Let $G$ be a connected, reductive group over a field $k$. Let $\Gamma = \textrm{Gal}(k_s/k)$. I think my question is better suited using the classical language: think of $G$ as an affine $\overline{k}$-variety with $k$-structure. This gives a continuous action of $\Gamma$ on $G$. A $1$-cocyle is a continuous map $c: \Gamma \rightarrow \textrm{Aut}(G)$ (automorphisms in the category of $\overline{k}$-group varieties) such that

$$c(\gamma \delta) = c(\gamma) \circ \gamma \circ c(\delta) \circ \gamma^{-1}$$

We say that $1$-cocycles $c$, $d$ are equivalent if there exists a $\psi \in \textrm{Aut}(G)$ such that $d(\gamma) = \psi^{-1} \circ c(\gamma) \circ \gamma \circ \psi \circ \gamma^{-1}$ for all $\gamma \in \Gamma$.

Let $\tilde{c}$ be the equivalence class of a $1$-cocycle. We say that $\tilde{c}$ is an inner form if there exists a $d \in \tilde{c}$ such that all the maps $d(\gamma) : \gamma \in \Gamma$ are inner automorphisms of $G$.

The equivalence classes of $1$-cocyles parameterize the possible $k$-structures on $G$, in the sense that if $c$ is a $1$-cocycle, then there exists an algebraic group $G_1$ over $k$ (hence a new action of $\Gamma$ on $G_1$), and an isomorphism $\phi: G \rightarrow G_1$ over $\overline{k}$, such that

$$c(\gamma) = \phi^{-1} \circ \gamma \circ \phi \circ \gamma^{-1}$$

for all $\gamma \in \Gamma$, and equivalent cocycles go to equivalent $k$-structures.

It is remarked in T.A Springer's article Reductive Groups (Proceedings in Symposia in Pure Mathematics, Vol. 33, 1979) that $G$ has a quasi-split inner form. In other words, there exists a quasi-split connected, reductive group $G_1$ over $k$, and an isomorphism $\phi: G \rightarrow G_1$ over $\overline{k}$, such that $\phi^{-1} \circ \gamma \circ \phi \gamma^{-1}$ is an inner automorphism of $G$ for all $\gamma \in \Gamma$.

Springer says that this follows from looking at the split-exact sequence

$$1 \rightarrow \textrm{Inn}(G) \rightarrow \textrm{Aut}(G) \rightarrow \textrm{Aut}(G,B,T,u_{\alpha} : \alpha \in \Delta) \rightarrow 1$$

where $u_{\alpha}$ is a "splitting," a choice of nonidentity element in each simple root subgroup $U_{\alpha} : \alpha \in \Delta$. I am familiar with the details about this exact sequence, but I don't see what this has to do with quasi-split inner forms. Is there a reference which gives more details on this? Or, even better, a hint on how to do this myself. Thank you.


2 Answers 2


Nothing is "better-suited to using the classical language"; if you cannot express things clearly via schemes then think harder about it until you can. Also, any connected reductive group over a field has a unique quasi-split inner form. (See Proposition 7.2.12 in the article Reductive Group Schemes in the Proceedings of the 2011 Luminy Summer School on SGA3 for a proof of the same result more generally over any semi-local base scheme.)

If $k_s/k$ is a separable closure and $H$ is the $k$-split form of $G$, with a split maximal $k$-torus $S$ and Borel $k$-subgroup $B\supset S$, there is a ${\rm{Gal}}(k_s/k)$-equivariant exact sequence of groups $$1 \rightarrow H^{\rm{ad}}(k_s)\to {\rm{Aut}}_{k_s}(H_{k_s})\stackrel{\pi}{\to} {\rm{Aut}}(R,\Delta)\to 1$$ where $(R,\Delta)$ is the based root datum for $(H,B,S)$. A pinning $\{u_{\alpha}\}$ identifies ${\rm{Aut}}(R,\Delta)$ with ${\rm{Aut}}_k(H,S,B,\{u_{\alpha}\})$ and thereby defines a "forgetful" homomorphic section $$\sigma:{\rm{Aut}}(R,\Delta) \rightarrow {\rm{Aut}}_k(H) \subset {\rm{Aut}}_{k_s}(H_{k_s})$$ to $\pi$.

Consider the class $[G] \in {\rm{H}}^1(k_s/k, {\rm{Aut}}_{k_s}(H_s))$ corresponding to $G$. The formalism of non-abelian Galois cohomology as in section 5 of Chapter I of Serre's book Galois Cohomology shows that the set of isomorphism classes of inner forms of $G$ (i.e., the image of ${\rm{H}}^1(k_s/k, G^{\rm{ad}}(k_s))$ in ${\rm{H}}^1(k_s/k, {\rm{Aut}}_{k_s}(G_{k_s})$) is identified with the ${\rm{H}}^1(\pi)$-fiber through $[G]$.

In particular, ${\rm{H}}^1(\sigma)({\rm{H}}^1(\pi)([G]))$ is a class in the same fiber as $[G]$, so for the existence of a quasi-split inner form of $G$ it suffices to show that all classes in the image of ${\rm{H}}^1(\sigma)$ are quasi-split. But $\sigma$ is defined via the identification of ${\rm{Aut}}(R,\Delta)$ with ${\rm{Aut}}_k(H,S,B, \{u_{\alpha}\})$ and so factors through the subgroup ${\rm{Aut}}_{k_s}(H_{k_s},B_{k_s}) \subset {\rm{Aut}}_{k_s}(H_{k_s})$. Thus, any class in the image of ${\rm{H}}^1(\sigma)$ corresponds to the isomorphism class of a $k$-group $H'$ obtained through ${\rm{Gal}}(k_s/k)$-twisting of $H$ preserving its Borel $k$-subgroup $B$, so by design $H'$ admits a Borel $k$-subgroup $B'$ and thus $H'$ is quasi-split over $k$.

The remaining claim (not posed in the question, but mentioned at the start of this answer and very important in practice) is that the quasi-split inner form is unique. That is, if $G_1$ and $G_2$ are quasi-split inner forms of $G$ then they are $k$-isomorphic. More specifically, if $G_1$ is the quasi-split inner form made via the above construction and $G_2$ is any quasi-split inner form then $G_2 \simeq G_1$. This lies deeper in the sense that it rests on a more closer study of the preceding construction.

First, it is an instructive exercise to prove in a clean way that $G_2$ is necessarily an inner form of $G_1$, so we can rename $G_1$ as $G$ to reduce to showing that if $G$ admits a Borel $k$-subgroup $B$ with $(G,B)$ built from the split $k$-form via the above procedure resting on $\sigma$ then any quasi-split inner form $G'$ of $G$ is $k$-isomorphic to $G$. For a given choice of $k_s$-isomorphism $f:G'_{k_s} \simeq G_{k_s}$ corresponding to inner-twisting cocycles realizing $G'$ from $G$ via Galois descent, if we postcompose with a $G(k_s)$-conjugation we get a cohomologous 1-cocycle that has the same "inner-twisting" property. Thus, it is harmless to arrange that $f(B'_{k_s}) = B_{k_s}$, so then the inner-twisting is valued in the $B_{k_s}$-stabilizer subgroup of $G^{\rm{ad}}(k_s)$. But this stabilizer is exactly $B^{\rm{ad}}(k_s)$ for $B^{\rm{ad}} = B/Z_G$ so it suffices to prove $${\rm{H}}^1(k,B^{\rm{ad}}) = 1.$$ In this way we can replace $G$ with $G^{\rm{ad}}$ without ruining any of our running hypotheses on $G$ but gaining that we may now assume $G$ is of adjoint type.

The $k$-unipotent radical of any parabolic $k$-subgroup of a connected reductive group is always $k$-split and so has vanishing ${\rm{H}}^1$. Thus, since $B = T \ltimes U$ for a maximal $k$-torus $T$ of $B$ and $U = \mathscr{R}_{u,k}(B)$, so $B/U \simeq T$, it suffices to show ${\rm{H}}^1(k, T) = 1$ when $G$ is quasi-split of adjoint type and made from its split form via the procedure resting on $\sigma$. For this we finally have to make a serious observation that uses that $G$ is of adjoint type and is constructed from its split form via $\sigma$: the $k$-torus $T$ is "induced" (i.e., $T \simeq {\rm{R}}_{k'/k}({\rm{GL}}_1)$ for a finite etale $k$-algebra $k'$), from which it is immediate via Hilbert 90 that the desired ${\rm{H}}^1$-vanishing holds.

Why is $T$ induced? By inspection of how $\sigma$ is made, $T$ is build from Galois-twisting of a split "adjoint torus" $S = {\rm{GL}}_1^{\Delta}$ through Galois action on ${\rm{X}}(S_{k_s}) = \mathbf{Z}^{\Delta}$ via a permutation action on $\Delta$. The Galois-orbits on $\Delta$ then make explicit that the associated $k$-form $T$ of $S$ is an induced torus. (Explicitly, if we pick a point in each Galois-orbit on $\Delta$ then the stabilizer in ${\rm{Gal}}(k_s/k)$ of each such base point is an open subgroup corresponding to a finite separable extension $k'_i/k$, and one shows $T \simeq \prod_i {\rm{R}}_{k'_i/k}({\rm{GL}}_1)$.)

  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for your detailed answer. I am confused on a point in paragraph 4. Let's say I take the image $[c]$ of an element of $H^1(R,\Delta)$ under $H^1(\sigma)$. For any representative $1$-cocycle $c$ of the image $[c]$, I have that $c$ is a map $\textrm{Gal}(k_s/k) \rightarrow \textrm{Aut}(G,B,T)$. There exists a group $G'$ and an isomorphism $\psi: G \rightarrow G'$ over $\overline{k}$ such that $$c(\gamma) = \psi^{-1} \circ \gamma \circ \psi \circ \gamma^{-1}$$ I want to show $G'$ has a Borel which is invariant under $\gamma$.I know that $c(\gamma)(B) = B$ for all $\gamma$. $\endgroup$
    – D_S
    May 16, 2017 at 5:33
  • $\begingroup$ So, I should do something to $B$ and transfer it over to a Borel subgroup $B_0$ of $G'$, and show that $\gamma B_0 = B_0$. Is this correct? $\endgroup$
    – D_S
    May 16, 2017 at 5:39
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Thinking conceptually in terms of Galois descent rather than too explicitly in the language of cocycles (in effect, using the reason that ${\rm{H}}^1(k_s/k, {\rm{Aut}}_{k_s}(X_{k_s}))$ is the set of isomorphism classes of "$k$-forms" of some "structure" $X$ over $k$) makes it obvious that such a Borel $k$-subgroup $B_0$ exists. $\endgroup$
    – nfdc23
    May 16, 2017 at 6:16
  • $\begingroup$ Sorry, I've been working on this all day and I still don't get it. You're saying that for my $k$-forms, I should be working the category of triples $(G,B_{k_s},T_{k_s})$ instead of just the single $G$? And a $k$-form would be a pair $((G',B_{k_s}', T_{k_s}'), \psi)$, where $\psi: G_{k_s} \rightarrow G_{k_s}'$ is an isomorphism which sends $B_{k_s}$ to $B_{k_s}', T_{k_s}$ to $T_{k_s}'$? $\endgroup$
    – D_S
    May 17, 2017 at 1:54
  • $\begingroup$ Also, earlier you write $\sigma$ as a homomorphism of $\textrm{Aut}(R,\Delta)$ into $\textrm{Aut}_k H$. I assume this is the splitting map which is an isomorphism onto what I call $\textrm{Aut}(G,B,T, u_{\alpha})$. Are you saying that the elements of $\textrm{Aut}(G,B,T, u_{\alpha})$ are always defined over $k$? $\endgroup$
    – D_S
    May 17, 2017 at 1:57

The privileged element in $H^1(k, \mathrm{Aut}(G, B, T, (u_\alpha: \alpha \in \Delta) )$ corresponds to the rational form of $G$ which possess a Borel subgroup $B$ defined over $k$, i.e. the quasi-split form of $G$. Every cocycle $z \in Z^1(k, \mathrm{Aut}(G))$ which lies in the image of the mapping $Z^1(k, G_{ad}) \to Z^1(k, \mathrm{Aut}(G) )$ is mapped to $1 \in Z^1(k, \mathrm{Aut}(G, B, T, (u_\alpha: \alpha \in \Delta) )$. So every connected reductive algebraic $k$-group $G$ has an inner form which is quasi-split.


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.