Exponential sums over finite fields and the large sieve
Corentin Perret-Gentil

TL;DR
This paper develops advanced zero-density estimates for $ ext{ell}$-adic trace functions over finite fields, leveraging a variant of Kowalski's large sieve, with applications to exponential sums like hyper-Kloosterman sums.
Contribution
It introduces a new variant of the large sieve for Frobenius that improves zero-density estimates for trace functions with known monodromy groups.
Findings
Zero-density estimates for $ ext{ell}$-adic trace functions over finite fields.
Application to hyper-Kloosterman sums and Katz's exponential sums.
Enhanced understanding of the distribution of trace function arguments.
Abstract
By using a variant of Kowalski's large sieve for Frobenius in compatible systems, we obtain zero-density estimates for arguments of -adic trace functions over finite fields with values in some algebraic subsets of the cyclotomic integers, when the monodromy groups are known. This applies in particular to hyper-Kloosterman sums and general exponential sums considered by Katz.
| , ( even) | |
|---|---|
| ( odd) | |
| ( even) |
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.
Exponential sums over finite fields and the large sieve
Corentin Perret-Gentil
Centre de recherches mathématiques, Montréal, Canada
(Date: March 2018. Revised August 2018.)
Abstract.
By using a variant of the large sieve for Frobenius in compatible systems developed in [Kow06a] and [Kow08], we obtain zero-density estimates for arguments of -adic trace functions over finite fields with values in some algebraic subsets of the cyclotomic integers, when the monodromy groups are known. This applies in particular to hyper-Kloosterman sums and general exponential sums considered by Katz.
Contents
- 1 Introduction
- 2 The large sieve for Frobenius in compatible systems
- 3 Traces of random matrices and Gaussian sums
- 4 Zero-density estimates for trace functions in algebraic subsets
- 5 Examples
1. Introduction
1.1. Exponential sums and trace functions
We consider exponential sums over a finite field of characteristic such as:
- (1)
Hyper-Kloosterman sums of rank given by
[TABLE]
for , the trace map, and for any . More generally, we also have hypergeometric sums as introduced in [Kat90, Chapter 8]; 2. (2)
General exponential sums of the form
[TABLE]
for , rational functions and a character of . For example, we have Birch sums , cubic exponential sums studied in particular by Livné [Liv87] and Katz; 3. (3)
Functions counting points on families of curves such as
[TABLE]
where is the smooth projective model of the affine hyperelliptic curve over , for fixed squarefree of degree .
1.1.1. Exponential sums as algebraic integers
Note that the three examples above all take values in the localization (by the evaluation of quadratic Gauss sums), or less precisely in the cyclotomic field .
It is an interesting question to investigate their properties as elements of these sets, as done by Fisher [Fis92, Fis95] or recently by the author [PG17a] for the distribution of their reductions modulo a prime ideal and short sums thereof.
1.1.2. Trace functions
Examples (1)–(3) are specific incarnations of trace functions arising from constructible middle-extension sheaves of -modules on , for a prime distinct from , as constructed in particular by Deligne [Del77] and Katz [Kat90].
Very powerful tools are then available to study various aspects of these functions, such as Deligne’s extension [Del80] of the Riemann hypothesis for varieties over finite fields to weights of étale cohomology groups of such sheaves.
For example, Katz [Kat88] obtained a “vertical Sato–Tate law” for the distribution of Kloosterman sums, through a general equidistribution theorem of Deligne, and similar results [Kat90] for families of the type (2) or (3).
1.2. Zero-density estimates
The goal of the present article is to obtain general zero-density estimates of the form
[TABLE]
where:
- •
is the trace function associated to a coherent family of sheaves over (Definition 2.1), for a number field.
- •
is an “algebraic” subset such as the set of -powers (), the image of a polynomial, or more generally a set defined by a first-order formula in the language of rings.
This will apply in particular, with , to Kloosterman sums (1) and exponential sums of the form (2).
1.2.1. Families of curves
The large sieve for Frobenius in compatible systems was developed by Kowalski in [Kow06a] and [Kow08] to obtain results of the type of Chavdarov [Cha97] on zeta functions of families of curves, such as the probability that the numerator has Galois group as large as possible.
In the notations of Example 3 above, Kowalski gets for example (see [Kow08, Section 8.8]) that
[TABLE]
for the set of squares of integers.
The large sieve bound ultimately relies on estimates of exponential sums obtained through Deligne’s generalization of the Riemann hypothesis over finite fields.
Note that in the setting above, we have .
1.2.2. Examples of results for Kloosterman sums
In the case of hyper-Kloosterman sums (1) of rank , our main results are the following:
Proposition 1.1**.**
Let be an integer and . For coprime to , we have
[TABLE]
when is coprime to with , where
[TABLE]
and is the set of th powers in . The implied constant depends only on , and .
More generally:
Proposition 1.2**.**
Let be an integer and . For
- •
almost all111Throughout, this will mean “for all but such polynomials of height at most , as ”.* monic polynomials of fixed degree , and*
- •
all of degree such that the Galois group of is equal to ,
we have
[TABLE]
when is coprime to with , for as in (5). The implied constant depends only on , and .
{remarks}
- (1)
The bounds are uniform in , thanks to the determination of the finite monodromy groups in [PG18], over a field of characteristic . 2. (2)
This can further be extended to definable subsets of (i.e. defined by a first-order formula in the language of rings), under some technical conditions (Proposition 5.1 later on). 3. (3)
The same bounds hold for unnormalized Kloosterman sums. 4. (4)
Under the general Riemann hypothesis (GRH) for the Dedekind zeta function of , one may take and . 5. (5)
By relying on the determination of the monodromy groups over by Katz and the results of Larsen–Pink (see Section 5.2), instead of [PG18], these results would only hold when is fixed and , with an implied constant depending on .
1.3. Strategy
The general idea to obtain zero-density estimates of the type (4) is the following: in the setting of Section 1.2, let be the ring of integers of . It turns out (by definition of a coherent family) that there exists a set of valuations of (equivalently, of prime ideals) such for every , the function coincides with the trace function arising from a constructible middle-extension sheaf of -modules on . By reduction, we obtain a trace function , where is the residue field at .
Thus,
[TABLE]
where . A variant of Kowalski’s large sieve for Frobenius in compatible systems, handling sheaves of -modules instead of sheaves of -modules, can then be used to bound this quantity in terms of local densities in the sets .
1.3.1. Technical tools
More precisely, the first part of the approach requires:
- •
The construction by Deligne and Katz of examples of the form 1 and 2 as trace functions of sheaves of -modules.
- •
Information on monodromy groups:
- –
When available, the determination of integral monodromy groups for a density one subset of the valuations, not depending on .
- –
Otherwise, results of Larsen and Pink [LP92, Lar95] to handle sheaves whose monodromy groups are known over (e.g. by the works of Katz [Kat88, Kat90]), but not over .
- –
For sheaves associated with exponential sums of the form 2, conditions and/or normalizations so that arithmetic and geometric monodromy groups coincide.
To compute local densities in the sets , we will need bounds on “Gaussian sums” (see Section 3) over:
- •
Linear algebraic groups over ; these follow either from Deligne’s generalization of the Riemann hypothesis over finite fields [Del80] and bounds of Katz on sums of Betti numbers [Kat01], or from explicit computations of D.S. Kim for certain finite groups of Lie type.
- •
Subsets of such as powers (Bourgain and others, e.g. [BC06]) or more generally definable subsets (Kowalski [Kow07], using the work of Chatzidakis–van der Dries–Macintyre [CvdDM92]).
The implied constant in a bound of the form (4) will depend on (forcing to fix and take , ) when we rely on the results of Larsen–Pink, and will be absolute when more precise information about integral monodromy groups is available.
When we want results with absolute implied constants, we will also employ uniform estimates in Chebotarev’s density theorem (e.g. [May13]), since may depend on .
1.4. Organization of the paper
In Section 2, we lay out the technical setup of trace functions of sheaves of -modules over finite fields, define coherent families, and show that (1) and (3) arise from such families. Finally, we state a variant of the large sieve for Frobenius in compatible systems (Theorem 2.10).
In Section 3, we get results on the Gaussian sums mentioned above, which will be used to compute the local densities in the sieve.
In Section 4, we apply the large sieve of Section 2 to obtain bounds of the type (4), by using the estimates from Section 3 and uniform bounds in Chebotarev’s density theorem.
In Section 5, we start by explaining how this leads to the results for Kloosterman sums given in Section 1.2.2 above. Then, we work towards obtaining similar zero-density estimates for general exponential sums of the form (2), showing that coherent families can still be obtained through the results of Larsen and Pink (in particular with Theorem 5.3).
Acknowledgements.
The author would like to thank Emmanuel Kowalski and Richard Pink for helpful discussions, as well as the anonymous referees for very valuable comments. This work was partially supported by DFG-SNF lead agency program grant 200021L_153647 and by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 1440140, while the author was in residence at the Mathematical Sciences Research Institute in Berkeley, California, during the Spring semester of 2017. Some of the results also appeared in the author’s PhD thesis.
2. The large sieve for Frobenius in compatible systems
We start by recalling the technical setup of trace functions over finite fields, before stating a version of the large sieve for Frobenius adapted to our needs.
Throughout this section, a number field with ring of integers is fixed, as well as a finite field of characteristic .
2.1. Trace functions over finite fields
2.1.1. Definitions
Let be an -adic valuation corresponding to a prime ideal of , and the completions, and the residue field.
Let , or . We recall that a constructible middle-extension sheaf of -modules over (or sheaf of -modules over for simplicity) corresponds to a continuous -adic Galois representation
[TABLE]
for a geometric generic point and the corresponding separable closure. The associated trace functions are, for every finite extension ,
[TABLE]
where222The set of conjugacy classes of a group will be denoted by . is the geometric Frobenius at , for the inertia (resp. decomposition) group at . We will denote by the maximal open of lissité of .
We refer the reader to [Kat88, Chapter 2] for more details and references.
2.1.2. Monodromy groups
If is a sheaf of -modules over as above, the arithmetic and geometric monodromy groups of are the groups
[TABLE]
if is discrete, and
[TABLE]
if , where denotes Zariski closure, for .
The works of Katz (see e.g. [Kat88, Kat90, KS99]) contain the determination of the monodromy groups over of many sheaves of interest, such as Kloosterman sheaves. An important input is the fact that, for pointwise pure of weight [math] sheaves, the connected component of the geometric monodromy group is a semisimple algebraic group by a result of Deligne.
The determination of discrete monodromy groups is usually more difficult, since they have far less structure.
2.2. Coherent families
Definition 2.1**.**
Let be a set of valuations on and let be an open affine subset. A family , where is a sheaf of -modules over with maximal open of lissité , is coherent if:
- (1)
It forms a compatible system: if is the representation corresponding to , then for every , every finite extension and every , the characteristic polynomial
[TABLE]
lies in and does not depend on . 2. (2)
There exists such that for every corresponding to a prime ideal , the arithmetic and geometric monodromy groups of coincide and are conjugate to . We call the monodromy group structure of the family.
The conductor of the family is defined to be , where
[TABLE]
is the conductor defined by Fouvry–Kowalski–Michel (see e.g. [FKM15]).
Remark 2.2**.**
Here, the prime is fixed, and the bounds of type (4) would concern the trace functions on obtained for every power of . However, it may also make sense to vary (e.g. for Kloosterman sums of fixed rank, exponential sums (2) coming from the reduction of integer polynomials, etc.), and the conductor will allow to control this dependency. See also Remark 1.2.2.
If is a compatible system as above, then in particular the trace function (as the opposite of the coefficient of order in the characteristic polynomial) is independent from and takes values in . More precisely,
[TABLE]
where is the localization at the ideal corresponding to the valuation .
2.2.1. Fourier transforms and coherent families
The sheaves we will consider arise by -adic Fourier transforms, as developed by Deligne, Laumon and others (see [Kat90, Section 7.3], [Kat88, Chapter 5]), corresponding to the discrete Fourier transform on the level of trace functions.
This often results in sheaves with large classical monodromy groups, which is part of Condition 2 above.
Concerning Condition 1 and the conductor, we recall:
Lemma 2.3**.**
Let us assume that and let be a nontrivial additive character. If is a compatible system of Fourier sheaves333See [Kat90, 7.3.5] for the relevant definitions. of -modules over , then the family is compatible as well and , where denotes the normalized Fourier transform with respect to .
Proof 2.4**.**
Let and . By construction, for every finite extension and every , the reverse characteristic polynomial is equal to
[TABLE]
where denotes an Artin–Schreier sheaf and the th -adic cohomology group with compact support. By the Grothendieck–Lefschetz trace formula [Del77, Exposé 2], this is , where has image in and does not depend on by hypothesis, whence the conclusion.
The assertion on the conductors can be found in [FKM15, Proposition 8.2], along with [Kat88, Remark 1.10].
2.2.2. Examples
For the examples below, we let , with ring of integers .
Proposition 2.5** (Kloosterman sheaves).**
Let be a fixed integer coprime to . For
[TABLE]
there exists a coherent family of sheaves of -modules over , with monodromy group structure
[TABLE]
conductor bounded by , and such that the trace function is equal to the Kloosterman sum on .
Proof 2.6**.**
The construction of the Kloosterman sheaves is due to Deligne (see [Kat88] for the construction via recursive Fourier transforms). As already mentioned, the assertion on the integral monodromy groups over can be found in [PG18]. They form a compatible system for fixed by Lemma 2.3 applied recursively.
Remark 2.7**.**
As an illustration of (6), note that .
The following example, when unnormalized (hence replacing by ), was treated in [Kow06a] and [Kow08]:
Proposition 2.8** (Point counting on families of hyperelliptic curves).**
Let be a squarefree polynomial of degree , and let be the set of -adic valuations of with . For large enough, there exists a coherent family of -adic sheaves of -modules over , with monodromy group structure , conductor depending only on , and such that is given by (3) when .
Proof 2.9**.**
For the construction, see [KS99, Section 10.1], and normalize by a Tate twist. Because of this normalization, [KS99, Theorem 10.1.16] and [KS99, Lemma 10.1.9] show that the arithmetic and geometric monodromy group preserve the same symplectic pairing. Finally, [Hal08, Theorem 1.2] shows that the geometric monodromy group is .
2.3. The large sieve for Frobenius
Theorem 2.10**.**
Let be a set of valuations (or equivalently prime ideals) on . Given , we write for the set of valuations in corresponding to ideals of norm at most . Let be a coherent family, with monodromy group structure , where corresponds to a representation
[TABLE]
For every , let be a conjugacy-invariant subset. Then, for all ,
[TABLE]
where the implied constant depends only on the conductor of the family, and
[TABLE]
Proof 2.11**.**
This is a variant of [Kow06a, Proposition 3.3] (see also [Kow08, Chapter 8]). For distinct, the product map is surjective by [Kow06a, Corollary 2.6] (a variant of Goursat’s Lemma), which extends with no modification to the case where and do not necessarily have prime order (see [MT11, Part III]). By [MT11, Corollary 24.6], .
Remark 2.12**.**
Note that in the case of the examples of Section 1.1, the size of the residue field corresponding to a prime ideal depends on the multiplicative order modulo of the prime above which lies (see [Was97, Theorem 2.13]). In particular, if , then depends on . This is a new phenomenon compared to the degree case (i.e. ) studied in [Kow06a] and [Kow08].
Remark 2.13**.**
The case of orthogonal monodromy group structures (that would appear in some variants of the examples in Section 5) is excluded in the definition of a coherent family, because the argument above does not apply in general: see the remark after [Kow06a, Corollary 2.6]. A similar difficulty arises in Theorem 5.3 later on: see Remark 5.2.12.
3. Traces of random matrices and Gaussian sums
In the next section, we will apply Theorem 2.10 to , for some . In this section, we get estimates on the densities
[TABLE]
By the orthogonality relations in , we get the following:
Proposition 3.1**.**
Let be a subgroup and . Then
[TABLE]
We expect, for nontrivial ,
[TABLE]
for some , and similarly, if is “well-distributed” in , we expect
[TABLE]
for some . In both cases, the bounds should be uniform with respect to all nontrivial .
Under (8) and (9), Proposition 3.1 becomes
[TABLE]
3.1. Gaussian sums in linear groups (8)
3.1.1. General result
We start by a result that applies more generally to algebraic varieties in .
Proposition 3.2**.**
Let for an algebraic variety over . The bound (8) holds with , uniformly for all nontrivial , unless is constant.
Proof 3.3**.**
Let be an auxiliary prime and let us consider the restriction of the Lang torsor on to (see [KR15, Example 7.17]), as sheaf of -modules. By the Grothendieck–Lefschetz trace formula,
[TABLE]
By Deligne’s generalization of the Riemann hypothesis over finite fields [Del80],
[TABLE]
for , and by the coinvariant formula,
[TABLE]
unless is geometrically trivial, in which case would be constant. Hence
[TABLE]
By [Kat01, Theorem 12], we find that
[TABLE]
if is defined by polynomials of degree at most . The conclusion follows by [MT11, Corollary 24.6].
3.1.2. Classical finite groups of Lie type
Using the Bruhat decomposition, D.S. Kim actually explicitly evaluated the Gaussian sums (8) for classical finite groups of Lie type (see e.g. [Kim97, Kim98]). The expressions involve hyper-Kloosterman sums, and applying Deligne’s bound yields the following, which greatly improves Proposition 3.2, in particular as grows:
Proposition 3.4**.**
For and , , , and , the bound (8) holds with given in Table 1.
Proof 3.5**.**
See [PG17a, Proposition 6.28].
3.2. Gaussian sums in
Let us now consider Bound (9) for various subsets .
3.2.1. Squares
Let be the subgroup of squares in with . Using the Legendre symbol and the evaluation of quadratic Gauss sums, we get that (9) holds with , uniformly for all nontrivial , corresponding to square-root cancellation since .
3.2.2. Powers/Multiplicative subgroups
More generally, we have:
Proposition 3.6**.**
For , Bound (9) holds for any subgroup such that , uniformly for all nontrivial .
Proof 3.7**.**
This follows for example from the bound that is deduced from Deligne’s extension of the Riemann hypothesis over finite fields (see [PG17a, Proposition 5.7]).
Example 3.8**.**
For fixed and the subgroup of th powers, the condition holds as soon as is large enough, since .
Remark 3.9**.**
When is arbitrarily small (say for some ), the works of Bourgain and others (see e.g. [BC06]) give (9) for some , up to some necessary restrictions if and .
3.2.3. Definable subsets
For a ring and a first-order formula in one variable in the language of rings, we define .
Example 3.10**.**
For , the set is the subset of squares, as in the previous section. More generally, we can take for any polynomial .
We recall:
Theorem 3.11** (Chatzidakis–van den Dries–Macintyre [CvdDM92]).**
For every formula in one variable in the language of rings, there exists a finite set such that for every finite field ,
[TABLE]
The implied constants depend only on .
The following combined with Theorem 3.11 shows that Gaussian sums over definable subsets exhibit square-root cancellation:
Theorem 3.12** ([Kow07, Theorem 1, Corollary 12, Remark 19]).**
Let be a formula in one variable in the language of rings such that is not bounded as . Then, if is nontrivial, the bound (9) for holds with , with an implied constant depending only on .
3.2.4. Images of polynomials
When for some polynomial , Theorem 3.11 also appears in [BSD59] (using the Weil conjectures for curves).
Proposition 3.13** ([BSD59, Theorem 1, Lemma 1]).**
Let be of degree and such that the Galois group of over is equal to . Then (3.11) for and a finite field of characteristic holds with
[TABLE]
This is extended to in [Coh70].
{remarks}
- (1)
See [BSD59, p. 422] for sufficient conditions to verify the hypothesis of Proposition 3.13. 2. (2)
By [vdW34] or [Gal73], the hypothesis of Proposition 3.13 holds for almost all monic of degree , with respect to the terminology of Footnote 1, p. 1.
4. Zero-density estimates for trace functions in algebraic subsets
We continue to fix a number field with ring of integers .
4.1. General result
Proposition 4.1**.**
Let be a set of valuations on and let be the trace function over associated to a coherent family of sheaves of -modules over , with monodromy group structure . For and corresponding to a prime ideal of , we denote by the reduction of modulo . Assume that
[TABLE]
Then
[TABLE]
where is as in Theorem 2.10, with an implied constant depending only on the conductor of the family and on the left-hand side of (13).
Proof 4.2**.**
For every , we may reduce to , so that
[TABLE]
By Theorem 2.10 with
[TABLE]
which are clearly conjugacy-invariant, we get
[TABLE]
where . By (10) (Proposition 3.1),
[TABLE]
since by Proposition 3.4. Therefore, we get that for any ,
[TABLE]
Remark 4.3**.**
If we assume more generally that the monodromy group of is for any linear group over , the results hold if for all , by Proposition 3.2. Interestingly, in the case of , and , Proposition 3.4 gives much more cancellation, so that we do not need information about the .
To apply Proposition 4.1, we need the local densities assumption (13) and lower bounds on . We treat these aspects in the following subsections.
4.2. Lower bounds on
For our applications, we will mainly consider to be either: {examples}
- (1)
The full set of valuations on not lying above the -adic valuation. 2. (2)
For and , the set of valuations such that . 3. (3)
The restriction of these to ideals having degree over .
More generally, let be a fixed finite Galois extension of number fields with Galois group , be a conjugacy-stable subset, and
[TABLE]
Example 4.2 1 then corresponds to , while 2 corresponds to with .
By Chebotarev’s density theorem, if and are fixed,
[TABLE]
with an absolute implied constant. Hence, if and do not depend on , (14) is
[TABLE]
If and/or depend on (e.g. for Kloosterman sums, where ), we must either fix or deal with uniformity with respect to and . We discuss this situation in the following paragraphs.
4.2.1. Uniformity in the prime ideal theorem
By [Fri80] (extending Chebychev’s method to number fields), if is normal444In Friedlander’s paper, it is only assumed that is in a tower of normal extensions. If is itself normal, we can improve the result by using more a precise version of Stark’s estimates [Sta74] on the residue at of the Dedekind zeta function of ., then
[TABLE]
for , and any if . This is nontrivial only when for some .
4.2.2. Uniformity in Chebotarev’s density theorem
The unconditional results due to Lagarias–Odlyzko and Serre (see [Ser81, Section 2.2]) show that (16) holds with an absolute implied constant under the restriction .
Assuming the generalized Riemann hypothesis (GRH) for the Dedekind zeta function of , this range can be improved to for an arbitrary (see [Ser81, Section 2.4]).
4.2.3. Cyclotomic fields
If , are cyclotomic fields, it is possible to improve the unconditional uniform range in Chebotarev’s density theorem by relying on estimates for primes in arithmetic progressions.
Proposition 4.4**.**
For coprime integers, let and . For , we have
[TABLE]
when either:
- (1)
* and , or* 2. (2)
under GRH, and for some .
Proof 4.5**.**
Since every unramified rational prime of inertia/residual degree (equal to the order of in ) gives rise to prime ideals with norm ,
[TABLE]
The summand with gives:
[TABLE]
If , then by the Chinese remainder theorem
[TABLE]
where for . Uniformly, one has
[TABLE]
under 1 (by [May13, Theorem 3.3], using Linnik-type arguments) or 2 assuming GRH.
Remark 4.6**.**
Similarly, this shows that for a Galois extension , the set of prime ideals with inertia degree has natural density , so we cannot hope to substantially improve the lower bound by taking into account the in the proof of Proposition 4.4.
{remarks}
- (1)
By the Bombieri–Vinogradov theorem, the range 2 in (18) holds unconditionally for all on average over . 2. (2)
By a conjecture of Montgomery, one may be able to take and for any . By Barban–Davenport–Halberstam, Montgomery, and Hooley, this holds true in (18) on average over and .
4.3. Explicit zero-density estimates
The results from the previous section along with Proposition 4.1 give:
Proposition 4.7**.**
Under the hypotheses of Proposition 4.1 and (13), with normal, a finite Galois extension with Galois group , a conjugacy-invariant subset and or as in (15), we have that for any :
- (1)
If is normal,
[TABLE]
which is nontrivial when for some . 2. (2)
Under GRH, if ,
[TABLE] 3. (3)
Assume that and with . If , then
[TABLE]
The implied constants depend only on the conductor of the family and the quantities indicated.
4.3.1. The case
For exponential sums, we are interested in the case , where and .
The restrictions (for some ) of Proposition 4.7 impose limitations on the range of when :
Corollary 4.8**.**
Under the hypotheses of Proposition 4.7 for and with , we have
[TABLE]
when either
{enumerate*}
* and , or*
under GRH, and .
The implied constants depend only on the conductor of the family and the quantities indicated.
{remarks}
- (1)
Had we not taken advantage of the fact that is a cyclotomic field, the unconditional results mentioned in Section 4.2.2 would have forced to take with . 2. (2)
Under Montgomery’s conjecture mentioned in Remarks 4.2.3, we may take and . Without an improvement in the error term of the large sieve bound (14), is the minimal value the method could handle.
4.4. Local densities
In this section, we finally give examples of sets for which the local densities assumption (13) holds.
4.4.1. Powers/finite index subgroups
Proposition 4.9**.**
Let , be as in Proposition 4.1 and for , let
[TABLE]
Then (13) holds for .
Proof 4.10**.**
We have and for ,
[TABLE]
Note that the set in Proposition 4.9 is of the form given in Example 4.2 2.
4.4.2. Definable subsets
Proposition 4.11**.**
Let , and be as in Proposition 4.1 and let be a first order formula in one variable in the language of rings such that:
- (1)
Neither nor are bounded as , where denotes negation. 2. (2)
For every corresponding to an ideal , is contained in .
Then (13) holds with .
Proof 4.12**.**
Condition 2 implies that for all . Under condition 1, Theorem 3.11 shows that
[TABLE]
with . Hence, for large enough, and , recalling that is finite.
Remark 4.13**.**
Condition 2 of Proposition 4.11 holds if both {multicols}2
- [(a)]
- (1)
, and 3. (2)
**
hold. Note that:
- •
Condition 1 holds when if for some . Indeed, for , we have if no coefficient of is divisible by .
- •
Condition 2 holds if contains no negations or implications. On the other hand, for , the reduction of a nonsquare in may be a square in .
Example 4.14** (Images of polynomials).**
Consider the case for of Section 3.2.4. Then Proposition 4.11 applies for
- •
almost all monic of fixed degree (with respect to the terminology of Footnote 1, p. 1), and
- •
all satisfying the Galois group condition of Proposition 3.13,
up to restricting to a cofinite subset of . Indeed:
- •
By Proposition 3.13 and Remarks 3.2.4, Condition 1 of Proposition 4.11 holds for almost all monic of fixed degree.
- •
Condition 2 holds if by Remark 4.13.
5. Examples
5.1. Kloosterman sums
Proposition 1.1, given in the introduction, now follows directly from Corollary 4.8 with Proposition 2.5 and the local densities estimates from Proposition 4.9.
Similarly, replacing the latter with Proposition 4.11, we obtain:
Proposition 5.1**.**
Let be a first-order formula in the language of rings as in Proposition 4.11. Then, for and ,
[TABLE]
when coprime to with , for as in (5). The implied constant depends only on , and .
Proposition 1.2 is a particular case of the latter, using Example 4.14.
5.1.1. Results for unnormalized sums
Replacing by in Proposition 4.1 and using uniformity shows that the above results also hold for unnormalized Kloosterman sums.
5.1.2. Galois actions
When considering densities of the form (19), it is interesting to take into account the following Galois actions:
- (1)
For all and ,
[TABLE]
The orbit of has size . Fisher [Fis92, Corollary 4.25] has actually shown that if , the Kloosterman sums are distinct up to this action. 2. (2)
For corresponding to and , we have
[TABLE]
Moreover, orbits have size .
If is a first-order formula in the language of rings, let . Since for all , we can define an equivalence relation on generated by for all , , and we have
[TABLE]
If in addition the hypotheses of Proposition 5.1 are satisfied, this yields
[TABLE]
Remark 5.2**.**
The right-hand side can tend to [math] with only when . Since , this is the case only for . Unfortunately, our estimate on the number of prime ideals of bounded norm in requires to take . If it could be extended to (but see Remarks 4.3.1 2), the above would show that for large enough, there is no such that .
5.2. Exploiting monodromy over
As we mentioned in the previous section, determining integral monodromy groups (as required by Definition 2.1 2), say for a subset of valuations of density 1, is usually difficult.
By using some deep results of Larsen and Pink (relying in particular on the classification of finite simple groups in [Lar95]), the following result allows to obtain coherent families from the knowledge of the monodromy groups over , up to passing to a subfamily of density depending on .
Theorem 5.3**.**
Let be a Galois number field with ring of integers and let be a set of valuations on of natural density . Let be a compatible system with a sheaf of -modules over . We assume that:
- [start=2]
- (2’)
There exists such that for every , the arithmetic monodromy group of is conjugate to .
Then there exists a subset of natural density , depending on and on the family, such that is coherent, with monodromy group structure .
After using Theorem 5.3, we may apply Proposition 4.1 with the coherent subfamily to get
[TABLE]
when , with the implied constant depending on and on the original family.
5.2.1. Proof of Theorem 5.3
The idea of the argument, based on [LP92] and [Lar95], is due to Katz and appears partly in [Kow06a, p. 29], [Kow06b, p. 7], [Kow08, pp. 188–189] (however see Remark 5.4 below), and [Kat12, Section 7].
To reduce as much as possible to the situation of [LP92] and [Lar95], we consider the subset corresponding to ideals of degree over , so that , and if is an -adic valuation. By [Jan05, 4.7.1], for any , the Dirichlet density of is equal to the Dirichlet density of the elements of having degree over . In particular, has Dirichlet density , and actually natural density by [Nar04, Corollary 2, p. 248] (for cyclotomic fields, see also the proof of Proposition 4.4).
In the notations of [Lar95, Section 3] and definitions of [LP92, Section 6], we have the compact -group with compatible system of representations
[TABLE]
and Frobenius for . Note that is a simply connected reductive group scheme over , and by hypothesis is semisimple.
For every , we let , the integral monodromy group, its reduction, and
[TABLE]
the set of valuations where the monodromy group is smaller than expected. We let moreover:
- •
For every ,
[TABLE]
the characteristic polynomial of (which does not depend on by hypothesis).
- •
the -rational closed subvariety of codimension given by [Lar95, (3.8)]. There exists a constant such that if .
- •
the set of the such that:
- (1)
is regular with respect to (see [Lar95, (3.4)], [LP92, (4.5)]) for every . 2. (2)
.
By [Lar95, (3.11)], is still dense and by [LP92, (4.7)]:
- (1)
lies in a unique maximal torus of of . 2. (2)
is associated to a torus in , unique up to -conjugacy, such that is conjugate to . 3. (3)
The splitting field of these tori is equal to the splitting field of over [LP92, (4.4)].
- •
such that is unramified at any .
- •
the intersection of the for , so that .
We decompose
[TABLE]
where .
The upper natural density of is
[TABLE]
Let us fix a class and an -adic valuation with Frobenius .
If , then is a proper subgroup of . By [Lar95, (1.1), (1.19)], when , every maximal subgroup of is of the form , for a smooth -subgroup scheme. By [Lar95, (3.17)] (see also [Lar95, (3.8)]), it follows that there exists a maximal proper reductive -subgroup of (containing a Levi component of ) such that
[TABLE]
for every such that , where:
- •
is the identity component of .
- •
is the isomorphism class of the Frobenius module (i.e. free -module of finite rank with an endomorphism of finite order) arising from the character group of the maximal torus containing , with the action of . By [Lar95, (3.14)], this depends only on up to isomorphism.
- •
and are the set of isomorphism classes of Frobenius modules arising from unramified tori of , resp. .
Let . As in [Lar95, (3.15)], and [LP92, (8.2)], we will show that
For every , there exist such that with linearly disjoint555Here, this means that for any , and are linearly disjoint over , i.e. their intersection is equal to ..
Assuming this, it follows that if , then for ,
[TABLE]
in , since . Therefore, by Chebotarev’s theorem,
[TABLE]
since and by linear disjointedness. Hence for every , so that has natural density [math] by taking .
We now prove . It suffices to show that for any finite Galois extension , there exists such that with and linearly disjoint over . We proceed as in [LP92, (8.2)] (where ).
For the intermediate fields of normal over and minimal with respect to inclusion with this property, we have that is linearly disjoint with over if and only if for all . This holds in particular if for every there exists corresponding to a prime that splits in , but not in .
For every , let be such that . By minimality of , we have , so that is contained in
[TABLE]
By Chebotarev’s theorem, the set of that split in but does not split in has positive Dirichlet density, so the same holds for the with this property, since has Dirichlet density . Hence, there exists that splits in but not in , and we may suppose all the distinct.
By [LP92, (7.5.3)], there exists such that:
- (1)
is conjugate in to the unramified maximal torus of corresponding to , so . 2. (2)
is conjugate in to . Since splits in , this torus is split, so that also splits in .
This concludes the argument.
[TABLE]
Finally, concerning the geometric integral monodromy group , note that:
- (1)
is a finite quotient of , hence a finite cyclic group. 2. (2)
If , the group is simple nonabelian (see e.g. [MT11, Theorem 24.17]).
Hence, by 2, if , then it is contained in , so that
[TABLE]
would be cyclic by 1, a contradiction. ∎
{remarks}
- (1)
We consider compatible systems of representations , where is a valuation on the ring of integers of a number field , while the results in [LP92, Part II] and [Lar95] are stated for the case . One needs to be cautious before stating the natural generalizations of the results of Larsen and Pink. For example, under the notations of the theorem, the maximal subgroups of are not all of the form for a smooth -subgroup scheme, unless as in [Lar95, (1.1), (1.19)]: for instance, one has subfield subgroups. 2. (2)
Theorem 5.3 cannot be used when , since it is not simply connected, and this assumption is required for [Lar95, (1.19)]. In even dimension, note that one would need additional input to determine the type ( or ) of the monodromy groups over .
5.2.2. Arithmetic and geometric monodromy groups
Often, only the geometric monodromy group is determined, while Theorem 5.3 and Definition 2.1 require knowledge of the arithmetic monodromy. By twisting a sheaf by a constant or a Tate twist, it is often possible to get a sheaf with
[TABLE]
so that . Examples will be given in the next sections.
Remark 5.4**.**
In [Kow06a, Kow06b, Kow08], the results of Larsen–Pink are applied to deduce the geometric monodromy group over from the geometric group over . However, this is incorrect since the geometric group does not contain a dense subset of the Frobenius. Moreover, note that the arithmetic monodromy group is not contained in (but in ).
For the unnormalized family of first cohomology groups of hyperelliptic curves, this is not an issue because the results of J.-K. Yu and C. Hall also apply to give the geometric monodromy groups. Alternatively, one may normalize by a Tate twist as in Proposition 2.8 and apply Theorem 5.3 to the normalized sheaf (see above).
For the characteristic 2 example of [Kow06b, Proposition 3.3], the result of Hall can also be applied because the local monodromy at [math] is a unipotent pseudoreflection. Again, one could also apply Theorem 5.3 after normalizing.
On the other hand, the statement [Kow06a, Theorem 6.1] must be modified to assume for example that the arithmetic monodromy group is , or that the geometric monodromy groups over are known for all .
5.3. General exponential sums
Finally, we use the previous section to give examples of coherent families of the form (2).
5.3.1. Construction of coherent families
Proposition 5.5** (Exponential sums (2), , ).**
Let and let be the set of zeros of in , having cardinality . We assume that the zeros of are simple, that (i.e. is supermorse), and that either:
- •
: is even, , and if with , then or .
- •
: is odd, and if with , then or or .
If is large enough, for and as in Example 4.21, there exists a family of sheaves of -modules over , with trace function
[TABLE]
and conductor depending only on .
Moreover, there exists and a set of valuations of density on , depending only on and , such that
[TABLE]
is a coherent family of sheaves of -modules over , for the ring of integers of , with monodromy group structure
- •
* if holds.*
- •
* if holds, and one may take .*
Proof 5.6**.**
See [Kat90, Theorem 7.9.4, Lemmas 7.10.2.1, 7.10.2.3] for the construction and [Kat90, 7.9.6–7, 7.10] for the determination of over . The family forms a compatible system by Lemma 2.3. The definition over comes from the definition of the -adic Fourier transform on the level of sheaves of -modules (see [Kat88, Chapter 5]). Under our hypotheses, contains , resp. . Moreover:
- •
In the case, by **[Kat90, 7.10.4 (3)]**, and we can apply Theorem 5.3.
- •
In the case, since is abelian, there exists by Clifford theory an element not depending on (since we have a compatible system) such that the determinant is isomorphic to .
As in Section 5.2.2, we obtain that with for any valuation of extending , the arithmetic and geometric monodromy groups of coincide and are conjugate to , so that we can apply Theorem 5.3.
Example 5.7**.**
The hypotheses hold for the rational function , where , , , with if is odd and otherwise (see [FM03, p. 7]), or for the polynomial , where and , with if is even, otherwise.
The following include for example Birch sums (with ):
Proposition 5.8** (Exponential sums (2), , , polynomial).**
Let be a polynomial of degree with and . If is large enough, for and as in Example 4.21, there exists a family of sheaves of -modules over with trace function
[TABLE]
and conductor depending only on .
Moreover, there exists and a set of valuations of density on , depending only on and , such that
[TABLE]
is a coherent family of sheaves of -modules over , for the ring of integers of , with monodromy group structure:
- (1)
* if is odd and has no monomial of even positive degree; one may take .* 2. (2)
* otherwise.*
Proof 5.9**.**
This is similar to the proof of Proposition 5.5. See [Kat90, 7.12] for the construction of the sheaves and the determination of the monodromy groups over . In the symplectic case, ibidem shows that the arithmetic monodromy group is itself contained in .
Proposition 5.10** (Exponential sums (2), polynomial, ).**
Let
- •
* odd with a pole of order at .*
- •
* odd nonzero of degree with .*
- •
* a character of of order .*
- •
* nonzero, with the order of any zero or pole not divisible by .*
For large enough, for and as in Example 4.21, there exists a family of sheaves of -modules over with trace function (2) and conductor depending only on .
Moreover, if we assume that there exists even with and either or , then there exists a set of valuations of density , depending only on and , such that
[TABLE]
is a coherent family, with monodromy group structure .
Proof 5.11**.**
This is again similar to the proof of Proposition 5.5. See [Kat90, 7.7, 7.13 (-example(2))] for the construction of the sheaves and the determination of the monodromy groups over ; [Kat90, 7.13] shows that the arithmetic monodromy group is itself contained in .
Remark 5.12**.**
If as in the statement of Proposition 5.10 is odd, there exists such that the arithmetic and geometric monodromy groups over of coincide and are conjugate to (see [Kat90, 7.14 (-example(2))]). However, Theorem 5.3 does not apply in that case (see Remarks 5.2.1 2).
5.3.2. Zero-density estimates
Hence, for the three families above, we get by Corollary 4.8 with Propositions 4.9 and 4.11:
Proposition 5.13**.**
We fix a prime and we set . Let be the trace function associated with one of the families from Propositions 5.5, 5.8 or 5.10, and let be as in (7).
For a first-order formula in the language of rings as in Proposition 4.11,
[TABLE]
In particular, for almost all monic of fixed degree (such as for coprime to ),
[TABLE]
Proof 5.14**.**
In the symplectic case, this is immediate. In the special linear cases, we get the result for the twisted trace function , . The result for the unnormalized function is obtained as in Section 5.1.1, replacing by in Proposition 4.1 and using uniformity.
Remark 5.15**.**
In the special linear case, the implied constant depends on both because of the use of Theorem 5.3, and because of the twisting factor .
5.3.3. Galois actions
Note that for the sums
[TABLE]
with and , we have , where corresponds to for some . Hence, as in Section 5.1.2, it makes sense to study the integer
[TABLE]
when is a first-order formula in the language of rings. However, doing so requires an estimate of the form (4) uniform in , for example through a more precise knowledge of the integral monodromy instead of relying on Theorem 5.3.
5.4. Hypergeometric sums
The same methods also apply to the hypergeometric sums defined by Katz [Kat90, Chapter 8], generalizing Kloosterman sums: under some conditions, the arithmetic and geometric monodromy groups over coincide and are conjugate to , without needing to twist (see the references to [Kat90] in [PG17b, Proposition 7.7]).
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1[BC 06] Jean Bourgain and Mei-Chu Chang. A Gauss sum estimate in arbitrary finite fields. C. R. Math. Acad. Sci. Paris , 342(9):643–646, 2006.
- 2[BSD 59] Bryan Birch and Peter Swinnerton-Dyer. Note on a problem of Chowla. Acta Arith. , 5(4):417–423, 1959.
- 3[Cha 97] Nick Chavdarov. The generic irreducibility of the numerator of the zeta function in a family of curves with large monodromy. Duke Math. J. , 87(1):151–180, 1997.
- 4[Coh 70] Stephen Cohen. The distribution of polynomials over finite fields. Acta Arith. , 17(3):255–271, 1970.
- 5[Cvd DM 92] Zoé Chatzidakis, Lou van den Dries, and Angus Macintyre. Definable sets over finite fields. J. Reine Angew. Math. , 427:107–136, 1992.
- 6[Del 77] Pierre Deligne. Cohomologie étale, séminaire de géométrie algébrique du Bois-Marie SGA 4 1 2 1 2 \frac{1}{2} , volume 569 of Lecture notes in Math. Springer, 1977.
- 7[Del 80] Pierre Deligne. La conjecture de Weil. II. Inst. Hautes Études Sci. Publ. Math. , 52(1):137–252, 1980.
- 8[Fis 92] Benji Fisher. Distinctness of Kloosterman sums. In p 𝑝 p -adic methods in number theory and algebraic geometry , volume 133 of Contemp. Math. , pages 81–102. Amer. Math. Soc., 1992.
