Indexed metadata

Splitting fields of complex hyperbolic groups: matrix extraction, Hermitian descent, and spectral fields

Angel Cano, Hector Castro, Nikolay Gusevskii

Source record

Source: arXiv

Published: Oct 7, 2026

arXiv: 2610.10894

Open original source ↗

Source abstract

Let Γ<SU(n,1)Γ<\mathrm{SU}(n,1), n≥2n\ge2, be Zariski-dense and contain a regular loxodromic element AA. The splitting-field problem asks how far traces and spectra determine a field of definition for ΓΓ. We show first that traces together with the spectrum of AA always give a linear realization over K=Q(trΓ,E(A))K=\mathbb{Q}(\textrm{tr}Γ,E(A)). We also prove that every complex-irreducible subgroup of SU(n,1)\mathrm{SU}(n,1) with real trace field is conjugate into SO(n,1)\mathrm{SO}(n,1); in particular, no discreteness hypothesis is required for this real-trace conclusion. In higher dimension, however, linear descent does not by itself give the standard unitary form: a Hermitian similarity obstruction remains, described over imaginary quadratic fields by Landherr's local invariants. In SU(3,1)\mathrm{SU}(3,1) we give a Zariski-dense example for which the one-spectrum field is Q(i)\mathbb{Q}(i) but does not yield the standard unitary form. This leads naturally to the total spectral field. We prove that the obstruction disappears for arithmetic groups and under suitable local openness hypotheses, and we give an even-degree local criterion. In dimension four we analyze the discrete branch through explicit Schottky groups and rank-one local geometry. There the full Bruhat cocycle recovers anisotropic Levi holonomy and forces a non-split rotational word. The remaining quasi-split rank-two case is not reached by this method, so the general SU(3,1)\mathrm{SU}(3,1) problem remains open.

Evidence graph

No public relationships recorded yet.

Integrity note: This page is a factual metadata record created by deterministic ingestion. It is not a claim that the work moves a mathematical frontier or has been independently verified.