2 BENJAMIN BRÜCK, YURI SANTOS REGO, AND ROBIN J. SROKA
follows if one can show that the Steinberg module is generated by “integral apart-
ment classes”; see Theorem 3.4. The generation by integral apartments classes, in
turn, is the content of Tóth’s result.
There are two assumptions in Theorem 1.1. The first is that Gbe not of type E8,
F4or G2. This is due to the same hypothesis in Tóth’s work and comes from the fact
that, in these cases, there is no maximal parabolic subgroup whose unipotent radical
is abelian [Tót05, Section 5]. This makes certain computations harder in these cases
[Tót05, second paragraph after Theorem 2]. The second assumption is that Obe
Euclidean, which is also a restriction in Tóth’s work. However, Euclideanity seems
to be a natural assumption for a general statement in the style of Theorem 1.1. This
is among other things indicated by work of Miller–Patzt–Wilson–Yasaki [MPWY20]
who obtain non-vanishing results for G= SLnand certain non-Euclidean PIDs O.
The condition that Oshould at least be a PID is necessary in a strong sense, at
least for G= SLn[CFP19, Theorem D] and G= Sp2n[BH23, Theorem 1.1].
In type A, for the group SLn(O), even stronger vanishing results are already
known: Church–Putman [CP17] showed that the rational cohomology of this group
vanishes also one degree below its virtual cohomological dimension if O=Z, and
Kupers–Miller–Patzt–Wilson [KMPW22] proved the same result for Othe Gaussian
or Eisenstein integers. Brück–Miller–Patzt–Sroka–Wilson [BMP+22] extended this
to vanishing of the rational cohomology two degrees below the virtual cohomological
dimension for O=Z. These results confirm parts of a conjecture by Church–Farb–
Putman [CFP14] who asked whether it was generally true that
(1.1) Hvcd(SLn(Z))−i(SLn(Z); Q)=0if i<n−1 = rk(SLn).
In light of Theorem 1.1, one is tempted to ask whether vanishing behaviour
similar to Eq. (1.1) might also occur for other arithmetic Chevalley groups.
Question 1.2. Let Kbe a number field, Othe ring of integers in Kand Ga
Chevalley–Demazure group scheme. If Ois Euclidean, is it true that
Hvcd(G(O))−i(G(O); Q) = 0 for all i < rk(G)?
Currently, evidence for such a vanishing pattern is given by Theorem 1.1, the
above mentioned results in type Aand work of Brück–Patzt–Sroka [BPS23] in type
Cthat shows that Hvcd(Sp2n(Z))−1(Sp2n(Z); Q)is trivial for n≥2.
Acknowledgements. We are indebted to Petra Schwer for helpful discussions, and to
Paul Gunnells for helpful comments and pointing us to [Tót05]. We thank Peter Patzt,
Jeremy Miller and Jennifer Wilson for comments on earlier versions of this article and
Dan Yasaki for comments on computations in low dimensions. RJS would like to thank
his PhD advisor Nathalie Wahl for enlightening conversations and helpful feedback about
[Sro21, Chapter 5]. We thank the anonymous referee for their comments and suggestions.
2. Background
2.1. Coxeter groups and Coxeter complexes. Given a finite set S, consider a
symmetric matrix M= (ms,t)s,t∈Swhose diagonal entries equal one and all other
entries are ∞or integers greater than one. A group Wwith presentation
W=⟨s∈S|(st)ms,t = 1 for all s, t with ms,t <∞⟩
is called a Coxeter group. The pair (W, S)is the corresponding Coxeter system, and
Sis the Coxeter generating set. The rank of the system (W, S)is the cardinality
|S|of the given generating set. We write ℓ(w)for the word length of w∈W
with respect to the generating set S. The system (W, S)is called spherical if the
underlying Coxeter group Wis finite. The reader is referred to standard textbooks,
such as [Hum72,GP00,AB08], for further background on Coxeter groups.