On the remainder term of the Weyl law for congruence subgroups of Chevalley groups
Tobias Finis, Erez Lapid

TL;DR
This paper improves the understanding of the Weyl law's remainder term for certain locally symmetric spaces associated with Chevalley groups, providing sharper estimates in the simply connected case.
Contribution
It refines the Weyl law for spaces from simply connected Chevalley groups by establishing a power-saving estimate for the remainder term.
Findings
Established a power-saving estimate for the Weyl law remainder
Sharpened previous results by Lindenstrauss--Venkatesh
Focused on simply connected Chevalley groups
Abstract
Let be a locally symmetric space defined by a simple Chevalley group and a congruence subgroup of . In this generality, the Weyl law for was proved by Lindenstrauss--Venkatesh. In the case where is simply connected, we sharpen their result by giving a power saving estimate for the remainder term.
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 the remainder term of the Weyl law for congruence subgroups of Chevalley groups
Tobias Finis
Universität Leipzig, Mathematisches Institut, PF 10 09 20, D-04009 Leipzig, Germany
and
Erez Lapid
Department of Mathematics, Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot 7610001, Israel
Abstract.
Let be a locally symmetric space defined by a simple Chevalley group and a congruence subgroup of . In this generality, the Weyl law for was proved by Lindenstrauss–Venkatesh. In the case where is simply connected, we sharpen their result by giving a power saving estimate for the remainder term.
Contents
- 1 Introduction
- 2 Review of Arthur’s trace formula
- 3 A non-archimedean separation lemma
- 4 Archimedean test functions
- 5 Local bounds and Weyl’s law for the cuspidal spectrum
1. Introduction
1.1.
The Weyl law, in its basic form, states that the number of eigenfunctions of the Laplacian on a compact -dimensional Riemannian manifold with eigenvalues satisfies the asymptotic
[TABLE]
The definitive result for compact Riemannian manifolds is due to Hörmander [MR0609014]. His work implies in particular that
[TABLE]
in the compact case. The order of the remainder term is optimal without further assumptions on .
The problem becomes more difficult when is not compact (but still of finite volume). An interesting class to consider is the locally symmetric spaces of non-compact type, namely , where is a lattice in a semisimple Lie group with a maximal compact subgroup . One of Selberg’s main motivations for developing the trace formula was to obtain information on the eigenvalues of the Laplacian. Already the existence of non-zero eigenvalues is non-evident. For , the case of hyperbolic surfaces, Selberg [MR1159119] (see also [MR1117906]*§39) showed that
[TABLE]
where , is the number of cusps of , and
[TABLE]
is the winding number of the determinant of the scattering matrix, a meromorphic function of a complex variable that is holomorphic and has absolute value on the line . The summand can be interpreted as the contribution of the part of the continuous spectrum with Laplace eigenvalue . It is not difficult to see that the difference between and the number of poles of with imaginary part between [math] and , counted with their multiplicities, is (and Selberg refined this to for a constant ). Selberg also showed that
[TABLE]
If is a congruence subgroup of the modular group , then the scattering determinant is given in terms of Dirichlet -functions, and the classical results of Riemann and von Mangoldt on the number of zeros of such an -function in a strip yield the asymptotic
[TABLE]
Therefore, in this case we have
[TABLE]
and it is possible to refine the remainder term here to for a suitable constant depending on .
This result led Selberg to speculate whether in general , which would imply the Weyl law for the discrete spectrum for an arbitrary lattice in . However, the subsequent work of Phillips and Sarnak on the dissolution of cusp forms under deformation of lattices led Sarnak to conjecture that the opposite extreme holds, namely that except for the Teichmüller space of the once punctured torus, the discrete spectrum of a generic non-uniform lattice in is finite (see [MR1997348] and the references therein).
It is well known that irreducible lattices in all other semisimple Lie groups do not form continuous families. It was conjectured by Sarnak [MR1159118] that the Weyl law holds in complete generality in the case of congruence subgroups. The appropriate form of the trace formula for congruence subgroups in arbitrary rank was developed by Arthur in the adelic language. It is technically much more complicated than in the rank one case.
1.2.
An important part of the discrete spectrum is the cuspidal spectrum defined by the vanishing of all constant terms with respect to proper parabolic subgroups. In rank one, all but a finite part of the discrete spectrum is cuspidal, but this is not true in general. The general upper bound
[TABLE]
on the cuspidal spectrum was proven by Donnelly [MR664496] (it can also be obtained from a basic analysis of Arthur’s trace formula). In [MR2306657], Lindenstrauss and Venkatesh made a breakthrough by showing that the cuspidal spectrum for congruence subgroups obeys the Weyl law.111They state their result for quotients , where is a split adjoint semisimple group over and a congruence subgroup of , but their method is completely general. (Some special cases had been proved earlier – see [MR1204788, MR1823867, MR2276771].) Their argument uses arithmeticity in an essential way. It is based on the crucial fact that the spectral parameters of Eisenstein series at different places are not independent of one another, but satisfy certain simple relations. Taking this into account, Lindenstrauss and Venkatesh constructed from any single non-trivial Hecke operator a family of adelic test functions that act trivially on all Eisenstein series, and hence effectively only see the cuspidal spectrum. In contrast to previous instances of the simple trace formula these test functions are not factorizable, and as a family, do not entail a loss of a positive proportion of the cuspidal spectrum.
The result of [MR2306657] does not provide a bound on the remainder term in the Weyl law for the cuspidal spectrum. In fact, it seems that as it stands, the method is short of giving a good error term, since it uses a single Hecke operator. The purpose of the current paper is to push the basic idea of Lindenstrauss–Venkatesh further and to bound the error term in the cuspidal Weyl law by for some . For simplicity, we work in the setting of simple Chevalley groups defined over , mainly because the necessary estimates for the geometric side of the trace formula have been worked out only in this case. Then, we have the following (see Theorem 5.11 and Corollary 5.12).222In the non simply connected case, our result is for manifolds which may be non-connected.
Theorem 1.1**.**
Let be a simply connected, simple Chevalley group. Then there exists such that for any congruence subgroup of we have
[TABLE]
where .
Our method uses Hecke operators as well, but in a slightly different way. Namely, instead of annulling the contribution of the non-cuspidal spectrum, we amplify it in order to show its negligibility (by a factor of ). This is somewhat analogous to the situation in Selberg’s sieve (e.g., [MR2200366]) and requires the use of many Hecke operators for a suitable . The argument crucially relies on a simple positivity property of Arthur’s trace formula. Apart from the basic work of Arthur’s first papers on the trace formula, we use the estimates on its geometric side of [1905.09078], which are based on [MR2801400, MR3534542]. The exact power saving that we get can in principle be computed, but since it results from an application of the Stone–Weierstrass theorem, we expect it to be quite poor. It would be interesting to analyze this question more carefully. The final result (Theorem 5.11) is actually more general than the Weyl law for the Laplacian, since we treat the entire commutative algebra of all invariant differential operators on simultaneously, following the method of [MR532745].
More generally, our proof gives a main term for the trace of an arbitrary Hecke operator on the cuspidal spectrum, with a remainder term of order where the implicit constant is the -norm of times a logarithmic factor depending on the support of (see Theorem 5.13 for the precise statement). As in [MR3675175], these estimates have applications to the conjectures of Katz–Sarnak on low-lying zeros of -functions for the family of cuspidal automorphic representations of of a bounded level that are spherical at infinity.
1.3.
An alterative strategy (see [MR2541128, MR3711830, 1905.09078]) is to use Arthur’s fine spectral expansion and to analyze the analytic properties of intertwining operators (i.e., in this case, of their global normalizing factors) in more depth.
A first step in this direction is to establish polynomial upper bounds for the discrete spectrum. This is the trace-class conjecture, which was solved by Werner Müller some time ago [MR1025165] (see also [MR1470422, MR1622604]). A refinement of this statement is the absolute convergence of the spectral side of Arthur’s trace formula, which was established in [MR2811597].
In [MR3711830], we formulated a precise analytic conjecture on intertwining operators, which would imply the Weyl law for the discrete spectrum with an error term of as in the cocompact case (with an extra logarithmic factor in the case of groups of type and ). It also implies that the non-cuspidal discrete spectrum is bounded by [1905.09078]. Using the work of Langlands on the relation between intertwining operators and automorphic -functions [MR0419366], the conjecture can be formulated in terms of the latter. This conjecture is known to hold for the general linear groups, where the pertinent -functions are the Rankin–Selberg convolutions, whose analytic properties are well-understood by the work of Jacquet–Piatetski-Shapiro–Shalika and others [MR2541128]. The conjecture is also known for quasi-split classical groups using Arthur’s work and for the split exceptional group , by Shahidi’s work on the symmetric cube -function for (see [MR3711830]). In general however, the required information on the behavior of the automorphic -functions is not available.
In contrast, the method of the current paper does not give an upper bound on the non-cuspidal discrete spectrum, which remains an interesting open problem in general.
1.4.
To close this introduction, we give a quick summary of the individual sections of this paper. In §2, we give a summary of the first stage of the spectral expansion of Arthur’s trace formula. In §3, we construct for each prime , Hecke operators at suitable for the task of emphasizing the non-cuspidal contribution. The main result of this section is Proposition 3.4, which is the technical heart of the paper. In §4, we collect some mostly standard facts about spherical archimedean test functions, the associated Paley–Wiener theorem and the spherical Plancherel measure. Finally, in §5 we prove our main results Theorem 5.11 and Theorem 5.13. Proposition 5.5 contains the key part of the argument.
2. Review of Arthur’s trace formula
In this section we recall the relevant facts from the basic theory of Arthur’s (non-invariant) trace formula and set some notation which will be used throughout. We will freely use standard results from the textbook [MR1361168] (and by extension, [MR0579181]) as well as from Arthur’s fundamental papers [MR518111, MR558260, MR681737] (see also the first part of [MR2192011]). On the other hand, we will not go into Arthur’s fine spectral and geometric expansions (let alone his more advanced theory of the trace formula) since we will not use them in the sequel. In fact, on the geometric side, we will only use the estimates of [MR2801400, MR3534542, 1905.09078] (see §5 below).
For this section, let be an arbitrary reductive group defined over .
Here and henceforward, means that there is a constant (implicitly depending on the group ) such that . If depends on additional parameters, we will emphasize it by writing .
2.1.
As usual, we denote by the ring of adeles. Let be the center of the universal enveloping algebra of the (complexified) Lie algebra of . Fix a maximal compact subgroup of such that the factors are special for all and hyperspecial for almost all .
Fix a Haar measure on . Let be the -algebra (under convolution, with ) of smooth, complex-valued, compactly supported functions on . (By definition, smoothness implies that the function is right-invariant under a suitable open subgroup of .) The right regular representation gives rise to a -representation of on the Hilbert space . Explicitly, for any , is the operator
[TABLE]
which is an integral operator with kernel
[TABLE]
Let be a parabolic subgroup of defined over with unipotent radical and Levi subgroup defined over . Denote by the modulus function of and by the identity connected component of , where is the split part of the center of . Thus, is of finite volume. Denote by the discrete part of . The space of square-integrable automorphic forms on is dense in . Let
[TABLE]
and let be the Hilbert completion of . We may identify with the (normalized) parabolic induction . Let be the set of equivalence classes of irreducible representations of that occur discretely in . (The central character of any is trivial on .) For any let be subspace of consisting of the functions such that for all the function belongs to the -isotypic component of . Let be the closure of in . Thus,
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
For any we fix an orthonormal basis of .
Let be the lattice of rational characters of and let be the real vector space generated by . We also write . The restriction map identifies with . The dual space of will be denoted by . Thus, where is the lattice of co-characters of . We denote the canonical pairing on by . Let be the homomorphism characterized by
[TABLE]
The kernel of is and the restriction of to is an isomorphism.
Fix a maximal -split torus of that is in a good position with respect to , i.e., for every the group is the stabilizer of a special point in the apartment associated to . Denote by the Weyl group . It acts on and . We may identify with the Lie algebra of . We fix a -invariant Euclidean structure on . (Of course, if is semisimple, then the Killing form is a -invariant inner product on .)
Let be the finite set of parabolic subgroups defined over and containing . Each admits a unique Levi decomposition with (necessarily defined ). We write for the set of all such Levi subgroups as we vary . In other words, is the set of centralizers of subtori of in . We say that are associate, denoted , if their Levi parts are conjugate in . For every we identify as a subspace of . We have orthogonal decompositions
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Here, is the derived group of . For any we write for the set of with Levi part and let , which can be identified with a subgroup of . For any let be the corresponding set of simple roots. (These are the non-zero projections to of the simple roots with respect to any minimal parabolic subgroup in contained in .) We extend to a left and right -invariant map . For any and a function on let be the function
[TABLE]
This gives rise to the family of representations of on given by
[TABLE]
For any we write
[TABLE]
a bounded operator on .
Define a height on and heights on , , as in [MR518111]. We have .
2.2.
For any the Eisenstein series
[TABLE]
which converges for for all , admits a meromorphic continuation to and is analytic for (see [MR2402686] for the non--finite case).
By the theory of Eisenstein series we have a spectral expansion
[TABLE]
over associate classes of parabolic subgroups, where for any
[TABLE]
and is the restriction of to .
We note that for any we have
[TABLE]
2.3.
Fix a minimal parabolic subgroup and let be the corresponding set of simple roots. For any let and let be Arthur’s truncation operator [MR558260] with respect to . It takes functions of uniform moderate growth to rapidly decreasing functions provided that for some constant depending only on . Under this condition, also defines an orthogonal projection on . We will write
[TABLE]
Let be the partial order on defined by if is a linear combination of simple co-roots with non-negative coefficients. Suppose that . Then by [MR558260]*Lemma 1.1 we have . Thus, for any of uniform moderate growth we have
[TABLE]
Hence,
[TABLE]
Let and consider the operator on . This is a trace class integral operator whose kernel is given by
[TABLE]
where denotes truncation in both variables. Let
[TABLE]
Note that
[TABLE]
which is how this distribution is defined in [MR558260].
On the other hand, Arthur introduced in [MR518111] the modified kernel and its integral
[TABLE]
which by [MR3534542]*Theorem 5.1 is absolutely convergent and a polynomial function of the parameter for all .
By a basic result of Arthur [MR681737]*Proposition 2.2 there exists a constant depending only on we have
[TABLE]
Spectrally expanding , we may write
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
for any . Thus,
[TABLE]
with
[TABLE]
In particular, we have the following crucial positivity property.
[TABLE]
Note that is not necessarily a polynomial in , even if and is large. (In general, approximates a polynomial in as but we will not use this fact.)
Let be the cuspidal part of and let be the orthogonal complement of in . Denote by (resp., ) the set of equivalence classes of irreducible representations that occur in (resp., ). Note that in general and are not disjoint. For any let denote the restriction of to . We will need the following result due to Wallach.
Lemma 2.1** ([MR733320]).**
The local components of any are non-tempered.
Although in [ibid.] this is technically only stated for the archimedean components, the same proof, but easier, applies to the non-archimedean components as well. Namely, the cuspidal exponents of any square-integrable automorphic form lie in the negative obtuse Weyl chamber [MR1361168]*I.4.11. On the other hand, if occurs in the space of , then every cuspidal exponents of is an exponents of for all . Hence, cannot be tempered unless is cuspidal.
3. A non-archimedean separation lemma
In this section we construct the Hecke operators (one for each prime) that will be used to amplify the non-cuspidal part of the trace formula. The construction is elementary, using the Stone–Weierstrass theorem as the main tool.
From now on we assume that is a Chevalley group over of rank (in this section it would be sufficient to assume that is split reductive over ).
3.1.
Let us first recall some basic facts and set some notation pertaining to unramified representations and the Satake isomorphism. See [MR0435301, MR1696481] for standard references. Let be the torus dual to , considered as a torus over . We denote by the resulting isomorphism between the lattices of rational characters of and the co-characters of .
For every prime let , and denote by the unramified (admissible) spectrum of . For any let be the unramified character of such that for any . The map defines an isomorphism of topological groups between and the group of unramified characters of . (Note that the Levi part of is since is split.) For any , the induced representation admits a unique unramified irreducible subquotient , and the isomorphism class of depends only on . The map gives rise to a homeomorphism
[TABLE]
For any we will write for the Frobenius–Hecke parameter of . For instance, if is the identity representation, then is the -orbit of the element that corresponds to the square-root of the modulus character of , an unramified character of .
Let be the hermitian part of , namely
[TABLE]
where is the complex conjugate of . Clearly is closed in . Let
[TABLE]
be the maximal compact subgroup of . Finally, set
[TABLE]
The sets , and are -invariant. Their quotients by parameterize the sets of hermitian, tempered and non-tempered (unramified, irreducible) representations of , respectively. In particular, the set of unitarizable, unramified, irreducible representations of corresponds to a compact, -invariant subset of (which of course depends on ). Note that strictly contains (unless is trivial).
For any commutative -algebra we denote by the real subalgebra of self-adjoint elements of and by the convex cone generated by , .
Let be the commutative -algebra of -invariant, regular functions on where . As a vector space, has the basis , . Note that for any and . Thus, (resp., ) for all (resp., ) and .
For any with corresponding co-character let . We extend the homomorphism to a surjective homomorphism characterized by for any and .
3.2.
Fix the Haar measure on such that . Let be the Hecke algebra of bi--invariant, compactly supported functions on with respect to convolution, with identity element . For any we write . We denote by
[TABLE]
the Satake transform. It is an isomorphism of commutative -algebras which is characterized by the property
[TABLE]
where is the scalar by which acts on the one-dimensional space .
For any in the positive Weyl chamber, the image under of the space of functions in supported in is the span of , . Here, means that is a sum of simple roots with non-negative coefficients. It follows that
[TABLE]
Denote by the Plancherel measure on with respect to . It is the probability measure characterized by the property
[TABLE]
or equivalently
[TABLE]
It is well known that the support of is . We will need the following fact.
Lemma 3.1**.**
The support of the weak- limit of any convergent subsequence of is . In other words, for any open subset of .
Proof.
The measure is absolutely continuous with respect to the Haar measure of . The density function is given by Macdonald’s formula [MR0435301]*Chap. 5. From this, it easily follows that the weak- limit of as exists and is also absolutely continuous, with an explicit density function whose support is . ∎
Remark 3.2*.*
In fact, the weak- limit of as , which is often called the Sato–Tate measure, can be described as follows [MR3437869]*Proposition 5.3 (an observation going back at least to [MR1018385]). Let be a maximal compact subgroup of . The conjugacy classes of are parameterized by . Let be the corresponding conjugation invariant map. Then is the pushforward of the normalized Haar measure on under , considered as a -invariant measure on .
3.3.
For any we may identify the dual torus of with a subtorus of . Thus,
[TABLE]
Let . We will use the following elementary result.
Lemma 3.3**.**
For any , , there exist two disjoint, -invariant, open subsets of and an open neighborhood of the identity in with the following property: for every the set is disjoint from or .
Proof.
Fix two -orbits in such that . Then there exist open, -invariant neighborhoods of in such that and are disjoint, where denotes the closure of in . Therefore, every has an open neighborhood that is disjoint from or from . By compactness, there exists an open neighborhood of the identity in such that for any the neighborhood of is disjoint from or from , which is the assertion of the lemma. ∎
We now state the main technical result of this section.
Proposition 3.4**.**
Let be an open, -invariant subset of . Then, there exist constants and for every , an element such that
- (1)
. 2. (2)
. 3. (3)
. 4. (4)
* for all .* 5. (5)
.
Remark 3.5*.*
As can be seen from the application in Proposition 5.5 later, it is mainly the constant that influences the quality of our estimates. It would be interesting to find an explicit value for (for subsets and satisfying the conclusion of Lemma 3.3).
Before proving the proposition, we need a few auxiliary results. The following lemma is necessary to take care of the non-tempered spectrum. For and it is contained in [1505.07285]*Lemma 3.1.
Lemma 3.6**.**
There exists such that and the restriction of to defines a proper map
[TABLE]
Proof.
The variety is affine and hence by the Noether normalization theorem, it admits a finite (and in particular, proper) map
[TABLE]
In fact, if is adjoint then by [MR0240238]*Théorème VI.3.1, may be taken to be an isomorphism and in general, can be easily constructed from this case.
Take . Then and therefore, it is a proper map to . Finally, we may normalize so that . ∎
Lemma 3.7**.**
Let be a compact, -invariant subset of and let , be two disjoint, closed, -invariant subsets of . Then, for every there exists such that
- (1)
. 2. (2)
. 3. (3)
.
Proof.
By the Stone-Weierstrass theorem, is dense in the space of continuous, -invariant, real-valued functions on . Thus, there exists such that , and . We then take . ∎
Lemma 3.8**.**
For any there exist such that for all .
Proof.
Clearly, it is enough to prove the lemma for elements that form a basis for . Let be the dual group of (with maximal torus ). The restriction to defines an isomorphism of algebras . We take the basis formed by the traces of the irreducible rational representations of , indexed by their highest weight. By the Lusztig–Kato formula (see e.g. [MR2642451]) if , then as a function on . (Up to a power of , the values of are given by the values of certain Kazhdan–Lusztig polynomials at .) Hence, . The lemma follows. ∎
Remark 3.9*.*
The proof yields the value for .
Proof of Proposition 3.4.
We may assume without loss of generality that consists of regular elements, so that is open in . Let be a -invariant, open subset of such . By Lemma 3.1, . Let be a parameter, to be determined below. Let be as in Lemma 3.6 and let be a compact, -invariant subset of , containing , such that outside . Let be as in Lemma 3.7 with , and . Clearly,
[TABLE]
Set
[TABLE]
and . Clearly, . On the other hand, for any we have
[TABLE]
Thus, taking we get on . It is also clear that
[TABLE]
Moreover, since we may apply Lemma 3.8 to infer the existence of constants such that for all . Finally, the support condition on follows immediately from (5). ∎
4. Archimedean test functions
Next, we recall the Paley–Wiener theorem for spherical functions, following Harish-Chandra. See [MR1790156, MR954385] for standard references. Recall that denotes a Chevalley group defined over of rank . Let be the set of roots of and a fixed subset of positive roots. Let be the dimension of the symmetric space . The difference is the dimension of a maximal unipotent subgroup, i.e., the number of positive roots of . The Killing form defines an inner product on , and hence on . We endow with the Lebesgue measure with respect to the Euclidean structure.
4.1.
Let denote the space of -invariant Paley–Wiener functions on . Thus,
[TABLE]
where is the Fréchet space of -invariant entire functions on such that
[TABLE]
for all . The space is a commutative -algebra under pointwise multiplication and the involution . Moreover, the subspaces , are invariant under ∗ and for all .
For any , the induced representation admits a unique unramified irreducible subquotient , which up to equivalence depends only on . The map defines a homeomorphism between and the unramified dual of . We denote by the -orbit (or a representative thereof) corresponding to an irreducible unramified representation of . Define
[TABLE]
We have (resp., ) for all (resp., ) and .
Denote by the -algebra of space of smooth, -invariant, compactly supported functions on under convolution, with . For any denote by the subspace of consisting of functions supported on the ball of radius around [math]. It is a Fréchet space with respect to the usual topology. The Fourier–Laplace transform
[TABLE]
defines for every an isomorphism of Fréchet spaces , as well as a -algebra isomorphism .
On the other hand, let
[TABLE]
be the exponential map. Thus, the image of is the identity component of and for all , . Fix the Haar measure on as in [MR532745]*p. 37 and take the Haar measure on such that
[TABLE]
where the measure on is normalized by . Let be the -algebra of smooth, compactly supported, bi--invariant functions on with respect to convolution and with . For each let be the subspace of consisting of those functions that are supported in . The Harish-Chandra transform
[TABLE]
defines a -algebra isomorphism which for any , restricts to an isomorphism of Fréchet spaces . Composing this with the Fourier–Laplace transform, we get a -algebra isomorphism
[TABLE]
which restricts to isomorphisms of Fréchet spaces for all .
Let be the Plancherel density. It is given by
[TABLE]
where is Harish-Chandra’s -function. More precisely, if
[TABLE]
then
[TABLE]
Therefore we have the explicit formula
[TABLE]
For any we have
[TABLE]
where the measure on is the dual to the one on .
Following Duistermaat–Kolk–Varadarajan [MR532745], it is useful to introduce the -invariant function
[TABLE]
We have
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
4.2.
Again following [MR532745], for any and define by
[TABLE]
Clearly, and if then . In particular, if then , although it is not true in general that implies .
The main feature of is that it localizes near . More precisely, for every we have
[TABLE]
If then we define .
Definition 4.1**.**
- (1)
We say that a function has a small derivative if
[TABLE] 2. (2)
We say that (and likewise, ) is special if and has a small derivative.
It is easy to see that special Paley–Wiener functions exist. Simply take any such that and consider the function for sufficiently small.
Lemma 4.2**.**
- (1)
If has a small derivative, then the same is true for for any ,. 2. (2)
Let be special. Then
[TABLE]
Proof.
The first part is clear. Suppose that is special. Then and by the mean value theorem, for any such that we have
[TABLE]
since has a small derivative. The second part follows. ∎
5. Local bounds and Weyl’s law for the cuspidal spectrum
In this section we will prove the main result of the paper, namely, the Weyl law with remainder for the cuspidal spectrum. Roughly speaking, the Weyl law is essentially the statement that for suitable test functions, the main term on the spectral (resp., geometric) side of the trace formula is the contribution of the cuspidal spectrum (resp., of the central elements). These properties have to be formulated precisely and quantitatively.
We go back to the general setup of Arthur’s trace formula in §2, except for our running assumption that is a simple Chevalley group defined over . We take the product Haar measure on , where the Haar measures on and are as in §3.2 and §4.1, respectively. For the remainder of the paper we fix a compact open subgroup of and let
[TABLE]
Let be the finite set of (finite) primes such that . Thus, where . Let be the idemponent corresponding to , i.e., the characteristic function of normalized by , viewed as a smooth function on .
Consider . For any and an admissible representation of such that is one-dimensional, we denote by the scalar by which acts on . We set for any
[TABLE]
interpreted as [math] if .
Let , and and consider as introduced in (2). By (4), we have
[TABLE]
On the geometric side we have the following estimate for the polynomial function [1905.09078]Theorem 3.7.333In [ibid.], the theorem is stated only for the constant term of the polynomial . However, the proof yields the full statement of Theorem 5.1. As in [1905.09078](2.2), (3.1) set
[TABLE]
for classical , and
[TABLE]
for exceptional . For a qualitative result it is only important that
[TABLE]
Theorem 5.1** (Finis–Matz).**
For any , and we have
[TABLE]
By (7), (8) and (9) we conclude (cf. [1905.09078]*Corollary 3.8):
Corollary 5.2**.**
For any and either or we have
[TABLE]
for all , and .
Turning to the spectral side, for any denote by the subset of consisting of the representations such that admits a non-zero -invariant vector for any (or equivalently, all) . In particular, if , then is unramified for all (including ). As in §2, for any , and we have
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
for . Here is the archimedean parameter of and is an orthonormal basis of the finite-dimensional space (the -invariant part of ).
Let be the Radon measure on given by
[TABLE]
and let
[TABLE]
It is clear from (1) that
[TABLE]
We also introduce the Radon measures
[TABLE]
Let
[TABLE]
for any bounded, -invariant subset of , and note that
[TABLE]
Finally, we decompose the Radon measure as the sum of two Radon measures
[TABLE]
(the tempered and non-tempered part of ) where
[TABLE]
For any and denote by the ball of radius around in .
The case of Corollary 5.2 is already sufficient to give the following qualitative local bounds. Let
[TABLE]
Lemma 5.3**.**
For any and we have
[TABLE]
In particular,
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Proof.
Fix special (see Definition 4.1). By (10) and (14) we have
[TABLE]
for any . On the other hand, by Corollary 5.2 (with ) and (12) we have
[TABLE]
for all with sufficiently large (depending on the support of and on ). By (15) this holds for all .
The last estimate is a consequence of the second one together with the fact that if and otherwise. The lemma follows. ∎
It is possible to use positivity to deduce a more precise upper bound on the cuspidal spectrum. To go beyond upper bounds, we will need the full force of Theorem 5.1 (i.e., for an arbitrary ). First, we make the following elementary, but crucial observation.
Lemma 5.4**.**
For any there exists an integer (depending on ), divisible by , such that for any , the central character of is trivial on whenever .
Proof.
This is simply because if is an open compact subgroup of , then the characters of of level are precisely the Dirichlet characters of level where is determined by . ∎
The following proposition is the key assertion for the proof of the Weyl law.
Proposition 5.5**.**
We have
[TABLE]
for all and , where is the constant from Proposition 3.4 (which depends only on ), and .
Proof.
First note that it is enough to bound for all proper parabolic subgroups , as well as .
To deal with the first case, fix a proper parabolic subgroup and let be as in Lemma 5.4. By Lemma 3.3 there exist two open, -invariant subsets of and a number , such that for every and there exists an index with
[TABLE]
Let and let be a parameter depending on (to be determined below). Set
[TABLE]
and let . For each let , , be as in Proposition 3.4, and consider the following combination of Hecke operators:
[TABLE]
As a consequence of Proposition 3.4, satisfies the following properties.
- (1)
For any , and we have by (16) and Lemma 5.4. Hence, . 2. (2)
The functions , are pairwise orthogonal in . 3. (3)
. 4. (4)
. 5. (5)
.
Fix special and let . By positivity, the first property of implies that
[TABLE]
for all . On the other hand, Corollary 5.2 and the remaining properties of yield that for , where is independent of , we have
[TABLE]
Since for all , where and depend only on , we can take to get
[TABLE]
Turning to the residual contribution, it follows from Lemma 2.1 and the fourth property of Proposition 3.4, that for any we have
[TABLE]
Thus, by the same argument as above
[TABLE]
Since for a suitable , we obtain
[TABLE]
at least under the condition . However, using (15) we can remove this condition (at the cost of replacing the exponent of by ). ∎
Theorem 5.6**.**
There exists (depending only on ) such that for any and we have
[TABLE]
Proof.
For any let be given by
[TABLE]
Then, for any we have
[TABLE]
Thus, using (12) and Corollary 5.2, in order to finish the proof it remains to prove that
[TABLE]
for all . Clearly,
[TABLE]
By (9), for every we have
[TABLE]
Covering by balls of radius with centers in and using either Proposition 5.5 and (8) if or Lemma 5.3 and (7) if , we get
[TABLE]
Our claim follows. ∎
Corollary 5.7**.**
For any and we have
[TABLE]
Proof.
Indeed,
[TABLE]
On the other hand, by (9), for all we have
[TABLE]
and by Lemma 5.3
[TABLE]
Hence, the corollary follows from Theorem 5.6. ∎
Definition 5.8**.**
For any and let
[TABLE]
Note that for any we have . Hence, by the Vitali covering lemma, is covered by balls of radius . On the other hand, it is clear that if , then for any . (Here .) It follows that for every ,
[TABLE]
In particular, .
Let be a -invariant bounded measurable set. For any define by
[TABLE]
Similarly, for any let given by
[TABLE]
Thus, if then .
Lemma 5.9**.**
Let be a -invariant bounded measurable set and its characteristic function. Let with . Then for any and we have
[TABLE]
This follows immediately from the rapid decay of on .
Corollary 5.10**.**
Let be a measure on satisfying
[TABLE]
for some . Then for any -invariant, bounded measurable set in and any such that we have
[TABLE]
where .
Proof.
By Lemma 5.9, for every we have
[TABLE]
On the other hand, by (18), for any , is covered by balls of radius and we may as well assume that the centers of these balls lie in . Hence, by the assumption on we have
[TABLE]
provided that . The corollary follows. ∎
Theorem 5.11**.**
There exists such that for any open subgroup of and any -invariant, bounded measurable set in we have
[TABLE]
In particular, if the boundary of is rectifiable (or more generally, if the -dimensional upper Minkowski content of is finite), then for all we have
[TABLE]
Note that for .
Proof.
Fix such that . By Corollary 5.7
[TABLE]
Integrating over we get
[TABLE]
On the other hand, by Corollary 5.10 we have
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
The theorem follows. ∎
For the balls , , we obtain:
Corollary 5.12**.**
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Thus, the Weyl law with remainder holds for the cuspidal spectrum of the adelic quotient . If in addition is simply connected, then we obtain
[TABLE]
for by strong approximation (cf. Theorem 1.1).
Indeed, the first statement follows from the computation of (cf. [MR532745]*§8). The second statement follows from the first one since for any . Finally, note that the Laplace eigenvalue corresponding to an archimedean parameter is .
Finally, we give a generalization of Theorem 5.11 incorporating Hecke operators . Set
[TABLE]
for any bounded, -invariant subset of .
Theorem 5.13**.**
There exists such that for any open subgroup of , any and any -invariant, bounded measurable set in we have
[TABLE]
In particular, if the -dimensional upper Minkowski content of is finite, (e.g., if the boundary of is rectifiable), then for all we have
[TABLE]
Proof.
We first prove the analog of Theorem 5.6: for any and we have
[TABLE]
As in the proof of Theorem 5.6, we start with
[TABLE]
for all and . Moreover, by (12) we have
[TABLE]
for . Using the upper bound of (17) for and the estimate of Corollary 5.2 for for a suitable value of , one obtains (21).
Denote by the restriction of to the space of cuspidal representations tempered at infinity. As in the proof of Corollary 5.7, one obtains
[TABLE]
and if in addition , then by Corollary 5.10
[TABLE]
From these estimates one can deduce the theorem exactly as in the proof of Theorem 5.11. ∎
References
