Asymptotics of Riemannian Lie groups with nilpotency step 2

Thanks to ?, we can assume G to be as in (?) and the sub-Riemannian metric d to be associated with a sub-Riemannian structure (\Delta,\rho) on G with V as in (2.1). Let d_\infty be the canonical asymptotic metric of d. Thanks to Corollary 3.2, there exists C_1>0 such that

Since the metric d is left-invariant, we assume p in (1.1) to be the identity element e. Fix q \in G and consider an energy-minimizing curve \gamma \colon [0,1] \to G such that \gamma(0)=e and \gamma(1)=q. Let u \in L^2([0,1],\Delta_e) denote the control of \gamma. We define u_\infty \in L^2([0,1],V) such that u_\infty(t) is the projection of u(t) on V parallel to [V,V], for every t \in [0,1]. From Corollary 3.3, we observe that, for every t \in [0,1], we have \gamma(t)=\gamma_{u_\infty}(t)+t\zeta, for some \zeta \in [\mathfrak{g},\mathfrak{g}]. In particular

From Corollary 3.3, there exists C_2, independent of \zeta, such that

Since \gamma_{u_\infty} is a \Delta_\infty-horizontal curve, we have

where in the second inequality we used the fact that V and [V,V] \cap \Delta are \rho_e-orthogonal.

We then estimate

where in the last inequality we use the fact that u is an energy-minimizing control. Thus, we get a bound on d_\infty(e,q)^2 - d(e,q)^2. The bound on d(e,q)^2 - d_\infty(e,q)^2 immediately follows from (2.2). The statement (1.1) is then proved by setting C \coloneqq C_1C_2.

From (1.1) we get

which proves (1.1).

By an easy fact (see [donne2024metricliegroupscarnotcaratheodory, Exercise 10.5.7]), since \Delta is bracket-generating, we have

In particular, we have obtained that

Consequently, the subspace V and the left-invariant subbundle \Delta_\infty are bracket-generating; see [donne2024metricliegroupscarnotcaratheodory, Exercise 10.5.8]. Thus, the function d_\infty is the sub-Riemannian metric associated with (\Delta_\infty,\rho|_{\Delta_\infty}).

We consider the projection \pi \colon \mathfrak{g} \to V parallel to [\mathfrak{g},\mathfrak{g}]. We observe that \rho is an inner product on \Delta_e and V is orthogonal to [\mathfrak{g},\mathfrak{g}]. Therefore,

By the general result [MR3153949, Proposition 3], the distances are asymptotic.

Since \Delta_\infty \subseteq \Delta, every \Delta_\infty-horizontal curve is also \Delta-horizontal. Therefore, we conclude (2.2).

On the one hand, assume that the subspace V is the first layer of a stratification. In this case, the pair (G, d_\infty) is a Carnot group. Moreover, the metric spaces (G, d_\infty) and (G,d) have the same asymptotic cones thanks to Proposition 2.2. Being a Carnot group, the only asymptotic cone of (G, d_\infty) is itself.

On the other hand, if there is an isometry between (G,d_\infty) and the asymptotic cone (\hat G,\hat d) of (G,d), then by [MR3646026] the sub-Riemannian Lie groups (G,d_\infty) and (\hat G, \hat d) are isomorphic via an isometry. In particular, since (\hat G, \hat d) is a Carnot group by [MR741395], the subspace V must be the first layer of a stratification.

Integrating by parts, we get

where we used the fact that \int^1_0 v(t) \, \mathrm{d} t = 0. We then compute

where in the last equality we used the hypothesis \int^1_0 \left[\int^t_0 u(s) \, \mathrm{d} s , v(t)\right] \mathrm{d} t = 0.

Let \left([x_k,y_k]\right)_{k=1}^{m}, with x_k,y_k \in V for every 1 \le k \le m, be a basis of [\mathfrak{g},\mathfrak{g}] made of simple Lie brackets, which exists because [\mathfrak{g},\mathfrak{g}]=[V,V]. Up to applying a Gram–Schmidt process and a renormalization, we can assume that \rho(x_k,y_k)=0 and \rho(x_k,x_k)=\rho(y_k,y_k)=1, for every 1 \le k \le m. The \ell_1 norm \lVert \cdot \rVert with respect to \left([x_k,y_k]\right)_{k=1}^{m} and \lvert \cdot \rvert are equivalent norms on the finite-dimensional vector space [\mathfrak{g},\mathfrak{g}]. Let K > 0 be such that \lVert \cdot \rVert \le K \lvert \cdot \rvert. Since \left([x_k,y_k]\right)_{k=1}^{m} is a basis of [\mathfrak{g},\mathfrak{g}], every \zeta \in [\mathfrak{g},\mathfrak{g}] is uniquely written as \zeta = \sum_{k=1}^{m} \alpha_k[x_k,y_k]. Up to switching x_k with y_k, we can assume that \alpha_k \ge 0 for every 1 \le k \le m. With this assumption \sum_{k=1}^{m} \alpha_k = \lVert \zeta \rVert. Therefore, also (iv) is verified.

First, for every t \in [0,1], we compute

where in the second equality we used that 0 \notin E. In particular, we obtain \int^1_0 v(t) \, \mathrm{d} t = 0. Thus, we compute

We then verified the first identity in (2.11). For the second one, we compute

where we used that \rho is Hermitian and that \overline{f_m}(t)=f_{-m}(t), for every m \in \mathbb Z and t \in [0,1].

In the assumptions of the statement, we get

Therefore, applying Lemma 2.10, we compute

We then verified the first identity in (2.11). For the second one, we also apply Lemma 2.10 to compute

where we used that \rho is Hermitian to obtain \rho(\overline{c_n},\overline{c_n})=\rho(c_n,c_n).

We set m \coloneqq \dim([V,V]), and K > 0 to be the constant given in Lemma 2.7 for the norm \lvert \cdot \rvert on [\mathfrak{g},\mathfrak{g}] and the restriction to V of the inner product \rho_e. Fix \zeta \in [\mathfrak{g},\mathfrak{g}]. Thanks to Lemma 2.7, there exist x_1,\dots,x_{m} \in V, y_1,\dots,y_{m} \in V, and \alpha_1,\dots,\alpha_{m} \ge 0, satisfying \rho_e(x_k,x_k)=\rho_e(y_k,y_k)=1 and \rho_e(x_k,y_k)=0 for every 1 \le k \le m, such that

Next, we set E_k \coloneqq [(m+2)(k-1)+1, (m+2)k] \cap \mathbb Z, for every 1 \le k \le m, and we observe that \{E_k\}_{k=1}^{m} is a family of pairwise disjoint subsets of positive integers. We also set N \coloneqq m^2 + 2m, so that we get

We fix u \in L^2([0,1],\Delta_e). For every n \in \mathbb Z and \xi \in V_\mathbb C, we define

with f_n defined as in (?). For every 1 \le k \le m, we consider the tuple \{z_{n,k}\}_{n \in E_k} \subseteq \mathbb{C} to be a solution of the following system of equations:

We claim that such a solution exists. Indeed, a non-trivial solution to the linear part of the system exists since there are m + 1 equations and \lvert E_k \rvert = m + 2 variables. Such a solution can be normalized so that the last equation is also satisfied. We recall that \alpha_k \ge 0.

Next, for every 1 \le k \le m, we define v_k \colon [0,1] \to V such that

In what follows, we show that v \coloneqq \sum_{k=1}^{m} v_k \in L^2([0,1],V) satisfies the conditions of the statement.

For proving (i), we first claim that \gamma_v(1) = \zeta. Indeed, we observe that the sets E_k are pairwise disjoint, and we compute:

Next, we claim that \gamma_{u+v}(1)=\gamma_u(1)+\gamma_v(1). Indeed, we observe that \int^1_0 v(t) \, \mathrm{d} t = 0 and we compute

Therefore, the hypothesis of Lemma 2.6 are satisfied and we get that

In particular, (i) is verified.

Next, we check (ii), i.e., \int^1_0 \rho_e(v(t),u(t))\, \mathrm{d} t =0. We compute

where in the third equality we used the fact that u(t) \in V in order to move the operator \operatorname{Re} outside the Hermitian product. Thus, (ii) is verified.

Finally, to prove (iii), we estimate

where in the second equality we used the fact that \rho_e(x_k,x_k)=\rho_e(y_k,y_k)=1 and \rho_e(x_k,y_k)=0, thus \rho_e(y_k+ix_k,y_k+ix_k)=2. The last statement (iii) is then proved by setting C \coloneqq 4\pi KN.

Thanks to ?, we can assume G to be as in (?) and the sub-Riemannian metric d to be associated with a sub-Riemannian structure (\Delta,\rho) on G. We define V as in (2.1), and we set C_1 to be the constant given in Lemma 3.1 for the norm \lvert \cdot \rvert on [\mathfrak{g},\mathfrak{g}].

Fix q \in G and \zeta \in [\mathfrak{g},\mathfrak{g}]. Consider an energy-minimizing curve \gamma \colon [0,1] \to G such that \gamma(0)=e and \gamma(1)=q. Let u \in L^2([0,1],\Delta_e) denote the control of \gamma. Thanks to Lemma 3.1, there exists v \in L^2([0,1],V) such that

together with

Therefore, we estimate

where in the last inequality we used the fact that u is an energy-minimizing control. The statement is then proved by setting C\coloneqq C_1.

Fix on [V,V] a norm \lvert \cdot \rvert that extends the restriction of \sqrt{\rho(\cdot,\cdot)} on \Delta \cap [V,V]. Let C_1>0 be the constant from Corollary 3.2 so that

Fix q \in G and consider an energy-minimizing curve \gamma \colon [0,1] \to G such that \gamma(0)=e and \gamma(1)=q. Let u \in L^2([0,1],\Delta_e) denote the control of \gamma. From [donne2024metricliegroupscarnotcaratheodory, Proposition 7.3.10], there are M \in \mathfrak{so}(V), b \in \ker(M), c \in M(V), and \zeta \in [V,V] \cap \Delta such that

where x(t) \coloneqq c - e^{tM}c + tb \in V, for every t \in [0,1]. We define u_\infty \in L^2([0,1],V) such that, for every t \in [0,1], the value u_\infty(t) is the projection of u(t) on V along [V,V] . We observe that, for every t \in [0,1], we have \gamma(t)=\gamma_{u_\infty}(t)+t\zeta. In particular

Moreover, since V and [V,V] \cap \Delta are \rho_e-orthogonal, we also have

We then estimate

where in the second equality we use the fact that u is an energy-minimizing control. Since \lvert \cdot \rvert coincides with \sqrt{\rho(\cdot,\cdot)} on \Delta \cap [V,V], we get \rho(\zeta,\zeta) \le C_1 \sqrt{\rho(\zeta,\zeta)}. We conclude that \sqrt{\rho(\zeta,\zeta)} \le C_1. The statement is then proved by setting C \coloneqq C_1.

Clearly, we have

By combining the previous estimate with (1.1), in the form of (?), we obtain, for every p \neq q:

where in the last inequality we estimated the minimum with the geometric mean. The estimate for p=q is clearly satisfied as well. We conclude that the identity map (G,d) \to (G,d_\infty) is a rough isometry.

By (3.6), there is a linear map L:\Delta_e\to[\mathfrak{g},\mathfrak{g}] such that \Delta'_e is the graph of L, that is,

Define f:\mathfrak{g}\to\mathfrak{g} by f(x,y) = (x,y+Lx) for all x\in\Delta_e and y\in[\mathfrak{g},\mathfrak{g}]. Since f is a linear isomorphism with f([\mathfrak{g},\mathfrak{g}])\subseteq[\mathfrak{g},\mathfrak{g}], and since \mathfrak{g} has step 2, then f is a Lie algebra automorphism. Let \varphi \coloneqq \exp \circ f \circ \exp^{-1} be the corresponding Lie group automorphism. Clearly \varphi satisfies (ii).

Notice that the abelianization map \pi_\mathrm{ab}:\mathfrak{g}\to\mathfrak{g}/[\mathfrak{g},\mathfrak{g}] is a linear isomorphism when restricted to \Delta_e and \Delta'_e. It is an easy fact that these restrictions (\Delta_e,\sqrt{\rho_e})\to (\mathfrak{g}/[\mathfrak{g},\mathfrak{g}],\lVert \cdot \rVert_\mathrm{ab}) and (\Delta'_e,\sqrt{\rho'_e})\to (\mathfrak{g}/[\mathfrak{g},\mathfrak{g}],\lVert \cdot \rVert'_\mathrm{ab}) of \pi_\mathrm{ab} are submetries (see [donne2024metricliegroupscarnotcaratheodory, Definition 10.1.1]) and thus isometries. Therefore,

We conclude that the restriction f:(\Delta_e,\rho_e)\to(\Delta'_e,\rho'_e) is an isometry and therefore \varphi:(G,d)\to(G,d') is an isometry.

The equivalence (i)\Leftrightarrow(ii) is known to hold for simply connected sub-Finsler nilpotent Lie groups; see [MR3153949, Proposition 3]. The implication (iii)\Rightarrow(i) is immediate. We now prove that (i, ii)\Rightarrow(iii).

Denote by \mathfrak{g} the Lie algebra of G. Thanks to Corollary 3.4, it is not restrictive to assume that d and d' are canonical asymptotic metrics, for which (3.6) is satisfied. From Lemma 3.6, there exists a Lie group morphism \varphi \in \mathrm{Aut}(G) and a linear map L \colon G_\mathrm{ab} \to [\mathfrak{g},\mathfrak{g}] such that

Thanks to Corollary 3.2, there exists C_1 > 0 such that

We want to bound \lvert d(p,q) - d'(p,q)\rvert, since d and d' are both left-invariant, it is not restrictive to consider p=e. Fix q \neq e and a norm \lvert \cdot \rvert on [\mathfrak{g},\mathfrak{g}]. We estimate

where \lVert L \rVert denotes the operator norm of L \colon (G_\mathrm{ab},\lVert \cdot \rVert_\mathrm{ab}) \to ([\mathfrak{g},\mathfrak{g}],\lvert \cdot \rvert) and in the last inequality we used the fact that \pi_\mathrm{ab} is a submetry. We obtain

and therefore d'(e,q) - d(e,q) \le C_1 \lVert L \rVert.

Similarly, thanks to Corollary 3.2, there exists C_2 > 0 such that

An analogous argument shows that d(e,q) - d'(e,q) \le C_2 \lVert L \rVert. The statement is then proved by setting C \coloneqq \max\set{C_1,C_2} \lVert L \rVert.

Let (G,d) be as in the statement and denote by (G,d_\infty) its canonical asymptotic metric, defined in (2.1). As discussed in ?, (G,d_\infty) is isometric to the asymptotic cone (\widehat{G},\widehat{d}) of (G,d). From Corollary 3.4, there exists C>0 such that

Thus, we infer (see [MR1835418, Corollary 7.3.28]) that

We recall that (G,d_\infty) is a Carnot metric and therefore it is self-similar, i.e., (G,d_\infty) is isometric to (G,\lambda d_\infty) for every \lambda > 0. We conclude that (G,\tfrac{1}{n}d_\infty) is isometric to (\widehat{G},\widehat{d}). We have proved (4.1).

Let d_\infty be the canonical asymptotic metric of (G,d).

We denote by B_\infty(r) the metric ball of radius r with respect to the distance function d_\infty, centered at the identity element of G.

Note that, being (G,d_\infty) a Carnot group, we have

where Q is the Hausdorff dimension of (G,d_\infty) and C \coloneqq \mathrm{vol}\left(B_{\infty}(1)\right). Moreover, by Theorem 1.1, we have (1.1). Hence, we are in the setting of Remark 4.3 with f(r)= O(1/r). Therefore, we conclude

We thus proved (i).

To prove (ii), assume that (G,d) does not coincide with its canonical asymptotic metric (G,d_\infty). Denote by \mathfrak{g} the Lie algebra of G, and by (\Delta,\rho) and (\Delta_\infty,\rho) the sub-Riemannian structures of (G,d) and (G,d_\infty), respectively. Since d is not a canonical asymptotic metric, there exists w \in \Delta \cap [\mathfrak{g},\mathfrak{g}] such that \rho(w,w)=1. Let W be the one-parameter subgroup generated by w. Since W is a normal subgroup of G, we have the manifold identification

We recall from [donne2024metricliegroupscarnotcaratheodory, Proposition 7.1.9] that there exists a sub-Finsler metric d' on G/W such that the projection map \pi \colon (G,d_\infty) \to (G/W,d') is a submetry. We denote by B'(r) the metric ball of radius r with respect to the distance function d', centered at the identity element of G/W.

We write the Haar measure \mathrm{vol} on G as the product measure of a Haar measure \mu on G/W and the Lebesgue measure on W = \set{\exp(tw) \colon t \in \mathbb R} \cong \mathbb R. We point out that, since (G,d_\infty) is self-similar, then (G/W, d') is self-similar as well, and that its Hausdorff dimension is Q-2; see [donne2024metricliegroupscarnotcaratheodory, Corollary 4.3.6]. Therefore, there exists C'>0 such that

Next, for every k,r \ge 0, we define E_{k,r} \coloneqq \set{ p + \lambda w \colon p \in B_\infty\left( r - \tfrac{k^2}{r}\right), \, \lambda \in [-k,k] } \subseteq G, and we claim that

Indeed, fix p \in B_\infty\left( r - \tfrac{k^2}{r}\right) and \lambda \in [-k,k]. Consider a \Delta_\infty-horizontal curve \gamma_u \colon [0,1] \to G, from e to p, such that \int^1_0 \rho(u,u) \, \mathrm{d} t \le \left(r - \frac{k^2}{r}\right)^2. Then \gamma_{u+\lambda w} is a \Delta-horizontal curve and

where in the first equality we used (2.1), and in the last inequality we used that r \ge k. We conclude that p+\lambda w = \gamma_{u+\lambda w}(1) \in B(r), and the inclusion (?) is proved.

We set k \coloneqq \frac{C'}{QC}. For r \ge k^2, we estimate

where in the first equality we used the definition of E_{k,r} and we wrote \mathrm{vol} as the product measure of \mu with the Lebesgue measure on W. We infer that \mathrm{vol}(B(r)) - Cr^Q \notin o(r^{Q-2}) and the proof of (ii) is concluded.

From the assumption, we get \lvert d_\infty(e,p) - d(e,p) \rvert = o(1/d(e,p)), as d(e,p)\to \infty. By Remark 4.3,

we get

Thanks to (ii) in Theorem 4.4, we infer that d=d_\infty.

Denote by B(r) the ball of radius r with respect to the sub-Riemannian distance function d, centered at the identity element e of \mathbb H. We claim that, for every r \ge 0, we have

Indeed, fix p \in B(r) and \lambda \in [-r,r]. Consider an energy-minimizing, \Delta-horizontal curve \gamma_u \colon [0,1] \to \mathbb H from e to p. We get that \sqrt{\rho(u(t),u(t))}\equiv c for some constant c \le r. We consider the control \widetilde{u} \colon [0,1] \to \mathfrak{h} defined as \widetilde{u}(t)=u(t) + \lambda Z. From Remark 2.5, we get that \gamma_{\tilde{u}}(1) = p + \lambda Z. Moreover

This proves that \set{p+zZ \,\colon \, p \in B(r), \, \lambda \in [-r,r]} \subseteq B_F(r). For the opposite inclusion, fix q \in B_F(r) and consider a curve \gamma_u \colon [0,1] \to \mathbb H such that \int^1_0 \lVert u(t) \rVert \, \mathrm{d} t \le r. For every t \in [0,1], we write u(t) = u_h(t) + \lambda(t) Z. In particular, \gamma_{u_h} is a \Delta-horizontal curve and

which implies \gamma_{u_h}(1) \in B(r). From Remark 2.5, we get q = \gamma_{u_h}(1) + \left(\int^1_0 \lambda(t) \mathrm{d} t\right)Z. The proof of (Proof) is concluded by estimating

Next, we recall that the Haar measure \mathrm{vol} on \mathbb H is a multiple of the Lebesgue measure \mathscr{L}^3 on \mathfrak{h} = \mathrm{span}\set{X,Y,Z} \cong \mathbb R^3. Moreover, the projection map \pi \colon \mathfrak{h} \to \mathrm{span}\set{X,Y}, parallel to Z, is a submetry between (\mathbb H,d) and the Euclidean distance on \mathrm{span}\set{X,Y} \cong \mathbb R^2; see [donne2024metricliegroupscarnotcaratheodory, Proposition 7.1.9]. Finally, for r \ge 0, we compute

for some C,D>0.

Assume that there exists a Carnot metric d such that \lvert d(p,q) - d_F(p,q) \rvert \to 0, as d(p,q) \to \infty. Then, by Remark 4.3,

we get

which is in contradiction with (4.7).

Since both metrics d and d_F are left-invariant, it is not restrictive to assume p=e. Let us consider the projection map \pi \colon \mathbb H \to \mathrm{span}\set{X,Y}, parallel to Z. From the complete description of geodesics in the sub-Riemannian Heisenberg group (see [donne2024metricliegroupscarnotcaratheodory, Section 2.4.1]), there exists c>0 such that for every q \in \mathbb H and every d-minimizing curve \gamma \colon [0,1] \to \mathbb H, from e to q, we get

Fix q \in \mathbb H such that d_F(e,q) \ge 3c^{-1} + d(e,Z)^2, and consider a d_F-minimizing curve \gamma_u \colon [0,1] \to \mathbb H from e to q. For every t \in [0,1], we write u(t) = u_h(t) + \lambda(t) Z. From Remark 2.5, we get

Moreover, since \gamma_u is length-minimizing, we get

First, we claim that

Indeed, assume that d(e,Z)^2 < \int^1_0 \lvert \lambda(t) \rvert \, \mathrm{d} t. Then, we estimate

where in the equality we used that the metric space (\mathbb H,d) is self-similar. The latter estimate implies that there exists a \Delta-horizontal curve \gamma_{v} \colon [0,1] \to \mathbb H, from e to \left(\int^1_0 \lambda(t) \, \mathrm{d} t \right) Z such that \ell(\gamma_{v}) < \int^1_0 \lvert \lambda(t) \rvert \, \mathrm{d} t. Then, we consider the control \widetilde{u} \colon [0,2] \to \mathfrak{h} defined by

From Remark 2.5, we get \gamma_{\tilde{u}}(2) = \gamma_{u_h}(1) + \left(\int^1_0 \lambda(t) \, \mathrm{d} t \right) Z =q. Moreover, we obtain

contradicting the minimality of \gamma_u. We thus proved (Proof). Consequently, thanks to (Proof), we infer that \ell(\gamma_{u_h}) \ge 3c^{-1}.

Next, we claim that \gamma_{u_h} is a d-minimizing curve. Indeed, assume that there exists a \Delta-horizontal curve \gamma_{u_h'} such that \gamma_{u_h'}(1) = \gamma_{u_h}(1) and \ell(\gamma_{u_h'}) < \ell(\gamma_{u_h}). Then, the control u' \colon [0,1] \to \mathfrak{h} defined by u'(t) := u_h'(t) + \lambda(t)Z would satisfy \gamma_{u'}(1)=q and \ell(\gamma_{u'})<\ell(\gamma_u), contradicting the minimality of \gamma_u. We thus proved that \gamma_{u_h} is d-minimizing and in particular d(e,\gamma_{u_h}(1))= \ell(\gamma_{u_h}) \ge 3c^{-1}.

From (Proof), there exists 0 \le t_0 \le 1 such that

Let w \in \mathrm{span}\set{X,Y} be such that \rho(w,\pi(\gamma_h(t_0)))=0 and [w,\pi(\gamma_h(t_0))] = \left(\int^1_0 \lambda(t) \, \mathrm{d} t\right)Z. We thus obtain

We then consider the control \widehat{u} \colon [0,3] \to \mathfrak{h} defined by

Note that the curves \gamma_{\hat{u}} and \gamma_u have the same endpoints. We then estimate

From the minimality of \gamma_u, we get that \ell(\gamma_{\hat{u}})=\ell(\gamma_u) and all inequalities in the previous estimates are equalities. In particular \int^1_0 \lvert \lambda(t) \rvert \, \mathrm{d} t = 0 and therefore \gamma_u is a \Delta-horizontal curve. We conclude that d(e,q)=d_F(e,q) and the statement is proved by setting r_0 \coloneqq 3c^{-1} + d(e,Z)^2.

First, assume that \varphi=C_g, for some g \in G. Then \varphi is the composition of the map L_g, which is an isometry, and the right-translation R_g, which is at bounded distance from the identity map. We conclude that \varphi is at bounded distance from the isometry L_g.

Conversely, assume that \varphi is at bounded distance from an isometry f \colon (G,d) \to (G,d), i.e., there exists C>0 such that

Since f is an isometry of a connected metric nilpotent Lie group, then f is affine, i.e., it is of the form f = L_g \circ \widetilde{f} for some g \in G and some isometry \widetilde{f} \in \mathrm{Aut}(G); see [MR3646026, Theorem 1.2].

We claim that the abelianization map \widetilde{f}_\mathrm{ab} of \widetilde{f} is the identity map. Indeed, since the map \pi_\mathrm{ab} is a submetry for the quotient metric d_\mathrm{ab}, we get

where we used that \varphi_\mathrm{ab}=\mathrm{id}. Therefore,

The latter estimate implies that \widetilde{f}_\mathrm{ab}, which is a linear map on the abelian group G_\mathrm{ab}, is at bounded distance from the identity map. We conclude that \widetilde{f}_\mathrm{ab} is the identity map. Thanks to [MR3646026, Lemma 2.5], the map \widetilde{f}, which is an isometry of (G,d), is also an isometry of (G,d_R), for some Riemannian metric d_R on G. Since \mathrm{d}_e \widetilde{f} is a Lie algebra automorphism of \mathfrak{g}, then \mathrm{d}_e \widetilde{f}([\mathfrak{g},\mathfrak{g}])=[\mathfrak{g},\mathfrak{g}]. Since \mathrm{d}_e \widetilde{f} is an isometry for a Euclidean norm, we also get \mathrm{d}_e \widetilde{f}([\mathfrak{g},\mathfrak{g}]^\perp)=[\mathfrak{g},\mathfrak{g}]^\perp. Thanks to Remark 3.5, we infer that \widetilde{f} is the identity map as well, thus f = L_g for some g \in G.

In particular, since right-translations are at bounded distance from the identity map, we obtain that \varphi is at bounded distance from C_g \in \mathrm{Aut}(G). Thanks to Lemma 4.13, we conclude that \varphi =C_g.

Assume \varphi(p) \neq \psi(p) for some p \in G. Consider the function n\in \mathbb N \mapsto \varphi(p)^{-n}\psi(p)^n, in exponential coordinates. By Baker-Campbell-Hausdorff formula (see [hilgert2011structure, Theorem 11.2.6]), this function is a polynomial. Moreover, it is not constant since it has different values at n=0 and n=1. Consequently, it diverges as n goes to infinity. By the assumption on (G,d) the set is unbounded with respect to the distance d, therefore

Thus, we proved that the automorphisms \varphi and \psi are not at bounded distance.