Geodesics on Riemannian stacks
Matias del Hoyo, Mateus de Melo

TL;DR
This paper extends Riemannian geometry to differentiable stacks, defining stacky geodesics and proving a Hopf-Rinow type theorem, thereby advancing the understanding of singular spaces and their metric properties.
Contribution
It introduces the concept of stacky geodesics and establishes a Hopf-Rinow theorem for Riemannian stacks, generalizing classical results to singular spaces.
Findings
Stacky curves measure distances on orbit spaces.
Stacky geodesics are locally minimizing.
A stacky version of Hopf-Rinow Theorem is proved.
Abstract
Metrics on Lie groupoids and differentiable stacks have been introduced recently, extending the Riemannian geometry of manifolds and orbifolds to more general singular spaces. Here we continue that theory, studying stacky curves on Riemannian stacks, measuring their length using stacky metrics, and introducing stacky geodesics. Our main results show that the length of stacky curves measure distances on the orbit space, characterize stacky geodesics as locally minimizing curves, and establish a stacky version of Hopf-Rinow Theorem. We include a concise overview that bypasses nonessential technicalities, and we lay stress on the examples of orbit spaces of isometric actions and leaf spaces of Riemannian foliations.
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Geodesics on Riemannian stacks
Matias del Hoyo
Mateus de Melo
Abstract
Metrics on Lie groupoids and differentiable stacks have been introduced recently, extending the Riemannian geometry of manifolds and orbifolds to more general singular spaces. Here we continue that theory, studying stacky curves on Riemannian stacks, measuring their length using stacky metrics, and introducing stacky geodesics. Our main results show that the length of stacky curves measure distances on the orbit space, characterize stacky geodesics as locally minimizing curves, and establish a stacky version of Hopf-Rinow Theorem. We include a concise overview that bypasses nonessential technicalities, and we lay stress on the examples of orbit spaces of isometric actions and leaf spaces of Riemannian foliations.
Contents
- 1 Introduction
- 2 Background: groupoids, stacks and metrics
- 3 Curves on Riemannian stacks
- 4 Geodesics on Riemannian stacks
1 Introduction
Differentiable manifolds play a central role in nowadays mathematics, serving as models for spaces in geometry, topology, analysis and mathematical physics. While manifolds are homogeneous, some situations demand to deal with spaces with singularities, and to perform differential geometry over them. A framework that generalizes the notion of manifold and which has received much attention lately is that of Lie groupoids and differentiable stacks.
Lie groupoids are a categorification of the notion of manifold. They permit a unified treatment to classical geometries such as actions, fibrations and foliations [20, 22]. Also, they serve as geometric models for noncommutative algebras, and play a role in desingularizing Poisson and Dirac structures [9]. Morita equivalences of Lie groupoids provide a working definition for differentiable stacks, avoiding the categorical apparatus of the original definition.
Stacks are sheaves of groupoids, originally introduced in algebraic geometry, which make sense in very general contexts, and have shown to be useful to model singular quotients and moduli spaces. Differentiable stacks [6, 11], the incarnation of that theory in differential geometry, include manifolds and orbifolds as particular examples, and more general singular spaces such as orbit spaces of actions and leaf spaces of foliations. These are our main examples.
While several tensors admit simple groupoid versions, such as symplectic forms and vector fields [20], the case of metrics turns out to be more subtle. After several attempts, a general theory for Riemannian groupoids was proposed in [13], based on the notion of Riemannian submersion, and inspired in a simplicial approach to groupoids via their nerve. These metrics are Morita invariant, hence inducing a notion of metric on differentiable stacks [14].
Proper groupoids have compact isotropies and Hausdorff orbit spaces, and they admit averaging systems, which can be used to construct Riemannian metrics. The stacks arising from proper groupoids are called separated. Proper Lie groupoids are linearizable around their orbits by the exponential maps of a metric. It follows that separated stacks are locally modeled by linear representations of compact groups.
In this paper we study curves, and specially geodesics, on Riemannian stacks. This general framework allows us to unify and generalize aspects of previous works on the Riemannian geometry of orbit spaces [1, 16] and leaf spaces [2, 25]. We establish stacky version of some fundamental results for Riemannian manifolds and orbifolds, and explain why some other cease to hold in the new broad context.
Following [13, 14], our object of study is a Lie groupoid equipped with compatible metrics on objects, arrows and pair of composable arrows. We will recall the precise definition in next section. The induced distance in yields a pseudo-distance in the coarse orbit space , which was studied in [24]. Here we think of as a device to perform Riemannian geometry on the distance space .
Given a Lie groupoid, we denote by its orbit stack, and we model a stacky curve by a cocycle , which is roughly a sequence of curves in linked on the extremes by arrows in . More precisely, a cocycle is a groupoid map from the groupoid arising from a cover of the interval. We will make these definition precise, interpret them in the fundamental examples, and relate them with ad hoc definitions in the literature, as [23, 3.3].
[TABLE]
Given , the orbit represents a point on the stack . We use the isotropy representation to model the tangent space to at . A groupoid metric on yields an equivariant inner product on , and we can define the normal norm of any vector . If is a stacky curve represented by a good cocycle , namely one defined over a dimension 1 cover, then the length of is
[TABLE]
Our first main theorem shows that the length of stacky curves recovers the normal pseudo-distance on , which was studied in [24] and that we will review in section 3.3.
Theorem** (3.9).**
If is a Riemannian groupoid and is connected, then is the infimum of the lengths of stacky curves connecting and .
Two groupoid metrics and on are said to be equivalent if they induce the same inner product on the normal directions for every . Equivalence classes of metrics are a Morita invariant, hence inducing a notion of metric on the orbit stack (cf. [14]). As immediate corollaries of Theorem 3.9 we see that the distance on depends only on the class of the metric, and that is preserved by Riemannian Morita equivalences.
Then we introduce a working definition for geodesics on stacks. Given a Riemannian groupoid, we say that a stacky curve is a geodesic if it can be presented by a cocycle on which the curves and are geodesics orthogonal to the orbit foliations. We interpret this definition on the fundamental examples, and establish existence, uniqueness and other basic properties.
For proper Riemannian groupoids, we manage to prove a stacky version of Gauss lemma, asserting that if is small then . From this, we derive our second theorem, characterizing stacky geodesics as locally minimizing curves. We say that a stacky curve is minimizing at if the length of from to equals the normal distance between and for every near enough .
Theorem** (4.17).**
Given a proper Riemannian groupoid and a stacky curve, then is a geodesic if and only if it is minimizing at every .
Note that a stacky geodesic does not minimize distance between any pair of nearby points, even in the orbifold case. For instance, on the plane modulo a reflection, a straight line does not minimize the distance between points on different side of the axis. We will see in Proposition 4.16 that if in a separated stack a geodesic minimizes the distance between two given points then the intermediate points can not belong to a more singular stratum.
A remarkable corollary of Theorem 4.17 is that, when working with proper groupoids, equivalent metrics give rise to the same geodesics, for they only depend on the distance. Then geodesics are an intrinsic notion for separated Riemannian stacks. We conjecture this is true for arbitrary Riemannian stacks.
Finally we study completeness. Given a proper Riemannian groupoid, one of the main theorems of [24] shows that if the metric is geodesically complete then the distance on is complete. Our framework allows us to strengthen this result, achieving the following stacky version of Hopf-Rinow theorem. We say that a Riemannian stack is geodesically complete if stacky geodesics can be extended to the whole real line.
Theorem** (4.20).**
A separated Riemannian stack is geodesically complete if and only if the coarse orbit space is a complete metric space.
A nice corollary is that if the coarse orbit space is compact then is geodesically complete. To relate our result with that of [24], note that if is geodesically complete then also is, for the projection is a stacky Riemannian submersion, in the sense that geodesics on orthogonal to the fibers project to geodesics on . This enhances the claim that is a submetry [24].
Most of our results are stated for proper Riemannian groupoids, but they can easily be extended to Riemannian groupoids that are linearizable and have Hausdorff orbit spaces. In fact, these two conditions readily imply that the corresponding stack is locally a product of a separated stack, coming from the effective part of the normal representation, and the classifying stack of a group, the ineffective part, with no transverse information.
Organization. In we provide a self-contained presentation for Lie groupoids, differentiable stacks and Riemannian structures over them. In we study stacky curves and use them to measure distances. In we introduce geodesics and develop their theory.
Acknowledgements. The results are part of the second author’s Ph.D. Thesis at IMPA, under the advice of H. Bursztyn. We thank him for his personal and academic guidance and support all along the process. We also thank M. Alexandrino, R. Fernandes, and I. Struchiner for enriching talks that shaped our view of the topic. MdM thanks R. Fernandes and the Department of Mathematics at UIUC for the hospitality during Fall 2017. MdH was partially supported by National Council for Scientific and Technological Development - CNPq grant 303034/2017-3. MdM was partially supported by CNPq Ph.D. Fellowship 140771/2015-8, and by CAPES exchange student Fellowship 88881.135952/2016-01.
2 Background: groupoids, stacks and metrics
We review the main concepts needed in the rest of the paper, to set notations and conventions, and to serve as a quick reference for the reader. For a thorough exposition on Lie groupoids, we suggest [20, 22]. We will use groupoids as models for differentiable stacks, as explained for instance in [11]. Riemannian groupoids were introduced in [13], and the Morita invariance of metrics and a definition of Riemannian stack was presented in [14].
2.1 Lie Groupoids
A Lie groupoid consists of a manifold of objects and a manifold of arrows, two surjective submersions indicating the source and target of arrows, and a smooth associative multiplication defined over composable pairs, admitting unit and inverse maps, subject to the usual groupoid axioms.
Given , its isotropy group is a Lie group and an embedded submanifold of , and its orbit is a submanifold of , possibly not embedded. The components of the orbits define the characteristic foliation on , that may be singular. The coarse orbit space is endowed with the quotient topology.
Example 2.1**.**
A surjective submersion gives rise to a submersion groupoid, where , and are the projections, and is given by . The orbits are the fibers of , the isotropies are trivial, and . As a subexample, if is an open cover of then the submersion leads to the Čech groupoid
[TABLE]
When a Lie groupoid has no isotropy and its orbit space is Hausdorff then is naturally a manifold, and identifies with a submersion groupoid [11].
Example 2.2**.**
An orbifold is classically defined as a Hausdorff space locally modeled by a finite group acting on an Euclidean open. An orbifold groupoid is built out of an orbifold atlas , , by emulating the Čech groupoid from previous example. The objects are , and the arrows consist of compositions of germs of maps in some , endowed with a sheaf-like manifold structure [22]. The orbit space is .
Example 2.3**.**
A smooth action of a Lie group on a manifold gives rise to an action groupoid , with , , and . Note that orbits and isotropy groups agree with the usual ones for the action. In particular, the coarse orbit space agrees with the usual orbit space .
Example 2.4**.**
A regular foliation on a manifold gives rise to a monodromy groupoid , whose arrows are leafwise homotopy classes of paths. Its orbits are exactly the leaves of and the isotropy groups are their fundamental groups. Each arrow induces the germ of a transverse diffeomorphism, the holonomy of the path, and the quotient of by holonomy classes is the holonomy groupoid [22]. These Lie groupoids may have non-Hausdorff manifold of arrows.
Given a Lie groupoid, the normal representation of the isotropy over is given by , where is any vector such that . If and are in the same orbit, then the isotropy groups are conjugated by any arrow , and this isomorphism is compatible with the normal representations. In fact, we can organize the pointwise normal representations and conjugations into a groupoid representation of the restriction to the orbit [11], that serves as a linear local model.
A map between Lie groupoids is a smooth functor, given by smooth maps on objects and on arrows, which together preserve the groupoid structure. Such a map yield morphisms between the isotropy groups , and since it must send orbits to orbits, it also yields a continuous map between the orbit spaces , as well as linear maps on the normal directions .
A natural isomorphism between two maps is given by a smooth map with and and satisfying for all in . If are isomorphic then and for every the maps are related to by conjugation by .
Given a Lie groupoid and an orbit , and writing for the submanifold of arrows with source and target in , the Lie groupoid whose objects and arrows are the normal bundles of and , and whose structure maps are induced by differentiation, encodes the normal representation discussed before. Then is linearizable around if there are opens and and a Lie groupoid isomorphism
[TABLE]
A Lie groupoid is proper if is Hausdorff and the source-target map is proper. In such a groupoid the isotropy groups are compact, the orbits are closed embedded, and the orbit space is Hausdorff. A fundamental theorem by A. Weinstein [28] and N. Zung [29] shows that a proper Lie groupoid is linearizable around its orbits. A novel approach to linearization of groupoids using Riemannian metrics was introduced in [13].
2.2 Differentiable stacks
Following [11, 14], we say that a map between Lie groupoids is Morita if it preserves the transverse geometry, in the sense that the following hold:
- •
is an homeomorphism;
- •
is an isomorphism for all ; and
- •
is an isomorphism for all .
A differentiable stack is a Lie groupoid up to Morita equivalence, in the sense that and define the same stack if there is a third groupoid and Morita maps and . We write for the differentiable stack presented by , and think of it as the space enriched with extra smooth info describing the transverse geometry. A stack is separated if it is presented by a proper Lie groupoid . Because of the linearization theorem, separated stacks can be locally recovered from their normal representations.
Example 2.5**.**
Smooth manifolds can be identified with separated differentiable stacks with no isotropy [11]. In fact, a Lie groupoid is Morita equivalent to the unit groupoid of a manifold if and only if is a submersion groupoid, as defined in Example 2.1.
Example 2.6**.**
We sketched in Example 2.2 how to get a Lie groupoid out of an orbifold chart. Different charts yield different Lie groupoids, but a common refinement leads to Morita maps, so all these groupoids are Morita equivalent. From a modern perspective, orbifolds are defined as separated stacks with finite isotropy groups. This greatly simplifies the study of maps and suborbifolds. Details on the correspondence between the classic and new approach are in [19, 21, 22].
Example 2.7**.**
Given a Lie group acting over a manifold, the differentiable stack arising from the action groupoid (cf. Example 2.3) encodes the equivariant geometry of the action. When the action is free and proper this is just the quotient manifold. In general, can be used to compute the equivariant cohomology, as a finite-dimensional variant for the well-known Borel’s recipe. For discrete, the stack is studied in [7].
Example 2.8**.**
If is a foliation on , then the monodromy and holonomy groupoids and defined in Example 2.4 are not Morita equivalent in general, there may be nontrivial loops with trivial holonomy. The projection still preserves much of the transverse geometry.
[TABLE]
It is a homeomorphism in the orbit spaces and an isomorphism on the normal directions, so they should be equivalent in a theory of reduced differentiable stacks, as the one proposed in [26].
To define curves and more general maps between differentiable stacks we use a cocycle formulation. Given a Lie groupoid and an open cover of , the Čech groupoid is the pullback of along the submersion (cf. Example 2.1). This groupoid has an explicit construction
[TABLE]
with arrows for , and in , and product . The obvious projection is Morita. Note that if is a refinement of then we can factor via , and the resulting map is unique up to isomorphism.
A cocycle over with values in is a Lie groupoid map for some open cover of . Two cocycles and are equivalent if there is a common refinement of and and an isomorphism between the restricted groupoid maps . A stacky map is a cocycle modulo equivalences. They form a category, whose isomorphisms are the Morita equivalences [11, 4.5.4].
Example 2.9**.**
Viewing a manifold as a groupoid with only identity arrows and a Lie group as a groupoid with a single object, a groupoid cocycle recovers the usual notion of cocycle, and a stacky map is the same as a principal -bundle over [6, 11]. Thus is a finite dimensional model for the classifying space of .
Given a Lie groupoid, and its orbit, the action groupoid of the normal representation canonically sits inside the local model and the inclusion is Morita.
[TABLE]
We refer to the coarse orbit spaces of these groupoids as the coarse tangent space and denote it by . If is a stacky map represented by a cocycle , and if , the coarse differential is given by . This is well-defined, in the sense that it only depends on the isomorphism class of the cocycle.
Remark 2.10**.**
Alternatively, Morita maps can be defined as maps that are smoothly fully faithful and essentially surjective [22]. And there is yet another approach to Morita equivalences, by means of principal bibundles [17]. The equivalence between both definitions of Morita maps and the correspondence with bibundles can be found in [11].
2.3 Riemannian groupoids and stacks
In a Lie groupoid the pairs of composable arrows can be identified with the space of commutative triangles, so it gains a natural -action by permuting the vertices. A Riemannian groupoid is a Lie groupoid with an -invariant metric on which is transverse to the multiplication [13]. Such an induces metrics and on and satisfying the following basic properties:
- •
the maps and are Riemannian submersions;
- •
the foliations and its pullback on are Riemannian (cf. Example 2.14);
- •
the normal representations are by isometries;
- •
the units form a totally geodesic submanifold.
This definition corrects and extends several previous approaches, and it has two fundamental features. Firstly, it admits plenty of examples, in particular, every proper Lie groupoid can be endowed with one of these metrics via an averaging argument, similar to the construction of metrics on manifolds using partitions of 1. Secondly, the exponential maps of the metrics can be used to weakly linearize the groupoid around any embedded saturated submanifolds [13].
Following [14], we say that two metrics and on are equivalent if they induce the same inner product on the normal vector spaces for any . More generally, we define a Riemannian Morita map as a Morita map between Riemannian groupoids that induces isometries on the normal vector spaces . Then and are equivalent if and only if the identity is a Riemannian Morita map:
[TABLE]
It is proven in [14] that if is a Morita map and is a metric on , then there exists one in making a Riemannian Morita map, that this is unique up to equivalence, and moreover, that this pullback construction sets a 1-1 correspondence between equivalence classes of metrics. A stacky metric on is then defined as the equivalence class of a metric on the groupoid . This generalizes the usual notions of metrics for manifolds and orbifolds.
Example 2.11**.**
Following Example 2.5, if is the submersion groupoid arising from , then a metric on induces on and on making a Riemannian submersion, and two metrics are equivalent if and only if the induced metrics on agree. Moreover, any metric on can be induced from a groupoid metric on the submersion groupoid [14]. Thus, stacky metrics on correspond to metrics on .
Example 2.12**.**
If is an étale Lie groupoid, namely one on which have the same dimension, then a Riemannian structure on is the same as a metric on that is invariant under local bisections, and two metrics are equivalent if and only if they are equal. Thus, following Example 2.6, if is proper and étale, then is an orbifold, and stacky metrics on it agree with the orbifold metrics as classically defined [15, 27].
Example 2.13**.**
Given an isometric action of a Lie group, a metric can be built on the action groupoid by an averaging process described in [14].This process involves many choices, and the resulting metric on that does not agree with in general. Still, they do agree on the normal directions, so the equivalence class of does not depend on the choices made. Our stacky metrics allow us to do Riemannian geometry on (see [1]).
Example 2.14**.**
Let be a foliation on . A groupoid metric on its holonomy groupoid induces a metric on that makes a Riemannian foliation, meaning that if a geodesic is normal to an orbit at a given time then it remains normal to the orbits at every time. Conversely, starting with a metric for which is Riemannian, it is possible to build a groupoid metric out of it, and two such metrics are going to be equivalent [13].
3 Curves on Riemannian stacks
One of the main advantages of working with differentiable stacks is that they provide a clean notion for smooth maps, and in particular, for smooth curves on quotient spaces. In this section we study stacky curves, show that their speeds vary continuously, and prove our first main theorem, asserting that for separated Riemannian stacks the normal length of curves recovers the canonical distance defined on the coarse orbit space. We also derive important corollaries.
3.1 Stacky curves
Let be a Lie groupoid and its orbit differentiable stack. We define a stacky curve as a stacky map from a real interval, viewed as a stack via the unit groupoid . Such a curve is the class of a cocycle supported over some open cover of the interval . We use the notations and .
[TABLE]
The curves satisfy the cocycle condition for on triple intersections . We call a good cocycle if it is supported on a dimension 1 cover, namely , except for consecutive and there are no triple intersections for different . Of course, any curve can be presented by a good cocycle, and two good cocycles define the same curve if they restrict to isomorphic good cocycles on a common refinement.
Example 3.1**.**
If is the submersion groupoid arising from as in Example 2.5, then a good cocycle is a collection of local lifts to of a given curve on . In this case the transitions are completely determined by the segments , for there is no isotropy. Two cocycles are equivalent if the curve on is the same.
Example 3.2**.**
Let be a proper étale groupoid and its orbit orbifold (cf. Example 2.6). A curve is classically defined as a continuous curve that can be locally lifted to smooth curves on orbifold charts [22, 2.4]. A stacky curve induces a curve in this classic sense, for if is a cocycle representing it, then the segments serve as local lifts into orbifold charts. But the classic notion of curve is too sloppy and has not a clear interpretation in terms of stacks. For instance, the smooth curves
[TABLE]
define the same curve on the quotient defined by the reflection along the -axis, but since and are not locally related by the action, then they are different as stacky curves.
Example 3.3**.**
Following Example 2.7, given an action and the resulting action groupoid, we can rewrite a good cocycle for a stacky curve as a family of curves and such that for . The collection defines a -cocycle over the covering of the interval, and since every principal -bundle over is trivial, we can integrate the cocycle, gaining a global representative for any stacky curve . In other words, we are just translating the the local pieces using the action of to a get a single (compare with [7, Thm 6.6]).
Example 3.4**.**
A regular foliation on a manifold can be described by a family of submersions , where , such that when there exists a diffeomorphism satisfying [4]. It is enough to consider an open cover such that if then is included in a foliated chart. If we use to make sense of as a stack (cf. Example 2.8), and we fix the defining submersions as before, then a stacky curve can be reinterpreted as a cocycle with a good open cover of , and the germ of at . The relevant information of each segment is in the composition , and a stacky curve on the leaf space is the same as a family of curves that are connected by the defining cocycle .
Given a Lie groupoid, the velocity of a stacky curve at is , where is a cocycle for and . Given a groupoid metric on , it yields a -equivariant inner product on , so we can define the normal norm of any vector , and set the speed of at as . This is well-defined, it does not depend on the cocycle representing , for the groupoid version of the normal representations are by isometries.
Remark 3.5**.**
A good cocycle for a stacky curve should be compared with the notion of -path [15, 2.3], [23, 3.3]. They are defined as a sequence alternating continuous paths on and arrows in . Given a good cocycle for a stacky curve we can build a -path by splitting the interval, choosing , and setting and . Conversely, a -path on which every is smooth gives rise to a good cocycle by first extending to a smooth curve , , and then modifying and near so as to agree with and . Even though these operations depend on choices, they are well-defined up to equivalence classes of cocycles and small deformations of -paths [23]. The advantages of our cocycles is that they fit the general theory of stacky maps, without the need of an ad-hoc definition, and they allow us to make sense of smoothness.
3.2 Continuity of the normal speed
We will define the length of a stacky curve in a Riemannian stack as the integral of its speed. For this to make sense, we need to show that the speed varies continuously, and this is rather subtle when the dimensions of the normal directions vary. This subsection takes care of this technical issue.
Let be a Riemannian groupoid, its orbit stack, and a stacky curve, presented by a good cocycle supported over some open cover . We want to show that the speed , as defined in previous subsection, varies continuously on . Working locally, we can assume that is in fact presented by a curve , and as discussed before, . We will first show the continuity at a fixed point of the groupoid, and then extend to the general case by passing to a transversal.
Proposition 3.6**.**
Let be a Riemannian groupoid and a smooth curve. Then the normal component of the speed is continuous at any in .
Proof.
Case the orbit of is [math]-dimensional. If then the result follows from the inequality . Suppose then that , assume that , and working in normal coordinates given by the metric around , we can further assume that , that is a small ball centered at [math], that the matrix of the metric is the identity at [math] and has vanishing first derivatives at [math], and that the geodesic spheres around agree with the usual spheres.
The radial vector field is orthogonal to the characteristic foliation , for its integral curves are geodesics, and is singular Riemannian. Let be the angle between and its projection to . Then , and since , to show that is continuous at [math] it is enough to show that , or in other words, that is almost orthogonal to near [math]. We do this by computing the angle between and , for , as it follows from the fact that belongs to for all .
Writing we have and . From
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
we conclude and the result follows.
Case the orbit of is not [math]-dimensional. The image of a small ball centered at [math] under the exponential map is a submanifold transverse to each orbit it crosses, and . It easily follows from [11, Prop 3.5.1] that the map is submersive onto an invariant open, and that the restriction groupoid is a Lie subgroupoid of . Let be a smooth local section for such that . Then is a curve in with which is naturally isomorphic to , and therefore, such that for all close to . We can now use the 0-dimensional case with the curve in the groupoid , regarded with a groupoid metric that makes the inclusion a Riemannian Morita map (cf. [14, Thm 6.3.3]). This groupoid metric may not agree with the one inherits as a submanifold, at least a priori, but it does insure that the norms of normal vectors is preserved, so is the same in as in . ∎
As an immediate corollary of previous proposition, we establish the following technical fundamental result, necessary to make sense of lengths of curves in a stack.
Corollary 3.7**.**
The speed of a stacky curve on a Riemannian stack varies continuously on .
Proof.
If is given by a cocycle supported over and , then in a neighborhood of we have and this is continuous by Proposition 3.6. ∎
We remark that even is continuous at a fixed point, it may fail to be differentiable, as we will show in next example. This example also shows that, given a Riemannian groupoid and given , there may not exist a curve isomorphic to that is orthogonal to the characteristic foliations, otherwise would indeed be smooth.
Example 3.8**.**
Let with the -action by rotations. The resulting action groupoid can be endowed with a groupoid metric such that is the standard metric on [13, 4.9]. Let be the parabola curve on . Then is a fixed point, for and is continuous at [math] but not differentiable.
3.3 Normal distance by stacky curves
In a Riemannian manifold the length of a curve is the integral of its speed. If is connected, then a distance can be defined, as the infimum of the length of curves connecting and . We call it the metric distance.
[TABLE]
Given a Riemannian groupoid with coarse orbit space connected, a normal pseudo-distance on can be defined, by considering chains such that are in the same orbit and are in the same component, and setting
[TABLE]
This pseudo-distance was studied by [24], for a proper Lie groupoid equipped with a metric on the units that is transversally invariant. They establish some properties of (cf. [24, Thm 6.1]), such that for in a small tubular neighborhood of , from where it follows that is a distance. Moreover, since , they remark that the orbit space inherits some properties from , like being a length space, and an Alexandrov space when has bounded curvature.
We have seen in Proposition 3.6 that the speed of a stacky curve varies continuously. This is enough to make sense of the length of a stacky curve , defined as the integral of the speed, . If is presented by a good cocycle , then we have
[TABLE]
This is because there are no triple intersections, and the first sum is counting twice each overlap . Note that for the source and target yield isometries and mapping to and , respectively.
Our first main theorem shows that the quotient pseudo-distance can be measured with stacky curves. This offers us an alternative approach to the results in [24], and the opportunity to strengthen some of them.
Theorem 3.9**.**
If is a Riemannian groupoid and is connected, then is the infimum of the lengths of stacky curves connecting and .
Proof.
Fix points in . Given , we will build a stacky curve connecting and such that . By definition of , we know of the existence of a chain such that , and . The idea is to pick for each a curve connecting and and such that , and then combine the several into a cocycle for a stacky curve . We can do this inductively. After picking , let , let be an arrow in , and let be a local lift of along such that . Then , and if is small enough, we can pick the next curve so as to agree with in and still satisfy . This way satisfy
[TABLE]
So far, we have shown that . For the converse, given a stacky curve connecting and , let us show that must be greater or equal than , for arbitrary . Because of the additivity of and the triangle inequality of , we can subdivide in small intervals and show the inequality for each piece of curve. This allow us to work locally, and without loss of generality, we can assume that is presented by a single smooth curve . Given , we can assume that , otherwise we can substitute by an isomorphic curve satisfying this, as shown along the proof of Proposition 3.6. Since is continuous, we have that in a neighborhood of . By compacity we can cover the interval with finitely many such neighborhoods, and get
[TABLE]
Since is arbitrary, we have shown and the proof is completed. ∎
We close with some immediate corollaries of our characterization of by using stacky curves.
Corollary 3.10**.**
If is a Riemannian Morita map, then the map between the coarse orbit spaces preserves the pseudo-distance.
Proof.
The map is a bijection, and moreover, yields a 1-1 correspondence between stacky curves in and in . Besides, since is also Riemannian, this correspondence preserves the length of stacky curves, and the corollary follows by Theorem 3.9. ∎
Corollary 3.11**.**
Equivalent metrics on the same Lie groupoid yield the same pseudo-distance on the coarse orbit space .
Corollary 3.12**.**
The pseudo-distance on is a Riemannian Morita invariant, it depends only on the Riemannian stack .
Remark 3.13**.**
If is a distance, then clearly inherits a quotient length structure from (cf. [5], pag 63). The Theorem 3.9 says that the quotient length structure can be recovered as the length structure given by the (traces of) stacky curves on .
4 Geodesics on Riemannian stacks
This is the main section of the paper. We introduce here our notion for stacky geodesics, discuss fundamental examples, and set the existence and uniqueness of geodesics with prescribed initial conditions. We also prove our second main theorem, showing that, on a separated Riemannian stack, geodesics can be characterized as minimizing curves. We finish with our third main theorem, a result on complete Riemannian stacks, a stacky version of Hopf-Rinow.
4.1 Definitions and examples
Recall that a singular foliation on a Riemannian manifold is Riemannian if every geodesic that is normal to at a given time remains normal to at every time [2]. We call such a geodesic a normal geodesic. In a Riemannian groupoid the foliation on by the orbits and its pullback on are singular Riemannian [13]. We say that a curve is a normal geodesic if it is so with respect to . If , this is equivalent to be a normal geodesic for in , for is totally geodesic.
Given a Riemannian groupoid as before, we consider its associated stack, and we define a stacky curve to be a stacky geodesic if it can be represented by a cocycle on which each is a normal geodesic.
[TABLE]
Note that the curves are also normal geodesics of . Every geodesic can be represented by a good cocycle of normal geodesics, and two geodesics are equivalent if they yield the same good cocycle on a common refinement.
Remark 4.1**.**
We will prove as a corollary of Theorem 4.17 that for separated Riemannian stacks, our main case of interest, the notion of stacky geodesic only depends on the class , hence being a well-defined notion. For arbitrary Riemannian stacks, we conjecture this is still true. In any case, our definition still makes sense, as one depending on the groupoid metric .
Example 4.2**.**
Let be a submersion, the corresponding submersion groupoid, and a groupoid metric on it, which yields a metric on making a Riemannian submersion (cf. Example 2.11). If is a stacky geodesic, then each is a horizontal geodesic and projects to a geodesic on . Conversely, given a geodesic on , the horizontal local lifts are geodesics, and can be used to build a cocycle for a stacky geodesic (cf. Example 3.1). Thus, our stacky geodesics extend the usual notion for manifolds.
Example 4.3**.**
Let be a proper étale Riemannian groupoid and its orbit Riemannian orbifold (cf. Example 2.6). An orbifold geodesic is classically defined as a continuous curve that locally lifts to a smooth geodesic into some Riemannian orbifold chart . This ad hoc definition for orbifolds matches our general approach, for the local lifts provide a cocycle for a stacky geodesic at the level of objects, and it can always be extended at the level of arrows (see Corollary 4.7).
Example 4.4**.**
For an isometric action, we have seen how to extend to a groupoid metric on the action groupoid using a right invariant metric of (cf. Example 2.13). By construction, on is such that the following are Riemannian submersions.
[TABLE]
By diagram chasing normal geodesics on previous square, we can see that a normal geodesic must be of the form with constant and a normal geodesic in . Thus, in a stacky geodesic , each gives a normal geodesic in , and each gives a such that . Since the action is by isometries, we conclude that any such can be presented by a single normal geodesic (cf. Example 3.3, compare with [1]).
Example 4.5**.**
Analogous to Example 3.4, a Riemannian foliation can be described by Riemannian submersions with and isometries satisfying whenever . Using the holonomy groupoid to make sense of (cf. Example 2.14), and fixing the defining Riemannian submersions , we can present a stacky geodesic by normal geodesics satisfying . The transversal data of each segment is captured by the geodesics . It follows that a geodesic on the leaf space is the same as a family of geodesics that are glued by the defining cocycle (compare with [3]).
Geodesic on manifolds are defined infinitesimally in terms of the Levi-Civita connection. Since we have not developed stacky connections, we are not in conditions to prove such an infinitesimal description. Still, we can prove that our notion is local, and this will be useful later.
Lemma 4.6**.**
A stacky curve is a stacky geodesic if and only if for every there is a smaller interval such that is a stacky geodesic.
Proof.
A restriction of a geodesic is clearly a geodesic, for a cocycle of normal geodesics restricts to another of the same type. For the converse, given a stacky curve that is locally a geodesic, and therefore it can be locally presented by good cocycles of normal geodesics, we want to merge them into a good cocycle of normal geodesics for . The key step is, given and normal geodesics and given such that and are in the same orbit and in , to find a normal geodesic such that and . From we get that there is some arrow such that [11, 3.5.1]. Then, if is the horizontal lift of to via the source, the geodesic with initial condition will serve as . ∎
Corollary 4.7**.**
If and are stacky geodesics on a separated Riemannian stack and there is such that and , then they can be glued into a geodesic that extends both.
Proof.
It follows from the key step described in previous lemma. ∎
4.2 Existence and uniqueness
Let be a Riemannian Lie groupoid. Given in and , in this section we deal with the questions of whether there exists a stacky geodesic passing through with velocity , and in case it exists, whether it is unique.
Lemma 4.8**.**
For every and there exists a stacky geodesic such that and . If is another stacky geodesic with and , then for some .
Proof.
Pick representing and that is normal to the orbit and represents . Then the geodesic on with and is normal and represents a stacky geodesic with the requested initial conditions.
Regarding uniqueness, and working locally, we can represent by normal geodesics . Since , we can pick an arrow such that , consider the normal lift of along the source map, and take the geodesic of with and . Then yields an isomorphism between the restrictions of and . ∎
While local existence and uniqueness follow straightforward from the properties of geodesics on manifolds, the global existence is more subtle, and does not hold for every Riemannian groupoid, as we can see in next example.
Example 4.9**.**
Let be the foliation in given by the vertical lines, and consider its holonomy groupoid . The standard metric on can be extended to a groupoid metric (cf. Example 2.14). Then identifies with the non-Hausdorff real line with two origins, and the normal geodesics and in are not isomorphic, for they do not define the same map on the orbit spaces. Then they yield different stacky geodesics with the same initial conditions.
We will see that global uniqueness of geodesics holds when working with separated Riemannian stacks. Next proposition will help us to build isomorphisms between curves on a proper groupoid.
Proposition 4.10**.**
Suppose is proper. If are normal geodesics and is an arrow with , then the normal geodesic on lifting to via the source map is defined over the whole , and it gives an isomorphism between and .
Proof.
By reparametrizating if necessary we can assume that and , and therefore , are geodesics with speed 1. Let be the maximal domain of the geodesic . Note that restricted to is both an -lift of and a -lift of , for and are Riemannian submersions, and is orthogonal to the fibers (see key step of Lemma 4.6). We want to show that . Suppose otherwise that , the other case is analogous. Consider a sequence so is contained in the compact
[TABLE]
Then there is a convergent subsequence . By the local existence of the geodesic flow on the manifold , there is a neighborhood of in such that every geodesic with initial condition in is defined over the same interval . For sufficiently large and , thus we can extend to the interval , contradicting the maximality of . ∎
We can derive now the global uniqueness of geodesics on separated Riemannian stacks.
Corollary 4.11**.**
If are stacky geodesics on a separated Riemannian stack with the same initial data and defined over the same interval then .
Proof.
By refining coverings if necessary, we can assume that and are given by good cocycles , defined over the same good covering , and that . Since , we can pick an arrow such that , and by Proposition 4.10, we can promote to a natural isomorphism between and . Choosing a time in , we can define , so as to make the following commutative:
[TABLE]
Note that , so we can apply again Proposition 4.10 to promote to a natural isomorphism between and . Moreover, for all , for the product and inverse of normal geodesics is again a normal geodesic, and both sides have the same initial conditions at . By iterating this argument, we get a sequence of arrows , promote them to natural isomorphisms , for any , and analogously for negatives . The collections of are a natural isomorphism, showing that the cocycles and are equivalent.∎
Finally, combining Corollaries 4.7 and 4.11, we get:
Corollary 4.12**.**
Given a separated Riemannian stack , and , there is a unique maximal stacky geodesic such that and .
4.3 Geodesics are locally minimizing
Geodesics on manifolds can be characterized as curves that locally minimize the distance [18, 6.6-6.12]. A way to establish this relation between geodesics and distances, avoiding the calculus of variations, is by using Gauss lemma, which claims that the exponential map behaves as an isometry radially. Next we develop a stacky version of these results.
Proposition 4.13** (Stacky Gauss Lemma).**
Given a proper Riemannian groupoid and , there exists such that for all with .
Proof.
Let be the ball of normal vectors at of radius . If is small then is a slice at : it is transversal to every orbit it meets, and is 0-dimensional. Since is proper is embedded, so we can further assume that . Let be the open obtained by saturation of . The groupoids and inherit Riemannian structures by restrictions, and therefore their own normal distances. Since is a Riemannian Morita map the map preserves distances (see Corollary 3.10). We have thus reduced the problem to the fixed point case.
After eventually reducing , we can assume that the exponential map gives a groupoid isomorphism, namely a groupoid linearization as below[13]:
[TABLE]
We claim that the orbits are contained in the geodesics spheres around . In fact, if then there are and such that , and . Since preserves the norm, and since by the classic Gauss lemma (cf. [18, Prop. 6.10]), we conclude that .
Finally, let us show that . It is clear that . For the converse, if is a chain from to , then and are in the same orbit for all , and . Then
[TABLE]
and, by an inductive argument, . Computing the infimum over all the possible chains we get and the proof is complete. ∎
Corollary 4.14** (cf. [24]).**
If is a proper Riemannian groupoid then is indeed a distance, namely if .
Given a stacky curve into a Riemannian stack with unit speed, mimicking the classic case, we say that is minimizing if for all , and is locally minimizing if any has a neighborhood such that is minimizing. Next example shows that stacky geodesics may not be locally minimizing.
Example 4.15**.**
Let act over the plane by the reflection along the -axis. The canonical metric on yields a 2-metric on the action groupoid , and therefore a metric on the orbit stack , that is actually an orbifold (cf. Example 2.13). Then the straight line induces a stacky geodesic on that is not locally minimizing around [math], for for every .
A heuristic explanation for previous example goes as follows. Geodesics on manifolds are infinitesimal, given by a differential equation, extremals for a variational principle, and since manifolds are locally simply connected, the space of small curves connecting two nearby points is connected, which allows the passing from infinitesimal to global. But stacks are not locally simply connected, there can be fundamental group concentrated on a single point, so a geodesic can have minimum length among all its homotopic curves, and yet not be locally minimizing.
By the linearization theorem, the objects of a proper Lie groupoid inherit a stratification by isotropy type, and the same holds for the orbit space [24]. Next we show that, as suggested in Example 4.15, a minimizing geodesic cannot cross different strata (compare with [1, 3.5]).
Proposition 4.16**.**
If is a separated stack and is a stacky minimizing geodesic then the isotropy groups are canonically isomorphic, and is included into a single stratum.
Proof.
Working locally, we can represent by a normal geodesic , and if , we can replace the original groupoid to its linearization , as done in the proof of Proposition 4.13. We claim that remains invariant by the action of the isotropy . In fact, given , the piecewise smooth curve
[TABLE]
is also minimizing for , then it is also minimizing for , and by classic Riemannian geometry [18, Thm 6.6], it must be a geodesic, and then . This shows that for , with the isomorphism given by the exponential map on the direction of , and similarly for . The proposition follows by connectedness of . ∎
In order to provide a characterization of geodesics by means of the normal distance, we introduce the next definition. We say that is minimizing at if there exists such that whenever . A locally minimizing curve is minimizing at every point, and even though the converse does not hold in general (see Example 4.15), it does when is just a manifold [18, Prop 6.10].
Theorem 4.17**.**
Let be a proper Lie groupoid. Let be a stacky curve with unit speed. Then is a stacky geodesic if and only if it is minimizing at every point.
Proof.
Suppose is a geodesic and take . By restricting to a small interval , we can assume that is represented by a normal geodesic . Write . If , then and by Gauss lemma 4.13 we deduce that the following holds and that is minimizing at :
[TABLE]
Conversely, suppose that is minimizing at every , and let . By restricting to a neighborhood of we can assume that is represented by a groupoid curve , and if , we can replace the original groupoid to its linearization , as done before. Then for near we have
[TABLE]
the first identity is because is minimizing at and the second one is by Gauss lemma 4.13. It follows that is minimizing at for both and , then is both a geodesic and normal, so is locally a geodesic, and therefore a geodesic (see Lemma 4.6). ∎
Corollary 4.18**.**
Equivalent metrics on a proper Riemannian groupoid define the same geodesics on the orbit stack. Stacky geodesics into a separated Riemannian stack only depend on the stacky metric .
4.4 Complete Riemannian stacks
Given a Riemannian groupoid, we say that is geodesically complete if any geodesic can be extended to one defined over the whole . Next we show that if is both separated and geodesically complete then the distance between any two points can be realized by a stacky geodesic. The proof mimics the argument used in the manifold case [18].
Proposition 4.19**.**
Given a separated Riemannian stack, if it is geodesically complete and are such that then there is a unitary stacky geodesic with and .
Note that the restriction is minimizing, but , do not need to be in the same stratum, for Proposition 4.16 demands to be minimizing over the whole open interval.
Proof.
Take representatives for , and denote by the sphere of normal vectors at of radius . By the stacky Gauss Lemma 4.13 we can take such that for all . Without loss of generality we can assume that . Since is compact, there is some minimizing the normal distance to , namely
[TABLE]
If then by the triangle inequality, and we claim that the equality holds. Suppose otherwise that , then by Theorem 3.9 there is a stacky curve such that , and . Then if denotes the time at which intersects the geodesic sphere , which exists by connectedness of , we get a contradiction as follows:
[TABLE]
Finally, we claim that the unitary stacky geodesic with initial condition and , which by hypothesis is defined for all time, satisfies , so it minimizes the distance between and . Let denote the times at which is optimally approaching . Note that , for small , and is closed by continuity. Let be the supremum of . Suppose that , otherwise we are done. By applying the stacky Gauss lemma 4.13, and reasoning as before, we know there exists such that the stacky geodesic with and satisfies for small . To show that we can actually merge and within a single stacky geodesic, we can pick a representative of , and working locally around , represent and as normal geodesics and in such that . Then the piecewise smooth curve
[TABLE]
is minimizing for , then it is also minimizing for , and by classic Riemannian geometry [18, Thm 6.6], it must be a geodesic, from where . This way we can merge and as in Corollary 4.7, contradicting the maximality of . ∎
We can finally present our third main theorem, the following stacky version for classical Hopf-Rinow theorem [18, Thm 6.13].
Theorem 4.20**.**
A separated Riemannian stack is geodesically complete if and only if the coarse orbit space is a complete metric space.
Proof.
Suppose first that is a complete. Let be a stacky geodesic that is maximal, and suppose that , the case is analogous. After a linear reparametrization we may suppose that is unital. Choose an increasing convergent sequence. From the inequality
[TABLE]
we see that is a Cauchy sequence, and by the completeness assumption, we have for some . The geodesic flow of the manifold insures that there exist and an open such that every unitary geodesic with is defined at least for time . Since is open, we have that for some large enough , and we can further assume that . Choosing such that , and choosing the normal vector representing , we can merge with the classic geodesic passing through with velocity as in Corollary 4.7, contradicting the maximality of .
For the converse, we assume that the separated Riemannian stack is geodesically complete. Fix . There is a stacky exponential map
[TABLE]
where is the stacky geodesic with initial conditions and . It is not hard to see that this map is continuous. Finally, given a Cauchy sequence in , it is a bounded set, and by Proposition 4.19, it sits inside some compact . Then the Cauchy sequence must have a convergent subsequent, and therefore be convergent. ∎
Corollary 4.21**.**
If the coarse orbit space of a separated Riemannian stack is compact, then the stack is geodesically complete.
We end this section by showing that every separated stack admits a complete stacky metric. This result generalizes the well-known fact that any manifold admits a complete metric.
Corollary 4.22**.**
Every separated stack admits a stacky metric such that is geodesically complete.
Proof.
Let be a proper groupoid let be any groupoid metric on it. For each , write . and let . Intuitively, measures the normal distance between and . If for some we have then any bounded subset of sits inside a compact set, and therefore every Cauchy sequence is convergent, from where the result follows (cf. Theorem 4.20).
Suppose otherwise that for all . By the stacky Gauss lemma 4.13 we have , and from the inclusion it follows that . Then is continuous, we can construct a smooth function such that for all , and by an averaging argument, we can make to be constant along the orbits (cf. [13]). We will use as a conformal factor to build a new metric.
Consider the metric on , where is the pullback of via the structure maps. It is easy to see that is a groupoid metric, for is so, and is constant along the orbits and invariant under the action . If is a stacky curve, , then
[TABLE]
and therefore . By Theorem 3.9 it follows that is contained in , so every Cauchy sequence for is contained in a compact set and the result follows. ∎
Remark 4.23**.**
We remark that, even though every separated stack admits a complete metric, not every proper groupoid admits a groupoid metric such that is complete. In fact, there may not exists a transversely invariant complete Riemannian metric on , contrary to what was claimed in [24, Prop. 3.14]. For a counterexample, consider the submersion groupoid arising from the first projection (cf. Example 2.1). Then is transversely invariant if and only if becomes a Riemannian submersion (cf. Example 2.11), and such an cannot be complete because is not locally trivial [10, Thm 5]. In the forthcoming paper [12] we will generalize that result by relating complete groupoid metrics and strict linearization.
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1[1] D. Alekseevsky, A. Kriegl, M. Losik, and P. Michor; The Riemannian geometry of orbit spaces. The metric, geodesics, and integrable systems; Publ. Math. Debrecen 62 (2003), 247-276.
- 2[2] M. Alexandrino, R. Briquet, and D. Töben; Progress in the theory of singular Riemannian foliations; Differential Geometry and its Applications 31 (2013), 248–267.
- 3[3] M. Alexandrino, M. Javaloyes; On closed geodesics in the leaf space of singular Riemannian foliations; Glasgow Mathematical Journal 53 (2011), 555–568.
- 4[4] R. Bott, A. Haefliger; On characteristic classes of Γ Γ \Gamma -foliations; Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 78 (1972), 1039–1044.
- 5[5] D. Burago, Y. Burago, S. Ivanov; A course in metric geometry; AMS Graduate Studies in Mathematics 33 (2001).
- 6[6] K. Behrend, P. Xu; Differentiable stacks and gerbes; J. Symplectic Geom. 9 (2011), 285–341.
- 7[7] A. Cabrera, M. del Hoyo, E. Pujals; Discrete dynamics and differentiable stacks; Preprint ar Xiv:1804.00220 [math.DS].
- 8[8] M. Crainic; Differentiable and algebroid cohomology, Van Est isomorphisms, and characteristic classes; Comment. Math. Helv. 78 (2003), 681–721.
