Geometry and Dynamics of Transverse Groups

Andrew Zimmer; Richard Canary; Tengren Zhang

REVIEW 1 major objections 6 minor 66 references

Geometry and Dynamics of Transverse Groups

T0 review · 1 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper establishes a Hopf–Tsuji–Sullivan dichotomy for transverse subgroups of SL(d,R): divergence of the φ-Poincaré series at the critical exponent forces a unique Patterson–Sullivan measure with full conical measure and ergodic…

desk verdict A clear, useful survey of Patterson–Sullivan theory for transverse groups; nothing new, but a solid entry point, with one notation typo and heavy reliance on the authors' own prior papers. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.07271 v1 pith:FVR62KPG submitted 2025-02-11 math.DS math.DGmath.GT

Richard Canary , Tengren Zhang , Andrew Zimmer This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.DSmath.DGmath.GT MSC 37D4022E4020F65

keywords transversesubgroupsPatterson–SullivanmeasuresHopf–Tsuji–SullivandichotomyAnosovrelativelyshadowlemmaHilbertgeometrycriticalexponent

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 survey argues that a classical dichotomy for hyperbolic surfaces survives in the higher-rank setting of transverse subgroups of $\mathrm{SL}(d,\mathbb{R})$. The dichotomy is governed by whether the $\varphi$-Poincaré series diverges at its critical exponent. Divergence forces a unique Patterson–Sullivan measure supported on the conical limit set and an ergodic, conservative action of the group on pairs of limit points; convergence forces the conical limit set to have measure zero and the action to be dissipative. The authors establish this by embedding any transverse group into a convex projective domain, where shadows and a geodesic flow can be defined through Hilbert geometry, and then importing the shadow lemma and the classical ergodicity argument for flows. A sympathetic reader should care because these tools yield counting asymptotics, growth gaps, Hausdorff dimension calculations, and rigidity of critical exponents for Anosov and relatively Anosov groups.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the projective-geometry correspondence of Theorem 5.1, which realizes a given $P_\theta$-transverse group $\Gamma$ as a projectively visible subgroup $\Gamma_0$ of the automorphism group of a properly convex domain $\Omega$ in real projective space, with an equivariant homeomorphism between the two limit sets. Using Hilbert-metric shadows in $\partial\Omega$, the paper defines shadows in the higher-rank limit set and proves an analogue of the shadow lemma: the Patterson–Sullivan measure of the shadow of $\gamma(b_0)$ is comparable to $e^{-\delta_\varphi(\Gamma)\,\varphi(\kappa_\theta(\rho(\gamma)))}$. The same correspondence yields a Hopf parametrization of a flow space $\widetilde U(\Gamma_0)=\Lambda_\Omega(\Gamma_0)^{(2)}\times \mathbb{R}$, on which the two Patterson–Sullivan measures $\bar\mu$ and $\mu$ are paired through a Gromov product to build a Bowen–Margulis–Sullivan measure; the classical ergodicity argument applied on this flow space produces the dichotomy.

What would settle it

Take a specific non-Anosov $P_\theta$-transverse group, for instance a Zariski dense subgroup of $\mathrm{SL}(3,\mathbb{R})$ built by a ping-pong on partial flags, and compute its $\alpha_1$-Poincaré series at the critical exponent; check whether divergence coincides with the conical limit set having full $\alpha_1$-Patterson–Sullivan measure and with ergodicity of the action on the square of the limit set. A single violation would refute Theorem 6.1, and a failure to realize the group by a projectively visible domain would refute Theorem 5.1.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim, stated as Theorem 6.1, is a Hopf–Tsuji–Sullivan dichotomy for every non-elementary $P_\theta$-transverse subgroup $\Gamma \subset \mathrm{SL}(d,\mathbb{R})$ and every $\varphi \in \mathfrak{a}^*_\theta$ with finite critical exponent $\delta = \delta_\varphi(\Gamma)$. If the Poincaré series diverges at $\delta$, then there is a unique $\varphi$-Patterson–Sullivan measure $\mu$ and a unique $\bar\varphi$-Patterson–Sullivan measure $\bar\mu$; the conical limit set has full measure for both, the $\Gamma$-action on the square of the limit set with measure $\bar\mu \otimes \mu$ is conservative and ergodic, and the individual actions on the limit set are ergodic. If the Poincaré series converges at $\delta$, then the conical limit set has measure zero for every Patterson–Sullivan measure and the action on the square is dissipative and non-ergodic. Surrounding results give a Brooks-type growth gap for subgroups, divergence of the Poincaré series for relatively Anosov groups, Hausdorff dimension bounds for conical limit sets of $(1,1,2)$-hypertransverse groups, critical exponents at most one for cusped Hitchin representations, and concavity of the critical exponent as a function on $\mathfrak{a}^*_\theta$.

Load-bearing premise

The entire construction sits on Theorem 5.1, cited rather than proved here, which asserts that every $P_\theta$-transverse subgroup can be presented as a projectively visible group on a convex domain with an equivariant identification of limit sets; if that theorem failed, the shadow estimates and flow space that produce the dichotomy would lose their foundation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Every $P_\theta$-relatively Anosov group with $\delta_\varphi(\Gamma)<\infty$ has divergent Poincaré series at the critical exponent, so its $\varphi$-Patterson–Sullivan measure is unique and the $\Gamma$-action on the limit set is ergodic.
Torsion-free $P_\theta$-relatively Anosov groups satisfy the counting law $\#\{[\gamma]\in[\Gamma_{\mathrm{lox}}]:0<\varphi(\lambda(\gamma))\le R\}\sim e^{\delta R}/(\delta R)$.
For cusped Hitchin representations, every simple-root critical exponent satisfies $\delta_{\alpha_k}(\Gamma)\le 1$, with equality exactly when the underlying Fuchsian group is a lattice.
For Zariski dense transverse groups, the critical-exponent function $\varphi\mapsto\delta_\varphi(\Gamma)$ is strictly concave along segments where the Poincaré series diverges at the critical exponent.
For $P_\theta$-Anosov groups, the $\theta$-limit set is either null for the ambient Lebesgue-class measure or is the entire flag manifold, in which case the group is a uniform lattice in a rank-one Lie group.

Reading between the lines

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

Because the projective-visibility route is bypassed by the Weyl-chamber flow and GPS approaches surveyed in Section 7, the dichotomy is likely a property of expanding cocycle pairs on convergence groups rather than of the linear structure of $\mathrm{SL}(d,\mathbb{R})$; one could try to axiomatize Theorem 6.1 in that generality.
The Hausdorff-dimension identity for hypertransverse groups suggests a testable refinement: for non-hypertransverse Anosov representations, compare $\delta_{\alpha_1}(\Gamma)$ with the dimension of the conical limit set to see where the equality fails and whether a modified weight restores it.
The concavity result for $\delta_\varphi$ may connect to pressure-metric and entropy-rigidity questions in higher Teichmüller theory; a concrete next step is to test whether strict concavity persists when the divergence condition is replaced by convergence of the regularized series.

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

This is a survey, not a research paper. It restates results the authors proved elsewhere, and even the one "new corollary" (Cor 5.5) is pulled from their earlier paper [19]. So if you are looking for a new theorem, you will not find one. But as a survey it is genuinely good: the classical Fuchsian case is laid out carefully, the machinery of partial flags, Busemann cocycles, and Poincaré series is built up patiently, and the text is honest about which tools are needed and where the proofs live.

The paper's real value is expository. The projective-visibility tool (Theorem 5.1) is explained in a way that makes the later shadow lemma and flow space construction understandable, and the survey is upfront that Kim–Oh–Wang and Blayac–Canary–Zhu–Zimmer have since given an alternative GPS route that bypasses this tool. The proof sketches in the Fuchsian setting are nice pedagogical choices, and the statements of the main dichotomy (Theorem 6.1) and its recent generalizations are clean.

Soft spots, in proportion to how soft they are. The undefined symbol Q in Theorems 6.1 and 6.2 is a real typo—it should almost certainly be the Poincaré series P—and since that theorem is the centerpiece, the authors should fix it. The survey leans heavily on the authors' own papers [18, 19, 20] for the central results. That is normal for a survey of one's own theory, and those results are established in full elsewhere, so I do not see a circularity problem. Theorem 5.1 is cited without proof, but the survey itself points to the GPS alternative, and Proposition 7.3 gives an independent route to the main ergodicity claims, so even a gap there would not be load-bearing. The label "new corollary" for Cor 5.5 is a bit misleading—it is new to this survey, but not new mathematics—and the authors should rephrase or simply cite it as a consequence.

Who is this for? Graduate students or researchers entering higher-rank Patterson–Sullivan theory, and people working on Anosov representations who want a concise map of recent results. It deserves a serious referee: a survey needs careful checking of citations and statements, and this one is mostly careful but not flawless. I would send it out for review, with a request to fix the notation and adjust the "new" language. My own verdict would be minor revision.

Referee Report

1 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper is a survey of Patterson–Sullivan theory and dynamical properties of transverse subgroups of SL(d,R). It develops the classical Fuchsian theory as motivation, introduces divergent/transverse groups and the associated φ-Poincaré series, φ-Patterson–Sullivan measures, and a shadow lemma via projective visibility. It then constructs flow spaces and Bowen–Margulis–Sullivan measures, states a Hopf–Tsuji–Sullivan dichotomy for transverse groups (Theorem 6.1), and surveys recent work by Kim–Oh–Wang, the GPS framework of Blayac–Canary–Zhu–Zimmer, and applications to relatively Anosov groups and counting problems. The exposition is largely a summary of the authors' own published work and closely related preprints, with proof sketches for several key statements.

Significance. If the technical statements are accurate, this is a useful and timely survey of an active area. It collects many precise theorems (e.g., Theorem 6.1, Theorem 7.4) with references to published papers or widely circulated preprints, and it explicitly notes alternative routes to the main results (Section 5 and Section 7.2), so the survey does not rely solely on the unproved Theorem 5.1. The inclusion of the GPS framework gives an independent path to the HTS dichotomy and counting results, which strengthens the survey's value. The proof sketches are generally consistent with the classical theory and convey the main ideas. The manuscript is clearly organized and will likely be useful to researchers entering the subject.

major comments (1)

[§6, displayed formula for d\tilde m] The measure defined as d\tilde m(w,z,t) := e^{-\delta_\varphi(\Gamma)\,\varphi(G(\xi(w),\xi(z)))} d\bar\mu(w)d\mu(z)ds(t) cannot be \Gamma_0-invariant given the relation displayed immediately above it. With the stated relation \varphi(G(AF_1,AF_2)) - \varphi(G(F_1,F_2)) = -\bar\sigma_\varphi(A,F_1) - \sigma_\varphi(A,F_2), the exponent should be +\delta_\varphi(\Gamma)\,\varphi(G(\xi(w),\xi(z))), not negative; as written, the measure transforms with an extra factor involving 2\delta(\bar\sigma_\varphi+\sigma_\varphi). This sign inconsistency also conflicts with Section 7.2, where the BMS measure is defined with e^{+\delta G} and Proposition 7.3 asserts that (\sigma_\varphi, \bar\sigma_\varphi, \varphi\circ G) is a GPS system. Please correct either the sign in the displayed relation or the sign in the measure; the current formula is not invariant and the proof sketch of Theorem 6.1 is therefore not self-consistent.

minor comments (6)

[§6, Theorems 6.1, 6.2, Corollary 6.3] The symbols Q_\varphi^\Gamma(\delta) are never defined. Judging from the surrounding text and the analogous statements in Sections 2 and 7, Q is evidently a typo for the φ-Poincaré series P_\varphi^\Gamma(\delta); please replace it in all three occurrences.
[§2, Theorem 2.7] In both bullets of Theorem 2.7 the notation P_\varphi^\Gamma(\delta) appears, but no φ has been defined in the Fuchsian setting; it should be the classical Poincaré series P_\Gamma(\delta).
[§6, Theorem 6.2] The notation ℓ_\varphi(\gamma) is used without definition. It apparently denotes the φ-length φ(ν_θ(\gamma)) (the Jordan projection analog), but this should be stated explicitly, especially since ℓ_σ is not introduced in this section.
[§6, displayed formula for d\tilde m] The displayed formula has a missing closing parenthesis in the exponential: e^{-\delta_\varphi(\Gamma)\,\varphi(G(\xi(w),\xi(z))} should read e^{-\delta_\varphi(\Gamma)\,\varphi(G(\xi(w),\xi(z)))}.
[§3] There is a typo: 'copact' should be 'compact' in the paragraph on convergence group actions.
[§6, Remark] In the remark following Corollary 6.3, 'Hichin' should be 'Hitchin'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the survey restates the authors' own published theorems with explicit citations, and the undefined Q symbol in Theorem 6.1 is a typo, not a circular step.

full rationale

This paper is an expository survey rather than a fresh derivation. Its central results—Theorem 5.1 (projective visibility), Theorem 6.1 (Hopf–Tsuji–Sullivan dichotomy), Theorem 6.2 (concavity), and the counting theorems in Section 7—are explicitly attributed to the authors' own prior work ([18], [19], [20], [7], [8]) and are not rederived in the survey. I checked for reductions of conclusions to inputs. The Patterson–Sullivan measure is defined by the standard quasi-invariance equation with the φ-critical exponent, and its existence (Theorem 4.1) is cited to [19, Prop. 3.2] with a proof sketch; the HTS dichotomy is stated in terms of divergence versus convergence of the φ-Poincaré series, which is an independent hypothesis, not the conclusion. Theorem 5.1 is load-bearing for the survey's flow-space construction, but it is explicitly cited to the published paper [19, Theorem 6.2], and the survey notes in Section 5 that 'Later work of Kim–Oh–Wang [41] and Blayac–Canary–Zhu–Zimmer [7, 8] give a way to bypass this tool,' so the main ergodicity and conical-density claims do not uniquely depend on that single self-citation. No parameter is fitted and renamed as a prediction, and no assumption includes the target conclusion. The undefined symbol Q in Theorem 6.1 and related statements is evidently a typo for the Poincaré series P, which is a presentational flaw, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The survey imports deep theorems (Theorem 5.1, Theorem 6.1, Theorem 7.2) from prior papers without proof; these are treated as unproved premises for the expository flow. No free parameters or invented entities appear.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Every Pθ-transverse group Γ admits a projectively visible model Γ0 ⊂ Aut(Ω) with a ρ-equivariant homeomorphism ξ: Λ_Ω(Γ0) → Λ_θ(Γ).
Theorem 5.1, cited from [19, Theorem 6.2], is the main tool; the Shadow Lemma and flow space are derived from it, but the survey does not prove it.
domain assumption The Hopf-Tsuji-Sullivan dichotomy for transverse groups (Theorem 6.1) holds.
Stated as a theorem but proved in [19]; the survey only sketches the Hopf argument.
domain assumption Pθ-transverse groups act as convergence groups on their limit sets, and non-elementary ones act minimally with perfect limit set.
Proposition 3.1, cited from [39] and [18], is used to define conical limit points and support the theory.
standard math Standard facts from classical Patterson-Sullivan theory for rank-1 groups (Sullivan's Shadow Lemma, Hopf-Tsuji-Sullivan dichotomy) are valid.
Used as a model and for comparison in Sections 2 and 3.
standard math Benoist's theorem on strict concavity of critical exponents for Zariski dense groups (Cor 6.3) is imported.
Used to conclude strict concavity from Theorem 6.2; cited from [3].

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Geometry and Dynamics of Transverse Groups." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FVR62KPG

@misc{pith2026250207271,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Geometry and Dynamics of Transverse Groups},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FVR62KPG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.07271}
}

read the original abstract

We survey recent work on the geometry and dynamics of transverse subgroups of semi-simple Lie groups.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 60 canonical work pages

[19]

Entropy rigidity for cusped Hitchin representations,

R. Canary, T. Zhang and A. Zimmer, “Entropy rigidity for cusped Hitchin representations,” preprint, arXiv:2201.04859

work page arXiv
[1]

Patterson-Sullivan theory in higher r ank symmetric spaces,

P. Albuquerque, “Patterson-Sullivan theory in higher r ank symmetric spaces,” G.A.F.A. 9(1999), 1–28

work page 1999
[2]

Geodesic ﬂows on closed Riemann manifolds with negative curvature,

D.V. Anosov, “ Geodesic ﬂows on closed Riemann manifolds with negative curvature,” Proc. Steklov Inst. Math. 90 (1967), 209 pp

work page 1967
[3]

Propri´ et´ es asymptotiques des groupes lin´ eaires,

Y. Benoist, “Propri´ et´ es asymptotiques des groupes lin´ eaires,”Geom. Funct. Anal. 7(1997), 1–47

work page 1997
[4]

Random walks on reductive gr oups,

Y. Benoist and J.-F. Quint, “Random walks on reductive gr oups,” Ergebnisse der Mathematik und ihrer Grenzgebiete

work page
[5]

62(2016), xi+323

Folge. 62(2016), xi+323

work page 2016
[6]

Hausdorﬀ dimension and Kleinian groups,

C. Bishop and P. Jones, “Hausdorﬀ dimension and Kleinian groups,” Acta Math. 179(1997), 1—39

work page 1997
[7]

Patterson--Sullivan densities in convex projective geometry

P.-L. Blayac, “Patterson–Sullivan densities in convex projective geometry,” Comm. Math. Helv. , to appear, arxiv:2106.08089

work page Pith review arXiv

Show all 66 references

[8]

Patterso n–Sullivan theory for coarse cocycles,

P.-L. Blayac, R. Canary, F. Zhu, and A. Zimmer, “Patterso n–Sullivan theory for coarse cocycles,” preprint, arXiv:2404.09713

arXiv
[9]

Counting , mixing and equidistribution for GPS systems with applications to relatively Anosov groups,

P.-L. Blayac, R. Canary, F. Zhu, and A. Zimmer, “Counting , mixing and equidistribution for GPS systems with applications to relatively Anosov groups,” preprint, arXi v:2404.09718

arXiv
[10]

Ergodicity and equidistributi on in Hilbert geometry,

P.-L. Blayac and F. Zhu, “Ergodicity and equidistributi on in Hilbert geometry,” J. Mod. Dyn. 19(2023), 879–94

2023
[11]

Anosov represent ations and dominated splittings,

J. Bochi, R. Potrie and A. Sambarino, “Anosov represent ations and dominated splittings,” J.E.M.S. 21(2019), 3343– 3414. GEOMETRY AND DYNAMICS OF TRANSVERSE GROUPS 23

2019
[12]

Convergence groups and conﬁguration spa ces,

B. Bowditch, “Convergence groups and conﬁguration spa ces,” in Geometric group theory down under (Canberra, 1996), de Gruyter, Berlin, 1999, 23–54

1996
[13]

The pressure metric for Anosov representations,

M. Bridgeman, R. Canary, F. Labourie, and A. Sambarino, “The pressure metric for Anosov representations,” Geom. Funct. Anal. 25(2015), 1089–1179

2015
[14]

The bottom of the spectrum of a Riemannian co vering,

R. Brooks, “The bottom of the spectrum of a Riemannian co vering,” Crelle’s Journal 357(1985), 101–114

1985
[15]

On the Laplacian and the geometry of hyperbo lic 3-manifolds,

R. Canary, “On the Laplacian and the geometry of hyperbo lic 3-manifolds,” J. Diﬀ. Geom. 36(1992), 349–367

1992
[16]

Marden’s Tameness Conjecture: history and applications,

R. Canary, “Marden’s Tameness Conjecture: history and applications,” in Geometry, Analysis and Topology of Discrete groups, ed. by L. Ji, K. Liu, L. Yang and S.T. Yau, Higher Education Pr ess, 2008, 137–162

2008
[17]

Amalgam Anos ov representations,

R. Canary, M. Lee, A. Sambarino, M. Stover “Amalgam Anos ov representations,” Geom. Top. 21(2017), 215–251

2017
[18]

Cusped Hitchin repre sentations and Anosov representations of geometrically ﬁnite Fuchsian groups,

R. Canary, T. Zhang and A. Zimmer, “Cusped Hitchin repre sentations and Anosov representations of geometrically ﬁnite Fuchsian groups,” Adv. Math. 404 (2022), 108439

2022
[20]

Patterson–Sullivan measures for transverse groups,

R. Canary, T. Zhang and A. Zimmer, “Patterson–Sullivan measures for transverse groups,” J. Mod. Dyn. 20(2024), 319–377

2024
[21]

Patterson–Sullivan measures for relatively Anosov groups,

R. Canary, T. Zhang and A. Zimmer, “Patterson–Sullivan measures for relatively Anosov groups,” preprint, arXiv:2308.04023

arXiv
[22]

Exponential mixing and essentia l spectral gaps for Anosov subgroups,

M. Chow and P. Sarkar, “Exponential mixing and essentia l spectral gaps for Anosov subgroups,” preprint, arXiv:2408.11274

arXiv
[23]

Growth gap in h yperbolic groups and amenability,

R. Coulon, F. Dal’bo, and A. Sambusetti, “Growth gap in h yperbolic groups and amenability,” G.A.F.A. 28 (2018), 1260–1320

2018
[24]

Twiste d Patterson-Sullivan measures and applications to amenabi l- ity and coverings,

R. Coulon, S. Dougall, B. Schapira and S. Tapie, “Twiste d Patterson-Sullivan measures and applications to amenabi l- ity and coverings,” Mem. A.M.S., to appear, arxiv:1809.108 81
[25]

S´ eries de Poinc ar´ e des groupes g´ eom´ etriquement ﬁnis,

F. Dal’bo, J.-P. Otal, and M. Peign´ e, “S´ eries de Poinc ar´ e des groupes g´ eom´ etriquement ﬁnis,”Israel J. Math. 118(2000), 109–124

2000
[26]

Convex cocom pact actions in real projective geometry,

J. Danciger, F. Gu´ eritaud and F. Kassel, “Convex cocom pact actions in real projective geometry,” preprint, arXiv:1704.08711

arXiv
[27]

Delarue, D

B. Delarue, D. Monclair, and A. Sanders, ” Locally homog eneous Axiom A ﬂows I: projective Anosov subgroups and exponential mixing,” preprint, arXiv:2403.14257

arXiv
[28]

Patterson-Sullivan theory for Anosov subgroups,

S. Dey and M. Kapovich, “Patterson-Sullivan theory for Anosov subgroups,” Trans. A.M.S. 375 (2022), 8687–8737

2022
[29]

Ahlfors regularity of Patters on-Sullivan measures of Anosov groups and applications,

S. Dey, D. Kim, and H. Oh, “Ahlfors regularity of Patters on-Sullivan measures of Anosov groups and applications,” preprint, arXiv:2401.12398
[30]

Anosov groups: local mixi ng, counting and equidistribution,

S. Edwards, M. Lee, and H. Oh, “Anosov groups: local mixi ng, counting and equidistribution,” Geom. Top. , 27(2)(2023), 513–573

2023
[31]

Moduli spaces of local system s and higher Teichm ¨uller theory,

V. Fock and A. Goncharov, “Moduli spaces of local system s and higher Teichm ¨uller theory,” Publ. Math. I.H.E.S. 103(2006), 1–211

2006
[32]

Hausdorﬀ dim ension of limit sets for projective Anosov representations ,

O. Glorieux, D. Monclair and N. Tholozan, “Hausdorﬀ dim ension of limit sets for projective Anosov representations ,” J. Ecole Poly. Math. 10(2023), 1157–1193

2023
[33]

Fundamental Polyhedra for Kleinian Gro ups,

L. Greenberg, “Fundamental Polyhedra for Kleinian Gro ups,” Ann. of Math. 84(1966), 433–441

1966
[34]

Anosov representations and proper actions,

F. Gu´ eritaud, O. Guichard, F. Kassel and A. Wienhard, “ Anosov representations and proper actions,” Geom. Top. 21(2017), 485–584

2017
[35]

Anosov representations: Domains of discontinuity and applications,

O. Guichard and A. Wienhard, “Anosov representations: Domains of discontinuity and applications,” Invent. Math. 190(2012), 357–438

2012
[36]

The dynamics of the geodesic ﬂow,

G. Hedlund, “The dynamics of the geodesic ﬂow,” Bull. A.M.S. 45(1939), 241–260

1939
[37]

Fuchsian groups and ergodic theory,

E. Hopf, “ Fuchsian groups and ergodic theory,” Trans. A.M.S. 39(1936), 299–314

1936
[38]

Zur analytischen Theorie hyperbolischer Ra umformen und Bewegungsgruppen,

H. Huber, “Zur analytischen Theorie hyperbolischer Ra umformen und Bewegungsgruppen,” Math. Ann. 138(1959), 1–26

1959
[39]

Relativizing characterizati ons of Anosov subgroups I,

M. Kapovich and B. Leeb, “Relativizing characterizati ons of Anosov subgroups I,” Groups, Geom. Dyn. 17(2023) 1005–1071

2023
[40]

Anosov subgroups: Dy namical and geometric characterizations,

M. Kapovich, B. Leeb and J. Porti, “Anosov subgroups: Dy namical and geometric characterizations,” Eur. Math. J. 3(2017), 808–898

2017
[41]

Relatively Anosov groups: ﬁniteness, measures of maximal entropy and reparameterization,

D. Kim and H. Oh, “Relatively Anosov groups: ﬁniteness, measures of maximal entropy and reparameterization,” preprint, arXiv:2404.09745

arXiv
[42]

Properly discontinuous acti ons, growth indicators and conformal measures for trans- verse subgroups,

D. Kim, H. Oh, and Y. W ang, “Properly discontinuous acti ons, growth indicators and conformal measures for trans- verse subgroups,” preprint, arXiv:2306.06846
[43]

Ergodic dichotomy for subspa ce ﬂows in higher rank,

D. Kim, H. Oh, and Y. W ang, “Ergodic dichotomy for subspa ce ﬂows in higher rank,” preprint, arXiv:2310.19976

arXiv
[44]

Anosov ﬂows, surface groups and curves in projective space,

F. Labourie, “Anosov ﬂows, surface groups and curves in projective space,” Invent. Math. 165(2006), 51–114

2006
[45]

Invariant measures for horospherical actions and Anosov groups,

M. Lee and H. Oh, “Invariant measures for horospherical actions and Anosov groups,” I.M.R.N. 2023(2023), 16226– 16925

2023
[46]

Dichotomy and measures on limit sets of Anosov groups,

M. Lee and H. Oh, “Dichotomy and measures on limit sets of Anosov groups,” I.M.R.N. 2024(2024), 5658–5688

2024
[47]

On the dimension of limit sets on P(R3) via stationary measures: the theory and applications,

J. Li, W. Pan and D. Xu, “On the dimension of limit sets on P(R3) via stationary measures: the theory and applications,” preprint, arXiv:2311.10265. 24 CANARY, ZHANG, AND ZIMMER

arXiv
[48]

Ergodicity of generalised Patterson-Sulliv an measures in higher rank symmetric spaces,

G. Link, “Ergodicity of generalised Patterson-Sulliv an measures in higher rank symmetric spaces,” Math. Z. 254(2006), 611–625

2006
[49]

Applications of ergodic theory to the inv estigation of manifolds with negative curvature,

G. Margulis, “Applications of ergodic theory to the inv estigation of manifolds with negative curvature,” Funct. Anal. Appl. 3(1969), 335–336

1969
[50]

Some examples of Fuchsian groups,

S. Patterson, “Some examples of Fuchsian groups,” Proc. L.M.S. 39(1979), 275–298

1979
[51]

The limit set of a Fuchsian group,

S. Patterson, “The limit set of a Fuchsian group,” Acta Math. 136(1976), 241–273

1976
[52]

Eigenvalues and entropy of a Hitchin representation,

R. Potrie and A. Sambarino, “Eigenvalues and entropy of a Hitchin representation,” Invent. Math. 209(2017), 885–925

2017
[53]

Conformali ty for a robust class of non-conformal attractors,

M. Pozzetti, A. Sambarino and A. Wienhard, “Conformali ty for a robust class of non-conformal attractors,” J. Reine Angew. Math 74(2021), 1–51

2021
[54]

Mesures de Patterson–Sullivan en rang su p´ erieur,

J.-F. Quint, “Mesures de Patterson–Sullivan en rang su p´ erieur,”G.A.F.A 12(2002), 776–809

2002
[55]

Ergodicit´ e et ´ equidistribution en courbure n´ egative,

T. Roblin, “Ergodicit´ e et ´ equidistribution en courbure n´ egative,”Mem. Soc. Math. Fr. No. 95 (2003)

2003
[56]

Quantitative properties of convex repr esentations,

A. Sambarino, “Quantitative properties of convex repr esentations,” Comm. Math. Helv. 89(2014) 443–488

2014
[57]

The orbital counting problem for hyperc onvex representations,

A. Sambarino, “The orbital counting problem for hyperc onvex representations,” Ann. Inst. Fourier 65(2015), 1755– 1797

2015
[58]

A report on an ergodic dichotomy,

A. Sambarino, “A report on an ergodic dichotomy,” Erg. Thy. Dyn. Sys. 44(2023) 1–54

2023
[59]

The density at inﬁnity of a discrete group of hyperbolic motions,

D. Sullivan, “The density at inﬁnity of a discrete group of hyperbolic motions,” Publ. Math. I.H.E.S. 50(1979) 171–202

1979
[60]

Entropy, Hausdorﬀ measures old and new, a nd limit sets of geometrically ﬁnite Kleinian groups,

D. Sullivan, “Entropy, Hausdorﬀ measures old and new, a nd limit sets of geometrically ﬁnite Kleinian groups,” Acta Math. 153 (1984), 259–277

1984
[61]

Conical limit points and uniform convergenc e groups,

P. Tukia, “Conical limit points and uniform convergenc e groups,” J. Reine Angew. Math. 501(1998), 71–98

1998
[62]

A topological characterisation of relative ly hyperbolic groups,

A. Yaman, “A topological characterisation of relative ly hyperbolic groups,” J. Reine Angew. Math. 566(2004), 41–89

2004
[63]

Relatively dominated representations,

F. Zhu, “Relatively dominated representations,” Ann. Inst. Fourier 71(2021), 2169–2235

2021
[64]

Relatively Anosov representatio ns via ﬂows I: theory,

F. Zhu and A. Zimmer, “Relatively Anosov representatio ns via ﬂows I: theory,” preprint, arXiv:2207.14737

arXiv
[65]

Relatively Anosov representatio ns via ﬂows II: examples,

F. Zhu and A. Zimmer, “Relatively Anosov representatio ns via ﬂows II: examples,” Jour. L.M.S. 109(2024), 61 pages

2024
[66]

Projective Anosov representations, conve x cocompact actions, and rigidity,

A. Zimmer, “Projective Anosov representations, conve x cocompact actions, and rigidity,” J. Diﬀ. Geom. 119(2021), 513–586. University of Michigan National University of Singapore University of Wisconsin-Madison

2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [19]

Entropy rigidity for cusped Hitchin representations,

R. Canary, T. Zhang and A. Zimmer, “Entropy rigidity for cusped Hitchin representations,” preprint, arXiv:2201.04859

work page arXiv

[2] [1]

Patterson-Sullivan theory in higher r ank symmetric spaces,

P. Albuquerque, “Patterson-Sullivan theory in higher r ank symmetric spaces,” G.A.F.A. 9(1999), 1–28

work page 1999

[3] [2]

Geodesic ﬂows on closed Riemann manifolds with negative curvature,

D.V. Anosov, “ Geodesic ﬂows on closed Riemann manifolds with negative curvature,” Proc. Steklov Inst. Math. 90 (1967), 209 pp

work page 1967

[4] [3]

Propri´ et´ es asymptotiques des groupes lin´ eaires,

Y. Benoist, “Propri´ et´ es asymptotiques des groupes lin´ eaires,”Geom. Funct. Anal. 7(1997), 1–47

work page 1997

[5] [4]

Random walks on reductive gr oups,

Y. Benoist and J.-F. Quint, “Random walks on reductive gr oups,” Ergebnisse der Mathematik und ihrer Grenzgebiete

work page

[6] [5]

62(2016), xi+323

Folge. 62(2016), xi+323

work page 2016

[7] [6]

Hausdorﬀ dimension and Kleinian groups,

C. Bishop and P. Jones, “Hausdorﬀ dimension and Kleinian groups,” Acta Math. 179(1997), 1—39

work page 1997

[8] [7]

Patterson--Sullivan densities in convex projective geometry

P.-L. Blayac, “Patterson–Sullivan densities in convex projective geometry,” Comm. Math. Helv. , to appear, arxiv:2106.08089

work page Pith review arXiv