On measures and semiconjugacies for affine interval exchange transformations

If \omega is of stable type, the results follow directly from Proposition A.2. On the other hand, if \omega is of central-stable type, the result is a direct consequence of Theorem 1.2.

Assume now that \omega is of unstable type. By Proposition 4.2, for \mu_f-a.e. x\in [0,1) we have

Moreover, by Lemma 2.3, we also have that for every x\in[0,1) the following convergence holds

In view of Theorem 2.2, it is enough to find for \mu_f-a.e. x\in I, a sequence (\epsilon_n)_{n\in{\mathbb{N}}}, which converges to 0 and such that

Let x\in [0,1) be such that (Proof) is satisfied and let \epsilon_{n}:=Leb(P^{(n)}_f(x)). In particular, by (Proof), we have \epsilon_n\to 0. Then, since P^{(n)}_f(x)\subset (x-\epsilon_n,x+\epsilon_n), we obtain

where the convergence follows from (Proof) and (?). This proves (?) and completes the proof of the theorem.

In the following, we will assume that \omega is of central-stable type. Theorem 1.2 will follow from Theorem 3.2. For this reason, we need to verify the assumptions of this theorem, namely (?)–(?), for \mathcal{P}^{(n)}=\mathcal{P}_f^{(n)}, \mu = \mu_f = m, \nu = Leb, a = \rho_T and b = \mathcal{G}(T, \omega).

Conditions (?) and (?) follow directly from Lemma 2.3 and Proposition 4.1. Thus it remains to verify that Conditions (?), (?), and (?) hold.

We check now that (?) holds. Recall that since \omega is of central-stable type, then f is conjugate to T (see (?)) via a homeomorphism h:[0, 1) \to [0, 1) satisfying h \circ f = T \circ h. Since \mu_f is an f-invariant measure and \mu_f=(h^{-1})_*Leb, for every n\in{\mathbb{N}} it holds that

which gives the desired conditions for \mu=m=\mu_f. The inequalities in Condition (?) for Leb, on the other hand, follow directly from (?) in Lemma 2.5. Thus, the condition (?) holds.

Condition (?) follows directly from the fact that P_f^{(n)}(x)=h^{-1}(P_T^{(n)}(hx)) and

Note that since M is positive, every interval in \mathcal P^{(n)}_f contains at least 3 elements of partition \mathcal P^{(n+1)}_f, thus Condition (?) is satisfied.

Therefore, we can apply Theorem 3.2 and obtain that \dim_H(\mu_f)=\frac{\rho_T}{\mathcal{G}(T, \omega)}. Notice that by Proposition 4.1, we have \dim_H(\mu_f) \in (0, 1). This finishes the proof of Theorem 1.2.

In the following, we will assume that \omega is of central-stable type. As in the proof of Theorem 1.2, we want to use Theorem 3.2. For this reason, we need to verify the assumptions of this theorem, namely (?)–(?), for \mathcal P^{(n)}=\mathcal P^{(n)}_T, \mu=\nu_\omega = m, \nu = Leb, a = \mathcal{H}(T, \omega) and b = \rho_T.

Conditions (?) and (?) follow directly from Proposition 4.3 and Lemma 2.3. Thus it remains to verify that Conditions (?), (?), and (?) hold.

We check now that (?) holds. The inequalities for Lebesgue measure \nu follow easily from the fact that the length vector \lambda is a Perron-Frobenius eigenvector of M. Namely

for every n\in{\mathbb{N}}. On the other hand, the inequalities for \mu=m=\nu_\omega hold by (?) in Lemma 2.5.

Condition (?) follows directly from the fact that

Note that since M is positive, every interval in \mathcal P^{(n)}_T contains at least 3 elements of partition \mathcal P^{(n+1)}, thus Condition (?) is satisfied.

Therefore, we can apply Theorem 3.2 and obtain that \dim_H(\nu_\omega)=\frac{\mathcal{H}(T, \omega)}{\rho_T}. Notice that, by Proposition 4.3, we have \dim_H(\nu_\omega) \in (0, 1). This finishes the proof of Theorem 1.5.

By (?), it suffices to show that

Fix k \geq 1. Recalling that \lambda^{(kN)} = e^{-k\rho_T} \lambda and since T is an IET, we have

for any x \in [0, 1). Equation (Proof) now follows easily from the inequality above.

Let us define an operator \Phi acting on the space \mathcal{P}(X) of probability measures on X by the formula

As T and \phi are continuous, \Phi is continuous in the weak-* topology on \mathcal{P}(X). By Schauder-Tychonoff fixed point theorem, we obtain a measure \mu\in \mathcal{P}(X) satisfying

which after taking \Delta: = \log (\int_{X} e^{-\phi}\ dT^{-1}_{*}\nu), is equivalent to

By induction, for every n \in \mathbb{N}

Since T is uniquely ergodic and \phi has integral 0, \frac{1}{n}S_n(\phi +\Delta) converges uniformly to the constant \Delta. Consequently, for any \varepsilon > 0, we have

for large enough n. By (Proof), the middle term is equal to 1, which gives \Delta = 0. Thus, by (Proof), the measure \nu is \phi-conformal.

Equality (?) is a direct consequence of Corollary A.4. Indeed, it follows from the existence of D>1 such that

and from the continuity of both measures proved by Proposition 6.1.

To show (?), in view of (Proof), it is enough to prove that there exists C>1 such that for every n\geq 0 and x\in [0,1), we have

As P_T^{(n)}{(x)}=T^j I^{(nN)}_\alpha for some \alpha\in\mathcal A and 0\leq j<q^{(nN)}_\alpha, and P_T^{((n+1)N)}{(x)}\subset P_T^{(n)}{(x)}, we have P_T^{(n+1)}{(x)}=T^j(\mathcal{RV}^{nN}(T))^i(I^{((n+1)N)}_\beta) for some \beta\in\mathcal A and 0\leq j<q^{(N)}_\beta. As \nu_{\omega_c} is a \phi^T_{\omega_c}-conformal measure, we have

Let us consider the linear rescaling R:[0,e^{-\rho_T})\to[0,1) given by R(x)=e^{\rho_T}x. By the self-similarity of T, the map R^n:I^{(nN)}\to I^{(0)} is a conjugaty between \mathcal{RV}^{nN}(T) and T.

As the vector \omega_c is invariant for M^n, the measure \nu_{\omega_c}|_{R^{-n}I} restricted to R^{-n}I=[0,e^{-n\rho_T}) is a conformal measure for the induced IET \mathcal{RV}^{nN}(T), where the potential is determined by the vector \omega_c^{(nN)}=\omega_c M^n=\omega_c. It follows that the image R^n_*(\nu_{\omega_c}|_{R^{-n}I}) is a \phi^T_{\omega_c}-conformal measure. By the uniqueness of the probability \phi^T_{\omega_c}-conformal measure (see Proposition 6.1), we have

By the definition of the matrices M^{(n)}_{\pi,\lambda,\omega_c}, the \phi^T_{\omega_c}-conformal measure \nu_{\omega_c} is such that, for any n\geq 1, we have

Note that this formula is true for any vector \omega\in{\mathbb{R}}^{\mathcal A} and follows from the same arguments as (?).

As (\pi,\lambda) is self-similar and \omega_c is a fixed vector for its self-similarity matrix M, by (?) and (?), we have

In view of (?) and (?), this gives

It follows that (\nu_{\omega_c}(I_\alpha))_{\alpha\in\mathcal A} is a left Perron-Frobenius eigenvector for M^{(N)}_{\pi,\lambda,\omega_c} and \nu_{\omega_c}(R^{-n}I)=e^{-n\rho_{\nu_{\omega_c}}}. In particular, by (?), we have (2.5). Since R^n\circ\mathcal{RV}^{nN}(T)=T\circ R^n, by (2.5), we obtain that

Together with (?), this gives

It follows that (?) holds with

Finally, note that since \omega is of central-stable type, by (?), the AIET f\in \textup{Aff}(T,\omega) is conjugated to T via a homeomorphism h with h(P_f^{(n)}(x))=P_T^{(n)}(h(x)). Thus (?) follows directly from (?) and (?). This finishes the proof.

We write the proof only for \mu since the same proof holds for \nu. Let n > k \geq 0. Notice that if \Delta, \Delta' \in \mathcal{P}^{(n)} are adjacent and \partial \Delta \cap E^{(n - 1)} = \emptyset, then \Delta, \Delta' are contained in the same element of the partition \mathcal{P}^{(n - 1)}, and by Condition (?),

Moreover, since each element in \mathcal{P}^{(n - 1)} is a union of at least 3 distinct elements of \mathcal{P}^{(n)}, by Condition (?) it follows that,

Iterating this argument, if \Delta, \Delta' \in \mathcal{P}^{(n)} are adjacent and \partial \Delta \cap E^{(n - k)} = \emptyset, then

and

Let

Since m(A_n) \leq (1 - C^{-1})^{\left\lfloor \tfrac{n\log \delta}{\log C} \right\rfloor}, we have \sum_{n \geq 1} m(A_n) < +\infty. By the Borel-Cantelli lemma, for m-a.e. x\in[0,1) there exists N_x\in {\mathbb{N}} such that for any n\geq N_x we have \partial P^{(n)}(x)\cap E^{(n - r_n)} = \emptyset. Then for any J \in \mathcal{P}^{(n)} adjacent to P^{(n)}(x), by taking \Delta=J, \Delta'=P^{(n)}(x) and k=r_n in (Proof), we have

which completes the proof.

Fix 1 < \delta < C. Let x \in (0, 1) satisfying Condition (?) and such that the conclusions of Lemma 3.1 hold. Notice that these are full m-measure conditions, so it suffices to show that (3.2) holds for such a point.

Let 0 < \epsilon < \min\{x,1-x\} and define

Notice that, in view of Condition (?), n_\epsilon is finite. Then, there exist J_\epsilon \in \mathcal{P}^{(n_\epsilon)} adjacent to P^{(n_\epsilon)}(x) and \Delta_\epsilon \in \mathcal{P}^{(n_\epsilon+1)} (equal to or adjacent to P^{(n_\epsilon+1)}(x)) such that

and either

Since n_\epsilon \to \infty as \epsilon \to 0, there exists \epsilon_x>0 such that n_\epsilon\geq N_x for any 0<\epsilon<\epsilon_x. By (3.1), for any 0<\epsilon<\epsilon_x,

and, similarly,

Therefore

Recalling that n_\epsilon \to \infty as \epsilon \to 0, it follows from (?) and (?) that

Since 1<\delta<C can be taken arbitrarily close to 1, we obtain (3.2).

Finally, if m = \mu and \nu = \operatorname{Leb}, the second assertion of the theorem follows by Frostman’s Lemma (Proposition 2.2).

Let f\in\operatorname{Aff}(T,\omega) be an AIET of hyperbolic periodic type, semi-conjugated to a self-similar IET T=(\pi,\lambda), with the vector of logarithms of slopes \omega and let \mu_f be the invariant measure of f. Moreover, let \widehat h be the semi-conjugacy between f and \widehat T, as introduced in Section ? (see (?)). Let M be the self-similarity matrix of T of period N, with \rho_T being the logarithm of its Perron-Frobenius eigenvalue, i.e. \lambda M=e^{\rho_T}\lambda. Let \theta\in {\mathbb{R}}^{\mathcal A}_{>0} be the right Perron-Frobenius eigenvector of M, i.e. M \theta=e^{\rho_T}\theta

To apply the results of previous sections, we first present a list of notions, which in the considered case correspond to the abstract objects in Sections ?, ?, and ?. We take the following objects:

• for (X,T) we take (K,\widehat T) - the Cantor model of the IET T, described in Section ?;

• for \mu we substitute the measure \widehat h_{*}\mu_f, where \mu_f is the unique f-invariant measure. Then \mu is the unique \widehat T-invariant measure equal to (i^+)_*(Leb)=(i^-)_*(Leb) (here Leb is seen as the invariant measure of T, so using the notation from Section ?, we have \mu=\widehat{Leb});

• by \widehat T-invariance of \mu, we have \phi=0;

• for the set A, we take \widehat I^{(N)}:=\overline{i^+(I^{(N)})};

• the mapping r_{A} is given by r_{A}(x)=q_{\alpha}^{(N)} for x\in \widehat I_{\alpha}^{(N)}:=\overline{i^+(I^{(N)}_{\alpha})}, \alpha\in{\mathcal{A}} or in other words, r_{A} describes the heigths of Rokhlin towers obtained by Rauzy-Veech induction in a single period;

• the partition \mathcal P is (\widehat I_{\alpha})_{\alpha\in{\mathcal{A}}};

• then the dynamical partitions \mathcal P^{(n)} coincides with \widehat{\mathcal Q}_{N\cdot n}, in particular, they consist of clopen sets;

• the rescaling R:A\to X is taken to be \widehat R_{\rho_T} defined by (?), then

  \rho_\mu=-\log\mu(\widehat I^{(N)})=-\log Leb(I^{(N)})=\rho_{T};

• the rescaled domains are

  X^{(n)}=\widehat R^n_{\rho_T}(K)=\bigcup_{\alpha\in{\mathcal{A}}}\widehat I^{(n N)}_{\alpha};

• as \theta we take the right Perron-Frobenius eigenvector of M, identifying \theta:=\widehat{\phi}_\theta, we have \theta_A(x)=S^\phi_{q_{\alpha}^{(N)}}\theta(x)=S_{q_{\alpha}^{(N)}}\theta(x)=(M\theta)_\alpha=e^{\rho_T}\theta_\alpha for x\in R^{-1}\widehat{I}_\alpha, which gives \theta_A\circ R^{-1}=e^{\rho_\mu}\theta;

• as \theta_A\circ R^{-1}=e^{\rho_\mu}\theta, we can define the renormalization map R_\mu:X^\theta\to X^\theta; and

• finally take \nu:=\widehat{\nu}_\omega=\widehat h_*(Leb) the \widehat{\phi}_\omega-conformal measure for \widehat T and \psi:=\widehat{\phi}_\omega, if \omega is of unstable type, and take \nu:=\widehat{\nu}_{\omega_c} the \widehat{\phi}_{\omega_c}-conformal measure for \widehat T and \psi:=\widehat{\phi}_{\omega_c}, if \omega is of central stable type, where \omega=\omega_c+\omega_s is the decomposition into invariant and stable vectors.

We begin by checking whether R_{\mu} is ergodic, and to do it, we want to apply Lemma 11.3. Thus, we need to verify its assumptions. First, by (?), we have that the incidence matrix M of R is equal to the self-similarity matrix M for T. Since T is hyperbolically self-similar, M is positive. Now we need to verify that the assumption (11.2) holds. Note that, by Lemma 2.3, we have the first convergence in (11.2). The second convergence follows directly from (?). Thus, by Lemma 11.3, the renormalization map R_{\mu} is ergodic.

Central-stable case. Suppose that \omega is of central-stable type, so we pass to the proof of Proposition 4.1. As \omega_c is invariant for M, for every x\in R^{-1}\widehat{I}_\alpha, we have

It follows that \psi_A\circ R^{-1}=(\widehat{\phi}_{\omega_c})_A\circ R^{-1}=\widehat{\phi}_{\omega_c}=\psi. Thus, the measure \nu satisfies the perfect rescaling condition (?) with \lambda=0. Applying Theorem 9.1, we get

As \omega_c is of central type, by Proposition 6.1, the measures \nu_{\omega_c} and \widehat \nu_{\omega_c} are continuous. Thus, the map i_+:I\to K establishes a measure-theoretical isomorphism between T on (I,Leb) and \widehat T on (X,\mu) such that (i_+)_*(\nu_{\omega_c})=\widehat \nu_{\omega_c}=\nu. Since i_+ preserves the dynamical partition, it follows that

In view of (?) (see Lemma 2.5), we have

As h:I\to I establishes a measure-theoretical isomorphism between f on (I,\mu_f) and T on (I,Leb), which preserves the dynamical partition, such that (h^{-1})_*(\nu_{\omega})=Leb, this gives

Moreover, by Theorem 9.4, we have H^u_\nu(R_\mu)>\rho_\mu=\rho_T, whenever \omega_c\neq 0.

We finish by showing that H^u_\nu(R_\mu)=\mathcal G(T,\omega), where \mathcal{G}(T, \omega) is defined by (?). In view of Theorem 9.1,

Using again the fact that the map i_+:I\to K establishes a measure-theoretical isomorphism between T on (I,Leb) and \widehat T on (X,\mu) such that (i_+)_*(\nu_{\omega_c})=\widehat \nu_{\omega_c}=\nu, we get

In view of (2.5), we have

where \rho_c is the logarithm of the Perron-Frobenius eigenvalue of M^{(N)}_{\pi,\lambda,\omega_c}. As

this gives

As T is self-similar, we have Leb(T^iR^{-1}I_\alpha)=Leb(I^{(N)}_\alpha)=e^{-\rho_T}\lambda_\alpha. Moreover, as \nu_{\omega_c} is \phi^T_{\omega_c}-conformal, we have

Finally, this gives H^u_\nu(R_\mu)=\mathcal{G}(T, \omega) and completes the proof of Proposition 4.1.

Unstable case. Suppose that \omega is of unstable type. Recall \nu:=\widehat{\nu}_\omega=\widehat h_*(Leb) (see Section ?) is the \widehat{\phi}_\omega-conformal measure for \widehat T and \psi:=\widehat{\phi}_\omega. Then

where v_i, 1\leq i\leq m, are right eigenvectors (with eigenvalues e^{\lambda_1}>e^{\lambda_2}>\ldots>e^{\lambda_m}) of the self-similarity matrix M different than the maximal one. In particular, \langle v_i,\lambda\rangle=0 for all 1\leq i\leq m. As \omega is of unstable type, we have \lambda_1>0. Let h_i=\widehat \phi_{v_i} for 1\leq i\leq m. Then for any x\in P_\alpha, we have

Thus (h_i)_A\circ R^{-1}=e^{\lambda_i}h_i. Finally, note that by (?) we have

Therefore, the map T and the measure \nu meet all the assumptions of Theorem 10.2. Thus,

In view of (?), this gives

which completes the proof of Proposition 4.2.

Let T=(\pi,\lambda) be a hyperbolically self-similar IET with period N and self-similarity matrix M. Let also \rho_T be the logarithm of its Perron-Frobenius eigenvalue, i.e. \lambda M=e^{\rho_T}\lambda.

Consider a vector \omega\in {\mathbb{R}}^{\mathcal A} of central-stable type and let \nu_{\omega} be the unique \phi_{\omega}^T-conformal measure, whose existence and uniqueness follows from Proposition 6.1. Moreover, consider the decomposition \omega=\omega_c+\omega_s into its central and stable parts. Let \nu_{\omega_c} be the unique \phi_{\omega_c}^T-conformal measure for T. It follows also from Proposition 6.1, that both \nu_\omega and \nu_{\omega_c} are continuous.

Let us consider the matrix M(\omega_c)=M^{(N)}_{\pi,\lambda,\omega_c}. Let \rho_c>0 be the logarithm of the Perron-Frobenius eigenvalue of M(\omega_c). Let \ell^c,\theta^c \in {\mathbb{R}}^{\mathcal{A}}_+ be the unique left and right Perron-Frobenius eigenvector of M(\omega_c) satisfying | \ell^c |= 1 and \langle \ell^c, \theta^c \rangle = 1. In view of Lemma 2.5, we have \ell^c_\alpha=\nu_{\omega_c}(I_\alpha) for \alpha\in\mathcal A.

As in the previous section, we present first the list of objects corresponding to the notions in the abstract setting given in Sections ?, ?, and ?. We take the following:

• for (X,T) we take (K,\widehat T) - the Cantor model of the IET T, described in Section ?;

• for \mu we substitute the measure \widehat{\nu}_{\omega_c}=(i^+)_{*}\nu_{\omega_c}. Then \mu=\widehat{\nu}_{\omega_c} is the unique \widehat \phi_{\omega_c}-conformal measure for \widehat T, where the uniqueness also follows from Proposition 6.1;

• we take \phi=\widehat \phi_{\omega_c};

• for the set A, we take \widehat I^{(N)}:=\overline{i^+(I^{(N)})};

• the mapping r_{A} is given by r_{A}(x)=q_{\alpha}^{(N)} for x\in \widehat I_{\alpha}^{(N)}:=\overline{i^+(I^{(N)}_{\alpha})}, \alpha\in{\mathcal{A}} or in other words, r_{A} describes the heigths of Rokhlin towers obtained by Rauzy-Veech induction in a single period;

• the partition \mathcal P is (\widehat I_{\alpha})_{\alpha\in{\mathcal{A}}};

• then the dynamical partitions \mathcal P^{(n)} coincides with \widehat{\mathcal Q}_{N\cdot n};

• the rescaling R is taken to be \widehat R_{\rho_T}, then, by (2.5), we have

  \rho_\mu=-\log\widehat{\nu}_{\omega_c}(\widehat I^{(N)})=-\log \nu_{\omega_c}(I^{(N)})=\rho_{c};

• the rescaled domains are

  X^{(n)}=\widehat R^n_{\rho_T}(K)=\bigcup_{\alpha\in{\mathcal{A}}}\widehat I^{(n\cdot N)}_{\alpha};

• taking \theta:=\widehat{\phi}_{\theta^c}, we have \theta_A(x)=S^{\phi}_{q_{\alpha}^{(N)}}\theta(x)=(M(\omega_c)\theta^c)_\alpha=e^{\rho_c}\theta^c_\alpha for x\in R^{-1}\widehat{I}_\alpha, which gives \theta_A\circ R^{-1}=e^{\rho_\mu}\theta;

• as \theta_A\circ R^{-1}=e^{\rho_\mu}\theta, we can define the renormalization map R_\mu=R_{\widehat \nu_{\omega_c}} on X^\theta=K^{\widehat \phi_{\theta^{c}}}; and

• finally, take \nu:=\widehat \nu_{\omega_c}, that is, the same measure as for \mu, and take \psi:=\widehat{\phi}_{\omega_c}.

Proposition 4.3 will be deduced from the results of Sections ?. In order to verify that we can apply these results, we need to first check whether R_{\widehat \nu_{\omega_c}} is ergodic. In order to deduce ergodicity of R_{\widehat \nu_{\omega_c}}, we want to apply Lemma 11.3. Thus, we need to verify its assumptions. First, by (?), we have that the incidence matrix M of R is equal to the self-similarity matrix M of T. Since T is self-similar, M is positive.

Now we need to verify that the assumption (11.2) holds. Note that by Lemma 2.3 and the fact that \nu_{\omega_c} is continuous, we have the first convergence in (11.2). The second convergence follows from (?). Thus, by Lemma 11.3, the renormalization R_{\widehat \nu_{\omega_c}} is ergodic.

As we have already shown in the proof of Proposition 4.1, the measure \nu=\widehat \nu_{\omega_c} satisfies the perfect rescaling condition (?) with \lambda=0. Applying Theorem 9.1, we get

As \omega_c is of central type, by Proposition 6.1, the measures \nu_{\omega_c} and \widehat \nu_{\omega_c} are continuous. Thus, the map i_+:I\to K establishes a measure-theoretical isomorphism between T on (I,\nu_{\omega_c}) and \widehat T on (K,\widehat \nu_{\omega_c}). It follows that

In view of (?) (see Lemma 2.5) and the fact that the measures \nu_{\omega_c} and \nu_{\omega} are equivalent (see Corollary A.4), we have

Moreover, by Theorem 9.5 applied to \varrho=\widehat{Leb}, we have H^u_\mu(R_\mu)<\rho_{\widehat{Leb}}=\rho_T, whenever \omega_c\neq 0.

We finish by showing that H^u_\mu(R_\mu)=\mathcal H(T,\omega), where \mathcal{H}(T, \omega) is defined by (?). In view of Theorem 9.1,

Using again the fact that the map i_+:I\to K establishes a measure-theoretical isomorphism between T on (I,\nu_{\omega_c}) and \widehat T on (K,\widehat \nu_{\omega_c}), we get

In view of (?) and (?), we have

As

this gives

which completes the proof of Proposition 4.3.

Define F:\mathbb{R}^2 \rightarrow \mathbb{R} by the formula

By definition, for every t\in \mathbb{R}, we have F(t,\rho(t)) = 0. Moreover, by simplicity of Perron-Frobenius eigenvalue, we have F(t,\lambda) = (e^{\lambda}-e^{\rho(t)})Q(t,\lambda), where Q(t,\rho(t))\neq 0. In view of (?), for \alpha,\beta\in\mathcal A, we have

so F is analytic. We have \frac{\partial}{\partial\lambda}F(t,\rho(t))=e^{\rho(t)}Q(t,\rho(t)) \neq 0, and thus the analyticity of \rho follows from analytic implicit function theorem. Since the family of log-convex maps is closed under taking the sum (see Lemma in [Kingman]), by (Proof), the maps t \mapsto M_{\alpha,\beta} (t\omega) are log-convex. Then, by Kingman’s Theorem (see Theorem in [Kingman]), \rho is convex.

For every t\in{\mathbb{R}}, let \ell(t),\theta(t)\in{\mathbb{R}}^{\mathcal A}_{>0} be the left and the right Perron-Frobenius eigenvectors such that |\ell(t)|=1 and \langle\ell(t),\theta(t)\rangle=1. Then e^{\rho(t)}=\ell(t){M}(t\omega)\theta(t). Since the map t \mapsto \rho(t) is analytic, it is not difficult to show (using the implicit function theorem) that the maps t \mapsto \ell(t) and t \mapsto \theta(t) are also analytic.

Notice that

Indeed, using Leibniz’s product rule twice, we obtain

Observe that (?) can be rewritten using (Proof) and (?) in the following way:

Similarity, for (?), we have

In summary, in view of (?), we have

It follows that

In view of (5.2), the analyticity of dimensions follows directly from the analyticity of \rho. To prove monotonicity, consider the following derivative:

Since, in view of Lemma 5.1, \rho''(t)\geq 0, it follows that \dim_H(\nu_t) increases on (-\infty, 0] and decreases on [0,\infty). Note that

Since \rho''(t)\geq 0, we have \rho'(t)-\rho'(0)\geq 0 for t\geq 0 and \rho'(t)-\rho'(0)\leq 0 for t\leq 0. It follows that \dim_H(\mu_t) increases on (-\infty, 0] and decreases on [0,\infty).

Note that all monotonicities are in fact strict. Otherwise, there would be an interval on which the dimension function is constant. Due to analyticity, this implies that the entire function is constant, which contradicts the fact that

In view of (5.2), we have

By the left inequality, we have

This gives \frac{\dim_H(\mu_1)}{t}\leq\dim_H(\mu_t). After integrating the right inequality over the interval [1,t], we get

It follows that \dim_H(\mu_t)\leq\frac{1}{(\frac{1}{\dim_H(\mu_1)}-1)t+1}. The proofs of the negative versions of both inequalities that determine the rate of convergence to zero proceed in the same way as their positive versions.

Since \omega is of central-stable type, it is, in particular, a linear combination of right-hand side contracting or unit eigenvectors of M. Since \lambda is a left Perron-Frobenius eigenvector of M, we have that \langle \omega,\lambda \rangle=0. Then the existence of \widehat\phi_\omega-conformal measure \widehat\nu_\omega follows directly from Proposition 2.4 applied to \widehat T (which is uniquely ergodic, by unique ergodicity of T).

We now justify that \widehat\nu_\omega is a unique \widehat\phi_\omega-conformal measure. Let N be the period of T. Without loss of generality, assume that M is positive. Since \omega is of central-stable type, the entries of matrices M^{(N)}_{\pi,\lambda^{(kN)},\omega^{(kN)}}, k\in{\mathbb{N}}, are uniformly bounded from below and above. Therefore, they act on the simplex \Lambda^{\mathcal{A}} as contractions with a uniform contraction scale, with respect to the projective Hilbert metric. Thus, the set \bigcap_{k=1}^{\infty} {\mathbb{R}}_{+}^{\mathcal{A}}M^{(kN)}_{\pi,\lambda,\omega} is a line. Let (\widehat\nu^{(n)})_{n \in \mathbb{N}} be a sequence in \mathbb{R}_+^{\mathcal{A}} given by \nu^{(n)}_\alpha = \nu(I^{(n)}_{\alpha}), for \alpha\in\mathcal A. Since \widehat\nu_\omega^{(kN)} M^{(kN)}_{\pi,\lambda, \omega} = \widehat\nu_\omega^{(0)}, this line is spanned by the vector \widehat\nu_\omega^{(0)}.

To show the uniqueness of the \widehat\phi_\omega-conformal measure, it remains to argue why \widehat\nu_\omega^{(0)} can be induced by at most one such measure. This follows from the invertibility of M^{(kN)}_{\pi,\lambda, \omega} and from the fact that, by the Dynkin Lemma, a measure is fully determined by the values it gives on the \pi-system \bigcup_{k=0}^{\infty}\widehat{\mathcal Q}_{kN}, which generates the Borel \sigma-algebra on K.

Finally, if \widehat\nu_\omega had an atom, then by the fact that \omega is central-stable, its orbit would have infinite measure. Indeed, by Proposition 4.3 in [trujillo_affine_2024], for every \widehat x_0\in K the exists C>0 and infinitely many times (n_k)_{k\in{\mathbb{N}}} such that |S_{n_k}\widehat{\phi}_\omega(\widehat x_0)|\leq C for all k\in{\mathbb{N}}. If \widehat x_0 is an atom of \widehat\nu_\omega, then

which contradicts the finiteness of \widehat\nu_\omega. Hence \widehat\nu_\omega is continuous and thus \nu_\omega:=(i^+)^{-1}_*\widehat\nu_\omega defines an \phi_\omega-conformal measure for T. Moreover, \nu_\omega is also continuous and unique.

For any test function of the form F(x,r)=f(x)\chi_{A}(r), using Fubini’s theorem, we have

By (?) and Birkhoff’s ergodic theorem, for \mu^\theta-a.e. (x,r)\in X^\theta the sequence -\frac{1}{n}\log \nu(P^{(n)}(\pi(x,r))) tends to the integral

As the measure \mu^\theta is R_\mu-invariant, we also have

Recall that if \pi(x,r)\in T^jR^{-1}P_\alpha, then \pi(R_\mu(x,r))\in P_\alpha. It follows that

This gives the second line of (9.1).

If additionally \nu is T-invariant, then

It follows that

which gives (9.1)

By assumption,

It follows that

As R_*(\mu|_A)=e^{-\rho_\mu}\mu and R_*(\nu|_A)=e^{-\rho_\nu}\nu, this gives

Since both measures are probabilistic, we have \mu(P_\alpha)=\nu(P_\alpha) for all \alpha\in\mathcal{A}. In view of (Proof), this gives \mu(T^iR^{-1}P_\alpha)=\nu(T^iR^{-1}P_\alpha) for all \alpha\in\mathcal A and 0\leq i<q_\alpha. It follows that the Radon-Nikodym derivatives for both measures are equal, i.e. \phi=\psi. Moreover, by (Proof), we obtain \rho_\mu=\rho_\nu. Therefore,

Since the Radon-Nikodym derivatives for \mu and \nu are equal, it follows that

Thus, \mu and \nu coincide on atoms of the partition \mathcal P_n for any n\geq 1. Since the diameters of \mathcal P_n tend to zero as n\to\infty, we obtain \mu=\nu.

Since \mu is T-invariant, in view of (9.1) applied to \nu=\mu, we have

By (9.1), we also have

It follows that

which gives (9.4).

The last assertion follows now directly from Theorem 9.3 and Lemma 9.2.

Since \varrho is T-invariant, it satisfies (?) with \lambda=0 and in view of (9.1), we have

By (9.1) again, we have

It follows that

which gives (9.5).

The last assertion follows again directly from Theorem 9.3 and Lemma 9.2.

Suppose that g_A\equiv 0. Assume that x,T^kx\in P_\beta for some k>0 so that T^ix\notin A for 1\leq i\leq k. Then both x,T^kx\in P_\beta belong the same tower over some R^{-1}P_\alpha, so there is 0\leq j<q_\alpha-k so that x\in T^jR^{-1}P_\alpha and T^kx\in T^{j+k}R^{-1}P_\alpha. By definition, l(x,0)=l(T^kx,0)=l and

It follows that \nu(T^{j+k}R^{-1}P_\alpha)=\nu(T^{j}R^{-1}P_\alpha) and \frac{d(T^{-k}_*\nu)}{d\nu}=1 on T^{j}R^{-1}P_\alpha=P^{(1)}(x).

Suppose that g_{X^{(n)}}\equiv 0 for all n\geq 1. As \operatorname{diam} {X}^{(n)}\to 0, the intersection \bigcap_{n\geq 1}{X}^{(n)} contains at most one point denoted by x_0. Assume that x,T^kx\in P_\beta for some k>0 and T^ix\neq x_0 for 1\leq i\leq k. By assumption, there exists n\geq 1 such that T^ix\notin X^{(n)} for 1\leq i\leq k. As g_{X^{(n)}}\equiv 0, it follows that \frac{d(T^{-k}_*\nu)}{d\nu}=1 on P^{(n)}(x) whenever x,T^kx\in P_\beta for some \beta\in\mathcal{A} and k>0, and T^ix\neq x_0 for 1\leq i\leq k.

For a given \alpha\in \mathcal A choose any x\in R^{-1}P_\alpha=P^{(1)}(x), which is not an element of the backward semi-orbit of x_0. Let k:=r_A(x)>1 be the first return time to A. As x,T^kx\in A\subset P_{\alpha_0}, we have \frac{d(T_A^{-1})_*(\nu|_A)}{d(\nu|_A)}=\frac{d((T^{-k})_*\nu)}{d\nu}=1 on P^{(n)}(x) for some n\geq 1. Since \frac{d(T_A^{-1})_*(\nu|_A)}{d(\nu|_A)} is constant on the atoms of R^{-1}\mathcal P, we have \log\frac{d(T_A^{-1})_*(\nu|_A)}{d(\nu|_A)}=0 on R^{-1}P_\alpha. Hence \log\frac{d(T_A^{-1})_*(\nu|_A)}{d(\nu|_A)}=0. In view of (?) and (?), we get the T-invariance of the measure \nu.

In view of (?),

By definition, g^\nu_A is non-negative, depends only on the first coordinate, and is constant on the atoms of the partition \mathcal{P}^{(1)}. If g^\nu_A is non-zero, then its integral is positive and, by the ergodicity of R_\mu, (9.8) follows from Lemma 9.7. Moreover, if g^\nu_{X^{(k)}} is non-zero for some k\geq 2 then, replacing A by X^{(k)} and R by R^k, and using the same arguments, we get (9.8) along an arithmetic progression, which gives the full version of (9.8) immediately. As \nu is not T-invariant, by Lemma 9.6, g^\nu_{X^{(k)}} is non-zero for some k\geq 1, which completes the proof.

By the ergodicity of R_\mu, (10.1) follows directly from Lemma 9.7 and

which is a consequence of (?).

First, note that it is enough to restrict ourselves to considering super-dominated measures \nu. Indeed, suppose that (10.2) holds whenever \nu is super-dominated. As we have already noted, for any measure \nu satisfying (10.2) there exists n_0\geq 0 such that R^{n_0}_*(\nu|_{X^{(n_0)}}) is super-dominated. Then, for \mu^\theta-a.e. (x,r)\in X^\theta, we have

In view of (?),

Let C:=\|\log\frac{d(T^{-1}_*\nu)}{d\nu}\|_{\sup}. Then

This gives (10.2).

From now on, we will assume that the measure \nu is super-dominated. As we have already noted, (10.2) implies

Then, by (?), for any atom T^jR^{-1}P_\alpha\in\mathcal{P}^{(1)} and any 0\leq k<q_\alpha, we have \log\frac{d(T^{-(k-j)}_*\nu)}{d\nu} and \log \frac{d((T^{-(k-j)})_*R^n_*(\nu|_{X^{(n)}}))}{d(R^n_*\nu|_{X^{(n)}})} are constant on T^jR^{-1}P_\alpha and have the same sign. Moreover, (?) holds with

Let us consider a conformal measure \nu_1 such that \log \frac{d(T^{-1})_*\nu_1}{d\nu_1}=h_1\neq 0. As T is a uniquely ergodic homeomorphism and h_1 is continuous with zero mean, the existence of this conformal measure follows directly from Proposition 2.4. Moreover, in view of (?), we have

so the measure \nu_1 satisfies the condition of perfect scaling by renormalization (?). Since \nu_1 is not T-invariant, in view of Lemma 9.6, we have g^{\nu_1}_A is non-zero, maybe replacing A by X^{(n)}. It follows that, there exist \alpha\in\mathcal{A} and 0\leq j\neq k<q_\alpha such that \beta(\alpha,j)=\beta(\alpha,k)=\beta and

By (?), we have \sum_{1\leq i\leq m}x^{\alpha,j,k}_i(\nu)>0.

Let l=l(x,r) for x\in T^jR^{-1}P_\alpha. Then, 0\leq l<q_\alpha, \beta(\alpha,l)=\beta, and

Moreover, in view of (?),

As \lambda_1>0, it follows that if x\in T^jR^{-1}P_\alpha, then

Denote by B\subset X^\theta the suspension over T^jR^{-1}P_\alpha. Then g^\nu_A is positive on B and

Using Proposition 10.1, we obtain (10.2).

First note that for any pair (\alpha_0,i_0), (\alpha_1,i_1) in \Sigma, we have

Indeed, (x,r)\in Q^{(1)}_{(\alpha_0,i_0)}\cap R^{-1}_\mu Q^{(1)}_{(\alpha_1,i_1)} iff (x,r)\in T^{i_0}R^{-1}P_{\alpha_0}\times[0,\theta_{\beta(\alpha_0,i_0)}) and

Moreover, RT^{-i_0}x\in P_{\alpha_0} and RT^{-i_0}x\in T^{i_1}R^{-1}P_{\alpha_1}\subset P_{\beta(\alpha_1,i_1)}. It follows that if \beta(\alpha_1,i_1)\neq\alpha_0, then the intersection is empty. Assume that \beta(\alpha_1,i_1)=\alpha_0. Then (Proof) is equivalent to

where the last interval contains [0,\theta_{\beta(\alpha_0,i_0)}). Indeed, as i_0<q_{\alpha_0} and \theta_A\circ R^{-1}=e^{\rho_\mu}\theta, we have

As S^{\phi}_{(\alpha_0,i_0)}\theta\geq 0, it follows that

This gives the second line in (Proof). Moreover, using the form of the map R_{\mu} (see (Proof)), we also have

Repeating the above arguments inductively, we get that for any sequence ((\alpha_j,i_j))_{j=0}^n in \Sigma such that \beta(\alpha_j,i_j)=\alpha_{j-1} for 1\leq j\leq n, we have

As T^{i_0}R^{-1}\ldots T^{i_n}R^{-1}P_{\alpha_n}\in \mathcal{P}^{n+1} and the \mu^\theta-measure of the above two sets are equal, we get

In view of (Proof), we have

Recall that for any 0\leq l< k\leq n we have T^{i_{l+1}}R^{-1}\ldots T^{i_k}R^{-1}P_{\alpha_k}\subset P_{\beta(\alpha_{l+1},i_{l+1})}=P_{\alpha_{i_l}}. Then R^{-1}T^{i_{l+1}}R^{-1}\ldots T^{i_k}R^{-1}P_{\alpha_k}\subset P^{(1)}_{\alpha_{i_l}}, and hence, by (R^{-1})_*\mu=e^{-\rho_\mu}\mu|_{A}, we have

It follows that

This shows that (\mathfrak{q}\circ R_\mu^n)_{n\in{\mathbb{Z}}} on (X^\theta,\mu^\theta) is a stationary Markov chain with the transition matrix given by (11.2).

Suppose that the condition (11.2) holds. Then, by (Proof) and (Proof), for any sequence \big((\alpha_j,i_j)\big)_{j\in{\mathbb{Z}}} in \widehat \Sigma, this gives

It follows that \mathfrak{Q}:(X^\theta,\mu^\theta)\to (\widehat{\Sigma},\mathfrak{m}) is a measure-preserving isomorphism.

It suffices to show that all entries of the matrix are \mathfrak M^2 positive. Take any pair (\alpha_0,i_0),(\alpha_2,i_2) \in \Sigma and denote \beta(\alpha_2,i_2) = \alpha_1 \in \mathcal{A}. Since B_{\alpha_1\alpha_0} \geq 1, there exists 0\leq i_1 <q_{\alpha_1} satisfying T^{i_1}R^{-1}P_{\alpha_1} \subset P_{\alpha_0}. Hence \beta(\alpha_2,i_2) = \alpha_1 and \beta(\alpha_1,i_1) = \alpha_0, so

The last inequality follows directly from (11.2) and the choice of (\alpha_1,i_1).

Since \lim_{x\to 1^-}h(x)=1, the map h^{-1} is uniformly continuous. Hence, since \max_{J\in \mathcal P^{(n)}} Leb(h(J)) decays exponentially with n, we have

Let N be a natural number such that

Let \delta=\delta_N:=\min\{Leb(J)\mid J\in \mathcal P^{(N)}\}>0. In view of (Proof), there exists n> N such that

for any x<y such that |x-y|<\delta. Then there exist intervals I^{-}_{n-1},I^{+}_{n-1}\in \mathcal P^{(n-1)} and an interval I_{n}\in \mathcal P^{(n)} such that

We want to prove that for every 0<\gamma< \frac{\rho_{\mu_f}}{\zeta}, we have

which by (?) is equivalent to

where \mu_f is the unique probability f-invariant measure. To prove the above inequality, we will prove that for every sufficiently small \epsilon>0 there exists N large enough such that for every x<y satisfying |x-y|<\delta_N, the following holds

By, (?), we have that

For any x_0\in I_n, we have I_{n}=\mathcal{P}^{(n)}(x_0). Then, in view of (?), for any choice (x_0,r)\in I^\theta, we have

By combining (?) and (?), we get

with n>N. By the choice of N, we have

by taking \epsilon:= \frac{\rho_{\mu_f}}{\zeta}-\gamma>0. Hence, we get (?), whenever |x-y|<\delta_N and (?) with \delta=\delta_N. It follows that taking C:=(1+\delta^{-1})^{1-\gamma}, we have

Indeed, if x<y and |x-y|\geq \delta_N, then we choose x=x_0<x_1<\ldots<x_{k-1}<x_k=y such that |x_j-x_{j-1}|=|x-y|/k for all 1\leq j\leq k and |x-y|/k<\delta_N\leq |x-y|/(k-1). Then

As \delta_N\leq |x-y|/(k-1)\leq 1/(k-1), we have k\leq 1+\delta_N^{-1}, which gives (?).

For any n\geq 1, choose (\xi_n,r_n)\in I^\theta such that

Then, in view of (?), we have

Let [x_n,y_n)=P^{(n)}(\xi_n). It follows that

As \mu_f is f-invariant and (R^{-1})_*\mu_f=e^{-\rho_\mu}\mu_f|_{A}, we have

As \mu_f is continuous, it follows that

Since \zeta_n\to\zeta, this gives the second part of (14.2). As [x_n,y_n]\in\mathcal{P}^{(n)}, by (Proof), we also have |x_n-y_n|\to 0, which finishes the proof of the proposition.

As \omega is a central-stable vector, we have \omega=\omega_s+\omega_c, where \omega_s is a stable vector and \omega_c\neq 0 is a central eigenvector of M. As we have already note, f is C^1-conjugated to f_c\in \operatorname{Aff}(T,\omega_c). If h_c:[0,1]\to[0,1] is the conjugacy of T and f_c and \mu_{f_c} is the unique f_c-invariant measure, then {h_c}^{-1}\circ h is a C^1-diffeomorphism of [0,1] conjugating f and f_c such that ({h_c}^{-1}\circ h)_*\mu_{f_c}=\mu_f. It follows that

In view of Proposition 14.1, we have \mathfrak{H}(h_c)\geq \frac{\rho_T}{\zeta^{f_c}}. Suppose, contrary to our claim, that \mathfrak{H}(h_c)> \frac{\rho_T}{\zeta^{f_c}}. Then there exists \gamma > \frac{\rho_T}{\zeta^{f_c}} such that h_c is \gamma-Hölder, so there exists C>0 such that |h_c(y)-h_c(x)|\leq C|y-x|^\gamma for all x,y\in[0,1]. As h_c(x)=\mu_{f_c}[0,x] and the measure \mu_{f_c} is continuous, this gives

In view of Proposition 14.2, there exists an infinite sequence of intervals [x_n,y_n]\subset [0,1], such that

It follows that

which is in contradiction with the choice of \gamma > \frac{\rho_T}{\zeta^{f_c}}. By definition, \zeta^f=\zeta^{f_c}. This gives

The inequality \frac{\rho_T}{\zeta^f}<\dim_H(\mu_{f_c})=\dim_H(\mu_f) follows directly from \zeta^{f_c}>H^u_{Leb}(R_{\mu_{f_c}}) which will be proven in the rest of the section, see Proposition 14.8.

By definition, \zeta^{el}_{\mathcal{C}}(\vartheta)\leq \zeta_{\mathcal{C}}(\vartheta). Moreover, for every C\in \mathcal{C}_T we can decompose C=C_1\ldots C_n such that C_i\in \mathcal{C}^{el}_T, 1\leq i\leq n. Then

Hence, \zeta^{el}_{\mathcal{C}}(\vartheta)= \zeta_{\mathcal{C}}(\vartheta).

As \zeta(\vartheta) is the maximum integrals of \vartheta along all \sigma-invariant measures on \widehat \Sigma and \frac{\vartheta(C)}{|C|} is the integral of \vartheta for the invariant measure on the periodic orbit given by a cyclic path C\in \mathcal{C}_T, we get \zeta^{el}_{\mathcal{C}}(\vartheta)= \zeta_{\mathcal{C}}(\vartheta)\leq \zeta(\vartheta).

For any n\geq 1, let \varrho^n=\varrho_1\ldots\varrho_n be a path in \mathfrak{G}_{T} maximizing \vartheta(\varrho^n), i.e. such that \frac{1}{n}\vartheta(\varrho^n)=\zeta_n(\vartheta). Similarly as in the proof of Lemma 11.3, since M is a positive matrix, we can extend the path \varrho^n=\varrho_1\ldots\varrho_n to a cyclic path \widetilde{\varrho}^n=\varrho_1\ldots\varrho_n\varrho_{n+1}\varrho_{n+2}. Then

It follows that

which completes the proof.

Let C=\varrho_1\ldots\varrho_N with \lambda([C])>0. By the ergodicity of \lambda, for \lambda-a.e. a=(a_j)_{j\in{\mathbb{Z}}}, we have

It follows that for a.e. a\in[C] there exists an increasing sequence (n_k)_{k\geq 0} such that n_0=0, n_{k+1}-n_k\geq N, \sigma^{n_k}a\in[C] for all k\geq 0 and \liminf_{k\to\infty}\frac{k}{n_k}\geq \lambda([C])/N>0. For every k\geq 1 let C^k be the cyclic path of length n_k+N determined by the sequence (a_j)_{j=0}^{n_k+N}. Then

where C_1,C_2,\ldots,C_k are cyclic paths (maybe empty). In view of (Proof), \frac{\vartheta(C^k)}{|C^k|}\to\zeta(\vartheta) as k\to\infty. Moreover,

where the last inequality follows from Lemma 14.4. It follows that

As \limsup\frac{n_k}{k} is finite and \frac{\vartheta(C^k)}{|C^k|}\to \zeta(\vartheta), we get \frac{\vartheta(C)}{|C|}\geq \zeta(\vartheta). On the other hand, \frac{\vartheta(C)}{|C|}\leq \zeta_{\mathcal{C}}(\vartheta)=\zeta(\vartheta), which completes the proof.

Suppose that, contrary to our claim, \int_{\widehat\Sigma}\vartheta\,d\lambda=\zeta(\vartheta).

We will show that for any n\geq 1 and \alpha^{(0)},\alpha^{(n)}\in\mathcal A if f^{i_1}I^{(n)}_{\alpha^{(n)}}\subset I^{(0)}_{\alpha^{(0)}} and f^{i_2}I^{(n)}_{\alpha^{(n)}}\subset I^{(0)}_{\alpha^{(0)}} for some 0\leq i_1<i_2<q^{(n)}_{\alpha^{(n)}}, then Leb(f^{i_1}I^{(n)}_{\alpha^{(n)}})=Leb(f^{i_2}I^{(n)}_{\alpha^{(n)}}).

Take any x_1\in f^{i_1}I^{(n)}_{\alpha^{(n)}} and x_2\in f^{i_2}I^{(n)}_{\alpha^{(n)}}. Let (\alpha_1^{(j)},i_1^{(j)})_{j=1}^n and (\alpha_2^{(j)},i_2^{(j)})_{j=1}^n be sequences in \Sigma such that taking any r\in[0,\theta_{\alpha^{(0)}}] and \alpha^{(0)}_1=\alpha^{(0)}_2=\alpha^{(0)}, we have

Then \beta(\alpha^{(j)}_1,i^{(j)}_1)=\alpha^{(j-1)}_1 and \beta(\alpha^{(j)}_2,i^{(j)}_2)=\alpha^{(j-1)}_2 for 1\leq j\leq n and \alpha^{(n)}_1=\alpha^{(n)}_2=\alpha^{(n)}. As the incidence matrix for the renormalization map R_{\mu_f} is positive, we can choose (\alpha^{(n+1)},i^{(n+1)})\in\Sigma such that \beta(\alpha^{(n+1)},i^{(n+1)})=\alpha^{(n)} and 0\leq i_1^{(0)},i_2^{(0)}<q_{\alpha^{(0)}} such that \beta(\alpha_1^{(0)},i_1^{(0)})=\alpha^{(n+1)} and \beta(\alpha_2^{(0)},i_2^{(0)})=\alpha^{(n+1)}, thus obtaining two loops.

As \vartheta=\vartheta_\pm, in view of (?), we have

Let us consider two cyclic paths C^1, C^2 in \mathcal{C}_T given respectively by

Then

and similarly

As by assumption \lambda([C^1]), \lambda([C^2]) are positive, by Lemma 14.6, we have

In view of the previous two formulas for \vartheta(C^1) and \vartheta(C^2), this gives

We will repeat the same argument for shorter paths. As the incidence matrix for the renormalization map R_{\mu_f} is positive, we can choose \underline{i}^{(n+1)} such that (\alpha^{(n+1)},\underline{i}^{(n+1)})\in\Sigma and \beta(\alpha^{(n+1)},\underline{i}^{(n+1)})=\alpha^{(0)}. Let’s consider two short cyclic paths

As by assumption \lambda([\underline{C}^1]), \lambda([\underline{C}^2]) are positive, by Lemma 14.6, we have \vartheta(\underline{C}^1)=\vartheta(\underline{C}^2)=2\zeta(\vartheta). As

this gives \big|f^{i^{(0)}_1}I^{(1)}_{\alpha^{(0)}}\big|=\big|f^{i^{(0)}_2}I^{(1)}_{\alpha^{(0)}}\big|. In view of (?), we have

It follows that for any n\geq 1 the map g^{Leb}_{I^{(n)}}:[0,1]^\theta\to{\mathbb{R}}_{\geq 0} given by (?) is zero. Therefore, by Lemma 9.6, the Lebesgue measure on [0,1] is f-invariant, which is in contradiction with the non-triviality of the log-slope vector \omega. This shows that \int_{\widehat\Sigma}\vartheta\,d\lambda<\zeta(\vartheta).

Recall that the measure \mathfrak{m}, constructed in Section ?, is a \sigma-invariant ergodic Markov measure on \widehat\Sigma such that \mathfrak{m}([\varrho])>0 for any \varrho\in \Pi_T and

In view of Proposition 14.7, this gives \mathcal G(T,\omega)=\int_{\widehat\Sigma}\vartheta_-\,d\mathfrak{m}<\zeta(\vartheta_-)=\zeta.

Let N be a natural number large enough, to be specified later. Let

Since

for any x<y with |x-y|<\delta there exists n> N such that

Then there exist intervals I^{-}_{n-1},I^{+}_{n-1}\in \mathcal Q^{(n-1)} and an interval I_{n}\in \mathcal Q^{(n)} such that

We want to prove that for every 0<\gamma< \frac{\xi}{\rho_{T}}, we have

which is equivalent to

where \nu is the unique probability \phi_\omega-conformal measure. To prove the above inequality, we will prove that for every sufficiently small \epsilon>0 there exists N large enough such that for every x<y satisfying |x-y|<\delta_N, the following holds

First note that

For any x_0\in I^{\pm}_{n-1}, we have I^{\pm}_{n-1}={Q}^{(n-1)}(x_0). Moreover, in view of (?), for any choice (x_0,r)\in I^\theta, we have

It follows that

By combining (Proof) and (Proof), we get

with n>N. Choose N large enough such that

by taking \epsilon:= \frac{\xi}{\rho_{T}}-\gamma>0. Hence, we get |h^{-1}(x)-h^{-1}(y)|\leq |x-y|^\gamma, whenever |x-y|<\delta_N. Following the arguments from the end of the proof of Proposition 14.1, we get

For any n\geq 1, choose (z_n,r_n)\in I^\theta such that

Then, in view of (?), we have

Let [x_n,y_n)=Q^{(n)}(z_n). It follows that

If [x_n,y_n)=T^jI^{(n)}_\alpha, then Leb([x_n,y_n))=|I^{(n)}_\alpha|=e^{-n\rho_T}|I_\alpha|. Thus

As \nu is continuous, it follows that

Since \xi_n\to\xi, this gives (15.2).

As \omega is a central-stable vector, we have \omega=\omega_s+\omega_c, where \omega_s is a stable vector and \omega_c\neq 0 is a central eigenvector of M. As we have already noted, f is C^1-conjugated to f_c\in \operatorname{Aff}(T,\omega_c). If h_c:[0,1]\to[0,1] is the conjugacy of T and f_c, then {h_c}^{-1}\circ h is a C^1-diffeomorphism of [0,1] conjugating f and f_c. It follows that

By definition,

As \omega_s is of stable type, in view of Proposition A.1, the exists a continuous solution v:I\to{\mathbb{R}} to the cohomological equation \phi_{\omega_s}=v\circ T-v. It follows that

As \omega_c is of central-stable type, by Proposition 6.1, the \phi_{\omega_c}-conformal measure is unique. Therefore, there exists real c such that d\nu_\omega=e^{v+c}d\nu_{\omega_c}. It follows that

In view of Proposition 15.1, we have \mathfrak{H}(h_c^{-1})\geq \frac{\xi^{f_c}}{\rho_T}. Suppose, contrary to our claim, that \mathfrak{H}(h_c^{-1})> \frac{\xi^{f_c}}{\rho_T}. Then there exists \gamma > \frac{\xi^{f_c}}{\rho_T} such that h_c^{-1} is \gamma-Hölder, so there exists C>0 such that |h_c^{-1}(y)-h_c^{-1}(x)|\leq C|y-x|^\gamma for all x,y\in[0,1]. As h_c^{-1}(x)=\nu_{\omega_c}[0,x] and the measure \nu_{\omega_c} is continuous, this gives

In view of Proposition 15.2, there exists an infinite sequence of intervals [x_n,y_n]\subset [0,1], such that

It follows that

which is in contradiction with the choice of \gamma > \frac{\xi^{f_c}}{\rho_{T}}. By definition, \xi^f=\xi^{f_c}. This gives

Finally, the inequality

follows directly from (?).

Let

be all eigenvalues of the self-similarity matrix M=M(T). Of course, \lambda_1=\rho_T. Assume that h_{-i}\in{\mathbb{R}}^{\mathcal A}, 1\leq i\leq g, is a basis of the stable subspace such that Mh_{-i}=e^{-\lambda_i}h_{-i}, for 1\leq i\leq g. Then, the IET T satisfies the Full Filtration Diophantine Condition (FFDC) introduced in [fraczek_kim_partII, Section 3]. Moreover, by Corollary 6.7 and Remark 6.9 in [fraczek_kim_partII], for every 1\leq i\leq g there exists a Hölder continuous solution v_{-i}:I\to{\mathbb{R}} to the cohomological equation \phi_{h_{-i}}=v_{-i}\circ T-v_{-i}. Moreover,

• if 1<i\leq g then \mathfrak{H}(v_{-i})=\frac{\lambda_i}{\lambda_1}=\frac{\lambda_i}{\rho_T}<1, and

• v_{-1}(x)=ax for some non-zero real a.

Since \omega is a linear combinations of the vectors h_{-i}\in{\mathbb{R}}^{\mathcal A}, 1\leq i\leq g, this gives our claim.

Let v:I\to{\mathbb{R}} be a continuous solution to the cohomological equation \phi_\omega=v\circ T-v. Let \nu:= h_*(Leb). Then \nu is a \phi_\omega-conformal measure for T, and

It follows that

As T is uniquely ergodic, we have d \nu(x)=e^{v(x)+c}dx for some real c. Since \nu is a continuous measure, h must be a homomorphism. It follows that

Therefore, (h^{-1})'(x)=e^{v(x)+c}, so h is a C^1-diffeomorphism.

In view of Proposition A.1, if \alpha(\omega)=\rho_T, then (h^{-1})'(x)=e^{ax+c}. Thus, h is a C^\infty-diffeomorphism.

However, if \alpha(\omega)<\rho_T, then (h^{-1})'(x)=e^{v(x)+c} with v Hölder continuous and \mathfrak{H}(v)=\frac{\alpha(\omega)}{\rho_T}. Therefore,

As h'(x)=\frac{1}{(h^{-1})'(hx)}=e^{-v(h(x))-c} and h is bi-Lipschitz, we have

Let h_i:I\to I be a semi-conjugacy of f_i with the IET T, for i=1,2. As \omega_i is of central-stable type, h_i is a homeomorphism, for i=1,2. Let \nu_i:= (h_i)_*(Leb), for i=1,2. Then \nu_i is a \phi_{\omega_i}-conformal measure for T, and

As \omega is of stable type, by Proposition A.1, there exists a Hölder solution v:I\to{\mathbb{R}} to the cohomological equation \phi_\omega=v\circ T-v. It follows that

As \omega_1 is of central-stable type, by Proposition 6.1, the \phi_{\omega_1}-conformal measure is unique. Therefore, there exists real c such that

Let us consider the homeomorphism h:I\to I conjugating f_2 and f_1 given by h:=h_1^{-1}\circ h_2. Then

so

As v\circ h_1 is continuous, it follows that h is a C^1-diffeomorphism.

As h^{-1}(x)=\int_0^{x}e^{v\circ h_1(y)+c}dy, we have

Therefore,

Recall that, by Propositions 14.3 and A.1, we have

This completes the proof.