arXiv:1307.7539v3 [math.DS] 22 Oct 2016

STABILIZER RIGIDITY IN IRREDUCIBLE GROUP
ACTIONS
YAIR HARTMAN AND OMER TAMUZ
Abstract. We consider irreducible actions of locally compact
product groups, and of higher rank semi-simple Lie groups. Using the intermediate factor theorems of Bader-Shalom and NevoZimmer, we show that the action stabilizers, and all irreducible
invariant random subgroups, are co-amenable in their normal closure. As a consequence, we derive rigidity results on irreducible
actions that generalize and strengthen the results of Bader-Shalom
and Stuck-Zimmer.

Contents
1. Introduction
1.1. Applications
1.2. Related work
1.3. Acknowledgments
2. The Chabauty topology and the normal closure of an IRS
3. Poisson bundles and co-amenable IRSs
3.1. Random walks on groups and the Furstenberg-Poisson
boundary
3.2. Coset spaces
3.3. Poisson bundles
3.4. Co-amenable IRSs
4. Intermediate factor theorems
4.1. Poisson bundles as intermediate factors
4.2. IFT actions and co-amenable IRSs
5. Proofs of main theorems and corollaries
References

2
3
4
5
5
6
6
7
8
9
13
15
18
18
24

Date: April 4, 2018.
Y. Hartman is supported by the European Research Council, grant 239885. O.
Tamuz is supported by ISF grant 1300/08, and is a recipient of the Google Europe
Fellowship in Social Computing. This research is supported in part by this Google
Fellowship.
1

2

YAIR HARTMAN AND OMER TAMUZ

1. Introduction
Let G be a locally compact second countable (lcsc) group. An invariant random subgroup (IRS) of G is a random variable that takes values
in SubG , the space of closed subgroups of G, and whose distribution is
invariant to conjugation by any element of G [2]. IRSs arise naturally
as stabilizers of probability measure preserving (pmp) actions, and in
fact any IRS is the stabilizer of some pmp action (see [1, Theorem
2.4] and also [2, 7]). They are also an interesting object of study as
stochastic generalizations of normal subgroups, and of lattices.
Let G = G1 × G2 be a product of two lcsc groups. A pmp action
G y (X, m) is irreducible (with respect to the decomposition G =
G1 × G2 ) if the actions of both G1 and G2 are ergodic. Likewise, a
pmp action of a semi-simple Lie group is said to be irreducible if the
action of every non-central closed normal subgroup is ergodic. An IRS
K in G is irreducible if G y (SubG , λ) is irreducible, where λ is the
distribution of K and G acts on SubG by conjugation [1].
In this paper we study irreducible IRSs of product groups and of
semi-simple Lie groups. Our results are are generalizations of the theorems of Bader-Shalom [3, Theorem 1.6] (for product groups) and of
Stuck-Zimmer [23] (for semi-simple Lie groups), who both require G to
have property (T); we explore what can be said when this hypothesis
is removed. Nevertheless, in both cases, we rely on the corresponding Intermediate Factor Theorems: Bader-Shalom [3] and and NevoZimmer [20].
To state our results we will need to recall the following definition: A
subgroup H is said to be co-amenable in G if there exists a G-invariant
mean on G/H [8, 19, 22]; equivalently, one can define co-amenability
as a fixed point property or as a representation theoretical property,
in analogy to the different equivalent definitions of amenability (see [8]
or [22, Theorem 4.18]). A normal subgroup N ⊳ G is co-amenable in
G if and only if G/N is amenable.
We say that an IRS K is co-amenable in G if it is almost surely coamenable in G. Likewise, if K almost surely has some property (e.g.,
trivial, normal, co-finite), we say succinctly that K has this property.
Theorem 1. Let G = G1 × G2 be a locally compact second countable
group, and let K be an irreducible IRS in G. Then there exist closed
normal subgroups N1 ⊳ G1 and N2 ⊳ G2 such that K is co-amenable in
N1 × N2 .
Theorem 2. Let G be a connected semi-simple Lie group with finite
center, no compact factors and R-rank ≥ 2. Let K be an irreducible

STABILIZER RIGIDITY IN IRREDUCIBLE GROUP ACTIONS

3

IRS in G. Then K is either equal to a closed normal subgroup, or else
K is co-amenable in G.
As these theorems do not require the groups to have property (T),
they provide rigidity results on the irreducible IRSs of groups such as
SL2 (R) × SL2 (R), to which the theorems of Bader-Shalom and StuckZimmer do not apply. We thus give a partial answer to a question
asked in Stuck-Zimmer [23, page 731]. It remains unknown, however,
whether SL2 (R) × SL2 (R) has any irreducible co-amenable IRSs that
are not, in fact, co-finite.
One can interpret Theorem 1 as addressing the following question:
What IRSs does a product group admit? The irreducibility assumption
rules outs the trivial example of a product of IRSs of each group. Thus,
Theorem 1 says that, in a sense, there is not much else. A motivation
for this question is the following stronger, basic statement that holds
for normal subgroups:
Fact 1.1. Let G = G1 × G2 be a topological group. Given a closed
normal subgroup N ⊳ G, let N1 ⊳ G1 and N2 ⊳ G2 be the closures of
the projections of N to G1 and G2 . Then N is co-abelian in N1 × N2 .
Our approach to these question involves the analysis of the FurstenbergPoisson boundary of the random walk on G and on coset spaces of G.
Our main technical contribution is in proving the following claim, which
is a generalization to IRSs of an analogous claim that holds for normal
subgroups, but not in general for non-normal subgroups.
Theorem 3. Let G be a locally compact second countable group and let
µ be a probability measure on G that is equivalent to the Haar measure.
Let K ≤ G be an IRS. If the Furstenberg-Poisson boundary of the µrandom walk on K\G is almost surely trivial, then K is co-amenable
in G.
We in fact prove below a more general result (Theorem 3.3) which
implies Theorem 3.
1.1. Applications. The conclusions of Theorems 1 and 2 can be strengthened when more constraints are imposed on G. In particular, we consider the following notion: An lcsc group is said to be just non-amenable
if every closed normal subgroup is co-amenable. Note that if a group
is simple or just non-compact then it is also just non-amenable.
Corollary 1.2. Let G = G1 ×G2 be a locally compact second countable
group, and let both G1 and G2 be just non-amenable. Then every irreducible IRS is either co-amenable in G or equal to a normal subgroup.

4

YAIR HARTMAN AND OMER TAMUZ

As noted above, this holds in particular when G1 and G2 are simple.
In that case, it is tempting to conjecture (see Stuck-Zimmer [23, page
731]) that in fact every irreducible IRS is either equal to a normal
subgroup or is co-finite; recall that K ≤ G is said to be co-finite if there
exists a G-invariant finite measure on G/K 1. Bader and Shalom [3]
prove that this is indeed the case when G1 and G2 both have property
(T). Their work continues the work of Stuck and Zimmer [23], who
draw the same conclusions for high rank semi-simple Lie groups whose
every simple factor has property (T).
In the following two corollaries we show that it suffices that only one
of the factors have property (T), both in the product group setting and
in the Lie group setting.
Corollary 1.3. Let G = G1 ×G2 be a locally compact second countable
group, and let G1 be just non-compact and have property (T). Let G y
(X, m) be a faithful irreducible pmp action.
Then the action G y (X, m) is either essentially free or essentially
transitive. It follows that the associated stabilizer IRS is either trivial
or co-finite in G.
This constitutes a strengthening of the Essentially Free Actions Theorem of Bader-Shalom; they require that both G1 and G2 have property
(T) and be just non-compact.
Corollary 1.4. Let G be a connected semi-simple Lie group with finite center, no compact factors and R-rank ≥ 2. Assume that one of
the simple factors of G has property (T). Then any faithful irreducible
pmp G-action is either essentially free or essentially transitive, and its
associated stabilizer IRS is either trivial or a lattice in G.
Finally, we show that similar results can be derived without property
(T), given that G1 is simple non-amenable and G2 is simple discrete.
Corollary 1.5. Let G1 be a simple, non-amenable, locally compact
second countable group, and let G2 be a simple, countable, discrete
group. Then every non-trivial irreducible pmp action of G1 × G2 is
essentially free. It follows that every irreducible IRS in G is equal to a
normal subgroup.
1.2. Related work. Recently, Creutz [6] proved Corollary 1.4 independently, using a different approach. In the same paper he also generalizes Bader-Shalom’s theorem to the case that G1 has property (T)
and both G1 and G2 are simple.
1In

fact, co-finite IRSs admit some more structure: any ergodic co-finite IRS is
supported on a single orbit {H g }g∈G , for some co-finite H ≤ G (see Corollary 5.6).
In other words, the G-action on the IRS is essentially transitive.

STABILIZER RIGIDITY IN IRREDUCIBLE GROUP ACTIONS

5

Creutz and Peterson [7] prove similar rigidity results for irreducible
lattices and commensurators of lattices in semi-simple Lie groups, and
also for product groups with the Howe-Moore property and property
(T).
In [1] it is shown that in the setting of Corollary 1.4, if G has property
(T) then every irreducible IRS is either equal to a normal subgroup or
is a lattice.
1.3. Acknowledgments. We would like to thank Uri Bader, Amos
Nevo, Jesse Peterson and Benjamin Weiss for useful discussions and
motivating conversations. We would also like to thank Yehuda Shalom
and Lewis Bowen for helpful comments on an early draft of this article.
2. The Chabauty topology and the normal closure of an
IRS
Let X be a locally compact topological space. The space of all
closed subsets of X, C(X), admits a natural topology called the compact
topology, under which it is a compact Hausdorff space (see, e.g. [25]).
If G is a locally compact group, then SubG ⊂ C(G), the set of closed
subgroups of G, is a closed subset and the induced topology on SubG
is known as the Chabauty topology [5]. If G is furthermore second
countable then SubG is a metrizable space, and in particular is second
countable.
In the Chabauty topology, a sequence {Hn } of subgroups in SubG
converges to H ∈ SubG if and only if
(1) For every h ∈ H there exists a sequence hn → h such that
hn ∈ Hn .
(2) If hn → h and hn ∈ Hn then h ∈ H.
G acts naturally on SubG by conjugation, and under the Chabauty
topology this action is continuous. An invariant random subgroup
(IRS) is a Borel probability measure on SubG which is invariant under this conjugation action. Note that this is a slight (but standard)
abuse of nomenclature; more precisely, an IRS is a random variable
K taking values in SubG whose law is a conjugation invariant Borel
probability measure. We denote the space of all IRSs of a given group
G by IRS(G). The term invariant random subgroup was introduced by
Abért, Glasner, and Virág [1], although the mathematical object has
been studied earlier - for example by Stuck and Zimmer [23].
Given an IRS, we want to define its normal closure, which is the
smallest subgroup on which the IRS “lives”; an IRS K lives in some
H < G if K is almost surely contained in H.

6

YAIR HARTMAN AND OMER TAMUZ

Definition 2.1. Let K be an IRS in G with law λ. The normal closure
of λ, denoted hλi, is the minimal closed subgroup in G that almost surely
contains K:

hλi = min H ∈ SubG : λ({H ′ : H ′ ≤ H}) = 1 .
Equivalently, hλi = min{H ∈ SubG : λ(SubH ) = 1}, where SubH is
the space of closed subgroups of H.
It is not obvious from this definition that the normal closure exists.
However, provided that it exists, it is immediate that it is unique, and
applying the conjugation invariance of λ yields that it is normal.
The existence of the normal closure is established in the next proposition, which also provides an equivalent definition for it. Before stating
the theorem we will introduce the following notation: For a Borel set
A ⊆ SubG we denote by hAi the subgroup of G generated by all the
elements of the all groups in A, and by hAi ∈ SubG the topological
closure of this subgroup.
Proposition 2.2. Let G be an lcsc group and let λ ∈ IRS(G). Then
hλi = hsupp λi: the normal closure of λ is equal to the closure of the
group generated by all the groups in the support of λ.
Proof. Let K have distribution λ, and denote N = hλi. Since SubG
is second countable, supp λ is a λ-full measure set and so K is almost
surely a subgroup of N. It follows that N ≤ hsupp λi, by the definition
of the normal closure.
Thus to prove the claim it suffices to show that that if H ∈ SubG
is such that K is almost surely a subgroup of H, then hsupp λi is a
subgroup of H. Note that
(1) λ(SubH ) = 1, since K is almost surely a subgroup of H.
(2) SubH is a closed set in SubG .
So SubH is a closed λ-full measure set, and as such must include supp λ;
here we again use the fact that SubG is second countable. It follows
that H includes hsupp λi, and we have proved the claim.


3. Poisson bundles and co-amenable IRSs
3.1. Random walks on groups and the Furstenberg-Poisson
boundary. Let G be a locally compact second countable group, and
let µ be a probability measure on G that is equivalent to the Haar

STABILIZER RIGIDITY IN IRREDUCIBLE GROUP ACTIONS

7

measure; that is, let µ and the Haar measure be mutually absolutely
continuous2. We will tersely say that µ is Haar-equivalent.
A µ-random walk on a group G is a measure Pµ on GN given by the
push-forward of the product measure µN under the map (h1 , h2 , h3 , . . .) 7→
(h1 , h1 h2 , h1 h2 h3 , . . .). Equivalently, let {hn }n∈N be i.i.d. random variables with measure µ, and let gn = h1 · · · hn . Then a µ-random walk is
the distribution of (h1 , h1 h2 , h1 h2 h3 , . . .) = (g1 , g2 , . . .).
The shift-action on GN is given by (g1 , g2, g3 , . . .) 7→ (g2 , g3 , . . .). The
Furstenberg-Poisson boundary [9, 10] of a µ-random walk, denoted by
Π (G, µ), is Mackey’s point realization [18] of the shift-invariant sigmaalgebra of (GN , Pµ ) (see, e.g., [4, 26]).
A related process is the µ-random walk on coset spaces of G. Indeed,
for any H ∈ SubG , let {gn }n∈N be as above. Then (Hg1, Hg1 g2 , . . .) is
a µ-random walk on H\G.
3.2. Coset spaces. Let CosG ⊂ C(G) denote the space of all left cosets
of closed subgroups of G:
CosG = {gH : g ∈ G, H ∈ SubG } .
As a closed subset in C(G), it is naturally equipped with the corresponding induced topology, and with a continuous G left action given
by k(gH) = kgH.
An equivalent definition is to let CosG be the space of right cosets
CosG = {Hg : g ∈ G, H ∈ SubG } .
This is indeed equivalent since every left coset gH = gHg −1g = H g g
is also a right coset. The description of CosG as a space of right cosets
makes it clear that G also acts on CosG from the right by (Hg)k = Hgk.
Note that both the right and left actions on CosG are continuous, and
that these two actions commute.
There are two natural projections πl , πr : CosG → SubG :
πl : gH 7→ H
πr : Hg →
7 H
Note that πr is G-equivariant with respect to the left G-action on CosG
and SubG :
(πr (Hg))k = H k = πr (H k kg) = πr (kHg),
2Some

of our intermediate results could be generalized to more general µ (e.g.,
any µ absolutely continuous with respect to the Haar measure), but we choose not
to pursue this, in order to simplify the proofs.

8

YAIR HARTMAN AND OMER TAMUZ

and that it is invariant to the right G-action:
πr (Hg) = H = πr (Hgk).
Similar statements can be made for πl .
3.3. Poisson bundles. Kaimanovich introduces Poisson boundles in [14].
Later, these were also studied by Bowen in [4]. Fix λ ∈ IRS(G), let µ
be a probability measure on G, and consider the space CosNG , endowed
with the product topology. G acts on the left by the diagonal action.
A natural stochastic process on CosNG can be constructed as follows.
Choose K at random from λ, choose (h1 , h1 h2 , . . .) from Pµ , the µrandom walk on G, and let Cn ∈ CosG be given by Kh1 h2 · · · hn .
Then Cn has distribution λ ∗ µn (here and below ∗ denotes convolution, and µn are the convolution powers of µ), and it is easy to verify
that (C1 , C2 , . . .) is a Markov chain on CosNG with initial distribution
λ ∗ µ.
To define the measure of this Markov chain formally, equip CosNG
with the measure Pλµ given by the push-forward κ∗ (Pµ × λ) where
κ:

GN × SubG
−→ CosNG
((g1 , g2 , . . .), H) 7−→ (Hg1 , Hg2, . . .)

Then the process (C1 , C2 , . . .) has distribution Pλµ .
It is straightforward to check that κ is a G-equivariant map from
N
G × SubG to CosNG , and that Pλµ is supported on elements of the form
(Hg1, Hg2 , . . .). On these, the left G-action on CosNG is given by
g(Hg1, Hg2, . . .) = (gHg1, gHg2, . . .)
= (H g gg1 , H g gg2 , . . .).
Hence the measure g∗ Pλµ corresponds to choosing H from λ and then
choosing a µ-random walk on H g \G, starting at H g g. Note, however,
that since λ is conjugation invariant, H g = gHg −1 and H have the
same distribution. Note also that since µ is equivalent to the Haar
measure then Pλµ is G-quasi-invariant; in fact,
(3.1)

dg∗(Pµ × λ)
dg∗ µ
((g1 , g2 , . . .), H) =
(g1 ),
d(Pµ × λ)
dµ

by the Markov property of the µ-random walk on G. Hence Pµ × λ
is G-quasi-invariant, and so its push-forward Pλµ is likewise G-quasiinvariant.
Note that κ is shift-equivariant, if we act in the obvious way by shifts
on GN × SubG and CosNG . The shift-invariant sigma-algebra defines the
Poisson bundle Bµ (λ):

STABILIZER RIGIDITY IN IRREDUCIBLE GROUP ACTIONS

9

Definition 3.1. Given λ ∈ IRS(G), denote by Bµ (λ) Mackey’s point
realization of the shift-invariant sigma-algebra on (CosNG , Pλµ ). We shall
refer to Bµ (λ) as a Bowen space.
This presentation is slightly different than Bowen’s [4], but only semantically so: Bowen defines Bµ (λ) as a fiber bundle over (SubG , λ),
where the fiber over H < G is the Furstenberg-Poisson boundary of
the µ-random walk on H\G. This is simply the disintegration of Bµ (λ)
with respect to the factor π̂r : Bµ (λ) → (SubG , λ) defined in Proposition 4.3; see also (4.3) and the preceding paragraph. We encourage the
reader to study the details in Bowens paper [4]. For further discussion
and another application of Poisson bundles see [11].
Another point of view is that, as the Mackey realization of the shiftinvariant sigma-algebra, the Poisson bundle Bµ (λ) is the FurstenbergPoisson boundary of the Markov chain (C1 , C2 , . . .) described in the beginning of this section; this is simply the definition of the FurstenbergPoisson boundary of a Markov chain. Since G acts on CosNG , Mackey’s
realization provides us also with a G-action on Bµ (λ). This action
can be interpreted as follows: The application of g ∈ G to Bµ (λ), the
Furstenberg-Poisson boundary of the Markov chain with initial distribution λ ∗ µ, yields the Furstenberg-Poisson boundary of the same
Markov chain, with initial distribution g∗ (λ ∗ µ) = λ ∗ (g∗ µ).
3.4. Co-amenable IRSs. The following result is due to Kaimanovich [13].
Theorem 3.2. Let G be an lcsc group, and let µ be a Haar-Equivalent
probability measure on G. Let N ′ ≤ N be two closed normal subgroups
of G, and let µ̄ be the projection of µ to G/N ′ . If the N-action on the
Furstenberg-Poisson boundary Π (G/N ′ , µ̄) is measure preserving, then
N ′ is co-amenable in N.
In particular, if the Furstenberg-Poisson boundary of the µ̄-random
walk on G/N ′ is trivial, then N ′ is co-amenable in G.
This theorem does not hold in general for non-normal subgroups. In
this section we prove the following theorem, which shows that it does
hold for IRSs.
Theorem 3.3 (Co-amenable IRSs). Let G be an lcsc group, and let µ
be a Haar-Equivalent probability measure on G. Let K ≤ G be an IRS
with distribution λ, and let N ⊳ G be a closed normal group such that
almost surely K ≤ N. If the N-action on the Poisson bundle Bµ (λ) is
measure preserving, then K is co-amenable in N.
In particular, if the Furstenberg-Poisson boundary of the µ-random
walk on K\G is almost surely trivial, then K is co-amenable in G.

10

YAIR HARTMAN AND OMER TAMUZ

The rest of this section is devoted to proving this theorem.
The next lemma can be deduced from known general results about
the Furstenberg-Poisson boundaries of Markov chains (see, e.g., [12,
Lemma 2.1]). We provide its proof here for the reader’s convenience.
Recall that we assume throughout that µ is equivalent to the Haar
measure. We denote by k · k the total variation norm.
Lemma 3.4. Let (B, ν) = Bµ (λ). If g∗ ν = ν for some g ∈ G then
lim kg∗ λ ∗ µn − λ ∗ µn k = 0.
n

Recall that λ∗µn is the projection of Pλµ on the nth coordinate, or the
position of the random walk at time n. Likewise, g∗ λ ∗ µn = λ ∗ g∗ µn
is the position at time n when the initial distribution of the random
walk is λ ∗ g∗ µ rather than λ ∗ µ.
Intuitively, the Furstenberg-Poisson boundary distribution is the distribution of the random walk at time infinity. The theorem hypothesis
g∗ ν = ν means that the Furstenberg-Poisson boundary is unchanged
when the random walk is initially displaced by g. The claim is that
under the same displacement, the distributions of the positions at large
times n are also similar.
Proof. Let Tnm be the sigma-algebra of (CosNG , Pλµ ) consisting of the
events measurable in coordinates (n, n + 1, . . . , m), and let T = ∩n Tn∞
be the tail sigma-algebra. We first note that T and the shift-invariant
sigma-algebra coincide, mod Pλµ null sets. This is not true for general Markov chains, but it does hold for random walks on groups (see,
e.g., [15]), from which it easily follows that it also holds here.
Hence Bµ (λ) can be taken to be the Mackey point realization of T ,
the tail sigma-algebra on (CosNG , Pλµ ). Since g∗ Pλµ and Pλµ are equivalent (see (3.1) and the subsequent paragraph), the hypothesis g∗ ν = ν
means that
(3.2)

Pλµ (g −1 T ) = Pλµ (T ) for every tail event T ∈ T .

Let
dn = sup kg∗ Pλµ (T ) − Pλµ (T )k
T ∈Tn∞

be the total variation distance between g∗ Pλµ (T ) and Pλµ (T ), taken as
measures over (CosNG , Tn∞ ). Then by (say) the Martingale convergence
theorem,
lim dn = sup kg∗ Pλµ (T ) − Pλµ (T )k = 0,
n

T ∈T

where the second equality follows from (3.2).

STABILIZER RIGIDITY IN IRREDUCIBLE GROUP ACTIONS

11

By the Markov property of this µ-random walk, one can take the
supremum in the definition of dn to be only over events measurable in
the nth coordinate only:
dn = sup kg∗ Pλµ (T ) − Pλµ (T )k.
T ∈Tnn

This expression is in turn equal to
1
kg∗ λ
2

∗ µn − λ ∗ µn k,

since the projection of Pλµ on its nth coordinate is λ ∗ µn . Thus
lim kg∗ λ ∗ µn − λ ∗ µn k = 2 lim dn = 0.
n

n


A sequence of probability measures {ζn } on a G-space is almostinvariant if
lim kg∗ ζn − ζn k = 0
n

for all g ∈ G.
Corollary 3.5. In the setting of Theorem 3.3, there exist N-almost
invariant probability measures {ζn } on CosG such that πl∗ (g∗ ζn ) =
πr∗ (g∗ ζn ) = λ for all n ∈ N and g ∈ G.
Proof. Let ζn = λ ∗ µn , and let (B, ν) = Bµ (λ). Since ν is invariant to
the N-action, it follows from Lemma 3.4 that for every h ∈ N
lim kh∗ ζn − ζn k = 0,
n

or, in other words, that the sequence {ζn } is N-almost invariant.
Recall that πr (Hg) = H and πl (gH) = H for every gH, Hg ∈ CosG .
Since
πr∗ (g∗ ζn ) = πr∗ (λ ∗ (g∗ µn )) = λ,
we have that πr∗ ζn = λ. And since λ is conjugation invariant, we have
that λ ∗ (g∗ µn ) = (g∗ µn ) ∗ λ, from which it follows that πl∗ ζn = λ. 
In order to prove that λ is co-amenable in N, we will demonstrate
the existence of N-almost invariant measures on N/H, for λ-almost
every H. These will be constructed as disintegrations of the N-almost
invariant measures {ζn } on CosG from Corollary 3.5. Our first task will
be to push the measures {ζn } forward to N-almost invariant measures
on CosN .
To this end, let rep : G/N → G be a measurable map which satisfies
rep(gN) ∈ gN; this is a section of the quotient map g 7→ gN, or a map
that chooses a representative for each coset of N in G in a measurable

12

YAIR HARTMAN AND OMER TAMUZ

fashion. The existence of such a map was shown by Mackey [17, Lemma
1.1]. Let ρ : G → N be given by

ρ(g) = g · rep g −1N .

Intuitively, ρ(g) is the “difference” between g and the representative
of its N-coset. Note that ρ is measurable and equivariant to the left
N-action: for all g ∈ G and k ∈ N it holds that ρ(kg) = kρ(g).
Let CosG,N be the restriction of CosG to G-cosets of subgroups of N:
CosG,N = {Hg ∈ CosG : H ∈ SubN }.
This closed subspace is equipped with a left N-action: for k ∈ N and
Hg ∈ CosG,N , k(Hg) = H k kg ∈ CosG,N . This is simply the restriction
of the G-action on CosG .
For Hg ∈ CosG,N it follows from the N-equivariance of ρ that
ρ(Hg) = Hρ(g) ∈ CosN . Hence we can extend ρ to a map ρ : CosG,N →
CosN . It is easy to check that this map too is equivariant with respect
to the left N-action.
Now, πr∗ (g∗ ζn ) = λ by Corollary 3.5, and so our measures ζn are
supported on CosG,N . We can thus use ρ to push-forward our N-almost
invariant measures ζn on CosG,N to N-almost invariant measures on
CosN : αn = ρ∗ ζn . By again invoking the N-equivariance of ρ, it also
follows that the projections πr∗ αn and πl∗ αn are equal to λ (now as a
measure on SubN ). We have thus proved the following claim.
Claim 3.6. There exist N-almost invariant probability measures αn on
CosN such that πl∗ (h∗ αn ) = πr∗ (h∗ αn ) = λ for all n ∈ N and h ∈ N.
We are now ready to take the last step in the proof of Theorem 4.5.
Claim 3.7. λ is co-amenable in N.
Proof. Let αn be a sequence of probability measures on CosN given by
Claim 3.6. Recall that πl : CosN → SubN is given by πl (tH) = H, and
that πl∗ (t∗ αn ) = λ for all t ∈ N. We fix t ∈ N, and disintegrate both
αn and t∗ αn with respect to πl :
Z
αn =
αnH dλ(H)
ZSubN
t∗ αn =
(t∗ αn )H dλ(H),
SubN

αnH

H

so that
and (t∗ αn ) are measures on N/H. Note that for every
′
k, k ∈ N it holds that πl (kk ′ H) = πl (k ′ H) = H. Hence both αnH and

STABILIZER RIGIDITY IN IRREDUCIBLE GROUP ACTIONS

13

t∗ (αnH ) are supported on the same fiber (namely N/H), and we get that
(t∗ αn )H = t∗ (αnH ).
As both t∗ αn and αn are projected by πl to λ, we can disintegrate
t∗ αn − αn to get
Z

t∗ αn − αn =
(t∗ αn )H − αnH dλ(H)
ZSubN

=
t∗ (αnH ) − αnH dλ(H),
SubN

and in particular,
kt∗ αn − αn k =

Z

t∗ (αnH ) − αnH dλ(H).

SubG

So for any t ∈ N we have that kt∗ αn − αn k → 0, and therefore
t∗ (αnH ) − αnH → 0 for λ-almost every H. Finally, the existence
of asymptotically invariant measures on N/H implies that H is coamenable in N (see [8] or [22, Theorem 4.18]).

This completes the proof of Theorem 3.3, except for the last statement. To see that it holds, assume that the Furstenberg-Poisson boundary of the µ-random walk on G/K is almost surely trivial. We now
invoke Bowen’s definition of the Poisson bundle Bµ (λ) as a bundle
over (SubG , λ), where the fiber over H < G is the Furstenberg-Poisson
boundary of the µ-random walk on H\G (see [4], the discussion in the
penultimate paragraph of Section 3.3, as well as (4.3) and the preceding discussion). Since these fibers are all trivial, it follows that Bµ (λ)
is isomorphic, as a G-space, to (SubG , λ). In particular the G-action
on the Bµ (λ) is measure preserving. Hence, by the argument above, K
is co-amenable in G.

4. Intermediate factor theorems
Our main results, Theorems 1 and 2, are consequences of Theorem 4.5 below, which is a statement regarding any IRS that satisfies
an intermediate factor theorem (IFT). The original proofs of StuckZimmer and of Bader-Shalom are also each based on a corresponding
IFT. We start this section by defining intermediate factors.
Let Π (G, µ) be the Furstenberg-Poisson boundary of a group G with
a Haar-equivalent probability measure µ, and let G y (X, m) be a

14

YAIR HARTMAN AND OMER TAMUZ

pmp action. A G-quasi-invariant probability space (Y, η) is a (G, µ)intermediate factor over (X, m) if there exist G-factors κ and π
Π (G, µ) × (X, m)
κ



(Y, η)
π



(X, m)
such that the composition π ◦ κ is the natural projection (p, x) 7→ x.
Note that, if we denote by ν the measure of the Furstenberg-Poisson
boundary Π (G, µ), then κ∗ (ν × m) = η. π∗ η = m and [π ◦ κ]∗ (ν × m) =
m.
A trivial example of an intermediate factor is
Π (G, µ) × (X, m)
κ0 ×id



(Z, ξ) × (X, m)
pr



(X, m)
where (Z, ξ) is any G-factor of the Furstenberg-Poisson boundary. Gfactors of the Furstenberg-Poisson boundary Π (G, µ) are also called
(G, µ)-boundaries, or µ-proximal actions.
Zimmer [27] proves an intermediate factor theorem, which was generalized (and had its proof corrected) by Nevo and Zimmer [20]. It
provides conditions on G and (X, m) under which every intermediate
factor is isomorphic to a product (Z, ξ)×(X, m). Bader and Shalom [3]
prove the same result for intermediate factors over irreducible actions
of product groups. To state these theorems we first define an IFT
action.
Definition 4.1. A pmp G-action G y (X, m) is an IFT action if
there exists a Haar-equivalent µ such that for every (G, µ)-intermediate

STABILIZER RIGIDITY IN IRREDUCIBLE GROUP ACTIONS

15

factor
Π (G, µ) × (X, m)
κ



(Y, η)
π



(X, m)
there exists a G-factor (Z, ξ) of the Furstenberg-Poisson boundary and
G-isomorphism ϕ : (Y, η) → (Z, ξ) × (X, m) such that the following
diagram commutes.
Π (G, µ) × (X, m)
κ



(Y, η)
π



(X, m)

❙❙❙
❙❙❙κ0 ×id
❙❙❙
❙❙❙
❙❙)
ϕ
/ (Z, ξ) × (X, m)
❦
❦❦❦
❦❦❦
❦
❦
❦❦❦ pr
u ❦❦
❦

Theorem 4.2 (Intermediate Factor Theorem [3, 27]). Let G be either
(1) a product of lcsc groups, or (2) a connected semi-simple Lie group
with finite center, no compact factors and higher rank. Then every
irreducible pmp G-space is an IFT action.
Recently, Levit [16] proved an intermediate factor theorem over local
fields.
4.1. Poisson bundles as intermediate factors. The next claim
shows that every Poisson bundle Bµ (λ) is an intermediate factor. This
will allow us to apply intermediate factor theorems to Poisson bundles.
Proposition 4.3. Let λ ∈ IRS(G). Then Bµ (λ) is an intermediate
factor. Namely, there exist G-maps
(4.1)

Π (G, µ) × (SubG , λ)
κ̂



Bµ (λ)
π̂r



(SubG , λ)

16

YAIR HARTMAN AND OMER TAMUZ

such that π̂r ◦ κ̂ is the projection (b, H) 7→ H.
Proof. Recall that πr : CosG → SubG is given by πr (Hg) = H, and that
it commutes with the left G-action: πr (kHg) = πr (Hg)k . We extend
its definition to a G-map πr : CosNG → SubG by
πr (c1 , c2 , . . .) = πr (c1 ).
Recall that κ : GN × SubG → CosNG is given by κ((g1 , g2 , . . .), H) =
(Hg1, Hg2 , . . .). Hence the composition πr ◦ κ (see (4.2) below) is equal
to the projection ((g1 , g2 , . . .), H) 7→ H.
(4.2)

(GN × SubG , Pµ × λ)
κ



(CosNG , Pλµ )
πr



(SubG , λ)
Define the shift-action on GN × SubG in the obvious way. Then
the shift commutes with κ, and so the shift-invariant sigma-algebra of
(CosNG , Pλµ ) is a sub-sigma-algebra of the shift-invariant sigma-algebra of
(GN ×SubG , Pµ ×λ). Hence κ, as a factor between the two shift-invariant
sigma-algebras, extends to a factor κ̂ between the Mackey realizations of these two sigma-algebras, which are, by definition, Π (G, µ) ×
(SubG , λ) and Bµ (λ).
As we note above, Pλµ is supported on elements of the form (Hg1, Hg2 , . . .).
Since πr (Hg1, Hg2 , . . .) = H, πr is in fact measurable in the shiftinvariant sigma-algebra of (CosNG , Pλµ ). It follows that, as with κ above,
πr can be extended to a G-map π̂r of the corresponding Mackey realizations; namely to a G-map from Bµ (λ) to (SubG , λ). Thus κ̂ and π̂r
act as in (4.1).
Finally, since πr ◦ κ is the projection on the second coordinate, then
so is π̂r ◦ κ̂, and we have proved the claim.

Having shown that every Poisson bundle is an intermediate factor,
we explore the consequences of the application of an intermediate factor
theorem to one. In particular, when G y (SubG , λ) is an IFT action,
Bµ (λ) is isomorphic to the product (SubG , λ) × (Z, ξ), where (Z, ξ) is
some (G, µ)-boundary. As the next proposition shows, this means that
(Z, ξ) is invariant to every element of the normal closure of λ.

STABILIZER RIGIDITY IN IRREDUCIBLE GROUP ACTIONS

17

Proposition 4.4. Let λ ∈ IRS(G) be such that G y (SubG , λ) is an
IFT action. Then Bµ (λ) = (Z, ξ) × (SubG , λ), where (Z, ξ) is hλiinvariant.
Before proving this proposition we will need to introduce some additional notation. A natural decomposition of the Poisson bundle Bµ (λ)
is by disintegration according to the factor π̂r : Bµ (λ) → (SubG , λ) defined in the proof of Proposition 4.3 above. We denote the fiber π̂r−1 (H)
by (BH , νH ); this space can be shown to be the Furstenberg-Poisson
boundary of the µ-random walk on H\G [4]. Hence we can write
(4.3)

Bµ (λ) = {(b, H) : H ∈ SubG , b ∈ BH },

where the measure is not displayed explicitly.
Proof of Proposition 4.4. By Proposition 4.3, Bµ (λ) is indeed an intermediate factor. Hence there exists a G-isomorphism ϕ : Bµ (λ) →
(Z, ξ) × (SubG , λ), where (Z, ξ) is a (G, µ)-boundary, and such that the
following diagram commutes.
Π (G, µ) × (SubG , λ)
κ̂



Bµ (λ)
π̂r



❚❚❚❚
❚❚❚κ❚0 ×id
❚❚❚❚
❚❚❚❚
*
ϕ
/ (Z, ξ) × (SubG , λ)
❥❥❥
❥❥❥❥
❥
❥
❥
❥❥ pr
t ❥❥❥
❥

(SubG , λ)
It follows that (BH , νH ) (the π̂r -fiber above H) is isomorphic to (Z, ξ)
(the pr-fiber above H), for λ-almost every H ∈ SubG .
Note that for h ∈ H,
(4.4)

hκ((g1 , g2 , . . .), H) = h(Hg1 , Hg2, . . .)
= (H h hg1 , H h hg2 , . . .)
= κ((g1 , g2 , . . .), H).

We extend κ (as in the proof of Proposition 4.3) but this time to a
factor κ̃ from GN × SubG to Bµ (λ). Then κ̃((g1 , g2 , . . .), H) = (b, H)
for some b ∈ BH . This follows from the fact that π̂r (b, H) = H, and
that πr ◦ κ is the projection. It then further follows from (4.4) that
h(b, H) = (b, H), for all h ∈ H; the invariance of (Hg1 , Hg2, . . .) to H
extends from (CosNG , Pλµ ) to its shift-invariant sub-sigma-algebra and its
Mackey realization.
Since, as we noted above, (BH , νH ) is isomorphic to (Z, ξ), it follows
that h(z, H) = (z, H) for all λ-almost every h ∈ H and ξ-almost every

18

YAIR HARTMAN AND OMER TAMUZ

z ∈ Z. But the G-action on (Z, ξ) × (SubG , λ) is the diagonal action,
and so we have that (Z, ξ) is H-invariant for λ-almost every H ∈ SubG .
By a standard argument [24], we can choose a compact model for
(Z, ξ) such that G y (Z, ξ) is continuous, and deduce that (Z, ξ) is Hinvariant for every H in the support of λ, and is therefore hλi-invariant.

4.2. IFT actions and co-amenable IRSs. Given the connection
between intermediate factors and Poisson bundles, and given Theorem 3.3, we are now ready to show how intermediate factor theorems
can be used to show that an IRS is co-amenable.
Theorem 4.5. Let G be an lcsc group. Let K ≤ G be an IRS with
distribution λ such that G y (SubG , λ) is an IFT action. Then K is
co-amenable in hλi, the normal closure of λ.
Proof. By Proposition 4.4, if G y (SubG , λ) is an IFT action then
the action of hλi on the Poisson bundle Bµ (λ) is measure preserving.
Applying Theorem 3.3 yields the desired result.

5. Proofs of main theorems and corollaries
Proof of Theorem 1. Let λ ∈ IRS(G) be the distribution of K, and denote N = hλi. By the Bader-Shalom IFT (Theorem 4.2), Theorem 4.5
implies that K is co-amenable in N.
Denote by Ni ⊳ Gi the closure of the projection of N on Gi . By
Fact 1.1, N is co-abelian in N1 × N2 , and hence in particular coamenable. As K is co-amenable in N, we conclude that K is coamenable in N1 × N2 .

Proof of Theorem 2. Let λ ∈ IRS(G) be the distribution of K, and denote N = hλi. By the Nevo-Zimmer IFT (Theorem 4.2), Theorem 4.5
implies that K is co-amenable in N. Hence if N = G then K is coamenable in G, and we are done.
Otherwise N 6= G. Then there exists a non-central, closed normal
M ⊳ G such that N and M commute [21]. By the irreducibility of the
IRS M acts ergodically on (SubG , λ). But since N and M commute,
and since K is contained in N, this action is trivial. Hence K must
equal a closed normal subgroup.

Proof of Corollary 1.2. Let K be an irreducible IRS of G. By Theorem 1, there exist subgroups N1 ⊳ G1 and N2 ⊳ G2 such that K is
co-amenable in N = N1 × N2 . Since K is irreducible, if either N1 or N2
is trivial then K must equal N1 × N2 . Otherwise, because G1 and G2

STABILIZER RIGIDITY IN IRREDUCIBLE GROUP ACTIONS

19

are just non-amenable, N1 is co-amenable in G1 and N2 is co-amenable
in G2 . Hence N is co-amenable in G, and so K is co-amenable in G. 
To prove Corollary 1.5 we will need the following two elementary
lemmas. The second one, Lemma 5.2, is a variation on [3, Lemma 4.2]
and [23, Lemma 1.8].
Lemma 5.1. Let H be a subgroup of G1 × G2 . If the projection of H
to the second coordinate is equal to G2 , then the action of G1 on G/H
is transitive.
Proof. The projection of H to the second coordinate is equal to G2 ; that
is, for every g2 ∈ G2 there exists an g1 ∈ G1 such that g1 g2 ∈ H. Fix
any g1 g2 H ∈ G/H. Then there exists a g1′ ∈ G1 such that g1′ g2−1 ∈ H,
and
g1 g1′ H = g1 g1′ (g2 g2−1 )H = g1 g2 (g1′ g2−1 )H = g1 g2 H,
where the second equality uses the commutativity of G1 and G2 , and
the last equality follows from the fact that g1′ g2−1 ∈ H. Hence G1 indeed
acts transitively on G/H.

Lemma 5.2. Let G = G1 × G2 be lcsc with G1 simple, and let G y
(X, m) be a non-trivial, irreducible pmp action. Then the action G1 y
(X, m) is essentially free.
Proof. Consider the map s : X → SubG1 which assigns to each x ∈ X
its G1 -stabilizer s(x) = {g1 ∈ G1 : g1 x = x}. This map is easily seen
to be G2 -invariant, by the fact that G1 and G2 commute. Likewise, it
is G1 -equivariant, and so, by ergodicity, s(x) is m-almost surely equal
to some closed normal N1 ⊳ G1 .
Now, if N1 = G1 then the action G1 y (X, m) is trivial, and by
irreducibility G y (X, m) is trivial, in contradiction to the claim hypothesis. Otherwise, since G1 is simple, N1 is trivial, and so the action
G1 y (X, m) is essentially free.

Proof of Corollary 1.5. Let G = G1 × G2 , let G y (X, m) be an irreducible pmp action, and let λ be the distribution of the IRS K associated with (X, m). By Corollary 1.2, K is either equal to a normal
subgroup, or K is co-amenable in G. In the former case, since G1 and
G2 are simple, K is either trivial, in which case the action is essentially
free, or else K is one of {G1 , G2 , G}, and hence by irreducibility the
action is trivial. We therefore assume henceforth that K 6= G is coamenable in G, and show that this leads to a contradiction, unless the
action is trivial or free.

20

YAIR HARTMAN AND OMER TAMUZ

Let pr2 : SubG → SubG2 be the map that assigns to each H ∈ SubG
its projection on the second coordinate. Note that G2 is discrete, and
therefore pr2 H is closed, since every subgroup of G2 is closed. This map
is easily seen to be G1 -invariant and G2 -equivariant, and therefore pr2 K
is almost surely equal to some normal M2 ⊳ G2 , by the ergodicity of
the G2 -action3.
Assume first that M2 is the trivial subgroup. Then K is contained
in G1 , and so, by the ergodicity of the G2 -action on (SubG , λ), K must
almost surely equal some closed normal M1 ⊳G1 . As above, if M1 = G1
then the action is trivial. Otherwise M1 is trivial, and we have that K
is trivial, so that the action G y (X, m) is essentially free.
Finally, consider the case that M2 is not the trivial subgroup. Since
G2 is simple, M2 = G2 , and the projection of K on the second coordinate is G2 . Therefore, by Lemma 5.1, G1 acts transitively on G/K.
By Lemma 5.2, G1 acts essentially freely on G/K. Hence the action
G1 y G/K is isomorphic to the natural action G1 y G1 . Since K is
almost surely co-amenable in G, there is a G-invariant mean on G/K,
which in particular is G1 -invariant. Therefore, and since we identified G/K with G1 , there exists a G1 -invariant mean on G1 . So G1 is
amenable - contradiction.

In order to prove Corollaries 1.3 and 1.4 we will use (and elaborate
on) Varadarajan’s ergodic decomposition theorem [24] to show that the
existence of invariant probability measures supported on orbits implies
that an action is essentially transitive. We state Varadarajan’s theorem
after the following definition.
Definition 5.3 (Varadarajan [24]). Let G be an lcsc group acting on
a standard measurable space X. Let E(X)G denote the space of Ginvariant, ergodic probability measures on X. A decomposition map is
a measurable map β : X → E(X)G with the following properties.
(1) β is G-invariant. I.e., βgx = βx for all g ∈ G and x ∈ X.
(2) For every η ∈ E(X)G , it holds that η(β −1 (η)) = 1.
(3) For every G-invariant measure θ it holds that
Z
(5.1)
θ=
βx dθ(x).
X

Theorem 5.4 (Varadarajan [24]). For every action of an lcsc group
G on a standard measurable space X, there exists a decomposition map
β. Furthermore, β is essentially unique, in the sense that if β and
β ′ are decomposition maps then θ({x ∈ X : βx 6= βx′ }) = 0 for any
G-invariant probability measure θ.
3We

would like to thank Jesse Peterson for suggesting this argument.

STABILIZER RIGIDITY IN IRREDUCIBLE GROUP ACTIONS

21

Lemma 5.5. Let G be an lcsc group, and let G y (X, m) be an ergodic
pmp action. Assume that there exists a G-invariant probability measure
on the orbit Gx for m-almost every x ∈ X. Then the action G y
(X, m) is essentially transitive.
Proof. Let β : X → E(X)G be a decomposition map of X with respect
to the G-action. Let x ∈ X be such that there exists a G-invariant and
ergodic probability measure ηx with ηx (Gx) = 1.
By the second property of decomposition maps, there exists an element y ∈ Gx (in fact a ηx -full measure set of such elements) for which
βy = ηx . Since β is G-invariant, we get that βx = ηx and in particular
βx is supported on Gx.
Let A be an m-full measure set of x ∈ X for which there exists a
G-invariant, ergodic measure ηx on Gx, and for which, by the above,
βx = ηx is supported on a G-orbit. Then
Z
Z
m=
βx dm(x) =
βx dm(x),
X

A

and it follows by the ergodicity of m that it is equal to some βx . Hence
m is supported on a G-orbit, or, equivalently, the action is essentially
transitive.

The following is a corollary of Lemma 5.5. Recall that H is co-finite
in G if there exists a finite, G-invariant measure on G/H.
Corollary 5.6. Let G be an lcsc group, and let an ergodic IRS K
in G be co-finite. Then its distribution is supported on a single orbit
{H g : g ∈ G}.
In Stuck-Zimmer this is proven for the case of Lie groups [23, Corollary 3.2].
We next prove an analogue of Lemma 5.5 for almost direct products.
Definition 5.7. Let G1 and G2 be closed subgroups of G. Then G is
said to be an almost direct product of G1 and G2 if the two groups
commute and if G = G1 G2 .
Lemma 5.8. Let G = G1 G2 be an lcsc almost direct product, and let
G y (X, m) be a pmp action on a standard measurable space that is G1 ergodic. Assume that there exists a G1 -invariant probability measure
on m-almost every G-orbit. Then the action G y (X, m) is essentially
transitive.
Proof. Let β 1 : X → E(X)G1 be a decomposition map of the G1 action on X. Note that, since G1 and G2 commute, it holds for every

22

YAIR HARTMAN AND OMER TAMUZ

η ∈ E(X)G1 and g ∈ G that gη ∈ E(X)G1 , and so G acts on E(X)G1 .
Hence one can consider the question of whether β 1 commutes with G.
In fact, in order to follow the same arguments of Lemma 5.5 we will
require that β 1 be essentially G-equivariant. That is, that there exists
an A ⊆ X with θ(A) = 1 for any G1 -invariant measure θ, and such
1
that gβx1 = βgx
for all g ∈ G and x ∈ A. Assume first that β 1 satisfies
this condition.
Since m is G1 -invariant, m(A) = 1. Hence there exists an m-full
measure set A′ ⊆ A such that there exists a G1 -invariant and ergodic
measure ηx on Gx for all x ∈ A′ . Fix some x ∈ A′ . Since ηx (Gx) = 1,
we can find some y = gx ∈ Gx such that βy1 = ηx . Then
1
gβx1 = βgx
= βy1 = ηx

and so we conclude that βx1 is supported on Gx for every x ∈ A′ .
Since m is G1 -invariant we can write
Z
Z
1
m=
βx dm(x) =
βx1 dm(x)
X

A′

and, by the G1 -ergodicity of m, m = βx1 for some x ∈ A′ and in
particular m(Gx) = 1. Hence the action G y (X, m) is essentially
transitive.
Finally, we argue that β 1 is essentially G-equivariant. Following
Varadarajan, let F be the Banach space of all bounded measurable
functions
on X. Let U 1 : F → F be the operator defined by U 1 (f )(x) =
R
f (y)dβx1(y), for any f ∈ F . Note that by definition, the equivariance
X
of β 1 is equivalent to the equivariance of U 1 .
Now, for any G1 -invariant measure θ, U 1 is the conditional expectation defined by the factor (X, θ) → G1 \\(X, θ), the space of G1 -ergodic
components of (X, θ):
U 1 : L∞ (X, θ) → L∞ (G1 \\(X, θ)).
Since the actions of G1 and G2 on X commute, U 1 , as the conditional expectation map, is G2 -equivariant. Hence U 1 : F → F is
G-equivariant on a θ-full measure set. Since this holds for any G1 invariant measure θ, we conclude that U 1 , and so the associated decomposition map β 1 , are essentially G-equivariant, and the proof is
complete.

As a final lemma before the proofs of Corollaries 1.3 and 1.4 we note
the following fact regarding property (T) groups. It is a straightforward
generalization of the fact that any property (T) group that is also
amenable must admit a finite invariant measure.

STABILIZER RIGIDITY IN IRREDUCIBLE GROUP ACTIONS

23

Claim 5.9. Let G be an lcsc group, let H ∈ SubG be co-amenable. Let
G′ ∈ SubG be any closed subgroup with property (T). Then there exists
a G′ -invariant probability measure on G/H. In particular, if G has
property (T) then H is co-finite in G.
Proof. Since H is co-amenable in G, the quasi-regular representation
of G on L2 (G/H) weakly contains the trivial representation; equivalently, there are almost-invariant non-zero vectors in this representation
(see [22, Theorem 4.18 and Definition 5.1]).
Restrict this representation to a representation of G′ . Then this
restricted representation also has almost-invariant non-zero vectors.
Since G′ has property (T) this implies that there also exist G′ -invariant
unit vectors.
A unit G′ -invariant vector in this representation corresponds to a
function f ∈ L2 (G/H, ν), for some G-quasi-invariant measure ν, such
that for all g ∈ G′ and ν-almost every x ∈ G/H
r
dg∗ ν
f (x) = f (g −1x)
(x),
dν
R
and such that |f |2dν = 1.
Define ν ′ by dν ′ (x) = |f (x)|2dν(x). Then for any g ∈ G′
d(g∗ ν ′ ) = |f (g −1x)|2 dν(g −1 x)
dν
(x)d(g∗ ν)(x)
= |f (x)|2
dg∗ ν
= |f (x)|2 dν(x)
= dν ′ .
Hence ν ′ is G′ -invariant. Finally,
Z
′
ν (G/H) =
|f (x)|2 dν(x) = 1,
G/H

′

and so ν is a probability measure.



We are now ready to prove Corollaries 1.3 and 1.4.
Proof of Corollary 1.3. Let K be the associated stabilizer IRS. By Theorem 1, there exists a normal subgroup N = N1 × N2 ⊳ G such that K
is co-amenable in N.
Since G1 is just non-amenable, either N1 is co-amenable in G1 or else
N1 is trivial. In the latter case we have that K is contained (in fact,
co-amenable) in {e} × N2 , and since K is irreducible, it must almost
surely equal {e} × N2′ , for some N2′ ⊳ G2 . Since the action G y (X, m)
is faithful, N2′ = {e} and the action is essentially free.

24

YAIR HARTMAN AND OMER TAMUZ

We are therefore left with the case that N1 is co-amenable in G1 .
Then since K is co-amenable in N1 × N2 we get that K is co-amenable
in G1 × N2 . It follows that, since G1 has property (T), m-almost every
G1 × N2 -orbit admits a G1 -invariant probability measure (Claim 5.9),
and so each G-orbit admits a G1 -invariant probability measure. It
follow from Lemma 5.8 that G y (X, m) is essentially transitive, and
hence K is co-finite.

Proof of Corollary 1.4. Assume that G1 is a simple factor of G with
property (T), and note that by Theorem 2 K is either almost surely
equal to a normal subgroup N, or K is co-amenable in G.
In the former case, since the action is faithful, the only possibility is
N = {e}, and then the action is essentially free.
In the latter case, the same argument of the proof of Corollary 1.3
above shows that G y (X, m) is essentially transitive and K is co-finite
in G.
Finally, it follows from the Borel Density Theorem that K is discrete,
and hence a lattice in G.

References
[1] M. Abert, N. Bergeron, I. Biringer, T. Gelander, N. Nikolov, J. Raimbault,
and I. Samet, On the growth of L2 -invariants for sequences of lattices in Lie
groups, arXiv preprint arXiv:1210.2961 (2012).
[2] M. Abért, Y. Glasner, and B. Virág, Kestens theorem for invariant random
subgroups, Duke Mathematical Journal 163 (2014), no. 3, 465–488.
[3] U. Bader and Y. Shalom, Factor and normal subgroup theorems for lattices in
products of groups, Inventiones Mathematicae 163 (2006), no. 2, 415–454.
[4] L. Bowen, Random walks on random coset spaces with applications to furstenberg entropy, Inventiones Mathematicae 196 (2014), no. 2, 485–510.
[5] C. Chabauty, Limite d’ensembles et géométrie des nombres, Bulletin de la
Société Mathématique de France 78 (1950), 143–151.
[6] D. Creutz, Stabilizers of actions of lattices in products of groups, arXiv preprint
arXiv:1305.3648 (2013).
[7] D. Creutz and J. Peterson, Stabilizers of ergodic actions of lattices and commensurators, arXiv preprint arXiv:1303.3949 (2013).
[8] P. Eymard, Moyennes invariantes et representations unitaires, Lecture Notes
in Mathematics, Springer-Verlag, 1972.
[9] H. Furstenberg, Random walks and discrete subgroups of Lie groups, Advances
in Probability and Related Topics 1 (1971), 1–63.
[10]
, Boundary theory and stochastic processes on homogeneous spaces, Proceedings of symposia in pure mathematics, 1974, pp. 193–229.
[11] Y. Hartman and O. Tamuz, Furstenberg entropy realizations for virtually free
groups and lamplighter groups, Journal d’Analyse Mathématique 126 (2015),
no. 1, 227–257.

STABILIZER RIGIDITY IN IRREDUCIBLE GROUP ACTIONS

25

[12] V.A. Kaimanovich, Measure-theoretic boundaries of Markov chains, 0-2 laws
and entropy, Proceedings of the conference on harmonic analysis and discrete
potential theory, 1992, pp. 145–180.
, The Poisson boundary of amenable extensions, Monatshefte für Math[13]
ematik 136 (2002), no. 1, 9–15.
, Amenability and the Liouville property, Israel Journal of Mathematics
[14]
149 (2005), no. 1, 45–85.
[15] V.A. Kaimanovich and A.M. Vershik, Random walks on discrete groups: boundary and entropy, Ann. Probab. 11 (1983), no. 3, 457–490.
[16] A. Levit, The Nevo-Zimmer intermediate factor theorem over local fields, arXiv
preprint arXiv:1404.7007 (2014).
[17] G.W. Mackey, Induced representations of locally compact groups i, Annals of
Mathematics (1952), 101–139.
[18]
, Point realizations of transformation groups, Illinois Journal of Mathematics 6 (1962), no. 2, 327–335.
[19] N. Monod and S. Popa, On co-amenability for groups and von Neumann algebras, Comptes Rendus Mathématiques de l’Académie des Sciences; La Société
Royale du Canada 25 (2003), no. 3, 82–87.
[20] A. Nevo and R.J. Zimmer, A generalization of the intermediate factors theorem,
Journal d’Analyse Mathématique 86 (2002), no. 1, 93–104.
[21] D.L. Ragozin, A normal subgroup of a semisimple Lie group is closed, Proceedings of the american mathematical society, 1972, pp. 632–633.
[22] Y. Shalom, Invariant measures for algebraic actions, Zariski dense subgroups
and Kazhdans property (T), Transactions of the American Mathematical Society 351 (1999), no. 8, 3387–3412.
[23] G. Stuck and R.J. Zimmer, Stabilizers for ergodic actions of higher rank
semisimple groups, Annals of Mathematics (1994), 723–747.
[24] V.S. Varadarajan, Groups of automorphisms of Borel spaces, Transactions of
the American Mathematical Society 109 (1963), no. 2, 191–220.
[25] F. Wattenberg, Topologies on the set of closed subsets., Pacific Journal of Mathematics 68 (1977), no. 2, 537–551.
[26] R.J. Zimmer, Amenable ergodic group actions and an application to Poisson
boundaries of random walks, Journal of Functional Analysis 27 (1978), no. 3,
350–372.
[27]
, Ergodic theory, semisimple Lie groups, and foliations by manifolds of
negative curvature, Publications Mathématiques de l’IHÉS 55 (1982), no. 1,
37–62.
(Y. Hartman) Weizmann Institute of Science.
(O. Tamuz) California Institute of Technology.

