Whitehead's algorithm is a mathematical algorithm in group theory for solving the automorphic equivalence problem in the finite rank free group Fn. The algorithm is based on a classic 1936 paper of J. H. C. Whitehead.[1] It is still unknown (except for the case n = 2) if Whitehead's algorithm has polynomial time complexity.

Statement of the problem edit

Let   be a free group of rank   with a free basis  . The automorphism problem, or the automorphic equivalence problem for   asks, given two freely reduced words   whether there exists an automorphism   such that  .

Thus the automorphism problem asks, for   whether  . For   one has   if and only if  , where   are conjugacy classes in   of   accordingly. Therefore, the automorphism problem for   is often formulated in terms of  -equivalence of conjugacy classes of elements of  .

For an element  ,   denotes the freely reduced length of   with respect to  , and   denotes the cyclically reduced length of   with respect to  . For the automorphism problem, the length of an input   is measured as   or as  , depending on whether one views   as an element of   or as defining the corresponding conjugacy class   in  .

History edit

The automorphism problem for   was algorithmically solved by J. H. C. Whitehead in a classic 1936 paper,[1] and his solution came to be known as Whitehead's algorithm. Whitehead used a topological approach in his paper. Namely, consider the 3-manifold  , the connected sum of   copies of  . Then  , and, moreover, up to a quotient by a finite normal subgroup isomorphic to  , the mapping class group of   is equal to  ; see.[2] Different free bases of   can be represented by isotopy classes of "sphere systems" in  , and the cyclically reduced form of an element  , as well as the Whitehead graph of  , can be "read-off" from how a loop in general position representing   intersects the spheres in the system. Whitehead moves can be represented by certain kinds of topological "swapping" moves modifying the sphere system.[3][4][5]

Subsequently, Rapaport,[6] and later, based on her work, Higgins and Lyndon,[7] gave a purely combinatorial and algebraic re-interpretation of Whitehead's work and of Whitehead's algorithm. The exposition of Whitehead's algorithm in the book of Lyndon and Schupp[8] is based on this combinatorial approach. Culler and Vogtmann,[9] in their 1986 paper that introduced the Outer space, gave a hybrid approach to Whitehead's algorithm, presented in combinatorial terms but closely following Whitehead's original ideas.

Whitehead's algorithm edit

Our exposition regarding Whitehead's algorithm mostly follows Ch.I.4 in the book of Lyndon and Schupp,[8] as well as.[10]

Overview edit

The automorphism group   has a particularly useful finite generating set   of Whitehead automorphisms or Whitehead moves. Given   the first part of Whitehead's algorithm consists of iteratively applying Whitehead moves to   to take each of them to an ``automorphically minimal" form, where the cyclically reduced length strictly decreases at each step. Once we find automorphically these minimal forms   of  , we check if  . If   then   are not automorphically equivalent in  .

If  , we check if there exists a finite chain of Whitehead moves taking   to   so that the cyclically reduced length remains constant throughout this chain. The elements   are not automorphically equivalent in   if and only if such a chain exists.

Whitehead's algorithm also solves the search automorphism problem for  . Namely, given  , if Whitehead's algorithm concludes that  , the algorithm also outputs an automorphism   such that  . Such an element   is produced as the composition of a chain of Whitehead moves arising from the above procedure and taking   to  .

Whitehead automorphisms edit

A Whitehead automorphism, or Whitehead move, of   is an automorphism   of   of one of the following two types:

(i) There is a permutation   of   such that for  

 
Such   is called a Whitehead automorphism of the first kind.

(ii) There is an element  , called the multiplier, such that for every  

 
Such   is called a Whitehead automorphism of the second kind. Since   is an automorphism of  , it follows that   in this case.

Often, for a Whitehead automorphism  , the corresponding outer automorphism in   is also called a Whitehead automorphism or a Whitehead move.

Examples edit

Let  .

Let   be a homomorphism such that

 

Then   is actually an automorphism of  , and, moreover,   is a Whitehead automorphism of the second kind, with the multiplier  .

Let   be a homomorphism such that

 

Then   is actually an inner automorphism of   given by conjugation by  , and, moreover,  is a Whitehead automorphism of the second kind, with the multiplier  .

Automorphically minimal and Whitehead minimal elements edit

For  , the conjugacy class   is called automorphically minimal if for every   we have  . Also, a conjugacy class   is called Whitehead minimal if for every Whitehead move   we have  .

Thus, by definition, if   is automorphically minimal then it is also Whitehead minimal. It turns out that the converse is also true.

Whitehead's "Peak Reduction Lemma" edit

The following statement is referred to as Whitehead's "Peak Reduction Lemma", see Proposition 4.20 in [8] and Proposition 1.2 in:[10]

Let  . Then the following hold:

(1) If   is not automorphically minimal, then there exists a Whitehead automorphism   such that  .

(2) Suppose that   is automorphically minimal, and that another conjugacy class   is also automorphically minimal. Then   if and only if   and there exists a finite sequence of Whitehead moves   such that

 

and

 

Part (1) of the Peak Reduction Lemma implies that a conjugacy class   is Whitehead minimal if and only if it is automorphically minimal.

The automorphism graph edit

The automorphism graph   of   is a graph with the vertex set being the set of conjugacy classes   of elements  . Two distinct vertices   are adjacent in   if   and there exists a Whitehead automorphism   such that  . For a vertex   of  , the connected component of   in   is denoted  .

Whitehead graph edit

For   with cyclically reduced form  , the Whitehead graph   is a labelled graph with the vertex set  , where for   there is an edge joining   and   with the label or "weight"   which is equal to the number of distinct occurrences of subwords   read cyclically in  . (In some versions of the Whitehead graph one only includes the edges with  .)

If   is a Whitehead automorphism, then the length change   can be expressed as a linear combination, with integer coefficients determined by  , of the weights   in the Whitehead graph  . See Proposition 4.16 in Ch. I of.[8] This fact plays a key role in the proof of Whitehead's peak reduction result.

Whitehead's minimization algorithm edit

Whitehead's minimization algorithm, given a freely reduced word  , finds an automorphically minimal   such that  

This algorithm proceeds as follows. Given  , put  . If   is already constructed, check if there exists a Whitehead automorphism   such that  . (This condition can be checked since the set of Whitehead automorphisms of   is finite.) If such   exists, put   and go to the next step. If no such   exists, declare that   is automorphically minimal, with  , and terminate the algorithm.

Part (1) of the Peak Reduction Lemma implies that the Whitehead's minimization algorithm terminates with some  , where  , and that then   is indeed automorphically minimal and satisfies  .

Whitehead's algorithm for the automorphic equivalence problem edit

Whitehead's algorithm for the automorphic equivalence problem, given   decides whether or not  .

The algorithm proceeds as follows. Given  , first apply the Whitehead minimization algorithm to each of   to find automorphically minimal   such that   and  . If  , declare that   and terminate the algorithm. Suppose now that  . Then check if there exists a finite sequence of Whitehead moves   such that

 

and

 

This condition can be checked since the number of cyclically reduced words of length   in   is finite. More specifically, using the breadth-first approach, one constructs the connected components   of the automorphism graph and checks if  .

If such a sequence exists, declare that  , and terminate the algorithm. If no such sequence exists, declare that   and terminate the algorithm.

The Peak Reduction Lemma implies that Whitehead's algorithm correctly solves the automorphic equivalence problem in  . Moreover, if  , the algorithm actually produces (as a composition of Whitehead moves) an automorphism   such that  .

Computational complexity of Whitehead's algorithm edit

  • If the rank   of   is fixed, then, given  , the Whitehead minimization algorithm always terminates in quadratic time   and produces an automorphically minimal cyclically reduced word   such that  .[10] Moreover, even if   is not considered fixed, (an adaptation of) the Whitehead minimization algorithm on an input   terminates in time  .[11]
  • If the rank   of   is fixed, then for an automorphically minimal   constructing the graph   takes   time and thus requires a priori exponential time in  . For that reason Whitehead's algorithm for deciding, given  , whether or not  , runs in at most exponential time in  .
  • For  , Khan proved that for an automorphically minimal  , the graph   has at most   vertices and hence constructing the graph   can be done in quadratic time in  .[12] Consequently, Whitehead's algorithm for the automorphic equivalence problem in  , given   runs in quadratic time in  .

Applications, generalizations and related results edit

  • Whitehead's algorithm can be adapted to solve, for any fixed  , the automorphic equivalence problem for m-tuples of elects of   and for m-tuples of conjugacy classes in  ; see Ch.I.4 of [8] and [13]
  • McCool used Whitehead's algorithm and the peak reduction to prove that for any   the stabilizer   is finitely presentable, and obtained a similar results for  -stabilizers of m-tuples of conjugacy classes in  .[14] McCool also used the peak reduction method to construct of a finite presentation of the group   with the set of Whitehead automorphisms as the generating set.[15] He then used this presentation to recover a finite presentation for  , originally due to Nielsen, with Nielsen automorphisms as generators.[16]
  • Gersten obtained a variation of Whitehead's algorithm, for deciding, given two finite subsets  , whether the subgroups   are automorphically equivalent, that is, whether there exists   such that  .[17]
  • Whitehead's algorithm and peak reduction play a key role in the proof by Culler and Vogtmann that the Culler–Vogtmann Outer space is contractible.[9]
  • Collins and Zieschang obtained analogs of Whitehead's peak reduction and of Whitehead's algorithm for automorphic equivalence in free products of groups.[18][19]
  • Gilbert used a version of a peak reduction lemma to construct a presentation for the automorphism group   of a free product  .[20]
  • Levitt and Vogtmann produced a Whitehead-type algorithm for saving the automorphic equivalence problem (for elects, m-tuples of elements and m-tuples of conjugacy classes) in a group   where   is a closed hyperbolic surface.[21]
  • If an element   chosen uniformly at random from the sphere of radius   in  , then, with probability tending to 1 exponentially fast as  , the conjugacy class   is already automorphically minimal and, moreover,  . Consequently, if   are two such ``generic" elements, Whitehead's algorithm decides whether   are automorphically equivalent in linear time in  .[10]
  • Similar to the above results hold for the genericity of automorphic minimality for ``randomly chosen" finitely generated subgroups of  .[22]
  • Lee proved that if   is a cyclically reduced word such that   is automorphically minimal, and if whenever   both occur in   or   then the total number of occurrences of   in   is smaller than the number of occurrences of  , then   is bounded above by a polynomial of degree   in  .[23] Consequently, if   are such that   is automorphically equivalent to some   with the above property, then Whitehead's algorithm decides whether   are automorphically equivalent in time  .
  • The Garside algorithm for solving the conjugacy problem in braid groups has a similar general structure to Whitehead's algorithm, with "cycling moves" playing the role of Whitehead moves.[24]
  • Clifford and Goldstein used Whitehead-algorithm based techniques to produce an algorithm that, given a finite subset   decides whether or not the subgroup   contains a primitive element of   that is an element of a free generating set of  [25]
  • Day obtained analogs of Whitehead's algorithm and of Whitehead's peak reduction for automorphic equivalence of elements of right-angled Artin groups.[26]

References edit

  1. ^ a b J. H. C. Whitehead, On equivalent sets of elements in a free group, Ann. of Math. (2) 37:4 (1936), 782–800. MR1503309
  2. ^ Suhas Pandit, A note on automorphisms of the sphere complex. Proc. Indian Acad. Sci. Math. Sci. 124:2 (2014), 255–265; MR3218895
  3. ^ Allen Hatcher, Homological stability for automorphism groups of free groups, Commentarii Mathematici Helvetici 70:1 (1995) 39–62; MR1314940
  4. ^ Karen Vogtmann, Automorphisms of free groups and outer space. Proceedings of the Conference on Geometric and Combinatorial Group Theory, Part I (Haifa, 2000). Geometriae Dedicata 94 (2002), 1–31; MR1950871
  5. ^ Andrew Clifford, and Richard Z. Goldstein, Sets of primitive elements in a free group. Journal of Algebra 357 (2012), 271–278; MR2905255
  6. ^ Elvira Rapaport, On free groups and their automorphisms. Acta Mathematica 99 (1958), 139–163; MR0131452
  7. ^ P. J. Higgins, and R. C. Lyndon, Equivalence of elements under automorphisms of a free group. Journal of the London Mathematical Society (2) 8 (1974), 254–258; MR0340420
  8. ^ a b c d e Roger Lyndon and Paul Schupp, Combinatorial group theory. Reprint of the 1977 edition. Classics in Mathematics. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2001. ISBN 3-540-41158-5MR1812024
  9. ^ a b Marc Culler; Karen Vogtmann (1986). "Moduli of graphs and automorphisms of free groups" (PDF). Inventiones Mathematicae. 84 (1): 91–119. doi:10.1007/BF01388734. MR 0830040. S2CID 122869546.
  10. ^ a b c d Ilya Kapovich, Paul Schupp, and Vladimir Shpilrain, Generic properties of Whitehead's algorithm and isomorphism rigidity of random one-relator groups. Pacific Journal of Mathematics 223:1 (2006), 113–140
  11. ^ Abdó Roig, Enric Ventura, and Pascal Weil, On the complexity of the Whitehead minimization problem. International Journal of Algebra and Computation 17:8 (2007), 1611–1634; MR2378055
  12. ^ Bilal Khan, The structure of automorphic conjugacy in the free group of rank two. Computational and experimental group theory, 115–196, Contemp. Math., 349, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2004
  13. ^ Sava Krstić, Martin Lustig, and Karen Vogtmann, An equivariant Whitehead algorithm and conjugacy for roots of Dehn twist automorphisms. Proceedings of the Edinburgh Mathematical Society (2) 44:1 (2001), 117–141
  14. ^ James McCool, Some finitely presented subgroups of the automorphism group of a free group. Journal of Algebra 35:1-3 (1975), 205–213; MR0396764
  15. ^ James McCool, A presentation for the automorphism group of a free group of finite rank. Journal of the London Mathematical Society (2) 8 (1974), 259–266; MR0340421
  16. ^ James McCool, On Nielsen's presentation of the automorphism group of a free group. Journal of the London Mathematical Society (2) 10 (1975), 265–270
  17. ^ Stephen Gersten, On Whitehead's algorithm, Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society 10:2 (1984), 281–284; MR0733696
  18. ^ Donald J. Collins, and Heiner Zieschang, Rescuing the Whitehead method for free products. I. Peak reduction. Mathematische Zeitschrift 185:4 (1984), 487–504 MR0733769
  19. ^ Donald J. Collins, and Heiner Zieschang, Rescuing the Whitehead method for free products. II. The algorithm. Mathematische Zeitschrift 186:3 (1984), 335–361; MR0744825
  20. ^ Nick D. Gilbert, Presentations of the automorphism group of a free product. Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society (3) 54 (1987), no. 1, 115–140.
  21. ^ Gilbert Levitt and Karen Vogtmann, A Whitehead algorithm for surface groups, Topology 39:6 (2000), 1239–1251
  22. ^ Frédérique Bassino, Cyril Nicaud, and Pascal Weil, On the genericity of Whitehead minimality. Journal of Group Theory 19:1 (2016), 137–159 MR3441131
  23. ^ Donghi Lee, A tighter bound for the number of words of minimum length in an automorphic orbit. Journal of Algebra 305:2 (2006), 1093–1101; MRMR2266870
  24. ^ Joan Birman, Ki Hyoung Ko, and Sang Jin Lee, A new approach to the word and conjugacy problems in the braid groups, Advances in Mathematics 139:2 (1998), 322–353; Zbl 0937.20016 MR1654165
  25. ^ Andrew Clifford, and Richard Z. Goldstein, Subgroups of free groups and primitive elements. Journal of Group Theory 13:4 (2010), 601–611; MR2661660
  26. ^ Matthew Day, Full-featured peak reduction in right-angled Artin groups. Algebraic and Geometric Topology 14:3 (2014), 1677–1743 MR3212581

Further reading edit