FIXED-POINT PROPERTY FOR AFFINE ACTIONS ON A
HILBERT SPACE

arXiv:1705.02644v1 [] 7 May 2017

SHIN NAYATANI

Abstract. Gromov [7] showed that for fixed, arbitrarily large C, any uniformly
C-Lipschitz affine action of a random group in his graph model on a Hilbert
space has a fixed point. We announce a theorem stating that more general
affine actions of the same random group on a Hilbert space have a fixed point.
We discuss some aspects of the proof.

Introduction
In [10], Izeki, Kondo and the present author proved that a random group in the
Gromov graph model had fixed-point property, meaning that any isometric action
had a fixed point, for a large class of CAT(0) spaces, by using the method which
concerns the n-step energy of maps. Naor and Silberman [17] proved a similar
result for a class of p-uniformly convex geodesic metric spaces. (Note that CAT(0)
spaces are 2-uniformly convex.) In these studies it seemed that the condition that
actions are isometric was essential and without the condition the argument should
break dwon. Gromov [7], however, had shown that any uniformly C-Lipschitz
affine action of the same random group on a Hilbert space has a fixed point, where
C may be arbitrarily large but should be specified in advance. The purpose of
this article is to announce a fixed-point theorem for more general affine actions
of the same random group, allowing the Lipschitz constants of the affine maps to
have mild growth with respect to a certain length function on the group [11]. It is
worth while to mention the following: if the Lipschitz constants of the affine maps
are uniformly bounded, then the action reduces to an isometric one on a Banach
space by replacing the Hilbert norm by an equivalent one. On the other hand, our
case treats really non-isometric actions which cannot reduce to isometric ones.
A key of the proof is to verify the existence of a discrete harmonic map from
the group into the Hilbert space which is equivariant with respect to the given
action. In the case of isometric actions, the method of energy minimization coupled
with scaling ultralimit argument was effective. In the general affine case, this
method fails because a map minimizing local energy does not necessarily satisfy
the condition of harmonicity. We therefore employ the method of discrete tensioncontracting flow due to Gromov [7]. Indeed, we refine Gromov’s method and
derive the existence of a harmonic map still by coupling it with scaling ultralimit
argument.
Graduate School of Mathematics, Nagoya University, Chikusa-ku, Nagoya 464-8602, Japan,
nayatani@math.nagoya-u.ac.jp.

1

This article is organized as follows. In §1, we define affine action, discuss the
rigidity of isometric actions and state Shalom’s theorem on the rigidity and existence of uniformly Lipschitz affine actions. In §2, after discussing Nowak’s fixedpoint theorem for uniformly Lipschitz affine actions of a random group in the
Gromov density model, we state our main fixed-point theorem. In §3, we discuss
discrete harmonic maps and state an existence theorem for such maps. We also
discuss the failure of the method of energy minimization. In §4, we introduce
Gromov’s discrete tension-contracting flow and outline the proof of the existence
of harmonic maps. In §5, we outline the proof of the main theorem. In Appendix,
we prove the existence of maps minimizing local energy which are equivariant with
respect to a given affine action.
1. Affine actions on a Hilbert space
Let H be a Hilbert space, and denote the algebra of all bounded linear operators
of H by B(H). Let Γ be a finitely generated infinite group, and let ρ : Γ y H be
an affine action. Thus, for γ ∈ Γ, ρ(γ) : H → H has the form
ρ(γ)(v) = A(γ)(v) + b(γ),

v ∈ H,

where A(γ) ∈ B(H) and b(γ) ∈ H. Since γ 7→ ρ(γ) is a homomorphism, we have
A(γγ ′ ) = A(γ)A(γ ′ ),

b(γγ ′ ) = b(γ) + A(γ)b(γ ′ ),

γ, γ ′ ∈ Γ.

Definition 1.1. An affine action ρ : Γ y H is called uniformly C-Lipschitz if
ρ(γ) : H → H is a C-Lipschitz map, or equivalently kA(γ)k ≤ C, for all γ ∈ Γ.
Note that C ≥ 1 necessarily.
Most basic example of a uniformly Lipschitz affine action is an isometric action.
Recall that a σ-compact, locally compact topological group G is said to have
property F H if any continuous isometric action ρ : G y H has a fixed point, that
is, there exists v ∈ H such that ρ(g)(v) = v for all g ∈ G. It is a celebrated result
of Delorme [4] and Guichardet [8] that property F H is equivalent to Kazhdan’s
property (T). Kazhdan [13] defined this property for locally compact groups in
terms of unitary representations, and proved that if Γ is a lattice in a Lie group
G, then Γ has property (T) if and only if G has property (T). As examples, simple
real Lie groups of real rank at least two have property (T). For n ≥ 2, Sp(n, 1) is
a simple Lie group of real rank one that has property (T). Thus these Lie groups
and their lattices have property F H.
In his unpublished work, Shalom proved the following theorem which exhibits
that higher-rank groups have stronger rigidity than Sp(n, 1) (cf. [2, 19]).
Theorem 1.2 (Shalom). (i) Any uniformly Lipschitz affine action of a simple
real Lie group of real rank at least two (or its lattices) on H has a fixed point.
(ii) Sp(n, 1) admits a uniformly Lipschitz affine action on H without fixed point.
Mimura [16] observes that the action in the statement (ii) is indeed metrically
proper. Hence, any infinite discrete subgroup of Sp(n, 1) also admits a uniformly
Lipschitz affine action on H without fixed point. This exhibits many infinite
hyperbolic groups which admit such affine actions.
Shalom proposed the following (cf. [19])

2

Conjecture 1 (Shalom). Any non-elementary hyperbolic group admits a uniformly
Lipschitz affine action on H without fixed point.
2. Fixed-point property of random groups w.r.t. uniformly
Lipschitz affine actions
In this section, we review two fixed-point theorems regarding uniformly Lipschitz affine actions of certain ramdom groups on a Hilbert space. Recall that in
±1
the Gromov density model G(m, l, d) of random groups, generators s±1
1 , . . . , sm
dl
and a density 0 < d < 1 are fixed, and choose (2m − 1) words, each of them
chosen uniformly and independently from the set of all reduced words of lenght l
±1
±1
±1
in s±1
1 , . . . , sm . The group Γ generated by s1 , . . . , sm and having those reduced
words as relations is a constituent of the model G(m, l, d). Given a group property
P (e.g. Kazhdan’s property (T)), we say that a random group in the Gromov density model has property P if the probability of Γ having property P tends to one
as l → ∞.
√
Theorem 2.1 (Nowak [18]). Fix 1 ≤ C < 2. Let Γ be a random group in
the Gromov density model with density 1/3 < d < 1/2. Then any uniformly CLipschitz affine action ρ : Γ y H has a fixed point.
Note that the random group Γ of the theorem is non-elementary hyperbolic
(hence infinite) [6, 20] and has property (T) [23, 15].
The proof of Theorem 2.1 is based on a fixed-point theorem for an isometric
action of a deterministic group on a Banach space, which we shall review. Let Γ
be a finitely generated group equipped with a finite, symmetric generating set S
not containing the identity element. Modifying the construction as in [23], one
constructs the link graph L(S); its vertices are the elements of S, generators s and
t span an edge (written s ∼ t) if s−1 t is a generator, and the edges are suitably
weighted. (For the account of the choice of weight, see [18, p. 703], [9, Proof of
Lemma 3.1].)
Let B be a Banach space with norm k · k and denote by κp (S, B) the optimal
constant in the p-Poincaré inequality for maps f : S → B:
X
X
kf (s) − f kp m(s) ≤ κp
kf (s) − f (t)kp m(s, t),
s∼t

s∈S

where m(s, t) is P
the weight of the edge (s, t), m(s) =
P
m(s)f
(s)/
s∈S
s∈S m(s), the mean value of f .

P

t∼s

m(s, t), and f =

Theorem 2.2 (Nowak [18]). Let B be a reflexive Banach space and let Γ and S
be as above. If the link graph L(S) is connected and for some 1 < p < ∞ and its
adjoint index p∗ , satisfying 1/p + 1/p∗ = 1, the corresponding Poincaré constants
satisfy
∗
max{2−1/p κp (S, B), 2−1/p κp∗ (S, B∗ )} < 1,
then any affine isometric action ρ : Γ y B has a fixed point.

Let ρ : Γ y H be a uniformly C-Lipschitz affine action, where H is a Hilbert
space, and introduce a new norm on H by |||v||| = supγ∈Γ kA(γ)(v)k for v ∈ H.
Then B = (H, ||| · |||) is a Banach space isomorphic to H, thus reflexive, and

3

ρ : Γ y B is an affine isometric action. Since the norms of B and B∗ (∼
= H) satisfy
k · k ≤ ||| · ||| ≤ Ck · k and C −1 k · k ≤ ||| · |||∗ ≤ k · k, respectively, it follows that
κ2 (S, B), κ2 (S, B∗ ) ≤ C κ2 (S, H) = C κ2 (S, R).

Therefore, we obtain the following

Corollary 2.3. Let Γ and S be as above, and suppose that the link graph L(S)
is connected. √ Then any uniformly C-Lipschitz affine action ρ : Γ y H with
C κ2 (S, R) < 2 has a fixed point.
Now let Γ be a random group in the Gromov density model with density 1/3 <
d < 1/2. By the argument due to Żuk [23], Kotowski and Kotowski [15], there is a
random group Γ′ in a different model so that Γ contains a quotient of Γ′ as a finite
index subgroup and the link graph L(S ′ ) of Γ′ has κ2 (S ′ , R) arbitrarily close to
one. Therefore, we may apply Corollary 2.3 to Γ′ and the conclusion of Theorem
2.1 holds for Γ′ and hence for Γ.
Gromov [7] claimed a result similar to Theorem 2.1 for a random group in
the graph model which was also invented by him. To state Gromov’s result, we
first review the construction of this model. Let Fm denote the free group on m
generators, and let S be the collection of these m elements and their inverses.
Let G = (V, E) be a finite connected graph, where V and E are the sets of
vertices and undirected edges, respectively. We denote the set of directed edges
→
−
→
−
→
−
by E . A map α : E → S satisfying α((v, u)) = α((u, v))−1 for all (u, v) ∈ E is
called an S-labelling of G. Let A(m, G) denote the set of all S-labellings of G,
consisting of (2m)#E elements, and equip it with the uniform probability measure.
→
−
→
→
−
→
For α ∈ A(m, G) and a path −
p = (−
e 1, . . . , →
e l ) in G, where −
e i ∈ E , define
→
→
→
α(−
p ) = α(−
e 1 ) · · · · · α(−
e l ) ∈ Fm . Then set
→
→
R = {α(−
c)|−
c are cycles in G},
α

Γα = Fm /normal closure of Rα .

Let λ1 (G, R) denote the second eigenvalue of the discrete Laplacian of G, acting
on real-valued functions on V . The girth of G, denoted by girth(G), is the minimal
length of a cycle (i.e. a closed path) in G.
A sequence {Gj }j∈N of finite graphs is called a sequence of (bounded-degree)
expanders if it satisfies
(i) #Vj → ∞ as j → ∞,
(ii) ∃d, ∀j, ∀u ∈ Vj , 2 ≤ deg(u) ≤ d (sparce),
(iii) ∃λ > 0, ∀j, λ1 (Gj , R) ≥ λ (highly-connected).
Such a {Gj }j∈N is said to have diverging girth if it further satisfies
(iv) girth(Gj ) → ∞ as j → ∞.
Now suppose that a sequence of expanders {Gj }j∈N with diverging girth is given.
Then the collection of groups G(m, Gj ) = {Γα | α ∈ A(m, Gj )} is the graph model
of random groups. Given a group property P, we say that a random group in the
graph model has property P if the probability of Γα having property P tends to
one as j → ∞. Gromov [7] and Silberman [21] proved that a random group in the
graph model had fixed-point property for Hilbert spaces with respect to isometric
actions, that is, it had property (T). This result was generalized to fixed-point

4

property for CAT(0) spaces [10] (see also [7]) and for p-uniformly convex geodesic
metric spaces [17]. In both generalizations the degrees of singularity of the relevant
geodesic metric spaces should be suitably bounded.
We now state
Theorem 2.4 (Gromov [7]). Fix C > 0. Let Γ be a random group in the graph
model associated with a sequence of expanders with diverging girth. Then any
uniformly C-Lipschitz affine action ρ : Γ y H has a fixed point.
We can relax the condition that the Lipschitz constants of the relevant affine
maps should be uniformly bounded. To state our result precisely, we introduce the
following
Definition 2.5. Let Γ be a finitely generated group equipped with a finite, symmetric generating set S, and let l : Γ → Z≥0 denote the word-length function with
respect to S. For each conjugacy class c of Γ, we define
lconj (c) = inf l(γ)
γ∈c

and call lconj : {conjugacy classes of Γ} → Z≥0 the conjugacy-length function of Γ
[3].
We now state
Theorem 2.6. Fix C > 0 and 0 ≤ σ < 1/10. Let Γ be a random group in the graph
model associated with a sequence of expanders with diverging girth and diameter
growing at most linearly in girth. Then any affine action ρ : Γ y H satisfying
(2.1)

∀γ ∈ Γ, kA(γ)k ≤ C lconj ([γ])σ ,

where [γ] denotes the conjugacy class containing γ, has a fixed point.
Remark 1. In order for a random group in the graph model to be non-elementary
hyperbolic (hence infinite), the relevant sequence of expanders should satisfy some
further conditions (cf. [7, 5, 1]). One of these conditions implies the diameter
growth condition in Theorem 2.6, which is therefore essentially superficial.
3. Discrete harmonic maps
Let Γ be a finitely generated group and fix a finite, symmetric generating set S.
Let µ be the standard random walk of Γ associated with S, that is,

1/#S if ∃s ∈ S, x′ = xs,
′ def
µ(x → x ) =
0
otherwise.
The barycenter map of H, bar : {finite-support probability measures on H} → H,
is given by
!
m
m
X
X
(3.1)
bar
ti Dirac(vi ) =
ti vi .
i=1

i=1

Let ρ : Γ y H be an affine action.

5

Definition 3.1. A ρ-equivariant map f : Γ → H is called harmonic if it satisfies
bar(f∗ µ(x → q )) = f (x)

(3.2)
for all x ∈ Γ. Notice that

bar(f∗ µ(x → q )) =

1 X
f (xs).
#S s∈S

Remark 2. Since the action ρ is affine, we may conclude that a ρ-equivariant f is
harmonic if it satisfies (3.2) for some x ∈ Γ. To see this, suppose that (3.2) holds
for x, and write any x′ ∈ Γ as x′ = γx. Then
1 X
1 X
f (x′ s) =
ρ(γ)(f (xs))
#S s∈S
#S s∈S
!
1 X
= ρ(γ)
f (xs) = ρ(γ)f (x)
#S s∈S

bar(f∗ µ(x′ → q )) =

= f (x′ ),

and (3.2) holds for x′ , too.
The action ρ has a fixed point if and only if a ρ-equivariant constant map, which
are trivially harmonic, exists. In contrast, we have the following existence result
for nonconstant harmonic maps when ρ has no fixed point.
Theorem 3.2. Let Γ be a finitely generated group equipped with a finite, symmetric
generating set S, and let ρ : Γ y H be an affine action, where H is a Hilbert space,
satisfying (2.1) for some C > 0 and σ ≥ 0. Suppose that ρ(Γ) has no fixed point.
Then there exist a (possibly new) affine action ρ′ : Γ y H′ , where H′ is a (possibly
new) Hilbert space, satisfying (2.1) for the same C, σ as above and a nonconstant
harmonic ρ′ -equivariant map f : Γ → H′ .
Before discussing the actual proof, we observe that the standard approach via
energy minimization coupled with scaling ultralimit argument would fail.
Definition 3.3. For a ρ-equivariant map f : Γ → H and x ∈ Γ, define the local
energy E(f )(x) of f at x by
(3.3)

def

E(f )(x) =

1X
kf (x) − f (x′ )k2 µ(x → x′ ).
2 x′ ∈Γ

As will be verified in the appendix, under the assumption that ρ(Γ) has no fixed
point, one can always find a nonconstant ρ-equivariant map f : Γ → H minimizing
the local energy at x, though the Hilbert space H and the affine action ρ : Γ y H
should possibly be renewed. We now focus on the question whether the map f
satisfies (3.2) for x. For v ∈ H and t ∈ R, let ft : Γ → H be the ρ-equivariant map

6

such that ft (e) = f (e) + tv. Then we have, taking x = e for simplicity,
1 X
kft (e) − ft (s)k2
2#S s∈S
1 X
kf (e) + tv − ρ(s)(f (e) + tv)k2
=
2#S s∈S
1 X
=
k(f (e) − f (s)) + t(v − A(s)(v))k2
2#S s∈S

1 X
=
k(f (e) − f (s))k2 + 2t hf (e) − f (s), v − A(s)(v)i + O(t2 ) ,
2#S s∈S

E(ft )(e) =

and therefore
0=

d
1 X
hf (e) − f (s), v − A(s)(v)i .
E(ft )(e)|t=0 =
dt
#S s∈S

If the action ρ is isometric, which means that A(s) is orthogonal, then
1 X
hf (e) − f (s), vi −
#S s∈S
1 X
=
hf (e) − f (s), vi −
#S s∈S
2 X
=
hf (e) − f (s), vi .
#S s∈S

R.H.S. =

1 X
A(s−1 )(f (e) − f (s)), v
#S s∈S
1 X
f (s−1) − f (e), v
#S s∈S

Since this vanishes for all v ∈ H, we conclude (3.2). However, if ρ is not isometric,
the above computation fails and we would not be able to conclude (3.2), that is,
that f is harmonic.
Instead, we use Gromov’s discrete tension-contracting flow developed in [7, §3.6]
and produce a harmonic f . Postponing the details to [11], we shall outline the
argument for the proof of Theorem 3.2. In the remainder of this section, let Γ be
a finitely generated group equipped with a finite, symmetric generating set S, and
let ρ : Γ y H be an affine action, where H is a Hilbert space.
For a ρ-equivariant map f : Γ → H, define new maps Hf : Γ → H and ∆f : Γ →
H by
def

Hf (x) =

=

1
2
1
2

X

x′ ∈Γ

f (x′ ) µ(x → x′ ) + f (x)

!
X
1
f (xs) + f (x) ,
#S s∈S
7

!

def

∆f (x) = (1 − H)f (x)
1X
=
(f (x) − f (x′ )) µ(x → x′ )
2 ′
x ∈Γ
1 X
=
(f (x) − f (xs)).
2#S s∈S

The maps Hf and ∆f are ρ-equivariant and A-equivariant, respectively. We call
H (resp. ∆) the averaging operator (resp. Laplacian). Note that f is harmonic if
and only if ∆f = 0, or Hf = f .
Proposition 3.4 (cf. Gromov [7]). We have
k∆Hf (x)k ≤

max

x′ ∈x(S∪{e})

k∆f (x′ )k

for all x ∈ Γ, and if the equality sign holds for some x then ∆f (x) is a constant
vector independent of x ∈ Γ.
Motivated by this proposition, we introduce the following
Definition 3.5 (cf. Gromov [7]). Let f : Γ → H be a ρ-equivariant map, and
define f0 := f and fi+1 := Hfi inductively. We say that f is (harmonically) stable
if
0 < ∃λ < 1, ∃i0 ∈ N, ∀i ≥ i0 , ∀x ∈ Γ, k∆fi+1 (x)k ≤ λ

max

x′ ∈x(S∪{e})

k∆fi (x′ )k.

It should be mentioned that the above definition of harmonic stability is slightly
modified from Gromov’s original one and it is more suitable for our purpose.
Remark 3. Suppose fi0 is harmonic, that is, ∆fi0 = fi0 − fi0 +1 = 0 for some i0 .
Then fi = fi0 and thus ∆fi = 0 for all i ≥ i0 . Therefore, f is stable.
Proposition 3.6. Suppose that ρ satisfies (2.1) for some C > 0 and σ ≥ 0.
(i) If a ρ-equivariant map f : Γ → H is stable, then {fi }i∈N converges pointwise to
a map f∞ : Γ → H, and f∞ is harmonic.
(ii) If a ρ-equivariant map f : Γ → H is not stable, then there exist a Hilbert space
H′ and a nonconstant harmonic map f ′ : Γ → H′ , equivariant with respect to an
affine action ρ′ : Γ y H′ satisfying (2.1) for the same C, σ as above.
This proposition implies Theorem 3.2. The proofs of the two propositions above
will be given in [11].
4. Proof of Theorem 2.6
In this section, we prove Theorem 2.6. Let Γ be a finitely generated group
equipped with a finite, symmetric generating set S. Let ρ : Γ y H be an affine
action, where H is a Hilbert space, and suppose that ρ satisfies
(4.1)

∀γ ∈ Γ, kA(γ)k ≤ C l(γ)σ

for some C > 0 and σ ≥ 0. (Note that this condition is weaker than (2.1).) For a
ρ-equivariant map f : Γ → H and x ∈ Γ, define the local n-step energy of f at x

8

by
def

E (n) (f )(x) =

1X
kf (x) − f (x′ )k2 µn (x → x′ ),
2 ′
x ∈Γ

n

where µ is the n-th convolution of µ.

Lemma 4.1. Suppose that σ < 1/2. Let f : Γ → H be a harmonic ρ-equivariant
map. Then we have
E (n) (f )(x) &C,σ,x n1−2σ E(f )(x)
for all x ∈ Γ.
The proof of this lemma will be given in [11].
So far, the group Γ has been any finitely generated group. The following lemma,
essentially due to Gromov and Silberman [7, 21], concerns a random Γ.
Lemma 4.2. Let Γ be a random group in the graph model associated with a sequence of expanders with diverging girth and diameter growing at most linearly in
girth, and let ρ : Γ y H be an affine action as above. Then for any ρ-equivariant
map f : Γ → H and any x ∈ Γ, we have
E (n) (f )(x) .C,σ,x,λ n8σ E(f )(x).

(4.2)

Here, n is a positive integer depending on f and x, and we may assume that n is
arbitrarily large, and λ is the positive constant as in the definition of a sequence
of expanders.
Proof. The proof of Proposition 2.14 in [21], which treats the case that the action
is isometric, mostly works for the non-isometric case. For the readers’ convenience
we outline Silberman’s argument, and explain how the term n8σ comes in.
The lemma is a consequence of the following statement. With probability tending to one as j → ∞, the group Γ corresponding to α ∈ A(m, Gj ) has the following
girth(Gj )
property: for any affine action ρ : Γ y H satisfying (4.1), any n <
, any
2
√
ρ-equivariant map f : Γ → H and any x ∈ Γ, there exists n < l ≤ n such that
(4.3)

E (l) (f )(x) .C,σ,x,λ diam(Gj )4σ E(f )(x).
girth(Gj )
,
2

Indeed, choosing n ≃
diam(Gj ), and therefore

we have diam(Gj ) . n ≤ l2 by the assumption on

E (l) (f )(x) .C,σ,x,λ l8σ E(f )(x).

p
Note that l & girth(Gj ); thus l diverges as j → ∞.
For the time being, fix a member Gj of the expander sequence defining the graph
model, and denote it by G = (V, E). Let µG and νG denote the standard random
walk on G and the standard probability measure on V given by
(
→
−
1
deg(u)
if (u, v) ∈ E ,
deg(u)
µG (u, v) =
and νG (u) =
,
2#E
0
otherwise,
respectively. For a map ϕ : V → H and n ∈ N, the n-step energy of ϕ is defined
by
X
1X
EµnG (ϕ) =
νG (u)
kϕ(u) − ϕ(v)k2 µnG (u → v).
2 u∈V
v∈V
9

Recall [21, Lemma 2.11] that we have
(4.4)

EµnG (ϕ) ≤

2
Eµ (ϕ)
λ1 (G, R) G

for all maps ϕ : V → H and all n ∈ N.
→
−
Let α : E → S be an S-labelling of G, and Γ the corresponding group. Let
ρ : Γ y H be an affine action, and ρe: Fm y H its lift. The strategy in proving
(4.3) is to transplant (4.4) onto Γ. In fact, we may work on Fm instead of Γ, and
so we shall transplant (4.4) onto Fm . In order to do this, we ‘push-forward’, using
α, the random walks µG and µnG on G to those on Fm as follows.
If u ∈ V and x ∈ Fm are fixed, α induces a corresponding graph morphism βu→x
from G to X = Cay(Fm , S), the Cayley graph of Fm with respect to S, as follows:
→
→
→
For v ∈ V , choose a path −
p = (−
e 1, . . . , −
e l ) from u to v in G, and set
def
→
→
→
βu→x (v) = x α(−
p ) = x α(−
e 1 ) · · · · · α(−
e l ).

To be precise, βu→x is well-defined only on the set of vertices whose graph distance
from u is less than g/2, where g = girth(G). We now define, for n < g/2, a random
walk µnG,α on X by
X
def
νG (u) (βu→x )∗ µnG (u → ·).
µnG,α (x → ·) =
u∈V

Note that the average over V is taken in order to produce a random walk independent of the individual vertices of G.
We can now transplant (4.4) onto Fm , and it is here that something different
occurs when the action ρ is non-isometric. Suppose n < g/2 and let f : Fm → H
be a ρe-equivariant map.1 When ρ is isometric,
(4.5)

EµnG,α (f )(x) = EµnG (f ◦ βu0 →x )(x)

holds for a fixed u0 ∈ V . Indeed,
X
1X
kf (x) − f (x′ )k2 [(βu→x )∗ µnG (u → ·)](x′ )
EµnG,α (f )(x) =
νG (u)
2 u∈V
x′ ∈Fm
X
X
1
=
νG (u)
kf ◦ βu→x (u) − f ◦ βu→x (v)k2 µnG (u → v).
2 u∈V
v∈V

If ρ is isometric, then we can replace βu→x by βu0 →x in the last expression and get
the right-hand side of (4.5). Now consider the general case that ρ is not necessarily
→
→
isometric. Let −
p and −
r be a path from u0 to v and a shortest path from u to u0 ,
→
−
→
→
respectively, and let q denote the path from u to v traveling along −
r and −
p in
this order. Then
→
f ◦ βu→x (v) = f (xα(−
q ))
→
−
→
= ρe(xα( r )x−1 )f (xα(−
p ))
→
−
−1
= ρe(xα( r )x )f ◦ β
(v),
u0 →x

1

Equivalently, f : Fm → H is the lift of a ρ-equivariant map Γ → H. In particular, the map
f ◦ βu→x is well-defined on the whole vertex set V .

10

and therefore
→
−
e
kf ◦ βu→x (u) − f ◦ βu→x (v)k ≤ kA(xα(
r )x−1 )kkf ◦ βu0 →x (u) − f ◦ βu0 →x (v)k,
e is the linear part of ρe. Since
where A
→
−
→
e
e
e −
e −1 )k
kA(xα(
r )x−1 )k ≤ kA(x)kk
A(α(
r ))kkA(x
→
≤ C 3 l(x)σ l(α(−
r ))σ l(x−1 )σ
≤ C 3 D σ l(x)2σ ,

where D = diam(G), we obtain
and likewise,

EµnG,α (f )(x) ≤ C 6 D 2σ l(x)4σ EµnG (f ◦ βu0 →x )(x),

EµG (f ◦ βu0 →x )(x) ≤ C 6 D 2σ l(x)4σ EµG,α (f )(x).
Together with (4.4), these imply
(4.6)

EµnG,α (f )(x) ≤

2 C 12 D 4σ l(x)8σ
EµG,α (f )(x).
λ1 (G, R)

In order to conclude (4.3) (provisionally on Fm instead of Γ), we must show that
with high probability the random walks µG,α and µnG,α in (4.6) can be replaced
√
by µX and µlX , n < l ≤ n, respectively, where µX is the standard random
walk of X. This will be done by verifying that with high probability the random
variables α 7→ µG,α and α 7→ µnG,α concentrate on their expectations and that these
expectations are computed in terms of µX and its convolutions.
We begin with the second issue. For n < g/2, the expectation µnG,X of the
random variable α 7→ µnG,α can be computed and expressed as a convex combination
of µlX , 0 ≤ l ≤ n:
n
X
(n)
n
(4.7)
w l µlX ,
µG,X =
l=0

where the weights

(n)
wl

satisfy

(4.8)
√
′

X

w

(n)
l

n<l≤n

≥ C′

for a certain absolute constant C > 0.
For the first issue, let j get large and observe that the random variables µGj , q
and µnGj , q , where n < gj /2, concentrate on their expectations µGj ,X and µnGj ,X , respectively. Indeed, one can verify that the map α 7→ µnGj ,α is Lipschitz with respect
to the Hamming distance on A(m, Gj ) with the Lipschitz constant depending only
on the fixed parameters d, m. Using this fact, one deduces that with probability
tending to one as j → ∞,
1
µGj ,α (x → x′ ) ≤ 2 µGj ,X (x → x′ ) and µnGj ,α (x → x′ ) ≥ µnGj ,X (x → x′ )
2
′
hold for all x, x ∈ X.
Now for any ρe-equivariant map f : Fm → H, we obtain
EµGj ,α (f )(x) ≤ 2 EµGj ,X (f )(x) = 2 EµX (f )(x)

11

and
EµnG

j

(f )(x) ≥
,α
≥

1
1 X
(n)
EµnG ,X (f )(x) ≥
w l EµlX (f )(x)
j
2
2√
n<l≤n

C
2

′

√min EµlX (f )(x).
n<l≤n

Together with (4.6), these imply that there exists
f and x) such that

√

n < l ≤ n (which depends on

8 C 12 Dj4σ l(x)8σ
EµX (f )(x).
C ′λ
Now let f : Γ → H be a ρ-equivariant map and set fe = f ◦ π. Let x ∈ Γ and
choose x
e ∈ π −1 (x) ⊂ Fm so that l(e
x) = l(x). Since the ball of radius less than
gj /2 with center x
e in X is isometrically isomorphic to that of the same radius with
center x in Cay(Γ, S), the above inequality (for fe, x
e) implies
EµlX (f )(x) ≤

8 C 12 Dj4σ l(x)8σ
E(f )(x),
E (f )(x) ≤
C ′λ
(l)

that is, (4.3).



Theorem 2.6 now follows by combining Theorem 3.2, Lemma 4.1 and Lemma
4.2.
Appendix
Let Γ be a finitely generated group equipped with a finite, symmetric generating
set S, and let ρ : Γ y H be an affine action, where H is a Hilbert space. In §3, we
referred to the following fact: if ρ(Γ) has no fixed point, then energy minimization
coupled with scaling ultralimit argument produces a nonconstant map from Γ to
a (possibly new) Hilbert space H′ which is equivariant with respect to a (possibly
new) affine action ρ′ : Γ y H′ and minimizes the local energy at a point. While
this fact would not be useful for our purpose of proving Theorem 3.2 as we observed
that we would not be able to conclude the resulting map is harmonic, it might be
so in other circumstances. Therefore, we shall verify the above fact by proving the
following
Proposition 4.3. Let Γ be a finitely generated group equipped with a finite, symmetric generating set S, and let ρ : Γ y H be an affine action, where H is a Hilbert
space. Suppose that ρ(Γ) has no fixed point. Fix x ∈ Γ. Then there exist a (possibly
new) affine action ρ′ : Γ y H′ , where H′ is a (possibly new) Hilbert space, and a
nonconstant ρ′ -equivariant map f : Γ → H′ minimizing the local energy at x. If ρ
satisfies (4.1) for some C > 0 and σ ≥ 0, then ρ′ also satisfies (4.1) for the same
C, σ.
Before proceeding to the proof, we review the definitions of ultrafilter and the
ultralimit of a sequence of metric spaces.
A nonempty subset ω ⊂ 2N is called an ultrafilter on N if it satisfies the following
conditions:
(i) ∅ ∈
/ ω.

12

(ii) A ∈ ω, A ⊂ B ⇒ B ∈ ω.
(iii) A, B ∈ ω ⇒ A ∩ B ∈ ω.
(iv) For any subset A ⊂ N, A ∈ ω or N \ A ∈ ω.
An ultrafilter ω on N is called non-principal if it satisfies also
(v) For any finite subset F ⊂ N, F ∈
/ ω (hence, N \ F ∈ ω).
Let ω be a non-principal ultrafilter on N. Let (aj )∞
j=1 ⊂ R be a sequence of
real numbers. We call α ∈ R an ω-limit of (aj ) and write ω- limj aj = α if
{j ∈ N | |aj − α| < ε} ∈ ω holds for any ε > 0. Let (Yj , dj , oj ) be a sequence of metric spaces with base point. On the set of sequences (yj ), where
yj ∈ Yj and dj (oj , yj ) is bounded independent of j, consider the equivalence relation [(yj ) ∼ (zj ) ⇔ ω- limj dj (yj , zj ) = 0], and denote the equivalence class of
(yj ) by y∞ = ω- limj yj . Let Y∞ denote the set of equivalence classes, and endow
it with the metric d∞ (y∞ , z∞ ) = ω- limj dj (yj , zj ). One writes (Y∞ , d∞ , o∞ ) =
ω- limj (Yj , dj , oj ), called the ω-limit of (Yj , dj , oj ). It is known that the metric
space (Y∞ , d∞ ) is necessarily complete.
Proof of Proposition 4.3 We shall follow [22] and [14] which treat the case that
the action is isometric.
Fix a non-principal ultrafilter ω on N. We divide the proof into two cases, according to whether E0 := inf E(f )(x) is strictly positive or not, where the infimum
is taken over all ρ-equivariant maps f : Γ → H.
Case 1. The case that E0 > 0.
This is a simpler case, and we only outline the argument. Let {fj }∞
j=1 be a
sequence of ρ-equivariant maps Γ → H such that E(fj )(x) ց E0 . Set vj =
fj (x) and define (H∞ , k · k∞ , v∞ ) = ω- limj (H, k · k, vj ). Then an affine action
ρ∞ : Γ y H∞ is induced and satisfies (4.1). Define a map f∞ : Γ → H∞ by
f∞ (y) = ω- limj fj (y) for y ∈ Γ. Then f∞ is ρ∞ -equivariant, and
E(f∞ )(x) = ω- lim E(fj )(x) = E0 ;
j

in particular, f∞ is nonconstant. On the other hand, one can verify that E(g)(x) ≥
E0 for all ρ∞ -equivariant maps g : Γ → H∞ . Thus, f∞ minimizes the local energy
at x.
Case 2. The case that E0 = 0.
Define δ : H → R≥0 by δ(v) = maxs∈S kρ(s)(v) − vk. While δ > 0 since ρ(Γ)
has no fixed-point, we have inf v∈H δ(v) = 0; indeed,
1 X
E(f )(x) =
kf (xs) − f (x)k2
2#S s∈S
1 X
=
kρ(x){ρ(sx−1 )(f (x)) − ρ(x−1 )(f (x))}k2 ,
2#S s∈S

which is clearly comparable to δ(ρ(x−1 )(f (x)))2 .
In order to proceed, we need the following elementary fact: let Y be a complete
metric space and ϕ : Y → R a strictly positive continuous function. Then there
exists y ∈ Y such that dY (z, y) ≤ ϕ(y) ⇒ ϕ(z) ≥ 21 ϕ(y). Let j ∈ N and apply

13

this fact to the function jδ : H → R. Then we get vj ∈ H such
 that kw − vj k≤
1
jδ(vj ) ⇒ δ(w) ≥ 2 δ(vj ). Now let (H∞ , k · k∞ , v∞ ) = ω- limj H, δ(v1 j ) k · k, vj .
We shall define an affine action ρ∞ : Γ y H∞ . Let w∞ ∈ H∞ and write w∞ =
ω- limj wj . By definition, there exists M > 0 such that kwj − vj k ≤ Mδ(vj ) for
all j ∈ N. Then
kρ(s)(wj ) − vj k ≤ kρ(s)(wj ) − ρ(s)(vj )k + kρ(s)(vj ) − (vj )k
≤ C kwj − vj k + δ(vj )
≤ (CM + 1) δ(vj ),

where C = kA(s)k. It follows that ω- limj ρ(s)(wj ) exists, and it is easy to verify
that this limit is independent of the choice of wj . Hence, by defining ρ∞ (s)(w∞ ) =
ω- limj ρ(s)(wj ), we obtain a well-defined map ρ∞ (s) : H∞ → H∞ , which is clearly
C-Lipschitz. It is also easy to see that the affineness, that is, the property of preserving internally dividing points, of ρ(s) is inherited by ρ∞ (s). Let γ ∈ Γ and write
γ = s1 . . . sl , where s1 , . . . , sl ∈ S. Let w∞ = ω- limj wj ∈ H∞ . Then the ultralimit of ρ(γ)(wj ) = ρ(s1 ) . . . ρ(sl )(wj ) exists and equals to ρ∞ (s1 ) . . . ρ∞ (sl )(w∞ ).
Thus, defining ρ∞ (γ)(w∞ ) = ω- limj ρ(γ)(wj ), we have ρ∞ (γ) = ρ∞ (s1 ) . . . ρ∞ (sl )
and obtain an affine action ρ∞ : Γ y H∞ . It is clear that if ρ satisfies (4.1), then
ρ∞ also satisfies (4.1) with the same constants.
We now verify that δ∞ ≥ 21 , where δ∞ is the function δ with respect to ρ∞ .
To do so, take any w∞ = ω- limj wj ∈ H∞ , so that kwj − vj k ≤ M δ(vj ) for
some M > 0, and set As := {j ∈ N | kρ(s)(wj ) − wj k ≥ 12 δ(vj )} for s ∈ S.
For j > M, kwj − vj k ≤ j δ(vj ), and therefore δ(wj ) ≥ 21 δ(vj ), that is, j ∈
∪s∈S As . Thus ∪s∈S As ∈ ω. But this means As ∈ ω for some s ∈ S. Therefore,
kρ∞ (s)(w∞ ) − w∞ k∞ ≥ 21 , and δ∞ ≥ 12 . We thus recover the situation of Case 1.

References
[1] G. Arzhantseva and T. Delzant, Examples of random groups, preprint.
[2] U. Bader, A. Furman, T. Gelander and N. Monod, Property (T) and rigidity for actions on
Banach spaces, Acta Math. 198 (2007), 57–105.
[3] M. Coornaert and G. Knieper, Growth of conjugacy classes in Gromov hyperbolic groups,
Geom. Funct. Anal. 12 (2002), 464–478.
[4] P. Delorme, 1-cohomologie des représentations unitaires des groupes de Lie semi-simples
et résolubles. Produits tensoriels continus et représentations, Bull. Soc. Math. France 105
(1977), 281–336.
[5] E. Ghys, Groupes Aléatoires [d’après Misha Gromov,...], Séminaire Bourbaki, 55ème année,
2002–2003, n◦ 916.
[6] M. Gromov, Asymptotic invariants of infinite groups, in Geometric group theory,
ed. G. Niblo, M. Roller, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1993.
[7] M. Gromov, Random walk in random groups, Geom. Funct. Anal. 13 (2003), 73–146.
[8] A. Guichardet, Étude de la 1-cohomologie et de la topologie du dual pour les groupes de Lie
à radical abélien, Math. Ann. 228 (1977), 215–232.
[9] H. Izeki, T. Kondo, and S. Nayatani, Fixed-point property of random groups, Annals of
Global Analysis and Geom. 35 (2009), 363–379
[10] H. Izeki, T. Kondo, and S. Nayatani, N -step energy of maps and fixed-point property of
random groups, Groups, Geometry, and Dynamics 6 (2012), 701–736.
[11] H. Izeki, T. Kondo, and S. Nayatani, in preparation.

14

[12] H. Izeki and S. Nayatani, Combinatorial harmonic maps and discrete-group actions on
Hadamard spaces, Geom. Dedicata 114 (2005), 147–188.
[13] D. Kazhdan, Connection of the dual space of a group with the structure of its closed subgroups, Funct. Anal. Appl. 1 (1967), 63–65.
[14] T. Kondo, Fixed point theorems via a scaling limit argument (in Japanese), RIMS Kokyuroku
1720 (2010), 139–149.
[15] M. Kotowski and M. Kotowski, Random groups and property (T): Zuk’s theorem revisited,
J. Lond. Math. Soc. 88 (2013), 396–416.
[16] M. Mimura, private communication, April 14, 2015.
[17] A. Naor and L. Silberman, Poincaré inequalities, embeddings, and wild groups, Compos. Math. 147 (2011), 1546–1572.
[18] P. W. Nowak, Poincaré inequalities and rigidity for actions on Banach spaces,
J. Eur. Math. Soc. 17 (2015), no. 3, 689–709.
[19] P. W. Nowak, Group actions on Banach spaces. Handbook of group actions. Vol. II, 121–149,
Adv. Lect. Math. 32, Int. Press, Somerville, MA, 2015.
[20] Y. Ollivier, Sharp phase transition theorems for hyperbolicity of random groups,
Geom. Funct. Anal. 14 (2004), 595–679.
[21] L. Silberman, Addendum to “Random walk on random groups” by M. Gromov,
Geom. Funct. Anal. 13 (2003), 147–177.
[22] L. Silberman, note formerly available at the author’s homepage.
[23] Zuk, A.: Property (T) and Kazhdan constants for discrete groups. Geom. Funct. Anal. 13
(2003), 643–670.

15

