ANOSOV REPRESENTATIONS AND PROPER ACTIONS

arXiv:1502.03811v5 [math.GR] 25 Feb 2016

FRANÇOIS GUÉRITAUD, OLIVIER GUICHARD, FANNY KASSEL, AND ANNA WIENHARD
Abstract. We establish several characterizations of Anosov representations of
word hyperbolic groups into real reductive Lie groups, in terms of a Cartan projection or Lyapunov projection of the Lie group. Using a properness criterion of
Benoist and Kobayashi, we derive applications to proper actions on homogeneous
spaces of reductive groups.

1. Introduction
Anosov representations of word hyperbolic groups into real Lie groups were first
introduced by Labourie [Lab06]. They provide an interesting class of discrete subgroups of semisimple or reductive Lie groups, with a rich structure theory. In many
respects they generalize, to a higher-rank setting, the convex cocompact representations into rank-one simple groups [GW12, KLPa, KLPb, KLPc]. They also play an
important role in the context of higher Teichmüller spaces.
The original definition of Anosov representations from [Lab06] involves the flow
space of a word hyperbolic group, whose construction is not completely straightforward. In this paper, we establish several characterizations of Anosov representations
that do not involve the flow space. A central role in our characterizations is played
by the Cartan projection of G (associated with a fixed Cartan decomposition), which
measures dynamical properties of diverging sequences in G. We apply our characterizations to the study of proper actions on homogeneous spaces by establishing a direct
link between the properties, for a representation ρ : Γ → G to be Anosov, and for Γ
to act properly discontinuously via ρ on certain homogeneous spaces of G.
We now describe our results in more detail.
1.1. Existence of continuous boundary maps. Since the foundational work of
Furstenberg and the celebrated rigidity theorems of Mostow and Margulis, the existence of boundary maps has been playing a crucial role in the study of discrete
subgroups of Lie groups. Given a representation ρ : Γ → G of a finitely generated
group Γ into a reductive (e.g. semisimple) Lie group G, measurable ρ-equivariant
boundary maps from a Poisson boundary of Γ to a boundary of G exist under rather
weak assumptions, e.g. Zariski density of ρ(Γ) in G. However, if Γ comes with some
FG, OG, and FK were partially supported by the Agence Nationale de la Recherche under the grants
ETTT (ANR-09-BLAN-0116-01) and DiscGroup (ANR-11-BS01-013), as well as through the Labex
CEMPI (ANR-11-LABX-0007-01). OG also received funding from the European Research Council under the European Community’s seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013)/ERC grant
agreement FP7-246918. AW was partially supported by the National Science Foundation under
agreements DMS-1065919 and 0846408, by the Sloan Foundation, by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, by the European Research Council under ERC-Consolidator grant 614733, and by the
Klaus Tschira Foundation. This paper was completed while OG, FK, and AW were in residence
at the MSRI in Berkeley, California, supported by the National Science Foundation under grant
0932078 000.
1

ANOSOV REPRESENTATIONS AND PROPER ACTIONS

2

geometric or topological boundary, obtaining a continuous ρ-equivariant boundary
map is in general difficult.
Anosov representations of word hyperbolic groups come, by definition, with a pair
of continuous equivariant boundary maps. More precisely, let ρ : Γ → G be a Pθ Anosov representation. (We always assume G to be noncompact and linear, and
use the notation Pθ , Pθ− for its standard parabolic subgroups with the convention
that P∅ = G, see Section 2.2.) Then there exist ρ-equivariant boundary maps ξ + :
∂∞ Γ → G/Pθ and ξ − : ∂∞ Γ → G/Pθ− that are continuous. These boundary maps
have additional remarkable properties: they are transverse, i.e. for any distinct points
η, η ′ ∈ ∂∞ Γ the images ξ + (η) ∈ G/Pθ and ξ − (η ′ ) ∈ G/Pθ− are in general position, and
they are dynamics-preserving, which means that for any γ ∈ Γ of infinite order with
attracting fixed point ηγ+ ∈ ∂∞ Γ, the point ξ + (ηγ+ ) (resp. ξ − (ηγ+ )) is an attracting
fixed point for the action of ρ(γ) on G/Pθ (resp. G/Pθ− ). Furthermore, these maps
satisfy an exponential contraction property involving certain bundles over the flow
space of Γ (see Section 2.5).
In this paper, given a word hyperbolic group Γ and a representation ρ : Γ → G, we
construct, under some growth assumption for the Cartan projection of G restricted
to ρ(Γ) (Theorem 1.1.(1)), an explicit pair (ξ + , ξ − ) of continuous, ρ-equivariant
boundary maps. (Recall that the Cartan projection µ : G → a+ , defined from a Cartan decomposition G = K(exp a+ )K, is a continuous, proper, surjective map to the
closed Weyl chamber a+ ; see Section 2.3.1, and Example 2.16 for G = GLd (R).) We
give a sufficient condition for these maps to be dynamics-preserving (Theorem 1.1.(2)).
Under an additional assumption on the growth of µ along geodesic rays in Γ (Theorem 1.1.(3)), we prove that the pair of maps (ξ + , ξ − ) is also transverse and that
ρ is Anosov. This assumption involves the following notion: we say that a sequence (xn ) ∈ (R+ )N is CLI (i.e. has coarsely linear increments) if there exist
κ, κ′ , κ′′ , κ′′′ > 0 such that for all n, m ∈ N,
(1.1)

κm − κ′ ≤ xn+m − xn ≤ κ′′ m + κ′′′ .

In other words, n 7→ xn is a quasi-isometric embedding of N into R+ .
Theorem 1.1. Let Γ be a word hyperbolic group and | · |Γ : Γ → N its word length
function with respect to some fixed finite generating subset of Γ. Let G be a real
reductive Lie group and ρ : Γ → G a representation. Fix a nonempty subset θ ⊂ ∆
∗
of the simple restricted roots of G (see Section 2.2.2), and let Σ+
θ ⊂ a be the set of
positive roots that do not belong to the span of ∆ r θ.
(1) If there is a constant C > 0 such that for any α ∈ θ,
hα, µ(ρ(γ))i ≥ 2 log |γ|Γ − C,
then there exist continuous, ρ-equivariant boundary maps ξ + : ∂∞ Γ → G/Pθ
and ξ − : ∂∞ Γ → G/Pθ− .
(2) If moreover for any α ∈ θ and any γ ∈ Γ,
hα, µ(ρ(γ n ))i − 2 log |n| −→

|n|→+∞

+∞,

then ξ + and ξ − are dynamics-preserving.
(3) If moreover for any α ∈ Σ+
θ and any
 geodesic ray (γn )n∈N in the Cayley graph
of Γ, the sequence hα, µ(ρ(γn ))i n∈N is CLI, then ξ + and ξ − are transverse
and ρ is Pθ -Anosov.

ANOSOV REPRESENTATIONS AND PROPER ACTIONS

3

Let us briefly discuss the meaning of the assumptions of Theorem 1.1. Let k · k be
a Euclidean norm on the Cartan subspace a which is invariant under the restricted
Weyl group of a in G. For any α ∈ ∆, the function hα, ·i : a+ → R+ is proportional to
the distance function to the wall Ker(α), with respect to k·k. Thus the assumption of
TheoremS1.1.(1) means that the set µ(ρ(Γ)) “drifts away at infinity” from the union
of walls α∈θ Ker(α) in a+ , at speed at least 2 log in the word length. The CLI
assumption in Theorem 1.1.(3) means that the image under µ ◦ ρ of any geodesic ray
in the Cayley graph of Γ drifts away “forever linearly” from the hyperplane Ker(α)
for every α ∈ Σ+
θ (see Section 2.3.2). Inside the Riemannian symmetric space G/K
of G, the function kµ(·)k : G → R+ gives the distance between the basepoint x0 =
eK ∈ G/K and its image under an element of G (see (2.8)). The functions hα, µ(·)i
can be thought of as refinements of kµ(·)k. The CLI assumption in Theorem 1.1.(3)
means that hα, µ ◦ ρ(·)i : Γ → R+ restricts to a quasi-isometric embedding on any
geodesic ray in the Cayley graph of Γ, for α ∈ Σ+
θ.
Remarks 1.2.
(a) Theorem 1.1.(1) extends a rank-one result of Floyd [Flo80] to
the setting of higher real rank. As in [Flo80], the image of ξ + in Theorem 1.1
is the limit set of Γ in G/Pθ (Definition 5.1), see Theorem 5.3.
(b) Boundary maps are commonly constructed only on some large subset of ∂∞ Γ
(dense or of full measure). By contrast, Theorem 1.1.(1) is based on an explicit
construction of the boundary maps at every point: see Theorem 5.3.
(c) Theorem 5.3 refines Theorem 1.1 by providing weaker conditions for the existence of ρ-equivariant boundary maps with various properties. The subtleties in dropping one assumption among continuity, dynamics-preservation,
or transversality are illustrated by Examples 5.5 and A.6. We expect that
the methods of the proof of Theorem 5.3 will have applications in broader
contexts where Γ is not necessarily word hyperbolic.
(d) The growth condition in Theorem 1.1.(2) is optimal (see Lemma 2.27 and
Remark 2.32.(a)).
(e) In Theorem 1.1.(3) the CLI constants are not required to be uniform.
(f) The CLI assumption in Theorem 1.1.(3) can be restricted to the set of geodesic
rays starting at the identity element e ∈ Γ. In fact, we only need the CLI
assumption for one quasi-geodesic representative per point in the boundary at
infinity ∂∞ Γ (see Proposition 5.12). If θ = ∆ (i.e. Pθ is a minimal parabolic
subgroup of G), then the CLI assumption for all α ∈ Σ+
θ is equivalent to the
CLI assumption for all α ∈ θ, because in this particular case Σ+
θ ⊂ span(θ).
(g) For a quasi-geodesic ray (γn )n∈N , under the hypothesis of Theorem 1.1.(3),
the sequence (hα, µ(ρ(γn ))i)n∈N is always upper CLI: see (2.11) and Fact 2.18.
(Here we use the terminology (κ′′ , κ′′′ )-upper CLI for a sequence (xn ) ∈ (R+ )N
satisfying the right-hand inequality of (1.1) for all n, m ∈ N; we say (xn )n∈N is upper
CLI if it is (κ′′ , κ′′′ )-upper CLI for some κ′′ , κ′′′ > 0. Similarly, we shall use below the
terminology (κ, κ′ )-lower CLI for a sequence (xn ) ∈ (R+ )N satisfying the left-hand
inequality of (1.1) for all n, m ∈ N.)
1.2. Characterizations of Anosov representations in terms of the Cartan
projection. Theorem 1.1 provides sufficient conditions for a representation ρ : Γ → G
to be Anosov in terms of the Cartan projection µ. Conversely, we prove that any
Anosov representation satisfies these conditions. This yields the following characterizations.

ANOSOV REPRESENTATIONS AND PROPER ACTIONS

4

Theorem 1.3. Let Γ be a word hyperbolic group, G a real reductive Lie group, and
θ ⊂ ∆ a nonempty subset of the simple restricted roots of G. For any representation
ρ : Γ → G, the following conditions are equivalent:

(1) ρ is Pθ -Anosov;
(2) There exist continuous, ρ-equivariant, dynamics-preserving, and transverse
maps ξ + : ∂∞ Γ → G/Pθ and ξ − : ∂∞ Γ → G/Pθ− , and for any α ∈ θ we have
hα, µ(ρ(γ))i → +∞ as γ → ∞ in Γ;
(3) There exist continuous, ρ-equivariant, dynamics-preserving, and transverse
maps ξ + : ∂∞ Γ → G/Pθ and ξ − : ∂∞ Γ → G/Pθ− , and constants c, C > 0 such
that hα, µ(ρ(γ))i ≥ c |γ|Γ − C for all α ∈ θ and γ ∈ Γ;
(4) There exist κ, κ′ > 0 such that for any α ∈ Σ+
θ and any geodesic ray (γn )n∈N
with γ0 = e in the Cayley graph of Γ, the sequence (hα, µ(ρ(γn ))i)n∈N is
(κ, κ′ )-lower CLI.

By γ → ∞ we mean that γ leaves every finite subset of Γ, or equivalently that the
word length |γ|Γ of γ goes to +∞.

Remark 1.4. For Zariski-dense representations the existence of continuous, ρ-equivariant, dynamics-preserving, and transverse maps ξ + : ∂∞ Γ → G/Pθ and ξ − : ∂∞ Γ →
G/Pθ− is sufficient for ρ to be Pθ -Anosov [GW12, Th. 4.11]. However, we observe that
this is not true in general, even when ρ is semisimple: see Example 7.15.
Remark 1.5. From Theorem 1.3.(3) we recover the fact [Lab06], [GW12, Th. 5.3] that
any Anosov representation is a quasi-isometric embedding. For a semisimple Lie
group G of real rank one, i.e. when |∆| = 1, being a quasi-isometric embedding is
equivalent to being P∆ -Anosov (Remark 2.36), and in particular is an open property.
In higher real rank this is not true: being a quasi-isometric embedding is not an open
property (see Appendix A), whereas being Anosov is. In higher real rank it is more
difficult to find natural constraints on quasi-isometric embeddings ρ : Γ → G that
define an open subset of Hom(Γ, G); characterization (4) of Theorem 1.3 provides
one answer to this problem.
The characterization of Anosov representations given by Theorem 1.3.(4) does not
involve the boundary ∂∞ Γ, but only the behavior of the Cartan projection along
geodesic rays. Here are some consequences.
Remarks 1.6.
(a) Theorem 1.3.(4) provides a notion of Anosov representations
of word hyperbolic groups into p-adic Lie groups. Indeed, the Cartan projection µ, with values in a convex cone inside some Euclidean space, is also
well defined, with similar properties, when G is a reductive group over Qp (or
more generally a non-Archimedean local field).
(b) Theorem 1.3.(4) can be used to define new classes of representations into
real Lie groups. For instance, for a free group Γ, requiring condition (4)
only for certain “primitive” geodesic rays gives rise to a notion of primitive
stable representations into higher-rank Lie groups (generalizing the notion
introduced by Minsky [Min13] for G = PSL2 (C)).
1.3. Relation to the work of Kapovich, Leeb, and Porti. There is overlap
between Theorem 1.3 (which contains a weaker version of Theorem 1.1.(3), see Remark 1.2.e) and results of Kapovich, Leeb, and Porti, as we now describe.
In a series of three papers [KLPa, KLPb, KLPc] (see also [KLPd]), Kapovich, Leeb,
and Porti develop a theory of discrete groups of isometries of higher-rank Riemannian

ANOSOV REPRESENTATIONS AND PROPER ACTIONS

5

symmetric spaces with nice geometric, dynamical, and topological properties, generalizing some of the characterizations of convex cocompactness in rank one. This theory
depends on a choice of a face τmod of the model Weyl chamber σmod associated with
the Riemannian symmetric space. In [KLPa, KLPb], they prove the equivalence of
several properties for τmod -nonelementary finitely generated discrete groups of isometries Γ, namely
(i) τmod -RCA (regularity, conicality, antipodality);
(ii) τmod -CEA (convergence, expansion, antipodality);
(iii) word hyperbolicity, τmod -regularity, and τmod -asymptotical embeddedness;
(iv) word hyperbolicity and a τmod -Morse property;
(v) word hyperbolicity and a τmod -Anosov property.
In [KLPc], using asymptotic cones, they prove that these properties are equivalent to
(vi) nondistorsion and asymptotic uniform τmod -regularity.
Let G be the full isometry group of a Riemannian symmetric space. In our language
and with our notation, the choice of τmod is equivalent to the choice
of a subset θ ⊂ ∆
T
of the simple restricted roots of G, via the identification θ 7→ α∈∆rθ Ker(α) ∩ a+ ; in
turn, this is equivalent to the choice of a standard parabolic subgroup Pθ of G (see Section 2.2). The τmod -Anosov property in (v) is the Pθ -Anosov property of the present
paper (see Definition 2.30). Condition (vi) means, in our language, that there exist
c, C > 0 such that hα, µ(ρ(γ))i ≥ c |γ|Γ − C for all α ∈ θ and γ ∈ Γ. The implications
(1) ⇔ (2) ⇒ (3) in Theorem 1.3 are analogous to the implications (iii) ⇔ (v)⇒ (vi)
above, after observing that the τmod -conicality requirement in τmod -asymptotic embeddedness in (iii) is always satisfied when the continuous equivariant boundary maps
are dynamics-preserving and transverse. The implication (4) ⇒ (1) in Theorem 1.3
follows from (vi) ⇒ (v) above. We do not see any direct link between the implication
(1) ⇒ (4) and the characterizations above in general, since (4) involves Σ+
θ and not θ.
We note that characterizations (i), (ii), (vi) of Kapovich–Leeb–Porti do not assume
the discrete group to be hyperbolic a priori.
In [KLPc] the authors also develop a notion of Morse action on Euclidean buildings,
in particular Bruhat–Tits buildings of p-adic groups; compare our Remark 1.6.(a).
1.4. Characterizations of Anosov representations in terms of the Lyapunov
projection. We also establish new characterizations of Anosov representations that
are analogous to Theorem 1.3 but involve the Lyapunov projection λ : g 7→ limn µ(gn )/n
associated with the Jordan decomposition in G (see Section 2.4), and the stable length
γ 7→ |γ|∞ = limn |γ n |Γ /n (see (2.1)).
Theorem 1.7. Let Γ be a word hyperbolic group, G a real reductive Lie group, and
θ ⊂ ∆ a nonempty subset of the simple restricted roots of G. For any representation
ρ : Γ → G, the following conditions are equivalent:
(1) ρ is Pθ -Anosov;
(2) There exist continuous, ρ-equivariant, dynamics-preserving, and transverse
maps ξ + : ∂∞ Γ → G/Pθ and ξ − : ∂∞ Γ → G/Pθ− , and for any α ∈ θ we have
hα, λ(ρ(γ))i → +∞ as |γ|∞ → +∞;
(3) There exist continuous, ρ-equivariant, dynamics-preserving, and transverse
maps ξ + : ∂∞ Γ → G/Pθ and ξ − : ∂∞ Γ → G/Pθ− , and a constant c > 0 such
that hα, λ(ρ(γ))i ≥ c |γ|∞ for all α ∈ θ and γ ∈ Γ.
A Pθ -Anosov representation ρ : Γ → G is not necessarily semisimple, even when
Pθ is a minimal parabolic subgroup of G (Remark 2.41). In the course of the proof of

ANOSOV REPRESENTATIONS AND PROPER ACTIONS

6

Theorem 1.7 we establish the following result, which is of independent interest. (See
Section 2.5.4 for a definition of the semisimplification.)
Proposition 1.8. Let Γ be a word hyperbolic group, G a real reductive Lie group,
and θ ⊂ ∆ a nonempty subset of the simple restricted roots of G. Let ρ : Γ → G be a
representation and ρss its semisimplification. Then
ρ is Pθ -Anosov ⇐⇒ ρss is Pθ -Anosov.

Since the character variety of Γ in G can be viewed as the quotient of Hom(Γ, G)
by the relation “having the same semisimplification”, Proposition 1.8 means that the
notion of being Pθ -Anosov is well defined in the character variety.

1.5. Anosov representations and proper actions. The first applications of Anosov
representations to proper actions on homogeneous spaces were investigated in [GW12]
through constructions of domains of discontinuity. Theorem 1.3 now provides a more
direct link via the following properness criterion of Benoist and Kobayashi.
Properness criterion [Ben96, Kob96]: Let G be a reductive Lie group and H, Γ two
closed subgroups of G. Then Γ acts properly on G/H if and only if for any compact
subset C of a the intersection (µ(Γ) + C) ∩ µ(H) ⊂ a is compact.
In other words, Γ acts properly on G/H if and only if the set µ(Γ) “drifts away
at infinity” from µ(H). In this case the quotient Γ\G/H is an orbifold, sometimes
called a Clifford–Klein form of G/H.
Based on the properness criterion, a strengthening of the notion of proper discontinuity was introduced in [KK16]: a discrete subgroup Γ < G is said to act sharply
(or strongly properly discontinuously) on G/H if the set µ(Γ) drifts away from µ(H)
at infinity “with a nonzero angle”, i.e. there are constants c, C > 0 such that for all
γ ∈ Γ,
(1.2)

da (µ(γ), µ(H)) ≥ c kµ(γ)k − C,

where da denotes the metric on a induced by k · k. The quotient Γ\G/H is said to
be a sharp Clifford–Klein form. Many (but not all) properly discontinuous actions
are sharp; the sharpness constants (c, C) give a way to quantify this proper discontinuity. Sharp actions are interesting for several reasons. Firstly, they tend to be
stable under small deformations, which is not true for general properly discontinuous
actions. Secondly, there are applications to spectral theory in the setting of affine
symmetric spaces G/H: by [KK16], if the discrete spectrum of the Laplacian on G/H
is nonempty (which is equivalent to the rank condition rank G/H = rank K/(K ∩H)),
then the discrete spectrum of the Laplacian is infinite on any sharp Clifford–Klein
form Γ\G/H.
Here is an immediate consequence of the implication (1) ⇒ (3) of Theorem 1.3 and
of (2.11) below (which expresses the subadditivity of kµk).
Corollary 1.9. Let Γ be a word hyperbolic group, G a real reductive Lie group, and
θ ⊂ ∆ a nonempty subset of the simple restricted roots of G. For any Pθ -Anosov
representation ρ : Γ → G, the group ρ(Γ) acts sharply (in particular, properly
disconS
tinuously) on G/H for any closed subgroup H of G such that µ(H) ⊂ α∈θ Ker(α).

Since the set of Pθ -Anosov representations is open in Hom(Γ, G) [Lab06, GW12],
Corollary 1.9 provides sharp actions that remain sharp under any small deformation.
This corollary applies for instance to Hitchin representations of surface groups
(which are Anosov with respect to a minimal parabolic subgroup, i.e. θ = ∆) and
to maximal representations (which are Anosov with respect to a specific maximal

ANOSOV REPRESENTATIONS AND PROPER ACTIONS

7

proper parabolic subgroup, i.e. |θ| = 1). We refer to Sections 6.1 and 6.2 for more
explanation.
Corollary 1.10. Let (G, H) be a pair in Table 1. For any Hitchin representation
ρ : π1 (Σ) → G, the group π1 (Σ) acts sharply on G/H.
G
H
Conditions
(i)
SLd (R)
SLk (R)
k <d−1
(ii)
SLd (R)
SO(d − k, k)
|d − 2k| > 1
(iii)
SL2d (R)
SLd (C) × U(1)
(iv)
SO(d, d)
SO(k, ℓ) × SO(d − k, d − ℓ)
|k − ℓ| > 1
(v) SO(d, d + 1) SO(k, ℓ) × SO(d − k, d + 1 − ℓ) ℓ ∈
/ {k, k + 1}
(vi)
SO(d, d)
GLk (R)
k <d−1
(vii) SO(d, d + 1)
GLk (R)
k<d
(viii) SO(2d, 2d)
U(d, d)
(ix)
Sp(2d, R)
U(d − k, k)
(x)
Sp(2d, R)
Sp(2k, R)
k<d
(xi)
Sp(4d, R)
Sp(2d, C)
Table 1. In these examples, 0 ≤ k, ℓ ≤ d are any integers with d ≥ 2,
satisfying the specified conditions.

Corollary 1.11. Let (G, H) be a pair in Table 2. For any maximal representation
ρ : π1 (Σ) → G, the group π1 (Σ) acts sharply on G/H.
G
H
Conditions
(i)
SO(2, d)
U(1, k)
k ≤ d/2
(ii)
Sp(2d, R)
U(d − k, k)
d 6= 2k
(iii)
Sp(2d, R)
Sp(2k, R)
k<d
(iv)
Sp(4d, R)
Sp(2d − 2, C)
(v) SU(2d + 1, 2d + 1)
SO∗ (4d + 2)
(vi)
SU(p, q)
SU(k, ℓ) × SU(p − k, q − ℓ) (p − q)(k − ℓ) < 0
(vii)
SO∗ (2d)
U(d − k, k) × U(1)
(viii)
SO∗ (4d)
SO∗ (4d − 2)
(ix)
E6(−14)
F4(−20)
(x)
E7(−25)
E6(−14)
(xi)
E7(−25)
SU(6, 2)
Table 2. In these examples, k, ℓ, d, p, q ∈ N are any integers with
d ≥ 2 and k, ℓ ≤ d (as well as k ≤ p and ℓ ≤ q in (vi)), satisfying the
specified conditions.
Applying Corollary 1.9, it is easy to find many other examples with similar properties.
Conversely to Corollary 1.9, we prove that certain properly discontinuous actions
give rise to Anosov representations, using the implication (4) ⇒ (1) of Theorem 1.3.
This works well, for instance, in the so-called standard case, namely when the discrete
group Γ lies inside some Lie subgroup G1 of G that itself acts properly on G/H; in
this case the action of Γ is automatically properly discontinuous, and even sharp
[KK16, Ex. 4.10] (see Section 6.3).

ANOSOV REPRESENTATIONS AND PROPER ACTIONS

8

Corollary 1.12. Let G be a real reductive Lie group, θ ⊂ ∆ a nonempty subset
of
roots of G, and H a closed subgroup of G such that µ(H) ⊃
S the simple restricted
+
a
.
Let
G
Ker(α)∩
1 be a reductive subgroup of G, of real rank 1, acting properly
α∈θ
on G/H. Then for any convex cocompact subgroup Γ of G1 , the inclusion of Γ into G
is Pθ -Anosov.
Recall that Γ being convex cocompact in G1 means that there is a nonempty, Γinvariant, closed, convex subset C of the Riemannian symmetric space of G1 such
that Γ\C is compact. Since G1 has real rank 1, this is equivalent to Γ being finitely
generated and quasi-isometrically embedded in G1 (Remark 2.36).
Corollary 1.12 applies in particular to the examples in Table 3 below. For more
examples, including exceptional groups, see [KY05]. In examples (i) to (iv) when
k = d/2, in example (v) when ℓ = d/4, and in example (vii), the group G1 acts
cocompactly on G/H, hence compact Clifford–Klein forms of G/H can be obtained
by taking Γ to be a uniform lattice in G1 . We refer to [Oku13, BJT14] for many more
examples to which Corollary 1.12 applies, where G1 is locally isomorphic to SL2 (R).
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)

G
SO(2, d)
SO(2, d)
U(2, d)
U(2, d)
SO(4, d)
SO(4, d)
SO(8, 8)
SO(8, 8)

θ
H
G1
α1 SO(1, d)
U(1, k)
α0
U(1, k)
SO(1, d)
α1
U(1, d)
Sp(1, k)
α0 Sp(1, k)
U(1, d)
α1 SO(3, d)
Sp(1, ℓ)
α0 Sp(1, ℓ)
SO(1, d)
α1 SO(7, 8) Spin(8, 1)
α0 Spin(8, 1) SO(1, 8)

Table 3. In these examples, d, k, ℓ are any integers with 0 <k ≤ d/2
and 0 < ℓ ≤ d/4. We denote by α0 the simple root of G such that Pα0
is the stabilizer of an isotropic line, and by α1 the simple root of G
such that Pα1 is the stabilizer of a maximal isotropic subspace.
The geometric construction of domains of discontinuity from [GW12] can be applied in many of the cases of Table 3 to furthermore obtain compactifications of
the corresponding Clifford–Klein forms Γ\G/H. These compactifications generalize
for instance the conformal compactifications of Fuchsian and quasi-Fuchsian groups.
This is the object of [GGKW].
Remarks 1.13.
(a) The properness criterion of Benoist and Kobayashi also applies
when G is a reductive group over a non-Archimedean local field (e.g. Qp ): see
[Ben96]. Corollaries 1.9 and 1.12 also hold in this setting (see Remark 1.6.(a)).
(b) From Corollaries 1.9 and 1.12, we recover the main result of [Kas12]: in
the setting of Corollary 1.12 (over R or Qp ), there is a neighborhood U ⊂
Hom(Γ, G) of the natural inclusion such that for any ϕ ∈ U the group ϕ(Γ)
is discrete in G and acts properly discontinuously on G/H.
1.6. Proper actions on group manifolds. For a Lie group G, let Diag(G) be the diagonal of G×G. The homogeneous space (G×G)/Diag(G) identifies with G endowed
with the transitive action of G × G by left and right translation, and is called a group
manifold. Using the full equivalence (1) ⇔ (3) of Theorem 1.3, as well as Theorem 1.7,
we obtain a particularly satisfying characterization of quasi-isometrically embedded

ANOSOV REPRESENTATIONS AND PROPER ACTIONS

9

groups acting properly on (G×G)/Diag(G) when G is semisimple of real rank 1. This
covers in particular the cases of anti-de Sitter 3-manifolds (G = PSL2 (R)) and of Riemannian holomorphic complex 3-manifolds with constant nonzero sectional curvature
(G = PSL2 (C)).
Theorem 1.14. Let G be a semisimple Lie group of real rank 1 and Γ a finitely
generated subgroup of G × G. Then the following are equivalent:

(1) Γ acts properly discontinuously on (G × G)/Diag(G) and the inclusion Γ ֒→
G × G is a quasi-isometric embedding,
(2) Γ acts sharply on (G × G)/Diag(G) and the inclusion Γ ֒→ G × G is a quasiisometric embedding,
(3) Γ is word hyperbolic, of the form
Γ = {(ρL (γ), ρR (γ)) | γ ∈ Γ0 },
where ρL , ρR : Γ0 → G are representations and, up to switching the two
factors of G × G, the representation ρL is convex cocompact and uniformly
dominates ρR .

Here we say that ρL uniformly dominates ρR if there exists c < 1 such that for all
γ ∈ Γ0 ,
λ(ρR (γ)) ≤ c λ(ρL (γ)),

where λ : G → R+ is the translation length function in the Riemannian symmetric
space G/K of G, given by λ(g) = inf x∈G/K d(x, g · x) for all g ∈ G.
Remark 1.15. Theorem 1.14, together with Corollary 1.18 below, was first established
in [Kas09] for G = PSL2 (R) ≃ SO(1, 2)0 , then in [GK] for G = SO(1, d) with d ≥ 2.
(For a p-adic version, with G of relative rank 1 over a non-Archimedean local field,
see [Kas10].) The fact that for a general Lie group G of real rank 1, any discrete
subgroup of G× G acting properly discontinuously on (G× G)/Diag(G) is of the form
(ρL , ρR )(Γ0 ) where ρL or ρR is discrete with finite kernel, was proved in [Kas08]: see
Theorem 7.14 for a precise statement.
To prove Theorem 1.14, we relate conditions (1), (2), (3) to the fact that Γ is
word hyperbolic and its natural inclusion inside some larger group containing G × G
is Anosov. Such a relationship also exists, in a weaker form, when G has higher
real rank: a general statement is given in Theorem 7.3 below. Here we explain this
relationship when G = AutK (b) is the group of automorphisms of a vector space over
K = R or C preserving a nondegenerate bilinear (symmetric or symplectic) form b,
or the group of automorphisms of a vector space over K = C or H (quaternions)
preserving a nondegenerate (Hermitian or anti-Hermitian) form b — a situation that
includes all classical simple groups of real rank 1, namely SO(1, d), SU(1, d), Sp(1, d)
(Example 7.5).
Theorem 1.16. For K = R, C, or H, let V be a K-vector space and b : V ⊗R V → K
a nondegenerate R-bilinear form which is symmetric, antisymmetric, Hermitian, or
anti-Hermitian over K, with G := AutK (b) noncompact. Let Q0 (b⊕b) be the stabilizer
in AutK (b ⊕ b) of a (b ⊕ b)-isotropic line in V ⊕ V , and similarly for b ⊕ (−b). For
a discrete subgroup Γ of G × G, the following three conditions are equivalent:
(3) Γ is word hyperbolic, of the form

Γ = {(ρL (γ), ρR (γ)) | γ ∈ Γ0 },

ANOSOV REPRESENTATIONS AND PROPER ACTIONS

10

where ρL , ρR : Γ0 → G are representations and, up to switching the two
factors of G × G, the representation ρL is Q0 (b)-Anosov and uniformly Q0 (b)dominates ρR (see Definition 7.1);
(4) Γ is word hyperbolic and the natural inclusion
Γ ֒−→ G × G = AutK (b) × AutK (b) ֒−→ AutK (b ⊕ b)

is Q0 (b ⊕ b)-Anosov;
(5) Γ is word hyperbolic and the natural inclusion

Γ ֒−→ G × G = AutK (b) × AutK (−b) ֒−→ AutK (b ⊕ (−b))

is Q0 (b ⊕ (−b))-Anosov.
If (3), (4), or (5) holds, then (1) and (2) of Theorem 1.14 hold. The converse is true
if and only if G has real rank 1.
We refer to Remark 7.6 for an explanation of why (2) does not imply (4) when G
has higher real rank.
Even though AutK (b) = AutK (−b), the embeddings in (4) and (5) are in general
quite different. For instance, for AutK (b) = O(1, d), these embeddings are Γ ֒→
O(1, d) × O(1, d) ֒→ O(2, 2d) and Γ ֒→ O(1, d) × O(1, d) ≃ O(1, d) × O(d, 1) ֒→
O(d + 1, d + 1).
Here are two consequences of Theorems 1.14 and 1.16 (and their refinement, Theorem 7.3); the second one uses the fact that being Anosov is an open property.
Corollary 1.17. Let G be a semisimple Lie group of real rank 1 and Γ a discrete
subgroup of G × G. If the action of Γ on (G × G)/Diag(G) is properly discontinuous
and cocompact, then it is in fact sharp.
Corollary 1.18. Let G be a semisimple Lie group of real rank 1 and Γ a finitely
generated quasi-isometrically embedded subgroup of G × G. If Γ acts properly discontinuously on (G × G)/Diag(G), then there is a neighborhood U ⊂ Hom(Γ, G × G) of
the natural inclusion such that any ρ ∈ U is a quasi-isometric embedding from Γ to
G × G, and Γ acts properly discontinuously on (G × G)/Diag(G) via ρ. If moreover
the action of Γ on (G × G)/Diag(G) is cocompact, then Γ also acts cocompactly on
(G × G)/Diag(G) via ρ.

Remark 1.19. For G semisimple of real rank 1, Corollary 1.18 together with [Tho15,
Th. 3] implies that the space of complete (G × G, (G × G)/Diag(G))-structures on a
compact manifold M is a union of connected components of the space of (G × G,
(G × G)/Diag(G))-structures on M .

Conventions. In the whole paper, we assume the reductive group G to be noncompact, equal to a finite union of connected components (for the real topology) of G(R)
for some algebraic group G. We set R+ := [0, +∞), as well as N := Z ∩ R+ and
N∗ := N r {0}.

Organization of the paper. In Section 2 we review some background material
on word hyperbolic groups, the structure of reductive Lie groups, proximality, and
Anosov representations, and establish some basic preliminary results. In Section 3
we explain how one can always reduce to Anosov representations into GL(V ). In
Section 4 we prove the equivalences (1) ⇔ (2) ⇔ (3) of Theorems 1.3 and 1.7 (characterizations of Anosov representations assuming the existence of boundary maps).
In Section 5 we give a point-by-point construction of boundary maps (proving Theorem 1.1) and establish the equivalence (1) ⇔ (4) of Theorem 1.3. In Section 6 we

ANOSOV REPRESENTATIONS AND PROPER ACTIONS

11

provide short proofs of Corollaries 1.10, 1.11, and 1.12. The link between Anosov
representations and proper actions on group manifolds is established in Section 7,
where we prove Theorems 1.14 and 1.16 as well as Corollaries 1.17 and 1.18.
Acknowledgements. This work started during a visit of F.G. and F.K. to Princeton
in April 2011, and continued through several meetings at the IHP (Paris), Princeton
University, CIRM (Luminy), Université de Strasbourg, Université Lille 1, University
of Maryland, Universität Heidelberg, Caltech, and MSRI (Berkeley). We are grateful
to these institutions for their hospitality. We also thank the research network “Geometric structures and representation varieties” (GEAR), funded by the NSF under
the grants DMS 1107452, 1107263, and 1107367, for providing several opportunities
for us to meet.
We would like to thank Yves Benoist, Marc Burger, Dick Canary, Misha Kapovich,
François Labourie, Sara Maloni, and Joan Porti for interesting discussions, as well as
an anonymous referee for many valuable comments.
2. Preliminaries on Anosov representations and the structure of
reductive Lie groups
In this section we set up notation and recall some definitions and useful facts about
word hyperbolic groups Γ, real reductive Lie groups G, and Anosov representations
ρ : Γ → G.
2.1. Word hyperbolic groups and their boundary at infinity. Recall that a
finitely generated group Γ, with finite generating set S ⊂ Γ, is said to be word hyperbolic if its Cayley graph C(Γ, S), equipped with the natural graph metric, is Gromov
hyperbolic. The induced metric on Γ is the one coming from the word length | · |Γ .
2.1.1. The boundary at infinity. Let c, C > 0. A map f : (X, d) → (X ′ , d′ ) between
metric spaces is a (c, C)-quasi-isometric embedding if for all x, y ∈ X,
c−1 d(x, y) − C ≤ d′ (f (x), f (y)) ≤ c d(x, y) + C.

It is a quasi-isometry if furthermore there exists R ≥ 0 such that for any x′ ∈ X ′
we can find x ∈ X with d′ (x′ , f (x)) ≤ R. When X = N, a (c, C)-quasi-isometric
embedding is called a quasi-geodesic ray. When X ′ is the Cayley graph of Γ, a
sequence (γn ) ∈ ΓN defines a (c, C)-quasi-geodesic ray in the Cayley graph of Γ if for
all n, m ∈ N,
c−1 |n − m| − C ≤ |γn−1 γm |Γ ≤ c |n − m| + C.

If X and X ′ are geodesic metric spaces and if f : X → X ′ is a quasi-isometry,
then X is Gromov hyperbolic if and only if X ′ is, and in this case f induces a
homeomorphism ∂∞ f : ∂∞ X → ∂∞ X ′ between the visual boundaries [CDP90, Ch. III,
Th. 2.2]. This fundamental fact has the following consequences:
(i) the word hyperbolicity of the group Γ does not depend on the choice of finite
generating set S;
(ii) the boundary at infinity ∂∞ Γ = ∂∞ C(Γ, S) is well defined and Γ acts on it by
homeomorphisms.
The word hyperbolic group Γ acts on ∂∞ Γ as a uniform convergence group (see e.g.
[Bow98]), which means that it acts properly discontinuously and cocompactly on the
set of triples of pairwise distinct elements of ∂∞ Γ. As a consequence, it satisfies the
following dynamical properties:

ANOSOV REPRESENTATIONS AND PROPER ACTIONS

12

Fact 2.1.
(1) For any sequence (γn ) ∈ ΓN going to infinity, there exist η, η ′ ∈
∂∞ Γ (possibly equal) and a subsequence (γφ(n) )n∈N such that γφ(n) |∂∞ Γr{η′ }
converges, in the compact-open topology, to the constant map with image {η}.
(2) For any γ ∈ Γ of infinite order, there exist ηγ+ 6= ηγ− in ∂∞ Γ such that
limn→+∞ γ n · η = ηγ+ for all η 6= ηγ− and limn→+∞ γ −n · η = ηγ− for all
η 6= ηγ+ .
(3) The pairs (ηγ+ , ηγ− ) of attracting and repelling fixed points of elements γ ∈ Γ
of infinite order form a dense subset of (∂∞ Γ × ∂∞ Γ) r Diag(∂∞ Γ).
(4) If Γ is nonelementary (i.e. if #∂∞ Γ > 2, i.e. if Γ is not virtually cyclic), then
the action of Γ on ∂∞ Γ is minimal (i.e. every nonempty Γ-invariant subset
is dense).
2.1.2. Word length, stable length, and translation length. Associated with the word
length function | · |Γ : Γ → N is the stable length function | · |∞ : Γ → R, given by
1 n
|γ |Γ
(2.1)
|γ|∞ = lim
n→+∞ n
for all γ ∈ Γ. It is easily seen to be invariant under conjugation: |βγβ −1 |∞ = |γ|∞
for all β, γ ∈ Γ. Moreover, it is related as follows to the translation length function
on the Cayley graph
(2.2)

γ 7−→ ℓΓ (γ) = inf |βγβ −1 |Γ .
β∈Γ

Proposition 2.2 ([CDP90, Ch. X, Prop. 6.4]). If the group Γ is δ-hyperbolic, then
ℓΓ (γ) − 16δ ≤ |γ|∞ ≤ ℓΓ (γ) for all γ ∈ Γ.

2.1.3. The flow space. An important object for the definition of an Anosov representation below and for some proofs in this paper is the flow space of the word hyperbolic
group Γ. It is a proper metric space GΓ with the following properties:
(1) GΓ is Gromov hyperbolic.
(2) GΓ is equipped with a properly discontinuous and cocompact action of Γ by
isometries. In particular, any orbit map γ 7→ γ · v from Γ to GΓ is a quasiisometry, and ∂∞ Γ is equivariantly homeomorphic to ∂∞ GΓ .
(3) GΓ is equipped with a flow {ϕt }t∈R (i.e. a continuous R-action) which commutes with the Γ-action and for which there exist c, C > 0 such that any
orbit R → GΓ of the flow is a (c, C)-quasi-isometric embedding. This implies
the existence of two continuous maps
ϕ±∞ : GΓ −→
∂∞ Γ
v 7−→ lim ϕt · v
t→±∞

associating to v ∈ GΓ the endpoints of its orbit.
(4) GΓ is equipped with an isometric Z/2Z-action commuting with Γ and anticommuting with R.
(5) The natural map
(ϕ+∞ , ϕ−∞ ) : R\GΓ −→ (∂∞ Γ × ∂∞ Γ) r Diag(∂∞ Γ)

is a homeomorphism.
The flow space was constructed by Gromov [Gro87, Th. 8.3.C], and more details were
provided by Champetier [Cha94, § 4]. Mineyev [Min05] introduced a different construction of the flow space of a hyperbolic graph with bounded valency (not necessarily coming with a group action). It is based on the existence of a hyperbolic metric

ANOSOV REPRESENTATIONS AND PROPER ACTIONS

13

dˆ on the graph satisfying some subtle properties (see [Min05, Th. 26] and [MY02,
Th. 17]): when applied to a Cayley graph of Γ these yield a space GΓ as above. In
Mineyev’s version the R-orbits are geodesics and not only quasi-geodesics. There is
also a uniqueness statement for the flow space GΓ as a Γ × (R ⋊ Z/2Z)-space up to
quasi-isometry and up to reparameterization of the R-orbits, but we shall not need it.
Remark 2.3. It follows from Fact 2.1.(3) that the union of the periodic geodesics of
the flow {ϕt }t∈R is dense in GΓ .

If Γ1 → Γ2 is a homomorphism with finite kernel and finite-index image and if Γ2 is
word hyperbolic with flow space GΓ2 , then Γ1 is finitely generated and word hyperbolic
and a flow space for Γ1 is GΓ2 with the action of Γ1 induced by the homomorphism
Γ1 → Γ2 .
2.1.4. Negatively curved Riemannian manifolds. For a large class of word hyperbolic
groups Γ (including the fundamental groups of closed negatively-curved Riemannian
manifolds), the flow space GΓ has a simple geometric interpretation:
Fact 2.4. Let X be a simply connected Riemannian manifold with sectional curvature
bounded above by −a2 , for some a 6= 0, and let ρ : Γ → Isom(X) be a homomorphism
with finite kernel and convex cocompact image. Then Γ is finitely generated, word
hyperbolic, and a flow space of Γ is given by
GΓ = {v ∈ T 1 (X) | (ϕ+∞ , ϕ−∞ )(v) ∈ Λρ(Γ) × Λρ(Γ) }
= {v ∈ T 1 (X) | ∀t ∈ R, π(ϕt · v) ∈ Cρ(Γ) }

with its natural Γ × (R ⋊ Z/2Z)-action.

Here Isom(X) is the group of isometries of X and π : T 1 (X) → X the natural
projection. We denote by Λρ(Γ) the limit set of ρ(Γ) in ∂∞ X, which is by definition
the closure in ∂∞ X of any Γ-orbit in X. By convex cocompact we mean that Γ acts
properly discontinuously and cocompactly, via ρ, on the convex hull Cρ(Γ) ⊂ X of
Λρ(Γ) . In this case ∂∞ Γ is homeomorphic to the limit set Λρ(Γ) .
This example illustrates the nonuniqueness of the flow space as a metric space, since
a given convex cocompact subgroup of Isom(X) can have nontrivial deformations.
Remark 2.5. In Corollaries 1.10, 1.11, 1.12, Theorem 1.14, and Corollaries 1.17, 1.18,
the group Γ falls in the setting of Fact 2.4.
2.1.5. Geodesics in Γ and in its flow space. We make the following definition.
Definition 2.6. A sequence (xn ) ∈ RN is CLI (i.e. has coarsely linear increments)
if n 7→ xn is a quasi-isometric embedding of N into [a, +∞) for some a ∈ R, i.e. there
exist κ, κ′ , κ′′ , κ′′′ > 0 such that for all n, m ∈ N,
κm − κ′ ≤ xn+m − xn ≤ κ′′ m + κ′′′ .

In this case we say that (xn )n∈N is (κ, κ′ )-lower CLI.

Remark 2.7. For a positive sequence (xn )n∈N , the property of being CLI is stronger
than the property of growing linearly as n → +∞. For instance, if f : N → (R+ )2 is
a quasi-isometric embedding whose image zigzags vertically and horizontally between
the lines y = x and y = 2x, then the composition of f with either of the two
projections (R+ )2 → R+ grows linearly but is not CLI.
The following result will be used several times throughout the paper.

ANOSOV REPRESENTATIONS AND PROPER ACTIONS

14

Proposition 2.8. Let Γ be a word hyperbolic group with flow space GΓ . For any
c, C > 0, there exist a compact subset D of GΓ and constants κ, κ′ > 0 with the
following property: for any (c, C)-quasi-geodesic ray (γn )n∈N with γ0 = e in the
Cayley graph of Γ, there exist v ∈ D and a (κ, κ′ )-lower CLI sequence (tn ) ∈ RN such
that ϕtn · v ∈ γn · D for all n ∈ N.

Proof. Any (c, C)-quasi-geodesic ray (γn )n∈N with γ0 = e can be extended to a full
uniform quasi-geodesic (γn )n∈Z in the Cayley graph of Γ. Let ψ : Γ → GΓ be an
orbit map; it is a quasi-isometry. By hyperbolicity, (ψ(γn ))n∈Z lies within uniformly
bounded Hausdorff distance R > 0 from the R-orbit in GΓ with the same endpoints
at infinity. Let us write this R-orbit as (ϕt · v)t∈R where v lies at distance ≤ R from
ψ(e). For any n ∈ N, the point ψ(γn ) ∈ GΓ lies at distance ≤ R from ϕtn · v for
some tn ∈ R, and the sequence (tn )n∈N is CLI because ψ is a quasi-isometry and
the R-orbits are quasi-isometric embeddings. The lower CLI constants of (tn )n∈N
depend only on (c, C) and on the quasi-isometry constants of ψ.


Corollary 2.9. Let Γ be a word hyperbolic group. Then there exist a compact subset
D of GΓ and constants c1 , c2 > 0 with the following property: for any γ ∈ Γ there
exist v ∈ D and t ≥ 0 such that ϕt · v ∈ γ · D and t ≥ c1 |γ|Γ − c2 .

Proof. Any γ ∈ Γ belongs to a uniform quasi-geodesic (γn )n∈N with γ0 = e and

γ|γ|Γ = γ. We conclude using Proposition 2.8.
2.2. Parabolic subgroups of reductive Lie groups. We now recall the necessary
Lie-theoretic background. Let G be a noncompact real reductive Lie group. We
assume that G is a finite union of connected components (for the real topology) of
G(R) for some algebraic group G. For simplicity, we assume that the adjoint action
of G on its Lie algebra g is by inner automorphisms, i.e. Ad(G) ⊂ Aut(g)0 ; this is
the case for instance if G is connected. Recall that G is the almost product of Z(G)0
and Gs , where Z(G)0 is the identity component (for the real topology) of the center
Z(G) of G, and Gs = D(G) is the derived subgroup of G, which is semisimple.
2.2.1. Parabolic subgroups. By definition, a parabolic subgroup of G is a subgroup
of the form P = G ∩ P(R) for some algebraic subgroup P of G with G(R)/P(R)
compact.
Definition 2.10. Two parabolic subgroups P and Q are said to be
• transverse (or opposite) if their intersection is a reductive subgroup;
• compatible (or in singular position) if their intersection is a parabolic subgroup.
When G has real rank 1, two proper parabolic subgroups are either transverse (i.e.
distinct) or compatible (i.e. equal), but when G has higher real rank there are other
cases between these two extremes.
Remark 2.11. Any parabolic subgroup P is its own normalizer in G, hence G/P
identifies (as a G-set) with the set of conjugates of P in G. In the sequel, we shall
make no distinction between elements of G/P and parabolic subgroups. In particular,
the terminology transverse and compatible will be used for elements of G/P × G/Q.

Remark 2.12. Let X = G/K be the Riemannian symmetric space of G; it has nonpositive curvature and its visual boundary ∂∞ X is a sphere. Geometrically, a proper
parabolic subgroup of G is the stabilizer in G of a (not necessarily unique) point
ξ ∈ ∂∞ X. Two proper parabolic subgroups P and Q are transverse if and only

ANOSOV REPRESENTATIONS AND PROPER ACTIONS

15

if there is a bi-infinite geodesic c : R → X such that P = StabG (lim+∞ c) and
Q = StabG (lim−∞ c).
Example 2.13. Let K be R, C, or the ring H of quaternions, and let G be GLK (V ) for
some (right) K-vector space V . Any parabolic subgroup of G is the stabilizer in G of
a partial flag of K-subspaces of V . Two parabolic subgroups are transverse if and only
if the corresponding flags {0} = V0 ( · · · ( Vr = V and {0} = W0 ( · · · ( Ws = V
satisfy r = s and V = Vi ⊕ Wr−i for all 0 ≤ i ≤ r.

2.2.2. Lie algebra decompositions. Let z(g) (resp. gs ) be the Lie algebra of the center
Z(G) (resp. of the derived group Gs ). Then g = z(g) ⊕ gs , and this decomposition is
orthogonal with respect to the Killing form of g, whose restriction to z(g) (resp. gs )
is zero (resp. nondegenerate). Here are some algebraic and combinatorial objects
needed to give a more comprehensive description of the parabolic subgroups of G:
• K: a maximal compact subgroup of G, with Lie algebra k;
• g = k ⊕ k⊥ : the induced orthogonal decomposition of g for the Killing form;
• a ⊂ k⊥ : a Cartan subspace of g, i.e. a maximal abelian subspace of k⊥ ; it is
the direct sum of k⊥ ∩ z(g) and of a maximal abelian subspace as of k⊥ ∩ gs
(unique up
Lto the Ad(K)-action);
• g = g0 ⊕ α∈Σ gα : the decomposition of g into ad(a)-eigenspaces. By definition,
(ad Y )(Y ′ ) = hα, Y iY ′
′
for all Y ∈ a and Y ∈ gα . The eigenspace g0 is the centralizer of a in g; it
is the direct sum of z(g) and of the centralizer of a in gs . The set Σ ⊂ a∗ =
HomR (a, R) projects to a (possibly nonreduced) root system of a∗s , and each
α ∈ Σ is called a restricted root of a in g;
• ∆ ⊂ Σ: a simple system (see [Kna02, § II.6, p. 164]), i.e. a subset such that
any root is expressed uniquely as a linear combination of elements of ∆ with
coefficients all of the same sign; the elements of ∆ are called the simple roots;
• Σ+ ⊂ Σ: the set of positive roots, i.e. roots that are nonnegative linear
combinations of elements of ∆; then Σ = Σ+ ∪ (−Σ+ ).
Note that ∆ projects to a basis of the vector space a∗s . The real rank of G is by
definition the dimension of a. Let
a+ := {Y ∈ a | hα, Y i ≥ 0 ∀α ∈ Σ+ } = {Y ∈ a | hα, Y i ≥ 0 ∀α ∈ ∆}

be the closed positive Weyl chamber of a associated with Σ+ .
Given a subset θ ⊂ ∆, we define Pθ (resp. Pθ− ) to be the normalizer in G of the
Lie algebra


M
M
(2.3)
uθ =
gα
=
resp. u−
g
−α ,
θ
α∈Σ+
θ

α∈Σ+
θ

+
where Σ+
θ = Σ r span(∆ r θ) is the set of positive roots that do not belong to the
span of ∆ r θ. The group Pθ (resp. Pθ− ) is a parabolic subgroup of G, equal to the
semidirect product of its unipotent radical Uθ := exp(uθ ) (resp. exp(u−θ )) and of the
Levi subgroup

(2.4)
Explicitly,
(2.5)

Lθ := Pθ ∩ Pθ− .
Lie(Pθ ) = g0 ⊕

M

α∈Σ+

gα ⊕

M

α∈Σ+ rΣ+
θ

g−α .

ANOSOV REPRESENTATIONS AND PROPER ACTIONS

16

In particular, P∅ = G and P∆ is a minimal parabolic subgroup of G.
Example 2.14. Let K be R, C, or the ring H of quaternions and let G be GLd (K),
seen as a real Lie group. Its derived group is Gs = D(G) = SLd (K). If K = R
(resp. C, resp. H), then we can take K to be O(d) (resp. U(d), resp. Sp(d)), and
in all cases we can take a ⊂ gld (K) to be the set of real diagonal matrices of size
d × d. For 1 ≤ i ≤ d, let εi ∈Ta∗ be the evaluation of the i-th diagonal entry. Then
a = z(g) ⊕ as , where z(g) = 1≤i,j≤d Ker(εi − εj ) is the set of real scalar matrices
and as = Ker(ε1 + · · · + εd ) the set of traceless real diagonal matrices. The set of
restricted roots of a in G is
Σ = {εi − εj | 1 ≤ i 6= j ≤ d}.

We can take ∆ = {εi − εi+1 | 1 ≤ i ≤ d − 1}, so that

Σ+ = {εi − εj | 1 ≤ i < j ≤ d}

and a+ is the set of the elements of a whose entries are in nonincreasing order. For
θ = {εn1 − εn1 +1 , . . . , εnm − εnm +1 } with 1 ≤ n1 < · · · < nm ≤ d − 1, the parabolic
subgroup Pθ (resp. Pθ− ) is the set of block upper (resp. lower) triangular matrices in
GLd (K) with square diagonal blocks of sizes n1 , n2 − n1 , . . . , nm − nm−1 , d − nm . In
particular, P∆ is the set of upper triangular matrices in GLd (K).
The following classical fact will be used in Section 3.
Fact 2.15 (see e.g. [Kna02, Prop. 7.76]). Any Lie subalgebra of g containing Lie(P∆ )
is of the form Lie(Pθ ) for a unique θ ⊂ ∆.

2.2.3. Conjugacy classes of parabolic subgroups and invariant distributions on G/Lθ .
Recall that any parabolic subgroup is conjugate to Pθ for some θ ⊂ ∆, and any pair
of opposite parabolic subgroups is conjugate to (Pθ , Pθ− ) for some θ ⊂ ∆; the set θ
is unique since Ad(G) is assumed to act on g by inner automorphisms (see [BT65,
§ 5]). Since the stabilizer in G of (Pθ , Pθ− ) is Lθ = Pθ ∩ Pθ− , the set of pairs (P, Q) of
transverse parabolic subgroups of G identifies, as a G-set, with the disjoint union of
the G/Lθ for θ ⊂ ∆. More precisely, with the identification of Remark 2.11,
(2.6)

{(P, Q) ∈ G/Pθ × G/Pθ− | P, Q transverse} ≃ G/Lθ ,

and G/Lθ is the unique open G-orbit in G/Pθ × G/Pθ− . From this the tangent bundle
T (G/Lθ ) inherits a decomposition
(2.7)

T (G/Lθ ) = E + ⊕ E − .

This decomposition is G-invariant, and so for any bundle with fiber G/Lθ there is a
corresponding decomposition of the vertical tangent space.
2.3. The Cartan projection. A central role in this paper is played by the Cartan projection µ, which can be used to measure dynamical properties of diverging
sequences in G.
2.3.1. Basics on the Cartan projection. Recall that, with the notation of Section 2.2.2,
the Cartan decomposition G = K(exp a+ )K holds: any g ∈ G may be written
g = k(exp µ(g))k′ for some k, k′ ∈ K and a unique µ(g) ∈ a+ (see [Hel01, Ch. IX,
Th. 1.1]). This defines a map
µ : G −→ a+

g 7−→ µ(g),

called the Cartan projection, inducing a homeomorphism K\G/K ≃ a+ .

ANOSOV REPRESENTATIONS AND PROPER ACTIONS

17

Example 2.16. For K = R or C, let G = GLd (K), and let K ⊂ G and a+ be as in
Example 2.14. Then the diagonal entries of µ(g) are the logarithms of the singular
values of g (i.e. of the square roots of the eigenvalues of t ḡg, where ḡ is the complex
conjugate of g), in nonincreasing order.
The (restricted) Weyl group of a in g is the group W = NK (a)/ZK (a), where NK (a)
(resp. ZK (a)) is the normalizer (resp. centralizer) of a in K. We now fix a W -invariant
Euclidean norm k · k on a. By a little abuse of notation, we shall use the same symbol
for the induced norm on the dual space a∗ . If G is simple, then k · k is unique up to
scale: it derives from the restriction to a of the Killing form of g. In general, k · k is
not unique, but any choice will do. This choice determines the Riemannian metric
dG/K on the symmetric space G/K, and for any g ∈ G we have
(2.8)

kµ(g)k = dG/K (x0 , g · x0 ),

where x0 := eK ∈ G/K.
Seen as a subgroup of GLR (a), the Weyl group W is a finite Coxeter group. A
system of generators of W is given by the orthogonal reflections sα in the hyperplanes
Ker(α) ⊂ a, for α ∈S∆. The group W acts simply transitively on the set of connected
components of a r α∈Σ Ker(α) (open Weyl chambers). Therefore there is a unique
element w0 ∈ W such that w0 · (−a+ ) = a+ ; it is the longest element with respect to
the generating set {sα }α∈∆ . The involution of a defined by Y 7→ −w0 · Y is called
the opposition involution 1; it sends µ(g) to µ(g−1 ) for any g ∈ G. The corresponding
dual linear map preserves Σ. We shall denote it by
(2.9)

a∗ −→ a∗

α 7−→ α⋆ = −w0 · α.

By definition, for any α ∈ Σ and any g ∈ G,
(2.10)

hα, µ(g)i = hα⋆ , µ(g −1 )i.

Example 2.17. Take G = GLd (K) with K, K, and a+ as in Example 2.14. The Weyl
group W is the symmetric group Sd , which permutes the diagonal entries of the
elements of a. The longest element w0 of W is the permutation of {1, . . . , d} taking
i to d + 1 − i. For α = εi − εi+1 ∈ ∆, we have α⋆ = εd−i − εd−i+1 .
Here are some useful properties (see for instance [Kas08, Lem. 2.3]), expressing
that the map µ is “strongly subadditive”.
Fact 2.18. For any g, g1 , g2 , g3 ∈ G,
(1) kµ(g)k = kµ(g−1 )k;
(2) kµ(g1 g2 ) − µ(g1 )k ≤ kµ(g2 )k;
(3) in particular, kµ(g1 g2 g3 ) − µ(g2 )k ≤ kµ(g1 )k + kµ(g3 )k.

As a consequence, for any representation ρ : Γ → G, there exists k > 0 such that
for any γ ∈ Γ,
(2.11)

kµ(ρ(γ))k ≤ k |γ|Γ .

Indeed, we can take k := maxs∈S kµ ◦ ρ(s)k where S is the finite generating set of Γ
defining the word length | · |Γ .
1This involution is nontrivial only if the restricted root system Σ is of type A , D
n
2n+1 , or E6 , where

n ≥ 2.

ANOSOV REPRESENTATIONS AND PROPER ACTIONS

18

2.3.2. Properness of the Cartan projection and consequences. A crucial point is that
the map µ : G → a+ is proper, by compactness of K. This implies the following.
Remark 2.19. Let Γ be a finitely generated discrete group and ρ : Γ → G a representation. The representation ρ has finite kernel in Γ and discrete image in G if and
only if there is a function f : N → R with lim+∞ f = +∞ such that for all γ ∈ Γ,
kµ(ρ(γ))k ≥ f (|γ|Γ ).

The map ρ is a quasi-isometric embedding if and only if f can be taken to be affine.
In particular, if ρ is a quasi-isometric embedding, then for any positive root α ∈ Σ+
the following two conditions are equivalent:
(i) There exist c, C > 0 such that hα, µ(ρ(γ))i ≥ c kµ(ρ(γ))k − C for all γ ∈ Γ;
(ii) There exist c, C > 0 such that hα, µ(ρ(γ))i ≥ c |γ|Γ − C for all γ ∈ Γ.

Condition (i) means that the set µ(ρ(Γ)) avoids some translate C′ of the cone C :=
{x ∈ a | hα, xi < ckxk} in the Euclidean space a (see Figure 1, left panel).
In Theorem 1.1.(3) we consider the following slightly different condition: for any geodesic ray R = (γn )n∈N in the Cayley graph of Γ, the sequence (hα, µ(ρ(γn ))i)n∈N ∈ RN
is lower CLI, i.e. there exist κR , κ′R > 0 such that for all n, m ∈ N,
hα, µ(ρ(γn+m )) − µ(ρ(γn ))i ≥ κR m − κ′R .

This means that there is a translate C′R in a of the cone

CR := {x ∈ a | hα, xi < κR kxk}

such that for any n ∈ N, the sequence (µ(ρ(γn+m )))m∈N avoids µ(ρ(γn )) + C′R (see
Figure 1, right panel). This “nested cone” property is what we mean when we say
(in the introduction) that the sequence (µ(ρ(γn )))n∈N ∈ (a+ )N drifts away “forever
linearly” from Ker(α).

a+
µ(ρ(γn′ )) + C′R
ε2 − ε3

µ(ρ(Γ))

ε2 − ε3

C
C
ε1 − ε2

µ(ρ(γn′ ))

′

µ(ρ(γn )) + C′R
µ(ρ(γn ))
ε1 − ε2

Figure 1. Here G = SL3 (R) and θ = {ε2 − ε3 }. Left panel: Condition (i) above. Right panel: The CLI condition of Theorem 1.1.(3) for
a geodesic ray R = (γn )n∈N .
If G has real rank 1, then Proposition 2.8 implies the following strengthening of
Remark 2.19 (which yields the implication (1) ⇒ (4) of Theorem 1.3 in that case):
Corollary 2.20. Let Γ be a finitely generated discrete group and G a semisimple
Lie group of real rank 1. If ρ : Γ → G is a quasi-isometric embedding, then for any
geodesic ray (γn )n∈N in the Cayley graph of Γ, the sequence (kµ(ρ(γn ))k)n∈N is CLI;
moreover, the CLI constants are uniform over all geodesic rays (γn )n∈N with γ0 = e.

ANOSOV REPRESENTATIONS AND PROPER ACTIONS

19

In other words, in real rank one the fact that ρ is a quasi-isometric embedding
implies that the sequence (hα, µ(ρ(γn ))i)n∈N is CLI for all α ∈ Σ+ . This is not true
when G has higher real rank: see e.g. the representation ρ0 : Γ → SL2 (R) × SL2 (R)
constructed in the proof of Proposition A.1.
Proof of Corollary 2.20. If ρ : Γ → G is a quasi-isometric embedding, then ρ has finite
kernel and the group ρ(Γ) is convex cocompact in G (see [Bou95, Bow95]). By Fact 2.4,
Γ admits a flow space GΓ which isometrically, ρ-equivariantly, and (ϕt )-equivariantly
embeds into the unit tangent bundle T 1 (X). We conclude using Proposition 2.8. 
2.3.3. The Cartan projection for Lθ and the θ-coset distance map. Let θ ⊂ ∆ be a
nonempty subset of the simple restricted roots of G. Recall the Levi subgroup Lθ
of Pθ from (2.4). The group Kθ := K ∩ Lθ is a maximal compact subgroup of Lθ ,
and Lθ admits the Cartan decomposition Lθ = Kθ (exp a+
θ )Kθ where
(2.12)
We denote by
(2.13)

a+
θ := {Y ∈ a | hα, Y i ≥ 0 ∀α ∈ ∆ r θ}.
µθ : Lθ −→ a+
θ

the corresponding Cartan projection of Lθ . As in Section 2.3.1, the map µθ induces
+
a homeomorphism Kθ \Lθ /Kθ ≃ a+
θ . The Weyl chamber aθ for Lθ is convex and is
+
a union of W -translates of the Weyl chamber a for G. We will sometimes use the
following observation.
Remark 2.21. For l ∈ Lθ , if µθ (l) ∈ a+ (equivalently if hα, µθ (l)i ≥ 0 for all α ∈ θ),
then µθ (l) = µ(l).
Example 2.22. Take G = GLd (K) with K, K and a+ as in Example 2.14. For
θ = {εi − εi+1 }, the set a+
θ consists of elements diag(t1 , . . . , td ) ∈ a with tj ≥ tj+1 for
all j ∈ {1, . . . , d − 1} r {i}.

The Cartan projection µθ induces a Weyl-chamber-valued metric on the Riemannian symmetric space of Lθ :
a+
dµθ : Lθ /Kθ × Lθ /Kθ −→
θ
(gKθ , hKθ )
7−→ µθ (g −1 h).

This extends to a coset distance map on the set of pairs of elements of G/Kθ projecting
to the same element in G/Lθ .
Definition 2.23. The θ-coset distance map is
dµθ : {(gKθ , hKθ ) ∈ G/Kθ × G/Kθ | gLθ = hLθ } −→
a+
θ
(gKθ , hKθ )
7−→ µθ (g−1 h).

This map was introduced in the study of Anosov representations in [GW12]; it will
play a crucial role in Section 4.
2.4. The Lyapunov projection and proximality in G/Pθ . The natural projection associated with the Jordan decomposition is called the Lyapunov projection; we
denote it by λ : G → a+ . Explicitly, any g ∈ G can be written uniquely as the commuting product g = gh ge gu of a hyperbolic, an elliptic, and a unipotent element (see
e.g. [Ebe96, Th. 2.19.24]). The conjugacy class of gh intersects exp(a+ ) in a unique
element exp(λ(g)). This projection can also be defined as a limit: for any g ∈ G,
1
(2.14)
λ(g) = lim
µ(gn ).
n→+∞ n

ANOSOV REPRESENTATIONS AND PROPER ACTIONS

20

Note that by definition of the opposition involution, and similarly to (2.10),
(2.15)
for all α ∈ Σ and g ∈ G.

hα, λ(g)i = hα⋆ , λ(g−1 )i

Example 2.24. For K = R or C, let G = GLd (K), and let K ⊂ G and a+ be as in
Example 2.14. Then the diagonal entries of λ(g) are the logarithms of the moduli of
the complex eigenvalues of g, in nonincreasing order.
Let θ ⊂ ∆ be a nonempty subset of the simple restricted roots of G. We shall use
the following terminology.
Definition 2.25. An element g ∈ G is proximal in G/Pθ if it satisfies any of the
following two equivalent properties:
(1) g has a fixed point ξg+ ∈ G/Pθ which is attracting, in the sense that the
derivative at ξg+ ∈ G/Pθ of the action of g on G/Pθ has spectral radius < 1;
(2) hα, λ(g)i > 0 for all α ∈ θ.

The equivalence between (1) and (2) is well known, and implicitly contained in
[Ben97]. Since we could not find it explicitly in the literature, we shall provide a
proof of it, as well as of the uniqueness of the attracting fixed point ξg+ ∈ G/Pθ , in
Proposition 3.3.(c) below. The basin of attraction of a proximal element g in G/Pθ
is described as follows (see Section 3.3 for a proof).

Lemma 2.26. If g ∈ G is proximal in G/Pθ , then g−1 is proximal in G/Pθ− and
limn→+∞ g n · x = ξg+ for all x ∈ G/Pθ transverse to the attracting fixed point ξg−−1 of
g−1 in G/Pθ− .
We now prove the following.
Lemma 2.27. An element g ∈ G is proximal in G/Pθ if and only if for any α ∈ θ,

(2.16)

hα, µ(gn )i − 2 log n −→ +∞.
n→+∞

Lemma 2.27 is based on the following claim.
Claim 2.28. For any unipotent element u ∈ G, there is a constant Cu > 0 such that
for all α ∈ ∆ and n ∈ N∗ ,
hα, µ(un )i ≤ 2 log n + Cu .

Proof of Claim 2.28. Consider the following two elements of sl2 (R):




1/2
0
0 1
x=
,
e+ =
.
0 −1/2
0 0

Let µSL2 (R) : SL2 (R) → R+ x be the Cartan projection of SL2 (R) with respect to
the Cartan decomposition SL2 (R) = SO(2)(exp R+ x)SO(2). For any n ∈ N, an elementary computation shows that µSL2 (R) (exp ne+ ) = tn x where tn = 2argsinh( n2 ) ≤
2 log(n + 1).
Let u ∈ G be unipotent. By the Jacobson-Morozov theorem (see e.g. [Bou75,
Ch. VIII, § 11, Prop. 2]), there is a homomorphism τ : SL2 (R) → G such that
τ (exp e+ ) = u. Up to conjugating in G (which only changes µ by a bounded additive
amount, see Fact 2.18), we may assume that de τ (x) ∈ a+ and that τ (SO(2)) ⊂ K.
Then µ(un ) = tn de τ (x), and so
hα, µ(un )i = tn hα, de τ (x)i ≤ 2 log(n + 1) hα, de τ (x)i

ANOSOV REPRESENTATIONS AND PROPER ACTIONS

21

for all α ∈ ∆ and n ∈ N. We conclude using the fact [Kos59, Lem. 5.1] that
hα, de τ (x)i ∈ {0, 1/2, 1} for all α ∈ ∆.

Proof of Lemma 2.27. Let g ∈ G. If g is proximal in G/Pθ , then (2.16) holds by
(2.14). Conversely, suppose g satisfies (2.16), and let
θ ′ := {α ∈ ∆ | hα, λ(g)i > 0}.
It is sufficient to prove the existence of a constant C > 0 such that for all β ∈ ∆ r θ ′
and n ∈ N,
(2.17)

hβ, µ(gn )i ≤ 2 log n + C.

Indeed, then (2.16) shows that θ and ∆ r θ ′ do not intersect, hence θ ⊂ θ ′ and g is
proximal in G/Pθ by definition of θ ′ .
To prove (2.17), consider the Jordan decomposition g = gh ge gu of g. By Fact 2.18,
kµ(gn ) − µ(ghn gun )k ≤ kµ(gen )k is bounded, and so we may assume ge = 1. Up to
conjugation (which only changes µ by a bounded additive amount, byLFact 2.18
again), we may assume that gh = exp(λ(g)) ∈ a+ and that gu ∈ exp( β∈Σ+ gβ ).
Then gh belongs to the center of the group Lθ′ of (2.4); the element gu commutes
with gh , hence belongs to


M
g β ⊂ Lθ ′ ;
exp
β∈Σ+ ∩span(∆rθ ′ )

we have µθ′ (g n ) = n λ(g) + µθ′ (gun ) for all n ∈ N. By Fact 2.18, for any α ∈ θ ′ and
n ∈ N,
|hα, µθ′ (g n ) − µθ′ (ghn )i| ≤ kαk kµθ′ (gn ) − µθ′ (ghn )k ≤ kαk kµθ′ (gun )k.
By Claim 2.28 applied to gu ∈ Lθ′ , the right-hand side grows logarithmically with n,
while hα, µθ′ (ghn )i = n hα, λ(g)i grows linearly; therefore, hα, µθ′ (gn )i ≥ 0 for all large
enough n ∈ N. This holds for all α ∈ θ ′ , and so for all large enough n ∈ N we
have µθ′ (gn ) ∈ a+ , hence µ(gn ) = µθ′ (gn ) (see Remark 2.21). In particular, for any
β ∈ ∆ r θ ′ and any large enough n ∈ N,
hβ, µ(gn )i = hβ, µθ′ (gn )i = hβ, n λ(g) + µθ′ (gun )i = hβ, µθ′ (gun )i.
By Claim 2.28 again, there is a constant Cgu > 0 such that the right-hand side is

≤ 2 log n + Cgu for all n ∈ N∗ . This proves (2.17) and completes the proof.
2.5. Anosov representations. Finally, in this section we recall the definition and
some properties of Anosov representations. For more details and proofs we refer to
[GW12].
Remark 2.29. In this paper our convention for the notation of parabolic subgroups
is different from the one adopted in [GW12]: definitions and statements involving
θ ⊂ ∆ should be changed to ∆ r θ when compared with their versions in [GW12].
We now fix a word hyperbolic group Γ with flow space GΓ , a nonempty subset
θ ⊂ ∆ of the simple restricted roots of our reductive Lie group G, and a representation
ρ : Γ → G.

ANOSOV REPRESENTATIONS AND PROPER ACTIONS

22

2.5.1. The dynamical definition. The space
E(ρ) := Γ\(GΓ × G/Lθ )

is a G/Lθ -bundle over Γ\GΓ . The subbundles E + , E − of T (G/Lθ ) defined in (2.7)
induce vector bundles (still denoted by E + , E − ) over E(ρ). In fact, E + and E − are
subbundles of the vertical tangent bundle
T v E(ρ) := Γ\(GΓ × T (G/Lθ )).

The geodesic flow {ϕt }t∈R naturally acts on the products GΓ ×G/Lθ and GΓ ×T (G/Lθ )
(leaving the second coordinate unchanged), hence on their quotients E(ρ) and T v E(ρ);
the subbundles E ± are flow-invariant.
Definition 2.30. The representation ρ : Γ → G is Pθ -Anosov if there is a continuous
section σ : Γ\GΓ → E(ρ) with the following properties:
(i) σ is flow-equivariant (i.e. its image F = σ(Γ\GΓ ) is flow-invariant);
(ii) the action of the flow on the vector bundle E + |F ⊂ T v E(ρ) is dilating;
(iii) the action of the flow on the vector bundle E − |F ⊂ T v E(ρ) is contracting.

It is known that (ii) implies (iii) [GW12, Prop. 3.16] and that the section σ is unique.
This definition is useful to determine certain properties of Anosov representations,
such as openness, or to define natural metrics on spaces of Anosov representations
[BCLS15].
2.5.2. Another equivalent definition. The following notions will be needed for various
characterizations of Anosov representations.
Definition 2.31. Two maps ξ + : ∂∞ Γ → G/Pθ and ξ − : ∂∞ Γ → G/Pθ− are said to be
• transverse if for any η 6= η ′ in ∂∞ Γ, the points ξ + (η) and ξ − (η ′ ) are transverse
in the sense of Definition 2.10;
• dynamics-preserving for ρ : Γ → G if for any γ ∈ Γ of infinite order with
attracting fixed point ηγ+ ∈ ∂∞ Γ, the point ξ + (ηγ+ ) (resp. ξ − (ηγ+ )) is an attracting fixed point for the action of ρ(γ) on G/Pθ (resp. G/Pθ− ).
Remarks 2.32.
(a) If there exists a map ξ + : ∂∞ Γ → G/Pθ which is dynamicspreserving for ρ, then ρ(γ) is proximal in G/Pθ for any γ ∈ Γ of infinite
order.
(b) Continuous, dynamics-preserving boundary maps ξ + : ∂∞ Γ → G/Pθ and ξ − :
∂∞ Γ → G/Pθ− for ρ, if they exist, are entirely determined on the dense subset
consisting of the attracting fixed points ηγ+ for γ ∈ Γ of infinite order. As a
consequence, such maps are necessarily unique and ρ-equivariant. Moreover,
for any η ∈ ∂∞ Γ, the points ξ + (η) ∈ G/Pθ and ξ − (η) ∈ G/Pθ− are compatible
in the sense of Definition 2.10: indeed, the attracting fixed points ξ + (ηγ+ ) and
ξ − (ηγ+ ) are always compatible for γ ∈ Γ of infinite order.
(c) If ξ + and ξ − are continuous, dynamics-preserving for ρ, and transverse, then
they are both injective. Indeed, for any η 6= η ′ in ∂∞ Γ, the points ξ + (η) ∈
G/Pθ and ξ − (η) ∈ G/Pθ− are compatible while the points ξ + (η ′ ) ∈ G/Pθ and
ξ − (η) ∈ G/Pθ− are transverse.
A section σ as in Definition 2.30 is equivalent to a ρ-equivariant map σ̃ : GΓ →
G/Lθ . Working out the properties of σ̃, one obtains the following equivalent definition
of Anosov representations (see [GW12, Def. 2.10]), which still makes use of the flow
space GΓ of Γ but avoids the language of bundles. Recall the maps ϕ±∞ from point (3)
of Section 2.1.3 and the coset distance map dµθ from Definition 2.23.

ANOSOV REPRESENTATIONS AND PROPER ACTIONS

23

Definition 2.33. A representation ρ : Γ → G is Pθ -Anosov if there exist continuous,
ρ-equivariant maps ξ + : ∂∞ Γ → G/Pθ and ξ − : ∂∞ Γ → G/Pθ− with the following
properties:
(i) ξ + and ξ − are transverse. This implies that ξ + and ξ − combine, via (2.6), to
a continuous, Γ-equivariant, flow-invariant map
σ̃ : GΓ −→
v 7−→

ξ+

G/Lθ

◦ ϕ+∞ (v), ξ − ◦ ϕ−∞ (v) .

Such a map σ̃ always admits a continuous, Γ-equivariant lift
β̃ : GΓ −→ G/Kθ ,

(this follows from the contractibility of Lθ /Kθ ), i.e. pr ◦ β̃ = σ̃.
(ii) There exist c, C > 0 such that for all α ∈ θ, all v ∈ GΓ , and all t ∈ R,

α, dµθ β̃(v), β̃(ϕt · v) ≥ ct − C.

This last inequality expresses the exponential contraction in Definition 2.30. Note
that the left-hand side of the inequality is nonnegative for α ∈ ∆ r θ as well, by
definition (2.12) of the range a+
θ of dµθ .
The maps ξ + , ξ − of an Anosov representation are always dynamics-preserving (see
[GW12, Lem. 3.1]); in particular, they are unique (Remark 2.32.(b)).
Let θ ⋆ ⊂ ∆ be the image of θ under the opposition involution (2.9). By definition,
the group Pθ− is conjugate to Pθ⋆ , hence G/Pθ− identifies with G/Pθ⋆ . It is sometimes
useful to reduce to the case that θ = θ ⋆ : this is always possible by the following fact.
Fact 2.34. [GW12, Lem. 3.18] A representation ρ : Γ → G is Pθ -Anosov if and only
if it is Pθ∪θ⋆ -Anosov.
Remark 2.35. If θ = θ ⋆ , then the maps ξ + and ξ − associated with an Anosov representation are equal (after identifying G/Pθ and G/Pθ− with the set of parabolic
subgroups of G conjugate to Pθ , see Remark 2.11). More generally, any continuous,
dynamics-preserving boundary maps ξ + : ∂∞ Γ → G/Pθ and ξ − : ∂∞ Γ → G/Pθ− for
an arbitrary representation ρ : Γ → G are equal, by uniqueness (Remark 2.32.(b)).
2.5.3. Examples and properties. Examples of Anosov representations include:
(a) The inclusion of convex cocompact subgroups in semisimple Lie groups G
of real rank 1 [Lab06, GW12] (here |∆| = 1, and so P∆ is the only proper
parabolic subgroup of G up to conjugacy);
(b) Representations of surface groups belonging to the Hitchin component, when
G is a split real semisimple Lie group [Lab06], [FG06, Th. 1.15];
(c) Maximal representations of surface groups, when the Riemannian symmetric
space of G is Hermitian [BILW05, BIW];
(d) The inclusion of quasi-Fuchsian subgroups in SO(2, d) [BM12, Bar15];
(e) Holonomies of compact convex Pn (R)-manifolds whose fundamental group is
word hyperbolic [Ben04].
Here are some basic properties of Anosov representations [Lab06, GW12]:
(1) The set of Pθ -Anosov representations is open in Hom(Γ, G), invariant under
conjugation by G at the target, and the map sending ρ to its pair of boundary
maps (ξ + , ξ − ) =: (ξρ+ , ξρ− ) is continuous.
(2) Any Pθ -Anosov representation ρ : Γ → G is a quasi-isometric embedding (see
Remark 2.19 for an interpretation in terms of µ).

ANOSOV REPRESENTATIONS AND PROPER ACTIONS

24

(3) Let Γ′ be a finite-index subgroup of Γ. A representation ρ : Γ → G is Pθ Anosov if and only if its restriction to Γ′ is.
Remark 2.36. Let Γ be a finitely generated discrete group and ρ : Γ → G a representation. If G has real rank 1, then the following are actually equivalent (see
[Bou95, Bow95]):
• Γ is word hyperbolic and ρ is Anosov;
• the kernel of ρ is finite and the image of ρ is convex cocompact in G;
• Γ is finitely generated and ρ is a quasi-isometric embedding.

Remark 2.37. To check the Anosov property, it is always possible to restrict to a
semisimple Lie group instead of a reductive one. Indeed, if G is reductive with center
Z(G), then the group G′ := G/Z(G) is semisimple, and ∆ identifies with a simple
system for G′ . For θ ⊂ ∆, let Pθ′ be the corresponding parabolic subgroup of G′ .
Then G/Pθ identifies with G′ /Pθ′ . A representation ρ : Γ → G is Pθ -Anosov if and
only if the induced representation ρ′ : Γ → G′ is Pθ′ -Anosov. Similarly, ρ admits
equivariant (resp. continuous, resp. transverse, resp. dynamics-preserving) boundary
maps if and only if ρ′ does.
2.5.4. Semisimple representations of discrete groups. Let ρ : Γ → G be a representation of the discrete group Γ into the reductive Lie group G. Recall that ρ is called
semisimple if the Zariski closure of ρ(Γ) in G is reductive or, equivalently, if for any
linear representation τ : G → GL(V ) we can write V as a direct sum of irreducible
(τ ◦ ρ)(Γ)-modules.
Remark 2.38. If Γ′ is a finite-index subgroup of Γ, then ρ is semisimple if and only if
ρ|Γ′ is semisimple.

For a general representation ρ : Γ → G, we define the semisimplification of ρ as
follows. Let H be the Zariski closure of ρ(Γ) in G. Choose a Levi decomposition
H = L ⋉ Ru (H), where Ru (H) is the unipotent radical of H. The composition of ρ
with the projection onto L does not depend, up to conjugation by Ru (H), on the
choice of the Levi factor L. We shall call this representation the semisimplification
of ρ, denoted by ρss . The G-orbit of ρss in Hom(Γ, G) (for the action of G by
conjugation at the target) is the unique closed orbit in the closure of the G-orbit of ρ.
As a consequence of the openness of the set of Anosov representations, a representation is Anosov as soon as its semisimplification is. The converse is also true, and
will be proved in Section 4.7.
Proposition 2.39. Let Γ be a word hyperbolic group, G a real reductive Lie group,
θ ⊂ ∆ a nonempty subset of the simple restricted roots of G, and ρ : Γ → G a
representation. If a representation ρ′ belonging to the closure of the G-orbit of ρ in
Hom(Γ, G) is Pθ -Anosov, then the representation ρ itself is Pθ -Anosov. In particular,
if the semisimplification of ρ is Pθ -Anosov, then ρ is Pθ -Anosov.
Proof. Recall from Section 2.5.3 that being Pθ -Anosov is an open property which is
invariant under the action of G on Hom(Γ, G). Let ρ′ ∈ Hom(Γ, G) be Pθ -Anosov.
There is a neighborhood U ⊂ Hom(Γ, G) of ρ′ consisting of Pθ -Anosov representations.
If ρ′ belongs to the closure of the G-orbit of ρ, then ρ admits a conjugate in U , hence
ρ is Pθ -Anosov.

Finally, semisimplification does not change the values taken by the Lyapunov projection λ of Section 2.4:

ANOSOV REPRESENTATIONS AND PROPER ACTIONS

25

Lemma 2.40. Let ρ : Γ → G be a homomorphism from a group Γ into a reductive Lie group G, and let λ : G → a+ be a Lyapunov projection for G. Then the
semisimplification ρss of ρ satisfies, for all γ ∈ Γ,
λ(ρss (γ)) = λ(ρ(γ)).

Proof. There is a sequence (ρn )n∈N of conjugates of ρ converging to ρss . The map λ
is invariant under conjugation and continuous.

Remark 2.41. There exist Pθ -Anosov representations that are not semisimple. For instance, let Γ be a free group and ρ : Γ → SL2 (R) a convex cocompact representation.
By embedding SL2 (R) into the upper left corner of SL3 (R), we see ρ as a representation of Γ into G = SL3 (R). It easily follows from Theorem 1.3 that ρ : Γ → G is
P∆ -Anosov. By embedding R2 into the upper right corner of SL3 (R), any ρ-cocycle
ζ : Γ → R2 defines a representation ρζ : Γ → G = SL3 (R) with semisimplification
ρss
ζ = ρ. This representation is Pθ -Anosov by Proposition 2.39; it is semisimple only
if ζ is a ρ-coboundary.
3. Reducing to Anosov representations into GLK (V )
Let G be a reductive Lie group and θ ⊂ ∆ a nonempty subset of the simple
restricted roots of G. In this section we explain that there exist (infinitely many)
finite-dimensional linear representations (τ, V ) of G over K = R, C, or H with the
property that a homomorphism ρ : Γ → G is Pθ -Anosov if and only if the composed
homomorphism τ ◦ ρ : Γ → GLK (V ) is Anosov with respect to the stabilizer of a line
(Lemma 3.2 and Proposition 3.5). This will be used with K = R in the proofs of
Section 5: it will make computations simpler by reducing them to the group GLR (V ).
Certain technical lemmas, and the possibility of working with K = C or H, will also
be used in Section 7.
The section is organized as follows. In Section 3.1 we introduce some notation. In
Section 3.2 we introduce the notion of θ-proximal linear representation of G; we state
that irreducible θ-proximal representations (τ, V ) exist in abundance and make the
link with Anosov representations. The core of the proofs lies in Section 3.3.
All linear representations in this paper are understood to be finite-dimensional.
3.1. Notation: Restricted weights of linear representations of G. Let G be
a real reductive Lie group as in Section 2.2. We use the notation of Section 2: in
particular, we denote by (·, ·) a W -invariant scalar product on a and by k·k the induced
Euclidean norm on a; we use the same symbols for the induced scalar product and
norm on a∗ . Any linear representation (τ, V ) of G decomposes under the action of a;
the joint eigenvalues (elements of a∗ ) are called the restricted weights of (τ, V ). The
union of the restricted weights of all linear representations of G is the set


(α, β)
∈ Z ∀β ∈ Σ
Φ = α ∈ a∗ 2
(β, β)
which projects to a lattice of a∗s ; the set Φ is discrete if and only if G is semisimple.
Let z(g)0 ⊂ a∗ be the annihilator of z(g), i.e. the subspace of a∗ consisting of linear
forms vanishing on z(g); it identifies with the dual a∗s of as . Similarly, let a0s ⊂ a∗ be
the annihilator of as . For any α ∈ ∆, let ωα ∈ z(g)0 ⊂ a∗ be the fundamental weight
associated with α, defined by
(3.1)

2

(ωα , β)
= δα,β
(β, β)

for all β ∈ ∆

ANOSOV REPRESENTATIONS AND PROPER ACTIONS

26

where δ·,· is the Kronecker symbol. Then
Φ = a0s +

X

Zωα ,

α∈∆

and (ωα )α∈∆Pprojects to a basis of a∗s . The set of dominant weights is the semigroup
Φ+ = a0s + α∈∆ Nωα . The cone generated by the positive roots (or, equivalently,
by the simple roots) determines a partial ordering on a∗ , given by
X
X
ν ≤ ν ′ ⇐⇒ ν ′ − ν ∈
R+ α =
R+ α.
α∈Σ+

α∈∆

Given an irreducible linear representation (τ, V ) of G, the set of restricted weights of
τ admits, for that ordering, a unique maximal element (see e.g. [GW09, Cor. 3.2.3]),
which is a dominant weight called the highest weight of τ ; we denote it by χτ .
3.2. Compatible and proximal linear representations of G. For K = R, C
or H, let V be a finite-dimensional (right) K-vector space. Recall that an endomorphism g ∈ GLK (V ) is said to be proximal in PK (V ) = (V − {0})/K∗ if it
has a unique eigenvalue of maximal modulus and if the corresponding eigenspace
is one-dimensional. This coincides with both Definitions 2.25.(1) and 2.25.(2) for
G = GLK (V ) and Pθ the stabilizer of a line in V . The eigenspace corresponding to
the highest eigenvalue then gives rise to a unique attracting fixed point ξg+ ∈ PK (V )
for the action of g on PK (V ). There is a unique complementary hyperplane Hg−
which is stable under g, and limn→+∞ gn · x = ξg+ for all x ∈ PK (V ) r PK (Hg− ).
Let G be a reductive group as above. We shall say that a linear representation
τ : G → GLK (V ) is proximal if the group τ (G) ⊂ GLK (V ) contains an element which
is proximal in PK (V ). For irreducible τ , this is equivalent to the highest-weight space
V χτ ⊂ V being a line.
We introduce the following notions.
Definition 3.1. Let θ ⊂ ∆ be a nonempty subset of the simple restricted roots of G.
An irreducible representation τ : G → GLK (V ) with highest weight χτ is
(1) θ-compatible if
{α ∈ ∆ | (χτ , α) > 0} = θ ;
(2) θ-proximal if it is proximal and θ-compatible.
Since thePhighest weight χτ of any irreducible representation (τ, V ) belongs to
Φ+ = a0s + α∈∆ Nωα , we have that (τ, V ) is θ-compatible if and only if
X
χτ ∈ a0s +
N∗ ω α .
α∈θ

We shall use the following fact.
Lemma 3.2. For
P any real reductive Lie group G, there is an integer N ≥ 1 such
that any χ ∈ N α∈∆ Nωα is the highest weight of some irreducible proximal linear
representation (τ, V ) of G. By definition, such a representation
(τ, V ) is θ-compatible
P
(for some nonempty subset θ of ∆) if and only if χ ∈ α∈θ N∗ ωα .

Proof. The image H := Ad(G0 ) ⊂ GLR (g) of the identity component G0 of G under
the adjoint representation is a connected, semisimple, linear Lie group whose Lie
algebra h is isomorphic to gs . Any weight χ for the group G induces a weight for the
group H. By results of Abels–Margulis–Soifer [AMS95,
P Th. 6.3] and Helgason [Hel00,
Ch. V, Th. 4.1] (see [Ben00, § 2.3]), any weight χ1 ∈ 2 α∈∆ Nωα is the highest weight

ANOSOV REPRESENTATIONS AND PROPER ACTIONS

27

of an irreducible proximal representation (τ1 , V1 ) of H, hence of G0 . The induced
representation V2 = IndG
G0 V1 is an irreducible representation of G; its highest weight
is again χ1 but the weight space V2χ1 is now p-dimensional, where p := [G : G0 ] is
the number of connected components of G. The factor (τ, V ) in Λp (V2 ) generated
by Λp (V2χ1 ) is then an irreducible proximal representation of G with highest weight
χ = pχ1 . Thus N = 2p has the desired property.

The relevance of the notion of θ-proximality lies in the following two propositions.
Proposition 3.3. Let (τ, V ) be an irreducible, θ-proximal linear representation of G
with highest weight χτ . Let V χτ be the weight space corresponding to χτ in V and
V<χτ the sum of all other weight spaces.
(a) The stabilizer in G of V χτ (resp. V<χτ ) is the parabolic subgroup Pθ (resp. Pθ− ).
(b) The maps g 7→ τ (g)V χτ and g 7→ τ (g)V<χτ induce τ -equivariant embeddings
ι+ : G/Pθ → PK (V )

and

ι− : G/Pθ− → PK (V ∗ ).

Two parabolic subgroups P ∈ G/Pθ and Q ∈ G/Pθ− of G are transverse if and
only if ι+ (P ) and ι− (Q) are transverse.
(c) For an element g ∈ G, the following conditions are equivalent:
(i) g has an attracting fixed point ξg+ ∈ G/Pθ ;
(ii) hα, λ(g)i > 0 for all α ∈ θ;
(iii) τ (g) is proximal in PK (V ).
In this case the attracting fixed point ξg+ ∈ G/Pθ of g is unique, and its image
ι+ (ξg+ ) ∈ PK (V ) is the unique fixed point of τ (g).
(d) A similar statement holds after replacing (θ, ι+ , V ) with (θ ⋆ , ι− , V ∗ ).
Here we use the identification of Remark 2.11. Recall also Example 2.13 characterizing transversality in PK (V ). Proposition 3.3 will be proved in Section 3.3 just
below.
Remark 3.4. For G = GLd (R), for θ = {εi −εi+1 }, and for V = Λi Rd , the space G/Pθ
is the Grassmannian of i-dimensional planes of Rd and the map ι+ of Proposition 3.3
is the Plücker embedding.
Proposition 3.5. Let (τ, V ) be an irreducible, θ-proximal linear representation of G
over K = R, C or H. Let Γ be a word hyperbolic group and θ ⊂ ∆ a nonempty
subset of the simple restricted roots of G. Then
(1) there exist continuous, ρ-equivariant, dynamics-preserving, transverse boundary maps ξ + : ∂∞ Γ → G/Pθ and ξ − : ∂∞ Γ → G/Pθ− if and only if there
exist continuous, (τ ◦ ρ)-equivariant, dynamics-preserving, transverse boundary maps ξV+ : ∂∞ Γ → PK (V ) and ξV− : ∂∞ Γ → PK (V ∗ );
(2) a representation ρ : Γ → G is Pθ -Anosov if and only if τ ◦ ρ : Γ → GLK (V )
is Pε1 −ε2 -Anosov (i.e. Anosov with respect to the stabilizer of a line, see Example 2.14).
Proposition 3.5.(2) was proved in [GW12, § 4] for K = R, using the characterization
of Pθ -Anosov representations in terms of the coset distance map dµθ (Definition 2.33).
We could use the same characterization to prove Proposition 3.5.(2) in general. However, here we shall instead use the characterization of Anosov representations given
by Theorem 1.3.(2), which is simpler. This characterization is established in Sections
4.1–4.4; therefore, we postpone the proof of Proposition 3.5.(2) to Section 4.5.

ANOSOV REPRESENTATIONS AND PROPER ACTIONS

28

3.3. Embeddings into projective spaces. This subsection is devoted to the proof
of Propositions 3.3 and 3.5.(1), as well as Lemma 2.26. As in Theorem 1.1, we denote
by Σ+
θ the set of positive roots that do not belong to the span of ∆ r θ.
Remark 3.6. For a linear representation (τ, V ) of G, we will always choose a Cartan
decomposition of GLK (V ) compatible with that of G. This means that the basis
(e1 , . . . , ed ) of V providing the isomorphism GLK (V ) ≃ GLd (K) is a basis of eigenvectors for the action of de τ (a), and that the group τ (K) is included in O(d) or U(d)
or Sp(d), depending on whether K = R or C or H. We shall always assume that
e1 ∈ V χτ , so that hχτ , Y i = hε1 , de τ (Y )i for all Y ∈ a. The Cartan projection for
GLK (V ) will be denoted by µGLK (V ) and the Lyapunov projection by λGLK (V ) .
Proposition 3.3 relies on the following fact, which will also be used in Section 7.
Lemma 3.7. Suppose τ : G → GLK (V ) is irreducible and θ-compatible. Then
P
(1) for any weight χ of τ , we have χτ − χ ∈ α∈Σ+ Nα;
θ
(2) for any α ∈ θ, the element χτ − α ∈ a∗ is a weight of τ .
(3) If τ is θ-proximal, then hε1 − ε2 , µGLK (V ) (τ (g))i = minα∈θ hα, µ(g)i and
hε1 − ε2 , λGLK (V ) (τ (g))i = minα∈θ hα, λ(g)i for all g ∈ G.
P
Proof. Let Φ′ := α∈∆ Zα ⊂ Φ be the root lattice of G. The set of weights of τ is
the intersection of χτ + Φ′ with the convex hull of the W -orbit of χτ in a∗ (see [GW09,
Prop. 3.2.10]). Therefore, in order to prove (1), it is sufficient to prove that χτ −w·χτ ∈
P
R+ α for all w ∈ W , or in other words that χτ − w · χτ ∈
/ span(∆ r θ) for
α∈Σ+
θ
all w ∈ W with w · χτ 6= χτ . By definition of θ-compatibility, χτ belongs to the
orthogonal of span(∆ r θ). Therefore, for any w ∈ W , if χτ − w · χτ ∈ span(∆ r θ),
then
kw · χτ k2 = kχτ k2 + kχτ − w · χτ k2 .
But this is also equal to kχτ k2 by W -invariance of the norm, and so χτ = w · χτ .
This proves (1). For any α ∈ ∆, the orthogonal reflection sα ∈ W in the hyperplane
Ker(α) satisfies
(χτ , α)
s α · χτ = χτ − 2
α,
(α, α)
and sα · χτ is a weight of τ . Therefore the intersection of χτ + Zα with the segment
τ ,α)
[χτ , χτ − 2 (χ
(α,α) α] consists of weights of τ . In particular, χτ − α is a weight of τ since
τ ,α)
2 (χ
(α,α) ≥ 1 and α ∈ Φ. This proves (2).
Point (3) follows from (1)–(2) and from the definition of Σ+
θ.



Proof of Proposition 3.3. (a) Let us first prove that the stabilizer of V
in g is
Lie(Pθ ). To simplify notation, we abusively write τ for the derivative de τ : g → gl(V ).
We use the notation g0 , gα of Section 2.2.2. The fact that this derivative τ : g → gl(V )
is a Lie algebra homomorphism implies that for any root α ∈ Σ and any weight χ of τ ,
χτ

(3.2)

τ (gα )V χ ⊂ V χ+α .

In particular, τ (g0 )V χτ ⊂ V χτ , and τ (gα )V χτ = {0} for all α ∈ Σ+ by (3.2) and
maximality of χτ for the partial order of Section 3.1. This means that the stabilizer
of V χτ in g contains the Lie algebra Lie(P∆ ), hence it is of the form Lie(Pθ′ ) for a
unique subset θ ′ of ∆ (see Fact 2.15). By (3.2) and Lemma 3.7, for any α ∈ ∆ r θ we
6 τ (g−α )V χτ ⊂
have τ (g−α )V χτ = {0} ⊂ V χτ ; moreover, for any α ∈ θ we have {0} =
χ
χ
τ
τ −α
6= V χτ . Therefore,
V
(see e.g. [GW09, proof of Lem. 3.2.9]), hence τ (g−α )V
′
χ
θ = θ, i.e. the stabilizer of V τ in g is Lie(Pθ ).

ANOSOV REPRESENTATIONS AND PROPER ACTIONS

29

In particular, the stabilizer of V χτ in G is contained in Pθ . For the reverse inclusion,
note that for any g ∈ Pθ the line τ (g)V χτ is stable under Ad(g) Lie(Pθ ) = Lie(Pθ ),
hence in particular under Lie(P∆ ). But V χτ is the only Lie(P∆ )-invariant line in V ,
by arguments similar to the above (any Lie(P∆ )-invariant line L is a-invariant, hence
contained in a weight space V χ , and for χ 6= χτ there always exists α ∈ ∆ with
{0} =
6 τ (gα )L ⊂ V χ+α ). This proves that the stabilizer of V χτ in G is exactly Pθ .
Similarly, the stabilizer in G of the hyperplane V<χτ is Pθ− .
(b) The map ι+ : G/Pθ → PK (V ) is well defined and injective by (a); it is clearly
a τ -equivariant embedding. Similarly, ι− : G/Pθ− → PK (V ∗ ) is a τ -equivariant
embedding.
Let us show that two parabolic subgroups P ∈ G/Pθ and Q ∈ G/Pθ− of G are
transverse if and only if ι+ (P ) and ι− (Q) are transverse. Note that transversality
is invariant under the G-action, both in G/Pθ × G/Pθ− and in PK (V ) × PK (V ∗ )
(by τ -equivariance of ι+ and ι− ). We can write P = gPθ g−1 and Q = hPθ− h−1
where g, h ∈ G. By the Bruhat decomposition (see [BT65, Th. 5.15]), there exist
(p, p′ ) ∈ Pθ− × Pθ and w ∈ W = NK (a)/ZK (a) such that h−1 g = pwp′ . Up to
conjugating both P and Q by p−1 h−1 , we may assume that (P, Q) = (wPθ w−1 , Pθ− ),
so that ι+ (P ) = V w·χτ and ι− (Q) = V <χτ . Then ι+ (P ) and ι− (Q) are transverse if
and only if w · χτ = χτ . By [Bou68, Ch. V, § 3, Prop. 1], this happens if and only if
w belongs to the subgroup W∆rθ of W generated by the reflections sα for α ∈ ∆ r θ.
Therefore, it is sufficient to prove that P = wPθ w−1 and Q = Pθ− are transverse if
and only if w ∈ W∆rθ . If w ∈ W∆rθ , it is not difficult to see that
Ad(w)Lie(Pθ ) = Lie(Pθ ),
and so P and Q are transverse. Conversely, suppose w ∈
/ W∆rθ ; let us prove that
−
−1
P = wPθ w and Q = Pθ are not transverse. Let sα1 · · · sαq be a reduced expression
of w and i ∈ {1, . . . , q} the smallest index such that αi belongs to θ. By [Bou68,
Ch. VI, § 1, Cor. 2], the root β = sαq · · · sαi+1 (αi ) is positive, hence gβ ⊂ Lie(Pθ ). Its
image under w is −β ′ = −sα1 · · · sαi−1 (αi ), which satisfies
g−β ′ = Ad(w)gβ ⊂ Ad(w)Lie(Pθ ) = Lie(wPθ w−1 ).

Since ωαi is invariant under the reflections sα for α 6= αi and since the scalar product
(·, ·) is W -invariant,
(β ′ , ωαi ) = (sα1 · · · sαi−1 (αi ), sα1 · · · sαi−1 (ωαi )) = (αi , ωαi ) > 0.

−
−1
This forces β ′ to belong to Σ+
θ ; this means that g−β ′ ∈ uθ and Lie(wPθ w ) intersects
nontrivially the unipotent radical of Lie(Pθ− ). Thus P = wPθ w−1 and Q = Pθ− are
not transverse.
(c) It follows from the definition that τ (g) ∈ GLK (V ) is proximal in PK (V ) if
and only if hε1 − ε2 , λGLK (V ) (g)i > 0. This is equivalent to minα∈θ hα, λ(g)i > 0 by
Lemma 3.7.(3). Thus the equivalence (ii) ⇔ (iii) holds.
We claim that if (iii) holds, i.e. if τ (g) admits an attracting fixed point ξτ+(g) in
PK (V ), then g admits a fixed point in G/Pθ . Indeed, let g = gh ge gu be the Jordan
decomposition of g, so that τ (g) = τ (gh )τ (ge )τ (gu ) is the Jordan decomposition
of τ (g). If ξτ+(g) is an attracting fixed point for τ (g), then it is also an attracting fixed
point for τ (gh ); by construction, it is then equal to ι+ (m · xθ ), where m ∈ G satisfies
gh ∈ m exp(a+ )m−1 and xθ = ePθ ∈ G/Pθ . Then m · xθ is a fixed point of g, by
equivariance and injectivity of ι+ . Thus, if either of (i), (ii), or (iii) holds, then g
admits a fixed point in G/Pθ .

ANOSOV REPRESENTATIONS AND PROPER ACTIONS

30

We now prove the equivalence (i) ⇔ (ii) for g admitting a fixed point in G/Pθ .
Up to replacing g with a conjugate (which does not change λ(g)), we may assume
that this fixed point is xθ . The tangent space Txθ (G/Pθ ) with the derivative of the
action of g on G/Pθ identifies
L with g/Lie(Pθ ) with the adjoint action of g. Further
identifying g/Lie(Pθ ) with α∈Σ+ g−α using (2.5), we see that the eigenvalues of the
θ

derivative at xθ of the action of g on G/Pθ are the e−hα,λ(g)i for α ∈ Σ+
θ . By definition
+
of Σθ , these eigenvalues are all < 1 (i.e. (i) holds) if and only if hα, λ(g)i > 0 for all
α ∈ θ (i.e. (ii) holds). In this case V χτ = ι+ (xθ ) is an attracting fixed point of τ (g)
in PK (V ) since hε1 − ε2 , λGLK (V ) (g)i > 0. This proves that in general, if ξg+ is an
attracting fixed point of g in G/Pθ , then ι+ (ξg+ ) is an attracting fixed point of τ (g)
in PK (V ); the uniqueness of ξg+ follows from the uniqueness of ξτ+(g) and from the
injectivity of ι+ .


Proof of Proposition 3.5.(1). Let ι+ : G/Pθ → PK (V ) and ι− : G/Pθ− → PK (V ∗ ) be
the τ -equivariant embeddings given by Proposition 3.3.(b).
Suppose there exist continuous, ρ-equivariant, transverse, dynamics-preserving
boundary maps ξ + : ∂∞ Γ → G/Pθ and ξ − : ∂∞ Γ → G/Pθ− . The maps ξV+ :=
ι+ ◦ ξ + : ∂∞ Γ → PR (V ) and ξV− := ι− ◦ ξ − : ∂∞ Γ → PR (V ∗ ) are continuous and
(τ ◦ ρ)-equivariant. They are transverse by Proposition 3.3.(b) and dynamics-preserving by Proposition 3.3.(c)–(d).
Conversely, suppose there exist continuous, (τ ◦ρ)-equivariant, transverse, dynamicspreserving boundary maps ξV+ : ∂∞ Γ → PR (V ) and ξV− : ∂∞ Γ → PR (V ∗ ). For any
γ ∈ Γ of infinite order with attracting fixed point ηγ+ ∈ ∂∞ Γ, the element τ ◦ ρ(γ)
is proximal in PK (V ) with attracting fixed point ξV+ (ηγ+ ). By Proposition 3.3.(c),
the element ρ(γ) ∈ G is proximal in G/Pθ and its attracting fixed point ξg+ ∈ G/Pθ
satisfies ι+ (ξg+ ) = ξV+ (ηγ+ ). The set
{η ∈ ∂∞ Γ | ξV+ (η) ∈ ι+ (G/Pθ )}

is closed and contains the dense set {ηγ+ | γ ∈ Γ of infinite order}, hence it is equal to
∂∞ Γ. Therefore there is a map ξ + : ∂∞ Γ → G/Pθ such that ξV+ = ι+ ◦ ξ + . Similarly
there is a map ξ − : ∂∞ Γ → G/Pθ− such that ξV− = ι− ◦ ξ − . The maps ξ + and ξ −
are continuous and ρ-equivariant. They are transverse by Proposition 3.3.(b) and

dynamics-preserving by Proposition 3.3.(c)–(d).
Proof of Lemma 2.26. By Lemma 3.2, there exists an irreducible, θ-proximal, linear
representation (τ, V ) of G. For any g ∈ G, if τ (g) ∈ GLR (V ) is proximal in PR (V ),
then τ (g−1 ) is proximal in PR (V ∗ ) by definition of the action on V ∗ . The attracting fixed point ξτ+(g) of τ (g) in PR (V ) is the eigenline of τ (g) corresponding to the
maximal eigenvalue, and the attracting fixed point ξτ−(g−1 ) of τ (g−1 ) in PR (V ∗ ) is the
hyperplane of V which is the sum of the eigenspaces of τ (g) corresponding to nonmaximal eigenvalues. In particular, τ (g)n · x −→ ξτ+(g) for all x ∈ PR (V ) r ξτ−(g−1 ) .

We conclude using Proposition 3.3.

n→+∞



4. Anosov representations in terms of boundary maps and Cartan or
Lyapunov projections
In this section we prove the equivalences (1) ⇔ (2) ⇔ (3) of Theorems 1.3 and 1.7.
(The equivalence (1) ⇔ (4) of Theorem 1.3 will be proved in Section 5.) More precisely,

ANOSOV REPRESENTATIONS AND PROPER ACTIONS

31

we prove the following refinements. Recall the word length function | · |Γ : Γ → N
and the stable length function | · |∞ : Γ → R+ from Section 2.1.2.
Theorem 4.1. Let Γ be a word hyperbolic group, G a real reductive Lie group, and
θ ⊂ ∆ a nonempty subset of the simple restricted roots of G. Let ρ : Γ → G be
a representation, and suppose there exist continuous, ρ-equivariant, and transverse
maps ξ + : ∂∞ Γ → G/Pθ and ξ − : ∂∞ Γ → G/Pθ− . Then the following conditions are
equivalent:
(1) The maps ξ + , ξ − lift to a map β̃ : GΓ → G/Kθ satisfying the contraction
property (ii) of Definition 2.33, i.e. ρ is Pθ -Anosov;
(2) The maps ξ + , ξ − are dynamics-preserving for ρ and
∃c, C > 0, ∀α ∈ θ, ∀γ ∈ Γ,

(3) The maps

ξ+, ξ−

are dynamics-preserving for ρ and

∃c, C > 0, ∀α ∈ θ, ∀γ ∈ Γ,

(4) The maps

ξ+, ξ−

α, µ(ρ(γ)) ≥ c |γ|Γ − C ;

α, µ(ρ(γ)) ≥ c kµ(ρ(γ))k − C ;

are dynamics-preserving for ρ and

∀α ∈ θ,

lim α, µ(ρ(γ)) = +∞.

γ→∞

Theorem 4.2. Let Γ, G, ρ, θ and ξ ± be as in Theorem 4.1. Then the following
conditions are equivalent:
(1) ρ is Pθ -Anosov;
(2) The maps ξ + , ξ − are dynamics-preserving for ρ and
∃c > 0, ∀α ∈ θ, ∀γ ∈ Γ,

α, λ(ρ(γ)) ≥ c |γ|∞ ;

(3) The maps ξ + , ξ − are dynamics-preserving for ρ and
∃c > 0, ∀α ∈ θ, ∀γ ∈ Γ,

α, λ(ρ(γ)) ≥ c kλ(ρ(γ))k ;

(4) The maps ξ + , ξ − are dynamics-preserving for ρ and
∀α ∈ θ,

lim

|γ|∞ →+∞

α, λ(ρ(γ)) = +∞.

Remarks 4.3.
(a) In Theorem 4.1, conditions (2), (3), (4) use the Cartan projection µ, whereas condition (1) uses the coset distance map dµθ as in Definition 2.33.(ii) of the Anosov property. Recall that the range of dµθ is a finite
union of copies of the range of µ (see Section 2.3.3).
(b) If Γ is nonelementary, then the existence of a continuous, injective, ρ-equivariant
map ξ + : ∂∞ Γ → G/Pθ as in Theorems 4.1 and 4.2 (see Remark 2.32.(c)) already implies that ρ has finite kernel and discrete image. Indeed, consider
a sequence (γn ) ∈ ΓN such that (ρ(γn ))n∈N is bounded in G. Seen as a sequence of homeomorphisms of G/Pθ , the family (ρ(γn ))n∈N is equicontinuous.
Since ξ + is injective and continuous and since ∂∞ Γ is compact, the map ξ +
is a homeomorphism onto its image. Therefore, seen as a sequence of homeomorphisms of ∂∞ Γ, the family (γn )n∈N is equicontinuous. By Fact 2.1.(1), no
subsequence of (γn )n∈N can diverge to infinity, i.e. (γn )n∈N is bounded in Γ.
(c) By Proposition 2.2, condition (2) of Theorem 4.2 is also equivalent to:
(2’) The maps ξ + , ξ − are dynamics-preserving for ρ and
∃c, C > 0, ∀α ∈ θ, ∀γ ∈ Γ,

α, λ(ρ(γ)) ≥ c ℓΓ (γ) − C,

where ℓΓ : Γ → N is the translation length function (2.2) on the Cayley
graph of Γ.

ANOSOV REPRESENTATIONS AND PROPER ACTIONS

32

(d) By Fact 2.34, as well as (2.10) and (2.15), all conditions of Theorems 4.1
and 4.2 are invariant under replacing θ with θ ⋆ or with θ ∪ θ ⋆ . Thus, without
loss of generality, we may assume that θ is symmetric (i.e. θ = θ ⋆ ).
The implication (2) ⇒ (3) of Theorem 4.1 follows from the subadditivity of kµk,
see (2.11). The implication (3) ⇒ (4) follows from Remark 4.3.(b) above and from
the properness of µ. We start by proving the implications (1) ⇒ (2) and (4) ⇒ (1)
of Theorem 4.1 in Sections 4.2 and 4.4, respectively. Then Theorem 4.2 is proved in
Sections 4.6 and 4.7.
4.1. A preliminary result. In the setting of Theorem 4.1, the maps ξ + , ξ − always
combine as in Definition 2.33.(i) into a continuous, ρ-equivariant, flow-invariant map
σ̃ : GΓ → G/Lθ , of which we choose a continuous lift β̃ : GΓ → G/Kθ (with Lθ , Kθ
defined as in Section 2.3.3). We further choose a ρ-equivariant set-theoretic lift β̆ :
GΓ → G of β̃. Then for any (t, v) ∈ R × GΓ , since β̆(ϕt · v)Lθ = σ̃(ϕt · v) = σ̃(v) =
β̆(v)Lθ , we have
β̆(ϕt · v) = β̆(v) lt,v

for some lt,v ∈ Lθ satisfying the following Γ-invariance property: for all γ ∈ Γ and
v ∈ GΓ ,

(4.1)

lt,γ·v = lt,v ,

since β̆(γ · v)−1 β̆(ϕt · γ · v) = β̆(v)−1 ρ(γ)−1 ρ(γ)β̆(ϕt · v). By definition, µθ (lt,v ) =

dµθ β̃(v), β̃(ϕt · v) , where dµθ is the θ-coset distance map (Definition 2.23). The
following cocycle condition is satisfied: for all t, s ∈ R and v ∈ GΓ ,

(4.2)

lt+s,v = lt,ϕs ·v ls,v .

We fix this map (t, v) 7→ lt,v for the remainder of Section 4.
The following lemma will be used in Sections 4.2 and 4.4 to prove the implications
(1) ⇒ (2) and (4) ⇒ (1) of Theorem 4.1.
Lemma 4.4. For any compact subset D of GΓ , the set β̆(D) is relatively compact
in G; in particular, K := 2 supv∈D kµ(β̆(v))k is finite. Moreover, for any v ∈ D, any
t ∈ R, and any γ ∈ Γ such that ϕt · v ∈ γ · D,
kµ(lt,v ) − µ(ρ(γ))k ≤ K.
Proof. The set β̆(D) is mapped onto the compact set β̃(D) by the proper map G →
G/Kθ , hence it is relatively compact in G. In particular, the continuous function
kµk is bounded on β̆(D), i.e. K < +∞. Consider (v, t, γ) ∈ D × R × Γ such that
ϕt · v ∈ γ · D. Then
β̆(v)lt,v = β̆(ϕt · v) = ρ(γ)β̆(γ −1 · ϕt · v)

and γ −1 · ϕt · v ∈ D. Therefore, ρ(γ) = g1 lt,v g2−1 for some g1 , g2 in β̆(D). The bound

follows by Fact 2.18.
4.2. The Cartan projection on an Anosov representation. We first prove the
implication (1) ⇒ (2) of Theorem 4.1.
Let Γ be a word hyperbolic group, G a real reductive Lie group, θ ⊂ ∆ a nonempty
subset of the simple restricted roots of G, and ρ : Γ → G a representation. Suppose
condition (1) of Theorem 4.1 is satisfied, i.e. ρ is Pθ -Anosov. Then the exponential

ANOSOV REPRESENTATIONS AND PROPER ACTIONS

33

contraction property (ii) in Definition 2.33 is satisfied: there are constants c, C > 0
such that for all α ∈ θ, all v ∈ GΓ , and all t ∈ R,
α, dµθ (β̃(v), β̃(ϕt · v)) ≥ ct − C.

For any t ∈ R and v ∈ GΓ , let lt,v ∈ Lθ be defined as in Section 4.1. This equation
can be rephrased as
(4.3)

hα, µθ (lt,v )i ≥ ct − C

for all α ∈ θ, all v ∈ GΓ , and all t ∈ R. We claim that if t ≥ C/c, then

(4.4)

µ(lt,v ) = µθ (lt,v ).

Indeed, we always have hα, µθ (lt,v )i ≥ 0 for α ∈ ∆ r θ by definition (2.12) of the
range a+
θ of µθ , and if t ≥ C/c then hα, µθ (lt,v )i ≥ 0 for α ∈ θ by (4.3). Therefore, if
t ≥ C/c, then µθ (lt,v ) ∈ a+ for all v ∈ GΓ , hence µ(lt,v ) = µθ (lt,v ) (Remark 2.21).
By Corollary 2.9, there are a compact subset D of GΓ and constants c1 , c2 > 0 such
that for any γ ∈ Γ there exists (t, v) ∈ R × D with ϕt · v ∈ γ · D and t ≥ c1 |γ|Γ − c2 . In
particular, if |γ|Γ ≥ n0 := (C + cc2 )/cc1 , then t ≥ C/c and so (4.4) holds. Lemma 4.4
applied to the compact set D gives K > 0 such that
hα, µ(ρ(γ))i ≥ hα, µ(lt,v )i − Kkαk

= hα, µθ (lt,v )i − Kkαk

≥ cc1 |γ|Γ − C ′ ,

where C ′ = cc2 + C + Kkαk. Up to adjusting the additive constant C ′ , the same
inequality also holds for the (finitely many) γ ∈ Γ such that |γ|Γ < n0 , hence condition
(2) of Theorem 4.1 holds.
This completes the proof of the implication (1) ⇒ (2) of Theorem 4.1.
4.3. Weak contraction and Anosov representations. In the course of proving
(4) ⇒ (1) of Theorem 4.1, we will need the following characterization of Anosov
representations.
Proposition 4.5. Let Γ be a word hyperbolic group, G a real reductive Lie group, θ ⊂ ∆
a nonempty subset of the simple restricted roots of G, and ρ : Γ → G a representation.
Suppose there exist continuous, ρ-equivariant, transverse maps ξ + : ∂∞ Γ → G/Pθ
and ξ − : ∂∞ Γ → G/Pθ− , and let σ̃ : GΓ → G/Lθ be the induced equivariant map and
β̃ : GΓ → G/Kθ a lift, as in Definition 2.33.(i). Suppose also that for any α ∈ θ,
(4.5)

lim

inf

t→+∞ v∈GΓ

α, dµθ (β̃(v), β̃(ϕt · v)) = +∞.

Then the representation is Pθ -Anosov (Definition 2.33): there exist c, C > 0 such that
∀α ∈ θ, ∀t ∈ R, ∀v ∈ GΓ ,

α, dµθ (β̃(v), β̃(ϕt · v)) ≥ ct − C.

Remark 4.6. For fixed t ∈ R, by the ρ-equivariance of β̃ and the invariance of dµθ
under the diagonal action of G on G/Kθ × G/Kθ (see Definition 2.23), we have
inf

v∈GΓ

α, dµθ (β̃(v), β̃(ϕt · v)) = inf α, dµθ (β̃(v), β̃(ϕt · v))
v∈D

for any subset D of GΓ with Γ · D = GΓ . Choosing D to be compact, we see that the
infimum is in fact a minimum.
For the proof it will be useful to relate the contraction on G/Pθ with a lower bound
on hα, µθ (·)i for α ∈ θ. We set xθ := ePθ ∈ G/Pθ .

ANOSOV REPRESENTATIONS AND PROPER ACTIONS

34

Lemma 4.7. Let G be a real reductive Lie group and θ ⊂ ∆ a nonempty subset
of the simple restricted roots of G. Fix a Kθ -invariant norm on the tangent space
Txθ (G/Pθ ) ≃ u−
θ . Then there is a constant C > 0 with the following properties:
(i) For any t ∈ R, if the left multiplication action of l ∈ Lθ on Txθ (G/Pθ ) is
e−t -Lipschitz, then hα, µθ (l)i ≥ t for all α ∈ θ.
(ii) For any nonnegative t ∈ R and any l ∈ Lθ , if hα, µθ (l)i ≥ t for all α ∈ θ,
then the action of l on Txθ (G/Pθ ) is Ce−t -Lipschitz.
The action of l ∈ Lθ on Txθ (G/Pθ ) identifies with the adjoint
Proof of Lemma 4.7.L
+
=
action of l on u−
θ
α∈Σ+ g−α . Write l ∈ Kθ (exp µθ (l))Kθ where µθ (l) ∈ aθ . By
θ

definition, any a ∈ exp(a) acts on g−α by multiplication by the scalar e−hα, log ai .
Applying this to log a = µθ (l) and using the Kθ -invariance of the norm, we obtain (i).
For (ii), note that if hα, µθ (l)i ≥ t for all α ∈ θ, then the scalars e−hα, µθ (l)i for α ∈ Σ+
θ
are all in (0, e−t ], since hα, µθ (l)i ≥ 0 for α ∈ ∆ r θ by definition (2.12) of the range
a+
θ of µθ . The constant C comes from the fact that the weight spaces g−α may not
be orthogonal for the chosen Kθ -invariant norm on Txθ (G/Pθ ) ≃ u−

θ.
Proof of Proposition 4.5. As in Section 4.1, we choose a ρ-equivariant set-theoretic
lift β̆ : GΓ → G of β̃, and for any (t, v) ∈ R × GΓ we set lt,v := β̆(v)−1 β̆(ϕt · v) ∈ Lθ ,
so that dµθ (β̃(v), β̃(ϕt · v)) = µθ (lt,v ). Suppose (4.5) holds for all α ∈ θ, i.e.
inf

α∈θ, v∈GΓ

hα, µθ (lt,v )i −→ +∞.
t→+∞

By Lemma 4.7.(ii), there exists τ > 0 such that lτ,v is e−1 -contracting on Txθ (G/Pθ )
for all v ∈ GΓ , where xθ = ePθ ∈ G/Pθ . Let M ≥ 0 be a bound for the Lipschitz
constant of ls,w acting on Txθ (G/Pθ ) for all s ∈ [0, τ ] and w ∈ GΓ . By (4.2), for any
t ≥ 0 and v ∈ GΓ ,

jtk

,
where n =
lt,v = lt−nτ,ϕnτ ·v lτ,ϕ(n−1)τ ·v · · · lτ,v
τ
hence lt,v is M e−n -Lipschitz on Txθ (G/Pθ ). By Lemma 4.7.(i), for any α ∈ θ,
jtk
1
hα, µθ (lt,v )i ≥
− log M ≥ t − log M − 1.

τ
τ
4.4. When the Cartan projection drifts away from the θ-walls. We now address the implication (4) ⇒ (1) of Theorem 4.1. We first fix an arbitrary representation ρ : Γ → G of the word hyperbolic group Γ into the reductive group G and
establish the following.
Proposition 4.8. If condition (4) of Theorem 4.1 holds, then there exists T ≥ 0
such that for all t ≥ T and v ∈ GΓ ,

(4.6)

µθ (lt,v ) = µ(lt,v ).

Before proving Proposition 4.8, we establish Lemmas 4.9, 4.10, and 4.11 below.
Recall that condition (4) of Theorem 4.1 is the existence of continuous, ρ-equivariant, transverse, dynamics-preserving maps ξ + : ∂∞ Γ → G/Pθ and ξ − : ∂∞ Γ → G/Pθ−
and the fact that for any α ∈ θ,

(4.7)

lim α, µ(ρ(γ)) = +∞.

γ→∞

Consider maps σ̃, β̃, β̆ and lt,v as in Section 4.1 and let
K := 2 sup kµ(β̆(v))k < +∞,
v∈D

ANOSOV REPRESENTATIONS AND PROPER ACTIONS

35

where D is a compact fundamental domain of GΓ for the action of Γ. By (4.7), there
is a finite subset F of Γ such that for any α ∈ θ and γ ∈ Γ r F ,
α, µ(ρ(γ)) ≥ 1 + kαk K.

By Lemma 4.4, we then have hα, µ(lt,v )i ≥ 1 for all α ∈ θ, all t ∈ R, and all v ∈ D
with ϕt · v ∈ (Γ r F ) · D. Note that the set of t ∈ R with ϕt · D ∩ F · D =
6 ∅ is compact.
Therefore there exists T > 0 such that for any v ∈ D we have
(4.8)

∀α ∈ θ, ∀t ≥ T,

hα, µ(lt,v )i ≥ 1.

This actually holds for any v ∈ GΓ by (4.1).
Using the Weyl group W , we define

sθ := Y ∈ a+ | hα, Y i ≥ 1 for all α ∈ θ ,
s′θ := a+
θ ∩ (W · sθ ).

Lemma 4.9. The set sθ is a connected component of s′θ .

a+
θ

s′θ r sθ

ε2 − ε3

a+
sθ
ε1 − ε2

Figure 2. Illustration of Lemma 4.9 when G = SL3 (R) and θ =
{ε1 − ε2 }: the set s′θ = sθ ∪ (s′θ r sθ ) is shown in dark gray.
Proof. The set sθ is clearly connected (in fact, convex) and contained in s′θ . Since
s′θ is a union of W -translates of sθ , it is sufficient to prove that for any nontrivial
w ∈ W , if w · sθ ∩ sθ 6= ∅, then w · sθ 6⊂ s′θ (see Figure 2). Note that for any nontrivial
w ∈ W there exists α ∈ ∆ such that hα, Y i ≤ 0 for all Y ∈ w · a+ . If sθ ∩ w · sθ 6= ∅,
then any such α belongs to ∆ r θ by definition of sθ , and so w · sθ 6⊂ s′θ by definition

(2.12) of a+
θ.
Let γ ∈ Γ be an element of infinite order. The invariant axis Aγ ⊂ GΓ of γ
is the set of v ∈ GΓ such that (ϕ+∞ , ϕ−∞ )(v) = (ηγ+ , ηγ− ), where ηγ+ and ηγ− are
respectively the attracting and the repelling fixed point of γ in ∂∞ Γ. There is a
constant Tγ > 0 (the period of γ) such that γ · v = ϕTγ · v for all v ∈ Aγ . The
assumption from Theorem 4.1.(4) that the maps ξ + , ξ − are dynamics-preserving for ρ
implies the following:
Lemma 4.10. Suppose condition (4) of Theorem 4.1 holds. Let γ ∈ Γ be an element
of infinite order, with invariant axis Aγ ⊂ GΓ . Then for any v ∈ Aγ ,
µθ (lTγ ,v ) ∈ a+ ,

i.e. hα, µθ (lTγ ,v )i ≥ 0 for all α ∈ θ (for α ∈ ∆ r θ the same inequality is true a priori
by definition (2.12) of the range a+
θ of µθ ).

ANOSOV REPRESENTATIONS AND PROPER ACTIONS

36

Proof. Let v ∈ Aγ . Then σ̃(v) = β̆(v)Lθ and ξ + (ϕ+∞ (v)) = ξ + (ηγ+ ) = β̆(v)Pθ . Also,
β̆(v) lTγ ,v = β̆(ϕTγ · v) = β̆(γ · v) = ρ(γ) β̆(v)

(from the construction of lt,v ), hence lTγ ,v and ρ(γ) are conjugate by β̆(v). In particular, since the attracting fixed point of ρ(γ) in G/Pθ is β̆(v)Pθ , the attracting fixed
point for lTγ ,v is Pθ . By Lemma 4.7.(i),
hα, µθ (lTγ ,v )i > 0

for all α ∈ θ, hence µθ (lTγ ,v ) ∈ a+ .



Lemma 4.11. Suppose condition (4) of Theorem 4.1 holds. Recall the constant T
from (4.8). Let γ ∈ Γ be an element of infinite order with invariant axis Aγ ⊂ GΓ .
For any v ∈ Aγ and any t ≥ T ,
µθ (lt,v ) ∈ sθ .

′
Proof. By (4.8), the map ψ : [T, +∞) → a+
θ sending t to µθ (lt,v ) takes values in sθ .
This map is continuous since the map (t, v) 7→ Kθ lt,v Kθ and the (bi-Kθ -invariant)
Cartan projection µθ are both continuous. Applying Lemma 4.10 to an appropriate
power of γ, we see that ψ(t) ∈ sθ for some t ≥ T . Lemma 4.9 then implies ψ(t) ∈ sθ
for all t ≥ T .


Proof of Proposition 4.8. Using Lemma 4.11, we see that for any t ≥ T the closed set
{v ∈ GΓ | µθ (lt,v ) ∈ sθ }

contains the invariant axis Aγ of any element γ ∈ Γ of infinite order. By density of
the union of those axes (Remark 2.3), this set is all of GΓ . Using again Remark 2.21,
we see that µθ (lt,v ) = µ(lt,v ) for all t ≥ T and all v ∈ GΓ .


Proof of the implication (4) ⇒ (1) of Theorem 4.1. Suppose that (4) holds, i.e. there
exist continuous, ρ-equivariant, transverse, dynamics-preserving maps ξ + , ξ − and
(4.7) holds. By Proposition 4.5, in order to show that ρ is Pθ -Anosov, it is enough to
prove that
(4.9)

∀α ∈ θ,

lim

inf α, µθ (lt,v ) = +∞.

t→+∞ v∈GΓ

By Remark 4.6, the infimum needs to be taken only on a compact set D such that
Γ · D = GΓ . For any t ∈ R and any v ∈ D there is an element γt,v ∈ Γ such that
ϕt · v ∈ γt,v · D. By Lemma 4.4 and Proposition 4.8, there are constants K > 0 and
T ≥ 0 (independent of t and v) such that if t ≥ T , then
kµθ (lt,v ) − µ(ρ(γt,v ))k ≤ K.

Since any orbit map Γ → GΓ is a quasi-isometry, we obtain that γt,v → ∞ as t → +∞
(uniformly in v ∈ D), and so the assumption (4.7) readily implies (4.9).


4.5. Anosov representations and embeddings into general linear groups.
Proposition 3.5.(2) is a consequence of the results of Section 3.3 and of the equivalence
(1) ⇔ (4) of Theorem 4.1 (or equivalence (1) ⇔ (2) of Theorem 1.3) which we have
just established.
Proof of Proposition 3.5.(2). By Proposition 3.5.(1), there exist continuous, ρ-equivariant, dynamics-preserving, transverse boundary maps ξ + : ∂∞ Γ → G/Pθ and
ξ − : ∂∞ Γ → G/Pθ− if and only if there exist continuous, (τ ◦ρ)-equivariant, dynamicspreserving, transverse boundary maps ξV+ : ∂∞ Γ → PK (V ) and ξV− : ∂∞ Γ → PK (V ∗ ).
By Lemma 3.7.(3), we have hα, µ(ρ(γ))i → +∞ as γ → ∞ for all α ∈ θ if and only

ANOSOV REPRESENTATIONS AND PROPER ACTIONS

37

if hε1 − ε2 , µGLK (V ) (τ ◦ ρ(γ))i → +∞ as γ → ∞. Therefore, condition (4) of Theorem 4.1 holds for ρ if and only if it holds for τ ◦ ρ. Since (4) is equivalent to (1) in
Theorem 4.1, we conclude that ρ is Pθ -Anosov if and only if τ ◦ ρ is.

4.6. Approaching the Cartan projection by the Lyapunov projection. The
implications (1) ⇒ (2) ⇒ (3) of Theorem 4.2 rely on (2.1) and on (2.14), which
expresses the fact that the Lyapunov projection can be approached by the Cartan
projection.
Proof of (1) ⇒ (2) in Theorem 4.2. Suppose ρ is Pθ -Anosov. By Theorem 4.1.(2),
there exist c, C > 0 such that α, µ(ρ(γ)) ≥ c |γ|Γ − C for all α ∈ θ and γ ∈ Γ.
Using (2.1) and (2.14), we find that for all α ∈ θ and γ ∈ Γ,

1
1
α, λ(ρ(γ)) = lim
α, µ(ρ(γ n )) ≥ lim
c |γ n |Γ − C = c |γ|∞ .

n→+∞ n
n→+∞ n

Proof of (2) ⇒ (3) in Theorem 4.2. By (2.11) there exists k > 0 such that kµ(ρ(γ))k ≤
k |γ|Γ for all γ ∈ Γ. Using (2.1) and (2.14), we find that for all γ ∈ Γ,
1
1 n
kλ(ρ(γ))k = lim
kµ(ρ(γ n ))k ≤ k lim
|γ |Γ = k |γ|∞ .

n→+∞ n
n→+∞ n
The implication (2) ⇒ (4) of Theorem 4.2 is obvious. It only remains to prove
(3) ⇒ (1) and (4) ⇒ (1).
For semisimple ρ, these implications both rely on the following result, which states
that the Cartan projection can be approached by the Lyapunov projection. This was
established by Benoist [Ben97], using a theorem of Abels–Margulis–Soifer [AMS95].
Since the result is not explicitly stated as such in [Ben97], we recall a sketch of the
proof.
Theorem 4.12 ([Ben97]). Let Γ be a discrete group, G a real reductive Lie group,
and ρ : Γ → G a semisimple representation. Then there exist a finite set F ⊂ Γ and
a constant Cρ > 0 such that for any γ ∈ Γ we can find f ∈ F with
kλ(ρ(γf )) − µ(ρ(γ))k ≤ Cρ .

Proof. By subadditivity of µ (Fact 2.18), it is sufficient to prove the existence of a
finite set F ⊂ Γ and a constant C > 0 such that for any γ ∈ Γ we can find f ∈ F with
kλ(ρ(γf )) − µ(ρ(γf ))k ≤ C. Since ρ is semisimple by assumption, i.e. the Zariski
closure of ρ(Γ) in G is reductive, we may assume without loss of generality that
ρ(Γ) is actually Zariski-dense in G. It is then known that the set hα, µ(ρ(Γ))i ⊂ R+
is unbounded for all α ∈ ∆ (see [GM89, GR89, BL93, Pra94]). By Lemma 3.2,
for any α ∈ ∆ there is an irreducible proximal linear representation (τα , Vα ) whose
highest weight χτα is a multiple of the fundamental weight ωα associated with α.
By [AMS95, Th. 5.17], there are a finite set F ⊂ Γ and a constant ε > 0 with the
following property: for any γ ∈ Γ we can find f ∈ F such that for any α ∈ ∆, the
element τα ◦ ρ(γf ) ∈ GLR (Vα ) is ε-proximal in PR (Vα ) in the sense of [Ben97, § 2.2].
We conclude as in [Ben97, Lem. 4.5]: on the one hand, for any α ∈ ∆, there is a
constant Cα > 0 such that for any g ∈ G, if τα (g) is ε-proximal in PR (Vα ), then
|hωα , µ(g) − λ(g)i| ≤ Cα [Ben97, Lem. 2.2.5]; on the other hand, the fundamental
weights ωα , for α ∈ ∆, form a basis of a∗s , and for any g ∈ G the elements λ(g) and
µ(g) of a have the same projection to z(g).

Proof of (3) ⇒ (1) and (4) ⇒ (1) in Theorem 4.2 for semisimple ρ. Let F be the finite subset of Γ and Cρ > 0 the constant given by Theorem 4.12. Let (γn ) ∈ ΓN

ANOSOV REPRESENTATIONS AND PROPER ACTIONS

38

be a sequence of elements going to infinity in Γ. The existence of ρ-equivariant, continuous, transverse maps ξ + , ξ − implies that ρ has finite kernel and discrete image
(Remark 4.3.(b)), and so kµ(ρ(γn ))k → +∞ by properness of the map µ. By Theorem 4.12, for any n ∈ N there exists fn ∈ F such that kλ(ρ(γn fn )) − µ(ρ(γn ))k ≤ Cρ .
In particular, kλ(ρ(γn fn ))k → +∞.
• If condition (3) of Theorem 4.2 holds, then for any α ∈ θ we have hα, λ(ρ(γn fn ))i
→ +∞, hence hα, µ(ρ(γn ))i → +∞. This holds for any sequence (γn ) ∈ ΓN
going to infinity in Γ, hence condition (4) of Theorem 4.1 is satisfied. Therefore ρ is Pθ -Anosov by the implication (4) ⇒ (1) of Theorem 4.1.
• Note that kλ(ρ(γn fn ))k → +∞ implies that the conjugacy classes of the γn fn
diverge, i.e. ℓΓ (γn fn ) → +∞, and so |γn fn |∞ → +∞ by Proposition 2.2. If
condition (4) of Theorem 4.2 holds, then we obtain hα, λ(ρ(γn fn ))i → +∞
for all α ∈ θ, and we conclude as above.

4.7. When the Lyapunov projection drifts away from the θ-walls. It remains
to establish the implications (3) ⇒ (1) and (4) ⇒ (1) of Theorem 4.2 in the general
case, when ρ is not necessarily semisimple. We first prove the following proposition.
Proposition 4.13. Let Γ be a word hyperbolic group, G a real reductive Lie group,
and θ ⊂ ∆ a nonempty subset of the simple restricted roots of G. Consider a representation ρ : Γ → G with semisimplification ρss : Γ → G (see Section 2.5.4). If there
exist continuous, dynamics-preserving, transverse boundary maps ξ + : ∂∞ Γ → G/Pθ
and ξ − : ∂∞ Γ → G/Pθ− for ρ, then there exist continuous, dynamics-preserving,
transverse boundary maps ξ ′+ : ∂∞ Γ → G/Pθ and ξ ′− : ∂∞ Γ → G/Pθ− for ρss .

Proof. For any irreducible linear representation (τ, V ) of G, the representation τ ◦ρss is
a semisimplification of (τ ◦ρ). Therefore, by Proposition 3.5.(1), up to postcomposing
ρ with some irreducible, θ-proximal representation τ : G → GLR (V ) (which exists
by Lemma 3.2), we may assume that G = GLR (V ) and θ = {ε1 − ε2 }, so that
G/Pθ = PR (V ) and G/Pθ− = PR (V ∗ ).
Viewing PR (V ) and PR (V ∗ ) as the sets of lines and hyperplanes of V , respectively,
we define the linear subspaces
X
\
U :=
ξ + (η)
and
V1 := U ∩
ξ − (η)
η∈∂∞ Γ

η∈∂∞ Γ

of V ; they are ρ(Γ)-invariant. Let V2 be a complementary subspace of V1 in U , and
V3 a complementary subspace of U in V .
Under the decomposition V = V1 ⊕ V2 ⊕ V3 , the representation ρ : Γ → GLR (V )
is block upper triangular: there are representations ρi : Γ → GLR (Vi ) and maps
ai,j : Γ → HomR (Vi , Vj ), for 1 ≤ i, j ≤ 3, such that for any γ ∈ Γ,


ρ1 (γ) a1,2 (γ) a1,3 (γ)
ρ2 (γ) a2,3 (γ) .
ρ(γ) = 
ρ3 (γ)

Then

 ss
ρ1 (γ)
ss

ρss
ρ (γ) =
2 (γ)

ρss
3 (γ)




for all γ ∈ Γ, where ρss
i is a semisimplification of ρi . We now construct continuous, dynamics-preserving, transverse boundary maps ξ ′+ : ∂∞ Γ → PR (V ) and
ξ ′− : ∂∞ Γ → PR (V ∗ ) for ρss .

ANOSOV REPRESENTATIONS AND PROPER ACTIONS

39

Since the maps ξ + and ξ − are transverse, ξ + takes values in PR (V1 ⊕ V2 ) r PR (V1 )
and ξ − takes values in PR (V10 ) r PR (V1 ⊕ V2 )0 , where we denote by V10 ⊂ V ∗ the
annihilator of V1 and by (V1 ⊕ V2 )0 ⊂ V ∗ the annihilator of V1 ⊕ V2 . Let
p : V1 ⊕ V2 −→ V2

be the linear projection onto V2 with kernel V1 and Pp : PR (V1 ⊕V2 )rPR (V1 ) → PR (V2 )
the induced map. Similarly, let
p∗ : V10 −→ (V1 ⊕ V3 )0

be the linear projection onto (V1 ⊕ V3 )0 with kernel (V1 ⊕ V2 )0
Pp∗ : PR (V10 ) r PR ((V1 ⊕ V2 )0 ) → PR ((V1 ⊕ V3 )0 ) the induced map. We set
 ′+
ξ := Pp ◦ ξ + : ∂∞ Γ → PR (V2 ) ⊂ PR (V ),
ξ ′− := Pp∗ ◦ ξ − : ∂∞ Γ → PR ((V1 ⊕ V3 )0 ) ⊂ PR (V ∗ ).

and

These maps are continuous and transverse by construction, as well as dynamicsss
preserving for ρss
1 ⊕ ρ2 ⊕ ρ3 : Γ → GLR (V1 ⊕ V2 ⊕ V3 ). To see that they are
ss
dynamics-preserving for ρ : Γ → GLR (V ), it is sufficient to prove that ρ2 = ρss
2 .
If Γ is elementary, i.e. if Γ is virtually the infinite cyclic group generated by a
nontorsion element γ and ∂∞ Γ = {ηγ+ , ηγ− }, then V1 = {0} and U = V2 = ξ + (ηγ+ ) ⊕
ξ + (ηγ− ), thus ρ2 |hγi is semisimple and ρ2 = ρss
2 by Remark 2.38. We now assume that
Γ is nonelementary. We claim that ρ2 : Γ → GLR (V2 ) is then irreducible. Indeed, let
R be a ρ2 (Γ)-invariant subspace of V2 . Let γ ∈ Γ be an element of infinite order with
attracting (resp. repelling) fixed point ηγ+ (resp. ηγ− ) in ∂∞ Γ. Since ξ ′+ and ξ ′− are
0
ss
dynamics-preserving for ρss
1 ⊕ρ2 ⊕ρ3 and take values in PR (V2 ) and PR ((V1 ⊕V3 ) ) ≃
PR (V2∗ ) respectively, Lemma 2.26 implies that for any x ∈ PR (V2 ) r ξ ′− (ηγ− ) we
have ρ2 (γ n ) · x → ξ ′+ (ηγ+ ) as n → +∞. Since R is closed and ρ2 (Γ)-invariant, we
obtain that either PR (R) ⊂ ξ ′− (ηγ− ) or ξ ′+ (ηγ+ ) ∈ PR (R). Thus, one of the closed
Γ-invariant subsets {η ∈ ∂∞ Γ | PR (R) ⊂ ξ ′− (η)} or {η ∈ ∂∞ Γ | ξ ′+ (η) ∈ PR (R)}
is nonempty, hence equal to ∂∞ Γ by minimality of the action of the nonelementary
group Γ on ∂∞ Γ (Fact 2.1.(4)). This shows that R = {0} or R = V2 . Thus ρ2 is

irreducible, and in particular ρ2 = ρss
2 .
Proof of Proposition 1.8. If ρss is Pθ -Anosov, then ρ is Pθ -Anosov by Proposition 2.39.
Conversely, suppose ρ : Γ → G is Pθ -Anosov. By Proposition 4.13, there exist
continuous, dynamics-preserving, transverse boundary maps ξ ′+ : ∂∞ Γ → G/Pθ and
ξ ′− : ∂∞ Γ → G/Pθ− for ρss . By the implication (1) ⇒ (4) of Theorem 4.2 applied
to ρ, for any α ∈ θ we have hα, λ(ρ(γ))i → +∞ as |γ|∞ → +∞. The point is that
λ ◦ ρss = λ ◦ ρ (Lemma 2.40). Therefore, for any α ∈ θ we have hα, λ(ρss (γ))i → +∞
as |γ|∞ → +∞, and so ρss is Pθ -Anosov by the implication (4) ⇒ (1) of Theorem 4.2
applied to the semisimple representation ρss (this implication has been proved in

Section 4.6).
Proof of (3) ⇒ (1) and (4) ⇒ (1) in Theorem 4.2 for general ρ. By Lemma 2.40 and
Proposition 4.13, if ρ satisfies (3) (resp. (4)) then so does ρss . In Section 4.6 we
proved the implications (3) ⇒ (1) and (4) ⇒ (1) of Theorem 4.2 for the semisimple

representation ρss . By Proposition 2.39, if ρss satisfies (1), then so does ρ.
5. Construction of the boundary maps
In this section we prove Theorem 1.1 (which implies in particular (4) ⇒ (1) in
Theorem 1.3) by establishing an explicit version of it, namely Theorem 5.3. We also
complete the proof of Theorem 1.3 by establishing its implication (1) ⇒ (4). In

ANOSOV REPRESENTATIONS AND PROPER ACTIONS

40

particular this implication shows that the CLI constants in Theorem 1.1.(3), if they
exist, must be uniform (see Remark 1.2.(e)).
To put things into perspective, we start by recalling the notion of limit set in G/Pθ .
This notion was first introduced and studied by Guivarc’h [Gui90] for subgroups of
G = SLd (R) acting proximally and strongly irreducibly on Rd , then by Benoist
[Ben97] for Zariski-dense subgroups of any reductive Lie group G; here we give a
definition for arbitrary subgroups of G.
5.1. Limit sets in flag varieties. Let G be a real reductive Lie group with Cartan
decomposition K(exp a+ )K and corresponding Cartan projection µ : G → a+ ; we
use the notation of Section 2.2. For any nonempty subset θ ⊂ ∆ of the simple
restricted roots of a in G, let xθ = ePθ ∈ G/Pθ be the basepoint of G/Pθ . We define
a map Ξθ : G → G/Pθ as follows: for any g ∈ G, we choose kg , kg′ ∈ K such that
g = kg (exp µ(g))kg′ and set
(5.1)

Ξθ (g) := kg · xθ ∈ G/Pθ .

This does not depend on the choice of kg , kg′ as soon as hα, µ(g)i > 0 for all α ∈ θ (see
[Hel01, Ch. IX, Th. 1.1]). If g is proximal in G/Pθ (Definition 2.25), then the sequence
(Ξθ (g n ))n∈N converges to the attracting fixed point of g in G/Pθ : see Lemma 5.11
below. We make the following definition.
Definition 5.1. Let Γ be any discrete group and ρ : Γ → G any representation.
G/P
The limit set Λρ(Γ)θ of ρ(Γ) in G/Pθ is the set of all possible limits of sequences
(Ξθ ◦ ρ(γn ))n∈N for (γn ) ∈ ΓN with hα, µ(ρ(γn ))i → +∞ for all α ∈ θ.
G/P

The limit set Λρ(Γ)θ is closed and ρ(Γ)-invariant, and does not depend on the choice
of Cartan decomposition (Corollary 5.9 below). It is well known (see [GM89, GR89,
BL93, Pra94]) that if ρ(Γ) is Zariski-dense in G, then ρ(Γ) contains elements that are
G/P
proximal in G/Pθ ; by [Ben97, Lem. 3.6], in this case Λρ(Γ)θ is the closure in G/Pθ of
the set of attracting fixed points of these elements.
G/P
The limit set Λρ(Γ)θ is nonempty for instance if ρ is Pθ -divergent, in the sense that
∀α ∈ θ,

hα, µ(ρ(γ))i −→ +∞.
γ→∞

When G has real rank one, Pθ -divergence is equivalent to ρ having finite kernel
and discrete image; in this case, we recover the usual limit set of ρ(Γ) in G/Pθ ≃
∂∞ (G/K).
5.2. Constructing boundary maps. In this Section 5 we prove that if Γ is word
hyperbolic and if for any α ∈ θ we have hα, µ(ρ(γ))i → +∞ fast enough as γ → ∞,
then the map Ξ+ := Ξθ ◦ ρ : Γ → G/Pθ extends continuously to a ρ-equivariant
G/P
boundary map ξ + : ∂∞ Γ → G/Pθ with image the limit set Λρ(Γ)θ . More precisely,
“fast enough” is given by the following conditions.
Definition 5.2. A representation ρ : Γ → G has the gap summation property with
respect to θ if for any α ∈ θ and any geodesic ray (γn )n∈N in the Cayley graph of Γ,
X
(5.2)
e−hα, µ(ρ(γn ))i < +∞.
n∈N

The representation ρ has the uniform gap summation property with respect to θ if
this series converges uniformly for all geodesic rays (γn )n∈N with γ0 = e, i.e. if for

ANOSOV REPRESENTATIONS AND PROPER ACTIONS

any α ∈ θ,
(5.3)

sup

X

(γn )n∈N n≥n
0
geodesic
with γ0 =e

e−hα, µ(ρ(γn ))i

41

−→ 0.

n0 →+∞

For instance, if there exists C > 0 such that hα, µ(ρ(γ))i ≥ 2 log |γ|Γ − C for all
α ∈ θ and γ ∈ Γ, then ρ has the uniform gap summation property with respect to θ,
and even with respect to θ ∪ θ ⋆ by (2.10).
Recall that the parabolic subgroup Pθ− of G is conjugate to Pθ⋆ , and so G/Pθ−
identifies with G/Pθ⋆ . The goal of this Section 5 is to prove the following result,
which implies Theorem 1.1.
Theorem 5.3. Let Γ be a word hyperbolic group, G a real reductive Lie group, θ ⊂ ∆
a nonempty subset of the simple restricted roots of G, and ρ : Γ → G a representation.
(1) If ρ has the gap summation property with respect to θ ∪ θ ⋆ , then the maps
 +
Ξ := Ξθ ◦ ρ : Γ → G/Pθ ,
Ξ− := Ξθ⋆ ◦ ρ : Γ → G/Pθ⋆
induce ρ-equivariant boundary maps
 +
ξ : ∂∞ Γ → G/Pθ ,
ξ − : ∂∞ Γ → G/Pθ⋆ ≃ G/Pθ− ,

which are independent of all choices. For any η ∈ ∂∞ Γ, the points ξ + (η) ∈
G/Pθ and ξ − (η) ∈ G/Pθ− are compatible in the sense of Definition 2.10.
(2) If moreover for any α ∈ θ and any γ ∈ Γ of infinite order,
hα, µ(ρ(γ n ))i − 2 log |n| −→

|n|→+∞

+∞,

then ξ + and ξ − are dynamics-preserving for ρ.
(3) If ρ has the uniform gap summation property with respect to θ ∪ θ ⋆ , then
 +
Ξ ⊔ ξ + : Γ ∪ ∂∞ Γ → G/Pθ ,
Ξ− ⊔ ξ − : Γ ∪ ∂∞ Γ → G/Pθ⋆ ≃ G/Pθ−

are continuous, and the images of ξ + and ξ − are the respective limit sets
G/P ⋆
G/P
Λρ(Γ)θ and Λρ(Γ)θ (Definition 5.1).

(4) If moreover for any α ∈ Σ+
θ and any geodesic ray (γn )n∈N the sequence
(hα, µ(ρ(γn ))i)n∈N is CLI (Definition 2.6), then ξ + and ξ − are transverse.
In particular, ρ is Pθ -Anosov and ξ + and ξ − define homeomorphisms between
G/P ⋆
G/P
∂∞ Γ and the limit sets Λρ(Γ)θ and Λρ(Γ)θ , respectively.
In (1), by “induce” we mean that ξ + (η) = limn Ξ+ (γn ) and ξ − (η) = limn Ξ− (γn )
for any quasi-geodesic ray (γn )n∈N in the Cayley graph of Γ with endpoint η ∈ ∂∞ Γ.
In (4), the fact that ρ is Pθ -Anosov comes from the implication (2) ⇒ (1) in
Theorem 1.3, and the fact that ξ + and ξ − are homeomorphisms onto their image
comes from the fact that they are continuous and injective and ∂∞ Γ is compact.
Remark 5.4. Let γ ∈ Γ be an element of infinite order, with attracting fixed point
ηγ+ ∈ ∂∞ Γ. The image of ηγ+ under ξ + (or under any ρ-equivariant map ∂∞ Γ → G/Pθ )
is always a fixed point of ρ(γ) in G/Pθ ; however, this fixed point ξ + (ηγ+ ) is attracting
(in the sense used in Definition 2.25) only if hα, µ(ρ(γ)n )i grows faster than 2 log(n)
for every α ∈ θ (Lemma 2.27). This shows that the growth assumption in (2) above

ANOSOV REPRESENTATIONS AND PROPER ACTIONS

42

is optimal. For instance, here is a case where the assumptions of (1) and (3) are
satisfied but the conclusion of (2) fails:
Example 5.5. Let G = SL2 (R), with Cartan projection µ : G → R+ obtained by identifying a+ with R+ . Let Γ be a finitely generated Schottky subgroup of G containing
a parabolic element u. There is a constant C > 0 such that µ(ρ(γ)) ≥ 2 log |γ|Γ − C
for all γ ∈ Γ; in particular, ρ satisfies the uniform gap summation property (5.3).
However, this growth rate cannot be improved since µ(un ) = 2 log n + O(1). The
continuous equivariant boundary map ξ : ∂∞ Γ → ∂∞ H2 given by Theorem 5.3.(3)
is not dynamics-preserving since the fixed point of u in G/Pθ = ∂∞ H2 is neither
attracting nor repelling; thus the conclusion of Theorem 5.3.(2) fails. The transversality conclusion of Theorem 5.3.(4) also fails since ξ(lim+∞ un ) = ξ(lim+∞ u−n ) (see
Remark 2.32.(c)).
We first discuss the gap summation property (Section 5.3), then establish some estimates for the map Ξθ (Section 5.4), which are useful in the proof of Theorem 5.3.(1)–
(2)–(3) (Section 5.5). The proof of Theorem 5.3.(4) (hence of (4) ⇒ (1) of Theorem 1.3) is more delicate, and is the object of Section 5.6. Finally, in Section 5.7 we
establish the implication (1) ⇒ (4) of Theorem 1.3.
5.3. The gap summation property. The following observation will be useful in
the proof of Theorem 5.3.
Lemma 5.6. For any c, C > 0, there exists C0 > 0 such that for any (c, C)-quasigeodesic rays (γn )n∈N and (γn′ )n∈N in the Cayley graph of Γ, with the same initial
point γ0 = γ0′ and the same endpoint in ∂∞ Γ, and for any α ∈ ∆,
X
X
′
e−hα, µ(ρ(γn ))i .
e−hα, µ(ρ(γn ))i ≤ C0
n∈N

n∈N

Therefore, in the definition 5.2 of the gap summation property, it is equivalent to
ask for the convergence of the series (5.2) for all quasi -geodesic rays.
Proof. Since (γn )n∈N and (γn′ )n∈N have the same endpoint at infinity in the word
hyperbolic group Γ, there is a (c′ , C ′ )-quasi-isometry φ : N → N such that the
−1
)n∈N is contained in the R-ball Be (R) centered at e in Γ. The
sequence (γn′ γφ(n)
′
′
constants c , C , and R depend only on (c, C) (and on the hyperbolicity constant
of Γ). Let M be a real number such that kµ(ρ(γ))k ≤ M for all γ ∈ Be (R). By
subadditivity of µ (Fact 2.18.(3)), for any n ∈ N,
|hα, µ(ρ(γφ(n) )) − µ(ρ(γn′ ))i| ≤ µ(ρ(γφ(n) )) − µ(ρ(γn′ )) kαk

−1
≤ µ ρ γn′ γφ(n)
kαk ≤ M kαk.

Moreover, for any p ∈ N, the set {n ∈ N | φ(n) = p} has at most c′ C ′ + 1 elements.
Thus, for any n ∈ N,
X
X
′
e−hα, µ(ρ(γφ(n) ))i
e−hα, µ(ρ(γn ))i ≤ eM kαk
n∈N

n∈N

M kαk

≤e
For any g ∈ G, we set

(5.4)

(c′ C ′ + 1)

X

e−hα, µ(ρ(γp ))i .

p∈N

Tθ (g) := min hα, µ(g)i ≥ 0.
α∈θ



ANOSOV REPRESENTATIONS AND PROPER ACTIONS

43

P
If the gap summation property holds with respect to θ, then the series n e−Tθ (ρ(γn ))
converges for every quasi-geodesic ray (γn )n∈N . Here is an immediate consequence of
Lemma 5.6.
Corollary 5.7. If the uniform gap summation property holds with respect to θ, then
for any c, C > 0,
X
e−Tθ (ρ(γn )) −→ 0.
sup
(γn )n∈N
n≥n0
(c,C)-quasi-geodesic
with γ0 =e

n0 →+∞

5.4. Metric estimates for the map Ξθ . Consider an irreducible, θ-proximal linear
representation (τ, V ) of G (see Definition 3.1 and Lemma 3.2). Let k · kV be a Kinvariant Euclidean norm on V for which the weight spaces of τ are orthogonal. It
defines a K-invariant metric dP(V ) on PR (V ), given by
dP(V ) ([v], [v ′ ]) = | sin ∡(v, v ′ )|
for all nonzero v, v ′ ∈ V . By Proposition 3.3, the space G/Pθ embeds into PR (V ) as
the closed G-orbit of the point xτ := PR (V χτ ) ∈ PR (V ), and inherits from this a
K-invariant metric dG/Pθ : for any g, g′ ∈ G,
dG/Pθ (g · xθ , g′ · xθ ) := dP(V ) (g · xτ , g′ · xτ ).

Here, and sometimes in the rest of the section, to simplify notation, we omit τ and
write “·” for the τ -action of G on both V and PR (V ).
The goal of this subsection is to establish the following useful estimates.
Lemma 5.8. For any compact subset M of G, there is a constant CM > 0 such that
for any g ∈ G and m ∈ M,
(i)
(ii)

dG/Pθ (Ξθ (gm), Ξθ (g)) ≤ CM e−Tθ (g) ,
dG/Pθ (Ξθ (mg), m · Ξθ (g)) ≤ CM e−Tθ (g) .

Lemma 5.8 has the following consequence.
Corollary 5.9. Consider a sequence (gn ) ∈ GN with Tθ (gn ) → +∞. Suppose that
(Ξθ (gn ))n∈N converges to some x ∈ G/Pθ . Then

(1) for any m ∈ G, the sequence (Ξθ (mgn ))n∈N converges to m · x ∈ G/Pθ ;
(2) x does not depend on any choice made in the definition of Ξθ : namely, it does
not depend on the choice of Cartan decomposition G = K(exp a+ )K (which
determines the basepoint xθ ∈ G/Pθ ) nor, given this choice, on the choice of
kgn , kg′ n ∈ K.

Proof. For (1), apply Lemma 5.8.(ii) with g = gn . For (2), recall that any Cartan
decomposition of G is obtained from G = K(exp a+ )K by conjugating K and exp a+
by some common element m ∈ G; this corresponds to replacing kg by mkm−1 gm m−1
for any g ∈ G and the basepoint xθ by m · xθ . Independence from the choice of
Cartan decomposition then follows from the existence, given by Lemma 5.8 applied
to M = {m, m−1 }, of a constant CM > 0 such that for all g ∈ G,
dG/Pθ (mkm−1 gm · xθ , kg · xθ ) ≤ 2CM e−Tθ (g) .

Finally, since Tθ (gn ) > 0 for all large enough n, the choice of kgn , kg′ n ∈ K has no

effect on Ξθ (gn ), as seen in Section 5.1.

ANOSOV REPRESENTATIONS AND PROPER ACTIONS

44

In order to prove Lemma 5.8, we make the following observation, where for g ∈ G
we denote by


kg · vkV
≥0
R(g) := hχτ , µ(g)i = max log
kvkV
v∈V r{0}

the logarithm of the largest singular value of τ (g). By Lemma 3.7, the quantity Tθ (g)
of (5.4) is the logarithm of the ratio of the two largest singular values of τ (g).
Observation 5.10. Let v ∈ V be a highest-weight vector for τ with kvkV = 1. For
any h ∈ G and a, b ∈ exp a+ ,
dG/Pθ (xθ , h · xθ ) ≤ e−Tθ (a) eR(a)−R(b)+R(h

−1 )

ka−1 hb · vkV .

hv
w
a−1 · w

a−1 · hv

v

0

tv

Figure 3. Illustration of Observation 5.10 when b = 1: as a−1 compresses eTθ (a) times less strongly along v ⊥ than in the v-direction, we
get a lower bound on ka−1 · hvkV in terms of the angle ∡(v, hv) (or
its sine dG/Pθ (xθ , h · xθ )).
Proof of Observation 5.10. Write h · v = tv + w where t ∈ R and w belongs to the
orthogonal v ⊥ of v in (V, k·kV ) (see Figure 3). Then kwkV = kh·vkV | sin ∡(v, h·v)| =
kh · vkV dG/Pθ (xθ , h · xθ ), and so
ka−1 h · vkV ≥ ka−1 · wkV ≥ e−R(a)+Tθ (a) kwkV = e−R(a)+Tθ (a) kh · vkV dG/Pθ (xθ , h · xθ ).
To conclude, note that 1 = kh−1 h · vkV ≤ eR(h
ka−1 hb · vkV

−1 )

kh · vkV and b · v = eR(b) v, so that

= eR(b) ka−1 h · vkV

≥ e−R(a)+Tθ (a)+R(b) kh · vkV dG/Pθ (xθ , h · xθ )
≥ e−R(a)+Tθ (a)+R(b)−R(h

−1 )

dG/Pθ (xθ , h · xθ ).



Proof of Lemma 5.8. Let M be a compact subset of G. By continuity of µ, there is
a constant δ ≥ 0 such that km · v ′ kV ≤ eδ kv ′ kV and kµ(m)k ≤ δ for all m ∈ M
and v ′ ∈ V , where k · k is the W -invariant Euclidean norm on a from Section 2.3.1.
Let v ∈ V χτ be a highest-weight vector for τ with kvkV = 1. Recall the elements
kg , kg′ ∈ K defined before (5.1). For any g ∈ G and m ∈ M,
exp(µ(g))−1 (kg−1 kgm ) exp(µ(gm)) · v

V

′−1
= kkg′ mkgm
· vkV ≤ eδ .

ANOSOV REPRESENTATIONS AND PROPER ACTIONS

45

By applying Observation 5.10 to (a, b, h) = (exp(µ(g)), exp(µ(gm)), kg−1 kgm ) we obtain
dG/Pθ (Ξθ (g), Ξθ (gm)) = dG/Pθ (kg · xθ , kgm · xθ ) ≤ e−Tθ (g) eR(g)−R(gm) eδ .

By strong subadditivity of µ (Fact 2.18),

|R(g) − R(gm)| = |hχτ , µ(g) − µ(gm)i| ≤ kµ(g) − µ(gm)k kχτ k
≤ kµ(m)k kχτ k ≤ δkχτ k.

Therefore,

dG/Pθ (Ξθ (g), Ξθ (gm)) ≤ eδ(1+kχτ k) e−Tθ (g)

i.e. (i) holds with CM = eδ(1+kχτ k) .
Similarly, we have

−1
exp(µ(mg))−1 (kmg
mkg ) exp(µ(g)) · v

V

′
= kkmg
mkg′−1 · vkV ≤ eδ .

−1 mk ) we obBy applying Observation 5.10 to (a, b, h) = (exp(µ(mg)), exp(µ(g)), kmg
g
tain

dG/Pθ (Ξθ (mg), m · Ξθ (g)) = dG/Pθ (kmg · xθ , mkg · xθ )

−1 )

≤ e−Tθ (g) eR(mg)−R(g)+R(m

eδ .

As above, |R(mg) − R(g)| ≤ kµ(m)k kχτ k ≤ δkχτ k, and
hence

R(m−1 ) ≤ kµ(m−1 )k kχτ k = kµ(m)k kχτ k ≤ δ kχτ k,
dG/Pθ (Ξθ (mg), m · Ξθ (g)) ≤ eδ(1+2kχτ k) e−Tθ (g) ,

i.e. (ii) holds with CM = eδ(1+2kχτ k) .



5.5. Existence, equivariance, continuity, and dynamics-preserving property
for the boundary maps. We now give a proof of statements (1), (2), (3) of Theorem 5.3.
Proof of Theorem 5.3.(1). Let (γn )n∈N be a (c, C)-quasi-geodesic ray in the Cayley
graph of Γ, with endpoint η ∈ ∂∞ Γ. The set {γn−1 γn+1 | n ∈ N} is contained in the
ball Be (c + C) of radius c + C centered at e ∈ Γ. Applying Lemma 5.8.(i) to ρ(γn )
and to M := ρ(Be (c + C)), we obtain


dG/Pθ Ξ+ (γn ), Ξ+ (γn+1 ) = dG/Pθ Ξθ ◦ ρ(γn ), Ξθ ◦ ρ(γn+1 ) ≤ CM e−Tθ (ρ(γn ))

for all n ∈ N. The gap summation property and Lemma 5.6 imply
X
e−Tθ (ρ(γn )) < +∞.
n∈N

Thus
is a Cauchy sequence in G/Pθ , and so its limit ξ + (η) ∈ G/Pθ
exists. More precisely, for any n0 ∈ N,
X

e−Tθ (ρ(γn )) .
(5.5)
dG/Pθ Ξ+ (γn0 ), ξ + (η) ≤ CM
(Ξ+ (γn ))n∈N

n≥n0

This limit
does not depend on the choice of the quasi-geodesic ray (γn )n∈N ,
because any other quasi-geodesic ray (γn′ )n∈N lies within some distance R from (γn ),
and so we can apply Lemma 5.8.(i) again (and Lemma 5.6), taking for M the image
under ρ of the Cayley R-ball centered at e. Thus ξ + : ∂∞ Γ → G/Pθ is well defined.
The independence of ξ + from all choices then follows from Corollary 5.9.
ξ + (η)

ANOSOV REPRESENTATIONS AND PROPER ACTIONS

46

For the ρ-equivariance of ξ + , consider a quasi-geodesic ray (γn )n∈N with endpoint
η ∈ ∂∞ Γ and an element γ ∈ Γ. Then (γγn )n∈N is a quasi-geodesic ray with endpoint
γ · η ∈ ∂∞ Γ, and ξ + (γ · η) = ρ(γ) · ξ + (η) by Corollary 5.9.(1).
We argue similarly for ξ − : ∂∞ Γ → G/Pθ⋆ ≃ G/Pθ− , replacing θ with θ ⋆ and
Ξ+ with Ξ− . By construction, for any η ∈ ∂∞ Γ, the points ξ + (η) ∈ G/Pθ and
ξ − (η) ∈ G/Pθ− are compatible in the sense of Definition 2.10.

Theorem 5.3.(2) is based on the following observation.
Lemma 5.11. For any g ∈ G which is proximal in G/Pθ ,
Ξθ (g n ) −→ ξg+ ,
n→+∞

where ξg+ is the attracting fixed point of g in G/Pθ .
Proof. The element g admits a Jordan decomposition g = gh ge gu where gh is hyperbolic, ge is elliptic, gu is unipotent, and gh , ge , gu commute. Since λ(ge gu ) = 0
by definition of λ, we have kµ(gen gun )k = o(n) as n → +∞, by (2.14). Let us write
gh = mzm−1 where m ∈ G and z ∈ exp(a+ ). Then ξg+ = m · Pθ . Let (τ, V ) and k · kV
be as in Section 5.4, and let v ∈ V χτ be a highest-weight vector for τ with kvkV = 1.
For any n ∈ N,
z −n m−1 kgn exp(µ(gn )) · v

V

−1 n n ′−1
ge gu kgn · vkV .
= km−1 gh−n g n kg′−1
n · vkV = km

By Observation 5.10 applied to (a, b, h) = (z n , exp(µ(gn )), m−1 kgn ), we have

dG/Pθ (ξg+ , Ξθ (gn )) = dG/Pθ (m · xθ , kgn · xθ ) ≤ C dG/Pθ (xθ , m−1 kgn · xθ )
≤ Ce−nTθ (z) eR(z

n )−R(g n )+R(m)

−1

km−1 gen gun k′ gn · vkV ,

where C ≥ 0 is a Lipschitz constant for the action of m on G/Pθ . By strong subadditivity of µ (Fact 2.18),

Similarly,

|R(z n ) − R(gn )| = |hχτ , µ(z n ) − µ(mz n m−1 gen gun )i|

≤ kχτ k 2kµ(m)k + kµ(gen gun )k = o(n).
−1 g n g n )i
e u

hχτ , µ(m
km−1 gen gun kg′−1
n · vkV ≤ e

−1 )k+kµ(g n g n )k)
e u

≤ ekχτ k(kµ(m

Therefore, dG/Pθ (ξg+ , Ξθ (gn )) = e−nTθ (z)+o(n) → 0 as n → +∞.

= eo(n) .


Proof of Theorem 5.3.(2). Let γ ∈ Γ be an element of infinite order with attracting
fixed point ηγ+ in ∂∞ Γ. Suppose that for any α ∈ θ we have hα, µ(ρ(γ n ))i−2 log n → +∞
as n → +∞. By Lemma 2.27, the element ρ(γ) ∈ G is proximal in G/Pθ . By
Lemma 5.11, the sequence (Ξ+ (γ n ))n∈N = (Ξθ ◦ ρ(γ n ))n∈N converges to the attracting fixed point of ρ(γ) in G/Pθ . On the other hand, this sequence converges to
ξ + (ηγ+ ) by construction of ξ + . Thus ξ + is dynamics-preserving for ρ. We argue

similarly for ξ − , replacing θ with θ ⋆ and Ξ+ with Ξ− , and using (2.10).
Proof of Theorem 5.3.(3). It is sufficient to check the continuity of Ξ+ ⊔ ξ + and Ξ− ⊔
ξ − at any point η ∈ ∂∞ Γ. Let δ > 0 be the Gromov hyperbolicity constant of the
Cayley graph of Γ. By definition of the topology on Γ ∪ ∂∞ Γ (see [BH99, Lem. 3.6]),
for any η ∈ ∂∞ Γ which is the endpoint of a geodesic ray (σn ) ∈ ΓN with σ0 = e, a
basis of neighborhoods of η in Γ ∪ ∂∞ Γ is given by the family (Vnη0 )n0 ∈N , where Vnη0
is by definition the set of endpoints of geodesic segments or rays (γn )n≥0 of length

ANOSOV REPRESENTATIONS AND PROPER ACTIONS

47

≥ n0 with |σn−1 γn |Γ ≤ 3δ for all 0 ≤ n ≤ n0 . By Corollary 5.7, under the uniform
gap summation property,
X
e−Tθ (ρ(γn ))
ε(n0 ) :=
sup
(γn )n∈N
n≥n0
geodesic ray
with γ0 =e

tends to 0 as n0 → +∞. Let M := ρ(Be (1 + 3δ)) and let CM > 0 be given by
Lemma 5.8. For any η ∈ ∂∞ Γ, any n0 ∈ N, and any y ∈ Vnη0 which is the endpoint
of a geodesic segment or ray (γn )n≥0 as above, we have

dG/Pθ (Ξ+ ⊔ ξ + )(y), ξ + (η) ≤ 2 CM ε(n0 ).

Indeed, by (5.5) applied to the (1, 3δ)-quasi-geodesic ray coinciding with (γn )n≥0 for
n ≤ n0 and with (σn )n∈N for n > n0 , we have

dG/Pθ Ξ+ (γn0 ), ξ + (η) ≤ CM ε(n0 ),
and by (5.5) applied to (γn )n≥0 we have


dG/Pθ Ξ+ (γn0 ), (Ξ+ ⊔ ξ + )(y) ≤ CM ε(n0 ).

This shows that Ξ+ ⊔ ξ + is continuous at any η ∈ ∂∞ Γ.
G/P
By construction, ξ + (∂∞ Γ) is contained in the limit set Λρ(Γ)θ . To check equality,
G/P

consider a point x ∈ Λρ(Γ)θ which is the limit of a sequence (Ξ+ (γn ))n∈N for some

(γn ) ∈ ΓN with hα, µ(ρ(γn ))i → +∞ for all α ∈ θ. Since µ is a proper map, we
have γn → ∞ in Γ. By compactness of ∂∞ Γ, up to extracting we may assume that
(γn )n∈N converges to some η ∈ ∂∞ Γ. Then x = ξ + (η) by continuity of Ξ+ ⊔ ξ + . This
G/P
shows that ξ + (∂∞ Γ) = Λρ(Γ)θ .
We argue similarly for ξ − and Ξ− , replacing θ with θ ⋆ .

5.6. Transversality of the boundary maps. In order to prove the transversality of
the boundary maps ξ + , ξ − under the assumption that the sequence (hα, µ(ρ(γn ))i)n∈N
is CLI for any α ∈ Σ+
θ and any geodesic ray (γn )n∈N (Theorem 5.3.(4)), we first
consider the special case where G = GLd (R) and Pθ is the stabilizer of a line, i.e.
G/Pθ = Pd−1 (R). The general case is treated in Section 5.6.2: we reduce to this
special case using the results of Section 3.
5.6.1. Transversality in GLd (R). Let G = GLd (R). As in Example 2.14, we take K
to be O(d) and a+ to be the set of real diagonal matrices of size d × d with entries
in nonincreasing order; for 1 ≤ i ≤ d we denote by εi ∈ a∗ the evaluation of the i-th
diagonal entry. For θ = {ε1 − ε2 }, we see G/Pθ as Pd−1 (R) and G/Pθ⋆ ≃ G/Pθ− as
the space of projective hyperplanes in Pd−1 (R). Transversality of ξ + and ξ − in this
case is given by the following proposition.
Proposition 5.12. Let G = GLd (R) and θ = {ε1 − ε2 }. Let Γ be a word hyperbolic
group and ρ : Γ → G a representation. Suppose the maps ξ + , ξ − of Theorem 5.3.(1)
are well defined and ρ-equivariant, and that Ξ− ⊔ξ − = (Ξθ⋆ ◦ρ)⊔ξ − : Γ∪∂∞ Γ → G/Pθ⋆
is continuous. Let (γn )n∈N be a quasi-geodesic ray in the Cayley graph of Γ, with
endpoint η ∈ ∂∞ Γ. If the sequences (hε1 − εi , µ(ρ(γn ))i)n∈N are CLI (Definition 2.6)
for all 2 ≤ i ≤ d, then ξ + (η) ∈
/ ξ − (η ′ ).
Before proving Proposition 5.12, let us fix some notation. Let (e1 , e2 , . . . , ed ) be
the canonical basis of Rd . The point Pθ ∈ G/Pθ corresponds to
xθ := [e1 ] ∈ Pd−1 (R).

ANOSOV REPRESENTATIONS AND PROPER ACTIONS

48

The points Pθ⋆ ∈ G/Pθ⋆ and Pθ− ∈ G/Pθ− correspond respectively to the projective
hyperplanes
Xθ := PR (span(e1 , . . . , ed−1 )) and Yθ := PR (span(e2 , . . . , ed )).
For any n ∈ N, we set gn := ρ(γn ) and an := exp(µ(gn )) (this is a diagonal matrix with positive entries, in nonincreasing order), and choose elements kn , kn′ ∈ K
such that
gn = kn an kn′ .
The crux of the proof of Proposition 5.12 will be to control the elements
Hnm := kn−1 kn+m ∈ K.

(5.6)

More precisely, our main technical result will be the following.
Lemma 5.13. With the above notation, if for every 2 ≤ i ≤ d the sequence
(hε1 − εi , µ(gn )i)n∈N is CLI, then for every 2 ≤ i ≤ d the absolute value of the
m
2
(i, 1)-th entry of the matrix a−1
n Hn an is uniformly bounded for (n, m) ∈ N .
Lemma 5.13 has the following easy consequence. We use the K-invariant metric
dG/Pθ of Section 5.4 on G/Pθ = Pd−1 (R), which is valued in [0, 1].

Corollary 5.14. With the above notation, if for every 2 ≤ i ≤ d the sequence
(hε1 − εi , µ(gn )i)n∈N is CLI, then there exists 0 < δ ≤ 1 such that for all large enough
n ∈ N,

(5.7)
dG/Pθ gn−1 · ξ + (η), kn′−1 · xθ ≤ 1 − δ.

Remark 5.15. Corollary 5.14 states an expansion property for the action of (ρ(γn−1 ))n∈N
= (gn−1 )n∈N on Pd−1 (R) at ξ + (η). Indeed, for any large enough n ∈ N, the open set
−1
Un := {x ∈ Pd−1 (R) | dG/Pθ (a−1
n kn · x, xθ ) < 1 − δ/2}

is a neighborhood of ξ + (η) by Corollary 5.14 (recall that dG/Pθ is K-invariant). There
is a constant C > 0 such that for any n the element an is Ce−hε1 −ε2 ,µ(gn )i -Lipschitz on
the ball of radius 1 − δ/2 centered at xθ . Therefore ρ(γn−1 ) = gn−1 is C −1 ehε1 −ε2 ,µ(gn )i expanding on Un , where C −1 ehε1 −ε2 ,µ(gn )i → +∞.

Proof of Corollary 5.14. By construction of ξ + and definition (5.6) of Hnm , for any n ∈ N,
ξ + (η) =

lim kn Hnm · xθ .

m→+∞

Since dG/Pθ is K-invariant and xθ = an · xθ , we see that (5.7) is equivalent to

m
lim sup dG/Pθ (a−1
n Hn an ) · xθ , xθ ≤ 1 − δ.
m→+∞

To check the existence of 0 < δ ≤ 1 such that this last inequality holds for all large
enough n ∈ N, it is sufficient to see that
m
(i) the first column of the matrix a−1
n Hn an is uniformly bounded for (n, m) ∈
2
N ,
m
(ii) the (1, 1)-th entry of the matrix a−1
n Hn an , which is also the (1, 1)-th entry
m
of Hn , is uniformly bounded from below for (n, m) ∈ N2 .
(Here all bounds are meant for the absolute values of the entries.) Suppose that the
sequence (hε1 − εi , µ(gn )i)n∈N is CLI for every 2 ≤ i ≤ d. By Lemma 5.13, for every
m
2
2 ≤ i ≤ d the (i, 1)-th entry of a−1
n Hn an is uniformly bounded for (n, m) ∈ N .
m
The (1, 1)-th entry is also bounded since Hn ∈ K = O(d), hence (i) holds. On the
other hand, Lemma 5.13 implies that for every 2 ≤ i ≤ d the (i, 1)-th entry of Hnm

ANOSOV REPRESENTATIONS AND PROPER ACTIONS

49

is uniformly bounded by a constant multiple of e−hε1 −εi , µ(gn )i , which goes to 0 as
n → +∞. Since Hnm ∈ K = O(d), this in turn implies that the absolute value of
(1, 1)-th entry of Hnm is close to 1 for all large enough n and all m. Thus (ii) holds. 
Proof of Proposition 5.12. Let 0 < δ ≤ 1 be given by Corollary 5.14. We shall prove
that for any η ′ ∈ ∂∞ Γ r {η} we can find (infinitely many) n ∈ N such that

 δ
distG/Pθ gn−1 · ξ + (η), gn−1 · ξ − (η ′ ) ≥ ,
2
where distG/Pθ denotes the distance from a point to a set. In particular, the point
ξ + (η) does not belong to the hyperplane ξ − (η ′ ).
−1
Applying Fact 2.1.(1), we can find a subsequence (γφ(n) )n∈N such that (γφ(n)
)n∈N
(5.8)

−1
· η ′ = η ′′ for all η ′ ∈ ∂∞ Γ r {η}.
converges to some point η ′′ ∈ ∂∞ Γ and that limn γφ(n)
By ρ-equivariance and continuity of ξ − , for all η ′ ∈ ∂∞ Γ r {η},

−1
−1
· η ′ = ξ − (η ′′ ).
· ξ − (η ′ ) = ξ − lim γφ(n)
lim gφ(n)
n

n

For any n, the decomposition gn = kn an kn′ ∈ K(exp a+ )K induces the decomposition gn−1 = ln bn ln′ ∈ K(exp a+ )K with

−1 −1
(ln , bn , ln′ ) = kn′−1 w̃0 , w̃0−1 a−1
n w̃0 , w̃0 kn ,

where w̃0 ∈ O(d) is the permutation matrix sending (e1 , . . . , ed ) to (ed , . . . , e1 ), representing the longest element w0 of the Weyl group W = Sd (see Example 2.17). By
the definition of ξ − , the continuity of Ξ− ⊔ ξ − , and the fact that ln · Xθ = kn′−1 · Yθ ,
we have
′−1
· Yθ .
ξ − (η ′′ ) = lim kφ(n)
n

Thus
′−1
−1
· Yθ .
· ξ − (η ′ ) = lim kφ(n)
lim gφ(n)
n

n

On the other hand, by definition of dG/Pθ (see Section 5.4), for any x ∈ Pd−1 (R),
distG/Pθ (x, Yθ )2 + dG/Pθ (x, xθ )2 = 1,
and so Corollary 5.14 implies the existence of 0 < δ ≤ 1 such that for all large
enough n,
 p
distG/Pθ gn−1 · ξ + (η), kn′−1 · Yθ ≥ 1 − (1 − δ)2 ≥ δ.
In particular, for any η ′ ∈ ∂∞ Γ r {η} we have, for all large enough n,

proving (5.8).


δ
−1
−1
· ξ − (η ′ ) ≥ ,
· ξ + (η), gφ(n)
distG/Pθ gφ(n)
2



For any n ∈ N, let hn := kn−1 kn+1 ∈ K, so that Hnm = hn hn+1 · · · hn+m−1 for all
n, m ∈ N. The rest of the section is devoted to establishing Lemma 5.13. For this we
first observe that we have a control on the entries of the matrices hn . For 1 ≤ i, j ≤ d,
the (i, j)-th entry of a matrix h ∈ GLd (R) is denoted by h(i, j).
Lemma 5.16. There is a constant r ≥ 0 such that for any 1 ≤ i, j ≤ d and any
n ∈ N,
|hn (i, j)| ≤ er−|hεi −εj , µ(gn )i| .

ANOSOV REPRESENTATIONS AND PROPER ACTIONS

50

Proof of Lemma 5.16. Since (γn )n∈N is a geodesic ray in the Cayley graph of Γ, the
sequence γn−1 γn+1 is bounded (it takes only finitely many values). Therefore the
′
sequence ρ(γn−1 γn+1 ) = gn−1 gn+1 = kn′−1 a−1
n hn an+1 kn+1 is bounded, as well as the
−1
sequence µ(gn ) − µ(gn+1 ) = log(a−1
n+1 an ) by Fact 2.18. Thus the sequence an hn an =
−1
−1
(a−1
n hn an+1 )(an+1 an ) is bounded in GLd (R), as well as its transposed inverse an hn an .
∓1
±hε
−ε
,log
a
i
±1
n
Since hn (i, j)e i j
= (an hn an )(i, j) and an = exp(µ(gn )), we can take for
∓1
r
e a bound for the absolute values of the entries of these matrices (a±1
n hn an )n∈N . 
Proof of Lemma 5.13. Let us first explain the strategy. The goal, rephrased, is to
bound, independently of m, the entries Hnm (i, 1) in the first column of the orthogonal
matrix Hnm by a multiple of e−hε1 −εi , µ(gn )i . We will develop the entries of Hnm in
terms of the (hk )n≤k<n+m . In doing so, subproducts of the form
hk (uk , uk+1 )hk+1 (uk+1 , uk+2 ) · · · hk+ℓ (uk+ℓ , uk+ℓ+1 )

appear (where uk , . . . , uk+ℓ+1 ∈ {1, . . . , d}). Controlling the last factor by Lemma 5.16
and bounding all others by 1, such a product is bounded by (a constant multiple of)
ehεuk −εuk+ℓ+1 ,µ(gk+ℓ )i , under the assumption that uk+ℓ+1 < uk ≤ uk+ℓ . Even more
is true: the sum of all those products with the triple (uk , uk+ℓ , uk+ℓ+1 ) fixed and
(uk+1 , . . . , uk+ℓ−1 ) varying in {uk , . . . , d}ℓ−1 is also bounded by (a constant multiple
of) the same estimate ehεuk −εuk+ℓ+1 ,µ(gk+ℓ )i . A summation by parts reveals pairings
of the form hεu1 − εuk , µ(gk ) − µ(gk+ℓ )i that can be bounded thanks to the CLI hym
pothesis. At that point the coefficient (a−1
n Hn an )(i, 1) is written as a sum of terms
−κm
s
for some ms ∈ {1, . . . , m}. The final
each bounded by (a constant multiple of) e
bound comes from the fact that, for each value of ms ∈ N, the number of terms in
that sum corresponding to ms is a polynomial in ms . We now give the details.
Let us first introduce some notation. For any integer 1 ≤ i ≤ d and any matrix
h ∈ GLd (R), we denote by h[i] ∈ GLd+1−i (R) the matrix obtained by crossing out
the (i − 1) topmost rows and the (i − 1) leftmost columns of h. When h is orthogonal,
h[i] is the matrix of a 1-Lipschitz linear transformation. Similarly to Hnm , we define
m
i Hn

:= hn [i] hn+1 [i] · · · hn+m−1 [i] ∈ GLd+1−i (R).

Then i Hnm is the matrix of a 1-Lipschitz transformation and its entries are bounded
by 1 in absolute value. As above, the (k, ℓ)-th entry of a matrix h ∈ GLd (R) is
denoted by h(k, ℓ). To make things more natural, we index the entries of h[i] and of
m
2
i Hn by pairs (k, ℓ) ∈ {i, . . . , d} .
Fix i ∈ {2, . . . , d}. Using this notation, we now express the (i, 1)-th entry of Hnm :
X
Hnm (i, 1) =
Hu ,
u

where the sum is over all (m + 1)-tuples u = (u0 , u1 , . . . , um ) ∈ {1, . . . , d}m+1 with
u0 = i and um = 1 and we set
Hu := hn (u0 , u1 ) hn+1 (u1 , u2 ) · · · hn+m−1 (um−1 , um ).

This sum admits the following decomposition:
(5.9)

Hnm (i, 1) =

X

X

s∈{1,...,i−1} i,j,m

Hi,j,m ,

where, for fixed s ∈ {1, . . . , i − 1}, the sum is over all i, j, m such that
– i = (i0 , i1 , . . . , is ) ∈ Ns+1 satisfies i = i0 > i1 > · · · > is = 1,

ANOSOV REPRESENTATIONS AND PROPER ACTIONS

51

– j = (j0 , j1 , . . . , js−1 ) ∈ Ns satisfies d ≥ jk ≥ ik for all 0 ≤ k ≤ s − 1,
– m = (m1 , . . . , ms ) ∈ Ns satisfies 0 < m1 < m2 < · · · < ms ≤ m,
and the summand is:
m1 −1 (i , j ) h
i0 H n
0 0
n+m1 −1 (j0 , i1 )
m2 −m1 −1
H
(i
i
1 , j1 ) hn+m −1 (j1 , i2 ) · · ·
Hi,j,m = 1 n+m1 ms −ms−1 −1 2
· · · is−1 Hn+ms−1
(is−1 , js−1 ) hn+ms −1 (js−1 , is )
m−ms
H
(i
is n+ms
s , 1).
Indeed, Hi,j,m is the sum of the Hu over all u = (u0 , u1 , . . . , um ) ∈ {1, . . . , d}m+1
with u0 = i and um = 1 such that:
– the smallest index k with uk < u0 = i is m1 ,
– the smallest index k with uk < um1 is m2 ,
– ...
– the smallest index k with uk < ums−2 is ms−1 ,
– the smallest index k with uk = 1 is ms , (well defined since um = 1)
– and for any k ∈ {1, . . . , s − 1}, umk = ik and umk+1 −1 = jk , and ums = is = 1.
From this we see that the subsums Hi,j,m , for varying s and i, j, m, form a partition
of all the Hu .
Since the entries of i Hnm are bounded by 1 in absolute value, we have
|Hi,j,m | ≤ |hn+m1 −1 (j0 , i1 )| |hn+m2 −1 (j1 , i2 )| · · · |hn+ms −1 (js−1 , is )|.

We take the convention that log(0) = −∞. By Lemma 5.16, we then have
s
X
log |Hi,j,m | ≤ sr +
hεjk−1 − εik , µ(gn+mk −1 )i.
k=1

Since jk−1 ≥ ik−1 , we have hεjk−1 , µ(g)i ≤ hεik−1 , µ(g)i for all g ∈ G, hence
(5.10)

log |Hi,j,m | ≤ sr +

s
X
k=1

hεik−1 − εik , µ(gn+mk −1 )i.

We now sum by parts, using the fact that is = 1: the right-hand side of (5.10) is
equal to
sr − hε1 − εi0 , µ(gn+m1 −1 )i −

s−1
X
k=1

hε1 − εik , µ(gn+mk+1 −1 ) − µ(gn+mk −1 )i.

Using the CLI assumption and writing hε1 − εi0 , µ(gn+m1 −1 )i = hε1 − εi0 , µ(gn )i +
hε1 − εi0 , µ(gn+m1 −1 ) − µ(gn )i, we deduce
log |Hi,j,m | ≤ sr − hε1 − εi , µ(gn )i − (κ(m1 − 1) − κ′ ) −

s−1
X
k=1

(κ(mk+1 − mk ) − κ′ )

′

= sr − hε1 − εi , µ(gn )i + sκ − κms + κ.

Going back to the formula (5.9) for Hnm (i, 1), we obtain
m
hε1 −εi , µ(gn )i
|(a−1
|Hnm (i, 1)|
n Hn an )(i, 1)| = e

≤

i−1
X
s=1

′

es(r+κ )+κ

X

e−κms .

i,j,m

Observe now that for a fixed q ∈ N there is at most a polynomial number P (q)
of possible i, j, m with ms = q, hence the above sum is bounded by a multiple of

ANOSOV REPRESENTATIONS AND PROPER ACTIONS

52

P
m
the converging series q P (q)e−κq . The real numbers (a−1
n Hn an )(i, 1) are therefore
uniformly bounded for (n, m) ∈ N2 .

5.6.2. Transversality in general. We now prove Theorem 5.3.(4) in full generality.
+
Recall the subset Σ+
θ ⊂ Σ of the positive restricted roots from (2.3).
Proposition 5.17. Let Γ be a word hyperbolic group, G a real reductive Lie group,
θ ⊂ ∆ a nonempty subset of the simple restricted roots of G, and ρ : Γ → G a
representation. Suppose that the maps ξ + , ξ − of Theorem 5.3.(1) are well defined and
ρ-equivariant, and that Ξ− ⊔ ξ − = (Ξθ⋆ ◦ ρ) ⊔ ξ − : Γ ∪ ∂∞ Γ → G/Pθ⋆ is continuous.
Let (γn )n∈N be a geodesic ray in the Cayley graph of Γ, with endpoint η ∈ ∂∞ Γ. If
+
− ′
the sequences (hα, µ(ρ(γn ))i)n∈N for α ∈ Σ+
θ are CLI, then ξ (η) and ξ (η ) are
′
transverse for all η ∈ ∂∞ Γ r {η}.

To prove Proposition 5.17 (and also later Proposition 5.20), we shall use the following lemma.
(i)

(i)

Lemma 5.18. Let κ, κ′ > 0. For 1 ≤ i ≤ D, let (xn )n∈N and (yn )n∈N be sequences
(i)
of real numbers. Suppose that the D sequences (xn )n∈N , for 1 ≤ i ≤ D, are all (κ, κ′ )(i)
(σ (i))
lower CLI, and that for any n ∈ N there exists σn ∈ SD such that yn = xn n
for
all 1 ≤ i ≤ D. Suppose also that we are in one of the following two cases:
(1)

(D)

(∗) yn ≥ · · · ≥ yn for all n ∈ N, or
(i)
(i)
(∗∗) there exists M > 0 such that |yn+1 − yn | ≤ M for all n ∈ N and 1 ≤ i ≤ D.
(i)

Then the D sequences (yn )n∈N , for 1 ≤ i ≤ D, are all (κ, κ̃′ )-lower CLI, where we
set
 ′
κ
in case (∗),
′
κ̃ :=
′
′
κ + D(κ + κ + M ) in case (∗∗).

Remark 5.19. An analogous statement holds for the (κ′′ , κ′′′ )-upper CLI property
(i)
(i)
of sequences (xn )n∈N and (yn )n∈N : this follows from Lemma 5.18 applied to the
(i)
(i)
sequences (Rn − xn ) and (Rn − yn ), where R is any real ≥ κ′′ .

Proof of Lemma 5.18. Suppose we are in case (∗). Then for any n ∈ N and 1 ≤ i ≤ D
(i)
the number yn can be defined as the largest real number y such that at least i of the
(1)
(D)
D numbers xn , . . . , xn are ≥ y. By the CLI hypothesis, for any m ≥ 0, at least i
(i)
(i)
(i)
(D)
(1)
of the D numbers xn+m , . . . , xn+m are ≥ yn + κm − κ′ , and so yn+m ≥ yn + κm − κ′ .
(i)

This proves that (yn )n∈N is lower CLI with constants (κ, κ′ ).
(i)
We now treat case (∗∗). By case (∗), up to reordering the xn for each n ∈ N,
(1)
(D)
we may assume that xn ≥ · · · ≥ xn for all n ∈ N. Fix an integer 1 ≤ i ≤ D
(i)
and an integer n ∈ N, and focus on the sequence (yn+m )m≥0 . For any m ≥ 0, let
(rm )
(i)
is the rm -th largest number in the
rm := σn+m (i) ∈ [1, D], so that yn+m = xn+m
(1)
(D)
family (yn+m , ..., yn+m ). There exist an integer s ≤ D and a finite maximal list
0 = m0 < m1 < · · · < ms+1 = +∞ such that
rm0 < rm1 < · · · < rms ≤ D

For any mj ≤ m < mj+1 ,
(i)

(i)

(r )

(rm )

and rm ≤ rmj for all m < mj+1 .
(rm )

(rm )

j
j
j
m
− xn+m
yn+m − yn+mj = xn+m
≥ xn+m
− xn+m
≥ κ(m − mj ) − κ′ ,
j
j

ANOSOV REPRESENTATIONS AND PROPER ACTIONS

53
(D)

(1)

where the first inequality comes from the assumption xn+m ≥ · · · ≥ xn+m and the
second inequality from the CLI hypothesis. Then for any mj ≤ m < mj+1 , using the
CLI hypothesis again as well as (∗∗), we can bound
(i)

(i)

(i)

yn+m − yn(i) = yn+m − yn+mj +

j 
X
k=1
j
X

≥ κ(m − mj ) − κ′ +

k=1



(i)
(i)
(i)
(i)
yn+mk − yn+mk −1 + yn+mk −1 − yn+mk−1
− M + κ(mk − 1 − mk−1 ) − κ′



= κm − j(M + κ) − (j + 1)κ′ .

Since j ≤ s ≤ D, this produces the desired bounds.



Proof of Proposition 5.17. Let (τ, V ) be an irreducible, proximal, θ-compatible linear
representation of G (Lemma 3.2). By Proposition 3.3.(b), it induces embeddings
ι+ : G/Pθ → PR (V ) and ι− : G/Pθ− → PR (V ∗ ). We identify GLR (V ) with GLd (R)
for some d ∈ N, and denote by aGLd the set of diagonal matrices in gld (R) and a+
GLd
its subset with entries in nonincreasing order. Up to conjugating τ , we may assume
that the Cartan decomposition of G is compatible with the Cartan decomposition of
GLd (R) of Example 2.14, in the sense that τ (K) ⊂ O(d) and de τ (a) ⊂ aGLd . We
distinguish the corresponding Cartan projections µ : G → a+ and µGLd : GLd (R) →
a+
GLd . For any g ∈ G, the matrix de τ (µ(g)) is diagonal with entries hχ, µ(g)i, where
χ ∈ a∗ ranges through the weights of τ . The matrix µGLd (τ (g)) is the diagonal matrix
with the previous entries ordered: hε1 , µGLd (τ (g))i = hχτ , µ(g)i, and for any 2 ≤ i ≤ d
there is a weight χ 6= χτ (depending on g and i) such that hεi , µGLd (τ (g))iP= hχ, µ(g)i.
By Lemma 3.7, for any weight χ 6= χτ of τ , we can write χτ − χ = α∈Σ+ mα α
θ
where mα ≥ 0 for all α. Using that sums of CLI sequences are again CLI and applying
case (∗) of Lemma 5.18 to the sequences xχ = (hχτ − χ, µ(ρ(γn )))n∈N for χ ranging
through the set of weights of τ different from χτ and
y (i) = (hε1 − εi , µGLd (τ ◦ ρ(γn ))i)n∈N

for i ranging through {2, . . . , d}, we see that if the sequences (hα, µ(ρ(γn ))i)n∈N for
(i)
α ∈ Σ+
θ are CLI, then so are the sequences y , for all 2 ≤ i ≤ d. By Proposition 5.12,
ι+ ◦ ξ + (η) and ι− ◦ ξ − (η ′ ) are transverse for all η ′ 6= η. Therefore, ξ + (η) and ξ − (η ′ )

are transverse for all η ′ 6= η by Proposition 3.3.(b).
This concludes the proof of Theorem 1.1, hence also of the implication (4) ⇒ (1)
of Theorem 1.3.
5.7. Contraction properties for Anosov representations. We now establish the
implication (1) ⇒ (4) of Theorem 1.3.
Proposition 5.20. Let Γ be a word hyperbolic group, G a real reductive Lie group,
θ ⊂ ∆ a nonempty subset of the simple restricted roots of G, and ρ : Γ → G a
Pθ -Anosov representation. Then there exist κ, κ′ > 0 such that for any α ∈ Σ+
θ
and any geodesic ray (γn )n∈N with γ0 = e in the Cayley graph of Γ, the sequence
(hα, µ(ρ(γn ))i)n∈N is (κ, κ′ )-lower CLI.
To prove Proposition 5.20, we shall use the following lemma.
Lemma 5.21. If an ellipsoid B is contained in an ellipsoid B ′ in Rd , then for any
1 ≤ i ≤ d, the i-th principal axis of B is no longer than the i-th principal axis of B ′ .

ANOSOV REPRESENTATIONS AND PROPER ACTIONS

54

Proof. It suffices to show that the length ri of the i-th largest axis of B is the diameter
of the largest possible copy of the Euclidean ball of an i-dimensional subspace (or
i-ball) of Rd that fits into B. Clearly, an i-ball of diameter ri fits into B, for instance
inside the i-dimensional vector space Vi spanned by the i largest axes. Since the
⊥ of V
d
orthogonal Vi−1
i−1 in R intersects B along a (d − i + 1)-dimensional ellipsoid
whose axes are all of length ≤ ri , it is also clear that no larger i-ball can fit into B,
⊥ by a simple dimension count.
since it would have a diameter in Vi−1

Proof of Proposition 5.20. By Fact 2.34, we may assume without loss of generality
+ ⋆
that θ = θ ⋆ , so that Σ+
θ = (Σθ ) . Let σ̃ : GΓ → G/Lθ be the section associated
with the Pθ -Anosov representation ρ. As in Section 4.1, we choose a ρ-equivariant
continuous lift β̃ : GΓ → G/Kθ of σ̃ and a ρ-equivariant set-theoretic lift β̆ : GΓ → G
of β̃. For any (t, v) ∈ R × GΓ the element lt,v = β̆(v)−1 β̆(ϕt · v) belongs to Lθ .
By Proposition 2.8, Lemma 4.4, and Proposition 4.8, there are a compact subset D
of GΓ and constants K, n0 , κ0 , κ′0 > 0 with the following property: for any geodesic ray
(γn )n∈N with γ0 = e in the Cayley graph of Γ, there exist v ∈ D and a (κ0 , κ′0 )-lower
CLI sequence (tn ) ∈ RN such that for all n ≥ n0 ,
kµ(ρ(γn )) − µθ (ltn ,v )k ≤ K.
Therefore it is enough to prove the existence of κ, κ̃′ > 0 such that for any α ∈ Σ+
θ,
any t, s ∈ R, and any v ∈ D,
(5.11)

α, µθ (lt+s,v ) − µθ (lt,v )i ≥ κs − κ̃′ .

In fact, we only need to establish (5.11) for t, s ∈ N. Indeed, lt,v is uniformly close
to l⌊t⌋,v for t ∈ R and v ∈ D, by the cocycle property (4.2) of the map (t, v) 7→ lt,v ,
the Γ-invariance property (4.1), and the fact that the set {ls,v | s ∈ [0, 1], v ∈ D} is
bounded in G since {β̆(ϕs · v) | s ∈ [0, 1], v ∈ D} is by Lemma 4.4.
Recall the subbundle E + of T (G/Lθ ) from (2.7). Since β̆ : GΓ → G is a lift of
+
= β̆(v) · Txθ (G/Pθ ) for all v ∈ GΓ , where we write β̆(v)
σ̃ : GΓ → G/Lθ , we have Eσ̃(v)
for the derivative of the action of β̆(v) by left translation, and xθ = ePθ ∈ G/Pθ . Fix
a Kθ -invariant Euclidean norm k · k0 on Txθ (G/Pθ ) ≃ u−
θ . For any v ∈ GΓ ,
(5.12)

w 7−→ kwkv := kβ̆(v)−1 · wk0

+
. The norm k · kv does not depend on the lift
defines a Euclidean norm on Eσ̃(v)

β̆(v) ∈ G of β̃(v) ∈ G/Kθ since k · k0 is Kθ -invariant. As β̃ is continuous, the family
(k · kv )v∈GΓ is continuous and ρ-equivariant. By Definition 2.30.(ii) of a Pθ -Anosov
representation, there exist κ, κ′ > 0 such that
′

kwkv ≤ e−κs+κ kwkϕs ·v
+
. In other words, for any v ∈ GΓ , the unit ball Bt+s,v
for all v ∈ GΓ and all w ∈ Eσ̃(v)
′

+
is contained in e−κs+κ times the unit ball Bt,v of k · kϕt ·v , for
of k · kϕt+s ·v in Eσ̃(v)
+
endowed with the Euclidean norm
all t, s ≥ 0. We now apply Lemma 5.21 to Eσ̃(v)
k · kv : for any 1 ≤ i ≤ dim G/Pθ , the length of the i-th principal axis of Bt+s,v is
′
at most e−κs+κ times that of the i-th principal axis of Bt,v . By construction, the
−1
lengths of the principal axes of Bt,v are the e−hα, µθ (lt,v )i for α ranging through Σ+
θ , or
⋆ = Σ+ , see (2.10). Since
in other words the e−hα, µθ (lt,v )i for α ranging through (Σ+
)
θ
θ

ANOSOV REPRESENTATIONS AND PROPER ACTIONS

55

kµθ (lt+1,v )−µθ (lt,v )k is bounded, we may apply case (∗∗) of Lemma 5.18: there exists
κ̃′ > 0 such that for any α ∈ Σ+
θ , any t, s ∈ N, and any v ∈ D,
α, µθ (lt+s,v ) − µθ (lt,v )i ≥ κs − κ̃′ .

Thus (5.11) holds, which completes the proof.



6. Anosov representations and proper actions
In view of the properness criterion of Benoist [Ben96] and Kobayashi [Kob96] (see
Section 1.5), our characterizations of Anosov representations ρ : Γ → G in terms of
the Cartan projection µ (Theorem 1.3) provide a direct link with the properness of the
action of Γ (via ρ) on homogeneous spaces of G, and immediately imply Corollary 1.9.
In this section we illustrate the proofs of Corollaries 1.10 and 1.11 in some cases of
Tables 1 and 2, and provide a proof of Corollary 1.12.
6.1. Hitchin representations. We first consider Corollary 1.10, which concerns
Hitchin representations into split real semisimple Lie groups G. The point is that
any Hitchin representation ρ : π1 (Σ) → G is P∆ -Anosov [Lab06], [FG06, Th. 1.15].
Thus, in orderSto deduce Corollary 1.10 from Corollary 1.9, it is sufficient to check
that µ(H) ⊂ α∈∆ Ker(α) for every pair (G, H) in Table 1. Let KH be a maximal
compact subgroup of H and a+
H a closed Weyl chamber in a Cartan subspace aH
+
of h such that H = KH (exp aH )KH . We may assume that the maximal compact
subgroup K of G contains KH and that the Cartan subspace a of g contains aH
[Kar53, Mos55]. Let µ : G → a+ and µH : H → a+
H be the corresponding Cartan
projections.
Lemma 6.1. In order to prove that π1 (Σ) acts sharply on G/H for any Hitchin
representation ρ : π1 (Σ) → G, it is sufficient to verify that
[
aH ⊂
Ker(α) ⊂ a.
α∈Σ

+
Proof. For any h ∈ H, the element S
µ(h) ∈ a+ is the unique W -translate
Sof µH (h) ∈ aH
+
+
contained in a . Thus, if aH ⊂ α∈Σ Ker(α), then µ(H) ⊂ a ∩ α∈Σ Ker(α) =
S
a+ ∩ α∈∆ Ker(α). We conclude using Corollary 1.9.


For the pairs (G, H) in Table 1, the embedding H ֒→ G is the natural one, i.e. H
is the stabilizer of a decomposition of the standard G-module or of an endomorphism
of it. For instance, in case (iii), the identification Cd ≃ R2d gives an embedding
j : GLd (C) → GL2d (R) which restricts to an embedding SLd (C) × U(1) ֒→ SL2d (R)
since det(j(A)) = | det(A)|2 for any A ∈ GLd (C).
As an example, let us exhibit aH ⊂ a as in Lemma 6.1 for case (vi) of Table 1,
where (G, H) = (SO(d, d), GLk (R)). Let
a = {diag(a1 , . . . , ad , −a1 , . . . , −ad ) | a1 , . . . , ad ∈ R}

be the set of diagonal matrices contained in g, where G = SO(d, d) is defined by the
quadratic form x1 xd+1 + · · · + xd x2d . Let
aH = {diag(b1 , . . . , bk ) | b1 , . . . , bk ∈ R}

be the set of diagonal matrices contained in h = glk (R). The action of GLd (R) on
the vector space Rd ⊕ (Rd )∗ preserves the natural pairing between Rd and (Rd )∗ ,
which is a symmetric bilinear form of signature (d, d). This defines an embedding
GLd (R) ֒→ G = SO(d, d); composing it with the natural inclusion H = GLk (R) ֒→

ANOSOV REPRESENTATIONS AND PROPER ACTIONS

56

GLd (R) gives the embedding H ֒→ G. The corresponding embedding aH ֒→ a is
given by
diag(b1 , . . . , bk ) 7−→ diag(b1 , . . . , bk , 0, . . . , 0, −b1 , . . . , −bk , 0, . . . , 0).

The pair (aH , a) satisfies the condition of Lemma 6.1 since the restricted root
α : diag(a1 , . . . , ad , −a1 , , . . . , −ad ) 7−→ ad−1 − ad

of a in G is zero on aH under the condition k < d − 1.

Remark 6.2. In all examples of Table 1 except (i), (vi), and (vii), the homogeneous
space G/H is an affine symmetric space. We obtained these examples by checking the
condition of Lemma 6.1 in Okuda’s classification [Oku13, App. A] of affine symmetric
spaces admitting a properly discontinuous action by a discrete group which is not
virtually abelian. Examples (i), (vi), and (vii) of Table 1 were obtained by checking
the condition of Lemma 6.1 in a list of examples of nonsymmetric G/H admitting
properly discontinuous actions by nonvirtually abelian groups given in [BJT14].
6.2. Maximal representations. We now address Corollary 1.11. Let G be a simple
Lie group of Hermitian type, of real rank d ≥ 1. Then the restricted root system of G
is of type Cd or BCd . This means that there is a system of simple restricted roots
∆ = {α1 , . . . , αd } such that (αi , αj ) 6= 0 ⇔ |i − j| ≤ 1 and kαd k > kα1 k = · · · =
kαd−1 k. The restricted root system is of type BCd if and only if 2α1 is a root.
Let Σ be a closed hyperbolic surface. The point is that any maximal representation
ρ : π1 (Σ) → G is Pαd -Anosov [BILW05, BIW]. Similarly to Lemma 6.1, we thus only
need to check the following for each pair (G, H) of Table 2. As above we assume
that the maximal compact subgroup KH of H is contained in K and that the Cartan
subspace aH of H is contained in a.
Lemma 6.3. In order to prove that π1 (Σ) acts sharply on G/H for any maximal
representation ρ : π1 (Σ) → G, it is sufficient to check that
[
[
aH ⊂
Ker(w · αd ) =
Ker(αi + · · · + αd ) ⊂ a.
w∈W

1≤i≤d

As an example, let us exhibit aH ⊂ a as in Lemma 6.3 for case (ii) in Table 2,
where (G, H) = (Sp(2d, R), U(d − k, k). By symmetry, we may assume k < d − k.
Let
a = {diag(a1 , . . . , ad , −a1 , . . . , −ad ) | a1 , . . . , ad ∈ R}
be the set of diagonal matrices contained in g, where G = Sp(2d, R) is defined by the
symplectic form x1 ∧ xd+1 + · · · + xd ∧ x2d . Let
aH = {diag(b1 , . . . , bk , 0, . . . , 0, −bk , . . . , −b1 ) | b1 , . . . , bk ∈ R}

be the set of real diagonal matrices contained in h, where H = U(d − k, k) is defined
by the Hermitian form z1 zd +· · ·+zk zd−k+1 +|zk+1 |2 +· · ·+|zd−k |2 . The embedding of
H into G is given by identifying Cd with R2d and observing that the imaginary part
of the Hermitian form above is symplectic. The corresponding embedding aH ֒→ a is
given by
diag(b1 , . . . , bk , 0, . . . , 0, −bk , . . . , −b1 )

7−→ diag(b1 , . . . , bk , 0, . . . , 0, −bk , . . . , −b1 , −b1 , . . . , −bk , 0, . . . , 0, bk , . . . , b1 ).

Since k < d − k, the restricted root

αk+1 + · · · + αd : diag(a1 , . . . , ad , −a1 , . . . , −ad ) 7−→ ak+1

is zero on aH , and so the condition of Lemma 6.3 is satisfied.

ANOSOV REPRESENTATIONS AND PROPER ACTIONS

57

6.3. Proper actions of rank-1 reductive groups yield Anosov representations. In order to prove Corollary 1.12, we first establish the following easy consequence of Theorem 1.3; see also [Lab06, Prop. 3.1] and [GW12, Prop. 4.7] for similar
criteria.
Corollary 6.4. Let G be a real reductive Lie group, θ ⊂ ∆ a nonempty subset of the
simple restricted roots of a in G, and G1 a reductive subgroup of G of real rank 1.
Suppose that a ∩ g1 is a Cartan subspace of g1 satisfying (a ∩ g1 ) ∩ Ker(w · α) = {0}
for all w ∈ W and α ∈ θ. Then for any convex cocompact subgroup Γ of G1 , the
inclusion of Γ into G is Pθ -Anosov.
Example 6.5. Let Γ be a convex cocompact subgroup of SL2 (R) (for instance the
image of a Fuchsian representation π1 (Σ) → SL2 (R) for a closed hyperbolic surface Σ).
For k ≥ 1, let ιk : SL2 (R) ֒→ SL2 (R)k be the diagonal embedding. For d ≥ 2k, if we
see SL2 (R)k as a subgroup of G = SLd (R) by embedding it in the upper left corner
of SLd (R), then ιk : Γ → G is Pεk −εk+1 -Anosov.
Proof of Corollary 6.4. Up to conjugation, we may assume that G1 admits the decomposition
(6.1)

G1 = (K ∩ G1 )(exp(a) ∩ G1 )(K ∩ G1 ).

The set µ(G1 ) = µ(exp(a) ∩ G1 ) = a+ ∩ W · (a ∩ g1 ) is then a union of two (possibly
equal) rays L1 , L2 starting at 0. By assumption, for any i ∈ {1, 2} and α ∈ θ we have
+
Li ∩ Ker(α) = {0}; this is also true for any α ∈ Σ+
θ r θ since a ∩ Ker(α) = {0}.
Therefore, for any α ∈ Σ+
θ there is a constant Cα,i > 0 such that hα, Y i = Cα,i kY k
for all Y ∈ Li .
Let Γ be a convex cocompact subgroup of G1 . Let us prove that the natural
inclusion of Γ in G is Pθ -Anosov.
We first assume that G1 is semisimple of real rank 1, so that there is only one ray
L1 = L2 . Let µG1 be a Cartan projection for G1 associated with the decomposition
(6.1). Since G1 has real rank 1, we may see µG1 as a map from G1 to R+ , and there
is a constant C > 0 such that kµ(g)k = C µG1 (g) for all g ∈ G1 ; thus, for all g ∈ G1 ,
(6.2)

hα, µ(g)i = Cα,1 C µG1 (g).

Since Γ is convex cocompact in G1 , its inclusion in G1 is Anosov with respect to a
minimal parabolic subgroup of G1 (Remark 2.36). By Theorem 1.3 (or Corollary 2.20),
for any geodesic ray (γn )n∈N in the Cayley graph of Γ, the sequence (µG1 (γn ))n∈N is
CLI, and the CLI constants are uniform over all geodesic rays (γn )n∈N with γ0 = e.
By (6.2), the sequence (hα, µ(γn )i)n∈N is CLI as well for all α ∈ Σ+
θ , with uniform
CLI constants, and so the inclusion of Γ in G is Pθ -Anosov by Theorem 1.3.
We now assume that G1 is not semisimple. It is then a central extension of the
compact group K ∩G1 by the one-parameter group exp(a)∩G1 , and Γ is virtually the
cyclic group generated by some element γ ∈ G1 r K. Let µG1 be a Cartan projection
for G1 associated with the decomposition (6.1). We may see µG1 as a map from
G1 to R, and there is a constant C > 0 such that kµ(γ n )k = C |n| |µG1 (γ)| for all
n ∈ Z. For any α ∈ Σ+
θ , the estimates hα, Y i = Cα,i kY k for Y ∈ Li imply that the
n
sequences (hα, µ(γ )i)n∈N and (hα, µ(γ −n )i)n∈N are CLI, and so the inclusion of Γ

in G is Pθ -Anosov by Theorem 1.3.
Proof of Corollary 1.12. Up to conjugation, we may assume that G1 admits the decomposition (6.1). Then a∩g1 is a Cartan subspace of g1 and µ(G1 ) =
S µ(exp(a)∩G1 ) =
a+ ∩ W · (a ∩ g1 ). Since G1 acts properly on G/H and µ(H) ⊃ α∈θ Ker(α) ∩ a+

ANOSOV REPRESENTATIONS AND PROPER ACTIONS

58

by assumption, the properness criterion of Benoist and Kobayashi of Section 1.5 (see
also the earlier paper [Kob89]) implies that (a ∩ g1 ) ∩ Ker(w · α) = {0} for all w ∈ W
and α ∈ θ. By Corollary 6.4, for any convex cocompact subgroup Γ of G1 , the natural
inclusion of Γ in G is Pθ -Anosov.

7. Proper actions on group manifolds
In this section, we consider properly discontinuous actions on group manifolds and
deduce Theorems 1.14 and 1.16 and Corollary 1.18 from Theorems 1.3 and 1.7.
7.1. Proper actions on group manifolds, uniform domination, and Anosov
representations. Before stating our main Theorem 7.3, we introduce some useful
notation and terminology.
7.1.1. Uniform Pθ -domination. Let Γ be a discrete group, G a real reductive Lie
group, and θ ⊂ ∆ a nonempty subset of the simple restricted roots of a in G. Recall
that ωα denotes the corresponding fundamental weight (3.1) of a simple root α ∈ ∆.
We adopt the following terminology.
Definition 7.1. A representation ρL ∈ Hom(Γ, G) uniformly Pθ -dominates a representation ρR ∈ Hom(Γ, G) if there exists c < 1 such that for all α ∈ θ and γ ∈ Γ,
hωα , λ(ρR (γ))i ≤ c hωα , λ(ρL (γ))i.

If G has real rank 1, then θ = ∆ is a singleton and we say simply that ρL uniformly
dominates ρR .
Note that uniform Pθ -domination is equivalent to uniform Pθ∪θ⋆ -domination by
(2.15). We shall use uniform P -domination both in G and in the setting of the next
paragraph.
7.1.2. Automorphism groups of bilinear forms. Let K be R, C, or the ring H of
quaternions. Let V be a K-vector space (where K acts on the right in the case of H),
and let b : V ⊗R V → K be a nondegenerate R-bilinear form which is symmetric or
antisymmetric (if K = R or C), or Hermitian or anti-Hermitian (if K = C or H).
Let AutK (b) be the subgroup of GLK (V ) preserving b; we shall always assume it is
noncompact. Table 4 gives a list of all possible examples.
AutK (b)
O(p, q)
U(p, q)
Sp(p, q)
O(d, C)
Sp(2d, R)
Sp(2d, C)
O∗ (2d)

K dimK (V ) Description of b
R
p+q
symmetric
C
p+q
Hermitian
H
p+q
Hermitian
C
d
symmetric
R
2d
antisymmetric
C
2d
antisymmetric
H
2d
anti-Hermitian

Table 4. In these examples, p, q, d are any integers ≥ 1.
We denote by Q0 (b) ⊂ AutK (b) the stabilizer of a b-isotropic line of V . It is a
maximal proper parabolic subgroup, and F0 (b) := AutK (b)/Q0 (b) identifies with the
set of b-isotropic K-lines of V inside the projective space PK (V ) = (V r {0})/K∗ .
As in Section 3.2, we say that a representation τ : G → AutK (b) is proximal if some
element of τ (G) has an attracting fixed point in PK (V ).

ANOSOV REPRESENTATIONS AND PROPER ACTIONS

59

Remark 7.2. We have assumed since Section 2.2 that the reductive group G acts on g
by inner automorphisms, to simplify the description of the parabolic subgroups of G
and ensure that the Cartan projection µ : G → a+ is well defined. However, some
of the groups AutK (b) in Table 4, namely O(p, q) for p = q and O(d, C) for even d,
have elements acting on g via outer automorphisms. For these groups G = AutK (b),
we can still define notions of
• Pθ -Anosov representation ρ : Γ → G;
• uniform Pθ -domination of ρR : Γ → G by ρL : Γ → G;
• sharpness (see (1.2)) for the action of Γ via ρ : Γ → G on some homogeneous
space G/H.
Indeed, for any representation ρ : Γ → G there is a finite-index subgroup Γ′ of Γ
such that ρ(Γ′ ) is contained in the identity component of G, which acts on g by
inner automorphisms. We define the properties above to hold when they hold for
the restriction to Γ′ . This does not depend on the finite-index subgroup Γ′ : see
property (3) of Section 2.5.3 for Anosov representations, and Fact 2.18 for sharpness.
7.1.3. A useful normalization. We shall use the following normalization to avoid having to switch ρL and ρR in Theorem 7.3.
Let τ : G → AutK (b) be an irreducible representation of G with highest weight χτ .
For any ρL , ρR ∈ Hom(Γ, G), the following always holds up to switching ρL and ρR :

(7.1)

sup
γ∈Γ
of infinite order

hχτ , λ(ρL (γ)) − λ(ρR (γ))i ≥ 0.

If G is semisimple of real rank 1, then θ = ∆ is a singleton {α} and (assuming τ
to be nonzero) the inequality (7.1) is equivalent to
sup
γ∈Γ
of infinite order

hωα , λ(ρL (γ)) − λ(ρR (γ))i ≥ 0.

For G of arbitrary real rank, (7.1) always holds when ρL uniformly Pθ -dominates ρR
and τ is θ-compatible (Definition 3.1).
7.1.4. The main theorem. Here is the main result of this section.
Theorem 7.3. Let Γ be a discrete group, G a real reductive Lie group, and θ ⊂ ∆
a nonempty subset of the simple restricted roots of G, with θ = θ ⋆ . For K = R, C,
or H, let V be a K-vector space and τ : G → GLK (V ) an irreducible, θ-proximal
representation preserving a nondegenerate R-bilinear form b : V ⊗R V → K which is
symmetric, antisymmetric, Hermitian, or anti-Hermitian over K. Let b′ be a nonzero
real multiple of b. For a pair (ρL , ρR ) ∈ Hom(Γ, G)2 with the normalization (7.1),
consider the following conditions:
(1) Γ is word hyperbolic and ρL is Pθ -Anosov and uniformly Pθ -dominates ρR ;
(2) Γ is word hyperbolic, ρL is Pθ -Anosov, and τ ◦ ρL : Γ → AutK (b) uniformly
Q0 (b)-dominates τ ◦ ρR ;
(3) Γ is word hyperbolic and τ ◦ ρL : Γ → AutK (b) is Q0 (b)-Anosov and uniformly
Q0 (b)-dominates τ ◦ ρR : Γ → AutK (b);
(4) Γ is word hyperbolic and τ ◦ρL ⊕τ ◦ρR : Γ → AutK (b⊕b′ ) is Q0 (b⊕b′ )-Anosov;
(5) ρL is a quasi-isometric embedding and the action of Γ on (G × G)/Diag(G)
via (ρL , ρR ) is sharp (see (1.2));
(6) ρL is a quasi-isometric embedding and the action of Γ on (G × G)/Diag(G)
via (ρL , ρR ) is properly discontinuous;

ANOSOV REPRESENTATIONS AND PROPER ACTIONS

60

(7) (ρL , ρR ) : Γ → G × G is a quasi-isometric embedding and the action of Γ on
(G × G)/Diag(G) via (ρL , ρR ) is properly discontinuous.
The following implications always hold:
(1) =⇒ (2) ⇐⇒ (3) ⇐⇒ (4) =⇒ (5) =⇒ (6) =⇒ (7).

If θ is a singleton, then (2) ⇒ (1) holds as well. If G has real rank 1, then all
conditions are equivalent.
Remarks 7.4.
(a) An irreducible, θ-proximal representation τ : G → AutK (b) as
in conditions (2), (3), (4) always exists when θ = θ ⋆ : see Proposition 7.8
below. On the other hand, conditions (1), (5), (6), (7) do not involve τ .
(b) The condition θ = θ ⋆ is not restrictive: see Fact 2.34.
(c) In condition (4) there are essentially two choices for b′ : either b′ = b or b′ = −b.
The groups AutK (b ⊕ b) and AutK (b ⊕ (−b)) both sit inside GLK (V ⊕ V ) and
their intersection is AutK (b) × AutK (b). These groups are not isomorphic in
general: see Example 7.5. Even when they are isomorphic, the corresponding
two embeddings of Γ via (ρL , ρR ) tend to be of a quite different nature: this
is the case for instance when b is a real symplectic form.
Example 7.5. For G = O(1, d), which has real rank 1, the set θ is necessarily equal
to ∆, which is a singleton. We may take AutK (b) to be G and τ : G → AutK (b) to be
the identity map. Theorem 7.3 then states the equivalence of the following conditions,
for a discrete group Γ and a pair (ρL , ρR ) ∈ Hom(Γ, G)2 of representations:
(1) Γ is word hyperbolic and one of the representations ρL or ρR is convex cocompact and uniformly dominates the other;
(4+ ) Γ is word hyperbolic and ρL ⊕ ρR : Γ → O(2, 2d) is Anosov with respect to
the stabilizer of an isotropic line in R2,2d ;
−
(4 ) Γ is word hyperbolic and ρL ⊕ ρR : Γ → O(d + 1, d + 1) is Anosov with respect
to the stabilizer of an isotropic line in Rd+1,d+1 ;
(5) one of the representations ρL or ρR is a quasi-isometric embedding and the
action of Γ on (G × G)/Diag(G) via (ρL , ρR ) is sharp;
(6) one of the representations ρL or ρR is a quasi-isometric embedding and the
action of Γ on (G × G)/Diag(G) via (ρL , ρR ) is properly discontinuous;
(7) (ρL , ρR ) : Γ → G × G is a quasi-isometric embedding and the action of Γ on
(G × G)/Diag(G) via (ρL , ρR ) is properly discontinuous.
Here we see O(2, 2d) (resp. O(d + 1, d + 1)) as the stabilizer in GL2d+2 (R) of the
quadratic form x20 − x21 − · · · − x2d + y02 − y12 − · · · − yd2 (resp. x20 − x21 − · · · − x2d − y02 +
y12 + · · · + yd2 ). Similar equivalences are true after replacing

O(1, d), O(2, 2d), O(d + 1, d + 1), R2d+2

with (U(1, d), U(2, 2d), U(d+1, d+1), C2d+2 ) or with (Sp(1, d), Sp(2, 2d), Sp(d+1, d+1),
H2d+2 ), or after taking compact extensions of these groups.
We refer to [Gol85, Ghy95, Kob98, Sal00, Kas09, GK, GKW15, DT15, Tho, DGK]
for examples of discrete subgroups of O(1, d) × O(1, d) satisfying the equivalent conditions of Example 7.5.
Theorems 1.14 and 1.16 are contained in Theorem 7.3: namely, conditions (1), (2),
(3) of Theorem 1.14 correspond to conditions (7), (5), (1) of Theorem 7.3 (see Example 7.5 for classical G), while conditions (3), (4), (5) of Theorem 1.16 correspond to
conditions (1), (4) with (τ, b′ ) = (id, b), and (4) with (τ, b′ ) = (id, −b) of Theorem 7.3.

ANOSOV REPRESENTATIONS AND PROPER ACTIONS

61

Remark 7.6. When G has higher real rank, the implication (5) ⇒ (4) of Theorem 7.3
is false. Indeed, if Γ is quasi-isometrically embedded in G×G and acts sharply on (G×
G)/Diag(G), it does not need to be word hyperbolic: for instance, for G = O(2, 2d),
any discrete subgroup of O(1, 2d)× U(1, d) ⊂ G× G acts sharply on (G× G)/Diag(G).
The implication is actually false even if we assume Γ to be word hyperbolic: for
instance, take ρL to be any quasi-isometric embedding which is not Pθ -Anosov (see
e.g. Appendix A) and ρR to be the constant representation.
7.1.5. A complement to the main theorem. In Theorem 7.3, we may replace the notion of Anosov representation into AutK (b) with that of Anosov representation into
GLK (V ), as follows.
Proposition 7.7. In the setting of Theorem 7.3, let Pε1 −ε2 (V ) be the stabilizer in
GLK (V ) of a line of V and Pε1 −ε2 (V ⊕ V ) the stabilizer in GLK (V ⊕ V ) of a line of
V ⊕ V . Condition (3) of Theorem 7.3 is equivalent to
(3’) Γ is word hyperbolic and τ ◦ ρL : Γ → GLK (V ) is Pε1 −ε2 (V )-Anosov and
uniformly Pε1 −ε2 (V )-dominates τ ◦ ρR .
Condition (4) of Theorem 7.3 is equivalent to
(4’) Γ is word hyperbolic and τ ◦ ρL ⊕ τ ◦ ρR : Γ → GLK (V ⊕ V ) is Pε1 −ε2 (V ⊕ V )Anosov.
7.2. Linear representations into automorphism groups of bilinear forms.
Before proving Theorem 7.3 and Proposition 7.7, we make a few useful observations
and fix some notation.
7.2.1. Existence of representations. The following proposition justifies the assumptions in Theorem 7.3.
Proposition 7.8. Let G be a noncompact real reductive Lie group and θ ⊂ ∆ a
nonempty subset of the simple restricted roots of G. For K = R, C, or H, there
exists an irreducible, θ-proximal representation τ : G → GLK (V ) preserving a nondegenerate R-bilinear form b : V ⊗R V → K if and only if θ = θ ⋆ .

Note that in this case the group AutK (b) is necessarily noncompact since it contains
an element which is proximal in PK (V ).
One implication of Proposition 7.8 is given by the following observation.

Lemma 7.9. For K = R, C, or H, let τ : G → GLK (V ) be an irreducible representation with highest weight χτ . If the group τ (G) preserves a nondegenerate R-bilinear
form b : V ⊗R V → K, then χτ = χ⋆τ ; moreover, b is unique up to scale. When K = R
and τ is proximal, the converse also holds.
Proof of Lemma 7.9. The dual representation (τ ∗ , V ∗ = HomK (V, K)) has highest
weight χ⋆τ . Therefore, if there exists a (τ, τ ∗ )-equivariant isomorphim ψ : V →
V ∗ then χτ = χ⋆τ ; in this case ψ is unique up to scale by the Schur lemma. We
then note that the space of nondegenerate τ (G)-invariant bilinear forms b : V ⊗K
V → K identifies with the space of (τ, τ ∗ )-equivariant isomorphims V → V ∗ by
sending b to the isomorphism v 7→ b(v, ·). This treats the case of a symmetric or
antisymmetric form.
For the case of Hermitian and anti-Hermitian forms (where K = C or H), we
observe that the (real vector) space of forms b : V ⊗R V → K that are K-linear
in the second variable and antilinear in the first variable identifies with the space of
(τ, τ̄ ∗ )-equivariant homomorphims V → V̄ ∗ where τ̄ ∗ is the representation of G on

ANOSOV REPRESENTATIONS AND PROPER ACTIONS

62

the space V̄ ∗ of antilinear forms u : V → K, i.e. u(vz) = z̄u(v) for all v ∈ V and
z ∈ K. The highest weight of V̄ ∗ is also χ⋆τ .
When K = R and τ is proximal, the equality χτ = χ⋆τ implies the existence of an
equivariant isomorphism V → V ∗ , hence of a nondegenerate invariant bilinear form.

Proof of Proposition 7.8. Suppose there exists an irreducible, θ-proximal representation τ : G → GLK (V ) preserving a nondegenerate R-bilinear form b : V ⊗R V → K.
By Lemma 7.9, the highest weight χτ of τ satisfies χτ = χ⋆τ . By definition of θcompatibility, θ is the set of α ∈ ∆ such that (χτ , α) > 0. Since the W -invariant
scalar product (·, ·) on a∗ is invariant under α 7→ α⋆ , we conclude that θ = θ ⋆ .
Conversely, suppose θ = θ ⋆ . By Lemma 3.2, we can find
P an irreducible proximal
real representation (τ, V ) of G with highest weight χτ ∈ α∈θ N∗ ωα satisfying χτ =
χ⋆τ ; it is θ-compatible by definition. By Lemma 7.9, the group τ (G) preserves a
nondegenerate real bilinear form. Tensoring with K gives an irreducible, θ-proximal
K-representation V together with an invariant bilinear form b : V ⊗R V → K.


Remark 7.10. For K = R or C, we can always assume b to be symmetric up to
replacing V with the irreducible representation of highest weight 2χτ , which is a
subrepresentation of Sym2 (V ).

7.2.2. Cartan and Lyapunov projections for G, AutK (b), and GLK (V ). As in Theorem 7.3, let b : V ⊗R V → K be a nondegenerate R-bilinear form on a K-vector
space V and τ : G → AutK (b) ⊂ GLK (V ) an irreducible, θ-proximal representation.
We identify GLK (V ) with GLd (K) where d = dimK (V ), and use the notation of Example 2.14. Up to conjugating, we may assume that the real Lie groups G, AutK (b),
and GLK (V ) have compatible Cartan decompositions, in the sense of inclusion of the
corresponding maximal compact subgroups and inclusion of the corresponding Cartan subspaces (see Remark 3.6). We denote the corresponding Cartan projections
by µ, µb , µGLK (V ) , and the corresponding Lyapunov projections by λ, λb , λGLK (V ) .
Let α0 (b) be a simple restricted root of AutK (b), determining the parabolic subgroup
Q0 (b) of Section 7.1.2; then α0 (b) = α0 (b)⋆ . Let ωα0 (b) be the corresponding fundamental weight. We use similar notation for b ⊕ b′ on V ⊕ V . Then the following
equalities hold.
Lemma 7.11. Let ν be either the Cartan projection µ or the Lyapunov projection λ.
For any g ∈ G,
(1) hωα0 (b) , νb (τ (g))i = hε1 , νGLK (V ) (τ (g))i = hχτ , ν(g)i,
(2) hα0 (b), νb (τ (g))i = hε1 − ε2 , νGLK (V ) (τ (g))i.
For any g, g ′ ∈ G with hχτ , ν(g)i ≥ hχτ , ν(g ′ )i,
(3) hα0 (b ⊕ b′ ), νb⊕b′ (τ (g) ⊕ τ (g′ ))i
= hε1 − ε2 , νGLK (V ⊕V ) (τ (g) ⊕ τ (g ′ ))i

= min hα0 (b), νb (τ (g))i, hωα0 (b) , νb (τ (g)) − νb (τ (g′ ))i .
The space F0 (b) = AutK (b)/Q0 (b) identifies with the subset of PK (V ) consisting
of b-isotropic lines, and similarly for F0 (b ⊕ b′ ) inside PK (V ⊕ V ). The embedding
V ≃ V ⊕ {0} ֒→ V ⊕ V induces a natural embedding F0 (b) ֒→ F0 (b ⊕ b′ ).
Similarly to Lemma 7.11.(3) for λ, the following holds:

Remark 7.12. Let g, g ′ ∈ G satisfy hχτ , λ(g) − λ(g′ )i > 0. Then the element τ (g) ⊕
τ (g′ ) ∈ AutK (b⊕b′ ) is proximal in F0 (b⊕b′ ) if and only if τ (g) ∈ AutK (b) is proximal
in F0 (b). In this case the attracting fixed point of τ (g)⊕τ (g′ ) in F0 (b⊕b′ ) is the image

ANOSOV REPRESENTATIONS AND PROPER ACTIONS

63

of the attracting fixed point of τ (g) under the natural embedding F0 (b) ֒→ F0 (b ⊕ b′ ),
and the same holds with (g−1 , g′ −1 ) instead of (g, g′ ), by (2.15) and the fact that
χτ = χ⋆τ (Lemma 7.9).
7.2.3. The properness criterion of Benoist and Kobayashi for group manifolds. If µ :
G → a+ is a Cartan projection for G as above, then

(7.2)

µ × µ : G × G −→ a+ × a+

is a Cartan projection for G × G. It sends Diag(G) to the diagonal of a+ × a+ . Let
k · k be a W -invariant Euclidean norm on a as in Section 2.3.1. In this setting the
properness criterion of Benoist and Kobayashi (see Section 1.5) can be expressed as
follows.
Properness criterion for group manifolds [Ben96, Kob96]: A discrete subgroup
Γ′ of G × G acts properly discontinuously on (G × G)/Diag(G) if and only if
kµ(γ1′ ) − µ(γ2′ )k −−−−−→ +∞,
′ ,γ ′ )→∞
γ ′ =(γ1
2

where γ ′ → ∞ means that γ ′ exits every finite subset of Γ′ .
The action of Γ′ on (G × G)/Diag(G) is sharp, in the sense of (1.2), if and only if
there exist c, C > 0 such that for any γ ′ = (γ1′ , γ2′ ) ∈ Γ′ ,

kµ(γ1′ ) − µ(γ2′ )k ≥ c kµ(γ1′ )k + kµ(γ2′ )k − C.

7.3. Proof of Theorem 7.3. In Theorem 7.3, the implication (5) ⇒ (6) is immediate from the definition (1.2) of sharpness and the properness criterion of Benoist and
Kobayashi. Remark 2.19, with (7.2), yields the implication (6) ⇒ (7).
We now prove the other implications in Theorem 7.3, using the notation of Section 7.2. Note that our proofs of (6) ⇒ (4) for G of real rank 1 and (3) ⇒ (4)
rely on our characterizations of Anosov representations given by Theorems 1.3.(2)
and 1.7.(2), while (4) ⇒ (5) and (4) ⇒ (3) rely on Theorems 1.3.(3) and 1.7.(3).
Proof of
P (1) ⇒ (2) in Theorem 7.3. By definition of θ-compatibility, we can write
χτ = α∈θ nα ωα where nα > 0 for all α ∈ θ. Lemma 7.11.(1) for the Lyapunov
projection λ then yields, for any γ ∈ Γ,
X
hωα0 (b) , λb (τ ◦ ρL (γ))i =
nα hωα , λ(ρL (γ))i,
α∈θ

hωα0 (b) , λb (τ ◦ ρR (γ))i =

X
α∈θ

nα hωα , λ(ρR (γ))i.

Therefore, if ρL uniformly Pθ -dominates ρR , then τ ◦ ρL uniformly Q0 (b)-dominates
τ ◦ ρR .


If θ is a singleton (e.g. if G is semisimple of real rank 1), then the previous proof
shows that the uniform Pθ -domination of ρR by ρL is equivalent to the uniform Q0 (b)domination of τ ◦ ρR by τ ◦ ρL , i.e. (2) ⇒ (1) holds as well.

Proof of (2) ⇔ (3’) ⇔ (3) and (4) ⇔ (4’) in Theorem 7.3 and Proposition 7.7. Suppose
Γ is word hyperbolic. The natural inclusion j : AutK (b) ֒→ GLK (V ) is α0 (b)proximal, hence Proposition 3.5.(2) applies: a representation τ ◦ ρL : Γ → AutK (b) is
Q0 (b)-Anosov if and only if j ◦(τ ◦ρL ) : Γ → GLK (V ) is Pε1 −ε2 (V )-Anosov. Moreover,
Lemma 7.11.(1) for the Lyapunov projection λ yields that τ ◦ ρL uniformly Q0 (b)dominates τ ◦ ρR if and only if j ◦ (τ ◦ ρL ) uniformly Pε1 −ε2 (V )-dominates j ◦ (τ ◦ ρR ).
Thus (3) ⇔ (3’) holds.

ANOSOV REPRESENTATIONS AND PROPER ACTIONS

64

The equivalence (4) ⇔ (4’) follows from the same argument, using b ⊕ b′ on V ⊕ V
instead of b on V .
Similarly, ρL is Pθ -Anosov if and only if (j ◦ τ ) ◦ ρL is Pε1 −ε2 (V )-Anosov by Propo
sition 3.5.(2); thus (2) ⇔ (3’) holds.
In order to prove the equivalence (3) ⇔ (4) in Theorem 7.3, we first establish the
following.
Proposition 7.13. In the setting of Theorem 7.3, suppose Γ is word hyperbolic. Then
the following are equivalent:
(iii) there exists a continuous, (τ ◦ρL )-equivariant, transverse, dynamics-preserving
map ξV : ∂∞ Γ → F0 (b) and for all γ ∈ Γ,

(7.3)

hωα0 (b) , λb (τ ◦ ρR (γ))i < hωα0 (b) , λb (τ ◦ ρL (γ))i ;

(iv) there exist a continuous, (τ ◦ ρL ⊕ τ ◦ ρR )-equivariant, transverse, dynamicspreserving map ξV ⊕V : ∂∞ Γ → F0 (b ⊕ b′ ).
Proof. Suppose (iii) holds. By Remark 2.32.(a), for any γ ∈ Γ of infinite order,
τ ◦ ρL (γ) is proximal in F0 (b). Remark 7.12 and (7.3) imply that (τ ◦ ρL ⊕ τ ◦ ρR )(γ)
is proximal in F0 (b ⊕ b′ ) and ξV sends the attracting fixed point of γ in ∂∞ Γ to the
attracting fixed point of (τ ◦ ρL ⊕ τ ◦ ρR )(γ) in F0 (b ⊕ b′ ), after embedding F0 (b) into
F0 (b ⊕ b′ ). Thus we obtain a continuous, (τ ◦ ρL ⊕ τ ◦ ρR )-equivariant, transverse,
dynamics-preserving maps ξV ⊕V : ∂∞ Γ → F0 (b ⊕ b′ ) by postcomposing ξV with the
natural inclusion F0 (b) ֒→ F0 (b ⊕ b′ ), and (iv) holds.
Conversely, suppose (iv) holds. By Remark 2.32.(a), for any γ ∈ Γ of infinite
order, (τ ◦ ρL ⊕ τ ◦ ρR )(γ) is proximal in F0 (b ⊕ b′ ). By the normalization (7.1),
Lemma 7.11.(1), and Remark 7.12, there exists γ ∈ Γ of infinite order for which
τ ◦ ρL (γ) is proximal in F0 (b) and the attracting fixed point of (τ ◦ ρL ⊕ τ ◦ ρR )(γ)
in F0 (b ⊕ b′ ) is the image of the attracting fixed point of τ (ρL (γ)) under the natural
embedding F0 (b) ֒→ F0 (b ⊕ b′ ); the same holds for γ −1 instead of γ. In particular,
the closed Γ-invariant set
{η ∈ ∂∞ Γ | ξV ⊕V (η) ∈ F0 (b) ⊂ F0 (b ⊕ b′ )}

contains the attracting fixed points ηγ+ , ηγ+−1 of γ and γ −1 , hence is nonempty. This
set is equal to ∂∞ Γ, by minimality of the action of Γ on ∂∞ Γ if Γ is nonelementary,
and by the fact that ∂∞ Γ = {ηγ+ , ηγ+−1 } if Γ is elementary. Therefore, ξV ⊕V defines
a continuous map from ∂∞ Γ to F0 (b) which is equivariant and dynamics-preserving
for τ ◦ ρL . Moreover, (7.3) holds by Lemma 7.11.(3) for the Lyapunov projection λ.

Thus (iii) holds.
Proof of (3) ⇔ (4) in Theorem 7.3. Suppose condition (3) of Theorem 7.3 holds, i.e.
Γ is word hyperbolic and τ ◦ρL is Q0 (b)-Anosov and uniformly Q0 (b)-dominates τ ◦ρR .
By Proposition 7.13, there exists a continuous, (τ ◦ρL ⊕τ ◦ρR )-equivariant, transverse,
dynamics-preserving map ξV ⊕V : ∂∞ Γ → F0 (b ⊕ −b). Since τ ◦ ρL is Q0 (b)-Anosov,
Theorem 1.7.(2) implies
α0 (b), λb (τ ◦ ρL (γ))

−→

|γ|∞ →+∞

+∞.

Moreover, uniform Q0 (b)-domination implies
ωα0 (b) , λb (τ ◦ ρL (γ)) − λb (τ ◦ ρR (γ))

−→

|γ|∞ →+∞

+∞.

ANOSOV REPRESENTATIONS AND PROPER ACTIONS

65

By Lemma 7.11.(3) for the Lyapunov projection λ,

α0 (b ⊕ b′ ), λb⊕b′ (τ ◦ ρL ⊕ τ ◦ ρR )(γ)

−→

|γ|∞ →+∞

+∞.

Therefore τ ◦ ρL ⊕ τ ◦ ρR is Q0 (b ⊕ b′ )-Anosov by Theorem 1.7.(2), i.e. condition (4)
of Theorem 7.3 holds.
Conversely, suppose condition (4) of Theorem 7.3 holds, i.e. Γ is word hyperbolic
and τ ◦ ρL ⊕ τ ◦ ρR : Γ → AutK (b ⊕ b′ ) is Q0 (b ⊕ b′ )-Anosov. By Proposition 7.13,
there exists a continuous, (τ ◦ ρL )-equivariant, transverse, dynamics-preserving map
ξV : ∂∞ Γ → F0 (b). Since τ ◦ ρL ⊕ τ ◦ ρR is Q0 (b ⊕ b′ )-Anosov, Theorem 1.7.(2) implies
α0 (b ⊕ b′ ), λb⊕b′ ((τ ◦ ρL ⊕ τ ◦ ρR )(γ))

−→

|γ|∞ →+∞

+∞.

By Lemma 7.11.(3) for the Lyapunov projection λ,
α0 (b), λb (τ ◦ ρL (γ))

−→

|γ|∞ →+∞

+∞.

Therefore τ ◦ ρL is Q0 (b)-Anosov by Theorem 1.7.(2). On the other hand, using
Theorem 1.7.(3) and Lemma 7.11.(3), we see that there exist c, C > 0 such that for
any γ ∈ Γ,
hωα0 (b) , λb (τ ◦ ρL (γ)) − λb (τ ◦ ρR (γ))i ≥ c hωα0 (b) , λb (τ ◦ ρL (γ))i − C.

Applying this to γ n , dividing by n, and taking the limit, we obtain

hωα0 (b) , λb (τ ◦ ρR (γ))i ≤ (1 − c) hωα0 (b) , λb (τ ◦ ρL (γ))i.

Thus τ ◦ ρL (γ) uniformly Q0 (b)-dominates τ ◦ ρR (γ), i.e. condition (3) of Theorem 7.3
holds.

Proof of (2), (4) ⇒ (5) in Theorem 7.3. Suppose that (2) and (4) hold (we have seen
that they are equivalent). Since ρL is Pθ -Anosov, it is a quasi-isometric embedding
(see Section 2.5.3). Since τ ◦ ρL ⊕ τ ◦ ρR is Q0 (b ⊕ b′ )-Anosov, Theorem 1.3.(3),
Lemma 7.11.(1)–(3) for the Cartan projection µ, and the normalization (7.1) show
that there exist c, C > 0 such that for any γ ∈ Γ,
hχτ , µ(ρL (γ)) − µ(ρR (γ))i ≥ c |γ|Γ − C.

Using (2.11), we see that there exist c′ , C ′ > 0 such that for any γ ∈ Γ,

kµ(ρL (γ)) − µ(ρR (γ))k ≥ c′ kµ(ρL (γ))k + kµ(ρR (γ))k − C ′ ,

where k · k is the W -invariant Euclidean norm on a from Section 2.3.1. Thus the

action of Γ on (G × G)/Diag(G) via (ρL , ρR ) is sharp (see Section 7.2.3).
Note that any subgroup of G × G is always of the form

(7.4)

ΓρL ,ρR = {(ρL (γ), ρR (γ)) | γ ∈ Γ},

where Γ is a group and ρL , ρR ∈ Hom(Γ, G) two representations, corresponding to
the two projections of G × G onto G.
In the case that G is semisimple of real rank 1, the implication (7) ⇒ (6) of
Theorem 7.3 is an immediate consequence of the following result. (Since G has real
rank 1, we identify a+ with R+ and see λ as a function G → R+ .)

Theorem 7.14 ([Kas08]). Let G be a semisimple Lie group of real rank 1. Then any
discrete subgroup of G × G acting properly discontinuously on (G × G)/Diag(G) is of
the form ΓρL ,ρR as in (7.4) where, under the normalization (7.1), the representation

ANOSOV REPRESENTATIONS AND PROPER ACTIONS

66

ρL has finite kernel and discrete image and µ(ρR (γ)) < µ(ρL (γ)) for almost all γ ∈ Γ,
and
(7.5)

λ(ρR (γ)) < λ(ρL (γ)) for all γ ∈ Γ of infinite order.

In particular, if ΓρL ,ρR is finitely generated and quasi-isometrically embedded in G ×
G, then ρL : Γ → G is a quasi-isometric embedding and Γ is word hyperbolic (see
Remark 2.36).
We now use this result to prove the implication (6) ⇒ (4) of Theorem 7.3.
Proof of (6) ⇒ (4) in Theorem 7.3 for G semisimple of real rank 1. Suppose G is semisimple of real rank 1 and (6) holds. By Remark 2.36 the group Γ is word hyperbolic and ρL is Pθ -Anosov. The boundary map of ρL induces a boundary map
ξ : ∂∞ Γ → F0 (b ⊕ b′ ) that is continuous, (τ ◦ ρL ⊕ τ ◦ ρR )-equivariant, and transverse.
By (7.5) in Theorem 7.14 and by Remark 7.12, the map ξ is dynamics-preserving. By
the properness criterion of Benoist and Kobayashi (Section 7.2.3), we have
kµ(ρL (γ)) − µ(ρR (γ))k −→ +∞.
γ→∞

Since G is semisimple of real rank 1, this also holds if we replace the norm k · k on a
with hχτ , ·i. Using Lemma 7.11.(3) for the Cartan projection µ, as well as the fact
that ρL is a quasi-isometric embedding and Remark 2.19, we deduce that
hα0 (b ⊕ b′ ), µb⊕b′ ((τ ◦ ρL ⊕ τ ◦ ρR )(γ))i −→ +∞.
γ→∞

Therefore, τ ◦ ρL ⊕ τ ◦ ρR is Q0 (b ⊕ b′ )-Anosov by Theorem 1.3.(2).



7.4. Proofs of Corollaries 1.17 and 1.18. We use the following classical cohomological arguments (see e.g. [Kob89, Corollary 5.5]):
(i) When a torsion-free discrete subgroup of G × G acts properly discontinuously
on (G × G)/Diag(G), it acts cocompactly on (G × G)/Diag(G) if and only if
its cohomological dimension is equal to dimR (G/K).
(ii) A torsion-free discrete subgroup of G is a uniform lattice in G if and only if
its cohomological dimension is equal to dimR (G/K).
Proof of Corollary 1.17. Suppose the action of Γ on (G × G)/Diag(G) is properly
discontinuous and cocompact. Then Γ is finitely generated (using the Milnor–Švarc
lemma), and so up to passing to a finite-index subgroup we may assume that Γ is
torsion-free (using the Selberg lemma). By Theorem 7.14, one of the projections of
Γ onto G is injective and discrete; its image is a uniform lattice of G by (i) and (ii),
hence it is a quasi-isometric embedding. We conclude using the implication (6) ⇒ (5)

of Theorem 7.3 (or the implication (1) ⇒ (2) of Theorem 1.14).
Proof of Corollary 1.18. The first statement (openness) follows from the equivalence
(4) ⇔ (7) of Theorem 7.3 and from the fact that being Anosov is an open property
[Lab06, GW12]. For the second statement (compactness), note that up to passing
to a finite-index subgroup we may again assume Γ to be torsion-free, by the Selberg
lemma; there is a neighborhood U ⊂ Hom(Γ, G × G) consisting of injective and
discrete representations and we use (i) above.


ANOSOV REPRESENTATIONS AND PROPER ACTIONS

67

7.5. Example of a non-Anosov representation with nice boundary maps.
We now construct an example of a representation ρ : Γ → G which admits continuous, dynamics-preserving, transverse boundary maps ξ + : ∂∞ Γ → G/Pθ and
ξ − : ∂∞ Γ → G/Pθ− , but which is not Pθ -Anosov.
Example 7.15. Let Γ be a finitely generated discrete group and ρL , ρR : Γ → G =
SO(1, 2) = AutR (b) two representations such that ρL is convex cocompact, λ(ρR (γ)) <
λ(ρL (γ)) for all γ ∈ Γ of infinite order, but
(7.6)

sup
γ∈Γ
of infinite order

λ(ρR (γ))
= 1.
λ(ρL (γ))

By Proposition 7.13 with τ = id, the representation ρ := ρL ⊕ρR : Γ → AutR (b⊕b) admits a continuous, dynamics-preserving, transverse boundary map ξ : ∂∞ Γ → F0 (b⊕b).
However, ρL does not uniformly Q0 (b)-dominate ρR , and so Theorem 7.3 shows that
ρ is not Q0 (b ⊕ b)-Anosov.

Here is one construction of a pair (ρL , ρR ) as in Example 7.15 for Γ a free group
on two generators, following a key idea of [GLMM]. Let S be a hyperbolic oneholed torus with infinite area and compact convex core S0 , and let Υ ⊂ S0 be a
transversely measured geodesic lamination with irrational support. Then Υ intersects
every nonperipheral closed curve of S, and every half-leaf of Υ is dense in Υ.
Let (ℓ(t))t∈R be an injectively immersed geodesic of S parameterized by arc length,
with ℓ(0) ∈ ∂S0 and ℓ(t) spiralling asymptotically to Υ as t → +∞. We can find a
one-parameter family of (distinct) small deformations {ℓs }s∈[−ε,ε] of ℓ, with each
ℓs an injectively immersed geodesic of S parameterized by arc length, satisfying
limt→+∞ d(ℓs (t), ℓ(t)) = 0. The map ℓ : (s, t) 7→ ℓs (t) from [−ε, ε] × R to S is
then injective. Let S ′ be the hyperbolic surface obtained from S by collapsing each
arc ℓ([−ε, ε] × {t}) to a point. The collapsing map ψ : S → S ′ is 1-Lipschitz and
allows us to identify the fundamental groups of both S and S ′ with Γ.
We can take for ρL and ρR holonomy representations of S and S ′ respectively. For
any γ ∈ Γ r {e}, the inequality λ(ρR (γ)) < λ(ρL (γ)) follows from the fact that the
geodesic representative of the loop in S associated with γ crosses the collapsing region
ℓ([−ε, ε] × R) (because it crosses Υ), hence is taken by ψ to a shorter rectifiable loop.
The supremum (7.6) is approached when γ follows Υ for most of its length.
Appendix A. An unstable quasi-isometrically embedded subgroup

In this appendix we give an example (Proposition A.1) of a quasi-isometric embedding ρ0 of a free group Γ into a semisimple Lie group of higher real rank which is not
stable under small deformations; in particular ρ0 is not an Anosov representation of Γ.
This example was first described in [Gui04]. We use it to construct a non-Anosov
representation of Γ into SL6 (R) with interesting properties (Example A.6).
Proposition A.1. Let Γ be a free group on two generators. Then there is a continuous family {ρt }t∈[0,1] of representations Γ → SL2 (R) × SL2 (R) such that
• ρ0 is a quasi-isometric embedding;
• for any t ∈
/ Q, the group ρt (Γ) is dense in SL2 (R) × SL2 (R) (for the real
topology).
In order to prove Proposition A.1, we consider a free generating subset {a, b} of Γ.
For any γ = am1 bn1 · · · amN bnN ∈ Γ with mi 6= 0 for all i > 1 and ni 6= 0 for all

ANOSOV REPRESENTATIONS AND PROPER ACTIONS

68

i < N , we set


|γ|a = |m1 | + · · · + |mN |,
|γ|b = |n1 | + · · · + |nN |.
Then the word length function | · |Γ : Γ → N with respect to {a, b} satisfies
|γ|Γ = |γ|a + |γ|b

for all γ ∈ Γ. We identify the Weyl chamber a+ with R+ , so that the Cartan
projection µ : SL2 (R) → a+ of Section 2.3.1 takes values in R+ . With this notation,
Proposition A.1 is an easy consequence of the following.
Proposition A.2. Let Γ be a free group on two generators a, b and let κ > 0. Then
there is a continuous family {ρα,t }t∈[0,1] of representations Γ → SL2 (R) such that
• µ(ρα,0 (γ)) ≥ κ|γ|a for all γ ∈ Γ;
• for any t ∈
/ Q, the group ρα,t (Γ) is dense in SL2 (R) (for the real topology),
the element ρα,t (a) is hyperbolic, and ρα,t (b) is elliptic.
Proof of Proposition A.1 using Proposition A.2. Let {ρα,t }t∈[0,1] be the continuous
family of representations Γ → SL2 (R) given by Proposition A.2 (for κ = 1 say),
and let {ρβ,t }t∈[0,1] be defined by ρβ,t = ρα,t ◦ ς where ς is the automorphism of Γ
switching a and b. For any t ∈ [0, 1], consider the representation
ρt = (ρα,t , ρβ,t ) : Γ −→ SL2 (R) × SL2 (R).

Then ρ0 is a quasi-isometric embedding because

µ(ρα,0 (γ)) + µ(ρβ,0 (γ)) ≥ κ(|γ|a + |γ|b ) = κ|γ|Γ

for all γ ∈ Γ. Let Gt be the closure of ρt (Γ) in SL2 (R) × SL2 (R). If t ∈
/ Q,
then the two projections of Gt to SL2 (R) are equal to the full group SL2 (R). In
that case, by Goursat’s lemma (see e.g. [Pet09]), either Gt = SL2 (R) × SL2 (R) or
Gt = {(h, ghg −1 ) | h ∈ SL2 (R)} for some g in GL2 (R). The second case cannot occur
since it would imply that the hyperbolic element ρα,t (a) is conjugate to the elliptic
element ρβ,t (a).

Proof of Proposition A.2. We define ρα,t (a) to be a hyperbolic element A ∈ SL2 (R),
independent of t, whose properties will be specified in a moment. For t > 0, we also
define


1
cos πt
sin πt
πt
ρα,t (b) =
,
−πt sin πt cos πt
and extend this by continuity to ρα,0 (b) = B := ( 10 11 ).
For t in [0, 1] r Q, the element ρα,t (b) is conjugate to an irrational rotation, hence
the closure of the group spanned by ρα,t (b) is a conjugate of SO(2); since SL2 (R) is
generated by any hyperbolic element and SO(2), we conclude that ρα,t (Γ) is dense in
SL2 (R).
We now show that, for some appropriate choice of the hyperbolic element A, we
have µ(ρα,0 (γ)) ≥ κ|γ|a for√all γ ∈ Γ. Endow P1 (R) = R ∪ {∞} = ∂∞ H2 with the
round metric centered at −1 ∈ H2 . The parabolic element B = ρα,0 (b) fixes the
point ∞ ∈ P1 (R), and the two compact intervals V+ := [ 12 , ∞] and V− := [∞, −1
2 ] of
P1 (R) (intersecting only at the point ∞) satisfy:
• B(P1 (R) r V− ) = V+ and B|P1 (R)rV− is 1-Lipschitz;
• B −1 (P1 (R) r V+ ) = V− and B −1 |P1 (R)rV+ is 1-Lipschitz.
Choose two disjoint compact intervals U− and U+ in P1 (R) r (V− ∪ V+ ) (see
Figure 4). There exists a hyperbolic element A = ρα,0 (a) such that

ANOSOV REPRESENTATIONS AND PROPER ACTIONS

69

∞
V−

V+

B
H2
− 12

1
2

A
U−

U+

Figure 4. The parabolic element B fixes ∞ and takes −1/2 to 1/2.
For A we can choose any hyperbolic element with large enough translation length whose translation axis contains the shortest segment connecting the hyperbolic half-plane bordered by U− to the one bordered
by U+ .
• A(P1 (R) r U− ) ⊂ U+ and A|P1 (R)rU− is e−κ -contracting;
• A−1 (P1 (R) r U+ ) ⊂ U− and A−1 |P1 (R)rU+ is e−κ -contracting.

Then for any γ ∈ Γ, the element ρα,0 (γ) is e−κ|γ|a -contracting at every point in
P1 (R) r (V− ∪ V+ ∪ U− ∪ U+ ). We obtain that µ(ρα,0 (γ)) ≥ κ|γ|a for all γ ∈ Γ from
the following lemma.

Lemma A.3. For any g ∈ SL2 (R) and ℓ ≥ 0, if g is e−ℓ -contracting at some point
of P1 (R), then µ(g) ≥ ℓ.

Proof. The assumptions do not change if we multiply g by elements of SO(2) on either

−s/2
0
side. Thus we can assume that g = e 0 es/2
with s ≥ 0 (so that µ(g) = s). Let
1
x0 ∈ P (R) be a point where the differential dg is e−ℓ -contracting. Then x0 6= ∞.
Let ∂/∂u be the translation-invariant vector field on R. Denoting by k · kx the
Riemannian norm (for the round metric) of tangent vectors at a point x ∈ P1 (R),
the norm k∂/∂ukx is a decreasing function of |x|, and the contraction of dg at x0 is

Since

k∂/∂ukg·x0
k∂/∂ukx0

ke−s ∂/∂ukg·x0
kdg · ∂/∂ukg·x0
=
≤ e−ℓ .
k∂/∂ukx0
k∂/∂ukx0

≥ 1, the conclusion µ(g) = s ≥ ℓ follows.



Remark A.4. For t ∈ Q ∩ (0, 1], the representation ρt has a nontrivial kernel: a
power bn of b is in the kernel of ρα,t and an is in the kernel of ρβ,t and therefore
the commutator an bn a−n b−n is in the kernel of ρt . Thus ρ0 is the endpoint of a
continuous family of representations, all of them being nondiscrete or nonfaithful.
Remark A.5. The representation ρ : Γ → SL2 (R) × SL2 (R), seen as a representation
into SL4 (R), does not admit any continuous, dynamics-preserving boundary map
ξ + : ∂∞ Γ → P3 (R). Indeed, suppose by contradiction that such a map ξ + exists.
By construction, the closed ρ(Γ)-invariant sets {η ∈ ∂∞ Γ | ξ + (η) ⊂ P(R2 ⊕ {0})}
and {η ∈ ∂∞ Γ | ξ + (η) ∈ PR ({0} ⊕ R2 )} are both nonempty: this contradicts the
minimality of the action of Γ on ∂∞ Γ.

ANOSOV REPRESENTATIONS AND PROPER ACTIONS

70

We can use the representation ρ0 of Proposition A.1 to construct an example of a
representation ρ : Γ → G and a set θ ⊂ ∆ with the following properties:
• there exist continuous, ρ-equivariant, transverse maps ξ + : ∂∞ Γ → G/Pθ and
ξ − : ∂∞ Γ → G/Pθ− such that for any η ∈ ∂∞ Γ, the points ξ + (η) ∈ G/Pθ and
ξ − (η) ∈ G/Pθ− are compatible in the sense of Definition 2.10;
• no such maps can be dynamics-preserving for ρ.

Example A.6. Let Γ be a free group on two generators and ρ′ : Γ → SL2 (R) a
convex cocompact representation. We see SL2 (R) as a subgroup of G = GL6 (R) by
embedding it into the lower right corner of G, and use the notation of Example 2.14
for G. By (2.11), there exists k > 0 such that
hε1 , µ(ρ′ (γ))i ≤ k|γ|Γ

for all γ ∈ Γ. On the other hand, if we choose κ > k in Proposition A.2, then the
representation ρ0 : Γ → SL2 (R) × SL2 (R) constructed in Proposition A.1, seen as a
representation into G = GL6 (R) by embedding SL2 (R) × SL2 (R) into the upper left
corner of G, satisfies
hε1 , µ(ρ0 (γ))i ≥ κ|γ|Γ
for all γ ∈ Γ. In particular, using (2.14), we see that ρ0 uniformly P{ε1 −ε2 } -dominates
ρ′ as representations into G: there is a constant c < 1 such that hε1 , λ(ρ′ (γ))i ≤
c hε1 , λ(ρ0 (γ))i for all γ ∈ Γ. Consider the representation

ρ := (ρ0 , ρ′ ) : Γ −→ SL2 (R) × SL2 (R) × SL2 (R) ֒−→ G.

It admits continuous, ρ-equivariant, transverse boundary maps ξ + : ∂∞ Γ → P(R6 ) =
−
, obtained by composing the
G/P{ε1 −ε2 } and ξ − : ∂∞ Γ → P((R6 )∗ ) = G/P{ε
1 −ε2 }
′
boundary maps of the Anosov representation ρ : Γ → SL2 (R) (Example 2.5.3.(a))
with the inclusion of P(R2 ) ≃ P({0} × R2 ) into P(R6 ). However, ρ does not admit
any continuous, dynamics-preserving boundary map, since ρ0 uniformly P{ε1 −ε2 } dominates ρ′ and ρ0 does not admit any continuous, dynamics-preserving boundary
map (Remark A.5).
References
[AMS95] Herbert Abels, Grigori A. Margulis, and Grigori A. Soifer, Semigroups containing proximal
linear maps, Israel J. Math. 91 (1995), 1–30.
[Bar15]
Thierry Barbot, Deformations of Fuchsian AdS representations are quasi-Fuchsian, J.
Diﬀerential Geom. 101 (2015), 1–46.
[BCLS15] Martin Bridgeman, Richard D. Canary, François Labourie, and Andrés Sambarino, The
pressure metric for Anosov representations, Geom. Funct. Anal. 25 (2015), 1089–1179.
[Ben96] Yves Benoist, Actions propres sur les espaces homogènes réductifs, Ann. of Math. 144
(1996), 315–347.
[Ben97]
, Propriétés asymptotiques des groupes linéaires, Geom. Funct. Anal. 7 (1997),
1–47.
, Automorphismes des cônes convexes, Invent. Math. 141 (2000), 149–193.
[Ben00]
[Ben04]
, Convexes divisibles I, in Algebraic groups and arithmetic, Tata Inst. Fund. Res.,
Mumbai, 2004, p. 339–374.
[BH99]
Martin R. Bridson and André Haeﬂiger, Metric spaces of non-positive curvature,
Grundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften, vol. 319, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1999.
[BILW05] Marc Burger, Alessandra Iozzi, François Labourie, and Anna Wienhard, Maximal representations of surface groups: Symplectic Anosov structures, Pure Appl. Math. Q. 1 (2005),
Special Issue: In memory of Armand Borel, 543–590.
[BIW]
Marc Burger, Alessandra Iozzi, and Anna Wienhard, Maximal representations and Anosov
structures, in preparation.

ANOSOV REPRESENTATIONS AND PROPER ACTIONS

[BIW10]
[BJT14]
[BL93]
[BM12]
[Bou68]

[Bou75]

[Bou95]
[Bow95]
[Bow98]
[BT65]
[CDP90]

[Cha94]
[DGK]
[DT15]
[Ebe96]
[FG06]
[Flo80]
[GGKW]

[Ghy95]
[GK]
[GKW15]
[GLMM]
[GM89]
[Gol85]
[GR89]
[Gro87]

71

, Surface group representations with maximal Toledo invariant, Ann. of Math. 172
(2010), 517–566.
Maciej Bocheński, Piotr Jastrzębski, and Aleksy Tralle, Proper SL(2, R)-actions on homogeneous spaces, preprint, arXiv:1405.4167.
Yves Benoist and François Labourie, Sur les difféomorphismes d’Anosov affines à feuilletages stable et instable différentiables, Invent. Math. 111 (1993), 285–308.
Thierry Barbot and Quentin Mérigot, Anosov AdS representations are quasi-Fuchsian,
Groups Geom. Dyn. 6 (2012), 441–483.
Nicolas Bourbaki, Éléments de mathématique. Fasc. XXXIV. Groupes et algèbres de Lie.
Chapitre IV : Groupes de Coxeter et systèmes de Tits. Chapitre V : Groupes engendrés par
des réflexions. Chapitre VI : Systèmes de racines, Actualités Scientiﬁques et Industrielles
1337, Hermann, Paris, 1968.
, Éléments de mathématique. Fasc. XXXVIII: Groupes et algèbres de Lie.
Chapitre VII : Sous-algèbres de Cartan, éléments réguliers. Chapitre VIII : Algèbres de
Lie semi-simples déployées, Actualités Scientiﬁques et Industrielles 1364, Hermann, Paris,
1975.
Marc Bourdon, Structure conforme au bord et flot géodésique d’un CAT(−1)-espace, Enseign. Math. 41 (1995), 63–102.
Brian H. Bowditch, Geometrical finiteness with variable negative curvature, Duke Math.
J. 77 (1995), no. 1, 229–274.
, A topological characterisation of hyperbolic groups, J. Amer. Math. Soc. 11 (1998),
643–667.
Armand Borel and Jacques Tits, Groupes réductifs, Publ. Math. Inst. Hautes Études Sci.
27 (1965), 55–150.
Michel Coornaert, Thomas Delzant, and Athanase Papadopoulos, Géométrie et théorie
des groupes. Les groupes hyperboliques de Gromov, Lecture Notes in Mathematics,
vol. 1441, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1990.
Christophe Champetier, Petite simplification dans les groupes hyperboliques, Ann. Fac.
Sci. Toulouse Math. 3 (1994), 161–221.
Jeﬀrey Danciger, François Guéritaud, and Fanny Kassel, Margulis spacetimes via the arc
complex, Invent. Math., to appear.
Bertrand Deroin and Nicolas Tholozan, Dominating surface group representations by
Fuchsian ones, Int. Math. Res. Not. IMRN, to appear.
Patrick B. Eberlein, Geometry of nonpositively curved manifolds, Chicago Lectures in
Mathematics, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, 1996.
Vladimir Fock and Alexander Goncharov, Moduli spaces of local systems and higher Teichmüller theory, Publ. Math. Inst. Hautes Études Sci. 103 (2006), 1–211.
William J. Floyd, Group completions and limit sets of Kleinian groups, Invent. Math. 57
(1980), 205–218.
François Guéritaud, Olivier Guichard, Fanny Kassel, and Anna Wienhard, Compactification of certain Clifford–Klein forms of reductive homogeneous spaces, preprint,
arXiv:1506.03742.
Étienne Ghys, Déformations des structures complexes sur les espaces homogènes de
SL(2, C), J. Reine Angew. Math. 468 (1995), 113–138.
François Guéritaud and Fanny Kassel, Maximally stretched laminations on geometrically
finite hyperbolic manifolds, Geom. Topol., to appear.
François Guéritaud, Fanny Kassel, and Maxime Wolﬀ, Compact anti-de Sitter 3-manifolds
and folded hyperbolic structures on surfaces, Paciﬁc J. Math. 275 (2015), 325–359.
William M. Goldman, François Labourie, Gregori A. Margulis, Yair N. Minsky, Complete
flat Lorentz 3-manifolds and laminations on hyperbolic surfaces, in preparation.
Ilya Gol’dsheid and Grigori A. Margulis, Lyapunov indices of a product of random matrices, Russ. Math. Surv. 44 (1989), 11–71.
William M. Goldman, Nonstandard Lorentz space forms, J. Diﬀerential Geom. 21 (1985),
301–308.
Yves Guivarc’h and G. Raugi, Propriétés de contraction d’un semigroupe de matrices
inversibles, Israel J. Math. 65 (1989), 165–196.
Mikhail Gromov, Hyperbolic groups, Essays in group theory, Math. Sci. Res. Inst. Publ.,
vol. 8, Springer, New York, 1987, pp. 75–263.

ANOSOV REPRESENTATIONS AND PROPER ACTIONS

[Gui04]
[Gui90]
[GW09]
[GW12]
[Hel00]

[Hel01]

[Kar53]
[Kas08]
[Kas09]
[Kas10]
[Kas12]
[KK16]
[KLPa]
[KLPb]
[KLPc]
[KLPd]
[Kna02]
[Kob89]
[Kob96]
[Kob98]
[Kos59]
[KY05]
[Lab06]
[Min05]
[Min13]
[MY02]
[Mos55]
[Oku13]
[Pet09]

72

Olivier Guichard, Déformation de sous-groupes discrets de groupes de rang un, PhD thesis,
Université Paris 7, December 2004.
Yves Guivarc’h, Produits de matrices aléatoires et applications, Ergodic Theory Dynam.
Systems 10 (1990), 483–512.
Roe Goodman and Nolan R. Wallach, Symmetry, representations, and invariants, Graduate Texts in Mathematics, vol. 255, Springer, Dordrecht, 2009.
Olivier Guichard and Anna Wienhard, Anosov representations: domains of discontinuity
and applications, Invent. Math. 190 (2012), 357–438.
Sigurdur Helgason, Groups and geometric analysis. Integral geometry, invariant differential operators, and spherical functions, corrected reprint of the 1984 original, Mathematical Surveys and Monographs, vol. 83, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI,
2000.
, Differential geometry, Lie groups, and symmetric spaces, corrected reprint of the
1978 original, Graduate Studies in Mathematics, vol. 34, American Mathematical Society,
Providence, RI, 2001.
Fridrikh I. Karpelevich, Surfaces of transitivity of semisimple groups of motions of a
symmetric space, Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR 93 (1953), 401–404.
Fanny Kassel, Proper actions on corank-one reductive homogeneous spaces, J. Lie Theory
18 (2008), 961–978.
, Quotients compacts d’espaces homogènes réels ou p-adiques, November 2009, PhD
thesis, Université Paris-Sud, available at http://www.math.univ-lille/∼kassel/.
, Quotients compacts des groupes ultramétriques de rang un, Ann. Inst. Fourier 60
(2010), 1741–1786.
, Deformation of proper actions on reductive homogeneous spaces, Math. Ann. 353
(2012), 599–632.
Fanny Kassel and Toshiyuki Kobayashi, Poincaré series for non-Riemannian locally symmetric spaces, Adv. Math. 287 (2016), 123–236.
Michael Kapovich, Bernhard Leeb, and Joan Porti, Dynamics on flag manifolds: domains
of proper discontinuity and cocompactness, preprint, arXiv:1306.3837v2.
, Morse actions of discrete groups on symmetric spaces, preprint, arXiv:1403.7671.
, A Morse Lemma for quasigeodesics in symmetric spaces and euclidean buildings,
preprint, arXiv:1411.4176.
, Some recent results on Anosov representations, preprint, arXiv:1511.08940.
Anthony W. Knapp, Lie groups beyond an introduction, second edition, Progress in Mathematics, vol. 140, Birkhäuser Boston Inc., Boston, MA, 2002.
Toshiyuki Kobayashi, Proper action on a homogeneous space of reductive type, Math. Ann.
285 (1989), 249–263.
, Criterion for proper actions on homogeneous spaces of reductive groups, J. Lie
Theory 6 (1996), 147–163.
, Deformation of compact Clifford-Klein forms of indefinite-Riemannian homogeneous manifolds, Math. Ann. 310 (1998), 395–409.
Bertram Kostant, The principal three-dimensional subgroup and the Betti numbers of a
complex simple Lie group, Amer. J. Math. 81 (1959), 973–1032.
Toshiyuki Kobayashi and Taro Yoshino, Compact Clifford–Klein forms of symmetric
spaces — Revisited, Pure Appl. Math. Q. 1 (2005), 591–663.
François Labourie, Anosov flows, surface groups and curves in projective space, Invent.
Math. 165 (2006), 51–114.
Igor Mineyev, Flows and joins of metric spaces, Geom. Topol. 9 (2005), 403–482.
Yair N. Minsky, On dynamics of Out(Fn ) on P SL2 (C) characters, Israel J. Math. 193
(2013), 47–70.
Igor Mineyev and Guoliang Yu, The Baum-Connes conjecture for hyperbolic groups, Invent. Math. 149 (2002), 97–122.
George D. Mostow, Some new decomposition theorems for semi-simple groups, Mem.
Amer. Math. Soc. 14 (1955), 31–54.
Takayuki Okuda, Classification of semisimple symmetric spaces with proper SL(2, R)actions, J. Diﬀerential Geom. 94 (2013), 301–342.
Joseph Petrillo, Goursat’s other theorem, College Math. J. 140 (2009), 119–134.

ANOSOV REPRESENTATIONS AND PROPER ACTIONS

[Pra94]
[Sal00]
[Tho]
[Tho15]

73

Gopal Prasad, R-regular elements in Zariski-dense subgroups, Quart. J. Math. Oxford Ser.
45 (1994), 541–545.
François Salein, Variétés anti-de Sitter de dimension 3 exotiques, Ann. Inst. Fourier
(Grenoble) 50 (2000), 257–284.
Nicolas Tholozan, Dominating surface group representations and deforming closed anti-de
Sitter 3-manifolds, preprint, arXiv:1403.7479.
, Sur la complétude de certaines variétés pseudo-riemanniennes localement
symétriques, Ann. Inst. Fourier 65 (2015), 1921–1952.

CNRS and Université Lille 1, Laboratoire Paul Painlevé, 59655 Villeneuve d’Ascq
Cedex, France
Wolfgang-Pauli Institute, University of Vienna, CNRS-UMI 2842, Austria
E-mail address: francois.gueritaud@math.univ-lille1.fr
Université de Strasbourg, IRMA, 7 rue Descartes, 67000 Strasbourg, France
E-mail address: olivier.guichard@math.unistra.fr
CNRS and Université Lille 1, Laboratoire Paul Painlevé, 59655 Villeneuve d’Ascq
Cedex, France
E-mail address: fanny.kassel@math.univ-lille1.fr
Ruprecht-Karls Universität Heidelberg, Mathematisches Institut, Im Neuenheimer
Feld 288, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
HITS gGmbH, Heidelberg Institute for Theoretical Studies, Schloss-Wolfsbrunnenweg 35, 69118 Heidelberg, Germany
E-mail address: wienhard@mathi.uni-heidelberg.de

