Dirac Cohomology, Orbit Method and Unipotent Representations

Transcription

1 Dirac Cohomology, Orbit Method and Unipotent Representations Dedicated to Bert Kostant with great admiration Jing-Song Huang, HKUST Kostant Conference MIT, May 28 June 1, 2018

2 coadjoint orbits of reductive groups

3 coadjoint orbits of reductive groups Jordan decomposition

4 coadjoint orbits of reductive groups Jordan decomposition hyperbolic step

5 coadjoint orbits of reductive groups Jordan decomposition hyperbolic step elliptic step

6 coadjoint orbits of reductive groups Jordan decomposition hyperbolic step elliptic step nilpotent step

7 coadjoint orbits of reductive groups Jordan decomposition hyperbolic step elliptic step nilpotent step Dirac cohomology

8 coadjoint orbits of reductive groups Jordan decomposition hyperbolic step elliptic step nilpotent step Dirac cohomology unipotent representations

9 coadjoint orbits of reductive groups Jordan decomposition hyperbolic step elliptic step nilpotent step Dirac cohomology unipotent representations linear groups

10 coadjoint orbits of reductive groups Jordan decomposition hyperbolic step elliptic step nilpotent step Dirac cohomology unipotent representations linear groups nonlinear groups

11 coadjoint orbits of reductive groups Jordan decomposition hyperbolic step elliptic step nilpotent step Dirac cohomology unipotent representations linear groups nonlinear groups unipotent representations nilpotent orbits

12 Coadjoint orbits for GL(n, R) G = GL(n, R), its Lie algebra g 0 = gl(n, R) = {n by n real matrices}. The adjoint action Ad(g)(X ) = gxg 1. The invariant trace from X, Y = tr XY defines an identification gl(n, R) gl(n, R), and f X (f ) is defined by f (Y ) = X (f ), Y. It sends coadjoint orbits to adjoint orbits.

13 Jordan decomposition Def Suppose X gl(n, R). We say that X is nilpotent if X k = 0 for some k; semisimple if X is diagonalizable over C; elliptic if X is diagonalizable and all eigenvalues are imaginary; hyperbolic if X is diagonalizable and all eigenvalues are real.

14 Jordan decomposition Def Suppose X gl(n, R). We say that X is nilpotent if X k = 0 for some k; semisimple if X is diagonalizable over C; elliptic if X is diagonalizable and all eigenvalues are imaginary; hyperbolic if X is diagonalizable and all eigenvalues are real. Prop Given X gl(n, R), there are unique X h, X e, X n, s.t. 1) X = X h + X e + X n. 2) X h is hyperbolic, X e is elliptic, and X n is nilpotent. 3) X h, X e and X n all commute with each other. 4) If Y commutes with X, then it commutes with X h, X e and X n.

15 Real reductive groups The Cartan involution for GL(n, R) is the automorphism θ(g) = t g 1.

16 Real reductive groups The Cartan involution for GL(n, R) is the automorphism θ(g) = t g 1. Its differential θ(x ) = t X.

17 Real reductive groups The Cartan involution for GL(n, R) is the automorphism Its differential θ(x ) = t X. θ(g) = t g 1. Def A Lie group G (having finitely many components) is called reductive, if there is a homomorphism η : G GL(n, R), s.t. 1) Ker η is finite; 2) Im η is θ-stable.

18 Real reductive groups The Cartan involution for GL(n, R) is the automorphism Its differential θ(x ) = t X. θ(g) = t g 1. Def A Lie group G (having finitely many components) is called reductive, if there is a homomorphism η : G GL(n, R), s.t. 1) Ker η is finite; 2) Im η is θ-stable. We say G is semisimple if it is reductive and the center of the connected identity component G 0 is finite.

19 Real reductive groups The Cartan involution for GL(n, R) is the automorphism Its differential θ(x ) = t X. θ(g) = t g 1. Def A Lie group G (having finitely many components) is called reductive, if there is a homomorphism η : G GL(n, R), s.t. 1) Ker η is finite; 2) Im η is θ-stable. We say G is semisimple if it is reductive and the center of the connected identity component G 0 is finite. Write θ for the unique lift of θ to G which is trivial on Ker η.

20 Real reductive groups The Cartan involution for GL(n, R) is the automorphism Its differential θ(x ) = t X. θ(g) = t g 1. Def A Lie group G (having finitely many components) is called reductive, if there is a homomorphism η : G GL(n, R), s.t. 1) Ker η is finite; 2) Im η is θ-stable. We say G is semisimple if it is reductive and the center of the connected identity component G 0 is finite. Write θ for the unique lift of θ to G which is trivial on Ker η. This is defined to be the Cartan involution for G.

21 Real reductive groups The Cartan involution for GL(n, R) is the automorphism Its differential θ(x ) = t X. θ(g) = t g 1. Def A Lie group G (having finitely many components) is called reductive, if there is a homomorphism η : G GL(n, R), s.t. 1) Ker η is finite; 2) Im η is θ-stable. We say G is semisimple if it is reductive and the center of the connected identity component G 0 is finite. Write θ for the unique lift of θ to G which is trivial on Ker η. This is defined to be the Cartan involution for G. Write g 0 for the Lie algebra of G and g for the complexification.

22 Real reductive groups The Cartan involution for GL(n, R) is the automorphism Its differential θ(x ) = t X. θ(g) = t g 1. Def A Lie group G (having finitely many components) is called reductive, if there is a homomorphism η : G GL(n, R), s.t. 1) Ker η is finite; 2) Im η is θ-stable. We say G is semisimple if it is reductive and the center of the connected identity component G 0 is finite. Write θ for the unique lift of θ to G which is trivial on Ker η. This is defined to be the Cartan involution for G. Write g 0 for the Lie algebra of G and g for the complexification. Let g 0 = k 0 + s 0 and g = k + s be the Cartan decompositions.

23 Coadjoint orbits for reductive groups Use the trace form to identify g 0 with g 0.

24 Coadjoint orbits for reductive groups Use the trace form to identify g 0 with g 0. The map f X (f ) is given by f (Y ) = X (f ), Y.

25 Coadjoint orbits for reductive groups Use the trace form to identify g 0 with g 0. The map f X (f ) is given by f (Y ) = X (f ), Y. Prop Suppose G is are real reductive group, and X is in g 0. 1) The Jordan components X h, X e, X n are in g 0. 2) If X is hyperbolic, then it is conjugate to an element in s 0. 3) If X is elliptic, then it is conjugate to an element in k 0.

26 Coadjoint orbits for reductive groups Use the trace form to identify g 0 with g 0. The map f X (f ) is given by f (Y ) = X (f ), Y. Prop Suppose G is are real reductive group, and X is in g 0. 1) The Jordan components X h, X e, X n are in g 0. 2) If X is hyperbolic, then it is conjugate to an element in s 0. 3) If X is elliptic, then it is conjugate to an element in k 0. Def (Jordan Decomposition) Let X (f ) = X (f ) h + X (f ) e + X (f ) n be the Jordan decomposition. Then the corresponding f = f h + f e + f n is defined to be the Jordan decomposition of f.

27 Orbit method for reductive groups (Vogan [ICM 1986]) Suppose that f g 0. G(f ) = centralizer of X (f ) in G, g 0 (f ) = {Y g 0 [X (f ), Y ] = 0}.

28 Orbit method for reductive groups (Vogan [ICM 1986]) Suppose that f g 0. G(f ) = centralizer of X (f ) in G, g 0 (f ) = {Y g 0 [X (f ), Y ] = 0}. We may replace f by a conjugate, and get θf h = f h, θf e = f e, and G(f h ), G(f e ) and G(f s ) = G(f h ) G(f e ) are preserved by θ.

29 Orbit method for reductive groups (Vogan [ICM 1986]) Suppose that f g 0. G(f ) = centralizer of X (f ) in G, g 0 (f ) = {Y g 0 [X (f ), Y ] = 0}. We may replace f by a conjugate, and get θf h = f h, θf e = f e, and G(f h ), G(f e ) and G(f s ) = G(f h ) G(f e ) are preserved by θ. Since X e and X n commute with X h, and so belong to g(f h ), we can identify f e and f n (by restriction) with elements of g(f h ). Thus, G(f h ) [G(f h )](f e ) {[G(f h )](f e )}(f n ); these are the same groups as G(f h ) G(f s ) G(f ). Ĝ(f ) Ĝ(f s) Ĝ(f h) Ĝ.

30 Hyperbolic step: parabolic induction Fix f h g 0 hyperbolic, let X h be the corresponding element in g 0. We have g 0 = r R g r 0, g r 0 = {Y g 0 [X h, Y ] = ry }.

31 Hyperbolic step: parabolic induction Fix f h g 0 hyperbolic, let X h be the corresponding element in g 0. We have g 0 = r R g r 0, g r 0 = {Y g 0 [X h, Y ] = ry }. Then g 0 0 = g 0(f h ), [g r 0, gs 0 ] g 0 r+s, and g r 0, gs 0 = 0 if r + s 0.

32 Hyperbolic step: parabolic induction Fix f h g 0 hyperbolic, let X h be the corresponding element in g 0. We have g 0 = r R g r 0, g r 0 = {Y g 0 [X h, Y ] = ry }. Then g 0 0 = g 0(f h ), [g r 0, gs 0 ] g 0 r+s, and g r 0, gs 0 = 0 if r + s 0. Set n h = g r 0, a nilpotent subalgebra normalized by G(f h ). r>0 Write N h = exp(n h ). Then P h = G(f h )N h is a parabolic subgroup of G. The hyperbolic step Ĝ(f h) Ĝ is defined by π Ind G P h π.

33 Elliptic step: cohomological induction Fix f e g 0 elliptic, write X e for the corresponding element in g 0. We have g = r R g r, g r = {Y g [ix e, Y ] = ry }.

34 Elliptic step: cohomological induction Fix f e g 0 elliptic, write X e for the corresponding element in g 0. We have g = r R g r, g r = {Y g [ix e, Y ] = ry }. Then g 0 = g(f e ), [g r, g s ] g r+s, and g r, g s = 0 if r + s 0.

35 Elliptic step: cohomological induction Fix f e g 0 elliptic, write X e for the corresponding element in g 0. We have g = r R g r, g r = {Y g [ix e, Y ] = ry }. Then g 0 = g(f e ), [g r, g s ] g r+s, and g r, g s = 0 if r + s 0. Set u e = r>0 g r, and q e = g(f e ) + u e, a θ-stable parabolic subalgebra normalized by G(f e ). The elliptic step Ĝ(f e) Ĝ is defined by π L qe π.

36 Nilpotent step: unipotent representations ( unipotents ) Example The unipotents attached to 0 must be trivial on G 0.

37 Nilpotent step: unipotent representations ( unipotents ) Example The unipotents attached to 0 must be trivial on G 0. Some of unipotents are attached to associated cones, that may be regarded as limits of elliptic orbits (see conference poster).

38 Nilpotent step: unipotent representations ( unipotents ) Example The unipotents attached to 0 must be trivial on G 0. Some of unipotents are attached to associated cones, that may be regarded as limits of elliptic orbits (see conference poster). Example G = SL 2 (R), these are limits of discrete series.

39 Nilpotent step: unipotent representations ( unipotents ) Example The unipotents attached to 0 must be trivial on G 0. Some of unipotents are attached to associated cones, that may be regarded as limits of elliptic orbits (see conference poster). Example G = SL 2 (R), these are limits of discrete series. Using primitive ideal theory, Vogan defined 1) Special unipotents (Arthur, Barbasch-Vogan) 2) Distinguished unipotents 3) Weakly unipotents

40 Nilpotent step: unipotent representations ( unipotents ) Example The unipotents attached to 0 must be trivial on G 0. Some of unipotents are attached to associated cones, that may be regarded as limits of elliptic orbits (see conference poster). Example G = SL 2 (R), these are limits of discrete series. Using primitive ideal theory, Vogan defined 1) Special unipotents (Arthur, Barbasch-Vogan) 2) Distinguished unipotents 3) Weakly unipotents {special unipotents} {distinguished unipotents} {weakly unipotents}

41 Nilpotent step: unipotent representations ( unipotents ) Example The unipotents attached to 0 must be trivial on G 0. Some of unipotents are attached to associated cones, that may be regarded as limits of elliptic orbits (see conference poster). Example G = SL 2 (R), these are limits of discrete series. Using primitive ideal theory, Vogan defined 1) Special unipotents (Arthur, Barbasch-Vogan) 2) Distinguished unipotents 3) Weakly unipotents {special unipotents} {distinguished unipotents} {weakly unipotents} It remains to define unipotents.

42 Dequantization Given π Ĝ. Now we reverse the process of quantization and look for the corresponding f = f h + f e + f n g 0 attached to π. Question Which π corresponds a semsimple element f = f s = f h + f e?

43 Dequantization Given π Ĝ. Now we reverse the process of quantization and look for the corresponding f = f h + f e + f n g 0 attached to π. Question Which π corresponds a semsimple element f = f s = f h + f e? Answer A tempered representation.

44 Dequantization Given π Ĝ. Now we reverse the process of quantization and look for the corresponding f = f h + f e + f n g 0 attached to π. Question Which π corresponds a semsimple element f = f s = f h + f e? Answer A tempered representation. The unipotents are those corresponding to f = f n with f h = f e = 0.

45 Dequantization Given π Ĝ. Now we reverse the process of quantization and look for the corresponding f = f h + f e + f n g 0 attached to π. Question Which π corresponds a semsimple element f = f s = f h + f e? Answer A tempered representation. The unipotents are those corresponding to f = f n with f h = f e = 0. The primary property of π is its infinitesimal character. Let h be a Cartan subalgebra of g. Write W = W (g, h) for the Weyl group. Then we have Harish-Chandra isomorphsim ξ : Z(g) S(h) W. Infl char ξ Λ : Z(g) C is parametrized by W -orbits W Λ in h.

46 Parabolic induction: reduction to real infl char Let H = TA be a θ-stable Cartan subgroup with CSA h 0 = t 0 + a 0. The canonical real form of the complexified CSA h is RE h = it 0 + a 0. Then Λ h has a unique decomposition Λ = RE Λ + i IM Λ. This decomposition is independent of choices of θ-stable Cartan subgroup H.

47 Parabolic induction: reduction to real infl char Let H = TA be a θ-stable Cartan subgroup with CSA h 0 = t 0 + a 0. The canonical real form of the complexified CSA h is RE h = it 0 + a 0. Then Λ h has a unique decomposition Λ = RE Λ + i IM Λ. This decomposition is independent of choices of θ-stable Cartan subgroup H. Thm [Knapp] π Ĝ. There is a P = MAN a parabolic subgroup and δ M with real infl char, and ν a unitary character of A, s.t. π = Ind G P (δ ν).

48 Cohomological induction in good range Let q = l + u be a θ-stable parabolic subalgebra. Let L be the normalizer of q in G. We say that Z L is in good range, if Λ Z + ρ(u), β > 0, β (u, h). Thm (Vogan) The cohomological inducton L q maps Z L in good range to a π = L q (Z) Ĝ.

49 Dirac operators and Vogan s conjecture Let e i be a basis for s and f i the dual basis with respect to the trace form. The Dirac operator is defined by D : = e i f i U(g) C(s).

50 Dirac operators and Vogan s conjecture Let e i be a basis for s and f i the dual basis with respect to the trace form. The Dirac operator is defined by D : = e i f i U(g) C(s). Vogan conjectured that D has the following property: there is a natural algebra homomorphism ζ : Z(g) Z(k ), s.t. z Z(g) one has z 1 ζ(z) = Da + bd for some a, b in U(g) C(s).

51 Dirac operators and Vogan s conjecture Let e i be a basis for s and f i the dual basis with respect to the trace form. The Dirac operator is defined by D : = e i f i U(g) C(s). Vogan conjectured that D has the following property: there is a natural algebra homomorphism ζ : Z(g) Z(k ), s.t. z Z(g) one has z 1 ζ(z) = Da + bd for some a, b in U(g) C(s). Vogan s conjecture was verified by H-Pandžić [JAMS 2002].

52 Dirac operators and Vogan s conjecture Let e i be a basis for s and f i the dual basis with respect to the trace form. The Dirac operator is defined by D : = e i f i U(g) C(s). Vogan conjectured that D has the following property: there is a natural algebra homomorphism ζ : Z(g) Z(k ), s.t. z Z(g) one has z 1 ζ(z) = Da + bd for some a, b in U(g) C(s). Vogan s conjecture was verified by H-Pandžić [JAMS 2002]. The motivation of the conjecture is to show that H D (V ) = H D (V S): = Ker D/ Ker D Im D detects the infinitesimal character of V.

53 Dirac inequality and Dirac index If π is unitary, then D is self-dual and H D (X π ) = Ker D = Ker D 2. If Hom K (E γ, X π S) 0, then Λ, Λ γ + ρ c, γ + ρ c.

54 Dirac inequality and Dirac index If π is unitary, then D is self-dual and H D (X π ) = Ker D = Ker D 2. If Hom K (E γ, X π S) 0, then Λ, Λ γ + ρ c, γ + ρ c. Thm [H-Pandzic] The followings are equivalent: 1) H D (X π ) 0; 2) the equality in the Dirac inequality holds; 3) infl char Λ is conjugate to γ + ρ c by Weyl group of g.

55 Dirac inequality and Dirac index If π is unitary, then D is self-dual and H D (X π ) = Ker D = Ker D 2. If Hom K (E γ, X π S) 0, then Λ, Λ γ + ρ c, γ + ρ c. Thm [H-Pandzic] The followings are equivalent: 1) H D (X π ) 0; 2) the equality in the Dirac inequality holds; 3) infl char Λ is conjugate to γ + ρ c by Weyl group of g. If dim G/K is even, then S = S + S and the index X π S + X π S = H + D (X π) H D (X π) is a virtual K-module.

56 Dirac inequality and Dirac index If π is unitary, then D is self-dual and H D (X π ) = Ker D = Ker D 2. If Hom K (E γ, X π S) 0, then Λ, Λ γ + ρ c, γ + ρ c. Thm [H-Pandzic] The followings are equivalent: 1) H D (X π ) 0; 2) the equality in the Dirac inequality holds; 3) infl char Λ is conjugate to γ + ρ c by Weyl group of g. If dim G/K is even, then S = S + S and the index X π S + X π S = H + D (X π) H D (X π) is a virtual K-module. Vogan s conjecture tells how to calculate this index. Remark Vogan s conjetcure has been extended to many different setting: by Kostant to general (g, r), by Frajria-Kac-Papi to affine Lie algebras, by Kumar for equivariant cohomology, by Barbasch-Cibutaru-Trapa to graded Hecke algebras,...

57 Parabolic induction: further reduction to H D (X ) 0 Conjecture: Suppose that π Ĝ with real infl char and H D(X π ) = 0. Then there is 1) a P = MAN a parabolic subgroup, 2) σ M with H D (X σ ) 0, 3) ν a non-unitary character of A or trivial, s.t. Ind G P (δ tν)(0 t 1) is unitary and irreducible, and π = Ind G P (δ ν).

58 Linear groups, regular infl char Suppose that G ell the set of regular elliptic elements is not empty and open. Then G has discrete series representations.

59 Linear groups, regular infl char Suppose that G ell the set of regular elliptic elements is not empty and open. Then G has discrete series representations. Harish-Chandra showed that global characters of discrete series are completely determined by the restriction to G ell.

60 Linear groups, regular infl char Suppose that G ell the set of regular elliptic elements is not empty and open. Then G has discrete series representations. Harish-Chandra showed that global characters of discrete series are completely determined by the restriction to G ell. If G is linear and the infi char Λ of π Ĝ is regular, then Λ is strongly regular and X π = Aq (λ) is cohomiologically induced from 1-dim representation [Salamanca]. H D (A q (λ)) = w W 1 l E w(λ+ρ). H-Pandzic-Vogan [SciChinaMath 2017] showed that H D (X π ) essentially determines X π = A q (λ).

61 Definition of unipotents for linear groups Suppose G is semisimple and connected. 1) If Λ = ρ, then only unipotent representation is trivial and attached to the zero orbit.

62 Definition of unipotents for linear groups Suppose G is semisimple and connected. 1) If Λ = ρ, then only unipotent representation is trivial and attached to the zero orbit. 2) If Λ = 0, then unipotents are tempered and attached to the principal orbits.

63 Definition of unipotents for linear groups Suppose G is semisimple and connected. 1) If Λ = ρ, then only unipotent representation is trivial and attached to the zero orbit. 2) If Λ = 0, then unipotents are tempered and attached to the principal orbits. Def Suppose that G is linear and π Ĝ has infl char Λ. We say that π is unipotent, if 1) H D (X π ) = w W 1 E wλ, 2) π is weakly unipotent, namely, any composition factor in tensor product X π F with finite-dim l repn F of G has larger infl. char.

64 Definition of unipotents for linear groups Suppose G is semisimple and connected. 1) If Λ = ρ, then only unipotent representation is trivial and attached to the zero orbit. 2) If Λ = 0, then unipotents are tempered and attached to the principal orbits. Def Suppose that G is linear and π Ĝ has infl char Λ. We say that π is unipotent, if 1) H D (X π ) = w W 1 E wλ, 2) π is weakly unipotent, namely, any composition factor in tensor product X π F with finite-dim l repn F of G has larger infl. char. Remark If π is unipotent and not trivial, then 1) infl char of π is singular, 2) infl char of π is small (inside the convex hull of W ρ).

65 Unipotents: A q (λ) at weakly fair edge Let q = l + u be a θ-stable parabolic subalgebra. Let L be the normalizer of q in G. We say that λ or A q (λ) is at weakly fair edge, if λ c, β = 0, β (u, h). Here c is the center of l.

66 Unipotents: A q (λ) at weakly fair edge Let q = l + u be a θ-stable parabolic subalgebra. Let L be the normalizer of q in G. We say that λ or A q (λ) is at weakly fair edge, if λ c, β = 0, β (u, h). Here c is the center of l. Fact If λ is weakly fair, then A q (λ) is unitary.

67 Unipotents: A q (λ) at weakly fair edge Let q = l + u be a θ-stable parabolic subalgebra. Let L be the normalizer of q in G. We say that λ or A q (λ) is at weakly fair edge, if Here c is the center of l. λ c, β = 0, β (u, h). Fact If λ is weakly fair, then A q (λ) is unitary. Example SL(2n, R): Speh representations at the weakly fair edge Infl char = (n 1)e 1 + (n 3)e ( n + 1)e n ; LKT = (1,, 1, ±1). Both are A q (λ)-module at weakly fair edge with two different θ-stable q (pp [Knapp-Vogan]). Question Is every unipotent an A q (λ) at weakly fair edge?

68 Definition of unipotents for nonlinear groups Def Suppose that G is reductive and π Ĝ has infl char Λ. We say that π is called unipotent if 1) H D (X π ) = E wλ, w W 1 [Λ] where Λ is the infl char of a K-type in H D (X π ) and W [Λ] is the integral Weyl group. 2) π is weakly unipotent.

69 Definition of unipotents for nonlinear groups Def Suppose that G is reductive and π Ĝ has infl char Λ. We say that π is called unipotent if 1) H D (X π ) = E wλ, w W 1 [Λ] where Λ is the infl char of a K-type in H D (X π ) and W [Λ] is the integral Weyl group. 2) π is weakly unipotent. Remark Some unipotents show up in pairs (as twins). If π and π are attached to the same orbit and satisfy H D (X π ) H D (X π ) = w W 1 E wλ, then we say that they are associate.

70 Definition of unipotents for nonlinear groups Def Suppose that G is reductive and π Ĝ has infl char Λ. We say that π is called unipotent if 1) H D (X π ) = E wλ, w W 1 [Λ] where Λ is the infl char of a K-type in H D (X π ) and W [Λ] is the integral Weyl group. 2) π is weakly unipotent. Remark Some unipotents show up in pairs (as twins). If π and π are attached to the same orbit and satisfy H D (X π ) H D (X π ) = w W 1 E wλ, then we say that they are associate. Example The two irreducible components of the oscillator representation are associate.

71 Unipotents: A q (λ) near weakly fair edge Let q = l + u be a θ-stable parabolic subalgebra. Let L be the normalizer of q in G. We say that A q (λ) is near weakly fair edge if λ c, β v < 1, β (u, h). Here c is the center of l.

72 Unipotents: A q (λ) near weakly fair edge Let q = l + u be a θ-stable parabolic subalgebra. Let L be the normalizer of q in G. We say that A q (λ) is near weakly fair edge if Here c is the center of l. λ c, β v < 1, β (u, h). Fact If λ is at weakly fair edge and weakly unipotent, then A q (λ) is unitary. (Vogan [Invent 1985] pp )

73 Unipotents: A q (λ) near weakly fair edge Let q = l + u be a θ-stable parabolic subalgebra. Let L be the normalizer of q in G. We say that A q (λ) is near weakly fair edge if Here c is the center of l. λ c, β v < 1, β (u, h). Fact If λ is at weakly fair edge and weakly unipotent, then A q (λ) is unitary. (Vogan [Invent 1985] pp ) Example Speh representations for SL(2n, R), infl char 1 2 ρ. There are four (two pairs of associates): Lucas [TAMS, 2008]. Their LKT are 1 2 (1,, 1, ±1) and 3 2 (1,, 1, ±1).

74 Unipotents: A q (λ) near weakly fair edge Let q = l + u be a θ-stable parabolic subalgebra. Let L be the normalizer of q in G. We say that A q (λ) is near weakly fair edge if Here c is the center of l. λ c, β v < 1, β (u, h). Fact If λ is at weakly fair edge and weakly unipotent, then A q (λ) is unitary. (Vogan [Invent 1985] pp ) Example Speh representations for SL(2n, R), infl char 1 2 ρ. There are four (two pairs of associates): Lucas [TAMS, 2008]. Their LKT are 1 2 (1,, 1, ±1) and 3 2 (1,, 1, ±1). Remark There is one pair of associates for GL(2n, R).

75 Unipotents: the Oscillator representation G = Sp(2n, R). Let π and π be the two irreducible components of the oscillator representation. Both are attached to a minimal orbit. Their infl char Λ is ρ(b n ) which is regular, and W [Λ] is of type D n (same as the Weyl group for SO (2n)). H D (X π ) H D (X π ) = Neither π nor π is an A q (λ)-module. w W 1 E wλ. They are theta lifts of trivial and sign representations of O(1).

76 Unipotents in highest weight modules: Wallach modules G = U(p, q), O (2n): H-Pandzic-Protsak [PJM 2011] showed that Dirac cohomology of any Wallach representation π H D (X π ) = w W 1 E wλ. They are theta lifts from Howe dual pairs.

77 Unipotents in highest weight modules: Wallach modules G = U(p, q), O (2n): H-Pandzic-Protsak [PJM 2011] showed that Dirac cohomology of any Wallach representation π H D (X π ) = w W 1 E wλ. They are theta lifts from Howe dual pairs. G = Sp(2n, R): any Wallach representation π has an associate π. H D (X π ) H D (X π ) = w W 1 E wλ. They are theta lift from trivial and the sign representations of O(k) (k = 1,..., n).

78 Unipotents and corresponding nilpotent orbits The unipotents are constructed from 1) A q (λ) at (or near) the weakly fair edge 2) Arthur s packets 3) Theta lifting 4) Unitary degenerate principal series: Rothschild-Wolf [Annales of E.N.S. 1974] Matumoto-Trapa [Comp. Math. 2007] 5) Geometric quantization: Brylinski-Kostant on the minimal representations of exceptional groups [PNAS 1994].

79 Unipotents and corresponding nilpotent orbits The unipotents are constructed from 1) A q (λ) at (or near) the weakly fair edge 2) Arthur s packets 3) Theta lifting 4) Unitary degenerate principal series: Rothschild-Wolf [Annales of E.N.S. 1974] Matumoto-Trapa [Comp. Math. 2007] 5) Geometric quantization: Brylinski-Kostant on the minimal representations of exceptional groups [PNAS 1994]. Problem Determine all unipotents and their correponding nilpotent orbits (data).

80 THANK YOU!