For a multidimensional subshift $X$ over $\mathbb Z^d$, the topological full group $[X]$ is the set of homeomorphisms $f$ of $X$ that can be written as $f : x \mapsto \sigma_{c(x)}(x)$ with $c : X \to \mathbb Z^d$ a continuous function (namely, a cocyle).
My questions would mainly be about embedability of those groups (for which groups $G$ and which type of subshifts - minimal, of finite type, sofic, effective ... - do we have $G$ as a subgroup of $[X]$), realization (which groups G can be realized as topological full groups of subshifts), computability (how "hard" - in a computability theory sense - it is to determine the topological full group of a given subshift), closure properties ...
Some things are known for one-dimensional subshifts, e.g.
- Vile Salo, Graphs and wreath products in topological full groups of full shifts shows (among other things) how to embed every finitely generated right angled Artin group in $[\{0, 1\}^{\mathbb Z}]$
- Nicolás Matte Bon, Topological full groups of minimal subshifts with subgroups of intermediate growth, shows how to embed the Grigorchuk group(s) in the topological full group of minimal one-dimensional subshifts
On the other hand, the cohomology of multidimensional subshifts has been studied, and some work has been done to understand what their cocycles (with values in arbitrary groups, not restricted not $\mathbb Z^d$) look like:
- Klaus Schmidt, Tilings, fundamental cocycles and fundamental groups of symbolic Zd actions
- Einsiedler, Fundamental cocycles of tiling spaces
and several other articles.
Is there a priori anything "interesting" to say in the multidimensional case (say subshifts/tilings over $\mathbb Z^2$), which would - qualitatively or quantitatively - differ from the 1d-case ? For other algebraic conjugacy invariants, such as automorphism groups, there are indeed interesting questions and approaches to solve them both for subshifts over $\mathbb Z$ and over $\mathbb Z^2$, and although the one-dimensional case has been more extensively studied, it is, as far as I can tell, a consequence of the difficulty of the problem rather than because the 2d-case is "not interesting" or "could be reduced to the 1d-case". Is the situation similar for the understanding of topological full groups of subshifts, or is there some reason that I missed for it to be (apparently) only ever studied for 1d subshifts ?