arXiv:1702.00342v1 [] 23 Jan 2017

A NOTE ON LOCAL RIGIDITY
N. BERGERON AND T. GELANDER

Abstract. The aim of this note is to give a geometric proof for classical
local rigidity of lattices in semisimple Lie groups. We are reproving well
known results in a more geometric (and hopefully clearer) way.

1. Introduction
Let G be a semisimple Lie group, and let Γ ≤ G be an irreducible lattice.
We denote by R(Γ, G) the space of deformations of Γ in G, i.e. the space of all
homomorphisms Γ → G with the topology of pointwise convergence. Recall
that Γ is called locally rigid if there is a neighborhood Ω of the inclusion map
ρ0 : Γ → G in R(Γ, G) such that any ρ ∈ Ω is conjugate to ρ0 . In other
words, this means that if Γ is generated by the finite set Σ, then there is an
identity neighborhood U ⊂ G such that if ρ : Γ → G is a homomorphism
such that ρ(γ) ∈ γ · U for any γ ∈ Σ, then there is some g ∈ G for which
ρ(γ) = gγg −1 for any γ ∈ Γ (such ρ is called a trivial deformation).
Local rigidity was first proved by Selberg [17] for uniform lattices in the
case G = SLn (R), n ≥ 3, and by Calabi [3] for uniform lattices in the
case G = P O(n, 1) = Isom(Hn ), n ≥ 3. Then, Weil [23] generalized these
results to any uniform irreducible lattice in any G, assuming that G is not
locally isomorphic to SL2 (R) (in which case lattices have many non-trivial
deformations - the Teichmuller spaces). Later, Garland and Raghunathan
[7] proved local rigidity for non-uniform lattices Γ ≤ G when rank(G) =
1 1 under the necessary assumption that G is neither locally isomorphic
to SL2 (R) nor to SL2 (C). For non-uniform irreducible lattices in higher
rank semisimple Lie groups, the local rigidity is a consequence of the much
stronger property: super-rigidity, which was proved by Margulis [13].
Our aim here, is to present a simple proof of the following theorem:
Theorem 1.1. Under the necessary conditions on G and Γ, if ρ is a deformation, close enough to the identity ρ0 , then ρ(Γ) is a lattice and ρ is an
isomorphism.
Date: February 2, 2017.
1Unless otherwise specified rank(G) will always mean the real rank of G.
1

2

N. BERGERON AND T. GELANDER

Remark 1.2. In the higher rank case, we need the lattice to be arithmetic,
which is always true by Margulis’ theorem. But this is of course cheating.
Anyway our method provides, for example, a simple geometric proof of the
local rigidity of SLn (Z) in SLn (R) for n ≥ 3. Note also that Margulis’
arithmeticity theorem is easier in the non compact case [14] (it does not rely
on super-rigidity) which is the only case we need here.
Remark 1.3. In fact, we prove a “stronger” result than the statement of
theorem 1.1. Namely, if X = G/K is the associated symmetric space, then
for a small deformation ρ, X/ρ(Γ) is homeomorphic to X/Γ and ρ : Γ →
ρ(Γ) is an isomorphism.
With Theorem 1.1, local rigidity follows from Mostow rigidity. Recall that
Mostow’s rigidity theorem [15] says that if G is a connected semisimple Lie
group not locally isomorphic to SL2 (R), and Γ1 , Γ2 ≤ G are isomorphic
irreducible lattices in G, then they are conjugate in G, i.e. Γ1 = gΓ2 g −1 for
some g ∈ G.
Remark 1.4. In Selberg’s paper [17] a main difficulty was to prove a weaker
version of 1.1 in his special case. Selberg also indicated that his proof (which
is quite elementary and very elegant) would work for more general higher
rank cases if the general version (1.1 above) of his lemma 9 could be proved.
This supports the general feeling that it should be possible to give a complete
elementary proof of local rigidity which does not rely on Mostow’s rigidity.
However, the authors decided not to strain too much, in trying to avoid
Mostow rigidity, since in the rank one case there are by now very elegant
and straightforward proofs of Mostow rigidity (such as the proof of Gromov
and Thurston (see [18]) for compact hyperbolic manifolds, and of Besson,
Courtois and Gallot [2] for the general rank one case, note also that Mostow’s
original proof is much simpler in the rank one case) while for higher rank
spaces the much stronger Margulis’ supper-rigidity holds.
Our proof of Theorem 1.1 relies on an old principle implicit in Ehresmann’s work and to our knowledge first made explicit in Thurston’s notes.
This principle implies in particular that any sufficiently small deformation of
a cocompact lattice in a Lie group stays a lattice. It seems to have remained
unknown for many years, as both Selberg and Weil spent some effort in proving partial cases of it. It is by now fairly well known, but the authors could
not find a complete written proof of it in the literature although everyone
knows that it is implicit in Ehresmann’s work. In the second section of this
paper, we thus decided to write a complete proof, using Ehresmann’s beautiful viewpoint, of a slight generalization of this principle to the non-compact
case needed for our purpose. In the third section we prove Theorem 1.1 in

A NOTE ON LOCAL RIGIDITY

3

the rank one case. In the last section we prove Theorem 1.1 for arithmetic
lattices of higher rank.
Non-uniform lattices in the group P SL2 (C) ∼
= Isom(H3 ) are not locally
rigid, although Mostow rigidity is valid for P SL2 (C). This shows that local
rigidity is not a straightforward consequence of Mostow rigidity. Moreover,
it was shown by Thurston that if Γ ≤ P SL2 (C) is a non-uniform lattice then
there is an infinite family of small deformations ρn of Γ such that ρn (Γ) is
again a lattice, but not isomorphic to Γ, and in fact many of the ρn (Γ)’s may
be constructed to be uniform. The proof which we present in this note is in
a sense a product of our attempt to understand and formulate why similar
phenomenon cannot happen in higher dimensions.
In fact, we shall show that some weak version of local rigidity is valid also
for non-uniform lattices in P SL2 (C). This would allow us to obtain a direct
proof of the fact that for any (non-uniform) lattice in G = SL2 (C) (as well
as in any connected G which is defined over Q as an algebraic group and is
locally isomorphic to SL2 (C)), there is an algebraic number field K, and an
element g ∈ G, such that gΓg −1 ≤ G(K). This fact (which is well known in
the general case for any lattice in any G which is not locally isomorphic to
SL2 (R)) can be proved by a few line argument when Γ is locally rigid in G.
When G is locally isomorphic to SL2 (C), and Γ ≤ G is non-uniform (and
hence not locally rigid), this was proved in [7], section 8, by a special and
longer argument. Our method allows to unify this special case to the general
case.
In section 2 we shall formulate and prove the Ehresmann-Thurston principle and use it in order to prove local rigidity for uniform lattices (Weil’s
theorem). In section 3, which is in a sense the main contribution of this
note, we shall present a complete and elementary proof for local rigidity of
non-uniform lattices in groups of rank one (originally due to Garland and
Raghunathan). Then, in section 4, we shall apply our method to higher-rank
non-uniform lattices. In some cases, our proof remains completely elementary. However, for the general case we shall rely on some deep results.
2. The Ehresmann-Thurston principle
In this section X is a model manifold and G a transitive group of real analytic homeomorphisms of X. Given such data one can construct all possible
manifolds by choosing open subsets of X and pasting them together using restrictions of homeomorphisms from the group G. Following Ehresmann and
Thurston we will call such a manifold a (G, X)-manifold. More precisely, a
(G, X)-manifold is a manifold M together with an atlas {κi : Ui → X} such
that the changes of charts are restrictions of elements of G.

4

N. BERGERON AND T. GELANDER

Such a structure enables to develop the manifold M along its paths (by
pasting the open subsets of X) into the model manifold X. We can do this
in particular for closed paths representing generators of the fundamental
group π1 (M). Starting from one of the open sets U ⊂ M of the given
atlas, the development produces a covering space M ′ of M, a representation
ρ
π1 (M) → G called the holonomy and a structure preserving immersion, the
d
developing map M ′ → X, which
 is equivariant with respect to the action of
′
π1 (M) on M and of ρ π1 (M) on X.
There is an ambiguity in the choice of one chart κ : U → X about a base
point. However, deferent charts around a point are always identified on a
common sub-neighborhood modulo the action of G.
Ehresmann’s way of doing mathematics was to find neat definitions for
his concepts so that theorems would then follow easily from definitions. We
shall try to follow his way. Recall first his fiber bundle picture of a (G, X)structure and his neat definition of the developing map.
To make it simple, let us describe first the picture for one chart κ : U → X
which is a topological embedding. We can associate a trivial fiber bundle
EU = U ×X → U by assigning to any m ∈ U the model space Xm = X. The
manifold U is embedded as the diagonal cross section s(U) = {(m, κ(m)) :
m ∈ U} ⊂ U × X. Its points are the points of tangency of fibers and base
manifolds.
For the global picture of a (G, X)-structure on a manifold M, we will
restrict ourselves to compatible charts that are topological embeddings κ :
U → X for open sets U ⊂ M. A point of the fiber bundle space E over M
is, by definition, a triple
{m, κ, x},
where m ∈ U ⊂ M, κ : U → X is a compatible chart and x ∈ X, modulo the
equivalence relation given by the action of G, i.e. {m, κ, x} ∼ {m, κ′ , x′ } iff
there is g ∈ G such that x′ = g · x and κ′ = g ◦ κ on some sub-neighborhood
V ⊂ U ∩ U ′ . In E, the manifold M is embedded as the diagonal cross
section s(M), whose points are represented by triples {m, κ, κ(m)}. The
horizontal leaves represented by the triples {U, κ, x} give a foliation F of the
total space E, which induces an n-plane field ξ in E transversal to the fibers
and transversal to the cross section s(M). Given such data, Ehresmann has
defined the classical notion of holonomy. The holonomy is obtained by lifting
a closed curve starting and ending at m0 ∈ M, into all curves tangent to ξ,
and by this getting an element of G acting on Xm0 . For contractible closed
curves in the base space M, the holonomy is of course the identity map of
the fiber Xm0 .
This leads us, following Ehresmann, to consider the general notion of flat
Cartan connections. In fact (G, X)-manifolds are the flat cases of manifolds

A NOTE ON LOCAL RIGIDITY

5

M with a general (G, X)-connection. A (G, X)-connection is defined in [6]
as follows:
(1) a fiber bundle X → E → M with fiber X over M,
(2) a fixed cross section s(M),
(3) an n-plane field ξ in E transversal to the fibers and transversal to
the fixed cross section, such that
(4) the holonomy of each closed curve starting and ending at m0 ∈ M is
obtained by lifting it to all curves tangent to ξ, and is a homeomorphism of Xm0 which is induced by an element of G.
A (G, X)-connection is said to be flat if contractible closed curves have trivial
holonomy.
We have just seen that a (G, X)-structure on a manifold M yields a flat
(G, X)-connection on M. Let us describe how we can recover the holonomy
and the developing map of a given (G, X)-structure from the induced flat
(G, X)-connection. Let M be a manifold with a flat (G, X)-connection.
For general closed curves, starting and ending at m0 , the holonomy gives a
representation of π1 (M) into the group G acting on Xm0 . When the (G, X)connection is induced by a (G, X)-structure on M, this map is the usual
holonomy map of the (G, X)-structure. E can be described as the quotient
π1 (M)\(M ′ × X)
where the action is the diagonal one, with π1 (M) acting on M ′ by covering
transformations and on X via the holonomy map through the action of G on
X. The development of a curve ending at m0 ∈ M, is obtained by dragging
along ξ the corresponding points until they arrive in the fiber Xm0 . As
soon as the connection ξ is flat, homotopic curves with common initial and
end points give the same image of the initial point in the end fiber and the
development map M ′ → Xm0 is well defined. We thus conclude that any flat
(G, X)-connection on a manifold M yields a (G, X)-structure.
It is then an easy matter to prove the following useful result, which to
our knowledge first appeared in a slightly different setup in Thurston’s notes
[18], but which, as we will see, and seems to be a common knowledge, is
elementary using Ehresmann’s viewpoint of (G, X)-structures. For a slightly
different proof, from which we have borrowed some ideas, see [4] which is a
very nice reference for all basic material on (G, X)-structures.
Theorem 2.1 (The Ehresmann-Thurston Principle). Let N be a smooth
compact manifold possibly with boundary. Let NT h be the reunion of N with
a small collar ∂N × [0, 1) of its boundary. Assume NT h is equipped with a
(G, X)-structure M whose holonomy is ρ0 : π1 (N) → G. Then, for any sufficiently small deformation ρ of ρ0 in R(π1 (N), G), there is a (G, X)-structure
on the interior of N whose holonomy is ρ.

6

N. BERGERON AND T. GELANDER

Proof. Let ρ ∈ R(π1 (N), G) be a deformation of ρ0 . We define the following
two fiber bundles over NT h with fibers X
Eρ0 = π1 (N)\(NT′ h × X)
and
Eρ = π1 (N)\(NT′ h × X)
where the action of π1 (N) on X is respectively induced via ρ0 and ρ by the
natural action of G on X. We denote by (1, ρ0 ) and (1, ρ) the two diagonal
actions of π1 (N) on NT h × X considered above.
Note that since N is compact, π1 (N) is finitely generated and hence
R π1 (N), G has the structure of an analytic manifold and, in particular, it
is locally arcwise connected. Theorem 2.1 is a consequence of the following
easy claim.
Claim 2.2. If ρ is a deformation of ρ0 in the same connected component of
R π1 (N), G then there exists a fiber bundle map F : Eρ0 → Eρ such that
(1) F restricts to a diffeomorphism Φ above N,
(2) as ρ gets closer to ρ0 , the lifted diffeomorphism Φ̃ : N ′ × X → N ′ × X
gets closer to the identity in the compact-open topology.
We temporarily postpone the proof of the claim and conclude the proof of
Theorem 2.1.
When ρ is in the same connected component as ρ0 , we have, by Claim 2.2,
a diffeomorphism Φ between the compact fiber bundles Eρc0 and Eρc which
are defined over N. Thus, if F denotes the horizontal foliation in Eρ0 , the
restriction of F to Eρc0 induces via Φ an n-plane field ξ on Eρc . When ρ is
close enough to ρ0 , the lifted diffeomorphism Φ̃ is close to the identity so
that the n-plane field ξ is transversal to both the fibers and the image by
Φ of the diagonal cross section in Eρc0 . Moreover, the holonomy which is
obtained by lifting a closed curve starting and ending at m0 ∈ N, to all
curves tangent to ξ, is equal to the image by ρ in G of the homotopy class
of the curve. Thus the restriction of the bundle Eρc to a bundle over the
interior of N yields a (G, X)-connection. This connection is obviously flat
and hence gives a (G, X)-structure on the interior of N whose holonomy is
ρ. This concludes the proof of Theorem 2.1 modulo Claim 2.2.
Let us now prove Claim 2.2. Let {Ui }0≤i≤k be a finite open covering of
NT h such that
• U0 = NT h − N,
• for each 1 ≤ i ≤ k, Ui is simply connected and the fiber bundles Eρ
and Eρ0 are both trivial above Ui .
For each integer 1 ≤ i ≤ k, we fix a trivialization (Eρ )|Ui ∼
= Ui × X (resp.
∼
(Eρ0 )|Ui = Ui × X) of Eρ (resp. Eρ0 ) above Ui . For each pair of integers

A NOTE ON LOCAL RIGIDITY

7

1 ≤ i 6= j ≤ k, we then denote by gρi,j : (Ui ∩ Uj ) × X → (Ui ∩ Uj ) × X
(resp. gρi,j0 : (Ui ∩ Uj ) × X → (Ui ∩ Uj ) × X) the diffeomorphism, which is the
product of the identity on the first factor with the corresponding change of
charts on the second factor, between the trivializations (Eρ )|Ui and (Eρ )|Uj
(resp. (Eρ0 )|Ui and (Eρ0 )|Uj ).
Let Ui1 = Ui (1 ≤ i ≤ k) and for each integer r > 0, let {Uir+1 }1≤i≤k be
a shrinking of {Uir }1≤i≤k (i.e. for each integer i, Uir+1 is an open set whose
closure is included in Uir ) such that {U0 } ∪ {Uir+1 }1≤i≤k is still a covering of
NT h .
As both Eρ and Eρ0 are trivial above U1 , the identity map U1 ×X → U1 ×X
induces a diffeomorphism F1 : (Eρ0 )U11 → (Eρ )U11 .
We will define by induction on s, a diffeomorphism Fs between Eρ0 and
s
Eρ above U1s ∪ . . . ∪ Uss which is equal to Fs−1 above U1s ∪ . . . ∪ Us−1
. But for
the sake of clarity let us first define the diffeomorphism F2 .
Let’s first describe the s = 2 step. First note that, as ρ is a deformation
of ρ0 in the same connected component, the diffeomorphism gρ1,2 ◦ (gρ1,2
)−1
0
of (U1 ∩ U2 ) × X is isotopic to the identity, by an isotopy which preserves
each of the fiber {∗} × X. We denote by (m, x) 7→ (m, ϕt (x)), t ∈ [0, 1], this
isotopy.
We want to define F2 above U22 , recall it will be equal to F1 above U22 ∩ U12 .
Let W be an open set such that
U22 ⊂ W ⊂ W ⊂ U21 .
We define F2 above U22 as follows:
• Above U21 − W ⊂ U2 , both Eρ0 and Eρ are trivial and the identity
map (U21 − W ) × X → (U21 − W ) × X induces a diffeomorphism
f : (Eρ0 )|(U21 −W ) → (Eρ )|(U21 −W ) .
• We define f = F1 above U12 ∩ U22 . (In the coordinates (U12 ∩ U22 ) × X
induced by the trivializations above U2 , the diffeomorphism f is equal
to the restriction of gρ1,2 ◦ (gρ1,2
)−1 .)
0
• We extend f above a small collar neighborhood B × [0, ε) of the
2
boundary
B of U12 ∩ U22 in W − (U12 ∩ U

 2 ) by the map from
 B×
[0, ε) × X to itself, given by (b, t), x 7→ (b, t), ϕg(t) (x) where
g : [0, ǫ] → [0, 1] is the classical smooth bump function.
• Finally we can extend f (by the identity) above all U21 to get a smooth
diffeomorphism.
• We then define F2 above U22 to be the restriction of f to that set.
If we let F2 to be equal to F1 above U12 , we get a well defined diffeomorphism
F2 from Eρ0 to Eρ above U12 ∪ U22 .
s+1
To follow the induction we need to define Fs+1 above Us+1
. First note
s+1
that above Us , the fiber bundles Eρ0 and Eρ are both trivial.

8

N. BERGERON AND T. GELANDER

Let W be an open set such that
s+1
s
Us+1
⊂ W ⊂ W ⊂ Us+1
.
s+1
We define Fs+1 above Us+1
as follows:
s
• Above Us+1
−W , both Eρ0 and Eρ are trivial and we define a function
f to be the canonical diffeomorphism between their trivializations.
s+1
• Above Us+1
∩ (U1s+1 ∪ . . . ∪ Uss+1 ) we define f to be equal to Fs .
• We extend f as in the first inductive step, by using an isotopy between
changes of charts composed with a smooth bump function, to get a
s
smooth diffeomorphism between Eρ0 and Eρ above all Us+1
.
s+1
• We define Fs+1 above Us+1 to be equal to the restriction of f above
s+1
Us+1
.

If we let Fs+1 to be equal to Fs above U1s+1 ∪ . . . ∪ Uss+1 , we get a well defined
s+1
diffeomorphism Fs+1 from Eρ0 to Eρ above U1s+1 ∪ . . . ∪ Us+1
.
The local trivialization of the fiber bundle Eρ depends continuously (in
the C ∞ -topology) on ρ, and hence Fs+1 depends continuously on Fs and ρ.
We continue the induction until s = k and get a diffeomorphism between
Eρ0 and Eρ above U1k ∪ . . . ∪ Ukk which restricts to a fiber bundle diffeomorphism between the corresponding bundles above N. Moreover we have seen
that the restriction of F above N depends continuously (in the C ∞ topology)
on ρ. This concludes the proof of the claim.

Recall now Ehresmann’s definition [6] of a complete (G, X)-structure on a
manifold M. Let M be a (G, X)-manifold. Any curve c starting from a point
m0 in M can be developed to a curve c̃ in X. The (G, X)-manifold is said to
be complete if, conversely, any curve C̃ extending c̃ in X is a development of
a curve in M extending c. When X is a Riemannian homogeneous G-space,
for a Lie group G of isometries of X, it is a classical theorem of Hopf and
Rinow that this notion of completeness coincides with the usual notion of
metric completeness.
The Ehresmann-Thurston principle above is especially useful when combined with the following.
Theorem 2.3 (Ehresmann [5]). If M is a complete (G, X)-manifold, then
the developing map induces an isomorphism between its universal cover and
the universal cover of X.
As a corollary of Theorem 2.1 and Theorem 2.3 we get the following classical result of Weil [22] (see also [23]).
Corollary 2.4. Let Γ be a cocompact lattice in a connected center free semisimple Lie group without compact factors G. If ρ is a deformation of Γ in

A NOTE ON LOCAL RIGIDITY

9

G, close enough to the identity, then ρ(Γ) is still a cocompact lattice and is
isomorphic to Γ.
Proof of Corollary 2.4. The group Γ is finitely generated and by Selberg’s
lemma it has a torsion-free finite index subgroup. It is easy to see that if 2.4
holds for a finite index subgroup of Γ then it also holds for Γ. Hence, we shall
assume that Γ itself is torsion-free. Let X be the symmetric space associated
to G. It is simply connected. Let M be the (G, X)-manifold Γ\X. It is
compact and its fundamental group is Γ. According to Theorem 2.1, if ρ is a
sufficiently small deformation of the inclusion Γ ⊂ G, then there exists a new
(G, X)-structure M ′ on the manifold M, whose holonomy is ρ : Γ → G. But
as M is compact and X is Riemannian, this new (G, X)-structure is complete
and, by Theorem 2.3, the developing map is a Γ-equivariant isomorphism
between its universal cover and X. This implies that ρ(Γ) acts properly
discontinuously on X and that M ′ = ρ(Γ)\X. As M ′ is homeomorphic to
M this concludes the proof.

We shall conclude this section by stating the following natural generalization of Corollary 2.4 which is also due to Weil [22].
Proposition 2.5. Let G be a connected Lie group and Γ ≤ G a uniform
lattice. Then for any sufficiently small deformation ρ of Γ in G, ρ(Γ) is
again a uniform lattice and ρ : Γ → ρ(Γ) is an isomorphism.
Proof. Assume first that G is simply connected. Then we can chose a left
invariant Riemannian metric m on G, and argue verbatim as in the proof
Corollary 2.4 letting (G, m) to stand for X, and G to act isometrically by
left multiplication.
Now consider the general case. Let G̃ be the universal covering of G.
Let Γ ≤ G be a uniform lattice and let Γ̃ be its pre-image in G̃. Then
Γ̃ is a uniform lattice in G̃, and G/Γ is homeomorphic to G̃/Γ̃. Since Γ
is finitely generated, the deformation space R(Γ, G) has the structure of a
manifold and in particular it is locally arcwise connected. Therefore if ρ is
sufficiently small deformation of Γ in G then there is a curve of deformations
ρt ∈ R(Γ, G) with ρ0 = the identity, and ρ1 = ρ. Now for any γ ∈ Γ and any
γ̃ ∈ Γ̃ above γ, the curve ρt (γ) lifts uniquely to a curve ρ̃t (γ̃). The uniqueness
guaranties that ρ̃t is again a homomorphism for any t. Hence ρt lifts to a
curve ρ̃t ∈ R(Γ̃, G̃). In particular ρ = ρ1 lifts to a deformation ρ̃ = ρ̃1 of Γ̃
in G̃. It is also easy to see that the lifting ρ 7→ ρ̃ on a neighborhood of the
inclusion ρ0 is continuous as a map from an open set in R(Γ, G) to R(Γ̃, G̃).
Thus, the general case follows from the simply connected one.

The proof of Theorem 1.1 will follow the same lines, we just need to
understand the non-compact parts, namely the ends.

10

N. BERGERON AND T. GELANDER

3. The rank one case
Let G be a connected center free simple Lie group of rank one, with associated symmetric space X = G/K. Let Γ be a non-uniform lattice in G.
We are going to investigate the possible small deformations of Γ, and to
prove local rigidity when n = dim(X) ≥ 4, and some weak version of it for
dimensions 2 and 3.
By Selberg’s lemma Γ is almost torsion free. Note that a small deformation
which stabilizes a finite index subgroup must be trivial. In the sequel we shall
assume that Γ is torsion free.
We keep the notation ρ0 : Γ → G for the inclusion, and ρ for a small
deformation of ρ0 . We denote by M = Γ\X the corresponding locally symmetric manifold. We shall show that under some conditions on ρ, ρ(Γ) is
again a lattice in G and M ′ = ρ(Γ)\X is homeomorphic to M, and that
these conditions are fulfilled when dim X ≥ 4.
Our strategy is to use Ehresmann-Thurston’s principle. As M is not compact, we shall decompose it to a compact part M0 which “exhausts most of
M” and to cusps. More precisely, let M0 ⊂ M be a fixed compact submanifold with boundary, which is obtained by cutting all the cusps of M along
horospheres. Each such cusp is contained in a connected component of the
thin part of the thick-thin decomposition of M corresponding to the constant
ǫn of the Margulis lemma (see [19] or [1]), and is homeomorphic to T × R≥0
for some (n − 1)-dimensional compact manifold T . We shall call such cusps
canonical. More precisely, a canonical cusp is a quotient of a horoball by a
discrete group of parabolic isometries which preserves the horoball and acts
freely and cocompactly on its boundary horosphere.
Notice that a canonical cusp has finite volume. To see this, one can look
at the Iwasawa decomposition G = KAN which corresponds to a lifting of
the given cusp, express the Haar measure of G in terms of the Haar measures
of K, A and N, and estimate the volume of the cusp in the same way as one
shows that a Siegel set has a finite volume.
In the argument below we shall assume, for the sake of clearness, that M
has only one cusp, instead of finitely many. It is easy to see that the proof
works equally well in the general case. We choose another horosphere which
is contained in M0 and parallel to the boundary horosphere, and denote the
collar between them by T × [0, 1] (see figure 1).
By the Ehresmann-Thurston principle, there is a (G, X)-structure M0′ on
M0 whose holonomy is ρ.
We will show that under some conditions, the (G, X)-structure on T ×[0, 1]
which is induced from M0′ coincides with a (G, X)-structure which is induced

from some canonical cusp C (whose holonomy coincides with ρ π1 (T ) ) to
a subset of it, which is homeomorphic to T × [0, 1]. In such case we can

A NOTE ON LOCAL RIGIDITY

11

T × [0, 1]

M0

Figure 1. The manifold M0
glue M0 with C along T × [0, 1] and obtain a complete (G, X)-manifold M ′
homeomorphic to M whose fundamental group is ρ(Γ). Additionally, M ′
has a finite volume, being a union of the compact set M0′ with C which is a
canonical cusp and hence has a finite volume.
Recall the following basic facts about isometries of rank one symmetric
spaces:
• Maximal unipotent groups correspond to points in the ideal boundary
X(∞). A maximal unipotent group acts simply transitively on each
horosphere around its fixed point at ∞, its dimension is dim(X) − 1
and it is the unipotent radical of the parabolic group which is the stabilizer of this point. The maximal unipotent groups are metabelian.
• There are only 3 types of isometries: elliptic, hyperbolic and parabolic. An elliptic isometry fixes a point in X and is contained in some
compact subgroup of G, it is semisimple and all its eigenvalues have
absolute value 1.
A hyperbolic isometry γ has exactly two fixed points at the ideal
boundary X(∞) and it acts by translations on the geodesic connecting them, called the axis of γ, which is also characterized as the set

12

N. BERGERON AND T. GELANDER

of points where the displacement function d(x, γ · x) attains its minimum. A hyperbolic element is semisimple and has an eigenvalue of
absolute value > 1.
A parabolic element is one which has no fixed points in X and has
a unique fixed point in the ideal boundary X(∞). If γ is parabolic
then inf{d(x, γ · x) : x ∈ X} = 0 and the infimum is not attained. An
element is parabolic iff it is not semisimple. In particular, unipotents
are paraboloics. In general, all the eigenvalues of a parabolic element
have absolute value 1.
• The quotient map G → G/P = X(∞) is open, and the action map
G × X(∞) → X(∞) is continuous.

Let ΓT = π1 T × [0, ∞) ≤ Γ be a subgroup of Γ which corresponds
to the fundamental group of the cusp of M. Then ΓT is group of parabolic
elements, and by [16] Corollary 8.25, it contains a subgroup Γ0T of finite index
which is unipotent, i.e. a lattice in the unipotent radical of the corresponding
parabolic group. We want to show that ρ(ΓT ) is the fundamental group of
some canonical cusp. So, in particular, we need to show that ρ(ΓT ) is again
a group of parabolic elements. This fact is true only when n = dim X ≥ 4
(but the rest of the argument applies also for dimensions 2 and 3). We shall
prove it by showing that otherwise, ρ(ΓT ) is contained in the stabilizer group
of some geodesic or some point, and then derive a contradiction since ρ(ΓT )
is “too large” and there is “no room” for it in such a subgroup. We shall
divide this argument into few claims.
Lemma 3.1. There exists an integer i = i(n) such that any nilpotent subgroup A of R × SOn−1(R) contains a subgroup B ≤ A such that
• |A/B| ≤ i,
• B is contained in a connected abelian group.
Proof. Dividing R × SOn−1(R) by the factor R, we can prove the analogous
statement for SOn−1 (R). Let Ω ⊂ SOn−1 (R) be a small symmetric identity
neighborhood with the following property: a subset Σ ⊂ Ω2 generates
a

nilpotent group if and only if log Σ ⊂ son−1 (R) = Lie SOn−1(R) generates
a nilpotent Lie sub-algebra (c.f. [16] lemma 8.20).
Let µ be a Haar measure on SOn−1(R), and take

µ SOn−1 (R)
i=
.
µ(Ω)
Let now A be a nilpotent subgroup of SOn−1 (R). Take B = hA ∩ Ω2 i.
Then B is contained in the connected nilpotent group which corresponds to
the nilpotent Lie subalgebra generated by log A ∩ Ω2 . The closure of this
connected nilpotent group is compact, connected and nilpotent, hence it is
abelian, and in particular so is B.

A NOTE ON LOCAL RIGIDITY

13

Now let F = {aj } be a set of coset representatives for A/B. The sets aj · Ω
2
must be disjoint, for otherwise we will have a−1
k aj ∈ Ω ∩ A ⊂ B for some
i 6= j. Therefore

µ SOn−1 (R)
= i.
|F | ≤
µ(Ω)

Remark 3.2. The proof of Lemma 3.1 shows that the analogous statement
holds for the group SOn (R) as well. Below, we shall assume that the index i
is good for both groups R × SOn−1(R) and SOn (R).
The maximal dimension of a connected abelian subgroup of SOn−1(R) is
[ n−1
] - the absolute rank of SOn−1 , and hence the maximal dimension of a
2
] + 1. Moreover, the
connected abelian subgroup of R × SOn−1(R) is [ n−1
2
stabilizer group of a geodesic c ⊂ X embeds naturally in R × SOn−1 (R).
This implies:
Proposition 3.3. Assume n ≥ 4. Let B ≤ G be a connected abelian subgroup. If B is not unipotent then dim B < n − 1.
Proof. By Lie’s theorem, B is triangulable over C. Thus, since B is not a
unipotent group, there is a semisimple element a ∈ B. The isometry a is
either elliptic or hyperbolic. If a is hyperbolic, then as B is abelian, any
b ∈ B preserves the axis of a. By the above paragraph we get
n−1
dim B ≤ [
]+1<n−1
2
as n ≥ 4.
If a is elliptic then its set of fixed points Fix(a)
is a totally geodesic sub
symmetric space of dimension d = dim
Fix(a)
which
is B-invariant. Hence

B embeds in SOn−d × Isom Fix(a) and the result follows by an inductive
argument on the dimension, keeping in mind that that any connected unipotent subgroup of Fix(a) has dimension ≤ d − 1.

Let p ∈ X(∞) be the fixed point of ΓT , let P ≤ G be the parabolic group
which corresponds to p and let P = MAN be the Langland’s decomposition of P . Then N is the maximal unipotent group which corresponds to
p, and MN can be characterized as the subgroup of G which preserve the
horospheres around p, and we have ΓT = Γ ∩ MN, and Γ0T = Γ ∩ N. Additionally, ΓT (resp. Γ0T ) is a cocompact lattice in MN (resp. in N) because
ΓT \N · x is homeomorphic to T (where x ∈ X is an arbitrary point and
N · x the corresponding horosphere. In particular any subgroup of finite
index B ≤ Γ0T is Zariski-dense in the unipotent group N, and thus, such
subgroup B is not contained in a connected proper subgroup of N. As N

14

N. BERGERON AND T. GELANDER

acts simply transitively on each horosphere, its dimension is n − 1. So we
see that span log(B) is n − 1-dimensional and conclude:
Claim 3.4. Assume n ≥ 4. No subgroup of finite index of ΓT is contained
in a connected abelian subgroup of G of dimension < n − 1 = dim(N).
The following claim is obvious.
Claim 3.5. For a finitely generated group ∆, and a convergent sequence
of homomorphisms fn : ∆ → G, the property: “fn (∆) is contained in a
connected abelian group of dimension ≤ m” is preserved by taking the limit.
We can now prove the following main proposition:
Proposition 3.6. Assume n ≥ 4. If ρ is a sufficiently small deformation of
ρ0 , then the group ρ(ΓT ) is contained in a parabolic group. Moreover, ρ(ΓT )
contains no hyperbolic elements.
Proof. Let z1 ∈ Γ0T be a central element. If ρ(z1 ) is parabolic then ρ(Γ0T ) is
contained in the parabolic group corresponding to the unique fixed point of
ρ(z1 ) at X(∞).
Assume that ρ(z1 ) is not parabolic. Then it is either elliptic or hyperbolic.
But if ρ(z1 ) is hyperbolic then, as it is central, ρ(Γ0T ) is contained in the
stabilizer group of the axis of ρ(z1 ). However, by lemma 3.1 we obtain that
ρ(Γ0T ) contains a subgroup of index ≤ i which is contained in a connected
abelian group, which by Proposition 3.3 has dimension < n − 1. Since Γ0T is
finitely generated (being a lattice in N) it has only finitely many subgroups
of index ≤ i. Therefore the property “to have a subgroup of index ≤ i which
is contained in a connected abelian group of dimension ≤ n − 2” is preserved
by taking a limit. This, however, contradicts Claim 3.4.
Suppose therefore that ρ(z1 ) is elliptic. Then its set of fixed points is a subsymmetric space X1 of smaller dimension, on which ρ(Γ0T ) acts nilpotently,
and we continue by taking z2 ∈ Γ0T which is central with respect to this
action. If ρ(z2 ) is parabolic we conclude that ρ(Γ0T ) is contained in the
parabolic group corresponding to the unique fixed point of ρ(z2 ) at X1 (∞) ⊂
X(∞). If ρ(z2 ) is not parabolic then it cannot act parabolically on X1 . As
above ρ(z2 ) can not acts hyperbolically. If z2 acts elliptically, we continue by
induction, defining X2 = Fix(ρ(z1 )) ∩ Fix(ρ(z2 )). By this way we conclude
that ρ(Γ0T ) is contained in a parabolic group.
Now if all the zi ’s constructed above act elliptically, then ρ(Γ0T ) is contained
in a compact group, and (letting ρ → ρ0 ) we derive a contradiction to Remark
3.2, Proposition 3.3 and Claim 3.4 as above. Therefore one of the zi ’s, say
zi0 , must act as a parabolic. This implies that ρ(Γ0T ) has a unique fixed point
at infinity, and since Γ0T is normal in ΓT it follows that ρ(ΓT ) fix this point
and hence contained in the corresponding parabolic group.

A NOTE ON LOCAL RIGIDITY

15

Now if ρ(ΓT ) would contain a hyperbolic element then so would ρ(Γ0T ) since
a power of hyperbolic is hyperbolic. However hyperbolic element can not
commute with parabolic, while the action of any element on the corresponding subsymmetric space Xi0 −1 commute with the action of the parabolic
element ρ(zi0 ). Therefore ρ(ΓT ) does not contain hyperbolic elements.

Since the action of G at X(∞) is continuous, the unique fixed point x
of ρ(ΓT ) is close to the fixed point x0 of ΓT , and since the orbit map G →
G/P = X(∞) is open, there is some g ∈ G near 1 which takes x0 to x.
Conjugating ρ by g we get ρg which is again a small deformation. Moreover,
ρg |ΓT is a deformation inside the parabolic subgroup P which corresponds to
the cusp.
Claim 3.7. The group ρg (ΓT ) is contained in MN.
Proof. This follows immediately from the previous proposition since MN is
exactly the set of elements in P which are not hyperbolic.

We shall now use Ehresmann-Thurston’s principle (Proposition 2.5) to
deduce:
Proposition 3.8. The group ρg (ΓT ) is a cocompact lattice in MN, and
ρg : ΓT → ρg (ΓT ) is an isomorphism.
Since ρg (ΓT ) (and ρ(ΓT )) is discrete and torsion free, it acts properly and
freely on each horosphere N · x, and hence ρg (ΓT )\N · x (and hence also
−1
ρ(ΓT )\N g · x) is homeomorphic to ΓT \N · x - the boundary of our cusp.
This implies that ρ(ΓT ) is the fundamental group of some canonical cusp
homeomorphic to T × [0, ∞). This completes the proof of the following
theorem and thus completes the rank one case:
Theorem 3.9. Let G be a connected center free simple Lie group of rank one
neither isomorphic to P SL2 (R) nor to P SL2 (C), and let Γ ≤ G be a nonuniform lattice. Then there is a neighborhood Ω of the inclusion ρ0 : Γ → G
in the deformation space R(Γ, G) such that for any ρ ∈ Ω, ρ(Γ) is a lattice
in G, ρ : Γ → ρ(Γ) is an isomorphism, and X/ρ(Γ) is homeomorphic to
X/Γ.
From Theorem 3.9 and Mostow rigidity, we conclude local rigidity in the
rank one case.
It is well known that if Γ is a locally rigid lattice in the group of real
points G = G(R) of some Q-algebraic group G(C) ≤ GLn (C), then it can be
conjugated by an element g ∈ G into G(K) for some number field K. This
follows from the fact that Γ is finitely generated, and hence, the deformation
space R(Γ, G) has the structure of a real algebraic variety V which is defined
over Q. If we let Q denote the algebraic closure of Q in C, then this implies

16

N. BERGERON AND T. GELANDER

that V (Q ∩ R) is dense in V (R) in the real topology. Thus we can find a
point ρ ∈ V (Q ∩ R) arbitrarily close to the inclusion ρ0 . As Γ is locally rigid,
ρ is given by conjugation, and as Γ is finitely generated, ρ(Γ) lies in some
algebraic number field.
Let now G ∼
= SL2 (C), and let Γ ≤ G be a (torsion free) non-uniform
lattice. Then Γ is not locally rigid. For this reason Garland and Raghunathan had to deal with this case separately in [7], section 8. Using the
above presented proof, one can treat the SL2 (C) case in the same manner as
the general case, since, as explained above, if ρ is a small deformation of Γ
which sends unipotents to unipotents, then ρ(Γ) is a lattice and ρ : Γ → ρ(Γ)
is an isomorphism, and hence by Mostow rigidity, it is given by conjugation.
In fact, the fundamental group of each cusp is finitely generated, and it is
enough to choose such finite generating set for each cusp, and to require that
ρ sends all these finitely many elements to unipotents. Then any unipotent
in Γ, being conjugate to some element of the chosen fundamental group of
some cusp, must also be sent to a unipotent.
We can choose a large finite generating set Σ for Γ which contains a generating set for a chosen fundamental group for each of the finitely many
cusps. Then, we add to the set of relations defining R(Γ, G) the conditions that every unipotent in Σ must be sent to unipotent, and call this
subspace RU (Γ, G) ⊂ R(Γ, G). Since, the unipotents are the zeros of the
Q-polynomial (Ad(g) − 1)n we see that the space RU (Γ, G) has the structure
of a real algebraic variety defined over Q. We conclude that:
Corollary 3.10 (Garland-Raghunathan). Let G be a Q-algebraic linear
group with G = G(R) isomorphic to P SL2 (C), and let Γ be a non-uniform
lattice in G. Then Γ is conjugate to a subgroup of G(K) for some number
field K ≤ R.
In the next section, we shall proceed by induction on rank(G). The rank
one case, thus, would be the base step in this induction argument. We shall
need the following weak version of local rigidity, which holds in the general
case (also for G = SL2 (R)), and is proved by the same argument as above.
Lemma 3.11. Let G be a connected rank one simple Lie group with associated symmetric space X, and let Γ ≤ G be a torsion free lattice. Let ρ be
a small deformation of Γ which takes all the unipotents in Γ to unipotents.
Then ρ(Γ) is a lattice, ρ(Γ)\X is homeomorphic to Γ\X, and ρ : Γ → ρ(Γ)
is an isomorphism.

A NOTE ON LOCAL RIGIDITY

17

4. The higher rank case
We shall now consider the case where G is a connected center-free semisimple Lie group of rank ≥ 2 without compact factors, with associated symmetric space X = G/K, and Γ ≤ G a non-uniform (torsion free) irreducible
lattice, corresponding to the locally symmetric manifold M = Γ\X.
As in the rank one case, we are going to apply Ehresmann-Thurston’s
principle. So we need to work with a compact submanifold with boundary
M0 ⊂ M which exhausts most of M. We want to obtain M0 from M by
cutting out its ends, and to have enough information on the structure of the
ends, so that we can argue as we did in the rank one case. Of course, it
would be nicer to give a simple proof of local rigidity for general lattices,
without assuming arithmeticity. However, we shall use the description of
Leuzinger [9] for the structure of M \ M0 , and hence assume, as in [9], that
Γ is arithmetic. We shall prove the following result, which originally is a
consequence of Margulis super-rigidity theorem.
Theorem 4.1. Let Γ ≤ G be a non-uniform arithmetic irreducible lattice,
and let ρ be a small deformation of the inclusion ρ0 : Γ → G. Then ρ(Γ) is a
lattice, ρ(Γ)\X is homeomorphic to M, and ρ : Γ → ρ(Γ) is an isomorphism.
The case of Q-rank(Γ) = 1 is very similar to the R-rank one case. However,
the picture is much more sophisticated when Q-rank(Γ) ≥ 2. Then M has
only one end, i.e. if M0 is defined appropriately then M \ M0 is connected.
Moreover, “from infinity” M “looks like” a simplicial complex of dimension
Q-rank(Γ). Our argument will use an induction on the R-rank.
Let B be a parabolic subgroup of G corresponding to a cusp of Γ, and
B = MAN be its Langland’s decomposition over Q. Let Γ0 := Γ ∩ B,
Λ = Γ ∩ N, and C be the center of Λ. By arithmeticity, Λ is a lattice in the
unipotent group N, and in particular it is finitely generated.
As in the rank one case, a crucial point in the proof is the following:
Proposition 4.2. The group ρ(Λ) is unipotent.
In order to prove 4.2 we shall use the notion of U-elements from [8] and
[10].
Definition 4.3. Let ∆ be a finitely generated group. An element γ ∈ ∆ is
called a U-element if the length of γ n , with respect to the word metric on ∆
corresponding to a fixed finite generating set, grows like log(n).
Remark 4.4. The notion of U-elements is well defined and independent of
the choice of the finite generating set.
Lemma 4.5. If ∆ is a linear group and γ ∈ ∆ is a U-element, then all the
eigenvalues of γ are roots of unity.

18

N. BERGERON AND T. GELANDER

Proof. If γ ∈ ∆ has an eigenvalue which is not a root of unity, then, as
shown in the proof of Tits’ alternative [20] (or more simply using Kronecker’s
lemma), there is a local field k and a representation r : ∆ → GLm (k), such
that r(γ) has an eigenvalue with absolute value > 1. This implies that the
norm of r(γ)n in GLm (k) grows exponentially. If Σ is a finite generating
set, then the norms of the elements in r(Σ) are uniformly bounded. As the
norm is a sub-multiplicative function, this implies that the length of γ n in
the word metric grows linearly with n.

Theorem 4.6 (Lubotzky-Mozes-Raghunathan [10]). If ∆ ≤ G is an irreducible lattice in a connected higher rank semisimple Lie group G, then any
unipotent element γ ∈ ∆ is a U-element.
Returning to our case, we conclude that:
Corollary 4.7. If γ ∈ Γ is unipotent, and ρ is sufficiently small, then ρ(γ)
is unipotent.
Proof. We know that γ is a U-element in Γ by Theorem 4.6, and hence ρ(γ)
is a U-element in ρ(Γ). By lemma 4.5 all the eigenvalues of ρ(γ) are roots of
unity.
Recall that R(Γ, G) is locally arcwise connected, i.e. if ρ is close enough to
ρ0 then they are connected by an arc of deformations ρt . Since the eigenvalues
depend continuously on the matrix, and since the set of roots of unity is
totally disconnected, we conclude that for any t, all the eigenvalues of ρt (γ)
must be 1. Hence ρt (γ), and in particular ρ(γ) is unipotent.

Corollary 4.8. Given a finite generating set Σ for Λ, there is a neighborhood
Ω of the inclusion ρ0 : Γ → G, such that if ρ ∈ Ω and γ ∈ Σ, then ρ(γ) is
unipotent.
Proof of Proposition 4.2. Fix a generating set Σ for Λ and assume that ρ ∈ Ω
as in Corollary 4.8. As ρ(Λ) is nilpotent, its Zariski closure is nilpotent, and
Z 0
hence, by Lie’s theorem, A = ρ(Λ)
is triangulable over C.
Z

Assume that ρ(Λ) has i connected components. Let ρ(Λ)0 = hρ(γ)i! : γ ∈
Σi. Being a subgroup of A, ρ(Λ)0 is triangulable over C. Since ρ(Σ) is made
of unipotents, ρ(Λ)0 is generated by unipotents, and hence it is a unipotent
Z
group. It follows that ρ(Λ)0 is a unipotent algebraic group, and as such it
is also connected.
Z
Z
Let γ be an element of Σ. Since ρ(γ) is unipotent hρ(γ)i = hρ(γ)i! i .
Z
This implies that ρ(γ) is actually contained in ρ(Λ)0 , and the proposition
follows.

Remark 4.9. It might be possible to avoid the notion of U-elements and the
use of Theorem 4.6, and to find a more elementary proof for Proposition 4.2.

A NOTE ON LOCAL RIGIDITY

19

This is not so hard in the special case where G = SL3 (R) and Γ ≤ SL3 (R) is
any lattice. Moreover, for the special case of G = SLn (R) and Γ = SLn (Z)
Theorem 4.6 also has an elementary proof (see [11]).
Claim 4.10. The group ρ(Γ0 ) fixes a point at infinity (i.e. in X(∞)).
Proof. According to [1], appendix 3, since ρ(Λ) is unipotent, the set of common fixed points at X(∞)

B = ∩γ∈Λ Fix ρ(γ)
is non-empty, and so is the set
π
, for any y ∈ B},
2
(here T d denotes the Tits distance on X(∞)) which clearly has diameter
≤ π/2 and thus has a unique Chebyshev center O. Since Γ0 normalizes Λ,
the point O must be invariant under the action of ρ(Γ0 ). Therefore ρ(Γ0 ) is
contained in the parabolic subgroup which corresponds to O.

B0 = {z ∈ B : T d(z, y) ≤

Let P be a parabolic subgroup which contains ρ(Γ0 ), and let P = MP AP NP
be a Langland’s decomposition of P . Note that the group NP is well defined,
the group MP is determined up to conjugation by elements of NP , and the
group MP NP is well defined. The group MP NP can be characterized as the
set of all elements in P which acts unimodularly on the Lie algebra Lie(NP )
through the adjoint action, or as the set of all elements in P which preserve
the Busemann functions and their level sets - the horospheres around the
corresponding fixed points at X(∞). In fact we can choose P so that
(1) ρ(Λ) ⊂ NP , and
Z
(2) NP is the Zariski closure NP = ρ(Λ) .
We need the following analogue of Claim 3.5:
Claim 4.11. For a finitely generated group ∆, and a convergent sequence of
homomorphisms fn : ∆ → G, the property “fn (∆) is contained in a connected
unipotent group of dimension ≤ m” is preserved by taking a limit.
This claim can be easily proved using the fact that for connected unipotent
groups the exponential map is a diffeomorphism.
It follows that if ρ is sufficiently small:
(1) dim(NP ) ≥ dim(N),
(2) P must be conjugate to a parabolic which contains B.
The second statement follows from the fact that Γ0 is a an arithmetic
subgroup and hence a lattice in MN and in particular its Zariski closure
contain M ′ N, where M ′ is the product of all non-compact factors of M.

20

N. BERGERON AND T. GELANDER

Hence, when ρ is small enough, P must contain a conjugate of M ′ N, but
this implies that it contains a conjugate of B.
Since the inclusion relation is opposite for parabolic subgroups and for
their unipotent radicals, these two facts together imply:
Corollary 4.12. If ρ is sufficiently small, P is conjugate to B.
Since the canonical map G → G/B is continuous and open, we have
P = g −1 Bg for some g ∈ G close to 1, and by replacing ρ by its conjugation
with g, ρg (which is still a small deformation of ρ0 ), we may assume that
P = B.
We conclude that
Claim 4.13. The group ρg (Λ) is a (cocompact) lattice in N.
This is a subsequent of the fact that ρg induces a small deformation of
Λ (a cocompact lattice) in N together with either some classical theorems
on lattices of nilpotent Lie groups (Maĺcev theory [12]) or, more simply,
Ehresmann-Thurston’s principle.
The next step is:
Claim 4.14. The group ρ(Γ0 ) is contained in MP NP .
This is because the group
 ρ(Γ0 ) normalizes the cocompact lattice ρ(Λ) of
NP , and hence Ad ρ(Γ0 ) acts unimodularly on Lie(NP ).
As noted above Γ0 is a lattice in MN. Moreover, the projection of Γ0 in M
is a lattice in M, let’s denote this lattice by L. The morphism ρg , composed
with the projection MN → M, induces a small deformation ρ˜g (L) of L in
M. Moreover, by Theorem 4.6 and Corollary 4.7, ρg and hence ρ˜g takes
unipotents to unipotents. Hence, by an induction procedure on the real
rank, starting with rank one, of which we already took care in the previous
section, we conclude that:
Claim 4.15. The group ρ˜g (L) is a lattice in M.
Since the Haar measure of MN is the product of the Haar measures of M
and of N, and since Λ is a cocompact lattice in N, we get:
Corollary 4.16. The group ρ(Γ0 ) is a lattice in MN.
To conclude the proof, we now need, as in the rank one case, to introduce
a notion of cusp, but this time it will depend on the group Γ. By [9], theorem
4.2, on the locally symmetric manifold M = Γ\X, there exists a continuous
and piecewise real analytic exhaustion function h : M → [0, ∞) such that,
for any s ≥ 0, the sub-level set V (s) := {h ≤ s} is a compact submanifold

A NOTE ON LOCAL RIGIDITY

21

with corners of V . Moreover, the boundary of V (s), which is a level set of
h, consists of projections of subsets of horospheres in X.
We can choose a sufficiently large s0 in order to ensure that for any s > s0 ,
V (s) − V (s0 ) is a collar neighborhood of the boundary of V (s0 ) inside V (s).
In the following we let M0 = V (s) for some real s > s0 .
By the Ehresmann-Thurston principle, there is a (G, X)-structure M0′ on
M0 whose holonomy is ρ and which induces a new (G, X)-structure on V (s)−
V (s0 ). The fundamental group of V (s)−V (s0 ) is a finite complex of groups C
where each simplex group is the intersection Γ∩MP NP for some Q-parabolic
subgroup P of G and the inclusion order for simplices is the reversed inclusion
order for the corresponding parabolic groups. In particular the vertex groups
correspond to the Γ-conjugacy classes of maximal Q-parabolics.
The proof of proposition 3.3 in [9] implies that any finite complex of groups
as above leaves invariant a countable union of horospheres of X (level sets
of Busemann functions) centered at the points of the ideal boundary of X
which corresponds to the vertices of the complex. In fact, Leuzinger proves
that the developing map of M0 embeds M̃0 in X as the complement X(s) of
countable union of open horoballs. These horoballs are disjoint if and only
if Γ is an arithmetic subgroup of a Q-rank one group. The projection π :
X → M maps X(s) to V (s) which is a compact manifold with corners whose
fundamental group is isomorphic to Γ. The image of the developing map of
V (s) − V (s0 ) with the (G, X)-structure induced from M0 is X(s) − X(s0 ).
It is a π1 (V (s) − V (s0 ))-invariant subset of X.
The image Y of the developing map of V (s) − V (s0 ) with the (G, X)′
structure
 induced from M0 is a subset of X invariant under ρ π1 (V (s) −
V (s0 ) which converges toward X(s) − X(s0 ) on every compact subset as
ρ tends to ρ0 . According to 
the above claims, when ρ is sufficiently small,
the group ρ π1 V (s) − V (s0 ) is still a complex of groups isomorphic to C,
and each simplex of the new complex is associated with a parabolic group
B ′ of the same type as the parabolic B associated to the corresponding
simplex of C. Moreover ρ : (Γ ∩ B) → (ρ(Γ) ∩ B ′ ) is an isomorphism, its
image ρ(Γ) ∩ B ′ is 
contained in MB′ NB′ and it is a lattice there. The group
ρ π1 V (s) − V (s0 ) thus leaves invariant a countable family of horospheres
as above. More precisely, we get that for ρ sufficiently close to ρ0 , the
image Y of the developing map of V (s) − V (s0 ) with the (G, X)-structure
induced from M0′ contains the subset of X which is bounded between two
families of horospheres as above. By adding the correspondingcountably
many horoballs, Y can be completed by a ρ π1 V (s) − V (s0 ) -invariant
subset of X, whose boundary is one part of the boundary of Y with
 the
reversed orientation and whose quotient C by ρ π1 V (s) − V (s0 ) has a
finite volume. As the restriction of the (G, X)-structures from M0′ and from

22

N. BERGERON AND T. GELANDER

C coincide on V (s) − V (s0 ), these two sets can be glued along V (s) − V (s0 )
in order to yield a complete (G, X)-manifold M ′ whose fundamental group
is ρ(Γ). Note that M ′ has finite volume, being a union of a compact set
and a finite volume set. The finiteness of the volume of each of the (finitely
many) parts composing the “cusp” M ′ \ M0′ can be proved in the same way
as one proves the finiteness of the volume of an ordinary Siegel set. Namely,
by expressing the Riemannian measure of X in terms of the Haar measures
of MP , NP and AP , and using Fubiny theorem, integrating the function 1
first along the horosphere corresponding to P in V (s0 ) (here we get a finite
number since ρ(Γ) ∩ MP NP is a lattice in MP NP ), and then in the directions
of the end - the simplex of the Tits’ building which corresponds to P . Note
that the Riemannian measure of X is obtained from the product measure of
the corresponding horosphere and the Haar measure of AP by multiplying
by a factor which tends to zero exponentially fast as one moves toward the
end.
References
[1] Ballmann, W. ; Gromov, M. ; Schroeder, V. Manifolds of Nonpositive Curvature,
Birkhauser, 1985.
[2] Besson, G.; Courtois, G.; Gallot, S. Entropies et rigidités des espaces localement
symétriques de courbure strictement négative. Geom. Funct. Anal. 5 (1995), no. 5,
731–799.
[3] Calabi, E. On compact, Riemannian manifolds with constant curvature. I. 1961 Proc.
Sympos. Pure Math., Vol. III pp. 155–180 American Mathematical Society, Providence, R.I.
[4] Canary, R. D.; Epstein, D. B. A.; Green, P. Notes on notes of Thurston. Analytical
and geometric aspects of hyperbolic space (Coventry/Durham, 1984), 3–92, London
Math. Soc. Lecture Note Ser., 111, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1987.
[5] Ehresmann, C. Sur les espaces localement homogènes. Enseignement Math. 5-6
(1936).
[6] Ehresmann, C. Les connexions infinitésimales dans un fibré différentiable. Extrait du
“Colloque de Topologie” Bruxelles, 1950, CBRM.
[7] Garland, H.; Raghunathan, M. S. Fundamental domains for lattices in (R-)rank 1
Lie groups. Ann. of Math. 92 (1970), 279-326.
[8] Gromov, M. Asymptotic invariants of infinite groups, Geometric group theory, Proc.
Sympos. in Sussex, 1991, Vol 2, Eds. G.A. Niblo and M.A. Roller, LMS Lectures
notes, Cambrige Univ. Press 1993.
[9] Leuzinger, E. An exhaustion of locally symmetric spaces by compact submanifolds
with corners. Invent. Math. 121 (1995), no. 2, 389–410.
[10] Lubotzky, A. ; Mozes, S. ; Raghunathan, M. S. The word and Riemannian metrics
on lattices of semisimple groups. Inst. Hautes udes Sci. Publ. Math. No. 91 (2000),
5–53 (2001).
[11] Lubotzky, A.; Mozes, S. ; Raghunathan, M. S. Cyclic subgroups of exponential growth
and metrics on discrete groups. C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris S. I Math. 317 (1993), no. 8,
735–740.

A NOTE ON LOCAL RIGIDITY

23

[12] Maĺcev, A. I. On class of homogeneous spaces. Amer. Math. Soc. Transl. 39 (1951).
[13] Margulis, G. A. Arithmeticity of irreducible lattices of semisimple groups of rank
grater then 1. Invent. Math 76 1 (1984), 93-120.
[14] Margulis, G. A. Non-uniform lattices in semisimple algebraic groups. Lie groups and
their representations (Proc. Summer School on Group Representations of the Bolyai
Jos Math. Soc., Budapest, 1971), pp. 371–553. Halsted, New York, 1975.
[15] Mostow, G.D. Strong rigidity of locally symmetric spaces, Annals of Mathematics
studies, No. 78. Princeton University Press, Princeton, N,J, University of Tokyo
press, Tokyo, 1973.
[16] Raghunathan, M. S. Discrete Subgroups of Lie Groups, Springer, New York, 1972.
[17] Selberg, A. On discontinuous groups in higher-dimension symmetric spaces. in Contributions to Functional Theory, Tata Institute, Bombay, (1960) 147-164.
[18] Thurston, W. P. The Geometry and Topology of Three-manifolds. Lectures notes,
Princeton Univ., Princeton, NJ (1979).
[19] W.P. Thurston, Three-Dimensional Geometry and Topology, Volume 1, Princeton
univ. press, 1997.
[20] J. Tits, Free subgroups in linear groups, J. of Algebra, 20, (1972).
[21] Wang, H. C. Topics on totally discontinuous groups. Symmetric Spaces edited by W.
Boothby and G. Weiss (1972), M. Dekker, 460-487.
[22] Weil, A. On discrete subgroups of Lie groups. Ann. of Math. (2) 72 1960 369–384.
[23] Weil, A. On discrete subgroups of Lie groups II. Ann. of Math. (2) 75 (1962), 578-602.
[24] Weil, A.Remarks on the cohomology of groups. Ann. of Math. (2) 80 1964 149–157.
Nicolas Bergeron: Unité Mixte de Recherche 8628 du CNRS, Laboratoire de Mathématiques,
Bât. 425, Université Paris-Sud, 91405 Orsay Cedex, France
E-mail address: Nicolas.Bergeron@math.u-psud.fr
Tsachik Gelander: Dept. of Math, Yale University, 10 Hillhouse Ave, New Haven CT
06520, USA
E-mail address: tsachik.gelander@yale.edu

