text:
# Future Probes of the Primordial Scalar and Tensor Perturbation Spectra: Prospects from the CMB, Cosmic Shear and High-Volume Redshift Surveys

## I Introduction

Inflation is doing remarkably well with respect to observations. The evidence that structure in the Universe formed from adiabatic, nearly scale-invariant fluctuations is very strong bennett03 . The mean spatial curvature has been determined with high accuracy and is consistent with zero (spergel03, ). The perturbations are highly Gaussian komatsu03 . These are all predictions of inflation, of varying degrees of robustness. Topological defect models, formerly inflation’s chief competition, have been strongly ruled out (e.g., knox00 ).

Despite this great success we still have little understanding of the physics that led to these initial perturbation spectra. There are many different models of inflation. As Michael Turner said in his talk at this meeting, we have a Landau-Ginzburg theory, but we are missing the underlying BCS theory.

To discriminate among inflationary models, to assist in the quest for a BCS theory of inflation, and perhaps to discriminate between inflation and alternatives (such as we heard from Steinhardt and from Durrer), we want to take the determination of the primordial tensor and scalar perturbation spectra to a qualitatively new level of precision. This point was also emphasized in Albrecht’s talk.

I will first briefly review the current constraints on the scalar perturbation spectra before turning to the future. The discussion of future experiments will start with the constraints on the tensor perturbation spectra from CMB experiments. We will then look at how current CMB data can be complimented either with higher–resolution CMB data and/or tomographic cosmic shear. Finally, I consider results that can in principle be achieved by very high-volume spectroscopic redshift surveys.

## II Non-zero running?

A question of great relevance to inflationary models is the significance of evidence for running of the spectral index. The evidence from CMB data alone is very weak: $`n_S^{}dn_s/d\mathrm{ln}k=0.055\pm 0.038`$ spergel03 . Combining CMB data with the Croft et al. matter power spectrum inferred from high–resolution observations of the Lyα forest results in $`n_S^{}=0.031\pm 0.017`$ spergel03 . Other authors seljak03  working with the same datasets have since found much looser constraints on $`n_S^{}`$. The looser bound on $`n_S^{}`$ is due to their marginalization over the mean ionizing flux as a function of redshift. The importance of marginalizing over this parameter, which leads to a large degeneracy between spectral index and amplitude, was pointed out in zaldarriaga01 .

We had much discussion at this meeting about constraints from combining CMB data with low–resolution spectra from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS), as presented by Hui and by Seljak. Although lower resolution, there are thousands of these spectra allowing for very small statistical errors. Possible systematic errors have not yet been understood and controlled well enough to allow for any firm detections of $`n_S^{}0`$.

To summmarize the current situation: there is no strong evidence for $`n_S^{}0`$, but very interesting results may be coming soon from SDSS quasar spectra combined with WMAP.

## III CMB and Tensor Perturbations

One can decompose a polarization pattern on the sky into curl–free modes (E modes) and divergence–free modes (B modes) kamionkowski97 ; seljak97 . Each scalar three-dimensional Fourier mode only has one direction, that given by the wavevector $`𝐤`$, and therefore only leads to E modes. Tensor Fourier modes (gravitational waves) have the direction given by $`𝐤`$ and also an orientation given by the polarization of the gravitational wave. They can therefore generate B modes in addition to E modes. Since, at least in linear perturbation theory, scalar perturbations do not generate B modes, whereas tensor perturbations do, the B mode has been proposed as a means to detect the tensor perturbations.

At second order in perturbation theory we cannot solve for just one Fourier mode at a time and then sum up the resulting solutions; the evolution of one Fourier mode is affected by the presence of others. This mode-mode coupling leads to the generation of B modes even from scalar perturbations zaldarriaga98 . The dominant second order effect is gravitational lensing. The lensing–induced B modes can obscure the gravitational wave contribution to the B modes. If the lensing–induced B modes are not cleaned from the B-mode map, one can only detect the tensor signal (at $`3\sigma `$) if $`r>r_{\mathrm{lim}}=1.7\times 10^4,7\times 10^5`$ or, $`2.4\times 10^5`$ for $`\tau =0.05,0.1`$ or 0.2 respectively.

Gravitational lensing leads to off-diagonal correlations in Fourier space bernardeau97 ; zaldarriaga00a ; okamoto02 ; cooray03 . These can be used to reconstruct the lensing potential hu01c ; hu02b  . With the lensing potential thus reconstructed, the maps can be unlensed. A perfectly unlensed map would have no scalar B modes in it. Unavoidable imperfections in the lensing potential reconstruction mean the unlensed map will have some residual B mode, even in the absence of tensor perturbations. These residual B modes prevent detection of gravity waves unless $`r>r_{\mathrm{lim}}=1.4\times 10^5,6\times 10^6`$ or $`2\times 10^6`$ for $`\tau =0.05,0.1`$ or 0.2. These limit calculations were first done by knox02  and kesden02 .

As shown in111Y.-S. Song & L. Knox, in preparation, if $`r\begin{array}{c}>\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}0.01`$ then we can learn something about the shape of the tensor B mode power spectrum. The possible constraints on $`n_T`$ as a function of $`r`$ are shown in Fig. 1.

Tensor spectra from inflationary models with a single field in slow roll obey the ‘consistency equation’, $`r=5n_T`$ lidsey97 . Note that, more generally, $`r=f(\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda })n_T`$ and that $`f(0)7`$ and $`f(0.7)5`$ knox95 ; turner95 . From the figure we can see that for $`r\begin{array}{c}>\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}0.03`$ we can make a significant test of the consistency relation. The consistency equation applies for all single-field models to first order in the slow roll parameters.

## IV CMB and Scalar Perturbations

Constraints to the scalar perturbation spectra can be improved by pushing to higher angular resolution than the $`13`$’ of the WMAP’s highest frequency channel. It can not be improved arbitraily though because of the exponential suppression of power that sets in at the Silk damping scale, due to photon diffusion during recombination. High sensitivity can to some degree fight against this exponential cutoff, but not to indefinitely high $`\mathrm{}`$.

Here we show results expected for three different experiments (with parameters specified in Table I for the amplitude of the primordial gravitational potential power spectrum, $`P_\mathrm{\Phi }^i(k_f)`$, $`n_S`$, and $`n_S^{}`$ where

$$\mathrm{ln}[P_\mathrm{\Phi }^i(k)]=\mathrm{ln}[P_\mathrm{\Phi }^i(k_f)]+\left(n_S(k_f)3\right)\mathrm{ln}(k/k_f)+n_S^{}[\mathrm{ln}(k/k_f)]^2.$$
(1)
We also include the expected constraints on $`w`$ and $`m_\nu `$. The errors in Table II are what would result from a simultaneous fit to these parameters plus $`\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^2`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_mh^2`$, $`\theta _s`$ (the angular size of the sound horizon), the Helium mass fraction and $`\tau `$. We assume the mean spatial curvature is zero. See kaplinghat03b  for more details.

Are these highly precise measurements of $`n_S`$ and $`n_S^{}`$ valuable? The difference $`n_S1`$ is first order in the slow-roll parameters and $`n_S^{}`$ is second order. Thus we expect $`|n_S^{}|`$ to be on the order of $`(n_S1)^2`$. If $`n_S1`$ = 0.03, which is perfectly consistent with present data, then we would expect to see non-zero $`n_S^{}`$ at about the $`10^3`$ level. It would be tremendously exciting to actually confirm this expectation. Note though that there are models with $`|n_S^{}|n_S1`$ dodelson02  so this is not a firm test. Nevertheless, finding $`\sigma (n_S^{})>>n_S1`$ would be difficult to reconcile with inflation gold03 .

## V CMB+Cosmic Shear

Adding cosmic shear to CMB data can improve constraints of cosmological parameters, as was studied in the first CMB+cosmic shear forecasting paper hu99a . A number of other studies have followed, extending to use of photometric redshifts to allow tomography hu99b  and to examine constraints possible on $`w_x`$ in addition to the neutrino mass hu02d ; abazajian02 ; heavens03 . Here we focus on errors on $`n_S`$ and $`n_S^{}`$, though also make some comments about constraints possible on $`m_\nu `$ and $`w_x`$.

The shapes of galaxies are distorted by gravitational lensing. If we knew the shapes of the galaxies in the absence of lensing we could then infer the lensing convergence, $`\kappa `$, from the lens–induced alteration of the shape. Although we have no way of knowing the unlensed shape of an individual galaxy, we expect that an average over a large number of galaxy images would be perfectly cylindrical. The average departure from a completely cylindrical shape can thus be used as a measure of the amount of lensing. From proper analysis of the average galaxy shape in some pixel, the lensing convergence, $`\kappa `$, can be recovered.

We model the data $`\kappa `$ (the convergence vector with index running over $`l`$, $`m`$ and redshift bin $`z`$) as a Gaussian random field with zero mean and contributions to the total variance from both signal and noise:

$$\kappa \kappa ^{}=𝐒+𝐍.$$
(2)
The signal covariance has the structure

$$S_{lmz,l^{}m^{}z^{}}=C_l^{zz^{}}\delta _{ll^{}}\delta _{mm^{}}$$
(3)
and the noise covariance is entirely diagonal:

$$N_{lmz,l^{}m^{}z^{}}=N_l^z\delta _{ll^{}}\delta _{mm^{}}\delta _{zz^{}}.$$
(4)
The average ellipticity of galaxies, $`\gamma _{rms}`$, leads to an error in the estimated real-space convergence map with variance $`\gamma _{\mathrm{rms}}^2/N_z^{\mathrm{pix}}`$ where $`N_z^{\mathrm{pix}}`$ is the mean number of galaxies in each pixel in redshift bin $`z`$. This error is uncorrelated from pixel to pixel and from redshift bin to redshift bin. It leads to an error in the Fourier–transformed convergence with variance kaiser92

$$N_l^z=\gamma _{\mathrm{rms}}^2\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{pix}}/N_z^{\mathrm{pix}}.$$
(5)
For specificity we take $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{pix}}=11`$ sq. arcmin and $`\gamma _{\mathrm{rms}}=0.2`$. The mean number of galaxies in each pixel we take to be

$$N_z^{\mathrm{pix}}=14.2z^{1.1}\mathrm{exp}[(z/1.2)^{1.2}]$$
(6)
for $`\mathrm{\Delta }z=0.4`$. This is a fit to the extrapolation from Nagashima et al. 2002 assuming a limiting magnitude in R of 26 (Tony Tyson, private communication). We also assume that half of these galaxies in the $`1.2<z<2.5`$ range we will not be able to use because we will not be able to get sufficiently accurate photometric redshifts.

As the pixel size increases, the number of galaxies increases and the statistical error drops (equivalently, in Fourier space, $`l^2N_l`$ increases with $`l`$ since $`N_l`$ is constant). We do not expect any observations to keep the systematic errors smaller than $`10^4`$ on scales above 10’. With our modeling of the statistical errors, the rms statistical error on the shear drops below $`10^4`$ on scales of 5 degrees. For this reason, we quote our results without $`l<l_c`$ where $`l_c=180/5=36`$.

The auto- and cross- angular power spectra for the convergence, $`C_l^{zz^{}}`$, are given by (e.g., hu02a )

$$C_l^{zz^{}}=\frac{\pi ^2l}{2}𝑑rrW^z(r)W^z^{}(r)\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{\Phi }^2(k,r)$$
(7)
with $`l=kr`$ and

$$W^z(r)=\frac{1}{\overline{n}_i}\frac{2}{r}_{r(z_{i1})}^{r(z_{i2})}𝑑r^{}\frac{(r^{}r)}{r^{}}N_i(z^{})𝑑z^{}/𝑑r^{}\mathrm{\Theta }(r^{}r)$$
(8)
where $`z_{i1}=z_i\mathrm{\Delta }z/2`$, $`z_{i2}=z_i+\mathrm{\Delta }z/2`$ and $`n_i`$ is

$$\overline{n}_i=_{r(z_{i1})}^{r(z_{i2})}𝑑r^{}N_i(z^{})𝑑z^{}/𝑑r^{}$$
(9)
and we have assumed that the galaxies are evenly distributed through the redshift bin.

In addition to the convergence, $`\kappa `$, there are also the lensing potential, $`\varphi `$ and the deflection angle $`𝐝`$. They are related in real space by $`𝐝=\varphi `$ and $`\kappa =^2\varphi /2`$. Their power spectra are related by

$$2C_l^{\kappa (z)\kappa (z^{})}/\pi =l(l+1)C_l^{d(\varphi )d(\varphi )}/(2\pi )=l^2(l+1)^2C_l^{\varphi (z)\varphi (z^{})}/(2\pi )$$
(10)
In Fig. 2 we see the convergence power spectra for four redshift slices: $`z=0.6`$, $`z=1`$, $`z=2.2`$ and $`z=1100`$. Errors on $`z=1100`$ are those expected from Planck. Errors on the others are those expected from the 30,000 sq. degree LSST survey described above with bins in redshift of width $`\mathrm{\Delta }z=0.4`$. The convergence rises monotonically with redshift since the lensing contribution from each redshift interval adds incoherently to that of the previous redshift interval.

In Fig. 3 we plot the correlation, $`r_l^{zz^{}}C_l^{zz^{}}/\sqrt{C_l^{zz}C_l^{z^{}z^{}}}`$, for $`z=0.6,1`$ and 2.2 with $`z^{}`$ fixed to 1100. The correlation increases with increasing redshift as the window functions become better matched. In other words, the correlation rises with increasing redshift since as $`z`$ goes towards 1100 a greater fraction of the lensing structures is common to both.

By differencing the auto power spectra with appropriate weightings one can isolate how much lensing power is coming from each redshift range, and therefore the power spectrum of the matter in each redshift range. To forecast errors on the parameters that govern the matter power spectrum, we need not do this differencing. Our statistical model of the data is completely specified by the auto and cross–power spectra and we need only understand our errors on these and how they vary as we vary the model parameters.

To forecast errors we calculate the Fisher matrix

$`F_{pp^{}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{Tr}\left[𝐒_{,p}\mathrm{𝐖𝐒}_{,p^{}}𝐖\right]`$ (11)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{l,z1,z2,z3,z4}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{2l+1}{2}}C_{l,p}^{z1,z2}W_l^{z2,z3}C_{l,p^{}}^{z3,z4}W_l^{z4,z1}`$ (12)
where the subscript $`,p`$ means differentiation with respect to parameter $`a_p`$ and

$$𝐖(𝐒+𝐍)^1.$$
(13)
The inversion of $`𝐖`$ is numerically tractable because of its block–diagonal structure:

$$W_{lmz,l^{}m^{}z^{}}=W_l^{zz^{}}\delta _{mm^{}}\delta _{zz^{}}.$$
(14)
Since photometric redshifts are completely unproven for $`z>3`$ we make no use of galaxies at $`z>3`$. To reduce sensitivity to the non-linear evolution which we may not have modeled well enough we restrict ourselves to $`l<1000`$. Results are shown in Table III.

There is not much to be gained by going deeper, at least with our $`z`$-independent $`l`$ cutoff at $`l=1000`$. The reason is that the number density of galaxies is high enough in each redshift bin that the $`C_l`$ measurements are sample-variance limited for $`l<1000`$. For the lower redshift bins there is not much to be gained by going to higher $`l`$ because that puts us into the fully non-linear regime which has little to no shape information. Also in the non-linear regime our formalism for forecasting the uncertainty breaks down. But for higher redshift bins one can in principle push to higher $`l`$ and gain by it. The $`l`$ that divides linear from non-linear is higher at high redshift for two reasons: 1)a given $`k`$ projects into a higher $`l`$, and 2) the linear to non-linear transition is at higher $`k`$. In principle our $`l`$ cutoff should be $`z`$-dependent but we use an $`l`$-independent one for simplicity.

There is also not much to be gained by going to higher redshift. There are two reasons for this. First, the angular diameter distance does not change very much over this range of redshift so we are not probing significantly different spatial scales. And second, we are already close to the sample variance limit so the noise reduction due to the extra galaxies is not useful. Again, this conclusion could change if we allowed a $`z`$-dependent $`l`$ cutoff that followed the linear/non-linear transition.

In addition to the precision determination of the primordial perturbation spectrum, we can also measure the dark energy equation-of-state parameter $`w_x`$ and the neutrino mass to extraordinary precision. With data that can measure $`w_x`$ to 0.02 we could clearly also place strong constraints on its evolution. Note, however, that $`m_\nu `$ is no better determined than it can be by the CMB alone (see Table II) with CMBpol.

In the first cosmic shear + CMB forecasting papers, hu99a  and hu99b , it was shown that combining Planck and all-sky cosmic shear could achieve neutrino mass errors of 0.04 eV without tomography and 0.02 eV with tomography, with $`w_x`$ fixed to $`1`$. We find similar results when we fix $`w_x`$ to -1. More recently hu02d , abazajian02  and heavens03  also studied constraints on neutrino mass and/or $`w_x`$ that can come from tomographic cosmic shear surveys. These studies are done with all other cosmological parameters held fixed. The justification is that these parameters will be determined by CMB observations. We find, however, that the remaining uncertainties in cosmological parameters, even given the expected CMB data, are significant. This remaining uncertainty greatly increases errors on $`m_\nu `$ in particular, and to a lesser degree on $`w_x`$.

It may not be possible to control systematic errors at the requisite levels on large angular scales. We coarsely simulate the effect of systematic errors on large angular scales by imposing a low $`l`$ cutoff at $`l=36`$; i.e., we throw out all cosmic shear information at $`l<36`$ (though we keep the CMB–determined convergence map all the way down to $`l=2`$). The resulting error increase from this cut is small. Most of the weight is coming from higher $`l`$. Although we need full sky to get these exquisitely small errors, we only need full sky to beat down sample variance, not to accurately determine flucutation power on large angular scales.

## VI CMB + High-volume redshift surveys

The errors on $`n_S^{}`$ from WMAP+LSST or from higher–resolution CMB observations, are just at the level of $`(n_S1)^2`$ if $`n_S0.95`$. These experiments may very well leave us only with tantalizing one or two $`\sigma `$ determinations of $`n_S^{}`$. We may want to do better.

Better CMB experiments will not do it. Better tomographic cosmic shear experiments probably will not do it. We can understand why with a simple expression for the error on a power-spectral index, $`n`$, given errors on the power $`P_1`$ and $`P_2`$ at two different scales, $`k_1`$ and $`k_2`$:

$$\sigma ^2(n)=\frac{\sigma ^2(\mathrm{ln}P_1)+\sigma ^2(\mathrm{ln}P_2)}{[\mathrm{ln}(k_2/k_1)]^2}.$$
(15)
First note that gaining dynamic range (increasing $`k_2/k_1`$) only reduces the error on $`n`$ logarithmically. Extending dynamic range is not a way to dramatically improve the constraints on $`n`$. The only way to dramatically reduce $`\sigma (n)`$ is to make better measurements of the power over around a decade (or more) in wavenumber. 2-dimensional surveys can not do this. Even with 9 uncorrelated measures of fluctuation power in redshift bins between zero and last-scattering we can reduce the CMB alone errors by at most a factor of 3.

Thus we explore the constraining power of three–dimensional measurements of clustering. In particular, we consider a spectroscopic redshift survey. See eisenstein03  for more discussion of future redshift surveys. For simplicity, we ignore effects of redshift distortions and scale-dependent galaxy bias, which should be included in a more detailed study. Note that very deep cosmic shear surveys may be invaluable for calibrating the galaxy-density relationship for these spectroscopic surveys (in order to constrain the bias), and for providing the targets for spectroscopic follow-up.

For a survey of volume $`V`$, the error on the power in a band of width $`\mathrm{\Delta }k`$ is feldman94 ; tegmark97d :

$$\mathrm{\Delta }P(k)=\sqrt{\frac{2}{N_k}}\left(P(k)+\frac{1}{\overline{n}b^2}\right)$$
(16)
where $`N_k`$ is the number of independent samples of $`\delta (𝐤)`$ with $`k\mathrm{\Delta }k/2<|𝐤|<k+\mathrm{\Delta }k/2`$ and is given by

$$N_k=4\pi k^2\mathrm{\Delta }k\frac{V}{(2\pi )^3}=k^2\mathrm{\Delta }k/(2\pi ^2)V.$$
(17)
The mean number density of galaxies, $`\overline{n}`$, determines the shot-noise contribution to the variance, $`1/(\overline{n}b^2)`$ where $`b`$ is the galaxy bias such that $`P_g(k)=b^2P(k)`$.

An optimal survey with fixed number of galaxies $`N_g=\overline{n}V`$ (optimal from a solely statistical error point of view) will have a volume such that $`1/\overline{n}=b^2P(k)`$ on the scale of interest where $`b`$ is the bias of the galaxies. In this case

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }P(k)}{P(k)}=\sqrt{(8/N_k)}=2\sqrt{2}\left[N_gb^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2(k)\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }k}{k}\right)\right]^{1/2}$$
(18)
where $`N_g=\overline{n}V`$ is the number of galaxies in the survey and $`\mathrm{\Delta }^2(k)k^3P(k)/(2\pi ^2)`$.

Solving for $`N_g`$ we find

$$N_g=1.5\times 10^9\left[\frac{10^4}{\mathrm{\Delta }P/P}\right]^2\left[\frac{0.5}{b^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2(k)}\right]\left[\frac{k}{\mathrm{\Delta }k}\right].$$
(19)
This is a lot of galaxies. And unfortunately, most of them are at high redshift (if we want $`\mathrm{\Delta }P/P=10^4`$). If the volume is spherical with coordinate distance radius of $`R`$ then

$$R=7h^1Gpc\left(\frac{0.2hMpc^1}{k}\right)(k/\mathrm{\Delta }k)^{1/3}\left[\frac{10^4}{\mathrm{\Delta }P/P}\right]^{2/3}.$$
(20)
For reference, the distance to the horizon is about 14 Gpc knox01 ; spergel03 .

One might conceivably do better by extending to higher $`k`$ than the fiducial 0.2 $`h`$ Mpc-1. The main benefit is the reduced volume one has to sample ($`Vk^3`$, see above equation) to achieve the same value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }P/P`$. The higher this is pushed, however, the more one must worry about scale-dependent bias. And when one wants $`\mathrm{\Delta }P/P`$ as small as $`10^4`$ even a tiny amount of unknown scale-dependence can lead to highly significant systematic error.

## VII Conclusions

If inflation happened at sufficiently high energy scales ($`V^{1/4}\begin{array}{c}>\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}2\times 10^{15}`$ GeV) and nature is kind to us with respect to astrophysical foregrounds (dust, synchroton radiation, etc.) then we can detect the influence of tensor perturbations in the CMB polarization. If the energy scale is slightly higher, we will be able to verify (or rule out) the inflation consistency equation.

For measurement of the scalar perturbation spectrum, constraining $`n_S`$ and $`n_S^{}`$ to better than $`10^3`$ may be impossible. This level can be reached with a post-Planck CMB polarization mission or by combining WMAP or Planck with all-sky tomographic cosmic shear observations. Spectroscopic redshift surveys, even with benign assumptions about galaxy bias, are unlikely to improve our ultimate constraints on $`n_S`$ and $`n_S^{}`$.

## VIII Acknowledgments

First and foremost I thank my collaborators, Yong-Seon Song and Manoj Kaplinghat, who did almost all the work presented here. I also thank A. Albrecht, B. Gold, N. Kaloper, D. Spergel, A. Tyson and D. Wittman for useful conversations.


format: text

text:
# Uniform behavior of families of Galois representations on Siegel modular forms and the Endoscopy Conjecture

## 1 Introduction

In this article, we will consider a genus two Siegel modular form $`f`$ of level $`N`$ and weight $`k>3`$ (and multiplicity one) and the family of four dimensional symplectic Galois representations attached to it. We assume also that we are in a case where this family is “semistable”. In \[D1\], we have treated the level $`1`$ case, giving conditions on $`f`$ to ensure that these Galois representations have generically large image. In particular we have imposed an irreducibility condition on one characteristic polynomial of Frobenius (see \[D1\], condition (4.8)) to obtain a large image result. Furthermore, with the same irreducibility condition, we showed in \[D2\], again for the level $`1`$ case, that for every $`p>4k5`$ the $`p`$-adic representations are irreducible. The only possible reducible case to be considered is the case of two $`2`$-dimensional irreducible components having the same determinant (all other cases can not occur if $`f`$ is not of Saito-Kurokawa type, cf. \[D1\], \[D2\]), and from the results of \[D2\] this case can only happen if all characteristic polynomials are reducible, i.e., the $`2`$-dimensional components will have coefficients in the same field that the $`4`$-dimensional representations: the field $`E`$ generated by the eigenvalues of $`f`$.

In section 2 we will generalize the main results of \[D1\] and \[D2\] to the semistable case.

One of the consequences of Tate’s conjecture on the Siegel threefold is that reducibility for the Galois representations attached to $`f`$ must be a uniform property: if it is verified at one prime, then all the representations in the family are reducible. In this article, we will prove this uniformity principle:

###### Theorem 1.1

: Let $`f`$ be a genus $`2`$ Siegel cuspidal Hecke eigenform of weight $`k>3`$ and level $`N`$, having multiplicity one, such that the attached Galois representations $`\rho _{f,\lambda }`$ are “semistable”. Suppose that for some odd prime $`\mathrm{}_0N`$, $`\lambda _0\mathrm{}_0`$, the representation $`\rho _{f,\lambda _0}`$ is reducible. Then the representations $`\rho _{f,\lambda }`$ are reducible for every $`\lambda `$.
Moreover, if this happens, either $`f`$ is of Saito-Kurokawa type or $`f`$ is endoscopic.

After excluding the Saito-Kurokawa case, we will prove the result more generally for compatible families of geometric, pure and symplectic four-dimensional Galois representations which are “semistable”.

A previous version of this preprint dates from 2003, and since several papers using the results contained there have appeared since then, we prefer to present first (sections 2 and 3) the results contained in that early version, which constitute the “core” of this paper: this corresponds to the proof of “uniformity of reducibility” for “almost every” prime, and with the extra condition $`\mathrm{}_0>4k5`$. At the end of the paper (section 4) we will indicate how to (easily) remove this assumption on $`\mathrm{}_0`$. Finally, we will prove that a standard combination of these results with Serre’s conjecture allows us to remove the “almost every” in the result and gives also the Endoscopy Conjecture, i.e., the modularity (up to twist) of the irreducible components.

What follows is a brief description of the tools that will appear in the proofs in the “core” part. We will use (as in \[D2\], section 4) as starting point Taylor’s recent results on the Fontaine-Mazur conjecture and the meromorphic continuation of $`L`$-functions for odd two-dimensional Galois representations (see \[T2\], \[T3\] and \[T4\]). Then, we will combine some of the results and techniques in \[D1\] (in particular the information about the description of the action of inertia obtained via $`p`$-adic Hodge theory) with Ribet’s results (see \[R\]) on two-dimensional semistable Galois representations (slightly generalized to higher weights), and finally Cebotarev density theorem, the fundamental theorem of Galois theory, and some group theory will suffice for the proof.

## 2 Preliminaries

As we already explained, the goal of sections 2 and 3 is to prove a theorem which is weaker than theorem 1.1, namely we will prove the following:

###### Theorem 2.1

Let $`f`$ be a genus $`2`$ Siegel cuspidal Hecke eigenform of weight $`k>3`$ and level $`N`$, having multiplicity one, such that the attached Galois representations $`\rho _{f,\lambda }`$ are “semistable”. Suppose that for some prime $`\mathrm{}_0>4k5,\mathrm{}_0N`$, $`\lambda _0\mathrm{}_0`$, the representation $`\rho _{f,\lambda _0}`$ is reducible. Then the representations $`\rho _{f,\lambda }`$ are reducible for almost every $`\lambda `$.

From now on we will make the following assumption: $`f`$ is a genus $`2`$ level $`N`$ Siegel cuspidal Hecke eigenform of weight $`k>3`$, having multiplicity one, and not of Saito-Kurokawa type (theorem 2.1 is trivial in the Saito-Kurokawa case, where by construction the Galois representations are reducible, with one $`2`$-dimensional and two $`1`$-dimensional components). Let $`E=(\{a_n\})`$ be the field generated by its Hecke eigenvalues. Then, there is a compatible family of Galois representations constructed by Taylor \[T1\] and Weissauer \[W2\] verifying the following:
For any prime number $`\mathrm{}`$ and any extension $`\lambda `$ of $`\mathrm{}`$ to $`E`$ we have a continuous Galois representation

$$\rho _{f,\lambda }:G_{}\mathrm{GSp}(4,\overline{E}_\lambda )$$

unramified outside $`\mathrm{}N`$ and with characteristic polynomial of $`\rho _{f,\lambda }(\mathrm{Frob}p))`$ equal to

$$Pol_p(x)=x^4a_px^3+(a_p^2a_{p^2}p^{2k4})x^2a_pp^{2k3}x+p^{4k6}$$

for every $`p\mathrm{}N`$. If $`\rho _{f,\lambda }`$ is absolutely irreducible, then it is defined over $`E_\lambda `$.

In general, we can not guarantee that the field of definition is $`E_\lambda `$, but the residual representation $`\overline{\rho }_{f,\lambda }`$ can be formally defined in any case (see \[D1\]) as a representation defined over the residue field of $`\lambda `$, $`𝔽_\lambda `$. Nevertheless, not knowing the field of definition of the representations that we will study is not a serious problem, we can work instead with the “field of coefficients” (\*), i.e., the field generated by the coefficients of the characteristic polynomials $`Pol_p(x)`$, this field contains all the information we need.

The representations $`\rho _{f,\lambda }`$ are known to have the following properties (cf \[W1\], \[W2\], \[D1\]): they are pure (Ramanujan conjecture is satisfied) and if $`\mathrm{}N`$ they are crystalline with Hodge-Tate weights $`\{0,k2,k1,2k3\}`$. This last property makes possible, via Fontaine-Laffaille theory, to obtain a precise description of the action of the inertia group at $`\mathrm{}`$ on the residual representation $`\overline{\rho }_{f,\lambda }`$: it acts through fundamental characters of level one or two, with exponents equal to the Hodge-Tate weights (see \[D1\] for more details).

We will need a further restriction: we want the representations to be “semistable” at every prime of $`N`$ (see the definition below).

Since we will not use the fact that our representations are modular, we can change to the more general setting of a family of four-dimensional symplectic Galois representations $`\{\rho _\lambda \}`$ with coefficients in a number field $`E`$ (not necessarily defined over $`E_\lambda `$, see (\*)), $`det\rho _\lambda =\chi ^{4k6}`$, which are pure, and such that there exists a finite set $`S`$ with, for every $`\mathrm{}S`$, $`\rho _\lambda `$ unramified outside $`\{\mathrm{}\}S`$, crystalline at $`\mathrm{}`$ with Hodge-Tate weights as above, and “semistable” at primes in $`S`$, i.e., verifying the following: $`\rho _\lambda `$ restricted to $`I_q`$ is a unipotent group for every $`qS`$.
For every $`pS`$ we still denote $`Pol_p(x)`$ the characteristic polynomial of the image of $`\mathrm{Frob}p`$ and $`a_p`$ the trace of this image. The representations being symplectic, we have the standard factorization

$$Pol_p(x)=(x^2(a_p/2+\sqrt{d_p})x+p^{2k3})(x^2(a_p/2\sqrt{d_p})x+p^{2k3})(2.1)$$

The results of generically large image and irreducibility proved in previous articles for the level $`1`$ case (see \[D1\], theorem 4.2, and \[D2\], theorems 2.1 and 4.1) hold also in this generality:

###### Theorem 2.2

: Let $`\{\rho _\lambda \}`$ be a family of Galois representations verifying the above properties, with $`k>3`$. Assume that there is a prime $`pS`$ such that

$$\sqrt{d_p}E(2.2)$$

where $`d_p`$ is defined by formula (2.1). Then for all but finitely many of the primes verifying

$$d_p(𝔽_\lambda )^2$$

and, more generally, for all primes $`\lambda `$ in $`E`$ except at most for a set of Dirichlet density $`0`$, the image of $`\rho _\lambda `$ is

$$A_\lambda ^k=\{g\mathrm{GSp}(4,𝒪_{E_\lambda }):det(g)(_{\mathrm{}}^{})^{4k6}\},$$

where $`𝒪_{E_\lambda }`$ denotes the ring of integers of $`E_\lambda `$.
Keeping condition (2.2) we also have: for every prime $`\mathrm{}4k5,\mathrm{}S`$, $`\lambda \mathrm{}`$, the representation $`\rho _\lambda `$ is absolutely irreducible.

Differences with the level 1 case:
The proof of the above results given in \[D1\] and \[D2\] extends automatically to the semistable case: recall that the determination of the images is done by considering the image of the residual $`\mathrm{mod}\lambda `$ representations and eliminating all non-maximal proper subgroups of $`\mathrm{GSp}(4,𝔽_\lambda )`$. When considering reducible cases (cf. \[D1\], sections 4.1 and 4.2) if we allow arbitrary ramification at a finite set $`S`$ then we have to allow the character appearing as one-dimensional component or determinant of a two-dimensional component of a reducible $`\overline{\rho }_\lambda `$ to ramify at $`S`$, but in the semistable case it is easy to see that this character will not ramify at primes in $`S`$. The same applies to the case of image equal to a group $`G`$ having a reducible index $`2`$ normal subgroup $`M`$ (cf. \[D1\], section 4.4), the quadratic Galois character $`G/M`$ can not ramify at primes of $`S`$ if we assume semistability. Up to these easy remarks, all the proof translates word by word to the semistable case.

Remark 1: Recall that condition (2.2) was introduced (cf. \[D1\]) specifically to deal with the case where the image of $`\overline{\rho }_\lambda `$ is reducible, with two $`2`$-dimensional irreducible components of the same determinant. All other cases of non-maximal image can be discarded, for almost every prime, without using condition (2.2).

Remark 2: In \[D1\], the large images result was proved (for the case of conductor 1) with an additional condition, called “untwisted” : this condition was imposed to eliminate the possibility that the projective residual image falls in a smaller symplectic group $`\mathrm{PGSp}(4,k^{})`$, $`k^{}`$ a proper subfield of $`k`$, where $`k`$ is the field generated by the traces of the residual representation. We have not included a similar condition in the above theorem because in the following lemma, we will explain that this condition is superfluous, i.e., that the case of smaller projective symplectic group can never happen if we assume semistability. In particular, this applies to level 1 Siegel cusp forms, so the condition “untwisted” can be removed from theorem 4.2 of \[D1\].

###### Lemma 2.3

: Let $`\{\rho _\lambda \}`$ be a compatible families of Galois representations as above (in particular, a semistable family). Then for every prime $`q>2k2,qS`$ and $`Q`$ a prime in $`E`$ dividing $`q`$, if we call $`G`$ the image of $`\overline{\rho }_Q`$ and $`P(G)`$ its projectivization, $`P(G)`$ lies in $`\mathrm{PGSp}(4,k)`$ if and only if $`G`$ lies in $`\mathrm{GSp}(4,k)`$, for every subfield $`k`$ of $`𝔽_Q`$.

Proof: A similar result, for semistable two-dimensional representations, is lemma 2.4 in \[R\]. The proof given there translates word by word, once we have explained why in our case we also have an element $`c`$ in the inertia group $`I_q`$ such that $`\chi (c)`$ is a generator of $`𝔽_q^{}`$ and the trace of $`\overline{\rho }_Q(c)`$ is a non-zero element of $`𝔽_q`$ ( we know a priori, from the description of the action of $`I_q`$, that this trace will be in $`𝔽_q`$, what requires a proof is the fact that it is not $`0`$).
We have given in \[D1\], proposition 3.1, a description of the action of $`I_q`$ that applies in the current situation, because we are assuming that $`\rho _Q`$ is symplectic and crystalline with Hodge-Tate weights $`\{0,k2,k1,2k3\}`$, and $`q>2k2`$. Let $`\psi `$ be a level 2 fundamental character, and take $`cI_q`$ such that $`\psi (c)`$ generates $`𝔽_{q^2}^{}`$. We have four possibilities for the trace of $`c`$, whose values are, after a suitable factorization:

$$(1+\chi (c)^{k1})(1+\chi (c)^{k2})$$

$$(\psi (c)^{k2}+\psi (c)^{(k2)q})(\psi (c)^{k1}+\psi (c)^{(k1)q})$$

$$(1+\psi (c)^{(k2)+(k1)q})(1+\psi (c)^{(k1)+(k2)q})$$

$$(\psi (c)^{k2}+\psi (c)^{(k1)q})(\psi (c)^{k1}+\psi (c)^{(k2)q})$$

In all cases, the inequality $`q>2k2`$ implies that these traces are not $`0`$.

## 3  Uniformity of reducibility

At this point, we can say that the validity or not of condition (2.2) at some prime $`pS`$ determines the behavior of the family of representations $`\rho _\lambda `$: If condition (2.2) is satisfied, then we have generically large image and irreducibility for every $`\mathrm{}`$ sufficiently large compared with the weights.
What happens if condition (2.2) is not satisfied at any prime? This implies that the factorization (2.1) takes place over $`E`$, i.e., that for every $`pS`$, $`Pol_p(x)`$ reduces over $`E`$. The coefficients of all characteristic polynomials $`Pol_p(x)`$ generate an order $`𝒪`$ of $`E`$, and if we restrict to primes $`\lambda `$ not dividing the conductor of this order (we are neglecting only finitely many primes), we see that the field generated by the coefficients of the $`\mathrm{mod}\lambda `$ reduction of all the $`Pol_p(x)`$ gives the whole $`𝔽_\lambda `$. Thus, we see that for almost every prime, the failure of (2.2) implies that $`\overline{\rho }_\lambda `$ has its image in $`\mathrm{GSp}(4,𝔽_\lambda )`$ and not in a smaller symplectic, but all characteristic polynomials reduce over $`𝔽_\lambda `$: in this case the image can not be the whole symplectic group, because in the group $`\mathrm{GSp}(4,𝔽_\lambda )`$ most of the matrices have IRREDUCIBLE characteristic polynomial, and we know that for almost every prime only one possibility (see remark 1 after theorem 2.2, and lemma 2.3) remains:

###### Lemma 3.1

: Let $`\{\rho _\lambda \}`$ be as in the previous section, and assume that for every $`pS`$, condition (2.2) is not satisfied. Then, for almost every prime $`\lambda `$, the residual representation $`\overline{\rho }_\lambda `$ is reducible with two $`2`$-dimensional irreducible components of the same determinant.

### 3.1 A reducible member in the family: Residual consequences

From now on, assume that for a prime $`q>4k5,qS`$, $`Qq`$, the $`Q`$-adic representation $`\rho _Q`$ is reducible, we know (using semistability and purity) that the only possible case is the case of two $`2`$-dimensional irreducible components both with determinant $`\chi ^{2k3}`$. Thus we have:

$$\rho _Q\sigma _{1,Q}\sigma _{2,Q}(3.1)$$

Since this representations is reducible, the last part of theorem 2.2 implies that condition (2.2) must fail at every prime. Therefore, $`\sigma _{1,Q}`$ and $`\sigma _{2,Q}`$ will also have coefficients in $`E`$ and lemma 3.1 implies that for every prime $`\lambda `$ in a cofinite set $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ of primes of $`E`$, $`\overline{\rho }_\lambda `$ will verify:

$$\overline{\rho }_\lambda \pi _{1,\lambda }\pi _{2,\lambda }$$

where $`\pi _{i,\lambda }`$ is an irreducible two dimensional representation defined over $`𝔽_\lambda `$ having determinant $`\chi ^{2k3}`$, for $`i=1,2`$ and for every $`\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }`$.
Moreover, we can determine the image of $`\overline{\rho }_\lambda `$ for almost every prime in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$:

###### Lemma 3.2

: Keep the above assumptions. For every prime $`\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }_2`$, a cofinite subset of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, the image of $`\overline{\rho }_\lambda `$ is a subgroup of $`\mathrm{GSp}(4,𝔽_\lambda )`$ conjugated to $`M_\lambda =\{A\times B\mathrm{GL}(2,𝔽_{1,\lambda })\times \mathrm{GL}(2,𝔽_{2,\lambda }):det(A)=det(B)𝔽_{\mathrm{}}^{2k3}\}`$, where $`𝔽_{1,\lambda },𝔽_{2,\lambda }𝔽_\lambda `$ are the fields of coefficients of $`\pi _{1,\lambda }`$ and $`\pi _{2,\lambda }`$ .

Proof: We have assumed that the representations $`\rho _\lambda `$ have a finite ramification set $`S`$ and they are semistable at every prime $`qS`$. A fortiori, the same applies to their residual components $`\pi _{i,\lambda }`$. Moreover, these two dimensional representations are irreducible for every $`\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }`$. In a similar situation, Ribet has proved a large image result for $`\mathrm{}5`$, but he assumes that the action of $`I_{\mathrm{}}`$, given by fundamental characters of level $`1`$ or $`2`$, has weights (i.e., exponents of the fundamental characters) $`0`$ and $`1`$. The main point of his proof is to exclude the dihedral case. In our case, using the information on the Hodge-Tate decomposition, we have this extra condition at $`I_{\mathrm{}}`$ also verified by the twisted representation $`\pi _{i,\lambda }\chi ^{k+2}`$ for, say, $`i=2`$ (cf. \[D1\],\[D2\]). On the other hand, for $`\pi _{1,\lambda }`$ Ribet’s result still holds if we restrict to primes $`\mathrm{}>4k5`$, because the weights of the action of $`I_{\mathrm{}}`$ being $`0`$ and $`2k3`$, the projectivization of the image if $`I_{\mathrm{}}`$ gives a cyclic group of order $`(\mathrm{}\pm 1)/\mathrm{gcd}(\mathrm{}\pm 1,2k3)>2`$, and this is all that you need to follow Ribet’s argument. We also have a statement as lemma 2.3 for these two dimensional representations, again adapting lemma 2.4 in \[R\].
We conclude (cf. \[R\], theorem 2.5 and the remark after) that for $`\mathrm{}`$ sufficiently large, the images of both irreducible components are conjugated to the subgroup of matrices in $`\mathrm{GL}(2,𝔽_{i,\lambda })`$ with determinant in $`𝔽_{\mathrm{}}^{2k3}`$.
Finally, to prove that the image of $`\overline{\rho }_\lambda `$ is as we want, it remains to show that the Galois fields corresponding to $`P(\pi _{1,\lambda })`$ and $`P(\pi _{2,\lambda })`$ are disjoint ($`P`$ denotes projectivization). These fields having Galois groups isomorphic to the simple groups $`\mathrm{PGL}(2,𝔽_{i,\lambda })`$ or $`\mathrm{PSL}(2,𝔽_{i,\lambda })`$, they are either disjoint or equal: the second is not possible because the restriction of these two projective representations to $`I_{\mathrm{}}`$ are different, and this proves the result.

### 3.2 A reducible member in the family: $`\lambda `$-adic consequences

In the decomposition (3.1) of $`\rho _Q`$ it is clear that $`\sigma _{1,Q}`$ has Hodge-Tate weights $`\{0,2k3\}`$ and $`\sigma _{2,Q}`$ has Hodge-Tate weights $`\{k2,k1\}`$ (or viceversa).
Now, we invoke a result of Taylor (see \[T2\] and \[T3\], recall that $`q>4k5`$) asserting that for a representation such as $`\sigma _{1,Q}`$ it is possible to find a totally real number field $`F`$ such that it is modular when restricted to this field, and therefore it agrees on $`F`$ with the $`Q`$-adic motivic irreducible Galois representation (constructed by Blasius and Rogawski) attached to a Hilbert modular form $`h`$. This implies that $`\sigma _{1,Q}`$ appears in the cohomology of the restriction of scalars of the motive $`M_h`$ associated to $`h`$, and it can be checked from the fact that the $`Q`$-adic representation of the absolute Galois group of $`F`$ attached to $`h`$ has descended to a $`2`$-dimensional representation of $`G_{}`$, Cebotarev density theorem, and the fact that all modular Galois representations in the family $`\{\sigma _{h,\lambda }\}`$ attached to $`h`$ are known to be irreducible, that the whole family descends to a compatible family $`\{\sigma _{1,\lambda }\}`$ of Galois representations of $`G_{}`$ containing $`\sigma _{1,Q}`$. To do this, one has to write the representation $`\sigma _{1,Q}`$ as in the proof of theorem 6.6 in \[T3\], and define the representations $`\sigma _{1,\lambda }`$ formally in the same way using the strongly compatible families associated to the base change of $`h`$ to each $`E_i`$ (recall that, for each $`i`$, $`F/E_i`$ is soluble, cf. \[T3\]). Then, following an idea suggested to us by R. Taylor, one can check that the virtual representations $`\sigma _{1,\lambda }`$ constructed this way are true Galois representations by applying the arguments of \[T4\], section 533.
It follows from the main result of \[T3\] that the family $`\{\sigma _{1,\lambda }\}`$ is a strongly compatible family (cf. \[T3\] for the definition) of Galois representations. Strong compatibility proves the last steps of the following:

###### Proposition 3.3

Let $`\rho _Q`$ be as above, reducible as in (3.1), and let $`\sigma _{1,Q}`$ be its irreducible component having Hodge-Tate weights $`\{0,2k3\}`$. Then, there exists a compatible family of Galois representations $`\{\sigma _{1,\lambda }\}`$ containing $`\sigma _{1,Q}`$, such that for every $`\mathrm{}S`$, $`\lambda \mathrm{}`$, the representation $`\sigma _{1,\lambda }`$ is unramified outside $`\{\mathrm{}\}S`$, is crystalline at $`\mathrm{}`$ with Hodge-Tate weights $`\{0,2k3\}`$, and is semistable at every prime of $`S`$. Of course, these representations are pure because $`\rho _Q`$ is.

Recall that, the representation $`\rho _\lambda `$ being symplectic, for every $`gG_{}`$ the roots of $`\rho _\lambda (g)`$ come in reciprocal pairs: $`\{\alpha ,\chi ^{2k3}(g)/\alpha ,\beta ,\chi ^{2k3}(g)/\beta \}`$.
The following lemma is a first approach to compare the representations $`\sigma _{1,\lambda }`$ and $`\rho _\lambda `$:

###### Lemma 3.4

For every $`\mathrm{}S`$, $`\lambda \mathrm{}`$, and every $`gG_{}`$, the roots of $`\sigma _{1,\lambda }(g)`$ form a pair of reciprocal roots of those of $`\rho _\lambda (g)`$.

Proof: From the compatibility of the families $`\{\sigma _{1,\lambda }\}`$ and $`\{\rho _\lambda \}`$ and the fact that $`\sigma _{1,Q}`$ is a component of $`\rho _Q`$ the lemma is obvious for the dense set of Frobenius elements at unramified places. Then, by continuity and Cebotarev the lemma follows for every element of $`G_{}`$.

Recall that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_2`$ denotes the cofinite set of primes of $`E`$ where lemma 3.2 is satisfied. We will shrink again this set by eliminating a finite set of primes, namely, those primes where the image of $`\sigma _{1,\lambda }`$ fails to be maximal: in fact, if we call $`E^{}E`$ the field of coefficients of this family of representations and $`𝒪^{}`$ its ring of integers, using semistability and again the slight modification of the methods of \[R\] to higher weights (as we did before to obtain lemma 3.2) we see that for almost every prime $`\lambda E`$ the image of $`\sigma _{1,\lambda }`$ can be conjugated to the subgroup of $`\mathrm{GL}(2,𝒪_\lambda ^{})`$ of matrices with determinant in $`_{\mathrm{}}^{2k3}`$ (after proving the similar result for the residual representations, we apply a lemma of Serre in \[S1\] that shows that the $`\lambda `$-adic image is also large).
Remark: Here we need to know that the residual representations $`\overline{\sigma }_{1,\lambda }`$ are almost all of them irreducible. This follows again from the good properties of the $`\lambda `$-adic family: purity, the fact that they are all crystalline with Hodge-Tate weights $`\{0,2k3\}`$ (and the uniform description of inertia that one gets from this), and semistability.

Thus, we exclude from $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_2`$ the finite set of primes where the image of $`\sigma _{1,\lambda }`$ fails to be maximal, and we obtain a cofinite set $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_3`$ where the residual image of $`\rho _\lambda `$ is the full $`M_\lambda `$ and the image of $`\sigma _{1,\lambda }`$ is maximal.

We want to extract more information from the relation derived in lemma 3.4. To start with, we work at the level of residual representations. Observe that the same relation proved in lemma 3.4 holds for the roots of the matrices in the image of the residual representations $`\overline{\rho }_\lambda `$ and $`\overline{\sigma }_{1,\lambda }`$:

###### Lemma 3.5

: Let $`\lambda `$ be a prime in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_3`$, then in the decomposition $`\overline{\rho }_\lambda \pi _{1,\lambda }\pi _{2,\lambda }`$ we have $`\pi _{1,\lambda }\overline{\sigma }_{1,\lambda }`$.

Remark: Of course, we should write the above equality with $`\pi _{i,\lambda }`$ for $`i=1`$ or $`2`$. But to fix notation, we will always call $`\pi _{1,\lambda }`$ the component of $`\overline{\rho }_\lambda `$ where the inertia group at $`\mathrm{}`$ acts with weights $`0`$ and $`2k3`$ (as we did in section 3.1), this is a good way to distinguish the two components, and of course this is the only component that deserves being compared to $`\overline{\sigma }_{1,\lambda }`$.
Proof: Take $`\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }_3`$. Let $`L`$ be the Galois field corresponding to $`\overline{\rho }_\lambda `$, thus $`\mathrm{Gal}(L/)M_\lambda `$, and $`B`$ the one corresponding to $`\overline{\sigma }_{1,\lambda }`$, thus if $`𝔽_\lambda ^{}`$ is the residue field of $`𝒪_\lambda ^{}`$ and $`U_\lambda =\{A\mathrm{GL}(2,𝔽_\lambda ^{}):det(A)𝔽_{\mathrm{}}^{2k3}\}`$, $`\mathrm{Gal}(B/)U_\lambda `$. We want to prove that $`BL`$. Let $`M=LB`$, and consider an element $`z\mathrm{Gal}(B/M)`$. Let $`\stackrel{ˇ}{z}`$ be a preimage of $`z`$ in $`\mathrm{Gal}(\overline{}/M)`$, that we can choose such that $`\overline{\rho }_\lambda (\stackrel{ˇ}{z})=\mathrm{𝟏}_4`$ (because it is trivial on $`M=LB`$). Then, the residual version of lemma 3.4 implies that $`1`$ is a double root of the characteristic polynomial of $`\overline{\sigma }_{1,\lambda }(\stackrel{ˇ}{z})`$. This implies that the group $`\mathrm{Gal}(B/M)`$ is unipotent, but this group is a normal subgroup of $`\mathrm{Gal}(B/)U_\lambda `$, and $`U_\lambda `$ has no non-trivial unipotent normal subgroup, thus $`B=M`$, i.e., $`BL`$.
Then, we have a projection: $`\varphi :\mathrm{Gal}(L/)\mathrm{Gal}(B/)`$, that is to say, $`\varphi `$ sends $`M_\lambda `$ onto $`U_\lambda `$ and thus $`\overline{\sigma }_{1,\lambda }`$ is a quotient of $`\overline{\rho }_\lambda `$.
Since $`\overline{\rho }_\lambda \pi _{1,\lambda }\pi _{2,\lambda }`$ we conclude that $`\overline{\sigma }_{1,\lambda }\pi _{i,\lambda }`$ with $`i=1`$ or $`2`$, and using the information on the Hodge-Tate decompositions we see that $`i=1`$.

### 3.3 Proof of Theorem 2.1

We start by observing that part of the proof of lemma 3.5 can be translated to the $`\lambda `$-adic setting. Take $`\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }_3`$, and call $`L^{}`$ the (infinite) Galois field corresponding to $`\rho _\lambda `$ and $`B^{}`$ the one corresponding to $`\sigma _{1,\lambda }`$. Recall that $`\mathrm{Gal}(B^{}/)`$ is isomorphic to the subgroup $`U_\lambda ^{}`$ of $`\mathrm{GL}(2,𝒪_\lambda ^{})`$ composed of matrices with determinant in $`_{\mathrm{}}^{2k3}`$, and therefore again we have a group with no non-trivial unipotent subgroups, thus we conclude from lemma 3.4 as in the proof of lemma 3.5 that $`B^{}L^{}`$ and that we have a projection: $`\varphi ^{}:\mathrm{Gal}(L^{}/)\mathrm{Gal}(B^{}/)`$. We have $`\varphi ^{}\rho _\lambda =\sigma _{1,\lambda }`$. Let us consider the normal subgroup $`\mathrm{Gal}(L^{}/B^{})`$ of $`\mathrm{Gal}(L^{}/)`$, i.e., we are considering the restriction $`\rho _\lambda |_{\mathrm{ker}\varphi ^{}}`$. The elements in this subgroup fix $`B^{}`$, thus by lemma 3.4 we see that the corresponding matrices in $`\mathrm{GSp}(4,𝒪_\lambda )`$ will have $`1`$ as a double root.
On the other hand, we know that the residual representation $`\overline{\rho }_\lambda \pi _{1,\lambda }\pi _{2,\lambda }\overline{\sigma }_{1,\lambda }\pi _{2,\lambda }`$ has maximal image $`M_\lambda `$ (see lemmas 3.2 and 3.5). Moreover, the representation $`\sigma _{1,\lambda }`$ being a “deformation” of $`\pi _{1,\lambda }`$ which is disjoint from $`\pi _{2,\lambda }`$ (in the sense established during the proof of lemma 3.2, i.e., up to the equality of determinants), we see that restricting to $`\mathrm{ker}\varphi ^{}`$ will only shrink the image of $`\pi _{2,\lambda }`$ by making the determinant trivial, in other words: the residual representation $`\overline{\rho _\lambda |_{\mathrm{ker}\varphi ^{}}}`$ has image $`\mathrm{SL}(2,𝔽_{2,\lambda })\mathrm{𝟏}_2M_\lambda (3.2)`$.
So, what do we know about $`\rho _\lambda |_{\mathrm{ker}\varphi ^{}}`$? We have determined its residual image and we also know that all matrices in its image have $`1`$ as a double root: this last property extends to the Zariski closure of the image, and using the information we have together with the list of possibilities for this Zariski closure given in \[T1\], we see that the image of $`\rho _\lambda |_{\mathrm{ker}\varphi ^{}}`$ must be contained in $`\mathrm{SL}(2,𝒪_\lambda )\mathrm{𝟏}_2`$. If we call $`𝒪_\lambda ^{\prime \prime }𝒪_\lambda `$ the field generated by the traces of the image of $`\rho _\lambda |_{\mathrm{ker}\varphi ^{}}`$, we can apply a lemma of Serre (cf. \[S1\]) (and Carayol’s lemma for the assertion about the field of definition, cf. \[C\]) and conclude from (3.2) that the image of $`\rho _\lambda |_{\mathrm{ker}\varphi ^{}}`$ must be conjugated to $`\mathrm{SL}(2,𝒪_{}^{\prime \prime }{}_{\lambda }{}^{})\mathrm{𝟏}_2`$.
Remark: $`\mathrm{ker}\varphi ^{}`$ fixes $`B^{}`$ which is an infinite extension of $``$, but Serre’s lemma can still be applied because $`G_{}`$ is compact and the fixer of $`B^{}`$ is a closed subgroup.
Thus, we conclude that $`\mathrm{Image}(\rho _\lambda )\mathrm{GSp}(4,\overline{E}_\lambda )`$ contains a normal subgroup isomorphic to $`\mathrm{SL}(2,𝒪_{}^{\prime \prime }{}_{\lambda }{}^{})\mathrm{𝟏}_2`$, and the quotient by this subgroup gives $`U_\lambda ^{}`$. But it is easy to see that the normalizer of $`\mathrm{SL}(2,𝒪_{}^{\prime \prime }{}_{\lambda }{}^{})\mathrm{𝟏}_2`$ in $`\mathrm{GSp}(4,\overline{E}_\lambda )`$ is contained in the reducible group $`\mathrm{GL}(2,\overline{E}_\lambda )\mathrm{GL}(2,\overline{E}_\lambda )`$. Thus, $`\rho _\lambda `$ is reducible, for every $`\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }_3`$, and $`\sigma _{1,\lambda }`$ is one of its two-dimensional irreducible components.

## 4 From Theorem 2.1 to Theorem 1.1

Recall that the results and proofs given in previous sections date from 2003. The result of “existence of compatible families” that we proved in section 3.2 were extended in \[D3\], which is a “sequel” to this paper, where it was applied to prove some cases of the Fontaine-Mazur conjecture.
Moreover, this result is key in the proof of Serre’s conjecture given in \[D4\], \[KW1\], \[K\], \[D5\] and \[KW2\].
In the case of Hodge-Tate weights $`\{0,1\}`$ the results of potential modularity of Taylor do not imply that the representation is motivic, but as observed in \[D3\] we still can apply the techniques explained in section 3.2 and prove existence of families. In this case, the natural restriction becomes $`\mathrm{}_0>2`$.

As in the previous sections, we assume that we are not in the Saito-Kurokawa case (thus the reducible case must be a case of two $`2`$-dimensional irreducible components).

Thus, if $`\mathrm{}_0`$ is odd, $`\mathrm{}_0N`$, we consider the irreducible component $`\sigma _{2,\lambda _0}`$ of $`\rho _{\lambda _0}`$ having Hodge-Tate weights $`\{k2,k1\}`$ and we apply existence of compatible families to $`\sigma _{2,\lambda _0}\chi ^{2k}`$ instead of $`\sigma _{1,\lambda _0}`$.
The rest of the proof given in the previous sections extends word by word, except that $`\sigma _{2,\lambda _0}`$ and $`\sigma _{1,\lambda _0}`$ exchange roles. We conclude that theorem 2.1 is still true if we change the assumption $`\mathrm{}_0>4k5`$ by $`\mathrm{}_0>2`$.

We have shown that for almost every prime $`\lambda `$ the representation $`\rho _\lambda `$ in our compatible family is reducible, and one of its $`2`$-dimensional irreducible components is $`\sigma _{2,\lambda }`$, a representation that lies in a strongly compatible family. It is obvious (from the definition of compatibility) that the second components, even if they are a priori defined only for almost every prime, will also form a compatible family, let us call them $`\sigma _{1,\lambda }`$. Moreover, from the formula:

$$\rho _\lambda \sigma _{1,\lambda }\sigma _{2,\lambda }$$

we see not only the compatibility of the $`\sigma _{1,\lambda }`$ but also that the representations $`\sigma _{1,\lambda }`$ are crystalline if $`\mathrm{}`$ is not in the ramification set $`S`$, of Hodge-Tate weights $`\{0,2k3\}`$, with ramification set contained in $`S`$ and semistable or unramified locally at primes of $`S`$.
At this point, we apply an argument based on Serre’s conjecture, which is now a theorem (cf. \[D5\] and \[KW2\]). Serre proved in \[S2\] using his conjecture that compatible families of Galois representations as $`\{\sigma _{2,\lambda }\chi ^{2k}\}`$ or $`\{\sigma _{1,\lambda }\}`$ are modular. The fact that $`\{\sigma _{1,\lambda }\}`$ is a priori only defined for almost every $`\lambda `$ is irrelevant for the argument of Serre: he only needs residual modularity in infinitely many characteristics, not in ALL characteristics (it is a typical patching argument). The essential condition is that the family is compatible, with constant Hodge-Tate weights and uniformly bounded conductor.
We conclude that the families $`\{\sigma _{2,\lambda }\chi ^{2k}\}`$ and $`\{\sigma _{1,\lambda }\}`$ correspond to representations attached to classical modular forms, of weight $`2`$ and $`2k2`$, respectively, and obviously this implies in particular that the family $`\{\sigma _{1,\lambda }\}`$ is also defined for EVERY prime $`\lambda `$. This concludes the proof of theorem 1.1.

Remark 1: Observe that in the particular case of a level $`1`$ Siegel cuspform, we conclude irreducibility for $`p>2`$ if it is not of Saito-Kurokawa type. The reason is that one of the $`2`$-dimensional components would give rise to a level $`1`$ weight $`2`$ classical modular form.

Remark 2: What we have shown is that our result of uniformity of reducibility, combined with Serre’s conjecture (now a theorem), implies the truth of the Endoscopy Conjecture in the semistable case.

Remark 3: Our result of “uniformity of reducibility” can be extended to the non-semistable case, with the same arguments. In fact, this have been done recently by Skinner and Urban (cf. \[SU\], section 3). The argument of Serre explained above also applies here, so also the Endoscopy Conjecture follows in this case.

## 5 Final Remarks

The Galois representations attached to a Siegel cusp form $`f`$ of level greater than one are known to verify the semistability condition when the ramified local components of (the automorphic representation corresponding to) $`f`$ are of certain particular types (for example, a Steinberg representation), as follows from recent works of Genestier-Tilouine and Genestier (cf. \[GT\]). Thus, the results in this article apply to these cases. We thank J. Tilouine for pointing out this fact to us.

## 6 Bibliography

\[C\] Carayol, H., Formes modulaires et représentations galoisiennes à valeurs dans un anneau local complet, Contemp. Math. 165, Amer. Math. Soc. (1994) 213-237

\[D1\] Dieulefait, L., On the images of the Galois representations attached to genus $`2`$ Siegel modular forms, J. Reine Angew. Math. 553 (2002) 183-200

\[D2\] Dieulefait, L., Irreducibility of Galois actions on level $`1`$ Siegel cusp forms, Modular Curves and Abelian Varieties, Cremona et al. (eds.), Birkhauser, Progress in Math. 224 (2004) 75-80

\[D3\] Dieulefait, L., Existence of families of Galois representations and new cases of the Fontaine-Mazur conjecture, J. Reine Angew. Math. 577 (2004) 147-151

\[D4\] Dieulefait, L., The level 1 weight 2 case of Serre’s conjecture, to appear

\[D5\] Dieulefait. L., Remarks on Serre’s modularity conjecture, preprint available at: www.arxiv.org

\[GT\] Genestier, A., Tilouine, J., Systèmes de Taylor-Wiles pour $`\mathrm{GSp}_4`$, in Formes Automorphes (II), Asterisque 302 (2005) 177-290

\[K\] Khare, C., Serre’s modularity conjecture: the level one case, Duke Math. J. 134 (2006) 557-589

\[KW1\] Khare, C., Wintenberger, J-P., On Serre’s reciprocity conjecture for $`2`$-dimensional mod $`p`$ representations of the Galois group of $``$, preprint, (2004); available at: www.arxiv.org

\[KW2\] Khare, C., Wintenberger, J-P., Serre’s modularity conjecture (I, II), preprint, (2006); available at:
http://www.math.utah.edu/ shekhar/papers.html

\[R\] Ribet, K., Images of semistable Galois representations, Pacific J. Math. 181 (1997)

\[S1\] Serre, J-P., Abelian $`\mathrm{}`$-adic representations and elliptic curves, (1968) Benjamin

\[S2\] Serre, J-P., Sur les représentations modulaires de degré $`2`$ de $`\mathrm{Gal}(\overline{}/)`$, Duke Math. J. 54 (1987) 179-230

\[SU\] Skinner, C., Urban, E. Sur les defórmations p-adiques de certaines représentations automorphes, J. Inst. Math. Jussieu 5 (2006) 629-698

\[T1\] Taylor, R., On the $`\mathrm{}`$-adic cohomology of Siegel threefolds, Invent. Math. 114 (1993) 289-310

\[T2\] Taylor, R., Remarks on a conjecture of Fontaine and Mazur, J. Inst. Math. Jussieu 1 (2002)

\[T3\] Taylor, R., On the meromorphic continuation of degree two L-functions, preprint, (2001); available at http://abel.math.harvard.edu/$``$rtaylor/

\[T4\] Taylor, R., Galois Representations, Annales Fac. Sc. Toulouse 13 (2004) 73-119

\[W1\] Weissauer, The Ramanujan Conjecture for genus two Siegel modular forms (An application of the Trace Formula), preprint (1994)

\[W2\] Weissauer, Four dimensional Galois representations, in Formes Automorphes (II), Asterisque 302 (2005) 67-150