ON THE QUASI-ISOMETRIC CLASSIFICATION OF LOCALLY
COMPACT GROUPS

arXiv:1212.2229v3 [math.GR] 11 Jun 2016

YVES CORNULIER
Abstract. This (quasi-)survey addresses the quasi-isometry classification of locally compact groups, with an emphasis on amenable hyperbolic locally compact
groups. This encompasses the problem of quasi-isometry classification of homogeneous negatively curved manifolds. A main conjecture provides a general description; an extended discussion reduces this conjecture to more specific statements.
In the course of the paper, we provide statements of quasi-isometric rigidity for
general symmetric spaces of noncompact type and also discuss accessibility issues
in the realm of compactly generated locally compact groups.

1. Introduction
1.A. Locally compact groups as geometric objects. It has long been well
understood in harmonic analysis (notably in the study of unitary representations)
that locally compact groups are the natural objects unifying the setting of connected
Lie groups and discrete groups. In the context of geometric group theory, this is still
far from universal. For a long period, notably in the 70s, this unifying point of view
was used essentially by Herbert Abels, and, more occasionally, some other people
including Behr, Guivarc’h, Houghton. The considerable influence of Gromov’s work
paradoxically favored the bipolar point of view discrete vs continuous, although
Gromov’s ideas were applicable to the setting of locally compact groups and were
sometimes stated (especially in [Gr87]) in an even greater generality.
If a locally compact group is generated by a compact subset S, it can be endowed
with the word length with respect to S, and with the corresponding left-invariant
distance. While this distance depends on the choice of S, the metric space (G, dS )
— or the 1-skeleton of the corresponding Cayley graph — is uniquely determined by
G up to quasi-isometry, in the sense that if T is another compact generating subset,
the identity map (G, dS ) → (G, dT ) is a quasi-isometry.
We use the usual notion of Gromov-hyperbolicity [Gr87] for geodesic metric
spaces, which we simply call “hyperbolic”; this is a quasi-isometry invariant. A
locally compact group is called hyperbolic if it is compactly generated and if its
Cayley graph with respect to some/any compact generating subset is hyperbolic.
This paper is mainly concerned with the quasi-isometric classification and rigidity
of amenable hyperbolic locally compact groups among compactly generated locally
compact groups. Within discrete groups, this problem is not deep: the answer is
that it falls into two classes, finite groups and infinite virtually cyclic groups, both
of which are closed under quasi-isometry among finitely generated groups. On the
other hand, in the locally compact setting it is still an open problem. In order to
Date: May 22, 2016.
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification. Primary 20F67; Secondary 05C63, 20E08, 22D05,
43A07, 53C30, 53C35, 57S30.
Key words and phrases. Gromov hyperbolic group, locally compact group, amenable group,
quasi-isometric rigidity, millefeuille spaces, trees, accessibility, symmetric spaces.
1

2

YVES CORNULIER

tackle it, we need a significant amount of nontrivial preliminaries. Part of this paper
(esp. Sections 3 and 4) appears as a kind of survey of important necessary results
about groups quasi-isometric to symmetric spaces of noncompact type and trees,
unjustly not previously stated in the literature but whose proofs gather various
ingredients from existing work along with minor additional features. Although only
the case of rank 1 and trees is needed for the application to hyperbolic groups, we
state the theorems in a greater generality.
1.B. From negatively curved Lie groups to focal hyperbolic groups. In
1974, in answer to a question of Milnor, Heintze [He74] characterized the connected
Lie groups of dimension at least 2 admitting a left-invariant Riemannian metric
of negative curvature as those of the form G = N o R where R acts on N as a
one-parameter group of contractions; the group N is necessarily a simply connected
nilpotent Lie group; such a group G is called a Heintze group. He also showed that
any negatively curved connected Riemannian manifold with a transitive isometry
group admits a simply transitive isometry group; the latter is necessarily a Heintze
group (if the dimension is at least 2). The action of a Heintze group G = N o R
on the sphere at infinity ∂G has exactly two orbits: a certain distinguished point ω
and the complement ∂G r {ω}, on which the action of N is simply transitive. This
sphere admits a visual metric, which depends on several choices and is not canonical;
however its quasi-symmetric type is well-defined and is a functorial quasi-isometry
invariant of G. The study of quasi-symmetric transformations of this sphere was
used by Tukia, Pansu and R. Chow [Tu86, Pa89m, Ch96] to prove the quasi-isometric
rigidity of the rank one symmetric spaces of dimension at least 3. Pansu also initiated
such a study for other Heintze groups [Pa89m, Pa89d].
On the other hand, hyperbolic groups were introduced by Gromov [Gr87] in 1987.
The setting was very general, but for many reasons (mainly unrelated to the quasiisometric classification), their subsequent study was especially focused on discrete
groups with a word metric. In particular, a common belief was that amenability is
essentially incompatible with hyperbolicity. This is not true in the locally compact
setting, since there is a wide variety of amenable hyperbolic locally compact groups,
whose quasi-isometry classification is open at the moment. One purpose of this note
is to describe the state of the art as regards this problem.
In 2005, I asked Pierre Pansu whether there was a known characterization of
(Gromov-) hyperbolic connected Lie groups, and he replied me that the answer could
be obtained from his Lp -cohomology computations [Pa07] (which were extracted
from an unpublished manuscript going back to 1995) combined with a vanishing
result later obtained by Tessera [Te09]; an algebraic characterization of hyperbolic
groups among connected Lie groups, based on this approach, was finally given in
[CT11], namely such groups are either compact, Heintze-by-compact, or compactby-(simple of rank one). This approach consisted in proving, using structural results
of connected Lie groups, that any connected Lie group not of this form cannot be
hyperbolic, by showing that its Lp -cohomology in degree 1 vanishes for all p.
In [CCMT12], using a more global approach, namely by studying the class of focal
hyperbolic groups, this was extended to a general characterization of all amenable
hyperbolic locally compact groups, and more generally of all hyperbolic locally compact groups admitting a cocompact closed amenable subgroup (every connected
locally compact group, hyperbolic or not, admits such a subgroup).

ON THE QI CLASSIFICATION OF LC-GROUPS

3

Theorem 1.1 ([CCMT12]). Let G be a non-elementary hyperbolic compactly generated locally compact group with a cocompact closed amenable subgroup. Then exactly
one of the following holds
(a) (focal case) G is amenable and non-unimodular. Then G is isomorphic to a
semidirect product N o Z or N o R, where the noncompact subgroup N is compacted by the action of positive elements t of Z or R, in S
the sense that there
exists a compact subset K of N such that tKt−1 ⊂ K and n≥1 t−n Ktn = N .
(b) G is non-amenable. Then G admits a continuous, proper isometric, boundarytransitive (and hence cocompact) action on a rank 1 symmetric space of noncompact type, or a finite valency tree with no valency 1 vertex and not reduced
to a line (necessarily biregular).
Groups in (a) are precisely the amenable non-elementary hyperbolic locally compact groups, and are called focal hyperbolic locally compact groups.
We assumed for simplicity that G is non-elementary in the sense that its boundary
has at least 3 points (and is indeed uncountable), ruling out compact groups and
2-ended locally compact groups (which are described in Corollary 4.D.2). It should
be noted that any group as in (b) admits a closed cocompact subgroup of the form
in (a), but conversely most groups in (a) are not obtained this way, and are actually
generally not quasi-isometric to any group as in (b), see the discussion in Section
6.C. This is actually a source of difficulty in the quasi-isometry classification: namely
those groups in (a) that embed cocompactly in a non-amenable group bear “hidden
symmetries”; see Conjecture 6.C.9 and the subsequent discussion.
For the discussion below, it is natural to split the class of focal hyperbolic locally
compact groups G into three subclasses (see §2.C for more details):
• G is of connected type if its boundary is homeomorphic to a positive-dimensional
sphere, or equivalently if it admits a continuous proper cocompact isometric
action on a complete negatively curved Riemannian manifold of dimension
≥ 2;
• G is of totally disconnected type if its identity component is compact, or
equivalently if its boundary is a Cantor space, or equivalently if it admits
a continuous proper cocompact isometric action on a regular tree of finite
valency;
• G is of mixed type otherwise; then its boundary is connected but not locally
connected.
1.C. Synopsis. We define the commability equivalence between locally compact
groups as the equivalence relation generated by the requirement that any two locally
compact groups G1 , G2 with a continuous proper homomorphism G1 → G2 with
cocompact image are commable. Thus G1 and G2 are commable if and only if there
exists an integer k, a family of locally compact groups G1 = H0 , H1 , . . . , Hk = G2 ,
and continuous proper homomorphisms fi with cocompact image, either from Hi
to Hi+1 or from Hi+1 to Hi . Obviously, commable compactly generated locally
compact groups are quasi-isometric (the converse is not true: after I asked about
a counterexample, Carette and Tessera checked that some free products of suitable
lattices in Lie groups with Z are indeed quasi-isometric but not commable, see §5.B).
A general study of commability is not an easy matter, as it is difficult in general
to describe in a satisfactory way, given a locally compact group G (e.g. a BaumslagSolitar group as given in Remark 5.A.1), those locally groups H in which G embeds
as a cocompact subgroup. A study of commability in the realm of focal hyperbolic

4

YVES CORNULIER

locally compact groups is carried out in Section 5, with a comprehensive description (except in the totally disconnected case). Actually, the Mostow rigidity theorem
[Mos73] was maybe the first time that quasi-isometries were used, to solve a commability problem.
A comprehensive study of commability in the realm of focal hyperbolic locally
compact groups is carried out in Section 5.
Section 6 addresses the quasi-isometry classification of focal hyperbolic groups,
discussing, using the results of all the previous sections, around the following:
Conjecture 6.A.1 (Main conjecture). Two hyperbolic locally compact groups G, H
with G focal are quasi-isometric if and only if they are commable.
This conjecture can be split between the internal case (H focal) and the external
case (H non-focal), providing more explicit reformulations, which may seem unrelated at first sight. Notably, the external part of Conjecture 6.A.1 has the following
equivalent restatement:
Conjecture 6.C.1 (slightly restated). A focal hyperbolic locally compact group is
quasi-isometric to a non-focal hyperbolic locally compact group if and only if it is
quasi-isometric to a rank 1 symmetric space of noncompact type or a 3-regular tree.
Because of the very special role played by rank 1 symmetric spaces and trees,
and because the extensive literature about them is not formulated in the context
of locally compact groups, the important results concerning their quasi-isometric
rigidity are surveyed (and slightly extended) in Sections 3 and 4.
In the external part, the totally disconnected type of Conjecture 6.A.1 is a bit at
odds with the other type because there is a complete understanding of the quasiisometric classification in this case (Section 4), so it is rather a question about
commability itself. See §5.F.2 (esp. Question 5.F.7). After being asked in a first
version of this survey, it has been solved by M. Carette [Ca13].
The internal part of Conjecture 6.A.1 (H focal) can be split into three cases, according to the type of the focal group G (see §2.E). Here the totally disconnected
case is an easy theorem rather than a conjecture, since all focal hyperbolic locally
compact groups of totally disconnected are in the same commability class (Proposition 5.F.3). The remaining cases are the mixed type and the connected type.
Recall that a purely real Heintze group is a Heintze group N o R as above, for
which the action of R on the Lie algebra of N has only real eigenvalues. Heintze
groups are focal of connected type, and actually every focal group of connected type
is commable to a purely real Heintze group, unique up to isomorphism (see §5.C).
This gives a reduction of the internal connected type case of Conjecture 6.A.1 to
the following simpler statement:
Conjecture 6.B.2. Any two purely real Heintze groups are quasi-isometric if and
only if they are isomorphic.
The mixed type case can also be reduced to a similar statement (Conjecture 6.B.6),
by finding, in each commability class of focal hyperbolic locally compact group of
mixed type, a given group H[$, q], depending on three independent “parameters”:
a purely real Heintze group H, a non-power integer q, and a positive real number
$.
It turns out (see Theorem 6.B.8 extracted from [Co15]) that the quasi-isometry
class of H[$, q]

ON THE QI CLASSIFICATION OF LC-GROUPS

5

• determines the quasi-isometry class of H (by a simple argument based on
the boundary);
• determines the real number $, using a computation of Lp -cohomology in
degree one by the author and Tessera [CT11], strongly inspired by Pansu
[Pa07];
• and finally also determines the non-power integer q, by a recent result of Dymarz about the large-scale geometry of focal groups of mixed type, relying
on the study of the fine metrical structure of their boundary.
General remark. This paper may seem to reduce, for expository matters, the
study of the quasi-isometry equivalence relation between hyperbolic groups to the
determination of quasi-isometry classes. It should by no means be the only point
of view; the study of quasi-isometry invariants, such as various kinds of dimensions
and more refined ones, allows to shed light on the fine geometric structure of many
groups. For this reason, the large-scale study of real Heintze groups should not be
reduced to aiming at proving Conjecture 6.B.2 (which reduces the QI-classification
to a classification up to isomorphism, which is, in a certain sense, a wild problem),
and even a proof of the latter would not supersede the relevance of the study of
these invariants.
Here is an outline of the sequel.
• Section 2 contains some preliminary material, notably relying on [CCMT12].
• In Section 3, we give the quasi-isometric rigidity statements for symmetric
spaces of noncompact type in the locally compact setting. These results are
especially due to Kleiner-Leeb, Tukia, Pansu, R. Chow, Casson-Jungreis
and Gabai.
• In Section 4, we give the quasi-isometric rigidity statements for trees in
the locally compact setting, emphasizing on the notion of accessibility (in
its group-theoretic and its graph-theoretic versions). These results are
notably due to Stallings, Dunwoody, Abels, Thomassen-Woess, MosherSageev-Whyte, and Krön-Möller.
• Section 5 provides a detailed description of commability classes between
focal groups, and between focal and non-focal groups;
• The core of this paper is Section 6. It contains a discussion about the main
conjecture, the link with its specifications, and surveys the main known
cases; the first of which being due to P. Pansu, while recent progress have
notably been made by X. Xie and T. Dymarz.
Acknowledgements. I thank Tullia Dymarz, Pierre Pansu, and Romain Tessera
for useful discussions, comments, and corrections.
Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2. Preliminaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.A. Quasi-isometries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.B. Cayley-Abels graph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.C. Types of hyperbolic groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.D. Boundary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.E. Focal hyperbolic groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.F. Millefeuille spaces and amenable hyperbolic groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1
6
6
7
8
8
8
9

6

YVES CORNULIER

2.G. Carnot groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3. Quasi-isometric rigidity of symmetric spaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.A. The QI-rigidity statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.B. Quasi-actions and proof of Theorem 3.A.1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4. Quasi-isometric rigidity of trees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.A. The QI-rigidity statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.B. Reminder on the space of ends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.C. Metric accessibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.D. The locally compact version of the splitting theorem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.E. Accessibility of locally compact groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.F. Metric vs group accessibility and proof of Theorem 4.A.1 . . . . . . . . . . .
4.G. Cobounded actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.H. Accessibility of compactly presented groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.I. Maximal 1-ended subgroups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5. Commable groups, and commability classification of amenable hyperbolic
groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.A. Generalities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.B. Non-commable quasi-isometric discrete groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.C. Connected type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.D. Totally disconnected type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.E. Mixed type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.F. Commability between focal and general type groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.G. A few counterexamples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6. Towards a quasi-isometric classification of amenable hyperbolic groups . .
6.A. The main conjecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.B. The internal classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.C. Quasi-isometric amenable and non-amenable hyperbolic LC-groups .
6.D. Conjecture 6.B.2 and quasi-symmetric maps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.E. Further aspects of the QI classification of hyperbolic LC-groups . . . .
6.F. Beyond the hyperbolic case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13
14
14
15
18
18
19
20
21
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
29
30
31
31
32
36
38
38
38
41
44
44
45
49

2. Preliminaries
We freely use the shorthand LC-group for locally compact group, and CGLCgroup for compactly generated LC-group.
2.A. Quasi-isometries.
2.A.1. The large-scale language. Recall that a map f : X → Y between metric
spaces is a large-scale Lipschitz map if there exist µ > 0 and α ∈ R such that
d(f (x1 ), f (x2 )) ≤ µd(x1 , x2 ) + α ∀x1 , x2 ∈ X;
we then say f is (µ, α)-Lipschitz. Maps f : X → Y are at bounded distance, denoted
f ∼ f 0 if supx∈X d(f (x), f 0 (x)) < ∞; if this supremum is bounded by α we write
α
f ∼ f 0.
A quasi-isometry f : X → Y is a large-scale Lipschitz map such that there exists
a large-scale Lipschitz map f 0 : Y → X such that f ◦ f 0 ∼ idY and f 0 ◦ f ∼ idX ; the
map f 0 is called an inverse quasi-isometry to f ; it is unique modulo ∼.

ON THE QI CLASSIFICATION OF LC-GROUPS

7

A large-scale Lipschitz map X → Y is coarsely proper if, using the convention
inf ∅ = +∞, the function F (r) = inf{d(f (x1 ), f (x2 )) : d(x1 , x2 ) ≥ r} satisfies
lim+∞ F = +∞.
Every CGLC-group G can be endowed with the left-invariant distance defined
by the word length with respect to a compact generating subset. Given any two
such distances, the identity map is a quasi-isometry, and therefore the notions of
large-scale Lipschitz map, quasi-isometry, etc. from or into G are independent of the
choice of a compact generating set.
2.A.2. Hyperbolicity. A geodesic metric space is hyperbolic if there exists δ ≥ 0
such that for every triple of geodesic segments [ab], [bc], [ac] and x ∈ [bc] we have
d(x, [ab] ∪ [ac]) ≤ δ. To be hyperbolic is a quasi-isometry invariant among geodesic
metric spaces. Thus a locally compact group is called hyperbolic if it is compactly
generated and the 1-skeleton of its Cayley graph with respect to some/any compact
generating subset is hyperbolic. By [CCMT12, §2], this holds if and only if it admits
a continuous proper cocompact isometric action on a proper geodesic hyperbolic
metric space.
2.A.3. Metric amenability. A locally compact group with left Haar measure λ is
amenable (resp. metrically amenable) if for every compact subset S and ε > 0 there
exists a compact subset F of positive Haar measure such that λ(SF r F )/λ(F ) ≤ ε,
resp. λ(F S r F )/λ(F ) ≤ ε.
Note that for a left-invariant distance, F S is the “1-thickening” of F and justifies
the adjective “metric”. The following lemma is [Te08, Theorem 2], see also [CH,
§4.C].
Lemma 2.A.1. We have
(a) A locally compact group is metrically amenable if and only if it is both amenable
and unimodular;
(b) to be metrically amenable is a quasi-isometry invariant among CGLC-groups.

Let us emphasize that being amenable is not a quasi-isometry invariant, in view
of the cocompact inclusion R o R ⊂ SL2 (R). The problem asking which amenable
CGLC-groups are quasi-isometric to non-amenable ones is a very challenging one,
it will be addressed in the context of hyperbolic LC-groups in §6.C.
2.B. Cayley-Abels graph. For a compactly generated locally compact group, the
Cayley graph with respect to some compact generating subset is often convenient,
but has the drawback, when G is not discrete, to have infinite valency and in addition
the action of G on its Cayley graph is not continuous.
Definition 2.B.1. A Cayley-Abels graph for G is a continuous, proper and cocompact action of G on a nonempty finite valency connected graph.
Of course, if G admits a Cayley-Abels graph, then it admits an open compact
subgroup, namely the stabilizer of some vertex. The converse is the following elementary fact due to Abels [Ab74, Beispiel 5.2] (see [Mo01, §11.3]).
Proposition 2.B.2 (Abels). Let G be a locally compact group with a compact open
subgroup (i.e., G is compact-by-(totally disconnected)). Then G admits a CayleyAbels graph, which can be chosen to be vertex-transitive.


8

YVES CORNULIER

2.C. Types of hyperbolic groups. Gromov [Gr87, §3.1] splits isometric group
actions on hyperbolic spaces into 5 types: bounded, horocyclic, lineal, focal, and
general type, see [CCMT12, §3], from which we borrow the terminology. When
specifying this to the action of a CGLC-group G on itself (or any continuous proper
cocompact isometric action of G) we get four out of these five types, the first 2 of
which are called elementary and the last 2 are called non-elementary:
• ∂G is empty, G is compact;
• ∂G has 2 elements, G admits Z as a cocompact lattice (see Corollary 4.D.2
for more characterizations)
• ∂G is uncountable and has a G-fixed point: G is called a focal hyperbolic
group;
• ∂G is uncountable and the G-action is minimal: G is called a hyperbolic
group of general type.
Among hyperbolic LC-groups, focal groups can be characterized as those that
are amenable and non-unimodular, and general type groups can be characterized
as those that are not amenable. Most hyperbolic LC-groups of general type (e.g.,
discrete ones) do not admit cocompact amenable subgroups, the exceptions being
listed in Theorem 1.1.
Focal hyperbolic groups soon disappeared from the literature after [Gr87], because
the focus was made on proper actions of discrete groups, for which the applications
were the most striking1. Except in the connected or totally disconnected case (and
with another point of view), they reappear in [CT11], before they were given a
structural characterization in [CCMT12].
2.D. Boundary. Let X be a proper geodesic hyperbolic space and ∂X its boundary.
Then X = X ∪ ∂X has natural compact topology, for which X is open and dense.
If X and Y are proper geodesic hyperbolic spaces, every quasi-isometric embedding f : X → Y has a unique extension fˆ : X → Y that is continuous on ∂X. This
extension fˆ maps ∂X into ∂Y and is functorial in f . Let f¯ : ∂X → ∂Y denote
the restriction of fˆ. Then f¯ = ḡ whenever f and g are at bounded distance; in
particular, every for every quasi-isometry, f¯ is a homeomorphism ∂X → ∂Y whose
inverse is ḡ, where g is any inverse quasi-isometry for f .
The boundary carries a so-called visual metric. For such metrics, the homeomorphic embedding f¯ above is a quasi-symmetric embedding in the sense that there
exists an increasing function F : [0, ∞[ → [0, ∞[ such that


d(f (x), f (y))
d(x, y)
≤F
, ∀x 6= y 6= z ∈ X.
d(f (y), f (z))
d(y, z)
2.E. Focal hyperbolic groups. We say that an automorphism α of a locally compact group N is compacting (orS
is a compaction) if there exists a compact subset K
of N such that α(K) ⊂ K and n≥0 α−n (K) = N ; we say that an action of Z or R
by automorphisms (αn )n∈Z or (αt )t∈R on N is compacting if α1 is compacting.
2.E.1. Focal hyperbolic groups of connected type. Recall that Lie groups are not
assumed connected and thus include discrete groups; a locally compact group is by
definition compact-by-Lie if it has a compact normal subgroup so that the quotient
is Lie. This is equivalent to (connected-by-compact)-by-discrete.
1There

was a semantic shift in the meaning of “elementary”, when the terminology from postGromov papers, which was only fit for proper actions of discrete groups, was borrowed instead of
referring to the general setting duly considered by Gromov.

ON THE QI CLASSIFICATION OF LC-GROUPS

9

We say that a focal hyperbolic group is of connected type if it is compact-by-Lie.
The following proposition is contained in [CCMT12, Theorem 7.3].
Proposition 2.E.1. Let G be a focal hyperbolic LC-group. Equivalences:
• G is of connected type;
• the kernel of its modular function is connected-by-compact;
• it admits a continuous, proper cocompact isometric action on a homogeneous
simply connected negatively curved manifold of dimension ≥ 2.
• G has a maximal compact normal subgroup W and G/W is isomorphic to
a semidirect product N o Z or N o R, where N is a virtually connected Lie
group and the action of Z or R is compacting.

2.E.2. Focal hyperbolic groups of totally disconnected type. Similarly we say that a
focal hyperbolic group is of totally disconnected type if its identity component is
compact. From [CCMT12, Theorem 7.3] we can also extract the following proposition.
Proposition 2.E.2. Let G be a focal hyperbolic LC-group. Equivalences:
• G is of totally disconnected type;
• the kernel of its modular function has a compact identity component;
• it admits a continuous, proper cocompact isometric action on a regular tree
of finite valency greater than 2.
• it is isomorphic to a strictly ascending HNN-extension over a compact group
endowed with an injective continuous endomorphism with open image.
2.E.3. Focal hyperbolic groups of mixed type. Finally, we say that a focal hyperbolic
group is of mixed type if it is of neither connected nor totally disconnected type. For
instance, if p is prime and λ ∈ ]0, 1[, then the semidirect product (R × Qp ) o Z,
where the positive generator of Z acts by multiplication by (λ, p) on the ring R×Qp .
Specifying once again [CCMT12, Theorem 7.3], we obtain
Proposition 2.E.3. Let G be a focal hyperbolic LC-group. Equivalences:
• G is of mixed type;
• the kernel of its modular function is neither connected-by-compact, nor
compact-by-(totally disconnected);
• it admits a continuous, proper cocompact isometric action on a pure millefeuille space (see §2.F).
• it has a maximal compact normal subgroup W such that G/W has an open
subgroup of finite index isomorphic to a semidirect product (N1 × N2 ) o Z,
where Z acts on N1 × N2 by compaction preserving the decomposition, N1 is
a connected Lie group, N2 is totally disconnected, and N1 and N2 are both
non-compact.
As far as I know, it seems that focal groups of mixed type (including examples)
were not considered before [CT11].
2.F. Millefeuille spaces and amenable hyperbolic groups. We here recall the
definition of millefeuille spaces.
Given a metric space X, define a Busemann function X → R as a limit, uniform
on bounded subsets of X, of functions of the form x 7→ d(x, x0 ) + c0 for x0 ∈ X and
c0 ∈ R. By Busemann metric space, we mean a metric space (X, b) endowed with a
Busemann function; a shift-isometry of (X, b) is an isometry f of X preserving b up

10

YVES CORNULIER

to adding constants, i.e. such that x 7→ b(f (x)) − b(x) is constant. A homogeneous
Busemann metric space means a Busemann metric space with a transitive group of
shift-isometries.
Let (X, b) be a complete CAT(κ) Busemann space (−∞ ≤ κ ≤ 0). For k a
non-negative integer, let Tk be a (k + 1)-regular tree (identified with its 1-skeleton),
endowed with a Busemann function denoted by b0 (taking integer values on vertices).
Note that the Busemann space (Tk , b0 ) is uniquely determined by k up to combinatorial shift-isometry. The millefeuille space X[b, k], introduced in [CCMT12, §7], is
by definition the topological space
{(x, y) ∈ X × Tk | b(x) = b0 (y)}.
Call vertical geodesic in Tk , a geodesic in restriction to which b0 is an isometry. Call
vertical leaf in X[b, k] a (closed) subset of the form X[b, k] ∩ (X × V ) where V is a
vertical geodesic. In [CCMT12, §7], it is observed that there is a canonical geodesic
distance, defining the topology, and such that in restriction to any vertical leaf,
the canonical projection to X is an isometry. Moreover X[b, k] is CAT(κ), and is
naturally a Busemann space, the Busemann function mapping (x, y) to b(x) = b0 (y).
Note that X[b, 0] = X.
We have the following elementary well-known lemma
Lemma 2.F.1. Let X be a homogeneous connected negatively curved Riemannian
manifold of dimension ≥ 2. Then exactly one of the following holds:
(a) Isom(X) fixes a unique point in ∂X.
(b) X is a rank 1 symmetric space of noncompact type; in particular Isom(X) is
transitive on ∂X.
In particular, Isom(X) has a unique closed orbit on ∂X, which is either a singleton
or the whole ∂X.
Proof. We use that G = Isom(X) is hyperbolic and the action of G on X is quasiisometrically conjugate to the left action of G on itself. If G is amenable, it is focal
hyperbolic and thus fixes a unique point ωX on the boundary and G is transitive on
X r {ωX } (see for instance [CCMT12, Proposition 5.5(c)]), thus {ωX } is the unique
closed G-orbit.
Otherwise, it is hyperbolic of general type and virtually connected, and thus,
by a simple argument (see [CCMT12, Proposition 5.10]), is isomorphic to an open
subgroup in Isom(Y ) for some rank 1 symmetric space Y of noncompact type. Let
K ⊂ G be the stabilizer in G of one point x0 ∈ X, by transitivity we have X ' G/K
as G-spaces. Since X is CAT(-1) (up to homothety) and complete, K is a maximal
compact subgroup of G. Thus K is also the stabilizer of one point in Y , and the
identifications X ' G/K ' Y then exchange G-invariant Riemannian metrics on
X and those on Y . Since on Y , G-invariant Riemannian metrics are unique up to
scalar multiplication and are symmetric, this is also true on X. So X is symmetric
and in particular Isom(X) is transitive on ∂X.

Definition 2.F.2. Let X be a homogeneous simply connected negatively curved
Riemannian manifold. A distinguished boundary point is a point in the closed
Isom(X)-orbit in ∂X (see Lemma 2.F.1). A distinguished Busemann function is
a Busemann function attached to a distinguished boundary point.
Lemma 2.F.3. Let X be a homogeneous simply connected negatively curved Riemannian manifold. For any two distinguished Busemann functions b, b0 on X, there

ON THE QI CLASSIFICATION OF LC-GROUPS

11

exists an isometry from (X, b) to (X, b0 ), i.e., there exists an isometry f : X → X 0
such that b = b0 ◦ f .
Proof. Let ω and ω 0 be the distinguished points associated to b and b0 . Since all
distinguished points are in the same Isom(X)-orbit, we can push b0 forward by a
suitable isometry and assume ω 0 = ω. Since the stabilizer in Isom(X) of ω is
transitive on X, it is transitive on the set of Busemann functions attached to ω.
Thus there exists f as required.

Lemma 2.F.3 allows to rather write X[k] with no reference to any Busemann function, whenever X is a homogeneous simply connected negatively curved Riemannian
manifold.
The relevance of these spaces is due to the following theorem from [CCMT12, §7]
Theorem 2.F.4. Let G be a noncompact LC-group. Equivalences:
• G is amenable hyperbolic;
• for some integer k ≥ 1 and some homogeneous simply connected negatively
curved Riemannian manifold of positive dimension d, the group G admits
a continuous, proper and cocompact action by isometries on the millefeuille
space X[k], fixing a point (or maybe a pair of points if (k, d) = (1, 1)) on
the boundary.
Let us now describe the topology of the boundary of ∂X[k].
Proposition 2.F.5. Let X be homogeneous negatively curved d-dimensional Riemannian manifold (d ≥ 1) endowed with a surjective Busemann function and k ≥ 1.
Then ∂X[k] is homeomorphic to the one-point compactification of
• Rd−1 if k = 1 and d ≥ 2;
• Rd−1 × Z × C if k ≥ 2, where C is a Cantor space.
In particular, its topological dimension is d − 1.
Note that when d = 1 and k ≥ 2, then X[k] is a (k + 1)-regular tree and ∂X[k] is
homeomorphic to a Cantor space.
Proof of Proposition 2.F.5. We can pick a group G1 = N1 o Z acting properly cocompactly on X, shifting the Busemann function by integer values, such that the
action of Z contracts the simply connected nilpotent (d − 1)-dimensional Lie group
N1 , and G2 = N2 o Z acting continuously transitively on the (k + 1)-regular tree,
where Z contracts N2 . Then G = (N1 × N2 ) o Z acts properly cocompactly on
X[k], and the action of N1 × N2 on ∂X[k] r {ω} is simply transitive (see the proof
of [CCMT12, Proposition 5.5]). So X[k] r {ω} is homeomorphic to N1 × N2 and
thus X[k] is its one-point compactification. (This proof makes use of homogeneity
for the sake of briefness, but the reader can find a more geometric proof in a more
general context.)

Corollary 2.F.6. The classification of the spaces ∂X[k] up to homeomorphy is given
by the following classes
• k = 1, d ≥ 1 is fixed: ∂X[k] is a (d − 1)-sphere;
• k ≥ 2 is not fixed, d ≥ 1 is fixed: ∂X[k] is a “Cantor bunch” of d-spheres.
Proof. The homeomorphy type of the space ∂X[k] detects d, since d − 1 is its topological dimension. Moreover, it detects whether k = 1 or k ≥ 2, because ∂X[k] is
locally connected in the first case and not in the second.


12

YVES CORNULIER

Corollary 2.F.7. Let ω be the distinguished point in ∂X[k] (the origin of its distinguished Busemann function). Consider the action of Homeo(∂X[k]) on ∂X[k].
Then
• if min(k, d) = 1 then this action is transitive;
• if min(k, d) ≥ 2 then this action has 2 orbits, namely the singleton {ω} and
its complement ∂X[k] r {ω}.
Proof. The space ∂X[k] r {ω} is homogeneous under its self-homeomorphisms, and
thus any transitive group of self-homeomorphisms extends to the one-point compactification. It remains to discuss whether ω belongs to the same orbit.
• If min(k, d) = 1, then ∂X[k] is a Cantor space or a sphere and thus is
homogeneous under its group of self-homeomorphisms.
• If min(k, d) ≥ 2, and x ∈ ∂X[k], then X[k] r {x} is connected if and only
if x 6= ω. In other words, ω is the only cut-point in ∂X[k] and thus is fixed
by all self-homeomorphisms.

Corollary 2.F.8. Among focal hyperbolic LC-groups, the three classes of focal groups
of connected, totally disconnected and mixed type are closed under quasi-isometry.
Proof. If G is a focal hyperbolic LC-group, it is of connected type if and only if its
boundary is locally connected, and of totally disconnected type if and only if its
boundary is totally disconnected.

Remark 2.F.9. Another natural topological description of the visual boundary
∂X[k] is that it is homeomorphic to the smash product ∂X ∧ ∂T of the boundary
of X and the boundary of T , and is thus homeomorphic to the (d − 1)-fold reduced
suspension of ∂T , where d = dim(X). Actually, this allows to describe the whole
compactification X[k] = X[k]∪∂X[k] as the smash product of T and a (d−1)-sphere.
Remark 2.F.10. The dimension dim(X) can also be characterized as the asymptotic dimension of X[k], giving another proof that it is a QI-invariant of X[k].
Let us call pure millefeuille space a millefeuille space X[k] such that min(dim X, k) ≥
2, i.e. that is neither a manifold nor a tree; equivalently, its isometry group is focal
of mixed type.
Proposition 2.F.11. A hyperbolic LC-group G is focal of mixed type if and only if
∂G contains a point fixed by every self-homeomorphism of ∂G.
Proof. The “only if” part follows from Corollary 2.F.7
Conversely, assume that the condition is satisfied. Then G cannot be of general
type. The condition also implies that the boundary is nonempty and hence rules
out compact groups. Otherwise G is 2-ended or focal. But if G is 2-ended, or
focal of connected or totally disconnected type, its boundary is a nonempty sphere
or a Cantor space, which have at least 2 elements and transitive homeomorphism
groups.

Corollary 2.F.12. A focal hyperbolic LC-group of mixed type (or equivalently a
pure millefeuille space) is not quasi-isometric to any hyperbolic LC-group of general
type. In particular, it is not quasi-isometric to any vertex-transitive connected graph
of finite valency.
Proof. The first statement is a particular case of Proposition 2.F.11. For the second
statement, observe that the isometry group of a such a vertex-transitive graph would

ON THE QI CLASSIFICATION OF LC-GROUPS

13

Figure 1. The boundary of H2R [2]. Except at the singular point, it
is locally modeled on the product of a dyadic Cantor space and a line.
be focal of totally disconnected type or of general type (by Lemma 2.A.1), but we
have just excluded the general type case and the focal case is excluded by Corollary
2.F.8.

2.G. Carnot groups. Recall that a Heintze group is a Lie group of the form N o
R, where N is a simply connected nilpotent Lie group, and the action of positive
reals contracts N . It is purely real if it only has real eigenvalues in the adjoint
representation, or equivalently in the action of R on the Lie algebra of N .
Definition 2.G.1. Let us say that a purely real Heintze group is of Carnot type
if it admits a semidirect decomposition N o R such that, denoting by (N i )i≥1 the
descending central series, it satisfies one of the three equivalent conditions
(i) the action of R on N/[N, N ] is scalar;
(ii) the action of R on N i /N i+1 is scalar for all i;
L
(iii) there is a linear decomposition of the Lie algebra n = ∞
j=1 vj such that, for
some λ ∈ R r {0}, the action of every t ∈LR on vj is given by multiplication
by exp(jλt) for all j ≥ 1 and such that j≥i vj = ni .
We need to justify the equivalence between the definitions. The trivial implications are (iii)⇒(ii)⇒(i). To get (ii) from (i), observe that as a module (for the action
of the one-parameter subgroup), ni /ni+1 is a quotient of (n/[n, n])⊗i , so if the action
on n/[n, n] is scalar then so is the action on ni /ni+1 . To get (iii) from (ii), use a
characteristic decomposition of the action of the one-parameter subgroup.
Remark 2.G.2. If a purely real Heintze group G = N o R is of Carnot type then
N is a Carnot gradable2 nilpotent group, in the sense that its Lie algebra admits
2In

the literature, “Carnot gradable” is usually referred to as “graded” but this terminology
is in practice a source of confusion, inasmuch as nilpotent Lie algebras may admit other relevant
gradings.

14

YVES CORNULIER

L
L
j
a Carnot grading, i.e. a Lie algebra grading n =
v
such
that
n
=
i
i≥1
i≥j vi
for all j. The converse is not true: for instance most purely real Heintze groups of
the form R2 o R are not of Carnot type. Nevertheless, if N is Carnot gradable,
then up to isomorphism it defines a unique purely real Heintze group of Carnot
type Carn(N ) of the form N o R. This is because a simply connected nilpotent Lie
group N is gradable if and L
only if its Lie algebra n is isomorphic to the graded Lie
algebra grad(n) defined as i≥1 ni /ni+1 (where the bracket is uniquely defined by
factoring the usual bracket ni × nj → ni+j ), so that if n is Carnot gradable then any
two Carnot gradings define the same graded Lie algebra up to graded isomorphism.
3. Quasi-isometric rigidity of symmetric spaces
3.A. The QI-rigidity statement. The general QI-rigidity statement for symmetric spaces of noncompact type is the following. Recall that a Riemannian symmetric
space of noncompact type has a canonical decomposition as a product of irreducible
factors; we call the metric well-normalized if all homothetic irreducible factors are
isometric; this can always be ensured by a suitable factor-wise rescaling (for instance,
requiring that the infimum of the sectional curvature on each factor is −1).
Theorem 3.A.1. Let X be a symmetric space of noncompact type with a wellnormalized metric. Let G be a compactly generated locally compact group, quasiisometric to X. Then G has a continuous, proper cocompact action by isometries
on X.
This statement is mostly known in a weaker form, where G is assumed to be
discrete and sometimes in an even much weaker form, where one allows to pass to
a finite index subgroup. Still, it is part of a stronger result concerning arbitrary
cocompact large-scale quasi-actions on X of arbitrary groups (with no properness
assumption) which, up to a minor continuity issue, is due to Kleiner and Leeb; see
§3.B.
Before going into the proof, let us indicate some corollaries of Theorem 3.A.1.
They illustrate the interest of having a statement for CGLC-groups instead of
only finitely generated groups, even when studying discrete objects such as vertextransitive graphs.
Corollary 3.A.2. Let X be a symmetric space of noncompact type with a wellnormalized metric. Let Y be a vertex-transitive, finite valency connected graph.
Assume that Y is quasi-isometric to X. Then there exists a cocompact lattice Γ ⊂
Isom(X) and an extension W ,→ Γ̃  Γ with W compact, such that Γ̃ admits
a proper vertex-transitive action on Y ; moreover there exists a connected graph Z
on which Γ acts properly and transitively, with a surjective finite-to-one 1-Lipschitz
equivariant quasi-isometry Y → Z.
Proof. Let Γ̃ be the automorphism group of Y ; this is a totally disconnected LCgroup; since Y is vertex-transitive, it is compactly generated and quasi-isometric to
Y and hence to X. By Theorem 3.A.1, there is a proper continuous homomorphism
with cocompact image Γ̃ → Isom(X). Since Isom(X) is a Lie group, this homomorphism has an open kernel K, compact by properness. So the image is a cocompact
lattice Γ.
To obtain Z, observe that the K-orbits in Y have uniformly bounded diameter,
so Z is just obtained as the quotient of Y by the K-action.


ON THE QI CLASSIFICATION OF LC-GROUPS

15

Corollary 3.A.3. Let X be a symmetric space of noncompact type with a wellnormalized metric. Let M be a proper, homogeneous geodesic metric space quasiisometric to X. Then there exists a closed, connected cocompact subgroup H of
Isom(X) and an extension W ,→ H̃  H with W compact, and a faithful proper
isometric transitive action of H̃ on M . If moreover M is contractible then W = 1
and there is a diffeomorphism M → X intertwining the H-action on M with the
original H-action on X.
Proof. The argument is similar to that of Corollary 3.A.2; here H̃ will be the identity
component of the isometry group of M . This proves the first statement.
Fix a point m0 ∈ M and let K be its stabilizer in H̃. Then K is a compact
subgroup. The image of K in H fixes a point x0 in X. So the homomorphism
H̃ → Isom(X) induces a continuous map j : M = H̃/K → X mapping m0 to x0 .
Since H is connected and closed cocompact, its action on X is transitive; it follows
that j is surjective.
Under the additional assumption, let us check that j is injective; by homogeneity,
we have to check that j −1 ({x0 }) = {m0 }. This amounts to check that if g ∈ H̃
fixes x0 then it fixes m0 . Indeed, the stabilizer of x0 in H̃ is a compact subgroup
containing K; since M is contractible, K is maximal compact (see [An11]) and this
implies the result. Necessarily W = 1, because it fixes a point on X and being
normal it fixes all points, so also acts trivially on M ; since H̃ acts by definition
faithfully on M it follows that W = 1.

3.B. Quasi-actions and proof of Theorem 3.A.1. We use the large-scale language introduced in §2.A.1.
The following powerful theorem is essentially due to Kleiner and Leeb [KL09],
modulo the formulation, a continuity issue, and the fact we have equivariance instead
of quasi-equivariance. It is stronger than Theorem 3.A.1 because no properness
assumption is required.
If G is a locally compact group and acts, not necessarily continuously, by isometries on a metric space X, we say that the action is locally bounded if for some/every
x ∈ X and every compact subset K ⊂ G, the subset Kx ⊂ X is bounded; in particular if the action is continuous, then it is locally bounded. We say that the action
is proper if for every compact subset B of X, the set {g ∈ G : gB ∩ B 6= ∅} has
a compact closure in G. The action is cobounded if there exists x ∈ X such that
supy∈X d(y, Gx) < ∞.
Theorem 3.B.1. Let X be a symmetric space of noncompact type with a wellnormalized metric (as defined before Theorem 3.A.1). Let G be a locally compact
group with a locally bounded and cobounded isometric action ρ on a metric space
Y quasi-isometric to X. Then there exists an isometric action of G on X and a
G-equivariant quasi-isometry Y → X. Moreover, the latter action is necessarily
continuous, cocompact, and if ρ is proper then the action is proper.
For the continuity issue, we need the following lemma.
Lemma 3.B.2. Let H be a locally compact group with a continuous isometric action
on a metric space X. Assume that the only element of H acting on X as an isometry
with bounded displacement is the identity. (For instance, X is a minimal proper
CAT(0)-space with no Euclidean factor and H is the full isometry group.) Let G
be a locally compact group with an action of G on X given by a locally bounded

16

YVES CORNULIER

homomorphism ϕ : G → H. Assume that the action of G on X is cobounded. Then
ϕ (and hence the action of G on X) is continuous.
Proof. Let w ∈ H be an accumulation point of ϕ(γ) when γ → 1. Fix compact
neighborhoods ΩG , ΩH of 1 in G and H. Fix g ∈ G. There exists a neighborhood
Vg of 1 in G such that γ ∈ Vg implies g −1 γg ∈ ΩG . Moreover, if we define
Cg = {γ ∈ G : ϕ(γ)−1 w ∈ ϕ(g)ΩH ϕ(g)−1 },
then 1 belongs to the closure of Cg . Hence Vg ∩ Cg 6= ∅, so if we pick γ in the
intersection we get
ϕ(g)−1 ϕ(γ)ϕ(g) ∈ ϕ(ΩG );

ϕ(g)−1 ϕ(γ)−1 wϕ(g) ∈ ΩH ,

so we deduce, for all g ∈ G
ϕ(g)−1 wϕ(g) ∈ ϕ(ΩG )ΩH ,
Since the action is locally bounded, ϕ(ΩG ) is bounded. This shows that for a given
x ∈ X, the distance d(wϕ(g)x, ϕ(g)x) is bounded independently of g. Since G acts
coboundedly, this shows that w has bounded displacement, so w = 1. Since H is
locally compact, this implies that ϕ is continuous at 1 and hence is continuous. 
We need to deduce Theorem 3.A.1 from Theorem [KL09, Theorem 1.5]. For this
we need to introduce all the terminology of quasi-actions. We define a quasi-action
of a group G on a set X as an arbitrary map G → X X , written as g 7→ (x 7→ gx).
If x ∈ X, let ix : G → X be the orbital map g 7→ gx.
If G is a group and X a metric space, a uniformly large-scale Lipschitz (ULSL)
quasi-action of G on X is a map ρ : G → X X , such that for some (µ, α) ∈ R>0 × R,
every map ρ(g), for g ∈ G is a (µ, α)-Lipschitz map (in the sense defined in §2.A.1),
α
α
and satisfying ρ(1) ∼ id and ρ(gh) ∼ ρ(g)ρ(h) for all g, h ∈ G. Note that for a
ULSL quasi-action, all ix are pairwise ∼-equivalent.
The quasi-action is cobounded if the map ix has a cobounded image for every
x ∈ X. If G is a locally compact group, a quasi-action is locally bounded if ix
maps compact subsets to bounded subsets for all x (if G is discrete this is an empty
condition). The quasi-action is coarsely proper if for all x ∈ X, inverse images of
bounded subsets by ix have compact closure.
Given quasi-actions ρ and ρ0 of G on X and X 0 , a map q : X → X 0 is quasiequivariant if it satisfies

sup d q(ρ(g)x), ρ(g)q(x) < ∞.
g∈G,x∈X

The ULSL quasi-actions are quasi-isometrically quasi-conjugate if there is a quasiequivariant quasi-isometry X → X 0 ; this is an equivalence relation.
Lemma 3.B.3. Let (X, d) be a metric space and G a group. Then
(a) If Y is a metric space with an isometric action of G and with a quasi-isometry
q : Y → X, then there is a ULSL quasi-action of G on X so that q is a quasiisometric quasi-conjugacy.
(b) Conversely, if ρ is a ULSL quasi-action of G on X, then there exists a metric
space Y with an isometric G-action and a quasi-equivariant quasi-isometry Y →
X.
Proof. We begin by the easier (a). Let s : X → Y be a quasi-isometry inverse to
q and define a quasi-action of G on X by ρ(g)x = q(g · s(x)); it is straightforward
that this is a ULSL quasi-action and that q is a quasi-isometric quasi-conjugacy.

ON THE QI CLASSIFICATION OF LC-GROUPS

17

For (b), first, let Y ⊂ X be a maximal subset for the property that the ρ(G)y, for
y ∈ Y , are pairwise disjoint. Let us show that ρ(G)Y is cobounded in X. Indeed,
denoting, by abuse of notation a ≈ b if |a − b| is bounded by a constant depending
only on the ULSL constants of ρ, if x ∈ X by maximality there exists y ∈ Y0 and
g ∈ G such that ρ(g)x = ρ(h)y. Then, denoting by dX the distance in X
dX (x, ρ(g −1 h)y) ≈ dX (x, ρ(g −1 )ρ(h)y) ≈ dX (ρ(g)x, ρ(h)y) = 0,
so ρ(G)Y is cobounded.
Consider the cartesian product G × Y , whose elements we denote by g  y rather
than (g, y) for the sake of readability. Define a pseudometric on G × Y by
d(g  y, h  z) = sup dX (ρ(kg)y, ρ(kh)z)
k∈G

If G × Y is endowed with the G-action k · (g  y) = (kg  y), then this pseudo-metric
is obviously G-invariant. Consider the map j : (g  y) 7→ ρ(g)y. Let us check that
j is a quasi-equivariant quasi-isometry (G × Y, d) → X. We already know it has a
cobounded image. We obviously have
(3.1)

d(g  y, h  z) ≥ dX (ρ(g)y, ρ(h)z) = dX (j(g  y), j(h  z)),

and conversely, writing a  b if a ≤ Cb + C where C > 0 is a constant depending
only of the ULSL constants of ρ

d(g  y, h  z) = sup dX ρ(kg)y, ρ(kh)z
k∈G

≈ sup dX ρ(k)ρ(g)y, ρ(k)ρ(h)z
k∈G

dX (ρ(g)y, ρ(h)z) = dX (j(g  y), j(h  z)).
This shows that j is a large-scale bilipschitz embedding. Thus it is a quasi-isometry.
It is also quasi-equivariant, as


dX j(h · (g  y)), ρ(h)j(g  y) = dX ρ(hg)y), ρ(h)ρ(g)y) ≈ 0.
So we obtain the conclusion, except that we have a pseudo-metric; if we identify
points in G × Y at distance zero, the map j factors through the quotient space, as
follows from (3.1) and thus we are done.

Proof of Theorem 3.B.1. The statement of [KL09, Theorem 1.5] is the following: Let
X be a symmetric space of noncompact type with a well-normalized metric. Let G
be a discrete group with a ULSL quasi-action ρ on X. Then ρ is QI quasi-conjugate
to an isometric action.
By Lemma 3.B.3, this can be translated into the following: Let X be as above
and let G be a discrete group with an isometric action ρ on a metric space Y quasiisometric to X. Then there exists an isometric action of G on X and a G-quasiequivariant quasi-isometry q : Y → X.
To get the theorem, we need a few improvements. First, we want the quasiisometry to be equivariant (instead of quasi-equivariant). Starting from q as above,
we proceed as follows. Fix a bounded set Y0 ⊂ Y containing one point in each
G-orbit. For y0 ∈ Y0 , let Gy0 be its stabilizer. Since Gy0 {y0 } = {y0 } and q is
quasi-equivariant, we see that Gy0 {q(y0 )} has its diameter bounded by a constant
C depending only on q (and not on y0 ). By the centre lemma, Gy0 fixes a point
at distance at most C of q(y0 ), which we define as q 0 (y0 ). For y ∈ Y arbitrary,
we pick g and y0 ∈ Y0 (y0 is uniquely determined) such that gy0 = y and define
q 0 (y) = gq 0 (y0 ). By the stabilizer hypothesis, this does not depend on the choice of

18

YVES CORNULIER

g, and we see that q 0 is at bounded distance from q. So q 0 is a quasi-isometry as
well, and by construction is G-equivariant.
Now assume that G is locally compact. Applying the previous result to G endowed
with the discrete topology, we get all the non-topological conclusions. Now from the
additional hypothesis that the action is locally bounded, we obtain that the action on
X is locally bounded. We then invoke Lemma 3.B.2, using that X has no non-trivial
bounded displacement isometry, to obtain that the G-action on X is continuous. It
is clear that the action on X is cobounded, and that if ρ is metrically proper then
the action on X is proper.

Proof of Theorem 3.A.1. Fix a left-invariant word metric d0 on G. Then (G, d) is
quasi-isometric to X and the action of G on (G, d) is locally bounded. So by Theorem
3.B.1, there exists a continuous isometric proper cocompact action on X.

Theorem 3.A.1 was initially proved in the case of discrete groups, for symmetric
spaces with no factor of rank one by Kleiner-Leeb [KL97] and in rank one using
different arguments by:
• Pansu in the case of quaternionic and octonionic hyperbolic spaces;
• R. Chow in the case of the complex hyperbolic spaces [Ch96], ;
• Tukia for real hyperbolic spaces of dimension at least three [Tu86];
• In the case of the real hyperbolic plane, Tukia [Tu88], completed by, independently Casson-Jungreis [CJ94] and Gabai [Ga92].
The synthesis for arbitrary symmetric spaces is due to Kleiner-Leeb [KL09], where
they insightfully consider actions of arbitrary groups, not considering any topology but with no properness assumption. This generality is essential because when
considering a proper cocompact locally bounded action of a non-discrete LC-group,
when viewing it as an action of the underlying discrete group, we lose the properness.
4. Quasi-isometric rigidity of trees
4.A. The QI-rigidity statement. The next theorem is the locally compact version
of the result that a finitely generated group is quasi-isometric to a tree if and only
if it is virtually free, which is a combination of Bass-Serre theory [Ser77], Stallings’
theorem and Dunwoody’s result that finitely presented groups are accessible [Du85],
a notion we discuss below.
Theorem 4.A.1. Let G be a compactly generated locally compact group. Equivalences:
(i) G is quasi-isometric to a tree;
(ii) G is quasi-isometric to a bounded valency tree;
(iii) G admits a continuous proper cocompact isometric action on a locally finite
tree T , or a continuous proper transitive isometric action on the real line;
(iv) G is topologically isomorphic to the Bass-Serre fundamental group of a finite
connected graph of groups, with compact vertex and edge stabilizers with open
inclusions, or has a continuous proper transitive isometric action on the real
line.
Proof (first part). Let us mention that the equivalence between (iii) and (iv) is just
Bass-Serre theory [Ser77]. Besides, the trivial implications are (iii)⇒(ii)⇒(i).
Let us show (i)⇒(ii); let G be compactly generated and let f : T → G be a quasiisometry from a tree T (viewed as its set of vertices). We can pick a metric lattice
J inside G and assume that f is valued in J; the metric space J has finite balls of

ON THE QI CLASSIFICATION OF LC-GROUPS

19

cardinality bounded by a constant depending only on their radius. We can modify
f to ensure that f −1 ({j}) is convex for every j ∈ J. Since f is a quasi-isometry
the convex subsets f −1 ({j}) have uniformly bounded radius. We define a tree T 00
by collapsing each convex subset f −1 ({j}) (along with the edges joining them) to
a point. The collapsing map T 0 → T 00 is a 1-Lipschitz quasi-isometry and thus f
factors through an injective quasi-isometry T 00 → G. It follows that T 00 has balls of
cardinal bounded in terms of the radius; this implies in particular that T 00 has finite
(indeed bounded) valency.
We postpone the proof of (ii)⇒(iv), which is the deep part of the theorem.

Remark 4.A.2. Another characterization in Theorem 4.A.1 is the following: G is
of type FP2 and has asymptotic dimension ≤ 1. Here type FP2 means that the
homology of the Cayley graph of G with respect to some compact generating subset
is generated by loops of bounded length. Indeed, Fujiwara and Whyte [FW07]
proved that a geodesic metric space satisfying these conditions is quasi-isometric to
a tree.
By essential tree we mean a nonempty tree with no vertex of degree 1 and not
reduced to a line. By reduced graph of groups we mean a connected graph of groups
in which no vertex group is trivial, and such that for every oriented non-self edge,
the target map is not surjective. We call a reduced graph nondegenerate if its BassSerre tree is not reduced to the empty set, a point or a line, or equivalently if it is
not among the following exceptions:
• The empty graph;
• A single vertex with no edge;
• A single vertex and a single self-edge so that both target maps are isomorphisms;
• 2 vertices joined by a single edge, so that both target maps have image of
index 2.
Corollary 4.A.3. Let G be a compactly generated locally compact group. Equivalences:
(i) G is quasi-isometric to an unbounded tree not quasi-isometric to the real
line;
(ii) G is quasi-isometric to the 3-regular tree;
(iii) G admits a continuous proper cocompact action on an essential locally finite
nonempty tree T ;
(iii’) G admits a continuous proper cocompact isometric action on nonempty tree
T of bounded valency, with only vertices of degree ≥ 3;
(iv) G is topologically isomorphic to the Bass-Serre fundamental group of a finite nondegenerate reduced graph of groups, with compact vertex and edge
stabilizers, and open inclusions.

4.B. Reminder on the space of ends. Recall that the set of ends of a geodesic
metric space X is the projective limit of π0 (X − B), where B ranges over bounded
subsets of X1 and π0 denotes the set of connected components. Each π0 (X −B) being
endowed with the discrete topology, the set of ends is endowed with the projective
limit topology and thus is called the space of ends E(X).
If X, Y are geodesic metric spaces, any large-scale Lipschitz, coarsely proper map
X → Y canonically defines a continuous map E(X) → E(Y ). Two maps at bounded
distance induce the same map. This construction is functorial. In particular, it maps
quasi-isometries to homeomorphisms.

20

YVES CORNULIER

If G is a locally compact group generated by a compact subset S, the set of ends
[Sp50, Ho74] of G is by definition the set of ends of the 1-skeleton of its Cayley
graph with respect to S. It is compact. Since the identity map (G, S1 ) to (G, S2 )
is a quasi-isometry, the space of ends is canonically independent of the choice of S
and is functorial with respect to continuous proper group homomorphisms.
In the case when G is hyperbolic, it is not hard to prove that the space of ends
is canonically homeomorphic to the space π0 (∂G) of connected components of the
visual boundary.
We note for reference the following elementary lemma, due to Houghton. It is a
particular case of [Ho74, Th. 4.2 and 4.3].
Lemma 4.B.1. Let G be a CGLC-group with G0 noncompact. Then G is (1 or 2)ended; if moreover G/G0 is not compact then G is 1-ended.
Let us also mention, even if it will be not be used here, the following theorem
of Abels [Ab77]: if a compactly generated LC-group has at least 3 ends, the action
of G on E(G) is minimal (i.e., all orbits are dense) unless G is focal hyperbolic of
totally disconnected type (in the sense of §2.E.2).
4.C. Metric accessibility.
Definition 4.C.1 (Thomassen, Woess [TW93]). Let X be a bounded valency connected graph. Say that X is accessible if there exists m such that for every two
distinct ends of X, there exists an m-element subset of the 1-skeleton X that separates the two ends, i.e. so that the two ends lie in distinct components of the
complement.
Accessibility is a quasi-isometry invariant of connected graphs of bounded valency.
Although not needed in view of Theorem 4.A.1, we introduce the following definition,
which is more metric in nature.
Definition 4.C.2. Let X be a geodesic metric space. Let us say that X is diameteraccessible if there exists m such that for every two distinct ends of X, there exists a
subset of X of diameter at most m that separates the two ends.
This is obviously a quasi-isometric invariant property among geodesic metric
spaces. Obviously for a bounded valency connected graph, diameter-accessibility
implies accessibility. The reader can construct, as an exercise, a connected planar
graph of valency ≤ 3 that is accessible (with m = 2) but not-diameter accessible.
Theorem 4.C.3 (Dunwoody). Let X be a connected, locally finite simplicial 2complex with a cocompact isometry group. Assume that H 1 (X, Z/2Z) = 0 (e.g., X
is simply connected). Then X is diameter-accessible.
On the proof. This statement is not explicit, but is the contents of the proof of
[Du85] (it is quoted in [MSW03, Theorem 15] in a closer way). This proof consists
in finding, denoting by G = Aut(X), an equivariant family (Ci )i∈I , indexed by a
discrete G-set I with finitely many G-orbits, of pairwise disjoint compact subsets of
X homeomorphic to graphs and each separating
S X (each X r Ci is not connected),
called tracks, so that each component of X r Ci has the property that its stabilizer
in G acts coboundedly on it, and is (at most 1)-ended. Thus any two ends of X are
separated by one of these components, which have uniformly bounded diameters. 

ON THE QI CLASSIFICATION OF LC-GROUPS

21

4.D. The locally compact version of the splitting theorem. The following
theorem is the locally compact version of Stallings’ theorem; it was proved by Abels
(up to a minor improvement in the 2-ended case).
Theorem 4.D.1 (Stallings, Abels). Let G be a compactly generated, locally compact
group. Then G has at least two ends if and only if splits as a non-trivial HNNextension or amalgam over a compact open subgroup, unless G is 2-ended and is
compact-by-R or compact-by-Isom(R).
On the proof. The main case is when G is a closed cocompact isometry group of a
vertex-transitive graph; this is [Ab74, Struktursatz 5.7]. He deduces the theorem
[Ab74, Korollar 5.8] when G has at least 3 ends in [Ab74, Struktursatz 5.7], the
argument also covering the case when G has a compact open subgroup (i.e. G0 is
compact) in the case of at least 2 ends.
Assume now that G0 is noncompact. By Lemma 4.B.1, if G/G0 is noncompact
then G is 1-ended, so assume that G/G0 is compact. Then G has a maximal compact
subgroup K so that G/K admits a G-invariant structure of Riemannian manifold
diffeomorphic to a Euclidean space ([Mo55, Theorem 3.2] and [MZ55, Theorem 4.6]);
the only case where this manifold has at least two ends is when it is one-dimensional,
hence isometric to R, whence the conclusion.

This yields the following corollary, which we state for future reference. The characterization (iv) of 2-ended groups is contained in Houghton [Ho74, Theorem 3.7];
the stronger characterization (v) is due to Abels [Ab74, Satz B]; the stronger versions (vi) or (vii) can be deduced directly without difficulty; they are written in
[CCMT12, Proposition 5.6].
Corollary 4.D.2. Let G be a compactly generated, locally compact group. Equivalences:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)

G has exactly 2 ends;
G is hyperbolic and #∂G = 2;
G is quasi-isometric to Z;
G has a discrete cocompact infinite cyclic subgroup;
G has an open subgroup of index ≤ 2 admitting a continuous homomorphism
with compact kernel onto Z or R;
(vi) G admits a continuous proper cocompact isometric action on the real line;
(vii) G has a (necessarily unique) compact open normal subgroup W such that
G/W is isomorphic to one of the 4 following groups: Z, Isom(Z), R,
Isom(R).
Proof. The implications (vii)⇒(vi)⇒(v)⇒(iv)⇒(iii)⇒(ii)⇒(i) are clear. Assume
(i). Then, by Theorem 4.D.1, either (vii) holds explicitly or G splits as a non-trivial
HNN-extension or amalgam over a compact open subgroup; the only cases for which
this does not yield more than 2 ends is the case of a degenerate HNN extension (given
by an automorphism of the full vertex group) or an amalgam over a subgroup of
index 2 in both factors. Thus G maps with compact kernel onto Z or the infinite
dihedral group Isom(Z).

4.E. Accessibility of locally compact groups. It is natural to wonder whether
the process of applying iteratively Theorem 4.D.1 stops. This motivates the following
definition.

22

YVES CORNULIER

Definition 4.E.1. A CGLC-group G is accessible if it has a continuous proper
transitive isometric action on the real line, or satisfies one of the following two
equivalent conditions
(i) either G admits a continuous cocompact action on a locally finite tree T
with (at most 1)-ended vertex stabilizers and compact edge stabilizers;
(ii) G is topologically isomorphic to the Bass-Serre fundamental group of a finite
graph of groups, with compact edge stabilizers with open inclusions and (at
most 1)-ended vertex groups.
The equivalence between the two definitions is Bass-Serre theory [Ser77]. For either definition, trivial examples of accessible CGLC groups are (at most 1)-ended
groups. Also, by Theorem 4.D.1, 2-ended CGLC groups are accessible, partly using the artifact of the definition. A non-accessible finitely generated group was
constructed by Dunwoody in [Du93], disproving a long-standing conjecture of Wall.
4.F. Metric vs group accessibility and proof of Theorem 4.A.1. The metric notion of accessibility, which unlike in this paper was introduced after group
accessibility, allowed Thomassen and Woess, using the Dicks-Dunwoody machinery
[DD89], to have a purely geometric characterization of group accessibility (as defined
in Theorem 4.A.1). The following theorem is the natural extension of their method
to the locally compact setting, due to Krön and Möller [KM08, Theorem 15].
Theorem 4.F.1. Let X be a bounded valency nonempty connected graph and G
a locally compact group acting continuously, properly cocompactly on X by graph
automorphisms. Then the following are equivalent
(i) G is accessible (as defined in Definition 4.E.1);
(ii) X is accessible;
(iii) X is diameter-accessible.
On the proof. The statement in [KM08] is the equivalence between (i) and (ii) when
G is totally disconnected. But actually the easy implication (i)⇒(ii) yields (i)⇒(iii)
without change in the proof, as they check that X is quasi-isometric to a bounded
valency graph with a cocompact action, with a G-equivariant family of “cuts”, which
are finite sets, with finitely many G-orbits of cuts, so that any two distinct ends are
separated by one cut. Finally (iii)⇒(ii) is trivial for an arbitrary bounded valency
graph.

End of the proof of Theorem 4.A.1. It remains to show the main implication of Theorem 4.A.1, namely that (ii) implies (iv). Let G be a CGLC-group quasi-isometric
to a tree T . We begin by the claim that G has no 1-ended closed subgroup. Indeed,
if H were such a group, then, being noncompact H, admits a bi-infinite geodesic,
and using the quasi-isometry to T we see that this geodesic has 2 distinct ends in
G. Then these two ends are distinct in H, a contradiction. Let us now prove (iv).
We first begin by three easy cases
• G is compact. There is nothing to prove.
• G is 1-ended. This has just been ruled out.
• G is 2-ended. In this case Corollary 4.D.2 gives the result.
So assume that G has at least 3 ends. By Lemma 4.B.1, G0 is compact, so by
Proposition 2.B.2, it admits a continuous proper cocompact isometric action on a
connected finite valency graph X. Since X is quasi-isometric to a tree, it is diameteraccessible. By Theorem 4.F.1, we deduce that G is accessible. This means that it is

ON THE QI CLASSIFICATION OF LC-GROUPS

23

isomorphic to the Bass-Serre fundamental group of a graph of groups with (at most
1)-ended vertex groups and compact open edge groups. As we have just shown that
G has no closed 1-ended subgroup, it follows that vertex groups are compact. So
(iv) holds.

4.G. Cobounded actions. There is a statement implying Theorem 4.A.1, essentially due to Mosher, Sageev and Whyte, concerning cobounded actions with no
properness assumption. In a tree, say that a vertex is an essential branching vertex
if its complement in the 1-skeleton has at least 3 unbounded components. Say that a
tree is bushy if the set of essential branching vertices is cobounded. We here identify
any tree to its 1-skeleton.
Theorem 4.G.1. Let G be a locally compact group. Consider a locally bounded,
isometric, cobounded action of G on a metric space Y quasi-isometric to a bushy
tree T of bounded valency. Then there exists a tree T 0 of bounded valency with a
continuous isometric action of G and an equivariant quasi-isometry T → T 0 .
Remark 4.G.2. It is not hard to check that a bounded valency non-bushy tree
T quasi-isometric to a metric space with a cobounded isometry group, is either
bounded or contains a cobounded bi-infinite geodesic.
Remark 4.G.3. Theorem 4.G.1 is not true when T is a linear tree (the Cayley graph
of (Z, {±1})). Indeed, taking G to be R acting on R (which is quasi-isometric to
T ), there is no isometric cobounded action on any tree quasi-isometric to Z. Indeed
this action would preserve a unique axis, while there is no nontrivial homomorphism
from R to Isom(Z). In this case, we can repair the issue by allowing actions on Rtrees. But here is a second more dramatic counterexample: the universal covering
f 2 (R) (endowed with either the discrete or Lie topology) admits a locally
G = SL
bounded isometric action on the Cayley graph of (R, [−1, 1]) (see [CCMT12, Example 3.12]), but admits no isometric cobounded action on any R-tree quasi-isometric
to Z, because by the same argument, this action would preserve an axis, while there
f 2 (R) → Isom(R).
is no nontrivial homomorphism of abstract groups SL
On the proof of Theorem 4.G.1. The statement of [MSW03, Theorem 1] is in terms
of quasi-actions, see the conventions in §3.B. It reads: Let G be a discrete group.
Suppose that G has a ULSL quasi-action on a bushy tree T of bounded valency.
Then there exists a tree T 0 of bounded valency with a continuous isometric action of
G and a quasi-equivariant quasi-isometry T → T 0 .
By Lemma 3.B.3, it can be translated as: (*) Let G be a discrete group. Consider
a locally bounded, isometric, cobounded action of G on a metric space Y quasiisometric to a bushy tree T of bounded valency. Then there exists a tree T 0 of bounded
valency with an isometric action of G and a quasi-equivariant quasi-isometry T →
T 0.
To get the statement of Theorem 4.G.1, apply (*) to the underlying discrete group;
the action on T 0 we obtain is then locally bounded. Since T 0 has at least 3 ends, the
only isometry with bounded displacement is the identity, so we deduce by Lemma
3.B.2 that the action on T 0 is continuous.
Let us now sketch the proof of (*) (which is the discrete case of Theorem 4.G.1), as
the authors of [MSW03] did not seem to be aware of the Thomassen-Woess approach
and repeat a large part of the argument.
Start from the hypotheses of (*). A trivial observation is that we can suppose Y
to be a connected graph. Namely, using that T is geodesic, there exists r such that

24

YVES CORNULIER

if we endow Y with a graph structure by joining points at distance ≤ r by an edge,
then the graph is connected and the graph metric and the original metric on Y are
quasi-isometric through the identity. The difficulty is that Y need not be of finite
valency.
The construction of an isometric action of G on a connected finite valency graph Z
quasi-isometrically quasi-conjugate to the original quasi-action is done in [MSW03,
§3.4] (this is the part where it is used that the tree is bushy). It is given by a
homomorphism G → Isom(Z). By Theorem 4.A.1, Isom(Z) has a continuous proper
cocompact action on a tree T 0 . Note that the actions of Isom(Z) on both Z and T 0 are
quasi-isometrically conjugate to the left action of Isom(Z) on itself, so there exists
a quasi-isometry Z → T 0 which is quasi-equivariant with respect to the Isom(Z)action, and therefore is quasi-equivariant with respect to the G-action. Finally, to
get equivariance instead of quasi-equivariance, we use the same argument (based on
the center lemma, which holds in T 0 ) as in the proof of Theorem 3.B.1.

4.H. Accessibility of compactly presented groups. Recall that a CGLC-group
is compactly presented if has a presentation with a compact generating set and
relators of bounded length. If it has a compact open subgroup, it is equivalent to
require that G has a continuous proper cocompact combinatorial action on a locally
finite simply connected simplicial 2-complex (see Proposition 4.H.3).
Let us also use the following weaker variant: G is of type FP2 mod 2 if G is quotient of a compactly presented LC-group by a discrete normal subgroup N such that
Hom(N, Z/2Z) = 0. If G has a compact open subgroup, it is equivalent (see Proposition 4.H.5) to require that G has a continuous proper cocompact combinatorial
action on a locally finite connected 2-complex X such that H 1 (X, Z/2Z) = 0.
By Lemma 4.B.1, if G0 is not compact then G is (at most two)-ended and thus
is accessible by Corollary 4.D.2. Otherwise if G0 is compact (i.e., G has a compact
open subgroup), the restatement of the definition shows that as a consequence of
Theorems 4.C.3 and 4.F.1, we have the following theorem, whose discrete version
was the main theorem in [Du85].
Theorem 4.H.1. If G is a compactly generated locally compact group of type FP2
mod 2 (e.g., G is compactly presented) then G is accessible.

Corollary 4.H.2. Every hyperbolic locally compact group is accessible.



Proposition 4.H.3. Let G be a locally compact group with G0 compact. Equivalences:
(i) G is compactly presented, that it, it has a presentation with a compact generating set and relators of bounded length;
(ii) G has a presentation with a compact generating set and relators of length
≤ 3;
(iii) G has a continuous proper cobounded combinatorial action on a simply connected simplicial 2-complex X.
(iv) G has a continuous proper cocompact combinatorial action on a locally finite
simply connected simplicial 2-complex X.
Proof. Trivially we have (iv)⇒(iii) and (ii)⇒(i).
(iii)⇒(ii). Let A be a connected bounded closed subset of X such that the Gtranslates of A cover X. Then if S = {g ∈ G | gA ∩ A 6= ∅}, then S is compact by
properness, and by [Ko65, Lemma p. 26], G is generated by S and relators of length
≤ 3. So (ii) holds.

ON THE QI CLASSIFICATION OF LC-GROUPS

25

(i)⇒(iv). Let S be a compact symmetric generating subset with relators of
bounded length; enlarging S if necessary, we can suppose that S contains a compact open subgroup K and that S = KSK. The Cayley-Abels graph (Proposition
2.B.2) is a graph with vertex set G/K and an unoriented edge from gK to g 0 K if
g −1 g 0 ∈ S r K. This is a G-invariant locally finite connected graph structure on
G/K. Define a simplicial 2-complex structure by adding a triangle every time its
2-skeleton appears.
Define a simplicial 2-complex structure on the Cayley graph of G with respect to
S in the same way. Then the projection G → G/K has a unique extension between
the 2-skeleta, affine in each simplex (possibly collapsing a simplex onto a simplex of
smaller dimension). The Cayley 2-complex of G is simply connected, because the
relators of length ≤ 3 define the group.
It remains to check that the simplicial 2-complex on G/K is simply connected.
Indeed, given a loop based at 1, we can homotope it to a combinatorial loop on the
1-skeleton. We can lift such a loop to a combinatorial path (1 = g0 , g1 , . . . , gk ) on
G and ending at the inverse image of 1, namely K. If k = 0 there is nothing to do,
otherwise observe that gk−1 ∈ KS ⊂ S. So we can replace gk by 1, thus the new
lifted path is a loop. This loop has a combinatorial homotopy to the trivial loop,
which can be pushed forward to a combinatorial homotopy of the loop on G/K. So
the simplicial 2-complex on G/K is simply connected. Thus (iv) holds.

Lemma 4.H.4. Let G be a compactly presented locally compact group with G0 compact. Then G has a continuous proper cocompact combinatorial action on a locally
finite simply connected simplicial 2-complex X with no inversion (i.e. for each g ∈ G,
the set of G-fixed points is a subcomplex) and with a main vertex orbit, in the sense
that every g ∈ G fixing a vertex, fixes a vertex in the main orbit, and if an element
is the identity on the main orbit then it is the identity. Moreover, the main vertex
orbit can be chosen as G/K for any choice K of compact open subgroup.
Sketch of proof. The proof is essentially a refinement of the proof of (i)⇒(iv) of
Proposition 4.H.3, so we just indicate how it can be adapted to yield the lemma.
We start with the same construction, but using oriented edges (without self-loops),
and then we add, each time we have 3 oriented edges (e1 , e2 , e3 ) forming a triangle
with 3 distinct vertices (with compatible orientations, i.e. the target of e1 is the
source of e2 , etc.), we add a triangle. Because of the double edges, this is not yet
simply connected; so for any two adjacent vertices x, y we glue two bigons indexed
by (x, y) and (y, x) (note that the union of these 2 bigons is homeomorphic to a
2-sphere). The resulting complex is simply connected. Then the action of G has
the required property. The problem is that because of bigons, we do not have a
simplicial complex. To solve this, we just add vertices at the middle of all edges
and all bigons, split the bigons into 4 triangles by joining the center to all 4 vertices
(thus pairs of opposite bigons now form the 2-skeleton of a octahedron), and split
the original triangles into 4 triangles by joining the middle of the edges. We obtain
a simplicial 2-complex; the cost is that we have several vertex orbits, but then G/K
is the “main orbit” in the sense of the proposition.

Proposition 4.H.5. Let G be a locally compact group with G0 compact. Let A be
a discrete abelian group. Equivalences:
(i) G is isomorphic to a quotient G̃/N with G̃ compactly presented, N a discrete
normal subgroup of G̃, and Hom(N, A) = 0;

26

YVES CORNULIER

(ii) G has a continuous proper cocompact combinatorial action on a locally finite
simplicial 2-complex X with H 1 (X, A) = 0.
Proof. Suppose (i) and let us prove (ii). We can suppose G0 = {1}. Choose K to
be a compact open subgroup with K ∩ N = {1}. Consider an action α of G̃ on a
2-complex X as in Lemma 4.H.4 and main vertex orbit G/K. Then the action of
N on X is free: indeed, if an element of N fixes a point, then it fixes a vertex in the
main orbit and hence it has some conjugate in N ∩ K, thus is trivial.
So G = G̃/N acts continuously properly cocompactly on N \X, which is a simplicial 2-complex as N acts freely on X. Now we have, fixing an implicit base-point in
X
(4.1)

H 1 (X, A) ' Hom(π1 (N \X), A)

Since π1 (N \X) ' N , we deduce that H 1 (X, A) = 0.
Conversely suppose (ii), denote by α the action of G on X and W its kernel.
Fixing a base-vertex in X, let X̃ be the universal covering. Let H be the group of
automorphisms of X̃ that induce an element of α(G). It is a closed subgroup and is
cocompact on X̃; its projection ρ to α(G) is surjective. Let
G̃ = {(g, h) ∈ G × H | α(g) = ρ(h)} ⊂ G × H
be the fibre product of G and H over α(G). Then it contains W × {1} as a compact
normal subgroup, and the quotient is canonically isomorphic to H. The kernel of
the projection G̃ → G is equal to {1}×Ker(ρ), which is discrete and consists of deck
transformations of the covering X̃ → X and is in particular isomorphic to π1 (X).
Again using (4.1), we obtain that Hom(N, A) = {0}.

Remark 4.H.6. In case A is the trivial group, both (i) and (ii) of Proposition
4.H.5 hold. At the opposite, keeping in mind that any nontrivial abelian group B
satisfies Hom(B, Q/Z) 6= 0, the case A = Q/Z of Proposition 4.H.5 characterizes
locally compact groups with compact identity component that are of type FP2 ; for
A = Z/2Z it characterizes CGLC-groups with compact identity component that are
of type FP2 mod 2.
4.I. Maximal 1-ended subgroups. In a locally compact group, let us call an
M1E-subgroup a compactly generated, 1-ended open subgroup that is maximal
among compactly generated, 1-ended open subgroups.
Lemma 4.I.1. Let G be a 1-ended CGLC-group. Then every inversion-free continuous action of G on a nonempty tree with compact edge stabilizers has a unique
fixed vertex.
Proof. We can suppose that the action is minimal. If the tree is not reduced to a
singleton, the action induces a nontrivial decomposition of G as a Bass-Serre fundamental group of a graph of groups with compact open edge stabilizers, contradicting
that G is 1-ended. So G fixes a vertex v; if it fixes another vertex v 0 , then it fixes
every edge in between, contradicting that edge stabilizers are compact.

The following lemma is straightforward.
Lemma 4.I.2. Let G be an LC-group, and p : G → G/W the quotient by some
compact normal subgroup. Then for every M1E-subgroup H of G, p(H) is an M1Esubgroup of G/W , and for every M1E-subgroup L of G/W , p−1 (H) is an M1Esubgroup of G.


ON THE QI CLASSIFICATION OF LC-GROUPS

27

Lemma 4.I.3. Let G be a compactly generated accessible LC-group and H a closed
cocompact subgroup. Then
(a) for every M1E-subgroup L of G, the intersection L ∩ H is an M1E-subgroup of
H;
(b) every M1E-subgroup of H is contained in a unique M1E subgroup of G.
Proof. (a) Define N = L ∩ H. Since L is open and H is cocompact, the intersection
N is cocompact in L. So N is 1-ended. By Proposition 4.I.4, N is contained in an
M1E-subgroup P of H. Let T be a tree on which G acts continuously with compact
edge stabilizers. Then by Lemma 4.I.1, each of P , L, and N fix a unique vertex in T ,
and since P ⊃ N ⊂ L, this unique vertex v is the same for all. Then L ⊂ Gv ⊃ P ,
where Gv is the stabilizer of v. Moreover, Gv is 1-ended and since L is M1E, we
deduce that Gv = L. Thus P ⊂ L. Hence P ⊂ L ∩ H = N , and therefore P = N .
(b). Let L be a M1E subgroup of H. By Proposition 4.I.4, L is contained in a
M1E-subgroup M of G. Since H is cocompact in G and M is open, the intersection
H ∩ M is cocompact in M ; in particular, it is 1-ended and open in H. Since
L ⊂ H ∩ M is an M1E-subgroup of G, we deduce that L = H ∩ M . Hence L is
cocompact in M , showing the existence. To prove the uniqueness, let M 0 be another
M1E-subgroup of G containing L. As in the previous paragraph, using the inclusions
M ⊃ L ⊂ M 0 , using a tree with a continuous G-action with compact edge stabilizers
and 1-ended vertex stabilizers, and applying Lemma 4.I.1, we obtain that all fix a
common vertex v, and since M ⊂ Gv ⊃ M 0 and M, M 0 are M1E-subgroups, we
obtain M = Gv = M 0 .

Proposition 4.I.4. Let G be an accessible LC-group and H a closed, 1-ended compactly generated subgroup. Then H is contained in a M1E-subgroup. Moreover, H
is an M1E-subgroup if and only if there is a continuous inversion-free action of G
on a tree, with compact edge stabilizers, such that H is the stabilizer of some vertex.
Proof. Assume that H of some vertex stabilizer in some inversion-free continuous
action on a tree with compact edge stabilizers. Then H is open. Let L be a 1ended subgroup containing H. By Lemma 4.I.1, L fixes some unique vertex v 0 . By
uniqueness of the vertex fixed by H (again Lemma 4.I.1), we have v = v 0 . Since H
is the stabilizer of v, we deduce that H = L. So H is a ME1-subgroup, proving one
implication of the second statement.
Now start again with the assumptions of the proposition. Since G is accessible,
it admits a continuous action on a tree T with no inversion, with compact edge
stabilizers and (at most 1)-ended edge stabilizers. By Lemma 4.I.1, H is contained
in a vertex stabilizer L. Then L is not compact, hence it is 1-ended. From the
previous paragraph of this proof, we know that L is a M1E-subgroup, which proves
the first statement. If moreover H is M1E, we deduce H = L, which establishes the
converse implication of the second statement.

5. Commable groups, and commability classification of amenable
hyperbolic groups
Let us recall some definitions and results from [Co15].
For a homomorphism between LC-groups, write copci as a (pronounceable) shorthand for continuous proper with cocompact image.
We say that a hyperbolic LC-group is faithful if it has no nontrivial compact
normal subgroup. A simple observation [CCMT12, Lemma 3.6(a)] shows that any

28

YVES CORNULIER

hyperbolic LC-group G has a maximal compact normal subgroup W (G); in particular G/W (G) is faithful. Note that if G is faithful then G◦ is a connected Lie
group.
5.A. Generalities. Let us say that two LC-groups G, H are commable if there exist
an integer k and a sequence of copci homomorphisms
(5.1)

G = G0 −− G1 −− G2 −− . . . −− Gk = H,

where each sign −− denotes an arrow in either direction.
We sometimes use fancy arrows such as %, - to make it more readable. For
instance, if there are three copci homomorphisms G ← G1 → G2 ← H, we can
write that G is commable to H through -%-, or that there is a commability
G -%- H.
More generally, if D is a class of locally compact groups and G, H ∈ D, we say
that G, H are commable within the class D if the same condition holds with the
additional requirement that the LC-groups Gi in (5.1) belong to D.
We will especially consider for D the class of focal (resp. faithful, resp. focal and
faithful) hyperbolic LC-groups.
Remark 5.A.1. To be compactly generated is invariant by commability among
LC-groups. In particular, any two commable CGLC-groups are quasi-isometric.
The converse is not true, even for finitely generated groups. Examples are Γ1 ∗ Z
and Γ2 ∗ Z, when Γ1 , Γ2 are cocompact lattices in SL3 (R) that are not abstractly
commensurable, according to an unpublished observation of Carette and Tessera
(see §5.B).
Here is a possible other example, of independent interest. Let BS(m, n) be the
Baumslag-Solitar group, defined by the presentation ht, x | txm t−1 = xn i. Then, by a
result of Whyte [Wh01], the groups BS(2, 3) and BS(3, 5) are quasi-isometric; he also
makes the simple observation that these groups do not have isomorphic finite index
subgroups (i.e., since they are torsion-free, are not commable within discrete groups).
I do not know whether BS(2, 3) and BS(3, 5) are commable, but I expect a negative
answer. More generally, it would be of great interest to determine the commability
and quasi-isometry classes (within locally compact groups) of any Baumslag-Solitar
group BS(p, q). Their external quasi-isometry classification is addressed, within
discrete groups, in [MSW11].
Remark 5.A.2. If G and H are commable, we can define their commability distance
as the least k such that there exists a commability such as in (5.1). I do not know if
this can be greater than 4. Anyway, this notion forgets the direction of the arrows;
for instance, to have a commensuration through %- or -% are very different
relations.
Lemma 5.A.3 (Proposition 2.7 in [Co15]). Any copci homomorphism f : G1 → G2
between LC-groups satisfies f −1 (W (G2 )) = W (G1 ). In particular, if W (G1 ) is compact (e.g., if G1 is hyperbolic), f thus factors through an injective copci homomorphism f 0 : G1 /W (G1 ) → G2 /W (G2 ), which is injective.

Corollary 5.A.4. Let F denote the class of focal hyperbolic LC-groups. Given
faithful hyperbolic LC-groups G1 and G2 ,
• G1 and G2 are commable if and only they are commable within faithful
hyperbolic groups;

ON THE QI CLASSIFICATION OF LC-GROUPS

29

• assuming G1 and G2 focal, G1 and G2 are commable within focal hyperbolic
groups if and only they are commable within faithful focal hyperbolic groups.

Remark 5.A.5. We can define strict commability in the same fashion as commability, but only allowing injective copci homomorphisms. Since a copci homomorphism between faithful focal hyperbolic LC-groups is necessarily injective, Corollary
5.A.4 shows that between faithful hyperbolic LC-groups, commability and strict
commability are the same, and more generally that hyperbolic LC-groups G1 , G2
are commable if and only if G1 /W (G1 ) and G2 /W (G2 ) are strictly commable. Similar consequences hold for commability within focal hyperbolic LC-groups.
5.B. Non-commable quasi-isometric discrete groups. Let us abbreviate totally disconnected to TD; thus compact-by-TD LC-groups are the same as Hausdorff topological groups with a compact open subgroup. Also, recall that maximal
1-ended (M1E) subgroups were introduced in §4.I.
Lemma 5.B.1. Let G, H be compactly generated, accessible locally compact groups
with infinitely many ends. Assume that G and H are commable. Then every M1Esubgroup of G is commable within compact-by-TD subgroups to a M1E subgroup of
H.
Proof. Since G and H have infinitely many ends, they are compact-by-TD as well
as all LC-groups commable to them, and their closed subgroups. The result then
follows, by an immediate induction, from Lemmas 4.I.2 and 4.I.3.

Lemma 5.B.2. Let Γ be a finitely generated group with no nontrivial finite normal subgroup. Assume that every compact-by-TD LC-group quasi-isometric to Γ is
compact-by-discrete and has a maximal compact normal subgroup.
Then a compact-by-TD LC-group H is commable to Γ within compact-by-TD LCgroups if and only if its compact normal subgroup W exists and H/W is commensurable (= strictly commable within discrete groups) to Γ.
Proof. Consider a sequence of copci homomorphisms Γ = G0 −
− G1 −
− ... −
− Gk = H
between compact-by-TD LC-groups. When G is an LC-group, let W(G) denote the
union of all compact normal subgroups; when G admits a maximal compact normal
subgroup, it is equal to W(G). Note that W(Γ) = {1} by the first assumption.
Then any copci homomorphism U → V maps W(U ) into W(V ) (this follows from
Proposition 5.A.3). It follows that the above sequence induces a sequence of homomorphisms Γ −− G1 /W(G1 ) −− . . . −− Gk /W(Gk ) = H/W(H), which are copci
homomorphisms since W(Gi ) is compact for all i, by the assumptions. All these
groups being discrete, this means that Γ and H/W(H) are commensurable.

Example 5.B.3 (Carette-Tessera). Let S be a noncompact connected semisimple Lie
group with trivial center. Let Γ, Λ be non-commensurable cocompact lattices in S
(this exists unless S is isomorphic to the product of a compact group with SL2 (R)).
Then Γ ∗ Z and Λ ∗ Z are quasi-isometric but not commable, as we now show.
A consequence of Theorem 3.A.1 is that every LC-group quasi-isometric to S is
compact-by-Lie. In particular, every compact-by-TD LC-group quasi-isometric to S
is compact-by-discrete. Accordingly, the assumption of Lemma 5.B.2 is satisfied by
Γ, and it follows this lemma that Γ and Λ are not commable within compact-by-TD
LC-groups.

30

YVES CORNULIER

Since S is 1-ended, so are Γ and Λ, and therefore these are M1E-subgroups in
Γ ∗ Z and Λ ∗ Z. Thus, by Lemma 5.B.1, we deduce that Γ ∗ Z and Λ ∗ Z are not
commable.
To show that Γ ∗ Z and Λ ∗ Z are quasi-isometric, we first need to know that
Γ and Λ are bilipschitz (the result follows by an immediate argument). That they
are bilipschitz follows from a result of Whyte [Wh99] asserting that any two quasiisometric non-amenable finitely generated groups are bilipschitz.
The next three subsections address commability within focal groups. See §5.F for
the link with commability.
5.C. Connected type. We say that a focal hyperbolic group is focal-universal if it
satisfies the following: for every LC-group H, the group H is commable to G within
focal groups if and only if there is a copci homomorphism H → G.
Theorem 5.C.1 ([Co15]). Let G be a focal hyperbolic LC-group of connected type.
Then G is commable to a focal-universal LC-group Ĝ, which thus satisfies: for
every LC-group H, the group H is commable to G within focal groups if and only
if there is a copci homomorphism H → Ĝ. Moreover, Ĝ is unique up to topological
isomorphism.
Corollary 5.C.2. Any two commable focal hyperbolic groups of connected type are
commable within focal groups through %-.

Focal-universal groups of connected type give a canonical set of representatives
of commability classes of focal hyperbolic LC-groups of connected type. However,
another canonical set of representatives, sometimes more convenient (e.g. in view of
the classification small dimension) is given by purely real Heintze groups.
Proposition 5.C.3. Every focal-universal LC-group of connected type has a unique
closed cocompact subgroup that is purely real Heintze. Every focal hyperbolic group of
LC-type is commable to a purely real Heintze group, unique up to isomorphism. 
Example 5.C.4. Here is (without proof) the classification of purely real Heintze
groups in dimension 2 ≤ d ≤ 4. For each isomorphy class we give one representative.
• d = 2: the only group is the affine group Carn(R) = RoR, where the action
is given by t · x = et x. It is isomorphic to a closed cocompact subgroup in
Isom(H2R ).
• d = 3: the groups are the Gλ for λ ≥ 1, as well as a certain Gu1 . All these
groups are defined as a semidirect product R2 oR. In Gλ , the action is given
by t · (x, y) = (et x, eλt y), while in Gu1 it is given by t · (x, y) = et (x + ty, y).
Note that G1 = Carn(R2 ) is isomorphic to a closed cocompact subgroup of
Isom(H3R ).
• d = 4. It consists of semidirect products R3 o R and Hei3 o R, where
Hei3 is the 3-dimensional Heisenberg group. More precisely, the semidirect
products R3 o R consist of the Gλ,µ for 1 ≤ λ ≤ µ, with action given
(u)
by t · (x, y, z) = (et x, eλt y, eµt z), of the Gλ (λ > 0) for which the action is given by t · (x, y, z) = (et (x + ty), et y, eλt z), and of Gu1 for which
the action is given by t · (x, y, z) = et (x + ty + t2 z/2, y + tz, z). If we
use coordinates for the Heisenberg group so that the product is given by
(x, y, z)(x0 , y 0 , z 0 ) = (x+x0 , y+y 0 , z+z 0 +xy 0 −x0 y) (these are not the standard
matrix coordinates!), the corresponding Heintze groups are Hλ for λ ≥ 1

ON THE QI CLASSIFICATION OF LC-GROUPS

31

with action given by t · (x, y, z) = (et x, eλt y, e(1+λ)t z), and H1u with action
given by t · (x, y, z) = et (x + y, y, z). Note that G1,1 = Carn(R3 ) is isomorphic to a closed cocompact subgroup of Isom(H4R ), and H1 = Carn(Hei3 ) is
isomorphic to a closed cocompact subgroup of Isom(H2C ).
• For d = 5, we do not give the full classification, but just mention that the
groups occurring are semidirect products R4 oR, (Hei3 ×R)oR, or Fil4 oR,
for various contracting actions we do not describe, where Fil4 is the filiform
4-dimensional Lie group, whose Lie algebra has a basis (a, e1 , e2 , e3 ) so that
[a, ei ] = ei+1 for i = 1, 2 and all other brackets between basis elements
vanish. The Carnot groups Carn(Hei3 × R) and Carn(Fil4 ) are the smallest
examples of Carnot groups that are not isomorphic to closed cocompact
groups of isometries of rank 1 symmetric spaces of noncompact type.
• For d0 ≤ 6, there are finitely many isomorphism classes of simply connected
Carnot-gradable nilpotent Lie groups of dimension d0 (namely 1,1,2,3,7,21
isomorphism classes for d0 = 1, . . . , 6), while for d0 ≥ 7 there are continuously
many. Hence for d ≤ 7 there are finitely many isomorphism classes of purely
real Heintze groups of Carnot type, and continuously many for d ≥ 8.
5.D. Totally disconnected type. Define, for every integer m ≥ 2, FTm as the
stabilizer of a given boundary point in the automorphism group of an (m+1)-regular
tree.
If G is any locally compact group having exactly two (opposite) continuous homomorphisms onto Z (e.g., any focal hyperbolic group not of connected type), for
n ≥ 1 we denote by G[n] the inverse image of nZ by any of these homomorphisms.
By non-power integer we mean an integer q ≥ 1 that is not an integral proper
power of any integer (thus excluding 4, 8, 9, 16, 25, 27, 32, 36, 49 . . . ).
An easy observation (Proposition 5.F.3) is that any two focal hyperbolic LCgroups G1 , G2 of totally disconnected type are always commable. However, they are
not always commable within focal groups:
Proposition 5.D.1 ([Co15]). Let G1 , G2 be focal hyperbolic LC-groups of totally
disconnected type. The following are equivalent:
(i) G1 and G2 are commable within focal groups;
(ii) ∆(G1 ) and ∆(G2 ) are commensurable subgroups of R+ (i.e. ∆(G1 ) ∩ ∆(G2 )
has finite index in both).
(iii) There exists a non-power integer q ≥ 2 such that ∆(G1 ) and ∆(G2 ) are both
contained in the multiplicative group hqi = {q n : n ∈ Z};
(iv) there is a commability within focal groups G1 %-%- G2 ;
(v) there exists a non-power integer q ≥ 2 and an integer n ≥ 1, such that for
i = 1, 2 there is a there is a commability within focal groups Gi %- FT[n]
q ;
(vi) there exists a non-power integer q ≥ 2 such that for i = 1, 2, there is a
commability within focal groups with Gi %-% FTq ;
(vii) there is a commability within focal groups G1 -%-% G2 ;
(viii) there exists an integer m ≥ 2, such that for i = 1, 2 there is a there is a
commability within focal groups Gi -% FTm .
5.E. Mixed type. If G is a locally compact group, its elliptic radical G] is its
largest closed elliptic normal subgroup, where elliptic means that every compact
subset is contained in a compact subgroup. If G is focal of mixed type, then G/G]
is focal of connected type.

32

YVES CORNULIER

Definition 5.E.1 ([Co15]). Let G be a focal hyperbolic LC-group. Consider the
modular functions of G/G◦ and G/G] ; by composition they define homomorphisms
con
∆td
G , ∆G : G → R+ , which we call restricted modular functions. Since Hom(G, R)
is 1-dimensional, if G is not of totally disconnected type then ∆con
G is nontrivial and
con
hence there exists a unique $ = $(G) ∈ R such that log ◦∆td
G = $(log ◦∆G ).
Because of the compacting element in G, necessarily $(G) ≥ 0, with equality if
and only if G is of connected type. If G is of totally disconnected type we set
$(G) = +∞.
Definition 5.E.2. Let H, A be a focal hyperbolic LC-groups, H being of connected
type with a surjective modular function and A being of totally disconnected type.
For $ > 0, define
$

H × A = {(x, y) ∈ H × A | ∆H (x)$ = ∆A (y)}.
$

This is a focal hyperbolic LC-group of mixed type, satisfying $(H × A) = $. If
q ≥ 2 is an integer and $ is a positive real number, define in particular
$

H[$, q] = H × FTq .
Proposition 5.E.3 ([Co15]). Let G1 , G2 be focal hyperbolic LC-groups of mixed
type. Equivalences:
(i) G1 and G2 are commable;
(ii) the following three properties hold:
• G1 /G◦1 and G2 /G◦2 are commable within focal groups;
• G1 /G]1 and G2 /G]2 are commable within focal groups
• $(G1 ) = $(G2 );
(iii) there is a commability within focal groups G1 %-%- G2 ;
(iv) there exists a non-power integer q ≥ 2, an integer n ≥ 1, a focal-universal
group of connected type H and a positive real number $ > 0 such that
for i = 1, 2 there is a there is a commability within focal groups Gi %H[q, $][n] ;
(v) there exists a non-power integer q ≥ 2, a focal-universal group of connected
type H and a positive real number $ > 0 such that for i = 1, 2, there is a
commability within focal groups with Gi %-% H[$, q];
(vi) there is a commability within focal groups G1 -%-% G2 ;
(vii) there exists an integer m ≥ 2, a focal-universal group of connected type H
and a positive real number $ > 0 such that for i = 1, 2 there is a there is a
commability within focal groups Gi -% H[$, m].
In view of Proposition 5.C.3, we deduce:
Corollary 5.E.4. Every focal hyperbolic LC-group of mixed type G is commable to
an LC-group of the form H[$, q], for some purely real Heintze group H uniquely
defined up to isomorphism, a unique $ ∈ ]0, ∞[, and a unique non-power integer
q.

5.F. Commability between focal and general type groups.
5.F.1. The following lemma from [Co15] is essentially contained in [CCMT12].
Lemma 5.F.1. Let G1 , G2 be focal hyperbolic LC-groups. Equivalences:
(i) there exists a hyperbolic LC-group G with copci homomorphisms G1 → G ←
G2 .

ON THE QI CLASSIFICATION OF LC-GROUPS

33

(ii) there exists a focal hyperbolic LC-group G with copci homomorphisms G1 →
G ← G2 .

Proposition 5.F.2. Let G be a focal hyperbolic LC-group not of totally disconnected type. Let H be a locally compact group commable to G. Then the following
statements hold.
(a) If H is focal, then G and H are commable within focal groups;
(b) if H is non-focal, then there exists a rank 1 symmetric space of noncompact type
X and continuous proper compact isometric actions of G and H on X.
Proof. If G is quasi-isometric to any rank 1 symmetric space X of noncompact type,
then by Theorem 3.A.1 we have copci homomorphisms G → Isom(X) ← H; if H is
of general type this proves (b); if H is focal then conjugating by some isometry we
can suppose it has the same fixed point in ∂X as G, proving (a).
Assume otherwise that G is not quasi-isometric to any rank 1 symmetric space of
noncompact type. To show the result, it is enough to check that the commability
class of G consists of focal groups. Otherwise, there is a copci homomorphism
G1 → G2 between groups in the commability class of G, such that G1 is focal and
G2 is not focal. By Theorem 1.1(b), it follows that G is quasi-isometric to some
rank 1 symmetric space of noncompact type (which is excluded) or to a tree (which
is excluded since ∂G is positive-dimensional).

Proposition 5.F.3 ([Co15]). Two focal hyperbolic LC-groups G1 , G2 of totally disconnected type are always commable through %-%-, and are commable to a
finitely generated free group of rank ≥ 2 through %-.
Proof. There is a copci homomorphism Gi → Aut(Ti ) for some regular tree Ti of
finite valency at least 3. For d large enough, Aut(Ti ) (i = 1, 2) contains a cocompact lattice isomorphic to a free group of rank k = 1 + d!. Thus we have copci
homomorphisms G1 → Aut(T1 ) ← Fk → Aut(T2 ) ← G2 .

5.F.2. Special groups.
Definition 5.F.4. By special hyperbolic LC-group we mean any CGLC-group commable
to both focal and general type hyperbolic LC-groups. A CGLC-group quasi-isometric
to a special hyperbolic group is called quasi-special.
See Remark 5.F.8 for some motivation on the choice of terminology. Taking
Theorems 3.A.1 and 4.A.1 for granted, we have the following characterizations of
special and quasi-special hyperbolic groups.
Proposition 5.F.5. Let G be a CGLC-group. Equivalences:
(i) G is special hyperbolic;
(ii) G is commable to the isometry group of a metric space X which is either a
rank 1 symmetric space of noncompact type or to a 3-regular tree.
We also have the equivalences:
(iii) G is quasi-special hyperbolic;
(iv) G is quasi-isometric to either a rank 1 symmetric space of noncompact type
or to a 3-regular tree;
(v) G admits a continuous proper cocompact isometric action on either a rank 1
symmetric space or nondegenerate tree (see §4.A) (which can be chosen to
be regular if G is focal).

34

YVES CORNULIER

Moreover, if G is quasi-special and not special, then it is of general type and quasiisometric to a 3-regular tree.
Proof. Let us begin by proving the equivalence (i)⇔(ii), not relying on Theorems
3.A.1 and 4.A.1.
(ii)⇒(i) is clear since, denoting by X the space in (ii), it follows that G is commable
to both Isom(X) and Isom(X)ω for some boundary point.
(i)⇒(ii) We can suppose that G is focal. If G is of totally disconnected type, then by
the easy [CT11, Proposition 4.6] (which makes G act on its Bass-Serre tree), G has a
continuous proper cocompact isometric action on a regular tree and thus (ii) holds.
Assume that G is not of totally disconnected type. Let G = H0 − H1 − H2 · · · − Hk
be a sequence of copci arrows (in either direction) with Hk = Isom(X), which is
of general type. Let i be minimal such that Hi is of general type. Then i ≥ 1,
Hi−1 is focal and necessarily the copci arrow is in the direction Hi−1 → Hi . So Hi
is hyperbolic of general type and its identity component is not compact. Thus by
[CCMT12, Proposition 5.10], Hi is isomorphic to an open subgroup of finite index
subgroup in the isometry group of a rank 1 symmetric space of noncompact type,
proving (ii).
Let us now prove the second set of equivalences.
(v)⇒(iv) is immediate, in view of Lemma 5.F.9.
(iv)⇒(iii) let X be the space as in (iv); then Isom(X) is special since it is of general
type and the stabilizer of a boundary point is focal and cocompact.
(iii)⇒(v): if G is quasi-special, then it is quasi-isometric to a space as in (ii), so (v)
is provided by Theorems 3.A.1 and 4.A.1, except the regularity of the tree in the
focal case, in which case we can then invoke the easy [CT11, Proposition 4.6] (which
makes G act on its Bass-Serre tree).
For the last statement, observe that (v)⇒(ii) holds in case in (v) we have a
symmetric space or a regular tree.

Remark 5.F.6. In the class of hyperbolic LC-groups quasi-isometric to a nondegenerate tree (which is a single quasi-isometry class, described in Corollary 4.A.3),
there is a “large” commability class, including
(i) all focal hyperbolic groups of totally disconnected type (by Proposition
5.F.3);
(ii) all discrete groups (i.e., non-elementary virtually free finitely generated
groups);
(iii) more generally, all unimodular groups quasi-isometric to a non-degenerate
tree (because they have a cocompact lattice by [BK90]), including all automorphism groups of regular and biregular trees of finite valency;
(iv) non-ascending HNN extensions of compact groups over open subgroups:
indeed the Bass-Serre tree is then a regular tree. Such groups are non-focal
are often non-unimodular.
It is natural to ask whether this “large” class is the whole class:
Question 5.F.7. Are any two hyperbolic LC-groups quasi-isometric to the 3-regular
tree commable? Equivalently, does quasi-special imply special?
It is easy to check that any such group is commable to the Bass-Serre fundamental
group of a connected finite graph of groups in which all vertex and edge groups are
b (the profinite completion of Z). I expect a positive answer to
isomorphic to Z
Question 5.F.7.

ON THE QI CLASSIFICATION OF LC-GROUPS

35

Update. This question was settled positively in full generality by M. Carette
[Ca13] after being asked in a previous version of this survey and in [Co15].
A thorough study of cocompact isometry groups of bounded valency trees is carried out in [MSW02].
Remark 5.F.8. The adjective “special” indicates that special hyperbolic LC-groups
are quite exceptional among hyperbolic LC-groups, although they are the bestknown. For instance, there are countably many quasi-isometry classes of such
groups, namely one for trees and one for each homothety class of rank 1 symmetric
space of noncompact type (and finitely many classes for each fixed asymptotic dimension), while there are continuum many pairwise non-quasi-isometric 3-dimensional
Heintze groups.
Let us mention the following lemma, which is well-known but often referred to
without proof.
Lemma 5.F.9. Let T be a bounded valency nonempty tree with no vertex of degree
1 and in which the set of vertices of valency ≥ 3 is cobounded. Then T is quasiisometric to the 3-regular tree. In particular, if T is a bounded valency tree with a
cocompact isometry group and at least 3 boundary points then it is quasi-isometric
to the 3-regular tree T 0 .
Proof. A first step is to get rid of valency 2 vertices. Indeed, since there are no
valency 1 vertex and by the coboundedness assumption, every valency 2 vertex v
lies in a unique (up to orientation) segment consisting of vertices v0 , . . . , vn with v0 ,
vn of valency ≥ 3, and each v1 , . . . , vn−1 being of valency 2, and n being bounded
independently of v. If we remove the vertices v1 , . . . , vn−1 and join v0 and vn with
an edge, the resulting tree is clearly quasi-isometric to T . Hence in the sequel, we
assume that T has no vertex of valency ≤ 2.
Let s ≥ 3 be the maximal valency of T . Denote by T 0 and T 1 the 0-skeleton and
1-skeleton of T . Let T3 be a 3-regular tree, and fix an edge, called root edge, in
both T and T3 , so that the n-ball T (n) means the n-ball around the root edge (for
n = 0 this is reduced to the edge). Let us define a map f : T → T3 , by defining it
by induction on the n-ball T (n).
We prescribe f to map the root edge to the root edge, and, for n ≥ 0, we assume
by induction that f is defined on the n-ball of T 0 . The convex hull of f (T (n)) is
a finite subtree A(n) of T3 . We assume the following property P(n): the subtree
A(n) ⊂ T30 has no vertex of valency 2, and the n-sphere of T 0 is mapped to the
boundary of this subtree A(n). Let v belong to the n-sphere of T . Then v has a
single neighbor not in the (n + 1)-sphere, and has a number m ∈ [2, s − 1] of other
neighbors, in the (n + 1)-sphere of T . The vertex f (v) has a single neighbor w0
in A(n). (Choosing a root edge instead of a root vertex is only a trick to avoid a
special step when n = 0.)
We use the following claim: in the binary rooted tree of height k ≥ 1 and root o,
for every integer in m ∈ [2, 2k ] there exists a finite subset F of vertices of cardinal m
with o ∈
/ F such that the convex hull of F ∪ {o} has exactly F as set of vertices of
valency 1 and admits only o as set of vertices of valency 2. The proof is immediate:
reducing the value of k if necessary, we can suppose m ≥ 2k−1 , and then, writing
m = 2k−1 + t = 2t + (2k−1 − t), choose 2k−1 − t vertices of height k − 1, and choose
the 2t descendants (of height k) of the remaining t vertices of height k − 1, to form
the subset F , and it fulfills the claim.

36

YVES CORNULIER

Now choose k = dlog2 (s − 1)e, consider the set
Mv = {w ∈ T30 : d(w, w0 ) − 1 = d(w, f (v)) ≤ k}
(in other words, those vertices at distance ≤ k from f (v) not in the direction of w0 );
this is a binary tree, rooted at f (v), of height k. Since m ≤ s − 1, and s − 1 ≤ 2k , we
have m ≤ 2k and by the claim there is a finite subset Fv ⊂ M r {f (v)} of cardinal
m with the required properties. So the convex hull of f (T (n)) ∪ Fv admits, in M ,
only elements of Fv as vertices of valency 1, and no vertices of valency 1.
Noting that the Mv are pairwise disjointS(v ranging over the n-sphere of T ), we
deduce S
that the convex hull of f (T (n)) ∪ v Fv admits no vertex of valency 2 and
admits Fv as set of vertices of valency 1. Now extend f to the (n + 1)-ball by
choosing, for every v in the n-sphere of T , a bijection between its set of neighboring
vertices in the (n + 1)-sphere and Fv (recall that they have the same cardinal by
construction). Then P(n + 1) holds by construction.
By induction, we obtain a map f : T 0 → T30 ; it is injective by construction,
and more precisely d(f (v), f (v 0 )) ≥ d(v, v 0 ) for all v, v 0 ; moreover f is k-Lipschitz.
In addition, if A(n) is the convex hull of the image of T (n), then an immediate
induction shows that A(n) contains the n-ball T3 (n), and every point is at distance

≤ k to the image of f . Thus f is a quasi-isometry T 0 → T30 .
5.G. A few counterexamples.
5.G.1. Groups of connected type with no common cocompact subgroup. We have seen
that any two commable focal groups of connected type are commable through %-.
This is not true with -%. The simplest example is obtained as follows: start
from the group G = R o R (the affine group), u = log ◦∆G , G1 = u−1 (Z) and
G2 = u−1 (λZ) where λ is irrational. Since ∆(G1 ) ∩ ∆(G2 ) = {1}, it is clear that G1
and G1 are not -%-equivalent.
5.G.2. Focal groups not acting on the same space. We saw that commable focal
hyperbolic LC-groups of connected type are commable through %-. This is not
true in other types. We give here some examples of totally disconnected type;
examples of mixed type can be derived mechanically by “adding” a connected part.
Recall from §5.D that all FTn , for n ≥ 2, are commable, and that FTm and FTn
are commable within focal groups if and only if m and n are integral powers of the
same integer. In contrast, we have:
Proposition 5.G.1 ([Co15]). If 2 ≤ m < n, there exist no hyperbolic LC-group G
with copci homomorphisms FTm → G ← FTn .

Corollary 5.G.2. If m, n ≥ 2 are distinct, there is no proper metric space with
continuous proper cocompact isometric actions of both FTm and FTn .

5.G.3. Discrete groups not acting on the same space. This subsection is a little tour
beyond the focal case, dealing with discrete analogues of the examples in Proposition
5.G.1.
Let us mention a consequence of Theorem 4.A.1, already observed in [MSW03,
Corollary 10] with a slightly different point of view. Let Cn be a cyclic group of order
n. Recall that all discrete groups Cn ∗ Cm , for n ≥ 2 and m ≥ 2 are quasi-isometric
to the trivalent regular tree.
Proposition 5.G.3. Let (p1 , q1 ) and (p2 , q2 ) be pairs of primes ≥ 3. If {p1 , q1 } =
6
{p2 , q2 }, then the groups Cp1 ∗ Cq1 and Cp1 ∗ Cq2 are not isomorphic to cocompact

ON THE QI CLASSIFICATION OF LC-GROUPS

37

lattices in the same locally compact group, and thus do not act properly cocompactly
on the same nonempty proper metric space.
Lemma 5.G.4. Let T be a tree with a cobounded action of its isometry group. Then
it admits a unique minimal cobounded subtree T 0 (we agree that ∅ ⊂ T is cobounded
if T is bounded). Moreover, T = T 0 if and only if T has no vertex of degree 1.
Proof. Let T 0 be the union of all (bi-infinite) geodesics in T ; a straightforward argument shows that T 0 is a subtree. Observe that any geodesic is contained in every
cobounded subtree: indeed, any point of a geodesic cuts the tree into two unbounded
components. It follows that T 0 is contained in every cobounded subtree; by definition, T 0 is Isom(T )-invariant.
Let us show that T 0 is cobounded. If T is bounded then T 0 = ∅ and is cobounded
by convention. So let us assume that T is unbounded; then it is enough to show
that T 0 6= ∅, because then the distance to T 0 is invariant by the isometry group, so
takes a finite number of values by coboundedness. To show that T 0 6= ∅, it is enough
to show that Isom(T ) has a hyperbolic element: otherwise the action of Isom(T )
would be horocyclic and thus would preserve the horocycles with respect to some
point at infinity, which would prevent coboundedness of the action of Isom(T ).
The last statement is clear from the definition of T 0 .

If p, q ≥ 2 are numbers and m ≥ 1, define a tree Tp,q,m as follows: start from the
(p, q)-biregular tree and replace each edge by a segment made out of m consecutive
edges. Note that if p, q ≥ 3, the unordered pair {p, q} is uniquely determined by the
isomorphy type of Tp,q,m .
Lemma 5.G.5. Let p, q be primes and let Cp ∗ Cq act minimally properly on a
nonempty tree T with no inversion. Then T is isomorphic to Tp,q,m for some m ≥ 1.
Proof. This gives Cp ∗ Cq as Bass-Serre fundamental group of a finite connected
graph of groups ((Γv )v , (Γe )e ) with finite vertex groups. This finite graph X is a
finite tree, because Hom(Cp ∗ Cq , Z) = 0. Let v be a degree 1 vertex of this finite
tree, and let e be the oriented edge towards v. Then the embedding of Γv into Γe is
not an isomorphism, because otherwise the action on the tree would not be minimal
(v corresponding to a degree one vertex in the Bass-Serre universal covering).
Since vertex stabilizers are at most finite of prime order, this shows that such
edges are labeled by the trivial group. This gives a free decomposition of the group
in as many factors as degree 1 vertices in X. So X has at most 2 degree 1 vertices and
thus is a segment, and then shows that other vertices are labeled by the trivial group.
If the number of vertices is m + 1, this shows that T is isomorphic to Tp,q,m .

Proof of Proposition 5.G.3. Note these groups have no nontrivial compact normal
subgroup, so the second statement is a consequence of the first by considering the
isometry group of the space.
Suppose they are cocompact lattices in a single locally compact group G. Then
G is compactly generated and quasi-isometric to a tree, so by Theorem 4.A.1 acts
properly cocompactly, with no inversion and minimally on a finite valency tree T .
By Lemma 5.G.4, the action of Cpi ∗ Cqi is minimal for i = 1, 2. By Lemma 5.G.5,
the tree is isomorphic to Tpi ,qi ,mi for i = 1, 2, which implies {p1 , q1 } = {p2 , q2 }, a
contradiction.


38

YVES CORNULIER

6. Towards a quasi-isometric classification of amenable hyperbolic
groups
6.A. The main conjecture. We use the notion of commability studied in Section
5. Here is the main conjecture about quasi-isometric rigidity of focal hyperbolic
LC-groups.
Conjecture 6.A.1. Let G be a focal hyperbolic LC-group. Then any compactly generated locally compact group H is quasi-isometric to G if and only if it is commable
to G.
An LC-group H as in the conjecture is necessary non-elementary hyperbolic. Thus
the conjecture splits into two distinct issues:
• (internal case) when H is focal, in which case the conjecture can be restated
as: two focal hyperbolic LC-groups are quasi-isometric if and only if they
are commable; this is discussed in §6.B;
• (external case) when H is of general type; this is discussed in §6.C.
The commability classes of focal hyperbolic LC-groups having been fully described
in §5 (except in the totally disconnected type), Conjecture 6.B.1 provides a comprehensive description. Note that unlike in the two other types, in the totally disconnected type, the quasi-isometric classification is known (and trivial, since there is a
single class) but the commability classification is still an open question (Question
5.F.7).
6.B. The internal classification.
6.B.1. The main internal QI-classification conjecture. Let us repeat the internal
part of Conjecture 6.A.1:
Conjecture 6.B.1. Let G be a focal hyperbolic LC-group. Then any focal hyperbolic
LC-group H is quasi-isometric to G if and only if it is commable to G.
In other words, any two focal hyperbolic LC-groups are quasi-isometric if and
only if they are commable. The conjecture is stated in a less symmetric formulation
so that it makes sense to state that the conjecture holds for a given G. Note that
any two focal hyperbolic LC-groups of totally disconnected type are commable by
Proposition 5.F.3, so there is no need to discard them as in Conjecture 6.A.1.
Note that the “if” part is trivial. Thus the conjecture is a putative description
of the internal quasi-isometry classification of focal hyperbolic groups (and thus of
the spaces associated to these groups), using the description of commability classes,
which is described in a somewhat satisfactory way in Section 5.
Conjecture 6.B.1 can in turn be split into the connected and mixed cases.
6.B.2. Internal QI-classification in connected type. The following was originally stated
as a theorem by Hamenstädt in her PhD thesis [Ha87], who told me to rather consider it as a conjecture:
Conjecture 6.B.2. Let H be a purely real Heintze group. If a purely real Heintze
group L is quasi-isometric to H, then it is isomorphic to H.
In other words, the conjecture states that two purely real Heintze groups are
quasi-isometric if and only if they are isomorphic. The non-symmetric formulation
of the conjecture is convenient because it makes sense to assert that it holds for a

ON THE QI CLASSIFICATION OF LC-GROUPS

39

given H. Note that the same statement holds true for commability, by Corollary
5.E.4.
Note that by Corollary 5.C.2 and Proposition 5.C.3, an equivalent formulation
of the conjecture consists in replacing both times “purely real Heintze group” by
“faithful focal-universal hyperbolic LC-group of connected type”. We also have
Proposition 6.B.3. Conjecture 6.B.1 specified to groups of connected type is equivalent to Conjecture 6.B.2.
Proof. Assume that Conjecture 6.B.1 holds for groups of connected type. If H1 is
purely real Heintze and is quasi-isometric to H, by the validity of Conjecture 6.B.1,
H and H1 are commable; hence by Proposition 5.F.2 are commable within focal
groups. By Theorem 5.C.1, there is a faithful focal-universal LC-group G and copci
homomorphisms H → G ← H1 . Viewing these homomorphisms as inclusions, by
Proposition 5.C.3, we obtain that H = H1 .
Conversely, suppose that Conjecture 6.B.2 holds. Let G1 , G2 be quasi-isometric
focal hyperbolic groups of connected type. By Proposition 5.C.3, they are commable
to purely real Heintze groups H1 and H2 , which are isomorphic by Conjecture 6.B.2.
Hence G1 and G2 are commable.

The results of Section 5, or alternatively the more general Gordon-Wilson approach (see Remark 6.B.5), shows the following evidence for Conjecture 6.B.2.
Proposition 6.B.4. Two purely real Heintze groups admit continuous simply transitive isometric actions on the same Riemannian manifold if and only if they are
isomorphic.
Proof. If the groups are 1-dimensional, the only possibility is R. Assume they have
dimension ≥ 2; then they are focal hyperbolic of connected type and commable,
hence isomorphic by the results of [Co15] (see Corollary 5.E.4).

Remark 6.B.5. The results of Gordon and Wilson [GW88] show that Proposition
6.B.4 holds in a much greater generality, namely for purely real simply connected
solvable Lie groups (sometimes called real triangulable groups). Indeed, let H1 , H2
be such groups and X the Riemannian manifold. Then H1 and H2 stand as closed
subgroups in the isometry group of the homogeneous Riemannian manifold Isom(X).
Gordon and Wilson define a notion of “subgroup in standard position” in Isom(X).
In [GW88, Theorem 4.3], they show that any real triangulable subgroup is in standard position, and thus H1 and H2 are in standard position. In [GW88, Theorem
1.11], they show that in Isom(X), all subgroups in standard position are conjugate
(and are actually equal, in case Isom(X) is amenable, see [GW88, Corollary 1.12]).
Thus H1 and H2 are isomorphic.
Here are some partial results towards Conjecture 6.B.2.
• Conjecture 6.B.2 holds for H when H is abelian, by results of Xie [Xi09b].
• Conjecture 6.B.2 holds for H when the purely real Heintze group H is
cocompact in the group of isometries of a rank 1 symmetric space of noncompact type. This follows from Theorem 3.A.1 (combined, for instance,
with Proposition 6.B.3).
• If purely real Heintze groups H1 , H2 of Carnot type (see §2.G) are quasiisometric, then Pansu’s Theorem [Pa89m, Theorem 2] implies that H1 and
H2 are isomorphic.

40

YVES CORNULIER

• Pansu’s estimates of Lp -cohomology in degree 1 [Pa07] provide useful quasiisometry invariants.
• Carrasco [Ca15, Cor. 1.9] proves the following: given a Heintze group
H = N o R, let nmin be the characteristic subspace relative to the smallest
eigenvalue of some dilating element of R, and H min = exp(nmin ) o R. Then
he proves that if purely real Heintze groups H1 , H2 are quasi-isometric, then
H1min and H2min are isomorphic. He also proves that being of Carnot type is
a quasi-isometry invariant.
6.B.3. Internal QI-classification in the mixed type. In mixed type, we can specify
Conjecture 6.B.1 as follows (see Definitions 5.E.1 and 5.E.2)
Conjecture 6.B.6. Let H be a nonabelian purely real Heintze group, $ > 0 a positive real number, and q a non-power integer, and define G = H[$, q]. If (H 0 , $0 , q 0 )
is another such triple and G and G0 = H 0 [$0 , q 0 ] are quasi-isometric then they are
isomorphic.
Proposition 6.B.7. Conjecture 6.B.1 specified to groups of mixed type is equivalent
to Conjecture 6.B.6.
Proof. Suppose that Conjecture 6.B.1 specified to groups of mixed type holds. If
G and G0 are given as in Conjecture 6.B.6, then the validity of Conjecture 6.B.1
implies that G and G0 are commable. By Corollary 5.E.4, we deduce that G and G0
are isomorphic.
Conversely assume that Conjecture 6.B.6 holds. Let G be as in Conjecture 6.B.1,
of mixed type, and let G0 be a focal hyperbolic LC-group, quasi-isometric to G. Then
G0 is necessarily of mixed type (by Corollary 2.F.8). By Corollary 5.E.4, G and G0
are respectively commable to groups of the form H[$, q] and H 0 [$0 , q 0 ], which by
the validity of Conjecture 6.B.6 are isomorphic, so that G and G0 are commable. 
The following theorem indicates that a significant part of Conjecture 6.B.6 holds,
and provides a full reduction to the connected case Conjecture 6.B.2.
Theorem 6.B.8. Let G = H[$, q] and G0 = H[$, q 0 ], as in Conjecture 6.B.6, be
quasi-isometric. Then the following statements hold:
(a) [Co15] H and H 0 are quasi-isometric;
(b) [Co15] $ = $0 ;
(c) (T. Dymarz [Dy12]) q = q 0 .
In particular, if H satisfies Conjecture 6.B.2 then H[$, q] satisfies Conjecture 6.B.6.

Theorem 6.B.8 shows that Conjecture 6.B.6 boils down to Conjecture 6.B.2. However, the proofs of (a) and especially of (c) in [Dy12] suggest that Conjecture 6.B.6
might be easier than Conjecture 6.B.2, because its boundary exhibits more rigidity.
Let us indicate an application from [Co15]. Let X be a homogeneous negatively
curved manifold of dimension ≥ 2. For t > 0, let X{t} be obtained from X by
multiplying the Riemannian metric by t−1 (thus multiplying the distance by t−1 and
the sectional curvature by t). For instance, H2{t} is the rescaled hyperbolic plane
with constant curvature −t.
Theorem 6.B.9 ([Co15]). If k1 , k2 are integers ≥ 2 and t1 , t2 are positive real
numbers, then X{t1 } [k1 ] and X{t2 } [k2 ] are quasi-isometric if and only if log(k1 )/t1 =
log(k2 )/t2 and k1 , k2 have a common integral power.


ON THE QI CLASSIFICATION OF LC-GROUPS

41

In particular, when either k ≥ 2 or t > 0 is fixed, the X{t} [k] are pairwise nonquasi-isometric.
The proof indeed consists in proving that if G is a focal hyperbolic LC-group with
a continuous proper cocompact isometric action on X{t} [k], then $(G) = c log(k)/t,
where the constant c > 0 only depends on X. In particular, the last statement of the
theorem follows from the quasi-isometric invariance of $, while the first statement
follows from it as well as Dymarz’ invariance of the invariant q, and for the (easier)
converse, relies on Proposition 5.E.3.
6.C. Quasi-isometric amenable and non-amenable hyperbolic LC-groups.
The external classification can be asked in two (essentially) equivalent but intuitively
different ways:
• Which amenable hyperbolic LC-groups are QI to hyperbolic LC-groups of
general type?
• Which hyperbolic LC-groups of general type are QI to amenable hyperbolic
LC-groups?
These questions are equivalent but they can be specified in different ways. A
potential full answer is given by the following conjecture:
Recall from Definition 5.F.4 that a hyperbolic LC-group is special if and only if
it is both commable to amenable and non-amenable LC-groups and quasi-special if
it is quasi-isometric to a special hyperbolic group. Such groups have a very peculiar
form, see Proposition 5.F.5 for characterizations.
Conjecture 6.C.1. Let G be a hyperbolic LC-group. Then G is quasi-isometric to
both an amenable and a non-amenable CGLC-group if and only if G is quasi-special
hyperbolic.
Remark 6.C.2. The “if” part of the conjecture is clear. Conjecture 6.C.1 is a
coarse counterpart to [CCMT12, Theorem D], which is transcribed here as Case (b)
of Theorem 1.1 or as the equivalence (i)⇔(ii) of Proposition 5.F.5.
Proposition 6.C.3. Conjecture 6.A.1 specified to H of general type is equivalent
to Conjecture 6.C.1.
Proof. Suppose that Conjecture 6.A.1 holds for H of general type. Let G be as in
Conjecture 6.C.1; if G is quasi-isometric to the trivalent tree then it is quasi-special;
otherwise G is then quasi-isometric, and hence commable by the (partial) validity
of Conjecture 6.A.1, to both focal (not of totally disconnected type) and non-focal
hyperbolic LC-groups. We conclude by Proposition 5.F.5 that G is special.
Conversely assume Conjecture 6.C.1 holds. Suppose that G, H are quasi-isometric
hyperbolic LC-groups with G focal not of totally disconnected type and H of general
type. By the validity of Conjecture 6.C.1, each of G and H is quasi-special, and
hence special by Proposition 5.F.5. Thus again by Proposition 5.F.5(ii), G and H
commable to the isometry group of a rank 1 symmetric space of noncompact type;
since non-homothetic rank 1 symmetric spaces of noncompact type are not quasiisometric, we get the same group for G and H and thus they are commable.

We now wish to specify Conjecture 6.C.1.
Conjecture 6.C.4. Let H = N o R be a purely real Heintze group of dimension
≥ 2. Then either H is special, or H is not quasi-isometric to any vertex-transitive
finite valency graph.

42

YVES CORNULIER

Remark 6.C.5. The special role played by those purely real Heintze that are “accidentally” special make the conjecture delicate.
Lemma 6.C.6. Assume that H is a non-special purely real Heintze group of dimension ≥ 2 . Then any CGLC group G quasi-isometric to H is either focal hyperbolic
of connected type (as defined in §2.E.1), or is compact-by-(totally disconnected). If
moreover H satisfies Conjecture 6.C.4, then G is focal hyperbolic of connected type.
Proof. If G is focal, its boundary is a sphere, it is of connected type.
Otherwise G is of general type. By Theorem 3.A.1, H is not quasi-isometric to a
rank 1 symmetric space of noncompact type and therefore G is compact-by-(totally
disconnected). In particular, H is quasi-isometric to a vertex-transitive connected
finite valency graph, and this is a contradiction in case Conjecture 6.C.4 holds. 
Using a number of results reviewed above, we can relate the two conjectures.
Proposition 6.C.7. Conjectures 6.C.1 and 6.C.4 are equivalent.
Proof. Assume Conjecture 6.C.1 holds. Consider H as in Conjecture 6.C.4, quasiisometric to a vertex-transitive finite valency graph X. Then H is quasi-isometric to
Isom(X); if the latter is focal, being totally disconnected, it is of totally disconnected
type, hence its boundary is totally disconnected, contradicting Corollary 2.F.8. So
Isom(X) is of general type; the validity of Conjecture 6.C.1 then implies that H is
special.
Conversely assume Conjecture 6.C.4 holds. Let G be quasi-isometric hyperbolic
LC-groups G1 , G2 , with G1 of general type and G2 focal; we have to show that G is
special. By Corollary 2.F.12, G2 is either of totally disconnected or connected type.
In the first case, G2 is special. Since by Proposition 5.F.5 being special hyperbolic is
a quasi-isometry among CGLC-groups, we deduce that G is special. In the second
case, by Proposition 5.C.3, G2 is commable to a purely real Heintze group H. If by
contradiction H is not special, since it satisfies Conjecture 6.C.4, by Lemma 6.C.6
G1 is focal, a contradiction.

Remark 6.C.8. Another restatement of the conjectures is that the class of nonspecial focal hyperbolic LC-groups is closed under quasi-isometries among CGLCgroups.
Let us now give a more precise conjecture.
Conjecture 6.C.9 (Pointed sphere Conjecture). Let H be a purely real Heintze
group of dimension ≥ 2. Let ω be the H-fixed point in ∂H. If H is not isomorphic
to the minimal parabolic subgroup in any simple Lie group of rank one, then every
quasi-symmetric self-homeomorphism of ∂H fixes ω.
The justification of the name is that the boundary ∂H naturally comes with
a distinguished point; topologically this point is actually not detectable since the
sphere is topologically homogeneous, but the quasi-symmetric structure ought to
distinguish this point, at the notable exception of the cases for which it is known
not to do so.
In turn, the pointed sphere Conjecture implies Conjecture 6.C.4. More precisely:
Proposition 6.C.10. Let H satisfy the pointed sphere Conjecture. Then it also
satisfies Conjecture 6.C.4.

ON THE QI CLASSIFICATION OF LC-GROUPS

43

Figure 2. A pointed 2-sphere: the boundary of a generic hyperbolic
semidirect product R2 o R.
Proof. Let H satisfy the pointed sphere Conjecture. If H is minimal parabolic, both
conjectures are tautological, so assume the contrary. Assume by contradiction that
H is QI to a vertex-transitive graph X of finite valency. The action of Isom(X) on
its boundary is conjugate by a quasi-symmetric map to a quasi-symmetric action
on ∂H. By assumption, this action fixes a point. So Isom(X) is focal of totally
disconnected type, contradicting Corollary 2.F.8.

Theorem 6.C.11 (Pansu, Cor. 6.9 in [Pa89d]). Consider a purely real Heintze
group N o R, not of Carnot type (see Definition 2.G.1). Suppose in addition that
the action of R on the Lie algebra n is diagonalizable. Then H satisfies the pointed
sphere Conjecture.
In case N is abelian, the assumption is that the contracting action of R is not
scalar (in order to exclude minimal parabolic subgroups in PO(n, 1) = Isom(HnR )).
Theorem 6.C.12 (Carrasco [?]). The pointed sphere Conjecture for all purely real
Heintze groups that are not of Carnot type.
In the particular case of Heintze groups of the form H = N o R holds with N
abelian, this was previously proved by X. Xie [Xi09b] with different methods.
Theorem 6.C.11 covers all cases when H has dimension 3 (i.e. N has dimension 2),
2
with the exception of the semidirect
 t
product R o R with action by the 1-parameter
t
e te
group (Ut )t∈R where Ut =
, which is dealt with specifically in [Xi09a].
0 et
In Xie’s Theorem (the pointed sphere conjecture for H = N o R with N abelian),
the most delicate case is that of an action with scalar diagonal part and nontrivial
unipotent part; it is not covered by Pansu’s Theorem 6.C.11. In turn, the first examples of purely real Heintze groups not covered by Xie’s theorem are semidirect
products Hei3 oR, where Hei3 is the Heisenberg group, with the exclusion of the minimal parabolic subgroup Carn(Hei3 ) (see Remark 2.G.2) in PU(2, 1) = Isom(H2C ). If
the action on (Hei3 )ab = Hei3 /[Hei3 , Hei3 ] has two distinct eigenvalues, then Pansu’s
Theorem 6.C.11 applies. The remaining case of the pointed sphere Conjecture for
dim(H) = 4 is the one for which the action on (Hei3 )ab has is not diagonalizable but
has scalar diagonal part, and is covered by Carrasco’s theorem.
The remaining cases of the pointed sphere conjecture are now those Heintze groups
of Carnot type Carn(N ). Note that if N is abelian or is a generalized (2n + 1)dimensional Heisenberg group Hei2n+1 (characterized by the fact its 1-dimensional
center equals its derived subgroup), then Carn(N ) is minimal parabolic. Therefore,
the first test-cases would be when N is a non-abelian 4-dimensional simply connected
nilpotent Lie group: there are 2 such Lie groups up to isomorphism: the direct
product Hei3 ×R and the filiform Lie group Fil4 , which can be defined as (R[x]/x3 )o
R where t ∈ R acts by multiplication by (1 + x)t = 1 + tx + t(t−1)
x2 .
2

44

YVES CORNULIER

6.D. Conjecture 6.B.2 and quasi-symmetric maps. An important tool, given
a geodesic hyperbolic space and ω ∈ ∂X, is the visual parabolic metric on the
“parabolic boundary” ∂X r {ω}. Note that unlike the visual metric, these are
generally unbounded. It shares the property that any quasi-isometric embedding
f : X → Y induces a quasi-symmetric embedding ∂X r {ω} → ∂Y r {f¯(ω)}.
This follows from the corresponding fact for visual metrics and the fact that the
embedding ∂X r {ω} ⊂ ∂X is quasi-symmetric [SX09, Section 5].
The parabolic boundaries and the quasi-symmetric homeomorphisms between
those are therefore important tools in the study of quasi-isometry classification and
notably Conjecture 6.B.2. Let us include the following simple lemma.
Lemma 6.D.1. Let G, G0 be focal hyperbolic LC-groups and ω, ω 0 the fixed points in
their boundary. Suppose that there exists a quasi-isometry f : G → G0 . Then there
exists a quasi-isometry u : G → G0 such that ū maps ω to ω 0 .
Proof. If f¯(ω) = ω 0 there is nothing to do. Otherwise, since G is transitive on
∂G r {ω}, there is a left translation v on G such that v̄(f¯−1 (ω 0 )) 6= f¯−1 (ω 0 ). Then
f¯v̄ f¯−1 = f vf −1 is a quasi-symmetric self-homeomorphism of ∂G0 not fixing ω 0 , so
the group of quasi-isometries generated by f vf −1 and by left translations of G0 is
transitive on ∂G0 . Thus after composition of f by a suitable quasi-isometry in this
group, we obtain a quasi-isometry u such that ū maps ω is mapped to ω 0 .

If G is a focal hyperbolic LC-group of connected type, with no nontrivial compact
normal subgroup, and N is its connected nilpotent radical, then the action of N on
∂Gr{ω} is simply transitive and the visual parabolic metric induces a left-invariant
distance on N . When G is of Carnot type (see §2.G), this distance is equivalent (in
the bilipschitz sense) to the Carnot-Caratheodory metric. In general I do not know
how to describe it directly on N .
6.E. Further aspects of the QI classification of hyperbolic LC-groups. This
final subsection is much smaller than it should be. It turns around the general
question: how is the structure of a hyperbolic LC-group of general type related to
the topological structure of its boundary?
The following theorem is closely related, in the methods, to the QI classification
of groups quasi-isometric to the hyperbolic plane. It should be attributed to the
same authors, namely Tukia, Gabai, and Casson-Jungreis, to which we need to add
Hinkkanen in the non-discrete case.
Theorem 6.E.1. Let G be a hyperbolic LC-group. Then ∂G is homeomorphic to
the circle if and only if G has a continuous proper isometric cocompact action on
the hyperbolic plane.
Proof. The best-known (and hardest!) case of the theorem is when G is discrete.
See for instance [KB02, Theorem 5.4]. It immediately extends to the case when G
is compact-by-discrete (i.e. has an open normal compact subgroup).
Assume now that G is not compact-by-discrete. Consider the action α : G →
Homeo(∂G) on its boundary by quasi-symmetric self-homeomorphisms. Endow
Homeo(∂G) with the compact-open topology, which (for some choice of metric on
∂G) is the topology of uniform convergence; the function α is continuous. Since
G is non-elementary hyperbolic, the kernel of α is compact, and therefore by assumption the image α(G) is non-discrete. We can then apply Hinkkanen’s theorem
about non-discrete groups of quasi-symmetric self-homeomorphisms [Hi90]: after

ON THE QI CLASSIFICATION OF LC-GROUPS

45

fixing a homeomorphism identifying ∂G with the projective line, α(G) is contained
in a conjugate of PGL2 (R). Thus after conjugating, we can view α as a continuous homomorphism with compact kernel from G to PGL2 (R). It follows that
H = G/ Ker(α) is a Lie group. Since G is not compact-by-discrete, we deduce that
the identity component H ◦ is noncompact.
If H is focal, then it acts continuously properly isometrically cocompactly on a
millefeuille space X[k]; the boundary condition implies that k = 1 (so X[k] = X)
and X is 2-dimensional, hence is the hyperbolic plane. Otherwise H is of general
type, and since H ◦ is noncompact we deduce that H is a virtually connected Lie
group; being of general type it is not amenable, hence not solvable and we deduce
that the image of H in PGL2 (R) has index at most 2. Thus in all cases G admits
a continuous proper cocompact isometric action on the hyperbolic plane.

Conjecture 6.E.2. Let G be a compactly generated locally compact group. Suppose
that G is quasi-isometric to a negatively curved homogeneous Riemannian manifold
X. Then G is compact-by-Lie.
Proposition 6.E.3. Conjecture 6.E.2 is implied by Conjecture 6.C.1.
Proof. Suppose Conjecture 6.C.1 holds. Let G be as in Conjecture 6.E.2; its boundary is therefore a sphere. If G is focal, then it is compact-by-Lie by Proposition
2.E.1. Otherwise it is of general type. Since Isom(X) contains a cocompact solvable group by [He74, Proposition 1], we deduce from Conjecture 6.C.1 that G has
a continuous proper isometric action on a symmetric space, which implies that it is
compact-by-Lie.

It is a general fact that if the boundary of a non-focal hyperbolic LC-group contains an open subset homeomorphic to Rn for some n ≥ 0, then the boundary is
homeomorphic to the n-sphere: see [KB02, Theorem 4.4] (which deals with the case
of finitely generated groups and n ≥ 2 but the proof works without change in this
more general setting).
Question 6.E.4. Let G be a hyperbolic locally compact group whose boundary is
homeomorphic to a d-sphere. Is G necessarily compact-by-Lie?
A positive answer to Question 6.E.4 would imply Conjecture 6.E.2, but, on the
other hand would only be a very partial answer to determining which hyperbolic
LC-groups admit a sphere as boundary, boiling down the question to the case of
discrete groups. At this point, Question 6.E.4 is open for all d ≥ 4. Still, it has a
positive answer for d ≤ 3 (and similarly Conjecture 6.E.2 has a positive answer for
dim(X) ≤ 4), by the positive solution to the Hilbert-Smith conjecture in dimension
d ≤ 3, which is due to Montgomery-Zippin for d = 1, 2 and J. Pardon for d = 3.
Interestingly, in the Losert characterization of CGLC-groups with polynomial
growth [Lo87], the most original part of the proof precisely consists in showing that
such a group is compact-by-Lie.
6.F. Beyond the hyperbolic case. Here is a far reaching generalization of Conjecture 6.B.2. We call real triangulable Lie group a Lie group isomorphic to a closed
connected subgroup of the group of upper triangular real matrices in some dimension. Equivalently, this is a simply connected Lie group whose Lie algebra is solvable,
and for which for each x in the Lie algebra, the adjoint operator ad(x) has only real
eigenvalues. The following conjecture appears in research statements I wrote around
2010 as well as earlier talks.

46

YVES CORNULIER

Conjecture 6.F.1. Two real triangulable groups G1 , G2 are quasi-isometric if and
only if they are isomorphic.
Remark 6.B.5 provides some evidence: if G1 , G2 admit isometric left-invariant
Riemannian structures (or, equivalently, admit simply transitive continuous isometric actions on the same Riemannian manifold), then they are isomorphic. (This fails
for more general simply connected solvable Lie groups: for instance both R3 and
the universal covering of Isom(R2 ) admit such actions on the Euclidean 3-space.)
Let us mention the important result that for a real triangulable group, the dimension dim(G) is a quasi-isometry invariant, by a result of J. Roe [Roe93].
A positive answer to Conjecture 6.F.1 would entail many consequences other
than the hyperbolic case, including the (internal) quasi-isometry classification of
polycyclic groups. A particular case is the case of polynomial growth.
Conjecture 6.F.2. Two simply connected nilpotent Lie groups G1 , G2 are quasiisometric if and only if they are isomorphic.
The latter conjecture, specified to those simply connected nilpotent Lie group
admitting cocompact lattices, is equivalent to a more familiar (and complicated)
conjecture concerning finitely generated nilpotent groups, namely: two finitely generated nilpotent groups are quasi-isometric if and only if they have isomorphic real
Malcev closure (when a nilpotent Γ is not torsion-free and T is its torsion subgroup,
its real Malcev closure is by definition the real Malcev closure of Γ/T ). This is first
asked by Farb and Mosher in [FM00] (before their Corollary 10).
Let us mention that two finitely generated nilpotent groups are commensurable
if and only they have isomorphic rational Malcev closures. Thus any pair of nonisomorphic finite-dimensional nilpotent Lie algebras g1 , g2 such that g1 ⊗ R and
g2 ⊗R are isomorphic provides non-commensurable quasi-isometric finitely generated
nilpotent groups, namely G1 (Z) and G2 (Z), where Gi is the unipotent Q-group
associated to gi , and some Q-embedding Gi ⊂ GLn is fixed. The smallest examples,
according to the classification, are 6-dimensional. An elegant classical example is,
denoting by Hei2n+1 the (2n + 1)-dimensional Heisenberg group (2n + 1 ≥√3) and
k is a positive non-square integer, Hei2n+1 (Z) × Hei2n+1 (Z) and Hei2n+1 (Z[ k]) are
not commensurable, although they are both isomorphic to cocompact lattices in
Hei2n+1 (R)2 .
The main two results known in this directions are, in the setting of Conjecture
6.F.2:
• the real Carnot Lie algebras (see Remark 2.G.2) Carn(G1 ) and Carn(G2 )
are isomorphic (Pansu [Pa89m]);
• (assuming that G1 and G2 have lattices) the real cohomology algebras of
G1 and G2 are isomorphic (Sauer [Sau06], improving Shalom’s result [Sh04]
that the Betti numbers are equal).
Pansu’s result supersedes a yet simpler result: for a simply connected nilpotent
Lie group G, both the dimension d and the degree of polynomial growth rate δ are
quasi-isometry invariant. This is obvious for the growth, while for the dimension
this follows from Pansu’s earlier result that the asymptotic cone is homeomorphic to
Rdim G [Pa83]. This covers all cases up to dimension 4, since the only possible (d, δ)
are (i, i) (0 ≤ i ≤ 4), (3, 4), (4, 5), (4, 7), are achieved by a single simply connected
nilpotent Lie group ((i, i) are the abelian ones, (3, 4) is the 3-dimensional Heinsenberg H3 and (4, 5) is its product with R, and (4, 7) is the filiform 4-dimensional Lie
group, of nilpotency length 3).

ON THE QI CLASSIFICATION OF LC-GROUPS

47

In dimension 5, there are 9 simply connected nilpotent Lie groups up to isomorphism. They are denoted L5,i in [Gr07] with 1 ≤ i ≤ 9, and only two are not Carnot:
L5,5 and L5,6 . Their degree of polynomial growth rate are 5, 6, 8, 6, 8, 11, 11, 7,
10 respectively. This only leaves three pairs not determined by the quasi-isometry
invariance of (d, δ); the first is L5,2 and L5,4 , where L5,2 ' H3 × R2 and L5,4 ' H5
are distinguished by Pansu’s theorem. The other two pairs we discuss below are L5,3
and L5,5 on the one hand, L5,6 and L5,7 on the other hand.
• For L5,3 and L5,5 , the Betti numbers are (1, 3, 4, 4, 3, 1), and Carn(L5,5 ) '
L5,3 (they have growth exponent 8); thus they are distinguished neither by
Pansu’s theorem, nor by Shalom’s theorem. A basis for the Lie algebra l5,i
for i = 3, 5 is given as (a, b, c, d, e) with for both, nonzero brackets [a, b] = c,
[a, c] = e, and for l5,5 the additional nonzero bracket [b, d] = e. Note that
l5,3 is the product of the 1-dimensional Lie algebra and the 4-dimensional
filiform Lie algebra.
However, they are distinguished by Sauer’s theorem: indeed, the cup
product S 2 (H 2 (l5,i )) → H 4 (l5,i ) has rank 1 (in the sense of linear algebra)
for l5,3 and 2 for l5,5 . Thus the cohomology algebras are not isomorphic as
graded algebras.
• For both L5,7 and L5,6 , the Betti numbers are (1, 2, 3, 3, 2, 1). We have
Carn(L5,6 ) ' L5,7 (they have growth exponent 11); thus they are distinguished neither by Pansu’s theorem, nor by Shalom’s theorem. A basis for
the Lie algebra l5,i for i = 7, 6 is given as (a, b, c, d, e) with for both, nonzero
brackets [a, b] = c, [a, c] = d, [a, d] = e, and for l5,6 the additional nonzero
bracket [b, c] = e. The Lie algebra l5,7 is the standard filiform 5-dimensional
Lie algebra.
Actually the graded cohomology algebras are isomorphic: both have a basis
(1, a1 , a2 ,
b5 , b6 , b7 , c8 , c9 , c10 , d13 , d14 , e15 ) so that the product is commutative with unit
1, H 1 has basis (a1 , a2 ), H2 has basis (b6 , b7 , b8 ), etc, and the nonzero products of basis elements except the unit are
– ai d15−i = bj c15−j = e15 ;
– a1 b7 = −2c8 , a2 b6 = c8 , a2 b7 = c9 ;
– b6 b7 = d13 , b7 b7 = −2d14 .
(it is commutative because the product of any two elements of odd degree is
zero). Thus L5,7 and L5,6 , although non-isomorphic, are not distinguishable
by either Pansu or Sauer’s theorem. Thus they seem to be the smallest open
case of Conjecture 6.F.2 (note that being rational, they have lattices; the rational structure being unique up to isomorphism, these lattices are uniquely
defined up to abstract commensurability). Still, these can be distinguished
by the adjoint cohomology: H 1 (g, g) (the space of derivations modulo inner
derivations) has dimension 5 for l5,7 and 4 for l5,6 ; however it is not known if
this dimension is a quasi-isometry invariant for simply connected nilpotent
Lie groups.
It would be interesting to show that the adjoint cohomology of the Lie algebra is
a quasi-isometry invariant of simply connected nilpotent Lie groups (at least as a
real graded vector space): indeed, as mentioned by Magnin who did comprehensive
dimension computations in dimension ≤ 7 [Mag08], it is much more effective than
the trivial cohomology to distinguish non-isomorphic nilpotent Lie algebras.

48

YVES CORNULIER

Indeed, the classification of 6-dimensional nilpotent Lie algebras provides 34 isomorphism classes over the field of real numbers, 26 of which are not 2-nilpotent.
Among those, 13 are Carnot (over the reals); among those Lie algebras with the
same Carnot Lie algebra, all have the same Betti numbers (i.e. the same trivial
cohomology as a graded vector space) with 2 exceptions, which provide, by the way,
the smallest examples for which Shalom’s result improves Pansu’s (Shalom [Sh04,
§4.1] provides a 7-dimensional example, attributed to Y. Benoist).
For the interested reader, we list the 6-dimensional real nilpotent Lie algebras,
referring to [Gr07] for definitions, according to their Carnot Lie algebra. Since the
Betti numbers and adjoint cohomology computations are done in [Mag08] with a
different nomenclature, we give in each case both notations.
• Nilpotency length 5:
– Carnot: l6,18 (standard filiform). Is the Carnot Lie algebra of 3 Lie
algebras: l6,i for i = 18, 17, 15. In [Mag08], they are denoted g6,j
with j = 16, 17, 19 (in the same order). All have the Betti numbers
(1, 2, 3, 4, 3, 2, 1). However they can be distinguished by adjoint cohomology in degree 1 (of dimension 6, 5, 4 respectively).
– Carnot: l6,16 . Is the Carnot Lie algebra of 2 Lie algebras: l6,i for
i = 16, 14. Both have the Betti numbers (1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 1).
• Nilpotency length 4:
– Carnot: l6,7 (product of a 5-dimensional standard filiform with an 1dimensional abelian one). Is the Carnot Lie algebra of 5 Lie algebras:
l6,i for i = 7, 6, 11, 12, 13. In [Mag08], they are denoted g5,5 × R,
g5,6 × R, and g6,j for j = 12, 11, 13. The first four have the Betti
numbers (1, 3, 5, 6, 5, 3, 1), while the last one has the Betti numbers
(1, 3, 4, 4, 4, 3, 1) and thus the corresponding group can be distinguished
by Shalom’s theorem (incidentally, the first 4 are metabelian while the
last one is not).
– Each of the last three Carnot Lie algebras of nilpotency length 4 are
only Carnot Lie algebras of itself. They are denoted l6,21 (ε) for ε =
0, 1, −1; in [Mag08] they are denoted g6,14 and g6,15 (twice, the last two
having isomorphic complexifications).
• Nilpotency length 3:
– Carnot: l6,9 . It is the Carnot Lie algebra of 4 Lie algebras (3 over the
complex numbers): l6,9 , l6,24 (1), l6,24 (−1), and l6,24 (0). (In [Mag08],
these are g5,4 × R, g6,5 (twice), and g6,8 .) All have the same Betti
numbers (1, 3, 5, 6, 5, 3, 1). The dimension of the zeroth and first adjoint
cohomology distinguishes them, except the two middle ones having
isomorphic complexification.
– Carnot: l6,25 . It is the Carnot Lie algebra of 2 Lie algebras: l6,i for
i = 25, 23. (In [Mag08], these are g6,j for j = 6, 7.) They both have
the Betti numbers (1, 3, 6, 8, 6, 3, 1). The dimension of the first adjoint
cohomology distinguished them.
– Carnot: l6,3 . It is the Carnot Lie algebra of 3 Lie algebras: l6,i for
i = 3, 5, 10. (In [Mag08], these are g4 × R2 , g5,3 × R, and g6,2 .) The
first two have the Betti numbers (1, 4, 7, 8, 7, 4, 1), while the last one
has the Betti numbers (1, 4, 6, 6, 6, 4, 1). The first two, still, can be
distinguished by adjoint cohomology in degree 0 (i.e., they have centers
of distinct dimension), and also in degree 1.

ON THE QI CLASSIFICATION OF LC-GROUPS

49

– Each of the last four Carnot Lie algebras of nilpotency length 3 are
only Carnot Lie algebras of itself. They are denoted l6,19 (0), l6,19 (1),
l6,19 (−1), and l6,20 , and are called in [Mag08] g6,4 , g6,9 for the two middle
one which have isomorphic complexification, and g6,10 . They have Betti
numbers (1, 3, 6, 8, 6, 3, 1) for the first one and (1, 3, 5, 6, 5, 3, 1) for the
last three ones.
• Nilpotency length ≤ 2. They are all Carnot and thus distinguished by
Pansu’s theorem. They are denoted l6,26 , l6,22 (ε) for ε = 0, 1, −1, and l6,i
for i = 8, 4, 2, 1, and in [Mag08] they are denoted g6,3 , g6,1 , g3 × g3 (twice),
g5,2 × R, g5,1 × R, g3 × R3 , and R6 .
Note that in all the cases above distinguished neither by Pansu nor by Shalom’s
theorem, I have not computed the cup product in cohomology and thus have not
checked in which cases they are distinguished by Sauer’s theorem.

References
[Ab74]

H. Abels. Specker-Kompaktifizierungen von lokal kompakten topologischen Gruppen.
(German) Math. Z. 135 (1973/74), 325–361.
[Ab77] H. Abels. On a problem of Freudenthal’s. Comp. Math. 35(1) (1977) 39–47.
[An11] S. Antonyan. Characterizing maximal compact subgroups. ArXiv math/1104.1820v1
(2011).
[BHV]
B. Bekka, P. de la Harpe, A. Valette. Kazhdan’s Property (T). New Math. Monographs
11, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge 2008.
[BK90] H. Bass and R. Kulkarni. Uniform tree lattices. J. Amer. Math. Soc. 3 (1990), 843–902.
[BS07] S. Buyalo and V. Schroeder. Elements of asymptotic geometry. European Math. Soc.,
2007.
[Ca13]
M. Carette. Commability of groups quasi-isometric to trees. ArXiv math/1312.0278
(2013).
[Ca15]
M. Carrasco. Orlicz spaces and the large scale geometry of Heintze groups. ArXiv
1411.6381.
[CCMT12] P-E. Caprace, Y. Cornulier, N. Monod, R. Tessera. Amenable hyperbolic groups. ArXiv
math/1202.3585 (2012).
[CH]
Y. Cornulier and P. de la Harpe. Metric geometry of locally compact groups. Forthcoming
book. ArXiv math/1403.3796 (2014).
[Ch96] R. Chow, Groups quasi-isometric to complex hyperbolic space. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.
348 (1996), 1757–1770.
[CJ94]
A. Casson and D. Jungreis. Convergence groups and Seifert fibered 3-manifolds, Inv.
Math. 118 (1994), no. 1, 441–456.
[Co08]
Y. Cornulier. Dimension of asymptotic cones of Lie groups. Journal of Topology 1 (2008)
342–361.
[Co15]
Y. Cornulier. Commability and focal locally compact groups. Indiana Univ. Math. J.
64(1) (2015) 115–150.
[CT11] Y. Cornulier and R. Tessera. Contracting automorphisms and Lp -cohomology in degree
one. Ark. Mat. 49 (2011), no.2, 295–324.
[DD89] W. Dicks and M. Dunwoody. Groups acting on graphs. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge 1989.
[Du85] M.J. Dunwoody. The accessibility of finitely presented groups, Inventiones Mathematicae
81 (1985), no. 3, 449–457.
[Du93] M.J. Dunwoody. An inaccessible group. Geometric group theory, Vol. 1 (Sussex, 1991),
pp. 75–78, London Math. Soc. Lecture Note Ser., 181, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, 1993.
[Dy12] T. Dymarz. Quasisymmetric maps of boundaries of amenable hyperbolic groups.
Preprint, 31 July 2012.

50

[FM00]

YVES CORNULIER

B. Farb, L. Mosher. Problems on the geometry of finitely generated solvable groups. In
“Crystallographic Groups and their Generalizations (Kortrijk, 1999)”, (ed. P. Igodt, et.
al.), Cont. Math. 262, Amer. Math. Soc. (2000).
[FW07] K. Fujiwara and K. Whyte A note on spaces of asymptotic dimension one. Algebr. Geom.
Topol. 7 (2007), 1063–1070.
[Ga92] D. Gabai, Convergence groups are Fuchsian groups, Ann. of Math. 136 (1992), no. 3,
447–510.
[Gr87]
M. Gromov Hyperbolic groups, Essays in group theory, Math. Sci. Res. Inst. Publ., vol.
8, Springer, New York, 1987 75–263.
[GW88] C. S. Gordon and E. N. Wilson. Isometry groups of Riemannian solvmanifolds. Trans.
Amer. Math. Soc. 307 (1988), no. 1, 245–269.
[Gr07]
W. de Graaf. Classification of 6-dimensional nilpotent Lie algebras over fields of characteristic not 2. Journal of Algebra 309 (2007) 640–653.
[Ha87] U. Hamenstädt. Theorie von Carnot-Carathéodory Metriken und ihren Anwendungen,
Bonner Math. Schriften 180 (1987).
[He74]
E. Heintze. On homogeneous manifolds of negative curvature, Math. Ann. 211 (1974),
23–34.
[Hi90]
A. Hinkkanen. The structure of certain quasisymmetric groups. Mem. Amer. Math. Soc.
83 (1990), no. 422.
[Ho74] C.H. Houghton. Ends of locally compact groups and their coset spaces. J. Australian
Math. Soc., 17, 274–284.
[KB02] I. Kapovich and N. Benakli. Boundaries of hyperbolic groups. In: Combinatorial and
geometric group theory (New York, 2000/Hoboken, NJ, 2001), 39–93, Contemp. Math.,
296, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2002.
[KL09] B. Kleiner and B. Leeb. Induced quasi-actions: A remark. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 137
(2009), 1561–1567.
[KL97] B. Kleiner and B. Leeb. Rigidity of quasi-isometries for symmetric spaces and Euclidean
buildings, Publ. Math. IHES 86 (1997), no. 1, 115–197.
[KM08] B. Krön and R. Möller. Analogues of Cayley graphs for topological groups. Math. Z. 258
(2008), no. 3, 637–675.
[Ko65] J-L. Koszul, Lectures on group of transformations. Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, 1965.
[Lo87]
Viktor Losert. On the structure of groups with polynomial growth. Math. Z. 195 (1987)
109–117.
[Mag08] L. Magnin. Adjoint and trivial cohomologies of nilpotent complex Lie algebras of dimension ≤ 7. Int. J. Math. Math. Sci. 2008, Art. ID 805305, 12 pp.
[Mo01] N. Monod. Continuous bounded cohomology of locally compact groups, Lecture Notes
in Mathematics, vol. 1758, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2001.
[Mo55] G. Mostow. Self-adjoint groups. Ann. of Math. 62(1) (1955) 44–55.
[Mos73] G. D. Mostow. Quasi-conformal mappings in n-space and the rigidity of the hyperbolic
space forms, Publ. Math. IHES 34 (1968) 53–104.
[MSW02] L. Mosher, M. Sageev and K. Whyte. Maximally Symmetric Trees. Geom. Dedicata
92(1) (2002) 195–233.
[MSW03] L. Mosher, M. Sageev and K. Whyte. Quasi-actions on trees I. Bounded valence. Ann.
of Math., 158 (2003), 115–164.
[MSW11] L. Mosher, M. Sageev and K. Whyte. Quasi-actions on trees II: Finite depth Bass-Serre
trees. Mem. Amer. Math. Soc. 214 (2011), no. 1008.
[MZ55] D. Montgomery and L. Zippin, Topological transformation groups, New York, Interscience Publishers, Inc., 1955.
[Pa83]
P. Pansu. Croissance des boules et des géodésiques fermées dans les nilvariétés. Ergodic
Theory Dynam. Systems 3 (1983), no. 3, 415–445.
[Pa89d] P. Pansu. Dimension conforme et sphère à l’infini des variétés à courbure négative, Ann.
Acad. Sci. Fenn. Ser. A I Math. 14 (1989), no. 2, 177–212.
[Pa89m] P. Pansu. Métriques de Carnot-Carathéodory et quasiisométries des espaces symétriques
de rang un, Ann. of Math. (1989), 1–60.
[Pa07]
P. Pansu. Cohomologie Lp en degré 1 des espaces homogènes. Potential Anal. 27 (2007),
151-165.

ON THE QI CLASSIFICATION OF LC-GROUPS

51

[Roe93]

J. Roe. Coarse cohomology and index Theory on complete manifolds. Mem. Amer. Math.
Soc. 104, Amer. Math. Soc., 1993.
[Sau06] R. Sauer. Homological invariants and quasi-isometry Geom. Funct. Anal. 16(2) (2006)
476–515.
[Ser77] J-P. Serre, Arbres, amalgames, SL2 . Astérisque 46, Soc. math. France, 1977.
[Sh04]
Y. Shalom. Harmonic analysis, cohomology, and the large-scale geometry of amenable
groups. Acta Math., 192 (2004), 119–185.
[Sp50]
E. Specker. Endenverbande von Raumen und Gruppen. Math. Ann. 122 (1950), 167–174.
[SX09] N. Shanmugalingam, N. and Xiangdong Xie. A Rigidity Property of Some Negatively
Curved Solvable Lie Groups. Arxiv math/1001.0150 (2009). To appear in Comment.
Math. Helv.
[St68]
J. Stallings. On torsion free groups with infinitely many ends, Ann. of Math. 88, 312–334
(1968).
[Te08]
R. Tessera. Large scale Sobolev inequalities on metric measure spaces and applications.
Rev. Mat. Iberoam. 24 (2008), no. 3, 825–864.
[Te09]
R. Tessera. Vanishing of the first reduced cohomology with values in a Lp -representation.
Ann. Inst. Fourier, 59 no. 2 (2009), p. 851-876
[Tu86]
P. Tukia. On quasiconformal groups, Journal d’Analyse Mathématique 46 (1986), no. 1,
318–346.
[Tu88]
P. Tukia. Homeomorphic conjugates of Fuchsian groups. Journal für die reine und angewandte Mathematik (Crelles Journal) 391 (1988) 1–54.
[TW93] C. Thomassen and W. Woess. Vertex-transitive graphs and accessibility, J. Combin.
Theory, Ser. B 58 (1993), no. 2, 248–268.
[Wh99] K. Whyte. Amenability, bi-Lipschitz equivalence, and the von Neumann conjecture. Duke
Math. J. 99 (1999), no. 1, 93–112.
[Wh01] K. Whyte. The large scale geometry of the higher Baumslag-Solitar groups. Geom. Funct.
Anal. 11(6) (2001) 1327–1343.
[Xi09a] Xiangdong Xie. Quasisymmetric maps on the ideal boundary of a negatively curved
solvable Lie group. ArXiv math/1001.0148 (2009). To appear in Math. Ann.
[Xi09b] Xiangdong Xie, Large scale geometry of negatively curved Rn o R, preprint, 2009.
Laboratoire de Mathématiques, Bâtiment 425, Université Paris-Sud 11, 91405 Orsay, France
E-mail address: yves.cornulier@math.u-psud.fr

