Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 37 references

$L$-packets and the generic Arthur packet conjectures for even unitary similitude groups

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Generic representations of even unitary similitude groups match Langlands parameters, forcing Arthur packets to be tempered.

desk verdict Plausible architecture and likely true main theorems, but Section 4's unconditional claims rest on an ill-defined local base change and a wrong globalization citation. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.00892 v1 pith:BKESRE6J submitted 2025-06-01 math.NT

Yeansu Kim , Muthu Krishnamurthy , Freydoon Shahidi This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.NT MSC 11F6711F6611F7011F7522E55
keywords localLanglandscorrespondencegenericArthurpacketconjectureLanglands-ShahidiL-functionsArtinunitarysimilitudegroupsL-packetsbasechangelifttemperedrepresentations
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 the generic local Langlands correspondence for the even unitary similitude groups $\mathrm{GU}(n,n)$: for every generic representation, the Langlands-Shahidi $L$-functions and gamma factors agree with Artin $L$-functions attached to a Langlands parameter. From that equality it derives both the weak and the strong generic Arthur packet conjectures, for $\mathrm{GU}(n,n)$ and for even unitary groups $\mathrm{U}(n,n)$. A generic member of an L-packet forces the whole packet to be tempered, which is a local form of the Ramanujan conjecture. To make the statement unconditional, the paper defines L-packets and local $L$-functions for all representations, generic or not, using a stable base change lift built from restriction to the unitary subgroup. If the construction is sound, it gives the expected finiteness, Shahidi's conjecture, and compatibility with the Langlands classification.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the stable base change lift $BC(\pi)=BC_U(\pi_1)\otimes \bar{\omega}_\pi$ of Definition 4.3: restrict $\pi$ of $\mathrm{GU}(n,n)$ to the index-two unitary subgroup, transfer one irreducible constituent $\pi_1$ by the stable base change from unitary groups to general linear groups, and twist by the conjugate central character. L-packets are defined by requiring equal central character and equal base change (Definition 4.4), and local $L$- and $\gamma$-factors are defined through this lift (Definition 4.5). The argument runs on two properties: temperedness is preserved under the base change lift (Lemma 3.9), and a single tempered generic member forces all members of an L-packet to be tempered (Lemma 3.6).

What would settle it

Work out the local base change of a single supercuspidal representation of $\mathrm{GU}(2,2)$ by hand: if two irreducible constituents of the restriction to $\mathrm{U}(2,2)$ yield non-isomorphic base change lifts, then Definition 4.3 collapses and the L-packets of Section 4 are not well-defined. Alternatively, exhibit an Arthur parameter $\psi$ with non-tempered $\phi_\psi$ whose Section 4 L-packet contains a generic representation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is Theorem 3.1: for an irreducible admissible generic representation $\pi$ of $G_n(F)=\mathrm{GU}(n,n)(F)$, there is a Langlands parameter $\phi_\pi$ such that for every irreducible admissible generic representation $\rho$ of $\mathrm{GL}_k(F)$, one has $L(s,\rho \times \pi)=L(s,\phi_\rho \otimes \phi_\pi)$ and $\gamma(s,\rho \times \pi,\psi_F)=\gamma(s,\phi_\rho \otimes \phi_\pi,\psi_F)$. The parameter is assembled by taking the stable base change lift of a generic constituent of $\pi$ restricted to the unitary subgroup, matching it to a conjugate self-dual parameter of $\mathrm{GL}_{2n}(E)$, and combining it with the central character. For an Arthur parameter $\psi$ with associated Langlands parameter $\phi_\psi$, Theorems 3.10 and 3.11 then show that if the L-packet attached to $\phi_\psi$ has a generic member, the whole L-packet is tempered, for both $G_n=\mathrm{GU}(n,n)$ and $H_n=\mathrm{U}(n,n)$. The final section removes the earlier assumption that local factors exist for non-generic representations by defining L-packets through the base change lift (Definitions 4.3--4.5), making the temperedness result unconditional.

Load-bearing premise

At the step where every local representation is matched to a global one and the base change lift is chosen, the paper assumes that the choice of irreducible constituent of the restriction to the unitary subgroup does not change the lift; this independence is not proved, and the cited local-to-global theorem is for $\mathrm{GL}(3)$, not for these groups.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For any Arthur parameter of $\mathrm{GU}(n,n)$ or $\mathrm{U}(n,n)$ whose L-packet has a generic member, the entire L-packet is tempered (Theorems 3.10 and 3.11).
  • The generic local Langlands correspondence holds: Langlands-Shahidi local factors coincide with Artin factors, so the Langlands parameter of a generic representation is determined by its twisted $L$-functions.
  • Shahidi's conjecture holds for $\mathrm{GU}(n,n)$: every tempered L-packet contains a generic representation.
  • L-packets of $\mathrm{GU}(n,n)$ are finite, respect the Langlands classification, and the new $L$-functions agree with the Langlands-Shahidi $L$-functions in the generic case.
  • The strong generic Arthur packet conjecture, a local analogue of the generalized Ramanujan conjecture, is now established for these groups.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the independence of the chosen constituent in Definition 4.3 holds, the same restriction-and-base-change recipe could define L-packets for other groups that contain a subgroup with a known endoscopic classification as a finite-index subgroup, such as similitude symplectic or GSpin groups.
  • The equality in Theorem 3.1 suggests a practical temperedness test: a generic representation is tempered exactly when its twisted $L$-functions have no poles in the right half-plane, which could be checked without explicitly constructing the full Langlands parameter.
  • The unconditional claim inherits the strength of the local-to-global input [17]; if that input does not cover all local representations of $\mathrm{GU}(n,n)$, the Section 4 definitions would need a different globalisation argument.
  • A natural next case is odd unitary similitude groups, where the unitary subgroup is not index two in the same way, so the restriction method would require a modified construction of the base change lift.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proves a generic local Langlands correspondence for the quasi-split even unitary similitude group G_n = GU(n,n) over a p-adic field: for every irreducible admissible generic representation π there is a Langlands parameter φ_π such that the Langlands–Shahidi L-functions and γ-factors against GL(k) match the Artin factors for φ_ρ ⊗ φ_π. From this equality and Shahidi's earlier theorem, the authors deduce the weak generic Arthur packet conjecture for G_n; combining this with additional properties of L-packets (Lemmas 3.6 and 3.9, Proposition 3.8) they prove the strong version of the conjecture for G_n and for H_n = U(n,n). In Section 4 they attempt to remove Assumption 3.3 by defining local base change and L-packets for all unitarizable representations of G_n via restriction to the unitary group, using this to define L-functions in the non-generic case and to prove expected properties including finiteness of L-packets and Shahidi's conjecture.

Significance. If the technical gaps in Section 4 are fixed, the paper would establish the generic Arthur packet conjectures for two new families of groups, GU(n,n) and U(n,n), extending Mok's endoscopic classification and the Langlands–Shahidi method. The explicit unramified calculations and the proposed definition of L-packets for GU(n,n) are potentially useful contributions. The paper is transparent about its dependence on major prior results (Mok, Kim–Krishnamurthy, Heiermann) and gives a clear reduction of the strong conjecture to the equality of L-functions. The main caveat is that the ``unconditional'' claims are currently conditional on a well-defined local base change lift, and the proof of this well-definedness is the main missing piece.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.2, Definition 4.3] The local base change lift BC(π) is not shown to be well-defined. The proof states that [17, Theorem, Appendix 1] provides a number field k and a cuspidal automorphic representation π of G_n(A_k) with π_v ≅ π, but [17] is Henniart's memoir on the local Langlands correspondence for GL(3) and contains no such globalization statement for unitary similitude groups. Without a valid globalization theorem, the route from a local representation to a global cuspidal representation is unsupported. Moreover, even if such a globalization exists, Definition 4.3 fixes an arbitrary irreducible constituent π1 of π|_H and never proves that BC_U(π1) ⊗ ω̄_π is independent of that choice; the two constituents are related by conjugation by an element of G \ H, and the required identity BC_U(π1 ∘ Ad(g)) ≅ BC_U(π1) is not proved. Since Definitions 4.4–4.5, Proposition 4.6, and Corollary 4.8 all depend on Definition 4.3, Corollary 4.8 does not discharge Assumption 3.3, and Theorems 3.10–3.11 are not established unconditionally as claimed in the abstract and Theorem 1.1.
  2. [Proposition 4.6(2), proof] The proof of Shahidi's conjecture for G is incomplete. From a generic member π1_g of the tempered H-packet, the authors assert that ``the pair (π1_g, ω_πt) defines a representation of the subgroup Z_H ⊂ G'' and then derive a generic irreducible representation π_g of G by Frobenius reciprocity. The relevant subgroup is H, not the central subgroup Z_H, and the notation is inconsistent with §2.1. The proof must show that the representation of H with central character ω_πt extends to G and that the extended representation is generic; neither step is supplied. Since Proposition 4.6(2) is one of the principal advertised applications, a complete proof is needed.
  3. [Proposition 3.8 and Lemma 3.9] The proof of Proposition 3.8 is only a sketch: it states that the argument is similar to [24, Section 6], which treats GSpin groups, and does not provide a precise classification statement for discrete series of G_n(F) or a justification that the GSpin argument transfers verbatim. This proposition is used in the sufficient direction of Lemma 3.9, which in turn is essential in Theorem 3.10 to conclude that π is tempered from the temperedness of its local functorial lift. The authors should either give a complete proof of Proposition 3.8 or cite an existing classification theorem for discrete series of even unitary similitude groups.
  4. [Theorem 4.2] Theorem 4.2 extends [23, Lemma 5.4] from globally generic cuspidal representations to arbitrary cuspidal automorphic representations of G_n(A_k), but the proof only says to follow the arguments of [23, Lemma 5.4] with the diagram of base change maps. The original lemma is proved by generic-global considerations, and the non-generic case requires additional input from Mok's classification, including the location of the cuspidal support and potential residual-spectrum issues. Because Theorem 4.2 is the basis for the local definition of BC(π) in Definition 4.3, the extension must be justified rather than asserted.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§2.3.1] The phrase ``As observed earlier, Z_H ⊂ G is a subgroup of index 2'' appears to be a typo for H ⊂ G; the notation Z_H is used for the central intersection Z ∩ H in §2.1, not for a subgroup of index 2, and the same confusion recurs in the proof of Proposition 4.6(2).
  2. [Definition 4.3] The word ``definend'' should read ``defined''.
  3. [§3.1] The commutative diagram involving W_F, L_G, L_H, and L(R_{E/F} GL_1) is not typeset legibly; a proper display is needed.
  4. [§2.2.3] In the unramified calculation, the exponent in the product formula for L(s, π, r_i) mixes n_γ and q in a way that is hard to parse; the notation should be made explicit.
  5. [Lemma 3.6] The sentence ``n_t and n_0 are in the same parity'' is unclear; likely ``n_t and n have the same parity'' or ``the same rank parity'' is intended.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: proofs reduce to established unitary-group and GL results, and the Section 4 L-packet construction is definitional rather than a fitted prediction.

full rationale

The main equalities of L-functions are not obtained by definition. Theorem 3.1 reduces a supercuspidal generic π to a generic constituent π1 of π|H, uses Mok's stable base change for unitary groups to produce Π1=BC_U(π1), and then obtains φ_π from (φ_{π1}, \barω_π); the displayed L/γ equalities are the already-proved unitary-group equalities transported through the local converse theorem, not the paper's conclusion fed back into its hypotheses. Theorem 3.7 is a modus ponens using Shahidi [35, Thm 5.1], whose hypothesis is exactly the equality proved in Theorem 3.1, so the self-citation is support, not circularity. Section 4 constructs non-generic L-packets by equating stable base changes and then proves properties of these defined objects; no parameter is fitted and no output is a renamed input. The serious weaknesses—Definition 4.3's reliance on [17] for a globalization statement not present there, and the unproved independence of the chosen constituent π1 of π|H—are correctness and well-definedness gaps affecting Corollary 4.8, but they are not reductions of the conclusion to the premise, so they do not make the derivation circular.

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

The paper's central claims rest on a chain of published theorems in the Langlands program. No new free parameters or entities are introduced. The main structural risks are the globalization step in Section 4 and the sketched extensions of prior proofs to GU(n,n).

assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Local Langlands correspondence for GL_n over p-adic fields (Harris-Taylor [10], Henniart [19]).
    Used in Theorem 3.1 to attach Langlands parameters to generic representations of GL groups and to compute Artin L-functions.
  • domain assumption Endoscopic classification of quasi-split unitary groups (Mok [29]).
    Provides Arthur packets and L-packets for H_n, including tempered L-packets, and the stable base change lift BC_U used throughout Section 4.
  • domain assumption Stable base change lift from unitary groups to GL (Kim-Krishnamurthy [22]).
    Theorems 2.3 and 2.5 use [22, Theorem 8.4 and 8.10] to construct local and global base change lifts for generic representations; Lemma 3.9 follows [22, Proposition 8.5].
  • domain assumption Shahidi's theorem connecting equality of L-functions to the weak generic Arthur packet conjecture [35, Theorem 5.1].
    Used to derive Theorem 3.7 from Theorem 3.1.
  • domain assumption Heiermann's theory of Langlands parameters for non-supercuspidal representations [12, Section 6.2] and equality of local factors [13, Theorem 4.4].
    Used in the proof of Theorem 3.1 to extend from supercuspidal to discrete series and general admissible representations.
  • domain assumption Heiermann-Opdam tempered L-function conjecture [16].
    Used in Lemmas 3.6 and 3.9 to assert holomorphy of L(s, ρ × π0) for tempered generic π0 in Re(s) > 0.
  • domain assumption Standard modules conjecture for p-adic groups (Heiermann-Muić [15]).
    Used in Proposition 3.8 and Lemma 3.9 for the structure of non-tempered representations.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of $L$-packets and the generic Arthur packet conjectures for even unitary similitude groups." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BKESRE6J

@misc{pith2026250600892,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: $L$-packets and the generic Arthur packet conjectures for even unitary similitude groups},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BKESRE6J}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.00892}
}
abstract

We establish the generic local Langlands correspondence by showing the equality of the Langlands-Shahidi $L$-functions and Artin $L$-functions in the case of even unitary similitude groups. As an application, we prove both weak and strong versions of the generic Arthur packet conjectures in the cases of even unitary similitude groups and even unitary groups. We further describe (not necessarily generic) $L$-packets for even unitary similitude groups and establish their expected properties, including Shahidi's conjecture, the finiteness of $L$-packets, and other related results.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

  1. [17]

    Henniart, La conjecture de Langlands locale pour GL(3), M´ em

    G. Henniart, La conjecture de Langlands locale pour GL(3), M´ em. Soc. Math. Fr. no. 11-12 (1983)

    work page 1983

  2. [1]

    Arthur, On some problems suggested by the trace formula, Lie Group Repre- sentations II, Proceedings, Univ

    J. Arthur, On some problems suggested by the trace formula, Lie Group Repre- sentations II, Proceedings, Univ. of Maryland (B. Herb, S. Kudla, R. Lipsman and J. Rosenberg, ed.), 1041 Springer LN, (1982-83), 1–49

    work page 1982

  3. [2]

    Arthur, Unipotent automorohic representations: conjectures, Ast´ erisque, pp

    J. Arthur, Unipotent automorohic representations: conjectures, Ast´ erisque, pp. 13-71 (1989), Orbites unipotentes et repr´ esentations, II

    work page 1989

  4. [3]

    Arthur, The endoscopic classification of representations: Orthogonal and symplectic groups, Amer

    J. Arthur, The endoscopic classification of representations: Orthogonal and symplectic groups, Amer. Math. Soc. Colloq. Publ. Vol 61, American Math- ematical Society, Providence, RI, 2013

    work page 2013

  5. [4]

    Ban, Symmetry of Arthur parameters under Aubert involution, J

    D. Ban, Symmetry of Arthur parameters under Aubert involution, J. Lie Theory 16 (2006), no. 1, 251–270

    work page 2006

  6. [5]

    Borel, Automorphic L-functions, Automorphic forms, representations and L- functions (Proc

    A. Borel, Automorphic L-functions, Automorphic forms, representations and L- functions (Proc. Sympos. Pure Math. Oregon State Univ. Corvallis Ore. 1977) Part 2 Proc. Sympos. Pure Math. XXXIII Amer. Math. Soc. Providence R.I. (1979), 27–61

    work page 1979

  7. [6]

    Borel, Linear algebraic groups, Graduate Texts in Mathematics, Second Edi- tion, Springer-Verlag New York 126 (1991)

    A. Borel, Linear algebraic groups, Graduate Texts in Mathematics, Second Edi- tion, Springer-Verlag New York 126 (1991)

    work page 1991

  8. [7]

    W. Gan, B. Gross and D. Prasad, Symplectic local root numbers, central crit- ical L-values, and restriction problems in the representation theory of classical groups (English, with English and French summaries), Ast´ erisque,346 (2012), 111–170

    work page 2012

Show all 37 references
  1. [8]

    Gelbart and A

    S.S. Gelbart and A. W. Knapp, L-indistinguishability and R groups for the special linear group, Adv. Math., 43 (1982), 101–121

    1982

  2. [9]

    Goldberg, Reducibility for non-connected p-adic groups, with G˝ of prime index, Can

    D. Goldberg, Reducibility for non-connected p-adic groups, with G˝ of prime index, Can. J. Math., 47(2) (1995), 344–363

    1995

  3. [10]

    M. Harris. and R. Taylor, The geometry and cohomology of some simple Shimura varieties, Ann. of Math. Stud. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ 151 (2001)

    2001

  4. [11]

    Michael Harris and Jean-Pierre Labesse Conditional Base Change for Unitary Groups, Asian J. Math. Vol. 8, No. 4, pp. 653–684, December 2004

    2004

  5. [12]

    Heiermann, Orbites unipotentes et pˆ oles d’ordre maximal de la fonctionµ de Harish-Chandra (French, with French summary), Canad

    V. Heiermann, Orbites unipotentes et pˆ oles d’ordre maximal de la fonctionµ de Harish-Chandra (French, with French summary), Canad. J. Math. 58 (2006), no. 6, 1203–1228

    2006

  6. [13]

    Heiermann, Unipotent orbits and local L-functions, J

    V. Heiermann, Unipotent orbits and local L-functions, J. Reine Angew. Math., 596 (2006), 103–114

    2006

  7. [14]

    Heiermann and Y

    V. Heiermann and Y. Kim, On the generic local Langlands correspondence for GSpin groups, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 369 (2017), 4257–4291

    2017

  8. [15]

    Heiermann and G

    V. Heiermann and G. Mui´ c,On the standard modules conjecture, Math. Z. 255 (2007), no. 4, 847–853

    2007

  9. [16]

    Heiermann and E

    V. Heiermann and E. Opdam, On the tempered L-function conjecture, Amer. J. Math. 135 (2013), no. 3, 777–799

    2013

  10. [18]

    Henniart, Caract´ erisation de la correspondance de Langlands locale par les facteurs de paires, Invent

    G. Henniart, Caract´ erisation de la correspondance de Langlands locale par les facteurs de paires, Invent. Math. 113 (1993), 339–350

    1993

  11. [19]

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

    G. Henniart, Une preuve simple des conjectures de Langlands pour GL(n) sur un corps p-adique, Invent. Math. 139 (2000), 439–455. L-PACKETS AND THE GENERIC ARTHUR PACKET CONJECTURES FOR GUpn, nq25

    2000

  12. [20]

    Jacquet, I.I

    H. Jacquet, I.I. Piatetskii-Shapiro and J.A. Shalika, Rankin-Selberg convolu- tions, Amer. J. Math. 105 (1983), no. 2, 367–464

    1983

  13. [21]

    Jantzen and B

    C. Jantzen and B. Liu, The generic dual of p-adic split SO2n and local Langlands parameters, Israel J. Math. 204 (2014), no. 1, 199–260

    2014

  14. [22]

    Kim and M

    H. Kim and M. Krishnamurthy, Stable base change lift from unitary groups to GLn, IMRP Int. Math. Res. Pap. 1 (2005), 1–52

    2005

  15. [23]

    Kim and M

    H. Kim and M. Krishnamurthy, Twisted exterior square lift from GUp2, 2qE{F to GL6{F , J. Ramanujan Math. Soc. 23 (2008), no. 4, 381–412

    2008

  16. [24]

    Strongly positive representations in an exceptional rank-one reducibility case

    Y. Kim: Strongly positive representations of GSpin2n`1 and the Jacquet module method. with an appendix, “Strongly positive representations in an exceptional rank-one reducibility case” by Ivan Mati´ c.Math. Z. 279 (2015), 271–296

    2015

  17. [25]

    Kim, Langlands-Shahidi L-functions for GSpin groups and the generic Arthur packet conjecture, Trans

    Y. Kim, Langlands-Shahidi L-functions for GSpin groups and the generic Arthur packet conjecture, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 374 (2021), 2559–2580

    2021

  18. [26]

    Kim and I

    Y. Kim and I. Mati´ c, Classification of strongly positive representation of gen- eral unitary groups, In: Aubert AM., Mishra M., Roche A., Spallone S. (eds) Representations of Reductive p-adic Groups, Progr. Math. 328 (2019), 161–174

    2019

  19. [27]

    R. P. Langlands, On the classification of irreducible representations of real al- gebraic groups, Representation Theory and Harmonic Analysis on Semisimple Lie Groups (P. J. Sally Jr. and D. A. Vogan Jr., eds.), Math. Surveys Monogr. 31 American Mathematical Society, Rhode Isl...

    1989

  20. [28]

    Liu, Genericity of representations of p-adic Sp2n and local Langlands param- eters, Canad

    B. Liu, Genericity of representations of p-adic Sp2n and local Langlands param- eters, Canad. J. Math. 63 (2011), no. 5, 1107–1136

    2011

  21. [29]

    Mok, Endoscopic classification of representations of quasi-split unitary groups, Mem

    C. Mok, Endoscopic classification of representations of quasi-split unitary groups, Mem. Amer. Math. Soc. V olume 235(2015), no. 1108

    2015

  22. [30]

    Rogawski, Automorphic representations of unitary groups in three vari- ables, Ann

    J.D. Rogawski, Automorphic representations of unitary groups in three vari- ables, Ann. of Math. Stud. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ 123 (1990)

    1990

  23. [31]

    Rogawski, Analytic expression for the number of points mod p, The zeta functions of Picard modular surfaces, Univ

    J.D. Rogawski, Analytic expression for the number of points mod p, The zeta functions of Picard modular surfaces, Univ. Montr´ eal, Montreal, QC, (1992), 65–109

    1992

  24. [32]

    Shahidi, Fourier transforms of intertwining operators and Plancherel mea- sures for GLpnq,, Amer

    F. Shahidi, Fourier transforms of intertwining operators and Plancherel mea- sures for GLpnq,, Amer. J. Math. 106 (1984), no. 1, 67–111

    1984

  25. [33]

    Shahidi, On the Ramanujan conjecture and finiteness of poles for certain L-functions, Ann

    F. Shahidi, On the Ramanujan conjecture and finiteness of poles for certain L-functions, Ann. of Math. (2), 127 (1988), no. 3, 547–584

    1988

  26. [34]

    Shahidi, A proof of Langlands’ conjecture on Plancherel measures; comple- mentary series for p-adic groups

    F. Shahidi, A proof of Langlands’ conjecture on Plancherel measures; comple- mentary series for p-adic groups. Ann. of Math. (2) Second Series 132 (1990), 273–330

    1990

  27. [35]

    Shahidi, Arthur Packets and the Ramanujan Conjecture, Kyoto J

    F. Shahidi, Arthur Packets and the Ramanujan Conjecture, Kyoto J. Math. (memorial issues for the late M. Nagata), 51 (2011), no. 1, 1–23

    2011

  28. [36]

    Tadi´ c,Notes on representations of non-Archimedean SLpnq, Pac

    M. Tadi´ c,Notes on representations of non-Archimedean SLpnq, Pac. J. Math. 152 (1992), no. 2, 375–396

    1992

  29. [37]

    152 (2016), no

    Bin Xu, On a lifting problem of L-packets, Compositio Mathematica. 152 (2016), no. 9, 1800–1850. 26 YEANSU KIM, MUTHU KRISHNAMURTHY, AND FREYDOON SHAHIDI Department of Mathematics Education, Chonnam National University, 77 Yongbong-ro, Buk-gu, Gwangju 61186, South Korea Email ...

    2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.