Skip to main content
Springer logoLink to Springer
. 2022 Aug 2;216(5):57. doi: 10.1007/s10711-022-00703-9

Benjamini-Schramm convergence of periodic orbits

Amir Mohammadi 1, Kasra Rafi 2,
PMCID: PMC9345847  PMID: 35935459

Abstract

We prove a criterion for Benjamini-Schramm convergence of periodic orbits of Lie groups. This general observation is then applied to homogeneous spaces and the space of translation surfaces.

Keywords: Benjamini-Schramm convergence, Measure classification, Stabilizers

Benjamini-Schramm convergence

Let HSLN(R) be a non-compact semisimple group. Even though HSLN(R), we will write e for the identity element in H. The notation I (for the identity matrix) will only be used when the vector space structure of the space of matrices is relevant.

Let denote the maximum norm on MatN(R) with respect to the standard basis, and put

BH(e,R)={hH:h-I<Randh-1-I<R}.

We also equip H with the right invariant Riemannian metric induced by the Killing form (and a fixed choice of a maximal compact subgroup of H), and let BRieH(e,r) denote the ball of radius r centered at the identity with respect to this metric. Then for every R, there exists r>0 so that

BRieH(e,r)BH(e,R).

Let r(R) denote 1/2 the supremum of all such r, then BRieH(e,r(R))BH(e,R) and r(R) as R; indeed it is not difficult to see that r(R)ClogR where C>0 depends on the embedding HSLN(R).

Let ΔH be a discrete subgroup. The injectivity radius of yH/Δ is define as the supremum over all r>0 so that the map hhy is injective on BRieH(e,r).

Let ΔnH be a sequence of lattices in H. The sequence {H/Δn:nN} Benjamini-Schramm converges to H if for every r>0 we have

μn({yH/Δn:injectivity radius ofy<r})0asn

where μn denote the H-invariant probability measure on H/Δn for every n.

Throughout, we assume that H acts continuously on X preserving the measure μ; also assume that StabH(x) is discrete for every xX.

An orbit HxX is called periodic if HxX is a closed subset and StabH(x) is a lattice in H.

For a periodic orbit Hx, let μHx denote the pushforward of the H-invariant probability measure of H/StabH(x) to Hx.

Proposition 1.1

Let {Hxn:nN} be a sequence of periodic orbits in X satisfying that

μHxnμasn. 1.1

Assume further that for every R>0 there exists a continuous function fR:X[0,) satisfying the following two properties:

  1. fR(x)>0 for μ-a.e. xX,

  2. if fR(x)>0 for some xX, then StabH(x)BH(e,R)={e}.

Then H/StabH(xn) Benjamini-Schramm converges to H.

Proof

Let R>0. Let Y=HxX be a periodic orbit, and put Δ=Stab(x). The map hΔhx is a homeomorphism from H/Δ onto Y. Let hΔH/Δ, and write y=hxY. Suppose now that h1hΔ=h2hΔ for some h1,h2BH(e,R). Then h2-1h1-I<NR2 and

h2-1h1hΔh-1=StabH(y).

This and the assumption (2) in the proposition imply that

IffNR2(y)>0,then the injectivity radius ofhΔis at leastr(R); 1.2

recall that BRieH(e,r(R))BH(e,R).

Let now ε>0. In view of our assumption (1) in the proposition, there exists a compact subset KεX so that

μ(Kε)>1-εandfNR2(x)>0for allxKε.

Since f is continuous and Kε is compact, there exists some δ>0 so that fNR2(x)>0 for all xNδ(Kε), where Nδ(Kε) denotes a finite open covering of the set Kε with balls of radius δ centered at points in Kε.

Since Nδ(Kε) is an open set and μHxnμ, we conclude that

lim infnμHxn(Nδ(Kε))μ(Nδ/2(Kε))1-ε.

This and the fact that Nδ(Kε){yHxn:fNR2(y)>0} imply: there exists some n0 so that

μHxn({yHxn:fNR2(y)>0})>1-2εfor alln>n0.

In consequence, using (1.2) we deduce that

μH/Stab(xn)({yH/Stab(xn):injectivity radius ofyis<r(R)})<2ε

for all n>n0. Since r(R) as R, the claim follows.

In subsequent sections, we discuss two settings where Proposition 1.1 is applicable: the homogeneous setting is discussed in §2 and the space of Abelian differentials in §3; see in particular Theorems 2.2 and 3.1.

Homogeneous spaces

Let G be a connencted algebraic group defined over R, and let G=G(R) be the connected component of the identity in the Lie group G(R).

Let ΓG be a lattice. Throughout this section, we assume that Γ is torsion free. Let X=G/Γ, and let μX denote the G-invariant probability measure on X.

Theorem 2.1

Let the notation be as above. Let HG be a connected semisimple Lie group. Assume that

gGgHg-1is a finite group. 2.1

Let {Hxn:nN} be a sequence of periodic H-orbits in X so that

  1. There exists a compact subset KX with HxnK for all n.

  2. For every HLG and any closed orbit Lx, at most finitely many of the orbits Hxn are contained in Lx.

Then H/StabH(xn) Benjamini-Schramm converges to H.

Note that the condition gGgHg-1 is a finite group in the theorem is satisfied for instance if G semisimple and H does not contain any of the simple factors of G.

Theorem 2.2

Let M be a real or complex hyperbolic d-manifold with d3. Assume that M contains infinitely many properly immersed totally geodesic hypersurfaces {Vn:nN}. Then {Vn} Benjamini-Schramm converges to Hd-1 in the real hyperbolic case and to CHd-1 in the complex case.

Proof

We prove the result for the case real hyperbolic manifold, the complex case is similar.

Let G=SO(d,1), Γ=π1(M), and H=SO(d-1,1). Then Vn lifts to a closed orbit Hxn in X=G/Γ for every n.

Note that HG is a maximal connected subgroup which is not a parabolic subgroup of G. Therefore, the assumptions in Theorem 2.1 are satisfied for G, H, and the orbits {Hxn:nN}. The claim thus follows from Theorem 2.1.

We note that when Γ is arithmetic Theorem 2.1 can be proved using the results in [1, §5]. This condition holds if Γ is an irreducible lattice and the real rank of G is at least two by Margulis’ arithmeticity theorem [9]. Moreover, it was proved by Corlette and Gromov-Shoen [4, 8] that lattices in SP(n,1) and F4-20 are arithmetic. While non-arithmetic lattices in SO(n,1), for all n, and SU(n,1), for n=2,3, exist, recent developments, [2, 3, 10], show that the presence of infinitely many totally geodesic hyperplanes1 in real and complex hyperbolic manifolds of finite volume imply arithmeticity of their fundamental group. Therefore, in all of the interesting cases, the assertion of Theorem 2.1 can be obtained by combining rather deep existing results in the literature. However, the proof we provide here is different and is arguably simpler. In particular, our proof does not rely on the arithmeticity of Γ and further property of congruences lattices; instead, our proof relies only on a special case of an equidistribution theorem of Mozes and Shah [14].

Lemma 2.3

Let the notation and the assumptions be as in Theorem 2.1. Then for μX-a.e. xX we have

StabH(x){e}.

Proof

Let H denote the Zariski closure of H in G. Since H is a connected semisimple Lie group, it has finite index in the group H:=H(R)G.

By Chevalley’s theorem, there exists a finite dimensional (real) representation (ρ,W) of G and a vector wW so that H={gG:gw=w}. In particular, we conclude that

H=GH={gG:gw=w}. 2.2

Let now x=g0Γ. Then Stab(x)=g0Γg0-1, and Hg0Γg0-1 is nontrivial if and only if there exists some eγΓ so that γg0-1Hg0. Since HH, we conclude that γg0-1w=g0-1w. Hence,

g0-1Fγ={gG:γgw=gw}.

For every γΓ, the set Fγ is an algebraic variety defined over R. Moreover, G=G(R) is Zariski dense in G. These and the fact that Γ is countable imply that unless there exists some eδΓ so that

δgw=gwfor allgG,

the lemma holds — indeed in that case G\(γΓFγ) is a conull subset of G, and for every g in this set we have StabH(gΓ)={e}.

Assume now to the contrary that G={gG:δgw=gw} for some nontrivial δΓ. Then by (2.2) we have δgHg-1 for all gG, hence,

δgGgHg-1.

Since [H:H]<, there exists some n so that δngHg-1 for all gG. That is, δngGgHg-1. However, Γ is torsion free and gGgHg-1 is a finite group. This contradiction completes the proof.

Proof of Theorem 2.1

We may and will assume that GSLN(R) for some N. As before, for all subgroups LG and all R>0, let

BL(e,R)={gL:g-I<Randg-1-I<R}

where denotes the maximum norm on SLN(R) with respect to the standard basis.

Recall that μX denotes the G-invariant probability measure on X. First note that by a theorem of Mozes and Shah [14] and our assumptions (1) and (2) in the theorem, we have

μHxnμXasn. 2.3

Let dist denote the right invariant Riemannian metric on G induced using the killing form. Let R>1, and put Stab(x)R=StabG(x)BG(e,R); this is a finite set. Define fR:X[0,) by

fR(x)=inf{d(h,g):hBH(e,R),gStab(x)R\{e}}.

Since StabG(gΓ)=gΓg-1 and R is fixed, fR is continuous. Furthermore, fR(x)>0 for some xX if and only if BH(e,R)StabG(x)={e}. In particular, by Lemma 2.3 we have

fR(x)>0forμX-a.e.xX.

Altogether, we deduce that fR satisfies the conditions in Proposition 1.1.

The theorem thus follows from Proposition 1.1 in view of (2.3).

The space of Abelian differentials

Let g2, and let Tg denote the Teichmüller space of complex structure on a compact Riemann surface of genus g. We denote by Mg the corresponding moduli space, i.e., the quotient of Tg by the mapping class group, Modg.

As it is well-known, Modg is not torsion free, however, it has subgroups of finite index which are torsion free — indeed the kernel of the natural map from Modg to Sp2g(Z/3Z) is torsion free.

We fix, once and for all, a covering map

M^gMg

which corresponds to a torsion free finite index subgroup of Modg.

Let f:H2Mg be an isometric immersion for the Teichmüller metric. Typically, f(H2) is dense in Mg, however, there are situations where f(H2) is an algebraic curve in Mg. In the latter case, the stabilizer Δ of f is a lattice in Isom(H2), and we obtain a Teichmüller curve

f:V=H2/ΔMg.

For every g2, the moduli space Mg contains a dense family of Teichmüller curves which arise as branched cover of flat tori. There are also examples of infinite families of primitive Teichmüller curves, i.e., Teichmüller curves which do not arise as a branched cover of flat tori, in Mg when g=2,3,4, [12, 13].

Theorem 3.1

Let {Vn:nN} be an infinite family of Techimüller curves in Mg. For every n, let V^nVn be a lift of Vn to M^g. Then {V^n:nN} Benjamini-Schramm converges to H2.

C. Leininger and A. Wright (independently) have supplied an alternative (and arguably softer) proof of Theorem 3.1. This argument relies on the fact that the length of shortest geodesic on Teichmüller curves tends to infinity, see Proposition 3.2, and is independent of measure classification theorems. We also thank T. Gelander for helpful communications regarding IRSs.

Here, we present a proof based on Proposition 1.1 and [6] to highlight a unifying theme between the homogeneous setting and the setting at hand.

For every MTg, let Ω(M) be the g-dimensional space of holomorphic 1-forms on M. By integrating a non-zero form ωΩ(M) we obtain, away from the zeros of ω, a flat metric |ω| on M and local charts whose transition functions are translations.

Form a vector bundle over the Teichmüller space Tg where the fiber over each point is Ω(M). Let ΩTgTg be the complement of the zero section of this vector bundle.

There is a natural action of GL2+(R) (and hence of SL2(R)) on ΩTg: given a holomorphic 1-form ω=R(ω)+iI(ω) and h=abcdGL2+(R),

h·ω=iiabcdR(ω)I(ω). 3.1

We let ΩMgMg denote the quotient of ΩTg by action of the mapping class group of Sg.

For every α=(α1,,αm) with αi=2g-2, let H(α) denote the set of (M,ω)ΩMg where ω has zeros of type α. Then ΩMg=H(α).

Let (M,ω)H(α) and let ΣM denote the set of zeroes of ω. Let {γ1,,γk} denote a Z-basis for the relative homology group H1(M,Σ,Z). (It is convenient to assume that the basis is obtained by extending a symplectic basis for the absolute homology group H1(M,Z).) We can define a map Φ:H(α)Ck by

Φ(M,ω)=γ1ω,,γkw

The map Φ (which depends on a choice of the basis {γ1,,γk}) is a local coordinate system on (M,ω). Alternatively, we may think of the cohomology class [ω]H1(M,Σ,C) as a local coordinate on the stratum H(α). We will call these coordinates period coordinates.

The area of a translation surface is given by

a(M,ω)=i2Mωω¯.

We let Ω1Mg and H1(α) denote the locus of unit area 1-forms in ΩMg and H(α), respecitively.

The SL2(R)-action and the Kontsevich-Zorich cocycle

The action in (3.1) descends to an action of SL2(R) on H1(α). Indeed, write Φ(M,ω) as a 2×d matrix x. The action of SL2(R) in these coordinates is linear.

Let Mod(M,Σ) be the mapping class group of M fixing each zero of ω. We choose a fundamental domain for the action of Mod(M,Σ), and think of the dynamics on the fundamental domain. Then, the SL2(R) action becomes

x=R(ω)I(ω)hx=abcdR(ω)I(ω)A(h,x), 3.2

where A(h,x)Sp2g(Z)Zm-1 is the Kontsevich-Zorich cocycle.

Thus, A(hx) is the change of basis one needs to perform to return the point hx to the fundamental domain. It can be interpreted as the monodromy of the Gauss-Manin connection (restricted to the orbit of SL2(R)).

Affine measures and manifolds

For a subset EH1(α) we write

RE={(M,tω):(M,ω)E,tR}H(α).

An ergodic SL2(R)-invariant probability measure ν on H1(α) is called affine if the following hold:

  • (i)

    The support M of ν is an immersed submanifold of H1(α), i.e., there exists a manifold N and a proper continuous map f:NH1(α) so that M=f(N). The self-intersection set of M, i.e., the set of points of M which do not have a unique preimage under f, is a closed subset of M of ν-measure 0. Furthermore, each point in N has a neighborhood U such that locally Rf(U) is given by a complex linear subspace defined over R in the period coordinates.

  • (ii)

    Let ν¯ be the measure supported on RM so that dν¯=dνda. Then each point in N has a neighborhood U such that the restriction of ν¯ to Rf(U) is an affine linear measure in the period coordinates on Rf(U), i.e., it is (up to normalization) the restriction of the Lebesgue measure to the subspace Rf(U).

A suborbifold M for which there exists a measure ν such that the pair (M,ν) satisfies (i) and (ii) is said to be affine invariant submanifold.

We sometimes write νM to indicate the affine invariant measure ν on affine invariant submanifold M.

Note that in particular, any affine invariant submanifold is a closed subset of H1(α) which is invariant under the action of SL2(R), and which in period coordinates is an affine subspace. We also consider the entire stratum H1(α) to be an (improper) affine invariant submanifold.

Typical affine stabilizer is trivial

In this section, we prove the following statement:

Proposition 3.2

Let (M,ν)H1(α)ΩM^g,n be an affine invariant submanifold. Assume that M is not a Teichmüller curve. Then for ν-a.e. xM,

StabSL2(R)(x)

is trivial.

Recall that the set of self-intersections M of M is a proper closed invariant submanifold of M, hence, dimM<dimM, see [6]; in particular, ν(M)=0. Therefore, it suffices to prove the proposition for ν-a.e. xM\M. Let M~ denote the lift of M\M to ΩTg.

Fix ϕMod^(Sg) (that is, ϕ is not torsion). Define

P(ϕ)={xM~:A·x=ϕ(x),for someASL2(R)}.

We will show, for every ϕMod^(S), P(ϕ) is a ν–measure zero subset of M~. Note that, by assumption, dim(M~)>3.

Consider xP(ϕ) and let Ex be the GL+(2,R) orbit or x. Then Ex can be considered as (an open subset of) the tangent space of the Teichmüller disk Hx associated to x (the projection of Ex to Teichmüller space). The restriction of Teichmüller metric to Hx equips Hx with the hyperbolic metric (up to a factor 2). We observe that ϕ stabilizes Hx acting on Hx by an isometry. In fact, we have either (see, for example, [11, Lemma 5.6])

  • ϕ acts loxodromically on Hx and ϕ a pseudo-Anosov element.

  • ϕ acts parabolically on Hx and ϕ is a multi-curve.

  • ϕ acts elliptically on Hx and ϕ has finite order in Mod(S).

Note that the third case is excluded since we are assuming ϕ is not torsion. We argue each case separately showing that P(ϕ)M~ is a ν-measure zero subset of M~.

Remark 3.3

We are in fact proving more that what is stated in Proposition 3.2. Recall that, for xM~, the Veech group of x is the subgroup of PSL2(R) which stabilizes Hx setwise. Hence, the proof actually gives that for ν-a.e. xM~, the Veech group of x is finite.

ϕ is pseudo-Anosov element

A pseudo-Anosov map ϕ stabilizes only one Teichmüller disk, the one where Hx contains F+(ϕ) and F-(ϕ); the stable and the unstable foliation associated to ϕ. Therefore, P(ϕ)=T1Hx, the unit tangent bundle over Hx. Since M is a not a Teichmüller curve, it has a dimension larger than 3. Hence P(ϕ)M~ is a ν-measure zero subset of M~.

ϕ is a multi-twist

Let ϕ be a multi-twist around γ, namely

ϕ=Dγipi.

Let RP(ϕ) be the subset of H(α) obtained from points in P(ϕ) after scaling. Then, for any xRP(ϕ), a measured foliation that is topologically equivalent to γ={γ1,,γk) has to appear in the boundary of Hx. That is, after a rotation, we can assume x=(F-,F+) and F+=ckγk. Furthermore, x has a cylinder decomposition where the modulus of these cylinders are rationally multiples of each other ([11, Lemma 5.6]). That is, there are riQ such that

ri·i(F-,γi)ci=rj·i(F-,γj)cj,

for 1i,jk. We also have

ci·i(F-,γi)=area(x).

That is, given γ, ri, F- and area(x), we can calculate the values of ci. Hence, F+ and subsequently x are uniquely determined by γ, ri, F- and area(x). There are countably many choices for the values ri and the multi-curve γ. We now show that the dimension of the space of possible measured foliations F- is half the dimension of RM~ where RM~ is the subset of H(α) obtained from point in M~ after scaling.

For a filling bi-recurrent train-track τ (see [15] for definition and discussion) any admissible weight on τ defines a measured foliation. We then say this measured foliation is carried by τ. The complementary regions of a filling train tracks are n–gons or punctured n–gons. A foliation carried by τ has a singular point associated to each complementary region of τ. We say τ is of type α=(α1,,αm) if τ has m complementary components that are punctured αi–gons, i=1m. We denote the space of admissible weights in τ by W(τ).

Lemma 3.4

For every xH(α) there are train tracks τ+ and τ- of type α such that a neighborhood of H(α) around x is homeomorphic to U×V where UV are open subsets of W(τ+) and W(τ-) respectively. In fact, the real part of the period coordinates for H(α) give coordinates for U and the imaginary part of the period coordinates, give coordinates for V.

Proof

Let Δ be a triangulation of x by saddle connections (for example, L-Delanay triangulations see [7, §3]). Pick a subset B of the edges of Δ that give a basis for the homology of x relative to the zeros Σ of x. Then the complex numbers {ωx}ωB give local coordinates for H(α). For every edge ω of Δ, we have

i(ω,F-)=Rωx.

In fact, F- can be constructed, triangle by triangle, from the set of real numbers {i(ω,F-)}ωΔ. That is there is a train-track τ- dual to the triangulation Δ (again, see [7, §3] for the construction of such train-tracks) such that {R(ωx)}ωB form an admissible weights on τ-. At any point yH(α) near x, the triangulation Δ can still be represented by saddle connections and the set {R(ωy)}ωB form an admissible weights on τ- that is associated to the vertical foliation at y. That is, {R(ωy)}ωB, thought of as admissible weights on τ- give local cooridinates for the set of measured foliation that appear as a horizontal foliation of an element of H1(α) near x. The same also holds for τ+ and the vertical foliations.

Since RM~ is an affine sub-manifold of H(α), it is locally defined by a set of affine equations on period coordinates, see e.g. §3.1 and [5]. That is, there are subspaces UU and VV, defined by the same set of affine equations, such that a neighborhood of x in RM~ is naturally homeomorphic to U×V. In particular, where U and V have half the dimension of RM~.

Let W be the intersection of RP(ϕ) with this neighborhood. Recall that, fixing the multi-curve γ, rational numbers ri and the area, every point in W is determined, up to rotation, by a point in U. Therefore, W is a countable union of set of dimension dim(U)+2. But

dim(U)+2=12dim(RM~)+2<dim(RM~),

where the last inequality follows from the assumption that dim(RM~)>4. That is, RP(ϕ)RM~ is a countable union of lower dimensional subset of RM~ and therefore, has ν¯-measure zero, see §3.1 for the definition of ν¯. Since, StabSL2(R)(x) does not change after scaling, we have, P(ϕ)M~ has ν–measure zero in M~.

Proof of Theorem 3.1

In this section we prove Theorem 3.1. The proof is based on the following proposition.

Proposition 3.5

Let {Ek:kN}H1(α)ΩM^g,n be a sequence of closed SL2(R) orbits each equipped with the SL2(R)-invariant probability measure μk. Assume further that there exists an affine invariant submanifold (M,ν)H1(α) so that

μkνask. 3.3

Let Vk denote the Teichmüller curve associated to Ek for all k. Then {Vk} Benjamini-Schramm converges to H.

Proof

The proof if based on Proposition 1.1. Let us write Ek=SL2(R).xk. We will show that SL2(R)/StabSL2(R)(xk) Benjamini-Schramm converges to SL2(R) from which the proposition follows.

First note that (M,ν) is not a closed SL2(R) orbits, see [6, Thm. 2.3]. Hence, by Proposition 3.2, we have

StabSL2(R)(x)={e}forν-a.e.xM. 3.4

In the remaining pats of the argument, we write H=SL2(R) and use the notation in §1. In particular, for all R>0, let

BH(e,R)={hH:h-I<Randh-1-I<R}

where denotes the maximum norm on Mat2(R) with respect to the standard basis. Similarly, for r>0, let BRieH(e,r) denote the ball of radius r centered at the identity with respect the bi-SO(2)-invariant Riemannian metric on H induced using the Killing form.

For every xH1(α), let rx denote 1/2 of the injectivity radius of x in H1(α) with respect to the Teichmüller metric. Then xrx is continuous on H1(α); moreover, hhx is injective on BRieH(e,rx).

Let R>0 and for every xM, put BRH(x):=B¯H(e,R)\BRieH(e,rx); note that this a compact subset of SL2(R). Define fR:M[0,) by

fR(x)=min{distTeich(x,hx):hBRH(x)}.

Note that fR is continuous. Indeed, let ymy, and let hmBRH(ym) be so that fR(ym)=distTeich(y,hmym). Let {fR(ymi)} be a converging subsequence of {fR(ym)}. Since BRH(ym) converges to BRH(y) (in Hausdorff metric on compact sets), there is a subsequence hmijhBRH(y) which implies: fR(y)limifR(ymi). In consequence, fR(y)lim inffR(ym). To see the opposite direction, let hBRH(y) be so that fR(y)=distTeich(y,hy). Let hmBRH(ym) be so that hmh, then fR(ym)distTeich(y,hmym) and for every ε>0 we have distTeich(y,hmym)distTeich(y,hy)+ε=fR(y)+ε so long as m is large enough. Hence lim supfR(ym)fR(y)+ε. The continuity of fR follows.

Moreover, in view of (3.4), we have fR(x)>0 for ν-a.e. xM. Finally, since for every x, the map hhx is injective on BRieH(e,rx), we have StabSL2(R)(x)BRieH(e,rx)={e}. Thus if fR(x)>0 for some xM, then StabSL2(R)(x)BH(e,R)={e}.

Altogether, we deduce that fR satisfies the conditions in Proposition 1.1. This and (3.3) imply that Proposition 1.1 applies and yields:

SL2(R)/StabSL2(R)(xk) Benjamini-Schramm converges to SL2(R).

The proof is complete.

Proof of Theorem 3.1

Let {Vk:kN}M^g,n be a sequence of Teichmüller curves. We will show that for every subsequence {Vki}, there exists a further subsequence {Vkij} which Benjamini-Schramm converges to H the theorem follows from this.

Let {Vki} be a subsequence of {Vk}. Passing to a further subsequence, which we continue to denote by {Vki}, we may assume that the corresponding SL2(R) orbits {Eki} lie in H1(α)ΩM^g,n for a fixed α.

Now by [6, Thm. 2.3], see also [6, Cor. 2.5], there exists a subsequence {Ekij} of {Eki}, and an affine invariant manifold (M,ν), so that μkijν where μkij denotes the SL2(R)-invariant measure on Ekij.

By Proposition 3.5, we have Vkij Benjamini-Schramm converges to H; as we wished to show.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank A. Eskin, T. Gelander, C. Leininger, G. Margulis, H. Oh, and A. Wright for helpful conversations. We also thank the referee for helpful comments.

Data availability statement

No datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study.

Footnotes

1

The works [2, 3] are indeed more general and allow for properly immersed maximal totally geodesic submanifolds of dimension at least 2.

A. Mohammadi: acknowledges support by the NSF.

K. Rafi: acknowledges support by NSERC Discovery grant, RGPIN 06486.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Contributor Information

Amir Mohammadi, Email: ammohammadi@ucsd.edu.

Kasra Rafi, Email: kasra.rafi@math.toronto.edu.

References

  • 1.Abert M, Bergeron N, Biringer I, Gelander T, Nikolov N, Raimbault J, Samet I. On the growth of L2-invariants for sequences of lattices in Lie groups. Ann. of Math. (2) 2017;185(3):711–790. doi: 10.4007/annals.2017.185.3.1. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Bader, U., Fisher, D., Miller, N., Stover, M.: Arithmeticity, superrigidity and totally geodesic submanifolds of complex hyperbolic manifolds, (2020)
  • 3.Bader, U., Fisher, D., Miller, N., Stover, M.: Arithmeticity, superrigidity, and totally geodesic submanifolds, (2019)
  • 4.Corlette K. Archimedean superrigidity and hyperbolic geometry. Ann. Math. 1992;135(1):165–182. doi: 10.2307/2946567. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Eskin A, Mirzakhani M. Invariant and stationary measures for the SL(2,R) action on moduli space. Publ. Math. Inst. Hautes Études Sci. 2018;127:95–324. doi: 10.1007/s10240-018-0099-2. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Eskin A, Mirzakhani M, Mohammadi A. Isolation, equidistribution, and orbit closures for the SL(2,R) action on moduli space. Ann. of Math. (2) 2015;182(2):673–721. doi: 10.4007/annals.2015.182.2.7. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Frankel, I.: Cat(-1)-type properties for teichmüller space, (2018)
  • 8.Gromov M, Schoen R. Harmonic maps into singular spaces andp-adic superrigidity for lattices in groups of rank one. Publications Mathématiques de l’Institut des Hautes Études Scientifiques. 1992;76(1):165–246. doi: 10.1007/BF02699433. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Margulis GA. Arithmeticity of the irreducible lattices in the semisimple groups of rank greater than 1. Invent. Math. 1984;76(1):93–120. doi: 10.1007/BF01388494. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Margulis, G., Mohammadi, A.: Arithmeticity of hyperbolic 3-manifolds containing infinitely many totally geodesic surfaces, (2019)
  • 11.Masur H, Tabachnikov S. Rational billiards and flat structures, Handbook of dynamical systems. Amsterdam: North-Holland; 2002. pp. 1015–1089. [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Curtis T. McMullen, Dynamics of SL2(R) over moduli space in genus two. Ann. of Math. (2) 2007;165(2):397–456. doi: 10.4007/annals.2007.165.397. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.McMullen CT, Mukamel RE, Wright A. Cubic curves and totally geodesic subvarieties of moduli space. Ann. of Math.(2) 2017;185(3):957–990. doi: 10.4007/annals.2017.185.3.6. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Mozes S, Shah N. On the space of ergodic invariant measures of unipotent flows. Ergodic Theory Dynam. Systems. 1995;15(1):149–159. doi: 10.1017/S0143385700008282. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Penner RC, Harer JL. Combinatorics of train tracks, Annals of Mathematics Studies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 1992. [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Data Availability Statement

No datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study.


Articles from Geometriae Dedicata are provided here courtesy of Springer

RESOURCES