On the Local Converse Theorem for Depth $\frac{1}{N}$ Supercuspidal Representations of $\text{GL}(2N, F)$

David C. Luo; Shaun Stevens

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 23 references

On the Local Converse Theorem for Depth $\frac{1}{N}$ Supercuspidal Representations of $\text{GL}(2N, F)$

T0 review · 3 major / 4 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 Two families of twists uniquely determine middle supercuspidals

desk verdict New family of depth 1/N middle supercuspidals of GL(2N,F) with a sharp local converse theorem; the main computations are credible but two load-bearing gaps need referee scrutiny. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.22357 v1 pith:FXV22NLC submitted 2025-05-28 math.RT math.NT

David C. Luo , Shaun Stevens This is my paper

classification math.RTmath.NT MSC 22E5011F70

keywords localconversetheoremsupercuspidalrepresentationstwistedgammafactorsmiddlesimplemaximaltypesWhittakerfunctionsconductorformula

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 constructs a new family of depth $1/N$ supercuspidal representations of $\mathrm{GL}(2N,F)$, called middle supercuspidal representations, as a natural next step after simple supercuspidals. It proves a local converse theorem for them: two irreducible supercuspidal representations with equal central characters are isomorphic once their twisted gamma factors agree for every tamely ramified character of $F^\times$ and every simple supercuspidal representation of $\mathrm{GL}(N,F)$. This cuts the twist set far below what the general local converse theorem allows, where all supercuspidal twists of rank up to $N$ are permitted, and it supports a depth-based refinement of the local converse conjecture. The argument is explicit: twisted gamma factors are computed from the representation's type data, and conductor inequalities rule out every other depth $1/N$ supercuspidal.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the explicit Whittaker function $W_{(f,\chi,\zeta)}$ attached to the maximal simple type $(J_f,\Lambda_{(f,\chi,\zeta)})$ that builds a middle supercuspidal. Its support is contained in the disjoint union $\bigsqcup_{k\in\mathbb{Z}} \mathrm{N}(2N,F)\,\beta_f^k J_f$, and the core computations show that only the $k=-1$ term contributes to tame-character twists and only the $k=-N$ term contributes to simple-supercuspidal twists. This support analysis turns each twisted gamma factor into a monomial in $q_F^{-s}$ multiplied by known characters, exposing which parameters of the type each twist sees; the conductor formula for completely distinct pairs handles all remaining depth $1/N$ supercuspidals.

What would settle it

Evaluate the ratio of the two sides of Proposition 3.10 for a fixed middle supercuspidal and two simple supercuspidal twists that differ only in central character; the paper predicts the ratio is the same rational function of $q_F^{-s}$. If the ratio depends on the central character, the independence claim fails and the distinguishing argument collapses.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is Theorem 1.1: if $\pi = \pi(\bar f,\chi,\zeta)$ is a middle supercuspidal representation of $\mathrm{GL}(2N,F)$ and $\pi'$ is any irreducible supercuspidal representation with the same central character, then equality of $\gamma(s,\pi \times \tau,\psi_F)$ and $\gamma(s,\pi' \times \tau,\psi_F)$ for all tamely ramified quasi-characters $\tau$ of $F^\times$ and all simple supercuspidal representations $\tau$ of $\mathrm{GL}(N,F)$ forces $\pi \cong \pi'$. The gamma factors are computed explicitly: twisting by a tame character $\lambda$ gives $\zeta^{-1}\lambda(-c^{-1}\varpi_F^2)q_F^{1-2s}$, so tame twists determine $\zeta$ and the reduction of $c$ modulo the prime ideal; twisting by a simple supercuspidal $\pi(u,\varphi,\zeta')$ gives $\zeta^{-N}\chi(a c u + a\sigma_f)\,\omega(u,\varphi,\zeta')(a u\varpi_F^2)\,P(q_F^{-s})$, with $P$ nonzero and independent of $\chi,\zeta,\zeta'$, which fixes the remaining data. A conductor comparison using complete distinctness then separates middle supercuspidals from every other depth $1/N$ supercuspidal of $\mathrm{GL}(2N,F)$, completing the characterization.

Load-bearing premise

The argument hinges on the support formula for the explicit Whittaker function and on the assertion that the leftover factor in the twisted gamma factor is nonzero and independent of $\chi$, $\zeta$, and the twist's central character; if either piece gives way, the proof cannot separate representations.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A middle supercuspidal representation is determined by far fewer twists than the general local converse theorem requires: only tame characters of $F^\times$ and simple supercuspidals of $\mathrm{GL}(N,F)$ are needed, not all supercuspidal twists of rank up to $N$.
Equality of twisted gamma factors against the finite set $\Xi_{\mathrm{middle}}$ forces equality of central characters, so the central-character hypothesis in Theorem 1.1 can be dropped at the cost of adding finitely many positive-depth character twists.
The depth-filtered converse conjecture stated as Conjecture 1.3 is verified for depth-zero, simple, and middle supercuspidal representations, giving evidence that twists of depth no larger than the representation's depth should suffice.
Every depth $1/N$ supercuspidal of $\mathrm{GL}(2N,F)$ that is not of middle type has a simple supercuspidal twist of $\mathrm{GL}(N,F)$ with a strictly smaller conductor, so the gamma-factor test separates middle from non-middle representations.
The same method is expected to extend to depth $1/N$ minimax supercuspidal representations of $\mathrm{GL}(dN,F)$ for general $d$, with $d=1$ recovering simple and $d=2$ recovering middle supercuspidals.

Reading between the lines

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

The paper does not state this, but the explicit gamma-factor formulas suggest that the parameters $\zeta$, $c \bmod P_F$, and $\chi$ can be read off directly from finitely many values of the twisted gamma factors, making the converse theorem algorithmic for this family.
If the independence of the leftover factor $P(q_F^{-s})$ survives for $d>2$, the same support analysis would likely prove a local converse theorem for all minimax depth $1/N$ supercuspidals of $\mathrm{GL}(dN,F)$; if it fails for some $d$, the set of necessary twists would need to grow.
The conductor-based exclusion of non-middle representations suggests a more general pattern: within a fixed depth, representations with different characteristic polynomials can be separated by the conductors of their twists, independent of the detailed gamma-factor shape.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Plainly: this is a good paper and the central claim is likely true. What's new: a construction of 'middle supercuspidal' representations of GL(2N,F) as depth 1/N minimax types with E/F ramification index N and residue degree 2, a parametrization by triples (f̄,χ,ζ), and explicit Rankin-Selberg gamma factors for twists by tamely ramified quasi-characters and simple supercuspidals of GL(N,F). Theorem 1.1 then gives a sharp local converse theorem for this family using only those twists. That genuinely extends the simple supercuspidal case (d=1) to d=2, and the conductor argument in Section 4 separating middle from non-middle depth 1/N representations is clever. The paper is not circular: gamma factors are computed from explicit Whittaker functions, no fitted parameters, and the literature is cited appropriately.

Soft spots, in order. First, the support lemmas 3.6 and 3.11 state 'if and only if' but the proofs visibly establish only the 'only if' direction: they assume α lies in the support and derive k=-1 (or k=-N). The reverse direction—that every α of that form with k=-1 lies in the support—is essential, because Propositions 3.5 and 3.10 evaluate W on the integration region using that equivalence. The explicit factorization after Lemma 3.6 may supply the missing direction, but it is not presented as part of the lemma, and the reader should not have to assemble it. Second, Proposition 3.10 asserts without displaying the leftover integral that the rational factor P(q^{-s}) is independent of χ, ζ, and the central character of the simple supercuspidal twist. That independence is load-bearing: Proposition 3.12 varies φ over all quasi-characters of k_F^× to force v ∈ 1+P_F, and if P depended on φ that conclusion would not follow. The independence may be true, but it needs to be shown. Third, a minor point: the claim that O^×_{L_f} is generated by elements 1+u′σ_f is asserted without proof; that is probably easy to fill.

None of this kills the paper; these are referee-fixable gaps in a serious project. I would send it to a careful referee, with the explicit instruction to check the reverse directions in the support lemmas and to demand the leftover integral in 3.10 be written out. If those hold up, Theorem 1.1 is a solid new result worth publishing.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper constructs a family of depth 1/N supercuspidal representations of GL(2N,F), called middle supercuspidal representations, using Bushnell–Kutzko types attached to a simple stratum associated with a quadratic residue-field extension of inertial degree 2 and ramification index N. The central result, Theorem 1.1, asserts that if two irreducible supercuspidal representations of GL(2N,F) have the same central character and the same twisted gamma factors against all tamely ramified quasi-characters of F× and all simple supercuspidal representations of GL(N,F), then they are isomorphic. The proof proceeds by explicit Rankin–Selberg computations: Propositions 3.4 and 3.5 compute the twisted gamma factor against a tamely ramified character, and Proposition 3.10 computes it against a simple supercuspidal representation, using an explicit Whittaker function and support-containment statements from [20]. Proposition 3.12 then compares two middle supercuspidals, and Section 4 uses conductor formulas to distinguish middle supercuspidals from other depth 1/N supercuspidals.

Significance. If the main theorem is correct, it is a meaningful advance in the local converse problem: it shows that a new class of supercuspidal representations, beyond depth-zero and simple supercuspidals, is determined by twisting against only tamely ramified characters and simple supercuspidals of the half-size group. The explicit gamma-factor formulas are also potentially useful in themselves, and the paper makes a concrete conjecture (Conjecture 1.3) that frames the result in a broader program. The authors use established machinery (maximal simple types, explicit Whittaker functions, conductor formulas) and do not introduce fitted parameters or circular reasoning. However, the central computations hinge on several unverified support and independence claims that are load-bearing for the distinguishing argument, so the result cannot be considered fully established as written.

major comments (3)

[3.3 (Lemma 3.6, Proposition 3.5, Eq. (3.7))] The proof of Lemma 3.6 establishes only the necessary direction: starting from α in the support, it derives k=-1. The claimed converse, that every α of the form (3.6) with the stated conditions on h and x_i is in the support, is not proved. The containment Supp(W(f,χ,ζ)) ⊂ ⊔_k N(2N,F) β_f^k J_f quoted from (3.7) gives no lower bound on the support and cannot certify non-vanishing. The subsequent factorization in the proof of Proposition 3.5 also asserts that the displayed matrix z lies in U^1 without a complete check: for i<N, the conditions derived imply x_i ∈ P_F^{-1}, making entries such as -x_i h^{-1} c ϖ_F^{-2} of valuation -1, which are not in P_{2N}. These points matter because the integration domain, the volume factors (e.g. q^{2N-2}), and the statement that the x_i do not affect W are used to obtain the exact gamma-factor formula in Corollary 3.7 and hence Proposition 3.8. The proof should either supply a genuine if-and-only-if statement for the support, using the equality in Theorem 2.4 if that is what is intended, or present an explicit non-vanishing argument for the integration region.
[3.4 (Proposition 3.10, Proposition 3.12, Eq. (3.12))] In Proposition 3.10 the remaining integral is asserted to be a non-zero rational function Q(q_F^{-s}) independent of ω(u,φ,ζ'), χ, and ζ, but the integral is never displayed and no argument is given for this independence. This is not a cosmetic issue: Proposition 3.12 uses the independence to conclude, from equation (3.12), that ω(u,φ,ζ')(v) is a fixed rational function independent of φ, and then to infer v ∈ 1+P_F by varying φ. If the leftover factor, or the χ_i factors in (3.12), can depend on φ, the equation only yields φ(v)=P_φ(q^{-s'}) for some φ-dependent rational function, which does not imply v=1. The authors need to display the leftover integral and prove its independence, or else find another way to extract the desired equality from (3.12).
[3.4 (end of proof of Proposition 3.12)] The final step asserts that χ1=χ2 because O_{L_f}^× is generated by elements of the form 1+u'σ_f with u'∈O_F^×. This generation statement is not proved and is not immediate from the structure of unramified extensions; it is also essential, since it is the only argument identifying the characters χ after the preceding steps. A proof or a precise reference for this generation property should be supplied.

minor comments (4)

[Abstract and Introduction] There are several OCR-type artifacts in the displayed text, such as 'dept h 1/N', 'Pašk¯ unas', and the placeholder '/BD_F' in equation (2.2); these should be corrected in the final version.
[§2.6, Eq. (2.2)] The notation '/BD_F' appears to be a placeholder for the trivial quasi-character; please replace it with a standard symbol such as 1_F.
[§3.3, Proposition 3.4] The simplification of the integral to vol(1+P_F) is terse; a sentence explaining why the ψ_βf factor is constant on the displayed integration region would improve readability.
[§3.4, Lemma 3.11] The determinant computations used to rule out k ≥ -N are compressed; in particular, the line 'if y_{1,1} ≡ u y_{1,N+1} mod P_F and y_{N+1,1} ≡ u y_{N+1,N+1} mod P_F, then det(x) ∈ P_F' would benefit from a brief justification that this contradicts x∈J_f.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the gamma-factor computations are derived from explicit Whittaker functions and used to distinguish representations, with no fitted parameter or self-referential theorem.

full rationale

The paper's central claim, Theorem 1.1, is derived by computing twisted gamma factors from the explicit Whittaker model of middle supercuspidal representations and then using those computed formulas to separate isomorphism classes. The load-bearing input is the support and value description of the Whittaker function from [20, Proposition 5.7 and Theorem 5.8], an independent published result of Paskunas and the second author; it is cited as a computational tool, not as a substitute for the converse theorem. Propositions 3.5 and 3.10 carry out the Rankin-Selberg integrals from the definition, and Proposition 3.12 combines the resulting formulas with variation over tamely ramified characters and simple supercuspidal twists; no parameter is fitted to the target representations and no conclusion is assumed in the hypotheses. The finite set Xi_middle is auxiliary and only controls central characters via the known Proposition 2.11. The only self-citation is [20], but it supplies explicit Whittaker-function data with independent standing rather than the main classification statement. Any concern that Lemmas 3.6 and 3.11 prove only the necessary direction of the support condition is a question of correctness of the support computation, not circularity: the computation still proceeds from external Whittaker-model facts and does not presuppose the isomorphism theorem being proved.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The paper rests on standard external theorems (type theory, Rankin-Selberg integrals, conductor formulas) plus one unproved generation statement about O_{L_f}^×. There are no numeric free parameters fitted to data; the constant ζ and character χ are representation data, not fitting parameters. The newly introduced middle supercuspidal family is legitimate but lacks an external falsifiable handle beyond the proofs in this paper.

assumptions (5)

standard math Bushnell-Kutzko classification of supercuspidal representations by maximal simple types (BK 1993, [8])
Used throughout §2.2 and §3.1 to construct π(f,χ,ζ) from the simple stratum [A_{2N},1,0,β_f]; includes existence and uniqueness up to conjugacy of extended maximal simple types.
standard math Explicit Whittaker function construction and support properties of Paškūnas-Stevens ([20, Prop 5.7, Thm 5.8])
Formula (2.1), Theorem 2.4, and support containment (3.7) are the basis of the gamma factor computations in §3.3 and §3.4.
standard math Local Rankin-Selberg theory and conductor formula for pairs (Jacquet-Piatetski-Shapiro-Shalika [16], Bushnell-Henniart-Kutzko [7, Thm 6.5])
Defines twisted gamma factors via Theorem 2.7 and provides the conductor comparison used in Prop 4.3 to separate middle from non-middle depth 1/N supercuspidals.
standard math Proposition 2.11 ([17], [12], [21]): for conductor m > 2d(π), L(s,π×χ)=1 and γ(s,π×χ,ψ_F)=ω_π(c)^{-1}γ(s,χ,ψ_F)^n
Used in §2.6 and §3.3 to construct the finite set Ξ_d and to identify central characters via twisted gamma factors.
ad hoc to paper The unit group O_{L_f}^× is generated by elements 1+u'σ_f with u'∈O_F^×
Asserted without proof in §3.4, proof of Prop 3.12, to pass from equality of gamma factors for all u∈O_F^× to χ1=χ2. This is a key step in the injectivity of the parameterization; no reference is given.

invented entities (1)

Middle supercuspidal representations of GL(2N,F)
purpose: A new family of depth 1/N supercuspidal representations, constructed from simple strata with E/F having ramification index N and residue degree 2; the central objects of the local converse theorem proven here.
The family is defined in this paper via maximal simple types and parametrized by (f̄, χ, ζ). Existence follows from Bushnell-Kutzko theory, but there is no externally falsifiable handle: the paper itself provides the construction and computations. This is a legitimate new mathematical object, not a pulled-from-a-hat explanatory entity.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of On the Local Converse Theorem for Depth $\frac{1}{N}$ Supercuspidal Representations of $\text{GL}(2N, F)$." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FXV22NLC

@misc{pith2026250522357,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: On the Local Converse Theorem for Depth $\frac1N$ Supercuspidal Representations of $\textGL(2N, F)$},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FXV22NLC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.22357}
}

abstract

In this paper, we use type theory to construct a family of depth $\frac{1}{N}$ minimax supercuspidal representations of $\text{GL}(2N, F)$ which we call middle supercuspidal representations. These supercuspidals may be viewed as a natural generalization of simple supercuspidal representations, i.e. those supercuspidals of minimal positive depth. Via explicit computations of twisted gamma factors, we show that middle supercuspidal representations may be uniquely determined through twisting by quasi-characters of $F^{\times}$ and simple supercuspidal representations of $\text{GL}(N, F)$.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

23 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages

[20]

Pašk¯ unas and S

V. Pašk¯ unas and S. Stevens, On the realization of maximal simple types and epsilon facto rs of pairs , Amer. J. Math. 130 (2008), no. 5, p. 1211–1261

work page 2008
[1]

On the sharpness of the bound for the local converse theorem of p-adic GL_N, general N

M. Adrian, On the sharpness of the bound for the local converse theorem of p-adic GLN , general N , preprint, arXiv:2303.08656v2, 2023

work page Pith review arXiv 2023
[2]

Adrian and B

M. Adrian and B. Liu, Some results on simple supercuspidal representations of GLn(F ), J. Number Theory 160 (2016), p. 117–147

work page 2016
[3]

Adrian, B

M. Adrian, B. Liu, S. Stevens, and G. K.-F. Tam, On the sharpness of the bound for the local converse theorem of p-adic GLprime, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. Ser. B 5 (2018), p. 6–17

work page 2018
[4]

Adrian, B

M. Adrian, B. Liu, S. Stevens, and P. Xu, On the Jacquet conjecture on the local converse problem for p-adic GLN . Represent. Theory 20 (2016), p. 1–13

work page 2016
[5]

C. J. Bushnell and G. Henniart, Langlands parameters for epipelagic representations of GLn, Math. Ann. 358 (1–2) (2014) p. 433–463

work page 2014
[6]

C. J. Bushnell and G. Henniart, Supercuspidal Representations of GLn: Explicit Whittaker Func- tions. J. Algebra 209 (1998), no. 1, p. 270–287

work page 1998
[7]

C. J. Bushnell, G. Henniart, and P. C. Kutzko, Local Rankin–Selberg convolutions for GLn: explicit conductor formula, J. Amer. Math. Soc. 11 (1998), p. 703–730

work page 1998

Show all 23 references

[8]

C. J. Bushnell and P. C. Kutzko, The admissible dual of GLN via restriction to compact open subgroups, Ann. of Math. Studies, vol. 129, Princeton University Pres s, 1993

1993
[9]

Chai, Bessel functions and local converse conjecture of Jacquet , J

J. Chai, Bessel functions and local converse conjecture of Jacquet , J. Eur. Math. Soc. 21 (2019), no. 6, p. 1703–1728

2019
[10]

J. W. Cogdell, Notes on L-functions for GLn, in: Lectures Given at the School of Automorphic Forms on GL(n), Trieste, 2000

2000
[11]

Deligne and G

P. Deligne and G. Henniart, Sur la variation, par torsion, des constantes locales d’équat ions fonc- tionnelles de fonctions L , Invent. Math. 64 (1981), p. 89–118

1981
[12]

Harris and R

M. Harris and R. Taylor, On the Geometry and Cohomology of Some Simple Shimura Varietie s, Ann. of Math. Stud., vol. 151, Princeton Univ. Press, Prince ton, NJ, 2001

2001
[13]

Imai and T

N. Imai and T. Tsushima, Local Jacquet–Langlands correspondences for simple superc uspidal repre- sentations, Kyoto J. Math. 58 (2018), no. 3, p. 623–638. 21

2018
[14]

Knightly and C

A. Knightly and C. Li, Simple supercuspidal representations of GL(n), Taiwanese J. Math. 19 (2015), no. 4, p. 995–1029

2015
[15]

Jacquet and B

H. Jacquet and B. Liu, On the local converse theorem for p-adic GLn. Amer. J. Math. 140 (2018), no. 5, p. 1399–1422

2018
[16]

Jacquet, I

H. Jacquet, I. Piatetskii-Shapiro, and J. Shalika, Rankin–Selberg convolutions, Amer. J. Math. 105 (1983), p. 367–464

1983
[17]

Jiang, C

D. Jiang, C. Nien, and S. Stevens, Towards the Jacquet conjecture on the local converse problem for p-adic GLn, J. Eur. Math. Soc. 17 (2015), no. 4, p. 991–1007

2015
[18]

Nien and L

C. Nien and L. Zhang, Converse theorem of Gauss sums (with an appendix by Z. Yun), J. Number Theory 221 (2021), p. 365–388

2021
[19]

Shahidi, Fourier transforms of intertwining operators and Plancherel me asures for GL(n), Amer

F. Shahidi, Fourier transforms of intertwining operators and Plancherel me asures for GL(n), Amer. J. Math. 106 (1984), no. 1, p. 67–111

1984
[21]

Xu, A remark on the simple cuspidal representations of GLn, preprint, arXiv:1310.3519, 2013

P. Xu, A remark on the simple cuspidal representations of GLn, preprint, arXiv:1310.3519, 2013

2013 arXiv
[22]

Ye, Explicit formulas for local factors of supercuspidal represe ntations of GLn and their applica- tions, Ph.D

R. Ye, Explicit formulas for local factors of supercuspidal represe ntations of GLn and their applica- tions, Ph.D. thesis, The Ohio State University, 2019

2019
[23]

Ye, Rankin–Selberg gamma factors of level zero representations of GLn, Forum Math

R. Ye, Rankin–Selberg gamma factors of level zero representations of GLn, Forum Math. 31 (2019), no. 2, p. 503–516. School of Mathematics, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, M N 55455, United States Email address : luo00275@umn.edu School of Mathematics, University of East ...

2019

Pith tools

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

[1] [20]

Pašk¯ unas and S

V. Pašk¯ unas and S. Stevens, On the realization of maximal simple types and epsilon facto rs of pairs , Amer. J. Math. 130 (2008), no. 5, p. 1211–1261

work page 2008

[2] [1]

On the sharpness of the bound for the local converse theorem of p-adic GL_N, general N

M. Adrian, On the sharpness of the bound for the local converse theorem of p-adic GLN , general N , preprint, arXiv:2303.08656v2, 2023

work page Pith review arXiv 2023

[3] [2]

Adrian and B

M. Adrian and B. Liu, Some results on simple supercuspidal representations of GLn(F ), J. Number Theory 160 (2016), p. 117–147

work page 2016

[4] [3]

Adrian, B

M. Adrian, B. Liu, S. Stevens, and G. K.-F. Tam, On the sharpness of the bound for the local converse theorem of p-adic GLprime, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. Ser. B 5 (2018), p. 6–17

work page 2018

[5] [4]

Adrian, B

M. Adrian, B. Liu, S. Stevens, and P. Xu, On the Jacquet conjecture on the local converse problem for p-adic GLN . Represent. Theory 20 (2016), p. 1–13

work page 2016

[6] [5]

C. J. Bushnell and G. Henniart, Langlands parameters for epipelagic representations of GLn, Math. Ann. 358 (1–2) (2014) p. 433–463

work page 2014

[7] [6]

C. J. Bushnell and G. Henniart, Supercuspidal Representations of GLn: Explicit Whittaker Func- tions. J. Algebra 209 (1998), no. 1, p. 270–287

work page 1998

[8] [7]

C. J. Bushnell, G. Henniart, and P. C. Kutzko, Local Rankin–Selberg convolutions for GLn: explicit conductor formula, J. Amer. Math. Soc. 11 (1998), p. 703–730

work page 1998