arXiv:1701.09136v3 [math.GT] 28 Sep 2017

CONVEX COCOMPACTNESS IN PSEUDO-RIEMANNIAN
HYPERBOLIC SPACES
JEFFREY DANCIGER, FRANÇOIS GUÉRITAUD, AND FANNY KASSEL
To Bill Goldman on his 60th birthday

Abstract. Anosov representations of word hyperbolic groups into
higher-rank semisimple Lie groups are representations with finite kernel
and discrete image that have strong analogies with convex cocompact
representations into rank-one Lie groups. However, the most naive analogy fails: generically, Anosov representations do not act properly and
cocompactly on a convex set in the associated Riemannian symmetric
space. We study representations into projective indefinite orthogonal
groups PO(p, q) by considering their action on the associated pseudoRiemannian hyperbolic space Hp,q−1 in place of the Riemannian symmetric space. Following work of Barbot and Mérigot in anti-de Sitter
geometry, we find an intimate connection between Anosov representations and a natural notion of convex cocompactness in this setting.

1. Introduction
Convex cocompact subgroups of rank-one semisimple Lie groups are an important class of discrete groups whose actions on the associated Riemannian
symmetric space (and its visual boundary at infinity) exhibit many desirable geometric and dynamical properties. Their study has been particularly
important in the setting of Kleinian groups and hyperbolic geometry. This
paper studies a generalized notion of convex cocompactness in the higherrank setting of projective indefinite orthogonal groups PO(p, q), described
in terms of the action on the projective space P(Rp,q ) and on the associated pseudo-Riemannian hyperbolic space Hp,q−1 . Our forthcoming papers
[DGK2, DGK3] will extend many of these ideas to the setting of discrete
subgroups of the projective general linear group PGL(Rn ) which do not necessarily preserve any nonzero quadratic form.
J.D. was partially supported by an Alfred P. Sloan Foundation fellowship and by the
National Science Foundation grant DMS 1510254. F.G. and F.K. were partially supported
by the Agence Nationale de la Recherche through the Labex CEMPI (ANR-11-LABX0007-01). F.K. was partially supported by the European Research Council under ERC
Starting Grant 715982 (DiGGeS). The authors also acknowledge support from the GEAR
Network, funded by the National Science Foundation grants DMS 1107452, 1107263, and
1107367 (“RNMS: GEometric structures And Representation varieties").
1

2

JEFFREY DANCIGER, FRANÇOIS GUÉRITAUD, AND FANNY KASSEL

1.1. Convex cocompactness in projective orthogonal groups. In the
whole paper, we fix integers p, q ≥ 1 and let G = PO(p, q) be the orthogonal
group, modulo its center {±I}, of a nondegenerate symmetric bilinear form
h·, ·ip,q of signature (p, q) on Rp+q . We denote by Rp,q the space Rp+q endowed with the symmetric bilinear form h·, ·ip,q . For any linear subspace W
of Rp,q , we denote by W ⊥ the orthogonal of W for h·, ·ip,q . We use similar
notation in P(Rp,q ): in particular, for z ∈ P(Rp,q ) the set z ⊥ is a projective
hyperplane of P(Rp,q ), which contains z if and only if hz, zip,q = 0.
When q = 1, the group G is the group of isometries of the real hyperbolic
space

Hp = [x] ∈ P(Rp,1 ) | hx, xip,1 < 0 ,
which is also the Riemannian symmetric space G/K associated with G. Recall that a discrete subgroup Γ of G = PO(p, 1) is said to be convex cocompact if it acts cocompactly on some nonempty closed convex subset C
of Hp . Note that since Γ is discrete and Hp is Riemannian, the action is automatically properly discontinuous, and so the quotient Γ\C is a hyperbolic
orbifold, or a manifold if the action is free, with convex boundary. Basic
examples of convex cocompact subgroups include uniform lattices of G and
Schottky subgroups of G. In the case p = 3, for which the accidental isomorphism PO(3, 1)0 ' PSL2 (C) makes G a complex group, the realm of
Kleinian groups gives an abundance of interesting examples coming both
from complex analysis à la Ahlfors and Bers and from 3-manifold topology
and Thurston’s geometrization program. Notable are the quasi-Fuchsian
groups (isomorphic to closed surface groups) which are deformations of Fuchsian subgroups of PO(2, 1) ⊂ PO(3, 1).
Assume that G = PO(p, q) has real rank ≥ 2, i.e. min(p, q) ≥ 2, and let
K = P(O(p) × O(q)) be a maximal compact subgroup of G. The group G
is the isometry group of the Riemannian symmetric space G/K, and it is
natural to study the discrete subgroups Γ of G that act cocompactly on some
convex subset of G/K. This naive generalization of convex cocompactness
turns out to be quite restrictive due to the following general result proved
independently by Kleiner–Leeb [KL] and Quint [Q].
Fact 1.1 ([KL, Q]). Let G be a real semisimple Lie group of real rank ≥ 2 and
K a maximal compact subgroup of G. Any Zariski-dense discrete subgroup
of G acting cocompactly on some nonempty closed convex subset C of the
Riemannian symmetric space G/K is a uniform lattice in G.
In this paper, we propose instead a notion of convex cocompactness in
G = PO(p, q) in terms of the action on the real projective space P(Rp,q ), and
in particular on the invariant open domain

Hp,q−1 = [x] ∈ P(Rp,q ) | hx, xip,q < 0 ' G/O(p, q − 1)
which is the projective model for a pseudo-Riemannian symmetric space
associated to G. Indeed, Hp,q−1 has a natural pseudo-Riemannian structure
of signature (p, q − 1) with isometry group G, induced by the symmetric

CONVEX COCOMPACTNESS IN PSEUDO-RIEMANNIAN HYPERBOLIC SPACES

3

bilinear form h·, ·ip,q (see Section 2.1). Geodesics of Hp,q−1 are intersections
of Hp,q−1 with straight lines of P(Rp,q ). For q = 1, the space Hp,q−1 is the
real hyperbolic space Hp , in its projective model. In general, Hp,q−1 is a
pseudo-Riemannian analogue of Hp of signature (p, q − 1), with constant
negative sectional curvature.
Recall that a subset of projective space is said to be convex if it is contained
and convex in some affine chart; in other words, any two points of the subset
are connected inside the subset by a unique projective segment. A subset of
projective space is said to be properly convex if its closure is convex. Unlike
real hyperbolic space, for q > 1 the space Hp,q−1 is not a convex subset of
the projective space P(Rp,q ), and the basic operation of taking convex hulls
is not well defined. Nonetheless, the notion of convexity in Hp,q−1 makes
sense: we shall say that a subset C of Hp,q−1 is convex if it is convex as a
subset of P(Rp,q ) or, from an intrinsic point of view, if any two points of C
are connected inside C by a unique segment which is geodesic for the pseudoRiemannian structure. We shall say that C is properly convex if its closure
in P(Rp,q ) is convex.
For q = 2, the Lorentzian space Hp,q−1 is the (p + 1)-dimensional anti-de
Sitter space AdSp+1 , where a notion of AdS quasi-Fuchsian group has been
studied by Mess [Me] (for p = 2) and Barbot–Mérigot [BM, Ba] (for p ≥ 3).
Inspired by this notion, we make the following definition.
Definition 1.2. A discrete subgroup Γ of G = PO(p, q) is Hp,q−1 -convex cocompact if it acts properly discontinuously and cocompactly on some properly convex closed subset C of Hp,q−1 with nonempty interior whose ideal
boundary ∂i C := C r C does not contain any nontrivial projective segment.
Here C denotes the closure of C in P(Rp,q ). We note that an Hp,q−1 -convex
cocompact group is always finitely generated.
Remark 1.3. We shall say that a subgroup Γ of G = PO(p, q) is irreducible
if it does not preserve any projective subspace of P(Rp,q ) of positive codimension. In that case, any nonempty Γ-invariant convex subset of P(Rp,q )
has nonempty interior, and so “C with nonempty interior” may be replaced
by “C nonempty” in Definition 1.2.
Note that a discrete subgroup Γ of PO(p, q) need not act properly discontinuously on Hp,q−1 , since the stabilizer O(p, q − 1) of a point is noncompact.
When Γ preserves a properly convex subset C ⊂ Hp,q−1 , the action on the
interior of C is always properly discontinuous (see Section 2.3), but the action on the whole of C need not be. The requirement of proper discontinuity
in Definition 1.2 guarantees that the accumulation points of any Γ-orbit are
contained in the ideal boundary ∂i C. Since C is assumed to be closed in
Hp,q−1 , the set ∂i C is contained in the boundary

∂P Hp,q−1 := [x] ∈ P(Rp,q ) | hx, xip,q = 0

4

JEFFREY DANCIGER, FRANÇOIS GUÉRITAUD, AND FANNY KASSEL

of Hp,q−1 . The condition that ∂i C not contain any nontrivial projective
segment is equivalent to the condition that ∂i C be transverse, i.e. y ∈
/ z ⊥ for
all y 6= z in ∂i C.
Remark 1.4. When Γ is a discrete subgroup of PO(p, q) which is not irreducible, it is possible that Γ act properly discontinuously and cocompactly
on some closed convex subset C of Hp,q−1 with nonempty interior but that
∂i C contain nontrivial projective segments, as the following example shows.
It is not clear whether this is possible for irreducible Γ.
Example 1.5. Let γ be an element of PO(p, q) whose top eigenvalue λ > 1
has multiplicity larger than one. The cyclic group Γ = hγi acts properly discontinuously and cocompactly on a closed convex neighborhood C in Hp,q−1
of a line connecting two points of ∂P Hp,q−1 corresponding to eigenvectors of
eigenvalue λ and λ−1 respectively. However, the ideal boundary ∂i C must
contain a nontrivial segment of the projectivization of the highest eigenspace.
Thus Γ is not Hp,q−1 -convex cocompact in the sense of Definition 1.2.
It is well known that (unlike in Example 1.5) an irreducible discrete subgroup Γ of PGL(Rn ) preserving a nonempty properly convex subset C of
P(Rn ) always contains a proximal element, i.e. an element γ with a unique
attracting fixed point in P(Rn ) (see [B2, Prop. 3.1]). We shall call proximal
limit set of Γ in P(Rn ) the closure ΛΓ ⊂ P(Rn ) of the set of attracting fixed
points of proximal elements of Γ (Definition 2.3). If the action of Γ on C is
properly discontinuous, then the proximal limit set ΛΓ is contained in the
ideal boundary ∂i C: indeed, for any proximal element γ ∈ Γ and any point
y in the interior of C, the sequence (γ m · y)m∈N converges to the attracting
fixed point of γ in P(Rn ), which belongs to ∂i C since the action is properly
discontinuous. For Γ and C as in Definition 1.2, we shall see (Theorem 1.7)
that in fact ΛΓ = ∂i C.
Remark 1.6. The boundary ∂P Hp,q−1 divides P(Rp,q ) into two connected
components. One component is Hp,q−1 and the other is
Sp−1,q = {[x] ∈ P(Rp,q ) | hx, xip,q > 0},
which inherits from h·, ·ip,q a pseudo-Riemannian metric of positive curvature. However, multiplication by −1 transforms h·, ·ip,q into a form of signature (q, p), and Sp−1,q into the copy of Hq,p−1 defined by −h·, ·ip,q . Rather
than study two very similar notions of convex cocompactness in pseudoRiemannian hyperbolic spaces Hp,q−1 and pseudo-Riemannian “spheres”
Sp−1,q , we will use the isomorphism PO(h·, ·ip,q ) = PO(−h·, ·ip,q ) ' PO(q, p)
to exchange Sp−1,q with Hq,p−1 when convenient.
1.2. Goals of the paper. There are three main goals. First, we show that
the notion of convex cocompactness introduced above is closely related to the
notion of Anosov representation — a notion that has become fundamental in
the study of higher Teichmüller theory. Second, we show that in the setting
of discrete irreducible subgroups of PO(p, q), our notion of Hp,q−1 -convex

CONVEX COCOMPACTNESS IN PSEUDO-RIEMANNIAN HYPERBOLIC SPACES

5

cocompactness is equivalent to a notion of strong convex cocompactness in
P(Rn ) introduced by Crampon–Marquis [CM], for n = p + q. Third, we show
that a natural construction of Coxeter groups in projective orthogonal groups
going back to Tits gives rise to many examples of Hp,q−1 -convex cocompact
groups, hence to many new examples of Anosov representations into PO(p, q)
and of strongly convex cocompact groups in P(Rp+q ).
1.3. Link with Anosov representations. The main result that we establish in this paper is a close connection between convex cocompactness in
Hp,q−1 ⊂ P(Rp+q ) and Anosov representations.
Anosov representations of word hyperbolic groups into real semisimple Lie
groups are representations with finite kernel and discrete image, defined by
the dynamics of their action on some flag varieties. They were introduced by
Labourie [L] for fundamental groups of compact negatively-curved manifolds,
and generalized for arbitrary word hyperbolic groups by Guichard–Wienhard
[GW]. They have been extensively studied recently by many authors (see e.g.
[BCLS, KLPb, GGKW, BPS] to just name a few) and now play a crucial role
in higher Teichmüller theory (see e.g. [BIW2]); they share many dynamical
properties with classical convex cocompact subgroups of rank-one simple Lie
groups (see in particular [L, GW, KLPa, KLPb]).
Let P1p,q be the stabilizer in G = PO(p, q) of an isotropic line of Rp,q ;
it is a parabolic subgroup of G, and G/P1p,q identifies with the boundary
∂P Hp,q−1 of Hp,q−1 . By definition, a P1p,q -Anosov representation of a word
hyperbolic group Γ into G is a representation ρ : Γ → G for which there
exists a continuous, ρ-equivariant boundary map ξ : ∂∞ Γ → ∂P Hp,q−1 which
(i) is transverse (a strengthening of injectivity), meaning that ξ(η) ∈
/
0
⊥
0
ξ(η ) for any η 6= η in ∂∞ Γ,
(ii) has an associated flow with some uniform contraction/expansion properties described in [L, GW].
Here ∂∞ Γ denotes the Gromov boundary of Γ. A consequence of (ii) is that
ξ is dynamics-preserving: for any infinite-order element γ ∈ Γ, the element
ρ(γ) ∈ G is proximal in ∂P Hp,q−1 , and ξ sends the attracting fixed point of
γ in ∂∞ Γ to the attracting fixed point of ρ(γ) in ∂P Hp,q−1 . In particular, by
a density argument, the continuous map ξ is unique, and the image ξ(∂∞ Γ)
is the proximal limit set Λρ(Γ) of ρ(Γ) in ∂P Hp,q−1 (Definition 2.3 and Remark 2.4). By [GW, Prop. 4.10], if ρ(Γ) is irreducible, then condition (ii) is
automatically satisfied as soon as (i) is. If Γ is finite, then ∂∞ Γ is empty and
any representation ρ : Γ → G is P1p,q -Anosov.
In real rank 1, it is easy to see [GW, Th. 5.15] that a discrete subgroup
Γ of G = PO(p, 1) is convex cocompact if and only if Γ is word hyperbolic
and the natural inclusion Γ ,→ G is P1p,1 -Anosov. In this paper, we prove
the following generalization to higher real rank.
Theorem 1.7. For p, q ∈ N∗ , let Γ be an irreducible discrete subgroup of
G = PO(p, q).

6

JEFFREY DANCIGER, FRANÇOIS GUÉRITAUD, AND FANNY KASSEL

(1) If Γ is Hp,q−1 -convex cocompact, then it is word hyperbolic and the natural inclusion Γ ,→ G is P1p,q -Anosov.
(2) Conversely, if Γ is word hyperbolic with connected boundary ∂∞ Γ and if
the natural inclusion Γ ,→ G is P1p,q -Anosov, then Γ is Hp,q−1 -convex
cocompact or Hq,p−1 -convex cocompact (after identifying PO(p, q) with
PO(q, p), see Remark 1.6).
If these conditions are satisfied, then for any nonempty properly convex closed
subset C of Hp,q−1 on which Γ acts properly discontinuously and cocompactly,
the ideal boundary ∂i C is the proximal limit set ΛΓ ⊂ ∂P Hp,q−1 .
Remark 1.8. The special case when q = 2 and Γ is the fundamental group
of a closed hyperbolic p-manifold follows from work of Mess [Me] for p = 2
and work of Barbot–Mérigot [BM] for p ≥ 3. In that case, if Ωmax denotes a maximal Γ-invariant properly convex open subset of P(Rp,q ) (see
Proposition 3.7), then the manifold Γ\Ωmax is a GHMC spacetime (globally
hyperbolic maximal Cauchy-compact) [BM, Th. 4.3 & Prop. 4.5]. We refer
to [DGK2, § 11] for further discussion of global hyperbolicity when q = 2.
1.4. Anosov representations with negative or positive limit set. We
may replace the connectedness assumption of Theorem 1.7.(2) with the following simple consistency condition on the image of the boundary map.
Definition 1.9. A subset Λ of ∂P Hp,q−1 is negative (resp. positive) if it lifts to
a cone of Rp,q r {0} on which all inner products h·, ·ip,q of noncollinear points
are negative (resp. positive). Equivalently (Lemma 3.2 and Remark 3.4.(1)),
every triple of distinct points of Λ spans a triangle fully contained in Hp,q−1
(resp. Sp−1,q ) outside of the vertices.
By a cone we mean a subset of Rp,q r {0} which is invariant under multiplication by positive scalars. Recall from Remark 1.6 that Hp,q−1 and Sp−1,q
are the two connected components of P(Rp,q ) r ∂P Hp,q−1 . In the Lorentzian
setting (i.e. q = 2), a negative subset of ∂P Hp,q−1 is also called an acausal
subset.
Since the connectedness of Λ implies the connectedness of the set of unordered distinct triples of Λ (Fact A.1), the following holds (see Section 3.2).
Proposition 1.10. If a closed subset Λ of ∂P Hp,q−1 is connected and transverse, then it is negative or positive.
As above, we say that Λ is transverse if for any y 6= z in Λ we have y ∈
/ z⊥.
Theorem 1.7 is an immediate consequence of Proposition 1.10 and of the
following, which is the main result of the paper.
Theorem 1.11. For any p, q ∈ N∗ and any irreducible discrete subgroup Γ
of G = PO(p, q), the following two conditions are equivalent:
(i) Γ is Hp,q−1 -convex cocompact,
(ii) Γ is word hyperbolic, the natural inclusion Γ ,→ G is P1p,q -Anosov, and
the proximal limit set ΛΓ ⊂ ∂P Hp,q−1 is negative.

CONVEX COCOMPACTNESS IN PSEUDO-RIEMANNIAN HYPERBOLIC SPACES

7

Similarly, the following two conditions are equivalent:
(iii) Γ is Hq,p−1 -convex cocompact (after identifying PO(p, q) with PO(q, p)),
(iv) Γ is word hyperbolic, the natural inclusion Γ ,→ G is P1p,q -Anosov, and
the proximal limit set ΛΓ ⊂ ∂P Hp,q−1 is positive.
If (i) (resp. (iii)) holds, then for any nonempty properly convex closed subset C of Hp,q−1 (resp. Hq,p−1 ) on which Γ acts properly discontinuously and
cocompactly, the ideal boundary ∂i C is the proximal limit set ΛΓ ⊂ ∂P Hp,q−1 .
By [L, GW], the space of P1p,q -Anosov representations is open in Hom(Γ, G).
In fact, the space of P1p,q -Anosov representations with negative proximal
limit set is also open (Proposition 3.5). Moreover, the space of irreducible
representations is open. Therefore Theorem 1.11 implies the following.
Corollary 1.12. For any p, q ∈ N∗ and any finitely generated group Γ, the
set of irreducible injective representations Γ → G = PO(p, q) whose image is
Hp,q−1 -convex cocompact is open in Hom(Γ, G).
Remark 1.13. In the special case when p ≥ q = 2 (i.e. Hp,q−1 is the
Lorentzian anti-de Sitter space Hp,1 = AdSp+1 ) and Γ is isomorphic to the
fundamental group of a closed, negatively-curved Riemannian p-manifold,
the following strengthening of Theorem 1.11 holds by work of Barbot [Ba]:
Γ is Hp,1 -convex cocompact if and only if its proximal limit set ΛΓ is a topological (p − 1)-sphere which is negative (Definition 1.9), if and only if ΛΓ
is a topological (p − 1)-sphere which is nonpositive (i.e. it lifts to a cone
of Rp,2 r {0} on which h·, ·ip,2 is nonpositive); this property is called GHregularity [Ba, § 1.3]. Using this, Barbot shows that the space of P1p,2 -Anosov
representations of Γ into G = PO(p, 2) is not only open but also closed
in Hom(Γ, G), hence it is a union of connected components of Hom(Γ, G)
[Ba, Th. 1.2]. This becomes false when Γ has virtual cohomological dimension < p: for instance, when Γ is a finitely generated free group the space
Hom(Γ, PO(p, q)0 ) is connected but contains both Anosov and non-Anosov
representations.
Remark 1.14. For rankR (G) := min(p, q) ≥ 2, there are examples of irreducible P1p,q -Anosov representations ρ : Γ → G = PO(p, q) for which the
proximal limit set Λρ(Γ) ⊂ ∂P Hp,q−1 is neither negative nor positive: see
Section 5.2. By Theorem 1.11 the group ρ(Γ) is neither Hp,q−1 -convex cocompact nor Hq,p−1 -convex cocompact in this case. In such examples ∂∞ Γ
is always disconnected. Thus one cannot remove the connectedness assumption in Theorem 1.7.(2). This subtlety should be kept in mind when reading
[BM, § 8.2].
Remark 1.15. The irreducibility assumption in this paper makes properly
discontinuous actions on properly convex sets more tractable (see Fact 2.8
below) and the notion of Anosov representation simpler (condition (ii) of
Section 1.3 is automatically satisfied). However, Theorems 1.7 and 1.11 and
Corollary 1.12 hold even when Γ is not irreducible, as we shall prove in [DGK2].

8

JEFFREY DANCIGER, FRANÇOIS GUÉRITAUD, AND FANNY KASSEL

1.5. Link with strong projective convex cocompactness. Let n ≥ 2.
A properly convex open subset Ω of P(Rn ) is said to be strictly convex if
its boundary does not contain any nontrivial segment. It is said to have C 1
boundary if every point of the boundary of Ω has a unique supporting hyperplane. In [CM], Crampon–Marquis introduced a notion of geometrically
finite subgroup Γ of PGL(Rn ), requiring Γ to preserve and act with various
nice properties on a strictly convex open subset of P(Rn ) with C 1 boundary.
If cusps are not allowed, the notion reduces to a natural notion of convex cocompactness. We will refer to this notion as strong convex cocompactness to
distinguish it from Definition 1.2 and from a more general notion of convex
cocompactness that we study in [DGK2].
Definition 1.16 ([CM]). A discrete subgroup Γ of PGL(Rn ) is strongly
convex cocompact in P(Rn ) if it preserves a nonempty strictly convex open
subset Ω of P(Rn ) with C 1 boundary and if the convex hull of the orbital
limit set Λorb
Ω (Γ) in Ω has compact quotient by Γ.
Here we call orbital limit set the set Λorb
Ω (Γ) of accumulation points in ∂P Ω
of a Γ-orbit of Ω; it does not depend on the orbit since Ω is strictly convex
(Lemma 2.10). For strongly convex cocompact groups, this set coincides
with the proximal limit set ΛΓ (Lemma 2.11). When Γ is finite, Λorb
Ω (Γ) = ∅.
In the setting of Definition 1.16, the action of Γ on Ω is automatically
properly discontinuous (see Section 2.3), and so for torsion-free Γ the quotient Γ\Ω is a real projective manifold. The image in Γ\Ω of the convex
hull of Λorb
Ω (Γ) in Ω is a compact convex core for this manifold. Such convex
cocompact real projective manifolds Γ\Ω provide a natural generalization of
the compact real projective manifolds which have been classified by Goldman [Go] in dimension 2 and investigated by Benoist [B3, B4, B5, B6] in
higher dimension.
We make the following link between Definitions 1.2 and 1.16.
Proposition 1.17. Let p, q ∈ N∗ and let Γ be an irreducible discrete subgroup
of G = PO(p, q).
(1) If Γ is Hp,q−1 -convex cocompact, then it is strongly convex cocompact
in P(Rp+q ). Moreover, the set Ω of Definition 1.16 may be taken to be
contained in Hp,q−1 .
(2) Conversely, if Γ is strongly convex cocompact in P(Rp+q ), then it is
Hp,q−1 -convex cocompact or Hq,p−1 -convex cocompact (after identifying
PO(p, q) with PO(q, p)).
The following observation is an easy consequence of the definitions. We
refer to [GW] for the notion of P1 -Anosov representation into PGL(Rn ),
sometimes also known as projective Anosov representation.
Fact 1.18 ([GW, Th. 4.3]). Let p, q ∈ N∗ with p + q = n. A representation
with values in PO(p, q) is P1p,q -Anosov if and only if it is P1 -Anosov as a
representation into PGL(Rn ), where P1 is the stabilizer of a line of Rn .

CONVEX COCOMPACTNESS IN PSEUDO-RIEMANNIAN HYPERBOLIC SPACES

9

Therefore, Theorems 1.7 and 1.11 and Proposition 1.17 give an intimate
relationship between P1 -Anosov representations into PGL(Rn ) and discrete
subgroups of PGL(Rn ) which are strongly convex cocompact in P(Rn ), in
the context where there is an invariant quadratic form on Rn . In [DGK2],
we shall generalize this relationship to the setting of subgroups of PGL(Rn )
which do not necessarily preserve any quadratic form: indeed, the arguments
in the proofs of Theorems 1.7 and 1.11 take place in projective geometry,
and with some work we will be able to remove the use of the quadratic form.
1.6. Examples of Hp,q−1 -convex cocompact subgroups coming from
Anosov representations. Theorems 1.7 and 1.11 imply that many wellknown examples of Anosov representations yield Hp,q−1 -convex cocompact
groups. In Section 7 we describe examples, generalizing quasi-Fuchsian representations, that come from deformations of a convex cocompact subgroup
of a rank-one Lie subgroup H of G. These include certain maximal representations of surface groups and Hitchin representations. Applying Proposition 1.17, all of these examples are new examples of discrete subgroups of
PGL(Rn ) which are strongly convex cocompact in P(Rn ).
Here is a sample result from Section 7.2.
Proposition 1.19. Let Γ be the fundamental group of a closed orientable
hyperbolic surface, and let m ≥ 1 and ` ∈ {m, m + 1}.
If m is odd (resp. even), then the group ρ(Γ) is Hm+1,`−1 -convex cocompact
(resp. H`,m -convex cocompact) for any irreducible representation ρ in the
Hitchin component of Hom(Γ, PO(m + 1, `)).
The result is true also for nonirreducible representations: see [DGK2].
1.7. New examples of Anosov representations. Conversely, Theorem 1.7
also enables us to give new examples of Anosov representations into higherrank semisimple Lie groups. While Anosov representations of free groups
and surface groups are abundant in the literature, the same is not true for
Anosov representations of more complicated hyperbolic groups outside the
realm of Kleinian groups. We show that certain natural and explicit representations of hyperbolic right-angled Coxeter groups, namely deformations of
the Tits canonical representation studied by Krammer [Kr] and others (see
e.g. Dyer–Hohlweg–Ripoll [DHR]), are Hp,q−1 -convex cocompact for some
appropriate pair (p, q); therefore, by Theorem 1.7, they are P1p,q -Anosov.
Theorem 1.20. Let W be an infinite word hyperbolic right-angled Coxeter
group in n generators. Then W admits a P1p,q -Anosov representation into
PO(p, q) for some p, q ∈ N∗ with p + q = n. Composing with the inclusion
PO(p, q) ,→ PGL(Rn ) gives a P1 -Anosov representation of W into PGL(Rn )
(Fact 1.18).
The class of infinite hyperbolic right-angled Coxeter groups is quite large.
It includes groups of arbitrarily large virtual cohomological dimension [JS,
H, O], which can have exotic Gromov boundaries such as the Menger curve,

10

JEFFREY DANCIGER, FRANÇOIS GUÉRITAUD, AND FANNY KASSEL

Pontryagin surfaces, Menger compacta, or the Sierpiński carpet [Be, D1, D2,
Sw].
Theorem 1.20 also provides (by restriction to a subgroup or induction to a
finite-index overgroup) Anosov representations for all groups commensurable
to hyperbolic right-angled Coxeter groups, as well as for all their quasiisometrically embedded subgroups.
1.8. Organization of the paper. In Section 2 we recall some well-known
facts about the space Hp,q−1 and properly convex domains in projective
space. In Section 3 we give a characterization of negative subsets of ∂P Hp,q−1 ,
from which we deduce Proposition 1.10 and Corollary 1.12, and we establish
some general properties of properly convex domains of P(Rp,q ) preserved by
discrete subgroups of PO(p, q). Sections 4 and 5 are devoted to the proofs
of implications (i) ⇒ (ii) and (ii) ⇒ (i) of Theorem 1.11, respectively. In
Section 6 we prove Proposition 1.17, which makes the link between our notion of Hp,q−1 -convex cocompactness and strong convex cocompactness in
P(Rp+q ) (Definition 1.16). In Section 7 we give examples of Hp,q−1 -convex
cocompact representations coming from well-known families of Anosov representations. Finally, in Section 8 we construct Hp,q−1 -convex cocompact
right-angled Coxeter groups and prove Theorem 1.20. In Appendix A we
provide a proof of a (surely well known) basic result in point-set topology.
Acknowledgements. We are grateful to Yves Benoist and Anna Wienhard
for motivating comments and questions, and for their encouragement. We
also thank Vivien Ripoll for interesting discussions on limit sets of Coxeter
groups, the referee for useful suggestions, and Jean-Philippe Burelle, Virginie
Charette and Son Lam Ho for pointing out a subtlety in Section 4. The
main results, examples, and ideas of proofs in this paper were presented by
the third-named author in June 2016 at the conference Geometries, Surfaces
and Representations of Fundamental Groups in honor of Bill Goldman’s 60th
birthday; we would like to thank the organizers for a very interesting and
enjoyable conference. Finally, we thank Bill for being a constant source of
inspiration and encouragement to us and many others in the field.
2. Reminders and basic facts
2.1. Pseudo-Riemannian hyperbolic spaces. Fix two integers p, q ≥ 1.
Let G = PO(p, q) and let P1p,q be the stabilizer in G of an isotropic line
of Rp,q . The projective space P(Rp,q ) is the disjoint union of

Hp,q−1 = [x] ∈ P(Rp,q ) | hx, xip,q < 0 ,
of

Sp−1,q = [x] ∈ P(Rp,q ) | hx, xip,q > 0 ,
and of

∂P Hp,q−1 = ∂P Sp−1,q = [x] ∈ P(Rp,q ) | hx, xip,q = 0 ' G/P1p,q .

CONVEX COCOMPACTNESS IN PSEUDO-RIEMANNIAN HYPERBOLIC SPACES 11

For instance, Figure 1 shows

P(R4 ) = H3,0 t ∂P H3,0 = ∂P S2,1 t S2,1
and

P(R4 ) = H2,1 t ∂P H2,1 = ∂P S1,2 t S1,2 .
The space Hp,q−1 is homeomorphic to Rp × P(Rq ). It has a natural pseudo-

`1

`
S2,1

S1,2
H

3,0

`0

`2
H2,1

Figure 1. Left: H3,0 with a geodesic line ` (necessarily
spacelike), and S2,1 . Right: H2,1 with three geodesic lines
`2 (spacelike), `1 (lightlike), and `0 (timelike), and S1,2 .
Riemannian structure of signature (p, q − 1) with isometry group G. To see
this, consider the double covering

b p,q−1 = x ∈ Rp,q | hx, xip,q = −1 .
H
b p,q−1 in Rp,q has signature
The restriction of h·, ·ip,q to any tangent space to H
b p,q−1 with isom(p, q − 1) and defines a pseudo-Riemannian structure on H
etry group O(p, q), descending to a pseudo-Riemannian structure on Hp,q−1
with isometry group PO(p, q). The sectional curvature is constant negative
for this pseudo-Riemannian structure. The geodesic lines of the pseudoRiemannian space Hp,q−1 are the intersections of Hp,q−1 with projective lines
in P(Rp,q ). Such a line is called spacelike (resp. lightlike, resp. timelike) if it
meets ∂P Hp,q−1 in two (resp. one, resp. zero) points: see Figure 1.
Similarly, Sp−1,q is homeomorphic to P(Rp )×Rq and has a natural pseudoRiemannian structure of signature (p − 1, q) with isometry group G, of constant positive curvature. It identifies with Hq,p−1 as in Remark 1.6.
Remark 2.1. For (p, q) ∈
/ {(1, 1), (2, 2)}, the group G = PO(p, q) is simple
and P1p,q is a maximal proper parabolic subgroup of G. On the other hand,
for (p, q) = (1, 1), the group PO(1, 1)0 is isomorphic to R>0 (hence reductive but not simple) and P11,1 = PO(1, 1)0 . For (p, q) = (2, 2), the group
PO(2, 2)0 is isomorphic to PSL2 (R) × PSL2 (R) (hence semisimple but not
simple) and its subgroup P12,2 ∩ PO(2, 2)0 is B × B where B is a Borel subgroup of PSL2 (R). To see this, observe that the space M2 (R) of (2 × 2) real

12

JEFFREY DANCIGER, FRANÇOIS GUÉRITAUD, AND FANNY KASSEL

matrices is endowed with a natural nondegenerate quadratic form of signature (2, 2), namely the determinant; it thus identifies with R2,2 . The group
PO(2, 2)0 acting on P(R2,2 ) identifies with the group PSL2 (R)×PSL2 (R) acting on P(M2 (R)) by right and left multiplication. The space ∂P H2,1 = ∂P S1,2
identifies with the image in P(M2 (R)) of the rank-one matrices in M2 (R),
which identifies with P1 R × P1 R by taking the kernel and the image.
The following notation, used in the introduction, will remain valid throughout the paper.
Notation 2.2. For a subset X of P(Rp,q ) (e.g. a subset of Hp,q−1 ), we denote
by
• X the closure of X in P(Rp,q );
• Int(X) the interior of X in P(Rp,q ) (or equivalently in Hp,q−1 if
X ⊂ Hp,q−1 ).
We set ∂P X := X r Int(X) and, when X ⊂ Hp,q−1 , we denote by
• ∂H X := ∂P X ∩ Hp,q−1 the boundary of X in Hp,q−1 ;
• ∂i X := ∂P X ∩ ∂P Hp,q−1 the boundary of X in ∂P Hp,q−1 ; if X is closed
in Hp,q−1 , this coincides with the ideal boundary of X, namely XrX.
We also denote by ∂∞ Γ the Gromov boundary of a word hyperbolic group Γ.
2.2. Limit sets in projective space. Let V be a finite-dimensional real
vector space of dimension ≥ 2. Recall that an element g ∈ PGL(V ) is said to
be proximal in P(V ) if it admits a unique attracting fixed point ξg+ in P(V ).
Equivalently, g has a unique complex eigenvalue of maximal modulus.
If g is proximal in P(V ), then g −1 is proximal in the dual projective
space P(V ∗ ), for the dual action given by g −1 · ` := ` ◦ g for a linear form
` ∈ V ∗ ; the unique attracting fixed point of g −1 in P(V ∗ ) corresponds to the
projective hyperplane Hg− ⊂ P(V ) which is the projectivization of the sum
of the generalized eigenspaces of g for eigenvalues of nonmaximal modulus;
we have g n · y → ξg+ for all y ∈ P(V ) r Hg− as n → +∞.
We shall use the following terminology.
Definition 2.3. Let Γ be a discrete subgroup of PGL(V ). The proximal
limit set of Γ in P(V ) is the closure ΛΓ of the set of attracting fixed points
of elements of Γ which are proximal in P(V ).
This set is a closed, Γ-invariant subset of P(V ). When Γ is irreducible and
contains at least one proximal element, it was studied in [Gu, B1]. In that
setting, by [B1], the action of Γ on ΛΓ is minimal, i.e. all Γ-orbits are dense;
any nonempty, closed, Γ-invariant subset of P(V ) contains ΛΓ .
Remark 2.4. For p, q ∈ N∗ , an element g ∈ G = PO(p, q) is proximal in
P(Rp,q ) if and only if it is proximal in ∂P Hp,q−1 , in the sense that g admits
a unique attracting fixed point ξg+ in ∂P Hp,q−1 . In this case, g −1 is automatically proximal too, and its unique attracting fixed point ξg− satisfies
hξg+ , ξg− ip,q 6= 0. In particular, for a discrete subgroup Γ of G = PO(p, q),

CONVEX COCOMPACTNESS IN PSEUDO-RIEMANNIAN HYPERBOLIC SPACES 13

the proximal limit set ΛΓ of Γ in P(Rp,q ) is contained in ∂P Hp,q−1 , and called
the proximal limit set of Γ in ∂P Hp,q−1 .
2.3. Properly convex domains in projective space. Let Ω be a properly
convex open subset of P(V ), with boundary ∂P Ω. Recall the Hilbert metric
dΩ on Ω:
1
dΩ (y, z) := log [a, y, z, b]
2
for all distinct y, z ∈ Ω, where a, b are the intersection points of ∂P Ω with
the projective line through y and z, with a, y, z, b in this order. Here [·, ·, ·, ·]
denotes the cross-ratio on P1 R, normalized so that [0, 1, t, ∞] = t for all t.
The metric space (Ω, dΩ ) is complete and proper, and the automorphism
group
Aut(Ω) := {g ∈ PGL(V ) | g · Ω = Ω}
acts on Ω by isometries for dΩ . As a consequence, any discrete subgroup of
Aut(Ω) acts properly discontinuously on Ω.
Let V ∗ be the dual vector space of V . By definition, the dual convex set
of Ω is


e ,
Ω∗ := P ` ∈ V ∗ | `(x) < 0 ∀x ∈ Ω
e is the closure in V r {0} of an open convex cone Ω
e of V r {0}
where Ω
∗
lifting Ω. The set Ω is a properly convex open subset of P(V ∗ ) which is
preserved by the dual action of Aut(Ω) on P(V ∗ ).
Straight lines (contained in projective lines) are always geodesics for the
Hilbert metric dΩ . When Ω is not strictly convex, there can be other
geodesics as well, by the following well-known and easy fact.
Fact 2.5. For pairwise distinct points w1 , w2 , w3 ∈ Ω, we have dΩ (w1 , w2 ) =
dΩ (w1 , w3 ) + dΩ (w3 , w2 ) if and only if there are segments [y, y 0 ] and [z, z 0 ] in
the boundary of Ω such that y, w1 , w3 , z on the one hand, and y 0 , w3 , w2 , z 0
on the other hand, are aligned in this order. In this case, there exist points
y 00 ∈ [y, y 0 ] and z 00 ∈ [z, z 0 ] such that y 00 , w1 , w2 , z 00 are aligned in this order.
(For an illustration, we refer to the left panel of Figure 2, where w1 , w2 , w3
correspond to G(s), G(t), G(u).)
However, the following fact is always true, and will be used in Section 4.3.
It is proved by Foertsch–Karlsson [FK, Th. 3], as was pointed out to us
by Constantin Vernicos. Here we provide a short proof for the reader’s
convenience.
Lemma 2.6.
(1) Any geodesic ray of (Ω, dΩ ) has a well-defined endpoint
in the boundary ∂P Ω.
(2) Any biinfinite geodesic of (Ω, dΩ ) has two distinct endpoints in ∂P Ω.
Proof. We work in an affine Euclidean chart where Ω is bounded. Let I be
R≥0 or R and let G = (G(t))t∈I be a geodesic ray or biinfinite geodesic of
(Ω, dΩ ). For any s < t in I, let ys,t ∈ ∂P Ω and zs,t ∈ ∂P Ω be such that
ys,t , G(s), G(t), zs,t are aligned in this order.

14

JEFFREY DANCIGER, FRANÇOIS GUÉRITAUD, AND FANNY KASSEL

Recall that for any y ∈ ∂P Ω, the face of ∂P Ω at y is by definition the
intersection of ∂P Ω with all supporting hyperplanes to Ω at y.
We claim that all points ys,t for s < t in I are contained in a common
face P of ∂P Ω (of arbitrary dimension). Indeed, for any s < t, let Ps,t be the
face of ∂P Ω at ys,t ; it is a nonempty compact convex subset of ∂P Ω. For any
s < u < t, observe that by Fact 2.5 we have ys,t ∈ [ys,u , yu,t ] (see Figure 2,
left), hence any supporting hyperplane to Ω at ys,t is also a supporting
hyperplane to Ω at ys,u and yu,t , i.e. Ps,u and Pu,t are contained in Ps,t . For
any four points s < u < v < t, we apply the previous statement to the
triples (u, v, t) and (s, u, t) to obtain Pu,v ⊂ Pu,t ⊂ Ps,t . Thus the sequence
(P0,m )m≥1 (if I = R≥0 ) or (P−m,m )m≥1 (if I = R) of nonempty compact
convex subsets of ∂P Ω is nondecreasing for inclusion; it must have a limit P .
Similarly, all points zs,t for s < t are contained in a common face Q of ∂P Ω.
Any forward accumulation point a of G in the boundary of Ω is an accumulation point of the z0,t as t → +∞, and therefore belongs to Q. In the
Euclidean metric, z0,t for t > 0 is further away from the span of P than G(0)
is: therefore a belongs in fact to Q r P . (In particular P 6= Q.) Similarly,
in the case I = R, all backward accumulation points of G are in P r Q.
Suppose by contradiction that there are two sequences (sm )m∈N and (tm )m∈N
of positive numbers tending to +∞ such that G(sm ) and G(tm ) converge respectively to some points a 6= b in Q r P . Up to taking subsequences, we
may assume that sm < tm < sm+1 for all m.
Consider the triangle Tm spanned by ysm ,tm , G(tm ), and ytm ,sm+1 (see
Figure 2, right). Its angle at G(tm ) goes to π in the chosen chart as m →
+∞, because G(sm ), G(sm+1 ) → a and G(tm ) → b. The opposite edge
[ysm ,tm , ytm ,sm+1 ] of Tm converges to a segment of P as m → +∞: therefore
limm G(tm ) ∈ P . But G(tm ) → b ∈
/ P : contradiction. Thus G has a unique
forward endpoint a in the boundary of Ω, belonging to Q r P . Similarly, in
the case I = R, it has a unique backward endpoint a0 6= a in P r Q.

(P3 R)

(P2 R)
zs,u

yu,t
G(u)

ys,t
ys,u

G(s)

G(t)

zs,t
zu,t

Q
Ω

b

a
G(sm+1 )
G(sm )

G(tm )

Tm
ytm ,sm+1
G(0)

P

ysm ,tm

Figure 2. Illustration for the proof of Lemma 2.6. Left:
definition of the points ys,t and zs,t . Right: absurd situation
where G would have two forward accumulation points a 6= b.
In Section 6.3 we shall also use the following elementary observation.

CONVEX COCOMPACTNESS IN PSEUDO-RIEMANNIAN HYPERBOLIC SPACES 15

Lemma 2.7. Let O, O1 , . . . , Ok be properly convex open subsets of P(V )
such that O is the convex hull of the Oi in some affine chart of P(V ). If the
boundary ∂P Oi is C 1 for every i, then so is the boundary ∂P O.
Proof. For any i, the boundary ∂P Oi is C 1 if and only if the dual convex set
T
Oi∗ is strictly convex. In this case, the intersection ki=1 Oi∗ is also strictly
convex. But this intersection is the dual O∗ of O. Therefore, ∂P O is C 1 . 
2.4. Irreducible groups preserving properly convex domains. We
shall use the following general properties due to Benoist [B2, Prop. 3.1]. We
denote by Λ∗Γ the proximal limit set of Γ in P(V ∗ ).
Fact 2.8 ([B2]). An irreducible discrete subgroup Γ of PGL(V ) preserves
a nonempty properly convex subset of P(V ) if and only if the following two
conditions are satisfied:
(i) Γ contains an element of PGL(V ) which is proximal both in P(V ) and
in P(V ∗ ),
e Γ of V r {0} and Λ
e ∗ of V ∗ r {0}
(ii) ΛΓ and Λ∗Γ lift respectively to cones Λ
Γ
e Γ and ` ∈ Λ
e∗ .
such that `(x) ≤ 0 for all x ∈ Λ
Γ
In this case, for any Γ-invariant properly convex open subset Ω 6= ∅ of P(V ),
(1) the proximal limit set ΛΓ (resp. Λ∗Γ ) is contained in the boundary of
Ω (resp. Ω∗ ) in P(V ) (resp. P(V ∗ ));
e and Λ
e Γ of V r {0} with
(2) more specifically, Ω and ΛΓ lift to cones Ω
e properly convex containing Λ
e Γ in its boundary, and Ω∗ and Λ∗ lift
Ω
Γ
e ∗ and Λ
e ∗ of V ∗ r {0} with Ω
e ∗ properly convex containing
to cones Ω
Γ
e Γ and ` ∈ Λ
e∗ ;
e ∗ in its boundary, such that `(x) ≤ 0 for all x ∈ Λ
Λ
Γ
Γ
(3) there is a unique smallest nonempty Γ-invariant properly convex open
subset Ωmin of P(V ) contained in Ω, namely the projectivization of
e Γ for Λ
e Γ as in (2); it is the interior
the interior of the R+ -span of Λ
of the convex hull of ΛΓ in Ω;
(4) there is a unique largest Γ-invariant properly convex open subset Ωmax
of P(V ) containing Ω, namely the dual convex set to the projectivizae ∗ for Λ
e ∗ as in (2).
tion of the interior of the R+ -span of Λ
Γ
Γ
Remark 2.9. When V = Rp,q and Γ is contained in PO(p, q) for some
p, q ∈ N∗ , the map x 7→ hx, ·ip,q from V to V ∗ induces a homeomorphism
ΛΓ ' Λ∗Γ and Ωmax is a connected component of the complement in V of the
union of the projective hyperplanes z ⊥ for z ∈ ΛΓ . In the Lorentzian case
(i.e. q = 2), the terminology invisible domain of ΛΓ is often used for Ωmax .
2.5. Strictly convex open domains. We now make two elementary observations about strictly convex domains.
Lemma 2.10. Let Γ be a discrete subgroup of PGL(V ) preserving a nonempty
strictly convex open subset Ω of P(V ). The set Λorb
Ω (Γ) of accumulation points
in ∂P Ω of a Γ-orbit of Ω does not depend on the Γ-orbit.

16

JEFFREY DANCIGER, FRANÇOIS GUÉRITAUD, AND FANNY KASSEL

We call this set the orbital limit set of Γ in Ω.
Proof. We may assume that Γ is infinite, otherwise Λorb
Ω (Γ) = ∅. Consider
two points y 6= z in Ω and a sequence (γm ) ∈ ΓN of pairwise distinct elements
such that γm ·y → y∞ ∈ ∂P Ω and γm ·z → z∞ ∈ ∂P Ω. By proper discontinuity
of the action of Γ on Ω (see Section 2.3), the Hilbert distance dΩ from a given
point of Ω to any point of the segment γm · [y, z] tends to infinity with m.
Therefore the segment [y∞ , z∞ ] = limm γm · [y, z] is fully contained in ∂P Ω.
Since Ω is strictly convex, y∞ = z∞ .

Lemma 2.11. Let Γ be a discrete subgroup of PGL(V ) preserving a nonempty
strictly convex open subset Ω of P(V ). If the proximal limit set ΛΓ of Γ in
P(V ) contains at least two points, then it coincides with the orbital limit set
Λorb
Ω (Γ).
Proof. For any element γ ∈ Γ which is proximal in P(V ), the element γ −1
is proximal in P(V ∗ ), and its attracting fixed point is contained in ∂Ω∗ by
Fact 2.8. Thus the projective hyperplane Hγ− ⊂ P(V ) from Section 2.2 does
not meet Ω, and for any y ∈ Ω the sequence (γ m · y)m∈N converges to the
attracting fixed point ξγ+ of γ in P(V ). This shows that ΛΓ ⊂ Λorb
Ω (Γ).
For the reverse inclusion, suppose that ΛΓ contains two points a 6= b.
In particular, Γ is infinite. Consider a point y ∈ Ω on the open segment
(a, b) and a sequence (γm ) ∈ ΓN of pairwise distinct elements such that
γm · y → y∞ ∈ ∂P Ω. Up to passing to a subsequence, we may assume that
γm · a → a∞ and γm · b → b∞ for some a∞ , b∞ ∈ ΛΓ , with y∞ ∈ [a∞ , b∞ ].

Since Ω is strictly convex, y∞ ∈ {a∞ , b∞ } ⊂ ΛΓ . Thus Λorb
Ω (Γ) ⊂ ΛΓ .
If Γ is irreducible, then ΛΓ always contains at least two points since it is
nonempty (Fact 2.8) and not contained in a projective subspace of P(V ) of
positive codimension.
3. Nonpositive subsets of ∂P Hp,q−1
We shall use the following terminology which extends Definition 1.9.
Definition 3.1. For p, q ∈ N∗ , a subset Λ of ∂P Hp,q−1 is negative (resp.
nonpositive, nonnegative, positive) if it lifts to a cone of Rp,q r{0} on which all
inner products h·, ·ip,q of noncollinear points are negative (resp. nonpositive,
nonnegative, positive).
In the Lorentzian case (q = 2), the usual terminology for a negative (resp.
nonpositive) subset of ∂P Hp,q−1 is acausal (resp. achronal ).
3.1. Reading the sign on triples. The following characterization will be
used only to prove Proposition 1.10 and Corollary 1.12, in Section 3.2 below.
Lemma 3.2. Let Λ be a subset of ∂P Hp,q−1 with at least three points. Then
the following are equivalent:
(i) Λ is negative,

CONVEX COCOMPACTNESS IN PSEUDO-RIEMANNIAN HYPERBOLIC SPACES 17

(ii) every triple of distinct points of Λ is negative,
(iii) every triple of distinct points of Λ spans a triangle fully contained in
Hp,q−1 outside of the vertices.
The equivalence (ii) ⇔ (iii) is contained in the following immediate remark.
Remark 3.3. For any pairwise distinct points y1 , y2 , y3 of ∂P Hp,q−1 , the
following are equivalent:
• there exist lifts xi ∈ Rp,q r {0} of yi such that hxi , xj ip,q < 0 for all
i 6= j,
• for any lifts xi ∈ Rp,q r {0} of yi , we have
hx1 , x2 ip,q hx1 , x3 ip,q hx2 , x3 ip,q < 0,
• there exist lifts xi ∈ Rp,q r {0} of yi such that for any ti ≥ 0, if at
least two of the ti are nonzero, then
3
3
DX
E
X
X
ti xi ,
ti xi
=
2ti tj hxi , xj ip,q < 0,
i=1

i=1

p,q

1≤i<j≤3

• (y1 , y2 , y3 ) spans a triangle fully contained in Hp,q−1 outside of the
vertices.
Proof of Lemma 3.2. If Λ is negative, then any subset of Λ is as well, and so
(i) ⇒ (ii) holds. We now check (ii) ⇒ (i).
Suppose that every triple of distinct points of Λ is negative. Choose
two distinct points y1 , y2 ∈ Λ and respective lifts x1 , x2 ∈ Rp,q r {0} with
hx1 , x2 ip,q < 0. We now define a map f : Λ → Rp,q r {0} as follows. We
set f (yi ) := xi for i ∈ {1, 2}. For each y ∈ Λ r {y1 , y2 }, we choose a lift
x ∈ Rp,q r{0} of y; by Remark 3.3, we have hx1 , x2 ip,q hx1 , xip,q hx2 , xip,q < 0,
and so hx1 , xip,q and hx2 , xip,q are both nonzero of the same sign; we set
f (y) := x if this sign is negative, and f (y) := −x otherwise. We claim that
hf (y), f (y 0 )ip,q < 0 for any y 6= y 0 in Λ. Indeed, this is true by construction
if y or y 0 is equal to y1 , so we assume this is not the case. By Remark 3.3,
we have hx1 , f (y)ip,q hx1 , f (y 0 )ip,q hf (y), f (y 0 )ip,q < 0. Since hx1 , f (y)ip,q < 0
and hx1 , f (y 0 )ip,q < 0 by construction, we have hf (y), f (y 0 )ip,q < 0. Thus
{tf (y) | t > 0 and y ∈ Λ} is a cone of Rp,q r {0} lifting Λ on which all inner
products h·, ·ip,q of noncollinear points are negative, and so Λ is negative. 
Remarks 3.4.
(1) Similar equivalences to Lemma 3.2 hold after replacing negative with positive in conditions (i) and (ii), and Hp,q−1 with
Sp−1,q in condition (iii).
(2) It follows from Remark 3.3 that a triple of distinct points of ∂P Hp,q−1
cannot be both negative and positive. Therefore, by Lemma 3.2, an
arbitrary subset of ∂P Hp,q−1 with at least three points cannot be both
negative and positive.
(3) Our notion of positivity should not be confused with that of [B2].
For V = Rp,q , consider a subset of P(V ) × P(V ∗ ) of the form Λ =
{(z, z ⊥ ) | z ∈ Λ} where Λ ⊂ ∂P Hp,q−1 . The set Λ is positive in the

18

JEFFREY DANCIGER, FRANÇOIS GUÉRITAUD, AND FANNY KASSEL

sense of [B2] if and only if Λ is nonnegative or nonpositive in the sense
of Definition 3.1. The set Λ is 3-by-3 positive in the sense of [B2] if
and only if every triple of points of Λ is nonnegative or every triple
of distinct points of Λ is nonpositive in the sense of Definition 3.1.
We shall not use the terminology of [B2] in this paper.
3.2. Consequences of Lemma 3.2.
Proof of Proposition 1.10. Let Λ be a closed, connected, transverse subset
of ∂P Hp,q−1 , and let Λ(3) be the set of unordered triples of distinct points
of Λ. By Remark 3.3, we may define a function Λ(3) → {±1} by sending
(y1 , y2 , y3 ) ∈ Λ(3) to the sign of hx1 , x2 ip,q hx1 , x3 ip,q hx2 , x3 ip,q , where xi ∈
Rp,q r {0} is an arbitrary lift of yi . This function is continuous and Λ(3) is
connected by Fact A.1, hence the function is constant. In other words, every
triple of distinct points of Λ is negative or every triple of distinct points
of Λ is positive. By Lemma 3.2 and Remark 3.4.(1), the set Λ is negative or
positive.

Here is another consequence of Lemma 3.2.
Proposition 3.5. Let Γ be a word hyperbolic group and T a connected component in the space of P1p,q -Anosov representations of Γ into G = PO(p, q).
If the proximal limit set Λρ(Γ) is negative (resp. positive) for some ρ ∈ T ,
then it is negative (resp. positive) for all ρ ∈ T .
Proof. We may assume #∂∞ Γ ≥ 3, otherwise for any P1p,q -Anosov representation ρ : Γ → G the proximal limit set Λρ(Γ) is both negative and positive.
Suppose Λρ0 (Γ) is negative for some ρ0 ∈ T , and let (ρt )t∈[0,1] be a continuous path in T . For t ∈ [0, 1], let ξt : ∂∞ Γ → ∂P Hp,q−1 be the boundary map
of the Anosov representation ρt . For any triple {η1 , η2 , η3 } of distinct points
of ∂∞ Γ and any t ∈ [0, 1], the triple {ξt (η1 ), ξt (η2 ), ξt (η3 )} ⊂ Λρt (Γ) is either
negative or positive, by transversality of ξt . Since {ξ0 (η1 ), ξ0 (η2 ), ξ0 (η3 )} is
negative and t 7→ ξt (ηi ) is continuous for all i (see [GW, Th. 5.13]), we deduce
as in the proof of Proposition 1.10 that {ξt (η1 ), ξt (η2 ), ξt (η3 )} is negative for
all t ∈ [0, 1]. By Lemma 3.2, the set Λρt (Γ) is negative for all t ∈ [0, 1].
The case that Λρ0 (Γ) is positive is similar.

3.3. Boundaries of convex subsets of Hp,q−1 . The following lemma makes
a link between convexity in Hp,q−1 and nonpositivity in ∂P Hp,q−1 .
Lemma 3.6. (1) Let Λ0 be a closed nonpositive (resp. nonnegative) subset
of ∂P Hp,q−1 which is not contained in a projective hyperplane. Then Λ0
spans a nonempty convex open subset Ω of P(Rp,q ) which is contained
in Hp,q−1 (resp. in Sp−1,q ). Moreover, if Λ1 ⊃ Λ0 is the intersection
of ∂P Hp,q−1 with the closure of Ω, then Λ1 is still nonpositive (resp.
nonnegative), and it is equal to Λ0 if Λ0 is negative (resp. positive).
(2) Conversely, for any nonempty properly convex open subset Ω of Hp,q−1
(resp. Sp−1,q ), the intersection of ∂P Hp,q−1 with the closure of Ω is nonpositive (resp. nonnegative).

CONVEX COCOMPACTNESS IN PSEUDO-RIEMANNIAN HYPERBOLIC SPACES 19

e 0 be a cone of Rp,q r {0} on which h·, ·ip,q is nonpositive (the
Proof. (1) Let Λ
nonnegative case is similar). Using the equality
DX
E
X
X
=
ti tj hxi , xj ip,q
(3.1)
t i xi ,
t i xi
i

i

p,q

i,j

e 0 , we see that h·, ·ip,q is still nonpositive on the
for ti ∈ R+ and xi ∈ Λ
+
e 0 . In particular, Λ1 is nonpositive since it is contained in the
R -span of Λ
e 0 . Let Ω be the projectivization of the
projectivization of the R+ -span of Λ
+
interior of this R -span. Then Ω is convex, contained in Hp,q−1 ∪∂P Hp,q−1 and
open, hence contained in Hp,q−1 (since ∂P Hp,q−1 is a hypersurface of P(Rp,q )).
Suppose Λ0 is negative, i.e. all inner products h·, ·ip,q of noncollinear points
e are negative. Any point z ∈ Λ1 admits a lift to Rp,q r {0} of the form
of Λ
Pk 0
e
i=1 ti xi where x1 , . . . , xk ∈ Λ0 are pairwise noncollinear and t1 , . . . , tk ≥ 0.
p,q−1
Since z ∈ ∂P H
, we see from (3.1) that hxi , xj ip,q = 0 for all 1 ≤ i < j ≤ k,
hence k = 1 and z ∈ Λ0 . This shows that the inclusion Λ1 ⊃ Λ0 is an equality
when Λ0 is negative.
(2) Let Ω be a nonempty properly convex open subset of Hp,q−1 (the Sp−1,q
e of Rp,q r {0}
case is similar). We can lift it to a properly convex open cone Ω
e Let Λ1 be the intersection of ∂P Hp,q−1
such that hx, xip,q < 0 for all x ∈ Ω.
e 1 be a cone of Rp,q r {0} lifting Λ1 , contained
with the closure of Ω, and let Λ
e Using the equality (3.1) for ti ∈ R+ and xi ∈ Λ
e 1 , we see
in the closure of Ω.
e
that h·, ·ip,q is nonpositive on Λ1 . Thus Λ1 is nonpositive.

3.4. Irreducible subgroups of PO(p, q) preserving properly convex
domains. Here is a consequence of Fact 2.8 (see Figure 3).
Proposition 3.7. For p, q ∈ N∗ , an irreducible discrete subgroup Γ of G =
PO(p, q) preserves a nonempty properly convex subset of P(Rp,q ) if and only
if the following two conditions are satisfied:
(i) Γ contains an element of G which is proximal in ∂P Hp,q−1 ,
(ii) ΛΓ is nonpositive or nonnegative (Definition 3.1).
In this case, let Ω be a nonempty Γ-invariant properly convex open subset
e a properly convex cone of Rp,q r {0} lifting Ω. If ΛΓ is
of P(Rp,q ) and Ω
e Γ in the boundary
nonpositive (resp. nonnegative), then ΛΓ lifts to a cone Λ
e on which h·, ·ip,q is nonpositive (resp. nonnegative). There is a unique
of Ω
smallest nonempty Γ-invariant properly convex open subset Ωmin of P(Rp,q )
contained in Ω, namely the interior of the convex hull of ΛΓ in Ω. There
is a unique largest Γ-invariant properly convex open subset Ωmax of P(Rp,q )
containing Ω, namely the projectivization of the interior of the set of x0 ∈ Rp,q
e Γ (resp. hx, x0 ip,q ≥ 0 for all x ∈ Λ
e Γ ).
such that hx, x0 ip,q ≤ 0 for all x ∈ Λ
Proof. Taking V = Rp,q , we only need to check that condition (i) of Proposition 3.7 is equivalent to condition (i) of Fact 2.8, that condition (ii) of
Proposition 3.7 implies condition (ii) of Fact 2.8, and that the existence

20

JEFFREY DANCIGER, FRANÇOIS GUÉRITAUD, AND FANNY KASSEL

Figure 3. The sets Ωmin ⊂ Hp,q−1 (light gray) and Ωmax ⊂
P(Rp,q ) (dark gray), for a negative proximal limit set ΛΓ . On
the left (p, q) = (2, 1), and on the right (p, q) = (2, 2).
of a nonempty Γ-invariant properly convex open subset of P(Rp,q ) implies
condition (ii) of Proposition 3.7.
An element g ∈ G = PO(p, q) is proximal in P(Rp,q ) if and only if g −1 is
proximal in P(Rp,q ), because the set of eigenvalues of g is stable under taking
inverses, and so g has a unique eigenvalue of maximal modulus if and only
if g −1 has. On the other hand, g −1 is proximal in P(Rp,q ) if and only if g
is proximal in P((Rp,q )∗ ) (see Section 2.2). Using Remark 2.4, we see that
condition (i) of Fact 2.8 is equivalent to condition (i) of Proposition 3.7 for
Γ ⊂ G = PO(p, q).
Suppose that ΛΓ is nonpositive (resp. nonnegative), i.e. we can lift it to
e Γ of Rp,q r {0} on which h·, ·ip,q is nonpositive (resp. nonnegative).
a cone Λ
Recall from Remark 2.9 that the map ψ : x 7→ hx, ·ip,q identifies Rp,q with
e Γ ) (resp.
e ∗ := ψ(Λ
(Rp,q )∗ and ΛΓ ⊂ P(Rp,q ) with Λ∗Γ ⊂ P((Rp,q )∗ ). The set Λ
Γ
e Γ )) is a cone of (Rp,q )∗ r {0} lifting Λ∗ , and by construction
e ∗ := −ψ(Λ
Λ
Γ
Γ
e Γ and ` ∈ Λ
e ∗ . Thus condition (ii) of Proposition 3.7
`(x) ≤ 0 for all x ∈ Λ
Γ
implies condition (ii) of Fact 2.8 for Γ ⊂ G = PO(p, q).
Suppose that there exists a nonempty Γ-invariant properly convex open
e of Rp,q r {0}, and
subset Ω of P(Rp,q ). It lifts to a properly convex cone Ω
e Γ of Rp,q r {0} contained in the boundary of Ω.
e Let
ΛΓ lifts to a cone Λ

e ∗ := ` ∈ (Rp,q )∗ | `(x) < 0 ∀x ∈ Ω
e ,
Ω
e is the closure of Ω
e in Rp,q r {0}. The set Ω
e ∗ is a properly convex
where Ω
p,q
∗
∗
∗
e ∗ of (Rp,q )∗ r {0}
cone of (R ) r {0} lifting Ω . The set ΛΓ lifts to a cone Λ
Γ
e ∗ . By construction, `(x) ≤ 0 for all x ∈ Λ
eΓ
contained in the boundary of Ω
e ∗ . Let Γ
b ⊂ O(p, q) be the lift of Γ leaving invariant Ω
e (hence also
and ` ∈ Λ
Γ
∗
∗
e ,Λ
e Γ , and Λ
e ). Since ψ induces an identification between ΛΓ and Λ∗ , we
Ω
Γ
Γ
e ∗ for all x ∈ Λ
e Γ . Let F − (resp. F + ) be the subcone of
e ∗ ∪ −Λ
have ψ(x) ∈ Λ
Γ
Γ

CONVEX COCOMPACTNESS IN PSEUDO-RIEMANNIAN HYPERBOLIC SPACES 21

e Γ consisting of those vectors x such that ψ(x) ∈ Λ
e ∗ (resp. ψ(x) ∈ −Λ
e ∗ ).
Λ
Γ
Γ
e Γ;
By construction, we have x ∈ F − if and only if hx, x0 ip,q ≤ 0 for all x0 ∈ Λ
e Γ and Γ-invariant.
b
in particular, F − is closed in Λ
Similarly, F + is closed
−
+
b
and Γ-invariant. The sets F and F are disjoint since no x ∈ Rp,q r {0}
e Γ , otherwise the Γ-invariant subset
can satisfy hx, x0 ip,q = 0 for all x0 ∈ Λ
p,q
ΛΓ of P(R ) would be contained in the hyperplane P(x⊥ ), contradicting
b
the irreducibility of Γ. Thus F − and F + are disjoint, Γ-invariant,
closed
p,q
e
subcones of ΛΓ , whose projections to P(R ) are disjoint, Γ-invariant, closed
subsets of ΛΓ . Since Γ is irreducible, ΛΓ is the smallest nonempty Γ-invariant
e Γ = F − or Λ
e Γ = F + . In
closed subset of P(Rp,q ) (see Section 2.2), and so Λ
the first case ΛΓ is nonpositive, and in the second case it is nonnegative. 
In the setting of Proposition 3.7, if ΛΓ ⊂ ∂P Hp,q−1 is nonpositive (resp.
nonnegative), then Ωmin is contained in Hp,q−1 (resp. Sp−1,q ) by Lemma 3.6.(1).
We shall use the following in the stronger situation that ΛΓ is negative (resp.
positive).
Lemma 3.8. In the setting of Proposition 3.7, if ΛΓ ⊂ ∂P Hp,q−1 is negative
(resp. positive), then the closure Cmin of Ωmin in Hp,q−1 (resp. Sp−1,q ) is
contained in Ωmax .
e Γ , using the equality
Proof. Suppose ΛΓ is negative. For any x ∈ Λ
D X
E
X
x,
ti xi
=
ti hx, xi ip,q
i

p,q

i

R+

e Γ , we see that hx, ·ip,q is negative on the R+ -span
for ti ∈
and xi ∈ Λ
e Γ minus {0}. In particular, the set Cmin , which is the projectivization of
of Λ
this R+ -span minus {0}, is contained in Ωmax , which is the projectivization
e Γ.
of the interior of the set of x0 ∈ Rp,q such that hx, x0 ip,q ≤ 0 for all x ∈ Λ
The case that ΛΓ is positive is analogous.

4. Hp,q−1 -convex cocompact groups are Anosov
The goal of this section is to prove the implications (i) ⇒ (ii) and (iii) ⇒ (iv)
of Theorem 1.11, which contain Theorem 1.7.(1). By the following observation, which is immediate from the definitions, we can focus on (i) ⇒ (ii)
only.
Remark 4.1. A representation ρ : Γ → PO(p, q) is P1p,q -Anosov if and only
if it is P1q,p -Anosov under the identification PO(p, q) ' PO(q, p). A subset
of ∂P Hp,q−1 is positive if and only if it is negative under the identification
∂P Hp,q−1 ' ∂P Hq,p−1 .
We also prove (Lemma 4.3 and Remark 4.4) that if Γ is Hp,q−1 -convex cocompact, then for any nonempty, closed, properly convex subset C of Hp,q−1
on which Γ acts properly discontinuously and cocompactly, the ideal boundary ∂i C is the proximal limit set ΛΓ ⊂ ∂P Hp,q−1 .

22

JEFFREY DANCIGER, FRANÇOIS GUÉRITAUD, AND FANNY KASSEL

4.1. Working inside a properly convex open domain. The following
lemma will enable us to use the restriction to C of the Hilbert metric of Ωmax .
Lemma 4.2. Let Γ be an irreducible discrete subgroup of G = PO(p, q)
acting properly discontinuously and cocompactly on some nonempty properly
convex closed subset C of Hp,q−1 . Then C is contained in a maximal Γinvariant properly convex open subset Ωmax of P(Rp,q ).
The point of Lemma 4.2 is that, not only the interior of C, but also its
boundary in Hp,q−1 is contained in such a set Ωmax .
Recall from Fact 2.8 and Remark 2.9 that in this setting the proximal limit
set ΛΓ is contained in the ideal boundary ∂i C of C; a maximal Γ-invariant
properly convex open subset Ωmax of P(Rp,q ) containing C is unique.
Proof. Let Ωmax be the largest Γ-invariant properly convex open subset of
P(Rp,q ) containing Int(C), as in Fact 2.8 and Remark 2.9. Suppose by contradiction that C is not contained in Ωmax . By Fact 2.8 and Remark 2.9,
this means that some point y ∈ C belongs to z ⊥ for some z ∈ ΛΓ ⊂ ∂i C.
The interval [y, z) is a lightlike ray of Hp,q−1 . By convexity of C, it is fully
contained in C. Let (am )m∈N be a sequence of points of [y, z) converging to z
(see Figure 4). Since Γ acts cocompactly on C, for any m there exists γm ∈ Γ
such that γm · am belongs to a fixed compact subset of C. Up to taking a
subsequence, the sequences (γm · am )m and (γm · y)m and (γm · z)m converge
respectively to some points a∞ , y∞ , z∞ in C, with a∞ ∈ C and z∞ ∈ ΛΓ .
⊥ , the intersection of [y , z ] with Hp,q−1 is conSince a∞ ∈ [y∞ , z∞ ] ⊂ z∞
∞ ∞
tained in a lightlike geodesic, hence can meet ∂P Hp,q−1 only at z∞ . Thus
y∞ cannot belong to ∂P Hp,q−1 , lest y∞ = z∞ and the closure of C in P(Rp,q )
contain a full projective line, contradicting the proper convexity of C. Therefore, y∞ ∈ C. But this contradicts the proper discontinuity of the action of
Γ on C.

Ωmax
∂P Hp,q−1
y
am
z

γm · y
γm · a m

γm · z

C

ΛΓ

Figure 4. Illustration for the proof of Lemma 4.2

CONVEX COCOMPACTNESS IN PSEUDO-RIEMANNIAN HYPERBOLIC SPACES 23

4.2. Equality ∂i C = ΛΓ . Using Lemma 4.2, we establish the following.
Lemma 4.3. Let Γ be an irreducible discrete subgroup of G = PO(p, q) acting properly discontinuously and cocompactly on a nonempty properly convex
closed subset C of Hp,q−1 . If the proximal limit set ΛΓ is transverse, then the
inclusion ΛΓ ⊂ ∂i C is an equality, and this set is negative (Definition 1.9).
Recall that the transversality of ΛΓ means that y ∈
/ z ⊥ for all y 6= z in ΛΓ .
Proof. Let Ωmin ⊂ C ⊂ Hp,q−1 be the interior of the convex hull of ΛΓ in C,
and Cmin its closure in Hp,q−1 . We have
ΛΓ ⊂ ∂i Cmin = ∂P Ωmin ∩ ∂P Hp,q−1 ⊂ ∂i C.
The set ΛΓ is transverse by assumption, hence negative by Lemma 3.6.(2),
and so ΛΓ = ∂i Cmin by Lemma 3.6.(1). We now check that ∂i Cmin = ∂i C.
For this we use the fact that, by Lemma 4.2, the set C is contained in a
Γ-invariant properly convex open subset Ωmax of P(Rp,q ); we denote by d the
Hilbert metric on Ωmax .
Suppose by contradiction that there exists z ∈ ∂i C r ∂i Cmin . Let (zm )m∈N
be a sequence in C r Cmin converging to z. By cocompactness of the action of Γ on C and Cmin , we may find a sequence (ym )m∈N in Ωmin such
that d(ym , zm ) is uniformly bounded and d(ym , ∂H Cmin ) is uniformly bounded
away from zero. The segment [ym , zm ] contains a unique point um of ∂H Cmin ,
as depicted in Figure 5. Let (am , bm ) be the maximal interval of Ωmax containing ym , zm , so that d(ym , zm ) = 12 log[am , ym , zm , bm ] and d(ym , um ) =
1
2 log[am , ym , um , bm ]. Up to passing to a subsequence, we may assume that
am → a, bm → b, um → u, and ym → y where u and y belong to the line segment [a, b] ⊂ ∂P Ωmax and u, y ∈ ∂i Cmin . By assumption y 6= z; since the cross
ratios [am , ym , zm , bm ] = e2d(ym ,zm ) are bounded away from 0, 1, and +∞, the
points a, y, z, b are pairwise distinct and [am , ym , zm , bm ] → [a, y, z, b]. On the
other hand, the cross ratios [am , ym , um , bm ] = e2d(ym ,um ) are bounded away
from 1, hence [a, y, u, b] 6= 1. Since the points a, y, b are pairwise distinct,
we conclude y 6= u. But the segment [y, u] is contained in ∂P Ωmax , hence
contained in ∂i Cmin , contradicting the transversality of ∂i Cmin = ΛΓ .

Remark 4.4. Lemma 4.3 shows that if an irreducible discrete subgroup Γ of
PO(p, q) acts properly discontinuously and cocompactly on some nonempty
properly convex closed subset C of Hp,q−1 and if the proximal limit set ΛΓ
is transverse, then Γ is Hp,q−1 -convex cocompact. It also shows that if Γ
is Hp,q−1 -convex cocompact, then for any nonempty properly convex closed
subset C of Hp,q−1 on which Γ acts properly discontinuously and cocompactly,
the ideal boundary ∂i C is the proximal limit set ΛΓ ⊂ ∂P Hp,q−1 .
4.3. Gromov hyperbolicity of (C, d). In the setting of Lemma 4.3, we
denote by d the Hilbert metric on a Γ-invariant properly convex open subset
Ωmax of P(Rp,q ) containing C, as given by Lemma 4.2. Using arguments

24

JEFFREY DANCIGER, FRANÇOIS GUÉRITAUD, AND FANNY KASSEL

bm

∂P Hp,q−1

b
z
u
y

zm
um
ym

Cmin
C

a

Ωmax
am

Figure 5. Illustration of the proof of Lemma 4.3
inspired from [B3], we now prove that in this setting the metric space (C, d)
is Gromov hyperbolic with Gromov boundary ∂i C = ΛΓ .
We start with the following lemma; recall from Lemma 2.6.(1) that any
geodesic ray of (C, d) has a well-defined endpoint in ∂i C = ΛΓ .
Lemma 4.5. In the setting of Lemma 4.3, there exists R > 0 such that
any geodesic ray of (C, d) lies at Hausdorff distance ≤ R from the projective
interval with the same endpoints.
Proof. Suppose by contradiction that for any m ∈ N there is a geodesic ray
Gm with endpoints am ∈ C and bm ∈ ΛΓ and a point ym ∈ C on that geodesic
ray which lies at distance ≥ m from the projective interval [am , bm ). By
cocompactness of the action of Γ on C, for any m ∈ N there exists γm ∈ Γ such
that γm ·ym belongs to a fixed compact set of C. Up to taking a subsequence,
(γm ·ym )m converges to some y∞ ∈ C, and (γm ·am )m and (γm ·bm )m converge
respectively to some a∞ ∈ C = C ∪ ΛΓ and b∞ ∈ ΛΓ . Since the distance d
from ym to [am , bm ) goes to infinity, we have [a∞ , b∞ ] ⊂ ∂i C = ΛΓ , hence
a∞ = b∞ by transversality of ΛΓ . Therefore, up to extracting, the geodesic
rays Gm converge to a biinfinite geodesic of (Ωmax , d) with both endpoints
equal, contradicting Lemma 2.6.(2).

Lemma 4.6. In the setting of Lemma 4.3, the metric space (C, d) is Gromov
hyperbolic.
Proof. Suppose by contradiction that triangles of (C, d) are not uniformly
thin. By Lemma 4.5, triangles of (C, d) whose sides are projective segments
are not uniformly thin: namely, there exist am , bm , cm ∈ C and ym ∈ [am , bm ]
such that
(4.1)

d(ym , [am , cm ] ∪ [cm , bm ]) −→ +∞.
n→+∞

CONVEX COCOMPACTNESS IN PSEUDO-RIEMANNIAN HYPERBOLIC SPACES 25

By cocompactness, for any m there exists γm ∈ Γ such that γm ·ym belongs to
a fixed compact set of C, as shown in Figure 6. Up to taking a subsequence,
(γm · ym )m converges to some y∞ ∈ C, and (γm · am )m and (γm · bm )m
and (γm · cm )m converge respectively to some a∞ , b∞ , c∞ ∈ C. By (4.1) we
have [a∞ , c∞ ] ∪ [c∞ , b∞ ] ⊂ ∂i C, hence a∞ = b∞ = c∞ by transversality of
∂i C = ΛΓ . This contradicts the fact that y∞ ∈ (a∞ , b∞ ).


∂P Hp,q−1
bm

cm

ym
C

am
ΛΓ

Figure 6. Illustration of the proof of Lemma 4.6
Lemma 4.7. In the setting of Lemma 4.3, the Gromov boundary of (C, d) is
Γ-equivariantly homeomorphic to ∂i C = ΛΓ .
Proof. Fix a basepoint y ∈ C. The Gromov boundary of (C, d) is the set
of equivalence classes of infinite geodesic rays in C starting at y, for the
equivalence relation “to remain at bounded distance for d”. Consider the
Γ-equivariant continuous map from ∂i C to the Gromov boundary of (C, d)
sending z ∈ ∂i C to the class of the straight geodesic ray (with image a
projective interval) from y to z. This map is surjective by Lemma 4.5.
Moreover it is injective, since transversality implies that no two points of
∂i C = ΛΓ lie in a common face of ∂Ωmax , hence the Hilbert distance d
between rays going out to two different points of ∂i C goes to infinity. We
conclude using the fact that a continuous bijection between two compact
Hausdorff spaces is a homeomorphism.

4.4. Proof of the implication (i) ⇒ (ii) of Theorem 1.11. Let Γ be
an irreducible discrete subgroup of G = PO(p, q) acting properly discontinuously and cocompactly on some nonempty properly convex closed subset C
of Hp,q−1 whose ideal boundary ∂i C is transverse. By Lemma 3.6.(2), the set
∂i C is negative. By Lemma 4.2, the closed set C is contained in a Γ-invariant
properly convex open subset Ωmax of P(Rp,q ), and so we may consider the
restriction to C of the Hilbert metric d of Ωmax . The discrete group Γ acts
cocompactly by isometries on the metric space (C, d), which by Lemmas
4.6 and 4.7 is Gromov hyperbolic with boundary Γ-equivariantly homeomorphic to ∂i C = ΛΓ . Therefore Γ is word hyperbolic and any orbit map
Γ → C is a quasi-isometry, extending to a Γ-equivariant homeomorphism

26

JEFFREY DANCIGER, FRANÇOIS GUÉRITAUD, AND FANNY KASSEL

ξ : ∂∞ Γ → ΛΓ . This homeomorphism is transverse since ΛΓ is a transverse subset of ∂P Hp,q−1 . Since Γ is irreducible, we conclude (using [GW,
Prop. 4.10]) that the natural inclusion Γ ,→ G = PO(p, q) is P1p,q -Anosov.
5. Anosov subgroups with negative proximal limit set are
Hp,q−1 -convex cocompact
In this section we prove the implication (ii) ⇒ (i) of Theorem 1.11. The
implication (iv) ⇒ (iii) of Theorem 1.11 immediately follows by Remark 4.1.
Together with Proposition 1.10, this yields Theorem 1.7.(2). We also show
that the connectedness assumption in Theorem 1.7.(2) cannot be removed,
by providing a counterexample.
5.1. Proof of the implication (ii) ⇒ (i) of Theorem 1.11. Let Γ be
an irreducible discrete subgroup of G = PO(p, q). Suppose that Γ is word
hyperbolic, that the natural inclusion Γ ,→ G is P1p,q -Anosov, and that the
proximal limit set ΛΓ ⊂ ∂P Hp,q−1 is negative (Definition 1.9).
By Proposition 3.7, the group Γ preserves a nonempty properly convex
open subset of P(Rp,q ); there is a maximal such subset, namely


eΓ ,
Ωmax := P Int x0 ∈ Rp,q | hx, x0 ip,q ≤ 0 ∀x ∈ Λ
e Γ is a cone of Rp,q r {0} lifting ΛΓ on which all inner products
where Λ
h·, ·ip,q of noncollinear points are negative. There is also a minimal such
subset Ωmin ⊂ Ωmax , namely the interior of the convex hull of ΛΓ in Ωmax .
By Lemma 3.6.(1) we have Ωmin ⊂ Hp,q−1 , and by Lemma 3.8 the closure
Cmin of Ωmin in Hp,q−1 is contained in Ωmax . In particular, the action of Γ
on Cmin is properly discontinuous. Moreover, the ideal boundary ∂i Cmin is
equal to ΛΓ by Lemma 3.6.(1); in particular, it is transverse.
To see that Γ is Hp,q−1 -convex cocompact and thus complete the proof
of the implication (ii) ⇒ (i) of Theorem 1.11, it only remains to prove the
following.
Lemma 5.1. In this setting, the action of Γ on Cmin is cocompact.
Proof. By Fact 1.18, the natural inclusion Γ ,→ PO(p, q) ,→ PGL(Rp+q ) is
P1 -Anosov, where P1 is the stabilizer in PGL(Rp+q ) of a line of Rp+q . By
[KLPa, Th. 1.7] (see also [GGKW, Rem. 5.15]), the action of Γ on P(Rp,q ) is
expanding: for any point z ∈ ΛΓ there exist an element γ ∈ Γ, a neighborhood U of z in P(Rp,q ), and a constant C > 1 such that γ is C-expanding on U
for the metric
dP ([x], [x0 ]) := | sin ](x, x0 )|
on P(Rp,q ). We now use a version of the argument of [KLPa, Prop. 2.5], inspired by Sullivan’s dynamical characterization [Su] of convex cocompactness
in Riemannian hyperbolic spaces. (The argument in [KLPa] is a little more
involved because it deals with bundles, whereas we work directly in P(Rp,q ).)
Suppose by contradiction that the action of Γ on Cmin is not cocompact,
and let (εm )n∈N be a sequence of positive reals converging to 0. For any m,

CONVEX COCOMPACTNESS IN PSEUDO-RIEMANNIAN HYPERBOLIC SPACES 27

the set Km := {z ∈ Cmin | dP (z, ΛΓ ) ≥ εm } is compact, hence there exists a
Γ-orbit contained in Cmin r (Km ∪ ΛΓ ). By proper discontinuity of the action
on Cmin , the supremum of dP (·, ΛΓ ) on this orbit is achieved at some point
zm ∈ Cmin , and by construction 0 < dP (zm , ΛΓ ) ≤ εm . Then, for all γ ∈ Γ,
dP (γ · zm , ΛΓ ) ≤ dP (zm , ΛΓ ).
Up to extracting, we may assume that (zm )n∈N converges to some z ∈ ΛΓ .
Consider an element γ ∈ Γ, a neighborhood U of z in ∂P Hp,q−1 , and a constant
0 ∈Λ
C > 1 such that γ is C-expanding on U. For any n ∈ N, there exists zm
Γ
0
such that dP (γ · zm , ΛΓ ) = dP (γ · zm , γ · zm ). We then have
0
dP (γ · zm , ΛΓ ) ≥ C dP (zm , zm
) ≥ C dP (zm , ΛΓ ) ≥ C dP (γ · zm , ΛΓ ).

This is impossible since C > 1.



5.2. Disconnected limit sets. Let Γ be a free group on two generators.
For rankR (G) := min(p, q) ≥ 2, let us give an example of an irreducible
P1p,q -Anosov representation ρ : Γ → G = PO(p, q) for which the proximal
limit set Λρ(Γ) is neither negative nor positive (Definition 1.9). This shows
that Theorem 1.7.(2) is not true when ∂∞ Γ is not connected. We first work
in PO(2, 2) (Example 5.2), then in PO(p, q) for any p, q ≥ 2 (Example 5.3).
Example 5.2. Let Γ be a free group on two generators. Consider two
injective and discrete representations ρ1 , ρ2 : Γ → PSL2 (R) with convex cocompact images, such that ρ1 is the holonomy of a hyperbolic 3-holed sphere
and ρ2 the holonomy of a hyperbolic one-holed torus. For i ∈ {1, 2}, let
ξi : ∂∞ Γ → P1 R be the boundary map associated to ρi , with image Λi (a Cantor set). Let ψ := ξ2 ◦ξ1−1 : Λ1 → Λ2 be the unique (ρ1 , ρ2 )-equivariant homeomorphism. This map ψ does not preserve the cyclic order of P1 R: there exist
x1 , x2 , x3 , x4 ∈ ∂∞ Γ such that the quadruples (ξ1 (x1 ), ξ1 (x2 ), ξ1 (x3 ), ξ1 (x4 ))
and (ξ2 (x1 ), ξ2 (x2 ), ξ2 (x4 ), ξ2 (x3 )) are both cyclically ordered.
The identification PO(2, 2)0 ' PSL2 (R) × PSL2 (R) of Remark 2.1 lets
us see (ρ1 , ρ2 ) as a single representation ρ : Γ → PO(2, 2). The boundary
maps ξ1 , ξ2 : ∂∞ Γ → P1 R associated to ρ1 , ρ2 combine into a map ξ from
∂∞ Γ to the doubly ruled quadric ∂P H2,1 ' P1 R × P1 R: under this identification, the image Λ of ξ is the graph of ψ, and ρ is P12,2 -Anosov with
boundary map ξ. However, ρ(Γ) is not H2,1 -convex cocompact nor is it
H1,2 -convex cocompact (with respect to −h·, ·i2,2 ). As depicted in Figure 7,
the triples ξ(x1 ), ξ(x2 ), ξ(x3 ) and ξ(x1 ), ξ(x2 ), ξ(x4 ) are negative, while the
triples ξ(x1 ), ξ(x3 ), ξ(x4 ) and ξ(x2 ), ξ(x3 ), ξ(x4 ) are positive. Alternatively,
observe that the six segments connecting the ξ(xi ) (for 1 ≤ i ≤ 4) inside
H2,1 (resp. inside S1,2 ) carry the generator of π1 (P(R2,2 )), precluding the
possibility that these segments could be part of a properly convex subset of
P(R2,2 ).
Example 5.3. Take any p, q ≥ 2 and consider the embedding
τ : PO(2, 2)0 ' SO(2, 2)0 ,−→ SO(p, q)0 ' PO(p, q)0

28

JEFFREY DANCIGER, FRANÇOIS GUÉRITAUD, AND FANNY KASSEL

ξ(x3 )
ξ(x2 )
ξ(x1 )
∂P H2,1

ξ(x4 )

Figure 7. Illustration for Example 5.2.
The triples
{ξ(x1 ), ξ(x2 ), ξ(x3 )} and {ξ(x1 ), ξ(x2 ), ξ(x4 )} are negative,
i.e. span an ideal triangle contained in H2,1 . The triples
{ξ(x1 ), ξ(x3 ), ξ(x4 )} and {ξ(x2 ), ξ(x3 ), ξ(x4 )} are positive,
i.e. span ideal triangles contained in S1,2 (which go through
infinity in the picture).
coming from the natural inclusion R2,2 ⊂ Rp,q . The corresponding τ -equivariant embedding ι : ∂P H2,1 ,→ ∂P Hp,q−1 has the property that a subset Λ of
∂P H2,1 is negative (resp. positive) if and only ι(Λ) is negative (resp. positive)
as a subset of ∂P Hp,q−1 . Let ρ : Γ → PO(2, 2)0 be as in Example 5.2.
By [GW, Prop. 4.7], the composition τ ◦ ρ : Γ → PO(p, q) is P1p,q -Anosov
with proximal limit set Λτ ◦ρ(Γ) = ι(Λρ(Γ) ). By Example 5.2, this limit set
is neither negative nor positive. Since being Anosov is an open property
[L, GW] and since a small deformation of a negative (resp. positive) triple
in ∂P Hp,q−1 is still negative (resp. positive), any small deformation of τ ◦ ρ
in Hom(Γ, PO(p, q)) is still a P1p,q -Anosov representation with a proximal
limit set that is neither negative nor positive. Since Γ is a free group, such
deformations are abundant, including many which are irreducible. The image
of any such representation fails to be Hp,q−1 -convex cocompact.
6. Link with strong projective convex cocompactness
The goal of this section is to prove Proposition 1.17. We start with some
general lemmas.
6.1. Supporting hyperplanes at the limit set. Recall that a supporting
hyperplane of a properly convex set Ω at a point z ∈ ∂P Ω is a projective
hyperplane whose intersection with Ω is a subset of ∂P Ω containing z. In the
following lemma, we denote by Ωmin ⊂ Ωmax a pair of minimal and maximal
nonempty Γ-invariant properly convex open subsets of P(Rp,q ), given by
Proposition 3.7, and by d the Hilbert metric on Ωmax .
Lemma 6.1. Let Γ be an irreducible discrete subgroup of G = PO(p, q)
preserving a nonempty properly convex open subset Ω of P(Rp,q ). Suppose

CONVEX COCOMPACTNESS IN PSEUDO-RIEMANNIAN HYPERBOLIC SPACES 29

that the proximal limit set ΛΓ ⊂ ∂P Ω is transverse. If Ω contains a uniform
neighborhood of Ωmin in (Ωmax , d), then Ω has a unique supporting hyperplane
at any point z of ΛΓ , namely z ⊥ .
Proof. We first check that Ωmax has a unique supporting hyperplane at any
point z of ΛΓ , namely z ⊥ . By Proposition 3.7, the set ΛΓ is negative or
positive. We assume that it is negative (the positive case is analogous). Let
e Γ be a cone of Rp,q r {0} lifting ΛΓ on which all inner products h·, ·ip,q
Λ
of noncollinear points are negative. By Proposition 3.7, the set Ωmax is
e max of the set of x0 ∈ Rp,q such that
the projectivization of the interior Ω
e Γ . A supporting hyperplane to Ω
e max in Rp,q is the
hx, x0 ip,q ≤ 0 for all x ∈ Λ
Pk
e Γ . For any x ∈ Λ
eΓ
kernel of a linear form ` = i=1 hxi , ·i with x1 , . . . , xk ∈ Λ
in such a hyperplane, we have `(x) = 0 and hxi , xip,q ≤ 0 for all i, hence
hxi , xip,q = 0 for all i. But the set ΛΓ is transverse by assumption, and so
e max at
all xi are collinear to x. Thus the unique supporting hyperplane to Ω
⊥
p,q
e
x ∈ ΛΓ is x . Taking images in P(R ), the unique supporting hyperplane
to Ωmax at a point z ∈ ΛΓ is z ⊥ .
We now assume that Ω contains a uniform neighborhood of Ωmin in
(Ωmax , d). Let us check that Ω has a unique supporting hyperplane at any
point z of ΛΓ , namely z ⊥ . For z ∈ ΛΓ , let (yt )t≥0 and (zt )t≥0 be two straight
geodesic rays in Ωmax with endpoint z, such that (zt )t≥0 is contained in Ωmin .
Since Ωmax has a unique supporting hyperplane at z, up to reparametrization we have d(yt , zt ) → 0 as t → +∞. Since Ω contains some uniform
neighborhood of Ωmin in (Ωmax , d), we deduce that some subray (yt )t≥t0 is
contained in Ω. This shows that z ⊥ is also the unique supporting hyperplane
of Ω at z.

6.2. Extreme points at the limit set. We next prove the following.
Proposition 6.2. Let Γ be an irreducible discrete subgroup of PO(p, q) preserving a properly convex open subset Ω of P(Rp,q ) and acting cocompactly on
some nonempty properly convex closed subset C of Ω. If the proximal limit
set ΛΓ is transverse, then every point of ΛΓ is an extreme point of Ω.
Proposition 6.2 relies on the following lemma.
Lemma 6.3. Let Γ be a discrete subgroup of PO(p, q) preserving a properly
convex open subset Ω of P(Rp,q ) and acting cocompactly on some nonempty
properly convex closed subset C of Ω contained in Hp,q−1 . For any r > 0,
the closed uniform neighborhood Cr of C in Ω for the Hilbert metric dΩ is
properly convex, and the action of Γ on Cr is properly discontinuous and
cocompact. If r > 0 is small enough, then Cr is contained in Hp,q−1 , and its
ideal boundary ∂i Cr is equal to the proximal limit set ΛΓ if ΛΓ is transverse.
Proof of Lemma 6.3. The action of Γ is properly discontinuous on Ω (see
Section 2.3), hence also on C and on Cr for any r > 0. Let D ⊂ Hp,q−1 be a
compact fundamental domain for the action of Γ on C. For any r > 0, the

30

JEFFREY DANCIGER, FRANÇOIS GUÉRITAUD, AND FANNY KASSEL

set Cr is the union of the Γ-translates of the closed uniform r-neighborhood
Dr of D in (Ω, dΩ ). Since Dr is compact, the action of Γ on Cr is cocompact.
The proper convexity of Cr follows from [Bu, (18.12)]. Since D is compact
and contained in the open set Hp,q−1 , for small enough r > 0 we have Dr ⊂
Hp,q−1 , hence Cr ⊂ Hp,q−1 . In that case, if ΛΓ is transverse, then ∂i Cr = ΛΓ
by Lemma 4.3.

Proof of Proposition 6.2. Suppose by contradiction that ΛΓ is transverse but
that there exists z ∈ ΛΓ which is contained in a nontrivial open segment I
of ∂P Ω. Fix y ∈ C. For any z1 , z2 ∈ I with z ∈ (z1 , z2 ), the open triangle
with vertices y, z1 , z2 is contained in a uniform neighborhood of the ray [y, z)
in (Ω, dΩ ); in particular, it is contained in a uniform neighborhood Cr of C
in (Ω, dΩ ), for some r > 0, and (z1 , z2 ) is contained in the ideal boundary
∂i Cr . By choosing z1 , z2 close enough to z, we may make r as small as we
like. By Lemma 6.3, if r > 0 is small enough, then ∂i Cr = ΛΓ is transverse:
contradiction.

6.3. Proof of Proposition 1.17.(1). Suppose Γ is Hp,q−1 -convex cocompact: it acts properly discontinuously and cocompactly on some nonempty
properly convex closed subset C of Hp,q−1 whose ideal boundary ∂i C is transverse. By Lemma 4.3, the set ∂i C is equal to the proximal limit set ΛΓ .
Let Cmin be the convex hull of ΛΓ in C: it is a closed convex subset of C,
which has compact quotient by Γ. By Lemma 4.2, the set Cmin is contained
in a maximal Γ-invariant properly convex open subset Ωmax of P(Rp,q ). By
Lemma 6.3, there exists r > 0 such that the closed uniform neighborhood Cr
of Cmin in Ωmax for the Hilbert metric dΩmax is properly convex, with ideal
boundary ∂i Cr = ΛΓ , and the action of Γ on Cr is properly discontinuous
and cocompact. In order to prove that Γ is strongly convex cocompact in
P(Rp+q ) (Definition 1.16), it is sufficient to prove the following.
Lemma 6.4. In this setting, there is a Γ-invariant open neighborhood Ω of
Cmin in Ur := Int(Cr ) which is strictly convex with C 1 boundary ∂P Ω.
Indeed, for such an Ω, the orbital limit set Λorb
Ω (Γ) is equal to ΛΓ by
Lemma 2.11, hence the convex hull of Λorb
(Γ)
in
Ω
is
Cmin , which has compact
Ω
quotient by Γ. Thus if such an Ω exists, then Γ is strongly convex cocompact
in P(Rp+q ).
Recall that, by definition, Ω is strictly convex with C 1 boundary ∂P Ω if
every point of ∂P Ω has the property that it is an extreme point of Ω and Ω
has a unique supporting hyperplane at that point. If Ω is any Γ-invariant
properly convex open neighborhood of Cmin in Ωmax , then every point of ΛΓ
has this property by Lemma 6.1 and Proposition 6.2. Therefore, in order
to prove Lemma 6.4, we only need to focus on ∂P Ω r ΛΓ , that is we must
construct Ω such that each point of ∂P ΩrΛΓ is an extreme point with unique
supporting hyperplane. Constructing such a neighborhood Ω clearly involves
arbitrary choices; here is one of many possible constructions. Cooper–Long–
Tillmann [CLT, Prop. 8.3] give a different construction yielding, in the case

CONVEX COCOMPACTNESS IN PSEUDO-RIEMANNIAN HYPERBOLIC SPACES 31

Γ is torsion-free, a convex set Ω as in Lemma 6.4 with the slightly stronger
property that ∂P ΩrΛΓ is locally the graph of a smooth function with positive
definite Hessian.
Proof of Lemma 6.4. We set V := Rp+q . The following argument does not
use the quadratic form of signature (p, q). Let Γ0 be a subgroup of Γ which
is torsion-free; such a subgroup exists by the Selberg lemma [Se, Lem. 8].
We proceed in three steps. Firstly, we construct a Γ-invariant open neighborhood Ω1 ⊂ Ur of Cmin in Ωmax which has C 1 boundary, but which is
not necessarily strictly convex. Secondly, we construct a small deformation
Ω2 ⊂ Ur of Ω1 which still has C 1 boundary and which is strictly convex, but
only Γ0 -invariant, not necessarily Γ-invariant. Finally, we use an averaging
procedure over translates γ · Ω2 of Ω2 , for γΓ0 ranging over the Γ0 -cosets
of Γ, to construct a Γ-invariant open neighborhood Ω ⊂ Ur of Cmin which
has C 1 boundary and is strictly convex.
• Construction of Ω1 : Consider a compact fundamental domain D for the
action of Γ on Cmin . The convex hull of D in Ωmax is still contained in Cmin .
Let D0 ⊂ Cr be a closed neighborhood of this convex hull in Ur which has C 1
boundary ∂P D0 , and let Ω1 be the interior of the convex hull of Γ · D0 in Ur .
We have Ω1 r ΛΓ ⊂ Ur r ΛΓ = Cr ⊂ Ωmax by choice of r; in particular, the
action of Γ on Ω1 r ΛΓ is properly discontinuous.
Let us check that Ω1 has C 1 boundary ∂P Ω1 . We first observe that any
supporting hyperplane Πy to Ω1 at a point y ∈ ∂P Ω1 rΛΓ stays away from ΛΓ :
indeed, if Πy contained a point z ∈ ΛΓ , then by Lemma 6.1 it would be equal
to the unique supporting hyperplane to Ω1 at z, namely z ⊥ , contradicting
y ∈ Ωmax . On the other hand, since the action of Γ on Ω1 r ΛΓ is properly
discontinuous, for any neighborhood N of ΛΓ in P(V ) and any infinite sequence of distinct elements γj ∈ Γ, the translates γj · D0 are eventually all
contained in N . Therefore, in a neighborhood of y, the hypersurface ∂P Ω1
coincides with the convex hull of a finite union of translates γ · D0 , which has
C 1 boundary by Lemma 2.7.
• Construction of Ω2 : For any y ∈ ∂P Ω1 r ΛΓ , let Fy be the face of y in
∂P Ω, namely the intersection of ∂P Ω1 with the unique supporting hyperplane
Πy to Ω1 at y. By the above observation, Fy is a closed convex subset of
∂P Ω1 r Λ Γ .
We claim that Fy is disjoint from γ · Fy = Fγ·y for all γ ∈ Γ0 r {1}.
Indeed, if there existed y 0 ∈ Fy ∩ Fγ·y , then by uniqueness the supporting
hyperplanes would satisfy Πy = Πy0 = Πγ·y , hence Fy = Fy0 = Fγ·y = γ · Fy .
This would imply Fy = γ m ·Fy for all m ∈ N, hence γ m ·y ∈ Fy for all m ∈ N.
Using the fact that the action of Γ0 on ∂P Ω1 r ΛΓ is properly discontinuous
and taking a limit, we see that Fy would contain a point of ΛΓ , which we
have seen is not true. Therefore Fy is disjoint from γ ·Fy for all γ ∈ Γ0 r{1}.
For any y ∈ ∂P Ω1 r ΛΓ , the subset of P(V ∗ ) consisting of those projective
hyperplanes near the supporting hyperplane Πy that separate Fy from ΛΓ is
open and nonempty, hence (n − 1)-dimensional where n := p + q = dim(V ).

32

JEFFREY DANCIGER, FRANÇOIS GUÉRITAUD, AND FANNY KASSEL

Choose n − 1 such hyperplanes Π1y , . . . , Πn−1
in generic position, with Πiy
y
cutting off a compact region Qiy ⊃ Fy from Ω1 r ΛΓ . One may imagine each
Πiy is obtained by pushing Πy normally into Ω1 and then tilting slightly in
Tn−1 i
Πy ⊂ P(V ) is
one of n − 1 independent directions. The intersection i=1
i
reduced to a singleton. By taking each hyperplane Πy very close to Πy , we
Sn−1 i
may assume that the union Qy := i=1
Qy is disjoint from all its γ-translates
for γ ∈ Γ0 r {1}. In addition, we ensure that Fy has a neighborhood Q0y
T
i
contained in n−1
i=1 Qy .
Since the action of Γ0 on ∂P Ω1 rΛΓ is cocompact, there exist finitely many
points y1 , . . . , ym ∈ ∂P Ω1 r ΛΓ such that (∂P Ω1 r ΛΓ ) ⊂ Γ0 · (Q0y1 ∪ · · · ∪ Q0ym ).
We now explain, for any y ∈ ∂P Ω1 r ΛΓ , how to deform Ω1 into a
new, smaller properly convex Γ0 -invariant open neighborhood of Cmin with
C 1 boundary, in a way that destroys all segments in Q0y . Repeating for
y = y1 , . . . , ym , this will produce a strictly convex Γ0 -invariant open neighborhood Ω2 ⊂ Ω1 of Cmin with C 1 boundary ∂P Ω2 .
Choose an affine chart containing Ωmax , an auxiliary Euclidean metric g
on this chart, and a smooth strictly concave function h : R+ → R+ with
d
h(0) = 0 and dt
h(t) = 1 (e.g. h = tanh). We may assume that for every
t=0
1 ≤ i ≤ n − 1 the g-orthogonal projection πyi onto Πiy satisfies πyi (Qiy ) ⊂
Πiy ∩ Ω1 , with (πyi |Qiy )−1 (Πiy ∩ ∂P Ω1 ) ⊂ Πiy . Define maps ϕiy : Qiy → Qiy
by the property that ϕiy preserves each fiber (πyi )−1 (y 0 ) (a segment), taking
the point at distance t from y 0 to the point at distance h(t). Then ϕiy takes
any segment σ of Fy to a strictly convex curve, unless σ is parallel to Πi .
The image ϕiy (Qiy ∩ ∂P Ω1 ) is still a convex hypersurface. Extending ϕiy by
the identity on Qy r Qiy and repeating with varying i, we find that the
composition ϕy := ϕ1y ◦ · · · ◦ ϕn−1
, defined on Qy , takes Q0y ∩ ∂P Ω1 to a
y
strictly convex hypersurface. We can extend ϕy in a Γ0 -equivariant fashion
to Γ0 · Qy , and extend it further by the identity on the rest of Ω1 : the set
ϕy (Ω1 ) is still Γ0 -invariant, with C 1 boundary, and is still contained in Ur .
Repeating with finitely many points y1 , . . . , ym as above, we obtain a
strictly convex, Γ0 -invariant open neighborhood Ω2 ⊂ Ur of Cmin with C 1
boundary ∂P Ω2 .
• Construction of Ω: Consider the finitely many Γ0 -cosets γ1 Γ0 , . . . , γk Γ0
of Γ and the corresponding translates Ω0i := γi · Ω2 . Let Ω00 be a Γ-invariant
properly convex (not necessarily strictly convex) open neighborhood of Cmin
in Ur which has C 1 boundary ∂P Ω00 and is contained in all Ω0i , 1 ≤ i ≤ k.
(Such a neighborhood Ω00 can be constructed for instance by the same method
as for Ω1 above.) Since Ω0i is strictly convex, uniform neighborhoods of Ω00
in (Ω0i , dΩ0i ) are strictly convex [Bu, (18.12)]. Therefore, by cocompactness,
if h : [0, 1] → [0, 1] is a convex function with sufficiently fast growth (e.g.
h(t) = tα for large enough α > 0), then the Γ0 -invariant function Hi :=
h ◦ dΩ0i (·, Ω00 ) is convex on the convex region Hi−1 ([0, 1]), and in fact smooth

CONVEX COCOMPACTNESS IN PSEUDO-RIEMANNIAN HYPERBOLIC SPACES 33

P
and strictly convex near every point outside Ω00 . The function H := ki=1 Hi
is Γ-invariant and its sublevel set Ω := H −1 ([0, 1)) is a Γ-invariant open
neighborhood of Cmin in Ur which is strictly convex with C 1 boundary ∂P Ω.

6.4. Proof of Proposition 1.17.(2). Suppose Γ preserves a nonempty
strictly convex open subset Ω of P(Rn ). By Lemma 2.11, the orbital limit set
Λorb
Ω (Γ) coincides with the proximal limit set ΛΓ . Suppose that the convex
hull Cmin of ΛΓ in Ω has compact quotient by Γ. By Proposition 3.7, the set
ΛΓ ⊂ ∂P Hp,q−1 is nonpositive or nonnegative (Definition 3.1). Moreover, ΛΓ
is transverse, because it is contained (Fact 2.8) in the boundary of the strictly
convex set Ω. Therefore, ΛΓ is negative or positive. If ΛΓ is negative, then
Cmin ⊂ Hp,q−1 by Lemma 3.6.(1) and Lemma 3.8, and Γ is Hp,q−1 -convex
cocompact by Remark 4.4. Similarly, if ΛΓ is positive, then the image of Γ
under the natural isomorphism PO(p, q) ' PO(q, p) is Hq,p−1 -convex cocompact.
7. Examples of Hp,q−1 -convex cocompact subgroups
In this section we consider the following general construction.
Proposition 7.1. Let H be a real semisimple Lie group of real rank 1. For
p, q ∈ N∗ , let τ : H → G := PO(p, q) be a linear representation which
is proximal, in the sense that τ (H) contains an element which is proximal
in ∂P Hp,q−1 . Then for any word hyperbolic group Γ and any representation
σ0 : Γ → H with finite kernel and convex cocompact image (in the classical
sense) in the rank-one group H,
(1) the composition ρ0 := τ ◦σ0 : Γ → G is P1p,q -Anosov and the proximal
limit set Λρ0 (Γ) ⊂ ∂P Hp,q−1 is negative or positive (Definition 1.9);
(2) the connected component Tρ0 of ρ0 in the space of P1p,q -Anosov representations from Γ to G is a neighborhood of ρ0 in Hom(Γ, G) consisting entirely of P1p,q -Anosov representations with negative proximal limit set or entirely of P1p,q -Anosov representations with positive
proximal limit set.
Proof. Since H has real rank 1, the convex cocompact representation σ0 is
P -Anosov where P is a minimal parabolic subgroup of H [GW, Th. 5.15];
in particular, there is an injective, continuous, σ0 -equivariant boundary map
ξσ0 : ∂∞ Γ → H/P . By [GW, Prop. 4.7] (see also [L, Prop. 3.1]), since τ
is proximal, there is a τ -equivariant embedding ι : H/P ,→ ∂P Hp,q−1 and
ρ0 = τ ◦ σ0 is P1p,q -Anosov with boundary map ι ◦ ξσ0 : ∂∞ Γ → ∂P Hp,q−1 .
In particular, the proximal limit set Λρ0 (Γ) = ι ◦ ξσ0 (∂∞ Γ) is contained in
Λ := ι(H/P ), which is a closed, connected subset of ∂P Hp,q−1 . If σ0 (Γ) is a
uniform lattice in H, then Λρ0 (Γ) = Λ; since uniform lattices of H exist, we
deduce that Λ is transverse. By Proposition 1.10, the set Λ is negative or
positive. In particular, for arbitrary σ0 (Γ) (not necessarily a uniform lattice),
the set Λρ0 (Γ) ⊂ Λ is negative or positive, proving (1).

34

JEFFREY DANCIGER, FRANÇOIS GUÉRITAUD, AND FANNY KASSEL

Statement (2) follows from (1) and from Proposition 3.5.



Here is an immediate consequence of Theorem 1.11, Proposition 1.17, and
Proposition 7.1.
Corollary 7.2. In the setting of Proposition 7.1, the group ρ(Γ) is strongly
convex cocompact in P(Rp+q ) (Definition 1.16) for all irreducible ρ ∈ Tρ0 .
More precisely, either ρ(Γ) is Hp,q−1 -convex cocompact for all irreducible
ρ ∈ Tρ0 , or ρ(Γ) is Hq,p−1 -convex cocompact (after identifying PO(p, q) with
PO(q, p)) for all irreducible ρ ∈ Tρ0 .
Corollary 7.2 also holds for representations ρ ∈ Tρ0 that are not irreducible:
see [DGK2].
We now make explicit a few examples to which Corollary 7.2 applies.
7.1. Hp,q−1 -quasi-Fuchsian groups. Let Γ be the fundamental group of a
convex cocompact (e.g. closed) hyperbolic manifold M of dimension m ≥ 2,
with holonomy σ0 : Γ → PO(m, 1) = Isom(Hm ). The representation σ0
is P1m,1 -Anosov [GW, Th. 5.15]. The proximal limit set Λσ0 (Γ) ⊂ ∂∞ Hm is
negative since any subset of ∂∞ Hm is.
For p, q ∈ N∗ with p ≥ m, the natural embedding Rm,1 ,→ Rp,q induces a
representation τ : O(m, 1) → O(p, q) → PO(p, q) which is proximal, and a
τ -equivariant embedding ι : ∂∞ Hm ,→ ∂P Hp,q−1 . The set Λ := ι(∂∞ Hm ) ⊂
∂P Hp,q−1 is negative by construction.
The representation σ0 lifts to a representation σ
e0 : Γ → H := O(m, 1).
Let ρ0 := τ ◦ σ
e0 : Γ → G := PO(p, q). The proximal limit set Λρ0 (Γ) =
ι(Λσ0 (Γ) ) ⊂ Λ is negative. Thus Corollary 7.2 implies the following.
Proposition 7.3. In this setting, the representation ρ0 : Γ → G = PO(p, q)
is P1p,q -Anosov.
The connected component Tρ0 of ρ0 in the space of P1p,q -Anosov representations from Γ to G is a neighborhood of ρ0 in Hom(Γ, G) consisting entirely
of P1p,q -Anosov representations with negative proximal limit set.
For any irreducible ρ ∈ Tρ0 , the group ρ(Γ) is Hp,q−1 -convex cocompact,
hence strongly convex cocompact in P(Rp+q ).
For p = m + 1 = 3 and q = 1, when the hyperbolic surface M is closed,
the representation ρ0 : Γ → O(2, 1) ,→ PO(3, 1) is called Fuchsian, and
Tρ0 is the classical space of quasi-Fuchsian representations of Γ = π1 (M )
into PO(3, 1), which Bers parametrized by the product of two copies of the
Teichmüller space of M .
Suppose p = m and q = 2. The space Hp,1 is the (p + 1)-dimensional
(Lorentzian) anti-de Sitter space AdSp+1 . When the hyperbolic m-manifold
M is closed, Proposition 7.3 follows from work of Mess [Me] (for p = 2)
and Barbot–Mérigot [BM] (for p ≥ 3). In that case Tρ0 is actually a full
connected component of Hom(Γ, PO(p, 2)), by Mess [Me] (for p = 2) and
Barbot [Ba] (for p ≥ 3). The terminology AdS quasi-Fuchsian is used for
Hp,1 -convex cocompact representations of Γ into PO(p, 2). For p = 2, these

CONVEX COCOMPACTNESS IN PSEUDO-RIEMANNIAN HYPERBOLIC SPACES 35

are exactly the elements of Tρ0 , and they are parametrized by the product of
two copies of the Teichmüller space of M [Me]. For p ≥ 3, it is conjectured
[Ba] that any Hp,1 -convex cocompact representation of Γ lies in Tρ0 .
7.2. Hitchin representations into PO(m, m + 1) and PO(m + 1, m + 1),
and maximal representations into PO(2, q). For n ≥ 2, let
τn : SL2 (R) −→ SLn (R)
be the irreducible n-dimensional linear representation of SL2 (R), obtained
from the action of SL2 (R) on the (n − 1)st symmetric power Symn−1 (R2 ) '
Rn . The image of τn preserves the nondegenerate bilinear form Bn :=
−ω ⊗(n−1) induced from the area form ω of R2 . This form is symmetric
if n is odd, and antisymmetric (i.e. symplectic) if n is even.
Suppose n = 2m+1 is odd. The symmetric bilinear form Bn has signature

(m + 1, m) if m is odd,
(7.1)
(kn , `n ) :=
(m, m + 1) if m is even.
If we identify the orthogonal group O(Bn ) (containing the image of τn ) with
O(kn , `n ), then there is a unique τn -equivariant embedding ιn : ∂∞ H2 ,→
∂P Hkn ,`n −1 , and an easy computation shows that its image Λn := ι(∂∞ H2 )
is negative.
For p ≥ kn and q ≥ `n , the representation τn : SL2 (R) → O(Bn ) '
O(kn , `n ) and the natural embedding Rkn ,`n ,→ Rp,q induce a representation
τ : H = SL2 (R) → PO(p, q) which is proximal, and a τ -equivariant embedding ι : ∂∞ H2 ,→ ∂P Hkn ,`n −1 ,→ ∂P Hp,q−1 . The set Λ := ι(∂∞ H2 ) ⊂ ∂P Hp,q−1
is negative by construction.
Let Γ be the fundamental group of a convex cocompact orientable hyperbolic surface, with holonomy σ0 : Γ → PSL2 (R). The representation σ0 lifts
to a representation σ
e0 : Γ → H := SL2 (R). Let ρ0 := τ ◦ σ
e0 : Γ → G :=
PO(p, q). The proximal limit set Λρ0 (Γ) = ι(Λσ0 (Γ) ) ⊂ Λ is negative. Thus
Corollary 7.2 implies the following.
Proposition 7.4. In this setting, the representation ρ0 : Γ → G = PO(p, q)
is P1p,q -Anosov.
The connected component Tρ0 of ρ0 in the space of P1p,q -Anosov representations from Γ to G is a neighborhood of ρ0 in Hom(Γ, G) consisting entirely
of P1p,q -Anosov representations with negative proximal limit set.
For any irreducible ρ ∈ Tρ0 , the group ρ(Γ) is Hp,q−1 -convex cocompact,
hence strongly convex cocompact in P(Rp+q ).
It follows from [L, FG] (see e.g. [BIW2, § 6.1]) that when (p, q) = (kn , `n )
as in (7.1) or (p, q) = (m + 1, m + 1) and when Γ is a closed surface
group, the space Tρ0 of Proposition 7.4 is a full connected component of
Hom(Γ, PO(p, q)), called the Hitchin component of Hom(Γ, PO(p, q)). Proposition 7.4 specializes in that case to Proposition 1.19.

36

JEFFREY DANCIGER, FRANÇOIS GUÉRITAUD, AND FANNY KASSEL

By [BIW1, BIW3], when p = m + 1 = 2 and Γ is a closed surface group,
the space Tρ0 is a full connected component of Hom(Γ, PO(2, q)), consisting
of so-called maximal representations.
8. New examples of Anosov representations
In this section we use Theorem 1.11 to give new examples of Anosov
representations, for any hyperbolic right-angled Coxeter group.
8.1. Representations of Coxeter groups into orthogonal groups. By
definition, a right-angled Coxeter group is a group WS generated by a finite
set of involutions S = {s1 , . . . , sn }, with presentation
WS = s1 , . . . , sn | (si sj )mi,j = 1 ∀ 1 ≤ i, j ≤ n
where mi,i = 1 and mi,j = mj,i ∈ {2, ∞} for i 6= j. It is said to be irreducible
if S cannot be written as the disjoint union of two proper subsets S 0 and S 00
such that WS 0 and WS 00 commute (i.e. mi,j = 2 for all si ∈ S 0 and sj ∈ S 00 ).
The following construction gives representations of WS into orthogonal
groups, and may be formulated for arbitrary Coxeter groups. It is a deformation of the well-known geometric representation due to Tits (see Krammer [Kr]). Let (e1 , . . . , en ) be a basis of Rn and B a symmetric bilinear form
on Rn satisfying

1 if i = j,

0 if mi,j = 2,
(8.1)
B(ei , ej ) =

−αi,j if mi,j = ∞,
where αi,j = αj,i are any real numbers ≥ 1. Consider the representation
ρ : WS → AutR (B) ⊂ GLn (R) sending any generator si to the B-orthogonal
reflection of Rn with respect to ei :

ρ(si ) = x 7−→ x − 2B(ei , x) ei .
It is possible that B is degenerate. To avoid this inconvenience, we can
perturb the coefficients αi,j slightly and B becomes nondegenerate. Indeed,
det(B) is a polynomial in the variables αi,j which is not identically zero (it
would take value 1 if all αi,j were set to zero).
Remark 8.1. If B is degenerate and one wishes to keep the chosen values of the αi,j , then one may work instead in the vector space Rn /Ker(B),
where Ker(B) is the kernel of B. Note that B descends to a nondegenerate
symmetric bilinear form B on Rn /Ker(B) and the representation ρ to a representation ρ into the general linear group of Rn /Ker(B) that preserves B.
The following arguments easily transpose to this setting.
From now on, we assume that B is nondegenerate. We identify B with
h·, ·ip,q and AutR (B) with O(p, q) for some p, q ∈ N. The basis (e1 , . . . , en )
becomes a basis (x1 , . . . , xn ) of Rp,q with hxi , xj ip,q = B(ei , ej ) for all i, j.

CONVEX COCOMPACTNESS IN PSEUDO-RIEMANNIAN HYPERBOLIC SPACES 37

8.2. Conditions for Hp,q−1 -convex cocompactness. By work of Tits and
Vinberg [V], the representation ρ is injective and discrete, and WS acts
e of the ρ(WS )-orbit of the
properly discontinuously via ρ on the interior Ω
fundamental closed polyhedral cone

e = v ∈ Rp,q | hv, xi ip,q ≤ 0 ∀1 ≤ i ≤ n
(8.2)
∆
in Rp,q . Since B is nondegenerate,
ρ(si ) are reflections in the faces of
We shall prove the following.

e has nonempty interior. The elements
∆
e
e in P(Rp,q ).
∆. Let Ω be the image of Ω

Theorem 8.2. In the setting of Section 8.1, suppose that WS is infinite and
irreducible, and that the following conditions are both satisfied:
(1) there does not exist disjoint subsets S 0 , S 00 of S such that WS 0 and
WS 00 are both infinite and commute;
(2) the parameters αij of (8.1), which define B and ρ, are all > 1.
Then Ω is properly convex and the group ρ(WS ) ⊂ AutR (B) ' O(p, q) is
Hp,q−1 -convex cocompact: it acts properly discontinously and cocompactly on
C := Ω ∩ Ω∗ , which is a nonempty properly convex closed subset of Hp,q−1 ,
and the ideal boundary ∂i C does not contain any nontrivial segment.
Here we denote by Ω∗ the dual convex to Ω (see Section 2.3), viewed as a
subset of P(Rp,q ) using the nondegenerate bilinear form h·, ·ip,q (see (8.3)).
Remarks 8.3.
(1) Condition (1) of Theorem 8.2 neither implies, nor is
implied by, the irreducibility of WS .
(2) Let WS be an irreducible, word hyperbolic, right-angled Coxeter
group. In [DGK3], we shall generalize Theorem 8.2 to representations ρ : WS → GL(Rn ) which do not necessarily preserve a quadratic form. This will enable us to completely describe the moduli
space of P1 -Anosov representations ρ : WS → GL(Rn ) realizing WS
as a reflection group.
(3) In this more general context, Marquis [Ma] considered groups generated by reflections in the faces of a polytope which is not necessarily
right-angled, but 2-perfect (a condition on the codimension-2 faces).
He gave a full criterion [Ma, Th. A] for a notion of convex cocompactness which is a priori weaker than strong convex cocompactness in
P(Rn ). The 2-perfect assumption forces the Zariski closure of the reflection group to be conjugate to O(n − 1, 1) or SL± (Rn ) [Ma, Th. B].
8.3. Anosov representations for right-angled Coxeter groups. Note
that in the setting of Theorem 8.2 the group ρ(WS ) ⊂ O(B) ' O(p, q) is irreducible [BH]. Here is an immediate consequence of Theorems 1.7.(1) and 8.2.
Corollary 8.4. In the setting of Theorem 8.2, the group WS is word hyperbolic and the representation ρ : WS → O(p, q) is P1p,q -Anosov with negative
proximal limit set Λρ(WS ) ⊂ ∂P Hp,q−1 .

38

JEFFREY DANCIGER, FRANÇOIS GUÉRITAUD, AND FANNY KASSEL

In particular, this yields a new proof of Moussong’s hyperbolicity criterion
[Mo] in the case of right-angled Coxeter groups.
Corollary 8.5 (Moussong [Mo]). A right-angled Coxeter group WS is word
hyperbolic if and only if it satisfies condition (1) of Theorem 8.2, or equivalently if and only if the generating set S does not contain elements si1 , si2 , si3 , si4
with mi1 ,i3 = mi2 ,i4 = ∞ and mij ,ij+1 = 2 for all j ∈ Z/4Z.
This last condition is sometimes known as the no empty square condition.
Proof. If WS is word hyperbolic, then it does not contain any subgroup isomorphic to Z2 , and so condition (1) of Theorem 8.2 is satisfied. Corollary 8.4
states that the converse is true.

We can now prove Theorem 1.20.
Proof of Theorem 1.20. Let W = WS be a right-angled Coxeter group with
n generators as above. Since finite groups trivially satisfy Theorem 1.20, we
assume that WS is infinite. We also assume that WS is word hyperbolic;
then condition (1) of Theorem 8.2 is clearly satisfied. If the Coxeter group
WS is irreducible, then Corollary 8.4 provides a P1p,q -Anosov representation
ρ : WS → O(p, q). Otherwise there is a nontrivial partition S = S 0 t S 00 of
the generating set such that WS is the direct product of its subgroups WS 0
and WS 00 generated respectively by S 0 and S 00 . Up to switching S 0 and S 00 ,
we may assume that WS 00 is a finite group and WS 0 an infinite, irreducible
word hyperbolic Coxeter group, still satisfying condition (1) of Theorem 8.2.
0 0
Corollary 8.4 yields a P1p ,q -Anosov representation ρ0 : WS 0 → O(p0 , q 0 ). The
composition of ρ0 with the natural projection WS → WS 0 ' WS /WS 00 is also
0 0
P1p ,q -Anosov since its restriction to the finite-index subgroup WS 0 is (see
[GW, Cor. 1.3]).

Remark 8.6. In the context of our work [DGK1] on proper affine actions
of right-angled Coxeter groups, the possibility that ρ might be P1p,q -Anosov
in Corollary 8.4 was first suggested to us by Anna Wienhard.
8.4. Proof of Theorem 8.2. We assume that conditions (1) and (2) of
Theorem 8.2 are both satisfied. Condition (2) ensures that the irreducible
reflection group ρ(WS ) is of negative type in the terminology of [V], i.e.
the Cartan matrix (2B(ei , ej ))1≤i,j≤n has at least one negative eigenvalue.
Therefore Ω is properly convex by [V, Lem. 15]. The dual convex set Ω∗ ,
seen as an open subset of P(Rp,q ) via h·, ·ip,q , is given by


e ,
(8.3)
Ω∗ = P x0 ∈ Rp,q | hx, x0 ip,q < 0 ∀x ∈ Ω
e is the closure of Ω
e in Rp,q r {0}.
where Ω
Lemma 8.7. The properly convex set C = Ω ∩ Ω∗ is nonempty.
Proof. By Fact 2.8, the proximal limit set Λρ(WS ) is nonempty and contained
in the respective closures Ω and Ω∗ of Ω and Ω∗ in P(Rp,q ), hence in the

CONVEX COCOMPACTNESS IN PSEUDO-RIEMANNIAN HYPERBOLIC SPACES 39

intersection Ω ∩ Ω∗ , which is invariant under ρ(WS ). Since ρ is irreducible,
the interior Ω ∩ Ω∗ ⊂ C is nonempty.

Let
e ∗ :=
∆


x=

n
X

ti xi ∈ R

p,q


ti ≥ 0 ∀1 ≤ i ≤ n

i=1

e and let Σ
e := ∆
e ∩∆
e ∗ , i.e.
be the dual simplex to ∆,


n
X
p,q
e = x=
Σ
t i xi ∈ R
ti ≥ 0 and hx, xj ip,q ≤ 0 ∀1 ≤ i, j ≤ n .
i=1

⊂ P(Rp,q ) is the projectivization of the intersection of all ρ(WS )The set
e ∗ r {0}. Therefore C = Ω ∩ Ω∗ is contained in the ρ(WS )-orbit
translates of ∆
e r {0}.
of the projectivization Σ ⊂ P(Rp,q ) of Σ
Ω∗

Lemma 8.8. The compact set Σ ⊂ P(Rp,q ) is contained in Hp,q−1 .
P
e where ti ≥ 0 and hx, xj ip,q ≤ 0 for all 1 ≤
Proof. Let x = ni=1 ti xi ∈ Σ
i, j ≤ n. We have
n
X
hx, xip,q =
ti hx, xi ip,q ≤ 0,
i=1
Hp,q−1

hence x projects to a point of
∪ ∂P Hp,q−1
P. Suppose by contradicp,q−1
tion that x projects to a point of ∂P H
, i.e. ni=1 ti hx, xi ip,q = 0. Then
ti hx, xi ip,q = 0 for all 1 ≤ i ≤ n. Let I ⊂ {1, . . . , n} be the (nonempty)
collection ofP
indices k such that tk > 0. For any k ∈ I we have hx, xk ip,q = 0,
hence tk = i∈Ik ti αi,k where Ik := {i ∈ I | mi,k = ∞}. Recall that αi,k > 1
for all i ∈ Ik . Therefore we reach a contradiction by considering k ∈ I such
that tk is minimal.

Lemma 8.9. The stabilizer in WS of any point of Σ is finite. In particular
(see [V, Th. 2]), the compact set Σ is contained in Ω.
P
e where ti ≥ 0 and hx, xj ip,q ≤ 0 for all 1 ≤
Proof. Let x = ni=1 ti xi ∈ Σ
i, j ≤ n. The stabilizer of [x] ∈ P(Rp,q ) in WS is the subgroup WSx generated
by the subset

Sx := sj ∈ S | hx, xj ip,q = 0 .
We aim to show WSx is finite. For this we split Sx into the disjoint union of
its two subsets Sx0 := {sj ∈ Sx | tj = 0} and Sx> := {sj ∈ Sx | tj > 0}.
We claim that any element of Sx0 commutes with any element of Sx> ;
in particular, WSx is the direct product of its subgroups WSx0 and WSx>
generated respectively by Sx0 and Sx> . Indeed, for any sj ∈ Sx we have by
definition
n
X
X
(8.4)
0 = hx, xj ip,q =
ti hxi , xj ip,q =
ti hxi , xj ip,q ,
i=1

si ∈S >

where
S > := {si ∈ S | ti > 0}.

40

JEFFREY DANCIGER, FRANÇOIS GUÉRITAUD, AND FANNY KASSEL

If sj ∈ Sx0 , then each term of the right-hand sum in (8.4) is nonpositive, hence
must be zero. Thus for any si ∈ S > and sj ∈ Sx0 we have hxi , xj ip,q = 0,
which means that si and sj commute. Therefore WSx = WSx0 × WSx> .
Let us prove that WSx> is finite. For this it is sufficient to prove that
mj,k = 2 for all distinct sj , sk ∈ Sx> . Suppose by contradiction that mj,k = ∞
for some sj , sk ∈ Sx> . By definition, we have
X
0 = hx, xj ip,q = tj +
ti hxi , xj ip,q
si ∈S > , si 6=sj

≤ tj − αj,k tk < tj − tk ,
where the last inequality uses condition (2) of Theorem 8.2. But similarly
by considering hx, xk ip,q = 0, we find tk − tj < 0 which is impossible. Thus
mj,k = 2 for all distinct sj , sk ∈ Sx> and WSx> is a finite group (a product of
finitely many copies of Z/2Z).
We now check that WSx0 is finite. For this it is sufficient to check that WS >
is infinite, since Sx0 and S > are disjoint and condition (1) of Theorem 8.2 is
satisfied. By Lemma 8.8 we have
X
hx, xip,q =
ti tk hxi , xk ip,q < 0.
si ,s` ∈S >

The diagonal terms in the sum are positive and so there must be a nonzero
nondiagonal term. In other words, there are two distinct elements si , s` ∈ S >
generating an infinite dihedral group, proving that WS > is infinite.

For r > 0, let Cr be the closed uniform r-neighborhood of C in Ω with
respect to the Hilbert metric dΩ . It is properly convex [Bu, (18.12)]. By
Lemma 6.3, since the action of WS on C via ρ is cocompact, we may choose
r small enough so that Cr ⊂ Hp,q−1 ; the action of WS via ρ is still properly
discontinuous and cocompact on Cr . We let Ur denote the interior of Cr .
Lemma 8.10. There is no infinite straight ray contained in the boundary
∂H Cr := Cr r Ur of Cr in Hp,q−1 .
Proof. Suppose by contradiction that there is such a ray R = [y, z) ⊂ ∂H Cr ,
with y ∈ ∂H Cr and z ∈ ∂i Cr . Let ∆ ⊂ P(Rp,q ) be the fundamental polytope
of the reflection group ρ(WS ), namely the image of (8.2) in P(Rp,q ); it is
bounded by the reflection hyperplanes P(x⊥
i ) for 1 ≤ i ≤ n.
Up to replacing R with some ρ(WS )-translate, we may assume that R
⊥
crosses P(x⊥
i ) and P(xj ) transversely for some generators si 6= sj that do
not commute. Indeed, let (ρ(si1 . . . sim ) · ∆)m≥M be a sequence of ρ(WS )translates of ∆ that meet R, where i1 , . . . , im ∈ {1, . . . , n} and M ∈ N∗ .
Since R is infinite, the elements si` for ` ≥ M do not all commute: there
exist M ≤ ` < m such that si` does not commute with sim but does
with si`+1 , . . . , sim−1 . Then si` . . . sim−1 = si`+1 . . . sim−1 si` , and so up to
renumbering we may assume that sim−1 and sim do not commute. Thus
ρ(si1 . . . sim−1 )−1 · R meets ∆ and its translates ρ(sim−1 ) · ∆ = ρ(sim−1 )−1 · ∆

CONVEX COCOMPACTNESS IN PSEUDO-RIEMANNIAN HYPERBOLIC SPACES 41

and ρ(sim ) · ∆. It follows that ρ(si1 . . . sim−1 )−1 · R crosses the hyperplanes
⊥
P(x⊥
im−1 ) and P(xim ) transversely. Indeed, ρ(sim−1 ) · ∆ and ρ(sim ) · ∆ are
⊥
separated in Ω by the hyperplanes P(x⊥
im−1 ) and P(xim ), whose intersection lies outside of Ω because it is pointwise fixed by the infinite subgroup
of ρ(WS ) generated by ρ(sim−1 ) and ρ(sim ). Therefore, up to replacing R
⊥
with some ρ(WS )-translate, we may assume that R crosses P(x⊥
i ) and P(xj )
transversely for some generators si 6= sj that do not commute.
Let yi be the intersection point of R with the hyperplane P(x⊥
i ) and let H
be a supporting hyperplane to Cr at yi . Then H must contain R. Similarly,
⊥
ρ(si ) · H must contain R. Note that H ∩ P(x⊥
i ) = (ρ(si ) · H) ∩ P(xi ). Since
⊥
H is spanned by H ∩ P(xi ) and R, we deduce that ρ(si ) · H = H. On the
other hand, since H contains R, it is also a supporting hyperplane to Cr
at the intersection point yj of R with the hyperplane P(x⊥
j ), and similarly
ρ(sj ) · H = H. Therefore H is invariant under ρ(si sj ).
By a straightforward calculation (see [V, § 2]), condition (2) of Theorem 8.2 implies that g := ρ(si sj ) ∈ PO(p, q) is proximal in P(Rp,q ), hence
in ∂P Hp,q−1 (see Remark 2.4). If ξg+ , ξg− ∈ ∂P Hp,q−1 are the attracting and
repelling fixed points of g, then C meets the projective line spanned by ξg+
and ξg− in an open interval (ξg+ , ξg− ): indeed, we have ξg+ , ξg− ∈ ∂i C and
hξg+ , ξg− ip,q 6= 0 (see Remark 2.4 and Fact 2.8). Since yi ∈ Cr ⊂ Ω we have
yi ∈
/ (ξg− )⊥ (see Proposition 3.7), and so g m · yi → ξg+ as m → +∞; similarly, g −m · yi → ξg− as m → +∞. Thus H contains the interval (ξg− , ξg+ ):
contradiction since H does not meet C.

Before giving the proof of Theorem 8.2, we prove one more general lemma.
Lemma 8.11. Let Γ be a discrete subgroup of O(p, q) preserving a properly
convex open subset Ω ⊂ P(Rp,q ). Any accumulation point of the Γ-orbit of a
compact subset K of Ω ∩ Hp,q−1 is contained in ∂P Hp,q−1 .
Proof. Suppose by contradiction that there are sequences (ym ) ∈ KN and
(γm ) ∈ ΓN such that the γm are pairwise distinct and zm := γm ·ym converges
to some z ∈ Hp,q−1 . We can lift the ym ∈ Hp,q−1 to vectors xm ∈ Rp,q with
hxm , xm ip,q = −1; both the xm and the γm · xm stay in a compact subset
of Rp,q . On the other hand, since Γ is discrete, there exists x ∈ Rp,q r {0}
such that (γm · x)n∈N leaves every compact subset of Rp,q . (Indeed, if we
fix a basis of Rp,q , then at least one element x of this basis must satisfy
this property.) Up to passing to a subsequence, we may assume that the
direction of γm · x converges to some null direction `. There exists ε > 0 such
that all segments [xm − εx, xm + εx] ⊂ Rp,q r {0} project to segments σm
contained in Ω. The images γm ·σm , which are again contained in Ω, converge
to the full projective line spanned by x and `. This contradicts the proper
convexity of Ω. Thus the Γ-orbit of K does not have any accumulation point
in Hp,q−1 .


42

JEFFREY DANCIGER, FRANÇOIS GUÉRITAUD, AND FANNY KASSEL

Proof of Theorem 8.2. Let C 0 ⊂ P(Rp,q ) be the ρ(WS )-orbit of Σ. By Lemmas 8.8 and 8.9, we have C 0 ⊂ Hp,q−1 ∩ Ω. In particular, the action of WS
on C 0 via ρ is properly discontinuous, and cocompact since Σ is a compact
fundamental domain.
The set C is nonempty by Lemma 8.7. Since C ⊂ C 0 and C is closed in Ω,
the action of WS on C via ρ is also properly discontinuous and cocompact.
By Lemma 8.11, the set C is closed in Hp,q−1 . We now complete the proof
by showing that ∂i C does not contain any nontrivial projective segment.
Suppose by contradiction that there is a nontrivial segment [a0 , b0 ] in ∂i C.
Since ∂i C ⊂ ∂P Hp,q−1 , we have ha0 , b0 ip,q = 0. By Lemma 6.3, there exists
r > 0 such that the closed uniform neighborhood Cr of C in (Ω, dΩ ) is properly
convex, contained in Hp,q−1 , and the action of Γ on Cr is properly discontinuous and cocompact. Extend [a0 , b0 ] to a segment [a, b] which is maximal in
∂i Cr . Note that [a, b] is also a maximal segment of ∂P Cr (since any segment
of ∂P Cr containing [a, b] is contained in ∂P Hp,q−1 ∩ ∂P Cr = ∂i Cr ). Consider a
point c ∈ C and a sequence of points ym ∈ C in the triangle with vertices
a, b, c, such that (ym )m converges to an interior point y of [a, b] ⊂ ∂i Cr .
We claim that in Ur := Int(Cr ), the Hilbert distance dUr from ym to either
projective interval (a, c] or (b, c] tends to infinity with m. Indeed, consider
a sequence (zm )m of points of (a, c] converging to z ∈ [a, c] and let us check
that dUr (ym , zm ) → +∞ (the proof for (b, c] is the same). If z ∈ (a, c],
then z ∈ Cr and so dUr (ym , zm ) → +∞ by properness of the Hilbert metric.
0 , z 0 ∈ ∂ U such that
Otherwise z = a. In that case, for each m, consider ym
P r
m
0
0
ym , ym , zm , zm are aligned in that order. Up to taking a subsequence, we may
0 → y 0 and z 0 → z 0 for some y 0 , z 0 ∈ ∂ U , with y 0 , y, a, z 0 aligned
assume ym
P r
m
in that order. By maximality of [a, b] in ∂P Ur , we must have z = a = z 0 ,
hence dUr (ym , zm ) → +∞ in this case as well, proving the claim.
Since Γ acts cocompactly on C, there is a sequence (γm ) ∈ ΓN such
that γm · ym remains in a fixed compact subset of C ⊂ Ur . Up to passing to a subsequence, we may assume that (γm · ym )m converges to some
y∞ ∈ C, and (γm · a)m and (γm · b)m and (γm · c)m converge respectively to
some a∞ , b∞ , c∞ ∈ ∂i Cr , with [a∞ , b∞ ] ⊂ ∂i Cr . The triangle with vertices
a∞ , b∞ , c∞ is nondegenerate since it contains y∞ ∈ C. Further, y∞ is infinitely far (for the Hilbert metric dUr ) from the edges [a∞ , c∞ ] and [b∞ , c∞ ],
and so these edges are fully contained in ∂P Ur . By Lemma 8.10, there is
no straight infinite ray in ∂H Cr := Cr r Ur , hence [b∞ , c∞ ] and [a∞ , c∞ ] do
not intersect ∂H Cr and are contained in ∂i Cr ⊂ ∂P Hp,q−1 . But this means
that ha∞ , b∞ ip,q = hb∞ , c∞ ip,q = ha∞ , c∞ ip,q = 0, hence every point of the
triangle with vertices a∞ , b∞ , c∞ is null, contradicting the fact that y∞ lies
in C ⊂ Hp,q−1 .


Remark 8.12. In the proof of Theorem 8.2, we do not assume that the set
C 0 = ρ(WS ) · Σ is convex. We only use that C 0 is contained in Ω and contains
C = Ω ∩ Ω∗ . In fact, by studying the local convexity of C 0 along its boundary

CONVEX COCOMPACTNESS IN PSEUDO-RIEMANNIAN HYPERBOLIC SPACES 43

faces, it is possible to show that C 0 is convex and equal to C; this is done in
a general setting by Greene–Lee–Marquis [GLM].
Appendix A. Connectedness in the space of unordered tuples
The following general statement, on which Proposition 1.10 relies, is probably well known. We provide a proof for the reader’s convenience.
Fact A.1. Let Λ be a connected Hausdorff topological space. For k ≥ 1,
the space Λ(k) of unordered k-tuples of pairwise distinct points of Λ is also
connected (for the restriction of the product topology).
Given a finite subset X of Λ and a point x ∈ Λ r X, we denote by ΛX
x the
connected component of Λ r X containing x. Since Λ is Hausdorff, its finite
X
subsets are closed, and so ΛX
x is an open subset of Λ and its closure Λx is
X
contained in Λx ∪ X.
Lemma A.2. Let Λ be a connected topological space with closed singletons.
For any k ≥ 1 and {x0 , . . . , xk } ∈ Λ(k+1) , there exists 0 ≤ i0 < k such that
the unordered k-tuples {x0 , . . . , xk } r {xi0 } and {x0 , . . . , xk−1 } belong to the
same connected component of Λ(k) .
Proof. For 0 ≤ i < k, let Xi := {x0 , . . . , xk−1 } r {xi }. It is sufficient to
prove the existence of 0 ≤ i0 < k such that xi0 and xk belong to the same
Xi
connected component of Λ r Xi0 , i.e. xi0 ∈ Λxk 0 . We have
\ X
\ X
\
i
Λxki ⊂
Λxki ⊂
(ΛX
(A.1)
xk ∪ Xi ).
0≤i<k

0≤i<k

0≤i<k

i
i
/ ΛX
Suppose by contradiction that xi ∈
/ ΛX
xk ∪Xi ,
xk for all 0 ≤ i < k: then xi ∈
so the right-hand
intersection in (A.1) is disjoint from all Xi and can be
T
i
rewritten 0≤i<k ΛX
xk . This set is therefore open and (by (A.1)) closed, and
contains xk but no other xi , contradicting the fact that Λ is connected. 

Lemma A.3. Let Λ be a connected topological space with closed singletons.
For any k ≥ 1 and {x0 , . . . , xk } ∈ Λ(k+1) , there exists 1 ≤ j0 ≤ k such that
{xj0 }

xi ∈ Λx0

for all i ∈ {1, . . . , k} r {j0 }.

We call this property Hk , or Hk (x0 , {x1 , . . . , xk }) to be specific.
Proof. We argue by induction. Property H1 is vacuously true. Assuming
Hk−1 where k ≥ 2, let us prove Hk by contradiction. We have
\ {xj }
\
\ {xj }
{x }
(A.2)
Λ x0 ⊂
Λ x0 ⊂
(Λx0 j ∪ {xj }).
1≤j≤k

1≤j≤k

1≤j≤k

Suppose Hk (x0 , {x1 , . . . , xk }) fails: that is, for all 1 ≤ j ≤ k,
{x }

{x1 , . . . , xk } r {xj } 6⊂ Λx0 j .

44

JEFFREY DANCIGER, FRANÇOIS GUÉRITAUD, AND FANNY KASSEL

We claim that the right member of (A.2) then cannot contain any xi for
{x }
1 ≤ i ≤ k: indeed that would imply xi ∈ Λx0 j for all j ∈ {1, . . . , k} r {i},
hence the above relationship would yield
{x }

{x1 , . . . , xk } r {xi , xj } 6⊂ Λx0 j

for all j ∈ {1, . . . , k} r {i}, contradicting Hk−1 (x0 , {x1 , . . . , xk } r {xi }).
T
{x }
Therefore the right-hand side of (A.2) can be written 1≤j≤k Λx0 j , which
by (A.2) turns out to be closed. It is also open, and contains x0 but no
other xi : this contradicts connectedness of Λ. Therefore Hk holds.

Proof of Fact A.1. We argue by induction on k to prove that Λ(k) is connected for any connected topological space Λ with closed singletons. The
case k = 1 is obviously true. For k ≥ 2, suppose that (Λ0 )(k−1) is connected
for any connected Λ0 with closed singletons, and let us prove that Λ(k) is
connected for any connected Λ with closed singletons.
Consider {x0 , . . . , xk } ∈ Λ(k+1) . By Lemma A.3, up to exchanging the
{x }
labels j0 and k, we have xi ∈ Λx0 k for all 1 ≤ i ≤ k − 1, i.e. all points
x0 , . . . , xk−1 belong to the same connected component Λ0 of Λ r {xk }. Since
Λ0(k−1) is connected, all (k − 1)-tuples {x0 , . . . , xk−1 } r {xi } for 0 ≤ i < k
belong to the same connected component of (Λ r {xk })(k−1) , and so all ktuples {x0 , . . . , xk } r {xi } for 0 ≤ i < k belong to the same component
of Λ(k) . But by Lemma A.2 one of these k-tuples (for i = i0 ) belongs to
the same component as {x0 , . . . , xk−1 }. Therefore all k-tuples contained
in {x0 , . . . , xk } belong to the same component of Λ(k) . This is true for all
{x0 , . . . , xk } ∈ Λ(k+1) , hence Λ(k) is connected.

References
[Ba]
[BM]
[Be]

[B1]
[B2]
[B3]
[B4]
[B5]
[B6]
[BH]

T. Barbot, Deformations of Fuchsian AdS representations are quasi-Fuchsian,
J. Differential Geom. 101 (2015), p. 1–46.
T. Barbot, Q. Mérigot, Anosov AdS representations are quasi-Fuchsian,
Groups Geom. Dyn. 6 (2012), p. 441–483.
N. Benakli, Polyèdres et groupes hyperboliques : passage du local au global,
PhD thesis, Université Paris-Sud 11, 1992, available at http://www.theses.
fr/1992PA112230.
Y. Benoist, Propriétés asymptotiques des groupes linéaires, Geom. Funct.
Anal. 7 (1997), p. 1–47.
Y. Benoist, Automorphismes des cônes convexes, Invent. Math. 141 (2000),
p. 149–193.
Y. Benoist, Convexes divisibles I, in Algebraic groups and arithmetic, Tata
Inst. Fund. Res. Stud. Math. 17 (2004), p. 339–374.
Y. Benoist, Convexes divisibles II, Duke Math. J. 120 (2003), p. 97–120.
Y. Benoist, Convexes divisibles III, Ann. Sci. Éc. Norm. Sup. 38 (2005), p. 793–
832.
Y. Benoist, Convexes divisibles IV, Invent. Math. 164 (2006), p. 249–278.
Y. Benoist, P. de la Harpe, Adhérence de Zariski des groupes de Coxeter,
Compos. Math. 140 (2004), p. 1357–1366.

CONVEX COCOMPACTNESS IN PSEUDO-RIEMANNIAN HYPERBOLIC SPACES 45

[BPS]

J. Bochi, R. Potrie, A. Sambarino, Anosov representations and dominated
splittings, preprint, arXiv:1605:01742.
[BCLS] M. Bridgeman, R. D. Canary, F. Labourie, A. Sambarino, The pressure
metric for Anosov representations, Geom. Funct. Anal. 25 (2015), p. 1089–1179.
[BIW1] M. Burger, A. Iozzi, A. Wienhard, Surface group representations with maximal Toledo invariant, Ann. Math. 172 (2010), p. 517–566.
[BIW2] M. Burger, A. Iozzi, A. Wienhard, Higher Teichmüller spaces: from
SL(2, R) to other Lie groups, Handbook of Teichmüller theory IV, p. 539–618,
IRMA Lect. Math. Theor. Phys. 19, 2014.
[BIW3] M. Burger, A. Iozzi, A. Wienhard, Maximal representations and Anosov
structures, in preparation.
[Bu]
H. Busemann, The geometry of geodesics, Academic Press Inc., New York,
1955.
[CLT]
D. Cooper, D. Long, S. Tillmann, Deforming convex projective manifolds,
preprint, arXiv:1511.06206.
[CM]
M. Crampon, L. Marquis, Finitude géométrique en géométrie de Hilbert, with
an appendix by C. Vernicos, Ann. Inst. Fourier 64 (2014), p. 2299–2377.
[DGK1] J. Danciger, F. Guéritaud, F. Kassel, Proper affine actions for right-angled
Coxeter groups, preprint.
[DGK2] J. Danciger, F. Guéritaud, F. Kassel, Convex cocompact actions in real
projective geometry, preprint.
[DGK3] J. Danciger, F. Guéritaud, F. Kassel, Projective convex cocompactness for
right-angled Coxeter groups, preprint.
[D1]
A. Dranishnikov, Boundaries of Coxeter groups and simplicial complexes with
given link, J. Pure Appl. Algebra 137 (1999), p. 139–151.
[D2]
A. Dranishnikov, On boundaries of hyperbolic Coxeter groups, Topology
Appl. 110 (2001), p. 29–38.
[DHR]
M. Dyer, C. Hohlweg, V. Ripoll, Imaginary cones and limit roots of infinite
Coxeter groups, Math. Z. 284 (2016), p. 715–780.
[FG]
V. V. Fock, A. B. Goncharov, Moduli spaces of local systems and higher
Teichmüller theory, Publ. Math. Inst. Hautes Études Sci. 103 (2006), p. 1–211.
[FK]
T. Foertsch, A. Karlsson, Hilbert metrics and Minkowski norms, J.
Geom. 83 (2005), p. 22–31.
[Go]
W. M. Goldman, Convex real projective structures on surfaces, J. Differential
Geom. 31 (1990), p. 791–845.
[GLM]
R. Greene, G.-S. Lee, L. Marquis, in preparation.
[GGKW] F. Guéritaud, O. Guichard, F. Kassel, A. Wienhard, Anosov representations and proper actions, Geom. Topol. 121 (2017), p. 485–584.
[GW]
O. Guichard, A. Wienhard, Anosov representations : Domains of discontinuity and applications, Invent. Math. 190 (2012), p. 357–438.
[Gu]
Y. Guivarc’h, Produits de matrices aléatoires et applications aux propriétés
géométriques des sous-groupes du groupe linéaire, Ergodic Theory Dynam. Systems 10 (1990), p. 483–512.
[H]
F. Haglund, Complexes simpliciaux hyperboliques de grande dimension,
preprint (2003), available at www.math.u-psud.fr/~haglund/.
[JS]
T. Januszkiewicz, J. Świątkowski, Hyperbolic Coxeter groups of large dimension, Comment. Math. Helv. 78 (2003), p. 555–583.
[KLPa] M. Kapovich, B. Leeb, J. Porti, Morse actions of discrete groups on symmetric spaces, preprint, arXiv:1403.7671.
[KLPb] M. Kapovich, B. Leeb, J. Porti, Some recent results on Anosov representations, Transform. Groups 21 (2016), p. 1105–1121.
[KL]
B. Kleiner, B. Leeb, Rigidity of invariant convex sets in symmetric spaces,
Invent. Math. 163 (2006), p. 657–676.

46

[Kr]
[L]
[Ma]
[Me]
[Mo]
[O]
[Q]
[Se]
[Su]

[Sw]
[V]

JEFFREY DANCIGER, FRANÇOIS GUÉRITAUD, AND FANNY KASSEL

D. Krammer, The conjugacy problem for Coxeter groups, PhD thesis, Universiteit Utrecht, 1994, published in Groups Geom. Dyn. 3 (2009), p. 71–171.
F. Labourie, Anosov flows, surface groups and curves in projective space, Invent. Math. 165 (2006), p. 51–114.
L. Marquis, Coxeter group in Hilbert geometry, to appear in Groups Geom.
Dyn.
G. Mess, Lorentz spacetimes of constant curvature (1990), Geom. Dedicata 126
(2007), p. 3–45.
G. Moussong, Hyperbolic Coxeter groups, PhD thesis, Ohio State University,
1987.
D. Osajda, A construction of hyperbolic Coxeter groups, Comment. Math.
Helv. 88 (2013), p. 353–367.
J.-F. Quint, Groupes convexes cocompacts en rang supérieur, Geom. Dedicata 113 (2005), p. 1–19.
A. Selberg, On discontinuous groups in higher-dimensional symmetric spaces
(1960), in “Collected papers”, vol. 1, p. 475–492, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1989.
D. Sullivan, Quasiconformal homeomorphisms and dynamics II: Structural
stability implies hyperbolicity for Kleinian groups, Acta Math. 155 (1985),
p. 243–260.
J. Świątkowski, Hyperbolic Coxeter groups with Sierpiński carpet boundary,
Bull. Lond. Math. Soc. 48 (2016), p. 708–716.
E. B. Vinberg, Discrete linear groups generated by reflections, Math. USSR
Izv. 5 (1971), p. 1083–1119.

Department of Mathematics, The University of Texas at Austin, 1 University Station C1200, Austin, TX 78712, USA
E-mail address: jdanciger@math.utexas.edu
CNRS and Université Lille 1, Laboratoire Paul Painlevé, 59655 Villeneuve
d’Ascq Cedex, France
E-mail address: francois.gueritaud@math.univ-lille1.fr
CNRS and Institut des Hautes Études Scientifiques, Laboratoire Alexander Grothendieck, 35 route de Chartres, 91440 Bures-sur-Yvette, France
E-mail address: kassel@ihes.fr

