fea-arthur.

qxp 11/30/99 10:51 AM Page 26

Harmonic Analysis and

Group Representations
James Arthur

H
armonic analysis can be interpreted Chandra. I have been motivated by the following
broadly as a general principle that re- three considerations.
lates geometric objects and spectral (i) Harish-Chandra’s monumental contributions
objects. The two kinds of objects are to representation theory are the analytic foun-
sometimes related by explicit formu- dation of the Langlands program. For many
las, and sometimes simply by parallel theories. people, they are the most serious obstacle to
This principle runs throughout much of mathe- being able to work on the many problems that
matics. The rather impressionistic table at the top arise from Langlands’s conjectures.
of the opposite page provides illustrations from (ii) The view of harmonic analysis introduced
different areas. above, at least insofar as it pertains to group
The table gives me a pretext to say a word about representations, was a cornerstone of Harish-
the Langlands program. In very general terms, the Chandra’s philosophy.
Langlands program can be viewed as a series of far- (iii) It is more than fifteen years since the death
reaching but quite precise conjectures, which de-
of Harish-Chandra. As the creation of one of
scribe relationships among two kinds of spectral
the great mathematicians of our time, his work
objects—motives and automorphic representa-
deserves to be much better known.
tions—at the end of the table. Wiles’s spectacular
I shall spend most of the article discussing Har-
work on the Shimura-Taniyama-Weil conjecture,
ish-Chandra’s ultimate solution of what he long re-
which established the proof of Fermat’s Last The-
orem, can be regarded as confirmation of such a garded as the central problem of representation
relationship in the case of elliptic curves. In gen- theory, the Plancherel formula for real groups. I
eral, the arithmetic information wrapped up in shall then return briefly to the Langlands program,
motives comes from solutions of polynomial equa- where I shall try to give a sense of the role played
tions with rational coefficients. It would not seem by Harish-Chandra’s work.
to be amenable to any sort of classification. The
analytic information from automorphic represen-
Representations
tations, on the other hand, is backed up by the rigid A representation of a group G is a homomorphism
structure of Lie theory. The Langlands program rep- R : G −→ GL(V ) ,
resents a profound organizing scheme for funda-
mental arithmetic data in terms of highly struc- where V = VR is a complex vector space that one
tured analytic data. often takes to be a Hilbert space. We take for
I am going to devote most of this article to a granted the notions of irreducible, unitary, direct
short introduction to the work of Harish- sum, and equivalence, all applied to representations
of a fixed group G . Representations of a finite
group G were studied by Frobenius, as a tool for
James Arthur is professor of mathematics at the Univer-
sity of Toronto. The author would like to thank the editor investigating G . More recently, it was the repre-
for his interest in the article and for some very helpful sug- sentations themselves that became the primary
gestions. objects of study. From this point of view, there are

26 NOTICES OF THE AMS VOLUME 47, NUMBER 1

fea-arthur.qxp 11/30/99 10:51 AM Page 27

Geometric objects Spectral objects

linear algebra sum of diagonal entries sum of eigenvalues of the
of a square matrix matrix

finite groups conjugacy classes irreducible characters

topology singular homology deRham cohomology

differential geometry lengths of closed geodesics eigenvalues of the Laplacian

physics particles (classical mechanics) waves (quantum mechanics)

number theory logarithms of powers of zeros of ζ(s)

prime numbers

algebraic geometry algebraic cycles motives

automorphic forms rational conjugacy classes automorphic representations

Table of Illustrations

always two general problems to consider, for any then provide an isomorphism from V to V b that
given G . b
makes R equivalent to R . Moreover, this isomor-
1. Classify the set Π(G) of equivalence classes of phism satisfies the Plancherel formula
irreducible unitary representations of G . Z X
2. If R is some natural unitary representation of |f (x)|2 dx = |fbn |2 .
G , decompose R explicitly into irreducible rep- R/Z n
resentations; that is, find a G -equivariant iso-
∼ Example 2. G = R , VR = L2 (R) ,
morphism VR → VRb , where VRb = V b is a space and
built explicitly out of irreducible representa- ³ ´
tions, as a direct sum R(y)f (x) = f (x + y) , y ∈ G, f ∈ VR .
M
nπ Vπ , nπ ∈ {0, 1, 2, . . . , ∞}, In this case Π(G) is parametrized by R:
π ∈Π(G)
π ∈ Π(G) ⇐⇒ Vπ = C ,
or possibly in some more general fashion.
π (y)v = e−iλy v , v ∈ Vπ , λ ∈ R.
Example 1. G = R/Z , VR = L2 (R/Z) , and
³ ´ b = L2 (R) and
Here we define V
R(y)f (x) = f (x + y), y ∈ G, f ∈ VR . ³ ´
b
R(y)φ (λ) = eiλy φ(λ), , b , λ ∈ R.
φ∈V
This is the regular representation that underlies
Then Vb is a “continuous direct sum”, or direct in-
classical Fourier analysis. The set Π(G) is param-
etrized by Z as follows: tegral of irreducible representations. The Fourier
transform
π ∈ Π(G) ⇐⇒ Vπ = C,
Z
π (y)v = e−2π iny v, v ∈ Vπ , n ∈ Z. f −→ fb(λ) = f (x)e−iλx dx , f ∈ Cc∞ (R),
R
The space
n o extends to an isomorphism from V to V b that sat-
b = L2 (Z) =
V c = (cn ) : Σ|cn |2 < ∞ isfies the relevant Plancherel formula
Z Z
1
supports a representation 2
|f (x)| dx = |fb(λ)|2 dλ .
³ ´ R 2π R
b
R(y)c = e2π iny cn ,
n These two examples were the starting point for
of G that is a direct sum of all irreducible repre- a general theory of representations of locally com-
sentations, each occurring with multiplicity one. pact abelian groups, which was established in the
The Fourier coefficients earlier part of the twentieth century. Attention
Z then turned to the study of general nonabelian lo-
f −→ fbn = f (x)e−2π inx dx , cally compact groups. Representations of non-
R/Z abelian groups have the following new features.

JANUARY 2000 NOTICES OF THE AMS 27

fea-arthur.qxp 11/30/99 10:51 AM Page 28

Z
(i) Representations π ∈ Π(G) are typically infinite
kf k22 = |f (x)|2 dx
dimensional. G
(ii) Decompositions of general representations R
typically have both a discrete part (like Fourier equals the dual norm
series) and a continuous part (like Fourier Z
transforms). b 2
kf k2 = kfb(π )k22 dπ ,
Π(G)
Problem of the
for any function f ∈ Cc∞ (G) . In the second inte-
Plancherel Formula
grand, kfb(π )k2 denotes the Hilbert-Schmidt norm
Photograph by Herman Landshoff, courtesy of the Institute for Advanced Study.

Against the prevailing

of the operator fb(π ) . The norm kfbk2 then defines
opinion of the time, Har- b , on which G × G acts pointwise
a Hilbert space V
ish-Chandra realized early
by left and right translation on the spaces of
in his career that a rich
Hilbert-Schmidt operators on {Vπ } . The problem
theory would require the
was known to be well posed. A general theorem of
study of a more restricted
I. Segal from 1950, together with Harish-Chandra’s
class of nonabelian
groups. From the very be- proof in 1953 that G is of “type I”, ensures that
ginning, he confined his the Plancherel measure dπ exists and is unique.
attention to the class of The point is to calculate dπ explicitly. This in-
semisimple Lie groups, or cludes the problem of giving a parametrization of
slightly more generally, re- Π(G) , at least up to a set of Plancherel measure
ductive Lie groups. These zero.
include the general linear The first person to consider the problem and
groups GL(n, R) , the spe- to make significant progress was I. M. Gelfand. He
cial orthogonal groups established Plancherel formulas for a number of
SO(p, q; R) , the symplec- matrix groups, and laid foundations for much of
tic groups Sp(2n, R) , and the later work in representation theory and auto-
the unitary groups morphic forms. However, some of the most severe
U(p, q; C) . For the pur- difficulties arose in groups that he did not consider.
poses of the present arti- Harish-Chandra worked in the category of general
Harish-Chandra. cle, the reader can in fact semisimple (or reductive) groups. His eventual
take G to be one of these proof of the Plancherel formula for these groups
familiar matrix groups. was the culmination of twenty-five years of work.
Harish-Chandra’s long-term goal became that of It includes many beautiful papers, and many ideas
finding an explicit Plancherel formula for any such and constructions that are of great importance in
G . As in the two examples above, one takes their own right. I shall describe, in briefest terms,
VR = L2 (G) , with respect to a fixed Haar measure a few of the main points of Harish-Chandra’s over-
on G . One can then take R to be the 2-sided reg- all strategy, as it applies to the example
ular representation G = GL(n, R) .
³ ´
R(y1 , y2 )f (x) = f (y1−1 xy2 ) , Geometric Objects
y1 , y2 ∈ G, f ∈ VR , In Harish-Chandra’s theory of the Plancherel for-
mula, the geometric objects are parametrized by the
of G × G on V . The regular representation is spe- regular, semisimple conjugacy classes in G . In the
cial among arbitrary representations in that it al- example G = GL(n, R) we are considering, these
ready comes with a candidate for an isomorphism conjugacy classes are the ones that lie in the open
with a direct integral. This is provided by the gen- dense subset
eral Fourier transform ( )
Z the eigenvalues γi ∈ C
Greg = γ ∈ G :
f → fb(π ) = f (x)π (x) dx , of γ are distinct
G of G . They are classified by the characteristic poly-
f ∈ Cc∞ (G), π ∈ Π(G), nomial as a disjoint union of orbits
a³ ´
which is defined on a dense subspace Cc∞ (G) of TP ,reg /WP ,
L2 (G) , and takes values in the vector space of fam- P
ilies of operators on the spaces {Vπ } . where P ranges over certain partitions
The problem of the Plancherel formula is to
n o
compute the measure dπ on Π(G) such that the P = (1, . . . , 1, 2, . . . , 2) : r1 + 2r2 = n
norm | {z } | {z }
r1 r2

28 NOTICES OF THE AMS VOLUME 47, NUMBER 1

fea-arthur.qxp 11/30/99 10:51 AM Page 29

of n. For a given P , these linear forms to the Schwartz space C(G) on

  G (which he later defined), and their behavior as
 t1 0 
   γ approaches the singular set in TP. What is per-
 ..  ,
TP = γ =  .  haps surprising at first glance is that the problems

0 tr1 +r2 are not always amenable to direct attack. Harish-
Chandra often established concrete inequalities
where tk belongs to R∗ if 1 ≤ k ≤ r1 , and is of the by deep and remarkably indirect methods, that
form fully exploited the duality between the geometric
à !
ρk cos θk ρk sin θk objects fG (γ) and their corresponding spectral ana-
−ρk sin θk ρk cos θk logues.

if r1 + 1 ≤ k ≤ r1 + r2, while TP ,reg stands for the in-

Spectral Objects
tersection of TP with Greg. The group The spectral objects for Harish-Chandra were the
characters of representations π in Π(G) . Here, he
WP = Sr1 × Sr2 × (Z/2Z)r2 , was immediately faced with the problem that the
space Vπ is generally infinite dimensional, in which
in which Sk denotes the symmetric group case the sum determining the trace of the unitary
on k letters, acts in the obvious way by operators π (x) on Vπ can diverge. His answer was
permutation of the elements {tk : 1 ≤ k ≤ r1 + r2 } to prove that the average fb(π ) of these operators
and by sign changes in the coordinates against a function f ∈ Cc∞ (G) is in fact of trace
{θk : r1 + 1 ≤ k ≤ r1 + r2 } . class. He then defined the character of π to be the
The complement of Greg in G has Haar measure distribution
0 . By calculating a Jacobian determinant, Harish- ³ ´
Chandra decomposed the restriction of the Haar fG (π ) = tr fb(π ) , f ∈ Cc∞ (G).
measure to Greg into measures on the coordinates However, this was by no means sufficient for the
defined by conjugacy classes. The resulting formula purposes he had in mind.
is Z Differential equations play a central role in Har-
f (x)dx = ish-Chandra’s analysis of both characters and or-
bital integrals. Let Z be the algebra of differential
G
X Z µ Z ¶ operators on G that commute with both left and
−1 −1
|WP | |D(γ)| f (x γx) dx dγ , right translation. One of Harish-Chandra’s earliest
P TP ,reg TP \G
theorems, for which he won the AMS Cole Prize in
1954, was to describe the structure of Z as an al-
for any f ∈ Cc∞ (G) . Here dγ is a Haar measure on gebra over C. Let tP ∼= Cn be the complexification
TP, and TP \G represents the right cosets of TP in of the Lie algebra of the Cartan subgroup TP of
G , a set that can be identified with the conjugacy G = GL(n, R) . By definition there is then a canoni-
class of any γ ∈ TP ,reg . The function cal isomorphism ∂ from the symmetric algebra
S(tP ) to the algebra of invariant differential oper-
Y
D(γ) = (γi − γj )2 ators on TP.
1≤i<j≤n The following theorem combines several results
of Harish-Chandra on differential equations, in-
is the discriminant of the characteristic polynomial cluding the basic structure theorem.
of γ . This generalizes the integration formula
Theorem. There is an isomorphism z → hP (z) , from
proved by Weyl in his elegant classification of the
Z onto the subalgebra of elements in S(tP ) that are
irreducible representations of compact Lie groups.
invariant under the symmetric group Sn, such that
We can regard it as a starting point for Harish-Chan-
³ ´
dra’s study of the much more difficult case of (i) (zf )G (γ) = ∂ hP (z) fG (γ), γ ∈ TP ,reg .
noncompact groups.
Motivated by the integration formula, Harish- Moreover,
Chandra introduced a distribution D E
Z (ii) (zf )G (π ) = hP (z), λπ fG (π ), π ∈ Π(G),
1
fG (γ) = |D(γ)| 2 f (x−1 γx) dx , for some linear functional λπ on tP ∼
= Cn that is
TP \G unique up to the action of Sn.
The equation (i) can be interpreted in terms of
f ∈ Cc∞ (G),
the traditional technique of separation of vari-
for any element γ in TP ,reg . This distribution is now ables. The relevant differential operators are of
known as Harish-Chandra’s orbital integral, and is course the elements in Z , while the variables of sep-
at the heart of much of his work. Harish-Chandra aration are defined by the coordinates of conjugacy
needed to prove many deep theorems about orbital classes in Greg. The equation (ii) is a variant of
integrals. The questions concern the extension of Schur’s lemma, which says that any operator

JANUARY 2000 NOTICES OF THE AMS 29

fea-arthur.qxp 11/30/99 10:51 AM Page 30

commuting with the action of a finite group under integration formula, and the invariance of Θπ
an irreducible representation is a scalar. The func- under conjugation by G , that
tional λπ comes from the characterization of ho- X Z
momorphisms Z → C that is given by the isomor- fG (π ) = |WP |−1 fG (γ)Φπ (γ) dγ ,
phism z → hP (z) . P TP ,reg

Harish-Chandra also used the separation of f ∈ Cc∞ (G).

variables technique to study the distribution on
Greg obtained by restricting the character of any This is a particularly vivid illustration of the du-
π . It is easy³to see´that many of the differential ality between the geometric objects fG (γ) and the
operators ∂ hT (z) on a given TP are actually spectral objects fG (π ) . The formula becomes more
elliptic. This allowed him to apply the well known explicit if we substitute the expansion above for
theorem that eigendistributions of elliptic opera- Φπ (γ) . The resulting expression reduces the study
tors are actually real analytic functions. In this of characters to the determination of the linear
way, he was able to prove that functionals λπ and the families of coefficients
Z {cs }.
fG (π ) = f (x)Θπ (x) dx, f ∈ Cc∞ (Greg ),
Greg Plancherel Formula and Discrete Series
We can now state Harish-Chandra’s Plancherel for-
for a real analytic function Θπ on Greg. The sepa-
mula (for the group G = GLn (R) ) as follows.
ration of variables that is part of his argument then
implies that for any TP, the function Theorem (Plancherel formula). For each character
1 c in the dual group
Φπ (γ) = |D(γ)| Θπ (γ),
2 γ ∈ TP ,reg ,
bP ∼
T = (R × Z/2Z)r1 × (Z × R)r2 ,
satisfies the differential equations
³ ´ D E there is an irreducible representation πc of G such
∂ hP (z) Φπ (γ) = hP (z), λπ Φπ (γ), z ∈ Z. that
Z X Z
Thus, Φπ (γ) is a simultaneous eigenfunction of a 2
|f (x)| dx = |WP |−1
kfb(πc )k22 m(c) dc ,
large family of invariant differential operators on G bP
T
P
the abelian group TP. From this, it is not hard to
deduce, at least in the case that the coordinates of f ∈ Cc∞ (G),
λπ in Cn are distinct, that the restriction of Φπ (γ) bP.
for an explicit real analytic function m(c) on T
to any connected component of TP ,reg has a sim-
ple formula of the form Remarks.
X
Φπ (γ) = cs e(sλπ )(H) , γ = exp H, 1. The Plancherel density m(c) actually vanishes if
s∈Sn the image of c in (Z × R)r2 has any Z -component
equal to zero. For any such c , the representation
for complex coefficients {cs }.
πc is not well defined by the formula, and can be
We can see that the differential equations give
taken to be 0 .
detailed information about characters. To be able
to apply this information to the study of the 2. The linear function λπ attached to π = πc is
Plancherel formula, however, Harish-Chandra re- equal to the differential of c .
quired the following fundamental theorem.
3. Harish-Chandra actually stated the theorem in
Theorem. The character of any representation the form of a Fourier inversion formula
π ∈ Π(G) is actually a function on G . In other X Z
words, Θπ extends to a locally integrable function f (1) = |WP |−1 fG (πc )m(c) dc ,
on G such that P
bP
T
Z
∞
fG (π ) = f (x)Θπ (x) dx , f ∈ Cc∞ (G). f ∈ Cc (G).
G To recover the Plancherel formula one needs only
replace f by the function
The proof of this theorem required many new
Z
ideas, which Harish-Chandra developed over the
course of nine years. Atiyah and Schmid later gave (f ∗ f ∗ )(x) = f (y)f (x−1 y) dy
G
a different proof of the theorem, by combining
some of Harish-Chandra’s techniques with meth-
ods from geometry. in the inversion formula. Note the duality with the
The theorem provides a more concrete formula earlier integration formula, which can be written
for the character of π . It follows from the original in the form

30 NOTICES OF THE AMS VOLUME 47, NUMBER 1

fea-arthur.qxp 11/30/99 10:51 AM Page 31

Z X Z
−1 1 tan subgroup T that is compact. Moreover, he spec-
f (x) dx = |WP | fG (γ)|D(γ)| 2 dγ ,
G TP ,reg ified the representations in the discrete series
P
uniquely by a simple expression for their charac-
f ∈ Cc∞ (G). ters on Treg that is a striking generalization of the
Weyl character formula.
This short introduction does not begin to con-
The group GL(n, R) does not have a discrete se-
vey a sense of the difficulties Harish-Chandra en-
ries. The representations that appear in its
countered, and was able to overcome. The most fa-
Plancherel formula are all constructed from dis-
mous is the construction of the discrete series, the
crete series of SL(2, R) and characters of R∗ . (For
family of representations π ∈ Π(G) to which the
a given partition P , there are r2 copies of SL(2, R)
Plancherel measure dπ attaches positive mass.
to consider; the representations πc are defined by
We ought to say something about these objects,
“parabolic induction” from representations of the
since they are really at the heart of the Plancherel
subgroup of block diagonal matrices in GL(n, R)
formula.
of type P .) The example of GL(n, R) is therefore rel-
It might be helpful first to recall Weyl’s classi-
atively simple. Groups that have discrete series,
fication of representations of compact groups, as
such as Sp(2n, R) and U(p, q; C) , are much more
it applies to the special case of the unitary group
difficult. What is remarkable is that the final state-
G = U(n, C) . By elementary linear algebra, any uni-
ment of the general Plancherel formula, suitably
tary matrix can be diagonalized, so there is only
interpreted, is completely parallel to that of
the one Cartan subgroup
GL(n, R) .
  After he established the Plancherel formula for
 γ1 0 
    real groups, Harish-Chandra worked almost ex-
 . .. 
T = γ=
  : |γi | = 1 clusively on the representation theory of p-adic
0 γn groups. This subject is extremely important for the
analytic side of the Langlands program, but it has
in G to consider. We can otherwise use notation a more arithmetic flavor. Harish-Chandra was able
similar to that of GL(n, R) . Weyl’s classification is to establish a version of the Plancherel formula for
provided by a canonical bijection π ↔ λπ between p-adic groups. However, it is less explicit than his
the irreducible representations π ∈ Π(G) and the formula for real groups, for the reason that he did
subset of points λ = (λ1 , . . . , λn ) in Zn such that not classify the discrete series. The problem of dis-
λi > λi+1 for each i. This bijection is determined crete series for general G is still wide open, in
uniquely by a simple formula Weyl established for fact, as is much of the theory for p-adic groups.1
the value of the character
³ ´ Nature of the Langlands Program
Θπ (γ) = tr π (γ) , The analytic side of the Langlands program is con-
cerned with automorphic forms. The language of
at any element γ ∈ Treg . (Since U(n, C) is compact, the general theory of automorphic forms, as op-
π is in fact finite dimensional.) The Weyl charac- posed to classical modular forms, is that of the rep-
ter formula is the identity resentation theory of reductive groups. It is a lan-
µ ¶−1 µ X ¶ guage created largely by Harish-Chandra.
1
Θπ (γ) = D(γ) 2 sign(s)γ s(λπ ) , Harish-Chandra’s influence on the theory of au-
s∈Sn tomorphic forms is pervasive. It is not so much in
the actual statement of his Plancherel formula,
where for any λ ∈ Zn , γ λ denotes the product but rather in the enormously powerful methods
λ λ 1
γ1 1 · · · γn n . (The denominator D(γ) 2 is the canon- and constructions (including the discrete series)
Q
ical square root (γi − γj ) of the discriminant. that he created in order to establish the Plancherel
i<j
One could easily write the Weyl character formula formula.
less elegantly in the framework of the previous The object of interest for automorphic forms is
section, as a formula for the function the regular representation RΓ of G on the Hilbert
1
Φπ (γ) = |D(γ)| 2 Θπ (γ) on any connected compo- space VRΓ = L2 (Γ \G) , where Γ is a congruence sub-
nent of Treg .) group of G(Z). (We assume that the real reductive
Harish-Chandra’s construction of the discrete
1The Langlands conjectures include a classification of
series is a grand generalization of Weyl’s theo-
rem, in both its final statement and its methods discrete series for p-adic groups. A report on the recent
proof of this classification for the group G = GL(n), which
of proof. In particular, Harish-Chandra constructed
in the p-adic case does have a discrete series, is given by
the characters of discrete series representations ex-
Rogawski in this issue of the Notices. A separate classifi-
plicitly, starting from the considerations of the cation for G = GL(n) , based on quite different algebraic
previous section. In the classification he eventu- criteria, has been known for some time from results of
ally achieved, Harish-Chandra proved that a group Bushnell and Kutzko. It is an open problem to compare
G has a discrete series if and only if it has a Car- the two classifications directly.

JANUARY 2000 NOTICES OF THE AMS 31

fea-arthur.qxp 11/30/99 10:51 AM Page 32

group G = G(R) has been equipped with structure one specific example of the influence of Harish-
necessary to define G(Z).) As above, one seeks in- Chandra’s work—that of the discrete series.
formation about the decomposition of RΓ into ir- Assume that G does have a compact Cartan
reducible representations. In this case, however, subgroup. The Hecke operators {Tp,i (π )} associ-
there is some interesting extra structure. The space ated to discrete series representations π of G are
L2 (Γ \G) comes with a family of semisimple oper- expected to be related to arithmetic objects at-
ators {Tp,i } , the Hecke operators, which are pa- tached to algebraic varieties. In many cases, it is
rametrized by a cofinite set {p : p 6∈ PΓ } of prime known how to construct algebraic varieties for
numbers, and a supplementary set of indices which this is so. Let K be a maximal compact sub-
{i : 1 ≤ i ≤ np } that depends on p and has order group of G , and assume that G is such that the
bounded by the rank of G . These operators com- space of double cosets
mute with RΓ , and also with each other. If π ∈ Π(G)
SΓ = Γ \G/K
is a representation that occurs discretely in RΓ
with multiplicity m(π ) , the Hecke operators then has a complex structure.2 This is the case, for ex-
provide a family ample, if G equals Sp(2n, R) or U(p, q; C) . Then SΓ
is the set of complex points of an algebraic vari-
{Tp,i (π ) : p 6∈ PΓ , 1 ≤ i ≤ np } ety. Moreover, it is known that this variety can be
³ ´
of mutually commuting m(π ) × m(π ) -matrices. defined in a canonical way over some number field
It is the eigenvalues of these matrices that are F (equipped with an embedding F ⊂ C ). If
thought to carry the fundamental arithmetic in- G = SL(2, R) , SΓ is just a quotient of the upper half
plane, and as Γ varies, the varieties in this case de-
formation.
termine the modular elliptic curves of the Shimura-
The most powerful tool available at present for
Taniyama-Weil conjecture. The varieties in gen-
the study of RΓ (and the Hecke operators) is the
eral were introduced and investigated extensively
trace formula. The trace formula plays the role here
by Shimura. Their serious study was later taken up
of the Plancherel formula, and is the analogue of
by Deligne, Langlands, Kottwitz, and others.
the Poisson summation formula for the discrete
It is a key problem to describe the cohomology
subgroup Z of R. It is an explicit but quite com-
H ∗ (SΓ ) of the space SΓ , and more generally, vari-
plicated formula for the trace of the restriction of
ous arithmetic objects associated with this coho-
the operator
mology. The discrete series representations π are
Z
at the heart of the problem. There is a well defined
RΓ (f ) = f (x)RΓ (x) dx , f ∈ Cc∞ (G), procedure, based on differential forms, for pass-
G
ing from the subspace of L2 (Γ \G) defined by π (of
and more generally, the composition of RΓ (f ) with multiplicity m(π ) ) to a subspace, possibly 0, of
several Hecke operators, to the subspace of L2 (Γ \G) H ∗ (SΓ ) . Different π correspond to orthogonal sub-
that decomposes discretely. The formula is really spaces of H ∗ (SΓ ) , and as π ranges over all repre-
an identity of two expansions. One is a sum of sentations in the discrete series, these subspaces
terms parametrized by rational conjugacy classes, span the part of the cohomology of H ∗ (SΓ ) that is
while the other is a sum of terms parametrized by primitive and is concentrated in the middle di-
automorphic representations. The trace formula is mension. Moreover, the Hodge structure on this
thus a clear justification of the last line of our part of the cohomology can be read off from the
original table. It is also a typical (if elaborate) ex- parametrization of discrete series. Finally, there has
ample of the kind of explicit formula that relates been much progress on the deeper problem of es-
geometric and spectral objects on other lines of the tablishing reciprocity laws between the eigenval-
table. ues of the Hecke operators Tp,i (π ) and arithmetic
I mention the trace formula mainly to point out data attached to the corresponding subspaces of
its dependence on the work of Harish-Chandra. The H ∗ (SΓ ) . These are serious results, due to Lang-
geometric side is composed of orbital integrals, to- lands and others, that I have not stated precisely,
gether with some more general objects. The spec- or even quite correctly.3 The point is that the re-
tral side includes the required trace, as well as sults provide answers to fundamental questions,
some supplementary distributions. All of these
2By replacing Γ with a subgroup of finite index, if neces-
terms rely in one way or another on the work of
sary, one also assumes that Γ has no nontrivial elements
Harish-Chandra, for both their construction and
of finite order.
their analysis in future applications of the trace for-
3The axioms for a Shimura variety are somewhat more
mula.
complicated than I have indicated. They require a slightly
I shall say no more about the trace formula. It modified discussion, which applies to groups with non-
is also not possible in the dwindling allotment of compact center. Moreover, if SΓ is itself noncompact,
space to give any kind of introduction to the Lang- H ∗ (SΓ ) should really be replaced by the corresponding
lands program. I shall instead comment briefly on L2-cohomology.

32 NOTICES OF THE AMS VOLUME 47, NUMBER 1

fea-arthur.qxp 11/30/99 10:51 AM Page 33

which could not have been broached without Har- groups G(Qp ) , from which one can recover the
ish-Chandra’s classification of discrete series. complex numbers {λp,i } and the algebras {Uq } .4
The discussion raises further questions. What An automorphic representation π is said to be
about the rest of the cohomology of SΓ ? What tempered if its components πR and πp are all tem-
about the representations π ∈ Π(G) in the com- pered. I did not give the definition of tempered rep-
plement of the discrete series? Harish-Chandra’s resentations for p-adic groups, but it is the same
Plancherel formula included a classification of the as for real groups.
representations that lie in the natural support of For the unramified

Photograph © 1996 Randall Hagadorn, courtesy of the Institute for Advanced Study.
the Plancherel measure (up to some questions of primes p 6∈ PΓ , it is
reducibility of induced representations, which were equivalent to a cer-
later resolved by Knapp and Zuckerman). Such tain set of bounds
representations are said to be tempered, because on the absolute
their characters are actually tempered distribu- values of the com-
tions on G —they extend to continuous linear forms plex numbers
on the Schwartz space of G . Tempered represen- {λp,i } . The validity
tations that lie in the complement of the discrete of these bounds
series are certainly interesting for automorphic for one particular
forms, but they do not contribute to the coho- automorphic rep-
mology of SΓ . Nontempered representations, on the resentation of the
other hand, have long been known to play an im- group G = SL(2) is
portant role in cohomology. Can one classify the equivalent to a fa-
nontempered representations π ∈ Π(G) that occur mous conjecture of
discretely in L2 (Γ \G) ? Ramanujan, which
To motivate the answers, let me go back to the was proved by
last line of the original table. A conjugacy class in Deligne in 1973.
G(Q) has a Jordan decomposition into a semisim- The conjectures
ple part and a unipotent part. (Recall that an ele- of Langlands in-
ment x ∈ GL(n, Q) is unipotent if some power of clude a general pa-
the matrix x − I equals 0 . The Jordan decomposi- rametrization of
tion for GL(n, Q) is given by the elementary divi- tempered auto-
sor decomposition of linear algebra.) Since auto- morphic represen- Robert Langlands
morphic representations are dual in some sense tations. In the early
1980s, I gave a conjectural characterization of au-
to rational conjugacy classes, it is not unreason-
tomorphic representations that are nontempered.
able to ask whether they too have some kind of Jor-
Among other things, this characterization de-
dan decomposition.
scribes the failure of a representation π to be tem-
I can no longer avoid giving at least a provisional
pered in terms of a certain unipotent conjugacy
definition of an automorphic representation. As-
class. It is not a conjugacy class in G(Q)—such ob-
sume for simplicity that G(C) is simply connected.
jects are only dual to automorphic representa-
In general, one would like an object that combines b of
tions—but rather in the complex dual group G
a representation π ∈ Π(G) with any one of the b
G. Here G is the identity component of the L -group
m(π ) families {λp,i : p 6∈ PΓ , 1 ≤ i ≤ np } of si- LG = G b o Gal(Q/Q) that is at the center of Lang-
multaneous eigenvalues of the Hecke operators. (It
lands’s conjectures. In this way, one can construct
is these complex numbers, after all, that are sup-
a conjectural Jordan decomposition for automor-
posed to carry arithmetic information.) It turns out
phic representations that is dual to the Jordan de-
that any such π and any such family, as well as
composition for conjugacy classes in G(Q). The
some (noncommutative) algebras of operators
conjectures for nontempered representations con-
{Uq : q ∈ PΓ } obtained from the ramified primes, tain some character identities for the local com-
can be packaged neatly together in the form of a ponents πR and πp of representations π of G(A) .
representation of the adelic group G(A) . Here A is They also include³a global formula
´ for the multi-
a certain locally compact ring that contains R, and plicity of π in L2 G(Q)\G(A) that implies quali-
also the completions Qp of Q with respect to p-adic tative properties for the eigenvalues of Hecke op-
absolute values. The rational field Q embeds di- erators. The local conjectures for πR have been
agonally as a discrete subring of A. Let us define established by Adams, Barbasch, and Vogan, by
an automorphic representation restrictively as an very interesting methods from intersection
irreducible representation π of G(A³) that occurs ´
discretely in the decomposition of L2 G(Q)\G(A) . 4The proper definition of automorphic representation
Any such π determines a representation π = πR
also ´
³ includes representations that occur continuously in
in Π(G) and a discrete subgroup Γ ⊂ G such that L2 G(Q)\G(A) , as well as analytic continuations of
π occurs discretely in L2 (Γ \G) . It also determines such representations. If G(C) is not simply connected, π
irreducible representations {πp } of the p -adic actually determines several discrete subgroups of G .

JANUARY 2000 NOTICES OF THE AMS 33

fea-arthur.qxp 11/30/99 10:51 AM Page 34

homology. The remaining assertions are open. Finally, the most general conjecture relating
However, the contribution of nontempered repre- motives with automorphic representations is stated
sentations to cohomology is quite well understood. at the end of §2 of Langlands’s article
The unipotent class that measures the failure of a
R. P. Langlands, Automorphic repre-
representation to be tempered turns out to be the
sentations, Shimura varieties and mo-
same as the unipotent class obtained from the ac-
tives. Ein Märchen, Automorphic Forms,
tion of a Lefschetz hyperplane section on coho-
Representations and L-functions, Proc.
mology. One can in fact read off the Lefschetz
Sympos. Pure Math., vol. 33, Part 2,
structure on H ∗ (SΓ ) , as well as the Hodge struc-
Amer. Math. Soc., 1979, pp. 205–246.
ture, from the parametrization of representations.

References
For a reader who is able to invest the time, the best
overall reference for Harish-Chandra’s work is still
his collected papers.
Harish-Chandra, Collected Papers, Vol-
umes I–IV, Springer-Verlag, 1984.
Harish-Chandra’s papers are very carefully written,
and are not difficult to follow step by step. On the
other hand, they are highly interdependent (even
in their notation), and it is sometimes hard to see
where they are leading. The excellent technical in-
troduction of Varadarajan goes some way towards
easing this difficulty.
Weyl’s classification of representations of com-
pact groups is proved concisely (in the special
case of U(n, C) ), in
H. Weyl, The Theory of Groups and
Quantum Mechanics, Dover Publica-
tions, 1950, pp. 377–385.
The following two articles are general intro-
ductions to the Langlands program
S. Gelbart, An elementary introduction
to the Langlands program, Bull. Amer.
Math. Soc. N.S. 10 (1984), 177–219.

J. Arthur and S. Gelbart, Lectures on

automorphic L -functions, Part I, L-func-
tions and Arithmetic, London Math. Soc.
Lecture Note Series, vol. 153, Cambridge
Univ. Press, 1991, pp. 2–21.
Other introductory articles on the Langlands
program and on the work of Harish-Chandra are
contained in the proceedings of the Edinburgh in-
structional conference
Representation Theory and Automor-
phic Forms, Proc. Sympos. Pure Math.,
vol. 61, Amer. Math. Soc., 1996, edited
by T. N. Bailey and A. W. Knapp.
The general axioms for a Shimura variety are
summarized in the Deligne’s Bourbaki lecture
P. Deligne, Travaux de Shimura, Sémi-
naire Bourbaki, 23ème Année (1970/71),
Lecture Notes in Math., vol. 244,
Springer-Verlag, 1971, pp. 123–165.

34 NOTICES OF THE AMS VOLUME 47, NUMBER 1