2
$\begingroup$

My questions concerns Definition 1.2 of an orbital integral in the paper Orbital integrals on General Linear Groups by Cluckers and Denef. I will recall the definition below, but my question is: how does Definition 1.2 relate to the usual definition of an orbital integral? By the latter I mean for given a reductive group $G$ over $K$ and a regular element $\gamma$ of $G(K)$ with centralizer $G_\gamma$, the orbital integral of a function $f$ with sufficient decay being $$ O_\gamma(f)= \int_{G_{\gamma}(K)\backslash G(K)}f(x^{-1}\gamma x)dx. $$

Definition 1.2 is long, but I include it here for convenience:

Let $F$ be a number field with ring of integers $\mathcal O_F$. Let $\mathcal A_F$ be the collection of all finite field extensions of non-archimedean completions of $F$. Let $\mathcal B_F$ be the collection of all fields of the form $\mathbb F_q((t))$ which are rings over $\mathcal O_F$.For $K$ in $\mathcal A_F\cup \mathcal B_F$, let $\mathcal O_K$ be its valuation ring, $M_K$ its maximal ideal, $k_K$ its residue field, and $q_K\mathrel{:=}\# k_K$. For $N>0$,let $$\mathcal C_N=\{K\in \mathcal A_F\cup \mathcal B_F\mathrel| \text{char}(k_K)>N\}.$$

Let $G$ be a linear algebraic group over $F$, rationally acting on an absolutely irreducible algebraic variety $X$ over $F$. Suppose that $X$ is a homogeneous $G$-space, that is, the action of $G(\mathbb C)$ on $X(\mathbb C)$ is transitive. For $K$ a field over $F$ and $x\in X(K)$, let $G(K)(x)$ be the orbit of x under the action of $G(K)$.

Let $U\subset X$ be an affine open and let $f, g_i:U\to \mathbb A^1_F$ be regular functions. Let $\omega$ be a volume form on $U$, that is, a degree $n$ rational differential form on $U$ when $X$ is of dimension $n$. For each $K\in \mathcal C_1$ let $W(K)$ be $\bigcap_i g^{-1}_i(U_i)$ with $U_i$ either $\mathcal O_K$ or $M_K$. For each $K\in\mathcal C_1$ and for each $x$ in $X(K)$, under the condition of integrability for all $s>0$, define the orbital integral $$ I_{K,x}(s)=\int_{G(K)(x)\cap W(K)}\lvert f^s\rvert\lvert\omega\rvert_K $$ with $\lvert\omega\rvert_K$ the measure on $U(K)$ associated with $\omega$. If for some $K$ and $x$ this is not integrable, put $I_{K,x}(s) := 0$ for this $K$ and $x$.

$\endgroup$
7
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I think that these are meant to capture, not fully general orbital integrals, but something like your $O_\gamma([\mathscr K])$, where $\mathscr K$ is a hyperspecial parahoric subgroup. Then one may take, in the case of $\operatorname{GL}_n$, $g_i$ to be the various co-ordinate functions, and $f$ to run over the various $f_i$'s of Theorem 1.1 to recover $O_\gamma([\mathscr K])$ from the various $I_{K, x}(s)$. (Incidentally, I think you want $G(F^{\text a})$ acting on $X(F^{\text a})$, not $\mathbb C$-rational points.) $\endgroup$
    – LSpice
    Commented Apr 10, 2020 at 3:41
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Actually, wait, I think you need only take $f = 1$, and $g_i$s to be obtained from the $f_i$s of Theorem 1.1 by taking appropriate scales and shifts so that $g_i^{-1}(\mathcal O_K)$ detects $\operatorname{ord}(f_i(x))$ and $g_i^{-1}(\mathcal O_K)$ detects $\overline{\operatorname{ac}}(f_i(x))$. (More general $f$, and the parameter $s$, are probably for the application to Igusa's work, not for orbital integrals in the sense with which you and I are familiar.) $\endgroup$
    – LSpice
    Commented Apr 10, 2020 at 3:45
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks, @LSpice! By $[\mathscr K]$ do you mean the characteristic function of $\mathscr K$? That would be a rather narrow class of orbital integrals.. $\endgroup$
    – Tian An
    Commented Apr 10, 2020 at 3:56
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ You may also find helpful Section 4 of the later paper by one of the same authors, Cluckers, Gordon, and Halupczok - Uniform analysis on local fields and applications to orbital integrals (MSN). $\endgroup$
    – LSpice
    Commented Apr 10, 2020 at 3:56
  • $\begingroup$ Yes. I agree it's rather narrow, but it's what you need for the fundamental lemma, so it receives quite a lot of attention. I'm not familiar enough with both papers to say, but the CGH paper may give the details of how to make this connection more general. $\endgroup$
    – LSpice
    Commented Apr 10, 2020 at 3:57

1 Answer 1

3
$\begingroup$

My sense is that this paper is actually not (at least, not in any straightforward way) related to the orbital integrals one thinks of in connection with the Fundamental Lemma, for example. You see, the key assumption in the Cluckers-Denef paper is that $X$ is a homogeneous $G$-space, that is, $G({\mathbb C})$ acts on $X(\mathbb C)$ transitively. Then they study the orbits on $X(K)$ under $G(K)$ where $K$ is a p-adic field. So I think the only way it would apply to the orbital integrals in the FL is if we take $X$ to be a single stable orbit (thought of as an affine variety in its own right, maybe endowed with a volume form $\omega$ that comes e.g. from Kirillov's form on co-adjoint orbits), and then the paper tells us something about the integrals on rational orbits. In the orbital integrals one typically thinks about for the Fundamental Lemma, the $f$ in Cluckers-Denef would have to be trivial, and you are right, the $W(K)$ in their notation can be the maximal compact or can be rigged to be the Iwahori subgroup, for example; they leave it flexible. Then the result comes out vacuous: if $f$ is trivial, there's no $s$. Note that they prove that the integral they are looking at is a rational function of $q^{-s}$ but I think the coefficients must be allowed to depend on the field as well (they would be counting points on some varieties over the residue field, roughly speaking). They prove there exists a uniform bound on the degree of denominator in that rational function of $q^{-s}$ (when $f$ is a polynomial).

$\endgroup$

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .