arXiv:1510.00897v3 [math.RT] 15 Oct 2016

On spectra of Koopman, groupoid and quasi-regular
representations.
Artem Dudko
Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY, USA
artem.dudko@stonybrook.edu
Rostislav Grigorchuk
Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA
grigorch@math.tamu.edu

1

Introduction.

The study of spectra of operators of unitary group representations has a long history, remarkable achievements and numerous applications. For instance, the famous
Kadison-Kaplanski Conjecture which was proven for the case of amenable groups by
Higson and Kasparov in [32] asserts that for a torsion free group G and an element
m ∈ C[G] of the group algebra of G the spectrum of λG (m) is connected, where λG is
the left regular representation of G. The remarkable Kesten’s criterion of amenability
and the fundamental property (T ) of Kazhdan can be formulated in terms of spectral
properties of operators of the form λG (m). The topic in discussion is related to the
spectral theory of graphs and networks, random walks, theory of operator algebras,
discrete potential theory, abstract harmonic analysis etc.
There are three important types of unitary representations associated to a measure class preserving action of a countable group G on a probability space (X, µ):
quasi-regular, Koopman and groupoid representations. The goal of this article is to
show that there is a close relation between spectral properties of these three types of
representations.
For a subgroup H < G the quasi-regular representation ρG/H acting on l2 (G/H) is
a natural generalization of the regular representation λG . In the case of a group action
(G, X, µ) such representations appear as permutational representations ρx in l2 (Gx) for
the action of G on orbits Gx, x ∈ X. Spectra of quasi-regular representations play an
Both authors were supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation
The second author was supported by NSF grant DMS-1207699 and NSA grant H98230-15-1-0328

1

important role in random walks on groups and Schreier graphs (see e.g. [37]). Quasiregular representations naturally give rise to Hecke algebras and their representations.
The Koopman representation (which we denote by κ) acts in L2 (X, µ). Some
important properties of the dynamical system (G, X, µ), such as ergodicity and weak
mixing, can be reformulated in terms of spectral properties of κ (see e.g. [7]).
If, in addition, G is countable then the groupoid representation π is defined in
L2 (R, ν), where R ⊂ X × X is the orbit equivalence relation and ν is a measure on
R which is the product of µ and the counting measure on leaves. Groupoid representations play important role in operator algebras (see e.g. [49]) and theory of factor
representations and character theory (see e.g. [36] and [15]).
Given a unitary representation U of a group G and an element m ∈ C[G] (or, more
generally m ∈ l1 (G)) define Hecke type operator
X
U(m) =
m(s)U(s).
(1)
s∈G

For an operator A denote by σ(A) its spectrum. The main result of the present paper
is the following:
Theorem 1. 1) For an ergodic measure class preserving action of a countable group
G on a standard probability space (X, µ) and any m ∈ C[G] one has
σ(κ(m)) ⊃ σ(ρx (m)) = σ(π(m))

(2)

for µ-almost all x ∈ X, where κ is the Koopman representation, π is the groupoid
representation associated to the action of G on X, ρx is the quasi-regular representation
associated with the orbit Gx.
2) If, moreover, µ is G-invariant and non-atomic, then σ(κ0 (m)) ⊃ σ(π(m)), where
κ0 is the restriction of κ onto the orthogonal complement of constant functions in
L2 (X, µ).
3) If, in addition to the conditions of 1), (G, X, µ) is hyperfinite, then
σ(κ(m)) = σ(π(m)).

(3)

This result has an interpretation in terms of weak containment of representations.
Given a unitary representation ρ let Cρ denote the C ∗ -algebra generated by operators
ρ(g), g ∈ G. Recall that a unitary representation ρ of a group G is weakly contained in
a unitary representationη (denoted by ρ ≺ η) if there exists a surjective homomorphism
φ : Cη → Cρ of C ∗ -algebras such that φ(η(g)) = ρ(g) for all g ∈ G. We write ρ ∼ η if
ρ is weakly equivalent to η (i.e. ρ ≺ η and η ≺ ρ). An action (G, X, µ) of a countable
group G is called hyperfinite if the orbit equivalence relation associated to this action
2

is hyperfinite with respect to µ (see e.g. [16]). Theorem 1 can be formulated in terms
of weak containment. Namely, (2) means that
κ ≻ ρx ∼ π
for µ-almost all x ∈ X and (3) means that κ ∼ π.
As an application of relations between spectra of representations we describe the
spectra of the torsion group G =< a, b, c, d > of intermediate growth constructed by
the second author in [21] and studied in [22] and other papers. Recall that G acts
naturally on the boundary ∂T of a binary rooted tree T (see e.g. [25]). We prove the
following:
Theorem 2. The spectrum of the Cayley graph of G (i.e. the spectrum of λG (a + b +
c + d)) is [−2, 0] ∪ [2, 4] and coincides with the spectrum of the Schreier graph Γx of the
action of G on ∂T for any x ∈ ∂T (i.e. with the spectrum of ρx (a + b + c + d)).
In fact, our proof shows that the spectra of λG (ta+b+c+d) and ρx (ta+b+c+d) coincide
for any t ∈ R and almost every x ∈ ∂T and are equal to a union of two intervals, an
interval, or two points. In [26] the authors studied the operator ρx (ta+ub+vc+wd) for
parameters t, u, v, w ∈ R such that t 6= 0, u 6= −v, u 6= −w, v 6= −w and at least two of
v, w, t are distinct. They showed that the spectrum of ρx (ta + ub + vc + wd) is a Cantor
set of Lebesgue measure zero by reduction to the results known for random Schrödinger
operators and substitutional dynamical systems. The corresponding substitution
τ : a → aca, b → d, c → b, d → c
appears in the presentation
G =< a, b, c, d|a2, b2 , c2 , d2 , bcd, τ i ((ad)4 ), τ i ((adacac)4 ) >
found by Lysenok in [35]. An interesting question is whether the spectra of λG (ta +
ub + vc + wd) and ρx (ta + ub + vc + wd) coincide for arbitrary parameters t, u, v, w ∈ R.
Notice that there are not many examples of groups for which the spectrum of the
Cayley graph has been calculated. Theorem 1 is the first case when the spectrum of
the Cayley graph is computed for a group of intermediate growth. The coincidence of
the spectra of Schreier graphs Γx of the action of G on ∂T and the Cayley graph of
G is very surprising since the Γx are of linear growth and are very different from the
Cayley graph of G.
Observe that G has an abelian extension G̃ which is a torsion free group of intermediate growth generated by four elements ã, b̃, c̃, d˜ (see [22]). From the amenability
of G̃ and Proposition 3.7 from [4] (based on a result of Higson and Kasparov) it follows
that the spectrum of the Cayley graph of G̃ is [−4, 4].
3

Theorem 1 has many applications. Among them let us indicate an application to
the theory of representations of branch and weakly branch groups. Branch groups
play important role in many investigations in and around group theory (see e.g. [24],
[5] and [25]). The class of branch groups contains groups of intermediate growth,
amenable but not elementary amenable groups, groups with finite commutator width
etc. Weakly branch groups are a natural generalization of the class of branch groups
playing important role in holomorphic dynamics (see [42]) and in the theory of fractals
(see [28]). In Section 4 using Theorem 1 and results of [14] and [4] we show (Corollary
1) that any subexponentially bounded weakly branch group G admits uncountably
many pairwise disjoint (not unitarily equivalent) pairwise weakly equivalent irreducible
representations.
We finish the paper by presenting two examples of computation of spectra of Hecke
type operators associated to the action of G on the boundary of a binary rooted tree.
These examples illustrate the method of operator recursions used in [4] and other
places.

2

Preliminaries.

In this section we give necessary preliminaries. We deal with actions of countable
groups on a standard probability space. A probability space is standard, if it is isomorphic modulo zero measure to an interval with Lebesgue measure, a finite or countable
set of atoms, or a combination (disjoint union) of both. We refer the reader to [45] or
[20] for details.

2.1

Koopman and quasi-regular representations.

A natural type of representations that one can associate to a measure-preserving action
of a group G on a measure space (X, µ), where µ is a quasi-invariant probability
measure, is the Koopman representation κ of G in L2 (X, µ) acting by:
s
dµ(g −1 (x))
(κ(g)f )(x) =
f (g −1x),
dµ(x)
where the expression under the radical is the Radon-Nikodym derivative. This representation is important due to the fact that the spectral properties of κ reflect the
dynamical properties of the action such as ergodicity and weak-mixing. One of the
most natural questions concerning Koopman representations is whether it is irreducible.
There are several examples of group actions with quasi-invariant measures known for
which κ is irreducible (see e.g. [3], [6], [11], [18], [19] and [39]), but typically this representation (or its ”brother” κ0 ) is not irreducible. In [14] we constructed a new class of
4

examples of irreducible Koopman representations arising from subexponential actions
of weakly branch groups on boundaries of rooted trees.
Recall that for H < G a quasi-regular representation ρG/H is a permutational
representation of G in l2 (G/H) given by the natural action of G on the set of left
cosets gH. Given a countable group acting on a set X and a point x ∈ X one can
define the quasi-regular representation ρx in l2 (Gx), where Gx is the orbit of x, by:
(ρx (g)f )(y) = f (g −1y).
It is clear that ρx is unitary equivalent to ρG/StG (x) , where StG (x) is the stabilezer of x
in G. Notice that the isomorphism class of ρx depends only on the stabilizer StG (x) of
x.
The question of irreducibility and disjointness of quasi-regular representations was
studied by Mackey in [40]. Using his criterion in [4] Bartholdi and the second author proved that for a weakly branch group G and any x ∈ ∂T the quasi-regular
representation ρx is irreducible. In addition, in [14] the authors of the present paper
showed that the representations ρx associated to an action of a weakly branch group
on the boundary of a rooted tree for x ∈ ∂T from different orbits are pairwise disjoint
(not unitary equivalent). In Section 4 we use Theorem 1 to strengthen this result for
subexponentially bounded groups (Corollary 1).

2.2

Groupoid representations and Hecke type operators.

Here we briefly recall the construction of a groupoid representation (see [17] and [49]
for details). As before, let (X, µ) be a standard probability space with a measure class
preserving action of a countable group G on it. Denote by R the orbit equivalence
relation on X. For A ⊂ X 2 and x ∈ X set Ax = A ∩ (X × {x}), Ax = A ∩ ({x} × X).
Introduce measures νl , νr on R ⊂ X 2 by
Z
Z
x
νl (A) = |A |dµ(x), νr (A) = |Ax |dµ(x).
X

X

Notice that if µ is invariant with respect to G then νl = νr . If µ is only quasi-invariant
dνl
with respect to G then the Radon-Nikodym derivative D(x, y) = dν
(x, y) is defined
r
and the relation
dµ(gx)
dµ(x)

= D(gx, x) for each g ∈ G and µ-almost all x ∈ X

holds (see [16]). The (left) groupoid representation of G is the unitary representation
π in L2 (R, νr ) defined by
(π(g)f )((x, y)) = f (g −1x, y).
The next statement is of folklore type and is mentioned, for example, in [49], §2.
5

Proposition
1. The groupoid representation π is unitarily equivalent to the represenR
tation X ρx dµ(x).
Similarly to representation π of G in L2 (R, νr ) one can introduce a representation
π̃ of G in L2 (R, νl ) by
q
−1 x)
(π̃(g)f )(x, y) = dµ(g
f (g −1 x, y).
(4)
dµ(x)

It is straightforward to verify that the representation π̃ is unitarily equivalent to π via
the intertwining isometry I : L2 (R, νr ) → L2 (R, νl ) given by:
(If )(x, y) = √

1
f (x, y).
D(x,y)

The latter is well-defined since D(x, y) 6= 0 for νr -almost all (x, y) ∈ R.
Let U be a unitary representation of a countable group G and m ∈ C[G], that
is m : G → C is a function of finite support. One can associate to m a Hecke type
operator (1). Additionally, given ν ∈ l1 (G) one can associate to it an operator
X
ν(s)U(s).
U(ν) =
s∈G

An interesting particular case is when ν is a measure on G (i.e. ν ∈ l1 (G) with ν(s) > 0
for all s ∈ G). For the case of quasi-regular representations spectral properties of these
type operators are related to properties of random walks on graphs.

2.3

Weak containment and spectrum of operators.

Let ρ and η be two unitary representations of a group G acting on Hilbert spaces Hρ
and Hη correspondingly. Then ρ is weakly contained in η (denoted by ρ ≺ η) if for any
ǫ > 0, any finite subset S ⊂ G and any vector v ∈ Hρ there exists a finite collection of
vectors w1 , . . . , wn ∈ Hη such that
|(ρ(g)v, v) −

n
X

(η(g)wi, wi )| < ǫ

i=1

for all g ∈ S (see e.g. [7] for details).
In [12] Dixmier showed that for two unitary representations ρ, η of a countable
group G one has ρ ≺ η if and only if kρ(ν)k 6 kη(ν)k for every ν ∈ l1 (G). His result
implies the following well known fact:
Proposition 2. Let ρ, η be two unitary representations of a discrete group G. Then
the following conditions are equivalent:
6

1) ρ ≺ η;
2) σ(ρ(ν)) ⊂ σ(η(ν)) for all ν ∈ l1 (G);
3) kρ(m)k 6 kη(m)k for every positive m ∈ C[G].
4) there exists a surjective homomorphism φ : Cη → Cρ such that φ(η(g)) = ρ(g)
for all g ∈ G.
Here positiveness of an element m of some C ∗ -algebra A means that it can be represented as m = x∗ x with x ∈ A. Equivalently, m is positive if it is self-adjoint (m = m∗ )
and σ(m) ⊂ [0, ∞).
For an action of a countable group G on a measure space (X, µ) denote by R = RG,X
the equivalence relation generated by G on X. In 1977 Zimmer introduced a notion
of amenability of ergodic action of G on a measure space (X, µ) with a quasi-invariant
probability measure µ. Later Adams, Eliott and Giordano [1] showed that Zimmer’s
amenability is equivalent to the following two conditions:
1) RG,X is µ-hyperfinite (i.e. on a set of full measure it is equal to a union of finite
measurable equivalence relations);
2) for µ-almost all x ∈ X the stabilizer StG (x) is amenable.
Observe that condition 1) is equivalent to the following (see e.g. [16], Proposition
4.1):
1′ ) on a set of full measure RG,X coincides with RZ,X for some action of the group
of integers Z on (X, µ) by measure class preserving transformations.
Theorem 3 (Kuhn). For an ergodic Zimmer amenable measure class preserving action
of G on a probability measure space (X, µ) one has
κ ≺ λG ,
where κ is the Koopman representation associated to the action of G and λG is the
regular representation.
At the end of Section 3.3 we will derive Kuhn’s Theorem from part 2) of Theorem 1.
We refer the reader to [2] for a generalization of Kuhn’s Theorem for locally compact
groups G.
Another result related to Theorem 1 is the following (see [43], Theorem 30):
Theorem 4 (Pichot). A measure class preserving action of a countable group G on a
standard probability space (X, µ) is hyperfinite if and only if for every m ∈ l1 (G) with
kmk1 = 1 one has kπ(m)k = 1, where π is the corresponding groupoid representation.

7

Observe that the original result of Pichot concerns arbitrary discrete measured equivalence relations on (X, µ). However, all such equivalence relations are generated by
group actions (see [16]). Theorem 4 is a reformulation of Pichot’s result in terms of
group actions. Theorem 1 implies the ”only if” direction of Theorem 4.
The following result was the starting point of our investigation:
Theorem 5 (Bartholdi - Grigorchuk). Let G be a finitely generated group acting on
a regular rooted tree T and m ∈ C[G]. Then σ(ρx (m)) ⊂ σ(κ(m)) for all x ∈ ∂T . If
moreover the Schreier graph of the action of G on the orbit Gx of x ∈ X is amenable,
then σ(ρx (m)) = σ(κ(m)).
For the proof of Theorem 5 we refer the reader to [25], Proposition 10.4 (see also [4],
Theorem 3.6).

3

Proof of Theorem 1.

We will split the proof of Theorem 1 into three parts: Propositions 3, 7 and 8.

3.1

Equivalence of quasi-regular and groupoid representations.

Proposition 3. For an ergodic measure class preserving action of a countable group
G on a standard probability space (X, µ) one has ρx ∼ π for µ−almost all x ∈ X.
The proof is based on a few technical statements. We will formulate these statements,
deliver Proposition 3 from them and then give the proofs of the statements.
For an action of a group G on a space X, a subset S = {g1 , g2 , . . . gn } ⊂ G, n ∈ N
and a point x ∈ X introduce an orbital graph Γx = Γx,g1,...,gn as a marked rooted graph
whose vertex set is the set of points of the orbit Gx (x is the root) and such that
y, z ∈ Gx are connected by a directed edge marked by gi if and only if z = gi y. Notice
that here we don’t assume that the group G is generated by S, so the graphs Γx are not
necessary connected. In case if S generates G orbital graph Γx coincide with marked
Schreier graph defined by the triple (G, StG (x), S). Fix a numeration of all elements of
G:
G = {s1 , s2 , s3 , . . .} with s1 = e, the unit element of G.
(5)
For k ∈ N, x ∈ X and y ∈ Gx denote by Bk (y) the subgraph of Γx consisting of vertices
{z ∈ Gx : z = si y for some i 6 k} and all edges connecting them. We denote by y
the root of Bk (y). Observe that Bk (y) may be disconnected and that
[
Bk (x).
Γx =
k∈N

8

Definition 1. We will say that two orbital graphs Γx and Γy are locally isomorphic if
for any k there exist a vertex u of Γx and a vertex v of Γy such that Bk (u) is isomorhpic
(as marked rooted graph) to Bk (y) and Bk (v) is isomorphic to Bk (x).
The following statement is a straightforward modification of Proposition 8.11 from
[25].
Proposition 4. Let G act ergodically by measure class preserving transformations on
a standard probability space (X, µ). Then there exists a subset A ⊂ X of a full measure
such that for any g1 , . . . gn ∈ G, n ∈ N and any x, y ∈ A the marked orbital graphs
Γx,g1,...,gn and Γy,g1 ,...,gn are locally isomorphic.
For m ∈ C[G] denote the support of m by
supp(m) = {g ∈ G : m(g) 6= 0}.
Proposition 5. Let G act on a space X, x, y ∈ X and m ∈ C[G]. Let supp(m) =
{g1 , g2 , . . . , gn }. If the orbital graphs Γx,g1 ,...,gn and Γy,g1 ,...,gn are locally isomorphic then
σ(ρx (m)) = σ(ρy (m)) .
The next Proposition is a standard statement about direct integral of Hilbert spaces.
It can be derived from Lemma 2, [10]. It is straightforward to see that all conditions
of Lemma 2, [10], are satisfied in our case.
R
Proposition 6. Let (X, µ) be a standard probability space, H = Hx dµ(x) be a direct
X

Rintegral of separable Hilbert spaces, Mx be an integrable family of operators and M =
Mx dµ(x). If the spectrum σ(Mx ) of almost all operators Mx coincide and is equal to
Σ then σ(M) = Σ.
Now, let us derive Proposition 3 from the above statements.

Proof of Proposition 3. Let m ∈ C[G] and supp(m) = {g1, . . . , gn }. By Proposition 4 for almost all x the orbital graphs Γx,g1,...,gn are pairwise locally isomorphic.
Proposition 5 implies that the spectra σ(ρx (m)) coincide for almost all x. Denote this
spectrum by Σ. From Proposition 6 we get that the spectrum of
Z
ρx (m)dµ(x)
X

is equal to Σ. From Proposition 1 we get that σ(π(m)) = Σ. Finally, Corollary 2
implies that π ∼ ρx for almost all x ∈ X.
9

Proof of Proposition 4. Fix n and S = {g1 , g2 , . . . , gn } ⊂ G. Let us call a finite
rooted directed graph with edges marked by elements of S r-admissible if it is isomorphic to Br (x) (as marked rooted graph) for some point x ∈ X. For an r-admissible
graph ∆ denote by X∆ (r) the set of points y ∈ X such that Br (y) is isomorphic to ∆.
For any fixed r the sets X∆ (r), where ∆ is r-admissible, cover X, therefore, there exist
∆ for which X∆ (r) is of positive measure. We will call such ∆ positively r-admissible.
Let Pr be the set of positively r-admissible graphs and Zr be the set of r-admissible
but not positively r-admissible graphs. For an r-admissible graph ∆ set
[
X̃∆ (r) =
g(X∆ (r)).
g∈G

Clearly, for ∆ ∈ Pr the set X̃∆ (r) is an invariant set of positive measure. Since the
action is ergodic µ(X̃∆ (r)) = 1. For ∆ ∈ Zr one has µ(X∆ (r)) = 0. Denote

[ [
\ \
X∆ (r) .
X̃∆ (r) \
X∗S =
r>1 ∆∈Zr

r>1 ∆∈Pr

Then µ(X∗S ) = 1.
Further, let x, y ∈ X∗S , r ∈ N and ∆ = Br (x). Definition of X∗S implies that
∆ ∈ Pr . Therefore, y ∈ X̃∆ (r). Thus, y ∈ g(X∆ (r)) for some g ∈ G. This means that
the marked rooted graphs Br (g −1 y), ∆ and Br (x) are pairwise isomorphic. We obtain
that for any x, y ∈ X∗S the orbital graphs Γx,g1 ,...,gn and Γy,g1 ,...,gn are locally isomorphic.
Finally, denoting by A the intersection of all sets of the form X∗S where S is a finite
subset of G we obtain the desired.
Proof of Proposition 5. Let G, X, x, y, m be as in the formulation of the Proposition
5 and the orbital graphs Γx = Γx,g1 ,...,gn and Γy = Γy,g1 ,...,gn be locally isomorphic. Set
X
R=2
|m(g)|.
g∈supp(m)

Fix a point α from σ(ρx (m)) and let us show that α ∈ σ(ρy (m)). Clearly, |α| 6 12 R.
The proof of the following Lemma is straightforward and we omit it here.
Lemma 1. Let A be any bounded nonzero linear operator on a Hilbert space and
R > 2kAk. Then
α ∈ σ(A) ⇔ 1 ∈ σ(I −
where I is the identity operator.
10

1
(A
R2

− αI)(A − αI)∗ ),

Using Lemma 1 we obtain that for any unitary representation ω on G one has:
α ∈ σ(ω(m)) ⇔ 1 ∈ σ(I −

1
(ω(m)
R2

− αI)(ω(m) − αI)∗ ).

The operator I − R12 (ω(m) − αI)(ω(m) − αI)∗ is of the form ω(s) for some s ∈ C[G],
positive and of norm 6 1. It follows that without loss of generality we may assume that
α = 1 and operators ρx (m) and ρy (m) are positive of norm 6 1 (in fact, kρx (m)k = 1,
since we assume that α = 1 ∈ σ(ρx (m))).
Further, consider orbital graphs Γx and Γy . Let ǫ > 0. Since
sup (ρx (m)ξ, ξ) = 1
ξ:kξk=1

we can find l ∈ N and a vector η ∈ l2 (Gx) supported on Bl (x) such that (ρx (m)η, η) >
1 − ǫ. Let v ∈ Γy be such that Bl (v) ⊂ Γy is isomorphic (as a rooted labeled graph) to
Bl (x). Let η ′ ∈ l2 (Bl (v)) ⊂ l2 (Γy ) be a copy of η via this isomorphism. Then one has:
(ρx (m)η ′ , η ′ ) = (ρy (m)η, η) > 1 − ǫ.
It follows that kρy (m)k = 1 and 1 ∈ σ(ρy (m)). This finishes the proof of Proposition
5.

3.2

Weak containment of quasi-regular representations in the
Koopman representation.

Proposition 7. 1) Let a countable group G act on a standard probability space (X, µ),
where µ is a quasi-invariant measure. Let κ be the corresponding Koopman representation in L2 (X, µ) and ρx denotes the quasi-regular representation of G in l2 (Gx), x ∈ X.
Then for almost all x ∈ X one has ρx ≺ κ.
2) If moreover µ is G-invariant and non-atomic then for almost all x ∈ X one has
ρx ≺ κ0 , where κ0 is the restriction of κ onto the orthogonal complement to constant
functions.
One of the ingredients of the proof is the following statement:
Lemma 2. Let T be a measure class preserving transformation of a standard probability
space (X, µ) such that T x 6= x for almost all x ∈ A, where µ(A) > 0. Then there exists
B ⊂ A, µ(B) > 0 such that µ(B ∩ T B) = 0.
For the case of a measure preserving automorphism Lemma 2 follows from the proposition of §1 of [46]. In fact, the same proof works in the case of a measure class preserving
transformation. For the reader’s convenience we provide here the arguments taken from
[46], §1.
11

Proof. Let us show first that there exists a measurable subset C ⊂ A such that
µ(T (C)∆C) 6= 0. Fix a basis {Ai } in A. Set
Bi = (A \ Ai ) ∩ T (Ai ) ∪ Ai ∩ (A \ T (Ai )).
By definition of basis for almost all x, y ∈ A such that x 6= y there exists Ai such that
either x ∈ Ai , y ∈ A \ Ai or y ∈ Ai , x ∈ A \ Ai . It follows that for almost all x ∈ A
there exists i such that x ∈ Bi . Therefore, µ(∪Bi ) = µ(A) > 0 and µ(Bi ) > 0 for some
i. Set C = Bi .
Now, if µ(C \ T C) 6= 0 we set B = C \ T C. If µ(T C \ C) 6= 0 we set B =
T −1 (T C \ C).
Lemma 3. Let G act on (X, µ), where µ is a quasi-invariant probability measure. Let
g1 , g2 , . . . , gn ∈ G. For x ∈ X and k ∈ N set
Ak,x := {y ∈ X : Bk (y) is isomorphic to Bk (x)}.
Then for almost all x ∈ X one has
µ(Ak,x ) > 0 for all k ∈ N.
Proof. For every k there are only finitely many distinct marked graphs appearing in
the set {B2(k+1) (x) : x ∈ X}. Let Bk be the set of marked graphs B such that
µ({x ∈ X : Bk (x) = B}) > 0.
Consider
Mk = {x ∈ X : Bk (x) ∈ Bk }.
By construction, µ(Mk ) = 1 and for every x ∈ Mk one has: µ(Ak,x) > 0. Let
\
Mk .
M=
k∈N

Then µ(M) = 1 and for every x ∈ M and every k ∈ N one has: µ(Ak,x ) > 0, which
finishes the proof.
Proof of Proposition 7. By Corollary 2 it is sufficient to show that for all positive
m ∈ C[G] for almost all x ∈ X one has kρx (m)k 6 kκ(m)k. Let supp(m) = {g1 , . . . , gn }
and Ak,x be the sets defined in Lemma 3. Till the end of the proof of this proposition
fix x such that
µ(Ak,x ) > 0 for all k ∈ N.
12

Let m ∈ C[G] be a positive element. Without loss of generality we can assume that
kρx (m)k = 1. Let ǫ > 0. Since
sup{(ρx (m)ξ, ξ) : ξ ∈ l2 (Γx ), kξk = 1} = 1
we can find a unit vector η ∈ l2 (Γx ) of finite support such that (ρx (m)η, η) > 1 − ǫ.
Further, fix k such that supp(η) ⊂ Bk (x). Chose K ∈ N such that gBk (x) ⊂ BK (x)
for all g ∈ supp(m). Observe that for every y ∈ AK,x , any i, j 6 k and any g, h ∈
supp(m) one has:
gsi y = hsj y ⇔ gsi x = hsj x.
−1
Using Lemma 2 successively for all elements of the form s−1
j h gsi , where i, j 6 k and
−1
g, h ∈ supp(m) such that s−1
j h gsi x 6= x we can find B ⊂ Ak,x such that µ(B) > 0
and
µ(gsi B ∩ hsj B) = 0 for all such g, h, si , sj .

Further, divide the set of positive numbers R+ into subintervals
Is = [(1 + ǫ)s , (1 + ǫ)s+1 ), s ∈ Z
so that for every s ∈ Z one has ab−1 ∈ (1 − ǫ, 1 + ǫ) for a, b ∈ Is . For every function
f : {1, . . . , k} × supp(m) → Z introduce the set
q
i t)
Bf = {t ∈ B : dµ(gs
∈ If (i,g) for every g ∈ supp(m), 1 6 i 6 k}.
dµ(si t)

Since union of the sets Bf over all function f is the set B of positive measure one has
µ(Bf ) > 0 for some f . Fix such f . Then for every g ∈ supp(m), 1 6 i 6 k we have:
q
q
q
µ(gsi Bf )
µ(gsi Bf )
dµ(t)
< ǫ for all t ∈ si Bf .
∈
I
and
1
−
f (i,g)
µ(si Bf )
dµ(gt)
µ(si Bf )
√

Finally, for 1 6 i 6 k, g ∈ supp(m) and y = si x consider the function ey =
1
1gsi Bf . Observe that

µ(gsi Bf )

key − κ(si )ex k2 =

Z 

√

1
µ(si Bf )

−√

si Bf

1
µ(Bf )

r

dµ(s−1
i t)
dµ(t)

2

dµ(t) < ǫ.

Consider the spaces
Hx = Span{δy : y = gsi x, i 6 k, g ∈ supp(m)} ⊂ l2 (Gx),
Lx = Span{ey : y = gsi x, i 6 k, g ∈ supp(m)} ⊂ L2 (X, µ).
13

(6)

The map φ : δy → ey induces an isometry between these spaces. Moreover, by inequality (6) for every h ∈ supp(m) and every y = si x ∈ Bk (x), where i 6 k, we
have
kφ(ρx (h)δy ) − κ(h)ey k2 = kehy − κ(h)ey k2
6 (kehsix − κ(hsi )ex k + kκ(h)(esi x − κ(si )ex )k)2 6 4ǫ.
This implies that

√
kφ(ρx (h)η) − κ(h)φ(η)k 6 2 ǫ

for every h ∈ supp(m) and thus

√
kφ(ρx (m)η) − κ(m)φ(η)k 6 2 ǫkmk1 ,

where kmk1 =

P

h∈supp(m)

(7)

|m(h)|. Since kρx (m)ηk > 1 − ǫ for arbitrary ǫ > 0 we obtain

that kκ(m)k = 1 and 1 ∈ σ(κ(m)). This finishes the proof of part 1) of Proposition 7.
Now let µ be G-invariant and non-atomic. From ergodicity it follows that the orbit
Gy is infinite for almost all y ∈ X. Without loss of generality we can assume that
Gx is infinite. Fix ǫ > 0 and a unit vector η ∈ l2 (Γx ) of finite support such that
(ρx (m)η, η) > 1 − ǫ. Assume that
X
α=
η(y) 6= 0.
y∈supp(η)

Then choose arbitrarily a sequence of distinct elements yi from Gx \ supp(η) and for
n ∈ N introduce
n
n
X
X
2
1
α
δyi ∈ l (Γx ), mn = m + n2
δhi ∈ C[G],
ηn = η − n
i=1

i=1

where hi ∈ G are such that hi x = yi . Clearly,
X
ηn (y) = 0, and lim ηn = η in l2 -norm.
n→∞

y∈supp(ηn )

Moreover, lim ρx (mn ) = ρx (m) and lim κ(mn ) = κ(m) where the limits are in the
n→∞
n→∞
strong operator topology. Therefore, without loss of generality we may assume that
X
η(y) = 0.
y∈supp(η)

Then by construction φ(η) ∈ L2 (X, µ) is orthogonal to constant functions, and thus
the representation κ in the inequality (7) can be replaced by κ0 . When ǫ → 0 we
obtain that kκ0 (m)k = 1. This finishes the proof of part 2) of Proposition 7 and hence
finishes the proof of parts 1) and 2) of Theorem 1.
14

Remark 1. The condition of non-atomicity of measure µ in the second part of Proposition 7 is necessary. Consider G = Z2 = {0, 1}. Equip X = Z2 with the uniform probability measure µ. Let G act on (X, µ) by shifts. Then for any m = αδ0 + βδ1 ∈ C[G]
one has:
σ(ρ0 (m)) = σ(ρ1 (m)) = {1, α − β}, σ(κ0 )(m) = {α − β}
and thus the two spectra do not coincide when α − β 6= 1.

3.3

Equivalence of Koopman and groupoid representations for
a hyperfinite action.

Part 3) of Theorem 1 follows from the next:
Proposition 8. For a hyperfinite measure class preserving action of a countable group
G on a standard probability space (X, µ) one has κ ∼ π.
In the proof we will use the following result (see [9], Lemma 4):
Lemma 4. Let U be an aperiodic measure class preserving transformation of a Lebesgue
space (X, µ). Then for any N and any ǫ > 0 there exists a measurable set A such that
the sets A, UA, . . . , U N −1 A are pairwise disjoint and µ(A ∪ UA ∪ . . . ∪ U N −1 A) > 1 − ǫ.
Lemma 4 is a generalization of the famous Rohlin Lemma from [46] to the case of
quasi-invariant measures.
Proof of Proposition 8. First notice that in the case of a finite X the groupoid
representation π is unitarily equivalent to a direct sum of finitely many copies of the
Koopman representation κ. Therefore, without loss of generality we can assume that
for all x ∈ X the orbit Gx is infinite. Since Koopman representation uses a RadonNikodym derivative in the definition it will be convenient to replace π by a unitarily
equivalent representation π̃ (see (4)). By Corollary 2 and part 1) of Theorem 1 it
is sufficient to show that kκ(m)k 6 kπ̃(m)k for every positive element m ∈ C[G].
Without loss of generality we will assume that kκ(m)k = 1.
Since the action of G on X is hyperfinite there exists a measure-class preserving
automorphism U generating the equivalence relation R generated by G on X (see
e.g. [16], Proposition 4.1). Clearly, U is aperiodic. For g ∈ G and x ∈ X denote by
ng (x) the integer number such that gx = U ng (x) x. Observe that for every g ∈ G the
function ng (x) is measurable. Fix δ > 0. Let η ∈ L2 (X, µ) be a unit vector such that
(κ(m)η, η) > 1 − δ. Without loss of generality we may assume that the set of values of
η is finite. Let K = max{kηk∞ , 1}.
Further, find a number L such that
µ({x : |ng±1 (x)| 6 L for all g ∈ supp(m)}) > 1 −
15

δ
.
2K 2

Introduce a set
Ω = {x : |ng±1 (x)| 6 L for all g ∈ supp(m)}.

Choose N such that NL 6 8Kδ 2 . Using Lemma 4 one can construct a set C such that
the sets C, UC, . . . , U N −1 C are pairwise disjoint, and
µ(C ∪ UC ∪ . . . ∪ U N −1 C) > 1 −

δ
.
4K 2

Set Cj = U j (C) for j = 0, 1, . . . , N − 1. Let Σ = (CL ∪ CL+1 ∪ . . . ∪ CN −L−1 ) ∩ Ω. Then
µ(Σ) > 1 − Kδ2 . Consider the functions
η̃(x, y) = η(x)1C (y)

N
−1
X

δx,U j (y) ,

j=0

where δx,y is the Kronecker delta,
η̃0 (x, y) = 1Σ (x)η̃(x, y) and η0 (x) = 1Σ (x)η(x),
where 1A stands for the characteristic function of a set A. Observe that for every
x ∈ X there exists at most one y such that η̃(x, y) 6= 0. By definition of νl one has:
2

kη̃k =

Z X

X

y∼x

2

|η̃(x, y)| dµ(x) =

N
−1 Z
X
j=0 C

|η(x)|2 dµ(x) 6 kηk2 .

j

Using similar computations one can show that kη̃0 k = kη0 k. Since µ(Σ) > 1 − δ we
obtain that
kηk2 − δ 6 kη̃0 k2 6 kη̃k2 6 kηk2 .
Let g ∈ supp(m). Assume that x ∈ Cj ∩ A, where L 6 j 6 N − L − 1. Let
y = U −j (x). One has −L 6 ng−1 (x) 6 L and g −1 x ∈ Cj+ng−1 (x) . It follows that
η̃0 (x, y) = η0 (x), η̃(g −1x, y) = η(g −1x).
If x ∈
/ Σ then η0 (x) = 0 and η̃0 (x, y) = 0 for all y ∈ Gx. We obtain:
Z Xq
dµ(g −1 (x))
η̃(g −1 x, y)η̃0 (x, y)dµ(x) =
(π̃(g)η̃, η̃0 ) =
dµ(x)
X
Z q

y∼x

dµ(g −1 (x))
η(g −1 x)η0 (x)dµ(x)
dµ(x)

X

16

= (κ(g)η, η0).

1

Since kη̃ − η̃0 k 6 kη − η0 k 6 δ 2 the latter implies that
1

|(π(g)η̃, η̃) − (κ(g)η, η)| 6 2δ 2 .
Finally, we get:
1

|(π̃(m)η̃, η̃) − (κ(m)η, η)| 6 2δ 2 kmk1 , where kmk1 =

X

g∈supp(m)

|m(g)|.

Since δ > 0 is arbitrary, the inequality kπ(m)k > kκ(m)k follows. This finishes the
proof of Proposition 8 and Hence part 3) of Theorem 1.
Theorem 1 is now proven. We finish this section by deriving Kuhn’s Theorem 3
from Theorem 1.
Proof of Theorem 3. Let G act ergodically by measure class preserving automorphisms on a probability measure space (X, µ). Assume that this action is Zimmer
amenable. Then by Theorem 1 the corresponding Koopman representation is weakly
equivalent to the quasi-regular representation ρx of G for almost every x. By result of
Adams, Eliott and Giordano [1] Zimmer’s amenability implies that StG (x) is amenable
for almost every x. Let x be such that ρx ∼ κ and StG (x) is amenable. Using the well
known fact that for a subgroup H < G
ρG/H ≺ λG if and only if H is amenable
(see e.g. [4], Proposition 3.5) we obtain that ρx ≺ λG . This shows that κ ≺ λG .

4

Applications to weakly branch groups.

We recall some notions related to group actions on rooted trees. We refer the reader
to [25] and [29] for detailed definitions and properties of these actions.
A d-regular rooted tree is a tree T , with vertex set divided into levels Vn , n ∈ Z+ ,
such that V0 consists of one vertex v0 (called the root of T ), the edges are only between
consecutive levels, and each vertex from Vn , n > 0 (we consider infinite trees), is
connected by an edge to exactly d vertices from Vn+1 (and one vertex from Vn−1 for
n > 1). An automorphism of a rooted tree T is any automorphism of the graph T
preserving the root. Denote by Aut(T ) the group of automorphisms of T .
Let T be a d-regular rooted tree, d > 2, and G < Aut(T ). The rigid stabilizer of
a vertex v is the subgroup ristv (G) = {g ∈ G : supp(g) ⊂ Tv }. The rigid stabilizer of
level n is
Y
ristv (G).
ristn (G) =
v∈Vn

17

G is called branch if it is transitive on each level and ristn (G) is a subgroup of finite
index in G for all n. G is called weakly branch if it is transitive on each level Vn of T
and ristv (G) is nontrivial for each v.
For each level Vn of a d-regular rooted tree an automorphism g of T can be presented
in the form
(8)
g = σ · (g1 , . . . , gdn ),

where σ ∈ Sym(Vn ) is a permutation of the vertices from Vn and gi are the restrictions
of g on the subtrees emerging from the vertices of Vn .
For an element g ∈ Aut(T ) denote by kn (g) the number of restrictions gi to the
vertices of level n such that gi is not equal to the identity automorphism. We call g
subexponentially bounded if for every 0 < γ < 1 one has
lim kn (g)γ n = 0.

n→∞

A group G < Aut(T ) is subexponentially bounded if each g ∈ G is subexponentially
bounded. Many important examples of branch and weakly branch groups (e.g. the
group G of intermediate growth constructed by the second author, Gupta-Sidki pgroups and Basilica group) are subexponentially bounded groups.
For a d-regular rooted tree T its boundary ∂T is the set of infinite paths starting
from v0 . Observe that ∂T can be identified with a space of sequences {xj }j∈N where
xj ∈ {1, . . . , d}. For a vertex v of T we denote by ∂Tv ⊂ ∂T the set of paths passing
through v. Supply ∂T by the topology generated by the sets ∂Tv . Automorphisms of
T act naturally on ∂T by homeomorphisms. Notice that ∂T admits a unique Aut(T )invariant measure µ. This measure is uniform in the sense that
µ(∂Tv ) =

1
dn

for any n and any v ∈ Vn .

In [29] it is shown that this measure is ergodic with respect to a group G < Aut(T ) if
and only if the action of G is transitive on each level Vn of T . Moreover, in this case
it is uniquely ergodic.
Further, let G be a weakly branch group acting on a d-regular rooted tree T . Recall
that for x, y ∈ ∂T from the same G-orbit the corresponding quasi-regular representations are unitary isomorphic. Denote by O the set of orbits of G on ∂T . For ω ∈ O
denote by ρω the corresponding quasi-regular representation of G. Let
P = {p = (p1 , p2 , . . . , pd ) : pi > 0 for i = 1, 2, . . . , d and

d
X

pi = 1}

(9)

i=1

be the set of all probability distributions on the alphabet {1, 2, . . . , d} assigning positive
probability to every letter and
P ∗ = {p ∈ P : pi 6= pj for all 1 6 i < j 6 d}.
18

(10)

For p ∈ P ∗ denote by µp =

Q

p the corresponding Bernoulli measure on ∂T . It is

N

shown in [14], Proposition 2, that subexponentially bounded automorphisms preserve
the measure class of µp . Assuming that G is a subexponentially bounded group we
denote by κp the Koopman representation associated to the action of G on (∂T, µp ).
Using Mackey’s criterion of irreducibility of quasi-regular representations Bartholdi
and Grigorchuk in [4] showed that quasi-regular representations ρω corresponding to
the action of a weakly branch group G on the boundary of a rooted tree are irreducible
for all ω ∈ O. Moreover, in [14] the authors proved the following.
Theorem 6. Let G be a subexponentially bounded weakly branch group acting on the
boundary of a d-regular rooted tree T . For every p ∈ P ∗ the representation κp of G is
irreducible. Moreover, the representations of G from {κp : p ∈ P ∗ } ∪ {ρω : ω ∈ O} are
pairwise disjoint.
Using Theorem 1 we will strengthen this result (Corollary 1).
For g ∈ Aut(T ) a point x = x1 x2 x3 . . . ∈ ∂T is called g-rigid if there exist n ∈ N
and v = x1 x2 . . . xn ∈ Vn such that the restriction g|∂Tv is trivial. For G < Aut(T )
denote by R(G) the set of points x ∈ ∂T such that x is g-rigid for all g ∈ G. Such
points are called rigid. Let OR(G) be the set of G-orbits of points from R(G). From
the proof of Proposition 2 of [14] we obtain:
Lemma 5. Let T be a d-regular rooted tree and G < Aut(T ) be subexponentially
bounded. Then for any p ∈ P from (9) one has µP (R(G)) = 1.
Recall that for an action of a group G by homeomorphisms on a topological space
X a point x is called typical if for every g ∈ G either gx 6= x or g acts trivially on
some neighborhood of x. Clearly, the set of all typical points is open and G-invariant.
Observe that for G < Aut(T ) rigid point x ∈ ∂T is typical. The next proposition is
a topological version of Proposition 4 and is a generalization of Proposition 6.21 from
[29] (see also [25], Proposition 8.8).
Proposition 9. Let G be a countable group acting minimally on a topological space
X. Let n ∈ N and g1 , . . . , gn ∈ G. Then for any typical points x, y ∈ X the orbital
graphs Γx,g1 ,...,gn and Γy,g1 ,...,gn are locally isomorphic.
Proof. Let A be the set of all typical points. Fix r ∈ N. Denote by Dr the set of finite
rooted marked graphs ∆ such that there exists x ∈ A for which Br (x) = ∆. For any
∆ ∈ Dr denote by X∆ (r) the set of x ∈ A such that Br (x) = ∆. Given a point x ∈ A,
1 6 l, m 6 r and 1 6 i 6 n by definition of a typical point there exists a neighborhood
U(x) such that either
a) for all y ∈ U(x) one has s−1
m gi sl y = y (i.e. the vertices sl y and sm y are connected
by an edge marked by gi in Γy ) or
19

b) for all y ∈ U(x) one has s−1
m gi sl y 6= y (i.e. the vertices sl y and sm y are not connected
by an edge marked by gi in Γy ).
It follows that the sets X∆ (r) are open.
Further, let x, y ∈ A and ∆ = Br (x). By minimality of the action of G on X
there exists g ∈ G such that gy ∈ X∆ . Thus, Br (x) = ∆ = Br (gy) which finishes the
proof.
Combining these results with Theorem 1 and taking into account that any subexponentially bounded weakly branch group generates a hyperfinite equivalence relation on
∂T (see [27], Theorem of Section 3) we obtain:
Corollary 1. For any subexponentially bounded weakly branch group G acting on a dregular rooted tree (d > 2) the representations from {κp : p ∈ P ∗ }∪{ρω : ω ∈ OR(G) } are
irreducible, pairwise disjoint (not unitarily equivalent), and pairwise weakly equivalent.
Observe that P ∗ and R(G) have cardinality of continuum. Similar to Corollary 1
results are known for free groups Fn , n > 2. Namely, for every n > 2 there exists
a continuum of irreducible pairwise disjoint and pairwise weakly equivalent Koopman
type representations of Fn (see e.g. [39]). However, weak equivalence of these representations uses the fact that the reduced C ∗ -algebra of Fn is simple (see [44]). The class
of weakly branch groups contains many amenable groups. Recall that groups of intermediate growth are amenable but not elementary amenable. For any amenable group
the reduced C ∗ -algebra is not simple (see e.g. [31]). To the authors’ best knowledge
Corollary 1 gives the first example of amenable groups admitting a continuum of pairwise disjoint weakly equivalent irreducible representations. Notice that all p-groups of
intermediate growth constructed in [22] and [23] (for each prime p there are 2χ0 such
groups) as well as Gupta-Sidki p-groups are bounded (and therefore subexponentially
bounded) amenable branch groups and hence satisfy the conditions of Corollary 3.

5

Examples and proof of Theorem 2.

One of the basic examples of branch groups is the group G mentioned in the introduction. This group acts on the boundary of the binary rooted tree (which we will denote
by T ) and is generated by elements a, b, c, d satisfying the following recursions:
a = σ · (I, I), b = (a, c), c = (a, d), d = (I, b),
where I is the identity action (see e.g. [24], [25] or [29]).
Set
∆ = 41 (a + b + c + d) ∈ C[G].
20

(11)

(12)

Let κ be the Koopman representation corresponding to the action of G on (∂T, µ), where
µ is the unique probability G-invariant measure on ∂T (i.e. ( 12 , 21 ) uniform Bernoulli
measure on ∂T = {0, 1}N ). In [4] Bartholdi and the second author developed a method
for calculating spectra of Hecke type operators associated with self-similar groups and
showed the following:
Theorem 7. For all x ∈ ∂T one has
σ(κ(∆)) = σ(ρx (∆)) = [− 21 , 0] ∪ [ 21 , 1] ⊂ σ(λG (∆)).
Also in [4] spectra of Hecke type operators for other groups are calculated. The main
tools authors used were operator recursions based on relations of type (11), Schur
complement and the reduction of the spectral problem to the problem of finding a
suitable invariant set for the associated rational map Rn → Rn for some n.
Notice that the spectrum of ρx (∆) coincides with the spectrum of the Schreier graph
Γx for every x ∈ ∂T . An important characteristic of the Schreier graph Γx , x ∈ ∂T , is
the spectral measure of ρx (∆) associated to the unit vector δx ∈ l2 (Gx). For the action
of G on ∂T these measures were computed in [30].
In this section we compute the spectrum of the Cayley graph of G thus proving
Theorem 2. Also, using operator recursions similar to those from [4] we prove the results
analogous to Theorem 7 for the Koopman representations κ(q,1−q) of G, 0 < q < 1, and
for the groupoid representation of G corresponding to the invariant Bernoulli measure
µ on ∂T . Surprisingly, the spectrum does not depend on the parameter q defining the
measure.

5.1

Spectrum of the Cayley graph of G.

Here we prove Theorem 2 which is equivalent to:

σ(λG (∆)) = [− 12 , 0] ∪ [ 21 , 1],
where λG is the regular representation of G.
Introduce a 2-parameter family of elements Q(α, β) = 4∆ − (α + 1)a − (β + 1)e =
−αa + b + c + d − (β + 1)e ∈ C[G], where e is the identity element of G. For a unitary
representation ρ of G let Σρ be the set of pairs (α, β) ∈ R2 such that ρ(Q(α, β)) is not
invertible. Let Ω = {(α, β) : ||α| − |β|| 6 2, ||α| + |β|| > 2} (see figure 1).
Lemma 6. For any unitary representation ρ one has: Σρ ⊂ Ω.

Proof. Using the basic relation in G it is straightforward to verify that (b+ c + d −e)2 =
4e ∈ C[G], where e ∈ G is the group unit. Let A = ρ(a), U = ρ( 21 (b + c + d − e)). Then
A and U are unitary operators such that A2 = U 2 = I. For any α, β ∈ R one has:
ρ(Q(α, β)) = −αA + 2U − βI.
21

Figure 1: The set Ω.
If |α| + |β| < 2 then
−αA + 2U − βI = U(2I − αUA − βU)
is invertible since kαUA + βUk 6 |α| + |β| < 2. If |α| > |β| + 2 then
−αA + 2U − βI = A(−αI + 2AU − βA)
is invertible since k2AU − βAk 6 2 + |β| < |α|. Finally, if |β| > |α| + 2 then −αA +
2U − βI is invertible since k − αA + 2Uk 6 |α| + 2 < |β|.
Proof of Theorem 2. By construction, the spectrum of λG (4∆ − e) coincides with the
intersection of ΣλG and the line α = −1. By Lemma 6 we obtain σ(λG (4∆ − e)) ⊂
[−3, −1] ∪ [1, 3]. It follows that σ(λG (∆)) ⊂ [− 12 , 0] ∪ [ 21 , 1]. The opposite inclusion
follows from Theorem 7.
In fact, calculations in [4] show that for any t ∈ R one has
σ(ρx (−ta + b + c + d)) = Λt := ({α = t} ∩ Ω) + 1
(for instance, Λt = [t − 1, −t − 1] ∪ [t + 3, −t + 3] if −2 < t < 0) which is a union of
two intervals, an interval, or two points (if t = 0). Arguments similar to the proof of
Theorem 2 show that σ(λG (−ta + b + c + d)) = Λt for any t ∈ R.

22

5.2

Spectra of Koopman representations of G.

The boundary ∂T of a binary rooted tree is homeomorphic to a space of infinite sequences {0, 1}N and hence is homeomorphic to a Cantor set. For any q ∈ (0, 1) define
a measure νq on {0, 1} by
νq ({0}) = q, νq ({1}) = 1 − q.
Let µq = νqN be the corresponding Bernoulli measure on ∂T . For q ∈ (0, 1) let κq
be the Koopman representation associated to the action of G on (∂T, µq ) (this is the
representation κp with p = (q, 1 − q) using the notations of Section 4). We prove that
the spectrum of κq (∆) (see (12)) does not depend on the parameter q and thus coincides
with the spectrum given by Theorem 7. Observe that the representations κq for q 6= 12
are irreducible (see [14]), but κ 1 is a direct sum of countably many finite-dimensional
2
irreducible representations (see [4]).
Theorem 8. For every q ∈ (0, 1) one has σ(κq (∆)) = [− 21 , 0] ∪ [ 12 , 1].
Fix q ∈ (0, 1), q 6= 21 . Set
A = κq (a), B = κq (b), C = κq (c), D = κq (d).
Consider the operators
Q(α, β) = κq (4∆ − (α + 1)a − (β + 1)) = −αA + B + C + D − (β + 1)I

(13)

on L2 (∂T, µq ). Denote by Σ the set of pairs (α, β) ∈ R2 such that Q(α, β) is not
invertible. Theorem 8 is a consequence of the following:
Proposition 10. Σ = Ω.
In [4] the authors proved Proposition 10 in the case q = 21 . For the proof they
considered restrictions Qn (α, β) of Q(α, β) on G-invariant finite dimensional subspaces
of L2 (∂T, µ) and constructed operator recursions for Qn (α, β) to describe spectra of
Qn (α, β) and Q(α, β). In the case q 6= 21 the representation κq is irreducible and so
does not have invariant subspaces. We need to modify arguments from [4] and use
operator recursions for infinite-dimensional Hilbert spaces.
Recall that Vn is the set of vertices of level n in T . For every n encode vertices of
Vn by {0, 1}n so that for every vertex v = x1 x2 . . . xn ∈ Vn one has:
µq (∂Tj ) = q 1−

P

xi

(1 − q)

P

xi

.

Let v0 and v1 be the vertices of the first level of T . Denote
H = L2 (∂T, µq ), Hj = {f ∈ H : supp(f ) ⊂ ∂Tvj }, where j = 0, 1.
23

Observe that H0 and H1 are isomorphic to H via the isometries Ij : Hj → H, j = 0, 1,
given by:
p
√
(I0 f )(x) = qf (0x), (I1 f )(x) = 1 − qf (1x),

where x ∈ ∂T is encoded by sequences from {0, 1}∞. Using the decomposition H =
H0 ⊕ H1 and identifying with H the spaces Hi using the isometries Ii , i = 0, 1, we
can write every operator on H in a 2 × 2 block matrix form whose entries are also
operators on H. The operators of the Koopman representation κq corresponding to
the generators of G can be written as follows:




0 I
A 0
A=
, B=
,
I 0
0 C




(14)
A 0
I 0
C=
, D=
.
0 D
0 B
In particular, the recursions do not depend on parameter q. It follows that the operator
Q(α, β) can be written as follows:


2A − βI
−αI
Q(α, β) =
.
−αI
B + C + D − (β + 1)I

Notice that (2A − βI)(2A + βI) = (4 − β 2 )I. Assume that β 6= ±2. Straightforward
calculations show that
#
 α(2A+βI)  "
2A
−
βI
0
I
4−β 2
=
Q(α, β)
.
(15)
α2 β
2α2
−αI
Q( 4−β
0
I
2 , β + 4−β 2 )
Following [4] introduce a map on R2 \ R × {±2} by
F (α, β) = (

2α2
α2 β
,
β
+
).
4 − β2
4 − β2

Also, for n ∈ N set (αn , βn ) = F n (α, β). Since σ(A) = {−1, 1} we obtain
Lemma 7. If β 6= ±2 then (α, β) ∈ Σ if and only if F (α, β) ∈ Σ.
Next, let us prove another auxiliary statement.
Lemma 8. Σ ⊃ {(α, β) : |α − 2| = |β|}.
Proof. Since (B + C + D − I)2 = 4I and clearly B + C + D − I is not a scalar operator
we obtain that σ(B + C + D − I) = {−2, 2}. Thus, −1 and 3 are eigenvalues of the
24

operator B + C + D. Let η =
6 0, η ∈ H be such that (B + C + D − 3)η = 0. Let
4β
. The map
α = β + 2. Then α1 = β1 + 2 and β1 = 2−β
h(z) =

4z
2−z

has two fixed points on the Riemann sphere: a repelling fixed point 0 and an attracting
fixed point −2, and for every z 6= 0 hn (z) → −2 exponentially fast. Thus, if β 6= 0,
then
βn → −2, αn → 0
exponentially fast. It follows that Q(αn , βn )η → 0 exponentially fast.

 
0
Further, let ξ ∈ H. Applying the operator in (15) to the block vector
, where
ξ
ξ ∈ H, we obtain:
 α(2A+βI)  

ξ
0
2
4−β
Q(α, β)
=
.
Q(α1 , β1 )ξ
ξ

Thus, there exists ξ1 such that kξ1 k > kξk and kQ(α1 , β1 )ξk = kQ(α, β)ξ1k. By
induction, we get that kQ(α, β)ηn k = kQ(αn , βn )ηk for some ηn with kηn k > kηk.
Since kQ(αn , βn )ηk converges to 0, we obtain that Q(α, β) is not invertible. The case
α = 2 − β can be treated similarly.
Proof of Proposition 8. Following [4] consider the curves
γn,j = {(α, β) : 4 − β 2 + α2 − 4α cos( 2πj
) = 0}.
2n
Observe that γ0,j = {(α, β) : |α − 2| = |β|}. Straightforward computations show that
F (γn,j ) ⊂ γn−1,j for all n, j ∈ N. From Lemmas 7 and 8 taking into account that Σ is
closed we obtain that Σ ⊃ γn,j for all n, j. Notice that the curve γn,j can be written
as:
q
β = ± α2 − 4α cos( 2πj
) + 4.
2n
Since the union of curves γn,j is dense in the region

S = {(α, β) : ||α| − |β|| 6 2, ||α| + |β|| > 2}
we obtain that Σ ⊃ S. From Lemma 6 we deduce that Σ = S, which finishes the
proof.

25

5.3

Spectra of groupoid representations of G.

Let π be the groupoid representation of G corresponding to the action of G on (∂T, µ),
where µ = { 21 , 21 }⊗N is the invariant Bernoulli measure on ∂T . The following Proposition follows from Theorem 7 and Theorem 1.
Proposition 11. σ(π(∆)) = [− 12 , 0] ∪ [ 21 , 1].
To give another illustration of the method of operator recursions we provide a sketch
of a direct proof of Proposition 11.
Proof. Let v0 and v1 be the vertices of the first level of T . For i, j ∈ {0, 1} introduce
a subspace
Hi,j = {η ∈ L2 (R, ν) : supp(η) ⊂ ∂Tvi × ∂Tvj }.
One has:
L2 (R, ν) = H0,0 ⊕ H1,0 ⊕ H0,1 ⊕ H1,1 .
Recall that x, y ∈ ∂T belong to the same orbit by G if and only if xi = yi for all large
enough i (see [25], Theorem 7.3). This implies that the subspaces Hi,j are canonically
isomorphic to L2 (R, ν). Thus, every operator acting on L2 (R, ν) can be written in a
4 × 4 block matrix form with entries operators on L2 (R, ν). Set
A = π(a), B = π(b), C = π(c), D = π(d).
It is straightforward to check that every operator X from the latter list can be written
as


Y 02
,
X=
02 Y

where 02 is the 2 × 2 zero matrix and Y is the 2 × 2 block matrix representation for
the corresponding operator from (14). Similarly to (13) introduce an operator
Q(α, β) = π(4∆ − (α + 1)a − (β + 1)) = −αA + B + C + D − (β + 1)I
in L2 (R, ν) and denote by Σ the set of pairs (α, β) ∈ R2 such that Q(α, β) is not
invertible. One has:




2A − βI
−αI
Y 02
.
, where Y =
Q(α, β) =
−αI
B + C + D − (β + 1)I
02 Y
Similarly to Proposition 10 one can show that Σ = Ω from which the statement of
Proposition 11 follows easily.

26

Acknowledgement
The authors are grateful to Maria Gabriella Kuhn for useful discussions.

References
[1] S. Adams, G. Elliot, T. Giordano, Amenable actions of groups, Trans. Amer.
Math. Soc., 344 (1994), 803-822.
[2] C. Anantharaman-Delaroche, On spectral characterization of amenability, Israel
Journal of Mathematics, 137 (2003), pp. 1-33.
[3] U. Bader and R. Muchnik, Boundary unitary representations - irreducibility and
rigidity, Journal of Modern Dynamics, 5 (2011), no. 1, pp. 49-69.
[4] L. Bartholdi and R. I. Grigorchuk, On the Spectrum of Hecke Type Operators
Related to Some Fractal Groups, Tr. Mat. Inst. im. V.A. Steklova, Ross. Akad.
Nauk 231 (2000), 5-45 [Proc. Steklov Inst. Math. 231 (2000), 1-41.
[5] L. Bartholdi, R. I. Grigorchuk, and Z. Šunić, Branch Groups, Handbook of Algebra
(North-Holland, Amsterdam, 2003), Vol. 3, pp. 989-1112.
[6] M. E. B. Bekka and M. Cowling, Some irreducible unitary representation of G(K)
for a simple algebraic group G over an algebraic number field K, Math. Z. 241
(2002), no. 4, 731-741.
[7] B. Bekka, P. de la Harpe and A. Valette, Kazhdan Property (T), Cambridge University Press 2008.
[8] O. Brattelli and W. Robinson, Operator algebras and quantum statistical mechanics. C ∗ - and W ∗ -algebras. Symmetry Groups. Decomposition of States. Texts and
Monographs in Physics. Berlin-Heidelberg-New York, Springer-Verlag, 1987.
[9] R.V. Chacon, N.A. Friedman, Approximation and invariant measures, Z.
Wahrscheinlichkeitstheorie und Verw. Gebiete, 3 (1965), 286-295.
[10] T. Chow, A spectral theory for direct integrals of operators, Math. Ann. 188 (1970),
no. 4, pp. 285-303.
[11] M. Cowling and T. Steger, The irreducibility of restrictions of unitary representations to lattices, J. Reine Angew. Math. 420 (1991), 85-98.
[12] J. Dixmier, Les C∗ -algèbres et leurs représentations, Gauthier- Villars 1969.
27

[13] A. Dudko, R. Grigorchuk, On diagonal actions of branch groups and the corresponding characters, arxiv:math.RT/1412.5476.
[14] A. Dudko, R. Grigorchuk, On irreducibility and disjointness of Koopman and
quasi-regular representations of weakly branch groups, Modern Theory of Dynamical Systems: A Tribute to Dmitry Victorovich Anosov, AMS Cont. Math. Ser.
(2016), to appear.
[15] A. Dudko and K. Medynets, On Characters of Inductive Limits of Symmetric
Groups, Journal of Functional Analysis, 264 (2013), no.7, 1565-1598.
[16] J. Feldman, C. Moore, Ergodic equivalence relations, cohomology, and von Neumann algebras. I, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 234 (1977), no. 2, 289-324.
[17] J. Feldman, C. Moore, Ergodic equivalence relations, cohomology, and von Neumann algebras. II, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 234 (1977), no. 2, 325-359.
[18] A. Figá-Talamanca, M. A. Picardello, Harmonic analysis on free groups, Lecture
Notes in Pure and Applied Mathematics, vol. 87, Marcel Dekker Inc., New York,
1983.
[19] A. Figá-Talamanca, T. Steger, Harmonic analysis for anisotropic random walks
on homogeneous trees, Mem. Amer. Math. Soc. 110 (1994), no. 531, xii+68.
[20] E. Glasner, Ergodic theory via joinings, Math. Surv. and Mon., 101, Amer. Math.
Soc. (2003).
[21] R. I. Grigorchuk, Burnside’s Problem on Periodic Groups, Funkts. Anal. Prilozh.
14 (1), 53-54 (1980) [Funct. Anal. Appl. 14, 41-43 (1980)].
[22] R. I. Grigorchuk, Degrees of growth of finitely generated groups and the theory of
invariant means, (Russian) Izv. Akad. Nauk SSSR Ser. Mat. 48 (1984), no. 5,
939-985.
[23] R. I. Grigorchuk, Degrees of growth of p-groups and torsion-free groups (Russian)
Mat. Sb. (N.S.) 126 (168) (1985), no. 2, 194-214.
[24] R. I. Grigorchuk, Just Infinite Branch Groups, New Horizons in Pro-p Groups
(Birkhauser, Boston, MA, 2000), Prog. Math. 184, pp. 121-179.
[25] R. I. Grigorchuk, Some topics in the dynamics of group actions on rooted trees,
Proceedings of the Steklov Institute of Mathematics, 273, Issue 1 (2011), pp. 64175.
28

[26] R. I. Grigorchuk, D. Lenz and T. Smirnova-Nagnibeda, Spectra of Schreier
graphs of Grigorchuk’s group and Schroedinger operators with aperiodic order,
arXiv:1412.6822.
[27] R. I. Grigorchuk and V. Nekrashevich, Amenable actions of non-amenable groups,
J. of Math. Sci., 140 (2007), no. 3, pp. 391-397.
[28] R. Grigorchuk, V. Nekrashevich, and Z. Sunic, From self-similar groups to selfsimilar sets and spectra, Fractal Geometry and Stochastics V, 70, series Progress
in Probability, pp. 175-207.
[29] R. I. Grigorchuk, V. V. Nekrashevich, and V. I. Sushchanskii, Automata, Dynamical Systems, and Groups, Tr. Mat. Inst. im. V.A. Steklova, Ross. Akad. Nauk
231, 134-214 (2000) [Proc. Steklov Inst. Math. 231, 128-203 (2000)].
[30] R. I. Grigorchuk and Ya. Krylyuk, The spectral measure of the Markov operator
related to 3-generated 2-group of intermediate growth and its Jacobi parameters,
Algebra Discrete Math., 13 (2012), no 2, pp. 237-272.
[31] P. de la Harpe, On simplicity of reduced C ∗ algebras of groups, Bull. London Math.
Soc., 39 (2007), pp. 1-26.
[32] N. Higson and G. Kasparov, Operator K-theory for groups which act properly and
isometrically on Hilbert space, Electron. Res. Announc. Amer. Math. Soc. 3 (1997),
131-142 (electronic).
[33] R. Kadison and J. Ringrose, Fundamentals of the theory of operator algebras. Vol.
I. Elementary theory. Pure and Applied Mathematics, 100. Academic Press, Inc.
[Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Publishers], New York, 1983.
[34] R. Kadison and J. Ringrose, Fundamentals of the theory of operator algebras. Vol.
II. Advanced theory. Pure and Applied Mathematics, 100. Academic Press, Inc.,
Orlando, FL, 1986.
[35] I. Lysenok, A set of defining relations for the Grigorchuk group, Mat. Zametki, 38
(1985), no. 4, pp. 503516.
[36] S. Kerov and A. Vershik, Characters and factor representations of the infinite
symmetric group, Soviet Math. Dokl., 23 (1981) No.2, 389-392.
[37] H. Kesten, Symmetric random walks on groups, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 92
(1959), 336-354.

29

[38] G. Kuhn, Amenable actions and weak containment of certain representations of
discrete groups, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., 122 (1994), 751-757.
[39] G. Kuhn and T. Steger, More irreducible boundary representations of free groups,
Duke Math. J., 82, no. 2 (1996), 381-435.
[40] G. W. Mackey, The Theory of Unitary Group Representations, Univ. Chicago
Press, Chicago, 1976, Chicago Lect. Math.
[41] M. Naimark, Normed rings, Noordhoff, Groningen, 1959, xvi+560pp.
[42] V. Nekrashevych, Self-similar Groups, Am. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2005,
Math. Surv. Monogr. 117.
[43] M. Pichot, Sur la théorie spectrale des relations d’équivalence mesurées, Journal
of the Inst. of Math. Jussieu (2007), 6 (3), 453-500.
[44] D. Powers, Simplicity of the C ∗ -algebra associated with the free group on two
generators , Duke Math. J., 42 (1975), pp. 151-156.
[45] V. A. Rokhlin, On the basic ideas of measure theory, Mat. Sb. 25 (1) (1949), 107150. Engl. transl.: On the fundamental ideas of measure theory, (Am. Math. Soc.,
Providence, RI, 1952), AMS Transl., No. 71, 55pp.
[46] V. A. Rokhlin, Selected topics from the metric theory of dynamical systems, Uspekhi Mat. Nauk, 4:2(30) (1949), pp. 57-128 (Russian).
[47] Skudlarek H. L., Die unzerlegbaren Charaktere einiger diskreter Gruppen, Math.
Ann., 233 (1976), 213–231.
[48] M. Takesaki, Theory of operator algebras I. Encyclopedia of Mathematical Sciences, vol. 124, 2002.
[49] M. Takesaki, Theory of operator algebras III. Encyclopedia of Mathematical Sciences, vol. 127, 2003.
[50] R.J. Zimmer, Hyperfinite factors and amenable ergodic actions, Inv. Math., 41
(1977), 23-31.

30

