Zimmer's conjecture for non-split semisimple Lie groups

Aaron Brown; Jinpeng An; Zhiyuan Zhang

REVIEW 1 major objections 5 minor 29 references

Zimmer's conjecture for non-split semisimple Lie groups

T0 review · 1 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper proves Zimmer's conjecture for many non-split semisimple Lie groups, showing that lattice actions on compact manifolds below a sharp dimension threshold must preserve a continuous Riemannian metric.

desk verdict Serious, technically deep advance on Zimmer's conjecture; the stress-test's Section 6 objection doesn't survive contact with the definition of Σ_Q. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.13858 v1 pith:5MVMSXCL submitted 2024-11-21 math.DS

Jinpeng An , Aaron Brown , Zhiyuan Zhang This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.DS MSC 37C8537D2522E4037A15

keywords Zimmer'sconjecturelatticeactionsnon-splitsemisimpleLiegroupsmeasurerigidityLyapunovexponentscocyclesuperrigidityparabolicsubgroupsinvariantmetrics

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper proves many new cases of Zimmer's conjecture for actions by lattices in non-$\mathbb{R}$-split semisimple Lie groups: for complex semisimple groups without rank-one factors, $\mathrm{SL}(n,\mathbb{H})$ with $n \ge 5$, certain $\mathrm{SO}^+(m,n)$, $\mathrm{SU}(m,n)$, $\mathrm{SO}^*(2n)$, and the exceptional group $\mathrm{EII}$, any $C^{1+\kappa}$ action on a compact manifold of dimension below a sharp threshold $v(G)$ must preserve a continuous Riemannian metric, and actions on still smaller manifolds have finite image. The proof reduces the conjecture to the study of probability measures invariant under a minimal parabolic subgroup, then introduces two mechanisms to force extra invariance of such measures: cocycle superrigidity applied to Levi factors of parabolic stabilizers, and a measure-rigidity dichotomy for one-dimensional fiberwise coarse Lyapunov distributions. If the dichotomy holds, these non-split groups satisfy the same sharp dimension bounds as their split counterparts, so the nonlinear rigidity phenomenon is not confined to $\mathbb{R}$-split groups.

What carries the argument

The central object is the fiberwise coarse Lyapunov distribution $E^{[\beta]}_F$: the subspace of the fiber tangent bundle in the suspension space whose vectors grow at a rate proportional to a restricted root $\beta$ under the $A$-action. The new measure-rigidity step is Proposition 5.8, which says that when this distribution is one-dimensional, either the measure is invariant under the root subgroup $G^{[\beta]} = \exp(\mathfrak{g}^{[\beta]})$, or the root space $\mathfrak{g}^{[\beta]}$ itself has dimension one. This dichotomy, together with Zimmer's cocycle superrigidity theorem applied to Levi factors of parabolic stabilizers, turns the absence of an invariant metric into a quantitative lower bound on the dimension of the manifold.

What would settle it

Exhibit, for one of the listed groups, a $P$-invariant $P$-ergodic measure on a suspension space with $\dim E^{[\beta]}_F = 1$ and $\dim \mathfrak{g}^{[\beta]} \ge 2$ that is not $G^{[\beta]}$-invariant; this would refute Proposition 5.8 and break the dimension bound $r_0(G)$. Equivalently, construct a $C^{1+\kappa}$ action of a lattice on a compact manifold of dimension below $v(G)$ without a continuous invariant Riemannian metric.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Theorem 1.3: for each listed non-split group $G$, every $C^{1+\kappa}$ action of a lattice $\Gamma$ on a compact manifold $M$ with $\dim(M) < v(G)$ preserves a continuous Riemannian metric, and if $\dim(M) < \min\{v(G), v(G_{\mathrm{cpt}})\}$ then the image $\alpha(\Gamma)$ is finite. The proof's engine is the measure-rigidity dichotomy in Proposition 5.8: for a $P$-invariant ergodic measure whose fiberwise coarse Lyapunov distribution $E^{[\beta]}_F$ is one-dimensional, either the measure is already $G^{[\beta]}$-invariant or the root space $\mathfrak{g}^{[\beta]}$ is one-dimensional. Combining this dichotomy with cocycle superrigidity gives the lower bound $\dim(M) \ge r_0(G)$, and for the groups in Theorem 1.3 this bound equals $v(G)$, the conjectured sharp threshold.

Load-bearing premise

The whole new bound rests on the claim that whenever a fiberwise instability direction in the suspension space is one-dimensional, the measure must either acquire extra symmetry or the corresponding root space is one-dimensional; if that claim fails, the sharp thresholds do not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For each group in Theorem 1.3, $s(G) = v(G)$, so the non-volume-preserving Zimmer conjecture holds with the sharp threshold $v(G)$.
For $\mathrm{Sp}(m,n)$ with $6 \le n \le m \le \frac14(n^2-3n+6)$, the gap to the conjecture is at most $2$: actions on manifolds of dimension below $v(G)-2$ have finite image.
In the volume-preserving case at the boundary $\dim(M) = v(G)$, the action preserves a continuous Riemannian metric for complex semisimple groups without rank-one factors, $\mathrm{SO}^+(n,n+2)$, $\mathrm{SU}(n,n)$, and $\mathrm{EII}$.
The bound $r_0(Q)$ in Proposition 5.10 is a new general dimension estimate that supersedes the earlier minimal-resonant-codimension bound $r(G)$ in the cases covered.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

If the dichotomy of Proposition 5.8 can be established for the remaining root-space configurations, the $\mathrm{Sp}(m,n)$ gap of $2$ should close, giving the full conjecture for that family as well.
The proof suggests that the equality $r_0(G) = v(G)$ is the right general criterion for non-split groups; a natural test is to compute $r_0$ for the exceptional groups $\mathrm{F}_4$, $\mathrm{E}_6$, and $\mathrm{E}_7$.
Because Lemma 5.6 delegates a key homogenity conclusion to 'standard arguments' in earlier work, the most direct check of the new engine is to write out that step in full for a concrete case such as $\mathrm{SU}(3,3)$.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The headline is that this is the real thing—a serious, technically dense advance on Zimmer's conjecture—and the specific Section 6 objection in the stress-test note is wrong. In Proposition 6.1, branch x1=0, the paper takes β=-2e1, γ=e1+e2 and claims γ∈Σ_Q. For Q with Π_Q={α2,...,αn}, one has Σ_Q=Σ^+∪(span(Π_Q)∩Σ). The root e1+e2 is positive, so it lies in Σ_Q regardless of its α1-coefficient. The stress-test forgot the Σ^+ term. Hence the conditional measure along G[γ] is Haar, and the rest of that branch is coherent. That particular gap is not there.

What is actually new: two proof techniques—cocycle superrigidity for Levi factors and a one-dimensional Lyapunov dichotomy—and they deliver sharp v(G) bounds, not just the weaker r(G) bounds, for complex semisimple groups without rank-1 factors, SL(n,H), certain SO+(m,n), SU(m,n), SO*(2n), and EII. The volume-preserving boundary result is also new. The combination of the two approaches in Section 6 is genuinely clever and does not reduce the target to an input.

Where I am more cautious: the measure-rigidity core in Lemma 5.6 is delegated to 'standard arguments' from Kalinin–Spatzier and Katok–Spatzier. That homogenity conclusion is load-bearing for Proposition 5.8, and a referee should ask for the details to be written out. This is a real soft spot, but not obviously fatal; the surrounding structure and the entropy equation (5.2) are careful. Lemma 6.3, the uniqueness of the minimal representation, is also terse—again worth a referee's attention, but the cited sources point the right way.

This paper deserves a serious referee. I would send it to an expert in smooth rigidity, maybe two. It is not a reshuffling of known results; it advances the sharp threshold for several families that were previously open. If the delegated measure-rigidity step checks out, this is a clean resolution for the listed non-split cases. I would bring it to reading group if the group has the background, and I would cite it if I worked in the Zimmer program.

Referee Report

1 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proves new cases of Zimmer's conjecture for actions of lattices in non-R-split semisimple Lie groups on compact manifolds. The main theorem (Theorem 1.3) establishes the conjectured sharp dimension thresholds for complex semisimple groups without rank-one factors, SL(n,H) for n at least 5, SO+(m,n) in certain ranges, SU(m,n), SO*(2n) for n at least 14, and EII; for Sp(m,n) a threshold of v(G)-2 is proved (Theorem 3.12), and a volume-preserving analogue is given (Theorem 1.6). The strategy reduces the conjecture, via Theorem 3.1 and Corollary 3.10, to proving that s(G)=v(G), where s(G) is the largest integer below which every minimal-parabolic-invariant measure is G-invariant. Two mechanisms are introduced: cocycle superrigidity applied to Levi factors (Proposition 4.1) and measure rigidity for one-dimensional fiberwise coarse Lyapunov distributions (Theorem 3.14 and Proposition 5.8). The remaining sections contain extensive root-system and representation-theoretic estimates yielding the s(G) bounds.

Significance. If correct, this is a substantial advance: it gives sharp Zimmer thresholds for several families of non-split groups, where previously only the weaker resonant-codimension bound r(G) was available. The paper is careful in isolating the quantity s(G), and the root-space computations are explicit and checkable. The representation classification in Lemma 6.3 and the combinatorial case analyses in Section 6 are concrete strengths. I specifically checked the potential gap in Proposition 6.1 flagged during the review process, and it does not land: for the standard parabolic Q with Pi_Q={alpha2,...,alpha_n}, the root e1+e2 is a positive root in type C_n or BC_n, so it belongs to Sigma^+ and hence to Sigma_Q by the definition in Section 2.1; the x1=0 branch of Proposition 6.1 is therefore valid. The main expositional risk is that the homogenity conclusion in Lemma 5.6 is delegated to 'standard arguments' from [19] and [20]; the surrounding proof is plausible and cites precise sources, but a fuller statement would increase confidence.

major comments (1)

[Section 6, proof of Proposition 6.1] The suspected gap in the x1=0 subcase is not present. For the standard parabolic Q with Pi_Q={alpha2,...,alpha_n}, Section 2.1 defines Sigma_Q = Sigma^+ union (span(Pi_Q) intersect Sigma). The root e1+e2 is a positive root in type C_n or BC_n, so e1+e2 belongs to Sigma^+ and hence to Sigma_Q; the fact that its expansion in simple roots has a nonzero alpha1 coefficient is irrelevant. The subsequent applications of Lemma 6.2 and Proposition 2.4 are therefore legitimate. This removes the concern that the '+1' in equations (6.5) and (6.6) is unsupported.

minor comments (5)

[Section 5.4, Lemma 5.6] In the proof of case (2), the sentence 'The natural projection p : D2 x R -> R is proper and is measurably one-to-one' is inaccurate as written because p is not globally injective; the argument only needs the restriction of p to K_x (or to the support of Psi_x) to be one-to-one, which is established earlier. Please clarify this wording.
[Section 3.1, proof of Theorem 3.2] The notation 'E10' in the sentence 'H^{p,kappa}(M,m,S^2T*M) is in E10' is undefined; please supply the intended symbol or a reference for this space.
[Throughout the manuscript] There are numerous typographical artifacts from the arXiv source, including '/integerdivide' for notin, '/greaterorequalslant' for >=, 'Rimannian' for Riemannian, and 'compat' for compact; these should be cleaned in the final version.
[References] Reference [28] is listed without an arXiv identifier. Since the text states that this preprint will not be submitted for publication, please provide a stable identifier or remove reliance on it.
[Section 5.4, Proposition 5.8] Proposition 5.8 applies Lemma 5.6(2) without explicitly verifying at that point that the leafwise measure mu^{W[beta],E_beta}_x is non-atomic; this follows from Lemma 5.1, but stating the verification would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the new dimension thresholds are proved by in-paper rigidity and superrigidity arguments resting on published external results, with no input equated to a conclusion by construction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. The central claims reduce to lower bounds of the form s(G) >= v(G) (Theorem 3.11), where v(G) is an external invariant (minimal codimension of a proper parabolic subgroup, computed in Appendix A from Lie theory and [27]) and s(G) is defined in Definition 3.8 as a measure-theoretic maximum; the bridge from s(G) to the action statement is Corollary 3.10, resting on Theorem 3.2 and Lemma 3.4, the latter proved in the paper. The bounds on s(G) come from genuine root-system optimization: for SO*(2n), s >= min{4n-7, [n^2/4]} equals v(G) = 4n-7 exactly when n >= 14, matching Theorem 1.3(v); the SU(m,n), Sp(m,n), and SO*(2n) bounds are obtained by counting roots in Case 3 of the proofs of (6.5) and (6.6), plus the '+1' of Proposition 6.1, which is derived (not assumed) via Lemma 6.2, Lemma 6.3 (proved in-paper using [24] and [26]), Corollary 5.2, and Proposition 2.4 from [12]. The dichotomy in Theorem 3.14 (Proposition 5.8) is an in-paper result; while Lemma 5.6 delegates its homogenity conclusion to 'standard arguments' in [19,20], those are external published works whose assumptions do not include the present theorems, so this is a completeness concern for referees rather than circularity. The same holds for imports from [4,6,7]: published results (or, for [6], a preprint with stated assumptions) used as lemmas whose conclusions do not coincide with the theorems being proved, so rule 4 keeps them from raising the score. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no quantity is defined in terms of the conclusion it is used to prove; any suspected mathematical error (e.g., the inclusion gamma = e1+e2 in Sigma_Q claimed in the second subcase of Proposition 6.1) would be a correctness risk, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters and no invented entities. The central claim rests on deep prior rigidity and entropy theorems, several by the same authors, treated here as external inputs. The self-citation overlap is real but does not reduce independence because those prior results are established and do not depend on the present paper.

assumptions (6)

standard math Zimmer's cocycle superrigidity theorem (Theorem 3.13, from [16,29])
Used in Proposition 4.1 and Proposition 6.1 to force the dimension of invariant subbundles to be at least n(gDelta).
domain assumption Reduction theorem (Theorem 3.2, from [4,6]): zero fiberwise Lyapunov exponents for all A-invariant measures with Haar projection imply an invariant Riemannian metric
Converts measure statements into the geometric conclusion of Zimmer's conjecture; imported from prior work by coauthors.
domain assumption Measure-stabilizer theorem (Theorem 3.6, from [7]): for A-invariant measures, g[beta] lies in the stabilizer for each [beta] outside the fiberwise coarse Lyapunov spectrum
Basis for identifying the parabolic stabilizer Q and for the dimension lower bound |Sigma minus Sigma_Q|.
standard math Conditional measure machinery of Einsiedler-Katok (Propositions 2.3 and 2.4)
Equates invariance of a measure under a subgroup with Haar conditional measures, and propagates invariance along root-space brackets.
standard math Entropy formulas of Ledrappier-Young and Abramov-Rohlin (Lemma 2.5 and equation (5.1))
Supplies the entropy equalities and inequalities that drive Lemma 5.1 and Corollary 5.9.
standard math Weyl dimension formula and Onishchik classification of real representations (Lemma 6.3)
Classifies n(g)-dimensional representations of su, sp, and so* needed to rule out degeneracies in Proposition 6.1.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Zimmer's conjecture for non-split semisimple Lie groups." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5MVMSXCL

@misc{pith2026241113858,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Zimmer's conjecture for non-split semisimple Lie groups},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5MVMSXCL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.13858}
}

abstract

We prove many new cases of Zimmer's conjecture for actions by lattices in non-$\mathbb{R}$-split semisimple Lie groups $G$. By prior arguments, Zimmer's conjecture reduces to studying certain probability measures invariant under a minimal parabolic subgroup for the induced $G$-action. Two techniques are introduced to give lower bounds on the dimension of a manifold $M$ admitting a non-isometric action. First, when the Levi component of the stabilizer of the measure has higher-rank simple factors, cocycle superrigidity provides a lower bound on the dimension of $M$. Second, when certain fiberwise coarse Lyapunov distributions are one-dimensional, a measure rigidity argument provides additional invariance of the measure if the associated root spaces are higher-dimensional.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages

[19]

Kalinin and R

B. Kalinin and R. Spatzier, Rigidity of the measurable structure for algebraic actions of higher-rank Abelian groups, Ergodic Theory Dynam. Systems, 25 (2005), no. 1, 175–200

work page 2005
[20]

Katok and R

A. Katok and R. J. Spatzier, Corrections to: ”Invariant measures for higher-rank hyper bolic abelian actions” , Ergodic Theory Dynam. Systems, 16 (1996), no. 4, 751–778

work page 1996
[1]

Bourbaki, Lie groups and Lie algebras: Chapters 7–9 , Springer-V erlag, Berlin, 2005

N. Bourbaki, Lie groups and Lie algebras: Chapters 7–9 , Springer-V erlag, Berlin, 2005

work page 2005
[2]

Proceedings of the International Congress of Mathematicians (2022)

A. Brown, Lattice subgroups acting on manifolds , in “Proceedings of the International Congress of Mathematicians (2022)”, 3388–3411. EMS Press, Berlin, 2 023

work page 2022
[3]

Brown, D

A. Brown, D. Damjanovic, Z. Zhang, C1 actions on manifolds by lattices in Lie groups, Compositio Mathematica. 158 (2022), 529-549

work page 2022
[4]

Brown, D

A. Brown, D. Fisher, S. Hurtado, Zimmer’s conjecture: Subexponential growth, measure rigi dity , and strong property (T) , Ann. of Math. (2) 196 (2022), no. 3, 891–940

work page 2022
[5]

Brown, D

A. Brown, D. Fisher, S. Hurtado, Zimmer’s conjecture for actions of SL(m, Z), Invent. Math. 221 (2020), no. 3, 1001–1060. 38 JINPENG AN, AARON BROWN, AND ZHIYUAN ZHANG

work page 2020
[6]

Brown, D

A. Brown, D. Fisher, S. Hurtado, Zimmer’s conjecture for non-uniform lattices and escape of mass, arXiv:2105.14541

arXiv

Show all 29 references

[7]

Brown, F

A. Brown, F. Rodriguez Hertz, Z. W ang, Invariant measures and measurable projective factors for actions of higher-rank lattices on manifolds , Ann. of Math. (2) 196 (2022), no. 3, 941–981

2022
[8]

Brown, F

A. Brown, F. Rodriguez Hertz, Z. W ang, Smooth ergodic theory of Zd-actions, J. Mod. Dyn. 19 (2023), 455–540

2023
[9]

Cantat, Progr` es r´ ecents concernant le programme de Zimmer [d’apr` es A

S. Cantat, Progr` es r´ ecents concernant le programme de Zimmer [d’apr` es A. Brown, D. Fisher et S. Hurtado], Ast´ erisque (2019), no. 414, Exp. No. 1136, 1–47

2019
[10]

Carter, Lie algebras of ﬁnite and afﬁne type , Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2005

R. Carter, Lie algebras of ﬁnite and afﬁne type , Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2005

2005
[11]

Downarowicz, Entropy in Dynamical Systems , New Mathematical Monographs V ol

T. Downarowicz, Entropy in Dynamical Systems , New Mathematical Monographs V ol. 18, Cambridge University Press, 2011

2011
[12]

Einsiedler, A

M. Einsiedler, A. Katok, Rigidity of measures – the high entropy case and non-commuti ng foliations, Israel J. Math. 148 (2005), 169–238

2005
[13]

Geometry , Rigidity , and Group Actions

D. Fisher, Groups acting on manifolds: around the Zimmer program , In “Geometry , Rigidity , and Group Actions”, Chicago Lectures in Math., pages 72–157. Un iv . Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, 2011

2011
[14]

Fisher, Recent developments in the Zimmer program , Notices Amer

D. Fisher, Recent developments in the Zimmer program , Notices Amer. Math. Soc. 67 (2020), no. 4, 492–499

2020
[15]

Proceedings of the International Congress of Mathematici ans (2022)

D. Fisher, Rigidity , lattices, and invariant measures beyond homogen eous dynamics , in “Proceedings of the International Congress of Mathematici ans (2022)”, 3484–3507. EMS Press, Berlin, 2023

2022
[16]

Surveys in Differential Geometry , V ol. VIII (Boston, MA, 2002)

D. Fisher, G. A. Margulis, Local rigidity for cocycles , in “Surveys in Differential Geometry , V ol. VIII (Boston, MA, 2002)”, 191–234, Int. Press, Somerville, MA, 2003

2002
[17]

Helgason, Differential geometry , Lie groups, and symmetric spaces , American Mathematical Society , Providence, RI, 2001

S. Helgason, Differential geometry , Lie groups, and symmetric spaces , American Mathematical Society , Providence, RI, 2001

2001
[18]

Katok, F

A. Katok, F. Rodriguez Hertz, Measure and cocycle rigidity for certain nonuniformly hype rbolic actions of higher-rank abelian groups , J. Mod. Dyn. 4 (2010), no. 3, 487–515

2010
[21]

A. W . Knapp, Lie groups beyond an introduction, second edition, Birkh ¨ auser Boston, Inc., Boston, MA, 2002

2002
[22]

Ledrappier, L.-S

F. Ledrappier, L.-S. Young, The metric entropy of diffeomorphisms. I. Characterizatio n of measures satisfying Pesin’s entropy formula , Ann. of Math. (2) 122 (1985), no. 3, 509–539

1985
[23]

Ledrappier, L.-S

F. Ledrappier, L.-S. Young, The metric entropy of diffeomorphisms. II. Relations betwe en entropy , exponents and dimension , Ann. of Math. (2) 122 (1985), no. 3, 540ˇ sC574

1985
[24]

Onishchik, Lectures on real semisimple Lie algebras and their represen tations, European Mathematical Society (EMS), Z ¨ urich, 2004

A. Onishchik, Lectures on real semisimple Lie algebras and their represen tations, European Mathematical Society (EMS), Z ¨ urich, 2004

2004
[25]

Pugh and M

C. Pugh and M. Shub, Ergodic elements of ergodic actions , Compositio Math. 23 (1971), 115–122

1971
[26]

M. Sato, T. Kimura, A classiﬁcation of irreducible prehomogeneous vector spac es and their relative invariants, Nagoya Math. J. 65 (1977), 1–155

1977
[27]

Stuck, Low dimensional actions of semisimple groups , Israel J

G. Stuck, Low dimensional actions of semisimple groups , Israel J. Math. 76 (1991), no. 1-2, 27–71

1991
[28]

Zhang, Zimmer’s conjecture for lattice actions: the SL(n, C)-case, arXiv

Z. Zhang, Zimmer’s conjecture for lattice actions: the SL(n, C)-case, arXiv
[29]

R. J. Zimmer, Strong rigidity for ergodic actions of semisimple Lie group s, Ann. of Math. (2) 112 (1980), no. 3, 511–529. JINPENG AN, S CHOOL OF MATHEMATICAL SCIENCES , P EKING UNIVERSITY , B EIJING , 100871, CHINA Email address: anjinpeng@gmail.com AARON BROWN , N ORTHWESTER...

1980

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [19]

Kalinin and R

B. Kalinin and R. Spatzier, Rigidity of the measurable structure for algebraic actions of higher-rank Abelian groups, Ergodic Theory Dynam. Systems, 25 (2005), no. 1, 175–200

work page 2005

[2] [20]

Katok and R

A. Katok and R. J. Spatzier, Corrections to: ”Invariant measures for higher-rank hyper bolic abelian actions” , Ergodic Theory Dynam. Systems, 16 (1996), no. 4, 751–778

work page 1996

[3] [1]

Bourbaki, Lie groups and Lie algebras: Chapters 7–9 , Springer-V erlag, Berlin, 2005

N. Bourbaki, Lie groups and Lie algebras: Chapters 7–9 , Springer-V erlag, Berlin, 2005

work page 2005

[4] [2]

Proceedings of the International Congress of Mathematicians (2022)

A. Brown, Lattice subgroups acting on manifolds , in “Proceedings of the International Congress of Mathematicians (2022)”, 3388–3411. EMS Press, Berlin, 2 023

work page 2022

[5] [3]

Brown, D

A. Brown, D. Damjanovic, Z. Zhang, C1 actions on manifolds by lattices in Lie groups, Compositio Mathematica. 158 (2022), 529-549

work page 2022

[6] [4]

Brown, D

A. Brown, D. Fisher, S. Hurtado, Zimmer’s conjecture: Subexponential growth, measure rigi dity , and strong property (T) , Ann. of Math. (2) 196 (2022), no. 3, 891–940

work page 2022

[7] [5]

Brown, D

A. Brown, D. Fisher, S. Hurtado, Zimmer’s conjecture for actions of SL(m, Z), Invent. Math. 221 (2020), no. 3, 1001–1060. 38 JINPENG AN, AARON BROWN, AND ZHIYUAN ZHANG

work page 2020

[8] [6]

Brown, D

A. Brown, D. Fisher, S. Hurtado, Zimmer’s conjecture for non-uniform lattices and escape of mass, arXiv:2105.14541

arXiv