Suppose $\pi$ is an irreducible automorphic representation of a reductive connected algebraic group $G$ over $\mathbb{A}_K$, here $K$ is a number field, $\mathbb{A}_K$ denotes its adeles. We have a restricted tensor product decomposition of $\pi=\otimes\pi_v$, where $\pi_v$ is an irreducible admissible representation for $G(K_v)$, and for all but finitely many $v$, $\pi_v$ is unramified.

We know how to define local L-factors at $v$ is $\pi_v$ is unramified, and we also know how to define local L-factors at archimedean places because of Langlands classification. So the question is how to define L-factors at ramified places?

As far as I know, at least for $GL_n$, we can define it as the gcd of some family of integrals via integral representation of L-function.


I think you're slightly misled. $\pi$ doesn't have an $L$-function "in abstracta". An unramified $\pi_v$ at a finite place $v$ gives rise, by Langlands' interpretation of the Satake isomorphism, to a semi-simple conjugacy class in the local $L$-group (or, more fancily, to an unramified representation of the local Weil[-Deligne] group [with N=0]), and that's not enough for an Euler factor. So what one does is also fixes a representation $r:{}^LG\to GL_n(\mathbf{C})$. Now one has an $L$-function $L(\pi,r,s)$, it depends on both $\pi$ and $r$ though. For example, if you choose a modular elliptic curve over the rationals, but let $r$ be the bazillion'th tensor power of the standard 2-dimensional representation of $GL_2$, you have an $L$-function which no-one knows how to analytically continue.

But the real answer to your question is that this is an open problem. One would like to say that by functoriality there is a representation $r_*(\pi)$ on $GL_n$ and you use standard definitions of $L$-functions on $GL_n$. However the existence of $r_*(\pi)$ is a fundamental open problem: Langlands functoriality. Defining local $L$-functions at the ramified places is a tiny tiny piece of this open problem, but as far as I know it's also open.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I think that "bazillion'th" and "tiny tiny" are funny exaggerations. I think that once you get past the symmetric 4th power L-function for GL(2), not too much is known, though one gets meromorphic continuation somewhere near the symmetric 10th, I think, using a combination of methods. I think that a bazillion is definitely bigger than 10, probably bigger than 20 too. Also, defining local L-functions at the ramified places is a pretty huge (not tiny tiny) piece of Langlands functoriality. By converse theorems, local L-functions and epsilon-factors characterize functoriality! $\endgroup$ – Marty Mar 28 '10 at 11:26
  • $\begingroup$ @Marty: this style actually represents laziness on my part. I know that much is known about symmetric squares, a fair bit is known about symmetric cubes and so on. But I do not know where our knowledge peters out. So rather than writing "Symmetric 5th power" and risking being wrong because of some recent preprint on ArXiv I write "bazillionth power" on the basis that if someone comes along and points me to some statements about 6th powers I can happily assure them that a bazillion is much bigger than 6. As for L-functions: you need more than a local definition: you need an ctn too as you know $\endgroup$ – Kevin Buzzard Mar 28 '10 at 11:52
  • $\begingroup$ @Kevin: My comment wasn't a criticism -- just a refinement. As for converse theorems and L-functions and epsilon-factors, I was referring to "Local Converse Theorems". By results of Henniart, and later results of J. Chen, the epsilon factors of twists are enough to characterize irreps of GL_n over a p-adic field. So knowledge of L- and epsilon- factors $L(\pi, r,s)$ would suffice to "nail down" functoriality purely locally. Here I require "lots" of L- and epsilon- factors, corresponding to lots of "twists" of $\pi$ by irreps of $GL_m$ (with $m \leq n-1$ or $n-2$ maybe). $\endgroup$ – Marty Mar 28 '10 at 18:04
  • $\begingroup$ @Marty: aah yes, I misunderstood what you were saying about $L$-functions. I always thought a converse theorem was a global statement. So the last sentence of my previous comment needs deleting, but we can't edit comments :-( $\endgroup$ – Kevin Buzzard Mar 28 '10 at 20:16
  • $\begingroup$ Actually, I guess then the emphasis of the comment moves: if you have enough local L-functions then perhaps you'll get local Langlands, but this is still a long way from global functoriality (which is what I thought we were talking about ;-) but perhaps you weren't!) $\endgroup$ – Kevin Buzzard Mar 28 '10 at 20:18

This question was posted a while back but I just saw it. Here are some thoughts. In practice there are a couple of methods to construct L functions for local ramified representations. The first one is the Langlands-Shahidi method which works for "generic representations" of quasi-split groups and the second one is the method of integral representations (Rankin-Selberg method, Shimura's integral and the doubling method, etc). It is probably a bit painful to give a meaningful description of these two methodologies in such a limited space, so instead let me refer you to a couple of places where you can see accessible accounts of the two approaches. A good reference for the basics of the Langlands-Shahidi method is the beautiful monograph "Analytic properties of automorphic L functions" by Gelbart and Shahidi. The same reference has a nice introduction to the method of integral representations. Dan Bump has written two very informative survey papers on the Rankin-Selberg method. Cogdell's ICTP lectures on the Rankin-Selberg method are lovely. Another good book to look at is the AMS book by Cogdell, Kim, Murty.

As it stands there is no Langlands-Shahidi method for non-generic representations. What is missing from the picture is a good supply of easy to use unique models, like the Whittaker model in the generic setting. For orthogonal groups, however, recent progress by Waldspurger and others on the Gross-Prasad conjectures gives one the hope that maybe one can now develop a Langlands-Shahidi method, although there are serious obstacles to deal with.

Most of the integral representations known to mankind too are closely linked with unique models (Whittaker, Bessel, etc). Sakellaridis has a theory that "explains" (some) integral representations in terms of spherical subgroups of reductive groups.


As far as I understand, attaching an $L$-function to an automorphic representation attached to a general reductive group $G$ is conjectural and still open.

The way one attaches $L$-function depends on a representation $r$ of ${^L}G$ and partitioning the set of irreducible admissible representations of $G(k_v)$ into $L$-packets (which is conjectural in general and known in very few cases). Assuming one can define local $L$-packets, Borel and Tate's article in Corvalis explains how to attach $L$-function to it. But still this $L$-function depends on the chosen representation $r$.

If $\pi$ is an irreducible admissible representation of $G_A$ then $\pi= \otimes_v \pi_v$, where $\pi_v$ is an irreducible admissible representation of $G(k_v)$. So assuming we can partition the set of irreducible admissible representations of $G(k_v)$ into $L$-packets, $\pi_v$ belongs to $L$-packet $\Pi_{\phi_v}$ corresponding to some admissible homomorphism $\phi_v$ of Weil-Deligne group to ${^L}G/k_v$ . The repesentation $r$ defines a representation $r_v$ of ${^L}G/k_v$.

Then the $L$-function attached to $\pi$ and $r$ is defined as: $L(s,\pi,r) = \prod_v L(s,\pi_v,r_v)$, $L(s,\pi_v,r_v)=L(s, r_v \circ \phi_v)$

Now $r_v \circ \phi_v$ is a representation of Weil-Deligne group, so by Tate's article in Corvalis, we know local $L$-factor.


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.