On Kuznetsov-Bykovskii's formula of counting prime geodesics
Giacomo Cherubini, Han Wu, Gergely Z\'abr\'adi

TL;DR
This paper generalizes Kuznetsov-Bykovskii's formula for counting prime geodesics, extending its applicability to any number field and congruence subgroup, with explicit computations for specific cases.
Contribution
It broadens the scope of the prime geodesic counting formula to general number fields and subgroups, providing explicit calculations for principal and Hecke subgroups.
Findings
The generalized formula applies to any number field and congruence subgroup.
Explicit computations are provided for principal and Hecke subgroups.
The method enhances the understanding of prime geodesic distribution in various settings.
Abstract
We generalize a formula on the counting of prime geodesics, due to Kuznetsov-Bykovskii, used in the work of Soundararajan-Young on the prime geodesic theorem. The method works over any number field and for any congruence subgroup. We give explicit computation in the cases of principal and Hecke subgroups.
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.
On Kuznetsov–Bykovskii’s formula of counting prime geodesics
Giacomo Cherubini Han Wu Gergely Zábrádi
Giacomo Cherubini Charles University
Faculty of Mathematics and Physics
Department of Algebra
Sokolovská 83
18600 Praha 8
Czech Republic
Han WU
School of Mathematical Sciences
Queen Mary University of London
Mile End Road
London, E1 4NS
United Kingdom
Gergely Zábrádi
Eötvös Loránd University of Budapest (& MTA Rényi Intézet Lendület Automorphic Research Group)
Institute of Mathematics
Pázmány P.s. 1/C
1117 Budapest
Hungary
Abstract.
We generalize a formula on the counting of prime geodesics, due to Kuznetsov–Bykovskii, used in the work of Soundararajan–Young on the prime geodesic theorem. The method works over any number field and for any congruence subgroup. We give explicit computation in the cases of principal and Hecke subgroups.
MSC code: 11F72
Keywords: prime geodesic theorem, Rankin–Selberg method
Contents
1. Introduction
1.1. Prime Geodesic Theorem
The Selberg trace formula, in its classical invariant form, relates the mysterious (discrete) spectrum of the hyperbolic laplacian on to the so-called “length spectrum” of , which is closely related to the concrete arithmetics of the lattice . Precisely, let run over the discrete spectrum of , let and , then the formula takes the form (see [20, (2.4)] and assume is torsion-free)
[TABLE]
where is the length of the closed geodesic in associated with the hyperbolic -conjugacy class , and represents the(a) primitive class for such that for some integer . We have omitted the contribution from the continuous spectrum by simply writing it as . In particular, this formula allows Vignéras [30] to construct isospectral but non-isometric compact hyperbolic manifolds, giving a beautiful counter-example to Kac’s question [14].
The Selberg trace formula also has a lot of analogies with the explicit formula (of Weil, in this general form) of the Riemann zeta function. Precisely, let with run over the set of non trivial zeros of the Riemann zeta function. Let be a nice function on defined by . Define . Then the explicit formula takes the form
[TABLE]
(1.1) is analogous to the above formula if one regards as the prime powers (and if is even). This analogy motivated Selberg to define the Selberg zeta function
[TABLE]
and other mathematicians, especially analytic number theorists, to introduce counting functions analogous to the ones in the prime number theorem
[TABLE]
where is the analogue of the von Mangoldt function defined by if is a power of the primitive hyperbolic class . One then expects the prime geodesic theorem, analogous to the prime number theorem, of the form
[TABLE]
where is an absolute constant.
1.2. Kuznetsov–Bykovskii’s formula
Finding the smallest possible value of the exponent in (1.2) is a deep problem. For Iwaniec [11, Theorem 2] obtained using the spectral theory of automorphic forms; this was improved subsequently by Luo–Sarnak [17, Theorem 1.4] to and to by Cai [7]. Recently, Soundararajan–Young [27, Theorem 1.1] succeeded to improve this exponent to . Their method has the following new ingredient, i.e., a formula due to Kuznetsov, quoted by Bykovskii [6, (2.2)] or [27, Proposition 2.2], used to establish an estimation of for small compared to [27, Theorem 3.2]: Setting , one has for
[TABLE]
where is a certain -series closely related to quadratic Dirichlet -functions. Its origin goes back to the work of Zagier [32] and even Siegel [25]. Among other things, we only recall that has the following representation as Dirichlet series [27, (3)]
[TABLE]
that it has a meromorphic continuation and satisfies the following functional equation [27, Lemma 2.1]
[TABLE]
Remark 1.1**.**
Recall [27, (4) & Lemma 2.1] that if we write for a fundamental discriminant and an integer , then
[TABLE]
where is the non-trivial quadratic Dirichlet character of modulus and is a product of polynomials in for . In particular, the above functional equation is equivalent to
[TABLE]
Remark 1.2**.**
There is another property of , which is interesting but does not enter into the proof of the Prime Geodesic Theorem (PGT). Namely, the zeros of all lie on the critical line . Following Nelson, Pitale and Saha [23, §1.7], who encountered a similar phenomenon in the explicit computation of certain local Rankin–Selberg integrals, we shall refer to this property as the “(geometric) local Riemann hypothesis”.
Remark 1.3**.**
There is a parallel story for the upper half space and , starting from Sarnak [24], Koyama [16] and continued with the recent work of Balkanova–Chatzakos–Cherubini–Frolenkov–Laaksonen [1] and Balkanova–Frolenkov [2]. The approach of Balkanova–Frolenkov [2] is the closest to that of Soundararajan–Young. In fact, although they did not mention the (generalization of) Kuznetsov-Bykovskii’s formula in their paper, they did relate the relevant mean value of the symmetric -functions to the analogue of , see [2, (3.18) & Lemma 4.6]. The equivalence of these two methods fit into the framework of the Rankin–Selberg trace formula, initiated and explained in [31].
1.3. Main Results
In this paper, we simplify and generalize the proof of (1.3). We shall work over a number field which is
- •
either , in which case we denote by the usual upper half plane;
- •
or an imaginary quadratic field, in which case we denote by the upper half space.
In either case we denote by the ring of integers in and by the ideal class group. For lattices, we will take to be
- •
either a principal congruence subgroup of level , i.e., those which has a representative in congruent to the identity matrix modulo the integral ideal ;
- •
or a Hecke subgroup of level , i.e., those which has a representative in congruent to an upper triangular matrix modulo .
Rigorously speaking, there are issues from geometry:
- (1)
If is not torsion-free, the quotient space is not a Riemannian manifold but an orbifold. Therefore a priori the notion of “closed geodesics” is not defined.
- (2)
Even with an adequate definition of closed geodesics in the case of , the bijective correspondence between the set of closed geodesics and the conjugacy classes in fails in general. However, this failure is only “up to a finite number”. In particular, primitive hyperbolic conjugacy classes cannot be defined as for which there exists no other class such that for some integer . This is clear from the shape of the (invariant) Selberg trace formula (see [1, Theorem 2.2]), but still needs a geometric clarification.
Both issues will be carefully looked at in Section 2. In particular, we will replace the notion of a conjugacy class in by “root conjugacy class” but keep the same notation, which remedy the bijective correspondence. We will also introduce in Remark 2.13 for such classes, so that our counting function becomes (drop the subscript for simplicity, or regard it as root-conjugacy class)
[TABLE]
Theorem 1.4**.**
(1) There exists such that
[TABLE]
where runs over the set of for hyperbolic (considered as a subset of ) such that
[TABLE]
and is the fundamental discriminant of the quadratic extension .
(2) The -series has the following factorization
[TABLE]
where is the quadratic character associated with , or according as or , and is a product of polynomials in for satisfying
[TABLE]
(3) Moreover, satisfies the local Riemann hypothesis if is a principal congruence subgroup.
Remark 1.5**.**
The precise form of the polynomials will be given in (4.7) for the case of principal congruence subgroups, in (4.8), (4.9), (4.10), (4.11), (4.12) and (4.13) for the case of Hecke subgroups. In particular, has the same shape for the principal congruence subgroups, with a “shift” determined by the level of .
Remark 1.6**.**
We have restricted to principal and Hecke subgroups for explicit computation, but our method is applicable to any congruence subgroup. However, the analogue of for number fields is unclear to us. This paper should also be viewed as a refinement of the explicit computation of the elliptic terms in the geometric side of the Rankin–Selberg trace formula in our previous paper [31]. Hence although for , the terms , which will be defined in (3.9), do not contribute to the final formula, we have included their computation in detail.
Remark 1.7**.**
Section §3.3 contains the beginning of a non-adelic treatment, which leads directly to the Dirichlet series representation of by Rankin–Selberg unfolding.
Remark 1.8**.**
Although we have written this paper as a preparation for the prime geodesic theorems, the method of computation is potentially useful for the beyond endoscopy proposal. For example, our method should give a simpler proof of the Eichler-Selberg formula as treated in Rudnick’s thesis. All these will come in a later paper.
As an application, we deduce a prime geodesic theorem for principal congruence subgroups of and . Like in [27] and [4], our results are expressed in terms of the subconvexity exponent for quadratic Dirichlet -functions over , that is, a number such that
[TABLE]
where is any quadratic character over and is some fixed constant. The convexity bound is and if one can take by the work of Conrey and Iwaniec [8]. More recently, Nelson [22] has announced the same exponent over number fields.
Theorem 1.9**.**
Let be a principal congruence subgroup of and let . Then
[TABLE]
where is as in (1.4).
Notice that (1.5) corresponds to the bound obtained in [4, Remark 4]. By inserting the convexity exponent , one recovers the classical exponent due to Sarnak [24, Theorem 5.1]. Therefore, any subconvexity exponent gives a non-trivial result. One could reduce further the error in (1.5) if one had better bounds for a spectral exponential sum featuring in the proof (see Section 5), which are available for , see [1, 3], but not for general congruence groups.
We give a proof of Theorem 1.9 in Section 5.2 and at the end of that section we sketch the case when is a congruence subgroup of , which leads to the following generalization of [27, Theorem 1.1].
Theorem 1.10**.**
Let be a principal congruence subgroup of and let . Then we have
[TABLE]
with is as in (1.4).
The proof of Theorem 1.10 implicitly uses an estimate for Rankin–Selberg -functions attached to Maass forms for , which is essentially the same ingredient needed to improve Theorem 1.9. Over , such a bound was proved by Luo and Sarnak [17] in detail for the modular group and they mention in [17, p.211] that the proof extends to congruence subgroups. By analogy, we are inclined to believe that the exponent in Theorem 1.9 may be lowered to
[TABLE]
matching the currently best known result for , see [3], where a Luo–Sarnak-type bound is proved with an additional dependence on .
As a more technical remark, we point out that in Theorem 1.4 the function counts geodesics without orientation, which differs by a factor of two compared to the more common definition used in e.g. [1, 4, 3, 11, 16, 17, 24, 27] (see also Remark 5.2). For consistency with the rest of the literature, and by a slight abuse of notation, Theorems 1.9 and 1.10 are stated for the non-oriented counting function.
1.4. Acknowledgement
H.Wu would like to thank the Rényi institute, EPFL, the IMS at NUS and QMUL for providing stimulating working conditions during the preparation of this paper, and the support of the Leverhulme Trust Research Project Grant RPG-2018-401. G.Zábrádi was supported by the MTA Rényi Intézet Lendület Automorphic Research Group, by the János Bolyai Research Scholarship of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, and by the NKFIH Research Grant FK-127906, and by Project ED 18-1-2019-0030 (Application-specific highly reliable IT solutions) under the Thematic Excellence Programme funding scheme.
2. Geometric Preliminaries
2.1. Closed Geodesics
Throughout this paper, is either or a quadratic imaginary number field. The two cases are distinguished by or . We write
[TABLE]
where resp. is the half upper plane resp. half upper space and .
We work in the category of Riemannian manifolds with orientation. Recall that a geodesic flow with unit speed or simply geodesic flow is an orientation-preserving isometric embedding which satisfies the (second order) differential equation of geodesics. Here is regarded as a one-dimensional Riemannian manifold with orientation, whose group of orientation-preseving isometries is
[TABLE]
We define a geodesic curve with orientation or simply geodesic to be a class of geodesic flows
[TABLE]
An element stabilizes if for some and any
[TABLE]
Changing to another in the above equation will change to the conjugate . Since is abelian, does not change. The group of stabilizers of is denoted by . Hence we get a well-defined homomorphism of (Lie) groups
[TABLE]
There is a special geodesic flow
[TABLE]
Lemma 2.1**.**
The group of stabilizers equals , where
[TABLE]
Proof.
Let . This is equivalent to the existence of such that
[TABLE]
The last equation is equivalent to that fixes the point in the unit tangent bundle of . We conclude by showing that the stabilizer of this point is
[TABLE]
This is elementary and left to the reader. ∎
Corollary 2.2**.**
There is a bijection between the set of geodesics in and .
Proof.
By the transitivity of the action of on the unit tangent bundle of , any geodesic flow in is of the form for some . The association descends to and establishes a bijective correspondence by the above discussion. ∎
Let be a lattice. Some geodesics are globally stable by non-trivial elements in . We formalize this property in the following definition.
Definition 2.3**.**
A geodesic is called -periodic, if is a lattice in . In this case, is called the group of automorphs of , denoted by if the lattice is clear from the context.
Proposition 2.4**.**
For each -periodic geodesic , is a maximal abelian subgroup of . It is isomorphic to for some , and if we must have .
Proof.
If , then , which by Lemma 2.1 is isomorphic to
[TABLE]
With this identification, is identified with the projection onto the -component. Consequently, is identified with a discrete subgroup with non-trivial -component, hence is of the asserted form. It remains to show that is maximal abelian. If commutes with , then it commutes with , hence lies in since the later is a maximal abelian Lie subgroup of . Thus by definition. ∎
In general, is not necessarily a Riemannian manifold, but an orbifold. We do not know an intrinsic way to define closed geodesics on an orbifold. In our special case, we make use of geodesics on .
Definition 2.5**.**
A closed geodesic on is the image under the natural projection of a -periodic geodesic.
Remark 2.6**.**
In the special case that does admit the structure of a Riemannian manifold, our notion of “closed geodesics” is that of “compact geodesics” or “closed geodesics with finite length”, in the sense that they are (classes of) isometric embeddings of the form
[TABLE]
where both and are regarded as Riemannian manifolds with orientation and is the length of .
2.2. Relation with Conjugacy Classes
We recall the standard classification of elements in (or ). For , this is standard. is elliptic resp. hyperbolic resp. parabolic if resp. resp. . For , we follow [9, Definition 2.1.3]. Namely, is elliptic resp. hyperbolic resp. parabolic if and resp. resp. ; it is loxodromic if .
Remark 2.7**.**
For the purpose of this paper, it is not important to distinguish hyperbolic elements from loxodromic elements. We will simply call them hyperbolic.
We also recall the arithmetic classification of elements : is called -elliptic resp. -hyperbolic resp. -parabolic if the -algebra is a quadratic field extension of resp. isomorphic to resp. isomorphic to . For congruence subgroups, the hyperbolic elements are automatically -elliptic as the following lemma shows.
Lemma 2.8**.**
If is hyperbolic, then it is -elliptic.
Proof.
The element cannot be -parabolic, otherwise either or , which implies is parabolic. If is -hyperbolic, then it is conjugate in to a diagonal matrix with entries and for some . We thus get , hence both and are integral over . It follows that . Under our assumption on , is a finite group. Hence is of finite order and must be elliptic. The only remaining possibility is -elliptic. ∎
Remark 2.9**.**
If , the condition “” in the above lemma can be relaxed to “”, since “hyperbolic” is the same as “-elliptic” in this situation.
Remark 2.10**.**
The set of elliptic elements in will be denoted by . It has the following description
[TABLE]
It is the set of elements in which admits (at least) a fixed point in (c.f. [19, Theorem 1.3.1] and [9, Proposition 2.1.4]).
Definition 2.11**.**
For hyperbolic , we denote by the centralizer of in . We define the root-conjugacy class of by
[TABLE]
where for any , is the usual conjugacy class in .
Lemma 2.12**.**
For hyperbolic , is a maximal -split torus in , hence isomorphic to . Under this isomorphism, is a lattice in .
Proof.
Only the last assertion needs some explanation. In fact, under the isomorphism mentioned in the statement, is mapped to some with . Hence is identified with some lattice in . A fortiori, the discrete subgroup is a lattice. ∎
Remark 2.13**.**
In concrete terms, the isomorphism takes to , one of its eigenvalue in . We call
[TABLE]
the length of . This quantity is unchanged by conjugation, hence passes to conjugacy and root-conjugacy classes, i.e., and are well-defined. It is equal to the length of the geodesic on to which it corresponds. We also denote by such that the torsion part of is isomorphic to . Since we work with , we have
- (1)
* if ;*
- (2)
* is an even positive integer if .*
The fact that is always even reflects the geometric view that a geodesic flow has a direction.
Definition 2.14**.**
A hyperbolic is called primitive, if its length attains the minimum among elements in . A root-conjugacy class of a hyperbolic element is called primtive if is primitive.
Proposition 2.15**.**
Let be a discrete subgroup. Closed geodesics on are in bijection with the primitive root-conjugacy classes of hyperbolic elements in .
Proof.
Let be a closed geodesic on . Since is a lattice in , it is for some unique . Let be any element such that . Other choices of are of the form for some . Moreover, it is easy to see
[TABLE]
Hence if , . Thus is an integral multiple of . This proves that is primitive. We thus get a well-defined map from the set of closed geodesics to the set of primitive root-conjugacy classes
[TABLE]
Conversely, if is hyperbolic, then for some , , hence stabilizes the unique geodesic flow . Changing to if necessary, we may assume that fixes the orientation of . If , then . Thus also stabilizes and fixes its orientation. We thus get a map from the set of root-conjugacy classes in to the set of closed geodesics on
[TABLE]
It is easy to verify that is the identity map on the set of closed geodesics. Hence is a bijection onto its image, i.e., the set of primitive root-conjugacy classes. ∎
Remark 2.16**.**
It may be clearer if we summarize the above proof in words. Closed geodesics correspond bijectively to -conjugacy classes of maximal split tori (the stabilizer group of ) in for which is a lattice in . In the group of automorphs , there is inducing the translation in the parameters of such that is smallest possible. These are the primitive hyperbolic elements. In particular, the fibers of in the above proof are precisely hyperbolic conjugacy classes which admit the same centralizer group up to -conjugacy.
Proposition 2.17**.**
* is a finite union of conjugacy classes in .*
We leave the technical detail of the proof in an appendix. For the moment, we are content with the following remark, since we will eventually work with arithmetic non-uniform lattices.
Remark 2.18**.**
In the case , this is part of [19, Theorem 1.7.8]. But we do not see how to extend this method to the case . However, the argument given in the appendix for the case can be easily adapted to the case , replacing [9, Theorem 2.7] by [19, (1.9.9)]. Moreover, if is a congruence subgroup, we have a simpler proof. We first reduce to the case for the ring of integers of by noticing that Proposition 2.17 for and are equivalent if and . Then we take a Siegel domain which contains a fundamental domain for . Since the number of elements such that is finite [10, Lemma (3.3)], we conclude.
Corollary 2.19**.**
If is a lattice, then the number of primitive root-conjugacy classes which contains more than one conjugacy class is finite.
Proof.
There is nothing to prove in the case . In the case , if is such a primitive root-conjugacy class, then for some . Thus is an element in with minimal positive length. But the -conjugacy classes of possible are finite by Proposition 2.17. Thus the possible root-conjugacy classes of are finite. ∎
3. Transforming to Rankin–Selberg Integrals
3.1. Relevant Orbital Integrals
Take to be a nice test function (ie. smooth with compact support). Let be a congruence subgroup. For every hyperbolic conjugacy class in , the following sum
[TABLE]
is a well-defined function on . Fix a lying in the image of hyperbolic elements in under the trace map. We are interested in
[TABLE]
The computation is part of the orbital integrals in the geometric side of the Selberg trace formula. We include it for convenience. Recall that is the centralizer of in . We have
[TABLE]
Now is a lattice in , a maximal -split torus isomorphic to . If is a primitive element, and if such that , we get an identification via conjugation by
[TABLE]
If we transport the Haar measure of to , then we obtain (note that the measure on is twice the Lebesgue measure and the measure on is )
[TABLE]
The orbital integral is transformed to
[TABLE]
Remark 3.1**.**
From now on, we choose to be bi--invariant. Since , the above integral depends only on the trace , and we shall also write instead of . In fact, the above transform is given by the Selberg transform. We recall: for
[TABLE]
for
[TABLE]
We do not need these explicit formulae in this paper, but only need that for any there is such that .
If for some we have
[TABLE]
so that , we arrive at the formula
[TABLE]
3.2. Spherical Eisenstein Series
We need to work with two algebraic groups and . Let resp. denote the upper triangular subgroup of resp. . Let denote the upper unipotent subgroup of both and , resp. the split sub-torus of diagonal matrices, resp. be the center of resp. , resp. be the standard maximal compact subgroup of resp. . Let be a general number field with ring of integers , ring of adeles . Let be the closure of in . The class group admits a description
[TABLE]
Hence any character of can be viewed as a Hecke character of which is
- •
trivial on ,
- •
unramified at every finite place .
Let be the function on taking constant value . It can be viewed as a spherical element in
[TABLE]
It determines a flat section
[TABLE]
Hence we get a collection of spherical Eisenstein series
[TABLE]
Remark 3.2**.**
If is the trivial character, we shall write for and for .
Lemma 3.3**.**
The set of double cosets
[TABLE]
is in bijection with the class group of .
Proof.
This is the content of [26, Proposition 20]. For convenience we include a proof. Recall
[TABLE]
where is the lower unipotent subgroup, and record
[TABLE]
Then extends to by and left invariance of . Since
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
we easily deduce that for any
[TABLE]
∎
Lemma 3.4**.**
Fix once and for all a uniformizer of at each finite place . To any we associate an idele defined by and for
[TABLE]
Then we have for any
[TABLE]
Moreover, if and only if .
Proof.
The first relation follows from
[TABLE]
For the moreover part, write with and . Then a representative ideal in the class of , i.e., corresponds to the idele . ∎
Recall the height function
[TABLE]
The classical spherical Eisenstein series is defined by
[TABLE]
Proposition 3.5**.**
Write and let be the identity element in (or ), then we have the relation
[TABLE]
Proof.
It is easy to see that the sum
[TABLE]
is non-vanishing only at elements for which
[TABLE]
since for
[TABLE]
It follows that for the sum
[TABLE]
is non-vanishing only if by the above Lemma 3.3 and 3.4. Consequently,
[TABLE]
∎
Corollary 3.6**.**
* has a constant residue at equal to*
[TABLE]
where is the complete Dedekind zeta-function of and is its residue at .
Proof.
It suffices to notice that is not trivial on , the subgroup of with adelic norm , unless is trivial, which then implies that the intertwining operator
[TABLE]
whose restriction to spherical elements is multiplication by
[TABLE]
is holomorphic at . Hence is holomorphic at for . ∎
3.3. Heuristic: Rankin–Selberg Method
In this subsection, we suppose is the full modular group. We propose to compute
[TABLE]
where is a smooth bi--invariant test function with compact support. By (3.5), we can apply the Rankin–Selberg unfolding method to get
[TABLE]
Definition 3.7**.**
We introduce the -conjugacy classes of by
[TABLE]
We regroup the inner summation by -conjugacy classes and get
[TABLE]
If we regard as a function on with support contained in the connected component of identity if , then we can relate the integral above to the Zagier’s transform (c.f. [33, (3.10)], [13, (3.24)] or [31, Definition 1.6]) as (c.f. [31, Proposition 4.10])
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
where we denote by such that
[TABLE]
We thus obtain
[TABLE]
Lemma 3.8**.**
If we write the summation on the RHS of the above equation as
[TABLE]
then we have
[TABLE]
where the sum is over all principal integral ideals and
[TABLE]
Proof.
Writing an element as
[TABLE]
and observing the two possible ways of conjugation by elements in
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
we see that counts the number of solutions to
[TABLE]
If we write , then the above equation is equivalent to
[TABLE]
We claim that the first equation implies the second one, i.e., if with , then
[TABLE]
Otherwise, assume , then . Hence , contradiction. ∎
The above lemma shows that the Rankin–Selberg unfolding gives the direct link between the counting of geodesics and the counting of the solutions of the relevant congruence equation, which appeared in [27, p.108]. Hence one can carry out the rest of the calculation just like in [27] and obtain the desired final formula. But the generalization to arbitrary congruence subgroups of this approach is not obvious. For this reason, we prefer the adelic translation which we now develop.
3.4. Adelization
We return to the general case that is a congruence subgroup. This means that there is an integral ideal such that
[TABLE]
Taking closure at a place , we get
[TABLE]
or we can write down its pro-finite version
[TABLE]
We take a test function of the form with bi--invariant, i.e.,
[TABLE]
and consider the orbital integral for a conjugacy class in
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
Since , it is a normal subgroup of . Hence is a normal subgroup of , i.e.,
[TABLE]
Hence the integrand in the defining integral of is a function in invariant by right translation by . By the strong approximation theorem for , we have
[TABLE]
Hence we can dis-adelize the integral and get
[TABLE]
By definition, is the set of elements in conjugate to in . It is a union of conjugacy classes in . In particular, we have
[TABLE]
Hence for any lying in the image of under the trace map, we get
[TABLE]
where denotes a conjugacy class in and we recall the notation in Section 3.1
[TABLE]
But the integrand is a function in obviously invariant by left translation by . Hence we get
[TABLE]
Similarly, if we define
[TABLE]
then we arrive at
[TABLE]
We record what we have done in the following lemma.
Lemma 3.9**.**
Let be a congruence subgroup. Take given in (3.7). For any resp. , write resp. for the conjugacy class of in resp. . Define
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
Then we have
[TABLE]
3.5. From to
We need to further analyze the conjugacy classes in with . Any such satisfies the equation
[TABLE]
hence the -algebra for some quadratic separable extension of depends only on . In particular, any two such are stably conjugate to each other. By Skolem-Noether theorem, this is equivalent to that they are conjugate in . We record this observation in the following lemma.
Lemma 3.10**.**
For any with , the disjoint union
[TABLE]
is the set of elements of in a single (stable) conjugacy class in .
Taking any hyperbolic with and defining
[TABLE]
we can consequently rewrite
[TABLE]
The rest of the subsection is devoted to the analysis of the right hand side of the above equation. There are a priori three cases according to the nature of :
- (1)
is a quadratic field extension of , which is equivalent to ;
- (2)
is split, which is equivalent to ;
- (3)
is not separable, which is equivalent to .
But Lemma 2.8 shows that only the case (1) is possible. The realization of as a subalgebra in implies that there exists a(n) (abstract) basis such that
[TABLE]
where the multiplication in LHS is interpreted as the abstract one in the algebra while the multiplication in RHS is the matrix multiplication. In particular, the matrix realization of resp. the elements of norm one becomes an -torus resp. in resp. . Recall
[TABLE]
a standard Rankin–Selberg unfolding yields
[TABLE]
Lemma 3.11**.**
We have a double coset decomposition
[TABLE]
Moreover, for every we have
[TABLE]
Proof.
Identifying with (row vectors) in view of (3.8), the set
[TABLE]
becomes a single orbit of and corresponds to . The stabilizer of being
[TABLE]
we deduce the decomposition
[TABLE]
We introduce the group
[TABLE]
Then every element in is the product of an element in and an element in the center . The desired decomposition then follows from
[TABLE]
The other assertion is easy. ∎
We deduce from the previous lemma that
[TABLE]
Lemma 3.12**.**
- (1)
The following function defined over
[TABLE]
is invariant by multiplication by elements in for whichever test function .
- (2)
Consider as before (with bi--invariant test function ). Let be the normalizer group of in and
[TABLE]
Then is invariant by multiplication by elements in .
Proof.
(1) For , we have a decomposition
[TABLE]
We get the desired invariance from
[TABLE]
(2) By definition, for any we have
[TABLE]
Writing , we thus get
[TABLE]
Since conjugation by stabilizes both and resp. and leaves the height unchanged, we have and . It follows that . ∎
Consequently, is the sum over of , a smooth function on , to which we can apply Fourier inversion. If we write
[TABLE]
for the idele class group of and for its unitary dual group, then we get111This identity has the following explanation: The image of is characterized by .
[TABLE]
where runs over quadratic Hecke characters trivial on defined in Lemma 3.12 (2). In particular, the sum over is finite and the number depends only on .
Lemma 3.13**.**
If , is bi--invariant, and is non-trivial, then
[TABLE]
Proof.
There is an outer automorphism of given by
[TABLE]
which obviously leaves a bi--invariant function invariant. Moreover, we also have
[TABLE]
Hence the two parts of the infinite component of the integral over and cancel with each other, yielding a vanishing integral. ∎
Remark 3.14**.**
For being principal or Hecke congruence subgroups, we have . The sum in is over quadratic characters unramified at every finite place and each real place, i.e., quadratic class group characters. We thus obtain
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
Note that the notations in (3.9) suggest that the RHS is independent of the choice of such that . This is indeed true for arbitrary test function . In fact, any two such are conjugate by an element . Moreover, the proof of Lemma 3.11 shows that we can take . Since is left invariant by and is trivial on , we get the independence of the choice of .
Before ending this section, we shall calculate the volume .
Lemma 3.15**.**
In (3.9), the volume .
Proof.
Following the procedure of passing from to in (3.9), the quotient is interpreted as the quotient of by in the following way. We have both locally and globally semi-direct product decompositions
[TABLE]
Compatible with these decompositions are the Tamagawa measures on and . In fact, if is the -differential form in the following coordinates of
[TABLE]
and if is the -differential form in the following coordinates of
[TABLE]
then in the following coordinates of
[TABLE]
one verifies easily that
[TABLE]
If one take a fundamental domain for and a fundamental domain for , then it is easy to verify that
[TABLE]
is a fundamental domain for . Quotient by the center gives
[TABLE]
Thus the volume is the ratio of the Tamagawa number of by the Tamagawa number of , which is . ∎
4. Explicit Computation
4.1. Some Arithmetics of Quadratic Orders
Consider a quadratic field extension with ring of integers . Let be a sub--order. At any finite prime of , we write for a uniformizer. There is such that
[TABLE]
and for finitely many . is called the (local) level of . It follows that
[TABLE]
and we call the integral ideal the level ideal of . To any , we associate an order
[TABLE]
Lemma 4.1**.**
The level ideal of as above satisfies
[TABLE]
where is the conjugation of in and is the relative discriminant ideal of .
Proof.
At a prime of , is a PID. Hence there exists such that
[TABLE]
We also have . Hence we can calculate the discriminant of in two ways and get
[TABLE]
from which we deduce the desired equality. ∎
Remark 4.2**.**
Obviously depends only on . Hence we can write instead of . In the sequel, we shall denote by the image of in .
4.2. Rankin–Selberg Orbital Integrals
In this subsection we shall consider a general test function (see (3.9)) and introduce some notations and terminologies which are parallel to those in the study of trace formulae. We expect these results to be useful for the potential application of the comparison of Rankin–Selberg trace formulae. In particular, one could try and simplify certain proofs towards the Sato–Tate conjectures [28] and towards the bias of signs [18]. In the next two subsections, we will specialize (the finite part of) to be the characteristic functions of the principal or Hecke congruence subgroups, and carry out an explicit computation. Recall that in this case appearing in (3.9) must be quadratic class group characters. We still assume is bi--invariant.
As noted after (3.9), the right hand side of that equation depends only on the trace of . In fact, all ’s with trace are conjugate under and we shall choose a particular element in the stable conjugacy class of . To this end, we denote by the quadratic field extension . Obviously, corresponds to an (abstract) element in such that
[TABLE]
We choose according to this embedding, i.e., we can assume in the following discussion that
[TABLE]
Secondly is decomposable for decomposable with
[TABLE]
The computation of the infinite component is simply given by [31, Proposition 4.10] since , i.e., we have (note that difference in the definitions of !)
[TABLE]
since the lower-left entry of is .
Lemma 4.3**.**
Suppose is -hyperbolic such that for some
[TABLE]
Then we have (recall the orbital integral (3.1))
[TABLE]
Proof.
This is [33, (4.12)] for and [29, (3.15)] for . For convenience, we include a proof, which follows the style of [31, Proposition 4.9]. We treat the case with details. By assumption . An easy computation shows
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
With the choice of test function in the Godement section, we have
[TABLE]
It follows that
[TABLE]
By the Iwasawa decomposition, we can write . Evaluated at , the last integral
[TABLE]
is independent of . We get the desired equality by (3.1) and the identification . For the case , we take
[TABLE]
and change the subscript to in the above proof. ∎
We are left for the computation at finite primes . Let’s make some first reductions. We assume that the support of is contained in . Obviously, the non-vanishing of all implies that is integral over (even a unit in of norm ). Since is a PID, there exists such that the ring of integers of is a free -module with basis
[TABLE]
It gives an embedding determined by
[TABLE]
Remark 4.4**.**
We shall identify with its image under in the sequel.
Since , we can find with such that
[TABLE]
Consequently, we get
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
By definition, we obviously have (recall is unramified)
[TABLE]
We have two possibilities for : (equivalent to ) or . We observe that the second case can be reduced to the first one as follows. We can write
[TABLE]
Then we have
[TABLE]
Thus if is expressed as a function , then is simply .
We are finally reduced to computing , which we write as . Now at a finite place such that is not split, the principality of lattices implies (for details, see the discussion leading to [31, (4.2)])
[TABLE]
where is a uniformizer of . Choosing a Haar measure on , we can define
[TABLE]
If we define the (normalized) Rankin–Selberg orbital integral as
[TABLE]
denote for the product of local factors of the Dedekind zeta-function of at primes above , then we can rewrite
[TABLE]
Similarly, at a finite place such that is split, the usual Iwasawa decomposition implies
[TABLE]
where is the diagonal torus and we have identified with an element in , . Choosing a Haar measure on , we can define
[TABLE]
If we define the (normalized) Rankin–Selberg orbital integral as
[TABLE]
then we can rewrite
[TABLE]
The Rankin–Selberg weights are independent of . We record their explicit values and postpone their computation to the next subsection.
Proposition 4.5**.**
We write for the cardinality of and . Then we have
[TABLE]
where is the quadratic character associated with the quadratic extension . We have the following formulae of the weights for .
- (1)
If is unramified, then
[TABLE]
- (2)
If is ramified, then
[TABLE]
- (3)
If is split, then
[TABLE]
We are thus reduced to the computation of the Rankin–Selberg orbital integrals for various concrete choices of . For further convenience of notations, we denote
[TABLE]
Thus we get a uniform form of the Rankin–Selberg orbital integrals
[TABLE]
4.3. Rankin–Selberg weights
For simplicity of notations, let’s drop the subscript in this subsection. We shall compute the Rankin–Selberg weights explicitly, i.e., prove Proposition 4.5. Recall from (4.3) and (4.5) that these weights have the form
[TABLE]
where is given in (4.2) and (4.4) and is given in (4.6). In particular, these weights do not depend on our choice of measure on . We shall achieve the computation by replacing the flat sections with the Godement section, i.e., for
[TABLE]
We can then decompose the weight as
[TABLE]
where each term in the first line depends only on the choice of the measure on resp. , while each term in the second line depends only on .
Lemma 4.6**.**
Whatever the measure on we choose, we have
[TABLE]
Proof.
The first equation is standard. It implies that the zeta-integral in the second equation is equal to . By the definition of the quotient measure and the fact that is optimally embedded in , we get
[TABLE]
hence the second equation. ∎
Lemma 4.7**.**
If denotes the cardinality of , then we have for
[TABLE]
Proof.
Let denote the order in of level . In the non-split case, we have an identification of spaces of orbits
[TABLE]
We also have
[TABLE]
Hence we get the ratio
[TABLE]
which will be explicitly determined in the next Lemma 4.8. In the split case, we have similarly
[TABLE]
It is easy to see
[TABLE]
Hence we get the desired ratio
[TABLE]
∎
Lemma 4.8**.**
Let be the normalized additive valuation of . For any , consider
[TABLE]
- (1)
If is the ramification index, then we have
[TABLE]
- (2)
We have and
[TABLE]
Proof.
Both assertions are elementary. We omit the details and only point out that (1) follows from the formula
[TABLE]
and (2) follows from the tower and equality
[TABLE]
where we have written resp. for the standard neighborhoods of identity
[TABLE]
Then note that
[TABLE]
∎
We have obviously
[TABLE]
It remains the last term. It is an analogue of Legendre functions. Exploiting the construction of our embedding , it is not difficult to identify the last term as the following Legendre functions associated with the quadratic extension .
Definition 4.9**.**
- (1)
If is non-split with ring of integers , we take such that . Hence all the -orders in are listed by
[TABLE]
The -th Legendre function is defined to be
[TABLE]
- (2)
If is split, we identify it with . Write and consider the lattices
[TABLE]
The -th Legendre function is defined to be
[TABLE]
Proposition 4.10**.**
If is non-archimedean with the cardinality of the residue class field and is a quadratic field extension of , then, writing , we have for
[TABLE]
while if , then we have for
[TABLE]
Proof.
Write for the cardinality of the residue class field of . If is unramified, then
[TABLE]
If is ramified, then
[TABLE]
In the split case , we have
[TABLE]
We get the desired formulas after some elementary manipulation. ∎
Proposition 4.5 is thus proved by combining all the above computation.
Remark 4.11**.**
It is obvious from the explicit formulas that the weights satisfy the functional equation
[TABLE]
This can be proved via the functional equation for local zeta-integrals.
4.4. Principal Congruence Subgroups
The case of the full modular group has been essentially dealt with in the proof of [31, Proposition 1.9]. The case of principal congruence subgroups is similar, since is still invariant by -conjugation. For definiteness, let
[TABLE]
where is an integral ideal. Suppose with . We have specified an abstract element corresponding to . Recall that we have chosen the global and local embeddings so that
[TABLE]
Lemma 4.12**.**
- (1)
The non-vanishing of , i.e., the conditions that for any finite place there exists such that
[TABLE]
and that the weighted sum of (3.9) is non zero implies
[TABLE]
- (2)
Under this condition, the non-vanishing of is equivalent to
[TABLE]
- (3)
Recall the relative discriminant ideal of the quadratic field extension . We have
[TABLE]
Proof.
(1) follows directly from the non-adelic translation of established in Lemma 3.9. We assume this condition in the rest of the proof.
(2) At for which is non-split, we have
[TABLE]
while at for which is split, we have
[TABLE]
It follows that if for some , then for all . The largest such satisfies
[TABLE]
(3) This equation follows from the definition, the following relation and Lemma 4.1
[TABLE]
∎
By the above lemma, the proof of [31, Lemma 3.3] then implies
[TABLE]
with a polynomial in and which satisfies the functional equation
[TABLE]
Precisely, writing then we have
[TABLE]
where resp. resp. according as is unramified resp. ramified resp. split over . It satisfies the local Riemann hypothesis by the last part of [27, Lemma 2.1]. We deduce the general case
[TABLE]
where is obtained from by re-defining .
4.5. Hecke Congruence Subgroups
By omparison with the previous case, the difficulty lies in the computation of the Rankin–Selberg orbital integrals, which are no longer indicator functions, since is no longer invariant under conjugation by , but only under conjugation by the congruence subgroup
[TABLE]
We fix a finite place . For simplicity of notations, we introduce
[TABLE]
The case is already treated. We assume in what follows. Since , we deduce from the previous case (with ) that the non-vanishing requires the condition
[TABLE]
The computation of the split case is different from the non-split case in nature.
4.5.1. is not split
For simplicity of notations, we omit the subscript and write . Recall the decomposition
[TABLE]
We have
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
Lemma 4.13**.**
Assume and . Write
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
Then we have the following formulae.
- (1)
* is non-vanishing only if , in which case it is given by*
[TABLE]
- (2)
If is unramified at and if , then we have
[TABLE]
while if , then we have
[TABLE]
- (3)
If is ramified at and if , then we have
[TABLE]
while if , then we have
[TABLE]
Proof.
For (1), since for any , only if , in which case all contribute and . For the unramified case (2), we notice that
[TABLE]
where is the relative norm map for . We thus have
[TABLE]
The formulae for then follows easily. For the ramified case (3), there is such that is a uniformizer of . We thus get
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
The formulae for then follows the same way as the previous case. ∎
We have the obvious relation
[TABLE]
Writing
[TABLE]
so that we have
[TABLE]
Lemma 4.13 then readily implies the following formulae (recall ):
- (1)
If is unramifed at and if , then
[TABLE]
while if , then
[TABLE]
In particular, is non-vanishing only if .
- (2)
If is ramifed at and if , then
[TABLE]
while if , then
[TABLE]
In particular, is non-vanishing only if .
Remark 4.14**.**
Although these polynomials still satisfy the functional equation, local Riemann hypothesis fails in general (ie. the zeros of may not lie on the critical line ). For example,
[TABLE]
We deduce the general case
[TABLE]
where is obtained from by re-defining .
4.5.2. is split
We omit the subscript and write . Recall the decomposition
[TABLE]
We have
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
Lemma 4.15**.**
Assume and . Write
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
Then we have the following formulae.
- (1)
* is non-vanishing only if , in which case it is given by*
[TABLE]
- (2)
If , then we have
[TABLE]
while if , then we have
[TABLE]
Proof.
(1) is easy. For (2), if , then is equivalent to , from which we easily deduce the desired formula. Assume . We introduce for integers
[TABLE]
If then we must have , which we assume from now on. We distinguish two cases: (i) ; (ii) . In the case (i), we have
[TABLE]
In the case (ii), we have
[TABLE]
We obviously have the relation
[TABLE]
If , i.e., if , then
[TABLE]
If , i.e., if , then222A simpler way is to observe that in this case is equivalent to . This observation applies also to the non-split case.
[TABLE]
∎
We have the obvious relation
[TABLE]
Writing
[TABLE]
so that we have
[TABLE]
Lemma 4.15 then readily implies the following formulae (recall ):
- (1)
If , then
[TABLE]
- (2)
If , then
[TABLE]
Remark 4.16**.**
Although these polynomials still satisfy the functional equation, local Riemann hypothesis fails in general. For example,
[TABLE]
We deduce the general case
[TABLE]
where is obtained from by re-defining .
4.6. Proof of Main Result
We give the final part of the proof in the case of principal congruence subgroups, the other case being similar.
Inserting the local computations into (3.9), we get
[TABLE]
where we recall
- •
,
- •
is the ideal determined by ,
- •
is the product of local polynomials given in (4.7).
By Corollary 3.6 and Lemma 3.9, we also have
[TABLE]
with given by (3.4). Comparing the above two equations with (3.4), taking into account Lemma 3.15 and Lemma 4.3, we see that is times a factor holomorphic at . In particular it is holomorphic at unless . Hence we get
[TABLE]
Theorem 1.4 is thus proved by summing over suitable and by taking .
Remark 4.17**.**
The contribution from to is zero, which is consistent with the discussion in [12, §3.2 Case 1]. It reflects the orthogonality between the restriction to the diagonal of the elliptic terms in the geometric side of the trace formula and .
5. A Prime Geodesic Theorem for Principal Congruence Subgroups
5.1. Preliminary Results
We consider the special cases or . Let be an integral ideal generated by or . Let be the principal congruence subgroup modulo of . As the first preliminary task, we need to make our formula explicit in this setting.
Corollary 5.1**.**
Recall the condition of summation
[TABLE]
The counting function is equal to
[TABLE]
where is Zagier’s -function defined by
[TABLE]
and is the counting function
[TABLE]
and or according to or .
Remark 5.2**.**
We emphasize that in this paper we count the closed geodesics without orientation. Hence there is a factor of missing in our formula, for example compared to Soundararajan-Young’s version [27, Proposition 2.2].
Proof.
This is a direct consequence of Theorem 1.4 as follows. We first need to determine the set , which we claim to be . In fact, any element in is of the form
[TABLE]
for some , subject to the condition
[TABLE]
Hence the trace lies in . Conversely, let . Then the following element has trace and lies in :
[TABLE]
Then we notice that the extra local non-vanishing condition in Lemma 4.12 (2) is automatically satisfied. Now if denotes the full modular group, then (4.7) implies
[TABLE]
Theorem 1.4 implies
[TABLE]
The last displayed equation in [4, §3.1], which relates to Zagier’s -function, together with the obvious fact yields the desired formula. ∎
As the second preliminary task, we need to study some exponential sum which is analoguous to the Kloosterman sums. They will appear when we bound via the above formula in Corollary 5.1. Precisely, we are interested in the size of
[TABLE]
where and
- •
the sum is over a complete system of representatives of ,
- •
and if or if .
Lemma 5.3**.**
Write with and . Recall the function is the number of prime divisors of . Then for satisfies the bound
[TABLE]
While for , we have
[TABLE]
where is the Euler’s function.
Proof.
It is easy to see that is multiplicative in , as well as the desired bound and formula. Hence it suffices to consider the case and the case for some prime and some . We give details for the case as follows.
Case 1: . Making the changes of variables then , we see
[TABLE]
where we denote by an inverse of mod . For a solution of (5.5), we necessarily have . Thus
[TABLE]
Inserting the above expression, we get
[TABLE]
which is equal to the Kloosterman sum up to a unitary phase factor. The classical bound as recalled in [4, (16)] concludes the proof in this case.
Case 2: . We may assume , since the general case easily reduces to this special one. Any solution to (5.4) satisfies . Thus
[TABLE]
We obtain
[TABLE]
Write for and for . We distinguish three cases.
Case 2.1: . Then reduces to a quadratic Gauss sum and the required bound follows.
Case 2.2: with . Write where traverse . We have
[TABLE]
where and the inverse is understood modulo . Thus
[TABLE]
The inner sum over is non-vanishing only if , which is equivalent to . We thus get
[TABLE]
Case 2.3: with . Write where resp. traverse resp. . We similarly get
[TABLE]
where . The inner sum over is non-vanishing only if , which is equivalent to . Writing in this case, we get
[TABLE]
Bounding the Gauss sum by , we obtain
[TABLE]
∎
Before moving to the proof of Theorem 1.9 we also give a small lemma about Dirichlet series.
Lemma 5.4**.**
Let , . For , let where and . Let with . Then
[TABLE]
Proof.
Since the sum is absolutely convergent. Writing with squarefree, we can therefore rewrite the left-hand side as
[TABLE]
Since is multiplicative, the inner sum factors as
[TABLE]
In particular, we must have . Inserting the above in (5.8) we obtain
[TABLE]
∎
5.2. Proof of Theorem 1.9
Let us start by taking a smooth version of the counting function , defined by
[TABLE]
where and is a smooth, real-valued function with compact support on , of unit mass and such that for all . This choice of smoothing allows us to write
[TABLE]
We claim now that
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Inserting (5.10) and (5.11) into (5.9) and using the estimate
[TABLE]
which follows from the Weyl law [9, Chap.8 Theorem 9.1], we obtain
[TABLE]
Picking the error becomes , giving Theorem 1.9.
It is therefore left to prove (5.10) and (5.11). Let us start with the second formula and use Corollary 5.1 to express the left-hand side as a sum of Zagier’s -functions. For convenience we simplify the condition (5.1) to and replace by . Observing that we also have , we can write
[TABLE]
where by Corollary 5.1 the constant equals
[TABLE]
Let and let a parameter to be chosen later. We can write
[TABLE]
Recall Theorem 1.4 shows that Zagier’s -function equals a quadratic Dirichlet -function of modulus dividing , up to a Dirichlet polynomial that can be bounded on the critical line by . Therefore we can bound , where is a subconvexity exponent as in the statement of Theorem 1.9. We deduce that we have the estimate
[TABLE]
We can therefore rewrite (5.12) as
[TABLE]
where denotes the integral on the line in (5.14). Opening as Dirichlet series, the above sum becomes
[TABLE]
In analogy to [4, Lemma 2.2], one can prove that
[TABLE]
where in the error is a maximal element such that is squarefree and with and . To see this, take a smooth function , supported on for some and with total mass (for example, take the normalized convolution of the indicator function of a ball of radius and one of radius ). Starting from the sum of , we can write
[TABLE]
where we use pointwise bounds on (see [4, (15)]) for the error term. Applying Poisson summation we transform the sum into
[TABLE]
with the exponential sum defined in (5.3). The term gives the main contribution, while for the rest we estimate by Lemma 5.3 and we bound in absolute value. Since if and if (cf. (5.6),(5.7)), we obtain
[TABLE]
upon taking . Since can be expressed as a divisor sum of , see (5.2) and [4, (14)], one arrives at (5.16). Using then (5.16) into (5.15) we obtain
[TABLE]
We express the exponential in terms of its Mellin transform and we recognize the sum by means of Lemma 5.4, so we can write
[TABLE]
Moving the line of integration to and picking up the residue at we deduce that the above equals
[TABLE]
which in conclusion leads (in combination with (5.13)) to
[TABLE]
We choose and obtain (5.11).
Let us now prove (5.10). Denote by the Selberg zeta function attached to . In a box of the form in the complex plane, the real poles of are at and at a finite number of corresponding to the small eigenvalues attached to (see [5, 21]). Moreover, there are simple poles on the line and another simple poles in the strip . By Perron’s formula we start by writing
[TABLE]
(recall Remark 5.2 for the extra factor of two on the right). Next we move the line of integration to and we pass the poles of , obtaining
[TABLE]
where are the two horizontal segments while denotes the vertical segment . At this point we evaluate the above at and integrate against . Moreover, we select and recall that with . Repeated integration by parts allows us to write
[TABLE]
which in turn implies that we can truncate the sum over in (5.17) at height . By standard properties of the Selberg zeta function, it also implies that we can bound the integral over by . As for the integral over , (5.18) implies that we can truncated the integral at height and in that range it gives . Summarizing, we obtain
[TABLE]
as desired. This proves (5.10) and thus completes the proof of Theorem 1.9.
To end this section we sketch the proof of Theorem 1.10 for the case of principal congruence subgroups of . While the general strategy is the same as for Theorem 1.9, equation 5.16 becomes
[TABLE]
with and squarefree, which leads to the identity
[TABLE]
On the other hand, Perron’s formula gives the expansion
[TABLE]
the exponent following from the estimate from [15]. Combining (5.19) and (5.20) and using the bound [17]
[TABLE]
we conclude that
[TABLE]
which gives Theorem 1.10 upon picking .
6. Appendix: Finiteness Properties
We shall prove Proposition 2.17. Recall by [9, Theorem 2.7] that has a fundamental domain given by a Poincaré normal polyhedron for some with .
Definition 6.1**.**
For any , write
[TABLE]
The following lemma is geometrically intuitive. We leave the detail of the proof to the reader.
Lemma 6.2**.**
We can distinguish the position of a point as follows.
- (1)
* lies in the interior of iff is reduced to a single point.*
- (2)
* lies in the interior of a face in iff with a unique . The geodesic linking is perpendicular to .*
- (3)
* lies in the interior of an edge in iff is a set of at least three points, all lying in a geodesic plane perpendicular to .*
- (4)
* is a vertex of iff is not contained in any geodesic plane.*
Corollary 6.3**.**
If as above is in the case (k) and such that , then is also in the case (k), .
Proof.
We must have in this case. Now if , then
[TABLE]
we must have equality everywhere, proving that . Exchanging the roles of and , we get . Hence . The nature of is the same as . ∎
Proof of Proposition 2.17.
Let be an elliptic conjugacy class in . Let be the geodesic invariantly fixed by a representative . We may assume exists. can not lie in the interior of .
(1) If lies in the interior of a face , we have . Then from
[TABLE]
we deduce that , hence is cyclic of order . Thus is the rotation about the axis of angle . Consequently, and the geodesic linking and lie in a geodesic plane and they are perpendicular with each other. Hence lies in the geodesic plane containing . As the rotation must map the interior of into itself by Corollary 6.3, must be an axis of symmetry of the hyperbolic polygon .
(2) If lies in the interior of an edge , and if does not contain , then must be the middle point of and is a rotation of angle , since maps the interior of into itself by Corollary 6.3. We also have by the proof of Corollary 6.3, hence is an axis of symmetry of the polygon determined by . If does contain , then is a rotation about which permutes , since we still have .
(3) If is a vertex of , we claim that there exist and such that is not a vertex, hence we can replace resp. with resp. and reduce to the previous cases. In fact, otherwise, the orbits of the vertices under , which is countably many, would cover , which is uncountably many. Contradiction.
We have shown that up to conjugation by elements of , is
- •
either a rotation of angle about an axis of symmetry of a face of ;
- •
or a rotation of angle about an axis of symmetry of the polygon determined by , where is the middle point of an edge of ;
- •
or a rotation about an edge of , which permutes for any lying in the interior of that edge.
Hence there are only finitely many options for and we conclude the proof. ∎
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1[1] Balkanova, O., Chatzakos, D., Cherubini, G., Frolenkov, D., and Laaksonen, N. Prime geodesic theorem in the 3-dimensional hyperbolic space. ar Xiv: 1712.00880 v 2, August 2018.
- 2[2] Balkanova, O., and Frolenkov, D. Prime geodesic theorem for the Picard manifold. ar Xiv: 1804.00275 v 2, August 2018.
- 3[3] Balkanova, O., and Frolenkov, D. The second moment of the second moment of symmetric square L 𝐿 \displaystyle L -functions over gaussian integers. ar Xiv: 2008.13399, 2020.
- 4[4] Balog, A., Biró, A., Cherubini, G., and Laaksonen, N. Bykovskii-type theorem for the Picard manifold. International Mathematical Research Notes 00 , 0 (2020), 1–29.
- 5[5] Blomer, V., and Brumley, F. On the Ramanujan conjecture over number fields. Annals of Mathematics (2011), 581–605.
- 6[6] Bykovskii, V. A. Density theorems and the mean value of arithmetic functions in short intervals (Russian). Zap. Nauchn. Semin. POMI / translation in J. Math. Sci. (N.Y.) 212 / 83 , / 6 (1994 / 1997), 56–70 / 720–730.
- 7[7] Cai, Y. Prime geodesic theorem. Journal de Théorie des Nombres de Bordeaux 14 , 1 (2002), 59–72.
- 8[8] Conrey, J. B., and Iwaniec, H. The cubic moment of central values of automorphic L 𝐿 \displaystyle L -functions. Annals of Mathematics 151 , 3 (2000), 1175–1216.
