Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 42 references

On Arthur's unitarity conjecture for split real groups

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper proves that the canonical Langlands element of every unipotent Arthur packet for split real exceptional groups is unitarizable.

desk verdict First proof of unitarity for non-spherical unipotent Arthur packets in split real exceptional groups, with a largely sound argument that leaves a few computational checks unshipped. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.04363 v3 pith:2BNS4C2Y submitted 2019-08-12 math.RT math.NT

Joseph Hundley , Stephen D. Miller This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.RTmath.NT MSC 22E4611F7011F66
keywords ArthurconjecturesunipotentrepresentationsunitarityEisensteinseriesintertwiningoperatorsexceptionalLiegroupsLanglandsparameterssplitreal
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

Arthur's conjectures predict that every unipotent Arthur packet contains a distinguished representation, the 'Langlands element', and that this representation is unitary. This paper proves that prediction for split real exceptional groups $G_2$, $F_4$, $E_6$, $E_7$, and $E_8$ (the classical split families had already been handled elsewhere), and with it completes the unitarity assertion for these packets. The proof constructs the representations as square-integrable quotients of principal series by taking residues of Borel Eisenstein series, reducing the analytic task to a finite root-system calculation. A sympathetic reader would care because unitarity is exactly the property that lets these representations occur in spaces of automorphic forms, and it had been the main missing predicted property for the exceptional cases.

What carries the argument

The mechanism is the factorization of global intertwining operators $M(w,\lambda,\chi)=c(w,\lambda,\chi)R(w,\lambda,\chi)$, where $c$ is a scalar product of c-functions built from quadratic Dirichlet L-functions and $R$ is the normalized operator, obtained by dividing out the c-function factors, with controlled holomorphy and nonvanishing. Expanding the constant term of a Borel Eisenstein series at $\lambda=\lambda_0+\epsilon\mu$, the pole orders of $c$ determine which Weyl-group terms survive; the requirement that all unwanted terms cancel becomes a finite alternating-sum identity over the stabilizer $W_L$ of $(\lambda_0,\delta_0)$, displayed as equations (11.17)-(11.20). Arithmetic enters through the special values and nonvanishing of $c(s,\xi)$ for quadratic Dirichlet characters, such as $c(0,\xi)=1$, which make the pole-order bookkeeping exact.

What would settle it

Check the paper's alternating-sum identity (11.20) for one listed case with $\mu=\rho$ and $k=k_{\mathrm{bd}}$: a nonzero value would leave an unwanted constant-term coefficient and invalidate the unitarity conclusion for that packet. Alternatively, exhibit a distinguished unipotent Arthur parameter from Table 3 for which a normalized intertwining operator has a pole or zero at the boundary $\mathrm{Re}\langle\lambda,\alpha^\vee\rangle=-1$ used in Section 11.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central assertion is Theorem 4.3: if $G$ is a Chevalley group other than $\mathrm{Spin}(n+1,n)$, $\mathrm{Spin}(n,n)$, or $\mathrm{HSpin}(2n)$, then for every real unipotent Arthur parameter $\psi$ the principal series $I_\infty(\lambda_{O^\vee},\chi_{\sigma,\infty})$ has a unitarizable quotient whose Langlands parameter is $\psi_{\mathrm{Langlands}}$. A unipotent Arthur parameter is a homomorphism $\psi:W_{\mathbb R}\times SL(2,\mathbb C)\to G^\vee(\mathbb C)$ whose restriction to $\mathbb C^\times\subset W_{\mathbb R}$ is trivial; it is encoded by an order-two element $\sigma=\psi(j)$ and an adjoint nilpotent orbit $O^\vee$. The paper lists all distinguished such parameters for the exceptional groups and proves the unitarity claim uniformly by Eisenstein series, with four borderline cases checked by computer-assisted unitary-dual verification.

Load-bearing premise

The proof leans on quoted analytic properties of the normalized intertwining operators—multiplicativity, holomorphy in the region $\mathrm{Re}\langle\lambda,\alpha^\vee\rangle>-1$, and nonvanishing for dominant real part—at boundary points, and the paper itself flags that some of these quoted statements may need qualification; if any fails at those points, the pole-order cancellation argument breaks.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The canonical Langlands element of every unipotent Arthur packet for the split real exceptional groups is unitary, completing the unitarity part of Arthur's conjectures for those groups.
  • Each such representation is realized as a square-integrable quotient of a principal series, giving an explicit global construction rather than a classification-only existence statement.
  • The associated nonarchimedean local components are also unitary, since they arise from the same square-integrable global residues.
  • Because the proof reduces to the finite list in the paper's tables, the unitarity assertion is verifiable case-by-case from the displayed data.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The alternating-sum cancellation identity is likely a shadow of affine Hecke algebra structure, which could explain the cancellations uniformly and may extend to the four computer-checked cases.
  • The same Eisenstein-series strategy should apply to classical split groups and to Spin covers once the analytic properties of their normalized intertwining operators are in place, potentially removing the exclusions in the theorem.
  • One testable extension is whether the residues constructed here realize not only the Langlands element but also other members of the Arthur packet, since the paper only establishes the canonical one.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proves Theorem 4.3 (and hence Theorem 1.1 for the stated Chevalley groups): for split real groups, with the exception of the classical Spin/HSpin cases, the canonical Langlands element of every unipotent Arthur packet is unitarizable. The proof constructs nonzero quotients of principal series I_∞(λ_0, χ_σ,∞) by taking residues of Borel Eisenstein series; it uses Langlands' constant-term formula, the square-integrability criterion for residues, and normalized intertwining operators. The new ingredient is a reduction of square-integrability to explicit combinatorial identities (11.17)–(11.20), combined with arithmetic input from quadratic Dirichlet L-functions. A small number of cases are handled by the atlas software rather than by the uniform Eisenstein-series argument.

Significance. If correct, the paper completes the unitarity assertion of Arthur's conjecture for the canonical elements of all unipotent Arthur packets for split exceptional real groups, a case that was previously open outside the spherical sector. The main contribution is conceptual and technical: it constructs the full representations as residues of Eisenstein series, not just spherical vectors, and it isolates a clean combinatorial criterion that can be verified by computer algebra. The dependence on Dirichlet L-functions is explicit and mild. The paper also demonstrates a useful complementarity with atlas computations, although it does not ship the corresponding verification files.

major comments (3)
  1. [§9, Theorem 9.10; §11, Eqs. (11.5)–(11.16)] The analytic properties collected in Theorem 9.10 are load-bearing, and the manuscript itself signals that they may require qualification: the v2 abstract states that blue comments were added about statements concerning normalized intertwining operators quoted from the literature in Section 9, yet the text of Theorem 9.10 contains no visible qualification. In particular, part 4 (multiplicativity of R_v, quoted from Arthur [A3]) is used to obtain the factorization in (11.8), part 8 supplies holomorphy near the weight λ_0, and part 14 is used after (11.19) to ensure that a nonzero leading coefficient can be found. The argument evaluates at λ_0, where some inner products ⟨λ_0, α∨⟩ vanish, so these properties are needed on the boundary of the regions quoted from the literature. The authors must state precisely which quoted results are being qualified, whether each of parts 4, 8, 11, 12, and 14 remains valid at the specific boundary points used in Section 11, and provide precise references or proofs for the qualified versions. Without this, the pole-order analysis around (11.5)–(11.16) and the resulting square-integrability criterion (10.16) are not fully established.
  2. [§4.1 and §11, first paragraph] The reduction to distinguished Arthur parameters is asserted rather than demonstrated: Section 4.1 says that all non-distinguished parameters were handled 'directly' in atlas, and the first paragraph of Section 11 delegates four further cases to the atlas is_unitairy command. No atlas commands, transcript logs, or outputs are included. Because Theorem 4.3 ranges over all unipotent Arthur parameters, these checks are load-bearing for the completeness of the theorem. The paper should provide reproducible verification files and explain how the atlas computations correspond exactly to the Langlands elements named in Theorem 4.3, especially for the cases where the is_unitairy command alone is used.
  3. [§11, final paragraph; Theorem 4.3] The proof establishes that a certain nonzero quotient of I_∞(λ_0, χ_σ,∞) is unitarizable, but it does not explicitly identify this quotient as the Langlands quotient with parameter ψ_Langlands. The statement of Theorem 4.3 includes the identification of the Langlands parameter, so the final paragraph should invoke the Langlands classification (or an equivalent uniqueness theorem) to explain why the irreducible quotient of the constructed unitarizable quotient has precisely ψ_Langlands as its Langlands parameter. As written, the transition from 'an L²-residue quotient of the standard module' to 'the canonical Langlands element of the packet' is left implicit.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Theorem 1.1; §2] Theorem 1.1 is stated for all Chevalley groups except Spin(n+1,n), Spin(n,n), and HSpin(2n), but the proof in Section 2 restricts to exceptional groups and relies on earlier work for classical groups. Please make this logical dependence explicit in the statement of Theorem 1.1, or state it as a theorem about exceptional groups together with a citation to [A4, Mo, V].
  2. [Table 4] The table caption and surrounding text should define the quantities m and k_bd; the variable k_bd first appears in the display following (11.17) and in Table 4 without a definition.
  3. [§11, after Eq. (11.16)] The statement of the combinatorial vanishing condition in (11.17) uses the bound k_bd, but the relation of k_bd to the order of vanishing in (11.16) is described only in words. A short explicit display connecting (11.17) and (11.18) to the coefficient C^♯(w′, ow′+k_bd, f, ·) would improve readability.
  4. [§10, Eq. (10.16)] The integer m in (10.16) is introduced without explaining how it will be chosen; the later use of Table 4 would be easier to follow if (10.16) explicitly stated that m is the order of the leading coefficient in the Laurent expansion and that the same m is recorded in Table 4.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: unitarity proof reduces to independent Eisenstein-series square-integrability plus combinatorial verification; the only self-citation ([Mi], spherical case) is an external published theorem and is not used in the new non-spherical argument.

full rationale

The derivation is self-contained in the relevant sense: no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no unitarity conclusion is used as an input to the construction. The parameters (λ0, δ0) in Table 3 are obtained from Arthur-parameter classification data, the normalized intertwining operators and c-functions are quoted from the literature (Arthur, Shahidi, Winarsky) or from Dirichlet L-function theory, and the decisive pole-order conditions (11.17)–(11.20) are verified as independent combinatorial identities in Mathematica/LiE. The non-distinguished and four special distinguished cases are checked with the external atlas software rather than being assumed in the Eisenstein-series proof. The v2 abstract's blue-comments caveat about Section 9 statements indicates that some quoted analytic properties of intertwining operators may need qualification, but this is a correctness risk about external analytic input, not a circular reduction of the paper's own claim. The only self-citation is the citation of Miller's spherical-case theorem [Mi] for σ trivial; that is an independent, published result and the paper explicitly notes that the present non-spherical method differs from it, so it is not load-bearing for the new argument.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters are fitted to data; the values in Table 4 are computed bounds from the root system, not fitted constants. The axioms listed are the standard analytic and classification facts the proof depends on, plus the unverified use of atlas as a computational oracle.

assumptions (5)
  • standard math Langlands constant term formula and meromorphic continuation of Eisenstein series are valid as used in (8.3) and Section 10.
    Invoked in Section 8 and Section 10 with citations to Moe glin-Waldspurger; load-bearing for defining the residues whose square-integrability is studied.
  • standard math The analytic properties of Dirichlet L-functions and the c-functions in Lemma 7.11 hold, including nonvanishing at all integers for nontrivial quadratic characters.
    Used in Section 7 to compute pole orders of c(w, lambda, chi) in equation (11.5); the nonvanishing relies on Dirichlet's class number formula and standard L-function facts.
  • domain assumption The properties of normalized intertwining operators in Theorem 9.10, parts 4 through 14, hold as stated, including multiplicativity, holomorphy, nonvanishing, and the scalar identity for Weyl elements fixing lambda0.
    These properties are quoted from Arthur, Shahidi, Winarsky, Zhang, and others; the v2 blue comments about Section 9 indicate the authors felt a need to qualify or comment on these quoted statements.
  • domain assumption The atlas software command 'is unitary' correctly determines unitarity for the four exceptional cases assigned to it in Section 11.
    The paper uses atlas for the (E7, sl8) E6(a1) case, the (E8, e7+sl2) D5+A2 case, and two E8(a7) cases, with no transcript or independent verification provided.
  • domain assumption The enumeration in Table 3 of all distinguished Arthur parameters for the exceptional groups is complete.
    The proof reduces to the cases in Table 3; completeness relies on Cartan's classification of order-two elements and Bala-Carter labels, asserted without a detailed derivation in the paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of On Arthur's unitarity conjecture for split real groups." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2BNS4C2Y

@misc{pith2026190804363,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: On Arthur's unitarity conjecture for split real groups},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2BNS4C2Y}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.04363}
}
read the original abstract

Arthur's conjectures predict the existence of some very interesting unitary representations occurring in spaces of automorphic forms. We prove the unitarity of the "Langlands element" (i.e., the one specified by Arthur) of all unipotent Arthur packets for split real groups. The proof uses Eisenstein series, Langlands' constant term formula and square integrability criterion, analytic properties of intertwining operators, and some mild arithmetic input from the theory of Dirichlet L-functions, to reduce to a more combinatorial problem about intertwining operators. This updated arXiv posting also includes some comments (in blue) concerning statements about normalized intertwining operators we quoted from the literature in Section 9.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.04363 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Cartan showed that if σ ∈ T ∨(C) has order two, then – after possibly replacing σ by a Weyl conjugate – g σ C = g 0 C + aC, where g 0 C is obtained from the affinize-and-delete procedure in the previous paragraph by either 1) removing a single node of the form 2○i , or 2) removing two nodes of the form 1○i from the extended Dynkin diagram for gC in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. The extended Dynkin diagrams of the exceptional simple complex Lie algebras (left) and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Adams, D

    J. Adams, D. Barbasch, and D. Vogan, The Langlands Classication and the Irreducibile Characters for Real Reductive groups , Progress in Mathematics 104 , Birkhauser, 1992

    work page 1992

  2. [2]

    Unitary representations of real reductive groups

    J. Adams, M. van Leeuwen, P. Trapa, and D.A. Vogan Jr., Unitary representations of real reductive groups , arXiv:1212.2192 (2012)

    work page Pith review arXiv 2012

  3. [3]

    Arthur, On some problems suggested by the trace formula , in Lie Group Representations II, Lecture Notes in Math., 1041 , Springer-Verlag, 1983, 1--49

    J. Arthur, On some problems suggested by the trace formula , in Lie Group Representations II, Lecture Notes in Math., 1041 , Springer-Verlag, 1983, 1--49

    work page 1983

  4. [4]

    Arthur, Unipotent automorphic representations: conjectures , Ast\'erisque 171-172 (1989), 13--71

    J. Arthur, Unipotent automorphic representations: conjectures , Ast\'erisque 171-172 (1989), 13--71

    work page 1989

  5. [5]

    Arthur, Intertwining operators and residues

    J. Arthur, Intertwining operators and residues. I. Weighted characters , J. Funct. Anal. 84 (1989), no. 1, 19--84

    work page 1989

  6. [6]

    Arthur, The Endoscopic Classification of Representations Orthogonal and Symplectic Groups

    J. Arthur, The Endoscopic Classification of Representations Orthogonal and Symplectic Groups . American Mathematical Soc. Colloquium Publications 61 , 2013

    work page 2013

  7. [7]

    Atlas of Lie Groups and Representations, http://www.liegroups.org/

    work page

  8. [8]

    Barbasch and D

    D. Barbasch and D. Ciubotaru, Unitary equivalences for reductive p -adic groups , American Journal of Mathematics 135 (2013), 1633--1674

    work page 2013

Show all 42 references
  1. [9]

    Barbasch and A

    D. Barbasch and A. Moy, Reduction to real infinitesimal character in affine Hecke algebras , J. Amer. Math. Soc. 6 (1993), no. 3, 611--635

    1993

  2. [10]

    Beilinson and J

    A. Beilinson and J. Bernstein, Localisation de g -modules , C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris 292 (1981), 15--18

    1981

  3. [11]

    Carter, Finite Groups of Lie Type , J

    R. Carter, Finite Groups of Lie Type , J. Wiley and Sons, (1985)

    1985

  4. [12]

    Casselman, Introduction to the theory of admissible representations of p -adic reductive groups , Available at http://www.math.ubc.ca/ cass/research.html

    W. Casselman, Introduction to the theory of admissible representations of p -adic reductive groups , Available at http://www.math.ubc.ca/ cass/research.html

  5. [13]

    Casselman, Canonical extensions of Harish-Chandra modules to representations of G , Can

    W. Casselman, Canonical extensions of Harish-Chandra modules to representations of G , Can. J. Math 16 (1989), 385--438

    1989

  6. [14]

    Collingwood and W

    D. Collingwood and W. McGovern, Nilpotent Orbits in Semisimple Lie Algebras , Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York 1993

    1993

  7. [15]

    Davenport, Harold, Multiplicative Number Theory (3rd ed.), Graduate Texts in Mathematics 74 , Springer-Verlag, 2000

    H. Davenport, Harold, Multiplicative Number Theory (3rd ed.), Graduate Texts in Mathematics 74 , Springer-Verlag, 2000

    2000

  8. [16]

    De Martino, V

    M. De Martino, V. Heiermann, and E. Opdam, On the unramified spherical automorphic spectrum , arxiv:1512.08566

    arXiv

  9. [17]

    Demazure, A

    M. Demazure, A. Grothendieck, Sch\'emas en groupes III , Lecture Notes in Math 153 , Springer-Verlag, New York, 1970

    1970

  10. [18]

    Green, S.D

    M.B. Green, S.D. Miller, and P. Vanhove, Small representations, string instantons, and Fourier modes Of Eisenstein series, with appendix ``Special unipotent representations'' by Dan Ciubotaru and Peter E. Trapa , Journal of Number Theory 146 (2015), pp. 187--309

    2015

  11. [19]

    Iwahori, N., H

    N. Iwahori, N., H. Matsumoto, On some Bruhat decomposition and the structure of the Hecke rings of p -adic Chevalley groups , Inst. Hautes \'Etudes Sci. Publ. Math. No. 25 (1965), 5--48

    1965

  12. [20]

    Keys and F

    D. Keys and F. Shahidi, Artin L-functions and normalization of intertwining operators , Ann. Sci. \'Ecole Norm. Sup. (4) 21 (1988), no. 1, 67--89

    1988

  13. [21]

    Kim, The residual spectrum of G_2 , Can

    H.H. Kim, The residual spectrum of G_2 , Can. J. Math. 48 (1996), pp. 1245-1272

    1996

  14. [22]

    Kim, Residual spectrum of split classical groups: contribution from Borel subgroups , Pacific J

    H. Kim, Residual spectrum of split classical groups: contribution from Borel subgroups , Pacific J. Math. 199 (2001), no. 2, 417--445

    2001

  15. [23]

    Kim and F

    H. Kim and F. Shahidi, Quadratic unipotent Arthur parameters and residual spectrum of symplectic groups , Amer. J. Math. 118 (1996), 401--425

    1996

  16. [24]

    Knapp, Representation theory of semisimple groups

    A.W. Knapp, Representation theory of semisimple groups. An overview based on examples . Princeton Mathematical Series, 36 . Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1986

    1986

  17. [25]

    Langlands, On the functional equations satisfied by Eisenstein series , Springer Verlag Lecture Notes in Mathematics, 544 (1976)

    R.P. Langlands, On the functional equations satisfied by Eisenstein series , Springer Verlag Lecture Notes in Mathematics, 544 (1976)

    1976

  18. [26]

    Miller, Residual automorphic forms and spherical unitary representations of exceptional groups , Ann

    S.D. Miller, Residual automorphic forms and spherical unitary representations of exceptional groups , Ann. of Math. (2) 177 (2013), no. 3, 1169--1179

    2013

  19. [27]

    M glin, Repr\'esentations unipotentes et formes automorphes de carr\'e int\'egrable , Forum Math

    C. M glin, Repr\'esentations unipotentes et formes automorphes de carr\'e int\'egrable , Forum Math. 6 (1994), pp. 651--744

    1994

  20. [28]

    M glin and J.-L

    C. M glin and J.-L. Waldspurger, Spectral decomposition and Eisenstein series. Une paraphrase de l'\'Ecriture , Cambridge Tracts in Mathematics, 113 . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1995

    1995

  21. [29]

    Ngo, Le lemme fondamental pour les algèbres de Lie , Publications Mathématiques de l'IH\'ES 111 (2010), pp

    B.C. Ngo, Le lemme fondamental pour les algèbres de Lie , Publications Mathématiques de l'IH\'ES 111 (2010), pp. 1--169

    2010

  22. [30]

    Reeder, Torsion automorphisms of simple Lie algebras , L'Enseignement Math\'ematique 56 (2010), 3--47

    M. Reeder, Torsion automorphisms of simple Lie algebras , L'Enseignement Math\'ematique 56 (2010), 3--47

    2010

  23. [31]

    Schiffmann, Int\'egrales d'entrelacement et fonctions de Whittaker , Bull

    G. Schiffmann, Int\'egrales d'entrelacement et fonctions de Whittaker , Bull. Soc. Math. France 99 (1971), 3--72

    1971

  24. [32]

    Shahidi, Whittaker models for real groups , Duke Math

    F. Shahidi, Whittaker models for real groups , Duke Math. J., 47 (1980), 99-125

    1980

  25. [33]

    Shahidi, On certain L -functions , Amer

    F. Shahidi, On certain L -functions , Amer. J. Math., 103 (1981), 297--355

    1981

  26. [34]

    Shahidi, Local coefficients and normalization of intertwining operators for GL(n ) , Comp

    F. Shahidi, Local coefficients and normalization of intertwining operators for GL(n ) , Comp. Math. 48 (1983), 271--295

    1983

  27. [35]

    Silberger, Introduction to harmonic analysis on reductive p -adic groups

    A. Silberger, Introduction to harmonic analysis on reductive p -adic groups. Based on lectures by Harish-Chandra at the Institute for Advanced Study, 1971--1973. Mathematical Notes, 23 . Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J.; University of Tokyo Press, Tokyo, 1979

    1971

  28. [36]

    Springer, Linear Algebraic Groups, 2nd Ed., Birkh\"auser, 1998

    T.A. Springer, Linear Algebraic Groups, 2nd Ed., Birkh\"auser, 1998

    1998

  29. [37]

    Steinberg, Lectures on Chevalley Groups , Yale Univ

    R. Steinberg, Lectures on Chevalley Groups , Yale Univ. Lecture Notes, 1967

    1967

  30. [38]

    Vogan, The unitary dual of G_2 , Invent

    D. Vogan, The unitary dual of G_2 , Invent. math. 116 (1994), 667-791

    1994

  31. [39]

    Vogan and N

    D. Vogan and N. Wallach, Intertwining operators for real reductive groups , Adv. in Math. 82 (1990), 203--243

    1990

  32. [40]

    Wallach, Real Reductive Groups II , Academic Press, Pure and Applied Mathematics, vol

    N. Wallach, Real Reductive Groups II , Academic Press, Pure and Applied Mathematics, vol. 132-II , 1992

    1992

  33. [41]

    Winarsky, Reducibility of principal series representations of p -adic Chevalley groups , Amer

    N. Winarsky, Reducibility of principal series representations of p -adic Chevalley groups , Amer. J. Math. 100 (1978), 941--956

    1978

  34. [42]

    Zhang, The holomorphy and nonvanishing of normalized local intertwining operators , Pacific J

    Y. Zhang, The holomorphy and nonvanishing of normalized local intertwining operators , Pacific J. of Math. 180 (1997), 385--398

    1997

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.