arXiv:1705.04200v1 [math.GR] 11 May 2017

ON BENJAMINI–SCHRAMM LIMITS OF CONGRUENCE
SUBGROUPS
ARIE LEVIT

Abstract. A sequence of orbifolds corresponding to pairwise non-conjugate
congruence lattices in a higher rank semisimple group over zero characteristic
local fields is Benjamini–Schramm convergent to the universal cover.

1. Introduction
A semisimple analytic group G is defined as follows. Let I be a finite index set.
Assume that ki is a zero characteristic local field and Gi is a connected simplyconnected ki -isotropic almost ki -simple linear ki -group for every i ∈ I. Denote
Gi = Gi (ki ) so that in particular Gi is an almost
simple non-compact linear group
Q
admitting a ki -analytic structure. Let G = i∈I Gi .

Definition. A sequence of lattices (Γn )n∈N in G weakly central1 if for every compact
subset Q ⊂ G we have that
 n→∞
Pr {gΓn ∈ G/Γn : gΓn g −1 ∩ Q ⊂ Z(G)} −−−−→ 1
This note is dedicated to establishing the following result.

Theorem 1. Assume that |I| ≥ 2. Then every sequence of pairwise non-conjugate
congruence lattices in G is weakly central.
Recall that every irreducible lattice in G is arithmetic whenever |I| ≥ 2. A
congruence lattice is a particular kind of an irreducible arithmetic lattice strictly
containing a congruence subgroup. See §3 for a precise definition of this notion.
In particular whenever lattices in G are known to satisfy the congruence subgroup
property a stronger formulation of Theorem 1 is possible.
We remark that if |I| = 1 and rank(G) ≥ 2 then every sequence of pairwise nonconjugate lattices is weakly central by [1, 12]. The recent works of Raimbault [20]
and Fraczyk [9] establish closely related results for congruence lattices in the rank
one groups SL2 (R) and SL2 (C). We also mention [1, §5] dealing with congruence
subgroups in a fixed uniform arithmetic lattice.
Convergence of Plancherel measures. Let ν G denote the Plancherel measure
b of G. For every uniform lattice Γ in G, the quasi-regular
on the unitary dual G
representation ρΓ of G in L2 (G/Γ) decomposes as a direct sum of irreducible repb appears in ρΓ with finite
resentations. Every irreducible representation π ∈ G
1Of course, this definition makes sense for any locally compact group. In the case that G is
totally disconnected a weakly central sequence is called a Farber sequence.
1

2

ARIE LEVIT

multiplicity m(π, Γ). The corresponding relative Plancherel measure is
X
1
m(π, Γ)δπ
νΓ =
vol(G/Γ)
b
π∈G

Combining Theorem 1 with [1, 1.2] and [12, 1.3] we obtain a generalization of
one of the main results of [1, 12] on convergence of relative Plancherel measures.
Corollary 2. Assume that |I| ≥ 2. Let Γn be any sequence of pairwise nonn→∞
conjugate uniformly discrete torsion-free congruence lattices in G. Then νΓn (E) −−−−→
b
ν G (E) for every relatively quasi-compact ν G -regular subset E ⊂ G.
The applications of Corollary 2 to limit multiplicities formulas and normalized
Betti numbers [1, 1.3,1.4] carry over to our setting as well.
Benjamini–Schramm convergence. The semisimple analytic group G is acting
by isometries on a contractible non-positively curved metric space X, as follows.
Let Xi be the symmetric space or Bruhat-Tits building associated
Q to Gi for every
i ∈ I, depending on whether ki is Archimedean or not. Take X = i∈I Xi equipped
with the product metric.
The following geometric notion is equivalent to saying that a sequence of lattices
is weakly central, as explained in [12, §3].
Definition. Let (Γn ) be a sequence of lattices in G. The orbifolds Γn \X Benjamini–
Schramm converge to X if for every radius 0 < R < ∞ the probability that an R-ball
with base point taken uniformly at random is contractible tends to one as n → ∞.
As an example, we provide a geometric application of Theorem 1 to arithmetic
orbifolds, relying on the congruence subgroup property [22].
Corollary 3. Let F be a number field with ring of integers OF . Assume that F
has r real embeddings and 2s complex embeddings with r + s ≥ 2. Consider the
irreducible arithmetic lattice
r
s
Y
Y
SL2 (OF ) ֒→
SL2 (R) ×
SL2 (C)
i=1

i=1

Let X = (H2 )r × (H3 )s be a product of two and three dimensional hyperbolic spaces.
Then the orbifolds corresponding to any sequence of distinct finite-index subgroups
of SL2 (OF ) are Benjamini-Schramm convergent to X.

On properties (T ) and (τ ). Benjamini-Schramm convergence of lattices was first
investigated in [1], where it was shown that any sequence of pairwise non-conjugate
irreducible lattices in a semisimple Lie group with high rank and property (T ) is
weakly central. General local fields were dealt with in [12]. These proofs rely on
property (T ), most crucially in order to invoke the Stuck–Zimmer theorem [14, 23].
Our approach is to make use of property (τ ) instead, avoiding the Stuck–Zimmer
theorem which is presently unknown in the absence of property (T ). More precisely,
we rely on property (τ ) with respect to congruence lattices. This is sometimes called
the Selberg property as it generalizes his famous theorem on congruence subgroups
of the modular group. It is crucial that Selberg’s property is, perhaps surprisingly,
uniform with respect to all the congruence lattices inside G — see Theorem A.
In addition, we rely on topological properties of the Chabauty space of semisimple analytic groups recently established by Gelander and the author [12], thereby
replacing yet another argument of [1] which previously required property (T ).

ON BENJAMINI–SCHRAMM LIMITS OF CONGRUENCE SUBGROUPS

3

Spectral gap and essentially free actions. Towards proving Theorem 1 we
study a Borel G-space obtained by taking a certain limit with respect to a sequence
of congruence lattices. Selberg’s property implies that this limiting G-space has
spectral gap — see §2 for a discussion of this notion. The following theorem allows
us to deduce that such an action is essentially free, provided that |I| ≥ 2.
Theorem 4. Let G be a product of at least two locally compact simple groups and
X a Borel G-space admitting an invariant probability measure µ. Assume that X
is properly ergodic, irreducible and has spectral gap. Then (X, µ) is essentially free.
We do not claim any originality for Theorem 4 — it is a formal corollary of the
well-known work of Bader–Shalom [2] and the fact that an action with spectral gap
is not weakly amenable [8]. We state it here merely as an observation and in the
hope that it may prove useful in other situations as well.
Notice that for Theorem 4 to be applicable in our situation the limiting Gspace has to be irreducible. Indeed, this follows from a key feature of Theorem A
establishing spectral gap with respect to each simple factor of G individually.
Acknowledgements. I would like to thank Tsachik Gelander for his guidance
and many useful discussions about the ideas of [1]. I would like to thank Nicolas
Bergeron for bringing to my attention the important fact that Clozel’s theorem [6]
holds uniformly with respect to all congruence lattices. I would like to thank Uri
Bader and Alex Lubotzky for several useful discussions and remarks.
2. Uniform spectral gap
Let G be a compactly generated locally compact group and (X, µ) a Borel Gspace with an invariant probability measure. Recall that the G-action on X has
spectral gap if the Koopman representation of G in the space L20 (X, µ) of functions
with zero integral does not almost admit invariant vectors.
Definition. A sequence (Xn , µn ) of Borel G-spaces with invariant probability measures has uniform spectral gap if the natural representation of G on ⊕n L20 (Xn , µn )
does not almost admit invariant vectors.
For example, if G has property (T ) then any family of ergodic G-invariant probability measures has uniform spectral gap. More generally, such uniformity is useful
when passing to weak-∗ limits of probability measures on a given compact G-space.
Proposition 5. Let X be a compact G-space and µn a sequence of invariant Borel
probability measures on X with uniform spectral gap. If µ is a weak-∗ limit of the
sequence µn then µ has spectral gap.
Let π and πn denote the Koopman representations on the Hilbert spaces L2 (X, µ)
and L2 (X, µn ) for n ∈ N. Let k·k and k·kn denote the norms on these spaces.
Proof of Proposition 5. Let ν be probability measure on G which is symmetric,
absolutely continuous with respect to the Haar measure and such that supp(ν ∗ ν)
is a generating set for G. Uniform spectral gap for the measures µn means that
kπn (ν)|L20 (X,µn ) kn < β
for some constant 0 < β < 1 and all n ∈ N. This fact is established in [3, G.4.2].
We claim that kπ(ν)|L20 (X,µ) k < β as well. In estimating the norm of a continuous
operator we may restrict attention to a dense subspace. Consider any non-zero

4

ARIE LEVIT

continuous function f ∈ C(X) ∩ L20 (X, µ). Note that π(ν)f ∈ C(X) ∩ L20 (X, µ) as
well. Denote
Z
an =

f dµn ,

f = fn′ + an 1X

so that fn′ ∈ C(X) ∩ L20 (X, µn ) for all n ∈ N.
R
Since µ is a weak-∗ limit of the measures µn we have that limn an = f dµ = 0.
To estimate the operator norm of π(ν) on the space L20 (X, µ) we calculate
kπ(ν)f k = limkπ(ν)f kn ≤ lim supkπ(ν)fn′ kn + lim|an | <
n
n
n


< β lim supkfn′ kn ≤ β limkf kn + lim|an | = βkf k
n

n

n

Therefore the G-space (X, µ) has spectral gap as well [3, G.4.2].



Assume that G splits as a direct product G = G1 × · · · × Gn of n factors. It is
natural to consider the restriction of the G-action to each factor Gi individually.
Definition. (X, µ) has strong spectral gap if the restricted action of each factor
has spectral gap. A sequence (Xn , µn ) of Borel probability G-spaces has strong
uniform spectral gap if these restricted actions have uniform spectral gap.
Recall that a G-action is irreducible if each factor Gi is acting ergodically. As
spectral gap clearly implies ergodicity, strong spectral gap implies irreducibility.
3. Congruence lattices and the Selberg property
Let G be semisimple analytic group, so that G is a direct product of Gi = Gi (ki )
where each ki is a local field and i ranges over a finite index set I.
Congruence lattices. Let F be an algebraic number field and H an absolutely
simple linear F -group. Let R ⊂ VF denote these infinite valuations such that H(Fv )
is non-compact for v ∈ R. Assume that there is a finite set of valuations S with
R ⊂ S ⊂ VF and a bijection ι : I → S so that ki ∼
= Fι(a)
Q and Gi is ki -isomorphic to
H for all i ∈ I. In particular we may identify G with v∈S H(Fv ).
The group H(F (S)) is an irreducible lattice in G. Given a non-zero ideal a in the
ring F (S) let H(a) denote the kernel of the natural map H(F (S)) → H(F (S)/a).
Definition. A congruence lattice is any lattice in G containing some H(a) as above.
The following is essentially a reformulation of the well-known Selberg’s property.
Theorem A (Selberg’s property). Let G be a semisimple analytic group. Then the
family of G-spaces G/Γ with normalized probability measures and Γ ranging over
the congruence lattices in G has strong uniform spectral gap.
We begin our discussion of Theorem A with a few preliminary remarks.
• The two G-representations L2 (X, µ) and L2 (X, αµ) are equivalent for every
α > 0, so that renormalizing a finite measure on a Borel G-space has no
effect on spectral gap.
• Similarly, the two G-representations L2 (G/Γ) and L2 (G/Γg ) are equivalent
for every g ∈ G.
• For a pair of lattices Γ, Γ′ with Γ ≤ Γ′ the G-representation L2 (G/Γ′ ) is
contained in L2 (G/Γ).

ON BENJAMINI–SCHRAMM LIMITS OF CONGRUENCE SUBGROUPS

5

In light of theseQremarks we may restrict our attention to the situation of the
lattice H(a) inside v∈S H(Fv ) while making sure that the resulting strong spectral
gap is independent of the field F , the group H and the ideal a.
On Selberg’s property. The existence of spectral gap for congruence subgroups
3
of SL2 (Z) regarded as lattices in SL2 (R) is essentially Selberg’s classical λ1 ≥ 16
2
theorem [21]. The Archimedean case where H is still SL2 , F is any number field
and S consists of infinite places is treated in [24]. The remaining case of H = SL2
and S an arbitrary set of places follows from the work of Gelbart–Jacquet [13].
The Burger–Sarnak method [5] allows to go beyond SL2 . This method was
extended by Clozel–Ullmo [7], in particular covering the p-adic case. We refer the
reader to the useful discussion on [16, §4.2].
Theorem B (Burger–Sarnak, Clozel–Ullmo). Let H1 be a semi-simple F -subgroup
of H. Then for every valuation v ∈ S the restriction of L2 (G/H(a)) to H1 (Fv ) is
weakly contained in
!
Y
M
′
2
H1 (Fv )/H1 (a )
L
a′ ⊳F (S)

v∈S

where the direct sum is taken over all non-zero ideals in F (S).

Clozel made the final contribution towards Selberg’s property by dealing with
arbitrary absolutely simple groups. In fact Theorem A is essentially equivalent to
[6, Thm. 3.1]. Clozel’s proof for a general F -group H depends on whether it is F isotropic or not. If rankF (H) ≥ 1 then H is known to admit SL2 as a F -subgroup
[17, I.1.6.3]. In that case one may rely on [13] and Theorem B.
The main effort of [6] is in dealing with the anisotropic case, as follows. If H is
F -anisotropic then it admits a F -subgroup H1 with rankFv (H1 ) = 1 and such that
H1 ∼
= SU(D, ∗)
= SL1 (D) or H1 ∼
where D is a division algebra of degree p2 over F or over a quadratic extension of F
in the first and second cases respectively, and p is a prime [6, 1.1]. A careful analysis
[6, §3.2] reveals that the case of SL1 (D) can be reduced to SL2 . Similarly, the case
of SU(D, ∗) is reduced either to SL2 , SU(3, Fv ) with v finite or SU(n, 1) with v
infinite. The parameter n is clearly bounded as H1 (Fv ) embeds in G. Clozel then
establishes spectral gap directly for congruence lattices in these last two families of
rank one groups.
Uniformity of spectral gap. Note that while [6, Theorem 3.1] is stated with
respect to a fixed algebraic number field F and group H, the resulting spectral gap
for the subgroup H1 (Fv ) is independent of any such choices.
To conclude the discussion, observe that there are only finitely many possibilities
for the group H1 (Fv ) and that the validity of Theorem A for these implies the same
for G. We need to take into account the fact that H1 (Fv ) regarded as a subgroup
of G depends on the chosen F -structure. The argument relies on the preliminary
remarks made above and on Lemma 6.
Lemma 6. Let H1 be an F -group and v ∈ S a valuation such that rankFv (H1 ) = 1.
Denote H1 = H1 (Fv ) and let Q ⊂ H1 be a compact subset. Then there is a compact
2Note that this case already suffices for the purpose of our Corollary 3.

6

ARIE LEVIT

subset Q ⊂ Gι(v) such that every Fv -homomorphism ϕ : H1 → Gι(v) satisfies
ϕ(Q1 )g ⊂ Q for some g ∈ Gι(v) .
Proof. Denote i = ι(v) to simplify notation. Let S be a maximal Fv -split torus
of Gi and denote S = S(Fv ). The group H1 admits SL2 as a F -subgroup by
the Jacobson–Morozov theorem. Let T denote the diagonal subgroup of SL2 and
T = T(Fv ). By the assumptions T is a maximal Fv -split torus of H1 .
Consider the following Cartan decompositions [19, 3.2-3]
SL2 (Fv ) = K0 T K0 ,

H1 = K 1 T K 1 ,

Gi = KSK

with the corresponding maximal compact subgroups K0 ≤ SL2 (Fv ) , K1 ≤ H1 and
K ≤ Gi . These three decompositions can be made compatible in the sense that
K0 = K ∩ SL2 (Fv ) , K1 = K ∩ H1

and T = S ∩ SL2 (Fv ) = S ∩ H1

up to conjugating by an element of Gi . This is possible in the Archimedean case
by a theorem of Mostow [18], and in the non-Archimedean case due to the strong
transitivity property of affine buildings [10].
Assume without loss of generality that Q1 = K1 T1 K1 for some compact subset
T1 ⊂ T . We claim that Q = KS1 K for some sufficiently large compact subset
S1 ⊂ S is as required. Indeed, consider the two Lie algebras h = L(H1 ) and
g = L(Gi ) and let dϕ : h → g denote the differential of ϕ. Therefore dϕ(sl2 ) is a
split sl2 -triplet of g in the sense of [4, VIII.§11.1]. In this situation the restriction
of dϕ to the Lie algebra L(T ) of the torus T is bounded [4, VIII.§11.3].

4. Weakly amenable actions and Theorem 4
Let G be a locally compact group and (X, µ) a Borel G-space with an invariant
probability measure. We use spectral gap to deduce essential freeness for such an
action and establish Theorem 4.
Recall that a G-space (X, µ) is weakly amenable if the orbital equivalence relation
generated by the action is amenable; see e.g. [25, Section 4.3] and [23] for details.
Theorem C (Stuck–Zimmer, Bader–Shalom). Let G be a direct product of at least
two simple groups. Assume that the G-space (X, µ) is properly ergodic, irreducible
and not weakly amenable. Then it is µ-essentially free.
Proof. See [23] for the classical case of semisimple Lie groups, [14] for semisimple
linear groups over local fields and [2] for general locally compact groups.

We conclude that Theorem 4 follows at once by combining Theorem C with the
following observation, due to Creutz [8].
Proposition D. Let G be a second countable locally compact group. If the G-space
(X, µ) is properly ergodic and weakly amenable then it has no spectral gap.
Roughly speaking, the proof of Proposition D is as follows. A weakly amenable
action is orbit equivalent to an action of either Z or R, depending on whether G is
countable or not. The action of these amenable groups admits more than a single
invariant mean on L∞ (X, µ). This fact is invariant under orbit equivalence, so that
the action of G admits more than a single invariant mean as well. Therefore the
action of G is not strongly ergodic and in particular there can be no spectral gap.
See [8, 7.3.1] for complete details and references concerning this argument.
It is interesting to note the similarity of the above theme with the role played
by Selberg’s theorem in the solution of the Banach-Ruziewicz problem [15].

ON BENJAMINI–SCHRAMM LIMITS OF CONGRUENCE SUBGROUPS

7

5. Invariant random subgroups and a proof of Theorem 1
We now prove Theorem 1 relying on strong uniform spectral gap for congruence
lattices. Invariant random subgroups are a main tool used in the proof3.
Associated to any second countable locally compact group G is the Chabauty
space of closed subgroups denoted Sub (G). This is a compact G-space with the
Chabauty topology and the conjugation action. An invariant random subgroup of
G is a G-invariant probability measure on Sub (G). Let IRS (G) denote the compact
convex space of all invariant random subgroups of G with the weak-∗ topology.
Associated to any normal subgroup N ⊳ G is the point mass δN ∈ IRS (G). More
interestingly, to any lattice Γ in G we associate µΓ ∈ IRS (G) obtained by pushing
forward the G-invariant probability on G/Γ to Sub (G) via the G-equivariant map
G/Γ → Sub (G) ,

gΓ 7→ gΓg −1

The following two propositions are to be compared with [1, 4.4] and [12, 1.1].
Proposition 7. Let µ ∈ IRS (G) be irreducible and essentially transitive. If µ is an
accumulation point of {µΓ } where Γ are lattices in G then µ = δM with M ≤ Z(G).
Proof. Since (Sub (G) , µ) is essentially transitive there is a closed subgroup H ≤ G
such that µ is supported on the conjugacy class of H and (Sub (G) , µ) is isomorphic
to the homogeneous G-space G/NG (H). The factors Gi of G are non-compact and
the fields ki have zero characteristic so that the density theorem of Borel applies
[17, II.4.4]. Combined with the irreducibility of the action it implies either that
NG (H) is an irreducible lattice or that NG (H) = G and µ is equal to δM for some
normal subgroup M ⊳ G.
We deal with these two possibilities separately, relying on results from [12]. If
NG (H) is a lattice in G then H must be an irreducible lattice as well by the normal
subgroup theorem of Margulis [17, IV]. Every irreducible lattice of G admits a
Chabauty open neighborhood in Sub (G) consisting of conjugates [12, 1.9], so that
the corresponding point µH is isolated in the space of extreme points of IRS (G).
A non-discrete normal subgroup of G does not belong to the closure of the
Chabauty subspace of discrete subgroups [12, 6.7]. Therefore the second case where
µ = δM is impossible unless M is central, as required.

Proposition 8. Every sequence of distinct µΓn ∈ IRS (G) associated to congruence
lattices Γn in G is weak-∗ convergent to δM ∈ IRS (G) for some M ≤ Z(G).
Proof. Let µ ∈ IRS (G) be any accumulation point of the sequence µΓn . We claim
that µ is equal to δM for some M ≤ Z(G), and in particular that µΓn is convergent.
Theorem A implies that the sequence µΓn of G-invariant Borel probability measures on the compact G-space Sub (G) has strong uniform spectral gap. By Proposition 5 the G-space (Sub (G) , µ) has strong spectral gap as well. In particular µ
is both irreducible and has spectral gap.
Making use of the argument on [23, p. 729] we may assume that G has trivial
center to begin with. Since the G-action on (Sub (G) , µ) is certainly not essentially
free, Theorem 4 implies that it must be essentially transitive. We conclude from
Proposition 7.

3See Gelander’s lecture notes [11] on the Chabauty topology, invariant random subgroups and
Benjamini-Schramm spaces.

8

ARIE LEVIT

The following three modes of convergence are all equivalent [12] — weak-∗ convergence of µΓn to a central subgroup in IRS (G), Benjamini–Schramm convergence
of Γn \X to X and the fact that the sequence Γn is weakly central.
The proof of Theorem 1 is now complete.
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] U. Bader and Y. Shalom. Factor and normal subgroup theorems for lattices in products of
groups. Inventiones mathematicae, 163(2):415–454, 2006.
[3] B. Bekka, P. de La Harpe, and A. Valette. Kazhdan’s property (T), volume 11. Cambridge
university press, 2008.
[4] N. Bourbaki. Lie groups and Lie algebras: chapters 7-9, volume 7. Springer Science & Business Media, 2008.
[5] M. Burger and P. Sarnak. Ramanujan duals II. Inventiones mathematicae, 106(1):1–11, 1991.
[6] L. Clozel. Démonstration de la conjecture τ . Inventiones mathematicae, 151(2):297–328, 2003.
[7] L. Clozel and E. Ullmo. Équidistribution des points de Hecke. Contributions to automorphic
forms, geometry, and number theory, pages 193–254, 2004.
[8] D. Creutz. Stabilizers of actions of lattices in products of groups. Journal of Ergodic Theory
and Dynamical Systems, 2015. (to appear).
[9] M. Fraczyk. Strong limit multiplicity for arithmetic hyperbolic surfaces and 3-manifolds.
arXiv preprint arXiv:1612.05354, 2016.
[10] P. B. Garrett. Buildings and classical groups. CRC Press, 1997.
[11] T. Gelander. A lecture on invariant random subgroups. arXiv:1503.08402, 2015.
[12] T. Gelander and A. Levit. Invariant random subgroups over non-archimedean local fields.
preprint.
[13] S. Gelbart and H. Jacquet. A relation between automorphic representations of GL(2) and
GL(3). In Annales scientifiques de l’École Normale Supérieure, volume 11, pages 471–542,
1978.
[14] A. Levit. The Nevo-Zimmer intermediate factor theorem over local fields. Geometriae Dedicata, 186(1):149–171, 2017.
[15] A. Lubotzky. Discrete groups, expanding graphs and invariant measures. Springer Science &
Business Media, 2010.
[16] A. Lubotzky and A. Zuk. On property (τ ). Notices Amer. Math. Soc, 52(6):626–627, 2005.
[17] G. A. Margulis. Discrete subgroups of semisimple Lie groups, volume 17. Springer Science &
Business Media, 1991.
[18] G. D. Mostow. Fully reducible subgroups of algebraic groups. American Journal of Mathematics, 78(1):200–221, 1956.
[19] V. P. Platonov and A. S. Rapinchuk. Algebraic groups and number theory. Russian Mathematical Surveys, 47(2):133–161, 1992.
[20] J. Raimbault. On the convergence of arithmetic orbifolds. arXiv:1311.5375, 2013.
[21] A. Selberg. On the estimation of fourier coefficients of modular forms. In Proc. Sympos. Pure
Math, volume 8, pages 1–15, 1965.
[22] J.-P. Serre. Le probleme des groupes de congruence pour SL2 . Annals of Mathematics,
92(3):489–527, 1970.
[23] G. Stuck and R. J. Zimmer. Stabilizers for ergodic actions of higher rank semisimple groups.
Annals of Mathematics, pages 723–747, 1994.
[24] M.-F. Vignéras. Quelques remarques sur la conjecture λ1 ≥ 1/4, Seminar on number theory,
Paris 1981–82. Progr. Math, 38:321–343, 1983.
[25] R. J. Zimmer. Ergodic theory and semisimple groups, volume 81. Springer Science & Business
Media, 1984.

