On the distribution of additive twists of the divisor function and Hecke eigenvalues
1. Introduction
Let be an cusp form of weight , and suppose it has Fourier expansion
for in the upper half plane. In this paper, one of our main objects of interest will be the exponential sum
Jutila [6] showed that this sum is uniformly in and therefore exhibits considerable oscillation. By Plancherel and (14.56) in [5]
(1.1) |
for some , so it is clear that Jutila’s bound is sharp. By Hölder’s inequality, it follows from these estimates that for all
It is desirable to know whether one can determine more information about the distribution of this exponential sum.
Another related exponential sum is
where
is the divisor function.
The properties of this exponential sum are of interest in applications of the circle method. It behaves differently from the exponential sum due to the positivity of its coefficients. For , due to this positivity, the contribution of near (and more generally near rationals with small denominator) determine the size of the norm. Using the circle method, finding asymptotics of the form
is then quite straightforward. See [10] for a proof of this for higher divisor functions, where the situation is similar. Asymptotics in the case quickly follow from Plancherel, as we have
Lower moments are significantly more difficult, as for one expects a nontrivial contribution from the minor arcs as well. Until now, the only result for moments in this range was for the -norm and due to Goldston and the author in [2], where it is shown that
In this paper, we are able to find asymptotics for the -norm of for all . This, combined with the aforementioned results for higher moments resolves the problem of finding asymptotics for all moments of . Using the same method, we are able to show the following similar result for all moments of as well in Theorem 1.
Theorem 1.
For , we have that for , with a holomorphic cusp form for
for some . Furthermore, for , we also have that
for some .
This result has several interesting corollaries in the case . Note that from the bound , (1.1), and Hölder, we have that for some . Then, by the method of moments (one may apply Theorem 9.2 in [4], for example), we obtain a limiting distribution for the magnitude of sum as .
Corollary 2.
Suppose is a holomorphic cusp form for . Let be the random variable given by
where is chosen uniformly at random from . Then, there is a random variable so that converges to in distribution as .
In particular, it follows that there exists a compactly supported measure on so that for any continuous , we have that
If we restrict the second part of the main theorem to the case for a positive integer, we also obtain the following by orthogonality:
Corollary 3.
For all positive integers , we have that
for some constant .
Our proof of the main theorem proceeds via an iterative method, which we sketch below. For , the integral may be approximated by
up to some constant factor (the range of where this works depends on the choice of ). In our case, we achieve this via a version of Jutila’s variant of the circle method in [7]. Applying Voronoi summation, this roughly reduces to dealing with
Since is now much larger than the length of the sum, the inner sum amounts to integration over , and can be shown to be roughly
Ignoring the factor of for purpose of this discussion, note the inner sum varies very little as varies by small amounts, and so one obtains that
for some . The same method applied starting with sums of length with yields the same quantity times . The following approximate functional equation is obtained:
Proposition 4.
For , we have that for some
(1.2) |
Furthermore, for , for some , we have that
(1.3) |
Iterating this yields the main theorem. The details of how this implies the main theorem are shown in Section 3, and the proof of Proposition 1.3 in Section 4. The next section is devoted to a few technical results that are used in the proof.
We remark that our result is related to a result of Jurkat and van Horne [8] in which a limiting distribution is found for magnitude of the exponential sum
Jurkat and van Horne’s methods appear to be quite different from ours, though both our result and their result involve applying a Farey dissection and using Poisson summation (Voronoi summation in our case) on what remains.
We expect that using our methods applied to the exponential sum with coefficients equal to , with the character of conductor , we can strengthen Theorem 4 of [8]. Specifically, one has that for and some :
(1.4) |
with as in Theorem 4 of [8]. We expect our methods also apply to the case of exponential sums with coefficients the Fourier coefficients of Maass forms and half integral weight forms, as we use nothing about besides its modularity via Voronoi summation. Such improvements and generalizations should be straightforward and we leave the details to the interested reader.
1.1. Notation and conventions
As usual, we use Vinogradov’s notation (equivalently ) to denote that for some constant . When we use in a statement, we mean that the statement holds for all . For the purposes of this paper, this will depend only on , unless specified otherwise. Any further dependencies will be specified in subscript beneath the . We write to denote that . In addition, we write to denote . We write
to denote a sum over with . For convenience, for , we write
2. Standard technical lemmas
We shall use Voronoi summation as stated below, along with some properties of the integral transforms involved. These are well-known, and the final bounds follow from repeated integration by parts and trivial bounds (see §2 of [1], for example).
Proposition 5.
Let be smooth and supported on positive reals, be prime, and . Then, we have
where for
These transforms also satisfy the property that if is supported on values and for , then , and . Also, for , we have that .
We shall also require and prove a modified version of Jutila’s circle method [7]. It slightly improves the error term of Jutila’s result slightly in some cases, at the cost of requiring a smoothing.
Proposition 6.
Let be a set of integers . Let for some . Also, suppose that is some nonzero smooth compactly supported function on . Write
Then, we have that
Proof.
By Poisson summation, for we have
so
where
is the usual Ramanujan sum. Using the fact that , we obtain that
By Plancherel, and the bound which holds for all , it follows that for some sufficiently large
where runs over powers of two. Note that
The desired result follows upon summing over . ∎
3. Proof of the main theorem
In this section, we prove the main theorem assuming Proposition 1.3, and in the following section, we prove Proposition 1.3. Iterating Proposition 1.3, we obtain that for all
(3.1) |
and that for
(3.2) |
In particular, the sequence
is a Cauchy sequence for all when and for for general .
Taking the limit as in (3.1) and (3.2), we have that for
for some constants , and for
for some constants .
Thus, Theorem 1 follows if we can show that
(3.3) |
(3.3) follows when from Hölder with the bounds (Proposition 14) and (1.1). However, one does not have such bounds for , so the rest of this section is dedicated to the case of .
In [2], it was shown that
(3.4) |
It follows from Hölder that (3.3) holds for . Thus, it remains to show:
Proposition 7.
We have
for .
Proof.
The proof of this follows from Voronoi summation along with the large sieve to deal with the error terms introduced.
Let be some smooth function satisfying with for all . We may then smooth by replacing it with
since by Parseval and Cauchy-Schwarz
which is an acceptable error. It thus remains to show that
Take to be some sufficiently small constant. Then, we have that
Now, note that by Proposition 5 (Voronoi summation), we have that
(3.5) |
where
If is sufficiently small, then we have the bound for . Therefore, for , we have that
We remark that for (which is so in our case), satisfies the bounds
and also for
(3.6) |
Note that the bounds on given by Proposition 5 imply that the contribution of terms is . It follows from (3.5) that
where
By Hölder and the large sieve, we have that
Now, integrating by parts once yields that
We have the standard bounds (see section 8.451 in [3], for example)
where we write , so it follows that
It follows that we have the bound
Therefore, it follows that
It follows that so long as is sufficiently small, for
We thus obtain that
Since
we obtain
This is for sufficiently small, so the desired result follows. ∎
4. Proof of Proposition 1.3
Instead of showing Proposition 1.3, we show Proposition 8, from which Proposition 1.3 clearly follows.
Proposition 8.
Let . Suppose that , and that . Also, suppose that is sufficiently small. Then, for
and for , we have that
We now proceed to prove Proposition 8 in the remainder of this section. After some initial setup, we shall show (8), (8) separately. The proofs of the two are largely similar, with (8) being slightly simpler.
Let . Let be some smooth function satisfying for some with for all . Then, let
We shall use the following lemma to show that working with this smoothed exponential sum results in an acceptable loss.
Lemma 9.
We have that for
(4.4) |
Furthermore, for
(4.5) |
Proof.
For , we have the inequality for any so it follows by Cauchy-Schwarz and the bound that
(4.6) |
Now, for , by Hölder and Plancherel, we have
For , we also have that , so for , we have
(4.7) |
4.1. Proof of (8)
At this point we require the following estimate.
Lemma 10.
Suppose that
Then, we have that for
(4.8) |
Proof.
Let be some nonzero smooth function supported on with , and let
Since the fractions are at least -spaced, we have the bound
as .
Now, let
By Hölder, we have that
Note that for , we have that . By Plancherel and our pointwise bound on , it follows that the above is
By Proposition 6 and Hölder, we may therefore conclude that
(4.9) |
By the definition of , we have that
Now, note that for all , we have that
where
In general, for positive , we have the inequality . It follows that
plus an error that is
if and
if . Since , we have that both of these error terms are
At this point, we shall use a maximal version of the large sieve of Montgomery (see Theorem 2 of [9]), which we state below:
Proposition 11 (Maximal large sieve, [9]).
For any sequence supported on an interval of length , and -separated frequencies , we have that
where ranges over subintervals of
Then, by Hölder and the maximal large sieve, we have that
(4.10) |
Combining the above with (4.9), we obtain that
(4.11) |
∎
Now, take , and suppose that .
By Proposition 5, we have that (noting that the main term in the case of can be easily absorbed into the error term)
From the properties of noted in Proposition 5, we have that is for . Furthermore, we have the trivial bound , and for .
Thus, noting that is a permutation of , combining the above with Lemma 4.8 (observing that )
We now deal with the inner sum with the following lemma, which amounts to the observation that averaging the exponential sum over fractions with is essentially integration over . This is because these fractions are equidistributed on scales much smaller than the reciprocal of the length of the exponential sum since is large.
This observation is stated more generally in the following lemma.
Lemma 12.
Suppose that is a sequence of complex numbers satisfying . Then, if , , we have that
It should be possible to show this for for any (and an error of ), though our result suffices.
To prove this lemma, we first prove the following crude result on the equidistribution of reduced residue classes in short intervals.
Lemma 13.
For , we have that
where
Proof.
By Möbius inversion, we have that for any
The desired result follows upon noting that . ∎
Proof of Lemma 12.
First, note that for all , we have that
From our bound on , the error term then must be . It follows from Lemma 13 that
By Hölder, the error is at most , and the desired result follows. ∎
Applying Lemma 12, we obtain that for
(4.12) |
We now show that the sum over may be turned into an integral over at a small loss. We first eliminate the at the cost of averaging over in a short interval. To see that this is so, consider some and a real . Then, we have that
Note that . We also have that from the derivative bounds on that for
Then, for all
If , note that we must have so since (and since by Plancherel and Hoölder, the below is ), we have
(4.13) |
Now, let be a partition of into intervals of length for some . We obtain from (4.13), adding redundant averaging over , that
(4.14) |
where is
It follows from well-known elementary results that
Thus (4.14) equals
plus an error of . By the change of variables , this equals
Completing the sum over with the same method by which it was removed, and gathering up (4.4), (4.12), we obtain that for some
for any . The desired result follows.
4.2. Proof of (8)
This section proceeds a similar fashion to the previous section, so we shall refer to it heavily and only indicate those places in which the two differ. What allows us to deal with higher moments is the following bound of Jutila (which improves by a factor of on an older bound of Wilton, which we could have also used):
Proposition 14 ([6]).
For all , we have that
As a corollary of this and partial summation, it follows that for any
For the rest of the section, we also suppose that . By (4.5), it suffices to show that for
for some , and this is what the rest of the section is devoted to showing.
We now show the following analogue of (4.8)
Lemma 15.
Suppose that
Then, we have that for
(4.15) |
Proof.
Let be some nonzero smooth function supported on with . Also, as in the previous subsection, let
Take . Applying Voronoi and bounds for tails of as in the previous section, we obtain that
plus an error of
We now require the following analogue of Lemma 12 for high moments.
Lemma 16.
Suppose that . Also, suppose that is smooth and compactly supported away from with . Then we have that for and sufficiently large
Proof.
Proceeding as in the proof of Lemma 12, we have that for
Now, using the bounds on in Proposition 5, we may complete the sum over at the cost of an error of . Applying Voronoi summation to the complete sum yields that
By Jutila’s bound (Proposition 14), we have that this is , so it follows that since all are of the form for some (by Lemma 13, for example), we have the pointwise bound
(4.17) |
Therefore, we have that
∎
References
- [1] Fouvry, E., Ganguly, S., Kowalski, E., Michel, P., Gaussian distribution for the divisor function and Hecke eigenvalues in arithmetic progressions, Comment. Math. Helv. 89 (2014): 979-1014.
- [2] Goldston, D., Pandey, M., On the norm of an exponential sum involving the divisor function. Arch. Math. (Basel) 112 (2019): 261-268.
- [3] Gradshteyn, I. S., Ryzhik, I. M., Table of Integrals, Series, and Products. Editors: Zwillinger, D., Moll, V., Academic Press, 2014
- [4] Gut, A., Probability: A graduate course. Springer-Verlag, New York, 2005.
- [5] Iwaniec, H., Kowalski E., Analytic number theory, Amer. Math. Soc. Colloquium Publ. 53, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence RI, 2004
- [6] Jutila, M., On exponential sums involving the Ramanujan function. Proc. Math. Sci., 97 (1987): 157-166.
- [7] Jutila, M., Transformations of exponential sums. Proceedings of the Amalfi Conference on Analytic Number Theory (Maiori 1989), Univ. Salerno, Salerno, 1992, 263-270.
- [8] W. B. Jurkat and J. W. van Horne. On the central limit theorem for theta series. Michigan Math. J. 29 (1982) 65–77
- [9] Montgomery, H. L., Maximal variants of the large sieve. J. Fac. Sci. Univ. Tokyo Sect. IA Math., 28 (1982): 805-812.
- [10] Pandey, M., Moment estimates for the exponential sum with higher divisor functions. C.R. Math. Acad. Sci. Paris, accepted.