arXiv:1610.05081v1 [] 17 Oct 2016

OUTER AUTOMORPHISMS OF CLASSICAL ALGEBRAIC
GROUPS
ANNE QUÉGUINER-MATHIEU AND JEAN-PIERRE TIGNOL

Abstract. The so-called Tits class, associated to an adjoint absolutely almost
simple algebraic group, provides a cohomological obstruction for this group to
admit an outer automorphism. If the group has inner type, this obstruction is
the only one. In this paper, we prove this is not the case for classical groups
of outer type, except for groups of type 2 An with n even, or n = 5. More
precisely, we prove a descent theorem for exponent 2 and degree 6 algebras
with unitary involution, which shows that their automorphism groups have
outer automorphisms. In all other relevant classical types, namely 2 An with
n odd, n ≥ 3 and 2 Dn , we provide explicit examples where the Tits class
obstruction vanishes, and yet the group does not have outer automorphism.
As a crucial tool, we use “generic” sums of algebras with involution.

Résumé. À tout groupe algébrique absolument presque simple de type adjoint est associée une classe de cohomologie connue sous le nom de ≪classe de
Tits≫ qui donne une obstruction à l’existence d’automorphismes extérieurs.
Si le groupe est de type intérieur, il n’y a pas d’autre obstruction. Dans ce
travail, nous montrons qu’il n’en va pas de même pour les groupes classiques
de type extérieur, sauf pour les groupes de type 2 An avec n pair ou n = 5.
Plus précisément, nous établissons pour les algèbres à involution unitaire de
degré 6 et d’exposant 2 un théorème de descente qui montre que les groupes
d’automorphismes de ces algèbres ont des automorphismes extérieurs. Pour
les types 2 An avec n impair, n ≥ 3, et les types 2 Dn , nous construisons des
exemples explicites où l’obstruction donnée par la classe de Tits est nulle alors
que le groupe ne possède pas d’automorphisme extérieur. Un outil crucial de
nos constructions est la somme ≪générique≫ d’algèbres à involution.

1. Introduction
Every automorphism of an absolutely almost simple algebraic group scheme G
of adjoint type over an arbitrary field F induces an automorphism of its Dynkin
diagram ∆. Inner automorphisms of G act trivially on ∆, and there is an exact
sequence of algebraic group schemes
(1)

1 → G → Aut(G) → Aut(∆) → 1,

Date: October 15, 2016.
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification. Primary: 20G15; Secondary: 11E57.
Key words and phrases. Linear algebraic group, outer automorphism, hermitian form,
involution.
The first author acknowledges the support of the French Agence Nationale de la Recherche
(ANR) under reference ANR-12-BL01-0005.
The second author is grateful to the first author and the Université Paris 13 for their hospitality
while the work for this paper was carried out. He acknowledges support from the Fonds de la
Recherche Scientifique–FNRS under grant n◦ J.0014.15.
1

2

ANNE QUÉGUINER-MATHIEU AND JEAN-PIERRE TIGNOL

see [2, Exp. XXIV, 1.3, 3.6]. If G is split, the corresponding sequence of groups of
rational points is exact and split, see [6, (25.16)], [11, §16.3]. Therefore, a split adjoint group G admits outer automorphisms if and only if its Dynkin diagram admits
automorphisms, i.e., if G has type An with n ≥ 2, Dn with n ≥ 3 or E6 . Moreover,
in all three cases, Aut(∆)(F ) lifts to an isomorphic subgroup in Aut(G)(F ). This
property does not hold generally for nonsplit groups. For instance, if G is the connected component of the identity in the group scheme of automorphisms of a central
simple F -algebra with quadratic pair (A, σ, f ), then G has no outer automorphisms
if A is not split by the quadratic étale F -algebra defined by the discriminant of
the quadratic pair, see § 2.2 below. More generally, Garibaldi identified in [4, §2] a
cohomological obstruction to the existence of outer automorphisms of an arbitrary
absolutely almost simple algebraic group scheme G: the group Aut(∆)(F ) acts
on H 2 (F, C), where C is the center of the simply connected group scheme isogenous to G, and the Tits class tG ∈ H 2 (F, C) is invariant under the action of the
image of Aut(G)(F ) in Aut(∆)(F ). Therefore, automorphisms of ∆ that do not
leave tG invariant do not lift to outer automorphisms of G. For adjoint or simply
connected groups of inner type, Garibaldi showed in [4, §2] that this is the only
obstruction to the lifting of automorphisms of ∆. As he explains in [4, Thm 11]
this has interesting consequences in Galois cohomology. In a subsequent paper,
Garibaldi–Petersson [5, Conjecture 1.1.2] conjectured that this Tits class obstruction is the only obstruction, also for adjoint or simply connected groups of outer
type.
In this paper, we provide a complete answer to the question raised by Garibaldi
and Petersson for groups of outer type A and D, leaving aside trialitarian groups
(see the Appendix). Thus, in all the cases we consider, Aut(∆)(F ) has order 2.
Our main goal is to compare the following three conditions, listed from weaker to
stronger:
(Out 1): The Tits class tG is fixed under Aut(∆)(F );
(Out 2): G admits an outer automorphism defined over F ;
(Out 3): G admits an outer automorphism of order 2 defined over F .
Under condition (Out 2), the sequence
1 → G(F ) → Aut(G)(F ) → Aut(∆)(F ) → 1
is exact, and under condition (Out 3), it is split. In [4], Garibaldi proves that all
three conditions are equivalent if G has inner type A or D (see Remarks 2.3 and 2.7).
This is not the case for groups of outer type, and our main result is the following:
Theorem 1.1. Let G be an absolutely almost simple adjoint or simply connected
algebraic group scheme of type 2 An , with n ≥ 2, or 2 Dn , with n ≥ 3.
(1) If G has type 2 An , with n even, or 2 A5 , then conditions (Out 1), (Out 2)
and (Out 3) are equivalent.
(2) In all the other types, there are examples of groups for which (Out 1) holds
and (Out 2) does not hold, and examples of groups for which (Out 2) holds
and (Out 3) does not hold.
In other words, assertion (2) says there are examples where the condition on
the Tits class is satisfied, and yet G does not have any outer automorphism, and
examples where G has an outer automorphism, but no outer automorphism of order
2. In particular, this disproves Conjecture 1.1.2 in [5], and provides examples of

OUTER AUTOMORPHISMS OF CLASSICAL ALGEBRAIC GROUPS

3

simply connected absolutely simple algebraic group schemes G for which the Galois
cohomology sequence
H 1 (F, C) → H 1 (F, G) → H 1 (F, Aut(G))
from [4, Thm 11(b)] (where C is the center of G) is not exact.
Every absolutely almost simple algebraic group scheme of adjoint type 2 An over
F is isomorphic to PGU(B, τ ) = AutK (B, τ ) for some central simple algebra B of
degree n + 1 over a separable quadratic field extension K of F with a K/F -unitary
involution τ . As explained below in § 2.1, condition (Out 1) holds for the group
PGU(B, τ ) if and only if B has exponent at most 2, and condition (Out 3) holds
if and only if (B, τ ) has a descent, i.e., (B, τ ) = (B0 , τ0 ) ⊗F (K, ι) for some central
simple F -algebra with F -linear involution (B0 , τ0 ). For n even, Theorem 1.1(1) can
be reformulated in a more precise form:
Theorem 1.2. Let (B, τ ) be a central simple algebra with unitary involution. If
deg B is odd, then conditions (Out 1), (Out 2), and (Out 3) for PGU(B, τ ) are
equivalent and hold if and only if B is split.
The proof is easy: see Corollary 2.4.
Now, assume G = PGU(B, τ ) has type 2 A5 , i.e., B has degree 6. If the exponent
of B is at most 2, then its index is at most 2. Therefore, Theorem 1.1(1) for
such groups follows from the following descent theorem for algebras with unitary
involution, proved in §4.1:
Theorem 1.3. Let (B, τ ) be a central simple algebra of degree at most 6 and
index at most 2, with a K/F -unitary involution. There exists a central simple
algebra with orthogonal involution (B0 , τ0 ) over F , of the same index as B, such
that (B, τ ) = (B0 , τ0 ) ⊗ (K, ι), where ι is the unique nontrivial F -automorphism of
K.
It also follows from this theorem that assertion (1) does hold for groups of type
A3 when the underlying algebra B has index at most 2; but this does not apply to
all groups of type 2 A3 , since a degree 4 central simple algebra of exponent 2 can be
of index 4. An example of a degree 4 and exponent 2 algebra with unitary involution
that does not have a descent will be provided in § 3.3.2 below (see Remark 3.14).
As usual for classical groups, we use as a crucial tool their explicit description in
terms of algebras with involution or quadratic pair. How conditions (Out 1), (Out 2)
and (Out 3) translate into conditions on these algebraic structures is explained in
§ 2. Section 3 studies in more details the 2 Dn case. In particular, we introduce our
main tool for proving assertion (2) of Theorem 1.1, namely “generic” orthogonal
sums of hermitian forms or involutions. In § 4, using the same kind of strategy, we
prove Theorem 1.3, and complete the proof of Theorem 1.1 by producing examples
of outer type 2 An .
We refer the reader to [6] for definitions and basic facts on central simple algebras,
involutions, and quadratic pairs. Recall that if char F 6= 2, then for any quadratic
pair (σ, f ), σ is an involution of orthogonal type, and f is the map defined on the set
Sym(A, σ) of σ-symmetric elements by f (s) = 12 TrdA (s). Hence the quadratic pair
is uniquely determined by the involution, and we usually write (A, σ) for (A, σ, f )
in this case.
2

4

ANNE QUÉGUINER-MATHIEU AND JEAN-PIERRE TIGNOL

Notation. If A is a structure (such as an algebra with involution or an algebraic
group scheme) defined over a field F , we write Aut(A) for the algebraic group
scheme of automorphisms of A and Aut(A) for its (abstract) group of rational
points:
Aut(A) = Aut(A)(F ).
We use a similar convention for classical groups; thus for instance if (B, τ ) is a
central simple algebra with unitary involution over a separable quadratic field extension K of F , then
PGU(B, τ ) = AutK (B, τ )

and

PGU(B, τ ) = PGU(B, τ )(F ).

Note that an absolutely almost simple simply connected algebraic group scheme
and its isogenous adjoint group have the same automorphism group, hence it is
enough to consider adjoint groups. For isogenous groups that are neither adjoint
nor simply connected, obstruction to the existence of an outer automorphism can
arise from the fundamental group.
2. Groups of type A and D, and associated algebras with involution
The main purpose of this section is to point out how conditions (Out 1), (Out 2)
and (Out 3) can be translated in terms of the corresponding algebra with involution or quadratic pair. Part of Theorem 1.1 follows immediately, as we will show.
Throughout this section, F is an arbitrary field.
2.1. Type A. Let K be an étale quadratic F -algebra, and ι be the nontrivial
F -automorphism of K. Consider a central simple K-algebra with K/F -unitary
involution (B, τ ). We denote by (ι B, ι τ ) the conjugate algebra with involution
defined by ι B = {ι x | x ∈ B} with the operations
ι

x + ι y = ι (x + y),

ι

x ι y = ι (xy),

λ ι x = ι (ι(λ)x)

and

ι

τ (ι x) = ι (τ (x))

for x, y ∈ B and λ ∈ K.
The following propositions were proven by Garibaldi–Petersson [5]:
Proposition 2.1. Let G = PGU(B, τ ), with deg B ≥ 3.
(1) Condition (Out 1) holds for G if and only if B has exponent at most 2;
(2) Condition (Out 2) holds for G if and only if (B, τ ) admits a ι-semilinear
automorphism, i.e., (B, τ ) is isomorphic to (ι B, ι τ );
(3) Condition (Out 3) holds for G if and only if (B, τ ) admits a ι-semilinear
automorphism of order 2.
Proposition 2.2. Condition (Out 3) holds for PGU(B, τ ) if and only if (B, τ )
has a descent, i.e., there exists a central simple F -algebra with F -linear involution
(B0 , τ0 ) such that (B, τ ) ≃ (B0 , τ0 ) ⊗ (K, ι).
Proof of Proposition 2.1. Those assertions are taken from [5, § 9]; for the reader’s
convenience, we briefly sketch an argument. One may understand the action of
Aut(∆)(F ) on the Tits class by looking at the action on the Tits algebras. For
groups of type A, the symmetry of the diagram, together with the description of
the Tits algebras given in [6, § 27.B], shows that tPGU(B,τ ) is invariant under the
action of Aut(∆)(F ) if and only if B is invariant under the action of the Galois
group of K/F , i.e., if B is isomorphic to its conjugate ι B. Since τ is a semilinear
involution, it induces an anti-automorphism between B and ι B. Therefore, B and

OUTER AUTOMORPHISMS OF CLASSICAL ALGEBRAIC GROUPS

5

ι

B are isomorphic if and only if B is isomorphic to its opposite algebra, i.e., B has
exponent at most 2.
Recall from [6, (26.9)] that there is an equivalence of categories between the
groupoid An (F ) of central simple algebras of degree n + 1 with a unitary involution
n
over some étale quadratic F -algebra and the groupoid A (F ) of adjoint absolutely
almost simple linear algebraic groups of type An defined over F , under which (B, τ )
maps to the adjoint group PGU(B, τ ). Hence, PGU(B, τ ) and (B, τ ) have the
same automorphisms. More precisely, the automorphisms of PGU(B, τ ) defined
over F coincide with the F -automorphisms of (B, τ ), see [6, (26.10)]. Among
those, the inner automorphisms are the K-linear automorphisms of (B, τ ), while
outer automorphisms coincide with ι-semilinear automorphisms of (B, τ ). Therefore, PGU(B, τ ) admits an outer automorphism if and only if (B, τ ) is isomorphic
to (ι B, ι τ ). Note that the condition deg B ≥ 3 is crucial here. Indeed, if B = Q
is a quaternion algebra, PGU(Q, τ ) has no outer automorphism, while (Q, τ ) does
admit semilinear automorphisms.

Proof of Proposition 2.2. If (B, τ ) ≃ (B0 , τ0 ) ⊗ (K, ι), then IdB0 ⊗ι is a semilinear
automorphism of B which commutes with τ = τ0 ⊗ ι, and has order 2. Therefore,
it induces an outer automorphism of PGU(B, τ ) of order 2. Conversely, assume
(B, τ ) has a ι-semilinear automorphism ϕ of order 2. The F -algebra of fixed points
B0 = B ϕ is a central simple F -algebra of the same degree as B, hence
B = B0 ⊗F K.

Moreover, since ϕ commutes with τ , the restriction of τ induces an F -linear involution τ0 of B0 , and we have (B, τ ) = (B0 , τ0 ) ⊗F (K, ι) as required.

Remark 2.3. If G has inner type 1 An , then K ≃ F × F and the corresponding
algebra with involution (B, τ ) is isomorphic to (E × E op , ε) for some central simple
F -algebra E, with ε the exchange involution (see [6, (2.14)]). If condition (Out 1)
holds, then E has exponent at most 2, hence by a theorem of Albert (see [6, (3.1)])
E carries an F -linear involution γ. Identifying E ⊗F (F × F ) with E × E, one
may check that the map (x, y) ∈ E × E 7→ (x, γ(y)op ) ∈ E × E op induces an
isomorphism between (E, γ) ⊗F (F × F, ι) and (E × E op , ε). Therefore (E × E op , ε)
has a descent, provided E has exponent at most 2. This shows that conditions
(Out 1), (Out 2) and (Out 3) are equivalent for groups of inner type 1 An , as
observed by Garibaldi [4, Ex. 17(i)]. Moreover, these conditions hold if and only
if G = PGU(E × E op , ε) = PGL(E) with E of exponent at most 2. If n is even,
then E has odd degree n + 1, and the conditions hold if and only if E is split.
Combining Proposition 2.1 and 2.2 we already get Theorem 1.2. More precisely,
we have
Corollary 2.4. Let G = PGU(B, τ ) with deg B ≥ 3.
(1) If B is split, then G admits outer automorphims of order 2.
(2) If G has type 2 An , with n even, conditions (Out 1), (Out 2) and (Out 3)
are equivalent, and hold if and only if B is split.
Proof. If B is split, we may assume B = EndK V for some K-vector space V . Then
τ is the adjoint involution with respect to some nondegenerate hermitian form
h : V × V → K. Pick a diagonalization of h, corresponding to a K-basis (ei )1≤i≤n
of V . For all i, we have h(ei , ei ) ∈ F × , hence h restricts to a nondegenerate

6

ANNE QUÉGUINER-MATHIEU AND JEAN-PIERRE TIGNOL

symmetric bilinear form b on the F -vector space V0 = e1 F + · · · + en F . Therefore,
(B, τ ) = (EndF V0 , adb ) ⊗F (K, ι) has a descent, so (Out 3) holds for PGU(B, τ ).
Now, assume that G has type 2 An for some n ≥ 3, with n even. Then G =
PGU(B, τ ), where B has odd degree n + 1. Hence, under condition (Out 1), B is
split, so (Out 3) holds by the first assertion, and this concludes the proof.

Corollary 2.4 was proved by Garibaldi–Petersson, see [5, Cor 9.1.2].
To prove Theorem 1.1(2), we will give in § 3 and § 4 examples of algebras with
unitary involutions (B, τ ) such that either B has exponent 2 and (B, τ ) is not
isomorphic to its conjugate (ι B, ι τ ), or (B, τ ) and (ι B, ι τ ) are isomorphic, yet
(B, τ ) does not have a descent. We provide examples of degree 4 and index 4, and
examples of degree n + 1 and index 2 for all odd n ≥ 7; see Remark 3.14 and § 4.3.
2.2. Type D. Let A be a central simple F -algebra of even degree, and let (σ, f ) be
a quadratic pair on A. We write GO(A, σ, f ) for the (abstract) group of similitudes
of (A, σ, f ), defined as
GO(A, σ, f ) = {g ∈ A× | σ(g)g ∈ F × and f ◦ Int(g) = f }.

The scalar µ(g) = σ(g)g is called the multiplier of g. Mapping g ∈ GO(A, σ, f ) to
Int(g) yields an identification of GO(A, σ, f )/F × with the group of rational points
PGO(A, σ, f ) = Aut(A, σ, f ). Every automorphism of (A, σ, f ) induces an automorphism of the Clifford algebra C(A, σ, f ). A similitude is said to be proper if
the induced automorphism of C(A, σ, f ) is the identity on the center Z; otherwise
it is said to be improper. The proper similitudes form a subgroup GO+ (A, σ, f )
which satisfies GO+ (A, σ, f )/F × = PGO+ (A, σ, f ) for PGO+ (A, σ, f ) the connected component of the identity in PGO(A, σ, f ) = Aut(A, σ, f ).
If A = EndF V for some F -vector space V , then every quadratic pair (σ, f ) on A
is adjoint to some nonsingular quadratic form q on V , see [6, (5.11)]. In that case,
we write simply GO(V, q), PGO(V, q), etc. for GO(A, σ, f ), PGO(A, σ, f ), etc.
Proposition 2.5. Let G = PGO+ (A, σ, f ), with deg A = 2n ≥ 4, and let Z be
the discriminant quadratic F -algebra of (σ, f ), i.e., Z is the center of the Clifford
algebra C(A, σ, f ). Assume Z is a field.
(1) Condition (Out 1) holds for G if and only if A is split by Z;
(2) Condition (Out 2) holds for G if and only if (A, σ, f ) admits improper
similitudes;
(3) Condition (Out 3) holds for G if and only if (A, σ, f ) admits square-central
improper similitudes.
In particular, condition (Out 1) holds if and only if the algebra A is Brauerequivalent to a quaternion algebra split by Z. This condition is necessary for the
existence of an improper similitude by the generalization of Dieudonné’s theorem
on multipliers of similitudes given in [6, (13.38)].
Proof. (1): Let ι denote the nontrivial F -automorphism of Z, and let C = C(A, σ, f ).
The Tits class tG is invariant under the action of Aut(∆) if and only if C is isomorphic to its conjugate algebra ι C, or equivalently C ⊗Z ι C op is split. Recall from [6,
(9.12)] the fundamental relations between A and C: if n is even, then C ⊗Z C is split
and the corestriction CorZ/F C is Brauer-equivalent to A. After scalar extension
to Z, it follows from the latter relation that the Z-algebra AZ is Brauer-equivalent
to C ⊗Z ι C. If n is odd, then C ⊗Z C is Brauer-equivalent to AZ , while CorZ/F C

OUTER AUTOMORPHISMS OF CLASSICAL ALGEBRAIC GROUPS

7

is split, hence C ⊗Z ι C is split. Thus, in each case AZ is Brauer-equivalent to
C ⊗Z ι C op , and we get that (Out 1) holds for G if and only if AZ is split.

(2) and (3): If deg A 6= 8, we may argue along the same lines as for Proposition 2.1, using the equivalence of categories between the groupoid Dn (F ) of central
n
simple F -algebras of degree 2n with quadratic pair and the groupoid D (F ) of adjoint absolutely almost simple groups of type Dn , which maps the algebra A with
quadratic pair (σ, f ) to PGO+ (A, σ, f ), see [6, (26.15)]. This line of argument does
not apply to the case where deg A = 8, however, because the description of D4 (F )
is different (see [6]). Therefore, we give a different proof, which applies in all cases
where deg A = 2n ≥ 4.
We will need the following lemma, which is probably well-known:
Lemma 2.6. Let (V, q) be a hyperbolic space of dimension
2n ≥ 4 over an infinite

field E. The map PGO(V, q) → Aut PGO+ (V, q) which carries gE × to Int(g) is
injective.
Proof. Let b be the polar bilinear form of q, and let e1 , f1 , . . . , en , fn be a symplectic
base of (V, q), i.e., a base such that q(ei ) = q(fi ) = 0 and
b(ei , fi ) = 1,

b(ei , ej ) = b(ei , fj ) = b(fi , fj ) = 0 for all i, j = 1, . . . , n with i 6= j.

−1
Since E is infinite, we may find α1 , . . . , αn ∈ E × such that α1 , α−1
1 , . . . , αn , αn
are pairwise distinct and moreover, if char E 6= 2,
−1
−1
{α1 , α1−1 , . . . , αn , α−1
n } 6= {−α1 , −α1 , . . . , −αn , −αn }.

Consider the proper isometry a ∈ GO+ (V, q) defined by
a(ei ) = αi ei

and

a(fi ) = α−1
i fi

for i = 1, . . . , n.

Let g ∈ GO(V, q) be such that Int(g) is the identity on PGO+ (V, q). Then g −1 ag =
λa for some λ ∈ E × . Because g −1 ag and a are isometries, we must have λ = ±1.
Moreover, by evaluating ag = λga on e1 , . . . , fn , we obtain
ag(ei ) = λαi g(ei )

and

ag(fi ) = λα−1
i g(fi )

for i = 1, . . . , n.

Thus, g(ei ) (resp. g(fi )) is an eigenvector of a with eigenvalue λαi (resp. λα−1
i ).
But the eigenvalues of a are α1 , α1−1 , . . . , αn , α−1
,
hence
n
−1
−1
{λα1 , λα1−1 , . . . , λαn , λα−1
n } = {α1 , α1 , . . . , αn , αn }

with λ = ±1. By the choice of α1 , . . . , αn we must have λ = 1, hence g(ei ) must
be a scalar multiple of ei and g(fi ) a scalar multiple of fi . Therefore, there exist
γ1 , . . . , γn ∈ E × such that, letting µ = µ(g) be the multiplier of g,
g(ei ) = γi ei

and

g(fi ) = µγi−1 fi .

Thus, the matrix of g with respect to the base e1 , . . . , fn is diagonal. Using [6, (12.24)] if char E 6= 2 and [6, (12.12)] if char E = 2, it is then easy to
check that g is a proper similitude. Since the map of algebraic group schemes
PGO+ (V, q) → Aut(PGO+ (V, q)) is injective (cf. (1)), it follows that the homomorphism PGO+ (V, q) → Aut(PGO+ (V, q)) is injective, hence g ∈ E × .


8

ANNE QUÉGUINER-MATHIEU AND JEAN-PIERRE TIGNOL

Proof of Proposition 2.5(2) and (3). The map g 7→ Int(g) induces a map of algebraic group schemes Φ which fits in the following commutative diagram with exact
rows:
1

/ PGO+ (A, σ, f )

/ PGO(A, σ, f )
Φ

1

/1

Ψ


/ Aut(PGO+ (A, σ, f ))

/ PGO+ (A, σ, f )

/ AutF (Z)

/ Aut(∆)

/1

The differential dΦ is injective, since the restriction of Φ to the connected component of the identity PGO+ (A, σ, f ) is the identity map. Moreover, Lemma 2.6
shows that over an algebraic closure Falg the map
Φalg : PGO(A, σ, f )(Falg ) → Aut(PGO+ (A, σ, f ))(Falg )

is injective. It follows by [6, (22.2)] that Φ is injective, and likewise Ψ is injective.
We have Aut(∆) ≃ AutF (Z) if n 6= 4, and Aut(∆) ≃ AutF (F × Z) if n = 4.
Since Z is assumed to be a field, in each case the group of F -rational points is
Aut(∆) ≃ Z/2Z ≃ AutF (Z).

Therefore, the diagram above yields the following diagram with exact rows:
1

/ PGO+ (A, σ, f )

/ PGO(A, σ, f )

/ Z/2Z

ΦF

1

/ PGO+ (A, σ, f )


/ Aut(PGO+ (A, σ, f ))

/ Z/2Z

It follows that ΦF is an isomorphism, which proves (2) and (3) of Proposition 2.5.

Remark 2.7. (i) If the algebra A is split, which means that PGO+ (A, σ, f ) =
PGO+ (V, q) for some quadratic space (V, q), then (Out 3) holds, since each quadratic space admits improper isometries of order 2.
(ii) The arguments in the proof of Proposition 2.5 also apply in the case where
Z ≃ F ×F . It follows that in this case (Out 1), (Out 2), and (Out 3) are equivalent,
and hold if and only if A is split. Thus, adjoint groups of inner type Dn admit outer
automorphisms of order 2 whenever the Tits class obstruction vanishes, as pointed
out by Garibaldi [4].
In the outer case, condition (Out 3) induces additional restrictions on the algebra
A when its degree is divisible by 4, as we now proceed to show:
Lemma 2.8. Let G = PGO+ (A, σ, f ) for some F -algebra with quadratic pair
(A, σ, f ), such that deg A ≡ 0 mod 4, so G has type Dn with n even. If G admits
an outer automorphism of order 2, then A is split.
Proof. In view of Remark 2.7, it suffices to consider the case where the center Z
of the Clifford algebra C = C(A, σ, f ) is a field. By Proposition 2.5, if G admits
an outer automorphism of order 2, then (A, σ, f ) admits a square-central improper
similitude g. As explained in [6, § 13.A], g induces an automorphism C(g) of order
2 of C, which commutes with the canonical involution σ. Moreover, since g is
improper, C(g) acts non trivially on Z. Therefore, the fixed points C C(g) form
an F -algebra C0 of the same degree as C, and we have C ≃ C0 ⊗F Z. Since C(g)

OUTER AUTOMORPHISMS OF CLASSICAL ALGEBRAIC GROUPS

9

commutes with the canonical involution σ of the Clifford algebra, σ restricts to an F linear involution on C0 , so C0 has exponent at most 2. In view of the fundamental
relations [6, (9.12)], we get that A is Brauer-equivalent to CorZ/F (C0 ⊗F Z) ≃
C0 ⊗ C0 ∼ 0, hence A is split, as required.

To prove Theorem 1.1, we will construct in § 3.3 below examples of algebras with
quadratic pairs such that either A is split by the discriminant quadratic extension,
yet (A, σ, f ) does not admit improper similitudes, or (A, σ, f ) admits improper
similitudes, but no improper similitudes of order 2. We provide examples of degree
2n for arbitrary n ≥ 3. The index of A is 2, as required by condition (Out 1).
3. Outer automorphisms and similitudes: the orthogonal case
Throughout this section, we assume that the base field F has characteristic
different from 2. Hence, we consider orthogonal involutions instead of quadratic
pairs. Our goal is to produce examples of groups of type 2 Dn , for all n ≥ 3, for
which (Out 1) holds and (Out 2) fails, or (Out 2) holds and (Out 3) fails. Before
describing the explicit examples, we first recall a few well-known facts on similitudes
of hermitian forms, and we introduce our main tool in this section, namely “generic”
sums of hermitian forms.
By Proposition 2.5(1), if PGO+ (A, σ) satisfies (Out 1), then A is split by the
discriminant quadratic algebra Z. In particular, A has index at most 2. Moreover,
Remark 2.7 shows that we may assume A is not split. Hence, our main case
of interest is when A = Mn (Q) for some quaternion division algebra Q over F .
However, our discussion of generic sums is more general, because we think this tool
could be useful in various other contexts.
3.1. Similitudes of hermitian forms. Let D be a central division F -algebra.
Assume D carries an F -linear involution ρ, and let δ = ±1. Let (V, h) be a δhermitian space over (D, ρ). By definition, an element g ∈ EndD V is a similitude
of (V, h) with multiplier µ(g) = µ if

h g(x), g(y) = µ h(x, y)
for all x, y ∈ V .
We write Sim(V, h) or Sim(h) for the group of similitudes of (V, h), which is also
the group of similitudes of EndD V for the adjoint involution adh . Depending on δ
and the type of the reference involution ρ, this group is a form of an orthogonal or
a symplectic group:
(
GO(EndD V, adh ) if adh is orthogonal,
Sim(V, h) =
GSp(EndD V, adh ) if adh is symplectic.
For the rest of this subsection, let A = EndD V and deg A = 2n, and suppose adh
is orthogonal; this case occurs if and only if δ = 1 and ρ is orthogonal, or δ = −1
and ρ is symplectic, see [6, (4.2)]. Since char F 6= 2, we may distinguish as follows
between proper and improper similitudes: for g ∈ Sim(V, h), taking the reduced
norm of each side of the equation µ(g) = σ(g)g, we see that µ(g)2n = NrdA (g)2 ,
hence NrdA (g) = ±µ(g)n . The similitude g is proper if NrdA (g) = µ(g)n , and
improper if NrdA (g) = −µ(g)n (see [6, (12.24)]).
Suppose now V = V1 ⊥ . . . ⊥ Vr for some subspaces V1 , . . . , Vr ⊂ V , hence h
restricts to a nonsingular δ-hermitian form hi on each Vi . For i = 1, . . . , r, let

10

ANNE QUÉGUINER-MATHIEU AND JEAN-PIERRE TIGNOL

Ai = EndD Vi , pick gi ∈ Ai , and let g = g1 ⊕ · · · ⊕ gr ∈ A be the map defined by
g(x1 + · · · + xr ) = g1 (x1 ) + · · · + gr (xr )

for x1 ∈ V1 , . . . , xr ∈ Vr .

Lemma 3.1. With the notation above, g is a similitude of h with multiplier µ if
and only if each gi is a similitude of hi with multiplier µ. When this condition
holds, the similitude g is proper if and only if the number of improper similitudes
among g1 , . . . , gr is even.

Proof. The first part is clear since h g(x), g(y) = µ h(x, y) for all x, y ∈ V if and
only if hi gi (x), gi (y) = µ hi (x, y) for all i, and all x, y ∈ Vi . To prove the second
part, let deg Ai = 2ni for i = 1, . . . , r, hence n = n1 + · · · + nr , and suppose
NrdAi (gi ) = εi µni with εi = ±1. We then have
r
r
Y
Y


εi µn1 +···+nr .
NrdAi (gi ) =
NrdA (g) =
i=1

i=1

We next consider the particular case where D is a quaternion division algebra Q and ρ is the canonical involution , hence δ = −1. The generalization of
Dieudonné’s theorem on multipliers of similitudes [6, (13.38)] then allows to distinguish between proper and improper similitudes
as follows: a similitude g of (V,
 h) is

proper if the quaternion algebra Z, µ(g) F is split (we write simply Z, µ(g) F = 0
in this case), and improper if it is isomorphic to Q. For 1-dimensional skewhermitian forms, we have the following more precise result:
Lemma 3.2. Let q be a nonzero pure quaternion in a quaternion division algebra
Q, and let a = q 2 ∈ F × . Define
G+ (a) = {µ ∈ F × | (a, µ)F = 0}

and

G− (a) = {µ ∈ F × | (a, µ)F = Q}.

Then G+ (a) is the group of multipliers of proper similitudes of the skew-hermitian
form hqi, and G− (a) is the coset of multipliers of improper similitudes of hqi. Moreover, the improper similitudes of hqi are all square-central.

Proof. The lemma follows from the explicit description of similitudes of hqi given
in [6, (12.18)]: the proper similitudes form the multiplicative group F (q)× ⊂ Q× ,
while the improper similitudes are the elements u ∈ Q× such that uq = −qu.

In the case where each Vi is 1-dimensional, Lemma 3.1 yields:
Lemma 3.3. Let q1 , . . . , qn be pure quaternions in Q, consider the skew-hermitian
form h over (Q, ) defined by h = hq1 , . . . , qn i, and let ai = qi2 ∈ F × . If µ ∈ F ×
satisfies (µ, ai )F ∈ {0, Q} for all i, then (V, h) admits a similitude with multiplier
µ. Moreover, this similitude is proper if and only if the number of pure quaternions
among q1 , . . . , qn satisfying (µ, ai )F = Q is even.

Proof. From the condition on µ, it follows by Lemma 3.2 that each hqi i admits a
similitude gi with multiplier µ. Then g = g1 ⊕ · · · ⊕ gn is a similitude of h with
multiplier µ. Lemma 3.1 shows that this similitude is proper if and only if the
number of indices i such that (µ, ai )F = Q is even.

Of course, most similitudes do not act diagonally, and the multipliers of similitudes of (V, h) need not satisfy the condition given in the lemma; nevertheless,
as we explain in the next section, this condition actually characterizes multipliers of similitudes for some particular involutions, which we call “generic sums of
orthogonal involutions.”

OUTER AUTOMORPHISMS OF CLASSICAL ALGEBRAIC GROUPS

11

3.2. Generic sums. Let D be a central division algebra over an arbitrary field
F of characteristic different from 2. Assume D carries an involution ρ of the first
kind, let δ = ±1, and let (V1 , h1 ), . . . , (Vn , hn ) be δ-hermitian spaces over (D, ρ).
Consider the field of iterated Laurent series in n indeterminates
Fb = F ((t1 )) . . . ((tn )),
and let

and Vbi = Vi ⊗F Fb for i = 1, . . . , n.
b We also extend hi to
The involution ρ extends to an involution ρb = ρ ⊗ IdFb on D.
a δ-hermitian form b
hi on Vbi , and we let
(Vb , b
h) = (Vb1 ⊕ · · · ⊕ Vbn , ht1 ib
h1 ⊥ . . . ⊥ htn ib
hn ).
b = D ⊗F Fb
D

The adjoint involution adbh is an orthogonal sum, in the sense of Dejaiffe [1], of the
involutions adbhi ; we call it a “generic orthogonal sum” since each b
hi is extended from
an involution hi defined over F , and scaled by some indeterminate ti . We assume
throughout that h1 , . . . , hn are anisotropic, hence b
h is anisotropic. Our goal is
to relate the multipliers of similitudes of (Vb , b
h) to the multipliers of similitudes
of (V1 , h1 ), . . . , (Vn , hn ), with the help of a norm on the vector space Vb , i.e.,
a valuation-like map for which Vb contains a splitting base (see [9, §2]). More
precisely, we prove:
Theorem 3.4. Let (Vb , b
h) be a “generic sum” of δ-hermitian spaces (Vi , hi ) for
1 ≤ i ≤ n, as defined above.
(1) If n ≥ 3, every similitude g ∈ Sim(Vb , b
h) has the form g = λg ′ for some
λ ∈ Fb× and some similitude g ′ with multiplier in F × .
(2) For every similitude g ∈ Sim(Vb , b
h) such that µ(g) ∈ F × ⊂ Fb× , there exist
similitudes gi ∈ Sim(Vi , hi ) for i = 1, . . . , n with µ(g) = µ(g1 ) = · · · =
µ(gn ).

Proof. The field Fb carries the (t1 , . . . , tn )-adic valuation v with value group Zn
ordered lexicographically from right to left. This valuation is Henselian; it extends
b with value group Zn . We write again v for
in a unique way to a valuation on D
b
b
this valuation on D. Because h is anisotropic and v is Henselian, we may define a
norm ν on Vb by the following formula (see [10, Prop. 3.1], [9, Cor. 3.6, Th. 4.6,
Prop. 4.2]):

h(x, x)
for x ∈ Vb .
ν(x) = 12 v b
To describe the value set of this norm, let εi = (0, . . . , 1, . . . , 0) = v(ti ) be the
i-th element in the standard base of Zn . For α = (α1 , . . . , αn ) ∈ Zn we write
αn
1
b
b
tα = P
tα
1 . . . tn ∈ F . Every nonzero vector xi ∈ Vi can be written as a series
xi = α xiα tα with xiα ∈ Vi , where the support {α | xiα 6= 0} is a well-ordered
subset of Zn . If α0 is the minimal element in this support, then since b
h(xiα0 , xiα0 ) =

h(xi , xi ) = 2α0 + εi . Thus,
hi (xiα0 , xiα0 ) 6= 0 we have v b
ti b
ν(Vbi \ {0}) = 21 εi + Zn ⊂ ( 21 Z)n .

It follows that ν(Vbi ) ∩ ν(Vbj ) = {∞} for i 6= j. Therefore, for x = x1 + · · · + xn with
xi ∈ Vbi for all i, we have

(2)
ν(x) = min ν(x1 ), . . . , ν(xn ) .

12

ANNE QUÉGUINER-MATHIEU AND JEAN-PIERRE TIGNOL

Thus, the value set of Vb , for which we use the notation ΓVb , is
ΓVb = {ν(x) | x ∈ Vb \ {0}} =

n
[

i=1

( 12 εi + Zn ) ⊂ ( 21 Z)n .

We also need to consider the graded structures associated to norms and valuations. For α ∈ Zn we let
Fb≥α = {a ∈ F | v(a) ≥ α},

Fb>α = {a ∈ F | v(a) > α},

and Fbα = Fb≥α /Fb>α .

Thus, Fbα is a 1-dimensional vector space over F , spanned by the image of tα . We
let
M
gr(Fb) =
Fbα .
α∈Zn

For each nonzero a ∈ Fb , let e
a = a + Fb>v(a) ∈ gr(Fb ). We also let e
0 = 0 ∈ gr(Fb ),
and note that the multiplication in Fb induces a multiplication on gr(Fb ), which
turns this F -vector space into a commutative graded ring in which every nonzero
homogeneous element is invertible:
e e−1
gr(Fb) = F [e
t1 , e
t−1
1 , . . . , tn , tn ].

b yielding the graded ring gr(D)
b =
The same construction can be applied to D,
b
b
b
b
D ⊗F gr(F ), and also to V , yielding the graded module gr(V ) over gr(D). From (2)
it follows that
gr(Vb ) = gr(Vb1 ) ⊕ · · · ⊕ gr(Vbn ),

see [9, Remark 2.6]. For each i, we have gr(Vbi ) = Vi ⊗F gr(Fb ), with a grading
shifted by 21 εi . Note that the grade sets of gr(Vb1 ), . . . , gr(Vbn ), which are the value
sets of Vb1 , . . . , Vbn , are pairwise disjoint, hence every homogeneous component of
gr(Vb ) lies in exactly one gr(Vbi ).
b extending ρ. By [9,
Let ρe = ρ⊗Idgr(F ) be the involution of the first kind on gr(D)
Th. 4.6, Prop. 4.2], we have v(b
h(x, y)) ≥ ν(x)+ ν(y) for all x, y ∈ Vb . Therefore, the
b
δ-hermitian form h induces a δ-hermitian form e
h on gr(Vb ), defined on homogeneous
elements by
(
b^
b
e
h(e
x, ye) = h(x, y) if v(h(x, y)) = ν(x) + ν(y),
0
if v(b
h(x, y)) > ν(x) + ν(y),
and extended by bilinearity to gr(Vb ). Letting e
hi denote the restriction of e
h to
b
gr(Vi ), we have
(gr(Vb ), e
h) = (gr(Vb1 ), e
h1 ) ⊥ . . . ⊥ (gr(Vbn ), e
hn ).

As observed above, we have gr(Vbi ) = Vi ⊗F gr(Fb ). The δ-hermitian form e
hi is given
by
e
hi (x, y) = hi (x, y) ⊗ e
ti
for x, y ∈ Vi .
Now, suppose g : Vb → Vb is a similitude of (Vb , b
h), with multiplier µ(g) ∈ Fb× .
b
b
b
For x ∈ V we have h(g(x), g(x)) = µ(g)h(x, x), hence


ν g(x) = ν(x) + 21 v µ(g)
for all x ∈ Vb .

OUTER AUTOMORPHISMS OF CLASSICAL ALGEBRAIC GROUPS

13

b
As a result, g induces a homomorphism of gr(D)-modules
g : gr(Vb ) → gr(Vb ), dee
fined on homogeneous elements by
g
ge(e
x) = g(x)
for x ∈ Vb .

g and it shifts
This homomorphism is a similitude of (gr(Vb ), e
h) with multiplier µ(g),
1
the grading by 2 v µ(g) . It follows that the value
set ΓVb , which is the grade set

of gr(V ), is stable under translation by 12 v µ(g) ∈ ( 21 Z)n . We must therefore have
for all i = 1, . . . , n
n
 [
1
1
ε
+
v
µ(g)
∈
( 21 εℓ + Zn ).
2 i
2
 ℓ=1
Suppose i, j are such that 21 εi + 21 v µ(g) ∈ 21 εj + Zn , and i 6= j. For k 6= i, j we
then have
n
[
 1
n
1
1
1
1
( 12 εℓ + Zn ).
ε
+
v
µ(g)
∈
ε
+
ε
−
ε
+
Z
⊂
6
k
k
j
i
2
2
2
2
2
ℓ=1



µ(g) ∈ 21 εi + Zn for all i, hence v µ(g) ∈
This contradiction implies that


2Zn . Let v µ(g) = 2v(λ0 ) for some λ0 ∈ Fb× , hence v µ(λ−1
0 g) = 0. Consider
−1
−1
×
the residue µ(λ0 g) = a ∈ F . We have µ(λ0 g) = a(1 + m) for some m ∈ Fb
with v(m) > 0. Since Fb is Henselian and the characteristic of the residue field F
−1
is different from 2, we may find λ1 ∈ Fb with λ21 = 1 + m. Then µ(λ−1
1 λ0 g) = a,
′
×
′
−1
′
b
so we may write g = λg with λ = λ0 λ1 ∈ F and g = λ g. Then g ∈ Sim(Vb , b
h)
and µ(g ′ ) = a ∈ F × . The first assertion of the theorem is thus proved.
Now, we prove the second assertion. Consider a similitude g ∈ Sim(Vb , b
h) and

×
×
b
assume its multiplier µ(g) is in F ⊂ F . Since v µ(g) = 0, the similitude
g ∈ Sim(gr(Vb ), e
e
h) preserves the grading. We may therefore consider its restriction
g is a
gi to the homogeneous component of degree 21 εi , which is Vi . Because e
g
similitude with multiplier µ(g) = µ(g) and
1
1
2 εi + 2 v

e
h(x, y) = hi (x, y)e
ti

for x, y ∈ Vi ,

it follows that gi is a similitude of (Vi , hi ) with multiplier µ(g).



The last part of the proof above establishes the following result:
Lemma 3.5. For every similitude g ∈ Sim(Vb , b
h) such that µ(g) ∈ F × ⊂ Fb× , the
e
b
similitude e
g ∈ Sim(gr(V ), h) has the form
g = (g1 ⊗ Idgr(Fb) ) ⊕ · · · ⊕ (gn ⊗ Idgr(Fb) )
e

for some similitudes gi ∈ Sim(Vi , hi ) with µ(g) = µ(g1 ) = · · · = µ(gn ).

Abusing notation, we write g1 ⊕ · · · ⊕ gn for (g1 ⊗ Idgr(Fb) ) ⊕ · · · ⊕ (gn ⊗ Idgr(Fb) ).
Note that conversely, given similitudes gi ∈ Sim(Vi , hi ) for i = 1, . . . , n such
that µ(g1 ) = · · · = µ(gn ), we may define a similitude g ∈ Sim(Vb , b
h) such that
g = g1 ⊕ · · · ⊕ gn and µ(g) = µ(g1 ) ∈ F × by
e
g = (g1 ⊗ IdFb ) ⊕ · · · ⊕ (gn ⊗ IdFb ).

Now, let us apply these results to the setting of a generic orthogonal sum of
1-dimensional skew-hermitian forms over a quaternion division algebra Q over F .
The following proposition is a key tool for the examples we produce below.

14

ANNE QUÉGUINER-MATHIEU AND JEAN-PIERRE TIGNOL

Proposition 3.6. Let Q be a quaternion division algebra over F , and consider pure
quaternions q1 , . . . , qn , with respective squares a1 , . . . , an ∈ F × . Let Fb be the field
b = Q ⊗F Fb ,
of iterated Laurent series in n indeterminates t1 , . . . , tn over F , let Q
b adjoint to the skew-hermitian form
and consider the involution σ on A = Mn (Q)
b
h = ht1 q1 , . . . , tn qn i. If n ≥ 3, then
(1) The involution σ has discriminant disc σ = a1 . . . an · Fb×2 ;
(2) The involution σ admits improper similitudes if and only if there exist ε1 ,
. . . , εn ∈ {±1} such that ε1 . . . εn = −1 and
Gε1 (a1 ) ∩ . . . ∩ Gεn (an ) 6= ∅.

(3) The involution σ admits square-central improper similitudes if and only if
n is odd and
G− (a1 ) ∩ . . . ∩ G− (an ) 6= ∅.
Proof. The discriminant of σ is the product of the discriminants of the involutions
adjoint to hti qi i for all i. Since the discriminant of the adjoint involution of hqi, for
any nonzero pure quaternion q, is the square class of q 2 , we get assertion (1).
Suppose that the hermitian form b
h admits improper similitudes. Since it is
a generic orthogonal sum, as defined above, of the 1-dimensional skew-hermitian
forms hi = hqi i, we may apply Theorem 3.4 and Lemma 3.5. Therefore, since n ≥ 3,
we may find an improper similitude g of b
h with multiplier µ = µ(g) ∈ F × ⊂ Fb× .
By Lemma 3.5 we have ge = g1 ⊕ · · · ⊕ gn with gi ∈ Sim(hi ) and µ(gi ) = µ for i = 1,
. . . , n. Because g and ge are improper, the same computation as in Lemma 3.1
shows that the number of improper similitudes among g1 , . . . , gn is odd. Letting
εi = +1 if gi is proper and εi = −1 if gi is improper, we thus have
µ ∈ Gε1 (a1 ) ∩ . . . ∩ Gεn (an ) and ε1 . . . εn = −1.

Assume in addition g is square-central. From σ(g)g = µ, we get g 2 = εµ for
some ε ∈ {±1}. Hence we also have e
g 2 = εe
µ = εµ. By Lemma 3.5, this occurs
2
if and only if gi = εµ for i = 1, . . . , n. Since g is improper, there is at least
one i for which gi is improper. From the description of similitudes recalled in the
proof of Lemma 3.2, we get that gi is a pure quaternion that anticommutes with
qi . Therefore
µ = µ(gi ) = σ(gi )gi = qi−1 gi qi gi = gi2 .
It follows that ε = 1. Now assume for the sake of contradiction that gj is proper
for some j. Then gj is a quaternion that commutes with qj , i.e., gj ∈ F (qj ),
and it is square-central, hence it belongs to F × ∪ F × qj . The first case leads to
µ = µ(gj ) ∈ F ×2 , which is impossible since Q = (µ, ai )F is a division algebra. The
second case leads to µ = µ(gj ) = −gj2 , which is impossible since ε = 1. Therefore,
gj is improper for all j, that is ε1 = · · · = εn = −1. Since g is improper, this
implies n is odd.
We have thus proved the “only if” parts of (2) and (3). The converse statements
are easy consequences of Lemma 3.1 and Lemma 3.3.

3.3. Examples of groups of type 2 Dn . With Proposition 3.6 in hand, we can now
produce explicit examples of groups of type Dn , proving that conditions (Out 1),
(Out 2), and (Out 3) are not equivalent.
In our examples, the algebra has the form A = Mn (Q) for some integer n ≥ 3,
and some quaternion division algebra Q over F . As a preliminary observation

OUTER AUTOMORPHISMS OF CLASSICAL ALGEBRAIC GROUPS

15

concerning condition (Out 1), note that the set of discriminants of orthogonal involutions on A is (−1)n NrdQ (Q× ). This follows easily from the fact that any
quaternion can be written as a√product of two pure quaternions. On the other
hand, a quadratic extension F ( δ) of F is a splitting field of Q if and only if Q
contains a pure quaternion
q such that δ = q 2 = − NrdQ (q). Hence, if n is odd, for
√
any splitting field F ( δ), A does admit orthogonal involutions σ with discriminant
δ, and (Out 1) holds for the corresponding group. As opposed to this, it is not
always true that A admits an involution σ for which (Out 1) holds if n is even, as
we now proceed to show.
3.3.1. Type 2 Dn with n even. In this subsection, we assume A = Mn (Q) with
n = 2m even, m ≥ 2. We first prove:
Proposition 3.7. Assume A = Mn (Q) with n even. The algebra A admits an
orthogonal involution σ such that A is split by the discriminant quadratic algebra
Z of σ if and only if −1 ∈ NrdQ (Q× ).
√
Proof. If A is split by the discriminant algebra Z = F ( δ) of some orthogonal
involution σ, then δ = q 2 = − NrdQ (q) for some pure quaternion q, and δ =
NrdA (x) for some σ skew-symmetric x ∈ A, so that δ ∈ NrdQ (Q× ). Hence, δ and
−δ are reduced norms, and we get −1 ∈ NrdQ (Q× ).
×
Assume
field
√ conversely that −1 ∈ NrdQ (Q ), and pick an arbitrary quadratic
0
Z = F ( δ) that splits Q. There exists a pure quaternion q ∈ Q such that
δ = q 2 = − NrdQ (q). Since −1 ∈ NrdQ (Q× ), we get δ ∈ NrdQ (Q× ), and since n is
even, it follows that there exists an orthogonal involution σ of discriminant δ. 
In view of Proposition 2.5, the following result provides examples of groups
PGO+ (A, σ) of type 2 Dn , with n even and n ≥ 3, which admit outer automorphisms but no outer automorphisms of order 2.
Proposition 3.8. Let Q be a quaternion division algebra such that −1 ∈ NrdQ (Q× ),
and let Z be a quadratic splitting field for Q. For every even integer n ≥ 2 there
exists an orthogonal involution σ of Mn (Q) with discriminant Z such that (A, σ) admits improper similitudes. Moreover, (A, σ) does not have square-central improper
similitudes.
Proof. Since √Z is a quadratic splitting field for Q, there exists δ, ν ∈ F × such
that Z = F ( δ) and Q = (δ, ν)F . Moreover, since the norm form of Q represents
−1, the quadratic form h1, −ν, −δ, νδ, 1i is isotropic. After scaling, we get that
h−ν, 1, δν, −δ, −νi also is isotropic, hence h1, −νi and hδ, ν, −δνi represent a common value. This means there exists a pure quaternion
q ∈ Q0 such that a = q 2
√
is a norm for the quadratic field extension F ( ν)/F , or equivalently (a, ν)F = 0.
So we have Q = (δ, ν)F = (aδ, ν)F . Let q ′ be a pure quaternion with square
aδ, and let σ be the adjoint involution with respect to the skew-hermitian form
h = hq ′ , q, q, . . . , qi. Since n is even, σ has discriminant δ. Moreover, by Lemma 3.3,
σ admits an improper similitude with multiplier ν. Since Q is a division algebra,
the last assertion follows from Lemma 2.8.

To produce examples of groups satisfying (Out 1) but with no outer automorphisms, we use the “orthogonal generic sums” defined above. More precisely, we
consider the following:

16

ANNE QUÉGUINER-MATHIEU AND JEAN-PIERRE TIGNOL

Proposition 3.9. Let Q be a quaternion division algebra. Assume Q contains pure
quaternions q1 , q2 , q3 with respective squares a1 , a2 , and a3 such that
√
(1) Q is split by F ( a1 a2 );
√
√
(2) Q is not split by F ( a1 a3 ) nor by F ( a2 a3 ).
b with n even, n ≥ 3, defined as in PropoThen the involution σ on A = Mn (Q),
sition 3.6 with q1 , q2 , q3 as above and q4 = · · · = qn = q3 , admits no improper
similitudes, yet Q is split by the discriminant quadratic extension Z/F .
Proof. Since n is even, σ has discriminant a1 a2 , hence the first condition guarantees
that Q is split by Z. It remains to prove that Q has no improper similitudes. By
Proposition 3.6, this means we have to prove
Gε1 (a1 ) ∩ . . . ∩ Gεn (an ) = ∅,
for all ε1 , . . . , εn ∈ {±1} such that ε1 . . . εn = −1. Recall that µ ∈ G+ (ai )
(respectively G− (ai )) if and only if (µ, ai )F = 0 (respectively (µ, ai )F = Q). Since Q
is a division algebra, it follows that G+ (a3 ) ∩ G− (a3 ) = ∅. Thus, if the intersection
above is nonempty, then ε3 = · · · = εn . Since n is even, we have ε3 . . . εn = ε3n−2 =
1. Therefore, it is enough to prove that the following intersections are empty:
(i) G+ (a1 ) ∩ G− (a2 ) ∩ G+ (a3 ) = ∅,

(ii)

(iii) G+ (a1 ) ∩ G− (a2 ) ∩ G− (a3 ) = ∅,

(iv)

G− (a1 ) ∩ G+ (a2 ) ∩ G+ (a3 ) = ∅,
G− (a1 ) ∩ G+ (a2 ) ∩ G− (a3 ) = ∅.

Assume that some µ ∈ F × belongs to the intersection (i) (respectively (iv)). The
two quaternion algebras (µ, a1 )F = (µ, a3 )F are split (respectively equal to Q),
while the third one is (µ, a2 )F = Q (respectively is split). In each case, we get that
√
Q = (µ, a2 a3 )F . This is impossible, since we assumed that F ( a2 a3 ) does not split
Q. Similarly, if µ belongs to the intersection (ii) or (iii), we get Q = (µ, a1 a3 )F ,
which again is impossible.

The following example provides an explicit quaternion algebra Q satisfying the
conditions of Proposition 3.9, hence examples of groups PGO+ (A, σ) of type 2 Dn
with n even, n ≥ 3, for which (Out 1) holds but not (Out 2).
Example 3.10. Consider a field k of characteristic 6= 2 such that −1 ∈ k ×2 . Assume k is the center of a quaternion division algebra (a1 , a2 )k , and let F = k(r, s, t)
where r, s, and t are independent indeterminates. Let Q = (a1 , a2 )F and a3 =
a1 r2 + a2 s2 + a1 a2 t2 ∈ F × . Clearly, Q is a quaternion division algebra containing pure quaternions q1 , q2 , q3 with qi2 = ai for i = 1, 2, 3. Since −1 ∈ F ×2 ,
√
the algebra Q = (a1 , a2 )F = (a1 , a1 a2 )F is split by F ( a1 a2 ). If Q is split by
√
F ( a1 a3 ), then a1 a3 is represented over F by the quadratic form ha1 , a2 , a1 a2 i,
hence (after scaling by a1 ) a3 is represented by h1, a2 , a1 a2 i over F . Because r,
s, t are indeterminates, Pfister’s subform theorem [8, Th. IX.2.8] shows that this
condition implies that ha1 , a2 , a1 a2 i ≃ h1, a2 , a1 a2 i over k, hence (by Witt’s cancellation theorem or by comparing discriminants) a1 ∈ k ×2 . This is impossible since
√
(a1 , a2 )k is a division algebra. Similarly, if Q is split by F ( a2 a3 ), then a2 a3 is
represented by ha1 , a2 , a1 a2 i over F , hence a3 is represented by h1, a1 , a1 a2 i over
F , and ha1 , a2 , a1 a2 i ≃ h1, a1 , a1 a2 i over k, a contradiction since a2 ∈
/ k ×2 . Hence,
the quaternion algebra Q satisfies the conditions of Proposition 3.9.

OUTER AUTOMORPHISMS OF CLASSICAL ALGEBRAIC GROUPS

17

3.3.2. Type 2 Dn , with n odd. We again use the orthogonal generic sums defined in
§3.2. More precisely, we have the following:
Proposition 3.11. Let Q be a quaternion division algebra. Assume Q contains
pure quaternions q1 , q2 , q3 with respective squares a1 , a2 , and a3 such that
√
(1) Q is split by F ( a1 a2 a3 );
(2) There is no µ ∈ F × such that Q = (a1 , µ)F = (a2 , µ)F = (a3 , µ)F .
b with n odd, n ≥ 3, defined as in PropoConsider the involution σ of A = Mn (Q),
sition 3.6, with q1 , q2 , q3 as above and q4 = · · · = qn = q3 . This involution admits
no square-central improper similitudes, yet Q is split by the discriminant quadratic
extension Z/F . Moreover, if in addition −1 ∈
/ NrdQ (Q× ), then σ has no improper
similitudes.
Proof. Since n is odd, σ has discriminant a1 a2 a3 . Therefore condition (1) guarantees that Q is split by the discriminant quadratic algebra Z. Moreover, arguing
as in the proof of Proposition 3.9, and taking into account the fact that n is now
odd, we get that σ has improper similitudes if and only if one of the following
intersections is nonempty:
(i)

G+ (a1 ) ∩ G+ (a2 ) ∩ G− (a3 ),

(ii)

G+ (a1 ) ∩ G− (a2 ) ∩ G+ (a3 ),

(iii) G− (a1 ) ∩ G+ (a2 ) ∩ G+ (a3 ),
(iv) G− (a1 ) ∩ G− (a2 ) ∩ G− (a3 ).
In addition, we know by Proposition 3.6 that σ has a square-central improper
similitude if and only if the fourth intersection is nonempty, or equivalently, if there
exists µ ∈ F × such that Q = (µ, ai )F for i = 1, 2, 3. This is impossible by
condition (2).
If the involution σ has an improper similitude, then one of the intersections
(i), (ii) or (iii) is nonempty. So assume for instance there exists µ ∈ F × such
that Q = (µ, a3 )F and (µ, a1 )F = (µ, a2 )F = 0. The first equation shows that there
exists a pure quaternion z such that µ = z 2 = − NrdQ (z). On the other hand, since
(µ, a1 )F = 0, there exists a quaternion z ′ ∈ F (q1 ) such that µ = NF (q1 )/F (z ′ ) =
NrdQ (z ′ ). Therefore, both µ and −µ are reduced norms, and it follows −1 also is
a reduced norm. This concludes the proof of the proposition.

Adapting a construction from [3] (see also [12, §10.2.2]), we now describe an explicit example of a quaternion algebra satisfying the conditions of Proposition 3.11,
and we use it to give examples of groups of type 2 Dn , with n odd, satisfying (Out 1)
and not (Out 2), or (Out 2) and not (Out 3).
Example 3.12. Let k be an arbitrary field of characteristic 0, and let F = k(a1 , a2 ),
where a1 and a2 are independent indeterminates. Consider the quaternion division
algebra Q = (a1 , a2 )F , and let

(3)
a3 = a1 (1 − a1 )2 (1 + a2 )2 − 4(1 − a1 )a2 .
The algebra Q satisfies the conditions (1) and (2) of Proposition 3.11.

Proof. It is clear that Q contains pure quaternions q1 , q2 with q12 = a1 and q22 = a2 .
Computation yields
(1 − a1 )2 (1 + a2 )2 − a−1
1 a3 = 4(1 − a1 )a2 ,

hence the quaternion algebra (a−1
1 a3 , (1 − a1 )a2 )F is split. Therefore,
(a3 , (1 − a1 )a2 )F ≃ (a1 , (1 − a1 )a2 )F ≃ Q,

18

ANNE QUÉGUINER-MATHIEU AND JEAN-PIERRE TIGNOL

and it follows that Q contains a pure quaternion q3 with q32 = a3 .
Another computation yields
(1 − a1 )2 (1 − a2 )2 − a−1
1 a3 = 4a1 (1 − a1 )a2 ,
hence the quaternion algebra (a−1
1 a3 , a1 (1 − a1 )a2 )F is split. Since we already
observed that (a−1
a
,
(1
−
a
)a
)F is split, it follows that (a−1
3
1
2
1
1 a3 , a1 )F is split,
hence
(4)

(a1 , a3 )F ≃ (a1 , a1 )F ≃ (a1 , −1)F .

We thus see that (a1 , −a3 )F is split, hence
Q ≃ (a1 , −a2 a3 )F ≃ (a1 , a1 a2 a3 )F .
√
Therefore, Q is split by F ( a1 a2 a3 ).
Suppose now that there exists some µ ∈ F × such that
(5)

Q = (a1 , µ)F = (a2 , µ)F = (a3 , µ)F .

To obtain a contradiction, we use valuation theory as in [12, §10.2.2]: since char k =
0, we may find on k a dyadic valuation v0 , with value group some ordered group Γ
and residue field k of characteristic 2. Consider the Gaussian extension v1 of v0 to
F , with value group Γ and residue field k(a1 , a2 ), and let v be the valuation on F
obtained by composing v1 with the (1 − a1 )-adic valuation on k(a1 , a2 ). The value
group of v is Z × Γ with the right-to-left lexicographic ordering, and the residue
√
field is k(a2 ). It is clear that v extends uniquely to F ( a2 ), and this extension
is unramified with a purely inseparable residue field extension. In [12, p. 509], it
√
√
is shown that v also extends uniquely to F ( a1 ) and F ( a1 a3 ), and that these
extensions are totally ramified.
Now, since Q ≃ (a2 , −a1 a2 )F and (5) holds, we see that −a1 a2 µ is a norm
√
√
from F ( a2 ). Because F ( a2 ) is an unramified extension of F , it follows that
×
v(−a1 a2 µ) ∈ 2v(F ). Scaling µ by the square of an element in F × , we may assume
v(−a1 a2 µ) = 0 and take the residue −a1 a2 µ = a2 µ ∈ k(a2 ). (We can omit the sign,
since k has characteristic 2.) Since Q ≃ (a1 , −a1 a2 )F , we also derive from (5) that
√
√
−a1 a2 µ is a norm from F ( a1 ). As F ( a1 ) is totally ramified over F , it follows that
×2

2

−a1 a2 µ ∈ F , hence a2 µ ∈ k (a22 ). But (5) also shows that (a1 a3 , µ)F is split,
√
hence µ is a norm from the totally ramified extension F ( a1 a3 ), and therefore
2

2

µ ∈ k (a22 ). We thus reach the conclusion that a2 ∈ k (a22 ), a contradiction.



Corollary 3.13. Let Q be the quaternion algebra of Example 3.12 and q1 , q2 ,
q3 ∈ Q be pure quaternions satisfying qi2 = ai for i = 1, 2, 3. Fix an odd integer
n ≥ 3 and consider as in Proposition 3.6
Fb = F ((t1 )) . . . ((tn )),

b = Q ⊗F Fb ,
Q

b
A = Mn (Q),

and σ the involution on A adjoint to the skew-hermitian form b
h = ht1 q1 , . . . , tn qn i
with q4 = · · · = qn = q3 . The group PGO+ (A, σ) satisfies (Out 1) but not (Out 3),
and it satisfies (Out 2) if and only if −1 ∈ k ×2 .
Therefore, depending on the base field k we started with, we get the required
examples.

OUTER AUTOMORPHISMS OF CLASSICAL ALGEBRAIC GROUPS

19

Proof. Proposition 3.11, together with Proposition 2.5, already shows that the
group PGO+ (A, σ) satisfies (Out 1) and not (Out 3), and that it does not satisfy (Out 2) if −1 ∈
/ NrdQ (Q× ). Therefore, it only remains to show that −1 is
not a reduced norm of Q if −1 ∈
/ k ×2 , and that σ admits improper similitudes if
×2
−1 ∈ k .
The first part is clear: the reduced norm of Q is the quadratic form
nQ ≃ h1, −a1 , −a2 , a1 a2 i

over F = k(a1 , a2 ). Since a1 and a2 are indeterminates, this quadratic form represents −1 if and only if −1 ∈ k ×2 .
Now, assume that −1 ∈ k ×2 . Since Q = (a1 , a2 )F , we have a1 ∈ G− (a2 ).
Moreover, because −1 ∈ k ×2 the quaternion algebras (a1 , a1 )F and (a1 , a3 )F are
split (see (4)), so a1 ∈ G+ (a1 ) ∩ G+ (a3 ). Therefore,
a1 ∈ G+ (a1 ) ∩ G− (a2 ) ∩ G+ (a3 ).

Proposition 3.6 then shows that σ admits improper similitudes.



Remark 3.14. As shown in [6, §15.D], the Clifford algebra construction defines an
equivalence of categories from the groupoid D3 (F ) to the groupoid A3 (F ). For
any central simple algebra A of degree 6 with orthogonal involution σ over a field
of characteristic different from 2, the Clifford algebra C(A, σ) has degree 4 and
carries a canonical unitary involution σ, and we have canonical isomorphisms (see
[6, (15.26), (15.27)])
Spin(A, σ) ≃ SU(C(A, σ), σ),

PGO+ (A, σ) ≃ PGU(C(A, σ), σ).

Therefore, Corollary 3.13 with n = 3 readily yields examples of groups of type 2 A3
that satisfy (Out 1) but not (Out 2), or (Out 2) but not (Out 3). In particular,
by Proposition 2.2, it also provides examples of unitary involutions that do not
have a descent. In view of Theorem 1.3, we know that the algebra C(A, σ) in these
examples is a division algebra of degree 4.
For use in §4.3, we still make a few observations on the square-central similitudes
of the skew-hermitian form of Corollary 3.13 in the particular case where n = 3,
i.e.,
b
h = ht1 q1 , t2 q2 , t3 q3 i
with q1 , q2 , q3 as in Example 3.12.
Lemma 3.15. Assume −1 ∈ k ×2 . Every square-central similitude g of b
h is proper
and satisfies
g 2 = µ(g) ∈ Fb ×2 .

Proof. Let g 2 = λ ∈ Fb × . We have λ2 = µ(g 2 ) = µ(g)2 , hence λ = ±µ(g). Scaling
g, we may assume by Theorem 3.4 that µ(g) ∈ F × , hence also λ ∈ F × . By
Proposition 3.5 we then have
g = g1 ⊕ g2 ⊕ g3
e

g 2 = g12 =
for some gi ∈ Sim(hi ) with µ(g) = µ(g1 ) = µ(g2 ) = µ(g3 ) and λ = e
2
2
g2 = g3 . By Example 3.12 and Proposition 3.11 the similitude g must be proper
since it is square-central. Therefore, the number of improper similitudes among g1 ,
g2 , g3 is even, so at least one of g1 , g2 , g3 is a proper similitude. If gi is proper,
then gi ∈ F (qi )× . Since gi is square-central, it follows that gi ∈ F × ∪ qi F × , hence

20

ANNE QUÉGUINER-MATHIEU AND JEAN-PIERRE TIGNOL

gi2 ∈ F ×2∪ ai F ×2 and µ(gi ) = NrdQ (gi ) ∈ F ×2 ∪ (−ai )F ×2 . If gi is improper, then
ai , µ(gi ) F ≃ Q: see Lemma 3.2. We now consider the various possibilities:

(1) If g1 is proper and g2 , g3 are improper: then µ(g) ∈ F ×2 ∪ (−a1 )F ×2 and
a2 , µ(g) F ≃ a3 , µ(g) F ≃ Q. Since −1 ∈ k ×2 , the quaternion algebra (a3 , −a1 )F
is split (see (4)) whereas Q is not split, so this case is impossible.

(2) If g2 is proper and g1 , g3 are improper: then µ(g) ∈ F ×2 ∪ (−a2 )F ×2 and
a1 , µ(g) F ≃ a3 , µ(g) F ≃ Q. Since Q is not split, we must have µ(g) ∈
(−a2 )F ×2 = a2 F ×2 , and we get (a1 , a2 )F = (a3 , a2 )F , hence (a1 a3 , a2 )F is split.
By definition of a3 (see (3)), this means that the quaternion algebra

(1 − a1 )((1 − a1 )(1 + a2 )2 − 4a2 ), a2 F
is split. This is a contradiction, since this quaternion algebra is ramified for the
(1 − a1 )-adic valuation.

(3) If g3 is proper and g1 , g2 are improper: this case is excluded just like the
previous two, because the quaternion algebra (a1 , a3 )F is split.

The only remaining case is when g1 , g2 , and g3 are proper, hence µ(gi ) ∈ F ×2 ∪
(−ai )F ×2 for each i. Since a1 , a2 , and a3 are in different square classes and µ(g1 ) =
µ(g2 ) = µ(g3 ), it follows that µ(gi ) ∈ F ×2 , hence gi ∈ F × for all i. Then λ = gi2 =
µ(gi ) for all i, hence g 2 = µ(g) ∈ F ×2 .

4. Outer automorphisms and similitudes: the unitary case
We now turn to the results concerning unitary groups. We already gave in
Remark 3.14 examples of groups of type 2 A3 satisfying (Out 1) but not (Out 2),
or satisfying (Out 2) but not (Out 3). The other examples we will provide are of
the form PGU(B, τ ) with B of index 2. Unitary involutions on algebras of index 2
are examined in detail in §4.1, and the examples are given in §4.3. They are based
on a generic construction of hermitian forms of unitary type which is discussed for
division algebras of arbitrary index in §4.2.
The characteristic is arbitrary in §4.1; it is assumed to be different from 2 in §4.2
and §4.3.
4.1. Similitudes for unitary hermitian forms over a quaternion algebra.
Let Q be a quaternion division algebra over a field K of arbitrary characteristic,
which is a quadratic separable extension of some subfield F . We write ι for the
nontrivial automorphism of K over F . Let (B, τ ) be an algebra with unitary involution Brauer-equivalent to Q. We have seen in § 2.1 that outer automorphisms of
PGU(B, τ ) are given by ι-semilinear automorphisms of (B, τ ). In this section, we
describe them explicitly in terms of the underlying hermitian space.
Let U be a finite-dimensional right Q-vector space such that B = EndQ U . By a
theorem of Albert [6, (2.22)], unitary involutions on B exist only if Q has a descent
to F . We fix a quaternion F -subalgebra Q0 ⊂ Q and identify Q = Q0 ⊗F K. Let
also U0 ⊂ U be a Q0 -subspace of U such that U = U0 ⊗F K. Thus, Q0 and U0 are
the fixed F -algebra and Q0 -subspace of the following ι-semilinear automorphisms
of Q and U :
ιQ = IdQ0 ⊗ι,

ιU = IdU0 ⊗ι.

OUTER AUTOMORPHISMS OF CLASSICAL ALGEBRAIC GROUPS

21

Similarly, EndQ0 U0 is the F -algebra fixed under the ι-semilinear automorphism of
EndQ U that maps f ∈ EndQ U to the endomorphism f ι defined by

f ι (x) = ιU f (ιU (x))
for all x ∈ U .
The canonical involution

on Q commutes with ιQ because for x ∈ Q

ιQ (x) = ιQ (TrdQ (x) − x) = TrdQ (ιQ (x)) − ιQ (x) = ιQ (x).

Let θ = ◦ ιQ , a unitary involution on Q which restricts to the canonical involution
on Q0 . The unitary involution τ on B = EndQ U is the adjoint involution τ = adh
for some nondegenerate hermitian form h : U × U → Q with respect to θ.
A conjugate hermitian form hι is defined on U by

hι (x, y) = ιQ h(ιU (x), ιU (y)) for x, y ∈ U .
It is readily verified that the adjoint involutions of h and hι are related as follows:
adhι (f )ι = adh (f ι )

(6)

for all f ∈ EndQ U .

We define a map g ∈ EndQ U to be a similitude (U, h) → (U, hι ) if there exists
µ ∈ F × such that

for all x, y ∈ U .
hι g(x), g(y) = µ h(x, y)

The factor µ is said to be the multiplier of g. We write µ(g) for the multiplier of
g, and Sim(U, h, hι ) or Sim(h, hι ) for the set of similitudes (U, h) → (U, hι ).
Proposition 4.1. Every ι-semilinear automorphism ϕ of the algebra with unitary
involution (B, τ ) has the form ϕ : f 7→ gf ι g −1 for some g ∈ Sim(U, h, hι ). This
automorphism ϕ has order 2 if and only if g g ι ∈ F × .
Proof. It follows from the Skolem–Noether theorem that every ι-semilinear automorphism ϕ of EndQ U has the form ϕ : f 7→ gf ι g −1 for some g ∈ EndQ U .
Equation (6) shows that ϕ commutes with adh if and only if Int(g) ◦ adhι =
adh ◦ Int(g). But Int(g −1 )◦adh ◦ Int(g) is the adjoint involution of the form (x, y) 7→
h(g(x), g(y)), so ϕ commutes with τ if and only if g is a similitude (U, h) → (U, hι ).
The last assertion follows by a straightforward computation.

Remark 4.2. For g ∈ Sim(U, h, hι ) we have g ι ∈ Sim(U, hι , h) with µ(g ι ) = µ(g),
hence for all x, y ∈ U


hι gg ι (x), gg ι (y) = µ(g)h g ι (x), g ι (y) = µ(g)2 hι (x, y).
Therefore, if gg ι = λ ∈ F × , then λ2 = µ(g)2 , hence λ = ±µ(g).

Of course, in the discussion above the choice of Q0 is arbitrary, and h is defined up
to a scalar factor. Multiplying h by some nonzero central element α such that ι(α) =
−α, we may assume h is skew-hermitian instead of hermitian. More generally, for
any q ∈ Q× such that θ(q) = −q, we may consider θ′ = Int(q) ◦ θ and set
h′ (x, y) = q h(x, y)

′

for x, y ∈ U .

Then h is a nondegenerate skew-hermitian form with respect to θ′ , and clearly
adh′ = adh . Let also ι′Q = Int(q) ◦ ιQ . The condition θQ (q) = −q yields ιQ (q) = −q,
hence qιQ (q) ∈ F × and therefore ι′Q is a ι-semilinear automorphism of Q of order 2.
Letting Q′0 denote the F -subalgebra of Q fixed under ι′Q , we have
Q = Q′0 ⊗F K

and

θ′ =

◦ ι′Q = ι′Q ◦ .

22

ANNE QUÉGUINER-MATHIEU AND JEAN-PIERRE TIGNOL

Here is one case where an appropriate choice of q may lead to a substantial
simplification:
Proposition 4.3. Let e1 , . . . , en be an orthogonal Q-base of (U, h), and let
h = hq1 , . . . , qn i
be the corresponding digonalization of h. If the K-span of the quaternions q1 , . . . ,
qn has dimension at most 3, then there is a quaternion q ∈ Q× such that the
skew-hermitian form h′ = qh over (Q, θ′ ) has a diagonalization
h′ = hqq1 , . . . , qqn i

with qqi ∈ Q′0 for i = 1, . . . , n. The skew-hermitian form h′ then restricts to a
nondegenerate skew-hermitian form h′0 (over (Q′0 , )) on the Q′0 -span U0′ of e1 , . . . ,
en , and we have
(B, τ ) = (EndQ U, adh ) = (EndQ′0 U0′ , adh′0 ) ⊗F (K, ι).
Proof. Let S ⊂ Q be the K-span of q1 , . . . , qn , and let S ⊥ ⊂ Q be the orthogonal
of S for the norm form on Q. Since NrdQ (q) = qq = qq for every q ∈ Q, we have
S ⊥ = {s ∈ Q | sqi + qi s = 0 for all i} = {s ∈ Q | sqi + qi s = 0 for all i}.

The K-space S ⊥ is stable under θ because θ(qi ) = qi for all i and θ commutes with
. If dim S ≤ 3, then dim S ⊥ ≥ 1, hence we may find q ∈ Q× such that q −1 ∈ S ⊥
and θ(q) = −q. (Take q = (s − θ(s))−1 for any s ∈ S ⊥ such that θ(s) 6= s; if no
such s exists we must have S ⊥ = {0} because θ is ι-semilinear.) Since θ(qi ) = qi
and θ(q) = −q we have qi = ιQ (qi ) and q = −ιQ (q), hence
ιQ (qi )q −1 = qi q −1 = −q −1 qi = ιQ (q)−1 qi

for i = 1, . . . , n.

Therefore,
ι′Q (qqi ) = qιQ (q)ι(qi )q −1 = qqi
We have thus shown qqi ∈

Q′0

for i = 1, . . . , n.

for i = 1, . . . , n; the other assertions readily follow.


The condition on the dimension of the K-span of q1 , . . . , qn is automatically satisfied if n ≤ 3. Therefore, Theorem 1.3 for B of index 2 follows from Proposition 4.3.
The case where B is split was already considered in Corollary 2.4.
Note that the proof does not require any hypothesis on the characteristic. (Of
course, skew-hermitian forms are hermitian in characteristic 2.)
4.2. Generic construction of hermitian forms of unitary type. In this section, we fix a central division algebra with involution of the first kind (D, ρ) over an
arbitrary field F of characteristic different from 2. Adjoining to F an indeterminate
t, we consider the fields of Laurent series
b = F ((t))
K

and

b
Fb = F ((t2 )) ⊂ K.

b and
We let ι denote the nontrivial Fb-automorphism of K
b ρb) = (D, ρ) ⊗F (K,
b ι).
(D,

b ρb) is a central division algebra over K
b with unitary involution. Over this
Thus, (D,
division algebra, we construct hermitian forms of a particular type, as follows: let
(V1 , h1 ) be a hermitian space over (D, ρ) and let (V2 , h2 ) be a skew-hermitian space

OUTER AUTOMORPHISMS OF CLASSICAL ALGEBRAIC GROUPS

23

b
over (D, ρ). Extending scalars, we obtain a hermitian form b
h1 on Vb1 = V1 ⊗F K
b (over (D,
b ρb)). We then set
and a skew-hermitian form b
h2 on Vb2 = V2 ⊗F K

b, b
(U
h) = (Vb1 ⊕ Vb2 , b
h1 ⊥ htib
h2 ).
b
Since ι(t) = −t and h2 is skew-hermitian, the form htib
h2 is hermitian, hence b
h is
b =D
b 0 ⊗ b K;
b
b over (D,
b ρb). Set D
b 0 = D ⊗F Fb; we have D
a hermitian form on U
F
b
b
hence, the algebra D has a descent. Define ιDb = IdD ⊗ι = IdDb 0 ⊗ι, and U0 =
b has a unique expression as a
(V1 ⊕ V2 ) ⊗F Fb , ιUb = IdUb0 ⊗ι. Every vector x ∈ U
P
P
i
series x = i xi ⊗ t with xi ∈ V1 ⊕ V2 for all i, and ιUb (x) = i xi ⊗ (−t)i . The
conjugate hermitian form b
hι is
b
(7)
hι = b
h1 ⊥ h−tib
h2 .

For the rest of this section, we assume h1 and h2 are anisotropic, hence b
h is
anisotropic. As in §3.2, we use the t-adic valuation to obtain information on the
b, b
set of similitudes Sim(U
h, b
hι ). More precisely, we prove:
b, b
Proposition 4.4. Let (U
h) be defined as above by b
h = b
h1 ⊥ htib
h2 , where h1
(respectively h2 ) is an anisotropic hermitian (respectively skew-hermitian) form over
b, b
b×
(D, ρ). Every similitude g ∈ Sim(U
h, b
hι ) has the form g = λg ′ for some λ ∈ K
′
ι
′
×
b
b
b
and some similitude g ∈ Sim(U , h, h ) with µ(g ) ∈ F . Moreover, on the graded
b ) associated to a suitable norm on U
b , the map g ′ induces a map ge′ of
module gr(U
′
the form ge = g1 ⊕ g2 for some similitudes g1 ∈ Sim(V1 , h1 ), g2 ∈ Sim(V2 , h2 ) with
µ(g ′ ) = µ(g1 ) = −µ(g2 ).

b We write again v for its extension to D
b
Proof. Let v be the t-adic valuation on K.
b by
and define a v-norm on U

b.
ν(x) = 21 v b
h(x, x)
for x ∈ U

Thus, we have ν(x1 ) ∈ Z for x1 ∈ Vb1 , ν(x2 ) ∈ 21 + Z for x2 ∈ Vb2 , and

ν(x1 + x2 ) = min ν(x1 ), ν(x2 ) ∈ 12 Z for x1 ∈ Vb1 and x2 ∈ Vb2 .


hι (x, x) , hence
h(x, x) = v b
In view of (7) it follows that v b

b.
(8)
ν(x) = 12 v b
hι (x, x)
for x ∈ U

b ) is defined as in §3.2. It carries a hermitian form e
The graded module gr(U
h and
we have
b ), e
b ), e
(gr(U
h) = (gr(Vb1 ), e
h1 ) ⊥ (gr(Vb2 ), e
h2 ),
(gr(U
hι ) = (gr(Vb1 ), e
h1 ) ⊥ (gr(Vb2 ), −e
h2 )
where the hermitian forms e
h1 , e
h2 are given by
e
e
h1 (x1 , y1 ) = h1 (x1 , y1 )
and
h2 (x2 , y2 ) = e
t h2 (x2 , y2 )

for x1 , y1 ∈ V1 and x2 , y2 ∈ V2 .

b, b
b, b
Now, suppose g : (U
h) → (U
hι ) is a similitude. From b
hι g(x), g(x) = µ(g)b
h(x, x)
it follows by (8) that


b.
ν g(x) = ν(x) + 21 v µ(g)
for x ∈ U

b ), e
b ), e
Therefore, g induces a similitude e
g : (gr(U
h) → (gr(U
hι ), which shifts the grad

1
1
b Therefore, gr(Vb1 )
ing by 2 v µ(g) . Note that 2 v µ(g) ∈ Z because µ(g) ∈ Fb ⊂ K.

24

ANNE QUÉGUINER-MATHIEU AND JEAN-PIERRE TIGNOL

and gr(Vb2 ) are invariant under ge. If µ(g) ∈ F × , the restriction of ge to V1 ⊂ gr(Vb1 )
(resp. to V2 ⊂ gr(Vb2 )) is a similitude g1 ∈ Sim(V1 , h1 ) (resp. g2 ∈ Sim(V2 , h2 )), and
we write (with a slight abuse of notation) ge = g1 ⊕ g2 .

b × such that
Since µ(g) ∈ Fb × we have v µ(g) ∈ 2Z hence there exists λ0 ∈ K


−1
×
v µ(g) = 2v(λ0 ). Then v µ(λ0 g) = 0 and we may find a ∈ F , m ∈ Fb × with
µ(λ−1
0 g) = a(1 + m) and v(m) > 0. Arguing as in the proof of the first assertion
of Theorem 3.4, we find λ1 ∈ Fb × such that λ21 = 1 + m, and set λ = λ0 λ1 . Then
b, b
g ′ = λ−1 g ∈ Sim(U
h, b
hι ) and µ(g ′ ) = a ∈ F × . The equation

e
b)
hι g ′ (x), g ′ (y) = a e
h(x, y)
for x, y ∈ gr(U
yields in particular

and


h1 g ′ (x1 ), g ′ (y1 ) = a h1 (x1 , y1 )


t h2 (x2 , y2 )
−e
t h2 g ′ (x2 ), g ′ (y2 ) = ae

for x1 , y1 ∈ V1
for x2 , y2 ∈ V2 .

Therefore, the restriction g1 of e
g to V1 is a similitude with µ(g1 ) = a, and the
restriction g2 of ge to V2 is a similitude with µ(g2 ) = −a.


Remark 4.5. It is readily verified that ι^
e for all x ∈ V1 ⊕ V2 . Therefore,
b (x) = x
U
gι = e
e
g if µ(g) ∈ F × .

4.3. Examples of groups of type 2 An . In this section, we use Example 3.12
together with the generic construction of §4.2 to build examples of unitary groups
for which (Out 1) holds and (Out 2) fails, or (Out 2) holds and (Out 3) fails.
Let n ≥ 7 be an odd integer. Write n = 5 + 2m, where m ≥ 1. We construct groups of type 2 An as unitary groups of hermitian forms of dimension 3 + m
over a quaternion division algebra with unitary involution. Since the index of the
endomorphism algebra is 2, these groups satisfy (Out 1).
Adjoining independent indeterminates to an arbitrary field k of characteristic 0,
we form the field
F = k(a1 , a2 , x1 , . . . , xm )((t1 ))((t2 ))((t3 ))
and the quaternion algebra
Q = (a1 , a2 )F
with its conjugation involution . Let a3 ∈ F be defined by Equation (3). Recall
from Example 3.12 that Q contains pure quaternions q1 , q2 , q3 with qi2 = ai for
i = 1, 2, 3. Adjoining to F another indeterminate t, form
b = F ((t)),
K

b
Fb = F ((t2 )) ⊂ K,

b
b = Q ⊗F K.
Q

b Consider the unitary involution
Let ι be the nontrivial Fb -automorphism of K.
b
b ρb):
ρb = ⊗ ι on Q and the following hermitian form over (Q,
b
h = hx1 , . . . , xm i ⊥ htiht1 q1 , t2 q2 , t3 q3 i.

b
Let τ = adbh be its adjoint involution on B = Mm+3 (Q).

Proposition 4.6. The algebra with involution (B, τ ) does not admit any ι-semilinear
automorphism of order 2. It admits ι-semilinear automorphisms if and only if
−1 ∈ k ×2 .

OUTER AUTOMORPHISMS OF CLASSICAL ALGEBRAIC GROUPS

25

In view of Proposition 2.1, this provides a group PGU(B, τ ) which does not
satisfy (Out 3), and satisfies (Out 2) if and only if −1 ∈ k ×2 .
Proof. Proposition 4.1 translates the conditions on semilinear automorphisms of
(B, τ ) into conditions on similitudes of b
h. Thus, we have to show that there are no
similitudes g ∈ Sim(b
h, b
hι ) such that gg ι ∈ Fb, and that Sim(b
h, b
hι ) is nonempty if
×2
and only if −1 ∈ k .
Note that the form b
h is obtained by the generic construction of §4.2, with (D, ρ) =
(Q, ) and
h1 = hx1 , . . . , xm i,
h2 = ht1 q1 , t2 q2 , t3 q3 i.

Suppose first −1 ∈
/ k ×2 and g ∈ Sim(b
h, b
hι ). By Proposition 4.4 we may assume
×
µ(g) ∈ F , hence e
g = g1 ⊕ g2 for some similitudes g1 ∈ Sim(h1 ), g2 ∈ Sim(h2 ) with
µ(g1 ) = −µ(g2 ). Since by Corollary 3.13 h2 does not admit improper similitudes,
the similitude g2 must be proper, hence by [6, (13.38)] µ(g2 ) is a norm from the
√
discriminant extension, which is F ( a1 a2 a3 ). As this extension splits Q, it follows
that µ(g2 ) is a reduced norm of Q, hence
(9)

hµ(g2 )ih1, −a1 , −a2 , a1 a2 i ≃ h1, −a1 , −a2 , a1 a2 i.

On the other hand, since g1 is a similitude of h1 with multiplier −µ(g2 ), we have
h−µ(g2 )ih1 ≃ h1 .
It follows that −µ(g2 ) is also the multiplier of a similitude of the “trace” quadratic
form ϕ(x) = h1 (x, x), which is
ϕ ≃ h1, −a1 , −a2 , a1 a2 ihx1 , . . . , xm i.
Taking into account (9), we see that
h−1ih1, −a1 , −a2 , a1 a2 ihx1 , . . . , xm i ≃ h1, −a1 , −a2 , a1 a2 ihx1 , . . . , xm i.
This is impossible because −1 ∈
/ k ×2 and a1 , a2 , x1 , . . . , xm are indeterminates.
Therefore, Sim(b
h, b
hι ) = ∅ if −1 ∈
/ k ×2 .
×2
Suppose next −1 ∈ k . Then b
h=b
h1 ⊥ htib
h2 is clearly isometric to b
hι = b
h1 ⊥
ι
ι
b
b
b
b
b
h−tih2 , hence Sim(h, h ) is not empty. Assume g ∈ Sim(h, h ) satisfies gg ι = λ ∈
Fb × . As above, we may scale g and assume µ(g) ∈ F × , hence also λ ∈ F × since
λ = ±µ(g) by Remark 4.2. By Proposition 4.4 we have
g = g1 ⊕ g2
e

for some g1 ∈ Sim(h1 ), g2 ∈ Sim(h2 ) with µ(g) = µ(g1 ) = −µ(g2 ). By Remark 4.5,
the equation gg ι = λ yields e
g 2 = λ, hence we also have g12 = g22 = λ. Now, by
Lemma 3.15 the similitude g2 must be proper and satisfy g22 = µ(g2 ) ∈ F ×2 since
it is square-central. Scaling again, we may assume
µ(g) = µ(g1 ) = −µ(g2 ) = −1 and ge2 = g12 = g22 = 1.

The following lemma shows that h1 does not have any similitude g1 such that
g12 = −µ(g1 ) = 1, hence the existence of g leads to a contradiction and the proof of
Proposition 4.6 is complete:
Lemma 4.7. There is no similitude g ∈ Sim(h1 ) such that g 2 = −µ(g) = 1.

26

ANNE QUÉGUINER-MATHIEU AND JEAN-PIERRE TIGNOL

Proof. Extending scalars to k(a1 , a2 )((x1 )) . . . ((xm ))((t1 ))((t2 ))((t3 )), we may regard h1 as a generic orthogonal sum of m times the hermitian form h1i over the
quaternion algebra H = (a1 , a2 )k(a1 ,a2 ) , and use the results of §3.2. If g ∈ Sim(h1 )
is such that g 2 = −µ(g) = 1, then by Lemma 3.5 we have
g = g1 ⊕ · · · ⊕ gm
e

for some gi ∈ Sim(h1i) = Sim(H, ) with gi2 = −µ(gi ) = 1. Each gi is a pure
quaternion because gi2 = −µ(gi ), and H does not contain any pure quaternion with
square 1 because it is not split. We thus obtain a contradiction.

Appendix: Trialitarian groups
Let G be an algebraic group scheme of adjoint type D4 over an arbitrary field
F . Via the ∗-action of the absolute Galois group of F on the Dynkin diagram ∆ of
G (see [11, §15.5]) we may associate to G a cubic étale F -algebra L such that
Aut(∆) = AutF (L).

If g is the index of the kernel of the Galois action, the type of G is denoted by g D4 .
Thus, if G is of type 6 D4 , then L is a noncyclic separable cubic field extension of F ,
so AutF (L) = {Id} and G does not have any outer automorphism defined over F .
If G is of type 2 D4 , then L ≃ F × Z for some separable quadratic field extension
Z of F , and G ≃ PGO+ (A, σ, f ) for some quadratic pair (σ, f ) with discriminant
Z over a central simple F -algebra A of degree 8: see [11, §17.3.13]. This case has
been discussed in §3. For the rest of this appendix, we focus on types 1 D4 and 3 D4 .
Type 1 D4 . In this case L ≃ F × F × F , hence Aut(∆) is the symmetric group S3 ,
and G may have outer automorphisms of order 2 or 3.
Proposition 4.8. Let G be an algebraic group scheme of adjoint type 1 D4 . For
every nontrivial subgroup H ⊂ Aut(∆), the following conditions are equivalent:
(1) every element in H fixes the Tits class tG ;
(2) H is contained in the image of the canonical map Aut(G) → Aut(∆);
(3) there is a subgroup H ′ ⊂ Aut(G) isomorphic to H under the canonical map
Aut(G) → Aut(∆).
When |H| = 2 the conditions above hold if and only if G = PGO+ (q) for some
8-dimensional quadratic form q with trivial discriminant. When |H| = 3 or 6, they
hold if and only if G = PGO+ (q) for some 3-fold quadratic Pfister form q.
Note that the conditions (1), (2), (3) are analogues of (Out 1), (Out 2), and
(Out 3) respectively.
Proof. The implications (3) ⇒ (2) ⇒ (1) are clear, hence it suffices to prove
(1) ⇒ (3). Choose a representation G ≃ PGO+ (A, σ, f ) for some central simple algebra A of degree 8 with a quadratic pair (σ, f ) of trivial discriminant. If H contains
an element α of order 2, we may choose the representation of G in such a way that
the action of α on the Tits algebras interchanges the two components C± (A, σ, f )
of C(A, σ, f ), see [6, (42.3)]. Then (1) implies C+ (A, σ, f ) ≃ C− (A, σ, f ). Similarly,
any element of order 3 in H permutes A, C+ (A, σ, f ), and C− (A, σ, f ). Thus, in
each case we have C+ (A, σ, f ) ≃ C− (A, σ, f ) if (1) holds. Using the fundamental relations between A and C(A, σ, f ) in [6, (9.12)], we get that A is split if (1)
holds for any nontrivial H, and we may then represent G as PGO+ (q) for some

OUTER AUTOMORPHISMS OF CLASSICAL ALGEBRAIC GROUPS

27

8-dimensional quadratic form q of trivial discriminant. Since every quadratic space
admits square-central improper isometries, as pointed out in Remark 2.7, condition
(3) holds if |H| = 2. The proof is thus complete in this case.
If |H| = 3 or 6, the preceding arguments show that C+ (A, σ, f ) and C− (A, σ, f )
are isomorphic to A when (1) holds, hence they are also split; this means that by
scaling q we may assume q is a 3-fold Pfister form. Now, for any 3-fold Pfister form q
we may choose a para-Cayley algebra with norm form q, and use the multiplication
in the algebra to define outer automorphisms of PGO+ (q) of order 3, see [6, (35.9)].
Using in addition the conjugation in the para-Cayley algebra, we may also define a
subgroup of Aut(G)(F ) isomorphic to S3 , see [6, (35.15)].

Type 3 D4 . In this case L is a cyclic cubic field extension of F , hence AutF (L) ≃
Z/3Z. We may then again consider the conditions (Out 1), (Out 2), and (Out 3),
with the following slight modification: in (Out 3), the outer automorphism has
order 3 instead of 2. If char F 6= 2, the group G can be represented in the form
G = PGO+ (T ) for some trialitarian algebra1 T , see [6, (44.8)]. The Allen invariant
of G is a central simple L-algebra of degree 8.
Proposition 4.9. For G = PGO+ (T ) of type 3 D4 , conditions (Out 1) and (Out 2)
are equivalent; they hold if and only if the Allen invariant of T is split. Condition (Out 3) holds if and only if T is the endomorphism algebra of a cyclic composition induced by a symmetric composition over F .
The first assertion is the main Theorem A in Garibaldi–Petersson [5]. The second
assertion is proved in [7, Theorem 4.3].
As a result of this proposition, it is easy to find examples of groups of type 3 D4
for which (Out 1) and (Out 2) hold while (Out 3) fails: see [7, Remark 2.1].
References
[1] I.Dejaiffe, Somme orthogonale d’algèbres à involution et algèbre de Clifford, Comm. Algebra
26 (1998), no. 5, 1589–1612.
[2] Michel Demazure and Alexander Grothendieck. Schémas en groupes (SGA 3). Tome III.
Documents Mathématiques (Paris), 8, Soc. Math. France, Paris, 2011. Revised and annotated
edition of the 1970 original, edited by Philippe Gille and Patrick Polo.
[3] R. Elman et al., Witt rings and Brauer groups under multiquadratic extensions. I, Amer. J.
Math. 105 (1983), no. 5, 1119–1170.
[4] S. Garibaldi, Outer automorphisms of algebraic groups and determining groups by their
maximal tori, Michigan Math. J. 61 (2012), no. 2, 227–237.
[5] S. Garibaldi, H. Petersson, Outer automorphisms of algebraic groups and a Skolem–Noether
theorem for Albert algebras, Doc. Math. 21 (2016) 917–954.
[6] M.-A. Knus et al., The book of involutions, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 1998.
[7] M.-A. Knus and J.-P. Tignol, Triality and algebraic groups of type 3 D4 , Doc. Math. 2015,
Extra vol.: Alexander S. Merkurjev’s sixtieth birthday, 387–405.
[8] T. Y. Lam, Introduction to quadratic forms over fields, Graduate Studies in Mathematics,
67, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2005.
[9] J.-F. Renard, J.-P. Tignol, A.R. Wadsworth, Graded Hermitian forms and Springer’s theorem,
Indag. Math., N.S. 18 (2007), 97–134.
[10] W. Scharlau, Klassifikation hermitescher Formen über lokalen Körpern, Math. Ann. 186
(1970) 201–208.
[11] T. A. Springer, Linear algebraic groups, second edition, Progress in Mathematics, 9,
Birkhäuser Boston, Boston, MA, 1998.
1Trialitarian algebras are not defined in characteristic 2.

28

ANNE QUÉGUINER-MATHIEU AND JEAN-PIERRE TIGNOL

[12] J.-P. Tignol and A.R. Wadsworth, Value functions on simple algebras, and associated graded
rings, Springer Monographs in Math., Springer International Pub. Switzerland, 2015.
Université Paris 13, Sorbonne Paris Cité, LAGA - CNRS (UMR 7539), F-93430 Villetaneuse, France
E-mail address: queguin@math.univ-paris13.fr
ICTEAM Institute, Box L4.05.01, Université catholique de Louvain, B-1348 Louvainla-Neuve, Belgium
E-mail address: jean-pierre.tignol@uclouvain.be

