Selmer groups of families of elliptic curves with an $\ell$-isogeny
Stephanie Chan, Matteo Verzobio

TL;DR
This paper proves a central limit theorem for Tamagawa ratios in families of elliptic curves with a prime degree isogeny, and shows the existence of elliptic curves with arbitrarily large -Selmer groups for specific primes.
Contribution
It establishes a probabilistic limit theorem for Tamagawa ratios and links it to the size of -Selmer groups, providing new bounds and existence results.
Findings
Central limit theorem for Tamagawa ratios
Bounds on average Tamagawa ratios
Existence of elliptic curves with arbitrarily large -Selmer groups for certain primes
Abstract
For certain families of elliptic curves admitting a rational isogeny of prime degree , we establish a central limit theorem for the Tamagawa ratio and derive bounds on its average value. By using the Tamagawa ratio to bound the size of the -isogeny Selmer group from below, we show that for , there exist elliptic curves with arbitrarily large -Selmer groups.
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsAnalytic Number Theory Research · Algebraic Geometry and Number Theory · Finite Group Theory Research
Selmer groups of families of elliptic curves with an -isogeny
Stephanie Chan
and
Matteo Verzobio
Institute of Science and Technology Austria
Am Campus 1
3400 Klosterneuburg
Austria
(Date: August 29, 2025)
Abstract.
For certain families of elliptic curves admitting a rational isogeny of prime degree , we establish a central limit theorem for the Tamagawa ratio and derive bounds on its average value. By using the Tamagawa ratio to bound the size of the -isogeny Selmer group from below, we show that for , there exist elliptic curves with arbitrarily large -Selmer groups.
2020 Mathematics Subject Classification:
11G05 (11N36)
Contents
- 1 Introduction
- 2 The set up
- 3 The Tamagawa ratio between isogenous elliptic curves
- 4 Lattice point counting
- 5 The distribution of the Tamagawa ratio
- 6 Families of elliptic curves
1. Introduction
It is conjectured that the average size of the -Selmer groups of all elliptic curves over is finite [31]. This has been proven for by Bhargava and Shankar [6, 7, 4, 5]. Nevertheless, the size of the -Selmer group is not necessarily uniformly bounded. In fact, there exist families, of density [math] among all elliptic curves, for which the -Selmer group size is unbounded.
The first result in this direction is due to Klagsbrun and Lemke Oliver [21, 22], who proved that the -Selmer group is unbounded in the family of elliptic curves with a rational -torsion point, as well as in certain quadratic twist families with partial -torsion. Kane and Thorne [20] considered a quartic twist family of elliptic curves with partial -torsion. Families with unbounded -Selmer groups were studied by Alpöge, Bhargava, and Shnidman [1, Theorem 1.11], and by Chan [10]. A common feature in these results is that the elliptic curves admit a rational -isogeny, and the ratio of the sizes of the Selmer groups associated with the isogeny and its dual plays a key role.
In this paper, we demonstrate the unboundedness of the -Selmer group in new families for . Our results also encompass all families of elliptic curves with a prescribed torsion subgroup.
Let be a family of elliptic curves over such that each admits a cyclic rational isogeny of prime degree . We study the relative sizes of the Selmer groups and associated to the isogeny and its dual , respectively. In particular, we investigate how the difference
[TABLE]
varies within when the elliptic curves are ordered by naive height. Let denote the set of elliptic curves in with naive height at most . Theorem 1.1 is an application of our main technical theorem, Theorem 5.9.
Theorem 1.1**.**
Let be one of the following families of elliptic curves over with a choice of prime :
- •
the family of all elliptic curves with , for a non-trivial torsion subgroup such that ;
- •
the family of all elliptic curves admitting a rational cyclic isogeny of degree , with ;
- •
an infinite family of elliptic curves in distinct -isomorphism classes as described in Section 6.4, with ;
- •
an infinite family of elliptic curves as described in Section 6.5, with .
Then there exists a choice of rational degree isogeny for each such that all of the following hold:
- (1)
There exist constants and such that
[TABLE]
converges in distribution to a standard Gaussian as . 2. (2)
Given any , there exists a constant , such that
[TABLE]
for all . 3. (3)
Given any , there exist such that
[TABLE]
for all .
In particular, other than the cases with , we have for . In every case, for . The constants , , and for are given in Tables 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5.
The first part of the theorem is a central limit theorem-type result, as in Klagsbrun and Lemke Oliver [21, 22]. For similar results in the context of Selmer groups, see also [11, Theorem 6.2], [40]. The second statement follows from methods used in averaging multiplicative functions over integer sequences [39]. The third is an application of the Paley–Zygmund inequality to , using (2) with a sufficiently large choice of .
It follows immediately from Theorem 1.1(3) that can become arbitrarily large in any of the families we consider. From the exact sequence [32, Lemma 6.1]
[TABLE]
we obtain the bound
[TABLE]
which shows that can also be arbitrarily large.
To establish our main theorem, it is essential to have a suitable parametrisation of the elliptic curves in . The families we consider fall into two types. The first consists of elliptic curves of the form , where are fixed and varies over . We can alternatively view them as the non-singular fibres of a given elliptic surface over an affine line, or over after completion. The second consists of all quadratic twists of the first. In either case, we may put the curve into short Weierstrass form , where are weighted homogeneous polynomials with integer coefficients, and is a representative of a weighted projective point. For parametrisations of elliptic curves with a given torsion subgroup, see [3] and [17]; for parametrisations of elliptic curves admitting a cyclic -isogeny, see [25, Table 7].
We rely on a result of Cassels [9]:
[TABLE]
which relates the Selmer ratio to the ratio of Tamagawa numbers , given an isogeny . Based on work by Dokchitser and Dokchitser [15], we can determine the value of explicitly from the reduction of modulo .
A key observation is that behaves like the product of multiplicative functions and evaluated at two independent sequences indexed by . Taking logarithms, these resemble sums of independent additive functions. This explains the similarity between (1) and the Erdős–Kac theorem, and between (2) and average bounds for multiplicative functions as in [39].
To prove Theorem 1.1(1) and (2), we show that are equidistributed in residue classes as the naive height of increases. We select families for which we can estimate with a good enough error term and incorporate the relevant congruence conditions. For elliptic curves with given torsion subgroups, the order of was found by Harron and Snowden [17], and later refined to an asymptotic by Cullinan, Kenney, and Voight [13]. For curves admitting cyclic -isogenies, asymptotics were established by Pizzo–Pomerance–Voight for [29], Pomerance–Schaefer for [30], Arango-Piñeros–Han–Padurariu–Park for [2], and Molnar–Voight for [27]. Boggess and Sankar [8] obtained order-of-magnitude results for more general values of .
Once we have the required equidistribution result, we can prove (1) via the method of moments and the central limit theorem. For (2), we adapt the proof of [12, Theorem 1.13], which builds on [39, Satz 2].
In Section 2, we describe the elliptic curve families under consideration. In Section 3, we analyse the variation of within each family. Section 4 is dedicated to counting with congruence constraints. In Section 5, we state and prove our main technical theorem. Finally, in Section 6, we apply this result to the families introduced in Theorem 1.1.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank Barinder Banwait, Oana Padurariu, Sun Woo Park, and Efthymios Sofos for helpful discussions.
The second author was supported by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie Grant Agreement No. 101034413.
2. The set up
2.1. Heights and parametrisations
The goal of this section is to set up our counting problem. In particular, we will define the families with which we will work.
Given , define
[TABLE]
Given an elliptic curve over in short Weierstrass model for , the naive height of is defined to be
[TABLE]
Also define
[TABLE]
In particular, the definition of does not depend on the -isomorphism class of , but does. Also note that . Given any elliptic curve , we denote by the quadratic twists of by .
Fix . Let be polynomials such that
[TABLE]
For brevity, we henceforth view as fixed, and suppress the dependency throughout the notation.
Let
[TABLE]
be an elliptic curve over , so in . We will consider the specialisation
[TABLE]
We are interested in the families of elliptic curves
[TABLE]
which we view as multisets indexed by the set of and the set of respectively. We treat and as distinct elements of as long as . We study these families ordered by naive height, so define
[TABLE]
The rational weighted projective line with weights is the set of equivalence classes of pairs , where and are equivalent if there exists such that . We write for the corresponding point when is fixed.
Define such that
[TABLE]
By construction, and are weighted homogeneous polynomials with weights . For any such that , define an elliptic curve
[TABLE]
The following lemma shows that we can alternatively parametrise and by and respectively.
Lemma 2.1**.**
Let , , and as in (2.2), (2.4). Let .
- (1)
Given any , the elliptic curves for all lie in the same -isomorphism class. 2. (2)
Suppose is even and . Then over whenever in . 3. (3)
Suppose and . Then over whenever in .
Proof.
For the first part, it suffices to show that for any , , and . This is immediate upon verifying
[TABLE]
The second part is a corollary of the first because and . For the last part, implies that and . Hence, and the claim follows again from the first part. ∎
For and , define
[TABLE]
which is, up to sign, a set of representatives of . In particular . For any , up to fixing the sign of , the set is in bijection with under the map .
In light of Lemma 2.1, and the definition of and , consider the set
[TABLE]
Up to the sign of , the condition , and the point , corresponds to when is even, and corresponds to the multiset when . Since , we have for every . Define
[TABLE]
We will study congruence conditions on . Let . Given , define when ,
[TABLE]
Given , define
[TABLE]
2.2. Fundamental domains
We record some properties that will be useful later. Given any polynomials (in arbitrarily many variables), denote by the multiplicity of in the factorisation of in . Also denote the polynomial in , of the highest possible degree and smallest possible positive leading coefficient (in lexicographical ordering), that divides both and in , by .
From now on, we assume that are polynomials such that (2.1) and (2.2) hold. Recall (2.4).
Lemma 2.2**.**
Under the assumption (2.2), if , then .
Proof.
By the definition of (2.4), the common factors of and , other than possibly , coincide with the common factor of and . Note that by (2.2),
[TABLE]
so is not a common factor of and in . ∎
To understand the sets (2.7) and (2.8), we consider the region
[TABLE]
Define
[TABLE]
Lemma 2.3**.**
We have
- •
;
- •
* is bounded;*
- •
.
In particular any satisfies and , where the implied constants depend only on .
Proof.
Given , we can make a change of variables by taking and . Then and , so we precisely have . By Lemma 2.2 and the assumption (2.1), has no solutions other than . Therefore, defines a bounded region. By the change of variables, we see that
[TABLE]
as required. ∎
The next lemma shows that omission of the condition from the definition of introduces only a minor error.
Lemma 2.4**.**
Let be a non-zero weighted homogeneous polynomial with weights . Then
[TABLE]
where the implied constant depends on and .
Proof.
The polynomial can only have finitely many zeros in . For each , fix a representative such that . Then any other zeros of in the class must be of the form , with . For the first bound, forces , so the set is finite. For the second bound, Lemma 2.3 implies that if , and , so . ∎
2.3. Divisors of polynomial values
We recall some standard properties of the resultant of polynomials.
Lemma 2.5**.**
Let be homogeneous polynomials. Then if and only if and have a common zero in . In particular, any satisfies
[TABLE]
Proof.
This follows from the properties of the resultant. See [36, Proposition 2.13]. ∎
Lemma 2.6**.**
Let be weighted homogeneous polynomials with weights , and with no common zeros in . Let and be the weighted degrees of and , respectively. Then there exists a positive integer , depending on and , such that
[TABLE]
holds for any .
Proof.
Let be homogeneous polynomials such that and , so . This is possible because the weighted degree of and are both divisible by . Moreover have no common zeros in . Let and , so . Then
[TABLE]
Since , Lemma 2.5 implies that
[TABLE]
Multiplying both sides by completes the proof. ∎
Lemma 2.7**.**
Suppose that are coprime and satisfies (2.2). There exists a positive integer such that whenever for some .
Proof.
Applying Lemma 2.6 to and with and yields a positive integer such that
[TABLE]
By (2.2), implies that , so the definition of in (2.4) implies that
[TABLE]
Therefore, we can take -th roots on both sides while keeping the term to get
[TABLE]
Suppose for some prime and positive integer such that . Then we must have
[TABLE]
Rearranging and putting in , we have
[TABLE]
The assumption (2.2) states that or , so . This contradicts with . ∎
We recall the following standard result. See for example [28, Lemma 4.5].
Lemma 2.8**.**
Let be a homogeneous polynomial. Assume that . There exists a constant depending only on the discriminant of such that for all ,
[TABLE]
3. The Tamagawa ratio between isogenous elliptic curves
The goal of this section is to give a description of the Tamagawa ratio of elliptic curves admitting a rational prime degree isogeny . In particular, the Tamagawa ratio coincides with the ratio of the size of the -isogeny Selmer groups of and , up to a bounded constant.
3.1. Relating the -isogeny Selmer group to the Tamagawa ratio
Given an elliptic curve defined over and a prime , we define the local Tamagawa number to be the cardinality of (see [37, Section VII.6]).
Lemma 3.1**.**
Let be a degree rational isogeny and let be its dual. Then
[TABLE]
where are constants depending only on .
Proof.
By Theorem 1.1, (1.22) and (3.4) in the work of Cassels [9], we have
[TABLE]
Notice , so is bounded in terms of . By Lemma 4.2 and Lemma 4.3 in [15], when is the -adic valuation with , the local factor in the product on the right-hand side can be rewritten as
[TABLE]
We conclude by noting that the contribution from is bounded only in terms of , since both and are bounded by . ∎
3.2. Factorisation of the discriminant polynomial
Let be a prime. Let such that
[TABLE]
define elliptic curves over . Assume that there exists a degree isogeny over from . Specialising to any such that , gives rise to a degree isogeny .
Recall from (2.4), and similarly define
[TABLE]
where is taken such that and . Writing with , we consider
[TABLE]
Lemma 2.1 implies that and over , so the degree isogeny translates to a rational degree isogeny .
We will make use of [15, Theorem 6.1] to compute Tamagawa ratios. Let
[TABLE]
Lemma 3.2**.**
Let be any irreducible weighted homogeneous polynomial with weights . Then one of the following holds:
- •
* and ;*
- •
* and ;*
- •
;
- •
;
- •
.
Proof.
We claim that there exists and such that , and for any irreducible factor of the product over . Since is weighted homogeneous and irreducible, at least one of and is non-constant. If is non-constant, fix , otherwise fix . Without loss of generality, assume that is non-constant; otherwise, we swap the roles of and . It follows from Schur’s Theorem [33] that there are infinitely many primes such that for some integer . Take to be such a prime, with the further condition that it does not divide the discriminant or the leading coefficient of the product of distinct irreducible factors of . By Hensel’s Lemma, there exists a simple -root to . Take to be an integer such that and . Then , so and satisfy the required properties. This proves the claim and we henceforth fix and .
By the construction of , we have and , so we deduce that , , , and . Assume that we are not in the first two cases, so does not divide both and , also does not divide both and . Therefore , so is a minimal model at . Similarly, is a minimal model at .
By [15, Table 1], has good (resp. additive or multiplicative) reduction modulo if and only if has good (resp. additive or multiplicative) reduction modulo . If both and have good reduction at , then and hence . Otherwise, and both have bad reduction. In this case, we have and hence .
Observe that has additive reduction at if and only if by [37, Proposition VII.5.1]. This translates to . In this case would also have additive reduction at , so similarly .
Finally and have multiplicative reduction when and . Moreover
[TABLE]
and we conclude by [15, Theorem 5.1]. ∎
Assume that there exists no such that divides both and , or both and . Collecting all the irreducible factors dividing the discriminant of and , Lemma 3.2 allows us to conclude that there exist and such that
[TABLE]
where
- •
, and are pairwise coprime, and
- •
the irreducible factors of , , , coincide.
We will associate with some quantities.
Definition 3.3**.**
Given any irreducible weighted homogeneous polynomial with weights , let be the smallest field containing all zeros of in , and take to be a zero of , define when is even,
[TABLE]
Extend to all non-zero weighted homogeneous polynomials by taking the sum of over all distinct irreducible factors of over . Define to be the number of distinct irreducible factors of in , and
[TABLE]
Given (3.1), define
[TABLE]
For , let be the product of all irreducible polynomials dividing with multiplicity congruent to . Define
[TABLE]
Define
[TABLE]
We wish to describe the local Tamagawa ratios in terms of values of the polynomials , , and .
Lemma 3.4**.**
Let be a prime. Let be an elliptic curve with such that holds. Then has
- •
good reduction at if ;
- •
split multiplicative reduction at if and ;
- •
non-split multiplicative reduction at if and ;
- •
additive reduction at if and .
Proof.
The condition ensures that is locally minimal at . The case distinction between good, multiplicative, and additive reduction is clear by [37, Proposition VII.5.1]. The splitting type in the case of multiplicative reduction follows from [35, Theorem V.5.3(b)]. ∎
Now, we describe when has multiplicative reduction in full generality, not only when is minimal as in the previous lemma.
Lemma 3.5**.**
Let be a prime. Let be an elliptic curve with . Then has multiplicative reduction at if and only if .
Proof.
Let . Take integers and such that and . Then is -isomorphic to , and hence has the same reduction type as . By Lemma 3.4, has multiplicative reduction at if and only if and . These conditions are equivalent to , , and . ∎
Lemma 3.6**.**
Let be a prime. Let be a prime such that . Recall (3.1). Let be the product of distinct irreducible factors of . Let . Assume that and . If , assume that either , or . If , assume further that and are coprime, and that .
- •
If ,
[TABLE]
- •
If and , we have
[TABLE]
Proof.
For , it follows from the assumption that or . By Lemma 3.4, can only have good reduction or multiplicative reduction at .
We use Lemma 3.4 and [15, Table 1]. Since we have excluded the possibility of additive reduction when , the only case when for any is when has multiplicative reduction at . If , then divides both and In the light of Lemma 3.5, our assumption implies that cannot hold, so cannot have multiplicative reduction when . Therefore for there to be multiplicative reduction, we must have . By assumption cannot divide both and . When , we conclude by combining Lemma 3.4 and [15, Table 1].
Now suppose instead that . If and , has split multiplicative reduction, and we conclude as before. If and , it has non-split multiplicative reduction and so if is odd and otherwise. We conclude by noticing that . The case is analogous. ∎
4. Lattice point counting
The goal of this section is to demonstrate that are equidistributed across typical congruence classes modulo . We divide the discussion into two parts: first we treat the case with and are coprime; then we handle the case , where the coprimality condition on and is dropped. Throughout, we treat as fixed, and thus omit their dependence in the notation.
4.1. The case
In this section we allow to be any positive integer and . Moreover, we assume that and are coprime. Lemma 2.7 ensures that we can take to be the smallest positive integer such that
[TABLE]
From (2.8), we can write
[TABLE]
We have a decomposition
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
Define
[TABLE]
Lemma 4.1**.**
Let , , , , and be positive integers. Suppose that and that . Then
[TABLE]
where the implied constant depends only on and .
Proof.
Write and . Then the condition becomes , hence
[TABLE]
Fix any such that
[TABLE]
Then defines a shifted lattice of determinant . Moreover, by Lemma 2.3, lies in the region with volume and side lengths bounded by . The claim follows from a result of Davenport [14] and summing over all possible . Note that is bounded since in (4.1) is finite. ∎
Lemma 4.2**.**
Let be integers such that . Assume that . Then
[TABLE]
where the implied constant depends only on and , and
[TABLE]
Proof.
We would like to evaluate (4.2). Since , the conditions and implies that . Moreover by Lemma 2.3 and since is bounded, we have and , so for to be non-empty, we must have . Applying Lemma 4.1, and again noting that and are bounded, we have
[TABLE]
Then putting this back to (4.2), we have
[TABLE]
Next we want to extend the sum over to all positive integers . This introduces an error of
[TABLE]
where we have used the fact that is finite. Since is multiplicative, we can compute the sum
[TABLE]
Putting this back, we have (4.3) as required. ∎
Proposition 4.3**.**
Let be positive integers such that . Then for all such that , we have
[TABLE]
where the implied constant depends only on and .
Proof.
By Lemma 4.2, we have
[TABLE]
Putting in , we get the estimate
[TABLE]
which can be rewritten as
[TABLE]
Taking the ratio of and completes the proof. ∎
4.2. The case
In this section, we fix that satisfy (2.1) and (2.2) with , , , so are homogeneous. Lemma 2.2 shows that the common factors of and correspond precisely to the common factors of and . By Lemma 2.3, implies .
The goal of this section is to estimate and , as defined in (2.5) and (2.7). Whenever we write , we implicitly take a representative with and . Recall the fact that
[TABLE]
Let be a positive integer. Given any , to estimate the sizes of the sets defined in (2.7),
[TABLE]
define
[TABLE]
The points in lie in a union of lattices. We first apply Davenport’s geometry-of-numbers result to an arbitrary lattice in our setting.
Lemma 4.4**.**
Let and be positive integers. Suppose that is squarefree and . Then
[TABLE]
where the implied constant depends only on . If , then the set is empty.
Proof.
Since is squarefree, we deduce that and must be coprime. Writing and , the condition becomes , which defines a lattice of determinant . Moreover, lies in the region , which has volume and side lengths bounded by by Lemma 2.3. Note that since implies that , the set is empty when . When , the claim follows from a result of Davenport [14]. ∎
4.2.1. When
Proposition 4.5**.**
For all such that and for any , we have
[TABLE]
where the implied constant depends only on and .
Proof.
We can decompose (4.6) as
[TABLE]
By Lemma 4.4, we have
[TABLE]
and for . Then we can compute
[TABLE]
Notice that we can extend the sum to all with a cost of , so
[TABLE]
By taking , we also have
[TABLE]
The claim follows from taking the ratio between and . ∎
4.2.2. When
In this case, we allow and to have a common factor and we count the curves ordered by naive height. We loosely follow the approach in [27] in counting elliptic curves with a -isogeny to obtain the required level of distribution.
Lemma 4.6**.**
Let be a prime. Let be homogeneous polynomials such that for some positive integer . Let . Define
[TABLE]
Let
[TABLE]
If and , then .
Proof.
Write and so that and have no common divisor of positive degree in . Note that if and only if
[TABLE]
Suppose for some integers . If , then , hence (4.11) is satisfied and . Suppose instead . It is clear that , so
[TABLE]
By Lemma 2.5, since ,
[TABLE]
Since , we have
[TABLE]
Finally note that satisfies (4.11), so combining (4.12) and (4.13) shows that also satisfies (4.11). ∎
Lemma 4.7**.**
Let . Let be a homogeneous polynomial that has no square divisor in . Assume that for some positive integer . Define
[TABLE]
where is defined in (4.10) Then for all positive integers , we have
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
where and the implied constants depend only on and .
Proof.
Since is squarefree, so . Let be as defined in Lemma 4.6. Let and . If are integers such that , then the condition implies that . By definition . By Lemma 2.8, we have
[TABLE]
where is a constant depending only on . Dividing by , we see that
[TABLE]
Since by assumption, and . Therefore, we have the bound
[TABLE]
Setting and putting together distinct prime powers,
[TABLE]
Noting that yields the desired result. ∎
Lemma 4.8**.**
Assume that for some . If satisfies and for some positive integer , we have
[TABLE]
Proof.
Write . Using Lemma 2.3, we deduce that
[TABLE]
Rearranging gives . ∎
Lemma 4.9**.**
Let . Assume that
- •
* for some , and*
- •
if , then is an -th power of a squarefree polynomial in , where .
Let
[TABLE]
where is as given in (4.15). Then
- •
,
- •
* for all integers ,*
- •
* for all primes , and*
- •
* is finite and non-zero.*
Proof.
If , write , where is a squarefree polynomial in . The assumption (2.1) implies that , so , which implies that . If , we set for the purpose of this proof. By the definition of , we have . We deduce from that . The bound from Lemma 4.7 implies that , so . Therefore for all prime , and the Euler product converges to a non-zero constant since . ∎
Lemma 4.10**.**
There exists depending only on and such that the following holds. Fix a positive integer and . Let . Assume that
- •
,
- •
* for some , and*
- •
if , then is an -th power of a squarefree polynomial in , where .
Then for all , we have
[TABLE]
where is defined in (4.16), and the implied constant depends only on and .
Proof.
By Möbius inversion, we can express the count of (4.9) as
[TABLE]
Our goal is to evaluate (4.17). The assumption implies that for to be non-empty. Recall that is defined in (4.14). Lemma 4.6 tells us that the condition and defines a union of lattices modulo . We apply Lemma 4.4 to each lattice with . By Lemma 4.7, the number of such lattices is
[TABLE]
Summing over all the lattices, and recalling that is squarefree, we have
[TABLE]
by Lemma 4.4. We put this back into (4.17) and split the sum according to whether or , where . Write
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
We first consider the contribution from the terms with . Note that since implies that by Lemma 2.3, the set is empty when , so we may assume that . After evaluating the sum over , we have
[TABLE]
where is some constant. If we extend the sum over and to all and in the main term of (4.19), we have
[TABLE]
where the final product is finite and non-zero due to Lemma 4.9.
The error in extending the sum to all and is bounded by
[TABLE]
where we have used the bound from Lemma 4.9 and the trivial bound . To bound the terms with in (4.20), write and , then we have
[TABLE]
Using and , we can bound the terms with in (4.20) by
[TABLE]
Similarly, the terms with in (4.20) is bounded by
[TABLE]
where the last inequality follows since . Putting the estimates back into (4.19), we have
[TABLE]
by enlarging if necessary.
We now turn to the sum over . We claim that
[TABLE]
for some constant . This essentially follows from [27, Lemma 4.2.14], but we give a slightly different proof here. Dropping the condition , it suffices to bound
[TABLE]
By Lemma 2.3, we know that . Fix the smallest ellipse that covers , then scaling this ellipse in all directions by covers . Applying [18, Lemma 2] to -many determinant lattices leads us to
[TABLE]
By Lemma 4.8 and the assumption , we have . Therefore we only have to sum the upper bound over , this gives
[TABLE]
recalling that . We use Rankin’s trick to bound the first sum. Take , we have
[TABLE]
where the last inequality follows from the fact that has a simple pole at . The second sum is
[TABLE]
This proves (4.22).
Finally we evaluate (4.18) using (4.21) and (4.22) with the choice . The main term matches, and the error term is of the form
[TABLE]
for some constant . The exponents in of the error term are strictly less than since and . Therefore it is possible to pick
[TABLE]
independently of and . This completes the proof. ∎
Proposition 4.11**.**
Suppose we are in the setting of Lemma 4.10. There exists , depending only on and , such that whenever , we have
[TABLE]
where is defined in (4.16) and the implied constant depends only on .
Proof.
By Lemma 4.10, we have
[TABLE]
Putting in , we have
[TABLE]
Since for all , we can rewrite this as
[TABLE]
Since , we can take the ratio of the above expressions of and . This yields
[TABLE]
as required. ∎
5. The distribution of the Tamagawa ratio
5.1. A central limit theorem
We use the method of moments to prove a central limit theorem suited for our application. We largely follow the method of moments approach in proving Erdős–Kac theorem as given in Chapter 2 of [23]. Also see [16] for some general statements.
Theorem 5.1**.**
Let be a positive integer and let . Let be an infinite set with a given height function. Let be the set containing all elements of up to height . Let be a function. For every prime , let be a random variable on a probability space with probability measure . Assume that are mutually independent and . Let and be positive real-valued functions such that . Assume that for every squarefree positive integer and every -tuple of non-zero integers,
[TABLE]
holds uniformly for all . Let
[TABLE]
Assume that as . Equip with the uniform probability measure. Then the random variable on defined by
[TABLE]
converges in distribution to a standard Gaussian random variable as .
Proof.
Fix a non-negative integer . Write . Let denote the uniform measure on and denote the corresponding expectation. By the linearity of expectation, we have
[TABLE]
The assumption (5.1) with implies that
[TABLE]
Then
[TABLE]
Applying this with allows us to rewrite (5.2) as
[TABLE]
Again by linearity and the assumption ,
[TABLE]
Apply the central limit theorem [23, Theorem B.7.2] to the random variables , so converges in distribution to a standard Gaussian random variable as . Then the converse of method of moments [23, Theorem B.5.6] implies that the moments of tend to the moments of a standard Gaussian random variable. Since and , also converges to the moments of a standard Gaussian random variable. The method of moments [23, Theorem B.5.5] implies that converges in distribution to the standard Gaussian random variable. ∎
5.2. Bounding the average Tamagawa ratio
Theorem 5.2**.**
Let . Let be an infinite set with a given height function. Let contain all elements of up to height and assume that . For each , take a function . Suppose that there exists and multiplicative functions and taking values in such that for every pair of coprime positive squarefree integers with , we have
[TABLE]
Assume further that there exist constants , and such that
[TABLE]
hold uniformly for all . Then
[TABLE]
where the implied constants depends only on and the implied constants in the assumptions.
Proof.
For any , write
[TABLE]
As for the upper bound, notice that , so trivially we have
[TABLE]
Our assumptions allow us to apply [12, Theorem 1.9] with , ,
, , and to get
[TABLE]
which gives the required upper bound.
To prove the lower bound, we carry out a modification of [12, Section 4]. Given any integer , denote the largest prime factor of by , and denote the smallest prime factor of by . We will split up the sum over in terms of the smooth part and the rough part of and . Consider
[TABLE]
where and . By (5.6), the number of such that is at most , so . This leads to the lower bound
[TABLE]
Since we are aiming for a lower bound to (5.7), we are allowed to restrict the sum to for some , so we have
[TABLE]
To lower bound the inner sum, we invoke the fundamental lemma of sieve theory. Take the sequence from [19, Lemma 6.3] with and . The property [19, (6.46)] allows us to write
[TABLE]
Imposing , we make use of (5.3) to evaluate the inner sum as
[TABLE]
Since is supported on integers and , we see that the error term contributes in (5.9) by bounding trivially by . The assumption (5.5) implies that there exists some constant such that
[TABLE]
holds for all , which satisfies [19, (6.47)] by picking to be larger than the implied constant. Then using [19, (6.40)], which is a more precise version of [19, (6.48)], shows that
[TABLE]
where . Picking sufficiently small ensures that . This allows us to lower bound (5.8) by
[TABLE]
Taking ensures that the error term is . As for the main term, we wish to remove the summation condition . Set and assume that is sufficiently large such that . We have
[TABLE]
Since holds for all , we have as long as . Therefore applying (5.5), we have
[TABLE]
for some constant depending on and . This allows us to bound (5.11) by
[TABLE]
Using (5.4), we can find a constant such that
[TABLE]
Choose small enough such that , so
[TABLE]
Returning to (5.10), and again using (5.4), we obtain
[TABLE]
Plugging in (5.5) yields the result. ∎
We note that an upper bound of the same order of magnitude as the lower bound can be obtained by an argument similar to that in [12, Section 3]. However, we omit this here, as we are mainly interested in the distribution of the -Selmer group, for which the Tamagawa ratio only yields a lower bound on its size.
5.3. Tail bounds
Theorem 5.3**.**
Keep the assumptions of Theorem 5.2. Then for any there exist such that
[TABLE]
holds for all .
Proof.
Take . By Theorem 5.2, we have the lower bound
[TABLE]
for some constant . Clearly , so
[TABLE]
holds for all sufficiently large . Setting , we deduce that
[TABLE]
for all sufficiently large , so
[TABLE]
By Cauchy–Schwarz inequality, we have
[TABLE]
Rearranging, we deduce that
[TABLE]
Using the upper bound in Theorem 5.2 to bound the denominator and the lower bound in Theorem 5.2 to bound the numerator, we have
[TABLE]
where . ∎
5.4. The number of congruence classes
In this section, we deduce some consequences of Chebotarev density theorem on the polynomials that determine the Tamagawa ratio of the elliptic curves in our families. Recall that and .
Lemma 5.4**.**
Suppose that has no repeated roots over and is coprime with in . Let be the number of irreducible factors of over . Let be the irreducible factors of over and let be the splitting field of . Take to be a zero of . Define
[TABLE]
Then there exists some constant and depending only on and such that
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
where the implied constants depend only on and .
Proof.
The first part is [34, Proposition 3.10(e)], so we focus on the second part.
Let . Consider the set
[TABLE]
where are the distinct roots of over . Let . Notice that is Galois and permutes the elements in . Suppose that is a prime that does not divide the discriminant of . Let denote the conjugacy class of Artin symbols in associated to the prime . The elements in that are defined over are precisely those fixed by . Since and have no common roots over , it is clear that . Let be the number of points in that are fixed by . For , has no solution in , so
[TABLE]
By the Chebotarev density theorem, we have
[TABLE]
By Burnside’s lemma, we find that
[TABLE]
is the number of -orbits acting on , which equals . The result follows by partial summation. ∎
Lemma 5.5**.**
Let be a weighted homogeneous polynomial with weights , and let be as in (2.4). Assume that and have no common zeros in . Then there exists some constant such that
[TABLE]
where is as defined in Definition 3.3.
Proof.
Consider the set
[TABLE]
By Lemma 2.6, we may assume that and have no common zeros in after excluding finitely many primes. We partition according to their image in . For each , fix a representative in , and take to be the set of all such representatives. Recall that and are weighted homogeneous with weights , and has weighted degree . Therefore
[TABLE]
Since is for of and is for of , we see that
[TABLE]
Therefore
[TABLE]
Note that the conditions no longer depend on the choice of representatives of each class in . We may split up the sets according to whether or not , so , where
[TABLE]
Observe that
[TABLE]
where is a constant and
[TABLE]
Finally apply Lemma 5.4 to the contribution from yields
[TABLE]
where is a constant and is the number of distinct irreducible factors of in when is odd, and as defined in Lemma 5.4 when is even. We can readily verify that . This completes the proof. ∎
5.5. Sandwiching the Tamagawa ratio
In this section, we define a sequence of random variables indexed by primes that approximates the Tamagawa ratio of the elliptic curves in our families. We then introduce two variants and of , which are better suited to applications of the central limit theorem from Section 5. For each prime , define as follows.
- •
If and , set
[TABLE]
- •
If and set
[TABLE]
In any other case set .
Lemma 5.6**.**
Let . We impose the following conditions.
- •
If and , assume that
- –
if , then and , where is a squarefree polynomial in and ;
- –
;
- –
if and , then .
- •
If , assume that .
There exist such that
- (1)
Other than finitely many , we have for every ; 2. (2)
Other than finitely many , we have
[TABLE]
for all such that ; 3. (3)
* uniformly for all ;* 4. (4)
Each is constant on the set ; 5. (5)
If , then whenever , where is defined in (4.1); 6. (6)
If , then whenever .
Proof.
Recall the factorisation of given in (3.1). First, consider the case when , so have no common factors. Let be the product of all distinct irreducible factors of . Then agrees with the local Tamagawa ratios given in Lemma 3.6 at all primes satisfying , , and . For all sufficiently large , take
[TABLE]
Since are coprime, if then either or , so this contributes many classes . Applying Lemma 2.8 to shows that the number of such that is . If , then by considering , we see that there are only finitely many primes such that such that for some , so we may set when holds, while still requiring that (5.12) holds for sufficiently large primes. This completes the proof in the case . Similarly, when , we can set whenever since this only affects finitely many primes.
It remains to handle the case when . Under our restrictions, and . We check that the assumptions of Lemma 3.6 are satisfied for all and all primes outside of a finite set. Let and . Let and write and , so are pairwise coprime. Assume that and . If , then since , this forces , and we further have and . If , then it is clear that so . If , then our assumptions implies that or , so either or In the case when , remove the prime divisors of . Therefore we may apply Lemma 3.6 to . In particular, for any not in the excluded set, we have and Lemma 3.6 shows that the local Tamagawa ratio is , which agrees with . Other than finitely many , Lemma 3.6 then shows that holds for all . Therefore we may simply take outside of a finite set of primes. ∎
Lemma 5.7**.**
Take either or . Under the assumptions of Lemma 5.6, let be either or . Then there exists a constant and a probability measure on such that for any squarefree positive integer and , we have
[TABLE]
for all sufficiently large . Moreover
[TABLE]
for some constants and defined in (3.2).
Proof.
First consider the case when . Apply Proposition 4.11 if , and Proposition 4.5 if . There exists such that for any with , we have
[TABLE]
Note that factors through . Take to be a measure on such that given any . Note that we can freely fix the probability of elements such that . Summing (5.15) over all such that , we see that the main term matches with the main term of (5.13). The number of such is trivially bounded by , so the error term becomes . Since Lemma 5.6 implies that whenever , the condition does not affect the sum.
Now assume instead that does not hold, so and are coprime by the assumptions of Lemma 5.6, and . To verify (5.13), we apply Proposition 4.3. It follows that, there exists such that for any with , we have
[TABLE]
Take to be a measure on such that given any such that . By Lemma 5.6, we see that is constant on the set and [math] when . Since we only need to verify (5.13) when are all non-zero, we only need to consider the case when is coprime to . Suppose and let be integers such that . We use (5.16) to evaluate
[TABLE]
Summing over all and such that gives the required estimate (5.13) on taking and noting that the estimate is trivial if .
Finally to prove (5.14), note that by Lemma 5.6, other than finitely many ,
[TABLE]
Lemma 5.5 provides us with
[TABLE]
where and are constants. Combining with the previous estimate yields (5.14). ∎
5.6. Main theorem
We are finally ready to prove some results on the distribution of the Tamagawa ratio by combining the work of the previous sections. Let and fix a prime . Let
[TABLE]
be elliptic curves over with a degree isogeny over . We may specialise to such that and take its quadratic twist by some , so specialises to a degree isogeny .
Recall the multisets defined in (2.3) and (2.6).
Definition 5.8** (admissible families).**
Let . Suppose that admits a prime degree isogeny over . We say that , a subset of either and , is an admissible family with respect to if one of (A1), (A2), (A3), (A4) holds.
- (A1)
We require and to be coprime in , and
[TABLE]
We require that and there exists such that for all sufficiently large . 2. (A2)
We require and to be coprime in , and
[TABLE]
We require that and there exists such that for all sufficiently large . 3. (A3)
We require and to have no common real roots and
[TABLE]
We require that . Require that satisfies
- •
;
- •
, where is a squarefree polynomial in and ;
- •
if and , then .
We require that and there exists such that for all sufficiently large . 4. (A4)
We require and to have no common real roots and
[TABLE]
If , then also and are coprime. We require that and there exists such that for all sufficiently large .
The order of and the parameters in (2.2) taken for each case are as follows.
[TABLE]
Recall the constants depending on the family defined in (3.2). Set
[TABLE]
Theorem 5.9**.**
Suppose that is an admissible family with respect to as defined in Definition 5.8. Let be as in (5.17) and (5.18). Given any , let be the logarithmic Selmer ratio defined in (1.1). Let and . Then
[TABLE]
converges in distribution to a standard Gaussian random variable as , and
[TABLE]
There exists such that
[TABLE]
Proof.
If is admissible under (A1) or (A3), we work with . If is admissible under (A2), we work with . If is admissible under (A4), we work with . By Lemma 3.1, we have
[TABLE]
To approximate the local Tamagawa ratios, take from Lemma 5.6. We will apply Theorem 5.1 to with the choice . Lemma 5.7 provides the estimate (5.1) required. This shows that
[TABLE]
converges in distribution to the standard Gaussian random variable as . To compute and , we use (5.14) to get
[TABLE]
Given , since only if , and , we have the bound
[TABLE]
Plugging in these estimates, we see that
[TABLE]
both converge in distribution to the standard Gaussian. Now Lemma 5.6 tells us that and both hold for all with , so also converges to the standard Gaussian.
Next we apply Theorem 5.2 and Theorem 5.3 to . To check that (5.3) holds, Lemma 5.7 implies that (5.13) holds for some , then for all , the error term of (5.13) can be trivially bounded by . This shows that (5.3) holds with in place of . Since , we conclude that
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
for some positive constants and .
To transfer from to the corresponding , or , it suffices to note that due to Lemma 2.4, the proportion of such that is for some . Since is admissible, its proportion is inside the relevant , , or . Clearly this does not change the convergence in distribution, as well as (5.20), since the proportion of exceptions is . As for (5.19), observe that , and hence , so dropping a subset of size does not affect the order of magnitude of the lower bound. ∎
6. Families of elliptic curves
The general strategy is to show that certain families are admissible under Definition 5.8. Then use Velu’s formula to compute the isogeny, and find from the expressions.
The following lemma shows that we may disregard the elliptic curves in and with -invariant [math] or , as long as and are both non-zero polynomials.
Lemma 6.1**.**
Assume that and are both non-zero polynomials. Then
[TABLE]
where the implied constants depend only on and . If is admissible, then is also admissible.
Proof.
If or , then must satisfy either or . Since and are both non-zero polynomials, there are only finitely many that is a root of either or . Therefore (6.1) is immediate. As for (6.2), note that given , the number of quadratic twists up to height is . This shows (6.2).
If is admissible of type (A1), (A4), or (A3), then the order of magnitude of is a positive power of , so (6.1) shows that is also admissible. If is admissible of type (A2), then since , the bound (6.2) is , so again is admissible. ∎
6.1. Torsion subgroups with exponent at least
By Mazur’s Theorem [26, Theorem 8], the torsion subgroup of is isomorphic to one of , where , and , where .
Lemma 6.2**.**
Let , where
[TABLE]
Set and , where and are as given in [3, Tables 4 and 5]. Other than finitely many , the size of the fibre of any under the map
[TABLE]
equals to the number of embeddings .
Proof.
The non-cuspidal rational points of the modular curve parametrise the -isomorphism classes of triples , where is an elliptic curve, and are independent points of orders and . See for example [37, Section C.13].
We exclude finitely many corresponding to the cuspidal points of . As described in [3, Section 2.3] (also [24, Table 3]), the modular parametrisation results in a single parameter , with the universal elliptic curve given by the equation ([3, Lemma 2.9]).
Note that the set does not contain any degenerations as we have imposed the discriminant of the elliptic curve to be non-zero. Given any -isomorphism class of elliptic curves in , the number of allowable is exactly the number of embeddings . ∎
We describe the general strategy for a family of all elliptic curves with given torsion subgroup , when has exponent at least . Take as in Lemma 6.2. Take to be a prime that divides the order of , so has a point of order . Fix such a point, then take to be the isogeny with kernel generated by this point. We can readily check that satisfy the conditions in (A1). By [17, Theorem 1.2], the number of elliptic curves in with a torsion subgroup strictly containing is bounded by for some , so is admissible with respect to under (A1). Lemma 6.2 shows that the same result holds when we look at -isomorphism classes.
We first use Velu’s formula [38] to compute a model for , as well as the isogeny . This information then allows us to compute the constants , , and as needed. The constants obtained are tabulated in Table 1, Table 2, and Table 3.
6.1.1. Torsion subgroup
As an example, we lay out the computations for here. We obtain from [3, Tables 4 and 5]
[TABLE]
In this case . We obtain from (2.4),
[TABLE]
From which we can compute
[TABLE]
The four -torsion points of have coordinates and . Applying Velu’s formula, is -isogenous to an elliptic curve with
[TABLE]
Therefore we can take and , which gives and . We have , so . The roots of are and
[TABLE]
is not a square in , thus . This gives and .
6.1.2. Torsion subgroup
The family of elliptic curves with torsion subgroup satisfies (A1) with
[TABLE]
Let , so
[TABLE]
See also [17, Section 3.1]. We have
[TABLE]
so , , , , , . Then and .
6.2. Torsion subgroups with exponent less than
6.2.1. Torsion subgroup
We will show that the family of elliptic curves with torsion subgroup is of type (A2). Take
[TABLE]
Clearly has a -torsion point given by . Take , so
[TABLE]
By [17, Lemma 5.1], there is a one-to-one correspondence between and curves . By [17, Theorem 1.2], the number of elliptic curves with a torsion subgroup strictly containing up to height is bounded by for some , so the family of elliptic curves with torsion subgroup is admissible of type (A2) with respect to the -isogeny with kernel generated by the -torsion point.
We have
[TABLE]
and, by Velu’s formula (notice is a -torsion point), is -isogenous to an elliptic curve with
[TABLE]
We may take and , so and , and hence and .
6.2.2. Torsion subgroup
To show that the family of elliptic curves with torsion subgroup is of type (A2), take
[TABLE]
Lemma 6.3**.**
Take the above choice of and . If is an elliptic curve such that and , then is -isomorphic to an element in . The size of the fibre of any with under the map is .
Proof.
If is a rational elliptic curve with , then it has a Weierstrass model of the form for . This is a quadratic twist by of the curve , where . Employing the change of variables , we obtain , which is an element of . It is straightforward to check that
[TABLE]
are all quadratic twists of . By [37, Proposition III.1.7], in particular the proof of part (3), whenever and , the six possible in (6.3) are distinct, and the map is six-to-one over . Therefore (6.3) gives precisely the set of such that and are -isomorphic. By definition of , after fixing , each twist is counted exactly once since runs over all squarefree integers. ∎
Then has three -torsion points , and .
Take , so
[TABLE]
We have
[TABLE]
and is a -torsion point of coming from on . By Velu’s formula, the isogenous curve gives
[TABLE]
Thus, , , , and . So, , , , and , with and .
We could instead pick the -isogeny with kernel coming from the other two -torsion points of . We collect the results in Table 3.
6.2.3. Torsion subgroup
The family of elliptic curves with torsion subgroup falls under (A1). Take
[TABLE]
Set , so
[TABLE]
By [17, Lemma 5.1], a rational elliptic curve admits a rational -torsion point if and only it is -isomorphic to for some . From [17, Section 3], we know that other than the exceptional curves, which form a subset of size in , each -isomorphism class appears exactly once in the parametrisation. We have
[TABLE]
and by Velu’s formula is -isogenous to an elliptic curve with
[TABLE]
Therefore we may take and , thus . Notice that is a rational square and is not, so and . This shows that and .
6.3. Cyclic -isogeny
We will show that the family of all elliptic curves with a cyclic -isogeny is admissible under (A2). Take
[TABLE]
so . Then
[TABLE]
From which we can compute
[TABLE]
A rational elliptic curve admits a rational cyclic isogeny of degree if and only is isomorphic over to for , see [30, Section 4]. By [30, Proposition 4], up to removing a density subfamily, there is a one-to-one correspondence between and the family of rational elliptic curves that admit a degree cyclic rational isogeny.
The curve has a rational -torsion point with coordinates and so, applying Velu’s formula, is isogenous to with
[TABLE]
Then we find that
[TABLE]
so we can take and . The constants from the computations are listed in Table 4.
6.4. A family with a -isogeny
We will work with a family of elliptic curves with a -isogeny and show that it is admissible under (A3). Let
[TABLE]
so . In the notation of (A3), , so . The -invariant of is . By [25, Table 4], for each the rational elliptic curve admits a rational -isogeny. Moreover, every rational elliptic curve with a rational -isogeny is isomorphic over to for exactly one . The fact that the is unique follows from the fact that no rational elliptic curve admits two different rational -isogenies [27, Proposition 2.2.6]. Then we find that
[TABLE]
with
[TABLE]
By [25, Table 7], is -isogenous to the elliptic curve obtained via the involution with
[TABLE]
We can take and , and thus . Moreover, and , which are not squares in , the splitting field of and . We find that , , and .
6.5. A family with a -isogeny
We start with defining a curve that would be -isogeneous to the family we are interested in. Let with
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
The parametrization is taken from [25, Table 4]. For each , the rational elliptic curve admits a -isogeny over . We consider the isogeny dual to , then is admissible with respect to under type (A4) with . Recall , so this is a family of elliptic curves with a rational -isogeny and each curve in has height bounded by .
Since no rational elliptic curve admits two different rational -isogenies, distinct give rise to in different -isomorphism classes as long as . Then
[TABLE]
By [25, Table 7], each is -isogenous to an elliptic curve with
[TABLE]
Whence, and . So, , and , . We can apply Theorem 5.9 with and .
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1[1] L. Alpöge, M. Bhargava, and A. Shnidman. Integers expressible as the sum of two rational cubes. ar Xiv preprint ar Xiv:2210.10730 , 2024.
- 2[2] S. Arango-Piñeros, C. Han, O. Padurariu, and S. W. Park. Counting 5-isogenies of elliptic curves over ℚ \mathbb{Q} . ar Xiv preprint ar Xiv:2504.07750 , 2025.
- 3[3] A. J. Barrios. Minimal models of rational elliptic curves with non-trivial torsion. Research in number theory , 8(1):4, 2022.
- 4[4] M. Bhargava and A. Shankar. The average number of elements in the 4-Selmer groups of elliptic curves is 7. ar Xiv preprint ar Xiv:1312.7333 , 2013.
- 5[5] M. Bhargava and A. Shankar. The average size of the 5-Selmer group of elliptic curves is 6, and the average rank is less than 1. ar Xiv preprint ar Xiv:1312.7859 , 2013.
- 6[6] M. Bhargava and A. Shankar. Binary quartic forms having bounded invariants, and the boundedness of the average rank of elliptic curves. Ann. of Math. (2) , 181(1):191–242, 2015.
- 7[7] M. Bhargava and A. Shankar. Ternary cubic forms having bounded invariants, and the existence of a positive proportion of elliptic curves having rank 0. Ann. of Math. (2) , 181(2):587–621, 2015.
- 8[8] B. Boggess and S. Sankar. Counting elliptic curves with a rational n n -isogeny for small n n . Journal of Number Theory , 262:471–505, 2024.
