\section*{Introduction}

In this paper we present a characterization of finite semigroups in terms of finite chains and antichains. These two notions are well-known in the theory of order (see e.g.  \cite[O-1.6]{Bible} or \cite{LMP}) but can also be defined for semigroups. Let us recall that a {\em semigroup} is a set endowed with an associative binary operation $S\times S\to S$, $\langle x,y\rangle\mapsto xy$. A {\em semilattice} is a commutative semigroup whose any element $x$ is an {\em idempotent} (which means that $xx=x$). Each semilattice $S$ carries a natural partial order $\le$ defined by $x\le y$ iff $xy=yx=x$.

A subset $A$ of a semigroup $S$ is defined to be
\begin{itemize}
\item a {\em chain} if $xy\in\{x,y\}$ for any elements $x,y\in A$;
\item an {\em antichain} if $xy\notin\{x,y\}$ for any distinct elements  $x,y\in A$.
\end{itemize}
The definition implies that each chain consists of idempotents.

A semigroup $S$ is defined to be ({\em anti}){\em chain-finite} if it contains no infinite (anti)chains.

Chain-finite semigroups play an important role in studying $\C$-closed and absolutely $\C$-closed semigroups, see \cite{BBm,GutikPagonRepovs2010,Stepp75,Yokoyama2013}. The notion of an antichain-finite semigroup seems to be new.

The principal result of this note is the following theorem characterizing finite semigroups.

\begin{theorem}\label{t:main} A semigroup $S$ is finite if and only if it is chain-finite and antichain-finite.
\end{theorem}

A crucial step in the proof of this theorem is the following proposition describing the (periodic) structure of antichain-finite semigroups.

A semigroup $S$ is called {\em periodic} if for every $x\in S$ there exists $n\in\IN$ such that $x^n$ is an idempotent of $X$. In this case $$S=\bigcup_{e\in E(S)}\!\!\sqrt[\infty]{e},$$
where $E(S)=\{x\in S:xx=x\}$ is the set of idempotents of $S$ and $$\sqrt[\infty]{e}=\{x\in S:\exists n\in\IN\;\;(x^n=e)\}$$
for $e\in E(S)$.

\begin{proposition}\label{p:main} Each antichain-finite semigroup $S$ is periodic and for every $e\in E(S)$ the set $\sqrt[\infty]{e}$ is finite.
\end{proposition}

Theorem~\ref{t:main} and Proposition~\ref{p:main} will be proved in the next section.

Now we present a simple example of an antichain-finite lattice which is not a union of finitely many chains.

\begin{example}\label{ex} Consider the set
$$S=\{\langle 2n-1,0\rangle:n\in\IN\}\cup\{\langle 2n,m\rangle:n,m\in\IN,\;m\le 2n\}$$endowed with the semilattice binary operation
$$
\langle x,i\rangle\cdot\langle y,j\rangle=\begin{cases}
\langle x,i\rangle&\mbox{if $x=y$ and $i=j$};\\
\langle x-1,0\rangle&\mbox{if $x=y$ and $i\ne j$};\\
\langle x,i\rangle&\mbox{if $x<y$};\\
\langle y,j\rangle&\mbox{if $y<x$}.
\end{cases}
$$It is straightforward to check that the semilattice $S$
has the following properties:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $S$ is antichain-finite;
\item $S$ has arbitrarily long finite antichains;
\item $S$ is not a union of finitely many chains;
\item the subsemilattice $L=\{\langle 2n-1,0\rangle:n\in\IN\}$ of $S$ is a chain;
\item $S$ admits a homomorphism $r:S\to L$ such that $r^{-1}(\langle x,0\rangle)=\{\langle y,i\rangle\in S:y\in\{x,x+1\}\}$ is finite for every element $\langle x,0\rangle\in L$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{example}

Example~\ref{ex} motivates the following question.

\begin{question} Let $S$ be an antichain-finite semilattice. Is there a finite-to-one  homomorphism $r:S\to Y$ to a semilattice $Y$ which is a finite union of chains?
\end{question}

A function $f:X\to Y$ is called {\em finite-to-one} if for every $y\in Y$ the preimage $f^{-1}(y)$ is finite.

\section*{Proofs of the main results}

In this section we prove some lemmas implying Theorem~\ref{t:main} and Proposition~\ref{p:main}. More precisely, Proposition~\ref{p:main} follows from Lemmas~\ref{l:periodic} and \ref{l:P-fin}; Theorem~\ref{t:main} follows from Lemma~\ref{l:finite}.

\begin{lemma}\label{l:periodic} Every antichain-finite semigroup $S$ is periodic.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof} Given any element $x\in S$ we should find a natural number $n\in\IN$ such that $x^n$ is an idempotent. First we show that $x^n=x^m$ for some $n\ne m$. Assuming that $x^n\ne x^m$ for any distinct numbers $n,m$, we conclude that the set $A=\{x^n:n\in\IN\}$ is infinite and for any $n,m\in\IN$ we have $x^{n}x^m=x^{n+m}\notin\{x^n,x^m\}$, which means that $A$ is an infinite antichain in $S$. But such an antichain cannot exist as $S$ is antichain-finite. This contradiction shows that $x^n=x^{m}$ for some numbers $n<m$ and then for the number $k=m-n$ we have $x^{n+k}=x^m=x^n$. By induction we can prove that $x^{n+pk}=x^n$ for every $p\in\IN$. Choose any numbers $r,p\in\IN$ such that $r+n=pk$ and observe that $$x^{r+n}x^{r+n}=x^{r+n}x^{pk}=x^rx^{n+pk}=x^rx^n=x^{r+n},$$
which means that $x^{r+n}$ is an idempotent and hence $S$ is periodic.
\end{proof}

An element $1\in S$ is called an {\em identity} of $S$ if $x1=x=1x$ for all $x\in S$.
For a semigroup $S$ let $S^1=S\cup \{1\}$ where $1$ is an element such that $x1=x=1x$ for every $x\in S^1$. If $S$ contains an identity, then we will assume that $1$ is the identity of $S$ and hence $S^1=S$.

For a set $A\subseteq S$ and element $x\in S$ we put $$xA=\{xa:a\in A\}\quad\mbox{and}\quad Ax=\{ax:a\in A\}.$$

For any element $x$ of a semigroup $S$, the set
$$H_x=\{y\in S:yS^1=xS^1\;\wedge\;S^1y=S^1x\}$$is called the {\em $\mathcal H$-class} of $x$. By Lemma I.7.9 \cite{PR}, for every idempotent $e$ its $\mathcal H$-class $H_e$ coincides with the maximal subgroup of $S$ that contains the idempotent $e$.

\begin{lemma}\label{l:He} If a semigroup $S$ is antichain-finite, then for every idempotent $e$ of $S$ its $\mathcal H$-class $H_e$ is finite.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof} Observe that the set $H_e\setminus\{e\}$ is antichain (this follows from the fact that the left and right shifts in the group $H_e$ are injective). Since $S$ is antichain-finite, the antichain $H_e\setminus\{e\}$ is finite and so is the set $H_e$.
\end{proof}

\begin{lemma}\label{l:ideal} If a semigroup $S$ is antichain-finite, then for every idempotent $e$ in $S$ we have $(H_e\cdot\sqrt[\infty]{e})\cup(\sqrt[\infty]{e}\cdot H_e)\subseteq H_e$.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof} Given any elements $x\in \sqrt[\infty]{e}$ and $y\in H_e$, we have to show that $xy\in H_e$ and $yx\in H_e$. Since $x\in\sqrt[\infty]{e}$, there exists a number $n\in\IN$ such that $x^n=e$. Then $x^{n+1}S^1=exS^1\subseteq eS^1$ and $eS^1=x^{2n}S^1\subseteq x^{n+1}S^1$, and hence $eS^1=x^{n+1}S$. By analogy we can prove that $S^1e=S^1x^{n+1}$. Therefore, $x^{n+1}\in H_e$.

Then $xy=x(ey)=(xe)y=(xx^n)y=x^{n+1}y\in H_e$ and
$yx=(ye)x=y(ex)=yx^{n+1}\in H_e$.
\end{proof}

\begin{lemma}\label{l:P-fin} If a semigroup $S$ is antichain-finite, then for every idempotent $e\in E(S)$ the set $\sqrt[\infty]{e}$ is finite.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof} By Lemma~\ref{l:He}, the $\mathcal H$-class $H_e$ is finite. Assuming that $\sqrt[\infty]{e}$ is infinite, we can choose a sequence $(x_n)_{n\in\w}$ of pairwise distinct points of the infinite set $\sqrt[\infty]{e}\setminus H_e$.

Let $P=\{\langle n,m\rangle\in\w\times\w:n<m\}$ and $\chi:P\to 5=\{0,1,2,3,4\}$ be the function defined by
$$\chi(n,m)=\begin{cases}0&\mbox{if $x_nx_m=x_n$};\\
1&\mbox{if $x_mx_n=x_n$};\\
2&\mbox{if $x_nx_m=x_m$};\\
3&\mbox{if $x_mx_n=x_m$};\\
4&\mbox{otherwise}.
\end{cases}
$$By the  Ramsey Theorem 5 \cite[p.16]{Ramsey}, there exists an infinite subset $\Omega\subseteq\w$ such that $\chi[P\cap(\Omega\times\Omega)]=\{c\}$ for some $c\in\{0,1,2,3,4\}$.

If $c=0$, then $x_nx_m=x_n$ for any numbers $n<m$ in $\Omega$. Fix any two numbers $n<m$ in $\Omega$. By induction we can prove that $x_nx_m^p=x_n$ for every $p\in\IN$. Since $x_m\in \sqrt[\infty]{e}$, there exists $p\in\IN$ such that $x_m^p=e$. Then $x_n=x_nx_m^p=x_ne\in H_e$ by Lemma~\ref{l:ideal}. But this contradicts the choice of $x_n$.

By analogy we can derive a contradiction in cases $c\in\{1,2,3\}$.

If $c=4$, then the set $A=\{x_n\}_{n\in\Omega}$ is an infinite antichain in $S$, which is not possible as the semigroup $S$ is antichain-finite.

Therefore, in all five cases we obtain a contradiction, which implies that the set $\sqrt[\infty]{e}$ is finite.
\end{proof}

Our final lemma implies the non-trivial ``if'' part of Theorem~\ref{t:main}.

\begin{lemma}\label{l:finite} A semigroup $S$ is finite if it is chain-finite and antichain-finite.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof} Assume that $S$ is both chain-finite and antichain-finite. By Lemma~\ref{l:periodic}, the semigroup $S$ is periodic and hence $S=\bigcup_{e\in E(S)}\!\!\sqrt[\infty]{e}$. By Lemma~\ref{l:P-fin}, for every idempotent $e\in E(S)$ the set $\sqrt[\infty]{e}$ is finite. Now it suffices to prove that the set $E(S)$ is finite.

To derive a contradiction, assume that $E(S)$ is infinite and choose a sequence of pairwise distinct idempotents $(e_n)_{n\in\w}$ in $S$. Let $P=\{\langle n,m\rangle\in\w\times \w:n<m\}$ and $\chi:P\to \{0,1,2,3,4,5\}$ be the function defined by the formula
$$\chi(n,m)=\begin{cases}0&\mbox{if $e_ne_m\in\{e_n,e_m\}$ and $e_me_n\in\{e_n,e_m\}$};\\
1&\mbox{if $e_ne_m=e_n$ and $e_me_n\notin\{e_n,e_m\}$};\\
2&\mbox{if $e_ne_m=e_m$ and $e_me_n\notin\{e_n,e_m\}$};\\
3&\mbox{if $e_ne_m\notin\{e_n,e_m\}$ and $e_me_n=e_n$};\\
4&\mbox{if $e_ne_m\notin\{e_n,e_m\}$ and $e_me_n=e_m$};\\
5&\mbox{if $e_ne_m\notin\{e_n,e_m\}$ and $e_me_n\notin\{e_n,e_m\}$}.
\end{cases}
$$

The Ramsey Theorem 5 \cite[p.16]{Ramsey} yields an infinite subset $\Omega\subseteq \w$ such that $\chi[P\cap(\Omega\times\Omega)]=\{c\}$ for some $c\in\{0,1,2,3,4,5\}$.

Depending on the value of $c$, we shall consider six cases.
\smallskip

If $c=0$ (resp. $c=5$), then $\{e_n\}_{n\in\w}$ is an infinite (anti)chain in $S$, which is forbidden by our assumption.
\smallskip

Next, assume that $c=1$. Then $e_ne_m=e_n$ and $e_me_n\notin\{e_n,e_m\}$ for any numbers $n<m$ in $\Omega$.
For any number $k\in\Omega$, consider the set $Z_k=\{e_ne_k:k<n\in\Omega\}$. Observe that for any $e_ne_k,e_me_k\in Z_k$ we have
$$(e_ne_k)(e_me_k)=e_n(e_ke_m)e_k=e_ne_ke_k=e_ne_k,$$
which means that $Z_k$ is a chain. Since $S$ is chain-finite, the chain
$Z_k$ is finite.

By induction we can construct a sequence of points $(z_k)_{k\in\w}\in\prod_{k\in\w}Z_k$ and a decreasing sequence of infinite sets $(\Omega_k)_{k\in\w}$ such that $\Omega_0\subseteq \Omega$ and for every $k\in\w$ and $n\in\Omega_k$ we have $e_ne_k=z_k$ and $n>k$. Choose an increasing sequence of numbers $(k_i)_{i\in\w}$ such that $k_0\in\Omega_0$ and $k_i\in\Omega_{k_{i-1}}$ for every $i\in\IN$.
We claim that the set $Z=\{z_{k_i}:i\in\w\}$ is a chain. Take any numbers $i,j\in\w$ and choose any number   $n\in\Omega_{k_i}\cap \Omega_{k_j}$.

If $i\le j$, then
$$z_{k_i}z_{k_j}=(e_ne_{k_i})(e_ne_{k_j})=e_n(e_{k_i}e_n)e_{k_j}=e_ne_{k_i}e_{k_j}=e_ne_{k_i}=z_{k_i}.$$

If $i>j$, then $k_i\in \Omega_{k_{i-1}}\subseteq \Omega_{k_j}$ and hence
$$z_{k_i}z_{k_j}=(e_ne_{k_i})(e_ne_{k_j})=e_n(e_{k_i}e_n)e_{k_j}=e_n(e_{k_i}e_{k_j})=e_nz_{k_j}=e_n(e_ne_{k_j})=e_ne_{k_j}=z_{k_j}.$$
In both cases we obtain that $z_{k_i}z_{k_j}\in\{z_{k_i},z_{k_j}\}$, which means that the set $Z=\{z_{k_i}:i\in\w\}$ is a chain. Since $S$ is chain-finite, the set $Z$ is finite.
Consequently, there exists $z\in Z$ such that the set $\Lambda=\{i\in\w:z_{k_i}=z\}$ is infinite. Choose any numbers $i<j$ in the set $\Lambda$ and then choose any number $n\in\Omega_{k_j}\subseteq\Omega_{k_i}$. Observe that $k_j\in \Omega_{k_{j-1}}\subseteq \Omega_{k_i}$ and hence $e_{k_j}e_{k_i}=z_{k_i}=z$. Then
\begin{multline*}
e_{k_j}=e_{k_j}e_{k_j}=(e_{k_j}e_n)e_{k_j}=e_{k_j}(e_ne_{k_j})=e_{k_j}z_{k_j}=e_{k_j}z=\\
=e_{k_j}z_{k_i}=e_{k_j}(e_{k_j}e_{k_i})=e_{k_j}e_{k_i}\notin \{e_{k_j},e_{k_j}\}
\end{multline*} as $c=1$.

By analogy we can prove that the assumption $c\in\{2,3,4\}$ also leads to a contradiction.
\end{proof}


\section{Exact dimensionality and Ledrappier-Young formulae}

Given an iterated function system (IFS), which in this article will refer to a finite family of uniform contractions $\{S_i: [0,1]^2 \to [0,1]^2\}_{i=1}^N$, it is well-known that there exists a unique, non-empty, compact set $F \subseteq [0,1]^2$ such that $F=\bigcup_{i=1}^N S_i(F)$ which we call the attractor of the IFS. We say that a measure $\mu$ supported on $F$ is invariant (respectively ergodic) if there exists a $\sigma$-invariant (respectively ergodic) measure $m$ on $\Sigma=\{1, \ldots, N\}^\mathbb{N}$ (where $\sigma$ denotes the left shift map) such that $\mu=m \circ \Pi^{-1}$ where $\Pi: \Sigma \to [0,1]^2$ is the canonical coding map defined by $\Pi(i_1,i_2 \ldots)=\lim_{n \to \infty} S_{i_1}\circ \cdots \circ S_{i_n}([0,1]^2)$.

Recall that the (upper and lower) local dimensions of $\mu$ at $x$ are defined as
$$ \overline{\dim}_{\mathrm{loc}}(x):=\limsup_{r \to 0} \frac{\log(\mu(B(x,r)))}{\log r}  \;\; \textnormal{and} \;\;  \underline{\dim}_{\mathrm{loc}}(x):=\liminf_{r \to 0} \frac{\log(\mu(B(x,r)))}{\log r}$$
where $B(x,r)$ denotes a ball of radius $r$ centred at $x$. If $\overline{\dim}_{\mathrm{loc}}(x)=\underline{\dim}_{\mathrm{loc}}(x)$ we denote the common value by $\dim_{\mathrm{loc}}(x)$ and call it the local dimension of $\mu$ at $x$. If the local dimension exists and is constant for $\mu$ almost all $x$ we say that the measure $\mu$ is exact dimensional and call this constant the exact dimension of $\mu$, which we will denote by $\dim \mu$. In this case, most well-known notions of dimension coincide with the exact dimension of $\mu$.

In the dimension theory of measures, it is a problem of central interest to establish the exact dimensionality of ergodic invariant measures supported on attractors of IFS, and to provide a formula for the exact dimension. In many settings, the exact dimension has been shown to satisfy a formula in terms of Lyapunov exponents, various notions of entropy and the dimensions of projected measures.

In particular, if the maps $S_i$ are conformal and the IFS satisfies an additional separation condition, it is a classical result that any ergodic invariant measure $\mu$ supported on the attractor $F$ is exact dimensional and its exact dimension is given by its measure-theoretic entropy over the Lyapunov exponent (see e.g. \cite{bedford}). In the substantially more difficult case where no separation condition is assumed, Feng and Hu generalised this classical result by showing that any ergodic invariant measure $\mu$ supported on the attractor $F$ is exact dimensional and its exact dimension is given by the projection entropy over the Lyapunov exponent. In this sense, exact dimensionality is understood in the conformal setting.

On the other hand, the question of whether every ergodic invariant measure supported on the attractor of a non-conformal IFS is exact dimensional is still very much open, and this question has recently received a lot of attention in the particular case where the maps $S_i$ are all affine. Feng \cite{feng} has very recently shown that all ergodic invariant measures supported on the attractors of IFS composed of affine maps are exact dimensional and satisfy a formula in terms of the Lyapunov exponents and conditional entropies. This answered a folklore open question in the fractal community and unified previous partial results obtained in \cite{bk,fjj}. In the non-conformal setting, this formula for the exact dimension of $\mu$ is often called a ``Ledrappier-Young formula'', following the work of Ledrappier and Young on the dimension of invariant measures for $C^2$ diffeomorphisms on compact manifolds \cite{ly1,ly2}.

While Feng's result settles the case of ergodic measures supported on self-affine sets, the more general case of ergodic measures supported on attractors of more general (i.e. nonlinear) non-conformal IFS is still open. In fact, the only result in this direction that the authors are aware of is \cite[Theorem 2.11]{feng}, where Feng and Hu prove exact dimensionality of ergodic invariant measures supported on the attractors of IFSs which can be expressed as the direct product of IFSs composed of $C^1$ maps on $\mathbb{R}$. The fact that there is limited literature concerning the exact-dimensionality of measures supported on general non-conformal attractors reflects the wider challenge of understanding  the dimension theory of nonlinear non-conformal attractors, although this appears to be an area of growing interest \cite{fs, pesin, ffl}.

In this article we consider (pushforward) quasi-Bernoulli measures supported on the attractors of nonlinear, non-conformal IFS which were introduced in \cite{ffl}, and we show that these are exact dimensional and satisfy a Ledrappier-Young formula. In \S 2 we introduce the class of attractors and measures which will be studied and state our main result, Theorem \ref{ly theorem}. In \S 3 we recall some technical results which were proved in \cite{ffl} concerning the contractive properties of the maps in our IFS. \S 4 contains the proof of Theorem \ref{ly theorem}, which adapts an approach used in \cite{fjj}.

\section{Our setting and statement of results}\label{results}

Let $f_{i,x}$, $f_{i,y}$ denote partial derivatives of $f_i$ with respect to $x$ and $y$ respectively and $g_{i,x}$, $g_{i,y}$ denote partial derivatives of $g_i$ with respect to $x$ and $y$ respectively.

We will consider the following family of attractors which were introduced by Falconer, Fraser and Lee \cite[Definitions 1.1 and 3.1]{ffl}.

\begin{defn}\label{ifsdef}
Suppose $\mathcal{I}$ is a finite index set with $|\mathcal{I}|\geq 2$. For each $i \in \mathcal{I}$ let $S_i:[0, 1]^2\rightarrow [0, 1]^2$ be of the form $S_i(a_1, a_2)= (f_i(a_1), g_i(a_1, a_2))$, where:
\begin{enumerate}
\item  $f_i$ and $g_i$ are $C^{1+\alpha}$ contractions $(\alpha>0)$ on $[0, 1]$ and $[0, 1]^2$ respectively.
\item $\{S_i\}_{i \in \mathcal{I}}$ satisfies the \textbf{strong separation condition} (SSC) : the sets $\lbrace S_{i}(F)\rbrace_{i\in\mathcal{I}}$ are pairwise disjoint.
\item $\lbrace S_{i}\rbrace_{i\in\mathcal{I}}$ satisfies  the \textbf{domination condition}: for each $i \in \mathcal{I}$
\begin{equation}\label{Domination}
\inf_{{\bf a}\in[0, 1]^2}|f_{i,x}({\bf a})|>\sup_{{\bf a}\in[0, 1]^2}|g_{i,y}({\bf a})|\geq \inf_{{\bf a}\in[0, 1]^2}|g_{i,y}({\bf a})|\geq d,
\end{equation}
where $d>0$.
\end{enumerate}
 Let $F$ denote the attractor of $\{S_i\}_{i \in \mathcal{I}}$.
\end{defn}

For $n\in\mathbb{N}$ we write $\mathcal{I}^n$ to denote the set of all sequences of length $n$ over $\mathcal{I}$ and we let $\mathcal{I}^*=\bigcup_{n\geq 1}\mathcal{I}^n$ denote the set of all finite sequences over $\mathcal{I}$. We let $\Sigma=\mathcal{I}^\mathbb{N}$ denote the set of infinite sequences over $\mathcal{I}$ and for $\i=(i_1, i_2,\dots)\in\Sigma$ we write $\i|n= (i_1, i_2,\dots, i_n)\in\mathcal{I}^n$ to denote the restriction of $\i$ to its first $n$ symbols. For $\i=(i_1, i_2,\dots, i_n)\in\mathcal{I}^n$ we write $S_{\i}= S_{i_1}\circ\cdots\circ S_{i_n}$ and we write $[\i]\subseteq\Sigma$ to denote the cylinder set corresponding to $\i$, which is the set of all infinite sequences over $\mathcal{I}$ which begin with $\i$.

\begin{defn}\label{quasibernoulli}
We say that a measure $m$ on $\Sigma$ is quasi-Bernoulli if there exists some $L>0$ such that for all $\i, \j\in\mathcal{I}^*$
\begin{equation}\label{quasibernoulli1}
L^{-1}m([\i])m([\j])\leq m([\i\j])\leq L m([\i])m([\j]).
\end{equation}
\end{defn}
We will study the pushforward measure $\mu=m \circ \Pi^{-1}$ for a quasi-Bernoulli measure $m$, noting that $\mu$ is supported on $F$. Apart from including the important class of Bernoulli measures, quasi-Bernoulli measures also include the well-known class of Gibbs measures for H\"{o}lder continuous potentials. Furthermore it was shown in \cite{bkm} that this inclusion is strict.

The Shannon-McMillan-Breiman theorem allows us to define the entropy of $\mu$.

\begin{defn}[Entropy]\label{entropy}
There exists a constant $h(\mu) \leq 0$ such that for $m$-almost all $\i \in \Sigma$,
\begin{equation}\label{entropy1}
h(\mu)=\lim_{n \to \infty} \frac{1}{n} \log m([\i|n]).
\end{equation}
We call $h(\mu)$ the entropy of $\mu$.
\end{defn}

Apart from entropy the other key features of the Ledrappier-Young formula are the Lyapunov exponents, which describe the typical contraction rates in different directions.

Lyapunov exponents are defined in terms of Jacobian matrices of the maps $S_{\i|n}$. We denote the Jacobian matrix of $S_{\i|n}$ at a point $\a\in [0, 1]^2$ by $D_\a S_{\i|n}$. We recall that the singular values of an $n\times n$ matrix $A$ are defined to be the positive square roots of the eigenvalues of $A^TA$, where $A^T$ denotes the transpose of $A$. The Lyapunov exponents are defined in terms of singular values of the matrices $D_\a S_{\i|n}$. For fixed $\a \in [0,1]^2$ and any $n\in\mathbb{N}$ we let $\alpha_1(D_\a S_{\i|n})\geq\alpha_2(D_\a S_{\i|n})$ denote the singular values of $D_\a S_{\i|n}$.  The sub-additive ergodic theorem then allows us to make the following definition.

\begin{defn}[Lyapunov exponents]\label{lyapunov}
There exist constants $ \chi_2(\mu) \leq \chi_1(\mu)< 0$ such that for $m$ almost all $\i \in \Sigma$,
\begin{equation}\label{lyapunov1}
\chi_1(\mu)=\lim_{n \to \infty}\frac{1}{n} \log \alpha_1\left(D_{\Pi(\sigma^n \i)} S_{\i|n}\right)
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{lyapunov2}
\chi_2(\mu)=\lim_{n \to \infty}\frac{1}{n} \log \alpha_2\left(D_{\Pi(\sigma^n \i)} S_{\i|n}\right).
\end{equation}
We call $\chi_1(\mu), \chi_2(\mu)$ the Lyapunov exponents of the system with respect to $\mu$.
\end{defn}

Let $\pi:[0,1]^2 \to [0,1]$ denote projection to the $x$-co-ordinate. Let $\pi(\mu)$ denote the projected measure which is supported on $\pi F$, which is the attractor of the (possibly overlapping) conformal IFS $\{f_i\}_{i \in \mathcal{I}}$ on $[0,1]$. Note that by \cite[Theorem 2.8]{fh}, $\pi(\mu)$ is exact dimensional. We denote its exact dimension by $\dim \pi(\mu)$.

We are now ready to state our main result.

\begin{thm}\label{ly theorem}
Let $\mu$ be a pushforward quasi-Bernoulli measure supported on $F$, where $F$ satisfies Definition \ref{ifsdef}. Then $\mu$ is exact dimensional and moreover its exact dimension $\dim \mu$ satisfies the following Ledrappier-Young formula
\[
\dim \mu = \frac{h(\mu)}{\chi_2(\mu)} + \frac{\chi_2(\mu)-\chi_1(\mu)}{\chi_2(\mu)} \dim \pi(\mu).
\]
\end{thm}

\begin{comment}
We also obtain the following corollary, which gives a simpler expression for $\dim\mu$ when $\dim\pi(\mu)$ takes the value we `expect' it to.

\begin{cor}
If $\dim\pi(\mu)= \min\left\{\frac{h(\mu)}{\chi_1(\mu)}, 1\right\}$ then
\[
\dim\mu =  \begin{cases}
\frac{h(\mu)}{\chi_1(\mu)} &\textnormal{if } h(\mu)\leq\chi_1(\mu)\\
1+\frac{h(\mu)-\chi_1(\mu)}{\chi_2(\mu)}&\textnormal{if } h(\mu)>\chi_1(\mu).
\end{cases}
\]
\end{cor}
\end{comment}

\begin{comment}
\begin{proof}
Firstly suppose that $\dim\pi(\mu) = \frac{h(\mu)}{\chi_1(\mu)}\leq 1$. Then
\begin{align*}
\dim \mu &= \frac{h(\mu)}{\chi_2(\mu)} + \frac{\chi_2(\mu)-\chi_1(\mu)}{\chi_2(\mu)} \dim \pi(\mu)\\
&= \frac{h(\mu)}{\chi_2(\mu)} + \frac{\chi_2(\mu)-\chi_1(\mu)}{\chi_2(\mu)}\frac{h(\mu)}{\chi_1(\mu)}\\
&=\frac{h(\mu)}{\chi_1(\mu)}.
\end{align*}
If on the other hand $\dim\pi(\mu) = 1<\frac{h(\mu)}{\chi_1(\mu)}$, then
\begin{align*}
\dim \mu &= \frac{h(\mu)}{\chi_2(\mu)} + \frac{\chi_2(\mu)-\chi_1(\mu)}{\chi_2(\mu)} \dim \pi(\mu)\\
&= \frac{h(\mu)}{\chi_2(\mu)} + \frac{\chi_2(\mu)-\chi_1(\mu)}{\chi_2(\mu)}\\
&= 1+\frac{h(\mu)-\chi_1(\mu)}{\chi_2(\mu)}.
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
\end{comment}

\section{Preliminaries}

Since each $f_i$ ($i \in \mathcal{I}$) only depends on the $x$-co-ordinate of a given point, it is easy to see that the Jacobian of each $S_i$ must be lower triangular. Denote the Jacobian by
$$D_\a S_i= \begin{pmatrix} f_{i,x}(\a) &0 \\ g_{i,x}(\a)& g_{i,y}(\a) \end{pmatrix}.$$
It is easy to see by the chain rule for any $\i\in\Sigma$ and $n\in\mathbb{N}$ the Jacobian of $S_{\i|n}$ must also be lower triangular which we will write as
$$D_\a S_{\i|n}= \begin{pmatrix} f_{\i|n,x}(\a) &0 \\ g_{\i|n,x}(\a)& g_{\i|n,y}(\a) \end{pmatrix}.$$
Our IFS has several useful properties, which were established in \cite{ffl}. To begin with we have the following bound, which allows us to control the off-diagonal entry:

\begin{lma}\label{fg bound} \cite[Lemma 3.3]{ffl}
There exists a constant $C>0$ such that for any $\i \in \Sigma$, $n \in \mathbb{N}$ and ${\bf a}, {\bf b}\in[0, 1]^2$,
\begin{equation} \label{g/f}
\frac{|g_{\i|n,x}(\a)|}{|f_{\i|n,x}(\b)|} \leq C.
\end{equation}
\end{lma}

A consequence of Lemma \ref{fg bound} is that the singular values of the the Jacobian matrices are comparable to their diagonal entries.

\begin{lma}\label{Singular Value Bound}\cite[Lemma 3.4]{ffl}
There exists a constant $M\geq1$ such that for all ${\bf a}\in[0, 1]^2$, $\i\in\Sigma$ and $n\in\mathbb{N}$ the singular values of the Jacobian matrices $D_{{\bf a}}S_{\i|n}$ satisfy
\begin{equation}\label{comparability}
M^{-1} \ \leq\ \frac{\alpha_1\left(D_{{\bf a}}S_{\i|n}\right)}{|f_{\i|n, x}({\bf a})|},\  \frac{\alpha_2\left(D_{{\bf a}}S_{\i|n}\right)}{|g_{\i|n, y}({\bf a})|}\ \leq \ M.
\end{equation}
\end{lma}

Lemma \ref{Singular Value Bound}, together with the domination condition, implies that the two Lyapunov exponents are distinct, $\chi_2(\mu)< \chi_1(\mu)$.

Another useful property of our IFS is that the diagonal entries of the Jacobian matrices satisfy a bounded distortion condition.

\begin{lma}\label{boundeddistortion}\cite[Lemma 3.2]{ffl}
There exists a constant $A\geq 1$ such that for all $\i\in\Sigma$, $n\in\mathbb{N}$ and all ${\bf a}, {\bf b}\in[0, 1]^2$,
\begin{equation}\label{ratiofandg}
A^{-1} \ \leq\ \frac{|f_{\i|n,x}({\bf a})|}{|f_{\i|n,x}({\bf b})|},\  \frac{|g_{\i|n,y}({\bf a})|}{|g_{\i|n,y}({\bf b})|}\ \leq \ A.
\end{equation}
\end{lma}

Finally, the singular values of the Jacobian matrices also satisfy bounded distortion.

\begin{lma}\label{svboundeddistortion}
There exists a constant $R\geq 1$ such that for all $\i\in\Sigma$, $n\in\mathbb{N}$ and all ${\bf a}, {\bf b}\in[0, 1]^2$,
\begin{equation}\label{ratiofalphas}
R^{-1} \ \leq\ \frac{\alpha_1\left(D_{{\bf a}}S_{\i|n}\right)}{\alpha_1\left(D_{{\bf b}}S_{\i|n}\right)},\  \frac{\alpha_2\left(D_{{\bf a}}S_{\i|n}\right)}{\alpha_2\left(D_{{\bf b}}S_{\i|n}\right)}\ \leq \ R.
\end{equation}
\end{lma}

\begin{proof}
Simply combine Lemma \ref{Singular Value Bound} and Lemma \ref{boundeddistortion}.
\end{proof}

An easy but useful consequence of Lemma \ref{svboundeddistortion} is that the Lyapunov exponents defined in Definition \ref{lyapunov} may be expressed as
\begin{equation} \label{lyap-alt}
\chi_1(\mu)=\lim_{n \to \infty}\frac{1}{n} \log \alpha_1\left(D_{a_n} S_{\i|n}\right) \;\; \textnormal{and} \;\;\chi_2(\mu)=\lim_{n \to \infty}\frac{1}{n} \log \alpha_2\left(D_{a_n} S_{\i|n}\right)\end{equation}
for any sequence $(a_n)_{n\in\mathbb{N}}$ in $[0, 1]^2$, on the same set of $\i\in\Sigma$ of full $m$-measure that was used in Definition \ref{lyapunov}.

\section{Proofs}

The following key lemma allows us to estimate the $\mu$-measure of a small ``approximate square'' in $[0,1]^2$  by the product of the $m$-measure of an appropriate cylinder and the $\pi(\mu)$-measure of the $\pi$-projection of the ``blow up'' of the ``approximate square''. It is worth noting that this lemma is the only place where the assumption that $m$ is quasi-Bernoulli (Definition \ref{quasibernoulli}) is used.

For $r>0$, $n \in \mathbb{N}$, $\a\in[0, 1]^2$ and $\i \in \Sigma$ such that $\Pi(\i)=\a$ we write $B_n(\a, r)$  to denote the strip of points $\b=(b_1, b_2) \in S_{\i|n}([0,1]^2)$ whose $x$ co-ordinate satisfies $|b_1-a_1| \leq r/2$. We note that by the SSC, $\Pi$ is an injective map and therefore $B_n(\a,r)$ is well defined. For $x\in\mathbb{R}$ and $r>0$ we write $Q_1(x, r) = [x-\frac{r}{2}, x+\frac{r}{2}]$.

\begin{lma}\label{mu bound}
Let $r>0$, $n \in \mathbb{N}$, $\a=(a_1, a_2) \in F$ and $\i \in \Sigma$ such that $\Pi(\i)=\a$. Then
\begin{align}
&\mu(B_n(\a, r))\nonumber\\
&\leq Lm([\i|n]) \pi(\mu)\left(Q_1\left(\pi(\Pi(\sigma^n \i)), \frac{Mr}{\min_{\b \in [0,1]^2} \alpha_1\left(D_{{\bf b}}S_{\i|n}\right)}\right)\right)\label{mu bound 1}
\end{align}
and
\begin{align}
&\mu(B_n(\a, r))\nonumber\\
&\geq L^{-1}m([\i|n]) \pi(\mu)\left(Q_1\left(\pi(\Pi(\sigma^n \i)), \frac{M^{-1}r}{\max_{\b \in [0,1]^2}\alpha_1\left(D_{{\bf b}}S_{\i|n}\right)}\right)\right)\label{mu bound 2}
\end{align}
where $L$ is the constant from the quasi-Bernoulli property \eqref{quasibernoulli1} and where $M$ is as defined in Lemma \ref{Singular Value Bound}.
\end{lma}

\begin{proof}
Let
\[
\mathcal{J} = \mathcal{J}(\i, n, r) = \left\{\j\in\mathcal{I}^* : S_{\i|n\j}([0,1]^2)\subseteq B_n(\a, r) \textnormal{ and } S_{\i|n\j^{\dagger}}([0,1]^2) \nsubseteq B_n(\a, r)  \right\}
\]
writing $\j^{\dagger}$ to denote $\j$ with the last symbol removed. It follows that
\[
\mu(B_n(\a, r)) = \sum_{\j\in\mathcal{J}}m([\i|n\j])
\]
and as $m$ is quasi-Bernoulli (Definition \ref{quasibernoulli}) we get
\begin{equation}\label{measureequation}
L^{-1}m([\i|n])\sum_{\j\in\mathcal{J}}m([\j])\leq\mu(B_n(\a, r))\leq Lm([\i|n])\sum_{\j\in\mathcal{J}}m([\j]).
\end{equation}
Note that the sets $\{S_{\j}([0, 1]^2)\}_{\j\in\mathcal{J}}$ are disjoint and exhaust $S_{\i|n}^{-1}(B_n(\a, r))$ in measure. Moreover, since $S_{\i|n}^{-1}B_n(\a, r)$ necessarily has height 1 we have
$$\sum_{\j\in\mathcal{J}}m([\j])=\mu(S_{\i|n}^{-1}B_n(\a, r))=\pi(\mu)(\pi S_{\i|n}^{-1}(B_n(\a, r))).$$
Observe that $\pi S_{\i|n}^{-1}(\a)=\pi(\Pi(\sigma^n(\i)))$. Writing $\hat{a}$ and $\hat{b}$ for the left and right endpoints of $\pi S_{\i|n}^{-1}(B_n(\a, r))$, it follows from the mean value theorem that
\[
|\pi(\Pi(\sigma^n \i))-\hat{a}| = \frac{|a_1-f_{\i|n}(\hat{a})|}{|f_{\i|n, x}(\hat{c}_1)|} = \frac{r}{2|f_{\i|n, x}(\hat{c}_1)|}
\]
for some $\hat{c}_1\in [0, 1]$ and
\[
|\pi(\Pi(\sigma^n \i))-\hat{b}| = \frac{|a_1-f_{\i|n}(\hat{b})|}{|f_{\i|n, x}(\hat{c}_2)|} = \frac{r}{2|f_{\i|n, x}(\hat{c}_2)|}
\]
for some $\hat{c}_2\in [0, 1]$. By Lemma \ref{Singular Value Bound}
\begin{eqnarray*}
\max\left\{\frac{r}{2|f_{\i|n, x}(\hat{c}_1)|}, \frac{r}{2|f_{\i|n, x}(\hat{c}_2)|}\right\}&\leq& \frac{r}{2\min_{\b \in [0,1]^2} |f_{\i|n,x}(\b)|}\\
&\leq&\frac{Mr}{2\min_{\b \in [0,1]^2}\alpha_1\left(D_{{\bf b}}S_{\i|n}\right)}
\end{eqnarray*}
and
\begin{eqnarray*}
\min\left\{\frac{r}{2|f_{\i|n, x}(\hat{c}_1)|}, \frac{r}{2|f_{\i|n, x}(\hat{c}_2)|}\right\}&\geq& \frac{r}{2\max_{\b \in [0,1]^2} |f_{\i|n,x}(\b)|}\\
&\geq& \frac{M^{-1}r}{2\max_{\b \in [0,1]^2}\alpha_1\left(D_{{\bf b}}S_{\i|n}\right)}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Therefore
\[
\sum_{\j\in\mathcal{J}}m([\j])\leq \pi(\mu)\left(Q_1\left(\pi(\Pi(\sigma^n \i)), \frac{Mr}{\min_{\b \in [0,1]^2} \alpha_1\left(D_{{\bf b}}S_{\i|n}\right)}\right)\right)
\]
and
\[
\sum_{\j\in\mathcal{J}}m([\j])\geq\pi(\mu)\left(Q_1\left(\pi(\Pi(\sigma^n \i)), \frac{M^{-1}r}{\max_{\b \in [0,1]^2}\alpha_1\left(D_{{\bf b}}S_{\i}\right)}\right)\right).
\]
Combining this with \eqref{measureequation} completes the proof.

\end{proof}

Recall by  \cite[Theorem 2.8]{fh} that as an ergodic measure on a self-conformal set, $\pi(\mu)$  is exact dimensional with exact dimension $\dim \pi(\mu)$. This informs us how $\pi(\mu)\left(Q_1\left(\pi(\Pi( \i)), \frac{1}{n}\right)\right)$ scales for an $m$-typical point $\i \in \Sigma$, although it does not provide any uniform bounds on the projected measure of this interval. The following lemma guarantees the existence of a set of positive measure on which we can uniformly bound $\pi(\mu)\left(Q_1\left(\pi(\Pi( \i)), \frac{1}{n}\right)\right)$.

\begin{lma}\label{log mu bound}
Let $\dim \pi(\mu)=t$. There exists a set $G\subseteq \Sigma$ with measure $m(G)\geq 1/2$ such that if $\varepsilon>0$, then for all $n$ sufficiently large
\[
\log\pi(\mu)\left(Q_1\left(\pi(\Pi( \i)), \frac{1}{n}\right)\right)\leq(t-\varepsilon)\log \left(\frac{1}{n}\right)
\]
and
\[
\log\pi(\mu)\left(Q_1\left(\pi(\Pi( \i)),\frac{1}{n}\right)\right)\geq(t+\varepsilon)\log \left(\frac{1}{n}\right)
\]
for all $\i \in G$.
\end{lma}

\begin{proof}
Define $f_n:\Sigma \rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ by
\[
f_n(\i)= \frac{\log\pi(\mu)\left(Q_1\left(\pi(\Pi( \i)),\frac{1}{n}\right)\right)}{-\log n }.
\]
\begin{comment}
Let
\[
\eta:=\sup_{i\in\mathcal{I}, \a, \b\in[0, 1]^2}\left\{\frac{g_{i,y}(\a)}{f_{i,x}(\b)}\right\}
\]
and note that by the domination condition $\eta<1$.
It follows from applying the chain rule to $g_{\i|n,y}(\a)$ and $f_{\i|n,x}(\b)$ and pairing off appropriate terms that
\[
\frac{g_{\i|n,y}(\a)}{f_{\i|n,x}(\b)}\leq\eta^n\rightarrow 0.
\]
\end{comment}
Therefore for $m$ almost all $\i$
\[
\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}f_n(\i)=\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\frac{\log\pi(\mu)\left(Q_1\left(\pi(\Pi( \i)), \frac{1}{n}\right)\right)}{-\log n}=t
\]
because $\pi(\mu)$ is exact dimensional. By Egorov's Theorem there exists a Borel measurable set $G\subseteq \Sigma$ with $m(G) \geq 1/2$ such that $f_n$ converges uniformly on $G$. In particular, for all $\varepsilon>0$ there exists $N_\varepsilon \in \mathbb{N}$ such that
$$t-\varepsilon \leq \frac{\log\pi(\mu)\left(Q_1\left(\pi(\Pi( \i)), \frac{1}{n}\right)\right)}{-\log n} \leq t+\varepsilon$$
for all $n \geq N_\varepsilon$ and $\i \in G$.
Rearranging this expression yields the desired result.
\end{proof}

Next we show that for $m$-almost all $\i \in \Sigma$ the sequence of points $\{\sigma^n(\i)\}_{n \in \mathbb{N}}$ regularly visits the set $G$ from Lemma \ref{log mu bound}, yielding uniform bounds on the projected measure of the intervals that appear in \eqref{mu bound 1} and \eqref{mu bound 2} along a subsequence of $n \in \mathbb{N}$.

\begin{lma}\label{subsequence}
Let $\dim \pi(\mu)=t$ and for each $\i \in \Sigma$ let $(r_n(\i))_{n \in \mathbb{N}}$ be a positive null sequence such that $r_n(\i) \to 0$ uniformly over all $\i \in \Sigma$.  Then for $m$-almost all $\i\in \Sigma$ there exists a sequence $\{n_k\}_{k\in\mathbb{N}}$ such that for all $\varepsilon>0$
\begin{equation}\label{subsequence1}
\log\pi(\mu)\left(Q_1\left(\pi(\Pi(\sigma^{n_k}\i)), r_{n_k}(\i)\right)\right)\leq(t-\varepsilon)\log\left(r_{n_k}(\i)\right)
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{subsequence2}
\log\pi(\mu)\left(Q_1\left(\pi(\Pi(\sigma^{n_k}\i)),r_{n_k}(\i)\right)\right)\geq(t+\varepsilon)\log\left(r_{n_k}(\i)\right)
\end{equation}
for all sufficiently large $k \in \mathbb{N}$.
Furthermore the sequence $\{n_k\}_{k\in\mathbb{N}}$ can be chosen to satisfy
\[
\lim_{k\rightarrow\infty}\frac{n_{k+1}}{n_k} = 1.
\]
\end{lma}

\begin{proof}
Let $G$ be the set from the statement of Lemma \ref{log mu bound} and consider the characteristic function $\mathbf{1}_{G}$, which is easily seen to be in $L^1(\Sigma)$. We can now apply the Birkhoff Ergodic Theorem to obtain that for $m$-almost all $\i\in\Sigma$
\begin{align*}
\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\frac{1}{n}\sum_{j=0}^{n-1}\mathbf{1}_{G}(\sigma^j \i)=\int\mathbf{1}_{G} dm = m(G)\geq 1/2.
\end{align*}
This gives that for $m$-almost all $\i \in \Sigma$, $\sigma^j \i\in G$ with frequency greater than or equal to $1/2$. For each $\i\in\Sigma$ which satisfies this let $\{n_k\}_{k\in\mathbb{N}}$ be the sequence for which $\sigma^{n_k}\i\in G$ for all $k\in\mathbb{N}$. Then by Lemma \ref{log mu bound} for all $\varepsilon>0$ there exists $N_\varepsilon \in \mathbb{N}$ such that
\[
\log\pi(\mu)\left(Q_1\left(\pi(\Pi(\sigma^{n_k}\i)), \frac{1}{n}\right)\right)\leq\left(t-\frac{\varepsilon}{2}\right)\log\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)
\]
and
\[
\log\pi(\mu)\left(Q_1\left(\pi(\Pi(\sigma^{n_k}\i)), \frac{1}{n}\right)\right)\geq\left(t+\frac{\varepsilon}{2}\right)\log\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)
\]
for $n \geq N_\varepsilon$ and all $k \in \mathbb{N}$. Since $r_{n}(\i) \to 0$ uniformly over all $\i \in \Sigma$, we can choose $M_\varepsilon \in \mathbb{N}$ such that $r_n(\i) \leq \frac{1}{N_\varepsilon}$ for all $n \geq M_\varepsilon$. In particular for all $n_k \geq M_\varepsilon$ and $m$-almost all $\i \in \Sigma$ there exists $\ell \geq N_\varepsilon$ such that
\[
\frac{1}{l+1}\leq r_{n_k}(\i)\leq\frac{1}{l},
\]
which gives
$$\frac{\log\pi(\mu)\left(Q_1\left(\pi(\Pi(\sigma^{n_k}\i)),\frac{1}{\ell}\right)\right)}{\log\left(\frac{1}{\ell}\right) +\log\left(\frac{\ell}{\ell+1}\right)}\leq \frac{\log\pi(\mu)\left(Q_1\left(\pi(\Pi(\sigma^{n_k}\i)),r_{n_k}(\i)\right)\right)}{\log r_{n_k}(\i)} $$
and
$$\frac{\log\pi(\mu)\left(Q_1\left(\pi(\Pi(\sigma^{n_k}\i)),r_{n_k}(\i)\right)\right)}{\log r_{n_k}(\i)} \leq \frac{\log\pi(\mu)\left(Q_1\left(\pi(\Pi(\sigma^{n_k}\i)),\frac{1}{\ell+1}\right)\right)}{\log\left(\frac{1}{\ell+1}\right) +\log\left(\frac{\ell+1}{\ell}\right)}.$$
Hence there exists $N_\varepsilon' \geq M_\varepsilon$ such that for $m$-almost all all $\i$ and all $n_k \geq N_\varepsilon'$,
\[\left|\frac{\log\pi(\mu)\left(Q_1\left(\pi(\Pi(\sigma^{n_k}\i)),r_{n_k}(\i)\right)\right)}{\log r_{n_k}(\i)}-t \right|\leq \varepsilon,\] giving the first part of the result.

It remains to show that $\lim_{k\rightarrow\infty}n_{k+1}/n_k = 1$. Let $\i$ belong to the set of full $m$-measure for which $\sigma^j \i \in G$ with frequency at least $1/2$ and write
\[
S_{n_k}=\sum_{j=0}^{n_k-1}\mathbf{1}_{G}(\sigma^j \i).
\]
By Birkhoff's Ergodic Theorem $\lim_{k\rightarrow\infty}S_{n_k}/n_k = m(G)\geq 1/2$ and clearly $S_{n_{k+1}}=S_{n_k}+1$. Now note that
\[
\left|\frac{S_{n_k}}{n_k}\left(\frac{n_k}{n_{k+1}}-1\right)+\frac{1}{n_{k+1}} \right| = \left|\frac{S_{n_k}+1}{n_{k+1}}-\frac{S_{n_k}}{n_k}\right|\rightarrow 0
\]
as $k\rightarrow\infty$. As $S_{n_k}/n_k\rightarrow m(G)\geq 1/2$ and $1/n_{k+1}\rightarrow 0$ it follows that $n_k/n_{k+1} \rightarrow 1$ as $k\rightarrow\infty$, completing the result.
\end{proof}

The SSC gives us control over the distance between ``level $n$'' cylinders, as described in the following lemma.

\begin{lma} \label{sep-lemma}
There exists $\theta>0$ such that for any $\i, \l \in \Sigma$ with $\i|n \neq \l|n$,
\begin{equation}\label{sep}
\inf_{\a, \b \in [0,1]^2} d(S_{\i|n}(\a), S_{\l|_n}(\b)) \geq \theta \alpha_2(D_{\Pi(\sigma^{n-1} \i)}S_{\i|_{n-1}})
\end{equation}
where $d$ denotes the standard Euclidean metric.
\end{lma}

\begin{proof}
For notational convenience in this proof we shall sometimes write $a\lesssim b$  to mean that for $a, b\in\mathbb{R}$ we have $a\leq cb$ for some universal constant $c>0$, where $c$ is independent of any variable which $a$ and $b$ depend on.

We begin by showing that for any $a_1, b_1, b_2 \in [0,1]$ with $a_1\neq b_1$ and any $\i \in \mathcal{I}^*$,
\begin{equation} \label{boundedheight}
\frac{|g_\i(b_1,b_2)-g_\i(a_1,b_2)|}{|f_\i(b_1)-f_\i(a_1)|} \leq C
\end{equation}
where $C$ is the constant from \eqref{g/f}. To see this, notice that by the Mean Value Theorem there exist $c_1,c_2 \in (a_1,b_1)$ such that
$$\frac{|g_\i(b_1,b_2)-g_\i(a_1,b_2)|}{|f_\i(b_1)-f_\i(a_1)|}=\frac{|g_{\i,x}(c_1,b_2)||b_1-a_1|}{|f_{\i,x}(c_2)||b_1-a_1|}=\frac{|g_{\i,x}(c_1,b_2)|}{|f_{\i,x}(c_2)|} \leq C,$$
where the final inequality follows by \eqref{g/f}.

Now, let $\a=(a_1,a_2), \b=(b_1,b_2) \in [0,1]^2$.  Define $\c=(b_1,a_2)$. We will now show that
\begin{equation}
d(S_\i(\a), S_\i(\b)) \gtrsim d(S_\i(\a),S_\i(\c))+d(S_\i(\c),S_\i(\b)), \label{foliation bound}
\end{equation}
where the implied constant is independent of $\i \in \mathcal{I}^*$, $\a$, and $\b$. To see this, we let $\gamma=|f_\i(a_1)-f_\i(b_1)|$, $\varepsilon=|g_\i(\a)-g_\i(\b)|$ and $\eta=|g(\a)-g(\c)|$. Note that $d(S_\i(\a), S_\i(\b))=\sqrt{\gamma^2+\varepsilon^2}$, $d(S_\i(\a),S_\i(\c))=\sqrt{\gamma^2+\eta^2}$. This is displayed visually in Figure \ref{distance figure}.
\begin{figure}[H]
  \centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Diagram}
\caption{The images of the points $\a, \b$ and $\c$ under $S_\i$ and the distances $\gamma, \epsilon$ and $\eta$.}
\label{distance figure}
\end{figure}
There are now three possibilities: (i) $d(S_\i(\c),S_\i(\b))=\eta+\varepsilon$, (ii) $\eta>\varepsilon$ and $d(S_\i(\c),S_\i(\b))=\eta-\varepsilon$ or (iii) $\varepsilon>\eta$ and $d(S_\i(\c),S_\i(\b))=\varepsilon-\eta$. Hence
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{d(S_\i(\a),S_\i(\c))+d(S_\i(\c),S_\i(\b))}{d(S_\i(\a), S_\i(\b))}&=& \frac{\sqrt{\gamma^2+\eta^2}+d(S_\i(\a),S_\i(\c))}{\sqrt{\gamma^2+\varepsilon^2}}. \label{quotient}
\end{eqnarray}
In cases (i) and (iii) we can use \eqref{boundedheight} to bound $\eta \lesssim \gamma$, yielding that
$$\frac{\sqrt{\gamma^2+\eta^2}+d(S_\i(\a),S_\i(\c))}{\sqrt{\gamma^2+\varepsilon^2}} \lesssim \frac{\gamma+\varepsilon}{\sqrt{\gamma^2+\varepsilon^2}} \lesssim 1.$$
whereas in case (ii) we can use $\eta \lesssim \gamma$ to deduce that
$$\frac{\sqrt{\gamma^2+\eta^2}+d(S_\i(\a),S_\i(\c))}{\sqrt{\gamma^2+\varepsilon^2}} \lesssim \frac{\gamma}{\gamma} = 1.$$
This completes the proof of \eqref{foliation bound}.

Now, notice that by the Mean Value Theorem there exists $\c_1 \in [0,1]^2$ such that
\begin{eqnarray*}
d(S_\i(\a), S_\i(\c))^2 &=& f_{\i,x}(\c_1)^2|a_1-b_1|^2+g_{\i,x}(\c_1)^2|a_1-b_1|^2\\
&\geq& d(\a,\c)^2 f_{\i,x}(\c_1)^2 \geq d(\a,\c)^2 \sup_{\c_2 \in [0,1]^2} g_{\i,y}(\c_2)^2
\end{eqnarray*}
by \eqref{Domination}. Similarly one can check that
\[
d(S_\i(\b), S_\i(\c))^2 \geq  d(\b,\c)^2\inf_{\c_2 \in [0,1]^2}g_{\i,y}(\c_2)^2.
\]
Therefore
\begin{eqnarray}
d(S_\i(\a),S_\i(\b)) &\gtrsim & d(S_\i(\a), S_\i(\c))+d(S_\i(\c), S_\i(\b)) \nonumber\\
&\gtrsim & (d(\a,\c)+d(\b,\c))\inf_{\c_2 \in [0,1]^2}|g_{\i,y}(\c_2)| \nonumber\\
&\geq& d(\a,\b)\inf_{\c_2 \in [0,1]^2}|g_{\i,y}(\c_2)|\nonumber \\
&\gtrsim& d(\a,\b)\sup_{\c_3 \in [0,1]^2}\alpha_2(D_{\c_3} S_\i) \label{cyl contr}
\end{eqnarray}
where the first inequality follows by \eqref{foliation bound} and the final one by Lemma \ref{Singular Value Bound}.

Finally, note that by the SSC, there exists $\delta>0$ such that
\begin{equation}
\min_{i \neq j \in \mathcal{I}} \min_{x \in S_i(F)}\min_{y \in S_j(F)} d(x,y) \geq \delta.
\label{sep} \end{equation}
 Let  $\i=(i_1,i_2, \ldots), \l=(l_1,l_2, \ldots) \in \Sigma$ with $\i|n \neq \l|n$. In particular there exists $0 \leq m \leq n-1$ such that $\i|m=\l|m$ and $i_{m+1} \neq l_{m+1}$. We write $\i|n=\i|m\j$ and $\l|n=\i|m \k$. Then for all $\a, \b \in [0,1]$,
\begin{eqnarray*}
d(S_{\i|n}(\a), S_{\l|n}(\b))&=&d(S_{\i|m}(S_{\j}(\a)), S_{\i|m}(S_\k(\b))) \\
&\gtrsim& d(S_\j(\a),S_\k(\b))\sup_{\c_3 \in [0,1]^2}\alpha_2(D_{\c_3} S_{\i|m}) \\
& \gtrsim& \alpha_2(D_{\Pi(\sigma^{n-1}\i)} S_{\i|n-1})
\end{eqnarray*}
where the second inequality follows by \eqref{cyl contr} and the final inequality follows by \eqref{sep} (since $\j$ and $\k$ begin with different digits) and Lemma \ref{svboundeddistortion}.
\end{proof}

We are now in a position to be able to prove Theorem \ref{ly theorem}, our main result. We do so by establishing both the corresponding lower and upper bounds for the local dimension of $\mu$ at $\Pi(\i)$ for $\i\in\Sigma$ belonging to a set of full $m$-measure. It is worth noting that only the lower bound requires Lemma \ref{sep-lemma} and as such this is the only bound that requires the SSC.

\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{ly theorem}]
 Let $\i\in\Sigma$ belong to the set of full $m$-measure for which \eqref{entropy1}, \eqref{lyapunov1} and \eqref{lyapunov2} hold.  Let
\[
\eta:=\sup_{i\in\mathcal{I}, \a, \b\in[0, 1]^2}\left\{\frac{|g_{i,y}(\a)|}{|f_{i,x}(\b)|}\right\}
\]
and note that by the domination condition from Definition \ref{ifsdef} $\eta<1$. Using Lemma \ref{Singular Value Bound}, applying the chain rule to $g_{\i|n,y}(\Pi(\sigma^n \i))$ and $f_{\i|n,x}(\b)$ for each $n\in\mathbb{N}$ and pairing off appropriate terms we get
\[
\frac{\alpha_2\left(D_{\Pi(\sigma^{n} \i)}S_{\i|n}\right)}{\min_{\b \in [0,1]^2} \alpha_1\left(D_{{\bf b}}S_{\i|n}\right)}\leq\frac{M^2|g_{\i|n,y}(\Pi(\sigma^n \i))|}{\min_{\b \in [0,1]^2} |f_{\i|n,x}(\b)|}\leq M^2\eta^n
\rightarrow 0.
\]
Similarly,
\[
\frac{\alpha_2\left(D_{\Pi(\sigma^{n} \i)}S_{\i|n}\right)}{\max_{\b \in [0,1]^2} \alpha_1\left(D_{{\bf b}}S_{\i|n}\right)}\leq M^2\eta^n\rightarrow 0.
\]
Define the sequences
\begin{equation} \label{sequences}
r_n(\i)=\frac{M \theta\alpha_2\left(D_{\Pi(\sigma^{n} \i)}S_{\i|n}\right)}{\min_{\b \in [0,1]^2} \alpha_1\left(D_{{\bf b}}S_{\i|n}\right)}\; \textnormal{ and } \;  r_n'(\i)=\frac{M^{-1}\alpha_2\left(D_{\Pi(\sigma^{n} \i)}S_{\i|n}\right)}{\max_{\b \in [0,1]^2} \alpha_1\left(D_{{\bf b}}S_{\i|n}\right)},
\end{equation}
and observe that both $r_n(\i)$ and $r_n'(\i)$ converge to 0 uniformly over all $\i \in \Sigma$.
Hence we can also assume that $\i \in \Sigma$ belongs to the set of full measure which satisfies \eqref{subsequence1} and \eqref{subsequence2} for the sequences $r_n(\i)$ and $r_n'(\i)$.

For a given $\a=(a_1,a_2)\in [0,1]^2$ and $r>0$  write
\[
Q_2(\a, r)=\left(a_1-\frac{r}{2},a_1+\frac{r}{2}\right)\times \left(a_2-\frac{r}{2}, a_2+\frac{r}{2}\right).
\]
Write $\textbf{x}=\Pi(\i)$, let $n\in\mathbb{N}$ and consider the square $Q_2\left(\textbf{x}, \theta \alpha_2\left(D_{\Pi(\sigma^{n} \i)}S_{\i|n}\right)\right)$. By Lemma \ref{sep-lemma} note that $Q_2\left(\textbf{x}, \theta \alpha_2\left(D_{\Pi(\sigma^{n} \i)}S_{\i|n}\right)\right)$ intersects only the cylinder $S_{\i|n}([0, 1]^2)$, therefore it is easy to see that
\[
Q_2\left(\textbf{x}, \theta\alpha_2\left(D_{\Pi(\sigma^{n} \i)}S_{\i|n}\right)\right)\cap F\subseteq B_n(\textbf{x}, \theta\alpha_2\left(D_{\Pi(\sigma^{n} \i)}S_{\i|n}\right)).
\]
Hence by Lemma \ref{mu bound},
\begin{align}
&\mu\left(Q_2\left(\textbf{x}, \theta \alpha_2\left(D_{\Pi(\sigma^{n} \i)}S_{\i|n}\right)\right)\right)\nonumber\\
&\leq Lm([\i|n]) \pi(\mu)\left(Q_1\left(\pi(\Pi(\sigma^n \i)),\frac{M\theta\alpha_2\left(D_{\Pi(\sigma^{n} \i)}S_{\i|n}\right)}{\min_{\b \in [0,1]^2} \alpha_1\left(D_{{\bf b}}S_{\i|n}\right)}\right)\right). \label{mu q bound}
\end{align}
Consider the subsequence $(n_k)_{k \in \mathbb{N}}$ guaranteed by applying Lemma \ref{subsequence} to the sequence $r_n(\i)$.
Applying the chain rule we have
\begin{align*}
\alpha_2\left(D_{\Pi(\sigma^{n+1} \i)}S_{\i|n+1}\right)&=\alpha_2\left(D_{S_{i_{n+1}}\Pi(\sigma^{n+1} \i)}S_{\i|n}D_{\Pi(\sigma^{n+1} \i)}S_{i_{n+1}}\right)\\
&\leq \alpha_2\left(D_{S_{i_{n+1}}\Pi(\sigma^{n+1} \i)}S_{\i|n}\right)\alpha_1\left(D_{\Pi(\sigma^{n+1} \i)}S_{i_{n+1}}\right)\\
&<\alpha_2\left(D_{S_{i_{n+1}}\Pi(\sigma^{n+1} \i)}S_{\i|n}\right)\\
&= \alpha_2\left(D_{\Pi(\sigma^{n} \i)}S_{\i|n}\right),
\end{align*}
where in the first inequality we have used that $\alpha_2(AB) \leq \alpha_2(A)\alpha_1(B)$ for $2 \times 2$ matrices $A$ and $B$. This implies that the null subsequence $\left(\theta \alpha_2\left(D_{\Pi(\sigma^{n_k} \i)}S_{\i|n_k}\right)\right)_{k\in\mathbb{N}}$ is strictly decreasing. Hence for any $r>0$ sufficiently small we can choose $k\in\mathbb{N}$ sufficiently large so that
\begin{equation}\label{k-thing}
\theta  \alpha_2\left(D_{\Pi(\sigma^{n_{k+1}} \i)}S_{\i|n_{k+1}}\right)\leq r< \theta \alpha_2\left(D_{\Pi(\sigma^{n_k} \i)}S_{\i|n_k}\right).
\end{equation}

Let $t=\dim \pi(\mu)$ and $\varepsilon>0$. Let $r>0$ be sufficiently small so that $k \in \mathbb{N}$ that satisfies \eqref{k-thing} is sufficiently large that \eqref{subsequence1} holds for $\varepsilon$. Then, using \eqref{lyap-alt}, \eqref{mu q bound} and \eqref{subsequence1} we get
\begin{align*}
&\frac{\log \mu\left(Q_2(\textbf{x}, r)\right)}{\log r}\\
&\geq \frac{\log \mu\left(Q_2\left(\textbf{x}, \theta \alpha_2\left(D_{\Pi(\sigma^{n_k} \i)}S_{\i|n_k}\right)\right)\right)}{\log \left(\theta \alpha_2\left(D_{\Pi(\sigma^{n_{k+1}} \i)}S_{\i|_{n_{k+1}}}\right)\right)}\\
&\geq \frac{\log Lm([\i|n_k]) + \log\pi(\mu)\left(Q_1\left(\pi(\Pi(\sigma^{n_k} \i)), \frac{M\theta\alpha_2\left(D_{\Pi(\sigma^{n_k} \i)}S_{\i|n_k}\right)}{\min_{\b \in [0,1]^2} \alpha_1\left(D_{{\bf b}}S_{\i|n_k}\right)}\right)\right)}{\log \left(\theta \alpha_2\left(D_{\Pi(\sigma^{n_{k+1}} \i)}S_{\i|_{n_{k+1}}}\right)\right)}\\
&\geq \frac{\log Lm([\i|n_k]) + (t-\varepsilon)\log\left(\frac{M\theta\alpha_2\left(D_{\Pi(\sigma^{n_k} \i)}S_{\i|n_k}\right)}{\min_{\b \in [0,1]^2} \alpha_1\left(D_{{\bf b}}S_{\i|n_k}\right)}\right)}{\log \left(\theta \alpha_2\left(D_{\Pi(\sigma^{n_{k+1}} \i)}S_{\i|_{n_{k+1}}}\right)\right)}\\
&=\frac{\frac{1}{n_k}\log L+\frac{1}{n_k}\log m([\i|n_k]) +\frac{(t-\varepsilon)}{n_k}\log\left(\frac{\alpha_2\left(D_{\Pi(\sigma^{n_k} \i)}S_{\i|n_k}\right)}{\min_{\b \in [0,1]^2} \alpha_1\left(D_{{\bf b}}S_{\i|n_k}\right)}\right)+\frac{(t-\varepsilon)}{n_k}\log M\theta}{\frac{1}{n_k}\log \theta  +\frac{1}{n_{k+1}}\frac{n_{k+1}}{n_k}\log \left(\alpha_2\left(D_{\Pi(\sigma^{n_{k+1}} \i)}S_{\i|_{n_{k+1}}}\right)\right)}\\
&\rightarrow\frac{h(\mu)+(t-\varepsilon)(\chi_2(\mu)-\chi_1(\mu))}{\chi_2(\mu)}
\end{align*}
as $r\rightarrow 0$ (so $k\rightarrow\infty$). Since $\varepsilon> 0$ was arbitrary, the lower bound is complete.

We now establish the corresponding upper bound. We begin by estimating
\[
\sup_{(a_1,a_2),(b_1,b_2) \in B_n(\mathbf{x}, \alpha_2(D_{\Pi(\sigma^n(\i))} S_{\i|n})) } |a_2-b_2|.
\]
for each $n\in\mathbb{N}$. For some $a,b \in [0,1]$ with the property that
\begin{equation}\label{f alpha2 bound}
|f_{\i|n}(b)-f_{\i|n}(a)|\leq\alpha_2\left(D_{\Pi(\sigma^{n} \i)}S_{\i|n}\right)
\end{equation}
we can write
\[
\sup_{(a_1,a_2),(b_1,b_2) \in B_n(\mathbf{x}, \alpha_2(D_{\Pi(\sigma^n(\i))} S_{\i|n}))} |a_2-b_2|=|g_{\i|n}(b, 1)-g_{\i|n}(a, 0)|.
\]
Note that
\begin{align*}
|g_{\i|n}(b, 1)-g_{\i|n}(a, 0)|&\leq |g_{\i|n}(b, 1)-g_{\i|n}(a, 1)| + |g_{\i|n}(a, 1)-g_{\i|n}(a, 0)|\\
& \leq C|f_{\i|n}(b)-f_{\i|n}(a)| + |g_{\i|n,y}(\c)|
\end{align*}
for some $\c \in [0,1]^2$ where we have used \eqref{boundedheight} and the mean value theorem. Thus it follows from \eqref{f alpha2 bound} and Lemma \ref{boundeddistortion} that
\begin{align*}
|g_{\i|n}(b, 1)-g_{\i|n}(a, 0)|&\leq C\alpha_2\left(D_{\Pi(\sigma^{n} \i)}S_{\i|n}\right) + A\alpha_2\left(D_{\Pi(\sigma^{n} \i)}S_{\i|n}\right)\\
&=(A+C)\alpha_2\left(D_{\Pi(\sigma^{n} \i)}S_{\i|n}\right).
\end{align*}

It is now easy to see that
\[
B_n(\textbf{x}, \alpha_2\left(D_{\Pi(\sigma^{n} \i)}S_{\i|n}\right))\cap F\subseteq Q_2\left(\textbf{x}, 2(A+C)\alpha_2\left(D_{\Pi(\sigma^{n} \i)}S_{\i|n}\right)\right)\cap F.
\]
Thus Lemma \ref{mu bound} implies
\begin{align}
&\mu\left(Q_2\left(\textbf{x}, 2(A+C)\alpha_2\left(D_{\Pi(\sigma^{n} \i)}S_{\i|n}\right)\right)\right)\nonumber\\
&\geq L^{-1}m([\i|n]) \pi(\mu)\left(Q_1\left(\pi(\Pi(\sigma^{n} \i)), \frac{M^{-1}\alpha_2\left(D_{\Pi(\sigma^{n} \i)}S_{\i|n}\right)}{\max_{\b \in [0,1]^2} \alpha_1\left(D_{{\bf b}}S_{\i|n}\right)}\right)\right)\label{mu q bound 2}.
\end{align}
Consider the subsequence $(n_k)_{k \in \mathbb{N}}$ guaranteed by applying Lemma \ref{subsequence} for $r_n'(\i)$, which was defined in \eqref{sequences}. Since $\left(\alpha_2\left(D_{\Pi(\sigma^{n} \i)}S_{\i|n}\right)\right)_{n\in\mathbb{N}}$ is strictly decreasing and null, for any $r>0$ sufficiently small we can choose $k\in\mathbb{N}$ sufficiently large so that
\begin{equation} \label{k-thing2}
2(A+C)\alpha_2\left(D_{\Pi(\sigma^{n_{k+1}} \i)}S_{\i|_{n_{k+1}}}\right)\leq r< 2(A+C)\alpha_2\left(D_{\Pi(\sigma^{n_k} \i)}S_{\i|n_k}\right).
\end{equation}

Let $\varepsilon>0$. Let $r>0$ be sufficiently small so that $k \in \mathbb{N}$ that satisfies \eqref{k-thing2} is sufficiently large that \eqref{subsequence2} holds for $\varepsilon$. Therefore by using \eqref{lyap-alt}, \eqref{mu q bound 2} and \eqref{subsequence2} we get
\begin{align*}
&\frac{\log \mu\left(Q_2(\textbf{x}, r)\right)}{\log r}\\
&\leq \frac{\log \mu\left(Q_2\left(\textbf{x}, 2(A+C)\alpha_2\left(D_{\Pi(\sigma^{n_{k+1}} \i)}S_{\i|_{n_{k+1}}}\right)\right)\right)}{\log \left(2(A+C)\alpha_2\left(D_{\Pi(\sigma^{n_k} \i)}S_{\i|n_k}\right)\right)}\\
&\leq \frac{\log L^{-1}m([\i|_{n_{k+1}}]) + \log\pi(\mu)\left(Q_1\left(\pi(\Pi(\sigma^{n_{k+1}} \i)),  \frac{M^{-1}\alpha_2\left(D_{\Pi(\sigma^{n_{k+1}} \i)}S_{\i|_{n_{k+1}}}\right)}{\max_{\b \in [0,1]^2} \alpha_1\left(D_{{\bf b}}S_{\i|n_{k+1}}\right)}\right)\right)}{\log\left(2(A+C)\alpha_2\left(D_{\Pi(\sigma^{n_k} \i)}S_{\i|n_k}\right)\right)}\\
&\leq \frac{\log L^{-1}m([\i|_{n_{k+1}}]) + (t+\varepsilon)\log\left(\frac{M^{-1}\alpha_2\left(D_{\Pi(\sigma^{n_{k+1}} \i)}S_{\i|_{n_{k+1}}}\right)}{\max_{\b \in [0,1]^2} \alpha_1\left(D_{{\bf b}}S_{\i|n_{k+1}}\right)}\right)}{\log\left(2(A+C)\alpha_2\left(D_{\Pi(\sigma^{n_k} \i)}S_{\i|n_k}\right)\right)}\\
&=\frac{\frac{1}{n_{k+1}}\log L^{-1}+\frac{1}{n_{k+1}}\log m([\i|_{n_{k+1}}]) +\frac{(t+\varepsilon)}{n_{k+1}}\log\left(\frac{\alpha_2\left(D_{\Pi(\sigma^{n_{k+1}} \i)}S_{\i|_{n_{k+1}}}\right)}{\max_{\b \in [0,1]^2} \alpha_1\left(D_{{\bf b}}S_{\i|n_{k+1}}\right)}\right)+\frac{(t+\varepsilon)}{n_{k+1}}\log M^{-1}}{\frac{1}{n_{k+1}}\log 2(A+C) +\frac{1}{n_k}\frac{n_k}{n_{k+1}}\log \left(\alpha_2\left(D_{\Pi(\sigma^{n_k} \i)}S_{\i|n_k}\right)\right)}\\
&\rightarrow\frac{h(\mu)+(t+\varepsilon)(\chi_2(\mu)-\chi_1(\mu))}{\chi_2(\mu)}
\end{align*}
as $r\rightarrow 0$ (so $k\rightarrow\infty$). Since $\varepsilon> 0$ was arbitrary, the upper bound follows.
\end{proof}

\begin{samepage}

\subsection*{Acknowledgements}

LDL was supported by an \emph{EPSRC Doctoral Training Grant} (EP/N509759/1). NJ was supported by an \emph{EPSRC Standard Grant} (EP/R015104/1). The authors thank Kenneth Falconer and Jonathan Fraser for making several helpful comments on the manuscript.

\end{samepage}

\begin{bibdiv}
\begin{biblist}

\bib{bedford}{article}{
   author={Bedford, Tim},
   title={Applications of dynamical systems theory to fractals---a study of
   cookie-cutter Cantor sets},
   conference={
      title={Fractal geometry and analysis},
      address={Montreal, PQ},
      date={1989},
   },
   book={
      series={NATO Adv. Sci. Inst. Ser. C Math. Phys. Sci.},
      volume={346},
      publisher={Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht},
   },
   date={1991},
   pages={1--44},
}

\bib{bk}{article}{
   author={B\'{a}r\'{a}ny, Balazs},
   author={K\"{a}enm\'{a}ki, Antti},
   title={Ledrappier-Young formula and exact dimensionality
of self-affine measures},
journal={Advances in Mathematics},
  volume={318},
  pages={88--129},
  year={2017},
}

\bib{bkm}{article}{
   author={B\'{a}r\'{a}ny, Balazs},
   author={K\"{a}enm\'{a}ki, Antti},
   author={Morris, Ian},
   title={Domination, almost additivity, and thermodynamic formalism for planar matrix cocycles},
journal={Israel Journal of Mathematics (to appear)},
}

\bib{f techniques}{book}{
   author={Falconer, Kenneth}
   title={Techniques in Fractal Geometry},
   publisher={Wiley},
   year={1997}
}

\bib{ffl}{article}{
   author={Falconer, Kenneth},
   author={Fraser, Jonathan},
   author={Lee, Lawrence},
   title={$L^q$ spectra of measures on planar non-conformal attractors},
journal={Ergodic Theory and Dynamical Systems (to appear)},
}

\bib{feng}{article}{
   author={Feng, D.-J.},
   title={Dimension of invariant measures for affine iterated function systems},
eprint={https://arxiv.org/abs/1901.01691}
}

\bib{fh}{article}{
   author={Feng, D.-J.},
   author={Hu, Huyi},
   title={Dimension theory of iterated function systems},
journal={Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics: A Journal Issued by the Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences},
  volume={62},
  number={11},
  pages={1435--1500},
  year={2009},
}

\bib{fs}{article}{
   author={Feng, D.-J.},
   author={Simon, Karoly},
   title={Dimension estimates for $C^1$ iterated function
systems and repellers. Part I},
journal={Preprint, available at https://arxiv.org/abs/2007.15320},
  year={2020},
}

\bib{fjj}{article}{
   author={Fraser, Jonathan},
   author={Jordan, Thomas},
   author={Jurga, Natalia},
   title={Dimensions of equilibrium measures
on a class of planar self-affine sets},
journal={Journal of Fractal Geometry},
  volume={7},
  number={1},
  pages={87--111},
  year={2020},
}

\bib{hu}{article}{
   author={Hu, H},
   title={Dimensions of invariant sets of expanding maps},
journal={Communications in Mathematical Physics},
  volume={176},
  pages={307-320},
  year={1996},
}

\bib{hut}{article}{
   author={Hutchinson, J.E.},
   title={Fractals and self-similarity},
journal={Indiana University Mathematics  Journal},
  volume={30},
  pages={713-747},
  year={1981},
}

\bib{ly1}{article}{
   author={Ledrappier, Francois},
   author={Young, Lai-Sang},
   title={The metric entropy of diffeomorphisms. I. Characterization of measures satisfying Pesin's entropy formula},
journal={Annals of Mathematics},
  volume={122},
  number={3},
  pages={509--539},
  year={1985},
}

\bib{ly2}{article}{
   author={Ledrappier, Francois},
   author={Young, Lai-Sang},
   title={The metric entropy of diffeomorphisms. II. Relations between entropy, exponents and dimension},
journal={Annals of Mathematics},
  volume={122},
  number={3},
  pages={540--574},
  year={1985},
}

\bib{pesin}{article}{
   author={Cao, Yongluo},
   author={Pesin, Yakov},
   author={Zhao, Yun},
   title={Dimension estimates for non-conformal repellers and continuity of
   sub-additive topological pressure},
   journal={Geometric and Functional Analysis},
   volume={29},
   date={2019},
   number={5},
   pages={1325--1368}
}

\end{biblist}
\end{bibdiv}

Natalia Jurga, School of Mathematics \& Statistics, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, KY16 9SS, UK
\textit{E-mail address}:\ \url{naj1@st-andrews.ac.uk}

Lawrence D. Lee, School of Mathematics \& Statistics, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, KY16 9SS, UK
\textit{E-mail address}:\ \url{ldl@st-andrews.ac.uk}

\end{document}


\section{Introduction}
\label{intro}

Black holes are probably among the most fascinating topics in Physics. They are not only mysterious astrophysical objects but also a theoretical laboratory where one can study fundamental physics.
Indeed, at their center general relativity brings about its own downfall by predicting singularities. This issue can be overcome by fully quantizing  gravity.
However, the already existing candidates of quantum gravity are not helping that much to overcome such a problem. As a result, a literature of effective regular and ultraviolet complete black holes has been proposed
\cite{NSS06,Ans08,Nic09,NiW11,IMN13,NiS14,CMN15,FKN16,Nic18,NSW19,KKNM19},  replacing the curvature singularity of the black hole with a regular  core, while recovering general relativity at large distances.

On the top of that, a variety of thermodynamic phenomena have been noticed for black holes
during the years following the derivation of the black hole temperature \cite{Haw74} and the related thermodynamics \cite{Bek73}. Of particular interest is the discovery of the Hawking-Page transition \cite{HaP83} between  pure thermal radiation and a stable anti-de Sitter (AdS) black hole.
Moreover, charged AdS black holes have an intriguing phase structure \cite{CEJ+99,CEJM99}, in contrast to the uncharged ones, which is recently identified  with the phase  structure of a Van der Waals gas \cite{KuM12}. This result is possible if we consider an extended phase space for the black hole, where the cosmological constant is treated as the thermodynamic pressure of the system \cite{KRT09,KuM17}. Similar phase structures have also been noticed for the known Bardeen black hole in AdS spacetime \cite{Tzi19}.
Another interesting issue is the enclosure of classical black hole systems, uncharged \cite{Akb04,WWY+20}  or charged \cite{BBW+90,PeL99}, inside an isothermal cavity  that acts  as a reservoir. This can be realized by placing a heat bath around the cavity that  fixes the temperature  at its surface, allowing for thermodynamically stable black holes to exist. Such a system is in analogy with the known canonical ensemble in statistical mechanincs. The cavity enclosure appears similarities with the properties of AdS spacetime, which also stabilizes the black hole by acting as a reflecting box. For instance, Carlip and Vaidya \cite{CaV03} found  the same phase structure between pure AdS black holes and asymptotically flat cases in a cavity, as well as de Sitter cases. More recently, new phase transitions and critical phenomena have been discovered for both neutral and charged de Sitter black holes with a Born-Infeld gauge field  inside an extended phase space   \cite{SiM18,SiM19}.

So far, a model of a regular black hole surrounded by an isothermal cavity has not been discussed in the scientific literature. For this reason, it is  the goal of this paper  to  study the thermodynamics  and the phase structure of such a system. The structure of the paper is as follows: In Sec.~\ref{sec:2} we choose as our regular black hole candidate the noncommutative Schwarzschild black hole \cite{NSS06}, which is a non-singular black hole solution of the Einstein equations, and we review its basic geometrical and thermodynamic features. In addition, we provide the basic boundary conditions/constraints for the general system \textit{black hole-cavity}.  In Sec.~\ref{sec:3} we assume the cavity enclosure for any generic regular black hole solution,  resulting from the existence of an anisotropic fluid with two pressure terms,   and we perform the derivation of the reduced action. The new action is a generalization of the action characterizing the classical system \textit{Schwarzchild black hole-cavity} \cite{Lun08} (see also the uncharged version  in \cite{BBW+90}), containing extra quantum correction terms at short scales, due to the existence of the minimal cut-off length that regularizes the spacetime geometry at the center. The action of the regular case concludes to the singular case at the large distance regime. In Sec.~\ref{sec:4} we  consider the model of  the noncommutative Schwarzschild black hole  and we examine the phase structure of the system  \textit{noncommutative black hole-cavity}. In contrast to the classical Schwarzchild black hole,  which appears a Hawking-Page-like phase transition inside the cavity \cite{Lun08}, the regular black hole undergoes a phase transition between a small and a large stable black hole similar to the liquid/gas transition of a Van der Waals gas. Similar behavior has also been noticed for noncommutative \cite{NiT11}  and Reissner-N\"ordstrom \cite{KuM12} black holes inside the AdS space. Here the role of the negative cosmological constant has been replaced by the cavity, indicating  that the cavity acts  to the system the same way as the AdS space does.
Sec.~\ref{sec:concl} is devoted to conclusions.  Throughout the paper we use Planck units ($c=\hbar=G=k_{\mathrm{B}}=1$) and we consider a canonical-like ensemble, where   the boundary radius and the temperature of the cavity wall are held fixed  and the only variable which is allowed to fluctuate is the event horizon.

\section{Basic Review}
\label{sec:2}

\subsection{Noncommutative Schwarzschild black hole}

A basic feature of noncommutative geometry \cite{Nic09} is the presence of a minimal cut-off length that makes gravity ultraviolet self-complete below this scale. The meaning of a smooth classical manifold breaks down when approaching this length because quantum fluctuations are expected to appear, making  spacetime  "fuzzy"  at short distances. These fluctuations can be encoded in the commutator
\begin{equation}
\left[ \textbf{x}^{\mu}\,, \textbf{x}^{\nu}  \right]=i \theta^{\mu\nu} \,,
\end{equation}
where $\theta^{\mu\nu}$ is an anti-symmetric tensor that discretizes the spacetime vectors $\textbf{x}^{\mu} $ in the same way the Planck constant discretizes the phase space.  The quantity $\sqrt{\theta}$ has dimensions of length and  can be interpreted as the minimal cut-off length, very close to the Planck length, i.e., $\sqrt{\theta} \sim 10^{-33}  \mathrm{cm}\,$, below which there is no physically meaningful length.

It can be shown that noncommutativity implies the replacement of point-like structures, that are described by Dirac-delta functions, with very narrow Gaussian distributions \cite{SmSp03,SSN06++,KoN10}. This feature has been used to improve the Schwarzschild singularity \cite{NSS06}
by imposing  that the black hole mass is diffused throughout the center, just like a Gaussian distribution of minimal width $\sqrt{\theta}\,$, instead of being a vacuum Dirac-delta function. The  mass density of the anisotropic fluid-source is chosen to be then
\begin{equation} \label{Cncdensity}
\rho(r) = \frac{M}{\left( 4 \pi \theta \right)^{3/2} } \exp (-r^2/4\theta) \,.
\end{equation}
We make the following ansatz for the line element
\begin{equation}
\mathrm{d} s^2 = -b^2(r) \mathrm{d} t^2 + a^2(r) \mathrm{d} r^2 + r^2 \mathrm{d} \Omega ^2 \,,
\end{equation}
with $\mathrm{d} \Omega ^2= \mathrm{d} \theta ^2 + \sin^2 \theta \ \mathrm{d}  \phi ^2$ and
\begin{equation}
\label{Crbh_potential}
b^2(r) = 1-\frac{2m(r)}{r} =  \frac{1}{a^2(r)} \,.
\end{equation}
 Then we have to  solve the Einstein equations with a stress-energy tensor $T^{\mu}_{\nu}$ that can be specified from the Schwarzschild-like property $g_{tt}=-g_{rr}^{-1}\,$, as well as from the energy-momentum conservation $\nabla_{\mu} T^{\mu}_{\nu}=0\,$. With such conditions, the  tensor  $T^{\mu}_{\nu}$ has the following profile
\begin{equation}
T^{\mu}_{\nu} = \mathrm{Diag} \big( - \rho(r)\,, p_r \,, p_{\perp} \,, p_{\perp} \big) \,,
\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation}
p_r = - \rho(r)  \qquad \mathrm{and} \qquad  p_{\perp} = -  \rho(r) - \frac{r}{2} \partial _r \rho(r) \,.
\end{equation}
Such a  tensor characterizes a self-gravitating droplet of anisotropic fluid with two pressure terms; one radial pressure $p_r$ and one tangential pressure $p_{\perp}\,$. On physical grounds, a non-vanishing radial pressure  balances the inward gravitational pull and prevents the source to collapse into a singular matter-point. It has also been shown that noncommutativity affects the matter sector \cite{MoN+10}. The geometry sector is modified accordingly, even if the Einstein tensor is formally kept unchanged.  By solving the
Einstein equations one finds the following metric potential
\begin{equation} \label{Cncmetric}
b^2(r) = 1 - \frac{4M}{r \sqrt{\pi}} \gamma(3/2,r^2/4\theta) \,,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\gamma(3/2,r^2/4\theta) = \int\limits_{0}^{r^2/4\theta} \mathrm{d}t \ t^{1/2} e^{-t}
\end{equation}
is the lower incomplete Gamma function. One can introduce a mass function for the above line element, namely  $m(r)= \frac{2M}{\sqrt{\pi}} \gamma(3/2,r^2/4\theta) \,$, that respects the Schwarzschild solution at large distances, since $\gamma(3/2,r^2/4\theta) |_{r^2 \gg 4\theta} \approx \sqrt{\pi}/2\,$.
 Near the origin ($r \ll \sqrt{\theta}$) we can approximate $\gamma(3/2,r^2/4\theta)|_{r^2 \ll 4\theta} \approx \frac{r^3}{12 \theta^{3/2}}$ and  \eqref{Cncmetric} becomes
\begin{equation}
b^2(r) \approx 1 - \frac{\Lambda_{\mathrm{eff}}}{3}  r^2 \,,
\end{equation}
where $\Lambda_{\mathrm{eff}}= \frac{M}{\sqrt{\pi} \theta^{3/2}}\,$. Therefore, the singular origin of the Schwarzschild black hole has been replaced by a regular repulsive de Sitter-like core   with a constant and positive curvature, since the Ricci scalar is finite at the center and reads $R(0)=\frac{4M}{\sqrt{\pi} \theta^{3/2}}=4\Lambda_{\rm eff}\,$. Moreover, by solving the horizon equation  one finds two horizons (one Cauchy and one event horizon) for $M >M_0$ where $M_0 = 1.9 \sqrt{\theta}$. For $M=M_0$  one finds a degenerate horizon, while for $M<M_0$  no horizons exist. The energy scale $M_0$ can be seen as the transition point between black holes and elementary particle.

From a thermodynamic viewpoint, we have an improvement of the standard Hawking temperature. In this case, it is given by
\begin{equation} \label{Cnctemp}
T = \frac{1}{4\pi r_+} \left[ 1 - \frac{ r_+^3e^{-r_+^2/4\theta}}{4 \theta^{3/2} \gamma(3/2,r_+^2/4\theta)} \right] \,,
\end{equation}
with the event horizon $r_+$ satisfying the condition $b(r_+)=0\,$. In Fig.~\ref{fig:ncT} we plot the temperature \eqref{Cnctemp}.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\includegraphics[width=0.47 \textwidth]{Fig1}
\caption{The red solid curve represents the noncommutative black hole temperature $T$ \textit{vs} $r_+$  in $\sqrt{\theta}$ units, while the dashed black curve represents  the Hawking  temperature of a classical Schwarzschild black hole, appearing an ultraviolet divergence to the final stage of the evaporation.}
\label{fig:ncT}
\end{figure}
In contrast to the classical case, the regular black hole temperature reaches a maximum before undergoing a positive heat capacity phase. Accordingly, the maximum of the temperature corresponds to a Hawking-Page-like transition between thermal radiation and a small stable black hole. The evaporation stops with  a zero temperature remnant configuration with radius $r_0=3\sqrt{\theta}\,$. According to this scenario, the quantum back reaction is strongly suppressed and it is possible to extend the validity of the semiclassical approximation to the final stage of the evaporation. The black hole actually cools down by emitting less and less energy.
This concept is very similar to the known Rayleigh-Jeans catastrophe, where classical physics predicts  an ultraviolet divergence at short wavelengths of the black-body radiation. Quantum mechanics cures this pathology much in the same way noncommutativity cures the ultraviolet divergence of the  Hawking radiation.

\subsection{The black hole-cavity system}
\label{sub:bhc}

Following the seminal paper of Braden \textit{et al} \cite{BBW+90},  as well as similar works mentioned in the introduction, we have to take into account certain conditions that can be applied to any \textit{black hole-cavity} system:
\begin{enumerate}
\item   We consider a spherically symmetric Euclidean line element of the form
\begin{equation} \label{Cbhcav_metric}
\mathrm{d} s^2 = b(r)^2 \mathrm{d} \tau^2 + a(r)^2 \mathrm{d} r^2 + r^2 \mathrm{d} \Omega ^2 \,,
\end{equation}
which is the same as in the aforementioned papers of the introduction but slightly simplified (this form has also been used in \cite{Lun08}). The Euclidean time $\tau$  comes after the analytical continuation $\tau=it\,$, providing us with a positive-definite Euclidean metric.
\item The event horizon $r_+$ is the inner boundary of the system with topology of a  two-sphere $S^2$ and  two constraints:
\begin{equation} \label{Cbound1}
b(r_+) = 0  \qquad \mathrm{and} \qquad \frac{b'(r)}{a(r)} \bigg |_{r+}=1 \,,
\end{equation}
where the prime symbol ($'$) denotes from now on differentiation with respect to $r\,$. The second constraint is a regularity condition, arising from the fact that we wish the geometry of the $\tau-r$ plane to look like a flat disk near $r_+\,$, in order to avoid conical singularities.
\item The cavity wall  is the outer boundary of the system with  topology  $S^1 \times S^2$. The wall is located at distance $r_\mathrm{c}$ and has an $S^2$ component with an area of $4\pi r^2_{\mathrm{c}}\,$. In addition,  heat can flow in either direction of the  wall  maintaining the temperature fixed. This way the black hole can be in thermal equilibrium with the cavity. The temperature of the boundary equals with the inverse of the period $\beta\,$, which is simply the proper length of the circle $S^1$ of the boundary:
\begin{equation} \label{Cbound2}
T^{-1} = \beta = \int\limits^{2\pi}_0 \mathrm{d}\tau \ b(r_{\mathrm{c}}) = 2\pi b(r_{\mathrm{c}}) \,.
\end{equation}
We have chosen the periodicity of $\tau$ to be $2\pi$ for convenience.
\item Applying the Gauss-Bonnet-Chern theorem, we find that the Euler number of the manifold should be $\chi =2\,$. That gives us one more constraint:
\begin{equation} \label{Cbound3}
\frac{1}{a^2(r)} \bigg|_{r_+} = 0 \,.
\end{equation}
\end{enumerate}
Now that we have given the above boundary conditions, we can proceed to the calculation of the reduced action for the desired system.

\section{The reduced action}
\label{sec:3}

The starting point is the Euclidean version of the known Einstein-Hilbert action with the  Gibbons-Hawking-York boundary term:
\begin{equation}
I=- \int\limits_{\mathcal{M}} \mathrm{d}^4 x \sqrt{g} \left( \frac{R}{16\pi} + \mathcal{L}_{\mathrm{m}} \right) - \frac{1}{8\pi} \int\limits_{\partial \mathcal{M}} \mathrm{d}^3 x \sqrt{h}  \big( K-K_0 \big)  \,,
\end{equation}
where $g$ and $h$ are the determinants of the Euclidean  metric of our manifold $\mathcal{M}$ and the induced metric on the boundary $\partial \mathcal{M}$ respectively, $R$ is the Ricci scalar, $\mathcal{L}_{\mathrm{m}}$ is the matter Lagrangian, $K$ is the trace of the extrinsic curvature on the boundary  and $K_0$ is a term   of our reference choice, analogous to $K\,,$ that is needed to regulate the boundary action. For notational convenience, we split the above action into 3 pieces (gravitational, matter and surface action)
\begin{eqnarray} \label{CI1}
I_{\mathrm{g}} &=& - \frac{1}{16\pi} \int\limits_{\mathcal{M}} \mathrm{d}^4 x \sqrt{g}  R \,, \\ \label{CI2}
I_{\mathrm{m}} &=& - \int\limits_{\mathcal{M}} \mathrm{d}^4 x \sqrt{g}  \mathcal{L}_{\mathrm{m}} \,, \\ \label{CI3}
I_{\mathrm{s}}  &=& -  \frac{1}{8\pi} \int\limits_{\partial \mathcal{M}} \mathrm{d}^3 x \sqrt{h} \big( K-K_0 \big) \,,
\end{eqnarray}
so that $I=I_{\mathrm{g}}+I_{\mathrm{m}}+I_{\mathrm{s}}\,$. The major difference from the classical system \textit{singular black hole-cavity}  is that the matter action \eqref{CI2}  is no longer zero for the regular case. We evaluate first the gravitational action $I_{\mathrm{g}}\,$. For a metric of the form \eqref{Cbhcav_metric}, the quantity $\sqrt{g} R$ is calculated to be
\begin{equation} \label{Cexpr1}
\sqrt{g} R = \left[ -\frac{2b}{a} + 2ba -\frac{4r b'}{a} - 4rb \left( \frac{1}{a} \right)'-2r^2 \left( \frac{b'}{a} \right)'   \right] \sin \theta \,,
\end{equation}
where $a=a(r)$ and $b=b(r)\,$. Plugging \eqref{Cexpr1} into the action \eqref{CI1} and integrating over the imaginary time and over the two angles $\theta$ and $\phi \,$, we get
\begin{equation}
I_{\mathrm{g}} =   \pi \int\limits_{r_+}^{r_{\mathrm{c}}} \mathrm{d}r \left(  \frac{1}{a} -a  - \frac{2r a'}{a^2} \right) b + \left(  \pi r^2 \frac{b'}{a}\right)  \bigg|_{r_{\mathrm{c}}} - \pi r_+^2 \,,
\end{equation}
where we have performed integration by parts   and  used the boundary conditions \eqref{Cbound1}. Proceeding a bit further, we use the Hamiltonian constraints
\begin{equation}
G^{\tau}_{\tau} = G^{r}_{r}= -8 \pi \rho \,,
\end{equation}
where $\rho=\rho(r)$ is the matter density profile of the regular black hole. The components of the Einstein tensor read
\begin{equation}
G^{\tau}_{\tau} = \frac{ \left( a - a^3 - 2r a' \right)}{r^2 a^3}  \qquad \mathrm{and} \qquad  G^{r}_{r} = \frac{b-a^2b +2r b'}{r^2 a^2 b} \,.
\end{equation}
From the relation $G^{\tau}_{\tau} / G^{r}_{r} =1\,$, we conclude to $b=\mathcal{C}/a\,$, where the integration constant $\mathcal{C}$ can be specified, if the profile $\rho(r)$ of the regular black hole is specified. For now we can use the condition \eqref{Cbound2}  to write $\mathcal{C}=\frac{\beta a(r_\mathrm{c})}{2\pi}\,$. Under these circumstances, the gravitational action can be written as
\begin{equation}
I_{\mathrm{g}} =  \frac{\beta a(r_\mathrm{c})}{2} \left[ r  \left( \frac{1}{a^2}-1 \right) \right] \bigg|_{r_+}^{r_{\mathrm{c}}} - \frac{\beta }{2} \left(   \frac{r^2 a'}{a^2}\right)  \bigg|_{r_{\mathrm{c}}} - \pi r_+^2 \,.
\end{equation}
 Next we shift our interest to the matter action \eqref{CI2}. Following the reasoning of  \cite{MaN11}, our effective fluid-like approach takes leading order quantum geometry effects, while letting us formally work in a classical framework. This allows us to connect our matter Lagrangian with the "on shell" action of an anisotropic fluid that reads
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{S}(\mathrm{on \ shell}) = \int \mathrm{d}^4x \sqrt{-g} \big( 2p_{\mathrm{r}} - p_{\perp}  \big) \,,
\end{equation}
identifying our matter Lagrangian with
\begin{equation} \label{Cmatter_Lagr}
\mathcal{L}_{\mathrm{m}} =  2p_{\mathrm{r}} - p_{\perp} = -\rho + \frac{r}{2} \rho'  \,.
\end{equation}
Plugging \eqref{Cmatter_Lagr} into the action \eqref{CI2} and performing the integration, we get
\begin{equation} \label{Im_middle}
I_{\mathrm{m}} = 8\pi^2 \int\limits_{r_+}^{r_{\mathrm{c}}} \mathrm{d}r \ abr^2 (\rho-\frac{r}{2} \rho') \,.
\end{equation}
From the Hamiltonian constraint $G^{\tau}_{\tau} =\frac{1}{r^2} \left[ r \left( \frac{1}{a^2}-1 \right)  \right] '= -8 \pi \rho\,$, we can extract an expression for the integral $\int\limits_{r_+}^{r_{\mathrm{c}}} \mathrm{d}r \ r^2 \rho \,$:
\begin{equation} \label{C_expr1}
\int\limits_{r_+}^{r_{\mathrm{c}}} \mathrm{d}r \ r^2 \rho = -\frac{1}{8\pi} \left[ r \left( \frac{1}{a^2}-1 \right)  \right] \bigg|_{r_+}^{r_{\mathrm{c}}} \,.
\end{equation}
Thus using \eqref{C_expr1}, the relation $ab=\mathcal{C}=\frac{\beta a(r_\mathrm{c})}{2\pi}\,$, and integrating by parts the $\rho'$-term in \eqref{Im_middle}, we conclude to
\begin{equation} \label{Im_final}
I_{\mathrm{m}} = 4 \pi \beta a(r_{\mathrm{c}}) \left[ \frac{5}{16\pi}  \left( r-\frac{r}{a^2} \right) \bigg|_{r_+}^{r_{\mathrm{c}}} - \frac{1}{2} r^3 \rho \Big|_{r_+}^{r_{\mathrm{c}}} \right] \,.
\end{equation}
We continue with the derivation of the surface action \eqref{CI3}. Our boundary is a timelike surface at $r_{\mathrm{c}}=\mathrm{const.}\,$, described by a radial spacelike normal unit vector $\eta^{\mu}=\frac{\delta^{\mu}_{r}}{\sqrt{g_{rr}}}\,$ ($\eta^{\mu}\eta_{\mu}=1$) perpendicular to the boundary. Thus the induced metric on the boundary can be written as $h_{\mu\nu}=g_{\mu\nu}-\eta_{\mu}\eta_{\nu}$ and is described by a line element of the form
\begin{equation}
\mathrm{d} s ^2 = b(r_{\mathrm{c}})^2 \mathrm{d} \tau ^2 + r_{\mathrm{c}}^2 \mathrm{d} \Omega ^2 \,.
\end{equation}
This allows us to define the trace of the extrinsic curvature $K$ as the divergence of the normal unit vector $\eta^{\mu}\,$, giving
\begin{equation} \label{CK}
K=\nabla_{\mu} \eta ^{\mu} = \frac{\left( br^2 \right)' }{abr^2} \bigg|_{r_{\mathrm{c}}} \,.
\end{equation}
As for $K_0\,$, we can choose any space we wish as the reference point from which the energy is measured. In our case, we choose $K_0$ such that $I=0$ when $M=0\,,$ corresponding to an asymptotically flat spacetime that gives
\begin{equation} \label{CK0}
K_0 = \frac{2}{r_{\mathrm{c}}} \,.
\end{equation}
Using  the above expressions for $K$ and $K_0\,$,
the surface action  becomes
\begin{equation}
I_{\mathrm{s}} = \beta \left( \frac{r^2 a'}{2a^2}  - \frac{r}{a} +r \right) \bigg|_{r_{\mathrm{c}}} \,.
\end{equation}
Finally, from the sum $I_{\mathrm{g}}+I_{\mathrm{m}}+I_{\mathrm{s}}$ we obtain the reduced action $I$ that reads
\begin{equation} \label{CIrbh_cav}
I= \beta \left\lbrace   -  \frac{a(r_{\mathrm{c}})}{2}    \left(r - \frac{r}{a^2} \right) \bigg|_{r_+}^{r_{\mathrm{c}}} + 4\pi a(r_{\mathrm{c}}) \left[ \frac{5}{16\pi}  \left( r-\frac{r}{a^2} \right) \bigg|_{r_+}^{r_{\mathrm{c}}} - \frac{1}{2} r^3 \rho \Big|_{r_+}^{r_{\mathrm{c}}} \right] - \frac{r_{\mathrm{c}}}{a(r_{\mathrm{c}})}  + r_{\mathrm{c}}        \right\rbrace - \pi r_+^2 \,.
\end{equation}
For large distances relative to the minimal cut-off length, the mass density profile of the black hole becomes proportional to the Dirac delta function, i.e., $\rho(r) \sim M \delta(r)\,$, meaning that $\rho(r_+) = \rho(r_{\mathrm{c}} ) = 0$ since $r_+,r_{\mathrm{c}} \neq 0\,$. Then the Hamiltonian constraints give   $\frac{1}{a(r)^2} \approx 1- \frac{r_+}{r}\,$, implying the relation $\left( \frac{r}{a^2}-r \right) \Big|_{r_+}^{r_{\mathrm{c}}} \approx 0$. Therefore, in this limit  the matter action \eqref{Im_final} vanishes and the reduced action \eqref{CIrbh_cav}  reduces to the action of the classical uncharged system \textit{singular black hole-cavity} \cite{Lun08}:
\begin{equation}
I \approx \beta r_{\mathrm{c}}  \left( 1 - \sqrt{1-\frac{r_+}{ r_{\mathrm{c}}}} \right) - \pi r_+^2 \,.
\end{equation}

\section{The phase structure}
\label{sec:4}
In this last section we apply the reduced action formalism to the case of a noncommutative Schwarzschild black hole as an example.
Then we derive the desired thermodynamic quantities  and we study possible phase transitions that take place inside the cavity.
For the noncommutative case, the profile of the density is given by  \eqref{Cncdensity}. Solving the Hamiltonian constraints for this profile,  the metric functions $a$ and $b$ of the line element \eqref{Cbhcav_metric} are evaluated to be
\begin{equation}
a(r)= \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{4M}{r \sqrt{\pi}} \gamma(r)}} \qquad \mathrm{and} \qquad b(r)= \mathcal{C} / a(r) = \frac{\beta}{2\pi \sqrt{1-\frac{4M}{r_{\mathrm{c}} \sqrt{\pi}} \gamma(r_{\mathrm{c}})}}   \sqrt{1-\frac{4M}{r \sqrt{\pi}} \gamma(r)} \,,
\end{equation}
where $\gamma(r)=\gamma(3/2,r^2/4\theta) \,$.
 Moreover, the boundary condition \eqref{Cbound3} implies the relation $M=\frac{r_+ \sqrt{\pi}}{4 \gamma(r_+)}\,$. Plugging these expressions into the general form of the reduced action \eqref{CIrbh_cav}, we get the form of the noncommutative reduced action $I_{\ast}$:
\begin{eqnarray} \nonumber
I_{\ast} &=& \beta  r_{\mathrm{c}} \left(  1 - \sqrt{1-\frac{r_+ \gamma (r_{\mathrm{c}})}{r_{\mathrm{c}} \gamma (r_+)}} \right) + \frac{\beta r_+}{2} \left(  \frac{1-\gamma(r_{\mathrm{c}})/\gamma (r_+)}{\sqrt{1-\frac{r_+ \gamma(r_{\mathrm{c}})}{r_{\mathrm{c}} \gamma(r_+)}}} \right) \\
&& + \frac{4\pi \beta}{\sqrt{1-\frac{r_+ \gamma(r_{\mathrm{c}})}{r_{\mathrm{c}} \gamma(r_+)}}} \left[  \frac{5 r_+}{16\pi} \left( \frac{ \gamma(r_{\mathrm{c}})}{\gamma(r_+)} -1 \right) - \frac{1}{2} r_{\mathrm{c}}^3 \rho(r_\mathrm{c})  + \frac{1}{2} r_+^3 \rho(r_+)  \right] - \pi r_+^2 \,.
\end{eqnarray}
As discussed in \cite{BrY94}, thermodynamic quantities can be derived from the reduced action. The canonical partition function $Z\,$, evaluated in the zero-loop approximation, is connected to the Euclidean action  through the relation $Z = e^{-\beta F} \approx e^{-I_{\ast}}\,$, where $F$ is the Helmholtz free energy.
The inverse temperature  can be derived by extremizing the action with respect to $r_+$ and solving for $\beta\,$:
\begin{equation} \label{Ctemp_beta}
\frac{\partial I_{\ast}(\beta,\theta,r_+,r_{\mathrm{c}})}{\partial r_+}=0 \qquad \longrightarrow \qquad \beta=\beta(\theta,r_+,r_{\mathrm{c}})=T^{-1} \,.
\end{equation}
Then the entropy of the system can be found from the relation
\begin{equation}
S = \beta \left( \frac{\partial I_{\ast}}{\partial \beta} \right)_{\theta,r_{\rm c}} - I_{\ast} = \beta \left( \frac{\partial I_{\ast}}{\partial r_+} \right)_{\theta,r_{\rm c}} \left( \frac{\partial \beta}{\partial r_+} \right)^{-1}_{\theta,r_{\rm c}} - I_{\ast} = \pi r_+^2 \,,
\end{equation}
giving the known area law. The  expression of the temperature is omitted here since it is rather lengthy but its plot is illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:CTcav} for different horizons inside the cavity.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\includegraphics[width=0.47 \textwidth]{Fig2}
\caption{The noncommutative black hole temperature $T$ inside the cavity \textit{vs} $r_+$ in $\sqrt{\theta}$ units, for $r_{\mathrm{c}}=17 \sqrt{\theta}$ (red solid curve), for $r_{\mathrm{c}} = r_{\mathrm{i}} \simeq 10.913 \sqrt{\theta}$ (black dashed curve) and for $r_{\mathrm{c}}=9 \sqrt{\theta}$ (blue solid curve).}
\label{fig:CTcav}
\end{figure}
Depending on the fixed distance $r_{\mathrm{c}}$ of the cavity wall relative to the minimal length $\sqrt{\theta}\,$, the temperature may appear two  (red curve in Fig.~\ref{fig:CTcav}), one  (black dashed curve in Fig.~\ref{fig:CTcav}) or no extrema (blue curve in Fig.~\ref{fig:CTcav}).  For $r_{\mathrm{c}} = r_{\mathrm{i}}$ the two extrema of the temperature merge at one inflexion point, while for $r_{\mathrm{c}} > r_{\mathrm{i}}$ the system  appears always a local maximum and a local minimum temperature. The cavity has already changed the picture relative to the pure asymptotically flat regular case \eqref{Cnctemp}, where there is only one extremum for the temperature, as can be seen in Fig~\ref{fig:ncT}. Inside the cavity there is a strong indication of a different phase transition when  $r_{\mathrm{c}} \geq r_{\mathrm{i}}\,$. This can be checked by calculating the heat capacity
\begin{equation}
C=T \left(  \frac{\partial S}{\partial T} \right)  = - \beta^2 \left(  \frac{\partial^2 I}{\partial \beta ^2} \right)_{\theta,r_{\rm c}}  \,,
\end{equation}
 whose form is also omitted here  but its shape is plotted in Fig.~\ref{fig:CCcav}.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\includegraphics[width=0.47 \textwidth]{Fig3}
\caption{The heat capacity $C$ of the noncommutative black hole inside the cavity \textit{vs} $r_+$ in $\sqrt{\theta}$ units, for $r_{\mathrm{c}}=17 \sqrt{\theta}$ (red solid curve), for $r_{\mathrm{c}} = r_{\mathrm{i}} \simeq 10.913 \sqrt{\theta}$ (black dashed curve) and for $r_{\mathrm{c}}=9 \sqrt{\theta}$ (blue solid curve).}
\label{fig:CCcav}
\end{figure}
For $r_{\mathrm{c}} > r_{\mathrm{i}} $ (red curve  in Fig.~\ref{fig:CCcav}) the heat capacity appears two divergent regions where $\mathrm{d} T=0\,$. In this case, there exists a small locally stable black hole with $C>0$ when $r_+$ is smaller than the first divergent region. Then it turns to a locally unstable intermediate black hole with $C<0$ when $r_+$ lies between the two divergences and finally it turns into a locally  stable large black hole with $C>0$ when $r_+$ is bigger than the second divergent region. Hence, a phase transition seems to take place between a small and a large stable black hole inside the cavity, in contrast to the asymptotically flat case of Sec.~\ref{sec:2} without a cavity, where the transition occurs between background radiation and a small stable black hole. This small/large stable black hole transition seems to be similar with  the  liquid/gas transition of a Van der Waals gas \cite{KuM12}, in contrast to the Hawking-Page-like transition of the \textit{singular black hole-cavity} system \cite{Lun08}. For $r_{\mathrm{c}} = r_{\mathrm{i}} $ (black dashed curve in Fig.~\ref{fig:CCcav}) the two stable black holes coexist at one inflexion point, while for $r_{\mathrm{c}} < r_{\mathrm{i}} $ (blue curve in Fig.~\ref{fig:CCcav}) there exists a single thermally stable black hole with no phase transitions and with a temperature which is monotonically increasing with  the horizon.

Similar phase structure appear also   regular  black holes \cite{NiT11,Tzi19}
 inside an AdS background  without a cavity. In other words, either confining the regular black hole in a cavity, or placing it inside an AdS space, the black hole appears a small/large black hole phase transition, mimicking the liquid/gas transition of a Van der Waals gas. This indicates that AdS holography might not depend on some properties of AdS spacetime, but rather on the confinement characteristic, as has also been noticed in \cite{Lun08}.

Last but not least, the Helmholtz free energy $F$ is the thermodynamic potential governing our system and is identified to be $ F= I_{\ast} / \beta \,$.
Its form is illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:CFcav}. For $r_{\mathrm{c}} > r_{\mathrm{i}}$ the free energy appears two extrema (red curve in Fig.~\ref{fig:CFcav}) with an unstable middle branch of an increasing $F$ due to the phase transition. These extrema correspond to the two divergences of the heat capacity, as can be seen from the above plots. For $r_{\mathrm{c}} < r_{\mathrm{i}}$ the free energy is a monotonically decreasing function of $r_+$ (blue curve in Fig.~\ref{fig:CFcav}) with no indication of a phase transition, signalling this way the local and global stability of the system. For $r_{\mathrm{c}} = r_{\mathrm{i}}$ the two extrema of $F$ merge at one inflexion point (black dashed curve in Fig.~\ref{fig:CFcav}).
\begin{figure}[h!]
\includegraphics[width=0.47 \textwidth]{Fig4}
\caption{The free energy $F$ of the noncommutative black hole inside the cavity \textit{vs} $r_+$ in $\sqrt{\theta}$ units, for $r_{\mathrm{c}}=17 \sqrt{\theta}$ (red solid curve), for $r_{\mathrm{c}} = r_{\mathrm{i}} \simeq 10.913 \sqrt{\theta}$ (black dashed curve) and for $r_{\mathrm{c}}=9 \sqrt{\theta}$ (blue solid curve).}
\label{fig:CFcav}
\end{figure}

\section{Conclusions}
\label{sec:concl}
We have presented a geometric and a thermodynamic analysis of a regular black hole enclosed by a cavity. The temperature at the walls and the radius of the cavity are held fixed, allowing us to work in a canonical ensemble. Based on the assumption that any  regular black hole solution is described by a source of anisotropic fluid with two pressure terms, we performed the derivation of the reduced action. The new action is a generalization of the one describing a singular black hole, since it contains an extra matter action-piece that vanishes in the classical limit. Applying this formalism to the profile of the noncommutative case, we derived through the reduced  action all the necessary thermodynamic quantities, in order to study the phase structure of the system. The conclusion is that, above a certain value of the position of the cavity wall, i.e., $r_{\mathrm{c}} \geq r_{\rm i}\,$, the  black hole can undergo  a phase transition between a small/large stable black hole, similar to the liquid/gas transition of a Van der Waals gas,  while for  $r_{\mathrm{c}} < r_{\rm i}$ there exists always a thermally stable remnant. The enclosing cavity provides similar phase structure  with the system of a  regular  black hole placed in AdS space without a cavity.

\acknowledgements
The present work has been supported by the GRADE Completion Scholarships, which are funded by the STIBET program of the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD) and the Stiftung zur F\"orderung der internationalen wissenschaftlichen Beziehungen der Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universit\"at. The author would also like to thank Piero Nicolini  for reading carefully the manuscript and for providing useful comments.