Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 49 references

Betti-Whittaker periods under duality: variations and applications

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A period relation for GL(n) automorphic forms over any number field, proven without L-values.

desk verdict Main theorem is a real, well-proved step forward; the archimedean leaf that feeds the L-value applications has a gap the authors should be asked to close. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.17617 v1 pith:FDOBPYLJ submitted 2026-07-20 math.NT

Giancarlo Castellano , Shih-Yu Chen , Nasit Darshan , A. Raghuram This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.NT MSC 11F6711F7011F7522E55
keywords Betti–WhittakerperiodsperiodrelationscontragredientrepresentationGausssumsautomorphiccohomologyspecialvaluesofL-functionstripleproductAsai
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 proves that the Betti–Whittaker periods of a cohomological cuspidal automorphic representation of GL(n) over any number field and of its contragredient are linked by a simple, Galois-equivariant algebraic relation: the ratio is essentially a power of a Gauss sum attached to the central character. The result removes earlier regularity assumptions, and the proof avoids all use of L-functions, relying instead on the outer automorphism that realizes the contragredient. A sympathetic reader will care because these periods govern the arithmetic of special values of L-functions, so the relation yields new rationality theorems for triple product and twisted Asai L-functions, as well as a new proof of a known orthogonal-group result.

What carries the argument

The key object is the outer automorphism θ(g)=ω_n ᵗg⁻¹ ω_n⁻¹ of GL_n, where ω_n is the signed anti-diagonal matrix representing the long Weyl element; θ realizes the contragredient representation both locally (by a classical theorem of Gelfand–Kazhdan at finite places and by direct verification at archimedean places) and globally. The proof runs through a non-commutative diagram (18) comparing, via the Betti–Whittaker period maps, the Aut(C)-actions on Whittaker models and cuspidal cohomology with the θ-twist; the central input is a set of archimedean local comparison constants c_ε(π), shown in Theorems 6.2 and 6.16 to equal ±1 and to depend only on n and the archimedean place, so that they

What would settle it

Compute the local constant c_ε(π) for a cohomological representation of GL_3(R) that is not discrete series (e.g., a principal series with a strongly-pure weight), and check both whether it is ±1 and whether it remains unchanged under a nontrivial Aut(C)-automorphism that moves the weight; any dependence on the weight or on σ would contradict Theorems 6.2 and 6.16, and hence Theorem 5.1.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Theorem 5.1: for a regular algebraic cuspidal automorphic representation Π of GL_n(A_F), in the bottom or top cohomological degree, and for a permissible sign ε, the ratio p_ε(Π∨)/(G(ω_Π)^{1−n} p_ε(Π)) is algebraic with rationality field contained in Q(Π), and it is Galois-equivariant in the sense that applying an automorphism σ of C to the ratio gives the same ratio for σΠ. This generalizes an earlier result over Q (which required regularity and used L-values) to any number field with no regularity hypothesis, and it is proved by comparing rational structures on Whittaker models and cuspidal cohomology through a diagram built from the transpose-inverse outer automorphis

Load-bearing premise

The result stands on the archimedean local computations that the comparison constants are ±1 and depend only on the dimension and the place, not on the weight or on Galois twists; if those constants vary, the main Galois equivariance collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The Betti–Whittaker period relation holds over an arbitrary number field, without regularity assumptions, and in both extreme cohomological degrees, so it can be applied to a broader class of automorphic forms than previously possible.
  • Ratios of critical values of triple product L-functions are algebraic and Galois-equivariant under suitable orthogonality and automorphy hypotheses (Theorem 7.10), extending results formerly attainable only through Eisenstein cohomology methods.
  • Analogous rationality results hold for twisted Asai L-functions over totally real fields (Theorem 7.12), with the period relation supplying the Gauss-sum correction terms.
  • A new proof is obtained for the Bhagwat–Raghuram result on special values of L-functions for split orthogonal groups, via the χ-orthogonal case of the period relation (Theorem 7.8 and Remark 7.9).
  • Variants of the relation hold for Betti–Shalika periods under duality and for Betti–Whittaker periods under algebraic automorphisms of the base field (Theorems 8.2 and 8.3).

Reading between the lines

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

  • The proof's avoidance of L-values suggests the period relation is a purely algebraic or motivic phenomenon, perhaps supporting a Deligne-style conjecture that such relations should hold independently of analytic tools; one might investigate whether similar outer-automorphism arguments yield period relations for other reductive groups with a duality involution.
  • The archimedean constants being independent of the weight hints at a general 'sign bookkeeping' phenomenon for cohomological representations; this could be tested for real and complex groups other than GL_n by computing explicit generators and their θ-twists.
  • The non-commutative-diagram method of comparing rational structures may be adaptable to derive algebraicity of ratios of critical values for other L-functions that fall outside the Langlands–Shahidi framework, such as certain tensor product L-functions.
  • A concrete testable extension would be to numerically compute the archimedean constants for small n (e.g., n=3) at non-regular pure weights and verify the claimed ±1 values and their Aut(C)-invariance; any deviation would indicate a missing dependence in the local computations.
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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proves a duality period relation for Betti–Whittaker periods of regular algebraic cuspidal automorphic representations of GL_n over an arbitrary number field F, without regularity assumptions and without using L-values. The proof, given in Theorem 5.1, is a diagram chase around the outer automorphism θ, the Galois action, and the Betti–de Rham comparison, and it consciously avoids any L-value input. The paper then applies this relation, together with results of Harder–Raghuram and others, to obtain Galois-equivariance statements for ratios of critical values of triple product L-functions and twisted Asai L-functions, and gives a new proof of a result of Bhagwat–Raghuram for orthogonal groups. The archimedean core, Theorem 6.1, asserts that certain local comparison constants c_ε(π) are ±1 depending only on n and the place; this is proved by induction for real places and by Ishii–Miyazaki formulas for complex places. The main duality theorem itself does not use c_ε, but the applications in Section 7 do, through Theorem 7.7.

Significance. If the archimedean leaf is correct, this is a substantial and welcome advance: it removes both the L-value anchor and the regularity assumptions from Chen's earlier duality theorem and extends it to arbitrary number fields. The conceptual point that the period relation is a consequence of the θ-twist and rational-structure comparisons rather than of L-value algebraicity is attractive and clearly explained. The applications to triple product and Asai L-functions, and the new proof of Bhagwat–Raghuram, would also be significant. The paper is careful in many places: the noncommutativity of diagram (18) is explicitly acknowledged and handled, the dependence of the proof on the Gelfand–Kazhdan theorem and multiplicity one is stated, and the authors are transparent about which steps are deferred to the archimedean computation. However, the present completeness of the archimedean computation is the limiting factor for the applications.

major comments (2)
  1. [§6.2.5 and Lemma 6.12] The induction proving Theorem 6.4 reduces the desired constancy of c_ε(π) to showing that the product (√−1)^{n1n2/2} ε(0,π1×π2^∨,ψ_R) · C(λ^(1),λ^(2)) is a sign depending only on n1,n2. The proof then says that, because λ^(1),λ^(2) may be chosen freely, it suffices to specialize to the partitions (2r,1) and (2r,2). Lemma 6.12 computes the product only for one explicitly chosen balanced Kostant representative w and for the weight λ determined by w·λ=(λ^(1),λ^(2)). As written, this establishes the desired constancy only for that representative and that weight. To close the induction one needs either an argument that the product is independent of the choice of balanced representative and of λ, or a computation covering all cases. The independence does not follow from the recurrence alone, because the left-hand side c_ε(π) is being proved constant and cannot be used a priori to force the pro
  2. [§6.2.5, sentence 'Since dϑZ = −Z'] The statement that dϑZ = −Z is degree-sensitive and is false as written for the bottom degree d(•)=0, where ∧^0(a_P/a_G) is the scalar line and dϑ acts as the identity. The displayed recurrence contains the factor (−1)^{d(•)}, which suggests that the intended convention is that dϑ acts by −1 on a_P/a_G and hence by (−1)^d on ∧^d; that convention is consistent with the recurrence. But the text should be corrected to say this explicitly, since an unqualified '−Z' introduces an ambiguity in exactly the sign that the induction must control. A wrong sign here would propagate through the recurrence and could change the constants η_R,n.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§6.1, hypothesis of Theorem 6.1] The assumption 'λ^{σ∘τ}=λ^{σ∘τ}' is tautological as written; presumably one of the two sides should involve the complex conjugate of σ∘τ (or σ∘bar{τ}). This is important for the statement to have content, and the same typo appears in the sentence just before Theorem 6.1.
  2. [§6.2.5, choice of partition] The text asserts that for any partition (n1,n2) with n1n2 even there exist π1,π2 such that the cohomological condition (25) holds. This is plausible from the explicit description of cohomological generic representations, but since the later computation only uses n2=1 or n2=2, the general assertion is not needed. It would help to state the weaker assertion used.
  3. [§6.3, Theorem 6.16] The proof uses the positivity theorem of Ishii–Miyazaki. The statement that W_π(a)>0 for a_i>0 is cited, but the normalization of the Whittaker function is not specified. A sentence indicating the normalization (e.g., value at the identity or a standard Kirillov normalization) would make the ratio computation self-contained.
  4. [Throughout, but especially §5 and §7] The periods p_ε(Π^∨) are defined with respect to the dual generator θ[Π_8]_ε; this is stated in §5.1 but could be emphasized again in the statements of Theorems 7.7 and 7.8, where different choices of generators for Π^∨ appear. The notation p^ε_det and p^ε_θ is clear, but a one-line reminder would help.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the main period relation is proved from the θ-twist, Gauss-sum transformation, and rational-structure comparisons, not from its conclusion; the archimedean proof gap is a correctness risk, not a circular step.

full rationale

I walked the derivation chain of Theorem 5.1. The proof does not fit its conclusion into an input: it uses the genuinely external identification W(Π∨)=θW(Π) (Gelfand–Kazhdan/multiplicity one), the Gauss-sum transformation law (2), the normalization (11) of the periods, and Proposition 4.7 (commutation of σ and θ). None of these contains the target period-ratio relation. The dual generator θ[Π8]_ε is constructed, and the periods p_ε(Π∨), p_ε(Π) are then compared; the ratio is not by definition the predicted scalar. The archimedean constants c_ε(π) in Section 6 are defined as ratios of two explicit generators, and Theorem 6.1 is a genuine local computation, not an imported prediction. I did find a genuine proof gap: in the induction for Theorem 6.4, the text says 'we simplify the computation in Lemma 6.12 below by specializing to a particular choice with n2=1 or n2=2' (Section 6.2.5). This verifies the λ-independent sign only for special balanced Kostant representatives and does not close the induction for arbitrary λ; this is an incompleteness/correctness risk for the det-twist/θ-twist relation (Theorem 7.7) and the L-value applications, but it is not a circularity, since the claimed reduction is not equivalent to its inputs by construction. Self-citations appear ([Che24], [Che26], [DR24], [HR20], [RS08]), but the load-bearing local facts are sourced to published external work such as [HR20], [Sha85], [Kos61], [GK71], [IM22], and the self-cited [Che26] is only a 'see also' after a proof already based on [HR20]. Therefore no step reduces the period relation to a fit or to a self-citation chain; score 2 reflects only minor, non-load-bearing self-citation.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 10 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No hand-fitted constants enter: the local constants η_{R,n}, η_{C,n}, and c_ε(π) are proven to be ±1, not chosen. The θ-automorphism is a standard algebraic operation, not a new entity. The central theorem depends on standard theorems in automorphic forms and on explicitly stated functoriality assumptions for the L-value applications.

assumptions (10)
  • domain assumption Multiplicity one for cuspidal automorphic representations of GL_n(A_F)
    Used in Lemma 4.4 to conclude θV_Π = V_{Π∨} from the local θ-duality and uniqueness of Whittaker models.
  • domain assumption Gelfand–Kazhdan local θ-twist duality for GL_n over local fields
    Equation (14) identifies θπ with π∨ at finite places, and the archimedean analogue is verified by parabolic induction; this underlies the whole duality setup in Section 4.
  • domain assumption Clozel's Aut(C)-equivariance of cuspidal cohomology and rationality fields
    Section 3.1 relies on Clozel's theorem to define Q(Π)-rational structures on cuspidal cohomology and to identify σΠ as cuspidal.
  • domain assumption Franke/Borel identification of automorphic cohomology with sheaf cohomology of locally symmetric spaces
    Section 2.6 defines the cohomological models used in the definition of Betti–Whittaker periods.
  • domain assumption Shahidi's local coefficient formula and Weselmann's cohomological intertwining operator computation
    Proposition 6.7 uses these to compare Jacquet integrals and intertwining operators in the archimedean computation; [HR20, Chapter 9] is the published source.
  • domain assumption Ishii–Miyazaki propagation formula for highest-weight Whittaker functions in minimal K-types
    Proposition 6.15 and Theorem 6.16 use this formula to pin down the complex-place comparison constant.
  • domain assumption Harder–Raghuram algebraicity of ratios of Rankin–Selberg L-values at consecutive critical points
    Theorem 7.10 applies [HR20, Theorem 7.21] to obtain rationality of triple-product ratios.
  • domain assumption Existence and isobaricity of automorphic tensor products and Asai transfers
    Theorems 7.10 and 7.12 explicitly assume Π1⊗Π2, respectively As(Σ), is regular and automorphic; these are conjectural functoriality inputs, clearly flagged as hypotheses.
  • domain assumption Asgari–Shahidi and Hundley–Sayag functorial transfers for GSpin groups
    Section 7.1 uses these to classify χ-orthogonal and χ-symplectic representations in terms of images of Langlands parameters.
  • standard math Kostant's theorem and Borel–Wallach/Delorme's lemma on relative Lie algebra cohomology of induced representations
    The archimedean induction in Section 6.2 relies on these standard cohomological descriptions.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Betti-Whittaker periods under duality: variations and applications." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FDOBPYLJ

@misc{pith2026260717617,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Betti-Whittaker periods under duality: variations and applications},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FDOBPYLJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.17617}
}
abstract

One of the authors (Chen) had previously proved a result on the behavior of Betti-Whittaker periods under duality for cohomological cuspidal automorphic representations of ${\rm GL}_n/{\mathbb Q}$ under some regularity assumptions while using their relation to $L$-values as an anchor in his proof. In this article we prove a generalization of this result to ${\rm GL}_n$ over any number field $F$ without any regularity assumptions and without recourse to $L$-values, while using the outer-automorphism of ${\rm GL}_n$ as the main tool. Then, using results of Harder and one of the other authors (Raghuram), we give applications to new rationality results for the ratios of special values of general triple product $L$-functions and for general twisted Asai $L$-functions. We also give a new proof of a previous result of Bhagwat and Raghuram on the special values of $L$-functions for orthogonal groups. We present variations on period relations for the Betti-Shalika periods under duality, and the behavior of Betti-Whittaker periods under Galois automorphisms of $F$.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    J. Arthur. The endoscopic classification of representations: orthogonal and symplectic groups , volume 61 of Colloquium Publications . American Mathematical Society, 2013

    2013

  2. [2]

    Asgari and F

    M. Asgari and F. Shahidi. Generic transfer for general spin groups . Duke Math. J. , 132(1):137--190, 2006

    2006

  3. [3]

    Asgari and F

    M. Asgari and F. Shahidi. Image of functoriality for general spin groups . Manuscripta Math. , 144:609--638, 2014

    2014

  4. [4]

    Balasubramanyam and A

    B. Balasubramanyam and A. Raghuram. Special values of adjoint L -functions and congruences for automorphic forms on (n) over a number field. Amer. J. Math. , 139 (2017), no. 3, 641--679

    2017

  5. [5]

    Bhagwat and A

    C. Bhagwat and A. Raghuram. Eisenstein cohomology for orthogonal groups and the special values of L -functions for GL _1 O (2n) . J. Inst. Math. Jussieu , 24(6):2463--2522, 2025

    2025

  6. [6]

    Borel and H

    A. Borel and H. Jacquet. Automorphic forms and automorphic representations . In Automorphic forms, representations, and L-functions , volume 33, Part 1 of Proceedings of Symposia in Pure Mathematics , pages 189--202. Amer. Math. Soc., 1979

    1979

  7. [7]

    A. Borel. Stable real cohomology of arithmetic groups II . In Manifolds and Lie groups , volume 14 of Progress in mathematics , pages 21--55, 1981

    1981

  8. [8]

    D. Bump. Automorphic Forms and Representations . Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics 55. Cambridge University Press, first edition, 1998

    1998

Show all 49 references
  1. [9]

    Borel and N

    A. Borel and N. Wallach. Continuous cohomology, discrete subgroups, and representations of reductive groups, second edition , volume 67 of Mathematical Surveys and Monographs . Amer. Math. Soc., 2000

    2000

  2. [10]

    I. N. Bernstein and A. V. Zelevinsky. Representations of the group GL (n,F) where F is a non-archimedean local field . Russian Math. Surveys , 31(3):1--68, 1976

    1976

  3. [11]

    Local-global compatibility and the action of monodromy on nearby cycles

    Caraiani. Local-global compatibility and the action of monodromy on nearby cycles . Duke Math. J. , 161(12):2311--2413, 2012

    2012

  4. [12]

    S.-Y. Chen. Gamma factors for the Asai cube representation . Math. Z. , 297:747--773, 2021

    2021

  5. [13]

    S.-Y. Chen. Period relations between the Betti--Whittaker periods for GL _n under duality . Int. Math. Res. Not. , 2024:11032--11063, 2024

    2024

  6. [14]

    S.-Y. Chen. Algebraicity of ratios of Rankin--Selberg L -functions and applications to Deligne's conjecture . Ann. of Math. , 2026. to appear

    2026

  7. [15]

    ibi. Invariance Galoisienne des zéros centraux de fonctions L (appendice par O. Ta\

    L. Clozel, A. Kret, and O. Ta\"ibi. Invariance Galoisienne des zéros centraux de fonctions L (appendice par O. Ta\"ibi et J.-L. Waldspurger) . 2026. arXiv:2602.09511

    2026

  8. [16]

    L. Clozel. Motifs et Formes Automorphes: Applications du Principe de Fonctorialit\'e . In Automorphic Forms, Shimura Varieties, and L-functions, Vol. I , Perspectives in Mathematics, pages 77--159, 1990

    1990

  9. [17]

    Deligne, Valeurs de fonctions L et p\'eriodes d'int\'egrales (French), With an appendix by N

    P. Deligne, Valeurs de fonctions L et p\'eriodes d'int\'egrales (French), With an appendix by N. Koblitz and A. Ogus. Proc. Sympos. Pure Math., XXXIII, Automorphic forms, representations and L -functions (Proc. Sympos. Pure Math., Oregon State Univ., Corvallis, Ore., 1977), Pa...

    1977

  10. [18]

    Darshan and A

    N. Darshan and A. Raghuram. Cuspidal cohomology for GL (n) over a number field . 2024. arXiv:2407.10859

    2024 arXiv

  11. [19]

    J. Franke. Harmonic analysis in weighted L_2 -spaces . Ann. Sci. \'Ec. Norm. Sup\'er. , 31(4):181--279, 1998

    1998

  12. [20]

    Gelfand and D.A

    I.M. Gelfand and D.A. Kazhdan, Representations of the group GL(n,K) where K is a local field. Lie groups and their representations. Proc. Summer School, Bolyai J\'anos Math. Soc., Budapest, 1971, 95--118

    1971

  13. [21]

    Getz and H

    J. Getz and H. Hahn. An Introduction to Automorphic Representations, With a view toward trace formulae , volume 300 of Graduate Texts in Mathematics . Springer, 2024

    2024

  14. [22]

    W. T. Gan and A. Raghuram. Arithmeticity for periods of automorphic forms . In Automorphic Representations and L -functions , number 22 in Tata Inst. Fund. Res. Stu. Math., pages 187--229. TIFR, 2013

    2013

  15. [23]

    Grobner and A

    H. Grobner and A. Raghuram. On the arithmetic of Shalika models and the critical values of L-functions for (2n) . With an appendix by Wee Teck Gan. Amer.\,J.\,Math. , 136 (2014) 675--728

    2014

  16. [24]

    Grobner and A

    H. Grobner and A. Raghuram. On some arithmetic properties of automorphic forms of GL _m over a division algebra . Int. J. Number Theory , 10(4):963--1013, 2014

    2014

  17. [25]

    G. Harder. General aspects in the theory of modular symbols. Seminar on number theory, Paris 1981--82 (Paris, 1981/1982), 73--88, Progr. Math., 38, Birkh\"auser Boston, Boston, MA, 1983

    1981

  18. [26]

    Harder and A

    G. Harder and A. Raghuram. Eisenstein cohomology for GL _N and the special values of Rankin--Selberg L -functions , volume 203 of Annals of Mathematics Studies . Princeton University Press, 2020

    2020

  19. [27]

    H. Hida. On the critical values of L -functions of GL (2) and GL (2) GL (2) , Duke Math. J., 74 (1994) 431--529

    1994

  20. [28]

    Hundley and E

    J. Hundley and E. Sayag. Descent construction for GSpin groups , volume 243 of Memoirs of the American Mathematical Society . American Mathematical Society, 2016

    2016

  21. [29]

    Ishii and T

    T. Ishii and T. Miyazaki. Calculus of archimedean Rankin--Selberg integrals with recurrence relations . Represent. Theory , 26:714--763, 2022

    2022

  22. [30]

    Jacquet, I

    H. Jacquet, I. I. Piatetski-Shapiro, and J. Shalika. Conducteur des r\'epresentations du groupe lin\'eaire . Math. Ann. , 256:199--214, 1981

    1981

  23. [31]

    Jacquet and J

    H. Jacquet and J. A. Shalika. On Euler products and the classification of automorphic forms II . Amer. J. Math. , 103(4):777--815, 1981

    1981

  24. [32]

    Jacquet and J

    H. Jacquet and J. A. Shalika. Exterior square L -functions . In Automorphic Forms, Shimura Varieties, and L-functions, Vol. II , Perspectives in Mathematics, pages 143--226, 1990

    1990

  25. [33]

    Y. Jin, D. Liu, and B. Sun, Betti--Whittaker periods of the contragredient representations for (n) . Preprint, (2026) arXiv:2606.23171

    2026 arXiv

  26. [34]

    A. W. Knapp. Local Langlands correspondence: the Archimedean case . In Motives , volume 55, Part 2 of Proc. Sympos. Pure Math. , pages 393--410. Amer. Math. Soc., 1994

    1994

  27. [35]

    B. Kostant. Lie algebra cohomology and the generalized Borel-Weil theorem . Ann. of Math. , 74(2):329--387, 1961

    1961

  28. [36]

    Krishnamurthy

    M. Krishnamurthy. The Asai Transfer to _4 via the Langlands-Shahidi Method . Int. Math. Res. Not. , (41):2221--2254, 2003

    2003

  29. [37]

    Krishnamurthy and A

    M. Krishnamurthy and A. Raghuram. Eisenstein cohomology for unitary groups and the arithmetic of Asai L -functions, Preprint in preparation

  30. [38]

    H. H. Kim and F. Shahidi. Functorial products for _2 _3 and the symmetric cube for _2 . Ann. of Math. , 155(2):837--893, 2002

    2002

  31. [39]

    D. Prasad. Invariant linear forms for representations of (2) over a local field . Amer. J. Math. , 114:1317--1363, 1992

    1992

  32. [40]

    Raghuram

    A. Raghuram. Comparison results for certain periods of cusp forms on GL _ 2n over a totally real number field . In The legacy of Srinivasa Ramanujan , volume 20 of Lecture Notes Series , pages 323--334. Ramanujan Math. Soc., 2013

    2013

  33. [41]

    Raghuram

    A. Raghuram. Critical values for Rankin-Selberg L -functions for GL _n GL _ n-1 and the symmetric cube L -functions for GL _2 . Forum Math. , 28(3):457--489, 2016

    2016

  34. [42]

    Raghuram and F

    A. Raghuram and F. Shahidi. On certain period relations for cusp forms on GL _n . Int. Math. Res. Not. , 2008. DOI:10.1093/imrn/rnn077

    2008 doi

  35. [43]

    Ramakrishnan

    D. Ramakrishnan. Modularity of the Rankin-Selberg L -series, and multiplicity one for SL (2) . Ann. of Math. , 152:45--111, 2000

    2000

  36. [44]

    J. Rohlfs. Projective limits of locally Symmetric spaces and cohomology . J. Reine Angew. Math. , 479:149--182, 1996

    1996

  37. [45]

    F. Shahidi. Fourier transforms of intertwining operators and Plancherel measures for GL (n) . Amer. J. Math. , 106(1):67--111, 1984

    1984

  38. [46]

    F. Shahidi. Local coefficients as Artin factors for real groups . Duke Math. J. , 52(4):973--1007, 1985

    1985

  39. [47]

    F. Shahidi. Eisenstein Series and Automorphic L -Functions , volume 58 of Colloq. Publ. Amer. Math. Soc., 2010

    2010

  40. [48]

    J. Tate. Number theoretic background. In Automorphic forms, representations, and L-functions , volume 33, Part 2 of Proceedings of Symposia in Pure Mathematics , pages 3--26. Amer. Math. Soc., 1979

    1979

  41. [49]

    Waldspurger

    J.-L. Waldspurger. Quelques proprietes arithmetiques de certaines formes automorphes sur GL (2) . Compos. Math. , 54:121--171, 1985

    1985

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.