arXiv:1609.02577v1 [] 8 Sep 2016

RANDOM WALKS AND BOUNDARIES OF CAT(0)
CUBICAL COMPLEXES
TALIA FERNÓS, JEAN LÉCUREUX, FRÉDÉRIC MATHÉUS
Abstract. We show under weak hypotheses that the pushforward
{Zn o} of a random-walk to a CAT(0) cube complex converges to
a point on the boundary. We introduce the notion of squeezing
points, which allows us to consider the convergence in either the
Roller boundary or the visual boundary, with the appropriate hypotheses. This study allows us to show that any nonelementary
action necessarily contains regular elements, that is, elements that
act as rank-1 hyperbolic isometries in each irreducible factor of the
essential core.

Contents
1. Introduction
Acknowledgments
2. Generalities about Random Walks
2.1. Generalities and Notation
2.2. The Furstenberg-Poisson Boundary
2.3. Stationary Measures
3. General Facts about CAT(0) Cube Complexes
3.1. Sageev-Roller Duality and the Roller Boundary
3.2. Medians and Intervals
3.3. Product Structure
4. Actions on CAT(0) Cube Complexes
5. Separation Properties of Hyperplanes and the Regular
Boundary
5.1. Strongly Separated Hyperplanes
5.2. The Combinatorial Bridge
5.3. The Regular Boundary
5.4. On Descending Chains of Half-Spaces
6. Comparing Various Boundaries
6.1. The Roller and Visual Boundaries

2
6
6
6
6
7
8
8
9
10
10
11
11
12
13
13
16
16

T. Fernós was partially supported by NSF Grant number DMS-1312928, and
UNCG New Faculty Summer Excellence Research Grant.
J. Lécureux was partially supported by Projet ANR-14-CE25-0004 GAMME.
1

2

TALIA FERNÓS, JEAN LÉCUREUX, FRÉDÉRIC MATHÉUS

6.2. Squeezing Points
6.3. A Quotient of the Roller Boundary.
6.4. Subcomplexes as Decreasing Intersections
6.5. Horofunction Boundary
6.6. Remarks on B(X) and R(X)
7. Uniqueness of the Stationary Measure
8. Convergence to the Roller Boundary
9. Positivity of the Drift
9.1. The Drift
9.2. Proof of the Positivity of the Drift
10. Random Walks and the Visual Boundary
10.1. Convergence to the Visual Boundary
10.2. Uniqueness of the Stationary Measure
11. Regular Elements
References

18
20
21
22
25
26
28
31
31
32
36
36
38
40
44

1. Introduction
Let µ be a probability measure on a group Γ. Pick elements gi
independently and at random according to the law µ. The random
walk on Γ is defined as the sequence Zn = g1 g2 . . . gn . An important
aspect of the study is to understand the asymptotic behavior of the
random walk Zn .
A typical way of understanding how elements of a given group behave
is to make the group act on a metric space X. Fixing a base point
o ∈ X, one can then study the sequence of points {Zn o}. If the space
X is sufficiently nice, one can hope for the convergence of this sequence
of points in some geometric compactification of X. The first example of
this is due to Furstenberg, where the space in question is the hyperbolic
plane [Fur63]. A powerful motivation for this kind of result is Oseledec’
Theorem for random walks on subgroups of SLn (R) [Ose68]; it can be
interpreted as a form of convergence of the random walk to a point in
the (visual) boundary of the symmetric space SLn (R)/SOn (R) [Kaı̆87].
These types of questions have been studied by many authors. Let
us give a few results in this direction. The typical setting in which
these results will hold is in the presence of negative curvature, or at
least spaces with hyperbolic-like properties. The fundamental paper
of Kaimanovich [Kai00] proves this convergence for hyperbolic groups,
and in many situations when X has some kind of negative curvature.
Let us also mention the work of Kaimanovich and Masur, treating the
case of the mapping class group of a surface acting on its Teichmüller

RANDOM WALKS AND BOUNDARIES OF CAT(0) CUBICAL COMPLEXES 3

space [KM96], and the work of Gautero and Mathéus on groups acting
on R-trees [GM12]. More recently, a nice result of Maher and Tiozzo
[MT14] proves the convergence to the boundary for groups acting on
(not necessarily proper) hyperbolic spaces. In the CAT(0) setting,
there are also some partial results. Ballman treats the case of groups
acting on non-positively curved rank-one manifolds [Bal89]. For general CAT(0) spaces, Karlsson and Margulis [KM99] prove convergence
to the visual boundary, but they assume that the random walk goes to
infinitiy at positive speed, which can be difficult to check in general.
In this paper, we are interested in the case when X is a CAT(0) cube
complex. These complexes attracted a lot of attention recently as they
play an essential role in Agol’s proof of the virtual Haken conjecture
for 3-manifolds (an outstanding problem in the theory of 3-manifolds
which relied essentially on the work of Wise) [Ago13], [Wis09]. There
are many examples of CAT(0) cube complexes and groups acting on
them. Apart from the fundamental groups of hyperbolic 3-manifolds,
one can think of right-angled Artin groups, Coxeter groups, and small
cancellation groups, among many others. Let us also emphasize that
there are interesting examples of CAT(0) cube complexes which are not
proper. For example, the Higman group hai , i ∈ Z/nZ | ai ai+1 a−1
=
i
a2i+1 i (with n > 4) acts (non-properly) on a CAT(0) square complex
[Mar15]. Another example is given by diagram groups [Far03] (the
complex in this case may fail to be finite dimensional).
CAT(0) cube complexes admit two natural metrics which in turn give
rise to the visual boundary and the Roller boundary. The boundary
which will be the most relevant for our study is the Roller boundary
(see §3.1) though we will also consider visual boundary (see §10).
Theorem 1.1. Let X be a finite-dimensional CAT(0) cube complex
with an essential and nonelementary action of the group Γ. Furthermore, assume that Γ stabilizes each irreducible factor of X. Then, for
any admissible measure µ ∈ Prob(Γ) and every o ∈ X, almost surely
one has that Zn o converges to some point in the Roller boundary.
A question which is related to the convergence to the boundary is the
speed at which the random walk goes to infinity, called the drift. This
drift is defined as the limit λ = lim d(Znno,o) (see §9). The random walk
on a non-amenable group Γ, endowed with some word metric, always
has positive drift [Gui80]. For general actions however the positivity is
not clear at all. In some cases, establishing the positivity of the drift
helps to prove convergence to the boundary, as in [KM99]. In our case

4

TALIA FERNÓS, JEAN LÉCUREUX, FRÉDÉRIC MATHÉUS

however, we deduce the positivity of the drift from the convergence,
and prove the following (see Theorem 9.3):
Theorem 1.2. Let X be a finite-dimensional CAT(0) cube complex
with a non-elementary, essential action of the group Γ. Assume µ ∈
Prob(Γ) is admissible and has finite first moment. Then almost surely
we have lim d(Znno,o) > 0.
n→∞

While the Roller boundary is the most useful for us, a CAT(0) cube
complex is also a CAT(0) space, and therefore is endowed with another
natural boundary: its visual boundary ∂∢ X. From a measurable point
of view, in many cases, there should be an isomorphism between the two
boundaries. Indeed, under suitable assumptions, the Roller boundary
as well as the visual boundary is the Furstenberg-Poisson boundary
of (Γ, µ) by [Fer15] and by [KM99]. However, there is in general no
natural map which is everywhere defined between the two boundaries.
It is nevertheless possible to define some partial maps: for example, to
a point η in the Roller boundary, one can associate the set of possible
limit points in the visual boundary of any sequence converging to η
(see Section 6.1 for more details). It might happen that, for certain
points of the Roller boundary, this set is reduced to a point. It turns
out that we are able to prove that, for almost every limit point of the
random walk, this is the case (see Section 10 and Proposition 10.2).
After proving the convergence of the random walk to the Roller
boundary, it is natural to wonder what happens with the visual boundary. As mentionned above, Karlsson and Margulis proved convergence
of the random walk to the visual boundary for groups acting on CAT(0)
spaces under the assumption of finite first moment and positivity of the
drift [KM99]. By considering actions on CAT(0) cube complexes, we
are able to remove the moment condition and prove the following:
Theorem 1.3. Let X be a finite-dimensional, irreducible, CAT(0) cube
complex with a non-elementary, essential action of the group Γ. Assume that Γ stabilizes each irreducible factor of X. Then, for any
admissible µ ∈ Prob(Γ) and for every o ∈ X, almost surely the sequence (Zn o) converges to some point in the visual boundary.
Once we have proved the convergence to the boundary, we can better
understand the dynamics of the random walk Zn . Say that a geodesic ℓ
in X is contracting if the projection on ℓ of any ball disjoint from ℓ has
uniformly bounded diameter. An isometry of X is called contracting if
it is a hyperbolic isometry with a contracting axis. The fundamental

RANDOM WALKS AND BOUNDARIES OF CAT(0) CUBICAL COMPLEXES 5

paper of Caprace and Sageev [CS11] proves that for irreducible complexes, any non-elementary action has contracting elements. We are
able to prove that these elements occur with high probability in the
random walk:
Theorem 1.4. Let X be a finite-dimensional irreducible CAT(0) cube
complex with an essential and non-elementary action of the group Γ.
Then for any admissible µ ∈ Prob(Γ), we have that almost surely
1
lim |{k 6 n | Zk is contracting }| = 1
n→+∞ n
As an application, we can generalize one of the main results of [CS11]
in the case of reducible complexes, where there cannot be any contracting isometries. The best that one can hope is for elements which act as
contracting isometries in each irreducible factor (of the essential core).
These are called regular elements. Caprace and Sageev prove that such
elements do exist, under the additional assumption that Γ is a lattice
in Aut(X) [CS11, Theorem D] (see also [CZ13] for the case of general CAT(0) spaces). Using the theorem above, we can get rid of this
assumption:
Theorem 1.5. Let X be a finite-dimensional CAT(0) cube complex
with an essential and non-elementary action of the group Γ. Then
there exists regular elements in Γ.
In fact, not only do regular elements exist, but they will occur in the
random walk with high probability (see Corollary 11.8). The existence
of such elements has some strong consequences about the asymptotic
properties of the Γ-orbits in X [Lin10].
Our strategy of proof for all these theorems is inspired by some classical results: Kaimanovich [Kai00] for the convergence to the boundary
and Guivarc’h and Raugi [GR85] for the positivity of the drift. However, to be able to apply these strategies, we are forced to understand
the dynamics on the boundary. An important tool for us is the notion of regular points of the boundary (see §5.3). These special points
were introduced in the paper [Fer15] and exhibit strong contracting
properties very useful to us.
Another distinctive feature of our proof is that, in opposition for
example to [Kai00], we use the identification of the Furstenberg-Poisson
boundary (proved in [Fer15]) in order to prove the convergence to the
boundary. More precisely, we use that there is a boundary map from
the Furstenberg-Poisson boundary of Γ to the Roller boundary of X,
and that the essential image of this map is contained in the set of

6

TALIA FERNÓS, JEAN LÉCUREUX, FRÉDÉRIC MATHÉUS

regular points. Then the contracting properties of the regular points
are sufficient to ensure the convergence.
Acknowledgments. The authors would like to thank Uri Bader, Ruth
Charney, Indira Chatterji, Amos Nevo, L’Institut Henri Poincaré, and
the first and third named authors would like to thank the Laboratoire
de Mathématique d’Orsay.
2. Generalities about Random Walks
2.1. Generalities and Notation. Let us start with setting up some
notation. In what follows, Γ is a discrete countable group. We fix an
admissible probability measure µ ∈ Prob(Γ), meaning that the semigroup generated by the support of µ is Γ.
We define the random walk on Γ as follows. Let Ω = ΓN and P be
∗
the probability measure on Ω defined by P = δe × µN . The space Ω is
the space of increments. If ω ∈ Ω, we denote by gi (ω) the ith element
of the sequence ω. As is customary in probability theory, we often omit
the ω and write only gi .
Our main object of interest is the random walk on Γ, which is
the sequence of random variables Zn : Ω → Γ defined by Zn (ω) =
g1 (ω)g2(ω) . . . gn (ω), or for short Zn = g1 . . . gn .
2.2. The Furstenberg-Poisson Boundary. The proof of our results
will use an important tool: the Furstenberg-Poisson boundary of (Γ, µ).
This boundary is a space designed to encode the asymptotic properties
of the sequences (Zn ). We will briefly recall the definition of this space
and the key results that we need. The interested reader might consult
[Fur02], [Kai00], [BS06], [BF14], or [Fer15] for more information.
One possible definition is as follows. We denote by S : Ω → Ω the
“shift” map defined by S(ω0 , ω1 , . . . , ωn , . . . ) = (ω0 ω1 , ω2 , . . . , ωn , . . . ).
Definition 2.1. The Furstenberg-Poisson boundary is the space B of
∗
ergodic components of the action of S on (Ω, Haar ⊗µN ). It is equipped
with the pushforward ν of the measure P by the projection Ω → B.
So the Furstenberg-Poisson boundary is a measure space equipped
with an action of Γ and a probability measure ν whose class is preserved
by Γ.
We will need to understand the Poisson boundary of finite index
subgroups. More precisely, we need the following result, which is proved
in [Fur71, Lemma 4.2].
Lemma 2.2. Let (B, ν) be the Furstenberg-Poisson boundary of (Γ, µ),
and let Γ0 < Γ be a subgroup of finite index. Then there exists an

RANDOM WALKS AND BOUNDARIES OF CAT(0) CUBICAL COMPLEXES 7

admissible measure µ0 ∈ Prob(Γ0 ) such that the Furstenberg-Poisson
boundary of (Γ0 , µ0 ) is Γ0 -equivariantly isomorphic to (B, ν).
The Furstenberg-Poisson boundary presents very strong ergodic properties. This was first observed in [Kai03] and more recently generalized and used in [BF14]. In the following, we denote by (B− , ν− ) the
Furstenberg-Poisson boundary of (Γ, µ̌), where µ̌ ∈ Prob(Γ) is defined
by µ̌(g) = µ(g −1).
Theorem 2.3. Let Y be a separable metric space endowed with an
action of Γ by isometries. Then:
• Any Γ-equivariant measurable map B → Y is essentially constant;
• Any Γ-equivariant measurable map B− × B → Y is essentially
constant.
2.3. Stationary Measures. Let Γ act continuously on some topological space K. A rmeasure λ ∈ Prob(K) is stationary if µ ∗ λ = λ,
in other words if Γ g∗ λ dµ(g) = λ. It is a general fact that if Γ acts
continuously on some compact space K then there always exists some
stationary measure on K [Fur63, Lemma 1.2].
We will use the following important consequence of the Martingale
Convergence Theorem [Fur63, Lemma 1.3]:
Theorem 2.4. Let λ be a stationary measure on the compact space K.
For P-almost every ω ∈ Ω there exists λω ∈ rProb(K) such that Zn (ω)λ
converges to λω . Furthermore we have λ = Ω λω dP(ω).
It is easy to check that the measure ν on B is always µ-stationary.
Furthermore, if λ is a µ−stationary measure on a compact space K,
then by Theorem 2.4 we get a map Ω → Prob(K) given by ω 7→
lim Zn (ω)λ. This map is clearly S-invariant, so it factors through a
map B → Prob(K).
The above theorem can be generalized to Polish spaces. Let Y be
a Polish space, with a continuous action of Γ. We endow Prob(Y )
with the topology of weak-* convergence, when seen as a dual of the
space of bounded continuous function. It is again a Polish space with
a continuous action of Γ. The following is proved in [BQ11, Lemma
3.2]:
Theorem 2.5. Let Y be a Polish space with a continuous Γ-action.
Assume that λ is a stationary probability measure on Y . Then for
P-almost every ω ∈ Ω there exists λω ∈ Prob(Y
) such that Zn (ω)λ
r
converges to λω . Furthermore we have λ = Ω λω dP(ω).

8

TALIA FERNÓS, JEAN LÉCUREUX, FRÉDÉRIC MATHÉUS

Corollary 2.6. Let Γ act continuously on some Polish space Y . Assume that there is a unique Γ-equivariant map ϕ : B → Prob(Y ). Then
there is a unique stationary measure on Y .
Proof. Letr b 7→ λb be a Γ-equivariant map. Then it is easy to check
that λ = λb dν(b) is a stationary measure on Y .
Now let us turn to the uniqueness. Let λ be a stationary measure
on Y . We know from the Martingale Convergence Theorem that Zn λ
converges to some measure λb , and b 7→ λb is a G-equivariant map from
B to Prob(Y ). Hence we rhave λb = ϕ(b).
Since we have also λ = Ω λb dν(b), we see that λ is uniquely defined.

6

3. General Facts about CAT(0) Cube Complexes
In this section we collect some general results about CAT(0) cube
complexes. We assume some familiarity with these basic concepts.
We refer the interested reader to [CS11], [NS13] or [Fer15] for more
information.
Convention. In what follows all the complexes we consider will be
finite-dimensional and second countable.
Remark 3.1. The restriction to second countable complexes is needed
for ergodic-theoretic arguments, but is not essential to our purpose.
Indeed, if a countable group Γ acts on a complex X, then it is easy to
check that there is a sub-complex Y ⊂ X which is second countable and
Γ-invariant.
3.1. Sageev-Roller Duality and the Roller Boundary. Let X be
a finite-dimensional CAT(0) cube complex. In what follows, we identify
X with its set of vertices. We endow X with the combinatorial distance
(also called the ℓ1 -distance): the distance between any two vertices is
defined as their distance in the 1-skeleton of X.
We denote by H the collection of half-spaces of X. If h ∈ H, we
denote by h∗ the half-space which is the complement of h. For h, k ∈ H,
we say that h is transverse to k and write h ⋔ k if the four intersections
h ∩ k, h ∩ k ∗ , h∗ ∩ k and h∗ ∩ k ∗ are nonempty.
Fix v ∈ X and consider the collection Uv = {h ∈ H : v ∈ h}. The
Sageev-Roller Duality is then obtained via the following observation:
∩ h = {v}.

h∈Uv

This shows that every vertex v is uniquely defined by the set Uv .
This immediately yields an embedding X ֒→ 2H obtained by v 7→ Uv .

RANDOM WALKS AND BOUNDARIES OF CAT(0) CUBICAL COMPLEXES 9

Thanks to this duality, it may at times be simpler to confuse v and Uv ,
though we will make an effort to make the distinction. The metric on
X becomes then d(x, y) = 21 #(Ux △Uy ).
In the following definition, we identify X with its image in 2H .
Definition 3.2. The Roller Compactification is denoted by X and is
the closure of X in 2H . The Roller Boundary is then ∂X = X \ X.
Let η ∈ X. Then, η is the limit of some sequence (xn ) of vertices
of X, and by definition, Uη is the pointwise limit of Uxn . We say that
η is in the half-space h if h ∈ Uη . In this way we have a partition
X = h ⊔ h∗ .
It is possible (and more common in the literature) to define the
Roller boundary as a subset of 2H satisfying some combinatorial conditions (totality and consistency). This turns out to be equivalent to
the construction described above.
In the Roller boundary, the vertices of X correspond to U ∈ X ⊂ 2H
satisfying the descending chain condition: any decreasing sequence of
elements of U is eventually constant.
On the opposite side, we find nonterminating elements. These special
elements were defined by Nevo and Sageev [NS13] as follows:
Definition 3.3. An element v ∈ X is nonterminating if every finite
descending chain can be extended, i.e. given any h ∈ Uv there exists
k ∈ Uv such that k ⊂ h.
The set of nonterminating elements is denoted by ∂N T X.
3.2. Medians and Intervals. The interval between two points x and
y in X is defined as I(x, y) = {z | d(x, z) + d(z, y) = d(x, y)}.
It is easy to see that
I(x, y) = {z ∈ X | Ux ∩ Uy ⊂ Uz }
This definition extends easily to the Roller boundary: the interval
between v, w ∈ X is defined as I(v, w) = {m ∈ X | Uv ∩ Uw ⊂ Um }.
This interval structure endows X with the structure of a median space
[CN05, Nic04], which can be extended to the Roller compactification
as follows.
The median of three points u, v, w ∈ X is the point m = m(u, v, w)
defined by the formula
Um = (Uu ∩ Uv ) ∪ (Uv ∩ Uw ) ∪ (Uw ∩ Uu ),
Equivalently, the point m is the unique point
{m} = I(u, v) ∩ I(v, w) ∩ I(w, u).

10

TALIA FERNÓS, JEAN LÉCUREUX, FRÉDÉRIC MATHÉUS

While CAT(0) cube complexes can be quite wild, the structure of
intervals is somewhat tamable by the following (see [BCG+ 09, Theorem
1.16]).
Lemma 3.4. Let v, w ∈ X. Then the vertex interval I(v, w) isometrically embeds into ZD (with the standard cubulation) where D is the
dimension of X.
3.3. Product Structure. A CAT(0) cube complex is said to be reducible if it can be expressed as a nontrivial product. Otherwise, it is
said to be irreducible. A CAT(0) cube complex X with half-spaces H,
admits a product decomposition X = X1 × · · · × Xn if and only if there
is a decomposition
H = H1 ⊔ · · · ⊔ Hn
such that if i 6= j then hi ⋔ hj for every (hi , hj ) ∈ Hi × Hj and Xi is
the CAT(0) cube complex on half-spaces Hi .
Furthermore, we have the following [CS11, Proposition 2.6]:
Proposition 3.5. The decomposition
X = X1 × · · · × Xn
where each Xi is irreducible, is unique (up to permutation of the factors). The group Aut(X) contains Aut(X1 ) × · · · × Aut(Xn ) as a finite
index subgroup.
Therefore, if Γ acts on X by automorphisms, then there is a subgroup
of finite index which preserves the product decomposition.
We also note that the Roller compactification behaves quite well
with respect to products: indeed, if X = X1 × · · · × Xn , then we have
X = X 1 × · · · × X n.
4. Actions on CAT(0) Cube Complexes
We denote by ∂∢ X the visual boundary of X.
Definition 4.1. An isometric action on a CAT(0) space is said to be
elementary if there is a finite orbit in either the space or the visual
boundary.
Caprace and Sageev developed a theory of non-elementary actions
on a CAT(0) cube complex. They first prove that there is a nonempty
“essential core” where the action is well behaved. Let us now develop
the necessary terminology and recall the key facts.

RANDOM WALKS AND BOUNDARIES OF CAT(0) CUBICAL COMPLEXES 11

Definition 4.2. Let Γ < Aut(X). A half-space h ∈ H is called shallow
if for some (hence all) x ∈ X, the set Γx ∩ h is at bounded distance
from h∗ .
The action of Γ on X is essential if no half-space is shallow.
As mentioned above, it is always possible to reduce a non-elementary
action to an essential action [CS11, Proposition 3.5]:
Proposition 4.3. Let Γ be a group with a non-elementary action on
X. There exists a non-empty subcomplex Y ⊂ X which is Γ-invariant
and on which the Γ-action is essential and nonelementary.
Suppose that Γ is acting on X a CAT(0) cube complex. A simple but
powerful concept introduced by Caprace and Sageev is that of flipping
a half-space. A half-space h ∈ H is said to be Γ-flippable if there is a
g ∈ Γ such that h∗ ⊂ gh. The following is due to Caprace and Sageev:

Lemma 4.4 (Flipping Lemma). Let Γ act non-elementarily on the
CAT(0) cube complex X. If h ∈ H is essential, then h is Γ-flippable.

Another very important operation on half-spaces studied by Caprace
and Sageev is the notion of double skewering. The following is again
from [CS11]:

Lemma 4.5 (Double Skewering Lemma). Let Γ act non-elementarily
on the CAT(0) cube complex X. If h ( k are two essential half spaces,
then there exists an g ∈ Γ such that
gk ( h ( k.

For the proof of the following lemma we refer to [CFI12, Lemma
2.28].
Lemma 4.6. Let Γ → Aut(X) be a non-elementary and essential action. Let Γ0 < Γ be the finite index subgroup which preserves every
factor. Then the action of Γ0 on each irreducible factor of X is again
non-elementary and essential.
5. Separation Properties of Hyperplanes and the
Regular Boundary
5.1. Strongly Separated Hyperplanes. The following notion was
introduced by Behrstock and Charney [BC12], in their study of Right
Angled Artin Groups. Caprace and Sageev later used this to find a
powerful criterion for irreducibility of CAT(0) cube complexes.
Recall that two half-spaces h and k are transverse if ĥ ∩ k̂ 6= ∅. This
is equivalent to the four intersections h ∩ k, h ∩ k ∗ , h∗ ∩ k and h∗ ∩ k ∗
being nonempty.

12

TALIA FERNÓS, JEAN LÉCUREUX, FRÉDÉRIC MATHÉUS

Definition 5.1. Two walls ĥ and k̂ are called strongly separated if
there is no wall which is transverse to both ĥ and k̂. Two half-spaces
are said to be strongly separated if their walls are so.
Clearly if a complex is not irreducible, then it is can not contain
strongly separated pairs. This turns out to be both necessary and
sufficient:
Theorem 5.2 ([CS11]). Let X be a CAT(0) cube complex such that
the action of Aut(X) is essential and nonelementary. There exists a
pair of strongly separated half-spaces if and only if X is irreducible.
5.2. The Combinatorial Bridge. Behrstock and Charney showed
that the CAT(0) bridge connecting two strongly separated walls is a
finite geodesic segment [BC12]. In [CFI12] this idea is translated to
the “combinatorial”, i.e. median setting for general walls. For our
purposes, it suffices to consider strongly separated pairs. Most of what
follows is from or adapted from [CFI12] and [Fer15].
Let h1 ⊂ h2 be a nested pair of halfspaces. Consider the set of pairs
of points in h1 × h∗2 minimizing the distance between h1 and h∗2 , that is
Mh1 ,h2 = {(x, y) ∈ h1 × h∗2 : if (a, b) ∈ h1 × h∗2 then d(x, y) 6 d(a, b)}.

Observe that we immediately have that (x, y) ∈ Mh1 ,h2 then x, y ∈
X. The following lemma is taken from [CFI12, Section 2.G]
Lemma 5.3. If h1 ⊂ h2 are strongly separated nested half-spaces,
then there exists a unique pair of vertices (p1 , p2 ) such that Mh1 ,h2 =
{(p1 , p2 )}.
Definition 5.4. For h1 ⊂ h2 the combinatorial bridge connecting h1
and h∗2 is the union of intervals between minimal distance pairs:
[
I(x, y).
B(h1 , h∗2 ) =
(x,y)∈Mh1 ,h2

Lemma 5.3 rewrites as follows:
Lemma 5.5. Let h1 ⊂ h2 be strongly separated nested halfspaces. Then
there exists p1 ∈ h1 and p2 ∈ h2 such that B(h1 , h2 ) = I(p1 , p2 ).
If h1 and h2 are strongly separated, define the length of the bridge
b(h1 , h2 ) as the distance from p1 to p2 . We also call this length the
distance between the two strongly separated half-spaces h1 and h2 .
Definition 5.6. Two hyperplanes ĥ and k̂ are super strongly separated (or über-separated in [CFI12]) if for any hyperplanes ĥ′ and k̂ ′
intersecting respectively ĥ and k̂, we have ĥ′ ∩ k̂ ′ = ∅.

RANDOM WALKS AND BOUNDARIES OF CAT(0) CUBICAL COMPLEXES 13

Two half-spaces are super strongly separated if their walls are so.
Note that if h ⊂ k ⊂ l are pairwise strongly separated, then h and l are
super strongly separated. So if X is irreducible with a non-elementary
and essential automorphism group, there always exists a pair of super
strongly separated half-spaces.
Super strong separation has the following consequence on the bridge.
If A is a subset of X and r > 0, we denote by Vr (A) the r-neighborhood
of A (always in the combinatorial distance).
Proposition 5.7. Let h ⊂ k be a pair of super strongly separated halfspaces, and ℓ be the length of the bridge. If x ∈ h and y ∈ k ∗ then
I(x, y) ⊂ Vℓ (b(h, k)).
Proof. See [CFI12, Lemma 3.5]

6

5.3. The Regular Boundary. Using strongly separated hyperplanes,
it is possible to define a notion of a regular boundary. This notion was
first defined in [Fer15] (and independently in [KS15], where it was called
“strongly separated points”).
Definition 5.8. Assume X is irreducible. A point ξ ∈ ∂X is called
regular if for every h1 , h2 ∈ Uξ there is k ∈ Uξ such that k ⊂ h1 ∩ h2
and k is strongly separated both from h1 and h2 . The set of regular
points of X is denoted by ∂r X.
This notion has a natural extension to products:
Definition 5.9. Let X = X1 × · · · × Xn be the decomposition of X
into irreducible factors. The set of regular points of X is defined as
∂r X = ∂r X1 × · · · × ∂r Xn

The regular boundary of X is the closure of ∂r X in X. We denote
the regular boundary by R(X).
5.4. On Descending Chains of Half-Spaces. In the irreducible
case, regular points can be characterized as follows. Recall that a descending chain is a sequence (hn )n∈N of half-spaces such that hn+1 ( hn .
Vertices in X are characterized as the set of points x ∈ X satisfying
the descending chain condition: there is no (infinite) descending chain
in Ux .
Proposition 5.10. [Fer15, Proposition 7.4] Let X be an irreducible
complex, and α ∈ X. The follwing are equivalent:
(i) α ∈ ∂r X
(ii) There exists an infinite descending chain (hn )n∈N of pairwise strongly
separated half-spaces such that α ∈ hn .

14

TALIA FERNÓS, JEAN LÉCUREUX, FRÉDÉRIC MATHÉUS

It is possible to analyze more precisely the descending chains containing α. We first record the following.
Lemma 5.11. Let {hn } ∈ H be an infinite descending chain of halfspaces. If k ∈ H such that k ∩hn 6= ∅ for all n then one of the following
is true:
(a) There is an N such that k ⋔ hn for all n > N.
(b) There is an N such that k ⊃ hn for all n > N.
In particular if the sequence {hn } is composed of pairwise strongly separated half-spaces then Case (b) holds.
Proof. Fix n. Our assumption that k ∩ hn 6= ∅ implies that one of the
following cases hold:
(1) h∗n ⊂ k
(2) hn ⊃ k
(3) hn ⋔ k
(4) hn ⊂ k
Now, observe that since there are finitely many half-spaces in-between
any two, and hence the collection of all n which satisfy conditions (1)
and (2) is finite. Next observe that if there is an infinite subsequence
which satisfies property (3) (respectively property (4)) then hn satisfies
property (3) (respectively property (4)) for all n sufficiently large.
Of course, if the sequence {hn } is pairwise strongly separated, it
follows that condition (3) can hold for at most one n.

6

We can now prove the following.
Lemma 5.12. Let (sn ) be an infinite
T descending chain of pairwise
sn is a singleton.
strongly separated half-spaces. Then
n∈N

If X is an irreducible complex and α ∈ ∂r X, then any infinite
T descending chain (hn )n∈N of half-spaces containing α satisfies that
hn =
n∈N

{α}.

Proof. The fact that

T

sn is a singleton is proved in [Fer15, Corollary

n∈N

7.5].
Now consider an arbitrary descending chain (hn ) containing α. By
the first part of the lemma, it is sufficient to prove that for every m ∈ N
there exists n ∈ N such that hn ⊂ sm . Since hm and sn both contain
α, we have hm ∩ sn 6= ∅ for every m, n.
Fix m. By Lemma 5.11, we know that either for every n large enough
we have hn ⊂ sm (in which case we are done), or for every n large
enough hn ⋔ sm . In the second case, apply now Lemma 5.11 to k =

RANDOM WALKS AND BOUNDARIES OF CAT(0) CUBICAL COMPLEXES 15

sm+1 . By strong separation, we know that hn is not transverse to sm+1
for n large. So we must have hn ⊂ sm+1 , which contradicts the fact
that hn ⋔ sm .
Hence we have proved
that for
T
T every m and every n large enough we
have hn ⊂ sm . So n∈N hn ⊂ n∈N sn = {α}, and by assumption α is
T
in n∈N hn , which proves that we have equality.

6

The previous lemmas deal with one boundary point. For two points,
we have the following:

Proposition 5.13. Let X be an irreducible complex and α, β ∈ ∂r X.
Assume that α 6= β. Then there exists a sequence (sn )n∈Z of pairwise
strongly separated half-spaces, with sn+1 ⊂ sn , and such that sn ∈
Uα \ Uβ for all n.
Proof. Proposition 5.10 guarantees that we can find two sequences,
each of pairwise strongly separated half-spaces {sn (α) : n ∈ N} ⊂ Uα
and {sn (β) : n ∈ N} ⊂ Uβ .
Since α 6= β, there exists h ∈ Uα \ Uβ (and hence h∗ ∈ Uβ ). By
Lemma 5.11, there exists an N such that for every n > N we have
sn (α) ⊂ h and sn (β) ⊂ h∗ . Discarding finitely many half-spaces, we
may and shall assume that these two equalities hold for every n. We
define sn = sn (α) for n > 0 and sn = s−n (β)∗ for n < 0. Then almost
all the conditions on the chain (sn ) are clear. The only thing remaining
to check is the strong separation of s0 and s−1 . But a half-space k which
is transverse to both s0 and s−1 must be transverse to s0 (β) which is
in-between, contradicting the strong separation of s0 (β) and s1 (β).

6

Lemma 5.14. Let X be an irreducible complex and α, β, γ be pairwise
distinct points of X with α and β regular. Then the median point
m(α, β, γ) is a vertex in X.
Proof. Consider m = m(α, β, γ). We claim that m ∈ X and to this
end we show that Um satisfies the descending chain condition. Recall
that Um = (Uα ∩ Uβ ) ∪ (Uβ ∩ Uγ ) ∪ (Uγ ∩ Uα ) ⊂ Uα ∪ Uβ . Assume
by contradiction that Um contains an infinite descending chain. Then,
up to discarding finitely many (and possibly relabeling α and β), we
may assume by Lemma 5.12 that the chain belongs to Uα and hence
m = α. This means that Uα ⊂ Uβ ∪ Uγ . By Proposition 5.13 there is
an infinite descending chain of pairwise strongly separated half-spaces
in Uα \ Uβ ⊂ Uγ . Once more by Lemma 5.12 we deduce that α = γ, a
contradiction.

6

16

TALIA FERNÓS, JEAN LÉCUREUX, FRÉDÉRIC MATHÉUS

Lemma 5.15. Let X be an irreducible complex and α ∈ ∂r X and
β ∈ X with β 6= α. Then I(α, β) ∩ X 6= ∅.
Proof. It suffices to show that the set Uα ∩ Uβ satisfies the descending
chain condition (see for example [NS13, Lemma 2.3]). Assume that
there exists a decreasing sequence of half-spaces (hn ) with hn ∈ Uα ∩Uβ .
Then by Lemma 5.12 the intersection of all the half-spaces hn is reduced
to {α}. Since we also have β ∈ hn for all n, this implies α = β,
contradicting the assumption.

6

6. Comparing Various Boundaries
So far, we have introduced two boundaries of CAT(0) cube complexes: the Roller boundary and the regular boundary. There are also
other interesting constructions. In this section, we aim to compare
these.
6.1. The Roller and Visual Boundaries. Let us start by the most
common boundaries of CAT(0) cubical complexes: the Roller boundary
∂X and the visual boundary ∂∢ X.
The following theorem, which is due to P.E. Caprace and A. Lytchak
[CL10, Theorem 1.1], is very useful in this situation.
Theorem 6.1. Let (Xi )i∈I be a filtering family of closed convex subsets
of
T a finite-dimensional CAT(0) space X.TThen either the intersection
Xi is not empty, or the intersection
∂∢ Xi of their boundaries is
i∈I

i∈I

not empty, and has intrinsic radius less than π/2.

The intrinsic radius less than π/2 gives the existence of a “canonical”
center.
For the purpose of the following, we shall consider a half-space as the
closure of the CAT(0) convex hull of the vertices contained in the halfspace. Consider a point α in the Roller boundary ∂X and its collection
of half-spaces Uα . This is a filtering family of closed convex spaces, so
we can apply Theorem 6.1. Since α contains an infinite descending
chain, the intersection of all half-spaces in Uα with X is empty. So we
get:
T
∂∢ h. Then Q(α) is not
Corollary 6.2. Let α ∈ ∂X. Let Q(α) =
h∈Uα

empty.
Furthermore, the map associating to α the center of Q(α) is an
Aut(X)-equivariant map from ∂X to ∂∢ X.

RANDOM WALKS AND BOUNDARIES OF CAT(0) CUBICAL COMPLEXES 17

In general, there is more than one point in Q(α), and it might
also happen that Q(α) = Q(β) for α 6= β. For example, take α =
2
(∞, 0), β = (∞, 1) ∈ Z , then Q(α) = Q(β) corresponds to the geodesic of slope 0.
Now let us attempt to find some kind of inverse map. Let ξ ∈ ∂∢ X,
let g : [0, ∞) → X be a geodesic asymptotic to ξ. We say that a halfspace h ∈ H is transverse to ξ if for every R > 0 there exists tR > 0
such that the R-neighborhood of the image of the geodesic ray g|(tR ,∞)
is contained in h. We denote by Tξ the set of half-spaces transverse to
ξ. This set does not depend on the particular choice of the geodesic g
in the class of ξ.
Lemma 6.3. Let X be a CAT(0) cube complex and let ξ ∈ ∂∢ X. Then
the set Tξ is not empty and ∩ h 6= ∅.
h∈Tξ

Furthermore, Tξ contains an infinite descending chain.
Proof. See [CFI12, Lemma 2.27], where it is proved that Tξ is not
empty, contains an infinite descending chain, and that it satisfies the
partial choice and consistency condition (hence has a non-empty intersection in X).

6

We denote the intersection by X ξ = ∩ h. It is a subset of X (and
h∈Tξ

by Lemma 6.3 is disjoint from X). We will also denote by Xξ the subset
of α ∈ X ξ such that Uα \ Tξ satisfies the descending chain condition
(which is trivially satisfied if Uα \ Tξ = ∅).
We have defined two maps: the map α 7→ Q(α) from the Roller
boundary to (closed subsets of) the visual boundary, and the map
ξ 7→ X ξ from the visual boundary to (closed subsets of) the Roller
boundary. These two maps are somehow inverse to one another.
Lemma 6.4. Let α ∈ ∂X. Let Q(α) be as in Corollary 6.2, and let
ξ ∈ Q(α). Then α ∈ X ξ .
Conversely, let ξ ∈ ∂∢ X and α ∈ X ξ . Then ξ ∈ Q(α).
Proof. Let us prove the first part: let α ∈ ∂X and ξ ∈ Q(α). Let
h ∈ Tξ . Assume that h 6∈ Uα , which means that h∗ ∈ Uα . Since
ξ ∈ Q(α), this implies that ξ is in the visual boundary of h∗ . So there
is a geodesic ray g0 converging to ξ which is contained in h∗ . Any other
geodesic ray converging to ξ will be at bounded distance from g0 . This
implies that h 6∈ Tξ , which is a contradiction. So we have h ∈ Uα . It
follows that α is contained in the intersection of all half-spaces in Uα ,
which is X ξ .

18

TALIA FERNÓS, JEAN LÉCUREUX, FRÉDÉRIC MATHÉUS

Now let ξ ∈ ∂∢ X and α ∈ X ξ . Let h ∈ Uα , and let us prove that
ξ ∈ ∂∢ h. If h ∈ Tξ , then the result is clear. Since α ∈ X ξ , we cannot
have h∗ ∈ Tξ . Now assume that neither h or h∗ are in Tξ . Pick a
geodesic asymptotic to ξ. If this geodesic is in h, then we are done. If
not, since h∗ 6∈ Tξ , we see that this geodesic stays at bounded distance
from h. This means that ξ ∈ ∂∢ h (in fact even ξ ∈ ∂∢ ĥ). This proves
that every ξ is in the boundary of every half-space in Uα . So ξ ∈ Q(α).

6

We also record the following.
Lemma 6.5. Let α ∈ ∂X and ξ ∈ Q(α). Let o ∈ X. Then the
CAT(0)-geodesic ray from o to ξ is contained in the interval I(o, α).
∩ X in X ∪ ∂∢ X. Since
Proof. Let I(o,
T α) be the closure of I(o, α)T
h, we have I(o, α) =
I(o, α) =
((h ∩ X) ∪ ∂∢ h). So
h∈Uo ∩Uα

h∈Uo ∩Uα

ξ ∈ Q(α) implies that ξ ∈ I(o, α). As I(o, α) ∩ X is a convex subset of
X (for the ℓ1 metric and hence also for the ℓ2 metric), it follows that
the geodesic from o to ξ is contained in I(o, α) ∩ X.

6

6.2. Squeezing Points. The notion of a squeezing point will be indispensable in Section 10 where we connect the behavior of the random
walk with the visual boundary. We begin by establishing the notion for
points in the Roller boundary, and then discuss the notion for points
in the visual boundary.
Definition 6.6. Assume that X is irreducible. We say that a point
η ∈ ∂X is squeezing if there exists an x ∈ X and an r > 0 such that
there exist infinitely many pairs of super strongly separated h ⊂ k at
distance r, with η ∈ h ∩ k and x ∈ h∗ ∩ k ∗ .
If X is not irreducible, a squeezing point is one that is squeezing in
each factor.
Remark 6.7. For an irreducible complex X a point η ∈ ∂X is contracting if there is a bi-infinite decreasing sequence of pairwise strongly
separated half-spaces in Uη which are at consecutive distance r. The
reader may then note the similarity between a squeezing point and a
contracting point. Contracting points are necessarily squeezing, but
the converse does not hold in general. Both squeezing and contracting
points are necessarily regular.
Recall the definition of Q(η) from Corollary 6.2. The properties of
squeezing points are summarized in the following lemma.

RANDOM WALKS AND BOUNDARIES OF CAT(0) CUBICAL COMPLEXES 19

Lemma 6.8. Let η ∈ ∂X be a squeezing point. Then there exists
ξ ∈ ∂∢ X such that Q(η) = {ξ}. Furthermore, any sequence of vertices
(xn ) converging to η in the Roller boundary also converges to ξ in the
visual boundary.
Proof. Let x ∈ X and r > 0 be such that there exists an infinite
sequence of super strongly separated half-spaces hi ⊂ ki at distance r,
with η ∈ hi ∩ ki and x ∈ h∗i ∩ ki∗ .
Let us prove first that Q(η) is a singleton. Assume that there exist
ξ, ξ ′ ∈ Q(η). Let g and g ′ be the geodesic rays from x to ξ and ξ ′ respectively. Then for every i, both the rays g and g ′ cross both hyperplanes
ĥi and k̂i . By Lemma 5.7, they have to be in the r-neighborhood of the
bridge b(hi , ki ). Furthermore, the bridge b(hi , ki ) crosses exactly the r
hyperplanes separating hi from ki . So its diameter (for the combinatorial distance d) is at most r. Hence its diameter for the distance d′ is
at most C, for some C > 0 (depending only on r). It follows that the
two geodesic rays g and g ′ are at distance C ′ for some (fixed) C ′ > 0
when they travel in hi ∩ ki∗ .
Since hi and ki can be arbitrarily far from x, it follows that g and
′
g are at distance C ′ from each other at arbitrarily large distance from
x. By convexity of the distance in a CAT(0) space, it follows that they
are always at distance at most C ′ from each other. Hence ξ = ξ ′ .
Now let (xn ) be a sequence of vertices of X converging to η. Let gn
be the geodesic ray from x to xn . We have to prove that gn converges
to g uniformly on every compact set. Let R > 0 and let (hi , ki ) be
half-spaces in the sequence defined above which are at distance > R
from x. For n large enough, we see that xn belongs to hi ∩ ki , so that
gn crosses ĥi and k̂i . So using the same argument as above, for every
R > 0 and every t < R, we have d′ (gn (t), g(t)) < C ′ .
To avoid cumbersome notation for the remainder of the proof only
we shall denote both the CAT(0) metric on X and on Euclidean space
by d. Fix ε > 0 small. Consider the comparison triangle x̄, γ̄n (R),
and γ̄(R) in the Euclidean plane R2 . Let t < Rε/C ′ , p = γn (t), and
q = γ(t), and consider again the points p̄ and q̄ in R2 on the segments
[x̄γ̄n (R)] and [x̄ḡ(R)] respectively and both at distance t from x̄. Since
we know that d(γ̄n (R), γ̄(R)) = d(γn (R), γ(R)) 6 C ′ , using the Law
′
of Similar Triangles we see that d(p̄, q̄) 6 tC
< ε. By definition of
R
CAT(0) spaces, it follows that d(p, q) < ε. In other words, we have, for
all t < Rε/C ′, d(γn (t), γ(t)) < ε. The result follows.

6

Lemma 6.8 justifies the following:

20

TALIA FERNÓS, JEAN LÉCUREUX, FRÉDÉRIC MATHÉUS

Definition 6.9. Assume that X is irreducible. An element ξ ∈ ∂∢ X
is said to be squeezing if for some (and hence all) x ∈ X there is an
r > 0 and infinitely many pairs of super strongly separated h ⊂ k at
distance r, with x ∈ h∗ ∩ k ∗ such that geodesic ray from x asympotic to
ξ crosses the walls ĥ and k̂.
Recall from Corollary 6.2 that there is an Aut(X)-equivariant map
∂X → ∂∢ X. This together with Lemma 6.8 yields:
Lemma 6.10. There is an Aut(X)-equivariant bijection between the
squeezing points in ∂X and the squeezing points in ∂∢ X.
This justifies the following definition:
Definition 6.11. The interval between two visual squeezing points
ξ− , ξ+ ∈ ∂∢ X is defined as I(ξ− , ξ+ ) := I(Q−1 (ξ− ), Q−1 (ξ+ )) which
is a subset of the Roller compactification X.
6.3. A Quotient of the Roller Boundary. The set of boundary
points has a natural partition into cubical subcomplexes, which is especially interesting for points that are not nonterminating). The following
definition is due to Guralnik [Gur07].
Definition 6.12. Let α, β ∈ ∂X. We say that α is equivalent to β,
denoted by α ∼ β, if the symmetric difference between Uα and Uβ is
finite. The equivalence class of α is denoted [α].
Definition 6.13. The extended metric on X is the function d : X ×
X → R ∪ {+∞} defined by the same formula as on X:
1
d(α, β) = #(Uα △Uβ )
2

The extended distance between two points α and β is finite if and
only if we have α ∈ [β]. For every α, this endows [α] with a distance. In
fact, [α] is a CAT(0) cubical complex in its own right, the half-spaces
of [α] being the half-spaces of X which separate two points in [α].
Lemma 6.14. For every α ∈ ∂X, there exists ξ ∈ ∂∢ X such that
[α] ⊂ X ξ .
Furthermore, T
there exists a descending chain (hn )n∈N of half-spaces
such that [α] ⊂ n∈N hn .

Proof. Let Q = Q(α) be defined as in Corollary 6.2, and fix ξ ∈ Q.
Then α ∈ X ξ by Lemma 6.4. It follows that [α] ⊂ X ξ . Finally, Tξ
contains an infinite descending chain by Lemma 6.3.

6

RANDOM WALKS AND BOUNDARIES OF CAT(0) CUBICAL COMPLEXES 21

6.4. Subcomplexes as Decreasing Intersections. We defined in
the previous section an extended distance d : X × X → R ∪ {+∞},
which partitions X into cubical subcomplexes. We aim to write these
subcomplexes as intersections of half-spaces in X.
Lemma
T 6.15. Let (hn )n>1 be a descending chain of half-spaces, and
Z=
hn . Then Z is the Roller compactification of some subcomplex
n>1

Y ⊂ X.

Proof. Indeed, consider the set of half-spaces H′ ⊂ H such that h ∩ Z
and h∗ ∩ Z are both nonempty. Then by [CFI12, Lemma 2.6] (see
also [Fer15, Proposition 2.10]) there is an isometric embedding of the
CAT(0) cube complex associated to H′ into X, whose closure is exactly
Z.
We note that H′ is given by all half-spaces which are transverse to
infinitely many hn .

6

Lemma 6.16. Let Y ⊂ X be a subcomplex disjoint from X. Then
dim(Y ) < dim(X).
Proof. Let D be a maximal collection of pairwise transverse half-spaces
in X. Let us denote by HY the set of half-spaces containing Y . We
aim to prove that there is a k ∈ D such that k or k ∗ ∈ HY and so k̂
does not participate in any maximal cube of Y .
We begin by observing that if h, k ∈ H are such that k ∩ h 6= ∅ and
∗
k ∩ h 6= ∅ then one of the following hold:
(1) k ⊂ h;
(2) k ∗ ⊂ h;
(3) h ⋔ k.
Consider hn+1 ( hn an infinite descending chain in HY , which exists
by Lemma 6.14 (since Y = [y] for any y ∈ Y ). We now show that
D ∩ (HY ⊔ HY∗ ) 6= ∅.
By contradiction, assume this is not the case, i.e. that if k ∈ D then
k∩Y and k ∗ ∩Y are both nonempty, and in particular, k∩hn , k ∗ ∩hn 6= ∅
for each n. Therefore, for each k ∈ D and n ∈ N, we are in one of the
situations (1)–(3) above. Since in between any two half-spaces there
are finitely many, and D is finite, there must be an N such that if
n > N then hn ⋔ k for every k ∈ D. It follows that for every k ∈ D
and for every n large enough we have hn ⋔ k. This of course contradicts
the maximality of D.
This shows that any maximal family of pairwise transverse halfspaces must have non-trivial intersection with HY ⊔ HY∗ and hence
the dimension of Y is less than D.

6

22

TALIA FERNÓS, JEAN LÉCUREUX, FRÉDÉRIC MATHÉUS

Lemma 6.17. Let ξ0 ∈ ∂X. There exists k 6 dim(X) and a family
(h1m )m>0 , (h2m )m>0 , . . . , (hkm )m>0 of descending chain of half-spaces such
that
k \
\
[ξ0 ] =
him
i=1 m>0

Proof. We argue by induction on the dimension. If dim(X) = 1, then
the result is clear.
Assume the lemma holds for every complex of dimension < dim(X).
By Lemma 6.14, there exists a descending chain (hm ) whose intersection contains [ξ0 ] (and since half-spaces are closed, it also contains
T
[ξ0 ]). Let Z = hm . By Lemma 6.15, Z is isomorphic to the Roller
compactification of some complex Y .
By Lemma 6.16 we have dim(Y ) < dim(X). We also know that
[ξ0 ] ⊂ Y . If ξ0 ∈ Y then [ξ0 ] = Z and there is nothing left to prove. If
not, then by induction there exists finitely many chains of half-spaces in
Y such that [ξ0 ] is the intersection of all these half-spaces. These halfspaces lift to half-spaces of X. To conclude the proof we observe that
the lift of these half-spaces in X form again a descending chain (indeed,
any non-empty intersection of walls or half-spaces in X projects to a
non-empty intersection in Y ).

6

6.5. Horofunction Boundary. Let (X, d) be a metric space. Let
us recall the construction of the horoboundary of X. Fix an origin
o ∈ X. For x ∈ X, consider the function hx : X → R defined by
hx (y) = d(y, x) − d(o, x). This defines an embedding ι from X to the
set C(X) of continuous function on X.
h

Definition 6.18. The horocompactification X is the closure of ι(X)
h
horo
in C(X). The horoboundary of X is ∂∞
(X) = X \ X.
h
horo
A function in ∂∞
(X) (and sometimes even in X ) is called a horofunction.
Because every function hx is actually 1-Lipschitz and satisfies hx (o) =
0, it follows from the Arzela-Ascoli theorem that the horocompactification is indeed a compact space (regardless of the topology of X).
Furthermore, the horoboundary, as a topological space, does not depend on the choice of the origin o (a different choice would just translate
the horofunctions by a constant).
It is well-known that for a proper CAT(0) space X (with its CAT(0)
metric), the horoboundary is the same as the visual boundary, denoted
∂∢ X.

RANDOM WALKS AND BOUNDARIES OF CAT(0) CUBICAL COMPLEXES 23

Remark 6.19. This notion of horoboundary is not the usual one because we consider the topology of convergence on compact subsets, and
not on bounded ones. For proper spaces, the two notions are of course
equivalent. The main advantage of our definition is that it produces
a compact space. However, there are two possible inconveniences: the
first one is that the space is no longer open in its compactification,
and the second one is that for general spaces this construction might
produced more points than desired. To avoid the confusion, these limit
points are called metric functionals instead of horofunctions in [GK15].
However, when considering the horoboundary with the ℓ1 as we do
above, there are no additional points and so we stick to the more standard terminology.
Now let us go back to our situation when X is a CAT(0) cube complex. Recall from §3.1 that the distance on X can be calculated as
d(x, y) = 12 #(Ux △Uy ).
The following is an unpublished result of Bader and Guralnik, and
seems to be well-known to experts. We include a proof for completeness.
Proposition 6.20. The horocompactification (respectively the horoboundary) of the set of vertices of X is equivariantly homeomorphic to the
Roller compactification (respectively the Roller boundary) of X.
Furthermore, for every ξ ∈ X, if m is the median point of ξ, x and
o, then the horofunction associated to ξ is defined by
hξ (x) = d(m, x) − d(m, o).
Let us start with a lemma which is of independent interest. Recall
(from §3.2) that the median point of x, y, z is the unique point contained
in the intersection I(x, y) ∩ I(y, z) ∩ I(z, x).
Lemma 6.21. The map m : X × X × X → X which associates to a
triple of points their median is continuous.
Proof. Let x, y, z ∈ X, and m = m(x, y, z). The definition of the
median translates easily to get that
Um = (Ux ∩ Uy ) ∪ (Uy ∩ Uz ) ∪ (Uz ∩ Ux ).

It is straightforward to verify that this is in fact defines a continuous
map 2H × 2H × 2H → 2H .

6

Proof of Proposition 6.20. Fix an origin o ∈ X. Let ξ ∈ X and xn ∈ X
a sequence with xn → ξ. For x ∈ X, set m = m(o, x, ξ) and observe
that m ∈ X. Also set mn = m(o, x, xn ). By definition of the median,
we have:

24

TALIA FERNÓS, JEAN LÉCUREUX, FRÉDÉRIC MATHÉUS

hxn (x) := d(x, xn ) − d(o, xn )
= d(x, mn ) + d(mn , xn ) − d(o, mn ) − d(mn , xn )
= d(x, mn ) − d(o, mn ).
Taking limits and utilizing Lemma 6.21 which guarantees the continuity
of the median, we deduce
hξ (x) = d(m, x) − d(m, o).
Next observe that, since x ∈ X, we have m ∈ I(o, x) ⊂ X, and hence
hξ (x) < +∞, that is hξ is a function from X to R. It is continuous
as the metric is continuous. We denote by H : X → C(X) the map
which associates hξ to ξ. We have shown that hxn → hξ and from this
horo
it is straightforward to conclude that the map H : X → X ∪ ∂∞
X is
continuous.
Let us prove that H is injective. Assume that ξ, ξ ′ ∈ X are such
that hξ = hξ′ . Let x be a vertex adjacent to o and k be the half-space
containing x but not o. We have hξ (x) = 1 if ξ 6∈ k and hξ (x) = −1
otherwise. It follows that ξ ∈ k if and only ξ ′ ∈ k. The same argument
works starting from any vertex (by induction on the distance to o).
Hence we have Uξ = Uξ′ and therefore ξ = ξ ′.
Now, let f be a horofunction. Hence f is a limit of functions of
the form (hxn ), for some sequence (xn ) of vertices. Let (xϕ(n) ) be a
subsequence converging to some ξ ∈ X. Then it follows that (hxϕ(n) )
converges to hξ , hence that f = hξ . So the map H is surjective, hence
bijective. Since X is compact it is a homeomorphism.
Finally, the above arguments show that H|∂X is a homeomorphism
horo
from ∂X to ∂∞
X.

6

We also note, for future use, the following cocycle relation:
Lemma 6.22. Let g1 , g2 ∈ Aut(X), ξ ∈ X. Then

hξ (g2−1 g1−1 o) = hg2 ξ (g1−1o) + hξ (g2−1 o).

Proof. Let xn be a sequence converging to ξ. Then
hg2 ξ (g1−1o) + hξ (g2−1 o) =
=
=

lim d(g2 xn , g1−1o) − d(g2 xn , o) + d(xn , g2−1o) − d(xn , o)

n→+∞

lim d(xn , g2−1g1−1 o)
n→+∞
hξ (g2−1 g1−1 o)

− d(xn , o)

6

RANDOM WALKS AND BOUNDARIES OF CAT(0) CUBICAL COMPLEXES 25

The equality of Lemma 6.22 is better understood and remembered
in the following form: if σ(g, ξ) = hξ (g −1 o), then we have
σ(g1 g2 , ξ) = σ(g1 , g2 ξ) + σ(g2 , ξ).
In other words σ is an additive cocycle.
6.6. Remarks on B(X) and R(X). In [NS13], Nevo and Sageev introduce another boundary which they call B(X) and define as follows:
Definition 6.23. A point ξ ∈ ∂X is called non-terminating if for every
h ∈ Uξ there exists k ∈ Uξ with k ⊂ h.
The set of non-terminating points is denoted by ∂N T X. The nonterminating boundary B(X) is the closure of ∂N T X.
It is clear that any regular point is non-terminating. Hence, we
always have R(X) ⊂ B(X).
Furthermore, one of the main results of [NS13] is:
Theorem 6.24. Let Γ be a group acting properly and cocompactly on
the complex X. Then the action of Γ on B(X) is minimal and strongly
proximal.
The set R(X) is clearly a Γ-invariant closed subset of B(X). Thus,
the minimality of the action on B(X) implies the following.
Corollary 6.25. Assume that Isom(X) contains a discrete subgroup
acting cocompactly. Then B(X) = R(X).
For concrete examples, such as the Salvetti complex associated to a
Right Angled Artin Group, it is straightforward to check the equality
B(X) = R(X). Let us do so in a particular case. It is of interest to
us as we will modify it in Proposition 6.27 to give an example of a
complex where B(x) 6= R(X).

Example 6.26. Let X = X(Z2 ∗ Z) be the universal cover of the
Salvetti complex associated to Z2 ∗ Z, where Z2 = ha, bi and Z = hci
are the generators of the free factors. It is straightforward to check
that there are unique points xn , x∞ ∈ B(X) such that ck an bn → xn
as k → ∞, and an bn → x∞ as n → ∞. Furthermore, xn ∈ ∂r X
and x∞ ∈ ∂N T X \ ∂r X. On the other hand, as n → ∞ we have
xn → x∞ . Finally, observe that a similar construction can be applied
to any element of ∂N T X \ ∂r X and so we have that B(X) = R(X).
Proposition 6.27. There exists a complex X, with Isom(X) acting
essentially and non-elementarily, but with R(X) 6= B(X).
In particular, the action of Isom(X) on B(X) is not minimal.

26

TALIA FERNÓS, JEAN LÉCUREUX, FRÉDÉRIC MATHÉUS

Proof. We retain the notation of Example 6.26. We will construct a
subcomplex of X ′ ⊂ X(Z2 ∗ Z) and it will have an action of Z ∗ Z =
habi ∗ hci which is essential and non-elementary. First observe that the
action of ab on the plane associated to Z2 is essential and we have an
embedding (which is a similarity) of Z ֒→ Z2 by mapping a generator of
Z to ab. This embedding extends to an embedding of the tree associated
to F2 ∼
= Z ∗ Z into X. We define X ′ as the (ℓ1 -) convex hull of the
image of this tree in X. In particular, X ′ contains every plane of X
containing an axis of a conjugate of ab. It is straightforward to check
that since the action of habi is essential on the plane, the action of Z∗Z
is essential as well.
Now, the non-terminating points corresponding to (−∞, ∞) and
(∞, −∞) in the plane containing the axis of ab are isolated in B(X).
Since these are not regular, we deduce that B(X) 6= R(X).

6

7. Uniqueness of the Stationary Measure
Let X be a finite dimensional CAT(0) cube complex, Γ a group
acting on X and µ an admissible measure on Γ. We denote by B the
Furstenberg-Poisson boundary of (Γ, µ). Our goal in this section is to
prove that there is a unique stationary measure on ∂X.
The main tool is the following:
Theorem 7.1. Assume that the action of Γ on X is non-elementary
and essential. There is a Γ-equivariant map η : B → ∂X.
Furthermore, for every such equivariant map and almost every b ∈
B, η(b) ∈ ∂r X.
Proof. The existence of the map is [CFI12, Theorem 4.1] in the symmetric case and [Fer15, Theorem 7.1] in the general case. The fact that
η(b) is almost surely regular is [Fer15, Theorem 7.7].

6

Proposition 7.2. If the action of Γ on X is non-elementary and essential then there is a unique Γ-equivariant measurable map ϕ : B →
Prob(X) and for almost every b ∈ B, ϕ(b) is the Dirac mass at η(b).
Proof. We first prove the result for X irreducible and then use this to
prove the result in general.
Assume that X is irreducible. Let B− be the Poisson boundary for
the inverse measure µ̌. Recall from Theorem 2.3 that B− × B is isometrically ergodic. By [Fer15, Theorem 7.1 & 7.7], there is another
equivariant map η− : B− → X with essential image in ∂r X. Furthermore it follows from the proof of [Fer15, Theorem 7.1] that we have,
for almost every (b− , b) ∈ B− × B, η− (b− ) 6= η(b).

RANDOM WALKS AND BOUNDARIES OF CAT(0) CUBICAL COMPLEXES 27

We claim first that there is a unique measurable and Γ-equivariant
map η : B → X. Indeed, if there is another such map η ′ , then by
ergodicity we have almost surely η(b) 6= η ′ (b), and the same argument as in [Fer15, Theorem 7.1] also proves that η− (b− ) 6= η ′ (b) almost surely. Now consider the map p : B− × B → X defined by
p(b− , b) = m(η− (b− ), η(b), η ′ (b)). By Lemma 5.14 it follows that p(b− , b)
is almost surely in X. Obviously p is Γ-equivariant, and measurable by
Lemma 6.21. By metric ergodicity, it is constant. Hence Γ fixes a point
in X, contradicting the assumption that the Γ-action is non-elementary
and proving the claim.
Now let ϕ : B → Prob(X) be a measurable Γ-equivariant map and
let us show that for almost every b ∈ B, ϕ(b) is the Dirac mass at
η(b). We start with some notation, borrowed from [CFI12] (see also
[Fer15]). To a measure m ∈ Prob(∂X), we can associate three subsets
+
of the set of half-spaces: the heavy half-spaces Hm
(of measure > 1/2),
−
the light ones Hm (of measure < 1/2), and the balanced ones Hm (of
+
measure 1/2). It is easy to see that for any measure m, the set Hm
is a consistent set of half-spaces and hence if there are no balanced
+
half-spaces then there exists an element x ∈ X such that Ux = Hm
,
that is {x} = ∩ + h.
h∈Hm

Assume that ϕ(b) is not the Dirac mass at η(b). Recall that the
map which associates to b the intersection of all heavy half-spaces of
+
ϕ(b), denoted by Hϕ(b)
is again measurable and equivariant, so that
+
Hϕ(b) = Uη(b) . Since η(b) is a regular point, by Proposition 5.10, we can
find an infinite descending chain of pairwise strongly separated heavy
half-spaces whose intersection is η(b). This proves that the measure of
{η(b)} is at least 1/2.
Hence we can write, for almost every b, ϕ(b) = αδη(b) + (1 − α)ϕ′ (b),
with 1/2 6 α < 1, and ϕ′ (b)({η(b)}) = 0. Note that α : B → [1/2, 1)
is a Γ-invariant function, so that by ergodicity, it is constant. By
assumption we have α < 1.
The map ϕ′ : B → Prob(X) is still equivariant. Now, applying the
same argument to ϕ′ instead of ϕ, we conclude that ϕ′ (b)({η(b)}) >
1/2. This is a contradiction.
Therefore ϕ(b) is almost surely a Dirac mass. As was shown above,
there is a unique map from B → X and hence ϕ(b) = η(b) almost
surely.
Now assume that X is a product X = X1 × · · · × Xn , where each Xi
is irreducible. Then there exists a finite index subgroup Γ0 < Γ which
preserves each factor. By [CFI12, Lemma 2.13], the induced action

28

TALIA FERNÓS, JEAN LÉCUREUX, FRÉDÉRIC MATHÉUS

of Γ0 on each factor is again essential and non-elementary. We note
also that by Lemma 2.2, the Furstenberg-Poisson boundary of (Γ, µ) is
Γ0 -equivariantly isomorphic to the Poisson boundary of (Γ0 , µ0 ), where
µ0 is the first return probability.
Applying Theorem 7.1 to each irreducible factor, we find ηi : B →
∂Xi , which in turn gives η : B → ∂X, all of which are Γ0 -equivariant
maps. Let πi : X → X i be the projection. Let ϕ : B → Prob(X)
be a Γ (and hence Γ0 )-equivariant map. As was shown above in the
irreducible case, the Γ0 -equivariant map (πi )∗ ϕ(b) is equal to the Dirac
mass at ηi (b). This means that
ϕ(b)(X1 × · · · × Xi−1 × {ηi (b)} × Xi × · · · × Xn ) = 1.
Since this holds for each i, we see that indeed ϕ(b)({η(b)}) = 1, meaning that ϕ(b) is the Dirac mass at η(b).

6

Corollary 7.3. Assume that the action of Γ on X is essential and
non-elementary. Then there is a unique stationary measure on X.
Proof. Apply Proposition 7.2 and Corollary 2.6.

6

Remark 7.4. The assumption that the action is essential cannot be
removed. Indeed, take the example of the free group F2 acting on the
product T × L, where T is the Cayley tree of F2 , and L is a line (with
trivial action). Let ν be the stationary measure on ∂T . Then for every
x ∈ L, the measure ν×δx is a stationary measure on ∂T ×x ⊂ ∂(T ×L).
Remark 7.5. During the writing of this paper, it has been proved in
the paper [KS15] that, in the irreducible case, the action on R(X) is
minimal and strongly proximal. For irreducible spaces, the uniqueness
of the stationary measure follows, as explained in [NS13].
8. Convergence to the Roller Boundary
Now that we understand better the stationary measure on the boundary, we can attack the problem of the convergence of the random walk.
Recall that Theorem 7.1 guarantees the existence of a measurable and
Γ-equivariant map η : B → ∂X. As B is a factor of Ω, we can also
consider the composition Ω → B → ∂X, which we still denote by η.
Our goal is to prove:
Theorem 8.1. Assume that the action of Γ on X is non-elementary,
essential, and preserves each irreducible factor of X. Then for almost
every ω ∈ Ω the sequence (Zn (ω)o)n converges to η(ω).

RANDOM WALKS AND BOUNDARIES OF CAT(0) CUBICAL COMPLEXES 29

Our strategy is inspired by a proof of Kaimanovich in the case of
hyperbolic groups [Kai00, Theorem 2.4], although we have to face some
technical difficulties, these are overcome thanks to the fact that regular
points are well-behaved. This is exemplified by the following:
Proposition 8.2. Assume X is irreducible, and let λ be a non-atomic
measure on X, such that λ(∂r X) = 1. If gn ∈ Γ is such that gn o →
ξ0 ∈ X, and (gn λ) weakly converges to ν, then ν([ξ0 ]) = 1.
The proof of Proposition 8.2, will rely on some more lemmas.
Lemma 8.3. Let G be a group acting by homeomorphisms on some
metrizable compact space C, (gn ) be a sequence in G, λ a probability
measure on C and A ⊂ C be a Borel subset such that for almost all
x ∈ C, any limit point of (gn x) belongs to A. If (gn λ) weakly converges
to ν then ν(A) = 1.
Proof. As we may replace A with its closure without affecting the hypotheses or conclusion, let us assume that A is closed. Fixing a metric
compatible with the topology, denote by Aε the ε-neighborhood of A.
The assumption implies that for almost every x ∈ C and every n large
enough, we have gn x ∈ Aε : if not, there is a subsequence which avoids
Aε completely, and any limit point of this subsequence does not belong
to A.
T
We note that, since A = n∈N A1/n , it is sufficient to prove that
ν(Aε ) = 1 for all ε > 0.
Fix ε > 0. Denote by Aε the closure of the ε neighborhood of A. By
Urysohn’s Lemma, there is a continuous f : C → [0, 1] bounded above
and below by the characteristic functions
1Aε (x) 6 f (x) 6 1A2ε (x).
By assumption, for each x there is an n sufficiently large such that
gn x ∈ Aε and hence fn (x) := f (gn x) → 1. It follows from the Dominated Convergence Theorem that ν(f ) = 1. Hence ν(Aε ) = 1, which
concludes the proof of the lemma.

6

Lemma 8.4. Let ξ0 ∈ X and gn ∈ Γ be such that gn o → ξ0 . Then for
every x ∈ X all limit points of the sequence (gn x)n belong to [ξ0 ].
Proof. We have for all n, |Ugn o △Ugn x | = |Uo △Ux |. Let a be a limit
point of (gn x). If h1 , . . . , hk are half-spaces in Ua △Uξ0 then we see that
for n large enough we have hi ∈ Ugn o △Ugnx for all 1 6 i 6 k. Hence
we have k 6 |Uo △Ux |. In other words, there are at most |Uo △Ux |
half-spaces in Ua △Uξ0 . This means that a ∈ [ξ0 ].

6

30

TALIA FERNÓS, JEAN LÉCUREUX, FRÉDÉRIC MATHÉUS

The previous lemma can be extended to the convergence of points
in the Roller boundary, up to passing to a subsequence and excluding
finitely many points:
Lemma 8.5. Let gn ∈ Γ. If there is ξ0 ∈ X and o ∈ X such that
gn o → ξ0 then there is a subsequence ϕ(n) and ξ1 , . . . , ξk such that if
ξ ∈ ∂r X \ {ξ1 , . . . , ξk } then all limit points of (gϕ(n) ξ) belong to [ξ0 ].
Proof. Observe that if ξ0 ∈ X then the result follows as [ξ0 ] = X.
Therefore, assume ξ0 ∈ ∂X.
Let {h1m : m ∈ N}, . . . , {hkm : m ∈ N} be the descending chains
k

provided by Lemma 6.4, i.e. such that [ξ0 ] = ∩ ∩ him .
i=1 m∈N

Then, the following dichotomy holds: either for every ξ ∈ ∂r X we
have that all limit points of the sequence (gn ξ) belong to ∩h1m or there is
m

an ξ1 ∈ ∂r X and a subsequence ϕ1 (n) for which gϕ1 (n) (ξ1 ) → ξ 1 ∈
/ ∩h1m .
m

In case all limit points belong to ∩h1m we set ϕ1 (n) = n, and define ξ1
m
arbitrarily.
By the same process, we construct inductively, for each 1 < i 6 k,
a subsequence ϕi of ϕi−1 , and ξi ∈ ∂r X, such that, for every j 6 i, we
have
(a) either the limit points of (gϕi (n) ξ)n are in ∩ hjm (and we define
m>0

ξj arbitrarily)
(b) or we find ξj ∈ ∂r X and ξ j 6∈ ∩hjm with gϕi (n) ξj → ξ j .
m

Fix i 6 k and for simplicity let ϕ(n) = ϕk (n). Let us now show that
for every ξ ∈ ∂r X \ {ξi } we have that the limit points of gϕ(n) ξ belong
to ∩him . If ξi was chosen arbitrarily as in case (a) above then there is
m
nothing to prove. Therefore, up to passing to a subsequence, assume
that gϕ(n) ξi → ξ i ∈
/ ∩him .
m

Consider S(ξ, ξi) = I(ξ, ξi )∩X (which is not empty by Lemma 5.15).
Let x ∈ S(ξ, ξi). Since x is at finite distance from o, it follows from
Lemma 8.4 that every limit point of (gϕ(n) (x)) belongs to [ξ0 ]. So, for
each m ∈ N there is an Ni so that if n > Ni then gϕ(n) (x) ∈ him . On
the other hand, since ξ i ∈
/ ∩him , there exists Mi such that ξ i ∈
/ him for
m

all m > Mi . Since gϕ(n) ξi converges to ξ i there is an Ni′ > Ni so that if
n > Ni′ and m > Mi then gϕ(n) (ξi ) ∈
/ him .
Fix m > Mi . If we had gϕ(n) ξ 6∈ him , then by convexity of the interval
I(gϕ(n) ξ, gϕ(n)ξi ) we would have gϕ(n) x 6∈ him . So for n > Ni′ we have
gϕ(n) ξ ∈ him .

RANDOM WALKS AND BOUNDARIES OF CAT(0) CUBICAL COMPLEXES 31

Now redefine ξ ∈ ∂r X \ {ξ1 , . . . , ξk } and let ξ be a limit point of the
sequence (gϕ(n) ξ). The above argument shows that ξ ∈ ∩him , for each
m
i = 1, . . . , k, i.e.
k

ξ ∈ ∩ ∩ him = [ξ0 ].
i=1 m∈N

6

Proof of Proposition 8.2. We first replace as we may (gn ) by a subsequence satisfying the conclusion of Lemma 8.5. Since λ is non atomic,
we have that for λ-almost every ξ, every limit point of (gn ξ) is in [ξ0 ].
By Lemma 8.3, this implies that ν([ξ0 ]) = 1.

6

Lemma 8.6. Assume X is irreducible. Let λ be a non-atomic measure
on ∂r X. Let gn ∈ G be such that gn λ weakly converges to a Dirac mass
δb , for some b ∈ ∂r X. Then gn o converges to b.
Proof. Let b′ be a limit point of (gn o). By Lemma 8.2 we have that
δb is supported on [b′ ]. Hence b ∈ [b′ ]. By Lemma
T 6.14, there exists
a sequence of half-spaces (hn ) such that [b′ ] ⊂ n∈N hn . Since every
T
′] ⊂
[b
Hence b ∈
half-space
is
closed
by
definition,
we
have
n∈N hn . T
T
n∈N hn . Since b ∈ ∂r X, by Proposition 5.12, it follows that
n∈N hn =
{b}. So b′ = b.

6

Proof of Theorem 8.1. Let λ be the unique stationary measure on X.
As we assume the action is non-elementary, the measure λ is not atomic.
Assume first that X is irreducible. We know that Zn λ converges to the
Dirac mass δη(ω) , where η(ω) ∈ ∂r X almost surely. By Lemma 8.6, it
follows that Zn o converges to η(ω).
Now if X is not irreducible, but Γ preserves each factor Xi of X,
then the action of Γ on Xi is still non-elementary and essential, and the
previous argument proves that the projection of Zn o to Xi converges
to some point in ∂Xi . Hence Zn o also converges to a point in the
boundary of X.

6

9. Positivity of the Drift
9.1. The Drift. Before getting into the specifics of our situation, we
recall some basic general facts about the drift of an action. Assume
that Γ acts on a metric space X. Choose a vertex o in X. This gives
rise to a seminorm on Γ defined by |g| = d(go, o). The drift relative to
| · | is defined as follows.

32

TALIA FERNÓS, JEAN LÉCUREUX, FRÉDÉRIC MATHÉUS

Definition 9.1. The drift of the µ-random walk with respect to a seminorm | · | is:
1w
λ = inf
|Zn (ω)| dP(ω).
n n
Ω

The following is a standard application of Kingman’s Subbaditive
Ergodic Theorem:
Theorem 9.2. For almost every ω ∈ Ω we have
1
λ = lim |Zn (ω)|.
n→∞ n
Furthermore, λ isPfinite whenever µ has finite first moment (with
respect to | · |), i.e.
µ(g)|g| < ∞.
g∈Γ

9.2. Proof of the Positivity of the Drift. Our goal in this section
is to prove that the speed at which the random walk goes to infinity is
always linear. Our proof follows a classical strategy which was initiated
by Guivarc’h and Raugi for linear groups [GR85]. Ledrappier extended
it to free nonabelian groups [Led01], and Benoist and Quint to Gromov
hyperbolic groups [BQ16].
The main aim of this section is to prove the following:
Theorem 9.3. Let Γ → Aut(X) be an essential and nonelementary
action, µ a probability measure on Γ, o ∈ X such that µ has finite first
moment with respect to | · |. Then λ > 0.
Recall from section 6.5 that ∂X is isomorphic to the horofunction
boundary of X with the combinatorial distance. If α ∈ ∂X, we denote
hα the corresponding horofunction.
We denote by ν the unique stationary measure on ∂X. By Theorem
7.1, we have ν(∂r X) = 1.
The positivity of the drift will follow easily once we prove the following:
Proposition 9.4. Assume that Γ stabilizes each factor of X. Then for
every ξ ∈ ∂X and P-almost every ω ∈ Ω, there exists C > 0 such that
for all n > 0 we have
|d(Zn (ω)o, o) − hξ (Zn (ω)o)| < C.
Proof. First, we claim that the conclusion of the proposition does not
depend on the choice of the basepoint o. Indeed, assume that
|d(Zn (ω)o, o) − hξ (Zn (ω)o)| < C.

RANDOM WALKS AND BOUNDARIES OF CAT(0) CUBICAL COMPLEXES 33

If o′ is another basepoint then
d(Zn o′ , o′ ) 6 d(Zn o′ , Zn o) + d(Zn o, o) + d(o, o′),
and hence d(Zn o′ , o′ ) − d(Zn o, o) 6 2d(o, o′). By symmetry
|d(Zn o′ , o′) − d(Zn o, o)| 6 2d(o, o′ ).

Similarly |hξ (Zn o) − hξ (Zn o′ )| 6 2d(o, o′). Hence

|d(Zn (ω)o′ , o′ ) − hξ (Zn (ω)o′)| 6 4d(o, o′) + C,

which proves the claim.
Let ξ ∈ ∂X. By Theorem 8.1, for P-a.e. ω ∈ Ω, there is η(ω) ∈ ∂r X
such that Zn (ω)o → η(ω) for every o ∈ X. As the action is nonelementary, we know that η(ω) 6= ξ almost surely. Fix such a generic
ω and set η = η(ω) and Zn = Zn (ω). By the claim above and Lemma
5.15, we may and shall assume that o ∈ I(η, ξ) ∩ X.
Recall from Proposition 6.20 that, the median m(ξ, x, o) ∈ I(x, o) is
such that
hξ (x) = d(m(ξ, x, o), x) − d(m(ξ, x, o), o).
Let mn = m(ξ, Zn o, o), so that hξ (Zn o) = d(mn , Zn o) − d(mn , o).
Then:
d(Zn o, o) − hξ (Zn o) = d(Zn o, mn ) + d(mn , o) − (d(mn , Zn o) − d(mn , o))
= 2d(mn , o)
Again, by continuity of the median map, we have that mn → m(ξ, η(ω), o).
Recall that we have chosen o = m(ξ, η, o) ∈ I(η, ξ)∩X, which is locally
compact. Therefore, for n sufficiently large,
d(Zn o, o) − hξ (Zn o) = 2d(m(ξ, η(ω), o), o) = 0.

6

We immediately deduce that:
Corollary 9.5. For every o ∈ X, P-a.e. (Zn ) ∈ Ω and every ξ ∈ ∂X
we have that
1
λ = lim hξ (Zn o).
n→∞ n
Our aim now is to apply results about additive cocycles to our situation. To this end, let T : Ω × X → Ω × X be defined by
T (ω, ξ) = (Sω, ω0−1ξ),

where ω = (ω0 , ω1 , . . . , ) and S : ω 7→ (ω1 , ω2 , . . . ) is the usual shift.
The following lemma is borrowed from [BQ, Proposition 1.14]. We
include a proof for completeness.

34

TALIA FERNÓS, JEAN LÉCUREUX, FRÉDÉRIC MATHÉUS

Lemma 9.6. The transformation T preserves the measure P × ν̌ and
acts ergodically.
Proof. Let β = P × ν̌. We begin by checking the invariance
of β. Let ψ
r
be a bounded Borel function on Ω×X. Let ϕ(x) = ψ(ω, x)dP(ω). By
definition
we have β(ψ) = ν̌(ϕ). On the other hand we get β(ψ ◦ T ) =
r
−1
ψ(Sω, ω0 x)dP(ω)dν̌(x) = ν̌(ϕ) by stationarity of ν̌. The invariance
of β follows.
Now let us turn to the proof of ergodicity of β. Let P be the averaging
operator relative
to µ̌: if f is a bounded Borel function on X, then
r
P f (x) = f (gx)dµ̌(g). A measure is µ̌-stationary if and only if it is
P -invariant. By Corollary 7.3, the measure ν̌ is the unique µ̌-stationary
measure on X. It follows that ν̌ is P -ergodic.
Let ψ be a bounded Borel function on Ω × X which is T -invariant.
We have to prove rit is constant. Let again ϕ denote the function defined
on X by ϕ(x) = ψ(ω, x)dP(ω).
We first see that
w
w
−1
P ϕ(x) = ψ(ω, g x)dP(ω)dµ(g) = (ψ ◦ T )(ω, x)dP(ω) = ϕ(x)
so that ϕ is P -invariant. By the above remark it is constant, say equal
to c.
Let Xn be the sigma algebra generated by the first n coordinates
ω0 , . . . , ωn−1 on Ω and by the variable x ∈ X. Let ϕn = E(ϕ | Xn ).
Then we have
w
ϕn (ω0 , . . . , ωn−1, x) = ψ((ω0 , . . . , ωn−1, ω), x)dP(ω)
w
= ψ ◦ T n ((ω0 , . . . , ωn−1, ω), x)dP(ω)
w
−1
= ψ(ω, ωn−1
. . . , ω0−1 x)dP(ω)
−1
= ϕ(ωn−1
. . . , ω0−1 x)
=c

Since the sequence (ϕn ) converges to ψ, it follows that ψ is also
constant, equal to c.

6

Proof of Theorem 9.3. Assume first that the group stabilizes each factor. Define the function F : Ω × X → R as
F ((ωn )n , ξ) = hξ (ω0 o)
and observe that its value only depends on the first coordinate of
(ωn )n . For every ξ ∈ ∂∢ X, the function hrξ is 1-Lipschitz on X, so that
|F ((ωn )n , ξ)| 6 d(o, ω0o). It follows that |F (ω, ξ)| P(ω)dν̌(ξ) < +∞.

RANDOM WALKS AND BOUNDARIES OF CAT(0) CUBICAL COMPLEXES 35

Recall from Lemma 6.22 horofunctions satisfy the following relation:
hξ (g2−1g1−1 x) = hg2 ξ (g1−1 x) + hξ (g2−1 x).
Inductively, this shows that if Zk = ω1 · · · ωk (and Z0 = e) then
n
X
hξ (Zn o) =
hZ −1 ξ (ωk o)
k−1

k=1

Therefore, we have the following calculation:

n
1
1 X
h −1 (ωk o)
hξ (Zn o) =
n
n k=1 Zk−1 ξ
n

1X
F (T k ((ωn )n , ξ)
=
n k=1

Now, assume that µ has finite first moment. By Proposition 9.4,
we have that n1 hξ (Zn o) → λ. Thanks to Lemma 9.6, we know that
T preserves P × ν̌ and is ergodic and so we may apply the Birkhoff
Ergodic Theorem and conclude:
n
w
1X
F (T k ((ωn )n , ξ)) → F (ω, ξ) P(ω)dν̌(ξ).
n k=0

Recall that by Proposition 9.4, we know that |d(Zn (ω)o, o)−hξ (Zn (ω)o)|
is almost surely uniformly bounded. This together with Theorem 8.1
which guarantees the almost sure convergence of the random walk to
the boundary, implies that hξ (Zn o) tends to +∞ almost surely. This
n
P
means that
F (T k ((ωn )n , ξ)) is a transient cocycle in the sense of
k=0
r
[Atk76] and hence by Atkinson’s Lemma F (ω, ξ) P(ω)dν̌(ξ) is strictly
positive [Atk76]. (See also [GR85, Lemma 3.6].)
If the group Γ does not stabilize each factor, let Γ0  Γ be the finite
index subgroup which does. Let (Zϕ(n) ) be the subsequence of the
random walk formed by the elements which are in Γ0 . This is a random
walk on Γ0 , which still has finite first moment by [Kai91, Lemma 2.3].
Z
Then by the previous result we have ϕ(n)
→ λ0 > 0.
n
Since we already know that Znn converges, the result follows from the
fact that ϕ(n)
has a positive limit, which is Lemma 9.7 below.
n

6

Lemma 9.7. Let Γ0  Γ be a finite index normal subgroup. Let (Zϕ(n) )
be the subsequence formed by all elements of the random walk which
→ C almost surely.
are in Γ0 . Then there is C > 0 such that ϕ(n)
n

36

TALIA FERNÓS, JEAN LÉCUREUX, FRÉDÉRIC MATHÉUS

Proof. Note first that Γ0 is of finite index so it is a recurrent set. Consider the induced random walk on the finite group Γ/Γ0 . It is an
irreducible Markov chain. Let π be the stationary measure on Γ/Γ0 .
For n > 0, let τn = ϕ(n + 1) − ϕ(n). Then τn is a random variable
whose law is the law of the first return time to Γ0 . The expectation of
1
τn is equal to C := π(eΓ
. Furthermore, the τn are independent. By
0)
n−1
P
the Law of Large Numbers, we have almost surely lim n1
τn = C.
n→+∞

In other words,

ϕ(n)
n

k=0

→ C.

6

Remark 9.8. Let d′ be the CAT(0) metric on X and fix a Γ-action
that is essential and non-elementary. Recall that d and d′ are quasiisometric. So µ has finite first moment with respect to d if and only
if it has finite first moment with respect to d′ . Theorem 9.3 then also
shows that if µ has finite first moment then the drift with respect to
either metric is positive.
10. Random Walks and the Visual Boundary
10.1. Convergence to the Visual Boundary. In this section, we
are interested in the almost sure convergence to the visual boundary.
Karlsson and Margulis showed that if µ has finite first moment and if
the drift is positive, then almost surely there is an ξ ∈ ∂∢ X such that
Zn o converges to ξ [KM99]. We aim to improve on this by getting rid
of these conditions. An important tool in our proof will be the notion
of a squeezing point which was developed in Section 6.2.
Theorem 10.1. There exists a map ξ : B → ∂∢ X such that, for all
o ∈ X, almost surely Zn (ω)o converges to ξ(ω). Furthermore ξ(ω) is
almost surely a squeezing point.
We will require:
Proposition 10.2. Almost surely, the point η = lim Zn o is a squeezing
n
point of the Roller boundary.
The proof will use the following useful lemma, proved in [Fer15,
Lemma 7.8].
Lemma 10.3. Let X be irreducible with an essential and nonelementary action of Γ. Let ν (resp. ν̌) be the stationary measure on X for
the measure µ (resp. µ̌).
Let S ⊂ H2 be a non-empty, Γ-invariant set, with h ⊂ k for every
(h, k) ∈ S. Then for ν̌ ⊗ ν-almost every (η− , η+ ), the set of (h, k) ∈ S
with {h, k} ⊂ Uη+ \ Uη− is infinite.

RANDOM WALKS AND BOUNDARIES OF CAT(0) CUBICAL COMPLEXES 37

Proof of Proposition 10.2. It suffices to treat the case of an irreducible
complex, so we assume that X is irreducible. Then we know that there
exists some pair of super strongly separated half-spaces. Fix such a
pair, and let r be the distance between these two half-spaces.
Let S be the set of pairs {h, k} where h ⊂ k are super strongly
separated half-spaces at distance r. Then S is a non-empty, Γ-invariant
collection of half-spaces. By Lemma 10.3, for ν̌ ⊗ν-almost every (η ′ , η),
the set of pairs (h, k) ∈ S such that h and k contain η but not η ′ is
infinite. Let S(η, η ′ ) be the set of all such (h, k).
We claim that for every (h, k) ∈ S(η, η ′ ), there exists (h′ , k ′ ) ∈
S(η, η ′ ) such that k ′ ⊂ h (so that we have h′ ⊂ k ′ ⊂ h ⊂ k). Indeed,
if it were not the case, then this would mean that there is a collection
of half-spaces hi such that there is some ki with (hi , ki ) ∈ S(η, η ′ ) and
which are minimal (for inclusion) with this property. By minimality,
the half-spaces hi are all transverse, so there can only be at most N of
them, where N is the dimension of X. This means that we get a map
from B− × B to the countable set HN . By isometric ergodicity (Theorem 2.3), this map must be essentially constant. Hence there is a finite
family of walls which is Γ-invariant, contradicting the assumptions on
the action.
Now fix a generic pair (η, η ′) as above. Fix (h0 , k0 ) ∈ S(η, η ′ ) and
extend as above to a decreasing sequence hn+1 ⊂ kn+1 ⊂ hn ⊂ kn .
Letting x ∈ I(η, η ′ )∩X such that x ∈ h∗0 ∩k0∗ shows that η is squeezing.

6

Proof of Theorem 10.1. We know by Proposition 10.2 that Zn o converges to a squeezing point of the Roller boundary. So by Lemma 6.8
we deduce that there is some ξ ∈ ∂∢ X such that Zn o converges to
ξ.

6

If X = X1 × · · · × Xn is reducible, the situation is different. In that
case there is no point η ∈ ∂X such that the set Q(η) is reduced to a
singleton. Indeed, if ηi ∈ ∂r Xi then Q((η1 , . . . , ηn )) is a sector in the
sphere S n−1 . A point in this sector can be represented by a half-line
generated by some vector (λ1 , . . . , λn ), where λi > 0.
Theorem 10.4. Let Γ act on X = X1 × · · · × Xn non-elementarily,
essentially, and preserving each irreducible factor Xi . Assume also that
µ has finite first moment. Let λi be the drift for the action of Γ on Xi ,
and let ηi be the limit of Zn o in the factor Xi .
Then almost surely the limit of Zn o in X is the point of Q(η1 , . . . , ηn )
corresponding to the vector (λ1 , . . . , λn ).

38

TALIA FERNÓS, JEAN LÉCUREUX, FRÉDÉRIC MATHÉUS

′
Proof.
r n Let di be the CAT(0) metric on the factor Xi . We have d =
P 2
di . Note that the measure µ still has finite first moment for the
i=1
rn
P 2
action on each factor. Let Λ =
λi be the drift on X. Using
i=1

[KM99], we get “sublinear tracking”: almost surely, there exists a geon oi )
tends
desic ray (for the CAT(0) metric) gi in Xi such that d(g(λi n),Z
n
to 0.
Now consider the quadrant defined by the geodesic rays g1 , . . . , gn . A
point in this quadrant is of the form (g1 (t1 ), . . . , gn (tn )) with (t1 , . . . , tn ) ∈
(R+ )n . Let g(t) = (g1 (λ1 t), . . . , gn (λn t)). Then we have that
!1/2
n
X
d′ (g(t), g(s)) =
di (gi (λi t), gi (λi s))2
i=1

=

n
X
i=1

λ2i (t − s)2

!1/2

= Λ|t − s|
P 2
In other words, g is a geodesic ray, travelled at speed Λ =
λi .
Its endpoint is exactly the point of Q(η1 , . . . , ηn ) corresponding to the
vector (λ1 , . . . , λn ). Furthermore we see easily that
d′ (g(t), Zn o)
= 0.
n→+∞
n
lim

It follows that Zn o converges to the point of ∂∢ X corresponding to
g.

6

10.2. Uniqueness of the Stationary Measure. We first note that,
under our assumptions, the visual boundary is a Polish space. Indeed the visual boundary is obtained as an inductive limit of balls
centered at a fixed origin o [BH99, II.8.5]. A complete metric can be
described as follows: the distance between
two fixed geodesic rays ρ
P+∞ −n
′
′
and ρ starting from o is δ(ρ, ρ ) = n=1 2 d(ρ(n), ρ′ (n)). This allows us to use Corollary 2.6 to reduce the problem of uniqueness of
the stationary measure on ∂∢ X to the uniqueness of a Γ-equivariant
measurable B → Prob(∂∢ X).
Theorem 10.5. Assume that Γ is a group with a non-elementary,
essential action on an irreducible complex X. Then there is a unique
stationary measure on ∂∢ X.

RANDOM WALKS AND BOUNDARIES OF CAT(0) CUBICAL COMPLEXES 39

Theorem 10.5 then follows from Corollary 2.6 together with Lemma
10.7. To this end, we will need:
Lemma 10.6. Let ξ− , ξ+ ∈ ∂∢ X be distinct squeezing points. Then
there is a map
ϕξ− ,ξ+ : ∂∢ X \ {ξ− , ξ+ } → X,

such that for every g ∈ Γ, we have gϕξ− ,ξ+ (ξ+ ) = ϕgξ− ,gξ+ (gξ).

Proof. Fix distinct squeezing points ξ− , ξ+ ∈ ∂∢ X. By Lemmas 6.8
and 6.10, there is a bi-infinite decreasing
sequence of pairwise
T
T strongly
separated half-spaces such that n∈Z ∂∢ sn = {ξ− } and n∈Z ∂∢ s∗n =
{ξ+ }. Let η ∈ ∂∢ X \ {ξ− , ξ+ }. It follows that there exists some n such
that η ∈ ∂∢ s∗n ∩ ∂∢ s−n . Up to deleting finitely many elements of the
sequence, we may and shall assume that η is in ∂∢ s∗0 ∩ ∂∢ s−1 . Let us fix
a base vertex o ∈ s∗0 ∩ s−1 ∩ I(ξ− , ξ+ ) ∩ X and vertices xn ∈ s∗0 ∩ s−1 ∩ X
so that the ℓ2 -geodesics between o and xn converge to η.
Recall that one can associate to η ∈ ∂∢ X a horofunction relative
(2)
to the ℓ2 metric, which we denote by bη . Our goal is to show that
(2)
bη |I(ξ− ,ξ+ )∩X attains a minimum, and the set of points on which this
function is minimal is a bounded convex set. The image ϕξ− ,ξ+ (η) is
then defined to be the center of this set.
Let yk ∈ s∗k ∩sk−1 ∩I(ξ− , ξ+ )∩X. We claim that if D is the dimension
of X then
√
b(2)
(y
)
>
D · |k|.
k
η
Assume k > 0. Observing that o = m(yk , o, xn ) we see:

bxn (yk ) := d(yk , xn ) − d(o, xn ) = d(yk , o) > k.
√
Recalling the fact that d′ 6 d 6 Dd′ (where d and d′ are the ℓ1
√
(2)
and ℓ2 -metrics respectively) we deduce that bxn (yk ) > D · k. Taking
the limit as n → ∞ we get that
√
b(2)
D · k > 0.
η (yk ) >
(2)

Observing that bη (o) = 0 this shows that the inverse image of
(2)
(−∞, 0] by the function bη |I(ξ− ,ξ+ ) is non-empty and contained in the
bounded convex set s∗1 ∩ s−1 ∩ I(ξ− , ξ+ ) ∩ X. Hence it has a unique
center.
Finally, the Γ-equivariance of these projections follows from the equivariance of the horofunctions and the construction of the center.

6

Recall that Theorem 10.1 gives the existence of a measurable Γequivariant map ξ± : B± → ∂∢ X.

40

TALIA FERNÓS, JEAN LÉCUREUX, FRÉDÉRIC MATHÉUS

Lemma 10.7. Assume that Γ is a group with a non-elementary, essential action on an irreducible complex X. There is a unique Γequivariant map B+ → Prob(∂∢ X), which is the map ω 7→ δξ+ (ω) .
Proof. Consider the ξ− and ξ+ -pushforward of the measures on B− and
B+ to ∂∢ X. We will call them ν− and ν+ , respectively. Recall that
they are µ̌ and µ-stationary respectively.
Let ω+ 7→ νω+ be some Γ-equivariant map from B+ to Prob(∂∢ X).
By ergodicity, if νω+ 6= δξ+ (ω+ ) on a positive measure set, then this set
has full measure.
So assume that we have almost surely νω+ 6= δω+ . The function ω+ 7→
νω+ ({ξ+ (ω+ )}) is Γ-invariant and hence constant. If νω+ ({ξ+ (ω+ )}) =
α > 0 then we can define ν ′ = ν − αν+ . After renormalization this
is a new stationary probability measure such that νω′ + ({ξ+ (ω+ )}) = 0.
So we may and shall assume that νω+ ({ξ+ (ω+ )}) = 0 for almost every
ω+ ∈ B+ .
We claim next that νω+ ({ξ− (ω− )}) = 0 for almost every (ω− , ω+ ) ∈
B+ × B− . Indeed, for a fixed ω+ , the measure νω+ has countably many
atoms, so that for ν− -a.e. ω− ∈ B− we have that νω+ (ξ− (ω− )) = 0. By
Fubini it follows that νω+ ({ξ− (ω− )}) = 0 almost surely.
Theorem 10.1 assures us that ξ+ and ξ− are squeezing points almost surely. Now, apply the projection from Lemma 10.6 to obtain
for almost every (ω− , ω+ ) a measurable map ϕξ− ,ξ+ : ∂∢ X → X (defined νω+ -everywhere). Hence we can pushforward the measure νω+ by
ϕξ− ,ξ+ to get a map B− × B+ → Prob(X). Now Prob(X) has a Γinvariant metric (for example the Prokhorov metric). Hence by Double
Isometric Ergodicity we get that Γ fixes a probability measure on X.
By countability of X, this implies that there is a finite set in X which
is Γ-invariant (the set of points with maximal measure), contradicting
the assumption that the action is non-elementary.

6

11. Regular Elements
Regular elements are hyperbolic elements with strong contracting
properties. In the irreducible case, they are exactly contracting isometries in the sense of [BF09], and their existence is the main theorem
of [CS11]. For products, Caprace and Sageev [CS11] show that such
elements provided the group is a lattice. In this section, we prove that
such elements always exist for non-elementary actions, and moreover
have some genericity property.
We first recall the definition of contracting and regular isometries.

RANDOM WALKS AND BOUNDARIES OF CAT(0) CUBICAL COMPLEXES 41

Definition 11.1.
• A geodesic line ℓ is called contracting if there
is C > 0 such that any ball B disjoint from ℓ projects to ℓ to a
set of diameter less than C.
• If X is irreducible, an element g ∈ Aut(X) is said contracting
if it is hyperbolic and one of its axis is contracting.
• If X is a product, an element g ∈ Aut(X) is said regular if it
preserves each factor and if it acts as a contracting element on
each irreducible factor.
Our main tool in order to find regular elements is the following lemma
of Caprace and Sageev [CS11, Lemma 6.2]:
Lemma 11.2. Assume that g ∈ Aut(X) is such that g.h ( h′ for some
pair of strongly separated half-spaces h ⊂ h′ . Then g is a contracting
isometry.
Lemma 11.3. Assume that X is irreducible with a non-elementary
and essential Γ-action. Let Zn be a generic sequence for the random
walk, ξ ∈ ∂X be the limit of Zn o, and s be a half-space containing ξ.
Then there exists an N and s2 ⊂ s1 ⊂ s pairwise strongly separated
such that for every n > N
• either Zn s ⊂ s2 ,
• or Zn s ⊃ s∗2 .
Proof. For notational simplicity, let kn = Zn s. Fix x ∈ s that is adjacent to the wall of s. Let (sm )m>0 be an infinite descending chain
of strongly separated half-spaces containing ξ, with s = s0 . For each
m and n large enough we have Zn x ∈ sm . Hence kn ∩ sm 6= ∅. Furthermore, since x is adjacent to the wall of s, we see that for n large
enough k̂n ∩ sm 6= ∅. By strong separation, if we fix m > 1, we have
that k̂n ⊂ sm for any n large enough.
This means that we either have kn ⊂ sm or kn ⊃ s∗m . If m > 2, this
gives the conclusion of the lemma.

6

In the first case, we say that Zn is s-skewering, in the second case
that it is s-flipping. By Lemma 11.2, if Zn is s-skewering, then it is a
contracting isometry.
In the following lemma, we use the stationary measure ν̌ for the
random walk µ̌.
Lemma 11.4. Let s be a half-space. Then on a full measure set of
ω ∈ Ω we have that Zn (ω)o converges to η(ω) and if s ∈ Uη(ω) then

42

TALIA FERNÓS, JEAN LÉCUREUX, FRÉDÉRIC MATHÉUS

(1)

lim inf
n

1
|{k 6 n | Zk is s-skewering }| > ν̌(s∗ ).
n

Proof. We begin by observing that if Zn = g1 g2 . . . gn , then Zn−1 =
gn−1 . . . g1−1 , where gi follows the law µ and all of them are independent.
Recall that by Corollary 7.3, there is a unique stationary measure
on X. This allows us to apply Corollary 2.7 of [BQ] and therefore, for
every continuous function ϕ on X, we have almost surely
n

1X
ϕ(Zk−1 x) = ν̌(ϕ).
n→+∞ n
k=1
lim

Let us fix a half-space s and define ϕ as the characteristic function of
s . Observe that it is continuous on X. Now, fix Zn a generic sequence
for ϕ. By Lemma 11.3, there is an N such that for every n > N either
Zn is s-skewering or s-flipping. Fix k with N < k 6 n. If Zk is sflipping, then for x ∈ s∗ , we have x ∈ Zk s (because s∗ ⊂ Zk s), hence
Zk−1 x ∈ s. It follows that ϕ(Zk−1 x) = 0. Therefore
∗

n
X
k=1

ϕ(Zk−1 x) 6 |{k 6 n | Zk is s-skewering }| + N,

and Equation (1) follows.
Finally, the fact Equation (1) holds almost surely follows by recalling
that there are countably many half-spaces, and each of the corresponding sets has full measure.

6

Theorem 11.5. Let X be irreducible, and Γ act on X essentially and
non-elementarily. Then almost surely
1
|{k 6 n | Zk is contracting }| = 1.
n→+∞ n
lim

Proof. Fix a generic sequence (Zn ) as provided by Lemma 11.4, with
limit Zn o →Tη. Then since X is irreducible and η is regular, we have
that {η} = m>0 sm , for some descending chain (sm ). It follows that
S
X \ {η} = m>0 s∗m , and since (s∗m ) is ascending, we have that
sup ν̌(s∗m ) = 1.
m

Now, Lemma 11.4 assures us that for every m
lim inf
n

1
|{k 6 n | Zk is contracting }| > ν̌(s∗m )
n

RANDOM WALKS AND BOUNDARIES OF CAT(0) CUBICAL COMPLEXES 43

for every m. Since this proportion is at most 1, the sequence is in fact
convergent and we get the result.

6

Remark 11.6. The proof above gives slightly more: namely, for every
half-space s, there is a positive measure set of (Zn ) such that Zn is sskewering with frequency at least ν̌(s). Indeed, the probability that this
occurs is at least ν(s).
Theorem 11.7. Assume that the action of Γ is non-elementary, essential and stabilizes each irreducible factor of X. Then almost surely
1
|{k 6 n | Zk is regular }| = 1.
n→+∞ n
lim

Proof. Let X = X1 ×· · ·×Xd be the decomposition of X into irreducible
factors. Applying Theorem 11.5 to the action of Γ on each factor, we
find N such that for n > N we have for every factor Xi of X, the set
of k 6 n such that Zk is contracting on Xi is of cardinality at least
n(1 − ε). It follows that there are at least n(1 − dε) elements Zk which
are contracting simultaneously on each factor.

6

In terms of the probability that a given element is regular, we deduce
the following:
Corollary 11.8. Under the same assumptions as Theorem 11.7, we
have
n
1X
P(Zk is regular) = 1.
n k=1
Proof. Let f : Γ → {0, 1} be the characteristic function of the set of
n
P
f (Zk ) → 1 almost
regular elements. By Theorem 11.7, we have n1

surely.
Taking the expectation, we get

k=1

n

1X
E(f (Zk )) = 1,
n→+∞ n
k=1
lim

which is the desired result since E(f (Zk )) = P(Zk is regular).

6

When the group does not stabilize each factor, the limit might be
smaller, due to the fact that there is a positive proportion of elements
which do not stabilize each factor, hence cannot be regular. However,
we can say the following.

44

TALIA FERNÓS, JEAN LÉCUREUX, FRÉDÉRIC MATHÉUS

Corollary 11.9. We have almost surely
lim inf
n→+∞

1
|{k 6 n | Zk is regular }| > 0.
n

Proof. Let Γ0  Γ be the finite index normal subgroup which stabilizes
each factor. Let ϕ(n) be the subsequences formed by indices such that
Zϕ(n) belong to Γ0 . Then Zϕ(n) is a random walk on Γ0 of law µ0 (the
first return probability), so that Theorem 11.7 apply and proves that
almost surely
1
|{k 6 n | Zϕ(k) is regular }| = 1.
n→+∞ ϕ(n)
By Lemma 9.7, we know that ϕ(n)/n almost surely has a positive
limit. The result follows.
lim

6

References
[Ago13]

Ian Agol. The virtual Haken conjecture. Doc. Math., 18:1045–1087,
2013. With an appendix by Agol, Daniel Groves, and Jason Manning.
[Atk76]
Giles Atkinson. Recurrence of co-cycles and random walks. J. London
Math. Soc. (2), 13(3):486–488, 1976.
[Bal89]
Werner Ballmann. On the Dirichlet problem at infinity for manifolds of
nonpositive curvature. Forum Math., 1(2):201–213, 1989.
[BC12]
Jason Behrstock and Ruth Charney. Divergence and quasimorphisms of
right-angled Artin groups. Math. Ann., 352(2):339–356, 2012.
[BCG+ 09] J. Brodzki, S. J. Campbell, E. Guentner, G. A. Niblo, and N. J. Wright.
Property A and CAT(0) cube complexes. J. Funct. Anal., 256(5):1408–
1431, 2009.
[BF09]
Mladen Bestvina and Koji Fujiwara. A characterization of higher
rank symmetric spaces via bounded cohomology. Geom. Funct. Anal.,
19(1):11–40, 2009.
[BF14]
Uri Bader and Alex Furman. Boundaries, rigidity of representations,
and lyapunov exponents. Proceedings of ICM 2014, pages 71–96, 2014.
[BH99]
Martin R. Bridson and André Haefliger. Metric spaces of nonpositive curvature, volume 319 of Grundlehren der Mathematischen
Wissenschaften [Fundamental Principles of Mathematical Sciences].
Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1999.
[BQ]
Y. Benoist and J.-F. Quint. Random Walks on Reductive Groups.
[BQ11]
Yves Benoist and Jean-François Quint. Mesures stationnaires et fermés
invariants des espaces homogènes. Ann. of Math. (2), 174(2):1111–1162,
2011.
[BQ16]
Y. Benoist and J.-F. Quint. Central limit theorem on hyperbolic groups.
Izv. Ross. Akad. Nauk Ser. Mat., 80(1):5–26, 2016.
[BS06]
Uri Bader and Yehuda Shalom. Factor and normal subgroup theorems
for lattices in products of groups. Invent. Math., 163(2):415–454, 2006.

RANDOM WALKS AND BOUNDARIES OF CAT(0) CUBICAL COMPLEXES 45

[CFI12]
[CL10]
[CN05]
[CS11]
[CZ13]
[Far03]
[Fer15]

[Fur63]
[Fur71]

[Fur02]

[GK15]
[GM12]
[GR85]

[Gui80]

[Gur07]
[Kaı̆87]

[Kai91]

[Kai00]
[Kai03]

I. Chatterji, T. Fernós, and A. Iozzi. The Median Class and Superrigidity
of Actions on CAT(0) Cube Complexes. ArXiv e-prints, December 2012.
Pierre-Emmanuel Caprace and Alexander Lytchak. At infinity of finitedimensional CAT(0) spaces. Math. Ann., 346(1):1–21, 2010.
Indira Chatterji and Graham Niblo. From wall spaces to CAT(0) cube
complexes. Internat. J. Algebra Comput., 15(5-6):875–885, 2005.
Pierre-Emmanuel Caprace and Michah Sageev. Rank rigidity for
CAT(0) cube complexes. Geom. Funct. Anal., 21(4):851–891, 2011.
Pierre-Emmanuel Caprace and Gašper Zadnik. Regular elements in
CAT(0) groups. Groups Geom. Dyn., 7(3):535–541, 2013.
Daniel S. Farley. Finiteness and CAT(0) properties of diagram groups.
Topology, 42(5):1065–1082, 2003.
T. Fernós. The Furstenberg Poisson Boundary and CAT(0) Cube Complexes. accepted to Ergodic Theory and Dynamical Systems, available on
ArXiv e-prints, July 2015.
Harry Furstenberg. Noncommuting random products. Trans. Amer.
Math. Soc., 108:377–428, 1963.
Harry Furstenberg. Boundaries of Lie groups and discrete subgroups. In
Actes du Congrès International des Mathématiciens (Nice, 1970), Tome
2, pages 301–306. Gauthier-Villars, Paris, 1971.
Alex Furman. Random walks on groups and random transformations.
In Handbook of dynamical systems, Vol. 1A, pages 931–1014. NorthHolland, Amsterdam, 2002.
S. Gouëzel and A. Karlsson. Subadditive and Multiplicative Ergodic
Theorems. ArXiv e-prints, September 2015.
François Gautero and Frédéric Mathéus. Poisson boundary of groups
acting on R-trees. Israel J. Math., 191(2):585–646, 2012.
Y. Guivarc’h and A. Raugi. Frontière de Furstenberg, propriétés de
contraction et théorèmes de convergence. Z. Wahrsch. Verw. Gebiete,
69(2):187–242, 1985.
Y. Guivarc’h. Sur la loi des grands nombres et le rayon spectral d’une
marche aléatoire. In Conference on Random Walks (Kleebach, 1979)
(French), volume 74 of Astérisque, pages 47–98, 3. Soc. Math. France,
Paris, 1980.
Dan P. Guralnik. Coarse decompositions for boundaries of cat(0) groups.
2007. Preprint.
V. A. Kaı̆manovich. Lyapunov exponents, symmetric spaces and a multiplicative ergodic theorem for semisimple Lie groups. Zap. Nauchn.
Sem. Leningrad. Otdel. Mat. Inst. Steklov. (LOMI), 164(Differentsialnaya Geom. Gruppy Li i Mekh. IX):29–46, 196–197, 1987.
Vadim A. Kaimanovich. Poisson boundaries of random walks on discrete
solvable groups. In Probability measures on groups, X (Oberwolfach,
1990), pages 205–238. Plenum, New York, 1991.
Vadim A. Kaimanovich. The Poisson formula for groups with hyperbolic
properties. Ann. of Math. (2), 152(3):659–692, 2000.
V. A. Kaimanovich. Double ergodicity of the Poisson boundary and
applications to bounded cohomology. Geom. Funct. Anal., 13(4):852–
861, 2003.

46

TALIA FERNÓS, JEAN LÉCUREUX, FRÉDÉRIC MATHÉUS

[KM96]

Vadim A. Kaimanovich and Howard Masur. The Poisson boundary of
the mapping class group. Invent. Math., 125(2):221–264, 1996.
Anders Karlsson and Gregory A. Margulis. A multiplicative ergodic theorem and nonpositively curved spaces. Comm. Math. Phys., 208(1):107–
123, 1999.
A. Kar and M. Sageev. Ping pong on CAT(0) cube complexes. ArXiv
e-prints, July 2015.
François Ledrappier. Some asymptotic properties of random walks on
free groups. In Topics in probability and Lie groups: boundary theory,
volume 28 of CRM Proc. Lecture Notes, pages 117–152. Amer. Math.
Soc., Providence, RI, 2001.
Gabriele Link. Asymptotic geometry in products of Hadamard spaces
with rank one isometries. Geom. Topol., 14(2):1063–1094, 2010.
A. Martin. On the cubical geometry of Higman’s group. ArXiv e-prints,
June 2015.
J. Maher and G. Tiozzo. Random walks on weakly hyperbolic groups.
ArXiv e-prints, October 2014.
Bogdan Nica. Cubulating spaces with walls. Algebr. Geom. Topol.,
4:297–309, 2004.
Amos Nevo and Michah Sageev. The Poisson boundary of CAT(0) cube
complex groups. Groups Geom. Dyn., 7(3):653–695, 2013.
V. I. Oseledec. A multiplicative ergodic theorem. Characteristic
Ljapunov, exponents of dynamical systems. Trudy Moskov. Mat. Obšč.,
19:179–210, 1968.
Daniel T. Wise. Research announcement: the structure of groups with
a quasiconvex hierarchy. Electron. Res. Announc. Math. Sci., 16:44–55,
2009.

[KM99]

[KS15]
[Led01]

[Lin10]
[Mar15]
[MT14]
[Nic04]
[NS13]
[Ose68]

[Wis09]

