Abstract
Given a regular supercuspidal representation \(\rho \) of the Levi subgroup M of a standard parabolic subgroup \(P=MN\) in a connected reductive group G defined over a nonarchimedean local field F, we serve you a Rodier type structure theorem which provides us a geometrical parametrization of the set \(JH(Ind^G_P(\rho ))\) of Jordan–Hölder constituents of the HarishChandra parabolic induction representation \(Ind^G_P(\rho )\), vastly generalizing Rodier structure theorem for \(P=B=TU\) Borel subgroup of a connected split reductive group about 40 years ago. Our novel contribution is to overcome the essential difficulty that the relative Weyl group \(W_M=N_G(M)/M\) is not a coxeter group in general, as opposed to the wellknown fact that the Weyl group \(W_T=N_G(T)/T\) is a coxeter group. Along the way, we sort out all regular discrete series/tempered/generic representations for arbitrary G, generalizing Tadić’s work on regular discrete series representation for split \((G)Sp_{2n}\) and \(SO_{2n+1}\), and also providing a new simple proof of Casselman–Shahidi’s theorem on generalized injectivity conjecture for regular generalized principal series. Indeed, such a beautiful structure theorem also holds for finite central covering groups.
Introduction
Following HarishChandra’s “philosophy of cusp forms” which culminates in the Langlands classification theorems under parabolic induction both locally and globally, a longstanding local problem is to understand the decomposition structures of parabolic inductions, especially those inducing from supercuspidal representations which are the socalled generalized principal series. Among those parabolic inductions, there are two extreme cases, namely unitary parabolic inductions and regular generalized principal series of which many mathematicians have devoted their efforts to describe the corresponding internal structures. To be more precise,

Tempered parabolic induction: Knapp–Stein Rgroup theory and its explicit structures (Bruhat, HarishChandra, Knapp–Stein, Jacquet, Casselman, Howe, Silberger, Winarsky, Keys, Shahidi, Goldberg etc).

Principal series: (a) Muller’s irreducibility criterion for principal series [19]; (b) Rodier’s structure theorem for regular principal series [22].
So one might ask the following natural questions:
The first question in principal should be doable after Muller’s work, but we have not seen any literature and will write down the details separately (cf. [13]). As for the second question, without the farreaching Langlands–Shahidi theory built up by Shahidi in the early 1990s (cf. [25]), especially the explicit location of poles of corank one Plancherel measure, it seems that one cannot push Rodier’s theorem further to regular generalized principal series if following Rodier’s paper completely, especially the argument of Proposition 3. On the other hand, for general parabolic subgroup \(P=MN\supset B=TU\) in G, it is wellknown that the relative Weyl group \(W_M=N_G(M)/M\) is not a coxeter group, as opposed to the Weyl group \(W_T=N_G(T)/T\). To overcome those difficulties, we make some general observations which enable us to deal with generalized principal series in the way of dealing with principal series of split group. To be precise (please refer to Sect. 2 for the detail), let \(X(M)_F\) be the group of Frational characters of M, we set \(\mathfrak {a}^\star _M:=X(M)_F\otimes _\mathbb {Z}\mathbb {R}\). We denote by \(\Phi _M\) the set of reduced relative roots of M in G, by \(\Delta _M\) the set of relative simple roots determined by N. Let \(\Phi ^0_M\) be the set of those relative roots \(\alpha \) which contribute reflections \(w_\alpha \) in \(W_M\), i.e. \(w_\alpha .M=M\). Denote by \(W_M^1:=\big \{w\in W_M:~w.(\Phi _M^0)^+>0 \big \}\) and by \(W_M^0\) the “small” relative Weyl group, i.e. \(W_M^0:=\left<w_\alpha :~\alpha \in \Phi ^0_M \right>.\) Define \(Ind_P^G(\rho )\) to be the generalized principal series inducing from the parabolic subgroup \(P=MN\) to G with \(\rho \) a supercuspidal representation of M. If \(\rho \) is regular, i.e. \(W_\rho :=\big \{w\in W_M:~w.\rho =\rho \big \}=\big \{1\big \}\), we say that \(Ind^G_P(\rho )\) is a regular generalized principal series. Concerning the fact that \(W_M\) is not a coxeter group in general, we make two key observations as follows:

1.
(see Lemma 3.2) \(W_M=W_M^0\rtimes W_M^1\).

2.
(see Lemma 3.3)) For \(w\in W_M^0\) and \(w_1\in W_M^1\), we have,
$$\begin{aligned} Ind^G_P(\rho ^w)\simeq Ind^G_P(\rho ^{ww_1}). \end{aligned}$$
Recently, we learned that the first observation is an easy variant of an old result of Lusztig and has since been applied creatively in [16, Lemma 5.2], [11, Corollary 2.6], [18] and [2]. Another observation concerns the uniformity of the location of the unique pole of corank one Plancherel measures, please see Theorem 4.1 for details (cf. [27] for the uniqueness claim). For regular supercuspidal representation \(\rho \) of M, we denote by S the set of those positive relative coroots \(\alpha ^\vee \) with \(\alpha \in \Phi _M^0\) such that the corank one Plancherel measure \(\mu _\alpha (\cdot )\) has a pole at \(\rho \). Denote by \(^{0}\mathfrak {a}_M^*\) the relative “small” root space
and by \(C^+_M\) the relative positive dominant Weyl chamber in \(^{0}\mathfrak {a}_M^*\) determined by P.
In view of those structures, Rodier’s argument in [22] applies seamlessly to generalized principal series which says that
Theorem 1.1
(Rodier Type Structure Theorem i.e. Theorem 3.4) The constituents \(\pi _\Gamma \) of the regular generalized principal series \(Ind^G_P(\rho )\) are parameterized by the connected components \(\Gamma \) of
satisfying the following property:
the Jacquet module \(r_P(\pi _\Gamma )\) of \(\pi _\Gamma \) with respect to P is equal to
As an essential input for the determination of the squareintegrable/tempered constituents of \(Ind^G_P(\rho )\), we need the following key claim:
Theorem 1.2
(cf. Theorem 4.1) Keep the notions as before. The vectors in the set S are linearly independent.
Denote by \(\omega _\rho \) the real unramified character of M, i.e. \(\omega _\rho \in \mathfrak {a}_M^*\), such that the central character of \(\omega _\rho ^{1}\rho \) is unitary. Let \(^{+}\mathfrak {a}^\star _M ~(resp.~ ^{+}\bar{\mathfrak {a}}^\star _M)\) be the set of such \(\chi \in \mathfrak {a}_M^\star \) of the form
with all the coefficients \(x_\alpha >0~(resp.~x_\alpha \ge 0)\). Denote by \(\mathfrak {a}_M^{*+}\) (resp. \(\bar{\mathfrak {a}}_M^{*+}\)) the (resp. closure of) fundamental Weyl chamber in \(\mathfrak {a}_M^*\) determined by \(\Delta _M\). Without loss of generality, we assume that \(\omega _\rho \in \bar{\mathfrak {a}}_M^{*+}\) and write \(\Gamma _+=\bigcap \limits _{\alpha ^\vee \in S}(\alpha ^\vee )^{1}(\mathbb {R}^+)\). As applications of those theorems, we first prove a sufficient and necessary condition for the existence of squareintegrable/tempered constituents as follows:
Proposition 1.3
(cf. Proposition 5.2) Keep the notions as before. \(JH\left( Ind^G_P(\rho )\right) \) contains at most one squareintegrable constituent. Moreover the representation \(\pi _\Gamma \) is squareintegrable if and only if \(^{0}\mathfrak {a}_M^*=\mathfrak {a}_M^*=Span_{\mathbb {R}}\{\alpha :~\alpha ^\vee \in S \}\) and \(\Gamma =\Gamma _+\).
Proposition 1.4
(cf. Proposition 5.3) Keep the notions as before. \(JH \left( Ind^G_P(\rho )\right) \) contains at most one tempered constituent. Moreover the representation \(\pi _\Gamma \) is tempered if and only if \(\omega _\rho \) restricting to the subgroup \(\bigcap _{\alpha ^\vee \in S}Ker(\alpha ^\vee )\) of M is unitary and \(\Gamma =\Gamma _+\).
Along the way, we also provide a simple proof of Casselman–Shahidi’s main theorem [8, Theorem 1] which says that
Theorem 1.5
(cf. Theorem 6.2) For the standard representation \(Ind^G_P(\rho )\) with \(\rho \) a generic supercuspidal representation of the Levi subgroup M of a standard parabolic subgroup \(P=MN\) in a connected quasisplit reductive group G, we have that
At last, we would like to mention that Tadić has worked out Rodier type structure theorem for quasisplit groups \(GSp_{2n}, Sp_{2n}\) and \(SO_{2n+1}\) for which he does not have to overcome any difficulties as mentioned above (cf. [30]).
In the end, we give the outline of the paper. In Sect. 2, some necessary notions of representation theory are introduced. In Sect. 3, we will first state and prove the Rodier type structure theorem for regular generalized principal series which roughly speaking is a parametrization of the associated Jordan–Hölder set \(JH\left( Ind^G_P(\rho )\right) \). In Sect. 4, we prove the linear independence property of the set S. Section 5 is about the parametrization/characterization of the constituents of discreteness/temperedness of generalized principal series, while the determination of the generic constituents will be discussed in Sect. 6. The last section is to see how the Aubert duality behaves under our setting.
Preliminaries
Let G be a connected reductive group defined over a nonarchimedean local field F of characteristic 0. For our purpose, it is no harm to assume that the center \(Z_G\) of G is compact. Denote by \(_F\) the absolute value, by \(\mathfrak {w}\) the uniformizer and by q the cardinality of the residue field of F. Fix a minimal parabolic subgroup \(B=TU\) of G with T a minimal Levi subgroup and U a maximal unipotent subgroup of G, and let \(P=MN\) be a standard parabolic subgroup of G with M the Levi subgroup and N the unipotent radical. For all the notions below, please refer to [7, 26, 31] for the details.
Weyl group
Let \(X(M)_F\) be the group of Frational characters of M, and \(A_M\) be the maximal Fsplit subtorus of the center \(Z_M\) of M. We set
where
denotes the dual of \(\mathfrak {a}_M\). Recall that the HarishChandra homomorphism \(H_P:M\longrightarrow \mathfrak {a}_M\) is defined by
for all \(\chi \in X(M)_F\) and \(m\in M\).
Next, let \(\Phi \) be the root system of G with respect to T, i.e. \(A_T\), and \(\Phi ^+\) \((resp.~\Delta )\) be the set of positive (resp. simple) roots determined by U. For \(\alpha \in \Phi \), we denote by \(\alpha ^\vee \) the associated coroot, and by \(w_\alpha \) the associated reflection in the Weyl group W of T in G with
The walls in \(\mathfrak {a}_T^\star \) are the hyperplanes \(Ker~\alpha ^\vee \). The Weyl chambers in \(\mathfrak {a}^\star _T\) are the connected components of the set
on which the Weyl group W acts simply transitively (cf. [29]). We denote by \(C^+\) the dominant Weyl chamber determined by B, i.e. the unique Weyl chamber which is on the positive side of all positive roots determined by U. Denote by \(w_0^G\) the longest Weyl element in W, and similarly by \(w_0^M\) the longest Weyl element in the Weyl group \(W^M\) of a Levi subgroup M.
Relative Weyl group
Likewise, we denote by \(\Phi _M\) (resp. \(\Phi _M^+\)) the set of reduced relative (resp. positive) roots of M in G (resp. \(P=MN\)), i.e. \((\Phi _{A_M})_{red}\), specifically
We denote by \(\Delta _M\) the set of relative simple roots determined by N and by
the relative Weyl group of M in G. In general, a relative reflection \(\omega _\alpha :=w_0^{M_\alpha }w_0^M\) with respect to a relative root \(\alpha \) does not preserve our Levi subgroup M. Denote by \(\Phi ^0_M\) (resp. \((\Phi _M^0)^+\)) the set of those relative (resp. positive) roots which contribute reflections in \(W_M\). It is easy to see that \(W_M\) preserves \(\Phi _M\), and further \(\Phi _M^0\) as well, as \(\omega _{w.\alpha }=w\omega _\alpha w^{1}\). Note that \(W_M\) in general is larger than the one generated by those relative reflections, for example,
where \(W_M\simeq \mathbb {Z}/2\mathbb {Z}\) which is generated by \(\omega _{e_1}\omega _{e_2}\), but \(\omega _{e_1}\omega _{e_2}\ne \omega _\alpha \) for any relative root \(\alpha \). For other parabolic subgroup \(P'=MN'\), we denote \(\Phi _M(P')\) to be the set of reduced relative roots determined by \(N'\). In particular, if \(P'=P\), then \(\Phi _M(P)=\Phi _M^+\).
For our purpose, we define the “small” relative Weyl group \(W_M^0\subset W_M\) to be the one generated by those relative reflections, i.e.
It is easy to see that, as \(w\omega _{\alpha }w^{1}=\omega _{w.\alpha }\) for \(\alpha \in \Phi _M^0\) and \(w\in W_M\),
The relative walls in the “small” character vector spaces
are the intersections of those hyperplanes \(Ker~\alpha ^\vee \), which contribute reflections in \(W_M\), with the subspace \(^{0}\mathfrak {a}^\star _M\) in \(\mathfrak {a}^\star _M\). For simplicity, we will use the same terminology \(Ker~\alpha ^\vee \) for its corresponding intersection throughout the paper. The relative Weyl chambers are the connected components of the set
on which the “small” relative Weyl group \(W_M^0\) acts. An observation is that
which follows from the fact that \(\Phi _M^0\) is a root system, may not be irreducible. Denote by \(\Delta _M^0\) the relative simple roots of \(\Phi _M^0\). Note that \(\Phi _M^0\) is quite different with \(\Phi _M\) in general, as well as \(\Delta _M^0\) and \(\Delta _M\), for example,
where \(\Delta _M=\big \{e_1e_2,e_2\big \}\subset \Phi _M=\big \{\pm e_1\pm e_2,\pm e_1,\pm e_2 \big \}\), while \(\Delta _M^0=\big \{e_1,e_2 \big \}\subset \Phi _M^0=\big \{\pm e_1,\pm e_2 \big \}.\)
We denote by \(C^+_M\) the relative dominant Weyl chamber in \(^{0}\mathfrak {a}_M^\star \) determined by P, i.e. the unique relative Weyl chamber in \(^{0}\mathfrak {a}^\star _M\) which is on the positive side of all relative positive roots determined by N. Recall that the canonical pairing
suggests that each \(\alpha \in \Phi _M\) will enjoy a one parameter subgroup \(H_{\alpha ^\vee }(F^\times )\) of M satisfying: for \(x\in F^\times \) and \(\beta \in \mathfrak {a}^\star _M\),
Parabolic induction and Jacquet module
For \(P=MN\) a parabolic subgroup of G and an admissible representation \((\sigma ,V_\sigma )~ (resp.~(\pi ,V_\pi ))\) of M (resp. G), we have the following normalized parabolic induction of P to G which is a representation of G
with \(\delta _P\) stands for the modulus character of P, i.e., denote by \(\mathfrak {n}\) the Lie algebra of N,
and the normalized Jacquet module \(r_P(\pi )\) with respect to P which is a representation of M
Define the action of \(w\in W_M\) on representations \(\sigma \) of M to be \(w.\sigma :=\sigma \circ Ad(w^{1})\) and \(\sigma ^w:=\sigma \circ Ad(w)\).
Corank one reducibility
For \(\alpha \in \Phi _M\), let \(M_\alpha \supset M\) be the corank one Levi subgroup determined by \(\alpha \), corank one reducibility means the reducibility of those \(Ind^{M_\alpha }_{P\cap M_\alpha }(\sigma )\) for \(\alpha \in \Phi _M\) and supercuspidal representations \(\sigma \). Notice that \(Ind^{M_\alpha }_{P\cap M_\alpha }(\sigma )\) is always irreducible if \(\alpha \notin \Phi ^0_M\) for the fact that \(r_{P\cap M_\alpha }\circ Ind^{M_\alpha }_{P\cap M_\alpha }(\sigma )=\sigma \), so we will only talk about the corank one reducibility associated to those \(\alpha \in \Phi ^0_M\) in the paper.
Whittaker model
For this purpose, we shall assume that G is quasisplit. For each root \(\alpha \in \Phi \), there exists a nontrivial homomorphism \(X_\alpha \) of F into G such that, for \(t\in T\) and \(x\in F\),
We say a character \(\theta \) of U is generic if the restriction of \(\theta \) to \(X_\alpha (F)\) is nontrivial for each simple root \(\alpha \in \Delta \). Then the Whittaker function space \(\mathcal {W}_\theta \) of G with respect to \(\theta \) is the space of smooth complex functions f on G satisfying, for \(u\in U\) and \(g\in G\),
i.e. \(\mathcal {W}_\theta =Ind_U^G(\theta )\). We say an irreducible admissible representation \(\pi \) of G is \(\underline{\theta }\) generic if
Squareintegrability/Temperedness
In what follows, we recall Casselman’s squareintegrability and temperedness criterion. For our purpose, we only state it under the condition that the inducing datum \(\rho \) is supercuspidal, i.e. \(\pi \in JH\left( Ind^G_P(\rho )\right) \) with \(\rho \) supercuspidal representation of M, here \(JH()\) means the set of Jordan–Hölder constituents.
Let \(^{+}\mathfrak {a}^\star _M ~(resp.~ ^{+}\bar{\mathfrak {a}}^\star _M)\) be the set of such \(\chi \in \mathfrak {a}_M^\star \) of the form
with all the coefficients \(x_\alpha >0~(resp.~x_\alpha \ge 0)\). Denote by \(\mathfrak {a}_M^{*+}\) \((resp. \bar{\mathfrak {a}}_M^{*+})\) the (resp. closure of) fundamental Weyl chamber in \(\mathfrak {a}_M^*\) determined by \(\Delta _M\). For an admissible representation \((\tau ,V_\tau )\) of M, we define the set \(\mathcal {E}xp(\tau )\) of exponents of \(\tau \) as follows:
where \(Z_M\) is the center of M and
Keep the notation as above, \(\pi \in JH(I(\nu ,\sigma ))\) is squareintegrable (resp. tempered) if and only if for each standard parabolic subgroup \(Q=LV\) associated to \(P=MN\), i.e. L and M are conjugate,
Rodier type structure theorem of generalized principal series
Recall that an irreducible supercuspidal representation \(\tau \) of M is called regular in G if the only element \(w\in W_M\) such that \(\tau ^w\simeq \tau \) is the identity element. A parabolic induction \(Ind^G_{P=MN}(\rho )\) is called a generalized principal series if the inducing data \(\rho \) is a supercuspidal representation of the Levi subgroup M of P. Furthermore, if our inducing data is a regular supercuspidal representation, we call the associated induced representation a regular generalized principal series. In this section, we will first recall Rodier’s structure theorem of the constituents of regular principal series of split groups (see [22, Theorem, Pg.418]), then extend it to regular generalized principal series of arbitrary connected reductive group and its finite central covering group.
Recall that in [22], for a regular character \(\chi \) of the torus T of the Borel subgroup \(B=TU\) of a connected split reductive group G, let S be the set of coroots \(\alpha ^\vee \) such that \(\chi _\alpha :=\chi \circ H_{\alpha ^\vee }=\cdot \), and \(S:=\{\alpha ^\vee :~\alpha \in S \}\). Then
Theorem 3.1
(Rodier structure theorem) (see [22, Theorem, Pg. 418]) The constituents \(\pi _\Gamma \) of the regular principal series \(Ind^G_B(\chi )\) are parameterized by the connected components \(\Gamma \) of
satisfying the following property:
the Jacquet module \(r_B(\pi _\Gamma )\) of \(\pi _\Gamma \) with respect to B is equal to
Before turning to our Rodier type structure theorem for regular generalized principal series of arbitrary connected reductive groups, we first investigate the main ideas behind Rodier structure theorem which has not been pointed out explicitly in [22]. Once those ideas are streamlined clearly, it would be readily to see how simple yet beautiful our Rodier type structure theorem is.
For regular principal series \(Ind^G_B(\chi )\), we have that, as representations of T,
for any \(w\in W_T\). Applying Frobenius reciprocity, we know that \(Ind^G_B(\chi ^w)\) has a unique irreducible subrepresentation, and
for any \(w,~w'\in W_T\).
As the Jacquet module functor is exact (cf. [6, 7, 31]), so for any \(\pi \in JH\left( Ind^G_B(\chi )\right) \) and any \(w\in W_T\), we know that \(\pi \) is of multiplicity at most one in \(Ind^G_B(\chi ^w)\) and is uniquely determined by its Jacquet module \(r_B(\pi )\) with respect to B. Moreover, in view of the above fact that \(Ind^G_B(\chi )\) has a unique irreducible subrepresentation, thus for any \(\chi ^w\in r_B(\pi )\),
Therefore, the determination of the set \(JH\left( Ind^G_B(\chi )\right) \) of the constituents of \(Ind^G_B(\chi )\) is equivalent to determining the orbits \(\mathcal {O}\) of the set \(\{\chi ^w:~w\in W_T \}\) under the equivalent relation \(\sim \): for \(w,~w'\in W_T\),
where \(A(w,w')\) is the unique, up to scalar, nonzero Gequivalent homomorphism in
For simplicity, we will abbreviate those intertwining operators \(A(w,w')\) as A in what follows.
The next step is to give a characterization of those pairs \((w,w')\subset W_T\) satisfying
Let us first take a look at the simple basic case, i.e. the pairs \((w,w')\) with \(w'=ww_\alpha \) for some simple root \(\alpha \). That is to say
For such a pair, via the induction by stage property of parabolic inductions and the uniqueness property of the intertwining operators A, we have also the induction by stage property of A, i.e. the following diagram commutes:
where \(P_\alpha =M_\alpha N_\alpha \) is the corank one parabolic subgroup associated to the simple root \(\alpha \) (cf. [26]). Whence
if and only if
if and only if
Moreover, if \((\star )\) does not hold, i.e. \(\chi _{w.\alpha }=\cdot ^{\pm 1}\), which is to say that \(Ind^{M_\alpha }_{B\cap M_\alpha }(\chi ^w)\) is reducible, then the Jacquet modules of Ker(A) and Im(A) with respect to B are as follows:
and
which follow from Bernstein–Zelevinsky geometrical lemma (see [6, 7, 31]). Notice that any coroot \(\beta '^\vee \) corresponding to a positive root \(\beta '\) satisfies the following relations:
In particular,
Thus we obtain a geometrical characterization of the double coset
Applying the same argument as above after conjugating \(C^+,~\alpha \) and \(w''\) by w, we know that the Jacquet module \(r_B(Ker(A))\) of Ker(A) in \((\star \star )\) is equal to
where \(w''\) runs over those Weyl elements in \(W_T\) such that
Analogously,
where \(w''\) runs over those Weyl elements in \(W_T\) such that
At last, we would like to emphasize that the condition \((\star )\) is equivalent to saying that
Such a condition is the right language we need in our statement of Rodier type structure theorem later on.
Now we turn to the discussion of the general case, i.e. the pairs \((w,w')\) with \(w'=ww_{\alpha _1}\ldots w_{\alpha _s}\) for some simple roots \(\alpha _1,\ldots ,\alpha _s\). We require that such a decomposition is minimal in the sense that it gives rise to a minimal gallery between \(wC^+\) and \(w'C^+\) (see [7, Section 1.2]), i.e. \(w^{1}w'=w_{\alpha _1}\cdots w_{\alpha _s}\) is a reduced decomposition. Thus we have (see [29, Lemma 8.3.2])
The key observation for the general case is to show that
where \(A(w_1,w_2)\) is the unique, up to scalar, nonzero intertwining operator in
for any \(w_1,~w_2\in W_T\).
Before moving to the proof of the claim (KO), we first discuss its implication to our previous question, i.e. when is \(A(w,w')\) an isomorphism?
Given (KO), it is easy to see that \(A(w,w')\) is an isomorphism if and only if
Thus Rodier structure theorem, i.e. Theorem 3.1 holds.
In what follows, we finish the proof of our claim (KO). To show the equality (KO) is to show that the composition map on the right hand side is nonzero, i.e. the Jacquet module of its image is nonzero. Notice that the Jacquet module of its image on the right hand side of (KO) with respect to B is equal to
which follows from the simple fact that Jacquet module is invariant under isomorphism. Then it reduces to show that \(Jim\ne 0\). Recall that (SB) says:
From the expression of \(R(w^{1}w')\) in (RD), it is readily to check that
whence the claim (KO) holds.
At last, we would like to see what explicit form of the set Jim is for its own sake. As
where \(Jer:=\)
it is equivalent to determine the set \(Jer\overset{(KO)}{=}r_B(Ker(A(w,w')))\). From the geometrical description of \(r_B(Ker(A))\) in (SB), we obtain that
where Y is the set of \(w''\in W_T\) for which there exists a coroot \(\alpha ^\vee \in S\) such that the chambers \(wC^+\) and \(w''C^+\) are on the same side of the wall \(Ker(\alpha ^\vee )\), and the chambers \(wC^+\) and \(w'C^+\) are separated by the wall. Moreover,
Now we turn to the discussion of extending Rodier structure theorem, i.e. Theorem 3.1 to regular generalized principal series for arbitrary connected reductive group and its finite central covering group. Recall that the key ideas in the proof of Rodier structure theorem for regular principal series analyzed as above are as follows:

1.
The double coset \(B\backslash G/B=W_T=\left<w_\alpha :~\alpha \in \Delta \right>\) is a coxeter group.

2.
For a reduced decomposition of \(w^{1}w'=w_{\alpha _1}w_{\alpha _2}\cdots w_{\alpha _{s1}}w_{\alpha _s}\), we have
$$\begin{aligned} A(w,w')=A(ww_{\alpha _1}\cdots w_{\alpha _{s1}},w')\circ \cdots \circ A(ww_{\alpha _1},ww_{\alpha _1}w_{\alpha _2})\circ A(w,ww_{\alpha _1}). \end{aligned}$$
For general standard parabolic group \(P=MN\) of G and supercuspidal representation \(\rho \) of M, even though Bernstein–Zelevinsky geometrical lemma says that only elements in the relative Weyl group \(W_M:=N_G(M)/M\) appear in \(r_P\circ Ind^G_P(\rho )\) instead of the whole double coset \(P\backslash G/P\), \(W_M\) is NOT a coxeter group in general. To overcome such a difficulty, we discover two novel observations in what follows.
The first observation is about the structure of the relative Weyl group \(W_M\). Recall that \(\Phi ^0_M\) (resp. \((\Phi _M^0)^+\)) is the set of those relative (resp. positive) roots which contribute reflections in \(W_M\) and \(W_M^0\) is the “small” relative Weyl group \(W_M^0:=\left<w_\alpha :~\alpha \in \Phi ^0_M\right>\). Notice that \(w_{w.\alpha }=ww_\alpha w^{1}\) for any \(w\in W_M\) and \(\alpha \in \Phi _M\), we know that \(W_M\) preserves \(\Phi _M^0\), whence \(W_M^0\lhd W_M\) and \(\Phi _M^0\) is a root system. From the previous analysis of regular principal series, it is readily to see that all previous arguments works perfectly for the “small” relative Weyl group \(W_M^0\) which is a coxeter group.
Analogous to the definition of Knapp–Stein Rgroup, we define
It is easy to see that \(W_M^1\) is a subgroup of \(W_M\), and \(W_M^1\cap W_M^0=\{1\}\). Then it is natural to guess that \(W_M=W_M^0 W_M^1\) which is stated as the following lemma.
Lemma 3.2
(Lusztig Lemma, see [16, Lemma 5.2][11, Corollary 2.6]) Keep the notation as above. Then we have
Proof
It suffices to show
Recall that \(\Phi _M^0\) is a root system with the set of simple roots denoted by \(\Delta _M^0\), and \(W_M\) preserves \(\Phi _M^0\). Therefore for \(w\in W_M\), we may consider the action of w on \(\Delta _M^0\). If
then by definition, we have \(w\in W_M^1\). Otherwise, there exists some \(\alpha \in \Delta _M^0\) such that
By the decomposition structure of w as reflections as in [20, Lemma I.1.8], we know that
where \(\mathfrak {l}()\) is the length function. It is easy to see that \(w'\in W_M\). So the Lemma follows by induction on the length of w. \(\square \)
The second observation is about the structure of those “mysterious” intertwining operators \(A(w,ww_1)\) with \(w\in W_M^0\) and \(w_1\in W_M^1\).
As pointed out previously, we define S to be the set of those relative positive coroots \(\alpha ^\vee \) such that the corank one parabolic induction \(Ind^{M_\alpha }_{P\cap M_\alpha }(\rho )\) associated to \(\alpha \in \Phi ^0_M\) is reducible. Notice that \(W_M\ne W_M^0\) in general, thus the following key Lemma is needed to claim a similar result as Theorem 3.1 for regular generalized principal series.
Lemma 3.3
Keep the notions as above. For any \(w\in W_M^0\) and any \(w_1\in W_M^1\), we have that
Proof
It reduces to show
which follows from the associativity property of intertwining operators (please refer to [31, IV.3.(4)] for the notions). To be precise, up to nonzero scalar, the nontrivial intertwining operator
is equal to
By [31, IV.3.(4)], we have
where \(\alpha \) runs over \(\Phi _M(P)\bigcap \Phi _M(\overline{w_1^{1}Pw_1})\) with \(\overline{w_1^{1}Pw_1}\) the opposite parabolic subgroup of \(w_1^{1}Pw_1\). Notice that
so we have
Thus, in view of [27, Corollary 1.8][23],
Whence A is an isomorphism. \(\square \)
Combining the previous analysis and our key Lemma 3.3, we could now claim our Rodier type structure theorem for the general case as follows:
Theorem 3.4
(Rodier Type Structure Theorem) Keep the notation as previous. The constituents \(\pi _\Gamma \) of the regular generalized principal series \(Ind^G_P(\rho )\) are parameterized by the connected components \(\Gamma \) of
satisfying the following property:
the Jacquet module \(r_P(\pi _\Gamma )\) of \(\pi _\Gamma \) with respect to P is equal to
A direct corollary of Rodier type structure theorm, i.e. Theorem 3.4 is the wellknown HarishChandra–Silberger’s irreducibility criterion for regular generalized principal series \(Ind^G_P(\rho )\) as follows:
Theorem 3.5
(See [26, Theorem 5.4.3.7]) If \(\rho \) is a regular supercuspidal representation of the Levi subgroup M of \(P=MN\) in G, then the following are equivalent

1.
\(Ind^G_P(\rho )\) is irreducible.

2.
S is an empty set, i.e. no corank one reducibility.
Remark 1
One may note that the notions “regular” is called “unramified” and “corank one irreducible” is replaced by its equivalent form “corank one Plancherel measure is analytic” in [26, Theorem 5.4.3.7].
Well, to sum up, we would like to emphasis that the previous argument works in a broad sense if the following two analogous ingredients exist in general
 1.

2.
HarishChandra Plancherel formula theory, especially the intertwining operator theory (cf. [31]).
A direct example is that the finite central covering group \(\widetilde{G}\) of G enjoys those properties listed as above (cf. [4, 12, 15]). Thus we know that
Theorem 3.6
Rodier type structure theorem, i.e. Theorem 3.4 and Theorem 3.5 hold for finite central covering group \(\widetilde{G}\).
Another direct corollary of the above structure theorems, i.e. Theorem 3.4 and Theorem 3.6, is as follows:
Corollary 3.7
Keep the notions as before. If all corank one reducibility conditions lie in a Levi subgroup L of a parabolic subgroup \(Q=LV\) in G, then we have
Indeed, such a natural universal irreducibility structure is a special case of a general phenomenon [14, Theorem 2.1].
Linear independence of corank one reducibility conditions
Recall that \(P=MN\) is a standard parabolic subgroup of G, \(\rho \) is a regular supercuspidal representation of M, \(\Phi _M\) (resp. \(\Phi _M^\vee \)) is the set of relative reduced roots (resp. coroots) determined by P and S is the set of those positive relative coroots in \(\Phi _M^\vee \) such that the associated corank one inductions are reducible. Denote by \(\rho _0\) the unitary part of \(\rho \), and by \(\omega _\rho \) the real unramified part of the central character of \(\rho \), i.e. \(\omega _\rho \in \mathfrak {a}_M^*\).
As an essential input for the determination of squareintegrable/tempered constituents in \(JH(Ind^G_P(\rho ))\), we need to prove the following claim (cf. [22, Proposition 3] for principal series of split groups) which says that
Theorem 4.1
Keep the notions as before. The vectors in the set S are linearly independent.
Before turning to the general proof, we first serve you some observations which play a key role in what follows.
The first observation is about \(W_{\rho _0}:=\big \{w\in W_M:~w.\rho _0=\rho _0 \big \}\):
Let \(W_S\) be the subgroup of \(W_M:=N_G(M)/M\) generated by S, i.e.
Denote by \(\Phi _S\) the subcoroot system of \(\Phi _M\) generated by S, i.e.
It is easy to see that \(W_S\) is the Weyl group of \(\Phi _S\). Notice that for any \(\alpha ^\vee \in S\), we have
whence \(\rho _0\) is fixed by \(W_S\), i.e.
The second observation is about the uniformity of the unique pole of the corank one Plancherel measure \(\mu _\alpha (s,\rho _0)\) (please refer to [27, 31] for the notion).
It is wellknown that a nontempered corank one induction \(Ind^{M_\alpha }_{P\cap M_\alpha }(\rho )\) associated to \(\alpha ^\vee \in \Phi _M\) is reducible if and only if the corank one Plancherel measure \(\mu _\alpha (s,\rho _0)\) has a pole at \(\rho \), i.e. \((w_{\rho })_\alpha :=\omega _\rho \circ H_{\alpha ^\vee }=\cdot ^{\pm s_0}\) for a unique \(s_0> 0\) (cf. [27]). Such an \(s_0\) is uniquely determined by \(\alpha \) and \(\rho _0\). Notice that
for any \(w\in W_M\), we have \(\mu _\alpha (s,\rho _0)=\mu _{w.\alpha }(s,\rho _0^w)\) for any \(\alpha ^\vee \in \Phi _M\). In particular, for \(w\in W_S\), i.e. \(w.\rho _o=\rho _0\), we know that
which is to say that
In view of those two observations, in order to prove Theorem 4.1, it suffices to show that
if the set S is not linearly independent under the assumption that the root system \(\Phi _S\) is irreducible (cf. [22, Proposition 3]). Note that for irreducible root system \(\Phi _S\), an easy calculation shows that \(W_S\)orbits are determined uniquely by the lengths of roots, which is at most of two, i.e.
Denote by \(S^+\) the set of those coroot \(\alpha ^\vee \) in \(S\bigcup S\) such that \((\omega _\rho )_\alpha =\cdot ^{s_0}\) with \(s_0>0\). Notice that if there are two coroots \(\alpha _1^\vee \) and \(\alpha _2^\vee \in S^+\) of same length such that \(\left<\alpha _1,\alpha _2^\vee \right>>0\), then \(w_{\alpha _2}.\alpha _1^\vee =\alpha _1^\vee \alpha _2^\vee \in \Phi _S\), which in turn says that \((\omega _\rho )_\beta =1\). Via (CC), we get a contradiction with the regular condition of \(\rho \). Thus
Now we could begin our proof of the claim that \(S^+\) is linearly independent casebycase in terms of irreducible root types of \(\Phi _S\) as follows: \(\square \)
Proof
Types \(\underline{A_n, D_n}\) and \(\underline{E_n:}\) In such a case, \(\Phi _S\) has a single \(W_S\)orbit. Then (UF) says that there exists \(s_0>0\) such that for any \(\alpha ^\vee \in \Phi _S\), \(Ind^{M_\alpha }_{P\cap M_\alpha }(\rho )\) is reducible if and only if \((\omega _\rho )_\alpha =\cdot ^{\pm s_0}\). In view of (CC), we know that \(\omega _\rho \) is a regular vector w.r.t our root system \(\Phi _S\). Thus \(S^+=\{\alpha ^\vee \in \Phi _S:~\left<\omega _\rho ,\alpha ^\vee \right>=s_0 \text{ is } \text{ minimal } \text{ positive } \}\). For such \(S^+\), it is wellknown that \(S^+\) is a base of the root system \(\Phi _S\) (for example see [17, Proposition 19.7]). Whence our claim holds via (CC).
Types \(\underline{B_n, C_n, G_2}\) and \(\underline{F_4:}\) In this case, \(\Phi _S\) has two \(W_S\)orbits given by the length of roots. Set those two poles of our corank one Plancherel measure to be at \(s_0>0\) and \(t_0>0\). Because of (UF), we denote \(S^+_{s_0}\) to be the subset of \(S^+\) consisting of those coroots \(\alpha ^\vee \in S^+\) such that \((\omega _\rho )_\alpha =\cdot ^{s_0}\), and denote \(S^+_{t_0}\) to be the subset of \(S^+\) consisting of those coroots \(\beta ^\vee \in S^+\) such that \((\omega _\rho )_\beta =\cdot ^{t_0}\). Applying the same argument as in the simplylaced case, i.e. Types \(\underline{A_n, D_n}\) and \(\underline{E_n}\), we know that \(S^+_{s_0}\) and \(S^+_{t_0}\) are linearly independent respectively, we also know that \(S^+\) is linearly independent if \(s_0=t_0\). So it is reduced to deal with the case \(s_0\ne t_0\).
For types \(B_n\) and \(C_n\), without loss of generality, we assume that elements in \(S^+_{s_0}\) are of length 2. Observe that for any two different elements \(\beta ^\vee _1\) and \(\beta ^\vee _2\) in \(S^+_{t_0}\), we have \(\left<\omega _\rho ,\beta ^\vee _1\beta ^\vee _2\right>=0\) and \(c(\beta ^\vee _1\beta ^\vee _2)\in \Phi _S\) for some \(c=1\) or \(\frac{1}{2}\), which gives a contradiction with (CC). So \(S^+_{t_0}\) contains at most one element. Thus \(\#S^+_{s_0}\ge n1\). After conjugating by a Weyl element in \(W_S\), an easy analysis shows that \(\#S^+_{s_0}=n1\) and
Whence our claim holds.
For Type \(G_2\), we set
and set
It is easy to check that \(\#S^+_{s_0}=\#S^+_{t_0}=1\). Thus our claim holds.
For Type \(F_4\), we set all the roots of \(\Phi _S\) to be:
It is easy to see that there are at most one \(\beta _j\) in \(S^+\). Otherwise \(\left<\omega _\rho ,\beta _1\beta _2\right>=0\) contradicts (CC). We set \(S^+_{s_0}\) to be the subset of those coroots in \(S^+\) which are of length 2. Consider the subroot system formed by roots of length 1, we know that it is of type \(D_4\), thus \(S^+_{t_0}\) could only be a subset of
after conjugating by a Weyl element. Observe that applying subtraction on any two roots in
produces a root in \(\Phi _S\), then (CC) says that there are at most one
which belongs to \(S^+_{t_0}\). Thus \(\#S^+_{t_0}\le 2\). On the other hand, consider the subroot system formed by roots of length 2, we know that it is also of type \(D_4\), thus \(S^+_{s_0}\) could only be a subset of
after conjugating by a Weyl element. Observe that
thus (CC) says that \(\#S^+_{s_0}\le 2\) and it is a subset of
after conjugating by a Weyl element. But the dimension of \(\Phi _S\) is 4, whence \(S^+=S^+_{s_0}\bigcup S^+_{t_0}\) is linearly independent. \(\square \)
Remark 2
From the above arguments, Theorem 4.1 holds also for finite central covering groups once a covering group version of [27, Theorem 1.6] is established.
Let \(\iota \) be the rank of the center of the Levi subgroup M of \(P=MN\) in G, then
Corollary 4.2
Keep the notions as before. The length of the regular generalized principal series \(Ind^G_P(\rho )\) is equal to \(2^{\#S}\) which is at most \(2^\iota \).
Squareintegrability
In this section, we would like to investigate the discreteness/temperedness property of the subquotients of the regular generalized principal series \(Ind^G_P(\rho )\). For simplicity, we may assume that the real unramified part \(\omega _\rho \) of the central character of \(\rho \) lies in \(\bar{\mathfrak {a}}_M^{*+}\), and we define S to be the set of those relative positive coroots \(\alpha ^\vee \) such that the corank one parabolic induction \(Ind^{M_\alpha }_{P\cap M_\alpha }(\rho )\) associated to \(\alpha \in \Phi ^0_M\) is reducible. Among the connected components which index the constituents in \(JH(Ind^G_P(\rho ))\) (see Theorem 3.4), there exists a distinguished one
which plays a key role in what follows.
To start, let us first state a necessary condition concerning Casselman’s squareintegrability criterion as follows:
Lemma 5.1
For generalized principal series \(Ind^G_P(\rho )\) with \(\rho \) regular supercuspidal representation of the Levi subgroup M of \(P=MN\) in G, let S be the set of relative positive coroots such that the associated corank one parabolic inductions are reducible. Then there exists squareintegrable \(\pi \in JH(Ind^G_P(\rho ))\) only if
Proof
This follows from Corollary 3.7 and the fact that a full induced representation is not squareintegrable. One may also refer to a theorem of Silberger (cf. [28, Theorem 3.9.1]). \(\square \)
Given Lemma 5.1, we could now reinterpret Casselman’s criterion under our setting which says that
Proposition 5.2
Keep the notions as before. \(JH(Ind^G_P(\rho ))\) contains at most one squareintegrable constituent. Moreover the representation \(\pi _\Gamma \) is squareintegrable if and only if
for any root \(\alpha \in \bar{C}^+_M\) and any \(w\in W_M\) such that \(wC^+_M\subset \Gamma \), or equivalently,
That is to say \(\Gamma =\Gamma _+\).
Proof
The argument of the uniqueness claim is as follows:
Otherwise, if \(\pi _{\Gamma _1}\) and \(\pi _{\Gamma _2}\) are squareintegrable, then there exists a wall \(Ker~\beta ^\vee \), with \(\beta ^\vee \in S\), separates \(\Gamma _1\) and \(\Gamma _2\). Hence \(\bar{\Gamma }_1\cup \bar{\Gamma }_2\) contains \(\bigcap \limits _{\beta ^\vee \ne \alpha ^\vee \in S}Ker~\alpha ^\vee \) by Theorem 4.1, which in turn says that there exits \(0\ne w\in \mathfrak {a}^\star _M\) such that \(\big \{w,w^{1}\big \}\subset \bar{\Gamma }_1\cup \bar{\Gamma }_2\). Contradiction.
The only if part follows from Lemma 5.1 and the definition of \(\omega _\rho \in \bar{\mathfrak {a}}^{*+}_M\).
The if part follows from a direct check, one may also refer to a general theorem (cf. [9, Corollary 8.7]). \(\square \)
In view of Corollary 3.7, almost the same reinterpretation works for Casselman’s temperedness criterion (please refer to [22, Proposition 6] for details).
Proposition 5.3
Keep the notions as before. \(JH(Ind^G_P(\rho ))\) contains at most one tempered constituent. The representation \(\pi _\Gamma \) is tempered if and only if \(\omega _\rho \) restricting to the subgroup \(\bigcap \limits _{\alpha ^\vee \in S}Ker(\alpha ^\vee )\) of M is unitary and \(\Gamma =\Gamma _+\).
Proof
The same type argument as above works (cf. [22, Proposition 6]). \(\square \)
In view of [3], we know that
Remark 3
All the above claims also hold for finite central covering groups.
Genericity
Note that there exists at most one generic constituent guaranteed by Rodier’s hereditary theorem (see [21, Theorem 4]) which has nothing to do the linearly independence property of corank one reducibility conditions. In this section, assume that G is a connected quasisplit reductive group, and \(\rho \) is a regular supercuspidal representation of the Levi subgroup M of a standard parabolic subgroup \(P=MN\) in G, we would like to give a characterization of the unique generic constituent of the regular generalized principal series \(Ind^G_P(\rho )\). Given such a characterization, we serve you an easy and intuitive proof of Casselman–Shahidi’s main theorem (i.e. [8, Theorem 1]) on their standard module conjecture/generalized injectivity conjecture for regular generalized principal series.
Recall that \(B=TU\) is a fixed Borel subgroup of G with U a maximal unipotent subgroup of G, \(\theta \) is a generic character of U and \(\mathcal {W}_\theta :=Ind^G_U(\theta )\) is the Whittaker function space. As in [25, Section 3], we assume that the generic character \(\theta \) of U and the longest Weyl element \(w_0^G\) in W are compatible. Denote by \(\theta _M\) the generic character \(\theta \) of U restricting to N which is compatible with the longest Weyl element \(w_0^M\) in \(W^M\). In what follows, we always assume that the irreducible admissible representation \(\rho \) of M is regular, \(\theta _M\)generic and supercuspidal. For simplicity, we may also assume that the real unramified part \(\omega _\rho \) of the central character of \(\rho \) lies in \(\bar{\mathfrak {a}}_M^{*+}\) the closure of \(\mathfrak {a}_M^{*+}\).
Indeed, through a clear understanding of the proof of our Rodier type structure theorem, i.e. Theorem 3.4, it is readily to see that the problem of sorting out the generic constituent is reduced to determine the genericity of the constituents of those corank one inductions \(Ind^{M_\alpha }_{P\cap M_\alpha }(\rho ^w)\), where the pairs \((\alpha ,w)\) are those, \(\alpha \in \Delta _M^0\) and \(w\in W_M^0\), satisfying the following conditions

1.
\(w.\alpha \) is a relative positive root, i.e. \(w.\alpha \in (\Phi ^0_M)^+\).

2.
The corank one induction \(Ind^{M_\alpha }_{P\cap M_\alpha }(\rho ^w)\) is reducible.
The above conditions are equivalent to saying that \(w.\alpha ^\vee \in S\).
Let \(A(w,ww_\alpha )\) be the unique, up to scalar, nonzero intertwining map in
which has the induction by stage property, i.e. the following diagram commutes:
where \(P_\alpha =M_\alpha N_\alpha \) is the corank one parabolic subgroup associated to the relative simple root \(\alpha \in \Delta ^0_M\) (cf. [26]). Notice that \(Ind^{M_\alpha }_{P\cap M_\alpha }(\rho ^w)\) is a standard module by the definition of \(\rho \) and the choice of the pair \((\alpha ,w)\), then by [24, Corollary 3.3.1], we have
Recall that (SB) in the previous section says that the Jacquet module \(r_P(Ker(A(w,ww_\alpha )))\) of \(Ker(A(w,ww_\alpha ))\) is equal to
where \(w''\) runs over those relative Weyl elements in \(W_M\) such that
This is equivalent to saying that
as
for any \(\beta \in C_M^+\). Then our Rodier type structure theorem, i.e. Theorem 3.4 implies that
Theorem 6.1
Keep the notions as previous. Set
Then we have
here \(\pi _{\Gamma _+}\) stands for the corresponding constituent given by \(\Gamma _+\) in Theorem 3.4.
Now we could serve you a simple intuitive proof of Casselman–Shahidi’s main theorem [8, Theorem 1] which is a corollary of the above Theorem 6.1 as follows.
Recall that the regular generalized principal series \(Ind^G_P(\rho )\) has a unique irreducible subrepresentation \(\pi _+\). Moveover, \(\pi _{+}\) is uniquely determined by the fact that its Jacquet module with respect to P contains \(\rho \), i.e.
As the corank one reducibility set S consists of relative positive coroots, then for any \(\alpha ^\vee \in S\) and \(\beta \in C_M^+\), we have
On the other hand, by convention, the real unramified part \(\omega _\rho \) of the central character of \(\rho \) lies in \(\bar{\mathfrak {a}}_M^{*+}\). Thus
whence \(\pi _+=\pi _{\Gamma _+}\) is the generic constituent in \(JH(Ind^G_P(\rho ))\), especially Casselman–Shahidi’s main theorem (cf. [8, Theorem 1]) holds as follows:
Theorem 6.2
(See [8, Theorem 1]) For the standard representation \(Ind^G_P(\rho )\) with \(\rho \) a generic supercuspidal representation of the Levi subgroup M of a standard parabolic subgroup \(P=MN\) in a connected quasisplit reductive group G, we have that
Remark 4
One may note that Casselman–Shahidi’s proof of the above theorem is analytical, while our argument is kind of reducing it to the corank one case via the fact that an irreducible subquotient of regular generalized principal series is uniquely determined by its minimal Jacquet module.
Aubert duality
Motivated by Bernstein’s unitarity conjecture on Aubert duality, and Hiraga’s conjecture on the description of Aubert duality in terms of Arthur parameters (cf. [10]), we would like to investigate how Aubert duality acts on \(JH(Ind^G_P(\rho ))\) with \(\rho \) a regular supercuspidal representation of the Levi subgroup M of \(P=MN\) in G. Please refer to the short beautiful paper [1] for its definitions and properties. For covering groups, please refer to [5] for the detail.
Note that the Aubert duality D commutes with parabolic induction, thus for a relative simple root \(\alpha \) in \(\Phi _M^0\),
provided that the unique, up to scalar, intertwining map \(A(w,ww_\alpha )\) is not an isomorphism in
Therefore
where \(\pi _\Gamma \) is the constituent in \(JH(Ind^G_P(\rho ))\) corresponding to the component \(\Gamma \) in
given by Theorem 3.4. Thus
Corollary 7.1
Under the Aubert duality, there is no fixed point within the constituents of regular generalized principal series.
Remark 5
The above corollary also holds for covering groups.
References
 1.
Aubert, A.M.: Dualité dans le groupe de Grothendieck de la catégorie des représentations lisses de longueur finie d’un groupe réductif \(p\)adique. Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 347(6), 2179–2189 (1995)
 2.
Brink, B., Howlett, R.B.B.: Normalizers of parabolic subgroups in Coxeter groups. Inv. Math. 136(2), 323–351 (1999)
 3.
Ban, D., Jantzen, C.: The Langlands quotient theorem for finite central extensions of \(p\)adic groups. Glas. Mat. Ser. III 48(2), 313–334 (2013)
 4.
Ban, D., Jantzen, C.: The Langlands quotient theorem for finite central extensions of padic groups. Glas. Mate. 48(68), 313–334 (2013)
 5.
Ban, D., Jantzen, C.: The Langlands quotient theorem for finite central extensions of \(p\)adic groups II: intertwining operators and duality. Glas. Mat. Ser. III 51(1), 153–163 (2016)
 6.
Bernstein, I.N., Zelevinsky, A.V.: Induced representations of reductive padic groups. I. Ann. Sci. École Norm. Sup.(4) 10(4), 441–472 (1977)
 7.
Casselman, W.: Introduction to the theory of admissible representations of reductive padic groups, Preprint (1995)
 8.
Casselman, W., Shahidi, F.: On irreducibility of standard modules for generic representations. Ann. Sci. Éc. Norm. Supér., vol. 31, Elsevier, pp. 561–589 (1998)
 9.
Heiermann, V.: Décomposition spectrale et représentations spéciales d’un groupe réductif \(p\)adique. J. Inst. Math. Jussieu 3(3), 327–395 (2004)
 10.
Hiraga, K.: On functoriality of Zelevinski involutions. Compos. Math. 140(6), 1625–1656 (2004)
 11.
Howlett, R.B., Lehrer, G.I.: Induced cuspidal representations and generalised Hecke rings. Inv. Math. 58(1), 37–64 (1980)
 12.
Li, W.W.: La formule des traces pour les revêtements de groupes réductifs connexes. II. Analyse harmonique locale. Ann. Sci. Éc. Norm. Supér. 45(05), 5 (2012)
 13.
Luo, C.: Muller type irreducibility criterion for generalized principal series, Preprint (2018)
 14.
Luo, C.: Proof of Clozel’s finiteness conjecture of special exponents: a reduction step, Preprint (2018)
 15.
Luo, C.: KnappStein dimension theorem for covering groups. Pacific J. Math. 306(1), 265–280 (2020)
 16.
Lusztig, G.: Coxeter orbits and eigenspaces of Frobenius. Inv. Math. 38(2), 101–159 (1976)
 17.
McGerty, K.: Notes on Lie algebras. http://people.maths.ox.ac.uk/mcgerty/LieNotes.pdf (2012)
 18.
Morris, L.: Tamely ramified intertwining algebras. Inv. Math. 114(1), 1–54 (1993)
 19.
Muller, I.: Integrales d’entrelacement pour un groupe de chevalley sur un corps padique. Harmonic Analysis on Lie Groups II, pp. 367–403
 20.
Moeglin, C., Waldspurger, J.L.: Spectral Decomposition and Eisenstein Series: A Paraphrase of the Scriptures, Cambridge Tracts in Mathematics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1995)
 21.
Rodier, F.: Modéles de Whittaker des représentations admisssibles des groupes réductifs padiques quasidéeployées, manuscript non publié (2019)
 22.
Rodier, F.: Décomposition de la Serie Principale des Groupes Reductifs padiques, Non Communicative Harmonic Analysis and Lie Groups, pp. 408–424. Springer, Berlin (1981)
 23.
Savin, G.: An Addendum to Casselman’s Notes, Unpublished (2017)
 24.
Shahidi, F.: On certain \(L\)functions. Am. J. Math. 103(2), 297–355 (1981)
 25.
Shahidi, F.: A proof of Langlands’ conjecture on Plancherel measures: complementary series of padic groups. Ann. Math. (2) 132, 273–330 (1990)
 26.
Silberger, A.J.: Introduction to Harmonic Analysis on Reductive Padic Groups.(MN23): Based on Lectures by HarishChandra at The Institute for Advanced Study, 197173. Princeton university press, Princeton (1979)
 27.
Silberger, A.J.: Special representations of reductive padic groups are not integrable. Ann. Math. 111(3), 571–587 (1980)
 28.
Silberger, A.J.: Discrete series and classification for padic groups. I. Am. J. Math. 103(6), 1241–1321 (1981)
 29.
Tonny, A.: Springer, Linear Algebraic Groups. Springer Science & Business Media, Berlin (2010)
 30.
Tadić, M.: On regular square integrable representations of padic groups. Am. J. Math. 120(1), 159–210 (1998)
 31.
Waldspurger, J.L.: La formule de Plancherel pour les groupes padiques. D’apres HarishChandra. J. Inst. Math. Jussieu 2(02), 235–333 (2003)
Acknowledgements
The author is much indebted to Professor Wee Teck Gan for his guidance and numerous discussions on various topics. The author would like to thank Professor Gordan Savin for his interest and comments, thank Professor Marko Tadić for patiently answering my questions, and thank Max Gurevich for his seminar talk on a conjectural criterion of the irreducibility of parabolic inductions for \(GL_n\) in the National University of Singapore which rekindles our enthusiasm to explore the mysterious internal structures of parabolic inductions. The author would also like to thank Professor Chengbo Zhu for the financial support during my last month stay in Singapore, and thank Martin Raum for his support and kindness at Chalmers. Thanks are also due to the referee for his/her detailed comments and suggestions.
Funding
Open access funding provided by Chalmers University of Technology.
Author information
Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Luo, C. Rodier type theorem for generalized principal series. Math. Z. (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00209021027239
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Keywords
 Generalized principal series
 Regular supercuspidal representation
 Generic
 Discrete series
 Tempered representation
Mathematics Subject Classification
 22E35
 22E50