Isotypic modularity conjecture for CM cycles

About 5 years old · traced to

Let A\mathcal A be the set of cuspidal automorphic representations defined above. For π∈A\pi\in\mathcal A, let

CM‾(π):=lim→⁡SLπ~S⊗CM‾[πS]⊂CM‾(Ω),\overline{CM}(\pi):=\varinjlim_S L_{\widetilde\pi^S}\otimes\overline{CM}[\pi^S]\subset\overline{CM}(\Omega),

where SS ranges over the relevant finite sets and Lπ~SL_{\widetilde\pi^S} is the Hecke character on the corresponding invariant space. Define CM‾(π~)⊂CM‾(Ω−1)\overline{CM}(\widetilde\pi)\subset\overline{CM}(\Omega^{-1}) similarly. Isotypic modularity conjecture. For every π∈A\pi\in\mathcal A,

CM‾(π)=π~∞⊗CM‾[π],\overline{CM}(\pi)=\widetilde\pi^\infty\otimes\overline{CM}[\pi],

and the corresponding equality holds for CM‾(π~)\overline{CM}(\widetilde\pi). This is stated as equivalent to the preceding full modularity conjecture and refines it representation by representation; the supplied source gives no resolution status.

References

Primary source

Congling Qiu, “Modularity and Heights of CM cycles on Kuga-Sato varieties”, arXiv:2105.12561 (2024).

Progress summary

Never refreshed

Nothing recorded yet. Refresh searches the literature and the public web for attempts on this problem, and writes the first summary here.

Solutions 0

No solutions have been posted yet.