Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 65 references

Affine Anosov representations

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper proposes that proper affine actions of word-hyperbolic groups are exactly those whose linear part is Anosov and whose normalized Margulis invariant spectrum avoids zero.

desk verdict A well-written survey of the affine Anosov program that is honest about being expository, but the key properness equivalence has an unstated closure assumption in M-Spec and the only new theorem lacks proof. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.17422 v1 pith:WHLKK5FO submitted 2024-12-23 math.DS math.DGmath.GT

Sourav Ghosh This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.DSmath.DGmath.GT MSC 22E4037D4020F67
keywords affineAnosovrepresentationsMargulisinvariantsproperactionswordhyperbolicgroupsisospectralrigiditypressuremetricnon-swinging
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This survey article develops a notion of affine Anosov representation for discrete subgroups of affine groups whose linear part is a real semisimple Lie group. The central proposal is that the affine analogue of the Anosov uniform eigenvalue-gap condition is: the linear representation must be Anosov, and the normalized Margulis invariant spectrum of the affine representation must not contain $0$. Under a rank-one-like condition, the paper states that this is equivalent to the affine group acting properly discontinuously on the vector space, generalizing the classical singular-value and eigenvalue gap characterizations of Anosov representations. The survey also collects rigidity results saying that two representations with matching Jordan projections, Cartan projections, or Margulis invariants on a finite ball are conjugate, and it constructs a pressure metric on spaces of affine Anosov representations in the split orthogonal case. If these results hold, proper affine actions of word-hyperbolic groups become a question of uniform growth of a real invariant, tractable by the methods of Anosov dynamics.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Margulis invariant. For a loxodromic affine transformation $(g,v)$ whose Jordan projection has the same type as a fixed generic, symmetric, extreme element $X_R$, the invariant is $M(g,v)=\pi_0(h^{-1}v)$, the $V^0$-component of the translation vector after conjugating $g$ into the split Cartan subgroup; for the adjoint representation it is an infinitesimal version of the Jordan projection. The paper normalizes it by the translation length $\ell(\gamma)$ in the Gromov flow space and forms the spectrum $\operatorname{M-Spec}(\rho,u)=\{M(\rho(\gamma),u(\gamma))/\ell(\gamma):\gamma\in\Gamma\}$, which is convex. The affine Anosov definition combines two mechanisms: a flow-contraction condition on the affine flag bundle (equivalent, by Proposition 7.2, to $\rho$ being Anosov) and the spectral condition $0\notin\operatorname{M-Spec}(\rho,u)$. The rank-one-like hypothesis of Theorem 7.4, that the spectrum lies in a line inside $V^0$, is what allows the paper to pass from spectral data to properness of the action. The whole framework is set up for non-swinging representations, those admitting a generic, symmetric, extreme element $X_R$.

What would settle it

One concrete falsifier: take a word-hyperbolic group $\Gamma$ and a non-swinging Anosov linear representation $\rho$, and write down a cocycle $u$ such that along some diverging sequence $\{\gamma_n\}$ the Margulis invariants $M(\rho(\gamma_n),u(\gamma_n))$ remain bounded while the translation lengths $\ell(\gamma_n)$ diverge. Theorems 5.2 and 7.4 predict that $(\rho,u)(\Gamma)$ does not act properly on $V$; exhibiting such a pair that does act properly would refute the claimed equivalence. The check is explicit in $SO(2n,2n-1)\ltimes\mathbb{R}^{4n-1}$, where the Margulis invariant is a real number computable from the root-space decomposition.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that affine Anosov representations are the correct generalization of Anosov representations to the affine setting. A representation $(\rho,u):\Gamma\to G\ltimes_R V$ is called partially affine Anosov if it satisfies the same flow contraction and dilation conditions as an Anosov representation on the bundle of affine flag spaces; by Proposition 7.2 this is equivalent to the linear part $\rho$ being Anosov with respect to the parabolic subgroups $P_R^\pm$. The representation is called affine Anosov if additionally $0$ is not in the normalized Margulis invariant spectrum $\operatorname{M-Spec}(\rho,u)$, the set of values $M(\rho(\gamma),u(\gamma))/\ell(\gamma)$ where $M$ is the Margulis invariant and $\ell$ is the translation length in the Gromov flow space. Theorem 7.4 asserts that when $\operatorname{M-Spec}(\rho,u)$ lies in a one-dimensional subspace of $V^0$, the affine group acts properly discontinuously on $V$ if and only if $(\rho,u)$ is affine Anosov. The survey presents this as the affine version of the uniform gap theorem: the linear gaps are replaced by the single condition that normalized Margulis invariants stay away from zero.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is the quoted theorem that bounded Margulis invariants along a diverging sequence exactly detect non-properness (and hence that $0\notin\operatorname{M-Spec}(\rho,u)$ detects properness), a result whose proof is not included here; the framework also assumes a non-swinging representation, and Theorem 6.2 is stated with no proof or citation at all.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Properness of affine actions of word-hyperbolic groups becomes a spectral gap condition: verifying that $0$ lies outside the normalized Margulis invariant spectrum certifies a proper action, in parallel with how singular-value gaps certify Anosov representations.
  • The finite-ball rigidity theorems imply that Zariski-dense loxodromic representations are finitely determined by their spectral data: matching Jordan projections, Cartan projections, or Margulis invariants on a fixed finite set forces conjugacy.
  • In the split pseudo-orthogonal case, the space of affine Anosov representations carries a pressure form whose restriction to constant-entropy sections is a Riemannian metric, so the representation space inherits a metric geometry from the dynamics.
  • Because partial affine Anosov is equivalent to the linear part being Anosov, the genuinely new content of the affine theory is the Margulis spectrum: the linear dynamics of the group and the translational data are cleanly separated.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the equivalence is correct, properness of an affine action can be detected without constructing fundamental domains: it suffices to control the normalized Margulis invariants uniformly, which can be approximated by sampling along geodesics in the Gromov flow space.
  • The one-dimensional-spectrum hypothesis in Theorem 7.4 looks like a technical convenience rather than a conceptual boundary; the natural next step, which the paper says is in progress, is to extend the equivalence to spectra spanning higher-dimensional subspaces of $V^0$.
  • The finite-ball rigidity results suggest an algorithmic consequence the author does not state: deciding conjugacy of two such representations could be a finite computation once the explicit spectral bounds are evaluated.
  • The pressure-metric construction hints at a curvature theory for spaces of proper affine deformations analogous to the geometry of classical moduli spaces, which could be used to study degenerations of Margulis spacetimes.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This survey article proposes a definition of 'affine Anosov representations' for subgroups of the affine group G⋉V whose linear parts are Anosov into a semisimple Lie group G, and claims that, under rank-one-like hypotheses, an affine representation acts properly discontinuously on V if and only if it is affine Anosov in the sense of Definition 7.3. The paper reviews background material on Gromov flow spaces, Anosov representations, Margulis invariants, and several rigidity results, and it applies the framework to split pseudo-orthogonal groups, where it also sketches thermodynamic constructions (topological entropy, intersection number, pressure form). Many of the central theorems are quoted from the author's own arXiv preprints, and Section 6 states one theorem (Theorem 6.2) without proof or citation.

Significance. If the main equivalence were correct, the paper would offer a useful survey connecting proper affine actions of word-hyperbolic groups to a uniform-growth condition on normalized Margulis invariants, generalizing Theorems 3.2 and 3.3. The background exposition of standard material (restricted roots, Gromov flow, Anosov representations, singular value gaps) is accurate, and the manuscript is honest about which parts are work in progress. However, the central definition in Section 7 is flawed as printed: the spectral condition 0 ∉ M-Spec is not equivalent to properness, because non-properness yields only that 0 lies in the closure of M-Spec. Thus the paper's main theorem does not follow from the given definitions. The paper also states Theorem 6.2 with no proof or reference, so the one apparent new result is unsupported. These issues are local and fixable by a corrected definition (e.g., using the closure or convex hull of M-Spec), so the contribution is potentially significant after revision.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 7, M-Spec definition and Definition 7.3] The passage after the definition of M-Spec(ρ,u) claims that if the action is not proper, then 0 ∈ M-Spec(ρ,u). This is not valid: Theorem 5.2 only supplies a diverging sequence with M(ρ(γ_n), u(γ_n)) bounded, so the normalized values M(ρ(γ_n),u(γ_n))/ℓ(γ_n) converge to 0; without closedness of the literal set, 0 need not be an element of M-Spec. Consequently, a non-proper action whose normalized Margulis invariants accumulate at 0 without attaining it would satisfy Definition 7.3 and be called affine Anosov, contradicting the claimed implication from affine Anosov to properness and undermining Theorem 7.4. The definition should use 0 ∉ closure(M-Spec), or M-Spec should be defined as a closed limit spectrum/convex hull, and Theorem 7.4 should be verifi against that condition.
  2. [Section 7, convexity claim for M-Spec] The same paragraph asserts that M-Spec(ρ,u) is a convex set. For the literal set defined in the manuscript, the set of normalized Margulis invariants of a discrete hyperbolic group need not be convex or closed; convexity can at best hold for the convex hull or for an asymptotic/limit spectrum. Since this assertion is used to justify the 0 ∈ M-Spec conclusion, it is load-bearing and requires either a precise statement with proof or a reference to a version where M-Spec is explicitly defined as a convex hull or closed spectrum.
  3. [Section 6, Theorem 6.2] Theorem 6.2 is stated without proof or citation. It is presented as a partial answer to Question 2, but the reader cannot verify it from the survey. If this theorem is new, a proof should be included (or at least a precise reference to a preprint); if it is intended as an example of the author's work, the source should be cited. As written, this unsupported theorem does not add to the survey's reliability.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and title] The abstract contains the phrase 'we discuss about possible generalizations'; 'discuss about' should be 'discuss'. The title in the provided text has an apparent spacing error ('REPRESENT A TIONS'), which should be corrected to 'REPRESENTATIONS'.
  2. [Section 7, Definition 7.3] The condition '0 /∈ M-Spec' is typeset with a forward slash; it should be '0 ∉ M-Spec' for clarity.
  3. [Section 9, definition of f_M] In the definition of f_M, the notation 'χred_A(A)v' is unclear; presumably a reduced characteristic polynomial evaluated at A is meant, but the repeated subscript is confusing and should be clarified.
  4. [Section 7, Proposition 7.2] The name 'partially affine Anosov' is misleading because Proposition 7.2 shows the property is equivalent to the linear part ρ being Anosov, so the cocycle u plays no role in the 'partial' condition. The survey should explicitly explain what the affine part adds in Definition 7.3 and why the qualifier 'partial' is used.
  5. [General] Several core theorems (5.2, 7.4, 8.1, 8.2, 9.1, 9.2, 10.2) are quoted from arXiv-only preprints. A table or clear indication distinguishing theorems proved in the paper from those quoted from published or unpublished sources would help the reader assess the survey's reliance on work in progress.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Theorem 7.4's properness/affine-Anosov equivalence is built into Definition 7.3 and imported from the author's own preprint [Gho23a], rather than independently derived.

  1. self definitional [Section 7, from the paragraph before Definition 7.3 through Definition 7.3 and Theorem 7.4]
    "We take inspiration from this definition and also closely notice the equivalent criterion for proper affine actions in terms of Margulis invariants to define the notion of an affine Anosov representation. ... We also observe that if the action of (ρ, u)(Γ) on V is not proper, then there exists a sequence {γ_n} ... such that M(ρ(γ_n), u(γ_n)) stays bounded and {ℓ(γ_n)} diverges. Hence, it follows that 0 ∈ M-Spec(ρ, u). ... An injective homomorphism (ρ, u) : Γ → G ⋉R V is called (Q+R,Q−R)-affine Anosov if it is partially ... and 0 /∈ M-Spec(ρ, u)."

    The displayed M-Spec is a literal set of normalized Margulis invariants, so the inference 'non-proper ⇒ 0 ∈ M-Spec' is valid only if M-Spec is closed, or is understood as its closure/convex hull. Under that unstated convention, Definition 7.3's condition '0∉M-Spec' is exactly the negation of the paper's own non-properness criterion from Theorem 5.2: existence of a diverging sequence with bounded Margulis invariant. Thus 'affine Anosov' is defined, by construction, to mean 'linear Anosov plus proper action.' Theorem 7.4 then restates this equivalence rather than deriving it; the central claim reduces to the definition together with the author's own properness criterion.

  2. self citation load bearing [Theorem 5.2 and Theorem 7.4, both attributed to [Gho23a]]
    "Theorem 5.2 ([Gho23a]). ... Then the action of (ρ, u)(Γ) on V is not proper if and only if there exists a diverging sequence {γ_n} ... such that M(ρ(γ_n), u(γ_n)) stays bounded. ... Theorem 7.4 ([Gho23a]). Suppose Γ is word hyperbolic, R is non-swinging and (ρ, u) : Γ → G ⋉R V is an injective homomorphism ... Then (ρ, u)(Γ) acts properly discontinuously on V if and only if (ρ, u) is affine Anosov ..."

    The survey's central equivalence is not proved in the paper; it is quoted from the author's own arXiv-only preprint [Gho23a]. The same preprint supplies Theorem 5.2, the properness criterion on which Definition 7.3 is explicitly modeled. Removing [Gho23a] leaves the definition unmotivated and Theorem 7.4 unproved, so the main derivation chain is a load-bearing self-citation rather than an independent argument or an externally verified result.

full rationale

The two-step circularity is concentrated in Section 7. The paper defines M-Spec as a literal set but then infers that non-properness forces 0∈M-Spec; this requires M-Spec to be closed or replaced by its closure/convex hull. As printed the inference is false: normalized Margulis invariants can accumulate at 0 without ever equaling 0. If M-Spec is taken to be the closed convex hull, then Definition 7.3's condition 0∉M-Spec is precisely the negation of the non-properness criterion in Theorem 5.2, so the 'if' direction of Theorem 7.4 is definitional, and the converse is inherited verbatim from [Gho23a]. The survey is transparent that the definition was inspired by the properness criterion, which mitigates the severity, and the linear-Anosov content of Proposition 7.2 is independent, so a score of 6 is appropriate rather than 8 or 10. Separately, Theorem 6.2 is stated without proof or citation, a completeness gap but not a circular step. The score also reflects that the central theorem is not self-contained but rests on the author's own unshown preprint chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The survey's central equivalence and rigidity results rely on (1) standard infrastructure of hyperbolic groups and semisimple Lie theory, (2) the domain restriction to non-swinging representations, and (3) the correctness of theorems imported from the author's own arXiv-only preprints, none of which are proved in this document. No numerical parameters are fitted to data, but the choice of X_R in Section 5 is a hand-fixed input that shapes every subsequent definition, and the affine Anosov notion itself is a definition built to match the properness criterion.

free parameters (1)
  • Choice of X_R (generic, symmetric, extreme element of a+)
    Fixed by hand in Section 5 to define the parabolic subgroups P±_R, the splitting V = V+ ⊕ V0 ⊕ V−, and the Margulis invariant; the content of every subsequent theorem depends on this choice, and the survey gives no uniqueness result.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math The Gromov flow space UΓ exists for every finitely generated word hyperbolic group with the stated Lipschitz and isometric properties (Gromov [Gro87], Champetier [Cha94], Mineyev [Min05]).
    Section 2 uses ŨΓ = ∂∞Γ^{(2)} × R and the Γ action commuting with the flow as the ambient space for defining Anosov and affine Anosov representations; the survey cites rather than proves these properties.
  • standard math Uniform eigenvalue and singular value gap criteria characterize Anosov representations (Kapovich–Leeb–Porti [KLP18], Bochi–Potrie–Sambarino [BPS19], Kassel–Potrie [KP22]).
    Theorems 3.2 and 3.3 are quoted without proof and underpin the linear Anosov side of the affine notion.
  • domain assumption The representation R is non-swinging, i.e., there exists a generic, symmetric, extreme X_R in a+ (Smilga [Smi18]).
    Section 5: 'Henceforth, we only consider non-swinging representations.' All subsequent definitions (P±_R, Margulis invariant, affine Anosov) are restricted to this class; the survey never quantifies how large the class is.
  • domain assumption The cited rigidity and properness theorems of the author's arXiv-only preprints [Gho23a] and [Gho21] are correct.
    Theorems 5.2, 7.4, 8.1, 8.2, 9.1, and 9.2 carry the survey's central claims and are imported without proof or indication of peer-review status.
  • standard math Standard restricted root and weight data, Cartan involutions, Jordan decomposition, and Weyl group facts for real semisimple Lie groups (Knapp [Kna02]).
    Section 4 sets up the root space decomposition, Weyl group, Killing form, and Cartan involution used throughout; these are background from the textbook literature.
invented entities (2)
  • Affine Anosov representations (Definitions 7.1 and 7.3)
    purpose: Proposed affine analogue of Anosov representations designed so that proper affine actions are equivalent to 0 not lying in the normalized Margulis invariant spectrum M-Spec(ρ,u).
    The notion is introduced by the author in [Gho17, Gho18b, Gho23a] and is engineered around the author's own properness criterion; the supporting equivalence theorems 5.2 and 7.4 are quoted from the unpublished preprint [Gho23a].
  • Topological entropy h_{ρ,u} and intersection number I of affine Anosov representations
    purpose: Used to build a pressure metric on the space A_n of affine Anosov representations (Theorem 10.2).
    Defined in Section 10 from [Gho23b]; existence and analyticity are imported from the author's published work, and the resulting metric claim (Theorem 10.2) cannot be checked from the survey alone.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Affine Anosov representations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WHLKK5FO

@misc{pith2026241217422,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Affine Anosov representations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WHLKK5FO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.17422}
}
read the original abstract

In this survey article we discuss about possible generalizations of Anosov representations in the affine setting and their consequences.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 55 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Lars V. Ahlfors. Some remarks on T eichm\"uller's space of R iemann surfaces. Ann. of Math. (2) , 74:171--191, 1961

    work page 1961

  2. [2]

    Auslander and L

    L. Auslander and L. Markus. Flat L orentz 3 -manifolds. Mem. Amer. Math. Soc. No. , 30:60, 1959

    work page 1959

  3. [3]

    Abels, G

    H. Abels, G. A. Margulis, and G. A. Soifer. On the Z ariski closure of the linear part of a properly discontinuous group of affine transformations. J. Differential Geom. , 60(2):315--344, 2002

    work page 2002

  4. [4]

    Abels , G

    H. Abels , G. A. Margulis , and G. A. Soifer . The Auslander conjecture for dimension less then 7 . arXiv e-prints , page arXiv:2011.12788, November 2020

    arXiv 2011

  5. [5]

    Auslander

    L. Auslander. The structure of complete locally affine manifolds. Topology , 3(suppl. 1):131--139, 1964

    work page 1964

  6. [6]

    Three-dimensional A nosov flag manifolds

    Thierry Barbot. Three-dimensional A nosov flag manifolds. Geom. Topol. , 14(1):153--191, 2010

    work page 2010

  7. [7]

    Bridgeman, R

    M. Bridgeman, R. Canary, F. Labourie, and A. Sambarino. The pressure metric for A nosov representations. Geom. Funct. Anal. , 25(4):1089--1179, 2015

    work page 2015

  8. [8]

    U ber die B ewegungsgruppen der E uklidischen R \

    Ludwig Bieberbach. \" U ber die B ewegungsgruppen der E uklidischen R \" a ume. Math. Ann. , 70(3):297--336, 1911

    work page 1911

Show all 65 references
  1. [9]

    U ber die B ewegungsgruppen der E uklidischen R \

    Ludwig Bieberbach. \" U ber die B ewegungsgruppen der E uklidischen R \" a ume ( Z weite A bhandlung.) D ie G ruppen mit einem endlichen F undamentalbereich. Math. Ann. , 72(3):400--412, 1912

    1912

  2. [10]

    The geometry of T eichm\" u ller space via geodesic currents

    Francis Bonahon. The geometry of T eichm\" u ller space via geodesic currents. Invent. Math. , 92(1):139--162, 1988

    1988

  3. [11]

    Equilibrium states and the ergodic theory of A nosov diffeomorphisms , volume 470 of Lecture Notes in Mathematics

    Rufus Bowen. Equilibrium states and the ergodic theory of A nosov diffeomorphisms , volume 470 of Lecture Notes in Mathematics . Springer-Verlag, Berlin, revised edition, 2008. With a preface by David Ruelle, Edited by Jean-Ren\' e Chazottes

    2008

  4. [12]

    Anosov representations and dominated splittings

    Jairo Bochi, Rafael Potrie, and Andr\' e s Sambarino. Anosov representations and dominated splittings. J. Eur. Math. Soc. (JEMS) , 21(11):3343--3414, 2019

    2019

  5. [13]

    Bridgeman and Edward C

    Martin J. Bridgeman and Edward C. Taylor. An extension of the W eil- P etersson metric to quasi- F uchsian space. Math. Ann. , 341(4):927--943, 2008

    2008

  6. [14]

    A geometric proof of bieberbach's theorems on crystallographic groups

    Peter Buser. A geometric proof of bieberbach's theorems on crystallographic groups. Enseignement Mathématique (2) , 31(1-2):137--145, 1985

    1985

  7. [15]

    Proper affine deformations of positive representations

    Jean-Philippe Burelle and Ne z a Z ager Korenjak . Proper affine deformations of positive representations . arXiv e-prints , page arXiv:2405.14658, May 2024

    2024 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Charette and T

    V. Charette and T. Drumm. Strong marked isospectrality of affine L orentzian groups. J. Differential Geom. , 66(3):437--452, 03 2004

    2004

  9. [17]

    Champetier

    C. Champetier. Petite simplification dans les groupes hyperboliques. Annales de la Facult\'e des sciences de Toulouse : Math\'ematiques , 3(2):161--221, 1994

    1994

  10. [18]

    T. A. Drumm and W. M. Goldman. Isospectrality of flat lorentz 3-manifolds. J. Differential Geom. , 58(3):457--465, 07 2001

    2001

  11. [19]

    Danciger, F

    J. Danciger, F. Gu \'e ritaud, and F. Kassel. Geometry and topology of complete L orentz spacetimes of constant curvature. Ann. Sci. \'Ec. Norm. Sup\'er. (4) , 49(1):1--56, 2016

    2016

  12. [20]

    Danciger, F

    J. Danciger, F. Gu \'e ritaud, and F. Kassel. Margulis spacetimes via the arc complex. Invent. Math. , 204(1):133--193, 2016

    2016

  13. [21]

    Convex cocompact actions in real projective geometry

    Jeffrey Danciger , Fran c ois Gu \'e ritaud , and Fanny Kassel . Convex cocompact actions in real projective geometry . arXiv e-prints , page arXiv:1704.08711, April 2017

    2017 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Convex cocompactness in pseudo- R iemannian hyperbolic spaces

    Jeffrey Danciger, Fran cois Gu\'eritaud, and Fanny Kassel. Convex cocompactness in pseudo- R iemannian hyperbolic spaces. Geom. Dedicata , 192:87--126, 2018

    2018

  15. [23]

    Proper affine actions for right-angled C oxeter groups

    Jeffrey Danciger, Fran c ois Gu\' e ritaud, and Fanny Kassel. Proper affine actions for right-angled C oxeter groups. Duke Math. J. , 169(12):2231--2280, 2020

    2020

  16. [24]

    T. A. Drumm. Fundamental polyhedra for M argulis space-times. Topology , 31(4):677--683, 1992

    1992

  17. [25]

    Affine actions with H itchin linear part

    Jeffrey Danciger and Tengren Zhang. Affine actions with H itchin linear part. Geom. Funct. Anal. , 29(5):1369--1439, 2019

    2019

  18. [26]

    Fried and W

    D. Fried and W. M. Goldman. Three-dimensional affine crystallographic groups. Adv. in Math. , 47(1):1--49, 1983

    1983

  19. [27]

    Anosov representations and proper actions

    Fran c ois Gu\' e ritaud, Olivier Guichard, Fanny Kassel, and Anna Wienhard. Anosov representations and proper actions. Geom. Topol. , 21(1):485--584, 2017

    2017

  20. [28]

    S. Ghosh. Anosov structures on M argulis spacetimes. Groups Geom. Dyn. , 11(2):739--775, 2017

    2017

  21. [29]

    Avatars of Margulis invariants and proper actions

    Sourav Ghosh . Avatars of Margulis invariants and proper actions . arXiv e-prints , page arXiv:1812.03777, Dec 2018

    2018 arXiv

  22. [30]

    The pressure metric on the M argulis multiverse

    Sourav Ghosh. The pressure metric on the M argulis multiverse. Geom. Dedicata , 193:1--30, 2018

    2018

  23. [31]

    Isospectrality of Margulis-Smilga spacetimes for irreducible representations of real split semisimple Lie groups

    Sourav Ghosh . Isospectrality of Margulis-Smilga spacetimes for irreducible representations of real split semisimple Lie groups . arXiv e-prints , page arXiv:2009.12746, September 2020

    2009

  24. [32]

    Finite step Rigidity of Hitchin representations and special Margulis-Smilga spacetimes

    Sourav Ghosh . Finite step Rigidity of Hitchin representations and special Margulis-Smilga spacetimes . arXiv e-prints , page arXiv:2107.01626, July 2021

    2021 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Deformation of Fuchsian representations and proper affine actions

    Sourav Ghosh . Deformation of Fuchsian representations and proper affine actions . arXiv e-prints , page arXiv:2312.16655, December 2023

    2023 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Margulis multiverse: I nfinitesimal rigidity, pressure form and convexity

    Sourav Ghosh. Margulis multiverse: I nfinitesimal rigidity, pressure form and convexity. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. , 376(6):4239--4272, 2023

    2023

  27. [35]

    W. M. Goldman, F. Labourie, and G. Margulis. Proper affine actions and geodesic flows of hyperbolic surfaces. Ann. of Math. (2) , 170(3):1051--1083, 2009

    2009

  28. [36]

    Goldman and Gregory A

    William M. Goldman and Gregory A. Margulis. Flat L orentz 3-manifolds and cocompact F uchsian groups. In Crystallographic Groups and Their Generalizations: Workshop, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven Campus Kortrijk, Belgium, May 26-28, 1999 , Contemporary mathematics - American ...

    1999

  29. [37]

    M. Gromov. Hyperbolic groups. In Essays in group theory , volume 8 of Math. Sci. Res. Inst. Publ. , pages 75--263. Springer, New York, 1987

    1987

  30. [38]

    Affine A nosov representations and proper actions

    Sourav Ghosh and Nicolaus Treib. Affine A nosov representations and proper actions. Int. Math. Res. Not. IMRN , (16):14334--14367, 2023

    2023

  31. [39]

    Composantes de H itchin et repr\' e sentations hyperconvexes de groupes de surface

    Olivier Guichard. Composantes de H itchin et repr\' e sentations hyperconvexes de groupes de surface. J. Differential Geom. , 80(3):391--431, 2008

    2008

  32. [40]

    Guichard and A

    O. Guichard and A. Wienhard. Anosov representations: domains of discontinuity and applications. Invent. Math. , 190(2):357--438, 2012

    2012

  33. [41]

    N. J. Hitchin. Lie groups and T eichm\" u ller space. Topology , 31(3):449--473, 1992

    1992

  34. [42]

    Kapovich and N

    I. Kapovich and N. Benakli. Boundaries of hyperbolic groups. In Combinatorial and geometric group theory ( N ew Y ork, 2000/ H oboken, NJ , 2001) , volume 296 of Contemp. Math. , pages 39--93. Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2002

    2000

  35. [43]

    I. Kim. Affine action and margulis invariant. Journal of Functional Analysis , 219(1):205--225, 2005

    2005

  36. [44]

    A M orse lemma for quasigeodesics in symmetric spaces and E uclidean buildings

    Michael Kapovich, Bernhard Leeb, and Joan Porti. A M orse lemma for quasigeodesics in symmetric spaces and E uclidean buildings. Geom. Topol. , 22(7):3827--3923, 2018

    2018

  37. [45]

    Anthony W. Knapp. Lie groups beyond an introduction , volume 140 of Progress in Mathematics . Birkh\" a user Boston, Inc., Boston, MA, second edition, 2002

    2002

  38. [46]

    Eigenvalue gaps for hyperbolic groups and semigroups

    Fanny Kassel and Rafael Potrie. Eigenvalue gaps for hyperbolic groups and semigroups. J. Mod. Dyn. , 18:161--208, 2022

    2022

  39. [47]

    Labourie

    F. Labourie. Fuchsian affine actions of surface groups. J. Differential Geom. , 59(1):15--31, 09 2001

    2001

  40. [48]

    Labourie

    F. Labourie. Anosov flows, surface groups and curves in projective space. Invent. Math. , 165(1):51--114, 2006

    2006

  41. [49]

    Entropy and affine actions for surface groups

    Fran c ois Labourie. Entropy and affine actions for surface groups. J. Topol. , 15(3):1017--1033, 2022

    2022

  42. [50]

    Variations along the F uchsian locus

    Fran c ois Labourie and Richard Wentworth. Variations along the F uchsian locus. Ann. Sci. \' E c. Norm. Sup\' e r. (4) , 51(2):487--547, 2018

    2018

  43. [51]

    G. A. Margulis. Free completely discontinuous groups of affine transformations. Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR , 272(4):785--788, 1983

    1983

  44. [52]

    G. A. Margulis. Complete affine locally flat manifolds with a free fundamental group. Zap. Nauchn. Sem. Leningrad. Otdel. Mat. Inst. Steklov. (LOMI) , 134:190--205, 1984. Automorphic functions and number theory, II

    1984

  45. [53]

    G. A. Margulis. Discrete subgroups of semisimple L ie groups , volume 17 of Ergebnisse der Mathematik und ihrer Grenzgebiete (3) [Results in Mathematics and Related Areas (3)] . Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1991

    1991

  46. [54]

    McMullen

    Curtis T. McMullen. Thermodynamics, dimension and the W eil- P etersson metric. Invent. Math. , 173(2):365--425, 2008

    2008

  47. [55]

    G. Mess. Lorentz spacetimes of constant curvature. Geom. Dedicata , 126:3--45, 2007

    2007

  48. [56]

    J. Milnor. On fundamental groups of complete affinely flat manifolds. Advances in Math. , 25(2):178--187, 1977

    1977

  49. [57]

    I. Mineyev. Flows and joins of metric spaces. Geometry and Topology , 9:403--482, 2005

    2005

  50. [58]

    G. D. Mostow. Quasi-conformal mappings in n -space and the rigidity of hyperbolic space forms. Inst. Hautes \'Etudes Sci. Publ. Math. , (34):53--104, 1968

    1968

  51. [59]

    Strong rigidity of Q -rank 1 lattices

    Gopal Prasad. Strong rigidity of Q -rank 1 lattices. Invent. Math. , 21:255--286, 1973

    1973

  52. [60]

    Asymptotic properties of infinitesimal characters and applications

    Andr \'e s Sambarino . Asymptotic properties of infinitesimal characters and applications . arXiv e-prints , page arXiv:2406.06250, June 2024

    2024

  53. [61]

    Proper affine actions in non-swinging representations

    Ilia Smilga. Proper affine actions in non-swinging representations. Groups Geom. Dyn. , 12(2):449--528, 2018

    2018

  54. [62]

    Proper affine actions: a sufficient criterion

    Ilia Smilga. Proper affine actions: a sufficient criterion. Math. Ann. , 382(1-2):513--605, 2022

    2022

  55. [63]

    a user Classics. Birkh\

    T. A. Springer. Linear algebraic groups . Modern Birkh\" a user Classics. Birkh\" a user Boston, Inc., Boston, MA, second edition, 2009

    2009

  56. [64]

    Constructing proper affine actions via higher strip deformations

    Ne z a Z ager Korenjak . Constructing proper affine actions via higher strip deformations . arXiv e-prints , page arXiv:2205.14712, May 2022

    2022 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Scott A. Wolpert. Thurston's R iemannian metric for T eichm\"uller space. J. Differential Geom. , 23(2):143--174, 1986

    1986

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.