Bagchi's Theorem for families of automorphic forms
E. Kowalski

TL;DR
This paper extends Bagchi's and Voronin's universality theorems to families of primitive cusp forms of weight 2 and prime level, exploring conditions for broader applicability to automorphic L-functions.
Contribution
It proves versions of Bagchi's and Voronin's theorems for specific automorphic form families and discusses potential generalizations.
Findings
Established universality results for cusp form families
Identified conditions for applying the theorems to broader automorphic L-functions
Enhanced understanding of the distribution of automorphic L-functions
Abstract
We prove a version of Bagchi's Theorem and of Voronin's Universality Theorem for family of primitive cusp forms of weight and prime level, and discuss under which conditions the argument will apply to general reasonable family of automorphic -functions.
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsAnalytic Number Theory Research · Advanced Algebra and Geometry · Algebraic Geometry and Number Theory
\shortdate
Bagchi’s Theorem for families of automorphic forms
E. Kowalski
ETH Zürich – D-MATH
Rämistrasse 101
8092 Zürich, Switzerland
Abstract.
We prove a version of Bagchi’s Theorem and of Voronin’s Universality Theorem for family of primitive cusp forms of weight and prime level, and discuss under which conditions the argument will apply to general reasonable family of automorphic -functions.
Key words and phrases:
Modular forms, -functions, Bagchi’s Theorem, Voronin’s Theorem, random Dirichlet series
Partially supported by a DFG-SNF lead agency program grant (grant 200021L_153647).
1. Introduction
The first “universality theorem” for Dirichlet series is Voronin’s Theorem [18] for the Riemann zeta function, which states that for any , any continuous function defined and non-vanishing on the disc in , which is holomorphic in the interior, and any , there exists such that
[TABLE]
In other words, up to arbitrary precision, any function can be approximated by some vertical translate of the Riemann zeta function.
Bagchi, in his thesis [1], provided a clear conceptual explanation of this result, as the combination of two independent statements:
- –
Viewing translates of the Riemann zeta function by as random variables with values in a space of holomorphic function on the disc, Bagchi proves that these random variables converge in law, as , to a natural random Dirichlet series, which is also expressed as a random Euler product;
- –
Computing the support of the limiting random Dirichlet series, and checking that it contains the space of nowhere vanishing holomorphic functions on the disc, the universality theorem follows easily.
The key step, from our point of view, is the first part, which we call Bagchi’s Theorem. Indeed, once the convergence in law is known, it follows that there is “some” universality statement, with respect to the functions in the support of the limiting random Dirichlet series. The second step makes this support explicit. (This might be compared with Deligne’s Equidistribution Theorem, as applied to families of exponential sums for instance: Deligne’s Theorem shows that there is always some equidistribution of these sums.)
The goal of this note is to give a first example of a genuinely higher-degree statement of this type, and to deduce the corresponding universality statement. We will also indicate a general principle that should apply in many more cases.
Theorem 1.1** (Universality in level aspect).**
For prime , let be the non-empty111 We assume to ensure this property; it also holds for . finite set of primitive cusp forms for with weight and trivial nebentypus. For , let denote its Hecke -function
[TABLE]
normalized so that the critical line is .
For any real number , let be the open disc centered at with radius . Then for any continuous function which is holomorphic and non-vanishing in and satisfies
[TABLE]
we have
[TABLE]
for any , where the norm is the norm on .
The main difference with previous results involving cusp forms (the first one being due to Laurinčikas and Matsumoto [13]) is that we do not fix one such -function and consider shifts (or twists) or , but rather we average over the discrete family of primitive forms in . It is also important to remark that the condition (1.1) is necessary for a function on to be approximated by -functions with . (We will give more general statements where the discs are replaced with more general compact sets in the strip ).
We will prove this Theorem in Section 2, after stating the results generalizing the two steps of Bagchi’s strategy for the zeta function. The proof of Bagchi’s Theorem for this family is an analogue of a proof for the Riemann zeta function that is simpler than Bagchi’s proof (it avoids both the use of the ergodic theorem and any tightness or weak-compactness argument).
In Section 5, we discuss very briefly how this strategy can in principle be applied to very general families of -functions, as defined in [8].
Acknowledgements.
The simple proof of Bagchi’s Theorem for the Riemann zeta funtion, that we generalize here to modular forms, was found during a course on probabilistic number theory at ETH Zürich in the Fall Semester 2015; thanks are due to the students who attended this course for their interest and remarks, and to B. Löffel for assisting with the exercises (see [9] for a draft of the lecture notes for this course, especially Chapter 3).
Thanks to the referee for carefully reading the text, and in particular for pointing out a number of confusing mistakes in references to the literature.
Notation.
As usual, denotes the cardinality of a set. By for , or for , where is an arbitrary set on which is defined, we mean synonymously that there exists a constant such that for all . The “implied constant” is any admissible value of . It may depend on the set which is always specified or clear in context. We write if and are both true.
We use standard probabilistic terminology: a probability space is a triple made of a set with a -algebra and a measure on with . We denote by the expectation on . The law of a random variable is the measure on the target space of defined by . If , then is the characteristic function of .
2. Equidistribution and universality for modular forms in the
level aspect
We will prove Theorem 1.1 by combining the results of the following two steps, each of which will be proved in a forthcoming section. Throughout, we assume that is a prime number .
Step 1. (Equidistribution; Bagchi’s Theorem) For prime, we view the finite set as a probability space with the probability measure proportional to the “harmonic” measure where has weight
[TABLE]
in terms of the Petersson inner product. We write correspondingly or for the corresponding expectation and probability. Hence there exists a constant such that
[TABLE]
for any . From the Petersson formula, it is known that as (see, e.g., Iwaniec and Kowalski [7, Ch. 14] or Cogdell and Michel [3]).
Let be a relatively compact open set in such that is invariant under complex conjugation. Define to be the Banach space of functions holomorphic on and continuous and bounded on , with the norm
[TABLE]
This is a separable complex Banach space. Define also to be the set of such that for all (this is well-defined since is assumed to be invariant under conjugation). Note that the -function of , restricted to , is an element of since the Hecke eigenvalues are real for all .
We define to be the random variable mapping to the restriction of to . (This depends on , but the choice of will always be clear in the context.)
If is a compact subset of the strip , then we will show that converges in law to a random Dirichlet series. To define the limit, let be a sequence of independent random variables indexed by primes, taking values in the matrix group and distributed according to the probability Haar measure on .
Theorem 2.1** **(Bagchi’s Theorem for modular
forms).
Assume that is a compact subset of the strip . Then, as , the random variables converge in law to the random Euler product
[TABLE]
which is almost surely convergent in , and belongs almost surely to .
Step 2. (Support of the random Euler product)
To deduce Theorem 1.1 from Theorem 2.1, we need the following computation of the support of the limiting measure.
Theorem 2.2**.**
Suppose that is a disc with positive radius and diameter a segment of the real axis, always with contained in . The support of the law of the random Euler product contains the set of functions such that for .
Note that since is an interval of positive length in , the condition for all implies by analytic continuation that , which by Bagchi’s Theorem 2.1 is a necessary condition to be in the support of .
Step 3. (Conclusion) The elementary Lemma 2.4 below, combined with Theorems 2.1 and 2.2, implies Theorem 1.1 in the form
[TABLE]
for any function as in Theorem 1.1 and any . We can easily deduce the “natural density” version from this: let be the set of those such that ; then for any parameter , the definition of the harmonic measure on gives
[TABLE]
There exists such that the first term is for all large enough by (2.1); on the other hand, a result of Cogdell and Michel [3, Cor. 1.16] and the classical relation between the Petersson norm and the symmetric square -function at (see, e.g., [7, (5.101)]) imply that we can find such that
[TABLE]
For this value of , we obtain
[TABLE]
More precisely, the result of Cogdell-Michel is that for any , we have
[TABLE]
where is the limiting distribution function for the special value at of the symmetric square -function of . Since when , we obtain the result.
Remark 2.3**.**
It would also be possible to argue throughout with the uniform probability measure on ; the only change would be a slightly different form of Theorem 2.1, where the random variables would not be identically distributed (compare with the equidistribution theorems of Serre [16] and Conrey–Duke–Farmer [4]).
Lemma 2.4**.**
Let be a separable complete metric space and a sequence of random variables with values in that converge in law to . Let be the support of the law of . Then for any , and any open neighborhood of , we have
[TABLE]
Proof.
By classical criteria for convergence in law, we have
[TABLE]
for any open set (see, e.g., [2, Th. 2.1 (iv)]). Since , we have , hence the result. ∎
3. Proof of Theorem 2.1
We begin with some preliminaries concerning the random Euler product . In fact, if will be convenient to view it as a holomorphic function on larger domains then , in a way that will be clear below. For this purpose, we fix a real number such that , and such that the compact set is contained in the half-plane defined by .
We recall that for , the -th Chebychev polynomial is defined by
[TABLE]
The importance of these polynomials for us lies in their relation with the representation theory of , namely
[TABLE]
for any , where is the -th symmetric power of the standard -dimensional representation of .
We define a sequence of random variables by
[TABLE]
In particular, we have if and are coprime, and if is prime. The sequence is independent and Sato-Tate distributed. Moreover, since for all and all , we have
[TABLE]
for and , where the implied constant depends only on .
Lemma 3.1**.**
(1)* Almost surely, the random Euler product*
[TABLE]
converges and defines a holomorphic function on . In particular, converges almost surely to define an -valued random variable.
(2)* Almost surely, we have*
[TABLE]
for all , and in particular coincides with the random Dirichlet series on the right.
(3)* For and , we have*
[TABLE]
where the implied constant depends only on .
Proof.
(1) Let be a fixed real number such that . By expanding, we can write
[TABLE]
where the random series
[TABLE]
converges absolutely (and surely) for . Since and , Kolmogorov’s Three Series Theorem (see, e.g., [14, Th. 0.III.2]) implies that the random series
[TABLE]
converges almost surely. By well-known results on Dirichlet series, this means that the random series
[TABLE]
converges almost surely to a holomorphic function on the half-plane . This implies the first statement by taking the exponential. The second follows by restricting to since is contained in .
(2) We first show that the almost surely the random Dirichlet series
[TABLE]
converges and defines a function holomorphic on . The key point is that the variables for squarefree form an orthonormal system: we have
[TABLE]
if and are squarefree numbers. Indeed, if , there is a prime dividing only one of and , say , and then by independence we get ; and if is squarefree then we have
[TABLE]
Fix again such that . By the Rademacher–Menchov Theorem (see, e.g. [9, Th. B.8.4]), the random series
[TABLE]
over squarefree numbers converges almost surely. By elementary factorization and properties of products of Dirichlet series (the product of an absolutely convergent Dirichlet series and a convergent one is convergent, see e.g. [6, Th. 54]) the same holds for
[TABLE]
As in (1), this gives the almost sure convergence of the series defining to a holomorphic function in . Restricting gives the -valued random variable .
Finally, almost surely both the random Euler product and the random Dirichlet series converge and are holomorphic for . For , they converge absolutely, and coincide by a well-known formal Euler product computation: for any prime and any , denoting
[TABLE]
we have
[TABLE]
(compare the discussion of Cogdell and Michel in [3, §2]). By analytic continuation, we deduce that almost surely as -valued random variables.
(3) Since the random varibles are real-valued, we have
[TABLE]
For given and , let and , . Then by multiplicativity and independence of the variables , we have
[TABLE]
By the definition of , we have if is divisible by a prime with odd exponent, and similarly for . Hence we have unless both and are squares. Therefore
[TABLE]
since and for any . ∎
The key arithmetic properties of the family of modular forms that are required in the proof of Theorem 2.1 are the following:
Proposition 3.2** (Local spectral equidistribution).**
As , the sequence of Fourier coefficients of converges in law to the sequence .
Proof.
This is a well-known consequence of the Petersson formula, see e.g. [10, Prop. 8], [12, Appendix] or [3, Prop. 1.9]; here restricting to prime level and weight also simplifies matters since this ensures that the old space of is zero. ∎
Proposition 3.3** (First moment estimate).**
There exists an absolute constant such that for any real number with , and for any such that , we have
[TABLE]
where the implied constant depends only on .
Proof.
This follows easily, using the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, from the second moment estimate [11, Prop. 5] of Kowalski and Michel (with ); although this statement is not formally the same, it is in fact a more difficult average (it operates closer to the critical line). ∎
We now prove some additional lemmas.
Lemma 3.4** (Polynomial growth).**
For any real number , we have
[TABLE]
uniformly for all such that .
Proof.
We write
[TABLE]
This is almost surely a function holomorphic on the half-plane . The series
[TABLE]
converges almost surely. Therefore the partial sums
[TABLE]
are bounded almost surely. By summation by parts, it follows from the convergence of the series that for any with real part , we have
[TABLE]
where the integral converges almost surely. Hence almost surely
[TABLE]
Fubini’s Theorem and the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality then imply
[TABLE]
by Lemma 3.1 (3). ∎
We now consider some elementary approximation statements of the -functions and of the random Dirichlet series by smoothed partial sums. For this, we fix once and for all a smooth function with compact support such that , and we denote its Mellin transform.
We also fix and a compact interval in such that the compact rectangle is contained in and contains in its interior. We then finally define so that
[TABLE]
Lemma 3.5**.**
For , define the -valued random variable
[TABLE]
We then have
[TABLE]
for , where the implied constant depends on .
Proof.
We again write
[TABLE]
when we wish to view the Dirichlet series as defined and holomorphic (almost surely) on .
For any in the rectangle , we have almost surely the representation
[TABLE]
by standard contour integration.222 Here and below, it is important that the “almost surely” property holds for all , which is the case because we work with random holomorphic functions, and not with particular evaluations of these random functions at specific points .
We also have almost surely for any in the Cauchy formula
[TABLE]
where the boundary of is oriented counterclockwise. The definition of the rectangle ensures that for and , and therefore
[TABLE]
Using (3.1) and writing with , we obtain
[TABLE]
Therefore, taking the expectation, and using Fubini’s Theorem, we get
[TABLE]
We therefore need to bound
[TABLE]
for some fixed in the compact rectangle . The real part of the argument is by definition of , and hence
[TABLE]
uniformly for and by Lemma 3.4. Since decays faster than any polynomial at infinity, we conclude that
[TABLE]
uniformly for , and the result follows. ∎
We proceed similarly for the -functions.
Lemma 3.6**.**
For and , define
[TABLE]
and define to be the -valued random variable mapping to restricted to . We then have
[TABLE]
for and all .
Proof.
For any , we have the representation
[TABLE]
and for any with , Cauchy’s theorem gives
[TABLE]
where the boundary of is oriented counterclockwise. As in the previous argument, we deduce that
[TABLE]
for . Taking the expectation with respect to and changing the order of summation and integration leads to
[TABLE]
Applying (3.2) and using again Fubini’s Theorem, we obtain
[TABLE]
for . Since , we get
[TABLE]
by Proposition 3.3, where is an absolute constant. Hence
[TABLE]
We conclude from (3.3) that
[TABLE]
as claimed. ∎
Proof of Theorem 2.1.
A simple consequence of the definition of convergence in law shows that it is enough to prove that for any bounded and Lipschitz function , we have
[TABLE]
as (see [2, p. 16, (ii) (iii) and (1.1), p. 8]). To prove this, we use the Dirichlet series expansion of given by Lemma 3.1 (2).
Let be some integer to be chosen later. Let
[TABLE]
(viewed as random variable defined on ) and
[TABLE]
be the smoothed partial sums of the Dirichlet series, as in Lemmas 3.6 and 3.5.
We then write
[TABLE]
Since is a Lipschitz function on , there exists a constant such that
[TABLE]
for all , . Hence we have
[TABLE]
Fix . Lemmas 3.6 and 3.5 together show that there exists some such that
[TABLE]
for all and
[TABLE]
We fix such a value of . By Proposition 3.2 (and composition with a continuous function), the random variables (which are Dirichlet polynomials) converge in law to as . We deduce that we have
[TABLE]
for all large enough. This finishes the proof. ∎
4. Proof of Theorem 2.2
For the computation of the support of the random Dirichlet series , we apply a trick to exploit the analogous result known for the case of the Riemann zeta function. We denote the product of copies of the unit circle indexed by primes, so an element of is a family of matrices in indexed by .
The assumptions on in Theorem 2.2333 These assumptions could be easily weakened, as has been done for Voronin’s Theorem. imply that there exists be such that and such that
[TABLE]
Lemma 4.1**.**
Let be an arbitrary positive real number. The set of all series
[TABLE]
*which converge in is dense in the subspace . *
In the proof and the next, we allow ourselves the luxury of writing sometimes instead of .
Proof.
Bagchi [1, Lemma 5.2.10] proves (using results of complex analysis due to Bernstein, Polyá and others) that the set of series
[TABLE]
that converge in is dense in (precisely, he proves this for , but the same proof applies to any value of ). If and , we can therefore find real numbers such that
[TABLE]
It follows then that
[TABLE]
hence (since ) that
[TABLE]
which gives the result since
[TABLE]
is the trace of a matrix in . ∎
We will use this to prove:
Proposition 4.2**.**
The support of the law of
[TABLE]
in is .
Proof.
Since , the function is almost surely in the space . Since the summands are independent, a well-known result concerning the support of random series (see, e.g., [9, Prop. B.8.7]) shows that it suffices to prove that the set of convergent series
[TABLE]
is dense in . Denote this series, when it converges in .
We can write
[TABLE]
where is holomorphic in the region . Indeed
[TABLE]
Fix and let be fixed. There exists such that
[TABLE]
for any . Now take for and define
[TABLE]
which belongs to . By Lemma 4.1, there exist for in such that
[TABLE]
The left-hand side is the norm of
[TABLE]
and by (4.1), we obtain
[TABLE]
This implies the lemma. ∎
Using composition with the exponential function and a lemma of Hurwitz (see, e.g., [17, 3.45]) on zeros of limits of holomorphic functions, we see that the support of the limiting Dirichlet series in is the union of the zero function and the set of functions such that for . In particular, this proves Theorem 2.2.
5. Generalizations
It is clear from the proof that Bagchi’s Theorem should hold in considerable generality for any family of -functions. Indeed, the crucial ingredients are the local spectral equidistribution (Proposition 3.2), and the first moment estimate (Proposition 3.3).
The first result is a qualitative statement that is understood to be at the core of any definition of “family” of -functions (this is explained in [8], but also appears, with a different terminology, for the families of Conrey–Farmer–Keating–Rubinstein–Snaith [5] and Sarnak–Shin–Templier [15]); it is now know in many circumstances (indeed, often in quantitative form).
The moment estimate is typically derived from a second-moment bound, and is also definitely expected to hold for a reasonable family of -functions, but it has only been proved in much more restricted circumstances than local spectral equidistribution. However, it is very often the case that one can at least prove (using local spectral equidistribution) a weaker statement: for some such that , the second moment of the -functions satisfies the analogue of Proposition 3.3; an analogue of Bagchi’s Theorem then follows at least for compact discs in the region .
As far as universality (i.e., Theorem 2.2) is concerned, one may expect that (using tricks similar to the proof of Theorem 2.2) only two different cases really occur, depending on whether the coefficients of the -functions are real (as in our case) or complex (as in the case of vertical translates of a fixed -function).
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1[1] B. Bagchi: Statistical behaviour and universality properties of the Riemann zeta function and other allied Dirichlet series , Ph D thesis, Indian Statistical Institute, Kolkata, 1981; available at library.isical.ac.in/jspui/handle/10263/4256
- 2[2] P. Billingsley: Convergence of probability measures , Wiley (1968).
- 3[3] J. Cogdell and P. Michel: On the complex moments of symmetric power L 𝐿 L -functions at s = 1 𝑠 1 s=1 , Internat. Math. Res. Notices (2004), 1561–1617.
- 4[4] B. Conrey, W. Duke and D. Farmer: The distribution of the eigenvalues of Hecke operators , Acta Arith. 78 (1997), 405–409.
- 5[5] J.B. Conrey, D. Farmer, J. Keating, M. Rubinstein and N. Snaith: Integral moments of L 𝐿 L -functions , Proc. Lond. Math. Soc. 91 (2005) 33–104.
- 6[6] G.H. Hardy and M. Riesz: The general theory of Dirichlet’s series , Cambridge Tracts in Math. 18, C.U.P. 1915.
- 7[7] H. Iwaniec and E. Kowalski: Analytic number theory , Colloquium Publ. 53, American Math. Soc. 2004.
- 8[8] E. Kowalski: Families of cusp forms , Pub. Math. Besançon, 2013, 5–40.
