arXiv:1709.06524v1 [math.GR] 19 Sep 2017

ALMOST-AUTOMORPHISMS OF TREES, CLONING SYSTEMS AND
FINITENESS PROPERTIES
RACHEL SKIPPER AND MATTHEW C. B. ZAREMSKY
Abstract. We prove that the group of almost-automorphisms of the infinite rooted
regular d-ary tree Td arises naturally as the Thompson-like group of a so called d-ary
cloning system. A similar phenomenon occurs for any Nekrashevych group Vd (G), for
G ≤ Aut(Td ) a self-similar group. We use this framework to expand on work of Belk
and Matucci, who proved that the Röver group, using the Grigorchuk group for G, is
of type F∞ . Namely, we find some natural conditions on subgroups of G to ensure that
Vd (G) is of type F∞ , and in particular we prove this for all G in the infinite family of
Šunić groups. We also prove that if G is itself of type F∞ then so is Vd (G), and that
every finitely generated virtually free group is self-similar, so in particular every finitely
generated virtually free group G yields a type F∞ Nekrashevych group Vd (G).

Introduction
Let Td be the infinite rooted regular d-ary tree, and AAut(Td ) its group of almostautomorphisms. Given a self-similar group of automorphisms G ≤ Aut(Td ), the subgroup
of AAut(Td ) that “locally looks like” G is the Nekrashevych group Vd (G), sometimes called
the Nekrashevych–Röver group. These groups were introduced in this degree of generality
by Nekrashevych in [Nek04]. Before this, Röver had considered V2 (Grig) for Grig the
Grigorchuk group [R9̈9]. The terms Nekrashevych group and Nekrashevych–Röver group
are also sometimes used to mean Vd (G) only for the case of G a finite subgroup of Sd ,
acting on Td by viewing its vertices as words in {1, . . . , d}. Here we will always use the
term “Nekrashevych group,” for brevity’s sake, and will always allow any self-similar G ≤
Aut(Td ). The “Röver group” is V2 (Grig).
Recall that a group is of type Fn if it admits a classifying space with compact n-skeleton,
and type F∞ if it is type Fn for all n. These finiteness properties are a natural extension
of the classical finiteness properties of being finitely generated (type F1 ) and finitely presentable (type F2 ). There is a large amount of literature devoted to finding finiteness properties of groups in the extended family of Thompson’s groups. Usually the groups are of
type F∞ , e.g., see [BM16, Bro87, BFM+ 16, FH15, FMWZ13, MPMN16, NSJG14, Thu17],
though not always, e.g., Belk–Forrest’s basilica Thompson group TB [BF15b] is type F1 but
Date: September 20, 2017.
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification. Primary 20F65; Secondary 57M07,
Key words and phrases. Tree automorphism, almost-automorphism, Nekrashevych group, self-similar
group, Thompson’s group, finiteness properties, cloning system.

2

R. SKIPPER AND M. C. B. ZAREMSKY

not F2 [WZ16]. Also, it is possible to build ad hoc Thompson-like groups with arbitrary
finiteness properties, using “cloning systems” [WZ14].
In this paper we prove that AAut(Td ) arises naturally from a “d-ary cloning system” on
the wreath products Sn ≀ Aut(Td ). A d-ary cloning system is a natural generalization of
the notion of cloning system from [WZ14], which is the d = 2 case. Similarly, for any
self-similar G ≤ Aut(Td ) the Nekrashevych group Vd (G) arises from a d-ary cloning system
on the groups Sn ≀ G. The results are as follows (with the notation T (−) explained in
Subsection 2.1).
Theorem 2.6. We have AAut(Td ) ∼
= T (S∗ ≀ Aut(Td )).
Corollary 2.7. For any self-similar G ≤ Aut(Td ), we have Vd (G) ∼
= T (S∗ ≀ G).
Corollary 2.7 allows us to prove the following:
Corollary 4.28. Let G ≤ Aut(Td ) be self-similar and of type F∞ . Then Vd (G) is of type
F∞ .
See Remark 2.9 for more thoughts on the proof of this result. In order to further populate
the family of self-similar groups of type F∞ , we prove in Corollary 1.10 that every finitely
generated virtually free group is self-similar. In particular every finitely generated virtually
free group yields a type F∞ Nekrashevych group.
We also find some sufficient conditions on G to ensure that Vd (G) is of type F∞ , even if
G is not. These conditions are the most general we could find for the strategy in [BM16],
dealing with V2 (Grig), to still work. The result is as follows:
Theorem 4.27. Let G ≤ Aut(Td ) be self-similar and suppose there exists H ≤ G such that
H is nuclear in G (see Definition 3.10) and A-coarsely self-similar (see Definition 3.5),
and (H, A) is orderly (see Definition 4.3) for some finite A ⊆ Vd ∩ Aut(Td ). If H is of type
F∞ then so is Vd (G).
One of our main motivations here is that, since the Vd (G) are often (virtually) simple
(for a precise statement see [Nek04, Theorems 9.11 and 9.14]), it is a pleasant surprise that
T (S∗ ≀ G) is isomorphic to Vd (G), seeing as previous examples of Thompson groups arising
from cloning systems tended to not be (virtually) simple (see Remark 2.8). It is still an
open problem to find examples in the world of Thompson groups of simple groups of type
Fn but not Fn+1 , for n ≥ 2. Since there is some machinery in place to determine precise
finiteness properties of Thompson groups arising from cloning systems (see for example
[WZ14, Theorem 8.28]), it seems possible that certain Vd (G) could provide such examples
in the future.
This paper is organized as follows. First we establish our groups of interest in Section 1.
In Section 2 we define d-ary cloning systems and prove that AAut(Td ) and the Vd (G) all
arise from such structures. In Sections 3 and 4, which are quite technical, we discuss
complexes on which these groups act and find some conditions under which Vd (G) is of
type F∞ . Finally, we discuss our examples of particular interest in Section 5.

ALMOST-AUTOMORPHISMS OF TREES, CLONING SYSTEMS AND FINITENESS PROPERTIES

3

Acknowledgments. We are grateful to Jim Belk and Francesco Matucci for supplying
some helpful information about their paper [BM16].
1. The groups
In this section we introduce the groups we will study, all of which will be groups of
self-similar automorphisms or almost-automorphisms of the infinite regular rooted d-ary
tree Td .
1.1. Self-similar groups. Let X be a finite set with d elements, called an alphabet, and
let X ∗ be the set of all finite words over X, including the empty word ∅. Then X ∗ is
the vertex set of the infinite rooted regular d-ary tree Td , where two vertices u and v are
connected by an edge whenever ux = v or vx = u for some x ∈ X.
An automorphism of Td is a bijection from X ∗ to X ∗ that fixes the root and preserves
incidence. Denote by Aut(Td ) the group of all automorphisms of Td . As described in [Nek05,
Subsection 1.3.2], an automorphism f of Td can be described by labeling each element v
of X ∗ by a permutation f |v ∈ Sd . The automorphism f is encoded by {f |v | v ∈ X ∗ } via
the declaration that for a vertex u = x1 x2 . . . xm ∈ X ∗ , the action of f on u is given by
f (u) = f |∅ (x1 )f |x1 (x2 )f |x1 x2 (x3 ) · · · f |x1 ···xm−1 (xm ).
Definition 1.1 (Wreath recursion, state). For G a group we use the wreath product
notation Sd ≀ G := Sd ⋉ (G × · · · × G), so the acting group is written on the left. The
above discussion (see also [Nek05, Proposition 1.4.2]) gives us an isomorphism Aut(Td ) ∼
=
Sd ≀ (Sd ≀ (Sd · · · )) and in particular Aut(Td ) ∼
= Sd ≀ Aut(Td ). Under this isomorphism, an
element f ∈ Aut(Td ) can be decomposed as
f = σ(f1 , . . . , fd ),
where σ ∈ Sd and fi is the restriction of the permutation labeling of f to the ith subtree
rooted at the first level (canonically identified with the original Td ). We refer to fi as the
state of f at the ith vertex. Iterating this decomposition, for each u ∈ X ∗ we obtain fu ,
the state of f at the vertex u.
Let ρ : Aut(Td ) → Sd be the map f 7→ f |∅ , so the wreath recursion of f is
f = ρ(f )(f1 , . . . , fd ).
Definition 1.2 (Self-similar). We say a group G ≤ Aut(Td ) is self-similar if for all g =
ρ(g)(g1 , . . . , gd ) ∈ G and for all i, we have gi ∈ G.
A property that frequently arises in the subject of self-similar groups and will be relevant
to the examples in Section 5 is that of contracting.
Definition 1.3 (Contracting, nucleus). A self-similar group G is called contracting if there
exists a finite subset S ⊆ G such that for all g ∈ G there exists n ∈ N with the property
that for every vertex u of length greater than or equal to n, the state of g at u is in S. The
smallest such S is called the nucleus of G.

4

R. SKIPPER AND M. C. B. ZAREMSKY

1.2. Up from finite index. In this subsection we prove that in many cases if an abstract
group contains a finite index copy of a self-similar group of automorphisms of some tree then
the group itself is isomorphic to a self-similar group of automorphisms of some (possibly
other) tree. In other words, virtually self-similar often implies self-similar, and so examples
of self-similar groups are more ubiquitous than one might expect.
For a group G, a virtual endomorphism of G is a homomorphism φ from a finite index
subgroup K of G to G. The φ-core of K, denoted φ-core(K), is the maximal subgroup K̃
of K that is φ-invariant (i.e., φ(K̃) ≤ K̃). These φ-cores always exist, as the next result
shows.
Citation 1.4. [Nek05, Proposition 2.7.5]
\ \
g −1 Domain(φm )g.
φ-core(K) =
m≥1 g∈G

In words, the φ-core is the normal core of the iterated pullback · · · φ−1 φ−1 K. The virtual
endomorphism φ is called simple if the φ-core is trivial.
Self-similar groups have a strong connection to virtual endomorphisms. In particular, if
a group G admits a simple virtual endomorphism then it is self-similar, as the next result
shows.
Citation 1.5. [BS07, Theorem 6] Let G be a group, K a subgroup of G, and X a left
transversal of K in G. Let ρ be the permutation representation of G on X. In particular
for g ∈ G and x ∈ X, we have ρ(g)(x) equals the x′ ∈ X satisfying gxK = x′ K. Also let Td
be the tree with vertex set X ∗ (so d = |X|) and let φ be a virtual endomorphism from K to
G. Then the quadruple (G, K, φ, X) provides a representation ψ : G → Aut(Td ) recursively
defined by
ψ(g) = ρ(g){ψ(φ((gx)−1ρ(g)(x))) | x ∈ X}.
Furthermore, ker(ψ) = φ-core(K). In particular if φ is simple then ψ is faithful.
In [BS07] this is phrased using different left/right conventions, but the above form is the
one we want.
Conversely, assume that G is a self-similar group. For a fixed x ∈ X, let φx be the projection StabG (x) → G onto the xth coordinate. This produces a 3-tuple (G, StabG (x), φx )
where φx is a virtual endomorphism. In this case, the φx -core is
\ \
g −1 StabG (xm )g
m≥1 g∈G

m

where x is the vertex xx · · · x.

Remark 1.6. It is likely that the virtual endomorphism φx will not recreate the known
self-similar action of G. Instead, it may produce a different self-similar action on a possibly
different tree. In fact, there are self-similar group actions which cannot be obtained from
Citation 1.5, such as the ones described in Example 1.16.

ALMOST-AUTOMORPHISMS OF TREES, CLONING SYSTEMS AND FINITENESS PROPERTIES

5

Next, we show that self-similar actions can often be induced up from subgroups of finite
index acting self-similarly.
Proposition 1.7 (Inducing self-similar actions). Let G be a group and let K be a finite
index subgroup of G. Suppose that (K, K̃, φ, X) defines a faithful self-similar action of K
on the tree with vertex set X ∗ as in Citation 1.5. Let φ̃ be the homomorphism from K̃ to
G defined by
φ

K̃ −
→ K ֒→ G
and let Y be a right transversal to K̃ in G. Then the 4-tuple (G, K̃, φ̃, Y ) defines a faithful
self-similar action of G on the tree with vertex set Y ∗ .
Proof. By Citation 1.5, the 4-tuple (G, K̃, φ̃, Y ) defines a self-similar action of G on the
tree with vertex set Y ∗ . Thus it suffices to show the action is faithful. By Citation 1.4 and
Citation 1.5, the kernel of the action is
\ \
\ \
g −1 Domain(φ̃m )g ≤
g −1 Domain(φm )g = {1}.
m≥1 g∈G

m≥1 g∈K


The hypothesis of Proposition 1.7 occurs when the self-similar action of the finite index
subgroup comes from
simple virtual endomorphism or when a self-similar group K has
T aT
the property that m≥1 g∈K g −1 StabK (xm )g = {1}, for instance when K acts transitively
on the levels of the tree.

As an application of Proposition 1.7, we use a result from [SVV11] to prove that every
finitely generated virtually free group is self-similar.
Consider the following recursively defined automorphisms of T2 :
a = (0 1)(c, b),

b = (0 1)(b, c),

c = σ0 (d1 , d1 )

di = σi (di+1 , di+1), 1 ≤ i ≤ n − 1 and dn = σn (a, a)
where an odd number of the σi ’s are not the identity permutation.
Citation 1.8. [SVV11] The automorphisms a, b, c, d1 , . . . , dn generate a free group of
rank n + 3.
Lemma 1.9. Let a, b, c, d1 , . . . , dn be defined as above and suppose σ1 = (0 1) and σi = id
for i 6= 1. Then a acts transitively on the levels of T2 .
Proof. By [Nek05, Lemma 1.10.3], an automorphism g of T2 is transitive on all levels of T2
if and only if for every n ≥ 0 the number of vertices v at level n where g|v is non-trivial is
odd. We claim this is the case for g = a.
We induct on the level in T2 . Clearly, the number of vertices on level 0 with non-trivial
permutation label is odd since a|∅ = (0 1).

6

R. SKIPPER AND M. C. B. ZAREMSKY

Now suppose for n ≥ 1, a|v is non-trivial for an odd number of vertices v on the nth
level. We claim that the parity of the number of non-trivial permutations does not change
from level n to level n + 1. Indeed, fix v a vertex on the nth level and let v0 and v1 be the
two vertices adjacent to v on level (n + 1). If av ∈ {a, b, c, d2 , . . . , dn } then a|v is non-trivial
if and only if exactly one of a|vi is non-trivial for i = 0, 1. In particular the parity of the
number of non-trivial permutations is preserved when passing from v to v0 and v1 . The
only remaining possibility is that av = d1 . In this case, a|v is non-trivial and a|v0 and a|v1
are either both trivial (if n > 4) or both non-trivial (if n = 4). But the number of d1 ’s
appearing as states of a on a given level is visibly even, and so in this case too, the parity
of the number of non-trivial permutations is preserved when passing from v to v0 and v1 .
This completes the induction.

Corollary 1.10. Every finitely generated virtually free group G admits a faithful selfsimilar action on some Td .
Proof. Every such G is virtually Fn for some n ≥ 4. By Lemma 1.9 the hypothesis of
Proposition 1.7 is met, using K = Fn . Proposition 1.7 now gives us the result.

1.3. Almost-automorphism groups. In addition to Aut(Td ) we will also be interested
in AAut(Td ), the group of almost-automorphisms of Td . An almost-automorphism of Td is
not an automorphism of Td , but rather a certain self-homeomorphism of the boundary ∂Td
“locally determined” by automorphisms of Td . To make this precise, we need some setup.
Definition 1.11 (Complete subtree, d-caret, complement). A subtree T of Td is called
a rooted complete subtree if it has the same root as Td and for each non-leaf vertex v of
T , every vertex of Td adjacent to v lies in T . The d-caret is the rooted complete subtree
of Td where every non-root vertex is a leaf. The complement T c of T is the set theoretic
complement Td \ T̊ , where T̊ is T with its leaves removed (note that the interiors of the
edges incident to the leaves remain in T̊ ).
Let T be a finite rooted complete subtree of Td with n leaves. The complement T c is a
forest consisting of n disjoint copies of Td . In particular if T− and T+ are two finite rooted
d-ary trees, each with n leaves, then given n automorphisms f1 , . . . , fn ∈ Aut(Td ) and a
permutation σ ∈ Sn , we can consider the bijection σ(f1 , . . . , fn ) : T+c → T−c given by, for
each 1 ≤ i ≤ n, applying fi to the ith tree of T+c and then sending it to the σ(i)th tree of
T−c .
Definition 1.12 (Almost-automorphism). A triple (T− , σ(f1 , . . . , fn ), T+ ) with T± and
σ(f1 , . . . , fn ) as above induces a self-homeomorphism of ∂Td , which we denote by
((T− , σ(f1 , . . . , fn ), T+ ))
and call an almost-automorphism of Td .
Two different triples may represent the same almost-automorphism, for instance
((T, (id, . . . , id), T )) = ((U, (id, . . . , id), U))

ALMOST-AUTOMORPHISMS OF TREES, CLONING SYSTEMS AND FINITENESS PROPERTIES

7

for any T and U. More generally, [LB17, Lemma 2.3] says the following:
Citation 1.13. [LB17, Lemma 2.3] The almost-automorphisms ((T− , σ(f1 , . . . , fn ), T+ ))
and ((U− , τ (g1 , . . . , gm ), U+ )) are equal if and only if there exist finite rooted complete subtrees V− and V+ of Td , with T− , U− ⊆ V− and T+ , U+ ⊆ V+ , such that σ(f1 , . . . , fn ) and
τ (g1 , . . . , gm ) restrict to bijections V+c → V−c and these bijections coincide.
We recall here some important subgroups of AAut(Td ), namely the Higman–Thompson
group and the family of Nekrashevych groups. See also Definition 3.2 and Section 7.2 of
#»
[LB17]. The notation id denotes a tuple whose entries are all id.
Definition 1.14 (Higman–Thompson group). The Higman–Thompson group Vd is the
subgroup of AAut(Td ) consisting of those almost-automorphisms of the form
#»
((T− , σ id, T+ )).
Definition 1.15 (Nekrashevych group). Let G be a self-similar subgroup of Aut(Td ).
The Nekrashevych group Vd (G) is the subgroup of AAut(Td ) consisting of all almostautomorphisms of the form ((T− , σ(g1 , . . . , gn ), T+ )) for gi ∈ G and σ ∈ Sn .
In [LB17, Subsection 7.2] Vd (G) is denoted AAutG (Td ). Sometimes Vd (G) is called the
Nekrashevych–Röver group of G, and sometimes the terms Nekrashevych group and/or
Nekrashevych–Röver group are reserved for the case when G is finite. Here we will always
allow any self-similar G, and will use the (comparitively more concise) term Nekrashevych
group. The Röver group is the specific group V2 (Grig) for Grig the Grigorchuk group, first
introduced in [R9̈9] and proved to be of type F∞ in [BM16].
Example 1.16. For any D ≤ Sd we can embed D into Aut(Td ) by viewing the vertices of
Td as words in the alphabet {1, . . . , d}. Let ι : D → Aut(Td ) be this embedding, and let
G := ι(D). Then the wreath recursion of any g ∈ G is g = (ι−1 (g))(g, . . . , g), so G is selfsimilar, and it therefore makes sense to consider the Nekrashevych group Vd (G). This is
an example of an FSS group, as in [Hug09, FH15] (see in particular [FH15, Remark 2.13]),
and is of type F∞ [FH15, Corollary 6.6].
Example 1.17. Let A be the cylic group of order d, say A = hai, and view A as a subgroup
of Aut(Td ) by letting a permute just the first level of Td . Let B be a finitely generated group
and ρ : B → B an automorphism, and suppose there exists a homomorphism ω : B → A
such that no non-trivial ρ-orbit lies entirely in ker(ω). Map B to Aut(Td ) by declaring the
wreath recursion b = (ω(b), id, . . . , id, ρ(b)). This defines a faithful action on Td since we
have assumed that for any 1B 6= b ∈ B there exists n such that ω(ρn (b)) 6= 1A . Viewing
B as a subgroup of Aut(Td ) in this way, define Gω,ρ := hA, Bi. We call this the abstract
Šunić group for ω and ρ. It is self-similar by construction. See Subsection 5.2 for more
details and background about these groups, including a proof that the Nekrashevych Vd (G)
is of type F∞ for any abstract Sunic group G. Note that the Grigorchuk group Grig is the
abstract Šunić group with d = 2, B = {1B , b, c, d} ∼
= K4 , ω : K4 → A given by b, c 7→ a,
and ρ : K4 → K4 given by b 7→ c 7→ d.

8

R. SKIPPER AND M. C. B. ZAREMSKY

2. d-ary cloning systems
In [WZ14], the framework of cloning systems was established to encode certain families
of groups into a Thompson-like group. Examples include the classical Thompson groups
F and V , the braided Thompson groups of Brin and Dehornoy [Bri07, Deh06], Thompson
groups for upper triangular matrix groups [WZ14] and the generalized Thompson groups
of Tanushevski [Tan16]. In this section we establish d-ary analogs, which we call d-ary
cloning systems, and show that AAut(Td ) and any Nekrashevych group Vd (G) arise as
Thompson-like groups of d-ary cloning systems. We remark that these particular cloning
systems seem somewhat related to examples developed by Tanushevski [Tan16], and it
would be interesting to pin down the connection.
2.1. General d-ary cloning systems. The setup in [WZ14] only accounted for Thompson structures coming from binary trees. Since we are dealing with d-ary trees, we need
to establish cloning systems for the d-ary situation. To avoid a long digression into the
abstract world of Brin–Zappa–Szép products, we will not follow the construction in [WZ14]
but rather the shorter introduction to cloning systems in [Zar18]. This has the additional
advantage that certain data from [WZ14], namely a family of maps (ιm,n )m≤n , will be unnecessary. As a remark, similar, and many additional, improvements were also made by
Witzel in a paper in preparation, also eliminating the (ιm,n )m≤n , and developing a more
categorical framework for cloning systems.
Let d ≥ 2 be an integer and (Gn )n∈N a family of groups. Suppose we have a representation
map ρn : Gn → Sn to the symmetric group Sn , for each n ∈ N, and an injective function
κnk : Gn → Gn+d−1 (not necessarily a homomorphism) for each pair (k, n) with 1 ≤ k ≤ n.
To be consistent with [WZ14], we will write the ρn to the left and κnk to the right of their
arguments, so expressions like ρn (g) and (g)κnk will be standard.
Definition 2.1. The triple ((Gn )n∈N , (ρn )n∈N , (κnk )k≤n ) is called a d-ary cloning system,
and the functions κnk are d-ary cloning maps, provided the following axioms hold:
(C1): (Cloning a product) (gh)κnk = (g)κnρn (h)k (h)κnk .
n+d−1
(C2): (Product of clonings) κnℓ ◦ κkn+d−1 = κnk ◦ κℓ+d−1
.

(C3): (Compatibility) ρn+d−1 ((g)κnk )(i) = (ρn (g))ςkn (i) for all i 6= k, k + 1, . . . , k + d − 1.
Here we always have 1 ≤ k < ℓ ≤ n and g, h ∈ Gn , and ςkn denotes the standard d-ary
cloning maps for the symmetric groups, which we discuss in Example 2.2.
For the sake of giving the reader some intuition, we summarize some of the background
from [WZ14] that has been swept under the rug. The ρn reflect a left action of the Gn
on the so called forest monoid, or in this context the monoid of d-ary forests, and the
κnk reflect a right action of this monoid on the Gn (or rather on their direct limit under
a directed system of inclusions ιm,n , which for our current level of detail we are able to
ignore). These mutual actions describe how to “pull” a d-caret “through” an element of Gn ,
namely they dictate where the d-caret emerges and which element of Gn+d−1 is produced.

ALMOST-AUTOMORPHISMS OF TREES, CLONING SYSTEMS AND FINITENESS PROPERTIES

9

While the κnk are not group homomorphisms, (C1) shows that they are sort of “twisted”
homomorphisms, twisted via the action from the ρn . The cloning axiom (C2) mirrors the
defining relations in the d-ary forest monoid, and (C3) ensures that the ρn and κnk behave
well enough together that a Thompson-like group can be naturally constructed.
Example 2.2. (Symmetric groups) Consider the family (Sn )n∈N of symmetric groups. Let
ρn : Sn → Sn be the identity and define ςkn : Sn → Sn+d−1 via

σ(i)
if i ≤ k and σ(i) ≤ σ(k)




if i < k and σ(i) > σ(k)
 σ(i) + d − 1
σ(i − d + 1)
if i > k + d − 1 and σ(i − d + 1) < σ(k)
((σ)ςkn )(i) :=


σ(i − d + 1) + d − 1 if i ≥ k + d − 1 and σ(i − d + 1) ≥ σ(k)


 σ(k) + i − k
if k < i < k + d − 1.

Then ((Sn )n∈N , (idSn )n , (ςkn )k≤n ) is a d-ary cloning system. There is nothing to prove for
(C3), and proving (C1) and (C2) is straightforward but tedious, so we will leave this as an
exercise. We refer the reader to [WZ14, Example 2.9] for a complete proof in the the d = 2
case.
A picture will make this much more clear: see Figure 1 for an example of ςkn .
1

2

3

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

ς3

3
−→

1

2

3

Figure 1. An example of 3-ary cloning in the symmetric groups. Here we
see that (1 2 3)ς33 = (1 4 2 5 3). The arrow getting “cloned” is dashed, as
are the three arrows resulting from the cloning.
Note that we are not including “d” in the notation ςkn , since it will always be clear from
context, but the reader should be aware that by ςkn here we always mean the d-ary cloning
maps on the symmetric groups, for whichever d is relevant, and not just the 2-ary cloning
maps denoted ςkn in [WZ14].
Given a d-ary cloning system on a family of groups (Gn )n∈N , we can construct a Thompsonlike group T (G∗ ), as in [WZ14, Subsection 2.4]. An element of T (G∗ ) is represented by
a triple (T− , g, T+ ), where T± are finite rooted d-ary trees with the same number of leaves,
say n, and g ∈ Gn . (Note that the number of leaves must be of the form 1 + r(d − 1) for
some r ∈ N ∪ {0}, so the Gn for n not of this form do not actually go into the construction
of T (G∗ ).) Two such triples (T− , g, T+ ) and (U− , h, U+ ) represent the same element of
T (G∗ ) if we can obtain one from the other via a sequence of expansions and reductions.
An expansion of (T− , g, T+) is a triple (T−′ , (g)κnk , T+′ ), where T+′ is T+ with a d-caret added
to its kth leaf and T−′ is T− with a d-caret added to its ρn (g)(k)th leaf. A reduction is

10

R. SKIPPER AND M. C. B. ZAREMSKY

the reverse of an expansion. The equivalence class of (T− , g, T+ ) under expansions and
reductions is denoted [T− , g, T+ ].
For example the d-ary cloning system ((Sn )n∈N , (idSn )n , (ςkn )k≤n ) gives rise to the Higman–
Thompson group T (S∗ ) ∼
= Vd .
There is a natural notion of a subsystem of a d-ary cloning system, which we define next.
Definition 2.3 (Cloning subsystem). Let ((Gn )n∈N , (ρn )n∈N , (κnk )k≤n ) be a d-ary cloning
system. Let (Hn )n∈N be a family of subgroups Hn ≤ Gn such that (Hn )κnk ⊆ Hn+d−1 for all
k ≤ n. The families of restrictions ρ′n and (κnk )′ , of the ρn and κnk respectively, clearly satisfy
the conditions to yield a d-ary cloning system on (Hn )n∈N . We call the d-ary cloning system
((Hn )n∈N , (ρ′n )n∈N , ((κnk )′ )k≤n ) a d-ary cloning subsystem of ((Gn )n∈N , (ρn )n∈N , (κnk )k≤n ).
A d-ary cloning subsystem on a family Hn ≤ Gn yields a Thompson-like subgroup
T (H∗ ) ≤ T (G∗ ). The fact that the Hn are stable under applying the cloning maps
ensures that T (H∗ ) is closed under taking products.
2.2. d-ary cloning systems for tree automorphism groups. Now consider the family
of groups (Sn ≀ Aut(Td ))n∈N . For notational convenience set
An := Sn ≀ Aut(Td ).
It will be helpful to be able to visualize elements of An . We can draw an element
σ(f1 , . . . , fn ) ∈ An by drawing n arrows representing σ (like in Figure 1), labeled by
elements of Aut(Td ) at the bases of the arrows. See Figure 2 for an example.

f1

f2

f3

f4

Figure 2. The element (1 2 3)(f1 , f2 , f3 , f4 ) of A4 .
Multiplication in the wreath product is mirrored in the pictures. To draw the product
σ(f1 , . . . , fn )τ (g1 , . . . , gn ), we stack the picture for σ(f1 , . . . , fn ) on top of the picture for
τ (g1 , . . . , gn ) and pull the fi down through τ to get the picture for στ (fτ (1) g1 , . . . , fτ (n) gn ).
See Figure 3 for an example.
We now encode the family (An )n∈N into a cloning system. For each n ∈ N define
ρn : An → Sn via σ(f1 , . . . , fn ) 7→ σ. For each 1 ≤ k ≤ n define κnk : An → An+d−1 via
σ(f1 , . . . , fn ) 7→ (σ)ςkn ρ(k) (fk )(f1 , . . . , fk−1 , fk1 , . . . , fkd, fk+1 , . . . , fn ),
where fk = ρ(fk )(fk1 , . . . , fkd ) is the wreath recursion of fk , and ρ(k) is the composition of
ρ : Aut(Td ) → Sd with the (k-dependent) monomorphism Sd → Sn+d−1 induced by the

ALMOST-AUTOMORPHISMS OF TREES, CLONING SYSTEMS AND FINITENESS PROPERTIES 11

f1

f2

f3

f4

=
f1 g1 f3 g2 f4 g3 f2 g4

g1

g2

g3

g4

Figure 3. A visualization of (1 2 3)(f1 , f2 , f3 , f4 )(2 3 4)(g1, g2 , g3 , g4 ) =
(1 2)(3 4)(f1 g1 , f3 g2 , f4 g3 , f2 g4 ) in A4 .
injection {1, . . . , d} → {1, . . . , n + d − 1} sending j to k + j − 1. Note that κnk is injective,
since ςkn is injective and fk is uniquely determined by its wreath recursion.
See Figure 4 for an example of how κnk works.

κ2

2
−→

id

f
id

f

f

Figure 4. An example of 2-ary cloning in the An . Here f = (1 2)(f, f ) ∈
Aut(T2 ) denotes the automorphism induced from the bijection {0, 1} →
{0, 1} switching 0 and 1. The picture shows that ((1 2)(id, f ))κ22 =
(1 3 2)(2 3)(id, f, f ). We use dashed lines to indicate the arrow getting
cloned and the resulting arrows. To see where the (1 3 2)(2 3) in the output
comes from, note that (1 2)ς22 = (1 3 2) and ρ(2) (f ) = (2 3).
Proposition 2.4. ((An )n∈N , (ρn )n∈N , (κnk )k≤n ) is a d-ary cloning system.
Proof. For (C1), consider f = σ(f1 , . . . , fn ) and g = τ (g1 , . . . , gn ) in An and let 1 ≤ k ≤ n.
Multiplication in the wreath product An = Sn ≀Aut(Td ) gives us f g = στ (fτ (1) g1 , . . . , fτ (n) gn ).
The kth entry of this is fτ (k) gk , and looking at the definition of κnk we see we will need to
know the wreath recursion of fτ (k) gk . If we write the wreath recursions fτ (k) = ρ(fτ (k) )(fτ1(k) , . . . , fτd(k) )

12

R. SKIPPER AND M. C. B. ZAREMSKY

and gk = ρ(gk )(gk1, . . . , gkd ), then
ρ(g )(1) 1
ρ(g )(d)
gk , . . . , fτ (k)k gkd ).

fτ (k) gk = ρ(fτ (k) )ρ(gk )(fτ (k)k

We can now apply κnk to f g to get that the left hand side of (C1) is
(f g)κnk =(στ )ςkn ρ(k) (fτ (k) gk )
ρ(g )(1) 1
ρ(g )(d)
gk , . . . , fτ (k)k gkd , fτ (k+1) gk+1 , . . . , fτ (n) gn ).

(fτ (1) g1 , . . . , fτ (k−1) gk−1 , fτ (k)k

Call (στ )ςkn ρ(k) (fτ (k) gk ) the “permutation part” of the left hand side, denoted Pℓ , and call
the remaining expression the “tuple part” of the left hand side, denoted Tℓ . Now we
move to the right hand side of (C1), where we will also isolate a permutation part Pr and
tuple part Tr . The right hand side is the product (f )κnτ(k) (g)κnk , which we can write down
knowing the wreath recursions for f and g. We get
(f )κnτ(k) (g)κnk =(σ)ςτn(k) ρ(τ (k)) (fτ (k) )(f1 , . . . , fτ (k)−1 , fτ1(k) , . . . , fτd(k) , fτ (k)+1 , . . . , fn )
(τ )ςkn ρ(k) (gk )(g1 , . . . , gk−1, gk1, . . . , gkd , gk+1, . . . , gn ).
Multiplication in An+d−1 = Sn+d−1 ≀ Aut(Td ) tells us that this equals
(σ)ςτn(k) ρ(τ (k)) (fτ (k) )(τ )ςkn ρ(k) (gk )
n (k) (g

(f1 , . . . , fτ (k)−1 , fτ1(k) , . . . , fτd(k) , fτ (k)+1 , . . . , fn )(τ )ςk ρ

k)

(g1 , . . . , gk−1, gk1 , . . . , gkd , gk+1, . . . , gn )
so now we have our Pr and Tr . We need to prove that Pℓ = Pr and Tℓ = Tr , and then we
will be done verifying (C1). To prove that Pℓ = Pr we need to show that
(στ )ςkn ρ(k) (fτ (k) gk ) = (σ)ςτn(k) ρ(τ (k)) (fτ (k) )(τ )ςkn ρ(k) (gk ).
We can expand Pℓ using the fact that (C1) holds for the d-ary cloning maps ςkn for the
symmetric groups and the fact that ρ(k) is a homomorphism, and get
Pℓ = (σ)ςτn(k) (τ )ςkn ρ(k) (fτ (k) )ρ(k) (gk ).
It now suffices to show that (τ )ςkn ρ(k) (fτ (k) ) = ρ(τ (k)) (fτ (k) )(τ )ςkn . For 1 ≤ i ≤ n + d − 1,
if i 6= k, . . . , k + d − 1 then ρ(k) (fτ (k) )(i) = i, so (τ )ςkn ρ(k) (fτ (k) )(i) = (τ )ςkn (i). For such i,
we have (τ )ςkn (i) 6= τ (k), . . . , τ (k) + d − 1, so ρ(τ (k)) (fτ (k) ) fixes (τ )ςkn (i) and we conclude
that both sides of the equality send i to (τ )ςkn (i). Now suppose i ∈ {k, . . . , k + d − 1}. Let
φk : {1, . . . , d} → {k, . . . , k +d−1} be the bijection sending j to j +k −1, so ρ(k) (fτ (k) )(i) =

ALMOST-AUTOMORPHISMS OF TREES, CLONING SYSTEMS AND FINITENESS PROPERTIES 13

φk ρ(fτ (k) )φ−1
k (i). We have
(τ )ςkn ρ(k) (fτ (k) )(i) = (τ )ςkn φk ρ(fτ (k) )φ−1
k (i)
= (τ )ςkn φk ρ(fτ (k) )(i − k + 1)


n
= (τ )ςk ρ(fτ (k) )(i − k + 1) + k − 1


= τ (k) + ρ(fτ (k) )(i − k + 1) + k − 1 − k

= ρ(fτ (k) )(i − k + 1) + τ (k) − 1
= φτ (k) ρ(fτ (k) )(i − k + 1)

= φτ (k) ρ(fτ (k) )φ−1
τ (k) (τ (k) + i − k)
= ρ(τ (k)) (fτ (k) )(τ (k) + i − k)
= ρ(τ (k)) (fτ (k) )(τ )ςkn (i)
To prove that Tℓ = Tr it suffices (after deleting the common gi factors) to prove that
ρ(g )(1)

(fτ (1) , . . . , fτ (k−1) , fτ (k)k

ρ(g )(d)

, . . . , fτ (k)k

, fτ (k+1) , . . . , fτ (n) )
n (k) (g

= (f1 , . . . , fτ (k)−1 , fτ1(k) , . . . , fτd(k) , fτ (k)+1 , . . . , fn )(τ )ςk ρ

k)

.

The action of (τ )ςkn ρ(k) (gk ) ∈ Sn+d−1 on (f1 , . . . , fτ (k)−1 , fτ1(k) , . . . , fτd(k) , fτ (k)+1 , . . . , fn ) is
given by permuting the entries. More precisely, this (n + d − 1)-tuple is a function from
{1, . . . , n + d − 1} to Aut(Td ) and the action of Sn+d−1 is via precomposition. Since
the action of Sn+d−1 on {1, . . . , n + d − 1} is a left action, its action on the tuples is
a right action (as indicated by the notation). When we apply (τ )ςkn to the tuple we
get (fτ (1) , . . . , fτ (k−1) , fτ1(k) , . . . , fτd(k) , fτ (k+1) , . . . , fτ (n) ). Then when we follow this up with
ρ(g )(1)

ρ(g )(d)

ρ(k) (gk ) we get (fτ (1) , . . . , fτ (k−1) , fτ (k)k , . . . , fτ (k)k , fτ (k+1) , . . . , fτ (n) ) as desired. This
concludes the verification of (C1). Also see Figure 5 for a helpful picture of (C1) in action.
n+d−1
For (C2) we need to show that κnℓ ◦ κkn+d−1 = κnk ◦ κℓ+d−1
whenever k < ℓ. Applying the
left side function to f = σ(f1 , . . . , fn ) ∈ An we obtain


(σ)ςℓn ρ(ℓ) (fℓ )(f1 , . . . , fℓ−1, fℓ1 , . . . , fℓd , fℓ+1 , . . . , fn ) κkn+d−1


n (ℓ)
= (σ)ςℓ ρ (fℓ ) ςkn+d−1 ρ(k) (fk )

(f1 , . . . , fk−1, fk1 , . . . , fkd , fk+1 , . . . , fℓ−1 , fℓ1 , . . . , fℓd , fℓ+1 , . . . , fn ).

Since k < ℓ we have the following five useful facts:
(ℓ)
(1) ρ
 (fℓ )(k)
 =k
(ℓ)
(2) ρ (fℓ ) ςkn+d−1 = ρ(ℓ+d−1) (fℓ )

(3) ρ(k) (fk )ρ(ℓ+d−1) (fℓ ) = ρ(ℓ+d−1) (fℓ )ρ(k) (fk )

14

R. SKIPPER AND M. C. B. ZAREMSKY



n+d−1
(4) ρ(k) (fk ) = ρ(k) (fk ) ςℓ+d−1

(5) ρ(k) (fk )(ℓ + d − 1) = ℓ + d − 1 .

Using these, together with (C1) and (C2) for the d-ary cloning maps ςkn on the symmetric
groups, which we will call (S1) and (S2) here, gives us






(S1),(1)
(σ)ςℓn ρ(ℓ) (fℓ ) ςkn+d−1 ρ(k) (fk ) =
(σ)ςℓn ςkn+d−1 ρ(ℓ) (fℓ ) ςkn+d−1 ρ(k) (fk )


(S2),(2)
n+d−1 (ℓ+d−1)
=
(σ)ςkn ςℓ+d−1
ρ
(fℓ )ρ(k) (fk )


(3)
n+d−1 (k)
= (σ)ςkn ςℓ+d−1
ρ (fk )ρ(ℓ+d−1) (fℓ )




(4)
(k)
n+d−1 (ℓ+d−1)
n+d−1
n
ρ
(fℓ )
= (σ)ςk ςℓ+d−1 ρ (fk ) ςℓ+d−1


(S1),(5)
n+d−1 (ℓ+d−1)
=
(σ)ςkn ρ(k) (fk ) ςℓ+d−1
ρ
(fℓ ).

We conclude that indeed


(f )κnℓ ◦ κkn+d−1 = (σ)ςℓn ρ(ℓ) (fℓ ) ςkn+d−1 ρ(k) (fk )

(f1 , . . . , fk−1 , fk1 , . . . , fkd, fk+1 , . . . , fℓ−1 , fℓ1 , . . . , fℓd , fℓ+1 , . . . , fn )


n+d−1 (ℓ+d−1)
= (σ)ςkn ρ(k) (fk ) ςℓ+d−1
ρ
(fℓ )
(f1 , . . . , fk−1 , fk1 , . . . , fkd, fk+1 , . . . , fℓ−1 , fℓ1 , . . . , fℓd , fℓ+1 , . . . , fn )

n+d−1
=(f )κnk ◦ κℓ+d−1
.

Finally we prove (C3). This holds almost trivially: For f = σ(f1 , . . . , fn ) and i 6=
k, . . . , k + d − 1 we have
ρn+d−1 ((f )κnk )(i) = (σ)ςkn ρ(k) (fk )(i) = (σ)ςkn (i) = (ρn (f ))ςkn (i)
since the support of ρ(k) (fk ) is {k, . . . , k + d − 1}.



The d-ary cloning system on (An )n∈N yields a Thompson group T (A∗ ). Note that the
Higman–Thompson group Vd embeds into T (A∗ ) as the subgroup of elements of the form
#»
[T− , σ id, T+ ]. Also, for T any finite rooted d-ary tree, say with n leaves, An embeds into
T (A∗ ) as the subgroup A(T ) := {[T, f, T ] | f ∈ An }, by [WZ14, Observation 3.1] (or really
its natural d-ary analog). For example Aut(Td ) itself embeds as A(11 ) via f 7→ [11 , f, 11 ],
where 11 the trivial tree. We will sometimes equivocate between Aut(Td ) and A(11 ) without
comment.
We are almost ready to prove that T (A∗ ) ∼
= AAut(Td ) (Theorem 2.6), but first need a
technical lemma. This lemma should also reveal to the reader where our definition of the
cloning maps κnk came from.

ALMOST-AUTOMORPHISMS OF TREES, CLONING SYSTEMS AND FINITENESS PROPERTIES 15

f

f

id

id

f

id

f

f

f

Figure 5. Returning to the example in Figure 4, we will check that the
“cloning a product” axiom (C1) holds when applying κ22 to the product
((1 2)(id, f ))((1 2)(id, f )). Note that ((1 2)(id, f ))((1 2)(id, f )) = (f, f ). The
left picture here is of the left side of (C1), which is (f, f )κ22 , and the right
picture is of the right side of (C1), which is ((1 2)(id, f ))κ21 ((1 2)(id, f ))κ22 .
From the pictures, it is clear that these are indeed the same.
Lemma 2.5. Let ((T− , σ(f1 , . . . , fn ), T+ )) ∈ AAut(Td ). Choose 1 ≤ k ≤ n, and let U+ be
the finite rooted d-ary tree obtained by adding a d-caret to the kth leaf of T+ , so U+ has n +
d−1 leaves. Then ((T− , σ(f1 , . . . , fn ), T+ )) = ((U− , τ (g1 , . . . , gn+d−1 ), U+ )) if and only if U−
equals T− with a d-caret added to its σ(k)th leaf and τ (g1 , . . . , gn+d−1 ) = (σ(f1 , . . . , fn ))κnk .
Proof. First suppose that U− equals T− with a d-caret added to its σ(k)th leaf and that
τ (g1 , . . . , gn+d−1 ) = (σ(f1 , . . . , fn ))κnk , and we want to show that
((T− , σ(f1 , . . . , fn ), T+ )) = ((U− , (σ(f1 , . . . , fn ))κnk , U+ )).
By Citation 1.13 applied to this special case, it suffices to show that when we restrict
σ(f1 , . . . , fn ) to U+c it maps bijectively to U−c and coincides with (σ(f1 , . . . , fn ))κnk . That it
restricts to a bijection U+c → U−c is just because σ(f1 , . . . , fn ) takes the kth tree in T+c to the
σ(k)th tree in T−c . Now we need to understand what this restriction looks like. Applying
σ(f1 , . . . , fn ) to T+c amounts to first applying fi to the ith tree, for each 1 ≤ i ≤ n, and
then applying σ to shuffle the trees. When we remove the d-caret on the kth root from
T+c to obtain U+c , this becomes: first apply fi to the ith tree, for each 1 ≤ i < k and
k + d − 1 < i ≤ n, then apply fki to the (i + k − 1)st tree for each 1 ≤ i ≤ d, where
fk = ρ(fk )(fk1 , . . . , fkd ) is the wreath recursion of fk , and then shuffle the trees, first by
shuffling trees k through k + d − 1 according to ρ(fk ) and then by shuffling all the trees by
(σ)ςkn . But this exactly describes (σ(f1 , . . . , fn ))κnk .

16

R. SKIPPER AND M. C. B. ZAREMSKY

Now suppose ((T− , σ(f1 , . . . , fn ), T+ )) = ((U− , τ (g1 , . . . , gn+d−1 ), U+ )). Let U−? be T−
with a d-caret added to its σ(k)th leaf, so by the previous paragraph we know
((T− , σ(f1 , . . . , fn ), T+ )) = ((U−? , (σ(f1 , . . . , fn ))κnk , U+ ))
and hence
((U− , τ (g1 , . . . , gn+d−1 ), U+ )) = ((U−? , (σ(f1 , . . . , fn ))κnk , U+ )).
We need to show that U− = U−? and τ (g1 , . . . , gn+d−1) = (σ(f1 , . . . , fn ))κnk . Choose a finite
V+ ⊇ U+ such that the restrictions of τ (g1 , . . . , gn+d−1 ) and (σ(f1 , . . . , fn ))κnk to V+c coincide,
so composing one with the inverse of the other is the identity on V+c , hence is necessarily the
identity on U+c , so indeed τ (g1 , . . . , gn+d−1) = (σ(f1 , . . . , fn ))κnk . Then it is immediate that
U− = U−? since the former is the complement of the image of U+c under τ (g1 , . . . , gn+d−1)
and the latter is the complement of the image of U+c under (σ(f1 , . . . , fn ))κnk .

We can now prove our main result connecting d-ary cloning systems and almost-automorphisms.
Theorem 2.6 (AAut(Td ) from cloning). We have T (A∗ ) ∼
= AAut(Td ).
Proof. Define Φ : T (A∗ ) → AAut(Td ) via [T− , f, T+ ] 7→ ((T− , f, T+ )) and Ψ : AAut(Td ) →
T (A∗ ) via ((T− , f, T+ )) 7→ [T− , f, T+ ]. We need to prove that both of these are well defined
homomorphisms, and then since they are obviously inverses they will be isomorphisms.
First we claim Φ is well defined. Suppose [T− , f, T+ ] = [U− , g, U+ ] and we need to show
that ((T− , f, T+ )) = ((U− , g, U+ )). Since we know we can get from (T− , f, T+ ) to (U− , g, U+ )
via a sequence of reductions and expansions, it suffices to prove that ((T− , f, T+ )) =
((U− , g, U+ )) holds whenever (U− , g, U+ ) is an expansion of (T− , f, T+ ). Say U+ is T+ with
a d-caret added to the kth leaf, so g = (f )κnk and U− is T− with a d-caret added to the
σ(k)th leaf (here f = σ(f1 , . . . , fn )). Now Lemma 2.5 says ((T− , f, T+ )) = ((U− , g, U+ )).
Next we claim Ψ is well defined. Suppose ((T− , f, T+ )) = ((U− , g, U+ )) and we need to
show that [T− , f, T+ ] = [U− , g, U+ ]. First note that if U+ is T+ with a d-caret added to
the kth leaf, then Lemma 2.5 says that U− is T− with a d-caret added to the σ(k)th leaf
(where again f = σ(f1 , . . . , fn )) and g = (f )κnk . In particular [T− , f, T+ ] = [U− , g, U+ ]. Now,
returning to the general case, Citation 1.13 says there exist finite rooted complete subtrees
V− and V+ of Td , with T− , U− ⊆ V− and T+ , U+ ⊆ V+ , such that f and g restrict to bijections
V+c → V−c and these bijections coincide. In particular ((T− , f, T+ )) = ((V− , h, V+ )) =
((U− , g, U+ )) where h is the common restriction of f and g to V+c → V−c . We can build
up from T+ to V+ adding a d-caret at a time, and the previous discussion then gives us
[T− , f, T+ ] = [V− , h, V+ ]. Then a parallel argument shows [V− , h, V+ ] = [U− , g, U+ ], so
[T− , f, T+ ] = [U− , g, U+ ] as desired.
Lastly we claim Φ is a homomorphism (and then Ψ = Φ−1 is too, for trivial reasons). Let [T− , f, T+ ], [U− , g, U+ ] ∈ T (A∗ ). After possibly expanding representative
triples, we can assume T+ = U− . In particular [T− , f, T+ ][U− , g, U+ ] = [T− , f g, U+ ]. Since

ALMOST-AUTOMORPHISMS OF TREES, CLONING SYSTEMS AND FINITENESS PROPERTIES 17

((T− , f, T+ ))((U− , g, U+ )) = ((T− , f g, U+)) is obviously true whenever T+ = U− , we have
Φ([T− , f, T+ ][U− , g, U+ ]) = Φ([T− , f g, U+ ]) = ((T− , f g, U+ ))
= ((T− , f, T+ ))((U− , g, U+ )) = Φ([T− , f, T+ ])Φ([U− , g, U+ ]).

Now let G ≤ Aut(Td ) be self-similar. Since G is self-similar we have κnk (Sn ≀ G) ⊆
Sn+d−1 ≀ G. Hence our cloning system on (An )n∈N restricts to a cloning subsystem on
(Sn ≀ G)n∈N , and we get a Thompson-like group T (S∗ ≀ G).
Corollary 2.7 (Nekrashevych from cloning). For any self-similar G ≤ Aut(Td ), we have
T (S∗ ≀ G) ∼
= Vd (G).
Proof. Let Φ : T (A∗ ) → AAut(Td ) be the isomorphism [T− , f, T+ ] 7→ ((T− , f, T+ )) from
the proof of Theorem 2.6. We have that [T− , f, T+ ] ∈ T (S∗ ≀ G) if and only if we can
choose f ∈ Sn ≀ G (maybe after performing some expansions). Then Φ([T− , f, T+ ]) =
((T− , f, T+ )) ∈ Vd (G). Hence Φ takes T (S∗ ≀ G) into Vd (G), and it is onto by a parallel
argument involving Ψ = Φ−1 .

Remark 2.8. In [WZ14, Observation 2.27] it is implied that every cloning system maps
to the standard cloning system on the symmetric groups via the ρn . However, this is
only true if (C3) holds even for i = k, k + 1 (or i = k, . . . , k + d − 1 in the d-ary case).
This extra assumption was correctly included in [WZ14, Lemma 3.2], which used [WZ14,
Observation 2.27], and this error is more or less insignificant, but we want to mention it
for the record. Also, this error crept into an offhand remark in [Zar18, Section 3]. In
our current examples, (C3) does not necessarily hold for i = k, . . . , k + d − 1, thanks to
the ρ(k) (fk ) that appears in the definition of κnk . This twisting makes it so the “function”
[T− , f, T+ ] 7→ [T− , ρn (f ), T+ ] is not well defined, so the map to V containing F in its image,
referenced in [WZ14, Lemma 3.2] when (C3) holds for all i, does not exist for our examples.
In fact we know that our T (S∗ ≀ G), being isomorphic to Vd (G), cannot admit any such
map, since every proper quotient of Vd (G) is abelian [Nek04, Theorem 9.11].
2.3. Strand diagrams. There is a convenient way to visualize elements of T (A∗ ) via versions of strand diagrams, like for elements of the classical and braided Thompson groups
(see, e.g., [BBCS08]). Let [T− , σ(f1 , . . . , fn ), T+ ] ∈ T (A∗ ), so T− and T+ have n leaves.
Draw T− right side up, i.e., with its root at the top, and T+ below it and upside down,
i.e., with its root at the bottom. In between the leaves of T− and T+ draw σ(f1 , . . . , fn ),
like in Figure 2, connecting arrows to leaves as appropriate. We get a strand diagram
for [T− , σ(f1 , . . . , fn ), T+ ]. The top (range) tree, T− is a sequence of splits and the bottom (domain) tree is a sequence of merges, with σ(f1 , . . . , fn ) in the middle. Two such
pictures represent the same element of T (A∗ ) if we can get from one to the other via a
sequence of moves analogous to reductions and expansions. For example the expansion
move [T− , σ(f1 , . . . , fn ), T+ ] = [T−′ , (σ(f1 , . . . , fn ))κnk , T+′ ] can be visualized by introducing
a split-merge at the kth leaf of T+ and pulling the split up through σ(f1 , . . . , fn ). The split

18

R. SKIPPER AND M. C. B. ZAREMSKY

lands at the σ(k)th leaf of T− and σ(f1 , . . . , fn ) gets cloned to become (σ(f1 , . . . , fn ))κnk .
See Figure 6.
T−

f

id
T+

id

f

f

Figure 6. The left picture represents an element [T− , σ(f1 , f2 ), T+ ] of T (S∗ ≀
Aut(Td )). Here d = 2, T− and T+ are each a single 2-caret, σ = (1 2), and
(f1 , f2 ) = (id, f ) where f = (1 2)(f, f ) is as in Figure 4. The right picture
is an expansion of the left picture using k = 2. The arrows relevant to the
cloning are dashed.
Multiplication in T (A∗ ) is mirrored by stacking strand diagrams, with the convention
that left-to-right corresponds to top-to-bottom; see Figure 7 for an example.
T−
V−

f

id
T+

=

U−
f

=

f

id

=
f

f

id

f

f

id

f

f

2

f

id

f
V+

U+
Figure 7. The multiplication [T− , (1 2)(id, f ), T+ ][U− , (f, f, id), U+ ] =
[V− , (1 3)(f, id, f ), V+ ] in T (S∗ ≀ Aut(Td )), where the trees are all as drawn.
Here f = (1 2)(f, f ) is as in Figure 6, so in particular f 2 = id.
We will not make strand diagrams overly formal here, since we are just using them as a
helpful visualization, but a formal theory could be worked out following the classical and
braided versions; see [BM14, BBCS08, WZ14].
These strand diagrams also have an interpretation when viewing such elements as almostautomorphisms of Td . Roughly, view Td with its root at the top and stack [T− , f, T+ ] on

ALMOST-AUTOMORPHISMS OF TREES, CLONING SYSTEMS AND FINITENESS PROPERTIES 19

top of it. The domain tree T+ (of merges) cancels away the copy of T+ in Td , then f acts
on the resulting forest of n subtrees, and finally the range tree T− (of splits) closes the
forest back up into Td .
Remark 2.9. Now that we know Vd (G) ∼
= T (S∗ ≀ G), one could develop a d-ary analog of
[WZ14, Proposition 5.9] to quickly prove that if G is of type F∞ then so is Vd (G). Rather
than devote time here to developing the d-ary analog of this specific machinery (which
would be worth doing in the future), we will prove our results for more general G in the
coming sections, with this result as a trivial consequence (Corollary 4.28).
3. Morse theory and a first complex
For the rest of the paper, let G ≤ Aut(Td ) be self-similar and fix a subgroup H ≤ G. In
this section we recall some background on finiteness properties and discrete Morse theory,
and then construct a simplicial complex |PH1 | on which Vd (G) acts with stabilizers closely
related to H. After imposing some conditions on H, the action of Vd (G) on |PH1 | will be
particularly nice. In Section 4 we will retract |PH1 | down to an even nicer complex, the so
called H-Stein–Farley complex X (S∗ ≀ G)H , and impose still more conditions on H, which
will allow us to prove Vd (G) is of type F∞ in certain cases. All of this is heavily inspired
by Belk and Matucci’s work in [BM16] proving that the Röver group is of type F∞ .
3.1. Morse theory. A typical tool for proving that a group is type F∞ is to couple
Brown’s Finiteness Criterion [Bro87] with Bestvina–Brady Morse theory [BB97]. Before
stating the result (Lemma 3.1) we need some definitions. Let X be an affine cell complex
as in [BB97], for example a simplicial complex or a cube complex. Let h : X → R be a map
that restricts to a non-constant affine map on each positive dimensional cell of X, and such
that h(X (0) ) is discrete in R. We call h a Morse function. For each x ∈ X (0) define the
descending link lk↓ x of x to be the subcomplex of lk x spanned by those vertices y ∈ lk x
such that h(y) < h(x). For each q ∈ R define the sublevel set X h≤q to be the subcomplex
of X consisting of those cells contained in h−1 ((−∞, q]).
We can now state our combination of Brown’s Criterion and the Morse Lemma. It is
almost identical to [BM16, Theorem 5.7] except we do not insist on stabilizers being finite,
merely of type F∞ . Since the assumption on stabilizers is just to ensure we can apply
Brown’s Criterion, and since Brown’s Criterion goes through even with F∞ stabilizers, this
lemma is immediate.
Lemma 3.1. Let Γ be a group acting cellularly on a contractible affine cell complex X.
Let h : X → R be a Γ-equivariant Morse function. Then Γ is of type F∞ provided that the
following conditions are satisfied:
(i) For each q ∈ R the sublevel set X h≤q is Γ-cocompact.
(ii) Each cell stabilizer is of type F∞ .
(iii) For each n ∈ N there exists t ∈ R such that for all x ∈ X (0) with h(x) ≥ t we have
that lk↓ x is n-connected.

20

R. SKIPPER AND M. C. B. ZAREMSKY

3.2. Groupoid and poset. The goal of this subsection is to construct a simplicial complex
on which Vd (G) acts nicely. Much of what we do here is similar to what Belk and Matucci
did in [BM16] for the Röver group, though more in the cloning system language from
[WZ14].
First we define an important groupoid G (S∗ ≀G) related to the group T (S∗ ≀G). Consider
triples of the form (F− , f, F+ ) for F− and F+ finite rooted d-ary forests with the same
number of leaves, say n, and f an element of Sn ≀ G. Here by rooted d-ary forest we always
mean an ordered tuple of rooted d-ary trees, and the roots of these trees are called the
roots of the forest. Note that if a finite rooted d-ary forest has n leaves then it necessarily
has at most n roots. Also note that in the triple (F− , f, F+ ) we do not require F− and
F+ to have the same number of roots, only the same number of leaves. We have the same
notion of reduction and expansion as with triples (T− , f, T+ ), namely if F+′ is F+ with a
d-caret added to its kth leaf and F−′ is F− with a d-caret added to its ρn (f )(k)th leaf, then
(F−′ , (f )κnk , F+′ ) is an expansion of (F− , f, F+ ). The reverse of an expansion is a reduction.
Two triples are considered equivalent if we can get from one to the other via a sequence of
reductions and expansions, and we write [F− , f, F+ ] for the equivalence class of (F− , f, F+ ).
Note that the number of roots of each forest is invariant under this equivalence relation.
Definition 3.2 (Heads, feet). The heads of [F− , f, F+ ] are the roots of F− and the feet are
the roots of F+ .
These equivalence classes of triples form a groupoid G (S∗ ≀ G) (roughly, a groupoid is
like a group except only certain pairs of elements can be multiplied). For x, y ∈ G (S∗ ≀ G)
the product xy exists if and only if the number of feet of x equals the number of heads of
y. In this (and only this) case there exists a sequence of expansions of x and y respectively
yielding [F, f, E] and [E, g, D] for some F , E, D, f and g. Then the product is xy =
[F, f, E][E, g, D] := [F, f g, D]. This is easily checked to be a groupoid operation, for the
same reasons T (S∗ ≀ G) is a group. In fact T (S∗ ≀ G) is precisely the subgroup of G (S∗ ≀ G)
consisting of elements with 1 head and 1 foot. The identity elements of G (S∗ ≀ G) are
#»
those of the form [1n , id, 1n ] for 1n the forest consisting only of n roots (which are thus
#»
also leaves). We will also sometimes denote [1n , id, 1n ] by 1n , and it will always be clear
whether this symbol represents a forest or a groupoid element.
Remark 3.3. In exactly the same way that the group T (S∗ ≀ Aut(Td )) is isomorphic to
the group of almost-automorphisms of Td , the groupoid G (S∗ ≀ Aut(Td )) is isomorphic to
the groupoid of “almost-isomorphisms” between forests of finitely many copies of Td . That
#»
is, an element [F− , σ f , F+ ] with m heads and n feet takes n copies of Td , chops away F+ ,
#»
performs σ f on the resulting trees, and glues them together with F− into m copies of Td .
#»
In this way, we can view [F− , σ f , F+ ] as a homeomorphism from n copies of ∂Td to m
copies of ∂Td .
For n, m ∈ N let Pnm be the subset of G (S∗ ≀ G) defined by
Pnm := {x | x has m heads and n feet}.

ALMOST-AUTOMORPHISMS OF TREES, CLONING SYSTEMS AND FINITENESS PROPERTIES 21

Also set
P m :=

[

Pnm and Pn :=

[

Pnm .

m∈N

n∈N
1

Later we will be especially interested in P , since T (S∗ ≀ G) = P11 acts from the left on P 1 .
Recall that we have fixed a subgroup H ≤ G. For each n ∈ N let [1n , Sn ≀ H, 1n ] be the
group {[1n , w, 1n] | w ∈ Sn ≀ H} inside G (S∗ ≀ G), so it makes sense to multiply an element
of Pn on the right by an element of [1n , Sn ≀ H, 1n ]. For x ∈ Pn write [x]H for the coset
x[1n , Sn ≀ H, 1n ]. For notational ease, if x = [F− , f, F+ ] we will write [F− , f, F+ ]H for [x]H
rather than [[F− , f, F+ ]]H . Define PH to be
[
Pn /[1n , Sn ≀ H, 1n ].
PH :=
n∈N

Also write PHm for the subset of PH consisting of those [x]H such that x has m heads. Write
∼H for the equivalence relation on G (S∗ ≀ G) yielding PH , so PH = G (S∗ ≀ G)/ ∼H .
We want to put a poset structure on PH . First we need to define a splitting. Let ∧p nk be
the d-ary forest obtained from 1n by adding a d-caret to its kth leaf.

Definition 3.4 (Splitting, length). An element Λ ∈ G (S∗ ≀ G) of the form
#»
#»
#»
n+(r−1)(d−1)
[1n , σ0 h 0 , 1n ][∧p nk1 , σ1 h 1 , 1n+d−1 ] · · · [∧p kr
, σr h r , 1n+r(d−1) ]
#»
for some r and some choice of σi h i ∈ Sn+i(d−1) ≀H (0 ≤ i ≤ r) and 1 ≤ ki ≤ n+(i−1)(d−1)
(1 ≤ i ≤ r) is called a splitting. Note that Λ’s status as a splitting depends on the choice
of H, but since we have fixed H there will not be any terminological ambiguities. We call
r the length of Λ. If r = 0 we call Λ a trivial splitting. The length r is well defined since n
and n + r(d − 1) are invariants of Λ, namely they are its number of heads and feet. Length
is also invariant under ∼H .
Now define a partial order ≤ on PH by declaring that [x]H ≤ [y]H whenever x−1 y is a
splitting. This is obviously reflexive, is antisymmetric since any non-trivial splitting strictly
increases the number of feet, and is transitive since a product of splittings is a splitting.
Also, if [x]H = [x′ ]H and [y]H = [y ′]H then x−1 y is a splitting if and only if (x′ )−1 y ′ is a
splitting, so the definition of ≤ does not require us to locate any special representatives of
elements of PH .
Elements of G (S∗ ≀ G) can be drawn similarly to elements of T (S∗ ≀ G). Figure 8 gives
a 2-ary example of an element that is a length-2 splitting.
Note that number of heads and number of feet are invariant under the equivalence
relation coming from H, and the product xΛ only makes sense if the number of feet of x
equals the number of heads of Λ. If we want to indicate that the product xΛ makes sense,
we may call Λ a splitting of x. We may also refer to [xΛ]H as a splitting of [x]H .
As a remark, using [BM16, Definition 3.1] in the Röver group case, Belk and Matucci
would call [y]H an “expansion” of [x]H if [x]H ≤ [y]H , and reserve the term “splitting”

22

R. SKIPPER AND M. C. B. ZAREMSKY

h1

h3

h2

h4

h5

h6

#»
Figure 8. The splitting [12 , (1 2)(h1 , h2 ), 12 ][∧p 21 , id, 13][∧p 33 , (2 3 4)(h3 , h4 , h5 , h6 ), 14 ]
in G (S∗ ≀ Aut(Td )). (Here d = 2.)
for those where Λ = x−1 y has length 1. We will just use the term splitting, and will say
“length-1 splitting” when we want to only consider those.
There is a natural Morse function φ, given by counting feet, on the geometric realization
|PHm |, namely for [x]H ∈ PHm with n feet, define
φ([x]H ) := n,
and then extend φ affinely to the simplices of |PHm |. Since [x]H < [y]H in PHm implies
φ([x]H ) < φ([y]H ) we know φ is non-constant on positive-dimensional simplices, and the
image of φ in R is discrete (in fact it equals {m + (d − 1)q | q ∈ N ∪ {0}}), so φ is indeed
a Morse function on |PHm |.
At this point we begin gradually imposing assumptions on H. The first assumption
ensures that for each [x]H ∈ PHm there are only finitely many [y]H > [x]H with a given
φ-value φ([y]H ). This will be crucial when we need to deal with issues of cocompactness
and finiteness properties of stabilizers. We call this assumption “A-coarsely self-similar”:
Definition 3.5 (A-coarsely self-similar, artifact). Let A be a finite subset of Vd ∩ Aut(Td ).
Call a subgroup C ≤ Aut(Td ) A-coarsely self-similar if for every c ∈ C, given the wreath
recursion c = σ(c1 , . . . , cd ) we have that for each 1 ≤ i ≤ d either ci ∈ C or else ci ∈ A.
The elements of A will be called artifacts.
Lemma 3.6 (Key finiteness lemma). If H is A-coarsely self-similar for some finite A,
then for each [x]H ∈ PHm and each q ∈ N there are only finitely many [y]H ∈ PHm with
[x]H < [y]H and φ([y]H ) = q.
Proof. Letting n := φ([x]H ), the relevant [y]H are precisely those of the form [xΛ]H for Λ a
splitting satisfying
#»
#»
#»
n+(r−1)(d−1)
[Λ]H = [1n , σ0 h 0 , 1n ][∧p nk1 , σ1 h 1 , 1n+d−1 ] · · · [∧p kr
, σr h r , 1q ][1q , Sq ≀ H, 1q ]
#»
with length r = q−n
, and some choice of σi h i ∈ Sn+i(d−1) ≀ H and 1 ≤ ki ≤ n + (i − 1)(d − 1).
d−1
(If q − n is not divisible by d − 1 then no such y exist, so we can assume q − n is divisible
by d − 1.)

ALMOST-AUTOMORPHISMS OF TREES, CLONING SYSTEMS AND FINITENESS PROPERTIES 23

#»
We need to show that as the σi , h i and ki range over all possibilities, the set of groupoid
#»
cosets of the above form is finite. Note that for arbitrary p, k and σ h ∈ Sp ≀ H we have
#»
#»
#»
[1p , σ h , 1p ][∧p pk , id, 1p+d−1 ] = [∧p pσ(k) , (σ h )κpk , 1p+d−1]. Since H is A-coarsely self-similar, the
#»
tuple in the output of (σ h )κpk has entries from H ∪ A. Hence (assuming without loss of
generality that id ∈ A) we can rewrite
#»
#»
#»
n+(r−1)(d−1)
[1n , σ0 h 0 , 1n ][∧p nk1 , σ1 h 1 , 1n+d−1 ] · · · [∧p kr
, σr h r , 1q ][1q , Sq ≀ H, 1q ]
as
#»
n+(r−1)(d−1)
[1n , σ0 , 1n ][∧p nℓ1 , σ1 #»
a 1 , 1n+d−1 ] · · · [∧p ℓr
, σr #»
a r , 1q ][1q , σ h , 1q ][1q , Sq ≀ H, 1q ]
#»
for some 1 ≤ ℓi ≤ n + (i − 1)(d − 1), #»
a i ∈ An+i(d−1) and σ h ∈ Sn+r(d−1) ≀ H. Intuitively, we
#»
have pushed all the things from H to the right. Now observe that [1q , σ h , 1q ][1q , Sq ≀H, 1q ] =
[1q , Sq ≀ H, 1q ], so our coset is of the form
n+(r−1)(d−1)
[1 , σ , 1 ][∧p n , σ #»
a ,1
] · · · [∧p
, σ #»
a , 1 ][1 , S ≀ H, 1 ],
n

0

n

ℓ1

1

1

n+d−1

ℓr

r

r

q

q

q

q

with the only variable parameters being the σi , #»
a i and ℓi , and indeed there are only finitely
many possibilities.

The action of Vd (G) = T (S∗ ≀ G) = P11 on P 1 from the left respects ∼H , and the
poset structure on P 1 and PH1 , so Vd (G) acts on the simplicial complex |PH1 |. We now use
Lemma 3.6 to show that this action is “nice” assuming H is A-coarsely self-similar.
Lemma 3.7 (Stabilizers). Suppose H is A-coarsely self-similar for some finite A. Let [x]H
be a 0-simplex in |PH1 |, say φ([x]H ) = n. Then the stabilizer in Vd (G) of [x]H is isomorphic
to Sn ≀ H. The stabilizer of any k-simplex in |PH1 | with vertices [x]H < [x1 ]H < · · · < [xk ]H
is a finite index subgroup of StabVd (G) ([x]H ), hence a finite index subgroup of Sn ≀ H.
Proof. An element [U− , f, U+ ] ∈ Vd (G) stabilizes [x]H if and only if [U− , f, U+ ]x[1n , Sn ≀
#»
H, 1n ] = x[1n , Sn ≀ H, 1n ], if and only if there exists [1n , σ h , 1n ] ∈ [1n , Sn ≀ H, 1n ] such that
#»
#»
[U− , f, U+ ]x = x[1n , σ h , 1n ], if and only if x−1 [U− , f, U+ ]x = [1n , σ h , 1n ]. Hence there is
an injective map from the stabilizer StabVd (G) ([x]H ) to [1n , Sn ≀ H, 1n ] via
[U− , f, U+ ] 7→ x−1 [U− , f, U+ ]x.
#»
#»
Moreover, x[1n , σ h , 1n ]x−1 lies in StabVd (G) ([x]H ) for any [1n , σ h , 1n ] ∈ [1n , Sn ≀ H, 1n ], so
this map is also surjective and indeed StabVd (G) ([x]H ) is isomorphic to Sn ≀ H.
Now consider [x]H < [x1 ]H < · · · < [xk ]H , and call the simplex ∆. Since the action of
Vd (G) on |PH1 | preserves the Morse function φ, and since φ([x]H ) < · · · < φ([xk ]H ), we know
that StabVd (G) (∆) = StabVd (G) ([x]H ) ∩ StabVd (G) ([x1 ]H ) ∩ · · · ∩ StabVd (G) ([xk ]H ). Hence the
result will follow if we can prove that StabVd (G) ([x]H ) ∩ StabVd (G) ([y]H ) has finite index in
StabVd (G) ([x]H ) whenever [x]H < [y]H .
Say [x]H < [y]H = xΛ[1q , Sq ≀ H, 1q ] is arbitrary. All the vertices [y ′]H in the orbit of [y]H
under StabVd (G) ([x]H ) have φ([y ′]H ) = q, and Lemma 3.6 says only finitely many such [y ′ ]H

24

R. SKIPPER AND M. C. B. ZAREMSKY

exist. Since this orbit is finite, StabVd (G) ([x]H ) ∩ StabVd (G) ([y]H ) = StabStabVd (G) ([x]H ) ([y]H )
has finite index in StabVd (G) ([x]H ).

Corollary 3.8. Suppose H is A-coarsely self-similar for some finite A, and is of type F∞ .
Then every stabilizer in Vd (G) of a simplex in |PH1 | is of type F∞ .
Proof. By Lemma 3.7 every stabilizer is a finite index subgroup of some Sn ≀ H = Sn ⋉
(H × · · · × H). Since H is of type F∞ so is H × · · · × H, and since a group is of type F∞
if and only if its finite index subgroups are of type F∞ , the result is immediate.

Another application of Lemma 3.6 is the following cocompactness result.
Lemma 3.9 (Cocompact). Suppose H is A-coarsely self-similar for some finite A. For
each q ∈ N, the sublevel set |PH1 |φ≤q is Vd (G)-cocompact.
Proof. First we claim |PH1 |φ≤q has finitely many vertex orbits. Indeed, if vertices [T− , f, F+ ]H
and [U− , g, E+ ]H have the same φ-value, so F+ and E+ have the same number of roots,
then the product [U− , g, E+ ][F+ , f −1 , T− ] makes sense in G (S∗ ≀ G), and is an element of
T (S∗ ≀ G) = Vd (G). It takes [T− , f, F+ ]H to [U− , g, E+ ]H , so indeed there is only one vertex
orbit for each φ-value. Then since H is A-coarsely self-similar, Lemma 3.6 implies that
there are only finitely many simplex orbits in |PH1 |φ≤q .

We would like the posets PHm to be directed (meaning any two elements have a common
upper bound), since then their geometric realizations |PHm| will be contractible. In particular then |PH1 | will be a contractible complex on which Vd (G) acts. This brings us to our
second assumption we will impose on H.
Definition 3.10 (Nuclear subgroup). View the vertex set of Td as X ∗ for some d-letter
alphabet X. We will call H nuclear in G if for all g ∈ G there exists a finite rooted
complete subtree T of Td such that for each u ∈ X ∗ with u the address of a leaf of T , the
state gu lies in H.
Lemma 3.11. If H is nuclear in G then PHm is directed, so |PHm | is contractible.
Proof. We must show that any two elements of PHm have a common upper bound. It suffices
#»
to prove that each element of PHm has an upper bound of the form [F, id, 1n ]H , since any
two such elements with the same number of heads m clearly have a common upper bound,
#»
#»
#»
namely [F, id, 1q ]H , [E, id, 1r ]H ≤ [F ∪ E, id, 1p ] (for appropriate p). Let [F− , f, F+ ]H be
an arbitrary element of PHm , say F− and F+ have q leaves and f = σ(f1 , . . . , fq ). Pass to
the upper bound [F− , f, 1q ]H . Since H is nuclear in G we can choose a finite rooted d-ary
forest E = (T1 , . . . , Tq ), say with n total leaves, such that for each 1 ≤ i ≤ q and each
u ∈ X ∗ that is the address of a leaf of Ti , the state (fi )u lies in H. In particular if we
expand 1q to E, then f gets replaced by its image under a sequence of appropriate cloning
maps to some f ′ ∈ Sn ≀ H, and F− gets replaced by some F with n leaves, leaving us with
[F− , f, 1q ]H = [F, f ′ , E]H . Pass to the upper bound [F, f ′ , 1n ]H . Since f ′ ∈ Sn ≀ H, this
#»
equals [F, id, 1n ]H and we are done.


ALMOST-AUTOMORPHISMS OF TREES, CLONING SYSTEMS AND FINITENESS PROPERTIES 25

Remark 3.12. Note that any G is nuclear in itself, so the |PGm| are always contractible.
However, if G is not of type F∞ then neither are the stabilizers in Vd (G) of simplices in
|PG1 |, which makes |PG1 | rather useless if we want to prove that Vd (G) is of type F∞ . It is
possible though that the fact the |PGm | is always contractible could be useful in the future.
To recap, if H is A-coarsely self-similar for some finite set of artifacts A, and nuclear in
G, then |PH1 | is a contractible complex on which Vd (G) acts with stabilizers of type F∞ ,
with a Vd (G)-equivariant Morse function φ, such that the filtration |PH1 |φ≤q is cocompact.
In particular all the conditions in Lemma 3.1 are satisfied except the one about descending
links. As often happens (e.g., in [BM16, BFM+ 16, Far03, FH15, FMWZ13, MPMN16])
the descending links in |PH1 | are too large to get a good handle on, so in the next section
we will retract |PH1 | to a more manageable complex and analyze descending links there. In
the course of this we will need to impose one last assumption on H (see Definition 4.3).
4. The H-Stein–Farley complex
The construction of the H-Stein–Farley complex here will be rather similar to the construction in [BM16] for the special case of the Röver group of what Belk and Matucci call
the Stein complex, though some details will be more complicated, due to our degree of
generality. Again, in general our language will be more in line with the world of cloning
systems and [WZ14].
4.1. Constructing the complex. It will be convenient to introduce some notation, namely
the direct sum notation Belk and Matucci use in [BM16]. To formally define this in our
framework we need some setup. If F1 , . . . , Fn are finite rooted d-ary forests, say the trees of
Fi are Ti1 , . . . , Tiri from left to right, let F1 ⊕ · · · ⊕ Fn be the forest whose trees are, from left
to right, T11 , . . . , T1r1 , T21, . . . , T2r2 , . . . , Tn1 , . . . , Tnrn . For tuples (f11 , . . . , f1r1 ), . . . , (fr1 , . . . , frrn )
of elements of G let (f11 , . . . , f1r1 ) ⊕ · · · ⊕ (fr1 , . . . , frrn ) be the concatenation (f11 , . . . , frrn ).
For σ1 ∈ Sr1 , . . . , σn ∈ Srn let σ1 ⊕ · · · ⊕ σn ∈ Sr1 +···+rn be the permutation defined as
follows: for k ∈ {1, . . . , r1 + · · · + rn } choose the unique i such that r1 + · · · + ri < k ≤
r1 + · · · + ri+1 (with the expression k < r1 + · · · + rn+1 understood to always hold) and
declare that σ1 ⊕ · · · ⊕ σn takes k to σi (k − r1 − · · · − ri ) + r1 + · · · + ri . Now finally
#»
#»
#»
for [F1− , σ1 f 1 , F1+ ], . . . , [Fn− , σn f n , Fn+ ] elements of G (S∗ ≀ G) define [F1− , σ1 f 1 , F1+ ] ⊕ · · · ⊕
#»
[Fn− , σn f n , Fn+ ] to be
#»
#»
[F1− ⊕ · · · ⊕ Fn− , (σ1 ⊕ · · · ⊕ σn )( f 1 ⊕ · · · ⊕ f n ), F1+ ⊕ · · · ⊕ Fn+ ].
This direct sum notation is useful for characterizing splittings.
Lemma 4.1. For x1 , . . . , xn ∈ G (S∗ ≀ G), the upper bounds of [x1 ⊕ · · · ⊕ xn ]H in PH are
precisely the elements of the form [y1 ⊕ · · · ⊕ yn ]H such that [xi ]H ≤ [yi ]H for all 1 ≤ i ≤ n.
In particular the upper bounds of an element of the form [x(x1 ⊕ · · · ⊕ xn )]H are precisely
the elements [x(y1 ⊕ · · · ⊕ yn )]H such that [xi ]H ≤ [yi ]H for all 1 ≤ i ≤ n.

26

R. SKIPPER AND M. C. B. ZAREMSKY

Proof. If [xi ]H ≤ [yi ]H then yi is obtained from xi via right multiplication by a splitting,
and a direct sum of splittings is itself a splitting, so it is clear that every such [y1 ⊕· · ·⊕yn ]H
is an upper bound of [x1 ⊕ · · · ⊕ xn ]H . Conversely, any upper bound of [x1 ⊕ · · · ⊕ xn ]H
is obtained by right multiplying x1 ⊕ · · · ⊕ xn by a splitting and then passing to the ∼H equivalence class, but any splitting is ∼H -equivalent to a direct sum of 1-head splittings,
each of which serves to pass to an upper bound of a single [xi ]H . Hence every upper bound
is of the desired form.
The second claim follows simply because the left action of G (S∗ ≀ G) on itself preserves
∼H -equivalence classes and respects the poset relation ≤.

Corollary 4.2. Any m-head splitting Λ satisfies [Λ]H = [Λ1 ⊕ · · · ⊕ Λm ]H for some 1-head
splittings Λ1 , . . . , Λm .
Proof. We have [1m ]H ≤ [Λ]H , 1m = 11 ⊕ · · · ⊕ 11 with m summands, and [11 ]H ≤ [x]H if
and only if x is a 1-head splitting, so this follows from Lemma 4.1.

See Figure 9 for an example using the splitting from Figure 8.

h2

h1

Figure 9. The splitting from Figure 8 is equivalent under ∼H to this
splitting of the form Λ1 ⊕ Λ2 , where Λ1 = [11 , h2 , 11 ][∧p 11 , (id, id), 12] and
Λ2 = [11 , h1 , 11 ][∧p 11 , (id, id), 12].
For the rest of the section we will assume H is A-coarsely self-similar for some finite set
of artifacts A, and nuclear in G. Note that A-coarsely self-similar implies (A \ H)-coarsely
self-similar, and also for A ⊆ B it is clear that A-coarsely self-similar implies B-coarsely
self-similar, so without loss of generality id ∈ A and H ∩ A = {id}. Also, A-coarsely
self-similar implies (A ∩ G)-coarsely self-similar (since G is self-similar), so without loss of
generality we can assume A ⊆ G. We will make these assumptions on A throughout this
section. We will also assume H and A satisfy the following addition assumption.
Definition 4.3 (Orderly). Let A be a finite subset of Vd ∩ Aut(Td ). Call (H, A) orderly if
the following conditions hold:
(i) The wreath recursion of any a ∈ A is a = ρ(a)(id, . . . , id),
(ii) The wreath recursion of any h ∈ H is h = ρ(h)(h1 , . . . , hd ) for hρ(h)(1) ∈ A ∪ H
and hi ∈ H for all i 6= ρ(h)(1),
(iii) If a, b ∈ A with a 6= b then ρ(a)(1) 6= ρ(b)(1).
This convoluted definition is the most general one that we found to get all the coming
results to work, but the working example to keep in mind is the following.

ALMOST-AUTOMORPHISMS OF TREES, CLONING SYSTEMS AND FINITENESS PROPERTIES 27

Example 4.4. Let a = [∧p 11 , (1 · · · d), ∧p 11 ] and let A = {a, a2 , . . . , ad }. Suppose H is such
that the wreath recursion of any h ∈ H is of the form h = (ai , h2 , . . . , hd ) for some i and
some h2 , . . . , hd ∈ H. Then (H, A) is orderly by construction.
#»
In general note that if (H, A) is orderly then for any h ∈ H we have [11 , h, 11 ][∧p 11 , id, 1d ]H =
[∧p 11 , (a, id, . . . , id), 1d ]H for some a ∈ A. The fact that the artifact must appear in the first
entry is important, and is the motivation behind the second condition in Definition 4.3.
In general we will sometimes leave out trivial factors and use superscripts like (k) to indicate what belongs in which entry, so for example [∧p 11 , (a, id, . . . , id), 1d ]H could be denoted
[∧p 11 , a(1) , 1d ]H .
The key result that requires (H, A) to be orderly is the following.
Lemma 4.5 (Least upper bound of artifacts). For a1 , . . . , ar ∈ A, the elements [ai ]H of
#»
PH1 have a unique least upper bound in PH1 . More precisely, if r ≥ 2 then [∧p 11 , id, 1d ]H is
the least upper bound of the [ai ]H .
Proof. If r = 1 then [a1 ]H is its own least upper bound, so assume r ≥ 2. Since (H, A) is
#»
#»
orderly, for each 1 ≤ i ≤ r we have [ai [∧p 11 , id, 1d ]]H = [∧p 11 , id, 1d ]H , so this is in fact an upper
bound of each [ai ]H . We need to show that every common upper bound of [a1 ]H , . . . , [ar ]H
#»
is an upper bound of [∧p 11 , id, 1d ]H . It is clear that if our claim holds in the r = 2 case then
it holds for all r ≥ 2, so we can assume r = 2.
First note that any strict upper bound of [a1 ]H is an upper bound of some length#»
1 splitting of [a1 ]H , i.e., an element of the form [a1 h[∧p 11 , id, 1d ]]H for some h ∈ H. Since
(H, A) is orderly, such an element equals [a1 [∧p 11 , a(1) , 1d ]]H for some a ∈ A. As an element of
T (S∗ ≀G) we have a1 = [∧p 11 , ρ(a1 ), ∧p 11 ], and hence [a1 [∧p 11 , a(1) , 1d ]]H = [∧p 11 , ρ(a1 )a(1) , 1d ]H =
#»
[∧p 11 , a(ρ(a1 )(1)) , 1d ]H . By Lemma 4.1, any upper bound of this is of the form [∧p 11 , id, 1d ][Λ1 ⊕
· · · ⊕ Λd ]H for some 1-head splittings Λi such that [11 ] ≤ [Λi ]H for all i 6= ρ(a1 )(1) and
[a]H ≤ [Λρ(a1 )(1) ]H .
Doing a similar procedure for a2 we get that any strict upper bound of [a2 ]H is an upper
bound of [∧p 11 , b(ρ(a2 )(1)) ), 1d ]H for some b ∈ A. Such an upper bound must be of the form
#»
[∧p 11 , id, 1d ][Λ1 ⊕ · · · ⊕ Λd ]H for some 1-head splittings Λi such that [11 ] ≤ [Λi ]H for all
i 6= ρ(a2 )(1) and [b]H ≤ [Λρ(a2 )(1) ]H . If this is also an upper bound of [a1 ]H then either
#»
[11 ]H ≤ [Λi ]H for all i, in which case it is an upper bound of [∧p 11 , id, 1d ]H and we are
done, or else ρ(a1 )(1) = ρ(a2 )(1). But this is ruled out in the definition of orderly, since
a1 6= a2 .

Remark 4.6. If (H, A) is not orderly then Lemma 4.5 might not hold, i.e., minimal
upper bounds might fail to be unique. For example, in the Gupta–Sidki group for d = 3,
generated by a = (1 2 3) and b = (a, a−1 , b), the artifact a can appear in either the first
or second spot, since b−1 = (a−1 , a, b−1 ). This shows (hbi, hai) is not orderly, and in fact
#»
1
[11 ]hbi and [a]hbi do not have a unique least upper bound in Phbi
: both [∧p 11 , id, 13 ]hbi and

28

R. SKIPPER AND M. C. B. ZAREMSKY

#»
#»
[∧p 11 , (id, a, id), 13 ][∧p 33 , id, 15 ][∧p 51 , id, 17 ]hbi are minimal common upper bounds of [11 ]hbi and
[a]hbi .
Next we show that if (H, A) is orderly then any finite collection of length-1 splittings of
a given [x]H have a unique least upper bound.
Proposition 4.7. Any finite collection of length-1 splittings of some [x]H have a unique
least upper bound in PH .
Proof. Since the action of G (S∗ ≀ G) from the left preserves the poset structure, we can
assume x = 1m (where m is the number of feet of the original x). Any length-1 splitting
#»
#»
#»
of [1m ]H is of the form [1m , σ h , 1m ][∧p m
ℓ , id, 1m+d−1 ]H for some σ h ∈ Sm ≀ H and some ℓ,
(k)
and since H is A-coarsely self-similar and (H, A) is orderly this equals [∧p m
k , a , 1m+d−1 ]H
(k)
for k = σ(ℓ) and some a ∈ A (recall that a indicates that a appears in the (k)th entry
of the tuple and the other entries are trivial). Note that the kth entry corresponds to the
first leaf of the d-caret in ∧p m
k .
(kj )
, 1m+d−1 ]H , 1 ≤ j ≤ r are a collection of length-1 splittings
Now suppose [∧p m
kj , (aj )
of [1m ]H . Without loss of generality k1 ≤ · · · ≤ kr . For any string of indices j, j+1, . . . , j+s
(k)
(k)
pm
(s ≥ 1) with kj = · · · = kj+s =:k, the elements [∧p m
k , (aj ) , 1m+d−1 ]H , . . . , [∧ k , (aj+s ) , 1m+d−1 ]H
#»
#»
p m+d−1 , id, 1m+2(d−1) ]H . This is
have a unique least upper bound, namely [∧p m
k , id, 1m+d−1 ][∧ k
#»
true because [∧p km+d−1 , id, 1m+2(d−1) ]H is the least upper bound of the [1m+d−1 , (aj+i )(k) , 1m+d−1 ]H
#»
#»
p m+d−1 , id, 1m+2(d−1) ]H
(0 ≤ i ≤ s) by Lemma 4.5, and then Lemma 4.1 says [∧p m
k , id, 1m+d−1 ][∧ k
(k)
is consequently the least upper bound of the [∧p m
k , (aj+i ) , 1m+d−1 ]H (0 ≤ i ≤ s).
Replacing any such subcollection of our length-1 splittings by their least upper bound
we get a new collection of elements of PHm with the same least upper bound as the original
(k )
collection. Now our elements are of the form [Uj j ]H (1 ≤ j ≤ t for some t), satisfying
k1 < · · · < kt , with each Uj either of the form [∧p 11 , (aj )(1) , 1d ] for some aj ∈ A or else of
#»
#»
(k )
the form [∧p 11 , id, 1d ][∧p d1 , id, 12d−1 ]H . Here Uj j means 11 ⊕ · · · ⊕ 11 ⊕ Uj ⊕ 11 ⊕ · · · ⊕ 11
with Uj in the kj th spot. In particular Lemma 4.1 says that every common upper bound
(k )
(k )
(k )
of the [Uj j ]H is an upper bound of [U1 1 ⊕ · · · ⊕ Ut t ]H , where we do not write trivial
direct summands. This is certainly itself a common upper bound, so it is the least upper
bound.

Note that the proof of Proposition 4.7 is constructive, and the least upper bound obtained
in the end has a rather specific form. Namely, it amounts to first applying length-1 singlehead splittings to some of the feet of x, creating new feet in clumps of d many, potentially
with artifacts on the leftmost new foot of a given clump, and then possibly applying
#»
[∧p 11 , id, 1d ] to the leftmost foot of some clumps. While every least upper bound of some
collection of length-1 splittings is of this form, not every splitting of this form is necessarily
a least upper bound of some such collection.

ALMOST-AUTOMORPHISMS OF TREES, CLONING SYSTEMS AND FINITENESS PROPERTIES 29

Now we can finally start defining the H-Stein–Farley complex. For [x]H ≤ [y]H in PHm ,
define the closed interval and open interval
[[x]H , [y]H ] := {[z]H | [x]H ≤ [z]H ≤ [y]H } and ([x]H , [y]H ) := {[z]H | [x]H < [z]H < [y]H },
with half-open intervals defined analogously. The geometric realizations |[[x]H , [y]H ]| and
|([x]H , [y]H )| are natural subcomplexes of |PHm|. The length of a closed interval |[[x]H , [y]H ]|
is the length of the splitting x−1 y.
Definition 4.8 (Elementary core). Let [x]H < [y]H in PHm . Define the elementary core of
the closed interval I = [[x]H , [y]H ] to be
core(I) := lub(I ∩ {[xΩ]H | Ω is a length-1 splitting of x}).
Also declare that core({[x]H }) = [x]H for any [x]H . Proposition 4.7 ensures that every
closed interval in PHm has a unique elementary core. Since [y]H is an upper bound of
everything in I, the elementary core of I lies in I.
Definition 4.9 (Elementary interval/splitting, ). For I = [[x]H , [y]H ], if core(I) = [y]H
call I an elementary interval. For any [x]H ≤ [y]H in PHm , if [x]H and [y]H lie in a common
elementary interval then write [x]H  [y]H . If [x]H  [y]H and [x]H 6= [y]H write [x]H ≺
[y]H . Whenever [x]H  [xΛ]H for Λ a splitting, we call Λ an elementary splitting (of x).
Since we know what the least upper bounds in the proof of Proposition 4.7 look like,
we also now know what elementary splittings of x look like. An elementary splitting of
x consists of first applying length-1 single-head splits to some of the feet of x and then
#»
possibly applying the single split [∧p 11 , id, 1d ] to the leftmost new foot in some of the clumps
of d new feet.
Definition 4.10 (H-Stein–Farley complex). Let X (S∗ ≀ G)H be the subcomplex of |PH1 |
consisting only of those chains [x0 ]H < · · · < [xk ]H such that [x0 ]H ≺ [xk ]H , i.e., such that
the chain lies in an elementary interval. Call such a chain/simplex elementary, so X (S∗ ≀
G)H is the subcomplex of elementary simplices. Note that a subchain of an elementary
chain is elementary, so this really is a subcomplex.
When H = G and d = 2, X (S∗ ≀ G)G is the complex called the Stein–Farley complex in
[WZ14], and has the structure of a cube complex. (The name comes from work of Stein
[Ste92] and Farley [Far03] first establishing these complexes for the classical Thompson
groups.) In [BM16] Belk and Matucci use what we would call the H-Stein–Farley complex
for the Röver group, using a Klein-4 subgroup as H, to prove that the Röver group is
F∞ . Belk and Matucci do not phrase elementary cores as being least upper bounds of
length-1 subsplittings, but the definitions do coincide in the Röver group case, as the work
in the proof of [BM16, Lemma 4.7] amounts to proving that the “double splitting” is the
least upper bound of the two single splittings. As a remark, if (H, A) is not orderly, for
example when G is the Gupta–Sidki group, it is difficult to say what an analog of the
H-Stein–Farley complex should look like, since we would not necessarily have well defined
elementary cores.

30

R. SKIPPER AND M. C. B. ZAREMSKY

Before we prove that |PH1 | ≃ X (S∗ ≀ G)H (Proposition 4.12) we need to collect some
observations and notation.
For [x]H ∈ PH1 define (PH1 )[x]H ≤ := {[y]H ∈ PH1 | [x]H ≤ [y]H }. Define a function
core[x]H : (PH1 )[x]H ≤ → (PH1 )[x]H ≤ by sending [y]H to core([[x]H , [y]H ]).
Observation 4.11. For [x]H ∈ PH1 , the function core[x]H : (PH1 )[x]H ≤ → (PH1 )[x]H ≤ is a
poset map.
Proof. Let [y]H , [z]H ∈ (PH1 )[x]H ≤ with [y]H ≤ [z]H . Since [[x]H , [y]H ] ⊆ [[x]H , [z]H ] we
have core([[x]H , [y]H ]) ≤ core([[x]H , [z]H ]), and hence core[x]H ([y]H ) ≤ core[x]H ([z]H ) as
desired.

Proposition 4.12. If H is A-coarsely self-similar for some finite A ⊆ Vd ∩ Aut(Td ) and
(H, A) is orderly, then |PH1 | ≃ X (S∗ ≀ G)H .
Proof. This general proof technique was first established in [Bro92] for the Stein–Farley
complex for F , and used subsequently in, e.g., [FMWZ13, BFM+ 16, WZ14, BM16]. In
particular see [BM16, Lemma 4.10 and Proposition 4.11]. We will build up from X (S∗ ≀G)H
to all of |PH1 | by attaching all the intervals |[[x]H , [y]H ]| that do not lie in X (S∗ ≀G)H , in order
of increasing length, and proving the relative link is contractible whenever such an interval
is glued in. If the interval |[[x]H , [y]H ]| fails to lie in X (S∗ ≀ G)H then [x]H 6≺ [y]H . Since we
attach such intervals in increasing order of length, and since every proper subinterval of an
interval has strictly shorter length, the relative link when we attach |[[x]H , [y]H ]| consists of
all its simplices corresponding to chains that do not use both [x]H and [y]H . In other words,
the relative link is |[[x]H , [y]H )| ∪ |([x]H , [y]H ]|. This is the suspension of |([x]H , [y]H )|, so
the relative link is contractible if and only if |([x]H , [y]H )| is contractible, which we claim
is true whenever [x]H 6 [y]H .
Let [z]H ∈ ([x]H , [y]H ). We have [x]H < core[x]H ([z]H ) since every non-trivial [[x]H , [z]H ]
contains at least one [xΩ]H for Ω a length-1 splitting of [x]H . Also, core[x]H ([z]H ) <
[y]H since core[x]H ([z]H ) ≤ [z]H < [y]H . In particular core[x]H restricts to a function
from ([x]H , [y]H ) to itself, which is a poset map by Observation 4.11 and which satisfies core[x]H ([z]H ) ≤ [z]H for all [z]H ∈ ([x]H , [y]H ). Moreover, since [x]H 6 [y]H we know
core[x]H ([y]H ) < [y]H , so core[x]H ([y]H ) ∈ ([x]H , [y]H ), and every [z]H ∈ ([x]H , [y]H ) satisfies
core[x]H ([z]H ) ≤ core[x]H ([y]H ), so [Qui78, Section 1.5] says that |([x]H , [y]H )| is contractible,
with core[x]H ([y]H ) as a cone point.
Having shown that under our procedure every interval |[[x]H , [y]H ]| in PH1 not contained
in X (S∗ ≀ G)H is attached along a contractible relative link, we conclude that |PH1 | ≃
X (S∗ ≀ G)H .

Corollary 4.13. If H is A-coarsely self-similar for some finite A ⊆ Vd ∩ Aut(Td ), (H, A)
is orderly and H is nuclear in G, then X (S∗ ≀ G)H is contractible.
Proof. Since H is nuclear in G, |PH1 | is contractible by Lemma 3.11. Hence X (S∗ ≀ G)H is
contractible by Proposition 4.12.


ALMOST-AUTOMORPHISMS OF TREES, CLONING SYSTEMS AND FINITENESS PROPERTIES 31

4.2. Polysimplicial structure. The complex X (S∗ ≀ G)H is still not quite nice enough
to get higher connectivity of descending links. In this subsection, following [BM16] we
will glom certain simplices in X (S∗ ≀ G)H together to reveal a coarser, polysimplicial cell
structure.
Definition 4.14 (Polysimplicial complex). A polysimplex is a direct product of some finite
collection of simplices. A polysimplicial complex is an affine cell complex where every cell
is a polysimplex, and the intersection of any two cells is a (possibly empty) face of each.
In dimensions 0 and 1 a polysimplex is just a simplex, and in dimension 2 it is either a
triangle or a square.
Recall our convention of leaving out trivial direct summands, and using superscripts like
to indicate where a given summand belongs. In particular if Λ is a 1-head splitting then
(i)
Λ denotes 11 ⊕ · · · ⊕ 11 ⊕ Λ ⊕ 11 ⊕ · · · ⊕ 11 with Λ in the ith spot and some number of
11 summands.

(i)

Definition 4.15 (Simple splitting, disjoint). Call a splitting simple if it is ∼H -equivalent
to one of the form Λ(i) , for some i and some 1-head splitting Λ. Two non-trivial simple
(i)
(j)
splittings Λ1 and Λ2 with the same number of heads will be called disjoint if i 6= j. This
(i)
(j)
is well defined since Λ1 ∼H Λ2 implies i = j.
See Figure 10 for an example of a simple splitting.

h

Figure 10. The splitting ([11 , h, 11][T, id, 14 ])(3) with 6 heads, where T is
the tree consisting of the part of the picture below the “h”. (Here d = 2.)

In particular every simple elementary splitting of x consists of first applying a length-1
#»
single-head splitting to one of the feet of x and then possibly applying [∧p 11 , id, 1d ] to the
leftmost new foot. Note that the simple splitting in Figure 10 is therefore not elementary,
since it features a caret below the second level.
Inspired by [BM16, Section 5], we now define a polysimplicial complex X (S∗ ≀ G)poly
H ,
1
which will turn out to have X (S∗ ≀ G)H as a simplicial subdivision. Let [x]H ∈ PH , say

32

R. SKIPPER AND M. C. B. ZAREMSKY

with m feet. For each 1 ≤ i ≤ m let Si equal one of the following elementary sets:
{11 },
#»
{11 , [11 , h, 11 ][∧p 11 , id, 1d ]},
#»
#»
#»
{11 , [11 , h, 11 ][∧p 11 , id, 1d ], [∧p 11 , id, 1d ][∧p d1 , id, 12d−1 ]},
#»
#»
{11 , [∧p 11 , id, 1d ][∧p d1 , id, 12d−1 ]}
for h some element of H. If A = {id}, i.e., if H is actually self-similar, then we insist the
Si each only be of the first two forms, and that only these two are called elementary sets.
This ensures that, in any case, all the splittings in an elementary set are elementary. Also
note that for any choice of elementary sets Si , the set of ∼H -equivalence classes of elements
of each Si is totally ordered under ≤. Denote by hx | S1 , . . . , Sm i the full subcomplex of
X (S∗ ≀ G)H spanned by all vertices of the form [x(s1 ⊕ · · · ⊕ sm )]H for si ∈ Si .
For any x and S1 , . . . , Sm , hx | S1 , . . . , Sm i is a simplicial subdivision of the polysimplex
obtained by taking the product of the simplices hx | {11 }, . . . , {11 }, Si , {11 }, . . . , {11}i.
That these are simplices is because Si / ∼H is totally ordered. Also note that these simplices
have dimension |Si | − 1, so more precisely hx | S1 , . . . , Sm i is a simplicial subdivision of
a polysimplex of dimension (|S1 | − 1) · · · (|Sm | − 1). We will denote the unsubdivided
polysimplex also by hx | S1 , . . . , Sm i, and the abuse of notation will not be a problem. Note
that [x]H is the unique minimal vertex of hx | S1 , . . . , Sm i. Also, if y = x(s1 ⊕ · · · ⊕ sm ) for
si ∈ Si then the subcomplex of hx | S1 , . . . , Sm i spanned by the upper bounds of [y]H is a
face of hx | S1 , . . . , Sm i.
Define X (S∗ ≀G)poly
to be the polysimplicial complex whose cells are the hx | S1 , . . . , Sm i.
H
Lemma 4.16. The intersection of any two polysimplices in X (S∗ ≀ G)poly
is a (possibly
H
empty) face of each, so X (S∗ ≀ G)poly
really
is
a
polysimplicial
complex.
H
Proof. We will prove this by closely mimicking the proof of Lemma 5.3 in [BM16] for the
case of the Röver group. Say the polysimplices are P = hx | S1 , . . . , Sm i and Q = hy |
T1 , . . . , Tn i, and assume P ∩ Q 6= ∅. Define a binary operation ∧P : P (0) × P (0) → P (0) via
[x(s1 ⊕ · · · ⊕ sm )]H ∧P [x(s′1 ⊕ · · · ⊕ s′m )]H := [x(min(s1 , s′1 ) ⊕ · · · ⊕ min(sm , s′m ))]H .
Since each elementary set Si is totally ordered, these minima exist, and since Si → Si / ∼H
is bijective ∧P is well defined. Define ∧Q analogously. Viewing P and Q as subcomplexes
of X (S∗ ≀ G)H their intersection is a subcomplex, and the vertex sets of X (S∗ ≀ G)H and
X (S∗ ≀ G)poly
are the same, so P ∩ Q 6= ∅ implies that P ∩ Q contains a vertex. We now
H
claim that ∧P and ∧Q coincide on vertices of P ∩ Q.
Let v and v ′ be vertices in P ∩ Q. Up to replacing P and Q by faces, we can assume that
v ∧P v ′ = [x]H and v ∧Q v ′ = [y]H . Choose si , s′i ∈ Si (1 ≤ i ≤ m) and ti , t′i ∈ Ti (1 ≤ i ≤ n)

ALMOST-AUTOMORPHISMS OF TREES, CLONING SYSTEMS AND FINITENESS PROPERTIES 33

such that
v = [x(s1 ⊕ · · · ⊕ sm )]H = [y(t1 ⊕ · · · ⊕ tn )]H and
v ′ = [x(s′1 ⊕ · · · ⊕ s′m )]H = [y(t′1 ⊕ · · · ⊕ t′n )]H .
#»
Solving for x−1 y in the first equation, we get x−1 y = [s1 ⊕· · ·⊕sm ][1r , σ h , 1r ][(t1 ⊕· · ·⊕tn )−1 ]
#»
for some r and some σ h ∈ Sr ≀ H. Solving for x−1 y in the second equation, we get
#»
#»
x−1 y = [s′1 ⊕ · · · ⊕ s′m ][1p , σ ′ h ′ , 1p ][(t′1 ⊕ · · · ⊕ t′n )−1 ] for some p and some σ ′ h ′ ∈ Sp ≀ H. In
summary,
#»
#»
x−1 y = [s1 ⊕· · ·⊕sm ][1r , σ h , 1r ][(t1 ⊕· · ·⊕tn )−1 ] = [s′1 ⊕· · ·⊕s′m ][1p , σ ′ h ′ , 1p ][(t′1 ⊕· · ·⊕t′n )−1 ].
Since v ∧P v ′ = [x]H we know that for each 1 ≤ i ≤ m either si = 11 or s′i = 11 . Similarly
for each 1 ≤ i ≤ n either ti = 11 or t′i = 11 . Now view x−1 y as a homeomorphism from
C1 ⊔ · · · ⊔ Cn to D1 ⊔ · · · ⊔ Dm , with Ci and Di equal to ∂Td for all i, as per Remark 3.3.
Whenever ti = 11 or t′i = 11 , the image of Ci lands in some Dj . In fact this happens for
every i. Similarly for each i either si or s′i is 11 , which means that the image of any Dj
under y −1 x lands in some Ci . This tells us that m = n, and that ti = 11 implies sσ(i) = 11
and similarly t′i = 11 implies s′σ′ (i) = 11 . Since at least one of these holds for each i, we
conclude that, for each i, x−1 y acts on Ci by mapping it homeomorphically to Dσ(i) via a
homeomorphism in H. Hence [x−1 y]H = [1m ]H and [x]H = [y]H , which finishes the proof
of the claim that ∧P and ∧Q coincide on P ∩ Q.
Let w1 , . . . , wk be the vertices of P ∩ Q, and set wP := w1 ∧P · · · ∧P wk and wQ := w1 ∧Q
· · · ∧Q wk . Since ∧P and ∧Q coincide on P ∩ Q, wP = wQ , so call it w. Note that w ≤ wj
for all 1 ≤ j ≤ k, and w is itself a vertex of P ∩ Q. Hence, up to replacing P by a face (the
face spanned by the upper bounds of w) we can assume w = [x]H , and up to replacing Q
by a face we can assume w = [y]H . After this simplification P ∩ Q is unchanged but now
we have [x]H = [y]H , and up to possibly adjusting T1 , . . . , Tm we can assume x = y, which
implies that P ∩ Q = hx | S1 ∩ T1 , . . . , Sm ∩ Tm i. Since any intersection of two elementary
sets is again an elementary set, we conclude that P ∩ Q is a face of P and Q.

Observation 4.17. X (S∗ ≀ G)poly
has X (S∗ ≀ G)H as a simplicial subdivision.
H
Proof. The polysimplices were constructed by unsubdividing certain subcomplexes of X (S∗ ≀
G)H , so the only thing to show is that every simplex of X (S∗ ≀G)H lies in some polysimplex.
But this is immediate since up to ∼H every elementary splitting is a direct sum of simple
elementary splittings, by Corollary 4.2.

In particular if X (S∗ ≀ G)H is contractible then X (S∗ ≀ G)poly
is too.
H
4.3. Descending links. In this subsection we inspect higher connectivity of descending
links in X (S∗ ≀ G)poly
H , and prove our main result that certain Nekrashevych groups are of
type F∞ . First we prove that φ is affine on polysimplices, and hence φ is a Morse function
on X (S∗ ≀ G)poly
H .

34

R. SKIPPER AND M. C. B. ZAREMSKY

Observation 4.18. The function φ is affine on polysimplices in X (S∗ ≀ G)poly
H .
Proof. Let P = hx | S1 , . . . , Sm i be a polysimplex in X (S∗ ≀ G)poly
H . Let Σi = hx |
′
{11 }, . . . , Si , {11}, . . . , {1}i, so P = Σ1 × · · · × Σm . Also write P for the simplicial subdivision of P in X (S∗ ≀ G)H . Since φ is invariant under the left action of G (S∗ ≀ G) on
X (S∗ ≀ G)poly
H , without loss of generality x = 1m . The vertices of P are therefore ∼H classes of splittings. If λ is the function taking such a vertex v to its length as a splitting,
then φ(v) = m + λ(v)(d − 1). Therefore to see that the extension of φ from P (0) to P ′ is
affine on P , it suffices to show that the extension of λ from P (0) to P ′ is affine on P . For
(0)
v = (v1 , . . . , vm ) ∈ P (0) with vi ∈ Σi we know λ(v) = λ(v1 ) + · · · + λ(vm ), and λ extends
affinely to each Σi since they are simplices, so indeed λ (and hence φ) is affine on P . 
Fix a vertex [x]H . The notation lk↓ [x]H will always mean descending link in X (S∗ ≀G)poly
H
(as opposed to X (S∗ ≀ G)H or |PH1 |). The link of a vertex in a polysimplicial complex is the
union of its links in the polysimplices it lies in, so to understand links in a polysimplicial
complex one needs to understand links in polysimplices. The link of a vertex (v1 , . . . , vr )
in a polysimplex Σ1 × · · · × Σr (with each Σi a simplex) is the join of the links lkΣi vi , and
these are all easily understood.
Many of the proof ideas in what follows come from the analogous ones for the Röver
group case in [BM16, Section 6].
Definition 4.19 (Merging). An element Υ ∈ G (S∗ ≀ H) is called a merging if Υ−1 is a
splitting. The length of Υ is the length of Υ−1 . If Υ−1 is a simple splitting we call Υ a
simple merging, and if Υ−1 is an elementary splitting we call Υ an elementary merging. If
Υ is a merging with φ([x]H ) heads, so the product xΥ makes sense, we call Υ a merging of
x. We also call [xΥ]H a merging of [x]H .
For [y]H < [x]H , the vertices [x]H and [y]H span an edge in X (S∗ ≀ G)H if and only if
[y]H ≺ [x]H , that is if and only if y −1x is a non-trivial elementary splitting, but they span
an edge in X (S∗ ≀ G)poly
if and only if y −1x is a non-trivial simple elementary splitting,
H
−1
i.e., x y is a simple elementary merging. Hence the vertices of lk↓ [x]H are those of the
form [xΥ]H for Υ a non-trivial simple elementary merging. Every simple splitting is ∼H equivalent to a splitting of the form Λ(i) for Λ a 1-head splitting. Hence every simple
#»
#»
merging is of the form [1m , σ h , 1m ]Υ(i) for some σ h ∈ Sm ≀ H, some 1-foot merging Υ and
some 1 ≤ i ≤ m − r(d − 1), where r is the length of Υ. For notational ease we will denote
#»
this particular simple merging by σ h Υ(i) .
Having understood the vertices of lk↓ [x]H , we turn our attention to the higher dimensional simplices. First we discuss a sufficient condition for a collection of vertices to span
a simplex in lk↓ [x]H , namely if they have pairwise disjoint supports.
#»
Definition 4.20 (Support). For a non-trivial simple merging σ h Υ(i) with length r, define
its support to be the set
{σ(i′ ) | i ≤ i′ ≤ i + r(d − 1)}.

ALMOST-AUTOMORPHISMS OF TREES, CLONING SYSTEMS AND FINITENESS PROPERTIES 35

For some intuition, if Υ(i) is a length-r simple merging of x then it “uses” the feet of
#»
x numbered i through i + r(d − 1). Hence σ h Υ(i) “uses” the (possibly non-consecutive)
feet of x numbered σ(i), . . . , σ(i + r(d − 1)). These indices comprise what we are calling
the support of the merging. The point, which the next lemma makes rigorous, is that if
simple mergings have disjoint supports then they can be done simultaneously, at least up
to possibly adjusting them with ∼H .
#» (i )
#» (i )
Lemma 4.21. If σ1 h 1 Υ1 1 , . . . , σp h p Υp p are non-trivial simple elementary mergings of
#» (i )
x with pairwise disjoint supports then the vertices [xσj h j Υj j ]H of lk↓ [x]H span a simplex
in lk↓ [x]H .
Proof. Thanks to the left action of G (S∗ ≀ G) on X (S∗ ≀ G)poly
we can assume x = 1m . It
H
#» (i1 )
#» (i )
suffices to show that the p+1 vertices [1m ]H , [σ1 h 1 Υ1 ]H , . . . , [σp h p Υp p ]H of X (S∗ ≀G)poly
H
lie in a common polysimplex. Since everything is happening up to ∼H , without loss of
#»
#»
generality h j = id for all 1 ≤ j ≤ p (the entries not “trapped” by Υj can vanish in ∼H
and the entries that are trapped can be absorbed into Υj ).
LetPrj be the length of Υj . Since the mergings have
P pairwise disjoint supports we know
that pj=1 |{σj (i′ ) | ij ≤ i′ ≤ ij +rj (d−1)}| ≤ m, so pj=1 (1+rj (d−1)) ≤ m. In particular
we can choose p pairwise disjoint sets D1 , . . . , Dp ⊆ {1, . . . , m} with each Dj consisting of
some string of 1 + rj (d − 1) consecutive numbers. Say Dj = {dj , dj + 1, . . . , dj + rj (d − 1)}.
We will assume d1 = 1 and dj+1 = (dj + rj (d − 1)) + 1 for all j, so the Dj are as “tightly
packed to the left” as possible.
Now define τ ∈ Sm to be any permutation satisfying τ (k) = σj (k + ij − dj ) for all k ∈ Dj
and all 1 ≤ j ≤ p. A well defined such τ exists since the Dj are pairwise disjoint, and τ
can be chosen to be injective (hence bijective) since the {σj (i′ ) | ij ≤ i′ ≤ ij + rj (d − 1)}
are pairwise disjoint. Let
(1)

Υ := Υ1 ⊕ Υ(2) ⊕ · · · ⊕ Υp(p) ⊕ 1r
P
where r = m − pj=1 |Dj |, so Υ has m heads and p + r feet. In particular it makes sense
to consider 1m τ Υ. For each 1 ≤ j ≤ p let Sj := {11 , Λj } be the elementary set satisfying
[Λj ]H = [Υ−1
j ]H (this is possible since Υj is elementary). For all p < j ≤ p + r let Sj := {11 }.
We want to show that the polysimplex P := hτ Υ | S1 , . . . , Sp+r i contains all the vertices
(i )
(i )
[1m ]H , [σ1 Υ1 1 ]H , . . . , [σp Υp p ]H .
(1)

(p)

Since [1m ]H = [τ ]H = [τ Υ(Λ1 ⊕ · · · ⊕ Λp ⊕ 1r )]H we know [1m ]H ∈ P . Now we claim
that
(i )
(2)
[τ Υ(11 ⊕ Λ2 ⊕ · · · ⊕ Λp(p) ⊕ 1r )]H = [σ1 Υ1 1 ]H ,
(i )

(1)

which will imply that [σ1 Υ1 1 ]H ∈ P . Since the left hand side equals [τ Υ1 ]H it suffices to
(1)
(i )
show that [Λ1 τ −1 σ1 Υ1 1 ]H = [1m−r1 (d−1) ]H . Write Λ1 as [T, υ #»
g , 11+r1 (d−1) ] for some tree T
#»
−1
′
′
and υ g ∈ S1+r1 (d−1) ≀ G. Since τ σ1 (i ) = i − i1 + 1 for all i1 ≤ i′ ≤ i1 + r1 (d − 1) we know
(1)
(i )
[Λ1 τ −1 σ1 Υ1 1 ]H = [T (1) , τ −1 σ1 , T (i1 ) ]H , i.e., the υ #»
g cancels out. Moreover this tells us

36

R. SKIPPER AND M. C. B. ZAREMSKY

that τ −1 σ1 lies in the image of the composition κT (i1 ) of cloning maps given by the d-carets
of T (i1 ) , and hence this reduces to [1m−r1 (d−1) , (τ −1 σ1 )κ−1
, 1m−r1 (d−1) ]H = [1m−r1 (d−1) ]H .
T (i1 )
(i )

This finishes the proof of the claim that [σ1 Υ1 1 ]H ∈ P . A parallel argument shows that
(i )

[σj Υj j ]H ∈ P for all 1 ≤ j ≤ p.
In general a pair of distinct vertices [xΥ]H , [xΥ′ ]H ∈ lk↓ [x]H span an edge in lk↓ [x]H if and
only if the three vertices [x]H , [xΥ]H and [xΥ′ ]H lie in a common 2-dimensional polysimplex,
which happens either when Υ−1 Υ′ or (Υ′ )−1 Υ is a non-trivial simple elementary merging
(so the vertices span a triangle), or when Υ and Υ′ have disjoint supports (so the vertices
lie in a common square, as per the proof of Lemma 4.21 for p = 2). In the former case the
supports of Υ and Υ′ must be properly nested, so we get the following:
Observation 4.22. If [xΥ]H , [xΥ′ ]H ∈ lk↓ [x]H span an edge in lk↓ [x]H then the supports
of Υ and Υ′ are either properly nested or disjoint. If they are properly nested then Υ−1 Υ′
or (Υ′ )−1 Υ is a non-trivial simple elementary merging.

Also note that, since simple elementary mergings have length at most 2, we cannot have
[xΥ]H , [xΥ′ ]H , [xΥ′′ ]H ∈ lk↓ [x]H with supports pairwise properly nested.
Recall that a simplicial complex is a flag complex if every collection of vertices that
pairwise span edges spans a simplex.
Lemma 4.23. lk↓ [x]H is a flag complex.
Proof. Thanks to the left action of G (S∗ ≀ G) on X (S∗ ≀ G)poly
we can assume x = 1m .
H
#» (i1 )
#» (iq )
Let σ1 h 1 Υ1 , . . . , σq h q Υq be non-trivial simple elementary mergings of 1m such that
#» (i )
the vertices [σj h j Υj j ]H of lk↓ [1m ]H pairwise span edges. We need to show that all these
vertices and [1m ]H lie in a common polysimplex. As in the proof of Lemma 4.21 we can
#»
#»
(i )
assume h j = id for all j. By Observation 4.22 the supports of the σj Υj j are pairwise
(i )

either properly nested or disjoint. Denote the support of σj Υj j by Uj . Assume without
(i )

loss of generality that the σj Υj j are ordered so that there exists 1 ≤ p ≤ q such that
U1 , . . . , Up are pairwise disjoint and for each p < j ≤ q the set Uj is properly contained in
one of the U1 , . . . , Up . Thanks to Lemma 4.21 there is a polysimplex containing [1m ]H and
(i )
[σj Υj j ]H for all 1 ≤ j ≤ p (but not necessarily for p < j ≤ q). Say the polysimplex is
P = hτ Υ | S1 , . . . , Sp+r i, with τ , Υ, r and Sj as in the proof of Lemma 4.21. In particular
for 1 ≤ j ≤ p we have Sj = {11 , Λj } with [Λj ]H = [Υ−1
j ]H .
If p = q we are done so suppose p < q. Each of Up+1 , . . . , Uq is properly contained in
one of U1 , . . . , Up . Also, for each 1 ≤ j ≤ p at most one of Up+1 , . . . , Uq can be properly
contained in Uj , since simple elementary mergings have length at most 2. Hence q − p ≤ p,
and without loss of generality Up+j ( Uj for each 1 ≤ j ≤ q − p. Now for each such j, we

−1
(ip+j )
(i )
know σp+j Υp+j
σj Υj j is a simple elementary merging, hence its inverse is a simple

ALMOST-AUTOMORPHISMS OF TREES, CLONING SYSTEMS AND FINITENESS PROPERTIES 37

h
−1
i
(i )
(ip+j )
elementary splitting, so we can choose Λ′j such that [(Λ′j )(ij ) ]H = σj Υj j
σp+j Υp+j
H
and Sj′ := {11 , Λ′j , Λj } is an elementary set. For each q − p < k ≤ q set Sk′ := Sk . Now
(i )
′
let Q = hτ Υ | S1′ , . . . , Sp+r
i. Since P ⊆ Q we know [1m ]H and [σj Υj j ]H are in Q for all
1 ≤ j ≤ p. Now let p < p + j ≤ q. Then
(i

)

p+j
[σp+j Υp+j
]H
h

−1
i
(i )
(i )
(ip+j )
= σj Υj j σj Υj j
σp+j Υp+j

H

(i )
=[σj Υj j (Λ′j )(ij ) ]H
(1)

(j−1)

(j+1)

=[τ Υ(Λ1 ⊕ · · · ⊕ Λj−1 ⊕ (Λ′j )(j) ⊕ Λj+1 ⊕ · · · ⊕ Λp(p) ⊕ 1r )]H .
(i

)

p+j
Hence [σp+j Υp+j
]H ∈ Q and we are done.



In order to understand higher connectivity of these descending links, we will use the
following result, due to Belk and Forrest [BF15a, Theorem 4.9], which Belk and Matucci
used in [BM16] in the Röver group case.
Citation 4.24. [BM16, Theorem 6.2] Let ∆ be a flag complex and let c, k ≥ 1. Suppose
∆ admits a ck-simplex Σ such that for every vertex v of ∆, v shares an edge with all but
at most k vertices of Σ. Then ∆ is (c − 1)-connected.
In [BF15a] and [BM16] ∆ is assumed to be finite, but since every homotopy sphere in a
flag complex lies in a finite flag subcomplex, the result is equally true for infinite ∆.
We will exhibit a simplex Σ in lk↓ [x]H that will end up working. Set m := φ([x]H ), and
#»
for each 0 ≤ i ≤ ⌊ md ⌋ let ℧i := [1m , id, ∧p m
1+di ], so the support of ℧i is {di + 1, . . . , di + d}.
Since these are disjoint for different i, Lemma 4.21 says that all the [x℧i ]H span a simplex
Σ in lk↓ [x]H . The dimension of Σ is 1 less than its number of vertices, i.e., ⌊ md ⌋.
See Figure 11 for an example of this Σ.

Figure 11. For x = 112 and d = 4 (so r = 0), the supports of ℧0 , ℧1 and ℧2
are {1, 2, 3, 4}, {5, 6, 7, 8} and {9, 10, 11, 12}. This picture is of [℧0 ⊕℧1 ⊕℧2 ],
which describes (the barycenter of) the simplex Σ.
To see that this Σ works, we need to understand when a vertex of of lk↓ [x]H shares an
edge with a vertex of Σ.
Lemma 4.25. Every vertex of lk↓ [x]H shares an edge with all but at most 2(d − 1) + 1
vertices of Σ.
#»
#»
Proof. Let [xσ h Υ(j) ]H be an arbitrary vertex of lk↓ [x]H , with σ h ∈ Sm ≀ H (for m = φ(x))
and Υ a non-trivial 1-foot elementary merging. Say Υ has length r, so r ≤ 2. We claim

38

R. SKIPPER AND M. C. B. ZAREMSKY

#»
that the support of σ h Υ(j) is disjoint from the supports of all but at most 2(d − 1) + 1
#»
of the ℧i . The support of ℧i is {di + 1, . . . , di + d} and the support of σ h Υ(j) is {σ(j ′ ) |
j ≤ j ′ ≤ j + r(d − 1)}. Since the {di + 1, . . . , di + d} are themselves disjoint for different
i values, {σ(j ′ ) | j ≤ j ′ ≤ j + r(d − 1)} can intersect {di + 1, . . . , di + d} for at most
|{σ(j ′ ) | j ≤ j ′ ≤ j + r(d − 1)}| = r(d − 1) + 1 ≤ 2(d − 1) + 1 values of i.

As a remark, this would not have worked if we had not passed from X (S∗ ≀G)H to X (S∗ ≀
G)poly
H . Simple elementary merges have bounded size of support, whereas elementary merges
in theory can have arbitrarily large supports (here support means the union of supports of
the simple factors). For example if x has md feet then the (non-simple) elementary merging
#»
#»
[1d , id, ∧p d1 ] ⊕ · · · ⊕ [1d , id, ∧p d1 ] (with m summands) has support equal to all of {1, . . . , m}.
Now we can prove our higher connectivity result.
Proposition 4.26 (Higher connectivity of descending links). If H is A-coarsely self-similar
for some finite A ⊆ Vd ∩ Aut(Td ) and (H, A) is orderly, then for each n ∈ N there exists
t ∈ R such that for all vertices [x]H in X (S∗ ≀ G)poly
with φ([x]H ) ≥ t we have that lk↓ [x]H
H
is n-connected.
Proof. Since Σ has dimension ⌊ φ([x]d H ) ⌋, Citation 4.24 and Lemma 4.25 say that lk↓ [x]H is

 j φ([x] ) k 


H


d
 − 1 − connected,

2(d − 1) + 1
so if we take t large enough that

$

t
d

2(d − 1) + 1

%

≥n+1

then we get that φ([x]H ) ≥ t implies lk↓ [x]H is n-connected.



We can now prove our main theorem about Nekrashevych groups of type F∞ .
Theorem 4.27. Let G ≤ Aut(Td ) be self-similar and suppose there exists H ≤ G such that
H is nuclear in G (see Definition 3.10) and A-coarsely self-similar (see Definition 3.5) for
some finite A ⊆ Vd ∩ Aut(Td ), and (H, A) is orderly (see Definition 4.3). If H is of type
F∞ then so is Vd (G).
poly
Proof. Consider the action of Vd (G) on X (S∗ ≀ G)poly
has X (S∗ ≀ G)H
H . Since X (S∗ ≀ G)H
as a simplicial subdivision (Observation 4.17), it is contractible (Corollary 4.13) so we
can try and apply Lemma 3.1 using the Morse function φ (see Observation 4.18). Since
sublevel sets in |PH1 | are cocompact (Lemma 3.9), the same is true in X (S∗ ≀ G)poly
H . Since
1
stabilizers in Vd (G) of vertices in |PH | are of type F∞ (Lemma 3.7), the same is true in
1
X (S∗ ≀ G)poly
H . The proof in Corollary 3.8 that every stabilizer of a simplex in |PH | has
finite index in some vertex stabilizer also establishes that every stabilizer of a polysimplex

ALMOST-AUTOMORPHISMS OF TREES, CLONING SYSTEMS AND FINITENESS PROPERTIES 39

in X (S∗ ≀ G)poly
has finite index in a vertex stabilizer, and so all cell stabilizers are of type
H
F∞ . Finally Proposition 4.26 establishes the last condition of Lemma 3.1.

When G itself is of type F∞ , all the necessary conditions are met almost trivially:
Corollary 4.28. Let G ≤ Aut(Td ) be self-similar and of type F∞ . Then Vd (G) is of type
F∞ .
Proof. Since G is self-similar it is {id}-coarsely self-similar (and (G, {id}) is trivially orderly), and any G is nuclear in itself, so this follows from Theorem 4.27 applied with
H = G.

Remark 4.29. In [Thu17], Thumann develops a unified framework, utilizing operads, for
proving that a variety of Thompson-like groups are of type F∞ . It is an interesting question
which Vd (G) fit into this framework. We believe that if G itself is of type F∞ then one
could likely use Thumann’s techniques to recover our result that Vd (G) is too. For the
case when G is not of type F∞ , but some orderly A-coarsely self-similar subgroup H that
is nuclear in G is of type F∞ , it is much less clear whether one could apply Thumann’s
approach. We suspect not, since it seems like Thumann’s framework would demand that
the stabilizers be built out of G rather than getting to choose a nice H. One could probably
modify Thumann’s machine to handle these groups, by first translating the approach here
and in [BM16] into the language of operads. It would be interesting to see if using operads
could yield F∞ for any Nekrashevych groups beyond the ones handled here.
5. Examples
In this section we discuss some examples of Nekrashevych groups that can be seen to be
of type F∞ using our results. As before, we have a fixed self-similar G ≤ Aut(Td ) and a
fixed H ≤ G.
5.1. G of type F∞ . First we consider the case when G is of type F∞ , so Vd (G) is also of
type F∞ thanks to Corollary 4.28. Since finite groups are of type F∞ , we have the following
example, which is worth remarking on first.
Example 5.1 (FSS Nekrashevych groups). Besides the Röver group, another previously
handled example from the literature concerns Nekrashevych groups that are FSS groups,
as in [FH15, Hug09]. As in Example 1.16, let D ≤ Sd and embed D into Aut(Td ) by by
viewing the vertices of Td as words in the alphabet {1, . . . , d}. Let ι be the embedding
and G its image. Then G is self-similar via the wreath recursion g = (ι−1 (g))(g, . . . , g),
so it makes sense to consider the Nekrashevych group Vd (G). It turns out Vd (G) is the
FSS group determined by G [FH15, Remark 2.13], and Farley and Hughes proved it is
of type F∞ [FH15, Corollary 6.6]. Since such G are finite, they are of type F∞ , so the
Farley–Hughes result is a special case of our results here. Since every finite group embeds
in some Sd , we can phrase this all as, every finite group produces a Nekrashevych group of

40

R. SKIPPER AND M. C. B. ZAREMSKY

type F∞ . As a remark, many Vd (G) are just isomorphic to Vd ; this happens if and only if
the action of D on {1, . . . , d} is free [BDJ14, Theorem 1].
Other examples of self-similar groups of type F∞ that have been considered in the
literature include free groups [VV10, SVV11], free products of arbitrarily many copies of
Z/2Z [SV11], and (Z/3Z) ∗ (Z/3Z) [BK17]. In all these cases, the groups are not only
self-similar but are even so called automaton groups. More generally, we know now from
Corollary 1.10 that every finitely generated virtually free group is self-similar, and of type
F∞ since finiteness properties are invariant under passing to finite index. Hence our main
example here is:
Example 5.2 (Virtually free). For any finitely generated virtually free group G, we can
embed G into Aut(Td ) as a self-similar group for some d, and moreover any Nekrashevych
group Vd (G) for G a finitely generated virtually free group is of type F∞ .
5.2. Abstract Šunić groups. The Grigorchuk group admits a number of generalizations,
including the infinite family of abstract Šunić groups briefly discussed in Example 1.17.
Here we discuss these in more detail, and prove that they fit into our framework and hence
yield Nekrashevych groups of type F∞ .
Definition 5.3 (Abstract Šunić group). Let A be the cylic group of order d, say A = hai,
and view A as a subgroup of Aut(Td ) via the embedding a 7→ [∧p 11 , (1 · · · d), ∧p 11 ]. Let B
be a finitely generated group and ρ : B → B an automorphism, and suppose there exists
a homomorphism ω : B → A such that no non-trivial ρ-orbit lies entirely in ker(ω). Map
B to Aut(Td ) by declaring the wreath recursion b = (ω(b), id, . . . , id, ρ(b)). This defines a
faithful action on Td since we have assumed that for any 1B 6= b ∈ B there exists n such
that ω(ρn (b)) 6= 1A . Viewing B as a subgroup of Aut(Td ) in this way, define Gω,ρ := hA, Bi.
This is the abstract Šunić group for ω and ρ. (Since A and B are the range and domain of
ω we need not include them in the subscript.)
Note that B must be abelian and satisfy B d = {1B }, since [B, B] and B d are characteristic and lie in ker(ω). Additionally, the Gω,ρ act transitively on every level of Td and
as such are infinite. These groups were introduced by Šunić in [Šun07] with the added
assumptions that d is prime, and hence B ∼
= Am for some m. Šunić also considered specific
ω and ρ arising from certain concrete matrices, and the groups Gω,ρ for these specific ω
and ρ were called Šunić groups in [FG16].
Lemma 5.4. For any Šunić group Gω,ρ we have that B is A-coarsely self-similar, of type
F∞ , and nuclear in Gω,ρ , and (B, A) is orderly.
Proof. The wreath recursion b = (ω(b), id, . . . , id, ρ(b)) ensures that B is A-coarsely selfsimilar, since ω(b) ∈ A and ρ(b) ∈ B. It is also immediate from this wreath recursion that
(B, A) is orderly, namely it is of the form in Example 4.4. That B is of type F∞ follows
from the fact it is finitely generated and abelian. It remains to show that B is nuclear in
Gω,ρ .

ALMOST-AUTOMORPHISMS OF TREES, CLONING SYSTEMS AND FINITENESS PROPERTIES 41

We first claim that Gω,ρ is contracting with nucleus contained in A ∪ B. We will induct
on length of words in the generating set (A∪B)\{id}. Let g = an1 b1 an2 b2 · · · ank bk for some
k ≥ 1, n1 ∈ {1, . . . , d}, n2 , . . . , nk ∈ {1, . . . , d − 1}, {b1 , . . . , bk−1 } ⊆ B \ {id} and bk ∈ B.
Note that g has length either 2k −2, 2k −1 or 2k depending on whether n1 = d and/or bk =
id. As a base case, suppose k = 1, so g = an1 b1 . Then g = (1 · · · d)n1 (ω(b1 ), id, . . . , id, ρ(b1 ))
and so the states on the first level are already in A ∪ B. Now suppose k ≥ 2. We have
g = an1 +n2 +···+nk (a−(n2 +n3 +···+nk ) b1 an2 +n3 +···+nk ) · · · (a−nk bk−1 ank )bk .
Each a−(ni+1 +···+nk ) bi ani+1 +···+nk equals (ω(bi ), id, . . . , id, ρ(bi )) with the entries cyclically
permuted, hence is of the form (gi1, . . . , gid) for gij ∈ A ∪ B. This means
g = (1 · · · d)n1 +n2 +···nk (g11 , . . . , g1d )(g21, . . . , g2d ) · · · (gk1 , . . . , gkd )
with gij ∈ A∪B for all i, j. In particular, any state on the first level is of the form g1j g2j · · · gkj ,
and this is a word of length at most k. Moreover, if bk = id then gkj = id so the length is at
most k − 1. Since k ≥ 2 and g has length at least 2k − 2 we see that in all cases g1j g2j · · · gkj
is strictly shorter than g. The claim now follows by induction.
Now let an1 b1 an2 b2 · · · ank bk be an arbitrary element of Gω,ρ , for ni ∈ {1, . . . , d} and
bj ∈ B. Since Gω,ρ is contracting with nucleus contained in A ∪ B, there exists an m
such that the states of an1 b1 an2 b2 · · · ank bk on the mth level are in A ∪ B. Suppose that
the states on the mth level that are in A \ B are in the coordinates k1 , . . . , kr . Then
#»
[11 , an1 b1 an2 b2 · · · ank bk , 11 ] = [T, σ b , T ] where T is the tree obtained by taking the finite
rooted d-ary tree whose leaves are all distance m from the root and attaching a d-caret to
#»
#»
m
the ki th leaf for each 1 ≤ i ≤ r, and where σ b ∈ Sdm +r(d−1) ≀ B. Since b ∈ B d +r(d−1) ,
this finishes the proof that B is nuclear in G.

Corollary 5.5. For any Šunić group Gω,ρ , the Nekrashevych group Vd (Gω,ρ ) is of type F∞ .
Proof. This is immediate from Lemma 5.4 and Theorem 4.27.



Examples that arise in this setting include Grigorchuk’s group (as addressed in [BM16])
and the Fabrykowski-Gupta group. The abstract Šunić groups are all examples of bounded
automaton groups and as such are amenable [BKN10]. In addition, many of these examples
are regular branch groups, and thus are not elementary amenable [Jus17]. This class
contains groups with a number of other exotic properties as well, including infinite torsion
groups. The torsion examples, and the examples for d = 2 that are not isomorphic to the
infinite dihedral group, have intermediate word growth [Šun07, FG16].
We note that those abstract Šunić groups G that are regular branch are of type F1 but
not type F2 [Bar03], so using H = G would not have worked.
5.3. Questions. There is evidence that as soon as G is finitely generated and contracting,
Vd (G) is of type F∞ . Nekrashevych proved that such Vd (G) are at least finitely presentable
[Nek13, Theorem 5.9], and according to the last paragraph in the introduction of [BM16]
Bartholdi and Geoghegan have some unpublished results proving that they are indeed

42

R. SKIPPER AND M. C. B. ZAREMSKY

type F∞ . It seems unlikely our methods could yield this broad of a result, with the biggest
immediate roadblock being the stabilizers. In a nutshell, the mere fact that G has a finite
nucleus (which might not be a subgroup) doesn’t give us any natural type F∞ subgroups
H to use to build stabilizers of a Stein–Farley-esque complex, and it is unclear where to
hunt for another nice complex on which Vd (G) acts with nice (finite? trivial?) stabilizers.
Since this is technically still open as of the writing of the present paper we will record it
here as a question (though Bartholdi and Geoghegan’s aforementioned unpublished work
would indicate the answer is “yes”):
Question 5.6. Is Vd (G) of type F∞ for every finitely generated, contracting self-similar
G?
It would also be very interesting to find an example of a finitely generated self-similar
(non-contracting, non-F∞ ) group G ≤ Aut(Td ) such that Vd (G) is not of type F∞ . We
have seen examples where G is not even finitely presentable but Vd (G) is of type F∞ (like
the Röver group), so in general it seems that any negative finiteness properties would have
to come from somewhere other than “carrying over” from G. This question of whether
Nekrashevych groups are always F∞ is especially interesting since they are often simple
or virtually simple (see [Nek04, Theorems 9.11 and 9.14] for a precise statement), and to
the best of our knowledge it is still an open problem to find simple groups with arbitrary
finiteness properties in the world of Thompson-like groups (see also the question in the
introduction of [WZ16]). Note that the F1 -but-not-F2 case is handled for example by the
basilica Thompson group TB [BF15b, WZ16], but even the F2 -but-not-F3 case is open.
Question 5.7. Does there exist a finitely generated self-similar G such that Vd (G) is not
of type F∞ ?
References
[Bar03]
[BB97]

L. Bartholdi. Endomorphic presentations of branch groups. J. Algebra, 268(2):419–443, 2003.
M. Bestvina and N. Brady. Morse theory and finiteness properties of groups. Invent. Math.,
129(3):445–470, 1997.
[BBCS08] T. Brady, J. Burillo, S. Cleary, and M. Stein. Pure braid subgroups of braided Thompson’s
groups. Publ. Mat., 52(1):57–89, 2008.
[BDJ14]
C. Bleak, C. Donovan, and J. Jonušas. Some isomorphism results for Thompson like groups
Vn (G). Israel J. Math., 2014. To appear. arXiv:1410.8726.
[BF15a]
J. Belk and B. Forrest. Rearrangement Groups of Fractals. arXiv:1510.03133, 2015.
[BF15b]
J. Belk and B. Forrest. A Thompson group for the basilica. Groups Geom. Dyn., 9(4):975–1000,
2015.
[BFM+ 16] K.-U. Bux, M. G. Fluch, M. Marschler, S. Witzel, and M. C. B. Zaremsky. The braided Thompson’s groups are of type F∞ . J. Reine Angew. Math., 718:59–101, 2016. With an appendix by
Zaremsky.
[BK17]
I. Bondarenko and B. Kivva. Automaton groups and complete square complexes.
arXiv:1707.00215, 2017.
[BKN10]
L. Bartholdi, V. A. Kaimanovich, and V. V. Nekrashevych. On amenability of automata groups.
Duke Math. J., 154(3):575–598, 2010.

ALMOST-AUTOMORPHISMS OF TREES, CLONING SYSTEMS AND FINITENESS PROPERTIES 43

[BM14]

J. Belk and F. Matucci. Conjugacy and dynamics in Thompson’s groups. Geom. Dedicata,
169:239–261, 2014.
[BM16]
J. Belk and F. Matucci. Röver’s simple group is of type F∞ . Publ. Mat., 60(2):501–524, 2016.
[Bri07]
M. G. Brin. The algebra of strand splitting. I. A braided version of Thompson’s group V . J.
Group Theory, 10(6):757–788, 2007.
[Bro87]
K. S. Brown. Finiteness properties of groups. J. Pure Appl. Algebra, 44(1-3):45–75, 1987.
[Bro92]
K. S. Brown. The geometry of finitely presented infinite simple groups. In Algorithms and
classification in combinatorial group theory (Berkeley, CA, 1989), volume 23 of Math. Sci.
Res. Inst. Publ., pages 121–136. Springer, New York, 1992.
[BS07]
A. Berlatto and S. Sidki. Virtual endomorphisms of nilpotent groups. Groups Geom. Dyn.,
1(1):25–46, 2007.
[Deh06]
P. Dehornoy. The group of parenthesized braids. Adv. Math., 205(2):354–409, 2006.
[Far03]
D. S. Farley. Finiteness and CAT(0) properties of diagram groups. Topology, 42(5):1065–1082,
2003.
[FG16]
D. Francoeur and A. Garrido. Maximal subgroups of groups of intermediate growth.
arXiv:1611.01216, 2016.
[FH15]
D. S. Farley and B. Hughes. Finiteness properties of some groups of local similarities. Proc.
Edinb. Math. Soc. (2), 58(2):379–402, 2015.
[FMWZ13] M. G. Fluch, M. Marschler, S. Witzel, and M. C. B. Zaremsky. The Brin-Thompson groups
sV are of type F∞ . Pacific J. Math., 266(2):283–295, 2013.
[Hug09]
B. Hughes. Local similarities and the Haagerup property. Groups Geom. Dyn., 3(2):299–315,
2009. With an appendix by D. S. Farley.
[Jus17]
K. Juschenko. Non-elementary amenable subgroups of automata groups. J. Topol. Anal., pages
1–11, 2017. To appear. arXiv:1504.00610.
[LB17]
A. Le Boudec. Compact presentability of tree almost automorphism groups. Ann. Inst. Fourier
(Grenoble), 67(1):329–365, 2017.
[MPMN16] C. Martı́nez-Pérez, F. Matucci, and B. E. A. Nucinkis. Cohomological finiteness conditions
and centralisers in generalisations of Thompson’s group V . Forum Math., 28(5):909–921, 2016.
[Nek04]
V. V. Nekrashevych. Cuntz-Pimsner algebras of group actions. J. Operator Theory, 52(2):223–
249, 2004.
[Nek05]
V. Nekrashevych. Self-similar groups, volume 117 of Math. Surveys and Monographs. American
Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2005.
[Nek13]
V. Nekrashevych. Finitely presented groups associated with expanding maps. arXiv:1312.5654,
2013.
[NSJG14] B. E. A. Nucinkis and S. St. John-Green. Quasi-automorphisms of the infinite rooted 2-edgecoloured binary tree. Groups Geom. Dyn., 2014. To appear. arXiv:1412.7715.
[Qui78]
D. Quillen. Homotopy properties of the poset of nontrivial p-subgroups of a group. Adv. in
Math., 28(2):101–128, 1978.
[R9̈9]
C. E. Röver. Constructing finitely presented simple groups that contain Grigorchuk groups. J.
Algebra, 220(1):284–313, 1999.
[Ste92]
M. Stein. Groups of piecewise linear homeomorphisms. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 332(2):477–
514, 1992.
[Šun07]
Z. Šunić. Hausdorff dimension in a family of self-similar groups. Geom. Dedicata, 124:213–236,
2007.
[SV11]
D. Savchuk and Y. Vorobets. Automata generating free products of groups of order 2. J.
Algebra, 336:53–66, 2011.
[SVV11]
B. Steinberg, M. Vorobets, and Y. Vorobets. Automata over a binary alphabet generating free
groups of even rank. Internat. J. Algebra Comput., 21(1-2):329–354, 2011.

44

R. SKIPPER AND M. C. B. ZAREMSKY

[Tan16]
[Thu17]
[VV10]
[WZ14]
[WZ16]
[Zar18]

S. Tanushevski. A new class of generalized Thompson’s groups and their normal subgroups.
Comm. Algebra, 44(10):4378–4410, 2016.
W. Thumann. Operad groups and their finiteness properties. Adv. Math., 307:417–487, 2017.
M. Vorobets and Y. Vorobets. On a series of finite automata defining free transformation
groups. Groups Geom. Dyn., 4(2):377–405, 2010.
S. Witzel and M. C. B. Zaremsky. Thompson groups for systems of groups, and their finiteness
properties. Groups Geom. Dyn., 2014. To appear. arXiv:1405.5491.
S. Witzel and M. C. B. Zaremsky. The Basilica Thompson group is not finitely presented.
Submitted. arXiv:1603.01150, 2016.
M. C. B. Zaremsky. A user’s guide to cloning systems. Topology Proc., 52:13–33, 2018.
arXiv:1606.08762.

Department of Mathematical Sciences, Binghamton University, Binghamton, NY 13902
E-mail address: rskippe1@binghamton.edu
Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University at Albany (SUNY), Albany, NY
12222
E-mail address: mzaremsky@albany.edu

