arXiv:1502.03703v4 [] 26 Jan 2018

SUPERRIGIDITY FROM CHEVALLEY GROUPS INTO
ACYLINDRICALLY HYPERBOLIC GROUPS VIA
QUASI-COCYCLES.
MASATO MIMURA
Abstract. We prove that every homomorphism from the elementary Chevalley
group over a finitely generated unital commutative ring associated with a reduced
irreducible classical root system of rank at least 2, and ME analogues of such
groups, into acylindrically hyperbolic groups has an absolutely elliptic image. This
result provides a non-arithmetic generalization of homomorphism superrigidity of
Farb–Kaimanovich–Masur and Bridson–Wade.

1. Main result
The celebrated Farb–Kaimanovich–Masur superrigidity theorem [KM96], [FM98]
states that every homomorphism from an (irreducible) higher rank lattice into
MCG(Σg ), the mapping class group of a closed oriented surface Σg of genus g, has
finite image. Later, Bridson and Wade [BW11] showed that the same superrigidity
remains true if the target group is replaced with Out(FN ), the outer automorphism
group of a (non-abelian) free group FN of finite rank N. In an unpublished manuscript of [Mim], the present author obtained a similar homomorphism superrigidity
from (commutative) universal lattices and symplectic universal lattices, that means,
groups of the form SL(n, Z[x1 , . . . , xk ]) with n ≥ 3, and Sp(2n, Z[x1 , . . . , xk ]) with
n ≥ 2, where k finite.
In this paper, we present a full generalization of this homomorphism superrigidity,
as follows.
Theorem 1.1 (Main Theorem). Let Φ be a reduced irreducible classical root system
of rank at least 2. Let A be a finitely generated, unital, commutative, and associative
ring. Let Γ and Λ be as follows:
• The group Γ is a quotient of a finite index subgroup of the (simply connected)
elementary Chevalley group E(Φ, A).
• The group Λ is measure equivalent to Γ with the L2 -integrability condition on
a corresponding ME cocycle from Γ to Λ. (See the proof of Proposition 3.2
for the definition of the L2 -integrability condition.)
Then the following hold true.
Date: January 29, 2018.
Key words and phrases. Property (T); Quasi-cocycles; Elementary Chevalley groups; Acylindrically hyperbolic groups.
The author was supported in part by KAKENHI 25800033, the Grant-in-Aid for Young Scientists
(B).
1

2

MASATO MIMURA

(i) For every acylindrically hyperbolic group G, every group homomorphism from
Λ into G has an absolutely elliptic image H. That means, every acylindrical
G-action by isometries on a (Gromov-)hyperbolic geodesic space has a bounded
H-orbit.
(ii) Furthermore, if G is of the form MCG(Σg ) or Out(FN ) for g, N finite, then
every group homomorphism from Λ into G has a finite image.
Remark 1.2. In fact, in the assertions for Λ = Γ in Theorem 1.1, we can drop the
assumption of the finite generation of the ring A. See Section 6.
We explain some terminology in the theorem above, firstly on Γ and Λ. For
(simply connected) elementary Chevalley groups, we refer to [Ste68] and [EJZK]. A
basic example is the elementary group E(n, A), when Φ = An−1 , which is a subgroup
of GL(n, A) generated by the elementary matrices eai,j for 1 ≤ i ≤ n, 1 ≤ j ≤ n,
i 6= j, and a ∈ A. Here, eai,j denotes the following matrix in GL(n, A): 1 on
diagonal, 0 on all but the (i, j)-th off-diagonal entries, and a on the (i, j)-the entry.
a1 a2
Observe the following commutator relation: [eai,j1 , eaj,k2 ] = ei,k
for i 6= j 6= k 6= i,
−1 −1
where [g, h] := ghg h . It implies that if n ≥ 3 and if A is as in Theorem 1.1,
then E(n, A) is a finitely generated group. If we let Φ = Cn , then E(Φ, A) is the
elementary symplectic group. By setting A = Z[x1 , . . . , xk ] in both cases above,
we recover the case of (commutative) universal lattices and of symplectic universal
lattices. (More precisely, here we use results of Suslin and Kopeı̆ko [Kop78])
For the measure equivalence (ME) and the Lp -integrability condition, the reader
may consult with [Fur11], see Definition 2.1, Subsection 2.3.2, and Appendix A.3
therein; we will also briefly recall it in the proof of Proposition 3.2 in the present
paper. A basic example of a measure equivalent pair (Γ, Λ) is a pair of two lattices
in a common locally compact second countable group. Moreover, if these two in the
example above are irreducible higher rank lattices, then this measure equivalence is
known to satisfy the Lp -integrability condition for all p ∈ [1, ∞), see for instance
[BFGM07, Section 8]. Therefore, item (ii) of Theorem 1.1 generalizes the Farb–
Kaimanovich–Masur and the Bridson–Wade superrigidity of higher rank lattices,
provided that the corresponding higher rank algebraic group has no rank one factor,
to groups possibly with no arithmetic backgrounds.
Secondly, on G, recall from Dahmani–Guirardel–Osin [DGO17] and Osin [Osi16]
that a group G is said to be acylindrically hyperbolic if G admits a non-elementary
acylindrical action by isometries on a (Gromov-)hyperbolic geodesic space. Here an
isometric G-action on a metric space S is said to be acylindrical if for every ǫ > 0,
there exist R, N > 0 such that for every two points x, y ∈ S with d(x, y) ≥ R, there
are at most N elements g ∈ G that satisfy d(x, gx) ≤ ǫ and d(y, gy) ≤ ǫ. Recall also
that an acylindrical G-action by isometries on a hyperbolic geodesic space S is said
to be non-elementary if the limit set of G on the Gromov boundary ∂S contains
more than 2 points. The class of acylindrical hyperbolic groups contains MCG(Σg ),
Out(FN ) for g ≥ 1 and N ≥ 2, and infinitely presented graphical C(7)-small cancellation groups [GS14], which include Osajda’s monsters [Osa14], [Osa17] (for more
examples, see [Osi16, Appendix A]). Note that, because every non-elementary free
product is acylindrically hyperbolic, there is no hope to expect that the image is

SUPERRIGIDITY VIA QUASI-COCYCLES

3

finite in (i) of Theorem 1.1 in general. Item (ii) implies that, if we know all of
the absolutely elliptic subgroups in G to certain extent, then it may be possible to
deduce that the image is, in fact, finite.
Remark 1.3. In [BW11], Bridson and Wade defined that a group is Z-averse if
no finite index subgroup admits a normal subgroup that surjects onto Z. Then,
they showed that for every Z-averse group, the homomorphism superrigidity into
MCG(Σg ) and into Out(FN ) holds true. Note that higher rank lattices are Z-averse
by the Margulis normal subgroup theorem together with the Matsushima vanishing
theorem. We remark, on the other hand, that many examples of Λ in Theorem 1.1
are not Z-averse. Indeed, for Λ = Γ = SL(3, Z[x]), the kernel K of the substitution
map with x = 0 surjects onto Z. To see this, observe that the derivation cocycle
Λ → (Mat(3, Z), +); g 7→ g ′ |x=0 is a group homomorphism if it is restricted on K.
Remark 1.4. Acylindrical hyperbolicity can be also characterized in terms of hyperbolically embedded subgroups, see [Osi16, Theorem 1.2]. The reader familiar with
relative hyperbolic groups might think that the conclusion in item (i) of Theorem 1.1
may be stated in terms of such subgroups (not in terms of the absolute ellipticity).
However, Theorem 7.7 in [MO15] implies that it is impossible in general.
Convention. Unless otherwise stated, groups are assumed to be countable and discrete.
2. Strategy of the proof of Theorem 1.1
To prove the main theorem, we introduce the following properties, which are
motivated by property (TT) of Monod [Mon01].
Definition 2.1. (1) A group Γ is said to have property (TT)/T (“property TT
modulo T”) if all quasi-cocycles into every unitary Γ-representation that does
not contain trivial representation are bounded.
(2) A group Γ is said to have property (TT)wm (“property TT for weakly mixing
representations”) if all quasi-cocycles into every unitary Γ-representation that
is weakly mixing are bounded.
We refer the reader to Section 3 for the precise definitions of quasi-(1-)cocycles
and of weakly mixing unitary representations. We also see in Section 3 that property
(TT)wm is strictly stronger than Kazhdan’s property (T), and strictly weaker than
property (TT).
The proof of Theorem 1.1 consists of the following two parts:
Theorem 2.2. Let Λ be as in Theorem 1.1. Then Λ has property (TT)wm .
Proposition 2.3. Let Λ be a group. If Λ has property (TT)wm , then every homomorphism from Λ into an acylindrically hyperbolic group has an absolutely elliptic
image.
We will prove Theorem 2.2 in Section 4, and Proposition 2.3 and Theorem 1.1 in
Section 5. For the proof of Theorem 2.2, more precisely, we firstly prove Theorem 4.1,

4

MASATO MIMURA

which states that the Γ (elementary Chevelley groups in our settings) possesses
property (TT)/T, and then deduce property (TT)wm for Λ by the L2 -induction
process (item (2) in Proposition 3.2).
The proof of Theorem 4.1 is the main part of this paper. For the proof, we
employ a new observation on bounded generation for elementary Chevalley groups
over commutative rings, see Lemma 4.2 for the precise statement. Here we state the
definition of bounded generation in our convention.
Definition 2.4. For two non-empty subsets eΓ ∈ X ⊆ Γ, Y ⊆ Γ of a group Γ, we
say that Y is boundedly generated by X if there exists a positive integer N such that
Y ⊆ X N holds true. Here, X N (⊆ G) denotes the set of all the products of possibly
overlapping N elements in X.
Note that in some literature, the terminology of bounded generation is restricted
to the case where X is a finite union of cyclic subgroups and where Y = Γ. Our
convention is much more general.
The use of bounded generation has been revealed to be a powerful tool in the proof
of property (T) and fixed point properties; see for instance [Sha99] and [Sha06]. In
general, bounded generation is extremely hard to check, and there are only few
known useful examples. As we mentioned above, our new bounded generation,
Lemma 4.2, is weaker than all other nontrivial examples which are known. However,
in return for this weakness, it applies to considerably wide classes of Chevalley
groups. We expect that Lemma 4.2 has some potential for further applications.
We remark on some relevant results by other researchers. Another generalization of use of quasi-cocycles to homomorphism superrigidity rather than quasihomomorphisms, which was observed firstly in [Mim], is obtained by Burger and
Iozzi [BI] (note that the use of quasi-homomorphisms to homomorphism superrigidity was initiated by [BF02], but that the use of (twisted) quasi-cocycles had not been
observed before [Mim]; see also Remark 5.1). They introduce the ℓ2 -stability, and
prove certain type of homomorphism superrigidity of ℓ2 -stable groups into MCG(Σg ).
Some discrete infinite groups coming from products of trees have the ℓ2 -stability, and
they never have property (T) (thus, not (TT)wm either). Hence, their result applies
to more groups (the ℓ2 -stability is implied by property (TT)wm ; see Proposition 3.2).
The ℓ2 -stability, on the other hand, is not stable under the measure equivalence: for
instance, every uniform and irreducible lattice in SL(2, R) × SL(2, R) enjoys the
ℓ2 -stability, whereas π1 (Σg ) × π1 (Σg ) does not for all g ≥ 2. These two groups are
(L∞ -integrable) ME.
3. Property (TT)/T and Property (TT)wm
As we mentioned in Section 2, we employ property (T )-like properties for the proof
of Theorem 1.1. We refer the reader to [BdlHV08] for a comprehensive treatise on
Kazhdan’s property (T).
Let Γ be a (countable discrete) group, and (π, H) be a unitary Γ-representation.
A map c : Γ → H is called a quasi-(1-)cocycle into π if
sup kc(gh) − c(g) − π(g)c(h)k < ∞.
g,h∈Γ

SUPERRIGIDITY VIA QUASI-COCYCLES

5

The quantity in the left-hand side is called the defect of c. Quasi-(1-)cocycles are
related to (second) bounded cohomology, see [Mon01] and [Mon06] for details. Recall that Γ has Kazhdan’s property (T) if and only if all genuine cocycles (namely,
all quasi-cocycles with zero defect) into every unitary representation π are bounded
(this is the Delorme–Guichardet theorem; see [BdlHV08, Theorem 2.12.4 and Proposition 2.2.9]), and that Γ is said to have Monod’s property (TT) if all quasi-cocycles
into every unitary representation π are bounded. Recall in addition that a unitary
representation π is said to be weakly mixing if it does not contain (non-zero) finite
dimensional subrepresentations.
By Definition 2.1, the following implications are clear:
(TT)

⇒

(TT)/T

⇒

(TT)wm .

Lemma 3.1. Property (TT)wm implies property (T).
Proof. First observe that property (TT)wm implies that all (genuine) cocycles into
every weakly mixing unitary representation are bounded. Suppose that Γ has property (TT)wm but that fails to have property (T). Then by [BdlHV08, Proposition 2.12.2.(ii)], the failure of property (T) implies that some weakly mixing unitary
representation (π, H) admits almost invariant unit vectors. Here we say that (π, H)
admits almost invariant unit vectors if for every ǫ > 0 and for every finite subset
K ⊆ Γ, there exists a unit vector ξ ∈ H such that sup
Lk∈K kπ(k)ξ
L − ξk < ǫ. From
L
this, we can construct an unbounded cocycle into (ℓ2 - π, ℓ2 - H), where “ℓ2 - ”
denotes the countable ℓ2 -direct sum. We can do that by taking the ℓ2 -direct sum of
countable copies of (π, H) and by piling up cocycles of the form g 7→ π(g)ζn − ζn for
a suitable sequence of vectors {ζn }n . This argument is known as a Guichardet-type
argument; see [BdlHV08, Proposition 2.12.2.(ii)] for more details. This contradicts
the assumption that Γ has property (TT)wm because the countable ℓ2 -direct sum of
weakly mixing unitary representations is also weakly mixing.

Therefore, we have obtained the following implications:
(⋆)

(TT)

⇒

(TT)/T

⇒

(TT)wm

⇒

(T).

In what follows, we briefly discuss the reverse implications in (⋆). The right
implication cannot be reversed, because all infinite hyperbolic groups fail to have
property (TT)wm (see Section 5). Burger and Iozzi [BI] constructed a counterexample to the converse implication to the left one. It might be open whether the middle
implication can be reversed.
The next proposition explains why we need both property (TT)/T and property
(TT)wm to prove Theorem 1.1.
Proposition 3.2. (1) Property (TT)/T and property (TT)wm , respectively, pass to
group quotients and to finite index subgroups.
(2) If Γ has property (TT)/T, and if Λ is measure equivalent to Γ with the L2 integrability condition on an ME cocycle from Γ to Λ, then Λ has property
(TT)wm .
Proof. Item (1) is straightforward from the pull-back and induction of quasi-cocycles
(for the latter part, compare with the argument below). Here, observe that the weak

6

MASATO MIMURA

mixing property for unitary representations is preserved by pull-back. In outline,
item (2) will be deduced from the L2 -induction of quasi-cocycles for the ME coupling
(Λ, Γ). In what follows, we will discuss this in more details.
Let (Ω, m) be an ME-coupling for (Γ, Λ), D ∼
= Ω/Λ be a Borel Λ-fundamental
domain. Let α : Γ × D → Λ be the corresponding ME-cocycle, namely,
for every γ ∈ Γ and for almost every x ∈ D, γ · x = α(γ, x)γx.
γ·

γ

Here x 7→ γ · x denotes the natural action Γ y D, and x 7→ γx denotes the original
action of Γ on Ω. The reader may consult [Fur11] for more details on these notions
and definitions. We recall that α is said to satisfy the L2 -integrability condition if
for every γ ∈ Γ, |α(γ, ·)|Λ ∈ L2 (D).
Here | · |Λ is the length function on Λ with respect to some finite generating set.
(Here we refer to the following facts. Property (T) for a discrete group implies
the finite generation [BdlHV08, Theorem 1.3.1]. Property (TT)/T implies property
(T) for a countable discrete group by (⋆). Property (T) is an ME-invariant [Fur11,
Subsection 3.1.1].)
Let (σ, H) be a unitary Λ-representation. First, we define the induced unitary
Γ-representation (ΩIndΓΛ σ, ΩΓΛ H) by ΩΓΛ H ∼
= L2 (D, H) with the twisted Γ-action
defined almost everywhere by
((ΩIndΓΛ σ)(γ)f )(x) := σ(α(γ −1 , x)−1 )f (γ −1 · x).
Then ΩIndΓΛ σ becomes a unitary Γ-representation. Secondly, let c : Λ → H be
a quasi-σ-cocycle. Then, we hope to define the induced map c̃ by the following
formula:
For γ ∈ Γ and x ∈ D, c̃(γ)(x) := c(α(γ −1 , x)−1 ).
If it is well-defined, then this gives rise to a quasi-cocycle into ΩIndΓΛ σ.
We warn that there is, in general, an issue of the 2-summability to obtain the welldefinedness of c̃. However, in our case, the assumption of the L2 -integrability of α
ensures this summability. We, furthermore, warn that even if σ 6⊇ 1Λ , it may happen
that ΩIndΓΛ σ ⊇ 1Γ . The argument in [Fur11, Subsection 4.1.1], however, shows the
following: if σ is, besides, weakly mixing, then we conclude that ΩIndΓΛ σ 6⊇ 1Γ (this
is the role of the weak mixing property in the current paper).
By observing these two subtle points above, we start from an arbitrarily taken
weakly mixing unitary representation σ of Λ and an arbitrarily taken quasi-cocycle
c into σ. Then, by the L2 -induction process above, we obtain the unitary representation ΩIndΓΛ σ, that does not contain trivial representation, and the quasi-cocycle c̃
into ΩIndΓΛ σ. Then, by property (TT)/T for Γ, we have that c̃ is bounded.
Initially, there is a gap in deducing the boundedness of c from that of c̃. However, a deep result in [MS06, Theorem 4.4], which concerns inductions of bounded
cohomology, enables us to take this deduction without gaps in our (unitary) setting.
Therefore, c must be bounded and Λ enjoys property (TT)wm , as desired.

The next lemma is the key observation to Section 4, and it is a development of
[Mim11, Proposition 6.6]. Recall from Definition 2.4 on bounded generations.

SUPERRIGIDITY VIA QUASI-COCYCLES

7

Definition 3.3. A pair Γ ⊇ Z of a group and a subset is said to have relative
property (TT) if all quasi-cocycles on Γ into every unitary Γ-representation are
bounded on Z.
Lemma 3.4. Let Γ be a (countable discrete) group, Γ0 be a subgroup of Γ, and
Z ∋ eΓ be a subset of Γ. Assume that the triple (Γ, Γ0 , Z) satisfies the following
three conditions.
(i) The subset Z generates Γ (as a group).
(ii) For every h ∈ Γ0 , h−1 Zh ⊆ Z.
(iii) The group Γ is boundedly generated by Γ0 ∪ Z.
Assume, besides, that the pair Γ ⊇ Z has relative property (TT) and that Γ has
property (T). Then, Γ has property (TT)/T.
In particular, if (Γ, Γ0 = Γ, Z) fulfills conditions (i) and (ii), then relative property
(TT) for the pair Γ ⊇ Z together with property (T) for Γ implies property (TT)/T
for Γ.
Note that Z ⊆ Γ is in general not a subgroup of Γ: compare with condition (i).
For the proof, recall the original definition of Kazhdan’s property (T): Γ is said
to have property (T) if every unitary representation that does not contain trivial
representation admits almost invariant unit vectors. See the proof of Lemma 3.1 for
the definition of existence of almost invariant vectors.
Proof. Let (π, H) be a unitary Γ-representation that does not contain trivial representation, and c : Γ → H be a quasi-cocycle into π. Let C be the maximum of the
defect of c and supz∈Z kc(z)k. By relative property (TT), this C is finite.
We claim that c(Γ0 ) is bounded. Indeed, for every h ∈ Γ0 and z ∈ Z, we have
that by (ii),
kπ(z)c(h) − c(h)k ≤ kc(zh) − c(h) − c(z)k + C
≤kc(h(h−1 zh)) − c(h)k + 2C ≤ kc(h) − c(h)k + 4C = 4C.
Suppose, on the contrary, that c(Γ0 ) is unbounded. Take {hn }n ⊆ Γ0 such that
kc(hn )k → ∞. Then, we deduce that {c(hn )/kc(hn )k}n forms a sequence of almost
invariant unit vectors for π. To see this, observe that for every finite subset K of G,
there exists l ∈ N such that (Z ∪ Z −1 )l ⊇ K by (i). However, this is absurd because
Γ has property (T). Hence, c(Γ0 ) is bounded. Finally, we deduce the boundedness
of c(Γ) with the aid of bounded generation (condition (iii)) and a triangle inequality
of c up to +C error.
For the last part of the assertions in Lemma 3.4, observe that Γ is boundedly
generated by Γ itself.

This lemma is inspired by [Sha06, Section 4.III]. The first application of Lemma 3.4
was in [Mim11, Proposition 6.6], where we use for the tuple (Γ, Γ0 , Z) = (E(n, A), E(n, A)∩
GL(n − 1, A), M ∪ L) for A as in Theorem 1.1. Here GL(n − 1, A) sits on the leftupper corner, M := heai,n : 1 ≤ i ≤ n − 1, a ∈ Ai(≃ (An−1 , +)), and L := hean,j : 1 ≤
j ≤ n−1, a ∈ Ai(≃ (An−1 , +)). We warn that, in this case, condition (iii) (bounded

8

MASATO MIMURA

generation) is proved by Vaserstein [Vas07, Corollary 3], but that for other root systems Φ, it might be open whether similar bounded generation remains true. As we
will see in Section 4, in the present paper, we will employ much weaker bounded
generation (Lemma 4.2). Owing to it, we are able to apply Lemma 3.4 to the case
of that Γ0 = Γ, where condition (iii) is trivially fulfilled.
4. Key theorem: property (TT)/T for elementary Chevalley groups
As we mentioned in Section 2, the following theorem is the essential part in the
present paper, and may be regarded as a strengthening of [EJZK, Theorem 1.1] for
elementary Chevalley groups (recall Lemma 3.1). Note that, however, because we
employ property (T) for such groups in the proof below, our theorem is based on
their result.
Theorem 4.1. Let Φ and A be as in Theorem 1.1. Then E(Φ, A) has property
(TT)/T.
Because the proof of Theorem 4.1 is involved, we first verify this for the case where
Φ = An−1 (hence E(Φ, A) = E(n, A)) for n ≥ 3; we then indicate the ingredients
needed for the proof in the full generality.
Proof of Theorem 4.1 for Φ = An−1 (n ≥ 3). Set Γ = Γ0 = E(n, A) and X is the set
of all elementary root unipotents, namely, in this case,
X := {eai,j : 1 ≤ i ≤ n, 1 ≤ j ≤ n, i 6= j, a ∈ A}.
Furthermore, set Z as the union of all Γ-conjugates of X, that means,
[
Z :=
h−1 Xh ⊆ Γ.
h∈Γ

We claim that this triple (Γ, Γ0 , Z) fulfills all of the assumptions in the final part
of Lemma 3.4. First, items (i) and (ii) are by construction. Property (T) for Γ is
a big result, and was proved by the combination of Shalom [Sha06] and Vaserstein
[Vas07]; see also [EJZK]. Therefore, the final process is to check that Γ ⊇ Z has
relative property (TT). For this, we will show the following two assertions:
(a) The pair Γ ⊇ X has relative property (TT).
(b) The subset Z is boundedly generated by X.
By a triangle inequality up to uniformly additive bounded error for quasi-cocycles,
these two statements will immediately lead us to the conclusion. In what follows,
we will verify, respectively, assertions (a) and (b).
Proof of (a): Shalom [Sha99, Theorem 3.4] shows that the pair E(n − 1, A) ⋉ An−1 D
An−1 has relative property (T), where E(n − 1, A) acts on An−1 by the natural left
multiplication. Here we do not recall the definition of relative property (T); instead,
we refer the reader to [BdlHV08, Definition 1.4.3] (there, this property is stated as
property (T) for a pair ). Then, we apply to a result by Ozawa [Oza11, Proposition 3:
(1) ⇒ (2)], which states that for a pair of the form G ⋉ H D H for an abelian H,
relative property (T) implies relative property (TTT) of Ozawa. Again, we do not

SUPERRIGIDITY VIA QUASI-COCYCLES

9

state the definition of (relative) property (TTT) here, but we remark that relative
property (TTT) implies relative property (TT) as in Definition 3.3; see [Oza11] for
details. By combining these two results, we conclude that the pair E(n − 1, A) ⋉
An−1 D An−1 has relative property (TT). Finally, embed E(n − 1, A) ⋉ An−1 into
E(n, A) in such several (finitely many) ways that every h ∈ X lies in the image of
An−1 for some of such embeddings. This ends the proof of (a).
Proof of (b): We employ arguments in the work of Park and Woodburn [PW95] as
follows (here we only sketch them). Take s = eai,j ∈ X. Then for γ ∈ Γ,
γsγ −1 = In + (i-th column vector of γ) · a · (j-th column vector of γ −1 ).
Let v = t (v1 , . . . , vn ) be the i-th column vector of γ, w = (w1 , . . . , wn ) be a times
the j-th
vector of γ −1 ,P
and (γ1 , . . . , γn ) be the i-th row vector of γ −1 . Then since
Prow
n
1 and nl=1 wl vl = 0. Therefore, by letting bl,m = wl γm − wm γl ,
i 6= j, l=1 γl vl = P
we have that w = (1≤)l<m(≤n) bl,m (vm el − vl em ), and hence (the following are due
to Suslin),


X
−1
γsγ =In + v · w = In + v ·
bl,m (vm el − vl em )
(1≤)l<m(≤n)

=In +

X

v · bl,m (vm el − vl em )

(1≤)l<m(≤n)

=

Y

(In + v · bl,m (vm el − vl em )).

(1≤)l<m(≤n)

Mennicke observed that each factor in the product on the very below side of the
equalities above can be written as a product of bounded numbers of (only depend
on n and does not depend on γ and s), precisely at most 8 + 2(n − 2) = 2n + 4,
elementary matrices. Therefore, for every γ ∈ Γ and for every s ∈ X, γsγ −1 is a
product of at most (n + 2)n(n − 1) elements in X; this bound is independent of the
choices of γ and s. For more details, consult Lemma 2.3, Lemma 2.6, and Corollary
2.7 in [PW95].
Therefore, we have completed the proof of Theorem 4.1 for Γ = E(n, A).

Note that, in comparison with Vaserstein’s bounded generation [Vas07] (see the
end of Section 3), the bounded generation in assertion (b) above is weaker, but that
the proof is considerably less involved (for instance, the proof of (b) does not even
need the finite generation of A: only the commutativity of A is needed). From this
point of view, it may be natural to expect that similar “weak bounded generations”
remain true for other root systems Φ. As we will see below, this is indeed the case:
for instance, if Φ = Cn (symplectic case), then [Kop78, Section 1] implies it. In
the full generality, we have the following, which may be seen as a new bounded
generation ingredient to study fixed point properties and boundedness properties.
Lemma 4.2 (New bounded generation observation). Let A and Φ be as in Theorem 1.1. Set X := X(Φ, A), which denotes the set of all elementary root unipotents,

10

MASATO MIMURA

and
Z :=

[

h−1 Xh ⊆ E(Φ, A).

h∈E(Φ,A)

Then, Z is boundedly generated by X.
Proof. For the cases of Φ = An−1 , and A = Cn , we have referred to the relevant works, respectively, [PW95], and [Kop78]. In general case, a recent result of
Stepanov [Ste16, Corollary 9.2] yields the conclusion. In fact, Stepanov pointed
out to the author that to prove the lemma above, we do not need to make full
power of his result. It suffices to combine the normality of E(Φ, A) in the Chevalley
group, which is well-known and was established by Taddei, with the argument in
the argument in [Ste16, proof of Theorem 9.1].

Proof of Theorem 4.1 in general cases. Set Γ = Γ0 = E(Φ, A). Set X and Z ⊆ Γ
as in Lemma 4.2. We claim that this triple (Γ, Γ0 , Z) fulfills all of the assumptions
in Lemma 3.4. In this general case, property (T) for Γ is a celebrated result by
Ershov, Jaikin-Zapirain and Kassabov [EJZK, Theorem 1.1]. Conditions (i) and
(ii) obviously hold.
By virtue of Lemma 4.2, what remains is only to show that Γ ⊇ X has relative
property (TT) (corresponding to assertion (a) for Φ = An−1 ). This can be done in
the following three steps (compare with the proof for Φ = An−1 ):
• Show relative property (T) for a suitable pair G ⋉ H D H for an abelian H,
• apply Ozawa’s result [Oza11, Proposition 3] and deduce that the pair above
has relative property (TT), and
• embed G ⋉ H into Γ in (several) appropriate ways.
More precisely, the combination of [EJZK, Theorem 7.10 and Corollary 7.11] (see
also arguments above Theorem 7.12 there and in the proof of it) will be employed
in the first step. Note that in [EJZK], results are stated in terms of Steinberg-type
groups, but that E(Φ, A)’s are group quotients of them. Here, observe, in addition,
that relative property (T) passes to group quotient pairs.
Thus we have established the theorem.

Remark 4.3. As we mentioned above Theorem 4.1, we need to employ property (T)
for Γ = E(Φ, A) for the proof of Theorem 4.1. For a general Φ, this is a great
achievement in [EJZK] and the proof of property (T) is highly involved. However,
in a recent work [Mim15], the present author has obtained a much simpler proof
of property (T), which is applicable to many groups of such type, for instance,
Φ = An−1 and Φ = Cn for all n ≥ 3. More precisely, we bypass “ǫ-orthogonality argument” in [EJZK], which requires delicate estimations of certain spectral quantities,
by utilizing “(intrinsic) upgrading without bounded generation”, which is invented in
[Mim15]. We refer the reader also to a short expository article [Mim16], which focuses on the proof of property (T) for noncommutative universal lattices (see the
next paragraph for the definition) along the line above. We mention that unlike the
original proof in [EJZK], these less involved proofs in [Mim15] and [Mim16] provide
no estimate of Kazhdan constants.

SUPERRIGIDITY VIA QUASI-COCYCLES

11

Another remark is on noncommutative universal lattices. When Φ = An−1 , it is
possible to drop the commutativity assumption on A. The group E(n, Zhx1 , . . . , xk i)
with n ≥ 3 and k finite is called the noncommutative universal lattice. Here h· · · i
denotes the noncommutative polynomial ring. Osin and the author asked whether
some of noncommutative universal lattices is acylindrically hyperbolic. This question might remain open. The gap to apply Theorem 4.1 is the lack of the weak
bounded generation, namely, there is no reason to believe that Lemma 4.2 remains
true for a noncommutative A. The current status of the question of whether some
noncommutative universal lattice has property (TT)/T seems to be open. In the
same work [Mim15] as above, on the other hand, we show that noncommutative
universal lattices, and even the corresponding Steinberg groups of type An−1 , with
n ≥ 4, have the fixed point property with respect to Lp -spaces for all p ∈ (1, ∞).
Proof of Theorem 2.2. Combine Theorem 4.1 with Proposition 3.2.



5. comparison with acylindrical hyperbolicity, and the proof of the
main theorem
In contrast to groups with property (TT)wm , Hamenstädt [Ham08] showed that
every non-elementary subgroup H of MCG(Σg ) admits plenty of unbounded quasicocycles into (λH , ℓ2 (H)) (the left-regular representation). It turns out that her
theorem applies to all acylindrically hyperbolic groups; see [Osi16, Theorem 8.3].
Before proceeding to the proofs, we recall that property (TT)wm implies property
(T) (Lemma 3.1), and that every group homomorphism from a discrete group with
property (T) into a discrete amenable (such as virtually abelian) group has a finite
image (see [BdlHV08, Corollary 1.3.5]). Here we say that a group is virtually P if
there exists a subgroup of finite index that satisfies the property P .
Proof of Proposition 2.3. By [Osi16, Theorem 1.1], the image H is either elliptic,
virtually Z, or acylindrically hyperbolic. Because Λ and hence H have, in particular
by (⋆), property (T), the second option is impossible. Suppose, on the contrary,
that H is acylindrically hyperbolic. Then by the argument above (see also [HO13,
Corollary 1.5] and the main theorem of [BBF]), there must exist unbounded quasicocycles into (λH , ℓ2 (H)). Note that because such an H is infinite, λH is weakly
mixing (in fact, strongly mixing). This contradicts property (TT)wm for H, which
is deduced from Proposition 3.2.(1).
Therefore, H 6 G must be absolutely elliptic.

Proof of Theorem 1.1. Item (i) immediately follows from Theorem 2.2 and Proposition 2.3. To show item (ii), we employ subgroup classifications of MCG(Σg ) and
of Out(FN ). Theorem 8.10 in [DGO17] shows that if H 6 MCG(Σg ) is not virtually abelian, then there exists a finite index subgroup H0 6 H that maps onto an
acylindrically hyperbolic group. Hence, by item (i), which we have verified, and
Proposition 3.2, the image of Λ must be virtually abelian. Again, property (T) implies that the image must be finite. In the Out(FN )-target case, we need more care.
However, the argument in the proof of [BW11, Proposition 2.1] remains to work with
no essential changes. Indeed, the absolute ellipticity excludes all fully irreducible

12

MASATO MIMURA

automorphism classes; property (T) then may take place of the Z-aversion. Finally,
[BW11, Corollary 2.9 and Proposition 2.1] imply that φ(Λ) ∩ IAn and φ(Λ) in their
statements are finite even in our current setting. It completes our proof.

Remark 5.1. There have been several results by several researchers on quasi-homomorphisms
(namely, quasi-cocycles into the trivial representation (1Γ , R), also known as quasimorphisms) on acylindrically hyperbolic groups and on higer rank lattices before
corresponding results for quasi-cocycles into nontrivial unitary representations. The
reason why we employ (twisted) quasi-cocycles rather than quasi-homomorphisms is
the following: it might be open whether there exist unbounded quasi-homomorphisms
on E(Φ, A), even for Φ = An−1 and A = Z[x]. A partial result is given by the author
[Mim10]: more precisely, if n ≥ 6 and if A is a euclidean domain, then all quasihomomorphisms on E(n, A)(= SL(n, A), viewed as a possibly uncountable discrete
group) are bounded.
Remark 5.2. After the first draft of this paper was ready, Osin pointed out to
the author that, in order to show only that E(Φ, A) in Theorem 1.1 itself is not
acylindrically hyperbolic, we do not need to appeal to property (T) for that group.
More precisely, he provided the author with the following lemma. The author is
grateful to him for letting the author include this result in the present paper.
Lemma 5.3 (Osin). Let Γ be a group, Γ0 a subgroup of Γ, Z a subset of Γ. Assume
that (Γ, Γ0 , Z) satisfies (i′ ): the subgroup hZi 6 Γ generated by Z is not virtually
cyclic, and conditions (ii) and (iii) as in Lemma 3.4. If, besides, Γ ⊇ Z has relative
property (TT), then Γ is not acylindrically hyperbolic.
In particular, if Γ0 = Γ, then assumption (iii) is automatically fulfilled.
We exhibit a sketch of Osin’s proof. For the terminologies below, see [Osi16].
Proof. By the way of contradiction, assume that Γ acts acylindrically and nonelementarily by isometries on a hyperbolic geodesic space S. By [Osi16, Theorem
1.1], there are 3 cases: with respect to the action on S, Γ0 is non-elementary, Γ0 is
elliptic, or Γ0 is virtually cyclic and contains a loxodromic element h.
We deal with the first case. By [DGO17, Lemma 6.5 and Theorem 6.14], we can
find a loxodromic element h ∈ Γ0 such that E(h) = hhi × K(Γ). Here E(h) is the
maximal elementary (in other words, virtually cyclic) subgroup of Γ containing h,
and K(Γ) is the maximal finite normal subgroup of Γ. By (i′ ), there exists z ∈ Z such
that z ∈
/ E(h). Let q be the quasi-cocycle from Γ into (λΓ/E(h) , ℓ2 (Γ/E(h))), provided
by [HO13], which extends the natural homomorphism E(h) → E(h)/K(Γ) ∼
= Z.
Then, from the construction of q in [HO13] (see the formula above Lemma 4.7
therein), kq(h−n zhn )k → ∞ as n → ∞. This contradicts (ii) and relative property
(TT) in the assumption.
Then, we discuss the second and the third cases. In the second case, by the
construction of quasi-cocycles in [HO13], we can easily obtain an unbounded quasicocycle q from Γ into (λΓ , ℓ2 (Γ)) that is bounded on Γ0 . This contradicts (iii) and
relative property (TT). The third case may be reduced to the second one. Indeed,
in that case, E(h) ֒→h Γ by [DGO17, Theorem 6.8]. Now by [Osi16, Theorem 5.4],

SUPERRIGIDITY VIA QUASI-COCYCLES

13

we can construct a non-elementary acylindrical action of Γ by isometries on another
hyperbolic geodesic space such that E(h) (and hence Γ0 ) is elliptic with respect to
this action.

From Lemma 5.3, if we know that all of the finite index subgroups of Γ have finite
abelianization, then we have the same conclusion as items (i) and (ii) of Theorem 1.1
for Λ = Γ = E(Φ, A), without appealing to property (T) (the condition above on
abelianization is needed to exclude the case that the image is virtually Z). To have
the full result in Theorem 1.1, not only for homomorphisms from Γ but also for ones
from a general Λ, we may need to employ property (TT)/T and property (TT)wm ,
as we have seen in the present paper. This is similar to the original situation in the
Farb–Kaimanovich–Masur and the Bridson–Wade superrigidity: in their results, the
case of non-uniform lattices is easier, and that the case of uniform lattices is harder.
6. Final remark on (in)finite generation of rings
As we mentioned in Remark 1.2, we prove the following.
Proposition 6.1. The assertions of items (i) and (ii) in Theorem 1.1 for Λ = Γ
(a quotient of a finite index subgroup of E(Φ, A)) remain true even for a unital,
commutative, and associative ring A, possibly not finitely generated.
Here Γ is viewed as a (possibly uncountable) discrete group.
Proof. It suffices to show the statement for the case that Γ is a finite index subgroup of E(Φ, A). Let φ : Γ → G be a group homomorphism into an acylindrically
hyperbolic group G.
Suppose, on the contrary, that the image of Γ is not absolutely elliptic. Then
there exists γ ∈ Γ such that φ(γ) acts as a loxodromic element with respect to
some acylindrical G-action by isometries on a hyperbolic geodesic space. Write γ as
γ = γ1 · · · γm , where γi , 1 ≤ i ≤ m, belongs to X(Φ, A) (the set of all elementary
root unipotents). Set a finitely generated subring A0 of A as the ring generated by
1 ∈ A and all ring elements appearing in (coefficients of) γ1 , . . . , γm . Then, (γ ∈
)Γ′ := Γ ∩ E(Φ, A0 ) is of finite index in E(Φ, A0 ), and hence item (i) of Theorem 1.1
applies to Γ′ . It follows that (φ(γ) ∈)φ(Γ′ ) must be absolutely elliptic in G, but
it is a contradiction. This argument proves item (i). Item (ii) can be verified in a
similar manner.

acknowledgments
The author wishes to express his gratitude to Alexei Stepanov and Nikolai Vavilov for answering his question on a weak bounded generation on Chevalley groups
(Lemma 4.2), to Marc Burger and Alessandra Iozzi for letting him know their forthcoming work, and to Denis Osin for Lemma 5.3. He is grateful to Nicolas Monod
for suggesting the symbol “(TT)/T” to the author. He thanks Martin R. Bridson,
Cornelia Druţu, Ursula Hamenstädt, Andrei Jaikin-Zapirain, Yoshikata Kida, Shinichi Oguni, Andrei S. Rapinchuk, Igor Rapinchuk, and Richard D. Wade for helpful
comments. The referees gave suggestive comments, which considerably improved
the readability of the present paper.

14

MASATO MIMURA

References
[BBF]

M. Bestvina, K. Bromberg, and K. Fujiwara, Bounded cohomology with coefficients in
uniformly convex Banach spaces, to appear in Comm. Math. Helv., arXiv:1306.1542v2.
[BdlHV08] B. Bekka, P. de la Harpe, and A. Valette, Kazhdan’s property (T ), Combridge University
Press, 2008.
[BF02]
M. Bestvina and K. Fujiwara, Bounded cohomology of subgroups of mapping class
groups, Geom. Topl. 6 (2002), 69–89.
[BFGM07] U. Bader, A. Furman, T. Gelander, and N. Monod, Property (T ) and rigidity for actions
on Banach spaces, Acta Math. 198 (2007), no. 1, 57–105.
[BI]
M. Burger and A. Iozzi, ℓ2 -stability and homomorphism into mapping class groups,
forthcoming work.
[BW11]
M. R. Bridson and R. D. Wade, Actions of higher-rank lattices on free groups, Compositio Math. 147 (2011), 1573–1580.
[DGO17] F. Dahmani, V. Guirardel, and D. Osin, Hyperbolically embedded subgroups and rotating
families in groups acting on hyperbolic spaces, Mem. Amer. Math. Soc. 245 (2017),
no. 1156, v+152. MR 3589159
[EJZK]
M. Ershov, A. Jaikin-Zapirain, and M. Kassabov, Property (T ) for groups graded by
root system, To appear in Memoirs of the Amer. Math. Soc., arXiv:1102.0031v2.
[FM98]
B. Farb and H. Masur, Superrigidity and mapping class groups, Topology 37 (1998),
1169–1176.
[Fur11]
A. Furman, A survey of measured group theory, In Geometry, Rigidity, and Group
Actions, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London, 2011.
[GS14]
D. Gruber and A. Sisto, Infinitely presented graphical small cancellation groups are
acylindrically hyperbolic., preprint, arXiv:1408.4488v3 (2014).
[Ham08] U. Hamenstädt, Bounded cohomology and isometry groups of hyperbolic spaces, J. Eur.
Math. Soc. 10 (2008), 315–349.
[HO13]
M. Hull and D. Osin, Induced quasi-cocycles on groups with hyperbolically embedded
subrgoups, Alg. Geom. Topol. 13 (2013), 2635–2665.
[KM96]
A. V. Kaimanovich and H. Masur, The Poisson boundary of the mapping class group,
Invent. Math. 125 (1996), 221–264.
[Kop78]
V. I. Kopeı̆ko, Stabilization of symplectic groups over a ring of polynomials, Math.
USSR-Sb 34 (1978), 655–669.
[Mim]
M. Mimura, Property (T T ) modulo T and homomorphism superrigidity into mapping
class groups, unpublished manuscript, arXiv:1106.3769.
[Mim10]
, On quasi-homomorphisms and commutators in the special linear group over a
Euclidean ring, Int. Math. Res. Notices 18 (2010), 3519–3529.
, Fixed point properties and second bounded cohomology of universal lattices on
[Mim11]
Banach spaces, J. reine angew. Math. 653 (2011), 115–134.
, Upgrading fixed points without bounded generation, preprint, forthcoming ver[Mim15]
sion (v3) of arXiv:1505.06728 (2015).
, An alternative proof of Kazhdan property for elementary groups, expository
[Mim16]
article, forthcoming version (v2) of arXiv:1611.00337 (2016).
[MO15]
A. Minasyan and D. Osin, Acylindrical hyperbolicity of groups acting on trees, Math.
Ann. 362 (2015), no. 3-4, 1055–1105.
[Mon01]
N. Monod, Continuous bounded cohomology of locally compact groups, Springer Lecturenotes in Mathematics, vol. 1758, 2001.
[Mon06]
, An invitation to bounded cohomology., in International Congress of Mathematicians, vol. II, Eur. Math. Soc., Zürich, 2006.
[MS06]
N. Monod and Y. Shalom, Orbit equivalence rigidity and bounded cohomology, Ann. of
Math. (2) 164 (2006), 825–878.

SUPERRIGIDITY VIA QUASI-COCYCLES

[Osa14]
[Osa17]
[Osi16]
[Oza11]
[PW95]
[Sha99]
[Sha06]
[Ste68]
[Ste16]
[Vas07]

15

D. Osajda, Small cancellation labellings of some infinite graphs and applications,
preprint, arXiv:1406.5015v2 (2014).
, Residually finite non-exact groups, preprint, arXiv:1703.03791v2 (2017).
D. Osin, Acylindrically hyperbolic groups, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 368 (2016), no. 2,
851–888. MR 3430352
N. Ozawa, Quasi-homomorphism rigidity with noncommutative targets, J. reine angew.
Math. 655 (2011), 89–104.
H. Park and C. Woodburn, An algorithmic proof of Suslin’s stability theorem for polynomial rings, J. Algebra 178 (1995), 277–298.
Y. Shalom, Bounded generation and Kazhdan’s property (T ), Inst. Hautes Études Sci.
Publ. Math. 90 (1999), 145–168.
, The algebraization of Kazhdan’s property (T ), in International Congress of
Mathematicians, vol. II, Eur. Math. Soc., Zürich (2006).
R. Steinberg, Lectures on Chevalley groups, Yale University, 1968.
A. Stepanov, Structure of Chevalley groups over rings via universal localization, J.
Algebra 450 (2016), 522–548. MR 3449702
L. Vaserstein, Bounded reduction of invertible matrices over polynomial ring by addition
operators, preprint (2007).

Masato Mimura, Mathematical Institute, Tohoku University
E-mail address: mimura-mas@m.tohoku.ac.jp

