This is joint work with Thomas Hulse, Chan Ieong Kuan, and Alexander Walker. This is a natural successor to our previous work (see their announcements: one, two, three) concerning bounds and asymptotics for sums of coefficients of modular forms.
We now have a variety of results concerning the behavior of the partial sums
$$ S_f(X) = \sum_{n \leq X} a(n) $$
where $f(z) = \sum_{n \geq 1} a(n) e(nz)$ is a GL(2) cuspform. The primary focus of our previous work was to understand the Dirichlet series
$$ D(s, S_f \times S_f) = \sum_{n \geq 1} \frac{S_f(n)^2}{n^s} $$
completely, give its meromorphic continuation to the plane (this was the major topic of the first paper in the series), and to perform classical complex analysis on this object in order to describe the behavior of $S_f(n)$ and $S_f(n)^2$ (this was done in the first paper, and was the major topic of the second paper of the series). One motivation for studying this type of problem is that bounds for $S_f(n)$ are analogous to understanding the error term in lattice point discrepancy with circles.
That is, let $S_2(R)$ denote the number of lattice points in a circle of radius $\sqrt{R}$ centered at the origin. Then we expect that $S_2(R)$ is approximately the area of the circle, plus or minus some error term. We write this as
$$ S_2(R) = \pi R + P_2(R),$$
where $P_2(R)$ is the error term. We refer to $P_2(R)$ as the "lattice point discrepancy" — it describes the discrepancy between the number of lattice points in the circle and the area of the circle. Determining the size of $P_2(R)$ is a very famous problem called the Gauss circle problem, and it has been studied for over 200 years. We believe that $P_2(R) = O(R^{1/4 + \epsilon})$, but that is not known to be true.
The Gauss circle problem can be cast in the language of modular forms. Let $\theta(z)$ denote the standard Jacobi theta series,
$$ \theta(z) = \sum_{n \in \mathbb{Z}} e^{2\pi i n^2 z}.$$
Then
$$ \theta^2(z) = 1 + \sum_{n \geq 1} r_2(n) e^{2\pi i n z},$$
where $r_2(n)$ denotes the number of representations of $n$ as a sum of $2$ (positive or negative) squares. The function $\theta^2(z)$ is a modular form of weight $1$ on $\Gamma_0(4)$, but it is not a cuspform. However, the sum
$$ \sum_{n \leq R} r_2(n) = S_2(R),$$
and so the partial sums of the coefficients of $\theta^2(z)$ indicate the number of lattice points in the circle of radius $\sqrt R$. Thus $\theta^2(z)$ gives access to the Gauss circle problem.
More generally, one can consider the number of lattice points in a $k$-dimensional sphere of radius $\sqrt R$ centered at the origin, which should approximately be the volume of that sphere,
$$ S_k(R) = \mathrm{Vol}(B(\sqrt R)) + P_k(R) = \sum_{n \leq R} r_k(n),$$
giving a $k$-dimensional lattice point discrepancy. For large dimension $k$, one should expect that the circle problem is sufficient to give good bounds and understanding of the size and error of $S_k(R)$. For $k \geq 5$, the true order of growth for $P_k(R)$ is known (up to constants).
Therefore it happens to be that the small (meaning 2 or 3) dimensional cases are both the most interesting, given our predilection for 2 and 3 dimensional geometry, and the most enigmatic. For a variety of reasons, the three dimensional case is very challenging to understand, and is perhaps even more enigmatic than the two dimensional case.
Strong evidence for the conjectured size of the lattice point discrepancy comes in the form of mean square estimates. By looking at the square, one doesn't need to worry about oscillation from positive to negative values. And by averaging over many radii, one hopes to smooth out some of the individual bumps. These mean square estimates take the form
$$\begin{align} \int_0^X P_2(t)^2 dt &= C X^{3/2} + O(X \log^2 X) \\ \int_0^X P_3(t)^2 dt &= C' X^2 \log X + O(X^2 (\sqrt{ \log X})). \end{align}$$
These indicate that the average size of $P_2(R)$ is $R^{1/4}$. and that the average size of $P_3(R)$ is $R^{1/2}$. In the two dimensional case, notice that the error term in the mean square asymptotic has pretty significant separation. It has essentially a $\sqrt X$ power-savings over the main term. But in the three dimensional case, there is no power separation. Even with significant averaging, we are only just capable of distinguishing a main term at all.
It is also interesting, but for more complicated reasons, that the main term in the three dimensional case has a log term within it. This is unique to the three dimensional case. But that is a description for another time.
In a paper that we recently posted to the arxiv, we show that the Dirichlet series
$$ \sum_{n \geq 1} \frac{S_k(n)^2}{n^s} $$
and
$$ \sum_{n \geq 1} \frac{P_k(n)^2}{n^s} $$
for $k \geq 3$ have understandable meromorphic continuation to the plane. Of particular interest is the $k = 3$ case, of course. We then investigate smoothed and unsmoothed mean square results. In particular, we prove a result stated following.
Theorem $$\begin{align} \int_0^\infty P_k(t)^2 e^{-t/X} &= C_3 X^2 \log X + C_4 X^{5/2} \\ &\quad + C_kX^{k-1} + O(X^{k-2} \end{align}$$
In this statement, the term with $C_3$ only appears in dimension $3$, and the term with $C_4$ only appears in dimension $4$. This should really thought of as saying that we understand the Laplace transform of the square of the lattice point discrepancy as well as can be desired.
We are also able to improve the sharp second mean in the dimension 3 case, showing in particular the following.
Theorem There exists $\lambda > 0$ such that $$\int_0^X P_3(t)^2 dt = C X^2 \log X + D X^2 + O(X^{2 - \lambda}).$$
We do not actually compute what we might take $\lambda$ to be, but we believe (informally) that $\lambda$ can be taken as $1/5$.
The major themes behind these new results are already present in the first paper in the series. The new ingredient involves handling the behavior on non-cuspforms at the cusps on the analytic side, and handling the apparent main terms (int his case, the volume of the ball) on the combinatorial side.
There is an additional difficulty that arises in the dimension 2 case which makes it distinct. But soon I will describe a different forthcoming work in that case.
Info on how to comment
To make a comment, please send an email using the button below. Your email address won't be shared (unless you include it in the body of your comment). If you don't want your real name to be used next to your comment, please specify the name you would like to use. If you want your name to link to a particular url, include that as well.
bold, italics, and plain text are allowed in comments. A reasonable subset of markdown is supported, including lists, links, and fenced code blocks. In addition, math can be formatted using
$(inline math)$
or$$(your display equation)$$
.Please use plaintext email when commenting. See Plaintext Email and Comments on this site for more. Note also that comments are expected to be open, considerate, and respectful.