas for outer automorphism group orders of simple Lie type
groups in the proof of Lemma 2.4.2).
The symmetric and alternating groups of degree m will be denoted by Sm and
Am respectively. The term characteristic quotient (of a group) means “quotient by
a characteristic subgroup”. If G is a group and g is an element or subgroup of some
group H ≥ G, then we denote by CG (g) resp. NG (g) the centralizer resp. normalizer
of g in G. When σ is a permutation on a finite set M and O ⊆ M is an orbit of
the natural action of hσi on M , we view O as the support of the associated cycle
ζ from the representation of σ as a disjoint product of cycles, using the notation
supp(ζ) := O. Note that this differs slightly from the usual notion of the support of
a permutation, under which 1-cycles would have empty support. For a finite group
G, we denote by Soc(G) the socle of G (the subgroup of G generated by the minimal
nontrivial normal subgroups of G), by ζG the center of G, and by MCS(G) the
minimum size of an element centralizer in G. An automorphism α of a nonabelian
finite simple group S is called out-central if and only if its image under the canonical
projection Aut(S) → Out(S) lies in ζ Out(S). For an element ~g = (g1 , . . . , gn )σ
of the wreath product G ≀ Symn = Gn ⋊ Sn , we call (g1 , . . . , gn ) ∈ Gn the tuple
part and σ ∈ Sn the permutation part of ~g (with respect to the fixed wreath product
decomposition of G ≀ Sn ).
As for our notation of the finite simple groups of Lie type, we follow the approach
t
taken in [12, Section 3, pp. 104f.], so that Xr (pf ·t ), where the pre-superscripted t is
′
usually omitted if it is 1, denotes Op (Xr (Fp )σ ), the subgroup of the simple Chevalley

3

Alexander Bors

Large automorphism orbits

group (i.e., simple linear algebraic group of adjoint type) Xr (Fp ) generated by the
p-elements of the fixed point subgroup of the Lang-Steinberg map (“Frobenius map”
in the terminology of [12, p. 104]) σ on Xr (Fp ), and the relationship between σ and
the parameters t = t(σ) and f = f (σ) is as follows: Let B be any σ-invariant Borel
subgroup of Xr (Fp ), and let T be any σ-invariant maximal torus of Xr (Fp ) contained
in B. Then t is the unique smallest positive integer (independent of the choice of B
and T ) such that the t-th power of the map σ ∗ on the character group X(T ) induced
by σ is a positive integral multiple of idX(T ) , and f ∈ N+ /2 = { 12 , 1, 23 , . . .} is such
that σ ∗ = pf σ0 with σ0t = idX(T ) ; f also does not depend on the choice of B and T .
So pf = q(σ) in the notation of [12], which is also a notation we will be using, and
t
f ∈ N+ unless Xr (pf ·t ) is one of the Suzuki or Ree groups, in which case f is half
of an odd positive integer. For us, a finite simple group of Lie type is by definition
any group of the form t Xr (pf t ), even if it is not a simple group (such as A1 (2)). We
say that t Xr (pf t ) is of untwisted Lie rank r; with a few small exceptions (such as
A1 (7) ∼
= A2 (2)), each finite simple group of Lie type has precisely one untwisted Lie
rank. In the context of finite simple groups of Lie type, the terms “graph automorphism”, “field automorphism” and “graph-field automorphism” (the last meaning
“product of a field and a graph automorphism”) and the associated notations ΦS
and ΓS are used as explained in [12, p. 105]. Moreover, as in [11], Inndiag(S) denotes
the inner diagonal automorphism group of S (so Inndiag(t Xr (pf ·t )) ∼
= Xr (Fp )σ in the
above notation), and Outdiag(S), the outer diagonal automorphism group of S, is
the image of Inndiag(S) under the canonical projection Aut(S) → Out(S). As in [11,
Theorem 2.5.12(b), p. 58], we also view ΦS and ΓS as subsets of Out(S), depending
on the context. When α ∈ Aut(S) (resp. α ∈ Out(S)), then as stated in [12, p. 105],
α admits a unique factorization into an element of Inndiag(S) (resp. Outdiag(S)),
an element of ΦS and an element of ΓS , and we call these the inner diagonal component (resp. outer diagonal component), field component and graph component of α,
respectively. The product of the field and graph component of α is also called the
graph-field component of α.
When P is some statement, we denote by δ[P ] the Kronecker delta value associated
with P , which is 1 if P is true and 0 otherwise. So, for example, in Case 4 in the
proof of Lemma 2.4.2, where S is the simple Lie type group G2 (pf ), the formula
| Out(S)| = (1 + δ[p=3] )f means that | Out(S)| = 2f if p = 3, and | Out(S)| = f
otherwise.
Throughout the paper, we will use the adjective “semisimple” in two different contexts: On the one hand, by a semisimple group, we mean a group with no nontrivial
solvable normal subgroups, which for finite groups G is equivalent to the triviality of
their solvable radical Rad(G); for more information on these groups including facts
that will be tacitly used throughout the paper, see [16, pp. 89ff.] and [17, Lemma
1.1] (the latter implies the important fact that for any finite semisimple group H,
NAut(Soc(H)) (H) is isomorphic to Aut(H) via its conjugation action on H). On the
t

other hand, for a finite simple group of Lie type S = Xr (pf ·t ), viewed as a subgroup
of a simple Chevalley group S = Xr (Fp ), a semisimple automorphism of S is an inner
diagonal automorphism of S whose order is coprime to the defining characteristic p
of S (and thus can be seen as the conjugation on S by a suitable semisimple element

4

Alexander Bors

Large automorphism orbits

of NS (S) ≤ S.
Finally, we note that we will be using the following asymptotic notations: Let M
be a set, let f, g, p : M → (0, ∞) and let x be a variable ranging over M . Then we
write
• “f (x) ∈ O(g(x)) as p(x) → ∞.” for “There exist constants C1 , C2 > 0 such
that for all x ∈ M with p(x) ≥ C1 , the inequality f (x) ≤ C2 · g(x) holds.”.

• “f (x) ∈ Ω(g(x)) as p(x) → ∞.” for “g(x) ∈ O(f (x)) as p(x) → ∞.”.

• “f (x) ∈ o(g(x)) as p(x) → ∞.” for “For every ǫ > 0, there is a constant C =
C(ǫ) > 0 such that for all x ∈ M with p(x) ≥ C, the inequality f (x) ≤ ǫg(x)
holds.”
• “f (x) ∈ ω(g(x)) as p(x) → ∞.” for “g(x) ∈ o(f (x)) as p(x) → ∞”.

2

Four lemmas for proving Theorem 1.1.2

2.1 Reduction to semisimple groups with characteristically simple socle
We start with the following simple lemma, which allows us to infer that if there
exists any finite group G with maol(G) ≥ ρ and having the nonabelian finite simple
group S as a composition factor, then actually maol(H) ≥ ρ for some nontrivial finite
semisimple group H with socle a power of S:
Lemma 2.1.1. Let G be a finite group.
1. If N is a characteristic subgroup of G, then maol(G/N ) ≥ maol(G).

2. If S is a nonabelian composition factor of G, then G has a characteristic quotient H which is semisimple and satisfies Soc(H) ∼
= S n for some n ∈ N+ .
Proof. For (1): Denote by π the canonical projection G → G/N . Let O ⊆ G be an
Aut(G)-orbit such that |O| = MAOL(G). Since each automorphism of G induces an
automorphism of G/N , we have that π[O] ⊆ G/N is contained in some Aut(G/N )orbit Õ. Hence
MAOL(G) = |O| ≤ |Õ| · |N | ≤ MAOL(G/N ) · |N |,
and upon dividing both sides of that inequality by |G|, we get the desired bound
maol(G) ≤ maol(G/N ).
For (2): We recursively define a sequence (Gm )m∈N of characteristic quotients of G
as follows: G0 := G/ Rad(G), and Gm+1 := (Gm / Soc(Gm ))/(Rad(Gm / Soc(Gm ))).
Then by construction, each of the groups Gm , m ∈ N, is semisimple, and for all
but finitely many m ∈ N, Gm is trivial. Furthermore, since solvable finite groups
only have abelian composition factors, each nonabelian composition factor of G, in
particular S, is a composition factor (hence a direct factor) of at least one of the
groups Soc(Gm ), m ∈ N. Say Soc(Gm ) contains S as a composition factor, and let us

5

Alexander Bors

Large automorphism orbits

write Soc(Gm ) = S n × S1n1 × · · · × Srnr with r ∈ N, n1 , . . . , nr ∈ N+ , and S, S1 , . . . , Sr
pairwise nonisomorphic nonabelian finite simple groups. Set H := Gm / CGm (S n ).
Then the restriction of the canonical projection Gm → H to S n ≤ Soc(Gm ) is
injective, so we can view S n embedded as a normal subgroup in H. Moreover,
by construction, the conjugation action of H on S n is faithful. Therefore, H is
semisimple with socle S n , and since H is a characteristic quotient of Gm , H is also
a characteristic quotient of G.

2.2 Conjugacy in wreath products and automorphism
orbits in finite semisimple groups
Let G be a finite group, let n ∈ N+ , and consider an element ~g = (g1 , . . . , gn )σ, with
g1 , . . . , gn ∈ G and σ ∈ Sn , of the wreath product G ≀ Sn = Gn ⋊ Sn . In Lemma
2.2.5(1) below, we give a combinatorial characterization of when another element
~h = (h1 , . . . , hn )υ ∈ G ≀ Sn is (G ≀ Sn )-conjugate to w. We note that conjugacy of
elements in wreath products has already been studied in [7], but the focus there was
on efficient computation of a set of representatives for the conjugacy classes, and the
situation was more complex because the wreath product could be taken with any
permutation group (not just Sn ); in our more special situation, a particularly nice
combinatorial characterization of conjugacy can be given.
Lemma 2.2.5(2) then is essentially an application of Lemma 2.2.5(1) to the special
case G := Aut(S), the automorphism group of a nonabelian finite simple group S.
It gives an upper bound on maol(H) for H a nontrivial finite semisimple group with
Soc(H) isomorphic to a power of S.
Before formulating and proving Lemma 2.2.5, we need to introduce some notation.
Definition 2.2.1. Let S be a nonabelian finite simple group, π : Aut(S) → Out(S)
the canonical projection, c an Aut(S)-conjugacy class.
1. The term S-type is a synonym for “Out(S)-conjugacy class”.
2. We call π[c], which is an Out(S)-conjugacy class, the S-type of c, denoted by
typeS (c).
|c|
. Equivalently, ρ(c) is the proportion of elements of
3. We set ρ(c) := |S|·| type
S (c)|
c within any of the S-cosets in Aut(S) which c intersects.

Remark 2.2.2. Let S be a nonabelian finite simple group. We give two remarks
concerning Definition 2.2.1:
1. For all Aut(S)-conjugacy classes c, we have ρ(c) ≤ h(S) (see Notation 2.4.1).

2. For all S-types τ , the sum of the positive real numbers ρ(c), where c ranges
over the Aut(S)-conjugacy classes of S-type τ , equals 1.
Definition 2.2.3. Let G be a finite group, n ∈ N+ , and let w = (g1 , . . . , gn )σ ∈ G≀Sn .
1. For a length l cycle ζ = (i1 , . . . , il ) of σ, we define bcpcζ (w) := (gil gil−1 · · · gi1 )G ,
the backward cycle product class of w with respect to ζ, a G-conjugacy class.

6

Alexander Bors

Large automorphism orbits

2. For l ∈ {1, . . . , n}, we denote by Ml (w) the (possibly empty) multiset of the
bcpcζ (w), where ζ runs through the length l cycles of σ.
3. In the special case where G = Aut(S) for a nonabelian finite simple group S,
we denote, for l ∈ {1, . . . , n} and τ an S-type, by Mlτ (w) the (possibly empty)
multiset of the bcpcζ (w), where ζ runs through the length l cycles of σ such that
typeS (bcpcζ (w)) = τ .
Definition 2.2.4. Let S be a nonabelian finite simple group, and let M be a nonempty
multiset of Aut(S)-conjugacy classes of a common S-type τ .
1. We set n(M ) := |M |, the multiset-cardinality of M .

2. We define k(τ ) as the number of Aut(S)-conjugacy classes of type τ .
3. For an Aut(S)-conjugacy class c, we define lc (M ) as the multiplicity with which
c occurs as an element of M (of course, lc (M ) = 0 unless c is of S-type τ ).
(τ )

(τ )

4. Let c1 , . . . , ck(τ ) be the distinct Aut(S)-conjugacy classes of S-type τ . We
define
r(M ) :=




n(M )
(τ ) l (τ ) (M )
(τ ) l (τ ) (M )
.
· · · ρ(ck(τ ) ) ck
· ρ(c1 ) c1
lc(τ ) (M ), . . . , lc(τ ) (M )
1

k(τ )

Note that in the situation of Definition 2.2.4(4), r(M ) is the evaluation at the
argument (lc(τ ) (M ), . . . , lc(τ ) (M )) of the probability mass function of the multino1

k(τ )

mial distribution with parameters n(M ), the number of experiment repetitions, and
(τ )
(τ )
(ρ(c1 ), . . . , ρ(ck(τ ) )), the ordered list of success probabilities of the outcomes of a
single experiment.
Lemma 2.2.5. The following hold:
1. Let G be a finite group, n ∈ N+ , g1 , . . . , gn , h1 , . . . , hn ∈ G and σ, υ ∈ Sn . The
following are equivalent:
(a) The two elements ~g := (g1 , . . . , gn )σ and ~h := (h1 , . . . , hn )υ of G ≀ Sn are
conjugate.
(b) σ and υ have the same cycle type (i.e., are conjugate in Sn ), and for all
l ∈ {1, . . . , n}, the equality of multisets Ml (~g ) = Ml (~h) holds.

2. Let S be a nonabelian finite simple group, n ∈ N+ , let H be a finite group such
that S n ≤ H ≤ Aut(S n ) = Aut(S) ≀ Sn , and let α
~ := (α1 , . . . , αn )σ ∈ H. Then
YY
1
· |~
αAut(H) | ≤
r(Mlτ (~
α)),
|H|
τ
l

where l runs through the cycle lengths of σ and τ runs through those Out(S)conjugacy classes that occur as the S-type of one of the bcpcζ (~
α) where ζ is a
length l cycle of σ.

7

Alexander Bors

Large automorphism orbits

Proof. For (1): Fix ~g = (g1 , . . . , gn )σ ∈ G ≀ Sn . It is clear that the possible permutation parts of the (G ≀ Sn )-conjugates of ~g are just the Sn -conjugates of σ,
and since for each cycle ζ of σ and all ψ ∈ Sn , bcpcζ (~g ) = bcpcζ ψ (~gψ ), we have
Ml (~g ) = Ml (~gψ ) = Ml ((g1 , . . . , gn )ψ σ ψ ) for all l ∈ {1, . . . , n} and all ψ ∈ Sn . Therefore, statement (1) follows from the following special case of it, which is a characterization of the conjugates of ~g that have the same permutation part as ~g :
“An element ~h = (h1 , . . . , hn )σ ∈ G ≀ Sn is (G ≀ Sn )-conjugate to ~g if and only if
for all l ∈ {1, . . . , n}, Ml (~g ) = Ml (~h).”
We will show this assertion, so we need to investigate which ~h = (h1 , . . . , hn )σ ∈
G ≀ Sn are conjugate to ~g . Consider a conjugator ~k = (k1 , . . . , kn )ψ ∈ G ≀ Sn . The
~
permutation part of ~gk is equal to σ if and only if ψ ∈ CSn (σ), so we assume this
from now on. For l = 1, . . . , n, we denote by ul the number of l-cycles of σ, and
by Il the subset of {1, . . . , n} consisting of those indices lying on an l-cycle of σ.
Note that |Il | = l · ul , and that CSn (σ) is the permutational direct product of the
subgroups Cl ≤ SIl , l = 1, . . . , n, where Cl is the permutational wreath product of
the cyclic degree l permutation group generated by an l-cycle with Sul , where Sul
acts on the supports of the ul cycles of length l of σ. Therefore, the possible values
of ~gψ = (gψ−1 (1) , . . . , gψ−1 (n) )σ = (g1′ , . . . , gn′ )σ =: g~′ are just those where the n-tuple
(g1′ , . . . , gn′ ) is obtained from (g1 , . . . , gn ) by permuting entry groups that are supports
of σ-cycles of the same length and cyclically shifting (with respect to the order of
indices on the corresponding σ-cycle) such entry groups. In particular, we have the
following:
1. For each ψ ∈ CSn (σ), we have that for all l = 1, . . . , n, Ml (~g ) = Ml (~gψ ), or
(l)
(l)
equivalently, that there is a multiset bijection χψ from the set {ζ1 , . . . , ζul }
of length l cycles of σ to the multiset Ml (~g ) such that for i = 1, . . . , ul ,
(l)
bcpcζ (l) (~gψ ) = χψ (ζi ).
i

(l)

(l)

2. For every multiset bijection χ : {ζ1 , . . . , ζul } → Ml (~g ), there is a ψ ∈ CSn (σ)
such that χψ = χ.
Next, we study which elements ~h = (h1 , . . . , hn )σ of G≀Sn one can reach from ~g =
(g1 , . . . , gn )σ via conjugation by an n-tuple (k1 , . . . , kn ) ∈ Gn . Similar considerations
were already used by Cannon and Holt in [7, proof of Proposition 2.1], but for the
reader’s convenience, we give a more elaborate form of their argument here.
First, observe that for each cycle ζ of σ, those entries of the tuple part of ~g (k1 ,...,kn )
that correspond to indices from the support of ζ only depend on such entries from
~g and from (k1 , . . . , kn ), so we can study this problem “cycle-wise”. Hence let ζ =
(i1 , . . . , il ) be a cycle of σ, and assume w.l.o.g. that i1 < i2 < · · · < il . Then, using
the symbol ∗ as a substitute for (possibly empty) entry groups outside the support
of ζ, we have that
~g(k1 ,...,kn ) = ((∗, gi1 , ∗, gi2 , ∗, . . . , ∗, gil , ∗)σ)(∗,ki1 ,∗,ki2 ,∗,...,∗,kil ,∗)

−1
−1
= (∗, ki1 gi1 kσ−1
−1 (i ) , ∗, ki2 gi2 kσ −1 (i ) , ∗, . . . , ∗, kil gil kσ −1 (i ) , ∗)σ
1
2
l

=

, ∗)σ.
, ∗, ki2 gi2 ki−1
, ∗, . . . , ∗, kil gil ki−1
(∗, ki1 gi1 ki−1
m
1
l−1

8

Alexander Bors

Large automorphism orbits

Now fix (h1 , . . . , hn ) ∈ Gn and set the last expression in the above chain of equalities equal to ~h = (h1 , . . . , hn )σ. Focussing again only on the entries corresponding
to indices lying on the support of ζ, we get the following system of l equations over
G in the variables ki1 , . . . , kil :
= hi1 ,
ki1 gi1 ki−1
m
ki2 gi2 ki−1
= hi2 ,
1
..
.
= hil .
kil gil ki−1
l−1
By isolating the variable kij in the j-th equation and making a chain of substitutions, we find that the solvability over G of this system of equations is equivalent to
the solvability over G of the following single equation in the variable kil :
.
kil = hil hil−1 · · · hi1 kil gi−1
gi−1
· · · gi−1
1
2
l
Therefore, the system of equations associated with the σ-cycle ζ is solvable over
G if and only if bcpcζ (~h) = bcpcζ (~g ), and in summary, the following hold:
1. For each (k1 , . . . , kn ) ∈ Gn , we have that for all cycles ζ of σ, bcpcζ (~g ) =
bcpcζ (~g(k1 ,...,kn ) ).
2. Conversely, for every ~h = (h1 , . . . , hn )σ ∈ G ≀ Sn such that for every cycle ζ of
σ, bcpcζ (~g ) = bcpcζ (~h), there is a (k1 , . . . , kn ) ∈ Gn such that ~g(k1 ,...,kn ) = ~h.
By combining these insights on the possible values of ~gψ and ~g(k1 ,...,kn ) , one gets
the asserted result.
For (2): Set K := Aut(S)n ∩ H. Then K is a characteristic subgroup of H, and
the K-cosets in H correspond to the various permutation parts of elements of H.
Since α
~ Aut(H) distributes evenly among the K-cosets which it intersects, it suffices
to show that the proportion of α
~ Aut(H) ∩ K~
α within K~
α is at most the indicated
product of r-values. Now K~
α is itself a disjoint union of S n -cosets in H, each of the
n
n
~
form S β = S (β1 , . . . , βn )σ = (Sβ1 , . . . , Sβn )σ for some fixed β1 , . . . , βn ∈ Aut(S),
and so it suffices to show that the proportion of α
~ Aut(H) ∩ S n β~ in S n β~ is at most the
indicated product. We will actually show the stronger statement that the proportion
n
~ in S n β~ is at most the indicated product.
of α
~ Aut(S ) ∩ S n β
~ 1 , . . . , sn ) := (s1 β1 , . . . , sn βn )σ. We want to bound
For (s1 , . . . , sn ) ∈ S n , set β(s
n
~ 1 , . . . , sn ) ∈ α
the proportion of (s1 , . . . , sn ) ∈ S n such that β(s
~ Aut(S ) , which by
~ 1 , . . . , sn )) for all l ∈ {1, . . . , n} and
α) = Mlτ (β(s
statement (1) is equivalent to Mlτ (~
α) is nonempty.
all S-types τ , or equivalently, just for those (l, τ ) such that Mlτ (~
~
Observe that for each cycle ζ of σ, the S-type τζ of bcpcζ (β(s1 , . . . , sn )) is independent of (s1 , . . . , sn ). In what follows, l is always an element of {1, . . . , n}, and
τ is an S-type. We denote by ul,τ the number of l-cycles ζ of σ such that τζ = τ .
Now if, for some (l, τ ), we have ul,τ 6= |Mlτ (~
α)| = n(Mlτ (~
α)), then the intersecn
~ S , . . . , 1S ) is empty, and so we may henceforth assume that
tion α
~ Aut(S ) ∩ S n β(1

9

Alexander Bors

Large automorphism orbits

ul,τ = n(Mlτ (~
α)) for all (l, τ ), and under this assumption, we will actually show that
n
the proportion of α
~ Aut(S ) ∩ S n β~ in S n β~ is equal to the indicated product of r-values.
~ 1 , . . . , sn )) = M τ (~
For each (l, τ ), the single condition Mlτ (β(s
l α) imposes restrictions only on those variables si where i is an element of the support of one of the
length l cycles ζ of σ such that τζ = τ , and so for distinct (l, τ ), the corresponding
conditions concern disjoint variable sets. It therefore suffices to show that for fixed
~ 1 , . . . , sn )) = M τ (~
(l, τ ), the proportion of (s1 , . . . , sn ) ∈ S n such that Mlτ (β(s
l α) is
τ
α)).
exactly r(Ml (~
(1)

(1,1)

u

(1,l)

(u

,1)

(u

,l)

Let ζl,τ = (il,τ , . . . , il,τ ), . . . , ζl,τl,τ = (il,τl,τ , . . . , il,τl,τ ) be the ul,τ distinct
l-cycles ζ of σ such that τζ = τ . We show that for all (si )
∈
(ul,τ ,l)
(1,l)
S n−ul,τ ,

the proportion of (si(1,l) , . . . , s (ul,τ,l) ) ∈
il,τ

l,τ

S ul,τ

such

i∈{1,...,n}\{il,τ ,...,il,τ
}
τ
~
that Ml (β(s1 , . . . , sn ))

=

α)).
α) is exactly r(Mlτ (~
Mlτ (~
(τ )
(τ )
As in Definition 2.2.4(4), let c1 , . . . , ck(τ ) be the k(τ ) distinct Aut(S)-conjugacy
~ 1 , . . . , sn )) = M τ (~
α) just means that among the
classes of S-type τ . Now M τ (β(s
l

l

ul,τ many elements ξj (si(j,l) ) := si(j,l) βi(j,l) si(j,l−1) βi(j,l−1) · · · si(j,1) βi(j,1) ∈ Aut(S) for
l,τ

l,τ

l,τ

l,τ

l,τ

l,τ

l,τ

(τ )
ct

lc(τ ) (Mlτ (~
α))

for each t ∈ {1, . . . , k(τ )}.
j = 1, . . . , ul,τ , precisely
many lie in
t
Consider drawing the si(j,l) , j = 1, . . . , ul,τ , from S at random. Then for each j ∈
l,τ

(τ )

{1, . . . , ul,τ } and each t ∈ {1, . . . , k(τ )}, the probability that ξj (si(j,l) ) lands in ct

is

l,τ

(τ )
~ 1 , . . . , sn )) = M τ (~
precisely ρ(ct ). Therefore, the probability that Mlτ (β(s
l α) is just
the multinomial distribution probability mass function value r(Mlτ (~
α)), as required.

2.3

A lemma on the multinomial distribution

The next ingredient in the proof of our main results is a method to bound the factors
r(Mlτ (~
α)) in Lemma 2.2.5(2), which is provided by the following lemma, essentially
reducing the problem to bounding the numbers ρ(c) introduced in Definition 2.2.1(3):
Lemma 2.3.1. Let k ∈ N+ , let ρ1 , . . . , ρk ∈ [0, 1] such that ρ1 + · · · + ρk = 1, and
let n ∈ N+ . Then the following hold:
1. Let l1 , . . . , lk ∈ N+ with l1 ≥ l2 ≥ · · · ≥ lk and n = l1 + · · · + lk . Then unless
n
n = k ∈ {2, 3}, we have l1 ,...,l
ρl11 · · · ρlkk ≤ ρ1 .
k
n  l1
2. Let l1 , . . . , lk ∈ N with n = l1 + · · · + lk . Then l1 ,...,l
ρ1 · · · ρlkk ≤ maxi=1,...,k ρi .
k

Lemma 2.3.1(2) can be equivalently reformulated as follows: The values of the
probability mass function of a multinomial distribution are all bounded from above
by the maximum success probability of an outcome of the random experiment that
is repeated.
Proof. For (1): Consider the function

10

Alexander Bors

Large automorphism orbits

k

fl1 ,...,lk : [0, 1] → R, (x1 , . . . , xk ) 7→




n
xl1 −1 xl22 · · · xlkk ,
l1 , . . . , lk 1

and note that we are done if we can show that unless n = k ∈ {2, 3}, all values of
fl1 ,...,lk on arguments (x1 , . . . , xk ) with x1 + · · · + xk = 1 are bounded from above by
1. This is clear for k = 1, so we may assume k ≥ 2 throughout the rest of the proof of
statement (1). The method of Lagrange multipliers yields that the maximum value
lk
l2
1 −1
of fl1 ,...,lk on arguments whose entries sum up to 1 is attained at ( ln−1
, n−1
, . . . , n−1
),
and so to verify the inequality for a particular choice of n and l1 , . . . , lk , it suffices
lk
l2
1 −1
, n−1
, . . . , n−1
) ≤ 1. Using a computer, one can thus verify
to check that fl1 ,...,lk ( ln−1
the asserted inequality for
• n ∈ {1, . . . , 9} and k = 4,

• n ∈ {1, . . . , 15} \ {3} and k = 3,

• n ∈ {10, . . . , 96} \ {2} and k = 2.
We may thus henceforth assume that (n, k) is none of the above listed pairs
checked by computer. Using Robbins’s explicit Stirling-type bounds for the factorial
[15], we get that


√

2πn(n/e)n e1/(12n)
n
n!
lk
lk
l1
l1
ρ1 · · · ρk ≤ Qk √
ρl11 · · · ρlkk
ρ1 · · · ρk =
l
1/(12l
+1)
l1 ! · · · lk !
i
i
l1 , . . . , lk
( 2πli (li /e) e
)
ri=1
nρ1 l1
nρk lk
n
1
·(
) ···(
)
· e1/(12n) ·
≤
l1 · · · lk
l1
lk
(2π)(k−1)/2
r
1
n
n n−1
n
1/12
≤
· ρ1 · (
)
·e
·
(k−1)/2
l1 · · · lk l1
n−1
(2π)
r
n/l1
n
1/12
≤
· e · ρ1
·e
·
(k−1)/2
l1 · · · lk
(2π)
r
n/l1
n
13/12
=
· ρ1 ,
·
e
·
l1 · · · lk
(2π)(k−1)/2

where in passing from the second to the third line, the inequality of the arithmetic
and geometric means was applied. Therefore, we are done if we can show that
r
n
n/l1
13/12
·e
·
≤1
(1)
(k−1)/2
l1 · · · lk
(2π)
for all n and k (and associated choices of l1 , . . . , lk ) other than those checked with
a computer above. But since l1 is largest among the k numbers li summing up to n,
we have n/l1 ≤ k, and so for each choice of n, k and l1 , . . . , lk , Formula (1) is implied
by
r
n
k
13/12
·
e
·
≤ 1.
(2)
(k−1)/2
l1 · · · lk
(2π)

11

Alexander Bors

Large automorphism orbits

We will first deal with the cases k ∈ {2, 3, 4} separately before giving a uniform
argument for k ≥ 5.
For k = 2, where we may assume n ≥ 97, let us first assume that l2 = 1. We will
then show directly that nρ1n−1 ρ2 ≤ ρ1 , or equivalently, nρ1n−2 ρ2 ≤ 1. By the Lagrange
n−2 · 1 ≤ 1, which is equivalent to (1 −
multiplier method, this holds if n · ( n−2
n−1 )
n−1
1 n−1
2
)
≤
1
−
,
which
actually
holds
for
all
n
≥ 4, as the left-hand side is bounded
n−1
n
from above by e−1 = 0.3678 . . .. Let us next assume that l2 ≥ 12, in which case we
will be able to verify the validity of Formula (2), as follows: For k = 2, Formula (2) is
equivalent to l1nl2 ≤ π2 e−13/6 , and since n/l1 ≤ 2, Formula (2) is therefore implied by
l2 ≥ π4 e13/6 = 11.1142 . . .. So in our proof for k = 2, we may henceforth assume that
l2 ∈ {2, . . . , 11}, and under this assumption, we will verify the validity of Formula
(1).
q
n
n
1
13/12
Since l1 ≥ n−11 and l2 ≥ 2, Formula (1) is now implied by √2π n−11 e
2(n−11) ≤
√
11
1, or equivalently, 1 + n−11
≤ ( 4πe−13/12 )2/3 = 1.1291 . . ., which holds for n ≥ 97,
as required.
For k = 3, where we may assume n ≥ 16, let us first assume that l2 l3 ≥ 6. Under
this assumption, we will verify the validity of Formula (2), which here is equivalent
2
to l1 ln2 l3 ≤ 4π9 e−13/6 , or l2 l3 ≥ ln1 · 4π9 2 e13/6 . But ln1 ≤ 3, and 3 · 4π9 2 e13/6 = 5.9700 . . ..
We may thus assume l2 l3 ≤ 5 now, so that
p l2 + l3 ≤ 6. Then l1 ≥ n − 6, and hence
1 n 13/12
6
≤
Formula (1) is implied by 2π n−6 e
n/(n − 6) ≤ 1, or equivalently, 1 + n−6
−13/12
2/3
(2πe
) = 1.6537 . . ., which holds for n ≥ 16, as required.
For k = 4, we may assume n ≥ 10. Just as for k = 3, one checks that Formula
(2) is now implied by l2 l3 l4 ≥ π83 e13/6 = 2.2522 . . ., so we may assume l2 l3 l4 ≤ 2, so
that l2 + l3 + l4 ≤ 4 and l1 ≥ n − 4. But Formula (2) for k = 4 is equivalent to
π 3 −13/6
4
n
= 1.7760 . . ., which is implied by 1 + n−4
≤ 1.7760 . . ., and this
l1 l2 l3 l4 ≤ 2 e
holds for n ≥ 10, as required.
Let us now assume k ≥ 5. Using once more that n/l1 ≤ k, we find that Formula
(2π)k−1 −13/6
k
≤
(2) is implied by l2 ...l
e
, which in turn is a consequence of e13/6 k3 ≤
k2
k
(2π)k−1 , which can be verified to hold for all k ≥ 5 by an inductive argument.
For (2): Let us first argue why we may assume that all li are positive. Indeed, assume we know statement (2) to be true if all li are positive, and say w.l.o.g. l1 , . . . , lt ≥
1 and lt+1 = lt+2 = · · · = lk = 0 for some t ∈ {1, . . . , k − 1}. Set




n
n
lk
l1
C :=
ρl1 · · · ρltt .
ρ · · · ρk =
l1 , . . . , lk 1
l1 , . . . , lt 1
Then


n
1
1
(
ρ1 )l1 · · · (
ρt )lt
l1 , . . . , lt ρ1 + · · · + ρt
ρ1 + · · · + ρt
1
1
≤ max
ρi ≤
max ρi ,
i=1,...,t ρ1 + · · · + ρt
ρ1 + · · · + ρt i=1,...,k

1
C=
(ρ1 + · · · + ρt )n



so that
C ≤ (ρ1 + · · · + ρt )n−1 max ρi ≤ max ρi ,
i=1,...,k

12

i=1,...,k

Alexander Bors

Large automorphism orbits

as required.
Let us now prove statement (2) under the assumption that all li are positive.
Unless n = k ∈ {2, 3}, this is a direct consequence of statement (1), so let us go
through these final two cases:
For n = k = 2, we need to check that for all (ρ1 , ρ2 ) ∈ [0, 1]2 with ρ1 + ρ2 = 1, we
have 2ρ1 ρ2 ≤ max{ρ1 , ρ2 }. This holds because at least one of ρ1 , ρ2 is at most 12 .
For n = k = 3, we need to check that for all (ρ1 , ρ2 , ρ3 ) ∈ [0, 1]3 with ρ1 +ρ2 +ρ3 =
1, we have 6ρ1 ρ2 ρ3 ≤ max{ρ1 , ρ2 , ρ3 }. This is clear if at least two of the three numbers
ρ1 , ρ2 , ρ3 are at most √16 , so assume w.l.o.g. that ρ1 , ρ2 > √16 . Then ρ3 < 1 − √26 ,
and so, since at least one of ρ1 , ρ2 is at most 21 , say w.l.o.g. ρ2 ≤ 12 , we get that
6ρ1 ρ2 ρ3 ≤ 6 · 12 · (1 − √26 ) · ρ1 = 0.5505 . . . ρ1 ≤ ρ1 ≤ max{ρ1 , ρ2 , ρ3 }, as required.

2.4 Conjugacy classes in automorphism groups of nonabelian finite simple groups
α)) in Lemma 2.2.5(2) is bounded from
By Lemma 2.3.1(2), each of the factors r(Mlτ (~
above by the maximum value of ρ(c), where c ranges over the conjugacy classes in
Aut(S). Let us introduce a notation for this maximum value:
Notation 2.4.1. Let S be a nonabelian finite simple group. We set
h(S) :=

1
max |αAut(S) ∩ Sβ|.
|S| α,β∈Aut(S)

A possible strategy to obtain a nontrivial constant upper bound on maol(G) for
finite nonsolvable groups G is to give such a bound on h(S) for nonabelian finite
simple groups S, which we do in statement (1) of the following lemma:
Lemma 2.4.2. Let S be a nonabelian finite simple group. Then the following hold:
1. h(S) ≤

18
19 .

2. There is a function f : (0, 1] → (0, ∞) such that for all ρ ∈ (0, 1]: If h(S) ≥ ρ,
then
(a) if S is alternating, then the degree of S is at most f (ρ),
(b) if S is of Lie type, then the untwisted Lie rank and the defining characteristic of S are at most f (ρ).

Note that in Lemma 2.4.2(2) and in case S = t Xr (pf ·t ) is of Lie type, we are
not asserting that the “field extension parameter” f is bounded in terms of ρ, which
is actually not true. As a consequence, while Theorem 1.1.2(1) follows more or less
directly from Lemma 2.4.2(1) and the previous three lemmas, Theorem 1.1.2(2) will
still require some additional ideas to prove.
As mentioned in the Overview (Subsection 1.2), the proof of Lemma 2.4.2(1) will
use the classification of the finite simple groups, and particularly for the Lie type
case, it is quite laborious. Before starting with the actual proof, we review the basic
proof idea and some results from the literature that will be frequently used in the
proof.

13

Alexander Bors

Large automorphism orbits

The basic proof strategy for Lemma 2.4.2 is to derive, for a nonabelian finite
simple group S, sufficiently good uniform lower bounds on the sizes of element
centralizers in Aut(S), i.e., lower bounds on MCS(Aut(S)). For example, if we
19
| Out(S)|, then actually all conjugacy classes in
can show that MCS(Aut(S)) ≥ 18
18
Aut(S) are of length at most 18
|S|,
so that in particular, h(S) ≤ 19
. Unfortu19
nately, this does not always hold (there actually are nonabelian finite simple groups
S such that some Aut(S)-conjugacy classes are of length larger than |S|, for example S = A2 (4) = PSL3 (4), which is of order 20160 and whose automorphism group
has a conjugacy class of length 24192), so sometimes, one needs more sophisticated
arguments studying how many S-cosets in Aut(S) a given Aut(S)-conjugacy class
intersects (which then breaks down the number of elements per S-coset by a certain
factor).
For sporadic and alternating groups, this approach works without difficulties and
without the need to use results from the literature except, of course, the lexicographical information on sporadic groups (and on Aut(A6 )) from the ATLAS of Finite
Group Representations [1]. For Lie type groups, on the other hand, we will heavily
rely on three types of known results:
• Hartley’s descriptions of automorphism centralizers from [12, Propositions 4.1
and 4.2],
• Fulman-Guralnick’s bounds on the orders of centralizers of inner diagonal automorphisms of classical and Chevalley groups from [9, Section 6], and
• some general techniques for deriving lower bounds on the orders of centralizers
of inner diagonal automorphisms of finite simple groups of Lie type developed
by Hartley and Kuzucuoğlu in [13, proof of Theorem A1, pp. 319f.].
As for Hartley’s results, we will require a more detailed version of [12, Propositions
4.1 and 4.2], which we give now and which follows by studying the proofs of these
results in [12]:
Proposition 2.4.3. Let S be a finite simple group of Lie type with defining charac′
teristic p, so that S = Op (S σ ) for some simple linear algebraic group S over Fp of
adjoint type and a Lang-Steinberg map σ on S. Write σ = νγ, where ν is a Frobenius map (“Frobenius map in Φ” in the terminology and notation of [12, Section 4,
p. 110]) on S and γ is a (possibly trivial) graph automorphism of S (i.e., an element
of Γ in the notation of [12, Section 4, p. 110]).
First, assume additionally that S is not of type B2 , F4 or G2 . Then let α = sφδ
be an automorphism of S with s ∈ S σ , φ a field automorphism of S and δ a graph
automorphism of S. Set g := ord(φ). Then the following hold:
1. If γ = 1 (i.e., t(σ) = 1), and either δ = 1, or δ 6= 1 and ord(δ) ∤ g, then there is
another Lang-Steinberg map µ on S such that µ(αg ) = αg , CS σ (α) = CS µ (αg ),
q(µ)g = q(σ) and t(µ) = 1.
2. If γ = 1 (i.e., t(σ) = 1) and δ 6= 1 and ord(δ) | g, then there is another LangSteinberg map µ on S such that µ(αg ) = αg , CS σ (α) = CS µ (αg ), q(µ)g = q(σ)
and t(µ) = ord(δ) > 1.

14

Alexander Bors

Large automorphism orbits

3. If γ 6= 1 (i.e., t(σ) > 1) and ord(γ) ∤ g, then there is another Lang-Steinberg
map µ on S such that µ(αg ) = αg , CS σ (α) = CS µ (αg ), q(µ)g = q(σ) and
t(µ) = ord(γ) > 1.
4. If γ 6= 1 (i.e., t(σ) > 1) and ord(γ) | g, then writing g = ord(γ)s and αs =
g2 φs with g2 ∈ S µ (note that necessarily δ = 1 here) and letting γ ′ be the
graph automorphism of S that agrees with φs on S, there is another LangSteinberg map µ on S such that µ(g2 γ ′ ) = g2 γ ′ , CS σ (α) = CS µ (g2 γ ′ ), q(µ)s =
q(µ)g/ ord(γ) = q(σ) and t(µ) = 1.
Now assume additionally that S is of type B2 , F4 or G2 . Let α = sφ be an
automorphism of S with s ∈ S σ and φ a graph-field automorphism of S. Set g :=
ord(φ). Then there is another Lang-Steinberg map µ on S such that µ(αg ) = αg ,
CS σ (α) = CS µ (αg ) and q(µ)g = q(σ).
In its given form, Proposition 2.4.3 allows us to determine the isomorphism type
′
of S µ from S = Op (S σ ), the field resp. graph-field component order g, the defining
characteristic p (which, except in a few small cases, is uniquely determined by the
abstract group isomorphism type of S) and the knowledge of which of the cases that
are distinguished applies.
Let us now discuss the general methods for obtaining lower bounds on centralizer
orders of inner diagonal automorphisms. As mentioned above, these are essentially
due to Hartley and Kuzucuoğlu from [13], but the part of their paper where the
methods were introduced was concentrated on inner automorphisms only. The arguments for inner diagonal automorphisms in general are mostly analogous, but we give
′
them here for the reader’s convenience. Let S = t Xr (pf ·t ) = O p (Xr (Fp )σ ) be a finite
simple group of Lie type, and let α ∈ Xr (Fp )σ be an inner diagonal automorphism
of S. Set q(σ) := min({q(σ)e | e ∈ N+ } ∩ Z), so that q(σ) = q(σ) unless S is one of
the Suzuki or Ree groups, in which case q(σ) = q(σ)2 . We make a case distinction:
1. If α is semisimple, i.e., if p ∤ ord(α), then CXr (Fp )σ (α) contains the subgroup
Tσ of σ-fixed points of some σ-invariant maximal torus T of Xr (Fp ). Therefore
and by [12, Lemma 3.3], we then have | CXr (Fp )σ (α)| ≥ (q(σ) − 1)r .
2. If α is not semisimple, i.e., if p | ord(α), then write α = βγ with β ∈ Xr (Fp )σ
semisimple, 1 6= γ ∈ Xr (Fp )σ unipotent and [β, γ] = 1 (Jordan decomposition).
′
Since γ ∈ CXr (Fp )σ (β), we have that the group P := Op (CXr (Fp )σ (β)) is nontrivial. Hence by [13, Lemma 3.3 and its proof, Theorem 4.2], P is a central
product U1 · · · Ur with r ≥ 1 and such that for each j ∈ {1, . . . , r}, there exists
a simple linear algebraic group Sj over Fp , not necessarily of adjoint type, and
′
a Lang-Steinberg map σj on Sj such that Uj is a quotient of Op ((Sj )σj ) by a
subgroup of its center and q(σj ) is a power of q(σ) (note that this last property
is not stated in [13, Lemma 3.3], but it follows from the last paragraph of its
proof, which is also the last paragraph of [13, Section 3]). Consequently, q(σj )
is a power of q(σ). Now since γ ∈ P , we can write γ = γ1 · · · γr with γj contained in some Sylow p-subgroup Qj of Uj , j = 1, . . . , r. By [13, Lemma 3.2]
and the fact that ζP is a p′ -group, we find that Qj is isomorphic to a Sylow

15

Alexander Bors

Large automorphism orbits

′
fj )σf ), where S
fj is the simple linear algebraic group of adp-subgroup of Op ((S
j
joint type over Fp of the same isogeny type as Sj , and σej is a Lang-Steinberg
fj such that q(σej ) = q(σj ) and t(σej ) = t(σj ). Therefore, as in [13,
map of S
proof of Theorem A1, p. 320], for each j ∈ {1, . . . , r}, we have the inclusions
ζQj ≤ CQj (γj ) ≤ CXr (Fp )σ (α) and ζQj contains an isomorphic copy of the additive group of Fq(σj ) . In particular, | CXr (Fp )σ (α)| ≥ MCS(Q1 ) · ord(β) ≥ q(σ).

Let us condense this information into a convenient overview of lower bounds on
centralizer orders that we will use throughout the proof of Lemma 2.4.2:
′

Proposition 2.4.4. Let S = O p (Xr (Fp )σ ) be a finite simple group of Lie type.
1. We have MCS(Xr (Fp )σ ) ≥ q(σ) − 1.

2. If r > 1, then MCS(Xr (Fp )σ ) ≥ q(σ).

3. If r > 2, then MCS(Xr (Fp )σ ) ≥ 2 · q(σ)

Proof. For (1): This is clear by the above considerations.
For (2): This is clear by the above considerations and a simple case distinction
of “q(σ)√ ≤ 2” (where the inequality is trivial) versus “q(σ) > 2” (in which case
q(σ) ≥ 8 and thus (q(σ) − 1)r ≥ q(σ)).
For (3): We make a case distinction:
√
1. Case: q(σ) < 2. Then q(σ) = 2, S = 2 F4 (2) = Inndiag(S), and and it is
sufficient to show that MCS(S) ≥ 3. But each involution s ∈ S lies in some
Sylow 2-subgroup P of S. Moreover, CS (s) contains CP (s), which in turn
contains ζP , which contains an isomorphic copy of Z/2Z. But |P | = 212 > 21 ,
and so CP (s) certainly is a proper supergroup of that copy of Z/2Z (which one
sees in a simple case distinction “s ∈ ζP ” versus “s ∈
/ ζP ”). Hence involution
centralizers in S have order divisible by 4, and all other element centralizers
clearly have order at least 3 as well.
2. Case: q(σ) = 2. Then it is sufficient to show that MCS(Xr (F2 )σ ) ≥ 4. But
by looking through the list of finite simple groups of Lie type of untwisted
Lie rank at least 3 and the formulas for their orders, one sees that 22 32 |
|S| | | Inndiag(S)|, and so by an argument as in the previous case, one sees
that involutions resp. elements of order 3 in Inndiag(S) have centralizer orders
divisible by 4 resp. 9, and clearly, all other elements of Inndiag(S) also have
centralizer order at least 4.
√
3. Case: q(σ) > 2. Then q(σ) ≥ 8, and so it is easy to see that (q(σ) − 1)r ≥
2q(σ). Therefore, we only need to consider non-semisimple automorphisms
α = βγ as above. If β 6= 1, then the centralizer is of order at least 2q(σ) ≥ 2q(σ)
by the above considerations, so assume β = 1, so that α = γ is unipotent. Then
the centralizer in Xr (Fp )σ of α contains the centralizer C of α in some Sylow
p-subgroup Q of Xr (Fp )σ such that α ∈ Q, and C contains ζQ, which contains
an isomorphic copy of (Fq(σ) , +) by [13, proof of Theorem A1, p. 320]. But since
r > 1, Q must be a proper supergroup of that additive field group copy, and so
C certainly is a proper supergroup of it as well. So |C|, and thus | CXr (Fp )σ (α)|,
is a proper integer multiple of q(σ), and the assertion follows.

16

Alexander Bors

Large automorphism orbits

As a final preparatory remark before starting with the proof of Lemma 2.4.2, we
note that since we do not expect the constant 18
19 to be optimal even as an upper
bound for h(S), we indicate in each of the many cases that need to be distinguished
an upper bound on h(S) that our arguments for that particular case give (and which
18
), so readers who would like to try and prove a better upper
is usually smaller than 19
constant upper bound on h(S) can easily identify the cases where more work needs
to be done.
Proof of Lemma 2.4.2. We go through the different types of nonabelian finite simple
groups.
If S is sporadic, we claim that maxα∈Aut(S) αAut(S) ≤ 52 |S|. Indeed, by | Out(S)| ≤
2, it suffices to show that for each α ∈ Aut(S), | CAut(S) (α)| ≥ 5. This can be checked
case by case using the ATLAS of Finite Group Representations [1].
Now assume that S is alternating, say S = Am for some m ≥ 5. Let us first verify
the asymptotic statement (2,i). We claim that the function
2
1 2
f1 : (0, 1] → (0, ∞) , ρ 7→ max{6, ⌊ · ⌊ ⌋ · (⌊ ⌋ + 1)⌋ + 1}
ρ ρ
ρ
has the property that for all ρ ∈ (0, 1]: If h(Am ) ≥ ρ, then m ≤ f1 (ρ). Indeed,
assume m > f1 (ρ), so that in particular m ≥ 7 and thus Aut(Am ) = Sm . We claim
that h(Am ) < ρ, which by the commutativity of Out(Am ) ∼
= Z/2Z is equivalent to
maxσ∈Sm |σ Sm | < ρ|Am |. Let σ ∈ Sm . If ord(σ) > 2ρ , then | CSm (σ)| > 2ρ , and so
|σ Sm | < 2ρ |Sm | = ρ|Am |. We may thus assume that ord(σ) ≤ ρ2 . Then every cycle of
σ has length at most ρ2 , and so σ has at least
m
m
P⌊2/ρ⌋ = 1 2
2
2 ⌊ ρ ⌋ · (⌊ ρ ⌋ + 1)
i=1 i

cycles of a common length, whence
| CSm (σ)| ≥ ⌈ 1

2
2⌊ρ⌋

m
⌉! ≥
· (⌊ 2ρ ⌋ + 1)

1 2
2⌊ρ⌋

m
2
> ,
2
ρ
· (⌊ ρ ⌋ + 1)

so that again, |σ Sm | < ρ|Am |, as required.
Now we verify statement (1) for S = Am . First, one checks that MCS(Aut(A5 )) =
MCS(S5 ) = 4 and MCS(Aut(A6 )) = 6 (for the latter, one can refer to the ATLAS
of Finite Group Representations [1]), which entail h(A5 ) = 12 and h(A6 ) = 43 . So we
may assume m ≥ 7, and we assert that then h(Am ) ≤ 52 . Since | Out(S)| = 2, this is
equivalent to showing that MCS(Sm ) ≥ 5. Let σ ∈ Sm . If ord(σ) = 1 or ord(σ) ≥ 5,
it is clear that | CSm (σ)| ≥ 5, so assume ord(σ) ∈ {2, 3, 4}. If ord(σ) = 2, then σ
has at least three cycles of a common length, so | CSm (σ)| ≥ 3! = 6 > 5. And if
ord(σ) ∈ {3, 4}, then | CSm (σ)| ≥ ord(σ) · MCS(Sm−ord(σ) ) ≥ ord(σ) · 2 > 5.
Now we turn to the finite simple groups S = t Xr (pf ·t ) of Lie type. We first
verify the asymptotic statement (2,ii). We will show the following, which is actually
stronger than statement (2,ii): As either r → ∞ or p → ∞, the maximum conjugacy

17

Alexander Bors

Large automorphism orbits

class length in Aut(S) is in o(|S|), or equivalently, MCS(Aut(S)) ∈ ω(| Out(S)|).
First, assume that r → ∞. Then we can restrict our attention to groups of untwisted
Lie rank at least 9, which are all classical, and so, by Proposition 2.4.3, we then have
MCS(Aut(t Xr (pf ·t ))) ≥

f /g

ming|f (g · MCS(Inndiag(Xr (p )))),
ming|f,u∈{1,2} (g · MCS(Inndiag(u Xr (puf /g )))),


ming|2f (g · MCS(Inndiag(2−δ[2|g] Xr (p2f /g )))),

if Xr ∈ {Bs , Cs | s ≥ 9},
if Xr ∈ {As , Ds | s ≥ 9} and t = 1,
if Xr ∈ {As , Ds | s ≥ 9} and t = 2.

By [9, Theorem 6.15] and using that 1 + logpf /g (r) ≤ r for p ∈ P, f ∈ N+ , g | f
and r ≥ 9, we therefore have, for some universal constant A > 0 and all r ≥ 9,
f /g·(r−1)
r−1
MCS(Aut(S)) ≥ ming|f g · p Ar
= f · pAr ∈ ω(r · f ) as max{p, r} → ∞, and since
| Out(S)| ∈ O(r · f ) as |S| → ∞, we are done in this case.
Let us now assume that p → ∞. By the proof for r → ∞, we may also assume
that r ≤ 8, and so | Out(S)| ∈ O(f ) as |S| → ∞. But by Proposition 2.4.4, we have
MCS(Aut(S)) ∈ Ω(pf ) as |S| → ∞, and so MCS(Aut(S)) ∈ ω(| Out(S)|) as p → ∞.
Let us now turn to the proof of statement (1) for finite simple groups S of Lie
type, i.e., that h(S) ≤ 18
19 . We go through various cases, and in each
 of them, we show
18
that h(S) ≤ c for some case-dependent explicit constant c ∈ 0, 19 . Throughout this,
we always assume that α is an arbitrary, but fixed automorphism of S and that g is
the order of the field component of α unless S is one of B2 (pf ), G2 (pf ) or F4 (pf ), in
which case g is assumed to be the order of the graph-field component of α (like in
Proposition 2.4.3; note that as Suzuki and Ree groups do not have nontrivial graph
automorphisms, the field and graph-field component of an automorphism of any of
them coincide).
1. Case: S = A1 (pf ) = PSL2 (pf ), so | Out(S)| = (2, pf − 1)f and g | f . We
claim that then h(S) ≤ 43 . First, assume p = 2, so that | Out(S)| = f and
it suffices to show | CAut(S) (α)| ≥ 34 f . By Propositions 2.4.3(1) and 2.4.4(1),
| CAut(S) (α)| ≥ g · MCS(PGL2 (2f /g )) ≥ g · (2f /g − 1), and so it is sufficient to
have either MCS(PGL2 (2f /g )) ≥ 43 fg or the stronger 2f /g ≥ 43 fg + 1. The latter
holds as long as

f
g

≥ 2, and for

f
g

= 1, the former is clearly true. Similarly, for

p > 2, where | Out(S)| = 2f , it suffices to have either MCS(PGL2 (pf /g )) ≥

or pf /g ≥ 83 fg + 1, and the latter holds unless p = 3 and
the former holds (MCS(PGL2 (3)) = 3 by GAP [10]).

f
g

8f
3g

= 1, in which case

2. Case: S = A2 (pf ) = PSL3 (pf ), so | Out(S)| = (3, pf − 1)2f and g | f . We
claim that then h(S) ≤ 12
13 . First, assume p = 3, so that | Out(S)| = 2f . By
Propositions 2.4.3(1,2) and 2.4.4(2), we have
| CAut(S) (α)| ≥ g · min{MCS(PGL3 (3f /g )), MCS(PGU3 (3f /g ))} ≥ g · 3f /g ,
f
so it is sufficient to have 3f /g ≥ 13
6 g , which holds. Similarly, for p ≥ 5, using
that | Out(S)| ≤ 6f , we see that it is sufficient to have either

18

Alexander Bors

Large automorphism orbits

min{MCS(PGL3 (pf /g )), MCS(PGU3 (pf /g ))} ≥

13 f
2 g

f
f
or the stronger pf /g ≥ 13
2 g . The latter is true unless p = 5 and g = 1, for
which one checks with GAP [10] that min{MCS(PGL3 (5)), MCS(PGU3 (5))} =
min{16, 21} = 16 ≥ 13
2 . We are thus left with the case p = 2, which will require
some more delicate handling. First, since still | Out(S)| ≤ 6f , we are satisfied
f
if either min{MCS(PGL3 (2f /g )), MCS(PGU3 (2f /g ))} ≥ 13
2 g or the stronger

2f /g ≥

13 f
2 g

f
g ≥
f
(2 /g ))

holds. The latter is valid for

f
g

6, and for settling the cases

∈ {3, 4, 5}, one computes MCS(PGL3
and MCS(PGU3 (2f /g )) with
GAP [10] (except for MCS(PGU3 (32)), the computation of which required too
much RAM for the author’s computer to handle,
q but [9, Theorem 6.7] gives the
3

2

1−1/32
sufficient lower bound MCS(PGU3 (32)) ≥ 32
33
e(2+log32 (4)) = 388.5715 . . .; this
approach also works for MCS(PGU3 (16)), where the GAP computations on the
author’s computer did finish, but took quite long), and under the assumption
2 ∤ f , where | Out(S)| = 2f only, one can also settle the cases fg ∈ {1, 2}
with GAP by verifying that MCS(PGL3 (4)) = 12, MCS(PGU3 (4)) = 13,
MCS(PGL3 (2)) = 3 and MCS(PGU3 (4)) = 4. We may thus henceforth assume that 2 | f and fg ∈ {1, 2}. By [11, Theorem 2.5.12(c–e), p. 58], each of the
subsets Outdiag(S), ΦS , ΓS ⊆ Out(S) is actually a cyclic subgroup of Out(S)
here, of order 3, f and 2 respectively. Let d, φ and τ be fixed generators of these
groups in the given order. Then, identifying d with a lift of it in Aut(S), the
automorphisms da φb τ c , where a ∈ {0, 1, 2}, b ∈ {0, 1, . . . , f − 1} and c ∈ {0, 1},
form a set of representatives for the S-cosets in Aut(S). Assume that a, b, c are
such that α is in the corresponding S-coset. We distinguish two subcases:

(a) Subcase: a = 0, and either b is even and c = 0, or b is odd and c = 1.
By [11, Theorem 2.5.12(b–e,g,i), p. 58], this is just the case where α is
out-central, i.e., where αAut(S) is contained in a single S-coset. But φ and
τ actually commute not only in Out(S), but in Aut(S), and so the coset
representative β := φb τ c ∈ Sα has order g = ord(φb ). By Proposition
2.4.3(1,2), we therefore get that | CAut(S) (β)| ≥ 2f · | CPGL3 (2f ) (α)| = 2f ·
| CA2 (F2 )µ (1)| = 2f · |A2 (F2 )µ | > 6f , so β Aut(S) is a proper subset of Sβ =
Sα, and therefore, αAut(S) must also be a proper subset of it, whence
| CAut(S) (α)| > 6f necessarily. Noting that | CAut(S) (α)| is also an integer
multiple of g · | CPGL2 (2f ) (α)|, we can conclude this subcase in the following
subsubcase distinction:
• Subsubcase: | CAut(S) (α)| ≥ 3g · | CPGL2 (2f ) (α)|. Then for fg = 2,
3
| CAut(S) (α)| ≥ f · min{MCS(PGL3 (4)), MCS(PGU3 (4))} = 18f,
2
and for

f
g

= 1,

| CAut(S) (α)| ≥ 3f · min{MCS(PGL3 (2)), MCS(PGU3 (2))} = 9f.

19

Alexander Bors

Large automorphism orbits

• Subsubcase: | CAut(S) (α)| = 2g · | CPGL2 (2f ) (α)|. Then for
get that

f
g

= 2, we

| CAut(S) (α)| ≥ f · min{MCS(PGL3 (4)), MCS(PGU3 (4))} = 12f,
and for fg = 1, we get that | CAut(S) (α)| ≥ 2f · m, where m > 3 is
the order of some element centralizer in one of the groups PGL3 (2) or
PGU3 (2), so in particular, m is an integer and therefore m ≥ 4, which
yields | CAut(S) (α)| ≥ 8f .

• Subsubcase: | CAut(S) (α)| = g · | CPGL2 (2f ) (α)|. Then for

f
g

= 2, we

f
2

get that | CAut(S) (α)| ≥
· m for some integer m > 12, so that
13
| CAut(S) (α)| ≥ 2 f , and for fg = 1, we have | CAut(S) (α)| ≥ f · m′
for some integer m′ > 6, so | CAut(S) (α)| ≥ 7f .

(b) Subcase: α is not out-central, i.e., a 6= 0, or 2 | b and c = 1, or 2 ∤ b and
c = 0. Then αAut(S) distributes evenly among at least two S-cosets. Hence
for fg = 2, where we have |αAut(S) | ≤ |S| by
min{MCS(PGL3 (4)), MCS(PGU3 (4))} = 12 = 2 · 6,

we are done since then the proportion of elements of αAut(S) per coset is
12
. So assume fg = 1. Then |αAut(S) | ≤ 2|S|, and so we are
at most 21 ≤ 13
done if |αOut(S) | ≥ 3, whence we may assume |αOut(S) | = 2. We make a
subsubcase distinction:
• Subsubcase: a = 0. Then as above, the representative β := φb τ c of
the S-coset of α has order exactly g = f , so its centralizer is certainly
of order larger than 3f , whence β Aut(S) , and thus αAut(S) , cannot be a
union of two S-cosets, so | CAut(S) (α)| > 3f . Hence if | CAut(S) (α)| ≥
2f | CPGL3 (2f ) (α)|, then | CAut(S) (α)| ≥ 6f , so the density of αAut(S)
per S-coset is at most 12 , and if | CAut(S) (α)| = f · | CPGL3 (2f ) (α)|, then
| CAut(S) (α)| = f · m for some integer m > 3, so | CAut(S) (α)| ≥ 4f and
αAut(S) has density per S-coset at most 43 .
• Subsubcase: a 6= 0. If c = 0, then by [11, Theorem 2.5.12(b–e,g,i),
p. 58], we have that the image of α in Out(S)/hφ2 i ∼
= D12 is of order
2
2, and so |αOut(S)/hφ i | = 3, whence |αOut(S) | ≥ 3, contradicting our
assumption that it is 2. Therefore, c = 1 and by Proposition 2.4.3(2),
we conclude that | CAut(S) (α)| ≥ f · MCS(PGU3 (2)) = 4f , so the
density of αAut(S) per S-coset is at most 43 .
3. Case: S = B2 (pf ) = P Ω5 (pf ), so | Out(S)| = 2f and g | (1 + δ[p=2] )f . We
claim that then h(S) ≤ 35 . First, assume that g | f . By the final paragraph
in Proposition 2.4.3, we have | CAut(S) (α)| ≥ g · | CGµ (αg )|, and since q(µ) =
pf /g ∈ Z, the fixed point subgroup Gµ must be isomorphic to the inner diagonal
automorphism group PGO5 (pf /g ) of P Ω5 (pf /g ). It follows that | CAut(S) (α)| ≥
f
g ·MCS(PGO5 (pf /g )), and so we are satisfied if either MCS(PGO5 (pf /g )) ≥ 10
3 g

20

Alexander Bors

Large automorphism orbits

or the (by Proposition 2.4.4(2)) stronger inequality pf /g ≥

10 f
3 g

holds. The

≥ 2, and for p = 2 and fg ≥ 4,
latter is true for p ≥ 5, for p = 3 and
and the former can be verified to hold in the other cases with GAP [10] (by
computing MCS(GO5 (pf /g )/ζ GO5 (pf /g )); for p = 2, one can also exploit the
isomorphisms B2 (2t ) ∼
= C2 (2t ) ∼
= Sp4 (2t )). Now assume that g ∤ f . Then p = 2,
′
′
and g = 2g , where g | f and gf′ is odd. By the final pararaph in Proposition
/ Z, the fixed
2.4.3, we have | CAut(S) (α)| ≥ g ·| CGµ (αg )|, and since q(µ) = pf /g ∈
point subgroup Gµ must be isomorphic to (the inner diagonal automorphism
′
′
group of) 2 B2 (2f /g ). We are thus satisfied if either MCS(2 B2 (2f /g )) ≥ 53 gf′
f
g

′

or the (by Proposition 2.4.4(2)) stronger inequality 2f /(2g ) ≥
f
g′

latter is true for ≥ 7, and the validity of the former for
checked with GAP [10].

f
g′

5 f
3 g′

holds. The

∈ {1, 3, 5} can be

4. Case: S = G2 (pf ), so | Out(S)| = (1 + δ[p=3] )f and g | | Out(S)|. We claim that
then h(S) ≤ 23 . First, assume that g | f . Then if p 6= 3, we have | Out(S)| = f ,
and by the final paragraph in Proposition 2.4.3 and by Proposition 2.4.4(2),
we get that | CAut(S) (α)| ≥ g · MCS(G2 (pf /g )) ≥ g · pf /g ≥ 2f ≥ 23 f . If, on
the other hand, p = 3, then | Out(S)| = 2f , and by the same argument, we
get that | CAut(S) (α)| ≥ g · 3f /g ≥ 3f . Now assume g ∤ f . Then p = 3, and
g = 2g′ , where g ′ | f and gf′ is odd. By the final paragraph in Proposition 2.4.3
′

and by Proposition 2.4.4(2), we get that | CAut(S) (α)| ≥ g · MCS(2 G2 (3f /g )) ≥
′
′
g · 3f /(2g ) , which is greater than or equal to 3f , since 3f /(2g ) ≥ 32 gf′ .

5. Case: S = 2 A2 (p2f ) = PSU3 (pf ), so | Out(S)| = (3, pf + 1) · 2f and g | 2f . We
claim that then h(S) ≤ 67 . By Proposition 2.4.3(3,4), we have the following:
• If 2 | g, then | CAut(S) (α)| ≥ g · MCS(PGL3 (p2f /g )).
• If 2 ∤ g, then | CAut(S) (α)| ≥ g · MCS(PGU3 (pf /g )).

Let us first assume p ≥ 3. By Proposition 2.4.4(2), we are done if pf /g ≥ 7 fg ,

which is true for p ≥ 7, and for p = 5 and fg ≥ 2. For p = 5 and fg = 1, note
that if 2 | g = f , then by the above, we are actually satisfied if 52f /g = 25 is at
least 7 · 1 = 7, which is true; if, on the other hand, 2 ∤ g = f , we are satisfied if
MCS(PGU3 (5)) ≥ 7, which can be checked with GAP [10]. Finally, for p = 3,
we have | Out(S)| = 2f only, so that we are satisfied with 3f /g ≥ 73 fg , which is
true.
Let us now assume p = 2. If 2 | f , then | Out(S)| = 2f only, and so we are
satisfied if for t ∈ {1, 2} and all e | f , MCS(Inndiag(t A2 (22f /(te) ))) ≥ 73 fe , which
holds by Proposition 2.4.4(2) and the computed MCS-values for PGU3 (2d ),
d ∈ {1, 2}, from Case 2 (“S = A2 (pf )”). So we may henceforth assume 2 ∤ f ,
in which case | Out(S)| = 6f . We make a subcase distinction:
(a) Subcase: 2 | g. Then since 2 ∤ f , the field component of α is an odd
exponent power of any fixed generator φ of ΦS , and so by [11, Theorem
2.5.12(c,g), p. 58], α is not out-central. Therefore, we are actually satisfied

21

Alexander Bors

Large automorphism orbits

with | CAut(S) (α)| ≥ 72 f , which follows from MCS(PGL3 (22f /g )) ≥
which holds true by Proposition 2.4.4(2).
(b) Subcase: 2 ∤ g. Then g | f . We make a subsubcase distinction:

7f
2 g,

• Subsubcase: The outer diagonal component of the image of α in Out(S)
is nontrivial. Then α is again not out-central, so we are satisfied with
| CAut(S) (α)| ≥ 27 f , which is implied by MCS(PGU3 (2f /g )) ≥ 27 fg ,
and this holds by Proposition 2.4.4 and by computing the values of
MCS(PGU3 (2d )), d ∈ {1, 2, 3}, with GAP [10].
• Subsubcase: The outer diagonal component of the image of α in Out(S)
is trivial. Then α is out-central, and by Proposition 2.4.3(3), the
unique element β of Sα ∩ ΦS satisfies | CAut(S) (β)| > 6f , so that
| CAut(S) (α)| > 6f as well. Using that | CAut(S) (α)| is an integer multiple of g · | PGU3 (2f )(α)|, we can conclude with the following subsubsubcase distinction:
– Subsubsubcase: | CAut(S) (α)| ≥ 2g| PGU3 (2f )(α)|. Then we are
done if MCS(PGU3 (2f /g )) ≥ 72 fg , which is true (see the previous
subsubcase).
– Subsubsubcase: | CAut(S) (α)| = g| PGU3 (2f )(α)|. Then we are done
if MCS(PGU3 (2f /g )) ≥ 7 fg , which is true for fg ≥ 2 by Proposition
2.4.4(2), by computing MCS(PGU3 (2d )), d ∈ {1, 2, 3}, with GAP
[10], and by observing that by [9, Theorem 6.7], MCS(PGU3 (16)) ≥
93 and MCS(PGU3 (32)) ≥ 389. So assume fg = 1. Then we have
| CAut(S) (α)| ≥ f · m for some integer m > 6, and so | CAut(S) (α)| ≥
7f , as required.
′

6. Case: S = 2 B2 (22f +1 ), so | Out(S)| = 2f ′ + 1 = 2f and g | 2f ′ + 1. We claim
that then h(S) ≤ 35 . By the last paragraph in Proposition 2.4.3, we know that
C2 B2 (22f ′ +1 ) (α) = CB2 (F2 )µ (αg ), where µ is a Lang-Steinberg map on B2 (F2 )
′

such that q(µ) = 2f /g ∈
/ Z. Therefore, | CAut(S) (α)| ≥ g · MCS(2 B2 (2(2f +1)/g )),
′
′
and so it is sufficient to have MCS(2 B2 (2(2f +1)/g )) ≥ 53 2f g+1 , which certainly
holds for

2f ′ +1
g

= 1, and for
2f ′ +1

holds. Finally, for

g

(2f ′ +1)/g

MCS(2 B2 (2

′

g
2f ′ +1

∈ {3, 5}, one checks with GAP [10] that it

≥ 7, it holds since by Proposition 2.4.4(2), we have

)) ≥ ⌈2(2f

′ +1)/(2g)

⌉≥

5 2f ′ +1
3 g .

7. Case: S = 2 G2 (32f +1 ), so | Out(S)| = 2f ′ + 1 = 2f and g | 2f ′ + 1. We claim
that then h(S) ≤ 52 . As in the previous case, it is sufficient to have the bound
′
′
′
MCS(2 G2 (3(2f +1)/g )) ≥ 52 2f g+1 . This can be verified for 2f g+1 = 1 with GAP
[10], and for

2f ′ +1
g

= 3, it can be checked with the ATLAS of Finite Group

Representations [1]. Finally, for

2f ′ +1
g

≥ 5, it holds by Proposition 2.4.4(2).

8. Case: S = A3 (pf ) = PSL4 (pf ), so | Out(S)| = (4, pf − 1) · 2f and g | f . We
claim that then h(S) ≤ 12 . First, assume p = 2, where | Out(S)| = 2f only.
Using Proposition 2.4.3(1,2), we are done if

22

Alexander Bors

Large automorphism orbits

f
min{MCS(PGL4 (2f /g )), MCS(PGU4 (2f /g ))} ≥ 4 ,
g
which holds by Proposition 2.4.4(3) and by computing MCS(PGL4 (2)) = 6 and
MCS(PGU4 (2)) = 5 with GAP [10]. Now assume p ≥ 3. As | Out(S)| ≤ 8f ,
we are satisfied if min{MCS(PGL4 (pf /g )), MCS(PGU4 (pf /g ))} ≥ 16 fg , and so
by Proposition 2.4.4(3) in particular if pf /g ≥ 8 fg , which holds for p ≥ 11, for

p ∈ {5, 7} and fg ≥ 2, and for p = 3 and fg ≥ 3. Each of the remaining cases
can be checked either with GAP [10] or using [9, Theorems 6.4 and 6.7].

9. Case: S = Br (pf ) = P Ω2r+1 (pf ), r ≥ 3, so | Out(S)| = (2, pf − 1) · f and g | f .
We claim that then h(S) ≤ 52 . First, assume p = 2, where | Out(S)| = f only.
By Propositions 2.4.3(1) and 2.4.4(3), we are done if 2 · 2f /g ≥ 25 fg , which is
true. Now assume p ≥ 3. Since | Out(S)| = 2f , we are done by Propositions
2.4.3(1) and 2.4.4(3) if 2 · pf /g ≥ 5 fg , which also holds.

10. Case: S = Cr (pf ) = PSp2r (pf ), r ≥ 3, so | Out(S)| = (2, pf − 1) · f and g | f .
We claim that then h(S) ≤ 25 . Since Cr (2f ) ∼
= Br (2f ), we may assume that
p ≥ 3, which can be treated analogously to the subcase “p ≥ 3” of Case 9.

11. Case: S = 2 A3 (p2f ) = PSU4 (pf ), so | Out(S)| = (4, pf + 1) · 2f and g | 2f . We
claim that then h(S) ≤ 12 . First, assume p = 2. Then | Out(S)| = 2f only, and
so we are done if we can show that | CAut(S) (α)| ≥ 4f . Now if 2 ∤ g, then this
is implied by MCS(PGU4 (2f /g )) ≥ 4 fg , which we already checked to be true in

Case 8. And if 2 | g, then it is implied by MCS(PGL4 (22f /g )) ≥ 4 fg = 2 2f
g , which
also follows by the argument in Case 8. Now assume p ≥ 3. As | Out(S)| ≤ 8f ,
we are satisfied if we can show that | CAut(S) (α)| ≥ 16f , and this can be reduced
to Case 8 in a similar fashion as for p = 2.

12. Case: S = Ar (pf ) = PSLr+1 (pf ), r ≥ 4, so | Out(S)| = (r + 1, pf − 1) · 2f and
10
, which we prove by showing the stronger
g | f . We claim that then h(S) ≤ 11
f
f
/g
assertion that min{MCS(PGLr+1 (p )), MCS(PGUr+1 (pf /g ))} ≥ 11
5 (r + 1) g ,
in the following two steps:
• First, one checks that it holds for r ∈ {4, . . . , 9} using a combination of
applications of Propositions 2.4.3(1,2) and [9, Theorems 6.4 and 6.7], which
cover all cases except p = 2 and fg = 1, and GAP [10] computations of
the exact values of MCS(PGLr+1 (2)) and MCS(PGUr+1 (2)) (the latter
MCS-value only needs to be computed for r ∈ {4, 5, 6}, since for r ≥ 7,
Fulman-Guralnick’s bounds cover it as well) to deal with that remaining
case too.
• For r ≥ 10, Fulman-Guralnick’s bounds become strong enough to cover all
cases, even p = 2 and fg = 1, and one can conclude as follows: Let us first
f
show that MCS(PGLr+1 (pf /g )) ≥ 11
5 (r + 1) g . By [9, Theorem 6.4], this
MCS-value is bounded from below by

1 − 1/pf /g
1
p(r+1)f /g
·
≥ prf /g ·
,
2e(1 + log2 (r + 2))
pf /g − 1 e(1 + logpf /g (r + 2))

23

Alexander Bors

Large automorphism orbits

and this is greater than or equal to

11
5 (r

+ 1) fg if and only if

22
f
(r + 1)e(1 + log2 (r + 2)) · .
5
g

pr·f /g ≥

(3)

By an inductive argument, for each prime p, Formula (3) holds for all values
of fg if and only if it holds for fg = 1. Moreover, Formula (3) with fg = 1
holds for all primes p if and only if it holds for p = 2. We are thus left with
verifying that for r ≥ 10,
22
(r + 1)e(1 + log2 (r + 2)),
(4)
5
which can be shown by induction on r: It is readily verified for r = 10,
and upon replacing r by r + 1, the left-hand side in Formula (4) grows by
a factor of 2, whereas the right-hand side only grows by a factor of
2r ≥

r + 2 1 + log2 (r + 3)
12
1
·
≤
· (1 +
)
r + 1 1 + log2 (r + 2)
11
1 + log2 (r + 2)
1
12
· (1 +
) = 1.3288 . . . < 2.
≤
11
1 + log2 (12)
The argument for showing that MCS(PGUr+1 (pf /g )) ≥
ogous.

11
5 (r + 1)f

is anal-

f
2
13. Case: S = D4 (pf ) = P Ω+
8 (p ), so | Out(S)| = (2, p − 1) · 6f and g | f . We
12
claim that then h(S) ≤ 13 . Let us first assume p = 2, so that | Out(S)| = 6f
and we are done if we can show that | CAut(S) (α)| ≥ 13
2 f . By [11, Theorem
∼
2.5.12(b,c,e), p. 58], Out(S) = hφi × ΓS = Z/f Z × S3 , where φ is a generator
of ΦS . We can thus write α = sφb τ with s ∈ S, b ∈ {0, . . . , f − 1} and τ ∈ S3 a
graph automorphism of S. We make a subcase distinction:

(a) Subcase: τ = 1. Then by Proposition 2.4.3(1),
f /g
| CAut(S) (α)| ≥ g · MCS(P Ω+
)),
8 (2
f /g )) ≥ 13 f . But by
and so we are done if we can show that MCS(P Ω+
8 (2
2 g
f /g ) = PGO+ (2f /g ) is an index
[9, Theorem 6.13(2)], and using that GO+
(2
8
8
f
2 extension of S = P Ω+
8 (p ), we get that

f /g
MCS(P Ω+
)) ≥ 23f /g ·
8 (2
f /g

≥8

·

s

s

and this is greater than or equal to

24

1 − 1/2f /g
2e(4 + log2f /g (16))

1
= 8f /g ·
4e(4 + log2 (16))
13 f
2 g

if and only if

r

1
,
32e

Alexander Bors

Large automorphism orbits

which holds for
MCS(P Ω+
8 (2))

f
g

8f /g ≥

f
13 √
f
32e = 60.6227 . . . ,
2
g
g

≥ 3.

For

f
g

= 1, one checks with GAP [10] that
f
g

= 2, we argue as follows: α is out= 7. Finally, for
central, but its S-coset contains an element β (e.g., β = φb ) such that
| CAut(S) (β)| > 6f , and so | CAut(S) (α)| > 6f as well. Since | CAut(S) (α)| is
also an integer multiple of g ·| CP Ω+ (2f ) (α)| = f2 | CP Ω+ (2f ) (α)|, we conclude
8
8
this first subcase with the following subsubcase distinction:
13
i. | CAut(S) (α)| ≥ f | CP Ω+ (2f ) (α)|. Then MCS(P Ω+
8 (4)) ≥ 2 , which
8
follows from [9, Theorem 6.13(2)], is sufficient.
ii. | CAut(S) (α)| = f2 | CP Ω+ (2f ) (α)|. Then | CP Ω+ (2f ) (α)| > 12, and so
8

13
2 f , as required.
Then |αOut(S) | = 3, so

8

indeed, | CAut(S) (α)| ≥

(b) Subcase: ord(τ ) = 2.
| CAut(S) (α)| ≥ 13
6 f is sufficient here. By Proposition 2.4.3(1), if 2 ∤ g, then this is implied by
f /g )) ≥ 13 f , and this is clear by the computations in the previMCS(P Ω+
8 (2
6 g
ous subcase. So we may assume 2 | g now, for which we are done by Propof /g )) ≥ 13 f , which can also be checked by
sition 2.4.3(2) if MCS(P Ω−
8 (2
6 g
[9, Theorem 6.13(2)] and computing (with GAP [10]) MCS(P Ω−
8 (2)) = 9.
13
Out(S)
(c) Subcase: ord(τ ) = 3. Then |α
| = 2, so | CAut(S) (α)| ≥ 4 f is sufficient here. If 3 ∤ g, then by Proposition 2.4.3(1), this is implied by
f /g )) ≥ 13 f , which is clear by the argument in the first subMCS(P Ω+
8 (2
4 g
case. So we may assume 3 | g now, for which we are done by Proposition
f
f
2.4.3(2) if MCS(3 D4 (23f /g )) ≥ 13
4 g . For g ≥ 2, this holds by Proposition
2.4.4(3), and so it remains to show that MCS(3 D4 (8)) ≥ 4. But the only elements of 3 D4 (8) whose centralizer could possibly be of order smaller than
4 are the involutions and the elements of order 3, and the former lie in a
Sylow 2-subgroup of 3 D4 (8), of order 212 > 2, so their centralizer order is
divisible by 22 = 4, whereas the latter lie in a Sylow 3-subgroup of 3 D4 (8),
of order 34 > 3, so their centralizer order is divisible by 32 = 9.
This concludes the argument for p = 2, so we may assume p ≥ 3 henceforth,
so that | Out(S)| = 24f , and more specifically, Out(S) = (Outdiag(S) × ΦS ) ⋊
ΓS ∼
= ((Z/2Z)2 × Z/f Z) ⋊ S3 , and the conjugation action of ΓS ∼
= S3 on ΦS ∼
=
2
∼
Z/f Z is trivial, whereas it is faithful on Outdiag(S) = (Z/2Z) . In particular,
ΦS E Out(S) and Out(S)/ΦS ∼
= S4 . We make a subcase distinction:
(a) Subcase: The graph component of α has order at most 2. Then by Proposif /g )) ≥ 26 f .
tion 2.4.3(1,2), we are done if we can show that MCS(PGO±
8 (p
g
± f /g
Again, we use [9, Theorem 6.13(2)]
(and
that
|ζ
GO
(p
)|
=
2)
to
get
8
r
q
1−1/pf /g
± f /g
1
3f /g ·
3f
/g
≥
p
that MCS(PGO8 (p )) ≥ p
· 2e(4+log
(16)
3e(4+log3 (16)) ,
pf /g
p
which is at least 26 fg if and only if p3f /g ≥ 26 3e(4 + log3 (16)) fg =
189.6395 . . . fg . This holds true unless p ∈ {3, 5} and

25

f
g

= 1. Moreover,

Alexander Bors

Large automorphism orbits

−
one can check with GAP [10] that MCS(PGO+
8 (3)) = MCS(PGO8 (3)) =
40 ≥ 26; for this, the author defined PGO±
8 (3) in GAP as the quotient of
GO±
(3)
by
its
centre
and
computed
the
character
table of this group, which
8
settles p = 3. For p = 5, it seems the analogous computational approach to
p = 3 was too much for the author’s computer to handle, but one can work
around this as follows: Let s ∈ PGO±
8 (5). If s is semisimple, then by the arguments leading to Proposition 2.4.4, | CPGO± (5) (s)| ≥ (5−1)4 = 256 ≥ 26,
8
and if 5 | ord(s), then we can argue that | CPGO± (5) (s)| ≥ 30 ≥ 26, as fol8
lows: We have that 5 | | CPGO± (5) (s)|, and Fulman-Guralnick’s bounds [9,
8
Theorem 6.13(2)] give | CPGO± (5) (s)| ≥ 21. It therefore suffices to argue
8
that | CPGO± (5) (s)| =
6 25. Assume otherwise. Then s lies in some Sylow
8

5-subgroup of PGO±
8 (5), which is isomorphic to a Sylow 5-subgroup of
±
P Ω8 (5). But with GAP [10], one can check that the minimum centralizer
size in such a Sylow 5-subgroup is 625 (for this, the author computed the
character table of the Sylow 5-subgroup after transforming it into a pc
group). Hence | CPGO± (5) (s)| ≥ 625, a contradiction.
8

(b) Subcase: The graph component of α has order 3. Then the image of α
in Out(S)/ΦS ∼
= S4 has order 3, and so |αOut(S) | ≥ 8. We are therefore
satisfied if we can show that | CAut(S) (α)| ≥ 13
4 f . If 3 ∤ g, then by Propof
+ f /g
sition 2.4.3(1), it suffices to have MCS(PGO8 (p )) ≥ 13
4 g , which holds
true by the arguments in the previous subcase. So assume 3 | g. Then
f
by Proposition 2.4.3(2), it suffices to have MCS(3 D4 (p3f /g )) ≥ 13
4 g , which
holds true by Proposition 2.4.4(3).
14. Case: S = F4 (pf ), so | Out(S)| = (2, p)f and g | | Out(S)|. We claim that then
h(S) ≤ 12 . First, assume that g | f . The claim is clear if we can show that
| CAut(S) (α)| ≥ 4f , which by the final paragraph in Proposition 2.4.3 holds if
MCS(F4 (pf /g )) ≥ 4 fg , which is clear by Proposition 2.4.4(3) unless p = 2 and
f
g

= 1, for which we need to show that MCS(F4 (2)) ≥ 4. Let s ∈ F4 (2). Unless
s is of order 2 or 3, it is clear that | CF4 (2) (s)| ≥ 4, and for elements of one of
these two orders, it follows from the fact that min{ν2 (|F4 (2)|), ν3 (|F4 (2)|)} > 1.
Now assume that g ∤ f . Then p = 2, and g = 2g ′ , where g′ | f and gf′
is odd. By the final paragraph in Proposition 2.4.3, we are done if we can
′
show that either MCS(2 F4 (2f /g )) ≥ 2 gf′ or the by Proposition 2.4.4(3) stronger
′

inequality 2f /(2g ) ≥

f
g′
f
g′

holds. The former is clearly true for
f
g′

f
g′

= 1, and

≥ 5, whereas for
= 3, Proposition 2.4.4(3) yields
the latter is true for
√
2
MCS( F4 (8)) ≥ 2 8 = 5.6568 . . ., and thus MCS(2 F4 (8)) ≥ 6, as required.

15. Case: S = 2 Ar (p2f ) = PSUr+1 (pf ), r ≥ 4, so | Out(S)| = (r + 1, pf + 1) · 2f and
11
g | 2f . We claim that then h(S) ≤ 10
11 , which is clear if | CAut(S) | ≥ 5 (r + 1)f .
First, assume that 2 ∤ g. Then by Proposition 2.4.3(3), it is sufficient to have
f
MCS(PGUr+1 (pf /g )) ≥ 11
5 (r + 1) g , which was already checked to be true in
Case 12. Now assume 2 | g. Then by Proposition 2.4.3(4), it is sufficient to
f
2f
11
have MCS(PGLr+1 (p2f /g )) ≥ 11
5 (r + 1) g = 10 (r + 1) g , which also holds by
Case 12.

26

Alexander Bors

Large automorphism orbits

f
4f
16. Case: S = 2 D4 (p2f ) = P Ω−
8 (p ), so | Out(S)| = (4, p + 1) · 2f and g | 2f . We
claim that then h(S) ≤ 12
13 . For p = 2, where | Out(S)| = 2f only, this can be
verified using Proposition 2.4.3(3,4) and the fact, already verified in Case 13,
f /g )) ≥ 13 f . The argument for p ≥ 3 is analogous, using the
that MCS(P Ω±
8 (2
6 g
f /g )) ≥ 26 f .
already established bound MCS(P Ω±
8 (p
g

17. Case: S = 3 D4 (p3f ), so | Out(S)| = 3f and g | 3f . We claim that then
12
, which can be verified using Proposition 2.4.3(3,4) and the bounds
h(S) ≤ 13
3f
+ 3f /g
13 f
3
3f /g )) ≥ 13 f , which were
MCS(P Ω8 (p
)) ≥ 13
6 g = 2 g and MCS( D4 (p
4 g
already established in Case 13.
′

18. Case: S = 2 F4 (22f +1 ), so | Out(S)| = 2f ′ + 1 = 2f and g | 2f ′ + 1. We
claim that then h(S) ≤ 25 . As in Case 6, this holds by the last paragraph
′
′
′
of Proposition 2.4.3 if MCS(2 F4 (2(2f +1)/g )) ≥ 25 · 2f g+1 . For 2f g+1 = 1, this
clearly holds (noting that ν2 (|2 F4 (2)|) = 12 > 1), and for
Proposition 2.4.4(3).

2f ′ +1
g

≥ 3, it holds by

f
2
19. Case: S = Dr (pf ) = P Ω+
2r (p ), r ≥ 5, so | Out(S)| = (2, p − 1) · 2f and g | f .
3
We claim that then h(S) ≤ 4 . First, assume p = 2, so | Out(S)| = 2f only. By
f /g )) ≥ 8 f , which holds
Proposition 2.4.3(1,2), it suffices to have MCS(P Ω±
2r (2
3g
by Proposition 2.4.4(3). Now assume p ≥ 3. Then | Out(S)| = 8f , and so by
f /g )) ≥ 32 f . Now by
Proposition 2.4.3(1,2), we are satisfied if MCS(PGO±
2r (p
3 g
[9, Theorem 6.13(2)], we have

f /g
MCS(PGO±
))
2r (p

≥p

(r−1)f /g

·

≥ p(r−1)f /g ·
32 f
3 g

and this is greater than or equal to
p(r−1)f /g ≥

s

s

1 − 1/pf /g
2e(4 + logpf /g (4r))
1
,
3e(4 + log3 (4r))

if and only if

32 p
f
3e(4 + log3 (4r)) .
3
g

(5)

By an inductive argument, for each prime p ≥ 3, Formula (5) holds for all values
of fg ≥ 1 if and only if it holds for fg = 1. Moreover, Formula (5) with fg = 1
holds for all primes p ≥ 3 if and only if it holds for p = 3, so we are left with
checking that for r ≥ 5,
3r−1 ≥

32 p
3e(4 + log3 (4r)).
3

(6)

We verify this by induction on r: One readily checks that Formula (6) holds
for r = 5, and upon replacing r by r + 1, the left-hand side of Formula (6)
grows
by a factor of 3, whereas the right-hand side only grows by a factor of
q
4+log3 (4r+4)
4+log3 (4r)

≤1+

1
4+log3 (4r)

≤1+

1
4+log3 (20)

27

= 1.1486 . . . < 3.

Alexander Bors

Large automorphism orbits

f
rf
20. Case: S = 2 Dr (p2f ) = P Ω−
2r (p ), r ≥ 5, so | Out(S)| = (4, p +1)·2f and g | 2f .
We claim that then h(S) ≤ 34 , and this follows from Proposition 2.4.3(3,4) and
f /g )) ≥ 8 f and MCS(PGO± (pf /g )) ≥ 32 f for p ≥ 3
the bounds MCS(P Ω±
2r
2r (2
3g
3 g
established in Case 19.

21. Case: S = E6 (pf ), so | Out(S)| = (3, pf − 1) · 2f and g | f . We claim that then
18
. We make a subcase distinction:
h(S) ≤ 19
(a) Subcase: α is not out-central. Then we are satisfied if | CAut(S) (α)| ≥
By Proposition 2.4.3(1,2), this holds if
min{MCS(Inndiag(E6 (pf /g ))), MCS(Inndiag(2 E6 (p2f /g )))} ≥

19
6 f.

19 f
,
6 g

which holds by Proposition 2.4.4(3).
(b) Subcase: α is out-central. Note that if gcd(3, pf − 1) = 1, then | Out(S)| =
2f only, so that it is sufficient to have | CAut(S) (α)| ≥ 19
9 f , which can
be proved as in the previous subcase. We may thus henceforth assume
gcd(3, pf − 1) = 3, so that | Out(S)| = 6f . Since α is out-central, by
the structure of Out(S) [11, Theorem 2.5.12(b,c,g), p. 58], the image of
α in Out(S) has trivial outer diagonal component, and so the S-coset of
α in Aut(S) contains an element β ∈ ΦS ΓS . By [11, Theorem 2.5.12(e)],
β commutes with all the 2f elements of ΦS ΓS . These elements form a
transversal for Inndiag(S) in Aut(S), and so by Proposition 2.4.3(1,2), we
have
| CAut(S) (β)| ≥ 2f · | CInndiag(S) (β g )|

≥ 2f · min{MCS(Inndiag(E6 (pf /g ))), MCS(Inndiag(2 E6 (p2f /g )))}
19 f
> 6f.
≥ 2f ·
6 g

Hence | CAut(S) (α)| > 6f as well. Since | CAut(S) (α)| is also an integer multiple of g · | CInndiag(S) (α)|, we can conclude with the following subsubcase
distinction:
• Subsubcase: | CAut(S) (α)| ≥ 2g · | CInndiag(S) (α)|. Then by the comf
19
putations in the previous subcase, | CAut(S) (α)| ≥ 2g · 19
6 g = 3 f =
19
18 | Out(S)|.
• Subsubcase: | CAut(S) (α)| = g · | CInndiag(S) (α)|. First, assume fg ≥ 4.
Then by Propositions 2.4.3(1,2) and 2.4.4(3), we have | CAut(S) (α)| ≥
f
19
g · 2pf /g ≥ g · 2 · 4 fg = 8f ≥ 19
3 f = 18 | Out(S)|. Now assume g ≤ 3,

say g = ft with t ∈ {1, 2, 3}. Then | CAut(S) (α)| = ft · m, where m
is an integer such that mt > 6. It follows that | CAut(S) (α)| ≥ 19
3 f =
19
|
Out(S)|.
18

22. Case: S = 2 E6 (p2f ), so | Out(S)| = (3, pf + 1) · 2f and g | 2f . We claim that
then h(S) ≤ 18
19 . We make a subcase distinction:

28

Alexander Bors

Large automorphism orbits

(a) Subcase: α is not out-central. Then we are satisfied if | CAut(S) (α)| ≥
If 2 ∤ g, then by Proposition 2.4.3(3), we are done if
MCS(Inndiag(2 E6 (p2f /g )) ≥

19
6 f.

19 f
,
6 g

which was already verified in Subcase (a) of Case 21. Similarly, if 2 | g,
then by Proposition 2.4.3(4), we are done if
MCS(Inndiag(E6 (p2f /g ))) ≥

19 f
19 2f
=
,
6 g
12 g

and this also holds by Subcase (a) of Case 21.
(b) Subcase: α is out-central. As in Subcase (b) of Case 21, we may assume
that gcd(3, pf + 1) = 3, so that | Out(S)| = 6f . Since α is out-central, the
outer diagonal component of the image of α in Out(S) must be trivial, so
that the coset Sα contains a unique element β ∈ ΦS . Now β commutes
with all the 2f elements of ΦS , which form a transversal for Inndiag(S) in
Aut(S). Hence by Proposition 2.4.3(3,4) and the computations in Case 21,
we get that | CAut(S) (β)| ≥ 2f · | CInndiag(S) (β)| ≥ 2f · 4 > 6f = | Out(S)|.
Hence | CAut(S) (α)| > 6f as well, and we can conclude with a subsubcase
distinction as at the end of Subcase (b) of Case 21.
23. Case: S = E7 (pf ), so | Out(S)| = (2, pf − 1) · f and g | f . We claim that then
h(S) ≤ 13
32 . Indeed, using Proposition 2.4.3(1) and [9, Lemma 6.14], we get that
| CAut(S) (α)| ≥ g · MCS(E7 (pf /g )) ≥ g ·

p7f /g
26

≥g·

128f /g
26

=

64
13 f

≥

32
13 | Out(S)|.

=

128
13 | Out(S)|.

24. Case: S = E8 (pf ), so | Out(S)| = f and g | f . We claim that then h(S) ≤
13
128 . Indeed, using Proposition 2.4.3(1) and [9, Lemma 6.14], we get that
8f /g

/g
| CAut(S) (α)| ≥ g · MCS(E8 (pf /g )) ≥ g · p 26 ≥ g · 256f
=
26

3
3.1

128
13 f

Proof of Theorem 1.1.2
Proof of Theorem 1.1.2(1)

We show the contraposition: If G is a finite nonsolvable group, then maol(G) ≤ 18
19 .
Indeed, let S be a nonabelian composition factor of G. By Lemma 2.1.1(2), G has
a semisimple characteristic quotient H such that Soc(H) ∼
= S n for some n ∈ N+ .
By Lemmas 2.2.5(2) and 2.3.1(2), maol(H) ≤ h(S), and so, by Lemmas 2.4.2(1) and
2.1.1(1), we conclude that maol(G) ≤ maol(H) ≤ h(S) ≤ 18
19 .

3.2

Proof of Theorem 1.1.2(2)

Fix ρ ∈ (0, 1], let G be a finite group with maol(G) ≥ ρ, and let S be a nonabelian
composition factor of G. We need to show that |S| is bounded in terms of ρ. Just as in
the proof of Theorem 1.1.2(1), we find that G has a semisimple characteristic quotient

29

Alexander Bors

Large automorphism orbits

∼ S n for some n ∈ N+ , so that ρ ≤ maol(G) ≤ maol(H) ≤
H such that Soc(H) =
h(S). By Lemma 2.4.2(2), this excludes alternating groups of large degree as well as
simple Lie type groups t Xr (pf t ) where either the untwisted Lie rank r or the defining
characteristic p is large as possibilities for S. We are therefore done if we can show
the following:
Proposition 3.2.1. Let t Xr resp. p be a fixed Lie symbol resp. prime. Then as
f → ∞, supH fin. semisimple gp. with Soc(H) a power of t Xr (pf t ) maol(H) → 0.
For proving Proposition 3.2.1, we introduce one more concept and formulate a
simple lemma concerning this concept.
Definition 3.2.2. Let S be a nonabelian finite simple group, c a conjugacy class in
Aut(S), π : Aut(S) → Aut(S)/ Inndiag(S) ∼
= ΦS ΓS the canonical projection.
1. The term coarse S-type is a synonym for “element of Aut(S)/ Inndiag(S)”.
2. We call the unique element of the Aut(S)/ Inndiag(S)-conjugacy class π[c] the
coarse S-type of c.
In Definition 3.2.2(2), we are using that by [11, Theorem 2.5.12(e), p. 58], the
group Aut(S)/ Inndiag(S) is always abelian. Note that if two conjugacy classes in
Aut(S) have the same S-type in the sense of Definition 2.2.1(2), then they also have
the same coarse S-type, but not vice versa.
Definition 3.2.3. Let S be a nonabelian finite simple group, n ∈ N+ , let α
~ =
(α1 , . . . , αn )σ ∈ Aut(S) ≀ Sn , and let π : Aut(S) → Aut(S)/ Inndiag(S) be the canonical projection. We define CT(~
α) as the following set ( not multiset):
CT(~
α) := {τ ∈ Aut(S)/ Inndiag(S) | τ ∈ π[bcpcζ (~
α)] for some cycle ζ of σ}.
Let us now turn to the aforementioned lemma; in its second statement, we write
the group Aut(S)/ Inndiag(S) multiplicatively, although it is abelian.
Lemma 3.2.4. Let S be a nonabelian finite simple group, n ∈ N+ , H a finite
semisimple group with Soc(H) ∼
~ , β~ ∈ H.
= S n and α
~ lie in the same Aut(H)-orbit, then CT(~
~
1. If α
~ and β
α) = CT(β).

2. Let σ be the permutation part of α
~ , and let k ∈ Z with gcd(k, ord(σ)) = 1. Then
k
k
CT(~
α ) = {t | t ∈ CT(~
α)}.
Proof. For (1): This is clear from Lemma 2.2.5(1).
For (2): Write α
~ = (α1 , . . . , αn )σ. The permutation part σ k of α
~ k has the
same cycle support sets (in particular the same cycle type) as σ, and for each cycle ζ = (i1 , . . . , il ) of α
~ , the entries of the tuple part of α
~ k corresponding to ink
dices from supp(ζ) = {i1 , . . . , il } = supp(ζ ) are k-factor products of such entries
of (α1 , . . . , αn ). Moreover, by symmetry, each entry αij , j ∈ {1, . . . , l}, formally
occurs k times in total as a factor in one of the entries of the tuple part of α
~ k corresponding to an index from supp(ζ) = supp(ζ k ). The assertion now follows by the
commutativity of the group Aut(S)/ Inndiag(S).

30

Alexander Bors

Large automorphism orbits

We are now ready to prove Proposition 3.2.1.
Proof of Proposition 3.2.1. Let H be a finite semisimple group with Soc(H) a power
of t Xr (pf t ) =: S, say Soc(H) ∼
= S n . We show that for each ǫ > 0, if f is large enough
(where this notion of “large enough” may depend on ǫ, r and p, but not on n), then
maol(H) < ǫ. Let α
~ = (α1 , . . . , αn )σ ∈ H. We make a case distinction:
1. Case: | CT(~
α)| > log18/19 (ǫ). Then, using that in the product upper bound on
1
Aut(H) | given in Lemma 2.2.5(2), the number of factors is bounded from
|~
α
|H|
below by | CT(~
α)| and that by Lemmas 2.3.1(2) and 2.4.2(1), each of these
1
| CT(~
α)| < ǫ.
αAut(H) | ≤ ( 18
factors is at most 18
19 , we conclude that |H| |~
19 )
2. Case: | CT(~
α)| ≤ log18/19 (ǫ). We make a subcase distinction:
(a) Subcase: There is a cycle ζ of σ such that the common field (resp. graphfield, if t Xr is one of B2 , G2 or F4 ) component order gζ of any√ of the
2
(r +
elements of the Aut(S)-conjugacy class bcpcζ (~
α) satisfies gfζ > 5 √2−1

1)ǫ−1 . Let l be the length of ζ, and let τ be the S-type of bcpcζ (~
α). Then
1
Aut(H)
τ
by Lemma 2.2.5(2), |H| |~
α)), which by Lemma 2.3.1(2)
α
| ≤ r(Ml (~
and using the notation from Definition 2.2.4(4) is bounded from above by
(τ )
the maximum of the ρ(ci ), i = 1, . . . , k(τ ). Now fix i ∈ {1, . . . , k(τ )}, and
(τ )
let β ∈ ci . Since | Out(S)| = | Out(t Xr (pf t ))| ≤ 5(r + 1)f , we are done if
we can show that | CAut(S) (β)| > 5(r + 1)f ǫ−1 . But by Propositions 2.4.3
and 2.4.4, we have
√
√
f
2 − 1 f /gζ
2−1
≥ √ gζ ( )2
| CAut(S)) (β)| ≥ gζ · (p
− 1) ≥ gζ · √ p
gζ
2
2
√
f
2−1
= √ f·
> 5(r + 1)f ǫ−1 ,
gζ
2
f /gζ

as required.
(b) Subcase: For every cycle ζ of σ, the common field (resp. graph-field) component order gζ of any of the elements of bcpcζ (~
α) satisfies gζ ≥ √2 f
.
−1
5√

2−1

(r+1)ǫ

Observe that gζ | ord(τζ ) | oζ | ord(~
α), where τζ is the coarse S-type of
bcpcζ (~
α), and oζ is the common order of any of the elements of bcpcζ (~
α);
for the first divisibility relation, use [11, Theorem 2.5.12(e), p. 58], and
for the last, note that if l is the length of ζ, then the tuple part of
α
~ l has elements from bcpcζ (~
α) at the entries corresponding to indices
from supp(ζ), while its permutation part fixes all such indices, whence
oζ | ord(~
αl ) | ord(~
α). In particular, by the case and subcase assumptions,
CT(~
α) is a subset of the field-graph automorphism group ΦS ΓS whose size
is bounded from above by log18/19 (ǫ) =: C1 (ǫ) and whose elements all have
f
. Define O to be the maximum value
=: C2 (ǫ,r)
order at least √2 f
−1
5√

2−1

(r+1)ǫ

of ord(τζ ), where ζ ranges over the cycles of σ, and fix a cycle ζ of σ such

31

Alexander Bors

Large automorphism orbits

that ord(τζ ) = O. Set M := CT(~
α) ∩ hτζ i. Consider the natural action
∗
of the group of units (Z/OZ) on the subsets of hτζ i ∼
= Z/OZ. Since M
contains the generator τζ , the stabilizer of M under this action has order
at most |M | ≤ C1 (ǫ). Fix a transversal u1 , . . . , um of Stab(Z/OZ)∗ (M ) in

2 (ǫ,r))
(Z/OZ)∗ , where m ≥ φ(f /C
. For i = 1, . . . , m, let ki be a lift of
C1 (ǫ)
ui to (Z/ lcm(ord(~
α, exp(ΦS ΓS ))))∗ . Then by Lemma 3.2.4(2), for each
i = 1, . . . , m, CT(~
αki ) ∩ hτζ i = {τ ki | τ ∈ M }, and so the sets CT(~
αki ),
i = 1, . . . , m, are pairwise distinct. By Lemma 3.2.4(1), the powers α
~ ki ,
i = 1, . . . , m, therefore lie in pairwise distinct automorphism orbits in H,
which are all of the same length as α
~ Aut(H) . It follows that if f is so large (in
φ(f /C2 (ǫ,r))
1
1
< ǫ,
> ǫ−1 , then |H|
|~
αAut(H) | ≤ m
dependence of ǫ and r) that
C1 (ǫ)
as required.

3.3

Proof of Theorem 1.1.2(3)

We claim that any number in (0, 1] that is strictly smaller than maol(Aut(S)) does
.
the job as a choice for c(S); so one could, for example, choose c(S) := maol(Aut(S))
2
To see that this holds, consider, for each prime p, the finite semisimple group
Hp := Aut(S)p ⋊ hσi = Aut(S) ≀ hσi, where σ ∈ Sp is a p-cycle. We claim that
maol(Hp ) ≥ (1 − p1 ) maol(Aut(S)), which converges to maol(Aut(S)) from below as
p → ∞ (so this is sufficient).
In order to verify this bound, observe that Aut(Hp ) = Aut(S)≀NSp (hσi). Consider
the element α
~ := (α1 , idS , . . . , idS )σ, where α1 ∈ Aut(S) is chosen such that its
automorphism orbit in Aut(S) is of the maximum possible proportion maol(Aut(S)).
Since NSp (hσi) acts transitively on the set of nontrivial elements of hσi, we find that
α
~ Aut(Hp ) contains elements with all nontrivial elements of hσi as possible permutation
parts. Therefore, |~
αAut(Hp ) | = (p − 1) · |~
αAut(Hp ) ∩ Aut(S)p σ|, and since hσi is a
self-centralizing subgroup of Sp , the stabilizer of the set α
~ Aut(Hp ) ∩ Aut(S)p σ in
Aut(S p ) = Aut(S) ≀ Sp is just Hp , which is contained in Aut(Hp ). Hence α
~ Aut(Hp ) ∩
p)
p
Aut(S
p
Aut(S) σ = α
~
∩ Aut(S) , which by Lemma 2.2.5(1) consists of just those
Aut(S)
elements (β1 , . . . , βp )σ ∈ Aut(S p ) such that βp · · · β1 ∈ bcpcσ (~
α) = α1
. Hence
Aut(S)
Aut(H
p−1
Aut(H
p)
p)
|~
α
| = (p − 1) · |α1
|| Aut(S)| , whence α
~
is of proportion (1 −
1
)
maol(Aut(S))
in
H
,
as
required.
p
p

4

Concluding remarks

We conclude this paper with some related open questions and problems for further
research. Probably the most natural thing to ask in light of our main results is
whether the constant 18
19 in Theorem 1.1.2(1) can be reduced and, more strongly, what
the optimal value for it is. In this context, we note without proof the following result,
which was checked by the author with a combination of GAP [10] computations,

32

Alexander Bors

Large automorphism orbits

looking up information in the ATLAS of Finite Group Representations [1] and using
a few ad hoc arguments:
Proposition 4.1. The following hold:
1. Let H be a nontrivial finite semisimple group such that Soc(H) is characteristically simple and | Soc(H)| ≤ 105 . Then maol(H) ≤ 37 .
2. Let G be a finite nonsolvable group with |G| ≤ 105 . Then maol(G) ≤
maol(PSL2 (8)).

3
7

=

This motivates the following question, a positive answer to which would settle
the search for the optimal constant in Theorem 1.1.2(1):
Question 4.2. Is it true that maol(G) ≤

3
7

for all finite nonsolvable groups G?

Concerning the second open question, we note that while the examples which we
gave in Remark 1.1.3(3) show that commutativity of G cannot be forced under an
assumption on G of the form maol(G) ≥ ρ with ρ ∈ (0, 1), they are all nilpotent,
and the author has not yet found a sequence of nonnilpotent finite groups whose
maol-values converge to 1. So the following may be worth looking into:
Question 4.3. Does there exist a constant c ∈ (0, 1) such that maol(G) ≤ c for all
finite nonnilpotent groups G?
We would like to propose one more question, which is motivated by the connection,
mentioned in Remark 1.1.3(2), between the results of this paper and [4, Theorem
1.1.1]. Consider the following constants:
Notation 4.4. For k ∈ N+ , we set
ck :=

1
max
max |ghα1 ,...,αk i |.
G fin. nonsolvable gp. |G| α1 ,...,αk ∈Aut(G) g∈G
sup

So ck is a constant upper bound on the orbit proportions on finite nonsolvable
groups that one can achieve by k-generated subgroups of the automorphism group.
This has some relevance for the study of finite groups for use in pseudorandom number
generation, as outlined in [3, Subsection 4.1]. In the classical setting, a pseudorandom
number generator consists of the iteration of one fixed function on a state space, but
one can also consider “random walk generators”, where in each step, a transformation
randomly chosen from a fixed set of candidates is applied. The basic requirement that
the orbits on the state space obtained this way should be “large” remains unchanged
though, and our results show that if one wants orbits of proportion larger than 18
19 ,
achieved by randomly applying one of k given automorphisms of a finite group G
starting from some element g ∈ G as the seed, one must use a solvable G.
It is natural to ask if the constant 18
19 can be improved on in this context as
well. Clearly, the sequence (ck )k∈N+ is non-decreasing, and since, by [8, Theorem
1], Aut(PSL2 (8)) is 2-generated, we have c2 ≥ 73 , so if the answer to Question 4.2 is
“yes”, then ck = 37 for all k ≥ 2, but if the answer is “no”, the following problem
may also be worth studying:

33

Alexander Bors

Large automorphism orbits

Problem 4.5. Determine the precise value of (or at least give better bounds on)
ck for some given k ≥ 2. Also, determine if the sequence (ck )k∈N+ is eventually
constant.

5

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Michael Giudici and Cheryl Praeger for some helpful
discussions while he was working on this paper.

References
[1] R. Abbott, J. Bray, S. Linton, S. Nickerson, S. Norton, R. Parker, I. Suleiman,
J. Tripp, P. Walsh, R. Wilson, ATLAS of Finite Group Representations – Version
3, online resource, http://brauer.maths.qmul.ac.uk/Atlas/v3/.
[2] N.L. Biggs and A.T. White, Permutation Groups and Combinatorial Structures,
Cambridge University Press (London Mathematical Society Lecture Note Series,
33), Cambridge, 1979 (reprinted 2008).
[3] A. Bors, Classification of Finite Group Automorphisms with a Large Cycle,
Comm. Algebra 44(11):4823–4843, 2016.
[4] A. Bors, Finite groups with an automorphism of large order, J. Group Theory
20(4):681–718, 2017.
[5] P.J. Cameron and C.E. Praeger, Block-transitive t-designs. I. Point-imprimitive
designs, Discrete Math. 118:33–43, 1993.
[6] P.J. Cameron and C.E. Praeger, Block-transitive t-designs. II. Large t, in: F. De
Clerck et al. (eds.), Finite geometry and combinatorics, Cambridge University
Press (London Mathematical Society Lecture Note Series, 191), Cambridge, 1993.
[7] J.J. Cannon and D.F. Holt, Computing conjugacy class representatives in permutation groups, J. Algebra 300(1):213–222, 2006.
[8] F. Dalla Volta and A. Lucchini, Generation of Almost Simple Groups, J. Algebra
178:194–223 (1995).
[9] J. Fulman and R. Guralnick, Bounds on the number and sizes of conjugacy classes in finite Chevalley groups with applications to derangements,
Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 364(6):3023–3070, 2012.
[10] The GAP Group, GAP – Groups, Algorithms, and Programming, Version 4.8.6
(2016), http://www.gap-system.org.
[11] D. Gorenstein, R. Lyons and R. Solomon, The Classification of the Finite Simple
Groups, Number 3, American Mathematical Society (Mathematical Surveys and
Monographs, 40.3), Providence, 1998.

34

Alexander Bors

Large automorphism orbits

[12] B. Hartley, A general Brauer-Fowler theorem and centralizers in locally finite
groups, Pacific J. Math 152(1):101–117, 1992.
[13] B. Hartley and M. Kuzucuoğlu, Centralizers of elements in locally finite simple
groups, Proc. London Math. Soc. (3) 62(2):301–324, 1991.
[14] M. Huber, Flag-transitive Steiner designs, Birkhäuser (Frontiers in Mathematics), Basel, 2009.
[15] H. Robbins, A Remark on Stirling’s Formula, Amer. Math. Monthly 62(1):26–
29, 1955.
[16] D.J.S. Robinson, A Course in the Theory of Groups, Springer (Graduate Texts
in Mathematics, 80), New York, 1996 (2nd ed.).
[17] J.S. Rose, Automorphism groups of groups with trivial centre, Proc. London
Math. Soc. (3) 31(2):167–193, 1975.
[18] K. Thas, Finite flag-transitive projective planes: a survey and some remarks,
Discrete Math. 266:417–429, 2003.

35

