text:
# Inclusive quarkonium production and the NRQCD factorization approach

## I NRQCD factorization

In calculating rates for quarkonium production or decay, one would like to separate the short-distance heavy-quark-antiquark ($`Q\overline{Q}`$) annihilation or production process, which has a typical momentum scale $`pm_Q`$ and can be treated perturbatively, from the long-distance quarkonium dynamics, which have a typical momentum scale $`pm_Qv`$ and are nonperturbative in character. Here $`m_Q`$ is the heavy-quark mass, and $`v`$ is the relative velocity of the $`Q`$ and $`\overline{Q}`$ in the quarkonium rest frame. Such a separation of long- and short-distance scales in heavy-quarkonium production and decay can be expressed elegantly in terms of the effective field theory Nonrelativistic QCD (NRQCD) BBL .

In the cases of inclusive quarkonium production at large transverse momentum $`p_T`$ and at large CM-frame momentum $`p^{}`$, the cross section can be written in a factorized form as a sum of products of NRQCD matrix elements and short-distance coefficients:

$$\sigma (H)=\underset{n}{}\frac{F_n(\mathrm{\Lambda })}{m_Q^{d_n4}}0|𝒪_n^H(\mathrm{\Lambda })|0.$$
(1)
The $`F_n(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ are short-distance coefficients. They are, essentially, the partonic cross sections to make a $`Q\overline{Q}`$ pair convolved with parton distributions. The $`F_n(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ can be calculated as expansions in the strong-coupling constant $`\alpha _s`$. The (vacuum) matrix elements involve four-fermion operators, which have the form

$$𝒪_n^H=\chi ^{}\kappa _n\psi \left(\underset{X}{}|H+XH+X|\right)\psi ^{}\kappa _n^{}\chi .$$
(2)
Here, $`\psi `$ is the Pauli spinor field that annihilates a heavy quark, $`\chi `$ is the Pauli spinor field that creates a heavy antiquark, and $`\kappa `$ contains Pauli matrices, color matrices, and covariant derivatives. The operator creates a $`Q\overline{Q}`$ pair in a state with certain color, spin, and orbital-angular-momentum quantum numbers, projects it onto an intermediate state containing a heavy quarkonium $`H`$ plus anything, and annihilates a $`Q\overline{Q}`$ pair with specific quantum numbers from that state. The operator matrix elements contain all of the long-distance (nonperturbative) physics. They are the probabilities for a $`Q\overline{Q}`$ pair to evolve into a heavy quarkonium.

A similar factorization formula applies to inclusive quarkonium decays. The decay matrix elements are the crossed versions of quarkonium production matrix elements. Only the color-singlet production and decay matrix elements are simply related.

The NRQCD factorization formalism gains much of its predictive power from the fact that the nonperturbative operator matrix elements are universal, i.e., process independent. Although some decay matrix elements have been computed on the lattice Bodwin:1996tg ; Bodwin:2001mk , in general, the matrix elements must be extracted phenomenologically. The consistency of the phenomenological matrix elements from process to process is a key test of the NRQCD factorization formalism.

NRQCD also predicts velocity-scaling rules BBL , which give the leading power behavior of the matrix elements as functions of $`v`$. It follows that the sum over operator matrix elements in Eq. (1) is actually an expansion in powers of $`v`$. For charmonium, $`v^20.3`$; for bottomonium $`v^20.1`$.

An important feature of the NRQCD factorization formalism is that quarkonium decay and production occur through color-octet, as well as color-singlet, $`Q\overline{Q}`$ states. If one drops all of the color-octet contributions, then the result is the color-singlet model (CSM). In contrast, NRQCD factorization is not a model. It sometimes is called, erroneously, “the color-octet model,” but it is, rather, a consequence of QCD in the limit $`m`$$`p_T\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}`$.

A proof of NRQCD factorization would rely both on NRQCD itself and on the machinery that is used to prove factorization of hard-scattering processes in QCD. Although it is widely believed that the NRQCD factorization formula (1) can be established by standard methods, no detailed proof exists in the literature. It is expected that corrections to the factorization formula are of order $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}^2/p_T^2`$ for unpolarized cross sections and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}/p_T`$ for polarized cross sections qiu-sterman .

## II Some successes of the NRQCD factorization formalism

Predictions of the NRQCD factorization formalism have been confirmed in a number of decay and production processes. In this talk, I will focus on quarkonium production.

### II.1 Quarkonium production at the tevatron

The CDF data for $`J/\psi `$ production at the Tevatron are shown in Fig. 1, along with a fit based on NRQCD factorization.

As can be seen, the color-singlet contributions, whose normalizations are known from decay processes, undershoot the data by more than an order of magnitude. The color-octet contributions offer a possible explanation of the data. However, it should be remembered that the color-octet matrix elements are obtained by fitting to the Tevatron data. A precise test of NRQCD factorization occurs only when one uses the fitted values of the matrix elements to make predictions for other processes. The shape of the data is consistent with NRQCD factorization, although there is a good deal of freedom to change the theoretical shape by adjusting the values of the color-octet matrix elements. The Tevatron data for $`\psi ^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ production are also fit well by the NRQCD factorization expressions.

### II.2 $`𝜸𝜸\mathbf{}𝑱\mathbf{/}𝝍\mathbf{+}𝑿`$ at LEP

As can be seen in Fig. 2, in the case of $`J/\psi `$ production in $`\gamma \gamma `$ collisions at LEP, comparison of theory klasen-kniehl-mihaila-steinhauser  with Delphi data clearly favors NRQCD over the color-singlet model.

Theoretical uncertainties arise mainly from uncertainties in the color-octet matrix elements and from the choices of renormalization and factorization scales. The latter uncertainties were estimated by varying the scales up and down by a factor of two. The uncertainties in the color-octet matrix elements are exacerbated by the fact that different linear combinations of matrix elements appear in $`J/\psi `$ production at LEP than in $`J/\psi `$ production at the Tevatron.

### II.3 Quarkonium production in DIS at HERA

The leading-order NRQCD factorization and CSM predictions of Ref. Kniehl:2001tk  for the $`J/\psi `$ inclusive production cross section $`d\sigma /dp_T^2`$ in $`ep`$ deep-inelastic scattering (DIS) are shown in Fig. 3, along with the H1 data.

As can be seen, the data clearly favor the NRQCD factorization prediction over the CSM prediction. A similar situation holds for $`d\sigma /dQ^2`$. Surprisingly, the cross section $`d\sigma /dz`$, which is differential in the energy fraction (inelasticity) $`z`$, is not fit well by either the NRQCD factorization or CSM predictions. The former overshoots the data at large $`z`$ and undershoots the data small $`z`$, while the latter undershoots the data at all $`z`$. It is worth noting that the calculation of Ref. Kniehl:2001tk  disagrees with a number of previous results Korner:1982fm ; Guillet:1987xr ; Merabet:sm ; Krucker:1995uz ; Yuan:2000cn , which themselves are not fully consistent. Those discrepancies have not yet been resolved completely.

## III Some problematic comparisons with experiment

There are several notable processes for which the comparison of NRQCD factorization predictions with the data is less than satisfactory.

### III.1 Polarization of quarkonium at the Tevatron

The polarization of quarkonium produced at large $`p_T`$ at the Tevatron provides a potentially definitive test of the color-octet mechanism. Quarkonium production at large-$`p_T`$ ($`p_T4m_c`$ for the $`J/\psi `$) is dominated by gluon fragmentation into the quarkonium through the $`{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{}`$ color-octet matrix element. At large $`p_T`$, the fragmenting gluon is nearly on its mass shell, and, so, is nearly transversely polarized. According to the NRQCD velocity-scaling rules, spin-flip interactions are suppressed relative to non-spin-flip interactions. Therefore, it is expected that most of the gluon’s polarization is transferred to the $`J/\psi `$ cho-wise . Radiative corrections and color-singlet production dilute this polarization beneke-rothstein-pol ; Leibovich:1996pa ; beneke-kramer-pol . Nevertheless, substantial polarization is expected at large $`p_T`$. In the $`J/\psi `$ case, feeddown from the $`\psi ^{}`$ and the $`\chi _c`$ states is important and has now been taken into account braaten-kniehl-lee-pol . The NRQCD factorization prediction for the $`J/\psi `$ polarization as a function of $`p_T`$ is shown, along with the CDF data, in Fig. 4.

The quantity $`\alpha `$ parametrizes the angular distribution of the decay leptons in the $`J/\psi `$ rest frame: $`d\sigma /d(\mathrm{cos}\theta )1+\alpha \mathrm{cos}^2\theta `$. Here, $`\theta `$ is the angle between the three-momentum of the positive lepton in the $`J/\psi `$ rest frame and the boost vector from the $`J/\psi `$ rest frame to the CM frame of the colliding hadrons. $`\alpha =1`$ corresponds to 100% transverse polarization; $`\alpha =1`$ corresponds to 100% longitudinal polarization. Polarization of produced $`\psi ^{}`$ mesons is simpler theoretically, since feeddown is not important, but, unfortunately, the experimental statistics are much poorer.

As can been seen, the observed $`J/\psi `$ polarization is generally smaller than the prediction and seems to trend in the wrong direction, decreasing with increasing $`p_T`$. However, the experimental error bars are large, and only the last data point truly disagrees with the prediction. Furthermore, there are large uncertainties in the theoretical predictions. There are uncertainties in the NRQCD matrix elements, which are reflected in the prediction band in Fig. 4. There are uncertainties from uncalculated contributions of higher order in $`\alpha _s`$, including effects from multiple soft-gluon emissions and k-factors. Since the polarization depends on a ratio of matrix elements, it probably is not strongly affected by corrections to the matrix-elements fits from such higher-order effects. Next-to-leading-order corrections have been calculated for $`{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{}`$ color-octet fragmentation beneke-rothstein-pol ; ma-frag ; braaten-lee-frag , which gives the bulk of the polarization. Corrections to the non-fragmentation process could conceivably increase the unpolarized contribution by a factor of two. There are also large order-$`v^2`$ corrections to gluon fragmentation to quarkonium Bodwin:2003wh , but the principal effect of these is to change the size of the corresponding color-octet matrix element in fits to the Tevatron data, which does not affect the polarization prediction. The large order-$`v^2`$ corrections do, however, raise questions as to the convergence of the NRQCD $`v`$ expansion.

Existing calculations assume that 100% of the $`Q\overline{Q}`$ polarization is transferred to the quarkonium. Spin-flip corrections are suppressed only by $`v^2`$, not $`v^4`$, relative to the non-flip part BBL . It could happen that the spin-flip corrections are anomalously large and depolarize the produced quarkonium. It has also been suggested that the velocity-scaling rules may need to be modified for the charmonium system Brambilla:1999xf ; Fleming:2000ib . These issues should be resolved by a lattice calculation that is in progress bodwin-lee-sinclair .

### III.2 Inelastic photoproduction at HERA

Theoretical calculations of the cross section for inelastic photoproduction of quarkonium at HERA have been carried out in the NRQCD factorization formalism by several groups cacciari-kramer ; Beneke:1998re ; amundson-fleming-maksymyk ; ko-lee-song ; Godbole:1995ie ; Kniehl:1997fv ; Kniehl:1997gh . The compilation of predictions from Ref. Kramer:2001hh  and the H1 and Zeus data are shown in Fig. 5, plotted as function of the energy fraction $`z`$.

As can be seen, the color-octet contribution is poorly determined, owing to large uncertainties in the color-octet matrix elements. Even so, there is little room for a color-octet contribution. Furthermore, as is shown in Fig. 6, corrections of next-to-leading order in $`\alpha _s`$ (NLO) Kramer:1994zi ; Kramer:1995nb  increase the color-singlet piece by about a factor of two at large $`z`$ and are, by themselves, in good agreement with the data.

The data shown in Figs. 5 and 6 are for the cut $`p_T>1`$ GeV. One can question whether factorization is valid at such small values of $`p_T`$. However, the data differential in $`p_T`$ are compatible with NLO color-singlet production alone at large $`p_T`$ Kramer:2001hh . It should be noted, though, that there are large uncertainties in the NLO color-singlet contribution, which arise primarily from uncertainties in $`m_c`$ and $`\alpha _s`$. The true color-singlet contribution could be lower than the central value by about a factor of two, leaving more room for a color-octet contribution.

Near $`z=1`$, the leading-order color-octet contribution grows rapidly, in apparent disagreement with the data. However, in this, region soft-gluon emission leads to large logarithms of $`1z`$ and also to large corrections of higher order in $`v`$, both of which must be resummed. The resummation of the corrections of higher order in $`v`$ leads to a nonperturbative “shape function” Beneke:1997qw . Both the shape function and the resummed logarithmic corrections significantly smear out the color-octet contribution near $`z=1`$. The effects of a model calculation of the shape function Beneke:1999gq  on the leading-order NRQCD factorization predictions are shown in Fig. 7, along with the H1 data.

The Zeus data Chekanov:2002at  show a similar behavior. As can be seen, the inclusion of shape-function effects may lead to a considerable improvement in the agreement of the NRQCD factorization predictions with the data. The resummation of logarithms is expected to have a comparable effect. (Note that the higher-$`p_T`$ data shown in Fig. 7 are more compatible with a color-octet contribution than the data shown in Fig. 5). Effects from resummation of logarithms of $`1z`$ and model shape functions have been calculated for the process $`e^+e^{}J/\psi +X`$ Fleming:2003gt . For shape functions that satisfy the velocity-scaling rules, these effects are comparable in size. It may be possible to use this resummed theoretical prediction to extract the shape function from the Belle and BaBar data for $`e^+e^{}J/\psi +X`$ and then use it to make firm predictions for $`J/\psi `$ photoproduction near $`z=1`$.

### III.3 Double $`𝒄\overline{𝒄}`$ production at Belle

For the exclusive double charmonium process $`e^+e^{}J/\psi +\eta _c`$, the Belle Collaboration measures a cross section times a branching ratio into at least four charged tracks of $`46\pm 6_9^{+7}\text{fb}`$ belle-eps2003 . In contrast, leading-order calculations predict a cross section of $`2.31\pm 1.09\text{fb}`$ Braaten:2002fi ; Liu:2002wq ; brodsky-ji-lee . There are some uncertainties from uncalculated corrections of higher-order in $`\alpha _s`$ and $`v`$ and from NRQCD matrix elements. However, because this is an exclusive process, only color-singlet matrix elements enter, and these are fairly well determined from the decays $`J/\psi e^+e^{}`$ and $`\eta _c\gamma \gamma `$.

Since the Belle mass resolution is 110 MeV but the $`J/\psi `$-$`\eta _c`$ mass difference is only 120 MeV, it has been suggested that some of the $`J/\psi +\eta _c`$ data sample may consist of $`J/\psi +J/\psi `$ events Bodwin:2002fk ; Bodwin:2002kk . The state $`J/\psi +J/\psi `$ has charge-parity $`C=+1`$, and consequently, is produced in a two-photon process, whose rate is suppressed by a factor $`(\alpha /\alpha _s)^2`$ relative to the rate for $`J/\psi +\eta _c`$. However, as was pointed out in Refs. Bodwin:2002fk ; Bodwin:2002kk , the two-photon process contains photon-fragmentation contributions that are enhanced by factors $`(E_{\mathrm{beam}}/2m_c)^4`$ from photon propagators and $`\mathrm{log}[8(E_{\mathrm{beam}}/2m_c)^4]`$ from a would-be collinear divergence. As a result, the predicted cross section $`\sigma (e^+e^{}J/\psi +J/\psi )=8.70\pm 2.94`$ fb is larger than the predicted cross section $`\sigma (e^+e^{}J/\psi +\eta _c)=2.31\pm 1.09`$ fb, although corrections of higher order in $`\alpha `$ and $`v`$ likely reduce the former prediction by about a factor of three. These predictions spurred a re-analysis of the Belle data Abe:2003ja , with the result that there is no significant $`J/\psi +J/\psi `$ signal observed \[$`\sigma (e^+e^{}J/\psi +J/\psi )<7\text{fb}`$\].

There are also Belle results on inclusive double-charmonium production. For the ratio $`R_{J/\psi }=\sigma (e^+e^{}J/\psi +c\overline{c})/\sigma (e^+e^{}J/\psi +X)`$, the most recent Belle analysis yields $`R_{J/\psi }=0.82\pm 0.15\pm 0.14`$, with $`R_{J/\psi }>0.48\text{(90\% confidence level)}`$ belle-eps2003 . Predictions based on NRQCD factorization Cho:1996cg ; Baek:1996kq ; Yuan:1996ep  give $`R_{J/\psi }0.1`$. The measured and predicted $`J/\psi +c\overline{c}`$ absolute cross sections also disagree by almost an order of magnitude, with the Belle result Abe:2002rb  being about 0.6–1.1 pb and the prediction Cho:1996cg ; Baek:1996kq ; Yuan:1996ep  being about 0.10–0.15 pb. This prediction is based only on the color-singlet contribution. However, corrections of higher order in $`v`$, including color-octet contributions are not expected to be large. Neither are corrections of higher order in $`\alpha _s`$.

The discrepancies in the double $`c\overline{c}`$ inclusive and exclusive cross sections are among the largest in the standard model. Theory and experiment differ by about an order of magnitude—a discrepancy which is larger than any known QCD k-factor. It is important to recognize that these discrepancies are problems not just for NRQCD factorization, but for perturbative QCD (pQCD) in general. In the case of the cross section for $`e^+e^{}J/\psi +\eta _c`$, one obtains exactly the same predictions in the NRQCD factorization Braaten:2002fi ; Liu:2002wq  and light-front-QCD brodsky-ji-lee  formalisms. With regard to the fraction of $`J/\psi +X`$ events that are $`J/\psi +c\overline{c}`$, it is difficult to see how any perturbative calculation could give a value as large as 80%. The color-evaporation model, for example, proceeds through the same Feynman diagrams as the NRQCD factorization calculation, differing only in the specific treatment of the evolution of the $`c\overline{c}`$ pair into quarkonium, and would, therefore, be expected to give a prediction that is not too different from that of NRQCD factorization.

Clearly, it is very important to have independent checks of the Belle double-charmonium results, such as could be provided by the BaBar collaboration. If the Belle results are confirmed, then we would be forced to entertain some unorthodox possibilities: there are new charmonium production mechanisms within the standard model that have not yet been recognized, pQCD is inapplicable to double-charmonium production, or physics beyond the standard model plays an important rôle. It would be very surprising, however, if the last possibility could manifest itself at such low energies.

## IV Summary

The NRQCD factorization approach provides a systematic method for calculating quarkonium decay and production rates a double expansion in powers of $`\alpha _s`$ and $`v`$. Calculation of production rates also relies upon hard-scattering factorization, for which corrections are suppressed by powers of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}/p_T`$. NRQCD factorization has enjoyed a number of successes, for example, in quarkonium production at the Tevatron, $`\gamma \gamma J/\psi +X`$ at LEP, and quarkonium production in DIS at HERA. Other experimental tests are, so far, more problematic. These include quarkonium polarization at the Tevatron, inelastic quarkonium photoproduction at HERA, and double $`c\overline{c}`$ production at Belle. The Belle double $`c\overline{c}`$ production results present a severe challenge to pQCD. It would be very useful for the BaBar collaboration to check these results. In other cases, inclusion of corrections of higher order in $`\alpha _s`$ and $`v`$ and resummation of soft-gluon effects and endpoint corrections of higher order in $`v`$ should help to achieve agreement between theory and experiment. More precise theoretical predictions are hampered by uncertainties in the NRQCD matrix elements. Lattice calculations can help to pin down the decay matrix elements, but it is not yet known how to formulate the calculation of production matrix elements on the lattice. This is an exciting time for heavy-quarkonium physics, with a great deal of experimental and theoretical activity in quarkonium decay and spectroscopy, as well as production, and we can expect to see continuing progress on the many challenging problems that remain.


format: text

text:
# Interaction of colloids with a nematic-isotropic interface

## I Introduction

Colloidal dispersions are suspensions of solid or liquid particles in a host fluid. The size of the particles can vary from a few $`\mathrm{nm}`$ up to several $`\mu \mathrm{m}`$. Colloidal dispersions are often found in long-lived metastable states, providing the basis for a range of industrial applications, e. g. paints, drugs, foods, coatings, etc russel.wb:1989.a .

Colloidal dispersions in nematic liquid crystals form a special class of colloids. The difference from ordinary colloids arises from the long-range orientational order of the liquid crystal molecules, described by the so-called nematic director. Topological defects of the director field lubensky.tc:1998.a , additional long-range forces between colloidal particles ramaswamy.s:1996.a ; poulin.p:1997.a ; lubensky.tc:1998.a , and, as a result, supermolecular structures lev.bi:1999.a ; loudet.jc:2001.a  are phenomena specific of colloidal nematics.

Colloidal nematics are usually prepared in the isotropic phase. To prevent flocculation due to attractive van der Waals forces, colloidal particles are treated to induce electrostatic or steric repulsive interactions. After cooling to a temperature below the NI transition, the colloids often segregate forming non-uniform clusters. In general, topological defects stabilize the dispersion poulin.p:1997.a  although, in some cases, they may help flocculation by producing additional attractive interactions tasinkevych.m:2002.a .

The spatial distribution of colloidal particles is very sensitive to the cooling rate and cooling conditions anderson.vj:2001.a ; anderson.vj:2001.b . Recent results west.jl:2002.a  revealed that the drag on colloids by a NI interface plays an important role in the final spatial pattern. In the experiment, large nematic and isotropic domains were separated by moving NI interfaces. Depending on the cooling rate (velocity of the interface) different structures were observed: a) cellular structures, also reported earlier anderson.vj:2001.a ; anderson.vj:2001.b ; meeker.sp:2000.a , with particle-free nematic domains separated by particle-rich regions; b) striped structures, where the particle-rich regions are arranged in a set of stripes; c) root-like structures. A major conclusion of the study was that the motion of the particles may be controlled by their interaction with the NI interface.

Here we reexamine this conclusion by analyzing in detail the interaction between colloidal particles and a NI interface. As a first step we investigate the (static) Landau-de Gennes order parameter distributions around colloidal particles in the vicinity of NI interfaces. By calculating the corresponding free energies we obtain explicit results for the forces.

For simplicity, we consider the interaction of a long cylindrical colloid with a planar NI interface. We assume strong homeotropic anchoring of the director at the particle’s surface everywhere and wetting boundary conditions (see section II.3). In the nematic phase, these anchoring conditions give rise to a pair of $`1/2`$ strength defect lines, that merge with the isotropic phase as the particle approaches the NI interface, distorting the planar interfacial region on a scale of the order of the colloidal radius. As a result, the interface is strongly bent around the colloidal particle on both sides of the interface. The effective interaction is shown to be rather complex and to exhibit a well defined minimum close to the interface. Near the minimum, a scaling analysis of the numerical results for the free energy yields the scaling form of the force on the particle.

The paper is organized as follows. The geometry, the model, and the minimization technique are described in Sec. II. The results for the director configurations and free energy are presented in Sec. III. A discussion of the major findings, together with concluding remarks, appear in Sec. IV.

## II Landau-de Gennes theory

### II.1 Geometry

In this study we consider a geometry similar to that used in the experiments west.jl:2002.a . Briefly, one end of the sample is placed in a hot and the other in a cold oven. The temperatures are chosen such that the NI interface is in the gap between the ovens and a constant temperature gradient is maintained throughout the sample.

A geometry mimicking the experimental setup is shown in Fig. 1. A uniform temperature gradient is imposed along the $`x`$ axis with the ‘hot’ wall at $`x=L/2`$ and the ‘cold’ wall at $`x=L/2`$, where $`L`$ is the size of the system. The director at the ‘cold’ wall is fixed either parallel or perpendicular to the wall. The order parameter at the ‘hot’ wall is set to zero. Note, that the position of the interface, at $`x=0`$, is pinned by the temperature gradient.

A colloidal particle, which we take to be a long cylinder of radius $`R`$, with the symmetry axis parallel to the $`z`$ axis, is immersed in the nematic. Periodic boundary conditions are used in the $`y`$ direction.

### II.2 Tensor order parameter

We use the Landau-de Gennes tensor order-parameter $`Q_{\alpha \beta }`$ formalism since it is free from divergent terms due to the defect cores and it takes into account the biaxiality that may occur in non-uniform nematics schopohl.n:1987.a ; schopohl.n:1988.a ; popanita.v:1997.a .

Owing to the traceless, symmetric character of the tensor order parameter it can be represented as sen.ak:1987.a

$$Q_{\alpha \beta }(𝒓)=\frac{1}{2}Q(3n_\alpha n_\beta \delta _{\alpha \beta })+\frac{1}{2}B(l_\alpha l_\beta m_\alpha m_\beta ),$$
(1)
where the direction of maximal orientational order is given by the director $`𝒏`$, $`Q`$ is the scalar order parameter, and the unit vectors $`𝒍,𝒏,𝒎`$ form a local orthonormal triad.

Spatial non-uniformities that do not coincide with $`𝒏`$ break the cylindrical symmetry of the average angular environment, and thus one must allow for biaxiality, i.e. $`B0`$.

The translational symmetry of the interface along the $`z`$ axis and the assumed homeotropic boundary conditions on the colloidal surface, imply that the director is confined to the $`xy`$ plane. Then the vector $`𝒎`$ may be chosen along the $`z`$ axis and the vector $`𝒍`$ is in the $`xy`$ plane

$`𝒏`$ $`=`$ $`(\mathrm{cos}\theta ,\mathrm{sin}\theta ,0),`$ (2)
$`𝒍`$ $`=`$ $`(\mathrm{sin}\theta ,\mathrm{cos}\theta ,0),`$
$`𝒎`$ $`=`$ $`(0,0,1).`$
In this case, the tensor order parameter has three independent components only

$$𝑸=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}Q_{11}& Q_{12}& 0\\ Q_{12}& Q_{22}& 0\\ 0& 0& Q_{11}Q_{22}\end{array}\right)$$
(3)
In the following we will use this representation of the tensor order parameter.

### II.3 Free energy

The system is described by the Landau-de Gennes free energy degennes.pg:1995.a

$$\{𝑸\}=(f_b+f_e)𝑑V+f_s𝑑S$$
(4)
where $`f_b`$ is the bulk free energy density, $`f_e`$ is the elastic free energy density and $`f_s`$ is the surface free energy. Within a mesoscopic approach the minimum of the Landau-de Gennes functional $``$ gives the equilibrium value of the tensor order parameter.

Symmetry arguments yield for the local bulk free energy density stephen.mj:1974.a ; degennes.pg:1995.a

$$f_b=a\mathrm{Tr}𝑸^2b\mathrm{Tr}𝑸^3+c\left[\mathrm{Tr}𝑸^2\right]^2,$$
(5)
where $`a`$ is assumed to depend linearly on the temperature, while the positive constants $`b,c`$ are taken temperature independent.

It is convenient to scale out the variables by defining

$`\stackrel{~}{Q}_{ij}=6c/bQ_{ij},`$ (6)
$`\stackrel{~}{f}_b=24^2c^3/b^4f_b.`$
It will be understood that such scaling has been carried out, and we shall omit the overbars in the text below.

We also introduce a dimensionless temperature $`\tau `$ by defining

$$a=\tau b^2/24c.$$
(7)
For a uniform uniaxial nematic ($`Q_{11}=Q`$, $`Q_{22}=Q_{33}=1/2Q`$) the free energy (5) takes the form

$$f_b=\tau Q^22Q^3+Q^4.$$
(8)
The nematic state is stable when $`\tau <1`$ with a degree of orientational order given by

$$Q_b=\frac{3}{4}\left(1+\sqrt{1\frac{8}{9}\tau }\right).$$
(9)
We modeled the temperature gradient in the $`x`$ direction by assuming that $`\tau `$ depends on the $`x`$ coordinate

$$\tau =\tau _c\left(1+\alpha \frac{2x}{L}\right),$$
(10)
where $`\tau _c=1`$ is the NI transition temperature. Equation (10) implies that the NI transition occurs at $`x=0`$, i.e., the interface is in the middle of the cell and is parallel to the $`y`$ axis.

The elastic free energy density can be written as stephen.mj:1974.a

$$f_e=\frac{1}{2}L_1\frac{Q_{ij}}{x_k}\frac{Q_{ij}}{x_k}+\frac{1}{2}L_2\frac{Q_{ij}}{x_j}\frac{Q_{ik}}{x_k},$$
(11)
where the constants $`L_1`$ and $`L_2`$ are related to Frank-Oseen elastic constants by $`K_{11}=K_{33}=9Q_b^2(L_1+L_2/2)/2`$ and $`K_{22}=9Q_b^2L_1/2`$ and $`Q_b`$ is the bulk nematic order parameter. The sign of $`L_2`$ defines the preferred orientation of the director at the NI interface. $`L_2>0`$ ($`L_2<0`$) favors planar (perpendicular) anchoring degennes.pg:1971.a .

We assumed strong homeotropic anchoring of the director at the colloidal surface. This is valid if the anchoring parameter $`WR/K>>1`$, where $`W`$ is the anchoring energy of the surface, and holds for large colloidal particles and/or anchoring strengths. We also assumed that the nematic at the particle surface is uniaxial with a scalar order parameter $`Q_\mathrm{s}=1`$, independent of $`x`$. Under these conditions, a planar interface is wetted by the nematic phase as the temperature is lowered through the NI transition.

### II.4 Minimization procedure

The equilibrium distribution of the tensor order parameter $`Q_{ij}`$ is obtained by minimizing the free energy functional (4) numerically using finite elements with adaptive meshes. During the minimization the square integration region $`L\times L`$ was triangulated using the $`\mathrm{BL2D}`$ subroutine george.pl:1998.a . The functions $`Q_{ij}`$ are set at all vertices of the mesh and are linearly interpolated within each triangle. The free energy is then minimized using the conjugate gradients method press.wh:1992.a  under the constraints imposed by the boundary conditions.

A new adapted mesh is generated iteratively from the previous minimization. The new local triangle sizes are calculated from the variations of the free energy, in order to guarantee a constant numerical weight for each minimization variable. The final meshes, with a minimal length of $`10^2`$, had $`10^5`$ minimization variables. Lengths are in units of the diameter of the colloidal particle, $`2R=1`$.

We used $`\xi ^2=L_18c/b^2=0.001`$ that corresponds to a nematic correlation length $`\xi 0.03`$, which is larger than the smallest mesh length. The system size was either $`L=12`$ or $`L=20`$ and the temperature gradient was set at $`\alpha =0.025`$.

In order to obtain both stable and metastable configurations, we used different types of initial conditions including flat and curved NI interfaces.

## III Results

### III.1 Free interface

First, we analyze the tensor order parameter of a free NI interface, without colloidal particles and temperature gradients, for a system with $`L_2/L_1=2`$. For this ratio of the elastic constants the interface favors planar anchoring of the director (molecules parallel to the interface) degennes.pg:1971.a . The order parameter is fixed at the cell boundaries: $`Q(x=L/2)=1`$, $`Q(x=L/2)=0`$ and the director is aligned along the $`y`$ axis, parallel to the interface.

The order parameter and biaxiality profiles are shown in Fig. 2. As expected, the order parameter changes from the bulk value of the nematic phase, $`Q_b=1`$, to the bulk value of the isotropic phase, $`Q_{\mathrm{iso}}=0`$. The width of the interface is of the order of the nematic correlation length. The nematic and isotropic phases are uniaxial, with zero biaxiality. The interfacial region, however, is slightly biaxial.

Note, that the analytic solution of the corresponding variational problem does not exist, even in the one-dimensional case, when the tensor order parameter depends only on the $`x`$ coordinate. However, one may use the de Gennes Ansatz for the order parameter profile, which neglects biaxiality degennes.pg:1971.a ,

$$Q=\frac{1}{2}\left(1\mathrm{tanh}\frac{x}{\zeta }\right),$$
(12)
where $`\zeta `$ is the nematic correlation length when the director is parallel to the interface

$$\zeta ^2=\xi ^2\left(6+\frac{L_2}{L_1}\right).$$
(13)
A fit of the results of the numerical minimization to Eq. (12) yields $`\zeta ^20.00807`$ while Eq. (13) gives $`\zeta ^2=0.008`$, i.e., the agreement is very good. The small difference is attributed to the biaxiality of the interface popanita.v:1997.a , not taken into account by the Ansatz (12). Note that we decreased the minimal mesh length down to $`10^3`$ in order to increase the accuracy of the results.

We also found that the surface tension is a function of the polar angle of the director with the interface normal. As a result, the interface has an easy axis with corresponding anchoring energy. We found planar interfacial anchoring (easy axis parallel to the interface) for $`L_2>0`$. $`L_2<0`$ results in homeotropic interfacial anchoring (easy axis normal to the interface) in agreement with previous results degennes.pg:1971.a ; popanita.v:1997.a .

We studied the interaction of a colloid with the NI interface under various anchoring conditions of the director at the interface: i) director parallel to the interface, $`L_2>0`$; ii) perpendicular to the interface, $`L_2<0`$; iii) director tilted with respect to the interface, due to a mismatch between interfacial anchoring and the alignment at the cell boundaries.

### III.2 Planar interfacial anchoring

The anisotropy of the elastic constants is $`L_2/L_1=2`$, favoring director alignment parallel to the NI interface. The director at the ‘cold’ wall is fixed parallel the $`y`$ axis, which is also parallel to the NI interface.

Typical order parameter and director maps are shown in Fig. 3. The strong anchoring of the director at the colloidal surface yields two half-integer defect lines in the nematic, far from the interface, to ensure that the topological charge of the system is zero (see Fig. 3a). The director distortion vanishes very rapidly in the nematic phase, and the cores of the defects extend over a few nematic correlation lengths, in line with previous studies andrienko.d:2002.b ; andrienko.d:2003.a ; tasinkevych.m:2002.a . At these distances there is no interaction between the colloid and the interface: the director at the interface is uniform, the interface is flat and it is pinned at $`x=0`$, where the nematic and isotropic phases coexist ($`\tau =1`$).

On reducing the colloidal distance from the interface, the defect closest to the interface merges (discontinuously) with the isotropic phase (Fig. 3b,c). The interface bulges towards the colloid to accommodate the isotropic phase, where the defect core disappeared. Note that the anchoring at the NI interface is planar and follows the interfacial curvature, except in the region where the defect used to be. Here the director tilts and the interfacial anchoring becomes homeotropic, see Fig. 3b.

As the colloid moves further into the isotropic phase, it is wrapped by the NI interface that forms a nematic ‘cavity’ around the colloid (Fig. 3d). The second defect is still present on the nematic side. At a certain point, this configuration becomes metastable, and eventually annihilation of the second defect occurs. This is accompanied by a symmetry breaking transition: the cavity is no longer symmetric under $`yy`$ reflexion (Fig. 3e illustrates one of the two possible configurations). These configurations with broken symmetry are always metastable.

Finally, deep in the isotropic phase, the colloid is wrapped by a thin layer of nematic phase due to the (wetting) boundary conditions at the colloidal surface ($`Q_s=1`$), Fig. 3f.

To investigate the nature of the structural transitions between different director field configurations, we plot the free energy as a function of the particle position in Fig. 4.

Deep in the isotropic phase, the configuration of Fig. 3f is the only stable one. There is a small force acting on the particle in the direction opposite to the temperature gradient. This force is due to an increase in the free energy of the nematic layer, as the particle moves into a region at higher temperature.

Moving from the isotropic into the nematic phase, this configuration becomes first metastable, and then unstable. At a certain point, the configuration with a nematic ‘cavity’ in the isotropic phase, Fig. 3d, becomes stable.

Finally in the nematic phase, the configuration with one defect becomes metastable, and then unstable. The second defect appears, as shown in Fig. 3a. At this point the interaction of the particle with interface almost vanishes. The small negative slope of the free energy, giving rise to a force along the temperature gradient, is due to the temperature dependence of the elastic energy, that increases as the particle moves towards the cold wall.

The jumps in the free energy reveal discontinuous (or first-order) instabilities between the physical director configurations. The equilibrium position, i.e., the position where the force on the colloid vanishes, is near the interface, at $`x=0`$.

### III.3 Homeotropic interfacial anchoring

Liquid crystals with negative elastic constant anisotropy, $`K_{22}>K_{11},K_{33}`$, are modeled by $`L_2/L_1<0`$ degennes.pg:1995.a . In these systems the NI interface favors homeotropic anchoring, i.e., alignment of the molecules perpendicular to the interface degennes.pg:1971.a .

To study this case, we fixed the director at the cold wall along the $`x`$ axis and used for the elastic constants $`L_2/L_1=0.5`$. For this set of parameters the director is parallel to the $`x`$ axis, or perpendicular to the interface.

The order parameter and director maps are shown in Fig. 5. Since the director is perpendicular to the interface, the defect lines are in the plane parallel to the interface, Fig. 5a. In this geometry both defects merge with the isotropic phase very quickly, when the particle is still on the nematic side of the interface, Fig. 5e. Subsequently, the particle is surrounded by a thin layer of nematic phase until the fully wrapped state in the isotropic phase obtains, Fig. 3f.

Deep in the nematic phase, we have also found a configuration with only one defect, Fig. 5b. However, analysis of the free energy, Fig. 6, shows that this configuration is always metastable.

### III.4 Director tilted at the NI interface

Another situation, often found in experiments, corresponds to tilted NI interfaces. However, the (simple) Landau-de Gennes theory fails to describe this interfacial anchoring and higher order gradients or more sophisticated density-functional theories are required in order to describe tilt at NI interfaces delrio.em:1995.a . In finite cells, on the other hand, tilted interfaces may result from mismatching boundary conditions at the cell boundaries and the NI interface proper. Indeed, in a planar cell, one may have the director aligned parallel to the bounding plates, say, along the $`x`$ axis and a NI interface in the $`zy`$ plane providing planar anchoring along the $`z`$ axis. This is the so-called hybrid, or $`\pi `$-cell bos.pj:1984.a ; sparavigna.a:1994.a  where the director bends in the bulk to match the boundary conditions; as a result there is a bulk splay-bend deformation even in the absence of colloidal particles.

For this geometry we used $`L_2/L_1=2`$ and fixed the director at the ‘cold’ wall parallel to the $`x`$ axis or perpendicular to the NI interface. The system size is $`L=20`$.

The order parameter and director maps, shown in Fig. 7, are qualitatively similar to those described in section III.2, where the director is parallel to the cold wall and the interface. The tilt of the defects is due to the tilted nematic director, Fig. 7a. Otherwise, the same configurations are present: with two defects, deep in the nematic phase (Fig. 7a); with one defect, close to the interface (Fig. 7b,d); without defects, also close to the interface (Fig. 7e); without defects, deep in the isotropic phase (similar to the configuration shown in Fig. 3f).

However, a careful analysis of the free energy, which is shown in Fig. 8, reveals that the structural transitions are different. The configuration with one defect (Fig. 7d) becomes metastable in the isotropic side of the interface; the defect-free configuration (Fig. 7e), that was metastable previously, is now stable. A physical explanation is simple: because of the tilt, the remaining defect is closer to the interface and it is more easily annihilated. The bending of the interface is also weaker.

## IV Discussion and conclusions

We end with a brief discussion of the implications of our work on the drag of colloidal particles by the NI interface.

The free energy, Figs. 46, and 8 reveals that close to the minimum $``$ is a quadratic function of the position of the colloid and thus, in this region, the force is proportional to the separation, $`d`$.

We have calculated the force $`F=/d`$, as a function of $`d`$, for several colloidal sizes, in the geometry with planar interfacial anchoring, as in the section III.2. The resulting curves, together with the fit to the following dependence

$$F=F_0+k\frac{d}{R}$$
(14)
are shown in Fig. 9. The inset of Fig. 9 shows the dependence of the force strength $`k`$ on the particle size. We find that, to a good approximation, $`kR^2`$.

It is interesting to compare this result to the scaling arguments used in Ref. west.jl:2002.a . If we neglect phenomena related to the creation and annihilation of defects, and treat the interface as sharp, the only parameters in the problem are the radius and length of the colloid, $`R`$ and $`L`$ respectively, the elastic constant $`K`$, and the surface tension $`\sigma `$. The appropriate combinations of these parameters with the dimensions of force are $`KL/R`$ and $`\sigma LR`$, where we took into account that for a particle of length $`L>>R`$ the force is proportional to $`L`$. Therefore, the elastic and the surface tension contributions to the total force can be written as $`F_\mathrm{e}=KL/Rf_\mathrm{e}(d/R)`$, $`F_\mathrm{s}=L\sigma f_\mathrm{s}(d/R)`$, where $`f_\mathrm{e}`$ and $`f_\mathrm{s}`$ are dimensionless functions of the penetration depth, $`d/R`$. It is clear that neither of these forces gives the observed $`R^2`$ dependence on the particle size: the elastic force is inversely proportional to $`R`$, while the contribution due to the surface tension does not depend on the particle size at all. One reason for this discrepancy (apart from the presence of defects) is the complex structure of the interface, that bends forming a cavity to wrap the colloid.

Another interesting conclusion is the asymmetry of the free energy profile as a function of the colloid position: when the particle moves from the nematic to the isotropic phase, the metastable phase with a nematic ‘cavity’ (Fig. 3d) becomes unstable much faster than the corresponding metastable state with one or no defects (Figs. 3b), when the particle moves from the isotropic to the nematic phase. Therefore, the interface drags the particle more efficiently when the colloid moves from the nematic to the isotropic side, owing to the presence of a higher energy barrier. This effect has been observed experimentally west.jl:2002.a .

We also note that wrapping a colloidal particle by the NI interface resembles the process of wrapping a colloidal particle by a membrane boulbitch.a:2002.a ; dezerno.m:2003.a . A detailed comparison of these processes requires, however, further analysis.

To summarize, we studied the interaction of a cylindrical colloidal particle with a NI interface. We found that, when the particle is close to the interface, the force on the particle is proportional to the penetration depth $`d/R`$, and the amplitude of the force scales as $`R^2`$. At larger penetrations, discontinuous configurational transitions occur, related to the creation/annihilation of topological defects.

###### Acknowledgements.

It is pleasure to thank M. Deserno, Yu. Reznikov, and A. Glushchenko for stimulating discussions. DA acknowledges the support of the Alexander von Humboldt foundation.


text:
# A Statement of the Fundamental Lemma

## 1. Introduction

Notation. Let $`F`$ be a $`p`$-adic field, given either as a finite field extension of $`_p`$, or as the field $`F=𝔽_q((t))`$. Let $`𝔽_q`$ (a finite field with $`q`$ elements and characteristic $`p`$) be the residue field of $`F`$. Let $`\overline{F}`$ be a fixed algebraic closure of $`F`$. Let $`F^{un}`$ be the maximal unramified extension of $`F`$ in $`\overline{F}`$. For simplicity, we also assume that the characteristic of $`F`$ is not $`2`$.

The fundamental lemma pertains to groups that satisfy a series of hypotheses. Here is the first.

###### Assumption 1.1.

$`G`$ is a connected reductive linear algebraic group that is defined over $`F`$.

The following examples give the $`F`$-points of three different families of connected reductive linear algebraic groups: orthogonal, symplectic, and unitary groups.

###### Example 1.2.

Let $`M(n,F)`$ be the algebra of $`n`$ by $`n`$ matrices with coefficients in $`F`$. Let $`JM(n,F)`$ be a symmetric matrix with nonzero determinant. The special orthogonal group with respect to the matrix $`J`$ is

$$\mathrm{SO}(n,J,F)=\{XM(n,F)|{}_{}{}^{t}XJX=J,\mathrm{det}(X)=1\}.$$

###### Example 1.3.

Let $`JM(n,F)`$, with $`n=2k`$, be a skew-symmetric matrix $`{}_{}{}^{t}J=J`$ with nonzero determinant. The symplectic group with respect to $`J`$ is defined in a similar manner:

$$\mathrm{Sp}(2k,J,F)=\{XM(2k,F)|{}_{}{}^{t}XJX=J\}.$$

###### Example 1.4.

Let $`E/F`$ be a separable quadratic extension. Let $`\overline{x}`$ be the Galois conjugate of $`xE`$ with respect to the nontrivial automorphism of $`E`$ fixing $`F`$. For any $`AM(n,E)`$, let $`\overline{A}`$ be the matrix obtained by taking the Galois conjugate of each coefficient of $`A`$. Let $`JM(n,E)`$ satisfy $`{}_{}{}^{t}\overline{J}=J`$ and have a nonzero determinant. The unitary group with respect to $`J`$ and $`E/F`$ is

$$U(n,J,F)=\{XM(n,E)|{}_{}{}^{t}\overline{X}JX=J\}.$$

The algebraic groups $`SO(n,J)`$, $`Sp(2k,J)`$, and $`U(n,J)`$ satisfy Assumption 1.1.

###### Assumption 1.5.

$`G`$ splits over an unramified field extension.

That is, there is an unramified extension $`F_1/F`$ such that $`G\times _FF_1`$ is split.

###### Example 1.6.

In the first two examples above (orthogonal and symplectic), if we take $`J`$ to have the special form

(1.6.1)
$$J=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& \\ 0& & 0\\ & 0& 0\end{array}\right)$$

(that is, nonzero entries from $`F`$ along the cross-diagonal and zeros elsewhere), then $`G`$ splits over $`F`$. In the third example (unitary), if $`J`$ has this same form and if $`E/F`$ is unramified, then the unitary group splits over the unramified extension $`E`$ of $`F`$.

###### Assumption 1.7.

$`G`$ is quasi-split.

This means that there is an $`F`$-subgroup $`BG`$ such that $`B\times _F\overline{F}`$ is a Borel subgroup of $`G\times _F\overline{F}`$.

###### Example 1.8.

In all three cases (orthogonal, symplectic, and unitary), if $`J`$ has the cross-diagonal form 1.6.1, then $`G`$ is quasi-split. In fact, we can take the points of $`B`$ to be the set of upper triangular matrices in $`G(F)`$.

###### Assumption 1.9.

$`K`$ is a hyperspecial maximal compact subgroup of $`G(F)`$, in the sense of Definition 1.11.

###### Example 1.10.

Let $`O_F`$ be the ring of integers of $`F`$ and let $`K=GL(n,O_F)`$. This is a hyperspecial maximal compact subgroup of $`GL(n,F)`$.

###### Definition 1.11.

$`K`$ is hyperspecial if there exists $`𝒢`$ such that the following conditions are satisfied.

* $`𝒢`$ is a smooth group scheme over $`O_F`$,
* $`G=𝒢\times _{O_F}F`$,
* $`𝒢\times _{O_F}𝔽_q`$ is reductive,
* $`K=𝒢(O_F)`$.

###### Example 1.12.

In all three examples (orthogonal, symplectic, and unitary), take $`G`$ to have the form of Example 1.6. Assume that each cross-diagonal entry is a unit in the ring of integers. Assume further that the residual characteristic is not $`2`$. Then the equations

$${}_{}{}^{t}XJX=J(\text{or in the unitary case }{}_{}{}^{t}\overline{X}JX=J)$$

define a group scheme $`𝒢`$ over $`O_F`$, and $`𝒢(O_F)`$ is hyperspecial.

## 2. Classification of Unramified Reductive Groups

###### Definition 2.1.

If $`G`$ is quasi-split and splits over an unramified extension (that is, if $`G`$ satisfies Assumptions 1.5 and 1.7), then $`G`$ is said to be an unramified reductive group.

Let $`G`$ be an unramified reductive group. It is classified by data (called root data)

$$(X^{},X_{},\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Phi }^{},\sigma ).$$

The data is as follows:

* $`X^{}`$ is the character group of a Cartan subgroup of $`G`$.
* $`X_{}`$ is the cocharacter group of the Cartan subgroup.
* $`\mathrm{\Phi }X^{}`$ is the set of roots.
* $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{}X_{}`$ is the set of coroots.
* $`\sigma `$ is an automorphism of finite order of $`X^{}`$ sending a set of simple roots in $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ to itself.

$`\sigma `$ is obtained from the action on the character group induced from the Frobenius automorphism of $`\mathrm{Gal}(F^{un}/F)`$ on the maximally split Cartan subgroup in $`G`$.

The first four elements $`(X^{},X_{},\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Phi }^{})`$ classify split reductive groups $`G`$ over $`F`$. For such groups $`\sigma =1`$.

## 3. Endoscopic Groups

$`H`$ is an unramified endoscopic group of $`G`$ if it is an unramified reductive group over $`F`$ whose classifying data has the form

$$(X^{},X_{},\mathrm{\Phi }_H,\mathrm{\Phi }_H^{},\sigma _H).$$

The first two entries are the same for $`G`$ as for $`H`$. To distinguish the data for $`H`$ from that for $`G`$, we add subscripts $`H`$ or $`G`$, as needed. The data for $`H`$ is subject to the constraints that there exists an element $`s\mathrm{Hom}(X_{},^\times )`$ and a Weyl group element $`wW(\mathrm{\Phi }_G)`$ such that

* $`\mathrm{\Phi }_H^{}=\{\alpha \mathrm{\Phi }_G^{}|s(\alpha )=1\}`$,
* $`\sigma _H=w\sigma _G`$, and
* $`\sigma _H(s)=s`$.

### 3.1. Endoscopic groups for $`SL(2)`$

As an example, we determine the unramified endoscopic groups of $`G=SL(2)`$. The character group $`X^{}`$ can be identified with $``$, where $`n`$ is identified with the character on the diagonal torus given by

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}t& 0\\ 0& t^1\end{array}\right)t^n.$$

The set $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ can be identified with the subset $`\{\pm 2\}`$ of $``$:

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}t& 0\\ 0& t^1\end{array}\right)t^{\pm 2}.$$

The cocharacter group $`X_{}`$ is also identified with $``$, where $`n`$ is identified with

$$t\left(\begin{array}{cc}t^n& 0\\ 0& t^n\end{array}\right).$$

Under this identification $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{}=\{\pm 1\}`$. Since the group is split, $`\sigma =1`$.

We get an unramified endoscopic group by selecting $`s\mathrm{Hom}(X_{},^\times )^\times `$ and $`wW(\mathrm{\Phi })`$.

(3.0.1)
$$\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{\Phi }_H^{}=\{\alpha |s(\alpha )=1\}\hfill & =\{n\{\pm 1\}|s^n=1\}\hfill & \\ & =\text{if}(s=1)\text{then}\mathrm{\Phi }_G^{}\text{else}\mathrm{}.\hfill & \end{array}$$

We consider two cases, according as $`w`$ is nontrivial or trivial. If $`w`$ is the nontrivial reflection, then $`\sigma _H=w`$ acts by negation on $``$. Thus,

$$(\sigma _H(s)=s)(s^1=s)(s=\pm 1).$$

If $`s=1`$, then $`\sigma _H`$ does not fix a set of simple roots as required. So $`s=1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_H^{}=\mathrm{}`$. Thus, the root data of $`H`$ is

$$(,,\mathrm{},\mathrm{},w)$$

This determines $`H`$ up to isomorphism as $`H=U_E(1)`$, a $`1`$-dimensional torus split by an unramified quadratic extension $`E/F`$.

If $`w`$ is trivial, then there are two further cases, according as $`\mathrm{\Phi }_H`$ is empty or not:

* The endoscopic group $`𝔾_m`$ has root data

$$(,,\mathrm{},\mathrm{},1).$$
* The endoscopic group $`H=SL(2)`$ has root data

$$(,,\{\pm 2\},\{\pm 1\},1).$$

In summary, the three unramified endoscopic groups of $`SL(2)`$ are $`U_E(1)`$, $`𝔾_m`$, and $`SL(2)`$ itself.

### 3.2. Endoscopic groups for $`PGL(2)`$

As a second complete example, we determine the endoscopic groups of $`PGL(2)`$. The group $`PGL(2)`$ is dual to $`SL(2)`$ in the sense that the coroots of one group can be identified with the roots of the other group. The root data for $`PGL(2)`$ is

$$(,,\{\pm 1\},\{\pm 2\},1).$$

When the Weyl group element is trivial, then the calculation is almost identical to the calculation for $`SL(2)`$. We find that there are again two cases, according as $`\mathrm{\Phi }_H`$ is empty or not:

* The endoscopic group $`𝔾_m`$ has root data

$$(,,\mathrm{},\mathrm{},1).$$
* The endoscopic group $`H=PGL(2)`$ has root data

$$(,,\{\pm 1\},\{\pm 2\},1).$$

When the Weyl group element $`w`$ is nontrivial, then $`s\{\pm 1\}`$, as in the $`SL(2)`$ calculation.

(3.0.2)
$$\mathrm{\Phi }_H^{}=\{\alpha |s(\alpha )=1\}=\{n\{\pm 2\}|s^n=1\}=\mathrm{\Phi }_G^{}.$$

From this, we see that picking $`w`$ to be nontrivial is incompatible with the requirement that $`\sigma _H=w`$ must fix a set of simple roots. Thus, there are no endoscopic groups with $`w`$ nontrivial.

In summary, the two endoscopic groups of $`PGL(2)`$ are $`𝔾_m`$ and $`PGL(2)`$ itself.

### 3.3. Elliptic Endoscopic groups

###### Definition 3.1.

An unramified endoscopic group $`H`$ is said to be elliptic, if

$$(\mathrm{\Phi }_G)^{W(\mathrm{\Phi }_H)\sigma _H}=(0).$$

That is, the span of the set of roots of $`G`$ has no invariant vectors under the Weyl group of $`H`$ and the automorphism $`\sigma _H`$.

The origin of the term elliptic is the following. We will see below that each Cartan subgroup of $`H`$ is isomorphic to a Cartan subgroup of $`G`$. (Here and elsewhere, when we speak of an isomorphic between algebraic groups defined over $`F`$, we mean an isomorphism over $`F`$.) The condition on $`H`$ for it to be elliptic is precisely the condition that is needed for some Cartan subgroup of $`H`$ to be isomorphic to an elliptic Cartan subgroup of $`G`$.

###### Example 3.2.

We calculate the elliptic unramified endoscopic subgroups of $`SL(2)`$. We may identify $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ with $`\{\pm 2\}`$ and hence with $``$. An unramified endoscopic group is elliptic precisely when $`W(\mathrm{\Phi }_H)`$ or $`\sigma _H`$ contains the nontrivial reflection $`xx`$. When $`H=SL(2)`$, the Weyl group contains the nontrivial reflection. When $`H=U_E(1)`$, the element $`\sigma _H`$ is the nontrivial reflection. But when $`H=𝔾_m`$, both $`W(\mathrm{\Phi }_H)`$ and $`\sigma _H`$ are trivial. Thus, $`H=SL(2)`$ and $`H=U_E(1)`$ are elliptic, but $`H=𝔾_m`$ is not.

### 3.4. An exercise: elliptic endoscopic groups of unitary groups

This exercise is a calculation of the elliptic unramified endoscopic groups of $`U(n,J)`$. We assume that $`J`$ is a cross-diagonal matrix with units along the cross-diagonal as in Section 1.6.1. We give a few facts about the endoscopic groups of $`U(n,J)`$ and leave it as an exercise to fill in the details.

Let $`T=\{\mathrm{diag}(t_1,\mathrm{},t_n)\}`$ be the group of diagonal $`n`$ by $`n`$ matrices. The character group $`X^{}`$ can be identified with $`^n`$ in such a way that the character

$$\mathrm{diag}(t_1,\mathrm{},t_n)t_1^{k_1}\mathrm{}t_n^{k_n}$$

is identified with $`(k_1,\mathrm{},k_n)`$.

The cocharacter group can be identified with $`^n`$ in such a way that the cocharacter

$$t\mathrm{diag}(t^{k_1},\mathrm{},t^{k_n})$$

is identified with $`(k_1,\mathrm{},k_n)`$.

Let $`e_i`$ be the basis vector of $`^n`$ whose $`j`$-th entry is Kronecker $`\delta _{ij}`$. The set of roots can be identified with

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=\{e_ie_j|ij\}.$$

The set of coroots $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{}`$ can be identified with the set of roots $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ under the isomorphism $`X_{}^nX^{}`$.

We may identify $`\mathrm{Hom}(X_{},^\times )`$ with $`\mathrm{Hom}(^n,^\times )=(^\times )^n`$. Thus, we take the element $`s`$ in the definition of endoscopic group to have the form $`s=(s_1,\mathrm{},s_n)(^\times )^n`$. The element $`\sigma =\sigma _G`$ acts on characters and cocharacters by

$$\sigma (k_1,\mathrm{},k_n)=(k_n,\mathrm{},k_1).$$

Let $`I=\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$. Show that if $`H`$ is an elliptic unramified endoscopic group, then there is a partition

$$I=I_1I_2$$

with $`s_i=1`$ for $`iI_1`$ and $`s_i=1`$ otherwise. The elliptic endoscopic group is a product of two smaller unitary groups $`H=U(n_1)\times U(n_2)`$, where $`n_i=\mathrm{\#}I_i`$, for $`i=1,2`$.

## 4. Cartan subgroups

All unramified reductive groups are classified by their root data. This includes the classification of unramified tori $`T`$ as a special case (in this case, the set of roots and the set of coroots are empty):

$$(X^{}(T),X_{}(T),\mathrm{},\mathrm{},\sigma ).$$

We can extend this classification to ramified tori. If $`T`$ is any torus over $`F`$, it is classified by

$$(X^{}(T),X_{}(T),\rho ),$$

where $`\rho `$ is now allowed to be any homomorphism

$$\rho :\mathrm{Gal}(\overline{F}/F)\mathrm{Aut}(X^{}(T))$$

with finite image.

A basic fact is that $`T`$ embeds over $`F`$ as a Cartan subgroup in a given unramified reductive group $`G`$ if and only if the following two conditions hold.

* The image of $`\rho `$ in $`\mathrm{Aut}(X^{}(T))`$ is contained in $`W(\mathrm{\Phi }_G)\sigma _G`$.
* There is a commutative diagram:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{Gal}(\overline{F}/F)& & \mathrm{Gal}(F^{un}/F)\\ \rho & & \mathrm{Frob}\sigma _G& & \\ W(\mathrm{\Phi }_G)\sigma _G& \underset{w\tau \tau }{}& \sigma _G.\end{array}$$

It follows that every Cartan subgroup $`T_H`$ of $`H`$ is isomorphic over $`F`$ with a Cartan subgroup $`T_G`$ of $`G`$. (To check this, simply observe that these two conditions are more restrictive for $`H`$ than the corresponding conditions for $`G`$.) The isomorphism can be chosen to induce an isomorphism of Galois modules between the character group (and cocharacter group) of $`T_H`$ and that of $`T_G`$.

We say that a semisimple element in a reductive group is strongly regular, if its centralizer is a Cartan subgroup. If $`\gamma H(F)`$ is strongly regular semisimple, then its centralizer $`T_H`$ is isomorphic to some $`T_GG`$. Let $`\gamma _0T_G(F)G(F)`$ be the element in $`G(F)`$ corresponding to $`\gamma T_H(F)H(F)`$, under this isomorphism.

###### Remark 4.1.

The element $`\gamma _0`$ is not uniquely determined by $`\gamma `$. The Cartan subgroup $`T_G`$ can always be replaced with a conjugate $`g^1T_Gg`$, $`gG(F)`$, without altering the root data. However, the non-uniqueness runs deeper than this. An example will be worked in Section 8.1 to show how to deal with the problem of non-uniqueness. Non-uniqueness of $`\gamma _0`$ is related to stable conjugacy, which is our next topic.

## 5. Stable Conjugacy

###### Definition 5.1.

Let $`\delta `$ and $`\delta ^{}`$ be strongly regular semisimple elements in $`G(F)`$. They are conjugate if $`g^1\delta g=\delta ^{}`$ for some $`gG(F)`$. They are stably conjugate if $`g^1\delta g=\delta ^{}`$ for some $`gG(\overline{F})`$.

###### Example 5.2.

Let $`G=SL(2)`$ and $`F=_p`$. Assume that $`p2`$ and that $`u`$ is a unit that is not a square in $`_p`$. Let $`ϵ=\sqrt{u}`$ in an unramified quadratic extension of $`_p`$. We have the matrix calculation

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}1+p& 1\\ 2p+p^2& 1+p\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}ϵ& 0\\ 0& ϵ^1\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}ϵ& 0\\ 0& ϵ^1\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}1+p& u^1\\ (2p+p^2)u& 1+p\end{array}\right).$$

This matrix calculation shows that the matrices

(5.2.1)
$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}1+p& 1\\ 2p+p^2& 1+p\end{array}\right)\text{ and }\left(\begin{array}{cc}1+p& u^1\\ (2p+p^2)u& 1+p\end{array}\right)$$

of $`SL(2,_p)`$ are stably conjugate. The diagonal matrix that conjugates one to the other has coefficients that lie in a quadratic extension. A short calculation shows that the matrices 5.2.1 are not conjugate by a matrix of $`SL(2,_p)`$.

### 5.1. Cocycles

Let $`\gamma _0`$ and $`\gamma ^{}`$ be stably conjugate strongly regular semisimple elements of $`G(F)`$. We view $`\gamma _0`$ as a fixed base point and $`\gamma ^{}`$ as variable. If $`\tau \mathrm{Gal}(\overline{F}/F)`$, then

(5.2.2)
$$\begin{array}{ccc}g^1\gamma _0g\hfill & =\gamma ^{},(\text{with }gG(\overline{F}),\gamma _0,\gamma ^{}G(F))\hfill & \\ \tau (g)^1\tau (\gamma _0)\tau (g)\hfill & =\tau (\gamma ^{}),\hfill & \\ \tau (g)^1\gamma _0\tau (g)\hfill & =g^1\gamma _0g,\hfill & \\ \gamma _0\left(\tau (g)g^1\right)\hfill & =\left(\tau (g)g^1\right)\gamma _0,\hfill & \\ \gamma _0a_\tau =a_\tau \gamma _0,\text{ with }a_\tau =\tau (g)g^1.\hfill & & \end{array}$$

The element $`a_\tau `$ centralizes $`\gamma _0`$ and hence gives an element of the centralizer $`T`$. Viewed as a function of $`\tau \mathrm{Gal}(\overline{F}/F)`$, $`a_\tau `$ satisfies the cocycle relation

$$\tau _1(a_{\tau _2})a_{\tau _1}=a_{\tau _1\tau _2}.$$

It is continuous in the sense that there exists a field extension $`F_1/F`$ for which $`a_\tau =1`$, for all $`\tau \mathrm{Gal}(\overline{F}/F_1)`$. Thus, $`a_\tau `$ gives a class in

$$H^1(\mathrm{Gal}(\overline{F}/F),T(\overline{F})),$$

which is defined to be the group of all continuous cocycles with values in $`T`$, modulo the subgroup of all continuous cocycles of the form

$$b_\tau =\tau (t)t^1,$$

for some $`tT(\overline{F})`$.

A general calculation of the group $`H^1(\mathrm{Gal}(\overline{F}/F),T)`$ is achieved by the Tate-Nakayama isomorphism. Let $`F_1/F`$ be a Galois extension that splits the Cartan subgroup $`T`$.

###### Theorem 5.3.

(Tate-Nakayama isomorphism ) The group $`H^1(\mathrm{Gal}(\overline{F}/F),T)`$ is isomorphic to the quotient of the group

$$\{uX_{}|\underset{\tau \mathrm{Gal}(F_1/F)}{}\tau u=0\}$$

by the subgroup generated by the set

$$\{uX_{}|\tau \mathrm{Gal}(F_1/F)vX_{}.u=\tau vv\}.$$

###### Example 5.4.

Let $`T=U_E(1)`$ (the torus that made an appearance earlier as an endoscopic group of $`SL(2)`$). As was shown above, the group of cocharacters can be identified with $``$. The splitting field of $`T`$ is the quadratic extension field $`E`$. The nontrivial element $`\tau \mathrm{Gal}(E/F)`$ acts by reflection on $`X_{}`$: $`\tau (u)=u`$. By the Tate-Nakayama isomorphism, the group $`H^1(\mathrm{Gal}(\overline{F}/F),U_E(1))`$ is isomorphic to

$$\{u|u+\tau u=0\}/\{u|v.u=\tau vv\}=/2.$$

Let $`H`$ be an unramified endoscopic group of $`G`$. Suppose that $`T_H`$ is a Cartan subgroup of $`H`$. Let $`T_G`$ be an isomorphic Cartan subgroup in $`G`$. The data defining $`H`$ includes the existence of an element $`s\mathrm{Hom}(X_{},^\times )`$; that is, a character of the abelian group $`X_{}`$. Fix one such character $`s`$. We can restrict this character to get a character of

$$\{uX_{}|\underset{\tau \mathrm{Gal}(F_1/F)}{}\tau u=0\}.$$

It can be shown that the character $`s`$ is trivial on

$$\{uX_{}|\tau \mathrm{Gal}(F_1/F)vX_{}.u=\tau vv\}.$$

Thus, by the Tate-Nakayama isomorphism, the character $`s`$ determines a character $`\kappa `$ of the cohomology group

$$H^1(\mathrm{Gal}(\overline{F}/F),T).$$

In this way, each cocycle $`a_\tau `$ gives a complex constant $`\kappa (a_\tau )^\times `$.

###### Example 5.5.

The element $`s^\times `$ giving the endoscopic group $`H=U_E(1)`$ of $`SL(2)`$ is $`s=1`$, which may be identified with the character $`n(1)^n`$ of $``$. This gives the nontrivial character $`\kappa `$ of

$$H^1(\mathrm{Gal}(\overline{F}/F),U_E(1))/2.$$

## 6. Statement of the Fundamental Lemma

### 6.1. Context

Let $`G`$ be an unramified connected reductive group over $`F`$. Let $`H`$ be an unramified endoscopic group of $`G`$. Let $`\gamma H(F)`$ be a strongly regular semisimple element. Let $`T_H=C_H(\gamma )`$, and let $`T_G`$ be a Cartan subgroup of $`G`$ that is isomorphic to it. More details will be given below about how to choose $`T_G`$. The choice of $`T_G`$ matters! Let $`\gamma T_H(F)`$ map to $`\gamma _0T_G(F)`$ under this isomorphism.

By construction, $`\gamma _0`$ is semisimple. However, as $`G`$ may have more roots than $`H`$, it is possible for $`\gamma _0`$ to be singular, even when $`\gamma `$ is strongly regular. If $`\gamma H(F)`$ is a strongly regular semisimple element with the property that $`\gamma _0`$ is also strongly regular, then we will call $`\gamma `$ a strongly $`G`$-regular element of $`H(F)`$.

If $`\gamma ^{}`$ is stably conjugate to $`\gamma _0`$ with cocycle $`a_\tau `$, then $`s\mathrm{Hom}(X_{},^\times )`$ gives $`\kappa (a_\tau )^\times `$.

Let $`K_G`$ and $`K_H`$ be hyperspecial maximal compact subgroups of $`G`$ and $`H`$. Let $`\chi _{G,K}`$ and $`\chi _{H,K}`$ be the characteristic functions of these hyperspecial subgroups. Set

(6.0.1)
$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_{G,H}(\gamma )=\left(\underset{\alpha \mathrm{\Phi }_G}{}|\alpha (\gamma _0)1|^{1/2}\right)\left[\frac{\mathrm{vol}(K_T,dt)}{\mathrm{vol}(K,dg)}\right]\underset{\gamma ^{}\gamma _0}{}\kappa (a_\tau )_{C_G(\gamma ^{},F)\backslash G(F)}\chi _{G,K}(g^1\gamma ^{}g)\frac{dg}{dt^{}}.$$

The set of roots $`\mathrm{\Phi }_G`$ are taken to be those relative to $`T_G`$. The sum runs over all stable conjugates $`\gamma ^{}`$ of $`\gamma _0`$, up to conjugacy. This is a finite sum. The group $`K_T`$ is defined to be the maximal compact subgroup of $`T_G`$. Equation 6.0.1 is a finite linear combination of orbital integrals (that is, integrals over conjugacy classes in the group with respect to an invariant measure). The Haar measures $`dt^{}`$ on $`C_G(\gamma ^{},F)`$ and $`dt`$ on $`T_G(F)`$ are chosen so that stable conjugacy between the two groups is measure preserving. This particular linear combination of integrals is called a $`\kappa `$-orbital integral because of the term $`\kappa (a_\tau )`$ that gives the coefficients of the linear combination. Note that the integration takes place in the group $`G`$, and yet the parameter $`\gamma `$ is an element of $`H(F)`$.

The volume terms $`\mathrm{vol}(K,dg)`$ and $`\mathrm{vol}(K_T,dt)`$ serve no purpose other than to make the entire expression independent of the choice of Haar measures $`dg`$ and $`dt`$, which are only defined up to a scalar multiple.

We can form an analogous linear combination of orbital integrals on the group $`H`$. Set

(6.0.2)
$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_H^{st}(\gamma )=\left(\underset{\alpha \mathrm{\Phi }_H}{}|\alpha (\gamma )1|^{1/2}\right)\left[\frac{\mathrm{vol}(K_T,dt)}{\mathrm{vol}(K_H,dh)}\right]\underset{\gamma ^{}\gamma }{}_{C_H(\gamma ^{},F)\backslash H(F)}\chi _{H,K}(h^1\gamma ^{}h)\frac{dh}{dt^{}}.$$

This linear combination of integrals is like $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{G,H}(\gamma )`$, except that $`H`$ replaces $`G`$, $`K_H`$ replaces $`K_G`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_H`$ (taken relative to $`T_H`$) replaces $`\mathrm{\Phi }_G`$, and so forth. Also, the factor $`\kappa (a_\tau )`$ has been dropped. The linear combination of Equation 6.0.2 is called a stable orbital integral, because it extends over all stable conjugates of the element $`\gamma `$ without the factor $`\kappa `$. The superscript st in the notation is for ‘stable.’

###### Conjecture 6.1.

(The fundamental lemma) For every $`\gamma H(F)`$ that is strongly $`G`$-regular semisimple,

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_{G,H}(\gamma )=\mathrm{\Lambda }_H^{st}(\gamma ).$$

###### Remark 6.2.

There have been serious efforts over the past twenty years to prove the fundamental lemma. These efforts have not yet led to a proof. Thus, the fundamental lemma is not a lemma; it is a conjecture with a misleading name. Its name leads one to speculate that the authors of the conjecture may have severely underestimated the difficulty of the conjecture.

###### Remark 6.3.

Special cases of the fundamental lemma have been proved. The case $`G=SL(n)`$ was proved by Waldspurger . Building on the work of , Laumon has proved that the fundamental lemma for $`G=U(n)`$ follows from a purity conjecture . The fundamental lemma has not been proved for any other general families of groups. The fundamental lemma has been proved for some groups $`G`$ of small rank, such as $`SU(3)`$ and $`Sp(4)`$. See , , .

### 6.2. The significance of the fundamental lemma

The Langlands program predicts correspondences $`\pi \pi ^{}`$ between the representation theory of different reductive groups. There is a local program for the representation theory of reductive groups over locally compact fields, and a global program for automorphic representations of reductive groups over the adele rings of global fields.

The Arthur-Selberg trace formula has emerged as a powerful tool in the Langlands program. In crude terms, one side of the trace formula contains terms related to the characters of automorphic representations. The other side contains terms such as orbital integrals. Thanks to the trace formula, identities between orbital integrals on different groups imply identities between the representations of the two groups.

It is possible to work backwards: from an analysis of the terms in the trace formula and a precise conjecture in representation theory, it is possible to make precise conjectures about identities of orbital integrals. The most basic identity that appears in this way is the fundamental lemma, articulated above.

The proofs of many major theorems in automorphic representation theory depend in one way or another on the proof of a fundamental lemma. For example, the proof of Fermat’s Last Theorem depends on Base Change for $`GL(2)`$, which in turn depends on the fundamental lemma for cyclic base change . The proof of the local Langlands conjecture for $`GL(n)`$ depends on automorphic induction, which in turn depends on the fundamental lemma for $`SL(n)`$ , , . Properties of the zeta function of Picard modular varieties depend on the fundamental lemma for $`U(3)`$ , . Normally, the dependence of a major theorem on a particular lemma would not be noteworthy. It is only because the fundamental lemma has not been proved in general, and because the lack of proof has become a serious impediment to progress in the field, that the conjecture has become the subject of increased scrutiny.

## 7. Reductions

To give a trivial example of the fundamental lemma, if $`\gamma `$ and $`\gamma _0`$ and their stable conjugates are not in any compact subgroup, then

$$\chi _{G,K}(g^1\gamma ^{}g)=0\text{ and }\chi _{H,K}(h^1\gamma ^{}h)=0$$

so that both $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{G,H}(\gamma )`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_H^{st}(\gamma )`$ are zero. Thus, the fundamental lemma holds for trivial reasons for such $`\gamma `$.

### 7.1. Topological Jordan decomposition

A somewhat less trivial reduction of the problem is provided by the topological Jordan decomposition. Suppose that $`\gamma `$ lies in a compact subgroup. It can be written uniquely as a product

$$\gamma =\gamma _s\gamma _u=\gamma _u\gamma _s,$$

where $`\gamma _s`$ has finite order, of order prime to the residue field characteristic $`p`$, and $`\gamma _u`$ is topologically unipotent. That is,

$$\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}\gamma _u^{p^n}=1.$$

The limit is with respect to the $`p`$-adic topology. A special case of the topological Jordan decomposition $`\gamma O_F^\times 𝔾_m(F)`$ is treated in \[13, p20\]. In that case, $`\gamma _s`$ is defined by the formula

$$\gamma _s=\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}\gamma ^{q^n}.$$

Let $`\gamma `$, $`\gamma _0`$, and $`\gamma ^{}`$ be chosen as in Section 6.1. Each of these elements has a topological Jordan decomposition. Let $`G_s=C_G(\gamma _{0s})`$ and $`H_s=C_H(\gamma _s)`$. It turns out that $`G_s`$ is an unramified reductive group with unramified endoscopic group $`H_s`$. Descent for orbital integrals gives the formulas

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{G,H}(\gamma )\hfill & =\mathrm{\Lambda }_{G_s,H_s}(\gamma _u)\hfill & \\ & & \\ \mathrm{\Lambda }_H^{st}(\gamma )\hfill & =\mathrm{\Lambda }_{H_s}^{st}(\gamma _u).\hfill & \end{array}$$

This reduces the fundamental lemma to the case that $`\gamma `$ is a topologically unipotent elements.

### 7.2. Lie algebras

It is known (at least when the $`p`$-adic field $`F`$ has characteristic zero), that the fundamental lemma holds for fields of arbitrary residual characteristic provided that it holds when the $`p`$-adic field has sufficiently large residual characteristic . Thus, if we are willing to restrict our attention to fields of characteristic zero, we may assume that the residual characteristic of $`F`$ is large. In fact, in our discussion of a reduction to Lie algebras in this section, we simply assume that the characteristic of $`F`$ is zero.

A second reduction is based on Waldspurger’s homogeneity results for classical groups. (Homogeneity results have since been reworked and extended to arbitrary reductive groups by DeBacker, again assuming mild restrictions on $`G`$ and $`F`$.)

When the residual characteristic is sufficiently large, there is an exponential map from the Lie algebra to the group that has every topologically unipotent element in its image. Write

$$\gamma _u=\mathrm{exp}(X),$$

for some element $`X`$ in the Lie algebra. We may then consider the behavior of orbital integrals along the curve $`\mathrm{exp}(\lambda ^2X)`$. A difficult result of Waldspurger for classical groups states that if $`|\lambda |1`$, then

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{G,H}(\mathrm{exp}(\lambda ^2X))\hfill & =a_i|\lambda |^i\hfill & \\ \mathrm{\Lambda }_H^{st}(\mathrm{exp}(\lambda ^2X))\hfill & =b_i|\lambda |^i;\hfill & \end{array}$$

that is, both sides of the fundamental lemma identity are polynomials in $`|\lambda |`$. If a polynomial identity holds when $`|\lambda |<ϵ`$ for some $`ϵ>0`$, then it holds for all $`|\lambda |1`$. In particular, it holds at $`\gamma _u`$ for $`\lambda =1`$. The polynomial growth of orbital integrals makes it possible to prove the fundamental lemma in a small neighborhood of the identity element, and then conclude that it holds in general. In this manner, the fundamental lemma can be reduced to a conjectural identity in the Lie algebra.

## 8. The problem of base points

The fundamental lemma was formulated above with one omission: we never made precise how to fix an isomorphism $`T_HT_G`$ between Cartan subgroups in $`H`$ and $`G`$. Such isomorphisms exist, because the two Cartan subgroups have the same root data. But the statement of the fundamental lemma is sensitive to how an isomorphism is selected between $`T_H`$ and a Cartan subgroup of $`G`$. If we change the isomorphism, we change the $`\kappa `$-orbital integral by a root of unity $`\zeta ^\times `$. The correctly chosen isomorphism will depend on the element $`\gamma H(F)`$.

The ambiguity of isomorphism was removed by Langlands and Shelstad in . They define a transfer factor $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\gamma _H,\gamma _G)`$, which is a complex valued function on $`H(F)\times G(F)`$. The transfer factor can be defined to have the property that it is zero unless $`\gamma _HH(F)`$ is strongly regular semisimple, $`\gamma _GG(F)`$ is strongly regular semisimple, and there exists an isomorphism (preserving character groups) from the centralizer of $`\gamma _H`$ to the centralizer of $`\gamma _G`$. There exists $`\gamma _0G(F)`$ such that

(8.0.1)
$$\mathrm{\Delta }(\gamma _H,\gamma _0)=1.$$

The correct formulation of the fundamental lemma is to pick the base point $`\gamma _0G(F)`$ so that Condition 8.0.1 holds.

For classical groups, Waldspurger gives a simplified formula for the transfer factor $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ in . Furthermore, because of the reduction of the fundamental lemma to the Lie algebra (Section 7.2), the transfer factor may be expressed as a function on the Lie algebras of $`G`$ and $`H`$, rather than as a function on the group.

### 8.1. Base points for unitary groups

More recently, Laumon (while working on the fundamental lemma for unitary groups) observed a similarity between Waldspurger’s simplified formula for the transfer factor and the explicit formula for differents that is found in . In this way, Laumon found a simple description of the matching condition $`\gamma \gamma _0`$ implicit in the statement of the fundamental lemma.

## 9. Geometric Reformulations of the Fundamental Lemma

From early on, those trying to prove the fundamental lemma have sought geometric interpretations of the identities of orbital integrals. Initially these geometric interpretations were rather crude. In the hands of Goresky, Kottwitz, MacPherson, and Laumon these geometric interpretations have become increasingly sophisticated. , , , .

This paper is intended to give an introduction to the fundamental lemma, and the papers giving a geometric interpretation of the fundamental lemma do not qualify as introductory material. In this section, we will be content to describe the geometric interpretation in broad terms.

### 9.1. Old-style geometric interpretations: buildings

We begin with a geometric interpretation of the fundamental lemma that was popular in the late seventies and early eighties. It was eventually discarded in favor of other approaches when the combinatorial difficulties became too great.

This approach is to use the geometry of the Bruhat-Tits building to understand orbital integrals. We illustrate the approach with the group $`G=SL(2)`$. The term $`\chi _{G,K}(g^1\gamma ^{}g)`$ that appears in the fundamental lemma can be manipulated as follows:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\chi _{G,K}(g^1\gamma ^{}g)0\hfill & g^1\gamma ^{}gK\hfill & \\ & \gamma ^{}ggK\hfill & \\ & \gamma ^{}(gK)=(gK)\hfill & \\ & gK\text{ is a fixed point of }\gamma ^{}\text{ on }G(F)/K.\hfill & \end{array}$$

The set $`G(F)/K`$ is in bijective correspondence with a set of vertices in the Bruhat-Tits building of $`SL(2)`$. Thus, we may interpret the orbital integral geometrically as the number of fixed points of $`\gamma ^{}`$ in the building that are vertices of a given type.

Under this interpretation, it is possible to use counting arguments to obtain explicit formulas for orbital integrals as a function of $`\gamma ^{}`$. In this way, the fundamental lemma was directly verified for a few groups of small rank such as $`SL(2)`$ and $`U(3)`$.

### 9.2. Affine grassmannians

Until the end of Section 9, let $`F=k((t))`$, a field of formal Laurent series. Except for the discussion of the results of Kazhdan and Lusztig, the field $`k`$ will be taken to be a finite field: $`k=𝔽_q`$.

In 1988, Kazhdan and Lusztig showed that if $`F=((t))`$, then $`G(F)/K`$ can be identified with the points of an ind-scheme (that is, an inductive limit of schemes) . This ind-scheme is called the affine Grassmannian. The set of fixed points of an element $`\gamma `$ can be identified with the set of points of a scheme over $``$, known as the affine Springer fiber. The corresponding construction over $`𝔽_q((t))`$ is mentioned briefly in the final paragraphs of their paper. Rather than counting fixed points in the building, orbital integral can be computed by counting the number of points on a scheme over $`𝔽_q`$.

Based on a description of orbital integrals as the number of points on schemes over finite fields, Kottwitz, Goresky, and MacPherson give a geometrical formulation of the fundamental lemma. Furthermore, by making a thorough investigation of the equivariant cohomology of these schemes, they prove the geometrical conjecture when $`\gamma `$ comes from an unramified Cartan subgroup .

### 9.3. Geometric interpretations

Each of the terms in the fundamental lemma has a nice geometric interpretation. Let us give a brief description of the geometrical counterpart of each term in the fundamental lemma. We work with the unitary group, so that we may include various insights of Laumon.

The geometrical counterpart of cosets $`gK`$ are self-dual lattices in a vector space $`V`$ over $`F`$.

The counterpart of the support set, $`\mathrm{SUP}=\{g|g^1\gamma gK\}`$, is the affine Springer fiber $`X_\gamma `$.

The counterpart of the integral of the support set $`\mathrm{SUP}`$ over $`G`$ is counting points on the scheme $`X_\gamma `$. The integral over all of $`G`$ diverges and the number of fixed points on the scheme is infinite. For that reason the orbital integral is an integral over $`T\backslash G`$, where $`T`$ is the centralizer of $`\gamma `$, rather than over all of $`G`$.

The counterpart of the integral over $`T\backslash G`$ is counting points on a quotient space $`Z_\gamma =X_\gamma /^{\mathrm{}}`$. (There is a free action of a group $`^{\mathrm{}}`$ on $`X_\gamma `$, and $`Z_\gamma `$ is the quotient.)

The geometric counterpart of $`\kappa (a_\tau )`$ is somewhat more involved. For elliptic endoscopic groups of unitary groups $`\kappa `$ has order $`2`$. The character $`\kappa `$ has the form.

$$\kappa :H^1(\mathrm{Gal}(\overline{F}/F),T)(/2)^{\mathrm{}}\{\pm 1\}.$$

The character $`\kappa `$ pulls back to a character of $`^{\mathrm{}}`$. The rational points of $`X_\gamma `$ are identified with self-dual lattices: $`A^{}=A`$. The points of the quotient space $`Z_\gamma `$ are lattices that are self-dual modulo the group action: $`A^{}=\lambda A`$, for some $`\lambda ^{\mathrm{}}`$. The character $`\kappa `$ then partitions the points of $`Z_\gamma `$ into two sets, depending on the sign of $`\kappa (\lambda )`$:

$$Z_\gamma ^\pm =\{A|A^{}=\lambda A;\kappa (\lambda )=\pm 1\}.$$

(In a more sophisticated treatment of $`\kappa (a_\tau )`$, it gives rise to a local system on $`Z_\gamma `$; and counting points on varieties gives way to Grothendieck’s trace formula.)

The counterpart of the $`\kappa `$-orbital integral $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{G,H}(\gamma )`$ is the number

$$\mathrm{\#}Z_\gamma ^+\mathrm{\#}Z_\gamma ^{}.$$

The counterpart of the stable-orbital integral $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_H^{st}(\gamma )`$ is the number

$$\mathrm{\#}Z_\gamma ^{H,st}$$

for a corresponding variety constructed from the endoscopic group.

The factors $`_\mathrm{\Phi }|\alpha (\gamma )1|^{1/2}`$ that appear on the two sides of the fundamental lemma can be combined into a single term

$$\underset{\alpha \mathrm{\Phi }_G\mathrm{\Phi }_H}{}|\alpha (\gamma )1|^{1/2}.$$

This has the form $`q^d`$ for some value $`d=d(\gamma )`$. The factor $`q^d`$ has been interpreted in various ways. We mention that  interprets $`q^d`$ as the points on an affine space of dimension $`d`$. That paper expresses the hope that it might be possible to find an embedding $`Z_\gamma ^{}Z_\gamma ^+`$ such that the complement of the embedded $`Z_\gamma ^{}`$ in $`Z_\gamma ^+`$ is a rank $`d`$ fiber bundle over $`Z_\gamma ^{H,st}`$. The realization of this hope would give an entirely geometric interpretation of the fundamental lemma. Laumon and Rapoport found that this construction works over $`𝔽_{q^2}((t))`$, but not over $`𝔽_q((t))`$. In more recent work of Laumon, the constant $`d`$ is interpreted geometrically as the intersection multiplicity of two singular curves.

### 9.4. Compactified Jacobians

Laumon, in the case of unitary groups, has made the splendid discovery that the orbital integrals – as they appear in the fundamental lemma – count points on the compactification of the Jacobians of a singular curve associated with the semisimple element $`\gamma `$. (In fact, $`Z_\gamma `$ is homeomorphic to and can be replaced with the compactification of a Jacobian.) Thus, the fundamental lemma may be reformulated as a relation between the compactified Jacobians of these curves. By showing that the singular curve for the endoscopic group $`H`$ is a perturbation of the singular curve for the group $`G`$, he is able relate the compactified Jacobians of the two curves, and prove the fundamental lemma for unitary groups (assuming a purity hypothesis related to the cohomology of the schemes).

The origin of the curve $`C`$ is the following. The ring $`O_F[\gamma ]`$ is the completion at a point of the local ring of a curve $`C`$. In the interpretation in terms of Jacobians, the self-dual lattices $`A^{}=A`$ that appear in the geometric interpretation above are replaced with $`O_C`$-modules, where $`O_C`$ is the structure sheaf of $`C`$.

The audio recording of Laumon’s lecture at the Fields Institute on this research is highly recommended .

### 9.5. Final remarks

###### Remark 9.1.

The fundamental lemma is an open ended problem, in the sense that as researchers develop new trace formulas (the symmetric space trace formula , the twisted trace formula , and so forth) and as they compare trace formulas for different groups, it will be necessary to formulate and prove generalized versions of the fundamental lemma. The version of the fundamental lemma stated in this paper should be viewed as a template that should be adapted according to an evolving context.

###### Remark 9.2.

The methods of Goresky, Kottwitz, MacPherson, and Laumon are limited to fields of positive characteristic. This may at first seem to be a limitation of their method. However, there are ideas about how to use motivic integration to lift their results from positive characteristic to characteristic zero (see ). Waldspurger also has results about lifting to characteristic zero that were presented at the Labesse conference, but I have not seen a preprint .

###### Remark 9.3.

In some cases, it is now known how to deduce stronger forms of the fundamental lemma from weaker versions. For example, it is known how to go from the characteristic function of the hyperspecial maximal compact groups to the full Hecke algebra . A descent argument replaces twisted orbital integrals by ordinary orbital integrals. However, relations between weighted orbital integrals remain a serious challenge.

###### Remark 9.4.

There has been much research on the fundamental lemma that has not been discussed in detail in this paper, including other forms of the fundamental lemma. For just one example, see  for the fundamental lemma of Jacquet and Ye. Other helpful references include  and .

This work was supported in part by the NSF.This paper is based on lectures at the Fields Institute on June 25–27, 2003. Slides and audio are available at http://www.fields.utoronto.ca/audio/02-03/#CMI\_summer\_school

.

Copyright 2003, Thomas C. Hales. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/1.0/ or send a letter to Creative Commons, 559 Nathan Abbott Way, Stanford, California 94305, USA.