QUANTITATIVE MULTIPLE MIXING

arXiv:1701.00945v2 [math.DS] 17 Nov 2017

MICHAEL BJÖRKLUND, MANFRED EINSIEDLER, AND ALEXANDER GORODNIK

Abstract. We develop a method for providing quantitative estimates for higher order correlations of group actions. In particular, we establish effective mixing of all orders for actions of
semisimple Lie groups as well as semisimple S-algebraic groups and semisimple adele groups.
As an application, we deduce existence of approximate configurations in lattices of semisimple
groups.

1. Introduction
The aim of this paper is to investigate behaviour of higher order correlations for group
actions. Let us consider a measure-preserving action of a locally compact group G on a probability measure space (X, m). Given a test-function φ ∈ L∞ (X), we obtain a family of functions
on X
g · φ : x 7→ φ(g −1 · x), g ∈ G,
generated by the group action. We may think about {g · φ : g ∈ G} as a collection of random
variables on (X, m). For chaotic group actions, it is natural to expect that these random
variables are asymptotically independent. The independence property is measured by the
correlations of the form
Z
φ(g1−1 · x) · · · φ(gk−1 · x) dm(x),
m((g1 · φ) · · · (gk · φ)) =
X

where g1 , . . . , gk ∈ G. We say that the action is mixing of order k if for every φ1 , . . . , φk ∈
L∞ (X),
m((g1 · φ1 ) · · · (gk · φk )) −→ m(φ1 ) · · · m(φk )
−1
as gi gj → ∞ in G for every i 6= j. It is a difficult problem in general to establish mixing of
higher order. It is not known, for instance, whether for Z-actions mixing of order two implies
mixing of order three, and there are examples of Z2 -actions which are mixing of order two, but
not mixing of order three (see [21]). In this paper we develop a method which allows to obtain
quantitative estimates on correlations of order k inductively assuming only information about
correlations of order two. While our interest is mostly in actions of semisimple Lie groups
and semisimple algebraic groups, it will apparent from the proof that the developed method
can be potentially applied more generally provided that there is a collection of one-parameter
subgroups which satisfies certain regularity, growth, and mixing assumptions.
The multiple mixing property has been extensively studied for flows on homogeneous spaces
of the form X = Γ\L, where L is a connected Lie group, and Γ is a lattice subgroup of L. We
consider the left action of L on X defined by
l · x = xl−1

for l ∈ L and x ∈ X.

(1.1)

It follows from the work of Dani [7, 8] that under mild assumptions, any partially hyperbolic
one-parameter flow on the space X satisfies the Kolmogorov property, so that it is mixing of
all orders. It was conjectured by Sinai in [39] that the horocycle flow is also mixing of all
orders. Although mixing of order two for the horocycle flow is relatively easy to prove using
representation-theoretic techniques (see [35]), Sinai’s conjecture was proved in full generality
1

2

MICHAEL BJÖRKLUND, MANFRED EINSIEDLER, AND ALEXANDER GORODNIK

only much later by Marcus in [28]. A strikingly general result about mutiple mixing was
established by Mozes in [30]. He shows that for arbitrary measure-preserving actions of a
connected Lie group G, mixing of order two implies mixing of all orders provided that the
group G is Ad-proper (namely, it has finite centre, and its image under the adjoint map into
the group Aut(Lie(G)) is closed). This, in particular, applies to connected semisimple Lie
group with finite centre. Using Ratner’s measure classification, Starkov in [40] proved mixing
of all orders for general mixing one-parameter flows on finite-volume homogeneous spaces.
Although quantitative estimates for the correlations of order two have substantial history, it
seems that there has been very little known regarding correlations of higher order. We intend
to remedy this gap in the present paper. We note that analysis of higher order correlations
arises naturally in many combinatorial, arithmetic, and probabilistic problems. In Section 3,
we use our results to deduce existence of approximate configurations in lattice subgroups. We
also apply our results in the forthcoming works [1] and [2] to establish quantitative estimates
on the number rational points lying on compactifications of certain homogeneous algebraic
varieties, and to derive limit theorems describing fine statistical properties of group actions.
1.1. Semisimple Lie groups
Let G be a connected semisimple Lie group with finite centre. We observe that given
a measure-preserving action of G on a probability space (X, m), the correlations of order
two can be interpreted as matrix coefficients of the corresponding unitary representation of
G on L2 (X). Starting with the research programme of Harish-Chandra (summarised in the
monographs [42, 43]), properties of matrix coefficients for representations of semisimple Lie
groups have been extensively studied. In particular, we mention important works of Borel and
Wallach [4], Cowling [6], Howe [17], Li and Zhu [22, 23], Moore [29], and Oh [32, 33] that
provide explicit estimates on matrix coefficients for semisimple groups. We formulate the main
estimate coming for these works that will be a starting point of our investigation. We fix a
left-invariant Riemannian metric ρG on G which is bi-invariant under a fixed maximal compact
subgroup K of G. Let π : G → U (H) be a unitary representation of G. We say that π has
strong spectral gap if the restriction of π to every noncompact simple factor of G is isolated
from the trivial representation with respect to the Fell topology on the dual space. For every
representation π with the strong spectral gap, there exist C, δ > 0 such that for every K-finite
vectors v1 , v2 ∈ H,
hπ(g)v1 , v2 i ≤ C e−δ ρG (g,e) N (v1 )N (v2 ),

(1.2)

d
d
hπ(g)v1 , v2 i ≪d e−δ ρG (g,e) kCG
v1 kkCG
v2 k,

(1.3)

where N (v) = (dim hKvi)1/2 kvk. It is important for applications to have an analogue of the
estimate (1.2) which is valid for all smooth vectors in H. It was observed by Katok and
Spatzier in [20] that under the strong spectral gap assumption, there exists δ > 0 such that for
all sufficiently large integers d and arbitrary smooth vectors v1 , v2 ∈ H,
where CG denotes the Casimir differential operator for G.
Now we suppose that the group G is a closed subgroup of a connected Lie group L. Let Γ be
a lattice subgroup in L and X = Γ\L equipped with the invariant probability measure m. We
consider the left action of G on X defined by (1.1). We say that this action has strong spectral
gap if the corresponding unitary representation of G on L20 (X) has strong spectral gap. If this
is the case, then the estimate (1.3) implies, in particular, that there exists δ > 0 such that for
all sufficiently large d, functions φ1 , φ2 ∈ Cc∞ (X), and an element g ∈ G,
d
d
|m((g · φ1 )φ2 ) − m(φ1 )m(φ2 )| ≪d e−δ ρG (g,e) kCG
φ1 k2 kCG
φ2 k2 .

(1.4)

QUANTITATIVE MULTIPLE MIXING

3

Our first main result gives quantitative estimate on correlations of arbitrary order for
semisimple Lie groups generalising (1.4). We formulate this estimate in terms of the Sobolev
norms introduced in Section 2.2 below.
Theorem 1.1 (Exponential mixing of all orders for Lie groups). Let L be a connected Lie
group, Γ a lattice subgroup of L, and X = Γ\L equipped with the invariant probability measure
m. Let G be a connected semisimple Lie subgroup of L with finite center. We assume that the
action of G on X has strong spectral gap.
Then, for every k ≥ 2 and sufficiently large d, there exists δ = δ(k, d) > 0 such that for all
functions φ1 , . . . , φk ∈ Cc∞ (X) and elements g1 , . . . , gk ∈ G, we have
|m((g1 · φ1 ) · · · (gk · φk )) − m(φ1 ) · · · m(φk )| ≪d,k M(g1 , . . . , gk )−δ Sd (φ1 ) · · · Sd (φk ),

where




M(g1 , . . . , gk ) := exp min ρG (gi , gj ) .
i6=j

Our result should be compared with the recent work of Konstantoulas [26] which also provides
an estimate of the form
|m((a1 · φ1 ) · · · (ak · φk )) − m(φ1 ) · · · m(φk )| ≤ R(a1 , . . . , ak ) C(φ1 , . . . , φk )

(1.5)

with explicit R(a1 , . . . , ak ), where the elements a1 , . . . , ak belong to the same Cartan subgroup
of G. This estimate in [26] holds on a dense subspace of functions, but it seems that the method
of the proof in [26] cannot be used to make this subspace explicit. In particular, the constant
C(φ1 , . . . , φk ) in (1.5) is not explicit. The estimator R(a1 , . . . , ak ) is different from our estimator
M(a1 , . . . , ak )−δ . In particular, it might happen that R(a1 , . . . , ak ) 9 0 when a−1
i aj → ∞ for
all i 6= j, so that the estimate (1.5) does not imply mixing of order k along the Cartan subgroup.
On the other hand, probably it might happen that R(a1 , . . . , ak ) ≤ M(a1 , . . . , ak )−δ for some
particular choices of elements a1 , . . . , ak . We note that validity of our estimate in Theorem
1.1 for general elements g1 , . . . , gk ∈ G is crucial for the combinatorial application discussed in
Section 1.2 below.
We also mention that the exponential multiple mixing estimates have been established for
partially hyperbolic flows (see [19, Th. 4.4] and [9, Th. 2]), but it is not clear how to extend
this approach to more general group actions.
We note that the strong spectral gap assumption in Theorem 1.1 is known to hold in a
number of cases. For instance, if a simple factor G0 of G has rank at least two, then if the
action of G0 on X is ergodic, it follows from the Kazhdan property (T) that the representation of G0 on L20 (X) is isolated from the trivial representation. Another important case is
when L is a connected semisimple Lie group with finite centre and no compact factors, and
Γ is an irreducible lattice in L. Then the action of L on X = Γ\L has strong spectral gap
(see [24, p. 285]). Furthermore, for the homogeneous spaces of this form, given any closed connected semisimple subgroup G of L, the action of G on X also has strong spectral gap (see [31]).
We observe that the correlations of order k can be interpreted it terms of the probability
measure m∆k (X) supported on the diagonal ∆k (X) in X k which is the push-forward of m under
the diagonal map X → ∆k (X) ⊂ X k . We note that the measure m∆k (X) is invariant under
the action of the diagonal subgroup ∆k (G) of Gk , and its projections to each of the factors of
X k are equal to m. More generally, we say that a probability measure ξ on X k is a k-coupling
of (X, m) if its marginals (the push-forwards of ξ onto the factors of X k ) are equal to m. We
establish the following effective equiditribution result that applies to general ∆k (G)-invariant
k-couplings.

4

MICHAEL BJÖRKLUND, MANFRED EINSIEDLER, AND ALEXANDER GORODNIK

Theorem 1.2 (Uniform exponential mixing of all orders for Lie groups). Let G, X, m be as
in Theorem 1.1. Then, for every k ≥ 2 and sufficiently large d, there exists δ = δ(k, d) > 0
such that for every ∆k (G)-invariant coupling ξ of (X, m), functions φ1 , . . . , φk ∈ Cc∞ (X), and
elements g1 , . . . , gk ∈ G, we have
|ξ((g1 · φ1 ) ⊗ · · · ⊗ (gk · φk )) − m(φ1 ) · · · m(φk )| ≪d,k M(g[k] )−δ Sd (φ1 ) · · · Sd (φk ).

In particular, the above bound is uniform over all ∆k (G)-invariant k-couplings ξ of (X, m).
The proofs of Theorem 1.1 and Theorem 1.2 will be given in Section 2.
1.2. An application: approximate configurations in lattices
It was realised by Furstenberg in his proof of Szemeredi theorem [12] that analysis of higher
order correlations of dynamical systems leads to deep combinatorial consequences. Developments of these ideas have allowed to prove a number of far-reaching results regarding existence
of configurations. For instance, we mention the works of Furstenberg, Katznelson and Weiss
[13] and Ziegler [44] which show that given a subset Ω of Rn of positive upper density and a
k-tuple (v1 , . . . , vk ) ∈ (Rn )k , for all sufficiently large dilations t and ε > 0 there exist a k-tuple
(ω1 , . . . , ωk ) ∈ Ωk and an isometry I of Rn such that
d(tvi , I(ωi )) < ε

for all i = 1, . . . , k,

i.e., the set Ω must contain an approximate isometric copy of any sufficiently dilated configuration. In particular, it follows from this result that given any lattice Λ in Rn , any k-tuple
(v1 , . . . , vk ) ∈ (Rn )k and ε > 0, for all sufficiently large t, there exist a k-tuple (z1 , . . . , zk ) ∈ Λk
and an isometry I of Rn such that
d(tvi , I(zi )) < ε

for all i = 1, . . . , k.

It would be interesting to investigate whether an analogue of this statement holds for other
locally compact groups and whether it can be made explicit in terms of t. Here we address
these questions for lattices in semisimple Lie groups.
To illustrate our general result, let us consider a Fuchsian group Γ ⊂ Isom(H2 ) of finite
covolume. For fixed v0 ∈ H2 , we consider a discrete subset Γv0 of the hyperbolic plane H2 .
How rich is the set of k-tuple (z1 , . . . , zk ) with zi ∈ Γv0 ? For a k-tuple (v1 , . . . , vk ) ∈ H2 , we
define its width by
w(v1 , . . . , vk ) = min d(vi , vj ).
i6=j

It follows from our main result that for every k ≥ 2, given an arbitrary k-tuple (v1 , . . . , vk ) ∈
(H2 )k that satisfies
w(v1 , . . . , vk ) ≥ ck log(1/ε)
(1.6)
with ε ∈ (0, εk ), there exist a k-tuple (z1 , . . . , zk ) ∈ (Γv0 )k and an isometry g ∈ PSL2 (R) such
that
d(vi , g zi ) < ε
for all i = 1, . . . , k.
We note that the instance of this result when k = 2 reduces to analysing the set of distances
{d(γ v0 , v0 ) : γ ∈ Γ}. For example, when Γ = PSL2 (Z), we need to show that for

D := {d(γ v0 , v0 ) : γ ∈ Γ} = cosh−1 2(a2 + b2 + c2 + d2 )/4 : ad − bc = 1, a, b, c, d ∈ Z ,

the sets D ∩ [ck log(1/ε)), ∞) are ε-dense in [ck log(1/ε), ∞). Using that the set of distances is
contained in cosh−1 (N)/4, it is not hard to check that if (1.6) is replaced by the condition that
w(v1 , . . . , vk ) ≥ σ(ε) with σ(ε) = o(log(1/ε)) as ε → 0+ , then the above statement fails.

QUANTITATIVE MULTIPLE MIXING

5

In full generality, we consider a connected semisimple Lie group G with finite centre and
without compact factors equipped with a left-invariant Riemannian metric ρG on G which is
bi-invariant under a fixed maximal compact subgroup. For any irreducible lattice Γ in G, we
prove
Corollary 1.3. For every k ≥ 2, there exist ck , εk > 0 such that given arbitrary k-tuple
(g1 , . . . , gk ) ∈ Gk satisfying
w(g1 , . . . , gk ) := min ρG (gi , gj ) ≥ ck log(1/ε)
i6=j

with ε ∈ (0, εk ), there exist a k-tuple (γ1 , . . . , γk ) ∈ Γk and g ∈ G such that
ρG (gi , g γi ) < ε

for all i = 1, . . . , k.

We prove Corollary 1.3 in Section 3.
1.3. S-algebraic groups
The results of Section 1.1 can be extended to actions of S-algebraic semisimple groups. Let
G ⊂ GLn be a simply connected absolutely simple algebraic group defined over a number field
F . We denote by VF the set of places of F , and for v ∈ VF we write Fv for the completion of
F with respect to the norm | · |v . Let Gv = G(Fv ). We fix a finite subset S of VF and consider
the group
Y
Gv .
(1.7)
G :=
v∈S

Let S = S∞ ⊔ Sf where S∞ and Sf denote the subsets of the Archemedean places and the
non-Archemedean places respectively. We set
Y
Y
Gv and Gf :=
G∞ :=
Gv ,
v∈S∞

v∈Sf

so that G = G∞ Gf .
Let us consider a measure-preserving action of G on a probability space (X, m). Then we
obtain a unitary representation of G on the space L2 (X). Given a compact open subgroup U
of Gf , we denote by C ∞ (X)U the subalgebra of L2 (X) consisting of vectors which are smooth
with respect to the action of G∞ and are U -invariant. We say that the action of G on (X, m)
has strong spectral gap if the representation of each noncompact factor Gv with v ∈ S on L20 (X)
is isolated from the trivial representation. In this situation there are quantitative bounds on
matrix coefficients of C ∞ (X)U analogous to (1.2). In particular, we refer to the works of Borel,
Wallach [4], Oh [33], Clozel, Oh, Ullmo [5], and Gorodnik, Maucourant, Oh [14] that discuss
such bounds over non-Archimedean fields. For every v ∈ S, let us fix a norm on Mn (Fv ) and
define the height function on G by
Y
H(g) :=
kgv kv for g = (gv )v∈S ∈ G.
v∈S

One can check that H is a proper function on G. With this notation, there exists δ > 0 such
that for all sufficiently large d, a compact open subgroup U of Gf , functions φ1 , φ2 ∈ C ∞ (X)U ,
and an element g ∈ G,
d
d
φ k .
φ k kCG
|m((g · φ1 )φ2 ) − m(φ1 )m(φ2 )| ≪d,U H(g)−δ kCG
∞ 2 2
∞ 1 2

(1.8)

This estimate can deduces as in the proof of [14, Theorem 3.27] from the bounds for representations of the local factors Gv . In this paper, we establish an analogous estimate for correlations
of higher order.

6

MICHAEL BJÖRKLUND, MANFRED EINSIEDLER, AND ALEXANDER GORODNIK

We consider a continuous measure-preserving action of G on a locally compact Hausdorff
space X equipped with a probability Borel measure m. Let Cc∞ (X) denote the subalgebra of
Cc (X) consisting of functions which are smooth with respect to the action of G∞ and invariant
under a compact open subgroup of Gf . Given a compact open subgroup U of Gf , we denote
by Cc∞ (X)U the subalgebra of functions in Cc∞ (X) which are invariant under U .
We assume that there is a family of norms Sd , d ∈ N, on Cc∞ (X)U that satisfy the following
properties:
N1. For all sufficiently large d, any compact open subgroup U of Gf , and φ ∈ Cc∞ (X)U ,
kφk∞ ≪d,U Sd (φ).

(1.9)

kφ − g · φk∞ ≪d,U ρGv (g, eGv ) Sd (φ),

(1.10)

N2. For all sufficiently large d, any compact open subgroup U of Gf , φ ∈ Cc∞ (X)U , and
g ∈ Gv with v ∈ S∞ ,
where ρGv denotes a left-invariant Riemannian metric on Gv .
N2′ . For all sufficiently large d, any compact open subgroup U of Gf , φ ∈ Cc∞ (X)U , and
g ∈ Gv with v ∈ Sf ,
kφ − g · φk∞ ≪d,U k Ad(g) − idk Sd (φ),

(1.11)

where k · k denotes the operator norm on End(Lie(Gv )) for a fixed choice of a norm on
Lie(Gv ).
N3. For all sufficiently large d, there exists σ = σ(d) > 0 such that for any compact open
subgroup U of Gf , φ ∈ Cc∞ (X)U , and g ∈ G,
Sd (g · φ) ≪d,U k Ad(g)kσ Sd (φ).

(1.12)

Sd (φ1 φ2 ) ≪d,U Sd+r (φ1 ) Sd+r (φ2 ).

(1.13)

N4. There exists r > 0 such that for all sufficiently large d, any compact open subgroup U
of Gf , and φ1 , φ2 ∈ Cc∞ (X)U ,

Such collections of norms can constructed on finite-volume homogeneous spaces of S-algebraic
groups (see, for instance, [11, Appendix A]).
We establish the following general result which extends the estimate (1.8) to correlations of
arbitrary order.
Theorem 1.4 (Exponential mixing of all orders for S-algebraic groups). Let G be an Salgebraic group as in (1.7) which acts continuously and in a measure-preserving fashion on a
locally compact Hausdorff space X equipped with a Borel probability measure m. We assume
that X is equipped with a family of norms Sd satisfying Properties N1–N4, and there exists
δ2 > 0 such that for all sufficiently large d, a compact open subgroup U of Gf , functions
φ1 , φ2 ∈ Cc∞ (X)U , and an element g ∈ G, we have
|m((g · φ1 )φ2 ) − m(φ1 )m(φ2 )| ≪d,U H(g)−δ2 Sd (φ1 )Sd (φ2 ).

Then, for every k ≥ 2 and sufficiently large d, there exists δ = δ(k, d, δ2 ) > 0 such that for all
compact open subgroups U of Gf , functions φ1 , . . . , φk ∈ Cc∞ (X)U , and elements g1 , . . . , gk ∈ G,
we have
|m((g1 · φ1 ) · · · (gk · φk )) − m(φ1 ) · · · m(φk )| ≪d,U,k H(g1 , . . . , gk )−δ Sd (φ1 ) · · · Sd (φk ),

where

H(g1 , . . . , gk ) := min H(gi−1 gj ).
i6=j

QUANTITATIVE MULTIPLE MIXING

7

In fact, our method allows to deal with arbitrary ∆k (G)-invariant k-couplings of the space
(X, m).
Theorem 1.5 (Uniform exponential mixing of all orders for S-algebraic groups). Let G, X, m be
as in Theorem 1.4. Then, for every k ≥ 2 and sufficiently large d, there exists δ = δ(k, d, δ2 ) > 0
such that for all compact open subgroups U of Gf , every ∆k (G)-invariant coupling ξ of (X, m),
functions φ1 , . . . , φk ∈ Cc∞ (X)U , and elements g1 , . . . , gk ∈ G, we have
|ξ((g1 · φ1 ) ⊗ · · · ⊗ (gk · φk )) − m(φ1 ) · · · m(φk )| ≪d,U,k H(g1 , . . . , gk )−δ Sd (φ1 ) · · · Sd (φk ).

In particular, the above bound is uniform over all ∆k (G)-invariant k-couplings ξ of (X, m).
The proofs of Theorem 1.4 and 1.5 will be given in Section 4. We note that the uniformity
in Theorem 1.5 will be crucial in our analysis of higher order correlations on adele groups in
the next section.
1.4. Adele groups
Let G ⊂ GLn be a simply connected absolute simple algebraic group defined over a number
field F . Let G(AF ) be the corresponding adele group and
X := G(F )\G(AF )
equipped with the invariant probability measure m. For each v ∈ VF , we fix a norm k · kv on
Mn (Fv ) which is the max norm for almost all places v. The height function H : G(AF ) → R+
is defined by
Y
H(g) :=
kgkv , for g = (gv )v∈VF ∈ G(AF ).
(1.14)
v∈VF

We note that H is a proper function on G(AF ) (see, for instance, [14, Lemma 2.5]).
We denote by G∞ the product of G(Fv ) over the Archemdean places v and by Gf the group
of finite adeles. Also we denote by U∞ the product of G(Fv ) over the Archemedean places v
such that G(Fv ) is compact. Given a subgroup U of G(AF ), we denote by Cc∞ (X)U the algebra
of compactly supported functions on X which are smooth with respect to the action of G∞ and
are U -invariant. When W is a compact open subgroup of Gf , we introduce a family of Sobolev
norms Sd,W on the algebras Cc∞ (X)W (see Section 5). We establish the following generalisation
of [14, Theorem 3.27] for U∞ -invariant functions.

Theorem 1.6 (Exponential mixing of all orders for adele groups). Let G be a simply connected
absolutely simple linear algebraic group defined over a number field F and X = G(F )\G(AF )
equipped with the invariant probability measure m on X. We assume that G is isotopic over
Fv for some Archemedian v ∈ VF .
Then, for every k ≥ 2 and sufficiently large d, there exists δ = δ(k, d) > 0 such that for every
compact open subgroup W of Gf , U∞ -invariant functions φ1 , . . . , φk ∈ Cc∞ (X)W , and elements
s1 , . . . , sk ∈ G(AF ), we have
|m((s1 · φ1 ) · · · (sk · φk )) − m(φ1 ) · · · m(φk )| ≪d,W,k H(s1 , . . . , sk )−δ Sd,W (φ1 ) · · · Sd,W (φk ),

where

H(s1 , . . . , sk ) := min H(s−1
i sj ).
i6=j

Since H is a proper function on G(AF ), Theorem 1.6 in particular implies that the action of
G(AF ) on X = G(F )\G(AF ) is mixing of all orders. This was previously established in [15],
but the method in [15] relies on the theory of unipotent flows and does not provide any explicit
estimates. In [1], we apply Theorem 1.6 to establish effective counting estimate for the number
of rational points lying on the compactifications of the varieties of the form Gk /∆k (G).

8

MICHAEL BJÖRKLUND, MANFRED EINSIEDLER, AND ALEXANDER GORODNIK

It is quite likely that the assumption in Theorem 1.6 that G is isotopic over Fv for some
Archemedian v ∈ VF can be removed. It is needed because our argument relies on the results
from [10] which are only proved for real homogeneous space. Once an S-algebraic version of
[10] is developed, Theorem 1.6 will follow for general G using our method.
The proof of Theorem 1.6 will be given in Section 5.
1.5. Organisation of the paper
In Section 2, we discuss higher order correlations for semisimple Lie groups. In particular,
we reformulate our main results in terms of the Wasserstein distance for couplings and prove
the results from §1.1. Next, we apply the established correlation estimates in Section 3 to
deduce Corollary 1.3 regarding existence of approximate configurations in lattice subgroups.
In Section 4 we analyse higher order correlations for S-algebraic groups, and in Section 5 — for
adele groups. The proofs in Sections 2 and 4 rely on a general inductive estimate for couplings
(Proposition 7.2) which is established in Section 7. It will become apparent in Section 7 that
our method can be applied more generally to study couplings which are invariant under a flow
satisfying suitable regularity, growth, and mixing properties. Also in Section 6, we discuss
basic properties of the Wasserstein distance which are used in the paper.
2. Higher-order correlations for semisimple Lie groups
2.1. Preliminaries
Let G be a connected semisimple Lie group with finite center. We fix a Cartan subgroup A
of G. We denote by Σ ⊂ Hom(A, R×
+ ) the root system with respect to the adjoint action of A
on the Lie algebra g = Lie(G). Then we have the root space decomposition
M
g = g0 +
gα ,
(2.1)
α∈Σ

where g0 is the centraliser of the Lie algebra of A in g, and

gα := Z ∈ g : Ad(a)Z = α(a)Z, for all a ∈ A .

We fix a choice of the subset Σ+ ⊂ Σ of positive roots and denote by

A+ := a ∈ A : α(a) ≥ 1, for all α ∈ Σ+

the corresponding closed positive Weyl chamber in A. There exists a maximal compact subgroup K of G such that the Cartan decomposition
G = KA+ K

(2.2)

holds. It is a standard fact (see e.g. [16, Ch. 9]) that if g = k1 ag k2 for k1 , k2 ∈ K and ag ∈ A+ ,
then the component ag is unique. We call the component ag the Cartan projection of g.
Let h·, ·i be an Ad(K)-invariant inner product on g, and denote by k · k the corresponding
norm on g. Let ρG denote the left-invariant distance function on G induced by the Riemannian
metric corresponding to h·, ·i. We note that ρG is bi-K-invariant.
We also define a sub-multiplicative function k · kop on G by

kgkop := max k Ad(g)Zk : Z ∈ g with kZk = 1 .
(2.3)

We note that since G is semisimple, every transformation Ad(g) satisfies det(Ad(g)) = 1, so
that it has at least one eigenvalue whose absolute value is greater or equal to one. This implies
that
kgkop ≥ 1 for all g ∈ G.

QUANTITATIVE MULTIPLE MIXING

9

The following lemma summarises basic properties of the functions ρG and k · kop that will
be used in the proof.
Lemma 2.1.

(i) For every g ∈ G,

kgkop = max α(ag ),
α∈Σ+

where ag ∈

A+

denotes the Cartan projection of the element g.

(ii) For every g ∈ G, there exists Z ∈ g such that Ad(Z) is nilpotent, kZk = 1, and
kgkop = k Ad(g)Zk.

(iii) There exist constants c1 ≥ 1 and c2 > 0 such that
for all g ∈ G.

c−1
1 log kgkop − c2 ≤ ρG (g, eG ) ≤ c1 log kgkop + c2

(iv) There is a constant c3 ≥ 1 such that for all every X ∈ g such that Ad(X) is nilpotent,
dim(G)
c−1
.
3 max(1, kXk) ≤ k exp(X)kop ≤ c3 max(1, kXk)

In the proof of (iv), we will use the following lemma. Since later we will also need a version
of this lemma over p-adic local fields, we formulate it more generally.
Lemma 2.2. Fix a norm on Mn (K), where K is a locally compact normed field. Then there
exists c0 > 0 such that for every nilpotent matrix X ∈ Mn (K),
k exp(X)k ≥ c0 kXk.

Proof. We fix a norm on Kn . Since all the norms on Mn (K) are equivalent, without loss of
generality, we may assume that the norm in the lemma satisfies
kAvk ≤ kAk kvk

For a nilpotent matrix X, we set

for every A ∈ Mn (K) and v ∈ Kn .

(2.4)

c(X) := max{kXvk : v ∈ Kn such that kvk = 1 and X 2 v = 0}.

Given any nilpotent X ∈ Mn (K) and v ∈ Kn such that kvk = 1 and X 2 v = 0, we have
Hence,
We claim that

k exp(X)k ≥ k exp(X)vk = kv + Xvk ≥ kXvk − 1.
k exp(X)k ≥ c(X) − 1.

inf{c(X) : nilpotent X ∈ Mn (K) such that kXk = 1} > 0.

(2.5)

Suppose that (2.5) fails. Since the function c is continuous, the infimum is achieved, and there
exists nilpotent X ∈ Mn (K) with kXk = 1 such that c(X) = 0. Then it follows that for every
v ∈ Kn , if X 2 v = 0, then Xv = 0, i.e., ker(X 2 ) = ker(X). This also implies that for every
ℓ ≥ 1, we have ker(X ℓ+1 ) = ker(X ℓ ). Since X is nilpotent, we conclude that X = 0, but
kXk = 1. This contradiction shows that (2.5) holds. Hence, there exists c′0 > 0 such that for
every nilpotent X,
k exp(X)k ≥ c′0 kXk − 1.
Then k exp(X)k ≥ c′0 /2 kXk when kXk ≥ 2/c′0 .
On the other hand, it is also clear that k exp(X)k−1 kXk is uniformly bounded when kXk ≤
2/c′0 . Indeed, since exp(X) is unipotent, it follows from (2.4) that k exp(X)k ≥ 1.
Combining these two bounds completes the proof.


10

MICHAEL BJÖRKLUND, MANFRED EINSIEDLER, AND ALEXANDER GORODNIK

Proof of Lemma 2.1. Since the norm on g is Ad(K)-invariant, it is clear that kgkop = kag kop .
We note that the root decomposition (2.1) is orthogonal. Decomposing an element Y ∈ g with
respect to (2.1), we obtain that for a ∈ A+ ,


X
kAd(a)Y k2 =
α(a)2 kYα k2 ≤
max α(a)2 kY k2
(2.6)
α∈Σ∪{0}

α∈Σ∪{0}

=



2

max α(a)

α∈Σ+



kY k2 .

Moreover, if we choose α0 ∈ Σ+ such that α0 (a) = maxα∈Σ+ α(a) and Y ∈ gα0 , then the
equality in (2.6) holds. Hence, we deduce that for every g ∈ G, there exists Y contained in
single root space such that kY k = 1 and
kgkop = kag kop = k Ad(ag )Y k = max α(ag ) = max α(ag ).
α∈Σ+

α∈Σ

(2.7)

This proves (i).
The claim (ii) is deduced from (2.7). Given g = k1 ak2 ∈ KA+ K, we have
kgkop = k Ad(a)Y k = k Ad(g) Ad(k2 )−1 Y k.

Since Y is contained in a single root space, the map Ad(Y ) is nilpotent, and the map Ad(Z)
with Z = Ad(k2 )−1 Y is also nilpotent. We also have kZk = kY k = 1. This implies (ii).
To prove (iii), we observe that since the metric ρG is left-invariant, and K is compact, there
exists c′2 > 0 such that for every g = k1 ag k2 ∈ KA+ K,
ρG (ag , eG ) − c′2 ≤ ρG (g, eG ) ≤ ρG (ag , eG ) + c′2 .

Since A is abelian, there exists c′1 ≥ 1 such that for all X ∈ Lie(A),
(c′1 )−1 kXk ≤ ρG (exp(X), eG ) ≤ c′1 kXk.

We also observe that the map
X 7→ max(log ◦α ◦ exp)(X),
α∈Σ

X ∈ Lie(A),

defines a norm on Lie(A). Hence, it follows from (2.7) that there exists c′′1 ≥ 1 such that for
all X ∈ Lie(A),
(c′′1 )−1 kXk ≤ log k exp(X)kop ≤ c′′1 kXk.
Combining these estimates, we deduce (iii).
Now we proceed with the proof of (iv). We introduce the operator norm on End(g). Since
Ad(X) is a nilpotent transformation, we obtain
dim(G)

Ad(exp(X))Z = exp(Ad(X))Z =

X 1
Ad(X)i Z
i!

(2.8)

i=0

for all Z ∈ g. Hence, it follows that

k exp(X)kop ≪ max(1, kAd(X)k)dim(G) ≪ max(1, kXk)dim(G) .

This proves one of the inequalities in (iv). To prove the other inequality, we use Lemma 2.2.
to obtain
k exp(X)kop = k exp(Ad(X))k ≫ kAd(X)k.
Also since exp(Ad(X)) is unipotent, k exp(Ad(X))k ≥ 1. Hence,
k exp(X)kop ≫ max(1, kAd(X)k).

QUANTITATIVE MULTIPLE MIXING

11

Since g is semisimple, the map Ad : g → End(g) is an embedding, and
kAd(X)k ≫ kXk for all X ∈ g.

Thus, we deduce the other inequality in (iv).



2.2. Sobolev norms
Let L be a connected Lie group and Γ a lattice in L. We consider the space X = Γ\L
equipped with the invariant probability measure m and a Riemannian metric induced by a
left-invariant Riemannian metric ρL on L. Let Cc (X) denote the space of compactly supported
continuous functions on X, endowed with the topology of uniform convergence on compact
subsets, and let P(X) denote the space of Borel probability measures on X, which we view as
a subspace of the dual space of Cc (X). Even though L acts naturally on X from the right, we
shall also write this action as a left action, i.e., if x = Γs, we set
l · x = Γsl−1 ,

for l ∈ L.

We note that L also acts on Cc (X) and on P(X) by

(l · φ)(x) = φ(l−1 · x) and (l · ν)(φ) = ν(l−1 · φ),

for φ ∈ Cc (X) and ν ∈ P(X). Finally, we denote by Cc∞ (X) the space of infinitely differentiable
compactly supported functions on X.
If x = Γs ∈ X, we denote by r(x) the injectivity radius at x, i.e. the smallest r > 0 such
that the quotient map L → X, restricted to a closed ball of ρL -radius r around s, is injective.
If Γ is a co-compact lattice, this number stays uniformly away from zero. However, if Γ is not
co-compact, then r(x) tends to zero as x moves into the cusps of X.
Let l = Lie(L). We note that every Y ∈ l gives rise to a first order differential operator DY
on Cc∞ (X) defined by

φ(x exp(tY )) − φ(x)
,
for φ ∈ Cc∞ (X).
t
If we fix an ordered basis {Y1 , . . . , Yn } for the Lie algebra l, then every element in the universal
enveloping algebra U (l) of l can be written as (an ordered) linear combination of monomials in
the basis elements of the form Y1m1 · · · Ynmn . Every such monomial W gives rise to a differential
operator by composition, i.e.,
DW = DYm11 · · · DYmnn .
(2.9)
(DY φ)(x) = lim

t→0

The degree deg(DW ) is defined as the sum m1 + . . . + mn .

Following [10], for an integer d ≥ 1 and φ ∈ Cc∞ (X), the Sobolev norm of φ of degree d is
defined by
1/2

Z
X
(2.10)
|r(x)−κd (DW φ)(x)|2 dm(x) ,
Sd (φ) := 
deg(DW )≤d X

where κd > 0 are chosen appropriately, so that the following properties hold:
N1. For sufficiently large d and φ ∈ Cc∞ (X),
kφk∞ ≪d Sd (φ).

(2.11)

kφ − g · φk∞ ≪d ρG (g, eG ) Sd (φ).

(2.12)

N2. For sufficiently large d, φ ∈ Cc∞ (X), and g ∈ G,

12

MICHAEL BJÖRKLUND, MANFRED EINSIEDLER, AND ALEXANDER GORODNIK

N3. For sufficiently large d, an exponent σ = σ(d) > 0, φ ∈ Cc∞ (X), and g ∈ G,
Sd (g · φ) ≪d kgkσop Sd (φ).

(2.13)

Sd (φ1 φ2 ) ≪d Sd+r (φ1 ) Sd+r (φ2 ).

(2.14)

N4. There exists r > 0 such that for all sufficiently large d and φ1 , φ2 ∈ Cc∞ (X),

The use of the term r(x)−κd in the definition (2.10) is convenient in order to have statements
which are uniform on Cc∞ (X). If we restrict our attention the subalgebra of functions with
supports contained in a fixed compact subset of X, then the norms Sd are equivalent to the
standard Sobolev norms.
2.3. Mixing of higher orders and Wasserstein distances on couplings
Let us now reformulate Theorems 1.1 and 1.2 in a way that better aligns with the point of
view taken in the paper. We recall that X = Γ\L and that m denotes the invariant probability
measure on X.
Given an integer k ≥ 2, we write [k] = {1, . . . , k}, and given a subset I ⊂ [k], we let GI , XI
and mI denote the direct product of G, X and m respectively, over the indices in I. We also
write
∆I (G) = {(g, . . . , g) : g ∈ G} ⊂ GI

and ∆I (X) = {(x, . . . , x) : x ∈ X} ⊂ XI ,

and we denote by m∆I (G) the probability measure on XI , which is the image of m under the
diagonal embedding of X into XI . With this notation, we note that if g1 , . . . , gk ∈ G and
φ1 , . . . , φk ∈ Cc∞ (X), then
m((g1 · φ1 ) · · · (gk · φk )) = m∆[k] (X) ((g1 · φ1 ) ⊗ · · · ⊗ (gk · φk )).

Since m∆[k] (X) is a ∆[k] (G)-invariant k-coupling of (X, m), Theorem 1.1 is a particular case of
Theorem 1.2.
Given I = {i1 , . . . , il } ⊂ [k], we let Cc∞ (X)I denote the algebraic tensor product of the
algebra Cc∞ (X) over the indices in I, that is to say, the subalgebra of Cc (XI ) which is spanned
by all finite sums of the form
X
φi1 j ⊗ · · · ⊗ φil j ,
j

Cc∞ (X),

s = 1, . . . , l. Given an integer d, we define the projective tensor product
where φis j ∈
(or maximal cross-norm) Sd,I of the Sobolev norm Sd of an element φ ∈ Cc∞ (X)I by
o
nX
Sd (φi1 j ) · · · Sd (φil j ) ,
Sd,I (φ) := inf
j

where the infimum is taken over all possible ways to write φ as a finite sum of the form
X
φ=
φi1 j ⊗ · · · ⊗ φil j ,
with φi1 j , . . . , φil j ∈ Cc∞ (X).
j

We can readily extend the action GI y XI to Cc (XI ) and to P(XI ), by

(gI · φ)(xI ) = φ(gI−1 · xI ) and (gI · ν)(φ) = ν(gI−1 · φ),

for φ ∈ Cc (XI ), ν ∈ P(XI ) and gI ∈ GI . We note that the extended GI -action on Cc (XI )
preserves the subspace Cc∞ (X)I .
Let η be a k-coupling of (X, m). Then for g1 , . . . , gk ∈ G and φ1 , . . . , φk ∈ Cc∞ (X),
η((g1 · φ1 ) ⊗ · · · ⊗ (gk · φk )) = ((g1 , . . . , gk )−1 · η)(φ1 ⊗ · · · ⊗ φk ),

QUANTITATIVE MULTIPLE MIXING

13

and
m(φ1 ) · · · m(φk ) = m[k](φ1 ⊗ · · · ⊗ φk ).

Hence, Theorem 1.2, which we wish to prove, can now be equivalently stated as:
For all k ≥ 2 and sufficiently large d, there exists δ = δ(k, d) > 0 such that for all ∆[k] (G)invariant couplings ξ of (X, m) and g[k] = (g1 , . . . , gk ) ∈ G[k] , we have
n
o
−1
sup (g[k]
· ξ)(φ) − m[k] (φ) : φ ∈ Cc∞ (X)[k] with Sd,[k] (φ) ≤ 1 ≪d,k M(g[k] )−δ . (2.15)
This way of rewriting Theorem 1.2 motivates the following definition. If Y is a locally
compact metrizable space, A ⊂ Cc (Y ) is a fixed linear subspace, and M is a norm on A, then
we define the Wasserstein distance distM on the space P(Y ) of Borel probability measures on
Y by

distM (µ, ν) := sup |µ(φ) − ν(φ)| : φ ∈ A with M (φ) ≤ 1 ,
(2.16)

for µ, ν ∈ P(Y ). We stress that this is always a semi-distance (semi-metric), but only a metric
if A is dense in Cc (Y ), endowed with the topology of uniform convergence on compact subsets.
We shall discuss properties of this semi-distance in more details in Section 6.
Let us now adopt the following useful notation. If I = {i1 , . . . , is } ⊆ [k], then, given
ν ∈ P(X[k] ) and g[k] ∈ G[k] , we write νI for the push-forward of ν onto XI , and we set
gI = (gi1 , . . . , gis ) ∈ GI .
Furthermore, if d is an integer, we set
distd,I := distSd,I ,

which is indeed a metric on P(XI ) since Cc∞ (X)I is dense in Cc (XI ).
With this notation, we can now further rewrite (2.15) (the assertion of Theorem 1.2) and
reformulate Theorem 1.2 in terms of estimates on the distance distd,[k] as:
For all k ≥ 2 and sufficiently large d, there exists δ = δ(k, d) > 0 such that for all ∆[k] (G)invariant couplings ξ of (X, m) and g[k] = (g1 , . . . , gk ) ∈ G[k] , we have
−1
· ξ, m[k] ) ≪d,k M(g[k] )−δ .
distd,[k] (g[k]

Now we state our main technical result — Theorem 2.3. In the next subsection, we show
how to deduce Theorems 1.1 and 1.2 from it. We recall that G is a connected semisimple Lie
group with finite center, and we are assuming that G is a closed subgroup of a connected Lie
group L, and its action on a finite volume homogeneous space X = Γ\L has strong spectral
gap. As before m denotes the normalized invariant measure on X. Then by [20, Cor. 3.2],
there exists δ2 > 0 such that for all sufficiently large integers d, functions φ1 , φ2 ∈ Cc∞ (X), and
elements g ∈ G,
2
|m((g · φ1 )φ2 ) − m(φ1 )m(φ2 )| ≪d kgk−δ
op Sd (φ1 ) Sd (φ2 ),

(2.17)

where k·kop is defined as in (2.3). While this estimate in [20] is stated in terms of the Riemanian
distance ρG , it follows from Lemma 2.1(iii) that we also have the estimate of the form (2.17).

14

MICHAEL BJÖRKLUND, MANFRED EINSIEDLER, AND ALEXANDER GORODNIK

The following theorem inductively upgrades (2.17) to an estimate for general k-couplings of
(X, m) which are ∆[k](G)-invariant.
Theorem 2.3. Let g[k] = (g1 , . . . , gk ) ∈ G[k] and ξ be a ∆[k] (G)-invariant k-coupling of (X, m).
Suppose that there exist F ≥ 1, τ > 0 and an integer d such that
distd,I (gI−1 · ξI , mI ) ≤ F N(g[k] )−τ ,

for all I ( [k].

Then there exists γk > 0, which depends only on k, d and δ2 , such that
√
−1
· ξ, m[k] ) ≪d,k F N(g[k] )−γk min(1,τ ) ,
distd+r,[k] (g[k]

(2.18)

(2.19)

where r is as (2.14), and
N(g[k] ) := min kgi−1 gj kop .
i6=j

We emphasise that the implied constant in (2.19) does not depend on τ , ξ, or the k-tuple
g[k] , and if the bound (2.18) is uniform over all ∆[k] (G)-invariant k-couplings of (X, m), then
so is the bound (2.19).
2.4. Proof of Theorems 1.1 and 1.2 (assuming Theorem 2.3)
As we already noted Theorem 1.1 is a particular case of Theorem 1.2 with ξ = m∆[k] (X) .
Let us fix k ≥ 2 and a k-tuple g[k] = (g1 , . . . , gk ) ∈ G[k] , and set
q := min kgi−1 gj kop .
i6=j

By Lemma 2.1, there exist constants c1 , c2 > 0 such that
ρG (gi , gj ) = ρG (eG , gi−1 gj ) ≤ c1 log kgi−1 gj kop + c2 ,
and thus
q ≥ e−c2 /c1 M(g[k] )1/c1 .

(2.20)

Since ξ is a ∆[k] (G)-invariant k-coupling of (X, m), (2.18) is trivial for k = 2. We shall now
argue by induction. Suppose that we have shown (2.18) for all I ( [k], that is to say, we have
produced d, τ > 0 and F ≥ 1 such that
distd,I (gI−1 · ξI , mI ) ≤ F q −τ ,

for all I ( [k]. Theorem 2.3 now provides γk > 0 such that
√
−1
· ξ, m[k] ) ≪d,k F q −γk min(1,τ ) ,
distd+r,[k] (g[k]
and thus, by (2.20),
−1
· ξ, m[k] ) ≪d,k
distd+r,[k] (g[k]

√

F M(g[k] )−γk min(1,τ )/c1 .

Upon unwrapping the definition of distd+r,[k] , and observing that the implicit constants are
independent of g[k] ∈ G[k] , we see that this exactly means that
|ξ((g1 · φ1 ) ⊗ · · · ⊗ (gk · φk )) − m(φ1 ) · · · m(φk )|

≪d,k M(g[k] )−γk min(1,τ )/c1 Sd+r (φ1 ) · · · Sd+r (φk ),

for all g1 , . . . , gk ∈ G and φ1 , . . . , φk ∈ Cc∞ (X). This finishes the proof of Theorem 1.2.

QUANTITATIVE MULTIPLE MIXING

15

2.5. A reduction of the proof of Theorem 2.3
We retain the notation from Subsection 2.1. Let us fix g[k] = (g1 , . . . , gk ) ∈ G[k] and a
−1
· ξ, and
∆[k](G)-invariant k-coupling ξ of (X, m). Throughout this subsection, we set η = g[k]
note that η is again a k-coupling of (X, m), but this time invariant under the subgroup
−1
· ∆[k] (G) · g[k] ⊂ G[k] .
g[k]

Define
Q := max kgi−1 gj kop
i6=j

and q := N(g[k] ) = min kgi−1 gj kop .
i6=j

We note that Q ≥ q ≥ 1. Let us fix indices i1 6= is ∈ [k] such that Q = kgi−1
gis kop . By Lemma
1
2.1, there exists Z ∈ g such that Ad(Z) is a nilpotent endomorphism of g, kZk = 1, and
Q = kgi−1
gis kop = k Ad(gi−1
gis )Zk.
1
1

Then for all i, j ∈ [k], we have

k Ad(gi−1 gj )Zk ≤ kgi−1 gj kop ≤ k Ad(gi−1
gis )Zk.
1

We can label the indices in [k] so that
k Ad(gi−1
gis )Zk ≥ k Ad(gi−1
gis )Zk.
gis )Zk ≥ . . . ≥ k Ad(gi−1
1
2
k
gis )Zk ≤ k Ad(gi−1
gis )Zk = 1. Changing the indexation, we may
Then, in particular, k Ad(gi−1
s
k
assume that
k Ad(g1−1 gs )Zk ≥ k Ad(g2−1 gs )Zk ≥ . . . ≥ k Ad(gk−1 gs )Zk.
Let

Zj =
Then

Ad(gj−1 gs )Z
k Ad(g1−1 gs )Zk

and wj = kZj k,

1 = w1 ≥ w2 ≥ . . . ≥ wk

for j = 1, . . . , k.

and wk ≤ Q−1 ≤ q −1 .

(2.21)

Let us fix an index 1 ≤ p ≤ k − 1, and write [k] = I ⊔ J, where
I = [1, p] and J = [p + 1, k].
For every j ∈ [k], we define the flow hj : R × X → X by
hj (t) · x = exp(tZj ) · x,

for x ∈ X.

(2.22)

We also define the flows hI : R × XI → XI and hJ : R × XJ → XJ by
hI (t) · xI = (h1 (t) · x1 , . . . , hp (t) · xp )

(2.23)

hJ (t) · xJ = (hp+1 (t) · xp+1 , . . . , hk (t) · xk ),

(2.24)

and
as well as the joint flow h : R × X[k] → X[k] by

h(t) · (xI , xJ ) = (hI (t) · xI , hJ (t) · xJ ).
Since




−1
· ∆[k] (G) · g[k] = Ad(g[k] )−1 Lie(∆[k] (G)) ,
(Z1 , . . . , Zk ) ∈ Lie g[k]

it follows that η is an h-invariant k-coupling of (X, m). Similarly, its marginals ηI and ηJ on
XI and XJ are invariant under the flows hI and hJ respectively.

16

MICHAEL BJÖRKLUND, MANFRED EINSIEDLER, AND ALEXANDER GORODNIK

Let us fix a large integer d so that the Sobolev norms N := Sd on A = Cc∞ (X) satisfy (cf.
(2.11), (2.12), and (2.13))
kφk∞ ≪d N (φ),

(2.25)

kφ − g · φk∞ ≪d ρG (g, e) N (φ)
N (g · φ)

≪d kgkσop

for all g ∈ G,

(2.26)

N (φ) for all g ∈ G and some σ = σ(d) > 0.

(2.27)

We denote by AI and AJ the algebraic tensor product of A over the indices in I and J respectively, and we let NI and NJ denote the norms on AI and AJ respectively which are projective
tensor products of N .
Let us now list three important properties of the flows hI and hJ that will be crucial in
our analysis. In all three lemmas, the index p (and hence the partition [k] = I ⊔ J) will be
fixed. We shall reduce the proof of Theorem 2.3 to a general inequality for couplings which
are invariant under a suitable flow. This inequality (which is valid in a more general context
as well) will be established in Section 7 below.
Lemma 2.4. There exist A ≥ 1 and a > 0, depending only on d and k, such that for all t ∈ R
and φI ∈ AI ,
NI (hI (t) · φI ) ≤ A max(1, |t|)a NI (φI ).
Proof. Pick φI ∈ AI and write it as a finite sum of the form
X
φI =
φ1 i ⊗ · · · ⊗ φp i ,
i

for some φji ∈ A. For every t ∈ R, we have
X
hI (t) · φI =
(h1 (t) · φ1 i ) ⊗ · · · ⊗ (hp (t) · φp i ),
i

and thus

NI (hI (t) · φI ) ≤

X
i

N (h1 (t) · φ1 i ) · · · N (hp (t) · φp i ).

By (2.27) and Lemma 2.1(iv), we have

N (hj (t) · φj i ) ≪d khj (t)kσop N (φj i ) ≪ max(1, ktZj k)σ dim(G) N (φj i )
Since wj ≤ 1 for all j,

= max(1, wj |t|)σ dim(G) N (φj i ).

NI (hI (t) · φI ) ≪d,p
≤
This implies that

p
XY
i

j=1

σ dim(G)

max(1, wj |t|)

max(1, |t|)kσ dim(G)

X
i



N (φ1 i ) · · · N (φp i )

N (φ1 i ) · · · N (φp i ),

NI (hI (t) · φI ) ≪d,k max(1, |t|)a NI (φI )
with a = kσ dim(G), which finishes the proof.



Lemma 2.5. There exists B ≥ 1, depending only on d and k, such that for all t ∈ R and
φI ∈ AI ,
|mI ((hI (t) · φI )φI ) − mI (φI )2 | ≤ B max(1, wp |t|)−δ2 NI (φI )2 ,
where δ2 is as in (2.17).

QUANTITATIVE MULTIPLE MIXING

17

Proof. Pick φI ∈ AI and write it as a finite sum of the form
X
φ1 i ⊗ · · · ⊗ φp i ,
φI =
i

for some φs i ∈ A. For all t ∈ R, we have
X
mI ((hI (t) · φI )φI ) =
m((h1 (t) · φ1 i )φ1 j ) · · · m((hp (t) · φp i )φp j ),
i,j

and
mI (φI )2 =

X
i,j

m(φ1 i )m(φ1 j ) · · · m(φp i )m(φp j ).

The difference mI ((hI (t) · φI )φI ) − mI (φI )2 can be written as a finite sum of terms of the form
m((h1 (t) · φ1 i )φ1 j ) · · · m((hp (t) · φp i )φp j ) − m(φ1 i )m(φ1 j ) · · · m(φp i )m(φp j ).
Each such term can be written as a sum of p terms of the form
(m((hl (t) · φl i )φl j ) − m(φl i )m(φl j ))Tlij ,

(2.28)

where
|Tlij | ≤

Y
s6=l

kφs i k∞ kφs j k∞ .

By (2.17), we have for some δ2 > 0,
2
|m((hl (t) · φl i )φl j ) − m(φl i )m(φl j )| ≪d k exp(tZl )k−δ
op N (φl i )N (φl j ),

for all indices l, i, j and t ∈ R. We recall that Z, and thus Zl (being the image of Z under
an adjoint operator), is such that Ad(Zl ) is nilpotent. Hence, the assertion (iv) in Lemma 2.1
shows that
k exp(tZl )kop ≫ max(1, |t| kZl k) = max(1, |t|wl ).
We recall that wp ≤ wl for all l ∈ I, so that

|m((hl (t) · φl i )φl j ) − m(φl i )m(φl j )| ≪d max(1, wp |t|)−δ2 N (φl i )N (φl j ).
In view of (2.25), we conclude that each term of the form (2.28) satisfies
−δ2

≪d max(1, wp |t|)

p
Y

N (φl i )N (φl j ),

l=1

uniformly over all i, j. Hence,
mI ((hI (t) · φI )φI ) − mI (φI )2 ≪d,k max(1, wp |t|)−δ2

p
XY
i

!2

N (φl i )

l=1

,

and
mI ((hI (t) · φI )φI ) − mI (φI )2 ≪d,k max(1, wp |t|)−δ2 NI (φI )2 .

This proves the claim of the lemma.



Lemma 2.6. There exists C ≥ 1, depending only on d and k, such that for all t ∈ R and
φJ ∈ AJ ,
khJ (t) · φJ − φJ k∞ ≤ C wp+1 |t| NJ (φJ ).

18

MICHAEL BJÖRKLUND, MANFRED EINSIEDLER, AND ALEXANDER GORODNIK

Proof. Pick φJ ∈ AJ and write it as a finite sum of the form
X
φJ =
φp+1 j ⊗ · · · ⊗ φk j ,
j

for some φl j ∈ A. We can write each term in the difference hJ (t) · φJ − φJ as a telescoping
sum of the k − p terms of the form
Hence,

φp+1 j ⊗ · · · ⊗ φl−1 j ⊗ (hl (t) · φl j − φl j ) ⊗ hl+1 (t) · φl+1 j ⊗ · · · hk (t) · φk j .
khJ (t) · φJ − φJ k∞ ≤

k
X X
j

l=p+1

khl (t) · φl j − φl j k∞

Using (2.25) and (2.26), we see that uniformly on l, j,
khl (t) · φl j − φl j k∞
Since

Y
i6=l

kφi j k∞ ≪d ρG (exp(tZl ), eG )

Y
i6=l

kφi j k∞

k
Y

N (φi j ),

i=p+1

ρG (exp(tZl ), eG ) ≪ ktZl k = |t|wl ≤ |t|wp+1 , for all t ∈ R and l ∈ J,
we conclude that
X
N (φp+1 j ) · · · N (φk j ),
khJ (t) · φJ − φJ k∞ ≪d,k |t|wp+1
j

which implies the lemma.



2.6. Finishing the proof of Theorem 2.3 (assuming Proposition 2.7)
We recall the setting of Theorem 2.3: ξ is a ∆[k](G)-invariant k-coupling of (X, m), and
−1
· ξ for some g[k] = (g1 , . . . , gk ) ∈ G[k] . The latter measure is invariant under the
η = g[k]
flow h, which is defined using an elements Zj ∈ g such that Ad(Zj ) is nilpotent, whose norms
wj = kZj k satisfy
1 = w1 ≥ w2 ≥ . . . ≥ wk and wk ≤ q −1 ,
where q = mini6=j kgi−1 gj kop . We recall that kgkop ≥ 1 for all g ∈ G, so that q ≥ 1.
Let d and r be integers such that the Sobolev norms M := Sd and N := Sd+r on A = Cc∞ (X)
satisfy
kφk∞ ≪d M (φ) ≪d,r N (φ),

kφ − g · φk∞ ≪d,r ρG (g, e) N (φ)
N (g · φ)

≪d,r kgkσop

(2.29)

for all g ∈ G,

(2.30)

N (φ) for all g ∈ G and some σ = σ(d) > 0,

M (φ1 · φ2 ) ≪d,r N (φ1 )N (φ2 )

(2.31)
(2.32)

(see (2.11), (2.12), (2.13), and (2.14)).

We have shown in Lemmas 2.4, 2.5, and 2.6 above that given a non-trivial decomposition
[k] = I ⊔ J where I = [1, p] and J = [p + 1, k], there are constants A, B, C and a, b > 0 (which
are independent of p), such that for all t ∈ R and for all φI ∈ AI and φJ ∈ AJ ,
NI (hI (t) · φI ) ≤ A max(1, |t|)a N (φI ),
2

−b

(2.33)

2

|mI ((hI (t) · φI )φI ) − mI (φI ) | ≤ B max(1, wp |t|) NI (φI ) ,
khJ (t) · φJ − φJ k∞ ≤ C wp+1 |t| NJ (φJ ).

(2.34)
(2.35)

QUANTITATIVE MULTIPLE MIXING

19

Assuming the bounds (2.33)–(2.35), we establish the following useful inequality. A general
form of this inequality will be proved in Section 7 (see Proposition 7.2 below).
−1
Proposition 2.7. For every fixed 1 ≤ p < k and T ∈ [wp−1 , wp+1
], we have

where

distN[k] (η, m[k] ) ≪d,r,k max((MT a )1/2 , (wp T )−b/2 , wp+1 T ),

(2.36)

M := max(distMI (ηI , mI ), distMJ (ηJ , mJ )).
Next, we show how to deduce Theorem 2.3 from Proposition 2.7.
In order to finish the proof of Theorem 2.3, we need to solve first the following problem.
−1
Given q ≥ 1, we wish to minimize (over p and T for which T ∈ [wp−1 , wp+1
]) the expression
√
(2.37)
max((MT a )1/2 , (wp T )−b/2 , wp+1 T ) ≤ F max(q −τ /2 T a/2 , (wp T )−b/2 , wp+1 T ),

where w1 , . . . , wk is a fixed sequence which satisfies
1 = w1 ≥ w2 ≥ . . . ≥ wk

and wk ≤ q −1 .

We stress that we do not want the attained bound to depend on the particular choice of this
sequence.
To solve this problem, let us choose
δ = γ0 min(1, τ ),

where γ0 = min(1/k, 1/(2ak)),

and note that
kδ ≤ 1 and 2akδ ≤ τ.
In particular, all of the k points
0 ≤ i ≤ k − 1, lie between wk and w1 . Hence, by the
Pigeonhole Principle, there will be at least two consecutive points q −δ(i+1) and q −δi for some
0 ≤ i ≤ k − 2 which will end up in one and the same of the (k − 1) intervals
q −δi ,

[wk , wk−1 ), . . . , [w3 , w2 ), [w2 , w1 ].

Namely, for some p = 1, . . . , k − 1 and i = 0, . . . , k − 2,

wp+1 ≤ q −(i+1)δ ≤ q −iδ ≤ wp

(2.38)

For this particular i, we set T = q (i+1/2)δ , which clearly satisfies
and

wp T = wp q (i+1/2)δ ≥ q −iδ q (i+1/2)δ = q δ/2 ≥ 1,

wp+1 T ≤ q −(i+1)δ q (i+1/2)δ = q −δ/2 ≤ 1.
Using (2.38), we deduce that that the expression (2.37) is bounded from above by
√
F max(q −(τ −a(i+1/2)δ)/2 , q −bδ/4 , q −δ/2 ).
Since
τ − a(i + 1/2)δ ≥ τ − akδ ≥ τ /2,
by our choice of δ, we conclude that (2.37) is bounded from above by q −σ , where
σ = min(τ /2, bδ/4, δ/2) ≥ γk min(1, τ ),

where γk > 0 depends only on k, a, and b. We note that, more precisely, γk ≫ 1/k.
We have shown that for q = N(g[k] ), if there are constants F ≥ 1 and τ > 0 such that
max(distMI (ηI , mI ), distMJ (ηJ , mJ )) ≤ F q −τ ,

20

MICHAEL BJÖRKLUND, MANFRED EINSIEDLER, AND ALEXANDER GORODNIK

then
distN (η, m[k] ) ≪d,k

√ −γ min(1,τ )
Fq k
,

where γk depends only on k, a and b. This finishes the proof of Theorem 2.3 (modulo the proof
of Proposition 2.7). In Section 7, we prove a general version of Proposition 2.7 (see Proposition
7.2).
3. Approximate configurations in lattices
Let G be a connected semisimple Lie group with finite centre having no compact factors.
Let Γ be an irreducible lattice in G. We fix a left-invariant Riemannian metric ρG on G which
is bi-invariant under a fixed maximal compact subgroup of G. The aim of this section is to
prove Corollary 1.3. Namely, we want to show that given ε > 0 and a k-tuple (g1 , . . . , gk ) ∈ Gk
with sufficiently large
w(g1 , . . . , gk ) := min ρG (gi , gj ),
i6=j

there exist a k-tuples (γ1 , . . . , γk ) ∈

Γk

and an element g ∈ G such that

ρG (gi , g γi ) < ε

for all i = 1, . . . , k.

To construct such a tuple in Γk , we apply Theorem 1.1 to the action of G on the space X = Γ\G
equipped with the invariant probability measure m. Since G has no compact factors, it is known
(see, for instance, [24, p. 285]) that this action has strong spectral gap. Hence, by Theorem
1.1, for suitable d ∈ N and δ > 0,


m((g1 · φ1 ) · · · (gk · φk )) = m(φ1 ) · · · m(φk ) + Od,k e−δ w(g1 ,...,gk ) Sd (φ1 ) · · · Sd (φk )
(3.1)
for all functions φ1 , . . . φk ∈ Cc∞ (X). We apply this estimate to suitably chosen φi ’s. We choose
the Haar measure mG on G so that


Z
Z
X

for all Φ ∈ Cc (G).
Φ(γg) dm(Γg)
Φ dmG =
Γ\G

G

γ∈Γ

Let Φε ∈ Cc∞ (G) be a non-zero non-negative function such that supp(Φε ) ⊂ Bε (e), kΦε k1 = 1,
and kDΦε k2 ≪ ε−θ with some θ = θ(d) > 0 for all differential operators D as in (2.9) with
deg(D) ≤ d. Let
X
Φε (γg).
φε (Γg) :=
γ∈Γ

Then m(φε ) = 1 and Sd (φε ) ≪d

ε−θ .

Hence, we deduce from (3.1) that


m((g1 · φε ) · · · (gk · φε )) = 1 + Od,k e−δ w(g1 ,...,gk ) ε−kθ .

If we take c > kθ/δ and assume that w(g1 , . . . , gk ) ≥ c log(1/ε), then it follows that for all
sufficiently small ε > 0, we have
m((g1 · φε ) · · · (gk · φε )) > 0.

Finally, we observe that
m((g1 · φε ) · · · (gk · φε )) =

Z

Γ\G




X

(γ1 ,...,γk )∈Γk



Φε (γ1 gg1 ) · · · Φε (γk ggk ) dm(Γg),

so that it follows that there exist (γ1 , . . . , γk ) ∈ Γk and g ∈ G such that
γ1 gg1 , . . . , γk ggk ∈ supp(Φε ) ⊂ Bε (e).

QUANTITATIVE MULTIPLE MIXING

21

Then for all i = 1, . . . , k,
ρG (gi , g −1 γi−1 ) = ρG (γi ggi , eG ) < ǫ.
This implies Corollary 1.3.
4. Higher-order correlations for S-alebraic groups
4.1. Preliminaries
Let G be a simply connected absolutely simple
Q algebraic groups defined over a number field
F , S is a finite set of places of F , and G := v∈S Gv where Gv = G(Fv ). For each v ∈ S, we
fix a maximal Fv -split torus Av of G and set Av = Av (Fv ). We denote by gv the Lie algebra of
the p-adic Lie group Gv and by Σv ⊂ A∗v the root system with respect to the adjoint action of
the torus Av on the Lie algebra of G. Then there is the root space decomposition gv :
M
(4.1)
gαv ,
gv = g0v +
α∈Σv

where

g0v

is the centraliser of Lie(Av ) in gv , and
gαv := {Z ∈ g : Ad(a)Z = α(a)Z

It will be convenient to write succinctly
M
g :=
gv

and A :=

v∈S

for all a ∈ Av }.
Y

Av .

v∈S

Then we have the decomposition

g = g0 +

M

gα ,

(4.2)

α∈Σ

where Σ = ∪v∈S Σv , and gα ’s are root space for the action of A on g. These are precisely the
roots spaces in the decompositions (4.1).
We choose a system Σ+
v ⊂ Σv of positive roots, and define the closed Weyl chamber
+
A+
v := {a ∈ Av : |α(a)|v ≥ 1 for all α ∈ Σv }.

There exists a good maximal compact subgroup Kv of G(Fv ) and a finite subset Ωv of the
centraliser of Av in G(Fv ) such that the Cartan decomposition
G(Fv ) = Kv A+
v Ωv Kv
holds ([3], [41]). We write succinctly
Y
K :=
Kv ,
v∈S

Then we have the decomposition

A+ :=

Y

A+
v,

v∈S

(4.3)

Ω :=

Y

Ωv .

v∈S

G = KA+ ΩK,
which is an analogue of the real Cartan decomposition (2.2).
We fix a norm k · k on g which is the maximum of fixed norms on gv , and define a submultiplicative function k · kop on G by
kgkop := max{k Ad(g)Zk : Z ∈ g with kZk = 1}.

(4.4)

This definition is similar to the definition (2.3). One can also check as before that kgkop ≥ 1
for all g ∈ G.
The following lemma is an analogue of Lemma 2.1.

22

MICHAEL BJÖRKLUND, MANFRED EINSIEDLER, AND ALEXANDER GORODNIK

Lemma 4.1.

(i) There exists c0 ≥ 1 such that for every g = k1 aωk2 ∈ KA+ ΩK,




−1
c0
max α(a) ≤ kgkop ≤ c0 max α(a) .
α∈Σ+

α∈Σ+

(ii) For every g ∈ G, there exists Z ∈ gv for some v ∈ S such that Ad(Z) is nilpotent,
kZk = 1, and
kgkop ≤ c0 k Ad(g)Zk.

(iii) There exist constants c1 , c2 ≥ 1 such that
c−1

c1
1
c−1
2 kgkop ≤ H(g) ≤ c2 kgkop

for all g ∈ G.

(iv) There is a constant c3 ≥ 1 such that for every X ∈ gv , v ∈ S, such that Ad(X) is
nilpotent, we have
dim(G)
c−1
.
3 max(1, kXk) ≤ k exp(X)kop ≤ c3 max(1, kXk)

Proof. We first observe that by compactness there exists c′0 ≥ 1 such that for every g ∈
(K ∪ ΩK)±1 and Z ∈ g,
(c′0 )−1 kZk ≤ k Ad(g)Zk ≤ c′0 kZk.
This, in particular, implies that for every g = k1 aωk2 ∈ KA+ ΩK,
Similarly, we also have

(c′0 )−2 kakop ≤ kgkop ≤ (c′0 )2 kakop .

(4.5)

kakop ≪ H(g) ≪ kakop .
Hence, it is sufficient to prove (i) and (iii) for g ∈ A+ .
P
Decomposing Y ∈ g with respect to the decomposition (4.2) as Y = α∈Σ∪{0} Yα , we deduce
that for every a ∈ A+ ,




kAd(a)Y k ≤ max |α(a)| kYα k ≤
max |α(a)| kY k = max |α(a)| kY k.
(4.6)
α∈Σ∪{0}

α∈Σ+

α∈Σ∪{0}

If we choose α0 ∈ Σ+ such that α0 (a) = maxα∈Σ+ α(a) and Y ∈ gα0 , then the equality in (4.6)
holds. This implies that given any a ∈ A+ , there exists Y ∈ g contained in a single root space
such that kY k = 1 and
kakop = k Ad(a)Y k = max |α(a)|.
(4.7)
α∈Σ+

This completes the proof of (i).
To prove (ii), we observe that it follows from (4.5) and (4.7) that for g = k1 aωk2 ∈ KA+ ΩK,
kgkop ≤ (c′0 )2 kakop = (c′0 )2 k Ad(a)Y k ≤ (c′0 )3 k Ad(k1 aωk2 ) Ad(ωk2 )−1 Y k
= (c′0 )3 k Ad(ωk2 )−1 Y k k Ad(g)Zk ≤ (c′0 )4 k Ad(g)Zk,
−1

Y
2)
where Z = k Ad(ωk
. Since Y is contained in a single root spaces gαv for some v ∈ S, the
Ad(ωk2 )−1 Y k
map Ad(Y ) is nilpotent. This also implies that Z ∈ gv , and Ad(Z) is nilpotent. Hence, (ii) is
proved.
Now we proceed with the proof of (iii). Let us fix the set of simple roots Πv ⊂ Σ+
v , v ∈ S.
+
Then every α ∈ Σv can be expressed as a product of simple roots with non-negative exponents,
so that there exists c′1 ≥ 1 such that for every a ∈ A+ ,



c′1
,
(4.8)
max |α(a)| ≤ kakop ≤ max |α(a)|
α∈Π

α∈Π

QUANTITATIVE MULTIPLE MIXING

23

where Π = ∪v∈S Πv is considered as a subset of the set of characters of A.
We observe that k · kv ≫ 1 on Gv for v ∈ S, so that

|S|
max kgv kv ≪ H(g) ≪ max kgv kv
for g = (gv )v∈S ∈ G.
v∈S

v∈S

We consider the representation of G defined by the embedding G ⊂ GLn . Let Φv denote the
set of weights of this representation with respect to the torus Av . Since Av is split over Fv , the
action of Av = Av (Fv ) on Fvn is completely reducible. This implies that for av ∈ Av , v ∈ S,
max |χ(av )| ≪ kav kv ≪ max |χ(av )|.
χ∈Φv

χ∈Φv

Hence, there exists c2 ≥ 1 such that for every a ∈ A,



|S|
−1
c2
max |χ(a)| ≤ H(a) ≤ c2 max |χ(a)|
,
χ∈Φ

χ∈Φ

(4.9)

where Φ = ∪v∈S Φv is considered as a subset of the set of characters of A. We denote by Π∨
v
the set of fundamental weights corresponsing to Πv . We recall that a weight χ ∈ Φv is called
dominant if
Y
χ=
ψ nψ
ψ∈Π∨
v

with some non-negative integers nψ . Since every χ ∈ Φv is of the form
Y
α−sα
χ=ψ
α∈Πv

for some dominant weight ψ and non-negative integers sα , it follows that for every a ∈ A+ ,
max |χ(a)| = max |ψ(a)|,
χ∈Φ

ψ∈Φdom

(4.10)

where Φdom denotes the subset of dominant weights of Φ. For every ψ ∈ Π∨
v , there exists ℓ ∈ N
such that
Y
αmα
ψℓ =
α∈Πv

for some positive integers mα (see [34, Ch. 3, §1.9]). Here we used that since G is absolutely
simple, the root systems Σv are irreducible. Hence, we deduce that there exists c′′1 ≥ 1 such
that for every a ∈ A+ ,

c′′1

(c′′1 )−1
.
≤ max |ψ(a)| ≤ max |α(a)|
max |α(a)|
α∈Π

ψ∈Φdom

α∈Π

Combining this estimate with (4.8),(4.9) and (4.10), we deduce (iii).
Finally, the claim (iv) is proved exactly as in Lemma 2.1.



4.2. Reductions in the proof of Theorems 1.4 and 1.5
The proof of Theorems 1.4 and 1.5 follows the same steps as the proof of Theorem 1.1, and
we freely use the notation introduced in Section 2. It is clear that Theorem 1.4 is a particular
case of Theorem 1.5 with ξ = m∆[k] (X) . As in Section 2, we introduce the projective tensor
product norms. For I ⊂ [k], we denote by Cc∞ (X)U
I the algebraic tensor product of the algebras
Cc∞ (X)U over the set of indices in I. For a function φ ∈ Cc∞ (X)U
I , we define
o
nX
Sd (φi1 j ) · · · Sd (φil j ) ,
Sd,U,I (φ) := inf
j

24

MICHAEL BJÖRKLUND, MANFRED EINSIEDLER, AND ALEXANDER GORODNIK

where the infimum is taken over all possible ways to write φ as a finite sum of the form
X
φ=
φi1 j ⊗ · · · ⊗ φil j ,
with φi1 j , . . . , φil j ∈ Cc∞ (X)U .
j

Theorem 1.5 can be reformulated in terms of the Wasserstein distance distd,U,I = distSd,U,I as:
For all k ≥ 2 and sufficiently large d, there exists δ = δ(k, d) > 0 such that for all compact
open subgroups U ⊂ Gf and g[k] = (g1 , . . . , gk ) ∈ G[k] ,
−1
· ξ, m[k] ) ≪d,U,k H(g[k] )−δ .
distd,U,[k](g[k]

Theorem 1.5 will be deduced from the following general inductive estimate which generalises
Theorem 2.3.
Theorem 4.2. Fix d, r ∈ N such that (1.9)–(1.13) hold and a compact open subgroup U of Gf .
Fix q ≥ 1, an integer k ≥ 2, and a k-tuple g[k] = (g1 , . . . , gk ) ∈ G[k] . Suppose that
• ξ is a ∆[k] (G)-invariant k-coupling of (X, m).
• There exists ε > 0 such that
max kgi−1 gj kop ≥ q ε .
i6=j

(4.11)

• There exists δ2 > 0 such that for all φ1 , φ2 ∈ Cc∞ (X)U and g ∈ G,

2
|m((g · φ1 )φ2 ) − m(φ1 )m(φ2 )| ≪d,U,r kgk−δ
op Sd+r (φ1 ) Sd+r (φ2 ),

• There exist F ≥ 1 and τ > 0 such that

distd,U,I (gI−1 · ξI , mI ) ≤ F q −τ ,

for all I ( [k].

Then there exists γk > 0, which only depends on k, d, r and δ2 , such that
√
−1
· ξ, m[k] ) ≪d,U,r,k F q −γk min(ε,τ ) .
distd+r,U,[k](g[k]

(4.12)
(4.13)
(4.14)

It is straightforward to deduce Theorems 1.4 and 1.5 from Theorem 4.2 by taking q =
mini6=j kgi gj−1 kop and ǫ = 1 (cf. the proof of Theorems 1.1 and 1.2 in Section 2.4), so that we
omit the details. Although the parameter ǫ is not needed for the proof of Theorems 1.4 and
1.5, it will be important when estimating higher order correlations for adele groups. The rest
of this section occupies the proof of Theorem 4.2.
4.3. Proof of Theorem 4.2
We proceed as in Section 2.5. We set
Q := max kgi−1 gj kop
i6=j

and fix indices i0 6= j0 ∈ [k] such that Q = kgi−1
gj0 kop . By Lemma 4.1(ii), there exists Z ∈ gv
0
for some v ∈ S such that Ad(Z) is a nilpotent endomorphism of g, kZk = 1, and
Q = kgi−1
gj0 kop ≤ c0 k Ad(gi−1
gj0 )Zk.
0
0

After reindexing, we may assume that
and

k Ad(g1−1 gs )Zk ≥ k Ad(g2−1 gs )Zk ≥ . . . ≥ k Ad(gk−1 gs )Zk,
k Ad(g1−1 gs )Zk ≥ c−1
0 Q.

QUANTITATIVE MULTIPLE MIXING

We set
Zj =
Then

Ad(gj−1 gs )Z
k Ad(g1−1 gs )Zk

and wj = kZj k,

25

for j = 1, . . . , k.

1 = w1 ≥ w2 ≥ . . . ≥ wk and wk ≤ k Ad(g1−1 gs )Zk−1 ≤ c0 Q−1 .
(4.15)
We note that all elements Zj are contained in gv for a fixed v ∈ S. We set K to be either R or
Qp , so that K ⊂ Fv , and consider the flows hj : K × X → X defined by
hj (t) · x = exp(tZj ) · x,

for x ∈ X.

We fix an index 1 ≤ p ≤ k − 1 and consider the decomposition [k] = I ⊔ J, where I = [1, p]
and J = [p + 1, k]. Then we also have the diagonal flows
hI : K × XI → XI ,

hJ : K × XJ → XJ ,

h : K × X[k] → X[k] .

−1
· ξ is invariant under the
We note that the vectors Zj are chosen so that the coupling η = g[k]
flows h, and its marginals ηI and ηJ are invariant under the flows hI and hJ respectively.
We fix a compact open subgroup U of Gf , and set AU = Cc∞ (X)U . For v ∈ S∞ , we denote
by ρGv the left-invariant Riemannian metric on Gv defined as in Section 2.1. For v ∈ Sf , we
denote by k · k the operator norms on End(gv ). Let d and r be integers so that so that the
Sobolev norms M := Sd and N := Sd+r on AU satisfy

kφk∞ ≪d,U M (φ) ≪d,U,r N (φ),

kφ − g · φk∞ ≪d,U,r ρGv (g, eGv ) N (φ) for all g ∈ Gv with v ∈ S∞ ,

kφ − g · φk∞ ≪d,U,r k Ad(g) − idk N (φ)
N (g · φ)

≪d,U,r kgkσop

for all g ∈ Gv with v ∈ Sf ,

N (φ) for all g ∈ G and some σ = σ(d, r) > 0,

M (φ1 · φ2 ) ≪d,U,r N (φ1 )N (φ2 ).

Using these estimates, we establish the following properties of the flows hI and hJ , which verify
the assumptions of Proposition 7.2 for these flows:
1. There exist A ≥ 1, depending only on d, U , r and k, and a > 0, depending only on d,
r and k, such that for all t ∈ K and φI ∈ AU
I ,
NI (hI (t) · φI ) ≤ A max(1, |t|)a NI (φI ).

2. There exists B ≥ 1, depending only on d, U , r and k, such that for all t ∈ K and
φI ∈ AU
I ,
|mI ((hI (t) · φI )φI ) − mI (φI )2 | ≤ B max(1, wp |t|)−δ2 NI (φI )2 .

3. There exists C ≥ 1, depending only on d, U , r and k, such that for all t ∈ K satisfying
−1
|t| ≤ wp+1
and φJ ∈ AU
J,
khJ (t) · φJ − φJ k∞ ≤ C wp+1 |t| NJ (φJ ).

The proof of Properties 1–3 is essentially the same as the proof Lemmas 2.4, 2.5, and 2.6,
so that we omit the details. We only comment on the proof of the last property when K is
non-Archemedian. In this case we can argue as in the proof of Lemma 2.6, and it remains to
estimate
kφ − exp(tZl ) · φk∞ ≪d,U,r k Ad(exp(tZl )) − idk N (φ)
for p + 1 ≤ l ≤ k. Since
dim(gv )

Ad(exp(tZl )) = exp(t Ad(Zl )) =

X (t Ad(Zl ))i
,
i!
i=0

26

MICHAEL BJÖRKLUND, MANFRED EINSIEDLER, AND ALEXANDER GORODNIK

and
it follows that

kt Ad(Zl )k ≪ ktZl kv ≤ |t| kZp+1 kv = |t|wp+1 ≤ 1,
k exp(tZl ) − idk ≪ wp+1 |t|.

This implies Property 3.

Next, since the Properties 1–3 hold, we can apply Proposition 7.2 (proved in Section 7) to
deduce that
distN[k] (η, m[k] ) ≪d,U,r,k max((MT a )1/2 , (wp T )−δ2 /2 , wp+1 T ),
−1
], where
for all T ∈ [wp−1 , wp+1

M := max(distMI (ηI , mI ), distMJ (ηJ , mJ )).

In order to finish the proof of Theorem 1.4, we need to solve first the following problem:
−1
]) the expression
given Q ≥ 1, we wish to “minimize” (over p and T for which T ∈ [wp−1 , wp+1
max((MT a )1/2 , (wp T )−δ2 /2 , wp+1 T ),
where w1 , . . . , wk is a fixed sequence which satisfies
1 = w1 ≥ w2 ≥ . . . ≥ wk

and wk ≤ c0 Q−1 .

We outline below one way to do this, under the assumptions that Q is not “too small” while
M is “small”. To make the notions “large” and “small” more precise, we fix a parameter q ≥ 1,
and constants F ≥ 1 and ε, τ > 0 such that
Q ≥ qε

and M ≤ F q −τ

(cf. (4.11) and (4.13)). The problem now takes the following form. We wish to bound from
−1
]) the expression
above (for some appropriate choices of p and T such that T ∈ [wp−1 , wp+1
√
F max(q −τ /2 T a/2 , (wp T )−δ2 /2 , wp+1 T ),
(4.16)
where w1 , . . . , wk is a sequence which satisfies
1 = w1 ≥ w2 ≥ . . . ≥ wk

and wk ≤ c0 q −ε .
1/k

Let us consider a collection points θ i , 0 ≤ i ≤ k − 1, with θ ∈ [wk , 1]. Since all of these
points lie between wk and w1 , by the Pigeonhole Principle, there exist two consecutive points
θ i+1 and θ i for some i = 0, . . . , k − 2 that will end up in one and the same of the (k − 1)
intervals
[wk , wk−1 ), . . . , [w3 , w2 ), [w2 , w1 ].
We fix an index 1 ≤ p < k for which
Let T = θ −i−1/2 . Then
and

wp+1 ≤ θ i+1 < θ i ≤ wp .

(4.17)

wp T = wp θ −i−1/2 ≥ θ i θ −i−1/2 = θ −1/2 ≥ 1,

wp+1 T ≤ θ i+1 θ −i−1/2 = θ 1/2 ≤ 1,
Using (4.17), we deduce that (4.16) is bounded from above by
√
F max(q −τ /2 θ −a(k−3/2)/2 , θ δ2 /4 , θ 1/2 ).

(4.18)

QUANTITATIVE MULTIPLE MIXING

We take

27



1/k
θ = max wk , q −τ /a(2k−3) .

Since wk ≤ c0 q −ε , we deduce that (4.18) satisfies
√
≪ F q −γk min(ε,τ ) ,

where γk depends only on k, a and δ2 . More precisely, γk ≫ 1/k.
We have shown that if q ≥ 1 is fixed, F ≥ 1, and τ, ε > 0 are constants such that
Q ≥ qε

and

max(distMI (ηI , mI ), distMJ (ηJ , mJ )) ≤ F q −τ ,

then
distN[k] (η, m[k] ) ≪d,U,r,k

√

F q −γk min(ε,τ ) .

This finishes the proof of Theorem 2.3 modulo the proof of Proposition 7.2 that we will prove
in Section 7.
5. Higher-order correlations for adele groups
Let G ⊂ GLn be a simply connected absolute simple algebraic group defined over a number
field F . We denote by VF the set of places of F . For v ∈ VF , let Fv be the corresponding
completion of F . For non-Archemedian places v, we also denote by Ov = {x ∈ Fv : |x|v ≤ 1}
the ring of integers in Fv . Then the adele group
Y′
G(AF ) :=
G(Fv )
v∈VF

is the restricted direct product with respect to the family of compact open subgroups G(Ov ).
We set
Y′
Y
G(Fv ) and Gf :=
G∞ :=
G(Fv ),
v∈VF∞

v∈VFf

where VF∞ and VFf denote the subsets of Archemedian places and non-Archemedian places
respectively. We also denote by U∞ the subgroup of G∞ consisting of compact factors. The
group of rational points
Γ := G(F )
embeds in G(AF ) diagonally as a discrete subgroup with finite covolume. We will be interested
in the action of G(AF ) on the homogeneous space
X := Γ\G(AF )
equipped with the normalised invariant measure m.
Given a compact open subgroup W of Gf , we denote by Cc∞ (X)W the algebra of compactly
supported functions on X which are smooth with respect to the action of G∞ and are W invariant. Now we introduce a collection of Sobolev norms Sd,W on Cc∞ (X)W . Let us choose a
finite collection S of places which contains all Archemedean places such that the group
Y
G :=
G(Fv )
v∈S

is not compact. We also set

D :=

Y′

G(Fv ),

v∈VF \S

28

MICHAEL BJÖRKLUND, MANFRED EINSIEDLER, AND ALEXANDER GORODNIK

so that G(AF ) = G × D. We suppose thatQthe compact open subgroup W is of the form U × V
where U is a compact open subgroup of v∈S∩V f G(Fv ), and V is a compact open subgroup
F
of D. Let
ΓV := Γ ∩ (G × V ).
It will be also convenient to consider ΓV as a subgroup of G by identifying it with the corresponding projection. It follows from the Strong Approximation Theorem [36, §7.4] that the
projection of Γ to D is dense. Using this, one can check that the map
ΓV \G → Γ\(G × D)/V : ΓV g 7→ Γ(g, eD )V

(5.1)

is a G-equivariant homeomorphism. In particular, ΓV is a lattice in G. We set
XV := ΓV \G,

and denote by mV the invariant probability measure on XV . Using that (5.1) is a homeomorphism, we see that the map Cc (XV ) → Cc (X)V given by φ 7→ Fφ , where
for ΓV g ∈ XV ,

Fφ (Γ(g, eD )) = φ(ΓV g),

is a well-defined isomorphism, and
Z
Z
Fφ dm =

for all φ ∈ Cc (XV ).

φ dmV ,

XV

X

(5.2)

This map also induces the isomorphism Cc∞ (X)W ∼
= Cc∞ (XV )U . Using this identification, we
∞
U
introduce Sobolev norms on Cc (X) . For an integer d, we define the Sobolev norm Sd,W on
Cc∞ (X)W of order d and level W , by
Sd,W (Fφ ) := Sd (φ),

for φ ∈ Cc∞ (XV )U ,

(5.3)

where Sd is the Sobolev norm on the S-algebraic homogeneous space as in Section 4.
5.1. A reformulation of Theorem 1.6
Let S be the subset of VF∞ consisting of v such that G(Fv ) is not compact and R = VF∞ \S.
According to our assumption on G, S 6= ∅. We set
Y
Y
G :=
G(Fv ) and U∞ :=
G(Fv ).
v∈S

v∈R

When R = ∅, then G∞ has no compact factors, and we set U∞ = 1. We observe that for a
compact open subgroup W of Gf , we have
Cc∞ (X)U∞ W ∼
= Cc∞ (X/U∞ )W and X/U∞ ∼
= Γ\G(AR
F ),
where

G(AR
F ) =:

Y′

G(Fv ),

v∈VF \R

and Γ is identified with its projection to G(AR
F ). Hence, it sufficient to prove Theorem 1.6 for
R
W
∞
functions φ1 , . . . , φk ∈ Cc (Γ\G(AF )) and s1 , . . . , sk ∈ G(AR
F ). We also set
Y′
G(Fv ),
D :=
v∈VF \VF∞

so that G(AR
F ) = G × D. We note that Γ = G(F ) is embedded diagonally in G × D as a lattice.
It follows from the Strong and Weak Approximation Theorems [36, Ch. 7], the projections of
Γ to G and D, as well as each of the simple factors Gv , v ∈ S, of G are dense. From now on
we set
X := Γ\(G × D).

QUANTITATIVE MULTIPLE MIXING

29

With these notations, we still have the identifications (5.1) and (5.2) with V = W .
We retain the notation introduced in Sections 2 and 4, and take
g[k] = (g1 , . . . , gk ) ∈ G[k]

and d[k] = (d1 , . . . , dk ) ∈ D[k] .

(5.4)

Since the projection of Γ to D is dense in D, we can find γi ∈ Γ such that
di ∈ γi W

for every i = 1, . . . , k.

(5.5)

We set γ[k] = (γ1 , . . . , γk ) ∈ Γk . Given φ1 , . . . , φk ∈ Cc (XW ), we consider the corresponding
functions F1 = Fφ1 , . . . , Fk = Fφk ∈ Cc (X)W defined via the isomorphism (5.2) with V = W .
We obtain

(g[k] , d[k] )−1 · m∆[k] (X) (F1 ⊗ · · · ⊗ Fk )
Z
F1 (Γ(gg1 , dd1 )) · · · Fk (Γ(ggk , ddk )) dm(Γ(g, d))
=
X
Z
F1 (Γ(gg1 , dγ1 )) · · · Fk (Γ(ggk , dγk )) dm(Γ(g, d))
=
X


Z
Z
F1 (Γ(gg1 , dwγ1 )) · · · Fk (Γ(ggk , dwγk )) dνW (w) dm(Γ(g, d)),
=
X

W

where νW denote the normalised invariant measure on the compact subgroup W . If we define
Z
F1 (Γ(gg1 , dwγ1 )) · · · Fk (Γ(ggk , dwγk )) dνW (w),
F (Γ(g, d)) :=
W

then clearly F belongs to Cc (X)W , and thus
Z
Z
F (Γ(g, eD )) dmW (ΓW g).
F dm =
XW

X

On the other hand, since the integrand in the definition of F , viewed as a function on the group
W , is invariant under the open in D subgroup
\
W ′ :=
γi W γi−1 ,
i

we see that
F (Γ(g, eD )) =

1
|W/W ′ |

X

w∈W/W ′

F1 (Γ(gg1 , wγ1 )) · · · Fk (Γ(ggk , wγk )).

Since the projection of Γ to D is dense, we have W/W ′ = ΓW /ΓW ′ , so that
F (Γ(g, eD )) =

1
|ΓW /ΓW ′ |

δ∈ΓW /ΓW ′

F1 (Γ(gg1 , δγ1 )) · · · Fk (Γ(ggk , δγk ))

=

1
|ΓW /ΓW ′ |

X

F1 (Γ(γ1−1 δ−1 gg1 , eD )) · · · Fk (Γ(γk−1 δ−1 ggk , eD ))

=

1
|ΓW /ΓW ′ |

X
X

φ1 (ΓW γ1−1 δ−1 gg1 ) · · · φk (ΓW γk−1 δ−1 ggk ).

δ∈ΓW /ΓW ′

δ∈ΓW /ΓW ′

30

MICHAEL BJÖRKLUND, MANFRED EINSIEDLER, AND ALEXANDER GORODNIK

Then
Z
Z
F dm =
X

=
=

Z

XW




1
|ΓW /ΓW ′ |

X

δ∈ΓW /ΓW ′



φ1 (ΓW γ1−1 δ−1 gg1 ) · · · φk (ΓW γk−1 δ−1 ggk ) dmW (ΓW g)

φ1 (ΓW γ1−1 gg1 ) · · · φk (ΓW γk−1 ggk ) dmW ′ (ΓW g)
XW ′
−1
· ξγ[k] )(φ1 ⊗ · · · ⊗ φk ),
(g[k]

where ξγ[k] denotes the invariant probability measure supported on the closed ∆[k] (G)-orbit
−1
∆[k] (G) ∼
ΓkW γ[k]
= ΓW ′ \G

in (XW )[k] . Hence, we conclude that for all φ1 , . . . , φk ∈ Cc (XW ),

−1
(g[k] , d[k] )−1 · m∆[k] (X) (Fφ1 ⊗ · · · ⊗ Fφk ) = (g[k]
· ξγ[k] )(φ1 ⊗ · · · ⊗ φk ).

Using the norms Sd,W defined by (5.3) with V = W on the algebra Cc∞ (X)W , we introduce
the Wasserstein distance distd,W,[k] on P(X[k] ) as in (2.16). Then the proof of Theorem 1.6
reduces to estimating the distance distd,W,[k]((g[k] , d[k] )−1 · m∆[k] (X) , m[k] ). We also introduce
the Wasserstein distance distd,[k] on P((XW )[k] ) defined by the Sobolev norms Sd on the algebra
Cc∞ (XW ). Then for every positive integer d,
−1
· ξγ[k] , (mW )[k] ),
distd,W,[k]((g[k] , d[k] )−1 · m∆[k] (X) , m[k] ) = distd,[k] (g[k]

(5.6)

for all (g[k] , d[k] ) ∈ G[k] × D[k] , where γ[k] is determined by (5.5). We note that ξγ[k] is obviously
a ∆[k](G)-invariant k-coupling of (XW , mW ), so that we can analyse ξγ[k] using the method of
Section 4.
We recall that the height function H : G(AF ) → R+ is defined in (1.14) in terms of the
norms k · kv on Mn (Fv ). We note that k · kv is invariant under G(Ov ) for almost all v. Given
g[k] and d[k] as in (5.4), we set
Q := max kgi−1 gj kop ,
i6=j

qG := min kgi−1 gj kop ,
i6=j

qD := min H(d−1
i dj ),
i6=j

(5.7)

where k · kop is is the sub-multiplicative function on G defined in (4.4). We also set
q := min max(kgi−1 gj kop , H(d−1
i dj )).
i6=j

(5.8)

We wish to show that for every large enough integer d, there exists δ = δ(k, d) > 0 such that
−1
· ξγ[k] , (mW )[k] ) ≪d,W,k q −δ .
distd,[k] (g[k]

The proof will separate between the cases when Q is “large” in comparison to q and when Q is
“small” in comparison to q. To make all of this precise, let us fix ε > 0, and consider the cases
when
Q ≥ q ε and Q < q ε .
5.2. Case I: Q ≥ q ε

We shall apply Theorem 4.2 to the ∆[k](G)-invariant k-coupling ξ = ξγ[k] of (XW , mW ). We
note that when I ⊂ [k] is a singleton, the assumption (4.13) of Theorem 4.2 is clearly satisfied.
Assume now that we have shown that for sufficiently large d, there exist δk−1 > 0 such that
distd,[k] (gI−1 · ξ, (mW )I ) ≪d,k q −δk−1 ,

for all I ( [k].

QUANTITATIVE MULTIPLE MIXING

31

Since Q ≥ q ε , we conclude applying Theorem 4.2 inductively that there exists γk > 0 such that
for sufficiently large d,
−1
· ξ, (mW )[k] ) ≪d,k q −γk min(δk−1 ,ε) .
distd,[k](g[k]

(5.9)

5.3. Case II: Q < q ε
Let us now deal with the trickier case when Q is “small” in comparison to q. A straightforward
application of the property (1.12) for the Sobolev norm Sd and its projective tensor products
(cf. Lemma 6.2) shows that there exists σ = σ(d, k) > 0 such that for all g[k] ∈ G[k] ,
−1
· ξ, (mW )[k] ) ≪d,k Qσ distd,k (ξ, (mW )[k] ).
distd,k (g[k]

(5.10)

We shall now show how one can estimate the right-hand side in (5.10) by utilising a general
result by the second author, Margulis and Venkatesh [10, Theorem 1.3] which we apply to the
measure ξ. We recall that ξ denotes the normalized invariant measure supported on the closed
∆[k](G)-orbit
−1
∆[k](G) ⊂ ΓkW \G[k] = (XW )[k] .
Y (γ[k] ) := ΓkW γ[k]
We note that using the restriction of scalars functor, we can consider XW as a homogeneous
space of a real algebraic group defined over
Q Q. Since G is simply connected and isotropic over
∼
Fv for v ∈ S, the group ∆[k] (G) = G = v∈S G(Fv ) is generated by unipotent one-parameter
subgroups. Also the centraliser of ∆[k] (G) in G[k] is finite. Hence, the results of [10] are
applicable. We observe that
Y (γ[k] ) ∼
= Γ′W \G,
where
\
Γ′W =
γi ΓW γi−1 .
i

If the volume of XW is normalized to be one, we see that the volume of the orbit Y (γ[k] ) equals
the index
\

ΓW : ΓW ∩
γj−1 γi ΓW γi−1 γj
i6=j

for every fixed j. For γ ∈ Γ, we define

ΩW (γ) := |ΓW : ΓW ∩ γΓW γ −1 |,

and for γ[k] = (γ1 , . . . , γk ) ∈ Γk ,

ΩW (γ[k] ) := min ΩW (γj−1 γi ).
i6=j

Then

vol Y (γ[k] ) ≥ ΩW (γ[k] ).

−1
k that support
L in XW
In order to apply [10, Theorem 1.3], we need to describe orbits ΓkW γ[k]

a finite invariant measure, where L is a closed subgroup of Gk such that ∆[k] (G) ⊂ L ⊂ Gk .
For a partition P of [k], we set
Y
∆P (G) :=
∆I (G).
I∈P

Then by Lemma 5.1 proved below, every such orbit is of the form
−1
−1
∆P (G)Z
L = ΓkW γ[k]
ΓkW γ[k]

(5.11)

for some partition P of [k] and a finite subgroup Z of Z(G)k . We note that then the orbit
−1
∆P (G)Z ⊂ X[k]
ΓkW γ[k]

32

MICHAEL BJÖRKLUND, MANFRED EINSIEDLER, AND ALEXANDER GORODNIK

is again closed. We observe that
−1
∆P (G) ∼
ΓkW γ[k]
= Γ′W,P \GP ,

where
Γ′W,P =

Y

I∈P

Hence, if the partition P is proper,

\

γi ΓW γi−1

i∈I

!

.

−1
∆P (G)Z) ≫ min |ΓW : ΓW ∩ γj−1 γi ΓW γi−1 γj | = ΩW (γ[k] ).
Vol(ΓkW γ[k]
i6=j

(5.12)

Now we apply [10, Theorem 1.3]. Let us assume that the parameter ΩW (γ[k] ) is sufficiently
large, so that it follows from (5.12) that (XW )[k] = ΓkW \G[k] is the only orbit with volume less
than ΩW (γ[k] )1/2 . Then, by [10, Theorem 1.3], there exists δD > 0 such that for sufficiently
large integers d,
−δ /2
distd,[k] (ξ, (mW )[k] ) ≤ vol Y (γ[k] ) D ≤ ΩW (γ[k] )−δD /2 .
(5.13)
Although this bound holds only when ΩW (γ[k] ) is sufficiently large, since distd,[k] ≪d,k 1 (cf.
Lemma 6.2), we also have
distd,[k] (ξ, (mW )[k] ) ≪d,k ΩW (γ[k] )−δD /2
in general. By Lemma 5.2 proved below,
ΩW (γ[k] ) ≫W min H(γi−1 γj )θ .

(5.14)

i6=j

We recall that H is defined as the product of the norms k · kv which are bi-G(Ov )-invariant for
almost all v, so that for all w1 , w2 ∈ W and d ∈ D,
H(w1 dw2 ) ≫W H(d).
Hence, it follows from (5.5) that
min H(γi−1 γj ) ≫W min H(d−1
i dj ) = qD .
i6=j

i6=j

Hence, we deduce from (5.13) that
−δD θ/2

distd,[k] (ξ, (mW )[k] ) ≪d,W,k qD

.

(5.15)

5.4. Combining the two cases
Now combine the estimates (5.9), (5.10), and (5.15) to complete the proof of Theorem 1.6.
We stress that ε > 0 so far has been a free variable. However, we note that as long as ε < 1,
then the inequality Q < q ε (Case II) implies that q = qD . Indeed, if
Q < qε

and q > qD ,

then the latter inequality readily implies that there exists at least one pair (i, j) of indices with
i 6= j such that kgi−1 gj kop > H(d−1
i dj ), and thus Q ≥ q, which contradicts the first inequality
if ε < 1. Hence, as long as ε < 1 and Q < q ε , (5.10) and (5.15) together imply that
−1
· ξ, (mW )[k] ) ≪d,W,k q εσ q −δD θ/2 = q −(δD θ/2−εσ) .
distd,[k] (g[k]

On the other hand, if Q ≥ q ε , then (5.9) asserts that

−1
· ξ, (mW )[k] ) ≪d,k q −γk min(δk−1 ,ε) .
distd,[k] (g[k]

QUANTITATIVE MULTIPLE MIXING

Let us now choose
ε = min
so that if Q < q ε , then



1 δD θ
,
2 4σ



33

,

−1
· ξ, (mW )[k] ) ≪d,W,k q −δD θ/4 ,
distd,[k] (g[k]

and if Q ≥ q ε , then

−1
· ξ, (mW )[k] ) ≪d,k q −γk min(δk−1 ,
distd,[k] (g[k]

δD θ
)
4σ

.

If we denote by δk the minimum of the two exponents above, then
−1
· ξ, (mW )[k] ) ≪d,W,k q −δk .
distd,[k](g[k]

Finally, we observe that by Lemma 4.1(iii), there exists c ∈ (0, 1) such that
kgi−1 gj kop ≫ H(gi−1 gj )c

for all i, j. Since H ≫ 1 on G and on D, and H((g, d)) = H(g)H(d) for all g ∈ G and d ∈ D,
we deduce that
−1
−1
c
−1
c/2
max(kgi−1 gj kop , H(d−1
.
i dj )) ≫ max(H(gi gj ) , H(di dj )) ≫ H((gi , di ) (gj , dj ))

Hence, we obtain

−1
· ξ, (mW )[k] ) ≪d,W,k H((g[k] , d[k] ))−δk c/2 .
distd,[k] (g[k]

Because of (5.6), this finishes the proof of Theorem 1.6, modulo Lemmas 5.1 and 5.2.
5.5. Intermediate subgroups
We prove the description of the intermediate orbits stated in (5.11).
Lemma 5.1. Let Γ1 , . . . , Γk be irreducible lattices in G and X[k] = X1 × · · · × Xk where
Xi = Γi \G. Suppose that L is an immersed subgroup of Gk containing the diagonal ∆[k](G)
such that for some x[k] = (x1 , . . . , xk ) ∈ X[k] , the orbit x[k] L in X[k] supports a finite invariant
measure. Then
x[k] L = x[k] ∆P (G)Z
for some partition P of [k] and a finite subgroup Z of the centre Z(G)k .
We note that since G is simply connected and isotropic over Fv for v ∈ S, by the Strong
Approximation Theorem [36, §7.4], ΓW is an irreducible lattice in G, so that this lemma is
applicable in our case.
Proof. By [36, §7.2], every normal subgroup of Gv = G(Kv ) for v ∈ S, is central. We may
replace G by G/Z(G) and Γi by Γi Z(G)/Z(G) and carry out the proof when the centre is
trivial. To simplify our presentation, we abuse notation and assume that Z(G) = {e}. Using
that Gv ’s are non-commutative
and simple, it is easy to deduce that every normal subgroup of
Q
G is of the form v∈S ′ Gv for some S ′ ⊂ S. Moreover, any normal subgroup N of Gk is of the
form
N = N1 × · · · × Nk ,
(5.16)
Q
where Ni = v∈Si Gv for some Si ⊂ S. We note that if N is such a subgroup, it follows from
irreducibility of lattices Γi that
x[k] N ⊃ x[k] GI ,
(5.17)
where I = {i : Si 6= ∅}.

34

MICHAEL BJÖRKLUND, MANFRED EINSIEDLER, AND ALEXANDER GORODNIK

We note that the argument of [37, Th. 1.13] can be extended to immersed subgroups (namely,
to subgroups given by continuous embeddings L → Gk ), and since the orbit x[k] L supports
finite L-invariant measure, it follows that x[k] L is closed in X[k] .
We say that xi is commensurable with xj if the subgroups StabG (xi ) and StabG (xj ) are
commensurable. Suppose that L ⊂ ∆P (G) for some proper partition P of [k] such that for
every I ∈ P, the points xi , i ∈ I, are commensurable. Then
Y
x[k] ∆P (G) ≃
ΓI \G,
I∈P

where ΓI = ∩i∈I StabG (xi ) are irreducible lattices in G. Hence, in this case we can reduce the
number of factors, so that, without loss of generality, we may assume that such partition does
not exists.
We claim that under this assumption, x[k] L = X[k] and proceed by induction on k. The
statement is clear when k = 1. We consider the decomposition Gk = Gk−1 × G. Let L1 and
L2 denote the projections of L to each of the factors. Since ∆[k] (G) ⊂ L, it clear that L2 = G.
Suppose that (l1 , l2 ), (l1 , l2′ ) ∈ L for some l1 ∈ L1 and l2 6= l2′ ∈ G. Then (e, l2−1 l2′ ) ∈ L, and
since ∆[k](G) ⊂ L, we deduce that
Q {e} × N ⊂ L for some non-trivial normal subgroup N of
G. As we observed above, N = v∈S ′ Gv for some non-empty S ′ ⊂ S. Since the orbit x[k] L is
closed, we deduce from (5.17) that
x[k] L = x[k] L({e} × G) = x[k](L1 × G).

Hence, in this case our analysis reduces to understanding finite-volume orbits in the space
X[k−1] , so that the claim follows from the inductive hypothesis.
Now we suppose that for every l1 ∈ L1 , there exists unique l2 ∈ L2 = G such that (l1 , l2 ) ∈ L.
Namely, there exists a surjective map φ : L1 → G such that L = {(l, φ(l)) : l ∈ L1 }. It follows
from uniqueness that φ is a homomorphism, and that
φ(g, . . . , g) = g

for all g ∈ G.

(5.18)

We observe that the orbit x[k−1] L1 in X[k−1] supports a finite invariant measure, which is
the push-forward of the finite invariant measure on x[k] L. Hence, we can apply the inductive
assumption to x[k−1] L1 to deduce that x[k−1] L1 = x[k−1] Gk−1 . This implies that the subgroup
Q
L1 is open in Gk−1 . Since G is simply connected, G = v∈S G(Fv ) is connected (see [36,
Prop. 7.6]), so that L1 = Gk−1 . We have shown that
L = {(g, φ(g)) : g ∈ Gk−1 },

where φ : Gk−1 → G is a surjective homomorphism. Let N be the kernel of φ. Using (5.18),
we deduce that N is non-trivial unless k = 2. Moreover, if N is trivial, it follows from (5.18)
that L = ∆[2] (G), so that the lemma holds. Hence, we can suppose that N 6= {e}. The
subgroup N is normal in Gk−1 , so that it is of the form (5.16). In particular, it follows that
there exists a closed normal subgroup M of Gk−1 commuting with N such that Gk−1 = M N
and M ∩ N = {e}. Hence,
L = {(nm, φ(m)) : n ∈ N, m ∈ M } = (N × {e}){(m, φ(m)) : m ∈ M }.

Let I be the subset of [k − 1] such that Ni 6= {e} for i ∈ I. Then since the orbit x[k] L is closed,
and the lattices Γi are irreducible in G, it follows that
!
Y
G .
x[k] L = x[k]L
i∈I

Hence, if I 6= ∅, we can complete the proof by induction.



QUANTITATIVE MULTIPLE MIXING

35

5.6. Volume estimates
We prove the estimate for ΩW (γ) which was used in (5.14).
Lemma 5.2. There exists θ > 0 such that for every γ ∈ Γ,
ΩW (γ) ≫W H(γ)θ .

Proof. We first observe that ΩW (γ) can be interpreted in terms of volumes of suitable subsets
of D. We recall that D is the restricted product of G(Fv ), v ∈ VFf . We denote νD the invariant
measure on D which is the product of invariant measures νv on G(Fv ) such that νv (G(Ov )) = 1
for almost all v. We normalise νD so that νD (W ) = 1. Then since the projection of Γ to D is
dense,
ΩW (γ) = |W : W ∩ γW γ −1 | = νD (W γW ).
We claim that there exists θ > 0 such that for every d ∈ D
νD (W dW ) ≫W H(d)θ .

(5.19)

This will imply the lemma.
For almost all places v, the group Kv = G(Ov ) is a hyperspecial maximal compact open
subgroup of G(Fv ) (see [41]). For the Q
other places v ∈ VFf , we fix a good maximal compact
open subgroup Kv of G(Fv ). Let K = v∈V f Kv . Then K is a compact open subgroup of D,
F
so that it is commensurable with W , and we have
νD (W dW ) ≫W νD (KdK).

Now it will be convenient to normalise the measures νv on G(Fv ) so that νv (Kv ) = 1. We
claim that there exists θ > 0 such that for every dv ∈ G(Fv ),
and moreover for almost all v,

νv (Kv dv Kv ) ≫v kdv kθv ,

(5.20)

νv (Kv dv Kv ) ≥ kdv kθv .
(5.21)
Since H is defined as a product of the norms k · kv , this will imply (5.19).
We recall the Cartan decomposition G(Fv ) = Kv A+
v Ωv Kv introduced in (4.3). For almost
all v, the group G is quasi-split over F and split over unramified extension of F . In this case,
we have the Cartan decomposition with Ωv = {e}. For dv = k1 av ωk2 ∈ Kv A+
v Ωv Kv ,
νv (Kv dv Kv ) = νv (Kv av ωKv ) ≥ νv (Kv av Kv′ ) ≫v νv (Kv av Kv ),

where Kv′ = ∩ω∈Ωv ∪{e} ωKv ω −1 is a compact open subgroup of Kv , and
Moreover, for almost all v,

kdv kv ≪v kav kv .

Kv dv Kv = Kv av Kv

and kdv kv = kav kv .

Hence, it is sufficient to prove (5.20) and (5.21) when dv = av ∈ A+
v.
Let ∆v denotes the product of all positive roots of Av . It follows from [27, 3.2.15] that if Kv
is a hyperspecial maximal compact subgroup of G(Fv ), then
νv (Kv av Kv ) ≥ |∆v (av )|v ,

for av ∈ A+
v.

(5.22)

In particular, this bound holds for almost all places v. For the other places v, we also have
νv (Kv av Kv ) ≫v |∆v (av )|v ,

for av ∈ A+
v.

On the other hand, we recall from the proof of Lemma 4.1(iii) that for all av ∈
kav kv ≪v max |ψ(av )|v
ψ∈Φdom
v

(5.23)
A+
v,

36

MICHAEL BJÖRKLUND, MANFRED EINSIEDLER, AND ALEXANDER GORODNIK

and there exists θ ′ > 0 such that
max |ψ(av )|v ≤

ψ∈Φdom
v



max |α(av )|v

ψ∈Πv

θ ′

.

Hence, combining this estimate with (5.23), we deduce (5.20). Further, by [38, Lemma 6.4],
which also extends to reducible representations, we obtain that for almost all places v,
kav kv = max |ψ(av )|v
ψ∈Φdom
v

for all av ∈ A+
v , so that (5.21) follows from (5.22). This completes the proof of the lemma.



6. Wasserstein distances on couplings
6.1. Wasserstein distances
Let X be a locally compact Hausdorff space. We denote by Cc (X) the space of continuous
functions on X with compact supports, equipped with the topology of uniform convergence on
compact subsets, and we write P(X) for the space of Borel probability measures on X, which
we shall think of as non-negative elements in the dual space Cc (X)∗ .
Given a linear subspace A ⊂ Cc (X) and a norm M on A, we define the Wasserstein distance
distM on P(X) by
n
o
distM (µ, ν) := sup |µ(φ) − ν(φ)| : φ ∈ A with M (φ) ≤ 1

for µ, ν ∈ P(X). We see that this is indeed a distance (metric) if A is dense in Cc (X), otherwise
it is only a semi-distance (semi-metric). The following lemma is immediate.
Lemma 6.1. If M ≤ E N for a constant E > 0, then distN ≤ E distM .
We say that a norm M on A is uniform if there exists a constant F > 0 such that
kφk∞ ≤ F M (φ)

for all φ ∈ A,

where k · k∞ denotes the uniform norm on Cc (X). Throughout this paper, all norms that we
shall consider will be assumed to be uniform.
If the linear subspace A ⊂ Cc (X) in addition is closed under multiplication, that is to say, if
A is a subalgebra of Cc (X), and M and N are uniform norms on A, then we write M  N if
there exist constant D1 , D2 > 0 such that
M (φ1 ) ≤ D1 N (φ1 ) and M (φ1 · φ2 ) ≤ D2 N (φ1 )N (φ2 ),

for all φ1 , φ2 ∈ A.

6.2. Projective tensor product norms
Let us now assume that X1 and X2 are locally compact Hausdorff spaces, and fix subalgebras
A1 ⊂ Cc (X1 ) and A2 ⊂ Cc (X2 ).
Let A1 ⊗A2 denote the (algebraic) tensor product of the algebras A1 and A2 , i.e. the subalgebra
of Cc (X1 × X2 ) which consists of functions which are finite sums of the form
X
(φ1i ⊗ φ2i )(x1 , x2 ),
for (x1 , x2 ) ∈ X1 × X2 ,
i

where φ1i and φ2i are elements of A1 and A2 respectively. If M1 and M2 are norms on A1
and A2 respectively, we define the projective tensor product norm (or maximal cross-norm)

QUANTITATIVE MULTIPLE MIXING

37

M1 ⊗ M2 on the algebra A1 ⊗ A2 by
)
(
X
X
M1 (φ1i )M2 (φ2i ) : φ =
φ1i ⊗ φ2i with φ1i ∈ A1 and φ2i ∈ A2 .
(M1 ⊗ M2 )(φ) := inf
i

i

If M1 , N1 and M2 , N2 are uniform norms on A1 and A2 respectively, then so are the projective
tensor product norms M1 ⊗ M2 and N1 ⊗ N2 , and the following useful lemma holds.
Lemma 6.2. If M1  N1 and M2  N2 , then M1 ⊗ M2  N1 ⊗ N2 .

Proof. Pick φ, ψ ∈ A1 ⊗ A2 with (N1 ⊗ N2 )(φ) = (N1 ⊗ N2 )(ψ) = 1. Fix ε > 0. By the
definition of the maximal cross-norm, we can find finite collections ak , cl ∈ A1 and bk , dl ∈ A2
such that
X
X
φ=
ak ⊗ bk and 1 + ε ≥
N1 (ak )N2 (bk ),
k

and

ψ=

k

X
l

We see that

cl ⊗ dl

and 1 + ε ≥

1 = (N1 ⊗ N2 )(φ) (N1 ⊗ N2 )(ψ) ≥

X
k,l

X

N1 (cl )N2 (dl ).

l

N1 (ak )N1 (cl )N2 (bk )N2 (dl ) − 2ε − ε2 .

Since M1  N1 and M2  N2 , the double sum above is bounded (up to a constant) from below
by
X
M1 (ak cl )M2 (bk dl )
k,l

which (by definition of M1 ⊗ M2 as an infimum) is further bounded from below by
!!
!
X
X
cl ⊗ dl
= (M1 ⊗ M2 )(φ · ψ).
ak ⊗ bk ·
(M1 ⊗ M2 )
k

l

Since ε > 0 is arbitrary, we conclude that there exists a constant C > 0 such that
(M1 ⊗ M2 )(φ · ψ) ≤ C,

whenever (N1 ⊗ N2 )(φ) = (N1 ⊗ N2 )(ψ) = 1, which finishes the proof.



7. General coupling estimates
In this section we prove a general estimate for measures supported on product spaces (Proposition 7.2) which includes Proposition 2.7 from Section 2 as a special case. This result has been
used in the proofs in Sections 2 and 4. We work in a more abstract setting which we now
introduce.
7.1. Notation
Let (X1 , ρ1 ) and (X2 , ρ2 ) be locally compact metric spaces, and fix two subalgebras
A1 ⊂ Cc (X1 ) and A2 ⊂ Cc (X2 )

of Lipschitz continuous functions on (X1 , ρ1 ) and (X2 , ρ2 ) respectively. Let (M1 , N1 ) and
(M2 , N2 ) be two pairs of uniform norms on A1 and A2 such that
Mi  Ni

and

Lipρi (φi ) ≪ Mi (φi ),

for all φi ∈ Ai ,

(7.1)

for i = 1, 2, where Lipρi denotes the usual Lipschitz semi-norm with respect to the metric ρi .

38

MICHAEL BJÖRKLUND, MANFRED EINSIEDLER, AND ALEXANDER GORODNIK

Let m1 and m2 be Borel probability measures on X1 and X2 respectively, and fix a Borel
probability measure η on the direct product X1 × X2 , with marginals η1 and η2 . Suppose that
there exist jointly continuous K-actions (here K is either R or Qp )
hi : K × Xi → Xi ,

i = 1, 2,

which preserve the measures m1 and m2 respectively, such that the diagonal flow
h(t) · (x1 , x2 ) = (h1 (t) · x1 , h2 (t) · x2 ),

for (x1 , x2 ) ∈ X1 × X2 and t ∈ K,

(7.2)

preserves the measure η. One readily checks that hi preserves ηi , for i = 1, 2, as well. We
further assume that the flows hi preserve the algebras Ai for i = 1, 2.
Our goal in this section is to provide an upper bound (Proposition 7.2 below) on the Wasserstein distance distN1 ⊗N2 (η, m1 ⊗ m2 ) in terms of the Wasserstein distances
distM1 (η1 , m1 ) and

distM2 (η2 , m2 ),

under the following three assumptions on the flows h1 and h2 (cf. Lemmas 2.4, 2.5, 2.6):
• (Polynomial growth w.r.t. N1 ) There exist constants A ≥ 1 and a > 0 such that
N1 (h1 (t) · φ1 ) ≤ A max(1, |t|)a N1 (φ1 ),

(7.3)

for all φ1 ∈ A1 and t ∈ K.
• (Polynomial rate of mixing w.r.t. m1 ) There exist constants B > 0 and 0 < w1 ≤ 1
and 0 < b < 1/2 such that
|m1 ((h1 (t) · φ1 )φ1 ) − m1 (φ1 )2 | ≤ B max(1, w1 |t|)−b N1 (φ1 )2 ,

(7.4)

and for all φ1 ∈ A1 and t ∈ K.
• (Lipschitz continuity for h2 ) There exist constants C > 0 and 0 < w2 ≤ 1 such that
kh2 (t) · φ2 − φ2 k∞ ≤ C w2 |t| N2 (φ2 ),

(7.5)

for all φ2 ∈ A2 and t ∈ K satisfying |t| ≤ w2−1 .

Remark 7.1. We recall (upon retaining the notation from Section 2.5) that we have indeed
verified these assumptions for the flows hI and hJ defined in (2.23) and (2.24), with respect
to the Sobolev norms N1 = Sd+r,I and N2 = Sd+r,J for sufficiently large d and r such that
Properties N1–N4 hold (see Lemmas 2.4, 2.5, and 2.6). These assumptions also holds for the
flows hI and hJ appearing in Section 4.3.
7.2. The main estimate
The following result generalizes Proposition 2.7. Its proof will occupy the rest of this section.
Proposition 7.2. With the notation and assumptions above, we have

distN1 ⊗N2 (η, m1 ⊗ m2 ) ≪ max (M|V (T )|a )1/2 , (w1 T )−b/2 , w2 T ,

(7.6)

for all T ∈ [w1−1 , w2−1 ], where

V (T ) := {t ∈ K : |t| ≤ T },


M := max distM1 (η1 , m1 ), distM2 (η2 , m2 ) ,

and the implied constant depends only the constants A, B and C, and on the norms M1 , M2 , N1
and N2 . In particular, the bound (7.6) is uniform over all couplings η of η1 and η2 which are
invariant under the flow h.

QUANTITATIVE MULTIPLE MIXING

39

We retain the notation from the beginning of this section, and assume that (7.3), (7.4) and
(7.5) hold. In particular, the letters A, a, B, b, C and w1 , w2 have been assigned fixed meanings.
For T > 0, we define the linear, positive and unital operator PT : Cc (X1 ) → Cc (X1 ) by
Z
1
(h1 (t) · φ1 )(x1 ) dt,
for φ1 ∈ Cc (X1 ),
(PT φ1 )(x1 ) :=
|V (T )| V (T )
where V (T ) = {t ∈ K : |t| ≤ T }. We note that PT preserves Cc (X1 ), however we stress that
it may not preserve the subalgebra A1 . If we denote by PT∗ its adjoint on Cc (X1 )∗ , then since
the flow h1 preserves the measures η1 and m1 , namely,
PT∗ η1 = η1

and PT∗ m1 = m1 .

The triangle inequality for distN1 ⊗N2 now yields
distN1 ⊗N2 (η, m1 ⊗ m2 ) ≤ distN1 ⊗N2 (η, (PT ⊗ id)∗ η)

(I)

∗

+ distN1 ⊗N2 ((PT ⊗ id) η, η1 ⊗ η2 )

(II)

+ distN1 ⊗N2 (η1 ⊗ η2 , m1 ⊗ m2 ).

(III)

In what follows, we shall provide bounds on each term. These bounds will readily combine to
the bound which is asserted in Proposition 7.2.
7.3. Estimating Term (I)
Lemma 7.3. For all T ∈ (0, w2−1 ], we have

distN1 ⊗N2 (η, (PT ⊗ id)∗ η) ≪ C w2 T,

where the implied constant depends only on the norm N1 .
Proof. Pick φ ∈ A1 ⊗ A2 , and write it as a finite sum of the form
X
φ=
φ1i ⊗ φ2i ,

(7.7)

i

for some φ1i ∈ A1 and φ2i ∈ A2 . Since the flow h (defined in (7.2)) preserves the measure η,
we have
!
Z
X
1
η
η(φ) =
(h1 (t) · φ1i ) ⊗ (h2 (t) · φ2i ) dt ,
|V (T )| V (T )
i

for all T > 0. Note that

η((PT ⊗ id)φ) =
and thus we see that
η(φ) − η((PT ⊗ id)φ) =
Hence,

X
i

X

η

i

η

1
|V (T )|

1
|V (T )|

|η(φ) − η((PT ⊗ id)φ)| ≤

X
i

Z

Z

V (T )

V (T )

!

(h1 (t) · φ1i ) ⊗ φ2i dt ,
!

(h1 (t) · φ1i ) ⊗ (h2 (t) · φ2i − φ2i ) dt .

kφ1i k∞ · max kh2 (t) · φ2i − φ2i k∞ .
|t|≤T

Since N1 is assumed to be uniform, we have kφ1i k∞ ≪ N1 (φ1i ) for all i, and by (7.5) we have
max kh2 (t) · φ2i − φ2i k∞ ≤ C w2 T N2 (φ2i ),

|t|≤T

40

MICHAEL BJÖRKLUND, MANFRED EINSIEDLER, AND ALEXANDER GORODNIK

for every i. Thus, we conclude that
|η(φ) − η((PT ⊗ id)φ)| ≪ C w2 T

X

!

N1 (φ1i )N2 (φ2i ) ,

i

where the implied constant depends only on N1 . Upon taking the infimum over all representations of φ as a finite sum as in (7.7), we see that
|η(φ) − η((PT ⊗ id)φ)| ≪ C w2 T (N1 ⊗ N2 )(φ),
which finishes the proof.



7.4. Estimating Term (II)
Lemma 7.4. For all T ≥ w1−1 , we have
distN1 ⊗N2 ((PT ⊗ id)∗ η, η1 ⊗ η2 ) ≪ max

√


A |V (T )|a/2 distM1 (η1 , m1 )1/2 , B (w1 T )−b/2 ,

where the implied constant depends only on the norms M1 , N1 and N2 .

The proof of this lemma will require new notation. Given a Borel probability measure ν on
X1 , which is assumed to be invariant under h1 , we define
)
(Z
1/2
2
: φ1 ∈ A1 with N1 (φ1 ) ≤ 1 ,
ET (ν) := sup
|PT φ1 − ν(φ1 )| dν
X1

for T > 0. This expression can also be written in a more convenient form as follows. Given a
function φ1 ∈ A1 and a h1 -invariant Borel probability measure ν on X1 , we define
Cν,φ1 (t) = ν((h1 (t) · φ1 )φ1 ) − ν(φ1 )2

for t ∈ K.

Upon expanding ET (ν)2 , using that ν is h1 -invariant, one readily sees that
)
(
Z
Z
1
2
Cν,φ1 (s − t) dsdt : φ1 ∈ A1 with N1 (φ1 ) ≤ 1 .
ET (ν) = sup
|V (T )|2 V (T ) V (T )

(7.8)

Lemma 7.4 is an immediate consequence of the Lemmas 7.5, 7.6, and 7.9 that we now prove.
Lemma 7.5. For all T > 0, we have
distN1 ⊗N2 ((PT ⊗ id)∗ η, η1 ⊗ η2 ) ≪ ET (η1 ),

(7.9)

where the implied constant depends only on the norm N2 .
Proof. Pick φ ∈ A1 ⊗ A2 and write it as a finite sum of the form
X
φ=
φ1i ⊗ φ2i ,
i

for some φ1i ∈ A1 and φ2i ∈ A2 . By definition,
η(ψ ⊗ 1) = η1 (ψ),

for all ψ ∈ A1 .

(7.10)

QUANTITATIVE MULTIPLE MIXING

41

We obtain
η((PT ⊗ id)φ) − (η1 ⊗ η2 )(φ)

X

≤

i

X

≤

i

X

=

i

X

≤

i

η (| PT φ1i − η1 (φ1i )| ⊗ |φ2i |)
η (| PT φ1i − η1 (φ1i )| ⊗ kφ2i k∞ )
η1 (| PT φ1i − η1 (φ1i )|) kφ2i k∞
η1 | PT φ1i − η1 (φ1i )|2

1/2

kφ2i k∞ ,

where we used Hölder’s inequality termwise. Hence, since N2 is a uniform norm,
X
1/2
N2 (φ2i )
η((PT ⊗ id)φ) − (η1 ⊗ η2 )(φ) ≪
η1 | PT φ1i − η1 (φ1i )|2
i

≤

ET (η1 )

X

!

N1 (φ1i ) N2 (φ2i ) ,

i

where the implied constant depends only N2 . Thus, taking the infimum over all representations
of φ as a finite sum as in (7.10), we get
η((PT ⊗ id)φ) − (η1 ⊗ η2 )(φ) ≪ ET (η1 ) (N1 ⊗ N2 )(φ).

This completes the proof.

Lemma 7.6. For all T ≥ 1, we have

|ET (η1 ) − ET (m1 )| ≪

√

A |V (T )|a/2 distM1 (η1 , m1 )1/2 ,


(7.11)

where the implied constant depends only on the norms M1 and N1 .

Remark 7.7. Note the change of norms in Lemma 7.6: The expression ET (·) is defined using
the norm N1 on A1 , while the asserted bound is in terms of the Wasserstein distance measured
with respect to the norm M1 . This is the only place in our argument where it is necessary to
change the norm.
√
Proof. Since t − s ≤ t2 − s2 for all 0 < s < t, we have
p
|ET (η1 ) − ET (m1 )| ≤ |ET (η)2 − ET (m1 )2 |.
(7.12)

Fix ε > 0 and T ≥ 1. We use (7.8), and pick φ1 ∈ A1 with N1 (φ1 ) ≤ 1 such that
Z
Z
1
Cη ,φ (s − t) dsdt + ε.
ET (η1 )2 ≤
|V (T )|2 V (T ) V (T ) 1 1
We note that

1
ET (η1 ) − ET (m1 ) ≤
|V (T )|2
2

By definition,

2

Z

V (T )

Z

V (T )


Cη1 ,φ1 (s − t) − Cm1 ,φ1 (s − t) dsdt + ε.


Cη1 ,φ1 (u) − Cm1 ,φ1 (u) = η1 ((h1 (u) · φ1 )φ1 ) − m1 ((h1 (u) · φ1 )φ1 )

+ m1 (φ1 )2 − η1 (φ1 )2 .

We bound the terms (I) and (II) separately. Since N1 (φ1 ) ≤ 1 and N1 is uniform, we have
(II) = (m1 (φ1 ) − η1 (φ1 ))(m1 (φ1 ) + η1 (φ1 ))

≪ distN1 (η1 , m1 ) 2kφ1 k∞ ≪ distN1 (η1 , m1 ),

(I)
(II)

42

MICHAEL BJÖRKLUND, MANFRED EINSIEDLER, AND ALEXANDER GORODNIK

where the implicit constant depends only on N1 . Then since M1  N1 , by Lemma 6.1,
(II) ≪ distM1 (η1 , m1 )

(7.13)

with the implicit constant depending only on M1 and N1 .
To estimate the term (I), we recall that by assumption (7.3),
N1 (h1 (u) · φ1 ) ≤ A max(1, |u|)a N1 (φ1 ),

for all u ∈ K,

Hence, since M1  N1 and N1 (φ1 ) ≤ 1, we conclude that for all u ∈ K,

(I) ≤ distM1 (η1 , m1 ) M1 ((h1 (u) · φ1 )φ1 ) ≪ distM1 (η1 , m1 ) N1 (h1 (u) · φ1 )N1 (φ1 )

(7.14)

a

≤ A max(1, |u|) distM1 (η1 , m1 ),

where the implied constant depends only on M1 and N1 . We use that by Lemma 7.8 below
Z
Z
max(1, |s − t|)a dsdt ≪ |V (T )|a+2
V (T )

V (T )

for all T ≥ 1. Hence, combining the above estimates for (I) and (II), we deduce that for all
T ≥ 1 (since A ≥ 1),
ET (η1 )2 − ET (m1 )2 ≪ A |V (T )|a distM1 (η1 , m1 ) + ε,

where the implicit constant depend only on M1 and N1 . Since ε > 0 is arbitrary, we can neglect
it and conclude that
ET (η1 )2 − ET (m1 )2 ≪ A |V (T )|a distM1 (η1 , m1 ).

The same argument can be made with roles of η1 and m1 interchanged. Hence,
|ET (η1 )2 − ET (m1 )2 | ≪ A |V (T )|a distM1 (η1 , m1 ).

Now the lemma follows from (7.12).



Lemma 7.8. Let T ≥ 1 if K = R and T ≥ 1/p if K = Qp . Then
Z
Z
max(1, |s − t|)a dsdt ≪ |V (T )|a+2
I(T ) :=
V (T )

V (T )

uniformly over a > −1/2.
Proof. First, we consider the case when K = R. By a standard change of variables,
Z 2T
(2T − u) max(1, u)a du
I(T ) =
0

A direct computation shows that for all T ≥ 1,
Z 2T
2aT
a
(2T )a+2
−
−
.
(2T − u) max(1, u)a du =
(a
+
1)(a
+
2)
a
+
1
2(a
+ 2)
0

Hence, I(T ) = O(|V (T )|a+2 ) uniformly over a > −1/2.
When K = Qp , we obtain
n

I(p ) =

n −1
pX

s,t=0
n

n

a

max(1, p |s − t|) = p
n

= p ((p − p

n−1

= |V (pn )|a+2 .

This proves the lemma.

)p

na

+ (p

n−1

n

n −1
pX

u=0

max(1, pn |u|)a

− pn−2 )p(n−1)a + · · · + (p − 1)pa + 1) ≪ (pn )a+2


QUANTITATIVE MULTIPLE MIXING

Lemma 7.9. For all T ≥ w1−1 , we have
ET (m1 ) ≪

43

√
B (w1 T )−b/2 ,

(7.15)

where the implied constant is uniform.

Proof. In view of (7.8), it suffices to show that for every φ1 ∈ A1 with N1 (φ1 ) ≤ 1 and T ≥ w1−1 ,
we have
Z
Z
1
Cm ,φ (s − t) dsdt ≪ B (w1 T )−b .
(7.16)
|V (T )|2 V (T ) V (T ) 1 1
By assumption (7.4), for all u ∈ K,
so that we obtain
Z
Z
V (T )

|Cm1 ,φ1 (u)| ≤ B max(1, w1 |u|)−b N1 (φ1 )2 ,

V (T )

Cm1 ,φ1 (s − t) dsdt ≤ B

Z

V (T )

When K = R, a simple change of variables gives
Z
Z
Z
−2
−b
max(1, w1 |s − t|) dsdt = w1
V (T )

Z

V (T )

V (w1 T )

V (T )

max(1, w1 |s − t|)−b dsdt.
Z

V (w1 T )

max(1, |s − t|)−b dsdt,

and estimate (7.16) follows directly from Lemma 7.8.
When K = Qp , we pick i ≥ 1 such that p−i ≤ w1 ≤ p−i+1 , and observe that
Z
Z
Z
Z
−b
max(1, p−i |s − t|)−b dsdt
max(1, w1 |s − t|) dsdt ≤
V (T ) V (T )
V (T ) V (T )
Z
Z
2i
=p
max(1, |s − t|)−b dsdt.
V (T p−i )

V (T p−i )

Hence, (7.16) follows from Lemma 7.8.



7.5. Estimating Term (III)
Lemma 7.10. For all Borel probability measures η1 and m1 on X1 and η2 and m2 on X2 , we
have
distN1 ⊗N2 (η1 ⊗ η2 , m1 ⊗ m2 ) ≪ max(distN1 (η1 , m1 ), distN2 (η2 , m2 )),
where the implied constant depends only on the norms N1 and N2 .
Proof. Pick φ ∈ A1 ⊗ A2 , and write it as a finite sum of the form
X
φ=
φ1i ⊗ φ2i ,
i

for some φ1i ∈ A1 and φ2i ∈ A2 . We note that
X

η1 (φ1i )η2 (φ2i ) − m1 (φ1i )m2 (φ2i ) .
(η1 ⊗ η2 )(φ) − (m1 ⊗ m2 )(φ) =
i

Each term in this sum can be written as

(η1 (φ1i ) − m1 (φ1i ))η2 (φ2i ) + m1 (φ1i )(η2 (φ2i ) − m2 (φ2i )),

and thus its absolute value can be estimated from above by

distN1 (η1 , m1 )N1 (φ1i ) kφ2i k∞ + kφ1i k∞ distN2 (η2 , m2 )N2 (φ2i ).

Since N1 and N2 are uniform norms, we conclude that

|(η1 ⊗ η2 )(φ) − (m1 ⊗ m2 )(φ)| ≪ max(distN1 (η1 , m1 ), distN2 (η2 , m2 ))

X
i

N1 (φ1i )N2 (φ2i ),

44

MICHAEL BJÖRKLUND, MANFRED EINSIEDLER, AND ALEXANDER GORODNIK

where the implied constant depends only on N1 and N2 . Hence,
|(η1 ⊗ η2 )(φ) − (m1 ⊗ m2 )(φ)| ≪ max(distN1 (η1 , m1 ), distN2 (η2 , m2 ))(N1 ⊗ N2 )(φ).

Since φ is arbitrary, this implies the lemma.



From Lemma 7.10, we also deduce
Corollary 7.11. For all Borel probability measures η1 and m1 on X1 and η2 and m2 on X2 ,
we have
distN1 ⊗N2 (η1 ⊗ η2 , m1 ⊗ m2 ) ≪ max(distM1 (η1 , m1 )1/2 , distM2 (η2 , m2 )1/2 ),

where the implied constant depends on the norms M1 , N1 , M2 and N2 .

Proof. Since M1  N1 and M2  N2 , there are constants E1 , E2 > 0 such that the bounds
Mi ≤ Ei Ni hold on Ai , i = 1, 2. By Lemma 6.1, we have
distNi (ηi , mi ) ≤ Ei distMi (ηi , mi ),

for i = 1, 2.

Hence, it follows from Lemma 7.10 that

distN1 ⊗N2 (η1 ⊗ η2 , m1 ⊗ m2 ) ≪ max(distM1 (η1 , m1 ), distM2 (η2 , m2 )).

(7.17)

Finally, note that since M1 and M2 are uniform norms, there are constants F1 , F2 > 0 such
that for all φi ∈ Ai ,
kφi k∞ ≤ Fi Mi (φi ), for i = 1, 2,
and thus distMi (·, ·) ≤ 2Fi on P(Xi ) for i = 1, 2. Hence,
p
distMi (·, ·) ≤ 2Fi distMi (·, ·)1/2 ,
on P(Xi ) for i = 1, 2. These estimates combined with (7.17) finish the proof.



7.6. Completion of the proof of Proposition 7.2
Combining the bounds on Term I, Term II and Term III, which Lemma 7.3, Lemma 7.4 and
Corollary 7.11 respectively provide, we deduce that for all T ∈ [w1−1 , w2−1 ],

distN1 ⊗N2 (η, m1 ⊗m2 ) ≪ max(w2 T, |V (T )|a/2 distM1 (η1 , m1 )1/2 , (w1 T )−b/2 , distM2 (η2 , m2 )1/2 ),
where the implied constant depends only on the constants A, B, C and on the norms M1 , N1 , M2
and N2 . If we set
M = max(distM1 (η1 , m1 ), distM2 (η2 , m2 )),
then we can merge the distMi -terms above (provided that T ≥ 1) into M, and thus
√
distN1 ⊗N2 (η, m1 ⊗ m2 ) ≪ max(w2 T, |V (T )|a/2 M, (w1 T )−b/2 ),
for all T ∈ [w1−1 , w2−1 ]. This finishes the proof of Proposition 7.2.
References
1. M. Björklund, M. Einsiedler, A. Gorodnik, Multiple mixing and counting rational points. In preparation.
2. M. Björklund and A. Gorodnik, Probabilistic limit theorems for non-commutative group actions. In preparation.
3. A. Borel and J. Tits, Groupes réductifs. Inst. Hautes Études Sci. Publ. Math. 27 (1965), 55–150.
4. A. Borel and N. Wallach, Continuous cohomology, discrete subgroups, and representations of reductive
groups. Annals of Mathematics Studies, 94. Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J.; University of
Tokyo Press, Tokyo, 1980.
5. L. Clozel, H. Oh, E. Ullmo, Hecke operators and equidistribution of Hecke points. Invent. Math. 144 (2001),
no. 2, 327–351.
6. M. Cowling, Sur les coefficients des représentations unitaires des groupes de Lie simples, Analyse harmonique sur les groupes de Lie (Sém., Nancy–Strasbourg 1976–1978), II, Springer, Berlin (1979), 132–178.
7. S. G. Dani, Kolmogorov automorphisms on homogeneous spaces. Amer. J. Math. 98 (1976), no. 1, 119–163.

QUANTITATIVE MULTIPLE MIXING

45

8. S. G. Dani, Spectrum of an affine transformation. Duke Math. J. 44 (1977), no. 1, 129–155.
9. D. Dolgopyat, Limit theorems for partially hyperbolic systems. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 356 (2004), no. 4,
1637–1689.
10. M. Einsiedler, G. Margulis, A. Venkatesh, Effective equidistribution for closed orbits of semisimple groups
on homogeneous spaces. Invent. Math. 177 (2009), no. 1, 137–212.
11. M. Einsiedler, G. Margulis, A. Mohammadi, A. Venkatesh, Effective equidistribution and property tau.
arXiv:1503.05884.
12. H. Furstenberg, Ergodic behavior of diagonal measures and a theorem of Szemerédi on arithmetic progressions. J. Analyse Math. 31 (1977), 204–256.
13. H. Furstenberg, Y. Katznelson, B. Weiss, Ergodic theory and configurations in sets of positive density.
Mathematics of Ramsey theory, 184–198, Algorithms Combin., 5, Springer, Berlin, 1990.
14. A. Gorodnik, F. Maucourant, H. Oh, Manin’s and Peyre’s conjectures on rational points and adelic mixing.
Ann. Sci. Éc. Norm. Supér. (4) 41 (2008), no. 3, 383–435.
15. A. Gorodnik, R. Takloo-Bighash, Y. Tschinkel, Multiple mixing for adele groups and rational points. Eur.
J. Math. 1 (2015), no. 3, 441–461.
16. S. Helgason, Differential geometry, Lie groups, and symmetric spaces. Graduate Studies in Mathematics
34, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2001.
17. R. Howe, On a notion of rank for unitary representations of the classical groups. Harmonic analysis and
group representations, 223–331, Liguori, Naples, 1982.
18. R. Howe and C. Moore, Asymptotic properties of unitary representations. J. Funct. Anal. 32 (1979), no. 1,
72–96.
19. T.-H. Hui, Mixing and certain integral point problems on semisimple Lie groups. PhD Thesis, Yale University, 1998.
20. A. Katok and R. Spatzier, First cohomology of Anosov actions of higher rank abelian groups and applications
to rigidity. Inst. Hautes Études Sci. Publ. Math. 79 (1994), 131–156.
21. F. Ledrappier, Un champ markovien peut être d’entropie nulle et mélangeant. C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris Sér.
A-B, 287 (1978), A561–A563.
22. J.-S. Li, The minimal decay of matrix coefficients for classical groups. Harmonic analysis in China, 146–169,
Math. Appl., 327, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, 1995.
23. J.-S. Li and C.-B. Zhu, On the decay of matrix coefficients for exceptional groups. Math. Ann. 305 (1996),
no. 2, 249–270.
24. D. Kelmer and P. Sarnak, Strong spectral gaps for compact quotients of products of PSL(2,R). J. Eur. Math.
Soc. (JEMS) 11 (2009), no. 2, 283–313.
25. D. Kleinbock and G. Margulis, Logarithm laws for flows on homogeneous spaces. Invent. Math. 138 (1999),
no. 3, 451–494.
26. I. Konstantoulas, Effective decay of multiple correlations in semidirect product actions. J. Mod. Dyn. 10
(2016), 81–111.
27. I. G. Macdonald, Spherical functions on a group of p-adic type. Publications of the Ramanujan Institute,
No. 2. Ramanujan Institute, Centre for Advanced Study in Mathematics,University of Madras, Madras,
1971.
28. B. Marcus, The horocycle flow is mixing of all degrees. Invent. Math. 46 (1978), no. 3, 201–209.
29. C. Moore, Exponential decay of correlation coefficients for geodesic flows. Group representations, ergodic
theory, operator algebras, and mathematical physics (Berkeley, Calif., 1984), 163–181, Math. Sci. Res. Inst.
Publ., 6, Springer, New York, 1987.
30. S. Mozes, Mixing of all orders of Lie groups actions. Invent. Math. 107 (1992), no. 2, 235–241; erratum:
Invent. Math. 119 (1995), no. 2, 399.
31. A. Nevo, Spectral transfer and pointwise ergodic theorems for semi-simple Kazhdan groups. Math. Res.
Lett. 5 (1998), no. 3, 305–325.
32. H. Oh, Tempered subgroups and representations with minimal decay of matrix coefficients. Bull. Soc. Math.
France 126 (1998), no. 3, 355–380.
33. H. Oh, Uniform pointwise bounds for matrix coefficients of unitary representations and applications to
Kazhdan constants. Duke Math. J. 113 (2002), no. 1, 133–192.
34. Lie groups and Lie algebras, III. Structure of Lie groups and Lie algebras. Edited by A. L. Onishchik and
E. B. Vinberg. Encyclopaedia of Mathematical Sciences, 41. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1994.
35. O. S. Parasyuk, Flows of horocycles on surfaces of constant negative curvature. Uspekhi Mat. Nauk 8, no.
3(55) (1953), 125–126.
36. V. Platonov and A. Rapinchuk, Algebraic groups and number theory. Pure and Applied Mathematics, 139.
Academic Press, Inc., Boston, MA, 1994.

46

MICHAEL BJÖRKLUND, MANFRED EINSIEDLER, AND ALEXANDER GORODNIK

37. M.S. Raghunathan, Discrete subgroups of Lie groups. Ergebnisse der Mathematik und ihrer Grenzgebiete,
Band 68. Springer-Verlag, New York-Heidelberg, 1972.
38. J. Shalika, R. Takloo-Bighash, Y. Tschinkel, Rational points on compactifications of semi-simple groups. J.
Amer. Math. Soc. 20 (2007), no. 4, 1135–1186.
39. Ya. Sinai, Probabilistic concepts in ergodic theory. 1963 Proc. Internat. Congr. Mathematicians (Stockholm,
1962) pp. 540–559.
40. A. Starkov, Multiple mixing of homogeneous flows. Dokl. Akad. Nauk 333 (1993), no. 4, 442–445; translation
in Russian Acad. Sci. Dokl. Math. 48 (1994), no. 3, 573–578.
41. J. Tits, Reductive groups over local fields. Automorphic forms, representations and L-functions (Proc. Sympos. Pure Math., Oregon State Univ., Corvallis, Ore., 1977), Part 1, pp. 29–69, Proc. Sympos. Pure Math.,
XXXIII, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, R.I., 1979.
42. G. Warner, Harmonic analysis on semi-simple Lie groups. I. Die Grundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften, Band 188. Springer-Verlag, New York-Heidelberg, 1972.
43. G. Warner, Harmonic analysis on semi-simple Lie groups. II. Die Grundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften, Band 189. Springer-Verlag, New York-Heidelberg, 1972.
44. T. Ziegler, Nilfactors of Rm-actions and configurations in sets of positive upper density in Rm . J. Anal.
Math. 99 (2006), 249–266.
Department of Mathematics, Chalmers, Gothenburg, Sweden
E-mail address: micbjo@chalmers.se
Department of Mathematics, ETH, Zürich, Switzerland
E-mail address: manfred.einsiedler@math.ethz.ch
School of Mathematics, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
E-mail address: a.gorodnik@bristol.ac.uk

