Stably Cayley semisimple groups. (Q273854)

Cayley and stable Cayley algebraic groups were introduced [in J. Am. Math. Soc. 19, No. 4, 921-967 (2006; Zbl 1103.14026)] by \textit{N. Lemire, V. L. Popov} and \textit{Z. Reichstein}. A linear algebraic group over a field \(k\) is a Cayley group if there is a \(G\)-equivariant birational mapping between \(G\) and its Lie algebra \(\mathrm{Lie}(G)\). Further, \(G\) is said to be stably Cayley if \(G\times S\) is Cayley for some \(k\)-split torus \(S\). After giving several examples, the authors of the above-mentioned paper classified all Cayley and stably Cayley simple groups over an algebraically closed field of characteristic zero. Later, the authors of the paper under review, together with the first and last authors of the above-mentioned paper studied [see \textit{M. Borovoi} et al., Int. Math. Res. Not. 2014, No. 19, 5340-5397 (2014; Zbl 1335.20050)] Cayley groups over an arbitrary field \(k\) of characteristic zero. Over such fields, they gave a criterion for a reductive group \(G\) to be stably Cayley, expressed in terms of the character lattice. Moreover, they obtained a classification of stably Cayley simple groups and stably Cayley simply-connected semisimple groups and stably Cayley adjoint semisimple groups. Building on the above two papers, the present authors classify all stably Cayley semisimple (not necessarily simply-connected or adjoint) groups over a field of characteristic \(0\). The main theorem asserts: Let \(G\) be a semisimple \(k\)-group over any field \(k\) of characteristic \(0\). Then \(G\) is stably Cayley over \(k\) if, and only if, \(G=G_1\times_k G_2\times_k\cdots\times_k G_r\) of its normal \(k\)-subgroups, where each \(G_i\) is isomorphic to \(R_{l_i/k}G_{i,l_i}\) (the Weil restriction of scalars) for some finite extensions \(l_i\) of \(k\) and each \(G_{i,l_i}\) is either a stably Cayley absolutely simple group over \(l_i\) or an \(l_i\)-form of the semisimple group \(\mathrm{SO}_4\). The proof is given in the language of lattices. In addition, the authors correct an inaccuracy in remark 2.5 of the paper of Borovoi et al. [loc. cit.].