Let $G$ be a connected, reductive group over a local field $k$, and let $^LG$ be the Langlands dual group. As explained by Borel in his article in the Corvallis proceedings, the general local Langlands correspondence should give (1) a partition of the classes of irreducible admissible representations of $G(k)$ into finite sets, called L-packets and (2) a bijection between the L-packets and the equivalence classes of admissible homomorphisms of the Weil-Deligne group $W_k'$ into $^LG$.

The bijection should be such that if $r$ is a finite dimensional complex representation of $^LG$ whose restriction to $^LG^{\circ}$ is complex analytic, and $\pi$ is a member of an L-packet corresponding to an admissible homomorphism $\rho$, then we should have an equality of L and epsilon factors

$$L(s,r \circ\rho) = L(s,\pi,r)$$

$$\epsilon(s,r \circ \rho,\psi) = \epsilon(s, \pi,r,\psi)$$

whenever the objects on the analytic side can be defined.

The conjectural correspondence $\{\pi\} \rightarrow \rho$ seems unsatisfactory to me for the following reason: the L-group $^LG$ does not change if we replace $G$ by an inner form. This is on account of the fact that the group of inner automorphisms of $G_{\overline{k}}$ act trivially as automorphisms of the based root datum of $G_{\overline{k}}$.

If $G'$ is an inner form of $G$, the groups $G(k)$ and $G'(k)$ and their representations should look completely different. However, if we take the local Langlands correspondence as I stated it above at face value, there should be correspondences between these representations giving them the same L-functions and epsilon factors.

Do we really expect the representations of different forms of algebraic groups to be give the same L functions and epsilon factors? Or do we expect there will eventually be more complicated formulation of the local Langlands correspondence which takes into account different inner forms?

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ For more refined versions of the local Langlands you can look at the paper "The Local Langlands Conjectures for Non-quasi split groups" by T. Kaletha. $\endgroup$
    – naf
    Jan 9, 2019 at 16:10
  • $\begingroup$ It's not really an answer to your question, but I thought it interesting enough to record. Although I may be misquoting him, I understand Arthur to say at the IMSF 8 conference that "endoscopy is for quasi-split groups, and functoriality is for non-quasi-split groups"; that is, transfer among non-quasi-split forms should be viewed as part of functoriality. $\endgroup$
    – LSpice
    Jan 9, 2019 at 20:23
  • $\begingroup$ Tasho's paper that @ulrich mentions: www-personal.umich.edu/~kaletha/llcnqs.pdf . $\endgroup$
    – LSpice
    Jan 9, 2019 at 20:24
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ You realize that the definition of admissible homomorphism depends on the inner form and not just on the $L$-group, right? (cf 8.2 (ii) in Borel's article) $\endgroup$
    – Aurel
    Jan 9, 2019 at 22:58
  • $\begingroup$ @Aurel I totally forgot about that $\endgroup$
    – D_S
    Jan 10, 2019 at 6:35

1 Answer 1


Sort of. You are asking about a (generalized local) Jacquet-Langlands correspondence. Roughly what this says is that there is a correspondence between discrete series representations of $G$ and $G'$. Consider the simplest case of $G=PGL(2)$ and $G'$ is a compact inner form, i.e. $G=PD^\times$ for $D$ a quaternion division algebra over $k$.

Crudely, is how the correspondence goes:

1-dimensional representations of $G'$ correspond to (twisted) Steinberg representations of $G$

higher-dimensional irreducible representations of $G'$ correspond to supercuspidal representations of $G$

This correspondence preserves $L$- and $\epsilon$-factors, essentially because you define the factors on $G'$ so they match. However, there are more representations of $G$: 1-dimensionals and irreducible principal series. While in some sense the 1-dimensionals of $G$ should also correspond with the 1-dimensionals of $G'$ (if one thinks about A-parameters rather than L-parameters), the irreducible principal series do not correspond to anything on $G'$.

What happens is that some $L$-parameters will be relevant for a given inner form $G'$ and some will not (if $G'$ is not quasi-split). So you don't see exactly the same $L$-parameters for all inner forms, but when you do you can talk about a correspondence of packets.

  • $\begingroup$ You can define epsilon and $L$ factors for $G'$ directly as Godement and Jacquet did. This is then a feature of the local Jacquet-Langlands correspondence that local factors are preserved. $\endgroup$ Feb 18, 2019 at 9:39

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge that you have read and understand our privacy policy and code of conduct.

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