BOUNDARY REPRESENTATIONS OF HYPERBOLIC GROUPS

arXiv:1404.0903v2 [math.DS] 23 Aug 2016

ŁUKASZ GARNCAREK

A BSTRACT. Let Γ be a Gromov hyperbolic group, endowed with an arbitrary
left-invariant hyperbolic metric, quasi-isometric to a word metric. The action of
Γ on its boundary ∂Γ endowed with the Patterson-Sullivan measure µ, after an
appropriate normalization, gives rise to a faithful unitary representation of Γ on
L2 ( ∂Γ, µ ). We show that these representations are irreducible, and give criteria
for their unitary equivalence in terms of the metrics on Γ. Special cases include
quasi-regular representations on the Poisson boundary.

1. I NTRODUCTION
Any action of a group G on a measure space ( X, µ), preserving the class of µ,
induces an action on the space of measurable functions on X. It can be normalized
to obtain a unitary representation of G on L2 ( X, µ). This construction generalizes
the notion of a quasi-regular representation, which we obtain when X is a homogeneous space for G; we will still refer to these representations as quasi-regular.
Irreducibility of such quasi-regular representations is a mixing-type condition,
strictly stronger than ergodicity. Indeed, for non-ergodic actions the space L2 ( X, µ)
decomposes into spaces of functions supported on the nontrivial invariant sets,
and on the other hand, any ergodic action of an abelian group, such as the action of
Z on the circle by powers of an irrational rotation, gives a reducible representation.
There are many natural examples of irreducible quasi-regular representations:

• the natural action of the group of diffeomorphisms of a manifold M, or
some of its subgroups preserving additional structure on M [31, 22],
• the action of the Thompson’s groups F and T on the unit interval and the
unit circle [21, 16],
• the action of a lattice of a Lie group on its Furstenberg boundary [4, 14],
• the action of the automorphism group of a regular tree on its boundary
[17],
• the action of a free group on its boundary [18, 19],
• the action of the fundamental group of a compact strictly negatively curved
Riemannian manifold M on the boundary of the universal cover of M [3].
The exact relationship between irreducibility of the quasi-regular representation and the dynamical properties of the action of G on X is fully understood
only in the case of discrete groups acting on discrete spaces [5, 11, 13]. The genuine quasi-regular representations are also better understood, via the notion of
imprimitivity system [28]. For general locally compact groups, irreducibility of
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification. 22D10, 20F67, 43A65.
Key words and phrases. hyperbolic group, boundary, unitary representation, irreducible
representation.
Research supported by the National Science Centre grant DEC-2012/05/N/ST1/02829. During
part of the work on this paper the author was also supported by a scholarship of the Foundation for
Polish Science. Part of the work on this paper was conducted during the author’s internship at the
Warsaw Center of Mathematics and Computer Science.
1

2

ŁUKASZ GARNCAREK

the quasi-regular representations was conjectured in [3] for another broad class of
actions.
Conjecture. For a locally compact group G and a spread-out probability measure µ on
G, the quasi-regular representation associated to the action of G on the µ-boundary of G is
irreducible.
In this work we study the representations of hyperbolic groups associated with
actions on their Gromov boundaries endowed with the Patterson-Sullivan measures. Following [3], we call them boundary representations. Our main result states
that they are always irreducible. Moreover, when the metric on the group is quasiisometrically perturbed, the class of the Patterson-Sullivan measure varies, thus
leading to a potentially vast supply of non-equivalent irreducible representations.
Indeed, we show that the only unitary equivalences between the boundary representations arise from rough similarities of the corresponding metrics. Our results
thus generalize the work of Bader and Muchnik [3].
The irreducibility of the quasi-regular representations can also be seen in a
slightly different light. As far as we know, this is the first general construction of
a family of faithful irreducible unitary representations of an arbitrary hyperbolic
group. In general, providing such constructions for large classes of groups, for
which there is no structural description allowing to reduce the problem to some
better understood cases, seems to be a difficult task.
The line of our proof can be said to lie within bounded distance from the arguments of Bader and Muchnik, which we generalize to the setting of arbitrary
hyperbolic groups, circumventing some of the difficulties they had to deal with.
Basically, we construct a family of operators in the von Neumann algebra of the
representation, analogous to the operators used in their approach. However, since
they try to obtain them as weak operator limits of some arithmetic averages, in order to prove convergence they need to resort to a result of Margulis, describing the
asymptotic behavior of the number of certain geodesic segments on a manifold. By
using weighted averages and choosing suitable weights, we omit the necessity of
knowing such asymptotics, and obtain a more self-contained and simpler proof,
applicable in a wider context.
Recently, Uri Bader has informed us about an unpublished work of Roman
Muchnik, establishing irreducibility of quasi-regular representations of hyperbolic
groups associated with their actions on Poisson boundaries of finitely supported
symmetric random walks. This is also a special case of our result, which we explain in Section 8.2.
1.1. Organization of the paper. In Sections 2 and 3 we introduce some notational
conventions and definitions from geometric group theory, discuss some basic results concerning hyperbolic groups and their boundaries, and finally define the
class of representations we are going to consider. All the geometry is contained in
Section 4, where we explore some subsets of the group, estimate their growth and
show that they are nicely distributed. Section 5 uses these estimates to construct
certain operators in the von Neumann algebras of the boundary representations.
In Section 6 we gather all the previous results into the proof of irreducibility of the
boundary representations. We also explain why they are weakly contained in the
regular representation. Section 7 contains the classification of the boundary representations with respect to unitary equivalence. Finally, in Section 8 we discuss two
examples with more explicitly defined groups and metrics. We have a closer look
at the case of fundamental groups of negatively curved manifolds, and we also explain how the conjecture mentioned in the Introduction follows for a certain class
of random walks on a hyperbolic group.

BOUNDARY REPRESENTATIONS OF HYPERBOLIC GROUPS

3

The main text is followed by an appendix, in which we prove that the PattersonSullivan measures arising in our context are doubly ergodic. This result is needed
in the proof of the Classification Theorem 7.4. The proof of double ergodicity is
based on ideas explained to us by Uri Bader and Alex Furman, and is a special
case of a more general theorem, stating that the Patterson-Sullivan measures are
isometrically doubly ergodic, whose proof will appear in their forthcoming paper
[2].
1.2. Acknowledgments. We wish to thank Uri Bader, Michael Cowling, Alex Furman, Tadeusz Januszkiewicz, and Tim Steger for their remarks and helpful discussions. We are also grateful to Paweł Józiak and Adam Skalski for careful reading
of the manuscript and their comments, which helped to improve the text. Last but
not least, we are indebted to our advisor Jan Dymara for introducing us to the subject of boundary representations, his ongoing support, and numerous discussions.
2. P RELIMINARIES
In this section we introduce the basic notions associated with hyperbolic spaces
and groups. We start by fixing some notational conventions for various kinds of
estimates, which we will use throughout the paper in order to avoid the aggregation of non-essential constants and hopefully making the presentation more lucid.
Then we introduce the basic terminology related to quasi-isometries, define hyperbolic spaces and groups, and finally, discuss the notion of the Gromov boundary.
For details on these subjects see [10, Chapters III.H.1 and III.H.3].
2.1. Estimates. In the paper we will work with additive and multiplicative estimates. In order to avoid the escalation of constants coming from such estimates,
we will suppress them using the following notation. Let f , g be functions on a
set X. If there exists C > 0 such that f ( x ) ≤ Cg( x ) for all x, we write f ≺ g. If
both f ≺ g and g ≺ f hold, we write f ≍ g. Analogously, for additive estimates,
f > g if there exists c such that f ≤ g + c, and f ≈ g if both f > g and g > f
hold. The variables in which the estimates are assumed to be uniform will be either clear from context or explicitly mentioned. Sometimes, to indicate that we do
not care whether the estimate is uniform in some of the variables (which does not
mean that we claim it is not), we write them as subscripts to the symbol of the
corresponding estimate, e.g. f ( x, y) > x g( x, y) need not be uniform in x.
2.2. Quasi-isometries. Let ( X, d X ) and (Y, dY ) be metric spaces. Take L ≥ 1 and
C ≥ 0. A map φ : X → Y satisfying the condition
1
d X ( p, q) − C ≤ dY (φ( p), φ(q)) ≤ Ld X ( p, q) + C
L
for all p, q ∈ X is called an (L,C)-quasi-isometric embedding. If the image of φ is
a C-net in Y, i.e. its C-neighborhood covers Y, or equivalently, if there exists a
quasi-isometric embedding ψ : Y → X, called the quasi-inverse of φ, such that
d X ( x, ψφ( x )) and dY (y, φψ(y)) are uniformly bounded functions on X and Y respectively, then φ is an (L,C)-quasi-isometry. A (1, C )-quasi-isometry is called a
C-rough isometry. A quasi-isometry φ satisfying dY (φ( x ), φ(y)) ≈ Ld X ( x, y) with
additive constant C is an (L,C)-rough similarity.
An ( L, C )-quasi-isometric embedding γ : R → X is called an (L,C)-quasi-geodesic
in X. Similarly one defines quasi-geodesic rays and segments, and their roughly
geodesic variants. We say that X is an ( L, C )-quasi-geodesic space, if any two points
in X can be joined by an ( L, C )-quasi-geodesic segment. A C-roughly geodesic space
is defined in the same manner. We will later fix the constants L and C and suppress
them from notation.

(2.1)

4

ŁUKASZ GARNCAREK

2.3. Hyperbolic spaces and groups. Let ( X, d) be a metric space. For any basepoint o ∈ X one defines the Gromov product (·, ·)o : X × X → [0, ∞) with respect
to o as
1
(2.2)
( x, y)o = (d( x, o ) + d(y, o ) − d( x, y)).
2
A different choice of the base-point leads to another Gromov product, satisfying
(2.3)

( x, y)o − ( x, y) p ≤ d(o, p).

If the Gromov product on X satisfies the estimate
(2.4)

( x, y)o ? min{( x, z)o , (y, z)o }

for some (equivalently, for every—but with a different constant) base-point o ∈ X,
the space X is said to be hyperbolic. We may iterate (2.4), to obtain
(2.5)

( x1 , xn )o ? min{( x1 , x2 )o , ( x2 , x3 )o , . . . , ( xn−1 , xn )o },

with constants depending only on n. The property of being hyperbolic is preserved by quasi-isometries within the class of geodesic spaces. In case of general
metric spaces, it is possible to quasi-isometrically perturb a hyperbolic metric and
obtain a non-hyperbolic one (see [8, Proposition A.11]).
A finitely generated group Γ is hyperbolic if its Cayley graph with respect to
some finite set of generators is hyperbolic. As Cayley graphs of a given group
are geodesic and quasi-isometric to each other, this notion does not depend on
the generating set. The quasi-isometric metrics induced on the group by the path
metrics on its Cayley graphs are called the word metrics. We will denote by D(Γ)
the class of all hyperbolic left-invariant metrics on Γ (not necessarily coming from
an action on a geodesic space), quasi-isometric to a word metric through the identity map of Γ. Finally, a hyperbolic group is non-elementary if it does not contain a
cyclic subgroup of finite index.
2.4. The Gromov boundary. Now, assume that X is hyperbolic and has a fixed
base-point o ∈ X, which we will omit in the notation for the Gromov product. We
will also denote | x | = d( x, o ). A sequence ( xn ) ⊂ X tends to ∞ if
lim ( xi , x j ) = ∞.

(2.6)

i,j → ∞

Two such sequences ( xn ) and (yn ) are equivalent if limn→∞ ( xn , yn ) = ∞. By (2.3)
these notions are independent of the base-point. The boundary of X, denoted
∂X, is the set of equivalence classes of sequences tending to infinity. The space
X = X ∪ ∂X can be given a natural topology making it a compactification of X, on
which the isometry group Isom( X ) acts by homeomorphisms.
The Gromov product can be extended (in a not necessarily continuous way) to
X in such a way that the estimate (2.4) is still satisfied (with different constants).
One simply represents elements of X as constant sequences, and for x, y ∈ X defines
(2.7)

( x, y) = sup lim inf( xi , y j ),
i,j → ∞

where the supremum is taken over all representatives ( xi ) and (yi ) of x and y. A
sequence ( xi ) ⊂ X converges to ξ ∈ ∂X if and only if ( xi , ξ ) → ∞, so in particular,
representatives of ξ are exactly the sequences in X converging to ξ. By [10, Remark
3.17], we have
(2.8)
whenever xi → x and yi → y.

lim inf( xi , y j ) ≈ ( x, y)
i,j → ∞

BOUNDARY REPRESENTATIONS OF HYPERBOLIC GROUPS

5

The topology of ∂X is metrizable. For sufficiently small ǫ > 0 there exists a
metric dǫ on ∂X, compatible with its topology, satisfying
(2.9)

dǫ (ξ, η ) ≍ǫ e−ǫ( ξ,η ) .

Such a metric is called a visual metric.
We will later use the fact that for a hyperbolic group Γ the only Γ-equivariant
homeomorphism φ of ∂Γ is the identity map. It follows from the fact that any element of Γ of infinite order has exactly one attracting point in ∂Γ, which is therefore
fixed by φ, and the attracting points of all such elements form a dense subset [25,
Proposition 4.2 and Theorem 4.3].
3. T HE

GEOMETRIC SETTING

In this section we describe some ways to deal with non-geodesic hyperbolic
metrics. As the representations we will consider depend on the metric on the
group, this will allow to investigate a class of representations much wider than
those obtained from the word metrics. Everything we need in this regard is contained in the papers [8, 9].
In [8] the notions of a quasi-ruler and quasi-ruled space are introduced, and
the fundamental properties of the Patterson-Sullivan measures for quasi-ruled hyperbolic spaces, generalizing the results of [12], which apply only to metrics coming from proper actions on geodesic spaces, are developed. The article [9] studies boundaries of almost geodesic hyperbolic spaces, and is a useful reference for
some basic lemmas.
It turns out that the classes of hyperbolic quasi-ruled spaces and hyperbolic
almost geodesic spaces are the same and equal to the class of roughly geodesic
hyperbolic spaces. We discuss the notion of a quasi-ruled space only in order to
formulate Theorem 3.1. Afterwards, all the arguments will be based on the notion
of a rough geodesic.
3.1. Roughly geodesic hyperbolic spaces. For τ ≥ 0 a τ-quasi-ruler is a quasigeodesic γ : R → X satisfying for all s < t < u the condition
(3.1)

(γ(s), γ(u))γ(t) ≤ τ.

The space X is said to be ( L, C, τ )-quasi-ruled if it is a ( L, C )-quasi-geodesic space,
and every ( L, C )-quasi-geodesic is a τ-quasi-ruler. By [8, Theorem A.1], if φ : X →
Y is a quasi-isometry with X hyperbolic and geodesic, then Y is hyperbolic if and
only if it is quasi-ruled. It follows that for a hyperbolic group Γ, all the metrics in
the class D(Γ) are quasi-ruled.
By [8, Lemma A.2], for every L, C, and τ there exists K > 0 such that every
( L, C, τ )-quasi-ruled space is K-roughly geodesic. On the other hand, it is clear
that a K-roughly geodesic space is (1, K, 3K/2)-quasi-ruled. By [9, Proposition
5.2(1)], the hyperbolic spaces studied therein are also exactly the roughly geodesic
hyperbolic spaces.
Now suppose that X is a roughly geodesic hyperbolic space. Every roughly geodesic ray γ in X converges to an endpoint γ(∞) in the boundary. The converse
statement is also true, i.e. every point in ∂X is the endpoint of some K-roughly
geodesic ray, where K depends only on X [9, Proposition 5.2(2)]. In a similar fashion, every pair of distinct points of ∂X can be joined by a K-roughly geodesic line
[9, Proposition 5.2(3)]. From now on, when we use the terms roughly geodesic segment/ray/line without specifying the constant, we always think of the universal
constants from the definition of a roughly geodesic space and the remark above.

6

ŁUKASZ GARNCAREK

By [9, Proposition 5.5], if the map φ : X → Y is a ( L, C )-quasi-isometry of
roughly geodesic hyperbolic spaces, their Gromov products satisfy the estimates
1
( x, y)z > (φ( x ), φ(y))φ(z) > L( x, y)z
L
uniformly for all x, y, z ∈ X. As a consequence, for a hyperbolic group Γ all the
metrics in D(Γ) give rise to exactly the same boundary.
(3.2)

3.2. Quasi-conformal measures. Consider a roughly geodesic hyperbolic space
X with a base-point o ∈ X, and a non-elementary hyperbolic group Γ ⊆ Isom( X )
which acts on X properly and cocompactly. A measure µ on (∂X, dǫ ) is said to be
Γ-quasi-conformal of dimension D if it is quasi-invariant under the action of Γ, and
the corresponding Radon-Nikodym derivatives satisfy the estimate
dg∗ µ
(ξ ) ≍ eǫD (2( go,ξ )−d(o,go))
dµ

(3.3)

uniformly in ξ and g. Since d(o, go ) ≈o,p d( p, gp), this notion is independent of
the choice of o. Moreover, being Γ-quasi-conformal does not depend on ǫ, as for
different values of ǫ only the dimension D changes. Finally, µ is Ahlfors regular of
dimension D if it satisfies the estimate
µ( B∂X (ξ, ρ)) ≍ ρ D

(3.4)

uniformly in ξ and ρ ≤ diam ∂X. In particular, since ∂X is compact, any Ahlfors
regular measure on ∂X is finite.
Recall that the Hausdorff measure of a metric space Y is defined as follows.
First, for α ≥ 0 one defines the α-dimensional Hausdorff measure Hα as
n
o
[
(3.5)
Hα ( E) = lim inf ∑(diam Ui )α : E ⊆ Ui and diam Ui ≤ θ
θ →0+

i

i

for every Borel set E ⊆ Y. Then, the Hausdorff dimension of Y is the number
(3.6)

dim H Y = inf{α : Hα (Y ) = 0} = sup{α : Hα (Y ) = ∞}.

The Hausdorff measure on Y is the (dim H Y )-dimensional Hausdorff measure. See
[30] for details on Hausdorff measures.
Now, take x ∈ X and denote
1
log | BX ( x, R) ∩ Γx | ,
(3.7)
D = lim sup
ǫR
R→∞
and ω = e Dǫ . We then have the following.
Theorem 3.1 ([8, Theorem 2.3]). Suppose that X is a proper roughly geodesic hyperbolic
space, and Γ ⊆ Isom( X ) is a non-elementary hyperbolic group, acting properly and cocompactly. Then the Hausdorff dimension of (∂X, dǫ ) is equal to D, defined in (3.7), and
the corresponding Hausdorff measure µ is Γ-quasi-conformal of dimension D and Ahlfors
regular of dimension D. Furthermore, any Γ-quasi-conformal measure µ′ on ∂X is equivalent to µ with Radon-Nikodym derivative dµ′ /dµ ≍ 1 a.e., and | BX ( x, R) ∩ Γx | ≍ ω R .
In particular, this theorem implies that the quasi-conformal measures associated to different choices of ǫ are equivalent, so the above considerations lead to
a unique measure class on ∂X (in fact a class of the finer relation of equivalence
with Radon-Nikodym derivatives bounded away from 0 and ∞), depending only
on the metric d, called the Patterson-Sullivan class. Also, by Ahlfors regularity, the
boundary has no isolated points.
We say that a measure class preserving action of a group G on a measure space
( X, ν) is doubly ergodic, if the induced diagonal action of G on ( X 2 , ν2 ) is ergodic. In

BOUNDARY REPRESENTATIONS OF HYPERBOLIC GROUPS

7

the classification of the boundary representations, double ergodicity of PattersonSullivan measures will be crucial. This result is known to experts, but apparently
the proof has never been written down. It was communicated to us by Uri Bader
that the full proof of a stronger property called double isometric ergodicity will appear in a forthcoming joint paper with Alex Furman [2]. We include the proof of
double ergodicity, based on the ideas explained to us by Bader and Furman, in
Appendix A.
3.3. Boundary representations. We will now fix some notation for the rest of the
paper. Let Γ be a non-elementary hyperbolic group. Fix a metric d ∈ D(Γ), and
choose 1 ∈ Γ as the base-point. Since Γ acts on itself by isometries freely and
cocompactly, we are in the setting of Section 3.2. Pick a sufficiently small ǫ > 0,
and let D be the Hausdorff dimension of (∂Γ, d ǫ ). Denote by µ the corresponding
Hausdorff measure. We may normalize µ and dǫ in such a way that µ(∂Γ ) = 1 and
diam ∂Γ = 1. Since Dǫ is constant, by choosing sufficiently small ǫ, we may also
assume that D > 1. Now, denote
(3.8)

Pg (ξ ) =

dg∗ µ
(ξ ) ≍ ω 2( g,ξ )−|g| .
dµ

The boundary representation π of Γ associated to µ is the unitary representation of Γ
on the Hilbert space L2 (∂Γ, µ) given by
(3.9)

[π ( g)φ](ξ ) = Pg1/2 (ξ )φ( g−1 ξ )

for φ ∈ L2 (∂Γ, µ) and g ∈ Γ. If we take a measure ν equivalent to µ, then the
unitary isomorphism Tµν : L2 (∂Γ, µ) → L2 (∂Γ, ν) defined by
 1/2
dµ
φ
(3.10)
Tµν φ =
dν
intertwines the corresponding boundary representations. We therefore obtain a
unique (up to unitary equivalence) representation of Γ associated to the class of
Γ-quasi-conformal measures on ∂Γ with respect to d.
4. S HADOWS

AND CONES

In this section we will work with Γ in order to estimate the cardinalities of some
of its subsets. First, we introduce the classical notion of the shadow cast by an
element of the group onto its boundary. Then, for a ball B in the boundary, we
define the cone over B as the set of all elements Γ whose shadows intersect B.
It turns out that the growth of such a cone behaves as one could expect, i.e. the
cardinality of its intersection with a large ball in Γ is approximately µ( B) times the
cardinality of the ball.
We then move on to define double shadows in ∂Γ2 . A double shadow of g is the
product of suitable shadows of g and g−1 . We show that they form a nice cover of
∂Γ2 , just as in the case of ordinary shadows in ∂Γ.
4.1. Shadows. We begin by observing that for any element g of Γ there exists a
roughly geodesic ray emanating from 1 and passing within a uniform distance
from g. In terms of the Gromov product this can be stated as follows.
Lemma 4.1. The estimate
(4.1)

sup ( g, ξ ) ≈ | g|
ξ ∈ ∂Γ

holds uniformly for g ∈ Γ.

8

ŁUKASZ GARNCAREK

Proof. We get the upper estimate sup( g, ξ ) ≤ | g| from the triangle inequality.
The Gromov product on Γ satisfies the identity ( g, h) + ( g−1, g−1 h) = | g|, which,
after extension to Γ, takes the form

( g−1 , g−1 ξ ) ≈ | g| − ( g, ξ ).

(4.2)

If we fix two distinct points ξ 1 , ξ 2 ∈ ∂Γ, then
(4.3)

max( g−1, g−1 ξ i ) ≈ | g| − min( g, ξ i ) ? | g| − (ξ 1 , ξ 2 ),
i

i

which gives the estimate from below for

g −1 .



Using Lemma 4.1, for every g ∈ Γ we may fix ĝ ∈ ∂Γ such that ( g, ĝ) ≈ | g|. We
will also denote by ǧ the point in the boundary corresponding to g−1 . The point ĝ
plays the same role as the endpoint of the geodesic ray starting at the base-point
and passing through g in a CAT(0) space. In particular, we have
(4.4)

(ξ, g) ≈ min{| g| , ( ĝ, ξ )}

for all ξ ∈ Γ. This estimate will be usually used in the form
(4.5)

ω ( ξ,g) ≍ min{ω | g| , dǫ ( ĝ, ξ )− D }.

By Theorem 3.1, the growth of Γ satisfies | BΓ (1, R)| ≍ ω R . Fix r > 0 and for
R > 0 define the annulus
(4.6)

A R = { g ∈ Γ : R − r ≤ | g | ≤ R + r },

We will assume that r is sufficiently large for the following three conditions to
hold:
(1) the lower bound for the cardinality of the ball BΓ (1, R + r ) exceeds the upper bound for the cardinality of BΓ (1, R − r ), so that the annuli A R satisfy the
growth estimate | A R | ≍ ω R ,
(2) for any roughly geodesic1 ray γ from 1 to ξ ∈ ∂Γ we have γ( R) ∈ A R ,
(3) r satisfies the bound obtained2 in the proof of Proposition 4.5, ensuring that
the elements of Γ of length approximately R constructed therein are in A R .
For σ > 0 define the shadow Σ( g, σ ) of g as the closed ball
(4.7)

Σ( g, σ ) = B∂Γ ( ĝ, e−ǫ(|g|−σ) ).

Usually one defines the shadow of g in a slightly different way, by taking the set
of endpoints of geodesic rays passing through a ball of fixed radius centered at
g. These shadows can be uniformly sandwiched between our shadows, and we
find defining shadows to be balls in the boundary to be more suitable for our
applications.
The following fundamental property of shadows is classical, and since we use a
non-classical definition of a shadow, we include its very short proof. This standard
lemma has also a second part, saying that the multiplicity of the cover of ∂Γ by
shadows is uniformly bounded in R, but we will not need that statement.
Lemma 4.2. For sufficiently large σ, the family of shadows {Σ( g, σ ) : g ∈ A R } is a cover
of ∂Γ for any R ≥ 0.
1recall, that by this we mean a K-roughly geodesic ray with K fixed in Section 3.1
2To precisely formulate condition (3) we need Lemma 4.4, which asserts that there exists some
universal constant τ related to cancellations of elements in the group. Until Proposition 4.5, only conditions (1) and (2) will be used, so the reader need not be afraid of a circular definition. We could just
postpone condition (3) and require it in the proof of Proposition 4.5, as we can always take larger r.

BOUNDARY REPRESENTATIONS OF HYPERBOLIC GROUPS

9

Proof. For ξ ∈ ∂Γ take a roughly geodesic ray γ from 1 to ξ. Then g = γ( R) ∈ A R
and we have ( ĝ, ξ ) ? min{( ĝ, g), ( g, ξ )} ≈ R, so for sufficiently large σ we get
ξ ∈ Σ( g, σ ).

We may now define Σ( g) = Σ( g, σ ) with σ sufficiently large to satisfy the conclusion of Lemma 4.2.
4.2. Cones over balls in the boundary. For ξ ∈ ∂Γ and θ > 0 define the cone over
B∂Γ (ξ, e−ǫθ ) = B∂Γ (ξ, ω −θ/D ) as
(4.8)

C (ξ, θ ) = { g ∈ Γ : Σ( g) ∩ B∂Γ (ξ, e−ǫθ ) 6= ∅},

and denote
CR (ξ, θ ) = A R ∩ C (ξ, θ ).

(4.9)

Lemma 4.3. The growth of the cone C (ξ, θ ) satisfies the estimates
ω R−θ ≺ |CR (ξ, θ )| ≺ ω R

(4.10)

uniformly in R, θ, ξ. When R ≥ θ, the tighter estimate

|CR (ξ, θ )| ≍ ω R−θ

(4.11)
holds.

Proof. The upper bound |CR (ξ, θ )| ≺ ω R follows from the estimate on | A R |. For
the lower bound, observe that by Lemma 4.2 the shadows Σ( g) of g ∈ CR (ξ, θ )
cover the ball B(ξ, e−ǫθ ). Hence,
(4.12)

ω −θ ≍ µ( B∂Γ (ξ, e−ǫθ )) ≤

∑

µ(Σ( g)) ≍ |CR (ξ, θ )| ω − R ,

g ∈ CR ( ξ,θ )

so |CR (ξ, θ )| ≻ ω R−θ .
Now, assume that R ≥ θ. Let γ be a roughly geodesic ray from 1 to ξ. If
g ∈ CR (ξ, θ ), we may pick some η ∈ Σ( g) ∩ B∂Γ (ξ, e−ǫθ ). We then have
(4.13)

( g, γ(θ )) ? min{( g, ĝ), ( ĝ, η ), (η, ξ ), (ξ, γ(θ ))} ? θ,

and in consequence
(4.14)

d( g, γ(θ )) > R − θ.

Therefore, CR (ξ, θ ) ⊆ BΓ (γ(θ ), R − θ + C ) for some constant C, and the last estimate follows from the bound on the growth of Γ.

4.3. Shadows in the square of the boundary. The next lemma will allow us to
understand the distribution of the points ( ĝ, ǧ) in ∂Γ2 . It generalizes the observation that if we take two elements g, h of a non-abelian free group expressed in
the standard generators, then after possibly changing the last letter of g, there is
no cancellation in the product gh. We thought that such a natural result should be
well-known, but to our surprise we did not find it in any of the standard references
for hyperbolic groups. Therefore we present it together with its full proof.
Lemma 4.4. Let Γ be a non-elementary hyperbolic group, endowed with a metric d ∈
D(Γ). There exists τ > 0 such that for any g0 , h ∈ Γ one can find g ∈ BΓ ( g0 , τ ) such
that | gh| ≥ | g| + | h| − 2τ.
Proof. For every g ∈ Γ fix a roughly geodesic segment γg : [0, | g|] → Γ joining
1 to g, and its reverse γ g (t) = γg (| g| − t). Now, take any τ > 0 and suppose
that for all g ∈ BΓ ( g0, τ ) we have the opposite inequality | gh| < | g| + |h| − 2τ, or

10

ŁUKASZ GARNCAREK

equivalently (1, gh) g > τ. In particular, this implies that | g| , |h| > τ, and we may
compute, with estimates being uniform in τ:
(4.15)

(γ g (τ ), gγh (τ )) g ? min{(γ g (τ ), 1) g , (1, gh) g, ( gh, gγh(τ )) g } ? τ,

and in consequence, d(γg (τ ), gγh (τ )) ≈ 0. On the other hand, ( g, g0 ) ≥ | g| − τ,
so
(4.16) (γg (τ ), γg0 (| g| − τ )) ?
? min{(γ g (τ ), g), ( g, g0), ( g0, γg0 (| g| − τ ))} ≈ | g| − τ,
and thus d(γg (τ ), γg0 (| g| − τ )) ≈ 0. Finally, we obtain
(4.17) d( gγh (τ ), γg0 (| g| − τ )) ≤ d( gγh (τ ), γg (τ )) + d(γg (τ ), γg0 (| g| − τ )) ≈ 0.
It follows that the injective map g 7→ gγh (τ ) sends the ball BΓ ( g0 , τ ) into a fixed
radius neighborhood of the interval γ g0 ([0, 2τ ]). Since Γ is non-elementary, the
volume of the ball grows exponentially with τ, while the neighborhood of the
interval γ g0 ([0, 2τ ]) has linear growth, hence for sufficiently large τ, independent
of g0 and h, we obtain a contradiction.

For σ > 0 we now define the double shadow of g ∈ Γ as
(4.18)

Σ2 ( g, σ ) = B∂Γ ( ĝ, e−ǫ(|g|/2−σ) ) × B∂Γ ( ǧ, e−ǫ(|g|/2−σ) ) ⊆ ∂Γ2 .

Thanks to the factor of 1/2 in the exponent, the measure of a double shadow of
g ∈ A R is approximately proportional to 1/| A R |. Just as ordinary shadows, the
double shadows of elements of A R form a cover.
Proposition 4.5. For sufficiently large σ > 0 the family {Σ2 ( g, σ ) : g ∈ A R } of double
shadows is a cover of ∂Γ2 for all R > 0.
Proof. Take (ξ 1 , ξ 2 ) ∈ ∂Γ2 , and for i = 1, 2 let γi be a roughly geodesic ray from
1 to ξ i . Put gi = γi ( R/2). By Lemma 4.4 there exist a universal constant τ and
g ∈ BΓ ( g1 , τ ) such that | gg2−1 | ≈ R, and, as it was mentioned in the definition
of the annulus A R , we may assume that its thickness is sufficiently large for it to
contain the element gg2−1. We have ( gg2−1, g) ≈ R/2 and ( g2 g−1 , g2 ) ≈ R/2, and
in consequence
(4.19)

( gg2−1, ξ 1 ) ? min{( gg2−1, g), ( g, g1), ( g1, ξ 1 )} ? R/2

and
(4.20)

( g2 g−1 , ξ 2 ) ? min{( g2 g−1 , g2 ), ( g2 , ξ 2 )} ? R/2.

Hence, for sufficiently large σ, the double shadow Σ2 ( gg2−1, σ ) contains the pair
( ξ 1 , ξ 2 ).

Similarly as in the case of shadows, we will denote Σ2 ( g) = Σ2 ( g, σ ) for some
fixed σ sufficiently large for Proposition 4.5 to hold.
5. O PERATORS

IN THE POSITIVE CONE

By the positive cone of the representation π we will understand the weak operator closure in B( L2 (∂Γ, µ)) of the set of linear combinations of elements of π (Γ)
with positive coefficients. The purpose of this section is to prove Proposition 5.4,
which states that operators arising from positive kernels in L∞ (∂Γ2 ) are contained
in the positive cone of π. The operators in question will be constructed as weak
operator limits of sequences of weighted averages of normalized operators π ( g)
with g ∈ A R . Convergence will be first tested on Lipschitz functions, and then

BOUNDARY REPRESENTATIONS OF HYPERBOLIC GROUPS

11

established using density of Lipschitz functions in L2 , and uniform boundedness
of the averages.
5.1. Uniform boundedness of averages of Pg1/2 . Recall that Pg = dg∗ µ/dµ. Let
us define
eg =
P

(5.1)

Pg1/2

k Pg1/2 k1

.

We begin by finding an estimate for the norm k Pg1/2 k1 , and using it to get a more
manageable approximation of the function Peg .
Lemma 5.1. The L1 -norms of Pg1/2 satisfy the estimate

k Pg1/2 k1 ≍ ω −|g|/2 (1 + | g|)

(5.2)
uniformly in g. Moreover,

dǫ ( ĝ, ξ )− D
ω ( g,ξ )
≺
.
Peg (ξ ) ≍
1 + | g|
1 + | g|

(5.3)

Proof. By estimate (4.4), we have
(5.4)

Pg1/2 (ξ ) ≍ ω ( g,ξ )−|g|/2 ≍ ω −|g|/2 min{ω |g| , dǫ ( ĝ, ξ )− D }.

Using Ahlfors regularity and the Fubini’s theorem, we calculate
ω |g|/2 k Pg1/2 k1 ≍

=

Z

∂Γ

Z ω |g |
0

= 1+

(5.5)

min{ω |g| , dǫ ( ĝ, ξ )− D } dµ(ξ ) =

= 1+
≍ 1+

µ{ξ : d ǫ ( ĝ, ξ )− D > t} dt =

Z ω |g|
1

Z ω |g|
1

Z ω |g|
1

µ{ξ : dǫ ( ĝ, ξ )− D > t} dt =
µ( B∂Γ ( ĝ, t−1/D )) dt ≍
t−1 dt ≍ 1 + | g| .

The second part follows by combining this estimate with (3.8) and (4.5).



eg
Now we prove the crucial result, stating that the averages of the functions P
∞
over A R are uniformly bounded in the L norm. Later on, the problem of uniform
boundedness of weighted averages of suitably normalized operators π ( g) will be
reduced to this estimate.
Proposition 5.2. The estimate

∑

(5.6)

g∈ A R

holds uniformly in R and η.

Peg (η ) ≺ ω R

Proof. By Lemma 5.1, and (4.5) we have
(5.7)

∑
g∈ A R

Peg (η ) ≍

1
(1 + R)

∑
g∈ A R

min{ω R , dǫ ( ĝ, η )− D }.

12

ŁUKASZ GARNCAREK

The sum on the right can be estimated in a similar fashion as in the proof of
Lemma 5.1, yielding

∑
(5.8)

min{ω R , dǫ ( ĝ, η )− D } ≺ ω R +

g∈ A R
R

≤ω +

Z ωR

{ g ∈ A R : dǫ ( ĝ, η )− D > t} dt ≤

Z ωR

CR (η, logω t) dt

1

1

But for 1 < t < ω R we have 0 < logω t < R, so we may apply Lemma 4.3 to obtain
(5.9)

Z ωR
1

CR (η, logω t) dt ≍

Z ωR
1

ω R t−1 dt = ω R R log ω,

which ends the proof.



5.2. Approximation on the space of Lipschitz functions. Denote by Lip(∂Γ ) the
vector space of Lipschitz functions on (∂Γ, d ǫ ). Let λ(φ) be the Lipschitz constant
of φ ∈ Lip(∂Γ ). By the Lebesgue differentiation theorem [23, Theorem 1.8], which
is valid in particular for any Ahlfors regular metric measure space, the characteristic functions of balls span a dense subspace of L2 (∂Γ, µ), and since they can be
approximated by Lipschitz functions, it follows that Lip(∂Γ) is a dense subspace
of L2 (∂Γ, µ).
e ( g) = π ( g)/k Pg1/2 k1 . Since
Define the normalized operator π

k Pg1/2 k1 = hπ ( g)1, 1i = h1, π ( g−1 )1i = k Pg1/2
−1 k1 ,

(5.10)

e( g)
where 1 is the constant function taking value 1 everywhere, the operators π
e( g)∗ = π
e ( g−1 ). Moreover, as the next lemma shows, it turns out that on
satisfy π
e ( g) can be approximated by suitable evaluations.
Lipschitz functions π
Lemma 5.3. For φ, ψ ∈ Lip(∂Γ ) we have

e( g)φ, ψi − φ( ǧ)ψ( ĝ) ≺
hπ

(5.11)

λ ( φ ) kψ k ∞ + λ ( ψ ) k φ k ∞
,
(1 + | g|)1/D

uniformly in g, φ, and ψ.
Proof. We have

(5.12)

e( g)φ, ψi − φ( ǧ)ψ( ĝ) ≤
hπ



e ( g−1 )1i − φ( ǧ) ≤
e( g)φ, ψ − ψ( ĝ)1i| + ψ( ĝ) hφ, π
≤ |hπ

≤ kφk ∞
+ k ψk∞

Z

Z

∂Γ

∂Γ

eg (ξ ) ψ(ξ ) − ψ( ĝ) dµ(ξ )+
P

e −1 (ξ ) φ(ξ ) − φ( ǧ) dµ(ξ ).
P
g

Both terms are of the same form, so we will estimate only the first one. Since ψ is
Lipschitz, we get
(5.13)

Z

∂Γ

eg (ξ ) ψ(ξ ) − ψ( ĝ) dµ(ξ ) ≤ λ(ψ)
P

Z

∂Γ

eg (ξ )dǫ ( ĝ, ξ ) dµ(ξ ),
P

and by integrating separately on some ball B = B∂Γ ( ĝ, ρ) and its complement, we
obtain
(5.14)

Z

B

eg (ξ )dǫ ( ĝ, ξ ) dµ(ξ ) ≤ ρk P
eg k1 = ρ
P

BOUNDARY REPRESENTATIONS OF HYPERBOLIC GROUPS

13

and, using Lemma 5.1,
Z

(5.15)

∂Γ\ B

Peg (ξ )dǫ ( ĝ, ξ ) dµ(ξ ) ≺

Z

∂Γ\ B

ρ1− D
dǫ ( ĝ, ξ )1− D
dµ(ξ ) ≺
,
1 + | g|
1 + | g|

since D > 1. We finish by taking ρ = (1 + | g|)−1/D .



5.3. Constructing operators in the positive cone. For a function K ∈ L∞ (∂Γ2 , µ2 ),
define the operator TK ∈ B( L2 (∂Γ, µ)) with kernel K by

h TK φ, ψi =

(5.16)

Z

∂Γ2

φ(ξ )ψ(η )K (ξ, η ) dµ2 (ξ, η ).

Proposition 5.4. The operator TK with kernel K ≥ 0 is in the positive cone of π.
Proof. We will construct a one-parameter family of operators SR , with R ≥ 0, in
the positive cone of π, converging to TK in the weak operator topology. We start
by fixing R and taking a measurable partition V = {Vg : g ∈ A R } of ∂Γ2 such that
Vg ⊆ Σ2 ( g), which can be obtained for instance by putting a linear order on the
finite set A R and taking
[

Vg = Σ2 ( g) \

(5.17)

Σ2 ( h ) .

h<g

By Proposition 4.5, V indeed covers ∂Γ2 , and is disjoint by definition. Now, put
wg =

(5.18)

Z

Vg

K dµ2

and define
SR =

(5.19)

∑
g∈ A R

e ( g ).
wg π

For any φ, ψ ∈ Lip(∂Γ) we get, using Lemma 5.3 and the fact that Vg ⊆ Σ2 ( g)

hSR φ, ψi−h TK φ, ψi ≤
+

∑
g∈ A R

(5.20)

Z

∑
g∈ A R

Vg

Z

Vg

e( g)φ, ψi − φ( ǧ)ψ( ĝ) +
K dµ2 hπ

φ( ǧ)ψ( ĝ) − φ(ξ )ψ(η ) K (ξ, η ) dµ2 (ξ, η ) ≺

λ( φ) kψk∞ + λ( ψ) kφk∞
+
(1 + R)1/D
Z


−ǫR/2
2
+
e
λ
(
φ
)
ψ
+
λ
(
ψ
)
φ
k
k
k
k
∞
∞ K ( ξ, η ) dµ ( ξ, η ),
2

≺ kK k1
∂Γ

so hSR φ, ψi −−−→ h TK φ, ψi.
R→∞

By density of Lip(∂Γ) it now remains to show that the operators SR are uniformly bounded. First, observe that w g ≤ k K k∞ µ(Σ2 ( g)) ≺ ω −|g| uniformly in g,
and thus by Proposition 5.2
(5.21)

kSR 1k ∞ = sup

∑

ξ ∈ ∂Γ g ∈ A R

w g Peg (ξ ) ≺ 1

uniformly in R. Moreover, since A R is symmetric, the same estimate holds for the
adjoint operator S∗R . Now, let φ, ψ ∈ L4 (∂Γ, µ) ⊆ L2 (∂Γ, µ). The system of weights

14

ŁUKASZ GARNCAREK

{w g } can be treated as a measure on A R ; using the Schwarz inequality in the space
L2 (∂Γ × A R , µ ⊗ w), we obtain
|hSR φ, ψi|2 =
(5.22)

≤

Z

∂Γ × A R

2

Z

∂Γ× A R

eg (ξ )φ( g−1ξ )ψ(ξ ) dξdg
P

eg (ξ ) φ( g−1 ξ )
P

2

Z

dξdg

∂Γ× A R

≤

eg (ξ ) |ψ(ξ )|2 dξdg =
P

= hSR |φ| , 1ihSR 1, |ψ| i ≤ kφ k1 kS∗R 1k∞ kSR 1k∞ kψ2 k1 ≺ k φk22 kψk22
2

2

2

uniformly in R, and thus SR are uniformly bounded and converge to TK in the
weak operator topology as desired.

By approximating the projections PE : L2 (∂Γ, µ) → L2 ( E, µ) by operators TK as
above, we get the following important corollary.
Corollary 5.5. For any measurable set E ⊆ ∂Γ the orthogonal projection PE onto L2 ( E, µ) ⊆
L2 (∂Γ, µ) is contained in the positive cone of π.
Proof. Fix E ⊆ ∂Γ. For ρ > 0 define Kρ ∈ L∞ (∂Γ2 , µ2 ) as
Kρ (ξ, η ) =

(5.23)

1
χ E (ξ )χ B∂Γ ( ξ,ρ) (η )
µ( B∂Γ (ξ, ρ))

and let Tρ be the operator with kernel Kρ . By Proposition 5.4 it is contained in the
weak operator closure of the cone spanned by π (Γ). For φ, ψ ∈ Lip(∂Γ) we have

h Tρ φ, ψi − h PE φ, ψi ≤
Z

Z


φ(ξ )
ψ(η ) − ψ(ξ ) dµ(η )dµ(ξ ) ≤
E µ( B∂Γ ( ξ, ρ )) B∂Γ ( ξ,ρ )
≤ µ( E) kφk∞ λ(ψ)ρ −−→ 0,

≤

(5.24)

ρ →0

so to finish the proof it only remains to show that the family of operators Tρ is
uniformly bounded. We may estimate their operator norms using the Schwarz
inequality, obtaining
Tρ ≤

(5.25)

Z

1/2
∂Γ

Kρ (ξ, η ) dµ(ξ )
∞

Z

1/2
∂Γ

Kρ (ξ, η ) dµ(η )

.
∞

By Ahlfors regularity we get
(5.26)

Z

∂Γ

Kρ (ξ, η ) dµ(ξ ) =

Z

χ B∂Γ ( ξ,ρ) (η )
E

µ( B∂Γ (ξ, ρ))

dµ(ξ ) ≍

Z

χ B∂Γ ( η,ρ) (ξ )
E

µ( B∂Γ (η, ρ))

while the second integral is simply equal to χ E (ξ ) ≤ 1.

6. T HE

dµ(ξ ) ≤ 1,



BOUNDARY REPRESENTATIONS

In this section we show that the boundary representations are irreducible and
weakly contained in the regular representation.

BOUNDARY REPRESENTATIONS OF HYPERBOLIC GROUPS

15

6.1. Irreducibility. We will prove irreducibility by using the following standard
observation.
Lemma 6.1. Let σ be a unitary representation of a group G on a Hilbert space H. If
there exists a cyclic vector φ ∈ H such that the orthogonal projection Pφ onto the subspace
Cφ is contained in the von Neumann algebra generated by σ ( G ) ⊆ B(H), then the
representation σ is irreducible.
Proof. Let H0 ≤ H be a closed nonzero invariant subspace. We may take ψ ∈ H0
with hφ, ψi 6= 0, for otherwise
(6.1)

hσ ( g)φ, ψi = hφ, σ ( g−1)ψi = 0

for all ψ ∈ H0 and g ∈ G, which by cyclicity of φ yields H0 = 0. Since Pφ is in the
von Neumann algebra generated by σ ( G ), the nonzero vector Pφ ψ = λφ belongs
to H0 . Hence, H0 contains a cyclic vector of σ and equals H.

Proving the irreducibility of the boundary representations is now a mere formality.
Theorem 6.2. For any metric d ∈ D(Γ) the associated boundary representation is irreducible.
Proof. For a positive function φ ∈ L∞ (∂Γ) the kernel (ξ, η ) 7→ φ(η ) yields a onedimensional operator T given by Tψ = hψ, 1iφ. By Proposition 5.4 it is contained
in the von Neumann algebra of π, and T1 = φ is contained in the weakly closed
span of π (Γ)1. But L∞ (∂Γ ) is dense in L2 (∂Γ ), and weakly closed subspaces are
closed, so 1 is a cyclic vector of π. For φ = 1 the operator T is the orthogonal

projection onto C1, so by Lemma 6.1 we are done.
6.2. Weak containment in the regular representation. An important property of
any unitary representation is its weak containment in the regular representation.
In case of quasi-regular representations we may apply the criterion of [27], which
states that if the action of a discrete group G on a standard Borel space ( X, ν) is
amenable, then all representations obtained by twisting the quasi-regular representation (3.9) of G on L2 ( X, ν) with a cocycle—in our case trivial—are weakly
contained in the regular representation.
Amenability of the action on the Gromov boundary was established in [1, Theorem 5.1]. Namely, for any finite Borel measure µ on ∂Γ, quasi-invariant under the
action of Γ, the action of Γ on (∂Γ, µ) is amenable. We thus obtain the following.
Proposition 6.3. The boundary representations of Γ are weakly contained in the regular
representation.
7. C LASSIFICATION
Here, we investigate unitary equivalence between representations arising from
different metrics on Γ. We show that the corresponding boundary representations
are equivalent if and only if the metrics are roughly similar.
For the entire section, let d ′ ∈ D(Γ) be another metric with associated boundary
representation π ′ . Prime will be used to indicate objects associated to d′ , analogous
to the ones defined for d.
7.1. Equivalence in terms of measurable structures. By an isomorphism of measure spaces ( X, µ X ) and (Y, µY ) we will understand a Lebesgue isomorphism, i.e.
a Borel map F : X → Y, for which there exist two subsets N ⊆ X and N ′ ⊆ Y of
measure 0, such that the restriction F : X \ N → Y \ N ′ is a Borel isomorphism,
and the push-forward F∗ µ X is equivalent to µY . Such an isomorphism will be

16

ŁUKASZ GARNCAREK

called equivariant if the corresponding equivariance condition is satisfied almost
everywhere.
Lemma 7.1. Suppose that the representations π and π ′ are unitarily equivalent. Then
there exists a Γ-equivariant isomorphism F : (∂Γ, µ) → (∂Γ, µ′ ).
Proof. Suppose T : L2 (∂Γ, µ) → L2 (∂Γ, µ′ ) is a unitary intertwining operator. It
induces a Γ-equivariant isomorphism
(7.1)

T̂ : B( L2 (∂Γ, µ′ )) → B( L2 (∂Γ, µ)),

of von Neumann algebras endowed with the conjugation actions of the corresponding representations, given by T̂ (S) = T ∗ ST. The isomorphism T̂ maps the
positive cone of π ′ onto the positive cone of π, and preserves orthogonal projections.
Now, observe that the subalgebra L∞ (∂Γ, µ′ ) ≤ B( L2 (∂Γ, µ′ )) of multiplication
operators is generated by the orthogonal projections PE onto L2 ( E, µ′ ). They can
be characterized as the orthogonal projections P such that both P and I − P are in
the positive cone of π ′ . Indeed, one inclusion is a consequence of Corollary 5.5.
For the other one observe that if both P and I − P are in the positive cone, then
they preserve the natural partial order on functions in L2 (∂Γ, µ′ ). Since the only
possible decompositions 1 = P1 + ( I − P)1 into a sum of two orthogonal positive
functions are of the form 1 = χ E + χ Ec , for bounded positive φ we get
(7.2)

Pφ ≤ P(kφk∞ 1) ≤ k φk∞ χ E

for some fixed E ⊆ ∂Γ, so P sends L2 (∂Γ, µ′ ) into L2 ( E, µ′ ). Similarly, the image of
I − P is contained in L2 ( Ec , µ′ ), so P = PE .
It follows that T̂ restricts to a Γ-equivariant isomorphism between the algebras
L∞ (∂Γ, µ′ ) and L∞ (∂Γ, µ). By [15, Theorem 4, p. 238], any such isomorphism is
induced by an isomorphism F : (∂Γ, µ) → (∂Γ, µ′ ), which is uniquely determined
up to perturbations on sets of measure 0. Thus, Γ-equivariance of T̂ implies that F
is also Γ-equivariant.

7.2. Equivalence in terms of metric structures. We will begin by recalling the following fact, which is standard at least in the context of groups acting on hyperbolic
manifolds.
Lemma 7.2. The measure class of µ2 contains a Γ-invariant measure ν on ∂Γ2 satisfying
(7.3)

ν( E) ≍

Z

E

dǫ (ξ, η )−2D dµ2 (ξ, η ).

If the action of Γ is doubly ergodic, then ν is unique up to scaling.
Proof. Let ν̃ = dǫ (ξ, η )−2D dµ2 (ξ, η ) be the measure on the right-hand side of (7.3).
We have µ2 -a.e.

 −2D



dǫ ( g−1 ξ, g−1 η )
dg∗ ν̃
Pg (ξ ) Pg (η ) ≈
(ξ,η ) = logω
logω
dν̃
dǫ (ξ, η )
(7.4)

≈ 2( g−1 ξ, g−1 η ) − 2(ξ, η ) + 2( g, ξ ) + 2( g, η ) − 2 | g| ≈ 0,

where the last estimate is obtained by expanding the definition of the Gromov
product, after replacing ξ and η by sequences xn → ξ and yn → η. It follows that
the Radon-Nikodym derivatives dg∗ ν̃/dν̃ are uniformly bounded. It is a classical result that in such a situation ν̃ can be replaced by an equivalent Γ-invariant
measure ν = ρν̃. One just has to solve the equation
(7.5)

ρ(ξ, η ) =

dg∗ ν̃
(ξ, η )ρ( g−1ξ, g−1 η ).
dν̃

BOUNDARY REPRESENTATIONS OF HYPERBOLIC GROUPS

17

The function
ρ = sup

(7.6)

g∈Γ

dg∗ ν̃
(ξ, η )
dν̃

is bounded away from 0 and ∞, and can be seen to satisfy equation (7.5) by applying supremum over h to the cocycle identity
(7.7)

dg∗ ν̃
dh∗ ν̃ −1
d( gh)∗ ν̃
(ξ, η ) =
(ξ, η )
( g ξ, g−1 η ).
dν̃
dν̃
dν̃

We thus obtain an invariant measure satisfying (7.3).
If the action of Γ is doubly ergodic, and ν′ is another invariant measure on ∂Γ2 ,
equivalent to µ2 , then dν′ /dν is a Γ-invariant function, and must be constant, so ν′
is proportional to ν.

Recall that in a metric space ( X, d) the cross-ratio of a quadruple of distinct
points x, y, z, w ∈ X is defined as

[ x, y, z, w] =

(7.8)

d( x, z)d(y, w)
.
d( x, w)d(y, z)

The next lemma is an adaptation of a classical argument from ergodic theory
(see e.g. the proof of [20, Theorem 6.2]); we include the detailed proof for the sake
of self-containment.
Lemma 7.3. If π and π ′ are unitarily equivalent, then we have
′

d′ǫ (ξ, η ) ≍ d ǫ (ξ, η ) D/D .

(7.9)

Proof. It follows from Lemma 7.1 that there exists a Γ-equivariant isomorphism
F : (∂Γ, µ) → (∂Γ, µ′ ). Let ν and ν′ be the invariant measures on ∂Γ2 , corresponding to the metrics d and d′ , constructed in Lemma 7.2. Then the push-forward F∗2 ν
is an invariant measure on ∂Γ2 , equivalent to µ′2 , and thus proportional to ν′ by
double ergodicity of µ (Theorem A.10). It follows that a.e.
(7.10)

′

d′ǫ (ξ, η )−2D ≍ dǫ ( F −1 (ξ ), F −1 (η ))−2D

dF∗ µ
dF∗ µ
(ξ )
(η )
dµ′
dµ′

After raising this to the power −1/2D ′ and plugging into the definition of the
cross-ratio, the Radon-Nikodym derivatives of µ cancel out, and we obtain that
the estimate
(7.11)

[ F (ξ 1 ), F (ξ 2 ), F (η1 ), F (η2 )]′ ≍ [ξ 1 , ξ 2 , η1 , η2 ] D/D

′

holds on a subset E ⊆ ∂Γ4 of full measure 1.
If we take ρ > 0 and (ξ 2 , η2 ) such that the corresponding section
(7.12)

{(ξ 1 , η1 ) : (ξ 1 , ξ 2 , η1 , η2 ) ∈ E}

of E has measure 1, we get
(7.13)

d′ǫ ( F (ξ 1 ), F (η1 )) ≺ξ 2 ,η2 ,ρ dǫ (ξ 1 , η1 ) D/D

′

for (ξ 1 , η1 ) in a subset of full measure in B∂Γ (η2 , ρ)c × B∂Γ (ξ 2 , ρ)c . By the Fubini’s
theorem, (ξ 2 , η2 ) can be chosen from a set of measure 1, which is in particular
dense. We may thus cover ∂Γ2 by finitely many sets of the form B∂Γ (η2 , ρ)c ×
B∂Γ (ξ 2 , ρ)c , and the estimate (7.13) actually holds uniformly on a subset E′ ⊆ ∂Γ2
of full measure.

18

ŁUKASZ GARNCAREK

Now, denote by E′′ the set consisting of ξ ∈ ∂Γ such that the section Eξ′ = {η :
(ξ, η ) ∈ E′ } has full measure. For ξ, η ∈ E′′ and ζ ∈ Eξ′ ∩ Eη′ we have
(7.14)

d′ǫ ( F (ξ ), F (η )) ≤ d′ǫ ( F (ξ ), F (ζ )) + d′ǫ ( F (η ), F (ζ ))
′

′

≺ dǫ (ξ, ζ ) D/D + dǫ (η, ζ ) D/D .

If we let ζ converge to η from within the dense set Eξ′ ∩ Eη′ , we get a Hölder estimate
(7.15)

d′ǫ ( F (ξ ), F (η )) ≺ dǫ (ξ, η ) D/D

′

for F, satisfied on the subset E′′ ⊆ ∂Γ of full measure. This implies that F is equal
a.e. to a continuous map H : ∂Γ → ∂Γ. By symmetry, from F −1 we may construct
a continuous inverse of H, so it is a homeomorphism. Equivariance is clear, and
by the remark in the last paragraph of Section 2.4, H is in fact the identity map.

Estimate (7.9) follows from (7.15) and symmetry of dǫ and d′ǫ .
Now we are ready to state and prove the equivalence result.
Theorem 7.4. Let d, d′ ∈ D(Γ) give rise to Patterson-Sullivan measures µ and µ′ , and
boundary representations π and π ′ . The following conditions are equivalent
(1) d and d′ are roughly similar,
(2) µ and µ′ are equivalent,
(3) π and π ′ are unitarily equivalent.
Proof. For the metrics d and d′ , being roughly similar means exactly that d ≈ Ad ′ .
If this is satisfied, the visual metrics dǫ and d′Aǫ are bi-Lipschitz equivalent. Hence,
the corresponding Hausdorff measures are equivalent, and the boundary representations are equivalent by the discussion in Section 3.3.
For the implication from (3) to (1), we use Lemma 7.3 to get the estimate (7.9) on
the visual metrics, which implies that the Hausdorff measures µ and µ′ are equivalent with Radon-Nikodym derivatives bounded away from 0 and ∞. Together
with their Γ-quasi-conformality with respect to the corresponding metrics on Γ,
this yields the estimate
(7.16)

′

ω 2( g,ξ )−|g| ≍ ω ′2( g,ξ ) −| g|

′

uniformly in g and ξ. By taking the logarithms of both sides, and then suprema
over ξ, using Lemma 4.1 we obtain
(7.17)

| g| ≈

log ω ′
| g|′ ,
log ω

which ends the proof.



Remark 7.5. It might be tempting to try to extend the class of boundary representations even further, by allowing d to be a pseudo-metric. For instance, if Γ acts
properly and cocompactly on a space X then the orbit map in general induces a
pseudo-metric on Γ. However, pseudo-metrics do not lead to any new representations. In fact, any such pseudo-metric d is roughly isometric to a metric
(
d( g, h) + 1 for g 6= h
+
(7.18)
d ( g, h) =
0
for g = h
yielding the same boundary representation.

BOUNDARY REPRESENTATIONS OF HYPERBOLIC GROUPS

19

8. E XAMPLES
In this section we apply the obtained results to some classes of groups appearing in nature. It is less self-contained than the preceding ones—for more details
the reader is referred to the appropriate literature.
8.1. Fundamental groups of negatively curved manifolds. The following setting
was studied by Bader and Muchnik, who established irreducibility of boundary
representations of fundamental groups of negatively curved manifolds in [3]. Let
M be a closed Riemannian manifold with strictly negative curvature. Its universal
e is then a hyperbolic metric space on which Γ = π1 ( M ) acts freely and
cover M
cocompactly by isometries. This action thus extends to an action of Γ on the Groe and yields a unitary representation defined by formula (3.9).
mov boundary ∂ M,
e induces a hyperbolic metric d ∈ D(Γ), and since we may
Any orbit map Γ → M
e
identify ∂Γ with ∂ M, the resulting representation is actually the boundary representation of Γ associated to the metric d.
The group Γ may appear as the fundamental group of many non-isometric Riemannian manifolds, and any such realization leads to a potentially different representation. The main theorems of [3] state that all these representations are irreducible, and that they are equivalent if and only if the marked length spectra of
the corresponding manifolds are proportional. By the marked length spectrum of
M we understand the function ℓ : π1 ( M ) → (0, ∞), which to every [γ] ∈ π1 ( M )
assigns the length of the unique geodesic loop freely homotopic to γ.
The irreducibility of the Bader-Muchnik representations is a special case of Theorem 6.2. To conclude the equivalence condition of [3] using Theorem 7.4, it is
enough to observe that proportionality of the marked length spectra is equivalent
to rough similarity of the induced metrics on π1 ( M ). In one direction it is trivial—
the length of the shortest geodesic loop in the free homotopy class of g ∈ π1 ( M )
e and can be expressed in terms of the
is the translation length of g acting on M,
metric as

| gn |
.
n→∞ n
For the other direction we may resort to [29, Theorem 2.2], which states that the
marked length spectrum determines the cross-ratio on the boundary. Hence, proportional marked length spectra lead to cross-ratios satisfying [·]′ = [·]α , and
thus they arise from roughly similar metrics, by the arguments from the proofs
of Lemma 7.3 and Theorem 7.4.
(8.1)

ℓ( g) = lim

8.2. Green metrics and Poisson boundaries. Let Γ be a non-elementary hyperbolic group, and let ν be a symmetric probability measure on Γ, whose support
generates Γ. Such a measure gives rise to a random walk on Γ; denote by F ( g, h)
the probability that starting at g, it ever reaches h. Assume that ν has exponential
moment, i.e. there exists λ > 0 such that
(8.2)

∑ eλ|g| ν( g) < ∞,
g∈Γ

where the length is taken with respect to any word metric on Γ, and that for any r
there exists a constant C (r ) for which
(8.3)

F ( x, y) ≤ C (r ) F ( x, v) F (v, y)

for v within distance r from a geodesic (again, with respect to some fixed word
metric) joining x and y. These two conditions hold for any finitely supported

20

ŁUKASZ GARNCAREK

measure [8, Corollary 1.2], and ensure that the Green metric
d G ( g, h) = − log F ( g, h),

(8.4)

which was introduced in [6], and studied further in [7], belongs to the class D(Γ).
Trajectories of the random walk with law ν almost surely converge to a point
in ∂Γ, and the hitting probability defines the harmonic measure ν̂ on ∂Γ associated
with ν. By [8, Theorems 1.1(ii) and 1.5], it turns out that ν̂ is equivalent to the
Patterson-Sullivan measure associated with the Green metric d G , and thus yields
the same quasi-regular representation. On the other hand, a measure with exponential moment has finite first moment, and by [24, Theorem 7.4], the Gromov
boundary with the harmonic measure (∂Γ, ν̂) is actually isomorphic to the Poisson
boundary of (Γ, ν). By Theorem 6.2, we therefore obtain the following new result.
Theorem 8.1. Let ν be a symmetric measure on Γ, satisfying conditions (8.2) and (8.3).
Then the quasi-regular representation associated with the Poisson boundary (∂Γ, ν̂) is
irreducible.
A PPENDIX A. D OUBLE

ERGODICITY OF

PATTERSON -S ULLIVAN MEASURES

Although in many contexts double ergodicity of Patterson-Sullivan measures
is known, there is no proof in the literature, which would apply in the general
context of this paper. We have discussed this problem with Uri Bader and Alex
Furman, who are planning to include a general proof of a stronger property, called
isometric double ergodicity in their forthcoming paper [2]. In this appendix, we give
a detailed proof of double ergodicity of Patterson-Sullivan measures, which is required for the classification of boundary representations. It is based on the ideas
explained to us by Bader and Furman.
A.1. Measurable geodesic flow. Let Γ be a hyperbolic group endowed with a
metric d ∈ D(Γ), giving rise to the Patterson-Sullivan measure µ. For x = (ξ, η ) ∈
∂Γ2 we will write x− = ξ, and x + = η. Define for g ∈ Γ, and x ∈ ∂Γ2
(A.1)

c± ( g, x ) = logω

dg∗−1 µ
( x ± ) ≈ 2 ( g −1 , x ± ) − | g | ,
dµ

and put
c+ ( g, x ) − c− ( g, x )
≈ ( g −1 , x + ) − ( g −1 , x − ) .
2
Then c± , and therefore also c, satisfy the cocycle identity
(A.2)

(A.3)

c( g, x ) =

c∗ ( gh, x ) = c∗ (h, x ) + c∗ ( g, hx )

for all g, h ∈ Γ and x ∈ Ω, where Ω ⊆ ∂Γ2 \ {(ξ, η ) : ξ = η } has full measure.
Thanks to removing the diagonal, every x ∈ Ω constitutes a pair of endpoints of
some roughly geodesic ray.
Lemma A.1. The following estimates hold uniformly for x ∈ Ω, r ∈ R, and any rough
geodesic γ from x− to x+ .
(1) c+ (γ(r )−1, x ) ≈ r + c+ (γ(0)−1, x ),
(2) c− (γ(r )−1, x ) ≈ −r + c− (γ(0)−1, x ),
(3) c(γ(r )−1 , x ) ≈ r + c(γ(0)−1, x ).
Proof. For (1) and (2) observe that
(A.4)

c± (γ (r )−1 , x ) ≈ 2(γ (r ), x ± ) − |γ (r )| ≈ lim inf(|γ (s)| − |s − r |),
s →± ∞

BOUNDARY REPRESENTATIONS OF HYPERBOLIC GROUPS

21

and for fixed r the difference s − r is either eventually positive or eventually negative, depending on whether s → ∞ or s → −∞, yielding
(A.5)

c+ (γ (r )−1, x ) ≈ r + lim inf(|γ (s)| − s) ≈ r + c+ (γ(0)−1, x ),
s→∞

and
(A.6)

c− (γ (r )−1, x ) ≈ −r + lim inf(|γ (s)| + s) ≈ −r + c− (γ(0)−1, x ).
s →− ∞

Estimate (3) now follows immediately.



Fix an invariant measure ν on ∂Γ2 according to Lemma 7.2, and define an action
of Γ on Ω × R by
(A.7)

g( x, t) = ( gx, t − c( g, x )).

It commutes with the standard translation action of R, which we will denote by
( x, t) + s 7→ ( x, t + s), and leaves invariant the product measure ν ⊗ dt, where dt
stands for the Lebesgue measure on R.
A.2. The fundamental domain. We will now construct a fundamental domain for
the action of Γ on Ω × R. By this we mean a strict fundamental domain, i.e. a Borel
set ∆ ⊆ Ω × R, whose Γ-translates are disjoint and cover Ω × R. First, for h, θ > 0
define
(A.8)

Dθ,h = {( x, t) ∈ Ω × (−h, h) : dǫ ( x − , x+ ) > θ }.

A subset of Ω × R will be called bounded, if it is contained is some Dθ,h . Bounded
sets have finite measure, since
(A.9)

ν ⊗ dt( Dθ,h ) ≍ 2h

Z

d ǫ ( x − ,x + )> θ

dǫ ( x− , x+ )−2D dµ2 ( x ) ≤ 2hθ −2D .

Furthermore, the property of being bounded is invariant under the action of Γ.
Indeed, Γ acts on ∂Γ by bi-Lipschitz homeomorphisms, and |c( g, x )| > | g|, so the
image of Dθ,h under any g ∈ Γ remains bounded.
Lemma A.2. There exist θ, h > 0, such that the set Dθ,h meets every Γ-orbit in Ω × R.
Proof. Let ( x, t) ∈ Ω × R, and choose a rough geodesic γ from x − to x+ . Put
r = t − c(γ(0)−1, x ), and g = γ(r )−1 . Then by Lemma A.1 we have c( g, x ) ≈ t,
and so
(A.10)

g( x, t) = ( gx, t − c( g, x )) ∈ Ω × (−h, h)

with some h depending only on the constant in this uniform estimate. Moreover,
(A.11)

( gx− , gx+ ) ≈ ( x− , x+ ) g−1 ≈ 0,

since g−1 = γx (r ) lies on a rough geodesic between x− and x+ . Hence,
(A.12)

dǫ ( gx− , gx+ ) ≍ e−ǫ( gx− ,gx+ ) ≍ 1,

so for some θ > 0 depending on the estimate constants, we have g( x, t) ∈ Dθ,h . 
Lemma A.3. For any θ, h > 0 the set of g ∈ Γ such that gDθ,h ∩ Dθ,h 6= ∅ is finite.
Proof. Fix θ and h, and pick g ∈ Γ such that gDθ,h ∩ Dθ,h 6= ∅. This means that
there exists ( x, t) ∈ Dθ,h such that g( x, t) ∈ Dθ,h , and the following three estimates
are satisfied:
(A.13)

( g −1 , x + ) ≈ h ( g −1 , x − ) ,

( x− , x+ ) ≈θ 0,

Additionally, by (4.2), the first estimate implies that
(A.14)

( g, gx+ ) ≈h ( g, gx− ).

( gx− , gx+ ) ≈θ 0.

22

ŁUKASZ GARNCAREK

This yields
(A.15)

( g−1 , x+ ) ≈h min{( g−1, x+ ), ( g−1, x− )} > ( x− , x+ ) ≈θ 0,

and similarly
(A.16)

( g, gx+ ) ≈h min{( g, gx+ ), ( g, gx− )} > ( gx− , gx+ ) ≈θ 0.

By (4.2) we thus have
(A.17)

| g| ≈ ( g−1, x+ ) + ( g, gx+ ) ≈θ,h 0,

so the elements g ∈ Γ satisfying our conditions are all contained in a ball whose
radius depends only on h and θ.

Lemma A.4. The action of Γ on Ω × R admits a bounded Borel fundamental domain.
Proof. This is a standard argument from descriptive set theory. We will use [26,
Theorem 12.16], stating that any partition of a Polish space into closed subsets
such that the saturation of any open set (i.e. the union of parts intersecting the set)
is Borel, admits a Borel transversal.
By Lemma A.2 we may choose θ, h > 0 such that the Γ-translates of Dθ,h cover
Ω × R. The set
(A.18)

X = {( x, t) ∈ ∂Γ2 × (−h, h) : dǫ ( x− , x+ ) > θ }

is clearly a Polish space, containing Dθ,h . Now, partition X into orbits of Γ in Dθ,h ,
and singletons in X \ Dθ,h . The parts of this partition are finite by Lemma A.3, and
hence closed. Moreover, the saturation of any open set U ⊆ X is
(A.19)

(U \ Dθ,h ) ∪

[

( gU ∩ Dθ,h ),

g∈Γ

and is a Borel set. Hence, the partition admits a Borel transversal, and its intersection with Dθ,h is a fundamental domain for the action of Γ on Ω × R.

Let ∆ ⊆ Ω × R be a bounded fundamental domain for the action of Γ, whose
existence is asserted by Lemma A.4. For any p ∈ Ω × R and t ∈ R there exists a
unique element κ∆ ( p, t) ∈ Γ such that
(A.20)

p + t ∈ κ∆ ( p, t)−1∆,

and the map κ∆ : Ω × R × R → Γ is clearly Borel.
Now, we may identify the quotient space (Ω × R )/Γ with ∆, and since Ω × R
is endowed with the translation action of R, commuting with the action of Γ, this
action descends to a measure-preserving flow Φ∆
s on ∆, given by
(A.21)

Φ∆
s ( p ) = κ ∆ ( p, s)( p + s).

In particular, on ∆ × R the cocycle identity
(A.22)

κ ( Φ∆
t ( p ), s)κ ( p, t ) = κ ( p, s + t )

holds.
Lemma A.5. For any bounded fundamental domain ∆ of the action of Γ on Ω, and any
q = ( x, t) ∈ ∆, the mapping R + ∋ s 7→ κ∆ (q, s)−1 is a quasi-geodesic ray in Γ with
endpoint x+ .
Proof. Assume that ∆ ⊆ Dθ,h , and take s > 0. As a consequence of the cocycle
identity for κ∆ , we get
(A.23)

d(κ (q, t + s)−1 , κ (q, t)−1 ) = |κ (Φ∆
t ( q), s)|,

so we need to estimate the length of κ∆ ( p, s) in terms of s for arbitrary p ∈ ∆.

BOUNDARY REPRESENTATIONS OF HYPERBOLIC GROUPS

23

For s < h we have p + s ∈ Dθ,2h , and simultaneously
κ ( p, s)( p + s) = Φ∆
s ( p ) ∈ ∆ ⊆ Dθ,2h ,

(A.24)

so by Lemma A.3, the possible values of κ ( p, s) belong to some ball in Γ, depending
only on θ and h. This yields a uniform upper bound for |κ∆ ( p, s)| valid for |s| < h.
Therefore,
d(κ (q, t + s)−1 , κ (q, t)−1 ) ≺ ⌈s/h ⌉ ≺ 1 + s

(A.25)

for arbitrary s.
Now, put p = ( x, t), and observe that
(A.26)

Φ∆
s ( p ) = κ ∆ ( p, s)( p + s) = (κ ∆ ( p, s) x, t + s − c (κ ∆ ( p, s), x ))

is in ∆ ⊆ Dθ,h , so
c(κ∆ ( p, s), x ) ≈h s.

(A.27)
On the other hand, we have

(A.28) c(κ∆ ( p, s), x ) ≈ (κ∆ ( p, s)−1, x + ) − (κ∆ ( p, s)−1, x− ) ≤

≤ (κ∆ ( p, s)−1, x+ ) ≤ |κ∆ ( p, s)−1 |,
yielding a lower bound in (A.23), and proving that indeed we are dealing with a
quasi-geodesic ray. Also, we see above that (κ∆ ( p, s)−1, x+ ) ?h s, so the endpoint
of our ray is x+ .

A.3. Lebesgue differentiation. Recall that by the Lebesgue Differentiation Theorem [23, Theorem 1.8], for any positive f ∈ L1 (∂Γ, µ) we have
(A.29)

1
r →0 µ( B ( ξ, r ))
lim

Z

B ( ξ,r )

f dµ = f (ξ )

a.e. on ∂Γ. In this section we will introduce a variant of this theorem, where one
integrates f against g∗ µ instead of the normalized restriction of µ to a ball. First,
recall that for f ∈ L1 (∂Γ, µ) the maximal function M f is defined as
M f (ξ ) = sup

(A.30)

B∋ξ

1
µ( B )

Z

B

| f | dµ,

where the supremum is taken over all balls in ∂Γ containing ξ. By [23, Theorem
2.2] it satisfies the weak L1 estimate
(A.31)

µ{ξ ∈ ∂Γ : M f (ξ ) > t} ≺

1
k f k1 .
t

Let us now define Nρ f by
(A.32)

Nρ f (ξ ) =

sup
Σ ( g,ρ )∋ ξ

Z

| f | dg∗ µ.

Lemma A.6. The functions Nρ f and M f satisfy the estimate
(A.33)

Nρ f (ξ ) ≺ρ M f (ξ )

for ξ ∈ ∂Γ. In particular, Nρ f satisfies the weak L1 estimate
(A.34)

µ{ξ ∈ ∂Γ : Nρ f (ξ ) > t} ≺ρ

1
k f k1 .
t

24

ŁUKASZ GARNCAREK

Proof. Without loss of generality we may assume that f is positive. Let η ∈ ∂Γ. It
suffices to show that for g ∈ Γ such that η ∈ Σ( g, ρ) we have
Z

(A.35)

f dg∗ µ ≺ρ M f (η )

uniformly in g. By (4.5) we have
(A.36)

dg∗ µ
(ξ ) ≍ min{ω | g| , ω −|g| dǫ ( ĝ, ξ )−2D } =
dµ
(
ω |g| ,
=
ω −|g| dǫ ( ĝ, ξ )−2D

dǫ ( ĝ, ξ ) < e−ǫ| g|
otherwise,

and for e−ǫ| g| < dǫ ( ĝ, ξ ) < e−ǫ(|g|−ρ) we have ω −|g| dǫ ( ĝ, ξ )−2D ≍ρ ω | g| , so finally
Z

(A.37)
where
φg ( ξ ) =

(A.38)

(

f dg∗ µ ≍ρ

Z

f φg dµ,

ω |g |
ω −|g| dǫ ( ĝ, ξ )−2D

ξ ∈ Σ( g, ρ),
ξ 6∈ Σ( g, ρ).

The function φg is radial with respect to ĝ, constant on Σ( g, ρ), and non-increasing
in dǫ ( ĝ, ξ ). It can be therefore approximated from above by simple functions of the
form
n

ψg =

(A.39)

∑ αi χB( ĝ,ri )

i =1

with ψg − φg
(A.40)

Z

1

arbitrarily small, and all B( ĝ, ri ) containing Σ( g, ρ). Now,

f φg dµ ≤

Z

n

1
f ψg dµ = ∑ αi µ( B( ĝ, ri ))
µ
(
B
(
ĝ, ri ))
i =1

Z

B ( ĝ,r i )

f dµ,

and since η ∈ Σ( g, ρ) ⊆ B( ĝ, ri ) for all i,
Z

(A.41)

n

f φg dµ ≤

∑ αi µ( B( ĝ, ri )) M f (η ) = M f (η )

ψg

i =1

1

.

Since ψg can be chosen arbitrarily close to φg in L1 -norm, and φg ≍ dg∗ µ/dµ, in
the last estimate there is a uniform bound on ψg 1 , yielding (A.35).
The second statement follows from the corresponding estimate on M f .

Lemma A.7. Let ξ ∈ ∂Γ. In the weak* topology the push-forwards g∗ µ converge to the
unit mass supported at ξ as g → ξ.
Proof. Fix ξ ∈ ∂Γ, and f ∈ C (∂Γ). For any α > 0 there exists ρ > 0 such that for
η ∈ B = B∂Γ (ξ, ρ) we have | f (ξ ) − f (η )| < α, and

(A.42)

Z

f dg∗ µ − f (ξ ) ≤

Z

B

| f − f (ξ )| dg∗ µ +

≤ α + 2 k f k∞

Z

Bc

Z

Bc

| f − f (ξ )| dg∗ µ ≤

dg∗ µ
dµ.
dµ

But if | g| is sufficiently large, then by (A.36), on Bc we may write
(A.43)

Z

Bc

dg∗ µ
(ξ ) dµ(ξ ) ≍
dµ

Z

and this converges to 0 as | g| → ∞.

Bc

ω −|g| dǫ ( ĝ, ξ )−2D dµ(ξ ) ≤ ω −|g| ρ−2D ,



BOUNDARY REPRESENTATIONS OF HYPERBOLIC GROUPS

25

For a function f : Γ → C, and a point ξ ∈ ∂Γ, we will say that a number z ∈ C
is the radial limit of f at ξ, denoted
z = rad lim f ( g),

(A.44)

g→ξ

if for any quasi-geodesic ray γ : R + → Γ with endpoint ξ, we have
z = lim f (γ(t)).

(A.45)

t→∞

For L ≥ 1, C ≥ 0, and ξ ∈ ∂Γ denote by Q L,C (ξ ) the set of all ( L, C )-quasi-geodesic
rays in Γ with endpoint ξ.
Lemma A.8. For every L ≥ 1 and C ≥ 0 there exists ρ > 0 such that for every ξ ∈ ∂Γ,
and every γ ∈ Q L,C (ξ ), for sufficiently large t we have ξ ∈ Σ(γ(t), ρ).
Proof. Let γ ∈ Q L,C (ξ ). Then, for some constants L′ , C ′ , depending only on L, C
and the metric d ∈ D(Γ), which is by definition quasi-isometric to a word metric,
γ is also an ( L′ , C ′ )-quasi-geodesic ray in some fixed Cayley graph X of Γ. By the
Morse Lemma [10, Theorem III.H.1.7], there exists a geodesic ray γ′ in X within
Hausdorff distance r from γ, where r depends only on L′ , C ′ , and the metric on X.
Now, by [8, Theorem A.1], the natural quasi-isometry φ : X → (Γ, d) (i.e. the
quasi-inverse of the embedding Γ → X, retracting edges to their endpoints), takes
geodesics to quasi-rulers, which by [8, Lemma A.2] can be reparametrized to become rough geodesics. In particular, from γ′ we obtain a rough geodesic γ1 in
(Γ, d), within Hausdorff distance r ′ of γ, where r ′ depends on r and the constants
of φ. Ultimately, since X, φ, and the metric d ∈ D(Γ) are fixed, r ′ depends only on
L and C.
Let t ∈ R + , and denote g = γ(t). There exists s ∈ R + such that d( g, γ1(s)) ≤ 2r ′
and | g| ≈r ′ |γ1 (s)|. Furthermore, if s is sufficiently large, which can be guaranteed
by taking sufficiently large t, then

(γ1 (s), ξ ) ≈ |γ1 (s)| ,

(A.46)
so
(A.47)

( ĝ, ξ ) ? min{( ĝ, g), ( g, γ1(s)), (γ1(s), ξ )} ?r ′ | g| ,

and finally
dǫ ( ĝ, ξ ) ≺r ′ e−ǫ| g| .

(A.48)

The constant in this estimate yields the required ρ, which depends on r ′ , and hence
only on L and C.

Now we are ready to prove our variant of the Lebesgue Differentiation Theorem, along the lines of the standard proof using maximal functions [23, Section
2.7].
Proposition A.9. Let f ∈ L1 (∂Γ, µ). Then for ξ ∈ ∂Γ
(A.49)

rad lim
g→ξ

Z

| f (η ) − f (ξ )| dg∗ µ(η ) = 0

holds a.e.
Proof. For L ≥ 1, and C ≥ 0 let EL,C ⊆ ∂Γ be the set of those ξ for which
(A.50)

lim

t→∞

Z

| f (η ) − f (ξ )| dγ(t)∗ µ(η ) = 0

for all γ ∈ Q L,C (ξ ). The set on which the radial convergence (A.49) holds is the
intersection of all the sets EL,C . But this intersection is the same as the intersection

26

ŁUKASZ GARNCAREK

of a countable subfamily with integer L and C, so it is enough to show that EL,C
has full measure in ∂Γ for every L and C.
Now, we will proceed as in the proof of the classical Lebesgue differentiation
theorem. Fix L and C. For f ∈ L1 (∂Γ, µ) define the function Λ f by
(A.51)

Λ f (ξ ) =

sup

lim sup

γ ∈ Q L,C ( ξ )

t→∞

Z

| f (η ) − f (ξ )| dγ(t)∗ µ(η ).

We need to show that it vanishes almost everywhere.
We have Λ( f 1 + f 2 ) ≤ Λ f 1 + Λ f 2 , and if f is continuous, then Λ f (ξ ) = 0 by
Lemma A.7. Moreover, if by Lemma A.8 we take ρ such that for every γ ∈ Q L,C (ξ )
we have ξ ∈ Σ(γ(t), ρ) for large t, then we claim that the following estimate is
satisfied:
Λ f (ξ ) ≤ Nρ f (ξ ) + | f (ξ )| .

(A.52)

Indeed, for γ ∈ Q L,C (ξ ) we have
lim sup
(A.53)

t→∞

Z

| f (η ) − f (ξ )| dγ(t)∗ µ(η ) ≤

≤ lim sup
t→∞

Z

| f (ξ )| dγ(t)∗ µ(η ) + lim sup
t→∞

Z

| f (η )| dγ(t)∗ µ(η ),

where the first summand is just | f (ξ )|, while in the second one, for sufficiently
large t we have ξ ∈ Σ(γ(t), ρ), and consequently
(A.54)

Z

| f (η )| dγ(t)∗ µ(η ) ≤ Nρ f (ξ ).

Now, we may write f = f n + cn , where cn is continuous, and k f n k1 → 0, to get
(A.55)

Λ f ≤ Λ f n + Λcn ≤ Nρ f n + | f n | .

But using the weak L1 estimate from Lemma A.6 we obtain
1
k f n k1 −−−→ 0,
n→∞
s
and the function Λ f vanishes almost everywhere.
(A.56)

µ{ξ : Λ f ( ξ ) > s} ≺



A.4. Double ergodicity. We are now ready to show double ergodicity of PattersonSullivan measures.
Theorem A.10. Let Γ be a hyperbolic group endowed with a metric d ∈ D(Γ) giving rise
to the Patterson-Sullivan measure µ. Then the action of Γ on (∂Γ, µ) is doubly ergodic.
Proof. Let E ⊆ ∂Γ2 be a Γ-invariant subset of positive measure. By taking the
appropriate intersection, we may assume that E ⊆ Ω. For ξ ∈ ∂Γ denote
(A.57)

Eξ = {η ∈ ∂Γ : (ξ, η ) ∈ E}.

If we assume that E is not of full measure, i.e.
(A.58)

µ2 ( E ) =

Z

∂Γ

µ( Eξ ) dµ(ξ ) < 1,

then there exists a subset A ⊆ ∂Γ of positive measure, and α ∈ (0, 1), such that for
ξ ∈ A we have µ( Eξ ) < α. Furthermore, by Proposition A.9, the set
(A.59)

e = {(ξ, η ) ∈ E : ξ ∈ A, rad lim µ( g−1 Eξ ) = 1}
A
g→η

has positive measure.
Now, choose a bounded fundamental domain ∆ for the action of Γ on Ω × R,
such that
e × R)
(A.60)
B = ∆ ∩ (A

BOUNDARY REPRESENTATIONS OF HYPERBOLIC GROUPS

27

has positive measure. By Lemma A.5, for any p = (ξ, η, t) ∈ B, the map s 7→
κ∆ ( p, s)−1 is a quasi-geodesic ray with endpoint η, and we have
(A.61)

lim µ(κ ( p, s) Eξ ) = lim

s→∞

Z

s → ∞ Eξ

1
dκ ( p, s)−
∗ µ = 1 Eξ ( η ) = 1.

We may therefore fix T > 0 such that the set
(A.62)

C = { p = (ξ, η, t) ∈ B : µ(κ ( p, s) Eξ ) > α for s > T }

has positive measure. By the Poincaré Recurrence Theorem applied to the flow
∆
Φ∆
s , there exists s > T such that Φ− s ( C ) ∩ C 6 = ∅. We can partition this set into
countably many subsets indexed by elements of Γ,
(A.63)

Cg = { p ∈ Φ ∆
−s ( C ) ∩ C : κ ( p, s) = g },

and there exists g such that Cg 6= ∅. Hence, also its image pr1 (Cg ) under the
projection pr1 : ∂Γ × ∂Γ × R → ∂Γ onto the first axis is non-empty. But for ξ ∈
pr1 (Cg ) there exist η and t such that p = (ξ, η, t) ∈ Cg ⊆ C, and since we have
chosen s > T, by definition of C we have
(A.64)

µ( Egξ ) = µ( gEξ ) = µ(κ ( p, s) Eξ ) > α.

To conclude, observe that
(A.65)

gCg + s = g(Cg + s) = Φ∆
s ( Cg ) ⊆ C,

so
(A.66)

e × R ) = A,
pr1 ( gCg ) = pr1 ( gCg + s) ⊆ pr1 (C ) ⊆ pr1 ( B) ⊆ pr1 ( A

thus for ξ ∈ Cg , by definition of A we have µ( Egξ ) < α, contradicting the initial
assumption that E is not of full measure.

R EFERENCES
[1] S. Adams. Boundary amenability for word hyperbolic groups and an application to smooth dynamics of simple groups. Topology, 33(4):765–783, 1994.
[2] Uri Bader and Alex Furman. Boundary maps and simplicity of the Lyapunov spectrum.
[3] Uri Bader and Roman Muchnik. Boundary unitary representations—irreducibility and rigidity. J.
Mod. Dyn., 5(1):49–69, 2011.
[4] Mohammed E. B. Bekka and Michael Cowling. Some irreducible unitary representations of G ( K )
for a simple algebraic group G over an algebraic number field K. Math. Zeitschrift, 241(4):731–741,
2002.
[5] Michael W. Binder. On Induced Representations of Discrete Groups. Proc. Am. Math. Soc.,
118(1):301–309, 1993.
[6] Sébastien Blachère and Sara Brofferio. Internal Diffusion Limited Aggregation on Discrete Groups
Having Exponential Growth. Probab. Theory Relat. Fields, 137(3–4):323–343, 2006.
[7] Sébastien Blachère, Peter Haı̈ssinsky, and Pierre Mathieu. Asymptotic entropy and Green speed
for random walks on countable groups. Ann. Probab., 36(3):1134–1152, 2008.
[8] Sébastien Blachère, Peter Haı̈ssinsky, and Pierre Mathieu. Harmonic measures versus quasiconformal measures for hyperbolic groups. Ann. Sci. l’École Norm. Supérieure, 44(4):683–721, 2011.
[9] M. Bonk and O. Schramm. Embeddings of Gromov hyperbolic spaces. Geom. Funct. Anal.,
10(2):266–306, 2000.
[10] Martin R. Bridson and André Haefliger. Metric Spaces of Non-Positive Curvature. Springer, 1999.
[11] Marc Burger and Pierre de la Harpe. Constructing irreducible representations of discrete groups.
Proc. Math. Sci., 107(3):223–235, 1997.
[12] Michel Coornaert. Mesures de Patterson-Sullivan sur le bord d’un espace hyperbolique au sens
de Gromov. Pacific J. Math., 159(2):241–270, 1993.
[13] Lawrence Corwin. Induced representations of discrete groups. Proc. Am. Math. Soc., 47(2):279,
1975.
[14] Michael Cowling and Tim Steger. The irreducibility of restrictions of unitary representations of
lattices. J. für die reine und Angew. Math., 420:85–98, 1991.
[15] Jacques Dixmier. Von Neumann Algebras. North-Holland Pub. Co., 1981.
[16] Artem Dudko. On irreducibility of Koopman representations of Higman-Thompson groups.
arXiv, 1512.02687, 2015.

28

ŁUKASZ GARNCAREK

[17] Alessandro Figà-Talamanca and Claudio Nebbia. Harmonic Analysis and Representation Theory for
Groups Acting on Homogeneous Trees. CUP Archive, 1991.
[18] Alessandro Figà-Talamanca and Massimo A. Picardello. Harmonic analysis on free groups, volume 87 of Lecture Notes in Pure and Applied Mathematics. Marcel Dekker Inc., New York, 1983.
[19] Alessandro Figà-Talamanca and Tim Steger. Harmonic analysis for anisotropic random walks on
homogeneous trees. Mem. Am. Math. Soc., 110(531):xii+68, 1994.
[20] Alex Furman. Measurable rigidity of actions on infinite measure homogeneous spaces, II. J. Am.
Math. Soc., 21(02):479–513, 2007.
[21] Łukasz Garncarek. Analogs of principal series representations for Thompson’s groups F and T.
Indiana Univ. Math. J., 61(2):619–626, 2012.
[22] Łukasz Garncarek. Irreducibility of some representations of the groups of symplectomorphisms
and contactomorphisms. Colloq. Math., 134(2):287–296, 2014.
[23] Juha Heinonen. Lectures on Analysis on Metric Spaces. Springer, 2001.
[24] Vadim A. Kaimanovich. The Poisson Formula for Groups with Hyperbolic Properties. Ann. Math.,
152(3):659–692, 2000.
[25] Ilya Kapovich and Nadia Benakli. Boundaries of hyperbolic groups. In Comb. Geom. Gr. theory
(New York, 2000/Hoboken, NJ, 2001), volume 296 of Contemp. Math., pages 39–93. Amer. Math. Soc.,
2002.
[26] Alexander S. Kechris. Classical Descriptive Set Theory, volume 156 of Graduate Texts in Mathematics.
Springer New York, New York, NY, 1995.
[27] M. Gabriella Kuhn. Amenable Actions and Weak Containment of Certain Representations of Discrete Groups. Proc. Am. Math. Soc., 122(3):751–757, 1994.
[28] George W. MacKey. The Theory of Unitary Group Representations. The University of Chicago Press,
1976.
[29] Jean-Pierre Otal. Sur la géometrie symplectique de l’espace des géodésiques d’une variété à courbure négative. Rev. Matemática Iberoam., 8(3):441–456, 1992.
[30] C. A. Rogers. Hausdorff measures. Cambridge University Press, 1970.
[31] A. M. Vershik, I. M. Gel’fand, and M. I. Graev. Representations of the group of diffeomorphisms.
Russ. Math. Surv., 30(1):1–50, 1975.
I NSTITUTE OF M ATHEMATICS , P OLISH A CADEMY
WARSZAWA , P OLAND
E-mail address: lukgar@impan.pl

OF

S CIENCES ,

UL .

Ś NIADECKICH 8, 00-656

