Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Unitary dual of $p$-adic split $\mathrm{SO}_{2n+1}$ and $\mathrm{Sp}_{2n}$: The good parity case (and slightly beyond)

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read For p-adic split SO(2n+1) and Sp(2n), good-parity unitary representations are exactly the Arthur-type ones.

desk verdict Settles the good-parity unitary dual conjecture for p-adic split SO/Sp; the proof is dense and coherent, but the referee should verify the hypotheses of the [5, Theorem 1.1] black box and a couple of skipped details. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.09991 v1 pith:K2PC4HXM submitted 2025-05-15 math.RT math.NT

Hiraku Atobe , Alberto Minguez This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.RTmath.NT MSC 22D1022E5011S37
keywords unitarydualp-adicclassicalgroupsArthurtyperepresentationsgoodparityA-packetsparabolicinductionJacquetmodulesSpeh
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper claims that, for a $p$-adic field $F$ and $G$ either split $\mathrm{SO}_{2n+1}(F)$ or $\mathrm{Sp}_{2n}(F)$, an irreducible smooth representation of $G$ of 'good parity' is unitary exactly when it is of Arthur type. Good parity isolates the part of a representation's Langlands parameter that is self-dual of the same type as $G$, and Arthur type means the representation appears in an $A$-packet attached to the endoscopic classification of automorphic representations. The result settles a conjecture about the unitary dual that had been refined in recent work, and it makes the good-parity unitary dual computable: existing algorithms that test whether a representation is of Arthur type now double as unitarity tests. The paper also classifies unitarity slightly beyond good parity, for representations induced from unitary Speh representations with small positive exponents over an Arthur-type good-parity base.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the SZ-decomposition, which writes any irreducible representation $\pi$ as the socle of a parabolic induction $\tau_r \times \cdots \times \tau_1 \rtimes \pi_0$, where each $\tau_i$ is a product of copies of a segment representation and $\pi_0$ satisfies an 'almost no derivatives' condition: its $\rho$-derivatives vanish unless the exponent lies in $\{0, \tfrac12\}$. The proof runs an induction along the sequence of socles $\pi_i = \mathrm{soc}(\tau_i \rtimes \pi_{i-1})$. The key mechanism is a shared-subrepresentation argument: unitarity of the whole representation forces $S \rtimes \pi_i$ and $\mathrm{soc}(\tau_i \times S) \rtimes \pi_{i-1}$ to have a common irreducible subrepresentation for a suitably chosen unitary Speh representation $S$; a Jacquet-module inequality then transfers Arthur-type structure from $\pi_{i-1}$ to $\pi_i$. The base case, where no derivatives occur outside $\{0, \tfrac12\}$, is handled by the explicit construction of $A$-packets in terms of extended multi-segments, which the paper uses to show that the base representation is of Arthur type.

What would settle it

Run the known Arthur-type detection algorithm on every irreducible good-parity representation of a small-rank group such as $\mathrm{Sp}_4(F)$ or $\mathrm{SO}_5(F)$ and compare with a direct unitarity test: a good-parity representation that is unitary but fails the Arthur-type test would refute the main theorem.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is a two-way identification: for irreducible representations of good parity of split $\mathrm{SO}_{2n+1}(F)$ and $\mathrm{Sp}_{2n}(F)$, being unitary and being of Arthur type are the same property. The forward direction is the established theorem that $A$-packets consist of unitary representations. The reverse direction is proved by showing that the good-parity part of any irreducible unitary representation is of Arthur type (Theorem 3.1); this is obtained by an inductive argument through a canonical decomposition of the representation into a socle of parabolically induced pieces, in which each step preserves Arthur type under the hypothesis of unitarity. A direct corollary is that the good-parity part of the unitary dual coincides with the set of local components of discrete automorphic representations in that case.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is a previously proved classification result, used as a black box, that certain induced representations built from an Arthur-type representation have only Arthur-type summands of an explicitly described shape. The paper does not reprove it; if that result were false, the induction from unitarity to Arthur type would not go through.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Every irreducible unitary representation of good parity of split $\mathrm{SO}_{2n+1}(F)$ or $\mathrm{Sp}_{2n}(F)$ is a local component of a discrete automorphic representation, and conversely such local components are unitary.
  • Unitarity of a given good-parity representation becomes algorithmically decidable: apply an Arthur-type test; the answer coincides with unitarity.
  • For any irreducible unitary representation (not necessarily good parity), its good-parity part is of Arthur type, so the remaining unknown in the full unitary dual is concentrated in the bad-parity part.
  • Just beyond good parity, for representations of the form $\times_i \mathrm{Sp}(\rho_i,c_i,d_i)|\cdot|^{x_i} \rtimes \pi_0$ with $0 \le x_i < \tfrac12$ and $\pi_0$ Arthur-type of good parity, unitarity is characterized by matching exponents for non-self-dual $\rho_i$ and by irreducibility of $\mathrm{Sp}(\rho,c,d) \rtimes \pi_0$ when the relevant index set has odd size.
  • The good-parity result is conjectured to extend to all quasi-split classical groups once the underlying classification of Arthur-type representations is extended accordingly.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the main theorem is correct, the full unitary dual now splits into a known good-parity part and a residual bad-parity part; the bad-parity behaviour is governed by complementary series attached to Speh representations, and a complete classification would need analytic control of first reducibility points, as the paper itself notes.
  • The shared-subrepresentation technique, where unitarity forces a common irreducible subrepresentation of two differently induced representations, looks transferable; a similar mechanism may work for real groups or for quasi-split unitary groups once the corresponding $A$-packet construction is available.
  • Theorem 4.1 suggests a simple combinatorial rule for unitarity just beyond good parity: matching of exponents between $\rho$ and $\rho^\vee$ and a parity condition on packet sizes. A testable extension would be to verify the same rule for larger exponents $x_i$ or for other classical groups.
  • The example discussed in Remark 3.6 and Section 5.2 shows that Langlands data alone do not make unitarity visible; if the main theorem is right, such unitary representations are still Arthur type, so their extended multi-segment description carries the unitarity information that the Langlands data hide.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper proves that for F a p-adic field and G a split SO_{2n+1} or Sp_{2n}, an irreducible smooth representation of G of good parity is unitary if and only if it is of Arthur type (Theorem 1.1, Corollary 3.2). The authors prove the stronger Theorem 3.1: for any irreducible unitary representation π, the good-parity part π(φ_good, ε) is of Arthur type. The proof uses an SZ-decomposition of π, reducing to an induction step (Theorem 3.3) whose engine is Proposition 3.5 and a technical Jacquet-module inequality (Lemma 3.7); the base case is handled by Theorem 3.13 via Mœglin's construction. The paper also determines unitarity for representations of the form ×_i Sp(ρ_i,c_i,d_i)|·|^{x_i} ⋊ π_0 with π_0 of Arthur type of good parity and 0 ≤ x_i < 1/2 (Theorem 4.1), confirming a conjecture from [21], and discusses phenomena beyond this range.

Significance. If correct, Theorem 1.1 is a major advance: it gives a complete description of the good-parity part of the unitary dual for split SO_{2n+1} and Sp_{2n}, identifies it with local Arthur packets, and, combined with the algorithms of [6] and [22], yields an explicit unitarity test. The treatment is honest and careful: Remark 3.6 explicitly records a false initial expectation (with credit to Gurevich) and works around it, and the paper states a stronger result (Theorem 3.1) than the title promises. The proof is long and technically sophisticated, using ρ-derivatives and Mœglin's classification. The verification of the central claim, however, depends on an external theorem [5, Theorem 1.1] whose hypotheses are not checked in the paper; this is the main weakness.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 3.6, proof of Proposition 3.5(2)] In the proof of Proposition 3.5(2) (Section 3.6), the paper applies [5, Theorem 1.1] as a black box to conclude that every irreducible summand π'' of soc(soc(S' × τ × S) ⋊ σ) is of Arthur type and has the displayed extended multi-segment form. However, the hypotheses of [5, Theorem 1.1] are never stated, and the data in Proposition 3.5(2) allow A ≥ B > −1, so that A+B can be negative; Definition 3.9(3) requires A_i+B_i ≥ 0 for every extended segment. The text does not explain whether [5, Theorem 1.1] covers the range A+B < 0 or how the Aubert-duality reduction (asserted at the start of Section 3.6) returns to the non-negative case. This is the single step where the common-subrepresentation information from Lemma 3.7 is converted into Arthur-type structure, so the induction in Theorem 3.3 depends on it. Please state the theorem being cited, verify its hypotheses for the present data (including the case B < 0), or prove the needed variant.
  2. [Lemma 3.4(1)] Lemma 3.4(1) is stated with the comment 'the proof of (1) is similar' and no proof is given. Lemma 3.4 is used for the τ^- steps in the SZ-decomposition, and part (1) is an essential input to the induction behind Theorem 3.3. Since the proof of part (2) is long and relies on delicate Jacquet-module inequalities, 'similar' is not sufficient for the reader to verify the claim; please provide the full argument or a precise reduction to part (2).
minor comments (4)
  1. [Remark 3.6] In the display 'DS(L(m|·|−1) × L(m|·|1)) = C2', the notation C2 is unexplained; it presumably denotes the constant two-dimensional representation, but it should be defined or replaced with a clearer symbol such as ℂ².
  2. [Section 5, first paragraph] The sentence 'By the weak Ramanujan bound, which is know, it takes the form' contains a typo: 'know' should be 'known'.
  3. [Theorem 4.1 and its proof] The phrase 'the unitary induction Sp(ρ,c,d)⋊π0 is irreducible' is misleading: 'unitary induction' is a method (Proposition 2.3(1)), not an object. The condition should read 'the parabolically induced representation Sp(ρ,c,d)⋊π0 is irreducible'.
  4. [Section 3.2] The phrase 'τ^-_bad × Δ_{ρ_i}[x_i,y_i] is irreducible by [48, Proposition 8.6]' is ambiguous: it should clarify that this is the normalized parabolic induction of the product of the two representations, not a product in the Grothendieck group.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the proof is a genuine derivation using published external classification results, including the first author's prior theorem as an independent input.

full rationale

The hard direction of Theorem 1.1 starts from unitarity and uses it only in Lemma 3.4 to produce a common irreducible subrepresentation via the semisimplicity of unitary parabolic induction. The conversion of that sharing into Arthur-type structure is done in Proposition 3.5, whose proof invokes [5, Theorem 1.1] as a published, parameter-free theorem about socles of certain parabolically induced representations under the hypothesis that sigma is of Arthur type; its assumptions do not include the target statement that unitary good-parity representations are Arthur type. This cited result is therefore independent support, not a restatement of the conclusion. The remaining engine consists of Jacquet-module inequalities (Lemma 3.7), Mœglin's and Atobe's explicit A-packet description (Theorem 3.10), and [6, Theorem 4.1], none of which presupposes the main theorem. Arthur's theorem supplies the converse direction. The paper's own limitations (Remark 3.6, Section 5) and the open question of whether the hypotheses of [5, Theorem 1.1] are verified in the Aubert-dual range B<0 are correctness or dependency concerns, not instances of a conclusion being identical to its input.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no free parameters or new entities. Its central claim rests on the prior classification machinery of Arthur, Mœglin, Atobe, and Lapid-Minguez, plus the recent Bošnjak-Stadler preprint for the slightly-beyond theorem.

assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Arthur's endoscopic classification of A-packets: for ψ ∈ Ψ(G), the A-packet Π_ψ is a non-empty subset of Irr_unit(G), multiplicity-free, and representation of Arthur type are unitary ([2, Theorem 2.2.1]).
    Invoked in Section 2.4 to define Arthur type representations and to assert they are unitary; this is the easy direction of Theorem 1.1.
  • domain assumption Mœglin's explicit construction of A-packets, as rephrased in [4, Theorem 1.2] (Theorem 3.10 here): Π_ψ = {π(E) | ψ_E ≅ ψ} \ {0}.
    Used throughout; in particular, representations of Arthur type of good parity are parameterized by extended multi-segments.
  • domain assumption Atobe's [5, Theorem 1.1]: any irreducible summand of soc(soc(S'×τ×S)⋊σ) with σ of Arthur type is of Arthur type and has the displayed extended multi-segment form.
    Key input in Section 3.6 to prove Proposition 3.5; it is the bridge from unitarity constraints to Arthur-type structure.
  • domain assumption Atobe's [6, Theorem 4.1] and [6, Algorithm 3.3]: the algorithm deciding whether a representation is of Arthur type, with the structural bound on extended multi-segments for Arthur type representations.
    Used in the proof of Theorem 3.13 (Section 3.7) and in Proposition 3.12 to replace extended segments and conclude π is Arthur type.
  • domain assumption Atobe-Minguez [9, Theorem 7.1, Corollary 7.2]: constraints on derivatives and Langlands data of irreducible representations of classical groups.
    Used in Lemma 3.15 and in Section 3.2 to control SZ-decomposition and the sets A_x(π).
  • domain assumption Bošnjak-Stadler [17, Theorem 1.2, Corollaries 3.30 and 3.33]: irreducibility and reducibility criteria for parabolic induction of essentially Speh representations times an Arthur-type representation.
    The full Theorem 4.1 (slightly beyond good parity) depends on this preprint, cited as arXiv:2504.01226v2, which is not yet established in a peer-reviewed venue.
  • standard math Standard tools: Langlands classification, Bernstein-Zelevinsky theory, the Geometric Lemma, Tadic's formula, and the (UI), (UR), (CS), (RP1) unitarity criteria.
    Used throughout Sections 2, 3, and 4; these are accepted background results in the field.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Unitary dual of $p$-adic split $\mathrm{SO}_{2n+1}$ and $\mathrm{Sp}_{2n}$: The good parity case (and slightly beyond)." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/K2PC4HXM

@misc{pith2026250509991,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Unitary dual of $p$-adic split $\mathrmSO_2n+1$ and $\mathrmSp_2n$: The good parity case (and slightly beyond)},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/K2PC4HXM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.09991}
}
abstract

Let $F$ be a $p$-adic field, and let $G$ be either the split special orthogonal group $\mathrm{SO}_{2n+1}(F)$ or the symplectic group $\mathrm{Sp}_{2n}(F)$, with $n \geq 0$. We prove that a smooth irreducible representation of good parity of $G$ is unitary if and only if it is of Arthur type. Combined with the algorithms of the first author or Hazeltine-Liu-Lo for detecting Arthur type representations, our result leads to an explicit algorithm for checking the unitarity of any given irreducible representation of good parity. Finally, we determine the set of unitary representations that may appear as local components of the discrete automorphic spectrum.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. On the complementary Arthur representations and unitary dual for p-adic classical groups

    math.RT 2025-05 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    The paper proves the characterization of complementary Arthur representations for p-adic Sp_2n and split SO_{2n+1}: unitarity fails exactly when a reducible Speh factor appears an odd number of times.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [5]

    Atobe, On the socles of certain parabolically induced representat ions of p-adic classical groups

    H. Atobe, On the socles of certain parabolically induced representat ions of p-adic classical groups . Repre- sent. Theory 26 (2022), 515–541

    work page 2022

  2. [17]

    Boˇ snjak and A

    B. Boˇ snjak and A. Stadler, Irreducibility of the parabolic induction of essentially S peh representations and a representation of Arthur type over a p-adic field . Preprint 2025, arXiv:2504.01226v2

    arXiv 2025

  3. [21]

    Hazeltine, D

    A. Hazeltine, D. Jiang, B. Liu, C.-H. Lo and Q. Zhang, On representations of Arthur type and unitary dual for classical groups . Preprint 2024, arXiv:2410.11806v1

    arXiv 2024

  4. [6]

    Atobe, The set of local A-packets containing a given representation

    H. Atobe, The set of local A-packets containing a given representation . J. Reine Angew. Math. 804 (2023), 263–286

    work page 2023

  5. [22]

    Hazeltine, B

    A. Hazeltine, B. Liu and C.-H. Lo, On the intersection of local Arthur packets for classical gr oups and applications. Preprint 2022, arXiv:2201.10539v3

    arXiv 2022

  6. [1]

    Adams, M

    J. Adams, M. van Leeuwen, P. E. Trapa and D. Vogan, Unitary representations of real reductive groups . Ast´ erisqueNo. 417 (2020), x + 174 pp

    work page 2020

  7. [2]

    Arthur, The endoscopic classification of representations

    J. Arthur, The endoscopic classification of representations. Orthogo nal and symplectic groups . American Mathematical Society Colloquium Publications, 61. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2013. xviii+590 pp

    work page 2013

  8. [3]

    Atobe, Jacquet modules and local Langlands correspondence

    H. Atobe, Jacquet modules and local Langlands correspondence . Invent. Math. 219 (2020), no. 3, 831–871

    work page 2020

Show all 48 references
  1. [4]

    Atobe, Construction of local A-packets

    H. Atobe, Construction of local A-packets. J. Reine Angew. Math. 790 (2022), 1–51

    2022

  2. [7]

    Atobe and W

    H. Atobe and W. T. Gan, Local theta correspondence of tempered representations an d Langlands parame- ters. Invent. Math. 210 (2017), no. 2, 341–415

    2017

  3. [8]

    Atobe, W

    H. Atobe, W. T. Gan, A. Ichino, T. Kaletha, A. M ´ ınguez and S. W. Shin, Local Intertwining Relations and Co-tempered A-packets of Classical Groups . Preprint 2024, arXiv:2410.13504v1

    2024 arXiv

  4. [9]

    Atobe and A

    H. Atobe and A. M ´ ınguez, The explicit Zelevinsky–Aubert duality . Compos. Math. 159 (2023), no. 2, 380–418

    2023

  5. [10]

    Aubert, Dualit´ e dans le groupe de Grothendieck de la cat´ egorie desrepr´ esentations lisses de longueur finie d’un groupe r´ eductif p-adique

    A.-M. Aubert, Dualit´ e dans le groupe de Grothendieck de la cat´ egorie desrepr´ esentations lisses de longueur finie d’un groupe r´ eductif p-adique. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 347 (1995), no. 6, 2179–2189. Erratum: Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 348 (1996), no. 11, 4687–4690

    1995

  6. [11]

    A. I. Badulescu, Correspondance de Jacquet–Langlands pour les corps locaux de caract´ eristique non nulle. Ann. Sci. ´Ecole Norm. Sup. (4) 35 (2002), no. 5, 695–747

    2002

  7. [12]

    A. I. Badulescu, G. Henniart, B. Lemaire and V. S´ echerr e, Sur le dual unitaire de GLr(D). Amer. J. Math. 132 (2010), no. 5, 1365–1396

    2010

  8. [13]

    A. I. Badulescu and D. A. Renard, Sur une conjecture de Tadi´ c. Glas. Mat. Ser. III 39(59) (2004), no. 1, 49–54

    2004

  9. [14]

    Barbasch and A

    D. Barbasch and A. Moy, A unitarity criterion for p-adic groups. Invent. Math. 98 (1989), no. 1, 19–37

    1989

  10. [15]

    I. N. Bernstein, P -invariant distributions on GL(N ) and the classification of unitary representations of GL(N ) (non-Archimedean case). Lie group representations, II (College Park, Md., 1982/198 3), 50–102, Lecture Notes in Math., 1041, Springer, Berlin , 1984

    1982

  11. [16]

    I. N. Bernstein and A. V. Zelevinsky, Induced representations of reductive p-adic groups. I . Ann. Sci. ´Ecole Norm. Sup. (4) 10 (1977), no. 4, 441–472

    1977

  12. [18]

    C. J. Bushnell and P.C. Kutzko, The admissible dual of GL(N ) via compact open subgroups . Annals of Mathematics Studies, 129. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1993. xii+313 pp

    1993

  13. [19]

    Deligne, D

    P. Deligne, D. Kazhdan and M.-F. Vign´ eras, Repr´ esentations des alg` ebres centrales simples p-adiques. Representations of reductive groups over a local field, 33–117, Travaux en Cours, Hermann, Paris , 1984

    1984

  14. [20]

    Harris and R

    M. Harris and R. Taylor, The geometry and cohomology of some simple Shimura varietie s. Annals of Mathematics Studies, 151. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 2001. viii+27 6 pp

    2001

  15. [23]

    Henniart, Une preuve simple des conjectures de Langlands pour GL(n) sur un corps p-adique

    G. Henniart, Une preuve simple des conjectures de Langlands pour GL(n) sur un corps p-adique. Invent. Math. 139 (2000), no. 2, 439–455

    2000

  16. [24]

    Kret and E

    A. Kret and E. Lapid, Jacquet modules of ladder representations . C. R. Math. Acad. Sci. Paris 350 (2012), no. 21-22, 937–940

    2012

  17. [25]

    Lapid and A

    E. Lapid and A. M ´ ınguez, On parabolic induction on inner forms of the general linear g roup over a non-archimedean local field . Selecta Math. (N.S.) 22 (2016), no. 4, 2347–2400

    2016

  18. [26]

    Lapid and A

    E. Lapid and A. M ´ ınguez,Geometric conditions for □ -irreducibility of certain representations of the general linear group over a non-archimedean local field . Adv. Math. 339 (2018), 113–190. UNITARY DUAL OF SO 2n+1 AND Sp 2n: THE GOOD PARITY CASE (AND SLIGHTLY BEYOND) 37

    2018

  19. [27]

    Lapid, G

    E. Lapid, G. Mui´ c and M. Tadi´ c, On the generic unitary dual of quasisplit classical groups . Int. Math. Res. Not. 2004, no. 26, 1335–1354

    2004

  20. [28]

    Leclerc, Imaginary vectors in the dual canonical basis of Uq(n)

    B. Leclerc, Imaginary vectors in the dual canonical basis of Uq(n). Transform. Groups 8 (2003), no. 1, 95–104

    2003

  21. [29]

    Mœglin, Paquets d’Arthur pour les groupes classiques; point de vue c ombinatoire

    C. Mœglin, Paquets d’Arthur pour les groupes classiques; point de vue c ombinatoire. Preprint 2006, arXiv:math/0610189v1

    2006 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Mœglin, Sur certains paquets d’Arthur et involution d’Aubert–Schneider–Stuhler g´ en´ eralis´ ee

    C. Mœglin, Sur certains paquets d’Arthur et involution d’Aubert–Schneider–Stuhler g´ en´ eralis´ ee. Represent. Theory 10 (2006), 86–129

    2006

  23. [31]

    Mœglin, Paquets d’Arthur discrets pour un groupe classique p-adique

    C. Mœglin, Paquets d’Arthur discrets pour un groupe classique p-adique. Automorphic forms and L- functions II. Local aspects , 179–257, Contemp. Math., 489, Israel Math. Conf. Proc., Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2009

    2009

  24. [32]

    Mœglin, Holomorphie des op´ erateurs d’entrelacement normalis´ es` a l’aide des param` etres d’Arthur

    C. Mœglin, Holomorphie des op´ erateurs d’entrelacement normalis´ es` a l’aide des param` etres d’Arthur . Canad. J. Math. 62 (2010), no. 6, 1340–1386

    2010

  25. [33]

    Mœglin, Multiplicit´ e1 dans les paquets d’Arthur aux places p-adiques

    C. Mœglin, Multiplicit´ e1 dans les paquets d’Arthur aux places p-adiques. On certain L-functions, 333–374, Clay Math. Proc., 13, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI , 2011

    2011

  26. [34]

    Mui´ c and M

    G. Mui´ c and M. Tadi´ c,Unramified unitary duals for split classical p-adic groups; the topology and isolated representations. On certain L-functions , 375–438, Clay Math. Proc., 13, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2011

    2011

  27. [35]

    S´ echerre, Repr´ esentations lisses de GL(m, D )

    V. S´ echerre, Repr´ esentations lisses de GL(m, D ). I. Caract` eres simples . Bull. Soc. Math. France 132 (2004), no. 3, 327–396

    2004

  28. [36]

    S´ echerre, Repr´ esentations lisses de GL(m, D )

    V. S´ echerre, Repr´ esentations lisses de GL(m, D ). II. β -extensions. Compos. Math. 141 (2005), no. 6, 1531–1550

    2005

  29. [37]

    S´ echerre, Repr´ esentations lisses de GLm(D)

    V. S´ echerre, Repr´ esentations lisses de GLm(D). III. Types simples . Ann. Sci. ´Ecole Norm. Sup. (4) 38 (2005), no. 6, 951–977

    2005

  30. [38]

    S´ echerre, Proof of the Tadi´ c conjecture (U0) on the unitary dual of GLm(D)

    V. S´ echerre, Proof of the Tadi´ c conjecture (U0) on the unitary dual of GLm(D). J. Reine Angew. Math. 626 (2009), 187–203

    2009

  31. [39]

    S´ echerre and S

    V. S´ echerre and S. Stevens, Repr´ esentations lisses de GLm(D). IV. Repr´ esentations supercuspidales. J. Inst. Math. Jussieu 7 (2008), no. 3, 527–574

    2008

  32. [40]

    Tadi´ c, Classification of unitary representations in irreducible r epresentations of general linear group (non-Archimedean case)

    M. Tadi´ c, Classification of unitary representations in irreducible r epresentations of general linear group (non-Archimedean case). Ann. Sci. ´Ecole Norm. Sup. (4) 19 (1986), no. 3, 335–382

    1986

  33. [41]

    Tadi´ c,Induced representations of GL(n, A ) for p-adic division algebras A

    M. Tadi´ c,Induced representations of GL(n, A ) for p-adic division algebras A. J. Reine Angew. Math. 405 (1990), 48–77

    1990

  34. [42]

    Tadi´ c, An external approach to unitary representations

    M. Tadi´ c, An external approach to unitary representations . Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. (N.S.) 28 (1993), no. 2, 215–252

    1993

  35. [43]

    Tadi´ c, Structure arising from induction and Jacquet modules of rep resentations of classical p-adic groups

    M. Tadi´ c, Structure arising from induction and Jacquet modules of rep resentations of classical p-adic groups. J. Algebra 177 (1995), no. 1, 1–33

    1995

  36. [44]

    Tadi´ c,On unitarizability and Arthur packets

    M. Tadi´ c,On unitarizability and Arthur packets . Manuscripta Math. 169 (2022), no. 3-4, 327–367

    2022

  37. [45]

    Tadi´ c,Unitarizability in corank three for classical p-adic groups

    M. Tadi´ c,Unitarizability in corank three for classical p-adic groups. Mem. Amer. Math. Soc. 286 (2023), no. 1421, vii+120 pp

    2023

  38. [46]

    Vogan, The unitary dual of GL(n) over an Archimedean field

    D.A. Vogan, The unitary dual of GL(n) over an Archimedean field . Invent. Math. 83 (1986), no. 3, 449–505

    1986

  39. [47]

    Xu, On Mœglin ’s parametrization of Arthur packets for p-adic quasisplit Sp(N ) and SO(N )

    B. Xu, On Mœglin ’s parametrization of Arthur packets for p-adic quasisplit Sp(N ) and SO(N ). Canad. J. Math. 69 (2017), no. 4, 890–960

    2017

  40. [48]

    A. V. Zelevinsky, Induced representations of reductive p-adic groups. II. On irreducible representations of GL(n). Ann. Sci. ´Ecole Norm. Sup. (4) 13 (1980), no. 2, 165–210. Department of Mathematics, Kyoto University, Kitashirakaw a-Oiw ake-cho, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto, 606-8502, Jap...

    1980

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.