arXiv:1603.04573v2 [math.DG] 25 Aug 2016

Groups acting on spaces of non-positive
curvature
Bruno Duchesne∗

Abstract

In this survey article, we present some panorama of groups acting on metric spaces
of non-positive curvature. We introduce the main examples and their rigidity properties, we show the links between algebraic or analytic properties of the group
and geometric properties of the space. We conclude with a few conjectures in the
subject.
2000 Mathematics Subject Classification: 20F65, 53C23, 20F67.
Keywords and Phrases:
Group actions, spaces of non-positive curvature,
CAT(0) spaces, rigidity, superrigidity, amenability, Haagerup property, rank rigidity conjecture, flat closing conjecture.

Contents
1 Introduction

2

2 Spaces of non-positive curvature
2.1 CAT(0) spaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.2 Convexity and weaker notions of non-positive curvature
2.3 The proper case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.4 Boundary at infinity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.5 Some simple geometric questions . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.
.
.
.
.

3
3
5
7
7
8

3 Examples of CAT(0) spaces and groups
3.1 Symmetric spaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.2 Euclidean Buildings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

11
11
14

∗

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

Institut Élie Cartan de Lorraine, Université de Lorraine, B.P. 70239, F-54506 Vandoeuvrelès-Nancy Cedex, France. E-mail: bruno.duchesne@univ-lorraine.fr. Supported in part by Projet
ANR-14-CE25-0004 GAMME and Région Lorraine.

3.3
3.4

CAT(0) cube complexes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Cubulating hyperbolic 3-manifold groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

17
21

4 Rigidity properties of the above examples
4.1 Bieberbach theorems and the solvable subgroup theorem . . . . . .
4.2 Superrigidity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.3 Isometries of proper CAT(0) spaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

21
21
22
23

5 Amenability and non-positive curvature
5.1 Amenability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.2 Amenability at infinity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.3 Haagerup property and property (T) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

25
25
28
30

6 Rank rigidity and the flat closing conjectures
6.1 Rank Rigidity Conjecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.2 Flat Closing Conjecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

32
32
33

Acknowledgements

34

References

35

1

Introduction

According to the so-called Erlangen Program of Felix Klein [63, 59], a geometry
is a set and a group that preserves some invariants. On the other hand, groups
are actors and they are better understood via the study of their actions. In this
paper, we aim to present the strong links between algebraic or analytic properties
of groups and geometric properties of spaces of non-positive curvature on which the
groups act. This is actually a part of Geometric Group Theory and we recommend
the survey [22] for a panoramic view on that larger subject.
The metric spaces of non-positive curvature we have in mind are the so-called
CAT(0) spaces. These are spaces with a metric condition meaning that the space
is at least as non-positively curved as the Euclidean plane. The definition goes
back to Alexandrov and Busemann in the 1950’s and was popularised by Gromov
who coined the name CAT(0) after Cartan, Alexandrov and Toponogov.
There are very good books about spaces of non-positive curvature. The current
quite comprehensive reference is [16]. The books [8] and [10] are a bit older but
still interesting and useful. For the study of convexity in non-positive curvature
beyond CAT(0) spaces, [82] is a good reference.
This paper is not another introduction to the subject but the aim is to guide
the reader toward the main examples, some important results in the field and
directions of current research.
We present the leading examples of CAT(0) spaces and groups acting on them:
symmetric spaces, Euclidean buildings and CAT(0) cube complexes. After the
basics about CAT(0) spaces and the description of these examples, we aim to
give a flavour of the subject by treating a few topics. The first topic deals with
2

the question of generality/rigidity of the spaces associated to linear groups (that
are symmetric spaces and Euclidean buildings). The second one deals with some
analytic properties of groups: amenability, the Haagerup property, property (T)
and amenability at infinity. Finally we discuss two conjectures: the rank rigidity
conjecture and the flat closing conjecture.
The choice of topics is not exhaustive and is definitely subjective. We apologise
for the important facts we may have missed. We do not enter into the details of
each topic but we encourage the reader to continue his reading with references in
the quite long bibliography.

2

Spaces of non-positive curvature

2.1

CAT(0) spaces

A metric space (X, d) is geodesic if there is a geodesic segment joining any two
points: For any x, y ∈ X, there exists γ : [0, d(x, y)] → X such that for any
t, t0 ∈ [0, d(x, y)], d(γ(t), γ(t0 )) = |t − t0 |, γ(0) = x and γ(d(x, y)) = y. A priori,
geodesic segments between two points are not unique. For two points x, y, a
midpoint for x and y is a point γ(d(x, y)/2) for some geodesic segment γ between
x and y. Let us now define CAT(0) spaces via the so-called CAT(0) inequality
Definition 2.1. A complete geodesic metric space is CAT(0) if for any triple of
points x, y, z and a midpoint m between y and z, one has
d(x, m)2 ≤

1
1
(d(x, y)2 + d(x, z)2 ) − d(y, z)2 .
2
4

(1)

Remark 2.2. We use completeness and geodesicity in the definition of CAT(0)
spaces. This is not a completely standard choice but with this definition, the
metric completion of a metric space X satisfying the following list of hypotheses
is automatically CAT(0).
• For any two points x, y ∈ X, there is m ∈ X with d(x, m) = d(y, m) =
1
d(x, y),
2
• for any triple x, y, z ∈ X and m ∈ X such that d(x, m) = d(y, m) =
Inequality (1) holds.

1
d(x, y),
2

For a Euclidean space, the parallelogram law yields equality in Inequality (1).
So, Inequality (1), called the CAT(0) inequality, means that X is as least as
non-positively curved as a Euclidean plane. There is another equivalent way to
express the same idea of non-positive curvature: geodesic triangles are thinner
than Euclidean ones (see [16, Proposition II.1.7]).
It is a simple consequence of the CAT(0) inequality that two points x, y are
linked by a unique geodesic segment that we denote by [x, y]. Moreover it is easy
to see that a CAT(0) space X is contractible. Fix a point x0 ∈ X and define h(x, t)
to be the point tx0 + (1 − t)x in an isometric parametrisation of the segment [x, x0 ]
3

y

y

z

x

z

x

Figure 1: A geodesic triangle in a CAT(0) space is thinner than a triangle in the
Euclidean plane with the same side lengths.

where t ∈ [0, 1]. The CAT(0) inequality (actually convexity is sufficient) shows
that h is continuous and is a retraction from X to {x0 }.
A metric space is locally CAT(0) if any point is the center of a ball of positive
radius which is CAT(0). Simple connectedness and the local CAT(0) condition is
sufficient to recover the CAT(0) condition globally.
Theorem 2.3 (Cartan-Hadamard theorem). A complete metric space is CAT(0)
if and only if it is locally CAT(0) and simply connected.
Examples 2.4. The following are examples of CAT(0) spaces.
1. Euclidean and more generally Hilbert spaces.
2. Simplicial trees with the length metric and more generally real trees.
3. Complete simply connected Riemannian manifolds of non-positive sectional
curvature. Such manifolds are called Hadamard manifolds.
Let us comment on these examples. It is clear that Hilbert spaces are CAT(0)
spaces because of the parallelogram law. For Banach spaces, the CAT(0) condition
actually implies the parallelogram law. From that point, one can recover that the
norm comes from a scalar product and thus the only Banach spaces that are
CAT(0) are actually Hilbert spaces.
For Riemannian manifolds, non-positivity of the sectional curvature is equivalent to the CAT(0) inequality for small balls. This follows from the seminal works
of Busemann and Alexandrov [16, II.1.17]. The Cartan-Hadamard theorem allows
to go from local to global.
Let us see a first simple consequence of the CAT(0) condition for a group acting
by isometries on a CAT(0) space.
Theorem 2.5 (Cartan fixed point theorem). Let G be a group acting by isometries
on a CAT(0) space. If G has a bounded orbit then G has a fixed point.
The proof of the Cartan fixed point theorem relies on the fact that any bounded
subset B of a CAT(0) space has a circumcenter . This is the center of the unique
4

closed ball of minimal radius containing B. In particular, a group with a bounded
orbit fixes the circumcenter of this orbit.
This gives a proof of the fact that any compact subgroup of GLn (R) lies in the
orthogonal group of some scalar product of Rn . The set of scalar products on Rn
may be endowed with a CAT(0) metric such that GLn (R) acts by isometries on
it.
Definition 2.6. Let X be a CAT(0) space. A subspace of X is a flat if it is
isometric to some Euclidean space. The rank of X is the supremum of dimensions
of flats in X.
Flat subsets, that is, subsets isometric to some Euclidean space, in CAT(0)
spaces are limit cases of non-positive curved spaces and thus play a particular
role. The rank of a CAT(0) space is an important invariant. For examples, it
appears in two conjectures discussed in Section 6.
Isometries of CAT(0) spaces may have very different dynamical behaviours.
Definition 2.7. Let X be a CAT(0) space and g ∈ Isom(X). The translation
length of g is inf d(gx, x). If this infimum is achieved, g is said to be semi-simple
x∈X

and parabolic otherwise.
In a CAT(0) space, the semi-simple isometries are the ones we understand.
The parabolic ones are more or less mysterious. If g is semi-simple with vanishing translation length then g has fixed points. If g is semi-simple with positive
translation length then there is a geodesic line which is g-invariant and g acts as
a translation on this geodesic line.

2.2

Convexity and weaker notions of non-positive curvature

The CAT(0) inequality implies strong convexity consequences that we briefly describe.
Definition 2.8. Let (X, d) be a geodesic metric space. A function f : X → R
is convex if for any geodesic segment [x, y] ⊂ X, the restriction of f to [x, y] is
convex (as a function on a real interval).
In CAT(0) spaces, the distance to a point is a convex function. More generally, for two parametrisations with constant speeds γ, γ 0 : [0, 1] → X of geodesic
segments, the distance function t 7→ d(γ(t), γ 0 (t)) is convex.
A subspace of a CAT(0) space is convex if it contains the geodesic segment
between any two of its points. For a closed convex subset C, any point x ∈ X has
a unique point pC (x) ∈ C minimising the distance to x. The map pC : X → C is
1-Lipschitz and is called the projection onto C. Let dC be the distance function to
C: for any x ∈ C, dC (x) = d(x, pC (x)). This distance function dC is also convex.
We have seen that the CAT(0) condition gives a notion of non-positive curvature for metric spaces. Comparing to Banach spaces, one may see the CAT(0)
inequality as a (very strong) uniform convexity notion. Concentrating on the convexity of the distance, let us introduce two weaker notions of non-positive curvature
for metric spaces.
5

Definition 2.9. Let (X, d) be a geodesic metric space. The space X is Busemann non-positively curved if for any geodesic triangle [x, y], [y, y 0 ] and [y 0 , x], the
midpoints m of [x, y] and m0 of [x, y 0 ], one has
d(m, m0 ) ≤

1
d(y, y 0 ).
2

This definition has different equivalent formulations (see [81, Proposition 8.1.2])
and it implies uniqueness of geodesic segments between two points. For example, a
normed space is Busemann non-positively curved if and only if it is strictly convex.
A normed space which is not strictly convex may have many geodesics between
two points (think to R2 with the sup norm) but some geodesics are distinguished:
the affine geodesics. Actually, if one forgets the linear structure and remembers
only the metrics one can recover the linear structure. The famous Mazur-Ulam
theorem tells us that the isometries are affine because isometries remembers affine
midpoints. In particular, affine geodesics are very special because they are preserved by isometries. With this idea that some specific geodesics may be more
important than others, one has the following even weaker notion of non-positive
curvature.
Definition 2.10. Let (X, d) be a metric space. A geodesic bicombing is a choice
of a geodesic segment σx,y between x and y in X for any two points x, y ∈ X.
That is σx,y : [0, 1] → X and
• σx,y (0) = x,
• σx,y (1) = y,
• for any t, t0 ∈ [0, 1], d(σx,y (t), σx,y (t0 )) = |t − t0 |d(x, y).
A geodesic bicombing is said to be convex if for any quadruple x, y, x0 , y 0 ,
t 7→ d(σx,y (t), σx0 ,y0 (t))
is convex.
For example, in any normed space, the geodesic bicombing given by affine
segments is convex.
Example 2.11. The space GLn (R)/ On (R) is a symmetric space of non-compact
type (see §3.1) and thus a CAT(0) space. Leaving finite dimension, the natural
analog in infinite dimension is GL(H)/ O(H) where GL(H) is the group of all
bounded invertible operators of the Hilbert space H and O(H) is the orthogonal
group. This space is no more CAT(0) but there is a convex geodesic bicombing.
This bicombing comes from the fact that GL(H)/ O(H) is a manifold of infinite
dimension that can be identified with the space of symmetric definite positive
operators. The tangent space at Id is the space of symmetric bounded operators.
This vector space with the operator norm is a Banach space and the exponential
map sends linear geodesics to geodesics belonging to the geodesic bicombing. The
action of GL(H) is isometric and moreover preserves the geodesic bicombing.
6

2.3

The proper case

The CAT(0) inequality (and more generally convex bicombings) yields a notion
of non-positive curvature beyond manifolds. In particular, CAT(0) spaces may be
not locally-compact. However, locally compact CAT(0) spaces have more enjoyable
properties.
Definition 2.12. A metric space is said to be proper if closed balls are compact.
For CAT(0) spaces, properness is equivalent to local compactness. For proper
CAT(0) spaces, there is a natural and pleasant topology on the isometry group.
Proposition 2.13. Let (X, d) be a proper CAT(0) space. Its isometry group endowed with the compact-open topology is a locally compact second countable group.
In particular, such groups have Haar measures and may have lattices (that are
discrete subgroups of finite covolume).
Let G be a topological group acting by isometries on a metric space (X, d).
The action is continuous if the map (γ, x) 7→ γx from Γ × X to X is continuous.
It is proper if for any compact subsets K1 , K2 ⊂ X, {g ∈ G| gK1 ∩ K2 6= ∅} is
compact. In case X is proper and G is discrete, the action is proper if and only
if it is properly discontinuous, that is for any x, y ∈ X, there are neighbourhoods
Ux , Uy of x and y such that {g ∈, gUx ∩ Uy 6= ∅} is finite. The action is cocompact
if the topological quotient G\X is compact.
The interplay between the algebraic properties of a group acting on a CAT(0)
space and the geometry of the space is expected to be richer when the action is
proper and cocompact. This idea leads to the following definition.
Definition 2.14. Let G be a group acting by isometries on a CAT(0) space
X. The action is geometric (or the group acts geometrically) if it is proper and
cocompact. A countable group Γ is CAT(0) if acts geometrically on a proper
CAT(0) space.

2.4

Boundary at infinity

There is a nice geometric object associated to any CAT(0) space X: its boundary
at infinity. A geodesic ray is the image of some isometric map [0, +∞) → X.
Definition 2.15. Let X be CAT(0) space. The boundary at infinity ∂X of X is
the set of all geodesic rays (with any base point) where two of them are identified
if and only if there are at bounded Hausdorff distance from one another.
If one fixes a base point x0 ∈ X, there is exactly one geodesic ray starting
from x0 in each class and thus ∂X can be identified with the set of geodesic rays
starting from x0 . This boundary is sometimes called the visual boundary because
it corresponds to the vision of infinity from x0 . There is a natural way to topologize
X = X ∪ ∂X. Fix a point x0 ∈ X. One can identify X with the inverse limit of
the system of balls of radius r > 0 around x0 . In this way X embeds as an open
set in X. A sequence of points xn ∈ X converges to some point ξ ∈ ∂X if for
all r > 0 the point xn (r) at distance r from x0 on [x0 , xn ] converges to the point
x(r) ∈ [x0 , ξ) at distance r from x0 .
7

ξ

xn
xn (r)

x(r)
x0

For any simply connected complete Riemannian manifold X of non-positive
curvature and dimension n, the boundary ∂X is homeomorphic to a sphere of
dimension n − 1. In particular, for Euclidean spaces the boundary at infinity is a
Euclidean sphere. This statement can be made metrical endowing this boundary
with the angular metric [16, II.9.4].
The construction of this boundary is functorial: if a group acts by isometries
on a CAT(0) space it also acts by homeomorphisms on its boundary.
This boundary is particularly convenient for proper CAT(0) spaces.
Proposition 2.16. If X is a proper CAT(0) space then X is compact.
For example, this proposition shows that any parabolic isometry g of a proper
CAT(0) space has a fixed point at infinity. Choose a minimising sequence for the
function x 7→ d(gx, x). This sequence has a subsequence that converges to a point
at infinity which is fixed.

2.5

Some simple geometric questions

Despite the fact that CAT(0) spaces became more and more popular in the last
decades, some elementary (in their statement) questions are still completely open.
Let us state and comment two of them. These questions are particular cases of
the following theme: what results of geometric functional analysis hold for metric
spaces of non-positive curvature? By geometric functional analysis we mean the
study of metric and probabilistic questions or questions about convexity for Banach
spaces or more generally Fréchet spaces. Fréchet spaces are locally convex vector
spaces metrizable by a complete and translation invariant metric.
Let X be a CAT(0) space and Y a subset of X. The closed convex hull of
Y is the smallest closed and convex subset of X that contains Y . This is the
intersection of all closed and convex subspaces of X containing Y . We denote it
by Conv(Y ).
Question 2.17. Let X be a CAT(0) space. Is the closed convex hull of a compact
subset still compact?
For convenience, let us say that the space X has Property (CH) if the closed
convex hull of any compact subset of X is compact. This question appeared in
[60, Section 4] (where the name of the property is coined) and is discussed in [85].
Observe it is not difficult to find compacta with non-closed convex hulls.
If the CAT(0) space is proper then the answer is obviously positive because
any compact subset is contained in some closed ball and thus the closed convex
8

hull, which is included in this ball, is compact. The following lemma shows that
it is sufficient to answer Question 2.17 for finite subsets.
Lemma 2.18. Let X be a CAT(0) space such that the closed convex hull of any
finite number of points is compact. Then X has Property (CH).
Proof. Let K be a compact subset of X. We will show that for any sequence of
Conv(K) and ε > 0, one can extract a subsequence of diameter less than ε. A
diagonal extraction yields a Cauchy subsequence and thanks to completeness, this
subsequence converges.
So, let K be a compact subspace, ε > 0 and (ki ) be a sequence of Conv(K), the
closed convex hull of K. There is a finite number of points x1 , . . . , xn such that
K ⊂ ∪nj=1 B(xj , ε/3). Let C be Conv(x1 , . . . , xn ) which is compact. By convexity
of the distance function dC , Conv(K)is contained in the ε/3-neighborhood of C.
In particular, for any i ∈ N there is an li ∈ C such that d(ki , li ) < ε/3. By
compactness of C, one can extract a subsequence of (lϕ(i) ) of diameter less than
ε/3. By the triangle inequality, (kϕ(i) ) is a subsequence of (ki ) of diameter less
than ε.
For two points the answer to Question 2.17 is clearly positive since the convex
hull of two points is merely the segment between them. Actually the same question
for three points is open and seems to be as hard as the original question.
Question 2.19 ([50, 6.B1 (f)]). Is the closed convex hull of any three points in a
CAT(0) space compact?
Thanks to Lemma 2.18 and the fact that a finite number of points in a Hilbert
space lies in a finite-dimensional subspace, one knows that Hilbert spaces have
Property (CH). Actually the question holds also for Busemann non-positively
curved space and is also open in this context (to our knowledge). For linear
convexity, the result holds true for Banach spaces, see [65, Theorem 2.10], and
relies on an analog of Lemma 2.18.
We do not have a plethora of well understood examples of non proper CAT(0)
spaces. One class of such examples is given by infinite-dimensional symmetric
spaces of non-positive curvature (see §3.1). In [60, Section 4], it is stated without
proof that infinite-dimensional symmetric spaces have property (CH). Let us give
a precise statement and a proof.
Proposition 2.20. Simply connected Hilbertian symmetric spaces with non-positive
curvature operator have Property (CH).
Proof. It follows from the classification of Hilbertian symmetric spaces [39, Theorem 1.8] that any such symmetric space is obtained as the closure of an increasing
union of finite-dimensional symmetric spaces. In particular, for any ε > 0 any
compact subspace K lies in the ε-neighbourhood of a finite number of points lying
in a finite-dimensional subspace. As in Lemma 2.18, K lies in the ε-neighbourhood
of a convex compact space and thus its closed convex hull is compact.
Remark 2.21. Proposition 2.20 is not straightforward because a finite number of
points (even three points) are not necessarily included in some finite-dimensional
totally geodesic subspace.
9

Definition 2.22. Let Y be a convex subspace of a CAT(0) space. An extremal
point of Y is a point y ∈ Y such that if x, x0 ∈ Y and y ∈ [x, x0 ] then x = y or
x0 = y.
Observe that in this definition, it suffices to consider points x, x0 such that
y is the midpoint of [x, x0 ]. The classical Krein-Milman theorem asserts that a
compact convex subset C of a locally convex topological vector space has extremal
points and actually this is equivalent (via the Hahn-Banach theorem) to the fact
that C is the closed convex hull of its extremal points.
If one thinks of the geometry of Banach spaces as a leading source of intuition
for the geometry of metric spaces of non-positive curvature, it is natural to ask
if the same is true for metric spaces with a convex bicombing. In that case the
answer is positive, as it was shown in [18]. Moreover, a convex compact subset is
the closed convex hull of its extremal points.
Hilbert spaces are the only Fréchet spaces which are CAT(0) (for any complete, invariant by translations compatible distance). In that case, closed convex
bounded subspaces are compact for the weak topology and the Krein-Milman theorem for the weak topology implies that closed convex bounded subsets are the
convex hull of their extremal points. So it is natural to ask the following question.
Question 2.23. Let Y be a non-empty closed convex bounded subspace of a CAT(0)
space. Is it true that X has extremal points?
This question was asked by Nicolas Monod in the Master class ”Geometric and
Cohomologic Group Theory: Rigidity and Deformation” held at CIRM in 2006.
Let us give a very short proof in the compact CAT(0) case.
Proposition 2.24. Let X be a (non-empty) compact CAT(0) space. Then X has
extremal points and X is the closed convex hull of its extremal points.
Proof. Let x0 ∈ X and using compactness, choose x ∈ X such that d(x0 , x) =
max d(x0 , y). Let y, z ∈ X such that x is the midpoint of [y, z]. By the CAT(0)
y∈X

inequality,
d(x0 , x)2 ≤ 1/2(d(x0 , y)2 + d(x0 , z)2 ) − 1/4d(y, z)2 ≤ d(x0 , x)2 − 1/4d(y, z)2
and thus y = z = x. Once one knows there are extremal points, an argument of
the same spirit shows that X is the convex hull of its extremal points [18].
Of course, it is also natural to ask if the full result of the Krein-Milman theorem
holds for CAT(0) spaces.
Question 2.25. Is it true that a closed convex bounded subset of a CAT(0) space
is the closure of the convex hull of its extremal points?
Questions 2.25 and 2.23 were answered negatively during the writing of this
paper. Nicolas Monod gave a counterexample to Question 2.23 called the rose.
The rose of Monod is a mere 2-dimensional simplicial complex with Euclidean
pieces [74].
10

3

Examples of CAT(0) spaces and groups

3.1

Symmetric spaces

Definition 3.1. A Riemannian manifold X is symmetric if for any point x, there
is a global isometry σx fixing x such that its differential at x is − Id. A symmetric
space of non-compact type is a symmetric Riemannian manifold with non-positive
sectional curvature and no local Euclidean factor.
Since we will not consider symmetric spaces which are not of compact type,
we will use symmetric spaces as a shortcut for symmetric spaces of non-compact
type. It is not a priori obvious that these spaces are simply connected but this is
actually the case and thus these spaces are CAT(0).
Standard references for symmetric spaces are [57] and [43] but for a more
friendly introduction one may read [71, 83] with two different approaches: a differential one and an algebraic one. Symmetric spaces are strongly related to semisimple Lie groups. Let us describe the dictionary between symmetric spaces of
non-compact type and semi-simple Lie groups without compact factor.
Let X be a symmetric space of non-compact type.
• The connected component of the identity in the isometry group G = Isom◦ (X)
is a semi-simple Lie group with trivial center and no compact factor.
• The stabilizer K of a point x ∈ X is a maximal compact subgroup of G.
Any two such subgroups are conjugate.
• The action G y X is transitive, thus X ' G/K.
Conversely, If G is a semi-simple Lie group with finite center and no compact
factor then G has a maximal compact subgroup K and X = G/K has the structure
of a symmetric space of non-compact type.
This dictionary emphasises that there is a classification of symmetric spaces
parallel to the classification of semi-simple Lie groups (see [15, Chapter IV] for
historical considerations on Cartan’s work).
In particular, there is a unique way (up to permutation of the factors) to write
any symmetric space X as a product of irreducible factors:
X ' X1 × · · · × Xn .
In this splitting, which coincides with the de Rham decomposition, each Xi is
an irreducible symmetric space, that is, Xi ' Gi /Ki where Gi is a simple Lie
group (with trivial center and no compact factor) and Ki is a maximal compact
subgroup. So Isom(X1 ) × · · · × Isom(Xn ) is a finite index subgroup of Isom(X).
The finite index corresponds to the finite possibilities of permuting the possible
isometric factors.
On a homogeneous space G/K where G is a simple Lie group and K a maximal
subgroup, there is a unique G-invariant Riemannian metric up to scaling. So two
symmetric spaces with the same isometry group are isometric up to scaling the
metric on the irreducible factors.
11

Definition 3.2. A CAT(0) space is symmetric if for each point x ∈ X, there is
an involutive isometry σx such that x is the unique fixed point of σx .
With this definition, one can easily see that symmetric CAT(0) spaces are
geodesically complete (any geodesic segment is included in some geodesic line)
and homogeneous.
The following theorem shows that the differentiable structure of a symmetric
space of non-compact type is completely contained in its metric structure.
Theorem 3.3 ([37, Théorème 8.4]). Let X be a proper symmetric CAT(0) space,
then X has an isometric splitting
X 'E×Y
where E is a Euclidean space and Y a symmetric space of non-compact type.
The proof of this theorem essentially relies on the following consequence of
the solution of the Hilbert fifth problem: a connected locally compact group with
trivial amenable radical is a semi-simple Lie group without compact factors ([72,
Theorem 11.3.4(ii)]).
Since the manifold structure can be recovered from the metric data, it is natural
to ask for a purely metric approach of symmetric spaces of non-compact type.
In particular, how to prove the CAT(0) inequality without relying on differential
geometry? See [25, Exercise 1.4.(iii)]. The hyperbolic space is the simplest example
of a symmetric space. Let us prove that it is CAT(0) without using differential
geometry.
Proposition 3.4. The hyperbolic space is CAT(0).
To prove this proposition, we use the following characterisation of CAT(0)
spaces that relies on the Alexandrov angle, which is notion of angle for geodesic
segments with a common endpoint. See [16, Definition I.12].
Lemma 3.5 ([16, Exercise II.1.9(c)]). Let (X, d) be a geodesic metric space. Then
X is CAT(0) if and only if for any triple of points A, B, C ∈ X with distance
a = d(B, C), b = d(A, C), c = d(A, B) and Alexandrov angle γ at the vertex C,
one has
c2 ≥ a2 + b2 − 2ab cos(γ).
(2)
Observe that the equality case is the so-called (Euclidean) law of cosines.
Proof of Proposition 3.4. We use the hyperboloid model [16, Chapter I.2]. Let
En,1 be the vector space Rn+1 with the non-degenerate quadratic form hu|vi =
n
X
−un+1 vn+1 +
ui vi . The hyperbolic space Hn is then {u = (u1 , . . . , un+1 ) ∈
i=1

En,1 | hu, vi = −1, un+1 > 0}. The distance between two points A, B ∈ Hn ,
is defined by cosh(d(A, B)) = −hA|Bi. To show that this is a metric, the only
non-trivial fact to check is the triangle inequality. This is a consequence of the
hyperbolic law of cosines. This law is a simple consequence of the model [16, I.2.7].
12

For any triple of points A, B, C ∈ Hn with distance a = d(B, C), b = d(A, C), c =
d(A, B),
cosh(c) = cosh(a) cosh(b) − sinh(a) sinh(b) cos(γ)
where γ is the angle at vertex C (which coincides with the Alexandrov angle thanks
to [16, Proposition I.2.9]). We aim now to show Inequality (2).
We consider first the case 0 ≤ γ ≤ π/2. Fix side lengths
=
p a, b, c, define f (γ) 
cosh(a) cosh(b) − sinh(a) sinh(b) cos(γ) and g(γ) = cosh
a2 + b2 − 2ab cos(γ) .
Thus, our goal is to show
p that ϕ(γ) = f (γ) − g(γ) ≥ 0. One has ϕ(0) = 0. For
convenience, set c0 = a2 + b2 − 2ab cos(γ) (that is, the length of the third side
in a Euclidean triangle with sides a, b and angle γ). We have:
a2n+1 b2m+1
sin(γ)
(2n + 1)!(2m + 1)!
n,m≥0

X a2 + b2 − 2ab cos(γ) k
sinh(c0 )
0
g (γ) =
ab sin(γ)
ab sin(γ) =
c0
(2k + 1)!

f 0 (γ) = sinh(a) sinh(b) sin(γ) =

X

k≥0

≤

X (a2 + b2 )k
k≥0

≤

(2k + 1)!

X X
k≥0 0≤i≤k

ab sin(γ)

k!
a2i+1 b2(k−i)+1 sin(γ)
i!(k − i)!(2k + 1)!

(n + m)!
.
n!m!(2(n + m) + 1)!
Since (n + m)! ≥ n!m! and (2(n + m) + 1)! ≥ (2n + 1)!(2m + 1)!, one has
1
(n + m)!
≥
. Thus ϕ0 ≥ 0 on [0, π/2] and ϕ(γ) ≥ 0
(2n + 1)!(2m + 1)!
n!m!(2(n + m) + 1)!
on [0, π/2].
Now, let us consider the case γ ≥ π/2. Choose D ∈ [A, B] such the angles γ 0 = ∠([C, A], [C, D]) and γ 00 = ∠([CD, CB]) are at most π/2. Let c0 =
00
0
00
d(A, D),
lengths (that is
p c = d(D, B) and c0 , c0 the corresponding Euclidean
00
2
2
00
c0 = a + b − 2ab cos(γ )). The former case shows that c0 ≥ c00 and c00 ≥ c000 .
Moreover, in the Euclidean plane, one has c00 + c000 ≥ c0 and finally c = c0 + c00 ≥
c00 + c000 ≥ c0 .
In the last double sum, the coefficient in front of a2n+1 b2m+1 is

C
0

γ γ
A

00

D

B

Figure 2: Point D and angles γ 0 , γ 00

13

Proper symmetric CAT(0) spaces are well understood and one can ask what
are the symmetric CAT(0) spaces outside the proper world. One can consruct
infinite-dimensional analogs of the symmetric spaces of non-compact type that
remain in the CAT(0) world. These are manifolds modelled on Hilbert spaces
with a Riemannian metric. They can be classified in a way analogous to the finitedimensional case [39, Theorem 1.8]. There are also symmetric CAT(0) spaces that
are not Riemannian manifolds [39, §4.3].

3.2

Euclidean Buildings

Buildings were introduced by Jacques Tits to get a geometry to understand properties of algebraic groups. In some sense, this is a converse of Klein’s Erlangen Program. Such a geometry was already existing for semi-simple Lie groups. It is given
by symmetric spaces. Euclidean buildings are analogs in the non-Archimedean
world.
Here we use the Kleiner-Leeb axiomatisation of Euclidean buildings [64]. This
axiomatisation starts from a CAT(0) space and thus is more geometric than the
original definition due to Tits. It is a priori not completely clear that one can
recover Tits’ definition from the one of Kleiner and Leeb. Parreau proved that
this is actually the case [84, §2.7]. Her definition is a bit more general to cover the
case of non complete spaces.
Let E be a Euclidean space. Its boundary at infinity ∂E endowed with the
angular metric is a Euclidean sphere of dimension dim(E) − 1. Since isometries of
E are affine and translations act trivially on ∂E, one obtain a homomorphism
ρ : Isom(E) → Isom(∂E)
that associates its linear part to every Euclidean isometry. A subgroup WAff ≤
Isom(E) is called an affine Weyl group if it is generated by reflections through
hyperplanes and if W := ρ(WAff ) is a finite subgroup of Isom(∂E).
The group W is called the spherical Weyl group associated with WAff . If WAff
is an affine Weyl group then (E, WAff ) is called a Euclidean Coxeter complex and
(∂E, W ) is the associated spherical Coxeter complex at infinity. Its anisotropy
polyhedron is the spherical polyhedron
∆ := ∂E/W.
An oriented segment (not reduced to a point) xy of E determines a unique
point of ∂E and the projection of this point to ∆ is called the ∆-direction of xy.
Let π be the projection ∂E → ∆. If δ1 , δ2 are two points of ∆, we introduce the
finite set
D(δ1 , δ2 ) = {∠(ξ1 , ξ2 ))|ξ1 , ξ2 ∈ ∂E, π(ξ1 ) = δ1 , π(ξ2 ) = δ2 }.
Definition 3.6. Let (E, WAff ) be a Euclidean Coxeter complex. A Euclidean
building modelled on (E, WAff ) is a complete CAT(0) space (X, d) with
(i) a map θ from the set of oriented segments not reduced to a point to ∆;
14

Figure 3: Reflection hyperplanes for the discrete affine Weyl group B2 n Z2 .

(ii) a collection, A, called atlas, of isometric embeddings ι : E → X that preserve
∆-directions. This atlas is closed under precompositions with isometries in
WAff . The image of such an isometric embedding ι is called an apartment.
Moreover the following properties must hold.
(1) For all x, y, z ∈ X such that y 6= z and x 6= z,
d∆ (θ(xy), θ(xz)) ≤ ∠x (y, z).
(2) The angle between two geodesic segments xy and xz is in D(θ(xy), θ(xz)).
(3) Every geodesic segment, ray or line is contained in an apartment.
(4) If A1 and A2 are two apartments with a non-empty intersection then the
−1
−1
transition map ι−1
A2 ◦ ιA1 : ιA1 (A1 ∩ A2 ) → ιA2 (A1 ∩ A2 ) is the restriction of
an element of WAff .
Euclidean subspaces of a Euclidean building are included in some apartment
and thus the rank of a Euclidean building is the dimension of any apartment that
is the dimension of the model Euclidean space E. When the rank is 1, that is, E
is the real line, one recover (in a cumbersome way) real trees with no leaves.
Remark 3.7. A Euclidean building is called discrete if the translation part of WAff
is discrete. If X is an irreducible discrete Euclidean building such that WAff acts
cocompactly then X has a simplicial structure. Definition 3.6 allows non-discrete
buildings in a similar way that real trees are generalisations of simplicial trees.
15

Figure 4: The sphere at infinity ∂E with the trace of reflection hyperplanes for
the spherical Weyl group B3 .

The purpose of the Kleiner-Leeb definition is to be stable under asymptotic
cones. Recall that the asymptotic cone of a metric space (X, d) is a limit of a
sequence of metric spaces (X, λ−1
n d) with λn → +∞. For example, ideal triangles
(that is, triangles with vertices at infinity) in the hyperbolic plane become thinner
and thinner when λn → +∞ and the limit is actually a real tree. Asymptotic cones
of Euclidean buildings are Euclidean buildings of the same rank and spherical
Weyl group [64, Theorem 5.1.1]. Moreover asymptotic cones of symmetric spaces
X are Euclidean buildings of the same rank [64, Theorem 5.2.1]. In that case, the
spherical Weyl group is the classical Weyl group of the semi-simple group Isom(X).
This result holds also in infinite dimensions: The asymptotic cone of a symmetric
space of infinite dimension and finite rank is a Euclidean building of the same rank
[38, Theorem 1.3].
There is a correspondance between Euclidean buildings and algebraic groups
over fields with a non-Archimedean valuation (when the rank is at least 3). Euclidean buildings associated to algebraic groups are called Bruhat-Tits buildings.
To prove the correspondance, Tits showed how to reconstruct the group from the
building [95, 96]. See [1, §11.9] and references therein for an overview.
Euclidean buildings and symmetric spaces share a common feature at infinity:
their boundaries endowed with the Tits metric are spherical buildings. We do not
aim to give a definition but a taste of their geometric and combinatorial natures.
Spherical buildings can be defined as metric objects with a condition of curvature
bounded above [64, §3.2] and some more combinatorial properties. They are union
of Euclidean spheres of the same dimension. These spheres are glued together
according to the action of a finite Coxeter group. For a soft introduction, we
recommend [16, II.10.71]. Spherical buildings encode algebraic data. For example,
let us consider the spherical building B associated to SL(V ) where V is some finitedimensional vector field. This building B has the structure of a simplicial complex
where simplices are in bijection with flags in V . Inclusion of flags corresponds to
inclusion of simplices.
The presence of this spherical building at infinity is the essential source of
16

rigidity phenomena detailed in Section 4.

3.3

CAT(0) cube complexes

Besides symmetric spaces and Euclidean buildings, CAT(0) cube complexes provide a very nice class of CAT(0) spaces with interesting actions. They belong to
the class of polyhedral cell complexes which are CAT(0) like discrete Euclidean
buildings. For references about groups acting on CAT(0) complexes, one may
consult [16, Chapter II.12].
CAT(0) cube complexes are sufficiently well understood to obtain very strong
results like the Tits Alternative (Theorem 5.3) or a proof of the Rank Rigidity
conjecture (Section 6). CAT(0) cube complexes have both a geometric structure
(CAT(0) inequality) and a more combinatorial one: there are spaces with walls.
The latter structure allows to understand properties of groups with an analytic
flavour like the Haagerup property and Property (T). Moreover, the combinatorics
of spaces with walls allow to construct CAT(0) cube complexes. This is the socalled cubulation process and we will see some remarkable applications of that
construction. For an introductory paper to the subject of CAT(0) cube complexes,
we recommend [89].
Roughly speaking, a CAT(0) cube complex is a collection of cubes glued together isometrically along faces in such a way that the resulting length space is
CAT(0).
A cube is a metric space isometric to [0, 1]n for some n (this n is called the
dimension of the cube). A face of a cube C is a subset corresponding to fixing k
coordinates by making them equal to 0 or 1. In particular, a face of C is itself a
cube of dimension n − k where n is the dimension of C and k is the number of
fixed coordinates. An attaching map between two cubes is an isometry between
two faces of two different cubes. A cubical complex is the space obtained from a
collection of cubes and a collection of attaching maps where a point and its image
via an attaching map are identified. See [16, Definition 7.32] for details.
The dimension of a cubical complex X is the supremum of the dimensions of
its cubes. It may be infinite, otherwise one say that X has finite dimension.
A cubical complex X is naturally endowed with a length metric obtained by
minimising lengths of continuous paths between two points where the distance
between two points in a common cube is the Euclidean one. A vertex (or a cube
of dimension 0) is a vertex of some cube. The link Lk(v) at a vertex v ∈ X is the
simplicial complex whose vertices are edges with one end v. Edges e0 , e1 , . . . , en ∈
Lk(v) are the vertices of an n-simplex in Lk(v) if there is a cube C in X such that
v is a vertex of C and the ei ’s are edges of C.
A simplicial complex is a flag complex if for any finite collection of vertices
v0 , . . . , vn such that for any i, j, vi and vj are linked by an edge there is an nsimplex with vertices v0 , . . . , vn .
Gromov gave a local characterisation of cubical complexes that are CAT(0).
Such cubical complexes are called CAT(0) cube complexes. A proof in finite dimensions can be found in [16, Theorem II.5.20]. The general case is treated in [66,
Theorem B.8].
17

Theorem 3.8 (Gromov link condition). A cubical complex X is CAT(0) if and
only if X is simply connected and for any vertex the associated link is a flag
complex.
In dimension 1, CAT(0) cube complexes are exactly simplicial trees with the
metric where any edge has length 1.
Definition 3.9. Let C be cube. A midcube is the subset of C where one coordinate
has been fixed to 1/2.
It is a remarkable theorem of Sageev that midcubes of CAT(0) cube complexes
can be extended along the whole complex. Let us describe that construction. We
define an equivalence relation on the set of midcubes. For two midcubes M1 , M2
in cubes C1 , C2 , we define M1 ' M2 if C1 and C2 have a common edge e such that
Mi ∩ e is the mid-point of e for i = 1, 2. The equivalence relation we consider is
the one generated by this relation.
Definition 3.10. A hyperplane H of a CAT(0) cube complex is the union of
midcubes in a equivalence class. The carrier C(H) of H is the union of cubes
intersecting H.
Theorem 3.11 ([88]). Let H be a hyperplane of some CAT(0) cube complex X.
• H is a closed convex subspace of X,
• H has the structure of a CAT(0) cube complex of dimension at most dim(X)−
1,
• C(H) is isometric to H × [−1/2, 1/2],
• X \ H has two connected components which are convex subsets of X.

H

Figure 5: A hyperplane H in some finite CAT(0) cube complex.
The two connected components of X \ H are called half-spaces. Two points of
X are separated by H if they lie in different components of X \ H. The 1-skeleton
18

of X is a connected graph and thus has a graph metric where all edges have
length 1. Actually the distance between two vertices coincides with the number
of hyperplanes that separate them. This metric can be extended to the whole
complex in a unique way such that each cube of dimension n becomes isometric to
[0, 1]n with the `1 -metric. This metric on X is called the `1 -metric. If X has finite
dimension then the CAT(0)-metric and the `1 -metric are quasi-isometric (see [17,
Section 1]).
The non-positive curvature of CAT(0) cube complexes is very important but
the combinatorics of cubes is also very important and sometimes the CAT(0)metric forgets about the combinatorics. Let us illustrate that with a simple example. The Euclidean space Rn has a natural cube complex structure where the
vertices are points with integral coordinates. The isometry group does not at
all preserve this structure but if one endow Rn with the `1 -metric, the space becomes much more rigid and the linear part of the isometry group of the `1 -metric
preserves the cubical structure.
Let us give another example. Salajan exhibited some elements of the Thompson
group F acting via parabolic isometries (for the CAT(0) metric) [91, Proposition
2.4.1] on the CAT(0) cube complex constructed by Farley. On the other hand,
Haglund proved that the isometries of CAT(0) cube complexes are semi-simple in
a combinatorial sense (up to considering the barycentric subdivision) [53, Theorem
1.4]. Observe that the existence of parabolic elements may appear only in infinite
dimensions. In finite dimensions, there are only finitely many types of simplices
and in that case, all isometries are semi-simple [16].
Definition 3.12. Let V be a set. A wall W is a partition of V its two non-empty
subsets W− , W+ . Two points u, v ∈ V are separated by a wall W if u, v does not
belong to the same subset W− or W+ . The two subsets W+ and W− are called
half-spaces associated to the wall W . A space with walls is a set V with a collection
of walls where any two points are separated by a finite positive number of walls.
If V is a space with walls then one has a metric associated to the collection
of walls. The distance between u, v ∈ V is the number of walls separating them.
There is a duality between CAT(0) cube complexes and spaces with walls. Let X
be a CAT(0) cube complex and let V be the set of vertices of X. Any hyperplane
H induces a wall on V since any vertex is exactly in one component of X \ H.
Thus the collection of hyperplanes gives the structure of a space with walls on V .
Observe that a vertex v of X gives a choice of a half-space for any hyperplane:
simply choose the one containing v !
Conversely, if V is a space with walls, an ultrafilter on the set of walls W is
a consistent choice of a half-space for any wall. More precisely, an ultrafilter α is
a map from W to the set of half-spaces such that for any W ∈ W, α(W ) = W±
and if W, W 0 ∈ W and W+ ⊂ W+0 then α(W ) = W+ =⇒ α(W 0 ) = W+0 . An
ultrafilter α satisfies the Descending Chain Condition if any non-increasing (with
respect to inclusion) chain of half-spaces in the image of α is eventually constant.
As before, any point v yields an ultrafilter by choosing the hyperplane containing
v. This ultrafilter satisfies the descending chain condition.
Now, if V is a space with walls then one can define a CAT(0) cube complex
19

whose vertex set is the set of ultrafilters that satisfies the descending chain condition. Two vertices are joined by an edge if the corresponding ultrafilters give a
different choice for exactly one wall. We just constructed the 0 and 1-skeletons.
The higher dimensional cubes are constructed inductively: If one see a complex
isomorphic to the n − 1 skeleton of an n-cube, one simply fills it with an n-cube.
For more details, see [34, 87] or the original construction [88].
This duality between CAT(0) cube complexes and spaces with walls is actually
equivariant: If a group acts on one of the structures it acts also on the other. See
for example [34, Theorem 3].
The process of constructing a CAT(0) cube complex from a space with walls
(or more generally from a pocset [87]) is called cubulation. The construction of a
CAT(0) cube complex on which a group acts nicely (e.g. properly, cocompactly or
both) is also called a cubulation of the group. For a nice survey about cubulated
groups and their properties, we recommend [58].
Examples 3.13. Let us list a few groups that have been cubulated:
• Right angle Artin groups [32],
• Coxeter groups [77],
• Small cancellation groups [98].
We will see in Section 4 some very strong rigidity results for symmetric spaces
and Euclidean buildings. It is natural to ask wether similar phenomena happen in
the world of CAT(0) cube complexes.
The Roller boundary of a CAT(0) cube complex X is defined in the following
way. Let H be the set of hyperplanes of X. Any hyperplane defined two
Y half-spaces
H+ and H− . Any vertex of X can be identified with a point in
{H+ , H− }.
H∈H
R

0

Let us denote by X the closure of the image of the vertex set X in this product.
R
The Roller boundary ∂R X is X \ X 0 .
Question 3.14. Are there suitable hypotheses for rigidity in the world of CAT(0)
cube complexes? First there is no similar statement to Mostow rigidity (see Section 4.2). Actually one can cubulate surface groups in different ways. Thus one
may construct quasi-isometric cube complexes with a proper and cocompact action of the same group such that the complexes have different Roller boundaries.
Nonetheless, one can ask how (under suitable hypotheses), the Roller boundary
determines the complex.
Question 3.15. Trees with edges of length 1 have a continuous analog: real trees.
Since trees are CAT(0) cube complexes of dimension 1, it is natural to ask if there
are analogs of real trees. Is there a good notion of real CAT(0) cube complexes?
For example, one can construct a CAT(0) cube complex from a space with walls.
There is a more general notion of space with measured walls (see references in
Section 5.3). Can one construct a CAT(0) space associated to a space with measured walls in an equivariant way? The natural generalisations of trees (working
well with spaces with measured walls) are median spaces. They are not CAT(0)
in general.
20

3.4

Cubulating hyperbolic 3-manifold groups

Let us describe a bit a recent and very fruitful cubulation of certain groups. A
hyperbolic 3-dimensional group is the fundamental group of a closed 3-dimensional
manifold which admits a hyperbolic metric, that is, a Riemannian metric of sectional curvature -1. In particular, such a group acts properly cocompactly on the
hyperbolic space of dimension 3. So the group is quasi-isometric to this hyperbolic
space and thus hyperbolic in the sense of Gromov (see e.g. [16, III.2] or [49]).
A combination of results of Bergeron-Wise [14] and Kahn-Markovich [61] implies a cubulation of hyperbolic 3-dimensional groups.
Theorem 3.16. Every hyperbolic 3-manifold group acts properly and cocompactly
on a CAT(0) cube complex.
After Perelman’s proof of Thurston geometrization conjecture, one of the remaining conjectures was the virtual Haken conjecture (stated by Waldhausen):
Any closed and aspherical 3-dimensional manifold has a finite cover which is
Haken. A manifold M is Haken if it contains an embedded surface S such
that the inclusion S ,→ M induces an embedding between fundamental groups
Π1 (S) ,→ Π1 (M ).
Building on Theorem 3.16 and the theory of special cube complexes [54], Agol
was able to show that any hyperbolic group that acts properly cocompactly on a
CAT(0) cube complex is virtually special. Eventually, he proved the virtual Haken
conjecture. For details, see [99].
Theorem 3.17 ([3]). Every hyperbolic 3-manifold is virtually Haken.

4
4.1

Rigidity properties of the above examples
Bieberbach theorems and the solvable subgroup theorem

We aim to show in that section how the above examples are rigid. Let us start
with the simplest example given by Euclidean spaces. A group acting discretely
cocompactly by isometries on Rn is called a crystallographic group of Rn .
Theorem 4.1 (Bieberbach theorems). Any crystallographic group of Rn contains
an Abelian group Zn of finite index. This Abelian subgroup is generated by n
linearly independent translations.
There are finitely many isomorphism classes of crystallographic groups of Rn .
Accounts on those theorems may be found in [6, 21] and [93, §4.2]. Theorem
4.1 implies the existence of a free Abelian subgroup acting properly by semi-simple
isometries. One has the following converse.
Theorem 4.2 (Flat torus theorem). Let A be a free Abelian group of rank n acting
properly by semi-simple isometries on a CAT(0) space X. Then there is a closed
convex subspace Y ⊂ X which is A-invariant and splits as a product Z × Rn . The
action of A on Y is diagonal, being trivial on Z and by translations on Rn .
21

From this first rigidity result, one can show that solvable subgroups of groups
acting geometrically on CAT(0) spaces are very restricted. A group has virtually
some property if there is a subgroup of finite index which has the property.
Theorem 4.3 (Solvable subgroup theorem). Let Γ be CAT(0) group. Then any
solvable subgroup of Γ is virtually an Abelian free group of finite rank.

4.2

Superrigidity

In this section, we are interested in rigidity of lattices (discrete subgroups of finite
covolume) of semi-simple algebraic groups over local fields. Recall that a local
field is a topological field which is locally compact. There is a short list of such
fields: finite fields Fq , R, C, finite extensions of Qp (p-adic numbers) and finite
extension of Fq ((T )) (Laurent series over a finite field).
The idea here under the term rigidity is the fact that a lattice determines
the group where it lives. Thanks to the dictionary between semi-simple algebraic
groups over local fields and their symmetric spaces or Euclidean buildings, we state
all results using the action on the associated CAT(0) space.
Theorem 4.4 (Mostow Strong Rigidity [76]). Let X, Y be two symmetric spaces
and Γ be a group acting freely cocompactly by isometries on both X, Y via two
homomorphisms α : Γ → Isom(X) and β : γ → Isom(Y ). If X has no factor
isometric to H2 then there is an isomorphism ϕ : Isom(X) ' Isom(Y ) such that
β = ϕ ◦ α.
Let us explain why the hyperbolic plane has to be excluded. If S is a Riemann
surface of genus at least 2, it can be endowed with a hyperbolic metric and thus
its universal cover is H2 (this is a uniformization of the surface). But there are
many non-isometric ways of endowing S with a hyperbolic metric (the different
possibilites are parametrised by the Teichmüller space of S). Two non-isometric
ways give two non-conjugate embeddings of Π1 (S) in H2 as a lattice.
A few years after Mostow proved his rigidity theorem, Margulis proved a very
stronger result [69]. The name superrigidity for that result was coined by Mostow.
Margulis stated the result purely in group-theoretic terms. It was an intermediate
result to obtain arithmeticity of lattices. We use a more geometric rephrasing
[51, 80].
Theorem 4.5 (Geometric Superrigidity). Let X and Y be proper symmetric
CAT(0) spaces or Euclidean buildings of rank at least 2. If Γ is a lattice of Isom(X)
and Γ acts by isometries on Y without fixed point in Y then there is a closed convex subspace Z ⊂ Y which is isometric to a product of irreducible factors of X and
the action Γ y Z factorises via a quotient of Isom(X).
A similar result for symmetric spaces of rank 1 which are not the real or complex
hyperbolic space were obtained later [36, 52]. This superrigidity result inspired
a lot of different works in many different directions. Let us just mention [73] for
lattices in products, [40] for symmetric spaces of infinite dimension and finite rank
and [48] for Busemann non-positively curved targets.
22

Let us introduce a weakening of being isometric for two metric spaces. Roughly
speaking, two metric spaces are quasi-isometric if they are homothetic at large
scale.
Definition 4.6. Let (X, d) and (X 0 , d0 ) be two metric spaces. A map f : X → X 0
is a quasi-isometry if there are constants L, C > 0 such that for any x, y ∈ X,
1/L d(x, y) − C ≤ d0 (f (x), f (y)) ≤ Ld(x, y) + C
and for any x0 ∈ X 0 there is x ∈ X with d0 (x0 , f (x)) ≤ C.
It is a simple computation to show that if f : X → X 0 is a quasi-isometry
then there is g : X 0 → X which also is a quasi-isometry such that for any x ∈ X,
d(x, g(f (x))) ≤ 2LC. In that sense g is a quasi-inverse to f .
In Mostow’s theorem (Theorem 4.4), the two actions of the common cocompact
lattice gives an equivariant quasi-isometry between the two symmetric spaces X, Y .
Mostow showed that this quasi-isometry lies at bounded distance from an isometry
(up to rescaling the metric on each factor). Margulis conjectured that if X, Y are
irreducible symmetric spaces of higher rank then the conclusion should also hold
without the equivariance of the quasi-isometry.
Theorem 4.7 ([64, Theorem 1.1.3]). Let X be an irreducible symmetric space
of higher rank or an irreducible higher rank Bruhat-Tits building and let Y be a
product of Euclidean spaces, symmetric spaces and Euclidean thick buildings. If
X and Y are quasi-isometric then Y has only one factor which is isometric (after
rescaling) to X and the quasi-isometry is at bounded distance from that isometry.
Kleiner and Leeb proved that for products of Euclidean spaces, symmetric
spaces and Euclidean buildings, the splitting as a product of irreducible factors is
an invariant of quasi-isometry. In particular, they were able to prove the Margulis
conjecture.
Corollary 4.8. If X is an irreducible higher rank symmetric space and Y is a
quasi-isometric symmetric space then X and Y are homothetic.
The symmetric spaces of rank 1 are hyperbolic spaces over R, C, the quaternions
or Cayley octonions. In the last two cases, Corollary 4.8 holds but for the first
two ones, there are much more quasi-isometries than the ones at bounded distance
from homotheties.

4.3

Isometries of proper CAT(0) spaces

Semi-simple algebraic groups over local fields (and their subgroups) are leading
examples of groups acting on proper CAT(0) spaces. As soon as the CAT(0) space
is proper, the isometry group is locally compact. The structure theory of locally
compact groups is quite well understood and in particular, the solution of the fifth
Hilbert problem tells us when a connected locally compact group is actually a
Lie group and, in particular, the connected component of the isometry group of a
symmetric space.
23

In a series of two papers [27, 28], Caprace and Monod developed a structure
theory for groups acting on proper CAT(0) spaces. The settings are cocompact
actions of groups acting on a CAT(0) space or merely that the action of the full
group of isometry is cocompact. The two motivating questions are: What are the
general properties of these pairs of groups and spaces? How to characterise Euclidean buildings and symmetric spaces? One main theme underlying this question
is splitting canonically the space into irreducible pieces (de Rham decompositions).
They prove a lot of theorems and we emphasise just a few of them. These
may not be the strongest ones but they illustrate well the general ideas. The
first one can be seen as a solution of the fifth Hilbert problem for CAT(0) spaces.
Recall that a locally compact group G has a connected component of the identity
G0 which is a normal closed subgroup such that G/G0 is totally disconnected.
Moreover G0 has a unique maximal normal amenable subgroup A (the amenable
radical) such that G0 /A is a semi-simple Lie group without compact factors.
A CAT(0) space is geodesically complete if any segment is included in some
geodesic line. Under geodesic completeness, understanding the relation between
splitting and these normal subgroups leads to the following theorem.
Theorem 4.9 ([28, Theorem 1.1]). Let X be a proper geodesically complete CAT(0)
space such that Isom(X) acts cocompactly without fixed point at infinity. Then X
splits as a product
X ' M × Rn × Y
where M is a symmetric space and Isom(Y ) is totally disconnected and acts by
semi-simple isometries.
Moreover, this splitting is preserved by isometries.
Under a supplementary assumption on stabilisers of points at infinity, one gets
the following characterisation of symmetric spaces and Euclidean buildings.
Theorem 4.10 ([28, Theorem 1.3]). Let X be a geodesically complete proper
CAT(0) space. Suppose that the stabiliser of every point at infinity acts cocompactly on X. Then X is isometric to a product of symmetric spaces, Euclidean
buildings and Bass–Serre trees.
Discrete subgroups of semi-simple algebraic groups over local fields have been
studied extensively (see e.g. [69]). In particular, for lattices, that is, discrete subgroups of finite covolume, two important theorems are the Borel density theorem
and the Margulis arithmeticity theorem. Roughly speaking, the first one proves
Zariski density of lattices and the second proves arithmeticity of lattices in higher
rank.
Since isometry groups of proper CAT(0) spaces have Haar measures, one has
also a notion of lattice.
Definition 4.11. Let X be a proper CAT(0) space with cocompact isometry
group. A CAT(0) lattice is a lattice of Isom(X).
The Borel density theorem implies that any lattice of a connected semi-simple
real algebraic group without compact factor is Zariski dense. For connected semisimple Lie group without compact factor, Zariski density of a subgroup is understood via the action on the associated symmetric space. Let X be a symmetric
24

space. A subgroup Γ ≤ Isom(X)0 is Zariski-dense if and only if Γ y X is minimal
and Γ does not fix any point at infinity. If the last two conditions are satisfied,
one says that the action is geometrically dense.
Here is an analog for general proper CAT(0) spaces.
Theorem 4.12 ([27, Theorem 1.1]). Let X be a proper CAT(0) space, G a locally compact group acting continuously by isometries on X and Γ < G a lattice.
Suppose that X has no Euclidean factor. If G acts minimally on X without fixed
point at infinity, so does Γ.
Surprisingly, the mere existence of a parabolic isometry in the full isometry
group can lead to a very strong result like the following arithmeticity statement.
Theorem 4.13 ([27, Theorem 1.5]). Let (Γ, X) be an irreducible finitely generated CAT(0) lattice where X is geodesically complete and possesses some parabolic
isometry. If Γ is residually finite, then X is a product of symmetric spaces and
Bruhat-Tits buildings. In particular, Γ is an arithmetic lattice unless X is a real
or complex hyperbolic space.

5
5.1

Amenability and non-positive curvature
Amenability

Recall that a topological group is amenable if for any compact G-space (in a locally
convex space on which G acts affinely), there is a fixed point. First examples of
amenable groups are given by Abelian and compact groups and amenability is stable under group extension and passing to closed subgroups. For example, virtually
solvable groups are amenable. For a reference on amenability we recommend [12,
Appendix G] which is concise and contains full proofs of the equivalence between
the most useful definitions of amenability.
One main obstruction to amenability is the existence of a closed free subgroup.
Free groups are not amenable because of paradoxical decompositions (See for example [97]).
In the realm of CAT(0) spaces, the first occurence of amenability is due to
flatness. Recall that the isometry group of the Euclidean space Rn is O(n) n Rn
which is amenable as an extension of a compact group by an Abelian one.
Since linear groups are one of our main sources of groups acting on spaces of
non-positive curvature, it is natural to concentrate first on that case.
Theorem 5.1 (Tit’s Alternative [94, Theorem 1]). Let Γ be a subgroup of GL(n, k)
where k is a field of characteristic 0 and n ∈ N. Then Γ is virtually solvable or
contains a non-Abelian free subgroup.
In positive characteristic, there is a slightly more general statement [94, Theorem 2]. This alternative has many interesting consequences. For example, any
finitely generated linear group (in any characteristic) contains a free group or is
virtually solvable. In particular, it has exponential growth or polynomial growth.
25

Corollary 5.2. A finitely generated amenable linear group is virtually solvable.
The original proof uses the dynamics of the action of linear groups on the
projective space where a ping-pong argument produces non-Abelian free groups.
So it does not use the action of Γ on the symmetric space or the Euclidean building
(when k is a valued field) X associated to GL(n, k).
Because of the importance of the Tits alternative for linear groups, it is natural
to try to extend the result to other classes than linear groups. For example, there
is a version of the alternative for hyperbolic groups [49, Théorème 38]. See the
introduction of [90] for other classes. Let us give two examples where the action on
some CAT(0) space leads to an analog of Tits’ alternative. We start with groups
acting on CAT(0) cube complexes (see also [30, 46]).
Theorem 5.3 ([90]). Let G be a group with a bound on the orders of finite subgroups. If G acts properly on a finite-dimensional CAT(0) cube complex then
either G contains a non-Abelian free subgroup or G is a finitely generated virtually
Abelian group.
The finite dimension assumption on the complex is very important. For example, the Thompson group F has no non-Abelian free subgroups, is not virtually
solvable but acts on a proper (infinite-dimensional) CAT(0) cube complex [45]. It
is an open problem to decide wether the Thompson group F is amenable or not.
Another example is given by [23, Théorème C] which shows that the group
of birational transformations of a compact Kähler complex surface satisfies the
Tits alternative. This means that any finitely generated subgroup contains a nonabelian free subgroup or is virtually solvable. The proof relies on the construction
of an action of the group of birational transformations on the infinite-dimensional
hyperbolic space.
Since the Tits alternative holds for linear groups and groups acting on CAT(0)
cube complexes, which are two main sources of groups acting on CAT(0) spaces,
it is natural to try to know if it holds more generally (see [90, Problem 1.3] and
[29, Introduction]).
Question 5.4. Is there a version of the Tits Alternative for groups acting on proper
cocompact CAT(0) spaces?
After the flat torus and solvable subgroup theorems, the main tool to understand amenable groups is the Adams-Ballmann Theorem which generalises previous results for manifolds of non-positive curvature. See [19, Theorem 2] and
references in [2].
Theorem 5.5 ([2]). Let X be a proper CAT(0) space. If G is an amenable group
acting continuously by isometries on X then G stabilises a flat subspace (possibly
of dimension 0, that is a point) or fixes a point at infinity.
The theorem has also been proved when the space has finite telescopic dimension, instead of being proper [26]. Observe that the conclusion cannot hold
without any assumption on the CAT(0) space. Edelstein exhibits an isometry of
a Hilbert space of infinite dimension with no fixed point at infinity nor invariant
(finite-dimensional) Euclidean subspace [44, §2].
26

The Tits alternative gives a complete description of amenable linear groups.
For sufficiently homogenous CAT(0) spaces, a description of amenable subgroups
has been obtained. A locally compact group is locally elliptic if it is an increasing
union of compact subgroups. A locally compact group H has a unique maximal
normal locally elliptic subgroup, its locally elliptic radical . Let us denote it by
R(H).
Theorem 5.6 ([29, Theorem A]). Let X be a proper cocompact CAT(0) space. A
closed subgroup H ≤ Isom(X) is amenable if and only if the following equivalent
conditions hold:
1. The identity component H ◦ is solvable by compact,
2. H ◦ R(H) is open in H,
3. H/(H ◦ R(H)) is virtually solvable.
This algebraic statement has also a geometric counterpart. To state it, let us
introduce the transverse space to a point at infinity. Let ξ be a point at infinity
of some CAT(0) space X. One introduces a pseudo-metric on the geodesic rays ρ
such that ρ(+∞) = ξ. For two such rays ρ1 , ρ2 ,
d(ρ1 , ρ2 ) = inf d(ρ1 (t), ρ2 (s)).
t,s>0

After identifying rays at distance 0, one gets a metric space whose completion Xξ
is a new CAT(0) space on which the stabiliser of ξ in Isom(X) acts by isometries.
This space is called the transverse space associated to ξ [68, 24].
Let us illustrate this concept in some simple cases. If X is a Euclidean space,
a point at infinity is given by parallel geodesic rays, and two rays ρ1 , ρ2 satisfy
d(ρ1 , ρ2 ) = 0 if and only if there is t0 ∈ R such that ρ1 (t) = ρ2 (t + t0 ) for t
large enough. In particular, the transverse space to ξ ∈ ∂X can be identified
with an orthogonal space to some geodesic ray in the class of the point ξ. If X
is the hyperbolic plane, any two geodesic rays ρ1 , ρ2 with a common endpoint at
infinity satisfy d(ρ1 , ρ2 ) = 0 and the transverse associated to any point at infinity
is reduced to a point.
For symmetric spaces, the construction goes back to Karpelevich [62] and can
be expressed in the following way. If ξ is a point at infinity of a symmetric space X,
the stabiliser of ξ is a parabolic group Pξ and the transverse space Xξ is the product
of a Euclidean space and another symmetric space which is the symmetric space
associated to the semi-simple part of Pξ in a Levi decomposition (see [43, §2.217]
for the background required). The space Xξ can be isometrically embedded in X.
If ξ 0 ∈ ∂X is opposite to ξ (that means ξ, ξ 0 are the ends of a common geodesic line)
then the union of geodesic lines with ends ξ and ξ 0 is a totally geodesic subspace
which splits as R × Xξ . The R-factor is given by any line joining ξ and ξ 0 .
In that case the space Xξ strongly depends on ξ (actually on the minimal cell
of the spherical building at infinity containing it). For example, if Pξ is a minimal
parabolic then Xξ is a Euclidean space of dimension rank(X) − 1. Let G be any
semi-simple group of non-compact type. Then G can be embedded (via the adjoint
27

action) in SLn (R) for n large enough and by the Mostow-Karpelevich theorem [75],
the symmetric space of G embeds isometrically in the one of SLn (R). Actually, it
lies as a factor in some transverse space at infinity (as soon as G 6= SLn (R)).
This construction of a transverse space can be repeated and by induction, one
constructs Xξ1 ,...,ξi where ξi ∈ ∂Xx1 ,...,xi−1 . A refined flat of X is a flat in some
Xξ1 ,...,ξi . With this refined construction, one has a geometric characterisation of
amenable subgroups of Isom(X).
Theorem 5.7 ([29, Corollary G]). Let X be a proper cocompact CAT(0) space.
A closed subgroup of Isom(X) is amenable if and only if it preserves a refined fat.

5.2

Amenability at infinity

Even if a group is not amenable, it may have amenable actions. There are different
notions of amenable actions. Here is the one we use, which is sometimes called
topological amenability. The space Prob(G) of probability measures on a Hausdorff
locally compact group G is endowed with the weak*-topology as a subspace of the
dual space of continuous functions with compact support on G (see e.g. [47,
Chapter 7]).
Definition 5.8. Let B be a locally compact space and G a locally compact group
acting continuously by homeomorphims on B. The action G y B is amenable if
there is a sequence of continuous maps µn : B → Prob(G) such that
kµn (gb) − µn k → 0
uniformly on compact subsets of G × B.
The norm used here is the dual norm on Cc (G)∗ . This coincides with the norm
of total variation.
The case we are interested in is when B is compact. We refer to [4, 5].
Definition 5.9. A locally compact group G is amenable at infinity if there is a
compact space B and an amenable G-action on B.
For example the action of an amenable group on a point is amenable and
thus amenable groups are amenable at infinity. For semi-simple algebraic groups
over local fields G, a minimal parabolic group is amenable and G/P is compact,
thus G is amenable at infinity. The amenability is at infinity because G/P can be
identified with the set of maximal simplices of the spherical building at infinity. For
a survey on this specific subject one can read [78]. For discrete groups, amenability
at infinity is equivalent to exactness and Property A. Another example is given by
groups acting on trees: The action on the boundary at infinity is amenable. This
is the origin of examples of amenability at infinity that we see in the remaining
of this section. In rank less than 3, Euclidean buildings are not necessarily of
algebraic origin but one still has amenability at infinity.
Theorem 5.10 ([67]). Let X be a locally finite building. The action of Aut(X)
on the combinatorial compactification of X is amenable.
28

We denote by ∂R X the Roller boundary of a CAT(0) cube complex X. In [17]
it is proved that discrete groups acting metrically properly on a finite-dimensional
CAT(0) cube complex are amenable at infinity. Actually the proof leads to the
following slightly more general statement.
Theorem 5.11. Let X be a finite-dimensional CAT(0) cube complex and G a
discrete group acting on X by automorphisms with finite vertex stabilisers. The
action of G on the compact space ∂R X is amenable.
Proof. We use the notations of [17] and we adapt the proof of Theorem 4.2 there.
First we make the notation of fn,x dependent of z ∈ ∂R X. Thus we denote by
z
fn,x
the function defined by


 n − d(x, y) + δz (y)
if y ∈ [x, z]
z
δz (y)
fn,x
(y) =

0
if y ∈
/ [x, z]
where δz (y) = N − |Nz (y)| (N is the dimension of the complex). As in [17],
this function is finitely supported and thus `1 . For g ∈ Aut(X), the equivariance
z
gz
relation is g · fn,x
= fn,gx
. It is proved that
z
z
− fn,x
kfn,x
0k
2d(x, x0 )N
≤
.
z k
kfn,x
n+N
zi
z
Moreover, it is shown that if zi → z then fn,x
coincides with fn,x
for i large
enough and we get the following continuity property: for fixed n, x, the map
z
z 7→ fn,x
is locally constant.
z
X fn,x
(gx)
0
Now, define φzn =
where T is a transversal of G y X 0 (X 0 is the
|Gx |
x∈T

vertex set of X) and Gx ≤ G the isotropy group of x. One has that φzn is finitely
z
supported and kφzn k = kfn,x
k (which actually does not depend on z nor on x0 ).
0
For z ∈ ∂R X and g ∈ G,
kg · φzn − φgz
n k=

X

|φzn (g −1 h) − φzn (h)|

h∈G

≤

X
h∈G, x∈T

≤

X
h∈G, x∈T

≤

X

z
z
|fn,x
(g −1 hx) − fn,x
(hx)|
0
0
|Gx |
gz
z
|fn,gx
(hx) − fn,x
(hx)|
0
0
|Gx |

z
gz
|fn,x
(x) − fn,x
(x)|
0
0

x∈X
z
kfn,x
0

gz
− fn,x
k
0
N
≤ 2 d(x0 , gx0 )
kφz k
n+N n

≤

29

φzn
, all properties of the Definition 5.8 are satisfied and
kφzn k
G y ∂R X is amenable.
Defining mzn =

More generally in the spirit of [78, Corollary 2.9] (and also [79]):
Theorem 5.12. Let X be a finite-dimensional CAT(0) cube complex and G a
countable group acting on X by automorphisms with amenable vertex stabilisers.
The action of G on the compact space ∂R X is amenable.
Proof. Up to considering a G-invariant convex subcomplex of X, we assume that
X has countably many vertices. We directly use [78, Proposition 2.7] where the
countable G-space is the space of vertices of X and the compact G-space is the
Roller boundary ∂R X. Fix a base vertex x0 and for z ∈ ∂R X, define µzn to be
z
z
the probability measure fn,x
/kfn,x
k. A similar computation as in the proof of
0
0
N
and thus we can apply
Theorem 5.11 shows that kgµzn − µgz
n k ≤ 2 d(x0 , gx0 )
n+N
directly [78, Proposition 2.7] with Y being a point (which is a G-space with trivial
action and an amenable space for any stabiliser of point in X). We get that
G y ∂R X is amenable.
Corollary 5.13. The Higman group acts amenably on the Roller boundary of its
square complex.
Remark 5.14. The Higman group is known to be exact because it has finite asymptotic dimension. Corollary 5.13 yields another proof of this fact. Observe that [17]
is not sufficient because the action of the Higman group on its complex is not
metrically proper (vertices have infinite stabilisers).

5.3

Haagerup property and property (T)

There is an another weakening of amenability related to actions on some CAT(0)
spaces: the Haagerup property.
Definition 5.15. A locally compact group has the Haagerup property if it admits
a continuous and metrically proper action by isometries on a Hilbert space.
Any continuous action of a group Γ on a Hilbert space H is given by a continuous homomorphism α : Γ → O(H) and a continuous cocycle b : Γ → H (that is
b(gh) = α(g)b(h) + b(g) for all g, h ∈ Γ). The action is metrically proper if kb(g)k
goes to infinity when g leaves all compacta of Γ.
With a convenient characterisation of amenability, it is not difficult to show
that amenable groups have the Haagerup property [13]. Originally, the Haagerup
property was defined in terms of mixing unitary representations. It was shown
that for second countable groups, the Haagerup property is equivalent to Gromov’s
a-(T)-menability, that is, the definition we gave. For a panorama and characterisations of groups with the Haagerup property see [35].
The name that Gromov gave to this property comes from the strong opposition
between the Haagerup property and property (T). Actually, a group with both
properties is compact.
30

Definition 5.16. A second countable locally compact group has property (T) if
any continuous isometric action on a Hilbert space has fixed points.
A good reference about property (T) is [12]. In the algebraic world, the situation is well understood.
Theorem 5.17. Let k be a local field and G be the k-points of a connected almost
simple algebraic group k. Let r be the k-rank of G.
• If r ≥ 2 then G has property (T) ([12, Theorem 1.6.1]).
• If r = 1 and k is non-Archimedean then G has the Haagerup property.
• If r = 1 and k = C then G is locally isomorphic to PSL2 (C) ' SO+ (3, 1)
and has the Haagerup property.
• If r = 1 and k = R, the two properties occur: SO(n, 1) and SU(n, 1) have
have property (T).
the Haagerup property but Sp(n, 1) and F−20
4
This theorem shows that knowing that G acts on a symmetric space or a
Euclidean building (or more generally on a CAT(0) space) does not suffice to
conclude it has one or the other property. Many groups with property (T) act on
CAT(0) polyhedral cell complexes without fixed point (see for example [41, 11])
although we will characterise this property via fixed points on some CAT(0) spaces.
Nonetheless, one can explain how the Haagerup property occurs in Theorem
5.17. If the rank is 1 and k is non-Archimedean, G acts properly on the associated
Euclidean building which is a tree, thus a space with walls. The groups SO(n, 1)
act on the real hyperbolic space of dimension n which has a natural structure of a
space with measured walls. Walls are given by totally geodesic hypersurfaces and
a Crofton formula shows that the distance between two points is proportional to
the measure of walls separating them [12, Proposition 2.6.4]. The role of spaces
with measured walls is explained below.
The definitions of the two properties involve Hilbert spaces which are completely flat. Nevertheless these properties can be characterised by actions on negatively curved spaces.
Proposition 5.18. Let X be the real or complex hyperbolic space of infinite dimension and let Γ be a second countable locally compact group.
• Γ has the Haagerup property if and only if Γ has a metrically proper action
by isometries on X.
• Γ has property (T) if and only if any action of Γ on X has fixed points.
The two properties are stable under passing to lattices: if Γ is a lattice in G
then G has the Haagerup property (respectively property (T)) if and only if Γ
has the same property (see [12, Theorem 1.7.1] and [35, Proposition 6.1.5]). But
neither the Haagerup property nor property (T) are geometric, that is, invariant
under quasi-isometries. See [31] and [12, 3.6]. Nonetheless, one can give combinatorial/geometric characterisations using actions on spaces with measured walls.
31

We have seen what is a space with walls where points are separated by a finite
number of walls. There is a generalisation of this notion where there is a measure
on the set of walls and points are separated by a set of walls of finite measure.
Theorem 5.19 ([33, Theorem 1.3]). Let G be a locally compact second countable
group.
1. The group G has property (T) if and only if any continuous action by automorphisms on a space with measured walls has bounded orbits.
2. The group G has the Haagerup property if and only if it admits a proper
continuous action by automorphisms on a space with measured walls.
Let us explain a bit this theorem in a simple case: groups acting on trees. If a
group G acts on a tree T then one gets an isometric action on a associated Hilbert
space H. If G has a fixed point on H then G has a fixed point in T . If the action
on T is metrically proper then the action on H is also metrically proper.
Let E be the set of oriented edges of T and let H = L2 (E), that is, the Hilbert
space with orthonormal basis {δe }e∈E . If G acts on E, it permutes edges and thus
one gets an orthogonal representation of G on H. Fix a vertex v0 and for any
vertex v denote
by [v, v0 ] the finite set of edges between v0 and v. Now define
X
b(g) =
εg (e)δe where εg (e) = ±1 is positive if e points from gv0 to v0 and
e∈[gv0 ,v0 ]

negative otherwise. It is not difficult to check that b is actually a cocycle and that
the associated isometric action on H has the above properties.
If one removes an edge from a tree one gets two connected components and
thus a partition of the set of vertices in two parts. So the set of unoriented edges
yields a structure of a space with walls on the set of vertices of a tree. The distance
between two vertices is exactly the number of walls separating them.
One can generalise this construction from trees to spaces with (measured) walls.
The relevant Hilbert space is the L2 -space on half-spaces.

6
6.1

Rank rigidity and the flat closing conjectures
Rank Rigidity Conjecture

A hyperbolic isometry is a semi-simple isometry with positive translation length.
Definition 6.1. Let X be a CAT(0) space. A rank one isometry is a hyperbolic
isometry such that none of its axes is the boundary of an isometrically embedded
Euclidean half-plane.
Rank one isometries are very interesting because of the dynamics at infinity
they induce. There is a so-called north-south dynamics. If g is a rank-one isometry
and X is proper then g has exactly two fixed points at infinity ξ− , ξ+ ∈ ∂X and for
any pair of neighbourhoods V± of ξ± , there is k ∈ N such that g k (∂X \ V− ) ⊂ V+
[55, Lemma 4.4].
32

Conjecture 6.2 (Rank Rigidity Conjecture [9]). Let X be an irreducible geodesically complete and proper CAT(0) space. If Γ is a countable group acting properly
and cocompactly on X then X is a symmetric space of non-compact type and rank
at least 2, a Euclidean building of dimension at least 2 or Γ contains a rank one
isometry.
This conjecture comes from the following theorem for Hadamard manifolds.
Theorem 6.3 (Rank Rigidity Theorem [20, 7]). Let X be an irreducible Hadamard
manifold with a countable group Γ acting properly and cocompactly by isometries.
Then, either M is a symmetric space of non-compact type and rank at least 2 or
Γ contains a rank one isometry.
For a more detailed discussion about the rank rigidity theorem, we refer to [8,
Theorem C]. Beyond the world of manifolds, the conjecture has been proved for a
large class of singular CAT(0) spaces.
Theorem 6.4 (Rank rigidity theorem for CAT(0) cube complexes [30, Theorem
A]). Let X be a finite-dimensional CAT(0) cube complex and Γ a group acting
minimally by isometries on X. If Γ has no fixed point in X then X splits as the
product of two cube sub-complexes or Γ contains a rank one isometry.
Remark 6.5. If one removes the minimality hypothesis, then the lack of fixed
points implies the existence of a convex Γ-invariant subcomplex Y ⊂ X such that
the action Γ y Y is minimal. If Y does not split as a product then Γ contains an
element which acts as a rank one isometry on Y .
Having the rank rigidity conjecture in mind, the rank one case appears to be
the generic case and thus it is natural to try to understand rank one isometries on
one side [55] and the possibility for spaces to have rank one isometries [56].

6.2

Flat Closing Conjecture

There is another conjecture related to the presence of flats in a CAT(0) space.
Recall that the flat torus theorem allows to construct flats in a CAT(0) space X
from the data of an Abelian free subgroup of Isom(X). The flat closing conjecture
asks for a kind of converse. Let Γ be a group of isometries of X. A flat F ⊂ X is
Γ-periodic if there is a subgroup Γ0 ≤ Γ preserving F such that Γ0 \X is compact.
Observe that if Γ is discrete, Theorem 4.1 implies that Γ0 is virtually a free Abelian
group of rank dim(F ).
Conjecture 6.6 (Flat Closing Conjecture [50, 6.B3 ]). Assume X is a proper
CAT(0) space with a proper cocompact action of a discrete group Γ. Assume that
X contains a flat of dimension n. Is it true that X contains a Γ-periodic flat of
dimension n?
Observe that a positive answer to that question would imply that Γ contains
Zn as a subgroup, thanks to Theorem 4.1. The conjecture is known to be true for
n = 1. Actually, the proof does not even use the existence of a geodesic. It only
33

uses that some infinite discrete group acts geometrically on a proper CAT(0) [92,
Theorem 11].
The conjecture also holds for subgroups of discrete subgroups of isometry
groups of symmetric spaces. Recall that the real rank of this isometry group
coincides with the rank of its symmetric space.
Proposition 6.7 ([86]). Let X be symmetric space and Γ a discrete subgroup of
Isom(X) acting cocompactly. Then Γ contains a free Abelian subgroup Zr where
r = rank(X).
Proof. Let G be the isometry group of X. This is a semi-simple Lie group with
trivial center and no compact factor. The subgroup Γ is a lattice in G and by
the Borel density theorem, the Zariski closure of Γ is G itself. The set of regular
elements (elements with centralizer of minimal dimension) in G is Zariski open and
thus Γ contains a regular element γ. The centralizer ZG (γ) of γ contains ZG (γ)∩Γ
as a lattice. Since ZG (γ) is virtually Rr , the Bieberbach theorem (Theorem 4.1)
implies that Γ contains a free Abelian group of rank r.
One has to be aware that without properness, the conjecture is false. The
Higman group acts cocompactly on a CAT(0) cube complex of dimension 2. This
complex contains a lot of flats of dimension 2 but the Higman group does not
contain any subgroup isomorphic to Z2 [70, Proposition G]. Neither the space nor
the action is proper. More generally, for manifolds, one has the following result in
the special case where the flat is actually the Euclidean de Rham factor.
Theorem 6.8 ([42]). Let X be a simply-connected Riemannian manifold of nonpositive curvature and Γ a group acting freely and properly discontinuously on X.
If Γ\X has finite volume then the rank of the maximal normal Abelian subgroup
coincides with the dimension of the Euclidean de Rham factor.
Actually, it is shown that this maximal normal Abelian subgroup coincides
with Clifford translations in Γ. Thus this theorem implies that the Euclidean de
Rham factor is Γ-periodic, and that any subflat is so.
For more general CAT(0) spaces, one has the following generalisation of Eberlein’s result still dealing with Γ-periodicity of the Euclidean de Rham factor.
Theorem 6.9 ([27, Theorem 1.3(i)]). Let X be a proper CAT(0) space such that
Isom(X) acts minimally and cocompactly. If Γ is a finitely generated lattice then
Γ virtually splits as Zr × Γ0 where r is the rank of the Euclidean de Rham factor.

Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Athanase Papadopoulos who proposed me to write this survey
article. It was a great opportunity for me to try to circumnavigate the subject of
groups acting on CAT(0) spaces and gather the important (in my mind and to the
best of my knowledge) facts about this domain of group actions. I was happy to
extract some structure from the many papers in this very active field since a few
decades.
34

I would like to thank Indira Chatterji and Michah Sageev for answering a few
questions about CAT(0) cube complexes.

References
[1] P. Abramenko and K. S. Brown. Buildings, volume 248 of Graduate Texts in
Mathematics. Springer, New York, 2008. Theory and applications.
[2] S. Adams and W. Ballmann. Amenable isometry groups of Hadamard spaces.
Math. Ann., 312(1):183–195, 1998.
[3] I. Agol. The virtual Haken conjecture. Doc. Math., 18:1045–1087, 2013. With
an appendix by Agol, Daniel Groves, and Jason Manning.
[4] C. Anantharaman-Delaroche. Amenability and exactness for dynamical systems and their C ∗ -algebras. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 354(10):4153–4178
(electronic), 2002.
[5] C. Anantharaman-Delaroche and J. Renault. Amenable groupoids, volume 36 of Monographies de L’Enseignement Mathématique [Monographs of
L’Enseignement Mathématique]. L’Enseignement Mathématique, Geneva,
2000. With a foreword by Georges Skandalis and Appendix B by E. Germain.
[6] L. Auslander. An account of the theory of crystallographic groups. Proc.
Amer. Math. Soc., 16:1230–1236, 1965.
[7] W. Ballmann. Nonpositively curved manifolds of higher rank. Ann. of Math.
(2), 122(3):597–609, 1985.
[8] W. Ballmann. Lectures on spaces of nonpositive curvature, volume 25 of DMV
Seminar. Birkhäuser Verlag, Basel, 1995. With an appendix by Misha Brin.
[9] W. Ballmann and S. Buyalo. Periodic rank one geodesics in Hadamard spaces.
In Geometric and probabilistic structures in dynamics, volume 469 of Contemp. Math., pages 19–27. Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2008.
[10] W. Ballmann, M. Gromov, and V. Schroeder. Manifolds of nonpositive curvature, volume 61 of Progress in Mathematics. Birkhäuser Boston Inc., Boston,
MA, 1985.
[11] W. Ballmann and J. Świa̧tkowski. On L2 -cohomology and property (T) for
automorphism groups of polyhedral cell complexes. Geom. Funct. Anal.,
7(4):615–645, 1997.
[12] B. Bekka, P. de la Harpe, and A. Valette. Kazhdan’s property (T), volume 11
of New Mathematical Monographs. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
2008.
35

[13] M. E. B. Bekka, P.-A. Cherix, and A. Valette. Proper affine isometric actions
of amenable groups. In Novikov conjectures, index theorems and rigidity, Vol.
2 (Oberwolfach, 1993), volume 227 of London Math. Soc. Lecture Note Ser.,
pages 1–4. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1995.
[14] N. Bergeron and D. T. Wise. A boundary criterion for cubulation. Amer. J.
Math., 134(3):843–859, 2012.
[15] A. Borel. Essays in the history of Lie groups and algebraic groups, volume 21
of History of Mathematics. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI,
2001.
[16] M. R. Bridson and A. Haefliger. Metric spaces of non-positive curvature, volume 319 of Grundlehren der Mathematischen Wissenschaften [Fundamental
Principles of Mathematical Sciences]. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1999.
[17] J. Brodzki, S. J. Campbell, E. Guentner, G. A. Niblo, and N. J. Wright.
Property A and CAT(0) cube complexes. J. Funct. Anal., 256(5):1408–1431,
2009.
[18] T. Buehler. The Krein-Mil’man theorem for metric spaces with a convex
bicombing. 2006, http://arxiv.org/abs/math/0604187.
[19] M. Burger and V. Schroeder. Amenable groups and stabilizers of measures on
the boundary of a Hadamard manifold. Math. Ann., 276(3):505–514, 1987.
[20] K. Burns and R. Spatzier. Manifolds of nonpositive curvature and their buildings. Inst. Hautes Études Sci. Publ. Math., (65):35–59, 1987.
[21] P. Buser. A geometric proof of Bieberbach’s theorems on crystallographic
groups. Enseign. Math. (2), 31(1-2):137–145, 1985.
[22] J. W. Cannon. Geometric group theory. In Handbook of geometric topology,
pages 261–305. North-Holland, Amsterdam, 2002.
[23] S. Cantat. Sur les groupes de transformations birationnelles des surfaces.
Ann. of Math. (2), 174(1):299–340, 2011.
[24] P.-E. Caprace. Amenable groups and Hadamard spaces with a totally disconnected isometry group. Comment. Math. Helv., 84(2):437–455, 2009.
[25] P.-E. Caprace. Lectures on proper CAT(0) spaces and their isometry groups.
In Geometric group theory, volume 21 of IAS/Park City Math. Ser., pages
91–125. Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2014.
[26] P.-E. Caprace and A. Lytchak. At infinity of finite-dimensional CAT(0)
spaces. Math. Ann., 346(1):1–21, 2010.
[27] P.-E. Caprace and N. Monod. Isometry groups of non-positively curved
spaces: discrete subgroups. J. Topol., 2(4):701–746, 2009.
36

[28] P.-E. Caprace and N. Monod. Isometry groups of non-positively curved
spaces: structure theory. J. Topol., 2(4):661–700, 2009.
[29] P.-E. Caprace and N. Monod. Fixed points and amenability in non-positive
curvature. Math. Ann., 356(4):1303–1337, 2013.
[30] P.-E. Caprace and M. Sageev. Rank rigidity for CAT(0) cube complexes.
Geom. Funct. Anal., 21(4):851–891, 2011.
[31] M. Carette, S. Arnt, T. Pillon, and A. Valette. The Haagerup property is not
invariant under quasi-isometry. 2014, http://arxiv.org/1403.5446.
[32] R. Charney. An introduction to right-angled Artin groups. Geom. Dedicata,
125:141–158, 2007.
[33] I. Chatterji, C. Druţu, and F. Haglund. Kazhdan and Haagerup properties
from the median viewpoint. Adv. Math., 225(2):882–921, 2010.
[34] I. Chatterji and G. Niblo. From wall spaces to CAT(0) cube complexes.
Internat. J. Algebra Comput., 15(5-6):875–885, 2005.
[35] P.-A. Cherix, M. Cowling, P. Jolissaint, P. Julg, and A. Valette. Groups with
the Haagerup property, volume 197 of Progress in Mathematics. Birkhäuser
Verlag, Basel, 2001. Gromov’s a-T-menability.
[36] K. Corlette. Archimedean superrigidity and hyperbolic geometry. Ann. of
Math. (2), 135(1):165–182, 1992.
[37] B. Duchesne. Des espaces de Hadamard symétriques de dimension infinie et
de rang fini. PhD thesis, Université de Genève, Juillet 2011.
[38] B. Duchesne. Infinite-dimensional nonpositively curved symmetric spaces of
finite rank. Int. Math. Res. Not. IMRN, (7):1578–1627, 2013.
[39] B. Duchesne. Infinite-dimensional Riemannian symmetric spaces with fixedsign curvature operator. Annales de l’institut Fourier, 65(1):211–244, 2015.
[40] B. Duchesne. Superrigidity in infinite dimension and finite rank via harmonic
maps. Groups Geom. Dyn., 9(1):133–148, 2015.
[41] J. Dymara and T. Januszkiewicz. Cohomology of buildings and their automorphism groups. Invent. Math., 150(3):579–627, 2002.
[42] P. Eberlein. Euclidean de Rham factor of a lattice of nonpositive curvature.
J. Differential Geom., 18(2):209–220, 1983.
[43] P. B. Eberlein. Geometry of nonpositively curved manifolds. Chicago Lectures
in Mathematics. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, 1996.
[44] M. Edelstein. On non-expansive mappings of Banach spaces. Proc. Cambridge
Philos. Soc., 60:439–447, 1964.
37

[45] D. Farley. The action of Thompson’s group on a CAT(0) boundary. Groups
Geom. Dyn., 2(2):185–222, 2008.
[46] T. Fernós. The Furstenberg Poisson boundary and CAT(0) cube complexes.
2015, http://arxiv.org/abs/1507.05511.
[47] G. B. Folland. Real analysis. Pure and Applied Mathematics (New York).
John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, second edition, 1999. Modern techniques
and their applications, A Wiley-Interscience Publication.
[48] T. Gelander, A. Karlsson, and G. A. Margulis. Superrigidity, generalized harmonic maps and uniformly convex spaces. Geom. Funct. Anal., 17(5):1524–
1550, 2008.
[49] É. Ghys and P. de la Harpe, editors. Sur les groupes hyperboliques d’après
Mikhael Gromov, volume 83 of Progress in Mathematics. Birkhäuser Boston
Inc., Boston, MA, 1990. Papers from the Swiss Seminar on Hyperbolic Groups
held in Bern, 1988.
[50] M. Gromov. Asymptotic invariants of infinite groups. In Geometric group
theory, Vol. 2 (Sussex, 1991), volume 182 of London Math. Soc. Lecture Note
Ser., pages 1–295. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1993.
[51] M. Gromov and P. Pansu. Rigidity of lattices: an introduction. In Geometric
topology: recent developments (Montecatini Terme, 1990), volume 1504 of
Lecture Notes in Math., pages 39–137. Springer, Berlin, 1991.
[52] M. Gromov and R. Schoen. Harmonic maps into singular spaces and p-adic
superrigidity for lattices in groups of rank one. Inst. Hautes Études Sci. Publ.
Math., (76):165–246, 1992.
[53] F. Haglund. Isometries of CAT(0) cube complexes are semi-simple. 2007,
http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.3386.
[54] F. Haglund and D. T. Wise. Special cube complexes. Geom. Funct. Anal.,
17(5):1551–1620, 2008.
[55] U. Hamenstädt. Rank-one isometries of proper CAT(0)-spaces. In Discrete
groups and geometric structures, volume 501 of Contemp. Math., pages 43–59.
Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2009.
[56] U. Hamenstädt. Isometry groups of proper CAT(0)-spaces of rank one. Groups
Geom. Dyn., 6(3):579–618, 2012.
[57] S. Helgason. Differential geometry, Lie groups, and symmetric spaces, volume 34 of Graduate Studies in Mathematics. American Mathematical Society,
Providence, RI, 2001. Corrected reprint of the 1978 original.
[58] G. C. Hruska and D. T. Wise. Finiteness properties of cubulated groups.
Compos. Math., 150(3):453–506, 2014.
38

[59] L. Ji and A. Papadopoulos, editors. Sophus Lie and Felix Klein: the Erlangen
program and its impact in mathematics and physics, volume 23 of IRMA
Lectures in Mathematics and Theoretical Physics. European Mathematical
Society (EMS), Zürich, 2015.
[60] J. Jost. Equilibrium maps between metric spaces. Calc. Var. Partial Differential Equations, 2(2):173–204, 1994.
[61] J. Kahn and V. Markovic. Immersing almost geodesic surfaces in a closed
hyperbolic three manifold. Ann. of Math. (2), 175(3):1127–1190, 2012.
[62] F. I. Karpelevič. The geometry of geodesics and the eigenfunctions of the
Beltrami-Laplace operator on symmetric spaces. Trans. Moscow Math. Soc.,
1965:51–199. Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, R.I., 1967, 1967.
[63] F. C. Klein. A comparative review of recent researches in geometry. 1892,
http://arxiv.org/abs/0807.3161.
[64] B. Kleiner and B. Leeb. Rigidity of quasi-isometries for symmetric spaces
and Euclidean buildings. Inst. Hautes Études Sci. Publ. Math., (86):115–197
(1998), 1997.
[65] E. Kopecká and S. Reich. Nonexpansive retracts in Banach spaces. In Fixed
point theory and its applications, volume 77 of Banach Center Publ., pages
161–174. Polish Acad. Sci. Inst. Math., Warsaw, 2007.
[66] I. J. Leary. A metric Kan-Thurston theorem. J. Topol., 6(1):251–284, 2013.
[67] J. Lécureux. Amenability of actions on the boundary of a building. Int. Math.
Res. Not. IMRN, (17):3265–3302, 2010.
[68] B. Leeb. A characterization of irreducible symmetric spaces and Euclidean
buildings of higher rank by their asymptotic geometry. Bonner Mathematische
Schriften [Bonn Mathematical Publications], 326. Universität Bonn Mathematisches Institut, Bonn, 2000.
[69] G. A. Margulis. Discrete subgroups of semisimple Lie groups, volume 17 of
Ergebnisse der Mathematik und ihrer Grenzgebiete (3) [Results in Mathematics and Related Areas (3)]. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1991.
[70] A. Martin.
On the cubical geometry of Higman’s group.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1506.02837.

2015,

[71] J. Maubon. Symmetric spaces of the non-compact type: differential geometry. In Géométries à courbure négative ou nulle, groupes discrets et rigidités,
volume 18 of Sémin. Congr., pages 1–38. Soc. Math. France, Paris, 2009.
[72] N. Monod. Continuous bounded cohomology of locally compact groups, volume
1758 of Lecture Notes in Mathematics. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2001.
[73] N. Monod. Superrigidity for irreducible lattices and geometric splitting. J.
Amer. Math. Soc., 19(4):781–814, 2006.
39

[74] N. Monod.
Extreme points
http://arxiv.org/abs/1602.06752.

in

non-positive

curvature.

2016,

[75] G. D. Mostow. Some new decomposition theorems for semi-simple groups.
Mem. Amer. Math. Soc., 1955(14):31–54, 1955.
[76] G. D. Mostow. Strong rigidity of locally symmetric spaces. Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J., 1973. Annals of Mathematics Studies, No.
78.
[77] G. A. Niblo and L. D. Reeves. Coxeter groups act on CAT(0) cube complexes.
J. Group Theory, 6(3):399–413, 2003.
[78] N. Ozawa. Amenable actions and applications. In International Congress of
Mathematicians. Vol. II, pages 1563–1580. Eur. Math. Soc., Zürich, 2006.
[79] N. Ozawa. Boundary amenability of relatively hyperbolic groups. Topology
Appl., 153(14):2624–2630, 2006.
[80] P. Pansu. Superrigidité géométique et applications harmoniques. In
Géométries à courbure négative ou nulle, groupes discrets et rigidités, volume 18 of Sémin. Congr., pages 373–420. Soc. Math. France, Paris, 2009.
[81] A. Papadopoulos. Metric spaces, convexity and nonpositive curvature, volume 6 of IRMA Lectures in Mathematics and Theoretical Physics. European
Mathematical Society (EMS), Zürich, 2005.
[82] A. Papadopoulos. Metric spaces, convexity and non-positive curvature, volume 6 of IRMA Lectures in Mathematics and Theoretical Physics. European
Mathematical Society (EMS), Zürich, second edition, 2014.
[83] P.-É. Paradan. Symmetric spaces of the non-compact type: Lie groups. In
Géométries à courbure négative ou nulle, groupes discrets et rigidités, volume 18 of Sémin. Congr., pages 39–76. Soc. Math. France, Paris, 2009.
[84] A. Parreau. Immeubles affines: construction par les normes et étude des
isométries. In Crystallographic groups and their generalizations (Kortrijk,
1999), volume 262 of Contemp. Math., pages 263–302. Amer. Math. Soc.,
Providence, RI, 2000.
[85] A. Petrunin.
Convex hull
http://mathoverflow.net/q/6627.

in

CAT(0).

MathOverflow,

[86] G. Prasad and M. S. Raghunathan. Cartan subgroups and lattices in semisimple groups. Ann. of Math. (2), 96:296–317, 1972.
[87] M. A. Roller. Poc sets, median algebras and group actions. an extended study
of dunwoody’s construction and sageev’s theorem. Habilitationschrift, Regensberg, 1998.
[88] M. Sageev. Ends of group pairs and non-positively curved cube complexes.
Proc. London Math. Soc. (3), 71(3):585–617, 1995.
40

[89] M. Sageev. CAT(0) cube complexes and groups. In Geometric group theory, volume 21 of IAS/Park City Math. Ser., pages 7–54. Amer. Math. Soc.,
Providence, RI, 2014.
[90] M. Sageev and D. T. Wise. The Tits alternative for CAT(0) cubical complexes.
Bull. London Math. Soc., 37(5):706–710, 2005.
[91] D.-T. Salajan.
CAT(0) geometry for the Thompson group.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.5749.

2012,

[92] E. L. Swenson. A cut point theorem for CAT(0) groups. J. Differential Geom.,
53(2):327–358, 1999.
[93] W. P. Thurston. Three-dimensional geometry and topology. Vol. 1, volume 35
of Princeton Mathematical Series. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ,
1997. Edited by Silvio Levy.
[94] J. Tits. Free subgroups in linear groups. J. Algebra, 20:250–270, 1972.
[95] J. Tits. Buildings of spherical type and finite BN-pairs. Lecture Notes in
Mathematics, Vol. 386. Springer-Verlag, Berlin-New York, 1974.
[96] J. Tits. Immeubles de type affine. In Buildings and the geometry of diagrams (Como, 1984), volume 1181 of Lecture Notes in Math., pages 159–190.
Springer, Berlin, 1986.
[97] S. Wagon. The Banach-Tarski paradox, volume 24 of Encyclopedia of Mathematics and its Applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1985.
With a foreword by Jan Mycielski.
[98] D. T. Wise. Cubulating small cancellation groups. Geom. Funct. Anal.,
14(1):150–214, 2004.
[99] D. T. Wise. From riches to raags: 3-manifolds, right-angled Artin groups,
and cubical geometry, volume 117 of CBMS Regional Conference Series in
Mathematics. Published for the Conference Board of the Mathematical Sciences, Washington, DC; by the American Mathematical Society, Providence,
RI, 2012.

41

